their implications for prehistoric interaction and...

DISTRIBUTION OF EXOTIC STONE ARTIFACTS THROUGH THE LESSER ANTILLES: THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR PREHISTORIC INTERACTION AND EXCHANGE

Annie Cody

While many West Indian archaeologists have reported the presence of semiprecious stone artifacts (e.g., Chanlatte Baik and Narganes Storde 1983; Cody 1991 ; Bullen and Bullen 1972; Harrington 1924; Mattioni 1979, 1982; Petitjean Roget 1987; Sued Badillo 1974; Vescelius and Robinson 1979), few have addressed the problems of how or why the artifacts reached their sites, and the implications such questions have for inter-site relations. One, Arie Boomert (1987) has included the West Indies with Lowland South America in a model of "green stone" exchange, but reconstruction of exchange networks should not be limited to just one of the possible goods that may have circulated through it (Hirth 1984:2). This paper presents the geographical and temporal distributions of eleven "exotic" The term "exotic" is defined here as an object of non-local origin. When it is applied to an artifact made of rock or mineral, it means that the lithic source is not local; the place of manufacture is irrelevant in this use of the definition, stone artifact types in the Lesser Antilles and northeastern South America. It represents an attempt to place into a regional context the evidence for importation of exotics and for specialization in ornament production at the Saladoid site of Pearls, Grenada (see also Cody 1990a, 1990b). Although the study is limited to imported rocks and minerals, it provides a framework within which future studies can consider exports from particular sites, and also the possible roles pf pottery, foodstuffs, and other organics in exchange.

DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES

In order to trace the geographical and temporal distribution of exotics across the West Indies and northeastern South America, a survey form was devised. It was sent to 65 archaeologists 'belonging to the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology and working in the West Indies, and to 20 museums in the United States, Canada, and Great Britain (listed by R. Myers [1980] as having West Indian collections). The form was written in English, and each copy was sent with a cover letter and self-addressed-stamped envelope. Unfortunately, some 40 additional prehistorians were not included in the mailing, because the form was not translated into the necessary Spanish, French, and Portugese languages in time for this study. Twenty-three archaeologists returned the form, for a 35% response rate (not counting five letters returned without forwarding addresses). From the references given by the respondents, it appears likely that those who did not respond did not possess relevant information. Nineteen museums returned the form, for a 95% response rate. The one museum that did not respond was the Florida Museum of Natural History, which is unfortunate because of its large

: Caribbean collections. Whereas all museums responding positively to the questionnaire provided i computer-generated print-outs of their relevant collections, the most useful information from many i archaeologists concerned simply the presence or absence of various exotics, and on occasion, a ; written reference. In summary, the survey form response did not provide all of the information ! anticipated, but it does allow for a preliminary plotting of the distribution of several exotics. In addition to • the survey form responses, the published literature was searched carefully for references to exotic

stone and mineral ornaments. The data culled from both the survey questionnaire and the literature : search are presented in Cody (1990a). The data is presented in an Appendix with 707 entries, and 1 accordingly is too large to be included here. Additionally, for a more complete discussion of the data's

204

CODY 205

implications, copies of Cody (1990a) are available from University Microfilms Internationa,!, 900 Morth Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106. eleven are summarized In graph form here. Altogether 57 different material types were recorded.

The prerequisites for entry into the database should be outlined. First, only items of clearly stated provenience were entered assumptions were not made. (This stands in contrast to many of the authors consulted. Frequently, a compiler will attribute an artifact origin to a particular geographic area on the basis of its stylistic attributes. For the present attempt to trace the source and distribution of materials and artifacts, such assumptions could seriously skew the results.) The majority of the published literature concerning "green stone" amulets and beads, from throughout the West Indies and Amazonia, concerns looted objects. When the location of the finds was given, it was possible to plot the presence and absence of artifact and material types, but data such as relative or absolute abundance or chronological information to indicate contemporaneity of items in general were not available.

In much of the literature, again primarily concerning "green stones," the same artifact reappears. In these circumstances, the first encounter made during reading was entered (it may not necessarily be the first citation in the literature), and all other citations regarding the same artifact were omitted. The objective is to trace the distribution of artifacts in space and time, not through the literature. It should be noted that the rocks and minerals from Pearls, Grenada were identified through the use of optical mineralogical techniques (Cody1991; 1990a). The methods of identification of exotic artifacts found at other sites are not known.

GEOGRAPHIC AND TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTIONS OF SPECIFIC EXOTICS

Of the 57 material types entered in the database, only those with informative distributions are presented in graph form. For each map, a very brief statement is made regarding the pattern observed in the point scatter and its possible significance. Only a few references are noted; see Cody (1990a) for all others.

Preliminarily, It should be stated that in making all maps, slightly altered (worked) raw material and bead blanks are taken as evidence of manufacture. On maps of specific material varieties, all bead types (shapes) are grouped together; similarly, all frog types are grouped together. Different types of beads or frogs are distinguished only on maps that compare specific types' distributions. On many of the maps certain occurrences are given dates. The dates are means, and are provided only when a reference makes them explicit. All dates are A.D. unless otherwise noted.

Nephrite

As shown in Figure 1, nephrite artifacts have a wide distribution in time and space. The earliest reported dates associated with nephrite artifacts are A.D. 105-245, from the "Agro 1" component of the site of La Hueca on Vieques (Chanlatte Balk and Narganes Storde 1983), and contemporaneous radiocarbon dates associated with a rectangular nephrite ornament from the Saladold site of Pearls (Gren-A-1) on Grenada (Fig. 12b; cf. Cody 1991). Other nephrite artifacts recovered archaeologically from Pearls Include a blade, a tablet, two amulet fragments, seven discoidal beads, one cylindrical bead, one spherical bead, three discoidal bead blanks, and nine pieces of raw nephrite (Fig. 12). A frog ornament looted from the site appears in photographs to be nephrite (Fig. 13d, e). Discoidal beads and a "condor" made of nephrite were recovered from the Saladoid site of Tecla as well (Narganes survey form

206 DISTRIBUTION OF EXOTIC STONE ARTIFACTS

response). All other dated contexts for nephrite artifacts are much more recent and are from Brazil (Meggers and Evans 1957; Roosevelt 1980). However, nephrite artifacts are reported from undated contexts in several other locations in the West Indies and northeastern South America.

There are only two locales at which evidence of manufacture of nephrite objects has been discovered: at the mouth of the Tapajos River ¡n the Amazon (Boomert 1987; Heriarte 1837; Palmatary 1960) and at the site of Pearls, Grenada. Only from these locales have pieces of raw material and incomplete nephrite artifacts been found and reported. Among the most common shapes given to them are beads and frogs.

Geologic sources of nephrite are located at Mount Roraima, at the junction of present-day Brazil, Venezuela, and Guyana; and at Baytinga in Bahia, southeastern Brazil (see Cody 1990a:59-60). While the Tapajos center could have been supplied by the southern source, Grenada is closer to the Mount Roraima source. Viewing the context of only two manufacturing locales within the wider distribution of nephrite leads to the speculation that thelites may have obtained the raw material directly and acted as "middlemen" in distributing finished products. Such a conclusion would support Boomert's (1987a) proposition that the Tapajos region was a manufacturing center.

Serpentine

The serpentine mineral and rock varieties are combined for ease of presentation in this study. Geological sources are many, primarily in the Greater Antilles and Venezuela, and most artifact finds tend to be within the same areas (cf. Chanlatte Baik and Narganes Storde 1983; Hess 1938; Kidder 1944; Sued Badillo 1974; Vescelius and Robinson 1979; Wagner and Schubert 1972). (See Figure 2.) No serpentine artifacts were reported from the Orinoco Basin; one was reported from the Amazon (Palmatary 1960:88). The only other artifacts,found at a distance from known geologic sources are bead and frog occurrences in the Guianas (Evans and Meggers 1960:161 ; Fischer 1880), an axe from Curacao and two celts from the Hope Estate Site in St. Martin (Havisier survey form response), and beads and bead blanks from Pearls in Grenada. The spotty distribution of serpentine artifacts may be the result of inadequate identifications or incomplete reporting; there exist a great number of otherwise unidentified "green stone" references, some of which might change the pattern of this distribution. Evidence of serpentine manufacture comes only from northern Venezuela, Grenada, and Vieques. The northern Venezuela occurrences date to the late prehistoric (Wagner and Schubert 1972), while the Lesser Antillean occurrences belong to the Saladoid. At La Hueca/Sorce on Vieques, the range of serpentine artifacts includes frogs, big-beaked birds ("condors"), and miscellaneous amulets. The "condor" ornaments were recovered in all stages of manufacture (Chanlatte Baik and Narganes Storde 1983:146). At Pearls on Grenada a small number of serpentine beads were found, some of which were unfinished blanks. The distinguishing feature of the Grenada finds is that serpentine does not occur naturally on the island.

Jadeite

Along with nephrite, jadeite is one of two varieties of jade. Jadeite is characteristically associated with serpentine bodies intrusive into crystalline rocks (Foshag 1957:12). The known sources of jadeite nearest to the West Indies and South America lie in Guatemala (op cit:14), but it is possible geologically that the mineral also occurs in the closer serpentine zones of Venezuela or the Greater Antilles. In this volume, Miguel Rodriguez mentions a previously unpublished source of jadeite, present in southwestern Puerto Rico.

CODY 207

Jadeite artifacts (Figure 3) have been identified in the West Indies from Cuba (Smithsonian survey form response), Hispaniola (Fewkes 1922:234), the site of Tecla, Puerto Rico (Narganes survey

' ïorrft response), the site of Punta Candelera, Puerto Rico (Rodriguez 1991 : personal communication), and '; the site of La Hueca/Sorce, Vieques, Puerto Rico (Chanlatte Baik and Narganes Storde 1983); as well

as from St. Vincent (University Museum of Archaeology, England, survey form response), Barbados (ibid}, Guadeloupe (Clerc 1970:86), and Trinidad (Fewkes 1922:75; Sued Badillo 1974:720). Scattered finds have been reported from the mainland (see Cody 1990a: Appendix D). If the only, aboriginally used source of jadeite was in Guatemala, then the line of transmission of these artifacts would appear to run from the Yucatan Peninsula to Cuba and on through the Antilles, possibly to maipland South America. Archaeological evidence does not support such a supposition however. In the, West Indies and South America, evidence of manufacturing of jadeite is present at La Hueca/Sorce on Vieques, at Punta Candelera and at Tecla on Puerto Rico, and in Venezuela. The locations of these sites within or near serpentine belts, with known on likely jadeite outcrops associated, speaks for use of local sources.

Bird Shaped Amulets

As has been seen on the foregoing maps, ornaments shaped like big-beaked birds ("condors"), frequently holding trophy heads, and made of serpentine and jadeite have been found at La Hueca/ Sorce on Vieques Island and at Punta Candelera on Puerto Rico. One made of nephrite has been recovered from Tecla, Puerto Rico (Narganes survey form response). Additionally,*such styles of bird ornaments made of unknown "green stone" have been found at Pearls on Grenada (by a looter and sold to a private collector) and on Trinidad (Fewkes 1907:Plate LVI). (See Figure 4.) Tracing of this motif

1 to Central America or to the Andes is outside the scope of the present study, but it would likely prove very helpful to the understanding of prehistoric interactions. "Flat birds" are common in the Amazon Basin (Fischer 1880; Meggers and Evans 1957; Zerries 1980), but not elsewhere. Wagner and Schubert (1972) discuss "winged amulets."

Muiraquita Frog Ornaments

"Green stone" frog ornaments played an important role in Amerindian exchange at the time of . contact in Amazonia, and a number of authors have written about them (e.g., Barata 1954, Boomert

1987, Koehler-Asseburg 1951, Palmatary 1960). Barata and Palma

The true muiraquita whether it be of jade or other material, has two distinguishing features: first, it is batrachian in form, although contas also may represent toads and frogs; second, it is characterized by a peculiar provision for suspension which insures that it will lie flat against the body with ttie design forward. This provision consists of two connected drillings, one lateral and one dorsal, on either side. No perforations are visible from the front. This arrangement for suspension suggests that the muiraquita was intended to be worn singly as a pendant, not as part of a necklace (Palmatary 1960:78).

As shown in Figure 5, frog ornaments meeting the description of a muiraquita are found only in the Amazon Basin and at Pearls, Grenada (Cody 1990a: 158-159). It is important to note that frog pendants (what Palmatary would term contas are found at other West Indian, Saladoid sitqs (e.g., Maisabel [Peter Siegel, personal communication] and Tecla [Narganes survey form response] on Puerto Rico; see Cody 1990a, Appendix D; see also Boomert 1987),' but they lack the distinctive perforations of Amazonian muiraquitas


Segmented Frog Ornaments

Another frog ornament type that has a restricted distribution is the "segmented frog." (See Figure 6.) Unlike the muiraquitas, segmented frogs occur only in the Lesser Antilles, at the sites of Pearls on Grenada, Prosperity on St. Croix, La Hueca/Sorce on Vieques, and Punta Candelera. The sites are all approximately contemporaneous, dating to the time of the Saladoid or Huecoid. They also have in common an unusually extensive range and frequency of exotics.

At the site of Pearls two segemented frogs were found made of an unidentified "green stone" (Cody 1990a:160). At Prosperity on St Croix, the segmented frogs were made of aventurine, serpentine (Vescelius and Robinson 1979), and unknown stone (Morse 1989). At La Hueca/Sorce on Vieques, Puerto Rico they were found in all stages of the manufacturing process, being made of serpentinite, jadeite, amethyst, and an unknown "green stone" (Chanlatte Baik 1983; Chanlatte Baik and Nargannes Storde 1983); similarly, at Punta Candelera on Puerto Rico (Rodriguez 1991: personal communication).

Turquoise

There are only two known sources of turquoise from Central to South America and the Caribbean. One is in northern Chile (Webster 1983:247), and one is in eastern Brazil (Sauer 1982:118). Reported artifactual finds of turquoise in the study area are extremely limited, and come only from the site of Ronquin on the Orinoco (Roosevelt 1980:Figure 100) and from the Saladoid (or Huecoid) sites of La Hueca/Sorce (Chanlatte Baik 1983; Chanlatte Baik and Narganes Storde 1983), Prosperity (Vescelius and Robinson 1979), and Pearls in' the Lesser Antilles (Cody 1990a; Cody 1991). also appears to be present from a contemporaneous site on Montserrat (Waiters 1991 : personal communication). Evidence of manufacture of turquoise ornaments has been found at Prosperity and at Pearls. (See Figure 7.)

The Brazilian source of turquoise is not separated by any great natural barriers from the reported artifactual occurrences. It could have been obtained and exchanged along the riverine "highways." This proposition is supported by the nearby geologic occurences of amethyst and the similar distributions of amethyst artifacts (see below), so that the two materials could have been obtained and exchanged along the same network paths. The Andes separate the Chilean source from the artifactual finds, but even this barrier cannot be used to rule out such an origin for the materials. As Lathrap (1973) has demonstrated, an exchange system linked the Andes with the Tropical Forest region. Indeed, if at least some of the turquoise was in fact obtained from Chile, it would be the first demonstration of eastward circulating goods. Chemical characterization of the source and artifacts is required before this can be proven however.

Amethyst

Geologic sources of amethyst are located mostly in eastern Brazil, although Ralegh (1848) and Schomburgk (1848) reported a source on the Upper Cotinga, next to Mount Roraima, and another locality is known from Martinique (Pinchón 1967:132-133). Because no unworked or partially worked amethyst from a cultural context has been reported from Martinique, it is unlikely that the geologic source was exploited aboriginally.

Reported finds of amethyst artifacts come only from the coast of Guyana and from the Lesser Antilles (see Figure 8). Although amethyst sources are" located on southern tributaries of the

CODY 209

Amazon, no references to artifactual finds have been discovered. From the sites that do have amethyst, unworked crystals are reported only from Karapa Creek, Mahaiga, Guyana (Roth 1944:46) and from the sites of Grand Anse (Gren-G-7) and Pearls, Grenada (Cody 1991). Evidence of manufacture is reported only from the same site in Guyana; Pearls, Grenada (Cody 1990a); La Hueca/Sorce, Vieques (Chanlatte Baik and Narganes Storde 1983); and Punta Candelera, Puerto Rico (Rodriguez 1991: personal communication).

Amethyst Beads

Because the perspective of the original study (Cody 1990a) is from the site of Pearls, it was noted that the barrel-shaped amethyst beads reported from other sites were not present on Grenada. Accordingly, the different types of amethyst beads were plotted (Figure 9). Barrei-shaped beads were manufactured at La Hueca/Sorce on Vieques (Chanlatte Baik and Narganes Storde 1983), and they are found distributed down to Guadeloupe (Petitjean Roget 1987). They were also reported from Guyana (Roth 1944), where they were probably manufactured in situ. Disk-shaped and cylindrical amethyst beads were manufactured at Pearls on Grenada (Cody 1990a), but the discoidal beads are reported only from that site, while the cylindrical beads are found throughout the Lesser Antilles. Spherical beads are reported only from Martinique (Mattioni 1979: 49), and biconical beads are reported only from Guadeloupe (Petitjean Roget 1987). No amethyst beads are reported from the Amazon or Orinoco Rivers or their tributaries

Carnelian

There is only one source of carnelian that could be gleaned from the geologic literature in the Dominican Republic (Lengweiler 1981:201) - but there are likely more. Reported evidence of the manufacture of carnelian ornaments comes from one locale, the island of Montserrat (Harrington 1924:185). References to carnelian beads are few, and all come from the Lesser Antilles: St. Croix (Vescelius and Robinson 1979), Montserrat (Harrington 1924; Waiters survey form response), St. Vincent (University Museum of Archaeology, England, survey form response), and Grenada (Cody 1990a). (See Figure 10).

Steatite

The distribution of steatite artifacts (which were not identified from the site of Pearls) provides an interesting pattern (see Figure 11). A number of frog ornaments cluster along the Tapajos in Amazonia (Barata 1954; Koehler-Asseburg 1951:216), while another is reported from Venezuela (Wassen 1934: 343). An unusual and distinctive artifact made of steatite was found on the Grenadine island of Carriacou. It is an adz topped with the figure of a male animal, apparently an armadillo or an anteater. It is held in the Carriacou Museum, and is of unknown provenience. Nothing similar has been reported from elsewhere in the Antilles.

IMPLICATIONS

The above maps indicate that there is a comparatively high frequency of exotic stone artifacts found at certain Saladoid "centers," on Grenada, Guadeloupe, Montserrat, St. Croix, Vieques, and Puerto Rico. The sites contain evidence for importation of exotics from mainland South America; and further show evidence that at some sites, such as La Hueca/Sorce and Pearls, the raw material was


imported and subsequently manufactured into ornaments. Not onlydid the ornaments require high production costs, but it appears that manufacture and possession of the artifacts was restricted (Cody 1990a). I suggest that this demonstrates the centralization of power by elites, who controlled the manufacture of prestige goods that figured in status enhancement, alliance formation, and external exchanges. The exotic lithic artifacts would have formed the basis for prestige exchange, and accordingly I suggest further that muiraquita other frog ornaments, and "condors," carried symbolic loads that supported elite ideologies.

Factors to consider in the emergence of Saladoid (or Huecoid) exchange networks include settlement locations and spacing, as well as communication and transport. Because of the linear arrangement of the West Indian islands, Saladoid "centers" cannot be explained as "central places." I consider Pearls to represent a "gateway community" (cf. Hirth 1978), because it was in a key locale to control the movement of goods. Located along a natural, linear trade route, its back was to the resources (the "dendritic hinterland" [ibid] of South America), its front to the West Indian communities that wanted them.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to acknowledge and thank the individuals who responded to my request for information. It is only through such data sharing that a regional perspective can be obtained. My selection of data to use in no way reflects upon the quality of archaeological work reported, but rather upon the overall significance of specific exotic distributions through the Antilles; with additional research and reporting, undoubtedly some of these will change. Of course, none who responded are responsible for my interpretations of the data they provided.

REFERENCES CITED

Abbreviations used: I.C.O.A. = International Congress of Americanists I.C.C.A. = International Congress for Caribbean Archaeology (1987-present) l.C.P.L.A. = International Congress for the Study of Pre-Columbian-Cultures of the Lesser Antilles (1961-1985)

Barata, Frederico 1954 O Muiraquita e as "Contas" dos Tapajos. Revista do Museu Paulista 8:229-259.

Boomert, Arie 1987 Gifts of the Amazon: "Green stone" pendants and beads as items of ceremonial

exchange in Amazonia and the Caribbean. Antropológica 67: 33-54.

Bullen, Ripley P. and Adelaide K. 1972 Archaeological Investigations on St. Vincent and the Grenadines, West Indies.

The William L Bryant Foundation, American Studies, Report No. 8.

Chanlatte Baik, Luis A. 1983 Catalogo Arqueología de Vieques: Exposición del 13 del Marzo al 22 de Abril de 1983.

Rio Pedras: Museo de Antropología, Historia y Arte, Universidad de Puerto Rico.

CODY 211

Chanlatte Baik, Luis A. and Yvonne M. Narganes Storde 1983 Vieques-Puerto Rico: Asiento de Una Nueva Cultura Aborigen Antillana. Santo

Domingo, Dominican Republic.

Clerc, Edgar 1970 Recherches Archéologiques en Guadeloupe. Parallèles 36/37:68-97.

Cody, Annie 1990a Prehistoric Patterns of Exchange In the Lesser Antilles: Materials Models, and

Preliminary Observations. M.A. Thesis, San Diego State University. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms Intl.

1990b Specialization, Interaction, and Exchange: A Perspective from the Saladoid Site of Pearls, Grenada, W.I. Paper presented at the 55th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology.

1991 From the Site of Pearls, Grenada: Exotic Lithics and Radiocarbon Dates.In Proceedings of the 13th I.C.C.A. Pp. 589-604. Reports of the Archaeological-Anthropological institute of the Netherlands Antilles, No. 9.

Fewkes, Jesse W. 1907 The Aborigines of Porto Rico and Neighboring Islands. 25th Annual Report of the

Bureau of American Ethnology.

1922 A Prehistoric Island Culture Area of America: A Report on Prehistoric Objects from the West Indies in the Museum of the American Indian (Heye Foundation) in 1914. 34th Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology.

Fischer, Heinrich 1880 Ueber die Herkunft der sogenannten Amazonenstein, sowie ueber das fabelhafte

Amazonenvolk selbst. Archiv fur Anthropologie, Volkerfor-schung und Kolonialen Kulturwande 12:7-27.

Foshag, William F. 1957 Mineralogical Studies on Guatemalan Jade. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections,

Vol. 135, No. 5.Harrington, M.R. 1924 A West Indian Gem Center. Indian Notes, Vol. 1. Pp. 184-189. New York: Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation.

Hess, Harry Hammond 1938 Gravity Anomalies and Island Arc Structure with Particular Relevance to the West

Indies. American Philosophical Society Proceedings 79(1):71-96.

Hirth, Kenneth G. 1978 Interregional Trade and the Formation of Prehistoric Gateway Communities.

American Antiquity 43(1):35-45.

1984 Early Exchange in Mesoamerica. In Trade and Exchange in Early Mesoamerica. K.G. Hirth, ed. Pp. 1-15. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Kidder, Alfred 1944 Archaeology of Northwestern Venezuela. Papers of the Peabody Museum of

American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 26, No. 1.


Koehler-Asseburg, Iris 1951 O Problema do Muiraquita. Revista do Museu Paulista 5:199-220.

Lathrap, Donald W. 1973 The Antiquity and Importance of Long-Distance Trade Relationships of the Moist

Tropics of Pre-Columbian South America. World Archaeology 5{2):170-186

Lengweiler, Willy 1981 Estudios Mineralógicos en la República Dominicana. Santo Domingo:Editora de

Santo Domingo.

Mattioni, Mario 1979 Salvage Excavations at the Vive Site: Final Report. L. Allaire, trans., ed. University of

Manitoba Anthropology Papers 23.

1982 Salvage Excavations at the Fond-Brule Site, Martinique: Final Report. L Allaire, trans., ed. University of Manitoba Anthropology Papers 27.

Meggers, Betty J. and Clifford Evans 1957 Archaeological Investigations at the Mouth of the Amazon. Bureau of American

Ethnology, Bulletin 167.

Morse, Birgit Faber 1989 Saladoid Remains and Adaptive Strategies in St. Croix, Virgin Islands. In Early Ceramic

Population Lifeways and Adaptive Strategies in the Caribbean. P.E. Siegel, ed. Pp. 29-42. BAR International Series 506.

Myers, Robert A. 1980 Archaeological Material from Dominica in North American and European Museums.

In Proceedings of the 8th I.C.P.L.A. Pp. 473-480. Arizona State University Anthropological Papers No. 22.

Palmatary, Helen C. 1960 The Archaeology of the Lower Tapajos Valley, Brazil. Transactions of the American

Philosophical Society, Vol. 50, No. 3.

Petitjean Roget, Henri 1987 A Propos d'un Collier Funeraire, Morel, Guadeloupe: Les Huecoids sont ils un myth

Paper presented at the 12th I.C.C.A.

Pinchón, Pere R. 1967 Quelques Aspects de la Nature aux Antilles. Fort-de-France, Martinique.

Ralegh, Sir Walter 1848 The Discovery of the Large, Rich, and Beautiful Empire of Guiana, with a

Relation of the Great and Golden City of Manoa (which the Spaniards call El Dorado), etc. R.H. Schomburgk, ed. (First ed. Hakluyt Society 1596) New York: Burt Franklin.

Roosevelt, Anna C. 1980 Parmana: Prehistoric Maize and Manioc Subsistence along the Amazon and

Orinoco. New York: Academic Press.

CODY 213

Roth, Vincent 1944 A Stone Age Bead Factory on the Mahaica River. Timehri 26:42-48.

Sauer, Jules R 1982 Brazil: Paradise of Gemstones. Self-published.'

Schomburgk, Robert 1848 Editors Preface, Introduction, and Notes. In The Discovery of the Large, Rich, and

Beautiful Empire of Guiana. Sir W. Ralegh, author. New York: Burt Franklin.

Sued Badillo, Jalil 1974 La Industria Lapidaria Pretaina en las Antillas. Proceedings of the 41st I.C.O.A.,

Mexico, 1974, Vol. 3. Pp. 717-724.

Vescelius, Gary S. and Linda S. Robinson 1979 Exotic Items in Archaeological Collections from St. Croix: Pre-historic Imports and

Their Implications. Paper presented to the 8th I.C.P.L.A.

Wagner, Erika and Carlos Schubert 1972 Pre-Hispanic Workshop of Serpentine Artifacts, Venezuelan Andes, and Possible Raw

Material Sources. Science 175:888-890.

Wassen, Henry 1934 The Frog-Motive among the South American Indians. Anthropos XXIX: 319-370.

Webster, Robert 1983 Gems: Their Sources, Descriptions, and Identification. Fourth ed. London:

Butterworths.

Zerries, Otto 1980 Unter Indianern Brasiliens: Sammlung Spix und Martius 1817-1820.

InnsbruckPinguin-Verlag.


lA

lA

- ?

lA •A

O (4

50

45

PH

RIT

E

Ul z

C£Z^ &

og

O

rna

me

nts

¿J

at

Bir

d O

rna

me

nt

isc

. O

rna

me

nts

blet

s £

J

Í Ï 5 Í

»ad

s

CO

O P ' O G O

w 0)

•2 2 (0 o

xe

s/A

dz

es

i'id

en

ce

of

Man

uf

no

wn

Ge

olo

gic

S

< Ui *

aOx

in

o o

or o ^ IQ. -i

o

$3

\ _^.- ,

V

o (6

•A (0

O

r».

o

.<s8>s

o 0

1 . „t. D

' 'J

Ö

CO

V

: \ \ \

X "

lA

O

a

^ /

¿ ^ \ r V.

/" A ^ v .

IA 06

S

O n M i â

9 0 85 L \M

V 7 5 7 0 6 5 6 0

1 ^

" \ °

,^:> j3^

/ ^

m^ •-J- A e*

" • > .

•o

\

"V

0 2 0 0 4 0 0 i 1 i

Scale off Mfes

Lgure 2.

\ \ ^

5 5 SO 4 5 v 4 0

SERPENTINE/SERPENTIN

-o O

O

Q

O

Winged Amulets G _ _ ^ i ;

"Condor" Ornaments/ pi

Frog Ornaments ¿Jj

Misc. Ornaments

Beads

Axes/Adzes

Evidence of Manufacture

Geologic Source

1 9 0

I S \ I 8 5 f 80

X ! ^

1 75

I 70

I 65

\ 6 0

V

A" fi-

)

i ^ . - • ^

,9-^

\ , S3 'x

a i

> <\ \ <g

\ , 'J

0 200 400 i i i * * « W Of RMi^3

\ 55 50 45

JADEITE

0 Frog Ornaments ¿J

<0 "Condor" Ornaments ff ^

Ü Mise Ornaments

O Beads

Ci Axes/Adzes

<v> Evidence ofManufacture

t t Known Geologic Source

I 40

[

f9 T U

^7 1 ^n?

« 5 SO

"ÎL.

f

~*.

> ' 3

O 200 400 i 1 1

9^^9C O» PflBvS

ire 4.

5 5 SO 4 5

B I R D - S H A P E D O R N A M

5) "Condor" (¡JU

^ Flat Bird U

\ ] Parrot (p\ ^

O Other Bird Shapes


i 9

(A

2 5 s ce 5 2

to

o

a

o

Q.

. & : •€>

', ^

/ ^ /

S~'

^/

I U -

h

1) * H!

z1

/

~ ">, 1 i -J • ]J

f]

•3 p

t ^ ^ 8 i

¿u~

SEGMËNTED

O Frog Ornaments A

FROGS

70**O«200

0% S)

"X s o 0

^V N i-x. - V ,

K>

200 400

of

.gure 6.


- 5

- S

W

- 8

m

- 8

(0

•ft

S

8 J

III (A « •

0 3 O a 3 k

•a

CD

o

o A 3 C

1 Ï

c

vid

ai

O

3 o en

Ü

5> o B O c Ï o c 5¿

o

& • • •

A iV-í>

V y

A

J

/r y I . V '

ñ ,-j

d

~\

H

i e

fe \

y

í ¿L-s~ <..

•

/

^

. : : >

c ; c ^ ^2

1 7 0 ® a 232

295

5 5 SO 4 5

AMETHYST

O Beads

O Segmented Frog Ornament Q

<̂ S Evidence of Manufacture

A Unworked Crystals in Archaeological Con

Ö Known Geologic Source

l^x \ ,

o I—

200 400 — » ,i

off

Mgure 8.


~8

-?

-?

- 8

~S

o - «e

— <0

•ft 8

tfi

<

u CO H 0 >

ME

TH

<

—>

D TJ ® _ «

* c • £ £ - * — r 'T O .2 >> a a « Q O CO CD CD

o B o o 0

0'

'U% : I

; v

V.r / \ (

, J V"

\ ;

k .̂ x

/" r" 'J"J

i I

v» ^

0200 ;<i

CARNELIAN

O Beads

O Evidence of Manufacture

£3 Known Geologie Source

'igure 10

9 0 es 8 0

V

7 5 1 70

\ 6 5

\ 6 0

\ 55

t 50

\ 4 5

\ 4 0

^ 5 ^

"K

- -^

^ Cf*.

S)

STEATITE

O Frog Ornaments ¿ j

O Beads

£} Adzes

$J Known Geologic Source

Ï v * .- ..

2 0 0 •

4 O 0

Scale of Mies

'igure 11.

CV^

CODY 225

1 cm c a t . # A l - 8 8 - A - I I I / 2 8 0

a.

' 1 cm '

cat. #Al-89-B-IV/27

b.

5" cm cat. #Al-90-C0N/9E-VI/38

a.

1 cm

cat. #Al-90-E-vi/m

b.

cat. #Al-90-E-X/176

'l cm'

Figure 12.

NEPHRITE ARTIFACTS FROM PEARLS, GRENADA


' l cm1

c a t . #Al-90-E-X/230

2 cm d .

1 l cm ' c a t . # A l - 9 0 - E - I I I / 8 2

' 1 cm '

cat. #A1-90-E-V/105

c.

b- "Segmented frogs"

"Muiraquita"

ventral plan

e.

5 cm

f.

:..'• V

ta-.-.. i % ' ' . : ' • ' • ;

' l cm1

g.

Figure 13.

"GREEN STONE" ARTIFACTS FROM PEARLS, GRENADA

their implications for prehistoric interaction and...

Documents