PROCEEDINGS OF THE FORTEENTH SYMPOSIUM ON THE NATURAL HISTORY OF THE BAHAMAS Edited by Craig Tepper and Ronald Shaklee Conference Organizer Thomas Rothfus Gerace Research Centre San Salvador Bahamas 2011 Cover photograph – “Iggie the Rock Iguana” courtesy of Ric Schumacher Copyright Gerace Research Centre All Rights Reserved No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or information storage or retrieval system without permission in written form. Printed at the Gerace Research Centre ISBN 0-935909-95-8 The 14th Symposium on the Natural History of the Bahamas TEXT AND CONTEXT: THE SPANISH CONTACT PERIOD IN THE BAHAMA ARCHIPELAGO Perry L. Gnivecki Department of Anthropology 120 Upham Hall Miami University Oxford, Ohio 45056 ABSTRACT dear to him; hence, my contribution to this ses- sion. The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to demonstrate that our understanding of INTRODUCTION the Spanish Contact Period in the Bahamas can be amplified by moving beyond the idea that it Writing in De Orbe Novo (1511), about represents a meeting of the Old and New 19 years after Columbus’s landfall in the Baha- Worlds on 12 October 1492 as a transformative, mas, Peter Martyr referred to the Lucayas as the single event in history, and rethinking it as a “useless” islands (Sauer 1966: 159-160). 500 complex of dynamic cultural processes, contex- years later, one discovers that the Bahama Ar- tualized over time and space, and second, the chipelago may still constitute an “intellectually use of historical sources to provide a set of cul- useless” group of islands to archaeologists and th th tural contexts for the 15 -16 century Spanish historians (for exceptions, see Berman and artifacts archaeologically recovered on San Sal- Gnivecki 1995; Craton 1986; Gnivecki 1995; vador Island, and elsewhere in the Bahama Ar- and Keegan 1992). The Quincentenary of the chipelago. “rediscovery” of the New World by Europeans momentarily rekindled an interest in the peoples HOMAGE TO DR. DONALD T. GERACE who encountered Columbus in A.D. 1492-1493. However, after noting the initial encounter with This is a third conference designed to the Lucayans between Friday, October 12th honor Dr. Donald T. Gerace and the research through Saturday, October 27th, most scholarly station he founded 40 years ago. It is more ap- interest shifts to the complex societies of the propriate that we gather here on San Salvador to Aztecs, Mayas, and Incas. After “first contact” both celebrate and cerebrate that event, because with the Lucayans, the Bahamas sink into his- over the past 40 years, the College Center of the torical obscurity, periodically cast into textual Finger Lakes, the Bahamian Field Station, and light by Spanish exploration and slaving opera- the Gerace Research Centre of The College of tions (e.g., Gnivecki 1995; Granberry 1979- the Bahamas, has not just seen titular change, 1981; P. Hoffman 1990). but has also functioned as a transformative place The purpose of this paper is twofold: in our respective lives, as well as in our profes- first, to demonstrate that our understanding of sional contributions to our disciplines. Through the Spanish Contact Period in the Bahamas can all of this, there has been one constant, and at be amplified by moving beyond idea that it rep- the same time, a catalyst, and that has been Don resents a meeting of the Old and New Worlds Gerace. on 12 October 1492 as a transformative, single Don Gerace continues to encourage event in history, and rethinking it as a complex both prehistoric and historical archaeology in of dynamic cultural processes, contextualized the Bahamas. However, the first landfall of over time and space, and second, the use of his- Christopher Columbus on Guanahani, although torical sources to provide a set of cultural con- locationally contested, has always been near and texts for the 15th-16th century Spanish artifacts 197 The 14th Symposium on the Natural History of the Bahamas archaeologically recovered on San Salvador, the Spanish-Lucayan encounter may have been, and elsewhere, in the Bahama Archipelago. ultimately, a series of one-way encounters of Lucayan pragmatically salvaging Spanish SPANISH ARTIFACTS wrecks for “exotics” to exchange and/or heir- ON LUCAYAN SITES loom as “valuables”. Such a scenario is not an atypical one for the Bahamas, or other parts of Spanish artifacts have been recovered the Caribbean, which has been characterized by during long-term systematic, controlled excava- a long-standing history of wrecking and salvage tions at two sites on Salvador Island: the Long as an important component of economic activity Bay site (SS9) and the Three Dog site (SS21) (Craton 1986). Rather than view Spanish arti- (Bate 2011; Berman and Gnivecki 1993, 1995; facts as time-markers of an historical event, arti- Gnivecki 1995; C. Hoffman 1987a, 1987b). facts as “exotics” directly given to the Lucayans This contact material was recovered from “liv- by the Spanish, or salvaged from wrecks by the ing areas” or “activity areas” in association with Lucayans, they could have entered (a) pre- Lucayan artifacts; in short, these artifacts may existing interisland exchange system(s) as a reflect a mutual participation in each other’s process that exchanged them over space and cultural system. time. Critical to all of this is the potential On Monday or Tuesday, October 15, curation (or heirlooming) of exotics/valuables 1492, Columbus observed a lone Lucayan in a by the Lucayans themselves, irrespective of canoe between Santa Maria de la Concepcion their origin(s). The Spanish-Lucayan Contact (Rum Cay) and Fernandina (Long Island) trans- Period might therefore have had a duration over porting dried leaves, a string of Spanish glass several decades, rather than a truncation in time trade beads, and two blancas (Dunn and Kelley due to slaving and disease (Granberry 1979- 1989: 83, 85; Ife 1990: 33-39). This indicates 1981; Sauer 1966). that this particular Lucayan was a participant in In addition to direct-exchange and sal- an interisland exchange system (Fried 1979). vaging of wrecked vessels, there is a third pro- The incident described here raises the possibility cess by which Spanish artifacts could have en- that the archaeological recovery of Spanish arti- tered a Lucayan interisland exchange system: facts on Lucayan sites may not be the result of careening of Spanish ships (e.g., Bradford 1973: direct Spanish-Lucayan contact, but rather, re- 145, illustration; Thomas 2003: 360-1, illustra- flects indirect contact as mediated by an indige- tion). For example, in 1508, Sebastián de nous interisland exchange system. What seems Ocampo set sail along the northern shore of Cu- like a definitive time-marker of Spanish contact ba with two vessels for an eight month voyage, in the form of artifacts is rendered somewhat and during that time, “…he careened his…two ambiguous by the possibility of (an) indigenous vessels—which involved hauling them up on the Lucayan interisland exchange system(s) (Ber- beach, removing and washing the ballast, clean- man 2011, this volume; Berman and Gnivecki ing the bottom, and caulking the seams… 1993, 1995; Gnivecki 1995; C. Hoffman 1987a, (Weddle 1985: 21-22).” The careening process 1987b; Keegan and Mitchell 1987). involved various types of tools and hardware, Further, the frequency of Spanish ship- which could have been lost at the repair site (see wrecks on the reefs in the Bahamas, and else- Thomas 2003: 360-1, illustration). This could where in the Caribbean, raises the possibility have been another source of Spanish artifacts; that Spanish contact material might, in part, be again, a one-way process of salvage by the derived from salvaged wrecks, and introduced Lucayans. into Lucayan interisland exchange systems (Deagan 1985; Gnivecki 1995; Marken 1994; Mitchem 1992; M.T. Smith and Good 1982; M.T. Smith 1987; R.C. Smith 1987). In short, 198 The 14th Symposium on the Natural History of the Bahamas ARCHAEOMETRY OF CONTACT same, but the outcome of artifact dislocation from in situ contexts is the same. Brill et al. (1987: 257-266) used lead- isotope analysis to examine lead samples from SPANISH ARTIFACTS: HISTORICAL eight artifacts from the Long Bay (SS9) and AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Three Dog (SS21) sites to identify Iberian min- ing sites. Brill et al. (Ibid.: 264-266) conclude Examination of Columbus’s Diario for that these artifacts constitute a coherent analyti- the Bahamas reveals that a variety of artifacts cal group and that they may have been brought were given to the Lucayans: red caps/bonnets, to San Salvador on a single voyage. Further- glass beads, hawk’s bells, Portuguese çeotis more, in addition to Columbus, Juan Ponce de (Spanish blancas), brass jingles, metal lace- Leon, Spanish slavers, and Lucayan traders ends, broken pottery and glass, and other things could have brought them (see Tables I-III, and of small value (see Table III). The historical de- VI). The time frame for this spans October 12, scription in Columbus’s Diario contrast to the 1492 until 1513. C. Hoffman (1987b: 242), ex- actual excavated remains from the Long Bay cavator of the Long Bay site, gives a range of site (SS9) and the Three Dog site (SS21) on San Spanish contact between A.D. 1492-1513/16, Salvador Island, which expands the list, to in- and more conservatively, as late as 1560. He clude: specifically, melado and majolica sherds, admits the possibility of slave-raider contact and planking nails (or spikes), metal hooks (or bent indigenous Lucayan exchange as possible con- planking nails), metal knife blade fragments, a duits for Spanish artifacts at Long Bay. Berman bronze D-ring, a bronze buckle, a copper and Gnivecki (1993, 1995) and Gnivecki (1995; grommet, a plain metal buttom, and an arquebus this paper) concur with Brill et al.