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

128 / Nieuwenhuis
vated; one was from surface recollection. When the pilot study proved successful,
seven additional artifacts were chosen for analysis.
The implements are all made of volcanic rock and vary in size from 9 x 11 x 4
cm to 36 x 29 x 23 cm. The sample includes three complete querns, or grinding
bases (metates; PP17, PPS29, PP18), four grinding stones (PP1, PP3, PP5, PP7), two
pounding stones, or manos (PP10, PP12), one large unmodified flake (PP14), and
one tool labeled as “hammer stone” due to its shape, which resembles a modern
hammer (PP30). The querns and grinding stones have at least one smooth, in some
cases hollowed, surface. Most artifacts were covered either with sediment or a
chalky scale, or both.
All stones have been slightly rinsed before storage. Before choosing further
cleaning procedures, all artifacts were first analyzed with a stereoscopic microscope
(Wild M3Z) with two obliquely reflected light sources, magnifying between
10x and 160x, and a Nikon Optiphot metallographic microscope (100x and 200x)
to detect microscopic wear traces and to localize spots with possible residue.
As this study aimed at recovering any residue present on the artifacts, it was
tested whether microremains could be recovered and distinguished without the
usual chemical treatment. Chemical treatment for the preparation of phytoliths
will mostly destroy starch. Besides, it is extremely time consuming. In many cases
the analysis of residues can be done with untreated samples. This depends on the
structure of the sediment (clayish or loose) and its chemical composition. Therefore,
it was decided to make a first attempt running a very simple extraction procedure,
which had given positive results in former studies (Nieuwenhuis and Van
Gijn 2006).
To remove sediment, the artifacts were first cleaned in distilled water in an ultrasonic
tank for at least two hours. This liquid was preserved and sampled. Then
the upper and lower sides of each artifact were separately soaked in distilled water
for one hour. This water was also sampled.
To reduce the amount of liquid, samples were centrifuged for five minutes at
3,000 rpm and the supernatant was decanted. For a third sample the entire artifact
was soaked in distilled water during one hour. Again the liquid was centrifuged
at 3,000 rpm during five minutes, then decanted and extracted.
Extractions were mounted on slides with DPX mountant and analyzed with a
Nikon Optiphot transmitted light microscope (magnifications of 150x, 300x, and
560x) with a cross- polar illuminator to analyze starch grains. After analyzing the
obtained samples it was decided to sample five of the artifacts again after another
cleaning in water (in two cases with a 10 percent HCl solution in water). A small
area was then brushed with a rotating electronic toothbrush and ultrapure water
in order to remove possible residues still present.
A soil sample from the direct vicinity of the midden was analyzed for reference
(see below). No other soil samples were available.
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.