Crossing the Borders: New Methods and Techniques in the Study of Archaeological Materials from the Caribbean

112 / van Gijn, Lammers- Keijsers, and Briels
that the artifacts studied form only a sample of the actual assemblage. Artifacts
found washed upon the shore in the previous decades demonstrate that the variety
in shell ornaments and tools must have been comparable to the range at Anse à la
Gourde. It is remarkable that only five coral tools have been found, considerably
less than at Anse à la Gourde.
The use- wear analysis was hampered by the bad state of conservation of much
of the shell assemblage. The evidence obtained, however, indicates the same range
of tools and toolkit composition as at Anse à la Gourde. Plant and wood were
worked with flint flakes and shell bivalves. The majority of the hard stone tools can
also be connected to the processing of plants and wood. Shell celts were hafted as
axes and adzes. Five of them (10 percent) broke during use. Shell ornaments were
made by means of flint. Some flint artifacts displayed traces from contact with
bone. This may relate to slaughtering prey animals.
Two additional sets of tools will be discussed for Morel: the pottery manufacturing
tools and fishing implements. The range of ceramic artifacts at Morel
was much larger than at Anse à la Gourde (Van Gijn and Hofman in press). They
formed part of the toolkit for pottery manufacture (Figure 8.6b). This also applies
to one piece of coral (Acropora cervicornis) that displays a reddish brown residue,
interpreted as clay (Figure 8.6c). Whether shell bivalves formed part of this toolkit
as well, like at Anse à la Gourde, could not be ascertained due to the bad conservation
of the shells.
We frequently assume that fishing played an important part in coastal communities,
but the actual fishing implements are often not found. Morel has produced
one small fishhook, made of Cittarium pica (Figure 8.7a). Other implements related
to fishing are a series of small round pebbles. These stones display a band of
black residue, interpreted as resin, in which, incidentally, imprints of fibers can be
distinguished. These stones may have been braided into the edges of a fishing net
(Figure 8.7b).
Conclusion
The three case studies presented above show how use- wear and residue analysis can
shed light on tasks that, due to poor preservation circumstances, otherwise leave
few archaeological traces. Examples are woodworking and plant processing activities
such as fiber or rope making, netting, and so forth. Although at Morel and
Anse à la Gourde it seems that shell, especially the bivalves, and coral tools seem
to be just as multifunctional as flint implements, this may be a specific choice that
has to be investigated for each new site. By looking at only one category of material
culture, like flint tools, it is easy to miss some activities that were habitually carried
out on sites. Use- wear and residue analysis of as many categories of objects as possible
is therefore a vital method to extract more information regarding subsistence
tasks, duration of occupancy of the site, and craft activities carried out.
You are reading copyrighted material published by the University of Alabama Press.
Any posting, copying, or distributing of this work beyond fair use as defined under U.S. Copyright law is illegal and
injures the author and publisher. For permission to reuse this work, contact the University of Alabama Press.