Part 4 of 5 From the Guanahatabey to the Archaic of Puerto Rico: The Nonevident Evidence Reniel Rodríguez Ramos, Universidad de Puerto Rico–Utuado The assumption that all pre-Arawak peoples were organized in band societies has led to the implicit adoption of other social characteristics such as relative population sizes. For instance, Espenshade et al. (1986: 101) state that “Lithic/Archaic people (as Rouse suggests) were living in a fishing/ gathering mode of high mobility. Population density was probably very low in this period throughout the island.” However, the parameters for making such estimations are not clear, especially when one considers that some pre- Arawak sites have dimensions indicating village-sized populations, based on the site-size criterion established by Tronolone, Cinquino, and Vandrei (1984). In fact, Espenshade et al. (1986) indicate that one of the sites they surveyed had a spread of 116 acres, with four “archaic” middens, which is a much larger size than some of the bigger Ceramic Age village sites docu- mented on the island. Also, the Angostura site is composed of four middens that expand across more than sixty-two square kilometers (Ayes Suarez 1993), which is also much larger than some other residential Arawak sites. Rather than drawing on hard data, the suggestion that these groups had small population densities has been based on the notion that the “size of the Ciboney population was limited by its primitive mode of subsistence” (Rouse 1956: 167), which also required high degrees of mobility. Other models have been advanced to address the variability in the lifeways of pre-Arawak populations. One of these is the so-called modos de vida (ways of life) framework developed by Marcio Veloz (Veloz and Pantel 1988). Even though this model offers the most careful attempt to define structural variations in early Caribbean societies, it is social typology based primarily on distinct adaptive strategies within a single hunting-and- gathering mode of life, as expressed in the differences in the protein sources exploited, the variability in the artifact repertoires, and the location of sites. Nevertheless, the structural configuration of those societies and their levels of complexity are deemed to be similar in this model, all being considered groups of “stable bands” with systems of “reciprocal solidarity” that shared the “collective product” (Sanoja and Vargas 1999: 148). So far no real attempts have been made to address systematically these societies’ level of social complexity. This is understandable as it is impos- sible to make precise inferences about the issue from the evidence collected thus far. Yet some preliminary ideas might be put forward and revised with future evidence. One aspect that might denote the sociopolitical articulation of some of these groups at the regional level is suggested by the presence of intra- and interisland exchange networks. For instance, the Maruca site yielded raw materials from Antigua and probably from the Dominican Repub- lic (Febles 2004: 1.4; Rodríguez Ramos 2002), while at Paso del Indio the poll end of a radiolarian limestone celt was recovered, a raw material that occurs on Saint Martin (Rodríguez Ramos 2003). In Angostura, Ayes Suarez (1993) noted a marked shift from the procurement of local resources to that of extraneous raw materials for flaked tool production in the latest occupations of the site, which might indicate the consolidation of trade partnerships and/or higher degrees of political integration at a regional level. As I have argued previously (Rodríguez Ramos 2002, 2005a), these exchange networks may have reached continental circum-Caribbean con- texts through transoceanic voyages, a point that seems feasible according to Callaghan’s (2003) modeling of navigational routes in the Caribbean. Another circumstance that might have promoted the development of higher levels of complexity is the relatively rich environment of Puerto Rico and of the rest of the Greater Antilles. If, as Hayden (1994) and Wiess- ner (2002) argued, higher levels of complexity tend to be reached in areas of resource abundance and predictability, then the presence of food-rich areas such as mangrove strands, lacustrine environments, reefs, large rivers, and the ocean might have provided a suitable context for the emergence of social asymmetry in pre-Arawak times. In combination with the previously discussed horticultural capacities, this shows that food intake did not nec- essarily constitute a limiting factor for these peoples. Also, if we look at these societies’ technological organization, it is evident that at least some pre-Arawak groups manufactured artifact reper- toires whose protocols of production were as demanding technically as those observed in later Ceramic Age societies. The production of tended implements such as fishnets may serve as an example: they are evidenced indirectly by the presence of net weights, which markedly increased the amount of protein captured per catchment. These net weights also serve as indirect evidence for the presence of some sort of basketry production, although the complexity of that technology is unknown at present. The production of ground stone and shell tools, which has been documented in Puerto Rico since the earliest occupations (Ayes Suarez 1993; Febles and González 1999; Rodríguez Ramos 2005a, 2005b), followed similar opera- tional sequences as those observed in later contexts, from the procurement of the raw materials to the reduction strategies utilized in their production. Some of the products created by grinding include ones that could be consid- ered prestige items such as the conical manos, stone bowls, butterfly adzes, and stylized beads, for example. In Cuba and Haiti, other prestige items such as stone daggers and engraved batons have also been documented (Rouse 1992), which seems to indicate that some degree of vertical social differentiation was in place, at least in some pre-Arawak groups. The presence of ground materials most likely produced for heavy-duty woodworking tasks could be related to their manufacture of canoes. Cur- rently, the notion is that archaic people had simpler canoe-making abilities than their Arawak counterparts and that they basically constructed rafts for ocean transport (Rouse 1952). Yet as Vega (1990: 32) has noted, there is no reason to assume such a thing as the tool kits associated with the construction of wooden vessels found in pre-Arawak sites are as complex as those produced by the Arawak inhabitants of the island. Furthermore, Callaghan (2003: 326) has indicated that rafts could not have made the crossings necessary to reach the islands from South or Central America. Irrespective of the specific type of canoe that those people used, their con- struction required elaborate technologies that promoted a complex number of relationships among the individuals participating in their construction, which in many cases also have strong ritual meanings attached to them (Robiou 1993: 90; Vega 1995: 118). Even though these are preliminary observations, they might show that higher levels of complexity operated for at least some groups in pre-Arawak times. Curet (2003) has argued that we should start considering updated models for addressing the complexity of hunters and gatherers in Puerto Rico and the rest of the Caribbean. Among other possibilities, he mentions the “complex hunters and gatherers” concept as defined by Arnold (1996). Yet when one considers that the organizational requirements established by Arnold are indistinguishable from those characterizing chiefdom-level societies, it becomes evident that such a model, although plausible, is well beyond the reach of the current data. In line with Woodburn (1982) I would argue that we could be facing a situation for which no ethnographic paral- lel exists and that we should thus start building models commensurate with our particular situation.
Posted on: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 23:21:06 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015