THE COLONIZATION OF ARCHIPELAGO A VIEW FROM THE THREE DOG SITE, SAN SALVADOR

Mary Jane Berman and Perry L Gnivecki

ABSTRACT

A number of colonization models have been proposed toexplain the prehistoric peopling of the Bahamas Archipelago from the Greater Antilles. Each of these models varies in respect to place of origin, timing of migration and settlement, routes of movement, and causal agents. The Three Dog Site, San Salvador, Bahamas is the earliest Lucayan-Taino site thus far excavated in the Bahamas. An intensive excavation strategy combined with fine-grained recovery techniques over seven field seasons (1984-1991) has resulted in the extraction of a large body of data from chronometrically dated contexts. The theories of DeBooy (1912),Granberry (1956), Sears and Sullivan (1978), Sullivan (1980), Keegan (1985, 1988), Winter, Granberry, and Leibold (1985), Keegan and Diamond (1987), and Rouse (1986,1989) will be evaluated with data from the site. A new model for the colonization of the Bahamas will be presented.

INTRODUCTION

The prehistoric settling of the Bahamas Archipelago represents the culmination of a process of migration, expansion and colonization of the Lesser and Greater Antilles which originated from mainland South America, spanning several thousand years (Rouse 1986 and elsewhere). The Bahamas were the last of the to be settled. A number of colonization models for the Bahamas has been proposed. These models vary in respect to the geographical homeland of the first migrants, the date of the earliest migration, the site of the first migrant settlement, and the order in which the islands were settled. Several, but not all, address the causal factors inducing settlement. In this paper, these arguments will be discussed in relationship to the evidence from the Three Dog Site (SS21), San Salvador, Bahamas. Data from the site suggest that colonization of the Bahamas Archipelago occurred at around A.D. 600, thereby corroborating Keegan's recent assertion (1985:287,297; 1988:4-5). Furthermore, the research supports the claim that the earliest colonists originated from northeastern .

DEFINING AND RECOGNIZING COLONIZATION

The archaeological recognition of migration and population movements is a difficult endeavor (Adams, Van Gerven and Levy1978; Rouse 1958, 1986, 1989). Inferring colonization, or the establishment of settlements by migrants in a new homeland, presents a similar challenge. The means by which we identify sites produced through processes of migration and colonization and differentiate their characteristic site assemblages from those produced by other processes such as exchange, trade, orother forms of culture contact is a classic archaeological dilemma. In the Bahamas Archipelago where questions of migration and colonization have interested researchers for almost a century, Sears and Sullivan (1978), Sullivan (1980),and Keegan (1985, 1988) view archaeological colonization assemblages as consisting of ceramic inventories composed entirely of non-locally produced (i.e., non- Palmettan) wares. To Keegan (1988:4), Sears and Sullivan (1978), and Sullivan(1980), non-local ware consists of quartz tempered pottery brought from the Greater Antilles. Sears and Sullivan (1978) and Sears (1980:124) report 25 such sites on Middle Caicos and one site on Providenciales. These small "camps or hamlets", measuring less that 0.25 hectares in area, contained early-middle Meillacoid

170 BERMAN/GNIVECKI 171 ceramics, "probably of the Meillac style from northwestern Hispaniola" (Sullivan 1980: 124). Keegan (1985, 1988: 4) has located three surface sites on Great with non-locally produced ceramics (presumably from Haiti and/or Cuba). In contrast to the small or short-term occupations present at the Middle Caicos and Providenciales sites, the Great Inagua sites contained extensive midden deposits, which Keegan(lbid.) associates with permanently occupied settlements.

WHO FIRST SETTLED THE BAHAMAS? WHEN WERE THE BAHAMAS FIRST SETTLED?

The origins and timing of the initial settlement of the Bahamas archipelago has long intrigued archaeologists. In spite of over 100 years of archaeological survey, excavation, and reporting, the question remains unresolved. One of the reasons for this is that archaeologists depended on ceramic cross-dating of non-local materials found on Bahamian sites with sites from northern Haiti and other areas of Hispaniola. As chronometric dates became available for these areas and new chronologies worked out for them, new dates for the pottery (and the cultures which produced them) were proposed. Much of the literature reflects what was known at the time of writing and, consequently, chronological information of a decade ago is often obsolete. Consequently, many temporal arguments need to be revised, as new chronologies are developed. In addition, until recently, few chronometric dates existed for the Bahamas. Now investigators regularly recover and submit samples suitable for chronometric dating. A solid foundation upon which to base discussions dealing with chronology is being established (Tablel), thereby securing the foundation for chronological arguments. Theodore DeBooy was the first of a long line of investigators to state that Haiti was the original homeland of the Lucayans (DeBooy 1912:87-88,1913). Almost fifty years later Granberry (1956: 132-133) also suggested that Haiti was the original source of the Bahamian Arawaks. Colonization was characterized by a "Double Wave Model" which consisted of two waves of stylistic influences associated with one or more associated migrations of people (Ibid.; Sears and Sullivan 1978:6). The first wave of colonists was associated with the Meillacan Ostionoid style of the Meillacoid series, while the second wave was associated with the Carrier style of the Chicoidseries. In this model, the Turks and Caicos were settled first by people from northern Haiti. Apparently, the Carrier style of the Chicoid series did not involve a migration of people into the central Bahamas, rather, just a diffusion of decorative techniques (Granberry 1956: 133). Despite Granberry's (1956:132-133) nomination of northern Haiti as the Bahamian Arawak's original homeland, he admits to some cultural influences emanating from eastern and central Cuba (Bani), as well as from south-central Cuba (Caya Ocampo and Cantabria sites near Cienfuegos) (Ibid.: 130). In a more recent paper, Winter, Granberry, and Leibold (1985: 84, 89) suggest a date of A.D. 900 for the colonization of the Bahamas from north-central or northern Hispaniola, which they see as having taken place first in the Turks and Caicos in the southern Bahamas. Elsewhere in their paper they suggest that contact might have taken place and/or colonists might have originated from Cuba (Ibid.: 84-85, 89). The date for the Cuban colonization is not given. Trace element analysis of non­ local ceramics is used to substantiate the Bahamas Hispaniola connection, but the authors regard the Bahamas - Cuba connection as a possibility. Sears and Sullivan (1978:16, 22-23) suggest that the Turks and Caicos were the first islands of the Bahamas archipelago to be colonized from Hispaniola, Cuba, or both. According to Sullivan (1980: 124), the stylistic modes of the pottery indicate early-middle Meillacan Ostionoid affiliation and a suggested date of manufacture of A.D. 750-900. At the time of Sears and Sullivan's (1978) and Sullivan's (1980) work, the Meillacan Ostionoid was believed to have spanned the period A.D.750-900. It is now believed to begin at A.D. 900 and end at A.D. 1200 (Rouse 1982). If Rouse's' 172 THE COLONIZATION OF THE BAHAMAS^ dates are to be used in this argument, the settlement of the Bahamas would date to A.D.900! Keegan (1985:297,266-282; 1988:4-5) and Keegan and Diamond (1987:60, Figure 2.6:61) suggest that Great Inagua was the first island of the archipelago to be colonized. In this view, it was settled by people from Hispaniola who brought the Meillacan Ostionoid tradition with them during the seventh and eighth centuries (A.D. 600-700) (Keegan 1988:4). In a later publication, Keegan and Maclachlan (1989: 614) suggest that people from Hispaniola began to settle the Bahamas by A.D. 800. After Great Inagua was colonized, Keegan (1985:297-298) suggests the following sequence of colonization: Island, Cat Island, and subsequently the branches of the north-south archipelago axis, the , , Rum , San Salvador, and finally, the Islands. Keegan(1988: 5) rules out the possibility of Cuba as being the source of colonists for the central Bahamas, arguing in favor of Hispaniola. He argues that the area of Cuba closest to the central Bahamas was colonized relatively late, since non-local wares constitute a minority of the sherd assemblages present atsites in this region of the archipelago.

Rose (1982:142) suggests that both Haiti and Cuba were source areas for the early peopling of the Bahamas. Rose (1987:324) conceptualized three distinct migration routes and colonization episodes: first, the Caicos at about A.D. 800, settled by people from Hispaniola; second, the central ¡slands(Long Island, Rum Cay, San Salvador, Cat Island) at A.D. 900 by people from Cuba; and third, a migration originating from the Magens Bay region of the Virgin Islands as early as A.D. 900. In a recent publication (1989:123) Rouse states that the Bahamas were settled between A.D. 800-1200 by Ostionoid peoples. More recently, he has expressed the belief that the archipelago was settled between A.D. 600-800 (1991, personal communication). In summary, there is a lack of agreement in the timing of the original colonization of the Bahamas. There is, however, consensus that the Bahamas was settled by Meillacoid bearing peoples from northern Haiti. In addition, there is lack of agreement whether the first islands settled were the Turks and Caicos or Great Inagua. And finally, at least one investigator suggests that colonization of the central Bahamas represents aseparate colonization event and that the early colonists to this area might have been come from Cuba.

WHY WERE THE BAHAMAS SETTLED?

The Models

There are a number of models which explain why the Bahamas were colonized. DeBooy (1912) suggests that the first migrants to the Bahamas fled Hispaniola to escape the ravages of the ferocious Carib who were making their way northward to Hispaniola from the Lesser Antilles during the late fifteenth century. This view places the occupation of the Bahamas too late than the existing evidence suggests. Furthermore, the ferocity of the Island Carib might have been a myth perpetuated by the Europeans to legitimize the taking of Indian slaves (Davis and Goodwin 1990: 37, 45-46). Such exaggerations can be attributed to Columbus, who was the first to differentiate between good (friendly) and bad (unfriendly) natives (Sauer 1966:31 ). Sears and Sullivan (1978) and Sullivan (1980) propose an economic model. They suggest that the Turks and Caicos were first settled by people involved in the production, processing, and export of dried conch and salt to Hispaniola. As Keegan (1988:5) points out, salt did not probably become an important exchange item until the twelfth century, when Increased Hispaniolan population growth raised demand for such commodities. Moreover, the production of Meillacan Ostionoid ceramics is later than the earliest occupation date recovered from the Three Dog Site located on San Salvador (see below), thereby suggesting a later, separate migration from northern Haiti to the southern Bahamas. Winter, Granberry, and Leibold (1985: 84-86) suggest that there are several causal agents for the first wave of colonization. These include: island propinquity, Spring BERMAN / GNIVECKI 173

migrations of flamingos to Great Inagua, and ecological resourcefactors in the form of unexploited marine and terrestrial fauna, forests, soil, and fresh water (Ibid.: 84-86). While it is true that the distances between Hispaniola, Cuba, and the Bahamas were easily overcome by the prehistoric occupants of these islands, the motivation for such travel needs to be explained. We argue that proximity is not sufficient incentive for population movement. (See Keegan and Diamond 1987 for a contrary view). Furthermore, whether the need for feathers (presumably for ceremonial headdresses) necessitates settlement of a new region requires further testing. Finally, the ecological resource factors to which Winter et al. (1985) refer must be elaborated in respect to the Bahamas, as well as Hispaniola and Cuba. In this way, mutual causality as an impetus to colonization can be achieved.

The current model of Lucayan-Taino subsistence and adaptation is based on the work of William Keegan (1985, 1988). Keegan employed survey data and information gleaned from the few excavated sites for which quantified data existed. He employs the principles of optimal foraging theory and island biogeography to explain subsistence, population growth, and expansion from the time the islands were colonized to their depopulation. Keegan (1985: 297; 1988 and elsewhere) proposes a model in which Great Inagua was settled by colonists who were prevented from expanding along the north coast of Haiti by their relatives who had preceded them. Depending upon the distance and climatic conditions, large islands could be seen from canoes or even from the shore. The largest islands were settled first. Movement from one island to the next within the archipelago is explained by an autocatalytic expansion model (Keegan 1985; Keegan and Diamond 1987). As one island filled up with an expanding horticultural, hunting, and fishing/collecting population, excess population migrated to the next island unpopulated by humans. Uninhabited islands were characterized by high ranked resources. As will be discussed below, we view the southern islands,such as Great Inagua, as being ecologically less attractive than the north-central islands of the Bahamas chain. (Our ecological measures differ than those employed by Keegan (1985), see below). We question, therefore, why expanding populations would select the ecologically less productive southern Bahamas, instead of the ecologically more productive north-central Bahamas or eastern Cuba. In addition, the model assumes that eastern Cuba did not produce migrant communities at this time, a view which we do not share. Moreover, if the autocatalytic model of population expansion were correct, emigrants from Cuba would have just as likely selected the Inaguas, since it is equidistant from Cuba, as well as Hispaniola (Morgan 1989: 710), Finally, Rouse (1982, 1986, 1989) views the colonization of the Bahamas Archipelago as part of a general Ostionoid expansion associated with population growth and economic expansion. The remainder of the paper will be devoted to suggesting a model which differs from the ones presented above. Before the model is proposed, however, the data upon which the model is based will be presented.

THE THREE DOG SITE

Introduction

The Three Dog Site (SS21) is located on Sugar Loaf Bay on the west side of San Salvador. The cultural deposit consists of a buried dark organic layer in the seaward erosion face of a dune composed of unlithified calcareous sand (Winter 1987a: 207: Figure 2; Gerace 1987:234: Figure 1 : b. Strachan's Landing is an approximate location for the Three Dog Site). Much of the seaward facing portion of the site has been eradicated due to active storm action. Pottery, bone, charcoal, and shell are eroding out of the site; consequently, we do not know how large the community was when it was inhabited. A well, used during the earlier part of the century, is located adjacent to the site, suggesting that fresh water 174 THE COLONIZATION OF THE BAHAMAS

might have attracted settlement of this particular location. The investigation of the site is part of a long-term research program (Lucayan Ecological Archaeology Project) committed to the study of aboriginal Lucayan- Taino adaptations to the island eco-systems of the Bahamas Archipelago. Research begun in January 1984, has been conducted in short, but intensive, field seasons of three to four weeks duration during January 1984-1987 and May-June 1988,1990, and 1991. A multi-disciplinary research approach includes studying site paleoethnobotany, zoo archaeology, and geology (Berman and Gnivecki 1990). Two components are present at the site. The earlier one, dating to A.D. 660-865 consists of a midden, a food preparation area, and an area whose function has not yet been determined. The tool kit of a pendant maker has also been found. It appears that the site's remains correspond to the activities of one household. Eleven taxa of fish and three taxa of turtles, including a fresh water variety, have been identified from four midden squares (Wing 1991, personal communication). Five species of wood have been identified from eight in situ and screen charcoal samples from four excavation squares and eight flotation squares from five squares (Pearsall 1989; Bermanl 992). The wood charcoal has been interpreted as having been used as fuel wood. Indirect evidence suggests that the inhabitants of the site grew or at least processed manioc or some other type of root crop. Griddle sherds and small cryptocrystalline calcite microblades, which we interpret as graters, have been recovered. A hoe manufactured from a similar material was also recovered, suggesting that field maintenance for agriculture or, at the very least, plant cultivation occurred.

In addition to food preparation, consumption, and discard, other activities took place at the site. These include the production of shell beads and the manufacture of shell and stone pendants. Although evidence of on-site firing has not been recognized, other aspects of pottery manufacture are present. These include the concentration of untempered pancakes and coils of locally-procured clay, at one particular locus. The site appears to have been maintained through sweeping; some excavated areas of the site have extremely low artifact frequencies or are entirely devoid of artifacts. The later occupation of the site is known from an ephemeral scatter of non-diagnostic metal fragments and a lead ball, believed to be an arquebus ball, confined to the northeastern sector of the site. A lead isotope determination ratio was carried out on the lead ball at the National Bureau of Standards. The lead has been chemically analyzed as coming from the Los Belgas mine from the Sierra de Gador, just west of the city of Almeria in Spain, a mining district exploited heavily during the 15th century (Brill et al. 1987). The lead is similar chemically to a bronze belt buckle recovered from the Long Bay Site (Hoffman 1987a, 1987b) located about 2.7 kilometers to the north (Brill et al. 1987). A radiocarbon date of A.D. 1460 +/- 70 was secured from a turtle bone an upper level of the midden. Bone collagen often yields dates which are younger than those run on charcoal or wood (Taylor 1980), suggesting therefore, that this is not a correct determination and that the turtle bone dates to the earlier occupation.

Chronology

Three uncalibrated radiocarbon dates and one thermo luminescence date from the Three Dog Site overlap (Tablel). All three radiocarbon determinations were performed on charcoal by Beta Analytic. The thermo luminescence date, performed by Alpha Analytic, was calculated from a decorated shell-tempered (i.e., Palmettan) sherd. The radiocarbon dates from the early component range fromA.D. 660 to A.D. 865. The early date of A.D. 660 +/-90 comes from the midden. A date of A.D. 750 +/- 100 comes from a well-maintained area, perhaps the interior of a house. A charcoal fragment from the food-processing area in the southern part of the site yielded a date of A.D. 865 +/-65. The thermo luminescence date, from a nearby square, yielded a date of A.D. 886 (2 s.d.). BERMAN / GNIVECKI 175

In addition to employing radiocarbon and thermo luminescence determinations to date the site, pottery, too, has been used as a means of assessing chronology. Like other investigators, we have been able to cross-date the site with non-locally produced wares. Both stylistic and technological modes (Rouse 1939,19600 were employed.

Ceramics

The total ceramic assemblage (1984-1991) consists of 718 locally-produced and non-local sherds greater than or equal tol.O square centimeter. The locally produced pottery (N = 555) is manufactured from red pineapple loam clay and is shell-tempered. In this regard it resembles Palmetto Ware (Hoffman 1970; MacLaury 1970; Sears and Sullivan 1978), now referred to as Palmettan Ostionoid or Palmettan (Keegan 1988:5). Some pieces show signs of polish, and possibly a slip, butexposure to salt has degraded and obscured the evidence substantially, so it is impossible to provide accurate quantification. Because so few Palmettan sherds were characterized by recognizable stylistic elaboration, ceramic thickness was used as a means of comparison with other ceramic assemblages. The measurements for thickness exhibit a bimodal distribution analogous to the pottery reported in Sears and Sullivan's (1978)comprehensive study. In this study, they (Ibid.: 12) noted a sherd thickness range of 0.5-1.6 cm for bowis and 1.6-3.2 cm for griddles. The pottery from the Three Dog Site is slightly thinner; one mode, which can be attributed to bowis, ranges from0.3-1.4 cm, while another, from griddles, ranges from 1.5-2.5cm. This is in contrast to the sherd thickness distribution described from the Long Bay Site, San Salvador, where bowls and griddles ranged from 0.8-1.0 cm (Hoffman 1970:13). On Catlsland sherd thickness ranged from 0.4-1.6 cm. (MacLaury 1970:37), while at the McKay Site, Crooked Island, they ranged fromO.5-1.4 cm (Winter 1978a: 238). None of the Palmettan sherds recovered from the Three Dog Site shows evidence of mat-marking, another characteristic which differentiates it from that described for other portions of the Bahamas. A partially reconstructible bowl from the Three Dog Site was decorated with an incised sigmoid applique strip. This is the only known decorative mode from the sites's shell-tempered assemblage, and is a mode noted for other Ostionoid assemblages (Rouse 1982 and elsewhere).

The non-shell-tempered ware, which comprises 30 per cent of the ceramic assemblage (N = 163), ¡s also distinctive. The kind of tempering material observed at the Three Dog Site differs from that mentioned for non-local assemblages at other Bahamas sites. At these sites, non-local sherds have quartz temper.described in various ways: quartz sand (Hoffman 1970:15),crushed quartz or quartz sand, sometimes with hornblende and feldspar inclusions (MacLaury 1970: 38), igneous rock (Sears and Sullivan 1978:11 ), grit-tempered with medium sized inclusions of quartz (Winter 1978a: 238), and quartz temper (Granberry1978:39). The Three Dog Site assemblage consists of at leas tfive, and possibly six non-local temper combinations (Berman, in preparation). In addition to sherds with crushed quartz and metamorphic rock temper, there are a number of other combinations: crushed limestone and metamorphic rock; crushed quartz, metamorphic rock and limestone; crushed shell, limestone and metamorphic rock; and crushed limestone and shell. Crushed limestone temper is also present. Sears and Sullivan (1978)found crushed limestone temper at sites in the Turks and Caicos.but they suggest it represents a local (i.e., Bahamas) ceramic development. Until trace element analysis is performed on the limestone tempered sherds from the Three Dog Site, it is not possible to say with surety whether the sherds are local or foreign-derived. For the time being, however, they are regarded as non-local, since the majority of them exhibit a thick redslip and were fired in a reduction environment. Neither of these characteristics can be attributed to the Palmettan ware described by Sears and Sullivan (1978). The non-local wares are further differentiated from othernon-local assemblages in that 43 percent 176 THE COLONIZATION OF THE BAHAMAS

of them exhibit a highly polished red slip on the exterior of the sherds. The interior of such sherds is highly polished, but unslipped. Macroscopically the sherds correspond to the ceramic assemblages from the Arroyo del Palo and Mejias sites located near Mayari, Cuba in north-eastern Cuba (Tabio and Guarch 1966). Temper, surface finish, and decorative modes match those described from these sites. Other sites in northern Cuba also exhibit similar pottery assemblages (Tabio and Guarch 1966, Tabio and Rey 1966). The Arroyo del Palo sherds are tempered with a mixture of crushed quartz and limestone mixed with serpentine sand/gravel (Tabio and Guarch 1966:35). (Serpentine is most likely the metamorphic rock identified in the Three Dog Site temper). Red-slipped sherds, tempered with these materials are also present at the Arroyo del Palo site (Tabio and Guarch 1966:48-49). In addition, the polished red-slipped examples are macroscopically identical to sherds from the Madinga Site near Baracoa which are housed at the Peabody Museum of Natural History of Yale University (Berman, in preparation). In a series of blind tests, it was impossible to distinguish between the sherds from the Three Dog Site and those from the Madinga Site. In addition to the plainware and slipped examples, three decorated non-local sherds have also been recovered from the Three Dog Site. Two of them resemble decorated types from the Arroyo del Palo site. One is red-slipped, punctate; the other is unslipped (or eroded?) cross-hatched. Finally, a red-slipped zoomorphic lug was also recovered. The animal esembles ananoli, a type of iguanid lizard. The temporal and cultural placement of the Arroyo del Palo pottery has posed a problem of classification for Cuban archaeologists. Stylistically, the pottery's decorative modes such as the punctation, incision, and cross-hatching resemble the early Meillac of Haiti, such as that observed at Rouses's(1939, 1941) Macaday and Diale I sites (Tabio and Guarch (1966:72). The red slip suggests an Ostionoid affiliation, however(lbid.); red slip being an Ostionoid characteristic (Rouse1982). Previously, Rouse and Allaire (1978:466) viewed the pottery as having a Meillacoid affiliation, originating around A.D. 900. More recently, however, Rouse (1982: Figure 1:46) assigned this pottery to the Arroyo del Palo complex (style) of the Ostionoid series. When the Arroyo del Palo style was first proposed, it was suggested that it spanned the period A.D. 800-1100 (Tabio and Guarch 1966:79; Tabio and Rey). With radiocarbon dates of A.D.930,980 +/-80, and 1190 +/-60 (Tabio and Guarch 1966:77; Tabioand Rey 1966:109-110; Rouse and Allaire 1978: Table 13.6:471 ),the Arroyo del Palo site appears to have been occupied somewhere in the tenth century A.D. More recently, however, Rouse (1982 :Figure 1:46) assigned the Arroyo del Palo complex to A.D.600-900, and views it as contemporaneous with the Macady complex of Haiti, the Anadel complex of the Dominican Republic, and the Pure Ostiones complex of western Puerto Rico. Interestingly, the dates which Rouse (1982) assigned to the Arroyo del Palocomplex agree with the radiocarbon dates from the Three DogSite. One of the least understood aspects about the Arroyo delPalo ceramic assemblage is that griddles have not been recovered at sites where the complex is present. Tabio and Rey (1966) andTabio and Guarch (1966) interpret this as evidence that the makers of this pottery did not grow bitter manioc. They suggest that the peoples of the Arroyo del Palo complex were incipient agriculturalists; their subsistence economy was transitional between the Archaic Cayo Redondo complex, characterized by hunting and gathering, and fully agricultural peoples. However, Palmettan sherds believed to be griddles have been recovered from the Three Dog Site, suggesting that the occupants of the site were engaged in horticultural pursuits. The presence of grater chips supports this argument further. (For alternative uses of griddles, however, see Allaire 1984).

Temporal and Cultural Placement

The Three Dog Site is the earliest site thus far systematically excavated in the Bahamas Archipelago. The chronometric dates suggest it was occupied A.D. 600-900, the time period that the BERMAN / GNIVECKI 177

Ostionoid series was being produced in other parts of the Greater Antilles (Rouse 1982). The non-local Arroyo del Palo complex also dates to this time period (Rouse1982). As a result of these dates, the settling of the Bahamas can be moved back two to three centuries earlier than the time suggested by Sears and Sullivan (1978) and Winter, Granberry and Leibold (1985). The dates corroborate Keegan's (1985,1988) and Keegan and Diamond's (1987) views on colonization of the archipelago. Furthermore, the earliest settlement of the Bahamas islands appear to have come from northern, possible north eastern Cuba, not northern or northwestern Haiti, as has been stated by prior investigators. Finally the pottery from Arroyo del Palo, Mejias, and other sites in northern Cuba is representative of the Arroyo del Palo complex of the Ostionoid series (Ibid.). Earliest colonization of the Bahamas, appears, therefore, to have been made by Ostionoid-bearing peoples and not the Meillacoid or Meillacan Ostionoid peoples, as proposed previously.

An Initial Colony?

Following Sullivan (1980) and Keegan (1985, 1988), sites dating to the post-colonization period (in contrast to the initial colonization sites), will be characterized by locally-produced ceramics characterized by crushed shell temper within a clay matrix derived from local, Bahamian sources and some non-locally produced ceramics characterized by crushed quartz temper within a non-local clay matrix. Sites with these characteristics should be larger than 0.25 hectares. Thenon-local ware should be present in low frequencies. Since most of the pottery at the Three Dog Site is locally made, the site does not fit Sears and Sullivan's (1978) and Keegan's (1988) criteria of an initial colony. The presence o f Palmettan Ostionoid pottery, as well as the raw materials for pottery production (untempered lumps of clay) suggest that the techniques for making such pottery was an established lifeway. However, non- local wares constitute 30 per cent of the ceramic assemblage, a much greater frequency than recorded from othe rsites where mixed (local and non-local) assemblages have been recorded. This suggests that contact with a non-local source might have been systematic and sustained, as found in a trading network. The question then becomes (not admitting to kula-like ceremonial or other trading partnerships), what was exchanged in return? On the other hand, the high percentage of non-local sherds can also be attributed to a recent or newly arrived group of immigrants. The material culture repertoire of such acommunity would include objects brought with them from their homeland, as well as items produced locally, using local raw materials, in their new environs. We favor the latter interpre­ tation, especially since the craft activities: pottery-making, shell-bead production, and pendant production represented at the site employ local materials.

AN ALTERNATIVE MODEL: MULTIPLE EPISODES, MULTIPLE ORIGINS

Research at the Three Dog Site, San Salvador, demonstrates that the Bahamas, particularly the central (north-central) Bahamas, was colonized much earlier (circa A.D. 600) than previously thought. Moreover, the close resemblance of pottery (Berman, in preparation) with that of the Ostionoid series of northeastern Cuba (circa A.D.600-900), necessitates are alignment of the route of migration from the southeast-northwest to the southwest-northeast. On the otherhand, a body of data also exists which demonstrate a latersoutheast-northwest colonization of the Bahamas by Meillacan peoples from Hispaniola (Sears and Sullivan 1978; Sullivan 1980; Keegan 1985, 1988) around A.D. 900. This colonization found its earliest expression in the Turks and Caicos and on Greatlnagua. A model that recognizes several migration episodes separated by anywhere from one to three centuries from multiple sources may constitute a more appropriate explanation of the peopling of the Bahamas Archipelago given our current archaeological knowledge of the northern Caribbean. At the outset, it must be 178 THE COLONIZATION OF THE BAHAMAS

emphasized that the model, representing a preliminary attempt at dealing with a variety of complex issues, is tentative. As presented here it is a trial formulation and will, of course, require further refinement and critique (Gnivecki, in preparation). Furthermore it refers to the establishment of permanent settlements. Short-term or special purpose sites of the kind Sullivan (1980:125) refers to as having been produced by people involved in "discovery and exploration" may be found on islands closer to home sites; however, this discussion is focused on early colonization reflecting commitment to a new area. Future archaeological research on the islands south of the Crooked Island Passage should reveal sites dating as old or earlier than the Three Dog Site, but if the proposed model is correct, these sites will be short-term "stopovers". In the following section, a model of early migration and colonization based on several principles of biogeography and ecology is proposed. The model Is also based on several assumptions. The first assumption is that initial colonization of the Bahamas originated from northern or north- eastern Cuba.

The second assumption is that, like Sears and Sullivan (1978),we believe the migrants were root crop horticulturists who settled in areas where agriculture could be practiced successfully with high probability of a reliable yield. Forthese reasons, the most appropriate environment would have been that found today in the north-central islands of , San Salvador, Central and South Andros, and not the Turks, Caicos, or Inaguas. It is proposed that the earliest permanent habitation sites are to be found in these north-centralislands.

Biogeography

The Bahamas Archipelago is subdivided into two biogeographic regions: the northern and the southern Bahamas. The Crooked Island Passage functions as the definitive biogeographic barrier separating the archipelago between Long Island and Crooked Island (Morgan 1989; Little et al. 1977). South of the passage, the islands possess a Hispaniolan flora, while the islands north of the passage possess a flora influenced by Cuba (Little et al. 1977:14). San Salvador, in the north-central Bahamas, is least understood because its flora more closely resembles that of Hispaniola and Puerto Rico (Ibid.). Morgan (1989: 685) observes that of the 16 species of terrestrial mammals found in fossil deposits of the Great Bahama Bank (which is north of the Crooked Island Passage), 12 have Cuban affinities, while only 1 species is of Hispaniolan origin. Furthermore, six of the 12 recent Bahamian mammals are of Cuban origin and four species are of Hispaniolan origin. Except for the enigmatic situation of San Salvador, which might be due to human-transported flora, the flora and fauna of the north-central islands, therefore, most resembles that of Cuba. Migrants would have sought a place to live which most resembled their homeland and which presented similar ecological opportunities for them. As a number of anthropologists have noted, there is a tendency for human colonists to settle are as closely resembling their land of origin (Rouse 1986:12-13;Sanders and Price 1968: 67; Sleight 1965). The presence of flora and fauna is used as a measure of similarity with place of origin. Thus, the islands north of the Crooked Island Passage (with the exception of the anomalous San Salvador) would have been attractive to Cuban colonists, while the Turks, Caicos.lnaguas, Crooked Island, Acklins Island, and Mayaguana would have been more similar to Hispaniolan landscapes, and thus more inhabitable for Hispaniolan migrants.

Evapotranspiration

Ecologically the Bahamas islands are highly variable due to factors as such as temperature and humidity. Agricultural potential thus varies with évapotranspiration and soilconditions. The Bahamas Archipelago is characterized in the north by a pine tree zone, a hard wood coppice BERMAN / GNIVECKI 179 centralzone, and in the south a desert scrub of thorny bushes cacti and grasses, (Sealey 1985: 80; Sears and Sullivan 1978). The north-central islands (Eleuthera, San Salvador, Central and South Andros) suffer a relatively small potential évapotranspiration loss (1250-1375 mm = 50"-55" with an annual rainfall of 1000-1250 mm(= 40"-50") (Sealey 1985: Table 6.1:79, Figure 6.7: 78). The south-eastern islands (Inaguas, Turks and Caicos) have the highest potential évapo­ transpiration loss (1500-1875 mm =60"-75") in respect to the annual rainfall of 625-750 mm (=25"-30"), while the south-central islands (, Long Island.Acklins, Crooked Island, and Mayaguana) have a lower potential évapotranspiration loss of 1375-1500 mm (= 55"-60") with anannual rainfall of 750-1000 mm (= 30"-40") (Ibid.). Finally, the large northern islands (Pine Islands) have a potential évapotranspiration loss of 1250-1375 mm = 50"-55") that is in balance with the annual rainfall of 1250- 1500 mm (= 50"-60")(lbid.). Based on évapotranspiration measures, it appears that the north-central Bahamas region (Eleuthera, San Salvador, Central and South Andros) constitutes an area that was far more conducive to agricultural production than the higher environmentally risk prone regions of the south-central ¡slands(Exumas, Long Island, Acklins, Crooked Island, Mayaguana) and south­ eastern islands (Inaguas, Turks and Caicos) (Sealey 1985: Figure 6.7: 78, Table 6.1: 79, Sears and Sullivan 1978:19-23). Although the northern Pine Islands possess a potential évapotranspiration that is in balance with annual rainfall, the colder temperatures and shorter growing season of this zone are problematic for agriculture (Sealey 1985: Figure 6.7:78, Table 6.1:79; Sears and Sullivan 1978:19-20). The northern Pine Islands, the south-central Islands, and the southeast islands, therefore, form frontier zones of varying degrees of agricultural risk.

Hurricanes

Hurricanes constitute a major source of catastrophic mortality to reefs (Nybakken 1988:413). Severe tropical storms mechanically destroy coral colonies by the uprooting and removal of coral from the reef. The resilience or recovery rate of storm damaged reefs has been estimated at about 25-30 years(lbid.: 415). When islands with fringing coral reefs lie within the paths of hurricanes or typhoons, the likelihood of such damage to coral reefs is high. Depending upon the magnitude of reef damage the consequences for humans and marine grazers who exploit the resources of coral reefs could be disastrous. According to Wing and Reitz (1982:22) and Wing (1989:142;1991, personal communication), reefs and banks were one of the principle resource zones exploited by the prehistoric inhabitants of the Caribbean. Therefore, under conditions of low population density, colonists would select islands characterized by less environmental risk from hurricanes and select against reefs made depauperate by hurricanes. Examination of the incidence of hurricanes in the Bahamas for the period 1871-1963, reveals that the south-central and northern regions had 44% and 32% of all storms that passed directly over a island (Little et al. 1977: Table 2:11). Apparently the southern region was safest with 4% and the north- central Bahamas second safest with 20% of all storms for the period 1871-1963 passing directly over an island. On the other hand, examination of the number of storms passing within 200 miles of an island for the period 1871-1963 indicates a rank-order of increasing risk as follows: southern region(7.5%), northern region (27%), north-central region (29%), and south-central region (37.5%) (Ibid.). Direct island hits b y hurricanes were likely to damage reefs with the concomitant decline in grazing fish and human protein sources. Island misses undoubtedly damaged crops, people, and flora and fauna, but not necessarily the reefs. We suggest that hurricanes and hurricane-produced damage to reefs impeded permanent human colonization or served as inducements for short-term colonization within parts of the Bahamas Archipelago. High incidencee of hurricanes or hurricane-damaged areas also encouraged abandonment of sites and islands. 180 THE COLONIZATION OF THE BAHAMAS

Summary

For early colonizers, the north-central Bahamas would have been an attractive place to settle. With its low évapotranspiration rates, sufficient rainfall, daily and seasonal temperatures and growing seasons, the virgin north-central Bahamas could support root crop horticulture atlow population densities. Furthermore, assuming no other natural disasters such as disease or change in water temperature, the low incidence of hurricanes assured a viablemarine reef community Finally, the similarity of its floristic environment and terrestrial fauna to that of Cuba, constituted a known and thus predictable environment in which colonists could conduct themselves in a manner resembling that of their homeland. In short, the north-central Bahamas presented a low-risk environment for the early colonizers. In summary, we propose that the initial colonization of the Bahamas took place in the north-central Bahamas in the seventh century A.D. and that the colonists came from northern or north­ eastern Cuba. It is possible that the Crooked Island Passage served as a conduit for such passage, or the Ragged Islands as stepping stones to Long Island and beyond. The north-central Bahamas is a zone of high agricultural productivity and low environmental risk relative to the rest of the archipelago; furthermore, floristic and faunal likenesses between it and Cuba would have assured some sense of predictability in an otherwise unknown environs. The northern Pine Islands, the south-central islands, and the southeastern islands constitute frontier zones of varying degrees of environmental risk to agriculture, fishing, and collecting and thus these areas might be characterized by frequent settlement abandonment and relocation and associated social instability. In the tenth century A.D. a second colonization of the archipelago took place. This one originated from northern Hispaniola. Islands south o f the Crooked Island Passage, such as the Turks and Caicos and Great Inagua would have been colonized first because of the resemblance of their flora and fauna with that of Haiti. Like the Cuban colonists who preceded them to the north-central islands, these later colonists would have settled in islands exhibiting familiar landscapes. In this way, the subsistence and economic adaptations of the homeland could be easily transferred to the new home sites. Technological or social modifications required by local conditions would have been made with little stress.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The findings at the Three Dog Site (SS21) call intoquestion a number of views about the colonization of the Bahamas. Our research suggests that the islands of the archipelago were colonized at different times and that certain islands might have been bypassed in favor of others. This, of course, must be tested through further survey and systematic, extensive excavation. The dates from the Three Dog Site suggest that the Bahamas were settled earlier than several investigators have argued and have confirmed dates which have been hypothesized. In our model the earliest colonization of the Bahamas can be attributed to Ostionoid peoples from Cuba as early as the mid-A.D. 600s. We suggest that a second major colonization by the Meillacan Ostionoid peoples from Haiti took place around A.D. 900. They colonized Great Inagua and the Turks and Caicos, and traded extensively with peoples throughout the Bahamas. The absence of Ostionoid ceramics from sites on Great Inagua and the Turks and Caicos can be attributed to the fact that the drier, arid islands were bypassed by the earlier(A.D. 600) colonizers, who selected islands with more favorable growing conditions and familiar (i.e., more predictable) environments. If the model is correct, sites dating to the A.D.900s with a high percentage of Meillacan Ostionoid pottery should also be found on Acklins and Crooked Islands. Finally, it is important to note that our model does not explain why people left Cuba, and at a later date, Hispaniola. What were the causal agents that allowed for emigration from Haiti and Cuba during different time periods? In summary, data from the Three Dog Site emphasize that the archaeology of northern and northeastern Cuba should not be ignored and that investigators should BERMAN / GNIVECKI 181 pay serious attention to the prehistory of that region. Furthermore, the investigation of the prehistoric colonization of the Bahamas, as well as the Caribbean, should not proceed solely on the basis of the spatiotemporal study of ceramic styles. Like Sears and Sullivan(1978) and Keegan (1985, 1988), we believe other approaches are necessary to understand the complexly dynamic cultural and ecological systems within which the prehistoric colonists (whatever their origins) operated.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank Dr. John Winter, Molloy College for discovering the Three Dog Site (SS21) and bringing it to our attention in late December of 1983. Additional thanks goes to Dr. Gail Saunders, Director, Department of Archives, Nassau, Bahamas, for allowing the excavation and subsequent analyses to take place. A major acknowledgment of gratitude go to Dr. Donald T. Gerace, Executive Director, Bahamian Field Station and Kathy Gerace, for their unflagging support of this project since its beginning, and to Dr. Ben Rouse, Yale University, for the time, interest, and support he has expressed in this project. Finally, the authors would like to thank the students of the Hartwick College, Wake Forest University, and Sweetbriar College field schools for their interest, dedication, and hard work. Mary Jane Berman is responsible for obtaining external funding for the project. Funds for the analysis of the plantremains were supported by a Hartwick College Board of Trustees Research Grant in 1986. Funds for radiocarbon and therm oluminescence dating were supported by a Hartwick College Board of Trustees Research Grant in 1985 and a Wake Forest University Research and Creative Activities Council Grant in1990. Funds for study of the Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University Caribbean artifacts were supported by a Hartwick College Board of Trustees Research Grant in 1984 and a National Endowment for the Humanities Travel Grant in 1991. The faunal assem­ blage was analyzed by Dr. Elizabeth S.Wing, Curator of Zooarchaeology, Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, with support of N.S.F. Grant BNS-8903377. The authors also thank Sally Wilson and Christine Maletta.Wake Forest University, who assisted in various aspects of this paper. We finally thank our daughter Alana Eve for sacrificing quality time with her parents at various points at home, ¡nvarious museums, and on ; although it is a small recompense, we dedicate this paper to her - our constant source of joy and inspiration. The ideas and interpretations are the authors' alone. May they strengthen the weaknesses of our predecessors, andcollectively form a solid foundation for our successors. This paper constitutes Lucayan Ecological ArchaeologyProject Paper Number 2.

REFERENCES CITED

Adams, William Y., Dennis P. Van Gerven, and Richard S. Levy 1978 The Retreat from Migrationism. Annual Review of Anthropology 7: 483+532.

Allaire, Louis 1984 A Reconstruction of Early Historical Island Carib Pottery Southeastern Archaeology 3(2): 121-133.

Berman, Mary Jane 1992 Fuel Wood Selection and the Lucayan-Taino Landscape: A Preliminary View. In Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium on the Natural edited by W. Hardy Eschbaugh. Fort Lauderdale, Florida: Bahamian Field Station, San Salvador Island, Bahamas. 182 THE COLONIZATION OF THE BAHAMAS

n.d. A Study of the Ceramic Assemblage from the Three Dog Site, San Salvador, Bahamas. Manuscript in preparation.

Berman, Mary Jane and Perry L. Gnivecki 1990 Research Design; Three Dog Site (SS 21), San Salvador Island, Commonwealth of the Bahamas. Lucayan Ecological Archaeology Project, Report Number 1. Depart­ ment of Anthropology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

n.d. Unpublished data. Brill, Robert H., I. Lynus Barnes, Stephen S.C. Tong, Emile C. Joel, and Martin J. Murtaugh

1987 Laboratory Studies of Some European Artifacts Excavated on San Salvador Island In First Salvador Conference: Columbus and His World edited by Donald T. Gerace, pp. 247-292. Fort Lauderdale, Florida: C.C.F.L. Bahamian Field Station, San Salvador Island, Bahamas. Davis, Dave B. and R. Christopher Goodwin 1990 Island Carib Origins: Evidence and Nonevidence. American Antjquity 55(1): 37-48. DeBooy, Theodoo 1912 Lucayan Remains on the Caicos Islands American Anthropologist 14(1): 81-105.

1913 Lucayan Artifacts from the Bahamas. American Anthropologist 15(1): 1-7. Gerace, Donald T. 1987 Additional Comments Relating Watlings Island to Columbus' San Salvador. In First San Salvador Conference: Columbus and His World edited by Donald T. Gerace, pp. 229-235. Fort Lauderdale, Florida C.C.F.L. Bahamian Field Station, San Salvador Island, Bahamas. Gnivecki, Perry L. n.d. Island Biogeography and the Colonization of the North-Central Bahamas from Cuba. Manuscript in preparation

Granberry, Julian 1956 The Cultural Position of the Bahamas in Caribbean Archaeology. American Antiquity 22(2): 128-134. Hoffman, Charles A. 1970 The Palmetto Grove Site on San Salvador, Bahamas Contributions of the Florida State Museum, Social Sciences Number 16:1-26. University of Florida, Gainesville 1987a The Long Bay Site, San Salvador. American Archeology 6(2): 97-101. 1987b Archaeological Investigations at the Long Bay Site, San Salvador, Bahamas. In First San Salvador Conference: Columbus and His World edited by Donald T. Gerace, pp. 237-246. Fort Lauderdale, Florida: C.C.F.L. Bahamian Field Station, San Salvador Island, Bahamas. BERMAN / GNIVECKI 183

Johnson, Kent R. 1980 Results of Tests to Determine Mineralogy of an Artifact from San Salvador, Bahamas. In Bahamian Archaeology Project: Reports and Papers 1980 edited by Donald T. Gerace, pp. 1-7. College Center of the Finger Lakes, Bahamian Field Station, San Salvador Island, Bahamas. Keegan, William F. 1985 Dynamic Horticulturists: Population Expansion in the Prehistoric Bahamas Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 1988 New Directions in Bahamian Archaeology. Journal of the Bahamas Historical Society 10(1): 3-8 Keegan, William F. and Jared M. Diamond 1987 Colonization of Islands by Humans A Biogeographical Perspective. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 10, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 49-91 Academic Press, New York. Keegan, William F. and Morgan D. Maclachlan 1989 The Evolution of Avunculocal Chiefdoms: A Reconstruction of Taino Kinship and Politics. American Anthropologist 91(3): 619-690 Little, B.G., D.K. Buckley, R. Camt, P.W.T. Henry, A. Jefferies, J. Stark, and R.N. Young (with a contribution by W.T. Gillis) 1977 Land Resources of the Bahamas: A Summary Land Resource Study, Number 27. Land Resources Division, Ministry of Overseas Development, Surrey, England .MacLaury, James C. 1970 Archaeological Investigations on Cat Island, Bahamas. Contributions to the Florida State Museum, Social Sciences Number 18 27-50. University of Florida, Gainesville Morgan, Gary S, 1989 Fossil Chiroptera and Rodentia from the Bahamas, and the Historical Biogeography of the Bahamian Mammal Fauna. In Biogeography of the West Indies: Past, Present, and Future, edited by Cahrles A. Woods, pp. 685-740, Sandhill Crane Press Gainesville, Florida. Nyabbken James W. 1988 Marine Biology: An Ecological Approach Second Edition. Harper Collins Publishers, New York. Pearsall, Deborah 1989 Final Report on Analysis of Macroremalns and Phytoliths from the Three Dog Site, San Salvador, Bahamas. Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri- Columbia, Columbia, Missouri. Rose, Richard 1982 The Pigeon Creek Site, San Salvador, Bahamas. The Florida Anthropologist 35(4): 129-145. 1987 Lucayan Lifeways at the Time of Columbus. In First San Salvador Conference: Columbus and His World, edited by Donald T. Gerace, pp. 321 -339. Fort Lauderdale, Florida: C.C.F.L Bahamian Field Station, San Salvador Island, Bahamas. 184 THE COLONIZATION OF THE BAHAMAS

Rouse, Irving 1939 Prehistory in Haiti: A Study in Method. Yale University Publications in Anthropology Number 21. New Haven, . 1941 Culture of the Ft. Liberte Region, Haiti. Yale University Publications in Anthropology Number 24. New Haven, Connecticut. Rouse, Irving 1958 The Inference of Migrations from Anthropological Evidence. In Migrations in New World Culture History edited by Raymond H. Thompson, pp. 63-68. Social Science Bulletin, Number 27.University of Arizona Bulletin 29(2). University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 1960 The Classification of Artifacts in Archaeology. American Antiquity 25:313-323. 1982 Ceramic and Religious Development in the Greater Antilles. Journal of New World Archaeology 5(2): 45-56.

1986 Migrations in Prehistory: Inferring Population Movement from Cultural Remains Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. 1989 Peopling and Repeopling of the West Indies. In Biogeography of the West Indies: Past, Present, and Future edited by Charles A. Woods, pp. 119-135. Sandhill Crane Press, Gainesville, Florida. 1991 Personal communication to Mary Jane Berman Rouse, Irving and Louis Allaire 1978 Caribbean. In Chronologies in New World Archaeology edited by R.E. Taylor and Clement W. Meighan, pp. 432-481. Academic Press, New York. Sanders, William T. and Barbara J. Price 1968 Mesoamerica: The Evolution of a Civilization Random House, New York Sauer, Carl Ortwin 1966 The Early Spanish Main University of California Press, Berkeley. Sealey, Neil E. 1985 Bahamian Landscapes: An Introduction to the Collins Caribbean, London. 1989 Personal communication to Mary Jane Berman Sleight, Frederick W. 1965 Certain Environmental Considerations in West Indian Archaeology. American Antiquity 31(2): 226-231. Sears, William H. and Shaun D. Sullivan 1978 Bahamas Prehistory. AmericanAntiquity 43(1): 3-25. Sullivan, Shaun D. 1980 An Overview of the 1976 to 1978 Archeological Investigations in the Caicos Islands. The Florida Anthropologist 33(3): 120-151. BERMAN / GNIVECKI 185

Tabio, Ernesto E. and José M. Guarch 1966 Excavaciones en Arroyo del Palo, Mayari, Cuba Departamento de Antropología. Academia de Ciencias deCuba de la República de Cuba, Departmento de Antropología, La Havana, Cuba. Tabio, Ernesto E. and Estrella Rey 1966 Prehistoria de Cuba Departamento de Antropología Academia de Ciencias de Cuba de la República de Cuba, Departmento de Antropología, La Havana, Cuba. Taylor, R.E. 1980 Radiocarbon Dating of Pleistocene Bone: Toward Criteria for the Selection of Samples. Radiocarbon 22:969-979. Waiters, David R. 1982 Relating Oceanography to Antillean Archaeology: Implications from Oceania. Journal of New World Archaeology 5(2): 3-12. Wing, Elizabeth S. 1989 Human Exploitation of Animal resources in the Caribbean. In Biogeography of the West Indies: Past, Present, and Future, edited by Charles A. Woods, pp. 137-152. Sandhill Crane Press, Gainesville, Florida. 1991 Personal communication to Mary Jane Berman

Wing, Elizabeth S. and Elizabeth J. Reitz 1982 Prehistoric Fishing Economies of the Caribbean. Journal of New World Archaeology 5(2): 13-32. Winter, John H. 1978a Preliminary Work from the McKay Site on Crooked Island. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress for the Study of Pre-Columbian Cultures of the Lesser Antilles, edited by Louis Allaire, pp. 237-242. Centre de Recherches Caraïbes, Université de Montreal, Montreal. 1978b The Clifton Pier Rockshelter, , Bahamas Journal of the. Virgin Islands Archaeological Society 6: 45-48.

1987a Speculations on the Prehistoric Coastal Topography of the Bahamas. In Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on the Geology of the Bahamas, edited by H. Allen Curran, pp. 205-213. Fort Lauderdale, Florida: C.C.F.L Bahamian Field Station, San Salvador Island, Bahamas. Winter, John H. 1987b San Salvador in 1492: Its Geography and Ecology. In First San Salvador Conference: Columbus and His World edited by Donald T. Gerace, pp. 313-320. Fort Lauderdale, Florida: C.C.F.L. Bahamian Field Station, San Salvador Island, Bahamas. Winter, John H. and Jerry Stipp 1983 Preliminary Investigations of the Minnis/Ward Site, San Salvador, Bahamas. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress for the Study of Pre-Columbian Cultures of the Lesser Antilles, edited by Louis Allaire, pp. 83-92. Centre de Recherches Caraïbes, Université de Montreal, Montreal. THE COLONIZATION OF THE BAHAMAS 186

TABLE 1: RADIOCARBON DATES - PREHISTORIC AND SPANISH CONTACT PERIOD SITES, THE BAHAMAS.

B.P. A.D. ISLAND SITE SAMPLE NUMBER MATERIAL an Salvador pigeon creek UM-2275" fish bone 1384 +65 566 ¿65 Rose (1982: Table 1: 133) an Salvador Three Dog Beta-26896 wood charcoal 1290 ¿90 660 ¿90 Berman and Gnivecki (unpublished data)

75 100 an Salvador Three Dog Beta-26894 wood charcoal 1200 ¿100 ° ± Berman and Gnivecki (unpublished data) an Salvador Three Dog Alpha-28712 ceramic sherd 1100 886 Berman and Gnivecki (unpublished data) an Salvador Three Dog Beta-26138 wood charcoal 1085 +65 865 +65 Berman and Gnivecki (unpublished data) ETH-4266 (AMS) an Salvador pigeon Creek Beta-17839 wood charcoal 840 +60 1110 +60 Rose (1987: Pootnote 19: 331) aradise Island Victoria Beach Footnote 3 Footnote 3 820 +60 1130 ¿60 Sealey (1989: personal communication) ew providence Clifton pier Rockshelter OGa-1930 Stronbus gigas 805 +55 1145 ¿55 Winter (1978b: 46) an Salvador pigeon Creek Beta-17840 Footnote 3 790 ¿70 1160 ¿70 Rose (1987: Footnote 19: 331) an Salvador Minnis-Ward OM-2243 burnt turtle shell 750 ¿55 1200 ¿55 Winter and Stipp (1983: Table 1: 158) rooked Island McKay Site OGa-1262 Stronbus gigas 710 ¿65 1240 ¿65 Winter (1978a: 238) rooked Island McKay site OGa-1584 wood charcoal 690 ¿75 1260 ¿75 Winter (1978a: 238-239) an Salvador Minnis-Ward OM-2244 wood charcoal 660 ¿100 1290 ¿100 Winter and Stipp (1983: Table 1: 158) an Salvador pigeon Creek DM-2274 wood charcoal 620 ¿70 1330 ¿70 Rose (1982: Table 1: 133; 1987: Footnote 19: 331) an Salvador pigeon Creek OM-2273 wood charcoal 580 ¿90 1370 ¿90 Rose (1982: Table 1: 133; 1987: Footnote 19: 331)

an Salvador pigeon creek OM-2733 wood charcoal 540 ¿60 1410 ¿60 Rose (1987: Footnote 19: 331)

an Salvador Blue Hole Beta-16732 wood (mortar) 530 ¿65 1420 ¿65 Winter (1987b: 316-317)

an Salvador Three Dog Beta-185624 turtle bone 490 ¿70 1460 ¿70 Berman and Gnivecki (unpublished data)

an Salvador pigeon Creek OM-2738 wood charcoal 480 ¿70 1470 ¿70 Rose (1987: Footnote 19: 331)

reeport Dundee Bay Footnote 3 Footnote 3 470 ¿120 1480 ¿120 Sealey (1989: personal communication)

an Salvador Minnis-ward OM-2245 Stombu3 gigas 425 ¿75 1525 ¿75 Winter and Stipp (1983: Table 1: 1SB)

m Salvador pigeon Creek UM-2736 wood charcoal 390 ¿60 1560 ¿60 Rose (1987: Footnote 19: 331)

5 in Salvador pigeon Creek BM-2271 wood charcoal 305 ¿75 1645 ¿75 Rose (1982: Table 1: 133)

m Salvador pigeon Creek DM-22725 wood charcoal 215 ¿60 1735 ¿60 Rose (1982: Table 1: 133)

6 rooked Island McKay site OGa-1583 fish bone 210 +80 1740 +80 Winter (1978a: 238)

Footnotes: 1) According to Rose (1982: 133), this date (OM-2275) "seems too early and should be regarded with caution even though the dated sample was collected from the lowest levels (40-60 cm) of the occupation zone."

2) Thermoluminescence (TL) date.

3) Data unavailable at present.

4) Bone collagen often yields dates which are younger than those run on charcoal or wood (Taylor 1980), suggesting therefore, that this is not a correct determination and that the turtle bone dates to the earlier occupation.

5) UM-2271 and OH-2272, according to Rose (1982: 133), are "difficult to interpret and may be the result of agricultural burning activities during the post-contact Loyalist period."

6) Winter (1978a: 239) recognizes that the chronometric date (OGa-1583) may be problematic due the dating of a mixed sample of fish bones.

03/15/92