Geoarchaeology in the Caribbean

caribbeangeoarch — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:00:04 +0000

Caribbean archaeology has traditionally focused on ceramic typology and timing the initial migration to the islands. Even when the sea is an important element in the island environment, little attention has been given to understanding how settlements were located within their contemporary coastal landscape and environment. Palaeoclimatic and sea level curve studies of the Caribbean region have identified significant changes in temperature and humidity during the Holocene. Sea surface temperatures also fluctuated, affecting local climate as well as other important aspects such as storm paths and rain fall. These factors, in particular variations in precipitation, combined with human impact on the land, and changes in sea level are the keystone of coastal geomorphological change given that the first two affect sediment budgets from land and the last one influences coast line location and transport energy from the sea.
Placing human coastal occupation within its local environmental context is of paramount importance to the understanding of the characteristics of human occupations on the Caribbean Archipelago. The application of palaeoecological research to coastal areas allows a more comprehensive understanding of the nature of the relationship between human occupations and their seascapes / islandscapes. Placing archaeological sites within their contemporary context facilitates reconstruction of human ecosystems which, combined with other palaeoecological data, makes it possible to produce more accurate and sophisticated interpretations of human behaviour.

Human palaeoecology is an interdisciplinary field that studies the environment associated with human contexts in ancient times, including external biological and physical factors influencing and influenced by human activities, either directly or indirectly. Geoarchaeology focuses on the physical factors associated to human contexts, applying techniques and approaches of earth sciences (geomorphology, sedimentology, pedology, stratigaphy, etc) to sediments, soils and landforms at archaeological sites. This information contributes to the wider understanding of the factors affecting the ecological niches and conditions that form part of the environmental context in which human occupation developed at a particular site.

The shells of Punta Candelero

caribbeangeoarch — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:55:43 +0000

Punta Candelero is a coastal foreland on the east-southeast coast of Puerto Rico (Figure 1). It lies approximately 3km south of the modern mouth of Humacao River, the largest in the area, on the shore of the Candelero River valley. The archaeological site on the foreland was first reported in the 1980s by archaeologist Miguel Rodríguez. In general terms, the site consists two occupational periods: an earlier Hueca deposit identified on the discrete accumulations in linear disposition and a later Cuevas (Late Saladoid) occupation arranged in concentric ring or horse-shoe shape some of which is superimposed on the Hueca deposits (Pagán-Jiménez 2007; Ramos-Vélez et al 2007; Rodríguez-Lopez 1988, 1991).

FIgure 1: Puerto Rico, showing Punta Candelero location. Humacao River flows north of Morrillo de Humacao, its mouth can be seen just north of the headland. (Topographical map modified from USGS Punta Guayanés Quadrangle, 1982)

The shells from Punta Candelero evidence exploitation of a range of aquatic environments that exist in the area today: riparian, sandy beach,rocky shores, offshore shallow reefs and sea-grass beds; although it is possible there were other environments available that are not represented in the shell assemblage. The fact that Neritina sp were intensively collected raises the question of energy and foraging time devoted to the gathering of these brought back to camp alive (as suggested by the numerous small opercula). Neritinas are a common occurrence in most periods throughout Caribbean prehispanic archaeology. It is a widely accepted idea that these (and all other small gastropods) were cooked as soups, where the molluscs were added in bulk to boiling water. No direct experimentation or testing has been carried out to evaluate this speculation but it is as strong among Caribbeanists as Irving Rouse’s cultural typological scheme. Nevertheless, small gastropods can also represent evidence of other activities, aside of the possibility of soup making.

In food-terms, Neritina sp do not present a reasonable food objective. Given their relatively small size and the amount of work needed to extract the mollusc, these species would not be an likely to be gathered for consumption, especially considering the large number of more productive species closer to the site in habitats known to have been
exploited; and the existence of similar molluscs (Nerita sp.) closer to the site. The fact that Neritina were still collected is “economically irrational” (Bird et al 2001) and seems at odds with the Prey Choice Model terms of direct use as human food.

Figure 2: Example of neritid pattern of shell fracture. (Drawing by Isabel C. Rivera-Collazo).

Many of the Neritina of Punta Candelero show impact on the dorso/ventral area, detached apertures and aperturefragments, with very little or no burning (Figure 6) Similar breakage patterns have been observed on other archaeological sites of different period in the Caribbean (Serrand 2001; Serrand and Bonnissent 2005). This type of breakage would effectively break the snail’s attachment muscle, facilitating its removal from the shell without cooking. It is possible that the Neritina were collected to be used as bait either in fish traps or on hook lines (Claassen 1991: 253; for ethnographical evidence of this practice see Claassen 1998: Chapter 7). Seen isolated from other sustenance activities that require inland venturing, collecting neritids for fishing could seem to increase significantly the cost of fishing according to the Prey Choice Model, an aspect that needs further research.

Personal communication with local fishermen also suggests the possibility of gathering the neritids as snacks during trips, where they could be consumed while walking. Similar behaviour was observed in India by Arati Deshpande- Mukherjee, where people would remove the snail from the shell using sharp sticks and consume it raw (Deshpande- Mukherkee, pers comm. 2008). Nevertheless, neritid collection for snacking does not explain the presence of so many opercula on site.

The possibility of using molluscs as bait invites an examination of other evidence for line-fishing during the Late Saladoid. In Punta Candelero there is faunal evidence for the exploitation of pelagic and deep sea carnivorous fish (Ramos-Vélez et al. 2007); however, no fish hooks were recovered. This scenario is common throughout the Caribbean. It is possible fish hooks were made of perishable materials, such as wood or thorns. Buse (1981: 20) documented the use of fishing hooks in Peruvian coastal groups made from thorns that were shaped while still green and flexible. This kind of material would not readily survive in terrestrial archaeological contexts. The study of proxy evidence that suggests line fishing allows the further understanding of the application of this technology in the Caribbean.

Regarding the rest of the Gastropod assemblage, many of the species identified are too small to be consumed (eg. Cymatium sp., Polinices sp., Diodora sp., Tegula sp.), but appear consistently throughout the site, although at low percentages (<1%). It is possible some of these shells reflect the presence of terrestrial hermit crabs (Cenobita clypeatus, ref. García Ríos 2005: 371), which periodically move into abandoned mollusc shells and are very common on modern Puerto Rican shores. The ubiquity of these shells throughout the site might also indicate another anthropic subsistence activity. Claassen (1991, 1998) documents that periodical cleaning of fish traps in the Bahamas brought to shore molluscs and other remains that were not intentionally collected for economic or other sustenance activities. It is possible that fish traps were placed in Thalassia or other sea grass beds, or close to reefs, where fish could hide and be caught. The documented species are scavenging or grazing gastropods that could have crawled into the traps and be brought ashore with the catch and subsequently discarded during cleaning, providing proxy evidence of the use of this technology.

The shell remains from Punta Candelero support the conclusions suggested by the geoarchaeological analysis regarding the deltaic origin of the foreland. The archaeomalacological analysis (Rivera-Collazo 2010) suggests the occupants of the site used all the locally available environments, including rocky shores, sandy intertidal, consolidated and unconsolidated subtidal, and riparian habitats. The apparent absence of mangal habitat needs further examination. The assemblage also documents particular foraging practices. Rocky shores were exploited by collecting individual specimens, selecting them according to size. Sandy beaches were used for collecting Donax “en masse” probably using baskets or sieves. Subtidal environments (rocky and seagrass habitats) were exploited by the gathering of individual specimens. It is also possible that some of the molluscs were collected opportunistically during fishing trips. The data seems to suggest not all the shells in the assemblage were collected for sustenance. Some of the gastropods might represent fish trap cleaning practices. The neritids could have been consumed, but could also have been used as bait in traps or on hooks. Other shells could have been brought to shore accidentally, such as the Brachidontes exustus associated with large coral fragments that were being used for surface stabilization before erecting structures (Rivera-Collazo and Cross-Marsh 2007).

The analysis of the faunal remains collected during the 2006 excavations suggests the inhabitants of Punta Candelero were maritime-oriented but had ample use of the terrestrial hinterland (Velez-Ramos et al 2007). This shell analysis supports that observation, through the documentation of use of marine, estuarine and freshwater environments. This study sheds light on the complexity of maritime culture and the need to study in more detail the relationship between people and their contemporary landscapes. Further research is needed to challenge traditionally accepted ideas with high resolution data. In humid tropical regions, perishable organic materials are readily available, easy to use and resistant enough to survive everyday and long-term use. Nevertheless, this raw material is usually absent from the archaeological record, as the hot and wet tropical soils do not favour its long-term preservation. Thus, archaeological assemblages are dominated by shell, stone and ceramic tools that might reflect more the taphonomic than the anthropogenic processes. However, it is possible to use proxy evidence to support the use of particular technology that otherwise would be absent from the record. This approach will foster the deeper understanding of early human occupation on the Caribbean and their use of island landscapes.

References:

BIRD, R.C., SMITH, E. A. & D.W. BIRD.
2001 The hunting handicap: Costly signalling in human foraging strategies. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 50: 9 – 19.

BUSE DE LA GUERRA, H.
1981 Actividad Pesquera. Peru: Editorial Andina.

CLAASSEN, C.
1991 Normative thinking and shell-bearing sites. Archaeological Method and Theory 3: 249 – 298.
1998 Shells. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

GARCIA RIOS, C. I.
2005 Las playas de arena. In Biodiversidad de Puerto Rico: Vertebrados Terrestres y Ecosistemas. Serie de Historia
Natural, edited by R L Joglar, pp. 361 – 393. Institute of Puerto Rican Culture, San Juan.

PAGAN-JIMENEZ, J.
2007 De antiguos pueblos y culturas botánicas en el Puerto Rico indígena. El archipiélago Borincano y la llegada de
los primeros pobladores agroceramistas. BAR International Series 1687. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

RAMOS-VELEZ, M., ANDERSON-CORDOBA, K. & PRINCIPE JÁCOME, A.
2007 Informe Investigación Arqueológica Fase III (Revisado) Parcela RC-1A, Punta Candelero, Humacao, Puerto Rico. Unpublished report presented to the Council for the Protection of Puerto Rico’s Terrestrial Archaeological Patrimony.

RIVERA-COLLAZO, I. C. & MARSH-CROSS, A.
2007 Micromorphological analysis of the floor feature, units YAYB. Punta Candelero, Puerto Rico. Preliminary results. Report presented to the project director for Punta Candelero Project and included in the final report presented
to the Council of Terrestrial Archaeology of Puerto Rico.

RIVERA-COLLAZO, I. C.
2010 Of Shell and Sand: Coastal Habitat Availability and Human Foraging Strategies at Punta Candelero, Humacao, Puerto Rico. Munibe suplemento – Gehigarria. In Press.

RODRIGUEZ-LOPEZ, M.
1988 Informe Final Parcial Excavaciones Arqueológicas en Punta Candelero, Palmas del Mar, Humacao. 9/September/1988. Unpublished report presented to the Council of Terrestrial Archaeology, Institute of Puerto Rican Culture, San Juan.
1991 Investigaciones arqueológicas en Punta Candelero: un sition cerámico temprano de características únicas en el noreste del Caribe. Proceedings of the XIII International Congress for Caribbean Archaeology, edited by E.N. Ayubi and J.B. Haviser, PP. 605 – 627. Institute of Netherlands Antilles, Curaçao.

SERRAND, N.
2001 Les restes coquillers du site précéramique de Baie Orientale (Saint-Martin, Petites Antilles du Nord): Consommations de Mollusques et Production D’Outils en Coquille – Résultats Préliminaires. XIX International Congress for Caribbean Archaeology, July 22 – 28 2001. Edited by Luc Alofs and Raymundo A.C.F. Dijkhoff, pp. 89
– 101. Publications of the Archaeological Museum, Aruba.

SERRAND, N. & BONNISENT, D.
2005 Pre-Columbian preceramic shellfish consumption and shell tool production: shell remains from Orient Bay, Saint- Martin, Northern Lesser Antilles. In Archaeomalacology: Molluscs in former environments of human behaviour, edited by: Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer, pp. 29 – 39. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

People and sediments in the Caribbean

Geoarchaeology in the Caribbean

The shells of Punta Candelero