Predictive Modeling of Archaeological Site Location in Cuba by April A

Home , Ciboney, Granma Province, Isla de la Juventud, Italians in Cuba

Predictive Modeling of Archaeological Site Location in Cuba

April A. Watson

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of

the Dorothy F. Schmidt College of Arts and Letters

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Arts

Florida Atlantic University

Boca Raton, Florida

May 2011

Predictive Modeling of Archaeological Site Location in Cuba

April Watson This thesis was prepared under the direction of the candidate's thesis advisor, Dr. Clifford T. Brown, Department ofAnthropology, and has been approved by the members of her supervisory committee.1t was submitted to the faculty of the Dorothy F. Schmidt ColJege of Arts & Letters and was accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master ofArts.

MM1'REE:

C· ord rown, Ph.D. ~S;"'''f) ~/. ~

Michael Harris, Ph.D. Chair, Department of

Man]una Pendakur, Ph.D. Dean, The Dorothy F. Schmidt College ofArts & Letlers 13~ (. 1?,.~"...... Barry T. ossnn, Ph.D. Dean, Graduate College

III Acknowledgements

I would like thank my committee chair, Dr. Clifford Brown. Without his input and guidance this thesis would not have been possible. I would also like to thank my thesis committee, Dr. Charles Roberts, Dr. Michael Harris, and Bruce Larson, M.A., R.P.A., as well as the Departments of Anthropology and Geosciences. The kindness and support given me by these departments was invaluable. Acknowledgements are also due to Dr.

Jago Cooper of the University of Leicester, for kindly sharing his work, and Marisa

Montesino for photographing the artifacts from Guantánamo Bay. Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends, for their encouragement and humor over the last three years.

Abstract

Author: April Watson

Title: Predictive Modeling of Archaeological Site Location in Cuba

Institution: Florida Atlantic University

Thesis Advisor: Dr. Clifford Brown

Degree: Master of Arts

Year: 2011

This work aimed at aiding academic and CRM professionals in archaeology by developing a predictive model of prehistoric sites on the southeastern coast of Cuba. The variables in this model were identified by previous archaeological research at

Guantánamo Bay Naval Station. Both GIS analysis and weights of evidence testing were conducted on the model. The results of the GIS and statistical analysis allowed for refinement of the model.

Cuba is central to understanding the prehistoric settlement of the Caribbean. The model explored not only site occurrence and environmental correlations, but also looked at intersite correlations. It was determined that site occurrences are strongly linked to low elevation, proximity to other sites, south-facing areas, mangroves, and geologic formations. This model may add to the understanding of the prehistoric settling of Cuba, as well as the interactions between native groups.

Dedication

To Monty and Jack

My light in dark places.

Predictive Modeling of Archaeological Site Location in Cuba

Table of Contents ...... vii

List of Figures ...... xi

List of Tables ...... xiv

Chapter One: Introduction ...... 1

Preface...... 1

Significance of Research...... 3

Environmental Background ...... 3

Caribbean environment ...... 4

Cuban environment ...... 7

Geology...... 9

Paleo-environment ...... 10

Theoretical Background ...... 11

Predictive modeling ...... 11

Chapter Two: Archaeological Background ...... 15

Cultural Overview ...... 15

Cuban Archaeology ...... 15

vii

Cuban site classification system ...... 16

Preagroalfarero (recolocetores cazadores)...... 16

Protoagricola ...... 18

Agroalfarero ...... 19

North American site classification system ...... 21

Lithic Period...... 21

Archaic period ...... 22

Ceramic period ...... 24

Historic period ...... 28

Previous Archaeological Research ...... 29

Chapter Three: Methodology ...... 40

Research question ...... 40

Data collection: defining predictive factors ...... 41

Preprocessing of GIS Data ...... 45

Methods for Laboratory Analysis ...... 53

Methods for GIS Analysis ...... 58

Methods for Statistical Analysis ...... 59

Chapter Four: Analysis ...... 63

Laboratory Analysis: Guantánamo Bay Naval Station sites 1, 3, 7, and 40 ...... 63

GTMO 1 ...... 63 viii

GTMO 3 ...... 73

GTMO 7 ...... 77

GTMO 40 ...... 79

Summary ...... 82

GIS Analysis by Time Period ...... 83

Preagroalfarero period: (Guayabo Blanco/Cayo Redondo) Ciboney ...... 84

Protoagricola period: Mayari ...... 100

Agroalfarero period: Sub-Taino and Taino ...... 112

Study Area Sites ...... 128

Summary ...... 141

Statistical Analysis ...... 147

Chapter Five: Results and Conclusions ...... 162

Discussion of other settlement patterns: The West Indies ...... 162

Local Settlement Pattern Studies ...... 162

National settlement patterns: Cuba ...... 165

Regional Settlement Patterns: The Antilles ...... 167

Discussion of Results: GIS, Statistical Analysis, and Comparisons to ...... 170

other settlement patterns ...... 170

Avenues for Further Research ...... 176

Appendix A: Metadata for SRTM (Elevation, Slope, Aspect and Hillshade) data ...... 178 ix

Appendix B: Metadata for River data ...... 180

Appendix C: Landsat 7 (vegetation) data ...... 182

Classified_ls7center5TIF ...... 182

Classified_ls7east11TIF ...... 183

Classified_ls7west20TIF...... 184

Appendix D: Metadata for Soil Polygon layer ...... 187

Appendix E: Metadata for Rock polygon layer ...... 189

Appendix F: Artifact Catalog: Ceramics ...... 191

Appendix G: Artifact Catalog: Lithics ...... 206

Appendix H: Artifact Catalog: Shell...... 245

Appendix I: Flowchart of Methods ...... 255

References ...... 256

List of Figures

Figure 1: Map of the Caribbean ...... 1

Figure 2: Cuban Environmental units with study area shaded (Borhidi 1996:334) ...... 4

Figure 3: Principal cities and mountain peaks in study area...... 7

Figure 4: Political organization of cacicazgos at time of contact (Rouse 1942:32) ...... 27

Figure 5: Named Sites Visited By Harrington...... 31

Figure 6: 2004 Survey Sites on GTMO...... 64

Figure 7: Ceramic artifacts from GTMO 1: Lot M ...... 66

Figure 8: Specimen Q4, GTMO 1 ...... 66

Figure 9: Lithic Artifacts from GTMO 1: Lot H ...... 70

Figure 10: Specimen E17, GTIMO 1...... 72

Figure 11: Shell Artifacts from GTMO 1: Lot A ...... 73

Figure 12: Ceramic Artifacts from GTMO 3: Lot V ...... 75

Figure 13: Specimen V1, GTMO 3 ...... 76

Figure 14: Lithic Artifacts from GTMO 7: Lot X ...... 78

Figure 15: Lithic Artifacts from GTMO 40: Lot U ...... 80

Figure 16: Shell Artifacts from GTMO 40: Lot U ...... 81

Figure 17: Distribution of Preagricultural sites with regard to elevation and slope ...... 87

Figure 18: Distribution of Preagricultural sites in south facing areas...... 88

Figure 19: Map of Preagricultural sites within mangrove polygons...... 90 xi

Figure 20: Distribution of Preagricultural sites in proximity to rivers...... 92

Figure 21: Distribution of Preagricultural sites within soil polygons...... 94

Figure 22: Preagricultural sites distributed within Geologic period polygons...... 97

Figure 23: Distribution of Preagricultural site types...... 99

Figure 24: Distribution of Protoagricultural sites with regard to elevation and slope. ... 101

Figure 25: Distribution of Protoagricultural sites in south facing areas...... 103

Figure 26: Distribution of Protoagricultural sites in proximity to mangroves...... 105

Figure 27: Distribution of Protoagricultural sites in proximity to rivers...... 107

Figure 28: Distribution of Protoagricultural sites in soil polygons...... 109

Figure 29: Distribution of Protoagricultural sites within rock type polygons...... 111

Figure 30: Distribution of Agricultural sites with regard to elevation and slope...... 113

Figure 31: Distribution of Agricultural sites with regard to aspect...... 116

Figure 32: Agricultural sites in proximity to mangroves...... 117

Figure 33: Distribution of Agricultural sites in proximity to rivers...... 119

Figure 34: Agricultural sites within soil polygons...... 121

Figure 35: Distribution of Agricultural sites within rock type polygons...... 123

Figure 36: Distribution of Taino and Sub-Taino sites...... 126

Figure 37: Distribution of Agricultural site types within the study area...... 127

Figure 38: Distribution of study area sites in south facing areas...... 131

Figure 39: Distribution of study area sites in proximity to mangroves...... 133

Figure 40: Study area sites in proximity to rivers...... 136

Figure 41: Distribution of Study Area site types...... 140

Figure 42: Site favorability in western portion of study area...... 143

xii

Figure 43: Site favorability around Santiago Bay...... 144

Figure 44: Site favorability around Guantánamo Bay...... 145

Figure 45: Site favorability in eastern portion of study area...... 146

Figure 46: Probability Surface Map: Western portion of Study Area...... 152

Figure 47: Probability Surface Map: Ensenada de Mora...... 154

Figure 48: Probability surface map: Santiago Bay...... 156

Figure 49: Probability surface map: Guantanamo Bay...... 158

Figure 50: Probability Surface Map: Eastern portion of the Study Area...... 159

Figure 51: Named Taino Sites in Eastern Study Area...... 161

xiii

List of Tables

Table 1: Source of data included in model...... 43

Table 2: List of Predictive factors, their source, and the analytic techniques used ...... 52

Table 3: Binary classes included in weights of evidence testing...... 61

Table 4: Analysis of GTMO 1 ceramics by vessel part ...... 68

Table 5: Lithic Types, Materials, and Weights from GTMO 1 ...... 71

Table 6: Analysis of Ceramics from GTMO 3 by vessel part ...... 76

Table 7: Lithic Types, Materials and Weights from GTMO 40 ...... 79

Table 8: Breakdown of sites in elevation categories ...... 128

Table 9: Breakdown of sites in slope categories ...... 129

Table 10: Breakdown of sites in soil categories ...... 134

Table 11: Breakdown of sites in geologic/rock type categories ...... 135

Table 12: Breakdown of most common site occurrences across predictive factor

categories...... 141

Table 13: Summary of Weights of Evidence testing of evidence themes ...... 149

Table 14: Chi Square test for conditional independence of map pairs ...... 151

xiv

Chapter One: Introduction

Preface

The islands of the West Indies present a wide array of landforms, geology, and ecology. One can find deserts and rainforests, mountains and mud flats, all among the

400 km chain of islands of the West Indies (Keegan 1994:256). It is no surprise that the cultural history of these islands is no less disparate, or so widely impacted by the physical environment in which prehistoric peoples interacted. This is particularly true of Cuba.

The largest island of the Greater Antilles, Cuba contains some of the most diverse ecology in the Caribbean, and the entire world (Borhidi 1991).

Figure 1: Map of the Caribbean

Much archaeological research has been conducted on the interactions between site locations and the environment. With such a varied ecology, it is expected that locating archaeological sites in Cuba would be greatly impacted by this variation. After archaeological surveys were conducted in the Guantánamo Bay area (Larson 2003;

Keegan and Sara 2003), archaeologists posed the question of whether site occurrences in

Cuba followed a particular pattern, and if so, was that pattern linked to environmental factors?

In this thesis I examine whether archaeological sites in southeastern Cuba follow a predictable pattern, and build a model that helps evaluate the relationships between site locations and environmental conditions in Guantánamo Bay and the southeastern coast of

Cuba. A method that has been widely used to build predictive models in archaeology is the use of geographic information systems, or GIS. GIS maps have the advantage of creating a better visual assessment of whether sites in a given area do adhere to an environmental pattern. I created GIS map of southeastern Cuba using ArcMap, and plotted data concerning geology, geography, elevation, slope, aspect, vegetation types, rivers, and known site location to assess spatial associations. The model was evaluated for significance using weights of evidence testing, and applied to untested areas of

Guantánamo Bay and the rest of the southeastern coast of Cuba.

The goals of this research project are modest. Previous archaeological research has shown that site locations in southeastern Cuba seem to follow an environmental pattern. This thesis aimed to discern this pattern, if it exists, and modeled it across time and space. Space (site locations in space) is modeled with a GIS database, and time was modeled, by looking at changes in cultural association, if known, as well as site types. It

2 is hoped that a well-developed predictive model will aid in a better understanding of prehistoric behavior in southeastern Cuba.

Significance of Research

This research will potentially benefit many entities. U.S. interests in Guantánamo

Bay Naval Station are continuous; as such, a model for predicting site location will assist in future management of cultural resources on the base, as well as assist in the placement of future developments within the base. The research will also aid archaeologists working in southeastern Cuba. It will, I hope, not only illustrate areas of potential interest for archaeological investigation, but also address issues of native behavior. Development in the region will also be supported by this research. Areas of potential impact are modeled in this project. As such, developers will be able to avoid, relocate or mitigate expansion in those areas.

Finally, it is hoped that this project will, in some small way, contribute to cross- cultural understandings between North American and Cuban archaeologists and scholars in general. This project does not strive to be revolutionary. Rather, the expectation is that with common interests in mind, North American and Cuban scholars can continue to work together on archaeological projects and develop a considerable knowledge base from which both areas can share.

Environmental Background

The environmental region selected for study in my research is shown in Figure 2.

The sample area of this study extends in general as far in as the estuaries and bays reach, between approximately 19 and 20 degrees latitude. The area is bounded on the east and

3 west by the eastern and westernmost coastlines of southeastern Cuba. Borhidi (1991:349) classified this region, shown in Figure 2 as C.3, as a phytogeographic unit.

Environmental data plays a significant role in this research and as such, the region, with all its diversity, seemed appropriate to the creation of a predictive model. Data availability was a limitation for this study area as well. Information for Cuban archaeological sites, as well as environmental data, is limited, and thus this region is utilized because I was able to obtain data for this area.

Figure 2: Cuban Environmental units with study area shaded (Borhidi 1996:334)

Caribbean environment. Cuba itself is a part of the Greater Antilles, a portion of an archipelago that includes Hispaniola, Jamaica, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Cayman Islands. These islands comprise 88% of the land area for the West

Indies, with Cuba being the largest island (Keegan 1994:260). The Antilles form a long chain of various sized islands, stretching from the Yucatan Channel, which separates it from Mexico, to the island of Trinidad. The Antilles are broken into several smaller archipelagos, including the southern Caribbean, Trinidad and Tobago, the Lesser

Antilles, the Greater Antilles, and the Bahamas (Keegan 1994:258). 4

The varying sizes of the Caribbean islands had an important impact on their environments, and the subsequent peopling of the islands. Perhaps one of the most obvious considerations is food resources. In the Lesser Antilles, for example, peoples were nearly wholly dependent on ocean resources for food, whereas on the interiors of some of the larger islands (like Cuba) people had a heavy reliance on a terrestrial food supply (Wilson 2007:9).

The topography of the Caribbean is no less diverse than the sizes of its islands, due to the varying positions they occupy on the tectonic plates of the region. The Lesser

Antilles fall on the boundary between the Atlantic plate and the Caribbean plate, producing two very different types of islands: volcanic and sedimentary (Wilson

2007:10). The volcanic islands are rather rugged, and many have active volcanoes. The sedimentary islands are more flat, with older geologic features. For example, the island of

Guadeloupe, on the eastern side of the Caribbean, is made up of 20 million year old limestone (Wilson 2007:10). The other dominant landforms in the Caribbean are its mountains. Indeed, these mountains are extensions of mountain systems in Central

America. The mountains of Guatemala and Belize extend into eastern Cuba, and northern

Hispaniola. The mountains of Honduras and Nicaragua reach into Jamaica and form the majority of the mountains in Hispaniola and Puerto Rico (Wilson 2007:10).

The climate and ecology of the Caribbean also differs significantly among the various islands. The wet and dry seasons of the Caribbean have a profound impact on the islands. Although seemingly homogenous in its temperature and climate, the Caribbean varies considerably in its rainfall, with some islands receiving little or no precipitation, and others, like the El Yunque National Forest in Puerto Rico, receive more than 3,048

5 mm of rain. The precipitation rates depend on proximity to mountain ranges (with higher elevations in general receiving more rainfall) and whether the area falls on the windward or leeward side of the island (Wilson 2007:11). The ecology is also diverse, with local flora and fauna depending on the size of the island.

The climate is heavily also influenced by the wind and water currents in the

Caribbean. The marine currents are generated by the Northern Equatorial current and the

Southern Equatorial current. The movement is generally east to west, but shifts once the current reaches the region to a more northwesterly flow. Currents along the south coast of Cuba between Cabo Cruz and Isla de la Juventud flow counter to this movement, moving west to east prior to turning south en route to Jamaica (Dacal Moure and Rivero del Calle 1996:7). The marine currents seem to have remained similar during the

Holocene, as their paths have left topography on the sea floor (Dacal Moure and Rivero del Calle 1996:8).

The winds of the Caribbean make one of the most significant impacts on the islands, particularly in the form of hurricanes. The trade winds of the Caribbean travel for east to west, with cyclic variability. These winds would have been favorable for any sea travel that native peoples would have undertaken, as the winds in general follow the movements of the ocean currents (Dacal Moure and Rivero del Calle 1996:8). However, the threat of hurricanes was, and remains, a significant threat to the Antilles. Indeed, the word hurricane is derived from the Taino word huracan (Wilson 2007:13). Peoples of the

Antilles, on all of the islands, have found various adaptations to these seasonal windstorms. Despite this hazard, there was probably a great deal of water travel between the islands of the Antilles (Wilson 2007:14).

Cuban environment. Cuba is the largest and westernmost island of the Greater

Antilles, extending 750 miles (Perez 1988:3). The total landmass of Cuba measures over

46,000 square miles, including the underwater platform on which Cuba rests. The southern coastline varies considerably, including several different landforms. The dominant mountain range in southeastern Cuba is the Sierra Maestra, with the highest peak being Pico Turquino at 1974 m (Borhidi 1996:34). As Figures 1 and 3 illustrate, the environment of southeastern Cuba is heavily impacted by its mountain ranges. Indeed, much of the subject area, southeastern Cuba, is covered by mountains, with very little of the plains that are prominent in the rest of the country. The mountains extend from Punta

Maisi on the east to Cabo Cruz on the west. The western part of the southern coastline is composed of low marshland, interspersed with coral keys and mangrove swamps, with two significant “pouch-shaped ports,” Guantánamo and Santiago de Cuba (Perez 1988:5).

Figure 3: Principal cities and mountain peaks in study area.

To the north of the Sierra Maestra Mountains, there are alluvial plains that cross through the center of the region, and drain into the Bahia de Nipe on the east by the Rio de Nipe, in the Golfo de Guancanabo and on the west by the Rio Cauto, which is the largest river in Cuba (Rouse 1942: 15)

The climate of Cuba is sub-tropical, with varying local conditions dependent on elevation and proximity to the mountain ranges. Cuba is affected by the general atmospheric conditions and warm ocean currents. One of these warm currents almost entirely circles the island, with another, southern Caribbean current adding to the general climate. Thus, Cuba is warmer than other areas lying at the same latitude, and is considered sub-tropical (Borhidi 1996:37). Within the study area, there are two humid mountainous areas, as well as an arid coastal plain (Borhidi 1996:350). The area generally surrounding Guantánamo lies in the rain shadow of the Sierra Maestra, and as such receives little precipitation, about 600-800 mm annually. The climate conditions there are classified as xeric. At the far eastern end of the island, the climate changes to humid rainforest. To the west of the Sierra Masestra rain shadow, the rainfall increases to about 1,200 mm to 1,400 mm per year, and as a result the area is more suitable for agriculture. The Nipe-Baracoa Mountains in the northern part of the region are among the most ecologically diverse in the world, and especially in Cuba.

The flora and soils of this region are also variable. The coastal wetlands include salt and mud flats, estuaries, and mangroves (Keegan and Sara 2003:10). The climate at the far eastern tip of the region is tropical rainforest. Of particular interest are the mangroves, which are primarily concentrated in the bays and along the coasts of Cuba.

Mangroves are generally formed when a large freshwater river mixes with salt water.

This is the case in many of the small bays and keys along the southern coast of Cuba.

Mangrove ecosystems in Cuba are the most extensive in the Caribbean, covering 4.8% of the total surface area in Cuba, and over 26% of the total forested area (Menendez et al.

1994).

The soils of southern Cuba are relatively wet, with poor drainage. To the north and east in the Sierra Maestra, the environment is more temperate, with diverse plant species. The soils of these parts of the region are better suited to agriculture. In the plains at the center, the climate is more arid, with scrub plant life consistent with the dry soils of that environment (Borhidi 1996:352).

The most economically productive soils are the red clay soils, in particular a soil type called Arcillosos Mantanzas (Alcantara 2007:4) However, within the study area there are no instances of this red clay. The most common soil type for this region is red and brown limestone and brown tropical soils. This soil type makes up 16% of the total soil area in Cuba. According to Alcantara (2007:4) these red and brown limestone soils are considered fertile as well, and produce very well if managed properly. Thus, for the study area, the limestone soil type is considered „suitable for agriculture.‟ In addition, alluvial soils have the potential for excellent fertility as well, although they are more likely to be flooded and poorly drained (Chang et al. 1995:6).

Geology. According to Furrazola-Bermúdez et al. (1964), the principal formations for Cuba are Paleogene, which includes the Paleocene epoch, with volcanic rock the most common material for that epoch, and the Eocene epoch, represented by carbonates. There are also some instances of Miocene period formations, which include

9 marl and sand, and Jurassic and Cretaceous period formations, which include granitites, carbonates, and sands.

The study region is dominated by deposits from three geologic periods:

Quaternary along the coastal areas on the eastern and western coasts, as well as concentrated in Guantánamo Bay, Cretaceous period material found within the Sierra

Maestra mountain range, and Miocene formations found on the rest of the coast.

Paleogene period and igneous rocks are also found in great majority along the north portion of the study area. The most common materials for that area are clay, sand, limestone, gravel, turbas, sandstone, and shale.

Prehistoric peoples in the area are known to have used both chert and chalcedony in the manufacture of their tools (e.g., Geo-Marine 2003; see also the lithic artifact analysis of this thesis). Chert develops both in limestone and in deep marine environments found in proximity to volcanic formations (Knippenberg 2007:30). For this study, then, the preferred lithic material is considered to be chalcedony/chert.

Paleo-environment. Very few studies have been conducted on the paleo- environment of the Caribbean, particularly of Cuba. The Caribbean underwent a dry period beginning in about 10,500 B.P, during the Holocene epoch. The climate became increasingly wet by around 7,000 B.P., before entering another dry period beginning around 3,200 B.P. (Hodell et al. 1991). The paleoshoreline was of course influenced by the varying environmental conditions of the Pleistocene and Holocene. At the end of the

Pleistocene, the sea levels were about 120 m lower than those of today. The water then rose rapidly until about 6,000 years ago, reaching a level of about nine to twenty meters lower than present. Subsequently, sea levels rose more slowly, and as a consequence,

10 encroached more slowly on the shoreline (Blanchon and Shaw 1995). In two studies done by Cermak et al. (1992a and b), the authors argue that Cuba underwent a two to three degree rise in temperature over the last two hundred years, based on soil core samples from various locations throughout Cuba. Therefore, for the time period of interest for this thesis (after about 5000 B.C.), it would seem that the environmental conditions of the southern coast of Cuba have has not changed substantially.

Theoretical Background

Predictive modeling. Archaeological theory suggests that human behaviors follow a predictable pattern that is apparent in settlement choices. Whether or not this pattern is easily discernable is debatable, but many studies suggest correlations between human settlement patterns and environmental variables (Steward 1937a; Steward 1937b; Willey

1953). Indeed, Willey (1953:1) was one of the first to systematically explore ideas about settlement patterns in South America. He felt that settlement patterns represented a starting point for the interpretation of archaeological cultures. Both Julian Steward and

Willey, among others, argued that environmental variables had an important influence on site occurrence, and also that the cultural adaptations of native groups were affected by environmental stimuli (Turck 2003). These patterns have led archaeologists to develop predictive models of human settlement patterns based on ecological variables. Kohler and

Parker (1986), in their study of predictive models, identified two types of predictive models: empiric correlative models and deductive models. Empiric correlative models address the interaction of environmental variables and human settlement locations. Such models predict the likelihood that a particular environmental factor impacts site location choice. This type of modeling is considered “economic” by Kohler and Parker 11

(1986:400), as it relies on cost-effectiveness of human behavior; that is, that native groups lived as close as possible to environmental resources, and maximized these accordingly.

However, environmental factors alone cannot explain all human behavior. It may be accepted that human settlements follow a pattern of behavior, but strictly environmental variables such as hydrology or access to fresh water are not the only factors in this pattern. Another key element to these patterns of behavior is cultural factors, such as preference. For instance, Church, Brandon, and Burgett (2000) proposed that one element for consideration is the preference for lithic material choice. Although access to lithic source material may be considered an environmental factor, the cultural preference for one particular type of material over another is not. Other cultural aspects must be considered, such as proportions of smaller sites to larger sites, and distances between sites, which may be influenced by political, religious, or ideological factors.

These types of data are a part of deductive modeling.

In archaeology, perhaps the most common, statistically significant predictor of prehistoric site locations is distance to drinking water (e.g. Kvamme 1984; McMananmon

1982; Wescott and Kuiper 2000). We also know that people generally do not live on steep slopes or in marshes. With only a few variables such as these, one can create a predictive model that is reasonably precise and accurate. Adding more variables to the model (soil type, temperature, precipitation, etc.) tends to improve its precision and accuracy but by ever-decreasing amounts. How can we improve this kind of empiric correlation model by finding the archaeological equivalent of a successful “branching algorithm” (that is, a deductive model) that both describes settlement efficiently and

12 contributes to our understanding of settlement? Several such ideas exist in the literature.

For example, Peter Peregrine (1991) has developed an interesting model of site location in the eastern United States that predicts site size and location by using graph theory to analyze river branching. He argued that the rivers served as routes of communication and transport and found that the junctions of larger rivers boasted larger sites. Other archaeologists have used Thiessen polygons, Central Place Theory, and gravity models to study and predict site locations. These kinds of models are based on social, cultural, or economic processes and therefore be classified as “deductive” by Kohler and Parker

(1986). Given the limitations of both types of models, the archaeologist is right to be cautious in utilizing either uncritically to predict site locations. However, a predictive model of archaeological sites is a useful tool because it allows one to extrapolate beyond the data at hand to infer patterns and processes.

Perhaps the easier to use is the empiric correlation models are easier to implement as environmental data may be more readily available than cultural preference. However, deductive models may be the stronger in terms of prediction, if only because these types of models attempt to make use of past human behavior rather than using more modern environmental proxies. Unfortunately, there is also the potential for more error in this type of model. Archaeologists may assign cultural meaning to site occurrence or location that is not valid across the landscape, or there may simply not be enough information available to make that type of prediction. For instance, Diggs and Brunswig (2006) attempted just such a model using ethnoarchaeological data to construct a predictive model of sacred sites in the Rocky Mountains. Environmental data, such as shelter, was linked to various non-economic motivations, such as the shelter‟s accessibility for

13 ceremonial purposes (Diggs and Brunswig 2006:3). Unfortunately, the models were only moderately predictive of sacred sites. By the same token, many empiric correlation models that rely on only environmental variables achieve modest success also; thus archaeologists should be cautious in applying either kind of model without “ground truthing,” or in the field verification.

Perhaps the best type of model includes “economic” environmental data, and also non-economic variables, such as preference. This thesis will include both environmental data, which will primarily look at shifting site location choices across the study area, as well as attempt to model cultural changes and preferences through time. However, even the best model can only be a “simplification of reality” (Kohler and Parker 1986: 401).

Chapter Two: Archaeological Background

Cultural Overview

Cuban Archaeology. There is some conflict with regard to archaeological research in Cuba. On the one hand, archaeologists from the United States have done extensive work in the area; however, the work has not always taken into consideration the theoretical perspectives of Cuban archaeologists, although this is perhaps due to political differences between Cuba and the United States. Keegan and Sara (2003:15) noted that

Cuban archaeology has maintained a Marxist perspective, which does typically not correspond with the theoretical perspectives of most North American archaeologists, and consequently, Cuban archaeological work is often ignored in North American research.

The Cuban‟s Marxist approach yields an evolutionary sequence of social types (e.g., hunter-gatherers, agriculturalists, etc.) organized in accordance with economic modes of production. Their proposed stages are not radically different from those developed by the

Neo-evolutionary processual archaeologists in North America, which should not be all that surprising since both sets of ideas developed ultimately from the same sources, the original evolutionists such as Tylor and Morgan. The main difference between, then, between the Cuban and North American perspectives is not really the neo-evolutionary theory, as one might expect, but rather the cultural-historical approach long adopted in

Caribbean archaeology.

The cultural-historical approach, originating in Germany, focused on delineating cultural groups by focusing on their particular material culture (Trigger 2008:248).Irving

Rouse, who spent his entire career at Yale, from undergraduate to emeritus professor, did more than anyone else to establish and refine the prehistory of the Caribbean, and his influence is difficult to overstate. He started working in Haiti in the 1930s and continued publishing major works on Caribbean archaeology into the 1990s. He was also influential in archaeological theory, being one of the first to address the systematics of ceramic typology. He championed modal analysis, which continues to be used more in the

Caribbean, due to his influence, than in other culture areas. He also produced important theorists among his graduate students, such as Robert Dunnell and Bruce Trigger. His approach to Caribbean prehistory was, however, implacably cultural historical, relying entirely on migrations to explain culture change. Because Rouse never adopted an evolutionary approach, his outline of Caribbean prehistory was ultimately founded upon modal changes in artifacts driven by migration and diffusion. That is the real source of the dissonance between the North American and Cuban theories.

Thus, the cultural overview presented here features both the predominant approach used by Cuban archaeologists, represented by Tabio and Rey‟s system (1966 and 1979) and the North American system, illustrated by Irving Rouse‟s system (1992), with contributions by Keegan (1994 and 1995).

Cuban site classification system

Preagroalfarero (recolocetores cazadores). Tabio and Rey‟s (1966) system primarily classified archaeological sites based on the presence or absence of ceramics and agriculture. The first period of human occupation is referred to preagroalfarero, or 16

preagroceramicist. The time period corresponds to two cultural groups, collectively known as the Ciboney. The Ciboney culture is further divided into Guayabo Blanco and

Cayo Redondo, with Guayabo Blanco occupying northwestern Cuba and Cayo Redondo occupying central Cuba. The Guayabo Blanco occupied the Antilles from about 4,000 years ago, although Tabio and Rey speculate that it is possible they were more recent immigrants to Cuba, arriving perhaps a thousand years ago (Tabio and Rey 1966:16).

Their habitation sites tended to be within 5 km of the coast, in zones where they could maximize collection of mollusks, crustaceans and fish. The authors note that this does not exclude the possibility of manufactured shelters situated further inland (Tabio and Rey

1966:36). The site types included both habitation sites situated on flat land as well as inhabited caves. Their lithic tools were almost always rudimentary and lacked an intentional form (Tabio and Rey 1966:23). The Guayabo Blanco used naturally occurring stones to manufacture stone tools, including granite, hematite, and limestone. Stone knives and pins were the most common tools manufactured by the Guayabo Blanco. They also relied heavily on marine resources, of which the Strombus gigas (queen conch) was predominant. They frequently used these shells to make tools, with hand picks being the most common tool type. The group had three principal modes of subsistence: gathering of vegetable/fruit plants, capturing animal species such as birds, insects, and reptiles; and ultimately, the gathering of fish, mollusks, and crustaceans. Finally, it was noted that

Guayabo Blanco were an egalitarian group, without any centralized authority and generally organized into families (Tabio and Rey 1966:41-42).

Tabio and Rey (1966:53-54) remark that it is difficult to separate the Guayabo

Blanco cultural group from the Cayo Redondo, but place this group as a more recent

“aspect” of the Ciboney. Cayo Redondo peoples were present in Cuba from about 1 A.D. to 1650 A.D. Their sites tended to lie in coastal mangrove areas, particularly in the

Bayamo area of the Oriente province (today the Granma province). Of the thirty-six sites noted, Tabio and Rey (1966:64) state that twenty-nine lie within 5km of the coast. The rock shelters that were more common among the Guayabo Blanco were far less common among the Cayo Redondo, who seemed to instead prefer open air sites. This was true in about 70% of the sites investigated and covered in Tabio and Rey‟s work (1966:65). Like the Guayabo Blanco, the Cayo Redondo had no ceramics. Most of their tools were very similar to the Guayabo Blanco, made primarily of Strombus gigas. Cayo Redondo did manufacture some stone tools, particularly using chert, as well as other naturally occurring stone material to create their stone knives and pins. Cayo Redondo peoples were almost exclusively reliant on marine resources for food, a point of difference between them and the Guayabo Blanco peoples. The type of subsistence and the preferences for site locations seem to be the primary differences between Guayabo

Blanco and Cayo Redondo; however, a shift from foraging to food producing marks the separation between the Ciboney, and the next cultural group, the Mayari.

Protoagricola. This time period is characterized by the advent of agriculture among native peoples from about 800 A.D. to 1100 A.D. This period was dominated by one cultural group, the Mayari. It was this group that precipitated the use of ceramics, and was at the forefront of the use of agriculture. The Mayari co-existed for a time with the

Cayo Redondo cultural group, in the Oriente province, as well co-existing with the Sub-

Taino. The Mayari sites tend to lie within the alluvial plains of rivers, with a concentration of sites in the Mayari area of the Oriente province (the Holguin and

Guantánamo provinces today). Their sites lie within 10 to 30 km from the coast, in the more fertile zones. The Mayari, as pottery-makers, did produce ceramic material. The designs on the pottery were simple, geometric patterns of lines and points. Besides the ceramic material, the Mayari are considered superior to Ciboney in working stone, creating particularly fine chipped stone tools. This group produced chert stone pins, hammers, and knives, as well as producing much lithic debitage. They did not, however, possess any shell tools other than shell gouges. At one site in Arroyo del Palo, a bone flute was discovered and was attributed to the Mayari. Another shift from the Ciboney was a focus on utilizing inland resources. The group gathered plants from the interior of

Cuba, as well as capturing terrestrial animals. It is speculated, therefore, that the Mayari were the first to begin cultivating plants, although there is not much clear evidence for this at the present (Tabio and Rey 1966:114-116).

Agroalfarero. This stage includes all the culture groups that extensively utilized both agriculture and ceramics. This includes, of course, the Taino, as well as the Sub-

Taino. The Sub-Taino existed in Cuba from about 800 A.D. to 1570 A.D., or after contact. Ninety-five sites were excavated and discussed by Tabio and Rey (1966: 136).

They lived chiefly in the Oriente province, with fifty-three sites concentrated in the area of Banes. Most of their habitation sites lie more than 3 km from the coast, with twenty- three of the sites lying less than 3 km from the coast. Of the sites that showed contact with the Spanish, none of the sites were on the coast or in caves. All of them were inland open air sites. Their houses were situated in a more or less circular fashion, leaving a central plaza in the middle of the site.

Of the ninety-five identified Sub-Taino sites mentioned in Tabio and Rey (1966), four of these sites were ceremonial caves. The artifacts associated with the Sub-Taino are diverse, including ceramics, stone and bone tools, and shells. Most of their ceramics were smooth, without decoration. The ceramic types included various sizes and shapes of vases and plates. They utilized various types of stone tools as well, including “hacha petaloides

(celts),” burins, pins, mortar and pestles, scrapers and knives. Much of the shell tools found associated with the Sub-Taino are similar to the ones found with the Ciboney, however the Sub-Taino tools were generally made with more care and aesthetic appeal.

Among the shell tools found there were shell celts as well as burins, generally made of

Strombus gigas. In addition, ceremonial items were uncovered, incorporating shells in the eyes and earrings of an idol found at one of the sites. Bone amulets, idols and pendants were also uncovered. Numerous wooden artifacts are attributed to the Sub-Taino: canoes, javelins, idols and other items, as well as fibers from textile manufacture. Their tools types suggested that they utilized agriculture as a part of their subsistence strategies, as well as continuing to hunt land mammals and gather fruit and vegetable plants. The

Sub-Taino showed a shift from the relatively simple foraging lifestyle of the Ciboney to increasing complexity in art and tool manufacture, as well as in ceremonial and daily life

(Tabio and Rey 1966:125-192).

The Taino showed increasing complexity and specialization, relying heavily on agriculture as well as producing more and more intricate tools and ceramics. The Taino were dominant in Cuba from about 1450-1520 A.D. (Tabio and Rey 1966:10). Twenty- six Taino sites were discussed in Tabio and Rey (1966). Among these, eleven were caves sites, four were camp sites, and six were funerary caves. The remaining sites were

habitation sites. The Taino seemed to concentrate in the southeastern tip of Cuba, or the

“alligator‟s mouth,” found in the Baracoa and Guantánamo areas in the Oriente province

(Guantánamo province today). Most of the sites were not situated near the coast, as it seemed that the Taino preferred caves to open air sites. Those sites near the coast were more likely to be “paraderos” or camp sites. The Taino had large ceremonial areas, particularly the Cueva Ceremonial and Cercado Terreo o Terraplen. Their ceramic material was quite similar to the Sub-Taino in size, shape, and decoration. Their stone tools were also similar, except for a tool Rouse called double bitted stone axes, which were specific to the Taino (Tabio and Rey 1966:205). Their shell, wood, and bone artifacts were also comparable to the Sub-Taino. Both the Sub-Taino and Taino created artificial deformations of the skull, that is, the fronto-occipital bone was intentionally flattened. This is markedly different than the Ciboney or Mayasi, who did not perform this deliberate flattening. Much like the Sub-Taino, the Taino practiced agriculture as the primary mode of subsistence, as was evidenced by the complexity of tools found associated with them. The Taino displayed progressively more and more complexity in ceremonies and political life, eventually organizing into several different cacicazgos

(chiefdoms) at the time of contact with the Spanish. Three of these cacicazgos were prevalent in the area of interest to this thesis (see Figure 4).

North American site classification system

Lithic Period. In the Greater Antilles, the Lithic period began between 4000 and

5000 B.C. Few Lithic period sites are known in the Greater Antilles, with all of them occurring in Cuba and Hispaniola (Keegan 1994:264). Rouse (1992:54) identified a

Casmirian subseries in the Lithic period for the Caribbean, and further divided this 21

subseries by regions: Serboruco in central Cuba, Cabaret in Haiti, and Barrera-Mordan in the Dominican Republic.

The Lithic period in Cuba is characterized by “unretouched macroblades struck from prismatic blades” (Keegan 1994:264) which seemed to primarily be used for manufacturing other tools. Rouse (1992:55) discusses a few Lithic Age sites in which excavators found what appeared to be isolated workshops for lithic reduction. He points out that little or no other identifiable tools were found, but that there must have been a variety of perishable tools that are simply not found in the archaeological record. The

Lithic is also noted for a lack of ground stone tools, and an emphasis on chipped stone and food gathering (Rouse 1992; Keegan 1994).

One of the most contentious issues regarding the Lithic period is the peopling of

Cuba. Where did the Lithic period peoples come from? Several theories have been proposed to explain their origins. Most of the theories argue that Lithic age peoples migrated from South or Central America (e.g. Wilson, Ireland, and Hester, 1998; Rouse

1992; Keegan 1994). Some Cuban archaeologists have suggested that Florida is a possible source for Lithic period colonists (Keegan 1994:264). However, most American archaeologists disagree, as the currents running between Florida and Cuba would have made it difficult to cross in a dugout canoe, as computer simulation models created by

Callaghan (1991; 2001) have suggested.

Archaic period. The Archaic period in the Caribbean occurred from roughly 5000

B.C. to 200 B.C. Rouse (1992:52) classified the Archaic period as being in the Casmirian subseries, but with further divisions similar those of Tabio and Rey (1966). Rouse labeled

Archaic age peoples as being Guayabo Blanco (2000 B.C. to A.D. 300) and Cayo

Redondo (post A.D. 300) cultures, with a single subseries, Redondan Casimiriod. The

Archaic period is characterized by the use of ground stone and shell tools, lack of pottery, and the introduction of marine mollusks as a means of subsistence (Keegan 1994:266).

Keegan does point out, however, that a lack of pottery does not necessarily mean that a site is Archaic and not Ceramic. Indeed, Lundberg (1985) established that some of

“Archaic” sites in St. Thomas were actually ceramic-age middens, while some were simply collections of shells.

Rouse (1992) separated the Archaic period cultures on the basis of the development of shell gouges. Keegan (1994:269) identified several other types of shell artifacts including plates, cups, tips and hammers, along with ground stone artifacts such as manos, pestles, balls, corazones (heart stones), stone disks, bowls, cups and gladiolitos

(daggers), that are particular to the Cuban Archaic period. In addition to the Archaic tool kit, the reliance on marine resources is frequently used to separate out Archaic period sites. The limited variety of subsistence choices may indicate that Archaic peoples were moving seasonally from site to site. Keegan presents evidence that suggests Archaic peoples also may have developed some horticultural practices by cultivating wild grain and fruit trees. Archaic period sites are found in the interior and the coastal areas of Cuba, with both open-air and rock shelter site types. Shell mounds are common along the coast, which is an expected pattern given the reliance on marine resources (Rouse 1992:60).

In eastern and central Cuba, as well as other parts of the Greater Antilles, it is supposed that Ceramic age colonists either pushed out or assimilated the Archaic population (Keegan 1994:270). Keegan calls this the Ceramic-Archaic interface. In this,

Keegan and Rouse disagree. Rouse (1992) contends that Archaic period peoples were

displaced or migrated west, where they remained until the contact period, under the name

Guanahatabeys. Keegan argues that there is no evidence that Archaic age peoples remained until contact. He asserts that although there is no denying Archaic peoples did occupy the western portion of Cuba, there is no evidence that they were present to trade with the Spanish. Regardless, it is clear that after roughly 500 B.C., the Greater Antilles entered the Ceramic period.

Ceramic period. It was during the Ceramic period that the second wave of migrants traveled to Cuba. The first wave of immigrants, as mentioned previously, entered Cuba in the Lithic period. This second wave entered much later, bringing with them a new technology—ceramic production (Keegan 2000:137). These peoples appear to have come, as they had before, from South America. Rouse (1992:94) argues that the

Saladoids, as he called this culture group, entered into Cuba via the Cibao Valley on the eastern tip of Hispaniola, up to the boundary between the Dominican Republic and Haiti, and across the Windward Passage to the eastern tip of Cuba. This migration evidently caused a break from previous cultural traditions and a shift to pottery production, around approximately 600 A.D. It is unknown exactly why this migration took place. Keegan

(1995:138) proposed that the abundant resources of the islands drew people to them, and prompted them to settle there. Keegan theorized that rather than an abrupt shift from

Archaic to Ceramic Age traditions, peoples of the West Indies experienced a much subtler shift in cultural patterns. Around 350 B.C., pottery making diffused to Archaic peoples in Hispaniola and became a formal part of Meillacan culture by 600 A.D. About the same time, the Ostionans expanded out of Puerto Rico and into Haiti, Cuba, Jamaica, and the Dominican Republic. Finally, around 800 A.D. the Chican pottery tradition

developed out of the Ostionan tradition and spread outward from the Dominican Republic

(Keegan 2000:150).

Regardless of exactly how the Ceramic Age people progressed, most agree on settlement and subsistence patterns. The Saladoid period, which would be the typical group for the Ceramic period, extended from 500 B.C. to 600 A.D. Recent studies have shown that this group preferred coastal settlements, although there are some sites found inland around river drainages. Saladoid peoples utilized a mix of resources including root crop agriculture, hunting and mollusk collecting (Keegan 2000:141). The pottery of this period, called Cedrosan Saladoid, included decorated and undecorated vessels made of local clays and sand tempers (Keegan 2000:143).

Rouse proposed that the Saladoid peoples, as representative of the first of the

Ceramic Age peoples in Cuba, eventually gave way to the Troumassoid and later the

Suazoid subseries. This in turn developed into the Ostionoid subseries (Rouse 1992:72).

With the shift from Saladoid cultural traditions to Ostionan traditions came a shift in settlement and subsistence as well. House sizes in Cuba seemed to have accommodated extended families, even up to the contact period. In addition, horticultural practices diversified to include manioc and sweet potatoes. Ostionan pottery bears similarities to the Saladoid pottery. The former is primarily a red ware, without the plurality of colors in the Saladoid pottery. The pottery tended to be smooth, hard and thin, typically with little or no decoration (Rouse 1992:96).

Political and social organization became increasingly complex during this time, eventually developing into the cacicazgos (chiefdoms) that were present at contact. The

Taino caciques (chiefs) began to replace behiques (shamans) as religious leaders, as well

as emerging as political leaders. Ball courts and plazas began to replace cemeteries as spiritual centers for the Ostionoid peoples, and there was an increase in cave decoration at this time. A system of tribute was practiced, although the Ostionans held on to more egalitarian practices from the Saladoid peoples (Keegan 2000:154). The sample area of this research proposal was divided into five major cacicazgos, which were the Taino name for different regions led by a cacique, at the time of the contact period. Figure 4 illustrates the major districts at the time of contact.

Figure 4: Political organization of cacicazgos at time of contact (Rouse 1942:32)

Historic period. When Columbus sailed to Cuba in 1492, he encountered the

Tainos, which at that time were not referred to by one name; rather they used several depending on the cacicazgo to which they belonged. However, they became known as

Taino, meaning noble or good, and they referred to themselves as such to distinguish themselves from other Island Arawaks (Rouse 1992:5). The arrival of the Spanish brought a great deal of change to the area. The greatest change, of course, was the decline of the native peoples, brought on by abuse, disease and warfare. Caciques began giving tribute to the Spanish in the form of food and labor, a system that was practiced prior to

Spanish arrival (Keegan 1995:269). The Spaniards practiced subsistence strategies similar to the natives before them, maximizing marine resources as well as horticulture.

However, the Spanish introduced to the islands domesticated animals, particularly pigs, which they allowed to roam free (Keegan 1995:270).

The biggest change to the Taino way of life was the enforcement of traditional

Spanish cultural values. Initially the Spanish ordered native peoples to work as slaves, but later released them as they began to die of disease and abuse (Rouse 1992:151). The

Spanish developed encomiendas, or feudal estates, where whole villages of natives were forced to work at a ranch or goldmine. When they began dying, the Taino natives rebelled against this system. The Spaniards put down these rebellions, and native peoples began dying off in large numbers. Las Casas (1951:57) reported that only 10% of nine hundred natives survived three months of goldmine work.

Increasingly, the Spanish brought Africans to work the goldmines, and later the sugar cane fields and plantations. The African groups brought with them their own

cultural ways, and pottery. By 1515, African pottery began to dominate over Taino pottery, and the Taino way of life rapidly died out (Keegan 1995:272).

Previous Archaeological Research

If the culture history of Cuba is rather complicated, the history of archaeological research is no less so, if only because of competing views. Most North American archaeologists credit Mark Harrington as being one of the founders of Cuban archaeology

(Rouse 1992; Davis 1996:163). Harrington conducted a series of excavations in Cuba, as well as examining all the existing collections at the time (mostly surface collections), before eventually publishing a book of his findings, Cuba Before Columbus. He theorized that there were two major prehistoric groups in Cuba, one ancestral to the historic Taino, and one associated with the Ciboney culture set, which Rouse (1992) placed in Western

Cuba.

In 1921, Mark Harrington reported on several archaeological investigations in

Cuba. Several of these excavations took place on sites that are within the study area. In particular, Harrington explored some of the well-known Taino sites that lie on both sides of the Maya River. He and his team explored La Patana, a series of cave sites. Most of the caves associated with the site were burial caves. In at least one site, the burial was too disturbed to determine the manner of burial (Harrington 1921:257). In the other two burial caves, Harrington found flexed burials, and a wooden platform on which, perhaps, people were placed after death. Harrington also explored Cueva Zemi, another cave site where he uncovered petroglyphs carved into stalagmites. In San Lucas, Harrington did work on a site he called “the Big Wall site,” a site about 460 feet long and 300 feet wide.

Along the outskirts of the site were numerous refuse heaps. The site‟s so-called “Big 29

Wall” was a long mound bounding the site on the east. The wall was about 260 ft. in length, 30 to 40 ft. long and six ft. high (Harrington 1921:279). After excavation,

Harrington determined that this big wall was in fact another large refuse heap. At the Big

Wall site, burials were found in small earthen mounds rather than in caves. The skulls of the remains were found with the artificial deformation of the head which is associated with the Taino culture. Upon examining some of the other artifacts associated with the site (bone material, shells, and stone tools) Harrington felt that the site was probably multi-component, with some occupation of the site during the Preagricultural period.

Figure 5: Named Sites Visited By Harrington.

Harrington also visited the Laguna Limones sites in the same area (located at the far eastern tip of the study area, see Figure 5). This site was different from some of the others Harrington explored in that there was actually a fresh water pond where water was probably gathered. In all the other sites he visited, he noted that there was no access to fresh water except from cisterns or sink holes in caves. The site was also noted for its earthwork, which Harrington believed was probably a ceremonial dance ground and ball- court (Harrington 1921:305).

In addition, Harrington explored Cueva del Muerto, near Santiago. (This site eventually became known as Cueva Humboldt.) The cave itself is located a few hundred yards from the sea, at the mouth of a little river. Harrington excavated a burial within the cave, as well as recovering several stone artifacts including flakes of flint (chert) and hammerstones (Harrington 1921:312).

As Davis (1996:163) points out, however, Harrington was not quite the first to do extensive archaeology in the region. Rodriguez-Ferrer in 1847 also visited many of the well-known Taino sites. In particular he visited Pueblo Viejo (Figure 5). He found the rectangular earthen structure of the site to be comparable to the earthworks in the

Mississippi Valley (Harrington 1921:41). A visit by another archaeologist, Fewkes, in

1904 compared the earthen structures at Pueblo Viejo to ceremonial ball courts or dance grounds in Haiti and Puerto Rico (Harrington 1921:68). Luis Montane Darde, in 1918, studied skeletal remains from archaeological sites in Cienaga de Zapata, and went on to found the museum of anthropology at the University of Havana (Davis 1996:164). The

Museo Antropologico Montane had a great deal of influence on Cuban archaeologists,

and in fact by 1959, a substantial portion of Cuban archaeology was conducted by Cuban nationals (Davis 1996:164).

North American archaeologists, however, continued to contribute to Cuban archaeology. In particular, Irving Rouse made significant contributions to Cuban archaeology, and in fact his typology for cultural sequences in the area is the most frequently used (Keegan 1995). Osgood also had an influence over Cuban archaeology, and their work on sites in the Maniabon Hills and Cayo Redondo in Pinar del Rio, respectively, represented some of the last archaeological work done by North American scholars until the 1990s (Berman, Febles, and Gnivecki 2005:47).

Work during this time followed much the same perspective as North American archaeology, with an emphasis on culture-history. Interest in topics like cultural ecology or settlement patterns were largely ignored (Davis 1996:164). After the Revolution, however, perspectives on archaeology in Cuba changed dramatically. Archaeological investigation stopped for a period of more than two years. When work resumed, the theoretical views were greatly influenced by Marxism. One of the most noteworthy works published after that time was Tabio and Rey‟s Prehistoria de Cuba (1966) which revamped some of the ideas of Rouse, among others, and took more of a

Marxist/materialist viewpoint. Indeed, in the introduction the authors criticize historical particularism as confusing. Instead, they state that “estamos iniciando la tarea de interpretar el fundamento ecomonico y social de nuestras comunidades primitivas y en algunos casos, de sus consecuentes implicaciones superestructurales” (We are beginning the work of interpreting the economic and social foundations of our primitive communities and, in some cases, of their associated superstructural implications) (Tabio

and Rey 1966:9 [my translation]). Essentially, they intend to interpret the economic and social foundations of the prehistoric native of Cuba, something they felt earlier works lacked. This work impacted the way Cuban archaeologists conducted their investigations, although it had little influence on North American ideas.

After the 1990‟s, when the USSR withdrew from Cuba, efforts began to be made to bring in archaeologists from the United States. In the early 1990‟s, a partnership between the Montane Museum and the Carnegie Museum of Natural History resulted in fieldwork conducted in Pinar del Rio. In addition, many conferences on Cuban archaeology have been reorganized to include U.S. scholars (Berman, Febles, and

Gnivecki 2005:57-58). U.S. interests in Guantánamo Bay have also allowed for significant research to be done on the naval base. In 2003, Bruce Larson conducted an initial reconnaissance of the naval base, and, later, Geo-Marine conducted a larger investigation under Larson‟s supervision (Larson 2003; Keegan and Sara 2003). The ability of North American archaeologists to conduct fieldwork in Cuba has allowed scholars from both countries to expand their knowledge base and, it is hoped, expand their conceptions of pre-Columbian Cuba.

In 2003, Bruce Larson, Archaeologist with the Atlantic Division Naval Facilities

Engineering Command, conducted a preliminary reconnaissance survey of Naval Station

Guantánamo Bay (GTMO), in order to assess the archaeological and historical sites located on the base. Larson and his team identified twelve significant sites. Ten of these sites were identified as prehistoric archaeological sites, which were possibly Lithic Age sites, with the others sites classified as historic sites. Of particular interest to Larson, as well as the Navy, was the application of predictive environmental factors that could be

used to create a predictive model. Larson and his team used environmental data from known archaeological sites in the Caribbean to assess the probability of site occurrence in

GTMO. Larson found that low lying areas, as well as areas adjacent to raw materials such as jasper and chalcedony, were likely areas for prehistoric site occurrence. Larson also noted that sites were likely to occur near estuaries and that this may reflect a resource utilization pattern. Based on this reconnaissance survey, Larson recommended further archaeological investigation of GTMO, as well as a geological survey. He noted that

Guantánamo Bay has two discrete ecological areas. On the Leeward side, the land is typified by limestone outcrops and alluvial flats. On the windward side, the land is characterized by steep rock hills, with limestone terraces and coral platforms being common. All the pre-Columbian sites identified by Larson were located in fringe areas in

Granadillo Bay, which is on the windward side of Guantánamo Bay, in the northeastern portion of the base. Larson (2003) identified site potential such that on “a landform, such as a ridge or low hill that is less than 5 m in elevation and has any level surface with a south orientation, there is a high likelihood that a lithic and shell scatter will be found.”

This prediction is based on environmental data of slope, aspect, and elevation. In addition, Larson (2003) found that “low areas on protected cays and backed to higher geological features as well as landforms adjacent to fresh water tributaries that empty into estuaries” may have a higher chance of site occurrence. Again, this prediction is tied to environmental data: elevation, distance to fresh water, and distance to estuaries and/or coastal regions. Larson also noted that a particular predictor was the proximity of sites to available lithic resources such as chalcedony.

The Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic contracted Geo-Marine in 2003 to conduct an archaeological survey and paleoenvironmental assessment of GTMO. Geo-Marine surveyed approximately 1,200 acres of the naval station, and recorded nine prehistoric archaeological sites. As a result of the combined efforts of Larson and Geo-Marine, nineteen pre-Columbian sites were identified on GTMO, as well as twenty Historic Age Navy sites, one Historic Age

Spanish site and one multicomponent pre-Columbian/Spanish site. Geo-Marine also made significant use of environmental data in order to predict areas of archaeological occurrence. The survey noted that landforms adjacent to Granadillo Bay on the windward side and Port Palma on the Leeward side were not notably impacted by modern activities and as such had a high potential for archaeological sites. In addition, the Guantánamo

River on the Leeward side was not surveyed, and may have a high potential for archaeological site occurrence.

Keegan and Sara (2003) of Geo-Marine noted that there is a significant difference in ecological zones in southeastern Cuba. An ecological border bisects Santiago Bay, creating two distinct environmental regions. To the east, where Guantánamo Bay lies, is the desert of Imias, which lies in the rain shadow of the Sierra Maestras (Keegan and

Sara 2003:29). This region is distinguished by xerophytic settings, and vegetation suited to semiarid climates, with traditional agricultural only possible along major rivers. The west of this dividing line, on the other hand, is far more suited to agriculture, with rainfall of 1,200 to 1,400 mm per year, and more fertile soils.

Fontan and Hung (1996:76) noted three different prehistoric land use types that are associated with these two regions: los conchales (shell middens), los paraderos

(camps), and los sitios de habitacion propiamente (the habitation sites). Las conchales are simply shell heaps, with very few artifacts associated with these sites. Los paraderos tend to be larger, but are still generally small, probably more closely aligned with procurement or seasonal camps. Finally, los sitios de habitacion propiamente are larger, within a few meters of the sea, and are close to both mangroves and freshwater rivers.

Fontan and Hung (1996:78) observed that those sites to the east tend to be smaller, maybe only representative of four to six families. Thus it may be predicted that sites to the east of Santiago Bay tend to be smaller, close to mangroves and freshwater rivers, and within a few meters to the sea, whereas sites to the west, although still relatively small, are close to agricultural land as well as close to mangroves and freshwater rivers.

When Geo-Marine conducted the archaeological survey in 2003, the main goal was to test archaeological site locations based on general models from the Caribbean

(Keegan and Sara 2003:40). They noted that pre-Columbian sites in the Caribbean tended to be associated with coastal settings that contained tidal marshes and mangroves, as well as rocky shorelines where marine resources could be exploited. In addition, key river and creek valleys, spring heads, stream convergences, rock shelters, and outcrops for lithic resource procurement are considered likely for pre-Columbian sites. Finally, Keegan and

Sara (2003:41) noted that prehistoric sites in this area tended to be near sheltered bays and adjacent to mangrove swamps. This is particularly true of Archaic sites, with sites typical of the Ceramic Age being more likely to be found near agricultural land and further inland.

To summarize, with several archaeological surveys having been conducted in the

Guantánamo Bay region, as well as regions to the north, there are two separate predictive indicators related to geographic features:

1) In an alluvial flat adjacent to a wetland/estuarine environment, sites tend to lie

at less than 5m above sea level, and have a south orientation. It is expected

that these sites would have little to no slope. It is also possible that these sites

would be smaller, either procurement sites or seasonal habitation sites. It is

also predicted that these sites would lie within 60m of a bay or tidal flat

shoreline. These sites might lie closer to lithic raw material.

2) To the west of the ecological barrier (on the other side of the Sierra Maestra

mountains), sites tend to be larger, still close to mangroves and freshwater

rivers, near land suitable for agriculture. It is possible that proximity to lithic

raw material such as chalcedony may have influenced site location choice as

well.

Larson and LaSala, in 2004, conducted another survey of several already recorded sites in GTMO. An impetus for the present research involved analyzing the artifacts collected from this survey. After reviewing both reports by Larson (2003) and Geo-

Marine (2003), and analyzing the artifacts Larson and LaSala (2004) collected, it prompted further exploration of the ideas put forth by Larson and Geo-Marine. Their surveys made extensive use of environmental data to predict archaeological site location, but none took this idea a step further to actually create a formal predictive model. The

previous research, then, stimulated my research question: do the archaeological sites in southeastern Cuba follow a predictable pattern that can be modeled in a GIS database?

Chapter Three: Methodology

Research question

Several archaeological surveys of the Guantánamo Bay area of Cuba, particularly of the Naval Station, have been conducted (e.g. Larson 2003; Keegan and Sara 2003). As all good archaeological surveys should, these surveys raised more questions than answers. In particular for the Navy, as well as archaeologists working the region, one question that was raised is “do the sites in the Guantánamo Bay area, or indeed all of southeastern Cuba, follow a predictable pattern?” Both Larson and Geo-Marine identified several environmental factors in Guantánamo Bay that seemed predictive of site occurrence. In addition, other archaeological investigations to the north and east of

Guantánamo Bay have recognized ecological features correlated with archaeological site locations. It is the focus of this thesis to attempt to integrate these observations into a predictive model. The null hypothesis is that sites in Guantánamo Bay, as well as the rest of southeastern Cuba, do not follow a predictable pattern, and therefore the locations of prehistoric sites on the southeastern coast is random. The alternative hypothesis supposes that sites in southeastern Cuba do follow a predictable pattern, similar to site patterns already observed by actual archaeological investigation in and around the Guantánamo

Bay Naval Station and Santiago de Cuba.

This model hypothesizes that prehistoric sites lie in areas of less than 50m in elevation, on slopes less that 22%, in south facing orientation, in proximity to mangroves and fresh water, on areas of fertile soil (limestone soil) and in proximity to a preferred lithic source material (chert/chalcedony). The alternative hypothesis will be rejected if no discernable patterns are illustrated by the model. This does not mean that there is NOT a pattern of settlement for southeastern Cuba but rather that the predictive factors included in the model are not illustrative of that pattern.

Data collection: defining predictive factors

The research methodology is aimed at answering the questions set down in the research problem. Each step in the methodology will address one or more of these questions to try to evaluate the alternative hypothesis: that there are discernable pattern of settlement in southeastern Cuba that can be modeled using environmental data. What do we want to predict and why? Historically, most predictive modeling has been carried out for historic preservation compliance. In most cases, the most important prediction sought is the presence or absence of sites in a particular area. More complex models may also try to predict whether particular sites are likely to be significant because of their size, age, or function. Historic preservation models are often concerned with the locations of all sites, or all “significant” sites, because the laws and regulations do not discriminate based on site type, age, or function. Typically, “significant” sites in the United States are those that are recorded on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places

(National Park Service 1995). Scholarly studies, in contrast, often focus on sites from particular cultures or periods because such investigations typically focus on problems within a specific cultural historical context. 41

What is it, then, that this model seeks to test? This model has only modest aims for prediction. It is hoped that the model will highlight presence/absence of sites and site class/type. One of the goals of this model is to show the probability of different site types occurring in varying environmental locations (e.g. a lithic/shell scatter in an estuarine area with less than 5m slope and southern orientation). What steps, then, are necessary to create the model and answer the questions? The first and probably most basic question involves scale. Some types of scale include micro (structure level), semi-micro (within site) and macro (inter-site), all of which can be modeled with GIS (Sydoriak Allen 2000:

101-102). This project will use a regional scale, or macro level, to look at inter-site interactions with the environment because of the limited availability of high resolution data for Cuba.

The region of study, as previously explained, is the southeastern coast of Cuba, an environmental unit classified by Borhidi (1991) which for the purposes of this project will extend along the southeast coast, and as far inland as the estuaries and bays reach, between approximately 19 and 20 degrees latitude, and bounded on the east and west by the coastline of Cuba. This unit, as illustrated in both Figures 1 and 2, represents not only a phytogeographic unit, but three separate coastal political units as well. This model then explored patterns within this area as an environmental unit, patterns within each cacicazgo as political units, and across this area as a coastal political unit. The model also considered a comparison of Santiago de Cuba and Guantánamo Bay as the principal bays along the southeastern coast of Cuba.

Data Source Scene ID Date created Data (original) obtained (from source) Shuttle Radar United States SRTM3N19W078 February July 2010 Topography Geological SRTM3N20W076 2002 Mission Survey SRTM3N20W075 Landsat 7 SLC United States L71012046_04620020120 January 2002 April 2010 On (1999-2003) Geological L71011046_04620030305 March 2003 Survey L71010046_04620000711 August 2000 Rivers GoSpatial n/a Not available June 2010 Geologic maps Furrazola- n/a 1959 April 2010 Bermúdez et al. (1964). Soil maps European n/a 1961 April 2010 Digital Archive on Soil Maps of the World Archaeological Fuebles n/a Fuebles June 2010 data Dueñas and Dueñas and Martínez Martínez (1995); (1995); Martínez Martínez Arango (1982); Arango Larson (2003); (1982); Keegan and Larson Sara (2003) (2003); Keegan and Sara (2003) Table 1: Source of data included in model.

Previous archaeological surveys (Larson 2003; Keegan and Sara 2003) noted that elevations less than 50m and with little to no slope, areas near mangroves, areas along or near major fresh water rivers and tributaries, areas near well-drained soils suitable for agriculture, and areas near lithic raw material are all potential archaeological site locations. I included in the model data sets that would allow me to create variables corresponding to issues raised by the previous investigations (Table 1). Table 1 lists the source of the information for the data used in the model, gives the scene id for each layer

(where applicable), gives the creation data, and when it was obtained from the source by

me. For elevation, slope and aspect, I used data from the NASA Space Shuttle Radar

Topography Mission (SRTM), which was the highest resolution digital elevation model

(DEM) data available to me. Vegetation/land cover was classified from Landsat 7 images, which I downloaded from the United States Geological Survey (USGS). River data was downloaded from GoSpatial. I downloaded scanned soil maps from the

European Digital Archive on Soil Maps of the World (EuDASM). Geologic maps were scanned from paper maps, taken from Furrazola-Bermúdez et al. (1964). Finally I used archaeological site data from the Larson (2003) and Geo-Marine reports (2003), as well as Fuebles Dueñas and Martínez (1995) and Martínez Arango (1982).

This thesis includes both the use of environmental factors such as slope or elevation, referred to here as “economic” environmental factors, as well as non-economic environmental factors, such as preference for raw material or inter-site distances, as predictors for the model. In order to more fully address the question, the predictive model will also address archaeological sites across not only space, as modeled by a GIS map, but also across time, as supported by previous archaeological research and also modeled by a GIS map. It is hypothesized that site types in southeastern Cuba will vary across time, as cultural groups made changes from simple hunting camps to seasonal occupations to more permanent settlements, and changes in preferences, such as a shift from nonagricultural subsistence to utilizing agricultural resources. The changes in site type may be reflective of shifting environmental resource extraction, or other “non- economic” change such as political or social changes in site preference. These types of changes can still be modeled through the use of economic environmental variables as well as non-economic environmental data.

Any model may be limited by the data available, as well as the ability to test the model. Even if an alternative hypothesis is accepted, and the null hypothesis rejected, it is expected that further testing of the model „in the field‟ will be required. Predictive models cannot predict specifically where sites may occur. What it can do is narrow the focus from a very broad area, in this case the southern coast of Cuba, to a narrower, small set of areas. Cultural resource management, as well as academic archaeologists, can use the model as a starting point for further research.

At the time of publication of this thesis, I was made aware of newer versions of some of the datasets (the digital elevation model and a new soil map, among others).

Further explorations of the archaeology of the southeastern Cuban coastline may want to utilize this newer information rather than the evidence included in this thesis, but the results might vary from what was discovered in this work.

Preprocessing of GIS Data

Elevation plays a key role in site location prediction. For a GIS project, it is important to have a digital elevation model (DEM) to use within the spatial database. In

2000, the EUA, German and Italian space agencies launched the SRTM or Shuttle Radar

Topography Mission. This shuttle collected topographic elevation information for the world, with a horizontal spatial resolution of approximately 30 m. This information is available for free from http://srtm.usgs.gov and was downloaded for the area of study, a total of three tiles. The three tiles were imported into ERDAS Imagine and mosaicked, which created one smooth TIF file of the southeastern coast of Cuba. Once the TIF file was created, it was imported into ArcMap for use as the primary elevation layer. The

SRTM data was first converted to integer data to reduce the file size and to simplify 45

analysis, and then re-classified using Reclassification in Spatial Analyst. This served to highlight those areas of lowest elevation (which are the focus of this thesis). Once this step was completed, the layer was converted to vector format to allow for intersection with other layers. The SRTM data was originally in GCS 84 projection. All data created from this information was converted to WGS 84 UTM zone 18N to match the Landsat 7 and archaeological site data projections.

From the SRTM data, the slope and aspect layers were created, using the slope and aspect tools in ArcMap. These tools are available under the Spatial Analyst toolbox.

A Hillshade layer was also created from the SRTM data. A Hillshade layer provides more visual depth for the elevation layer, and makes it easier for the viewer to visually analyze the image. Aspect data was extrapolated from the SRTM information. Essentially, aspect looks at the orientation of sites (or other features) in cardinal and ordinal directions. The aspect layer was created using the SRTM TIF file and the Aspect tool in ArcMap. A slope layer was created as well, to highlight those areas with little to no slope. The slope layer and aspect layers were both converted to integer data, and then reclassified. These layers were generated using the Aspect, Hillshade, Slope and Reclassify tools in the

Spatial Analyst toolbox in ArcMap.

Vegetation cover was used as a proxy for prehistoric land use. The major vegetation type that concerns this thesis is mangroves, thus this type of vegetation needed to be extrapolated and a layer created for this type. Three Landsat 7 images were downloaded from the United States Geological Survey‟s (USGS) EarthExplorer

(http://glovis.usgs.gov/), to completely cover the study area. In order to more accurately analyze vegetation type, the scenes chosen for this research all fell within the same

season, or as close as possible. Once the three scenes were downloaded, bands two, three and four were extracted from the imagery. This extraction was done for all three tiles.

Then the images were imported into ERDAS Imagine and “layerstacked” to create three composite images. Two different combinations of the bands were made, although ultimately only the false color images were used.

After the composite images were created, an unsupervised classification was performed on each tile. The unsupervised classification allows the computer program

(Imagine) to create a number of classes (the number determined by the user) based on the spectral characteristics of the image. Since the primary goal was just to isolate mangroves, a relatively small number of classes, fifteen, was initially specified. This was sufficient to isolate the mangrove spectral class. A vegetation cover map was provided by the Nature Conservancy, as part of an agreement to use such information for academic purposes (Schill 2010). The vegetation cover map includes information on all vegetation types in Cuba. As mentioned previously, Borhidi (1991) also did a comprehensive study of the vegetation types in Cuba. Because a „‟ground truthing” of the vegetation types in the study area was not possible, these two sources were used to verify the spectral classes, and ultimately isolated the mangrove vegetation class.

Unfortunately, the Landsat images had areas of distortion along the edges of each tile. These distortions did have some effect on the classification of mangroves, as the distortion ran right through the mangroves. This was corrected in ArcMap. After the unsupervised classification was complete, the images were imported into ArcMap. These images are raster data, so to make analysis simpler, a polygon layer was created containing the mangrove vegetation class. Using all three images, I was able to discern

where exactly the mangroves fell within the area of distortion. This was verified this using a combination of the information in Borhidi (1991), Schill (2010), and the actual

Landsat images.

Rivers are also a key predictive factor. A polyline layer was downloaded for free from the GoSpatial website (http://www.gospatial.com/html/sample_reg.php). This data included several layers, two of which were used for this thesis, the polylines for rivers and for the coastline of Cuba. The polylines for the river data included information on whether it was a perennial or permanent river, or an intermittent stream, but did not include information on the name of the river. In addition, the layer did not include all the rivers in the study area, as it was intended as a sample. The layer was imported into

ArcMap, where the river names were added where known, and new polylines were created for rivers that were missing from the dataset. This was done using a combination of the Landsat 7 imagery and Joint Operations maps that were purchased from the USGS for the study area. River data was reprojected to WGS 84 UTM zone 18N.

The soils were mapped using scanned copies of soil maps available from the

European Digital Archive on Soil Maps of the World (EuDASM). This information is available publically on the internet

(http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/esdb_archive/eudasm/latinamerica/lists/ccu.htm.). Because these are just scanned copies of paper maps, the maps needed to be registered to other imagery. The soils maps were opened in Adobe Photoshop cs64 and placed in a single large image. This image was compressed in order to save hard drive space. Then this image was imported into ERDAS Imagine and the larger image was registered to the

Landsat 7 images. This ensured that spatial reference data was the same for all layers

subsequently registered to the Landsat imagery. The projection was WGS 84 UTM zone

18N. Once the soil maps were linked to the other information, polygons were created, highlighting the soil areas shown in the map, focusing specifically on the soil areas in the study area.

The geological maps are also scanned copies of paper maps from the Instituo

Cubano de Recursos Minerales (Furrazola-Bermúdez et al. 1964). The maps were in two sections, which were first scanned, then opened in Adobe Photoshop CS3. These scans were then merged into one image. To save file space, the image was compressed. Next, the image was registered to the Landsat 7 imagery using ERDAS Imagine. The projection was WGS 84 UTM zone 18N. Finally, the scanned, registered map was imported into

ArcMap. Polygons were created for each geologic area and all the information associated with that area was entered into the attribute table for that layer.

Finally, archaeological data was processed for use in the model. This processing involved sorting through data from three sources: a CD-ROM with information on 975 sites (Febles Dueñas and Martínez 1995), the archaeological reports from Larson (2003) and Keegan and Sara (2003), as well information from Registro de Todos los Sitios

Arqueológicos Investigados por la Seccíon Arqueológia Aborigen de la Universidad de

Oriente (Martínez Arango 1982). The CD-ROM reflects the efforts of Febles Dueñas and

Martínez to create a national computer database of archaeological site information for

Cuba. Most of the sites have coordinates listed, but unfortunately it was difficult to determine what projection was used to get the coordinates. A recent article by Cooper and Peros (2010) featured a GIS map that was created using this CD-ROM, and a subsequent book chapter which also used this data (Cooper 2010: 84). The sites were

generally mapped using either a national grid system with either North American Datum

(NAD) 1927 Cuba Norte or Cuba Sur. It was discovered that the site data in the area of the thesis was projected using NAD 1927 Cuba Sur. The data was then reprojected to

WGS 84 UTM zone 18N, the same projection as the Landsat 7 imagery. The CD-ROM data contained information on the elevation, province and municipality, soil type, geology, site type, distance to water, and the relief of each site. This data was all imported into ArcMap in an attribute table.

The data from Resigistro de Todos los Sitios Arqueológicos Investigados por la

Sección Arqueológia Aborigen de la Universidad de Oriente (Martínez Arango 1982) was similar to the data on the CD-ROM (Febles Dueñas and Martínez 1995), however, not all the sites were featured in both places. There were several sites listed in the study area that were not included in Febles Dueñas and Martínez (1995). However, this number was relatively small, and therefore this data was included in the present analysis. In order to determine the site locations from Martínez Arango (1982), the map within the

Resigistro de Todos los Sitios Arqueológicos Investigados was compared to the GIS map generated from Febles Dueñas and Martínez (1995). Next, using Google Earth, relative positions of the new sites were plotted. This information was entered into an Excel 2007 spreadsheet. Twenty additional sites were identified. After the relative positions were obtained, the Resigistro de Todos los Sitios Arqueológicos Investigados (Martínez

Arango 1982) was carefully read to obtain as much data possible. For each additional site, the site type, the cultural group (if known), age, and any notes about the site were recorded. This table was then imported into ArcMap and projected in UTM WGS 84 zone 18N. Finally, as much of the data within the Resigistro de Todos los Sitios

Arqueológicos Investigados (Martínez Arango 1982) was recorded on the attribute table for Cuban site data layer. The culture group (if known) was added to that information.

Archaeological site data was also recorded by Larson (2003) and Keegan and Sara

(2003). The report by Geo-Marine included several maps and aerial photos of the archaeological sites identified during the excavations of 2003 (Keegan and Sara 2003).

Using these aerial photos and maps, the coordinates were obtained from Google Earth.

The quality of the aerial photos and the maps was such that the placement of the sites is relatively certain. Using the Geo-Marine report (2003), the site type was recorded in the attribute table for this layer. The type information was modeled after the types used by

Febles Dueñas and Martínez (1995), based upon descriptions of the sites by Geo-Marine

(Keegan and Sara 2003).

Predictive Factor Data Preprocessing GIS analysis Statistical technique Analysis technique Elevation SRTM data from Mosaicked in Vector Re- USGS ERDAS conversion in Classification Imagine; ArcMap; Intersect in ArcMap Integer in ArcMap Calculate conversion in Area in ArcMap; Re- ArcMap Classification in ArcMap Vegetation cover Landsat imagery “Layerstacked” Buffer in ArcMap Re- (mangroves) in ERDAS Intersect in classification Imagine; ArcMap in ArcMap Contrast Calculate enhancement Area in in ERDAS ArcMap Imagine, Unsupervised classification in ERDAS

Rivers River line data Additional data Buffer in ArcMap Not included from GoSpatial, added from Intersect in Landsat imagery USGS maps ArcMap Slope SRTM data from Slope tool in Integer Not included USGS ArcMap; Re- Conversion in Classification ArcMap; Re- in ArcMap Classification in ArcMap; Vector conversion in ArcMap; Intersect in ArcMap Soils Soil map from Scanned and Visually assessed Not included EuDASM merged in Photoshop; Registered to Landsat imagery in ERDAS Imagine; „heads up‟ digitization in ArcMap Aspect SRTM data from Hillshade tool Integer Calculate (orientation) USGS in ArcMap; Conversion in geometry in Aspect tool in ArcMap; Vector ArcMap; Re- ArcMap; Re- conversion in Classification Classification ArcMap; in ArcMap in ArcMap Intersect in ArcMap Proximity to Geologic map Scanned and Visually assessed Calculate lithic source from The Instituto merged in Geometry in material Cubano de Photoshop; ArcMap; Recursos Registered to Reclassificatio Minerales Landsat n in ArcMap Departamento imagery in Cientifico de ERDAS Geologia Imagine; „heads up‟ digitization in ArcMap Archaeological Larson and Geo- Febles Dueñas Intersect and Calculate data (site Marine reports, and Martínez buffer tool in Geometry in locations and Martínez Arango data ArcMap ArcMap; site types) (1982); Febles reprojected Reclassificatio Dueñas and into WGS 84 n in ArcMap Martínez (1995). UTM zone 18N Table 2: List of Predictive factors, their source, and the analytic techniques used 52

Methods for Laboratory Analysis During July 2004 archaeological field investigations were performed at the United

States Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GTMO), by Bruce Larson and Kris LaSala.

They examined three sites, GTMO sites 1, 3, and 40. At GTMO 1 they stratigraphically excavated a 1 x 1 m test unit, but recovered no artifacts from it. They also made a systematic surface collection by a laying out a 2 x 2 m grid and collecting all the artifacts from each square. The part of the site selected for surface collection was within an area surrounded by previously identified artifact concentrations. All the artifacts analyzed and described here are from the surface collection; the survey of Sites 3 and 40 was restricted to additional reconnaissance survey and selective surface collection of lithic and shell artifacts to supplement the collections made during the 2003 field seasons (Larson 2003;

Keegan and Sara 2003). Although additional fieldwork at these two sites had been planned, it was not possible to carry it out. One additional day in the field was dedicated to viewing the historic period sites and examining areas for lithic raw material sources

(Larson 2004).

As a part of the project, the U.S. Navy kindly loaned the archaeological collections to Florida Atlantic University for study. Analysis of those artifacts is included in this thesis. There are two reasons for this inclusion: one, since much of the archaeological data included in this model was data collected prior to this analysis, the examination of these newly recovered artifacts added more information about prehistoric sites on the southeastern coast of Cuba. Second, most of the rest of the archaeological site data comes from a Cuban archaeological perspective. As mentioned previously, site types in the Cuban system are primarily classified by the presence or absence of agriculture and ceramics at the site. However, Cuban archaeologists have not explored archaeological 53

sites on Guantánamo Bay Naval Station lands. The analysis of these artifacts in comparison to analyses done on Cuban sites will provide a unique cross-cultural perspective on site types in that region. In essence, do site types in GTMO follow the same pattern as the others along the coast?

Artifacts were first separated by raw material type: ceramic, lithic or shell. Each artifact was assigned a letter corresponding to a lot (provenience) and a specimen number. Materials recovered from Sites 3 and 40, all of which were from the surface, were not subdivided by more specific provinces within their respective sites. Therefore, only one lot was defined within each site, corresponding to the selective or purposive surface collection made from the site. At GTMO 1, the lots—again, all from the surface—correspond to the squares of the systematic surface collection. Typical and unusual artifacts were photographed and are included in this report. Data from the analysis was entered into Microsoft Excel spreadsheets and subsequently into a Microsoft

Access database. The following paragraphs describe the methodology used with regard to each artifact type: ceramic, lithic and shell.

Ceramics. Ceramics were analyzed descriptively and typologically; in other words, they were sorted and assigned to categories and detailed observations were also made and recorded for each specimen.

There are numerous ceramic typologies for Cuba and the Caribbean (e.g. Rouse

1992; Tabio and Rey 1966; Maggiolo 1991). In general, however, the ceramic artifacts carried too little diagnostic information to assign them to a particular series, type, variety, or cultural period. Thus, typological analysis of the ceramic artifacts was performed in

the same manner as, and used identical taxa to, the analysis done by Geo-Marine with the ceramics recovered from GTMO during their project (Keegan and Sara 2003:45).

Ceramic artifacts were first sorted by vessel part (rim, shoulder, body). Next, I recorded the raw material of the primary, and if present, secondary tempering agents.

Surface treatment, such as smoothing, and decoration were also noted. All ceramic artifacts were weighed in grams using an Adam Equipment AGT series scale. For measuring ceramic artifacts, a Spi 2000 poly dial 150MM calipers was used to record length, width and thickness. Each artifact was measured to nearest 1/10th of an mm. I noted the frequency of the inclusions (or the homogeneity) and their size category. This was determined using the percentage inclusion estimation chart from Orton, Tyers, and

Vince (1993:238). Frequency was estimated as a percentage, from 5% inclusions to 30% inclusions, based on the size of the particles. How well sorted the inclusions was assessed using the inclusion sorting chart in Orton, Tyers, and Vince (1993:239). The chart illustrates how homogenous in size the inclusions are in a ceramic artifact, and it ranks the size differences from 1 (very poor) to 5 (very good). Finally, I also analyzed the roundness of the temper particles using the sphericity/roundness estimation chart in

Orton, Tyers and Vince (1993: 239). A 14x Hastings Triplet Bausch and Lomb magnifying glass was used for macroscopic examination of the ceramics.

Lithics. In general, the lithics were analyzed in accordance with the system promulgated by Andrefsky (2008). Only debitage was recovered. It was sorted into three classes: flakes (and flake fragments), cores, and shatter. Flakes were identified by the unambiguous presence of the essential characteristics of flakes: proximal and distal ends and dorsal and ventral faces, although fragments might not exhibit all those

characteristics. Shatter was defined as anthropogenic specimens of debitage that did not meet the definition of flakes, i.e., specimens that apparently had two ventral faces or multiple platforms, etc. Cores were identified as specimens from which flakes had been removed. Bifaces and unifaces also meet this definition and have to be distinguished by consideration of additional traits, but as none were found it is not necessary to enumerate those attributes. All the cores found were amorphous multidirectional cores. Flakes were subdivided in several, overlapping ways. Fragments were, when possible, defined as proximal, distal, lateral, or medial. Specialized flake types such as biface thinning flakes were identified. Shatter was divided into regular (angular) shatter and heat shatter. The latter comprised fragments created by thermal crazing and shattering of the chert. Non- anthropogenic cobbles and pebbles were assigned specimen numbers, but were excluded from further analysis. No formal tools were uncovered during the 2004 excavations; however several expedient flake tools were identified based on usewear patterns or light retouch. Debitage was evaluated for patterns of usewear.

The lithics were macroscopically studied using a 14x Hastings Triplet Bausch and

Lomb magnifying lens. I assessed all lithic artifacts for raw material type and color. I established raw material type on the basis of the morphological characteristics of each rock. Color was determined using Munsell soil color charts. The amount of cortex still present on each core was appraised using Andrefsky‟s system (2008:102-105). I visually assessed the dorsal cortex value, as well as the variety of the termination, of each flake again using Andrefsky‟s system (2008:107). Termination categories for flakes included feather, hinge, plunging, and step terminations. Feather terminations are smooth terminations where a flake is removed from the core. Hinge terminations result when the

force of the impact used to remove the flake moves away from the core. Plunging, or reverse hinge, terminations happen when the force removing the flake rolls toward the core. Step terminations occur when the flakes fracture during removal (Andrefsky

2008:21).

Lithic artifacts were weighed using an Adam Equipment AGT series scale, and were recorded to the nearest 1/10th of a gram. Lithics were weighed according to their subtype: flakes (including fragments), cores, and shatter, and sorted by site. The length, width, and thickness of the flakes were measured using a Spi 2000 poly dial 150MM calipers. Length was evaluated as the maximum linear measurement of the specimen parallel to the directions of force. Width was measured as the maximum linear measurement perpendicular to the length in the plane of the flake‟s face. Thickness was measured as the maximum linear measurement perpendicular to both the length and the width (see Andrefsky 1998). Maximum dimension was the largest possible dimension measureable on each specimen; while it may correspond to length or width, it need not and often does not. This measurement is often used in lithic analysis for statistically evaluating stages of reduction. Maximum dimension was measured for all lithic artifacts.

The analysis of the ceramic and lithic artifacts was performed under the direction and supervision of Dr. Clifford Brown of Florida Atlantic University. In general, the study of the lithic artifacts is in keeping with the analysis done by Geo-Marine (Keegan and Sara

2003:43-44).

Shells. Shells recovered from GTMO included both shell tools and processed shell

(shellfish obtained for food). Each shell was assigned a lot and specimen number. Efforts were made to determine the genus and species of every shell artifact. However, several of

the shells were so fragmentary as to preclude identification. For determining genus and species, I initially analyzed the shells using Peterson Field Guide Shells of the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts and the West Indies (Abbott and Morris 1995). The analysis was confirmed and refined by Mr. Christian Davenport, M.A., R.P.A., Palm Beach county archaeologist, who is an experienced malacologist. For weighing shell artifacts, an Adam

Equipment AGT series scale was used. Shell artifacts were weighed to the nearest gram.

The proper method of measuring length and width was modeled after the general guide from Peterson Field Guide Shells of the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts and the West Indies

(Abbott and Morris 1995). I measured the shells using a Spi 2000 poly dial 150MM calipers, to the nearest 1/10th of an mm.

Methods for GIS Analysis

There were several tools utilized to generate the favorability analysis in GIS. I used analytical tools to produce a map of the important environmental factors for the model, and then visually analyzed this map. GIS provides a unique opportunity to visualize the entire region and make inferences about site location choice based on environmental data. This visual analysis was only possible, however, through the use of other, spatial analysis tools available in ArcGIS 9.3. These are the Buffer, Intersect, and

Reclassify tools, located in the ArcEditor and Spatial Analyst toolbars.

The project area reaches as far inland as the mangroves grow on the southern coast of Cuba. For clarity, and as a necessary step in the statistical analysis, a mask was created by heads up digitizing the 1600 m mangrove buffer along the coastline, creating a polygon. This helped to define the study area and also delineate more clearly which sites fell within the study area and which were outside of it. 58

The buffer tool was used to create a buffer around several of the predictive factors. After polygons were created for the mangroves, a buffer was produced of 800 m and another at 1600 m around those polygons. Rivers were also buffered at 800 m and

1600 m. Because the scale of both the geological and soil maps was large (1:250,000), the polygons produced from the maps were also large. Thus, it was not really necessary to buffer the polygons for those factors. The intersect tool was used to highlight areas that included all the predictive factors that intersected. The river, mangrove, and site buffers were intersected with the soil, rock type, and geologic area polygons. After the elevation, aspect, and slope layers were converted to vector data, they were also intersected with the other layers. Table 3 lists the preprocessing, GIS, and statistical techniques used for each predictive factor in the model.

Methods for Statistical Analysis

The GIS map assists in a visual analysis of areas that meet the environmental criteria for site location. However, it is essentially just a visual, quantitative analysis. It is important to include a statistical analysis to determine how good the environmental variables are at predicting site locations. After all, the point of the model is to assist future surveys in locating sites. It may be that, despite how the environmental data looks on the map, they are not in fact statistically significant as predictors. Most models are designed to use some kind of spatial correlation or regression procedure to analyze an existing data set, called the “training data set,” from a similar or nearby region. The analysis estimates the relationships among site locations and environmental variables.

Then the results of that analysis are extrapolated to the study area, which typically has not been surveyed. In this case, all known archaeological site occurrences (those from Febles 59

Dueñas and Martínez (1995), Martínez (1982), and from Larson and Geo-Marine) on the southeastern coast of Cuba were included as training points for evaluation of untested areas in Guantánamo Bay and the rest of the coast.

Bonham-Carter (1994:309-317) described a statistical method that is potentially very useful for predictive modeling, weights of evidence testing. This method was originally developed for predicting mineral locations for geologists. Weights of evidence

(WofE) are based on Bayes‟ Rule of Probability which uses prior information to calculate an initial probability before evaluating new evidence to make a prediction. This methodology draws data from several sources and describes the interaction of those sources, thus creating a predictive model (Raines, Bonham-Carter and Kemp 2000:45).

Evidential themes may be categorical, such as site types, or ordered values, such as inter- site distances. The information put into the model is referred to as training points (in this instance, the known archaeological sites). Positive weights mean that more training points occur in that evidential theme than by chance, whereas a negative weight means the opposite is true. A zero value means that there is no correlation (Raines, Bonham-

Carter, and Kemp 2000:1).

The positive weight of each evidence theme is calculated by the equation W+ = loge LS, where LS is the sufficiency ratio of the evidence theme: { } { ̅}.

The sufficiency ratio is calculated by dividing the probability of the event (archaeological site) being present given the evidence theme being present: { }, by the probability of the event being present given the evidence theme being absent: { ̅}.

The negative weight of each evidence theme is calculated by the equation W-= logeLN, where LN is the necessity ratio for the evidence theme: { ̅̅̅ ̅ }

( ̅̅̅ ̅̅ ̅). The necessity ratio is calculated by dividing the probability of the event being absent given the presence of the evidence theme: { ̅̅̅ ̅ }, by the probability of both the event and the evidence theme being absent: ( ̅̅̅ ̅̅ ̅).The contrast for the theme is calculated by subtracting the positive and negative weight: W+-W- (Bonham-Carter

1994:308).

In order to facilitate the weights of evidence testing for this model, each evidence theme was first clipped to the study area mask. Since weights of evidence testing works best with binary classes, the evidence layers were again re-classified. This was a subjective reclassification, based on previous archaeological research; the parameters originally set out in the model; and the results of the favorability analysis. Table 3 summarizes the classes included in the statistical analysis.

Evidence layer Class for Weights of Evidence testing Elevation 0-46m Slope 0-22% Aspect South facing values Rivers 800m buffer Rivers 1600m buffer Mangroves 800m buffer Mangroves 1600m buffer Soil Limestone soil Rocks Quaternary period Sites 1600m buffer Table 3: Binary classes included in weights of evidence testing.

Next, the Calculate Geometry function was used to determine the area in square kilometers for the area of the pattern (e.g. the area of 0-46 m within the study area). Once the weights for each evidential theme (the predictive variables) were calculated, the variables were combined or eliminated to make a stronger predictive model of archaeological sites in southeastern Cuba, based on their contrast. 61

A pairwise test was done on each pair of map themes to ensure conditional independence: { } { } { } { }.The left had side is the observed number of events occurring on the regions where evidence theme 1 and 2 are present. The right hand side of the equation is the expected number of events in the overlap area, which should equal the number of events on B1 times the number of events on B2, divided by the total number of events if the two evidence themes are conditionally independent (Bonham-Carter1994:313-315). Then, a Chi square test was performed on each pair of map and compared to the tabled value of chi-square at one degree of freedom.

Chapter Four: Analysis

Laboratory Analysis: Guantánamo Bay Naval Station sites 1, 3, 7, and 40

The laboratory analysis involved studying artifacts recovered from surface collections and an excavation made by Bruce Larson and Kris LaSala in 2004. The one excavation was performed at GTMO 1, but did not yield any artifacts. Reconnaissance and surface collection were also performed at GTMO 1 and three other sites, GTMO 3,

GTMO 7, and GTMO 40.

As mentioned previously, the results of the laboratory analysis of these artifacts are included in this thesis to provide more detailed information about the sites occurring on the southern coast of Cuba, particularly Guantánamo Bay. The artifacts recovered included items of ceramic, lithic, and shell. Each of these classes is considered separately by site.

GTMO 1

GTMO 1 is a pre-Columbian site lying at less than 1 m amsl on the fringes of

Granadillo Bay (see Figure 6). The site was first recorded by Larson in 2003, and then revisited by Geo-Marine in 2003. Larson (2003) and Geo-Marine (Keegan and Sara

2003:61-68) both determined that the site had high research potential, thus it was selected for the revisit in 2004. In total, 281 artifacts were collected from all four sites, with lithics making up the dominant artifact type.

Figure 6: 2004 Survey Sites on GTMO.

Ceramics. Thirty-five ceramic artifacts were recovered during the 2004 excavation. Of these, thirty-three are body sherds, and there are also two possible rim sherds. All but one of the body sherds is undecorated. The primary tempering agent for most of the sherds is quartz, with some secondary inclusions of what seems to be chert and sandstone. In two cases, specimens Q4 and T3, there are black mineral inclusions, possibly the black volcanic temper mentioned by Geo-Marine (Keegan and Sara 2003:

68). The average weight of the ceramics is 3 g, with an average thickness of 6 mm. The particle size category varies with these artifacts, but medium-sized particles occur in slightly over half the cases. The frequency of the inclusions averages of 10%, which means 10% of the volume of the ceramic is a temper particle (generally quartz in this case). The average sorting of the size of the particle inclusion in the ceramic is 3, which is a „fair‟ sorting (Orton, Tyers, and Vince 1993:239). The ceramics have an average

hardness of 2.0-3.0 on Mohs scale. (The hardness numbers are given in ranges as per the instructions included in the hardness pick set (see Methodology section)).

In general the temper of the ceramics from GTMO 1 have a low sphericity (a value of 2), meaning the inclusions are not very angular. This may suggest that the temper was perhaps particulate matter picked off the ground from a beach environment, where the particles themselves had been smoothed by wave/tumbling action. The fractures on the ceramics are mostly smooth, however three specimens have more angular breaks, specimens F14, Q4, and T3. The texture of most of the ceramics is coarse or medium, with a generally smooth or rough feel (as opposed to very smooth or very rough).

Figure 7: Ceramic artifacts from GTMO 1: Lot M

(Photograph by M. Montesino 2011). Specimen Q4, the only decorated sherd, has three horizontal incisions, with a fourth incision diagonally cross-cutting the others. The incisions seem have been made before firing. This specimen also includes black mineral inclusions in the paste, which are only present in three of the sherds from GTMO 1. Specimen Q4 is medium in texture with a rough feel.

Figure 8: Specimen Q4, GTMO 1

Photograph by M. Montesino 2011). Overall, the pottery from GTMO 1 is plain, with few diagnostic attributes to help assign it to a particular time period or cultural group. However, based on the radiocarbon assay done by Geo-Marine, the site was occupied during the Ceramic period, with a radiocarbon date of cal. A.D. 1300 +/- 70 (Keegan and Sara 2003:68). The style of the one decorated ceramic sherd is consistent with accounts of Mayari pottery styles described by Tabio and Rey (1979:99). They defined Mayari pottery has being typically decorated with simple line incisions, similar to those on the one decorated sherd found at

GTMO 1. This is simply speculation at this point, and it requires the excavation and

analysis of further decorated artifacts to be more certain. Nonetheless, it is useful to compare the excavations of GTMO with Cuban ceramic style typologies.

Vessel Part: Body Sherd Rim Sherd Count 33 2 Total Weight (g) 94.5 2.1 Average Weight (g) 2.864 1.05 Average Thickness (mm) 5.839 4.5 Temper Raw Material Quartz, Quartz, Chert, Chert Sandstone Average Sorting 3 2.5 Average Frequency 7% 10% Table 4: Analysis of GTMO 1 ceramics by vessel part

Lithics. Larson and LaSala collected 179 lithic artifacts from GTMO 1. This was by far the dominant artifact type, comprising 68% of the total artifacts recovered for all four sites. After laboratory analysis, it was determined that six of the recovered artifacts from GTMO 1 were unmodified natural objects and not anthropogenic; therefore they are

excluded from this discussion. The most common lithic type is lithic flakes, which made up 66% of the total lithic artifacts recovered at GTMO 1. Additionally, two flakes were categorized as biface thinning flakes. The second most common lithic type was shatter, or unmodified angular debitage fragments without the characteristics of flakes. Eight of the recovered artifacts were noted as being possible expedient tools, both flakes and cores. Specimen A1 was identified as possibly a burin. Specimens C23 and N18 were identified as possible scrapers. Specimens C18, C20, H5, and N19 were classified as perforators. Specimen N6 was labeled as a possible cutting tool. None of the potential tools exhibited any sign of heat treatment. Most of the tools seem to be unifacial, and all were casual or expedient.

The most common lithic raw material identified was various species of chert, with a minority of artifacts made of chalcedony, quartz, and quartzite. A few of the lithics were identified as andesite, limestone, basalt, and sandstone, fossilized coral and black volcanic material. All these materials were recognized in local streambeds, beach deposits, and terraces (Keegan and Sara 2003:158). Geo-Marine noted a possible source for lithic raw material at Arroyo Pozo, located northeast of GTMO 1. They also observed cobbles at Cuzco Beach, Cable Beach, and Windmill Beach (Keegan and Sara 2003:

158).

There was wide variation in color of the raw materials from GTMO 1. This is not surprising given the variety of raw materials used. Much of the most common material type, chert, is of similar colors: gray, red and brown. This suggests that they may have been getting the material from one or a few select sources. Several of the artifacts had

been heat treated, as was evidenced by crazing and potlids on the surfaces of the artifacts, although some examples could be the result of accidental or post-depositional burning.

Figure 9: Lithic Artifacts from GTMO 1: Lot H

(Photograph by M. Montesino 2011).

Overall, the analysis of the lithic assemblage at GTMO 1 is consistent with the lithic analysis done by Geo-Marine in 2003 on the artifacts they recovered earlier. Tool manufacture was clearly present, based on the large number of flakes recovered, as well as the presence of shatter, heat shatter, and a few prepared cores. There was some tool use as well, represented by the twelve potential tools identified in the present analysis.

The focus seems to have been expedient tools with a few examples of bifacial reduction.

Lithic Type Number Raw Material Average Total Weight Weight Biface thinning 1 Chert 1.41 1.41 Flake Flake and flake 110 Black volcanic rock, 3.8143 419.57 fragments Chalcedony, Chert, Sandstone, Quartz, Quartzite, Amorphous 11 Andesite, Basalt, Chert, 75.344 828.78 multidirectional Quartz core Heat Shatter 4 Chert 2.9125 11.65 Shatter 33 Chalcedony, Chert, 3.5754 164.47 Shell, Quartz, Quartzite Table 5: Lithic Types, Materials, and Weights from GTMO 1

Shell. Sixty-seven shell artifacts were recovered at GTMO 1. Of these, many were so fragmentary that we could not identify them to the genus and species level. All those identified were Melongena melongena, or queen conch, except for one Nodilitorina tuberculata, a prickly periwinkle. Five of these shells appear to have extraction holes near the crown. Four of the Melongena were recognized as potential tools. Specimens

A10 and C40 were classified as shell picks. Specimen E17 was identified as a celt preform. Specimen B14 was possibly a tool, as it appeared worked.

Figure 10: Specimen E17, GTIMO 1.

(Photograph by M. Montesino 2011). Given the preponderance of Melongena in the collection, it is possible that native peoples were purposefully collecting this animal. The site exhibits signs of shellfish procurement, in this case Melongena, as well as processing of the shellfish into (possibly expedient) tools. This is also consistent with laboratory analysis done by Geo-Marine in

2003.

Figure 11: Shell Artifacts from GTMO 1: Lot A

(Photograph by M. Montesino 2011).

GTMO 3

GTMO 3 is a multicomponent site with both prehistoric and Spanish colonial occupations. The site is situated on the backbeach area of Cuzco Beach, on the

Caribbean coastline of Guantánamo Bay Naval Station, and lies at 1 to 3 m amsl (Keegan and Sara 2003:118, see Figure 6). The pre-Columbian component of the site was recorded by Geo-Marine in 2003, and it was determined to be of high research potential.

Larson and LaSala then revisited GTMO 3 in 2004.

Ceramics. During the 2004 investigation, Larson and LaSala recovered fifteen ceramic artifacts. Most of the ceramics are tempered primarily with what appears to quartz, but two have inclusions primarily of what seems to be mica. Quartz, sand, and mica are the secondary tempering agents. The artifacts have an average weight of 6 g and an average thickness of 7.1 mm.

Thirteen of the ceramics are body sherds with two possible shoulder pieces. All of the ceramics from GTMO 3 are undecorated. In general, the ceramics had a hardness of

2.0-3.0 on Mohs hardness scale. The particle size category was observed as “fine” in most cases. The ceramic pieces at GTMO 3 were more likely to have an irregular breakage pattern than the sherds from GTMO 1. The temper particles on average had a high sphericity, a category of 3 (Orton, Tyers, and Vince 1993:239). The interior of these ceramics often had large inclusions, mostly of shell or black mineral material. The texture

of the ceramics was mostly fine, with all pieces having a smooth feel.

The shoulder pieces were in all ways similar to the other artifacts. In fact, specimens V2 through V6 are apparently part of a pot burst. Specimens V7, V9 and V10 were also very similar, and may have been from the same pot. Specimens V7, V9 and

V10 have some crazing as well.

Figure 12: Ceramic Artifacts from GTMO 3: Lot V

(Photograph by M. Montesino 2011). Overall the ceramics of GTMO 3 are plain, with very few diagnostic attributes to assign them to a ceramic series or cultural complex. They are in general thick pieces with large pieces of temper included in the interior of the ceramic, with a smooth, better sorted exterior.

Vessel Part: Body Sherd Shoulder Sherd Count 13 2 Total Weight (g) 78.6 9.7 Average Weight (g) 6.046 4.85 Average Thickness (mm) 6.79 9 Temper Raw Material Quartz, Quartz, Mica, Sand Mica Average Sorting 3.6 2.5 Average Frequency 5% 13% Table 6: Analysis of Ceramics from GTMO 3 by vessel part

Figure 13: Specimen V1, GTMO 3

(Photograph by M. Montesino 2011). Lithics. There was a single lithic artifact recovered from GTMO 3. This was a flake, made of chert, with a hinge termination. There did appear to be some use wear on

the flake, although it did not seem thermally altered in any way. It is probably an expedient tool.

Shell. No shell artifacts were retrieved from GTMO 3.

GTMO 3 was classified as a multicomponent site by Geo-Marine in 2003, which prompted the revisit in 2004 by Larson and LaSala. This was a reconnaissance survey only, explaining the lack of lithic and shell artifacts. The ceramics seem to have come from a potburst, or at least vessels of very similar manufacture. In comparison to GTMO

1, the ceramics are thicker, all undecorated, and with larger inclusions in the interior of the ceramic. The exteriors, on the other hand, appear better smoothed and evenly sorted.

Larger samples would be helpful to establish the significance of the differences between the ceramics from the two sites.

GTMO 7

GTMO 7 is situated on a hillslope in a mudflat on the northern portion of

Grandillo Bay (Figure 6). The site lies at less than 10 m amsl, with slopes between 2 to

12%. Geo-Marine noted that sites 7 and 8 were likely parts of the same site that was cut by a modern road (Keegan and Sara 2003:70). The research potential was considered moderate at that time, and thus Larson and LaSala revisited the site in 2004.

Ceramics. No ceramics were recovered from GTMO 7.

Lithics. Three lithic artifacts were identified from GTMO 7, one flake and two amorphous multidirectional cores. Both the flake and the cores are composed of chert.

The flake, specimen X251, is complete, made of fine grade chert, and exhibits usewear on the edge near the platform. Specimens X252 and X253, the cores, are similar in color and are the same raw material, medium grade chert. X252 exhibits usewear opposite the 77

cortex; this core may have been used as a tool. X253 appears mostly unmodified. None of the lithics appeared to be heat treated. Given the material type and similar color of the two cores, it is likely that they came from the same quarry site. Specimen X251 is of a different color and quality of chert; thus it is probable that this came from a different lithic material source.

Figure 14: Lithic Artifacts from GTMO 7: Lot X

(Photograph by M. Montesino 2011). Shell. No shell artifacts were recovered from GTMO 7.

Larson and LaSala only conducted a reconnaissance survey of GTMO 7, so relatively few artifacts were collected. The lithic artifacts seem similar in material and manufacture to those of GTMO 1. There seems to have been at least some tool

manufacture performed at GTMO 7, perhaps associated with resource procurement from the nearby bay.

GTMO 40

GTMO 40 is a shell midden located in the Port Palma area, lying on the southern end of a peninsula extending into Guantánamo Bay (Figure 6). Geo-Marine in 2003 determined that the site had excellent research potential, therefore Larson and LaSala revisited it in 2004.

Ceramics. No ceramic artifacts were collected from GTMO 40.

Lithics. Twenty-six lithic artifacts were recovered from GTMO 40. Most of these artifacts were flakes. However, three pieces of shatter and six cores were also collected.

Flakes make up 65% of the total of lithic artifacts recovered at GTMO 40, which is similar to the distribution seen at GTMO 1. Nearly all of the lithics were manufactured of various grades of chert, with a few composed of limestone, sandstone, and basalt. Eleven of these artifacts exhibited signs of usewear. Only five showed signs of heat treatment.

No bifaces were recovered from GTMO 40. However, one specimen, U7, was categorized as a possible drill. Overall, the tool manufacture at GTMO 40 seems similar to that of GTMO 1, although perhaps with less use of heat treatment.

Lithic Type Number Raw Material Average Weight Total Weight Flake and flake 17 Basalt, Chert, 4.4671 g 75.94 g fragments Limestone, Sandstone Amorphous 6 Chert, 42.652 g 255.91 g multidirectional Limestone, core Sandstone Heat Shatter 1 Chert 1.23 g 1.23 g Shatter 2 Chert 2.305 g 4.61 g Table 7: Lithic Types, Materials and Weights from GTMO 40

Figure 15: Lithic Artifacts from GTMO 40: Lot U

(Photograph by M. Montesino 2011). Shell. Thirteen shell artifacts were collected from GTMO 40. Of these, twelve were identified as Strombus gigas, or queen conch. One shell was identified as potentially a Strombus costatus, or a milk conch. Specimen U28 is possibly a shell pick, and exhibited use on the tip. Specimens U24 and U25 were recognized as immature animals. Most of the shells collected from GTMO 40 were more complete than those of

GTMO 1.

There was clearly some type of tool manufacture taking place at GTMO 40, given the debitage found at the site, as well as shellfish procurement and processing. There seems to be an apparent preference for Strombus gigas in the sample, although it is hard to determine whether this was actually a cultural preference by native peoples or merely the byproduct of these shells being large and thus, better preserved, more visible, or easier to collect during a surface survey. Strombus gigas was the most common shell found at sites associated with the Ciboney (Tabio and Rey 1979:26 and 70). This, coupled with the lack of ceramic materials present at the site, suggests it is possible that this site belongs to that cultural period. In fact, Geo-Marine carbon dated a shell from this site to 2530-2270 B.P. (580 to 320 cal. B.C.), or the Archaic period (Keegan and Sara

2003:151). This conforms to the dates given by Tabio and Rey for the Ciboney cultural period (Tabio and Rey 1979:16).

Figure 16: Shell Artifacts from GTMO 40: Lot U

(Photograph by M. Montesino 2011). 81

Summary

GTMO 1 exhibits many characteristics of a multi-use site, including tool manufacture and use, resource procurement, and probably at least seasonal, if not more permanent, habitation. Given a radiocarbon date from the Ceramic period, and a decorated ceramic sherd that is consistent with descriptions of Mayari ceramics by Tabio and Rey, the site definitely seems to be associated with that time period (Tabio and Rey

1979:99). Overall the ceramics are medium or rough in texture and feel, with a fair sorting of particle size.

Tool manufacture at GTMO 1 also seems more complex, exhibiting at least a few instances of bifacial work. For this present analysis, this is the only site that contained any pieces related to biface manufacture. This relatively more complex tool manufacturing style is also consistent with the Ceramic period. Overall GTMO 1

definitely appears to be at least a short term habitation site dating from the

Protoagricola/Ceramic period.

GTMO 3 appears similar in many aspects to GTMO 1. With regard to ceramics, it is difficult to place GTMO 3 in a particular time period or cultural group. The ceramics are different from those found at GTMO 1. In general they are thicker, with larger interior temper inclusions, and with a more smooth texture and feel to the exterior.

Tool manufacture at GTMO 3 seems limited to unifaces only. Further excavation is needed to make valid comparisons to GTMO 1, as only three lithic pieces were collected.

GTMO 7 appears relatively small, perhaps a processing area or a seasonal camp.

Given that this site was studied through surface survey only, it is difficult to determine time period or culture group based on the three lithic artifacts in the present analysis.

GTMO 40 also appears to have a substantial history of use by native peoples. The lithic assemblage there is focused on unifaces with a seeming preference for chert over chalcedony. The quality of chert found at GTMO 40 is of a better quality than that found at GTMO 1. Chert from GTMO 1 is low quality chert or quartz, which results in non- cortical flakes. We are unsure whether the differences in the raw materials is the result of different cultural occupations of the two sites, or if it represents different time periods.

The lithic objects are also less likely to have heat treatment than those at GTMO 1, although the small sample makes this difficult to say with certainty. The radiocarbon date obtained by Geo-Marine in 2003 (Keegan and Sara 2003:151) illustrated that at a

minimum the site was occupied in the Archaic period, which is consistent with the lack of ceramics found at the site. There also seems to be a definite preference for Strombus gigas over Melongena melogena, which was predominant shell type found at GTMO 1.

The analysis of the artifacts from GTMO 40 is consistent with a (perhaps seasonal) habitation site from the Preagroalfarero/Archaic period.

GIS Analysis by Time Period

One of the goals of the model was to illustrate site occurrence patterns across space and time. In order to accomplish the temporal analysis, the archaeological site data was analyzed for cultural association. The records generated by Febles Dueñas and

Martínez (1995) included information on the culture period of each site, based on the

Cuban classification. This classification was divided by cultural group, using information 83

from Martínez Arango (1982). When known, each site was assigned to its stage or type

(Preagricultural, Protoagricultural, or Agricultural) and culture group (Ciboney, Mayari,

Sub-Taino or Taino). Thus each predictive factor was evaluated across time (through changes in economic strategy and/or cultural group) and space (the study area).

The sites from GTMO were not classified in the same way as the other sites, thus without some guessing, it is hard to place these sites in the Cuban classification system.

The model was primarily generated based on the locations of the sites in Guantánamo

Bay, so it is useful to evaluate whether the rest of the coastal sites follow a similar pattern. Thus, the GTMO sites are included in the visual analysis for comparison only first, to compare the model to the Cuban site data and second, because most of the

GTMO sites were not assigned a cultural group or time period.

Preagroalfarero period: (Guayabo Blanco/Cayo Redondo) Ciboney

Within the study area, there are 102 recorded sites in total, including those from

GTMO. Of these, twenty are identified as being Preagricultural, belonging to the collective label of the cultural group, Ciboney. The twenty GTMO sites are excluded from this visual analysis;

Elevation. The model presumed that sites would be located in areas of less than

50 meters in elevation. In fact, all of the twenty sites recorded as Preagricultural fall within the 0-46 meters amsl elevation range. For comparison, all the sites from GTMO fall within the same elevation range. This is not perhaps surprising, as the study area is primarily a coastal region. However, in some places along the coast, the areas of low elevation are relatively small, extending only about a mile and a half inland before encountering the steeper slopes of the Sierra Maestra. Preagricultural sites are found 84

along the small areas of low elevation, primarily concentrated around Santiago de Cuba and the westernmost tip of the southern coast, in the Granma province. Thirteen out of the twenty sites fall in the lowest elevation range, 0-11 meters amsl, six sites occur in the

11-23 meter range, and one falls in the 23-46 meter range. No Preagricultural sites fall within the ranges of 46 to 2,000 meters amsl. Thus it would seem that choosing site locations with the lowest elevations was important for Preagricultural groups, and they were perhaps purposefully not selecting areas of higher elevation. In Figure 17, areas represented by green shades represent the lowest elevation and slopes. Red shades indicate high elevation and slope.

Slope. The model predicted that there would be a preference for sites that had less than a 22% slope, based on site location slopes in the Guantánamo Bay area. For

Preagricultural sites, however, the preference, if anything, seems to be for areas with

22%-39% slope. Eleven of the twenty sites are located in areas in this slope range. Four sites fall within the predicted range, 0-22%. Two sites fall in the areas of 50-72% and two sites in the 72-80% slope. One site occurs in the highest slope category, 84-89% slope

(see Figure 17)

It seems doubtful that prehistoric peoples would live on areas of such steep slope.

Most likely, these results are skewed due to several factors. One, some of those sites are higher slope are cave sites. Although the cave floor would be level, cut into the side of a slope, on the map the site appears at a high slope. It is also conceivable that some flat or low slope areas are obscured due to the nature of the data processing. In calculating slope, ArcMap is calculating the maximum rate of change from a cell to its nearest neighbor. However, if there are errors in reading these changes, ArcMap will show a

great change (higher slope) than is actually occurring. This does not completely invalidate the results of this analysis, rather one should be cautious. It is possibly more conceivable to say Preagricultural peoples were selecting for areas of some relief rather than areas of high slope.

Aspect. The model predicted that sites would occur in south facing areas. Most of the southern coast of Cuba within the study area faces in a southern direction. Here sites were simply classified as a dichotomous yes/no system: yes for south-facing or no.

Fourteen out of the twenty Preagricultural sites fall in a south facing (south, southwest, southeast) area. However, in evaluating the remaining six sites, these sites all face in a northerly (northeast and northwest) direction. It is possible, then, that Preagricultural peoples were selecting site locations in this regard based on significance of the north- south directions. This is simply speculation and not necessarily any concrete pattern. It

does seem that since well over half of the sites (70%) face south, that this was an important consideration to Preagricultural peoples. In Figure 18, areas represented by values 112.5-247 are indicative of south facing orientation

Figure 17: Distribution of Preagricultural sites with regard to elevation and slope.

. 88

Figure 18: Distribution of Preagricultural sites in south facing areas.

Vegetation. Mangroves were considered the most predictive vegetation type for sites in the Guantánamo Bay region. For the GIS analysis, this vegetation type was the only type for which a polygon was created. Much as with south facing areas, here the sites are classified as yes/no. There are three categories within this factor: the estuaries themselves, the 800 m buffer, and the 1600 m buffer. The first category is the polygon for the estuaries themselves. Nine out of the twenty sites touch the mangrove polygon. The next category is the 800 m buffer around the mangroves. This distance was chosen as a practical walking distance from site to mangroves, with reasonable ability to carry resources. Fifteen out of twenty sites lie completely within the 800 m buffer of the mangroves including the estuary polygon itself.

The final category is the 1600 m buffer around the mangroves. This distance was chosen as perhaps the furthest distance that would be easy to carry resources, as well as representing approximately the extent of the lowest elevations on the southern coast, before encountering the steep slopes of the Sierra Maestra. Seventeen out of the twenty sites are completely within the 1600 m mangrove buffer. This is not unexpected. Tabio and Rey (1979:73) state that Preagricultural peoples had a preference for coastal sites, and that the Cayo Redondo group in particular had a strong reliance on marine and estuarine resources. This is also true of other Caribbean islands (Keegan 1992).

Based on this analysis, Preagricultural peoples considered mangroves important in site location choices. Figure 19 presents Preagricultural sites in relation to mangroves. In this figure, the green shades represent mangroves. The red shades of the polygon represent the furthest buffer distance. This visual analysis is consistent with the results of the Geo-Marine report in 2003 (Keegan and Sara 2003:167).

Figure 19: Map of Preagricultural sites within mangrove polygons.

Rivers. The model expected that sites would be located near a major river. Six of the twenty Preagricultural sites lie in the 800 m buffer around major rivers, or only 30% of these sites. However, thirteen of the twenty sites fall within 1600 m of a river. It is possible that Preagricultural peoples could have transported fresh water from this distance, or they may have used some other method for gathering fresh water.

Ciboney peoples had a strong preference for coastal sites, and according to the

Cuban classification system, did not have any type of agriculture (Tabio and Rey

1979:18-93). Although the nearness to rivers would have given Ciboney peoples access to fresh drinking water, possibly there was a stronger cultural/economic preference to be near mangroves or another resource as opposed to a freshwater river. The Guayo Blanco peoples had a preference for cave sites versus open air, according to Tabio and Rey

(1979:18-93), which also may explain the locations of sites that are not situated near rivers.

It is possible there are sources for water that are simply too small to show up on the map. Preagricultural peoples may have also utilized sinkholes in these caves for gathering water. In 1921, Harrington (1921:249) reported that he and his excavation team solved the problem of getting fresh water in way the Indians did: through sink holes in caves. If this is the case, these sinkholes do not show up at the resolution of this research.

Additionally, very small streams or springs may not have been recorded by GoSpatial.

Figure 20: Distribution of Preagricultural sites in proximity to rivers.

Soils. The model predicted that sites west of the Sierra Maestra rain shadow would be situated in or near soils better suited for agriculture. However, given that the cultural group in question here supposedly had no agriculture, the expectation is changed somewhat. Keegan and Sara (2003:124) mention that although Preagricultural peoples allegedly had no agriculture, some archaeological evidence has suggested that they did have some horticulture, and may have kept little kitchen gardens. With this in mind then, the model is modified for this group to expect that they may have had a preference for well-drained, fertile soils, in so much as there would be, perhaps, better gathering in these areas.

Thirteen of the twenty Preagricultural sites were situated within the limestone soil polygons. Two sites were located within the coastal bog/saline soil polygons. Three sites were within the area of brown tropical soil. One site was in an area of alluvial soil, and one site was in an area of gley soil. For the sites at Guantánamo Bay, nineteen were in the coastal bog/saline soil polygon and one occurred in limestone soil. This is interesting because coastal bog/saline soils are poorly drained, and rather unsuitable for agriculture.

The limestone areas make up much of the rest of the study area and are those that are classified as having high fertility and agricultural potential.

It would appear that Preagricultural people were selecting site locations for fertile, well-drained soils, but given the scale of the map with which the soil areas were drawn, the resulting limestone areas cover a great deal of the study area. Nonetheless, it is conceivable that Preagricultural peoples were selecting for areas with higher productivity, if only for increased gathering of plants. It is also possible that hunting was better in such areas because the vegetative association might have attracted more game.

Figure 21: Distribution of Preagricultural sites within soil polygons.

Rock type. The model expected that sites would be situated on or near areas with a preferred rock type. In their analysis of the GTMO sites, Geo-Marine (2003:158) noted that the most common raw material for lithics was chalcedony. In the analysis of artifacts recovered by Larson and LaSala, the most common raw material was chert (see the laboratory analysis section). Therefore, it is expected that the sites would situated near areas of these two rock types.

In the present analysis, geologic period is used to separate rock types. Seven of the twenty sites fall within areas with igneous rock formations, which include diorites, grandiorites, granites, serpentines, and peridotites, among others. Five of the sites fell in areas of Neogene formation, including rocks of limestone, conglomerates, .marl, sand and clay. Four sites occur in regions of Paleogene material including sand, shale, limestone, conglomerates, marl, and breccia. Two sites occur in areas of Cretaceous material, which includes andesites, basalt, conglomerates, limestone, and lavas. Finally, two sites occur in areas of Quaternary formations, which are composed of sand, clay, limestone, and conglomerates. With regard to the sites at Guantánamo Bay, seventeen of the sites occur in an area of Paleogene formation, and three occur in an area of Quaternary formation.

If the expected preferred rock type is indeed chalcedony or chert, it is most likely that this material would form in areas of Quaternary, Cretaceous, or Paleogene formation.

Cherts are mainly composed of silica, which usually originates volcanic deposits. The silica undergoes a complex petrogenic process and then often precipitates in voids in marine limestones or other carbonates, where it hardens into nodules. If the limestone is uplifted or otherwise exposed to erosion and solution, the nodules, which are much harder than the limestone, may be transported, perhaps down rivers or slopes, to form

clastic deposits or to be incorporated in conglomerates. Therefore, chert could be found in association with limestone, river beds, coastal plain deposits, or conglomerates.

Without knowing more about the chert sources available to and exploited by the ancient inhabitants, it is difficult to model their occurrence reliably, but they may have been widespread. Regardless of how closely the geological strata correlate with chert sources, the relationship of the bedrock geology to human settlement remains an interesting question and therefore this is a valid and potential powerful variable in the model.

According to Geo-Marine (Keegan and Sara 2003:58-118) nodules of lithic material were found near sites around Guantánamo Bay. It is probable that this material is secondary chert, which is most likely to have formed in Paleogene or Cretaceous areas.

All of these materials underlying the Preagricultural sites were present to some degree in the examination of artifacts from GTMO, both in the report by Geo-Marine, and in the present analysis. It would seem based on this visual analysis that most likely

Preagricultural groups had a preference for areas with igneous rock materials.

Figure 22: Preagricultural sites distributed within Geologic period polygons.

Archaeological site data. Sixteen of the twenty sites were classified as habitation sites, either open air or caves. Three of the sites were classified as camp sites, and one site was classified as a funerary cave. Of the sites at Guantánamo Bay, twelve of the sites were considered small habitation sites and eight sites were considered camp sites. It is difficult to discuss the distribution of sites in the study area because we do not know how the site type was determined by Febles Dueñas and Martínez (1995) or for the five sites added from Martínez Arango (1982). This makes comparison to site distributions patterns, such as the one proposed by Keegan (1992), difficult. However, nine of the

Preagricultural sites fall within 1.5 kilometers of each other, about the average for other

Caribbean distributions (Keegan 1992:82). In general, however, the Preagricultural sites appear in four areas, the eastern and westernmost tips of the study area, and in proximity to Santiago and Guantánamo Bays.

Figure 23: Distribution of Preagricultural site types.

Protoagricola period: Mayari

Of the 102 prehistoric sites within the study area, only two are classified as

Protoagricultural. The GTMO sites, as mentioned previously, do not correspond to the

Cuban classification system. It is unknown whether any of these sites correspond to the

Protoagricultural period, so as with the Preagricultural sites, they are not included in the visual analysis as Protoagricultural sites.

Elevation. Both Mayari sites fall in a low elevation category, 11-23 m amsl. This is in keeping with the predictions of this model, which predicted sites would lie in areas of less than 50 m amsl, based on the site distribution at GTMO. As mentioned previously, all the sites at GTMO fall within 0-46 m.

Tabio and Rey (1979:101) state that the Mayari culture seems to have been concentrated in the province of Holguin, which is north of our study area. In their discussion of Mayari sites, they state that the majority of Mayari sites lie within 10 to

30km of the coast (see the section of the Cuban site classification system above). It would appear then that areas of low elevation were important to the Mayari, as they were to the

Ciboney.

100

101

Figure 24: Distribution of Protoagricultural sites with regard to elevation and slope.

Slope. The model established that sites were likely to fall in areas of less than

22% slope. One site occurs in an area of 0-22% slope, the other site occurs in the predominant category for the Preagricultural sites, 22-39% slope. Based on the visual analysis, the Protoagricultural sites fit into the model. It is possible that native peoples were selecting for areas of low slope. This is similar to the distribution of the Ciboney sites, which in general lay in areas of low slope.

Aspect. The model expected that sites would be situated facing south, based on an analysis of sites at Guantánamo Bay. Both Mayari sites face south (southeast and southwest). This is again similar to the Preagricultural sites, in which over half faced south (southeast and southwest). It is possible that Protoagricultural peoples also took orientation into consideration, and positioned sites to face in a south-facing area.

102

103

Figure 25: Distribution of Protoagricultural sites in south facing areas.

Vegetation. As mentioned in the discussion of Preagricultural sites, the model predicted that sites were more likely to occur close to mangroves. There were three categories for mangrove vegetation: the estuary polygon, an 800 m buffer, and a 1600 m buffer. With regard to the Mayari sites, neither site touched the mangrove polygon itself.

One of the sites fell within the 800 m buffer, and one lies outside that polygon. Both sites were situated within the 1600 m buffer. This is again in keeping with the distribution of the Preagricultural and Guantánamo Bay sites. Although Protoagricultural people may have been on the cusp of agricultural development, it is quite likely this did not happen overnight, and that marine and estuarine resource remained important. Based on this visual analysis, it does seem that nearness to mangroves was a priority for

Protoagricultural people.

104

105

Figure 26: Distribution of Protoagricultural sites in proximity to mangroves.

Rivers. Tabio and Rey (1966:111-114) stated that the Mayari tended to locate their sites in the alluvial plain of a river. The model also predicted that sites would be situated near major rivers, as a source of fresh water. The two Mayari sites within the study area showed mixed results with regard to rivers. One of the sites occurred at the confluence of two rivers, well within the 800 m buffer. The other site fell outside the 800 m buffer, although given its location; it is probably in the alluvial plain of a river. This site still did not fall in the 1600 m buffer of the river, however. The other

Protoagricultural site, of course, did fall in the 1600 m buffer.

Given the very small sample of Protoagricultural sites it is hard to know whether these sites are typical or not. Thus, it is difficult to determine if Mayari peoples had a preference for closeness to rivers. It is possible that there are more Protoagricultural sites outside the study area, but in the study area, there is a fifty-fifty chance of a Mayari site occurring near a river.

106

107

Figure 27: Distribution of Protoagricultural sites in proximity to rivers.

Soil. If the Mayari were indeed at the forefront of agricultural development, then one would expect that their sites would be in areas of fertile soil. The model predicts that those sites to the west of Guantánamo Bay should be located in areas suitable for agriculture, or limestone soil, as this area is outside the rain shadow of the Sierra Maestra

Interestingly, the site to the east of the Sierra Maestra lies within the brown limestone soil that was as potentially the most fertile in the study area.

In fact, Alcantara (2007:4) states that slash and burn agriculture (horticulture) may increase the fertility of this type of soil. Slash and burn agriculture is typical in tropical climates like Cuba is, and perhaps would have been one of the first methods of agriculture (horticulture) employed in the area. The site to the west of Guantánamo Bay falls in an area of alluvial soils (which confirms the previous assumption that this site is situated in the alluvial plain of a river). Both of these sites, then, have high agricultural potential. Identifying other Protoagricultural sites in the area would greatly increase our confidence as to whether Mayari peoples were purposefully selecting for fertile areas, but based on the limited data, it does seem that this was an important consideration.

108

109

Figure 28: Distribution of Protoagricultural sites in soil polygons.

Rock type. The model predicted that sites would be situated near areas of lithic raw material. Based on the Geo-Marine analysis and the analysis included in this thesis, the two predominant rock types should be chert and chalcedony. Both sites occur in areas of Paleogene formation, which includes sand, shale, limestone, conglomerates, marl, and breccia. It is unclear whether prehistoric peoples were purposefully selecting for areas containing these materials, but it is probable that they preferred having them close at hand. Figure 29 shows the Mayari sites with regard to rock types.

Archaeological site data. The model did not specify how sites are spatially oriented, but it predicted that sites would have some spatial organization with regard to one another. Both the Protoagricultural sites were classified as habitation sites, one open air and one inhabited cave. They do not seem to exhibit any particular pattern with regard to each other. They are both situated near bays (one is near Santiago Bay and the other near Guantánamo Bay) but they are quite far apart. Without other Protoagricultural sites to fill in the gaps, it is very difficult to assess the relationship between these sites. The pattern of the Ciboney sites is overall a tendency towards clusters of sites, particularly around large bays, and this may be the pattern of the Mayari sites as well.

110

111

Figure 29: Distribution of Protoagricultural sites within rock type polygons.

Agroalfarero period: Sub-Taino and Taino

Of all 102 sites in the study area, sixty are classified as agricultural. This period corresponds to two cultural groups, Sub-Taino and Taino. However, for the visual analysis, all sites were simply considered “agricultural.” Also included in this period are multicomponent sites. Agricultural sites make up the largest group represented in the study area. This is not unexpected as populations increased through time. As with both the Preagricultural and Protoagricultural analyses, the sites at GTMO were not included, as there was no attempt to assign these sites to a cultural group or time period.

Elevation. Twenty-one of the agricultural sites in the study area fall in areas that lie at less than 11 m in elevation. Twenty-seven of the sites fall within the 11-23 m range and six sites occur in areas of 23-46 m in elevation. This is what is expected based on the model, which predicted that sites would lie at less than 50 m in elevation. Interestingly, five of the sites fall in a much higher elevation category. One site occurs at 46-81 m elevation, four sites fall in the 81-137 m range, and the final one falls in the 137+ m range. Four of these sites are actually well-known Taino sites. Pueblo Viejo, which falls in the 137+ m range, is considered a ceremonial center (see Figure 5). Cueva Homboldt, also known as Cueva Muerta, is well-known burial cave. The Cave of La Patana is associated with important rock art and idols, and Corrales de Ojo de Toro features a ceremonial burial (Dacal and Rivero 1996:22). It is possible, then, that for agricultural peoples there was a pattern of low elevation areas for habitation sites, and higher elevations for ceremonial sites, especially with a shift from Sub-Taino dominion to

Taino. It is clear, however, that agricultural peoples were selecting for areas of low elevation.

112

113

Figure 30: Distribution of Agricultural sites with regard to elevation and slope.

Slope. The model predicted that sites would occur in areas of less than 22% slope.

However, only ten of the sixty agricultural sites occurred in the lowest slope category.

The category with the highest number of site occurrences is the 22-39% category with twenty-four sites. Six sites occurred in areas of 39-50%, eleven occurred in areas of 50-

72% slope five occurred in areas of 72-80% slope, one site occurred at 80-84% slope, and three occurred in areas of 84-89% slope, which is the highest slope category. Agricultural sites seem to follow the same pattern as the Preagricultural sites. Although the region around Guantánamo Bay lies almost entirely at less than 29% slope, most of the rest of the southeastern coast lies at 30% to 80% slope. If native peoples had a preference for any slope category, it would seem to be 22-39% slopes. See Figure 30 for a distribution of agricultural sites with regard to slope.

As with the Preagricultural sites, there is probably some error involved in the distribution seen with regard to slope. Naturally, people do not tend to live on such steep slopes. With the Agricultural sites, the majority of those sites that within the higher slope categories (above 39%) are cave sites: inhabited, funerary, or ceremonial. As such, the sites themselves are probably situated into a cliff face, and the surface of the site is a flat cave floor. In fact, the site that lies in the highest slope category, 84 to 89% slope is a ceremonial cave, Cueva Humboldt.

The other sites are probably situated on small flat areas that are obscured by other areas of much steeper slope. Practically, this would make sense. Prehistoric peoples might select a small flat area surrounded by steeper slope for protection from high wind and for defense purposes. However, with the processing of the data comes the introduction of errors, and the potential that these small areas are hidden.

114

Aspect. The model predicted that sites would face south. Of the fifty-nine agricultural sites, twenty-eight faced in a southern direction, or slightly less than half.

This breaks from the pattern seen in the Preagricultural and Protoagricultural sites, in which fourteen Preagricultural and both Protoagricultural sites faced south. Based on the visual analysis, it would seem that south facing locations were not quite as important to agricultural peoples as it was to pre-and Protoagricultural peoples.

Vegetation. The model predicted that mangroves would be the most important vegetation type to prehistoric peoples. However, by this cultural period people should have been utilizing agriculture, and had moved away from relying on marine resources.

According to Tabio and Rey (1979:158), Sub-Taino people at least were still collecting mollusks and crustaceans, much as the Ciboney and Mayari before them. The sites were not divided by cultural group within the agricultural sites. However, if this pattern holds true, then it is the Sub-Taino sites that are nearest to mangroves, while Taino sites are further away. Twenty-two agricultural sites actually touch the mangrove polygon. Thirty- two sites fall within the 800 m buffer of the mangroves. Forty sites occurred within the

1600 m buffer of the mangroves. If the majority of the sites in the region are classified as

Sub-Taino, this is not an unexpected result. Regardless, the agricultural sites do seem to conform to the pattern of the other sites in the study area, with the majority of sites lying in proximity to mangrove vegetation.

115

116

Figure 31: Distribution of Agricultural sites with regard to aspect.

117

Figure 32: Agricultural sites in proximity to mangroves.

Rivers. The model predicted that sites would be situated near rivers to provide access to fresh water. This seems as if it would be particularly true of Taino cultural group, as Tabio and Rey (1979:186) state that their sites tend to occur in the alluvial plains of rivers, and are rarely found along the coast. If a Taino site is found along the coast, it is likely to be a camp.

Of the sixty agricultural sites in the study area, thirty-one sites occur in the 800 m buffer around rivers. Thirty-six sites lie within 1600 m of a river. This is about 61% of the agricultural sites, which is perhaps not surprising. Agricultural sites are those which should be situated closest to rivers, or within the alluvial plains of rivers. Given this visual analysis, it would seem that areas within 1600 m of rivers are likely to contain agricultural sites. This pattern is similar to that exhibited by Preagricultural peoples.

118

119

Figure 33: Distribution of Agricultural sites in proximity to rivers.

Soil. Of all the cultural periods, agricultural people should be the most concerned with living near fertile soils. Following previous discussions, the most fertile soil type in the study area is the red and brown limestone soil. The model predicted that sites, especially west of Guantánamo Bay, would be situated near fertile soils. Thirty-five of the sixty agricultural sites are indeed located within areas of limestone soil. Nine of the sites fall within areas of coastal bog/saline soils. Eleven sites are located within areas of brown tropical soil. Four sites fall in areas of alluvial soil and one site occurred in gley soils.

It would seem that agricultural peoples were selecting for the most fertile soils in the study area. However, limestone soils represent about 27% of the total soils for the study area. With thirty-five sites occurring in 27% of the soil, this is pretty close to random. Interestingly, twenty of the sites are situated in areas that have poorly drained tropical soils or saline soils, although possibly these sites were selected more for overlying features rather than for the underlying soil type.

120

121

Figure 34: Agricultural sites within soil polygons.

Rock type. The model presumed that sites would be located near sources of lithic raw material. The two most common material types identified by Geo-Marine and this thesis were chalcedony and chert, which are produced by similar processes, and may be referred by either name interchangeably (see discussion on rock type in the

Preagricultural section). This research used geologic period to model rock type. Sixteen sites occurred in areas of igneous rock formations, fifteen sites were in areas of Neogene formation, twelve occurred in areas of Quaternary formation, ten occur in areas of

Paleogene formation, and seven occur in areas of Cretaceous formation.

It would appear that agricultural peoples considered proximity to lithic raw material as significant as did Pre- and Protoagricultural people. Given the range of stone tools and artifacts with which they are credited, this is not surprising. Much as with

Preagricultural peoples, there seems to be a preference for igneous rock areas. This does not appear to be random, as igneous rock areas make up about 6% of the total for the study area. This is not necessarily the most likely area for chert formation, but there are still a significant number of sites that occur in Paleogene or Cretaceous period formations.

122

123

Figure 35: Distribution of Agricultural sites within rock type polygons.

Archaeological site data. The model did not specify what spatial association archaeological sites would have with one another, but we predicted that sites would have some type of pattern. Agricultural sites definitely seem to be clustered near one another.

Forty-seven of the fifty-nine sites fall within 2 km of each other. This is in keeping with site distributions discussed by Keegan (1992:83), which concluded that sites in the

Bahamas tended towards clustering.

An attempt was made with regard to agricultural sites to look at the pattern of

Taino versus Sub-Taino sites. Some information on the cultural group affiliated with each site was included in Resigistro de Todos los Sitios Arqueológicos Investigados (Martínez

Arango 1982). This was compared to the information from Febles Dueñas and Martínez

(1995). If known, the cultural group was recorded in the attribute table. When looking at the results, there does seem to be an interesting pattern. Those identified as Taino were situated at both ends of the southern coast. Five Taino sites lie in the westernmost edge of the Granma province, and seven lie at the easternmost tip of the Guantánamo province, at the tip of the „alligator‟s mouth.‟ Only five Taino sites fall between them, although these, too, are in the Guantánamo province. This is perhaps related to political organization; those in the Granma province would have been in the Macara cacicazgo, and those in the

Guantánamo province would have been in the Maisi cacicazgo (potentially a few may have fallen in the Bayaquitiri cacicazgo, see Figure 4).

Those identified as Sub-Taino clustered around Santiago Bay. Only two of the twenty-seven sites categorized as Sub-Taino were east of Guantánamo Bay. The remaining twenty-five are spread both east and west around this bay. It would be intriguing to see if any sites in Guantánamo Bay belong with the Sub-Taino cultural

124

group, as it would appear, in this visual analysis, that the Sub-Taino had the strongest preference for living around bays in clustered sites. The remaining sites were either unidentified, or classified as multicomponent by Martínez Arango (1982). Figure 36 illustrates this distribution.

The distribution of sites by type is similar to that seen in Preagricultural sites, in that habitation sites, be they open air or in a cave, predominate. Forty-four of the agricultural sites are classified as habitation sites. There is an interesting pattern to these sites as well. Three of those sites identified as Taino in the Granma province were categorized as funerary caves, which are clustered around a ceremonial center. Slightly to the east of this cluster is an open-air habitation site. The seven Taino sites in the

Guantánamo province are all classified as habitation sites, although two funerary caves lie close to the east. Indeed, of the agricultural sites, the second most common site type after both types of habitation sites is funerary caves. This is not unexpected if the cultures were supposedly increasing in both population and in complexity (Tabio and Rey

1979:187-189). Only two sites were classified as ceremonial centers, although it is unclear if perhaps some of the funerary caves functioned for ceremonial purposes as well.

Three sites are classified as camp sites, which is not surprising. Again, according to

Tabio and Rey, agricultural peoples had largely abandoned foraging for agriculture, particularly the Taino people. Sub-Taino peoples still had a reliance on marine and estuarine resources, but perhaps were living in close proximity to those sources rather than setting up temporary camps.

125

126

Figure 36: Distribution of Taino and Sub-Taino sites.

127

Figure 37: Distribution of Agricultural site types within the study area.

Study Area Sites

The previous discussion is based on the assumption that the sites in southeastern

Cuba indeed reflect a change in time from Preagricultural subsistence to agriculture. This represents a time sequence from before 1000 B.C. to post-Spanish contact, or around

1570 (Tabio and Rey 1966:10). The visual analysis allows a look at changes in environmental preference. However, it is also important to look at the sites in the study area throughout space, as well as time. By doing so, it removes any confusion about classification systems, and considers all sites as more or less contemporaneous: pre-

Columbian. In this instance, the sites from GTMO can be included in the analysis, as the bias for any particular classification system is not at issue. Moreover, historic preservation laws do not discriminate by culture or period; all sites should be identified and evaluated. Examining the distribution of all sites simultaneously allows us to appreciate their overall distribution.

Elevation. The model predicted sites would occur in areas of the lowest elevations, or under 50 m in elevation. Of the total 102 pre-Columbian sites in southeastern Cuba, ninety-six sites occur in areas of 46 m in elevation or less. Table 8 summarizes the distribution of sites within the different elevation categories.

Elevation Range Preagricultural Protoagricultural Agricultural GTMO Total 1 - 11 13 0 21 14 48 11-23 6 2 27 5 40 23-46 1 0 6 1 8 46-81 0 0 1 0 1 81-137 0 0 4 0 4 137+ 0 0 1 0 1 Total 20 2 60 20 102 Table 8: Breakdown of sites in elevation categories

128

Based on this visual analysis then, it would seem that pre-Columbian peoples had a preference for areas with low elevation, particularly for open air habitation sites and inhabited caves. It may be that pre-Columbian peoples were also selecting areas of higher elevation for important burials and their ceremonial centers.

Slope. The model predicted that prehistoric sites would be situated in areas of less than 22% slope. The sites in the study area do not necessarily conform to this prediction. Six-two out of the 102 total sites do fall in areas of less than 39% slope. Table

9 summarizes the distribution of sites with regard to slope.

Slope Ranges Preagricultural Protoagricultural Agricultural GTMO Total 0 - 22 4 1 10 3 18 22-39 11 1 24 8 44 39-50 0 0 6 5 11 50-72 2 0 11 4 17 72-80 2 0 5 0 7 80-84 0 0 1 0 1 84-89 1 0 3 0 4 Total 20 2 60 20 102 Table 9: Breakdown of sites in slope categories

This is an interesting distribution. Common sense would dictate that sites would occur in areas of low slope. However, the report by Geo-Marine does mention that the prehistoric sites in Guantánamo Bay are situated on Pleistocene tabletops, or areas of some relief (Keegan and Sara 2003:155). Perhaps prehistoric peoples on the southeastern coast of Cuba had a preference for these areas of relief, with the tradeoff being areas of steeper slope. The sites do not occur in areas in very steep slope, but more of them occur in areas of steep slope than this model would expect. The slope for caves sites is misleading, since the sites are situated into a cliff face (see the sections on slope for

Preagricultural and Agricultural sites). Also the calculation of slope from the SRTM data

129

with 30 m horizontal resolution may not be precise enough for small sites (<100 m diameter). All this is not to say the slope results are not helpful, rather one should interpret them and not simply accept that prehistoric peoples on the southeastern coast of

Cuba were living on steep inclines.

Aspect. The model predicted that sites would be likely to occur in areas that faced south, including southeast and southwest. Figure 38 illustrates the distribution of study area sites with regard to aspect. Of the 102 sites in the study area, fifty-seven fell in areas that faced south. South facing areas only make up about 27% of the total for the study area. Since only about half of the sites faced south, it is possible that there may have been some preference for this orientation but it is not clear. Further analysis of this factor is needed to decide whether or not to eliminate this evidence theme.

130

131

Figure 38: Distribution of study area sites in south facing areas.

Vegetation. The model predicted that sites would occur in proximity to mangroves. For the visual analysis, this was broken into three categories: the mangrove themselves, an 800 m buffer around the mangroves, and a 1600 m buffer around the mangroves. Forty-eight of the prehistoric sites actually lie within or touch the mangrove polygon. Sixty-eight of the sites fall within the 800 m buffer around the mangrove polygon. Seventy-nine sites occur within 1600 m of a mangrove estuary.

It seems clear based on the visual analysis that pre-Columbian peoples had a preference for areas near mangroves, at least within the study area. This is interesting because if modes of subsistence were indeed changing over time, then it would be expected that less and less of the sites would need to be near a mangrove. However, according to Tabio and Rey (1966:170), even into the Sub-Taino period, prehistoric peoples had a reliance on marine foodstuffs, and in fact of the sites in the study area, the majority is classified as Sub-Taino (if they are classified at all). As a matter of fact, most of the sites that do not lie in proximity to mangroves are Taino. Perhaps then this analysis is confirming the shift from reliance on mangroves to reliance on agriculture and land animals. In any case, proximity to mangroves does appear to be a strong predictive factor for pre-Columbian sites.

132

133

Figure 39: Distribution of study area sites in proximity to mangroves.

Rivers. The model predicted that sites would occur within walking distance of a major river. Common sense would dictate that people would live near fresh water.

However, of the 102 sites, only thirty-eight occur within 800 m of a river. Fifty-one of the sites lie within 1600 m of a river. Since half the sites occur near a river, there does seem to be some preference for nearness to rivers. However, further analysis is necessary to really predict whether prehistoric peoples had a true preference for proximity to rivers or not. It is conceivable that smaller streams and springs are not visible in this analysis.

Soil. The model predicted that prehistoric sites would occur in areas with well- drained soils that are suitable for agriculture, particularly to the west of Santiago Bay.

The most economically productive soil found in the study area is the brown and red limestone soil, followed closely by alluvial soils (which only occur in small pockets in the study area). Table 10 shows the breakdown of study area sites in soil categories.

Soil Type Preagricultural Protoagricultural Agricultural GTMO Total Limestone 13 1 35 1 50 Alluvial 1 1 4 0 6 Coastal 2 0 9 19 30 bog/saline soil Gley 1 0 1 0 2 Brown 3 0 11 0 14 tropical soil Total 20 2 60 20 102 Table 10: Breakdown of sites in soil categories This distribution illustrates an interesting pattern. Although the majority of the sites do fall in areas of productive soil, this does not represent quite half the sites. The next most productive soil, alluvial soils, only has six site occurrences. Thirty sites occur in areas of poorly drained soil. However, these saline soils are generally indicative of

134

mangrove areas. It is conceivable that in that instance where prehistoric peoples were selecting for saline soils, they were selecting more for mangrove than for poor drainage.

Rock type. The model predicted that sites would occur near areas of lithic raw material. The two most common material types identified by Geo-Marine and this thesis are chalcedony and chert. Of the 102 sites, thirty-three sites occurred in areas of

Paleogene material, which is the most likely source for chert and chalcedony. The

Paleogene material represents only 10% of the total geologic formations for the study area. Further testing is needed to see if this is truly predictive of site locations. See Table

11 for a summary of rock type distributions.

Rock type Preagricultural Protoagricultural Agricultural GTMO Total Cretaceous 2 0 7 0 9 Igneous 7 0 16 0 23 rock Jurassic 0 0 0 0 0 Neogene 5 0 15 0 20 Paleogene 4 2 10 17 33 Quaternary 2 0 12 3 17 Total 20 2 60 20 102 Table 11: Breakdown of sites in geologic/rock type categories

135

136

Figure 40: Study area sites in proximity to rivers.

In general, all of the rocks types present in the study area represent materials recovered by both Geo-Marine and Larson. The rock type that has the most site occurrences is consistent with the formation of chert and chalcedony (Paleogene). It would seem that prehistoric peoples did live in areas near lithic raw material, but there is no strong preference of one type over another. Perhaps, then, pre-Columbian peoples simply choose the material of expedience rather than preference.

Archaeological site distribution. The sites‟ distribution over space conforms to distributions seen within the temporal analysis. The majority of the sites in the sites are habitation sites, whether they are open air or inhabited caves. As mentioned previously, those sites that were identified as being in higher elevation categories (over 105 m in elevation) were all either funerary caves or ceremonial centers.

Sites are clustered in four main areas, the westernmost and easternmost tips of the southeastern coast, and around both of the major bays, Santiago and Guantánamo. In the western portion of the study area, there is a cluster of habitation sites (open air and caves), situated near three funerary caves and a ceremonial center. There are no sites in this region that are classified as camp sites. In the area around Santiago Bay, there is another cluster of habitation sites (open air and caves), with seven funerary caves and one ceremonial center. There are relatively few camp sites within the area around Santiago

Bay.

Around Guantánamo Bay, there is another cluster of habitation sites, and one funerary cave. Here there are several camp sites as well. In fact, most of the camp sites are situated in the region around Guantánamo Bay. (Of course, this could be due to differences in classifying sites). No ceremonial centers were identified in this region. On

137

the easternmost tip, there is another cluster of habitation sites, with two funerary caves.

However, one of the sites classified by Febles Dueñas and Martínez (1995) as a funerary cave, Pueblo Viejo, is considered a ceremonial center by others (e.g. Dacal and Rivero

1996). It is possible that this site combined both functions. No camp sites are identified in this region.

Looking at all four areas in general then, there seems to be a pattern of habitation site clusters and relatively few camp sits There are numerous funerary caves situated in each region. There are two (and probably three) ceremonial centers in the study area, one in most of the regions, although none in the area around Guantánamo Bay. This is perhaps due to two reasons: one, the study area cover three cacicazgos, the organized political groups that were dominant at the time of contact with Columbus. This pattern then would suggest that there was one ceremonial center per cacicazgo. Two, given the current political situation between the United States and Cuba, there has not been as much excavation in the area around Guantánamo Bay by either North American or Cuban archaeologists. Thus it is possible that a ceremonial center in this region has not been located.

Before running the weights of evidences testing, an average nearest neighbor test was run on the sites in the study area. This computes a nearest neighbor index based on the average distance from each feature to its nearest neighboring feature. The formula is

ANN= Do/De, where Do is the observed mean distance between each feature and its nearest neighbor. De is the expected mean distance between features given a random pattern (http://webhelp.esri.com/arcgisdesktop/9.3/index.cfm?TopicName=Average%20

Nearest%20Neighbor%20(Spatial%20Statistics)). The results of this test concluded that

138

sites within the study area were definitely clustered. The observed mean distance in the study area was 2286. 85 m, with an expected mean distance of 6901.2 m if sites were randomly distributed. The nearest neighbor ratio was 0.33 with a Z score of -9.990375.

The Z score value is a measure of statistical significance which tells us whether or not to reject the null hypothesis. If the Z score is less than one, the pattern is towards clustering.

If the Z score is greater than one, the pattern is either random or dispersed. In this case the null hypothesis states that the points are randomly distributed. With this Z score, we reject the null hypothesis. There is almost no likelihood that the pattern is the result of chance. Thus, it would seem that nearness to another site is clearly predictive of other sites. Further excavation (perhaps in those areas recommended by the model) would conceivably refine the distribution patterns of the sites in the study area.

139

140

Figure 41: Distribution of Study Area site types.

Summary

Based on the visual temporal and spatial analysis, the common predictive factors for prehistoric sites are less than 46 m elevation, proximity to mangroves, 22%-39% slope, and proximity to other sites, limestone soils, and Paleogene formations. The total number of sites identified by the predictive factors is summarized in Table 12.

Predictive Factor Total Number of Sites Less than 46 m in elevation 96 Proximity of mangroves (1600 m and less) 79 22-39% slope 44 Proximity to rivers (1600 m or less) *note: 51 most likely to be agricultural South facing 57 Limestone soils 77 Paleogene material 74 Proximity to other sites Less than 1% likelihood of random clustering Table 12: Breakdown of most common site occurrences across predictive factor categories.

Adding to the environmental data is the pattern of clustering seen between sites.

The results of the average nearest neighbor test indicate that sites are highly predictive of other sites. With regard to inter-site organization, there does seem to be some visual pattern. Sites are clustered in four main areas. Sites are clustered on either extreme end on the study area (the eastern and westernmost tips of south Cuba). They are also clustered around the two major bays, Santiago Bay and Guantánamo Bay. There are not as many sites identified around Guantánamo Bay, but is possible with further testing more sites would be recognized.

Based on the visual analysis, several potential areas for site occurrence were identified. Given the distribution pattern seen with regard to inter-site organization, the predicted site locations were divided into four areas, eastern and western tip of the southern coast, and the areas adjacent to the two bays. The predictive factors were simply

141

added up and those areas with the most factors were considered „very high‟ potential for site occurrence. After the analyses had been run, the areas were highlighted and ranked in order of number of predictive factors included. For example, an area that had an intersection of all the predictive factors is considered as “very high” site potential. An area that has only two predictive factors is considered as having “low” favorability for site occurrence. A polygon was created around each area, and color-coded them according to their rank. The polygon layer was placed on a blank map of Cuba in order to emphasize those areas that are most favorable, those that are moderately favorable, and those that are least favorable. Areas that contained only one predictive factor were not highlighted. Then, the map was visually evaluated based on the known archaeological site data. The map was broken into four parts, to make visualization of potential site locations easier, and on the basis of the visual analysis.

142

Figure 42: Site favorability in western portion of study area.

In the western region of the study area, the two particular areas that seem the most likely for site occurrence are the area just north of Cayos Uvas, which is shown in Figure

42. The other area, which is considered very high site potential, is the area around

Ensenada de Mora, also shown in Figure 42. These two regions, if the model is accurate, are likely to have prehistoric sites. Currently, there are no known sites in these areas.

143

Figure 43: Site favorability around Santiago Bay.

In the areas around Santiago Bay, nearly all of the places of site potential, even those with only moderate potential, have already known sites. However, it is possible there are still more sites in the area in the northern portion of Santiago Bay (shown in

Figure 43). Additionally, there may be more sites in the areas shown on the map.

144

Figure 44: Site favorability around Guantánamo Bay.

Around Guantánamo Bay, there are several areas which were identified in this thesis as moderate, high, or very high site potential that currently have no known sites.

Figure 44 shows the areas of site potential in Guantánamo Bay. The region in the north portion of Guantánamo Bay (not inside the naval station) is considered high potential for site occurrence. The areas surrounding the bay on the east and west are also at least moderately likely for site locations. Most of the sites identified by Larson and Geo-

Marine are in these two areas, but it is especially likely on the western portion of the bay, near the Guantánamo River.

145

Locations outside the bay also have high or very high site potential. The areas around Punta Conde de Jaruco and those immediately adjacent to it have high and very high site potential. Currently, there is only one known site in this area, but it is quite conceivable that there are more sites in this zone.

Figure 45 shows the areas of site probability in the easternmost portion of the study area. Within this eastern region, there is one area of high site potential, which is the region surrounding the Maya River. Indeed, nearly all the known sites in this region fall within this area. The areas to the north and south have moderate site potential, but as they are in the alluvial plain of this river, it is possible there are still more sites in these two locations.

Figure 45: Site favorability in eastern portion of study area.

146

The visual analysis identified the factors that were most predictive, thus these factors can be given weight in the statistical analysis. The visual analysis does to a large extent confirm the model, as most of the sites in the area fall with the regions identified as having at least moderate site potential. However, these maps will be refined based upon the results of the statistical analysis, which may include excluding some of the predictive factors from the model.

Statistical Analysis

GIS provides a graphic display of the theoretical model for the site distribution. The number of sites meeting characteristics recognized in the predictive model and the percentage of the area represented can be reported. “Weights of evidence” is a Baysian approach that allows for combining evidence themes to predict site occurrence. It is based on the presence or absence of a characteristic (evidence theme) and the occurrence of an event (a site).

An estimate of the prior probability of the incidence of an event is based on the total number of events dispersed over the area. A posterior probability is calculated for an attribute of the evidence theme based on this prior probability and the presence or absence of this attribute with the events. The odds of occurrence or logits are calculated for the event of interest (Hansen 2000). In the weights of evidence method, these values are changed to natural logarithms to produce weights for the attribute of the theme. For archaeological sites, weights for a theme attribute such as geology map unit can be calculated based of the presence or absence of sites in the geologic units, etc. For a particular spatial pattern or characteristic, weights are calculated based on:

147

 The probability of the known attribute being present with events

 The probability of the known attribute being present without events

 The probability of the known attribute being absent with events

 The probability of the known attribute being absent without events.

These ratios are used to produce a positive weight and negative weight for the attribute. Weights can then be added to produce a contrast value for the attribute, since they are in log form. Weights calculated independently for several attributes can be combined to produce a probability surface (Hansen 2000).

Bonham-Carter offers a thorough explanation of weights of evidence and its use in Geographic information Systems for Geoscientists (1994).This method depends on several factors. The method works best for binary classes, although it can be used on multiple class data. The event of interest such as archaeological sites is assumed to be a point and that this particular event is only recorded once and is not represented by multiple points. Calculations are based on unit cells for measuring the total study area and for calculating weights. These unit cells are used to calculate the total study area, the areas containing or missing the spatial patterns of interest with and without sites. In this research, a unit cell value of .25 km2 was selected. Linear features, such as the distance to mangroves or the distance to rivers, can be buffered to generate an area based on the distance from or to the feature.

Table 13 illustrates those theme attributes that were tested in this research analysis.

As mentioned in the methods section, based on the original parameters of the model and the results of the visual analysis, the evidence themes were reduced to two classes. These classes were summarized in Table 3. For each class, the unit cell value was calculated 148

following Bonham-Carter (1994:304). Using ArcMap, the number of sites occurring in each class was counted. The area of the attribute pattern (e.g. area of 0-46m elevations) was calculated using the Calculate Geometry function in ArcMap.

Weights are calculated with a positive weight (W+) and a negative weight (W-). The difference of the two gives the contrast. In general, values of weights between 0 and 0.5 are mildly predictive; values between 0.5 and 1 are moderately predictive; values between 1 and 2 are strongly predictive, and greater than 2 are extremely predictive

(Kemp et al. 1999).

Evidence Class for Area # of points W+ W- Contrast layer Weights of (sqkm) Evidence testing

Elevation 0-46m 519.328002 96 1.780 -2.5998 4.380

Slope 0-22% 241.125625 18 0.845 -0.115 0.960

Aspect South 878.962547 57 0.702 -0.494 1.196 facing values Rivers 800m 1058.822 38 0.103 -0.0564 0.159 buffer Rivers 1600m 2308.158 51 -0.6799 0.636 -1.316 buffer Mangroves 800m 978.0141 68 0.935 -0.732 1.667 buffer Mangroves 1600m 2408.285 80 0.025 -0.086 0.1103 buffer Soil Limestone 839.891258 50 0.615 -0.366 0.981 soil Rocks Paleogene 334.968765 33 1.1289 -0.2803 1.4088 period Sites 1600m 812.213049 88 1.226 -1.694 2.9202 buffer Table 13: Summary of Weights of Evidence testing of evidence themes

149

As is evidenced in Table 13, several of the evidence theme attributes are considered strongly or extremely predictive of event occurrence. For this model, areas of less than 46 m elevation and proximity to other sites are considered extremely predictive of site occurrence. The classes of strongly predictive themes are Aspect (south facing areas), 800 m or less distance to mangroves, and occurrence on Paleogene formations.

Interestingly, the 1600 m buffer around rivers had a strong negative correlation with site occurrence. Further work may reveal if this negative correlation is only for Sub-Taino or earlier groups.

To combine the maps, it is necessary to test for conditional independence. This is to ensure that conditions on one map are not dependent on conditions on another map

(e.g. mangroves present on saline soil). This is done through the use of a pairwise test

(Bonham-Carter 1994:313-315). In order to ensure conditional independence, a pairwise test was run on each pair of map themes: rocks and mangroves (R/M), rocks and low elevation (R/LE), rocks and aspect (R/A), low elevation and mangroves (LE/M), low elevation and aspect (LE/A) and mangroves and aspect (M/A), sites and rocks (S/R), sites and low elevation(S/LE), sites and mangroves (S/M), and sites and aspect (S/A). Table 14 summarizes the results of the pairwise tests.

150

Pairs of Observed Observed Predicted Predicted Chi Square Maps present Absent Present Absent Test

R/M 19 83 22 80 0.470163836

0.196482136 R/LE 23 79 31 71

0.603438271 R/A 16 86 18 84

0.83773268 LE/M 65 37 64 38

0.691554758 LE/A 52 50 54 48

0.412684853 M/A 42 60 38 64

0.192288075 S/R 24 78 30 72

0.203511501 S/LE 88 14 83 19

0.84108036 S/M 58 44 59 43

0.112862881 S/A 57 45 49 53

Table 14: Chi Square test for conditional independence of map pairs A Chi Square test for independence was done on each pair, and then compared to a Chi square table at one degree of freedom. None of the pairs came back as statistically significant and thus the null hypothesis was not rejected in this case. The map pairs are independent of each other.

With these results, then, the map layers can be combined to create a better probability map. The model can also be refined as follows: prehistoric sites on the southeastern coast of Cuba are most likely to occur in areas of less than 46 m, within

1600 m of another site, in south facing areas, within 800 m of mangroves, and lying on

Paleogene formations.

Figures 46 through 51 illustrate the probability surface maps generated for the study area based on the weights of evidence testing.

151

152

Figure 46: Probability Surface Map: Western portion of Study Area.

With regard to Figures 46 through 51, it should be noted that areas considered

“lowest probability” contain at least one of the evidence themes included in the weights of evidence testing. The probability of a site occurring in a particular zone increases with the addition of more evidence themes. Additionally, in some places the probability map includes areas that are underwater. These are in general considered the least likely for site occurrences, but it is quite possible there are underwater sites in the study area. After all, the water level has risen since the Holocene (see the section on Paleo-environment).

In the probability map of the eastern portion of the study area (Figure 46), the area that was highlighted in the favorability analysis as highly likely for site occurrence is also considered highly probable for site occurrence: Ensenada de Mora. The region around

Ensenada de Mora is all considered either high or very high probability for site occurrence (see Figure 47). If the predictive model works at all, this area should contain sites. At this point in time, there are no known sites in Ensenada de Mora. Archaeologists working in the region should at least survey this area for archaeological site potential.

153

154

Figure 47: Probability Surface Map: Ensenada de Mora.

In Figure 48, most of the areas of high probability are already known to contain archaeological sites. (Recall that proximity to other sites is considered highly predictive of other sites.) Interestingly, the probability surface map shows that much of the area around Santiago Bay is at the lowest probability for containing sites. The area immediately surrounding the bay is considered highly probable for containing sites. Sites are known in the areas of highest probability along the coast near Santiago Bay, and in the area immediately surrounding the bay. The model did predict where known sites are, but did not really highlight any new places for site occurrence in the Santiago Bay area.

155

156

Figure 48: Probability surface map: Santiago Bay.

The model did highlight several areas of high probability around Guantánamo

Bay. The area at the mouth of the river Arroyo Algodones as well as the coastline leading from the river to Guantánamo Bay is all considered highly probable for archaeological sites. Inside Guantánamo Bay Naval Station, the mangrove fringes surrounding

Granadillo Bay and Medio Cay are all highly probable for containing sites. These areas are known to have sites adjacent to them. In addition, for the naval station, further work may also be necessary on the coast in area around GTMO 3. This area is considered highly probable for site incidence, particularly since this model has highlighted the significance of other sites in predicting new archaeological sites. The area to the west of

GTMO sites 38, 30, and 40 (see Figure 6) also has a high probability of site occurrence.

The model is in keeping with predictions made by Geo-Marine in 2003 (Keegan and Sara

2003:165-170). Outside the naval station, the areas around Ensenada de Joa and around

Bahia Puerto Escondido are also highly probable for site occurrence. No sites are currently known in the area, but if the model holds true, then Ensenada de Joa and Bahia

Puerto Escondido should have sites occurring around them.

157

158

Figure 49: Probability surface map: Guantanamo Bay.

159

Figure 50: Probability Surface Map: Eastern portion of the Study Area.

Figure 50 illustrates the probability surface for the eastern portion of the study area. It is within this area that we see the biggest deviation from the expected model and site occurrence. Sites within this area are more likely to not fit the environmental pattern demonstrated by the majority of the other sites. Most of the sites in this region are Taino sites, and in fact are well known complex sites (see archaeological background section).

As illustrated in Figure 51, sites that are classified as “agricultural” in this zone are more likely to occur in areas least probable for sites. As we move into the coastal area, which is considered high probability, we find a multicomponent site (which had a

Preagricultural occupation) and a Preagricultural site. Both of the Agricultural sites on the coast are classified as Taino habitation sites. This fits the environmental pattern for the study area but not the pattern expected for Taino sites. Further work should be done to refine the model based upon specific cultural associations.

160

161

Figure 51: Named Taino Sites in Eastern Study Area.

Chapter Five: Results and Conclusions

Discussion of other settlement patterns: The West Indies

The consideration of the strength of this model should be viewed in comparison to other settlement pattern studies. After all, it is in this contrast that the potential of this model may be best understood. Obviously, the overall study of settlement patterns is a very broad topic, far too large for this thesis. However, our comparison is limited to a few local (regions in Cuba), national (all of Cuba) and regional (The West Indies) settlement pattern studies. In fact, these relatively few studies are perhaps more topical, given their nearness to the study area.

Local Settlement Pattern Studies

The study of settlement patterns is a relatively recent development in archaeology, and few settlement pattern studies seem to have been conducted in Cuba. A study done by Irving Rouse in 1942 showed a pattern remarkably similar to the one found in this thesis. He explored the Maniabon Hills, which lie north of the study area. Rouse was not attempting to construct a predictive model, but he noted patterns with regard to the sites, and in fact separated these site patterns by cultural group, Ciboney and Sub-

Taino. Rouse observed that Ciboney sites in the Maniabon Hills were all on inlets near the coast with easy access to fishing. The sites tended to cluster near one another, and lay near fresh water intermittent rivers (Rouse 1942:131).

162

Sub-Taino sites exhibited different site distribution patterns depending on site type. Village sites with little to no shell were not situated near the coast; in fact most were more than 4 km from the shore. These village sites often occurred in pairs. Village sites with shell heaps, on the other hand, followed a pattern similar to Ciboney sites. However, their sites were typically situated on a point rather than an inlet, but were still in a favorable position for fishing. Rouse (1942:145-146) suggested that these sites would have been fishing villages, which seems to correlate with Tabio and Rey‟s classification

(1969). Rouse suggested three difference scenarios regarding the relationship between the coastal and interior sites. One, the interior/coastal pattern is indicative of seasonal resource extraction or two; the sites belonged to two different cultural groups. Rouse contended that the sites were not reflective of seasonality or different cultural groups.

Rather, he proposed a third option: the sites belonged to two different modes of subsistence, and the interior, agricultural groups had political dominance over the coastal fishermen (Rouse 1942:146-147).

The pattern shares similarity with the model discussed in this thesis. The study area was limited to only sites along with coast (within 1600 m of a mangrove). In general, the environmental conditions described by Rouse with regard to the Ciboney and Sub-

Taino in the Maniabon hills are comparable to those shown within the study area.

Ciboney sites tended to be situated in inlets, and were in general clustered together around Santiago Bay. Sub-Taino sites were also clustered around the bays and near the coast. If the Sub-Taino sites in the study area are similar to those in the Maniabon Hills, then the sites in the study area would be coastal fishing camps.

163

Another settlement pattern study was done in 2010 by Cooper and Peros. This study looked at paleoprecipitation and hurricane activity as predictive of site locations.

Their research focused on a 2000 km2 area of Ciego de Avila province in north Central

Cuba, and offshore islands in the Sabana Camaguey archipelago. They predicted that sites would be situated in areas outside of flood risk and areas that would be sheltered should a hurricane fall on land (Cooper and Peros 2010:4). They found that the established habitation sites in the study area were on the mainland, not the offshore islands. These sites were positioned on fairly level ground, with good agricultural potential, but in close proximity to upland areas with caves that would have served as shelters during a hurricane (Cooper and Peros 2010:4).

The authors also looked at food procurement strategies. They noted that the evidence from the earliest settlements indicated that Preagricultural peoples focused on one environmental zone, either littoral or shallow sandy bottomed coastal waters. Over time, this shifted to maximization of multiple ecological zones within the marine ecosystem. They also noted a pattern of change from living near these resources, to traveling large distances, up to 32 km (Cooper and Peros 2010:5).

Cooper and Peros were obviously looking at different environmental factors for their study, but it does have some bearing on the model in this thesis. Cooper and Peros noted that their sites were near upland areas, with the potential for shelter from hurricanes. This perhaps explains why the sites in the study area of this thesis were not always on ground of low slope. Prehistoric peoples possibly traded ground of no relief for those areas that provided some shelter from extreme weather conditions. They also noted that sites in the Ciego de Avila province were typically in areas suited for agriculture.

164

This is in general true for sites in the study area of this thesis as well, though there were a fair number that were in areas of poor drainage as well.

In terms of food procurement, this is quite similar to the study area in the thesis.

Cooper and Peros (2010:4) observed that regardless of the zone utilized, there was a reliance on marine resources, which is probably true in southeastern Cuba as well, given that eighty sites fall within 1600 m of a mangrove estuary.

National settlement patterns: Cuba

Cooper and Peros (2010) looked at settlement patterns at the national level, as well. They noted that pre-Columbian sites tended to be located in areas that were resistant to hurricanes, and pre-Columbian peoples relied heavily on marine resources, thus locating their sites near coastal waters. The authors also observed that the most heavily populated areas of the island are those areas with the least variability in terms of precipitation (Cooper and Peros 2010:3). Although these factors were not the ones that went into the model of this thesis, they do have a bearing on the pattern. Our sites are clustered around the two largest bays on the southeastern coast, Santiago Bay and

Guantánamo Bay. Perhaps prehistoric peoples situated themselves around these bays because they acted as wind breaks for hurricanes. The sites appear to reflect patterns with regard to precipitation as well. Over half the sites lie around Santiago Bay and westward, in areas where the rainfall is more reliable, and higher. The rainfall to the east of Santiago

Bay is also steady, but lower. This is another angle that may be considered in the future for models of the southeastern coast of Cuba.

Cooper (2010) looked at national site classification distribution patterns in a more general way. He considered distribution patterns based on the Cuban classification 165

system of preagroalfarero, protoagricola, and agroalfarero. Cooper (2010:86-87) observed that preagroalfarero sites were well distributed throughout Cuba, with a concentration in Pinar del Rio. He also noted that agroalfarero sites were concentrated in the east and central part of Cuba. Both these distributions supported popular hypotheses that Ciboney/Guanahatabey peoples were eventually pushed westward by Taino peoples, and that Taino peoples entered Cuba from the east and spread westward. Cooper pointed out, however, that there is the potential for bias in the labeling sites “preagroalfarero” or

“agroalfarero,” such that one must be cautious when looking at these patterns. If sites are found without pottery, they might be automatically labeled “preagroalfarero.” If evidence of agriculture is found, the site might be labeled “agroalfarero.” Thus, archaeologists need to be cautious in making assumptions of the movements of Ciboney peoples within

Cuba.

Cooper utilized the same archaeological data to analyze the Cuban pre-Columbian site assemblage as was used in this thesis (Fuebles Dueñas and Martínez 1995). As mentioned previously, the predominant cultural group in the study area is the Sub-Taino

(agroalfarero), with Taino sites concentrated on the western and easternmost tips of the study area. There were Ciboney (preagroalfarero) sites in the study area, however. It would make sense that, as the earliest inhabitants of Cuba, they created fewer sites in the study area. They most likely had a smaller population. It is hard to say whether this group was absorbed into the Mayari cultural group, or was pushed westward, but clearly they were living in the region. As Cooper noted, however, the same bias could be attributed to this thesis. There is no way to verify the classification of a site as “Preagricultural” or not, thus one must be cautious in looking at these types of patterns.

166

Regional Settlement Patterns: The Antilles

Antigua. Davis (1982) was one of the first to explore Archaic age settlement patterns in the Lesser Antilles. He found that Antigua, with its relatively low floral/faunal diversity, and lack of fresh water, nonetheless did indeed have an Archaic age occupation. The Archaic sites that he excavated exhibited a pattern of clustering, with

92% of the total sites clustering in the northern 60% of the coastline. The Archaic peoples of Antigua had a relatively small “niche” from which they extracted resources (Davis

1982:116). The environmental focus was on shallow sand beaches and mangrove stands, from which the inhabitants concentrated on shellfish procurement rather than inland foraging. They had a specific proclivity for utilizing flint (chert), which was created in the same shallow marine environments in which they concentrated (Davis 1982:116).

Nevis. Wilson (1989) conducted a settlement pattern study of Nevis, intensively focused within 1 km of the coastline. He identified twenty sites within that area. All of the sites lie at less than 50 m in elevation and within 100 m of the coastline (Wilson

1989:433). Nevis follows the typical pattern of sites in the Lesser Antilles, with the majority of sites concentrated on the Windward site of the island. Sites on the Windward side tended to cluster around reefs, suggested that prehistoric peoples on Nevis, much as they did on Cuba, probably relied on marine resources, although the specific variety of animal they exploited obviously differed depending on availability (estuarine versus reef- dwelling). The dominant vegetation type for site occurrence was, interestingly, cactus scrub. In terms of their distribution, sites on Nevis were apparently almost randomly distributed, with a greater tendency towards regular spacing than clustering. However,

167

Wilson suggests that this may more be due to site placement around fresh water rather than a truly random settlement pattern (Wilson 1989:444).

St. Kitts. Farag et al. (2005) utilized GIS to visually assess settlement patterns on

St. Kitts. The authors digitized a contour map of St. Kitts and identified several areas of interest for archaeological sites based on prior knowledge of sites on the island (an approach similar to the construction of the model in this thesis). They determined that on the windward side of the island, pre-Columbian peoples tended to situate their sites on higher ground and further inland. This is potentially due to the susceptibility of the smaller islands to extreme weather conditions, especially on the Windward sides of the islands (Farag et al. 2005:6). Those peoples living on the Windward side of St. Kitts had an apparent preference for land animals versus marine resources, as is the pattern on many of the other Caribbean islands. However, the majority of the sites on St. Kitts were located on the Leeward side. In general these sites fit the pattern of other islands. The sites are situated close to the coast, in areas of less than 15 degrees slope. This group of people had a reliance on marine life as well (Farag et al. 2005:7)

St. Vincent. Callaghan (2007) conducted a survey of the island of St. Vincent, utilizing much the same predictive factors as the present study. Callaghan concluded that sites in St. Vincent had a tendency to be situated along coasts, although this preference was not as strong as it is on other Caribbean islands. Callaghan also discovered that prehistoric peoples on St. Vincent had a strong preference for areas from 1 to 5 km from a reef. The majority of sites were situated at less than 14 m in elevation, which is again in keeping with the pattern seen in other islands. The dominant vegetation type for site occurrence on St. Vincent was cactus scrub. In general the pattern of settlement on St.

168

Vincent is very similar to other islands in the Lesser Antilles. On the whole it is similar to

Cuba as well, although the great variation in environmental conditions between the larger islands of the Greater Antilles and the Lesser Antilles does make comparisons weaker.

Trinidad. In 2003 Reid constructed a weights of evidence predictive model for prehistoric sites in Trinidad. Reid‟s model hypothesized that pre-Columbian sites in

Trinidad were likely to occur in “areas of hilly relief in alluvial plains and valleys, in areas with very good to moderate good land capability and free internal drainage soils

(Reid 2003:90).” Reid determined after weights of evidence testing that sites in Trinidad were likely to occur in areas of hilly relief, with land capability either fairly good or unsuitable for agriculture, with upland landforms and free internal drainage soils (Reid

2003:141). Reid did not directly test the same factors as the present model, however, the use of the same platform and statistical methodology makes comparisons in this case significant. Our model predicted that sites in the study area of Cuba were likely to be found on flat land with little relief (low slope) close to a mangrove estuary, with soils that were either reflective of the estuarine environment or suitable for agriculture. The model did not necessarily consider landform. The model found that sites were likely to occur in areas of some relief (moderate slope) and with soils that were either fairly good (for the area) or unsuitable (wet). Trinidad itself is much larger than the other islands included in the current discussion; in fact it is the sixth largest in the West Indies. In general the pattern exhibits some similarities to that of Cuba, but further work is necessary to understand the relationship between the two patterns.

Overall, the pattern of prehistoric sites in the West Indies is rather similar to the pattern of Ciboney/Sub-Taino sites in Cuba. People confronted different considerations

169

on the small islands than did those peoples living in coastal Cuba, such as a preference for the Leeward or Windward sides of the island. The native peoples on these islands also appear to have had a strong preference for reefs, perhaps as opposed to mangroves. In general though, the majority of sites are concentrated along the coast at low elevations.

There seems to be a focus on marine resources over land resources, although this varied depending on the location of the site (Leeward vs. Windward). On most of the islands, there appeared to be little (or no) occupation during the Archaic period; it was not until the early Ceramic period that most of the islands had any significant occupations. This corresponds roughly to the proto/agricultural periods in the Cuban classification system.

Even though peoples were not moving into the islands until later in the archaeological sequence, it would seem that the pattern for the islands, as well as southeast Cuba, was still focused on these coastal areas with moderate relief, near a productive marine/estuarine food resource. It was not until the establishment of perhaps more centralized authority that there was a shift inland and to areas of steeper relief. Further work comparing inter-island settlement patterns would greatly aid in understanding the settling of the West Indies.

Discussion of Results: GIS, Statistical Analysis, and Comparisons to other settlement patterns

From the temporal analysis, it seemed that the evidence themes most predictive of prehistoric sites were areas of 11 m to 23 m in elevation, areas of 22 to 39% slope, areas within 1600 m of a mangrove, areas of limestone soil (which was determined to be the most productive soil type in the study area) and areas of Paleogene period formation

(which was determined to be the most likely period for the formation of chert). It was

170

also concluded that agricultural sites were those most likely to be in a south facing area, as well as the most likely to have site occurrences within 1600 m of a river.

The spatial analysis led to conclusions about cultural associations and site type distributions. In general there seemed to be three (and potentially four) main areas of concentration for sites: on the extreme ends of the study area, and clusters around

Santiago and Guantánamo Bay. Those sites occurring at either end of the study areas were likely to be Taino. In addition, those sites occurring in the Guantánamo province around the Maya river were most likely to not fit the environmental pattern of the other sites. In fact, these sites were some of the best known Taino sites in Cuba. (See Figure

51)

The site type distribution seemed to follow a pattern of clusters of habitation sites

(open air or cave) with a few camp or resource extraction sites. There were also a few funerary caves and one ceremonial site for each of the three main clusters. The area without a ceremonial site was the area immediately surrounding Guantánamo Bay.

The statistical analysis tested the original parameters of the model: less than 50 m in elevation, 0-22% slope, within 1600 m of a river, within 1600 m of a mangrove, within

1600 m of another site, and south facing, limestone soil and Paleogene (areas likely for chert/chalcedony) formations. The weights of evidence analysis verified that those evidence themes most predictive of sites were less than 50 m in elevation, within 1600 m of another site, within 800 m of a mangrove, and south facing and Paleogene areas.

Conditional independence testing illustrated that the maps are independent of each other.

The probability surface maps (Figures 46 through 51) demonstrate that even though the evidence themes selected for inclusion in the final model are only those that

171

are extremely predictive (low elevation and proximity to other sites) or strongly predictive (Paleogene formations, south facing areas, and proximity to mangroves), the model is not perfect. For example in Figure 47, zones considered as low probability based on the weights of evidence testing still contain archaeological sites. In Figure 51, the low probability areas contain well-known Taino sites. This highlights the essential difficulty of predicting extreme or low probability events from finite data sets, a generic problem in science.

There must always be the realization in predictive modeling that these correlations and statistical tests only reflect concurrences of modern day environmental conditions, and interpretation is required to link these correlations to the past (Reid

2003:141). For instance, in this thesis the model found that Paleogene formations were strongly predictive of site locations. However in the 2003 survey by Geo-Marine, it was determined that sites in Guantánamo Bay were most likely to be found in areas of

Pleistocene (Quaternary) formation (Keegan and Sara 2003:155). It is quite likely that

Geo-Marine was correct in their analysis, as they were concerned with a much smaller area. The scale of our model was quite large, and with this larger space comes greater variation at difference scales. All this simply demonstrates that even probabilistic modeling is no substitute for field work. However, the importance of this model is that it does indeed reduce the areas that need to be surveyed by archaeologists, a significant consideration.

What, then, do these conclusions tell us about prehistoric choices in site location?

Clearly they were particularly selecting for areas of low elevation. This was the most strongly predictive factor in the model, and not a surprising conclusion. Some of the

172

sharpest elevations in Cuba lie within the study area. In fact, the highest point in Cuba,

Pico Turquino, is located within the study area (see Figure 1). By contrast, outside the study area, which is primarily a coastal region, lays the savannahs and plains which dominate most of Cuba. The environment outside the study region is much more favorable to terrestrial life: agriculture and hunting of land animals. People do and have lived in mountainous areas, so there must be some other draw to the low elevation for the prehistoric people of Cuba.

The study area, as mentioned previously, is very much a coastal region. The model predicted, and verified, that sites are also most likely to occur within 800m of a mangrove. Mangroves are a coastal plant, generally harboring numerous marine and estuarine resources. It would appear that for the study area, at least, prehistoric peoples were focused on extracting resources from these mangroves, and consequently living predominantly in areas where they were likely to grow: low-lying coastal areas. Cooper and Peros (2010) as well as Rouse (1942) found that sites throughout Cuba are most likely to be found in areas of resource maximization, particularly mangroves and reefs.

The statistical analysis also determined that it is Paleogene period formations that these peoples were selecting. This is not, in fact, the prevailing geologic formation for much of the study area. In fact, most of the study area is dominated by Neogene or

Quaternary formations (Furrazola-Bermúdez et al. 1964). However, based on the analysis of lithic artifacts done by Geo-Marine (2003) and this research, the quality of the chert used by prehistoric peoples was in general poor to medium. This is in keeping with the development of secondary chert formed in limestone, the most likely source of this chert

(Nichols 1999:205).

173

What then, explains the differences between the predictions and the results of the model? It would seem a logical answer to this is hurricanes. It is mentioned several times in the national model done by Cooper and Peros (2010), as well as more generally for the

Caribbean (Wilson 2007:13). Extreme weather conditions would have prompted prehistoric peoples to look for relatively sheltered areas. This is perhaps why with this model sites were more likely to occur in areas of 22%-39% slope, rather than 0-22% slope. This seems similar result to Reid‟s observation (2003:141) that Trinidad sites were most likely to occur in areas of some relief. Hurricanes may also explain the preferences for south facing areas and for the clustering seen around Santiago and Guantánamo Bay.

The south facing areas of the mountains would, in general, lie to the leeward side of the mountains. It is true that Santiago and Guantánamo Bay are within proximity of mangroves and occur at low elevations, but these bays may also act as natural windbreaks. In addition, sites may have been clustered together for protection. Family groups may have traveled to nearby relatives in the event of a major hurricane.

There may be other explanations for cultural group and site type distributions as well. Keegan (1992:72) offers an explanation of settlement spacing on Caribbean islands.

Initially, sites are randomly distributed, most likely in the areas of best environmental fit, and then evolve to clustered distribution as sites fill in spaces between those initial settlements. Finally, there is inter-settlement competition. The pattern of sites in the study area seems to fit the first two stages of the settlement pattern. The initial movement of peoples into the area, the Ciboney, appears around Santiago and Guantánamo Bays in the study area, although there were some sites occurring in caves on each end of the study area as well. These sites are most likely to be affiliated with the Guayo Blanco “aspect”

174

as they preferred caves to open air sites (see the section on Cuban classification system).

As first the Mayari and then the Sub-Taino came to dominate, their sites filled in around those initial Ciboney sites. The Mayari and Sub-Taino still principally chose fishing and marine/estuarine resources for their subsistence, although they possessed agriculture. The

Sub-Taino, in fact, were the principal cultural group for the study area, of those sites that were identified as associated with a cultural group.

With the shift to the Taino, however, there appears a greater change in lifestyles.

Their sites shifted inland. With this cultural group came the hierarchical political organization seen at the time of contact (see Figure 3). Three political units controlled the study area, perhaps as a natural extension of site organization present before centralized authority/inter-settlement competition. It is the Taino sites that are most likely to not follow the general pattern described in this thesis.

The pattern exhibited by the study area appears to be one of initial settlement randomly distributed in areas of best environmental fit, which in this case were relatively sheltered bays that offered low elevations, marine/estuarine foodstuffs, and nearby lithic raw material. As the second wave of immigrants entered Cuba, the initial intersite distances were filled in by peoples drawn to those same environmental conditions, as well as peoples beginning to organize political and socially. With the shifts in cultural domination came, perhaps, shifts in site location preference. As the Taino came into power, possibly the events described by Rouse‟s model did in fact occur: the sites belonged to two different modes of subsistence, and the interior, agricultural groups had political dominance over the coastal fishermen (Rouse 1942:146-147).

175

Avenues for Further Research

It is hoped that despite the „simplification of reality‟ that this model represents, it will in fact provide avenues for further work and research in the study area. One potential area of interest is the construction of another predictive model using some of the same evidence themes, but using the categories that identified during the visual analysis. As mentioned, one factor that was not a part of the original model was slopes of 22%-39%.

This category had the most site occurrences within the GIS analysis, and it appears to fit in with other local, national, and regional site patterns. It would be interesting to test this category for statistical significance.

Predictive factors could also be added or modified for the study region. Cooper and Peros (2010) took into consideration paleo-precipitation rates. This could be factored into the model, and may explain site distribution patterns as well. Additionally, some factors could be modified. For instance, Tabio and Rey (1966) state that Sub-Taino and

Taino sites were typically in the alluvial plains of rivers. However, the results of my weights testing seemed to suggest that the 1600 m buffer around rivers had a strong negative correlation with site occurrence. This is either an error or perhaps the interval should be changed. Potentially, one might construct a model that looks specifically at changes in site occurrence with regard to cultural group, such as a shift from Sub-Taino to Taino, although this might require additional fieldwork to establish the cultural affiliations of sites.

Another predictive model could be constructed to the north of the study area with a focus on the savannah and plains, and compared to the model developed here. Are the sites in this region more likely to be Sub-Taino or Taino (as food producers)? If so, is

176

there any evidence that these interior agricultural groups dominated the coastal fisherman? Are these sites tied to subsistence patterns that are consistent with the pattern recognized in this research? Rouse conducted a settlement pattern study in the Maniabon

Hills in 1942, which lie to the north of the study area. He pointed out patterns that seem similar to the ones identified in this study. If a GIS survey was done on the Maniabon

Hills in a similar fashion to the present work, then compared, further insight into the interactions of the peoples in prehistoric Cuba may be gained.

The final step in any predictive model should be to test the model. The testing of the model by academic archaeologists in North America and Cuba, as well as CRM professionals in that region and at GTMO would be extremely valuable. No model can pinpoint exactly where sites are, but it is hoped that this model considerably narrows the field. Any person concerned with the prehistory of the southeastern coast of Cuba could potentially benefit from validation of this model.

177

Appendix A: Metadata for SRTM (Elevation, Slope, Aspect and Hillshade) data

Horizontal coordinate system Number of records: 0 Geographic coordinate system name: Attributes GCS_WGS_1984 OID Details Alias: OID Bounding coordinates Data type: OID Horizontal Width: 4 In decimal degrees Precision: 0 West: -280801.500000 Scale: 0 East: -266398.500000 Definition: North: 75601.500000 Internal feature number. South: 68398.500000 Definition Source: In projected or local coordinates ESRI Left: -280801.500000 Value Right: -266398.500000 Alias: Value Top: 75601.500000 Data type: Integer Bottom: 68398.500000 Width: 9 Spatial data description Precision: 9 Raster dataset information Scale: 0 Raster format: TIFF Red SDTS raster type: Pixel Alias: Red Number of raster bands: 1 Data type: Double Raster properties Width: 19 Origin location: Upper Left Precision: 0 Has pyramids: TRUE Scale: 0 Has colormap: TRUE Green Data compression type: None Alias: Green Display type: pixel codes Data type: Double Cell information Width: 19 Number of cells on x-axis: 4801 Precision: 0 Number of cells on y-axis: 2401 Scale: 0 Number of cells on z-axis: 1 Blue Number of bits per cell: 16 Alias: Blue Cell Size Data type: Double X distance: 3.000000 Width: 19 Y distance: 3.000000 Precision: 0 Details for srtmTIF.vat Scale: 0 Type of object: Table Count

178

Alias: Count Data type: Double Width: 19 Precision: 0 Scale: 0 Opacity Alias: Opacity Data type: Double Width: 19 Precision: 0 Scale:

179

Appendix B: Metadata for River data

Horizontal coordinate system Feature class: SDTS feature type, feature Geographic coordinate system name: count GCS_WGS_1984 river: String, 608 Details Details for river Geographic Coordinate System Type of object: Feature Class Latitude Resolution: 0.000000 Number of records: 608 Longitude Resolution: 0.000000 Attributes Geographic Coordinate Units: Decimal FID degrees Alias: FID Geodetic Model Data type: OID Horizontal Datum Name: D_WGS_1984 Width: 4 Ellipsoid Name: WGS_1984 Precision: 0 Semi-major Axis: 6378137.000000 Scale: 0 Denominator of Flattening Ratio: Definition: 298.257224 Internal feature number. Bounding coordinates Definition Source: Horizontal ESRI In decimal degrees Shape West: -82.500000 Alias: Shape East: -74.143700 Data type: Geometry North: 23.185080 Width: 0 South: 19.871098 Precision: 0 In projected or local coordinates Scale: 0 Left: -82.500000 Definition: Right: -74.143700 Feature geometry. Top: 23.185080 Definition Source: Bottom: 19.871098 ESRI Spatial data description CONTINENT Vector data information Alias: CONTINENT ESRI description river Data type: String ESRI feature type: Simple Width: 15 Geometry type: Polyline HYDROCAT Topology: FALSE Alias: HYDROCAT Feature count: 608 Data type: String Spatial Index: FALSE Width: 38 Linear referencing: FALSE FEATTYPE SDTS description

180

Alias: FEATTYPE Alias: COUNTRY Data type: String Data type: String Width: 12 Width: 4 COUNTRY

181

Appendix C: Landsat 7 (vegetation) data

Classified_ls7center5TIF South: 19.265935 Horizontal coordinate system In projected or local coordinates Projected coordinate system name: Left: 315585.000000 WGS_1984_UTM_Zone_18N Right: 559815.000000 Geographic coordinate system name: Top: 2344815.000000 GCS_WGS_1984 Bottom: 2131185.000000 Details Spatial data description Grid Coordinate System Name: Raster dataset information Universal Transverse Mercator Raster format: TIFF UTM Zone Number: 18 SDTS raster type: Pixel Transverse Mercator Projection Number of raster bands: 1 Scale Factor at Central Meridian: Raster properties 0.999600 Origin location: Upper Left Longitude of Central Meridian: - Has pyramids: TRUE 75.000000 Has colormap: TRUE Latitude of Projection Origin: 0.000000 Data compression type: None False Easting: 500000.000000 Display type: pixel codes False Northing: 0.000000 Cell information Planar Coordinate Information Number of cells on x-axis: 8141 Planar Distance Units: meters Number of cells on y-axis: 7121 Coordinate Encoding Method: row and Number of cells on z-axis: 1 column Number of bits per cell: 8 Coordinate Representation Cell Size Abscissa Resolution: 30.000000 X distance: 30.000000 Ordinate Resolution: 30.000000 Y distance: 30.000000 Geodetic Model Details for Horizontal Datum Name: D_WGS_1984 classified_ls7center5TIF.vat Ellipsoid Name: WGS_1984 Type of object: Table Semi-major Axis: 6378137.000000 Number of records: 13 Denominator of Flattening Ratio: Attributes 298.257224 OID Bounding coordinates Alias: OID Horizontal Data type: OID In decimal degrees Width: 4 West: -76.776548 Precision: 0 East: -74.423683 Scale: 0 North: 21.204812 Definition:

182

Internal feature number. Classified_ls7east11TIF Definition Source: Horizontal coordinate system ESRI Projected coordinate system name: Value WGS_1984_UTM_Zone_18N Alias: Value Geographic coordinate system name: Data type: Integer GCS_WGS_1984 Width: 9 Details Precision: 9 Grid Coordinate System Name: Scale: 0 Universal Transverse Mercator Red UTM Zone Number: 18 Alias: Red Transverse Mercator Projection Data type: Double Scale Factor at Central Meridian: Width: 19 0.999600 Precision: 0 Longitude of Central Meridian: - Scale: 0 75.000000 Green Latitude of Projection Origin: 0.000000 Alias: Green False Easting: 500000.000000 Data type: Double False Northing: 0.000000 Width: 19 Planar Coordinate Information Precision: 0 Planar Distance Units: meters Scale: 0 Coordinate Encoding Method: row and Blue column Alias: Blue Coordinate Representation Data type: Double Abscissa Resolution: 30.000000 Width: 19 Ordinate Resolution: 30.000000 Precision: 0 Geodetic Model Scale: 0 Horizontal Datum Name: D_WGS_1984 Count Ellipsoid Name: WGS_1984 Alias: Count Semi-major Axis: 6378137.000000 Data type: Double Denominator of Flattening Ratio: Width: 19 298.257224 Precision: 0 Bounding coordinates Scale: 0 Horizontal Class_name In decimal degrees Alias: Class_name West: -75.210153 Data type: String East: -72.881052 Width: 128 North: 21.177706 Precision: 0 South: 19.256952 Scale: 0 In projected or local coordinates Opacity Left: 478185.000000 Alias: Opacity Right: 720015.000000 Data type: Double Top: 2341815.000000 Width: 19 Bottom: 2130585.000000 Precision: 0 Spatial data description Scale: 0 Raster dataset information Raster format: TIFF 183

SDTS raster type: Pixel Precision: 0 Number of raster bands: 1 Scale: 0 Raster properties Blue Origin location: Upper Left Alias: Blue Has pyramids: TRUE Data type: Double Has colormap: TRUE Width: 0 Data compression type: None Precision: 0 Display type: pixel codes Scale: 0 Cell information Count Number of cells on x-axis: 8061 Alias: Count Number of cells on y-axis: 7041 Data type: Double Number of cells on z-axis: 1 Width: 0 Number of bits per cell: 8 Precision: 0 Cell Size Scale: 0 X distance: 30.000000 Class_names Y distance: 30.000000 Alias: Class_names Details for classified_ls7east11TIF.vat Data type: String Type of object: Table Width: 128 Number of records: 13 Precision: 0 Attributes Scale: 0 ObjectID Opacity Alias: ObjectID Alias: Opacity Data type: OID Data type: Double Width: 4 Width: 0 Precision: 0 Precision: 0 Scale: 0 Scale: 0 Definition: Classified_ls7west20TIF Internal feature number. Horizontal coordinate system Definition Source: Projected coordinate system name: ESRI WGS_1984_UTM_Zone_18N Value Geographic coordinate system name: Alias: Value GCS_WGS_1984 Data type: Integer Details Width: 0 Grid Coordinate System Name: Precision: 0 Universal Transverse Mercator Scale: 0 UTM Zone Number: 18 Red Transverse Mercator Projection Alias: Red Scale Factor at Central Meridian: Data type: Double 0.999600 Width: 0 Longitude of Central Meridian: - Precision: 0 75.000000 Scale: 0 Latitude of Projection Origin: 0.000000 Green False Easting: 500000.000000 Alias: Green False Northing: 0.000000 Data type: Double Planar Coordinate Information Width: 0 Planar Distance Units: meters 184

Coordinate Encoding Method: row and ObjectID column Alias: ObjectID Coordinate Representation Data type: OID Abscissa Resolution: 30.000000 Width: 4 Ordinate Resolution: 30.000000 Precision: 0 Geodetic Model Scale: 0 Horizontal Datum Name: D_WGS_1984 Definition: Ellipsoid Name: WGS_1984 Internal feature number. Semi-major Axis: 6378137.000000 Definition Source: Denominator of Flattening Ratio: ESRI 298.257224 Value Bounding coordinates Alias: Value Horizontal Data type: Integer In decimal degrees Width: 0 West: -78.347289 Precision: 0 East: -75.972401 Scale: 0 North: 21.207363 Red South: 19.239046 Alias: Red In projected or local coordinates Data type: Double Left: 152385.000000 Width: 0 Right: 397815.000000 Precision: 0 Top: 2345415.000000 Scale: 0 Bottom: 2130585.000000 Green Spatial data description Alias: Green Raster dataset information Data type: Double Raster format: TIFF Width: 0 SDTS raster type: Pixel Precision: 0 Number of raster bands: 1 Scale: 0 Raster properties Blue Origin location: Upper Left Alias: Blue Has pyramids: TRUE Data type: Double Has colormap: TRUE Width: 0 Data compression type: None Precision: 0 Display type: pixel codes Scale: 0 Cell information Count Number of cells on x-axis: 8181 Alias: Count Number of cells on y-axis: 7161 Data type: Double Number of cells on z-axis: 1 Width: 0 Number of bits per cell: 8 Precision: 0 Cell Size Scale: 0 X distance: 30.000000 Class_names Y distance: 30.000000 Alias: Class_names Details for classified_ls7west20TIF.vat Data type: String Type of object: Table Width: 128 Number of records: 13 Precision: 0 Attributes Scale: 0 185

Opacity Width: 0 Alias: Opacity Precision: 0 Data type: Double Scale: 0

186

Appendix D: Metadata for Soil Polygon layer

Horizontal coordinate system South: 19.826455 Projected coordinate system name: In projected or local coordinates WGS_1984_UTM_Zone_18N Left: 213108.285454 Geographic coordinate system name: Right: 590431.047896 GCS_WGS_1984 Top: 2247218.834996 Details Bottom: 2194603.929407 Grid Coordinate System Name: Lineage Universal Transverse Mercator FGDC lineage UTM Zone Number: 18 Process step 1 Transverse Mercator Projection Process description: Dataset copied. Scale Factor at Central Meridian: Process date: 20110106 at time 0.999600 15430200 Longitude of Central Meridian: - ESRI geoprocessing history 75.000000 1. Process Latitude of Projection Origin: 0.000000 Date and time: 20110103 at time 125749 False Easting: 500000.000000 Tool location: C:\Program False Northing: 0.000000 Files\ArcGIS\ArcToolbox\Toolboxes\An Planar Coordinate Information alysis Tools.tbx\Clip Planar Distance Units: meters Command issued Coordinate Encoding Method: Clip "cuban soils" "C:\Documents and coordinate pair Settings\Crash Coordinate Representation Override\Desktop\Cuba\studyarea_mask Abscissa Resolution: 0.000000 .shp" G:\Cuba\Shapefiles\soilsclip.shp # Ordinate Resolution: 0.000000 Spatial data description Geodetic Model Vector data information Horizontal Datum Name: D_WGS_1984 ESRI description Ellipsoid Name: WGS_1984 soilclp_pro Semi-major Axis: 6378137.000000 ESRI feature type: Simple Denominator of Flattening Ratio: Geometry type: Polygon 298.257224 Topology: FALSE Bounding coordinates Feature count: 85 Horizontal Spatial Index: FALSE In decimal degrees Linear referencing: FALSE West: -77.747076 SDTS description East: -74.133758 Feature class: SDTS feature type, feature North: 20.322943 count

187

soilclp_pro: G-polygon, 85 Alias: Id Details for soilclp_pro Data type: Number Type of object: Feature Class Width: 6 Number of records: 85 soil_type Attributes Alias: soil_type FID Data type: String Alias: FID Width: 200 Data type: OID soil_name Width: 4 Alias: soil_name Precision: 0 Data type: String Scale: 0 Width: 100 Definition: rock_type Internal feature number. Alias: rock_type Definition Source: Data type: String ESRI Width: 50 Shape soil_order Alias: Shape Alias: soil_order Data type: Geometry Data type: String Width: 0 Width: 200 Precision: 0 Class Scale: 0 Alias: Class Definition: Data type: Number Feature geometry. Width: 2 Definition Source: Area ESRI Alias: Area Id Data type: Float Width: 19 Number of decimals: 11

188

Appendix E: Metadata for Rock polygon layer

Horizontal coordinate system In projected or local coordinates Projected coordinate system name: Left: 212392.103598 WGS_1984_UTM_Zone_18N Right: 592622.960794 Geographic coordinate system name: Top: 2247735.853398 GCS_WGS_1984 Bottom: 2195570.863113 Details Lineage Grid Coordinate System Name: FGDC lineage Universal Transverse Mercator Process step 1 UTM Zone Number: 18 Process description: Dataset moved. Transverse Mercator Projection Source used: S:\PUBLIC\Cuba\soil and Scale Factor at Central Meridian: geology maps\cuban geology 0.999600 Process date: 20100826 at time Longitude of Central Meridian: - 10384500 75.000000 Process step 2 Latitude of Projection Origin: 0.000000 Process description: Dataset copied. False Easting: 500000.000000 Process date: 20110109 at time False Northing: 0.000000 11454000 Planar Coordinate Information ESRI geoprocessing history Planar Distance Units: meters 1. Process Coordinate Encoding Method: Date and time: 20110108 at time 213247 coordinate pair Tool location: C:\Program Coordinate Representation Files\ArcGIS\ArcToolbox\Toolboxes\An Abscissa Resolution: 0.000000 alysis Tools.tbx\Clip Ordinate Resolution: 0.000000 Command issued Geodetic Model Clip "cuban geology" studyarea_mask Horizontal Datum Name: D_WGS_1984 G:\Shapefiles\geoclp.shp # Ellipsoid Name: WGS_1984 Spatial data description Semi-major Axis: 6378137.000000 Vector data information Denominator of Flattening Ratio: ESRI description 298.257224 geo_clppro Bounding coordinates ESRI feature type: Simple Horizontal Geometry type: Polygon In decimal degrees Topology: FALSE West: -77.754010 Feature count: 30 East: -74.112737 Spatial Index: TRUE North: 20.327615 Linear referencing: FALSE South: 19.835078 SDTS description

189

Feature class: SDTS feature type, feature Alias: Class count Data type: Number geo_clppro: G-polygon, 30 Width: 4 Area Details for geo_clppro Alias: Area Type of object: Feature Class Data type: Float Number of records: 30 Width: 19 Attributes Number of decimals: 11 FID Alias: FID Data type: OID Width: 4 Precision: 0 Scale: 0 Definition: Internal feature number. Definition Source: ESRI Shape Alias: Shape Data type: Geometry Width: 0 Precision: 0 Scale: 0 Definition: Feature geometry. Definition Source: ESRI Id Alias: Id Data type: Number Width: 6 geo_type Alias: geo_type Data type: String Width: 200 geo_name Alias: geo_name Data type: String Width: 50 period Alias: period Data type: String Width: 50 Class

190

Appendix F: Artifact Catalog: Ceramics

Site #: GTMO 1 Lot and Specimen #: A17 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 7.5 YR 5/3 brown Color: exterior: 5 YR 5/3 reddish brown Color: core: 7.5 YR 4/2 brown Hardness (Moh's): 2.0-3.0 Thickness: 5.8 Weight: 11.5 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: Cross-section description: sorting: 3, frequency: 5%, similar composition to int/ext Particle size category (USDA): medium Frequency: 10% Sorting: 3 Roundness: 3 (low sphericity) Fracture: smooth Texture: fine Feel: smooth Surface finish: Smoothed Notes: Some darker colored rock inclusions-more quartz?

Lot and Specimen #: F14 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 10 YR 5/4 yellowish brown Color: exterior: 10 YR 5/4 yellowish brown Color: core: 2.5 YR 4/3 reddish brown Hardness (Moh's): 1.0-2.0 Thickness: 7.3 Weight: 5.3 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: Cross-section description: sorting: 4, frequency: 5%, similar composition to int/ext Particle size category (USDA): coarse Frequency: 10% Sorting: 3 Roundness: 2 (low sphericity) Fracture: irregular Texture: coarse Feel: harsh Surface finish: Smoothed Notes:

Lot and Specimen #: H18 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 10 YR 6/4 lt. yellowish brown Color: exterior: 10 YR 5/4 yellowish brown Color: core: 2.5 YR 4/1 dark gray Hardness (Moh's): 2.0-3.0 Thickness: 5.3 Weight: 3.8 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: Cross-section description: sorting: 3, frequency: 5%, similar composition to int/ext Particle size category (USDA): coarse Frequency: 5% Sorting: 3 Roundness: 3 (low sphericity) Fracture: smooth Texture: medium Feel: smooth Surface finish: Smoothed Notes:

191

Lot and Specimen #: H19 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 5 YR 5/4 reddish brown Color: exterior: 5 YR 4/3 reddish brown Color: core: 7.5 YR 4/2 brown Hardness (Moh's): 2.0-3.0 Thickness: 4.6 Weight: 3.2 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: Cross-section description: sorting: 3, frequency: 10%, similar to int, less inclusions than ext Particle size category (USDA): coarse Frequency: 10% Sorting: 2 Roundness: 3 (high sphericity) Fracture: smooth Texture: coarse Feel: rough Surface finish: Smoothed Notes: Interior surface smoother than exterior (though still rough).

Lot and Specimen #: H20 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 5 YR 4/4 reddish brown Color: exterior: 5 YR 4/3 reddish brown Color: core: 5 YR 3/2 dark reddish brown Hardness (Moh's): 2.0-3.0 Thickness: 4.4 Weight: 1.5 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: Cross-section description: sorting: 3, frequency: 5%, less inclusions than int/ext Particle size category (USDA): medium Frequency: 10% Sorting: 2 Roundness: 2 (high sphericity) Fracture: smooth Texture: coarse Feel: harsh Surface finish: Smoothed Notes: Interior surface smoother than exterior. Appears to have two "layers" w/ int surface having fewer inclusions than ext.

Lot and Specimen #: H21 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 10 YR 6/3 pale brown Color: exterior: 5 YR 5/6 yellowish red Color: core: 7.5 YR 4/4 brown Hardness (Moh's):3.0-4.0 Thickness: 8.3 Weight: 3.4 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: Cross-section description: sorting: 3, frequency: 10%, similar to ext, less inclusions than int Particle size category (USDA): medium Frequency: 10% Sorting: 2 Roundness: 2 (low sphericity) Fracture: smooth Texture: coarse Feel: rough Surface finish: smoothed Notes: Interior surface more poorly sorted than exterior.

Lot and Specimen #: H22 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 5 YR 4/4 reddish brown Color: exterior: 7.5 YR 5/3 brown Color: core: 7.5 YR 5/3 brown Hardness (Moh's): 4.0-5.0 Thickness: 4 Weight: 0.7 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: Cross-section description: sorting: 3, frequency: 10%, similar composition to int/ext 192

Particle size category (USDA): medium Frequency: 10% Sorting: 3 Roundness: 2 (low sphericity) Fracture: smooth Texture: coarse Feel: rough Surface finish: Smoothed Notes:

Lot and Specimen #: H23 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 7.5 YR 5/4 brown Color: exterior: 10 YR 4/2 dark grayish brown Color: core: 7.5 YR 5/4 brown Hardness (Moh's): 4.0-5.0 Thickness: 8.8 Weight: 3.2 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: Cross-section description: sorting: 2, frequency: 10%, similar composition to int/ext Particle size category (USDA): coarse Frequency: 10% Sorting: 3 Roundness: 3 (low sphericity) Fracture: smooth Texture: coarse Feel: rough Surface finish: Smoothed Notes: Exterior surface rougher than interior.

Lot and Specimen #: I8 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 5 YR 4/4 reddish brown Color: exterior: 10 YR 5/4 yellowish brown Color: core: 2.5 YR 4/1 dark gray Hardness (Moh's): 3.0-4.0 Thickness: 5.3 Weight: 1.8 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: Cross-section description: sorting: 2, frequency: 10%, similar composition to int/ext Particle size category (USDA): coarse Frequency: 10% Sorting: 2 Roundness: 2 (high sphericity) Fracture: smooth Texture: coarse Feel: harsh Surface finish: Notes: Interior more reddish than exterior.

Lot and Specimen #: L1 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 10 YR 6/3 pale brown Color: exterior: 10 YR 5/4 yellowish brown Color: core: 7.5 YR 3/2 dark brown Hardness (Moh's): 2.0-3.0 Thickness: 6.7 Weight: 7 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: chert Cross-section description: sorting: 4, frequency: 5%, similar composition to int/ext Particle size category (USDA): fine Frequency: 5% Sorting: 4 Roundness: 3 (low sphericity) Fracture: smooth Texture: fine Feel: smooth Surface finish: Smoothed Notes: One large inclusion 3 mm-chert, several other large inclusions, although overall very well sorted.

Lot and Specimen #: L2 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 10 YR 6/4 lt. yellowish brown Color: exterior: 5 YR 4/4 reddish brown Color: core: 10 YR 4/1 dark gray 193

Hardness (Moh's):2.0-3.0 Thickness: 4.7 Weight: 2.3 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: Cross-section description: sorting: 4, frequency: 5%, similar composition to int/ext, although w/ a few larger inclusions Particle size category (USDA): fine Frequency: 5% Sorting: 4 Roundness: 3 (low sphericity) Fracture: smooth Texture: medium Feel: smooth Surface finish: Smoothed Notes: Exterior surface smoother than interior. One elongated void on exterior surface (approx. 8 mm long).

Lot and Specimen #: L3 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 10 YR 5/4 yellowish brown Color: exterior: 10 YR 5/3 brown Color: core: 10 YR 4/1 dark gray Hardness (Moh's): 2.0-3.0 Thickness: 6.2 Weight: 2.3 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: chert Cross-section description: sorting: 4, frequency: 5%, similar composition to int/ext Particle size category (USDA): fine Frequency: 5% Sorting: 4 Roundness: 3 (low sphericity) Fracture: smooth Texture: medium Feel: rough Surface finish: Smoothed Notes:

Lot and Specimen #: L4 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 7.5 YR 5/4 brown Color: exterior: 10 YR 5/3 brown Color: core: 10 YR 4/3 brown Hardness (Moh's): 2.0-3.0 Thickness: 5.5 Weight: 1.9 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: Cross-section description: sorting: 3, frequency: 5%, similar composition to int/ext Particle size category (USDA): medium Frequency: 5% Sorting: 3 Roundness: 3 (low sphericity) Fracture: smooth Texture: medium Feel: rough Surface finish: Smoothed Notes:

Lot and Specimen #: L5 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 2.5 YR 6/4 lt. yellowish brown Color: exterior: 2.5 YR 6/4 lt. yellowish brown Color: core: 5 YR 3/1 very dark gray Hardness (Moh's): 2.0-3.0 Thickness: 4.9 Weight: 2.4 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: Cross-section description: sorting: 4, frequency: 5%, similar composition to int/ext Particle size category (USDA): fine Frequency: 5% Sorting: 4 Roundness: 4 (low sphericity) Fracture: smooth Texture: fine Feel: smooth Surface finish: Smoothed Notes:

194

Lot and Specimen #: L6 Vessel Part: not an artifact-rock Decoration: Color: interior: Color: exterior: Color: core: Hardness (Moh's): Thickness: Weight: Temper: Raw material #1: Raw material #2: Cross-section description: Particle size category (USDA): Frequency: Sorting: Roundness: Fracture: Texture: Feel: Surface finish: Notes: Discard-not pottery.

Lot and Specimen #: L7 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 10 YR 6/4 lt. yellowish brown Color: exterior: 7.5 YR 5/4 brown Color: core: 7.5 YR 4/1 dark gray Hardness (Moh's): 2.0-3.0 Thickness: 4.8 Weight: 2.2 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: Cross-section description: sorting: 3, frequency: 5%, similar composition to int/ext Particle size category (USDA): fine Frequency: 5% Sorting: 4 Roundness: 3 (low sphericity) Fracture: smooth Texture: fine Feel: smooth Surface finish: Smoothed Notes: A few larger quartz inclusions.

Lot and Specimen #: L8 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 10 YR 5/4 yellowish brown Color: exterior: 10 YR 6/4 lt. yellowish brown Color: core: 7.5 YR 4/1 dark gray Hardness (Moh's): 1.0-2.0 Thickness: 4.8 Weight: 3.2 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: chert Cross-section description: sorting: 3, frequency: 5%, similar composition to int/ext Particle size category (USDA): medium Frequency: 5% Sorting: 3 Roundness: 3 (low sphericity) Fracture: smooth Texture: fine Feel: smooth Surface finish: Smoothed Notes: A few larger quartz inclusions.

Lot and Specimen #: L9 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 2.5 YR 6/4 lt. yellowish brown Color: exterior: 2.5 YR 5/4 lt. olive brown Color: core: 10 YR 4/1 dark gray Hardness (Moh's): 1.0-2.0 Thickness: 5.4 Weight: 2.6 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: chert Cross-section description: sorting: 4, frequency: 5%, similar composition to int/ext Particle size category (USDA): fine Frequency: 5% Sorting: 4 Roundness: 3 (low sphericity) Fracture: smooth Texture: fine Feel: smooth Surface finish: Smoothed Notes: A few chert inclusions. 195

Lot and Specimen #: L10 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 7.5 YR 5/4 brown Color: exterior: 10 YR 5/3 brown Color: core: 10 YR 4/2 dark grayish brown Hardness (Moh's): 2.0-3.0 Thickness: 6 Weight: 3.4 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: Cross-section description: sorting: 3, frequency: 5%, similar composition to int/ext Particle size category (USDA): medium Frequency: 5% Sorting: 3 Roundness: 3 (high sphericity) Fracture: smooth Texture: fine Feel: smooth Surface finish: Smoothed Notes: A few larger quartz inclusions.

Lot and Specimen #: L11 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 10 YR 5/3 brown Color: exterior: 7.5 YR 5/3 brown Color: core: 10 YR 4/1 dark gray Hardness (Moh's): 2.0-3.0 Thickness: 5.1 Weight: 1.2 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: Cross-section description: sorting: 3, frequency: 5%, similar composition to int/ext Particle size category (USDA): medium Frequency: 5% Sorting: 3 Roundness: 2 (low sphericity) Fracture: smooth Texture: medium Feel: rough Surface finish: Smoothed Notes:

Lot and Specimen #: L12 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 10 YR 5/4 yellowish brown Color: exterior: 7.5 YR 5/4 brown Color: core: 10 YR 4/1 dark gray Hardness (Moh's): 1.0-2.0 Thickness: 4.5 Weight: 1.1 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: Cross-section description: sorting: 4, frequency: 5%, similar composition to int/ext Particle size category (USDA): medium Frequency: 5% Sorting: 2 Roundness: 2 (low sphericity) Fracture: smooth Texture: medium Feel: smooth Surface finish: Smoothed Notes: A few larger quartz inclusions.

Lot and Specimen #: M36 Vessel Part: rim Decoration: plain Color: interior: 10 YR 5/3 brown Color: exterior: 10 YR 5/3 brown Color: core: 10 YR 3/1 very dark gray Hardness (Moh's): 2.0-3.0 Thickness: 4.5 Weight: 0.7 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: chert Cross-section description: sorting: 3, frequency: 5%, similar composition to int/ext Particle size category (USDA): medium Frequency: 10% Sorting: 2 Roundness: 2 (low sphericity) Fracture: smooth 196

Texture: medium Feel: smooth Surface finish: Smoothed Notes: A few larger inclusions, one large (2.8 mm) oval shaped void on core.

Lot and Specimen #: M37 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 2.5 YR 6/4 lt. yellowish brown Color: exterior: 10 YR 5/3 brown Color: core: 2.5 YR 5/1 gray Hardness (Moh's): 2.0-3.0 Thickness: 7.8 Weight: 5.2 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: chert Cross-section description: sorting: 4, frequency: 5%, similar composition to int/ext Particle size category (USDA): medium Frequency: 10% Sorting: 3 Roundness: 2 (low sphericity) Fracture: smooth Texture: medium Feel: rough Surface finish: Smoothed Notes:

Lot and Specimen #: M38 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 2.5 YR 6/4 lt. yellowish brown Color: exterior: 7.5 YR 5/3 brown Color: core: 2.5 YR 5/1 gray Hardness (Moh's): 2.0-3.0 Thickness: 5.6 Weight: 4.9 Temper: Raw material #1: chert Raw material #2: Cross-section description: sorting: 4, frequency: 5%, similar composition to int/ext Particle size category (USDA): fine Frequency: 5% Sorting: 4 Roundness: 2 (low sphericity) Fracture: smooth Texture: fine Feel: smooth Surface finish: Smoothed Notes:

Lot and Specimen #: M39 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 10 YR 6/4 lt. yellowish brown Color: exterior: 2.5 YR 6/3 lt. yellowish brown Color: core: 2.5 YR 4/1 dark gray Hardness (Moh's): 1.0-2.0 Thickness: 5.9 Weight: 2.9 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: chert

Cross-section description: sorting: 3, frequency: 5%, similar composition to int/ext Particle size category (USDA): coarse Frequency: 20% Sorting: 2 Roundness: 2 (low sphericity) Fracture: smooth Texture: coarse Feel: rough Surface finish: Smoothed Notes:

Lot and Specimen #: M40 Vessel Part: not an artifact discard Decoration: Color: interior: not an artifact-rock Color: exterior: Color: core: Hardness (Moh's): Thickness: Weight: Temper: Raw material #1: Raw material #2: 197

Cross-section description: Particle size category (USDA): Frequency: Sorting: Roundness: Fracture: Texture: Feel: Surface finish: Notes: Not an artifact-discard.

Lot and Specimen #: M41 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 10 YR 6/4 lt. yellowish brown Color: exterior: 7.5 YR 5/4 brown Color: core: 7.5 YR 4/2 brown Hardness (Moh's): 2.0-3.0 Thickness: 5 Weight: 1.7 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: sandstone? Cross-section description: sorting: 3, frequency: 5%, similar composition to int/ext Particle size category (USDA): medium Frequency: 10% Sorting: 3 Roundness: 3 (high sphericity) Fracture: smooth Texture: medium Feel: smooth Surface finish: Smoothed Notes:

Lot and Specimen #: M42 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 10 YR 5/4 yellowish brown Color: exterior: 7.5 YR 5/4 brown Color: core: 10 YR 4/2 dark grayish brown Hardness (Moh's): 2.0-3.0 Thickness: 5.2 Weight: 1.4 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: chert Cross-section description: sorting: 3, frequency: 5%, similar composition to int/ext Particle size category (USDA): medium Frequency: 10% Sorting: 3 Roundness: 4 (low sphericity) Fracture: smooth Texture: fine Feel: smooth Surface finish: Smoothed Notes: One large inclusion 3 mm-quartz.

Lot and Specimen #: M43 Vessel Part: rim Decoration: plain Color: interior: 10 YR 5/4 yellowish brown Color: exterior: 10 YR 5/4 yellowish brown Color: core: 10 YR 4/2 dark grayish brown Hardness (Moh's): 2.0-3.0 Thickness: 4.5 Weight: 1.4 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: chert Cross-section description: sorting: 3, frequency: 5%, similar composition to int/ext Particle size category (USDA): medium Frequency: 10% Sorting: 3 Roundness: 3 (low sphericity) Fracture: smooth Texture: medium Feel: rough Surface finish: Smoothed Notes:

Lot and Specimen #: M44 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 10 YR 5/4 yellowish brown Color: exterior: 10 YR 5/4 yellowish brown Color: core: 10 YR 4/2 dark grayish brown 198

Hardness (Moh's): 2.0-3.0 Thickness: 4.4 Weight: 0.8 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: Cross-section description: sorting: 4, frequency: 5%, similar composition to int/ext Particle size category (USDA): medium Frequency: 5% Sorting: 2 Roundness: 3 (low sphericity) Fracture: smooth Texture: coarse Feel: rough Surface finish: Smoothed Notes:

Lot and Specimen #: M45 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 10 YR 5/4 yellowish brown Color: exterior: 10 YR 5/4 yellowish brown Color: core: 10 YR 4/2 dark grayish brown Hardness (Moh's): 2.0-3.0 Thickness: 6.3 Weight: 1.6 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: Cross-section description: sorting: 4, frequency: 5%, similar composition to int/ext Particle size category (USDA): medium Frequency: 5% Sorting: 2 Roundness: 3 (low sphericity) Fracture: smooth Texture: coarse Feel: rough Surface finish: Smoothed Notes: A few larger quartz inclusions- 1 mm to 3 mm.

Lot and Specimen #: M46 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 10 YR 5/4 yellowish brown Color: exterior: 7.5 YR 5/4 brown Color: core: 10 YR 4/2 dark grayish brown Hardness (Moh's): 2.0-3.0 Thickness: 5.8 Weight: 1.1 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: Cross-section description: sorting: 4, frequency: 5%, similar composition to int/ext Particle size category (USDA): medium Frequency: 10% Sorting: 2 Roundness: 2 (low sphericity) Fracture: smooth Texture: coarse Feel: rough Surface finish: Smoothed Notes: A few larger quartz inclusions.

Lot and Specimen #: M47 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 10 YR 5/4 yellowish brown Color: exterior: 7.5 YR 5/4 brown Color: core: 10 YR 4/2 dark grayish brown Hardness (Moh's):2.0-3.0 Thickness: 5.9 Weight: 1.2 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: sand Cross-section description: sorting: 3, frequency: 5%, similar composition to int/ext Particle size category (USDA): medium Frequency: 5% Sorting: 2 Roundness: 2 (low sphericity) Fracture: smooth Texture: medium Feel: smooth Surface finish: Smoothed Notes:

Lot and Specimen #: M48 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain 199

Color: interior: 2.5 YR 6/2 lt. brownish gray Color: exterior: 2.5 YR 5/3 lt. olive brown Color: core: 10 YR 5/1 gray Hardness (Moh's): 2.0-3.0 Thickness: 7 Weight: 2.2 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: chert Cross-section description: sorting: 2, frequency: 10%, similar composition to int/ext Particle size category (USDA): fine Frequency: 5% Sorting: 3 Roundness: 3 (low sphericity) Fracture: smooth Texture: coarse Feel: harsh Surface finish: Smoothed Notes: Sand inclusions.

Lot and Specimen #: M49 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 10 YR 5/4 yellowish brown Color: exterior: 2.5 YR 5/3 lt. olive brown Color: core: 2.5 YR 4/2 dark grayish brown Hardness (Moh's): 1.0-2.0 Thickness: 5.6 Weight: 1.1 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: Cross-section description: sorting: 3, frequency: 5%, similar composition to int/ext Particle size category (USDA): fine Frequency: 5% Sorting: 3 Roundness: 3 (low sphericity) Fracture: smooth Texture: medium Feel: rough Surface finish: Smoothed Notes:

Lot and Specimen #: Q4 Vessel Part: body Decoration: Incised Color: interior: 2.5 YR 5/3 lt. olive brown Color: exterior: 2.5 YR 5/4 lt. olive brown Color: core: 10 YR 4/3 brown Hardness (Moh's): 2.0-3.0 Thickness: 5.7 Weight: 4.5 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: black mineral Cross-section description: sorting: 2, frequency: 10%, similar composition to int/ext Particle size category (USDA): fine Frequency: 10% Sorting: 3 Roundness: 3 (low sphericity) Fracture: irregular Texture: medium Feel: rough Surface finish: Smoothed Notes: Three horizontal incisions. One diagonal incision running from upper left to lower right.

Lot and Specimen #: T3 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 2.5 YR 6/4 lt. yellowish brown Color: exterior: 2.5 YR 5/4 lt. olive brown Color: core: 7.5 YR 4/4 brown Hardness (Moh's): 2.0-3.0 Thickness: 10.1 Weight: 1.9 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: chert Cross-section description: sorting: 3, frequency: 10%, irregular fracture w/ "chunky" cross-section Particle size category (USDA): fine Frequency: 5% Sorting: 4 Roundness: 2 (low sphericity) Fracture: irregular Texture: medium Feel: smooth Surface finish: Smoothed 200

Notes: 3 mm black mineral inclusion.

Site #: GTMO 3 Lot and Specimen #: V2 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 7.5 YR 5/4 brown Color: exterior: 7.5 YR 5/4 brown Color: core: 10 YR 3/1 very dark gray Hardness (Moh's): 2.0-3.0 Thickness: 7.2 Weight: 10.1 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: sand/mica? Cross-section description: sorting: 2, frequency: 20%, different composition from int/ext Particle size category (USDA): fine Frequency: 5% Sorting: 2 Roundness: 2 (low sphericity) Fracture: irregular Texture: fine Feel: smooth Surface finish: Smoothed Notes: Many inclusions visible in cross section.

Lot and Specimen #: V3 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Thickness: Color: interior: 7.5 YR 5/4 brown Color: exterior: 7.5 YR 5/4 brown Color: core: 10 YR 3/1 very dark gray Hardness (Moh's): 3.0-4.0 Thickness: 6.4 Weight: 17.5 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: Cross-section description: sorting: 2, frequency 10%, similar composition to int/ext Particle size category (USDA): fine Frequency: 5% Sorting: 4 Roundness: 2 (high sphericity) Fracture: smooth Texture: fine Feel: smooth Surface finish: Smoothed Notes: Very large quartz inclusion on core (4.5mm).

Lot and Specimen #: V4 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 7.5 YR 5/4 brown Color: exterior: 7.5 YR 5/3 brown Color: core: 7.5 YR 5/4 brown Hardness (Moh's): 2.0-3.0 Thickness: 9.2 Weight: 2.9 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: mica Cross-section description: sorting: 2, frequency: 10%, similar composition to int, different from ext Particle size category (USDA): fine Frequency: 5% Sorting: 3 Roundness: 2 (high sphericity) Fracture: irregular Texture: fine Feel: smooth Surface finish: Smoothed Notes: Very large quartz inclusion (4.3 mm) on core. Ext appears smoothed.

Lot and Specimen #: V5 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 7.5 YR 5/4 brown Color: exterior: 7.5 YR 4/3 brown Color: core: 7.5 YR 4/3 brown Hardness (Moh‟s): 3.0-4.0 Thickness: 5.9 Weight: 4.2 201

Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: mica Cross-section description: sorting: 2, frequency: 10%, similar composition to int/ext Particle size category (USDA): fine Frequency: 5% Sorting: 3 Roundness: 3 (high sphericity) Fracture: smooth Texture: fine Feel: smooth Surface finish: Smoothed Notes:

Lot and Specimen #: V6 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 10 YR 5/3 brown Color: exterior: 7.5 YR 5/4 brown Color: core: 10 YR 4/1 dark gray Hardness (Moh's): 2.0-3.0 Thickness: 5 Weight: 7.4 Temper: Raw material #1: mica Raw material #2: quartz Cross-section description: sorting: 3, frequency: 5%, similar composition to int/ext Particle size category (USDA): fine Frequency: 5% Sorting: 4 Roundness: 3 (high sphericity) Fracture: smooth Texture: fine Feel: smooth Surface finish: Smoothed Notes: Artifacts V2-V6 all very similar in sorting, particle size, temper, and texture. May be from same pot.

Lot and Specimen #: V7 Vessel Part: shoulder Decoration: plain Color: interior: 10 YR 4/2 dark grayish brown Color: exterior: 7.5 YR 5/4 brown Color: core: 2.5 YR 2.5/1 black Hardness (Moh's): 3.0-4.0 Thickness: 9.7 Weight: 8 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: mica Cross-section description: sorting: 1, frequency: 30%, "chunky" appearance, very different composition Particle size category (USDA): very coarse Frequency: 20% Sorting: 1 Roundness: 2 (high sphericity) Fracture: irregular Texture: fine Feel: smooth Surface finish: Smoothed Notes: Many inclusions visible in cross section. Int/ext surfaces appear "crazed". Appears to have been a shoulder piece where a piece of lip has broken off. Many large inclusions visible in break area.

Lot and Specimen #: V8 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 5 YR 5/2 reddish gray Color: exterior: 5 YR 5/3 reddish brown Color: core: 2.5 YR 4/4 reddish brown Hardness (Moh's): 2.0-3.0 Thickness: 6.6 Weight: 5.9 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: Cross-section description: sorting: 2, frequency: 10%, similar composition to int/ext Particle size category (USDA): fine Frequency: 5% Sorting: 4 Roundness: 4 (high sphericity) Fracture: smooth Texture: fine Feel: smooth Surface finish: Smoothed Notes: Similar to V2-V6. 202

Lot and Specimen #: V9 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 5 YR 5/4 reddish brown Color: exterior: 5 YR 5/3 reddish brown Color: core: 7.5 YR 5/2 brown Hardness (Moh's): 2.0-3.0 Thickness: 9.6 Weight: 4.3 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: Cross-section description: sorting: 1, frequency: 30%, "chunky" appearance, very different composition Particle size category (USDA): fine Frequency: 5% Sorting: 4 Roundness: 4 (high sphericity) Fracture: irregular Texture: fine Feel: smooth Surface finish: Smoothed Notes: Interior/exterior surfaces appear "crazed." Ext/Int surfaces smooth, cross section has numerous large inclusions (3-4mm), with a "plate-y" appearance. Similar to V7.

Lot and Specimen #: V10 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 7.5 YR 5/4 brown Color: exterior: 10 YR 5/2 grayish brown Color: core: 2.5 YR 3/1 very dark gray Hardness (Moh's): 2.0-3.0 Thickness: 6.8 Weight: 9.7 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: mica

Cross-section description: sorting: 1, frequency: 10%, similar composition to int/ext, "plate-y" appearance Particle size category (USDA): very fine Frequency: 5% Sorting: 5 Roundness: 2 (low sphericity) Fracture: irregular Texture: fine Feel: smooth Surface finish: Smoothed Notes: Some "crazing" on int/ext surfaces. Cross section looks "plate-y." very large "plate-like (mica?) Inclusions (4.5 mm) visible.

Lot and Specimen #: V11 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 10 YR 4/2 dark grayish brown Color: exterior: 10 YR 5/3 brown Color: core: 10 YR 3/1 very dark gray Hardness (Moh's): 2.0-3.0 Thickness: 6.6 Weight: 4.5 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: Cross-section description: sorting: 1, frequency: 10%, similar composition to int/ext, "plate-y" appearance Particle size category (USDA): very fine Frequency: 5% Sorting: 4 Roundness: 2 (high sphericity) Fracture: irregular Texture: fine Feel: smooth Surface finish: Smoothed Notes: Very large inclusion on interior surface (5 mm by 6.7 mm). Some crazing on int/ext surfaces. Similar to V10.

Lot and Specimen #: V12 203

Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Site #: GTMO 3 Color: interior: 10 YR 5/4 yellowish brown Color: exterior: 10 YR 4/2 dark grayish brown Color: core: 10 YR 3/2 very dark grayish Hardness (Moh's): 2.0-3. 0 Thickness: 5.5 Weight: 4.5 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: Cross-section description: sorting: 3, frequency: 5%, similar composition to int/ext Particle size category (USDA): fine Frequency: 5% Sorting: 3 Roundness: 3 (low sphericity) Fracture: smooth Texture: fine Feel: smooth Surface finish: Smoothed Notes:

Lot and Specimen #: V13 Vessel Part: shoulder Decoration: plain Color: interior: 10 YR 5/4 yellowish brown Color: exterior: 10 YR 5/4 yellowish brown Color: core: 10 YR 5/4 yellowish brown Hardness (Moh's): 2.0-3.0 Thickness: 8.3 Weight: 1.7 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: Cross-section description: sorting: 2, frequency: 5%, similar composition to int/ext Particle size category (USDA): fine Frequency: 5% Sorting: 4 Roundness: 2 (high sphericity) Fracture: smooth Texture: fine Feel: smooth Surface finish: Smoothed Notes:

Lot and Specimen #: V14 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 5 YR 5/6 yellowish red Color: exterior: 5 YR 5/2 reddish gray Color: core: 7.5 YR 2.5/1 black Hardness (Moh's): 2.0-3.0 Thickness: 6.6 Weight: 1.6 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: mica Cross-section description: sorting: 1, frequency: 20%, different composition from int/ext Particle size category (USDA): fine Frequency: 5% Sorting: 3 Roundness: 2 (high sphericity) Fracture: irregular Texture: fine Feel: smooth Surface finish: Smoothed Notes: Similar to V7, V9-V10.

Lot and Specimen #: V15 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 10 YR 5/4 yellowish brown Color: exterior: 7.5 YR 4/4 brown Color: core: 10 YR 4/1 dark gray Hardness (Moh's): 3.0-4.0 Thickness: 7 Weight: 2.4 Temper: Raw material #1: quartz Raw material #2: Cross-section description: sorting: 3, frequency: 5%, "plate-y" appearance Particle size category (USDA): fine Frequency: 5% Sorting: 3 Roundness: 3 (high sphericity) Fracture: smooth Texture: medium Feel: smooth Surface finish: Smoothed Notes: Similar to V10. 204

Lot and Specimen #: V16 Vessel Part: body Decoration: plain Color: interior: 10 YR 5/3 brown Color: exterior: 7.5 YR 4/4 brown Color: core: 7.5 YR 4/1 dark gray Hardness (Moh's): 2.0-3.0 Thickness: 5.9 Weight: 3.6 Temper: Raw material #1: mica Raw material #2: quartz Cross-section description: sorting: 3, frequency: 5% similar composition to int/ext Particle size category (USDA): very fine Frequency: 5% Sorting: 5 Roundness: 4 (high sphericity) Fracture: smooth Texture: fine Feel: smooth Surface finish: Smoothed Notes:

205

Appendix G: Artifact Catalog: Lithics

Site # GTMO 1 Type: Core Lot and Specimen# A7 SubType: Amorphous multi-directional Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 402 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 92.5 Patina: Yes Patina description: 10 YR 4/4 white Raw material Type: Andesite Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 2.5 YR 4/3 olive brown Notes: Large unexhausted core tool.

Lot and Specimen# B7 SubType: Amorphous multi-directional Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 8.71 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 27 Patina: Yes Patina description: 7.5 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Fine grade Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 6/8 brownish yellow Notes: Contains Cortex.

Lot and Specimen# E3 SubType: Amorphous multi-directional Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 22.74 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: Yes - Maximum dimension: 37.64 Patina: Yes Patina description: 7.5 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Quartzite Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 5 YR 6/4 light brown Notes

Lot and Specimen# G1 SubType: Amorphous multi-directional Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 231.84 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 76 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Basalt Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 5 YR 4/2 olive gray Notes: Cortex present centripetal reduction (possibly).

206

Lot and Specimen# G4 SubType: Amorphous multi-directional Variety: n/a Usewear: Yes Weight: 46.38 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 57.1 Patina: Yes Patina description: 10 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Fine grade Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 5/1 gray Notes: Contains Cortex. Contains negative flake scars.

Lot and Specimen# G7 SubType: Amorphous multi-directional Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 6.12 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 28.7 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 7/3 very pale brown Notes:

Lot and Specimen# H4 SubType: Amorphous multi-directional Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 5.99 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: N/A Maximum dimension: 21.38 Patina: Yes Patina description: 10 R 8/4 pale red Raw material Type: Fine grade Chert Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 10 R 3/3 dusky red Notes: Potlids/crazing/ color: associated with thermal alteration. Could be shatter that flakes were removed from. Heat treatment: occur post disposition

Lot and Specimen# M31 SubType: Amorphous multi-directional Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 45.15 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: N/A Maximum dimension: 47.9 Patina: Yes Patina description: 10 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Quartz Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 5 YR 7/1 light gray Notes:

Lot and Specimen# N18 SubType: Amorphous multi-directional Variety: n/a Usewear: Yes Weight: 29.37 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 40.26 Patina: Yes Patina description: 5 YR 4/6 yellowish red Raw material Type: Fine grade Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 5YR 8/3 pink Notes: Possible retouch or platform preparation. Possible utilized as a scraper.

Lot and Specimen# N19 SubType: Amorphous multi-directional Variety: n/a Usewear: Yes Weight: 23.7 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 49.32 Patina: No Patina description: 207

Raw material Type: Fine-Medium grade Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10YR 5/6 yellowish brown Notes: Perforator.

Lot and Specimen# N7 SubType: Amorphous multi-directional Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 6.78 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: N/A Maximum dimension: 25.6 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10YR 5/1 gray Notes: Blade core (?) on one side but the other side displays amorphous characteristics.

Type: Flake Lot and Specimen# A1 SubType: Distal fragment Variety: n/a Usewear: Yes Weight: 3.03 Width: 16.63 Length: 5.34 Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 30.06 Patina: Yes Patina description: 2.5 YR 8/0 white Raw material Type: Chalcedony Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 R 5/1 reddish gray Notes: Tool-burin(?) Possibly part of a prismatic blade.

Lot and Specimen# A2 SubType: Complete Variety: Hinge Usewear: Yes Weight: 1.52 Width: 20.31 Length: 17.39 Thickness: 4.69 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 20.31 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Chalcedony Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 7/4 very pale brown Notes:

Lot and Specimen# A4 SubType: Complete Variety: Step Usewear: Yes Weight: 3.25 Width: 31.32 Length: 25.89 Thickness: 6.55 Cortex: no Maximum dimension: 31.32 Patina: Yes Patina description: 2.5 YR 8/0 white Raw material Type: Quartz Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 8/2 very pale brown Notes:

Lot and Specimen# A5 SubType: Distal fragment Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 2.54 Width: 16.81 Length: Thickness: 8.49 Cortex: no Maximum dimension: 22.22 Patina: Yes Patina description: 10 YR 8/2 white Raw material Type: Chalcedony Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 2.5 YR 8/1 white 208

Notes:

Lot and Specimen# B1 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 3.6 Width: 19.6 Length: 23.1 Thickness: 9 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 23.1 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fine grade Chert Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 7.5 YR 5/3 brown and 5 YR 3/1 dark reddish gray Notes: Color: indicates heat alteration. Use wear present on platform.

Lot and Specimen# B11 SubType: Complete Variety: Plunging Usewear: Yes Weight: 1.79 Width: 17.1 Length: 21.3 Thickness: 4.9 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 21.8 Patina: Yes Patina description: 10 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Fine grain banded Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 7.5 YR 5/6 strong brown and 5 R 3/1 dark reddish gray Notes: Cortex present.

Lot and Specimen# B2 SubType: Proximal fragment Variety: n/a Usewear: Yes Weight: 2.51 Width: 21 Length: 15.1 Thickness: 7.1 Cortex: Yes Maximum dimension: 21 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fine grade Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 7.5 YR 5/3 brown and 5 YR 3/1 dark reddish gray Notes: See specimen 50 similar raw material similar morphology.

Lot and Specimen# B3 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 2.55 Width: 19.03 Length: 21 Thickness: 8 Cortex: N/A Maximum dimension: 21 Patina: Yes Patina description: 2.5 YR 7/2 light gray Raw material Type: Medium grade Chert Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 2.5 YR 3/3 dark reddish brown Notes: Use wear and heat treated.

Lot and Specimen# B4 SubType: Complete Variety: Hinge Usewear: Yes Weight: 0.82 Width: 22.7 Length: 12.5 Thickness: 3.6 Cortex: N/A Maximum dimension: 22.7 Patina: Yes Patina description: 10 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Fine grade Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 5 YR 5/1 gray Notes: Possible feather termination.

Lot and Specimen# B5 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 0.63 Width: 10.8 Length: 12.6 Thickness: 3.8 Cortex: N/A 209

Maximum dimension: Patina: Yes Patina description: 10 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Chalcedony Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 7.5 YR 5/6 strong brown Notes:

Lot and Specimen# C10 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 2.67 Width: 17.46 Length: 23.57 Thickness: 5.63 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 32.36 Patina: Yes Patina description: 10 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Fine grade Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 6/6 brownish yellow Notes: Use wear along termination.

Lot and Specimen# C11 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: No Weight: 4.29 Width: 24.78 Length: 19.49 Thickness: 12.24 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 25.17 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fossilized coral? Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 2.5 YR 8/2 white Notes:

Lot and Specimen# C14 SubType: Proximal fragment Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 6.38 Width: 23.9 Length: Thickness: 9.08 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 29.63 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fine grade Chert Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 10 R 5/3 weak red Notes: A lot of Cortex- does have dorsal/ventral sides. Color: indicated thermal alteration. Probably a primary flake.

Lot and Specimen# C15 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 6.61 Width: 23.31 Length: 39.15 Thickness: 8.38 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 39.15 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Medium coarse Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 6/4 pale olive Notes:

Lot and Specimen# C17 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 2.7 Width: 16.63 Length: 30.28 Thickness: 6.71 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 30.28 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fine grade Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 2.5 YR 8/2 light brownish gray Notes: Heavy use wear. 210

Lot and Specimen# C18 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 3.6 Width: 28.85 Length: 14.72 Thickness: 7.21 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 28.85 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fine to Medium grade Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 5 YR 6/3 reddish brown Notes: Perforator or graver on tip? Possibly shatter questionable platform.

Lot and Specimen# C19 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 2.09 Width: 25.21 Length: 16.18 Thickness: 6.02 Cortex: Yes- Maximum dimension: 25.21 Patina: Yes Patina description: 7.5 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Chalcedony Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 5 YR 4/3 reddish brown Notes:

Lot and Specimen# C2 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 1.96 Width: 21.05 Length: 20.36 Thickness: 6.14 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 20.36 Patina: Yes Patina description: 2.5 YR 8/0 white Raw material Type: Medium to course grade Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 7.5 YR 7/4 pink Notes: Thin with Cortex:. Appears to have dorsal and ventral sides.

Lot and Specimen# C22 SubType: Distal fragment Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 3.12 Width: 19.86 Length: Thickness: 4.79 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 30.63 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Medium grade Chert Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 10 R 4/2 weak red Notes: Color and potlids indicate thermal alteration.

Lot and Specimen# C23 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 10.91 Width: 27.09 Length: 36.76 Thickness: 6.74 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 36.76 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fine grade Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 7.5 YR 5/8 strong brown Notes: Tool-possible end scraper.

Lot and Specimen# C25 SubType: Complete Variety: Step Usewear: Yes Weight: 2.69 Width: 31.58 Length: 18.57 Thickness: 5.56 Cortex: No 211

Maximum dimension: 31.58 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fine grade Chert Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 10 R 7/4 moderate orange pink Notes:

Lot and Specimen# C26 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 0.63 Width: 15 Length: 14.3 Thickness: 5 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: Patina: Yes Patina description: 10 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Quartzite Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 5/2 grayish brown Notes:

Lot and Specimen# C27 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 2.67 Width: 28.11 Length: 14.55 Thickness: 6.14 Cortex: Yes- Maximum dimension: 28.11 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Chalcedony Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 7/1 light gray Notes: Fossil inclusion.

Lot and Specimen# C28 SubType: Complete Variety: Hinge Usewear: Yes Weight: 5.79 Width: 23.15 Length: 48.2 Thickness: 6.27 Cortex: no Maximum dimension: 48.2 Patina: Yes Patina description: 7.5 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Fine grade Chert Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 10 YR 4/2 dark grayish brown Notes: Potlids present on dorsal surface.

Lot and Specimen# C29 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 0.9 Width: 17.38 Length: 16.06 Thickness: 3.61 Cortex: Maximum dimension: 17.38 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fine grade Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 7.5 YR 8/1 white Notes:

Lot and Specimen# C3 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 1.31 Width: 14.47 Length: 18.25 Thickness: 8.03 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 18.25 Patina: Yes Patina description: 10 YR 8/2 white Raw material Type: Fine grade Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 7.5 YR 6/4 light gray Notes:

212

Lot and Specimen# C30 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: No Weight: 7.73 Width: 35.73 Length: 30.15 Thickness: 4.86 Cortex: N/A Maximum dimension: 35.73 Patina: Yes Patina description: 7.5 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Medium grade Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 6/8 brownish yellow Notes:

Lot and Specimen# C31 SubType: Proximal fragment Variety: n/a Usewear: Yes Weight: 7.21 Width: 19.96 Length: Thickness: 10.23 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 32.9 Patina: Yes Patina description: 2.5 YR 7/3 pale yellow Raw material Type: Fine grade Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 7.5 YR 5/6 strong brown Notes:

Lot and Specimen# C6 SubType: Proximal fragment Variety: Step Usewear: Yes Weight: 1.41 Width: 20.75 Length: 17.03 Thickness: 3.3 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 17.03 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fine grade Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 8/2 very pale brown Notes: Biface thinning flake.

Lot and Specimen# C9 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 0.73 Width: 11.02 Length: 16.8 Thickness: 3.97 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 16.8 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Chalcedony Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 8/2 white and 7.5 YR 5/4 brown Notes:

Lot and Specimen# E1 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 1.43 Width: 13.93 Length: 21.17 Thickness: 5.33 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 23.98 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fine grade Chert Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 5 R 6/2 pale red Notes:

Lot and Specimen# E2 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 2.62 Width: 22.59 Length: 22.86 Thickness: 6.52 Cortex: no Maximum dimension: 22.86 Patina: Yes Patina description: 7.5 YR 8/1 white 213

Raw material Type: Quartzite Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 5 R 6/2 pale red purple Notes:

Lot and Specimen# E5 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: No Weight: 10.76 Width: 28.99 Length: Thickness: 10.85 Cortex: N/A Maximum dimension: 36.45 Patina: Yes Patina description: 7.5 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 7.5 YR 6/4 light brown Notes: Cortex distorts termination.

Lot and Specimen# E6 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 12.61 Width: 30.71 Length: Thickness: 8.81 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 45.64 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Sandstone Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 7.5 YR 3/3 dark brown Notes:

Lot and Specimen# F11 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: No Weight: 2.76 Width: 6.1 Length: 26.9 Thickness: 27.9 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 27.9 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 2.5 YR 6/4 light reddish brown Notes: Could be some Type: of sand/silt that has silicified; there might be some Usewear:-hard to see.

Lot and Specimen# F12 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: No Weight: 5 Width: 32.5 Length: 22.9 Thickness: 7 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 34.4 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Black volcanic rock Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 2.5 YR 2.5/1 black Notes: Could be biface thinning flake.

Lot and Specimen# F2 SubType: Complete Variety: Hinge Usewear: Yes Weight: 3.17 Width: 23.2 Length: 26.4 Thickness: 4.7 Cortex: N/A Maximum dimension: 33.5 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 7.5 YR 5/4 brown Notes: Could be some Type: of silicified sand/silt stone.

214

Lot and Specimen# F3 SubType: Lateral fragment Variety: Feather Usewear: No Weight: 0.44 Width: Length: 8.1 Thickness: 3.9 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 12.4 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 2.5 YR 5/2 grayish brown Notes: Could be use wear-hard to determine.

Lot and Specimen# F4 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 1.3 Width: 23.2 Length: 19.1 Thickness: 4.1 Cortex: 50% Maximum dimension: 24.3 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fossiliferous Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 8/2 very pale brown Notes:

Lot and Specimen# F5 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: No Weight: 14.17 Width: 26.1 Length: 43.5 Thickness: 12.7 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 46 Patina: Yes Patina description: 10 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Chalcedony Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 2.5 YR 5/3 reddish brown Notes: There may be usewear- hard to see.

Lot and Specimen# F6 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 0.49 Width: 10.6 Length: 15.9 Thickness: 3.2 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 15.9 Patina: Yes Patina description: 10 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Quartz Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 7/2 light grey Notes:

Lot and Specimen# F8 SubType: Proximal fragment Variety: n/a Usewear: n/a Weight: 0.22 Width: Length: Thickness: 3.6 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 10.1 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Chalcedony Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 2.5 YR 5/3 reddish brown Notes: Platform is all that remains after heat treatment.

Lot and Specimen# F9 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 1.64 Width: 14.3 Length: 24.3 Thickness: 5.1 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 24.4 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Chert Heat treatment: No 215

Raw material color: 10 YR 8/2 very pale brown Notes: Usewear on the tip- could have been used as an informal tool.

Lot and Specimen# G3 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: No Weight: 31.78 Width: 38.4 Length: 49.8 Thickness: 26.1 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 49.8 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fossiliferous sandstone Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 7/2 light grey Notes:

Lot and Specimen# G8 SubType: Complete Variety: Step Usewear: No Weight: 23.82 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: Patina: Yes Patina description: 10 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Quartzite Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 7/2 light gray Notes:

Lot and Specimen# G9 SubType: Complete Variety: Hinge Usewear: Yes Weight: 2.21 Width: 21.7 Length: 20.5 Thickness: 4.5 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 21.7 Patina: Yes Patina description: 10 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Chalcedony Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 5 YR 7/1 light gray Notes:

Lot and Specimen# H10 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 2.6 Width: 22.38 Length: 29.28 Thickness: 5.17 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 29.28 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 6/1 gray Notes:

Lot and Specimen# H11 SubType: Proximal fragment Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 0.53 Width: 7.87 Length: 16.37 Thickness: 2.74 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 16.09 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Chert Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 10 R 6/6 light red Notes: Glossy pinkish color: indicated thermal alteration.

Lot and Specimen# H14 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes 216

Weight: 5.09 Width: 25 Length: 34.98 Thickness: 5.85 Cortex: N/A Maximum dimension: 34.98 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fine grade Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 2.5 YR 8/1 white and 2.5 YR grayish brown Notes:

Lot and Specimen# H15 SubType: Medial fragment Variety: n/a Usewear: Yes Weight: 4.81 Width: 27.63 Length: 28.83 Thickness: 6.16 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 28.02 Patina: Yes Patina description: 10 R 6/1 reddish gray Raw material Type: Chert Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 10 R 3/2 dusky red Notes: Color/crazing indicated thermal alteration. Heat shatter on proximal and distal ends. Possible post deposition heating- extreme thermal alteration.

Lot and Specimen# H17 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: No Weight: 16.84 Width: 25.63 Length: 31.15 Thickness: 17.69 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 42.12 Patina: Yes Patina description: 5 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Quartz Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 7.5 YR 8/2 pinkish white Notes:

Lot and Specimen# H2 SubType: Complete Variety: Hinge Usewear: Yes Weight: 2.42 Width: 17.85 Length: 25.14 Thickness: 5.75 Cortex: N/A Maximum dimension: 25.14 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 2.5 YR 7/1 light reddish gray Notes:

Lot and Specimen# H5 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 4.14 Width: 18.05 Length: Thickness: 7.76 Cortex: N/A Maximum dimension: 29.09 Patina: Yes Patina description: 5 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Chalcedony Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 R 6/3 pale red Notes: Possible perforating tool, use wear on tip. Altered modified flake.

Lot and Specimen# H6 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: No Weight: 0.26 Width: 9.36 Length: 15.52 Thickness: 1.72 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 15.54 Patina: Yes Patina description: 5 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Quartz Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 5 YR 8/1 white (transparent) 217

Notes: May have usewear but difficult to say for sure.

Lot and Specimen# H7 SubType: Distal fragment Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 0.39 Width: 10.38 Length: Thickness: 4.05 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 13.7 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Chert Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 10 R 3/3 dusky red Notes: Color indicates thermal alteration. Reexamine could be a small flake- does have a dorsal and ventral surface with a possible platform.

Lot and Specimen# H8 SubType: Complete Variety: Step Usewear: Yes Weight: 8.85 Width: 28.34 Length: 29.74 Thickness: 10.63 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 29.74 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fossiliferous Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 2.5 YR 7/1 light reddish gray Notes:

Lot and Specimen# H9 SubType: Complete Variety: Hinge Usewear: Yes Weight: 6.85 Width: 34.79 Length: 28.68 Thickness: 8.35 Cortex: Yes Maximum dimension: 34.79 Patina: Yes Patina description: 10 R 6/8 light red Raw material Type: Chert Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 10 R 6/2 pale red Notes: Potlids and color indicate thermal alteration. Use wear along tip of termination.

Lot and Specimen# I4 SubType: Complete Variety: Hinge Usewear: No Weight: 4.73 Width: 27.63 Length: 30.24 Thickness: 9.67 Cortex: Yes- Maximum dimension: 30.24 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Medium to course grade Chert Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 7.5 YR 5/6 strong brown Notes: Color: may be the patina.

Lot and Specimen# I5 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 12.82 Width: 49.76 Length: 39.52 Thickness: 5.84 Cortex: Yes+50 Maximum dimension: 49.76 Patina: Yes Patina description: 7.5 YR 6/1 white Raw material Type: Quartz/ Quartzite Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10YR 7/3 very pale brown Notes: Usewear (possible) on the right lateral portion of the flake if view from the ventral surface where the proximal represents the top and the distal.

218

Lot and Specimen# I7 SubType: Distal fragment Variety: n/a Usewear: Yes Weight: 8.62 Width: 27.62 Length: Thickness: 10.67 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 37 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10YR 8/3 very pale brown Notes: Color and potlids indicate thermal alteration.

Lot and Specimen# J1 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 9.42 Width: 19.3 Length: 34.4 Thickness: 12.6 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 39.7 Patina: Yes Patina description: 2.5 YR 8/0 white Raw material Type: Quartzite Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 8/1 white Notes:

Lot and Specimen# J2 SubType: Lateral fragment Variety: n/a Usewear: Yes Weight: 1.73 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 27.2 Patina: Yes Patina description: 10 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 2.5 YR 7/0 white Notes: Heavily patinated. Hard to tell material color. May be chalcedony.

Lot and Specimen# J3 SubType: Distal fragment Variety: Hinge Usewear: Yes Weight: 1.83 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 18.8 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fine Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 5 YR 4/1 brownish gray Notes:

Lot and Specimen# J4 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 4.46 Width: 22 Length: 23.8 Thickness: 11.2 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 24.9 Patina: Yes Patina description: 5 YR 7/2 grayish orange Raw material Type: Fine Chert Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 5 YR 4/1 brownish gray Notes: Crazing indicated thermal alteration.

Lot and Specimen# K1 SubType: Distal fragment Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 0.58 Width: 8.6 Length: 12 Thickness: 4.9 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 14.4 Patina: No Patina description: 219

Raw material Type: Fine Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 5 YR 4/1 brownish gray Notes:

Lot and Specimen# M1 SubType: Complete Variety: Hinge Usewear: Yes Weight: 0.99 Width: 15.34 Length: Thickness: 4.34 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 20.57 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 8/2 grayish orange pink Notes:

Lot and Specimen# M10 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: No Weight: 3.18 Width: 20.34 Length: 16.09 Thickness: 2.12 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 21.51 Patina: Yes Patina description: 7.5 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Medium grade Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 8/2 very pale orange Notes:

Lot and Specimen# M11 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: No Weight: 0.9 Width: 11.84 Length: 15.14 Thickness: 6.61 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 15.14 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fine to Medium grade Chert Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 10 R 3/3 dusky red Notes:

Lot and Specimen# M12 SubType: Proximal fragment Variety: Step Usewear: Yes Weight: 3 Width: 35.52 Length: Thickness: 7.77 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 14.62 Patina: Yes Patina description: 7.5 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Quartzite Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 7.5 YR 8/1 white and 7.5 YR 4/1 dark gray Notes:

Lot and Specimen# M13 SubType: Complete Variety: Step Fracture Usewear: No Weight: 0.65 Width: 19.23 Length: 8.18 Thickness: 3.48 Cortex: 30% Maximum dimension: 19.23 Patina: Yes Patina description: 7.5YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Quartzite Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 7.5YR 8/1 white (transparent) Notes: Could also be a proximal flake.

220

Lot and Specimen# M14 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: No Weight: 0.7 Width: Length: 10.78 Thickness: 6.07 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 11.63 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Medium Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 5YR 6/2 pinkish gray Notes: Dorsal and ventral side present.

Lot and Specimen# M15 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 0.49 Width: 11.79 Length: Thickness: 2.25 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 19.11 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fine grade volcanic rock Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 10 YR 4/2 dark yellowish brown Notes: Potlids and color indicate thermal alteration. Could be usewear on edges. Possibly not an artifact could be natural.

Lot and Specimen# M16 SubType: Distal fragment Variety: n/a Usewear: Yes Weight: 0.77 Width: 11.47 Length: Thickness: 4.45 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 15.35 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Medium Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 2.5 YR 6/2 light grayish brown Notes:

Lot and Specimen# M18 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 1.11 Width: 15.59 Length: 18.73 Thickness: 4.26 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 18.73 Patina: Yes Patina description: 7.5 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Quartzite Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 7.5YR 8/1 white Notes:

Lot and Specimen# M19 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: No Weight: 0.67 Width: 13.12 Length: 13.78 Thickness: 6.04 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 13.78 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fine grade Chert (except the Cortex) Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 7.5YR 6/4 light brown Notes:

Lot and Specimen# M20 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: No Weight: 6.04 Width: 36.83 Length: Thickness: 6.06 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 33.77 Patina: No Patina description: 221

Raw material Type: Fine grade volcanic Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 5/4 moderate yellowish brown Notes:

Lot and Specimen# M23 SubType: Complete Variety: Hinge Usewear: Yes Weight: 0.61 Width: 16.52 Length: 12.89 Thickness: 2.87 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 16.52 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fine grade Chert Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 10 YR 3/4 dusky red Notes:

Lot and Specimen# M24 SubType: Complete Variety: Hinge Usewear: Yes Weight: 0.95 Width: 21.04 Length: 14.72 Thickness: 2.83 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 21.04 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Medium Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 5 R 6/2 pale red Notes:

Lot and Specimen# M26 SubType: Complete Variety: Hinge Usewear: No Weight: 0.39 Width: 12.75 Length: 10.74 Thickness: 2.04 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 12.75 Patina: Yes Patina description: 7.5 YR 8/2 white Raw material Type: Fine grade chalcedony Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 5 R 4/2 grayish red Notes: Color indicate thermal alteration.

Lot and Specimen# M27 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 0.36 Width: 9.89 Length: Thickness: 2.42 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 15.83 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Chalcedony Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 7.5 YR 8/1 white Notes:

Lot and Specimen# M28 SubType: Distal fragment Variety: Hinge Usewear: Yes Weight: 0.51 Width: 12 Length: 12.14 Thickness: 3.36 Cortex: Yes 50% Maximum dimension: 14.72 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fine grade Chert Heat treatment: Raw material color: 2.5 YR 3/3 dark reddish brown Notes: Use wear along the pointed edges.

222

Lot and Specimen# M29 SubType: Complete Variety: Step Usewear: Yes Weight: 0.28 Width: 8.28 Length: Thickness: 3.46 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 9.58 Patina: Yes Patina description: 7.5 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 7.5 YR 4/6 strong brown Notes:

Lot and Specimen# M3 SubType: Distal fragment Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 4.78 Width: 25.21 Length: Thickness: 10.5 Cortex: Yes- 100% Maximum dimension: 28.48 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fine Chert Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 5 YR 4/2 grayish red Notes: Potlids and color: indicate thermal alteration. Use wear along tip of termination.

Lot and Specimen# M30 SubType: Complete Variety: Hinge Usewear: Yes Weight: 0.08 Width: 7.33 Length: Thickness: 1.44 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 8.7 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Chert Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 2.5 YR 4/8 red Notes:

Lot and Specimen# M32 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 0.67 Width: 12 Length: 14.1 Thickness: 3.8 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 14.8 Patina: Yes Patina description: 10 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Quartz Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 5 YR 7/1 light gray Notes: May not be an artifact; seems dubious.

Lot and Specimen# M33 SubType: Distal fragment Variety: Feather Usewear: No Weight: 0.41 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 14 Patina: Yes Patina description: 10 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Quartz Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 7/2 light grey Notes: May not be an artifact; seems dubious.

Lot and Specimen# M34 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 0.37 Width: 15.9 Length: 11.6 Thickness: 2.5 Cortex: Yes- 223

Maximum dimension: 15.9 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Quartz Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 2.5 YR 8/1 white Notes: May not be an artifact; seems dubious.

Lot and Specimen# M35 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 0.27 Width: 9.9 Length: 10.4 Thickness: 2.6 Cortex: N/A Maximum dimension: 10.4 Patina: Yes Patina description: 10 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Quartz Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 5 YR 8/2 pale yellow Notes: May not be an artifact; seems dubious.

Lot and Specimen# M8 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: No Weight: 15.6 Width: 43.04 Length: 29.23 Thickness: 11.37 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 43.04 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fossiliferous Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 5 YR 7/2 yellowish gray Notes: Split cobble.

Lot and Specimen# N1 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 0.4 Width: 9.6 Length: Thickness: 3.5 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 13.62 Patina: Yes Patina description: 10 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Chalcedony Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR light brownish grey Notes: Does have a dorsal and ventral surface.

Lot and Specimen# N10 SubType: Complete Variety: n/a Usewear: Yes Weight: 2.51 Width: 23.26 Length: 18.77 Thickness: 7.39 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 21.54 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fine grade chalcedony Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 R 6/1 reddish gray Notes: Use wear along the feather termination.

Lot and Specimen# N11 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 0.52 Width: 11.5 Length: Thickness: 3.4 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 17.56 Patina: Yes Patina description: 5 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Fine grade Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 R 6/2 pale red Notes: Use wear along distal end.

224

Lot and Specimen# N12 SubType: Distal fragment Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 2.93 Width: 19.33 Length: Thickness: 6.31 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 30.72 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Medium-coarse Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 6/6 yellowish brown Notes:

Lot and Specimen# N13 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 6.17 Width: 20.6 Length: 40.8 Thickness: 6 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fossiliferous Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 5 YR 7/1 light grey Notes:

Lot and Specimen# N14 SubType: Complete Variety: Hinge Usewear: Yes Weight: 0.52 Width: 14.21 Length: 15.26 Thickness: 3.84 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 15.26 Patina: Yes Patina description: 2.5 YR 5/6 red Raw material Type: Fine-Medium Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 R 6/3 pale red Notes: Conglomerate of two cherts.

Lot and Specimen# N17 SubType: Distal fragment Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 1.48 Width: 13.4 Length: Thickness: 6 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 17.1 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 5 YR 4/1 dark gray Notes: Informal tool.

Lot and Specimen# N2 SubType: Proximal fragment Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 1.23 Width: 12.42 Length: Thickness: 7.43 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 16.15 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fine grade Chert Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 10 R 6/1 reddish gray Notes:

Lot and Specimen# N20 SubType: Proximal fragment Variety: n/a Usewear: Yes Weight: 4.2 Width: 17.5 Length: 32.5 Thickness: 9.5 Cortex: No 225

Maximum dimension: 38.8 Patina: Yes Patina description: 10 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Quartzite Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 5 YR 7/1 light grey Notes:

Lot and Specimen# N21 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: No Weight: 4.63 Width: 25.9 Length: 25.6 Thickness: 8.4 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 25.9 Patina: Yes Patina description: 10 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Quartzite Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 5 YR 7/1 light grey Notes:

Lot and Specimen# N3 SubType: Proximal fragment Variety: n/a Usewear: Yes Weight: 7.39 Width: 34.62 Length: 25.09 Thickness: 8 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 34.62 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Chert Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 5 YR 7/4 pink Notes: Use wear along the edges. Flakes removed from the ventral surface of this flake. Heat treated - potlids.

Lot and Specimen# N5 SubType: Complete Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 1.23 Width: 13.81 Length: 5.04 Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 19.98 Patina: Yes Patina description: 10 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Chalcedony Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 R 6/1 reddish gray Notes: Dorsal surface - flake scars.

Lot and Specimen# N6 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 4.48 Width: 27.66 Length: 22.29 Thickness: 6.95 Cortex: Yes- Maximum dimension: 27.66 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Chalcedony Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 R 6/1 reddish gray Notes: Possibly cutting tool.

Lot and Specimen# O2 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 0.56 Width: 20.3 Length: 12.8 Thickness: 2.9 Cortex: Maximum dimension: 20.3 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Chert Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 5 YR 6/4 light brown Notes: 226

Lot and Specimen# O3 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 9.94 Width: 22.4 Length: 24.8 Thickness: 15.2 Cortex: Maximum dimension: 31.1 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 5 YR 7/2 yellowish gray and 10 YR 6/2 pale yellowish brown Notes: Used as core.

Lot and Specimen# Q1 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 2.24 Width: 19.1 Length: 20.5 Thickness: 8.5 Cortex: Maximum dimension: 24.4 Patina: Yes Patina description: 10 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 5 YR 6/4 light brown Notes:

Lot and Specimen# Q2 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: No Weight: 5.03 Width: 32.3 Length: 28.5 Thickness: 5.4 Cortex: Maximum dimension: 37 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fossiliferous Chert Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 2.5 YR 3/2 dusky red Notes:

Lot and Specimen# Q3 SubType: Complete Variety: Hinge Usewear: No Weight: 1.67 Width: 15.4 Length: 19.2 Thickness: 5.4 Cortex: Maximum dimension: 20 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fine Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 7.5 YR 5/8 strong brown Notes: There might be usewear but it is dubious-hard to see.

Lot and Specimen# S1 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 0.17 Width: 13.7 Length: 8.4 Thickness: 1.8 Cortex: Maximum dimension: 13.7 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 7/4 grayish orange Notes:

Lot and Specimen# S2 SubType: Complete Variety: n/a Usewear: Yes Weight: 2.53 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: 227

Maximum dimension: 25.5 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 6/6 brownish yellow Notes: Steep invasive retouch, 4-6 mm deep. Unifacial tool. Cannot tell variety of termination due to retouch.

Lot and Specimen# T1 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: No Weight: 0.32 Width: 10.9 Length: 12.1 Thickness: 2.7 Cortex: Maximum dimension: 13.2 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Medium Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 7/4 grayish orange Notes:

Lot and Specimen# U12 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: No Weight: 9.14 Width: 27.9 Length: 14.9 Thickness: 21.4 Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 29.2 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Silicified sandstone Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 10 YR 6/4 light yellowish brown Notes: Potlids and color indicate thermal alteration. Could be usewear on edges.

Type: Not Anthropogenic Lot and Specimen# C13 SubType: n/a Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 3.57 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: Patina: Yes Patina description: 7.5 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 R 6/4 pale red Notes: Probably not anthropogenic.

Lot and Specimen# F10 SubType: n/a Variety: n/a Usewear: n/a Weight: 1.53 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Chert Heat treatment: n/a Raw material color: 7.5 YR 6/1 gray Notes: Appears to be usewear on edge.

Lot and Specimen# G6 SubType: n/a Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 107.06 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No 228

Maximum dimension: Patina: Yes Patina description: 10 YR 8/6 white Raw material Type: Coarse grade Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 7.5 YR 611 gray Notes: Does exhibit prehensility; noted that this is probably not anthropogenic.

Lot and Specimen# I6 SubType: n/a Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 83.54 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: Patina: Yes Patina description: 2.5 YR 5/4 olive brown Raw material Type: Sandstone could be volcanic Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 2.5 YR 6/2 light brownish gray Notes: Possibly not an artifact. Stream cobble.

Lot and Specimen# M21 SubType: n/a Variety: n/a Usewear: n/a Weight: 43.87 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: Patina: n/a Patina description: Raw material Type: Limestone Heat treatment: n/a Raw material color: n/a Notes:

Lot and Specimen# O1 SubType: n/a Variety: n/a Usewear: n/a Weight: 0.18 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: Maximum dimension: Patina: n/a Patina description: Raw material Type: n/a Heat treatment: n/a Raw material color: n/a Notes: This is probably not anthropogenic: to be "discarded"

Lot and Specimen# T2 SubType: n/a Variety: n/a Usewear: n/a Weight: 0.25 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: Maximum dimension: Patina: n/a Patina description: Raw material Type: n/a Heat treatment: n/a Raw material color: n/a Notes: This is probably not anthropogenic: to be "discarded."

Type: Shatter Lot and Specimen# A3 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: Yes Weight: 3.51 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: no Maximum dimension: 22.57 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Chert Heat treatment: Yes 229

Raw material color: 2.5 YR 7/6 light red Notes:

Lot and Specimen# A6 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 1.14 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: 20% Maximum dimension: 18.72 Patina: Yes Patina description: 10 YR 8/2 white Raw material Type: Chert Heat treatment: n/a Raw material color: 10 YR 5/2 olive gray Notes:

Lot and Specimen# B10 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 5.72 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 29.4 Patina: Yes Patina description: 10 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Fine grade Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 6/1 gray Notes: Contains Cortex. Contains negative flake scars.

Lot and Specimen# B12 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 7.03 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 28.2 Patina: Yes Patina description: 7.5 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Quartzite Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 6/4 light yellowish brown Notes: Cortex and Patina present.

Lot and Specimen# B6 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: Yes Weight: 2.58 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: N/A Maximum dimension: 25.3 Patina: Yes Patina description: 10 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Quartzite Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 7.5 YR 5/3 brown Notes:

Lot and Specimen# B8 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: Yes Weight: 7.66 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: N/A Maximum dimension: 35.48 Patina: Yes Patina description: 7.5 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Shell or calcified material Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 7.5 YR 8/1 white Notes: Possible shell flake.

Lot and Specimen# B9 230

SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 6.33 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: N/A Maximum dimension: 38.4 Patina: Yes Patina description: 7.5 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Fine grade Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 7.5 YR 4/6 strong brown Notes: Contains flake scars and cortex.

Lot and Specimen# C1 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 1.79 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 15.77 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fine grade chalcedony Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 5 YR 4/5 reddish brown Notes:

Lot and Specimen# C12 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: Yes Weight: 2.25 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 20.24 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fine grade Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 7.5 YR 8/1 white Notes:

Lot and Specimen# C16 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: Yes Weight: 2.36 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: N/A Maximum dimension: 25.1 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Chalcedony Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 5 YR 4/4 moderate brown Notes:

Lot and Specimen# C20 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: Yes Weight: 10.34 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: Yes- Maximum dimension: 39.06 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fine grade Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 7.5 YR 5/6 strong brown Notes: Clearly a tool- tip possibly used as a graver or perforator.

Lot and Specimen# C21 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: Yes Weight: 8 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 35.64 Patina: Yes Patina description: 7.5 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Fine grade Chert Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 10 R 5/1 reddish gray 231

Notes: Color indicates thermal alteration. Reexamine could be a small flake- does have a dorsal and ventral surface with a possible platform.

Lot and Specimen# C24 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 1.08 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: Yes- Maximum dimension: 19.5 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fine grade Chert Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 10 R 5/4 pale reddish brown Notes: Color indicates thermal alteration.

Lot and Specimen# C4 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: Yes Weight: 1.08 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 20.31 Patina: Yes Patina description: 2.5 YR 8/2 white Raw material Type: Fine grade Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 7.5 YR 6/2 pinkish gray Notes:

Lot and Specimen# C43 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: n/a Weight: 0.95 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: N/A Maximum dimension: 17.4 Patina: Yes Patina description: 10 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Quartz Heat treatment: n/a Raw material color: 2.5 YR 8/1 white Notes:

Lot and Specimen# C5 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: Yes Weight: 5.76 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 25.89 Patina: Yes Patina description: 5 YR 3/4 dark olive Raw material Type: Fine grade Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 5 YR 5/4 reddish brown Notes: Does have a dorsal and ventral surface.

Lot and Specimen# C7 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 0.62 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 15.17 Patina: Yes Patina description: 7.5 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Medium Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 R 4/4 weak red Notes:

Lot and Specimen# C8

232

SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: Yes Weight: 0.54 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 16.68 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Chalcedony Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 5 YR 5/6 light brown Notes:

Lot and Specimen# E4 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 2.36 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: N/A Maximum dimension: 23.99 Patina: Yes Patina description: 7.5 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Quartzite Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 7.5 YR 8/1 white Notes:

Lot and Specimen# E7 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 0.56 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 16.41 Patina: Yes Patina description: 7.5 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Chert Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 5 R 4/2 grayish red Notes:

Lot and Specimen# F1 SubType: Heat Variety: n/a Usewear: n/a Weight: 1.51 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 17.6 Patina: Yes Patina description: 10 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Chert Heat treatment: n/a Raw material color: 10 YR 6/1 gray Notes: Crazing indicated thermal alteration.

Lot and Specimen# F7 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: n/a Weight: 0.16 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: Yes- Maximum dimension: 10.1 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Chert Heat treatment: n/a Raw material color: 5 YR 6/2 pinkish gray Notes:

Lot and Specimen# G2 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: Weight: 10.69 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 18.6 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fine grade Chert Heat treatment: Raw material color: 10 YR 5/4 reddish brown 233

Notes:

Lot and Specimen# G5 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 2.01 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 19.5 Patina: Yes Patina description: 10 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Quartzite Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 8/1 white Notes:

Lot and Specimen# H1 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: Yes Weight: 2.69 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 32.25 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fossiliferous Chert Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 2.5 YR 7/2 pale red Notes: Possible tool. Use wear on pointed tip. Thermal alteration-pinkish color.

Lot and Specimen# H12 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: Yes Weight: 1.3 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 19.5 Patina: Yes Patina description: 5 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Quartz Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 8/1 white Notes: Some transparent areas.

Lot and Specimen# H13 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: Yes Weight: 6.09 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: Yes- Maximum dimension: 32.25 Patina: Yes Patina description: 5 YR pinkish white Raw material Type: Fine grade Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 2.5 YR 3/1 very dark gray Notes: On tip- very little small flakes proximal to tip may indicate rejuvenation.

Lot and Specimen# H16 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 7.21 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 24.06 Patina: Yes Patina description: 5 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Quartz Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 2.5 YR 7/3 light reddish brown Notes: Probably shatter flake scars may indicate a core but this is unlikely.

Lot and Specimen# I1 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: No 234

Weight: 9.36 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 31.88 Patina: Yes Patina description: 10 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Quartzite Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 10 YR 5/3 brown Notes: Potlids present and crazing present.

Lot and Specimen# I2 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 9.98 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 30 Patina: Yes Patina description: 10 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Quartzite Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 7.5YR 8/2 pinkish white Notes: Glossy. Has veins.

Lot and Specimen# I3 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 1.08 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: Yes Maximum dimension: 32.78 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Quartzite Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 8/1 white Notes:

Lot and Specimen# M17 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: Yes Weight: 1.76 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 30.45 Patina: Yes Patina description: 5 YR 8/2 pinkish white Raw material Type: Fine grade Chert Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 5 YR 3/4 moderate brown Notes:

Lot and Specimen# M2 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 2.71 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: Yes+50 Maximum dimension: 13.08 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Medium grade Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 7/4 grayish orange Notes:

Lot and Specimen# M22 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 0.55 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 23.14 Patina: Yes Patina description: 7.5 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Quartzite Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 5 YR 7/2 yellowish gray Notes: 235

Lot and Specimen# M25 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: Yes Weight: 0.13 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 23.88 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fine grade Chert Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 10 YR 8/1 white Notes: Potlids indicate thermal alteration.

Lot and Specimen# M4 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: Yes Weight: 0.92 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 12.78 Patina: Yes Patina description: 7.5YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Fine grade Chert Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 10 R 3/3 dusky red Notes:

Lot and Specimen# M5 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: Yes Weight: 4.3 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 12.72 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fine grade Chert Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 5 R 2/2 blackish red Notes: Potlids and crazing color: indicate thermal alteration. Tip appears to have usewear. Other use wear present.

Lot and Specimen# M6 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 6.07 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 20.43 Patina: Yes Patina description: 7.5 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Quartz Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 5 R 2/2 blackish red Notes:

Lot and Specimen# M7 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 2.96 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 25 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fine Medium grade Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 R 6/2 pale red Notes: Flake scars on the distal end.

Lot and Specimen# M9 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: No

236

Weight: 2.28 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 31.96 Patina: Yes Patina description: 7.5 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Quartzite Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 5 YR 7/2 yellowish gray Notes: Dorsal surface has small flake removed. Crazed not sure due to heating.

Lot and Specimen# N15 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 1.99 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: Yes 50% Maximum dimension: 24.69 Patina: Yes Patina description: 2.5 7/1 light yellowish Raw material Type: Chert Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 1.5 YR 7/1 light yellowish gray Notes: Potlids and crazing present.

Lot and Specimen# N16 SubType: Heat Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 1.76 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: no Maximum dimension: 19.07 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Chert Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 2.5 YR 4/4 reddish brown Notes: Potlids.

Lot and Specimen# N22 SubType: Heat Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 6.87 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 20.82 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Medium grade Chert Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 7.5 YR 8/2 pinkish white Notes:

Lot and Specimen# N23 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: Yes Weight: 2.89 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: Maximum dimension: 20.83 Patina: Yes Patina description: 10 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Chalcedony Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 10 YR 5/3 reddish brown Notes:

Lot and Specimen# N24 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: Yes Weight: 4.6 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: 60% Maximum dimension: 24.2 Patina: Yes Patina description: 10 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Chalcedony Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 5 YR 5/1 gray Notes: 237

Lot and Specimen# N4 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: Yes Weight: 3.02 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 20.7 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fine Chert Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 10 R 6/4 pale red Notes: Potlids present. Does have a dorsal and ventral side but that just could be the result of shattering.

Lot and Specimen# N8 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 0.93 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: Yes 100% Maximum dimension: 23 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Chalcedony Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 5 YR 7/2 pinkish gray Notes: Potlids.

Lot and Specimen# N9 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: Yes Weight: 3.2 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: No Maximum dimension: 17.9 Patina: Yes Patina description: 10 YR 8/3 white Raw material Type: Fine-Medium Chert Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 10 YR 8/3 very pale brown Notes: Potlids.

Lot and Specimen# P1 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 3.93 Width: Length: Thickness: Cortex: Maximum dimension: 21.4 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 5 YR 5/3 reddish brown Notes:

Site # GTMO 3 Type: Flake Lot and Specimen# V1 SubType: Complete Variety: Hinge Usewear: Yes Weight: 1 Width: 15.8 Length: 14.8 Thickness: 4.6 Cortex:

238

Maximum dimension: 17.7 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 5 YR 5/6 yellowish red Notes:

Site # GTMO 40 Type: Core Lot and Specimen# U2 SubType: Amorphous multi-directional Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 105.32 Width: 43.37 Length: Thickness: 41.05 Cortex: Maximum dimension: 59.5 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Coarse limestone with discoloration Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 8/3 very pale brown and 10 YR 7/6 yellow Notes: Not clearly modified possibly not anthropogenic.

Lot and Specimen# U3 SubType: Amorphous multi-directional Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 32.43 Width: 13.3 Length: Thickness: 33.52 Cortex: Maximum dimension: 52.43 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Possibly mud stone/very Fine sandstone Heat treatment:No Raw material color: 10 YR 5/8 red Notes:

Lot and Specimen# U5 SubType: Amorphous multi-directional Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 14.49 Width: 25.31 Length: Thickness: 15.77 Cortex: Maximum dimension: 27.93 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Chert but possibly Chalcedony Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 10 YR 5.2 weak red Notes: Multiple colors-possibly due to heat treatment. Heat shatter with large potlids surface; 2 small fakes removed.

Lot and Specimen# W1 SubType: Amorphous multi-directional Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 15.13 Width: 25.65 Length: Thickness: 15.11 Cortex: Maximum dimension: 35.16 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Heterogeneous Fine grade Banded Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 5 YR 6/8 reddish brown and 10 YR 5/2 grayish brown Notes:

Lot and Specimen# W2 SubType: Amorphous multi-directional Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 17.76 Width: 32.04 Length: Thickness: 16.3 Cortex:

239

Maximum dimension: 40.38 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Heterogeneous Fine grade Banded Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow and 5YR 5/1 gray Notes:

Lot and Specimen# W7 SubType: Amorphous multi-directional Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 70.78 Width: 32.62 Length: Thickness: 22.63 Cortex: Maximum dimension: 61.53 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Heterogeneous Fine grade Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 5/1 gray Notes: Chert 10 YR 5/1 Gray; Sedimentary rock 7.5 YR 6/8 Reddish yellow. Does not appear to be the same raw material source as specimen numbers 225.

Type: Flake Lot and Specimen# U1 SubType: Distal fragment Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 8.4 Width: 29.57 Length: 41.28 Thickness: 11.2 Cortex: Maximum dimension: 41.28 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Very Fine Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 7/1 light gray Notes: Use wear along the feather termination.

Lot and Specimen# U11 SubType: Complete Variety: Step Usewear: No Weight: 1.34 Width: 16.86 Length: 20.95 Thickness: 4.76 Cortex: Maximum dimension: 20.95 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Porous Medium Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 7.5 YR pinkish white Notes:

Lot and Specimen# U13 SubType: Distal fragment Variety: Feather Usewear: No Weight: 9.51 Width: 31.74 Length: 28.88 Thickness: 10 Cortex: Maximum dimension: 34.82 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Limestone Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 8/1 white Notes: Possibly not anthropogenic.

Lot and Specimen# U15 SubType: Distal fragment Variety: Hinge Usewear: Yes Weight: 1.17 Width: 21.52 Length: 12.95 Thickness: 3.57 Cortex: Maximum dimension: 21.52 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Banded Chert Heat treatment: Yes 240

Raw material color: 7.5 YR 7/8 reddish yellow and 5 YR 5/1gray Notes: Multiple pot lids with a hinge termination.

Lot and Specimen# U16 SubType: Proximal fragment Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 3.37 Width: 16.28 Length: 23.82 Thickness: 8.98 Cortex: Maximum dimension: 2672 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fine silicified sandstone Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 6/6 reddish yellow Notes: Step fracture with flakes removed from the incomplete distal end.

Lot and Specimen# U18 SubType: Distal fragment Variety: n/a Usewear: Yes Weight: 0.79 Width: 17.93 Length: Thickness: 2.67 Cortex: Maximum dimension: 18.4 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Porous poor quality Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 5 YR 5/6 yellowish red Notes: Could also be shatter. Feather termination if a flake.

Lot and Specimen# U19 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: No Weight: 15.96 Width: 23.93 Length: 32.03 Thickness: 12.9 Cortex: Maximum dimension: 55.19 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Possibly vesicular basalt Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 6/8 reddish yellow Notes:

Lot and Specimen# U20 SubType: Complete Variety: Hinge Usewear: Yes Weight: 1.23 Width: 18.31 Length: 15.67 Thickness: 4.24 Cortex: Maximum dimension: 20.04 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Medium Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 2.5YR 6/4 light reddish brown Notes:

Lot and Specimen# U4 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: No Weight: 15.93 Width: 33.32 Length: 33.85 Thickness: 13.02 Cortex: Maximum dimension: 45.07 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Silicified sandstone Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 2.5 YR 6/4 light reddish brown Notes:

Lot and Specimen# U6 241

SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 6.38 Width: 44.91 Length: 22.71 Thickness: 8.66 Cortex: Maximum dimension: 47.77 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Banded Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 6/3 light reddish brown and 10 YR 6/1 gray Notes:

Lot and Specimen# U7 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 1.67 Width: 14.4 Length: 19.33 Thickness: 4.92 Cortex: Maximum dimension: 27.7 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Banded Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 5 YR 5/8 yellow red and 7.5 YR 4/1 dark gray Notes: Possible drill because the use wear is on alternate surfaces on opposite sides.

Lot and Specimen# U8 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: No Weight: 0.67 Width: 16.97 Length: 14.3 Thickness: 4.34 Cortex: Maximum dimension: 16.97 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fine Chert Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 10 YR yellowish red Notes:

Lot and Specimen# U9 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 1.88 Width: 18.07 Length: 15.63 Thickness: 8.79 Cortex: Maximum dimension: 21.57 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 5 YR 6/6 reddish yellow Notes:

Lot and Specimen# W3 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 1.54 Width: 16.44 Length: 20.52 Thickness: 4.86 Cortex: Maximum dimension: Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Heterogeneous Fine grade Banded chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 7.5 YR 7/6 reddish yellow and 10 YR 5/1 gray Notes:

Lot and Specimen# W4 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 4.38 Width: 16.98 Length: 37.48 Thickness: 8.41 Cortex: Maximum dimension: Patina: Yes Patina description: 7.5 YR 4/2 Brown Raw material Type: Heterogeneous Medium grade chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 6/4 light yellowish brown 242

Notes: Use wear present along the edges. What appears to be two platforms on the dorsal surface is probably a fossil protrusion.

Lot and Specimen# W5 SubType: Complete Variety: Hinge Usewear: No Weight: 0.86 Width: 17.33 Length: 14.62 Thickness: 2.88 Cortex: Maximum dimension: Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Homogenous Fine grade Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 7.5 YR 6/8 reddish yellow Notes:

Lot and Specimen# W6 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 0.86 Width: 10.84 Length: 19.6 Thickness: 4.62 Cortex: Maximum dimension: Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Heterogeneous Fine grade Banded chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 7.5 YR 6/6 reddish yellow and 10YR 5/1 gray Notes:

Type: Shatter Lot and Specimen# U10 SubType: Heat Variety: n/a Usewear: Yes Weight: 1.23 Width: 18.09 Length: Thickness: 4.53 Cortex: Maximum dimension: 21.13 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Chert Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 5 YR 6/1 gray Notes: Potlid shatter.

Lot and Specimen# U14 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 4.02 Width: 19.9 Length: 25.69 Thickness: 9.63 Cortex: Maximum dimension: 27.13 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fine Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 2.5 YR 5/6 red Notes: Possible potlids shatter.

Lot and Specimen# U17 SubType: Regular Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 0.59 Width: 11.73 Length: 13.34 Thickness: Cortex: Maximum dimension: 13.34 Patina: Yes Patina description: 5 YR 8/1 white Raw material Type: Fine Chert-possible due to heat Heat treatment: Yes Raw material color: 5 YR 8/1 white Notes: Crazing due to heat treatment.

243

Site # GTMO 7 Type: Core Lot and Specimen# X2 SubType: Amorphous multi-directional Variety: n/a Usewear: No Weight: 49.16 Width: 44.17 Length: Thickness: 13.74 Cortex: Maximum dimension: 60.32 Patina: Yes Patina description: 10 YR 8/2 very pale Raw material Type: Medium texture Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 8/2 very pale brown Notes: Medium texture because it is not coarse enough to have visible structure or crystal grains, nor fine enough to be glassy, smooth or waxy.

Lot and Specimen# X3 SubType: Amorphous multi-directional Variety: n/a Usewear: Yes Weight: 23.72 Width: 32.46 Length: 44.42 Thickness: 19.16 Cortex: Maximum dimension: 44.42 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Medium texture Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 10 YR 8/3 very pale brown Notes: Use wear opposite Cortex.

Type: Flake Lot and Specimen# X1 SubType: Complete Variety: Feather Usewear: Yes Weight: 24.38 Width: 32.2 Length: 48.49 Thickness: 15.78 Cortex: Maximum dimension: 48.49 Patina: No Patina description: Raw material Type: Fine Chert Heat treatment: No Raw material color: 7.5 YR 7/1 light gray Notes: Use wear on edge next to platform-proximal edge.

244

Appendix H: Artifact Catalog: Shell

Site #: GTMO 1 Shell Genus : Melongena GTMO 1 Melongena melongena Common name: crown conch Lot and Specimen # : A08 Tool: n/a Weight (g):346 Length (mm):136.8 Width (mm):113.7 Thickness (mm):76 Notes: appears to have extraction holes

GTMO 1 Melongena melongena Common name: crown conch Lot and Specimen # : A09 Tool: n/a Weight (g):259 Length (mm):144 Width (mm):100.8 Thickness (mm):45.1 Notes:

GTMO 1 Melongena melongena Common name: crown conch Lot and Specimen # : A10 Tool: n/a Weight (g):126 Length (mm):91.9 Width (mm):80.7 Thickness (mm):36.9 Notes:

GTMO 1 Melongena melongena Common name: crown conch Lot and Specimen # : A11 Tool: n/a Weight (g):231 Length (mm):100 Width (mm):78.5 Thickness (mm):57 Notes:

GTMO 1 Melongena melongena Common name: crown conch Lot and Specimen # : A12 Tool: n/a Weight (g):161 Length (mm):109.2 Width (mm):91.3 Thickness (mm): 49.4 Notes:

GTMO 1 Melongena melongena Common name: crown conch Lot and Specimen # : A13 Tool: n/a Weight (g):70 Length (mm):71.1 Width (mm):65 Thickness (mm):42.8 Notes: appears to have extraction hole

GTMO 1 Melongena melongena Common name: crown conch Lot and Specimen # : A14 Tool: n/a Weight (g):153 Length (mm):98.6 Width (mm):74.8 Thickness (mm):51.1 Notes: extraction holes

245

GTMO 1 Melongena melongena Common name: crown conch Lot and Specimen # : A15 Tool: n/a Weight (g):156 Length (mm):105.4 Width (mm):87.9 Thickness (mm):57.8 Notes:

GTMO 1 Melongena melongena Common name: crown conch Lot and Specimen # : A16 Tool: n/a Weight (g):27 Length (mm):64.2 Width (mm):40.5 Thickness (mm):36.9 Notes:

GTMO 1 Melongena melongena Common name: crown conch Lot and Specimen # : B13 Tool: n/a Weight (g):276 Length (mm):112.2 Width (mm):77.4 Thickness (mm): 69 Notes:

GTMO 1 Melongena melongena Common name: crown conch Lot and Specimen # : B14 Tool: possible tool Weight (g):270 Length (mm):120.9 Width (mm):98.9 Thickness (mm):70.6 Notes: appears worked

GTMO 1 Melongena Common name: Lot and Specimen # : C33 Tool: n/a Weight (g):73 Length (mm):80.5 Width (mm):42.6 Thickness (mm):43.9 Notes:

GTMO 1 Melongena melongena Common name: crown conch Lot and Specimen # : C36 Tool: n/a Weight (g):77 Length (mm):79 Width (mm):65 Thickness (mm):42.6 Notes:

GTMO 1 Melongena melongena Common name: crown conch Lot and Specimen # : C37 Tool: n/a Weight (g):97 Length (mm):92 Width (mm):69.1 Thickness (mm):39.2 Notes:

GTMO 1 Melongena melongena Common name: crown conch Lot and Specimen # : C38 Tool: n/a Weight (g):286 Length (mm):134 Width (mm):96 Thickness (mm):79.2 Notes:

GTMO 1 Melongena Common name: Lot and Specimen # : E08 Tool: n/a Weight (g):188 Length (mm):121.9 Width (mm):90.5 Thickness (mm):81.7 Notes: fragmentary

246

GTMO 1 Melongena Common name: Lot and Specimen # : E09 Tool: n/a Weight (g):54 Length (mm):92 Width (mm):57.1 Thickness (mm):46.4 Notes: fragmentary

GTMO 1 Melongena Common name: Lot and Specimen # : E10 Tool: n/a Weight (g):50 Length (mm):90.1 Width (mm):69.8 Thickness (mm):48.8 Notes: fragmentary

GTMO 1 Melongena Common name: Lot and Specimen # : E11 Tool: n/a Weight (g):69 Length (mm):82.8 Width (mm):60.3 Thickness (mm):59.6 Notes:

GTMO 1 Melongena Common name: Lot and Specimen # : E12 Tool: n/a Weight (g):70 Length (mm):83 Width (mm):55.8 Thickness (mm):48 Notes:

GTMO 1 Melongena Common name: Lot and Specimen # : E13 Tool: n/a Weight (g):66 Length (mm):82.5 Width (mm):60.9 Thickness (mm):51.5 Notes:

GTMO 1 Melongena Common name: Lot and Specimen # : E14 Tool: n/a Weight (g):29 Length (mm):55.4 Width (mm):58.5 Thickness (mm):44.4 Notes:

GTMO 1 Melongena Common name: Lot and Specimen # : E15 Tool: n/a Weight (g):282 Length (mm):124.1 Width (mm):97.2 Thickness (mm):67.7 Notes: extraction holes

GTMO 1 Melongena Common name: Lot and Specimen # : E16 Tool: n/a Weight (g):57 Length (mm):82 Width (mm):49.3 Thickness (mm):15.4 Notes:

GTMO 1 Melongena Common name: Lot and Specimen # : E17 Tool: celt preform Weight (g):77 Length (mm):132 Width (mm):40.9 Thickness (mm):12.1 Notes:

GTMO 1 Melongena Common name: 247

Lot and Specimen # : F12 Tool: n/a Weight (g):165 Length (mm):131.4 Width (mm):86.4 Thickness (mm):65.5 Notes:

GTMO 1 Melongena Common name: Lot and Specimen # : H27 Tool: n/a Weight (g):111 Length (mm):109.7 Width (mm):81.6 Thickness (mm):60.6 Notes: fragmentary

GTMO 1 Melongena melongena Common name: crown conch Lot and Specimen # : J05 Tool: n/a Weight (g):306 Length (mm):137.9 Width (mm):60.5 Thickness (mm):93.7 Notes:

GTMO 1 Melongena Common name: Lot and Specimen # : N25 Tool: n/a Weight (g):192 Length (mm):122 Width (mm):76 Thickness (mm):74.2 Notes:

GTMO 1 Melongena Common name: Lot and Specimen # : N26 Tool: n/a Weight (g):4 Length (mm):18.4 Width (mm):24.3 Thickness (mm):20.9 Notes:

Genus, Total Weight: Melongena: 4328

Shell Genus : Nodilitorina GTMO 1 Nodilitorina uberculata Common name: prickly periwinkle Lot and Specimen # : O07 Tool: n/a Weight (g):0.4 Length (mm):16.2 Width (mm):12.2 Thickness (mm):12.2 Notes: appears to have extraction hole on left side

Genus, Total Weight: Nodilitorina: 0.4

Shell Genus : Strombus GTMO 1 Strombus Common name: Lot and Specimen # : C32 Tool: n/a Weight (g):132 Length (mm):116.6 Width (mm):61 Thickness (mm):56.2 Notes:

GTMO 1 Strombus Common name: Lot and Specimen # : C40 Tool: pick? Weight (g):15 Length (mm):43.1 Width (mm):21.1 Thickness (mm):18.4 Notes:

GTMO 1 Strombus Common name: 248

Lot and Specimen # : C41 Tool: n/a Weight (g):43 Length (mm):51.3 Width (mm):41.4 Thickness (mm):34.5 Notes:

GTMO 1 Strombus Common name: Lot and Specimen # : O05 Tool: n/a Weight (g):41 Length (mm):62.6 Width (mm):21.6 Thickness (mm):38 Notes:

Genus, Total Weight: Strombus: 231

Shell Genus : unknown GTMO 1 unknown sp. Common name: Lot and Specimen # : C34 Tool: n/a Weight (g):7 Length (mm):47.4 Width (mm):18.3 Thickness (mm):6.4 Notes: fragmentary

GTMO 1 unknown sp. Common name: Lot and Specimen # : C35 Tool: n/a Weight (g):5 Length (mm):42.6 Width (mm):27.3 Thickness (mm):18.8 Notes: fragmentary

GTMO 1 unknown sp. Common name: Lot and Specimen # : C39 Tool: n/a Weight (g):11 Length (mm):53.3 Width (mm):22.4 Thickness (mm):6 Notes: fragmentary

GTMO 1 unknown sp. Common name: Lot and Specimen # : C42 Tool: n/a Weight (g):15 Length (mm):65.8 Width (mm):16.1 Thickness (mm):11.5 Notes:

GTMO 1 unknown sp. Common name: Lot and Specimen # : G10 Tool: n/a Weight (g):108 Length (mm):61.7 Width (mm):59.3 Thickness (mm):57.3 Notes: fragmentary

GTMO 1 unknown sp. Common name: Lot and Specimen # : G11 Tool: n/a Weight (g):32 Length (mm):47.7 Width (mm):12.9 Thickness (mm):11.2 Notes: fragmentary

GTMO 1 unknown sp. Common name: Lot and Specimen # : G12 Tool: n/a Weight (g):10 Length (mm):53.4 Width (mm):30.6 Thickness (mm):25.9

249

Notes: fragmentary

GTMO 1 unknown sp. Common name: Lot and Specimen # : H24 Tool: n/a Weight (g):32 Length (mm):60.8 Width (mm):43.7 Thickness (mm):14.1 Notes: fragmentary

GTMO 1 unknown sp. Common name: Lot and Specimen # : H25 Tool: n/a Weight (g):93 Length (mm):70.2 Width (mm):46.4 Thickness (mm):40.1 Notes: fragmentary

GTMO 1 unknown sp. Common name: Lot and Specimen # : H26 Tool: n/a Weight (g):18 Length (mm):63.1 Width (mm):42.2 Thickness (mm):12.5 Notes: fragmentary

GTMO 1 unknown sp. Common name: Lot and Specimen # : H28 Tool: n/a Weight (g):27 Length (mm):51.4 Width (mm):49.2 Thickness (mm):20.1 Notes: piece of Strombus?

GTMO 1 unknown sp. Common name: Lot and Specimen # : H29 Tool: n/a Weight (g):12 Length (mm):46.9 Width (mm):16.6 Thickness (mm):12.4 Notes: piece of Strombus?

GTMO 1 unknown sp. Common name: Lot and Specimen # : H30 Tool: n/a Weight (g):11 Length (mm):43.9 Width (mm):19 Thickness (mm):11 Notes: piece of Melongena?

GTMO 1 unknown sp. Common name: Lot and Specimen # : H31 Tool: n/a Weight (g):4 Length (mm):17.7 Width (mm):21 Thickness (mm):12.3 Notes: piece of Strombus?

GTMO 1 unknown sp. Common name: Lot and Specimen # : H32 Tool: n/a Weight (g):1 Length (mm):30.9 Width (mm):10 Thickness (mm):2 Notes: fragmentary

GTMO 1 unknown sp. Common name: Lot and Specimen # : H33 Tool: n/a Weight (g):2 Length (mm):30.8 Width (mm):12.9 Thickness (mm):3.5

250

Notes: fragmentary

GTMO 1 unknown sp. Common name: Lot and Specimen # : H34 Tool: n/a Weight (g):3 Length (mm):23.4 Width (mm):15 Thickness (mm):14.8 Notes: piece of Strombus?

GTMO 1 unknown sp. Common name: Lot and Specimen # : O06 Tool: n/a Weight (g):1 Length (mm):20.5 Width (mm):9.8 Thickness (mm):4.9 Notes: piece of Strombus?

GTMO 1 unknown sp. Common name: Lot and Specimen # : O08 Tool: n/a Weight (g):3 Length (mm):29.5 Width (mm):8.8 Thickness (mm):6 Notes: piece of Strombus?

GTMO 1 unknown sp. Common name: Lot and Specimen # : P02 Tool: n/a Weight (g):8 Length (mm):50.5 Width (mm):27.8 Thickness (mm):27.8 Notes: piece of Strombus?

GTMO 1 unknown sp. Common name: Lot and Specimen # : S03 Tool: n/a Weight (g):12 Length (mm):68.5 Width (mm):13 Thickness (mm):20.9 Notes: piece of Strombus?

GTMO 1 unknown sp. Common name: Lot and Specimen # : S04 Tool: n/a Weight (g):54 Length (mm):70.8 Width (mm):70.5 Thickness (mm):47.5 Notes: piece of Strombus?

GTMO 1 unknown sp. Common name: Lot and Specimen # : S05 Tool: n/a Weight (g):5 Length (mm):21.3 Width (mm):27.3 Thickness (mm):13.5 Notes: piece of Strombus?

GTMO 1 unknown sp. Common name: Lot and Specimen # : S06 Tool: n/a Weight (g):2 Length (mm):11.6 Width (mm):27.3 Thickness (mm):10.4 Notes: piece of Strombus?

GTMO 1 unknown sp. Common name: Lot and Specimen # : S07 Tool; n/a Weight (g):3 Length (mm):8.1 Width (mm):5.6 Thickness (mm):11.1

251

Notes: piece of Strombus?

GTMO 1 unknown sp. Common name: Lot and Specimen # : S08 Tool: n/a Weight (g):3 Length (mm):12.7 Width (mm):20.1 Thickness (mm):7.8 Notes: piece of Strombus?

GTMO 1 unknown sp. Common name: Lot and Specimen # : S09 Tool; n/a Weight (g):1 Length (mm):16.5 Width (mm):12.7 Thickness (mm):6 Notes: piece of Strombus?

GTMO 1 unknown sp. Common name: Lot and Specimen # : S10 Tool: n/a Weight (g):0.4 Length (mm):19.3 Width (mm):7 Thickness (mm):1.6 Notes: piece of Strombus?

GTMO 1 unknown sp. Common name: Lot and Specimen # : S11 Tool: n/a Weight (g):0.3 Length (mm):13.6 Width (mm):9.6 Thickness (mm):1.1 Notes: piece of Strombus?

GTMO 1 unknown sp. Common name: Lot and Specimen # : S12 Tool: n/a Weight (g):1 Length (mm):25 Width (mm):10.8 Thickness (mm):4.2 Notes: piece of Strombus?

GTMO 1 unknown sp. Common name: Lot and Specimen # : T04 Tool: n/a Weight (g):4 Length (mm):17.6 Width (mm):21.3 Thickness (mm):13 Notes: piece of Strombus?

GTMO 1 unknown sp. Common name: Lot and Specimen # : T05 Tool: n/a Weight (g):0.3 Length (mm):13.7 Width (mm):8.3 Thickness (mm):1.6 Notes: piece of Strombus?

Genus, Total Weight: unknown: 489

Total number of Shell Specimens from GTMO 1: 67

Site #: GTMO 40 Shell Genus : Strombus GTMO 40 Strombus gigas Common name: queen conch Lot and Specimen # : U21 Tool: n/a Weight (g):160 Length (mm):97 Width (mm):55.3 Thickness (mm):41.1 252

Notes:

GTMO 40 Strombus gigas Common name: queen conch Lot and Specimen # : U22 Tool: n/a Weight (g):84 Length (mm):94.3 Width (mm):52.6 Thickness (mm):36.4 Notes:

GTMO 40 Strombus gigas Common name: queen conch Lot and Specimen # : U23 Tool: n/a Weight (g):37 Length (mm):42.2 Width (mm):37.6 Thickness (mm):40.8 Notes:

GTMO 40 Strombus gigas Common name: queen conch Lot and Specimen # : U24 Tool: n/a Weight (g):11 Length (mm):63.2 Width (mm):22.8 Thickness (mm):18 Notes: immature

GTMO 40 Strombus gigas Common name: queen conch Lot and Specimen # : U25 Tool: n/a Weight (g):165 Length (mm):101.5 Width (mm):67 Thickness (mm):63.7 Notes: immature

GTMO 40 Strombus gigas Common name: queen conch Lot and Specimen # : U26 Tool: n/a Weight (g):9 Length (mm):39 Width (mm):22.7 Thickness (mm):17.9 Notes:

GTMO 40 Strombus gigas Common name: queen conch Lot and Specimen # : U27 Tool: n/a Weight (g):89 Length (mm):96.9 Width (mm):61.7 Thickness (mm):53.8 Notes:

GTMO 40 Strombus gigas Common name: queen conch Lot and Specimen # : U28 Tool: pick? Weight (g):71 Length (mm):84.7 Width (mm):37.5 Thickness (mm):26.7 Notes:

GTMO 40 Strombus gigas Common name: queen conch Lot and Specimen # : U29 Tool: n/a Weight (g):46 Length (mm):97.8 Width (mm):44 Thickness (mm):28.7 Notes:

GTMO 40 Strombus gigas Common name: queen conch Lot and Specimen # : U30 Tool: n/a Weight (g):2 Length (mm):22 Width (mm):11.1 Thickness (mm):6.8

253

Notes:

GTMO 40 Strombus gigas Common name: queen conch Lot and Specimen # : U31 Tool: n/a Weight (g):25 Length (mm):65 Width (mm):23.6 Thickness (mm):14.3 Notes:

GTMO 40 Strombus gigas Common name: queen conch Lot and Specimen # : U32 Tool: n/a Weight (g):21 Length (mm):68.5 Width (mm):21.2 Thickness (mm):24 Notes:

GTMO 40 Strombus costatus Common name: milk conch Lot and Specimen # : W08 Tool: n/a Weight (g):105 Length (mm):115 Width (mm):70.3 Thickness (mm):6.7 Notes:

Genus, Total Weight: Strombus: 825

Total number of Shell Specimens from GTMO 40: 13 Total number of Shell Specimens in Catalog: 80

254

Appendix I: Flowchart of Methods

Downloaded Downloaded Downloaded Downloaded Scanned SRTM TIF Landsat 7 sample data soil maps paper files from imagery from from from geology USGS USGS GoSpatial EuDASM maps

Mosaicked Bands Images in ERDAS 2,3,4 merged into Imagine extracted one in Adobe Photoshop Imported Images classified into Images in ERDAS ArcMap registered Imagine in ERDAS Imagine to Slope and Landsat 7 Mangrove Aspect imagery layers Polygon layer created created from Imported classified from into Imported images in SRTM data ArcMap into ArcMap ArcMap Layers converted to Polygon Mangrove Rivers buffered integer data buffered at layers at 800m and and created 800m and 1600m reclassified 1600m

Layers Identify tool converted to used to vector data determine site occurrences

Layers clipped Layers to study area reclassified mask for WofE 255

References

Andrefsky, W. 2008 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press, New York, N.Y.

Alcantara, E. 2007 Soil Fertility in Calcareous Tropical Soils from Yucatan, Mexico, and Villa Clara, Cuba, Affected by Land Use and Soil Moisture Effects. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Crop Sciences, Georg-August University of Gottinghen.

Berman, M.J., J. Febles, and P. L. Gnivecki. 2005 The Organization of Cuban Archaeology: Context and Brief History. In Dialogues in Cuban Archaeology, edited by L. Antonio Curet, Shannon L. Dawdy and Gabino La Rosa Corzo, pp. 29-40. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Blanchon, P. and J. Shaw 1995 Reef Drowning during the last deglaciation: Evidence for catastrophic sea- level rise and ice-sheet collapse. Geology 23(1):4-8.

Bonham-Carter, G. 1994 Geographic Information Systems for Geoscientists: Modeling with GIS. Elsevier Science Inc., Tarrytown, N.Y.

Borhidi, A. 1996 Phytogeography and Vegetation Ecology of Cuba. 2nd edition. Akademiai Kiado, Budapest.

Callaghan, R. 2007 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns on St. Vincent, West Indies. Caribbean Journal of Science 43(1):11-22.

Castellanos, E. 2005 Processing SRTM DEM Data for National Landslide Hazard Assessment. VI Congreso de Geologia April 5-8: 1-12.

256

Cermak, V., L. Bodri, and J. Safanda 1992a Underground Temperature Fields and Changing Climate: Evidence from Cuba. Global and Planetary Change 5(4):325-337. 1992b Recent Climate Change Recorded in the Underground: Evidence from Cuba. Paleogeography, Paleoclimatology, Paleoecology 98(2-4):219-223

Chang, R., R. Villegas, R. Marin, and C. Balmaseda 1995 Cuba: Reference Soil of the Central Valley, Derived from Alluvium. Soil Brief Cuba 1. Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones de Cana de Azucar, Habana, and International Soil Reference and Information Centre, Wageningen, pp. 13.

Church, T., R.J. Brandon and G. Burgett 2000 GIS Application in Archaeology: Method in Search of Theory. In Practical Applications of GIS for Archaeologists, edited by Konnie L. Westcott and R. Joe Brandon, pp.133-151. Taylor and Francis Inc., Philadelphia.

Connelly, J. and M. Lake 2006 Geographical Information Systems in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Cooper, J. 2010 Pre-Columbian Archaeology of Cuba: A Study of Site Distribution Patterns and Radiocarbon Chronologies. In Island Shores, Distant Pasts: Archaeological and Biological Approaches to Pre-Columbian Settlement in the Caribbean, edited by Scott Fitzpatrick and Ann Ross, pp. 81-107. University Press of Florida, Gainesville FL.

Cooper, J. and M. Peros 2010 The Archaeology of Climate Change in the Caribbean. Journal of Archaeological Science. Article in press. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2009.12.022.

Dacal Moure, R. and M. Rivero de la Calle 1996 Art and Archaeology of Pre-Columbian Cuba. Translated by Daniel Sandweiss. University of Pittsburg Press, Pittsburg.

Davis, D. 1982 Archaic Settlement and Resource Exploitation in the Lesser Antilles: Preliminary Information from Antigua. Caribbean Journal of Science 17(1- 4):107-122. 1996 Revolutionary Archaeology in Cuba. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 3(3):159-188.

Deer, W., R. Howie, and J. Zussman 2004 Rock-Forming Minerals: Framework Silicates. 2nd Edition. The Geological Society of London, Bath, UK.

257

Diggs, D. and R. Brunswig 2006 Weights of Evidence Modeling in Archaeology, Rocky Mountain National Park. ArcUser: 1-14.

Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc http://webhelp.esri.com/arcgisdesktop/9.3/index.cfm?TopicName=Average%20N earest%20Neighbor%20(Spatial%20Statistics), accessed February 2011.

Farag, M., K. Miller, B. Ramlal, and C. Fergus 2005 Use of GIS in an Archaeological Study of the Island of St. Kitts. New Measurement Technology and Its Application to Archeological and Engineering Surveys. Paper presented at FIG Working Week, Cairo, Egypt.

Febles Dueñas, J. and A.R. Martínez 1995 Informacion Censal Arqueológia de Cuba, CD-ROM. Taino: Arqueológia de Cuba. Centro de Antropologia y CEDISAC, Colima.

Kemp, L.D., Bonham-Carter, G.F. and Raines, G.L., 1999 Arc-WofE: Arcview extension for weights of evidence mapping. http://www.ige.unicamp.br/wofe.

Fontan, T.. and J. Hung 1996 La Communidades Meillacoides del Littoral Sudoriental de Cuba. El Caribe Arquelogico 1: 74-82.

Fontan, T., E. Castellanos, and M. Montauo. 1973 Arqueolgia de Sardinero. La Habana: Instituto Cubano del Libro.

Furrazola-Bermúdez, G., C. Judoley, M. Mijiailovskaya, Y. Miroliubov. I. Novojatsky, A. Nunez-Jimenez, and J. Solsona. 1964 Geologia de Cuba. Insitituto Cubano de Recursos Minerales, La Habana.

Graham, A. 2003 Geohistory Models and Cenozoic Paleoenvironments of the Caribbean Region. Systematic Botany 28(2): 378-386.

Hanson, D.T. 2000 Describing GIS Applications: Spatial Statistics and the Weights of Evidence Extension in the Analysis of the Distribution of Archaeology Sites in the Landscape. Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual ESRI User Conferences, San Diego. http://www.esri.com/library/userconf/proc00/professional/papers/PAP174.htm

258

Harrington, M. 1921 Cuba Before Columbus Part 1 Vol.I. Indian Notes and Monographs. Museum of the American Indian, Heyes Foundation, New York. 1921 Cuba Before Columbus Part 1 Vol.II. Indian Notes and Monographs. Museum of the American Indian, Heyes Foundation, New York.

Hodell, D., J. Curtis, G. Jones, A. Huguera-Gundy, M. Brenner, M. Binford., and K. Dorsey 1991 Reconstruction of Caribbean Climate Change Over the Past 10,500 Years. Nature 352 (August): 790-793.

Keegan, W. 1992 The People Who Discovered Columbus: The Prehistory of the Bahamas. Tallahassee: University Press of Florida. 1994 West Indian Archaeology 1: Overview and Foragers. Journal of Archaeological Research 2(3): 255-284. 1996 West Indian Archaeology 2: After Columbus. Journal of Archaeological Research 4(4): 265-294. 2000 West Indian Archaeology 3: Ceramic Age. Journal of Archaeological Research 8(2): 135-167.

Keegan, W. and T. Sara 2003 Archaeological Survey and Paleoenvironmental Investigations of Portions of U.S. Naval Station Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Geo-Marine Inc., Plano, Texas. Submitted to Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic.

Kohler, Timothy A. and Sandra C. Parker. 1986 Predictive Models for Archaeological Resource Location. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 9: 397-452.

Knippenberg, S. 2007 Stone Artefact Production and Exchange Among the Northern Lesser Antilles. Leiden University Press, The Netherlands.

Kvamme. K.L. 1984 Models of prehistoric site location near Pinyon Canyon, Colorado. Papers of the Philmont Conference on the Archaeology of Northeastern New Mexico, New Mexico Archaeological Council Proceedings, 6(1):347-370.

Larson, B. 2003 A Preliminary Archaeological Survey and Assessment of the United States Naval Station Guantánamo Bay Cuba. Manuscript on file, Atlantic Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Norfolk, Virginia.

259

Larson, B. and K. LaSala 2004 Archaeological Field Investigation at U.S. Naval Station Guantánamo Bay10 –17 July, 2004. Memorandom on file, Atlantic Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Norfolk, Virginia.

McManamon, F.P. 1982 Prehistoric land use on outer Cape Cod. Journal of Field Archaeology 9:1- 20.

Martínez Arango, F. 1982 Registro de Todos los Sitios Arqueologicos Investigados por la Sección Arqueológia Aborigen de la Universidad de Oriente. Instituto Cubano del Libro, La Habana.

Menendez, L., P. Alcolado, S. Oharriz, and C. Milian 1994 Mangroves of Cuba: Legislation and Management. In El Ecosistema de Manglar en America Latina y la Cuenca del Caribe: Su Manego y Conservacion, edited by Dr. Daniel O. Suman, pp. 76-84. University of Miami, Florida.

National Park Service 1995 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin 15, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

Nichols, G. 1999 Sedimentology and Stratigraphy. Blackwell Science, Massachusetts.

Peregrine, P. 1991 A Graphic-Theoretic Approach to the Evolution of Cahokia. American Antiquity 56(1); 66-75.

Perlman, S. 1980 An Optimum Diet Model, Coastal Variability and Hunter-Gatherer Behavior. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 3:257-310.

Raines, G., G. Bonham-Carter, and L. Kemp 2000 Predictive Modeling Using ArcView GIS. ArcUser April-June: 45-48. http://www.ige.unicamp.br/sdm/ArcSDM3/default_e.htm, accessed February 4, 2010.

Reid, B. 2003 Developing GIS-Based Weights of Evidence Predictive Model of Pre- Columbian Sites in Trinidad. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida.

260

Rodriguez, E., C.S. Morris, J.E. Belz, E.C. Chapin, J.M. Martin, W. Daffer, and S. Hensley 2003 An Assessment of the SRTM Topographic Products. NASA: Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

Rouse, I. 1942 Archaeology of the Maniabon Hills, Cuba. In Yale University Publications in Anthropology No. 2. Yale University Press, New Haven.

1992 The Tainos: Rise and Decline of the People Who Greeted Columbus. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Schill, S. 2010 Vegetation cover map for Cuba. Unpublished GIS map, The Nature Conservancy: Caribbean Program.

Selvarajdou S-K, Montanarella L, Spaargaren O and Dent D. 2005 European Digital Archive of Soil Maps (EuDASM): Soil maps of Latin America and the Caribbean Islands. EUR 21822 EN, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg (http://eusoils.jrc.it/esdb_archive/EuDASM/latinamerica/pdf/eur21821...)

Steward, J.H. 1937a Ancient Caves of the Great Salt Lake Region, Washington D.C.: Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin No. 116. 1937b Ecological aspects of Southwestern society. Anthropos 32: 87-104.

Sydoriak Allen, K. 2000 Considerations of Scale in Modeling Settlement Patterns Using GIS: An Iroquois Example. In Practical Applications of GIS for Archaeologists, edited by Konnie L. Westcott and R. Joe Brandon, pp. 101-112. Taylor and Francis Inc, Philadelphia.

Tabio, E. and E. Rey 1966 Prehistoria de Cuba. Academia de Ciencias de Cuba, La Habana. 1979 Prehistoria de Cuba. 2nd Edition. Academia de Ciencias de Cuba, La Habana.

Trigger, B. 2008 A History of Archaeological Thought. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Trincado, T. and J. Hung 1996 La Communidades Meillacoides del Littoral Sudoriental de Cuba. El Caribe Arquelogico 1: 74-82.

261

Turck, J. 2003 Environmental Archaeology: Locational Analysis of Paleoindian and Archaic Period Sites in South Florida Utilizing Geographic Information Systems. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University.

United States Geological Survey http://srtm.usgs.gov/, accessed January 12, 2010. http://glovis.usgs.gov/, accessed January 2010.

Wescott K. and J. Kuiper 2000 Site Distributions in the Upper Chesapeake Bay. In Practical Applications of GIS for Archaeologists, edited by Konnie L. Westcott and R. Joe Brandon, pp. 59-72. Taylor and Francis Inc., Philadelphia.

Wheatley D. and M. Gillings. 2002 Spatial Technology and Archaeology: The Archaeological Applications of GIS. Taylor and Francis Inc., New York.

Willey, G.R. 1953 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Viru Valley, Peru, Washington D.C.: Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin no. 155.

Wilson, S. 1989 The Prehistoric Settlement of Nevis, West Indies. Journal of Field Archaeology 16(4):427-450.

Yesner, D. 1980 Maritime Hunter Gatherers: Ecology and Prehistory. Current Anthropology 21(6):727-750.

262