In the previous chapter, it is shown that the majority of the adornos from the site of El Flaco were disembodied from the vessel, which leads to the question of whether breakage of an adorno-modelling from the vessel happened accidentally or deliberately, and if it is possible that the adorno-modelling had a separate life from the vessel. In addition, in the previous chapter, it is discussed that most commonly only one adorno-modelling
belonging to one vessel is found, while it is assumed that most of the adorno-vessels from El Flaco held two adorno-models on one vessel. Thus, the question remains where are the second adorno-models? Therefore, in this chapter, it is explored whether the
archaeological context of the adornos can provide insight on these questions.
Eight sets of adorno-models, each set belonging to the same vessel, are found at the site of El Flaco. A number of these are located in different locations, which suggests that these adorno-models were transported within the perimeters of the settlement and that the lives of the adorno-models might have diverged from each other and the vessel after breakage. For example, ID 211 is found in 63-82-58 (L4), while ID 160 is found in 63- 82-68 (L8). This entails that ID 160 was unearthed one meter to the north of ID 211 and approximately forty centimeter deeper. It is possible that when the adorno was damaged,
~ 117 ~
the use-life of its fragments (ID 160) ended, while one adorno-modelling was purposely disembodied (ID 211) and its use-life continued. This could explain why one fragment of the adorno is located deeper in the soil and is attached to a larger piece of ceramic. In addition, ID 160 is positioned in an ash layer, while ID 211 is not. Nevertheless, both adornos are found in mound C.
Furthermore, ID 103 is found in 63-54-15 (L2), while ID 275 is found in 63-83-40 (L2). This entails that ID 275 was unearthed thirty-three meters to the north and fifteen meters to the west of ID 103, which is a significant distance, indicating that the fragments of this adorno may have had separate use-lives after breakage. Nevertheless, both adorno- models were eventually deposited in a mound in close proximity to a hearth. In addition, ID 8 (63-55-13, L3) is situated 4 meters to the north and 4 meters to the south of ID 246 (63-44-79, L2). However, both adorno-models are found in the northwestern region of mound F in proximity to the hearths and burials. Finally, ID 278 is excavated in 73-05-73 (L2), while ID 67 is found in 73-05-74 (L1). Thus, ID 278 is uncovered one meter to the east and ten centimeter deeper in comparison to ID 67, which is still relatively close to each other and it is possible that the disembodied adornos were deposited around the same time and served a similar role, as both are found in proximity to a cooking hut. From the archaeological context of the sets of adorno-models that were deposited in different locations, it does not seem as if the adorno-models played significantly different roles, as they were still found in close proximity to each other or in different locations that could be related to similar activities. In addition, the adorno-models may have been interesting for children to play with. Children, or animals, might have picked up one adorno-modelling and deposited it in another location (Schiffer 1996, 75-79). Samson (2010, 86) additionally notes that in the present-day children living near the site of El Cabo (southeastern Dominican Republic) frequently collect adornos from their family conucos. Furthermore, there does not seem to be a clear pattern in the other four sets of adorno-models that were found in close proximity to each other, which could explain why these sets of adorno-models were found together, while the majority of the adorno- models are found separated or the second adorno-modelling is missing.
5.5 Concluding Remarks
The study of the archaeological context of the adornos from the site of El Flaco shows that adornos were found and used in a variety of contexts: within and surrounding the
~ 118 ~
houses, cooking places, and in burials. Furthermore, as discussed above, a turtle adorno has been found within a “pit” with two postholes, which was part of the outer row of a house. The nature of the “pit” is unclear, but it is possible that it reflects the remains of the intentional burial of the turtle adorno. In this example, the adorno may have played a role in the protection of the house, or the deposition of the adorno served as an
expression of gratefulness to the female turtle for providing the people with shelter within one of the creation narratives, as discussed in chapter 2. In addition, two bat adornos and one frog adorno have been excavated in close proximity to a burial. Furthermore, it appears that birds, including owls, are significantly more prominently present in
proximity to burials. However, these contexts do not allow for the singular association of bat=the dead, frog=the dead or turtle=shelter. The different images identified on adornos are all found in a variety of contexts, and in association with a variety of activities. Thus, the single context of, for example, a bat in proximity to a burial hardly provides a complete picture of the expressive and performative potential of the bat.
Finally, it is interesting to note that the majority of the adornos (46.55%, n=128) from El Flaco are found within mound D and the northwest of mound F, which are characterized by a large number of hearths and a multitude of human burials (see tab. 29). This suggests that adornos likely played an important role in burial ceremonies and feasts related to the dead. In these contexts, considering the liminality of the beings depicted on the adornos, the adornos may have played an important role in assisting the dead in their travels across the realms of the cosmos, or provided the people on the earthly plane with the ability to contact their ancestors in other realms. In the next chapter, the potential social roles of adornos are explored in more detail by placing the adornos within their social context.