LESSER ANTILLES PETROGLYPH PROBLEMS C.N. Dubelaar
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
LESSER ANTILLES PETROGLYPH PROBLEMS C.N. Dubelaar Archaeologists studying the prehistory of the Lesser Antilles have constructed a clear view of this period. Their conclusions are based on remains of the material culture of the various peoples living in these islands before Columbus, found by methodical diggings, etc. Petroglyphs do not play a part in this reconstruction process, though they abound in the region. Some reasons why'they cannot be fitted into this picture are: 1. Up to now, petroglyphs are not datable, except in some scarce cases. New techniques of dating by the C-14 method ask only a minor quantity of organic material, but the effect of this development for petroglyph dating has been minimal. Also, dating petroglyphs on the basis of differences between the patina layer on the lines and that of the untouched rock surface is not (yet?) possible for the bulk of the engravings. The same goes for the use of lichen growth data as athallus spreads over a petroglyph. Dating on the basis of nearby found artifacts supposes a historical relation between the makers of these artifacts and the petroglyph makers; a relation which in most cases cannot be proved. Moreover, petroglyphs seldom occur immediately near places of prehistoric habitation. 2. The greater part of petroglyphs cannot be interpreted in a convincing way, notwithstanding the lavish stream of explanations, hypotheses, etc. which they have caused in the relevant literature. To know their meaning, we have to know something about the spiritual culture of the makers. But their cultures have for the greater part disappeared many centuries ago, and the artifacts they left mainly supply information on their material culture. 3. Petroglyphs appear to us in one layer, which may contain engravings from lithic, archaic, and ceramic times in a simultaneous presentation. Attempts to bring some order in this picture on the basis of the techniques used, weathering, patina resettlement on the lines, motif classification and distinguishing style related groups have up to now not led to convincing results. If the above is true, why then do some investigators spend a great part of their time on recording the petroglyphs of the Lesser Antilles, and on presenting their findings in an ordered way? The answer is: petroglyphs are prehistoric remains, and as such have to play a part in the reconstruction of the area's pre history. They possess a special value because it is evident that they have been made on the spot where they are found, which cannot be said about charcoal pieces, stone artifacts, ceramics, etc. on which archaeologists base their reconstructions. Moreover, while we are forced to study petroglyphs as an isolated phenomenon, similarities in shape, style, technique, and environmental circumstances may show internal regularities in this corpus which shed some light on their meaning and function in the society which made them. The same factors may result in conclusions or hypotheses on relations with other cultural areas; however, a conclusion in this respect can never be based upon shape conformity sec; corroborative evidence is needed. 612 DUBELAAR 613 The study of Lesser Antilles petroglyphs leads to various questions, which in the title of this paper are referred to as problems. For the greater part, answers to these questions, casu quo solutions of these problems, remain hypothetical. Allow me to present some of the questions in an arbitrary sequence. The restricted framework of this paper does not allow to account for the facts upon which the problems are based; these facts can be found in Dubelaar 1990; partly also in Dubelaar in 1981,1983,1985,1986a, 1986b, 1987a, 1987b, 1988a, 1988b. QUESTIONS: A. Why has the majority of the petroglyphs in our area an anthropomorphical character? Of the 703 engravings we recorded, c. 37% are simple faces, 29% elaborate faces, 14% more or less complete anthropomorphs, which makes a total of 80% anthropomorphical figures. Does this point to a religion in which ancestor cult and spirits play a dominant part? B. Why does the petroglyph density in the various islands show such large differences? The distribution of the 703 drawings is as follows: Guadeloupe: 48%; Grenada: 16%; St. Vincent: 10%; St. Kitts: 9%; Marie-Galante: 6%; Anguilla: 6%. The remaining 5% occur in Canouan, Barbados, St. Lucia, Martinique, Dominica(?), Barbuda, and St. Martin-St. Maarten. From the other Lesser Antilles islands no petroglyphs have been reported. As these differences may partly be caused by difference in size of the islands, we neutralized this factor for Grenada, St. Vincent, St. Lucia, Martinique, Guadeloupe, and St. Kitts (Marie-Galante and Anguilla are extreme cases, all of their petroglyphs appearing in one or two caves), which led to a proportional number of petroglyphs for these islands accentuating the evident petroglyph density differences: TABLE: PETROGLYPH DENSITY IN THE SEPARATE ISLANDS Territory Size in Number Number of Expected Number Difference km2 of sites petroglyphs on the basis of size Grenada 334 6 109 53 + 56 St. Vincent 344 12 68 54 + 14 St. Lucia 615 5 11 97 - 86 Martinique 997 2 15 158 143 Guadeloupe 1356 6 336 215 + 121 St. Kitts 168 4 65 27 + 38 TOTAL 3814 35 604 604 0 (The size is without the adjoining islands belonging to the territory. The figures on size mentioned in various sources are not unanimous; we used an average.) According to this Table, St. Kitts has 2.5 times the expected quantity; Grenada 2 times; and Guadeloupe 1.5 times. On the other hand, a striking petroglyph scarcity can be noted in Martinique (only 10% of the expected quantity) ; and in St. Lucia (only 11 %). Why these differences? Is there a relation with habitation density in prehistoric times in general, or in times where petroglyph makers were active? C. Why are rock paintings absent in the Lesser Antilles? 614 LESSER ANTILLES PETROGLYPH PROBLEMS Rock paintings on the mainland, i.e N.E. South America, occur in the Lower Orinoco Basin, Venezuelan Guayana and Guyana. They abound in the Greater Antilles, and in Aruba, Curaçao and Bonaire. This means that the Lesser Antilles are flanked by territories with rock paintings. Though rock paintings show a preference for cave-like localities, on the mainland they are not unusual on rocks in the open air either. Both kinds of localities appear in the Lesser Antilles, but without paintings. The drawings on the back wall of the Morna Rita Cave, Marie-Galante, cannot be called petroglyphs, as they are not engraved into this wall. But neither can they be considered as rock paintings, as no paint has been used to draw them. Rock paintings in a cave under the Moho Beach Hotel, St. Maarten, are a matter of hearsay, without any proof that they do exist there. D. Why are most Lesser Antilles petroglyphs so small? The average dimensions are: 23 x 26 cm. Greater Antilles petroglyphs and engravings from the mainland are much bigger. We do not dispose of comparative data for these areas; only for Suriname. The average size of an engraving in that country is 47x51 cm. Maybe the greatquantity of simple faces in the Lesser Antilles is responsible for these small average dimensions. E. Why are there nearly no zoomorphic drawings in the Lesser Antilles? From 703 petroglyphs, only 5 can be interpreted as pictures of animals. Phytomorphic figures are lacking totally. F. The anthropomorphic figures which we called 'Elaborate Type' (Dubelaar 1981) are rather common on the mainland. They do not occur in the Greater Antilles. In the Lesser Antilles one intriguing specimen appears: St. Vincent, Yambou no. 2. This drawing strongly resembles a petroglyph along the Corentyne River, Suriname (Dubelaar 1986a, Site 13 group 1 no.31). Mere conformity in petroglyph shape is not sufficient to conclude to a historical relation, but in this case there is corroborative evidence: the pottery of the Cayo complex found in St. Vincent (Kirby 1974: 61-64) and that of the Koriabo ceramic tradition of Guyana and Suriname (Boomert 1986) show evident similarities. Question: have prehistoric people from the Corentyne travelled to St. Vincnet, and made one of their usual rock drawings there? G. Lithic remains are scarce in the Lesser Antilles. Artifacts from archaic and ceramic times show without reasonable doubt that these islands were populated from North-East South America. Why then do petroglyph motifs which are common on the mainland, such as spirals, sun with rays, curled shoulders, matchstick figures not occur in the Lesser Antilles? Only two rather dubious figures at Barrouallie, St. Vincent, can be interpreted as spirals. Our work on South American petroglyphs left us with the strong impression that the spiral is the most common rock art figure in this continent. H. Some figures are rather common in the Greater Antilles, e.g. barbed faces, faces which have a terrifying expression (smirking faces), framed crosses, rabbit-like figures. They are absent in the Lesser Antilles, with one exception: all of these motifs appear in Grenada . Does this fact have a special meaning? The above list of problems which turn up when studying the petroglyphs of the Lesser Antilles could easily have been made longer; we leave it at some evident cases which are presented to all students of the area's prehistory. It goes without saying that information which may lead to possible answers, or to a necessary reformulation of the questions, will be very welcome. DUBELAAR 615 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author thanks Trijnie Stoppels, Groningen, The Netherlands, who read the manuscript critically. REFERENCES Boomert, Arie 1986 The Cayo complex of St. Vincent: ethnohistorical and archaeological aspects of the Island Carib problem. Antropológica 66:3-68. Fundación La Salle, Instituto Caribe de Antropología y Sociología.