The Taíno Settlement at Guayguata: Excavations in St Mary Parish, Jamaica 9781407310053, 9781407339825

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Table of Contents
Authors
List of Figures
List of Tables
Preface
Chapter 1. JAMAICAN TAÍNO ARCHAEOLOGY, PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS
Chapter 2. EXCAVATIONS
Chapter 3. CHRONOLOGY
Chapter 4. CERAMICS
Chapter 5. LITHIC ASSEMBLAGES
Chapter 6. EXCAVATION AND PRESERVATION OF THE TWO PRE-COLUMBIAN BURIALS FOUND AT THE GREEN CASTLE SITE
Chapter 7. SO MUCH TO CHOOSE FROM: EXPLOITING MULTIPLE HABITATS FOR SUBSISTENCE AT FOUR NORTH COAST ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN JAMAICA
Chapter 8. MOLLUSK SHELLS
Chapter 9. SAMPLING BELOW THE 1/8TH INCH RANGE
Chapter 10. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
References cited

Citation preview

BAR S2407 2012

The Taíno Settlement at Guayguata Excavations in St Mary Parish, Jamaica

ALLSWORTH-JONES & WESLER

Philip Allsworth-Jones Kit W. Wesler with contributions from

Lisabeth Carlson Simon F. Mitchell, Sherene A. James, Ryan Ramsook, Marcella Phillips, Nicole L. Patrick, Anthony R. D. Porter and Ana Luísa Santos

THE TAÍNO SETTLEMENT AT GUAYGUATA

B A R

BAR International Series 2407 2012

The Taíno Settlement at Guayguata Excavations in St Mary Parish, Jamaica

Philip Allsworth-Jones Kit W. Wesler with contributions from

Lisabeth Carlson Simon F. Mitchell, Sherene A. James, Ryan Ramsook, Marcella Phillips, Nicole L. Patrick, Anthony R. D. Porter and Ana Luísa Santos

BAR International Series 2407 2012

ISBN 9781407310053 paperback ISBN 9781407339825 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407310053 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

Table of Contents Authors ...................................................................................................................................ii List of Figures ...................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... v Preface..................................................................................................................................vii Philip Allsworth-Jones and Kit W. Wesler Chapter 1. Jamaican Taíno archaeology, problems and prospects .................................................... 1 Philip Allsworth-Jones and Kit W. Wesler Chapter 2. Excavations ......................................................................................................................... 11 Philip Allsworth-Jones and Kit W. Wesler Chapter 3. Chronology ......................................................................................................................... 37 Kit W. Wesler Chapter 4. Ceramics ............................................................................................................................. 42 Kit W. Wesler Chapter 5. Lithic assemblages .............................................................................................................. 54 Philip Allsworth-Jones and Anthony R.D. Porter Chapter 6. Excavation and preservation of the two pre-Columbian burials found at the Green Castle site ...................................................................................................... 62 Ana Luísa Santos Chapter 7. So Much To Choose From: Exploiting Multiple Habitats for Subsistence at Four North Coast Archaeological Sites in Jamaica .................................................... 68 Lisabeth A. Carlson Chapter 8. Mollusk shells ..................................................................................................................... 82 Simon F. Mitchell, Sherene A. James, Ryan Ramsook and Marcella Phillips Chapter 9. Sampling below the 1/8th inch range.............................................................................. 108 Nicole L. Patrick and Philip Allsworth-Jones Chapter 10. Summary and conclusions ............................................................................................... 112 Philip Allsworth-Jones and Kit W. Wesler References cited ................................................................................................................. 116

i

 

                     

Authors  

  Philip ALLSWORTH-JONES Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England

 

 

 

       

 

 

Lisabeth A. CARLSON Southeastern Archaeological Research, Inc., Newberry, Florida, U.S.A. Sherene A. JAMES Department of Geography and Geology, University of the West Indies, Mona, Kingston 7, Jamaica Simon F. MITCHELL Department of Geography and Geology, University of the West Indies, Mona, Kingston 7, Jamaica Nicole L. PATRICK Institute of Jamaica, Liberty Hall, Kingston, Jamaica Marcella PHILLIPS African Caribbean Institute of Jamaica, Kingston, Jamaica Anthony R.D. PORTER Jamaica Bauxite Institute, Kingston 6, Jamaica Ryan RAMSOOK Sagres Energy Inc., Kingston 10, Jamaica Ana Luísa SANTOS Research Centre for Anthropology and Health, Department of Life Sciences, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal Kit W. WESLER Department of Geosciences, Murray State University, Murray, Kentucky, U.S.A.

                   

  ii

List of Figures Figure 1.1. Map of project locations ...................................................................................... 2 Figure 1.2. Locations of Taíno sites around Annotto Bay...................................................... 9 Figure 2.1. Green Castle site ................................................................................................ 12 Figure 2.2. Green Castle Burial 1 ......................................................................................... 12 Figure 2.3. Green Castle 30-31S7-10E profiles ................................................................... 13 Figure 2.4. Representative artifacts from Green Castle 30-31S7-10E ................................. 13 Figure 2.5. Representative artifacts from Green Castle 30-31S7-10E ................................. 13 Figure 2.6. Representative artifacts from Green Castle 30-31S7-10E ................................. 14 Figure 2.7. Representative artifacts from Green Castle 30-31S7-10E ................................. 14 Figure 2.8. Representative artifacts from Green Castle 30-31S7-10E and 58-60S5-6E ...... 15 Figure 2.9. Green Castle 58-60S5-6E profiles ..................................................................... 16 Figure 2.10. Green Castle Burial 2 ....................................................................................... 17 Figure 2.11. Representative artifacts from Green Castle 58-60S5-6E ................................. 17 Figure 2.12. Representative artifacts from Green Castle 58-60S5-6E ................................. 17 Figure 2.13. Representative artifacts from Green Castle 58-60S5-6E ................................. 18 Figure 2.14. Representative artifacts from Green Castle 58-60S5-6E ................................. 18 Figure 2.15. Representative artifacts from Green Castle additional test trenches and from Coleraine ......................................................................................................... 19 Figure 2.16. Coleraine site ................................................................................................... 20 Figure 2.17. Coleraine 10-12S17-18E profiles..................................................................... 21 Figure 2.18. Coleraine 15-16S5-6W profiles ....................................................................... 22 Figure 2.19. Coleraine 7-8S7-8W profiles ........................................................................... 22 Figure 2.20. Coleraine 5-6S6-7W profiles ........................................................................... 23 Figure 2.21. Coleraine 4.5-5S6-7W profiles ........................................................................ 23 Figure 2.22. Coleraine 8.5-10S0-1E profiles........................................................................ 24 Figure 2.23. Representative artifacts from Coleraine ........................................................... 25 Figure 2.24. Representative artifacts from Coleraine ........................................................... 25 Figure 2.25. Representative artifacts from Coleraine ........................................................... 26 Figure 2.26. Newry site ........................................................................................................ 26 Figure 2.27. Newry 43-44S8-9E profile ............................................................................... 27 Figure 2.28. Newry 0-1S39-40E profiles ............................................................................. 27 Figure 2.29. Newry 13-14S6-7E profiles ............................................................................. 28 Figure 2.30. Newry 9-10S1-2W profiles .............................................................................. 29 iii

Figure 2.31. Newry 17-18S12-13E profiles ......................................................................... 29 Figure 2.32. Representative artifacts from Newry ............................................................... 30 Figure 2.33. Representative artifacts from Newry ............................................................... 30 Figure 2.34. Wentworth site ................................................................................................. 31 Figure 2.35. Wentworth Northeast Corner profiles .............................................................. 32 Figure 2.36. Representative artifacts from Wentworth ........................................................ 32 Figure 3.1. Distribution of radiocarbon dates from St. Mary parish Taíno sites .................. 38 Figure 3.2. Averaged dates from St. Mary Taíno sites and components .............................. 39 Figure 4.1. Rim forms .......................................................................................................... 43 Figure 4.2. Design fields and rim decorative types .............................................................. 43 Figure 4.3. Sherd forms in chronological order ................................................................... 45 Figure 4.4. Sherd decorations in chronological order .......................................................... 46 Figure 4.5. Rim forms in chronological order ...................................................................... 47 Figure 4.6. Rim decorations in chronological order ............................................................. 48 Figure 4.7. Sherd forms with Newry 13-14S6-7E L.1-2 seriated ......................................... 48 Figure 4.8. Sherd decorations with Newry 13-14S6-7E L.1-2 seriated ................................ 48 Figure 4.9. Rim forms with Newry 13-14S6-7E L.1-2 seriated ........................................... 49 Figure 4.10. Rim decorations with Newry 13-14S6-7E L.1-2 seriated ................................ 49 Figure 5.1. Raw materials and artifact categories at all the sites taken together .................. 56 Figure 5.2. Raw material categories in the non-chert component for all the sites taken together ................................................................................................................. 58 Figure 6.1. General view of the Burial 1 pit with the skeleton and the ceramic vessel over the legs ............................................................................... 63 Figure 6.2. Detailed view of Burial 1 showing the right hand gripping the left forearm and the inhumation position of the lower limbs .................................... 63 Figure 6.3. The skull of the individual from Burial 1 in an inclined position with bones very fragmented ........................................................................................... 63 Figure 6.4. General view of Burial 2 .................................................................................... 64 Figure 6.5. Profile view of Burial 2 showing the skull lying on a limestone block, the spinal column destruction, and shell fragments around the skeleton ........................ 64 Figure 6.6. After the removal of the left lower limb of the individual from Burial 2, it could be seen that the left hand was gripping the right elbow ..................................... 64 Figure 6.7. Epiphyses from the left ulna and left radius of the individual from Burial 2 ..... 65 Figure 6.8. Close up of the skull, with a view of the teeth as well as the carie (arrow) in the upper first molar.................................................................... 65 Figure 7.1. A preserved specimen of Celestus occidus in the collection of the British Museum of Natural History ...................................................................... 72 Figure 7.2. Capromys pilorides in cactus on Cuba .............................................................. 73 Figure 7.3. Increased exploitation of hutia at Green Castle site (30S/7E)............................ 75 Figure 7.4. Shark beads recovered from Coleraine site ........................................................ 77 Figure 7.5. Carved bone bird effigy from Green Castle site ................................................ 80 Figure 8.1. Profiles for sites showing percentage of terrestrial gastropods at each site ...................................................................................................................... 85 Figure 8.2. Triangular plot showing environments represented by non-terrestrial mollusk individuals from the four sites .......................................................................... 87 iv

List of Tables Table 2.1. Munsell soil color chart readings ........................................................................ 34 Table 3.1. 14C dates from all sites ....................................................................................... 37 Table 3.2. Green Castle site, OCR dates .............................................................................. 40 Table 4.1. Summary of sherd forms ..................................................................................... 44 Table 4.2. Summary of sherd decorations ............................................................................ 45 Table 4.3. Summary of rim forms ........................................................................................ 46 Table 4.4. Summary of rim decorations ............................................................................... 47 Table 4.5. Newry sherd forms in deep units ......................................................................... 48 Table 4.6. Newry sherd decorations in deep units................................................................ 48 Table 4.7. Newry rim forms in deep units ............................................................................ 49 Table 4.8. Newry rim decorations in deep units ................................................................... 49 Appendix 4.1. Sherd form data by unit and level ................................................................. 50 Appendix 4.2. Sherds decoration data by unit and level ...................................................... 51 Appendix 4.3. Rim form data by unit and level ................................................................... 52 Appendix 4.4. Sherd decoration data by unit and level ........................................................ 53 Table 5.1. Raw materials and artifact categories at the four sites (actual figures) ............... 55 Table 5.2. Raw materials and artifact categories at all the sites taken together (percentage occurrence) .................................................................................................. 55 Table 5.3. Raw material categories in the non-chert component for all the sites taken together (actual figures and percentage occurrence) ...................................................... 58 Table 5.4. Raw materials at Paso del Indio .......................................................................... 60 Table 6.1. Burial 2, long bones’ length estimated in the field .............................................. 65 Table 7.1. Vertebrate species list for four Jamaican sites .................................................... 70 Table 7.2. Percent terrestrial species in diet ......................................................................... 72 Table 7.3. Estimated hutia ages based on MTR ................................................................... 73 Table 7.4. Hutia mandibular tooth row measurements ......................................................... 73 Table 7.5. Expected elements for hutia remains................................................................... 74 Table 7.6. Recovered hutia remains by site and skeletal section.......................................... 74 Table 7.7. Intact portion of long bones from all sites ........................................................... 75 Table 7.8. Marine Remains (fish, shark, and sea turtle) from all four sites.......................... 76 Table 7.9. Marine Remains (fish, shark, and sea turtle) from all four sites.......................... 77 Table 7.10. Mean size of fish at each site............................................................................. 78

v

Table 7.11. Primary habitats utilized by fish species in samples (C=Coleraine, N=Newry, G=Green Castle, W=Wentworth).......................................... 79 Table 7.12. Importance of various habitats to each site for marine species ......................... 79 Table 8.1. Percentages of marine and terrestrial mollusk individuals at Coleraine .............. 84 Table 8.2. Percentages of marine and terrestrial mollusk individuals at Newry .................. 84 Table 8.3. Percentages of marine and terrestrial mollusk individuals at Green Castle ............................................................................................................... 85 Table 8.4. Percentages of marine and terrestrial mollusk individuals at Wentworth....................... 85 Table 8.5. List of dominant non-terrestrial mollusks present on each site ........................... 86 Table 8.6. Environments represented by non-terrestrial mollusks at Coleraine ................... 86 Table 8.7. Environments represented by non-terrestrial mollusks at Newry........................ 86 Table 8.8. Environments represented by non-terrestrial mollusks at Green Castle ............................................................................................................... 87 Table 8.9. Environments represented by non-terrestrial mollusks at Wentworth................. 87 Table 8.10. Marine molluscan remains from Baie Orientale (St. Martin) ............................ 88 Table 8.11. Marine molluscan remains from Le Diamant (Martinique) .............................. 88 Appendix 8.1. Alphabetical list of gastropods and bivalves shells recorded from Coleraine, Newry, Green Castle and Wentworth ................................................... 90 Appendix 8.2. Counts of marine and terrestrial mollusks from Coleraine ........................... 91 Appendix 8.3. Percentage calculations for marine mollusks from Coleraine....................... 93 Appendix 8.4. Counts of marine and terrestrial mollusks from Newry ................................ 95 Appendix 8.5. Percentage calculations for marine mollusks from Newry ........................... 99 Appendix 8.6. Counts of marine and terrestrial mollusks from Green Castle .................... 101 Appendix 8.7. Percentage calculations for marine mollusks from Green Castle ............... 104 Appendix 8.8. Counts of marine and terrestrial mollusks from Wentworth....................... 105 Appendix 8.9. Percentage calculations for marine mollusks from Wentworth .................. 106 Appendix 8.10. Environmental preference for aquatic species of bivalves and gastropods ........................................................................................... 107 Table 9.1. Identifiable mollusk species >4 mm size grade ................................................. 109 Table 9.2. Identifiable terrestrial mollusks 500............................................... 110 Table 9.3. Identifiable mollusk numbers at all size grades ................................................ 110 Table 9.4. Other materials found at all size grades ............................................................ 110 Table 9.5. Organic material (weight in grams) by size grade and level ............................. 110

vi

Preface Philip Allsworth-Jones and Kit W. Wesler We thank the late Mr. W. Duncan MacMillan, then owner of the Green Castle Estate, and Robin Crum Ewing, Edward Reynolds and their staff for permission to conduct the Green Castle and Newry excavations as well as for invaluable logistical support throughout the five-year project reported in this volume. Mr. Errol Henry granted permission to excavate at the Wentworth site. Mrs. Dahlia Kelly of the Jamaica Producers Group, Kingston, conveyed permission to work on the site at Coleraine, and Mr. Horace Stewart facilitated local arrangements. For permissions and arrangements, we are grateful. We sincerely appreciate funding from a number of sources, without whom the project would not have been possible: W. Duncan MacMillan, the Reed Foundation, the National Geographic Society, the Murray State University (MSU) Committee on Institutional Research and Scholarship, and the University of the West Indies (UWI), Mona Campus Committee for Research & Publications and Graduate Awards. Funding from the Reed Foundation was particularly useful in permitting the analysis of all the faunal remains from the sites, which could not be undertaken in Jamaica. Thanks are expressed to Mrs. Jane Gregory Rubin for her personal interest in the project. Philip Allsworth-Jones would like to signify his particular gratitude to the Mona Campus Committee, and to its chairman Professor Trevor Jackson, for the support which they gave to the project every year. Departmental funds alone would not have permitted it to be carried out. All the artifact drawings in this volume are the work of Mrs. Alison West Martin. This work was paid for thanks to a grant from the Office of the UWI Mona Campus Principal, under the provisions of the New Initiative Funding arrangement which he put in place. Kit Wesler conducted much of his analysis as a Fulbright Lecturer/Researcher at the UWI Mona Campus in the spring of 2002. We directed the project (after an initial reconnaissance in 1998) in the years from 1999 to 2003. At the time Philip Allsworth-Jones was Senior Lecturer in the Department of History (now History and Archaeology), at the University of the West Indies, Mona, Kingston 7, and Kit Wesler was Director of the Wickliffe Mounds Research Center, Murray State University, Wickliffe, Kentucky, U.S.A. We were fortunate to have the help of the other colleagues who have contributed to this volume, Lisabeth Carlson, Simon F. Mitchell, Sherene A. James, Ryan Ramsook, Marcella Phillips, Nicole L. Patrick, Anthony R.D. Porter, and Ana Luísa Santos. Lisabeth Carlson has been with Southeastern Archaeological Research, Inc. since 1995, carrying out projects with a focus on Caribbean and Southeastern United States prehistoric and historic period archaeology, with particular emphasis on zooarchaeology. Simon Mitchell is now Professor of Sedimentary Geology in the Department of Geography and Geology at UWI Mona; he has been resident in Jamaica for 16 years and has over 100 publications dealing with Jamaica and the Caribbean region. Sherene James is now Museum Curator at the UWI Mona Geology Museum and also a Lecturer in Geology. At the time this work was carried out, she as well as Ryan Ramsook and Marcella Phillips were graduate students at UWI Mona, in the Departments of Geography and Geology and History and Archaeology respectively. Nicole Patrick’s work was completed as a B.A. thesis in Caribbean Studies at UWI Mona. Anthony Porter, now with the Jamaica Bauxite Institute, formerly worked as a geologist with the Geological Survey Department in Kingston, as well as with the Alcan Jamaica Company, and Alcan International, Montreal, Canada; he is the author or co-author of several books on Jamaican geology. Ana Luísa Santos, at the University of Coimbra, is interested in a

vii

multidisciplinary approach to the study of human skeletal remains, in particular the spread of infectious diseases, and has contributed in various ways to the study of the paleodemography and paleopathology of Pre-columbian Jamaica, since her first involvement with this project in 2001. We appreciate Rob Corruccini’s comments on the fragmentary human remains from the first season at Green Castle. We also thank the numerous students from UWI, MSU, and Southeast Missouri State University (SEMO) who participated in the work at the sites over the five-year period of the project’s execution. In all, 38 students from UWI, five students from MSU and SEMO, and 10 volunteers, mostly Jamaicans, took part in the work. Our field logs recorded 15,700 person-hours in the field over the whole period of the project. The UWI students who participated did so for the most part in fulfillment of their undergraduate fieldwork degree program requirement. The project therefore provided a significant training opportunity for those students and contributed greatly to the development and sustaining of archaeology as a discipline at UWI and in particular to its maintenance within the Department of History (now History and Archaeology). We are grateful for the logistical and moral support provided by the Department, especially in terms of its vehicle and equipment. Mrs. Karen Spence, archaeology laboratory technician, took part in the work every year and in particular was responsible for the curation of the finds. Mr. George Barton was our driver. The first year, we stayed in Highgate at St. Mary’s High School, thanks to an arrangement facilitated by the Principal, Col. Johnson. In subsequent years, we were accommodated at River Lodge in the vicinity of Robin’s Bay, where we enjoyed the hospitality of Brigitta Fuchslocher and her staff. The students did not like the croaking lizards, but the surroundings provided the inspiration for at least one ghost story. All work was carried out under permit from the Jamaica National Heritage Trust. We appreciate the help of Roderick Ebanks, Dorrick Gray, and other JNHT staffers who helped facilitate the project in various ways. Thanks go to the reviewers who commented on earlier versions of this manuscript, and to the editorial team at BAR, who saw it through to publication. Apart from the specifics of these particular archaeological sites, we kept a more general aim in view. The great failing in Jamaican archaeology so far, especially where prehistory is concerned, is lack of adequate publication. At White Marl, this deficiency might have been remedied, but it was prevented by the unexpected death of the excavator. The aim here is to fill that gap, and to show what can and ought to be achieved. The reader will judge to what extent that aim has been realized, but certainly it is what was intended. The study is also multi-disciplinary, as such studies have to be in these days. The time is long gone when excavators could have been satisfied with the strictly archaeological material alone. In this spirit, this volume contains chapters by authors with very different backgrounds, but all together it is hoped that the reader will derive a rounded picture of how the Taíno people lived as they did in the area which we know as Annotto Bay, or as it may have been called by them Guayguata, in the five hundred years or so before the arrival of the Spaniards.

viii

Chapter 1. JAMAICAN TAÍNO ARCHAEOLOGY, PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS Philip ALLSWORTH-JONES and Kit W. WESLER

publication of the primary material excavated (so often lacking in Jamaica) was also one of our goals.

In 1998 the authors initiated a Jamaican Taíno archaeological project as a joint program of the Department of History, University of the West IndiesMona, Jamaica, and Murray State University, Kentucky, USA. We were interested in conducting a systematic archaeological investigation of a Taíno community, towards understanding its chronology, subsistence economy, trade connections, and social organization. We chose the Taíno occupation of St. Mary Parish, on the north coast of Jamaica.

TAÍNO CHIEFDOMS As Reid (2009:49) writes, “Generations of schoolchildren in the Anglophone Caribbean have been taught that the native peoples encounteredby Christopher Columbus in Cuba, Hispaniola, Jamaica, Puerto Rico, and the Bahamas were Arawaks.” Recent scholarship has widely adopted the name Taíno as more appropriate, although not without reservations (Oliver 2009; Rouse 1992; Reid 1994; Rodrigues Ramos 2010a, 2010b:199-203; Reid [2009:4957] has a pertinent discussion). The ethnohistory of the Taíno is known primarily from early Spanish descriptions of the peoples of Hispaniola (Wilson 1990). For the most part, the Taíno of the other islands, including Jamaica, were removed by Spanish enslavement or died of European diseases before they were described well (Rouse 1948, 1992; Keegan 1992; Wilson 1990).

Our goal was to be able to compare findings from a number of different areas within a Taíno community which we would recover through controlled excavations. We knew from historical sources, for instance, that there were chiefs and commoners among the Taíno. Could we identify areas where an elite group lived, or any social or economic differences within a village or set of villages? Did everyone in the community have the same basic diet, own and use the same tools, make the same crafts? Would there be concentrations of trade items or ornaments that might show specializations? These questions could only be answered by systematic excavations that sampled various areas of Taíno village sites in a manner that emphasized contextual precision.

Rouse (1992:9) describes Taíno villages as consisting of houses surrounding a central plaza. Watts (1987:53-65) provides a good description of the Taíno agricultural system of conuco agriculture based on root crops with lesser emphasis on tobacco, cotton, dye plants, peppers, calabash gourd, and possibly beans and maize. The economy did not support full-time specialists (Rouse 1992:10).

We conducted our first season of excavations at the Green Castle site, near Annotto Bay, Jamaica, in 1999 (Figure 1.1). We completed the Green Castle excavations in three years, and proceeded to excavate at two neighboring sites, Newry and Coleraine, in 2002 and 2003, respectively. We also accomplished a brief excavation at the Wentworth site, near Port Maria, west of Annotto Bay (Figure 1.1). Given our time and resource constraints, it is perhaps not too surprising that not all the questions with which we started could be answered satisfactorily. Nonetheless, our excavations established a good stratigraphic context for the four major sites investigated, and provided a standard for methodical recording which hopefully will be applied elsewhere in Jamaica. A systematic set of artifactual and faunal data was recovered, providing new insights into the chronology, assemblage composition, and ecology of the Taino occupation of this part of St. Mary parish. Full

What is known of the Hispaniola Taínos’ social structure allows scholars to characterize their organization as chiefdoms (Hulme 1988; Wilson 1990; Valcárcel Rojas and Arce 2005:125). Chiefdoms are political systems that are more complex than tribes but not as complex as states; they have social ranking, with a hereditary elite that govern but that do not have the coercive power of a bureaucratic structure, a standing army, or taxation. In Wright’s (1984) oft-cited formulation, a simple chiefdom has two tiers of political control—that is, a single chiefly seat controlling several subsidiary villages—while a complex chiefdom has a paramount center which dominates regional centers, which in turn govern ordinary villages. 1

THE TAÍNO SETTLEMENT AT GUAYGUATA: EXCAVATIONS IN ST. MARY PARISH, JAMAICA

Figure 1.1. Map of project locations

over their subjects. The district and regional chiefs did not exercise this kind of control but could requisition food and military service. Their ability to do so depended on their personalities and political relations.” Wilson (1990) found that chiefs’ authority could be fairly circumscribed. They exercised power through persuasion, kinship, gifts and generosity, and political maneuvering. They may have had to negotiate tribute but could declare or veto war unilaterally (Wilson 1990:102). Inheritance probably was matrilineal (Keegan and MacLachlan 1989; Rouse 1992:10-11; Wilson 1990:32-34).

Wilson (1990:32-34) presents a number of characteristics of Taíno societies of Hispaniola that identify them with chiefdoms: two levels of hierarchy in authority structures; more or less centralized and formal authority; the rights of chiefs to demand labor (though whether they had a formal system of tribute is uncertain); and four social classes: chiefs, nobles, commoners, and slaves (although the exact status of the slaves is unclear, as is the extent to which the Spanish observers’ own categories were projected onto these divisions). The Spanish, beginning with Columbus, adopted the term “cacique” for the Taíno leaders, which suggests that there was no exact equivalent for their role or roles in Spanish society (Hulme 1988). Rouse (1992:9) wrote that each village had a chief or cacique, and that Taíno society included village, district, and regional chiefs, which suggests the three-tiered hierarchy of a complex or paramount chiefdom.

Rather than seeing a top-ranking cacique as an absolute monarch, Wilson (1990:108) suggests that a “more accurate picture seems to be that he was the highestranking cacique among several near equals, who was able to hold together a confederacy for a while.” A revolt of fourteen Hispaniolan caciques against a putative central ruler (as reported by Spanish chroniclers)“shows the importance of confederacies and collective action among the caciques” as opposed to indicating “monarchical Taíno kingdoms led by single men” (Wilson 1990:98).

Caciques were treated with great deference. They may have had special houses, they could be carried on litters, they practiced polygyny, and received special burials (Wilson 1990:32-34). Persons of higher rank sat on duhos (low wooden stools, often with ornately carved backs) when receiving guests (Rouse 1992:9). Their regalia included “headdresses adorned with gold and feathers,” and human mask pendants (Rouse 1992:10-11). Oliver (2005) lists additional perquisites: special foods, face masks or pectorals, large ear spools, and stone bead necklaces which could have shell beads or plaques as separators. Chiefs might be buried in roofed chambers, and retainer burial (the inclusion of other persons in the burial) was reported, but probably was not typical (Oliver 2005:242-243). Helms (1986) suggests that carved, polished wooden items marked high status, and that “the most common item of elite status may have been bead necklaces” especially of stone, but also of “multicolored woods,” bone, shell, and clay (Helms 1986:40).

Hoogland and Hofman (1999:95) report that the noble class was in charge of “measurements of properties and grounds” and “knew exactly where the borders of different chiefdoms were located.” However, according to Wilson (1990:109), Taíno chiefdoms cannot “be neatly bounded on a map” and notions of identifying “geographical boundaries… that can be drawn on a map are inappropriate to the transient nature of the political structures.” Wilson (1990:14-15, 2007) found evidence for five or six regional chiefdoms on Hispaniola, and suggested that their core areas were stable but their boundaries were variable. This brief discussion suggests a number of uncertainties about exactly how much authority a cacique had and how he could exercise it. Different levels of chiefs would have had different authorities and roles. In general, chiefdoms tend to cycle from simple to complex (Anderson 1994).

Caciques had roles in political, symbolic and ceremonial domains (Torres 2005). Rouse (1992:16) wrote that “Village chiefs reportedly had the power of life and death

2

P. ALLSWORTH-JONES AND K.W. WESLER: JAMAICAN TAÍNO ARCHAEOLOGY, PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS

of ornaments among the Western Taínos, many showing rank. The class system of the Classic Taínos may therefore have extended into Jamaica… zemis were worshipped in homes… especially in Jamaica.” (The term “zemi” or “cemi” refers to a rather imprecise set of objects that carried spiritual power [Saunders and Gray 1996:805; Oliver 2005].) Rouse (1992:18-19) also suggests the presence of the ball game but not specialized courts in Jamaica.

Although the ethnohistoric data indicate that complex chiefdoms existed in some areas of the Caribbean (Valcárcel Rojas and Arce 2005:125), it is not clear that all Taíno groups were members of complex chiefdoms. Swanton (1952:8) wrote of Hispaniola that “Probably the caciquedaras here and in the other islands were in a constant state of flux.” Further complicating the picture is the nature of the historic data. The Spanish observers had their own biases and interpreted social and political situations, let alone incidents, through their own lenses. Descriptions of the Taíno of Hispaniola come mostly from early in the contact and colonization period, with little detail emerging later (Hoogland and Hofman 1999). Furthermore, as Hulme (1988:107) notes, “all ‘observed’ political phenomena may have been—to an unknowable degree—reactions to European presence.” Thus, any generalized reconstruction of Hispaniolan chiefdoms must be fraught with reservations.

Part of the problem is that the Spanish provided very little information about the Jamaican Taíno for modern researchers to go on. Rouse (1948:543-544) gave Jamaica only a little more than half a page. Hulme (1986) has only four references to Jamaica, including one on a map and one to Jamaican maroons. These apparent slights to Jamaica indicate how little historic information there is. Cundall (1915) estimated an aboriginal population of 600,000 for Jamaica, by analogy to Martyr’s estimate of 1,200,000 on Hispaniola. These figures may be exaggerated, but “Las Casas says that the islands abounded with inhabitants as an ant-hill with ants” (Cundall 1915:1). Morison (1963:356) quoted documents from the Columbus voyages calling the island “thickly inhabited.” Michele de Cuneo’s letter of 28 October 1495, describing Columbus’s second voyage and their visit probably to St. Ann’s Bay on the north coast, stated that they found “an excellent and well populated harbor.” The Spanish stayed four days, and “during that time some 60,000 people came from the mountains, merely to look at us” (Morison 1963:222).

Still more difficulty attends an extension of the Hispaniolan patterns into other islands, even to nearby Puerto Rico. Oliver (2005) notes that Oviedo referred to a single paramount chief for that island, while Diego Colón implied that there were at least two. Siegel et al. (2005:88) see chiefdoms but no pan-island polity on Puerto Rico. Rouse (1948) originally classified the Taínos into two groups: the Classic Taínos, best characterized by Hispaniola, and the sub-Taínos, closely related but less complex. As Hulme (1986:59) suggests, using the term “‘sub-Taíno,’ … is rather like calling the agricultural economy of western Ireland ‘sub-English.’” Rouse (1992:7) recognized this problem and revised his terminology to distinguish Classic, Western and Eastern Taíno groups. In this formulation, the Classic Taíno belonged to Hispaniola, Puerto Rico and eastern Cuba, the Eastern Taíno to the northern Lesser Antilles, and the Western Taíno to Jamaica, central Cuba and the Bahamas (the latter sometimes distinguished as the Lucayan Taíno). The Classic Taíno, in this scheme, have the most complex culture, with a clearly discernable social hierarchy of chiefs, lesser chiefs, and commoners, the most intensive agriculture, the most elaborate ceremonial systems and artistic artifacts (including ceramics), and ball courts. (The formal enclosures known as bateys had ceremonial, political, and communal purposes, but as Alegría [1983:7-15], Lovén [1924, 1935:524-526] and Morse [1991] show, the Taíno also played a ball game, so the expression “ball court” persists as a familiar term for them [cf. Curet and Torres 2009:262-264]).

According to Wilson (2007:110), at European contact there were “polities of more than 100 allied villages, with combined populations in the tens of thousands.” Rouse (1948:543) states, “It has been established that there were 8 or 10 chiefs on the whole island, but the names of only 2 along the northeastern coast have survived: Ameyao and Huareo.” Swanton (1952:7-8) had a very small section on Jamaica, “giving the tribes in occupancy when the Spaniards first came among them” but omitting some surviving names that he thought were place names. His list of “Indian tribes of Jamaica” included Aguacadiba, Ameyao, Anaya, Guayguata, Huareo, Maynoa, Oristan, and Vaquabo (Swanton 1952:611). Much of the (very little) available information comes from the accounts of Columbus’s fourth voyage, when his ship was grounded at St. Ann’s Bay and he and his crew waited for just over a year to be rescued (Morison 1963). The Spanish accounts focus on their own concerns, with surprisingly little information about the Taínos, given the length of time they spent on the island. The crew opened relations with “an Indian settlement about a quarter league from the ship, called Maima” (Morison 1963:367). According to Diego Mendez’s will (dated 6 June 1536), Columbus sent Mendez to look for other sources of supplies. Mendez wrote that “in a village known as Aguacadiba I agreed with the Indians and the

JAMAICAN CHIEFDOMS? Although placing Jamaica in the Western Taíno division, Rouse (1992:11) betrayed some ambivalence about the Jamaican Taíno: “The density of Jamaica’s population suggests that its inhabitants practiced the same advanced form of agriculture as the Classic Taíno… The chronicles indicate that the native Jamaicans had the greatest variety

3

THE TAÍNO SETTLEMENT AT GUAYGUATA: EXCAVATIONS IN ST. MARY PARISH, JAMAICA

and in 1513, the Taínos were assigned to encomiendas (Wright 1921). In 1528 the Spanish were bemoaning the “scarcity of labor,” saying that “Indians were scarce now,” and asking to import Indians for labor (Wright 1921:76-77). These references suggest that the organized polities deteriorated rapidly, affording few chances to observe them closely even if any of the Spanish chroniclers had been inclined to do so. By 1597 there were discussions of how to settle the surviving Indians (Cundall and Pieterz 1919; Woodward 2006). About 1620, Espinosa (1968:118) wrote, “There were many Indians at the time of conquest, but when they died out, profitable working of the mines ceased” (cf. Padrón 1952, 2003:152-152; Sedeňo Albornaz in Padrón 2003:247).

cacique that they” would provide food. In another village “three leagues away” he made the “same agreement with the cacique and the Indians” (Morison 1963:392). Mendez kept moving, and “came to an important cacique named Huareo, in a place now called Melilla” (associated with Port Maria; Cundall [1915:273-274] places the distance from the beached ships at 13 leagues). Huareo “received me well, gave me very good food, and ordered all his subjects to collect many victuals,” and also gave Mendez helpers to carry supplies as he went to the “eastern end of the island and came to a cacique named Ameyao” from where he took a canoe back to St. Ann’s Bay (Morison 1963:392).

These reports and discussions underscore a theme that has emerged fairly recently from Caribbean scholarship, one of diversity within the Taíno super-group (Curet 2003; Reid 2009:55-57; Rodríguez Ramos 2010a, b; Wilson 1993). Keegan et al. (1998:217) pointed out that “the Spanish detected many differences” among Taíno societies, and Wilson (1993:59) concluded, “There is strong evidence that greater cultural diversity existed among the indigenous people of the Caribbean than the conquerors understood.” There was linguistic diversity, even within Hispaniola (Keegan et al. 1998:229; Wilson 1990:10, 1993:38), and “ethnic plurality” (Keegan 1996:276; cf. Wilson 1993:38). Although Keegan and MacLachlan (1989) “concluded that the Taínos traced descent through the female line and lived in extended matrilocal or avunculocal residential units” (as summarized in Keegan et al. 1998:217), such variability within Hispaniola, let alone across the islands, makes it problematical to apply the model broadly (cf. Curet 2003).

Eventually Columbus sent Mendez and Bartholomew Fieschi to try to reach Hispaniola by canoe. They traveled “to the easternmost point of the island which the Indians call Aomaquique after a cacique of that province…” (Morison 1963:357), but failed to leave the island. At some point there was dissension among the Spanish, and a disaffected group decamped. Mendez said that the mutineers “stayed in that village of Aomaquique over a month,” and then became a band of brigands “pillaging at will, according to their strength or the resistance of the caciques through whose territory they passed” (Morison 1963:361). Meanwhile Columbus’s crew wore out their welcome at St. Ann’s Bay. Mendez tried again to go to Hispaniola for help. He took a canoe from St. Ann’s Bay, “went up the coast of Jamaica to its extremity, 35 leagues distant”, was captured by “Indian pirates”, reached the end of the island and was threatened by Indians before returning to the “extremity” to wait for good weather to embark for Hispaniola, which he eventually did (Morison 1963:394).

Political organization was equally variable, ranging from simple to complex chiefdoms, so that “a mosaic of different levels of complexity seems to have existed throughout the Greater Antilles” (Curet 1996:121; Curet 2003). In addition to the synchronic variability among the islands, there would have been diachronic diversity: “it is becoming clearer that settlement patterns and political and trade alliances were shifting and complex in later prehistory and the early contact period” (Wilson 2004:269). Although Rouse (1990:60) could say that, “For the present, I am unable to distinguish any plural populations prior to those now present in the West Indies,” he clearly was speaking of detecting plurality on a relatively local scale: there is little doubt now about plurality within the wider Taíno culture area. Thus, for an island as little documented as Jamaica, our approach to modeling chiefdoms must necessarily begin with fairly broad principles, and archaeology becomes a key source of information.

Of interest in these accounts are the mentions of caciques in the plural and the repetition of such phrases as “agreed with the Indians and the cacique,” suggesting that the cacique was not, in these instances, an all-powerful ruler. At St. Ann’s Bay, Columbus summoned “the principal Indians of that province” (Morison 1963:361) rather than a single chief. Mendez also mentioned that “sometimes we gave the kings or chief men a little mirror, a red cap or a pair of scissors” (Morison 1963:356). Then there is the unclear situation at the east end of the island, where he made friends with “a cacique of that province” but soon after “was threatened by Indians” — maybe these were not subjects of Ameyao or Aomaquique, or maybe both caciques were by then disgusted with the Spanish? All of these references suggest that power was fairly diffuse. But there was also the “important” cacique Huareo, who clearly gave orders. As in Puerto Rico and probably Hispaniola, Jamaica’s Taíno may have formed themselves into simple and complex chiefdoms, polities in flux at any given time, defying the modern anthropologist’s attempt to categorize their organization with a simple formulation.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SEQUENCES General treatments of Caribbean archaeology are available, particularly from the work of Irving Rouse (1964, 1992; Rouse and Allaire 1980; see also Keegan

The native Jamaicans dwindled rapidly in numbers. By 1511 the Spanish were reporting religious conversions,

4

P. ALLSWORTH-JONES AND K.W. WESLER: JAMAICAN TAÍNO ARCHAEOLOGY, PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS

Wilson 2007), pointing towards a development of sociopolitical complexity.

1994, 1996, 2000). An online bibliography of Caribbean archaeology maintained by the Florida Museum of Natural History (Keegan, Stokes and Newsom 1990) extends to more than 120 pages when printed.

The Ostionoid ceramic series follows, found across the Greater Antilles and into the Lesser Antilles as far as Antigua (Rouse 1992:Figures 14, 15; Keegan 2000:145) in the period AD 600-1500. Keegan (2000:148) infers that the Ostionoid series developed from the Saladoid series in western Puerto Rico. Of most interest here is the Ostionan subseries, with which Rouse (1992) characterizes Jamaica, eastern Cuba, Grand Turk, most or all of Hispaniola, and western Puerto Rico circa AD 600900. More recent data show colonization of the Bahamas in this period as well (Carlson 1995b; Berman and Gnivecki 1995:435). Another subseries, the Elenan, is assigned to eastern Puerto Rico and the northern Lesser Antilles (to Antigua) after AD 600 (Rouse 1992:Figure 15).

Archaeological data played a part in Rouse’s (1948, 1992) formulation of the Classic Taíno. The impressive artifacts illustrated in Bercht et al.’s (1997) catalogue and Bochinski’s (1985) slide set were found for the most part on Hispaniola, illustrating Classic Taíno material culture very well (cf. Wilson 2007:140). Thus the ethnohistoric and archaeological records seem to corroborate each other, informing Rouse’s identification of a Classic Taíno special status. However, many of these artifacts do not appear to have come from well-documented contexts. Rouse created a scheme for organizing and classifying archaeological complexes in the Caribbean, presented most thoroughly nearly two decades ago (Rouse 1992, which further developed ideas present earlier, e,g, Rouse 1951, 1964). He created “series” of archaeological complexes which he thought were related in an evolutionary manner, divided into subseries when he thought it was warranted, and he placed them into geographic and chronological order (Rouse 1992:Figures 14, 15).

Ceramics are the primary component defining the Ostionan Ostionoid subseries cultures. Rouse’s (1992) key marker is a redware, meaning pots with a red slip covering part or all of a vessel (not, it must be emphasized, pots with a red paste). The Ostionan ceramics are “thin, hard, and smooth surfaced. Straight sided, open bowls… loop handles, raised above the rim… Decoration is rare… simply modeled lugs and geometric figures modeled on vessel walls” (Rouse 1992:95-96).

Reviews and critiques of Rouse’s system (e.g. AllsworthJones 2008:32-38; Curet 2003:6, 27) need not be repeated in detail here. Keegan and Atkinson (2006) call the Rouse system “highly idiosyncratic” and suggest that it needs revision based on an expanded corpus of radiocarbon dates and improved calibration methods. Curet (2003:27) notes the “process of artificial homogenization characterized by Rouse’s concepts,” which was necessary for an early formulation and synthesis but which now needs to be addressed in light of additional data. Perhaps the most confusing aspect is the tendency for archaeologists using the scheme to conflate chronological periods, cultural complexes, and people. Nonetheless, no alternative culture-historical system has as yet been widely adopted.

Rouse called the subseries which follows the Ostionan Ostionoid in Jamaica, central and eastern Cuba, and much of Hispaniola the Meillacan Ostionoid, beginning circa AD 900 (Rouse 1992: Figure 1.) In central Cuba, Jamaica, and southwestern Haiti he extended the series to AD 1500, while in eastern Cuba, Haiti, and a little of the Dominican Republic it was replaced about AD 1200. The equivalent ceramic complex in the Bahamas is called Palmetto. The characteristic ware is “thin, hard, and fine and tending towards bowls with inturned shoulders rather than outsloping sides” (Rouse 1992:97). The potters no longer painted their vessels, decorating instead with punctation on ridges beneath rims, incised, applied, and/or punctated designs on shoulders, and small geometric and zoomorphic lugs. “The Meillacan potters may be said to have only a single rectilinearly incised ware, which was also characterized by appliqué work and punctation” (Rouse 1992:97).

Rouse’s (1992) pre-ceramic series will not be considered here, because our data belong to the later period (Chapters 3, 4). Although Ulloa Hung (2005:118) and Keegan (2006) present data regarding pre-Saladoid ceramics in Cuba, Hispaniola and Puerto Rico, for the development of complex societies, more useful data begin with the period of the Saladoid series, roughly 500 BC – AD 600 (Curet 2003:10; Curet et al. 2004; Keegan 2000:141; Rouse 1992:75ff). The series is best characterized by ceramics, with two major wares, a white-on-red polychrome and unpainted zoned-incised-crosshatched (ZIC) wares. Saladoid ceramics are found on Puerto Rico and in the Lesser Antilles. Keegan (2000:147) reports that “there is no evidence that Saladoid peoples emigrated from Puerto Rico into the rest of the Greater Antilles and the Bahamas until around AD 600.” By the end of the period, Puerto Rico shows evidence of a site hierarchy (Curet 2003;

Ceramics of the post-AD 1200 period from eastern Cuba to the Virgin Islands become rather diverse (Rouse 1992:110-111). A fourth subseries of the Ostionoid series is the Chican, post-dating AD 1200 in eastern Cuba, Haiti, and a little of the Dominican Republic (Rouse 1992:Figure 14). Rouse described Chican ceramics as characterized by constricted bowls, rims or handles with animal and human head lugs, and curvilinear incisions ending in dots, alternating with rectilinear incisions on shoulders or inside open bowls (Rouse 1992:110). No Chican ceramics have been reported from Jamaica. Rouse (1992:107) associated the people of the Meillacan subseries with the Western Taíno, and those of the

5

THE TAÍNO SETTLEMENT AT GUAYGUATA: EXCAVATIONS IN ST. MARY PARISH, JAMAICA

monumental architecture but no domestic occupation, while villages occur in clusters containing at least one site with ceremonial structures. With Period IV, Torres sees fewer sites. In the central/western part of Puerto Rico, villages are found in the interior, especially around the large ball court/plaza complex of Caguana (Torres 2005), which seems to have gained in importance as another large ceremonial complex, Tibes on the south coast, declined around AD 1200-1300 (Oliver 2005, Curet and Stringer 2010). In the east, sites shift to the coast, and few have ceremonial structures. By this time, Siegel (1999:232; cf. Curet 2003) sees three or four centers of power in Puerto Rico. However, there is little evidence for social differentiation in mortuary or household patterns, and few exotic resources or high-status artifacts have been found (Curet 2010).

Chican subseries with the Classic Taíno ethnohistorical cultures. The best data for assessing the development of complex societies in the period of the Ostionoid series come from Puerto Rico (Curet 1996, 2003; Keegan 2000:151; Siegel 1991, 1996, 1999, 2004; Siegel ed. 2005; Wilson 2007:95-96). Curet (1996:117) summarized a set of changes from Saladoid to Ostionoid series societies: changes in ceramic styles and lapidary work; the development of ball courts and plazas; changes in household size suggesting a focus on the nuclear family rather than larger, communal or extended-family groups; changes in religious rituals; changes in mortuary practices; intensification in agricultural production; and new trends in settlement patterns including developing site hierarchy and settlement pattern complexity. “Artifacts related to religious activities decreased in both numbers and quality” (Curet 1996:119), with snuffing vessels nearly absent and other items less common. This shift may indicate the concentration of ceremonial authority in fewer hands. Burial pattern is variable, but there is no sign of social differentiation in the burials recovered so far (cf. Curet 2003:10). For eastern Hispaniola, “fully sedentary villages based on horticulture became the dominant form of settlement” (Wilson 2007:96). By later in the period of the Ostionoid series, roughly post-AD 1200, many of the markers of chiefdom societies may be identified in the Classic Taíno region.

Curet (1992, 1996) correlates settlement system changes with changes in house styles. Ethnohistoric descriptions of houses are available only for the Bahamas, Cuba, and Hispaniola, not for Puerto Rico, and exposed house patterns are rare in archaeological sites. However, three sites in Puerto Rico have yielded house patterns (Curet 1992). Curet detects a shift from large communal oblong houses in the period of the Ostionan subseries to small circular single-family houses with the Meillacan and Chican subseries. None of the houses has provided evidence for social status differentiation. The ethnohistoric reports of square houses for chiefs and round houses for commoners have not been confirmed archaeologically, and Curet (1992) wonders whether the former may have been a post-contact pattern. He also suggests that there was variation in houses from region to region.

Wilson (2007:123) counts 123 ball courts, including 21 on Hispaniola, 65 on Puerto Rico, and a few very large ones on the eastern tip of Cuba, to which may be added a recent discovery in Puerto Rico (Siegel et al. 2009). Keegan (2000:154; cf. Curet 2003) notes that the distribution extends to the Bahamas and St. Croix.

Another source archaeologists study for information on social status is cemeteries. Ethnohistoric data for burial practices is sketchy and pertains mostly to Hispaniola (Curet and Oliver 1998). From these sources, Curet finds no indication of cemeteries, but some suggestion that chiefs’ burials are probably more highly structured than those of commoners. At this point, the burial data from Puerto Rico is best viewed in terms of long-term trends. In the period of the Saladoid series, Curet finds burial grounds in a central clearing or village plaza, when plazas served as multipurpose communal space. By the late period (Period IV/Chican subseries), burials were dispersed in residential or midden areas, which Curet interprets as private domestic rather than communal spaces. But there are also reports of burials in caves and in ceramic containers. The sample is still too small for detailed patterns to emerge, but in general, “there has been no archaeological report of differential treatment of burials” (Curet 1996:120; Curet and Oliver 1998).

Ball courts have been important to the interpretation of chiefdom societies in the Caribbean, with the bestdeveloped arguments pertaining to Puerto Rico. There, ball court/plaza complexes became increasingly centralized through time, representing “public symbols of power and authority wielded by chiefs and their kind” (Siegel 1999:232; cf. Torres 2005). Keegan (2000:154) says that ball courts in Puerto Rico are “clustered on political boundaries.” Other aspects of the settlement pattern also changed through the last millennium before the arrival of the Spanish. Torres (2005) prefers to work with chronological periods rather than series, following Rouse’s division of Period III (AD 600-1200) from Period IV (AD 1200-1500). As Torres notes, these broad time spans raise issues of contemporaneity, since it cannot be assumed that any site was occupied during the whole of a period. However, broad trends can be interpreted.

Archaeological data from Hispaniola and Cuba are indicative of similar trends, but are also sparse. Curet (2003:15-16) sees some regional centers in Cuba, and some less hierarchical groups, and both paramount chiefdoms and perhaps smaller polities in Hispaniola. In Cuba, Valcárcel Rojas and Arce (2005:127) report the site of El Chorro de Maita which had burials with

In Period III Puerto Rico, Torres (2005) reports an increase in the frequency and density of sites with a “formalization of ceremonial space.” Several sites contain

6

P. ALLSWORTH-JONES AND K.W. WESLER: JAMAICAN TAÍNO ARCHAEOLOGY, PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS

only four times (in lists of islands) in his ceramic age overview (Keegan 2000). Wilson’s (2007) recent synthesis has very little to say about Jamaica. These apparent slights to Jamaica result primarily from the lack of broad distribution of Archaeology Jamaica, the newsletter of the Archaeological Society of Jamaica, which has presented quite a lot of information since it was first published in 1965. Atkinson (ed. 2006a, 2006b) has begun to rectify the small-circulation nature of the publications. It is true, as Keegan and Atkinson (2006) write, that Jamaica is not the “black hole” of archaeology that it is often portrayed to be. The problem is that while amateur and professional contributions have provided an array of data, these have not always been adequately documented, and long-term, systematic, problem-oriented research by fully trained professional archaeologists has been scarce.

ornaments, prominence in a two-tiered site hierarchy, and a concentration of ceremonial items within its region, especially quartzite beads. The radiocarbon dates have a fairly broad range of circa AD 1000-1700 cal AD (at 1σ and rounded to the nearest century), but the late date, assayed on human bone, is corroborated by an association with European artifacts. The excavators also recovered guanin (gold-silver-copper alloy) items from the mainland (Valcárcel Rojas and Arce 2005:139). These burials appear to indicate an elite status. Samson (2010a, b) presents detailed descriptions of house patterns at El Cabo in the Dominican Republic, tracing successive rebuildings of several houses over a span of centuries. House forms and functions do not seem to vary significantly through time or within the sample. Although one household “may have had more access than others” to certain valuables and European imports (late in the sequence), other houses also had ritual items and no clearly elite household is evident (Samson 2010b: 311).

Allsworth-Jones (2008) has recently published a comprehensive review of what is known of Jamaican prehistoric archaeology, accompanied by a CD with an inventory of the large collection made by geologist and amateur archaeologist James Lee, the longtime editor of Archaeology Jamaica. This collection was donated to the University of the West Indies, Mona Campus, in 2000. We will not attempt to recapitulate it here, but only mention some highlights as they pertain to the current project.

This brief review of the available discussions highlights two aspects of the archaeological record. First, there is some evidence in settlement pattern, the centrality of ball court complexes, ceremonial items (Curet 1996:120), and hints of elite burial for complex or paramount chiefdoms in the later prehistoric (Period IV/Chican subseries) period in the islands that Rouse identified as the Classic Taíno territory.

There is no evidence in good context for pre-ceramic occupation of Jamaica, or even of colonization by people carrying the Saladoid complex (cf. Callaghan 2007). Jamaica’s prehistory is divided into two periods, the Little River period and the White Marl period. The few dates for the former place it between circa AD 645 and 900, while dates for the latter range from about AD 950 to the 1500s (Allsworth-Jones 2008:103).

The second aspect echoes the conclusions of the ethnohistoric accounts: there is great variability. Curet (2003:19) emphasizes differences among Puerto Rico, Hispaniola, and Cuba in the number and distribution of duhos, cohoba items, three-pointers of three types, stone collars (see also Oliver 2009), ball courts and plazas, and highly decorated bottles, which indicate differences in organization among the societies. Within Puerto Rico, “four different regions experienced different population growth rates, trends, and settlement patterns” (Curet 2005:226). It is likely that local developmental processes also were different (Curet 2003:19). One indication that Taíno societies expanded and contracted is Hoogland and Hofman’s (1999:107) site on Saba, where they documented the “presence of an almost complete [set of] Tainan elements.” Whether the site represents an expansion of a Taíno polity, an independent colony, or a group of free spirits is unknown, but it indicates the fluidity of Taíno social dynamics. As Keegan (2000) notes, overviews of the present state of Taíno archaeology, which by default utilize Rouse’s (1992) culture history scheme as a framework, underestimate the diversity even within the Classic Taíno province.

The Little River period is characterized by a ceramic ware known locally as redware, the Jamaican variant of the Ostionan Ostionoid pottery subseries described above. Lee (1980) cites DeWolf (1953:233) for the best description of the ware (cf. Allsworth-Jones 2008:84-86; Atkinson 2006b; Rodney-Harrack 2006). The most salient characteristics, like those of Ostionan Ostionoid pottery elsewhere, are red slip (not red paste) and handle types. Lee (1980) noted that fewer than 20% of Little River period sherds had the red slip. Following Allsworth-Jones (2008:85), we retain Lee’s preference for the term redware for the ceramics, and Little River for the period. The White Marl period is characterized by several regional variants of the Meillacan Ostionoid subseries ceramics described earlier. Jamaica has two well described and one provisional regional styles (AllsworthJones 2008). The White Marl style is the best known and most widely distributed. The type description is based on Howard’s (1950:135-154; 1956:49-54; 1965:252) original survey work and his excavation of the White Marl site and Vanderwal’s (1967, 1968; Silverberg et al. 1972) subsequent analyses. “Incision, application,

ARCHAEOLOGY OF JAMAICA Jamaica has been seen archaeologically as the leaststudied region of the Caribbean (Atkinson 2006a:6; Curet 2003:16; Wilson 2007:104). Keegan (1996) mentions Jamaica only once regarding the post-contact period, and

7

THE TAÍNO SETTLEMENT AT GUAYGUATA: EXCAVATIONS IN ST. MARY PARISH, JAMAICA

presence of chiefdoms, but do not comprise a sufficiently large or systematic sample with which to build a case.

punctation, and modeling… as decorative techniques…”, frequent filleted rims and a lack of red-slipping are the defining characteristics (Allsworth-Jones 2008:93-94; cf. Rodney-Harrack 2006).

Howard’s (1950, 1956, 1965) survey data, supplemented by the Lee collection and Allsworth-Jones’s (2008) overview, tell us something about the locations of major White Marl period sites. Howard thought that there might be about 200 of them. Allsworth-Jones (2008:79-80) maps 280 sites, including caves. Lee was not able to relocate some of the sites known to his predecessors, including Howard and Duerden (1897, reprinted in Allsworth-Jones 2008), and others certainly have been discovered since his day, for example by Stokes (2006). Hence the final figure is likely to be greater than this, but careful documentation will be needed to be sure of it. Some sites are marked by middens of only a few centimeters depth, while others have more than a meter of deposit. White Marl had two meters of midden (Silverberg et al. 1972). Sites tend to be within a few miles of the coasts, though certainly some are inland and more survey work is needed in the interior. Recently relocated sites surrounding Kingston, forming an arc along the heights overlooking the Liguanea coastal plain (Allsworth-Jones et al. 2001), fit the coastal pattern, as indeed do the St. Mary sites reported in this volume. Burials occur in middens (Allsworth-Jones et al. 2006), some with grave goods such as beads.

Howard (1950, 1956, 1965) first differentiated between the White Marl and Montego Bay styles. The latter was further described by Vanderwal (1967, 1968) and more recently by Allsworth-Jones et al. (2007) and AllsworthJones (2008:87-91). The primary distinction from the White Marl style is that the decoration on Montego May style pots is confined almost entirely to broad fillets at the rim. The sites yielding Montego Bay style ceramics occur mainly along the western coast, especially in St. James and Trelawny Parishes (Allsworth-Jones 2008:89). Keegan et al. (2003) have recently attributed Montego Bay style characteristics to the Sweetwater site, one of two at Paradise Park in Westmoreland Parish (AllsworthJones 2008: 26-27), but the ceramics have not been thoroughly described and their evaluation must await further published data. Provisionally, a third style from the easternmost parish (St. Thomas) has been called Port Morant (AllsworthJones 2008:92-93). Relatively simple incised and punctate decoration on the shoulder rather than the rim, frequent impression instead of incising, decoration on the tops of rims, and frequent rim beveling set the style apart (Allsworth-Jones 2008:92).

On current data, there is no indication of a settlement hierarchy in Jamaica as documented for Puerto Rico (Torres 2005). However, Stokes’s (2006; pers. comm. 2003) survey in the White and Rio Nuevo River valleys indicated that smaller settlements can be located at some distance from the hilltop villages. A full accounting of these data is eagerly awaited.

Only one site, New Seville, has produced clearly postcontact ceramics. Woodward (2006) reports that 63.3% of New Seville ceramics are Taíno, which she attributes to the White Marl style, although one Montego Bay style rim is present. Although a number of sites are known throughout Jamaica, and several have been excavated (AllsworthJones 2008), no regional survey has produced a representative sample of the settlement system within a Jamaican region or locality, and many of the excavations are only sketchily reported. As Wilson (2007:104) laments, “many of the dates we have for sites are single dates without a lot of information on their contexts…” Howard’s (1956:58) conclusion, that the “crying need at present in Jamaican archaeology is for detailed stratigraphic excavation…” is equally applicable today. Thus models of chiefdom society are difficult to test in Jamaica based on present evidence.

THE TAÍNO IN ST. MARY PARISH James Lee recorded the sites reported in this volume during the course of a long effort to document all the sites of the Jamaican Taíno (Allsworth-Jones 2008; Lee 1967, 1970a; field notes on file at the Moulton Barrett Archaeology Laboratory, UWI). Prior to the arrival of the joint UWI-Murray State University team, no further archaeological work had been conducted on most of them. Four large Taíno sites are known around Annotto Bay, occupying high points overlooking the coastal plain (Figure 1.2). Iter Boreale is situated just to the east of the bay proper. Coleraine occupies a free-standing prominence within the coastal plain, and Green Castle and Newry lie on high points across the small valley of a tributary to the Haughton River. Green Castle and Newry are almost literally within hailing distance of each other, and one may stand on the road to Robins Bay and easily see the hills of both sites and Coleraine by turning around.

As Allsworth-Jones (2008:37) notes, three of the four characteristics that Rouse (1948:521, 543) found lacking in “sub-Taíno” societies (ball courts, wooden stools, stone zemis, and petroglyphs) have been located in Jamaica. Only ball courts are absent (so far). One gold artifact has been recovered (Lee 1985b), associated with White Marl style pottery. Allsworth-Jones and Kappers (2007) found that the Stewart Castle site retains six visible mounds, near or at the top of a hill, in a roughly circular pattern, perhaps with a plaza in the center, and the same was probably true of Retreat, originally excavated by De Booy (1913). These findings hint at the

Lee, when he reported the Coleraine site, noted that Spanish accounts referred to Annotto Bay as Guayguata

8

P. ALLSWORTH-JONES AND K.W. WESLER: JAMAICAN TAÍNO ARCHAEOLOGY, PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS

 settlement pattern hierarchy  status differences in residential architecture  communal labor projects requiring regional centralization[monumental architecture]  surplus production  centralized food storage facilities  some specialized production: e.g. sumptuary items; centralized distribution  rank ordered burials [social ranking as indicated by]  status goods in caches or large graves  trade o regional: sumptuary goods, possibly subsistence goods o interregional: import of valuables  boundaries clearly defined  stress: warfare or environmental Figure 1.2. Locations of Taíno sites around Annotto Bay

The data from Jamaica in general, and St. Mary Parish in particular, are not sufficiently abundant or systematic to test most of these propositions. Our project was designed, in part, to focus on several questions that may be seen as a subset of the above, achievable in a limited amount of time, and in the context of annual field schools designed to teach the methods of archaeological excavation.

or Guaiguata, commemorated in the modern name of the Wagwater River which empties into the bay (Cassidy 1988; Cundall 1939; Cundall and Pieterz 1919:24, 99, 103; Oviedo 1959; Padrón 2003:25; Randel 1960). Cassidy (1988:154) notes that “Guai- is a common first element in many Indian tribal names of the Caribbean and South America,” suggesting that Guayguata may have meant something like “the people of Guata.” Granberry and Vescelius (2004:112, Table 11), on the other hand, translate “gua” as “land, country, place,” as in the land or country of (the?) Guata. Impressed by the size of Coleraine, Lee (1970a) proposed that Coleraine was Guayguata. However he had no direct dates and only the broadest ceramic chronology.

One focus of the project was to place the St. Mary Taíno assemblages, and their associated radiocarbon dates, in a well documented spatial and stratigraphic context. Bearing in mind Howard’s (1956:58) and Wilson’s (2007:104) laments, cited above, regarding the lack of contextual and stratigraphic data in Jamaica, this project was designed to fill such lacunae in the St. Mary Parish record. Further, well-documented assemblage data are needed to apply Righter et al’s. (2004) proposed “predictive model” for Taíno chiefdoms which highlights elite items (notably sculptured stone, shell ornaments, and stone beads), and to attempt to refine the Little River/White Marl chronology.

To what exactly were the Spanish referring when they used a name like Guayguata? Lee evidently assumed it was a village, but if the Jamaican Taíno were organized into chiefdoms, it may have been a larger entity. It is possible that Guayguata was a cacique’s district rather than a village, so that the Spanish used the name for a set of settlements under the control of a single chief. This clearly was Father Osborne’s opinion, since in relation to Iter Boreale, he remarked that it formed part of an “extensive Indian complex which once ringed the whole of Annotto Bay and was named Guayguata” (Osborne 1973).

A second focus stemmed from one aspect of settlement systems. The proximity of the three Annotto Bay sites in the study sample (Green Castle, Newry, and Coleraine, Figure 1.2) raises questions about the relationships among them. Chiefdoms generally incorporate fairly large populations, and a number of villages organized into a political hierarchy. While there are no strict defining thresholds, Baker and Sanders (1972) and Trigger (1978) suggest that chiefdoms generally have populations in the 10,000-12,000 range. With populations of this size, chiefdoms often spread across large territories. Mississippian chiefdoms of southeastern North America, for instance, which were described as polities in broadly similar terms to those of the Taíno by the Spanish, typically held territories requiring five to six days to travel across them, and the largest perhaps as

Given the diversity in Taíno chiefdoms indicated by both the ethnographic and archaeological data surveyed above, no single model of a Taíno chiefdom can be specified for St. Mary. In more general perspective, Creamer and Haas (1985:742-743, Table 7) provide a summary of features that may guide the identification of chiefdoms in the archaeological record. Abbreviated to minimal phrasing, they are:

9

THE TAÍNO SETTLEMENT AT GUAYGUATA: EXCAVATIONS IN ST. MARY PARISH, JAMAICA

Our hypothesis was that large Taíno sites as close to each other as Coleraine, Newry, and Green Castle would probably be parts of a single chiefly polity if they were contemporary villages. They are too close together to be rival centers. If they are contemporaneous villages, they may or may not have been occupied recently enough to be part of the Guayguata of the Spanish. If they are contemporary, can one of them be distinguished as a chiefly center in some way? If they are not contemporary, could one of them have been occupied late enough to be a village of Guayguata? Here again, a contextually welldocumented radiocarbon chronology would be the key to answering this question, achievable only through stratigraphic excavation.

much as 12 to 17 days travel time (Muller 1997). The degree of direct control varied, with practical authority perhaps limited to radii of only 20-30 km from the center, but the Annotto Bay sites are well within a likely zone of authority. Chiefdoms generally incorporate numerous villages. Again to make comparisons to Mississippian chiefdoms, Hally’s (1993, 1996) data indicate that in northern Georgia there is “a strong tendency for contemporary mound sites [chiefly centers]… to be separated by distances that are either less than 18 km or more than 32 km” (Hally 1993:156). The implication is that sites within 18 km of each other belong to the same polity. Blitz (1999), also with Mississippian data, sketches four potential settlement patterns, three without indications of site hierarchy such as monumental architecture (perhaps ball courts in a Caribbean example) or markedly greater size of the chiefly village. Both scholars agree that Mississippian chiefdoms generally dominate areas of 20 km or less in radius.

The following chapters describe the results of our excavations at four sites in St. Mary Parish. The contributors’ chapters provide a welcome multidisciplinary analysis of the materials recovered, and demonstrate the great potential of Jamaican archaeology to add new insights into the diverse Taíno cultures of the Greater Antilles.

10

Chapter 2. EXCAVATIONS Philip ALLSWORTH-JONES and Kit W. WESLER

file at the Moulton Barrett Archaeology Laboratory, UWI). Prior to the arrival of our team, no further archaeological work had been conducted on most of them.

METHODS Field methods varied only slightly among the sites. Each project (except at Wentworth: see below) began by marking a permanent datum, then surveying a grid on 5 m intervals, designated by temporary markers (bamboo or wire flag stakes). We designated an elevation datum as Assumed Elevation (A.E.) 100.0 m. Team members read elevations at each grid node in order to prepare a contour map of the cleared area of each site. All proveniences were recorded in three dimensions relative to the grid and datum.

GREEN CASTLE EXCAVATIONS, 1999-2001 James Lee (1978b) recorded the Green Castle site in 1978 as marked by “the usual shell middens,” ceramics and lithics, although he had previously included the site on a map of the distribution of net-sinkers (Lee 1978a; Allsworth-Jones 2008:180-183).

Because we conducted the excavations in part as exercises in training archaeology students to excavate, and because our research design required assemblage and radiocarbon samples in controlled vertical and horizontal contexts, we excavated test units aligned to our grid. The investigators designated 1 x 2 or 2 x 2 m excavation units as detailed below. Excavation proceeded by arbitrary levels of 10 cm depth except where the discovery of stratigraphic transitions suggested modifying that approach. Team members employed trowels and smaller tools, screened all soils through 1/8” mesh sieves, and mapped and photographed each level. Definable features were mapped and excavated as distinct provenience units. Three test units at Green Castle were extended 20 cm at one end for the purposes of taking sample columns for Oxidizable Carbon Dating (OCR), sedimentological analysis, and flotation or water screening.

Robin Crum-Ewing, manager of the Green Castle Estate, encouraged us to consider the Green Castle site atop Davey Hill when we visited the area in 1998 (Figure 2.1). The top of the hill was in pasture, having been cleared at one time in expectation of becoming the site of a modern house. Some bulldozing to flatten an area for the house site is apparent from the topographic map, but for the most part the site appeared relatively undisturbed. Areas where shell, ceramics and lithic debitage were visible on the surface and in cut banks along the road encouraged us to begin our project here. We began with three 1 x 2 m units in 1999. Two of the units revealed complex deposits, and each was backfilled at the end of the season and reopened in 2000 and again in 2001 before completion. Three additional units extended our sample of the site.

Artifacts were placed in bags with labels designating the provenience. The artifacts recovered were transported to a field laboratory for washing and preliminary inventory, and then to the archaeology laboratory at UWI for cataloguing and analysis. Under JNHT permit, OCR and 14C samples for dating purposes and the faunal remains were transported to Murray State University and then distributed to the appropriate analysts. All faunal remains and residual or unused portions of the dating samples were returned to UWI for long-term curation.

0-2S9-10E The first unit was excavated near the summit of the northern rise. There was little deposition of archaeological soils at this location. The unit was excavated in two levels, to an average depth of about 25 cm. The stratigraphy consisted of a shallow topsoil over limestone rubble, the latter representing the deteriorated surface of the limestone bedrock. Relatively few artifacts were found here. The excavation was completed to bedrock.

As mentioned previously, James Lee recorded the sites reported in this volume over a number of years (Allsworth-Jones 2008; Lee 1967, 1970a; field notes on

Three OCR samples were removed from a soil column in the north profile (dates are discussed in Chapter 3 and 11

THE TAÍNO SETTLEMENT AT GUAYGUATA: EXCAVATIONS IN ST. MARY PARISH, JAMAICA

Figure 2.2. Green Castle Burial 1

inhumed in a flexed position, and also exposed a pottery vessel that probably was a burial accompaniment. Figure 2.1. Green Castle site

We then expanded the east end of the unit in three sections, 30-31S9.5-10E, 29.5-30S8.5-9.5E, and 29.530S9.5-10E. The result of these extensions was to create a 1.5 x 1.5 m square that encompassed the burial pit. We excavated the extension units to the base of Level 5, which was the level at which previous stratigraphic data indicated would be the point of origin of the burial pit and/or the transition from a later to an earlier occupation zone.

summarized in Table 3.2). The dates range from AD 1571 (base) to 1942. The dates reflect deflation due to erosion, and are clearly too late. 30-31S7-10E The second unit was placed near the center of the site, on the slope of a small saddle between the northern and southern hills. The general stratigraphy was not very different from that of 0-2S9-10E, the primary zones being a topsoil overlaying limestone rubble/deteriorated bedrock. The excavation stretched over all three seasons at Green Castle, 1999-2001.

Completed excavation of the pit exposed Burial 1, an adult male, and the base of the pottery vessel (Figure 2.2). The burial pit was not a simple basin, but was excavated with a shallow niche or chamber along the eastern wall, so that the burial was placed in a sheltered position inside the niche. Burial 1 was interred in a flexed position, partly on his back but facing east, with his left hand in his lap and his right hand on his left wrist. The ceramic vessel was placed on the lower legs of the burial, in the inner recess of the niche. No other burial accompaniments were noted. Because the bones of Burial 1 were in very poor condition, we elected not to attempt to remove them. We backfilled the burial pit with clean sand in order to protect Burial 1 from further disturbance.

The unit began as a 1 x 2 m unit, 20-31S7-9E. The base of Level 4 exposed reddened bedrock across approximately the western 2/3 of the unit, with unexcavated organic midden remaining in the east end. The excavators continued removing 10 cm levels in the east. During excavation of Levels 6 and 7 it became clear that we were defining the edges and bottom of an anthropogenic feature that intruded the bedrock. We exposed a bone, thought to be human, in the northeast corner, allowing identification of the feature as a probable burial pit.

We submitted three samples from this unit for radiocarbon dating analysis (Table 3.1). One charcoal sample belongs to Level 3, and was assayed at cal AD 1223-1294. A second charcoal sample from Level 7, the base of the burial pit, was dated to cal AD 1403-1469. The third sample was a phalange from Burial 1, and was dated by AMS technique to cal AD 1286-1385. (These dates are reported here as one-sigma ranges; see Chapter

We removed OCR and soil sample columns to bedrock from the eastern profile, carefully avoiding potential in situ human remains, then extended the test unit eastward to 9.5E. We verified the presence of a human burial, 12

P. ALLSWORTH-JONES AND K.W. WESLER: EXCAVATIONS

Figure 2.3. Green Castle 30-31S7-10E profiles

Figure 2.4. Representative artifacts from Green Castle 30-31S7-10E. (1) 99.22 A27. 30-31S 7-9E. Level 1. Rim sherd plain fillet. (2) 99.25 A29. 30-31S 7-9E. Level 1. Rim sherd incised line plus open triangle. Mapped D. (3) 99.22. 30-31S 79E. Level 1. Coral rasp. (4) 99.22 A19. 30-31S 7-9E. Level 1. Rim sherd (3 pieces) incised double line plus filled triangle. (5) 99.37. 30-31S 7-9E. Level 2. Stone net sinker. Mapped M. (6) 99.29 A23. 30-31S 7-9E. Level 1 bottom. Rim sherd 3 incised broken lines plus (?) open triangle. Mapped H. (7) 99.31 A2. 30-31S 7-9E. Level 1 bottom. “Fish-tail” lug. Mapped J. (8) 99.29 A7. 30-31S 7-9E. Level 1 bottom. Rim sherd (2 pieces) carinated closed alternate oblique two plain lugs. Mapped H. (9) 99.35. 30-31S 7-9E. Level 2. Rim sherd water jar spout

Figure 2.5. Representative artifacts from Green Castle 30-31S7-10E. (1) 00.31. 30-31S 9.2-9.5E. Level 2. Shaped sandstone slab. Mapped AO. (2) 00.49. 30-31S 9.2-9.5E. Level 4. Rim sherd filled triangle. Mapped BC. (3) 00.38. 30-31S 9.29.5E. Level 2. Anthropomorphic (?) lug. Mapped AV. (4) 99.53 A12. 30-31S 7-9E. Feature 1. Rim sherd oblique incision. (5) 99.76 A5. 30.2-30.8S 9-9.2E. bottom of unit. Rim sherd perforated and impressed lug. Mapped AF. (6) 00.30. 30-31S 9.29.5E. Level 2. Shell disc. Mapped AN. (7) 00.57. 30-31S 9.29.5E. Level 6. Partially reconstructed burial pot. Mapped BE. (8) 00.36. 30-31S 9.2-9.5E. Level 2. Griddle. Mapped AT

13

THE TAÍNO SETTLEMENT AT GUAYGUATA: EXCAVATIONS IN ST. MARY PARISH, JAMAICA

Figure 2.6. Representative artifacts from Green Castle 3031S7-10E. (1) 01.18. 29.5-30S 8.5-9.5E. Level 1. Coral rasp,

Figure 2.7. Representative artifacts from Green Castle 3031S7-10E. (1) 01.7(1). 29.5-30S 8.5-9.5E. Level 2 profiles and

convex side worn. Mapped F. (2) 01.7(2). 29.5-30S 8.5-9.5E. troweling. Stone bead. (2) 01.5(1). 29.5-30S 8.5-9.5E. Level 2. Level 2 profiles and troweling. Rim sherd carinated incised line Incised shell ornament. (3) 01.5(2). 29.5-30S 8.5-9.5E. Level 2. plus variant of open triangle. (3) 01.3(1). 29.5-30S 8.5-9.5E. Incised bone, both sides. (4) 01.38. 29.5-30S 9.5-10E. Level 3. Level 1. Rim sherd (4 pieces) plain fillet open triangle. Mapped Handle affixed to body. Mapped M. (5) 01.28. 30-31S 9.5-10E. A. (4) 99.75. 30.2-30.8S 9-9.2E. Feature 3 zone 2. Ground stone Level 4. Incised lug (?) water jar. (6) 01.29. 30-31S 9.5-10E. tool fragment. Mapped AE. (5) 01.3(2). 29.5-30S 8.5-9.5E. Level Level 4. Water jar handle. Mapped K. (7) 01.48. 29.5-31S 8.51. Rim sherd incised lines plus variant of filled triangle. 10E. Level 7. Body sherd (?) modeled limb decoration. (8) 00.53. Mapped A. (6) 01.8. 29.5-30S 8.5-9E. Level 3. Rim sherd 30-31S 9.2-9.5E. Level 5. Rim sherd (5 pieces) carinated carinated incised line plus open triangle incised line plus open triangle. Mapped BD

3 for further discussion and comparison to the OCR dates.)

speculated that the tooth may have been evulsed for ceremonial purposes.

The stratigraphy of the unit is complex (Figure 2.3). The profiles indicate the presence of intrusive features other than the burial pit, resulting in substantial turbation and mixing of the deposits. The west and north profiles indicate a deep occupation zone, noted as “dark brown rocky,” that could not be distinguished in excavation but which probably was intruded by the burial pit. Without extensive additional excavation to expand the unit, we cannot characterize the “dark brown rocky” zone separately from the rest of the deposits in this area.

Artifacts from this unit are illustrated in Figures 2.4 through 2.7 and 2.8 (1-2). 58-60S5-6E The third test unit was placed on the east side of the site’s southern hill. It revealed a deep set of deposits, best visible in the south profile (Figure 2.9). As with the previous unit, this excavation was completed over three seasons. The profiles reveal a stratigraphy which may be summarized from the base as: a C-horizon, decayed limestone bedrock; Occupation 1, an organically stained soil horizon; Colluvial Zone 1, consisting of C-horizon soils brought down by natural processes from upslope (from the west); Occupation 2; Colluvial Zone 2, also deposited from soils above and to the west; and Occupation 3, the final village occupation of the site.

This test unit was rich in ceramic, shell, and animal bone. Notable finds include a sandstone net-sinker in Level 2, very similar to those described by Lee (1978a), and a human tooth in the same level. As identified by Robert Corruccini (personal communication 1999), the tooth is an adult upper central incisor with advanced wear and parallel incisions encircling the root. Corruccini 14

P. ALLSWORTH-JONES AND K.W. WESLER: EXCAVATIONS

much more compactly folded as though bound tightly. There were no burial accompaniments, although the child’s head appeared to be placed on a limestone slab and smaller pieces of limestone extended westward from the skull. This arrangement may be accidental, since the soil is quite rocky. Burial 2 is contained within Colluvial Zone 2, and probably was intrusive from Occupation 3, although no burial pit was discernable. Burial 2 was vulnerable to destruction by backfilling and its skeletal elements were in much better condition than those of Burial 1, therefore we removed Burial 2 for further analysis in the laboratory at UWI (Chapter 7). We completed an OCR column in the south profile. The initial assay indicated that Colluvial Zone 1 belonged to the period between AD 148 and 900, and Occupation 1 and the underlying C-horizon dated to approximately 180 BC (Table 3.1). Radiocarbon dates, however, disagree (Table 3.1). We submitted four charcoal samples for dating. A sample from Level 3 of the extension, recovered from beneath the foot of Burial 2, assayed at cal AD 1420-1616, supporting the inference that Burial 2 is associated with Occupation 3. A sample from Level 7 of the main unit, representing Occupation 2, dated to cal AD 12211291. Two samples from the Level 13 charcoal concentration, representing Occupation 1, dated to cal AD 1024-1209 and cal AD 1163-1277. The Occupation 1 and 2 dates are statistically the same at the 95% confidence level.

Figure 2.8. Representative artifacts from Green Castle 30-31S7-10E and 58-60S5-6E. (1) 01.37. 30-31S 9.5-10E. Level 3. Griddle fragments (2 pieces). (2) 01.31. 30-31S 9.510E. Level 4 profiles and troweling. Rim sherd carinated perforated two plain lugs. (3) 99.108 A18. 58-60S 5-6E. Level 3. Rim sherd incised line. (4) 99.108 A20. 58-60S 5-6E. Level 3. Rim sherd incised line. (5) 99.121 A38. 58-60S 5-6E. Level 3. Body sherd (?) variant of filled triangle. (6) 99.99. 58-60S 56E. Level 2. Impressed lug on boat end plain fillet. Mapped R. (7) 99.100. 58-60S 5-6E. Level 2. Rim sherd punctate fillet filled triangle. Mapped S. (8) 99.90. 58-60S 5-6E. Level 2. Rim sherd fillet with open triangle design. Mapped I. (9) 99.108. 58-60S 5-6E. Level 3. Two bone needle fragments

The radiocarbon dates indicate that Occupations 1 and 2 belong to a post- AD 1000 period. A date of 180 BC for Occupation 1, as suggested by the OCR dates, is inconsistent with the known culture sequence of the Greater Antilles (Rouse 1992), in that so early a date should be associated with a pre-ceramic horizon. Therefore we believe that the radiocarbon chronology is correct.

Dr. Simon Mitchell, UWI geologist, visited the site and inspected the profiles, and much of our understanding of the stratigraphy is interpreted from his remarks. Mitchell suggested that Colluvial Zone 1 was well-sorted, resembling a water-borne deposit, and could have been the result of a single episode such as a violent hurricane, while Colluvial Zone 2 appeared more likely the result of several depositional episodes. These appear to be landslide zones resulting from heavy rains that soaked the soils, resulting in slippage.

Occupations 1 and 2 are stratigraphically separated by the geological event that formed Colluvial Zone 1. The initial suite of OCR dates assumed a model of relatively undisturbed soil formation processes during the entire depositional sequence. Apparently the event represented by Colluvial Zone 1 violated that assumption, thereby throwing off the analysis of the OCR data (see Chapter 3 for further comment). This unit was very rich in ceramics. Notable finds included large griddle fragments, two matching fragments of an eyed bone needle (Level 3; Figure 2.8[9]), a fragment of a greenstone petaloid celt (Level 4; Figure 2.12[3]), a potsherd disc (Figure 2.11[7]), a large fragment of a ground stone artifact, possibly a ceremonial staff or monolithic axe (Level 5; Figure 2.13[1]), and two human teeth. Two eyed bone needles have previously been found at Bellevue-Mannings Hill in the Kingston area (Medhurst 1976:16, Fig. 12E). The potsherd disc and the ground stone artifact are, to our knowledge, unique in Jamaica.

Two small fragments of bone from the 1999 excavation were identified as belonging to a human infant (Allgood 2000). We located the skull of an apparent infant burial in the west profile, and placed an extension unit at 58.559.5S4.5-5E, expecting to encompass the area of the infant burial. The extension unit was excavated to Level 5, exposing Burial 2 (Figure 2.10). Burial 2 turned out to be a child of around 7 years of age. The child was oriented facing west rather than east, otherwise was buried in a flexed position similar to that of Burial 1, but

15

THE TAÍNO SETTLEMENT AT GUAYGUATA: EXCAVATIONS IN ST. MARY PARISH, JAMAICA

Figure 2.9. Green Castle 58-60S5-6E profiles

One human tooth, from Level 2, was a probable deciduous canine from a child of about 5 years old. The root was fairly intact and indicated that the tooth probably was lost post-mortem rather than shed for the permanent successor. The second, from Level 4, was a maxillary central incisor with slanting wear and marked shovel shaping. The amount of wear indicated an individual 5-10 years younger than the person who lost the tooth from 3031S9-10E, above (Corruccini pers. comm. 1999).

Additional units We excavated three additional units in order to extend the spatial sample into the west side of the site (Figure 2.1). Unit 42-43S18-20W was a very shallow deposit, with bedrock at the base of Level 1. The soils were not very productive of artifacts, although we did recover a spoolshaped stone bead and a ball clay pipe stem. The ball clay pipe stem is a historic artifact, probably belonging to the eighteenth-century plantation occupation of Green Castle Estate.

Artifacts from this unit are pictured in Figures 2.8(3-9) and 2.11-2.14.

16

P. ALLSWORTH-JONES AND K.W. WESLER: EXCAVATIONS

Figure 2.10. Green Castle Burial 2

Figure 2.12. Representative artifacts from Green Castle 58-60S5-6E. (1) 99.146. 58-60S 5-6E. Level 4 profiles and

Figure 2.11. Representative artifacts from Green Castle 58-60S5-6E. (1) 99.116. 58-60S 5-6E. Level 3. Fragmentary

stone axe (?) with depression at centre. Mapped AG. (2) 99.122. troweling. Coral (?) grinding stone/axe fragment. (2) 99.132. 5858-60S 5-6E. Level 3. Rim sherd shallow bowl double serrated 60S 5-6E. Level 4. Conch shell scoop. Mapped AT. (3) 99.143. edge. Mapped AM. (3) 99.136 A8. 58-60S 5-6E. Level 4. Rim 58-60S 5-6E. Level 4. Stone petaloid celt fragment. Mapped BE. sherd carinated atypical fillet with punctations open triangle. (4) 99.147(2). 58-60S 5-6E. Level 4. Rim sherd punctate fillet Mapped AX. (4) 99.127 A32. 58-60S 5-6E. Level 4. Rim sherd oblique (?) grooved decoration. (5) 99.155 A25. 58-60S 5-6E. atypical fillet with punctations. (5) 99.127(1). 58-60S 5-6E. Final profiles. Rim sherd (?) impressed fillet filled triangle. (6) Level 4. Rim sherd shallow bowl single serrated edge. (6) 99.131 00.73. 58-60S 5-6E. Level 7. Body sherd two plain lugs. Mapped A33. 58-60S 5-6E. Level 4. Rim sherd punctate fillet filled BO. (7) 00.127. 60-60.2S 5.5-5.65E. Level 5. Stone mini-celt. triangle. Mapped AS. (7) 99.127 A1. 58-60S 5-6E. Mapped CH. (8) 99.133 and 99.139. 58-60S 5-6E. Level 4. Rim Level 4. Ceramic disc sherd (2 pieces) carinated punctate plus filled triangle. Mapped AU and BA. (9) 99.150. 58-60S 5-6E. Level 5. Griddle rim fragment with punctate decoration. Mapped BG

17

THE TAÍNO SETTLEMENT AT GUAYGUATA: EXCAVATIONS IN ST. MARY PARISH, JAMAICA

Figure 2.14. Representative artifacts from Green Castle 58-60S5-6E. (1) 01.60. 58-59.5S 5-6E. Level 10. Boat end

Figure 2.13. Representative artifacts from Green Castle 58-60S5-6E. (1) 99.153 A4. 58-60S 5-6E. Level 5. Shaped

perforated handle with one or two lugs. Mapped CJ. (2) 01.89. 58-59.5S 5-6E. Level 12. Boat end perforated handle and four lugs. Mapped CU. (3) 00.88. 58-60S 5-6E. Level 8. Shaped sandstone fragment. Mapped CA. (4) 00.86. 58-60S 5-6E. Level 8. Plain restricted simple rim. Mapped BY. (5) 00.90. 58-60S 56E. Level 8. Plain restricted simple rim from (?) boat shaped vessel. Mapped CC. (6) 00.69. 58-60S 5-6E. Level 6N. Shaped sandstone fragment. Mapped BN

stone fragment. Mapped BJ. (2) 01.107(2). 58.5-59.5S 4.5-5E. Level 4. Rim sherd punctate with open triangle. (3) 01.107(1). 58.5-59.5S 4.5-5E. Level 4. Rim sherd serrated beveled edge internal fillet. (4) 01.99. 58.5-59.5S 4.5-5E. Level 3. Rim sherd carinated filled triangle. (5) 00.80. 58-60S 5-6E. Level 7. Cut conch shell. (6) 01.101. 58.5-59.5S 4.5-5E. Level 3. Stone net sinker. Mapped CX

The stratigraphy of the second deep unit, 30-31S9-10E, was obscured by features, a burial pit, and a lack of landslide zones that separated the occupations.

Unit 40-41S40-42W found deposits only slightly deeper than the previous unit, encountering bedrock in Level 2. The soils were relatively unproductive of cultural materials.

In 58-50S5-6E, radiocarbon dates indicate that Occupation 1 belongs to the period AD 1075-1250 (rounded). Occupation 1 was followed, perhaps interrupted, by a geological event, possibly a landslide, represented by Colluvial Zone 1. Relatively soon thereafter, the site was reoccupied in Occupation 2, between AD 1120-1300. Colluvial Zone 2, probably in the later 1300s, may represent a geological proxy for a series of storms or other events which caused disturbance. The final occupation, Occupation 3, dates to the period AD 1400-1550, during which time Burial 2 was interred.

Unit 30-31S30-32W yielded a similar deposit. However, the number of cultural materials, including potsherds and faunal remains, was greater than in the two previous west-side units. Notable finds include a section of a quartz biface and several beads. Because of the shallow nature of the soils in the west side tests, we did not take OCR samples from any of them. Representative artifacts are presented in Figure 2.15 (16). Summary

It is clear from excavations in 1999, 2000 and 2001 that the Green Castle site contains complex and wellpreserved deposits. It is difficult to be certain why the deposits on the east side are so much more productive than those on the west side. It appears that the geological processes that formed the colluvial zones in 58-60S5-6E

The excavators completed six units, some with extensions, at the Green Castle site between 1999 and 2001. Four units reached bedrock at shallow levels, while two revealed deep and complex deposits. The southern unit, 58-50S5-6E, yielded the clearer stratigraphic profile. 18

P. ALLSWORTH-JONES AND K.W. WESLER: EXCAVATIONS

activities may well have affected the archaeological deposits. We took this situation into account in choosing our excavation areas. We appreciate the efforts of several Green Castle Estate employees who cleared the small growth (but left numerous shade trees) in the area we selected for our work. Because of the likely size of the site, as recorded by Lee, and the extensive vegetation cover, we were unable to complete a topographic map of Coleraine as we did elsewhere in the Annotto Bay area, and instead we used Lee’s topographical sketch (in field notes on file at the Moulton Barrett Archaeology Laboratory, UWI) as our base map (Figure 2.16). We chose two locations for testing, designated areas A and B, based on the apparent presence of midden areas in slope exposures and banks along the estate road. We chose an arbitrary location for the grid datum (0N0E) for each area, which we marked with a temporary flag, and designated a point on a limestone boulder in Area A to serve as an elevation datum (assigned elevation 100.0 m). For each area, we surveyed a grid oriented to cardinal points, placing survey pins on grid nodes on a 10 m interval to guide placement of excavation units. We chose to excavate 1 x 1 m test units in order to sample as many areas of the site as possible in a short amount of time. Initially, we placed five units in Area A in locations chosen to represent major topographic zones of the site, and one in Area B in order to enlarge our sample to a second area. Three units in Area A, and the unit in Area B, were extended for recovery of additional samples or exploration of stratigraphic contexts.

Figure 2.15. Representative artifacts from Green Castle additional test trenches and from Coleraine. (1) GC 00.144. 30-31S 31-32W. Level 2. Rim sherd carinated punctate and open alternate oblique. (2) GC 00.143. 30-31S 31-32W. Level 1. Conch shell celt. Mapped E. (3) GC 00.130. 42-43S 18-20W. Level 1. Stone bead. Mapped A. (4) GC 00.128. 29-30S 9-9.5E. surface. Pot leg. (5) GC 00.102. 58-60S 5-6E. Level 7. Rim sherd with plain lug. Mapped CFa. (6) GC 00.93. 58-60S 5-6E. Level 9. Rim sherd with plain lug. (7) Col FS# 03.6. 5-6S 67W. Level 1. Shark vertebra bead. (8) Col FS# 03.42. 6-7S 78W. Level 1. Shark vertebra bead. (9) Col 03.101. 9-10S 0-1E. Area B Level 1. Half of shell disc. (10) Col 03.95. 20-21S 1415W. Level 2. Carved stone corner and leg/support. Mapped B

Area A 10-12S17-18E This unit was placed in the midst of the large level area on the east (lower) side of Area A. The excavation began with the 1 x 1 m unit 11-12S17-18E. The stratigraphy (Figure 2.17). showed a shallow, relatively sterile topsoil overlying an equally shallow midden zone. In the southern 2/3 of the unit, the midden rested directly on sterile marl. In the north, however, a reddish clayey zone interposed between the midden and marl. The base of the reddish zone appeared to be somewhat curved or basinshaped, and to have a basal lining of limestone chunks. On the chance that this zone represented a cultural feature, we extended the excavation one meter north. Only a single potsherd occurred within the reddish clay deposit. We believe that this is a natural deposit that filled a depression or gully, during a period in which people were present on the site (accounting for the single sherd), and not a cultural feature.

favored burial of earlier deposits on the east side of the hill, to the advantage of the archaeologist. We note that the recovery of two burials, one adult and one infant, and their exact recording in the field, is a significant contribution to the bioarchaeology of the Jamaican Taíno. COLERAINE EXCAVATIONS, 2003 James Lee recorded the Coleraine site in 1970 (Lee 1970a). He revisited it in 1984 when it was being cleared to plant coconuts. He reported that “luckily, very little damage was done to the midden deposits, and coconut trees on 25 foot spacing will cause minimal long term damage to the site” (Lee 1984). Prior to the arrival of the joint UWI-MSU team, no further archaeological work had been conducted here (Allsworth-Jones 2008:178180). It nonetheless appeared very likely that, apart from the recent planting of coconuts, early historic agricultural

We submitted charcoal recovered from Level 2 of this excavation for radiometric dating (Table 3.1). The result, 160 ± 70 BP, cal AD 1659-1950 at 1σ (with five intercepts of the calibration curve, ranging from AD 1679 to 1947), is too late to represent a Taíno occupation, and probably reflects historic burning for agricultural clearing.

19

THE TAÍNO SETTLEMENT AT GUAYGUATA: EXCAVATIONS IN ST. MARY PARISH, JAMAICA

Figure 2.16. Coleraine site

Because Level 2 yielded charcoal and no sign of historic contamination, we submitted a sample for radiocarbon dating (Table 3.1). The assay returned as 310 ± 60 BP, cal AD 1485 (1531, 1545, 1635) 1652 at 1σ. Although the earlier intercepts (AD 1531 and 1545) are not entirely out of the question for a terminal Taíno occupation, we do not feel that the date reflects the fully prehistoric nature of the assemblage recovered (and we note that the upper limit of the 2σ date calibration range is AD 1945).

15-16S5-6W This unit was placed on the next higher terrace. The deposit contained sparse cultural materials with no visible stratification above the marl (Figure 2.18). A fragment of glass in Level 1 indicated modern agricultural activity. However, Level 2 yielded sherds, chert, faunal remains and a cut conch, indicating some Taíno cultural activity in the locality.

20

P. ALLSWORTH-JONES AND K.W. WESLER: EXCAVATIONS

Figure 2.17. Coleraine 10-12S17-18E profiles

This sample probably is contaminated by charcoal from agricultural burning in the historic period.

roots, probably from historic clearing, and thus we did not submit a sample for 14C dating.

20-21S13-14W

6-8S7-8W and 4.5-6S6-7W

We placed this unit on the upper terrace of Area A. Here, a somewhat sparse midden overlay marl at a shallow level. Barbed wire at the surface and a fragment of glass in Level 1 indicated recent agricultural activity. Abundant charcoal in Level 2 appeared to represent burned tree

This area contained a rich and relatively undisturbed Taíno midden with cultural materials extending nearly to 50 cm below surface at our deepest sounding. The testing here began with a 1 x 1 m unit, 7-8S7-8W (Figure 2.19). We extended this unit 1 m north, opened a second unit at

21

THE TAÍNO SETTLEMENT AT GUAYGUATA: EXCAVATIONS IN ST. MARY PARISH, JAMAICA

Figure 2.18. Coleraine 15-16S5-6W profiles

Figure 2.19. Coleraine 7-8S7-8W profiles 22

P. ALLSWORTH-JONES AND K.W. WESLER: EXCAVATIONS

Figure 2.20. Coleraine 5-6S6-7W profiles

Figure 2.21. Coleraine 4.5-5S6-7W profiles

forms throughout the midden argues against a long period of deposition.

5-6S6-7W (Figure 2.20), and extended the latter 0.5 m north (Figure 2.21), in order to obtain a thorough sample of the midden.

Fragments of human remains from a minimum of two individuals, one adult and one juvenile, occurred in three units, mostly in 5-6S6-7W (Carlson 2004). While single teeth, such as those recovered at Green Castle, may be lost in the course of normal aging and day-to-day incidents, the Coleraine specimens include cranial and post-cranial skeletal fragments and appear to represent burials probably disturbed by agricultural practice.

Among abundant sherds, chert, faunal remains, and shell, we recovered several unusual objects in this midden, including a ground stone bi-pointed chisel, a large conch shell hook, and a conch shell celt. Level 2 (approx. 10-20 cm below surface) contained a number of chert cores suggesting a lithic workshop area. A distinct transitional deposit below the midden and above the marl contained a very different assemblage, including ceramics and the unusual artifacts noted above. Further analysis of these materials may, therefore, suggest a cultural stratification, although the consistency of ceramic decorations and

We submitted two samples from the northernmost extension unit, 4.5-5S6-7W, for radiocarbon dating (Table 3.1). The first sample, from Level 3, returned a 23

THE TAÍNO SETTLEMENT AT GUAYGUATA: EXCAVATIONS IN ST. MARY PARISH, JAMAICA

Figure 2.22. Coleraine 8.5-10S0-1E profiles

farm road. We established a south and an east-west baseline from an arbitrary datum point in the roadway, and surveyed a local elevation datum relative to the original datum in Area A.

date of 120 ± 60 BP, cal AD 1673-1952 at 1σ (with 7 intercepts ranging from 1673 to 1949). Like the previous two dates, this one is too late for a Taíno occupation, and probably indicates a contaminating effect of historic agricultural clearing.

8.5-10S0-1E The second sample submitted for dating was recovered from Level 5 of 4.5-5S6-7W, the basal/transitional zone that was visibly distinct from the upper midden. The sample yielded a 14C date of 790 ± 70 BP, cal AD 1191 (1259) 1284 at 1σ. This is a very reasonable date, and may be taken as a base date for Area A, although the upper midden overlies the deposit represented by this sample and therefore may be slightly later.

We placed an initial 1 x 1 m unit in approximately the center of Area B, in a locality that seemed slightly less sloping than elsewhere. Unit 9-10S0-1E revealed a shallow midden-like zone overlaying marl (Figure 2.22). Cultural materials were fairly sparse, and given the slope, it seems likely that this deposit is an example of “overbank” deposition—that is, people throwing their refuse down the hill, combined with some materials being washed down by erosional forces—rather than a primary midden.

Area B In order to expand our representation of this very large site, we established Area B northeast and slightly upslope from Area A, in the bend of the hairpin curve in the

However, among a small number of sherds, chert, shell and faunal remains, the crew recovered a shell bead and a

24

P. ALLSWORTH-JONES AND K.W. WESLER: EXCAVATIONS

Figure 2.24. Representative artifacts from Coleraine. (1)

Figure 2.23. Representative artifacts from Coleraine.

03.66. 5-6S 6-7W. Level 4. Rim sherd punctate fillet (?) open (1) 03.26. 7-8S 7-8W. Level 1. Conch shell cut point. Mapped A. triangle. (2) 03.81. 4.5-5S 6-7W. Level 4. Rim sherd punctate (2) 03.36. 7-8S 7-8W. Level 2. Rim sherd (2 pieces) beveled edge fillet (?) open triangle. Mapped E. (3) 03.89. 4.5-5S 6-7W. Level shallow bowl. Mapped J. (3) 03.53. 6-7S 7-8W. Level 3 profiles 5 profiles and troweling. Rim sherd beveled edge shallow bowl. and troweling. Conch shell cut point. (4) 03.47. 6-7S 7-8W. Level Mapped K. (4) 03.74. 5-6S 6-7W. Level 4. Shell hook. Mapped 2. Rim sherd carinated open triangle. (5) 03.35. 7-8S 7-8W. Level N. (5) 03.72. 5-6S 6-7W. Level 4. Bi-pointed chisel. Mapped L. 2. Rim sherd punctate and open triangle. Mapped I. (6) 03.38. 7(6) 03.83. 4.5-5S 6-7W. Level 5. Conch shell celt. Mapped F 8S 7-8W. Level 2 profiles and troweling. Stone bead. (7) 03.59. 5-6S 6-7W. Level 2. Rim sherd punctate and open triangle. (8) 03.64(1). 5-6S 6-7W. Level 3. Rim sherd punctate fillet. (9) 03.47(2). 6-7S 7-8W. Level 2. Incised shell ornament. (10) 03.64(2). 5-6S 6-7W. Level 3. Zoomorphic lug/effigy. (11) 03.57. 5-6S 6-7W. Level 1. Body sherd (?) filled triangle

fact that three of the dates appear to have been contaminated by historic and recent charcoal. It is possible that certain larger fragments of faunal remains may be suitable for AMS dating, but at this time, additional funds for dating are not available.

fragment of a shell disk. Therefore we extended the unit 0.5 m north, to obtain an additional sample. The extension yielded a second shell bead. Charcoal was too meager to submit for radiocarbon dating. Summary

NEWRY EXCAVATIONS, 2002

Our excavations at Coleraine tested two areas of the prehistoric village. Area A yielded an artifact sample that compared well with those of Green Castle and Newry. The assemblage from Area B was too small a sample to characterize with confidence, but in the absence of contrary data, we have no reason to suggest that Area B was not approximately contemporary with Area A. Representative artifacts from the Coleraine excavations appear in Figures 2.15 (7-10) and 2.23-2.25.

James Lee recorded the Newry site in 1985 (Lee 1985a). Prior to the arrival of the joint UWI-MSU team, no further archaeological work had been conducted here (Allsworth-Jones 2008:183-184). At some time in the fairly recent past, part of the locality was impacted by the excavation of a marl pit, which forms the effective western boundary of the extant site. Previously, we were told by Green Castle Estate personnel, the site was planted in bananas, but currently the land cover is trees and thorny brush. We appreciate the work of several Green Castle Estate employees who cleared the small

We were disappointed in the amount of charcoal suitable for 14C dating from most of the test units, and with the 25

THE TAÍNO SETTLEMENT AT GUAYGUATA: EXCAVATIONS IN ST. MARY PARISH, JAMAICA

growth (but left numerous shade trees) to facilitate our excavations. We chose to excavate 1 x 1 m test units in order to sample as many areas of the site as possible in a short amount of time. We placed eight units (Figure 2.26) in locations chosen to represent major topographic zones of the site, and some also on the advice of Mr. Edward Reynolds, assistant manager of Green Castle Estate, who had observed the excavation of the marl pit and recalled some areas with a significant non-marl overburden. Three test units investigated the margins of the site. Units 7-8S57-58E, 43-44S8-9E (Figure 2.27), and 7-8N28-29E each encountered bedrock or marl at the base of Level 1. In particular, we chose the location of 7-8S57-58E to investigate a local high spot in the surface, to find out whether it and other high points noted by Lee in 1985 were house sites or middens. It appears that these topographic features are natural features of the bedrock, with no especial accumulations of midden. Unit 0-1N9-10W tested deposits at the crest of the hill, and also found sterile marl at the base of Level 1. None of these units produced many cultural materials. A test at 0-1S39-40E (Figure 2.28) was located at roughly the middle of the extant site area, below a limestone outcrop marking a local terrace. This unit revealed a deposit of approximately 15 cm depth of colluvial topsoil, with charcoal flecks and terrestrial gastropod shells, underlain by a midden of 10-12 cm depth. The

Figure 2.25. Representative artifacts from Coleraine. (1) 03.69. 5-6S 6-7W. Level 4. Rim sherd plain fillet. Mapped I. (2) 03.20. 15-16S 5-6W. Level 2. Conch shell with cut-off lip. Mapped F. (3) 03.67. 5-6S 6-7W. Level 4. Griddle (3 pieces). Mapped G. (4) 03.15. 15-16S 5-6W. Level 1. Sandstone slab with striations on both sides. Mapped B

Figure 2.26. Newry site

26

P. ALLSWORTH-JONES AND K.W. WESLER: EXCAVATIONS

Figure 2.27. Newry 43-44S8-9E profile

Figure 2.28. Newry 0-1S39-40E profiles

location on the north side of the hill, pointed us to this area with the suggestion that it would have the deepest deposits. He was correct.

lower deposit produced a small collection of ceramics, lithics, faunal remains and shell. The charcoal belonging to the colluvial topsoil probably resulted from historic burning for clearing the hilltop for plantation agriculture, and was not submitted for radiocarbon dating.

Unit 13-14S6-7E (Figure 2.29) penetrated nearly a meter of deposits before revealing culturally sterile marl. This deposit exhibits a stratigraphy of six soil zones above the marl and was very productive of prehistoric artifacts. The soil zones in the middle of the sequence exhibit noticeable slopes downward towards the south, and probably indicate some colluvial deposition incorporated

We placed our final three units along the southeast flank of the site, on a local terrace below the hill summit. Mr. Edward Reynolds of the Green Castle Estate, who had seen ground disturbance at an analogous topographic 27

THE TAÍNO SETTLEMENT AT GUAYGUATA: EXCAVATIONS IN ST. MARY PARISH, JAMAICA

Figure 2.29. Newry 13-14S6-7E profiles

within their matrices. We submitted two radiocarbon samples from this unit (Table 3.1). A sample from Level 4 returned a date of AD 1070-1260, while one from Level 6 was dated to AD 981-1034 (both dates reported as calibrated 1 ranges).

above the rockfall zone, returned a date of AD 10191162. A Level 8 sample, from below the rock zone, was too small for conventional dating and was processed as an AMS assay. This sample was dated at AD 981-1022 (both dates reported as calibrated 1 ranges). The dates would seem to place the rockfall event in the early AD 1000s.

Unit 9-10S1-2W (Figure 2.30), west of the unit just described, encountered marl at more than a meter below surface. The stratigraphy of this unit is dominated by midden soils intermingled with limestone rock, including one zone with large and abundant limestone rubble that probably was the result of a rockfall or landslide from farther up the hill. Midden occurs above and beneath the rockfall. The middle levels of this unit were quite productive of cultural materials.

We located the final unit toward the east end of the same terrace as the previous two, at 17-18S12-13E (Figure 2.31). We recovered numerous sherds, lithics, shells and faunal material from the upper zone, but then encountered a more marly, less culturally productive zone at 12-15 cm below surface. Sterile marl occurs by 40 cm below surface. The profile at the northwest corner shows a dip in the upper, topsoil/midden zone that may indicate a pit feature of some kind, which we were unable to investigate further due to lack of time.

We submitted two charcoal samples from this unit for radiocarbon dating (Table 3.1). Level 4, stratigraphically 28

P. ALLSWORTH-JONES AND K.W. WESLER: EXCAVATIONS

Figure 2.30. Newry 9-10S1-2W profiles

Figure 2.31. Newry 17-18S12-13E profiles

29

THE TAÍNO SETTLEMENT AT GUAYGUATA: EXCAVATIONS IN ST. MARY PARISH, JAMAICA

Figure 2.32. Representative artifacts from Newry.

Figure 2.33. Representative artifacts from Newry.

(1) 02.60. 9-10S 1-2W. Level 4. Rim sherd with double lug, a (1) 02.09(1). 13-14S 6-7E. Level 1. Rim sherd punctate fillet plus non-perforated handle. Mapped K. (2) 02.57. 9-10S 1-2W. Level incision. (2) 02.09(2). 13-14S 6-7E. Level 1. Rim sherd punctate 4. Body sherd with incised lug. Mapped H. (3) 02.62. 9-10S 1fillet plus incision. (3) 02.12. 13-14S 6-7E. Level 2. Rim sherd 2W. Level 4 profiles and troweling. Rim sherd perforated lug. open triangle incised design on top. (4) 02.14. 13-14S 6-7E. Mapped M. (4) 02.71. 9-10S 1-2W. Level 7. Conch shell scoop. Level 2. Rim sherd carinated open triangle. Mapped B. (5) 02.29. Mapped P. (5) 02.74. 9-10S 1-2W. Level 8. Rim sherd with 13-14S 6-7E. Level 5. Anthropomorphic lug. Mapped K. perforated handle and one lug. Mapped R. (6) 02.75. 9-10S 1(6) 02.26. 13-14S 6-7E. Level 4. Conch shell scoop. Mapped J. 2W. Level 8 profiles and troweling. Rim sherd with double lug, (7) 02.37. 13-14S 6-7E. final profiles. Rim sherd zoomorphic lug. a non-perforated handle. Mapped S. (7) 02.93. 17-18S12-13E. (8) 02.18. 13-14S 6-7E. Level 3. Body sherd impressed lugs. Level 3. Squared edge sandstone slab. Mapped F. (8) 02.88. Mapped D. (9) 02.48. 9-10S 1-2W. Level 2. Rim sherd vertical 17-18S12-13E. Level 2. Staghorn coral incised lug. Mapped E. (10) 02.43(2). 9-10S 1-2W. Level 1. Rim sherd plain fillet. (11) 02.43(1). 9-10S 1-2W. Level 1. Oliva shell pierced pendant

The four radiocarbon dates suggest an occupation period of about two to two and a half centuries, perhaps about AD 1000-1250 (rounding). These dates indicate that Newry’s occupation began earlier than that of Green Castle.

Summary We are intrigued by the very different stratigraphies of the three most productive units, placed at a linear distance of only 15 m along the same topographic terrace. It is interesting that at both Green Castle and Newry there is a zone of deep deposits, enhanced by colluvial processes, along one side of a hill crest. At Green Castle, we hypothesized that the Taíno preferred a view of the sea, but the location of the deep deposits at Newry does not bear out that idea. The site formation processes of Jamaican Taíno sites are a subject needing intensive further investigation in a geoarchaeological perspective.

WENTWORTH EXCAVATION 2002 Previous work at the Wentworth site includes mapping by James Lee (1966, 1967), surface collection by the landowner Mr. Errol Henry, and a project reported by Basil Reid (n.d., 1990; cf. Allsworth-Jones 2008:176178). Mr. Henry’s land adjoins the well-known “Firefly” estate (which belonged to the late Noel Coward) on the north-east. It is clear from Lee’s account and his sketch map (on file at the Moulton Barrett Archaeology Laboratory, UWI) that this was a very large site, and it

We are impressed with the number of shell tools and ornaments (conch scoops and tool fragments, oliva pendants/beads). Representative artifacts from Newry are presented in Figures 2.32-2.33.

30

P. ALLSWORTH-JONES AND K.W. WESLER: EXCAVATIONS

Figure 2.34. Wentworth site

was evidently a significant one. The centre of the site seems to have been at the top of the hill where Noel Coward’s house stands, so Mr. Henry’s land occupies no more than a small part of it.

limited excavations were intended to do this, as well as to provide some basis of comparison of this large and important site to the main focus of our work, in the Annotto Bay area.

Reid excavated four 4 x 2 m trenches, designated Trenches 1 through 4, on Mr. Henry’s land. All were excavated to “natural level,” which we take to mean bedrock in this case. Reid did not backfill, and two units, his Trenches 1 and 4, are still visible as depressions in the surface of the site. Reid reported bedrock at between 25 and 30 cm depth in the two trenches. His report contains no drawings of plans or profiles, nor any detailed summary of artifacts recovered. The current location of the collection is unknown and therefore no re-analysis was possible.

On arriving at the site, we found that a concrete survey marker had been emplaced, which we adopted both as grid datum (0N0E) and elevation datum (assigned elevation 100.0 m). We surveyed a grid oriented to cardinal points, flagging grid nodes on a 5 m interval. Team members read elevations at each grid node in order to prepare a contour map of the study area of the site (Figure 2.34). We designated Reid’s two visible trenches the East trench (Reid’s Trench 1) and West trench (Reid’s Trench 4), and focused on the East trench as it appeared to be the deeper. We established a 3 x 4 m unit that encompassed the depression, and cleared the surface materials from the East 1/2. The former excavation walls sloped at nearly a 45o angle, so that new excavation would be required to allow inspection of a vertical soil profile. We excavated a 15 cm Level 1 along the east profile, intending to continue with a Level 2 of similar depth in order to create a vertical profile.

Reid’s report states that he recovered a “vast quantity of ceramics” which included both White Marl and Little River (redware) sherds. He did not suggest a stratigraphic succession between the two ceramic cultures. He remarked on the potential importance of finding “two different Arawak cultural strains” on the same site, and concluded by recommending additional excavations “to confirm or disprove this assertion” (Reid n.d.:6). Our

31

THE TAÍNO SETTLEMENT AT GUAYGUATA: EXCAVATIONS IN ST. MARY PARISH, JAMAICA

Figure 2.35. Wentworth Northeast Corner profiles

Level 1 appeared to be undisturbed archaeological soil, except for a small amount of surficial materials along the slope of the old profile. Due to the slow progress of screening, we restricted Level 2 to the Northeast Corner of the east trench, a unit 1 m (N-S) by 80 cm (E-W). We continued this unit through Level 3, encountering an irregular floor of limestone bedrock at up to 60 cm below surface. Time limitations precluded further work, and we replaced the screened soil in the unit before closing the project. The profiles of the Northeast Corner revealed three soil units: a topsoil, a midden, and a decayed reddish bedrock zone at the base (Figure 2.35). There is no indication of a differentiated cultural stratigraphy. Incised decoration and filleted rims occurred from top to bottom. The presence of two incised sherds and two filleted rims in Level 3, the base of the deposit, and the complete lack of any sign of red slip on any sherd contradict Reid’s assertion that both redware and White Marl style ceramics were mixed at this site. There were sherds with reddish paste, but this attribute does not define redware. There is no sign of multiple occupations in our sample. We submitted a sample of charcoal from Level 3 for radiocarbon dating. The result, 680±60 BP (Beta167740), yields calibrated date ranges of cal AD 12711316 (p = .58) and 1354-1389 (p = .42) at 1σ. This portion of the Wentworth site probably was occupied mainly in the late thirteenth and fourteenth centuries AD, clearly within the White Marl period.

Figure 2.36. Representative artifacts from Wentworth. (1) 02.21. surface. Rim sherd carinated punctate plus variant of open triangle. (2) 02.02. east trench east wall. Level 1. Rim sherd plain fillet. (3) 02.21. surface. Rim sherd carinated incised plus filled triangle. (4) 02.01. east trench east half. surface. Stone bead. (5) 02.08. east trench north east corner. Level 2. Rim sherd plain fillet. (6) 02.13(1). east trench north east corner. Level 3. Rim sherd plain fillet. (7) 02.18. east trench north east corner. Level 3. Sandstone pestle damaged. Mapped L. (8) 02.13(2). east trench north east corner. Level 3. Ceramic disc broken. (9) 02.13(3). east trench north east corner. Level 3. Body sherd incised

Representative artifacts from Wentworth are presented in Figure 2.36.

32

P. ALLSWORTH-JONES AND K.W. WESLER: EXCAVATIONS

extending the record of burials in middens as opposed to caves (Allsworth-Jones 2008:124-127). The clear cultural strata at Green Castle will help to delineate temporal patterns in ceramics (Chapter 4).

Summary In the brief period available for this excavation, we were able to complete one test unit to bedrock, thereby providing a record of the soil profile in this section of the site. We recovered systematic samples of ceramics, lithics, shells, and faunal remains, small samples of charcoal, several grinding stones and a stone bead. The cultural materials appear to be entirely consistent with a White Marl period occupation.

Each of the Annotto Bay sites received several test excavations. These were placed judgementally rather than by a statistical sampling scheme, in locations where the excavators thought that there would be significant deposits. The results show that archaeological deposits are quite variable within sites, ranging from very shallow soils directly above limestone bedrock to fairly deep deposits with well-preserved middens. In two cases, Green Castle and Newry, zones of limestone rubble interrupted the cultural sequence, indicating that the soils were subject to slippage when saturated (a known hazard of Jamaican detritus soils; Maharaj 1992). At Green Castle and Newry those deposits were found on the south/southeast slopes, which perhaps is the slope most vulnerable to hurricane battering given the prevailing wind and storm track patterns of the Caribbean. We were not able to find a similar deposit at Coleraine, but other areas of the site (especially south/southeast aspects, which we did not investigate) may contain such soils. The formation processes of these hilltop village sites are therefore complex, and further work with a geoarchaeological perspective is recommended.

It is interesting to note that the Spanish town or district of Melilla appears to have been in the vicinity of Port Maria (Yates and Thompson 1959-1960). Columbus’s officer, Diego Mendez, mentioned “an important cacique named Huareo, in a place now called Melilla” (Morison 1963:392). The radiocarbon date does not suggest that the midden we tested was occupied as late as the time of Spanish arrival. However, our test represents only the northeastern periphery of a very large and undoubtedly complex site, and the radiocarbon date should not be taken to preclude a later occupation elsewhere at Wentworth. GENERAL SUMMARY Over the course of five summers and one spring break, this project investigated four sites. Three overlooked Annotto Bay, being Green Castle, Newry and Coleraine, and the fourth (Wentworth) stood above Port Maria. Excavation methods emphasized control of vertical as well as horizontal proveniences, so that we could record stratigraphy, maintain contextual associations among artifact assemblages and radiocarbon dating samples, and not incidentally train more than 40 students in excavation techniques.

The hilltop locations of each site fit well with the pattern Robert Howard (1950, 1956, 1965) noted. There is a further pattern in the Annotto Bay sites. In each case, the site occupies an upper hilltop, behind (from a seaside view) and separated by a saddle from a lower summit. The significance of this pattern is not clear. The depths of midden, at least in some areas of each site, and the spatial extents of the villages suggest substantial populations living in each place for some time. The Annotto Bay sites are within sight of each other. If the sites were occupied simultaneously, the three groups of villagers must have maintained close relationships and interacted frequently. Any of the villages, or all three, could have been the Guayguata of the Spanish (see Chapter 1). Radiocarbon dates, as reported in the next chapter, will address this question.

As detailed in the following chapters, each site produced rich artifact assemblages, including ceramics, lithics, faunal remains, and mollusks. The amount of limestone rubble in the soils made screening a very slow process, but the numbers and variety of items recovered justified the time expenditure. Varied decorative items and tools made of stone, bone and shell highlight the artifact collections. Green Castle yielded two burials, further

33

THE TAÍNO SETTLEMENT AT GUAYGUATA: EXCAVATIONS IN ST. MARY PARISH, JAMAICA

Appendix: MUNSELL SOIL COLOR CHART READINGS

the stratigraphic interpretation.

Munsell readings were taken at the end of each excavation, as the final profiles were recorded, while the field descriptions (as presented in the profile drawings above) were applied as the excavation proceeded. They were convenient shorthands, and differ from the Munsell standard. Therefore, a correlation between the two sets of descriptions is needed, as presented in Table 2.1. As far as possible the stratigraphic units are given in depth order, and for ease of reference each has here been allocated an ID number. Features as well as layers are included. Table 2.1 is solely concerned with Munsell soil color equivalents for units recognized in the field, and reference should be made to

drawings

for

all

questions

Details are given separately for each site and for each trench within each site. The description of each stratigraphic unit as given in the field at the time, and as presented in the profile drawings above, is followed by its Munsell soil color chart reading. Green Castle was excavated over three seasons (from 1999 to 2001) and where necessary an indication has been given as to which year is being referred to in relation to any particular unit. All the other sites were dug in one season, so this issue does not arise.

Table 2.1 Munsell Soil Color Chart readings correlated with field descriptions Unit number

Field description

of

Munsell reading Green Castle 0-2S 9-10E (1999)

1

topsoil

7.5 YR 4/2 dark brown

2

limestone rubble

7.5 YR 3/2 dark brown

1

topsoil

5 YR 3/2 dark reddish brown

2

medium brown with shell (1999)

7.5 YR 3/2 dark brown

3

red-stained rubble (1999)

5 YR 4/6 yellowish red; mottled 7.5 YR 8/6 reddish yellow

4

red-stained; ashy (intrusion) (1999)

5 YR 4/6 yellowish red; with 5 YR 8/1 and 2.5/1 white and black

30-31S 7-9E (and extensions)

5

greyish brown with shell (2000)

7.5 YR 4/4 brown

6

grey ashy (2000)

10 YR 6/2 light brownish grey

7

reddish gravelly with stones (2000)

5 YR 5/6 yellowish red

8

medium brown (2000)

5 YR 4/4 reddish brown

9

brown (intrusion) (2001)

5 YR 3/2 and 3/4 dark reddish-brown

10

grey (2001)

7.5 YR 6/3 light brown

11

light brown-grey with limestone (2001)

7.5 YR 4/4 dark brown

12

light brown with charcoal (2001)

5 YR 4/3 reddish brown

13

light tan gravelly (2001)

2.5 YR 4/6 red

14

dark red gravelly (2001)

2.5 YR 3/4 dark reddish brown

15

light red rubble (2001)

5 YR 6/6 reddish yellow

16

dark brown rocky (2001)

5 YR 3/2 dark reddish brown

34

P. ALLSWORTH-JONES AND K.W. WESLER: EXCAVATIONS

Unit number

Field description

Munsell reading 58-60S 5-6E

1

topsoil

5 YR 3/2 dark reddish brown

2

medium brown with shell (1999)

5 YR 3/1 very dark grey

3

yellow/orange gravel (lens) (1999)

10 YR 6/4 light yellowish brown

4

grey ash (lens) (1999)

10 YR 4/2 dark greyish brown

5

reddish/brown/grey/rocky (1999)

7.5 YR 3/3 dark brown

6

tan rocky/gravelly (2000)

7.5 YR 5/4 brown

7

reddish gravelly/rocky (2000)

7.5 YR 4/4 brown

8

fine grey ash (2000)

7.5 YR 6/3 light brown

9

bedrock-like/decayed limestone (2000)

10 YR 6/3 pale brown; 7.5 YR 5/6 strong brown

10

dark brown (2000)

7.5 YR 3/3 dark brown

11

reddish gravelly (2000)

5 YR 5/6 yellowish red

12

loose reddish rubble (2000)

13

very dark brown (2001)

5 YR 3/4 dark reddish brown

14

dark reddish rocky (2001)

2.5 YR 5/8 and 6/8 red and light red Newry 43-44S 8-9E

1

medium dark brown loamy

5 YR 3/2 dark reddish brown

2

reddish with limestone

2.5 YR 4/8 red

3

limestone

7.5 YR 6/6 reddish yellow 0-1S 39-40E

1

medium brown loamy

7.5 YR 3/2 dark brown

2

medium brown with limestone

7.5 YR 4/3 dark brown

3

transition to yellow marl

10 YR 4/2 dark greyish brown

4

marl

10 YR 7/4 and 6/8 very pale brown and brownish yellow

1

medium brown loamy

5YR 3/2 dark reddish brown

2

light brown

10 YR 5/4 yellowish brown

3

medium light brown

7.5 YR 3/3 dark brown

4

medium brown with shell

7.5 YR 3/2 dark brown

5

medium light brown with shell

10 YR 6/6 brownish yellow

6

medium dark brown with limestone

5 YR 3/4 dark reddish brown

7

red-brown rocky

7.5 YR 5/8 strong brown

8

light tan friable

10 YR 7/6 yellow

1

topsoil

5 YR 3/2 dark reddish brown

2

dark brown midden with shell

7.5 YR 4/2 dark brown

3

rubble with loose earth

7.5 YR 5/4 brown

4

dark brown gritty with shell

5 YR 3/2 dark reddish brown

5

marl

7.5 YR 6/8 reddish yellow

1

medium brown topsoil

5 YR 3/2 dark reddish brown

2

yellow tan mottled

10 YR 6/6 brownish yellow

3

light brown

10 YR 5/3 brown

4

yellow tan marl

13-14S 6-7E

9-10S 1-2W

17-18S 12-13E

10 YR 7/6 yellow Wentworth East Trench

1

medium brown with shell

7.5 YR 3/2 dark brown

2

grey brown

7.5 YR 3/3 dark brown

3

red

7.5 YR 4/6 red

35

THE TAÍNO SETTLEMENT AT GUAYGUATA: EXCAVATIONS IN ST. MARY PARISH, JAMAICA

Unit number

Field description

Munsell reading Coleraine Area A 10-12S 17-18E

1

topsoil

7.5 YR 3/2 dark brown

2

midden

7.5 YR 3/3 dark brown

3

reddish stained clay/marl

5 YR 4/3 reddish brown

4

yellow marl

7.5 YR 5/6 strong brown 15-16S 5-6W

1

brownish grey clayey

7.5 YR 4/3 dark brown

2

mottled yellow marl

10 YR 6/6 brownish yellow

1

dark black crumbly

2

yellowish mottled marl

6-8S 7-8W 5 YR 3/2 dark reddish brown 10 YR 6/6 brownish yellow 4.5-6S 6-7W 1

black crumbly midden

7.5 YR 3/2 dark brown; 5 YR 3/2 dark reddish brown

2

transitional marly

7.5 YR 4/4 dark brown

3

mottled yellowish marl

10 YR 4/4 dark yellowish brown

4

marl

10 YR 7/6 yellow Area B 8.5-10S 0-1E

1

medium brown

10 YR 4/4 dark yellowish brown

2

marl

10 YR 6/6 brownish yellow

36

Chapter 3. CHRONOLOGY KIT W. WESLER

Chapter 2, here they will be compiled and synthesized. They are presented in Table 3.1 and their distribution is shown graphically in Figure 3.1. All dates reported here were calibrated using CALIB rev. 5.0.1 (Stuiver and Reimer 1993) and are discussed as 1σ ranges. Averages and T-tests are calculated with CALIB as well.

RADIOCARBON DATES This project generated 18 radiocarbon dates, almost as many as had been previously recorded for Jamaica (Allsworth-Jones 2008). Although the dates have been discussed briefly as pertaining to each site and context in Table 3.1. 14C dates from all sites site

Green Castle

Wentworth

Newry

Coleraine

Lab #

context

context 2

BP

±

Cal AD 1σ range*

Cal AD 2σ range *

1σ median

Beta-158967

29.5-31S7-10E

Level 3

750

60

1218-1291

1160-1316

1254.5

Beta-158968

29.5-31S7-10E

Level 7

480

80

1319-1492

1298-1528

1405.5

Beta-158969

29.5-31S7-10E

Bu. 1 phalange

660

40

1283-1387

1274-1397

1335

Beta-134379

58-60S5-6E

Level 2

330

60

1492-1637

1446-1661

1564.5

Beta-158966

58-60S5-6E

Level 3

430

80

1415-1623

1393-1646

1519

Beta-158963

58-60S5-6E

Level 7

760

60

1215-1288

1155-1316

1217.5

Beta-158964

58-60S5-6E

Level 13

920

60

1036-1163

1015-1226

1099.5

Beta-158965

58-60S5-6E

Level 13

820

60

1167-1266

1146-1283

1216.5

Beta-167740

E. trench NE corner

Level 3

680

60

1271-1389

1251-1405

1330

Beta-170433

13-14S6-7E

Level 4

850

60

1154-1259

1040-1271

1206.5

Beta-170434

13-14S6-7E

Level 6

1020

60

967-1122

894-1157

1044.5

Beta-170435

9-10S1-2W

Level 4

950

60

1025-1155

991-1213

1090

Beta-170436

9-10S1-2W

Level 8

1040

40

971-1026

893-1043

998.5

Beta-182412

4.5-5S6-7W

Level 5

790

70

1178-1280

1118-1302

1229

Beta-134378

29.5-31S7-10E

Level 2

70

50

1695-1918

1681-1938

1806.5

Beta-182409

10-11S17-18E

Level 2

160

70

1666-1952

1650-1953

1809

Beta-182410

15-16S5-6W

Level 2

310

60

1495-1646

1448-1668

1570.5

Beta-182411

4.5-5S6-7W

Level 3

120

60

1682-1935

1668-1948

1808.5

excluded: Green Castle Coleraine

Averages

N=

GC late

3

396

41

1443-1617

1433-1633

1530**

Wentworth

1

680

60

1271-1389

1251-1405

1330

Coleraine

1

790

70

1178-1280

1118-1302

1229

GC early

4

812

30

1214-1260

1172-1270

1237

Newry

4

983

26

1017-1120

994-1153

1068.5

* Calibrated with CALIB rev. 5.0.1 (2005). Ranges with p < .15 not included unless they fall between ranges with p > .15 ** cal AD 1443-1514, p = .84, median 1478.5; cal AD 1600-1617, p = .16

37

THE TAÍNO SETTLEMENT AT GUAYGUATA: EXCAVATIONS IN ST. MARY PARISH, JAMAICA

Figure 3.1. Distribution of radiocarbon dates from St. Mary parish Taíno sites

The crews recovered nine samples from Green Castle which yielded radiocarbon dates. One, Beta-134378, assayed as late enough potentially to be contaminated with modern charcoal (and too late to be reasonably associated with a Taíno occupation), and will not be discussed further.

dated at cal AD 1218-1291 (Beta-158967). This date compares well with the Early Green Castle dates in 5860S5-6E. It is likely, then, that the area of 29-5-31S7-10E contains deposits belonging to both the Early and Late Green Castle occupations represented by 58-60S5-6E, although they could not be separated stratigraphically.

The stratigraphy of the deepest unit, 58-60S5-6E, indicated three midden strata with colluvial zones, probably related to land slippage, separating them. The dates for the uppermost midden are cal AD 1492-1637 (Beta 134379) and cal AD 1415-1623 (Beta-158966), very comparable dates. The middle midden produced a date appropriately older: cal AD 1215-1288 (Beta158963). Two dates from the deepest midden were yet older, at cal AD 1036-1163 and 1167-1266 (Beta-158964 and 158965, respectively). The second of the latter dates is quite comparable to the middle midden date, and it appears that the deepest and middle midden strata are very closely related in time. For further discussion, they will be combined as Early Green Castle, on the assumption that the intervening colluvial event did not cause a lengthy abandonment of the site. The upper midden, then, will be designated Late Green Castle.

The three Late Green Castle dates (excluding the phalange date) are statistically the same at 95% probability (T = 2.49, Xi2 = 5.99) and average 396±41 BP, cal AD 1443-1514 (p = .84). The four Early Green Castle dates are statistically the same at 95% probability (T = 5.076, Xi2 =7.81), and average 812±30, cal AD 1214-1260 (p = 1.00). In sum, the Green Castle site can be seen as having two occupations, one in the thirteenth century, the other in the fifteenth century AD.

Although the stratigraphy from the other unit at Green Castle which identified substantial midden, 29-5-31S710E, was much less clear, the radiocarbon dates the unit produced were essentially comparable. The date from Level 7, the base of the burial pit, was cal AD 1319-1492 (Beta-158968). The date range on the human phalange, cal AD 1283-1387, overlaps considerably with the Level 7 date. Since the excavators neglected to take into account a diet possibly heavy in marine resources, and therefore did not request a 13C correction, the “true” date would probably be slightly later. Thus, Burial 1 can be assigned to Late Green Castle.

Four charcoal samples from Newry were submitted for radiocarbon dating, two each from the two tests with substantial middens. The depths of the deposits in the two test units were similar, and especially the deeper dates were remarkably similar. The date from the upper half of the midden in 13-14S6-7E assayed at cal AD 1154-1259 (Beta-170433), and the shallower sample from 9-10S12W was dated to cal AD 1025-1155 (Beta-107435). The deeper dates were cal AD 967-1122 (Beta-170434, 1314S6-7E) and cal AD 971-1026 (Beta-170436, 9-10S12W). Although both units exhibit signs of colluvial episodes in their stratigraphy, there is no reason to think there was a major gap in the site’s occupations, and the four dates may be considered as a suite. The four are statistically the same at 95% confidence (T = 7.627, Xi2 = 7.81). They average 983±26 BP, cal AD 1017-1120 (p = .93). The Newry occupation may be placed primarily in the eleventh century AD.

Level 3 in this unit produced a sample (from an area not directly above, therefore not disturbed by, the burial pit)

Four samples from the Coleraine site also were submitted for radiocarbon dating. Unfortunately three resulted in

38

K.W. WESLER: CHRONOLOGY

Figure 3.2. Averaged dates from St. Mary Taíno sites and components

site (Wesler 2001) was to correctly identify a stratum that had been displaced by the excavation of a prehistoric house, only to be buried by a subsequent midden. Frink deemed the accuracy of the method to be ± 3% at any measurable time depth, unlike the uncertainty factor of radiocarbon dating which tends to increase with time.

dates considered too late and historically contaminated. Only one, at cal AD 1178-1280, appears to be reliable. This sample was recovered from a stratigraphically distinct soil at the base of the midden, and the overlying midden may be assumed to post-date the sample. Coleraine’s principal occupation may belong to the thirteenth or conceivably the fourteenth century AD.

The project took OCR samples only from the Green Castle site. At the end of each 1 x 2 m unit excavated in the first two seasons (that is, the first three units excavated), the crew established a 20 x 20 cm extension. Samples generally of 1-2 cm thickness (variable due to the rubbly nature of the soil) were placed directly into collection bags, only large chunks of limestone being removed. The excavator measured the elevation at the top and bottom of each sample for vertical control. Samples were taken at regular intervals (subject to the soil rockiness) where stratigraphy was not visible, but the interval was varied somewhat where visible stratigraphy suggested that strata should be distinguished with corresponding samples. The samples were submitted to Douglas Frink of OCR Carbon Dating, Inc., for analysis.

Finally, the Wentworth excavation produced only one date, cal AD 1271-1389 (Beta-167740). Although geographically separate from the Annotto Bay sites and therefore not directly involved in the settlement-pattern problem discussed in Chapter 1, it is close enough that assemblage comparisons will be useful, particularly for subsistence studies (Chapters 6, 8) and ceramic sequencing. Indeed, taking the average dates where there are several from a component, the sites form a convincing series of occupations (Figure 3.2). OXIDIZABLE CARBON RATIO DATES The project also took samples for 25 Oxidizable Carbon Ratio (OCR) dates (Frink 1992, 1994, 1995), with the hopes of introducing a promising new dating technique to Jamaican archaeology. Wesler (2001) had found good correspondence between OCR and 14C dates at Wickliffe and also in a historic site in Ste. Genevieve, Missouri (Wesler et al. 1999). Unfortunately, as will be discussed below, the attempt was not successful.

Table 3.2 presents the OCR dates from the series of samples at Green Castle. The crew removed the first set of samples from the shallow 0-2S9-10E unit. Not surprisingly, they suggest a late historic deposit. A column of 9 samples represents unit 29.5-31S7-10E, specifically taken from 30-30.2S 9-9.2E, the east profile of the first season’s unit. The series presents a descending set of dates as expected, from a historic date (AD 1727) to AD 725 at the base. The basal date was calculated from a sample recovered in marl, the breakdown zone of the weathered limestone bedrock. Although the sequence of dates relates depth to age well, the deep dates clearly predate the early occupation as estimated by the radiocarbon method.

Douglas Frink (1992, 1994, 1995) introduced the Oxidizable Carbon Ratio method as an alternative to 14C dating. To simplify greatly, OCR dates are based on the concept that organic carbons in soil degrade at a linear rate (as distinct from the asymptotic decay rate of radiocarbon). Thus, by measuring the soil carbon from a vertical series of samples in a naturally-developing soil, the assayer should be able to calculate the rate of decay for the locality and a date for each sample. Disturbances in the natural stratigraphy will interrupt or redistribute soils, and one of the apparent successes at the Wickliffe

The third unit sampled for OCR dating was the deepest and depositionally most complex, 58-60S5-6E (the column was carved from the south profile at 60-60.2S5.8-

39

THE TAÍNO SETTLEMENT AT GUAYGUATA: EXCAVATIONS IN ST. MARY PARISH, JAMAICA

Table 3.2. Green Castle site, OCR dates sample 0-2S9-10E 1 GC-1 2 GC-2 3 GC-3

ACT# elevation Surface at AE 101.08 cm 4084 AE 101.07-101.06 4085 AE 101.00-100.98 4086 AE 100.955-100.915

depth

submitted AD ( 3% of date BP)

1-2 8-10 12.5-16.5

1999 1999 1999

1942 1900 1864

30-30.2S 9-9.2E 1 GC-4 2 GC-5 3 GC-6 4 GC-7 5 GC-8 6 GC-13 7 GC-14 8 GC-15 9 GC-16

Surface at AE 100.165 cm 4089 AE 100.11-100.08 4094 AE 100.01-100.00 4095 AE 99.94-99.93 4090 AE 99.84-99.82 4091 AE 99.77-99.75 4835 AE 99.675-99.665 4836 AE 99.565-99.55 4837 AE 99.495-99.485 4838 AE 99.39-99.37

5.5-8.5 15.5-16.5 22.5-23.5 32.5-34.5 39.5-41.5 49-50 60-61.5 67-68 77.5-79.5

1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 2000 2000 2000 2000

1727 1502 1433 1416 1395 1095 1072 901 725

60-60.2S5.8-6E 1 GC-9 2 GC-10 3 GC-11 4 GC-12 5 GC-17 6 GC-18 7 GC-19 8 GC-20 9 GC-21 10 GC-22 11 GC-23 12 GC-24 13 GC-25

Surface at AE 101.46 cm 4092 AE 101.435-101.425 4093 AE 101.355-101.345 4096 AE 101.30-101.285 4097 AE 101.12-101.11 4839 AE 100.975-100.96 4840 AE 100.87-100.86 4841 AE 100.745-100.725 4842 AE 100.655-100.625 4843 AE 100.505-100.49 5423 AE 100.35-100.28 5424 AE 100.15-100.08 5425 AE 100.06-99.99 5426 AE 99.99-99.91

2.5-3.5 10.5-11.5 16-17.5 34-35 48.5-50 59-60 71.5-73.5 80.5-83.5 95.5-97 111-118 131-138 140-147 147-155

1999 1999 1999 1999 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2001 2001 2001 2001

1915 1738 1465 1366 1367 1364 1067 903 591 148 - 179 - 179 - 181

Stratigraphy topsoil/occupation zone Occupation 3 ____________________________ colluvial, probably several events Colluvial 2 ________________ ash zone Occupation 2_______________ Colluvial 1, probably single event (displaced C horizon from upslope) Occupation 1_______________ C horizon— partly decomposed bedrock

It must be noted that the accuracy of the OCR dating method as such has been called into question (Killick, Jull and Burr 1999). Although Frink (1999) published a response to the critique, in 2005 he stopped accepting samples for dating, and as of now has not resumed (Frink 2005). Whether the OCR method will be widely accepted in the future, given soils that meet the criteria processes of pedogenesis, remains to be seen. The excavators accept the radiocarbon chronology for the Green Castle site.

6E). Thirteen samples provided dates from AD 1915 near the surface to 181 BC at the base. When the radiocarbon dates (discussed above) arrived, it became clear that there was a major discrepancy between the two sets of dates. Analysis of the artifacts, particularly the ceramics (Chapter 4), places the Early Green Castle occupation typologically well within the accepted parameters for White Marl period assemblages. This is entirely consistent with the radiocarbon chronology for the site, but certainly not with the apparent picture provided by the OCR dates.

SUMMARY The suite of OCR dates assumed a model of relatively undisturbed soil formation processes during the entire depositional sequence. Apparently the events represented by colluvial zones separating the middens violated that assumption, thereby throwing off the analysis of the OCR data. Frink (personal communication 2001) suggested that sampling with finer resolution and better understanding of the pedogenic processes at the 58-60S56E location would enhance the accuracy of modeling of the OCR data and likely would resolve the apparent discrepancies between the OCR and 14C dates. Unfortunately we were not able to conduct the resampling project, so that the OCR analysis must be considered incomplete.

The radiocarbon chronology for the four sites places them squarely within the accepted span of the White Marl period in Jamaica. The White Marl dates, as summarized by Allsworth-Jones (2008:99), range from cal AD 8591038 to 1393-1525. Other dates from White Marl period sites fall between cal AD 975-1275 and 1397-1470 (Allsworth-Jones 2008:99). The St. Mary dates described above fall between cal AD 963-1118 (Newry) and 14881603 (Green Castle), quite comparable overall to the White marl time span. In fact, the St. Mary sites form a chronological sequence (Figure 3.2). Newry evidently was occupied earliest, 40

K.W. WESLER: CHRONOLOGY

followed by the early occupation at Green Castle. The position of Coleraine, unfortunately, is a bit ambiguous because the single date was recovered from the stratigraphically distinct basal deposits: the Coleraine date appears nearly contemporaneous with Early Green Castle, but the bulk of the midden may be later. The Wentworth date fits nicely between the two occupations at Green Castle.

We draw two preliminary conclusions from the radiocarbon chronology: first, that the data do not support the idea that all three Annotto Bay sites could have been occupied contemporaneously; and second, that only the Late Green Castle occupation may be recent enough for the inhabitants to have encountered Spanish explorers or settlers. We, however, did not find any archaeological evidence for such an encounter.

41

Chapter 4. CERAMICS KIT W. WESLER

Taíno village sites in Jamaica are marked by ceramics. Sherds are abundant and nearly indestructible. Archaeological surveyors look for sherds and shells to identify Taíno sites, and especially the former, because concentrations of shells occur naturally.

exterior appliqué strip) appeared to increase in frequency with time. He also suggested that decoration in general occurred more frequently later than earlier, because at the White Marl site (which yielded the deepest midden) the earliest levels did not contain decorated sherds.

As elsewhere, the profusion and variety of Caribbean ceramics inform an archaeological chronology. Chapter 1 presented a brief overview of the ceramics of the periods relevant to Jamaican prehistory. As presented in Chapter 3, the St. Mary sites reported in this volume belong to the period post- AD 900, the White Marl period. Little River period “redwares,” the Jamaican variant of Rouse’s (1964, 1990) Ostionan Ostionoid ceramic subseries, did not occur in our samples. As of now, Chican subseries ceramics have not been reported from Jamaica, and Rouse’s (1964, 1990) description of the Meillacan Ostionoid subseries best fits the ceramics of the White Marl period. This chapter will focus on White Marl ceramics and the St. Mary assemblages.

Vanderwal also noted differences between the ceramics of the north coast and the south coast as typified by the White Marl site. This observation led him to define a regional Fairfield complex in the area of Montego Bay. The Fairfield complex was characterized by wide fillets which bear most of the decoration (Vanderwal 1967). A recent re-study of the ceramics from the Fairfield and Hartfield sites (Allsworth-Jones, Bogle-Douglas and Wesler 2007) generally supported the distinctiveness of the Fairfield style. The sites now are thought to stretch in an arc along the western coasts from Windsor to Fort Charles (Allsworth-Jones 2008:89). Keegan et al. (2003:1609; cf. Keegan 2002) refer to “White Marl/Montego Bay styles” ceramics at Paradise Park, Westmoreland parish, but until the data are fully published it is impossible to assess this assemblage.

Howard (1950; cf. Allsworth-Jones 2008:12) related Jamaican pottery to the Meillacan subseries. Vanderwal (1967) followed Howard’s (1950, 1956, 1965) work with additional excavations. He was interested in creating a ceramic sequence based on seriation, with a “working typology and chronological ordering of ceramic types” (Vanderwal 1967:2). As he noted, such a typology is sherd-oriented, rather than based on whole vessels, in part because whole vessels are rare. Vanderwal (1967) defined seven rim attributes, nine attributes involving incised decoration, a dozen attributes related to affixation of elements, and another five miscellaneous decorative attributes. He found some patterns, both chronological and spatial. His first seriation was based on surface collected assemblages, but he attempted to control the temporal dimensions with reliance on some stratigraphic excavations.

Although the principal conclusions of Vanderwal’s work (increasing frequency of filleted rims and lack of decoration early in the White Marl period) have utility, the application lacked chronological rigor. Vanderwal’s data were derived mainly from surface collections and a few excavated middens, not all of which were independently dated. In the circumstances fine chronological control was difficult to achieve. Also, he concentrated only on decorated and rim sherds, and left out the bulk of his collections, which were made up of undecorated (plain) body sherds. In principle, chronological trends should be unaffected, but analyses that incorporate plain sherds usually provide a larger sample size within which the variation in relatively infrequent decorative and form attributes may be controlled more explicitly.

As with most such attempts to create typology, he found that many of the attributes either were not sensitive to chronology or occurred too infrequently to create patterns. Vanderwal achieved success with a couple of basic observations. First, filleted rims (rims with an

The St. Mary assemblages fall into the general Meillacan and White Marl categories. The radiocarbon chronology, as presented in Chapter 3, indicates a well-defined sequence of middens from about AD 900 to AD 1500. Using these units should provide a basic temporal control

42

K.W. WESLER: CERAMICS

2.5[4], 2.6[2, 3, 5, 6], 2.7[8], 2.8[5], 2.11[3], 2.13[2, 4], 2.15[1], 2.23[4, 5, 7, 11], 2.24[1, 2], 2.33[1], 2.37[1]), other incising (mostly sherds with too little incising to identify a motif, such as Figure 2.4[6]), and other.

that will allow an assessment of stylistic trends in ceramic characteristics. For this analysis, the ceramics were sorted in several categories: sherd form, decoration, rim form, and rim decoration. These categories are the same as those used for the analysis of the Hartfield and Fairfield assemblages (Allsworth-Jones, Bogle-Douglas and Wesler 2007) for convenience of comparison. Full data are tabulated in Appendices 4.1 through 4.4. 1. Sherd forms (Appendix 4.1) include body, rim, shoulder (body sherds with carination angles present; cf. Figures 2.4[8], 2.5[7], 2.6[2], 2.7[8], 2.8[2], 2.11[3], 2.13[4], 2.15[1], 2.33[4], 2.37[1, 3]), base (flat body sherds), lugs (when separate from body sherds), boat rims (the spouted or pointed ends of boat-shaped vessels, cf. Figures 2.8[16], 2.14[1,2]), and other. Handles (Figure 2.7[1, 2]) separated from body sherds are combined with lugs due to small sample size. Some handle and lug forms are modeled as effigies (Figures 2.4[7], 2.5[3], 2.14[1, 2], 2.23[10], 2.33[7]), while other effigies are appliqué forms (Figure 2.7[7]) and not listed separately from their form category (e.g. body sherd).

Figure 4.1. Rim forms

3. Rim forms (Appendix 4.3) were given numbers and defined according to the shape of the cross section (Figure 4.1): Rim 1 had a flat lip, Rim 2 a rounded or pointed lip, Rim 3 a corner (pointed at one edge of the lip, usually the exterior, and rounded on the other), Rim 4 filleted (Figures 2.4[1], 2.13[3], 2.23[8], 2.24[1, 2], 2.33[1, 2, 5, 6], 2.37[2]), Rim 5 a slight exterior flare, Rim 6 a flat-topped flare associated with a shallow vessel form, and Rim 7 a pointed lip with a grooved interior. Rims 1-3 really are just variations of each other, and probably could be merged for analytical purposes. It is worth noting that Type 7 was defined for the analysis of the Fairfield complex (Allsworth-Jones, Bogle-Douglas and Wesler 2007), and did not occur in the St. Mary sites.

2. Sherd decorations (Appendix 4.2) include primarily incised lines on the body of the vessel, consistent with the Meillacan and White Marl definitions. The categories tabulated here included plain, filled triangle (equivalent to Vanderwal’s [1968] closed alternate-oblique incising; Figures 2.4[8], 2.5[2], 2.8[7], 2.11[6], 2.12[5, 8], 2.37[3]0), open triangle (equivalent to Vanderwal’s [1968] open alternate-oblique incising; Figures 2.4[2, 4],

Figure 4.2. Design fields and rim decorative types

43

THE TAÍNO SETTLEMENT AT GUAYGUATA: EXCAVATIONS IN ST. MARY PARISH, JAMAICA

Table 4.1. Summary of sherd forms Unit

body

rim

shoulder

58-60S5-6E L. 1-6

798

136

60

58-60S5-6E L. 7-15

456

66

20

30-31S7-9E L. 1-2

1215

165

75

30-31S7-9E L. 3-7

737

116

21

29

3

1

base

lug

boat rim

total

3

2

999

1

2

545

1

1465

Green Castle

0-2S9-10E 42-43S18-20W

9 1

7

882 33

6

6

40-41S40-42W

11

1

30-31S30-32W

177

29

4

3429

516

181

5

16

5

GC total

12 210 4152

Coleraine 15-16S5-6W

21

1

3

0

0

0

25

10-12S17-18E

188

15

14

0

2

0

219

20-21S14-15W

45

2

1

0

0

0

48

7-8S7-8W

316

43

23

0

4

0

386

6-7S7-8W

386

47

16

0

3

0

452

5-6S6-7W

494

75

24

0

6

2

601

4.5-5S6-7W

220

24

19

0

1

0

264

B 8.5-10S0-1E

32

7

1

0

1

0

41

Coleraine total

1702

214

101

0

17

2

2036

0-1S39-40E

76

7

4

7-8S57-58E

19

7

26

43-44S8-9E

18

7

25

7-8N28-29E

9

Newry

0-1N9-10E

1

9

6

1

13-14S6-7E

488

66

22

9

9-10S1-2W

564

96

6

4

17-18S12-13E Newry total

88

7 585 3

673

138

18

11

1

1318

202

43

15

3

1581

168

621

73

29

1

4

0

728

7070

1004

354

6

52

10

8302

Wentworth Wentworth total Total

filled and open triangle of the body decorations (Figures 2.8[8], 2.33[3]), some had small projections (nodes) spaced along the exterior, and there was a final category of hatched rims, those bearing parallel diagonal incised lines.

4. Rim decorations (Appendix 4.4) included incising which was on the fillet or which formed a separate design field from the body decoration (usually within 2 cm of the lip; Figure 4.2). The single line (Figures 2.4[2], 2.8[3, 4]), double line (Figures 2.4[4], 2.37[3]), and dashed line categories refer to incising parallel to the rim. Punctates also formed lines parallel to the rim, in either single (Figures 2.13[2], 2.15[1], 2.23[5]) or multiple rows (usually two; included in “two” if more than two; Figures 2.4[6], 2.8[7], 2.11[3, 4, 5], 2.12[4, 5, 8], 2.37[1], 2.24[1, 2]). Notched rims included indentations at regular intervals on the exterior, crossing the lip (Figure 2.13[3]), or matching exterior and interior notches (listed as “two notch”). Some rims had incised triangles similar to the

In the following tables and figures, excavation units have been summarized except where previous discussions of stratigraphy have suggested subdivision (that is, Early and Late Green Castle from the two trenches with substantial middens; in the case of 30-31S7-9E, it is clear that the upper excavation levels belong to Late Green Castle, but the lower levels are mixed due to the burial pit). In the figures, the sites have been placed in the order

44

K.W. WESLER: CERAMICS

Figure 4.3. Sherd forms in chronological order Table 4.2. Summary of sherd decorations Unit

plain

filled triangle

open triangle

other inc

0ther

total

Green Castle 58-60S5-6E L. 1-6

912

58-60S5-6E L. 7-15

537

30-31S7-9E L. 1-2

1377

33

16

30-31S7-9E L. 3-7

862

1

6

0-2S9-10E

55

12

19

1

999

3

3

2

545

38

1

1465

12

1

882

32

1

33

42-43S18-20W

6

6

40-41S40-42W

12

12

30-31S30-32W GC total

192

3

3

11

1

210

3930

92

40

84

6

4152

Coleraine 15-16S5-6W 10-12S17-18E 20-21S14-15W

24 217

1

1

25

1

219 386

48

48

7-8S7-8W

378

1

2

5

6-7S7-8W

443

3

3

3

5-6S6-7W

580

8

6

5

4.5-5S6-7W

452 2

601

247

7

5

5

B 8.5-10S0-1E

39

0

0

1

1

264 41

Coleraine total

1976

20

16

21

3

2036

0-1S39-40E

86

2

7-8S57-58E

25

43-44S8-9E

23

Newry 88

1

1

26

1

25

7-8N28-29E

9

9

0-1N9-10E

7

7

13-14S6-7E

572

2

7

4

0

585

9-10S1-2W

669

0

1

2

1

673

17-18S12-13E

166

1

1

Newry total

168

1557

5

11

7

1

1581

718

2

3

5

0

728

Wentworth Wentworth total Total

suggested by the radiocarbon chronology, the relative positions of Wentworth and Coleraine being arbitrarily selected. Note that the scale changes for some of the frequency columns in the figures, so that small percentages are visible.

The patterns are best visible in the frequency graphs. First, relative frequencies of sherd forms (Table 4.1, Figure 4.3) continue fairly stable through time, suggesting that both vessel form and breakage patterns remain consistent. There is some indication that

45

THE TAÍNO SETTLEMENT AT GUAYGUATA: EXCAVATIONS IN ST. MARY PARISH, JAMAICA

Figure 4.4. Sherd decorations in chronological order

carination (shoulders) becomes more common, but not dramatically so. Base, lug, and boat spouts occur in such small proportions that their sporadic appearance in the frequency graph implies little of chronological significance.

Table 4.3. Summary of rim forms Unit\type

1

2

3

4

5

6

58-60S5-6E L. 1-6

10

54

31

34

58-60S5-6E L. 7-15

2

44

21

30-31S7-9E L. 1-2

12

73

35

37

3

30-31S7-9E L. 3-7

5

69

23

13

4

total

GREEN CASTLE

0-2S9-10E

1

5

4

67 4

2

3 0

40-41S40-42W GC total

Sherd decorations are slightly more indicative of temporal trends (Table 4.2, Figure 4.4). The filled triangle motif increases markedly in the late components, with the open triangle and other incised decorations increasing at a more modest pace. Plain sherds decrease in the late components, in complement to the incised decoration.

164 114

42-43S18-20W 30-31S30-32W

138

1 5

7

1 6

11

34 249 116

97

29 12

8

Rim forms are not dramatically patterned (Table 4.3, Figure 4.5), except that Rims 5 and 6 appear mostly to be late. Rim 2 has a general decrease in frequency with time. Rim 4, filleted rims, displays almost a classic battleship frequency pattern.

516

COLERAINE 15-16S5-6W 10-12S17-18E

1 1

3

0

1

9

2

0

15

20-21S14-15W

0

0

0

2

0

0

2

7-8S7-8W

3

8

6

24

2

1

44

6-7S7-8W

0

15

5

27

0

0

47

5-6S6-7W

2

35

9

27

2

0

75

4.5-5S6-7W

0

9

1

13

0

1

24

B 8.5-10S0-1E

0

6

1

0

0

0

7

Coleraine total

6

76

22 102

6

2

215

2

2

3

7

5

2

7

4

2

7

Rim decorations (Table 4.4, Figure 4.6) exhibit similar patterns. Plain rims decrease in the later components, although there is a hint of the battleship silhouette. Most decoration appears more frequently in the later components. In all four sets of attributes, then, there are indications of a temporal sequence. On closer inspection, the greatest flaws in the patterns appear in the Newry assemblages. Newry’s occurrences of the filled triangle decoration (Figure 4.4), the filleted Rim 4 as well as Rim 6 (Figure 4.5), and the double-line and punctate rim decorations (Figure 4.6), all seem out of step with the rest of the sequences.

NEWRY 0-1S39-40E total 7-8S57-58E L. 1 43-44S8-9E total

1

7-8N28-29E total

0

0-1N9-10E L. 1

1

1

13-14S6-7E total

15

44

0

10

0

1

70

9-10S1-2W total

5

80

2

6

0

0

93

17-18S12-13E total

0

16

0

2

0

0

18

23 151

2

26

0

1

203

Wentworth total

13

9

33

0

0

73

TOTAL

76 494 149 258

18

11

1007

Newry total

A closer look at the distribution of the sherds shows that the decorated specimens at Newry concentrate in the uppermost levels of one of the deep tests, in Levels 1 and 2 of 13-14S6-7E. What if there was a small area of later activity at Newry that this unit happened to discover? The Newry data from the two deep middens may be reorganized to test this idea. As noted in Chapter 3, the upper dates from the two middens, and the lower dates, compared well to each other, suggesting that a Late Newry and Early Newry may be distinguished (somewhat

WENTWORTH 18

46

K.W. WESLER: CERAMICS

Figure 4.5. Rim forms in chronological order

Table 4.4. Summary of rim decorations Unit

plain line

two dashed two lines lines punctates

one exterior interior cross two triangle node total punctate notch notch notch notch

GREEN CASTLE 58-60S5-6E L. 1-6

86

8

58-60S5-6E L. 7-15

65

1

30-31S7-9E L. 1-2

133

15

30-31S7-9E L. 3-7

106

6

0-2S9-10E

2

10

17

6

5

1

1

1

137

1 4

3

1

2

1

67

1

1

3

1

2

164 115

3

3

40-41S40-42W

1

1

30-31S30-32W

17

GC total

411

30

6

13

30

8

6

0

6

1

4

1

516

15-16S5-6W

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

10-12S17-18E

14

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

15

42-43S18-20W

0 11

1

29

COLERAINE

20-21S14-15W

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

7-8S7-8W

40

0

0

0

1

1

2

0

0

0

0

0

44

6-7S7-8W

46

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

47

5-6S6-7W

61

0

3

0

9

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

75

4.5-5S6-7W

21

1

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

24

B 8.5-10S0-1E

6

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

7

Coleraine total

191

1

3

0

12

2

4

0

2

0

0

0

215

NEWRY 0-1S39-40E total

7

7

7-8S57-58E L. 1

5

2

43-44S8-9E total

5

1

7 1

7

7-8N28-29E total

0

0

0-1N9-10E L. 1

1

1

13-14S6-7E total

62

6

9-10S1-2W total

87

1

17-18S12-13E total

15

1

Newry total

182

2

1

1

1

1

70

3

93

2 4

18

10

1

4

203

WENTWORTH Wentworth total

69

2

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

73

TOTAL

853

35

13

13

52

10

12

1

8

1

4

5

1007

arbitrarily, to be sure). Thus, the ceramic assemblages from 13-14S6-7E may be divided into an upper (Levels 1-2) zone, incorporating the concentration of decorated

sherds, a middle zone, Levels 3-5, incorporating the upper radiocarbon date, and an early zone, Levels 6-8, incorporating the earlier date. In similar fashion, 9-10S1-

47

THE TAÍNO SETTLEMENT AT GUAYGUATA: EXCAVATIONS IN ST. MARY PARISH, JAMAICA

Figure 4.6. Rim decorations in chronological order

Figure 4.7. Sherd forms with Newry 13-14S6-7E L.1-2 seriated

Figure 4.8. Sherd decorations with Newry 13-14S6-7E L.1-2 seriated 10S1-2W (the combination may be called middle Newry), and the two sets of lower levels should be comparable to each other as well (combined as early Newry). The resultant figures (Tables 4.5-4.8) may be added to the frequency graphs with middle and early Newry at the base of the sequence, but by visual inspection, Newry’s 13-14S6-7E Levels 1-2 fit best with Late Green Castle (Figures 4.7-4.10).

Table 4.5. Newry sherd forms in deep units Unit

body rim shoulder base lug boat rim total

13-14S6-7E L. 1-2 151 22

12

0

5

0

190

13-14S6-7E L. 3-5 212 34

8

0

4

0

258

9-10S1-2W L. 1-4 302 50

6

0

4

3

365

13-14S6-7E L. 6-8 57

5

0

0

0

0

62

9-10S1-2W L. 5-9 254 44

0

0

0

0

298

Totals

26

0

13

3

1173

976 155

The sequence of sherd forms (Table 4.5, Figure 4.7 cf. Figure 4.3) changes little. The increase of carination shoulders remains steady with time.

Table 4.6. Newry sherd decorations in deep units Unit

The sequence of sherd decorations (Table 4.6, Figure 4.6 cf. Figure 4.4) approaches elegance. Decoration is simply missing from early Newry. Filled triangle incising increases from the middle of the sequence, and open triangle incising increases from middle Newry to a peak in the late Newry level. The frequencies of other incised sherds wax gradually through the sequence beginning with middle Newry levels.

filled open other plain other total triangle triangle inc

13-14S6-7E L. 1-2 179

2

7

2

0

190

13-14S6-7E L. 3-5 243

0

0

0

0

258

9-10S1-2W L. 1-4

0

1

2

1

365

361

13-14S6-7E L. 6-8

62

0

0

0

0

62

9-10S1-2W L. 5-9

298

0

0

0

0

298

Totals

1143

2

8

4

1

1173

As with sherd forms, the overall patterns for rim forms (Table 4.7, Figure 4.9 cf. Figure 4.5) change little. In rim decorations, however, the apparent anomaly of Newry’s frequencies largely disappears (Table 4.8, Figure 4.10 cf. Figure 4.6). Incised dashed lines and triangles still mark Late Green Castle. Other decorative motifs generally become more frequent. It is possible that dashed and

2W may be divided as suggested by the radiocarbon dates, separating Levels 1-4 from Levels 5-9. The middle of 13-14S6-7E should be comparable in age to upper 9-

48

K.W. WESLER: CERAMICS

Figure 4.9. Rim forms with Newry 13-14S6-7E L.1-2 seriated Bay), and the trends noted here are consistent with Vanderwal’s (1967) data, rigorous testing of midden deposits correlated with absolute dates will be required in order to apply it to White Marl sites in general. Nonetheless, the potential for such application is there.

Table 4.7. Newry rim forms in deep units Unit\rim type

1

2

3

4

5

6

total

13-14S6-7E L. 1-2

0

14

0

9

0

0

23

13-14S6-7E L. 3-5

15

18

0

0

0

1

34

9-10S1-2W L. 1-4

5

38

0

6

0

0

49

13-14S6-7E L. 6-8

0

8

0

0

0

0

8

9-10S1-2W L. 5-9

0

40

2

0

0

0

42

Totals

21

120

5

19

5

7

156

The second conclusion is that Green Castle may not be the only one of the sites to see activity in the fifteenth century. However, the data indicating a late Newry occupation are scanty, and it would exceed the strength of the data to suggest any substantial occupation in the Late Green Castle period.

triangular incisions mark the fifteenth century, although sample sizes are small enough that these motifs may be suggested only tentatively as horizon markers. Early Newry yielded only a single notched rim.

OTHER CERAMIC ARTIFACTS Two other groups of ceramic artifacts deserve mention. Ceramic griddles (buren) are well known from Taíno sites (e.g. Rouse 1964:Figure 20c). They tend to be thick, shallow vessels with slightly raised rims, low-fired and friable (Figures 2.5[8], 2.8[1], 2.25[3]). Decorated rims occur (Figure 2.12[9]), but the specimens are too fragmentary, and decorated specimens too few, to attempt any sort of typology.

It must be emphasized that the components are placed in chronological order according to radiocarbon dates, and only the placement of a “late Newry” component represents a seriation. These data suggest two conclusions. First, White Marl period ceramics exhibit temporal trends that may be used to seriate sites and components for chronological purposes, using these sites as a pattern. Although the sequence may characterize St. Mary parish (the consistent agreement of the Wentworth assemblage argues for wider pertinence than Annotto

The project also recovered two disks made from sherds (Figures 2.11[7], 2.37[8]). Their function is not known.

Figure 4.10. Rim decorations with Newry 13-14S6-7E L.1-2 seriated Table 4.8. Newry rim decorations in deep units Unit

plain line

two dashed two one exterior lines lines punctates punctate notch

interior notch

cross notch

two triangle node notch

total

13-14S6-7E L. 1-2

18

0

0

0

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

23

13-14S6-7E L. 3-5

32

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

34

9-10S1-2W L. 1-4

44

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

49

13-14S6-7E L. 6-8

8

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

8

9-10S1-2W L. 5-9

41

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

42

Totals

143

1

1

0

6

0

1

0

0

0

0

4

156

49

THE TAÍNO SETTLEMENT AT GUAYGUATA: EXCAVATIONS IN ST. MARY PARISH, JAMAICA

Appendix 4.1. Sherd form data by unit and level Level

body

rim

shoulder

Level 1

77

11

1

Level 2

240

35

21

Level 3

161

28

9

Level 4

223

42

19

Level 5

88

17

8

base

lug

boat rim

total

Green Castle 58-60S5-6E 89 1

2

299 198

2

286 113

Level 6

9

3

2

Level 7

100

18

8

14

Level 8

215

28

11

254

Level 9

105

16

1

122

Level 10

17

2

1

127

1

Level 11

0

Level 12

8

Level 13

3

2

1

Subtotal

11 3

Level 14 Level 15

20

0 8

8

1254

202

80

4

0

4

1544

Level 1

834

115

52

6

Level 2

381

50

23

3

Level 3

276

45

7

Level 4

211

39

6

Level 5

112

17

7

136

Level 6

77

11

1

89

30-31S7-9E

Level 7

61

4

1952

281

Level 1

11

1

Level 2

15

1

profiles & troweling

3

1

29

3

subtotal

1

1007 1

2

330

4

261

1 96

1

458

16

66 1

2347

0-2S9-10E

subtotal

12 1

17 4

1

33

42-43S18-20W Level 1

6

6

40-41S40-42W Level 1

1

7

11

1

12

Level 1

26

9

2

37

Level 2

55

11

2

68

Level 2 subtotal

6 5

5

30-31S30-32W

Level 3 subtotal TOTALS

96

9

177

29

4

105

3429

516

181

210 5

16

50

5

4152

K.W. WESLER: CERAMICS

Appendix 4.2. Sherds decoration data by unit and level Level

plain

filled triangle

open triangle

other incised

other

total

Green Castle 58-60S5-6E Level 1

86

2

1

89

Level 2

276

13

4

6

299

Level 3

171

Level 4

258

15

3

9

20

4

3

Level 5

107

5

1

113 127

Level 6

14

Level 7

125

2

Level 8

249

1

Level 9

121

Level 10

20

198 1

286 14

3

1

254

1

122 20

Level 11

0

Level 12

11

11

Level 13

3

3

Level 14 Level 15 total

0 8

8

1449

55

15

22

3

1544

Level 1

949

23

10

24

1

1007

Level 2

428

10

6

14

Level 3

326

Level 4

254

Level 5

128

Level 6

88

30-31S7-9E

Level 7 total

2

1

1 4

458 1

261

4

136

1

89

66 2239

330

6

66 34

22

50

2

2347

0-2S9-10E Level 1

11

Level 2

17

17

profiles & troweling

4

4

subtotal

1

32

12

1

33

42-43S18-20W Level 1

6

6

7

7

40-41S40-42W Level 1 Level 2 subtotal

5

5

12

12

30-31S30-32W

subtotal TOTALS

Level 1

30

Level 2

60

Level 3

102

3

3 3

1

37

5

68

3

105

192

3

3

11

1

210

3930

92

40

84

6

4152

51

THE TAÍNO SETTLEMENT AT GUAYGUATA: EXCAVATIONS IN ST. MARY PARISH, JAMAICA

Appendix 4.3. Rim form data by unit and level Level

1

2

3

4

5

6

total

Level 1

4

1

2

1

3

0

11

Level 2

3

14

8

10

Level 3

2

13

4

6

Level 4

1

21

8

11

4

7

6

5

13

18

19

7

28

Level 9

15

1

16

Level 10

2

Green Castle 58-60S5-6E

Level 5 Level 6

2

Level 7 Level 8

2

35 1

2

28

2

43 17

1

3

2

Level 11

0

Level 12

3

3

Level 13

0

Level 14

0

Level 15

0

total

12

97

52

34

5

4

204

Level 1

10

51

28

20

3

2

114

Level 2

2

22

7

17

2

50

Level 3

3

25

5

8

Level 4

1

25

10

2

38

Level 5

1

10

5

1

17

8

2

1

11

30-31S7-9E

Level 6 Level 7 total

17

1

1

1

142

58

50

4

45

3 7

4

278

0-2S9-10E Level 1

1

1

Level 2

1

1

profiles & troweling

1

1

subtotal

0

1

0

2

0

0

3

42-43S18-20W Level 1

0

40-41S40-42W Level 1

1

1

Level 2

0

subtotal

1

1

30-31S30-32W Level 1

5

1

Level 2

3

Level 3

3

1 5

2

9

8

11

1

9

subtotal

5

7

6

11

0

0

29

TOTALS

34

248

116

97

12

8

515

52

K.W. WESLER: CERAMICS

Appendix 4.4. Sherd decoration data by unit and level Level

plain

line

two dashed two one exterior interior cross lines lines punctates punctate notch notch notch

two triangle node total notch

Green Castle 58-60S5-6E Level 1

9

Level 2

25

1 2

2

3

Level 3

14

5

1

2

3

Level 4

26

1

1

4

8

1

Level 5

9

2

3

3

Level 6

3

Level 7

17

1

11

2

1 2

35

1

28

2

43 17 3

1

18

Level 8

28

Level 9

15

28

Level 10

2

2

3

3

1

16

Level 11 Level 12

0

Level 13

0

Level 14

0

Level 15

0

total

151

9

2

10

17

Level 1

89

11

4

3

1

Level 2

44

4

Level 3

41

2

Level 4

38

Level 5

13

Level 6

11

6

5

0

2

1

1

0

204

3

1

114

30-31S7-9E

Level 7 total

1

1

2

50

1

1

45

1

39

4

17 11

3 239

3 21

4

3

2

2

1

0

3

0

3

1

279

0-2S9-10E Level 1

1

1

Level 2

1

1

profiles & troweling

1

1

3

3

subtotal 42-43S18-20W Level 1

0

40-41S40-42W Level 1

1

1

Level 2 subtotal

0 1

1

30-31S30-32W Level 1

5

3

Level 2

4

7

8

1

subtotal

Level 3

17

11

TOTALS

411

30

6

13

30

1

9 11 9

1 8

53

6

0

6

29 1

4

1

516

Chapter 5. LITHIC ASSEMBLAGES Philip ALLSWORTH-JONES and Anthony R.D. PORTER

contrasting use made of them by the Pre-Columbian inhabitants of Annotto Bay and Wentworth.

With rare exceptions (e.g., Roobol and Lee 1976) analysis and classification of the Pre-Columbian artifacts found in Jamaica has concentrated overwhelmingly on pottery typology and technology. But the stone artifacts, the lithics, have their own story to tell as well, and that is certainly true of the sites in St. Mary parish described here. So far as raw material is concerned, these objects can be confidently divided into two main classes: chert and what we may broadly group together as non-chert objects. Both chert and flint are varieties of quartz, and no sharp line of demarcation exists between them (Porter et al. 1982; Porter 1990). Flint usually occurs as brown, dark grey, or black nodules and is compact in structure, breaking with a prominent conchoidal fracture. Chert is usually white to yellowish brown or grey, and tends to break with a more splintery fracture. The Montpelier Formation, one of eleven in the White Limestone “supergroup”, is particularly important in this regard (Zans et al. 1962; Robinson 1994). It is a chalky facies, which outcrops widely on the north coast and contains numerous good quality chert nodules, the use of which has been noted at 11 sites in this region. It is likely that the material was collected in the form of pebbles along the rivers and beaches rather than extracted from the matrix itself (Roobol and Lee 1976). The non-chert materials by contrast mostly come from the Early Tertiary Wagwater Belt which cuts through the island in a NW-SE direction, from the area where our sites are concentrated to the south coast east of Kingston (Porter et al. 1982: Figure 8-2). This belt (fault-bounded on east and west) was filled with a complex succession of deposits: (1) coarse grained, terrestrial breccias and conglomerates, known as the Wagwater Formation, (2) extrusive volcanic flows from three centers, known as the Newcastle (Volcanic) Formation, and (3) marine sandstones and shales, known as the Richmond Formation. In some places, associated basaltic lavas and limestones have been assigned local names such as the Halberstadt Volcanics and the Halberstadt and Woodford Limestones. In the early 1970’s a team led by Gilbert Green mapped the Belt in detail (Green 1974, 1977) and there have been important later studies as well (e.g., Jackson 1987). The properties of the raw materials from the Wagwater Belt are quite different to those of chert or flint, and as we shall see this was directly reflected in the

TABULATION OF THE RESULTS In order to prevent the tabulation of the results from becoming too unwieldy, the provenance of the samples within the sites has been simplified somewhat by amalgamation. So far as Green Castle is concerned, the results for three trenches (0-2S 9-10E, 30-31S 7-9E, 5860S 5-6E) are presented separately, but those for the other trenches have been amalgamated as “minor”. Wentworth is presented as a single whole. For Newry again three trenches are presented separately (9-10S 12W, 13-14S 6-7E, 17-8S 12-13E) whereas the remaining trenches have been treated together as “minor”. The same procedure has been followed at Coleraine, where trenches 6-8S 7-8W and 4.5-6S 6-7W are recorded separately, and the others are grouped together as “minor”. The results for all the sites are summarized in Table 5.1. As can be seen here, the total number of artifacts is 4078, the corresponding site totals being as follows: Green Castle 1526, Wentworth 314, Newry 617, Coleraine 1621. Out of the total, 3798 artifacts are chert and 280 are nonchert, representing 93% and 7% respectively. These proportions are approximately the same in all the individual sites, except for Wentworth where chert constitutes 87% of the total and non-chert 13%. The chert and non-chert components are divided into somewhat different artifact categories, which is a direct reflection of the way in which these different raw materials were worked. The categories selected are shown in Table 5.2, with the percentages for each worked out separately for each component, and a graphic presentation of the results for all the sites taken together. CHERT AND NON-CHERT ARTIFACTS So far as chert is concerned, the categories are as follows: chips, tools, flakes, chunks, and cores. Broadly speaking, as Andrefsky (2005:12) points out, chipped stone artifacts can be conceptualized as being either objective pieces or

54

P. ALLSWORTH-JONES AND A.R.D. PORTER: LITHIC ASSEMBLAGES

Table 5.1. Raw materials and artifact categories at the four sites (actual figures) chert provenance

non-chert

chips tools flakes chunks cores total tools flakes chunks split cobbles cobbles total grand total

Green Castle 0-2S9-10E

20

0

31

4

0

55

0

0

0

0

0

0

55

minor

10

3

60

23

1

97

0

0

0

1

4

5

102

30-31S7-9E

62

8

428

157

14

669

12

6

2

3

24

47

716

58-60S5-6E

55

6

394

129

10

594

10

7

8

9

25

59

653

Total

147

17

913

313

25

1415

22

13

10

13

53

111

1526

5

4

154

107

3

273

2

4

27

4

4

41

314

0

1

15

33

1

50

0

0

1

0

2

3

53

9-10S1-2W

1

5

52

49

2

109

1

1

1

4

7

14

123

13-14S6-7E

31

4

155

118

1

309

2

4

0

9

4

19

328

17-18S12-13E

14

3

45

40

2

104

1

0

5

1

2

9

113

Total

46

13

267

240

6

572

4

5

7

14

15

45

617

minor

140

0

164

91

2

397

1

8

21

5

4

39

436

6-8S7-8W

92

2

258

214

4

570

0

6

13

5

4

28

598

Wentworth all Newry minor

Coleraine

4.5-6S6-7W

81

0

316

165

9

571

3

0

8

2

3

16

587

Total

313

2

738

470

15

1538

4

14

42

12

11

83

1621

ALL

511

36

2072

1130

49

3798

32

36

86

43

83

280

4078

Table 5.2. Raw materials and artifact categories at all the sites taken together (percentage occurrence) ALL

chips

tools

flakes

chunks

cores

13.45

0.95

54.56

29.75

1.29

ALL

tools

flakes

chunks

split cobbles

cobbles

11.43

12.86

30.71

15.36

29.64

they can be unambiguously classified as cores. The detached but un-retouched pieces are divided into chips and flakes, chips being arbitrarily defined as having maximum dimensions less than 1 cm. It is assumed that chips come about as a byproduct of flake removal or tool creation and that they had no use in themselves. They can be referred to as debitage. “The morphology of pieces in a debitage pile may be analogous to that of a glass shatter pile made by dropping a crate of milk bottles” (Andrefsky 2005:16). They (together with cores) are however a sure indication that the intentional working of chert did take place at these sites. That would not necessarily be a foregone conclusion, since there are certainly some sites where the lithics were all brought in readymade. This impression is strengthened by the fact that several tiny pieces of chert (/= 3 years

full grown adult

Wentworth

Green Castle

Coleraine

13.4

15.0

15.7

16.3

15.5

16.4

17.0

16.0

18.0

17.4

16.5

19.5

18.2

16.5

19.5

18.4

17.0

19.6

18.8

18.0

20.0

19.0

18.0

20.0

18.2

21.0

19.0 X=15.39

X=16.97

X =18.85

The typical mammalian age-frequency distribution is attritional, with the greatest numbers in a population being juveniles and decreasing successively through adulthood (Wilkins 2001). In this site, the Taíno appear to have been selecting for adults that provided a higher meat yield. This pattern is not replicated at Wentworth or Green Castle. From the mandible data, none of these harvested animals were full grown adults, the oldest were 2 year old sub-adults. The average age of the Green Castle and Wentworth sample is approximately 13 months old. Wilkins concludes in her study that the optimal time to harvest hutia is between 8 and 12 months of age, at which point they provide the most meat within the smallest amount of time. The hutias harvested from Wentworth and Green Castle are slightly older than this prediction with harvesting occurring in all but one case after the individual has reached reproductive age (1 year).

This is after an eradication program that has destroyed tens of thousands of animals. In the wilds of Jamaica, the estimated carrying capacity of hutia is nine individuals per hectare (Wilkins 2001). Today the Jamaican hutias are confined to the John Crow Mountain region in the Portland Parish of northeast Jamaica, the Hellshire Hills on the south central coast, and the St. Catherine Parish in central Jamaica. They were a very widespread species on Jamaica until recently and have been identified in nearly all zooarchaeological samples to date. An individual adult hutia weighs approximately four pounds, of which 70% is usable meat. This rough estimate can be fine-tuned by measuring the length of complete mandible or maxillary tooth rows (MTR), and converting that measurement allometrically into an individual age. Wilkins (2001) found that the MTR measurement corresponded well to age. These correlations are provided in Table 7.3. Full adults of at least three years of age have MTR measurements of 20 mm or more. Full epiphyseal fusion of the long bones also occurs around three years of age.

Wing (1993) speculated that because of the density of hutia found at Bellevue (82% of the sample by MNI) the Taíno may have been tending populations of hutia for their personal use. Wilkins (2001) took a second look at this Bellevue sample and found that the age grades in the skeletal remains matched the age grades in a natural population. Her conclusions were that hutias at Bellevue were not overexploited through time and that they were not domesticated or kept by the occupants of this site. There is certainly a heavy reliance on this one species in inland sites in Jamaica (see Bellevue and White Marl) and there is evidence of the Taíno introducing hutias from one island to another (see Miller 1929; Morgan and Woods 1986; Wing 1989), but as of yet there has been no clear evidence that the hutia populations of Jamaica were culturally regulated at these sites. Though the MTR hutia samples from the St. Mary Parish sites are small, they do suggest that animals were being selected at certain ages for harvesting. It is possible that hutia were so plentiful in the past that harvesting selection could occur within a wild population, but this evidence does tentatively suggest some sort of management of the population.

Three of the sites produced complete hutia mandibles from which MTR measurements could be taken and the measurements are provided in Table 7.4. Coleraine contained nine complete mandibles with a MTR range of 15.7 mm to 21 mm. Six of these mandibles came from adults over 2.5 years of age. At Coleraine, the mandible data indicate that adults were more commonly consumed than sub-adults or juveniles. In addition, at least three juvenile hutias occurred in the sample, based on immature or unfused epiphyses on the long bones.

73

THE TAÍNO SETTLEMENT AT GUAYGUATA: EXCAVATIONS IN ST. MARY PARISH, JAMAICA

Table 7.6 shows the breakdown of elements recovered in each site by various skeletal sections. Vertebrae are underrepresented in all the samples. Three of the sites had approximately 6% vertebrae in the archaeological hutia remains (vs. 21.3% in a complete skeleton). Newry had a slightly higher percentage of vertebrae with 11.6%. Tail vertebrae were especially rare in the deposit. The hutias may have been disarticulated along the midline, which would fracture the spinal column and the tail could have been removed and discarded. Hindlimb and forelimb elements are overly represented due to postdeposition fracturing of the shafts. A complete skeleton is approximately 12% limbs (not including podials, metapodials, or phalanges). Three of the sites had 34% limbs and the Wentworth sample had 43% limbs. Both hind limb to fore limb elements are roughly equally represented. Feet bones are common but they are underrepresented. They make up approximately 20% of the archaeological assemblage (whereas they make up 43% of a complete skeleton). The disparity may be due to the small size of many of the podials and phalanges, which could be lost through 1/8-inch (2 mm) screen. Hutia remains were identified in the column sample study (see Chapter 9, Patrick and Allsworth-Jones) but consisted primarily of fragmented teeth and jaw remains. Teeth are approximately three times more common archaeologically due to their durability. Skull bones are found in near proportion to what is expected. In general, the elements other than the vertebrae and the tail are represented in proportions to be expected if the entire animal was being deposited in the midden.

Table 7.5. Expected elements for hutia remains Body Part

Complete Hutia Skeleton (approx.) #

%

Vertebrae

40

21.3%

Feet

80

42.6%

Skull/Jaw

30

16.0%

Teeth

16

8.5%

Pelvic girdle/hind limbs

12

6.4%

Shoulder girdle/fore limbs

10

5.3%

Another species that has been introduced from island to island for use by the Taíno as a food source is the guinea pig (Cavia porcella). Cavia has been reported in archaeological deposits in the Dominican Republic (Miller 1929), Puerto Rico (deFrance and Newsom 2005; Narganes-Storde 1982), Antigua (Wing et al. 1968) and recently at Carriacou in the Grenadines (Personal Communication: Michelle LeFavre). Allgood (2000) reported two bones of Cavia from the 1999 excavations at Green Castle. The 2000 and 2001 excavations at Green Castle did not produce any more examples of Cavia. Guinea pig was not identified at Wentworth, Newry, or Coleraine. In Wing’s (1977) work at Bellevue, she concluded that because of a lack of evidence for burning, the hutias were not roasted. This lack of burned bone is consistently noted in faunal assemblages from sites in St. Mary Parish. The percentage of burned hutia bone ranges in these samples from 0.08% to 1.3%. Only 20 hutia bones from all four sites had any indication of burning—13 long bones, three jaw, two foot bones, one pelvis, and one vertebra.

Table 7.7 combines the results of all four sites and shows what portions of the limbs were intact. In the forelimb assemblage, 95.2% of the humeri had only distal ends remaining. This suggests that the animals were possibly being disarticulated at the shoulder. In the hindlimb assemblage, 71% of the femurs had complete proximal ends and no distal end. To complement this finding, the tibias had 87% distal ends intact and no proximal ends. This shows that the articulations to the knee joint were rarely recovered, which suggests possible butchering at the knee joint rather than in the pelvis. Wing’s (1977) conclusions from work on hutia bones from Bellevue that the hutias were not roasted and that the animals were being disarticulated at the midline,

At Bellevue, Wing (1977) also noted few vertebrae in the sample and recognized that certain shaft ends were underrepresented. A tabulation of the expected vs. recovered percentage of elements tells us what parts of the animal are underrepresented in the assemblage. Table 7.5 breaks down a complete hutia skeleton into sections and calculates the percentage of bones in each section.

Table 7.6. Recovered hutia remains by site and skeletal section Body Part

Coleraine #

Newry

Wentworth

%

#

%

#

%

Green Castle #

%

Vertebrae

42

5.8%

46

11.6%

34

5.7%

65

6.3%

Feet

122

17.0%

94

23.6%

97

16.1%

220

21.4%

Skull/Jaw

99

13.8%

44

11.1%

74

12.3%

113

11.0%

Teeth

184

25.6%

78

19.6%

138

23.0%

288

28.0%

Hind limbs/pelvis

118

16.4%

48

12.1%

119

19.8%

158

15.4%

Fore limbs/shoulder

132

18.4%

53

13.3%

103

17.1%

88

8.6%

UID shafts

22

3.1%

35

8.8%

36

6.0%

97

9.4%

74

L.A. CARLSON: SO MUCH TO CHOOSE FROM: EXPLOITING MULTIPLE HABITATS FOR SUBSISTENCE…

Table 7.7. Intact portion of long bones from all sites Element

Proximal

Introduced Species

Distal

#

%

#

%

Tibia

8

12.7%

55

87.3%

Femur

66

70.9%

27

29.1%

Humerus

4

4.8%

78

95.2%

The only introduced, Old World species found in any of the sites was domesticated pig (Sus scrofa), found in the Coleraine site. The Spanish brought a variety of animals to Hispaniola, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Jamaica, in particular cow, pig, goat, sheep, horses, chickens and rats (Reitz and McEwan 1995). Deagan (1988) notes that the Spanish presence in the earliest Contact period sites is more recognizable by the occurrence of pig and rat bones than by European artifacts. The two pig bones from Coleraine came from Level 2 of the excavations in 1516S5-6W, which to all appearances was an undisturbed prehistoric deposit containing prehistoric sherds, chert and a piece of cut conch. Charcoal from this level was submitted for radiocarbon dating and returned a date of AD 1485 – 1652 (cal. 1 sigma) (Chapter 3). The remains of pig from this shallow Area A deposit could be the result of disturbance of historic period farming practices, although the possibility that the pig bones in this unit are evidence of an early historic period Taíno site cannot be all together excluded.

Figure 7.3. Increased exploitation of hutia at Green Castle site (30S/7E)

Birds along the vertebral column, then separated at the shoulder and at the knee seems to be replicated at the St. Mary Parish sites.

The site of Newry produced the most bird bones with 77 fragments. Coleraine and Green Castle both had 44 fragments of bird bones and Wentworth had only eight. None of the bird bones showed evidence of burning. Several of the identified birds are water species. Two species of ducks were identified. The white-cheeked pintail (Anas bahamensis) is a year-round native resident of Jamaica (Bond 1993). It inhabits both freshwater and saltwater ponds and lagoons. The blue-winged teal (Anas discors) was tentatively identified in the sample. This species is a winter resident (September to April) that inhabits mainly shallow water swamps and lagoons. Two species of rails were identified. The purple gallinule (Porphyrula martinica), which is a common bird in archaeological deposits, is a full time resident in Jamaica, inhabiting areas of dense aquatic growth along marshes, lagoons, and ponds, where it builds nests in cat-tails or sedges. The American coot (Fulica americana) is a migratory bird that is found in the West Indies in the winter months. They live on the edges of freshwater lakes or marshy waterways. Lastly, one Characriidae/ Scolopacidae bone was recovered at Newry, belonging to the family of shorebirds that includes plovers and sandpipers. The purple gallinule and barn owl were the only bird species found at three out of the four sites.

In looking at the number of hutia bones recovered from the different excavated levels, the results from Newry, Wentworth, and Coleraine show levels of hutia exploitation that do not change through time. The pattern, in general, is one of finding more hutia bones in the densest center of the site with fewer bones in the deepest and shallowest levels. It is possible that the sites did not have a continuous occupation long enough to see subsistence changes in the faunal remains. At Green Castle, there is a clear pattern of an increase in hutia hunting through time in one of the central, productive areas of the site. The number of bones per level goes from zero in Level 7 to 179 in Level 1 in 30-31S7-10E (Figure 7.3). Though the site had the longest occupation of the four sites in the study, it showed no impact on the amount of available hutia over time. Only at Newry was domestic dog (Canis familiaris) identified. Dogs were kept by the Taíno and used as hunting companions and, as this material was found in undisturbed context, it likely relates to the prehistoric occupation. Dogs could have been used to help capture hutia. However, dogs tend to capture hutias unselectively and in proportion to their natural distribution, and would likely take many juveniles (Wilkins 2001). These proportions were not replicated in the zooarchaeological remains. Hutias could have been captured in traps, although whole family groups would likely have been captured, resulting in a range of ages in the sample. After trapping, younger animals may have been selectively released. Hutia could have easily been captured in the Taíno gardens.

There are two species of endemic Amazon parrots from Jamaica: the yellow-billed parrot (Amazona collaria) and the black-billed parrot (Amazona agilis). Only one site, Coleraine, had remains of one of these Amazon parrots. These large-bodied parrots (up to 12-inches/30 cm in length) live in forested hills and mountains. The yellowbilled parrot has a larger range, inhabiting forests growing in sheltered estuaries and along coastlines in brackish or saltwater. It is more common in the wet areas of Jamaica than the black-billed parrot. The black-billed parrot is not found today in the eastern half of Jamaica 75

THE TAÍNO SETTLEMENT AT GUAYGUATA: EXCAVATIONS IN ST. MARY PARISH, JAMAICA

except in the John Crow Mountains (Juniper and Parr 1998). When Columbus landed on San Salvador in 1492, one of the first gifts he received was a parrot (Sauer 1966). Chroniclers of the period (Oviedo 1959 [1526]) reported that parrots were a popular trade item within the Taíno culture. The larger macaws and Amazon parrots were the primary long-distance trade birds, but they also would have been captured for their feathers and used locally. The olive throated parakeet (Aratinga nana) was identified at Newry and is found primarily on Jamaica and occasionally on the mainland of Mexico and Central America. West Indian parakeets are between 9 and 10 inches (23-25 cm) in length. This species is mostly green and inhabits wooded hills and lower mountain slopes (Bond 1993).

Marine Mammals Large marine mammals such as manatee and the extinct monk seal have been identified in West Indian Amerindian sites. Manatee was reported from the Bellevue site and Rodney’s House (Scudder 1991; Wing 1977), but monk seal has not been reported in zooarchaeological samples from Jamaica to date. However, the last colony of monk seals in the West Indies lived on the Seranilla bank, located between Jamaica and Panama. They were last sighted there in 1952, and officially declared extinct in 1986 (LeBoef et al. 1986). No remains of marine mammals were found in any of the St. Mary Parish sites. Aquatic Species

Doves and pigeons (Columbidae) were very common at the Green Castle site, and present in small numbers at Newry. They were not identified at Coleraine or Wentworth. Being frugivorous, their meat is very palatable and they are the most common avifaunal remains in West Indian Amerindian sites. The most common of the Columbids at Green Castle was the whitecrowned pigeon (Columba leucocephala). This species nests in great numbers in coastal mangroves and prefers wooded habitats at low elevations when not nesting. The largest of the Columbids are the ring-tailed pigeon (Columba caribaea) and the plain pigeon (Columba inornata), both reaching 16 inches (41 cm) in length. These species usually live at higher elevations than the white-crowned pigeon, although the plain pigeon can be found in the open country of the lowlands. This large pigeon was identified at Green Castle. One other Columbid species, the crested quail dove (Geotrygon versicolor), was identified in the Green Castle remains.

By every calculation, aquatic species are the dominant component in the assemblages from all four sites. Table 7.8 presents the totals of fish, shark, ray, and sea turtle combined. The variety of species harvested is reflected in the “families” category. This is the total number of families of aquatic species represented. Green Castle had the greatest breadth of species harvested, which is likely due to the larger sample size (with twice as many bones as Wentworth and Coleraine). On average, aquatic species provided three-quarters of the total bone remains by NISP. It is lower at Green Castle only because of the higher percentage of UID remains in the assemblage (if calculated without the UID fragments, the NISP rises to 83.7% for Green Castle); this is also why the percent bone weight at Green Castle is low. By MNI, the percentages are similar for Wentworth and Green Castle, with aquatic species providing threequarters of the individuals in the diet. Newry had the lowest percent MNI with 61.7% because this site had more reptiles than any of the others. Sea turtle was found only at Green Castle and Coleraine and this is reflected in the higher percentage of aquatic species biomass. The sites of Green Castle and Wentworth both have approximately 80% of the calories in the diet coming from aquatic species. This number is high at Green Castle because of the 3 MNI of sea turtle in the totals. However, at Wentworth this number shows the true dominance of fish and shark in the diet. Only one bird and one reptile were identified here. The diet at Wentworth is focused more on fish and hutia than the other three sites. Table 7.8 also lists the number of burned aquatic species bones, which is less than 1% at all of the sites.

Bats Although not commonly identified in archaeological sites in Jamaica, bat was identified in Newry and Green Castle from 18 bones. There are 22 extant Jamaican species of bats (Morgan and Woods 1986). The species identified at Green Castle is the endemic Jamaica fig-eating bat (Ariteus flavescens), a member of the Phyllostomidae family that is rarely seen on the island today. This large bat, which does not live in caves, reaches between 50 and 67 cm in wing span length. It is hard to imagine bat as an intentional contribution to diet. Its presence in the site may be incidental or relate to a different purpose than subsistence, given that bat imagery is common in Taíno iconography.

Table 7.8. Aquatic remains (fish, shark, and sea turtle) from all four sites Site Coleraine

Families

NISP

NISP %

MNI

MNI %

Bone Wt. (g)

18

3052

72.6%

106

69.1%

294.9

Bone Wt. Biomass Biomass % (kg.) % 55.4%

125.1

72.5%

Burned NISP 3

Green Castle

26

6604

47.7%

240

75.0%

738.6

52.6%

237

80.0%

7

Newry

20

4093

76.6%

150

61.7%

311.4

65.2%

96.6

63.5%

13

Wentworth

17

3223

77.6%

95

77.2%

507.1

65.1%

88.3

78.5%

25

76

L.A. CARLSON: SO MUCH TO CHOOSE FROM: EXPLOITING MULTIPLE HABITATS FOR SUBSISTENCE…

Table 7.9. Aquatic remains (fish, shark, and sea turtle) from all four sites Species

Coleraine

Green Castle

MNI %

Biomass %

MNI %

Biomass %

Serranidae (groupers)

12.3%

12.9%

20.0%

19.5%

Eleotridae (sleepers)

27.4%

8.2%

5.4%

1.6%

Scaridae (parrotfish)

8.5%

4.8%

23.7%

12.7%

Lutjanidae (snappers)

6.6%

6.1%

5.8%

Gerredae (mojarras)

4.7%

2.3%

0.8%

Haemulidae (grunts)

7.5%

5.8%

5.0%

Newry MNI %

Wentworth

Biomass %

MNI %

Biomass %

18.0%

29.6%

27.4%

41.2%

16.7%

10.9%

0.0%

0.0%

13.3%

13.6%

17.9%

13.2%

3.7%

7.3%

5.1%

10.5%

7.7%

0.3%

6.7%

4.5%

0.0%

0.0%

2.7%

5.3%

3.7%

4.2%

2.5%

Centropomidae (snooks)

9.4%

6.9%

2.1%

1.1%

4.6%

5.7%

1.1%

0.6%

Carangidae (jacks)

3.8%

1.9%

3.3%

2.4%

4.6%

5.3%

2.0%

1.7%

Holocentridae (squirrelfish)

4.7%

1.9%

4.2%

2.0%

4.0%

2.9%

11.6%

8.0%

Balistidae (triggerfish)

4.7%

7.2%

4.6%

2.1%

4.0%

3.0%

8.4%

12.2%

Labridae (wrasses)

1.9%

0.5%

9.2%

4.3%

4.0%

1.7%

4.2%

4.0%

Sphyraenidae (barracudas)

1.9%

0.2%

2.5%

1.7%

3.3%

2.2%

3.2%

1.4%

Carcharhiniformes (sharks)

1.0%

19.2%

1.3%

13.5%

1.3%

3.3%

1.0%

1.8%

Cheloniidae (sea turtles)

1.9%

20.0%

1.3%

23.4%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

for Coleraine, the only shark bones encountered in the site were fashioned into beads (Figure 2.15[2, 3]) and deposited in close proximity to what is interpreted as a juvenile human burial (Figure 7.4). Shark meat may not have been consumed in this site. Shark vertebrae often break naturally into bead-like forms, but that is not the case with these specimens. The three beads are relatively uniform in size and shape. Diameter measurements range from 12 mm to 14.5 mm. Width measurements are consistently 6.8 to 7 mm. Two of the beads have drill holes measuring 2.7 mm in diameter, the third measures 3 mm. Use-wear was evident under magnification. Intentional drilling was evident in the stepped appearance of the profile. The profile was not abraded as might occur if the beads were strung and worn for an extended period of time.

Table 7.9 compares the percentages of the various families of fish in the assemblages across the four sites, calculated by percent MNI and by percent Biomass. These numbers exclude terrestrial species in the calculations. At Wentworth and Newry, the most common remains (by both MNI and Biomass) are Serranidae. Serranids include many species of grouper, bass, coney, hind, and other large-bodied fish that are usually preferred subsistence items. The biomass percentage is particularly high at Wentworth with grouper providing 41% of the calories in this diet from aquatic species. Grouper was important at all the sites but provided the least to the aquatic diet at Coleraine (approximately 12%). This is because freshwater sleepers (Eleotridae) are so common at Coleraine, where they provide 27% of the aquatic species. Sleepers are also quite common at Newry and present in smaller numbers at Green Castle. Wentworth has no freshwater fish in its assemblage. Even though the sleeper is a small-bodied fish, weighing under 500 g, it contributed 8.2% of the aquatic species biomass at Coleraine and almost 17% of the biomass at Newry.

In looking at fish vertebrae to determine size ranges, analysis indicates that fishes between 100 g and 5.7 kg in live body weight were recovered. Generally, a 100 g fish has a vertebra that measures 2.5 mm across the anterior centrum; a 5.7 kg fish has a vertebra that measures 18 mm across. Table 7.10 lists the average vertebra measurement per species per site and the calculated mean

Parrotfish (Scaridae) were the most common aquatic species by MNI at Green Castle (24%) and the second most common species at Wentworth (18%). At all the sites but Coleraine they consistently provided approximately 13% of the aquatic biomass. The amount of parrotfish in this sample likely is a reflection of the relative abundance of parrotfishes in the shallow reef environment. Other fish that were consistently present in small numbers include snook, snapper, triggerfish, squirrelfish, and wrasse. At both Green Castle and Coleraine, shark and sea turtle provide between 37% and 39% of the aquatic species biomass and next to none at the other two sites. Even though shark is included in the subsistence calculations

Figure 7.4. Shark beads recovered from Coleraine site 77

THE TAÍNO SETTLEMENT AT GUAYGUATA: EXCAVATIONS IN ST. MARY PARISH, JAMAICA

Table 7.10. Mean size of fish at each site Green Castle Species Albula vulpes (bonefish)

Newry

Wentworth

Coleraine

Mean Vert. Mean Mean Vert. Mean Mean Vert. Mean Mean Vert. Mean Diam. Body Diam. Body Diam. Body Diam. Body (mm) Wt. (g.) (mm) Wt. (g.) (mm) Wt. (g.) (mm) Wt. (g.) -

-

7

780

-

-

7

780

Acanthurus sp. (surgeonfish)

3.3

160

-

-

3.7

220

-

-

Balistes vetula (triggerfish)

4.7

350

-

-

9.5

1450

11

1970

8

1030

6.7

720

8.5

1160

6.5

675

Carangidae (jacks) Centropomidae (snook)

-

-

7.6

920

6

570

10

1600

Gerridae (mojarras)

-

-

5

390

-

-

6

570

Gobiomorus dormitor (sleepers)

4.3

275

4.9

370

-

-

5.2

420

Haemulon sp. (grunts)

5.05

400

6

570

-

-

12.5

2560

Lutjanus sp. (snappers)

4.9

370

6.3

630

5.9

550

8.3

1100

Serranidae (groupers)

14.5

3500

10.9

1950

12.2

2400

9.5

1450

Sparisoma sp. (parrotfish)

7.1

795

4

235

-

-

-

-

Sphyraena barracuda (barracuda)

5.8

530

5.7

510

4.5

310

3.5

190

UID Fish

4.6

319

5.2

420

4.9

370

4.7

350

prefer a rocky-bottomed, shallow habitat. Fish found in sandy-bottomed areas are boxfish, goatfish, ray, and flounder. Rays follow their favored prey of crab and jellyfish into very shallow water, where they could easily be speared. Turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum) grows in great beds in the shallow, calm waters surrounding many West Indian islands. It is the primary food source for sea turtle, conch, boxfish, balloonfish, and the redtail parrotfish (Randall 1965). Bonefish, snook, some mojarras, and gray snapper feed in the mangroves. Mangrove species were identified in all four sites.

live fish weight. The largest individual fish taken (greater than 3 kg in live weight) were grouper. The smallest fish in this sample are the sleepers and surgeonfish. The average fish size calculated from the assemblages of UID vertebrae ranged from 319 g at Green Castle to 420 g at Newry. The sizes of the fish in all the sites range widely and do not cluster within any particular size range. Within the 1/8-inch (2 mm) screen sampling, the amount of small bait-size fish (under 100 g) was negligible. However, the column sample study at Green Castle found a significant number of fish vertebrae smaller than 1 mm in centrum diameter (see Chapter 9, Patrick and Allsworth-Jones). This sample contains the remains of extremely tiny fish and it is possible that these are stomach contents of some of the larger fish, rather than fish netted and brought to the site by the Taínos.

Deep water offshore habitat, supporting pelagic species such as tuna, mackerel, and flyingfish, was exploited by some Amerindians of Jamaica. The north shore sites of Río Nuevo, Río Bueno, Bengal, and Cinnamon Hill each contain between 8% and 15% (by MNI) pelagic species. The coast near these sites has a shallow shelf, so offshore habitats were more accessible. At the four St. Mary Parish sites there are no pelagic species in the remains.

In order to recreate past procurement technologies for fishing, it is instructive to understand the biology and behavior of the fish identified. By understanding how and where fish live—their eating habits, activity cycles, behavioral patterns, habitat use—the way to capture them becomes clear. Based on the habits and habitats of the species identified at the St Mary Parish sites (Table 7.11), multiple harvesting techniques must have been utilized, including hook and line fishing and netting and/or trapping.

Table 7.12 presents the number of species from each of the various aquatic habitats for each site and shows the percentage of MNI the habitat provides. The freshwater sleeper was found at three of the four sites (with none found at Wentworth, which is the one site not located near a river). Another single MNI of another freshwater species (American eel) was recovered at Newry. These are the only two freshwater species in all the sites, although the juveniles of these species are more common in the low salinity environments of river mouths; only the adults are found far upriver. Many of the sleeper bones in the collection are small, perhaps juvenile, fish and may have been netted closer to the mouth of the bay rather than farther upriver. Snook, which are found in all the sites, will also enter brackish and even freshwater environments. As adults, the only shark that will enter a

Of the aquatic species identified in the archaeological remains from all four sites, the inshore bay habitat would support ray, occasionally shark, flounder, mojarra, barracuda, and the redtail parrotfish (Böhlke and Chaplin 1993). Shallow patch reefs support other species of parrotfish, surgeonfish, wrasse, squirrelfish, and porcupinefish. Deeper, extended reefs abound with large grouper, snapper, jack, grunt, and triggerfish (Randall 1968). Certain fishes such as the gray snapper and chub, 78

L.A. CARLSON: SO MUCH TO CHOOSE FROM: EXPLOITING MULTIPLE HABITATS FOR SUBSISTENCE…

Table 7.11. Primary habitats utilized by fish species in samples (C = Coleraine, N = Newry, G = Green Castle, W = Wentworth)

FRESH INSHORE/ BANKS/ WATER ESTUARY REEFS

REMARKS

Dasyatis americana (C, N, G)

X

shallows w/ sand or mud bottoms

Ginglymostoma cirratum (G)

X

sandy bottoms

Carcharhinus sp. (all)

X

coastal and offshore, likely captured inshore

Muraenidae (G, W)

X

rocky shores or reefs

X

shallow flats, mangroves, river mouths

X

surface feeder

SPECIES

Albula vulpes (C, N) Anguilla rostrata (N)

X

Belonidae (N, G) Holocentrus sp. (all)

X

Centropomidae (all)

shallow patch reefs

X

prefer mangroves, will enter freshwater

Epinephelus sp. (all)

X

reefs, channels, deeper water

Mycteroperca sp. (all)

X

reefs, channels, deeper water

Caranx crysos (C)

X

school in nearshore banks, solitary visitor to reefs

Caranx ruber (all)

X

schools in shallow reef w/ clear water

Malacanthus plumieri (G)

X

Lutjanus apodus (C, G, W)

X

small schools in reefs

Lutjanus griseus (N, G, W)

X

mangroves and rocky outcrops

Gerridae (C, N, G)

X

sand or surf zone; near mangroves

Haemulon sp. (all)

X

schools over reefs

Anisotremus surinamensis (C)

X

large patch reefs and sloping rocky bottomed banks

Calamus bajonado (N, W)

X

Mulloidichthys martinicus (C, G)

X

Gobiomorus dormitor (C, N, G)

forages along sandy bottomed flats

X

juveniles in brackish water

Halichoeres sp. (all)

X

Solitary

Bodianus rufus (all)

X

occurs alone or in small schools

Lachnolaimus maximus (G, W)

X

open shallows or reef edge

Scarus sp. (C)

X

coral reefs

Sparisoma aurofrenatum (all)

X

coral reefs

Sparisoma chysopterum (G)

X

Sparisoma viride (all)

grass flats and rubble areas X

Kyphosus sectatrix/incisor (G, W)

X

Sphyraena barracuda (all)

X

Bothus lunatus (G)

X

Balistes vetula (all) Ostradiidae (C, G, W)

coral reefs and adjacent seagrass beds rocky shallows 4 mm level according to their species and assisted in a sorting of the terrestrial shells by genus and type. These procedures may be compared with those

The Northern trench sample measured 60x20 cm in area and the quantity studied here was 22 cm in depth. It was divided into three levels by depth: (1) 6 cm (topsoil) (2 upper) 8 cm (2 lower) 8 cm. This corresponded to bags with the laboratory numbers 99.17-20. The Southern trench sample measured 20x20 cm in area and was 35 cm in depth. It was divided into four levels by depth: (1) 5 cm (topsoil) (2 upper) 10 cm (2 lower) 10 cm (3) 10 cm. This corresponded to bags with laboratory numbers 99.164-167. The volume of deposit examined in the Northern trench extension was therefore almost three times that of the Southern trench extension, although the latter was deeper (Patrick 2000:8-9). In general in what follows comparisons between the two trenches have been made on the basis of unconverted figures, though percentages have been calculated in some instances, and a multiplication of the Southern trench content by three could be considered appropriate in at least one case (organic material). Both samples studied are of course quite near the surface, and it is a matter of regret that the remainder of the sample columns could not have been examined in time for their inclusion in this work. All the material from all the sites in this project was dry sieved on a daily basis using a mesh of 1/8th inch. In

108

N.L. PATRICK AND P. ALLSWORTH-JONES: SAMPLING BELOW THE 1/8TH INCH RANGE

Table 9.1. Identifiable mollusc species >4 mm size grade: Totals by trench (all stratigraphic levels) MNI

discussed and recommended by Newsom and Wing (2004:36-46).

South

RESULTS

North

Total

Marine Bivalves

Identifiable mollusc species

Codakia orbicularis

The results under this heading in terms of MNI (minimum number of individuals) are summarised in Tables 9.1-9.3. Table 9.1 lists all those specimens which were identifiable at the >4 mm size grade. The dominant marine species represented are Nerita tessellata, Neritina virginea, Tectarius muricatus, and Echininus nodulosus. It is not surprising that these species are essentially the same as those recognised in the much larger samples recovered as part of the normal dry sieving operation at the site using a 1/8th inch mesh. The presence of Pleurodonts (and to a lesser extent Dentalarium) is also not surprising. Unfortunately at the time it was not possible to identify the other terrestrial snails more closely. The most frequent and readily distinguishable were simply labelled types A and B. Four others (types C, D, E, and F) have here been lumped together as “others.” Type A was described as conical and type B as flat. Since we now know that in the dry sieved samples Parachondria and Poteria were very well represented, it is likely that types A and B correspond to these species (cf. Mehring 1965:37-39, 44-46). In the >4 mm size grade as a whole, marine specimens (148) account for 55.2% of the total, and terrestrial specimens (120) account for 44.8%. These proportions again are similar to those encountered in the larger dry sieved samples.

1

1

Donax denticulata

1

1

Mytilopsis domingensis

1

1

total bivalves

2

1

3

Marine Gastropods Astraea sp.

1

Cittarium pica

3

Columbella mercatoria Echininus nodulosus Fissurella nodosa

10

1 3

6

1

1

8

18

1

1

1

Littorina ziczac

1

Nerita tessellata

19

19

38

Nerita versicolor

3

4

7

Neritina virginea

9

18

27

3

3

Planaxis nucleus Strombus sp. Tectarius muricatus Tegula sp.

1 15

8

23

1

1

63

66

129

9

7

16

74

74

148

24

3

27

1

Thais sp. total gastropods

1 1

Polyplacophora

The picture however changes drastically once the specimens 4 mm

>1 mm

total

>500

Fish Vertebrae

>500 as % of total

Fish vertebrae, which were clearly identifiable as such, were counted separately. Here again, the small size of the specimens (in this case not fragmented) is remarkable. In particular, 64 out of 127 in the Southern trench, or 50.39% of the total, were less than one mm across and were recovered at the 500 micron grade. It is suggested (in Chapter 7) that these very tiny specimens may represent the stomach contents of some of the larger fish, rather than fish netted and brought to the site by the Taínos themselves. Abundant though the analysed faunal data from the site are, and the fish in particular, it is therefore clear that the numbers recovered using a 1/8th inch screen in the field still represent an underestimate. This reinforces the point already made by Reitz and Wing (1999: Figure 5.2) in relation to the fish vertebrae recovered from the King’s Bay site where the modal value was between 1 and 2 mm.

Shell Fragments South

484 5138 12,042 17,664

68.17

North

535 7489 14,012 22,036

63.59

Bones and Teeth South

56 1263

8032

9351

85.89

North

23 1076

1930

3029

63.72

Fish Vertebrae South

12

51

64

127

50.39

North

2

9

-

11

-

South

3

65

-

68

-

North

3

35

-

38

-

South

34

157

152

343

44.31

North

24

81

146

251

58.17

Chert and Quartz

Pottery

Chert and Quartz Apart from organic materials, some fragments of artefacts were also found in these samples, at size grades below 4 mm. As such, they would certainly have escaped detection at the normal dry sieving stage. 65 chert and quartz pieces in the 4-2 mm range were found in the Southern trench, and 35 in the Northern trench. It cannot be excluded that the tiny pieces of quartz are nonartifactual, but it is highly unlikely that this is the case with the slivers of chert. It is known that there were larger chert artefacts at the site, and it would be logical to assume that these pieces are the debris of tool manufacture. The indication that chert was worked on the site, rather than just being brought to it, adds to our knowledge of its likely functional role in the Taíno economy.

Charcoal Pieces South

54 1091

3148

4293

73.33

North

18

1858

2445

75.99

569

Table 9.5. Organic material (weight in grams) by size grade and level Trench

>4 mm

South

0.8119

North

13.9587

Trench

topsoil

>1 mm

>500

7.0262 1.3208

total

>500 as % of total

9.1589

14.42

14.7109 2.2470 30.9166

7.27

remainder

total

topsoil as % of total

South

8.9399

0.2190

9.1589

97.61

North

26.3453

4.5713

30.9166

85.21

Pottery Also identified were large numbers of pottery fragments, most at size grades below 4 mm. In the Southern trench 110

N.L. PATRICK AND P. ALLSWORTH-JONES: SAMPLING BELOW THE 1/8TH INCH RANGE

micron grade, confirms that some fine meshed faunal samples should be taken at sites like this, in order to avoid possible skewing of the data. The presence of tiny chert fragments, at least, suggests that artefacts of this material were manufactured on the spot. Charcoal was abundantly present at all size grades, and clearly can be expected at sites similar to this, but organic materials such as roots and rootlets were largely confined to the topsoil, and can be regarded as recent in origin.

44.31% of the pieces recovered were at the 500 micron grade, the corresponding figure in the Northern trench being 58.17%. Again the extent of comminution is remarkable. It might be expected that it would be particularly noticeable in the topsoil level, but at least in these samples it did not seem to get less with depth. Charcoal Pieces Charcoal fragments of all sizes (clearly identifiable as such) were abundant, but once again the proportions represented at the 500 micron grade were overwhelming, 73.33% of the total in the Southern trench and 75.99% in the Northern trench. The degree to which the site is saturated with charcoal fragments is very impressive (Patrick 2000:40)

These results can be compared to some extent with those obtained at Chancery Hall in the Kingston area (Gouldwell 2006). 7.50 kilograms of deposit from this site were analysed at the University of Leicester. As in this case, material was collected after flotation in nested sieves down to the 500 micron grade. Recent material included roots, seeds, and insects. Shells of small terrestrial molluscs, as in our case, were assumed to have arrived at the site naturally. Bone was mostly fragmented, but included 192 fish vertebrae, 8% of which showed signs of contact with fire (not observed at Green Castle). Charcoal was taken to be indicative of fuel for cooking. In general, the conclusion was that the deposit represented a “midden of food waste”. Reference should also be made to the results obtained by Keegan and his colleagues at Paradise Park (Keegan 2002; Keegan et al. 2003). The information from these sites has to be added to and can be compared with that derived from the present study. The collection and processing of samples through mesh sizes less than 1/8th inch has been widely practiced elsewhere in the Caribbean over the last several years, but, so far as we are aware, this is only the third time that it has been carried out and reported in Jamaica.

Organic material The weight of organic material recovered, by size grade and level, is indicated in Table 9.5. The total for the Southern trench comes to 9.1589 grams whereas that for the Northern trench is 30.9166 grams. At first sight, this might seem to suggest that the Northern trench contained relatively more material, but in this instance (as mentioned above) it would be misleading to ignore the fact that the Southern trench was actually three times less in surface area. If the Southern trench total is multiplied by three, it comes to 27.4767 grams, which is not far removed from the Northern total. The material itself consisted for the most part of roots and rootlets, and as indicated in Table 5 the great majority was concentrated in the topsoil level. This is regarded as normal for a soil profile, hence it is assumed that the bulk of this material is of recent origin. The same applies to the few seeds recovered, which were treated separately (4 in the Southern trench and 7 in the Northern).

A word of caution has to be sounded, however, with regard to the amount of time and effort that has to be devoted to a study of this nature. Nicole Patrick carefully recorded the number of hours put into the strictly laboratory side of this work. If we assume that a working day contains 8 hours, then it took the equivalent of practically 18 days non-stop. As she said, there must be a clear realizable aim in view, and a keen appreciation of the logistics involved. Work like this does not come around every day.

CONCLUSION Limited in scope though it was, this work has produced some interesting insights, both into what may be missed if investigation is limited by the 1/8th inch barrier, and into the nature of midden sites as such. The identified mollusc species at the >4 mm grade were similar to those recovered by standard means at Green Castle as were the proportions of marine versus terrestrial specimens at the site (55.2% versus 44.8%). But the picture changes completely if terrestrials smaller than 4 mm are included, the proportions in this case becoming 7.78% and 92.22% respectively. Unlike the marine species, the majority of the terrestrials are indicative of environmental conditions, not human preference. Fragments of bone and teeth were severely comminuted, and the presence of tiny fish vertebrae, many of which were recovered at the 500

Acknowledgements Thanks are due to Dr. Simon Mitchell for his help in the Sedimentological Laboratory and for making all the facilities of his Department available. Nicole Patrick (2000:74) expressed the wish that the results of her work should be utilised, since only in this way could the journey be made worthwhile. That aim it is hoped has been achieved here.

111

Chapter 10. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Philip ALLSWORTH-JONES and Kit W. WESLER

such as size, public works or concentration of artifacts that might betray elite status, that would indicate its preeminence as a center of authority. The excavations, then, sought data that might provide a key to interpreting the sites’ social and political interaction.

The foregoing chapters have reported excavations at four Taíno sites in St. Mary Parish, Jamaica. Excavators spent three four-week seasons at Green Castle, completing two test units with substantial deposits and four others with shallow deposits. A four-week campaign at the Newry site resulted in excavations in seven units, two of which contained deep middens. Four weeks at Coleraine resulted in excavations in five locations, three with extensions. Finally, the crew spent a week at the Wentworth site, somewhat removed from the other three, and placed one small test unit at its northern edge. The last excavation was limited in its scope and its aims. We were also constrained at Coleraine by the nature of the site and by the disturbance to which it has historically been subjected. At Green Castle and Newry we were able to obtain a much more representative picture of the artifact assemblages and the sequence of occupational events, even though they have also been subject to some recent destruction.

Spanish records refer to the Annotto Bay area as Guayguata, a Taíno name, commemorated in the modern name of the Wagwater River. The Spanish may have referred to a single village, or perhaps a district of villages controlled by a chief. The project therefore aimed to ascertain which if any of the Annotto Bay sites was occupied as late as the Spanish period and thus might relate to the Spanish name. In relation to all of the above objectives, one of our primary goals has been to ensure full publication of the data, since such publications have been all too few in Jamaican prehistoric archaeology. It is a tragedy that Howard’s extensive excavations at White Marl were never published in full, due to his unexpected early death. Historic sites in Jamaica, e.g. Montpelier and Drax Hall, have been better served (Higman 1998; Armstrong 1990), and it is time to remedy the omission. This applies both to the strictly artifactual material (ceramics and lithics) and also to the faunal and environmental evidence (vertebrates and mollusks). Considerable time and energy has been expended on the laboratory study of these materials, which without publication would be a complete waste of effort.

Goals of the project were varied. Besides teaching excavation techniques, very important in the context of the University of the West Indies, the simplest aim was to obtain well-controlled artifact assemblages in a good stratigraphic context, so as to provide an informed understanding of the Taíno occupation of this part of St. Mary parish. Equally important was the recovery of data relating to the subsistence and environment of these people. Curiously enough, in the past, we have sometimes had more information about the fauna than the archaeology of certain sites (e.g., on the north coast, Rio Nuevo and Bengal) and we wished as far as possible to integrate this information with the rest of the archaeological record.

CHRONOLOGY Radiocarbon dates from all sites show that they form a rough chronological sequence (Chapter 3). The earliest is Newry, from which four dates average to cal AD 10211154 (all ranges at 1σ). Three dates from the early occupation at Green Castle average to cal AD 1213-1263. Coleraine produced only a single uncontaminated date, cal AD 1178-1280. This date overlaps considerably with the Early Green Castle average, but the dated Coleraine sample was recovered from the bottom of the deposit in a stratum that was visually distinct from the overlying midden, suggesting that the major deposit post-dated the

The excavators kept general questions relating to the nature of Taíno settlement pattern and social organization in Jamaica very much in mind. Taíno societies in the Greater Antilles are generally considered to be chiefdoms. Given anthropological models of chiefdom size and settlement hierarchy, the three Annotto Bay sites appeared to be too close together to form the seats of independent chiefdoms, if they were occupied simultaneously. On the other hand, if they did belong to a single chiefdom, one site should exhibit some distinction,

112

P. ALLSWORTH-JONES AND K.W. WESLER: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

more precisely, they occupy a hill that, viewed from the coast, sits behind a slightly lower hill and is separated from it by a saddle. Interestingly, there is at least one other topographic point that resembles this description, approximately where the first O in the capitalized ANNOTTO BAY is found in Figure 1.4. Unfortunately the authors were unable to survey this location to see if another site could be discovered.

sample. The excavators recovered a single sample from Wentworth, dated to cal AD 1271-1389. Finally, three Late Green Castle dates assign the final occupation of this site to within the range of cal AD 1443-1514. Given the lack of any indication of Spanish contact at Green Castle, it seems unlikely that the Green Castle site was active long past AD 1500. All sites yielded substantial ceramic assemblages. Graphing the frequencies of sherd decorations, rim decorations, and rim forms in the order indicated by 14C dates and stratigraphic relationships indicated a number of trends (Chapter 4). Generally, incised decoration increased with time. Incising is lacking in the earliest levels of Newry. The filled triangle motif increases especially rapidly in the later components. Two of the rim forms (Rims 5 and 6) appear late in the sequence. Incised dashed lines and triangles as rim decorations also appear late and may be proposed as fifteenth-century markers (but sample sizes are small, so that suggestion must be provisional).

It does not appear that Iter Boreale shares this topographic setting. The site requires further study, taking into account that it has been damaged extensively by landscaping at the now destroyed great house. Wentworth does not share these topographic characteristics, either, but it does occupy a very high point overlooking the bay of Port Maria, and commands one of the most spectacular views in Jamaica. For the Annotto Bay sites proper, it is likely that the villagers simply chose the highest points with sea view, even if they were slightly more removed from the coast. High locations are defensive from people (but there is little evidence of warfare) and also from stagnant air and mosquitoes in the lowlands.

Based on an interpretation of the sequence, the data suggest that a small or localized amount of activity may have occurred at Newry during the Late Green Castle period (fifteenth century), in Levels 1 and 2 of 13-14S67E (Chapter 4).

Within the Annotto Bay sites, test excavations also suggested a pattern, while discounting one earlier suggested by James Lee. Lee noted small mound-like hummocks on the surface of a number of the sites he surveyed, and proposed that they might be the remains of houses. Our tests found little deposit, indicating that the hummocks were merely irregularities in the bedrock surface. On the other hand, each of the Annotto Bay sites contained one area of concentrated midden, all other deposits tested being quite shallow.

These trends are based on stratigraphic relationships and radiocarbon chronology. While there may be no distinctive horizon markers, the trends provide a tentative basis for seriation of other sites in St. Mary. Further testing with assemblages from controlled contexts associated with absolute dates would be needed to assess the applicability of the sequence outside the northern part of the parish.

No postholes, and therefore no definite signs of structures, were found during our work at these sites, but further work elsewhere may reveal them. The excavations opened very small areas and, as noted in Chapter 2, were chosen judgmentally rather than systematically, so that, for the moment, no site structure could be discerned. Both at Retreat and Stewart Castle, also on the north coast, it has been confirmed that mounds with occupation debris were arranged in a roughly circular pattern (AllsworthJones and Kappers 2007). It is possible that this is no accident and that at least some village plans with an open area in the middle correspond to those noted by Siegel (1996, 1999) in Puerto Rico and elsewhere. Other villages may not have been arranged like this. All questions relating to the internal spatial organization of Jamaican prehistoric sites are wide open for research.

All the sites also produced lithic assemblages, divided into chert and non-chert categories (Chapter 5). The total numbers (somewhat in excess of 4000) are insufficient to permit a detailed study of time trends, but the distinguishing features of the two categories are in general clear enough. These sites were active centers for in situ chert working, as shown for example by the large number of cores found in Level 2 of the main excavated trenches at Coleraine, but the resultant tools were mainly expedient in nature. The non-chert artifacts are fewer in number, but include some remarkable pieces, such as the ground stone tool fragments from Green Castle, three petaloid celts and one chisel, and several chalcedony beads. Two of the celts and the chisel are made of what is commonly called greenstone. This raw material (unlike the majority at the sites) is foreign to the area, and its properties demand further study, particularly since in part at least it may also be foreign to the island.

Two sites, Green Castle and Newry, offered stratigraphic evidence of landslides. Modern studies conclude that the detritus soils of Jamaica are subject to slippage when they are saturated, and especially when a stable natural slope has been interrupted by human activity (Maharaj 1992). This seems to have been what happened here, but (as in the case of spatial organization) there is everything to be done in terms of a systematic exploration of Jamaican prehistoric sites from a geoarchaeological point of view. A multi-disciplinary project conducted with this as a priority could not fail to yield interesting results.

SETTLEMENT SYSTEM The Annotto Bay sites share a characteristic topographic setting. They overlook the floodplain of the mouth of the Wagwater River. They are situated on high hills, but

113

THE TAÍNO SETTLEMENT AT GUAYGUATA: EXCAVATIONS IN ST. MARY PARISH, JAMAICA

works, all in a systematic regional perspective. As noted, neither Jamaica as a whole, nor our data set from St. Mary Parish, can yet fulfill all of these criteria.

The chronology of the sites and ceramic assemblages offer two conclusions relevant to our initial goals. First, only Green Castle was occupied late enough for the Spanish to have been aware of its inhabitants. If Guayguata was a single village, it is most likely to have been Green Castle.

Commonly, Classic Taíno status has been distinguished by four artifact or feature types: ball courts/bateyes, wooden stools/duhos, stone zemis and petroglyphs (Rouse 1948:521, 543). As Allsworth-Jones (2008:37) has noted, Jamaican archaeologists have reported all of these except bateyes (there is historic evidence of a ball game [Padrón 2003:11], but not specifically of a formal ball court). Righter et al. (2004) identified sculptured stone, shell ornaments and inlays, and stone beads as Classic Taíno indicators, and all of these have been found in the St. Mary sites, particularly Green Castle. If we add a gold ornament recovered by Lee (1985b) and the hints of plazas at Retreat and Stewart Castle (Allsworth-Jones and Kappers 2007), Jamaica may be considered to have the majority of Classic indicators. The lack of bateyes and of Chican Ostionoid ceramics, however, still set Jamaica apart, and, if the distinction is still to be made, it is these two traits that would appear to be uniquely definitive of Classic Taíno culture.

Second, because only one of the Annotto Bay sites was occupied substantially at any one time, these sites were not related in a hierarchical settlement system and do not provide evidence for a local chiefdom. This observation must be tempered with a couple of qualifications. We do not know how Iter Boreale or the potential fifth site (as suggested by the topographic pattern above) would fit into the chronology. It is also possible that smaller sites exist in the area as subsidiaries or satellites to the major villages. Stokes’s (2006; pers. comm. 2003) data from the White and Rio Nuevo Rivers indicate that smaller sites were part of the Taíno settlement system. Ceramic data imply that there was some activity at Newry during the period of Late Green Castle, as well. Whether small sites were temporary farmers’ shelters or permanent habitations remains to be seen, but there is some possibility of a two-tiered settlement pattern with the large villages such as Newry, Coleraine and Green Castle serving as local centers, each in its period of occupation.

BURIALS Santos (Chapter 6) describes two burials recovered at the Green Castle site, one an adult and the second a child. They appear to be associated with the later Green Castle occupation. Both were buried in a flexed position. The adult, Burial 1, was placed in a niche in the east side of a pit dug into the soft limestone bedrock, and was accompanied by a carinated ceramic vessel. The child, Burial 2, was not accompanied by artifacts. However its head may have been surrounded by a set of fist-sized limestone chunks, or perhaps may have rested on a limestone “pillow.”

Further, it is also possible that the Annotto Bay sites were components of a regional system with a chiefly center elsewhere. Who knows, maybe that center was even at Wentworth? Our excavations here only scratched a pinprick into the site’s periphery. During construction work on the main property in the recent past, considerable quantities of archaeological material were recovered from this site (Lynda Lee Burks, “Island Outpost,” personal communication), which has a dominant position overlooking Port Maria Bay. This is likely the place visited by Diego Mendez in 1503, when he encountered “a great cacique, whose name was Huareo” (Cohen 1969:311). None of these possibilities can be evaluated at this time, and therefore on present evidence, the case for a hierarchical settlement system cannot be established. But here again, we hope that the work we have done will provide the stimulus for further research along these lines.

Two burials are too few to provide adequate data for demographic patterning. Nor can we be sure that the burial posture in which one hand gripped the other forearm or elbow, which is certainly in evidence here, is anything more than an idiosyncrasy of the site. In general, the burial practices observed are not out of line with those noted elsewhere in the Caribbean. The Green Castle burials, however, confirm that the Taíno did indeed bury their dead in villages as well as in caves, and they add to the small corpus of well-documented prehistoric human remains from Jamaica.

The issue of the Jamaican Taínos’ classification as Western as opposed to Classic Taíno is related to the question of chiefdoms, in the sense that the Classic Taíno are assumed to be chiefdom societies while the Western and Eastern Taíno are seen as culturally less complex, therefore, perhaps, non-chiefdoms. Chapter 1 discussed the varied nature of Taíno organizations both in the Classic areas and in Jamaica, such that in any of the Greater Antilles, group organizations may well have included tribes and simple and complex chiefdoms, many in flux at any given time. Therefore the identification of any archaeological culture as chiefdom will depend on a thorough examination of the complete settlement system as well as internal site structures of the full range of sites within the system, assemblage patterning, presence and prevalence of elite and exotic goods, and scale of public

SUBSISTENCE REMAINS Carlson (Chapter 7) and Mitchell et al. (Chapter 8) report the analysis of faunal and shell remains, respectively. These data are the most extensive, systematically recovered and fully described such datasets so far published for the Jamaican Taíno. The four St. Mary sites together produced a total of over 30,000 vertebrate bones representing a minimum number of individuals (MNI) of 824. The Taíno primarily relied on fish for their

114

P. ALLSWORTH-JONES AND K.W. WESLER: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

convincing example has so far been found in Jamaica (at Bellevue-Mannings Hill; Allsworth-Jones 2008: 156), but more extensive horizontal excavation blocks may be more successful in this regard. Stratigraphic excavations in deep middens will be needed to define local assemblage sequences throughout Jamaica, but spatial sampling for a thorough analysis of intra-site patterning is also required. It is clear that investigating issues of site hierarchy and inter-site relationships will require systematic surveys at a regional scale.

subsistence. A great variety of species was present, most of them indicative of shallow coral reef environments. So far as terrestrial resources are concerned, the hutia was by far the most important, accounting for 17-26% of the total biomass. The data suggest that these animals were selected at certain ages for harvesting. In all, almost 140,000 marine and terrestrial shells were counted and analyzed. The percentage of these which were terrestrial varied from 10.8% at Coleraine to 60.0% at Newry. The Taíno were definitely selective with regard to the marine species, since only seven occur in high numbers at these sites. They were all small and presumably would have been thrown into the pot whole.

In many respects, it must be said that we were very fortunate in the investigations reported here. We were able to build up a good professional team who could deal with the variety of the material recovered, we had adequate financial support from more than one source, and we had official backing from our respective institutions. In the future, it is obvious that there will be a continuing need for international and interdisciplinary cooperation in work designed to reveal Jamaica’s prehistoric past, and there will be a need for the provision of adequate resources. This particularly applies to the University of the West Indies, where we hope that the tradition of executing such work will be maintained. The provision of adequate facilities at the University, particularly in the domain of curation and conservation, is essential. It is only in this way that its archaeology program, and the lively interest of the students, can be safeguarded.

The overall impression from both studies is of a basic stability in Taíno diets from ca. AD 900 to 1500. The major variation appears to be in the proportion of freshwater and marine resources in the diet, and, as depicted clearly in Figure 8.2, proximity to freshwater and estuarine habitats is the dominant variable. So far as the non-terrestrial mollusks are concerned, it has been noted, both at Green Castle and at Newry, that there was a tendency for brackish and fresh water species to decrease over time. It could be that these species were over-collected, alternatively the silting up of the Wagwater river mouth could have affected their availability. It is hoped that these studies will be followed up by others at different Taíno sites on the north and south coasts, so that a truly comprehensive picture may be obtained of prehistoric subsistence patterns in Jamaica. In the meantime, our results add to a record from the island that is already far from negligible (Allsworth-Jones 2008: 113-121).

We worked on sites which were not under threat, having research aims in view, and with the full cooperation of the landowners concerned. Here again we were fortunate. There are many situations in Jamaica which are not like that. The destruction of prehistoric sites is going on apace, particularly as a result of development projects, often for residential or touristic purposes. The Taíno chose for the most part what we would regard as attractive locations for their sites, on hills overlooking the sea. Although the motives of the persons concerned may in these days be somewhat different, what was attractive then is attractive now. Future investigations might well need to be planned with such situations in mind, but there is no reason why rescue excavations should not be conducted to a high standard, and above all the results should be published. We believe that our project has not failed in that respect.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS The excavations reported here represent a significant contribution to the Jamaican Taíno database, even though they are no more than small samples from large and complex sites. Further work on such sites could take advantage of modern geophysical survey instruments to prospect for potential features and midden areas. We did not find evidence of structures, and indeed only one

115

References cited

ALLSWORTH-JONES, Philip, Gerald LALOR, George LECHLER, Simon F. MITCHELL, Esther Z. RODRIQUES, and Mitko VUTCHKOV 2001, The Taíno Settlement of the Kingston Area. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Congress for Caribbean Archaeology, Grenada, 1999, edited by R. Gérard, pp. 115-127. Association Internationale d’Archéologie de la Caraïbe, Guadeloupe.

ABBOTT, R. Tucker 1954, American Seashells. D. Van Nostrand, New York. ABBOTT, R. Tucker and Percy A. MORRIS 1995, Shells of the Atlantic & Gulf Coasts & the West Indies. Peterson Field Guides, Boston. ALEGRÍA, Ricardo E. 1983, Ball Courts and Ceremonial Plazas in the West Indies. Yale University Publications in Anthropology Number 79. Department of Anthropology, Yale University, New Haven CT. ALLEN, J.A. 1892, Description of a New Species of Capromys, from the Plana Keys, Bahamas. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 3(2):329336. ALLGOOD, Jessica L. 2000, Faunal Analysis of the Green Castle Estate Assemblage (STM25), St. Mary Parish. Ms. report on file at the Murray State University Archaeology Laboratory, Murray KY. ALLSWORTH-JONES, Philip 2008, Pre-Columbian Jamaica. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

ALLSWORTH-JONES, Philip, A.L. SANTOS, and R.S. STEWART. Recent Archaeological and Anthropological Evidence from Belle Air Cave, Jamaica. 2011. Proceedings of the 23rd Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology, June 29-July 3 2009, Antigua, ed. Samantha A. Rebovich, 743-750. Dockyard Museum, English Harbour, Antigua. ALLSWORTH-JONES, Philip, and Kit W. WESLER 2002a, Archaeological Excavations at the Newry Site, St. Mary Parish, 2002. Report on File at the University of the West Indies, Mona Campus, Jamaica. ALLSWORTH-JONES, Philip, and Kit W. WESLER 2002b, Excavations at the Coleraine Site, St. Mary Parish, 2003, Preliminary Report. On File at the University of the West Indies, Mona Campus, Jamaica.

ALLSWORTH-JONES, Philip, Michele BOGLEDOUGLAS, and Kit W. WESLER 2007, Defining the Montego Bay Style: A Re-consideration of R.L. Vanderwal’s Work in Jamaica. Proceedings of the 21st Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology, University of the West Indies-St. Augustine (Trinidad), July 2005, vol. 1, 372-380. University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad. ALLSWORTH-JONES, Philip, Anthony GOULDWELL, George LECHLER, Simon F. MITCHELL, Selvenious WALTERS, Jane WEBSTER, and Robert YOUNG 2006, The Pre-Columbian Site of Chancery Hall, St. Andrew. In The Earliest Inhabitants: The Dynamics of the Jamaican Taíno, edited by LesleyGail Atkinson, pp. 47-68. University of the West Indies Press, Kingston, Jamaica. ALLSWORTH-JONES, Philip and M. KAPPERS 2007, Stewart Castle and Retreat, Jamaica: Results of a New Digital Mapping Survey. Proceedings of the 21st Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology, University of the West Indies-St. Augustine (Trinidad), July 2005, vol. 1, pp. 91-97. University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad.

ALLSWORTH-JONES, Philip, and Kit W. WESLER 2003, Excavations at Green Castle, Jamaica, 19992001. In Proceedings of the 19th International Congress for Caribbean Archaeology, Aruba, 2001, edited by Luc Alofs and R. Dijkhoff, 1:186-193. International Association of Caribbean Archaeology, Aruba. ALLSWORTH-JONES, Philip, and Kit W. WESLER 2006, Excavations at Green Castle, Jamaica, 19992001. In The Earliest Inhabitants: The Dynamics of the Jamaican Taíno, edited by Lesley-Gail Atkinson, pp.69-74. University of the West Indies Press, Kingston, Jamaica. ÁLVAREZ, Ángel Rodríguez 2007, The archaic shell tools of Punta Las Cabezas de San Juan, Puerto Rico. Proceedings of the 21st Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology, St. Augustine, Trinidad, 2005, vol. 1:226-242. ANDERSON, David G. 1994, The Savannah River Chiefdoms: Political Change in the Late Prehistoric Southeast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

116

REFERENCES CITED

BLITZ, John H. 1999, Mississippian Chiefdoms and the Fission-Fusion Process. American Antiquity 64(4):577-592.

ANDREFSKY, William 2005, Lithics. Second edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ARMSTRONG, Douglas V. 1990, The Old Village and the Great House: an archaeological and historical examination of Drax Hall Plantation, St. Ann’s Bay, Jamaica. University of Illinois Press, UrbanaChampaign.

BOCHINSKI, Elise 1985, The Art of the Taíno from the Dominican Republic. Pictures of Record, Inc., Weston, Connecticut. BÖHLKE, James E. and Charles C.G. CHAPLIN 1993, Fishes of the Bahamas and Adjacent Tropical Waters. Second Edition. University of Texas Press, Austin.

ATKINSON, Lesley-Gail 2006a, Introduction. In The Earliest Inhabitants: The Dynamics of the Jamaican Taíno, pp. 1-10. University of the West Indies Press, Kingston, Jamaica.

BOND, James 1993, Birds of the West Indies. Fifth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York.

ATKINSON, Lesley-Gail 2006, Jamaican Redware Revisited. In Proceedings of the Archaeological Society of Jamaica’s Annual Symposia 2002-2004, edited by Lesley-Gail Atkinson, pp. 94-113. Archaeology Jamaica (New Series) #19 (Special Edition). Archaeological Society of Jamaica, Kingston.

BRÉZILLON, M.N. 1971, La dénomination des objets de pierre taillée. Éditions du CNRS, Paris. BUIKSTRA, Jane, and Douglas UBELAKER (eds.) 1994, Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series, No. 44. Fayetteville, Arkansas.

ATKINSON, Lesley-Gail (editor) 2006a, The Earliest Inhabitants: The Dynamics of the Jamaican Taíno. University of the West Indies Press, Jamaica.

CALLAGHAN, Richard 2007, On the question of the absence of Archaic age sites on Jamaica. Paper presented to the Society for American Archaeology, Austin TX, April 25-29.

ATKINSON, Lesley-Gail (editor) 2006b, Proceedings of the Archaeological Society of Jamaica’s Annual Symposia 2002-2004. Archaeology Jamaica (New Series) #19 (Special Edition). Archaeological Society of Jamaica, Kingston.

CASSIDY, Frederick G. 1988, The Earliest Placenames in Jamaica. Names 36(3&4):151-161. CARLSON, Betsy 1995a, Strings of Command: Manufacture and utilization of shell beads among the Taíno. Proceedings of the 15th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 1993, pp. 97-109.

BAKER, Paul T., and William T. SANDERS 1972, Demographic Studies in Anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology 1:151-178. BARHAM, Lawrence 2000, The Middle Stone Age of Zambia, South Central Africa. Western Academic and Specialist Press, Bristol.

CARLSON, Betsy 1995b, The Coralie site (GT-3): preliminary excavations at an Ostionan Ostionoid site on grand Turk, B.W.I. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress for Caribbean Archaeology, pp. 88-94. Basse Terre, Guadaloupe.

BASS, William 1987, Human Osteology. A Laboratory and Field Manual. 3rd ed. Special Publication No. 2 of the Missouri Archaeological Society, Columbia, Missouri.

CARLSON, Betsy 2004, Zooarchaeological Analysis of the 2003 Season of Excavations at the Coleraine Site, St. Mary Parish, Jamaica. Southeastern Archaeological Research, Inc., Gainesville, Florida.

BÉRARD, Benoit 2001, Technologie lithique et caractérisation culturelle: l’exemple de l’occupation amerindienne de la Martinique. In Proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress for Caribbean Archaeology, edited by L’Association Internationale d’Archéologie de la Caraïbe, Région Guadeloupe, Mission Archéologique, vol. 1, 175-184. St George, Grenada.

CLOUGH, Garrett C. 1972, Current Status of Two Endangered Caribbean Rodents. Biological Conservation 10:43-47. COHEN, J.M. (editor and translator) 1969, The Four Voyages of Christopher Columbus. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, England.

BÉRARD, Benoit 2008, Lithic Technology: A Way to More Complex Diversity in Caribbean Archaeology. In Crossing the Borders: New Methods and Techniques in the Study of Archaeological Materials from the Caribbean, edited by C.L. Hofman, M.L.P. Hoogland, and A.L. van Gijn, pp. 90-100. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

COMPAGNO, Leonard J.V. 1988, Sharks of the Order Carcharhiniformes. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. COUSENS, Penny Norseen 1956, Notes on the Jamaican and Cayman Island Lizards of the Genus Celestus. Breviora (56):1-6.

BERCHT, Fatima, Estrellita BRODSKY, John Alan FARMER, and Dicey TAYLOR, eds. 1997, Taíno: Precolumbian Art and Culture from the Caribbean. El Museo del Barrio, Monacelli Press, New York.

CREAMER, Winifred, and Jonathan HAAS 1985, Tribe versus chiefdom in Lower Central America. American Antiquity 50(4):738-754. CRESPO TORRES, Edwin 2002, Nuevas interpretaciones en torno a las creencias sobre la muerte y las prácticas funerarias de los indios de Boriquén. Revista del Instituto Cultura Puertorriqueña 3(5):83-94.

BERMAN, Mary Jane, and Perry L. GNIVECKI 1995, The colonization of the Bahamas archipelago: a rappraisal. World Archaeology 26(3):421-441. 117

THE TAÍNO SETTLEMENT AT GUAYGUATA: EXCAVATIONS IN ST. MARY PARISH, JAMAICA

CUNDALL, Frank 1915, Historic Jamaica. Institute of Jamaica, Kingston.

DEAGAN, Kathleen 1988, The Archaeology of the Spanish Contact Period in the Caribbean. Journal of World Prehistory 2(2):187-233.

CUNDALL, Frank 1939 Place-names of Jamaica. Revised by Philip M. Sherlock. Institute of Jamaica, Kingston. CUNDALL, Frank, and Joseph PIETERZ 1919, Jamaica Under the Spaniards. Kingston.

De BOOY, Theodor 1913, Certain Kitchen Middens in Jamaica. American Anthropologist 15(3):425-434. DeFRANCE, Susan D. and Lee Ann NEWSOM 2005, The Status of Paleoethnobiological Research on Puerto Rico and Adjacent Islands. In Ancient Borinquen: Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Native Puert Rico, edited by Peter E. Siegel, pp. 122-184. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

CURET, L. Antonio 1992, House structure and cultural change in the Caribbean. Latin American Antiquity 3(2):160-174. CURET, L. Antonio 1996, Ideology, chiefly power, and material culture: an example from the greater Antilles. Latin American Antiquity 7(2):114-131.

DeWOLF, Marian 1953, Excavations in Jamaica. American Antiquity 18:230-238. DUERDEN, J.E. 1895, Discovery of Aboriginal Indian Remains in Jamaica. Nature, 52 (1338):173-174.

CURET, L. Antonio 2003, Issues on the diversity and emergence of middle-range societies of the ancient Caribbean: a critique. Journal of Anthropological Research 11(1):1-42.

DUERDEN, J.E. 1897, Aboriginal Indian Remains in Jamaica. Journal of the Institute of Jamaica 2(4):151.

CURET, L. Antonio 2005, Caribbean Paleodemography: Population, Culture History, and Sociopolitical Processes in Ancient Puerto Rico. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

ESPINOSA, Antonio Vazquez de 1968, Description of the Indies (c. 1620). Translated by Charles Upton Clark. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collecitons v. 102. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC.

CURET, L. Antonio 2010, Archaeological Correlates in the Study of Social Stratification: The Cases of Central Place Theory and Ceremonial Centers. Paper presented to the Society for American Archaeology, St. Louis, MO, April 16. CURET, L. Antonio, and Luis Antonio RODRIGUEZ GRACIA 1997, Inform preliminar del projecto archeologico de Tibes. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress for Caribbean Archaeology, Guadeloupe, 1995 vol. 1:113-126.

FLOWER, W.H. 1891, Exhibition of Two Skulls from a Cave in Jamaica. Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 20: 110-112. FLOWER, W.H. 1895, On Recently Discovered Remains of the Aboriginal Inhabitants of Jamaica. Nature, 52 (1355): 607-608. FRINK, Douglas S. 1992, The Chemical Variability of Carbonized Organic Matter through Time. Archaeology of Eastern North America 20:67-79.

CURET, L. Antonio, Joshua JONES, and Miguel RODRIGUEZ 2004, Political and social history of Eastern Puerto Rico: the ceramic age. In Late Ceramic Age Societies in the Eastern Caribbean, edited by Corinne L. Hofman, and André Delpeuch, pp. 59-85. BAR International Series 1273. BAR Publishing, Oxford.

FRINK, Douglas S. 1994, The Oxidizable Carbon Ration (OCR): A Proposed Solution to Some of the Problems Encountered with Radiocarbon Data. North American Archaeologist 15(1):17-29. FRINK, Douglas S. 1995, Application of the Oxidizable Carbon Ratio Dating Procedure and its Implications for Pedogenic Research. In Pedological Perspectives in Archaeological Research, pp. 95-106. Soil Science Society of America Special Publication 44.

CURET, L. Antonio, Lee Ann NEWSOM, and Daniel WELCH 2001, Space and Time in the civicceremonial center of Tibes, Ponce, Puerto Rico. Proceedings of the 19th International Congress for Caribbean Archaeology, Aruba, 2001 vol. 1:142155. CURET, L. Antonio, and José R. OLIVER 1998, Mortuary practices, social development, and ideology in Precolumbian Puerto Rico. Latin American Antiquity 9(3):217-239.

FRINK, Douglas S. 1999, The Scientific Basis of Oxidizable Carbon Ratio (OCR) Dating. SAA Bulletin 17(5):32-36. FRINK, Douglas S. 2005, Important Message about OCR Carbon Dating, Inc. Electronic document, http://members.aol.com/dsfrink/ocr/ocrpage.htm, accessed 21 May 2007.

CURET, L. Antonio and Lisa M. STRINGER 2010, Tibes: People, Power, and Ritual at the Center of the Cosmos. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

GARCÍA-CASCO, A. Rodríguez VEGA, J. CÁRDENAS PÁRRAGA, M.A. ITURRALDE-VINENT, C. LÁZARO, I. BLANCO QUINTERO, Y. ROJAS AGRAMONTE, A. KRÖNER, K. NÚÑEZ CAMBRA, G. MILLÁN, R.L. TORRES-ROLDÁN, S. CARRASQUILLA 2009, A new jadeitite jade locality (Sierra del Convento, Cuba): first report and some petrological and archeological implications. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 158:116.

CURET, L. Antonio, and Joshua M. TORRES 2009, Plazas, bateys, and ceremonal centers: the social and cultural context of Tibes in the ancient history of Puerto Rico. In Tibes: People, Power, and Ritual at the Center of the Cosmos, edited by L. Antonio Curet and Lisa M. Stringer, pp. 261-286. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 118

REFERENCES CITED

HOFMAN, Corinne L., Menno L.P. HOOGLAND, and Andre DELPUECH 2001, Spatial organisation at a Troumassoid settlement, the case of Anse à la Gourde, Guadeloupe. Proceedings of the 19th International Congress for Caribbean Archaeology, Aruba, 2001 vol. 1:124-131.

GOODFRIEND, Glenn A. 1989, Quaternary Biogeographical History of Land Snails in Jamaica. In Biogeography of the West Indies: Past, Present and Future, edited by C.A. Woods, pp. 201-216. Sandhill Crane Press, Gainesville. GOULDWELL, A.J. 2006, A Laboratory Study of the Remains from Layer 3, Lot 386, Chancery Hall. In The Earliest Inhabitants: The Dynamics of the Jamaican Taíno, edited by Lesley-Gail Atkinson, pp. 58-68. University of the West Indies Press, Kingston, Jamaica. GRANBERRY, Julian, and Gary VESCELIUS 2004, Languages of the Pre-Columbian Antilles. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

HOOGLAND, Menno L.P., and Corinne L. HOFMAN 1999, Expansion of the Taíno cacicazgos towards the Lesser Antilles. Journal de la Societé des Americanistes 85:93-113. HOOGLAND, Menno L.P., Thomas ROMON, and Patrick BRASSELET 2001. Excavations at the site of Anse à la Gourde, Guadeloupe: Troumassoid burial practices. Proceedings of the 18th International Congress for Caribbean Archaeology, Grenada, 1999 vol. 2:173-178.

GREEN, G.W. (compiler) 1974, Geological Map of Kingston, Sheet 25. Mines and Geology Division, Ministry of Mining and Natural Resources. Scale 1:50,000. GREEN, G.W. 1977, Structure and Stratigraphy of the Wagwater Belt, Kingston, Jamaica. Overseas Geology and Mineral Resources, Bulletin 48, 1-21.

HOWARD, Robert Randolph 1950, The Archaeology of Jamaica and its Position in Relation to CircumCaribbean Culture. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Yale University, New Haven. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

GROOMBRIDGE, Brian, editor 1992, Global Biodiversity: Status of the Earth’s Living Resources. Report compiled by the World Conservation Monitoring Center. Chapman and Hall, London.

HOWARD, Robert Randolph 1956, The Archaeology of Jamaica: A Preliminary Survey. American Antiquity 22(1):45-59. HOWARD, Robert Randolph 1961-1962, Aboriginal Archaeology in Jamaica. Bulletin of the Scientific Research Council, 2 (1-4): 61-65.

GROUARD, Sandrine, and Benoit BÉRARD 2005, Dualité d’éxploitation économique des animaux au Diamant, Martinique. Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology, Santo Domingo, 2003, vol. 1:169-180.

HOWARD, Robert Randolph 1965, New Perspectives on Jamaican Archaeology. American Antiquity 31(2):250-255.

HADDON, A.C. 1897, Note on the Craniology of the Aborigines of Jamaica. Journal of the Institute of Jamaica, 2(4): 23-24.

HULME, Peter 1986, Colonial Encounters: Europe and the Native Caribbean, 1492-1797. Methuen, London.

HALLY, David J. 1993, The Territorial Size of Mississippian Chiefdoms. In Archaeology of Eastern North America, Papers in Honor of Stephen Williams, edited by James B. Stoltman, pp. 143-168. Archaeological Report No. 25. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson.

HULME, Peter 1988, Chiefdoms of the Caribbean: A Review Article. Critique of Anthropology 13(2):105118. HUMFREY, Michael 1975, Sea Shells of the West Indies: A Guide to the Marine Molluscs of the Caribbean, Taplinger Publishing Company, New York.

HALLY, David J. 1996, Platform-mound Construction and the Instability of Mississippian Chiefdoms. In Political Structure and Change in the Prehistoric Southeastern United States, edited by John F. Scarry, pp. 92-127. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

ISAAC, Glynn L. 1976, The activities of early African hominids. In Human Origins, edited by G.L. Isaac and E.R. McCown, pp. 483-514. W.A. Benjamin, California.

HARLOW, George E., A. REG MURPHY, David J. HOZJAN, Christy N. de MILLE, and Alfred A. LEVINSON 2006, Pre-Columbian Jadeite Axes from Antigua, West Indies: Description and Possible Sources. The Canadian Mineralogist 44:305-321. HARPER, W.F. 1961/1962, Aboriginal Amerindian Skulls of Jamaica. Bulletin of the Scientific Research Council 2(1-4):66-69. HELMS, Mary W. 1986, Art styles and interaction spheres in Central America and the Caribbean. Journal of Latin American Lore (12(1):25-43. HIGMAN, B.W. 1998, Montpelier, Jamaica: A Plantation Community in Slavery and Freedom 1739-1912. University Press of the West Indies, Mona, Jamaica.

JACKSON, T.A. 1987, The petrology of Jamaican Cretaceous and Tertiary volcanic rocks and their tectonic significance. In Proceedings of a Workshop on the Status of Jamaican Geology, edited by Ahmad, R., pp. 107-119. Geological Society of Jamaica, Kingston. JOHN, K. and A. BAILEY 2006, The Aquatic Exodus: An Overview of Migratory Species in Jamaican Freshwater Systems. Electronic document. http://www.jamaicahm.org.jm/Articles/aquatic_exodu s.asp. Accessed December, 2006. JOHNSON, Kathleen 1976, Supplement on Cinnamon Hill: Faunal Analysis. Archaeology Jamaica 76(1):918. 119

THE TAÍNO SETTLEMENT AT GUAYGUATA: EXCAVATIONS IN ST. MARY PARISH, JAMAICA

KIRCH, Patrick V. and T.S. DYE 1979, Ethnoarchaeology and the Development of Polynesian Fishing Strategies. Journal of the Polynesian Society 88:5376.

JUNIPER, Tony and Mike PARR 1998, Parrots: A Guide to Parrots of the World. Yale University Press, New Haven. KEEGAN, William F. 1986, The Ecology of Lucayan Arawak Fishing Practices. American Antiquity 51(4):816-825.

KLEIN, Richard G. 1989, The Human Career. Appendix 2: Flaked stone artifact technology and typology. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.

KEEGAN, William F. 1992, The People Who Discovered Columbus: The Prehistory of the Bahamas. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

KNIPPENBERG, Sebastiaan, Johannes J.P. ZIJLSTRA 2008, Chert Sourcing in the Northern Lesser Antilles: The Use of Geochemical Techniques in Discriminating Chert Materials. In Crossing the Borders: New Methods and Techniques in the Study of Archaeological Materials from the Caribbean, edited by C.L. Hofman, M.L.P. Hoogland, and A.L. van Gijn, pp. 43-65. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

KEEGAN, William F. 1994, West Indian Archaeology 1. Overview and Foragers. Journal of Archaeological Research, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 255-284. KEEGAN, William F. 1996, West Indian archaeology 2. After Columbus. Journal of Archaeological Research 4(4):265-294. KEEGAN, William F. 1998, Paradise Park, Jamaica. Electronic document, http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/ anthro/caribarch/jamaicapark.htm. Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville, Florida. Accessed 6 July, 2010.

LAMMERS-KEIJSERS, Yvonne M.J. 2001, Use wear analysis on Pre-Columbian shell artifacts of the Anse à la Gourde site Guadeloupe. Proceedings of the 18th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology, Grenada, 1999, vol. 2: 179186.

KEEGAN, William F. 2000, West Indian archaeology 3. Ceramic age. Journal of Archaeological Research 8(2):135-167.

LeBOEF, Burney J., Karl W. KENYON and Bernardo VILLA-RAMIREZ 1986, The Caribbean Monk Seal is Extinct. Marine Mammal Science 2(1):70-72

KEEGAN, William F. 2002, Paradise Park, 2002. Electronic document, http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/ caribarch/ParadiseParkEW2002.htm. Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville, Florida. Accessed 6 July, 2010.

LEE, Alfonso Silva, and Roger E. DOOLEY 1998, Coral Reefs of the Caribbean, the Bahamas, and Florida. Macmillan Education, London and Basingstoke. LEE, James W. 1966, Current activity. Archaeology Jamaica 66-6: 1.

KEEGAN, William F. 2006, Archaic Influences in the Origins and Development of Taíno Societies. Caribbean Journal of Science 42(1):1-10.

LEE, James W. 1967, Parish Reviews—No. 1, St. Mary. Archaeology Jamaica 67-1:1. LEE, James W. 1970a, The Coleraine Site (Y-19) St. Mary. Archaeology Jamaica 70-1:2. LEE, James W. 1970b, Iter Boreale (Y-14) St. Mary. Archaeology Jamaica 70-3:1-2. LEE, James W. 1978a, Fish-net Sinkers. Archaeology Jamaica 78-1:1-9. LEE, James W. 1978b, Site Survey. Archaeology Jamaica 78-2:5. LEE, James W. 1980, Jamaica Redware. Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress for the Study of Pre-Columbian Cultures of the Lesser Antilles, St. Kitts, 1979, pp. 597-609. Arizona State Anthropological Research Papers Number 22, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.

KEEGAN, William F., and Lesley-Gail ATKINSON 2006, The Development of Jamaican Prehistory. In The Earliest Inhabitants: The Dynamics of the Jamaican Taíno, edited by Lesley-Gail Atkinson, pp. 13-33. University of the West Indies Press, Kingston, Jamaica. KEEGAN, William F., R. PORTELL, and J. SLAPCINSKY 2003, Changes in Invertebrate Taxa at Two Pre-Columbian Sites in Southwestern Jamaica, A.D. 800-1500. Journal of Archaeological Science 30:1607-1617. KEEGAN, William F. and Morgan D. MACLACHLAN 1989, The Evolution of Avunculocal Chiefdoms: A Reconstruction of Taíno Kinship and Politics. American Anthropologist 91:613-630.

LEE, James W. 1984, Site Surveys. Archaeology Jamaica 84-4:40.

KEEGAN, William F., Morgan MACLACHLAN, and Bryan BYRNE 1998, Social foundations of Taíno caciques. In Chiefdoms and Chieftaincies in the Americas, edited by Elsa M. Redmond, pp. 217-244. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

LEE, James W. 1985a, Activities. Archaeology Jamaica 85-1&2:5. LEE, James W. 1985b, A pre-Columbian gold artifact from Jamaica. Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference for the Study of the Pre-Columbian Cultures of the Lesser Antilles, pp. 343-346. Centre de Recherches Caraibes, University de Montreal.

KEEGAN, William F., A.V. STOKES, and Lee Ann NEWSOM 1990, Bibliography of Caribbean Archaeology. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. KILLICK, D.J., A.J.T. JULL, and G.S. BURR 1999, Failure to Discriminate: Querying Oxidizable Carbon Ratio (OCR) Dating. SAA Bulletin 17(5):32-36.

LEE, James W. 1992, Chronology of Archaeology in St. Ann. Archaeology Jamaica (n.s.) 5: 15-20. 120

REFERENCES CITED

O’DAY, S. JONES 2001, A Report of Vertebrate Fauna from Wes15a and Wes15b, Paradise Park, Westmoreland Jamaica. Report on File at Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville, Florida.

LEE, James W. 2006, Jamaica redware. In The Earliest Inhabitants: The Dynamics of the Jamaican Taíno, pp. 153-160. University of the West Indies Press, Kingston, Jamaica. (reprinted from Lee 1980).

OLIVER, Jose R. 2005, The proto-Taíno monumental cemis of Caguana, a political-religious “manifesto.” In Ancient Borinquen, Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Native Puerto Rico, edited by Peter E. Siegel, pp. 230-284. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

LOVÉN, Sven 1924, Uber die Wurzeln der Tainischen Kultur. Elanders Boktryckeri Aktiebolag, Goteborg. LOVÉN, Sven 1935, Origins of the Tainan Culture, West Indies, reprinted 2010, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

OLIVER, Jose R. 2009, Caciques and Cemi Idols: The Web Spun by Taíno Rulers Between Hispaniola and Puerto Rico. University Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

MAHARAJ, Russell Junior 1992, Geotechnics and Zonation of “Landslides” in Upper St. Andrew, Jamaica, West Indies. M. Phil. thesis, Department of Geology, University of the West Indies, Mona, Jamaica.

OSBORNE, F.J. 1973, Iter Boreale. The Jamaican Historical Society Bulletin, 6(3/4): 39-43.

McGINNITY, Dale 2002, A Preliminary Account of the Conservation Initiative for Giant Galliwasps at the Nashville Zoo. International Zoo News 49/7 (No. 320): 396-403.

OVIEDO, Gonzalo Fernandez de 1959, Natural History of the West Indies. Translated and edited by Sterling A. Stoudemire. University of North Carolina Studies in the Romance Languages and Literature, No. 32. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

MEDHURST, Colin W. 1976, The Bellevue site (K-13), Part 2. Archaeology Jamaica. 76-4: 12-23.

PADRÓN, Francisco Morales 1952, Jamaica Espanola. Seville.

MEDHURST, Colin W. 1980, The Rodney’s House Site (S-5); St. Catherine, Jamaica. Archaeology Jamaica 80(4):1-16.

PADRÓN, Francisco Morales 2003, Spanish Jamaica. Translated by Patrick E. Bryan. Ian Randle Publishers, Kingston, Jamaica.

MEHRING, A.L. 1965, Land Shells of Jamaica. Unpublished manuscript submitted to the Institute of Jamaica, Kingston.

PATRICK, Nicole L. 2000, Green Castle Excavations 1999: Microbotanical and Microfaunal Remains. B.A. thesis, Caribbean Studies, University of the West Indies, Mona Campus, Kingston, Jamaica.

MILLER, Gerrit S., Jr. 1929, Mammals Eaten by Indians, Owls, and Spaniards in the Coast Region of the Dominican Republic. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 82(5):1-16.

PHILLIPS, Marcella T. 2007, The Land Snails from Green Castle and Other Excavated Taíno Sites in St. Mary. M.A. thesis, Department of History and Archaeology, University of the West Indies, Mona, Jamaica.

MORGAN, Gary S. 1993, Quaternary Land Vertebrates of Jamaica. In Biostratigraphy of Jamaica, edited by R.M. Wright and E. Robinson, pp. 417-442. Geological Society of America Memoir 182, Boulder, Colorado.

PORTER, Anthony R.D. 1990, Jamaica, a Geological Portrait. Institute of Jamaica, Kingston. PORTER, Anthony R.D. 2004, A Pre-Columbian stone artefact found in Jamaica. Jamaica Journal 28(23):49-53.

MORGAN, Gary S. and Charles A. WOODS 1986, Extinction and the Zoogeography of West Indian Land Mammals. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 28:167-203.

PORTER, Anthony R.D. 2006, Bricks and Stones from the Past: Jamaica’s Geological Heritage. University of the West Indies Press, Kingston.

MORISON, Samuel Eliot, translator and editor 1963, Journals and Other Documents on the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus. Heritage Press, New York.

PORTER, Anthony R.D., T.A. JACKSON, and E. ROBINSON 1982, Minerals and Rocks of Jamaica. Jamaica Publishing House, Kingston.

MORSE, Birgit Faber 1991, The origin and development of the Caribbean ball court. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology, pp. 446-458. Barbados Museum and Historical Society, Barbados.

RANDALL, John E. 1965, Grazing Effects on Sea Grasses by Herbivorous Reef Fishes in the West Indies. Ecology 46(3):255-260. RANDALL, John E. 1967, Food Habits of Reef Fishes of the West Indies. Studies in Tropical Oceanography 5:665-84

MULLER, Jon 1997, Mississippian Political Economy. Plenum Press, New York.

RANDALL, John E. 1968, Caribbean Reef Fishes. T.F.H. Publications, Hong Kong.

NARGANES-STORDE, Y.M 1982, Vertebrate Faunal Remains from Sorce, Vieques, Puerto Rico. Master’s Thesis, University of Georgia, Athens.

RANDEL, William 1960, Survival of Pre-English Place Names. Names 8(1):24-29.

NEWSOM, Lee Ann, and Elizabeth S. WING 2004, On Land and Sea. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

REID, Basil 1990, Archaeological Study of the Site of Firefly. Archaeology Jamaica (N.S.), 1: 8.

121

THE TAÍNO SETTLEMENT AT GUAYGUATA: EXCAVATIONS IN ST. MARY PARISH, JAMAICA

REID, Basil 1994, Taínos Not Arawaks: The Indigenous Peoples of Jamaica and the Greater Antilles. Caribbean Geography 5:67-71.

Congress for the Study of Pre-Columbian Cultures of the Lesser Antilles, Guadeloupe, 1975, pp. 304-313. Société d'Histoire de la Guadeloupe, Centre Universitaire, Pointe á Pitre, Guadeloupe.

REID, Basil 2009, Myths and Realities of Caribbean History. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

ROUSE, Irving 1948, The Arawak. In Handbook of South American Indians, Volume 4. The CircumCaribbean Tribes, edited by Julian H. Steward, pp. 507-546. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 143. Smithsonian institution, Washington DC.

REID, Basil n.d., The Firefly/Wentworth Amerindian Project (December 1988). Unpublished manuscript on file at the Edward Moulton-Barrett Archaeology Laboratory, University of the West Indies, Mona, Jamaica. REITZ, Elizabeth J., and D. CORDIER 1983, Use of Allometry in Zooarchaeological Analysis. In Animals and Archaeology Vol. 2: Shell Middens, Fishes, and Birds, edited by C. Grigson and J. Clutton-Brock, pp. 237-254. BAR International Series 183. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. REITZ, Elizabeth J., and Bonnie McEWEN 1995, Animals, Environment, and the Spanish Diet at Puerto Real. In Puerto Real: The Archaeology of a SixteenCentury Spanish Town in Hispaniola, edited by Kathleen Deagan, pp. 287-334. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. REITZ, Elizabeth J., and Elizabeth S. WING 1999, Zooarchaeology. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

ROUSE, Irving 1951, Areas and periods of culture in the Greater Antilles. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 7(3):248-265. ROUSE, Irving 1964, Prehistory of the West Indies. Science 144:499-515. ROUSE, Irving 1990, Social, linguistic, and stylistic plurality in the West Indies. Proceedings of the Eleventh Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology, pp. 56-65. La Fundacion Arqueologica, Antropologica e Historia de Puerto Rico. ROUSE, Irving 1992, The Taínos. Yale University Press, New Haven. ROUSE, Irving, and Louis ALLAIRE 1980, Caribbean Archaeology. In New World Chronology, edited by C.W. Meighan and R.E. Taylor, pp. 432-482. Academic Press, New York.

RENFREW, Colin, and Paul BAHN 1996, Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice. Second edition. Thames and Hudson, London.

SAMSON, Alice 2010a, Renewing the House: Trajectories of Social Life in the Yucayeque (Community) of El Cabo, Higuey, Dominican Republic, AD 800 to 1504. Sidestone Press, Leiden.

RIGHTER, Elizabeth C., Ken S. WILD, and Emily R. LUNDBERG 2004, Late ceramic age developments in the Virgins archipelago: the Puerto Rican connection. In Late Ceramic Age Societies in the Eastern Caribbean, edited by Corinne L. Hofman, and André Delpeuch, pp. 101-118. BAR International Series 1273. BAR Publishing, Oxford.

SAMSON, Alice 2010b, The House that Higuanamá Inherited: Trajectories of Social Life in El Cabo, Eastern Dominican Republic. Paper presented to the Society for American Archaeology, St. Louis, MO, April 16. SANTOS, Ana Luísa 2001, Green Castle Burials: Anthropological Report. Report on file at the Edward Moulton Barrett Archaeology Laboratory, University of the West Indies, Kingston, Jamaica, and the Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.

ROBINSON, Edward 1994, Jamaica. In Caribbean Geology, An Introduction, edited by S.K. Donovan, T.A. Jackson, Chapter 6, pp. 111-127. The University of the West Indies Publishers Association, Kingston. RODNEY-HARRACK, Norma 2006, Jamaican Taíno Pottery. In The Earliest Inhabitants: The Dynamics of the Jamaican Taíno, edited by Lesley-Gail Atkinson, pp. 146-152. University of the West Indies Press, Jamaica. RODRÍGUEZ Ramos, Reniel 2005, The Crab-Shell Dichotomy Revisited: The Lithics Speak Out. In Ancient Borinquen, edited by P.E. Siegel, pp. 1-54. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

SANTOS, Ana Luísa, Philip ALLSWORTH-JONES, and Esther RODRIQUES 2002, Pathological Evidence in the Pre-Columbian Human Remains from the Lee Collection (Jamaica). Antropologia Portuguesa 19:121-138. SANTOS, Ana. L., Philip ALLSWORTH-JONES, and Michael GARDNER 2005, Pathological analysis of Pre-Columbian skulls from Hellshire, Jamaica. 1st Paleopathology Association Meeting in South America: Program and Abstract, p. 30. Rio de Janeiro, 27-29 July. Rio de Janeiro, Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública Sérgio Arouca. [Abstract]. SANTOS, Ana Luísa, E. CUNHA, N. DÂMASO, and C. MARRAFA 1991/1992, Ficha Antropológica: A Utilizar na Escavação. Antropologia Portuguesa, 9/10:67-69. SANTOS, Ana Luísa, Michael GARDNER, and Philip ALLSWORTH-JONES 2002, A Possible Case of

RODRÍGUEZ Ramos, Reniel 2010a, On the Ideological Origins of Taínoness. Paper presented to the Society for American Archaeology, St. Louis, MO, April 16. RODRÍGUEZ Ramos, Reniel 2010b, Rethinking Puerto Rican Precolonial History. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. ROOBOL, M. John, and James W. LEE 1976, Petrography and Source of Some Arawak Rock Artifacts from Jamaica. Proceedings of the Sixth International 122

REFERENCES CITED

Treponematosis in a Taíno/Arawak Skull from Jamaica. In: 14th European Meeting of the Paleopathology Association: Program – Abstract. Coimbra, 28-31 August 2002, p. 144. Coimbra, Departamento de Antropologia, Universidade de Coimbra. SAUER, Carl O. 1966, The Early Spanish Main. University of California Press, Berkeley. SAUNDERS, Nicholas J., and Dorrick GRAY 1996, Zemis, trees, and symbolic landscapes: three Taíno carvings from Jamaica. Antiquity 70:801-812. SCHICK, Kathy D., and Nicholas TOTH 1995, Making Silent Stones Speak. Phoenix, London.

SIEGEL, Peter E. 2004, What happened after AD 600 on Puerto Rico? Corporate groups, population restructuring, and post-Saladoid social changes. In Late Ceramic Age Societies in the Eastern Caribbean, edited by Corinne L. Hofman, and André Delpuech, pp. 87-100. BAR International Series 1273. BAR Publishing, Oxford. SIEGEL, Peter E. (editor) 2005, Ancient Borinquen: Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Native Puerto Rico. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. SIEGEL, Peter E., Christopher T. ESPENSHADE, and David L. McCULLOUGH 2009, Mitigation Plus, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers application of Section 106 to site Ponce 29, Puerto Rico. SAA Archaeological Record 9(4):24-29. SIEGEL, Peter E., John G. JONES, Deborah M. PEARSALL, and Daniel P. WAGNER 2005, Environmental and cultural correlates in the West Indies: A View from Puerto Rico. In Ancient Borinquen, Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Native Puerto Rico, edited by Peter E. Siegel, pp. 88-121. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. SILVERBERG, James, Ronald L. VANDERWAL, and Elizabeth S. WING 1972, The White Marl Site in Jamaica: Report of the 1964 Robert R. Howard Excavation. Ms. on file at the Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. SMITH, B. Holly 1984, Patterns of Molar Wear in Hunter-Gatherers and Agriculturalists. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 63:39-56. St CLAIR, J. 1970, Problem orientated archaeology. Jamaica Journal 4(1):7-10. STOKES, Anne Vaughn 1998, A Biogeographic Survey of Prehistoric Human Diet in the West Indies Using Stable Isotopes. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of Florida. STOKES, Betty Jo 2006, Settlement Patterns and the Placement of Jamaican Taíno Chiefdoms in a Greater Antilles Context: Theory and Practical Method. In Proceedings of the Archaeological Society of Jamaica’s Annual Symposia 2002-2004, edited by Lesley-Gail Atkinson, pp. 8-18. Archaeology Jamaica (New Series) #19 (Special Edition). Archaeological Society of Jamaica, Kingston. STUIVER, Minze, and Paula J. REIMER 1993, Extended 14C Data Base and Revised CALIB 3.0 14C Age Calibration Program. Radiocarbon 35(1):215-230. SWANTON, John R. 1952, The Indian Tribes of North America. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 145. Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC.

SCHWARTZ, Albert and Robert W. HENDERSON 1991, Amphibians and Reptiles of the West Indies: Descriptions, Distributions, and Natural History. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. SCUDDER, Sylvia 1991, Early Arawak Subsistence Strategies on the South Coast of Jamaica. In Proceedings of the 13th International Congress for Caribbean Archaeology. Edited by E.N. Aruba and J.B. Haviser, pp. 297-312. Report of the Archaeological Anthropological Institute of the Netherlands Antilles, No. 9. SCUDDER, Sylvia 1992, Early Arawak Subsistence Strategies: the Rodney’s House Site of Jamaica. Archaeology Jamaica 92(6):28-43. SERRAND, Nathalie 2001, Exogenous freshwater bivalves (Unionoida), Hope Estate (St. Martin). Proceedings of the 18th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology, Grenada, 1999, vol. 1:136-152. SERRAND, Nathalie 2003, Les restes coquilliers du site précéramique de Baie Orientale (St. Martin): consommation de mollusques et production d’outils en coquille. Proceedings of the 19th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology, Aruba, 2001, vol. 1:89-101. SERRAND, Nathalie 2005, Les restes de mollusques du site saladoïde moyen-tardif du Diamant à Dizac, Martinique (450-700 ap. J.C.): une éxploitation entre mer et mangrove. Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology, Santo Domingo, 2003, vol. 2:159-168. SHACKLEY, Myra L. 1975, Archaeological Sediments. Butterworths, London and Boston. SIEGEL, Peter E. 1991, Political evolution in the Caribbean. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology, pp. 232-250. Reports of the Archaeological-Anthropological Institute of the Netherlands Antilles No. 9.

TORRES, Joshua M. 2005, Deconstructing the polity, community and social landscapes of the ceramic age peoples of southcentral Puerto Rico. In Ancient Borinquen, Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Native Puerto Rico, edited by Peter E. Siegel, pp. 202-229. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

SIEGEL, Peter E. 1996, Ideology and Culture Change in Prehistoric Puerto Rico. Journal of Field Archaeology 23:313-333. SIEGEL, Peter E. 1999, Contested Places and Places of Contest: The Evolution of Social Power and Ceremonial Space in Prehistoric Puerto Rico. Latin American Antiquity 10(3):209-238.

TRIGGER, Bruce G. 1978, Time and Tradition: Essays in Archaeological Interpretation. Columbia University Press, New York. 123

THE TAÍNO SETTLEMENT AT GUAYGUATA: EXCAVATIONS IN ST. MARY PARISH, JAMAICA

TUCKER, Maurice E. 2003, Sedimentary Rocks in the Field. Third edition. John Wiley, Chichester.

American Archaeology, New Orleans, Louisiana, April 20.

UBELAKER, Douglas 1989, Human Skeletal Remains: Excavation, Analysis, Interpretation. Second ed. Taraxacum Press, Washington DC.

WESLER, Kit W., Bonnie STEPENOFF, N. Renae FARRIS, and Carol A. MORROW 1999, Archaeological Test Excavations at the Delassus-Kern House, Ste. Genevieve, Missouri. Ohio Valley Historical Archaeology 14: 67-88.

ULLOA HUNG, Jorge 2005, Approaches to early ceramics in the Caribbean: between diversity and unilineality. In Dialogues in Cuban Archaeology, edited by L. Antonio Curet, Shannon Lee Dawdy, and Gabino La Rosa Corzo, pp. 103-124. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

WHITE, Timothy 2000, Human Osteology. Second ed. Academic Press Inc., San Diego, California. WILKINS, Laurie 2001, Impact of Hunting on Jamaican Hutia (Geocapromys brownii) Populations: Evidence from Zooarchaeology and Hunter Surveys, In Biogeography of the West Indies: Patterns and Perspectives, edited by Charles A. Woods and Florence E. Sergile, pp 529-545. CRC Press, New York.

VALCÁRCEL ROJAS, Roberto, and César A. RODRÍGUEZ ARCE 2005, El Chorro de Maita, social inequality and Mortuary space. In Dialogues in Cuban Archaeology, edited by L. Antonio Curet, Shannon Lee Dawdy, and Gabino La Rosa Corzo, pp. 125-146. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

WILMAN, John C. 1978, Rodney’s House (S-5); St. Catherine, Jamaica. Archaeology Jamaica 78(3):1-22.

Van GIJN, Annelou L., Yvonne LAMMERS-KEIJSERS, and Iris BRIELS 2008, Tool Use and Technological Choices: An Integral Approach toward Functional Analysis of Caribbean Tool Assemblages. In Crossing the Borders: New Methods and Techniques in the Study of Archaeological Materials from the Caribbean, edited by C.L. Hofman, M.L.P. Hoogland, and A.L. van Gijn, pp. 101-114. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

WILSON, Samuel M. 1990, Hispaniola: Caribbean Chiefdoms in the Age of Columbus. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. WILSON, Samuel M. 1993, The cultural mosaic of the indigenous Caribbean. Proceedings of the British Academy 81:37-66. WILSON, Samuel M. 2004, Linking prehistory and history in the Caribbean. In Late Ceramic Age Societies in the Eastern Caribbean, edited by Corinne L. Hofman, and André Delpuech, pp. 269-272. BAR International Series 1273. BAR Publishing, Oxford.

VANDERWAL, Ronald L. 1967, The Prehistory of Jamaica: A Ceramic Study. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of WisconsinMilwaukee. VANDERWAL, Ronald L. 1968, Preliminary Report on 1968 Season. Report on file at the Institute of Jamaica, Kingston.

WILSON, Samuel M. 2007, The Archaeology of the Caribbean. Cambridge University Press, New York. WING, Elizabeth 1972, The White Marl Site in Jamaica: Identification and Interpretation of Faunal Remains. In The White Marl Site in Jamaica: Report of the 1964 Robert R. Howard Excavation, by James Silverberg, Ronald L. Vanderwal, and Elizabeth S. Wing, pp. 18-35. Ms. on file at the Anthropology Department, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

VELOZ MAGGIOLO, Marcio 1993, La Isla de Santo Domingo antes de Colon. Banco Central de la Republica Dominicana, Santo Domingo. VENDRYES, H. 1883, Land Shells and Fresh Water Shells of the Island. The Handbook of Jamaica, pp. 471-487. Government Printing Establishment, Kingston. WARMKE, Germaine Le Clerc and R. Tucker ABBOTT 1961, Caribbean Seashells. Livingston Publishing, Narberth, Pennsylvania. WATTS, David Development, since 1492. Geography Cambridge.

WING, Elizabeth 1977, Bellevue Site (K-13): Use of Animals by People Inhabiting the Bellevue Site. Archaeology Jamaica 77(1):2-7. WING, Elizabeth 1989, Human Exploitation of Animal Resources in the Caribbean. In Biogeography of the West Indies: Patterns and Perspectives, edited by Charles A. Woods and Florence E. Sergile, pp 137152. CRC Press, New York.

1987, The West Indies: Patterns of Culture and Environmental Change Cambridge Studies in Historical 8. Cambridge University Press,

WING, Elizabeth 1993, The Realm Between Wild and Domesticated. In Skeletons in her Cupboard: Festschrift for Juliet Clutton-Brock, edited by A. Clason, S. Payne, and H.P. Uerpmann, pp. 243-250. Oxbow Monograph 34, Oxbox Books, Oxford.

WESLER, Kit W. 2001, Excavations at Wickliffe Mounds. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. WESLER, Kit W. 2003, Guaiguata: Taíno Chiefdom Organization of the North Coast of Jamaica. Report for the National Geographic Society Committee for Research and Exploration, Washington DC.

WING, Elizabeth S., and Antoinette B. BROWN 1980, Paleonutrition. Academic Press, New York. WING, Elizabeth S., C.E. RAY, and C.A. HOFFMAN 1968, Vertebrate Remains from Indian Sites on Antigua, West Indies. Caribbean Journal of Science 8 (3-4): 123-139.

WESLER, Kit W. and Philip ALLSWORTH-JONES 2001, Excavations at Green Castle Estate, Jamaica, 1999-2000. Paper presented to the Society for 124

REFERENCES CITED

WRIGHT, I.A. 1921, The early history of Jamaica. English Heritage Review 36:70-95.

WOODWARD, Robyn P. 1988, The Charles Cotter Collection: a Study of the Ceramic and Faunal Remains from Sevilla La Nueva. M.A. Thesis, Texas A & M University, College Station, TX.

YATES, G.S., and R.W. THOMPSON 1959-1960, Some provisional notes on the Spanish place-names of Jamaica. Jamaican Historical Society Bulletin 2(11):172-175, 2(12):197-199, 2(13):211-213.

WOODWARD, Robyn P. 2006, Taíno Ceramics from Post-Contact Jamaica. In The Earliest Inhabitants: The Dynamics of the Jamaican Taíno, edited by Lesley-Gail Atkinson, pp.161-174. University of the West Indies Press, Kingston, Jamaica.

ZANS, V.A., L.J. CHUBB, H.R. VERSEY, J.B. WILLIAMS, E. ROBINSON, and D.L. COOKE 1962, Synopsis of the Geology of Jamaica: an explanation of the 1958 provisional geological map of Jamaica. Geological Survey Department, Kingston.

WRIGHT, Henry T. 1984, Prestate Political Formations. In On the Evolution of Complex Societies: Essays in Honor of Harry Hoijer 1982, edited by Timothy K. Earle, pp. 41-77. Undena Publications, Malibu,CA.

125