EJECUCI ´ ON DE LAS OBRAS DE JARDINER´IA

Stone implements other than flint were studied primarily by use of the low power technique, in view of their

coarse-grained surface. The high power technique was only additionally applied in a few cases. Almost all pieces of stone collected (n=936) are regarded as artefacts (95,3%), although not all pieces show signs of manufacture. The raw materials did not occur on the site and were brought there intentionally from other

archaeology, these pebbles are often classified as polishing stones, but they may have served various functions.

The remaining artefacts (n= 388) comprise core-tools (n=97), debitage (n=275) and bead fragments (n=16).

The core-tools were further classified typologically on the basis of their general morphology (Knippenberg, 2006; Stevens 2001). Many stones are however merely small fragments and as such not classifiable. The

typology for stone tools in the Caribbean area is moreover hardly standardized. The typological description of stone tools is therefore often determined by their presupposed function. To verify these assumptions on function, a sample of 57 artefacts was selected for usewear analysis. The selection was based on the presence of suitable working areas on the tools and the occurrence of macroscopically visible residue. Furthermore a

random selection of water-worn pebbles without residue was included as well as a selection of the modified

semi-precious stones.

The 30 artefacts with traces of use displayed 45 used zones of mostly heavily worn surfaces. Both the fact that they were used on multiple sides and the degree of wear indicate that hard stone tools were used intensively.

5.4.1 celtsandFragmentsoFcelts

Stone celts are polished into shape and are therefore difficult to study for micro-wear traces. In Morel in total

eight celts and fragments of celts were collected (Fig. 5.12). Three celts and two fragments were selected for usewear analysis. Two edge fragments (70-91-73-I, 276-2) do not show any traces. An explanation would be that the celts were damaged in the early phase of usage and are therefore lacking traces. Two more or less complete examples clearly show traces of use (70-91-74-II, 79-99 IRT MEAS). Both seem to have been used

as wedges. One of them was first used as a hafted axe resulting in macroscopically visible rough friction

zones on the sides. Originally these sides were polished. Considering the wide angle of the cutting edge and

its specific shape, it was probably resharpened while hafted. It was secondarily used as a wedge, resulting

in a battered appearance of the butt caused by severe blows and retouches caused by dynamic impact on the edge. The last celt studied (70-91-73-I) did not display any traces. Three solutions are plausible: the traces are not visible because they had not developed enough; the celt might have never been used at all or it was resharpened and repolished, destroying possible traces of earlier use.

Fig. 5.12 Used celts, drawings scale 1:2

5.4.2 unmodiFiedlargepebbleswithtracesoFuse

Typologically, the only division made in this category is the distinction between hammer stones and stones used for grinding/abrading/polishing. In general it can be stated that artefacts that appear to have been

Fig. 5.13 Pounding tool, drawings scale 1:2

used actively (large pebbles) are called hammer stones. Stones that appear to have been used passively

(with a relatively large smooth surface) are classified as grinding/abrading/polishing stones (Fig. 5.13).

This distinction can however be subdivided further on the basis of usewear analysis. Many stones that are commonly regarded as hammer stones are often in fact used for rubbing activities. In general the variety of actions that were undertaken regarding rubbing is highly underestimated. Leaves, branches, seeds., roots, soft stones and animal parts, all had to be rubbed, crushed and mashed to make them suitable for e.g. food preparation, the creation of pigments or the production of basketry. Unfortunately, presently it is not possible to distinguish between those activities1_{, certainly not with the applied low power approach. One can however} differentiate between categories of active rubbing/hammering/grinding stones that display a variety in the

topography and distribution of traces. A specific category are the querns (Fig. 5.14). Querns consist of a

combination of an active part (mano) and an inactive underlying part (metate). Rubbing stones that are used to crush materials need an underlying inactive part as well. The distinction that is made in this context between manos and rubbing stones is based on the difference in smoothness of the surface: a mano should only be used

in a longitudinal abrasive motion, resulting in a smooth, abraded flat surface. A rubbing stone can also be used for pounding harder materials, resulting in small pits in the surface that does not need to be flat. Furthermore, the shape of the artefact is taken into consideration: flat bipolar stones that can be easily hand held are regarded as manos, where as larger flat one-sided stones are regarded as metates. One example could be interpreted as

mano (221-1) (Fig. 5.15). Implement 564-1 was used as an inactive milling device (metate). The metate is slightly deepened in the centre and has a very smooth surface. The absence of deep irregularities suggests that the stone was not secondarily used for pounding or crushing hard materials.

Polishing stones can be used both actively and passively. Again, the difference is based on morphology. Small

pebbles with polishing traces are used actively (see section small pebbles). Larger flat stones with traces of 1 With more experimental knowledge and residue analysis this will however change, although the problem of multiple overlapping use over longer periods remains (Hamon 2004,Verbaas 2005)

Fig. 5.14 Fragment of a quern, drawings scale 1:2

Fig. 5.15 Fragment of mano?, drawings scale 1:2

polishing in the centre of a smooth surface are regarded as passive polishing stones. One piece of stone of the

studied selection shows fine polishing traces (229-5). It is a fragment of a polishing stone of igneous rock and

it was studied with both low and high power technique. It shows traces of polishing, but it is not clear whether it was used to polish stone or shell implements.

Two artefacts show rubbing and pounding traces all around (557-6, 701-1), which results in a very specific

shape. This shape also occurs in the combination artefacts (see below). The shape is the result of intensive use in a repetitive abrasive motion, carried out from different angles. In this way the tool could be used over a longer period, most probably for working medium-hard materials. The deeper pits in the facets indicate however that the stones might also have served in impact motions. The angular appearance of the working

areas has also been observed on the passive stones used by an experimental flint knapper, applying the bipolar technique. The Long Island flint artefacts in Morel were produced with this technique.

Fig. 5.16 Used flake of sandstone, drawings scale 1:1

One flake of sandstone (451-4) (Fig. 5.16) was used in a transversal scraping motion on medium-hard material.

The edges and surface are very rounded, but they do not show many striations or gloss. The artefact has no equivalents, but its shape shows a remarkable resemblance to some of the secondarily used pottery sherds (van gijn and Hofman in press)

Finally, one of the stone artefacts (455-1) originally displayed a natural three-pointed shape, but as a result of use in a diagonal movement on hard material, the top has been scraped away. Similar traces are recently noted on smaller artefacts of Anse à la gourde. No experiments that have been carried out so far lead to the same results. It remains therefore unclear whether the tool was used actively or inactively. The size of the Morel example suggests that it was used standing on the broadest side, while moving the worked material over the top. The traces do not resemble polishing or grinding traces, but are interpreted as the result of rubbing rough

materials. The diagonal directionality is specifically noticeable. Since the damage is rather intensive, the tool

needed to be supported by something to hold it in place. As there were no such traces found, the tool was most probably held between the legs.

5.4.3 combinationtools

Two artefacts (524-5, 557-5) show a combination of traces and had a multi-purpose function (Fig. 5.17).

Both show traces of use as an anvil on two flat sides. All around they display traces of rubbing and shallow hammering. These traces result in a specific facetted angular shape of the stone. This type is also known from the European Bronze Age and seems therefore to represent a specific type, linked to certain activities, which cannot be specified so far (Van Gijn et al. 2002, 527). A suggestion is the use of this tool as a pestle in a wooden mortar for crushing seeds.

5.4.4 smallpebbles

Of the 548 water-worn pebbles 29 examples were selected, including several pieces showing residue. They all show a highly polished surface, but it cannot be said if they were used for polishing activities. vredenbregt (2002) mentions the use of pebbles to polish pottery in the last stages of manufacturing with the Kari’na of the Lower Maroni river in Surinam (see Ch. 3, Fig. 3.18). These pebbles have a high symbolic value however and are therefore used for several decennia. They have an angular appearance showing multiple facets. Many women also used pebbles that were less treasured and used over a shorter period. They had however the same facetted appearance (pers. com. vredenbregt 2005). None of the Morel pebbles display these. One pebble (524-5) was used as an anvil and shows traces of rubbing. Eight (339-2, 384-5, 468-4, 475-6, 479-1, 526-3, 772-6, 70.90.18.I-Iv.1) show bands of spots of black residue, which resembles black resin (but this was not chemically researched). It is suggested that these pebbles were used as small net-weights and that they were

braided into the edges of a fishing net. Two of these bands show fibre imprints (479-1, 772-6), which makes

this suggestion more plausible (Fig. 5.18). Boomert (Boomert 2000, 235) mentions the use of resin of the

Yellow Mangue tree to wax fishing lines and the fastening of detachable arrow points to shafts. In both the

sites of Anse à l’Eau and Anse à la gourde pebbles with a comparable residue were found.

Several pebbles show a more brownish residue, which easily could be mistaken for the black bands. These artefacts however show less ‘residue’ and the spots are more randomly spread over the whole surface. It is therefore likely that these traces are post-depositional. Some pebbles seem to have black inclusions of a comparable substance, but after microscopic analysis it is relatively easy to distinguish between intentional, natural and post-depositional residues.

typology tracesanvil polishing/ grinding hafting pounding rubbing scraping wedging total

axe - - 2 2 - - 2 6

hammer stone 2 - - 2 6 - - 10

mano/metate - 2 - - - 2

pebble with resin - - 15 - - - - 15

rubbing stone 3 - - - 4 2 - 9

whetstone - 1 - - - 1

uncertain - - - - 2 - - 2

total 5 3 17 4 12 2 2 45

Table 5.2 Stone, tool type versus motion, number of locations

5.4.5 ornaments

All ornamental pieces were studied to learn more about their manufacturing process. One carnelian bead preform (505-3) shows the initial stage of knapping roughly in shape, all amethyst beads seem to have been

finished. One amethyst bead (two pieces: 70.91.23.I & 792(79.99.63.III)-3) is in an extraordinary condition:

it is highly polished and shows no damage (other than breaking) at all. Unfortunately it does not display any manufacturing traces other than polishing.

One tiny black artefact (<1 gram) was made from an unknown material, most probably jet, although no sources are known to me in the region. The ornament is a piece of a frog-shaped object, in shape comparable to the frogs of Strombus and jadeite found earlier on Morel (both in collection Museum Edgar Clerc).

5.5 coralandpotterytools