PREHISTORIC CULTURAL DEVELOPMENTS ON BONAIRE, NETHERLANDS ANTILLES
Jay B. Haviser
INTRODUCTION
The objective of this paper is to present a general overview of Amerindian cultural developments on Bonaire, based on extensive archaeological surveys and excavations conducted by the author in 1987-1988.
In this paper, the method for presenting such an overview is by examining two types of data relating to the prehistoric period. First, there will be an identification and comparison of island-wide and internal-site evidence of artifact deposits, with a focus on the composition and distribution of variable classes of artifacts. Secondly, a site catchment analysis is used to observe data about Amerindian cultural geography and settlement patterns on Bonaire. These data are then compared with similar analyses conducted on Curaçao, to make interpretations about the variable adaptive strategies employeed by the Amerindians on Bonaire. A more detailed examination of Amerindian cultural history on Bonaire can be found in a book called "The First Bonaireans" by the author, to be out next year (Haviser 1991 ).
Physical Background of Bonaire
Bonaire, and its sister island of Klein Bonaire, have 288 sq. Km. of exposed land, and are located about 80 Km. north of Venezuela and 45 Km. east of Curaçao, at 12 5' N. latitude and 68 25' W. longitude (see Figure 1). The island itself is about 40 Km. long and 5-11 Km. wide in a roughly boomerang shape, composed of mostly Eocene to Quaternary limestone formations and also Cretaceous to Tertiary Washikemba formations ofbasalts, cherts and diabases (Beets and MacGillavry 1977; de Buisonje 1974) (see Figure 2). With an average annual rainfall of 340-680mm, average annual temperature of 27 C. and year mean relative humidity of 75%, Bonaire is primarily a semi-desert island with xerophytic vegetation, similar to the adjacent areas of N.W. Venezuela, Goaira, and the other Southern Caribbean Region islands east to Margarita. Paleo-environmental evidence from the region suggests that these semi-desert conditions have been relatively stable for about the last 3000 years (van der Hammen and Correal 1978; Shreve-Brinkman 1978). With such dry conditions, the available fauna on the island was sparse, composed mostly of birds, iguanas, rodents, land crabs, and marine molluscs, fish and turtles (Haviser 1991 ). In Figures 3 to 6, can be seen the island-wide distribution of several important resources for the prehistoric peoples who inhabited Bonaire, such as fresh-water sources, soils suitable for manioc, soils suitable for maize, and existant/proposed mangrove stands. These figures will be refered to later in this paper.
Prehistoric Cultural Background for Bonaire The character of Bonaire and Curaçao as true oceanic islands within a visible proximity to each other, has clearly been a factor in the similarity of cultural developments in prehistory. On Curaçao, we note the earliest archaeological materials at about 4500 years ago, with this Archaic Age evidence continuing up until about 3500 years ago, followed by an apparent abandonment of Curaçao until the arrival of Ceramic Age peoples at about 1450 years ago (Haviser 1987).
237 238 PREHISTORIC CULTURAL DEVELOPMENTS ON BONAIRE
The first arrival of Archaic Age peoples on Bonaire, at Lagun 3400 years ago (about 1370 B.C.), seems to coencide with the abandonment of Curaçao. From archaeological studies on both Bonaire and Curaçao, we can suggest that these Archaic Age peoples had a probable lifeway as small, semi-nomadic, familistic groups of less than 100 persons, with a hunter-gatherer-fishing subsistence, focused on marine resources and fauna associated with mangrove stands (Haviser 1989).
By about 1450 years ago (about 470 A.D.), a small stable population of Archaic Age peoples was established on Bonaire. At this time, there is evidence of encroachment onto the island by Ceramic Age peoples.
From linguistic and artifactual evidence we can trace the ancient ancestral origin of these earliest Ceramic Age peoples to the Apure basin Western Llanos and the middle Orinoco river area. These maize and manioccultivators seem to have migrated from the Apure river, up the Portuguesa river, then down the Tocuyo-Aroa-Yaracuy river basins to the Caribbean coast, then out onto the coastal islands of Los Roques, Las Aves, Bonaire and Curaçao (Oliver 1989; Haviser 1991). Noted here are the distribution of prehistoric rock painting sites in Venezuela (de Valencia and Sujo Volsky 1987), adding supplementary evidence for middle Orinoco origins for the ancestors of the Bonairean Ceramic Age peoples (see Figure 7). Also noted in Figure 8 is a Stammbaum Model of selected Maipuran languages suggested by Oliver (1989), indicating linguistic connections to the middle Orinoco.
Over the subsequent several hundred years, these Ceramic Age Bonaireans adapted to the island, assimilated the Archaic Age peoples into their lifeways, and colonized Bonaire, particularly in the areas of Wanapa, around Lac, and probably at Put Bronswinkel. There was clearly a close relationship between Bonaire and Curaçao during the Ceramic Age period, as noted by artifactual evidence such as distinctive ceramic painting styles On Bonaire the Ceramic Age population probably never exceeded about 800-1200 people, who lived in sedentary communities with pole-construction huts, located in the vicinity of their various manioc, maize, and possibly agave, agricultural fields. At about 1300 years ago (about 800 A.D.) there was a major movement of Amerindians spreading westward across northwestern Venezuela, covering the area now known as Falcon. These were the coastal Caquetio, with a diagnostic ceramic decoration style called Dabajuroid, complexed socio-political organization, and large populations. By about 800-1000 A.D., they had dominated the Venezuelan coast adjacent to Bonaire, and were thus strategicly located to establish trading networks and cultural contacts with the Ceramic Age peoples of Bonaire. From the artifactual evidence on Bonaire, it seems that by about 1200 A.D. these coastal Caquetio were the primary cultural influence on the island, as noted at the Amboina and Fontein sites. However, the unique earlier Ceramic Age influences on Bonaire and Curaçao were not completely eliminated, as noted by continuation of the distinctive ceramic painting styles, and 17th century historical documents which refer to these islands as inhabited by a separate clan within the Caquetio (Haviser 1987).
In Figure 9, is a chronological chart exhibiting the position of Bonaire in the regional prehistory. Artifact Deposits on Bonaire During the archaeological survey of Boanire, by the author in 1987-88, a total of 82 Amerindian sites were recorded, either as new discoveries or earlier reported and reconfirmed site locations. Of HÀVISER 239 the 82 sites known for the island, 58.6% (48) are Ceramic Age, 15.8% (13) are Archaic Age, 9.8% (8) are exclusively rock painting sites, and 15.8% (13) are unidentified as to cultural affiliation. Using a model previously employed on Curaçao (Haviser 1987), these sites were further identified as to probable occupation intensity and site function(s) as ephemeral, temporary or permanent settlements (see Figure 10).
The artifact deposits used in this study were excavated at seven different locations on Bonaire. Two sites were excavated which represent the Archaic Age (Lagun and Gotomeer), two sites were excavated representing Ceramic Age permanent settlements (Wanapa and Amboina), and three sites representing Ceramic Age temporary settlements were also excavated (Den Bon, North Lac and Sorobon) (see Figure 11).
From an island-wide perspective we can clearly see the variability of individual artifact deposits directly relates to the identified site function categories (see Figures 12 to 14). This is demonstrated by the Ceramic Age permanent sites having a more equal proportional ratio of different artifact classes, than is noted at either the Ceramic Age temporary or Archaic Age sites, where shell material is the dominate artifact class evident.
Other interesting observations to be made from Figures 12 to 14 are the great lack of vertebrate faunal material noted at the Archaic Age sites, and the presence of exotic materials (re. tar) at Öoth Ceramic Age permanent and temporary sites.
Overall, the various sites representing the same site function category have very similar proportional ratios of artifact classes within their deposits, there being one exception with the large difference of faunal bone evidence at the two Ceramic Age permanent sites. If we observe a more detailed analysis of intra-site artifact deposit variation, within the Wanapa site, then an explanation for the faunal bone difference can be suggested. In Figure 15, we can see the Wanapa settlement area, where at least four activity areas were noted from the artifact deposits. These being a living area with a possible house structure (Area B), a shell and coral working area (Area C), a burial area (Burial), and a refuse midden area (Area A). In Figure 16, we can-see the proportional ratio of the artifact classes present in each of these activity areas at the Wanapasite. One of the most striking results noted in this figure is that the living area (Area B) has by far a much higher ratio of faunal bone remains than any other area at the site. If we refer back to the difference in faunal bone evidence between Wanapa and Amboina it could be inferred that the sample from Amboina was more heavily representative of a living area at that site, thus the greater presence of faunal bone. This pattern of artifact class proportional variability within an individual permanent site, is very much less evident within the deposits of individual temporary or ephemeral sites, and thus special caution should be taken when sampling permanent sites for comparitive analysis.
Site Catchment Analysis on Bonaire
To study the utilization of the environment by the Archaic and Ceramic Age peoples on Bonaire, a site catchment analysis was employed using a point pattern model developed by Haviser (1987) for Curaçao. An example of this point pattern analysis is shown in Figure 17. Identical point patterns were overlain on all of the primary settlement area maps, however the patterns are not shown on these figures. A 3 Km. radius, which represents the sampled catchment area for each site, was 240 PREHISTORIC CULTURAL DEVELOPMENTS ON BONAIRE covered with points spaced at 400 m intervals and thus a total of 221 points are counted for each sample area. Separate calculations were also made at 1 Km. radius (21 points), 1-2 Km. radius (76 points), and 2-3 Km. radius (124 points) distances from the settlement loci. Using the individual point identifications, the dispersion of geographic characteristics about the settlements were quantified. This allowed the relative value of each characteristic to be calculated, and facilitated ratio comparisons among and between the Archaic and Ceramic Ages, as ell as between the Age and overall island ratios of each characteristic. Throughout these specific area descriptions, a characteristic is referred to as significant when its local percentage ratio is above the calculated island percentage ratio for that characteristic. This point pattern analysis method is used in combination with the concept of a Site Catchment Analysis (Higgs and Vita-Finzi 1972), referring to the localized use of resources in the vicinity of a site, and also on the Principle of Least-Cost (Fritz and Plog 1970) referring to distance constraints to acquire necessary subsistence and non-subsistence resources. It should be remembered that the actual catchment area of a sites territorial extent is not necessarily circular, but rather constrained by the naturalenvironment or cultural prescriptions.
Due to the limited time for this presentation, I will but briefly review the major characteristics which predominate for these site catchment analyses on Bonaire.
At the 3300 year old Lagun site, the most obvious characteristic is a direct focus on the mangrove stands and the small inland bay (see Figure 18). The lack of suitable agricultural soils in this catchment area is diagnostic of these Archaic Age non-agricultural peoples. A 60:40 percentage ratio of basalt:limestone lithic sources in the area, and the presence of imported Curaçao shale artifacts, are all consistant with Archaic Age evidence on Curaçao.
As we look to the later Archaic Age, at Gotomeer, we see a continued focus on inland bays, and mangroves (evident by shell species indicating a prehistoric opening of the bay mouth) (see Figure 19). Also similar to Lagun, the Gotomeer site is most associated with open plains and hilly land geomorphology covering 77% of the total catchment area, and it has a 70:30 ratio of Basalt: Limestone sources available. Again, agricultural soils are very limited in this catchment area. Like at Lagun, one can also note various associated ephemeral work camps around the bays where these sites are located.
Of the Ceramic Age permanent sites on Bonaire, two (Wanapa and Amboina) have a very distinctive lowland catchment position, while the third (Put Bronswinkel) has a catchment area almost identical to those noted on Curaçao.
At the Wanapa site, the largest Prehistoric settlement on Bonaire dating from about 470 to 1440 A.D., we can see that the settlement is centrally located at almost equal distance from soils suitable for maize, soils for manioc, and mangrove/marine resources at Lac Bay (see Figure 20). Major drainage through this area provided an adequate ground-water access, and one can note the associated work camps around the bay in this catchment area. Two important resources which this catchment area lacks, are chert/basalt lithic sources and clay sources, both strongly evident in the artifacts at the site, and thus necessarily brought in from other areas on the island (or elsewhere), which suggests a greater potential for exchange and/or movement over the island.
The Amboina site is the second largest site on Bonaire and dates to the later period of the Wanapa occupation (see Figure 21). The settlement location is very similar to that of Wanapa, with particular regard for the assoication with soils suitable for maize and manioc agriculture. One HAVISER 241 interesting exception is that the marine resources are available here, but the mangroves are not. Haviser has suggested that this shift away from mangroves may relate to the late occupation of this site, and a declining focus on mangrove resources (Haviser 1991 ).
The Put Bronswinkel site is relatively unique on Bonaire, yet very consistant with catchment analyses evidence on Curaçao, unfortunately we have no radiocarbon dates for this site (see Figure 22). Located among much higher elevations than the other permanent Ceramic Age sites, Put Bronswinkel is situated on a major drainage basin with soils suitable for amnoic, and a large natural fresh-water access. Unlike the Wanapa and Amboina sites, Put Bronswinkel has a greater association with chert/basalt lithic sources, which is again more consistant with sites on Curaçao. Numerous ephemeral work camps are associated with this catchment area, particularly in sea-bay coastal settings.
One example is presented here of a temporary work camp catchment area, so as to distinguish this type of settlement locus from the others discussed. At the Sorobon site, a satélite camp from the Wanapa settlement, we can see that no agricultural soils, clay sources, or non-limestone lithic sources are associated with this catchment area (see Figure 23). The focus of this site is clearly on the mangrove-inland bay resources and the open sea. The earlier mentioned artifact evidence of primarily shell material and turtle bone, with some few artifacts reinforces the identification of a temporary resource extraction camp function for this site. In Table 1, can be seen a comparison of the Bonaire island resource availability totals, with combined 1 Km. radius totals for the Archaic Age (Lagun and Gotomeer) and Ceramic Age (Wanapa, Amboina, Put Bronswinkel, Sorobon, Fontein) sites.
From this figure, we can note that both Archaic and Ceramic Age settlements are significantly associated with the open plain setting, yet the Archaic Age sites are three times more significantly associated with the inland bays. We see a significant Ceramic Age focus on settlement near soils for maize, with soils for manioc evident but not to a significant ratio compared with the island totals. While the Archaic Age sites have minimal association with agricultural soils, they show a very significant emphasis on the mangrove and salina areas. The access to fresh-water sources via springs, groundwater, or drainages is more associated with the Ceramic Age sites, and probably relates to the agricultural needs and arger population during the Ceramic Age. Although neither Age showed a significant ratio of lithic sourceaccess, the Archaic Age sites were clearly more associated with the basalt formations than were the Ceramic Age sites. This is contrary to the catchment analysis results for Curaçao, which indicate a reversed situation, primarily due to the Ceramic Age sites there being mostly in the hilly drainage basins. One other difference from the Curaçao evidence, is that on Bonaire the smaller Ceramic Age settlements show a much more significant focus on clay sources, than was noted at Curaçao. By far, there are more similarities between these two islands prehistoric settlement patterns, than differences. Several direct comparisons with the Curaçao data indicate that the focus on inland bays, mangroves, rock shelters, and salinas in the Archaic Age is the same for both Curaçao and Bonaire. As well, the emphasis on suitable agricultural soils, water sources, and drainage basins is also similar between the Ceramic Age settlement patterns on both islands. The importance of this catchment analysis was to empirically identify changes in the exploitation of specific ecozones, within the same Bay Complex of the Bonaire environment, from the Archaic to Ceramic Ages. It is hoped that this analysis, combined with the artifactual evidence, has given us 242 PREHISTORIC CULTURAL DEVELOPMENTS ON BONAIRE
a clearer understanding of the development and changes in human adaptive response, via different technological and cultural perspectives during the prehistory of Bonaire.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Antczak, M.M. and A. Antczak 1989 Arqueología Prehistórica del Archipiélago de Los Roques, Venezuela. In, Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Congress for Caribbean Archaeology, edited by E. Ayubi and J. Haviser, Reports of the Archaeological-Anthropological Institute of the Netherlands Antilles, No. 9, Curaçao.
Beets, D. and H. MacGillavry 1977 Geology of the Cretaceous and early Teriary History of Curaçao, Bonaire and Aruba. Stinapa Documentation Series 2, Curaçao.
Buisonje, P.H. de 1974 Neogene and Quaternary Geology of Aruba, Curaçao and Bonaire. Uitgaven, Natuurwetenschappelike Studiekring voor Suriname en de Nederlandse Antillen 78, Utrecht.
Fritz, J. and F. Plog 1970 The Nature of Archaeological Explanation. American Antiquity 35.
Hammen, T. van der and G. U. Correal 1978 Prehistoric Man on the Sabana de Bogota: Data for an Ecological Prehistory. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology and Palaeoecology 29.
Haviser, J.B. 1987 Amerindian Cultural Geography on Curaçao. Natuurwetenschappelijke Studiekring voor Suriname en de Nederlandse Antillen 120, Amsterdam.
1989 A Comparison of Amerindian Insular Adaptive Strategies on Curaçao. In, Early Ceramic Population Lifeways and Adaptive Strategies in the Caribbean, edited by P. Siegel, British Archaeological Reports Series 506, Oxford.
1991 The First Bonalreans. manuscript submitted for publication at the Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville.
Higgs, E.S. and C. Vita-Finzi 1972 Prehistoric Economies: A Territorial Approach. In, Papers In Economic Prehistory, edited by E. Higgs, Cambridge.
Oliver, J.R. 1989 The Archaeological, Linguistic and Ethnohistorical evidence for the Expansion of Arawakan into northwestern Venezuela and Northeastern Colombia. Doctorial dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana. HAVISER 243
Rouse, I. and J.M. Cruxent 1963 Venezuelan Archaeology. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Schreve-Brinkman, E. 1978 A Palynological Study of the Upper Quaternary Sequence in the El Abra Corridor and Rock Shelters (Colombia). Doctorial dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
Valencia, R. de and J. Sujo Volsky 1987 El Diseño en los Petrogiifos Venezolanos. Fundación Pampero, Caracas.
Wagner, E. 1988 La Prehistoria de la Cuenca de Maracaibo. Unidad y Variedad: Ensayos en Homenaje a J.M. Cruxent, edited by E. Wagner and A. Zucchi, Instituto de Investigaciones Científicas, Centro de Estudios Avanzados, Caracas. PREHISTORIC CULTURAL DEVELOPMENTS ON BONAIRE 244
i Figure 1, Bonaire, Curaçao, Aruba, and the Venezuelan coastal islands, of the Southern Caribbean Region.
Simplified vegetation areas of Bonairei Washlkemba Formation - Thorny Woodland and Cactus Thorn Scrub Lower Terrace Limestones - Vegetation on the rock pavement Middle and High Terraces Limestones - derived from Dry Evergreen Woodland and Brushland Figure 2 Geology and vegetation formations on Bonaire HA VISER 245
BONAIRE BONAIRE
•IKWBIMK
0 permanent aprlng • water at surface / well* PT! shallow ground water
Potable water sources ire 3 Soils suitable for manioc Figure 4
BONAIRE BONAIRE
0' proposed «aaoroT» «tanda
m •angrevea. txtm 1962 saps
Mangroves resources 'igure S Soils suitable for maize Figure 6 * 246 PREHISTORIC CULTURAL DEVELOPMENTS ON BONAIRE
XI1 prehistoric reek palntlag alta* In vanaauala and tha Netherlands Xntillaa, Iran Valencia and Sujo Volsky (I987i2l3-16|. xatarlki indicate clusters ot rock painting sites, with variable number of sites present Indicated by the size of the astarlk. Figure 7 Distribution of rock painting sites in Venezuela
PHOTO MAIPURAN HI» + 1500 B.C.
+ 500 B.C.
± 1000 A.D.
± 1500 A.D.
rain* <••»..»» Ou>|lr<
Stammbaum Model of selected Maipuran languages north of the Upper Rio Negro basin (as suggested by Oliver 19871151).
Figure 8 Position of the Caquetio language in the Arawak Family *1 *2 *4 N.W. Coastal *3 BONAIRE *5 Dates Ages Venezuela Falcon Curaçao Los Roques Taracu
Nord Salina Caquetio ) Medaño s San A.D. 1500 Histori c Hlronlmo
:,- , ¡Supldeb o Amboina ;< Dos Mosqulses '•_
ÍS ... . San Pab Ururaaco ,.'.Domusky Norte.' , Dabajuro: " early ;/; (Kraaky)^ :; _ «• <• — -. . A.D. 1000 1 *Tucua oooooo De Savaan a Wanápa oooooo O O O 0 O O *? ? oooooooo O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O /_ oooooooo o o o e o o » o o o o o « o o (Coasta oooooooo OOOOOOOOO OOOO A.D. 500 oooooo oooooooo 0 OOOOOOOO OOOO Cerami c oooooooo oooooooooo o o o oooooo oooooo (Co y Coy ) ? E l Mangla r ? Aeródro
Gotomeer
A.D. 0 | Nuev a Venecia j 8 ? 1000 B.C. Lagun ? 1500 B.C. ? St.Michielsberg Archai c 5000 B.C. Rool Rincón ? El Jobo _ ? Las Lagunas
Lithl c Talma Talma ~¡Dabajuroid Series || Malambo id Series Valencioid Series Tierro
6 a &Ocumaroi d Series Tocuyanoid Series ooo Figure 9 . Chronological chart for Bonaire and adjacent areas. *1 = Rouse and Cruxent 1963; *2 = Oliver 1989; *3 = Haviser 1987; *4 = Antczak and Antczak 1989; *5 = revised from Wagner 1988. PREHISTORIC CULTURAL DEVELOPMENTS ON BONAIRE 248
AMERINDIAN SITES INVENTORY TOTALS FOR BONAIRE Total Bitesj 82 (100%) including Klein Bonaire
Site Cultural Affiliations!
n= %= Ceramic Age 48 58.6 Archaic Age 13 15.8 Pictographs only 8 9.8 Unidentified 13 15.8 82 100.0
Archaic Age Ceramic Age Unidentified n= %Aae %total n* %Aqe %total na %total Probable Occupation Intensity (excluding pictographs):
Ephemeral 8 61.5 9.8 40 83.3 48.8 13 15.8 Temporary 4 30.8 4.9 3 6.2 3.6 Permanent 1 7.7 1.1 5 10.5 6.2 13 100. 15.8 48 100. 58.6 13 15.8
Probable Site Function (excluding unidentified sites):
Pictographs 0. 0. 4 8.3 4.9 8 9.8 Limited Res. Extraction 7 53.8 8.5 31 64.7 37.9 Intensive Res. Extraction 6 46.2 7.3 10 20.8 12.2 Sedentary/Base Community 0 0. 0. 3 6.2 3.6 —-_ -______-_ __ _ _ 13 100. 15.8 48 100. 58.6 9.8
Figure io Prehistoric sites inventory for Bonaire 249 HAVISER
BONAIRE
S KM
contour bilcrvilt o I 50. ICO and 200 m. Onima
La sun
.Vañapa North Lac
Sorobon
Function and Intensity Identification of Sites • Ephemeral sites (small camps) O Temporary sites (larger camps) 0 Permanent sites (villages) • Pictograph sites (rock drawings)
Figure 11 PREHISTORIC CULTURAL DEVELOPMENTS ON BONAIRE 250
SITE DEPOSITS COMPOSITION FOR BONAIRE
Archaic Age
Artifact Classes Laoun m Gotomeer 0.. .10...20...30...40...50 100% I I I I I I I Ceramic .03 .3 Lithic p:¿°
Shell i : f r »--T ! : I 94.3 98.2 Coral .06 .4 Faunal Bone .11 .3 Crab ŒD4.5
Other
|....|....|....|....|....|
Lagun Gotomeer #1 Excavation Unit Tests #1-4 Test #1 2 X 2 m. 1 X 1 m. (0-25cm.) (0-25cm.)
counts (n=100%) n= 12,947 n= 7368 weight (g=grams) g= 15,046 g= 16,006
Figure 12 ' Archaic Age sites, artifact compositions HAVISER 251
SITE DEPOSITS COMPOSITION FOR BONAIRE
Ceramic Age, Permanent sites Artifact Classes Wanâpa fP Amboina ffijB 0.. .10. ..20. ..30...40.. .50 100% I I I I I I I Ceramic rmrmniD 22.2 H3SH B17-.2 Lithic 5.39 m .6 Shell EŒI40.9 30.6 Coral HD9.2 ir 1.8
Faunal Bone ! ! 21.8 Hill 45.3
Crab .5
Other | .01 (tar)
Wanápa Amboina Excavation Unit 88/124 Test #16 2 X 2 m. 1 X 1 m. (0-25cra.) (0-25cm.)
counts (n=100%) n= 7095 n= 4036 weight (g=grams) g= 24,544 g= 10,324 PREHISTORIC CULTURAL DEVELOPMENTS ON BONAIRE 252
SITE DEPOSITS COMPOSITION FOR BONAIRE
Ceramic Age, Temporary sites Artifact Classes Den Bon f~P North Lac Mi Sorobon fTTj 0.. .10...20...30...40...50 100% lililí npio. 8 Ceramic R.7
Lithic .2 .3
Shell
J3.9 Coral 2.5 Ï1.1 4.2 Faunal Bone 4.1 B2.9 4 1.2 Crab 2.6 H.0 6 | .01 (tar) Other
|....|....|....|....| I Den Bon North Lac Sorobon Excavation Unit Test #1 Test #1 Test #3 1 X 1 m. 1 X 1 m. 1 X 1 m. (0-10cm.) (0-30cm.) (0-25cra.) counts (n=100%) n= 1687 n= 4659 n= 11,021 weight (g=grams) g= 8149 g= 37,223 g= 10,477
Pigure 14 • Ceramic Age temporary sites, artifact compositions 253 HAVISER
avation grid pattern and site topography Figure 15 Wanápa Site exc PREHISTORIC CULTURAL DEVELOPMENTS ON BONAIRE
AREA DEPOSITS COMPOSITIOM POR MARAPA, BOHAIRK
Ceramic Age, Permanent «lte B-016
Artifact Classes AMA A fTI Area B • AREA Ç fTt WtM fTI 0... 10...20...30... 40...50 1001 !....;....!.1 , ill i Plain Ceramics Hi ;;;'TTÎ36. 2 fflllHWtiti" Decorated Ceramics
Llthlc waste
Modified Llthlc
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIII SS.4 Shell waste 15 u • b 146.9 lillilllllillillill [44.8
Modified Shell
Coral waste
Modified Coral
9.4 Fauna1 Bone 2i.e fl!¿54
.2 Crab .5 .06
Other | .01 (tar) I:;::!::::!:::;!;;;;!;;::!:;:;:;;:!.. Area A Area B Area C Burial Excavation Unit 114/110 86/124 64/122 78/136 2X2 B. 2X2 m. 2X2 m. 2X2 m. (0-2Scm.) (0-25cm.) (0-25cm.) (0-40cm.) counts (n»lQ0%) n» 8290 n- 7095 n- 3147 n- 765 weight (g-grems) g» 30,641 g- 24,544 g- 11,081 g- 3589
Figure 16 Intrasite distribution of artifacts at Wanápa HAVISER 255
Catchment Area Points Pattern Example WANA>A SITE (B-016)
U*«4 .—— CONTOUR LUX AT »« l«ll»VAL 0 AUCMAtC «41 tlTCJ —^~ CONTOU* ll«t AT Sa INTCavaL • CIMUIC AOI IITtt >— MIK, DOOI X riCTOCMPH ilTtl •$xt • A»1H 0 • tPHEUCHAL C«K» «¡0 • •«OT FLalN °á£ >-*», •OCKINtM, HOCKS • te«n-r«««»HiiT/»i«ii«»t»T -v. cur» E3 tout tuiTaiLt ro* «Ane CEE* DUNE, «AMO MILL CD «OIL! AUITAILI POO MANIOC o •LIOMT HIMtiM EÜ9 MAMOHOVC*, at OP IH1 tCALt 0
Figure 17 A 3Km catchment area, points pattern example PREHISTORIC CULTURAL DEVELOPMENTS ON BONAIRE 256
LAGUN SITE (B-021)
t»r«« ~^~ CONTOUR ll«t AT 10» INTERVAL, 0 AACHAIC AOC tlTH —^~ CONTOUR LINE AT »» INTlNVAt • CI "MIC A0( tITEf -^-~ MAIN, ROOI X PICTOCNAPM tlTEJ '£'{ •JARtH 0 • tPHCMCRAL CAMP
Figure 18 Lagun Site catchment area HAVISEB 257
GOTOMEER SITE (B-073)
l—~4 ~~^~ CONTOU* LINC AT Km INTCttVAL O AKCHAIC ASI int» —*" CONTOUn LINE AT ñm tNTCAVAL • CtAAMIC All IITt» -^ UUIN, KOOI X PICTOGNAPM tlTCt HAMM 0 • EPHCMCNAL CAMP
O (LIOMT f LtVATWN • MAHSROvC», AS OP Ml ICALC na 0 MOM
Figure 19 Gotomeer site catchment area PREHISTORIC CULTURAL DEVELOPMENTS ON BONA 258
WANÂPA SITE (B-OI6)
t»Hf«< .—*— cowram LUK «r »a mit«v«L o »«CH«ic «01 «ITU '—*~ CONTOUR LMt »T Sa INT»VAL • niime »ot lint nun, KOOI ricrocuru tltcs •>-* X -!& MARIN o « IPHtMCRAL CAMP «¡s> IftMOV PLAIN °a¿ TCMPORARr/ttAlONAL CAMP s*-» ROCKINEIS, Rwii # —-v CLIPP E3 •OIL» «UtTARLl POM MAIZC *i >i.n OUNC, IAND MILL cu • OIL! SUIIAtLt POR MANIOC o • LIOMI tLtVATKM -.-.189 MAaaROVCt. «1 OP IHI «»LC ••=•• 0 9O0U
Figure 20 Wanápa Site catchment area HAVISER 259
AMBOINA SITE (B-OOI)
!•»«••< -~—r- CONTOUI LINC âT »• INTtPVAl, o AKCHAIC AOC ilTES ~^~ CONTOU* LINI «T 9- INTKVAL • CMAHIC AOI •ITCI -^- OUIN, «OOI X rieroenAPH SITCS '3i; M«»1H 0 • IPHCMÍPAL CAMP
PUT BRONSWINKEL SITE (B-067)
lMN< CONTOUR UNC «T K>« INTCAVAL 0 AACMAIC AOt IITC9 —"~ CONTOUR LMt IT •• INTIMAI. • CCAAHIC »0t §ITt» *-- nuiN, *aoi X DICTOGRAPH JIT£» UIIH o •
Figure 22 Put Bronswlnkel catchment area HAVISER 261
SOROBON SITE (B-006)
COHTOUM LIW «T »« l«Tt«v»l- O MCHAIC Ut tITEt CONTOUt UU âT la INTHVU. • ce»»»ic lac tire» MAIN. MOOI X ncroc««m UTCt '¿Ri IUIIH 0 • CPHCMCIIAl dur • ««or nu. I(»fO«»iit!«o«H uur POCHtNIM, HOCHS 2Í KMI- PERMANENT/ PIAMANCNT eupp MES POILS «UPTAPLt PO* MAIZP. CD •Ollt SUITASLI PM HANIÖC •LIOHT ILÍVATIO» . EU MAMONOVC*. At OP (Ml SCALP. — — •
Figure 23 Sorobon Site catchment area