seafaring capabilities in the pre-columbian caribbean scott m. fitzpatrick

7/25/2019 Seafaring Capabilities in the Pre-Columbian Caribbean Scott M. Fitzpatrick

1/38

R E V I E W P A P E R

Seafaring Capabilities in the Pre-Columbian Caribbean

Scott M. Fitzpatrick

Published online: 11 June 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract At historic contact Europeans remarked on the skill and proficiency of native

Caribbean Amerindians to build and travel in dugout canoes. While archaeological

examples of these have been recorded throughout the circum-Caribbean, very few exist in

the Antillean chain of islands. Despite this deficiency, indirect evidence of seafaring along

with archaeological data has suggested to many that the sea was an artery that linked

prehistoric communities together between islands and continents through exchange net-

works and settlement lifelines. It is clear that frequent interaction was taking placeprehistorically in the region, but examination of seafaring capabilities and the general lack

of hard archaeological evidence for contacts in many places suggest this was largely

restricted to interaction between the islands and with South America. The fact remains that

seafaring in the Caribbean, as one of the smaller aquatic realms inhabited by humans in the

past, was highly influenced and largely structured by oceanographic and anemological

effects that limited the development of various watercraft designs and navigational tech-

niques which are seen in many of the other worlds seas and oceans. In this paper I:

(1) synthesize what is currently known about the antiquity and development of early

seafaring in the Caribbean; (2) highlight debates about the level of technologies found in

the region; (3) discuss how environmental conditions likely influenced seafaring capabil-

ities and settlement patterns; (4) outline the possible evidence for connections between the

different surrounding mainland areas; and (5) provide a comparison with seafaring tech-

nologies found in the Pacific to help contextualize the Caribbean into the broader context

of global seafaring.

Keywords Prehistoric watercraft Canoes Maritime interaction Antilles West Indies

It was with a happy heart that the good Odysseus spread his sail to catch the wind and used his seamanship

to keep his boat straight with the steering-oar.

*Homer

S. M. Fitzpatrick (&)

Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

1 3

J Mari Arch (2013) 8:101138

DOI 10.1007/s11457-013-9110-8


2/38

Introduction

When Europeans arrived in the Caribbean beginning in the late 1400s they often remarked

on the seafaring abilities of native Amerindians. Historic chroniclers and explorers,

including Christopher Columbus himself, commented on the proficiency of these groups inbuilding and using canoes and their ability to move freely between islands (e.g. Columbus

1932; Mendez 1933; Loven 1935). In fact, the word canoe derives from the native

Amerindian term canoa (or canoaoa; kenu) (Dodd 1972: 67) that Columbus and other

sailors encountered during his first voyages that impressed them greatly with their speed

and manueverability. However, it is still debated as to whether more advanced technolo-

gies such as the sail and planking were present (McKusick 1960; Callaghan 2011a, b,

2013) and if larger canoes, estimated to hold more than 100 people, were actually used

prehistorically or are a case of exaggeration. These issues are amplified when one considers

that very few archaeological examples of watercraft have been recorded in the Antilles in

contrast to other parts of the circum-Caribbean such as the Southeast United States (e.g.

Newsom and Purdy 1990; Wheeler et al. 2003) and Mesoamerica (McKillop2010) with

which to examine ancient seafaring capabilities.

More than 50 years ago, McKusick (1960) tackled the question of how aboriginal

canoes in the Caribbean were constructed and their probable seafaring capabilities. Using

primarily ethnohistoric evidence, he remarked that:

There is no evidence that ocean voyages were undertaken directly across the central

Caribbean. Although voyages frequently took place beyond site of land, these were

between the islands or between islands and adjacent mainland areas. The picture that

emerges is one of considerable maritime activity in the fringes of the Caribbeanwhere the islands furnished landmarks and landings with relatively short channel

distances to be crossed (McKusick1960: 3).

With numerous advances in analytical procedures and a half century of archaeological

research since McKusicks (1960) review, it is worth reexamining whether his original

perspectives were valid or not, particularly in light of recent efforts to develop more

extensive radiocarbon chronologies (e.g. Fitzpatrick 2006; Cooper 2010a, b; Rodrguez

Ramos et al.2010) and investigate possible instances of trade and exchange systems within

the Caribbean (Hofman et al.2008,2007; see papers in Curet and Hauser2010). In a recent

review of the evidence of Pre-Columbian maritime interaction, Hofman et al. (2010: 1)state:

The highly variegated pre-Colonial Caribbean (is)landscape, always [emphasis

added] had a dynamic, inter-connected character thanks to the maritime orientation

of its native (Amerindian) inhabitants and the regionwide interaction networks they

maintained. It is now commonly accepted that human islanders were never socially

isolated except in very extreme cases, but rather that the sea likely functioned as an

aquatic motorway, a plane that the islanders would have traversed frequently,

despite its occasional unpredictability. Seen from this perspective, the Caribbean Sea

actually linked communities instead of separating them, encouraging (micro-)regionalmobility and exchange.

Hofman et al. (2010: 4) go on to argue that the:

Archaeological evidence suggests that we need to view the wider Caribbean or

circum-Caribbean region as potentially one large arena within which Amerindians

102 J Mari Arch (2013) 8:101138

1 3


3/38

could have established and maintained local and regional circuits of mobility and

exchange as they traversed water passages and islands, without downplaying their

cultural, social, biological, or linguistic particularities. This pan-Caribbean approach

demands a pan-regional, diachronic, multiscalar and cross-culturally comparative

perspective on mobility and exchange between manifold communities with varyingforms of socio-political organisation.

This perspective, while perhaps true for much of the Greater and Lesser Antilles, at least

during certain points in time (especially as it relates to South American connections during

the last 2,500 years), neglects some anomalous features of Caribbean prehistory in terms of

settlement patterns. It also presupposes that seafaring technology and navigational tech-

niques were sufficient to always (sensu Hofman et al. 2010: 1) initiate and/or maintain

connectivity to communities throughout the circum-region. As Anderson (2004: 264)

adeptly notes, however:

Island colonization and post-settlement relationships are seen as driven implicitly by

demographic, social, or economic imperatives to which seafaring is just a passive

platform for the delivery of people and commodities.[but] boats were active and

decisive agents in island life and fundamental mechanisms in the production of

diversity in insularity.

Callaghan (2011b: 72), in a recent seafaring simulation analysis of Caribbean island and

mainland connections, noted that contacts were certainly not limited by technology or

environment, suggesting that some of the disparate patterns of colonization and inter-

action visible in the archaeological record must have been primarily due to social factors.

There is no doubt that personal relationships played a role in structuring exchangebehaviors. But, the archaeological data, when combined with other lines of evidence,

suggest that Caribbean Amerindiansthough proficient at making dugout canoes and

moving between islands (e.g. Cooper 2010b), as well as traveling to some of the conti-

nental margins (particularly, and perhaps almost exclusively, South America)never

developed a higher level of seafaring technology or navigational expertise as was seen in

the worlds other seas and oceans prehistorically. But, they essentially did not need to

given the relatively smaller size of the Caribbean Basin, biogeographical arrangement of

the islands, prevailing oceanographic and anemological conditions, and local or South

American accessibility of a wide range of desired raw materials and other resources such asprecious stones and exotic plants and animals. Nonetheless, the lower level of seafaring

technology found in the region does seem to explain anomalous patterns of settlement and

the paucity of interaction with other parts of the circum-Caribbean despite claims that

interaction was essentially universal through time.

I agree that if we are to seek out a pan-Caribbean approach to mobility and exchange

that is indeed diachronic (sensu Hofman et al. 2010: 4; also Hofman et al. 2011), all

lines of evidence should be carefully examined and this includes capabilities associated

with seafaring. To shed light on these and other issues, in this paper I attempt to:

(1) synthesize what is currently known about the antiquity and development of seafaring in

the Caribbean using various lines of evidence (linguistic, ethnohistoric, archaeological);(2) highlight debates about the level of technologies found regionally; (3) discuss how

environmental conditions, including currents and winds, likely influenced seafaring

capabilities and settlement patterns through time; (4) outline the possible evidence for

connections between the different surrounding mainland areas, including North America,

Mesoamerica, and South America; and (5) contrast seafaring capabilities found in the

J Mari Arch (2013) 8:101138 103

1 3


4/38

Caribbean with those of the Pacific to better contextualize why there were major differ-

ences between the two regions and why it is then difficult to make parallels as some

scholars have previously suggested.

Research Background

Environment

The Caribbean Sea, just slightly larger than the Mediterranean, covers an area of more than

2.75 million square kilometers and is the worlds second largest sea and seventh largest body

of water (Fig.1; Table1). The sea lies adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico, which at 1.5 million

square kilometers, is a little more than half the size, but extremely influential as far as

oceanographic conditions in the Caribbean Basin are concerned. The sea stretches 1,700 km

northsouth from Florida to Panama and 2,300 km eastwest from the Antillean chain of

islands fringing the eastern margin of the Caribbean to the Yucatan Peninsula in the west.

Geographically, the Caribbean is comprised of several major island chains that are

typically divided into the Greater Antilles (Cuba, Hispaniola, Puerto Rico, and Jamaica),

the Lesser Antilles, and at least culturally, the Bahamian Archipelago (including the Turks

and Caicos), though it is technically situated in the Atlantic Ocean. Geologically, the

Fig. 1 Map of the Caribbean. Inset at upper right hand corner shows generalized direction of major

currents. See Andrade and Barton (2000), Callaghan (2010: figure 6.2), Murphy et al. (1999), and Gyory

et al. (http://oceancurrents.rsmas.miami.edu/caribbean/caribbean.html) for more detailed patterns of winds

and currents in the region

104 J Mari Arch (2013) 8:101138

1 3
http://oceancurrents.rsmas.miami.edu/caribbean/caribbean.htmlhttp://oceancurrents.rsmas.miami.edu/caribbean/caribbean.html


5/38

Lesser Antilles form an island arc resulting from subduction of the North American Plate

beneath the eastern edge of the Caribbean Plate (e.g. Speed et al.1993) with other divisions

defined throughout, including those in the southern Lesser Antilles such as the forearc

region (e.g. the Barbados accretionary prism), the arc platform and volcanic chain, and the

backarc (the Grenada Basin and the Aves Ridge) (see Speed et al. 1993). The arc itself is

750 km long and extends from Grenada in the south (140 km north of Trinidad and South

America) to Sombrero just north of Anguilla. The Lesser Antilles are volcanically active.

Seventeen volcanoes have erupted within the last 10,000 years, including Kick-em Jenny,

a submarine volcano located between Carriacou and Grenada, St. Catherine on Grenada,

and Mount Soufriere on St. Vincent (Robson and Tomblin1966). Hofman et al. (2011: 75)

describe the Lesser Antilles as a second land bridge connecting South and North

America, though this a misnomer for even during times of lower sea level, neither the

southern nor northern islands in the chain, from Grenada up to the Bahamas and Greater

Antilles, were connected to the continents.

There is also a scattering of islands that skirt the South American mainland such as

Trinidad and Tobago, the Dutch ABC Islands (Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao), along with

Marguerita and Los Rocques that are politically part of Venezuela. Because of their closer

proximity to the mainland or connection during periods of lower sea level (e.g. Trinidad),

these islands are considered somewhat distinct in terms of both the composition of biotaand prehistoric colonization patterns. There are also numerous smaller islands in the

western Caribbean such as the San Andres archipelagocomprised of San Andres,

Providencia, Santa Catalina, and several atolls and cays that are politically part of

Colombiathough none of these appear to have evidence for Pre-Columbian settlement.

Other islands located between 30 and 55 km off the coast of Honduras include the Bay

Table 1 Size comparison of the

worlds major oceans and seas Order Name Area (sq. km)

1 Pacific Ocean 165,200,000

2 Atlantic Ocean 106,400,000

3 Indian Ocean 73,556,0004 Arctic Ocean 14,056,000

5 South China Sea 2,974,600

6 Caribbean Sea 2,515,900

7 Mediterranean Sea 2,510,000

8 Bering Sea 2,261,000

9 Gulf of Mexico 1,507,600

10 Sea of Okhotsk 1,392,100

11 Sea of Japan/East Sea 1,012,900

12 Hudson Bay 730,10013 East China Sea 664,000

14 Andaman Sea 564,900

15 Black Sea 507,900

16 Red Sea 453,000

17 Caspian Sea 371,000

18 Baltic Sea 415,000

J Mari Arch (2013) 8:101138 105

1 3


6/38

Islands of Roatan, Guanaja, and Utila that were settled prehistorically from Mesoamerica

by at least the Late Post-Classic Period (A.D. 9001500) (Goodwin 2011); the Cayos

Cochinos and Swan Islands that lie adjacent to Honduras remain under-investigated.

Further divisions commonly used in the Caribbean to describe island sub-regions

include those known as the Leeward and Windward islands, the former of whichgenerally refer to those situated east of Puerto Rico down to Dominica, and the latter, to

those south of Dominica to Trinidad, including those that skirt the margin of northern

South America (Fig.1). Geologically, the larger islands of the Caribbean are a mixture of

both limestone and volcanic material while nearly all of the Lesser Antilles are much

smaller and volcanically youthful with mountainous topography. Other islands such as the

Caymans, Bahamas, and Barbados are predominantly limestone (see Bouysse et al.1990).

The regions climate is tropical and as a result of its oceanographic conditions and

proximity to various physiographically distinct land masses, the Caribbean is extremely

diverse ecologically with a high level of endemism. As noted by Conservation Interna-

tional, the Caribbean is home to 2.3 % of the worlds endemic plant species

(n = 13,000?) and 2.9 % of endemic vertebrate species, including more than 600 bird

species. Nearly all (95 %) of the 500 reptilian and amphibian species are endemic, as are

all 170 species of frogs. In addition, there are over 1,500 species of fish, 25 coral genera,

630? mollusc species, and numerous echinoderms, crustaceans, sea mammals, sponges,

birds, and reptiles in marine, freshwater, brackish, and terrestrial environments (see

Newsom and Wing2004). Given that the Caribbean contributes only 0.15 % of the Earths

surface, these are enormously significant percentages.

Clarke (1989: 44) and Callaghan (2001, 2011b) have discussed the general weather

patterns found in the Caribbean which are summarized below and an important consid-eration when examining ancient seafaring in the region (see also Hall1971). In general, the

weather is fairly stable year round (apart from hurricanes) and more warm and humid in the

summer and fall than in the winter and spring. The region lies within the Northeast Trade

wind belt (Amador 1998) with prevailing winds that are easterly, and that between

December and May are relatively steady in the south, lending them the name Windward

Islands. The Northeast Trades have a northern limit of around 28N latitude (crossing

Nassau, The Bahamas) which is reached between July and September. It is during this time

that the strongest and steadiest winds pass through the middle of the region, while near the

northern limit, they tend to be more variable. This limit then shifts south to about 24N

(across the center of Cuba and the Turks and Caicos) between February and April. Onaverage, the winds blow between 11 and 15 knots from the east-northeast. The northern

part of the Bahamian Archipelago (north of 24N) is beyond the trade winds during the

winter and as such, they experience occasional strong winds from the north and lighter,

more variable winds. The winds shift east to southeast in the summer as the Northern

Trades return. During the summer and fall there is an increase in cloud cover, rainfall,

thunderstorm activity, and hurricanes, with winds often becoming lighter and more vari-

able. The steadiest winds in the summer months are found in the northern Lesser Antilles,

while those islands in the south and along the South American coast are steadiest in winter

as a result of the central portion of the trade wind belt shifting south (Clarke1989: 44;Callaghan 2001,2011b). See http://www.windfinder.comfor monthly average wind speed

and prevailing directions from monitoring stations in the Caribbean and elsewhere.

The movement and circulation of water in the region is most heavily influenced by the

Caribbean Current which moves westward from the Atlantic and funnels through the

islands (Murphy et al.1999; Andrade and Barton2000; Hernandez-Guerra and Joyce2000;

Alvera-Azcarate and Barth2009; see also Gyory et al.: http://oceancurrents.rsmas.miami.

106 J Mari Arch (2013) 8:101138

1 3
http://www.windfinder.com/http://oceancurrents.rsmas.miami.edu/caribbean/caribbean.htmlhttp://oceancurrents.rsmas.miami.edu/caribbean/caribbean.htmlhttp://www.windfinder.com/


7/38

edu/caribbean/caribbean.html ). Because islands that form the Lesser Antilles Island Arc

system have relatively steep bathymetry and are spaced closely together, this creates a

bottlenecking of sorts, which when coupled with the prevailing trade winds, creates rapid

transport of water through the channels (see Bouysse et al. 1990 for descriptions of local

bathymetry; also Alvera-Azcarate and Barth2009: fig. 1). This is particularly true in thesouthern third of the island chain (Gordon1967; Kinder 1983; Richardson2005) between

the St. Lucia, St. Vincent, and Grenada Passages that are comparatively swifter and where

the surface flow of water can reach 70 cm s-1 or more between Grenada and the coast of

Venezuela up to the Dutch ABC islands (Fratantoni 2001; Centurioni and Niiler 2003;

Hernandez-Guerra and Joyce). This was also readily observed by the French archaeologist

Benoit Berard who, as part of an effort to reenact Pre-Columbian modes of travel and

revitalize interest in island connections and seafaring in the Lesser Antilles, undertook a

voyage in 2010 from Martinique to the southern Caribbean in a 60 foot long canoe with

more than 25 paddlers who were accompanied by another modern vessel holding other

participants. While their trip through the islands went generally as planned, with stopovers

on most of the major islands, Berard (personal communication, 2013) ran into difficulty

when attempting to cross the 30 km passage heading south from Carriacou to Grenada and

had to stop off at the intervening island of Ronde 20 km away because they could not make

headway. This was the only unintended stopover they had to make during their trip. I have

also talked to many local sailors who have traveled between the two islands and had similar

experiences, even with sailboats.

The Caribbean Current is also strong (60 cm s-1) along the Colombian and Panamanian

coasts (Fratantoni2001). In general, it is typical for the Caribbean Current to flow west at a

speed of between 1.5 and 2.0 knots, with inter-island channels flowing at twice that speed,something that sailors and recent experimental voyages have documented well. The

Caribbean Current also intensifies seasonally around 14N partly due to the influx of

freshwater plumes from the Orinoco and Amazon after Andean spring melts reach the

ocean (Chrubin and Richardson2007).

The Caribbean Current eventually moves in a northwest direction toward the Gulf of

Mexico where it turns into the Yucatan Current. Here, near-surface velocities can reach up

to 80 cm s-1 (Coats 1992) and reportedly even higher to 150 cm s-1 (Nowlin and

McLellan1967). The Yucatan Current then joins the Florida Current to form the clockwise

flowing Loop Current that can reach as far as 29 north in close proximity to the Mis-

sissippi river delta. The Florida Current then moves through the straits between Cuba,eventually forming the powerful Gulf Stream that forcefully discharges warm water up the

coast of the Southeast United States and into the Atlantic. It should be noted that there are

also numerous eddies (primarily anticyclonic in the Caribbean Current) that form within

the Caribbean Basin as a result of various oceanographic, atmospheric, and seasonal

influences (e.g. Richardson2005; Alvera-Azcarate and Barth 2009), some of which have

advection speeds of 2030 cm s-1 (Andrade and Barton2000).

Prehistoric Migrations

Apart from those islands that border the coast of South America such as Trinidad and

Tobago which were connected to the mainland during the Early Pleistocene/Early Holo-

cene and settled around 6000 B.C., the first archaeological evidence for prehistoric colo-

nization of the Antilles is found in Cuba and Hispaniola. These groups, often referred to as

the Lithic or Casimiran Casimiroid peoples, are generally thought to have originated

from somewhere in Mesoamerica between 50003000 B.C. based primarily on perceived

J Mari Arch (2013) 8:101138 107

1 3
http://oceancurrents.rsmas.miami.edu/caribbean/caribbean.htmlhttp://oceancurrents.rsmas.miami.edu/caribbean/caribbean.html


8/38

similarities with lithic assemblages in Belize (Wilson et al. 1998; see Cooper 2010a for

comprehensive list of 14C dates from Cuba).

However, Callaghan (2003) in his analysis of seafaring simulations and the exami-

nation of lithics between the two areas, suggested that while it would have technically

been feasible for peoples to reach the Antilles from any of the surrounding mainlandareas during certain times of the year, the greatest chance of success was actually from

South America. Callaghan (2003) further notes that chance discovery of the Greater

Antilles was much greater from the Venezuelan coast than anywhere else given the sheer

size of the staging area, the low level of navigational skill and knowledge required, and

the need to only head in a general northward direction. Departing from northern Central

America would have also required some foreknowledge of changing course. In addition,

the lithic assemblages from Belize that Wilson et al. (1998) suggest is reminiscent of

those found in Cuba and Hispaniola is discounted by Callaghan (2003: 335) who notes

that the diversity of tools from those sites in Belize (Sand Hill and Orange Walk) is

much greater, with no known counterparts in the Greater Antilles. Essentially, we

should be cautious about making a connection between the Yucatan Peninsula and the

Greater Antilles on the basis of manufacturing technology and chronology alone

(Callaghan 2003: 335). Instead, a northern South American origin for these Lithic groups

seems more likely based on similarities in stone tool assemblages (e.g. Kozlowski 2004;

Veloz and Martin 1973; Veloz and Vega 1982), the fact that some of the densest

concentration of sites are found in southern and western Hispaniola and eastern Cuba,1

and seafaring simulations demonstrating the ease of travel northward and back (Calla-

ghan 2003).

About 5001,000 years later between ca. 3000 and 2500 B.C., Archaic or Ortoi-roid groups ventured into the northern Caribbean, occupying parts of Hispaniola,

Puerto Rico, and many of the islands throughout the Lesser Antilles, though they are

primarily focused north of the Guadeloupe Passage (Keegan 2000; Rouse1986; Fig.1).

Later, these Archaic groups were followed by ceramic-making horticulturalists known

as Saladoid around 500/400 B.C. who are widely known for their decorative pottery

and focus on horticulture, particularly the cultivation of manioc (cassava) and a host of

other plants (see Keegan 2000; Newsom and Wing 2004). Both of these latter two

groups are clearly related in some fashion to peoples in northern South America. While

there were several major pulses of Amerindian groups into the Caribbean islands, it

was likely much more complex, with multiple minor movements of peoples betweenislands, and islands and the continental margins. In sum, of the three major migratory

movements seen prehistorically in the Caribbean (Lithic, Archaic, and Saladoid), all

seem most likely to have originated from South America. Though connections to other

mainland areas such as northern Central America and the Gulf Coast, may have taken

place, it was likely on a much more sporadic scale, at least based on current

archaeological evidence.

1 Coopers (2010a: 104) review of 140 radiocarbon dates and other archaeological data from 1,061 pre-

historic sites in Cuba shows that there is a propensity for the earliest sites (ca. 63004450 cal BP) to be

found along the northern coast of the island, though the number of dates is small (n = 7). Interestingly, the

earliest dates for occupation of an offshore island in Cuba are from Punta del Este, Isla de la Juventud (Isle

of Youth) at Cave 4 (1290740 cal BP) and Cave 1 (970680 cal BP). Given that this island is one of the

largest in the Caribbean (*2,200 km2), this could suggest that seafaring traditions had either waned since

initial colonization, or did not develop until much later in time.

108 J Mari Arch (2013) 8:101138

1 3


9/38

Evidence for Seafaring in the Caribbean

Canoes

That humans actively colonized and permanently settled the Caribbean Islands in pre-history, and were able to maintain connections with groups on other islands and mainlands

as evidenced by similarities in ceramics and other artifacts (e.g. Keegan 2000; Hofman

et al.2007,2008,2011), certainly point to capable seafaring strategies. However, there are

very few archaeological examples of watercraft in the islands that would testify to the level

of technological sophistication available at different points in time. As such, ethnohisto-

rical accounts provide much of the description of canoes and seafaring present in the

region. This is in contrast to other parts of the circum-Caribbean such as Mesoamerica

(McKillop 2010) and the Southeastern United States (e.g. Newsom and Purdy 1990;

Wheeler et al. 2003) where the archaeological evidence is comparatively more robust.

The few cases of watercraft that have been found are dugouts constructed from single

trees. These include two fragments (1.5 and 2.0 m in length), each with a rim edge of what

appear to be the same vessel that were found in 1999 and 2004 eroding from the shoreline

at the partially submerged Tano (Late Ceramic Age) site of Los Buchillones site in Cuba

(Cooper2004: 94) (Figs.2,3,4). Their exact provenience and age, however, is currently

unknown. Remnants of a larger oceanic canoe was also reported to have been found on

islands further west of Los Buchillones near Marti in northwest Cuba by archaeologists in

the 1980s, though its dimensions and shape have not yet been reported (Jago Cooper,

personal communication, 2011). Other examples of dugouts include the Stargate canoe

from a blue hole on South San Andros Island in the Bahamas reportedly made frommahogany (Fig.5; Callaghan2001: Fig. 2; Keegan1997: 58) that is similar to those used

by groups along the Upper Orinoco river basin of Venezuela such as the YeKwana

(Callaghan 2001). As Callaghan and Schwabe (2001) note, the canoes observed archae-

ologically do not readily resemble those which were reported by Spanish chroniclers.

Instead, they more closely align with ones used currently by native South Americans.

There are, however, some platform-style canoes used by peoples today in Venezuela and

Belize that do resemble those recorded by the Spanish (Callaghan1993).

Paddles

Unfortunately, there is also a dearth of evidence as to how paddles were constructed. Du

Tertre (1667, in McKusick1960: 6) provides a basic description:

Their paddles have a handle like a spade, with a small crosspiece of wood across the

top. This is held with one hand while the other hand grasps the paddle near the blade,

the latter being 2.5 feet long. They paddle very differently than we row for they face

the bow, pushing the water behind to drive the pirogue ahead.

Limited direct evidence of seafaring in the Caribbean Islands comes from wooden

paddles of which nine are currently known: four from the Bahamas, two from Cuba, onefrom Haiti, one from the Dominican Republic, and one from Grand Turk Island (De Booy

1913: 25; Harrington1921: 208; Loven1935: 417419; Ostapkowicz1998: 118122; see

also Loven 2010: 417). Unfortunately, most are not reported in detail. The specimens

include a nearly complete blade of a lancet-shaped paddle recovered at the limestone

sinkhole site of Manantial La Aleta in the Dominican Republic (Conrad et al. 2001:

figure 2), one made from cedar recovered in a cave on Mores Island in the Bahamas

J Mari Arch (2013) 8:101138 109

1 3


10/38

(De Booy1913: 25), one from a cave near Monte Cristo in Cuba (Harrington 1921: 208),

and another from the Coralie Site on Grand Turk made from wild lime (Zanthoxylumsp.)

(Newsom and Wing2004: 183). Those from Mores Island and Monte Cristo have carved

designs decorated on the paddle which led Ostapkowicz (1998: 119) to suggest that these

may have been a reflection of a persons (owners?) status.

Though the general paucity of paddles found in archaeological sites in the Caribbean

precludes a better assessment of how they were used, a repeated pattern observed with

Pacific Islanders is the use of varying types of paddles (Haddon and Hornell 19361938)

Fig. 2 Canoe fragments (top) from the site of Los Buchillones, Cuba shown in a local museum (photo

courtesy of Jago Cooper)

Fig. 3 Canoe fragments from the site of Los Buchillones, Cuba (photo courtesy of Jago Cooper)

110 J Mari Arch (2013) 8:101138

1 3


11/38

depending on the kind of canoe being used (and henceforth, for different purposes such as

fishing, ceremonies, or raiding) (Holmes1993). In general, paddles used in still water or

less turbid rivers are typically shorter (Haddon and Hornell 19361938), with such shapes

associated with dugouts having been found in Scotland, for example (Mowat 1996). Inopen water, speed is often required for ceremonial or war canoes, and sharp bladed patterns

like the lancet-shape described by Loven(2010: 417418), are typically used to allow for

quick retrieval and rapid stroking in waves to achieve maximum speed.

Conversely, a broader bladed paddle can also be used as a weapon (Best 1976). The

distinction of paddle shape is critically important when we look at long sea voyaging in

open waters using large canoes. It should also be noted that small dugouts used along the

South American coast were usually paddled standing up (Edwards1965a,b) in contrast to

larger canoes that were paddled from a kneeling position. This had the effect of increasing

stability by lowering the center of gravity in open water situations (Holmes1993; see also

Haddon and Hornell 19361938).

The Sail

There is also the question of whether Amerindians in the Caribbean had knowledge of the

sail which would have allowed them to travel more quickly and efficiently using the steady

Fig. 4 Canoe fragments from the site of Los Buchillones, Cuba (photo courtesy of Jago Cooper)

J Mari Arch (2013) 8:101138 111

1 3


12/38

prevailing winds as a harness. A number of scholars, including Edwards (1965a, b) and

Callaghan (2011a) have addressed this issue by examining multiple lines of evidence,

ranging from linguistics, historical documents, and vessel form and use. One of the primary

sources of historical evidence for the use of sails comes from de Oviedo Valdes (1851:

170171) who stated that Amerindians navegan con velas de algodon which was

interpreted by Thompson (1949: 71) as meaning they sail (or navigate) with sails of

cotton. Callaghan (2011a,b), however, noted that this could also be taken to mean they

move about with awnings of cotton and is supported by de Las Casas ( 1875: 108111)

accounts of encountering canoes with awnings or shelters being used, a feature that

would not be outside the realm of possibility when one considers the tropical climate and

the need for added protection from the elements. A better appreciation of late fifteenth

and early sixteenth century Spanish usage of both toldos and velas is necessary before

the passage is taken as proof of sails (Callaghan2011a,b: 2). In addition, Valdes remarks

on the use of velas, as Callaghan (2011a,b) notes, are based on personal observations

written in 1514 which was well after contact.There is also a story recounted by John Stoneman who was the pilot of the ship Richard

of Plimoth. In 1606, Stoneman rescued Friar Blasius from Dominica after an Island Carib

uprising and noted:

And that hee [Friar Blasius] had beene there sixteene moneths a Slave unto those

Savages; and that other two Friars which were of his company thye had murthered

Fig. 5 The Stargate canoe from South San Andros Island, The Bahamas (photo courtesy of Richard

Callaghan; see schematic for this vessel in Callaghan 2001: 180; figure 2)

112 J Mari Arch (2013) 8:101138

1 3


13/38

and throwne into the Sea. We demanded of him then, how he go so much favour to

preserve his life, his Brethern being murthered: Hee answered, because hee did shew

the Savages how to fit them Sayles for their Cannoas, and so to ease them of much

labour often in rowing, which greatly pleased the Savages as appeared, for wee saw

them to use sayles in their Cannoas, forwhich hath not been seene before. Then wedemanded of him where they had this Linnen Cloth to make those Sayles, That about

two yeeres before that, three Gallions coming to the West Indies were cast away on

the Ile of Gwadalopa [Guadeloupe], where abundance of Linnen Cloth and other

Merchandise was cast on shoare (Stoneman1965: 285286, after McKusick1960:

5; Callaghan2011a: 2).

Based on his analysis of these and other factors, Callaghan (2011a; see also McKusick

1960) suggested that while sails would have been feasible, there is a distinct lack of

historical and linguistic evidence to support this claim. As I suggest below, there may have

been good reasons for why the sail was essentially unnecessary.

Canoe Construction

The sparse evidence available of actual canoe construction in the Caribbean suggests that

they were constructed from a single log (Loven1935: 417) and that many were capable of

holding one or a few individuals in smaller fishing canoes (Figs. 6, 7), with many more

larger ones able to carry as many as a few dozen people or so that would have been ideal

for both inter-island travel and crossing lengthier passages. There are reports by historical

chroniclers of canoes that were much larger, however, including ones that could holdbetween 50 and 60 people (Fig. 8) and even an apparent sighting of one near Jamaica that

held in excess of 100 people (McKusick 1960: 7; Stevens Arroyo2006: 46).

They [Amerindians] have more canoes than in any other part of those regions, and

the largest that yet been seen, all, as had been said, made each from a single tree

trunk. In all those parts, every cacique[chief]has a great canoe, of which he is proud

and which is for his service, as here a caballero prides himself on possessing a great

and beautiful ship. So they have them decorated at the bow and stern with metal

Fig. 6 A dugout canoe used by the Tano as shown by Benzoni (1563)

J Mari Arch (2013) 8:101138 113

1 3


14/38

bands and with paintings, so that their beauty is wonderful. One of these large canoes

which the admiral measured was ninety-six feet long and eight feet broad (Bernaldez,

in Jane1988, II: 124; McKusick1960: 7).

During his first voyage, Columbus reported on the general use of canoes by Caribbean

Amerindians.

They have in all these islands very many canoes like our row-boats; some larger,

some smaller, but most of them larger than a barge of eighteen seats. They are not so

wide, because they are made of one single piece of timber, but a barge could not keep

up with them in rowing, because they go with incredible speed, and with these

canoes they navigate among these islands, which are innumerable, and carry on their

traffic. I have seen in some of these canoes seventy and eighty men, each with his oar

(Columbus1870: 910; McKusick1960: 8).

During his first encounter with native Amerindians on 13 October 1492 after reaching

the Bahamas, Columbus recorded (translated by his son Fernando and published in 1571)

that:

.many of the natives returned on board the ships in their boats or canoes, whichwere all of one piece hollowed like a tray from the trunk of a tree; some of these were

so large as to contain forty or forty-five men, while others were so small as to hold

one person, with many intermediate sizes between these extremes. These were

worked along with paddles formed like a bakers peel, or the implement which is

used in dressing hemp. These oars or paddles were not fixed by pins to the sides of

Fig. 7 Reconstruction of a five person canoe based on surviving and contemporary examples of dugout

canoe construction from Amazonia and the Caribbean (drawn by John Swogger)

Fig. 8 Illustration of a larger, generic dugout canoe capable of holding around 5060 people (drawn by

Leslie Hazell)

114 J Mari Arch (2013) 8:101138

1 3


15/38

the canoes like ours; but were dipped into the water and pulled backwards as if

digging. Their canoes are so light and artfully constructed, that if overset they soon

turn them right again by swimming; and they empty out the water by throwing them

from side to side like a weavers shuttle, and when half emptied they lade out the rest

with dried calabashes cut in two, which they carry for that purpose (Columbus 1824:57; see also McKusick1960: 8).

On 27 November 1492 during Columbus first voyage he reported seeing a large Tano

trading canoe along the northeast coast of Cuba. According to de Las Casas (who translated

a portion of Columbus ship logs over a century later), Columbus stated that he found a

handsome dugout or canoe, made of one timber as big as a fusta of twelve rowing benches,

drawn up under a shelter or shed made of wood and covered with big palm leaves, so that

neither sun nor water could damage it (Beckwith and Farina 1990: 133; Dunn and Kelley

1989: 187; Jane and Vigneras1960: 78). According to Peck (2002), the European fusta of

a size to accommodate twenty-four rowers amidship plus passengers or cargo space in theends, would have been about forty feet long.2

On 30 November 1492, Columbus also reported that while still skirting the coast of

Cuba, they ventured near a large river emptying into the sea where they found a hand-

some dugout or canoe ninety-five palmas in length, made of a single timber, and in it a

hundred and fifty persons would fit and navigate (Peck 2002: 2; quotes derived from

Beckwith and Farina 1990: 137 and Dunn and Kelley 1989: 189). According to Kelley

(1987: 122123), the length of a Mediterranean palm (palmas) was about 10 inches which

would have made the canoe close to 80 feet long. However, Peck (2002: 2) regards this

estimated length and the number of people the canoe could carry to be an exaggeration,

noting that most Spanish chroniclers reported that the larger canoes could only carryaround 30 people.

There was also a report by Stoneman (1625; see McKusick1960: 7) of a canoe near St.

Lucia that held 4050 Caribs. It is worth mentioning too that along the coast of Florida, the

Spanish came into contact with the Calusa who had apparently fashioned a variation of the

double-hulled canoe. Within two hours [came Caalus], with as many as twelve canoes,

and two of them fastened one to the other, with decks covered with awnings of hoops and

matting (Sols de Meras1965). This vessel type is not reported in the Caribbean islands.

There is also the question of whether Amerindians used planking in all or part of the

design such as a wash strake to form the gunwale and raise the freeboard. This is aneffective strategy that increases the height of a canoe and reduces bailing and capsizing. Du

Tertre (1667, translated by McKusick and Verin; see McKusick1960) states the following:

The barbarians make two kinds of boats in which they go to sea. Their boats are very

different from our skiffs and sloops. We call their biggest boats pirogues, although

the savage word for them is canoua. The smaller boats, which we call canoes, are

termed by themcouliala. Both types are made from whole trees which they trim, dig

out, and then complete, with implements bought from Europeans such as axes, adzes,

and other tools. Prior to the trade with Europeans they spent entire years making their

boats. They felled trees or burned them at the base. They hollowed out the log withstone axes and with a small fire, which progressed a little at a time all along the log

hull until it had reached the desired shape.

2 This is actually close to the estimated length of some Polynesian double canoes (Doran 1981).

J Mari Arch (2013) 8:101138 115

1 3


16/38

Piroguesappear to be nothing more than two great planks joined to a base [which is

the hollowed log], and these boats have a width across the gunwales of 6 or 7 feet.

Where the planks join at each end of the boat, the opening is closed up with pieces of

plank. This is especially true with the stern, which is almost always slightly higher

than the bow.

Long poles are lashed, half a foot below the gunwales on both sides of the pirogue.

They lash thwarts upon these poles, set at 2-foot intervals, which serves as benches

whey they paddle. These pirogues are usually 40 feet long and 7 to 8 feet wide. The

rudder is only a plank set into another piece of wood without iron or nails. The

pirogues sometimes carry 50 people and all their luggage, and run by sails or

paddles.

Ordinarily, thepirogues are not high enough with just these first side planks, and so

they raise and build up the sides from one end to the other with some planks 1516

inches wide. Without using nails they lash and fit theses planks upon the pirogue

with cordage made from mahotfiber. They next caulk the joints with oakum made

from the beaten bark ofmahot. Over this caulking they bind small sticks with mahot

cordage [to keep the oakum in the seams]. This is indeed very watertight, but it does

not last long and must be done over and over again.

Thecoulialas, which we call canoes, never exceed 20 feet in length and have a beam

of 3 to 4 feet. They are pointed at both ends, making it difficult to distinguish bow

from stern. The canoes are seldom built up with side planking, and are paddled in the

same way as pirogues. There are many kinds of canoes, some so small that they can

only carry one man and solely used for fishing. They have no compasses, magnets, orsundials. Therefore, they do not go too far from land. When they lose sight of land,

they steer at night by the stars and by day from the course of the sun.

During Columbus fourth voyage, he had to beach his two ships in Jamaica after they

became unseaworthy and dispatched Diego Mendez to Hispaniola for assistance. As

McKusick (1960: 9) reports:

In order to make the trip, Mendez modified a medium-sized Jamaican canoe. He

attached a false keel, pitched and greased the hull, and nailed boards upon the bow

and stern, because the gunwales had little freeboard above the water. Finally, headded a mast and sail. Even with these modifications, the passage was very difficult

and gives an insight into the deficiencies (as seen through European eyes) of

aboriginal boats.

Given that canoes observed historically in the Caribbean were dugouts and never

appeared to have: (1) used planking to actually build the canoe itself (in contrast to a

dugout made from a single hollowed-out log), though at least in some cases it seems

probable that they used planking (as a wash strake) to form the gunwale and raise the

freeboard; (2) outriggers (Fig. 9); (3) a double-hulled configuration; or (4) the sail, the

question remains as to whether these larger varieties actually existed and would have beenfeasible for long-distance voyaging given the available resources and weight/draft ratios.

To use a sail without some mechanism for stabilization can easily result in capsizing

(Doran 1981). To achieve stability, the length to beam ratio of about three and beam to

depth ratio of about two gives stability for sailing as noted by Doran (1981). The actual

configuration and its effectiveness will depend on prevailing winds because some sail

116 J Mari Arch (2013) 8:101138

1 3


17/38

forms can only be used downwind which is the case for various Hawaiian (Holmes 1993)

and Maori (see Best 1976) canoes for example, depending on mast and lashing strength.

Downwind sailing means not having to tack, and for large canoes, tacking was a problem

that required either a centerboard, keel arrangement, outriggers, or a technique known asshunting, whereby the entire sail, along with the boom, rudder, and mast or lofting spar,

are moved to the opposite end of the boat. While this technique may on the surface appear

to be laborious and ineffective, in reality it was an ingenious strategy that allowed sailors to

maintain heading, reduce the chance of capsizing, and maintain speed (Doran 1981: 36).

The examples known from the Caribbean have none of these characteristics or capabilities.

Establishing maximum stability for canoes in Oceania was required for long distance

voyaging that ultimately led to the development of the outrigger. Later, double-hulled

canoes with large, central platforms (Hornell 1945) (the precursor to modern day catam-

arans) that provided greater carrying capacity allowed the farthest reaches of the Poly-

nesian Triangle (Hawaii, New Zealand, and Easter Island) to be colonized (Anderson2004). Dugouts seen in Ecuador or Columbia, if sailed, were not considered to be par-

ticularly handy to windward (Edwards 1965a, b). Generally for large canoes, it is only

their beam and seamanship that maintains stability for longer distances. Nevertheless, with

suitable materials and skilled manpower, these larger dugout canoes are an option in the

Caribbean, even if less sophisticated than those found in Oceania.

Fig. 9 Illustration of a typical outrigger dugout canoe with sail from the Bonin Islands (drawn by Leslie

Hazell). There is no historical, linguistic, or archaeological evidence to suggest that Caribbean Amerindians

ever developed these two technologies

J Mari Arch (2013) 8:101138 117

1 3


18/38

In terms of resources, there are several larger families of trees that would have been

suitable for construction of a variety of different sized canoes (Little and Wadsworth

1964), despite McKusicks (1960) claim to the contrary. These include woods of the

mahogany family (Meliaceae) (e.g. Cuban mahogany [Swietenia mahagoni]) that can reach

heights of 3035 m, and the ceiba family (Malvaceae) such as Ceiba pentandra that willgrow up to 6070 m tall. The latter for constructing Tano canoes was described by Las

Casas as ceyba (sensu Loven 2010: 420). Loven (2010: 416) reports that at Baracoa,

Columbus saw a Tano canoe made from cedar, possibly Cedrela odorata (commonly

known as Spanish Cedar or Red Cedar) which can often reach up to 40 m in height and in

ideal growing conditions in South America, up to 60 m high. It is moderately light weight

with a specific gravity of 0.4 and is termite and rot resistant. All of these trees are found

throughout the circum-Caribbean and known to have been (and are currently) used for

making canoes. They all have a suitable length/height and growth diameter width, as well

as the requisite specific gravity that with standard manufacturing techniquesincluding

steaming to expand the width and the use of cross wise beams (athwarts) to spread a green

trunk even widercould have theoretically carried 80100 persons.

Loven(2010: 417) proposes that while the Tano were exceptional paddlers, with the

Spanish remarking on the high speeds at which they could travel, the canoes were only

seaworthy in a limited sense.

They took in water easily and had to be bailed out with calabashes. Because they had

such flat bottoms, they turned over easily. But the crew very quick of hand, reversed

the boat and bailed out the water with their calabashes, while swimming along

outside (Loven2010: 417).

While Loven (2010) indicates that the canoes were flat bottomed, Richard Callaghan

(personal communication, 2013) notes that most found in the Caribbean were U shaped

instead. This hull shape would give them a very different righting moment than a flat-

bottomed canoe. It is easy to get Caribbean canoes to roll, but the last few centimeters

necessary to capsize is more difficult. In a flat bottomed canoe it is harder to initiate a roll,

but easier to pass the capsize threshold (Richard Callaghan, personal communication,

2013). However, the absence of any known stabilization components or techniques such as

an outrigger would have made a canoe of this size tenuous to maneuver and keep afloat in

open sea, particularly given an increase in wetted area for the canoe when loaded with

passengers, paddlers, and cargo that reduces speed and maneuverability. It should be notedthat during a trip to Venezuela in 1996, Callaghan (2005) reported seeing a skeg (fin) being

used on smaller canoes that would have helped when maneuvering through more turbid

waters and prevent capsizing, suggesting to him that this particular technology may be an

indigenous Carib development, though at which point in time it developed is unknown.

Given the lack of archaeological or historical evidence of this technology, it is probably a

post-contact development.

If we consider the size of an average adult to be around 70 kg (*155 lbs)3 9 100

persons, this equals out to be 7,000 kg (15,430 lbs) or seven metric tons. A canoe of this

size estimated to be at least 80100 feet (2530 m) long used for voyaging of any length inopen ocean would also need to include provisions, paddles, and various associated tools

(e.g. containers for bailing, weaponry, etc.). A canoe of similar dimension as those seen in

the Pacific made from mahogany, which weighs around 15.5 kg (34 lbs) per cubic foot (see

3 Doran (1981: 63) actually uses an estimate of 180 lbs per crew member in his analysis of canoe weights in

the Pacific.

118 J Mari Arch (2013) 8:101138

1 3


19/38

Doran1981: 66), would equal out to be around 24,000 lbs (10.8 metric tons), requiring

dozens of people to move and launch and having a combined weight with people, supplies,

exchange items, and provisions of around 1819 metric tons. As Doran (1981: 6667)

notes, increased cargo weight will actually aid the overall stability of double canoes like

that in the Pacific, but not for single outriggers (or simple dugouts). So, while a largercanoe was feasible to build given the resources available, it is quite probable that if they

were used, it was for ceremonial purposes or coastal raiding within sight of shore as was

seen in Hawaii and New Zealand at contact (Best 1976: 60). The main difference between

the Pacific and Caribbean varieties being that in the latter, there were no apparent sta-

bilization techniques used (e.g. an outrigger), and given the sheer weight involved with this

single hull design, it would have been impractical for both everyday use and long-distance

voyaging.

Maritime Activities, Seafaring, and Mainland Connectivity

As Broodbank (2006) noted in his review of maritime activities in the Mediterranean, an

analysis on how the use of watercraft for transportation shifted over time requires the

recognition that the processes of moving from land to sea is cumulative, and that peoples

gradually move from the first tentative seagoing to more adept seafaring, and ulti-

matelyultralong-range, ideologically charged voyaging (Broodbank 2006: 200).

Through trial and error, and presumably the borrowing and adaptation of existing tech-

nologies developed over time for riverine and near shore environments, Caribbean

Amerindians began the first seagoing stage by venturing out to the islands closest to themainlands first, including Trinidad around 6000 B.C. (though humans were possibly there

earlier given its proximity to South America and associated, but not well-dated, artifactual

assemblages), Curacao ca. 3000 B.C., and Cuba, Hispaniola, Barbados, and Puerto Rico

between c. 53004800 B.C.

Interestingly, despite the close proximity of Cuba and the Bahamas to Florida, there is

currently no unequivocal archaeological evidence yet for prehistoric contact between the

Southeast United States and the Caribbean. Many scholars (e.g. Helms 1988; Marquardt

1990; Rouse 1986) have suggested that it may have occurred based on various lines of

evidence, including geographical proximity and similarities in agricultural practices, lan-

guage, burial customs, general cultural behaviors, and artifacts such as ceramics and shellgouges (see Siedemann 2001: 45 for a list of more complete references). Purdy (1988)

argued that shortly after post-contact in 1492, Caribbean Amerindians retreated to Florida

in the wake of incursion, suggesting they knew of land and people to the north. Callaghans

(2011b) seafaring simulations also demonstrate that the southeastern part of Florida and

some of the islands in the Bahamas could be reached in as little as 6 days from northern

Cuba, suggesting that contacts could have occurred from the Caribbean periodically.

It would have also been extremely risky for vessels leaving the Florida Keys or South

Florida and heading westward. Given the prevailing currents and winds, this would have

required paddling at an intense (and likely unsustainable) pace. The average speed of the GulfStream is 4 miles per hour (6.4 km/h), though surface speeds can reach in excess of 5.5 mph

(9 km/h) which is the fastest in the world; the current gradually slows as it veers northward

past Georgia and the Carolinas (e.g. see Auer 1987; Sato and Rossby 1995). It is also

noteworthy that the current moves four billion cubic feet of water per second which is 150

times more than what is carried by the Amazon and overall, exceeds that transported by all

of the worlds rivers combined (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/gulfstreamspeed.html ).

J Mari Arch (2013) 8:101138 119

1 3
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/gulfstreamspeed.htmlhttp://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/gulfstreamspeed.html


20/38

As a result, there is the distinct possibility of vessels being swept up the coast of Florida and

into the Atlantic via the Gulf Stream if sufficient paddling speeds are not maintained. Cal-

laghans (2010) simulations confirm this, with multiple landings in South and Southeast

Florida from Cuba. It would have also been possible to travel from Florida back to Cuba if

conditions were suitable during certain parts of the year.The evidence for an AntilleanMesoamerican connection is also fraught with uncer-

tainty, despite Callaghans (2011b) analysis of simulated voyages which show the relative

ease of drift voyages reaching this mainland from various origin points in the northern

Caribbean. As noted previously, similarities in lithic assemblages between parts of Central

America and the Greater Antilles led Wilson et al. (1998) to suggest early (Lithic) linkages

between the two regions, though the presence of architectural features and plazas such as

ball courts (batey), elbow stones, and stone collars found on some islands in the northern

Antilles during the Late Ceramic Age (post-A.D. 500) are the most commonly cited

evidence for this (Loven1935; Rouse 1992: 112115; Fewkes 2009: 159163; 167173;

also Curet1996).

In terms of bateys, there is disagreement about whether this was an indigenous

development or resulted from connections with northern Central America/southern Mexico

or the Isthmo-Colombian region (see Rodrguez Ramos 2011: 185186). Loven (2010:

633) stated that [s]tone collars are definitely a pure Tainan element. Roe ( 2005) in his

analysis of rock art in Puerto Rico argues that while some scholars may explain the cultural

transformations taking place through time on the islandseen through the lens of picto-

graphs and petroglyphsas evidence of diffusionism from Mesoamerica, he remarks that:

While some contact is probable, the iconography and symbolism of the rock art argue

strongly against direct diffusion from Mesoamerica (along with the purported bor-rowing of the ball park and ball game phenomena). It points, instead, to the retention

and elaboration of cultural traits and institutions from the ancestral jungles of Gui-

ana-Amazonia (Roe2005: 291292).

Some similarities in language between northeastern Hispaniola and Honduras (Gran-

berry and Vescelius2004), and the discovery of plant remains in the Greater Antilles and

Virgin Islands (Rouse et al. 1990: 2930; Newsom and Wing 2004: 120121; Rodrguez

Ramos 2011) are also suggestive of a Central American connection. There are other

possible instances of connections between northwestern South America and southern

Mesoamerica (the Isthmo-Colombian area). Readers are referred to Rodrguez Ramos(2011) who provides a good summary of these, including various cultivars, architectural

similarities, tools, prestige items, personal adornments, raw materials, and so on that are

suggestive of linkages between the Antilles and this area through time, yet by which

cultural modes or directions they took, and whether this was constant or waxed and waned

through time, is presently unclear.

The increasing number of sites in the Caribbean with evidence for maize consumption

(Mickleburgh and Pagan-Jimenez 2012) as well as other plants such as beans (Legumi-

nosae/Fabaceae), zamia (Zamia portorricencis), sapodilla (Manilkara zapota), avocado

(Persea Amer

icana), and yellow sapote (Poutevia campechiana

) Newsom and Wing(2004)coupled with widespread cultivation across parts of Mesoamerica and South

Americasuggests that these cultigens were making their way into the Antilles at some

point in time from somewhere, but their exact origin is also currently unknown. Maize, for

example, was first domesticated in Mexico, but spread rapidly to other parts of the

Americas (Staller et al. 2006). The earliest evidence for the introduction of maize into

South America has been the subject of debate (Bush et al. 1989; Freitas et al.2003; Staller

120 J Mari Arch (2013) 8:101138

1 3


21/38

2003; Pearsall2002,2003; Pearsall et al.2004), but it seems fairly clear that this cultigen

entered the Ecuadorian Amazon by at least 6000 B.P. Blakes ( 2006) review shows rel-

atively few directly dated specimens of maize in South America, but reports indirect dates

for Colombia ca. 50006700 B.P. (coeval with early Central American chronologies) and

Venezuela Amazonia ca. 2500 B.P. Stable isotope signatures greater than -15 % fromhuman remains in Venezuela dating back to between 500 and 1000 B.P. are also suggestive

of maize consumption. While well-dated evidence of maize in the Caribbean is relatively

scant, it seems clear that it was being cultivated primarily post-1800 B.P. (Mickleburgh and

Pagan-Jimenez2012), though maize pollen and phytoliths from the Dominican Republic

and Puerto Rico could possibly push the introduction back even earlier to ca. 3500 B.P.

(see review in Newsom2006). Ultimately, not only will chronologies need to be resolved,

but genetic associations established to better discriminate from which direction (and when)

maize was introduced into the Caribbean. The possibility that it was introduced from

multiple locations should not be readily dismissed, though at this stage, it is premature to

suggest that the Caribbean served as a vector for the introduction of this cultigen into the

Southeastern United States as some earlier scholars suggested (Lathrap1987; Sears1977).

Perhaps the most intriguing argument for a MesoamericanAntillean connection in

recent years was the study by Harlow et al. (2006) who mineralogically analyzed a small

number (10) of jadeite axes from the island of Antigua. They suggested that the most

plausible source was Guatemala, though they noted that there may be as yet unknown

sources in a similar geological terrane (serpentinite-matrix melange) on Cuba, Hispaniola

or Jamaica [that] cannot be ruled out. However, shortly after this study was published,

Garcia-Casco et al. (2009), found a new jadeitite source in Cuba, while Schertl et al. ( 2012)

discovered another similar outcrop in the Dominican Republic, demonstrating for the firsttime that there are indigenous sources of the material. Rodrguez Ramos (2010; see also

Knippenberg2006) provides a summary of various green stones that have been found in

Caribbean archaeological contexts, including jadeite/jadeitite and serpentinite axes/celts,

pendents, amulets, and beads. While he argues that likely sources of these materials

probably originate from Central Americain part because there are no known sites in

Cuba or Hispaniola with finished jadeitite artifacts,4 but also that the dates for these

artifacts precede an Arawakan presence on these two islandsRodrguez Ramos (2010)

acknowledged that there was a lack of petrographic and geochemical data to currently

support this.

That other sources of jadeitite had been found in the Greater Antilles (Knippenberg2006) seemed a much more parsimonious explanation than long-distance voyaging to

Guatemala or Mexico and one that Harlow et al. (2006) even predicted might be found.

Building on the earlier mineralogical analysis of jadeitite artifacts from the Caribbean by

Harlow et al. (2006), Garcia-Casco et al. (2013) examined in detail four jadeitite artifacts

from St. Eustatius dating post-A.D. 600 using various techniques to try and determine the

4 The absence of artifacts or manufacturing debris near an outcrop or even on the same island should not

necessarily be seen as a lack of evidence for exploitation of a resource. History is replete with examples

from island environments in which people ventured to a location (often smaller outcrops on another island)

to extract tool quality stone, but did not process the material on site. For example, Torrence (1986: 206,214216) found that the majority of Melos obsidian from the Aegean was removed as unworked nodules and

that it was not necessarily a high value material; instead, it was the crafting of blades by specialists which

gave obsidian its value. This is also seen in the Pacific where most of the obsidian found on Santa Cruz

Island was brought in unmodified, including one cobble that was of such poor quality that it was never flaked

(Sheppard1993). The point being is that the modification of a resource is what can actually give it value,

along with the social links forged by exchange, and the acquirers of a resource are not necessarily the ones

who modify it.

J Mari Arch (2013) 8:101138 121

1 3


22/38

best potential source location (i.e. Guatemala, Cuba, the Dominican Republic) and com-

pare these findings with the artifacts previously studied from Antigua. While they noticed

considerable variation within the same geological localities, they propose that the most

plausible source is from the Motagua Valley in Guatemala. The authors acknowledge

though that the sample size is small and that other, yet undiscovered deposits of jadeititefrom the Caribbean and South America, could have also been used prehistorically.

Nonetheless, this type of detailed mineralogical and compositional study of lithic material

is a step in the right direction that will help establish the extent of interaction that occurred

between Antillean groups and their mainland neighbors and how these networks of

acquisition and exchange were structured through time.

In short, there has been much less archaeological survey in Cuba and Hispaniola

compared to the rest of the Antilles, and I would argue that further research is likely to

provide evidence of these and possibly other local sources from northern South America

being used prehistorically. The fact that there is a long history of local use and regional

exchange of prized greenstone, semiprecious stones (e.g. amethyst), and other less exotic

rocks dating back to the early Ceramic Age (500/400 B.C.A.D. 500) for manufacturing

(micro)lapidary items (Hofman et al. 2007; Knippenberg 2006)along with guann

(known as tumbaga in the Isthmo-Colombian region) a goldcopper alloy that was only

accessible from the mainlandSouth America, according to Bray (1997) and Oliver

(2005: 242), and Central America according to Rodrguez Ramos and Pagan Jimenez

(2007)point to a strong South American affiliation culturally, or simply geographically.

Rodrguez Ramos (2011: 182) also notes a fragment of a tumbaga artifact dating to A.D.

100 in northern Puerto that he interprets as deriving from Colombia. Hofman et al. (2011: 78)

note, however, that greenstone frog-shaped pendants and other exotic rock materials pointto connections with the tropical lowlands of South America, suggesting that guannmay

have followed the same pathway.

As regards other stone resources, Rodrguez Ramos (2007,2010: 29) states that obsidian

found on Puerto Rico likely has a Central American or an Andean origin. While the former

is certainly plausible given that there are no indigenous sources of obsidian known in the

Antilles (and the relative abundance of this material elsewhere, particularly Mesoamerica),

it is also quite possible that it came from a lowland South American source. Bellot-Gurlet

et al. (1999a,b,c,2008) report on sources of obsidian from Ecuador and Colombia, and if

this resource had made its way into the Antilles, it would make more sense that it came

from here versus Mesoamerica. The possibility that this one particular flake made its wayto Puerto Rico naturally should also not be ruled out, given that obsidian is sometimes

associated with pumice which can float and disperse long distances over open ocean

(Bryan et al. 2012). Pumice floats have also been reported for the Caribbean (Donovan

1999).

Given that many of the ceramic styles, exotic stone and minerals, motifs, symbols,

numerous plants, and all of the animals known to have been translocated into the Carib-

bean originated from South America as well [including the Ceramic Age introduction of

agouti, opossum, armadillo, peccary, and guinea pig,5 the latter of which has its origin in

the Andean region (Giovas et al. 2012) and dates post-A.D. 500 (LeFebvre and deFrance

5 The geographical patchiness and early presence of some translocated animals found in the northern

Caribbean (Giovas et al. 2012) may point to introductions that were direct from the South American

mainland. For example, the earliest dates for guinea pig are found in Puerto Rico around A.D. 600

(LeFebvre and deFrance2013), with other occurrences in the southern end of the distribution on Carriacou

occurring at least 300400 years later.

122 J Mari Arch (2013) 8:101138

1 3


23/38

2013)]not to mention a myriad of other objects or pendants made from the remains of

animals that originated from the same area (e.g. a polished and incised red brocker deer

mandible [Giovas et al. 2012]; perforated jaguar teeth)point to fairly consistent South

American connections through time.

Furthermore, the shared mainland iconography emphasizing jaguars, king vultures,

peccaries, caimans, manatees, possibly rodents like hutias6 (Indian coneys, Iso-

lobodon portoricensis), and snakes on Saladoid ceramics, micro-lapidary work, and

ceremonial paraphernalia underscores the affiliations with the South American

mainland (Hofman et al. 2011: 78).

Nonetheless, the obsidian in question is from only a single blade found at Maruca

(Febles 2004) and is not sufficient enough to establish a direct connection given that it

could have traveled through various places first before reaching Puerto Rico and not

necessarily straight from the source. Given the ubiquity of obsidian use in Mesoamerica

(e.g. Saunders 2011), and its prized nature to peoples worldwide due to its various

physical, symbolic, and ritual properties, it would seem odd that if Caribbean Amerindians

had come into frequent contact with peoples in Mesoamerica using this resource, that they

would not have exploited it more fully through trade and exchange networks as is seen in

other world regions, including the Pacific, Mediterranean, Mesoamerica, Russian Far East,

and western North America. Ultimately, additional mineralogical and geochemical

sourcing efforts will help to resolve questions of where this and other lithic materials found

in Caribbean Pre-Columbian sites derived from (Knippenberg 2006). What the archaeo-

logical evidence shows is that most, if not all, lithic and other exotic rocks were exploited

from sources within the Antilles or South America. In addition, the fact that it is extremelydifficult to paddle eastward in the northwestern part of the Caribbean Sea given the

prevailing winds and currents (Callaghan 2003) further argues against a close direct

relationship with Central America in terms ofguann, jadeites, or other exotic materials,

lithic or otherwise.

During the Archaic Age, which spans from ca. 5000500 B.C., many of the islands in

the Greater and Lesser Antilles were colonized, though the vast majority were located in

the Leeward Islands north of the Guadeloupe Passage (Callaghan 2010). Interestingly,

Jamaica and the Bahamas do not appear to have been settled until post-A.D. 600, and

neither the Caymans nor the San Andres archipelago currently have evidence for prehis-

toric occupation (Scudder and Quitmyer 1998; Stokes and Keegan 1996). Isla de la Ju-ventud, the seventh largest island in the Caribbean, located only 50 km off of the

southwestern coast of Cuba, also appears to have been initially settled around the same

time. In the case of Jamaica, Callaghan (2008) suggests that a combination of maritime

conditions [i.e. higher than normal seas and unfavorable winds and currents] not experi-

enced to the same degree elsewhere in the Antilles, and cultural needs and organizations

not conducive to the building of large canoes may be the underlying reasons why the

island, despite its relatively close proximity to Hispaniola, was not settled until much later

in time.

6 All known extant and extinct species of hutia are native to the Caribbean islands, primarily the Greater

Antilles (e.g. Woods1989; Wilkins2001). Hofman et al. (2011) may be confusing the hutia with the agouti

(Dasyproctasp.), another rodent which was brought into the Caribbean Islands from South America pre-

historically. See Giovas et al. (2012) for a recent summary of Neotropical animal introductions into the

Antilles.

J Mari Arch (2013) 8:101138 123

1 3


24/38

A Pacific corollary to this in terms of oceanographic conditions hindering seafaring is

the Palauan archipelago in the Western Caroline Islands of Micronesia. Palau is comprised

of hundreds of islands, the largest of which is Babelbaob at 330 km2. At its widest point,

the archipelago is 25 km across and stretches for over 160 km, making it a fairly visible

target for seafarers. Palau is 800 km equidistant from the Philippines to the west and IrianJaya to the south, and lies 400 km south of Yap; the islands of Yap and Guam lie

approximately 400 and 800 km north/northeast of Palau, respectively. What is interesting

is that all of the islands within 800 km of Palau in every direction, including atolls and reef

islets, were recorded and/or contacted by the Spanish in the early to mid-1520s, yet Palau

remained isolated from Europeans until the British packet the Antelope wrecked off of

Ulong Island in 1783. In fact, the Spanish referred to Palau as the Enchanted Islands

after trying numerous times to locate the archipelago after hearing from Jesuit missionaries

in the Philippines who in 1664 alone had recorded some 30 Carolinian canoes that had

accidentally drifted there and who spoke of inhabited islands to the east. Hezel (1972)

notes that between 1697 and 1711 there were eight recorded Spanish attempts to locate the

archipelago. Of these, only the Santissima Trinidadwas successful, although they never

actually set foot on land due to unfavourable conditions. Computer simulations supported

the Spanish reports of their difficulties, demonstrating that adverse winds and currents

around Palau were highly influential in limiting contact (Callaghan and Fitzpatrick2007).

What this example shows is that even direct attempts by very capable and long-distance

voyagers to find a known island or archipelago can be limited or unsuccessful due to

prevailing and seasonally fluctuating winds and currents.

There is also little evidence of Archaic settlements in the Lesser Antilles south of the

Guadeloupe Passage (Fitzpatrick2006; Callaghan2011a,b). To date, only the Heywoods(Port St. Charles) site on Barbados has any chronological evidence for an early occupation

in the region, with six radiocarbon assays from secure contexts dating between c.

31002000 B.C., possibly making it the oldest Archaic site between Trinidad and Puerto

Rico (Fitzpatrick 2012). Later in time, ca. 500/400 B.C., the phenomenon of Saladoid

pottery showing up in the archaeological record on Puerto Rico and most islands

throughout the Lesser Antilles, but not further north or west into the Bahamas and the

remaining islands of the Greater Antillesand the fact that Jamaica and the Bahamas are

not settled until ca. A.D. 600 (the so-called long pausesee Keegan2010)could point

to both social and environmental variables restricting movement.

Given the patterns of colonization and settlement that are currently visible archaeo-logically in the Caribbean islands through time, it appears that movement was certainly

influenced and even hampered by oceanographic and anemological conditions. This is

suggested by the known pattern of settlement during the Archaic and Ceramic Ages in

which the northern Antilles were, with the exception of Barbados,7 settled earlier than the

southern islands (e.g. Fitzpatrick2006). The fact that Jamaica is less than 150 km from

Cuba, and various islands in the Bahamas Archipelago are within 100 km or so of both

Hispaniola and Cuba (with visual distances being even closer), but were settled so much

later in time (and the Caymans apparently never), points to seafaring conditions around the

northern Caribbean that were not conducive to the type of watercraft available and/or a7 Barbados is somewhat anomalous in terms of Archaic settlement as it is the only island in the Lesser

Antilles south of the Guadeloupe Passage (comprising six major islands and many smaller ones across

several hundred kilometers) currently known to have evidence for a pre-500 B.C. settlement (Fitzpatrick

2012). Callaghan (2010) suggests that the high frequency of volcanism may have been a deterrent to

settlement; that Barbados is relatively flat and limestone in origin may lend credence to this theory (Fitz-

patrick2012).

124 J Mari Arch (2013) 8:101138

1 3


25/38

lack of more sophisticated navigational expertise (Callaghan 2008). However, the close

proximity of, and visual connectivity between, islands within the Lesser Antillean chain

from Grenada up to Anguilla, and from the Virgin Islands to Puerto Rico and the rest of the

Greater Antilles (as was demonstrated by Torres and Rodrguez Ramos [2008] in their GIS

analysis examining interisland visibility), are likely one major reason why smaller to mid-size dugout canoes were satisfactory and did not necessarily need to be improved upon.

Some scholars have made comparisons between the Caribbean and Pacific, with Torres

and Rodrguez Ramos (2008: 25) suggesting that as with Polynesians, it is almost certain

that the peoples of the [Caribbean] islands were able to circumvent these [oceanographic,

environmental] constraints by their extensive knowledge of spatial referents in the physical

world that formed a network of related places between seascapes, landscapes, and human

action. It is still intriguing, however, why some patterns of expected settlement have not

yet emerged (e.g. late colonization of Jamaica and the Bahamas, the propensity for the

earliest Archaic and Saladoid sites to be in the northern Antilles, and the lack of con-

nections seen archaeologically to other islands in the Caribbean, Florida and the rest of the

Gulf Coast). Torres and Rodrguez Ramos (2008: 25) also remark that [y]et as Polyne-

sians were able to travel across distances that covered around a fourth of the circumference

of the globe even in very difficult seafaring conditions, it might have been possible for pre-

Columbian navigators of the Caribbean to travel across large stretches in the open sea.

Hofman et al. (2011) also suggest that the movement of Saladoid groups from South

America into the Antilles might be compared to Lapitas colonization of Remote Oceania.

The extremely fast movement from the Bismarck Archipelago all the way to Poly-

nesian Samoa, some 4,000 km to the east, resembles the Caribbean situation in

which approximately 1,500 km were bridged in a similarly short time span com-mencing around 400 B.C. (Hofman et al. 2011: 7677).

While Hofman et al. (2011) and others (e.g. Watters1982) have argued that Saladoid

groups are similar to Lapita in that they likely needed to establish lifelines between

mother and daughter communities to help ensure survival and maintain important

trade connections (which was almost certainly the case for many island societies), it is

important to note that there are major differences in the oceanographical, geographical, and

environmental conditions involved, as well as the distances which needed to be covered

across open ocean. First, Hofman et al.s (2011) figure of 1,500 km for Saladoid migration

presumes that the Lesser Antilles were settled in a northward stepping-stone fashion fromsomewhere along the Venezuelan littoral, not in a direct jump to the northern Antilles

which is only about half the distance (700800 km). As Callaghans (2001,2003) seafaring

simulations have shown, the northern Antilles can be easily reached from Venezuela while

drifting in less than a week and vice versa, depending on the time of the year. In the former

scenario, if Saladoid groups followed a direct pathway through the Lesser Antillean arc by

hopping from island to island from the northern South American mainland to Puerto Rico,

the distance would indeed be 1,500 km, but only if reaching the eastern coast of Hispaniola

were the objective. The distance is actually closer to 1,0001,300 km to and across Puerto

Rico where Saladoid migration seems to have stopped. And, this does not take into accountthat intervening islands would have been convenient stopovers, most of which (with the

exception of the far eastern island of Barbados) are only 5060 km apart at most until one

reaches Anguilla.

Even if this migration strategy was followed, it would have meant that Saladoid peoples

could continually see one island from the next (or multiple islands at midpoints in between)

and quite easily gain their bearings as they pushed north. However, the archaeological

J Mari Arch (2013) 8:101138 125

1 3


26/38

chronologies (Fitzpatrick2006,2013; Fitzpatrick and Giovas2011; Fitzpatrick et al.2010)

and seafaring simulations (Callaghan2001,2003) suggest that Saladoid groups may have

bypassed much of the Lesser Antilles c. 500/400 B.C., and instead, made a direct crossing

from South America to Puerto Rico or somewhere close to that vicinity. As Callaghan

(2001) demonstrated, this would have been a very plausible scenario considering thatwinds and currents flow westward from the Atlantic into the Caribbean, essentially bot-

tlenecking through the islands and making northward and eastward progress a difficult

endeavor (Callaghan 2001). The survivability rate of even drift voyagers from South

America would have been high too, considering that the trip would have taken canoes to

near or around Puerto Rico in less than

seafaring capabilities in the pre-columbian caribbean scott m. fitzpatrick

Documents