PALEOENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONSOF NAVY LANDS ON VIEQUES ISLAND,

PUERTO RICO

byTimothy R. Sara, RPA

Juan J. Ortiz Aguilú, M.A.

with contributions byLee A. Newsom, Ph.D.

Nancy A ParrishJohn G. Jones, Ph.D.

Agamemnon Gus Pantel, Ph.D.

forDepartment of the Navy, Atlantic Division

Naval Facilities Engineering Command(LANTDIVNAVFACENGCOM)

Contract Number N62470–95–D–1160Task Order Number 0058

MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS OF INVESTIGATIONS

NUMBER 280

Geo-Marine, Inc.Newport News, Virginia

PALEOENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONSOF NAVY LANDS ON VIEQUES ISLAND,

PUERTO RICO

byTimothy R. Sara, RPA

Juan J. Ortiz Aguilú, M.A.

with contributions byLee A. Newsom, Ph.D.

Nancy A. ParrishJohn G. Jones, Ph.D.

Agamemnon Gus Pantel, Ph.D.

forDepartment of the Navy, Atlantic Division

Naval Facilities Engineering Command(LANTDIVNAVFACENGCOM)

1510 Gilbert StreetNorfolk, Virginia 23511–26699

Contract Number N62470–95–D–1160Task Order Number 0058

MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS OF INVESTIGATIONS

NUMBER 280

Geo-Marine, Inc.11846 Rock Landing Drive, Suite C

Newport News, Virginia 23606

October 2003

ii

CONTRACT DATA

The paleoenvironmental and archaeological investigations described herein and the preparation ofthis document were accomplished under Contract Number N62470–95–D–1160, Task OrderNumber 0058 (GMI Project No. 17600.00.58) with the Department of the Navy, AtlanticDivision, Naval Facilities Engineering Command (LANTDIVNAVFACENGCOM), 150 GilbertStreet, Norfolk, Virginia 23511–2699.

iii

ABSTRACT

This report describes the results of paleoenvironmental research undertaken within Navy Landson Vieques (NLV), Vieques Island, Puerto Rico. The research was conducted by Geo-Marine,Inc., under contract with the Department of the Navy, Atlantic Division, Naval FacilitiesEngineering Command, Norfolk, Virginia. The purpose of the investigation was to use archivaland field methods to investigate the paleoenvironment during the earliest known humanoccupation of Vieques Island and address questions of site location, adaptation, and subsistenceduring the early period. The focus of field research was on the recovery and analysis ofradiocarbon, palynological, and macrobotanical samples from a series of cores excavated fromexisting semi-enclosed bays or lagoons on the island. Samples were also recovered from twoknown Ceramic-period sites on the island (Vi049 and Vi044), as well as from nonsite locations.Archival research focused on previous archaeological research conducted in the study area,literature concerning sea level change, coastal dynamics, and early site locations, and on modern-era aerial photo examination.

Fieldwork included the excavation of five sediment cores, two archaeological test units, and sixsoil tests within the study area. More than 90 individual soil samples were recovered; sixradiocarbon samples, 23 palynological samples, and four macrobotanical samples from sites andtwo sets from lagoons were analyzed. The radiocarbon dates yielded calibrated dates that rangefrom cal 3,840 B.P. to cal 670 B.P. (cal 1890 B.C. to A.D. 1280) spanning the entire Precolumbiancultural history of Vieques Island, from the earliest known Archaic occupation circa 3,500 B.P.through the late Ceramic period. A minimum of 43 different pollen taxa was identified in thelagoonal core samples, representing a variety of different habitats, including mangroves, coastalstrand, and upland scrub environments.

Analysis of fossil pollen from two lagoons and associated radiocarbon dates indicates the lagoonswere beginning to form within only a few hundred years of earliest known human occupation ofthe island. Formation of the lagoons and their attendant resources may have been an attractivegeographical factor to migratory Archaic groups. Extremely high charcoal particle countsassociated with a radiocarbon date of cal 2,790 to 2,740 B.P. (840 to 790 B.C.) are suggestive ofanthropogenic burning during the late Archaic period, suggesting a wider resource baseexploitation than previously known. During the Ceramic age, use of native plants isdemonstrated in macrobotanical samples analyzed from two sites (Vi049 and Vi044) sampledduring this study; however, human introduction of exotic plant species is not demonstrated in theanalyzed data.

iv

Literature review, fieldwork, and modern-era aerial photo examination suggests that coastal areasof Vieques Island have and are undergoing constant morphological change that is likely toobscure evidence of early occupation. Dynamics of sea level change, climate, and other naturalas well as human-induced processes are addressed in terms of early site location in this study.Evidence of habitat transformation and environmental diversity during the span of humanoccupation is demonstrated. A core sample from the south coast identified a remnant Thalassiatestudinum (seagrass, turtle grass) within a present-day fringe mangrove. Radiocarbon dating ofthe sample to cal 2,560 to 2,540 B.P. (620 to 590 B.C.) and cal 2,760 to 2,710 B.P. (820 to 760B.C.) suggests changing environmental diversity during the span of the Archaic period. Overall,this study contributes to our present understanding of the paleoenvironment and earliest knownhuman occupation of and adaptation to Vieques Island and surrounding environs.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................... iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................... xiii

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................1

2. ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW.....................................................................................5Introduction ....................................................................................................................5Modern Land Use ...........................................................................................................7Physiography ..................................................................................................................7Climate ...........................................................................................................................8Geology..........................................................................................................................8Hydrology.......................................................................................................................9

Groundwater................................................................................................................9Surface Water ............................................................................................................ 10

Soils ............................................................................................................................. 10Vegetation .................................................................................................................... 13

Terrestrial.................................................................................................................. 13Coastal Mangroves..................................................................................................... 15

Fauna ........................................................................................................................... 16Marine Environment...................................................................................................... 16Former Environmental Conditions .................................................................................. 17

3. CULTURAL OVERVIEW AND PREVIOUS RESEARCH............................................... 19Prehistoric Period .......................................................................................................... 19

Lithic Age and Archaic Period (Period I) ..................................................................... 21Early Ceramic Period (Period II—Saladoid and La Hueca) ........................................... 26Transitional or Intermediate Ceramic Period (Period III—Ostionoid) ............................. 28Late Ceramic Period (Period IV—Chican Ostionoid, Taíno to Spanish Contact)............. 29

Historic Period .............................................................................................................. 30Contact Period (A.D. 1493–1599)................................................................................. 30Early Colonial Period (A.D. 1600–1800)....................................................................... 31Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries ................................................................... 31U.S. Navy, World War II to Present............................................................................. 32

vi

Table of Contents(cont’d)

4. RESEARCH DESIGN ..................................................................................................... 33Introduction and Research Orientation ............................................................................ 33Previous Paleoenvironmental Research in the Caribbean.................................................. 36Previous Archaeobotanical Research on Vieques Island ................................................... 37Sea Level Changes ........................................................................................................ 38Early Settlement Patterns in the Study Area .................................................................... 40

Modern-Era Surveys................................................................................................... 40Archaic and Early Saladoid Settlement Patterns ........................................................... 41

Archaic/Aceramic Period Sites in Study Area ........................................................... 42Vi019 (12VPr2–219/Loma Jalova 3) ...................................................................... 42Vi020 (12VPr2–220/Yanuel 9) .............................................................................. 42Vi025 (12VPr2–45/Loma Jalova 1 and 12VPr2–81/Loma Jalova 2) ......................... 45Vi032 (12VPr2–33/Verdiales 1) ............................................................................ 45Vi041 (12VPr2–51/Playa Chiva) ........................................................................... 46

Saladoid Period Sites in the Study Area .................................................................... 46Vi015 (12VPr2–204/Algodones 2)......................................................................... 47Vi024 (12VPr2–173/Yanuel 8) .............................................................................. 47Vi033 (12VPr2–034/Verdiales 2)........................................................................... 48Vi043 (12VPr2–053/Isla Chiva) ............................................................................ 48Vi044 (12VPr2–54/Playa Grande) ......................................................................... 48Vi049 (12VPr2–59/Punta Caracas) ........................................................................ 49Vi059 (12VPr2–072/Punta Carenero) .................................................................... 49Vi070 (12VPr2–087/El Tablon) ............................................................................. 50

Fieldwork Objectives..................................................................................................... 50Field Methods ............................................................................................................... 51

Sampling Strategies for Pollen Analysis ....................................................................... 51Archaeo-Boring Sample Collection.............................................................................. 52Archaeological Test Unit Excavation ........................................................................... 52Other Sampling .......................................................................................................... 55

Quebrada Marunguey Soil Tests............................................................................... 55Verdiales Soil Tests................................................................................................. 56

Aerial Photography Analysis .......................................................................................... 56Laboratory Methods ...................................................................................................... 56

Macrobotanical Analysis ............................................................................................. 56Pollen Analysis .......................................................................................................... 57Radiocarbon Sample Analysis ..................................................................................... 57Artifact Analysis ........................................................................................................ 57

5. FIELD RESULTS............................................................................................................ 59Sediment Cores—Archaeo-Borings ................................................................................ 59

Bahía Tapón, Archaeo-Boring 1 .................................................................................. 59Bahía Tapón, Archaeo-Boring 2 .................................................................................. 64Laguna at Bahía de la Chiva, Archaeo-Boring 3............................................................ 68

vii

Table of Contents(cont’d)

Laguna Algodones, Archaeo-Boring 4 ......................................................................... 71Laguna Algodones, Archaeo-Boring 5 ......................................................................... 73

Site Investigations ......................................................................................................... 77Investigations at Site Vi049 (Test Unit GMI-1)............................................................. 77Investigations at Site Vi044 (Test Unit GMI-2)............................................................. 84

Other Reconnaissance and Soil Testing........................................................................... 90Quebrada Marunguey Soil Tests.................................................................................. 90Verdiales Soil Tests.................................................................................................... 93

6. DISCUSSION................................................................................................................. 97Introduction .................................................................................................................. 97Site Location and Subsistence ........................................................................................ 98Coastal Dynamics and Sea Level Change...................................................................... 100

Coastal Dynamics..................................................................................................... 100Sea Level Change..................................................................................................... 105

7. CONCLUSION............................................................................................................. 113

REFERENCES CITED....................................................................................................... 117

APPENDICES:A. Archaeobotanical Analysis of Soil and Sediment Core Samples (Lee Newsom, Ph.D.) .....A-1B: Analysis of Fossil Pollen from Sediment Cores on Vieques Island (John Jones, Ph.D.) ..... B-1C: Results of Radiocarbon Dating (Beta Analytic, Inc.) ....................................................... C-1D: Artifact Inventory, Sites Vi049 and Vi044......................................................................D-1E: Profile of Key Researchers ............................................................................................ E-1

viii

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

1. General map of Vieques Island showing the EMA/AFWTF.................................................22. Detail of eastern Puerto Rico, Vieques Island, and the Virgin Islands ...................................33. Map of general Caribbean region showing the location of study area ...................................64. Soils of Vieques Island within the EMA/AFWTF............................................................. 115. Cultural chronology of the Greater and Lesser Antilles: series and subseries ..................... 206. Several regional archaeological sites mentioned in this study............................................. 237. Map of study area showing distribution of Archaic/aceramic and Saladoid sites

within the EMA/AFWTF................................................................................................ 438. Advancing split-spoon sampler manually by sledgehammer .............................................. 539. Once fully advanced, the sampler is hand-extracted with a pipe wrench ............................. 5310. View of sampler almost fully extracted............................................................................ 5411. Recovered soil core inside split-spoon casing.................................................................... 5512. Map of study area showing the locations of archaeological sites, test units,

archaeo-borings, and soil tests sampled during this survey................................................. 6113. View of Archaeo-Boring 1 location, facing north .............................................................. 6614. Soil profile of Archaeo-Boring 1, Bahía Tapón................................................................. 6715. View of Archaeo-Boring 2 location, facing south.............................................................. 6916. Soil profile of Archaeo-Boring 2, Bahía Tapón................................................................. 7017. View of Archaeo-Boring 3 location, facing southwest....................................................... 7118. Soil profile of Archaeo-Boring 3, Laguna at Bahía de la Chiva .......................................... 7219. View of Archaeo-Boring 4 location, facing west............................................................... 7320. Soil profile of Archaeo-Boring 4, Laguna Algodones........................................................ 7421. View of Archaeo-Boring 5 location, facing northeast ........................................................ 7522. Soil profile of Archaeo-Boring 5, Laguna Algodones........................................................ 7623. Plan map of site Vi049 showing location of previous E&E work and Test Unit GMI-1........ 7824. View of Test Unit GMI-1, site Vi049, before excavation, facing northeast ......................... 7925. Base of Test Unit GMI-1, site Vi049, facing north ............................................................ 8026. Soil profile from site Vi049, Test Unit GMI-1 .................................................................. 8127. Selected ceramic and lithic artifacts recovered from site Vi049 .......................................... 8228. Olive shell bead or pendant recovered from surface, site Vi049.......................................... 8329. Representative faunal specimens from site Vi049.............................................................. 8330. Representative faunal specimens from site Vi049.............................................................. 8431. Plan map of site Vi044 showing location of previous E&E work and Test Unit GMI-2........ 85

x

List of Figures(cont’d)

32. Test Unit GMI-2, site Vi044, facing east.......................................................................... 8633. Soil profile from site Vi044, Test Unit GMI-2 .................................................................. 8734. Base of Test Unit GMI-2, site Vi044, facing north ............................................................ 8835. Selected artifacts and faunal specimen recovered from site Vi044 ...................................... 8936. Coral abrader recovered from site Vi044 .......................................................................... 8937. Overview of soil test areas in Quebrada Marunguey, facing south ...................................... 9138. Soil profiles of four soil tests excavated at Quebrada Marunguey....................................... 9239. Fire-cracked rock and shell recovered from Quebrada Marunguey..................................... 9340. Soil profile of east cutbank, Quebrada Marunguey............................................................ 9441. View of excavation and soil sample recovery at Soil Test 5, Verdiales, facing north............ 9542. View of profile and base of excavation of Soil Test 5, Verdiales, facing north .................... 9643. Comparison of 1936, 1970s, and 1999 aerial photographs, south coast, east

of Bahía Tapón............................................................................................................. 10344. Comparison of 1936, 1970s, and 1999 aerial photographs, south coast

Bahía de la Chiva.......................................................................................................... 10345. Comparison of 1936, 1970s, and 1999 aerial photographs, north coast, Laguna

Algodones.................................................................................................................... 10346. Sea level curves used by researchers in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic ................. 10647. Bathymetric map of eastern Vieques Island showing probable exposed land surfaces

during lower sea level................................................................................................... 10948. Puerto Rico platform in relation to Puerto Rico, Vieques Island, and Virgin Islands .......... 111

xi

LIST OF TABLES

1. Generalized Cultural Chronological Chart of Prehistoric Puerto Rico .................................. 212. Principal Archaic Period Sites on Puerto Rico.................................................................... 253. Archaic/Aceramic Sites within the EMA/AFWTF.............................................................. 454. Saladoid-Component Sites within the EMA/AFWTF.......................................................... 475. Sediment Samples Collected from Archaeo-Borings 1 through 5......................................... 636. Samples Collected and Samples Analyzed During this Study, by Provenience...................... 657. Radiocarbon Dates Obtained from Sediment Cores, Vieques Paleoenvironmental Study ....... 688. Summary of Artifacts Recovered from Test Unit GMI-1, Site Vi049 ................................... 829. Summary of Artifacts Recovered from Test Unit GMI-2, Site Vi044 ................................... 88

xii

xiii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to express their appreciation to the many individuals and organizationswho contributed to the successful completion of this research. The personnel of the U.S.Department of the Navy, Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Norfolk,Virginia, were particularly supportive of our efforts and provided both administrative support andguidance. In particular, we would like to thank Mr. Bruce Larson, Historic Resource Specialist,Archaeology, for providing thoughtful insight on research issues. We would also like to thankMr. Winston Martinez, Natural Resources Manager, U.S. Naval Station Roosevelt Roads, forarranging unfettered access to the Navy Lands on Vieques Island during this study.

In the field, the diligence and dedication of the able field crew, Ms. Nancy Parrish, Geo-MarineStaff Archaeologist, and Mr. Jorge Rodriguez, were essential to the successful completion offieldwork. Mr. Rodriguez also conducted laboratory analysis and faunal specimen and artifactidentification. Ms. Parrish was a contributing author of this report and prepared field maps andreport figures. The soil borings were conducted by Geo-Explor, Inc., San Juan, Puerto Rico, andfor this effort Geo-Marine recognizes Mr. Carlos Mercado, Geotechnical Engineer, and hishardworking crew. The study greatly benefited from discussions with Mr. Rudi Reinecke, Geo-Marine Senior Biologist, and Mr. Ken Deslarzes, Geo-Marine Senior Marine Scientist, on theterrestrial and marine ecology of Vieques Island and environs.

We would also like to thank Dr. Lee Newsom, Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania StateUniversity for her excellent study of macrobotanical remains and important contribution to ourunderstanding of the paleobotany of Vieques Island. Dr. John G. Jones, Palynology Laboratory,Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, conducted the palynological analysis, andwe thank him for participating in this research. Beta Analytic, Inc, Miami, Florida, conducted theradiocarbon analysis of sediments and we thank Mr. Darden Hood for his discussions. We alsoacknowledge Dr. Agamemnon Gus Pantel, Guaynabo, Puerto Rico, for providing importantguidance and contributions over the course of the study. Finally, we would like to thank Dr.Emily Lundberg for sharing her important work and insight on the regional prehistory.

xiv

Mr. Juan José Ortiz Aguilú, M.A., served as co-Principal Investigator and provided key guidanceto the investigation and was co-author of this report. The study greatly benefited from Mr. OrtizAguilú’s extensive experience in Caribbean archaeology and knowledge of Vieques Island. Ms.Sharlene Allday provided editorial support in the production of this document. Report figureswere prepared by Ms. Parrish and Mr. Pete Gehring, Geo-Marine Senior GIS Analyst. Ms.Denise Pemberton was responsible for the final formatting and production of this report.

1

CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION

This report describes the results of paleoenvironmental research conducted in portions of theEastern Maneuver Area/Atlantic Fleet Weapons Training Facility (EMA/AFWTF) within theboundary of the Navy Lands on Vieques (NLV), Vieques Island, Puerto Rico (Figures 1 and 2).The research was conducted by Geo-Marine, Inc. (GMI), under contract with the Department of theNavy, Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command (LANTDIVNAVFACENGCOM).The objective of the research was to assemble a model of the environmental context and conditionsthat served as the basis for early human settlement of Vieques Island by examining archival,environmental, paleoenvironmental, and archaeological data. The focus of field research was onthe analysis of pollen, macrobotanical, and radiocarbon samples recovered from sedimentarydeposits collected from lagoon and archaeological site locations within the naval reservation.These analyses, in combination with archival research, were used to examine thepaleoenvironment of Vieques Island and to interpret paleovegetation and coastal geomorphologywithin a cultural context for migration to and settlement of the island during the earliest knownperiod of human occupation. This research was designed to contribute to the Navy’s overallunderstanding of the paleoenvironment and Precolumbian utilization of the NLV and surroundingenvirons.

The project was carried out under Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)of 1966, as amended through 2001 [16 U.S.C. § 470 et seq.; P.L. 89–665; 80 Stat. 915] to providea more complete inventory of existing and potential archaeological resources within theEMA/AFWTF. The intent of this report is to present the results of the palynological,macrobotanical, and radiocarbon analyses, incorporate the results of previous research within theNLV, and provide a substantive set of conclusions and recommendations regarding allcomponents of paleoenvironmental and archaeological research.

This investigation included a review of known previous archaeological work and relevant relatedstudies associated with the NLV, Vieques Island, and mainland Puerto Rico. Backgroundresearch for the study was conducted primarily at the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.; theUniversity of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico; the Office of Naval Facilities EngineeringCommand, Norfolk, Virginia; and the libraries of the Pennsylvania State University, StateCollege, Pennsylvania; College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia; and Texas A&MUniversity, College Station, Texas. Archaeological site files, reports, maps, and pertinentdocuments were examined at these repositories.

2

figure1. General map of Vieques Island showing the EMA/AFWTF

Figure 1. General map of Vieques Island showing the EMA/AFWTF.

Research and cultural resources management reports prepared previously for the NLV served asimportant reference documents for this study. Specifically, background research, predictivearchaeological modeling, and results of a multiyear archaeological survey of the NLV by Ecologyand Environment, Inc. (E&E), between 1978 and 1983 served as a primary document (Tronoloneet al. 1984). A draft volume of more recent surveys conducted by R. Christopher Goodwin &Associates, Inc. (Goodwin), between 1997 and 2001 (Sanders et al. 2001) was also a usefulsource. In addition, various environmental studies of the NLV by E&E and Geo-Marine providedimportant information on existing environmental conditions.

The purpose of field data collection was to examine pollen and macrobotanical remains fromsediment deposited in three lagoons within the NLV, as well as from two known Precolumbiansites (Vi044 and Vi049) that have evidence of early ceramic period (Saladoid) and late ceramicperiod (Ostionoid) occupations. The goal of the effort was to elucidate information on the localand regional environmental conditions at the time of early Precolumbian occupation. The datacollected during this study will also aid in the development of a predictive model for theArchaic/aceramic and early Ceramic periods of human occupation and use of Vieques Islandbased in part upon reconstructed paleoenvironmental conditions.

Fieldwork for the project was conducted by Geo-Marine from June 17–24, 2002, by Tim Sara,RPA, Principal Investigator; Nancy Parrish, Staff Archaeologist; Juan Jose Ortiz Aguilú, SeniorScientist; and Jorge Rodriguez, Archaeological Technician. Dr. Agamemnon Gus Pantelcontributed important insight to the overall study. Soil borings from lagoon locations wereconducted by GeoExplor, Inc., under the direction of Carlos Mercado, P.E., Mr. Sara, and Mr.Ortiz Aguilú. During the study, soil for pollen and macrobotanical analysis was collected fromfive soil borings and two small test units placed on sites Vi044 and Vi049 within theEMA/AFWTR. In addition, samples were collected from other nonsite locations for comparative

3

figure

2. Detail of eastern Puerto Rico, Vieques Island, and the Virgin Islands

Figure 2. Detail of eastern Puerto Rico, Vieques Island, and the Virgin Islands.

4

analysis. The pollen samples were analyzed by Dr. John Jones of Texas A&M University.Macrobotanical samples were analyzed by Dr. Lee Newsom, Pennsylvania State University, andsix radiocarbon samples recovered from the borings were analyzed by Beta Analytic, Inc., Miami,Florida.

Following this introduction, Chapter 2 provides a description of the existing physicalenvironment of Vieques Island and the EMA/AFWTF study area. Chapter 3 presents anoverview of the cultural chronology of the Puerto Rico and Vieques Island region. Chapter 4presents the research design prepared for the investigation and includes a discussion of currentissues in paleoenvironmental research and their archaeological implications. Summarydescriptions of known Archaic/aceramic and Saladoid sites within the study area are provided.Field, laboratory, and analytical methods used for this investigation are also described. Chapter 5presents the results of the field data collection and introduces the pollen and macrobotanicalanalyses. Chapter 6 provides a discussion of the results of the investigation in terms of locationof archaeological sites and early Precolumbian migration to and settlement of Vieques Island. Inaddition, potential areas of research are identified vis-à-vis locational and cultural contexts ofknown sites and paleoenvironmental factors as indicated through the pollen, macrobotanical, andradiocarbon record. Chapter 7 provides conclusions to the overall study. Appendix A presents adiscussion of macrobotanical research and the results of macrobotanical analysis of the sedimentsamples. Appendix B provides the palynological study. Appendix C consists of the results ofradiocarbon analysis and Appendix D provides a complete inventory of artifacts recovered duringthis investigation. Appendix E provides a brief profile of each key researcher for this study.

5

CHAPTER 2ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW

INTRODUCTION

Vieques Island, the westernmost island of the small island chain of the Lesser Antilles, is a long,narrow island located approximately 6 miles off the southeastern coast of Puerto Rico in theCaribbean Sea. It measures 20 miles long and 4.5 miles wide at its widest point. To the west, theisland of Puerto Rico is considered to be the easternmost island of the Greater Antilles, and thusthe Vieques Passage—the narrow strait between Puerto Rico and Vieques Island—marks theboundary of the two physiographic units of the Antilles (Figure 3; see Figures 1 and 2). As partof the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Vieques Island has an area of about 33,000 acres or 51square miles of land. It lies approximately 21 miles west-southwest of St. Thomas, U.S. VirginIslands, and 38 miles northwest of St. Croix. The small island of Culebra, also part of theCommonwealth, lies approximately 9 miles to the north.

During World War II, the U.S. Navy purchased 26,000 acres of the total land area of ViequesIsland from Puerto Rico. The island was divided into three large sectors, and the Navy owns theeastern and western sectors that collectively are referred to as the Navy Lands on Vieques (NLV).The central portion of the island is referred to as the civilian area. The eastern sector of the NLVhas been used for military training and contains the Eastern Maneuver Area and Atlantic FleetWeapons Training Facility (EMA/AFWTF), which corresponds to the location of the presentstudy. At the easternmost tip of the island is the Live Impact Area (LIA). The western sector,which has recently been turned over to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, formerly contained theNaval Ammunition Supply Depot (NASD). Although the present study has implications for theentire island, the current focus is within the EMA/AFWTF, an 11,000-acre area centrally locatedwithin the island.

The vast majority of the EMA/AFWTF is undeveloped and supports a variety of habitat types.Currently, secondary growth thorn scrub communities comprise most of the vegetation type withinterspersed forested narrow stream valleys (quebradas) and other upland forest types. Mangroveswamps, lagoons, coconut flats, and salt/sand flats occur along the north and south coastal areas,although most are situated along the southern coast. These habitats form important terrestrial andmarine ecosystems that have supported human populations at different times in prehistory. Priorto Navy acquisition, much of the EMA/AFWTF had been cleared for sugar cane production and

6

figure

3. Map of general Caribbean region showing the location of study area

Figure 3. Map of general Caribbean region showing the location of study area.

7

pasture for cattle ranching. During its tenure, the Navy did some land maintenance that allowedcontinued pasturage, but has largely abandoned this practice, resulting in rampant spread of densethorn scrub, composed mostly of acacia (Acacia farnesiana) and mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa).As a result, many of the inland areas of the island are nearly impenetrable. There are however,some extant stands of native species largely confined to the quebradas. The followingenvironmental overview provides a more detailed description of the physiography, geology, soil,hydrology, flora, and fauna of the study area, highlighting the resources that have been critical tohuman survival and subsistence on Vieques Island over the past 3,500 years.

Information for this overview is derived from several baseline environmental documents preparedfor the Navy: Land Use Management Plan for U.S. Naval Facilities, Vieques, Puerto Rico (Geo-Marine 1996); Environmental Assessment for Transfer of the NASD Property, Vieques, PuertoRico (Ecology and Environment 2000); and Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan,Vieques Island, Puerto Rico, Plan Years 2003–2012 (Geo-Marine 2002).

Modern Land Use

The EMA/AFWTF is currently used by Fleet Marine Force, Atlantic (FMFLANT), andoccasionally other military forces to conduct training for marine amphibious units, battalionlanding teams, and combat engineering units. Approximately 10,275 acres of the EMA/AFWTFare largely undeveloped. Although decommissioned in 1978, Camp Garcia, a military base camp,is located in the western portion of the EMA/AFWTF and is used occasionally during militarytraining exercises. Transportation routes within the EMA/AFWTF include approximately 64kilometers (km; 39.8 miles [mi]) of improved dirt roads and 24 km (14.9 mi) of limited-access orhistoric roads.

Within the past several years, civilian uses on the EMA/AFWTF have been more restricted thanin previous years, but in the past, civilians have used the land for cattle grazing, beach-orientedactivities, recreational activities, land crabbing, and fishing. Environmentally sensitive areaswithin the EMA/AFWTF include extensive mangrove forests and lagoons, three bioluminescentbays (Puerto Mosquito, Puerto Ferro, and Bahía Tapón), seagrass beds located in most of the baysand nearshore coastal waters, and zones of lowland/upland gallery forests. Seven ConservationZones have been established by the Navy around the coastal areas of the NLV to ensurepreservation of vital marine and terrestrial resources. As described below, the study area provideshabitat for several species of endangered or threatened sea turtles, reptiles, plants, and birds.

Physiography

A backbone of rolling hills attaining heights of several hundred feet dominates the physiographyof Vieques Island. The areas of highest elevation are located mainly along the east-west axis ofthe island and exhibit a more angular, blocky structure than adjacent lower hills (Torres-Gonzalez1989). In the western portion of the island, the highest mountain is Monte Pirata (elevation 984feet above mean sea level [amsl]), and in the east, it is Cerro Matias at 450 feet amsl. Generallythe hills to the west are more gently rolling and exhibit deeper soil profiles and the hills to theeast are more rugged with more exposed rock surface. The coastal areas are comparatively flat,especially to the south, and the shorelines are principally composed of calcareous sandy beachesinterrupted by rocky promontories, particularly at the eastern end of the island. The coastal

8

beaches are narrow strips of light-colored beach sand found on both the north and south coasts.There are numerous half-moon bays interrupted by rocky points along the entire southern coast,and several areas along the northern coast. Fringe and offshore reefs are located mostly off thenorthern, eastern, and southern coasts.

Open surface water within the EMA/AFWTF is restricted to coastal lagoons. On the south coast,the largest lagoon is Laguna Yanuel, and in the western portion of the island, Laguna MonteLargo is the largest. The lagoons are estuarine, typically with direct connections to the sea thatallow for tidal exchange of water. Severe storms and hurricanes, however, can deposit sandacross the outlets of the lagoons, restricting tidal exchange. Because of the high evaporation ratesexperienced on the island, loss of this connection can significantly reduce the open water area,resulting in the development of extensive salt flats and, over time, alteration of the localenvironment.

Climate

Vieques Island lies in the path of the prevailing easterly trade winds that control the climate of theregion. Classified as a “Tropical-marine” climate, the island has a mean average temperature of77.9 degrees Fahrenheit (ºF) and an annual rainfall average ranging from 25 to 45 inches (64 to114 cm), most of which is concentrated in the central and western areas. A large percentage ofthis rainfall evaporates, resulting in only approximately 5 percent of rainfall rechargingunderlying aquifers and an additional 5 percent of the rainfall comprising runoff (Jordan andFisher 1977).

Vieques Island has a dry season from December through July and a rainy season from Augustthrough November. Heavy tropical storms and hurricanes that can affect the regional climate forseveral days usually occur from June through November. Severe tropical storms can bring largeamounts of rain and flooding within a short period. The warmest month is August, with anaverage temperature of 82ºF, and the coldest month is February, with an average temperature of75ºF.

The prevailing winds are generally from the east; however, they tend to bend toward the northeastalong the north coast and to the southeast along the south coast. The ocean and wave actionfollows a pattern similar to that of the wind. The ocean currents are generally wind-oriented fromeast to west, but tidal flow can affect this pattern substantially, particularly in the eastern andwestern extremities where the tide moves north when ebbing and south when surging. Surfacecurrents can flow up to an average of 32 km per hour and derive much of their power fromjoining the north and south equatorial currents, which join along the northern coast of SouthAmerica. Water-current velocities are important because they can be effective barriers totransportation between landmasses as well as effective transport for terrestrial animals andhumans to new habitats (Collier 1964:123–127). Thus, the patterns of winds, currents, and tideslikely had a major influence on human migration within the island environs during prehistory.

GEOLOGY

The general geologic profile for Vieques Island is described as granitic volcanic rock and marinesedimentary rocks overlaid by alluvial deposits. In general, there are three major rock typesoccupying the upland areas, and unconsolidated sedimentary deposits occur in the lowlands. The

9

three main rock types consist of (1) Upper Cretaceous volcanic rocks composed of mostlyandesites, tuffs, and conglomerates; (2) Upper Cretaceous or Lower Tertiary intrusive rocks ofmostly grandiorites and quartz diorites; and (3) Upper Tertiary and Quaternary sedimentary rocksof mostly limestones (Torres-Gonzalez 1989). The unconsolidated sedimentary deposits areQuaternary in age and consist of alluvial, beach and dune, and swamp and marsh deposits.

Quaternary-age valley and alluvial deposits are found principally in the Esperanza valley in thecentral portion of the island and the Resolución valley in the northwest. These deposits consist ofmixtures of sand, silt, and clay. Erosion is prevalent along the major stream channels that emptyinto coastal areas. Well logs and geophysical data indicate the thickness of the sedimentarydeposits range from 0 to 98 feet. A basal clay unit with a maximum thickness of 17 feet existsabove the granitic quartz-diorite. The clay is overlaid by a deposit of interbedded sand and siltwith a maximum thickness of 5 feet. The uppermost unit consists largely of sand and siltcolluvium, with the sand predominating toward the coastal areas (Glover 1971). Unconsolidatedbeach and dune deposits are found in the coastal areas in the northwestern part of the island andto the south in the Esperanza valley (Miller et al. 1999). These sand-size deposits consist mainlyof calcite, quartz, volcanic rock fragments, and minor deposits of magnetite. Prehistoricinhabitants of Vieques Island made use of a select number of lithic materials for stone toolmanufacture and of clay resources for pottery manufacture during different periods in prehistory.

HYDROLOGY

Groundwater

Available geological data indicate that three potential hydrogeological systems, two of which arealluvial aquifers, exist on Vieques Island. The alluvial aquifers consist of (1) unconsolidatedalluvium where groundwater exists in porous sands, gravels, and clays, under unconfined or watertable conditions; and (2) the unconsolidated or semiconsolidated alluvium where groundwaterexists in porous sands, gravels, and clays under confined or artesian conditions (Torres-Gonzalez1989). The unconsolidated or semiconsolidated deposits consist of material originating from thedisintegration of crystalline or consolidated sedimentary deposits. These materials were erodedfrom the hills and deposited in the valleys. Some of these deposits can yield large volumes ofgroundwater, an important source of water for supporting historic cattle and cane sugar industries.The third hydrogeological system consists of the crystalline igneous and sedimentary rocks of thehilly areas where groundwater exists in interconnected joints, fractures, karst structures, andvolcanic structures.

The two major alluvial aquifers on Vieques Island are the Resolución valley aquifer, located inthe western portion of the island, and the Esperanza valley aquifer, located in the center, betweenthe town of Esperanza and Camp Garcia. A much smaller aquifer has also been identified in thePlaya Grande area within the EMA/AFWTF on the north coast. The Esperanza valley aquifer isthe most productive, and rainfall is the primary source of aquifer recharge. Historically, theseaquifers were accessed by wells and were a major source of water for island inhabitants. Duringthe Precolumbian period, direct access to groundwater sources was limited by availabletechnology. However, pot- and wood-lined wells were constructed on the island of Barbados inthe Lesser Antilles during the late Precolumbian (Ceramic age) period. The wells tapped sourcesof fresh water in the littoral beach zones of the island (Drewett 1999:112).

10

Surface Water

Sources of fresh surface water are very limited on Vieques Island, and there are currently nopermanent fresh-water lakes or streams. Because of its rugged topography, the island hasapproximately 72 watersheds, many of which are only a fraction of a square mile in drainage areaand have no well-defined channels. They range in size from approximately 3 acres to 1,500acres. All streams are classified as “ephemeral” and, as such, only flow for a maximum of a fewdays after a rainfall. From higher elevations along the east-west axis of the island, small,normally dry, quebradas (intermittent drainages) flow either north or south toward the CaribbeanSea. During the rainy season, the quebradas can accommodate relatively high flows. During thedry season, the drainages pond or dry up, although groundwater may sustain some isolatedsprings (Torres-Gonzalez 1989). In most quebradas, the elevation of the water table is lowerthan the actual streambed. Consequently, when water flows along the streambeds, part of thewater percolates through the streambed and serves to recharge the groundwater aquifer.

The principal quebrada watersheds within the EMA/AFWTF are Quebrada Hueca, QuebradaAmaguera, and Quebrada Marunguey, all of which flow to the north coast, and one unnamedquebrada that flows into Bahía de la Chiva on the south coast. The location of a semipermanentor reliable water source would have been an important factor for Precolumbian settlement on theisland. An analysis of archaeological site location vis-à-vis water sources was conducted byEcology & Environment (Tronlone et al. 1984). The researchers determined that the distancesfrom Precolumbian site locations to a fresh, surface water source ranged from 100 to 325 meters(m), with few exceptions. The mean distance to surface water for Precolumbian campsites was260 m, and for village settlements was 180 m (Tronlone et al. 1984:5–19).

SOILS

Soils on the island are mapped as part of three different soil associations; in order of frequency,they are the Descalabrado-Guayama association; Coamo-Guamani-Vives association; andSwamps-Marshes association (Boccheciamp 1977). The Descalabrado-Guayama association isthe dominant soil association, covering approximately 90 percent of the EMA/AFWTF. TheCoamo-Guamani-Vives association is located in the southwestern portion of the EMA/AFWTRfrom Puerto Ferro eastward to Bahía de la Chiva. A small pocket of the Swamps-Marshesassociation is located in the northeastern portion of Ensenada Honda, a large bay on the southcoast. The soils within the EMA/AFWTF have developed in place and consist of materialderived from volcanic rocks, plutonic rocks, and weathered sedimentary rocks. In ridgetop andside-slope areas, normal weathering materials have developed shallow to moderately shallowsoils. In the valleys where the eroded soil materials have been transported and deposited bywater, the soils are moderately deep to deep.

Approximately 20 individual soil mapping units are within the EMA/AFWTR (Figure 4). Thedominate soils are Descalabrado clay loam, 20–40 percent slopes (DgF2) and Coamo clay loam2–5 percent slopes (ClB). Soils mapped as Tidal Swamps (Ts) and Tidal Flats (Tf) are locatedprincipally within and around lagoons and bayheads, principally on the south coast, but alsooccurring at some locations on the north coast. Soil type would not have been a critical siteselection factor during the earliest period (Archaic age) of human occupation of Vieques Island.However, characteristics of soils became more critical in human settlement during the laterCeramic-age occupation, as soils suitable for horticulture would have been sought.

DgF2

Rs

DeE2

DeE2

Rs

ClB

Rs

VmE2 Drf

Ts

Rs

PdF

Rs

FrB

Ts

Po

PlB

Po

Cf

Rs

Cf DeE2

AmC2

AmC2

Ts

AmBVmE2

Rs

PrC2

Ts

AmC2

Tf

Ts

Md

Sm

CfPo

FrB

Ts

VmE2

Tf

TfDeE2

AmC2

Cf

Rs

Rs

Rs

Ts

Cf

Po

Md

NO SURVEY

Cf

DeE2

Ts

Tf

Rs

AmC2

Ce

Ts

AmC2

Rs

DeE2

Ts

Ce

Cm

Ts

AmC2

Cm

VmE2

Tf

Tf

Sm

VmE2

AmC2

Cm

AmC2

Cf

AmB

Ts

Ts

Cf

AmC2

Ts

Ts

AmC2

Tf

AmB

AmC2

Cf

DeE2

Ts

Ts

Tf

Rs

DeE2

Rs

PdF

Sm

Ce

Ce

Cf

PdF

Rs

VmE2

Sm

Rs

Ce

TsTs

Rs

Rs

Cf

Tf

Tf

Ts

Rs

VmE2

AmC2

Cm

Cm

DeE2

DeE2

Ts

AmC2 DeE2

Cm

VmE2

AmC2

Cf

Cm

Cm

AmC2

DeE2Cm

CmCm

DgF2 DgF2

DgF2

Rs

DeE2

TamarindoSur

MainGate

PuntaGoleta

PuntaBrigadier

PuntaCabellos

Colorados

PuntaCampanilla

CayoChiva

IslaChiva

PuntaConejo

CayoYanuel

PuntaIcacos

BahiaIcacos

BahiaSalinas

Puerto Diablo

Puerto

Ne g ro

Berdiales

Puerto FerroRed Beach

BahiaTapon Blue Beach

Bahia de la Chiva

Bah ia Fa nduca

Bahia Yoye

Bahia Jolova

IslaYallis

Playa F o sil Playa d

e B anco

Playa Brava

Playa Blanca

BahiaSalina del

Sur

G8

G7

G2

G3

G4

G5

Bull's EyeTarget

OP-9

OP-1

BorrowPit

PuntaEste

CampGarcia Cayo

Conejo

AmC2

Rs

Rs

NOSURVEY

EXTENT OF NAVY LANDS

Cm

Cm

Cm Cm

CmCm

Cm

Cm

Cm

CmCm

Cm

Cm

CmCm Cm

CmCm

Cm

CmCm

Cm

Cm

Cm

Cm

Cm Cm

Cm

EMA

AFW

TF

EAST

ERN

FRIE

NDLY

LIN

E

LIA

BOU N

D ARY

EnsenadaHonda

Yellow Beach

00 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Kilometers

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles

No Survey

Po - Poncena Clay

PrC2 - Pozo Blanco Clay-Loam, 5-12% slopes, eroded

Rs - Rocky Land

Sm - Salt Water Marsh

Tf - Tidal Flats

Ts - Tidal Swamp

VmC - Vieques Loam, 12-40% slopes, eroded

VmE2 - Vieques Loam, 5-12% slopes

Operational Boundaries

Base BoundaryAmB - Amelia gravelly clay loam, 2-5% slopes

AmC2 - Amelia gravelly clay loam, 5-12% slopes, eroded

Ce - Cartagena Clay

Cf - Catano loamy sand

CIB - Coamo clay loam, 2-5% slopes

Cm - Coastal Beach

DeE2 - Descalabrado and Guayama soils, 20-60% slopes, eroded

DgF2 - Descalabrado clay loam, 20-40% slopes, eroded

Drf - Descalabrado-Rock land complex, 40-60% slopes

FrB - Fraternidad Clay, 2-5% slopes

Md - Made Land

PdF - Pandura-Very Stony Land complex, 40-60% slopes

PIB - Paso Seco Clay, 0-5% slopesSource: Boccheciamp 1977

C I

V I

L I

A N

Z O

N E

Vieques Island

Figure 4. Soils of Vieques Island within the EMA/AFWTF.

11

13

VEGETATION

Terrestrial

The vegetation on Vieques Island is typical of a Caribbean island with low population density butwith unique features in different parts of the island. As discussed in Appendix A, nativevegetation communities that existed during prehistory are represented at very few locations of theisland today. The present-day island flora is in large part determined by the various humidityzones as well as past and present land use. Plant communities are found within two life zones asclassified by the Holdridge system: (1) the Subtropical Dry Forest; and (2) the Subtropical MoistForest at the higher elevations (Ewel and Whitmore 1973; Holdridge 1967; Holdridge et al.1971). The Subtropical Dry Forest is the driest zone found in the region that has nearly completecover of deciduous vegetation. Vegetation in this dry zone is characterized as having spines orthorns and having succulent, coriaceous, or small leaves. The Subtropical Moist Forest zonecovers the largest area in the Caribbean and has been deforested intermittently sincePostcolumbian habitation. Trees that are found in the moist zone generally grow taller than thosein the dry zones.

Historically, a subtropical moist coastal forest is believed to have covered much of the island(Little and Wadsworth 1964; Little et al. 1974). During the half-century or so prior to Navy useof the island, all but the highest, steepest slopes, and the mangroves and adjacent wetlandlowlands were used for sugarcane production. Many of the back-beach areas were converted tococonut plantations. By the 1950s, however, almost all of the NLV reserved for agriculture wasused for cattle pasturage rather than sugarcane. The subsequent abandonment of almost allagricultural activity on the NLV resulted in the development of dense thickets and secondaryforest growth, which contain a mixture of native and exotic species. As indicated, this does notreflect the Precolumbian or historical distribution of vegetation on the island, although some ofthe quebradas still support historically native species of trees.

In general, vegetation tends to run from thorny brush in the east, covering much of theEMA/AFWTF, to more lush vegetation in the west; the central civilian area west of theEMA/AFWTF is subjected to cultivation of minor commercial crops. Scrub grass covers muchof the bare ground throughout the island. Dryland forests of ucar (Bucida buceras) are also foundinland from these areas. Trees are generally deciduous and have thorns, small leaves, and hardwood, attaining heights of only about 15 m. Because of their critical role in supportingPrecolumbian human groups, mangrove forests in the coastal areas are discussed in more detailbelow.

The 12 distinct community or habitat types delineated within the NLV consist of bare ground,beach, salt/sand flat, lagoon, mangrove, evergreen scrub, mixed woodland, forest scrub, forested,sparse thorn scrub, thick thorn scrub, and grassland (Geo-Marine 2002). Mixed thorn scrub is themost abundant, covering most of the former agricultural land on the island. The dominant specieshave thorns and include acacia (Acacia sp.), mesquite (Prosopsis juliflora), boxbrier (Randiaaculatea), and catclaw (Pithecellobium unquis-catii) (Buell and Dansereau 1966). Mesquite(Prosopis juliflora) tends to be more prevalent on lower, dry slopes; and lantana (Lantanacamara) and other shrubs occupy the shallow soils in upper slopes. The quebradas that drain theEMA/AFWTF contain gallery forests consisting of larger, broad-leaved trees such as gumbo-limbo (Bursera simaruba), Ginoria rohii, and shortleaf fig (Ficus laevigata ), which grow toheights of more than 33 feet (10 m) (Ecology and Environment 2000:3–23). Acacia often formsthe dense thickets in and along the drainages.

14

Evergreen scrub consists mainly of drought-resistant shrubs with sclerophyllous (leathery) leavesand occurs on rocky coasts and limestone formations. This type generally covers rocky soilsexposed to the sea breeze and extends inland for variable distances. Evergreen scrub is mostextensive on the limestone uplift formations of Punta Este, on the south coast along FanducaPeninsula, and between Puerto Ferro and Puerto Mosquito (Geo-Marine 2002). This scrubcommunity is composed of a variety of shrubs. Dominant species in this community vary bylocation but include spoon tree (Cassine xylocarpa), uverillo (Coccoloba microstachya), Alelí,palmetto (Thrinax morrissi), crabwood (Coccoloba krugii), and black torch (Erithalis fruticosa).Many clumps of the regionally unique orchid Psychilis maconnellae are present along theFanduca Peninsula.

The mixed woodland/upland forest community is found mostly on the inner hills and slopes,primarily on the western side of Vieques Island. A few widely scattered remnant stands can befound within the NLV in the hills east and west of Puerto Ferro. Typical species are almacigo(Bursera simaruba), ironwood (Krugiodendron ferreum), caper trees (Capparis spp.), fiddlewood(Citharexylum spinosum), “fish poison” (Piscidia carthaginensis), fustic (Pictetia aculeata),cat’s-claw vine (Macfadyena unguis-cati), box brier (Randia aculatea), and myrtle trees (Eugeniasp.). Other important associates are candle-berry (Byrsonium lucida), goatbush (Pithecellobiumunguis-cati), and the large pipe organ cactus (Cephalocerus royenni). Patches of forestvegetation are broken up by microphyllous scrub of up to 16 feet in height and mixed low scrub,6 to 10 feet in height, consisting mainly of sage (Lantana involucrata).

Most of the lands on Vieques Island are now more characteristic of the dry coastal zonevegetation found on the main island of Puerto Rico and the dry islands of the Virgin Islands.Where the canopy is open and the understory exposed, spiny shrubs typical of the thorn scrubhabitats are common. The last remnant of once-thriving forest communities on the island arelimited to the upper slopes of Monte Pirata and Cerro El Buey in the western portion of theisland, where disturbance has been limited. Typical species of higher elevations include whitecinnamon (Maytenus laevigata), bastard redwood (Chrysophyllum argenteum), bay rum tree(Pimenta racemosa), gumbolimbo (Bursera simaruba), and Puerto Rican thatch palm(Coccothrinax alta ). Because of the considerable disturbance from human activity, these shrub-reverting areas, even if permitted to mature, would not have the same composition as theantecedent forests found on Vieques Island (Proctor 1994). As indicated, remnant and relativelyundisturbed vegetation communities can also be found within a few scattered quebradas, as wellas in tidal mangrove swamps and associated lowlands.

Sandy beach and beach scrub communities occupy the open sandy beach and adjacent beachvegetation in the salt spray zone (Geo-Marine 2002). Typical species include the beach creeper(Ipomoea pes-caprae), sand spur (Cenchrus sp.), and sea grape (Coccoloba uvifera). Ondisturbed beaches, the milkweeds and a number of herbaceous plants, such as verbain (Sidarhombifolia) and scattered castor bean plants (Ricinus communis), are prominent additions.Generally, nickers (Caesalpinia divergins), a wild-branching shrub with thorns, is a commonassociate and often occurs in the absence of the sea grape.

15

Coastal Mangroves

More than 35 mangrove forests, most of which are on the NLV, are present on Vieques Island(Lewis 1985). The individual mangrove communities within the EMA/AFWTF have a mean sizeof 20 acres and occur on the northern and southern coasts. The largest stands of coastalmangroves are in the vicinity of Punta Arenas in the west, and surrounding Puerto Mosquito,Puerto Ferro, and Ensenada Honda on the south coast.

The mangrove communities are a type of saltwater swamp dominated by moderate to densegrowth of low to medium-tall, broadleaf evergreen shrubs and trees. They are typically low inplant diversity, and most are characterized as closed lagoon forests, although open and ephemeral,as well as fringe and dwarf types are also present (Reinecke 2001). The forests are generallycomposed of one or a combination of four different types of mangrove species: black mangrove(Avicennia germinans), white mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa), button mangrove(Conocarpus erectus), and red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle) (Callahan et al. 1981). Associatedtree species in proximity to mangroves include ucar (Bucida buceras), rosa de cienaga (Ginariarohri), manzanillo (Hippomane mancinella ), genogeno (Lonchocarpus domingensis), and carana(Thespesia populnea) (Proctor 1994).

The mangrove forests are important ecological systems that serve as habitat for both terrestrialand aquatic species, as well as sediment traps or filters that aid in formation and stabilization ofshorelines (Lewis 1985). Of critical importance is their function as nursery areas for manymarine species. The extensive prop root systems of mangroves provide habitat for various fishand epiphytic organisms. The mangrove forests on the island are home to species such as spinylobster, oysters, crabs, snails, snook, mullet, needlefish, and various birds, all of which are knownto have played a critical role in human subsistence during prehistory.

The mangroves within the EMA/AFWTF are either basin or fringe types, but the mangroveforests on the south coast demonstrate a link between the two types. Fringe mangroves occuralong the seaward edge of forests, lining and protecting the shoreline. Since fringe mangrovesare exposed to open water, they are subjected to periodic destruction by storms, waves, orscouring by strong currents. During storms, large amounts of debris may be deposited in theouter fringe, reducing circulation to the inner fringe (Cintrón et al. 1978). Many of the basinmangroves and even fringe mangroves along the southern coast have coral debris mounds alongthe fringe. In many cases, this coral mound isolates the fringe mangrove, thus making the inlandportion of the mangrove function as a basin mangrove due to the restricted circulation (Reinecke2001). These historic and continuous processes have important implications for knowndistribution and location of Precolumbian sites on the island.

The mangrove/coastal lagoon systems in the EMA/AFWTF are currently relatively undisturbed,with the exception of minimal impact along the fringes resulting from recreational and beachaccess, and minimal encroachment from adjacent nonnative communities. Historic localizedimpacts have included livestock grazing, soil erosion from road construction and maintenance,vehicular trails, and mangrove harvesting for fuel and fish traps, as well as from severe storms.For example, in 1989 Hurricane Hugo caused blockages of entrances to tidal creeks and channelsthat nourished lagoons and tidal swamps, and damaged mangroves with strong winds thatdefoliated and uprooted trees (Vicenti et al. 1991). In sum, mangrove forests on Vieques Islandare critical to the survival of marine and terrestrial ecosystems and have played a critical role forhuman subsistence throughout prehistory. As described in Chapter 3, many of the Precolumbiansites, and in particular those of the Archaic (preceramic) period, recorded within theEMA/AFWTF are located in proximity to present-day mangrove habitats.

16

FAUNA

In general, Vieques Island is typical of most island ecosystems and does not support anabundance or diversity of terrestrial vertebrates because the oceanic barrier impedes naturaldispersion. Birds are the wildlife species least restricted by the oceanic barrier and are the mostabundant and diverse group of vertebrates on the island. Approximately 120 species of birdshave been reported on or around the island (Ecology and Environment 2000:3–27). In addition,there are four species of amphibians, 14 species of terrestrial reptiles, and seven species ofterrestrial mammals.

The 120 species of birds comprise 68 species of land birds, 39 species of lagoon birds, and 13species of seabirds. Some of these birds are known to breed on the island, while others areconsidered nonbreeding residents, winter migrants, or accidental strays (Geo-Marine 2002). Themost common breeding land birds include the ground dove (Columbina passerina), zenaida dove(Zenaida aurita), gray kingbird (Tyrannus dominicensis), bannaquit (Coereba flaveola), greaterAntillean grackle (Quiscalus niger), and smooth-billed ani (Crotophaga ani). Among the lagoonbirds are various heron, egret, waterfowl, rail, and shorebird species, all of which are restrictedmostly to lagoons/open water, mangrove forests, and mudflat habitats. The 13 species of seabirdsutilize the rocky shores, cliffs, small islands, sandy beaches, and to some degree, the coastallagoons. A few of the seabird species likely to occur around the coastal areas include the brownpelican (Pelacanus occidentalis), magnificent frigatebird (Fregata magnificens), brown booby(Sula leucogaster), and laughing gull (Larus atricilla).

Bats constitute the largest group of mammals on Vieques Island, and although the red fruit bat isreported to be the only surviving endemic mammal on the island, bats of the genus Tadarida havebeen frequently observed. All other mammals, including various species of house mouse, rat,mongoose, domestic animals, wild horses, and feral cats and dogs, were introduced by humans.The 18 reptile and amphibian species reported to occur on the island include frog, toad, lizard,snake, and freshwater turtle species.

MARINE ENVIRONMENT

Valuable marine resources found in the waters surrounding Vieques Island critical toPrecolumbian subsistence consist of coral reefs, fish and shellfish communities, and seagrassbeds. Many areas of the ocean floor in the immediate offshore areas are covered with stands ofseagrasses. Primarily of the Thalassia variety, the largest concentrations start west from PuntaCaballo on the north coast and fan around Punta Arenas to the southwest. There are also largeseagrass areas in the south in Ensenada Honda and Bahía Salinas del Sur along the southeasterncoast.

Surrounding Vieques Island are some of the most lush seagrass beds in the Caribbean Sea. Thesebeds contain combinations of three major species of seagrass: turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum),manatee grass (Syringodium filiforme), and shoal grass (Halodule wrightii). Seagrass beds arefound around Vieques Island and in the small bays and lagoons, except in areas having coral reefsor rocky substrates. Halophila decipiens (dwarf seagrass) is also present seasonally in BahíaTapón, eastern Ensenada Honda, and Puerto Ferro on the southern coast. Coral reefs areabundant off of the island coastlines; the greatest concentration is off the eastern portion of theisland. The most common reef types are fringing reefs, patch reefs, and bank/barrier reefs.

17

Common coral species comprising the patch and fringing reefs include elkhorn (Acroporapalmata ), fire coral (Millepora sp.), cavernous star coral (Montastra annularis) and brain coral(Diploria sp.).

More than one-third of roughly 800 species of fish known to inhabit the waters around PuertoRico have been documented in Vieques Island waters (Causey et al. 2000). These include openwater or pelagic fish, fish inhabiting grassbeds or sandflats, and reef fish. Within inshore waters,reef fish are the most diverse and abundant association. Offshore pelagic fish such as jacks(Carangidae) or mackerels (Scromidae) that range widely in search of food are found innearshore habitats; other pelagic species found off Vieques Island consist of snapper, shark(Carcharhinidae), dolphin-fish (Coryphaenidae), barracuda (Sphyraenidae), and tuna (Matos-Carabello 2000). Four species of sea turtles around the island include the hawksbill(Eretmochelys imbricata ), green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelyscoriacea), and loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta ). As a group, they consume plants andanimals such as seagrasses, algae jellyfish, squid sea urchins, mollusks, crustaceans, and fish.Sea turtle carapaces were used for food vessels and carved into ornaments by Precolumbianinhabitants of the island. West Indian manatees are found principally off the northwestern shoreof Vieques Island where they use seagrass beds as their primary food source, as well as for restinghabitats.

At least six species of mollusks are known to occur in nearshore marine habitats off ViequesIsland (Raffaele et al. 1973). These include the octopus (Octopus sp.), coquina clam (Donaxdenticulata ), queen conch (Strombus gigas), oyster (Ostrea rhizophorae), and two snails (Marisacornuaretis and Tarebia granifera). Other genera of mollusks found near Vieques Island mayinclude Charonia , Cyphoma, Oliva, Tridachia, Strombus, Lima, and Spondylus (Colin 1978). Atleast eight species of crustaceans are also known to occur in the coastal waters and in nearshoremarine habitats off Vieques Island (Raffaele et al. 1973). These species include the Caribbeanspiny lobster (Panulirus argus), freshwater shrimp (Macrobrachium carcinus), mole crab(Emerita portoricensis), beach crab (Hippia cubensis), ghost crab (Ocypode quadrata ), gray landcrab (Cardisoma guanhumi), fiddler crab (Uca spp.), and red mangrove crab (Goniopsiscruentata ). Both mollusks and crustaceans were important food sources for early humaninhabitants of the island.

FORMER ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS

Much of the present natural terrestrial environment of Vieques Island is likely to be substantiallydifferent from the environment that existed during prehistory. Historic and modern land-usepatterns have changed the face of the landscape, and even areas that appear untouched bydevelopment have been affected by broad-scale factors. Physical evidence of the process of long-term environmental change is provided in drainage and soil characteristics, and coastlinemorphology. As discussed in this study, the presence of beach ridges and coral mounds along theshoreline may also represent land-altering environmental events, such as historic fluctuations insea level.

Extensive forest clearing, known to have occurred during the historic period and likely during thePrecolumbian period, has also contributed to alteration of the hydrologic cycle and, in turn, localclimate. Heavy precipitation that falls on unvegetated land induces rapid sheet runoff rather thangradual downward seepage that would normally resupply the water table and feed springs and

18

streams. As a result, landforms are altered from erosion and flooding, river channels remain dryfor long periods, and patterns of regular, predictable overflow on flood plains are lost. Theseprocesses have a significant impact on the preservation of archaeological sites.

Large-scale clearing, especially on slopes, has resulted in accelerated erosion. Erosion haslowered the quantity and quality of upland soils and disrupted water retention. Much of the soilthat is removed from slopes is added to the sediment load carried by rivers and streams,contributing to silting. This ultimately decreases the depth of stream channels and the ability torecharge aquifers. It is possible therefore, that during Precolumbian occupation of the island,streams regularly carried larger amounts of water and provided reliable sources of freshwater forhuman settlement.

With the clearing of vegetation, evaporation rates on ground surface increase and consequentlyreduce available soil moisture, ultimately affecting the local or regional climate. Revegetation isaffected as certain species are unable to regenerate, possibly contributing to a drier climate. Asdiscussed in the following chapter, sediment coring of terrestrial lakes in Haiti has revealed ageneral pattern in the Caribbean that is characterized by a xeric environment from 10,400–8,200before present (B.P.) that gave way to increasing mesic clime from 8,200–2,500 B.P. Theenvironment then reverted to a dry setting from 2,500 B.P. to the present (Higuera-Gundy 1989,1991; Hodell et al. 1991). Siegel et al. (1999:282) suggest that numerous anomalies in theclimate curve reflect short-term environmental fluctuations. As discussed in Chapters 4 and 6,such possibly human-induced fluctuations may have had considerable importance in influencingmigration to and settlement of Vieques Island.

19

CHAPTER 3CULTURAL OVERVIEW AND PREVIOUS RESEARCH

PREHISTORIC PERIOD

Puerto Rico is the easternmost and smallest island of the Greater Antilles and is strategicallylocated as a migratory gateway to the larger islands of Hispaniola and Cuba to the west, andsmaller islands of the Bahamian Archipelago to the north. Since the beginning of the twentiethcentury, archaeological investigations have resulted in the formulation of a Precolumbian culturalhistory divided into four major periods that are linked to a corresponding series of radiocarbondates. Period I is called the Lithic and Archaic age; Period II constitutes the Early Ceramic age;Period III is the Transitional or Intermediate Ceramic age; and Period IV is the Late Ceramic age.The periods are further divided into subperiods based chiefly upon ceramic series and chronology(Figure 5; Table 1). Period IV is marked by the first appearance of public architecture in the form ofball courts and dance plazas locally known as bateyes. The peoples of Period IV are considered to bethe direct ancestors of the Taíno people who were present on the island of Puerto Rico at the time ofColumbus’s voyages to the New World.

The chronology for Caribbean Precolumbian culture sequence is fundamentally based on the work ofFroelich G. Rainey and Irving B. Rouse. Rainey (1935; 1940) established the first stratigraphicallybased relative chronology for the whole of Puerto Rico and attempted to project it to the rest of theCaribbean. Rouse, who succeeded Rainey in the region-wide Caribbean research coming out of YaleUniversity in the 1930s, undertook a much more extensive series of investigations that coveredpractically all of the major Caribbean islands and eventually Venezuela. The chronology resultingfrom Rouse’s eventual syntheses is still the basis for all current research everywhere in the insularCaribbean (Rouse 1952a, 1952b, 1992). As applied and modified for Puerto Rico, this chronology isas follows:

• Period I (3000 B.C.–A.D. 300) Lithic and Archaic age• Period II (300 B.C.–A.D. 600) Early Ceramic age (Saladoid and La Hueca)• Period III (A.D. 600–A.D. 1200) Transitional or Intermediate Ceramic age (Ostionoid)• Period IV (A.D. 1200–A.D. 1500) Late Ceramic age (Chican Ostionoid, Taíno)

20

figure5. Cultural chronology of the Greater and Lesser Antilles: series and subseries

Figure 5. Cultural chronology of the Greater and Lesser Antilles: series and subseries.

21

Table 1Generalized Cultural Chronological Chart of Prehistoric Puerto Rico

Period Date Western Puerto Rico Eastern Puerto Rico

IVaA.D. 1492

Capá Esperanza

IIIbA.D. 1200

Late Ostiones Santa Elena

IIIaA.D. 900

Early Ostiones Monserrate

IIbA.D. 600

Cuevas

Hacienda Grande

IIa

A.D. 400

Hacienda Grande La Hueca

I

300 B.C.

2000 B.C.

4000 B.C.

Archaic

Lithic

After Curet and Oliver 1998; Rouse 1992

Archaeologists primarily responsible for early work in the region include Fewkes (1907, 1914);de Hostos (1919); Mason (1917, 1941); Rainey (1935, 1940); Rouse (1941, 1952a, 1952 b, 1960,1964, 1982); Alegría (1965); Alegría et al. (1955); and Rouse and Alegría (1990). More recentresearchers of Puerto Rican prehistory include Chanlatte Baik (1979, 1983); Curet (1992, 1996);Curet and Oliver (1998); Lundberg (1985, 1989a, 1989b); Oliver (1990, 1992a, 1992b, 1995,1998); Ortiz Aguilú et al. (1991, 2001); Pantel (1988); Robinson et al. (1985); Rodriguez (1989,1991, 1992); Siegel (1989, 1991a, 1991b, 1992, 1996, 1999); Tronolone et al. (1984); and Walker(1993).

Lithic Age and Archaic Period (Period I)

The first inhabitants of the Greater Antilles made their appearance in Cuba, Haiti, and theDominican Republic during the Lithic and Archaic period around 6,000 years ago. Rouse (1992)has proposed two migrations: the first involving the Casimiroid Indians from Middle Americaaround 4000 B.C.; and the second involving the Ortoiroids from South America beginning around2000 B.C. Each group is identified with characteristic stone tool technology—the Casimiroidswith a flaked stone industry (referred to as Lithic age, or Paleo-Indian), and the Ortoiroids with aground stone industry (referred to as Archaic age). Almost all Casimiroid Lithic-age sites areknown from Cuba, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic; on Puerto Rico, the Cerrillo site, a flint

22

workshop on the west coast, may belong to this period. The age of this site is, however, uncertainand is more likely a later, Archaic-age site (Pantel 1976). A deep shell and lithic midden excavatedon the north coast of Puerto Rico near Barceloneta, has also suggested occupation from the Lithicthrough Archaic period, but has yet to be confirmed (Ayes Suárez 1990). As such, verifiable Lithic-age sites have yet to be documented on Puerto Rico. The flaked stone tools of the earlyCasimiroid sites are similar to those from sites near and on the Yucatán peninsula, which suggeststhat the earliest inhabitants to the Greater Antilles came east from Middle America (Cruxent andRouse 1969; Wilson 1997:4).

The distinct flint-chipping technology of the Casimiroids has been traced to the Sand Hill peoplewho lived in Belize between 7500 and 6000 B.C. (MacNeish and Nelken-Turner 1983). FromMiddle America, two migration routes have been proposed. One is an oversea voyaging route toJamaica via the mid-Caribbean chain of islands, which would have formed a nearly continuousseries of stepping stones when sea level was lower several thousand years ago (Cruxent andRouse 1969; Wilson et al. 1999)). The second is an overland migratory route along the coast ofthe Yucatán and then across the channel to Cuba (Rouse and Alegría 1990). The Casimiroidswere presumably attracted to the larger islands because of their lengthy coastlines and largerivers, which offered an abundant supply of fish. The Casimiroids have been further divided intothe Casimira, Cabaret, and Mordan complexes; the latter two have been associated with shellrefuse. However, no traces of Casimiroid peoples have been found on the smaller islands of theBahamas or the Lesser Antilles, and evidence on Puerto Rico is yet to be confirmed.

As with the Casimiroids, the Ortoiroids known from Archaic-age sites on Puerto Rico, hunted,fished, and gathered the wild plants and animals of the sea and islands but did not cultivate foodcrops. On Puerto Rico, there are fewer than 20 known Archaic-age sites and all occur in coastalareas that would have provided access to a broad range of shellfish and other maritime resources.The beginning of the Archaic period on Puerto Rico is generally considered to be 2000 B.C.(Rouse 1992:49).

The Archaic-age people on Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands have been grouped into the Corosocomplex based principally upon artifact assemblages (Lundberg 1989a, 1989b; Rouse 1992). Thecomplex is named after the Coroso type site in southwestern Puerto Rico, and characterized bythe use of stone pestles and edge grinders, in addition to shell, wood, and bone tools (Rouse andAlegría 1990; Rouse and Allaire 1978). The Coroso complex of Puerto Rico is best documentedfrom the sites of Cayo Cofresí, Papayos, Jobos, Playa Blanca, and the María de la Cruz cave on themainland, and Caño Hondo from Vieques Island (Figure 6). The complex is marked by the generalabsence of flaked points, knives, and scrapers of the Casimiroid cultures (Rouse and Alegría 1990;Rouse and Allaire 1978).

One of the first recorded and well-documented Archaic-age Coroso sites is the María de la Cruzcave site near the mouth of the Río Grande on the northeastern coast of Puerto Rico. Firstreported in 1914–1915 by Mason (1941:269), major excavations were conducted in 1948 and1954 by Alegría (1955) and a final interpretation issued by Rouse and Alegría (1990). Fiveclasses of distinct artifacts were identified—pebble grinders, pebble choppers, hammerstones,sharp-edged flakes, and one shell scraper—but no ground stone artifacts.

On the southern coast of Puerto Rico, the Archaic-age site of Cayo Cofresí yielded radiocarbondates of 2275 ± 85 B.P. and 2245 ± 85 B.P. (Pina et al. 1974; Veloz Maggiolo et al. 1975). Therecovered artifact assemblage included flaked stone (chert knives, scrapers, and choppers), shell,

23

figure

6. Several regional archaeological sites mentioned in this study

Figure 6. Several regional archaeological sites mentioned in this study.

24

and ground stone tools, including well-formed ground stone pestles. Lundberg (1989a, 1989b)distinguishes this site as a subcomplex from the Coroso culture represented at María de la Cruzcave, based primarily on the presence of stone pestles that specifically relate it to ceramicassemblages of other islands such as Hispaniola and Antigua.

Lundberg (1989a, 1989b) also distinguishes a third subcomplex of the Coroso culture fromexcavations at Krum Bay on St. Thomas, Virgin Islands (see Figure 6). The Krum Bay sites areunique in that abundant flaked igneous stone—but not a blade industry—pebble tools used ashammerstones and grinders dominate the assemblage. Of particular note are crude bifacially workedtools resembling celts or wedges, large amounts of red ochre, as well as conch (Strombus sp.) tiptools (Lundberg 1989b). Ground stone celts noted from early excavations at Krum Bay by Bullenand Sleight (1963) were likely associated with a later Ceramic-age component. Lundberg also founda greater use of flaked stone technology in Krum Bay assemblages, thereby assigning it as adistinct Corosan subcomplex. Thus, within the Coroso complex, Lundberg (1989b) distinguishedthree Corosan subcomplexes—Coroso, Krum Bay, and Cayo Cofresí; however, Lundberg(1989b) noted that despite some differences, the subcomplexes are marked by strong similaritiesin material cultural and settlement and subsistence patterns.

The recent discovery of an Archaic-period site on the southern coastal plain of Puerto Rico atMaruca suggests a link to Lithic-age sites in Cuba, based on analysis of lithic remains (Pantel1994a, 1994b; Rodriguez 1997). Ground stone, lithic flake, and Strombus tools were recovered inassociation with several human burials. Analysis of nearly 5,000 lithic artifacts recovered fromexcavations also suggests a link with Archaic-age sites both in eastern as well as western PuertoRico. Tool types typically recovered from sites on Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are lesssophisticated than those recovered from Lithic-age sites in the Dominican Republic and Cuba. Autilized flake manufactured from obsidian, which does not occur naturally on Puerto Rico,recovered from the Maruca site suggests contact with other islands (Rodriguez 1997:27). Theearliest radiocarbon date from the site suggests an occupation of 2890–2580 B.C., although otherdates indicate additional occupation circa 700 B.C. Numerous worked pieces of shell pointtoward a close affinity to the Caribbean Sea located 1.5 km south of the site.

As indicated, few Archaic sites on Puerto Rico have been professionally excavated (Table 2), andlike the other Archaic sites on nearby islands, Archaic sites on Puerto Rico are located near areasthat provide a broad range of shellfish and other marine resources. There is so far no evidence onPuerto Rico to suggest that the Archaic peoples used pottery or practiced agriculture as with laterCeramic-age groups. A rock shelter recently excavated on the north coast of Puerto Rico yieldedlithic material associated with terrestrial invertebrates (Sanders et al. 2001). The remains wereradiocarbon-dated to as early as circa 1600 B.C. suggesting a range in subsistence strategiesduring the Archaic period. In addition, evidence suggesting the use of plant products by theArchaic population of the El Porvenir and Tavera sites in the Dominican Republic has beenreported by Veloz Maggiolo et al. (1971:107). Veloz Maggiolo and Ortega (1976) reported therecovery of seeds and remnants of royal palm as well as coral and ground stone metates, groundstone manos, and anvils from Archaic sites on that island.

As discussed further in Chapter 4, Archaic-age sites recorded within the NLV have made animportant contribution to our understanding of the Archaic period. Artifact assemblages withassociated radiocarbon dates have been described from several sites including Caño Hondo,Verdiales I (circa 3,500 B.P.), and Yanuel 9 (circa 2,100 B.P.); the latter two are located within theEMA/AFWTF (Tronolone et al. 1984). Also on Vieques Island, the site of Caño Hondo I near

25

Table 2Principal Archaic Period Sites on Puerto Rico

Site Location Reference

Angostura north coast Ayes-Suárez 1990

María de la Cruz cave north coast Alegría et al. 1955; Rouse and Alegría 1990

Cayo Cofresí south coast Pina et al. 1974; Veloz Maggiolo et al. 1975

Caño Hondo Vieques Island Rouse 1952b:556–557; Figueredo 1976

Coroso west coast Rouse 1952a:379-382; Rouse and Alegría 1990:77

Maruca south coast Pantel 1995; Rodríguez 1997

Papayos and Jobos south coast Rouse 1952b:538–539

Playa Blanca east coast Rouse 1952b:550

Verdiales I Vieques Island Tronolone et al. 1984

Puerto Mosquito in the civilian sector, yielded faceted pebble grinders, hammerstones, basaltflakes, possibly utilized Strombus tips, ochre, and quartz fragments with associated radiocarbondates of 3,030 ± 70 B.P. and 2,855 ± 65 B.P. (Figueredo 1976). Caño Hondo I, which is locatedon a small rise above a tidal swamp, also yielded ground stone celts, which were lacking in theother Archaic assemblages on Puerto Rico, but present in the Krum Bay complex (Lundberg1989a). Marine shell at the site consisted of Cittarium pica followed by mangrove-dwellingoyster (Crassostrea rhizophorae), with lesser representation of Lucina sp., Murex sp., andAtlantic pearl oyster (Pinctada imbricata), as well as conch (Strombus sp).

Radiocarbon dates from several Archaic-age sites on Puerto Rico overlap with later Ceramic-agesites in the close vicinity. For example, there is overlap between the radiometric dates of Maríade la Cruz cave site (A.D. 40 ± 100) and the early Ceramic-age type site of the nearby HaciendaGrande site (160 ± 100 B.C.) (Rouse and Alegría 1990:59). A possible Archaic- and Ceramic-ageoverlap has also been suggested at the sites of Coroso and El Porvenir (Rouse 1964); based on theavailable evidence, however, María de la Cruz cave and Hacienda Grande represent one of theonly known locales on Puerto Rico where this overlap exists.

Although many questions about the Archaic-age populations on Puerto Rico remain unanswered,the role they had in shaping the demographic panorama of the ensuing periods still requires closeexamination (Rouse and Alegría 1990). As discussed further in this report, issues that remainlargely unresolved in the study region include the origins of the Archaic-age groups and whetherthere is any evidence of links to earlier (or contemporaneous) Lithic-age groups. Likewise, theextent to which later migrations of Ceramic-age groups confronted or interacted with Archaic-agegroups already present remains largely undetermined. One of the objectives of the current study isto investigate possible environmental transformations that may have had a role in migrations andsettlement during this early period or, alternatively, that may have been a consequence of humansettlement.

26

Early Ceramic Period (Period II—Saladoid and La Hueca)

Possibly as early as 400 B.C. the first ceramic and agricultural peoples arrived on Puerto Ricofollowing migratory routes from the Orinoco River valley of northern South America and acrossthe Lesser Antillean island chain. Known as the Saladoid period (or “series” based upon ceramictypology), a name taken from the site of Saldero on the Orinoco River in Venezuela, the Saladoidpeople brought with them ceramic technology, thus marking the beginning the Ceramic age in theWest Indies (Curet and Oliver 1998; Rouse 1992).

During the course of his Venezuelan research, Rouse (1964) introduced the concept of “series,”which he defined as a set of ceramic styles that have developed one from another representingdifferent ceramic “subseries” within a single overarching Saladoid ceramic series. In Rouse’sview, the Saladoid was first represented in the West Indies as the Cedrosan Saladoid, named forthe Cedros site in Trinidad. The Cedrosan Saladoid is associated with a material culture thatincluded plain pottery and two decorated wares, one characterized by white-on-red painteddesigns, the other by zoned-incised-crosshatched designs. The former is referred to by theacronym “WOR,” and latter is referred to by the acronym “ZIC.” Other traits, such as modelingand incision, are common to both decorated wares. At the Saladero site, the characteristic WORpainted ware was found by itself, whereas at Cedros, WOR painted ware was found along withZIC ware.

The Cedrosan Saladoid people settled the fertile coastal plains and large rivers of Puerto Rico andother islands of the Lesser Antilles, showing a preference for littoral zones. Some researchershave attempted to show a preference for a particular island quadrant or side, such as windward orleeward side (Haviser 1997); however, early Saladoid settlement locations throughout the LesserAntilles show a preference for all coastal zones (Boomert 1999:57). A recently reportedexception is the identification of several early Saladoid settlement sites within the interior of theisland of Antigua, but which are still in association with permanent water sources (Murphy 1999).Because of the small size of Antigua, and other small Caribbean islands, such “inland” locationsshould be viewed as coastal (Boomert 1999). On Puerto Rico, known early Saladoid settlementsites on the northern coast of the main island include Monserrate, Hacienda Grande, Puerta deTierra, El Convento, and Maisabel. On the western coast is the site of Ensenada and on thesouthern coast the sites of Tecla, Canas, and Las Flores. Punta Candelero is an important earlySaladoid site on the southeastern coast, opposite the Vieques Passage and the site of La Hueca-Sorcé on Vieques Island (see Figure 6). Period II settlements sites typically contain densemiddens with crustacean, bird, and marine vertebrate fauna. As discussed in Chapter 4, modern-erasurveys of the NLV have recorded a number of sites that contain Saladoid manifestations(Tronolone et al. 1984; Sanders et al. 2001).

In most of Puerto Rico, the early Cedrosan Saladoid sites are represented by the Hacienda Grandeceramics style, named after the type site on the northeastern coast. However, in southeasternPuerto Rico and Vieques Island another distinctive style—La Hueca—is identified. The style isbased mostly on ceramics recovered from the La Hueca-Sorcé site on the south coast of ViequesIsland (Chanlatte Baik and Narganes Storde 1983), and across the Vieques Passage at PuntaCandelero on the southeastern Puerto Rican coast (Rodriguez 1991). Both of these sites have aceramic inventory dominated by ZIC wares rather than painted WOR wares. A later Cedrosanpopulation, defined by the Cuevas ceramic style, subsequently spread from the coastal valleys ofPuerto Rico into the intermediate hills (Curet 1992; Lundberg 1985; Oliver 1992, 1995; OrtizAguilú et al. 2001; Rodríguez 1992).

27

In addition to ceramic vessels, the Saladoid people throughout the Caribbean manufacturedceramic griddles for baking cassava bread made from manioc flour. Other ceramic itemsincluded beads, amulets, figurines, and discs. They also employed stone, shell, coral, and bone tomanufacture a number of personal adornments, some of which are intricately carved.Tremendous amounts of exotic beads and pendants manufactured from a variety of exogenousmaterials have been encountered from Saladoid sites in the West Indies. The La Hueca-Sorcé siteon Vieques Island has yielded several thousand lapidary artifacts and shell ornaments, indicativeof elaborate systems of exchange.

Saladoid people lived in villages containing small oval or circular houses. Although fewSaladoid settlements have been extensively excavated, the houses appeared in a semicircular orhorseshoe pattern with extensive midden deposits. However, a linear alignment of houses alongthe coastline has also been demonstrated (Rodriguez 1991). Siegel (1989, 1999) argues that thesociopolitical system of the Saladoid people was that of a “complex tribe,” and that theirconcentration within widely spaced villages may have been an adaptive response to resistanceencountered from Archaic peoples on the island at the time of initial settlement (cf. Walker1985). Boomert (1999), however, argues that the notion of “complex tribe” lacks empiricalfoundation, and ascribes a sociopolitical system of “big man collectivity” present during thattime. The Saladoid people brought with them from South America a form of religion known as“zemíism,” with associated three-pointed sculptures in stone and shell. The word “zemíism” wasfirst used by Fewkes (1914) in reference to the Taíno religion, which flourished during laterPeriods III and IV and survived long enough to be documented by the early chronicler RamonPané in 1495.

Several researchers have theorized that a distinctive group of Huecan Saladoid people (versusCedrosan Saladoid) was responsible for a separate and nearly contemporaneous migration fromSouth America. This individual group is represented from material remains at the La Hueca-Sorcé site on Vieques Island and at Punta Candelero across the Vieqes Passage (Chanlatte Baikand Narganes Stordes 1983; Rodríguez 1991). As evidence, researchers have found mutuallyexclusive deposits of WOR and ZIC pottery from distinct mound groups. These deposits do notcontain the characteristic mixing of WOR and ZIC ware types that are found at most Saladoidsites. Other differences that suggest a distinct group include a large amount of status/ritual goods(condor amulets, beads, and other semiprecious stone objects) in the assemblages. Arepresentation of this possibly distinct culture is embodied at Hope Estate site on St. Martin(Haviser 1991; Hofman and Hoogland 1999) and the Morel I site on Guadeloupe (Hofman et al.1999).

Other researchers have noted, however, that the WOR and ZIC ceramics from those sites sharecertain stylistic modes, and were more likely to have been produced simultaneously by Cedrosanpotters (Carini 1993; Roe 1989). Chanlatte Baik and Narganes Storde (1983), and Rodriguez(1989, 1991) have nevertheless maintained that the same group of artisans had never producedthe two wares. Rouse (1992) has suggested that the La Hueca style should be best conceived asthe Huecan Saladoid subseries of the broader Saladoid series. For an in-depth analysis andsummary of the “La Hueca Problem,” the reader is referred to Oliver (1999). By the end of theearly Ceramic period, the elaborate multicolor painting and the modeling and incision of theCedrosan and Huecan Saladoid ceramics had declined, thus marking the end of the Saladoidseries on Puerto Rico and the beginning of the Ostionoid series. As discussed in Chapter 4, thereare very few sites that can be solely attributed to the early Saladoid period on Vieques Island,including within the study area of the NLV.

28

Transitional or Intermediate Ceramic Period (Period III—Ostionoid)

By A.D. 600, major shifts in ceramic assemblages, an increase in diversification of ceramic styles,and changes in settlement patterns mark the emergence of the Ostionoid series (Curet and Oliver1998; Rouse 1992; Siegel 1989). Two new ceramic styles developed out of the Cuevas style:Early Ostiones in the west and Monserrate in the east, which evolved, respectively, into the LateOstiones and Santa Elena styles (Oliver 1990, 1995; Rodríguez 1992; Rouse 1992). TheOstionoid ceramic series was first found at Punta Ostiones, the type site on the south coast of PuertoRico. At that time, the Ceramic-age frontier advanced through Hispaniola, into Jamaica, and on tothe eastern end of Cuba. Caribbean archaeologists have long argued about whether or not the newOstionoid ceramic series was the result of another population movement from South America, an insitu development of the earlier Saladoid, or a product of the increasing interaction with orimmigration from South America.

A prevailing theory among Caribbeanists is that the Saladoid culture evolved into the Ostionoid,with the latter represented as a continuation of the preceding culture period in terms of ceramic-making, agriculture, and sedentism. Nevertheless, evidence of a breakdown in cultural continuitybetween the Caribbean islands and mainland South America is provided in lack of trade goods,such as exotic stone, and concomitant rise of regional ceramic styles in both Puerto Rico and theVirgin Islands. Rouse (1992) has stressed the process of local development, basing this conclusionon the results of stylistic analysis. Alegría (1979, 1983), on the other hand, has performed afunctional analysis of types and has found what he believes to be interaction between the Ostionoidpeoples of the Greater Antilles and Lesser Antilles. Rouse and Alegría (1990:71) have concludedthat both processes were involved, but that the problem is to determine the role played by each.

Period III is marked by the appearance of new types of artifacts, mainly a proliferation of sculptedlithics, the most remarkable of which are so-called stone “collars” as well as the ubiquitous three-pointed stone “zemi,” which made its appearance in the previous period, but by this time was largerand more elaborate. Petaloid celts are numerous, and middens are very dense, but their compositionhas changed by having much less crustaceans remains and instead have large inclusions of bothmarine and sweet water mollusks. Sites appear to occur in every single niche and are found all overthe central mountain ranges. This period marks the initial appearance of “structural” plazas (i.e.,planned and artificially leveled, open, communal spaces in the middle of the villages, bound by rowsof stones on each side) and special sites with agricultural terraces on steep hillsides. They aresurrounded by a multiplicity of settlements, some of which have very extensive and dense middens(Ortiz Aguilú et al. 1991).

The Ostionoid ceramic style is divided into four subseries: Ostionan, Elenan, Meillacan, andChican. The Ostionan Ostionoid subseries developed in the Mona passage area around A.D. 600.The Elenan Ostionoid subseries developed in the Vieques Sound area and Leeward Islandsaround the same time. The Meillacan Ostionoid subseries evolved from the Ostionan Ostionoidaround A.D. 800. This pottery, although closely related to the Ostionan Ostionoid, lacks itscharacteristic red slip and polish. Elaborate incision, consisting primarily of zoned, crosshatchedbands located beneath the rim of the vessels, replaced the slip and polish. Rouse (1992) suggeststhe Azua Valley in the northern part of Hispaniola as the place of origin of this pottery and that itspread from there to Cuba and Jamaica.

29

Early in the Ostionoid period, houses tended to be large for extended families but later decreasedin size dramatically, possibly for nuclear families. House arrangements in villages varied greatly,in some cases with structures arranged around a central plaza (Curet and Oliver 1998; Siegel1999). Populations increased rapidly and continued to expand to the interior of the island (Curetand Oliver 1998; Ortiz Aguilú et al. 2001; Rouse 1952). The first appearances of ball courtspossibly signified a trend toward sociopolitical consolidation accompanying population increase.The powerful paramount chieftainships called cacicazgos (a Spanish word derived from the Taínolanguage) as well as the ancestor cults that Columbus and others witnessed about 500 years later mayhave experienced their early stages of development during Period III (Ortiz Aguilú 1991; OrtizAguilú et al. 1991, 2001).

Many demographic and cultural changes occurred during this period. Settlement of Puerto Rico’smountainous interior and the previously mentioned territorial advancement of the Ostionoidpeoples provide evidence of what may have been a rapid increase in population (Ortiz Aguilú etal. 2001). By A.D. 800–900 the coastal plains had been inhabited for at least 1,000 years andwere largely deforested. Agricultural needs were intense and large tracts of land were planted forthe production of food crops such as cassava and manioc, and new methods of intensifiedagricultural production were developed (Ortiz Aguilú 1991; Ortiz Aguilú et al. 1991). By A.D.1000–1200 the full range of eco-niches on Puerto Rico was occupied; the high interior mountainswere the last major geographical zone colonized (Curet and Oliver 1998; Ortiz Aguilú et al.2001). The appearance of large, influential settlement sites such as Palo Hincado, Vivi, LasFlores, Tibes, and Caguana suggests the initial formation process of chiefdoms. The distributionof Ostionoid period sites on Vieques Island reflects this general trend of the mainland. Most ofthe recorded Precolumbian sites on Vieques Island are from this period and occupy mostgeographic zones of the island.

Late Ceramic Period (Period IV—Chican Ostionoid, Taíno to Spanish Contact)

The Late Ceramic and Contact period lasted from circa A.D. 1200 until the arrival of the Spaniardscirca A.D. 1500. The period corresponds to the historically documented Taíno groups and ismarked by the proliferation of stone-demarcated precincts, many of which contain iconographicpetroglyphs. This public architecture was used as ball courts/plazas, locally known as bateyes.The Ceramic-age frontier expanded throughout the Antilles (with the exception of the far westernend of Cuba) and into the Bahamian islands.

Another Ostionoid pottery style—Chican, which is diagnostic of the period—is found on PuertoRico during this time. This pottery was first identified in an earlier context at the type site ofBoca Chica in the Dominican Republic. The Cayito site on the south coast of Puerto Rico hasalso produced Chican pottery that was apparently imported from the south coast of the DominicanRepublic (Rouse 1952b:530–532, 571). Chican pottery retained many of the features of the stylesthat preceded it. The characteristic incision carries over from the Meillacan, but other sherdshave motifs and modeled incised lugs that resemble the earlier Saladoid decorative modes. Localpotters copied the style and developed their own variations—called Capá in the western part ofthe island and Esperanza in the east—that are grouped as Chican subseries (Rouse 1982,1992:111–113).

30

Hierarchical arrangements of sites tied into regional centers may have signaled the furthercoalescence of territories into chiefdoms or cacizagos during this period (Curet 1992, 1996;Oliver 1992, 1995; Rodríguez 1992; Rouse 1992; Siegel 1991a). The early chroniclers, includingBartolomé de las Casas and Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo, testify to the extensive planted fieldson the coastal plains and the presence of large, permanent villages, each governed by a chief orcacique. Villages averaged 1,000 to 2,000 people, and the largest villages contained more than50 houses, all made of wood and thatch (Rouse 1992).

Although the ceramic peoples encountered by Columbus were referred to by the early chroniclersas Island Arawaks, linguistic evidence suggests that their language was Arawakan and ancestralto what was spoken when Columbus arrived in the Antilles (Brinton 1871:433). The name“Island Arawak” refers to the Orinocan migrants during their pioneer phase. Their descendants inthe Lesser Antilles, who were overrun by Caribs from the mainland during the protohistoricperiod, were referred to as the “Igneri.” This term was used by the sixteenth-century Frenchchroniclers. It probably came from “eyeri,” Arawakan for “man” (Brinton 1871:440). “Taíno” isused for the Arawak descendants of the historic period inhabiting the Greater Antilles. The exactmeaning of this word is unclear, but it is generally translated as “good,” “peace,” or “friends,”and has now been adopted by writers as a characteristic name for the Greater Antilleaninhabitants.

Period IV ended soon after contact with the Spanish settlers. Slavery, disease, and warfare led tothe rapid disintegration of the aboriginal societies, although the aboriginal population survivedlong enough to become a demographic component of what would become the Criollo society(Sued-Badillo 2001). The early chroniclers of the colonization of the Antilles provide accountsof the religion, politics, society, and subsistence practices of the people that had come to beknown as the Taínos. The most noteworthy sources for information on the historic Taínos comesfrom Historia de las Indias and Brevísima Relación de la Destrucción de Indias, by FrayBartolomé de las Casas (1951); Historia General y Natural de las Indias, Islas y Tierre Firme delMar Océano, by Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo (1851–1855); the works of Ramón Pané (1978) inRelacion Acera de las Antiguedades de los Indios; and the logs and letters of Columbus and hiscrew.

HISTORIC PERIOD

Contact Period (A.D. 1493–1599)

Columbus landed his ships on the western coast of Puerto Rico on November 19, 1493, during hissecond voyage to the New World. Permanent European settlement of the island began in 1508under the direction of Juan Ponce de León. Soon after the arrival of the Spanish, the Taínosuccumbed to diseases, rebellion, emigration, and outmarriage, and by 1524 ceased to exist as aseparate population group (Rouse 1992). During the early years of Spanish colonization, goldmining was the primary focus of economic activity on the main island of Puerto Rico, and thenative Taíno population was enslaved alongside African natives to serve as the work force(Williams 1973). During that time, native populations from Puerto Rico and St. Croix, VirginIslands, moved to Vieques Island to escape the Spanish conquest. The Spanish forces sent toconquer Vieques Island had little influence on the native population living there and no attemptwas made by Spain to colonize the island at that point.

31

Early Colonial Period (A.D. 1600–1800)

During the next three centuries, Spanish settlers spent much time defending the island fromattacks by the Spanish Empire’s traditional enemies, principally the Dutch in 1625 and theEnglish in 1595, 1598, and 1797. With colonization, the native population declined rapidly, andthe few remnants that survived became quickly assimilated into the main Spanish population. Bythe mid-sixteenth century, agricultural and livestock production became the primary economicactivities on Puerto Rico, with an internal economy based primarily on cattle and sugar cane(Harring 1963). During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the French, English, Dutch, andDanes all attempted to establish footholds on Vieques Island. In 1673 the Spanish attacked anddestroyed the colonial population and thereafter continued to send military expeditions.

In the eighteenth century, Puerto Rico became the center of European armed struggle for tradeand power in the Caribbean (Morales Carrión 1983; Nettles 1975). Coffee was introduced to theisland in 1736 and, by the nineteenth century, surpassed sugar in economic importance on theisland. Economic development on Puerto Rico was, however, limited by trade restrictionsimposed by the Spanish Crown that disallowed the purchase of goods from the Spanish ports ofSeville and Cadiz (Santana 1983). In an attempt to reduce the resulting high frequency of black-market and contraband activities, the Crown authorized in 1756 the Companía de Barcelona totrade with ports of Puerto Rico (Torres Ramírez 1968). Through the Real Cédula of 1765, tradewas authorized between the West Indies and with additional Spanish ports (Nettles 1975). Athird commercial enterprise—La Factoría—was established in 1785 to attend to the demands ofcommerce between Puerto Rico and Spain (Torres Ramírez 1968).

Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries

The nineteenth century was a period of significant change on Puerto Rico. The 1815 Cedula deGracias offered many advantages to immigrants from Spain and new Latin American republics.Agriculture, industry, and commerce continued to increase and the hacienda (or plantation)system expanded (Harring 1963). Industrial development centered on sugar, molasses, and rumproduction. In 1816 colonists from St. Thomas and St. Croix asked and received permission toestablish a livestock industry on Vieques Island, and thus began what is now the island’sdominant agricultural activity. One year later, the governor of Puerto Rico delegated authority toone of the colonists and thereafter a fort was built at Islabela Segunda, the capital of Vieques. By1828 most of the population was engaged in timber harvesting for export to the Virgin Islands,and in growing crops and livestock and in fishing. After 1869, economic activity increased andsugar cane became the leading crop.

By the end of the century, Puerto Rico had succeeded in maturing socially, economically, andpolitically. In 1898, Spanish-controlled Puerto Rico was invaded by the American militaryduring the Spanish-American War, and Spain ceded the island along with rest of the present-dayCommonwealth of Puerto Rico to the U.S. In 1917, Puerto Ricans became U.S. citizens andCommonwealth status was adopted in 1952. Throughout the early 1940s, the principal activitieson Vieques Island were the growing of sugar cane and livestock, and fishing. In contrast, themain island of Puerto Rico saw an intensive industrialization program, developing into a majorproducer and exporter of manufactured goods, high technology, and pharmaceuticals. ViequesIsland was established as a civilian municipality of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico anddivided into seven wards (barrios): Puerto Diablo, Puerto Ferro, Puerto Real, Florida, Mosquito,

32

Llave, and Punta Arenas. In more recent times, sugar cane cultivation is no longer of anyrelevance, and the principal agricultural endeavors are related to minor crops and livestockproduction, as well as fishing.

U.S. Navy, World War II to Present

During the period from 1939 to 1944, the U.S. Navy acquired title to 26,000 of the 33,000 totalacres of Vieques Island. The island was physically divided into three sectors: the Navy ownedthe eastern and western sectors, and the central portion remained a civilian area. Within theeastern sector, the Navy established a Marine Corps facility, known as Camp García, a 500-footairstrip, a heliport, a field ammunitions depot, an observation post on top of Cerro Matias, andvarious ordnance impact zones with related targets. The bulk of beaches was used foramphibious landing training. The western sector was mainly used for the storage of ammunitionin bunkers spread throughout the area, as well as for quarrying, some amphibious operations, andsome small unit training.

The Navy properties on Vieques Island are part of the large and inclusive military complexknown as the Atlantic Fleet Weapons Training Range, which consists of four ranges: an innerrange at the eastern end of Vieques Island (Live Impact Area); the outer range, which is an oceanrange extending both north and south of Puerto Rico and to the east; an underwater tracking rangeat St. Croix, Virgin Islands; and an electronic warfare range. All of the operations of thesevarious ranges are directed from a center located at Naval Station Roosevelt Roads located acrossthe Vieques Passage in Ceiba, Puerto Rico.

33

CHAPTER 4RESEARCH DESIGN

INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH ORIENTATION

The overall goal of the Vieques Island paleoenvironmental study is to assemble a model of theenvironmental context and conditions that served as the basis for early human settlement ofVieques Island. Ideally, the study will contribute to our understanding of the Precolumbianhuman landscape and assist in identifying effective field strategies for future studies. In thisregard, the following premises, considered critical to the study of Precolumbian human settlementof the island, were established as a research guide.

• Geomorphological modifications to the coastal environment of Vieques Island during theHolocene may have resulted in transformations that have obscured or removed evidence ofArchaic-age occupation.

• Correlating radiocarbon dates with pollen and macrobotanical sequences may determine thetiming of the emergence of the present-day environment. Analysis of sediment coresrecovered from a lagoonal or swamp environment may reveal evidence of environmentalconditions of the island during various periods in prehistory. Spikes in charcoal contentsuggestive of anthropogenic burning during the Archaic period may signify evidence of moreextensive occupation of Vieques Island during the Archaic period than presently known.

• Literature search and aerial photo reconstruction will determine the stability of the existingcoastline and whether observed changes have archaeological implications.

• This study will further our knowledge of paleoenvironmental sequence and conditions.Against this background, researchers will look at known Archaic and Saladoidoccupations in the study area to determine, if possible, whether these early groups wereconfronting or adapting to environmental conditions.

As discussed in Chapter 3, little is known about migration patterns of human groups in theCaribbean during the Archaic period. The earliest emigration to the Antilles is thought to haveoccurred about 6,000 years ago. The earliest known Archaic sites on Vieques Island have beendated to between circa 3,500 and 2,500 B.P., corresponding to dates obtained from Archaicoccupations on St. Thomas, Virgin Islands, and on Puerto Rico. Most researchers are in

34

agreement that there are many similarities between the Archaic Corosan sites on Puerto Rico andthe Virgin Islands and with assemblages from the mainland of Venezuela and the island ofTrinidad (Cruxent and Rouse 1958; Lundberg 1989a, 1989b). Gary Vescelius, who was theprincipal investigator for the 1978–1983 surveys of the NLV before his untimely passing,assigned the five recorded Archaic/aceramic sites within the NLV to the “Banwaroid series”(Tronolone et al. 1984). This assignment was based upon the characteristic similarities foundbetween the Vieques assemblages with the earliest known preceramic site of Banwari Trace,Trinidad.

The first migrants to Vieques Island used some type of watercraft to cross from a mainland andthen ultimately the passages from other islands. Lundberg (1989a, 1989b) has conducted an in-depth study of the similarities and differences among Archaic-period assemblages on PuertoRico, Vieques, and the Virgin Islands. From this research, she has concluded that the mostimportant relationships of Corosan sites with northeastern South American sites are in thesimilarities of flake tools and very simple pounding tools. As pointed out, however, relationshipsof certain tool types are also found within a much wider pan-Caribbean area (Lundberg1989a:181–182; 1989b:76). For example, Alegría et al. (1955:119–120) draw comparisonsbetween faceted grinders found at María de la Cruz cave on northeastern Puerto Rico with similartool types in Panama. And, as indicated in Chapter 3, analysis of lithic materials from the Marucasite on southern Puerto Rico has shown certain similarities with assemblages in Cuba (Rodriguez1997). Despite those similarities throughout a broad zone of the Caribbean, Lundberg(1989a:181) emphasizes that “. . . no single mainland assemblage . . . can be construed as aprobable direct antecedent of Corosan complexes” and that the origins of the Archaic Corosancomplexes are likely to lie within the Antilles.

In terms of subsistence and settlement, the most common denominator of the pan-CaribbeanArchaic sites is the emphasis on the gathering of shellfish, often with a high degree of selectivity(Brokke 1999; Davis 1982; Harris 1973, 1976; Lundberg 1989a:183), as well as use of reef fish(Nokkert 1999; Reitz 1982). The Archaic/aceramic sites on Vieques (Tronolone et al. 1984) andSt. Thomas (Lundberg and Robinson 1980) show a definite preference for a location at asheltered bay, usually in or adjacent to a mangrove swamp. Lundberg (1989a) has suggested thatbecause a low number of shellfish species are utilized, with emphasis varying from site to site,perhaps according to geographical or temporal differences in availability, this constitutes a sharedculture practice among Archaic peoples. Based upon the analysis of subsistence and settlementpatterns of Archaic groups on Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, Lundberg and Robinson(1980:10) safely assume that Archaic peoples had adapted to coastal living before migrating tonew islands. It is therefore likely that the earliest known Precolumbian occupants of ViequesIsland encountered a set of environmental conditions on the island and surrounding areas thatproved more favorable for their pre-adapted strategies during the initial stages of colonization. Itis also critical then to determine whether possible earlier manifestations of Archaic occupation,representing contemporaneous or possible precursors to the known Archaic groups, are present onVieques Island or environs (possibly offshore).

Human migration to the Antilles from South America during the early Ceramic (Saladoid) periodis better documented than during the Archaic period. Archaeological data from early humansettlement sites in the Antillean island chain have led researchers to understand that the expansionof Saladoid peoples from South America across the islands of the Lesser Antilles to ViequesIsland and Puerto Rico occurred over a period of approximately 400 years (Keegan 1992:12;Oliver 1999:254–255). The Saladoid peoples are generally believed to have brought a

35

horticultural-based subsistence strategy into the Lesser Antilles and Puerto Rico during the firstmillennium B.C. As such, there was less of an emphasis on the species-specific collectorstrategies of the Archaic period. For example, among the Archaic and ensuing Ceramic periodsites on Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands (Lundberg 1989a:184 and 1989b), and on Antiguaeast of the Virgin Islands (Davis 1982:114), there is little overlap in principal species of shellfishexploited for subsistence.

As described in Chapter 3, it is generally accepted that the earliest Saladoid groups migrateddown the Orinoco River in present-day Venezuela to the coast of present-day Guiana. Once a120-km gap to the island of Grenada was reached, most islands in the Lesser Antilles chain wouldhave been visible from the island that preceded it, depending on sea conditions. Vega (1990:25)rightly points out that fluctuations in sea level may have been critical to migration, becausegeographical landmarks such as mountain and sea cliffs would have had increased visibilityduring lower sea level. According to some investigators, islands with higher topographic reliefand dependable water sources were targeted for initial colonization, and low-relief islandsgenerally occupied later (Oliver 1999:254) (see Figure 3). Nevertheless, the small dimensions ofmany of the islands with their attendant limited resource base did not allow the establishment oflarge, long-term settlements, but rather encouraged migration from one island to another, ascenario which was also likely during the Archaic period. The earliest Ceramic-age settlementsin the West Indies date to circa 500 B.C., and Saladoid settlements appear in rapid succession onPuerto Rico (Haviser 1991, 1997; Ortiz Aguilú et al. 2001; Rouse 1989). The proximity of theirdwelling sites to land suitable for cultivation and the presence of griddles, which their historicdescendants used to prepare manioc, support this view (Watters and Rouse 1989:136).

The most likely scenario for the smaller islands during the early Ceramic period is that they weresettled temporarily and were then abandoned in favor of more abundant resources, reliable watersources, and larger cultivable land areas on larger islands (Keegan 1992:13; Oliver 1999). Onlythose few locations with superior resource concentrations were settled for a period that could beconsidered permanent (Watters 1982; Keegan and Diamond 1987; Haviser 1990). Thus, it ispossible that only certain early locales on Vieques Island contained the environmental conditionsand resources required for sustained settlement. The earliest known Ceramic-age villages in theLesser Antilles follow the riverine settlement pattern of the mainland. On the islands of Grenada,Antigua, St. Martin, St. Croix, and St. Kitts, villages were located inland on river terraces thatprovided access to the best setting for horticulture (Haviser 1990). On Puerto Rico, the earliestCeramic-age settlements follow this same riverine or coastal plain pattern where soils suitable forhorticulture are present. Penetration into the interior is also evidenced during this time, asSaladoid-period sites have been detected in the southern piedmont and southwestern mountainareas on Puerto Rico (Ortiz Aguilú 1991; Ortiz Aguilú et al. 1991). The largest, and arguablymost significant, early ceramic-age site on Vieques Island at La Hueca-Sorcé (located in thecivilian sector) shows this same coastal plain and riverine pattern (see Figure 6).

Within the NLV, there are few sites than can be confidently dated to the early Saladoid period. Asdescribed below, eight sites with definitive Saladoid components are identified in the study area, allexhibiting a coastal orientation. Most Ceramic-age sites recorded on the NLV date to the Middleand Late Ceramic periods, and the Early Saladoid period is poorly represented. Based upon theresults of the archaeological surveys of the NLV between 1978 and 1982, the “. . . relatively fewEarly to Middle period Saladoid sites are seen as evidence of a real condition [emphasis added]concerning prehistoric occupation on the island . . .” (Tronolone et al. 1984:4-10). Thus, anobjective of the present study is to determine whether this condition was a result of environmentalinstability or transformation during the period of early Ceramic-age settlement.

36

By Late Saladoid times, sites on Vieques Island show a continued tendency for coastal localitiesthat carries through to the Ostionoid period. Plano-convex adzes, usually considered to bediagnostic of the Saladoid tradition, are found in abundance on Vieques Island sites. Thepresence of celts and adzes may indicate garden plot clearing and woodworking, including canoebuilding, suggestive of semipermanent or permanent settlement. In contrast, Archaic sites, andpossibly the earliest Saladoid sites, were more likely occupied on a temporary basis in order toexploit a localized resource that may have been seasonally available (Lundberg 1989a, 1989b;Tronolone et al. 1984:4-11). In order to understand changes in settlement patterns, it is thuscritical to examine what environmental variables may have influenced site selection over time, aswell as natural processes that may have obscured evidence of early site locations.

This chapter will review efforts by previous researchers to understand the dynamics of thepaleoenvironment vis-à-vis archaeological migration, site location, and settlement, and inparticular summarize information on the known Archaic/aceramic and early Saladoid sites in theVieques Island study area. Field data collection and laboratory methods for the present study arealso presented.

PREVIOUS PALEOENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH IN THE CARIBBEAN

The issue of the relationship between environment and culture history and development in thePrecolumbian Caribbean islands has been variously approached by different investigators sincethe beginning of the twentieth century. One of the earliest was Fewkes’ 1914 paper, Relations ofAboriginal Culture and Environment in the Lesser Antilles, in which he called attention to theplacement of settlements in relation to the direction of prevailing winds and hurricanes in theCaribbean. De Hostos took a similar approach in a study of the relationship betweenPrecolumbian migrations and ocean currents (de Hostos 1924). Decades later, Rouse took again asimilar approach when discussing the initial human migration routes from the mainland to theAntilles and their relation to prevailing currents and winds, among other factors (Cruxent andRouse 1969; Rouse 1960).

These early works all have in common an astute consideration of the natural landscape of theCaribbean as we know it today, and used it as a dynamic factor in the construction of hypothesesregarding population movements and settlement placement within the Caribbean islands. In someinstances (i.e., Cruxent and Rouse 1969), a specific effort was made to consider outside data andreconstruct paleoenvironmental conditions so that the actual interpretative model could makesense. A case in point was a ground-breaking study by Veloz Maggiolo (1976; 1980) on theDominican preceramic and ceramic periods that added valuable and much needed discussion onthe impact that environmental conditions had on the aboriginal economies and theirtransformations. Nonetheless, paleoenvironmental research that attempted to determine eitherthrough the systematic compilation of outside (geological, environmental) data or through theactual production of such pertinent paleoenvironmental data for application to problems ofCaribbean archaeology was not conducted until more recent times.

In terms of climatic influence on migration and settlement, Carbone (1980a) presented a keypaper emphasizing an explicit paleoecological approach to Caribbean archaeology. In a follow-up study, Carbone (1980b:98–99) pointed to the sequence of climatic changes during the last3,000–4,000 years and the possible bearing that these changes have had as catalysts duringimportant periods of cultural transformations in prehistory.

37

Paleoclimatic studies in the Yucatán Peninsula have examined the Maya civilization collapse thatoccurred circa A.D. 800–900. In the analysis of lake sediment cores, Hodell et al. (1995) foundthat the ratio of 18O to 16O in closed lake basin waters is controlled mainly by the balance betweenevaporation and precipitation. This ratio is recorded by aquatic organisms that precipitate shellsof calcium carbonate (CaCO3). By measuring the 18O to 16O ratio in fossil shells, the researcherswere able to reconstruct changes in evaporation/precipitation through time, thus inferring climatechange. They theorized that the variability in past climate could have included a period of intensedrought that occurred in conjunction with the civilization’s collapse.

In order to investigate environmental conditions on Puerto Rico during the period of earliesthuman settlement, Burney et al. (1994) analyzed sediment core from Laguna Tortuguero on thenorthcentral coastline. A focus of the analysis was to track charcoal particle concentrationsstratigraphically through the soil column. The premise of the study was that an increase incharcoal values co-occurs with human arrival to the island. Radiocarbon dates found significantincrease in charcoal particulate at around 5,300 B.P., which the researchers suggestedcorresponded to the earliest Archaic-age occupations of the island. This date, however, isconsidered early for reliably dated Precolumbian presence on Puerto Rico. By circa 3,200 B.P.,there is a significant decline in charcoal particulate, and by circa 1,500–1,300 B.P., as dated in thecolumn, charcoal presence is exceedingly low. Although the researchers were unable to explainthe decrease in charcoal concentration following the initial high values, Burney et al. (1994:279)suggested that the later lower values reflect a situation in which the “. . . human populationdensity or resource exploitation changed, affecting the anthropogenic burning regime.”

Siegel et al. (1999:283) disagree with this explanation based on knowledge of “. . .settlementpatterns, site densities, and economic strategies during the Ceramic age and early post-Contact . . .”that indicated slash-and-burn agricultural practices among the Taíno. As part of the study of theMaisabel site—a multicomponent, a habitation site on the north coast of Puerto Ricoapproximately 4 miles east of Laguna Tortuguero—Siegel et al. (1999) cored a mangrove swampadjacent to the site. The researchers found that there was a significant spike in charcoalconcentration at the beginning of the Saladoid period, which reflected local slash-and-burnactivities (Siegel et al 1999:283). By the late Saladoid and into the Ostionoid period, a decreasein charcoal and pollen concentrations suggested that the occupants of Maisabel were travelingfarther afield for their agricultural plots (Siegel et al. 1999:284).

Higuera-Gundy (1989, 1991) and Hodell et al. (1991) studied Caribbean climatic change throughthe analysis of sediment cores retrieved from Lake Miragoane in Haiti. Their results found thatfollowing a dry period at the end of the last deglaciation (10,500 B.P.), the climate became wetteruntil circa 3,200 B.P. After that time, lake levels declined because of higher evaporation rates,which initiated drier conditions that prevailed through the late Holocene. Results of their studydemonstrated the importance of considering climatic shifts while interpreting the biogeographyand development of Caribbean and Mesoamerican cultures during this period. It is possible thatArchaic-age migrations during this period were prompted by this transition to drier conditions.

PREVIOUS ARCHAEOBOTANICAL RESEARCH ON VIEQUES ISLAND

Only one previous archaeobotanical study has been conducted on Vieques Island (Newsom 1999;see Appendix A). This research focused on the well-preserved Ceramic-age Luján I site locatedin the civilian sector in the northcentral portion of the island. Many well-preserved features from

38

the site, including a number of house post molds, hearths, cooking and activity areas, and refusemiddens, were analyzed for macrobotanical content. Recovered wood remains represented 22different types of tree and/or shrub; at least one species, and perhaps others, was likely to havebeen used in construction (Newsom 1999). Other woods may have used as fuels to add flavor tofood, to ward off insects, or for other reasons. The archaeobotanical evidence suggested that theprehistoric human inhabitants of Vieques Island focused on readily available plant resources fromlocal forests. Certain woody plants identified from the site may have represented trees that weremaintained in home gardens for the edible fruits and/or for medicines, dyes, oils, resins, and othervaluable extracts, or, alternatively, could have represented resources harvested from thesurrounding natural forest ecosystem.

It is anticipated that the current research involving both palynological and macrobotanical sampleanalyses from both archaeological and nonarchaeological contexts will serve to augment theseprevious findings and provide additional insights into prehistoric plant use andpaleoenvironments on Vieques Island. Ideally, these objectives will contribute to a betterunderstanding of plant use and subsistence in general and of the overall human settlementdynamics on the island. Data obtained will hopefully allow pertinent research issues involvingthe interaction of the human groups with the local environment, the creation of anthropogeniclandscapes, and the sustainability of subsistence resources and native economic systems ingeneral to be addressed. These issues are tied to the inherent resource productivity, bioclimaticconditions, and biogeography of the island, including its proximity to the larger island of PuertoRico (Newsom and Wing 2003).

SEA LEVEL CHANGES

Changes in sea level resulting from climatic shift and deglaciation also have importantimplications for the migration, settlement, and known distribution of early archaeological sites inthe South Atlantic (Bullen et al. 1968; Keegan 1992; Murphy 1990), the Caribbean (Delpueche etal. 2001; Watters et al. 1992; Vega 1990), and the Gulf of Mexico (Dunbar et al. 1992; Garrison1992; Stright 1986). Two pioneering studies by Nicholson (1976a, 1976b) addressed theimportance of ancient fluctuations in sea level and the effect that lower temperatures at Caribbeanlatitudes may have had on the perennial trade winds and the consequences of these conditions onthe Precolumbian colonization of the Antilles. Nicholson raised several critical points: (1)changes in sea level during the last 10,000 years may give a different perspective on thecolonization routes taken by the first aboriginal settlers of the Caribbean islands; and (2) currentresearch interpretations may be skewed because many early Caribbean preceramic sites may stilllie underwater and those that are known are simply those that that were situated on shorelines thatwere not affected by sea level change.

Ruppé (1980) followed Nicholson’s landmark observations and added a much-neededcomparative perspective using examples from Florida. In Ruppé’s discussion, the issue of sealevel changes during the last 17,000 years and the eventual inundation of coastal settlementsoccupies the central position in his study. Ruppé (1980:336) marshals geologic andgeoarchaeological data, some of it the product of his own research in Florida, in order to point outthat the offshore and continental shelf zones of the Caribbean may retain inundated sites that yetawait investigation.

39

The first evidence of submerged Archaic sites along the eastern coastline of Florida was at VeroBeach, where Bullen et al. (1968) recorded a site below the low tide mark. The researchersexcavated an oyster shell midden and recovered associated artifacts that were radiocarbon-datedto circa 2,850 B.P. The site’s presence clearly demonstrated the potential for submergedPrecolumbian site occurrence in offshore areas. In the Gulf of Mexico, Garrison (1992)conducted geological mapping cruises obtaining detailed sidescan sonar and high-resolutionsubbottom profiler data on paleo-shorelines and sinkhole features. The analysis indicated aHolocene age for the submerged shorelines and suggested a potential for Precolumbian sites.Dunbar et al. (1992) recorded a series of submerged lithic sites in Apalachee Bay off the northerncoastline of Florida near the panhandle. Organic specimens recovered from the sites yieldedradiocarbon dates ranging from circa 8,000 to 5,000 B.P. Farther south in Tampa Bay, Goodyearet al. (1980) reported 27 Paleo-Indian points dredged from the bay.

On the eastern Florida coast near Fort Pierce, Murphy (1990) recorded an Archaic componentbeneath a historic shipwreck just inshore from a shallow reef area within 600 feet of the present-day shoreline. Lithic artifacts were recovered from dredge materials, and an in situ wooden stakefeature was recorded. The presence of the Precolumbian component at this submerged siteprovided a clear demonstration of the effect of coastal processes on the archaeological record. Inexamining the site’s Archaic component, Murphy (1990) determined that sea level rise andvarious coastal processes played important roles affecting the depositional and erosionalenvironment. Murphy discussed waves, longshore currents, barrier-island formation, migration,and erosion as the principal natural forces that affected site formation. He suggested that thewell-preserved Precolumbian component survived in nearshore sediment in a high-energy areabecause of the dynamics of barrier-island formation and migration.

Murphy’s archaeological data indicated that an Archaic occupation took place when the site wasan upland or back-barrier island lagoonal environment. As the sea level rose, the barrier islandmoved shoreward and sand overwashed onto the back-barrier zones and buried associated sites.“Sedimentary and geochemical analysis together indicate the prehistoric strata are discrete, well-preserved and have suffered no mechanical disturbance. The analyses demonstratedarchaeological data sets that survive inundation and submersion” (Murphy 1990:52). The reportconcluded that variables in the rate of sea-level rise and barrier migration, as well as the depth ofboth lagoonal deposit burial and wave base, interact in the transgressive sequence to affectpreservation of archaeological materials.

In the Bahamas, Keegan (1992) examined the relationship between Precolumbian settlements andcoastal geology on both long-term and short-term scales. The study outlined the importance ofrecent changes in coastal geomorphology in relation to Lucayan settlement patterns. The studyled to a rejection of a inland/coastal dichotomy originally proposed by Sears and Sullivan (1978)to explain early settlement of the Bahamas Islands. The research resulted in modification ofsurvey procedures in areas of aeolian deposits on the islands.

In the West Indies, geomorphological investigations on Grande Terre, Guadeloupe, revealedsignificant modifications of shorelines from sea level rises during the Holocene (Delpuech et al.2001). The site distributions on Grande Terre are similar to Vieques Island, in that there are veryfew documented aceramic sites, with the site of La Pointe á Pies possibly the only example.Also, early Saladoid sites are scarce; only a few sites are located on the northeastern coast of theisland. Late Saladoid sites are more numerous, comprising the majority of the island’s sites.During the Saladoid occupation approximately 2,000 years ago of the coastal Morel site on

40

Grande Terre, sea level was about 2 m lower than today, and the coastline was situated severalhundred meters offshore (Hofman et al. 1999). This suggested to the researchers the presence ofsubmerged early Saladoid sites off the present-day shoreline.

On the island of Barbuda north of Antigua and Guadeloupe, Watters et al. (1992) conductedgeoarchaeological research focusing on past and present coastal and nearshore areas of the islandand their potential for early site location. In applying the sea level records from Barbados(though located farther to the south), the study found that a lowered sea level in 1800 B.C.exposed nearshore bottoms that today are submerged to a depth of as much as 5 m. (Watters et al.1992:47). This date corresponds to the known Archaic-age occupation of the island, and thestudy suggests the presence of submerged Archaic-age sites on the south side of the island.

During test excavations of the Punta Ostiones type site in the municipality of Cabo Rojo on thesouthwest coast of Puerto Rico, Pantel (personal communication 2002) found continuous middenmaterial down to approximately 1.6 m below the 1974 sea level. The existence of a secondpartially submerged Ostionoid site on Isla Ratones in Barrio Joyuda within the municipality ofCabo Rojo also provided empirical data on sea level changes within at least the last 1,200–1,500years. These data, coupled with an inundated coastal site reported by Jesus Vega (1990) at IslaVerde on the northern coast of Puerto Rico, led Pantel to suggest that there is a basis fordemonstrating island-wide sea-level change rather than site-specific depositional dynamics.

A second train of thought linked to this issue is whether the sites indicate a gradual rise in sealevel or episodic fluctuations. If these indices reflect gradual change, then sea level during thepre-Ostionoid periods (and thus the foraging aceramic periods) would have been even lower, andsites from these periods could potentially lie within the present-day shelves, partial atolls, andbridges, that are now submerged between Vieques Island and Puerto Rico. It is possible thatthese submerged Ceramic–age sites are indicative of both rising and falling sea levels. If this isthe case, then the extrapolation of earlier aceramic sites to submerged areas should also includeareas farther from present-day shorelines (such as the possible Lithic-age shell midden site ofMaruca on Puerto Rico, which is set back more than 1 km from the coast). Sea level fluctuationsmay be a potential issue and relate to the Ostionoid expansion being linked to a drop in sea levelaround A.D. 600–800 (Carbone 1980b). This topic of sea level change and relevance to earlyVieques Island settlement patterns is discussed further in Chapter 6.

EARLY SETTLEMENT PATTERNS IN THE STUDY AREA

Modern-Era Surveys

The current inventory of archaeological sites within the NLV is the result of phased samplesurveys conducted by Ecology and Environment (E&E) between 1979 and 1983 under thestipulations of a 1981 Memorandum of Agreement (Tronolone et al. 1984). Additional surveyswithin the NLV were conducted by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. (Goodwin)between 1997 and 1999 (Sanders et al. 2001).

The E&E sample surveys were all surface surveys and focused on areas of the NLV that wereconsidered to have a moderate or high potential for containing sites. The results of field surveysin 1979, 1982, and 1983 recorded a total of 218 archaeological sites within the NLV (NASD,

41

EMA, and AFWTF). These sites consisted of 54 Precolumbian sites, 19 Precolumbian scatters,18 Precolumbian isolated finds; and 46 historic sites, 49 historic scatters (five of which includePrecolumbian materials), and 37 historic isolated finds. The historic-period archaeological sitesdocumented in the surveys represent Spanish colonial haciendas and associated quintas andcentrales (sugar processing factories), as well as domestic and other sites such as a nineteenth-century lighthouse. The Precolumbian sites (excluding isolated finds) recorded by E&E withinthe NLV were assigned to six basic site types that spanned the Archaic through Ostionoidperiods:

• Isolated find n=18• Scatter/locality n=19• Special sites (quarry, petroglyph) n=2• Camps n=32• Hamlet n=13• Village n=7

Subsequent surveys by Goodwin included intensive surveys of the NASD and some additionalsurvey within the EMA/AFWTF; this augmented the total number of sites within the NLV to 331(Sanders et al. 2001). Because the majority of Goodwin’s work was concentrated within theNASD, little additional data have been gathered from the EMA/AFWTF subsequent to the E&Esurveys. Therefore, the E&E report (Tronolone et al. 1984) remains the most comprehensivestudy of Precolumbian cultural occupation of the EMA/AFWTF study area. Although thePrecolumbian sites that are now recorded in the study area represent the entire span ofPrecolumbian settlement of Vieques Island (circa 1500 B.C. to A.D. 1500), the present studyfocuses on the earliest period of occupation (Archaic period and transition to early Ceramicperiod). Relatively few sites from these early periods are recorded in the study area (Figure 7).

Archaic and Early Saladoid Settlement Patterns

Despite the relatively low number of known Archaic sites, Vieques Island has more sites fromthis period than any island in the nearby Virgin Island group. As discussed previously, Rouse’searly work (1952:556–557) resulted in the discovery of three Archaic sites, and the surveys byE&E during 1979–1983 (Tronolone et al. 1984) led to discovery of at least five Archaic/aceramicsites (note: there is probable overlap with Rouse’s sites). Two of the Archaic sites—CañoHondo and Verdiales I—are located in the civilian sector. It should be noted that during the E&Esurvey, Verdiales I (Vi032) was recorded as being within the NLV; however, the legal location ofthe civilian boundary is presently unclear. Thus, the following discussion includes the site aswithin the NLV.

Within the NLV, five aceramic sites of definitive or probable Archaic age (Vi019, Vi020, Vi025,Vi032, and Vi041) recorded from the surveys yielded radiocarbon dates of circa 3,500 B.P. to2,200 B.P. (1500 to 200 B.C.). The Verdiales I site (Vi032) has reported radiocarbon datesranging from 3,460 ± 70 B.P. to 2,160 ± 70 B.P. (circa 1460 to 160 B.C.). The associated artifactassemblage includes a mano, hammer-grinders, a battering tool, flakes and debitage, a shell pick,other shell tools, an ochre or hematite fragment, and a bone tool (Tronolone et al. 1984:6-5). TheYanuel 9 site (Vi020), which may be an example of a Coroso complex site (Tronolone et al.1984), has been radiocarbon-dated to 2,150 ± 70 B.P. and 2,290 ± 60 B.P. (circa 150 to 290 B.C.),placing it in approximately the same time range as Cayo Cofresí and María de la Cruz cave on themainland of Puerto Rico.

42

As described in Chapter 3, the Caño Hondo site at Puerto Mosquito in the civilian sector yieldedan Archaic assemblage similar to the Krum Bay Corosan complex on St. Thomas. Recentinvestigations of the Archaic-age site at Norman Estate on St. Martin yielded a radiocarbon dateof 3560 ± 90 B.P. (Knippenberg 1999:25), which places that site contemporaneous with VerdialesI. Chanlatte Baik and Narganes Stordes (1983) have suggested that the La Hueca-Sorcé site, alsoin the civilian sector and on the southcentral coast of the island, contains an Archaic-age Corosocomplex component. At that site, irregularly shaped flake tools, ground stone percussors,hammerstones, and shell remains similar in type to those found in Krum Bay and other Corosansubcomplexes were recovered. Nevertheless, further research needs to confirm this Archaicassociation.

Archaic/Aceramic Period Sites in Study Area

The five Archaic/aceramic sites situated in/adjacent to the EMA/AFWTF are all within 100 m ofthe present-day coastline, mangroves, or lagoons on the south and southeastern coasts (Table 3).No aceramic sites of probable Archaic age have been recorded on the northern coast of ViequesIsland.

Vi019 (12VPr2–219/Loma Jalova 3)

Site Vi019 is located on the south coast of the island approximately 150 m north of the coastline(see Figure 7). The site lies on a knoll approximately 10 m amsl and 40 m from a present-daymangrove north of Ensenada Honda. Four small units excavated at the site during the E&Esurvey (Tronolone et al. 1984) revealed a dense shell midden with remains numericallydominated by flat tree-oyster (Isognomon alatus), Lister’s tree-oyster (Isognomon radiatus), andmangrove oyster (Crassostrea rhizophorae). Between 2,000–3,000 fragments of these threespecies, plus additional species, were recovered from one 50-x-50-cm test unit. The only artifactsrecovered, however, were two flakes of igneous material (one a worked fragment and the seconda polished flake) and a shell gouge (Tronolone et al. 1984:6-8). Various species of mollusksrecovered from the midden deposit yielded a radiocarbon date of 1360 ± 70 B.C. (BETA 9383).

Vi020 (12VPr2–220/Yanuel 9)

Site Vi020 is recorded on the south coast of the island on a coastal terrace approximately 15 mamsl (see Figure 7). It lies approximately 225 m north of the coastline and 175 m from amangrove north of Ensenada Honda. Eleven small test units excavated at the site during the E&Esurvey (Tronolone et al. 1984:6-9) revealed a dense shell midden with remains numericallydominated by Pennsylvania lucine (Lucina pensylvanica). Lithic artifacts recovered from the siteinclude 13 flakes of igneous material, 5 chert or mudstone flakes, 3 quartz flakes, a bipolar core, apebble hammerstone, 8 ochre or hematite chunks, a pebble with ochre staining, a metallic pebblefragment, and 1 sandstone fragment. Two shell gouges were also recovered. Analysis of thematerial by E&E suggested that the flakes are of nonlocal origin. The sandstone fragment mayhave been from a large abrading tool and the metallic pebble was considered anomalous to thelocal material.

%U%U %U%U

%U

%U%U%U

%U%U %U

%U

%U

Vi04412VPr2-54Playa Grande

Vi01512VPr2-204Algodones 2

Vi01912VPr2-219Loma Jalova 3

Vi02512VPr2-45/12VPr2-81Loma Jalova 1+2

Vi05912VPr2-72Punta Carenero

Vi02412VPr2-173Yanuel 8

Vi07012VPr2-87El Tablon

Vi02012VPr2-220Yanuel 9

Vi04112VPr2-51Playa Chiva

Vi04312VPr2-53Isla Chiva

Vi04912VPr2-59Punta Caracas

Vi03312VPr2-34Verdiales 2

Vi03212VPr2-33Verdiales 1

EnsenadaHonda

TamarindoSur

BahìaIcacos

BahìaSalinas

Puerto Negro

Puerto Ferro

BahìaTapòn

Bahìa de la Chiva

Bahìa Fandu ca

Bahìa Yoye

Bahìa Jolova Yel

low Beach

Playa de Ban

co

Playa Blanca

BahìaSalina del

Sur

LagunaMonte Largo

LagunaAlgodones

Quebrada Marunguey

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Meters

0 2500 5000 7500 10000 Feet N

%U Known Archaic/Aceramic site

%U Known Saladoid site

C I

V I

L I

A N

Z O

N E

Vieques Island

43

Figure 7. Map of the study area showing distribution of Archaic/aceramic and Saladoid sites within the EMA/AFWTF.

45

Table 3Archaic/Aceramic Sites within the EMA/AFWTF

SiteNumber

Other Number/Name

RadiocarbonDates Landform

Elevation(m amsl)

Distance to Coast/Mangrove or

Lagoon Notes

Vi019 12VPr2–219/Loma Jalova 3

1360 B.C. ± 70 Knoll 10 m 150 m/40 m —

Vi020 12VPr2–220/Yanuel 9

200 B.C. ± 70;340 B.C. ± 60

Coastal terrace 15 m 225 m —

Vi025 12VPr2–45/Loma Jalova 1;

12VPr2–81/Loma Jalova 2

— Knoll 5 m 250 m/100 m Calendric date1100–300 B.C.;site bulldozed

Vi032 12VPr2–33/Verdiales 1

210 B.C. ± 70;1510 B.C. ± 70

Coastal terrace 1 m 180 m/20 m Now outsideNLV ?

Vi041 12VPr2–51/Playa Chiva

— Coastal lowland 5 m 100 m/400 m Beneathceramic layer

Data source: Tronolone et al. 1984

This assemblage is considered similar to the Krum Bay assemblages recovered from Archaic-agedeposits by Lundberg (1989a) on St. Thomas. Functional interpretation of the site indicates alimited-use activity area. Various species of mollusks recovered from the midden yielded tworadiocarbon dates of 340 B.C. ± 60 and 200 B.C. ± 70, suggesting the site was occupied at the endof the Archaic period.

Vi025 (12VPr2–45/Loma Jalova 1 and 12VPr2–81/Loma Jalova 2)

Site Vi025, on the south coast, was initially recorded during the E&E survey as two sites:12VPr2–45 (Sector A) and 12VPr2–81 (Sector B) (see Figure 7). The two loci, which lie 35 mapart on a knoll top, are located approximately 100 m north of Bahía Jalova at an elevation of 5 mamsl. The knoll is adjacent to a present-day mangrove on its western side. The site has beenbulldozed since it was recorded in 1978–1980. A small test unit was excavated at each locusduring the E&E survey. Artifacts recovered from the northern locus (12VPr2–45) consisted of autilized chert flake, a chert flake, a bead blank, three nonlocal pebbles, one piece of fire-crackedrock, and a shell tool. The southern locus (12VPr2–81) yielded a utilized chert flake, a mudstoneflake, four shell tools, and one coral tool (Tronolone et al. 1984: 6-8). The two flakes wereproduced by the freehand percussion technique.

Vi032 (12VPr2–33/Verdiales 1)

Site Vi032, recorded on the south coast of the island during the E&E 1978–1980 survey(Tronolone et al. 1984), is one of the richest Archaic deposits on the island (see Figure 7). It iscentrally located between the northwestern edge of Puerto Ferro and the northeastern edge ofPuerto Mosquito on a coastal terrace. The site actually lies outside of the NLV property fence

46

within the civilian sector. The site has two loci, approximately 35 m apart, both consisting ofslightly mounded areas at approximately 1 m amsl with surrounding flats. During the 1978–1980E&E field survey, the 33 50-x-50-cm test units excavated at the site revealed extensive shellmidden deposits. Shellfish in the midden were in packed layers, with an emphasis on threespecies of oysters (Crassostrea rhizophorae, Isognomon alatus, and Pinctada imbricata ).

Lithic artifacts recovered from the site consisted of a mano (pestle), three hammer-grindercobbles with anvil use, a light battering tool, seven flakes and debitage, 11 pieces of fire-crackedrock, and a piece of red ochre or hematite. Shell tools included one shell pick and threeunidentified tools; one bone tool was also recovered. The flaked stone raw materials includedquartz, igneous rock, and mudstone or chert. Bipolar reduction (as opposed to freehandpercussion) was indicated on one lithic specimen. Some flakes had utilized edges, and two mayhave been from a single core. The mano was likely used for processing food that was ground,mashed, or pulverized (Tronolone et al. 1984:6-5). The anvil cobble tools may have been usedfor breaking open marine shells or possibly nuts.

The presence of red ochre was interesting, as it has been recovered from the Archaic-age sites ofMaria de la Cruz cave on northeastern Puerto Rico (Rouse and Alegría 1990) and at Caño Hondoon Vieques Island (Figueredo 1976), as well as in large quantities at Krum Bay, St. Thomas(Lundberg 1989a). The well-formed mano (pestle) and group of cobbles with anvil battering andrough grinding facets on their edges were similar to Archaic-age tools recovered from the KrumBay site (Lundberg 1989a). Marine mollusks excavated from the shell middens returned tworadiocarbon dates of 1510 B.C. ± 70 (BETA 8846) and 210 B.C. ± 70 (BETA 8847).

Vi041 (12VPr2–51/Playa Chiva)

Site Vi041 is located on the south coast of Vieques Island on a coastal lowland at 5 m amsl andapproximately 100 m north of Bahía de la Chiva (see Figure 7). The site is a multicomponentoccupation and was recorded during the 1978–1980 E&E survey. Excavation of seven test unitsand 65 auger probes during the survey identified multiple soil layers and buried middens.Artifacts recovered included a celt chip, two Strombus celts, an Olivella bead, a Strombus tool, aperforated disc, an unfinished celt/maul, and a battered pebble. Several hundred fragments ofunidentified shell, along with coral fragments, were recovered. A nonartifact-bearing levelbeneath a ceramic-bearing midden at the site was of probable Archaic age (Tronolone et al.1984).

Saladoid Period Sites in the Study Area

Eight sites recorded from previous survey within the EMA/AFWTF have been identified ashaving definitive Saladoid-period components (Table 4). As with the Archaic/aceramic sites, allof these sites were formally recorded during the E&E survey of 1978–1980 (Tronolone et al.1984). As described below, the sites vary in size, and some are multicomponent. Based uponmaterial remains recovered from the sites during the E&E survey, the sites have been classified asfour camps, one hamlet, and three villages. Six of the sites are recorded on or in proximity to thesouth coast, one site on the north coast, and one site more inland, approximately 1 km south ofthe north coast. Material remains from the latter site (Vi015), however, demonstrate a clear,maritime adaptation. No radiocarbon dating has been conducted for the Saladoid sites, andfurther study of the sites would be required to determine exact periods of occupation.

47

Table 4Saladoid-Component Sites within the EMA/AFWTF

SiteNumber

Other Number/Name Site Type Landform

Elevation(m amsl)

Distance to Coast/Mangrove or

Lagoon Notes

Vi015 12VPr2–204/Algodones 2

Hamlet Valley slope 20 m 1,000/1,100 m Stratified

Vi024 12VPr2–173/Yanuel 8

Camp Coastal lowland 5 m 500/300 m Stratified midden

Vi033 12VPr2–034/Verdiales 2

Camp Coastal lowland 1 m 20/0 m Fishing/shell fishingstation; thin surfacescatter

Vi043 12VPr2–053/Isla Chiva

Camp Island–coastal bluff 10 m 20/900 m Midden

Vi044 12VPr2–54/Playa Grande

Village Coastal terrace 7 m 75/600 m Dense midden

Vi049 12VPr2–59/Punta Caracas

Village Coastal bluff 10 m 20/150 m Dense midden

Vi059 12VPr2–072/Punta Carenero

Village Peninsula 1–7 m 20 /500 m Dense midden;burials

Vi070 12VPr2–087/El Tablon

Camp Knoll saddle 10 m 400/250 m Midden

Data source: Tronolone et al. 1984

Vi015 (12VPr2–204/Algodones 2)

Site Vi015 is located approximately 1,000 m south of the north coastline of Vieques Island withinthe central portion of the EMA/AFWTF (see Figure 7). It lies on a valley slope at an elevation of20 m amsl and in proximity to a quebrada. Test excavation conducted by E&E (Tronolone et al.1984) revealed a multicomponent, year-round occupation with both Saladoid and Ostionoidperiods represented. A variety of Saladoid, Cuevas, and Ostionoid ceramics were recovered.Lithic artifacts include worked igneous rock, quartz flakes, a polished celt tip, igneous stone withhematite, and hammerstone fragments. Although the site is 1 km from the present-day coastlineand nearest mangrove, numerous marine shell remains were recovered. The shells werenumerically dominated by tiger lucine (Codakia orbicularis), West Indian top shell (Cittariumpica), and Pennsylvania lucine (Lucina pensylvanica), but also included remains of queen conch(Strombus gigas), of which several fragments may have been manufactured into tools. Aperforated shell disc, coral fragments, and fish bone indicated a marine orientation. Among theSaladoid-period ceramics were inverted rims.

Vi024 (12VPr2–173/Yanuel 8)

Site Vi024 is located within the coastal lowland approximately 500 m north of Ensenada Hondaon the south coast at an elevation of 5 m amsl (see Figure 7). The site was initially recorded byE&E as a multicomponent camp with late Saladoid through late Ostionoid periods represented.

48

Seven test units excavated at the site during the E&E survey revealed middens and multiple soillayers. Large quantities of marine shell fragments were recovered with identifiable remainsnumerically dominated by West Indian top shell (Cittarium pica), tiger lucine (Codakiorbicularis), and Pennsylvania lucine (Lucina pensylvanica). Sea urchin spines, crab shell, andcoral fragments were also recovered. Ceramics included Cuevas, Ostionoid (Esperanza and SantaElena styles), and griddle sherds. A worked olive shell (Oliva sp.), a flake from a polished tool, amilky quartz bead, and a utilized conch tip (Strombus sp.) and conch celt were also recovered.

Vi033 (12VPr2–034/Verdiales 2)

Site Vi033 is located at the northwestern edge of Puerto Ferro on the south coast of the island atan elevation of 1 m amsl (see Figure 7). The site was identified during the E&E survey as a thinsurface scatter of ceramics, shells, and tool fragments, including a celt and two notched stones.Assignment to the Saladoid period was based tentatively on ceramic typology of several sherdsrecovered from surface survey; no test excavation, however, was conducted. The site is inproximity to the Archaic-age Verdiales 1 site (Vi032).

Vi043 (12VPr2–053/Isla Chiva)

Site Vi043 is located in the central portion of Isla Chiva, a small island centrally located withinBahía de la Chiva on the south coast of Vieques Island (see Figure 7). The site lies in a saddle at10 m amsl and was identified during survey by E&E in 1978–1979. At that time, four small testunits were excavated and yielded both Saladoid and Ostionoid materials. Diagnostic CedrosanSaladoid ceramics included rim, base, handle, loop handle, and Longfordian strap handles. Otherartifacts recovered from the site consisted of two perforated ceramic discs, a possible poundingtool made of local stone, a shell celt, and two unidentified shell tools (Tronolone et al. 1984:6-12). Most shell remains were not identified during the E&E survey. A parrotfish jaw was alsorecovered.

Vi044 (12VPr2–54/Playa Grande)

Site Vi044 was identified during the E&E survey on the northcentral coast of Vieques Island on acoastal terrace at an elevation of 7 m amsl (see Figure 7). The site is fairly large, with a totalsurface area of 7,100 m2. The site is set back approximately 75 m from the present-day coastlineand 900 m from the nearest mangrove. This site is one of two sites revisited and sampled duringthe present study. Sampling at the site during the E&E survey was intensive and included bothsurface and subsurface collection. Seven test units measuring 30-x-30 cm, four test unitsmeasuring 50-x-50 cm, and one test unit measuring 1-x-1 m were excavated. Recovery of avariety of material remains resulted in its interpretation as a year-round village. Although soils atthe site are shallow, this may not have been the case during prehistory. During the E&E survey,soils were identified as Layer 1, a reddish brown compact silty sand with few stones; Layer 2, areddish brown sandy silt with shell and ceramics; and Layer 3, a sterile brown sand with gravel.

The site was assigned to the Saladoid and Elenan Ostionoid periods, principally through ceramictypology. Tools and lithic material recovered from the site during the E&E survey consisted offive celt fragments representing a variety of forms, a chert fragment of nonlocal material, two

49

pebble or cobble hammerstones, and a sandstone abrader. A shell pendant and perforated whorlwere also recovered. From analysis of the celt remains, E&E suggested that celt manufacturingwas a specialized activity at the site; one unusual specimen was a narrow celt that may have beenused as a woodworking tool. Numerous fish vertebrae, other fish bones, possible turtle remains,and bird bones were recovered. Although several thousand recovered shell fragments wereunidentified, the identified shell was dominated by West Indian top shell (Cittarium pica),followed by Strombus sp., lucines (Codakia sp.), helmet (Cassis sp.), and star shell (Astraeaamericana). The results of the current site sampling during the present study are discussed inChapter 5.

Vi049 (12VPr2–59/Punta Caracas)

Site Vi049 was identified during the E&E survey as a large, multicomponent, year-round villageoccupation located on a coastal bluff on the south coast (see Figure 7). This site is the second oftwo sites revisited and sampled during the present study. The site lies 10 m amsl on the westernside of Bahía Tapón. Surface and subsurface investigation of the site during the E&E survey(Tronolone et al. 1984) was fairly intensive and included excavation of 13 small test units.Artifacts on the surface were distributed in four zones (A–D). Recovered ceramics were initiallyidentified as predominantly Elenan and Chican Ostionoid (900–1500 A.D.), but further analysis ofthe collection by Curet (1987) confirmed a well-represented Saladoid component. Nonceramicartifacts consisted of a celt with battering marks, a quartz flake, an edge-battered pebble withpossible anvil-stone markings, a hammer-grinder, three net or line sinkers, a tubular bead, a smallzemi, a piece of fire-cracked rock, one shell celt, a shell disc, a shell pendant, perforatedCyphoma, a shell whorl, and two unidentified coral tools (Tronolone et al. 1984:6-14). Althoughseveral hundred fragments of shell were recovered during the E&E investigations, most were notidentified. Among the numerous recovered fish bones was a parrotfish vertebra; 15 pieces ofcoral were also recovered. The results of current site sampling during the present study arediscussed in Chapter 5.

Vi059 (12VPr2–072/Punta Carenero)

Site Vi059 is located on a small peninsula projecting from the south coast of Vieques Island. Thepeninsula that extends into Ensenada Honda is Query Cayo Yanuel, not Punta Carenero asindicated on some maps (see Figure 7). The site was named Punta Carenero because earlier mapsreferred to this peninsula by that name; the actual location of Punta Carenero is at the eastern endof Ensenada Honda. The site elevation ranges from 1–7 m amsl. Twelve small test unitsexcavated at the site during the E&E survey (Tronolone et al. 1984) yielded several hundredartifacts and several thousand shell fragments. A human burial with possible grave goods wasalso recorded, indicating a permanent occupation.

Several hundred ceramics recovered during the E&E survey included both Saladoid andOstionoid sherds. Identifiable decorated wares consisted of appliqué rims, incised rims, punctateappliqué handles, modeled lug face, zoomorphic lug, and painted zoomorphic lug. Lithic artifactswere composed of 19 petaloid celts, three plano-convex adze fragments, a mano, a grinding slab,seven flakes and cores, three hammer-grinders, two pounding tools, five edge/end-batteredcobbles, three grinding tools with ground facets, a quartzite zemi, one quartz crystal, and 20pieces of fire-cracked rock. Shell tools and ornaments included five shell celts, 10 shell celt

50

blanks, two shell chisels, two small shell picks, two shell beads, a shell whorl, a shell zemi, acoral pendant, three coral rods, a coral reamer, a coral grinder, and two unidentified coral tools.Also recovered were a fish vertebra bead, a turtle shell plate, a perforated fish tooth, and amanatee bone tool (Tronolone et al. 1984:6-16).

The petaloid celts recovered in inordinate numbers from this site could date as far back as theSaladoid period and extend up through the Chican Ostionoid period. Several celts were madefrom exotic stone. Plano-convex axes from the site were considered diagnostic of the Saladoidperiod, and the abundance of celts and adzes indicative of garden-plot clearing, woodworking,and/or canoe-building activities (Tronolone et al 1984:6-18). Grinding and battering tools werewell represented at the site. Two cobbles had hammerstone marks restricted to edges, andgrinding or crushing use-wear on other facets. Flaked stone, however, was poorly represented atthe site; one piece of flint was likely from the island of Antigua. Reduction appeared to havebeen of the bipolar technique. Shell fragments were dominated by tiger lucine (Codakiaorbicularis), although several thousand shell fragments remained unidentified. Several hundredfish vertebrae, turtle, small mammal, and rodent bones were also recovered.

In the late 1990s, this site was revisited by Chris Goodwin, who noted a large number of surfaceceramics indicative of Saladoid through Ostionoid occupations (Sanders et al. 2001:273). Thesite was clearly a significant, year-round, multicomponent occupation.

Vi070 (12VPr2–087/El Tablon)

Site Vi070 is located on the south coast on a small saddle 10 m amsl, 250 m east of LagunaYanuel and 400 m north of Ensenada Honda (see Figure 7). The site was recorded during the1980 E&E field survey. Two small test units excavated at the site yielded ceramics dating to thelate Cedrosan Saladoid and Chican Ostionoid periods. One possible lithic tool, three perforateddisc fragments, 24 pieces of coral, a fish jaw, and fish vertebra were also recovered.

FIELDWORK OBJECTIVES

In the present study, the goal of the fieldwork was to obtain soil samples from archaeologicalsites and nonsite locations to conduct palynological, macrobotanical, and radiocarbon analysis forpaleoenvironmental reconstruction. The purpose of reconstruction was to elucidate whetherspecific environmental conditions may have influenced migration and settlement during theArchaic and ensuing Ceramic period. Samples were retrieved from two known archaeologicalsites as well as from three mangrove swamp/lagoon locations within the EMA/AFWTF that are ingeneral proximity to these sites. The two known archaeological sites (Vi044 and Vi049) wereselected for sampling based on their potential to yield chronological and cultural data useful forthe study. Site Vi049 is located on the south coast in proximity to Bahía Tapón, and site Vi044 islocated on the north coast west of Laguna Algodones. Bahía Tapón, Laguna Algodones, andLaguna at Bahía de la Chiva were subjected to soil coring. A third archaeological site (Vi032),also on the south coast, was initially selected for study; but the site could not be accessed due toits location outside of the NLV.

51

Earlier studies on the three archaeological sites by E&E (Tronolone et al. 1984) had determinedthe archaeological sites represented different chronological and cultural periods of occupation,and that occupations had likely been year-round. Site Vi049 yielded both Saladoid and Ostionoidceramics, although most of the ceramics were dated to the later Ostionoid period. In contrast, siteVi044 on the north coast yielded ceramics representative of the early Saladoid period. Site Vi032on the south coast (the nonaccessible site) is an aceramic site with a series of radiocarbon datesfrom the Archaic period. One test unit was excavated at each accessible site (Vi044 and Vi049)during the present study in order to obtain samples of cultural materials and soils from a knownarchaeological context for pollen and macrobotanical analyses.

FIELD METHODS

Sampling Strategies for Pollen Analysis

The basic principal of pollen analysis is that most wind-pollinated tress, shrubs, and grassesemanate a pollen “rain” in quantities of several thousand grains per square centimeter. Pollengrains are dispersed by wind in the lower atmosphere and carried in suspension for distances of100–250 km (Butzer 1964:238–239). Stratified laminae of pollen-laden sediments are laid downannually, preserving a chronological cross section of regional pollen-emanating plants, which inturn may provide a regional cross section of plant species present.

A portion of this pollen rain may be preserved indefinitely if oxidation is limited or absent,particularly in dense, poorly aerated sediments such as those in lagoons or bogs. Therefore, thedamp, waterlogged conditions found in mangrove swamps and lagoons on Vieques Island mayprovide ideal environments for pollen preservation. Because of good preservation, waterloggedareas serve as ideal locations for samples taken from noncultural contexts to provide data onpaleovegetation (Faegri and Iversen 1975:85–100; Pearsall 1989:26). These results can then beused to reconstruct past climates and to identify modifications in landscape caused by humanmanipulation of the environment.

Soil samples for pollen analysis can be collected in a variety of ways depending on the state orcondition of the deposits to be sampled. Pollen samples must be retrieved by use of a coringdevice, rather than by hand as in an archaeological context in which samples are most easilycollected by hand from deposits and features as they are encountered. It is most productive totake a series of contiguous samples from a deposit or excavation unit. This allows a pollen curveto be built up to serve as the basis for interpretation (Dimbleby 1985: 20–25). In a very long ordeep profile, samples can be spaced at 5- or 10-cm intervals, but should ideally be more closelyspaced above and below features.

Samples from damp or waterlogged deposits are also subject to microbial activity, which maydestroy pollen in the sample (Dimbleby 1985:20–25; Faegri and Iversen 1975:85–100). If thesample is damp and/or will not be processed by the pollen lab within 48 hours, measures must betaken to retard fungal growth. Refrigerating samples at a temperature of 5°C (41°F) or lower issufficient to impede damage to the pollen from fungus (Dimbleby 1985; Faegri and Iversen1975:85–100; Pearsall 1989:254; Rich, personal communication 2001). All samples collected forthis study were refrigerated within 8 hours of collection and remained under refrigeration untilanalysis.

52

Sample collection in areas not being excavated can be done with one of two types of coringdevice; side filling and bottom filling (Pearsall 1989:266). Both have closed chambers that arepushed manually into the soil. Side-filling cores fill by rotation once they have been pushed tothe desired depth, whereas a bottom-filling core, such as a split-spoon auger, collects the sampleas the core is pushed into the soil. Auger samplers that are screwed into the ground are notacceptable for palynological sampling, since the turning motion disturbs deposits (Pearsall1989:266). Samples for this study were collected with a 2-inch-diameter, bottom-filling, split-spoon device, driven into sediment using a hand-held, 4-pound sledgehammer.

When collecting soil for pollen analysis, sample contamination is of great concern. To minimizecontamination, clean metal tools, consisting of a trowel and knife wiped with a clean damp cloth,were used for collecting the sample (Bohrer and Adams 1977:28, Bryant and Holloway1983:199). Samples were wrapped in aluminum foil in order to retain their shapes and thenplaced directly into an uncontaminated, leak-proof jar with a lid. The size of the sample varied inaccordance with the deposits being sampled, but 10 to 20 cc of soil were collected in mostcircumstances (Bohrer and Adams 1977).

Archaeo-Boring Sample Collection

During the current study, a 2-inch-diameter, split-spoon sampler was manually driven bysledgehammer at five archaeo-boring locations (Figures 8–11). Continuous sampling wasachieved at all locations (with some compression loss) and all samples were described in the fieldusing conventional USDA textural and Munsell color classifications. The numbers and locationsof samples recovered are described in the following chapter. At each boring, the entire columnwas recovered, separated, and placed into glass jars. Selected samples within the soil columnwere further separated directly from the split-spoon into ziplock bags for radiocarbon dating andpollen analysis. This selection was based on the presence of organic composition in the soilmatrix that was considered to have greater potential to yield radiocarbon dates and pollen content.Soil profiles were recorded and drawn. All soil samples collected from the soil borings at themangrove swamp/lagoon locations were placed in resealable 4-mil plastic bags. All organicsediment collected for radiocarbon analysis was wrapped in aluminum foil and placed inresealable 4-mil plastic bags.

Archaeo-Boring 1 was excavated on the southern coast in the southeastern fringe of Bahía Tapón.Archaeo-Boring 2 was excavated on the northern side of Bahía Tapón at a higher and moreterrestrial (drier) elevation. Archaeo-Boring 3 was placed within the southern portion of theLaguna at Bahía de la Chiva, located on the southern coast and dry at the time of sampling.Archaeo-Boring 4 was placed on the southern fringe of Laguna Algodones, which is located onthe northern coast. Archaeo-Boring 5 was placed in the center of Laguna Algodones, completelydry at the time of sampling.

Archaeological Test Unit Excavation

Two archaeological test units were excavated, one at site Vi044 and one at Vi049, both knownPrecolumbian occupations containing Ceramic-age components. The test units (100-x-50 cm)were hand-excavated in 10-cm levels within natural soil strata once the uppermost organichorizon was removed. Levels were given sequential number designations, and the natural soil

53

figure8. Advancing split-spoon sampler manually by sledgehammer

Figure 8. Advancing split-spoon sampler manually by sledgehammer.

figure9. Once fully advanced, the sampler is hand-extracted with a pipe wrench

Figure 9. Once fully advanced, the sampler is hand-extracted with a pipe wrench.

54

figure10. View of sampler almost fully extracted

Figure 10. View of sampler almost fully extracted.

strata were assigned a letter designation. When a 10-cm level spanned a stratigraphic change, anew form was begun indicating a new stratum had been encountered, but the level number wascarried over. Therefore, if Level 2, for example, was begun in Stratum A and a soil change wasencountered 6 cm into the level, a new form for Stratum B Level 2 was begun. In this example,Stratum A Level 2 would be 6 cm thick and Stratum B Level 2 would be 4 cm thick. AssumingStratum B continued, the next locus would be Stratum B Level 3. Each level excavated wasrecorded in the field on a standardized form. Depth of the soil horizon was recorded along withsoil characteristics and the presence or absence of cultural material. Soil color and texture wererecorded according to the Munsell (2000 revised) Soil Color Chart and standard USDA soilnomenclature.

All soil samples and artifacts collected during test unit excavation were placed into resealable 4-mil plastic bags, with provenience information written on the outside of each bag. Paper tagswith provenience information, sealed in separate plastic bags, were included inside all artifactbags. A 2-liter bulk soil sample and a sample for pollen analysis were collected from every level

55

figure11. Recovered soil core inside split-spoon casing

Figure 11. Recovered soil core inside split-spoon casing.

excavated in the test units. Bulk soil samples were taken at the beginning of each level andconsisted of soil scraped from across the level. These samples were placed in a resealable plasticbag with provenience information written on the outside of the bag in permanent marking pen.Pollen samples were also collected at the beginning of the level. A few centimeters of soil weretrowel-scraped from the surface of the level to expose soil uncontaminated by modern pollen.The trowel was then wiped clean with a damp disposable cloth. The sample was dug out of thelevel with the clean trowel from a single location rather than scraped from across the entire level.The soil was placed into a clean resealable plastic bag, and provenience information was writtenon the outside of the bag.

Other Sampling

Quebrada Marunguey Soil Tests

Quebrada Marungey is a small stream that descends from the central part of the island to thenorthern coast. Three soil tests (shovel tests) were excavated within the flood plain and a fourthsoil test was excavated on a dune or coral mound in a back beach area. The purpose of thisinvestigation was to determine the depth of the flood plain deposit and the potential of the floodplain to contain buried Archaic- or early Ceramic-period archaeological deposits.

56

Verdiales Soil Tests

The Verdiales 1 site (Vi032) is one of the few known Archaic sites on Vieques Island and liesnear Puerto Ferro. Because of its location outside the NLV, access to the site was not obtainedduring the study; instead, two small test units were excavated several hundred feet to thesoutheast in a fringe mangrove swamp. Soils sampled in this area consisted of very dense clayeysands.

Aerial Photography Analysis

Aerial photographs of selected areas of the NLV taken in 1936, the 1970s, and 1999 werereviewed in order to assess changes in modern-era environmental conditions over a period ofapproximately 64 years. Changes in vegetation, land use, and geomorphology of the coastlineswere closely examined in order to elucidate how rapidly certain environmental changes couldoccur and what implications such changes might have over a much greater time period. Threeareas were examined: on the south coast, the area west of Bahía Tapón and the northwesternportion of Laguna at Bahía de la Chiva; and on the north coast, the Laguna Algodones area.These areas corresponded to the general vicinities where field data were recovered during thecurrent study.

Laboratory Methods

All artifacts and soil samples recovered in the field were bagged in 4-mil, resealable plastic bags.Each artifact bag contained a card bearing provenience information within the bag, but for eachsoil sample bag, provenience information was written directly onto the outside of the bag. Acatalog number was assigned to each unique provenience, and this number appears with allprovenience information. All artifacts and soil were transported from the project area to the GMIlaboratory, and bag numbers and labels were examined for accuracy and compared with the fieldprovenience data and the general bag inventory. At this point, any labeling errors detected onartifact cards, bags, or the inventory were corrected prior to processing the materials. The catalognumber, which was used for tracking, remained with each artifact bag or soil sample duringanalysis.

Macrobotanical Analysis

Bulk soil samples collected for macroplant analysis from test unit excavation were processed byGMI in preparation for shipment to Dr. Lee Newsom, Department of Anthropology, PennsylvaniaState University, for analysis. Soil samples recovered from archaeo-borings were not sentdirectly to the analyst in their original form. In the lab, technicians dry-sieved the test unit soilsamples through nested geologic sieves with mesh sizes of 5, 10, 35, and 60 openings per inch.Each sieve was vigorously shaken so that the smaller particles of soil fell through the sieve, thusseparating soil by granular size. In some instances, a nylon-bristle toothbrush, or a natural fiberpaintbrush, was employed to brush the matrix through the sieve. This was done carefully tominimize damage to any botanical material that may be present in the soil and to retain thenatural accretions in the soil.

57

Once segregated by size, the samples were bagged according to sieve number. Material thatpassed through all nested sieves was collected in the bottom pan and bagged as -60 (or less thanthe #60 screen). Therefore, each soil sample generated five different subsamples. All sieveswere brushed clean between each sample to prevent cross-sample contamination. Based uponprovenience, two test unit soil samples and two archaeo-Borings were sent to Dr. Newsom foranalysis. The results of Dr. Newsom’s analysis are provided in Appendix A.

Pollen Analysis

All pollen samples were kept under refrigeration in the GMI laboratory until samples wereselected for analysis. In total, 23 pollen samples were selected for analysis based on potentialinformation yield. The samples were then sent to Dr. John Jones, Texas A&M University, forpollen analysis. Redundant samples were kept in refrigeration in the event additional sampleswere required for analysis. The results of pollen analysis are presented in Appendix B.

Radiocarbon Sample Analysis

Six samples of organic sediment were collected from soil borings for radiocarbon dating. Allsamples were packaged in aluminum foil with catalog number and provenience informationwritten on the foil and on the bag into which each sample was placed. All samples weresubmitted to Beta Analytic, Inc., for radiocarbon dating. The results of radiocarbon dating areprovided in Appendix C.

Artifact Analysis

Artifacts collected from sites Vi044 and Vi049 were processed and analyzed by GMI andspecialists in Caribbean ceramic and shell typology. Once in the laboratory, artifacts were sortedby general categories (historic or Precolumbian) and then by material type within each category(e.g., Precolumbian lithics or ceramics; historic glass, smoking material, shell, etc.). All artifactswere washed in tap water using a soft toothbrush. Artifacts were allowed to air-dry beforeanalysis. All diagnostic artifacts recovered from the site were labeled with the official sitenumber and catalog number. Labeling was done with ink on a coat of PVA and sealed over withanother coat of PVA. The artifacts recovered from both sites were analyzed by specialists withanalytical experience from Vieques and other Puerto Rico Precolumbian site assemblages. Allartifacts were analyzed according to provenience and catalog number. A complete inventory ofall artifacts recovered from the site is provided in Appendix D.

For Precolumbian lithics, raw materials were identified by macroscopic characteristics: color,texture, hardness, fracturing attributes, and inclusions. Magnification with a 10-X lens, andhigher levels of magnification on occasion, was used to identify inclusions and to evaluate textureand structure. For the Precolumbian ceramics, observations were recorded for a series of metricaland nonmetrical attributes related to vessel form, paste, surface treatment, and decoration.

Ceramic sherds were classified according to which portion of the original vessel they representedbased on the presence of distinctive morphological characteristics. The primary tempering agentwas recorded for all sherds. Surface treatment, recorded for all sherds, refers to characteristics of

58

vessel surfaces (the lip area and interior and exterior surfaces) that reflect the application ofspecific vessel manufacturing technology or techniques, such as thinning or shaping with a paddleand anvil. Surface treatment is not generally considered decoration, but specific portions of thevessel (e.g., shoulder and rim) may be treated differently in preparation for the subsequentapplication of other decoration. All decorative elements present on rim sherds and decoratedbody sherds were recorded. Decoration refers to modifications of the lip area, interior surface,and/or exterior surface designed to embellish the appearance of the vessel. Decorativemodification is typically unrelated to the use of various vessel-manufacturing techniques.

After analysis, the artifacts were placed in clean, 4-mil, resealable plastic bags with air holes.Artifacts were divided by general type and placed into sub-bags within a general bag for eachprovenience. An acid-free artifact card with provenience information and bag number wasincluded with each bag. During this investigation, 353 total artifacts were recovered. Site Vi044yielded 66 specimens (1 bone, 1 coral tool, 63 Precolumbian ceramics, and 1 celt fragment); siteVi049 produced 282 (1 bone, 1 coral fragment, 190 shell fragments [including 1 shell bead], 6pieces of historic vessel glass, 2 pieces of metal, 77 Precolumbian ceramics, and 3 lithics [1 flake,1 fire-cracked rock, 1 quartz tool]); and soil tests at Quebrada Marunguey yielded a possible fire-cracked rock and 4 shells. All artifacts and original field records generated from the survey wereprepared for curation following the standards of the Puerto Rico State Historic PreservationOfficer.

The artifact inventory was generated using a computerized data management system and writtenin Microsoft Access 1997, a relational data base development package. Each artifact wasencoded by describing the basic type and by recording several types of descriptive information(characteristics). The system automatically generates code translations and dates, if applicable.This system was used for coding the Precolumbian lithics and ceramics and the two historicartifacts. A print form of the data base is included as Appendix D of this report.

59

CHAPTER 5FIELD RESULTS

The following chapter details the results of field investigations that were undertaken within theEMA/AFWTF on the NLV in support of the overall paleoenvironmental research. The fieldworkincluded (1) the recovery of five sediment cores (archaeo-borings) from three lagoon locations(Bahía Tapón, Laguna at Bahía de la Chiva, and Laguna Algodones); (2) excavation of two smalltest units on two known archaeological sites (Vi044 and Vi049); (3) excavation of three soil testson the flood plain of Quebrada Marunguey; and (4) excavation of two soil tests in the Verdialesarea. Soil samples for palynological, macrobotanical, and radiocarbon analyses were recoveredfrom all sample locations. Detailed results on the analysis of selected samples are described inAppendices A, B, and C. Appendix D contains an inventory of artifacts recovered during theinvestigation.

SEDIMENT CORES—ARCHAEO-BORINGS

As described in the preceding chapter, the sediment cores were extracted from enclosed or semi-enclosed lagoons located on the northern and southern coastal plain and behind the coastal strandson Vieques Island. The areas were selected based upon their potential for having preservedpollen fossils that could provide information on past mangrove, coastal strand, and forest speciesfrom the local area and region. The archaeological site locations were selected based on previousfield research that had demonstrated that the sites were likely long-term habitations and thereforehad the potential to contain midden deposits with potentially well-preserved macrobotanical andpalynological remains. The location of the two archaeological site locations, the five archaeo-borings, and other sample areas are shown in Figure 12. Table 5 provides a summary of the coresamples collected from the five archaeo-borings, which were preserved in glass jars. Table 6provides a list of all samples collected during fieldwork (archaeo-borings, test units, and soiltests), and which samples were analyzed as part of the current study.

Bahía Tapón, Archaeo-Boring 1

Archaeo-Boring 1 (AB–1) was placed within the southwestern margin of Bahía Tapón, which islocated on the southcentral coast of Vieques Island (Figure 13; see Figure 12). Soils at thesample location are mapped as Tidal Swamp (Ts) and lie near the intersection of Catano loamy

60

sand (Cf) and Pozo Blanco clay-loam (PrC2) (see Figure 4). These soils are mapped within theoverall Coamo-Guamani-Vives association (Boccheciamp 1977). The location of the boring isapproximately 200 m north of site Vi049, a multicomponent ridgetop site also investigated duringthis study.

The boring was advanced to a maximum depth of 211 cm bs, encountering a total of 14discernible strata in the soil column (Figure 14). The upper 95 cm consisted of dark to very darksandy clay, with little visible organic material. Between 95 and 115 cm bs, a layer of grayishbrown coarse sand with peat (Stratum G) was exposed overlying a more mottled deposit of coarseclayey sand with peat (Stratum H) between 115 and 130 cm bs. This overlay a third deposit ofclayey sand with peat to a depth of 148 cm bs (Stratum I). A thin (7 cm) layer of medium sandwith no peat was then encountered (Stratum J), possibly representing a significant storm/flooddeposit. This overlay two thick deposits of light brownish gray (Stratum K), and gray, mediumcoarse sand with some peat and small shell fragments (Stratum L) between 148 and 189 cm bs.The two basal deposits consisted of light gray medium fine sand with some organic material(Stratum M) between 189 and 201 cm bs, overlying a light gray medium to fine very dense sandwith tiny shell fragments.

Pollen and 14C samples were recovered from Stratum G (Cat. No. 15), Stratum H (Cat. No. 16),and Stratum K (Cat. No. 17.). Two samples submitted for radiocarbon analysis yielded calibratedradiocarbon ages of 780 to 670 B.P. (cal A.D. 1170 to 1280 [Beta 172621]) from Stratum G, and2,760 to 2,710 B.P. and 2,560 to 2,540 B.P. (cal 820 to 760 B.C. and 620 to 590 B.C. [Beta172622]) from Stratum K (Table 7).

As described in Appendix B, a total of three samples from AB–1 was analyzed for pollen content.All three samples contained well-preserved fossil pollen. The assemblage from this core,especially the presence of rare black mangrove pollen type (Avicennia) near the bottom of thecore, indicates the mangrove and associated tropical forest environment has long been establishedin this area. Pollen from the drier upland region is represented, but in smaller quantities. Noevidence of human activity was observed in the samples analyzed from AB–1 with the exceptionof a single borreria grain (Spermacoce) from Stratum K (153–156 cm bs), a disturbance weedoften associated with habitation sites or agricultural activities.

Analysis of macrobotanical remains from the sediment core was conducted on Jars AB–1–9, 10,11, and 12, consisting of Strata J, K, L, M, located between 141 and 201 cm bs (see Figure 14,Appendix A). Examination of the peat deposits encountered below 1 m indicates that they consistof a degraded fine root mass, possibly representing old seagrass meadows (Thalassia testudinum),although no blades or leaves were identified. No dicot roots or sign of mangrove trees arerepresented, and no seeds were identified in the deposits. As indicated, the sediment sample fromStratum K was radiocarbon-dated to cal 2,760 to 2,710 B.P. and cal 2,560 to 2,540 B.P. (cal 820 to760 B.C. and cal 620 to 590 B.C. [Beta 172622]). The presence of possible seagrass beds at thisdepth suggests fluctuating sea levels and that this fringe mangrove may have been open bay atone time but since in-filled with sediment.

#S

#S

#S#S

#S

#S #S

#S#S#S

#S

#S#S Soil Test 1

Soil Test 4

Verdiales/Soil Test 5

Site Vi049/Test Unit GMI-1

Archaeo-Boring 1

Archaeo-Boring 2 Archaeo-Boring 3

Soil Test 3

Verdiales/Soil Test 6

Site Vi044/Test Unit GMI-2

Archaeo-Boring 4Archaeo-Boring 5

Soil Test 2

Quebrada Marunguey

BahìaSalina del

Sur

Playa Blan

Playa

de B

a

Y

ellow BeachBahìa Jolova

Bahìa YoyeBah ìa Fa nduca Bahìa de la Chiva

BahìaTapòn

Puerto Ferro

Puer to N egro

BahìaSalinasBahìa

Icacos

TamarindoSur

EnsenadaHonda

LagunaAlgodones

LagunaMonte Largo

Quebrada Marun

guey

#S Soil test 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Meters

0 2500 5000 7500 10000 Feet N

C I

V I

L I

A N

Z O

N E

Vieques Island

Figure 12. Map of the study area showing the locations of archaeological sites, test units, archaeo-borings, and soil tests sampled during this survey.

61

63

Table 5Sediment Samples Collected from Archaeo-Borings 1 through 5

Jar No. Depth (cm bs) Corresponding Strata

Archaeo-Boring —Southwest Margin of Bahía TapónJar AB–1–1 11–26 A, B, C

Jar AB–1–2 26–41 C, D

Jar AB–1–3 41–47 D, E

Jar AB–1–4 80–94 E, F

Jar AB–1–5 94–98 F, G

Jar AB–1–6 98–115 G

Jar AB–1–7 115–130 H

Jar AB–1–8 130–145 I, J

Jar AB–1–9 145–160 J, K

Jar AB–1–10 160–175 K, L

Jar AB–1–11 182–197 L, M

Jar AB–1–12 197–211 M, N

Archaeo-Boring 2 (AB–2)—North Margin of Bahía TapónJar AB–2–1 0–15 A,B

Jar AB–2–2 15–31 B, C, D

Jar AB–2–3 34–46 D, E

Jar AB–2–4 46–58 E, F

Jar AB–2–5 58–64 G, H

Jar AB–2–6 73–89 H

Jar AB–2–7 89–104 I

Jar AB–2–8 104–119 I, J

Archaeo-Boring 3 (AB–3)—Laguna at Bahía de la ChivaJar AB–3–1 30–46 A, B

Jar AB–3–2 46–61 C

Jar AB–3–3 78–94 C

Jar AB–3–4 94–109 C, D

Jar AB–3–5 109–124 D

Jar AB–3–6 152–167 E

Jar AB–3–7 172–185 E

Jar AB–3–8 185–196 F

Jar AB–3–9 214–228 G

collected separately 234–240 H

Jar AB–3–10 240–255 I

64

Table 5 (cont’d)

Jar No. Depth (cm bs) Corresponding Strata

Archaeo-Boring 4 (AB–4)—South Margin of Laguna AlgodonesJar AB–4–1 23–36 A

Jar AB–4–2 36–52 B, C

Jar AB–4–3 55–64 C, D

Jar AB–4–4 75–90 D

Jar AB–4–5 90–105 D

Jar AB–4–6 105–118 D

Jar AB–4–7 146–160 D

Jar AB–4–8 164–176 D

Jar AB–4–9 176–191 D, E, F

Jar AB–4–10 191–205 F

Jar AB–4–11 205–221 F, G

Jar AB–4–12 225–238 G, H

Archaeo-Boring 5 (AB–5)—Center of Laguna AlgodonesJar AB–5–1 39–52 A, B, CJar AB–5–2 52–66 C, D

Jar AB–5–3 66–73 E

Jar AB–5–4 77–91 E, F

Jar AB–5–5 91–101 F

Jar AB–5–6 110–122 F

Jar AB–5–7 130–145 G

Jar AB–5–8 151–166 H, I

Jar AB–5–9 166–181 I

Jar AB–5–10 186–193 J

Bahía Tapón, Archaeo-Boring 2

Archaeo-Boring 2 (AB–2) was placed on the northern side of Bahía Tapón at a higher and moreterrestrial (drier) elevation (Figure 15; see Figure 12). Soils in the vicinity of the sample locationare at or near the boundary of the Fraternidad Clay (FrB) and Tidal Flats (Tf) soil mapping units(see Figure 4). These soils are mapped within the overall Coamo-Guamani-Vives association(Boccheciamp 1977).

The boring was advanced to a maximum depth of only 129 cm bs due to high resistance ofunderlying geological strata (Figure 16). Several upper layers of brown to dark grayish brownloam and sand overlay deposits of gritty clay with small rock fragments. The lower strataconsisted of very dense clay with fragmented rock. No organic deposits suggestive of formerwetland conditions were encountered. One exception was a thin deposit of very dark grayishbrown clayey silt with gravel and some organic material (Stratum F) encountered between 53 and58 cm bs. A sample for pollen and 14C dating (Cat. No. 19) was obtained from this stratum, butno samples were analyzed due to the improbability of yielding important data.

65

Table 6Samples Collected and Samples Analyzed During this Study, by Provenience

Catalog No. Other ID No. Location ProvenienceDepth(cm bs)

Pollensample 14C

Macro-botanicalsample

Cat. No. 1 — Site Vi049 Test Unit GMI-1Stratum A, Level 1

0–10 — C —

Cat. No. 2 Pollen Sample 21 Site Vi049 Test Unit GMI-1 Stratum A, Level 2

11–23 C, A* C C, A

Cat. No. 3 — Site Vi049 Test Unit GMI-1Stratum B, Level 3

23–34 C — —

Cat. No. 4 — Site Vi044 Test Unit GMI-2Stratum A, Level 1

0–10 C C C, A

Cat. No. 5 Pollen Sample 22 Site Vi044 Test Unit GMI-2Stratum A, Level 2

10–20 C, A — C, A

Cat. No. 6 — Site Vi044 Test Unit GMI-2Stratum B, Level 3

20–30 C — C, A

Cat. No. 7 — Verdiales Soil Test 5 0–10 C — —

Cat. No. 8 — Verdiales Soil Test 5 12–16 C C —

Cat. No. 9 — Verdiales Soil Test 5 20–30 C — —

Cat. No. 10 Pollen Sample 23 Verdiales Soil Test 5 30–40 C, A C —

Cat. No. 11 — Verdiales Soil Test 5 40–50 C — —

Cat. No. 12 — Verdiales Soil Test 6 15–20 C — —

Cat. No. 13 — Verdiales Soil Test 6 22–27 C — —

Cat. No. 14 — Verdiales Soil Test 6 65–70 C — —

Cat. No. 15 Pollen Sample 13 Bahía Tapón Core AB–1, Stratum G 94–96 C, A C, A C

Cat. No. 16 Pollen Sample 14 Bahía Tapón Core AB–1, Stratum H 128–130 C, A C C, A

— Jar AB–1–9 Bahía Tapón Core AB–1, Stratum J, K 141–160 — — C, A

Cat. No. 17 Pollen Sample 15 Bahía Tapón Core AB–1, Stratum K 153–156 C, A C, A C, A

— Jar AB–1–10 Bahía Tapón Core AB–1, Stratum K, L 160–175 — — C, A

— Jar AB–1–11 Bahía Tapón Core AB–1, Stratum L, M 182–197 — — C, A

— Jar AB–1–12 Bahía Tapón Core AB–1, Stratum M, N 197–211 — — C, A

Cat. No. 19 — Bahía Tapón Core AB–2, Stratum F 52–56 C C C

Cat. No. 20 Pollen Sample 1 Laguna at Bahía dela Chiva

Core AB–3, Stratum C 61–63 C, A — C

Cat. No. 21 Pollen Sample 2 Laguna at Bahía dela Chiva

Core AB–3, Stratum D 112–116 C, A — C

— Jar AB–3–6 Laguna at Bahía dela Chiva

Core AB–3, Stratum E 152–167 — — C, A

Cat. No. 22 Pollen Sample 3 Laguna at Bahía dela Chiva

Core AB–3, Stratum E 168–172 C, A C, A C

— Jar AB–3–7 Laguna at Bahía dela Chiva

Core AB–3, Stratum E 172–185 — — C, A

— Jar AB–3–8 Laguna at Bahía dela Chiva

Core AB–3, Stratum F 185–196 — — C, A

— Jar AB–3–9 Laguna at Bahía dela Chiva

Core AB–3, Stratum G 214–228 — — C, A

Cat. No. 23 Pollen Sample 4 Laguna at Bahía dela Chiva

Core AB–3, Stratum H 234–240 C, A C, A C

— Jar AB–3–10 Laguna at Bahía dela Chiva

Core AB–3, Stratum I 241–255 — — C, A

Cat. No. 24 Pollen Sample 5 Laguna at Bahía dela Chiva

Core AB–3, Stratum J 257–259 C, A — C

66

Table 6 (cont’d)

Catalog No. Other ID No. Location ProvenienceDepth(cm bs)

Pollensample 14C

Macro-botanicalsample

Cat. No. 25 Pollen Sample 7 Laguna Algodones Core AB–4, Stratum C 52–55 C, A C C

Cat. No. 26 Pollen Sample 8 Laguna Algodones Core AB–4, Stratum D 70–80 C, A C C

Cat. No. 27 Pollen Sample 9 Laguna Algodones Core AB–4, Stratum D 118–123 C, A C C

Cat. No. 28 Pollen Sample 10 Laguna Algodones Core AB–4, Stratum D 160–164 C, A C C

Cat. No. 29 Pollen Sample 11 Laguna Algodones Core AB–4, Stratum G 221–225 C, A C C

Cat. No. 30 Pollen Sample 12 Laguna Algodones Core AB–4, Stratum H 238–242 C, A C C

Cat. No. 31 Pollen Sample 16 Laguna Algodones Core AB–5, Stratum A 34–39 C, A — C

Cat. No. 32 Pollen Sample 17 Laguna Algodones Core AB–5, Stratum E 73–77 C, A C C

Cat. No. 33 Pollen Sample 18 Laguna Algodones Core AB–5, Stratum F 102–110 C, A C, A C

Cat. No. 34 Pollen Sample 19 Laguna Algodones Core AB–5, Stratum H 145–151 C, A C C

Cat. No. 35 Pollen Sample 20 Laguna Algodones Core AB–5, Stratum I 181–186 C, A C, A C

Cat. No. 36 — QuebradaMarunguey

Soil Test 1, Stratum C 40 — — —

Cat. No. 37 Pollen Sample 6 QuebradaMarunguey

Soil Test 2, Stratum B 57 C, A — —

Cat. No. 38 — QuebradaMarunguey

Soil Test 2, Stratum B 89 — — —

C = Collected; A = Analyzed

figure13. View of Archaeo-Boring 1 location, facing north

Figure 13. View of Archaeo-Boring 1 location, facing north.

67

Figure 14. Soil profile of Archaeo-Boring 1, Bahia Tapon.

Archaeo-Boring 1

11 cmA

B

24 cm

16 cm

95 cm

83 cm

44 cm

31 cm

115 cm

130 cm

141 cm

148 cm

165 cm

189 cm

201 cm

211 cmN

M

L

K

J

I

H

G

F

E

D

C

A Very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2)sandy clay

B Dark gray (10YR 4/1) sandy clay

C Gray (10YR 5/1) sandy clay with few organics

D Dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) coarsesandy clay with pebbles

E Very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2)sandy clay with organics

F Very dark gray (10YR 3/1) clay sandwith few organics

G Grayish brown (10YR 5/2) coarse sandwith peat. Peat collected for pollenand 14C (Cat No. 15)

H Very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) coarse clay sand mottled with gray (10YR 5/1)peat. Peat collected for pollenand 14C (Cat No. 16)

I Dark gray (10YR 4/1) clay sand with peat

J Gray (10YR 6/1) medium sand-no peat

K Light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) mediumcoarse sand with some peat and shellfragments. Peat collected for pollenand 14C (Cat No. 17)

L Gray (10YR 6/1) coarse sand grave and shellwith some peat, mottled with grayish brown (10YR 5/2) sand

M Light gray (10YR 7/1) medium to fine sandwith some organics

N Light gray (10YR 7/1) medium to fine verydense sand with tiny shell fragments

Pollen sample Cat No. 16 (128-130 cmbs)

Pollen and 14C samplesCat No. 17 (153-156 cmbs)

Jar 1 (11-26 cm)

Jar 2 (26-41 cm)

Jar 3 (41-47 cm)

Jar 4 (80-94 cm)

Pollen and 14C samplesCat No. 15 (96-98 cmbs)

Jar 5 (94-98 cm)

Jar 6 (98-115 cm)

Jar 7 (115-130 cm)

Jar 8 (130-145 cm)

Jar 9 (145-160 cm)

Jar 10 (160-175 cm)

Jar 11 (182-197 cm)

Jar 12 (197-211 cm)

* Calibrated Radiocarbon Date

*780 - 670 B.P.

*2760-2710 B.P. AND2560-2540 B.P.

g:\\17xx\17600.00.58\Fig14.ai

68

Table 7Radiocarbon Dates Obtained from Sediment Cores, Vieques Paleoenvironmental Study

Sample Number Provenience Depth (cm bs) Conventional Age 2 Sigma Calibrated Age

GMI-V-15Beta 172621

AB–1, Stratum G 94–98 810 ± 40 B.P. 780 to 670 B.P.(A.D. 1170 to 1280)

GMI-V-17Beta 172622

AB–1, Stratum K 153–156 2,580 ± 40 B.P. 2,760 to 2,710 B.P.(820 to 760 B.C.)

and2,560 to 2,540 B.P.

(620 to 590 B.C.)

GMI-V-22Beta 172623

AB–3, Stratum E 168–172 2,280 ± 40 B.P. 2,760 to 2,300 B.P.(400 to 350 B.C.)

and2,260 to 2,160 B.P.

(310 to 210 B.C.)

GMI-V-23Beta 172624

AB–3, Stratum H 236–238 3370 ± 40 B.P 3,700 to 3,480 B.P.(1750 to 1530 B.C.)

GMI-V-33Beta 172625

AB–5, Stratum F 102–110 2,640 ± 40 B.P. 2,790 to 2,740 B.P.(840 to 790 B.C.)

GMI -V-35Beta 172626

AB–5, Stratum I 181–186 3,470 ± 40 B.P. 3,840 to 3,640 B.P.(1890 to 1690 B.C.)

Laguna at Bahía de la Chiva, Archaeo-Boring 3

Archaeo-Boring 3 (AB–3) was placed within the dry basin of Laguna at Bahía de la Chiva nearits northern margin (Figure 17; see Figure 12). This lagoon, which is located on the southcentralcoast of the island, is approximately 2,000 m east of Bahía Tapón and was dry at the time ofsampling. Soils at the sample location are mapped as Tidal Swamp (Ts) and are near theboundary of the Cartagena Clay (Ce) mapping unit lying immediately to the north (see Figure 4).These soil mapping units lie at or near the boundary of the overall Coamo-Guamani-Vivesassociation and Descalabrado-Guayama association (Boccheciamp 1977).

The boring was advanced to a maximum depth of 259 cm bs, encountering a total of 10 visiblydiscernible strata (Figure 18). Much of the soil column consisted of sandy clay and clayey sandwith varying amounts of visible organic material. No shell fragments were observed in the basalunits. Between 45 and 107 cm bs, the deposit consisted of a mottled dark greenish gray and darkgrayish brown very plastic clay (Stratum C). A dark greenish gray plastic sandy clay with gravelwas encountered between 107 and 152 cm bs (Stratum D). This overlay a more compact claywith small pebbles and a few pieces of organic (plant) material (Stratum E) to a depth of 152 cmbs.

69

figure15. View of Archaeo-Boring 2 location, facing south

Figure 15. View of Archaeo-Boring 2 location, facing south.

Directly underlying Stratum E were two deposits of coarser and grittier clay (Strata F and G),with less visible organic material. Between 232 and 241 cm bs, a very dark gray organic clay withcharcoal was encountered (Stratum H). This overlay a very mottled deposit of dark grayishbrown, olive yellow, and greenish gray sandy clay to 257 cm bs (Stratum I). The basal unitconsisted of dark grayish brown coarse sand with silt. Pollen and 14C samples were recoveredfrom Stratum E (Cat. No. 22) and Stratum H (Cat. No. 23). Pollen samples were also recoveredfrom Stratum C (Cat. No. 20), Stratum D (Cat. No. 21), and Stratum J (Cat. No. 24). Twosamples submitted for radiocarbon analysis yielded calibrated radiocarbon ages of 2,350 to 2,300B.P. and 2,260 to 2,160 B.P. (cal 400 TO 350 B.C. and 310 to 210 B.C. [Beta 172623]); and 3,700to 3,480 B.P. (cal 1750 to 1530 B.C. [Beta 172624]) (see Table 7).

As reported in Appendix B, a total of five samples from AB–3 was analyzed for pollen content.Soil samples in Strata C, D, and E had well-preserved pollen present but in low concentrations.Stratum H (232–241 cm bs) was full of charcoal but had few grains of pollen. The basal unit wasoxidized and had no pollen grains; the oxidation suggests that the deposit may have formed abovethe water table during a period of lower sea level. Although only two samples provided amplepollen for analysis, the two have significant differences suggesting environmental changes in thearea. The bottom-most sample is dominated by red mangrove (Rhizophora) with little sea grape(Coccoloba). However, the sample from the upper portion of the core contains significantly moresea grape, and the red mangrove has been replaced by the white mangrove family(Combretaceae). As described in Appendix B, the reduction of red mangrove may be a result ofsediment infilling caused by increased erosion from agricultural or other human activity in thearea.

70

Figure 16. Soil profile of Archaeo-Boring 2, Bahia Tapon.

Archaeo-Boring 2

A

B

0 cm

21 cm

10 cm

58 cm

53 cm

36 cm

29 cm

60 cm

90 cm

109 cm

119 cm

129 cm

K

J

I

H

G

F

E

D

C

A Dark brown (10YR 3/3) silty loam

B Brown (10YR 4/3) fine sandy loam

C Dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) grittymedium coarse sand

D Brown (10YR 4/3) fine silty sand

E Dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) sandysilt with grit and small rock fragments

F Very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) clay silt with gravel. Organic soil collected for pollen and 14C (Cat No. 19)

G Very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) clay silt with roots

H Very dark gray (10YR 3/1) very dense sandy clay with small rock fragments

I Brown (10YR 4/3) very dense silty clay withgrit and ferrous oxides mottled with yellowishbrown (10YR 5/6) silty clay

J Dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) dense claywith fragmented rock mottled with palebrown (10YR 6/3) clay

K Brown (10YR 4/3) very dense silty claywith grit mottled with light yellowishbrown (10YR 6/2) silty clay

Jar 1 (0-15 cm)

Jar 2 (15-31 cm)

Jar 3 (34-46 cm)

Jar 4 (46-58 cm)

Jar 5 (58-64 cm)

Pollen sample Cat No. 19(52-56 cmbs)

Jar 6 (73-89 cm)

Jar 7 (89-104 cm)

Jar 8 (104-119 cm)

G:\\17xx\17600.00.58\Fig16.ai

71

figure17. View of Archaeo-Boring 3 location, facing southwest

Figure 17. View of Archaeo-Boring 3 location, facing southwest.

Laguna Algodones, Archaeo-Boring 4

Archaeo-Boring 4 was placed on the south border area of Laguna Algodones, which is located onthe northcentral coast of the island (Figure 19; see Figure 12). The soils at the sampling locationare mapped as Tidal Swamp (Ts) and lie immediately north the Descalabrado clay loam (DgF2)mapping unit. These soil mapping units are within the overall Descalabrado-Guayamaassociation (Boccheciamp 1977) (see Figure 4). The location of the boring is approximately700 m east of site Vi044, a known early Saladoid occupation on the north coast that was alsoinvestigated during this study.

The boring was advanced to a maximum depth of 247 cm bs and encountered a total of ninediscernible strata (Figure 20). Beneath a shallow, upper, modern deposit of dark yellowish brownsand, the soil column consisted of varying textures of clays. Dominating the column was a verythick stratum of dark brown sandy clay with organic material between 57 and 177 cm bs (StratumD). Below 177 cm bs, the clay color changed to a very dark gray with some grit and visibleorganic material. At 226 cm bs, a deposit of brown gritty clay with organic material (Stratum H)was encountered overlying a basal unit of yellowish brown gritty clay (Stratum I). Pollen and 14Csamples were recovered from Stratum C (Cat. No. 25), Stratum D (Cat. Nos. 26, 27, and 28),Stratum G (Cat. No. 29) and Stratum H (Cat. No. 30).

As described in Appendix B, six samples were analyzed for pollen content from AB–4, but nosediment samples were radiocarbon-dated from this boring. Of the six samples analyzed forpollen, only three contained enough pollen to provide 200-grain counts, which is considered the

72

Figure 18. Soil profile of Archaeo-Boring 3, Laguna at Bahia de la Chiva.

Archaeo-Boring 3

30 cmA

B45 cm41 cm

152 cm

107 cm

185 cm

196 cm

214 cm

232 cm

241 cm

257 cm

259 cm J

I

H

G

F

E

D

C

A Dark brown (10YR 3/3) silty clay

B Dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) sandy claywith ferrous inclusions

C Dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1) very plastic clay mottled with dark grayish brown(10YR 4/2) clay. Pollen sample (Cat No. 20)

D Dark greenish gray (10Y 3/1) plastic sandyclay with gravel. Pollen sample (Cat No. 21)

E Dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1) compactclayey sand with small pebbles and some organics. Organic soil collected for pollen and 14C (Cat No. 22)

F Dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1) coarse claysand-no organics

G Dark gray (2.5Y 4/1) gritty clay sand withsome oxides

H Very dark gray (N 3/ ) organic clay. Pollen and 14C samples collected (Cat No. 23)

I Dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/1) sandy claymottled with olive yellow (2.5Y 6/6) sandy clay and greenish gray (5G 4/2) clay

J Dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) coarse sandwith silt. Pollen sample (Cat No. 24)

Pollen and 14C samplesCat No. 22 (168-172 cmbs)

Pollen and 14C samplesCat No. 23 (234-240 cmbs)

Mixed sample

Pollen sampleCat No. 20 (61-63 cmbs)

Pollen sampleCat No. 21 (112-116 cmbs)

Pollen sampleCat No. 24 (257-259 cmbs)

Jar 1 (30-46 cm)

Jar 2 (46-61 cm)

Jar 3 (78-94 cm)

Jar 4 (94-109 cm)

Jar 5 (109-124 cm)

Jar 6 (152-167 cm)

Jar 7 (172-185 cm)

Jar 8 (185-19 cm)

Jar 9 (214-228 cm)

Jar 10 (241-255 cm)

*2350-2300 B.P. AND2260-2160 B.P.

*3700-3480 B.P.

* Calibrated Radiocarbon Date

G:\\17xx\17600.00.58\Fig18.ai

73

figure19. View of Archaeo-Boring 4 location, facing west

Figure 19. View of Archaeo-Boring 4 location, facing west.

minimum for providing reliable data. No pollen grains were recovered from the upper portion ofStratum D; however, the lower portion of the stratum and Stratum G (206–-226 cm bs) hadabundant pollen. No pollen was recovered from the Stratum H (226–242 cm bs) sample. Thepollen record indicates that although this area is currently dominated by red mangrove(Rhizophora), it was dominated by white mangrove, possibly Laguncularia, in the past. Adiversity of upland forest types indicates the proximity of these taxa to the core location.

Laguna Algodones, Archaeo-Boring 5

Archaeo-Boring 5 (AB–5) was placed in the center of Laguna Algodones, which was completelydry at the time of sampling (Figure 21; see Figure 12). Soils at the sampling location are mappedentirely as Tidal Swamp (Ts) and lie to the north of the Descalabrado clay loam (DgF2) mappingunit and south of a narrow strip of Catano loamy sand (Cf) and Coastal Beach (Cm) (see Figure 4).These soil mapping units within the overall Descalabrado-Guayama association (Boccheciamp1977). The location of the boring is approximately 700 m east of site Vi044, the early Saladoid siteon the north coast also sampled during this study.

The boring was advanced to a maximum depth of 194 cm bs and encountered a total of 10 visiblydiscernible macrostrata (Figure 22). Soils within the column also consisted of clay but of a finertexture than in AB–4. Also, the clays had a more greenish hue and higher plasticity; gleyed soilswere encountered in the two basal units. Between 85 and 130 cm bs was deposit of black fineclay with a small amount of gravel (Stratum F). The black deposit lay between a 19-cm thick

74

Figure 20. Soil profile of Archaeo-Boring 4, Laguna Algodones.

Archaeo-Boring 4

23 cmA

B

46 cm

36 cm

57 cm

177 cm

184 cm

206 cm

226 cm

242 cm

247 cmI

H

G

F

E

D

C A Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) loosedry silty sand with grit

B Brown (10YR 4/1) sandy clay

C Dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) sandy clay with organics. Organic soil collected for pollen and 14C samples (Cat No. 25)

D Dark brown (10YR 3/3) clay with grit and organic material. Organic soil collected for pollen and 14C samples (Cat Nos. 26. 27, & 28)

E Very dark gray (2.5Y 3/1) clay withless grit

F Very dark gray (2.5Y 3/1) fine clay with some organics and grit mottled with yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) clay below 191 cm.

G Very dark gray (10YR 3/1) clay with organicmaterial. Organic soil collected for pollenand 14C samples (Cat No. 29)

H Brown (10YR 4/3) gritty clay with organicmaterial. Organic soil collected for pollenand 14C samples (Cat No. 30)

I Yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) gritty clay

Pollen sample Cat No. 25(52-55 cmbs)

Pollen sample Cat No. 26 (70-80 cmbs)

Pollen sample Cat No. 29 (221-225 cmbs)

Pollen sample Cat No. 28 (160-164 cmbs)

Pollen sample Cat No. 27 (118-123 cmbs)

Pollen sample Cat No. 30 (238-242 cmbs)

Jar 1 (23-36 cm)

Jar 2 (36-52 cm)

Jar 3 (55-64 cm)

Jar 4 (75-90 cm)

Jar 5 (90-105 cm)Jar 6 (105-118 cm)

Jar 7 (146-160 cm)

Jar 8 (169-176 cm)

Jar 9 (176-191 cm)

Jar 10 (191-205 cm)

Jar 11 (205-221 cm)

Jar 12 (225-238 cm)

G:\\17xx\17600.00.58\Fig20.ai

75

figure21. View of Archaeo-Boring 5 location, facing northeast

Figure 21. View of Archaeo-Boring 5 location, facing northeast.

deposit of an organic-rich, dark greenish gray fine clay (Stratum E) and a 15-cm deposit of darkgreenish gray fine clay (Stratum G). At 145 cm bs the clay became very plastic and saturated(Stratum H), with less saturation in the lower two gleyed deposits (Strata I and J). The boringterminated on marine sand. Pollen and 14C samples were recovered from Stratum A (Cat. No.31), Stratum E (Cat. No. 32), Stratum F (Cat. No. 33), Stratum H (Cat. No. 34), and Stratum I(Cat. No. 35).

Two samples submitted for radiocarbon analysis yielded calibrated radiocarbon ages of 2,790 to2,740 B.P. (cal 840 to 790 B.C. [Beta 172625]) from Stratum F (102–110 cm bs), and 3,840 to3,640 B.P. (cal 1890 to 1690 B.C. [Beta 172626]) from Stratum J (181–186 cm bs; see Table 7).As discussed in the following chapter, it is noteworthy that the earlier date—obtained from thebottom-most sediment of the boring—precedes the earliest radiocarbon dates of humanoccupation on Vieques Island and surrounding environs by only a few hundred years or less.Thus the column records the full span of known human occupation of the island.

76

Figure 22. Soil profile of Archaeo-Boring 5, Laguna Algodones.

Archaeo-Boring 5

34 cmA

B44 cm42 cm

66 cm

58 cm

85 cm

130 cm

186 cm

156 cm

145 cm

194 cmJ

I

H

G

F

E

D

C A Greenish black (10Y 2.5/1) silty clay withorganic material. Organic soil collected for pollen (Cat No. 31)

B Greenish gray (10Y 5/1) clay with oxides

C Dark greenish gray (10Y 3/1) smooth plastic clay with no inclusions

D Dark greenish gray (10Y 3/1) plastic claywith oxides

E Dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1) fine clayey organic soil collected for pollen and 14C (Cat No. 32)

F Black (N 2.5/ ) fine clay w/ small gravelinclusions. Pollen and 14C samples collected(Cat No. 33)

G Dark greenish gray (10GY 4/1) fine clay.

H Dark greenish gray (10GY 4/1) very plastic saturated clay. Pollen and 14C samplescollected (Cat No. 34)

I Dark greenish gray (10GY 4/1) fine clayPollen and 14C samples collected (Cat No. 35)

J Dark greenish gray (10GY 4/1) sandy claymarine sand

Marine sand

Pollen and 14C samplesCat No. 33 (102-110 cmbs)

Pollen sample Cat No. 34 (145-151 cmbs)

Pollen sampleCat No. 31 (34-39 cmbs)

Pollen sampleCat No. 32 (73-77 cmbs)

Pollen and 14C samplesCat No. 35 (181-186 cmbs)

Jar 1 (39-52 cm)

Jar 2 (52-66 cm)

Jar 3 (66-73 cm)

Jar 4 (77-91 cm)

Jar 5 (91-101 cm)

Jar 6 (110-122 cm)

Jar 7 (130-145 cm)

Jar 8 (151-166 cm)

Jar 9 (166-181 cm)

Jar 10 (186-193 cm)

*2790-2740 B.P.

*3840-3640 B.P.

* Calibrated Radiocarbon Date

G:\\17xx\17600.00.58\Fig22.ai

K

K

77

Five samples were analyzed for pollen content from AB–5, all of which contained well-preservedfossil pollen (Appendix B). Throughout the core, the samples are dominated by red mangrove(Rhizophora), and white mangrove (Combretaceae) is also common in all but the basal sample.From the middle of the core to the surface, evidence of human activity in the area is clearlyvisible in the form of grass and aster pollen, as well as pollen from species not native to ViequesIsland such as mesquite (Prosopis) and oak (cf. Quercus). The lowermost sample reflects aenvironment different from that indicated by the rest of the samples. At a depth of 181–186 cmbs, no mangrove is present but sedges (Cyperaceae) are common. This deposit has a calibratedradiocarbon age of 3,840 to 3,640 B.P. (cal 1890 to 1690 B.C. [Beta 172626]).

Charcoal particle counts were conducted on all five samples during the analysis. Of considerableinterest are the extremely high particle counts obtained from Stratum F (102–110 cm bs). Fromthat sample, more than 2 million charcoal particles were counted, a number that could beconsistent with human use and occupation of the area. There is also a marked increase in thequantity of sedge pollen (Poaceae) in this stratum. The sample was radiocarbon-dated cal 2,790to 2,740 B.P. (cal 840 to 790 B.C. [Beta 172625]), corresponding to the end of the Archaic period.The very high charcoal particle counts within the deposit could reflect human-inducedenvironmental alteration, not only on the island, but likely in the vicinity of the sample area. Thisis of interest due to the absence of known Archaic-period sites from the north shore of ViequesIsland.

SITE INVESTIGATIONS

Investigations at Site Vi049 (Test Unit GMI-1)

Site Vi049 is located on a ridge on the south coast of Vieques Island immediately above theCaribbean Sea and overlooks Bahía Tapón to the northeast (see Figure 12). As described above,Archaeo-Boring 1 was excavated on the margin of Bahía Tapón approximately 500 m north ofthe site. Soils on the site are fine silty sands overlying shallow bedrock. Sediment samples wererecovered from two strata. Previous research at the site indicated it was likely a year-roundoccupation with remains of habitation and food processing activities (Tronolone et al. 1984).Both Saladoid and Ostionoid components are represented in the material remains.

Soils at the site are mapped entirely as Rocky Land (Rs), which lies within the overall Coamo-Guami-Vives association (Boccheciamp 1977; see Figure 4). Because of severe erosion along theshoreline on the southern side of the site, an unknown portion of the site has eroded into the sea.Artifacts are presently visible on top of and within the upper portions of the cliff banks above thesea. Fallen rocks, eroded soil, and artifacts are also present on rocks directly below the cliff line.It is evident from the cliff exposures that the site extended farther to the south to an area now lostto sea erosion.

A 0.5-x-1.0-meter test unit (Test Unit GMI-1) was placed within an area of high artifactconcentration that had been previously identified by E&E as “Zone A” within the southwesternportion of the site (Figure 23 and 24). The selection of the location of the test unit was basedupon the E&E artifact distribution maps as well as observable cultural material and shellfragments on the ground surface during the present study. Soil deposits on the landform are veryshallow; within the test unit, they were recorded as an upper stratum (Stratum A) of very darkgrayish brown, loose, friable, very fine silty sand, overlying a very dark brown fine sandy loam(Stratum B) with exfoliating bedrock.

79

figure24. View of Test Unit GMI-1, site Vi049, before excavation, facing northeast

Figure 24. View of Test Unit GMI-1, site Vi049, before excavation, facing northeast.

Soil deposits were hand-excavated in 10-cm levels within natural strata, with a total of four levelsremoved (Figure 25). The total depth of soil to bedrock was approximately 35 cm bs (Figure 26).Visible disturbance within the deposits consisted primarily of land crab burrows. Abundantquantities of shell and ceramics were recovered from Stratum A with diminishing quantities inStratum B. There was no discernible stratification of the soil deposits, although Stratum B wasslightly more compact with a slight clay texture.

In total, 77 Precolumbian ceramic sherds were recovered: one sherd (griddle fragment) from thesurface; 57 sherds from Stratum A, Level 1 (Cat. No. 1), 18 sherds from Stratum A, Level 2 (Cat.No. 2), and one sherd from Stratum B, Level 3 (Cat. No. 3) (Table 8; Appendix D). The ceramicsmostly consist of vessel body sherds, although four rim sherds and two griddle fragments areamong them. They predominantly date to the early Ostionoid series, although several HaciendaGrande (Saladoid) and Cuevas (late Saladoid) sherds are also present. One specimen (Cat. No. 1-5) is an incised rim possibly of Hacienda Grande style (Figure 27). Also recovered were a quartztool, a quartzite flake, and a possible piece of fire-cracked rock, as well as an Oliva shell bead orpendant (Figure 28).

Numerically, shell remains are dominated by the bivalve lucine (Anodontia sp.; n=62), followedby the gastropod, West Indian top shell (Cittarium pica; n=51), and the bivalve tiger lucine(Codakia orbicularis; n=33), all representing dietary refuse (Figures 29 and 30). An additional15 shell species are also represented (see Appendix D). The presence of lucine and West Indiantop shell indicates exploitation of sandy-bottom bays and wave-swept rocky points, respectively,rather than mangrove stands. Shell remains from the Archaic-period sites on Vieques Island aretypically dominated by mangrove-dwelling oyster, and thus this may reflect a change in speciesexploitation during the later Ceramic period, perhaps due to environmental transformation.

80

figure25. Base of Test Unit GMI-1, site Vi049, facing north

Figure 25. Base of Test Unit GMI-1, site Vi049, facing north.

Several historic period-artifacts also recovered from Stratum A consist of one sherd of whitewareceramic, six clear vessel fragments, an iron rivet, and a lead fishing line weight, which representuse of the bluff during the late nineteenth or early twentieth century.

Soils samples recovered from deposits within the test unit were submitted for pollen analysis; nopollen was present in the samples, however, due to poor preservation. Macrobotanical remainsrecovered from the site (all from Stratum A, Level 2) include both modern and older seeds.Modern seeds include nine Amaranthaceae (amaranth family; cf. Alternanthera sp.), oneFabaceae (bean family); one Cactaceae (cactus family), and one unidentified Portulaca seed,possibly carbonized. Whole and fragmentary fruits include one whole and seven carbonizedMyrsinaceae (cf. Myrsine sp. possibly M. coriacea), and one carbonized wild fig fruit (cf. Ficussp., possibly F. citrifolia, “jagüey macho,” or “jigüerillo”). In addition, 35 fragments of finewood and three unidentified plant remains were recovered. The carbonized fruit seeds are likelydietary remains from the Precolumbian occupation (see Appendix A).

Exc

avat

ion

Lev

els

A1

A2

B3

Depth below surface

Depth below surface

Fig

ure

26.

Soi

l pro

file

fro

m s

ite

Vi0

49, T

est U

nit G

MI-

1.

GM

I-1,

Nor

th P

rofi

le

0 cm

15 c

m

35 c

m

A B

GM

I-1,

Wes

t Pro

file

0 cm

A B

15 c

m

AV

ery

dark

gra

yish

bro

wn

(10Y

R 3

/2)

fine

sil

ty s

and

wit

h sh

ell,

dens

e ro

cks,

cer

amic

s

BV

ery

dark

bro

wn

(10Y

R 3

/3)

fine

san

dy lo

amw

ith

dens

e ro

ck

35 c

m

R

Roc

kR

ock

RR

RR

81

G:\

\17x

x\17

600.

00.5

8\F

igur

e_26

.ai

82

Table 8Summary of Artifacts Recovered from Test Unit GMI-1, Site Vi049

Cat. No. ProveniencePrecolumbian

Ceramics Lithics Shell Bone Historic Other Total

41 Surface 1 – 1 – – – 2

1 Stratum A,Level 1

57 2 109 1 4 1 174

2 Stratum A,Level 2

18 1 68 – 5 1 93

3 Stratum B,Level 3

1 – 12 – – – 13

Total 77 3 190 1 9 2 282

figure27. Selected ceramic and lithic artifacts recovered from site Vi049

Figure 27. Selected ceramic and lithic artifacts recovered from site Vi049: (a) Cat. No. 1-7, Stratum A Level 1,quartz tool; (b) Cat. No. 2-1, Stratum A Level 2, grit temper, thin griddle sherd, possible early Ceramic; (c)Cat. No. 1-5, Stratum A level 1, grut (quartz) temper rim sherd, possibly Hacienda Grande (Saladoid)style—incised; (d) Cat. No. 41-2, surface, grit (quartz) temper, thick griddle sherd; and (e) Cat. No. 2-3,Stratum A Level 2, quartz temper body sherd, possibly early Ostionoid.

a

b

d e

c

83

figure28. Olive shell bead or pendant recovered from surface, site Vi049

Figure 28. Oliva shell bead or pendant recovered from surface, site Vi049.

figure29. Representative faunal specimens from site Vi049

Figure 29. Representative faunal specimens from site Vi049: (a) Cat. No. 41–1, surface, shell bead or pendant (Olivasp.); (b) Cat. No. 1–9, Stratum A Level 1, small fish vertebra; (c) Cat. No. 1–24, Stratum A Level 1, Conussp.; and (d) Cat. No. 1–24, Stratum A Level 1, Strombus sp.

a

b

c

d

84

figure30. Representative faunal specimens from site Vi049

Figure 30. Representative faunal specimens from site Vi049: (a) Cat. No. 2–10, Stratum A Level 2, appel murex(Phyllonotus pommum); (b) Cat. No. 2–13, Stratum A Level 2, tiger lucine (Codakia orbicularis); and (c)Cat. No. 2–14, Stratum A Level 2, lucine (Anodontia sp.).

Investigations at Site Vi044 (Test Unit GMI-2)

Site Vi044 is a known Saladoid occupation located on the northern coast of Vieques Island and isset back several hundred feet from the coast on a rolling hummock (see Figure 12). Soils on thesite are fine silty clays overlying exfoliating bedrock. Sediment samples were recovered fromtwo strata. Based upon previous research conducted by E&E (Tronolone 1984), the site has beeninterpreted as a year-round occupation with remains of habitation and food processing activities.A small test unit excavated at the site during the present study recovered Saladoid ceramics, a celtfragment, but no shell fragments. The site is located approximately 700 m west of LagunaAlgodones, where Archaeo-Borings 4 and 5 were excavated during the present study.

Soils at the site are mapped as Descalabrado clay loam (DgF2), which lie immediately west of apocket of Tidal Swamp (Ts) and south of Coastal Beach (Cm) soil mapping units (see Figure 4).These soil mapping units are within the overall Descalabrado-Guayama association(Boccheciamp 1977).

A 0.5-x-0.5-m test unit (Test Unit GMI-2) was placed within a surface artifact concentration onthe southern side of a small hummock in the southwestern portion of the site (Figures 31 and 32).The selection of the unit placement was based upon the E&E artifact distribution maps as well asobservable cultural material on the ground surface during this study. Soil deposits on the site arevery shallow (Figure 33). Within the test unit, they consist of an upper stratum (Stratum A) ofdark yellowish brown, clayey silt, overlying a dark yellowish brown very dry and compact siltyclay with a high density of stones (Stratum B). Soil deposits were hand-excavated in 10-cm

a

b c

86

figure32. Test Unit GMI-2, site Vi044, facing east

Figure 32. Test Unit GMI-2, site Vi044, facing east.

levels within natural strata, with a total of three levels removed. The total depth of soil tobedrock was approximately 30 cm (Figure 34). Cultural material included ceramics and severallithics. Several large, Saladoid-period ceramic sherds were encountered in situ in the test unit.

In total, 63 ceramic sherds were recovered from the test unit: 5 from the surface, 46 from StratumA, Level 1, and 12 from Stratum A, Level 2; no sherds were recovered from Stratum B, whichwas culturally sterile (Table 9; see Appendix D). Identifiable ceramics are dominated by sherdsfrom inverted bell-shaped vessels dating to the early Saladoid period (Figure 35). Also presentare six sherds of very fine paste Hacienda Grande-style ceramics, including one vessel straphandle and one D-shaped handle. Two Cuevas-style body sherds and a mending flared Cuevas-style rim sherd were also recovered. The diagnostic Saladoid ceramics range from the earlySaladoid (Hacienda Grande) to late Saladoid, although the precise sequence is difficult to definedue to the small sample size. The inverted bell-shaped body sherds, rim sherds, and strap handlesall conform to the Saladoid vessel-shape typology. One unusual specimen is a very light-weight,porous sherd (Cat. No. 5-2), which could have been either intentionally designed that way,utilizing fibrous temper, or may represent an error in manufacture (see Figure 35d).

Among the recovered artifacts is a spall from the cutting edge of a petaloid celt (Cat. No. 4-12;see Figure 35a). A petaloid celt could signal a later Saladoid occupation, when horticulturalgroups had become more established on the island. One vertebra from an unidentified medium-sized fish was recovered (see Figure 35b), as were a coral abrader tool (Cat. No. 42-3; Figure 36)and a possible piece of fire-cracked rock. Surprisingly, no shell remains were recovered from thetest unit, although numerous shell and other faunal remains were recovered during the earlier

GM

I-2,

Eas

t Pro

file

GM

I-2,

Nor

th P

rofi

leE

xcav

atio

nL

evel

s

A1

A2

B3

A

Dar

k ye

llow

ish

brow

n (1

0YR

3/4

) ve

ry d

ry

clay

ey s

ilt h

umus

B

Depth below surface

0 cm

11 c

m

17 c

m

30 c

m

A B

Depth below surface

0 cm

26 c

m

30 c

m

A B

Fig

ure

33.

Soi

l pro

file

fro

m s

ite

Vi0

44, T

est U

nit G

MI-

2.

Hum

us

Dar

k ye

llow

ish

brow

n (1

0YR

3/4

) ve

ry d

ry

silt

wit

h so

me

clay

Dar

k ye

llow

ish

brow

n (1

0YR

3/4

) ve

ry r

ocky

dry

silt

wit

h cl

ay

21 c

m

Hum

us

Hum

us

87

G:\

\17x

x\17

600.

00.5

8\F

igur

e_33

.ai

88

figure34. Base of Test Unit GMI-2, site Vi044, facing north

Figure 34. Base of Test Unit GMI-2, site Vi044, facing north.

Table 9Summary of Artifacts Recovered from Test Unit GMI-2, Site Vi044

Cat. No. ProveniencePrecolumbian

Ceramics Lithics Shell Bone Historic Other Total

42 Surface 5 – – – – 1 6

4 Stratum A, Level 1 46 1 – 1 – – 48

5 Stratum A, Level 2 12 – – – – – 12

6 Stratum B, Level 3 – – – – – – 0

Total 63 1 0 1 0 1 66

study (Tronolone et al. 1984) and are present on the surface in other areas of the site. The samplecontains no representation of materials that are attributable to the Ostionoid period, such as thespecimens recovered from site Vi049 on the south coast.

Soils samples taken from deposits within the test unit were submitted for pollen analysis, but nopollen was present in the samples due to poor preservation characteristics of the environment.Macrobotanical remains recovered from Stratum A, Level 1, consist of 175 Chenopodiaceaeseeds (cf. Atriplex sp.), all of which appear modern, and 17 Trianthema seeds (Trianthema sp.,

89

figure35. Selected artifacts and faunal specimen recovered from site Vi044

Figure 35. Selected artifacts and faunal specimen recovered from site Vi044: (a) Cat. No. 4–12, Stratum A Level 1,spall from cutting edge of petaloid celt; (b) Cat. No. 4–13, Stratum A Level 1, medium-sized fish vertebra;(c) Cat. No. 5–3, Stratum A Level 2, Saladoid D-shaped handle; (d) Cat. No. 5–2, Stratum A Level 2,unusual light-weight, porous paste body sherd, possible fiber and coarse grit temper; (e) Cat. No. 4–9,Stratum A Level 1, fine grit temper shoulder sherd, possibly Saladoid; and (f) Cat. No. 5–1, Stratum ALevel 2, very fine grit temper flared Cuevas rim sherd.

figure36. Coral abrader recovered from site Vi044

Figure 36. Coral abrader recovered from site Vi044 (Cat. No. 42–3, surface).

ab

c

d

e

f

90

possibly T. portulacastrum [“verdolaga de hoja ancha”]), an edible weedy species. One is clearlymodern and others are possibly carbonized (hence, modern or ancient). Also recovered werefewer than 10 pieces of fine wood charcoal.

Stratum A, Level 2, yielded 34 Chenopodiaceae seeds (cf. Atriplex sp.), all modern inappearance; 16 Trianthema seeds (T. portulacastrum [“verdolaga de hoja ancha”]), all appearcarbonized; two Portulaca seeds, possibly carbonized (“purslane,” “verdolaga”), possiblycarbonized; one Mollugo seed (“carpet weed,” “alfombra”), possibly carbonized; wood-rottingfungi; and seven noncarbonized and unidentified fine wood charcoal. Recovered from Stratum B,Level 3, were nine modern-appearing Chenopodiaceae seeds (cf. Atriplex sp.); four Trianthemaseeds (T. portulacastrum [“verdolaga de hoja ancha”]), all appear carbonized; three Euphorbiaceaeseeds (spurge family); and two modern fine wood charcoal specimens, one from the palm family(cf. Arecaceae). The results of the macrobotanical analysis are discussed further in Appendix A.

OTHER RECONNAISSANCE AND SOIL TESTING

As part of the current study, reconnaissance survey was also conducted within two areas of theEMA/AWFTF that either have present-day environmental characteristics that exhibit a potentialfor early Precolumbian site location (Quebrada Marunguey), or had previously confirmedevidence of early Precolumbian occupation (Verdiales). The objective of this fieldwork was todetermine depths of soil deposits and obtain soil samples for palynological and futuremineralogical analysis.

Quebrada Marunguey Soil Tests

Reconnaissance survey was conducted within the flood plain of Quebrada Marunguey, whichdescends the northern shore within the central portion of Vieques Island (Figure 37; see Figure12). The flood plain lies in between Cerro del Muerto to the west and Cerro Bone to the east. Itmeasures approximately 12 acres in area with a maximum width of approximately 200 m andlength of 240 m. The quebrada opens up to the flood plain approximately 350 m north of thehistoric northern coastal road. Both Cerro del Muerto and Cerro Bone are highly visiblelandmarks observable from a distance at sea.

Soils within the quebrada are mapped as Descalabrado clay loam (DgF2), which lie within theoverall Descalabrado-Guayama association (Boccheciamp 1977; see Figure 4). Reconnaissanceof the channel valley and soil testing, however, suggest that not all soils of the valley conform tothis mapping unit. The flood plain adjacent to the quebrada channel contains relatively deepalluvial deposits. In addition, extensive mudflats associated with a tidal swamp are located at thenorthern end near the channel outlet to the Caribbean Sea. Much of the vegetation in thequebrada conforms to species that were historically present in other parts of Vieques Island nowovergrown with thorn scrub.

The purpose of the reconnaissance survey was to assess the potential for the flood plain to containdeeply buried deposits that could retain evidence of early Precolumbian use of the valley. As wasnoted in project planning, there had been no prior subsurface testing conducted on the flood plainduring previous surveys (Sanders et al. 2001; Tronolone et al. 1984). During the current study,four soil tests were excavated in selected areas of the flood plain to verify soil conditions andobtain soil samples.

91

figure37. Overview of soil test areas in Quebrada Marunguey, facing south

Figure 37. Overviw of soil test areas in Quebrada Marunguey, facing south.

Soil Test 1 was excavated on the eastern side of the channel, approximately 480 m north of theeast-west, historic coastal road and 12 m east of the channel. Soil deposits consisted of a thin, 15-cm deposit of humus and dark brown sandy silt, overlying an 8-cm deposit of compact brownsandy silt. The basal unit consisted of very compact yellowish brown fine silty clay loam withsmall angular stones (Figure 38). The soils on this side of the quebrada channel at this locationwere more likely deposited as colluvium eroding from side slopes descending Cerro Bone locatedimmediately to the east.

Soil Test 2 was excavated approximately 550 m north of the coastal road and 20 m west-northwest of the channel. Soils in this test consisted of a much more friable, albeit compact,alluvium. The uppermost stratum was a 23-cm deposit of brown silty loam overlying a strongbrown sandy silt loam, which was excavated to a depth of 84 cm bs (see Figure 38). A soilsample retrieved from 57 cm bs was submitted for palynological analysis; however, no fossilpollen was recorded in the sample due to a number of preservation factors as discussed inAppendix B.

Soil Test 3 was excavated at the north end of the quebrada on a dune approximately 60 m southof the beach fronting the Caribbean Sea. Soil deposits consisted of fine to medium loose sands.The uppermost deposit (0–27 cm) was a brown sand containing several Cittarium pica shells anda local igneous stone, possibly heat-altered and fire-cracked. Lower deposits consisted of strongbrown loose sand (Stratum B) to 68 cm bs, overlying a reddish yellow, medium-textured sand(Stratum C) to 110 cm bs (see Figure 38). A hole in one side of a large Cittarium pica shellspecimen may have been deliberately made to extract the animal (Figure 39). Furtherinvestigation of this area would be required before a temporal and cultural affiliation of thesespecimens can be assessed.

92

Figure 38. Soil profiles of four soil tests excavated at Quebrada Marunguey.

Soil Test 1

0 cm

15 cm

42 cm

23 cm

6 cm A

B

C

Humus

A Dark brown (10YR 3/3) sandy silt

B Brown (10YR 4/3) compact sandy silt

C Yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) very compact fine sandy clay loam with small angular stones A Brown (10YR 4/3) silty loam

B Strong brown (7.5YR 4/6)sandy silt loam

Soil Test 3

A

B

C

Humus0 cm5 cm

68 cm

27 cm

110 cm

A Brown (7.5YR 4/4) loose sand

B Strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) loose sand

C Reddish yellow (7.5YR 6/6) medium sand

Soil Test 4

A

B

C

Humus0 cm5 cm

41 cm

13 cm

68 cm

A Brown (10YR 4/3) silty loam

B Strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) compact silt loam with grit

C Strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) clayey silt with less grit

0 cm5 cm

84 cm

23 cm

Soil Test 2

A

B

Humus

Pollen sample6, Cat No. 3757 cmbs

G:\\17xx\17600.00.58\Figure_38.ai

93

figure39. Fire-cracked rock and shell recovered from Quebrada Marunguey

Figure 39. Fire-cracked rock and shell recovered from Quebrada Marunguey: (a) Cat. No. 39, Stratum A, 0–27 cmbs, possible fire-cracked rock; (b) Cat. No. 40, Stratum A/B, 0–68 cm bs, West Indian top shell (Cittariumpica).

Soil Test 4 was excavated approximately 800 m north of the coastal road 80 m west of thequebrada channel. The predominant soil matrix was similar to that encountered in Soil Test 2,except slightly more compact and with more small angular stones. Stratum B (13–41 cm bs)consisted of strong brown silty loam possibly representing flood deposition, although no distinctlaminae were observable (see Figure 38). Stratum C, excavated to 68 cm bs, consisted of verycompact strong brown clayey silt.

A cross section and profile of Quebrada Marunguey was drawn at a location approximately 800m north of the coastal road. Deposits along the bank indicated thick sedimentation associatedwith both alluvial deposition and colluvial wash (Figure 40). An unsorted deposit of sand, silt,and gravel between 35–59 cm bs suggests a single episodic deposit associated with a largehurricane or significant climatic event. The reconnaissance and soil testing in this area ofVieques Island demonstrated the presence of deeper soil deposits, unlike the shallow soilstypically found in other areas of the island. The recovery of potentially human-modified shelland stone near the coastal strand suggest that careful subsurface survey of the flood plain mayyield evidence of unrecorded Precolumbian activity.

Verdiales Soil Tests

Reconnaissance survey was also conducted within the Puerto Ferro area on the south coast of theisland in an area known as Verdiales, which corresponds to the southwestern portion of theEMA/AFWTR (see Figure 12). As described in Chapters 3 and 4, the Verdiales area contains animportant Archaic-period site that has been radiocarbon-dated to circa 3,500 B.P. Soils within the

a b

Fig

ure

40.

Soi

l pro

file

of

east

cut

bank

, Que

brad

a M

arun

guey

.

Eas

t Cut

bank

Pro

file

Depth below surface

Hum

us

AS

ilt -

no

ston

es

BS

and,

sil

t, an

d qu

artz

gri

t

CS

andy

sil

t wit

h ro

ots

DS

andy

sil

t and

gri

t

EQ

uebr

ada

bed

0 cm

12 c

m35

cm

59 c

m

128

cm

190

cm

220

cm

94

01m

1m

Flo

od p

lain

G:\

\17x

x\17

600.

00.5

8\F

igur

e_40

.ai

95

area are mapped as Tidal Swamp (Ts) and Tidal Flat (Tf), which lie south of the Poncena Clay(Po) soil mapping unit (see Figure 4). These soil mapping units lie at or near the boundary of theoverall Coamo-Guamani-Vives association and the Pandura-Rockland-Patillas association(Boccheciamp 1977).

One objective of reconnaissance and soil testing in this area was to obtain sediment samples fromwithin the vicinity of site Vi032. The site could not be directly accessed during the study becauseit lies several hundred meters beyond the NLV fence line, and ownership of the site is unclear.Therefore, two small test units were excavated to the east of site Vi032 in a low-lying area on themargin of Puerto Ferro to obtain soil samples for both palynological and eventual mineralogicalanalysis.

Soil Test 5 was placed directly in the central portion of a dry mudflat surrounded by slightly moreelevated areas (Figure 41; see Figure 12). The soil test measured 40-x-40 cm and was excavatedto a maximum depth of 52 cm bs, where the water table was encountered. Soil deposits were aconsistent yellowish brown clayey sand mottled with light brownish gray and yellowish red sandyclay with small pieces of charcoal (Figure 42). Pollen samples were collected in 10 cm levelsfrom the test unit. One sample collected from 30–40 cm bs was submitted for analysis (CatalogNo. 10, Pollen Sample 23); however, as reported in Appendix B, no fossil pollen was recoveredfrom the sample.

figure41. View of excavation and soil sample recovery at Soil Test 5, Verdiales, facing north

Figure 41. View of excavation and soil sample recovery at Soil Test 5, Verdiales, facing north.

96

figure42. View of profile and base of excavation of Soil Test 5, Verdiales, facing north

Figure 42. View of profile and base of excavation of Soil Test 5, Verdiales, facing north.

Soil Test 6 was placed approximately 75 m to the east-northeast of Soil Test 5 on slightly higherground (+ 50 cm). The unit measured 40-x-40 cm and was excavated to a maximum depth of69 cm bs. The uppermost deposit consisted of a brown silty sand to 10 cm bs. A yellowishbrown silty clay was encountered between 10–36 cm bs), overlying a very dense light yellowishbrown mottled with yellowish brown sandy clay. The clay deposits contained very highmodeling characteristics and several samples were recovered for future mineralogical andcomparative analyses. Clay samples had previously been recovered from the western,northcentral, and southeastern coastal areas of Vieques Island. Analysis of those samples hasillustrated the range of inclusions that are present in local clay sources, and has been useful inassisting with the compositional analysis of Precolumbian ceramics recovered from ViequesIsland sites (Sanders et al. 2001:146–148).

97

CHAPTER 6DISCUSSION

INTRODUCTION

The six sediment samples from which radiocarbon dates were obtained during this study wererecovered from three lagoons within the EMA/AFWTF—two from the south coast, and one fromthe north coast. The radiocarbon dates yielded calibrated dates that range from cal 3,840 B.P. tocal 670 B.P (cal 1890 B.C. to A.D. 1280). All dates are chronologically ordered according to theirposition in the soil column: that is, there is no stratigraphic evidence suggesting artificial ornatural post-depositional disturbances within the lagoons that would have altered the naturalsequence of sedimentary deposition. The date range obtained encompasses the entire span of thePrecolumbian cultural history of Vieques Island, from the earliest known Archaic occupation ofcirca 3,500 B.P. through the late Ceramic period. Several dates fall within important transitionperiods in Caribbean Precolumbian history: the Early Archaic period (cal 3,840 to 3,640 B.P. [cal1890 to 1690 B.C.; Beta 172626]); Archaic to early Saladoid transition (cal 2,350 to 2,300 B.P.and 2,300 B.P. [cal 400 to 350 B.C. and cal 310 to 210 B.C.; Beta 172623]); and mid-Ostionoid tolate Ostionoid transition (cal 780 to 670 B.P. [cal 1170 to 1280 B.C.; Beta 172621]).

Of interest is the position of certain dated sediment samples within the soil column. The bottom-most dates obtained from AB–3 (cal 3,700 to 3,480 B.P. [1750 to 1530 B.C.]) and AB–5 (cal 3,840to 3,640 B.P. [cal 1890 to 1690 B.C.]) from just above marine sands as well as the pollen remainssuggest that formation of the lagoons preceded the earliest radiocarbon-dated Archaic sites onVieques Island by only a few hundred years, and possible less. The presence of an in situ rootmass of Thalassia testudinum (turtle grass, seagrass, palma de mar), identified in AB–1 at BahíaTapón on the south coast, also suggests fluctuating sea level and variable habitats over time.Turtle grass is a marine perennial that grows in dense clusters often forming underwater“meadows,” such as those present around the island today. As indicated previously, the only fiveknown Archaic/aceramic sites on the island are all located on the southern coastal areas.However, as discussed in the following section, there is a good possibility that other sites occuroffshore in now-submerged areas. Most of the known sites are associated with shell moundscontaining abundant oyster shell, reflecting mangrove oysters, of which there are now lowpopulations in present-day mangroves on Vieques Island. As discussed, previous subsistenceanalysis of sites within EMA/AFWTF (Tronlone et al. 1984), and sampling during the currentstudy, indicate that oyster is minimally represented in Ceramic-period sites, either due to culturalpreferences or species depopulation, possibly from environmental change, from the precedingArchaic period.

98

SITE LOCATION AND SUBSISTENCE

The known Archaic/aceramic sites are currently situated on low-lying knolls and peninsular rises,and along the fringes of the large bays, which are juxtapositioned among mangrove swamps,lagoons, and associated mudflats. Mangrove habitats are also associated with most preceramicsite locations on both Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. However, the location of a site relativeto a mangrove during the present-day may not have been the same during its Precolumbianoccupation. Lundberg (1989a:194) has suggested that, during the Archaic period, the exploitationof mangrove habitat may have been part of an overall adaptation but only manifested at particularsites. As with most Archaic sites in the Caribbean, the artifactual and dietary remains of theVieques Island sites show a clear orientation to mangrove exploitation and marine environment,although few marine vertebrates are reported from site assemblages.

Although the Archaic-age site at Krum Bay on St. Thomas is not near or in a present-daymangrove habitat, pollen samples from the oldest occupation level of the site suggest nearbymangroves at one time (Wiseman 1983). The fact that pollen disappears in upper site levelssuggests environmental change. The majority of temporally and culturally related sites onVieques Island and on Puerto Rico are also associated with mangrove habitat. The Krum Bayoccupation, however, is not strongly connected with mangrove habitat by its subsistence remains.Mangrove oysters only constitute a minor component of shellfish remains, and a high proportionof reef fishes contradicts heavy reliance on mangrove lagoons. In contrast, on the island ofAntigua located southeast of the Virgin Islands, the dietary shell remains from the oldest Archaicassemblages (Jolly Beach and South Pier sites) are dominated by turkey wing (Arca zebra),usually an open water shellfish (Davis 1982). As with Krum Bay, however, dietary remains alsoshow a dependence on reef fish, with parrotfish (Scaridae) the most common.

At Norman Estate on St. Martin, located east of the Virgin Islands, the Archaic-age shellassemblage is also dominated by Arca zebra, although tiger lucine (Codakia orbicularis), earedark (Anadara notabilis), and red jewel box (Chama sarda) are also represented (Brokke 1999).Small reef fish were also important to subsistence; remains were dominated by parrotfish(Sparisoma sp. and Scarus sp.), with grunt, surgeonfish, and snapper species also present(Nokkert 1999). Uncalibrated radiocarbon dates from this site range from circa 3,560 B.P. to3,780 B.P. (Knippenberg 1999:33), roughly contemporaneous with Verdiales I (circa 3,500 B.P.)on Vieques Island.

For the Archaic/aceramic sites on Vieques Island, Tronolone et al. (1984:4-8) have suggested thatbecause the sites are found exclusively in “. . . microenvironmental zones, [it] substantiates thepostulated economic activities for the Archaic age of intensive procurement of aquatic andterrestrial resources.” The subsistence resources would evidently have been obtained fromimmediate surrounding habitats. This interpretation suggests subsistence based upon use of adiversity of marine and terrestrial species, as seen in the María de la Cruz cave deposits on PuertoRico during the end of the late Archaic period (Rouse and Alegría 1990). Nonetheless, basedupon domination of dietary refuse by shell remains, as well as the proximity of the shell middensto mangroves (albeit in their present environmental contexts), Lundberg and Robinson (1980)suggested that the Archaic occupants of Vieques Island had a subsistence focused on selectedmangrove resources. This is supported by the preponderance of oyster shell at several key sites.They do suggest, however, that a more diversified subsistence is evident at the Loma Jalova sites(Vi019 and Vi025), where shellfish remains are more varied, though sparse. Importantly, it is ofnote that marine vertebrate remains from the Vieques Island Archaic/aceramic sites are virtually

99

absent from the test excavations conducted by Tronolone et al. (1984). For example, at Yanuel 9(Vi020), five bone fragments are reported but none is identified; at Verdiales I, Loma Jalova 2,and Loma Jalova 3 (Vi032, Vi025, and Vi019 ), no marine or terrestrial vertebrate remains arereported.

In contrast, faunal vertebrate remains recovered from the María de la Cruz cave midden includedbird, fish, hutia, manatee, and turtle bones, reflective of both a maritime and terrestrial adaptation(Rouse and Alegría 1990:22). The shell assemblages are dominated by hard shell clam(Veneridae) and donax or wedge shell (Donacidae), followed by oysters (Ostreidae) and WestIndian top shells (Trochidae). They are accompanied by smaller amounts of conch (Strombidae),razor clams (Solendiae), and scallops (Pectinidae). The Archaic deposits at the cave site alsoyielded “wild avocado seeds and fragments of the yellow sapote, Lucuma salicifolia” (Rouse andAlegría 1990:23). Based on the analyzed data, the researchers concluded that subsistence at thesite during the Archaic period depended on food gathering from a variety of sources. Theysurmised that the site catchment area for subsistence would have included crabs collected fromhigh ground, birds from marshes, donax and wedge shellfish from the beach, and oysters frommangrove swamps. West Indian top shells were collected from rocky shores in intertidal areasand hard shell clams from muddy lagoon and river bottoms. Fish and manatee were taken fromthe river and lagoon, but no evidence of deep-sea fish was reported (Rouse and Alegría 1990:27).

Conversely, Lundberg (1989a and 1989b) suggests that faunal resources remains at the ArchaicVieques sites are indicative of narrow-spectrum exploitation based on a few essential resources.The small site sizes and probable lack of a complex sociopolitical system suggested shiftingpopulations to the researcher. Lundberg’s (1989a:196) proposed model is “. . . one of semi-sedentary populations making use of settlements occupied serially, either as temporary campsused by an entire small group, or as base camps and satellite camps used by sub-units of a group.”Given the diversity of terrestrial and marine environments in the Caribbean, it is likely that earlysettlers faced various environmental constraints when colonizing the different islands. Area-shoreline ratios for large versus small islands indicate this at a gross level, while variation in reef,shelf, and mangrove distributions may indicate this at an island-specific level. Thus, one wouldexpect to have a range of adaptive strategies present on various islands rather than having onestrategy applied to all islands in the region (Watters and Rouse 1989).

As described in Chapter 5, shell remains associated with Ceramic-period artifacts recovered fromsite Vi049 on the south coast of Vieques Island during the current study are dominated by lucine(Anodontia sp.), West Indian top shell (Cittarium pica), and tiger lucine (Codakia orbicularis,n=33). This suggests exploitation of both sandy bottom bays and rocky shorelines, rather thanmangrove stands, even though a large fringe mangrove at Bahía Tapón is now located in directproximity to the site. During the current study, the site yielded the carbonized fruits of two edibletaxa, provisionally assigned to Ficus sp. and Myrsine sp. (wild fig and arrayán, respectively),suggesting use of those plants. Radiocarbon dates and fossil pollen obtained from nearby BahíaTapón (Core AB–1) during the current study indicate the presence of this mangrove habitat atcirca A.D.1250 (cal 780 to 670 B.P. [cal A.D. 1170 to 1280 B.C.; Beta 172621]), corresponding tothe Ostionoid period and known period of site occupation. A deeper deposit from that core wasradiocarbon-dated to circa 700 B.C., (cal 2,760 to 2,710 B.P. and cal 2,560 to 2,540 B.P. [cal 820to 760 B.C. and 620 to 590 B.C.; Beta 172622]) corresponding to the latter part of the Archaicperiod. As indicated this deposit was associated with an old bed of Thalassia testudinum (turtlegrass), suggestive of changing local habitats and available resources from the Archaic to lateCeramic periods.

100

On the north coast, no shell remains were recovered from site Vi044, the early Saladoidoccupation sampled during the current study. During previous testing of the site, however,quantities of shellfish were recovered, along with marine vertebrates, bird, and turtle bone,indicating a diverse subsistence base (Tronolone et al. 1984). The identified shellfish from theprevious site sample was dominated by West Indian top shell (Cittarium pica) and conch(Strombus sp.), which would have been obtained from the rocky shorelines and offshore bays,respectively. In addition, three edible plant taxa—Trianthema sp. (T. portulacastrum, “verdolagade hoja ancha”), Portulaca sp. (verdolaga, purslane), and Mollugo sp.—were recovered from thecurrent study. The presence of these seeds suggests use of those plant resources during the earlyceramic period, even if only supplementary or consumed on an occasional basis (see AppendixA).

Environmental transformations likely indicative of human subsistence activities are evident fromCore AB–5 extracted from the center of Laguna Algodones on the north coast of Vieques Islandduring the current study. As described in Chapter 5, more than 2 million charcoal particles werecounted from a fine black clay deposit between 102–110 cm bs. The sample was radiocarbon-dated cal 2,790 to 2,740 B.P. (cal 840 to 790 B.C. [Beta 172625]), corresponding to the latter partof the Archaic period and preceding by only several hundred years the known arrival of ceramic-bearing peoples to Puerto Rico. Such high particle counts are consistent with anthropogenicburning for clearing or other subsistence activities, as has been reported from the Maisabel siteand Laguna Tortuguero on northcentral Puerto Rico (Burney et al. 1994; Siegel et al. 1999). Inthe Laguna Algodones deposit, there is also a marked increase in the quantity of sedge pollen(Poaceae) and a corresponding decrease in mangrove pollen (Rhizophora and Combretaceae) atthis time (see Appendix B:Figure B-3). As indicated, this suggests human-induced environmentalalteration not only on the island, but likely in the near vicinity of the sample area where to date,there are no known Archaic-period sites.

Overall, the data obtained from the current study, as well as those obtained from the previousstudy of the EMA/AFWTF, suggest that at the time of earliest known Archaic settlement ofVieques Island, environmental conditions were undergoing transformation from both humanactivities and natural processes. Radiocarbon, pollen, and macrobotanical evidence obtainedduring the current study suggests that some transformations may have been human-induced,possibly with the introduction of exotic plant species during the arrival of the first horticulturists,and through anthropogenic means during the late Archaic period. The formation of lagoonsduring the period immediately preceding known Archaic peoples on the island suggests thatenvironmental changes were making the island attractive for temporary, and possibly seasonal,settlement. It is important to recognize, however, that we are not yet seeing the full picture of aVieques Island early subsistence/settlement system. As described in the following section,additional Archaic-period or other preceramic period sites may be located in presently submergedoffshore areas.

COASTAL DYNAMICS AND SEA LEVEL CHANGE

Coastal Dynamics

Coastlines of the Caribbean islands, as with other high-energy environments, are under a constantstate of morphological change. Coastal landforms and features observed on Vieques Island todaymay have appeared differently in Precolumbian times. The high frequency of climatic events

101

(tropical storms and hurricanes), as well as occurrences of geological events (plate tectonictilting, subsidence, uplift, and paleo-tsunamis), that have occurred in the Caribbean since theearly Holocene indicate that the Vieques Island coastline has been altered since the first knownperiod of human occupation. Other processes that can alter coastal areas include sea levelchange, surges, erosion, and sedimentation, as well as changes in hydrology and vegetation, suchas the natural movement of mangroves and, as demonstrated by this study, nearshore seagrassbeds.

In returning to the geoarchaeological study of the Bahamas Islands, Keegan (1992) found thatLucayan sites that had been classified as “inland” were actually coastal when they were occupied,located on the shores of inlets with subsistence focused on the sea. The Lucayan sites are on theinland margins of what now are coastal lakes; however, surficial geological studies by Mitchell(1986) found that there had been a historic evolution of coasts: from bays to tidal creeks tocoastal lakes. The researchers found that in 60 cases, modern lakes that were tidal creeks 500 to1,000 years ago have evidence for Lucayan occupation (circa 700–1500 A.D.), whereas lakespresent during that period of cultural history have no evidence for Precolumbian settlement(Keegan 1992:10). The coastal dynamics responsible for these changes were largely due toaeolian and marine depositional processes, including the formation of beach/dune ridges fromstorm deposits.

Hurricanes are one of the most important natural disturbances that affect vegetation, surfacehydrology, and coastal morphology in the Caribbean islands and, as described in Chapter 2,hurricanes and tropical storms are major weather events common to Vieques Island. Althoughhurricanes usually occur between June and November, severe tropical storms can occurthroughout the year; both can significantly erode the shoreline and affect bottom sediments innear-coastal areas. Studies of hurricanes on Puerto Rico have found that on a regional scale,hurricane frequency and intensity tend to decrease from southeast to northwest, whichcorresponds to the direction of the most common storm tracks. Since 1876, there have been morethan 30 hurricanes that have come within 60 miles of Puerto Rico, and most hurricanes areexpected to have a significant effect on surrounding islands approximately every four years. Ifwe project this frequency backward 3,500 years (assuming, for illustration, a constant in stormfrequency), the Vieques Island shoreline may have been subjected to more than 850 hurricanessince the earliest known human occupation of the island.

As such, storm surges associated with hurricanes and tropical storms are likely to have had asignificant effect on the morphology of coastal areas and preservation of early sites. Stormconditions create longshore currents that can totally erode sandbars and low-lying dunes, coralmounds, and beachheads in hours. For example, during just a single event in 1918, the sandycoastal strand at Mayaguez on the western coast of Puerto Rico receded by as much as 10 m(Moya 1999:19). Wave suspension and transport of sand causes beach erosion and littoral drift.As discussed in Chapter 4, these two processes have important implications for identifyingArchaic and possibly ceramic-period coastal sites.

The formation of coral rubble berms is also important to consider in reconstruction of the ViequesIsland paleoenvironment. Such berms are observed in numerous coastal strand areas of theEMA/AFWTF, including at Bahía de la Chiva on the south coast, and near Laguna Algodones onthe north coast. The locations of these berms and their formation have implications for thepreservation or destruction of Precolumbian sites. Dead coral is transported by currents and tides,naturally accumulating in the embayments. Intensive energy storms that result in significant

102

storm surge displace the coral up onto the shoreline depositing it in piles in back-beach areas.Over time, these berms settle, accumulate sand and soil deposits, and form linear berms along theshoreline that support vegetation, altering both the morphology of the shoreline and theinterchange of seawater with freshwater lagoons. These sequences physically isolate the lagoonand mangrove areas, altering their salinity levels and resulting in eventual dying off of themangrove habitat (Deslarzes, personal communication 2002).

Tsunamis, which are typically caused by seismic events affecting the sea floor, are also recordedin the Caribbean and especially in the Puerto Rican region. This phenomenon, which is wellknown for the Pacific Islands, is not considered prominently in the traditional archaeological andhistoric literature of the Caribbean. Recent studies point to the possibility of these events havingsignificantly affected long and relatively deep stretches of coastline in the past (Moya 1999; Reidand Taber 1919). Tsunamis are likely to have been an important factor in identifyingPrecolumbian settlement locations in coastal areas. On Puerto Rico, there were at least twoknown catastrophic tsunamis that occurred during Precolumbian times. Both were on thenorthwestern coast, one circa 820–400 B.C. and the second between A.D. 1270 and 1410 (Moya1999:2). Their destructive consequences, which could include wholesale removal of coastal sites,could also include long-term flooding of rivers, with sedimentation thereby enhancing sitepreservation. During a tsunami, mangroves could also be significantly transformed by the suddeninput of marine sand, thus affecting their immediate environmental structure (Moya 1999:28).

Historic land use, including land clearing and development, may also contribute to alteration ofcoastline morphology and site removal and preservation. As part of this study, aerial photos ofselected areas of the EMA/AWFTF taken in 1936, the 1970s, and in 1999 were examined toassess changes in the vegetation, shoreline, or other topographic features. Overall, the 1936photos, taken prior to Navy acquisition, indicate solid vegetative cover in the study area, with fewnoticeable roads or clearings. On the south coast, west of Bahía Tapón, and in the Bahía de laChiva area, the tree line reached to the edge of the coastal strand (Figures 43 and 44,respectively). At Bahía de la Chiva, the beach widened to where the lagoon outlets to theCaribbean Sea on the western end. Two roads are also visible: one to the east and one to the westof the lagoon. The Laguna Algodones region on the north coast was an open area dotted withtrees, and a larger stand of vegetation visible in the eastern half of the photo (Figure 45). A roadnetwork is also visible along the south side of this vegetated area.

By the 1970s, all three areas show extensive alteration from road development and deforestation.In the area west of Bahía Tapón, the tree cover is no longer uniform and the remaining tree linehas receded from the edge of the coastal strand. Several roads have been cut and smaller vehiclepaths are visible in the interior. The eastern edge and northern side of the lagoon appear to havebeen completely deforested. At Bahía de la Chiva, the strand appears to have been significantlyaltered from a new east-west road. All vegetation to the south of the road is gone, indicating amuch wider coastal strand than in the 1936 photo. Vegetation to the north has also receded, andthe exposed ground surface appears as an extension of the beach. Extensive ground surface isexposed on the point on the western edge of the bay, and the vegetation cover is significantlyreduced. On the north coast, the 1970s aerial reveals extensive ground surface exposure to thewest of Laguna Algodones, and the eastern extension of vegetated area along the beach isreduced.

103

a. 1936 a. 1936 a. 1936

b. 1970s b. 1970s b. 1970s

c. 1999 c. 1999 c. 1999

Figure 43. Comparison of 1936, 1970s, and 1999 aerial photographs, southcoast, east of Bahía Tapón (source: U.S. Navy, Atlantic Division,

Naval Facilities Engineering Command).

Figure 44. Comparison of 1936, 1970s, and 1999 aerial photographs, southcoast, Bahía de la Chiva (source: U.S. Navy, Atlantic Division,

Naval Facilities Engineering Command).

Figure 45. Comparison of 1936, 1970s, and 1999 aerial photographs, northcoast, Laguna Algodones (source: U.S. Navy, Atlantic Division,

Naval Facilities Engineering Command).

105

The 1999 aerials indicate tree growth recovery in both the Bahía Tapón and Bahía de la Chivaareas. Roadways are more defined with fewer smaller vehicle paths visible. At Bahía Tapón, theeastern edge of the lagoon in particular appears to have less exposed ground surface, suggestingsubstantial vegetation regrowth. At Bahía de la Chiva, vegetation appears on the north and southsides of the east-west road. As a result, the beach is more narrow than it appears in either 1936 orthe 1970s. In addition, the lagoon outlet appears constricted in the 1999 photo and the presenceof this feature on the beach is greatly diminished. Vegetation appears to have returned to thecoastal promontory on the western edge of the bay; the only visible ground surfaces are roads anda narrow strip along the water’s edge. In the 1999 photo of Laguna Algodones, the vegetationhas recovered throughout most of the region except along the western portion of the photo.

The sequence of human-induced deforestation and reforestation has also occurred on ViequesIsland over the last several hundred years, and likely during Precolumbian times as lands werecleared to obtain wood sources for construction, firewood, and plot clearing (Newsom 1993,1999; Ortiz Aguilú et al. 1991, 2001). By the time of Ostionoid occupation (800–900 A.D.) in thePrecolumbian period, the coastal plains of Vieques Island had been inhabited by Ceramic agegroups for at least 1,000 years. Given the proliferation of Elenan Ostionoid sites following theSaladoid period, we can assume that agricultural needs also intensified and thus fields wereexpanded and agricultural practices intensified. Large tracts of the coastal plain must have beenplanted and potentially deforested. Columbus, Chanca, Las Casas and Oviedo all testify to theextensive planted fields that could be observed on Puerto Rico, as they navigated within sight ofthat island (Coll y Toste 1907). Given the large number of known Ostionoid sites on ViequesIsland, this scenario likely took place on the island during this period.

During the European historic period, most of the arable lands on Vieques Island were used forsugar cane production, followed by cotton. By the second quarter of the nineteenth century, sugarcane was cultivated on a large scale. In 1902, the sugar harvest for the island was approximately192,000 tons (Tronolone et al. 1984:7-34 to 7-35). The Barrios of Puerto Ferro and PuertoDiablo, which corresponded to the EMA/AFWTF, had a historic-period settlement pattern ofhilltop homes connected to agricultural fields by a network of roads. Several centralized sugar-processing factories (centrales) were established, and a large hacienda was located near present-day Camp García. As described in Chapter 2, land-clearing practices associated with large-scaleagricultural production would have accelerated erosion, affected island hydrology, and increasedstream sediment loads and deposition, all of which would have affected coastal morphology andsite preservation.

Sea Level Change

As reviewed in Chapter 4, understanding sea level change is critical for reconstructing thepaleoenvironment of Vieques Island and how the changing environment influenced Precolumbianmigrations, subsistence and settlement patterns, and present-day site locations. Research over thepast 50 years has confirmed that sea level around the globe varied widely between 14,000 B.P.and 2,000 B.P. The latter portion of this period overlaps with the earliest known Archaicpopulations in the Greater Antilles. It is therefore plausible that preceramic peoples utilizedoffshore areas that were once exposed during lower sea level during transgressive seas. Figure 46shows sea level curves that have been used by various researchers in the Gulf of Mexico andSouth Atlantic. Of note is that four of five sea level curves show a lowering of mean sea level ofup to 5 m at the time of the earliest recorded preceramic sites on Vieques Island (circa 3,500–

8000 6000 4000 2000

MSL

10

5

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25

-30

-35

-40

Dep

th in

Met

ers

Ele

vati

on in

M

eter

s

Years Before Present

106

Figure 46. Sea level curves used by researchers in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic.

Source: Murphy 1990, after Field et al. 1979

Jelgersma (1966, Fig. 6 Curve III)

Sea Level Curves

Milliman and Emery (1968)

Kraft (1976)Coleman and Smith (1964)

Curray (1960, 1965)

Fairbridge (1961)

G:\\17xx\17600.00.58\Figure_46.ai

107

3,000 B.P). Off the Florida shoreline, it has been noted that both Paleo-Indian and Archaic sitesare now submerged, and sites of particular periods can be located at specific depths (Dunbar et al.1992; Garrison 1992). The known Archaic/aceramic sites on Vieques Island are all located inpresent-day coastal areas with elevations ranging from as low as 1 m to 15 m amsl (see Table 3).

As described in Chapter 3, coastal plain settings were a primary site location preference duringthe Archaic and early Ceramic periods. It is thus possible that sea level rise in the lastmillennium has caused former coastal plain sites to be submerged and that cultural deposits andfeatures of those sites are preserved under marine sediment. During the Holocene, transgressionssignificantly altered coastal zones as rising sea level submerged coastal plains. Transgressioncaused landward migration of shoreline features as follows: upland areas sequentially becamefringing marsh, marsh became lagoonal, lagoonal areas became beach ridges, and beach becamesea bottom. Such varying transgression rates differentially altered coastal features complicatingthe formation of archaeological sites (Murphy 1990:22).

The most recent changes in sea level reflect alterations in the volume of water in the earth’soceans relative to the volume held in glaciers (Antev 1928; Donn et al. 1962). Researchers haveused the inverse ratio of sea-to-glacial-water volume, and corresponding alterations in sea level(glacio-eustatic level), as a basis to infer changes in paleoenvironments and subsistence andsettlement patterns (Belknap 1983; Cockrell 1980; Emery and Edwards 1966; Kraft et al. 1983;Masters and Fleming 1983; Murphy 1990). Very rapid changes in sea level combined withclimate change may have significant impacts on the location and productivity of coastal zones onVieques Island. It has been shown that, in coastal areas of the globe, as sea level rose,landbridges, coastal plains, paleolakes, and paleorivers were rapidly inundated, and paleo-shorelines were shifted.

The formation and subsequent melting of continental ice sheets resulted in eustatic sea-levelchanges and possible vertical movement of landmass due to isostatic uplift and subsidence. Theinfluence of eustatic and isostatic changes on land masses and the productivity of coastal zonesare critical to understanding how humans were impacted during the last glacial cycle. Importantquestions include the locations of new coastal plains and littoral zones, and how productive ornonproductive they were during climatic shifts. The initial Archaic-period settlement of ViequesIsland may have been a possible response to changes in littoral zone productivity on the island, oron other Caribbean islands, or surrounding continental coastal areas.

Because sea level determines the location of coastlines, lower sea levels exposed now-submergedoffshore areas, making them available for human habitation. The nearshore bathymetry ofVieques Island coastal waters generally shows deeper waters on the northern coast and moreshallow water within the bay areas along the southern coast (Figures 47 and 48). Figure 47 showsthe location and extent of land masses surrounding the eastern portion of the island that wouldhave been exposed during periods of lower sea level. Sounding data used for producing thebathymetric contour lines are derived from LIDAR data collected by the Scanning HydrographicOperational Airborne Lidar Survey (SHOALS) (Irish and Lillycrop 1999; Irish et al. 2000;Lillycrop et al. 1997; USACE 2002). Figure 48 shows the relative proximity of Vieques Island,Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands in relation to the underlying geological structure andbathymetry of the Puerto Rico-Virgin Islands Platform (Smith and Sandwell 1997). The VirginIsland Trough south of Vieques Island forms an undersea barrier to the island of St. Croix. To theeast and north the Virgin Islands, the island of Culebra, and Puerto Rico are linked by theshallower bathymetry, which during lower sea level, would have exposed reefs, atolls, and smallislands, thereby facilitating navigation and hence human migration.

108

Sea level effects are particularly notable in areas where there is a gradual shelf slope, which occurmost notably along the southern coast of Vieques Island. The northern coast has a morepronounced shelf drop-off, indicating that a lesser land area would have been available along thiscoastline during periods of lower sea level. It is notable that all of the known Archaic/aceramicsites on the island are located in coastal areas where the offshore bathymetry indicates substantialoffshore areas (i.e., areas that are within the 1-m contour), which would have been exposedduring lower sea level. As such, submerged portions of the southern coastal bays of ViequesIsland may have been former lagoon, mangrove swamp, and coastal strand that would have beenattractive for Precolumbian use. If we assume a 2-m lowering of sea level, then much of BahíaSalina del Sur, Bahía Yoye, Ensenada Honda, Bahía de la Chiva, Bahía Corcho, all of BahíaTapón, and a substantial portion of Puerto Ferro on the south coast would have been exposed land(see Figure 47).

On the northeastern coast, Bahía Playa Blanca, Bahía Salinas, and Bahía Iaocos would have beenexposed; however, due to greater water depths, the position of the coastal strands farther to thewest would not have differed significantly up to Puerto Diablo. A large area to the northeast ofIsla Yallis shows potential exposure between 0 and 1 m, and depending upon the composition ofthe underlying structure, it may have been an island. Farther west, portions of the bay at PuertoNegro and continuing westward to Playa Grande have shallow offshore bathymetry.

As described in this study, there are no known Archaic-period sites along the northern shorelineof Vieques Island. However, the presence of Laguna Monte Largo and Laguna Algodones is anotable geographical factor in this area. The current study demonstrates that sediments fromLaguna Algodones were deposited in the lagoon by least cal 3,840 to 3,640 B.P. (cal 1890 to 1690B.C. [Beta 172626]). The presence of this lagoonal feature suggests that portions of the northernshoreline may have contained environmental resources known to have been attractive to humangroups during the preceramic periods. In the current study, the high charcoal particle countsshown for this area during the Archaic period suggest human presence in this northern coastalarea. As such, the potential for submerged offshore sites or sites buried in discrete depositionalenvironments of the island, such as those found on the flood plain of Quebrada Marunguey, issupported by the available evidence. The presence of more than 2 m of sedimentary depositsalong the channel of the quebrada as well as more than 1 m of deposits on that flood plainindicates this potential for buried sites. Finally, the location of all known Archaic/aceramic siteswithin 100 m of the coastline or a coastal lagoon, when viewed with the large offshore areas thatwould have been available for human use during a 2-m lowering of sea level, suggests a greaternumber of preceramic occupations around Vieques Island than is presently known.

%U%U %U%U

%U

%U%U%U

%U%U %U

%U

%U

Vi04412VPr2-54Playa Grande

Vi01512VPr2-204Algodones 2

Vi01912VPr2-219Loma Jalova 3

Vi02512VPr2-45/12VPr2-81Loma Jalova 1+2

Vi05912VPr2-72Punta Carenero

Vi02412VPr2-173Yanuel 8

Vi07012VPr2-87El Tablon

Vi02012VPr2-220Yanuel 9

Vi04112VPr2-51Playa Chiva

Vi04312VPr2-53Isla Chiva

Vi04912VPr2-59Punta Caracas

Vi03312VPr2-34Verdiales 2

Vi03212VPr2-33Verdiales 1

BahiaSalina del

Sur

Bahìa Jolova

Bahìa YoyeBah ìa Fanduca

Bahìa de la Chiva

BahìaTapòn

Puerto Ferro

Puer to Negro

BahìaSalinasBahìa

Icacos

TamarindoSur

EnsenadaHonda

Quebrada Marun

guey

LagunaMonte Largo

LagunaAlgodones

Yellow Beach

BahìaPlaya Blanca

BahìaPlaya de Banco

BahìaPlaya Brava

IslaYallis

PuertoDiablo

Playa Grande

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Meters

0 2500 5000 7500 10000 Feet N

%U Known Archaic/Aceramic site

%U Known Saladoid site

0-1 meter below msl

1-2 meters below msl

2-3 meters below msl

3-5 meters below msl

5-10 meters below msl

Bathymetry

Source: Bathymetry derived from SHOALS/Army Corps of Engineers LIDAR survey of Vieques Island, August, 2000

C I

V I

L I

A N

Z O

N E

Vieques Island

109

Figure 47. Bathymetric map of eastern Vieques Island showing probable exposed land surfaces during lower sea level.

Puerto Rico

Puerto Rico Trench

Muertos TroughVirgin Island

Trough

111

Figure 48. Puerto Rico platform in relation to Puerto Rico, Vieques Island, and Virgin Islands

Shelf Break

Scale approximate

Source data: Smith and Sandwell (1997).Depth Below Sea Level

01,400 m

2,000 m700 m2,600 m 5,200 m

3,300 m 4,600 m4,000 m 7,800 m

7,100 m6,500 m

5,800 m 8,400 m 0 25 50 Miles

0 25 50 75 Kilometers

ViequesSt. Croix

Puerto Rico Platform

N

112

113

CHAPTER 7CONCLUSION

Analysis of sediment samples recovered from both archaeological and nonarchaeological contextswithin the Navy Lands on Vieques Island, Puerto Rico, has provided new insights on the islandenvironment during the earliest periods of Precolumbian history. The work reported hereinincluded the excavation of five sediment cores (AB–1 through AB–5), two archaeological testunits (Test Units GMI-1 and GMI-2), and six soil tests (Soil Tests 1–6) within the EMA/AFWTFstudy area. More than 90 individual soil samples were recovered; six radiocarbon samples, 23palynological samples, and four macrobotanical samples were analyzed. In addition, selectedsamples from two sediment cores (AB-1 and AB-3) were analyzed for macrobotanical content.

Although preceramic settlement of the Caribbean islands is a critical research topic in Caribbeanarchaeology, most settlement studies are concerned with island colonization during the Ceramicperiod. General historical and archaeological associations between the northern part of SouthAmerica and the Caribbean are well established. Nonetheless, the source region of the firstpreceramic groups who settled on Vieques Island and surrounding islands still eludes allresearchers. The only consensus is that there was probably more than one region from whichearly preceramic groups migrated.

The radiocarbon dates yielded calibrated dates that range from cal 3,840 B.P. to cal 670 B.P. (cal1890 B.C. to A.D. 1280), spanning the entire Precolumbian cultural history of Vieques Island,from the earliest known Archaic occupation of circa 3,500 B.P. through the late Ceramic period.A minimum of 43 different pollen taxa were identified in the lagoonal core samples, representinga variety of different habitats, including mangroves, coastal strand, and upland scrubenvironments. Radiocarbon and pollen evidence suggests that during the Archaic periodenvironmental transformations were human-induced through anthropogenic burning. Use ofnative plants during the Ceramic period is also demonstrated from macrobotanical samplesanalyzed from two Ceramic-period sites (Vi049 and Vi044) sampled during this study; however,human introduction of exotic plant species is not demonstrated in the analyzed data.

As presently known, human occupation of the island began circa 3,500 B.P. and is represented byseveral small and sparsely distributed Archaic-age sites on the southern coast. Previous analysisof artifactual and subsistence remains from those sites suggested that they were temporarysettlements for exploiting a very specific resource base, notably shellfish from adjacent

114

mangroves. Utilization of other resources, such as marine and terrestrial vertebrates, is notevident in the site deposits. Changes in coastal morphology as a result of sea level fluctuations,climatic events, and human impacts are likely to have obscured evidence of additional Archaic orother preceramic sites on and around Vieques Island. Thus, the present distribution of early sitesis likely underrepresented.

A soil core (AB–5) extracted from the center of Laguna Algodones on the north shore of theisland during the current study revealed a very high concentration of charcoal particles from 102–110 cm below the top surface of the lagoon sediments. The charcoal content—more than twomillion particles/ml—is in such a high concentration that it is highly suggestive of human-induced activities. The sample was radiocarbon dated to cal 2,790 to 2,740 B.P. (cal 840 to 790B.C.), corresponding to the latter portion of the Archaic period. The near basal unit of the corebetween 181–186 cm bs was radiocarbon-dated to cal 3,840 to 3,640 B.P. (cal 1890 to 1690 B.C.),which, in conjunction with the pollen evidence, indicates initial formation of the lagoon at thattime. A corresponding date of cal 3,700 to 3,480 B.P. (1750 to 1530 B.C.) was obtained from anear-basal deposit for core AB–3, extracted from the Laguna at Bahía de la Chiva on the southcoast of the island.

The evidence suggests that Archaic-period groups were present on the north shore of ViequesIsland and were responsible for fires that deposited large amounts of charcoal in the lagoon. Thepollen evidence shows a relative increase in sedge plants (Asteraceae) over mangrove during thattime, suggesting a change in habitat from preceding periods, possibly human-induced. It is likelythat the cause of these fires was anthropogenic burning associated with land clearing, as well asfire for other uses.

During this study, a bed of Thalassia testudinum (seagrass, turtle grass) was identified in asediment core (AB–1) extracted from the fringe mangrove margin of Bahía Tapón on the southcoast of the island at depth of 145–160 cm below surface. The sample was radiocarbon-dated tocal 2,560 to 2,540 B.P. (cal 620 to 590 B.C.) and 2,760 to 2,710 B.P. (cal 820 to 760 B.C.),corresponding to the latter portion of the Archaic period. As identified on the north coast, thisdemonstrates a change in habitat, and likely environmental diversity and resource availabilityduring the Archaic period.

Nearshore bathymetry examined from LIDAR data during this study demonstrates that numerousoffshore areas would have been exposed during periods of lower sea level. It is possible thatevidence of preceramic-period sites, possibly precursors to known Archaic-period groups on theisland, is buried below marine sediment in offshore areas. Although most of these areas are offthe southern coast of the island, several localities are also identified off the northern shoreline.Reconnaissance survey and limited soil tests conducted during this study on the lower flood plainof Quebrada Marunguey on the north shore confirmed the presence of deep alluvial sediment thatmay obscure evidence of early human occupation.

Early ceramic-age occupation of the NLV is represented by several Saladoid-period sites locatedin both northern and southern coastal areas. During that period, the subsistence base haddiversified, and a use of a wider range of marine and terrestrial resources is evident from theknown NLV site assemblages. Although it is possible that horticultural groups introduced exoticplant species to the island during the Ceramic or even preceramic period, this could not beascertained in this study. Macrobotanical remains were recovered during this study from testunits on two ceramic-age sites, Vi044 and Vi049, on the south and north coasts, respectively.

115

Economically useful plant remains were identified from both sites, with Ficus sp. (wild fig) andMyrsine sp. (arrayán) identified at site Vi049, and Trianthema sp. (trianthema) from Vi044. Bothwild fig and trinathema represent food sources, and arrayán is known to have been usedmedicinally for smoking. Also identified (provisionally) from site Vi044 was palm wood,representing a fruit-yielding plant that is edible and used in construction. All of these plantsoccur naturally in the Vieques environment.

The sediment cores from this study yielded a number of identified pollen types that couldrepresent other economically important wild plants used in Precolumbian times. They includemembers of the Brassicaceae (Mustard), Cactaceae (Cactus), Cyperaceae (Sedge), Poaceae(Grass), Arecaceae (Palm), Malpighiaceae (Malphigia), Moraceae (Mulberry), Myrtaceae(Myrtle), and Sapotaceae (Sapote) families. Cultivated plants, however, are lacking in the pollenassemblages. Other identified taxa could also represent economically useful plants include Typha(Cattail), Coccoloba (Sea Grape), Celtis (Hackberry), and Spondias (Hog Plum), all of whichoccur naturally in this region.

The combination of macrobotanical, microbotanical, and radiocarbon analyses has provedrevealing about the paleoenviroment and paleoecology of the Vieques Island study area. Thelimited sampling conducted during the present study has demonstrated that well-preserved,organic sediments exist in selected areas of Vieques Island. It is important to note, however, thatthere are limitations to what such sampling may reveal. This is due to the typical vagaries ofpreservation as well as to the unpredictability of natural occurrences among the deposits that cancontain well-preserved organic sediments. It is thus critical that future analyses continue toutilize a multidisciplinary approach to the study and interpretation of sedimentary data. Perhapsadditional testing in selected mangrove areas would encounter more deeply stratified, well-preserved organic deposits and, if so, there may be a great potential to elucidate the dynamics ofthe paleoenvironment during and bracketing the periods of early human occupation.

Future paleoenvironmental and archaeological research within the NLV and environs shouldcontinue to focus on the preceramic period and transition to Ceramic period. In order to furtherour understanding of the paleoenvironment and human adaptation, it will also be critical toidentify early period sites that demonstrate a high level of integrity and contain well-preservedbotanical remains. The possible presence of early sites preserved under marine sands in shallowoffshore areas around Vieques Island, as well as under deep terrestrial deposits, should not beoverlooked, and future surveys should include field methodologies to detect such sites.

116

117

REFERENCES CITED

Alegría, R. E.1965 On Puerto Rican Archaeology. American Antiquity 31(2):246–249.

1979 Apuntes para el estudio de los Caciques de Puerto Rico. Revista del Instituto deCultura Puertorriqueña, San Juan.

1983 Ball Courts and Ceremonial Plazas in the West Indies. Yale University Publicationsin Anthropology No. 79. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Alegría, R. E., H. B. Nicholson, and G. R. Willey1955 The Archaic Tradition in Puerto Rico. American Antiquity 21(2):113–121.

Antev, E.1928 The Last Glaciation. Research Series No. 17. American Geographical Society.

Ayes Suárez, C.1990 Angostura: Un campamento arcaico temprano del valle de Mantauabón, Barrio

Florida Afuera. Ayes: Investigaciones Arqueológicas e Históricas. Barceloneta,Puerto Rico.

Belknap, D. F.1983 Potentials of Discovery of Human Occupation Sites on the Continental Shelf and

Nearshore Coastal Zone. In Proceedings of Fourth Annual Gulf of MexicoInformation Transfer Meeting, pp. 382–387. Mineral Management Service, Gulf ofMexico Regional Office, New Orleans.

Boccheciamp, R. A.1977 Soil Survey of the Humacao Area of Eastern Puerto Rico. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with University of PuertoRico College of Agriculture Sciences.

118

Bohrer, V. L., and K. R. Adams1977 Ethnobotanical Techniques and Approaches at Salmon Ruin, New Mexico. San Juan

Valley Archaeological Project Technical Series 2. Eastern New Mexico UniversityContributions in Anthropology 8(1). Portales, New Mexico.

Boomert, A.1999 Saladoid Sociopolitical Organisation. In Proceedings of the 18th International

Congress for Caribbean Archaeology, pp. 55–77. St. George, Grenada, West Indies.

Brinton, D. G.1871 The Arawack Language of Guiana in Its Linguistic and Ethnological Relations.

Transactions of the American Philosophical Society , n.s. 14(art. 4):427–444.

Brokke, A. J.1999 Shell (at Norman Estate). In Archaeological Investigations on St. Martin (Lesser

Antilles): the Sites of Norman Estate, Anse des Péres, and Hope Estate with aContribution to the La Hueca Problem, edited by C. L. Hofman, and MLP Hofman,pp. 47–50. Archaeological Studies 4. Leiden University, Leiden.

Bryant, V. M,. Jr., and R. G. Holloway1983 The Role of Palynology in Archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological Method and

Theory, vol. 6, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 191–223. Academic Press: New York.

Bullen, R. P., and F.W. Sleight1963 The Krum Bay Site: A Preceramic Site on St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands.

American Studies Report No. 5. William L. Bryant Foundation, Orlando.

Bullen, R., A. Bullen, and C. Clausen1968 The Cato Site near Sebastian Inlet, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 21:14–16.

Burney, D. A., L. P. Burney, and R. D. E. MacPhee1994 Holocene Charcoal Stratigraphy from Laguna Tortuguero, Puerto Rico, and the

Timing of Human Arrival on the Island. Journal of Archaeological Science 21:273–281.

Butzer, K. W.1964 Environment and Archaeology: An Introduction to Pleistocene Geography. Aldine,

Chicago.

Callahan, R., G. D’Aluisio-Guerrieri, R. Lambardo, R. R. Lewis III, and B. Sorrie1981 Mangrove Forests of Vieques, Puerto Rico. Management Report. Submitted to

Department of Navy.

Carbone, V. A.1980a The Paleoecology of the Caribbean Area. The Florida Anthropologist 33(3):99–119

1980b Some Problems in Cultural Paleoecology in the Caribbean Area. Eighth Congress ofthe International Association for Caribbean Archaeology, pp. 98–126. St. Kitts.

119

Carini, S. P.1993 Compositional Analysis of West Indian Saladoid Ceramics and Their Relevance to

Puerto Rican Prehistory. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut,Storrs.

Causey, B., J. Delaney, E. Diaz, D. Dodge, J. R. Garcia, J. Higgins, W. Jaap, C. A. Matos, G. P.Schmahl, C. Rogers, M. W. Miller, and D. Turgeaon

2000 Status of Coral Reefs in the U.S. Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico: Florida, Texas,Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Navassa. In Status of Coral Reefs of theWorlds, edited by C. R. Wilkinson, pp. 239-259. Australian Institute of MarineScience, Townsville.

Chanca, D. A.1949 Navegaciónes Colombinas, edited by E. O’Gorman. Secretaria de Educación

Pública, Mexico City.

Chanlatte Baik, L. A.1979 Excavaciones arqueológicas en Vieques. Revista del Museo de Antropología,

Historía y Arte de la Universidad de Puerto Rico 1(1):55–59.

1983 Sorcé-Vieques: climax culturel del Igneri y su participación en los procesossociuoculturales antillanos. Proceedings of the International Congress for the Studyof the Pre-Columbian Cultures of the Lesser Antilles 9:73–95. Montréal.

Chanlatte Baik, L. A., and Y. M. Narganes Stordes1983 Vieques-Puerto Rico: Asiento de una nueva cultura aborigen antillana. Centro de

Investigaciones Arqueológicas de la Universidad de Puerto Rico. Santo Domingo.

Cintrón, G., A. E. Lugo, D. J. Pool, and G. Morris1978 Mangroves of Arid Environments in Puerto Rico and Adjacent Islands. Biotropica

10(2):110–121.

Cockrell, W. A.1980 Drowned Sites in North America. In Archaeology Under Water: An Atlas of

Submerged Sites, edited by K. Muckelroy, pp. 138–145. McGraw Hill, New York.

Coleman, J. M., and W. G. Smith1964 Late Recent Rise of Sea Level. Geological Society of America Bulletin 75:833–840.

Colin, P. L.1978 Caribbean Reef Invertebrates and Plants. T. F. H. Publications.

Coll y Toste, C.1907 Prehistoria de Puerto Rico. San Juan.

Collier, A.1964 The American Mediterranean. In Natural Environment and Early Cultures, edited by

R. C. West, pp. 122–142. Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. I, Universityof Texas Press, Austin.

120

Cruxent, J. M., and I. Rouse1958 An Archaeological Chronology of Venezuela . 2 vols. Social Science Monographs,

VI. Pan American Union, Organization of American States, Washington, D.C.

1969 Early Man in the West Indies. Scientific American 221:42–52.

Curet, L. A.1987 The Ceramics of the Vieques Naval Reservation: A Chronological and Spatial

Analysis. University of Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico.

1992 House Structure and Cultural Change in the Caribbean: Three Case Studies fromPuerto Rico. Latin American Antiquity 3:160–174.

1996 Ideology, Chiefly Power, and Material Culture: An Example from the GreaterAntilles. Latin American Antiquity 7:114–131.

Curet, L.A., and J. R. Oliver1998 Mortuary Practices, Social Development, and Ideology in Precolumbian Puerto Rico.

Latin American Antiquity 9:217–239.

Curray, J. R.1960 Sediments and History of Holocene Transgression, Continental Shelf, Northwest

Gulf of Mexico. In Recent Sediments, Northwest Gulf of Mexico, 1951-1958, editedby F. P. Shepard, F. B. Phleger, and T. H. Van Andel, pp. 221-266. AmericanAssociation of Petroleum Geologists, Florida.

1965 Late Quaternary History, Continental Shelves of the United States. In TheQuaternary of the United States, edited by H. E. Wright and D. G. Frey, pp. 723-735.Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Davis, D.1982 Archaic Settlement and Resources Exploitation in the Lesser Antilles: Preliminary

Information from Antigua. Caribbean Journal of Science 17(1–4):107–122.

de Hostos, A.1924 Notes on West Indian Hydrography in its Relation to Prehistoric Migrations.

Proceedings of the 20th International Congress of Americanists 1:239–250. Rio deJaneiro.

Delpueche, A., C. Hofman, and M. Hoogland2001 Amerindian Settlements and Archaeological Reality in the Lesser Antilles: The Case

of Grande Terre, Guadeloupe. Paper presented at the XIXth International Congressfor Caribbean Archaeology, July 22–28, Aruba.

Dimbleby, G. W.1985 The Palynology of Archaeological Sites. Academic Press, London.

Donn, W. L., W. R. Farrand, and M. Ewing1962 Pleistocene Ice Volumes and Sea Level Lowering. Journal of Geology 70:206–214.

121

Drewett, P.1999 Human and Landscape Transformation at Port St. Charles, Barbados. Proceedings of

the 18th International Congress for Caribbean Archaeology, pp. 110–118. St.George, Grenada, West Indies.

Dunbar, J. S., S. D. Webb, and M. Faught1992 Inundated Sites in Apalachee Bay, Florida, and the Search for Clovis Shoreline. In

Paleoshorelines and Prehistory: An Investigation of Method, edited by L. L. Johnsonand M. Stright, pp. 117–148. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

Ecology and Environment, Inc.2000 Environmental Assessment for Transfer of the Naval Ammunition Support

Detachment Property, Vieques, Puerto Rico. Ecology and Environment, Inc.Commander Naval Facilities, Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities EngineeringCommand, Norfolk, Virginia.

Emery, K. O., and R. L. Edwards1966 Archaeological Potential of the Atlantic Continental Shelf. American Antiquity

31:733–737.

Ewel, J. J., and J. L. Whitmore1973 The Ecological Life Zones of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Forest Service

Research Paper ITF-18. Institute of Tropical Forestry, Rio Piedras, USDA.

Faegri, K., and J. Iverson1975 Textbook of Pollen Analysis. 3rd ed. Revised by K. Faegri. Hafner, New York.

Fairbridge, R. W.1961 Eustatic Changes in Sea Level. In Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, vol. 4, edited

by L. H. Ahrens, F. Press, S. K. Runcorn, and H. C. Urey, pp. 99-185. PergamonPress, New York.

Fewkes, J. W.1907 The Aborigenes of Porto Rico and Neighboring Islands. Twenty-Fifth Annual Report

of the U.S. Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, 1903-1904. U.S. Government Printing Office.

1914 Relations of Aboriginal Culture and Environment in the Lesser Antilles. Bulletin ofthe American Geographical Society 46(9):662–678.

Field, M. E., E. P. Meisburger, E. A. Stanley, and S. J. Williams1979 Upper Quaternary Peat Deposits on the Atlantic Inner Shelf of the United States.

Geological Society Bulletin , Part 1, 90:618-628.

Figueredo, A. E.1976 Caño Hondo, un residuardo preceramico en la Isla de Vieques. In Proceedings of the

6th International Congress for the Study of Pre-Columbian Cultures of the LesserAntilles, pp. 247–252. Pointe á Pitre.

122

Garrison, E. G.1992 Recent Archaeophysical Studies of Paleoshorelines of the Gulf of Mexico. In

Paleoshorelines and Prehistory: An Investigation of Method, edited by L. L. Johnsonand M. Stright, pp. 103–116. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

Geo-Marine, Inc.1996 Land Use Management Plan for U.S. Naval Facilities, Vieques, Puerto Rico. Geo-

Marine, Inc. Submitted to Department of Navy, U.S. Naval Station Roosevelt Roadsand Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Norfolk.

2002 Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, Navy Lands on Vieques Island,Puerto Rico, Plan Years 2003–-2012. Geo-Marine, Inc. Submitted to Department ofNavy, U.S. Naval Station Roosevelt Roads and Atlantic Division, Naval FacilitiesEngineering Command, Norfolk.

Glover, L.1971 Geology of the Coamo Area, Puerto Rico, and its Relation to the Volcanic Arc

Trench Association. Professional Paper 636. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington,D.C.

Goodyear, A. C., S. B. Upchurch, and M. K. Brooks1980 Turtlecrawl Point: An Inundated Early Holocene Archaeological Site on the West

Coast of Florida. In Holocene Geology and Man in Pinellas and HillsboroughCounties, Florida, pp. 24–33. Southeastern Geological Society Guidebook 22.Southeastern Geological Society, Tallahassee.

Harring, C. H.1963 The Spanish Empire in America. Harcourt, Brace, & World, New York.

Harris, P.1973 Preliminary Report on Banwari Trace, a Preceramic Site in Trinidad. In Proceedings

of the 4th International Congress for the Study of Pre-Columbian Cultures of theLesser Antilles, pp. 115–125. St. Lucia.

1976 The Preceramic Period in Trinidad. In Proceedings of the First Puerto RicanSymposium on Archaeology, edited by L. S. Robinson, pp. 33–64. Informe No. 1.Fundación Arqueolólogica, Antropológica, e Histórica de Puerto Rico, San Juan.

Haviser, J.1997 Settlement Strategies in the Early Ceramic Age. In The Indigenous People of the

Caribbean, edited by S. M. Wilson, pp. 57–69. University Press of Florida,Gainesville.

Haviser, J. B., Jr.1990 Geographic, Economic, and Demographic Aspects of Amerindian Interaction

between Anguilla and St. Martin. Paper presented at the 55th Annual Meeting of theSociety for American Archaeology, Las Vegas.

123

1991 Preliminary Results from Test Excavations at the Hope Estate Site (SM-026), St.Martin. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Congress for CaribbeanArchaeology, pp. 647–666. Archaeological-Anthropological Institute of theNetherlands Antilles, Willemstad.

1997 Settlement Strategies in Early Ceramic Age. In Indigenous People of the Caribbean,edited by S. M. Wilson, pp. 57–69. University Press of Florida, Gainesville

Hayward, M. H., and M. A. Cinquino1999 Archaeological Data Recovery of Prehistoric Site LO-9 for the Shoreline Protection

Project, Highway 187, Punta Malonado, Municipio of Loíza, Puerto Rico.Panamerican Consultants, Inc. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,Jacksonville District, Florida.

Higuera-Gundy, A.1989 Recent Vegetation Changes in Southern Haiti. In Biogeography of the West Indies,

Past, Present, and Future, edited by C. A. Woods, pp. 191–200. Sandhill CranePress, Gainesville.

1991 Antillean Vegetational History and Paleoclimate Reconstructed from thePaleolimnological Record of Lake Miragone, Haiti. Ph.D. dissertation, University ofFlorida, Gainesville. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Hodell, D. A., J. H. Curtis, G. A. Jones, A. Higuer-Gundy, M. Brenner, M. W. Binford, and K. T.Dorsey

1991 Reconstruction of Caribbean Climate Change Over the Past 10,500 Years. Nature352:790–793.

Hodell, D .A., J. H. Curtis, and M. Brenner1995 Possible Role of Climate in the Collapse of the Classic Maya Civilization. Nature

375:391–394.

Hofman, C. L., and M. L. P Hogland (editors)1999 Archaeological Investigations on St. Martin (Lesser Antilles): the Sites of Norman

Estate, Anse des Péres, and Hope Estate with a Contribution to the La HuecaProblem. Archaeological Studies No. 4. Leiden University, Leiden.

Hofman, C. L., M. L. P. Hoogland, and A. Delpuech1999 The Presence of a Huecan Assemblage on Guadeloupe: The Case of Morel I. In

Archaeological Investigations on St. Martin (Lesser Antilles): the Sites of NormanEstate, Anse des Péres, and Hope Estate with a Contribution to the La HuecaProblem, edited by C. L. Hofman, and M. L. P Hofman, pp. 303–312.Archaeological Studies No. 4. Leiden University, Leiden.

Holdridge, L. R.1967 Life Zone Ecology. Tropical Science Center, San José, Costa Rica.

124

Holdridge, L. R., C. R. Grenke, W. H. Hatheway, T. Liang, J. A. Tosi, Jr.1971 Forest Environments in Tropical Life Zones: A Pilot Study. Pergamon Press,

Oxford.

Hostos, A. de1919 Prehistoric Porto Rican Ceramics. American Anthropologist, Vol. 21:376-399.

Irish, J. L., and W. J. Lillycrop1999 Scanning Laser Mapping of the Coastal Zone: The SHOALS System. ISPRS

Journal of Photogrammetry & Remote Sensing 54(2–3):123–129.

Irish, J. L., J. K. McClung, and W. J. Lillycrop2000 Airborne Lidar Bathymetry: The SHOALS system. PIANC Bulletin 103–2000:43–

53.

Jelgersma, S.1966 Sea Level Changes During the Last 10,000 Years. In Proceedings, International

Symposium on World Climate from 8,000 to 0 B.C. pp. 54-71. Royal MetorologicalSociety, London.

Jordan, D. G., and D. W. Fisher1977 Relation of Bulk Precipitation and Evapotranspiration to Water Quality and Water

Resources, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Water Supply Paper 1663:1. U.S.Geological Survey.

Keegan, W. F.1992 Lucayan Settlement Patterns and Coastal Changes in the Bahamas. In

Paleoshorelines and Prehistory: An Investigation of Method, edited by L. L. Johnsonand M. Stright, pp. 5–14. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

Keegan, W. E., and J. M. Diamond1987 Colonization of Islands by Humans: A Biogeographical Perspective. In Advances in

Archaeological Method and Theory, vol 10, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 49–92.Academic Press, San Diego.

Knippenberg, S.1999 Methods and Strategies (at Norman Estate). In Archaeological Investigations on St.

Martin (Lesser Antilles): the Sites of Norman Estate, Anse des Péres, and HopeEstate with a Contribution to the La Hueca Problem, edited by C. L. Hofman and M.L. P. Hofman, pp. 25–34. Archaeological Studies No. 4. Leiden University, Leiden.

Kraft, J. C.1976 Radiocarbon Dates in the Delaware Coastal Zone. Eastern Atlantic Coast of North

America. University of Delaware Sea Grant Program DEL-SG-1976, Newark.

Kraft, J. C., D. F. Belknap, and I. Kayan1983 Potentials of Discovery of Human Occupation Sites on the Continental Shelves and

Nearshore Coastal Zone. In Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology, editedby P. M. Masters and N. C. Flemming, pp. 87–120. Academic Press, London.

125

Las Casas, F. B. de1951 Historia de las Indias. Edición de Agustín Millares Carlo. 3 vols. Biblioteca

Americana, nos. 15-17. Fondo de Cultura Americana, Mexico City.

Lewis, R. R.1985 Status of the Mangrove Forests on Vieques, Puerto Rico. Mangrove Systems, Inc.

Submitted to Ecology and Environment, Inc., Buffalo, New York.

Lillycrop, W. J., J. L. Irish, and L. E. Parson1997 SHOALS System. Sea Technology 38(6):17–25.

Little, E. L., Jr., and F. H. Wadsworth1964 Common Trees of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Agriculture Handbook No.

249. USDA Forest Service. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Little, E. L., Jr., R. O. Woodbury, and F. H. Wadsworth1974 Trees of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, vol. 2. Agriculture Handbook No. 449.

USDA Forest Service. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Lundberg, E. R.1985 Settlement Pattern Analysis for South-Central Puerto Rico. In Archaeological Data

Recovery at El Bronce, Puerto Rico—Final Report, Phase 2, edited by L. S.Robinson, E. Lundberg, and J. B. Walker pp. L1–L23. Archaeological Services, Inc.,Fort Myers, Florida. Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, JacksonvilleDistrict, Florida.

1989a Preceramic Procurement Patterns at Krum Bay, Virgin Islands. Ph.D. dissertation,Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor.

1989b Interrelationships Among Preceramic Complexes of Puerto Rico and the VirginIslands. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Congress for CaribbeanArchaeology, edited by E. N. Ayubi and J. B. Haviser, pp. 73–85. Curacao.

Lundberg, E. R., and L. S. Robinson1980 Early Adaptive Trends in the Island Environment: A Study from St. Thomas and

Vieques. Paper presented at the 45th Annual Meeting of the Society for AmericanArchaeology, Philadelphia.

MacNeish, R. S., and A. Nelkon-Turner1983 Final Annual Report of the Belize Archaic Archaeological Reconnaissance. Center

for Archaeological Studies, Boston University, Boston.

Mason, J. A.1917 Excavation of a New Archaeological Site in Porto Rico. Proceedings of the

Nineteenth International Congress of Americanists, pp. 220–223. Washington, D.C.

126

1941 A Large Archaeological Site at Capá, Utuado, with Notes on Other Porto Rican SitesVisited in 1914–1915. Scientific Survey of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands, vol.18, pt. 2. New York Academy of Sciences, New York.

Masters, P. M., and N. C. Fleming1983 Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology. Academic Press, London.

Miller, J. A., R. L. Whitehead, S. B. Gingerich, D. S. Oki, and P. G. Olcott1999 Ground Water Atlas of the United States; Segment 13 Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico

and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Hydrologic Investigations Atlas 730-N. United StatesGeological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

Milliman, H. D., and K. O. Emery1968 Sea Levels During the Last 35,000 Years. Science 162:1121-1123.

Mitchell, S. W.1986 Surficial Geology of Rum Cay, Bahamas Island. In Proceedings of the 3rd

Symposium of the Geolgy of the Bahamas, edited by H. A. Curran, pp. 231–241.CCFL Bahamian Field Station, Fort Lauderdale.

Morales Carrión, A. (editor)1983 Puerto Rico: A Political and Cultural History. W.W. Norton, New York.

Moya, J. C.1999 Stratigraphic and Morphologic Evidences of Historic and Prehistoric Tsunami in

Northwestern Puerto Rico. Monograph on File. Sea. Grant College Program,Mayagüez Campus, University of Puerto Rico.

Murphy, L. E.1990 8SL17: Natural Site-Formation Processes of a Multiple-Component Underwater Site

in Florida. Submerged Cultural Resources Special Report, Professional PapersNumber 39. Southwest Cultural Resources Center, Southwest Region, National ParkService, U.S. Department of the Interior.

Murphy, A. R.1999 From Island to the Sea: Archaeological Investigations Along Ancient Watercourses

in Antigua. In Proceedings of the 18th International Congress for CaribbeanArchaeology, pp. 119–123. St. George, Grenada, West Indies.

Nettles, C. P.1975 The Founding Fathers and the West Indies: The Economics of Revolution. In The

American Revolution and the West Indies, edited by C. W. Toth, pp. 67–73. NationalUniversity Publications, Port Washington and London.

Newsom, L. A.1993 Native West Indian Plant Use. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,

University of Florida, Gainesville. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

127

1999 Archaeobotanical Analysis of Plant Remains from Site Lujan I, Vieques Island,Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Center for Archaeological Investigations, SouthernIllinois University, Carbondale.

Newsom, L.A., and E.S. Wing2003 On Land and Sea: Native American Uses of Biological Resources in the West Indies.

The University of Alabama Press (in press).

Nicholson, D.1976a Precolumbian Seafaring Capabilities in the Lesser Antilles. Sixth Congress of the

International Association for Caribbean Archaeology, pp. 98–105. Guadeloupe.

1976b The Importance of Sea Levels to Caribbean Archaeology. Journal of the VirginIslands Archaeological Society 3–1:1–23.

Nokkert, M.1999 Faunal Exploitation (at Norman Estate). In Archaeological Investigations on St.

Martin (Lesser Antilles): the Sites of Norman Estate, Anse des Péres, and HopeEstate with a Contribution to the La Hueca Problem, edited by C. L. Hofman and M.L. P. Hofman, pp. 51–60. Archaeological Studies No. 4. Leiden University, Leiden.

Oliver, J. J.1990 Ceramic Analysis. In Excavation and Analysis Results of Archaeological

Investigations at Medianía Alta (l-22) and Vieques (L-23), Loiza, Puerto Rico, pp.43–120. Grossman and Associates, New York.

1992a The Caguana Ceremonial Center: A Cosmic Journey through Taíno Spatial &Iconographic Symbolism. Paper presented at the Tenth International Symposium ofLatin American Indian Literature Association, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

1992b The Results of Archaeological Testing and Data Recovery Investigations at theLower Camp Site, Culebra Island National Wildlife Refuge, Puerto Rico. Submittedto National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Atlanta.

1995 The Archaeology of the Lower Camp Site, Culebra Island: UnderstandingVariability in Peripheral Zones. In Proceedings of the 15th International Congressfor Caribbean Archaeology, edited by R. E. Alegría and M. Rodruez, pp. 485–500.Cento de Estudios Avanzados de Puerto Rico y el Caribe, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

1998 El centro ceremonial de Caguana, Puerto Rico: simbolismo iconográfica,cosmovisión y el poderío caciquil taíno de Boriquén. Fundación ArqgeológicaAntropológica e Histórica de Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico. BAR InternationalSeries. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford, England.

1999 The ‘La Hueca Problem’ in Puerto Rico and the Caribbean Islands: Old Problems,New Perspectives, Possible Solutions. In Archaeological Investigations on St.Martin (Lesser Antilles): the Sites of Norman Estate, Anse des Péres, and HopeEstate with a Contribution to the La Hueca Problem, edited by C. L. Hofman and M.L. P. Hofman, pp. 303–312. Archaeological Studies No. 4. Leiden University,Leiden.

128

Ortiz Aguilú, J. J.1990 Pre -Taino Societies of the Greater Antilles: Some Thoughts Based on Recent

Evidence. Manuscript in possession of the author.

1991 Current Research. American Antiquity 56:145.

Ortiz Aguilú, J. J., E. J. Maíz, J. Sued Badillo, and T. R. Sara2001 Palo Hincado, Puerto Rico: New Insights from Ongoing Investigations. Paper

presented at the XIX International Congress for Caribbean Archaeology, Aruba, July22–28.

Ortiz Aguilú, J. J., J. Rivera, A. Princípe, M. Meléndez, and M. Lavergne1991 Intensive Agriculture in Pre-Columbian West Indies: The Case for Terraces. In

Proceedings of the Fourteenth Congress of the International Association forCaribbean Archaeology, edited by A. Cummins and P. King, pp. 278–285. BarbadosMuseum and Historical Society, St. Ann’s Garrison.

Oviedo y Valdés, G. F. de1851-1855 Historia general y natural de las indias, islas y tierre firme del Mar Océano. 4

vols. Imprenta de la Real Academia de la Historia, Madrid.

Pané, Fray, R.1978 Relación acerca de las antigüedades de los indios. 3rd ed. Siglo Veintiuno, Mexico

City.

Pantel, A.G.1976 Cerrillo Complex: An Aceramic Site – Southwestern Coast Puerto Rico. Progress

Report. Actas del XLI Congreso Internacionale de Americanistas (México, 1974), v.III, pp. 690-692. Instituo Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México.

1988 Precolumbian Flaked Stone Assemblages in the West Indies. Ph.D. dissertation,Universtiy of Tenessee, Knoxville.

1994a Stage II Evaluation of Cultural Resources Maruca Precolumbian Site. Barrio Canas,Municipality of Ponce, Puerto Rico. SHPO #02-07-94-01. Ponce Plaza 2000Developers.

1994b Evaluacion de Recursos Culturales de Fase II Yacimiento PrecolombinoMaruca,Barrio Canas, Municipio de Ponce, Puerto Rico. Ponce Plaza 2000Developers.

Pearsall, D. M.1989 Paleoethnobotany: A Handbook of Procedures. Academic Press, San Diego.

Pina, P., M. Veloz Maggiola, and M. García Arévalo1974 Esquema para una revisisión de nomenclaturas arqueológicas del poblamiento

precerámico en las Antillas. Serie Monográfica No. 3. Ecicciones FundaciónGarcíia Arévalo, Inc., y Museo del Hombre Dominicano, Santo Domingo.

129

Proctor, G. R.1994 Vieques Mangrove Forest Manual. Puerto Rico Department of Natural and

Environmental Resources, San Juan.

Raffaele, H. A., M. J. Velez, R. Cotte, J. J. Whelan, E. R. Keil, and W. Cumpiano1973 Rare and Endangered Animals of Puerto Rico. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil

Conservation Service, and Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources, San Juan.

Rainey, F.1935 A New Prehistoric Culture in Puerto Rico. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences, Vol. 21:12-16.

1940 Porto Rican Archaeology. Scientific Survey of Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands, vol.18, pt. 1. New York Academy of Sciences, New York.

Reid, H,. and S. Taber1919 The Porto Rico Earthquake of 1918, with Descriptions of Earlier Earthquakes.

Report of the Earthquake Investigation Comission. House of Rep. Doc. 269,Washington, D.C.

Reinecke, R.2001 Mangrove Forest Health and Status, Vieques Island, Naval Station Roosevelt Roads.

Draft. Geo-Marine, Inc., Plano, Texas. Submitted to Commander, Atlantic Division,Naval Facilities and Engineering Command, Norfolk.

Reitz, E. J.1982 Appendix B: Vertebrate Fauna from Krum Bay, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands. In

Preceramic Procurement Patterns at Krum Bay, Virgin Islands. Ph.D. dissertationby E. Lundberg (1989), Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois atUrbana-Champaign.

Robinson, L. S., E. R. Lundberg, and J. B. Walker1985 Archaeological Data Recovery at El Bronce, Puerto Rico: Final Report, Phase 2.

Archaeological Services, Ft. Myers, Florida. Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, Jacksonville District.

Rodríguez, M.1989 The Zoned Incised Crosshatch (ZIC) Ware of Early Precolumbian Ceramic Age Sites

in Puerto Rico and Vieques Island. In Early Ceramic Population Lifeways andAdaptive Strategies in the Caribbean, edited by P. Siegel, pp. 249–266. BARInternational Series 506. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford, England.

1991 Aqueología de Punta Candelaro, Puerto Rico. In Proceedings of the ThirteenthInternational Congress for Caribbean Archaeology, pp. 605–627. Archaeological-Anthropological Institute of the Netherlands Antilles, Willemstad.

1992 Late Ceramic Age Diversity in Eastern Puerto Rico. Paper presented at the 57th

Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Pittsburgh.

130

1997 Excavations at the Maruca Site, a Precermaic Community in Purto Rico. Paperpresented at the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology,Nashville.

Roe, P.1989 A Grammatical Analysis of Cedrosan Saldoid Vesssel Form Categories and Surface

Decoration Aesthetic and Technical Styles in Early Antillean Ceramics. In EarlyCeramic Population Lifeways and Adaptive Strategies in the Caribbean, edited by P.Siegel, pp. 267–382. BAR International Series 506. British Archaeological Reports,Oxford, England.

Rouse, I. B.1941 An Analysis of the Artifacts of the 1914–1915 Porto Rican Survey. In A Large

Archaeological Site at Capá, Utuado, with Notes on Other Porto Rican Sites Visitedin 1914–1915. Scientific Survey of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands, vol. 18, pt. 2.New York Academy of Sciences, New York.

1952a Porto Rican Prehistory. Scientific Survey of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands, vol18, pt 3, Excavations in the West and North. New York Academy of Sciences, NewYork.

1952b Porto Rican Prehistory. Scientific Survey of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands, vol18, pt 4 Excavations in the Interior, South and East, Chronology. New YorkAcademy of Sciences, New York.

1960 The Entry of Man into the West Indies. Publications in Anthropology No. 61. YaleUniversity, New Haven.

1964 Prehistory of the West Indies. Science 144(3618):499–513.

1982 Ceramic and Religious Development in the Greater Antilles. Journal of New WorldArchaeology 5(2):45–55.

1986 Migrations in Prehistory: Inferring Population Movement from Cultural Remains.Yale University Press, New Haven.

1989 Peoples and Cultures of the Saladoid Frontier in the Greater Antilles. In EarlyCeramic Population Lifeways and Adaptive Strategies in the Caribbean, edited by P.E. Siegel, pp. 383–403. BAR International Series 506. British ArchaeologicalReports, Oxford, England.

1992 The Tainos: Rise and Decline of the People who Greeted Columbus. YaleUniversity Press, New Haven and London.

Rouse, I. B., and L. Allaire1978 Caribbean. In Chronologies in New World Archaeology, edited by R. E. Taylor and

C. W. Meighan, pp. 431–481. Academic Press, New York.

131

Rouse, I. B., and R. E. Alegría1990 Excavations at María de la Cruz Cave and Hacienda Grande Village Site, Loiza,

Puerto Rico. Publications in Anthropology No. 80. Yale University, New Haven.

Ruppé, R. J.1980 Sea Level Rise and Caribbean Prehistory. Proceedings of the Eighth Congress of the

International Association for Caribbean Archaeology, pp. 331–337. Tempe,Arizona.

Sanders, S. L., M. A. Simons, R. C. Goodwin, D. D. Davis, and F. Vento2001 Archaeological Survey and Inventory of the VNR. Draft Technical Report. Patterns

and Transformations in the Prehistory and History of Vieques, vol. I. R. ChristopherGoodwin & Associates, Inc. Submitted to Department of the Navy, AtlanticDivision, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Norfolk.

Santana, A.1983 Puerto Rico in a Revolutionary World. In Puerto Rico: A Political and Cultural

History, edited by A. Morlaes Carrión, pp. 51–78. W.W. Norton, New York.

Sears, W. H., and S. D. Sullivan1978 Bahamas Prehistory. American Antiquity 43:3–25.

Shepard, F. P.1964 Sea Level Changes in the Past 6,000 Years: Possible Archaeological Significance.

Science 143:574–576.

Siegel, P. E.1989 Site Structure, Demography, and Social Complexity in the Early Ceramic Age of the

Caribbean. In Early Ceramic Population Lifeways and Adaptive Strategies in theCaribbean, edited by P. E. Siegel, pp. 193–245. BAR International Series 506.British Archaeological Reports, Oxford, England.

1991a Political Evolution in the Caribbean. Proceedings of the Congress of theInternational Association for Caribbean Archaeology 13:232–250. Curaçao,Netherlands Antilles.

1991b On the Antillean Connection for the Introduction of Cultigens in Eastern NorthAmerica. Current Anthropology 32:332–334.

1992 Ideology, Power, and Social Complexity in Prehistoric Puerto Rico. Ph.D.dissertation, State University of New York at Binghamton. University Microfilms,Ann Arbor.

1996 Ideology and Culture Change in Puerto: A View from the Community. Journal ofField Archaeology 23:313–333.

1999 Contested Places and Places of Contest: The Evolution of Social Power andCeremonial Space in Prehistoric Puerto Rico. Latin American Antiquity 10(3):209–238.

132

Siegel, P. E., J. Jones, D. M. Pearsall, and D. P. Wagner1999 Culture and Environment in Prehistoric Puerto Rico. Proceedings of the 18th

International Congress for Caribbean Archaeology, pp. 281–290. St. George,Grenada, West Indies.

Smith, W. H. F., and D. T. Sandwell1997 Global Sea Floor Topography from Satellite Altimetry and Ship Depth Soundings.

Science 277(1):956–962.

Stright, M.1986 Human Occupation of the Continental Shelf During the late Pleistocene/Early

Holocene: Methods for Site Location. Geoarchaeology 1(4):347–364.

Sued Badillo, J.2001 El Dorado Borincano: La Economía de la Conquista, 1510 -1550. Ediciones Puerto,

San Juan.

Torres-González, S.1989 Reconnaissance of the Groundwater Resources of Vieques Island, Puerto Rico.

Water Resources Investigations Report No. 86–4100. U.S. Geological Survey, U.S.Department of the Interior, San Juan.

Torres Ramírez, B.1968 La Isla de Puerto Rico (1765–1800). Instituto de Cultura Puertorriqueña, San Juan.

Tronolone, C. A., M. A. Cinquino, C. E. Vandrei, and G. S. Vescelius1984 Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Survey for the Vieques Naval Reservation.

Ecology and Environment, Inc. Submitted to Department of the Navy, AtlanticDivision, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Norfolk.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)2002 SHOALS (Scanning Hydrographic Operational Airborne Lidar Survey) home page.

Retrieved January 2002, from http://shoals.sam.usace.army.mil.

Vega, J. E.1990 The Archaeology of Coastal Change, Puerto Rico. Ph.D. dissertation, University of

Florida. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor.

Veloz Maggiolo, M.1976 Medioambiente y adaptacion humana en la prehistoria de Santo Domingo, vol. 1.

Publicaciones de la Universidad Autonoma de Santo Domingo Coleccion Historia YSociedad No. 24. Santo Domingo, Republica Dominicana.

1980 La sociedades arcaicas de Santo Domingo. Museo del Hombre Dominicano, SerieInvestigaciones Antropológicas, no. 16, Fundación García Arévalo, SerieInvestigaciones, no. 12, Santo Domingo.

133

Veloz Maggiolo, M., and E. Ortega1976 The Preceramic of the Dominican Republic: Some New Finds and Their Possible

Relationships. Proceedings of the First Puerto Rican Symposium on Archaeology,edited by L. S. Robinson, pp. 147–201. Fundación Arqueolólogica, Antropológica, eHistórica de Puerto Rico, San Juan.

Veloz Maggiola, M., J. González Colón, E. Maíz, E. Questall Rodríguez1975 Cayo Confresí: Un sitio precerámico de Puerto Rico. Taller, Santo Domingo.

Veloz Maggiola, M., E. Ortega, P. Pina, and B. Vega1971 Three Stone Artifact Sites in the Dominican Republic. Proceedings of the 4th

International Congress for the Study of Pre-Columbian Cultures in the LesserAntilles, pp. 103–109. St. Lucia Archaeological and Historical Society.

Vicenti, V. P., S. Silander, M. Bareto, J. Saliva, P. Torres, and D. Corales1991 An Ecological Evaluation of Some Marine and Terrestrial Systems at Ceiba and

Vieques Island after Hurricane Hugo: Fiscal Year 1990–1991. Submitted to U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, Boqueron, Puerto Rico.

Walker, J. B.1985 A Preliminary Report on the Lithic and Osteological Remains from the 1980, 1981,

and 1982 Field Seasons at Hacienda Grande (12PSJ7-5). Proceedings of the 10th

International Congress for the Study of the Pre-Columbian Cultures of the LesserAntilles, pp. 181–224, Fort de France. Centre de Recherches Caraïbes, Univerité deMontréal.

1993 Stone Collars, Elbow Stones, and Three-Pointers, and the Nature of Taíno Ritual andMyth . Ph.D dissertation, Washington State University, Pullman. UniversityMicrofilms, Ann Arbor.

Watters, D. R.1982 Relating Oceanography to Antillean Archaeology: Implications from Oceania.

Journal of New World Archaeology 5(2):3–12.

Watters, D. R., and I. Rouse1989 Environmental Diversity and Maritime Adaptations in the Caribbean Area. In Early

Ceramic Population Lifeways and Adaptive Strategies in the Caribbean, edited by P.E. Siegel, pp. 129–144. BAR International Series No. 506. British ArchaeologicalReports, Oxford, England.

Watters, D. R., J. Donahue, and R. Stuckenrath.1992 Paleoshorelines and the Prehistory of Barbuda, West Indies. In Paleoshorelines and

Prehistory: An Investigation of Method, edited by L. L. Johnson and M. Stright, pp.15–52. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

Williams, E.1973 From Columbus to Castro: The History of the Caribbean, 1492–-1969. Harper &

Row, New York, Evanston, San Francisco, and London.

134

Wilson. S. A.1997 Introduction to the Study of the Indigenous People of the Caribbean. In The

Indigenous People of the Caribbean, edited by S. M. Wilson, pp. 1–9. UniversityPress of Florida, Gainesville.

Wilson, S. M., H. B. Iceland, and T. R. Hester1999 Preceramic Connections Between Yucatán and the Caribbean. Latin American

Antiquity 9:342–352.

Wiseman, F. M.1983 Appendix D: Pollen and Phytolith Analysis at Krum Bay, St. Thomas. In

Preceramic Procurement Patterns at Krum Bay, Virgin Islands. Ph.D. dissertationby E. Lundberg (1989), Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois atUrbana-Champaign.

APPENDIX A

ARCHAEOBOTANICAL ANALYSIS OF SOIL AND SEDIMENTCORE SAMPLES

byLee A. Newsom, Ph.D.

Department of AnthropologyThe Pennsylvania State University

A-3

INTRODUCTION

A group of four soil samples from excavations into a pair of terrestrial archaeological deposits(Cat. nos. 2, 4, 5, 6) and two sets of wet sediment core samples (Core AB-1, Core AB-3) fromnearby shallow-water marine deposits were analyzed to provide information concerning thepotential paleoethnobotanical and paleoenvironmental aspects of prehistoric settlement in thearea. This research was performed under subcontract with Geo-Marine, Inc., Plano, Texas, inconjunction with their contract with the U.S. Navy (GMI Project No. 17600.00.58), to conductexploratory cultural resources management and paleoecological assessments of the island ofVieques.

Previous archaeobotanical research on Vieques focused on the Luján I site (Newsom 1999), awell–preserved pre-Taíno settlement (Rivera Calderón, personal communication 1999).Excavations at Luján I uncovered many well-preserved features including a number of post moldsin roughly circular configurations that demonstrated the presence of eight prehistoric housestructures or “habitation areas.” Other types of cultural features located at the site wereinterpreted as hearths, and/or other cooking and activity areas associated with the individualstructures and living surfaces. In addition, at least four separate refuse middens wereencountered near or among the several habitation zones. All of these archaeological contextswere sampled and analyzed for their archaeobotanical composition to describe thepaleoethnobotany and overall subsistence patterns at the site (Newsom 1999).

Although less extensive, the present research serves to provide additional insights into prehistoricplant use and paleoenvironments on the island of Vieques. This research had two primaryobjectives: (1) the identification of any evidence that would illuminate human subsistencepatterns; and (2) to provide details relevant to the environmental setting that may havecharacterized the pre-Columbian human occupations of the island. The fulfillment of theseobjectives contributes more or less to a better-informed understanding of plant use andsubsistence in general, and about the overall human settlement dynamics on the island. Morebroadly, related questions involve the interaction of the human group(s) with the localenvironment, the creation of anthropogenic landscapes, and the sustainability of subsistenceresources and native economic systems in general. All of this is tied to the inherent resourceproductivity, bioclimatic conditions, and biogeography of the island, including its proximity tothe larger island of Puerto Rico (Newsom and Wing 2003).

Vieques is a relatively small (137.9 square kilometers [km2]), flat island located approximately11 km southeast of Puerto Rico at around 18o north latitude and between 65o and 66o eastlongitude. Considering moisture availability for plant growth, soils, topography, and location,especially with regard to prevailing winds and insolation patterns (Nieuwolt 1977), the island isclassified as part of the subtropics, specifically the Subtropical Latitudinal Region according tothe Holdridge life zone model (Ewel and Whitmore 1973; Holdridge 1967; Holdridge et al.1971). These biogeographic characteristics combine to influence the dominant form of islandvegetation, which is classified in general as moist coastal forest (Little, Woodbury, andWadsworth 1974:24), and includes elements of both subtropical dry and subtropical moist forests(Ewel and Whitmore 1973).

The research reported here involves the analysis of samples from excavated terrestrial depositsand from wet sediment cores recovered from adjacent marine environments. This studyrepresents the second effort during which archaeobotanical remains have been recovered and

A-4

analyzed from Vieques, as described above. In this case the samples are few and so conclusionslimited, but nevertheless the research contributes new data to further examine the role of plantresources among the prehistoric people and cultures of the island, as well as the environmentalaspects of prehistoric settlement. This report is necessarily brief, beginning with an overview ofthe sample assemblage and the field and laboratory procedures that were employed to conduct theresearch, followed by sections detailing the results of analyses and concluding comments.

SAMPLE RECOVERY AND PROCESSING

The samples that underlie this research are of two basic types: (1) standardized 2-liter bulk soilsamples from 1-x-.5-m excavation units that were placed into two separate archaeologicaldeposits on the island, and (2) wet sediment samples from a pair of geological cores recoveredfrom adjacent brackish or marine environments. All together, four soil samples and two series ofcore samples (six analyzed) were submitted for paleoethnobotanical analysis. The archaeologicalsoil samples originate from shallow (0-30 cmbs) cultural deposits at sites Vi044 (three samples)and Vi049 (one sample). The sediment cores are designated as “Archaeo-Boring” (AB) samples1 through 5, as described in the primary report by Geo-Marine, Inc.; individual samples from twosuch cores (AB-1 and AB-3) were analyzed. Core AB-1 was collected from Bahía Tapón andAB-3 from Bahía de la Chiva.

The sediment cores were collected by standard piston coring into the bottom sediments ofparticular low-energy lagoons. Core stratigraphy was measured and described according to basiccolor and composition after the cores were extruded. The two cores mentioned above penetratedsediments with good organic preservation, particularly toward the bottoms of each core. Becauseof the potential for macroremain presence among such organic-rich samples, these particularcores and strata were selected to undergo archaeobotanical analysis. This included specificallythe sedimentological units J through N (four samples, numbers 9–10 from strata between 145–211 cmbs) of core AB-1, and units H and I of core AB-3 (two samples, numbers 9 and 10 fromstrata between 219–255 cmbs).

The laboratory methods and procedures employed to analyze the sample assemblage followedstandard archaeobotanical practice for both dry and waterlogged plant remains (Newsom 1993).In the laboratory, all samples from the wet cores were examined macroscopically for the presenceof preserved organic remains, resulting in the selection of the six samples indicated above, fourfrom AB-1 and two from AB-3, for intensive analysis. These six samples were prepared foranalysis by washing them with a gentle stream of water through nested geological sieves withmesh openings of 4 mm, 2 mm, 1 mm, and 0.42 mm. The resulting individual sieve fractionswere then placed in water in petri dishes for examination under incident light using a dissectingmicroscope. The samples were then characterized according to their basic composition(individual sample constituents).

The archaeological soil samples were carefully dry-sieved in the field through a series of threenested sieves with mesh openings of 4 mm, 2 mm, and 0.5 mm (U.S. standard geologic sievenumbers 5, 10, and 35). In the laboratory, the resulting 2-mm and 0.5-mm fractions were gentlyresieved dry though 1-mm and 0.42-mm meshes (number 18 and 40 sieves) to better separate thesediments, generally facilitating laboratory analysis. All sample subfractions were then placed inpetri dishes and analyzed as above described, that is, by incident light microscopy separating allconstituents into biological material classes (spores, seeds, fruit, wood, faunal, etc.). All

A-5

identifiable plant remains were counted and recorded. No weights of archaeological specimensare reported here because carbonized (the typical state of preservation for botanical materialsfrom terrestrial deposits) plant remains were generally few and the weights negligible (< 0.01 g).

Seed identifications were made by direct comparison with modern reference specimens and withthe aid of pictorial guides describing seed morphology and other details (Delorit 1970; Martin andBarkley 1961). Wood identifications—in this case a single specimen (see below)—were madebased on three-dimensional anatomy, using a dissecting microscope with enhanced magnification(40–125x) to characterize the anatomical structure, and proceeding by focusing on specificanatomical details using a compound microscope and thin sections of modern referencespecimens, along with keys to anatomical structure to assign a match (Record and Hess 1942–1948; Wheeler et al. 1986). Miscellaneous parenchymatous tissues (e.g., rhizome fragments, seedendosperm), as well as bark and/or rind, are generally classified based on the presence of anypreserved anatomical characteristics. In terms of this analysis, no diagnostic structures wereobserved among such specimens.

In the course of analysis, all botanical identifications were pursued to the lowest possible taxon.The designation “cf.” preceding a given scientific name in the text and table that follow indicatesa very close (or likely) match, with the caveat that it is not possible to make a definitive orabsolute statement about an assignment to a particular archaeological and/or modern taxon.Identifications may remain provisional for a number of reasons: for example, the presence ofinsufficient specimens with which to verify morphological and/or anatomical details necessaryfor definitive identification, and/or problems with preservation (excessive fragmentation,incomplete specimens, burn distortion, etc.).

RESULTS OF ANALYSIS

In general, identifiable plant remains among both the archaeological soil and wet sedimentsamples were few; however, they provide the basis for some insights into the initial questionsposed at the beginning of this report. A summary of the individual remains that comprise the soilsamples from the deposits excavated from sites Vi044 and Vi049 is provided in Table A-1. Thebasic information includes the types and counts of seeds and fruits, including the scientific andcommon names in Spanish and English, and a statement on the condition of individual specimens(i.e., whether carbonized, possibly carbonized, or uncarbonized [basically fresh, or in otherwords, recent and possibly intrusive]). Modern seed presence is recorded as a gauge of possibledisturbance or contamination from the present-day surface or recent deposits. Since all of thedeposits tested are relatively shallow, the presence of modern seeds among the samples wasanticipated. Predictably, most of these seeds are associated with the uppermost excavation level,specifically Stratum A, Level 1 (0–10 cmbs; sample number 4 [see Table A-1]) of site Vi044.These represent the extant vegetation and the ensuing conditions of natural seed dispersal anddeposition. The count and size category (sieve fraction) of carbonized wood remains is alsoprovided for individual samples in Table A-1, along with counts of other miscellaneous materialsassociated with the samples.

A-6

Table A-1Summary of Biotic Constituents (Macroscopic Remains) from Sites Vi044 And Vi049 Excavation Units*

Sample Catalogue Number 2Site Vi049Unit GM1-1, Stratum A, Level 2 (11–23 cm bs)Carbonized plant:

Fruit, cf. Ficus sp. (jagüey macho, jigüerillo, wild fig), 1 total;Fruit, three taxa suggested: Myrsinaceae, cf. Myrsine sp. (e.g., M. coriacea, arrayán, bádula), or

alternative taxa: Myrtaceae, cf. Myrica sp. (also known locally as arrayán or cerero, bay-berry),and Zanthoxylum sp. (espino rubial, acetillo, etc.), 8 total;

Seed, Portulaca sp. (verdolaga, purslane), 1 total, possibly carbonized;Wood, 35 fragments (1-2 mm sieve fractions), unidentified;Unidentified parenchymatous, 3 fragments plant tissue (1 mm sieve fraction).

Modern (uncarbonized) plant:Seed, Amaranthaceae (amaranth family), cf. Alternanthera sp. (sanguinaria), 9 total;Seed, cf. Cactaceae (cactus family), 1 total;Seed, Fabaceae (bean family), 1 total;Seed, 1 fragment.Spore, fungi (e.g., Polyporous sp., wood-rotting fungi), infrequent.

Sample Catalogue Number 4Site Vi044Unit GM1-2, Stratum A, Level 1 (0–10 cm bs)Carbonized plant:

Seed, Trianthema sp. (T. portulacastrum; verdolaga de hoja ancha), 16 total;Wood, <10 fragments fine (1 mm sieve fraction), unidentified;

Modern (uncarbonized) plant:Seed, Chenopodiaceae, cf. Atriplex sp. (garbancillo, crested atriplex), 175 total;Seed, Solanaceae (nightshade family), 1 total;Seed, Trianthema sp. (T. portulacastrum; verdolaga de hoja ancha), 1 total;Seed/fruit, Fabaceae (bean family), seeds and fruits various;Seed/fruit, Poaceae (grass family), panicoid and festucoid tribes, seeds and fruits various;Seed/Fruit, Sida sp. (escoba peluda, broomsedge) several;

Miscellaneous materials:Faunal remains: invertebrate (infrequent insect, including ant, beetle), vertebrate (2 bone fragments [1

teleost, cf. fish spine]).

A-7

Table A-1 (cont’d)

Sample Catalogue Number 5Site Vi044Unit GM1-2, Stratum A, Level 2 (10–20 cm bs)Carbonized plant:

Seed, Mollugo sp. (alfombra, carpet weed), 1 seed, possibly carbonized;Seed, Portulaca sp. (verdolaga, purslane), 2 seeds, possibly carbonized;Seed, Trianthema sp. (T. portulacastrum; verdolaga de hoja ancha), 16 total.Wood, 7 fragments fine (1 mm sieve fraction), unidentified.

Modern (uncarbonized) plant:Seed, Chenopodiaceae, cf. Atriplex sp. (garbancillo, crested atriplex), 34 total.Spore, Fungi (e.g., Polyporous sp., wood-rotting fungi), 1 total.

Miscellaneous materials:Faunal remains: Invertebrate (infrequent insect, including ant, beetle, tests [“ground pearls”

Margarodes sp.]), fecal pellets.

Sample catalogue number 6Site Vi044Unit GM1-2, Stratum B, Level 3 (20–30 cm bs)Carbonized plant:

Seed, Trianthema sp. (T. portulacastrum; verdolaga de hoja ancha), 4 total;Wood, 2 fragments fine (1 mm sieve fraction), one is cf. Arecaceae (palm family).

Modern (uncarbonized) plant:Seed, Chenopodiaceae, cf. Atriplex sp. (garbancillo, crested atriplex), 9 total;Seed, cf. Euphorbiaceae (spurge family), 3 total.

Miscellaneous materials:Faunal remains: Invertebrate (infrequent insect, including ant, beetle, tests [“ground pearls”

Margarodes sp.]), fecal pellets.

*Scientific and vernacular nomenclatures follow Liogier and Martorell 2000.

The single sample from site Vi049 (catalogue number 2, see Table A-1) demonstrated a darkcolor and high organic content relative to the three samples from site Vi044. The botanicalconstituents of this sample include nine carbonized fruit specimens that may have a directassociation with the archaeological occupation. One of these appears to be wild fig (cf. Ficussp.). Eight other specimens are very distorted by carbonization and fragmentation. These exhibita strong morphological similarity with the fruits of three native taxa, including the genus Myrsinesp. and species M. coriacea (arrayán or bádula) in the Myrsinaceae; the genus Myrica sp. (e.g.,M. cerifera, also known as arrayán or cerero, bay-berry) in the Myrtle family (Myrtaceae); andZanthoxylum sp. (espino rubial, acetillo , wild lime) of the citrus family (Rutaceae) (see Table A-1). The individual specimens lack enough morphological and surface details to reach a definitiveidentification; either or more than one of these taxa may be the correct identification. Wild figfruits are edible and are known also to have medicinal uses (Ayensu 1981:129). The SeminoleIndians of south Florida used both Myrsine and Myrica leaves in smoking mixtures with tobacco(Morton 1990:48-49); there is no record of using Myrsine fruits in either Florida or the Caribbean.

A-8

Myrica, as well as Zanthoxylum spp., fruits and other parts have commonly been used inmedicinal preparations in the Caribbean (Ayensu 1981:135, 167; Honychurch 1986:84; NuñezMelendez 1992:145, 335). Very similar specimens, designated cf. Zanthoxylum sp., wererecovered from archaeological contexts at the Lujaá I site (Newsom 1999). Other carbonizedmaterials in the sample include very fine, unidentifiable wood fragments and three smallspecimens of unidentified parenchymatous tissue. Additional materials comprising this sampleinclude several types of modern seeds, particularly nine specimens belonging to the amaranthfamily (see Table A-1).

The three samples from site Vi044 are very similar in overall composition. ModernChenopodiaceae (cf. Atriplex sp.) seeds are frequent, particularly in the stratigraphically superiorlevel (catalogue sample 4, 0–10 cmbs) with 175 specimens total (Figure A-1; see Table A-1).Other modern seed/fruit specimens associated with this sample are panicoid and festucoidgrasses, Sida sp. (escoba peluda, broomsedge), Fabaceae (bean family), and a few unidentifiedtypes. Predictably, the Chenopodiaceae seeds diminish in number increasingly with depth, as douncarbonized remains in general. Three edible plant taxa occur among the Vi044 samples:Trianthema sp. (T. portulacastrum, ‘verdolaga de hoja ancha’), Portulaca sp. (verdolaga,purslane), and Mollugo sp. (alfombra, carpet weed) (see Table A-1). In each case, the entire plantis edible, though the seeds of the latter two genera are minute such that any consumption and useof these plants would likely involve the herbaceous tissues. Trianthema seeds, though still quitesmall (ca. 1 mm diameter) are relatively high in protein content and may have had some value inhuman nutrition (Newsom 1993). Of these three taxa, only the Trianthema seeds are relativelyfrequent (ranging between 4 and 17 seeds) and include specimens that are definitively carbonized(Figure A-2; see Table A-1). This makes their possible association with the archaeologicaldeposits more likely than the other two taxa. Aside from seeds, the Vi044 samples variouslyinclude fine wood charcoal and at least one fungal spore (uncarbonized). The carbonized woodfragments are all within the 1–2-mm size range (1-mm sieve fraction) and are unidentifiable asidefrom one fragment in sample number 6 that has an anatomical structure associated with the palmfamily (Arecaceae).

The wet sediment core samples proved to contain little or no identifiable plant macroremains,particularly core AB-3, probably due to generally high calcareous clay and sand content with loworganics. However, as indicated above, present intermittently within individual core strata,particularly in the lower portion of AB-1, were small concentrations of organic deposits that wereselected for close examination. Seeds and related plant structures proved entirely absent amongthe samples analyzed, as were woody vascular tissues (wood and bark) or any elements indicativeof mangrove swamps. Instead, what had appeared originally to represent patchy or discontinuousfibrous peat deposits was found to consist entirely of dense concentrations of degraded fibrousroot mass. These masses are very homogeneous and consist of occasional lignified primary rootswith abundant fine tangles of filamentous root structures and tissues, as in the root ball of a grass.It is highly likely, though unsubstantiated by seeds or other diagnostic structures, that theseconcentrations of root mass represent the subterranean portions of a marine monocot, Thalassiatestudinum (turtle grass, sea grass, palma de mar). Turtle grass is a marine perennial that growsin dense clusters from a horizontal rhizome, often forming great underwater “meadows” inshallow water from low-tide level to about 30 ft (~ 4 m) on sandy and sand-mud bottoms; itgrows best in sea water that is only slightly brackish (Amos and Amos 1987:553; Godfrey andWooten 1979:65–69). The few, highly fragmentary plant remains in the two AB-3 core samplesappear to represent the same basic root tissues.

A-9

Figure A-1. Chenopodiaceae seeds from site Vi044.

Figure A-2. Carbonized Trianthema seeds from site Vi044.

A-10

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

This analysis of preserved plant materials from Vieques, limited as it is, has provided someinformation concerning paleoenvironments and at least a hint of the resources potentiallyexploited by the prehistoric inhabitants of the island. The current vegetation on the island maynot be fully representative of the Precolumbian vegetation due to modern disturbance anddeforestation. Therefore any archaeobotanical evidence that serves as a direct reflection of thepast forests and vegetation, is useful toward understanding particular aspects of the landscape andpaleoenvironments associated with prehistoric settlement, thus something of the uniqueinteractions of human groups with the natural environment.

It is unfortunate that the data are meager, but this is not surprising given the shallow depths andthe absence of complex midden and feature deposits (i.e., cultural contexts that tend to includeconcentrations of preserved plant and animal remains). The terrestrial components of the sitestested yielded only non-wood remains to provide any useful insights concerning potentialeconomic plants and environment. Probably the best evidence comes from the sample from siteVi049 that yielded the carbonized fruits of two taxa, those provisionally assigned to Ficus sp. andMyrsine sp. (wild fig and arrayán, respectively). The presence of Trianthema sp. seeds variouslyamong the site Vi044 samples is also potentially significant. Wild fig and Trianthema, at least,represent plant food resources, even if only supplementary or consumed on an occasional basis.The wild fig is a tree with edible fruit, whereas Trianthema is a low-growing herb of which allparts are edible. Native Ficus spp. may be found in dry- and moist-forest associations (forexample, in coastal thickets or on limestone hills and woodlands at lower to middle elevations);Trianthema is associated with disturbed areas and sandy soils at lower to middle elevations(Liogier and Martorell 2000:42–43, 56). It is worth noting that Trianthema seeds have beenidentified from a number of archaeological sites in the Greater Antilles, particularly on PuertoRico, including good feature contexts and in association with other economic taxa such as ediblegrasses and maize (Newsom and Pearsall 2003). The provisionally identified palm wood fromsite Vi044 in this analysis potentially represents another useful plant; palm fruits like nativecorozo (Acrocomia media ) are edible and the wood useful for construction and other purposes(Little and Wadsworth 1964).

Due to the general paucity of identifiable plant macroremains (e.g., seeds, wood, bark, etc.)among the strata encountered in the wet sediment cores, our ability to characterize the deposits,and therefore the paleoenvironments, from this perspective is limited but was neverthelessrevealing. The potential presence of turtle grass meadows is significant to an interpretation of thewater depths, quality, and energy levels in the individual lagoons during various periods.Moreover, if inferred correctly, then the occurrence of such grass beds in the area demonstrates agreater level of environmental diversity in terms of shallow-marine habitats than was otherwiserealized since the pollen analysis indicated the presence only of mangrove forests. These findingsemphasize the need to utilize a multifaceted approach to the analysis of preserved organicremains found in sedimentary deposits on Vieques Island.

The fine carbonized wood among the samples may represent either natural fires or culturallyburned wood. The true nature or origin of the wood is impossible to specify without largerspecimens and which originated from clearly defined features and other cultural versus naturaldeposits. For example, at Luján I, well-preserved wood was recovered from postholes, hearths,and other features; analysis revealed that these wood remains represented 22 different types oftree and/or shrub, and there is evidence from the functional interpretation of features and the

A-11

distributions of the different wood taxa to suggest that at least one, and perhaps some of the otherspecies, were used as construction material (Newsom 1999). Ucar (Bucida sp.) was clearlypreferred for the primary posts and structural supports associated with buildings. This is anexcellent choice for this purpose, ucar being one of the heaviest, strongest, and most dense woodsfrom Puerto Rico and adjacent islands, including Vieques. Ucar is known to be durable in contactwith the ground and resistant to attack by dry-wood termites (Little and Wadsworth 1964:388),which would certainly be beneficial to the longevity of prehistoric house structures. Others of thewood types from Luján I were inferred from their archaeological contexts to have servedprimarily or exclusively as fuel for cooking and/or other purposes; these include Maytenus sp.(cuero de sapo), Psidium sp. (guayaba, guava), cf. Picramnia sp. (guarema), cf. Zanthoxylum sp.(ayua, espino rubial), Capparis sp. (burro, sapo), Exostema sp. (albarillo), Piscida sp. (ventura),cf. Nectandra sp. (laurel), cf. Krugiodendron sp. (bariaco), Bourreria sp. (palo de vaca), cf.Croton sp. (marán), cf. Randia sp. (tintillo), Amyris sp. (tea, torchwood), Eugenia sp. (grajo, etc.),and Andira sp. (moca), among others. Judging by their greater presence among the site deposits,some of these woods—e.g., Maytenus sp., Psidium sp., and Piscida sp.—may have been preferredas fuels, for example, for the flavor imparted to food, to ward off insects, or for other reasons.Alternatively, these taxa may simply have been more abundant in the vicinity of the site and/ornaturally produced more deadwood, thus they were more often used as fuel. Aside from houseposts and fuel, any and all of these different woods and tree species might have served a numberof other purposes. Considering collectively the wood identifications from Luján I, it was clearthat both dry and moist coastal forest formations were present on the island at the time of thatparticular prehistoric occupation (Newsom 1999).

The archaeobotanical evidence from Luján I, and perhaps also the sites tested here, suggests thatthe prehistoric human inhabitants of Vieques focused on readily available plant resources fromlocal forests, given the prominence among the wood remains at Luján I of species such as ucar,and in the present case, of woody plants and herbs common to the local environment. Althoughpossibly or probably existing also as part of the natural forest ecosystem, it is possible that certainof the woody plants identified from Luján I, site Vi044 (wild fig and arrayán), and site Vi049(palm family) represent trees that were maintained in home gardens for the edible fruits and/or formedicines, dyes, oils, resins, and other valuable extracts. In particular, this assumption mightpertain to guayaba and some other taxa from Luján I, and possibly palm (e.g., corozo) as fromsite Vi044.

A-12

A-13

REFERENCES CITED

Amos, W. H., and S. H. Amos1987 Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. Audubon Society Nature Guides. Alfred A. Knopf, New

York.

Ayensu, E. S.1981 Medicinal Plants of the West Indies. Reference Publications, Algonac, Michigan.

Delorit, R. J.1970 Illustrated Taxonomy Manual of Weed Seeds. Agronomy Publications, River Falls,

Wisconsin.

Ewel, J. J., and J. L. Whitmore1973 The Ecological Life Zones of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. USDA Forest

Service Research Paper ITF-18. Institute of Tropical Forestry, Río Piedras, PuertoRico.

Godfrey, R. K., and J. W. Wooten1979 Aquatic and Wetland Plants of the Southeastern United States: Monocotyledons.

University of Georgia Press, Athens.

Holdridge, L. R.1967 Life Zone Ecology. Tropical Science Center, San José, Costa Rica.

Holdridge, L. R., C. R. Grenke, W. H. Hatheway, T. Liang, J. A. Tosi, Jr.1971 Forest Environments in Tropical Life Zones: a Pilot Study. Pergamon Press, Oxford.

Honychurch, P. N.1986 Caribbean Wild Plants and Their Uses. Macmillan Publishers, Ltd., London.

Liogier, H. A., and L. F. Martorell2000 Flora of Puerto Rico and Adjacent Islands: a Systematic Synopsis. 2nd ed. Editorial

de la Universidad de Puerto Rico, Río Piedras.

A-14

Little, E. L., Jr., and F. H. Wadsworth1964 Common Trees of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Agriculture Handbook No.

249, USDA Forest Service. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Little, E. L., Jr., R. O. Woodbury, and F. H. Wadsworth1974 Trees of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, Volume 2. Agriculture Handbook No.

449, USDA Forest Service. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Martin, A. C., and W. D. Barkley1961 Seed Identification Manual. The University of California Press, Berkeley.

Morton, J. F.1990 Wild Plants for Survival in South Florida. Fairchild Tropical Garden, Miami,

Florida.

Newsom, L. A.1993 Native West Indian Plant Use. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,

University of Florida, Gainesville. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Newsom, L. A., and D. M. Pearsall2003 Trends indicated by a survey of archaeobotanical data from the Caribbean islands. In

People and Plants in Ancient North America, edited by P. Minnis. SmithsonianInstitution Press, Washington, D.C. (in press).

Newsom, L.A., and E.S. Wing2003 On Land and Sea: Native American Uses of Biological Resources in the West Indies.

The University of Alabama Press (in press).

Nieuwolt, S.1977 Tropical Climatology. John Wiley and Sons, London.

Nuñez Melendez, E.1992 Plantas Medicinales de Puerto Rico: Folklore y Fundamentos Científicos. Editorial

de la Universidad de Puerto Rico, Río Piedras.

Record, S. J., and R. W. Hess1942-1948 Keys to American Woods. In Tropical Woods 72:19-29 (1942), 73:23-42

(1943), 75:8-26 (1943), 76:32-47 (1944), 85:1-19 (1946), 94:29-52 (1948).

Wheeler, E. A., R. G. Pearson, C. A. LaPasha, T. Zack, and W. Hatley1986 Computer-Aided Wood Identification. The North Carolina Agricultural Research

Service, Bulletin 474. North Carolina State University, Raleigh.

APPENDIX B

ANALYSIS OF FOSSIL POLLEN FROM SEDIMENT CORESON VIEQUES ISLAND

byJohn G. Jones, Ph.D.

Associate Director, Palynology LaboratoryDepartment of Anthropology

Texas A&M University

B-3

INTRODUCTION

A total of 23 sediment samples from Vieques Island was examined for fossil pollen content.These samples were collected from a series of cores, referred to as archaeo-borings (AB), fromlagunal deposits and coastal basins, and from archaeological test excavations. The core locationswere carefully selected for their potential to yield stratigraphically continuous, organic-richsediments unaffected by wave action, storm surges, and tidal influences. It was anticipated that adetailed examination of the potentially well-preserved pollen in these cores might provideinformation on the regional vegetation history of the island, as well as offer insights intoprehistoric human activities in the area. Proveniences of the samples examined are provided inTable B-1.

Table B-1Proveniences of the Vieques Island Pollen Samples

Sample Number Catalog Number Site Unit Stratum

1 20 AB-3 Strat. C, 61-63 cm bs2 21 AB-3 Strat. D, 112-116 cm bs3 22 AB-3 Strat. E, 168-172 cm bs4 23 AB-3 Strat. H, 234-240 cm bs5 24 AB-3 Strat. J, 257-259 cm bs6 37 Marunguey, STP-2 Strat. B, 57 cm bs7 25 AB-4 Strat. C, 52-55 cm bs8 26 AB-4 Strat. D, 70-80 cm bs9 27 AB-4 Strat D, 118-123 cm bs10 28 AB-4 Strat D, 160-164 cm bs11 29 AB-4 Strat. G, 221-225 cm bs12 30 AB-4 Strat. H, 238-242 cm bs13 15 AB-1 Strat. G, 96-98 cm bs14 16 AB-1 Strat. H, 128-130 cm bs15 17 AB-1 Strat. K, 153-156 cm bs16 31 AB-5 Strat. A, 34-39 cm bs17 32 AB-5 Strat. E, 73-77 cm bs18 33 AB-5 Strat. F, 102-110 cm bs19 34 AB-5 Strat. H, 145-151 cm bs20 35 AB-5 Strat. I, 181-186 cm bs21 2 Vi049, GMI-1 Strat. A, L-2, 11-23 cm bs22 5 Vi044, GMI-2 Strat. A, L-2, 10-20 cm bs23 10 Verdiales, GMI-3 30-40 cm bs

Sediment cores examined for this project were collected from three different areas: Bahía Tapón(Core AB-1), the Laguna at Bahía de la Chiva (Core AB-3), and Laguna Algodones (Cores AB-4and AB-5). Red mangrove (Rhizophora), black mangrove (Avicennia ), and white mangroves(Laguncularia and Conocarpus), with dry scrub and grasses in the uplands, dominate thevegetative communities in all of these locations. Archaeological sampling was conducted inareas above the mangroves, in areas dominated by scrub vegetation and mesquite.

B-4

METHODOLOGY

Fossil pollen preservation from archaeological sites in the tropics is variable. Exposure to cycles ofwetting and drying can lead to rapid deterioration of organic materials, including pollen. Samplescollected from submerged areas that have remained permanently wet, on the other hand, often exhibitexcellent preservation. However, rapid sedimentation rates can lead to low fossil pollenconcentration values, and extreme mechanical abrasion caused by waves and tidal action can lead toa near total destruction of pollen. With these factors in mind, it was decided that a conservativeextraction technique should be employed with the 48WA1762 pollen samples.

The pollen sediment samples were first quantified (1–5cc’s for the core samples, 10cc’s for thesoils), placed in sterile beakers, and a known quantity of exotic tracer spores added to each sample.Here, European Lycopodium spp. spores were chosen as an exotic, because these spores are unlikelyto be found in the actual fossil pollen assemblages from this region. Tracer spores are added tosamples for two reasons. First, by adding a known quantity of exotic spores to a known quantity ofsediment, fossil pollen concentration values can be calculated. Second, in the event that no fossilpollen is observed in the sediment sample, the presence of Lycopodium tracer spores verifies thatprocessor error was not a factor in the pollen loss.

Following the addition of the tracer spores, the samples were washed with concentrated hydrochloricacid. This step removed carbonates and dissolved the bonding agent in the tracer spore tablets. Thesamples were then rinsed in distilled water, sieved through 150-micron mesh screens, and swirled toremove the heavier inorganic particles. Next the samples were consolidated, and 60 percenthydrofluoric acid was added to the residues to remove unwanted silicates. After the silicates hadbeen removed, the residues were rinsed thoroughly, and sonicated in a Delta D-5 sonicator for 30seconds. This step deflocculated the residues, effectively removing all colloidal material smallerthan 2 microns.

Next, the samples were dehydrated in glacial acetic acid, and were subjected to an acetolysistreatment (Erdtman 1960) consisting of 9 parts acetic anhydride to 1 part concentrated sulfuric acid.During this process, the samples were placed in a heating block for a period not exceeding 8 minutes.This step removed most unwanted organic materials, including cellulose, hemi-cellulose, lipids, andproteins, and converted these materials to water-soluble humates. The samples were then rinsed indistilled water until a neutral pH was achieved.

Following this treatment, the samples were next subjected to a heavy density separation using zincbromide (Sp.G. 2.00). Here, the lighter organic fraction was isolated from the heavier minerals.After this treatment, the lighter pollen and organic remains were collected and washed in 1% KOH toremove any remaining humates. The residues were then dehydrated in absolute alcohol, andtransferred to a glycerine medium for curation in glass vials.

Permanent slides were prepared using glycerine, and identifications were made on a Jenavalcompound stereomicroscope at 400–1000x magnification. Identifications were confirmed by usingthe Palynology Laboratory’s extensive pollen reference collection. After allowing the pollen grainsto settle into a single focal plane, 200 fossil grains were counted for each sample. This number isconsidered standard among most palynologists (Barkeley 1934) and is thought to reflect pastvegetation fairly well.

B-5

Concentration values were calculated for all samples. Hall (1981), Bryant and Hall (1993), andBryant et al. (1994) note that concentration values below 2,500 grains/ml of sediment may not bewell reflective of past conditions, and usually record a differentially preserved assemblage. As aresult, counts with low concentration values should be viewed with caution.

RESULTS

Well-preserved fossil pollen was noted in nearly all of the lagunal core samples, but was absentfrom the archaeological sediment samples, and 200-grain pollen counts were achieved for 13 ofthe 23 samples. A number of factors, including cycles of wetting and drying, freezing andthawing, mechanical abrasion, bacterial and fungal action, soil chemistry, and soil pH, influencefossil pollen preservation. Fluctuations in wetting and drying can lead to rapid oxidation of fossilpollen grains, thus sediments from open air sites, especially in tropical environments, generallycontain little fossil pollen. These factors create conditions favorable to fungal and bacterialgrowth that, in the case of the Vieques Island archaeological samples, has led to a near completeloss of all pollen. Offshore samples that have remained permanently moist over time, on theother hand, often contain perfectly preserved pollen grains due to the reducing environmentpresent in the sediments.

A minimum of 43 different pollen taxa was identified in the lagunal samples (Table B-2) andrepresent a variety of different habitats, including mangroves, coastal strand, and upland scrubenvironments. Preservation in these samples was variable, ranging from 310 to 28,125 fossilgrains/cc of sediment. Palynologists generally use caution when drawing interpretations based onlow concentration values, as these values often signal poor or differential preservation. However,in the case of the Vieques Island cores, fossil pollen grains exhibited excellent preservation evenwith low concentration values, and thus these low values likely signal rapid sedimentation ratesrather than differential preservation. Pollen counts and percentages are presented in Table B-3.

DISCUSSION

Core AB-1

A total of three samples from Core AB-1 from the south coast Bahía Tapón location wasexamined. All of these samples contained well-preserved fossil pollen and counts from thesesediments, Samples 13, 14 and 15, and are presented in Table B-3. Pollen percentages arepresented graphically in Figure B-1.

The assemblages as a whole are dominated by Rhizophora (red mangrove) and Combretaceae(buttonwood and white mangrove family), reflecting the nearby mangrove community.Avicennia (black mangrove), a normally rare pollen type, is present in the bottom-most samplefrom this core at 153–156 cm bs, suggesting that this taxa has long been present in this area. Thecore contains an appreciable amount of tropical forest taxa, including Coccoloba (sea grape) andZanthoxylum (prickly ash). Other forest elements are Alchornea (alchornea), Bursera (gumbo-limbo), Hippomane (manchineel), Metopium (poisonwood), and Spondias (hogplum). These taxaoccur in a number of habitats, including coastal strand, tropical moist forests, and xericwoodlands. Spondias is significant because it is an important native food source and has been

B-6

Table B-2Taxa Identified in the Vieques Island Pollen Samples

Taxa Common Name

Non-ArborealAsteraceae Composite or Sunflower FamilySpermacoce BorreriaBrassicaceae Mustard FamilyCactaceae Cactus FamilyCheno-Am Goosefoot, PigweedCucurbitaceae Squash FamilyCyperaceae Sedge FamilyEuphorbiaceae Spurge FamilyFabaceae Legume or Bean FamilyMalvaceae Mallow FamilyNyctaginaceae Four O’clock FamilyPoaceae Grass FamilyPolygonaceae Knotweed FamilyTypha Cattail

ArborealAcacia AcaciaAvicennia Black MangroveCombretaceae White Mangrove FamilyRhizophora Red MangroveAlchornea AlchorneaAnacardiaceae Cashew FamilyArecaceae Palm FamilyBursera Gumbo-LimboCaesalpinioideae Legume SubfamilyCassia-type SennaCeltis HackberryCoccoloba Sea GrapeFlacourtiaceae Flacourtia FamilyGuazuma Bay CedarGymnopodium GymnopodiumHeliocarpus-type HeliocarpusHippomane ManchineelMachaerium-type MachaeriumMalpighiaceae Malpighia FamilyMetopium PoisonwoodMoraceae Mulberry FamilyMyrtaceae Myrtle FamilyProsopis MesquiteCf Quercus OakRubiaceae Madder FamilySapotaceae Sapote FamilySpondias Hog PlumTournefortia TournefortiaTrema TremaZanthoxylum Prickly AshIndeterminate Too Poorly Preserved to Identify

B-7

Table B-3Pollen Counts and Percentages from the Vieques Island Sediments

Sample Number Taxa 13 14 15 1 2

Cores AB-1 and AB-3Asteraceae 4 (2.0) 8 (4.0) 3 (1.5) 3 (1.5)BrassicaceaeCactaceae 1 (0.5)Cheno-Am 1 (0.5) 1 (0.5)CucurbitaceaeCyperaceae 5 (2.5) 6 (3.0) 4 (2.0) 10 (5.0)Euphorbiaceae 1 (0.5)Fabaceae 6 (3.0) 3 (1.5) 6 (3.0) 5 (2.5) 3 (1.5)MalvaceaeNyctaginaceaePoaceae 3 (1.5) 6 (3.0) 10 (5.0) 6 (3.0) 15 (7.5)Polygonaceae 4 (2.0) 2 (1.0)Spermacoce 1 (0.5) 1 (0.5)TournefortiaTypha 6 (3.0) 4 (2.0) 4 (2.0)Acacia 1 (0.5)Avicennia 2 (1.0) 3 (1.5)Combretaceae 10 (5.0) 78 (39.0) 12 (6.0) 36 (18.0) 4 (2.0)Rhizophora 101 (50.5) 54 (27.0) 96 (48.0) 31 (15.5) 95 (47.5)Alchornea 4 (2.0) 6 (3.0)Anacardiaceae 4 (2.0) 2 (1.0)Arecaceae 1 (0.5) 2 (1.0) 2 (1.0) 2 (1.0)Bursera 2 (1.0) 2 (1.0) 4 (2.0) 1 (0.5)

1 (0.5)CaesalpinioideaeCassia-type 4 (2.0) 1 (0.5)Celtis 2 (1.0)Coccoloba 25 (12.5) 24 (12.0) 20 (10.0) 65 (32.5) 14 (7.0)Flacourtiaceae 1 (0.5)Guazuma 1 (0.5)Cf HeliocarpusHippomane 1 (0.5) 2 (1.0)Machaerium 2 (1.0) 1 (0.5)Malpighiaceae 3 (1.5) 2 (1.0) 2 (1.0)Metopium 2 (1.0)Moraceae 2 (1.0) 2 (1.0) 3 (1.5) 1 (0.5) 5 (2.5)Myrtaceae 1 (0.5) 2 (1.0)Prosopis 5 (2.5)Cf QuercusRubiaceae 1 (0.5)Sapotaceae 1 (0.5) 2 (1.0) 4 (2.0)Spondias 2 (1.0) 2 (1.0) 1 (0.5)TremaZanthoxylum 2 (1.0) 7 (3.5) 5 (2.5) 1 (0.5)Indeterminate 10 (5.0) 8 (4.0) 9 (4.5) 10 (5.0) 12 (6.0)Unknown 18 (9.0) 5 (2.5) 3 (1.5) 7 (3.5) 9 (4.5)Total 200 (100) 200 (100) 200 (100) 200 (100) 200 (100)Concentration (grains/ml) 12,135 310 4737 6733 2096

B-8

Table B-3 (cont’d)

Sample Number Taxa 9 10 11

Core AB-4Asteraceae 6 (3.0)Brassicaceae 2 (1.0)Cactaceae 1 (0.5)Cheno-AmCucurbitaceae 1 (0.5) 1 (0.5)Cyperaceae 8 (4.0) 2 (1.0) 6 (3.0)EuphorbiaceaeFabaceae 1 (0.5) 8 (4.0)Malvaceae 1 (0.5)NyctaginaceaePoaceae 7 (3.5) 1 (0.5) 6 (3.0)PolygonaceaeSpermacoceTournefortiaTypha 1 (0.5)AcaciaAvicennia 1 (0.5)Combretaceae 141 (70.5) 172 (86.0) 117 (58.5)Rhizophora 3 (1.5) 1 (0.5) 3 (1.5)AlchorneaAnacardiaceae 3 (1.5)ArecaceaeBurseraCaesalpinioideae 2 (1.0)Cassia-type 1 (0.5) 1 (0.5) 2 (1.0)Celtis 3 (1.5) 5 (2.5) 7 (3.5)Coccoloba 14 (7.0) 9 (4.5) 3 (1.5)Flacourtiaceae 1 (0.5)GuazumaCf HeliocarpusHippomane 3 (1.5)MachaeriumMalpighiaceae 1 (0.5) 1 (0.5) 7 (3.5)MetopiumMoraceae 5 (2.5) 1 (0.5) 1 (0.5)Myrtaceae 1 (0.5) 2 (1.0)ProsopisCf QuercusRubiaceaeSapotaceaeSpondias 3 (1.5)Trema 1 (0.5) 5 (2.5)Zanthoxylum 1 (0.5) 1 (0.5)Indeterminate 7 (3.5) 4 (2.0) 10 (5.0)Unknown 2 (1.0) 1 (0.5) 2 (1.0)Total 200 (100) 200 (100) 200 (100)Concentration Value (grains/ml) 2699 16,071 8108

B-9

Table B-3 (cont’d)

Sample Number Taxa 16 17 18 19 20

Core AB-5Asteraceae 2 (1.0) 6 (3.0) 16 (8.0) 1 (0.5) 3 (1.5)BrassicaceaeCactaceaeCheno-Am 15 (7.5) 2 (0.5)CucurbitaceaeCyperaceae 4 (2.0) 4 (2.0) 14 (7.0) 2 (1.0) 26 (13.0)Euphorbiaceae 1 (0.5) 6 (3.0) 8 (4.0) 4 (2.0)Fabaceae 6 (3.0) 4 (2.0) 7 (3.5) 3 (1.5) 4 (2.0)Malvaceae 1 (0.5) 3 (1.5)Nyctaginaceae 2 (1.0)Poaceae 22 (11.0) 4 (2.0) 68 (34.0) 10 (5.0) 30 (15.0)Polygonaceae 2 (1.0) 2 (1.0) 4 (2.0)Spermacoce 1 (0.5)Tournefortia 1 (0.5)Acacia 1 (0.5)Avicennia 2 (1.0)Combretaceae 4 (2.0) 42 (21.0) 4 (2.0) 44 (22.0)Rhizophora 54 (27.0) 80 (40.0) 34 (17.0) 86 (43.0) 50 (25.0)Alchornea 4 (2.0)Anacardiaceae 1 (0.5) 3 (1.5)Arecaceae 1 (0.5) 1 (0.5) 2 (1.0)Bursera 2 (1.0) 2 (1.0)Caesalpinioideae 4 (2.0)Cassia-type 29 (14.5) 5 (2.5) 8 (4.0)CeltisCoccoloba 7 (3.5) 18 (9.0) 12 (6.0) 13 (6.5) 24 (12.0)FlacourtiaceaeGuazumaCf Heliocarpus 1 (0.5)Hippomane 3 (1.5)Machaerium 1 (0.5) 4 (2.0) 2 (1.0) 2 (1.0) 4 (2.0)Malpighiaceae 2 (1.0) 4 (2.0)Moraceae 2 (1.0) 4 (2.0) 2 (1.0)Myrtaceae 2 (1.0) 2 (1.0) 2 (1.0)Prosopis 10 (5.0)Cf Quercus 13 (6.5)Rubiaceae 2 (1.0)Sapotaceae 1 (0.5)Spondias 2 (1.0) 2 (1.0)Zanthoxylum 4 (2.0) 3 (1.5) 3 (1.5) 9 (4.5) 8 (4.0)Indeterminate 15 (7.5) 8 (4.0) 14 (7.0) 7 (3.5) 22 (11.0)Unknown 3 (1.5) 6 (3.0) 6 (3.0)Total 200 (100) 200 (100) 200 (100) 200 (100) 200 (100)Concentration (grains/ml) 28,125 10,843 10,714 14,286 478Charcoal Conc. (frags/ml) 540,000 147,857 2,134,286 266,571 83,571

B-11

widely cultivated in kitchen gardens. In Belize, the percentage of Spondias pollen increasesduring times of forest clearing, suggesting that this economically important tree was selectivelymaintained (Jones 1991, 1994). The occurrence of only two Spondias pollen grains in Sample 13(96–98 cm bs) from Core AB-1 does not argue for an economic usage of this plant. Pollen fromthe drier upland region is present, but much reduced, and is represented by Poaceae (grasses),Acacia (acacia), and Cassia (cassia) types in the uppermost sample, and by Celtis (hackberry) inthe lowest sample.

Pollen percentages illustrated in Figure B-1 show that the counts in the three samples from thiscore remain fairly consistent through time, suggesting there has been little environmental changein this area. Sample 14, from 128–130 cm bs, shows an increase in Combretaceae pollen, whichmay reflect some kind of environmental perturbation. However, this sample contained very littlepollen suggesting this section of the core was deposited rapidly; thus, it is equally possible that alarge-scale event, such as a hurricane or flood episode may have been responsible for introducingthese sediments. Evidence of human activity is lacking in this core, although a singleSpermacoce (borreria) grain was noted in the lowermost sample from 153–156 cm bs. Thisdisturbance weed is often associated with habitation sites or agricultural activities.

Core AB-3

A total of five samples from core AB-3 represented by Samples 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, was examined.This core was collected from the center of Laguna at Bahía de la Chiva on the south coast of theisland. Fossil pollen was counted in only the uppermost two samples, Samples 1 and 2, and ispresented in Table B-3. Small amounts of pollen were noted in Samples 3 and 4, but the grainswere not present in sufficient quantities to allow a count to be made.

The pollen assemblages from Core AB-3 were dominated by mangroves, including Rhizophora,Combretaceae, and, in the uppermost sample, Avicennia. This sample, from 61–63 cm bs likelyrepresents modern or recent sediments, as pollen grains from the historically introduced Prosopis(mesquite) were common. Tropical coastal and dry forest taxa were common in this core andrepresented by Alchornea, Bursera, Coccoloba, Hippomane, Spondias, and Zanthoxylum. Pollentaxa representing the drier upland forests include Cassia , Guazuma (bay cedar), Cactaceae (cactusfamily), and grasses.

Although only two samples from this core could be analyzed, there are some significantdifferences between the samples, hinting at environmental changes in the area. The bottom-mostsample, from 112–116cm bs, contains a significant quantity of Rhizophora pollen (47.5 percent)and a relatively low amount of Coccoloba pollen (7.0 percent). Sample 1, from 61–63cm bs,contains significantly more Coccoloba pollen (32.5 percent), and the Rhizophora pollen (15.5percent) has been largely replaced by Combretaceae pollen (18.0 percent). Although thesechanges may be due to historic human activity in the area, however, they may also be caused bynatural coastal dynamics. The reduction in red mangrove pollen may be due to sediment infillingin the lagoon, possibly caused by increased erosion from agricultural or pastoral activities.

B-12

Core AB-4

Core AB-4 was collected from the edge of Laguna Algodones, on the north coast of ViequesIsland. This section contained six sediment samples, of which only three contained enoughpollen to provide 200-grain counts. These pollen-bearing sediments came from the middlesection of the core, representing 118–225 cm bs. The uppermost two samples, from 52–55cm bsand 70–80cm bs, appear to have been partially oxidized because the few grains noted were inpoor condition. The lowermost sample, from 238–242 cm bs, was completely oxidized andcontained no identifiable pollen. Pollen percentages from Core AB-4 are presented graphically inFigure B-2.

The pollen assemblages from AB-4, as a whole, are dominated by Combretaceae pollen grains,and Rhizophora and Avicennia grains are significantly reduced. The area where this core wascollected is currently dominated by red mangroves, but was apparently dominated by whitemangroves, possibly Laguncularia , in the past. Coastal strand or tropical forest taxa are lesscommon in this core and are represented by Coccoloba, Hippomane, Spondias, and Zanthoxylum.Pollen from the subfamily Caesalpiniaceae may be from Caesalpinia , a common element of thecoastal strand association. There is a notable increase in both the diversity and quantity of uplandforest types, including Cactaceae, Poaceae, Cassia, Celtis, and Trema (trema), probably reflectingthe proximity of this region to the coring location. Single grains of Cucurbitaceae pollen werefound in both Samples 9 and 10. Rather than representing a domesticated plant, these grainsprobably reflect a wild member of this family, as their morphology is inconsistent with membersof the genus Cucurbita.

Core AB-5

Core AB-5 was also collected at Laguna Algodones, but in the center of the lagoon, rather thanalong the edge. A total of five samples was collected from this core, all of which contained well-preserved fossil pollen. Pollen counts and percentages are presented in Table B-3. Unlike theother cores, AB-5 contains a continuous sequence of pollen-bearing samples, which reflectsenvironmental changes throughout the period represented by these sediments. Pollen percentagesare presented graphically in Figure B-3.

In contrast to core AB-4 collected on the edge of the same lagoon, this core is dominated by redmangrove pollen. White mangrove pollen is still fairly common, especially in the center portionof the core, but is wholly absent from the basal sample from 181–186 cm bs. These variationsmay be due in part to the more open environment where core AB-5 was collected. The pollengrains in core AB-5 may be more reflective of the regional environment, while the pollen in coreAB-4 represents a more local record.

As a whole, this core is dominated by both red and white mangroves, reflecting the proximity ofthese taxa to the coring location. Coastal strand and tropical forest types are quite common in thiscore and include Alchornea, Bursera, Coccoloba, Hippomane, Spondias, and Zanthoxylum. Theupland or dry forest species of Acacia , Caesalpinioideae, and Cassia type are reduced in this core.The lowermost sample from core AB-5 reflects an environment somewhat different from the restof the core. In this sample, Combretaceae pollen is completely lacking, but both Poaceae andCyperaceae (sedge family) pollens are common.

B-15

Sample 18, from the interval 102–110 cm bs, may be signaling the presence of a nearby humansettlement because disturbance taxa are common in this sample. Asteraceae pollen is present in arelatively high percentage (8.0 percent) as is grass pollen (34.0 percent). The quantity ofparticulate charcoal (see Figure B-3) in this sample is extremely high (2,134,286 fragments/ml),which is consistent with a nearby human settlement.

The uppermost sample from core AB-5 clearly reflects modern disturbance from human activity.Introduced taxa are represented by pollen from Prosopis and Quercus (oak), neither of which isnative to the island. High percentages of Cassia -type pollen may also reflect introduced ordisturbance vegetation, as both Leucaena and Parkinsonia pollen types are included in this group.Cheno-Ams are also important disturbance indicators, and this sample contains a significantquantity of Cheno-Ams pollen (7.5 percent).

Evidence of Plant Cultivation and Human Activity

The pollen samples from the Vieques Island sediment cores were not particularly illuminating onthe subject of human activity. The analysis of particulate charcoal and pollen from enclosedbasins adjacent to archaeological sites usually provides the best information on past humanactivity; thus, the correct sampling locations were selected. Many of the native plant species onVieques Island are insect-pollinated and therefore produce pollen in low numbers. Further, thesegrains rarely travel far from their source, so it is unlikely that they would be found with anyregularity any distance from their source. Additionally, mangroves and swamp forests adjacent tothe lagoons may have effectively filtered out most wind-borne pollen grains in this study.

The presence of disturbance indicators in the uppermost sediments from core AB-3 and AB-5reflect historic activity in the area, but evidence of prehistoric activity is harder to find. The bestevidence for prehistoric activity is found in sample 18, representing the section 102–110 cmb incore AB-5. Here large percentages of disturbance taxa strongly suggest human activity in thearea. This section has been radiocarbon dated to cal 2,790 to 2,740 B.P. It would be ideal toexamine additional pollen samples from above and below this interval to pinpoint the time ofhuman intrusion into the area.

Cultivated plants are wholly lacking in the pollen assemblages from these cores. A number ofpollen types, such as members of the Brassicaceae, Cactaceae, Cyperaceae, Poaceae, Arecaceae,Malpighiaceae, Moraceae, Myrtaceae, and Sapotaceae families, have been identified that couldrepresent economically important wild plants, (Yanovsky 1936, Moerman 1998). Other taxaidentified could also represent economically useful plants and include Typha, Coccoloba, Celtis,and Spondias. However, all of these taxa are known to occur naturally in this region and may notbe indicative of cultivation.

SUMMARY

A total of 23 sediment samples from Vieques Island was examined for fossil pollen content.These samples were collected from archaeological excavations and from a series of four sedimentcores from lagoons along the coast. Preservation was variable, and no fossil pollen was found inthe archaeological soil samples. Most of the lagunal sediment samples contained well-preservedfossil pollen, and 200-grain counts were made for 13 of these samples. Low pollen concentration

B-16

values indicate that some sediment may have accumulated rapidly, possibly from storm events.Despite the variable preservation, at least 43 pollen taxa were identified in the Vieques Islandsamples.

Little evidence for past vegetation changes in the region can be seen in the pollen record.Fluctuations in mangrove composition probably reflect changes in water depth and salinity,possibly due to storm or erosion events. Additional taxa identified in the samples representadjacent coastal strand or tropical lowland forests, and drier upland zones. Other taxa identifiedrepresent species known to occur in a variety of habits and are of little interpretive value.

Although potentially important economic plant taxa were identified in the pollen record, therewas no positive evidence for plants cultivated by the early inhabitants of the island. Probableevidence for human settlement in the region can be seen in Core AB-5 in Sample 18 from 102–110cm bs. Here large percentages of grass and Asteraceae pollen may mark large-scaledisturbance from nearby human activity. High charcoal counts in this sample support the ideathat human settlement or activities took place near this locality in the past.

B-17

LITERATURE CITED

Barkeley, F. A.1934 The statistical theory of pollen analysis. Ecology, 47, 439-447.

Bryant, V. M., Jr., and S. A. Hall1993 Archaeological Palynology in the United States: A Critique. American Antiquity , 58,

277–286.

Bryant, V. M., Jr., R. G. Holloway, J. G. Jones, and D. L. Carlson1994 Pollen Preservation in Alkaline Soils of the American Southwest. In Sedimentation of

Organic Particles, edited by A. Travers, pp. 47–58. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Erdtman, G.1960 The acetolysis method: a revised description. Svensk Botanisk Tidskrift 54:561–564.

Hall, S. A.1981 Deteriorated pollen grains and the interpretation of Quaternary pollen diagrams. Review

of Paleobotany and Palynology 32:193–206.

Jones, J. G.1991 Pollen Evidence of Prehistoric Forest Modification and Maya Cultivation in Belize.

Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University,College Station.

1994 Pollen Evidence for Early Settlement and Agriculture in Northern Belize. Palynology18:205–211.

Moerman, D.1998 Native American Ethnobotany. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon.

Yanovsky, E.1936 Food Plants of the North American Indians. Miscellaneous Publications No. 237,

United States Department of Agriculture, Washington D.C.

B-18

APPENDIX C

RESULTS OF RADIOCARBON DATING

!!!"#$!%&'()!*$!+),)#-.'(/0!+'##123!

!!!

4)56#,!%',)7!89-88-:9!!

;)6<"'#1()=!>(/6#56#',)?! "',)#1'@!4)/)1A)?7!88-8B-:9!!!

! "#$%&'!(#)#! ! ! !!!!*'#+,-'.! ! ! /012/31! ! !!!!!!!1456'5)745#&!! ! ! ! ! 8#.749#-:45!;<'! ! !!!!8#)74! ! !!!8#.749#-:45!;<'=>?!

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

!!!!"#$!%&'()!*$!+),)#-.'(/0!+'##123!

!!!

4)56#,!%',)7!89-88-:9!!

!! !!!

! "#$%&'!(#)#! ! ! !!!!*'#+,-'.! ! ! /012/31! ! !!!!!!!1456'5)745#&!! ! ! ! ! 8#.749#-:45!;<'! ! !!!!8#)74! ! !!!8#.749#-:45!;<'=>?!

!!C),'!<!8D9E9E! ! ! ! !!!!!WWD:!G-<!B:!C+!!!!!! ! <8F$E!6-66!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!WBD:!G-<!B:!C+!IJ"+K*!7!!;"><L<WH!J.JKMI>I!7!J"I<I,'(?'#?!?)@1A)#0!"JN*4>JK-+4*N4*JN"*.N!7!!O6#P'(1/!2)?1Q)(,R7!'/1?!S'23)2!9!I>;"J!TJK>C4JN>U.!!!7!! T'@!CT!8FX:!,6!8EX:!OT'@!C+!WFB:!,6!WEB:R!VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV!

! " # $% & " ' $( ) *( + *& " , $( ! " & % ( ) **" - . *' ( *! " # . ) , " & */ . " & 0OL ' #1 'Y @) 27 ! !T 8 W -T 8 9Z <9 H $B 7 @'Y $!Q & @,Z 8 R

!" #$ %" &$ %' () *+ # ,% - . , &" /0 1 2 3 2 0

4 $) 5 ,) & 6$ ) " 7 (%" 8 6$ 9" %# $ ) (" : , - ; 0 <= > < (.?

2 (@ 6:+ " (9" 76 # %" &,8 (% , A* 7 &-BC DE (F %$ # " # 6 76 &' G

4 " 7 (HI (0 0 1 < (&$ (0 2 ; < (B4 " 7 (. ? (1 ; < (& $ (3 1 < G

>( , ) #/ )5 , !? ' ,'

>( , ) #/ )5 , !6 [!#'? 1 6 /' #Y 6 ( !'P )S 1 ,3 !/ ' @ 1Y # ' ,1 6 ( !/& #A ) 7 T ' @!J % !8 9 B : !O T ' @ !C + !D 8 : R

8 !I 1PQ ' !/' @1 Y #' , )? !#) 2& @,7OE F\ !5 # 6 Y 'Y 1@ 1, 0 R

T ' @!J % !8 9 : : !, 6 !8 9 D : !OT ' @!C + !D H : !, 6 !E F : R

!" #$ %& ' %(!%) * +,- .%/ 012 0. %34* ,051 %66 7$$ %8& 9%: %; < 4= % >6 ?$@ %AA (%$7 A( %: %31 B =% >6 ?$ @%AA 6%?" A! % :%C D/ 1 04=%E< -1 F ,15 0*G 1, E* HIG *2

% 1 23 *" 4 3 56 2 78 * $4 8 9; 1 42 1 .%9 I%& I.%J * K < 4.%L I%) I.% 7 " " 6 .%M 1 5 0* G1 , E * H %6 $ >N @ .%O 6 7 ( D6 N N

! "# $% & ' $( $ )* "! && + ,- ./ "0, "1 - '$2 +- 0 $3 4 "1 56 "7 - 0) 89 - 0/ )% - 0 $.8

& -+ 0 P<, .%/ I.%< -I%1 4I . %7 " " # .%M 1 5 0* G1 , E * H %! ? >6 @ .%O 7 ? ! 7 D7 ? # 6:; < 1! =>? "@ -* $ , .- + 2,3 "! 4)"1 - ' $2 + - 0$ ,3

& -+ 0 P<, .%/ I.%P 1 H %5 <, %Q 4 0GR - .%S I .%7 " " # .%M 1 5 0* G1 ,E * H % ! ? >6 @ .%O B0 0DB 0 00A * $0 , +$ - '"1 ,% % )3 01 - '$ 2 +- 0$, 3 "7 - 0- 2 - 8)

7- 0-2 - 8 )"B 8 )*4) [) #)( /) 2 7

!"#$%&"'(%)*"+,*-./0

1 1 2

132

422

452

462

412

432

322

352

362

312

332

722

752

8 '+") $ &*9 ,# $: ,) ;7 62

< " =*>?@@62 @@12 @@32 @522 @552 @562 @512 @532 @A22

3@2B62 *./

! " # $% & " ' $( ) *( + *& " , $( ! " & % ( ) **" - . *' ( *! " # . ) , " & */ . " & 0OL ' #1 'Y @) 27 !!T 8 W -T 8 9Z <9 B $W 7 @'Y $!Q & @,Z 8 R

!" #$ %" &$ %' () *+ # ,% - . , &" /0 1 2 3 2 2

4 $) 5 ,) & 6$ ) " 7 (%" 8 6$ 9" %# $ ) (" : , - 2 D ; < = > < (.?

2 (@ 6:+ " (9" 76 # %" &,8 (% , A* 7 &A -BC DE (F %$ # " # 6 76 &' G

4 " 7 (. 4 (; 2 < (& $ (1 3 < (B4 " 7 (. ? (2 1 3 < (&$ (2 1 0 < G(" ) 84 " 7 (. 4 (3 2 < (& $ (D C < (B4 " 7 (. ? (2 D 3 < (&$ (2 D > < G

>( , ) #/ )5 , !? ' ,'

>( , ) #/ )5 , !6 [!#'? 1 6 /' #Y 6 ( !'P )S 1 ,3 !/ ' @ 1Y # ' ,1 6 ( !/& #A ) 7 T ' @!C T !D X : !OT ' @!C + !9 D B : R

8 !I 1PQ ' !/' @1 Y #' , )? !#) 2& @,7OE F\ !5 # 6 Y 'Y 1@ 1, 0 R

T ' @!C T !F : : !,6 !D F : !O T ' @ !C + !9 D H : !,6 !9 D W : R

!" #$ %& ' %(!%) * +,- .%/ 012 0. %34* ,051 %66 7$$ %8& 9%: %; < 4= % >6 ?$@ %AA (%$7 A( %: %31 B =% >6 ?$ @%AA 6%?" A! % :%C D/ 1 04=%E< -1 F ,15 0*G 1, E* HIG *2

% 1 23 *" 4 3 56 2 78 * $4 8 9; 1 42 1 .%9 I%& I.%J * K < 4.%L I%) I.% 7 " " 6 .%M 1 5 0* G1 , E * H %6 $ >N @ .%O 6 7 ( D6 N N

! "# $% & ' $( $ )* "! && + ,- ./ "0, "1 - '$2 +- 0 $3 4 "1 56 "7 - 0) 89 - 0/ )% - 0 $.8

& -+ 0 P<, .%/ I.%< -I%1 4I . %7 " " # .%M 1 5 0* G1 , E * H %! ? >6 @ .%O 7 ? ! 7 D7 ? # 6:; < 1! =>? "@ -* $ , .- + 2,3 "! 4)"1 - ' $2 + - 0$ ,3

& -+ 0 P<, .%/ I.%P 1 H %5 <, %Q 4 0GR - .%S I .%7 " " # .%M 1 5 0* G1 ,E * H % ! ? >6 @ .%O B 0 0DB 0 00A * $0 , +$ - '"1 ,% % )3 01 - '$ 2 +- 0$, 3 "7 - 0- 2 - 8)

7- 0-2 - 8 )"B 8 )*4) [) #)( /) 2 7

!"#$%&"'(%)*"+,*-./0

5 6 6 2

5612

5632

5C22

5C52

5C62

5C12

5C32

5122

5152

5162

5112

5132

5422

8 '+") $ &*9 ,# $: ,) ;5 452

<" = *.<362 352 322 432 412 462 452 422 132 112 162 152 122 C32 C12

5C32B62 *./

! " # $% & " ' $( ) *( + *& " , $( ! " & % ( ) **" - . *' ( *! " # . ) , " & */ . " & 0OL ' #1 'Y @) 27 !!T 8 W -T 8 9Z <9 : $W 7 @'Y $!Q & @,Z 8 R

!" #$ %" &$ %' () *+ # ,% - . , &" /0 1 2 3 2 J

4 $) 5 ,) & 6$ ) " 7 (%" 8 6$ 9" %# $ ) (" : , - 2 2 ; < = > < (.?

2 (@ 6:+ " (9" 76 # %" &,8 (% , A* 7 &A -BC DE (F %$ # " # 6 76 &' G

4 " 7 (. 4 (> < < (& $ (J D < (B4 " 7 (. ? (2 J D < (&$ (2 J < < G(" ) 84 " 7 (. 4 (J 0 < (& $ (2 0 < (B4 " 7 (. ? (2 2 3 < (&$ (2 0 3 < G

>( , ) #/ )5 , !? ' ,'

>( , ) #/ )5 , !6 [!#'? 1 6 /' #Y 6 ( !'P )S 1 ,3 !/ ' @ 1Y # ' ,1 6 ( !/& #A ) 7 T ' @!C T !W F : !OT ' @!C + !9 W W : R

8 !I 1PQ ' !/' @1 Y #' , )? !#) 2& @,7OE F\ !5 # 6 Y 'Y 1@ 1, 0 R

T ' @!C T !W X : !,6 !W E : !O T ' @ !C + !9 W B : !,6 !9 W 9 : R

!" #$ %& ' %(!%) * +,- .%/ 012 0. %34* ,051 %66 7$$ %8& 9%: %; < 4= % >6 ?$@ %AA (%$7 A( %: %31 B =% >6 ?$ @%AA 6%?" A! % :%C D/ 1 04=%E< -1 F ,15 0*G 1, E* HIG *2

% 1 23 *" 4 3 56 2 78 * $4 8 9; 1 42 1 .%9 I%& I.%J * K < 4.%L I%) I.% 7 " " 6 .%M 1 5 0* G1 , E * H %6 $ >N @ .%O 6 7 ( D6 N N

! "# $% & ' $( $ )* "! && + ,- ./ "0, "1 - '$2 +- 0 $3 4 "1 56 "7 - 0) 89 - 0/ )% - 0 $.8

& -+ 0 P<, .%/ I.%< -I%1 4I . %7 " " # .%M 1 5 0* G1 , E * H %! ? >6 @ .%O 7 ? ! 7 D7 ? # 6:; < 1! =>? "@ -* $ , .- + 2,3 "! 4)"1 - ' $2 + - 0$ ,3

& -+ 0 P<, .%/ I.%P 1 H %5 <, %Q 4 0GR - .%S I .%7 " " # .%M 1 5 0* G1 ,E * H % ! ? >6 @ .%O B 0 0DB 0 00A * $0 , +$ - '"1 ,% % )3 01 - '$ 2 +- 0$, 3 "7 - 0- 2 - 8)

7- 0-2 - 8 )"B 8 )*4) [) #)( /) 2 7

!"#$%&"'(%)*"+,*-./0

5 @ 6 2

5@12

5@32

5522

5552

5562

5512

5532

5A22

5A52

5A62

5A12

5A32

5622

8 '+") $ &*9 ,# $: ,) ;5 652

<" = *.<652 622 A32 A12 A62 A52 A22 532 512 562 552 522

5532B62 *./

! " # $% & " ' $( ) *( + *& " , $( ! " & % ( ) **" - . *' ( *! " # . ) , " & */ . " & 0OL ' #1 'Y @) 27 !!T 8 W -T 8 9Z <8 W $H 7 @'Y $!Q & @,Z 8 R

!" #$ %" &$ %' () *+ # ,% - . , &" /0 1 2 3 2 >

4 $) 5 ,) & 6$ ) " 7 (%" 8 6$ 9" %# $ ) (" : , - J J 1 < = > < (.?

2 (@ 6:+ " (9" 76 # %" &,8 (% , A* 7 &-BC DE (F %$ # " # 6 76 &' G

4 " 7 (. 4 (0 1 D < (& $ (0 D J < (B4 " 7(. ? (J 1 < < (&$ (J > ; < G

>( , ) #/ )5 , !? ' ,'

>( , ) #/ )5 , !6 [!#'? 1 6 /' #Y 6 ( !'P )S 1 ,3 !/ ' @ 1Y # ' ,1 6 ( !/& #A ) 7 T ' @!C T !8 E D : !OT ' @!C + !W E 9 : R

8 !I 1PQ ' !/' @1 Y #' , )? !#) 2& @,7OE F\ !5 # 6 Y 'Y 1@ 1, 0 R

T ' @!C T !8 D : : !,6 !8 E 9 : !O T ' @ !C + !W E H : !,6 !W H D : R

!" #$ %& ' %(!%) * +,- .%/ 012 0. %34* ,051 %66 7$$ %8& 9%: %; < 4= % >6 ?$@ %AA (%$7 A( %: %31 B =% >6 ?$ @%AA 6%?" A! % :%C D/ 1 04=%E< -1 F ,15 0*G 1, E* HIG *2

% 1 23 *" 4 3 56 2 78 * $4 8 9; 1 42 1 .%9 I%& I.%J * K < 4.%L I%) I.% 7 " " 6 .%M 1 5 0* G1 , E * H %6 $ >N @ .%O 6 7 ( D6 N N

! "# $% & ' $( $ )* "! && + ,- ./ "0, "1 - '$2 +- 0 $3 4 "1 56 "7 - 0) 89 - 0/ )% - 0 $.8

& -+ 0 P<, .%/ I.%< -I%1 4I . %7 " " # .%M 1 5 0* G1 , E * H %! ? >6 @ .%O 7 ? ! 7 D7 ? # 6:; < 1! =>? "@ -* $ , .- + 2,3 "! 4)"1 - ' $2 + - 0$ ,3

& -+ 0 P<, .%/ I.%P 1 H %5 <, %Q 4 0GR - .%S I .%7 " " # .%M 1 5 0* G1 ,E * H % ! ? >6 @ .%O B 0 0DB 0 00A * $0 , +$ - '"1 ,% % )3 01 - '$ 2 +- 0$, 3 "7 - 0- 2 - 8)

7- 0-2 - 8 )"B 8 )*4) [) #)( /) 2 7

!"#$%&"'(%)*"+,*-./0

A 5 5 2

A562

A512

A532

AA22

AA52

AA62

AA12

AA32

A622

A652

A662

A612

A632

8 '+") $ &*9 ,# $: ,) ;A C22

<" = *.<@412 @462 @452 @422 @132 @112 @162 @152 @122 @C32 @C12 @C62 @C52 @C22

AA42B62 *./

! " # $% & " ' $( ) *( + *& " , $( ! " & % ( ) **" - . *' ( *! " # . ) , " & */ . " & 0OL ' #1 'Y @) 27 !!T 8 W -T 8 9Z <9 : $B 7 @'Y $!Q & @,Z 8 R

!" #$ %" &$ %' () *+ # ,% - . , &" /0 1 2 3 2 D

4 $) 5 ,) & 6$ ) " 7 (%" 8 6$ 9" %# $ ) (" : , - 2 3 > < = > < (.?

2 (@ 6:+ " (9" 76 # %" &,8 (% , A* 7 &-BC DE (F %$ # " # 6 76 &' G

4 " 7 (. 4 (; > < (& $ (1 C < (B4 " 7 (. ? (2 1 C < (&$ (2 1 > < G

>( , ) #/ )5 , !? ' ,'

>( , ) #/ )5 , !6 [!#'? 1 6 /' #Y 6 ( !'P )S 1 ,3 !/ ' @ 1Y # ' ,1 6 ( !/& #A ) 7 T ' @!C T !F 8 : !OT ' @!C + !9 D E : R

8 !I 1PQ ' !/' @1 Y #' , )? !#) 2& @,7OE F\ !5 # 6 Y 'Y 1@ 1, 0 R

T ' @!C T !F 9 : !,6 !F : : !O T ' @ !C + !9 D D : !,6 !9 D H : R

!" #$ %& ' %(!%) * +,- .%/ 012 0. %34* ,051 %66 7$$ %8& 9%: %; < 4= % >6 ?$@ %AA (%$7 A( %: %31 B =% >6 ?$ @%AA 6%?" A! % :%C D/ 1 04=%E< -1 F ,15 0*G 1, E* HIG *2

% 1 23 *" 4 3 56 2 78 * $4 8 9; 1 42 1 .%9 I%& I.%J * K < 4.%L I%) I.% 7 " " 6 .%M 1 5 0* G1 , E * H %6 $ >N @ .%O 6 7 ( D6 N N

! "# $% & ' $( $ )* "! && + ,- ./ "0, "1 - '$2 +- 0 $3 4 "1 56 "7 - 0) 89 - 0/ )% - 0 $.8

& -+ 0 P<, .%/ I.%< -I%1 4I . %7 " " # .%M 1 5 0* G1 , E * H %! ? >6 @ .%O 7 ? ! 7 D7 ? # 6:; < 1! =>? "@ -* $ , .- + 2,3 "! 4)"1 - ' $2 + - 0$ ,3

& -+ 0 P<, .%/ I.%P 1 H %5 <, %Q 4 0GR - .%S I .%7 " " # .%M 1 5 0* G1 ,E * H % ! ? >6 @ .%O B 0 0DB 0 00A * $0 , +$ - '"1 ,% % )3 01 - '$ 2 +- 0$, 3 "7 - 0- 2 - 8)

7- 0-2 - 8 )"B 8 )*4) [) #)( /) 2 7

!"#$%&"'(%)*"+,*-./0

5 C 2 2

5C52

5C62

5C12

5C32

5122

5152

5162

5112

5132

5422

5452

5462

5412

8 '+") $ &*9 ,# $: ,) ;5 432

<" = *.<362 3AC 3A2 35C 352 3@C 3@2 32C 322 47C 472 43C

5162B62 *./

! " # $% & " ' $( ) *( + *& " , $( ! " & % ( ) **" - . *' ( *! " # . ) , " & */ . " & 0OL ' #1 'Y @) 27 !!T 8 W -T 8 9Z <8 F $E 7 @'Y $!Q & @,Z 8 R

!" #$ %" &$ %' () *+ # ,% - . , &" /0 1 2 3 2 3

4 $) 5 ,) & 6$ ) " 7 (%" 8 6$ 9" %# $ ) (" : , - J > 1 < = > < (.?

2 (@ 6:+ " (9" 76 # %" &,8 (% , A* 7 &-BC DE (F %$ # " # 6 76 &' G

4 " 7 (. 4 (0 ; C < (& $ (0 3 C < (B4 " 7(. ? (J ; > < (&$ (J 3 > < G

>( , ) #/ )5 , !? ' ,'

>( , ) #/ )5 , !6 [!#'? 1 6 /' #Y 6 ( !'P )S 1 ,3 !/ ' @ 1Y # ' ,1 6 ( !/& #A ) 7 T ' @!C T !8 D E : !OT ' @!C + !W D 8 : R

8 !I 1PQ ' !/' @1 Y #' , )? !#) 2& @,7OE F\ !5 # 6 Y 'Y 1@ 1, 0 R

T ' @!C T !8 F D : !,6 !8 D W : !O T ' @ !C + !W F 9 : !,6 !W E F : R

!" #$ %& ' %(!%) * +,- .%/ 012 0. %34* ,051 %66 7$$ %8& 9%: %; < 4= % >6 ?$@ %AA (%$7 A( %: %31 B =% >6 ?$ @%AA 6%?" A! % :%C D/ 1 04=%E< -1 F ,15 0*G 1, E* HIG *2

% 1 23 *" 4 3 56 2 78 * $4 8 9; 1 42 1 .%9 I%& I.%J * K < 4.%L I%) I.% 7 " " 6 .%M 1 5 0* G1 , E * H %6 $ >N @ .%O 6 7 ( D6 N N

! "# $% & ' $( $ )* "! && + ,- ./ "0, "1 - '$2 +- 0 $3 4 "1 56 "7 - 0) 89 - 0/ )% - 0 $.8

& -+ 0 P<, .%/ I.%< -I%1 4I . %7 " " # .%M 1 5 0* G1 , E * H %! ? >6 @ .%O 7 ? ! 7 D7 ? # 6:; < 1! =>? "@ -* $ , .- + 2,3 "! 4)"1 - ' $2 + - 0$ ,3

& -+ 0 P<, .%/ I.%P 1 H %5 <, %Q 4 0GR - .%S I .%7 " " # .%M 1 5 0* G1 ,E * H % ! ? >6 @ .%O B 0 0DB 0 00A * $0 , +$ - '"1 ,% % )3 01 - '$ 2 +- 0$, 3 "7 - 0- 2 - 8)

7- 0-2 - 8 )"B 8 )*4) [) #)( /) 2 7

!"#$%&"'(%)*"+,*-./0

A A 5 2

AA62

AA12

AA32

A622

A652

A662

A612

A632

AC22

AC52

AC62

AC12

AC32

8 '+") $ &*9 ,# $: ,) ;A 122

<" = *.<@722 @332 @312 @362 @352 @322 @432 @412 @462 @452 @422 @132

A642B62 *./

!

APPENDIX D

ARTIFACT INVENTORY, SITES VI049 AND VI044

CA

T N

OS

ITE

UN

IT

STR

ATU

MLE

VE

LC

ATE

GO

RY

CLA

SS

TYP

EO

THE

RC

OU

NT

WE

IGH

T(g)

PH

OTO

CO

MM

ENTS

41-1

Vi0

49G

MI-1

Surfa

ceFa

unal

shel

lbe

ad1

2.6

Figu

res

28, 2

9Sh

ell b

ead

(Oliv

a r

etic

ula

ris)

41-2

Vi0

49G

MI-1

Surfa

ceP

reco

lum

bian

cera

mic

grid

dle

grit

tem

per

127

.1Fi

gure

27G

riddl

e sh

erd;

tem

per m

ostly

qua

rtz

Cat

1-1

Vi0

49G

MI-1

A1

Pre

colu

mbi

ance

ram

icbo

dygr

it te

mpe

r5

34.6

Poss

ible

Cue

vas/

Early

Ost

iono

id b

ody

sher

ds;

tem

per m

ostly

qua

rtz

Cat

1-2

Vi0

49G

MI-1

A1

Pre

colu

mbi

ance

ram

icrim

fn g

rit te

mpe

r1

5.4

Poss

ible

Hac

iend

a G

rand

e ut

ilitar

ian

war

e

Cat

1-3

Vi0

49G

MI-1

A1

Pre

colu

mbi

ance

ram

icbo

dygr

it te

mpe

r1

11.6

Po

ssib

le L

ate

Cue

vas

or E

arly

Ost

iono

id b

ody

sher

d; w

ell f

ired

Cat

1-4

Vi0

49G

MI-1

A1

Pre

colu

mbi

ance

ram

icrim

grit

tem

per

18.

6Po

ssib

le E

arly

Ost

ione

s rim

she

rd

Cat

1-5

Vi0

49G

MI-1

A1

Pre

colu

mbi

ance

ram

icrim

grit

tem

per

11

Figu

re27

Poss

ible

Hac

iend

a G

rand

e in

cise

d rim

she

rd;

tem

per m

ostly

qua

rtz

Cat

1-6

Vi0

49G

MI-1

A1

Pre

colu

mbi

ance

ram

icbo

dyva

rious

tem

per

4814

3.3

Uni

dent

ified

bod

y sh

erds

Cat

1-7

Vi0

49G

MI-1

A1

Pre

colu

mbi

anlit

hic

tool

135

.5Fi

gure

27Q

uartz

tool

Cat

1-8

Vi0

49G

MI-1

A1

Pre

colu

mbi

anlit

hic

FCR

16.

2FC

R

Cat

1-9

Vi0

49G

MI-1

A1

Faun

albo

ne1

0.1

Figu

re29

Uni

dent

ified

sm

all f

ish

verte

bra

Cat

1-1

0V

i049

GM

I-1A

1Fa

unal

othe

rco

ral

12.

8C

oral

Cat

1-1

1V

i049

GM

I-1A

1Fa

unal

shel

l29

151.

6W

est I

ndia

n To

p S

hell

(Citt

ariu

m p

ica)

Cat

1-1

2V

i049

GM

I-1A

1Fa

unal

shel

l3

69.1

Figu

re29

Con

ch (

Str

ombu

s sp

.)

Cat

1-1

3V

i049

GM

I-1A

1Fa

unal

shel

l3

8.8

Appl

e m

urex

(Phy

llono

tus

pom

mon

)

Cat

1-1

4V

i049

GM

I-1A

1Fa

unal

shel

l2

2.1

Wes

t Ind

ian

Top

She

ll (C

ittariu

m p

ica)

Cat

1-1

5V

i049

GM

I-1A

1Fa

unal

shel

l1

1.8

Blee

ding

Too

th (N

erit

a p

elo

runta

)

Cat

1-1

6V

i049

GM

I-1A

1Fa

unal

shel

l1

1.2

Chi

ton

(Chito

n s

p.)

Cat

1-1

7V

i049

GM

I-1A

1Fa

unal

shel

l2

1.3

Mis

c/U

nide

nt

Cat

1-1

8V

i049

GM

I-1A

1Fa

unal

shel

l23

51.7

Tige

r Luc

ine

(Codaki

a o

rbic

ula

ris) S

peci

es A

CA

T N

OS

ITE

UN

IT

STR

ATU

MLE

VE

LC

ATE

GO

RY

CLA

SS

TYP

EO

THE

RC

OU

NT

WE

IGH

T(g)

PH

OTO

CO

MM

ENTS

Cat

1-1

9V

i049

GM

I-1A

1Fa

unal

shel

l28

72.7

Luci

ne (A

nodontia

sp.

) S

peci

es B

Cat

1-2

0V

i049

GM

I-1A

1Fa

unal

shel

l3

8.4

Wes

t Ind

ian

Dos

inia

(Dosi

nia

conce

ntr

ica

) Spe

cies

C

Cat

1-2

1V

i049

GM

I-1A

1Fa

unal

shel

l5

3.8

Uni

dent

don

ax (D

onax

sp.

) Spe

cies

D

Cat

1-2

2V

i049

GM

I-1A

1Fa

unal

shel

l4

2.2

Bea

ded

Per

iwin

kle

(Tec

tariu

s m

uric

atus

) Spe

cies

E

Cat

1-2

3V

i049

GM

I-1A

1Fa

unal

shel

l3

0.8

Virg

in N

erite

(Nerit

ina v

irgin

ea

) Spe

cies

F

Cat

1-2

4V

i049

GM

I-1A

1Fa

unal

shel

l1

4.2

Figu

re29

Con

e (C

onus

sp.)

Spe

cies

G

Cat

1-2

5V

i049

GM

I-1A

1Fa

unal

shel

l1

4.6

Flat

Tre

e O

yste

r (Is

ogno

mon

ala

tus)

Spe

cies

H

Cat

1-2

6V

i049

GM

I-1A

1H

isto

ricce

ram

icve

ssel

whi

tew

are

1W

hite

war

e

Cat

1-2

7V

i049

GM

I-1A

1H

isto

ricgl

ass

vess

elcl

ear

211

.2C

lear

ves

sel g

lass

frag

men

ts

Cat

1-2

8V

i049

GM

I-1A

1H

isto

ricm

etal

mis

c1

22.7

lead

fish

ing

line

wei

ght

Cat

2-1

Vi0

49G

MI-1

A2

Pre

colu

mbi

ance

ram

icgr

iddl

egr

it te

mpe

r1

23.7

Figu

re27

Grid

dle

sher

d - p

ossi

ble

early

due

to th

inne

ss

Cat

2-2

Vi0

49G

MI-1

A2

Pre

colu

mbi

ance

ram

icbo

dygr

it te

mpe

r1

5.5

Cue

vas/

Early

Ost

iono

id b

ody

sher

d

Cat

2-3

Vi0

49G

MI-1

A2

Pre

colu

mbi

ance

ram

icbo

dyqt

z te

mpe

r2

43.3

Poss

ible

Ear

ly O

stio

noid

bod

y sh

erds

, men

ding

Cat

2-4

Vi0

49G

MI-1

A2

Pre

colu

mbi

ance

ram

icbo

dygr

it te

mpe

r13

22.3

Uni

dent

ified

bod

y sh

erds

Cat

2-5

Vi0

49G

MI-1

A2

Pre

colu

mbi

ance

ram

icrim

fn g

rit te

mpe

r1

1.1

Uni

dent

ified

rim

she

rd

Cat

2-6

Vi0

49G

MI-1

A2

Pre

colu

mbi

anlit

hic

debi

tage

11.

9Fi

gure

27Q

uartz

ite fl

ake

Cat

2-7

Vi0

49G

MI-1

A2

Pre

colu

mbi

anot

her

foss

il1

9.3

Foss

il bi

valv

e

Cat

2-8

Vi0

49G

MI-1

A2

Faun

alsh

ell

1911

3.9

Wes

t Ind

ian

Top

She

ll (C

ittariu

m p

ica

)

Cat

2-9

Vi0

49G

MI-1

A2

Faun

alsh

ell

14.

5C

onch

(Str

ombu

s sp

.)

Cat

2-1

0V

i049

GM

I-1A

2Fa

unal

shel

l2

26.6

Figu

re30

Appl

e M

urex

(Phy

llono

tus

pom

mum

)

CA

T N

OS

ITE

UN

IT

STR

ATU

MLE

VE

LC

ATE

GO

RY

CLA

SS

TYP

EO

THE

RC

OU

NT

WE

IGH

T(g)

PH

OTO

CO

MM

ENTS

Cat

2-1

1V

i049

GM

I-1A

2Fa

unal

shel

l1

2.3

Lim

pet (

Fis

sure

lla n

odusa

)

Cat

2-1

2V

i049

GM

I-1A

2Fa

unal

shel

l1

1.6

Land

sna

il

Cat

2-1

3V

i049

GM

I-1A

2Fa

unal

shel

l7

36.4

Figu

re30

Tige

r Luc

ine

(Codaki

a o

rbic

ula

ris)

Spe

cies

A

Cat

2-1

4V

i049

GM

I-1A

2Fa

unal

shel

l27

120.

2Fi

gure

30Lu

cine

(A

nodontia

sp.

)Spe

cies

B

Cat

2-1

5V

i049

GM

I-1A

2Fa

unal

shel

l2

4.4

Don

ax (

Don

ax s

p.)

Spe

cies

D

Cat

2-1

6V

i049

GM

I-1A

2Fa

unal

shel

l1

0.4

Bea

ded

Per

iwin

kle

(Tec

tariu

s m

uric

atus

)Spe

cies

E

Cat

2-1

7V

i049

GM

I-1A

2Fa

unal

shel

l3

2.3

Virg

in N

erite

(N

erit

ina v

irgin

ea)

Spec

ies

F

Cat

2-1

8V

i049

GM

I-1A

2Fa

unal

shel

l1

4.9

Con

e (C

onus

sp)

Cat

2-1

9V

i049

GM

I-1A

2Fa

unal

shel

l3

10.5

Flat

Tre

e O

yste

r (Is

ogno

mon

ala

tus)

Spe

cies

H

Cat

2-2

0V

i049

GM

I-1A

2Fa

unal

shel

l2.

5U

nide

ntifi

ed s

hell,

Spe

cies

I fr

agm

ents

Cat

2-2

1V

i049

GM

I-1A

2H

isto

ricm

etal

rivet

iron

11.

7S

mal

l iro

n riv

et

Cat

2-2

2V

i049

GM

I-1A

2H

isto

ricgl

ass

vess

elcl

ear

413

.7C

lear

ves

sel g

lass

frag

men

ts, s

ome

sola

rizat

ion

Cat

3-1

Vi0

49G

MI-1

B3

Pre

colu

mbi

ance

ram

icbo

dycr

s gr

it te

mpe

r1

8.3

Early

Ost

iono

id

Cat

3-2

Vi0

49G

MI-1

B3

Faun

alsh

ell

10.

5W

est I

ndia

n To

p S

hell

(Citt

ariu

m p

ica

)

Cat

3-3

Vi0

49G

MI-1

B3

Faun

alsh

ell

33.

1Ti

ger L

ucin

e (C

odaki

a o

rbic

ula

ris) S

peci

es A

Cat

3-4

Vi0

49G

MI-1

B3

Faun

alsh

ell

716

.9Lu

cine

(Anodontia

sp

.) S

peci

es B

Cat

3-5

Vi0

49G

MI-1

B3

Faun

alsh

ell

10.

5Vi

rgin

Ner

ite (N

erit

ina v

irgin

ea)

Spec

ies

F

Vi0

49 T

otal

282

CA

T N

OS

ITE

UN

IT

STR

ATU

MLE

VE

LC

ATE

GO

RY

CLA

SS

TYP

EO

THE

RC

OU

NT

WE

IGH

T(g)

PH

OTO

CO

MM

ENTS

Cat

42-

1V

i044

GM

I-2su

rface

Pre

colu

mbi

ance

ram

ics

body

grit

tem

per

214

.3C

ueva

s bo

dy s

herd

s

Cat

42-

2V

i044

GM

I-2su

rface

Pre

colu

mbi

ance

ram

ics

body

grit

tem

per

38.

5w

eath

ered

bod

y sh

erds

Cat

42-

3V

i044

GM

I-2su

rface

Faun

alco

ral

tool

144

.5Fi

gure

36co

ral a

brad

er

Cat

4-1

Vi0

44G

MI-2

A1

Pre

colu

mbi

ance

ram

ics

rimv

fn g

rit te

mpe

r2

19.8

Sala

doid

inve

rted

bell-

shap

ed v

esse

l (m

ends

)

Cat

4-2

Vi0

44G

MI-2

A1

Pre

colu

mbi

ance

ram

ics

rimv

fn g

rit te

mpe

r1

6.4

Sala

doid

inve

rted

bell-

shap

ed v

esse

l

Cat

4-3

Vi0

44G

MI-2

A1

Pre

colu

mbi

ance

ram

ics

rimno

tem

per

13.

1Sa

lado

id in

verte

d be

ll-sh

aped

ves

sel

Cat

4-4

Vi0

44G

MI-2

A1

Pre

colu

mbi

ance

ram

ics

body

fn g

rit te

mpe

r1

17.1

Sala

doid

inve

rted

bell-

shap

ed v

esse

l

Cat

4-5

Vi0

44G

MI-2

A1

Pre

colu

mbi

ance

ram

ics

body

grit

tem

per

214

.7Sa

lado

id in

verte

d be

ll-sh

aped

ves

sel (

men

ds)

Cat

4-6

Vi0

44G

MI-2

A1

Pre

colu

mbi

ance

ram

ics

stra

phan

dle

no te

mpe

r1

4.1

Hac

iend

a G

rand

e, v

. fin

e pa

ste

Cat

4-7

Vi0

44G

MI-2

A1

Pre

colu

mbi

ance

ram

ics

body

no

tem

per

48.

7H

acie

nda

Gra

nde,

v. f

ine

past

e, w

ell f

ired

Cat

4-8

Vi0

44G

MI-2

A1

Pre

colu

mbi

ance

ram

ics

body

v fn

grit

tem

per

12.

5Sa

lado

id/e

arly

Ost

iono

id?

Cat

4-9

Vi0

44G

MI-2

A1

Pre

colu

mbi

ance

ram

ics

shou

lder

fn g

rit te

mpe

r1

13.4

Figu

re35

poss

ible

Sal

adoi

d

Cat

4-1

0V

i044

GM

I-2A

1P

reco

lum

bian

cera

mic

sbo

dygr

it te

mpe

r2

14.6

Late

Sal

adoi

d/ea

rly O

stio

noid

(men

ds)

Cat

4-1

1V

i044

GM

I-2A

1P

reco

lum

bian

cera

mic

sbo

dyva

rious

tem

per

3011

9.4

Uni

dent

ified

bod

y sh

erds

Cat

4-1

2V

i044

GM

I-2A

1P

reco

lum

bian

lithi

csce

lt1

5.1

Figu

re35

spal

l fro

m c

uttin

g ed

ge o

f pet

aloi

d ce

lt, fn

e gr

aine

d ig

neou

s

Cat

4-1

3V

i044

GM

I-2A

1Fa

unal

bone

10.

7Fi

gure

35un

iden

tifie

d m

ediu

m s

ize

fish

verte

bra

Cat

5-1

Vi0

44G

MI-2

A2

Pre

colu

mbi

ance

ram

ics

rimv

fn g

rit te

mpe

r5

32Fi

gure

35C

ueva

s; fl

ared

(men

ds) (

from

sou

th w

all)

Cat

5-2

Vi0

44G

MI-2

A2

Pre

colu

mbi

ance

ram

ics

body

crs

grit

& po

ss

fiber

112

.1Fi

gure

35U

nide

ntifi

ed, v

. por

ous

past

e, p

oss.

fibe

r tem

per &

co

arse

grit

, pos

s in

verte

d be

ll-sh

aped

, unu

sual

ly

light

for 5

0x33

mm

she

rdC

at 5

-3V

i044

GM

I-2A

2P

reco

lum

bian

cera

mic

sha

ndle

v fn

grit

tem

per

17.

9Fi

gure

35Sa

lado

id D

-sha

ped

hand

le

CA

T N

OS

ITE

UN

IT

STR

ATU

MLE

VE

LC

ATE

GO

RY

CLA

SS

TYP

EO

THE

RC

OU

NT

WE

IGH

T(g)

PH

OTO

CO

MM

ENTS

Cat

5-4

Vi0

44G

MI-2

A2

Pre

colu

mbi

ance

ram

ics

body

no te

mpe

r1

2.5

Early

Sal

adoi

d H

acie

nda

Gra

nde,

wel

l fire

d, v

. fin

e pa

ste

Cat

5-5

Vi0

44G

MI-2

A2

Pre

colu

mbi

ance

ram

ics

body

grit

tem

per

24.

9U

nide

ntifi

ed

Cat

5-6

Vi0

44G

MI-2

A2

Pre

colu

mbi

ance

ram

ics

body

26.

5U

nide

ntifi

ed (m

ends

) (fro

m s

outh

wal

l)

Vi0

44 T

otal

66

Cat

39

Que

brad

a M

arun

guey

Soi

l tes

t 3A

0-27

lit

hic

116

.1Fi

gure

39po

ssib

le F

CR

Cat

40

Que

brad

a M

arun

guey

Soi

l tes

t 3A

/B0-

68

Faun

alsh

ell

494

.4Fi

gure

39W

est I

ndia

n To

p S

hell

(Citt

ariu

m p

ica

)

Que

brad

a M

arun

guey

Tot

al5

Pro

ject

Tot

al

353

APPENDIX E

PROFILES OF KEY RESEARCHERS

E-3

Timothy R. Sara. M.A., RPAPrincipal Investigator

Tim Sara is a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) with 18 years of professionalexperience in archaeological research, cultural resources management, and historic preservationplanning. Mr. Sara has designed and directed surveys and excavations of historic and prehistoricarchaeological resources in the eastern United States, Midwest, Southwest, and Caribbean. Hereceived his MA degree in Anthropology from the City University of New York in 1994 wherehis focus of study was on prehistoric settlement patterns. He has a thorough knowledge ofSection 110 and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act as amended (NHPA) andapplying the NRHP eligibility criteria to cultural resources. Mr. Sara has received honors andawards for academic and professional studies in the eastern United States and Caribbean. Mr.Sara is Director of Cultural Resources for Geo-Marine’s Eastern and Caribbean Region and isPrincipal Investigator for the Paleoethnobotanical Study at Naval Security Group Activity,Northwest, Virginia, for the U.S. Department of the Navy.

Since 1988, Mr. Sara has conducted archaeological research in Puerto Rico on a variety ofinvestigations involving both Precolumbian and Spanish colonial resources. Between 1988 and1992, Mr. Sara was Project Director for the Phase III data recovery investigations at theMetropolitan Detention Center, Municipality of Guaynabo. Between 1994 and 2000, he served asPrincipal Investigator and Project Manager for a series of archaeological investigations conductedat the U.S. Post Office and Federal Courthouse, Old San Juan, during its rehabilitation. At theconclusion of the six-year study, Mr. Sara was awarded the GSA Public Buildings HeritageAward for professional archaeological services associated with the project and public outreachprograms in Puerto Rico. This past year Mr. Sara has been an Associate Scientist for Phase IIIdata recovery investigations at Palo Hincado, Barranquitas, a major Precolumbian habitation,ceremonial, and economic center in central Puerto Rico. Mr. Sara is a member of theInternational Association of Caribbean Archaeologists (IACA) and is a regular contributor to itscongress as well as contributing author of publications by the Instituto de Cultura Puertorriqueña(ICP).

E-4

Juan José Ortiz Aguilú, M.A., ABDco-Principal Investigator

Juan José Ortiz Aguilú has expertise in prehistoric Caribbean archaeology through more than 25years research experience in Puerto Rico, Haiti, and Panama. Mr. Ortiz Aguilú received his MAdegree in Anthropology from Temple University and is in the process of preparing a Ph.D.dissertation titled The Intensification of Food Production in Prehispanic Caribbean and theDevelopment of Complex Societies. In 1991 he directed the first formal archaeological survey ofthe Panama Canal Zone on behalf of the U.S Department of State and Panamanian governmentprior to transfer of the Canal to Panama. Mr. Ortiz Aguilú has also served as advisor to theOrganization of American States (OAS) for the development of archaeological resourcesmanagement programs and museum facilities in Latin America. Mr. Ortiz Aguilú is currentlyInstructor of Archaeology and Social Sciences at the University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras, andalso serves as archaeological consultant to numerous Commonwealth and municipal agencies inPuerto Rico. Between 1993 and 1995, Mr. Ortiz Aguilú was director of the Archaeology Divisionof the Instituto de Cultura Puertorriqueña (ICP), where he was responsible for overseeing allcultural resources management compliance projects under Commonwealth jurisdictional reviewin Puerto Rico.

Mr. Ortiz Aguilú’s research expertise is in field methodology and strategy, aerial photographinterpretation, Precolumbian ceramics, and stratigraphic interpretation, and has also conductedfield research on the Puerto Rican islands of Culebra, Mona, and Vieques. Currently, Mr. OrtizAguiú is directing the multiyear Palo Hincado Data Recovery Project in Barranquitas, PuertoRico. Mr. Ortiz Aguilú is a member of the International Association of Caribbean Archaeologists(IACA) and contributor to its congress. At the XIX IACA Congress held this past year in Aruba,Mr. Ortiz Aguilú presented an important paper furthering our current understanding of largehabitation, economic, and ceremonial centers in Puerto Rico. Mr. Ortiz Aguilú has preparednumerous manuscripts and cultural resources management reports for development projects inPuerto Rico and has published in academic journals, including Boletin de Antroplogía Americana,American Antiquity (Current Research), and IACA Congress Proceedings.

E-5

Lee Newsom, Ph.D.Consulting Scientist/Paleoethnobotantist

Dr. Newsom has more than 15 years experience conducting paleoenthnobotanical research ineastern North America, South America, and the Caribbean. She received her Ph.D. inAnthropology in 1993 from the University of Florida, preparing a dissertation titled Native WestIndian Plant Use. Dr. Newsom’s research interests and specialties include paleoethnobotany,human ecology, sustainable land use, island biogeographic theory, plant/wood anatomy, tropicalforests, and environments. Her geographical areas of research are the Caribbean, lowland tropicalSouth America, and eastern North America. Dr. Newsom is currently conducting research onprehistoric economies, plant domestication, and human-landscape dynamics in the Caribbean,Florida, eastern North America, Brazil, and Peru, with an emphasis on ecological economics,neotropical prehistoric societies, Pleistocene floristics, and biogeogeography.

Dr. Newsom has published research articles in the Florida Anthropologist, Latin AmericanAntiquity, and American Antiquity , and has authored or is a contributing author to more than 15books, including Native American Uses of Biological Resources in the West Indies (withElizabeth Wing). Dr. Newsom is member of the International Association of CaribbeanArchaeologists (IACA) and is a frequent contributor to its congress. Within the past three years,Dr. Newsom has conducted archaeobotanical analysis of plant remains from the Luján I site onVieques Island, the Tibes site (a major habitation, ceremonial, and economic center innorthcentral Puerto Rico), and the prehistoric settlement at Trunk Bay, St. John, U.S. VirginIslands. Dr. Newsom has also recently completed a study of macrobotanical remains during Geo-Marine’s paleoethnobotanical investigation of the Great Dismal Swamp, Virginia, on behalf ofthe Department of the Navy, Atlantic Division.

E-6

Agamemnon Gus Pantel, Ph.D.Consulting Scientist/Archaeologist

With more than 25 years experience, Dr. Pantel is one of leading practicing archaeologists in theCommonwealth of Puerto Rico. Dr. Pantel received his Ph.D. in Anthropology from theUniversity of Tennessee; with his dissertation titled Precolumbian Flaked Stone Assemblages inthe West Indies. Dr. Pantel is currently the Director of the Tropical Center for the Study ofHumans and the Environment, and serves on the faculty of the Archaeology and HistoricPreservation Program at the Polytechnic University of Puerto Rico. Dr. Pantel is Principal ofPantel del Cueto & Associates and is the primary cultural resources consultant to theEnvironmental Quality Board, Office of the Governor of Puerto Rico. Between 1979 and 1981,Dr. Pantel was Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and State Archaeologist forPuerto Rico.

Dr. Pantel has received numerous professional honors and awards, including elected candidate forthe Director-General UNESCO World Conservation Center; Smithsonian Fellowship; GeorgeWashington University Institute for Education Leadership Fellowship; and elected member of theNational Anthropological Honorary Society. Dr. Pantel also served as Chairman of the XIInternational Congress for Caribbean Archaeology (IACA), Fort-de-France, Martinique, andPuerto Rico, and is a contributor to the IACA Congress. Dr. Pantel has conducted archaeologicalresearch throughout Puerto Rico and Vieques Island. In 1978 he directed a pilot reconnaissancestudy within the Vieques Naval Reservation (VNR), documenting numerous Precolumbian andSpanish colonial occupations. This study triggered a reservation-wide survey from 1980 to 1984.Dr. Pantel has prepared more than 150 cultural resources management reports for developmentprojects in Puerto Rico and has numerous academic publications, including a book chapter titledThe First Caribbean People in The General History of the Caribbean (edited by Jalil SuedBadillo).

E-7

John G. Jones, Ph.D.Palynologist

John G. Jones received his BA from Youngstown State University (Anthropology) in 1983, andhis MA (Anthropology) in 1988 and Ph.D. (Anthropology) in 1991, both from Texas A&MUniversity. Dr. Jones is an adjunct Assistant Professor in the Department of Anthropology and iscurrently serving as Associate Director of the Palynology Laboratory. He oversees the day-to-day operations of the Palynology Laboratory at Texas A&M University and coordinates appliedand contract work pertaining to pollen and phytolith analyses. He oversees all microbotanicalresearch at the laboratory.

Dr. Jones’s research has focused on early settlement patterns in the New World tropics, and hehas conducted research in Puerto Rico, Bolivia, Peru, Panama, Guatemala, Belize, and Mexico.For these projects, he has been using well-preserved pollen and phytoliths from undisturbedsediment cores to reconstruct past settlement and agricultural patterns. He has also conductedresearch throughout North America. Dr. Jones has conducted a number of analyses of coprolitesand has worked extensively in the field of forensics and melissopalynology. In addition to hispollen expertise, he is noted for his phytolith analysis.

E-8

Nancy ParrishArchaeologist

Ms. Parrish is a Project Archaeologist/Field Director with 8 years of professional experience.Ms. Parrish has a range of skills that include archival research, field projects, supervision ofhistorical and prehistoric site excavations, archaeobtanical material recovery and analysis, artifactanalysis, and report preparation. Ms Parrish carried out her Master’s thesis research on thebotanical remains from excavations at Casa Vieja in Ica Valley, Peru. Her Andean researchconsisted of identifying botanical material recovered from excavation and flotation andinterpreting the remains in terms of site use and paleoevironmental indicators. She is presentlyco-authoring a forthcoming article in Andean Past based upon her research.

In 1999, Ms Parrish presented Gardens in the Desert: Archaeobotanical Analysis from the LowerIca Valley, Peru at the Society for American Archaeology 64th Annual Meeting, Chicago. In2000, she served as the ethnobotanist for the Conchopata Archaeological Project in Ayacucho,Peru. She was responsible for the systematic flotation of soil samples collected during excavationof a prehistoric village site and for analysis of the botanical remains recovered from the processedsamples. This work was carried out with funding from the National Geographic Society andDumbarton Oaks. She presented Context and Change: Preliminary Analysis of ArchaeobotanicalMaterial from the Conchopata Site, Ayacucho, Peru at the Society of American Archaeology 65th

Annual Meeting in Philadelphia. In 2001, Ms. Parrish was a key researcher and co-author for thePaleoethnobotanical Study at Naval Security Group Activity, Northwest, Virginia , prepared forthe U.S. Department of the Navy.