See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261949436

Oliver, JR (1993) Archaeology of Lower

Camp, Culebra Island, 15th ProceedingsIACA
Conference Paper January 1993

CITATIONS

READS

51

1 author:
Jose Oliver
University College London
41 PUBLICATIONS 155 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Jose Oliver

Retrieved on: 06 October 2016

THE
ARCHAEOLOGY
OF
LOWER
CAMP
SITE,
CULEBRA ISLAND: UNDERSTANDING VARIABILITY
IN

PERIPHERAL ZONES
Jos R. Oliver

ABSTRACT
This paper reports on the archaeological excavations at Lower Camp site, Culebra Island, Puerto Rico. Over 2,000 artifacts and nearly 9,000 faunal elements were recovered from an undisturbed midden. Modal and stratigraphie analysis of the ceramic assemblages indicates that only a
single component affiliated to a late Cedrosan Saladoid is represented. A single charcoal assay
(Beta-52607) from the lowest midden level yielded a date of cal A.D. 642. The ceramic assemblage
is interpreted to be a facies of Cuevas style, which we will tentativelly designate as Lower Camp.
While at the core area in Eastern Puerto Rico sites had already evolved into a new Elenan subseries
by ca 650 A.D., in some peripheral areas like Culebra Island, potters tenaciously clung to the late
Cedrosan stylistic vocabulary, albeit a vastly impoverished one. The implications of Lower Camp
fades will be discussed in reference to the problems of defining stylistic transitionality and spatial/
ethnic borders.

RESUMEN
Este estudio informa acerca de los resultados de las primeras excavaciones controladas que se
realizan en la isla de Culebra, en el yacimiento de Lower Camp. Ms de 2,000 artefactos y casi
9,000 elementos faunsticos se han recuperado de un depsito virgen. Mediante el anlisis modal y
la estratigrafa se ha determinado la presencia de un solo componente afiliado a la subserie Cedrosan (Saladoide). Una muestra de carbn (Beta 52607) arroj una fecha calibrada de 642 D.C. El
conjunto cermico de Lower Camp se interpreta y define tentativamente como representativo de la
facie Cuevas. Mientras que para el 650 D.C. en el oriente de Puerto Rico ya predomina la nueva
subserie Elenan (Ostionoide), en algunas reas marginales como la isla de Culebra los alfareros se
aferran al ancestral vocabulario Cedrosan Saladoide, empero uno vastamente empobrecido. Se
485

486

JOS R. OLIVER

discutirn las implicaciones de Lower Camp en trminos de los problemas relativos a la definicin
de fronteras y de la "transicionalidad" de estilos.
RSUM
Cette communication concerne les rsultats des premires fouilles contrles qui ont t ralises sur l'le de Culebra, au gisement de Lower Camp. Plus de 2000 objects et presque 9000 restes
animaux ont t retirs de dpts archologiques intouchs. L'analyse modale et la stratigraphie
ont permis de dterminer la prsence d'une seule composante affilie la subsrie Cedrosan (Saladode). Une unique datation au '4C (Beta 52607) du niveau le plus profond a fourni la date de cal
642 aprs J. C. se rattache un facis cramique du style Cuevas. Bien que vers 650 aprs J. C. l'est
de Puerto Rico prdomine dj la nouvelle subsrie Elenan Ostionod dans quelques zones priphriques, comme l'le de Culebra, les potiers s'accrochent avec tnacit un style tardif Cedrosan
Saladod, quoique trs abtardi. On discutera des implications du site de Lower Camp en rfrence
aux problmes de la dfinition de styles de transition et celle de frontires ethniques.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief summary of the results of the investigations
at Lower Camp Site, Culebra Island, and to discuss them in the context of current debates on
the identification and characterization of stylistic ("archaeo-ethnic") borders and frontiers, both
synchronically and diachronically. It will be argued that the analytical and taxonomie unit defined by Rouse ( 1992:175) as style is not optimal for addressing problems of comparing units of
variation (as opposed to norms/modes). It is suggested that a different analytical/classificatory
tool is required when considering ceramic assemblages that are peripheral (space) or at transitional (time) borders.
The island of Culebra lies 27 km east of Puerto Rico, 19 km west of St. Thomas and 14 km
north of Vieques. The total area is roughly 28 km 2 . A number of cays surround the island, with
Cayo Luis Pea, Cayo Norte, and Isla Culebrita being the most salient. Culebra is of volcanic
origin, with at least 90% of the island dominated by hills with fairly steep slopes. Monte Resaca
is the highest, peaking at 195 m above mean sea level (AMSL). The low flat areas (<20-25 m
AMSL) are all along the coast. The coast is characterized by brackish lagoons, mangrove stands,
swampy zones and sandy or rocky beach fronts. A large bay, Ensenada Honda, provides an
excellent protected harbor to the south. The trade winds, small landmass, low orography, and
narrowness of the valleys precludes a well developed, sustained riverine network. Unpredictable water resources must have been a major factor in past demographic processes on the
island. Its vegetation, particularly on the south, belongs to the Dry Coastal Forest Association
(Oliver 1992:1-18). The site of Lower Camp is located in the Culebra Island National Wildlife
Refuge (CIWR), at 18 18' 03" North Latitude and 65 16' 56" West Longitude. It rests on a
saddle-like depression, protected by a promontory that rises over Ensenada Honda, on the
south side of the island (Figure 1). Mangrove stands flank the site to the east and west.
Between February and March, 1992 a survey, testing, and limited excavations for data recovery were implemented to mitigate adverse effects of a planned construction of new office
and shop facilities for the CIWR. These new constructions were in response to the damage
caused by Hurricane Hugo in 1989 to the existing facilities (Oliver 1992).

RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATIONS, STRATIGRAPHY AND DATING

The Lower Camp site is characterized by a somewhat oval-shaped scatter of both prehistoric and historic artifacts. A series of shovel tests (30 x 30 cm) revealed that most of the site had
been previously disturbed by both human and natural causes (Oliver 1992:81-117). One shovel
test, however, revealed an undisturbed subsurface deposit, the remnant of what once probably
were several prehistoric midden deposits.
487

488

JOS R. OLIVER

A series of seven 1 m 2 units were excavated in the undisturbed midden, in levels of 10 cm

until a culturally sterile layer was encountered at ca 30 cm BS (Oliver 1992:81-88). Two basic
strata and an interface between the two strata were defined. Stratum I is a very dark grayish
brown to dark yellowish brown clayey silt loam. About 29% of its mass consists of gravel; 67%
consists of soil; 4% consists of other inclusions, including artifacts and ecofacts (Oliver 1992:126).
Stratum II is a brown to yellowish brown clay loam. About 55% of its mass consists of gravel,
39% of soil, and 6% of other inclusions. Resting on and embedded within this stratum one also
finds occasional large andesite porphyry rocks that typically underlie the area. Interface I/II is a
thin, discontinuous layer associated with underlying zones of high gravel and rock concentrations. Cultural remains are found only within Stratum I, although some have been pressed
upon Interface I/II or the top of Stratum II (Oliver 1992:118-148). In addition, two pit-hearths
(A2-1, Y2-1) were detected as oval stains of calcium carbonates (crab claw decomposition),
ashes, charcoal, and abundant faunal remains. Lastly, a postmold fill (Unit BO), which may be
historical and intrusive, was also found. No internal stratification within the cultural deposit
(Stratum I) was detected.
One charcoal sample (Beta-52607) obtained from the very bottom of Stratum I in Test Unit
BO yielded a radiocarbon age of 1410 70 B.P. Using the Calib program, Method A, of the
University of Washington (Stuiver and Reimer 1993), the assay dates to cal A.D. 642 (Oliver
1992a:139). The range within one sigma is cal A.D. 576-666 (cal A.D. 435-1182, two sigma). The
probability distribution (Calib program, Method B) at one sigma is cal A.D. 558-673. In sum,
the A.D. 640 date suggests the initial accumulation of the cultural deposit and, consequently,
most of the deposit must date after that time.

SUBSISTENCE PATTERNS AT LOWER CAMP

Nearly 9,000 faunal remains were analyzed by Y. Narganes Storde and this writer (Oliver
1992: Appendices 1 and 2). Excluding shellfish, the vertebrate and invertebrate (Crustacea)
sample yielded a total of 553 minimum number of individuals (MNI). Terrestrial vertebrates
were extremely rare, amounting to .9% (9 MNI) of all individuals (Figure 3a). Two "huta" (Isolobodon or Heterpsomys spp.?) teeth, and a few isolated bird (Zenadia spp.), snake (Colubridae),
and frog bones (Bufo cf. marinus) are represented. Given the sites proximity to the avian-rich
mangroves, it is surprising to find a negligible presence of birds. The only significant terrestrial
resource is the "juey de tierra", Cardisoma guanhumi (212 MNI), probably captured around the
mangroves flanking the site. One other crustacean, Coenabita clypeatus (MNI= 3), was also
identified, for a total to 215 MNI for Crustaceans, or 38.88% of all the fauna identified (Figure
2a).
Fauna from the coast/estuarine habitat is represented by six MNI (1.08%), while those from
the beach habitat amount to 43 MNI (7.78%). The latter is entirely comprised of marine turtles
(Cheloniidae), with both young and adult individuals represented (Narganes, in Oliver 1992:236).
The largest proportions of faunal remains come from two marine habitats; namely, coral reefs
and banks (36.71% or 203 MNI), and multiple marine habitats (14.65% or 81 MNI). Of the
itchtyofauna, the most frequent is the Stoplight Parrotfish (Sparisoma viride), representing
37.27% of all vertebrate MNI. Other bank/coral reef fish include hinds, groupers, snappers,
schoolmasters, grunts, wrasses, parrotfish, and hogfish (Narganes in Oliver 1992:234-235).
Multiple habitat marine fish include shark (Carcharhinus sp.), groupers (Epinelphus spp.), snappers, porgies (Calamus penna), grunts (Aniostremus spp.), and triggerfish (Batistes vetula).
The non-crustacean invertebrates are represented by bivalves, gastropods, amphineurans
(chitons), and echinoids (starfish). Bivalves and gastropods amount to 1,357 elements, representing 449 MNI. A relatively large number of genera (33) are represented, but each having only
a few individuals. Gastropods are somewhat more diverse (20 families) than bivalves (17 families). Many of the species are either incidental, accidental, or a minor, occasional component of
the local diet.

ACTAS DEL XV CONGRESO INTERNACIONAL DE ARQUEOLOGA DEL CARIBE

489

Of the gastropods, only two are economically and numerically significant (Figure 2a); namely,
the "burgao" or top shell (Cittarium pica) and the Strombidae (S. gigas, S. pugilis, S. costatus).
The burgao exhibits an overall increase from 19.09% to 53.1% overtime while the Strombidae
increases very lightly over time from 9.52% to 11.03% (Figure 2b). The pattern is one of intensification in the use of the burgao and of relative stability in the use of the conch shells. The
latter served not only as a food resource but also as raw material for the manufacture of shell
beads (only two micro-beads were found), bat-wing pendants, and discoidal shell objects. The
burgao, on the other hand, may not only serve as food but also as bait for hunting land crabs, as
it is still done in Puerto Rico (Andrs L. Oliver, personal communication 1992).
Bivalves of economic importance and visibility belong to the Codakia, Trachycardium, Tivela, Asaphis, Area, Anadara, and Tellina genera (Figure 2c). In Level 3 only Codakia and a few
oysters, including the mangrove oyster (Crassostrea rhyzophorae), are represented, although
this may be the result of sample size. In Level 2, all but Trachycardium are present in proportions of less than 10%, while Codakia is clearly dominant. In Level 1, Codakia is not quite as
common, and Trachycardium appears along with increased numbers of Tivela and Asaphis (Figure 2c). From Level 2 to Level 1 a slight decrease in the diversity of bivalves is noted, suggesting
a higher degree of selectivity (specialization) of species exploitation at this time.
In summary, protein procurement at Lower Camp focused almost entirely on coastal and
marine resources: crabs captured in mangrove zones, turtles captured on the beach or in the
Thalassia grassy/sandy bottoms of Ensenada Honda, and fish obtained from the coral reefs and
banks nearby. This maritime emphasis is expected, but not the nearly total rejection of the rich
and diverse avian resources found in nearby mangroves -particularly given the higher frequencies noted in other contemporary sites, such as Sorc, Vieques (Chanlatte Baik and Narganes
1983). Terrestrial vetebrates are rare "treats" in the local diet. Likewise, iguanas (e.g., Cyclura
sp.) and other reptilians and amphibians are conspicuously absent from the assemblages. Shellfish is not abundant at the site, and probably was a dietary complement to fish, chelonids and
crustcea. Perhaps the co-occurrence in high numbers of Cittarium pica with Cardisoma gunahumi may be related to the use of the latter as bait, in addition to being a human food resource. It
would be interesting to test whether a decrease in burgao frequency is simultaneously accompanied by a decrease in crab hunting, in which case it may support the hypothesis of the intensive use of Cittarium pica as bait.
While the importance of the maritime subsistence base is unquestioned, it must be noted
that the inhabitants of Lower Camp were agricultural peoples. Ceramic vessels and "burenes"
(clay griddles) indirectly suggest that bitter manioc (Manihot esculenta) and other cultivars
probably contributed the lion's share of the total dietary intake.

THE ARTIFACTS OF LOWER CAMP

Artifacts other than ceramics were extremely rare; only six lithics, two micro-shell beads,
two shell discs, and one large Strombus gigas "bat" pendant were recovered. In addition, there
were a number of expedient tools shaped from coral for grinding. Shell debris/shatter -mainly
Strombidae- left over from manufacture were also present, suggesting local shell artifact production. Chert materials may be also local; however, no data was gathered on local chert resources for Culebra. On the whole, exotic and prestige items of any kind are nearly non-existent. Only the "bat-wing" pendant qualifies as a "prestige" or "status" item, albeit its raw material is abundant.
The ceramic analysis revealed that the assemblages from various units and levels can be
treated as a single component or local ceramic complex of probable short duration (Oliver
1992:153-192). It can be roughly classified in Rouse's (1952, 1992) Cuevas style, or its equivalent
in the Virgin Islands. However, Lower Camp seems not to entirely fall within the Cuevas norm,
as defined by Rouse. Also, there are some tantalizing temporal trends within the site, but our

490

JOS R. OLIVER

inferences are handicapped by a small sample size in some instances. The following describes
some of the results of the modal ceramic analysis (consult Figures 3-6).
Temper Class/Size. Five categories of temper class and size are recognized (Figure 3). Sand
and grit are the only temper class modes, both of which are further distinguished by particle
size (large-small, coarse-fine). Small grit is the prevalent mode in all levels, closely followed by
coarse sand. While small grit declines slightly over time, coarse sand increases noticeably. Large
grit and fine sand are less common, yet present in all levels. Mixed sand/grit tempered sherds
that comprise 4.5% of the sample in Level 3, decline to .8% in Level 1. In sum, temper/size
variation is continuous and only their frequency values change over time.
Wall Thickness. The mean wall thickness for all samples from all levels combined is 7.4
mm. The latter value is above the expected mode (mean?) value of 5 mm reported by Rouse
(1952:336) for the Cuevas style. Lower Camp's ceramics are generally thicker than Cuevas' mode
and, furthermore, the trend is toward an increase in thickness over time. The mean thickness
changed from 6.8 m m in Level 3, to 7.5 m m in Level 2, to 7.2 mm in Level 1 (Figure 6).
Temper/Size and Wall Thickness. A sherd's wall thickness varied depending on the temper mode that was used (Figure 6). Sherds tempered with small grit tend to increase in mean
wall thickness over time, from 5.5 .39 mm in Level 3, to 6.65 1.5 mm in Level 2, and to 6.8
1.3 m m in Level 1. Thus, not only are vessel walls becoming thicker, but also there is a wider
range of variability allowed over time. Coarse sand also follows the same trend, but the increment in wall thickness is more dramatic in Level 1. Coarse sand tempered sherds begin with
thinner walls (5.1 mm) and a low standard deviation (SD= .31 mm), becoming somewhat
thicker in Level 2 (5.9 mm) and, at the same time, allowing greater variation about the mode
(SD= 1.2). In Level 1 wall thickness increased to 6.7 mm with an SD of .97 (Figure 6). By
contrast, fine sand tempered sherds remained fairly stable between 5.9 and 6.0 mm, with a
wider SD range in Level 3 that became more restricted in the upper levels (from 1.0 to .84
mm). Fine sand tempered sherds show a high correlation with simple unrestricted vessels and
composite jars/bottles with bulb necks. The rare mixed sand/grit tempered sherds show equal
values in Levels 3 and 2 (6.0 1 . 4 mm) with an increase to 8.4 mm in Level 1.
Large grit sherds show the highest mean wall thickness values of all sherds (Figure 6), and
a general trend toward increased thickness over time (ca 7-8 mm) coupled with a high SD (over
1.0 m m ) throughout all levels. Some large grit sherds are associated with the thick-walled clay
griddles exhibit thickness values of over 10 mm.
To summarize, there is a trend toward increased wall thickness and coarser pottery over
time. Locally, the ceramics gradually changed from thinner to thicker regardless of temper
mode. The specific mean values and SD of wall thickness, however, vary significantly according
to temper class/particle size: the larger and coarser the particle size, the thicker the sherd.
Surface Color. Thirteen surface colors categories were defined (Oliver 1992:156). These are
not meant to be modes in the strict sense, owing to the wide individual variation in color perception by different researchers, but they nevertheless provide a general index that qualifies the
assemblage. Exterior and interior surfaces were tabulated separately as well as different exterior/interior combinations. The brown color spectrum (mode combinations 1.1, 2.2, 3.3, 4.4) is
the most prevalent, with brown/brown (10YR 4/3, 4/4, 5/3, 5/4) as the most frequent combination (Figure 3: mode 3.3) and it increases over time. The red (2.5YR) color spectrum (mode
combinations 5.5 and 7.7) exhibits a peak in Level 2, only to decline in Level 1. Cream-colored
surfaces, closely associated with red rim-painted open bowls, increase from 12% in Level 2 to
30% in Level 1. Whitish to pale brown (kaoline) surfaces, associated with composite jars with
bulb necks, are found only in Level 2.
Surface Evenness. Another indicator of the trend toward coarser and less well made pottery in Lower Camp can be seen in the evenness of the sherd's surface. Of the various modal
combinations present (Oliver 1992:159-161), four predominate (Figure 3). Sherds with even
surfaces on both sides are the most frequent in all levels. However, over time, a trend toward a
higher frequency of uneven exterior/uneven interior is evident. The potters evidently became
more careless about surface evenness over time.

ACTAS DEL XV CONGRESO INTERNACIONAL DE ARQUEOLOGA DEL CARIBE

491

Surface Luster. This dimension of ceramic variability also correlates with the general local
trend toward thicker-walled, uneven, more carelessly made pottery over time (Figure 3). Burnished interior/exterior surfaces declined significantly, while opaque interior/exterior surfaces
increased from 25% to 43%. All "other" modes, including eroded surfaces (undetermined), consist of rare exterior/interior mode combinations of opaque/burnished and burnished/opaque.
The latter includes the rare composite bottle (Vessels 1, 2).
Painted Decoration. Between 97.83% to 96.33% percent of all the ceramics recovered are
plain (Figures 4, 5). Red slip or paint is extremely rare, comprising between 1% and 2.2% of all
ceramics. The highest relative frequency, unexpectedly, is found in Level 1 and correlates with
an increase in the presence of red paint on bevels of triangular rims. Only one specimen has a
decorated design; a red circle at the interior bottom of a flat, dimpled base. Red paint extends to
geometric labial tabs (Figure 4). Chromatic decoration includes a distinctive thin, orange wash
or pseudo-slip, often combined with red painted rim sherds. Again, the higher frequency is
found in Level 1 (Figure 5). White-on-red, polychrome paint, black paint, and smudging are
absent.
Plastic Decoration. Incision is absent, while apliqu and other plastic techniques of decoration are nearly absent (Figure 4). Lugs are restricted to only seven specimens (.27% of all
sherds) and are mostly geometric, tabular labial extensions. One labial lug specimen is biomorphic, exhibiting features that recall a bat face motif, while another, associated with a navicular
vessel, appears to be the "limb" of a turtle-like effigy vessel.
Rim/Lip Form. This dimension only considers the formal modifications noted at the upper
end of the rim regardless of the rim's correct orientation. Fourteen Rim/Lip modes were defined (Oliver 1992:163-179, Tables 3.5a-e). In Figure 4, the most important Rim/Lip modes are
arranged in decreasing order of frequency. Rounded, unmodified lips predominated, followed
by triangular (interiorly beveled, always red painted) and by slightly bilaterally expanded rims.
Other modes included tapered, flat, interior beveled (rounded bevel edge), and rounded rimoutwardly tilted lip.
Rim/Wall Angle. This dimension notes the proper modes of vertical and horizontal orientation of a rim sherd, regardless of the specific Rim/Lip forms. Six modes were present, of
which two are of primary interest. The outflaring rim/outflaring wall mode combination shows
a high relative frequency in all levels, but tends to decrease from 66% in Level 2 to 58% in Level
1. This decrease is at the expense of an increase in upright to slightly incurved rims with a
concave (interior view) wall, from 14% in Level 2 to 19% in Level 3 (Figure 3). The insloping
rim/insloping wall (associated with a sharp keel) and the incurving rims/incurving wall (restricted bowls) are rare, and limited to the upper two levels.
Despite the small sample size there is one index that can shed light on ceramic complexity,
obtained by cross-tabulating Rim/Lip Form with Rim/Wall Angle modes (Oliver 1992:Tables 35a to 3-5e). There is a total of 84 possible mode combinations, but only a maximum of 24 were
used at any one time. In Level 2, a total of 22 different mode combinations were present, whereas in Level 1 only 12 were present; that is, the richness and diversity of rim/lip from + wall/angle
modal combination was reduced by half by the end of the occupation. The potter's range of
choices to create various vessel forms was severely curtailed. The local vessel "syntax" became
emphatically simplified, when compared to the immediately preceding level. This factor, combined with increased surface unevenness, thicker walls, and less burnished surfaces, speaks for
a trend toward technical and artistic impoverishment.
Body Inflections (keels). Pronounced body keels (Figures 3, 4) are infrequent, with only
63 specimens having either rounded (n= 18) or sharp/angular (n= 45) corner points at or near
the vessel's maximum diameter. The diagnostic composite or stacked-profile vessels of earlier
Saladoid components (Roe 1989) is not in evidence at Lower Camp. Concave-convex silhouettes occur in only one instance (Level 2); the remainder are simple inflections.
Base Forms and Handles. Modified vessel bottoms are also rare, with only 25 identified
specimens. Plain, flat base forms are the most common (n= 21), followed by either flat bases

492

JOSR. OLIVER

with a discernible external shoulder or by "dimpled" or concave-convex bases (Figure 4). The
dominant handle is the D-shaped, vertical strap handle (n= 24). Only one specimen exhibits a
loop handle, attached to a small navicular vessel (Level 1). All handles are plain, lacking any
plastic decoration (Figure 4).
A total of 11 vessel forms were identified. Vessel Forms 1 and 2 (ca 12-15 cm diam.) belong
to necked bottle/jars, always associated with "kaoline white paste" (Oliver 1992:Figure 41). Both
are very rare and restricted to Level 2. The first one exhibits an outsloping rim with a constricted neck, while the other exhibits a plain bulb neck. These vessels are holdovers from the early
Cedrosan shapes. Vessel Form 3 is a simple open bowl with upright to slightly incurved rims,
present in Levels 1 and 2. Vessel Form 4 (20-36 cm diameter) is characterized by upright,
straight rims, long or short shoulders, a sharp "L" shaped body inflection, and may have a pair
of D-shaped strap handles. It is present in all levels. Vessel Form 5 is identical to Form 4, but its
horizontal cross-section is oval (i.e., navicular, boat-shaped). D-shaped vertical strap handles
are also associated. Vessel Form 6 is a simple unrestricted (open) bowl, with an outflaring rim/
wall. It is the most frequent shape in all levels, and has the widest range of rim/lip modes. Vessel
Form 7 (31-20? cm diam.) is an open mouthed, yet simple restricted bowl with incurved rims
and rounded keels. Vessel Form 8 (ca 18-36 cm diam.) is identical to vessel Form 4 except that
the rim is sharply insloping, resulting in wide-mouthed but restricted vessel. This form is present
in Levels 1 and 2. Unique vessel types include a possible turtle (?) effigy vessel (Form 9) and
restricted (18 cm diam.) jar with an upright, short rim (Form 10). Vessel Form 11 comprises clay
griddles (burn) with thickened, raised rims, a smooth interior, and coarse base, except in one
case where both surfaces are rough. With a larger rim sample size, finer vessel type distinctions
are likely.
The open bowl (Form 6) with a triangular rim with either a sharp or a rounded interior
bevel is of particular importance. The bevel is red painted rims and some include labial lug
extensions. The surface is burnished and either plain cream-colored or exhibits an orange wash/
slip. All dimpled base forms also belong to this vessel type, including the only specimen with a
red-on-buff painted (circular) design. This vessel, instead of declining over time as expected,
increased in popularity.

DISCUSSION
Combining the above summary with the more detailed technical analysis presented elsewhere (Oliver 1992), several conclusions can be reached. Lower Camp was occupied no earlier
than A.D. 600 by a community that produced a ceramic complex derived from the Cedrosan
subseries. All the Lower Camp vessel forms have their antecedents in Cuevas style (Rouse 1952,
Rodrguez Lpez 1983). However, it is eminently clear that the number of different vessel types,
the number modes and the diversity of mode combinations that are normative in Cuevas style
were greatly reduced or discontinued in Lower Camp. For example, the diagnostic inverted
bell-shaped vessel with white on red paint typical of Cuevas in Puerto Rico (Roe et al. 1990),
and elsewhere, was no longer manufactured in Lower Camp. Indeed, within Lower Camp, the
local ceramic complex became even more impoverished over time, with an increasingly limited
range of formal and decorative options available to the potters. Yet, despite such progressive
loss in Cuevas traits, new elements of style were neither adopted nor locally developed. Instead,
Lower Camp potters held on to a more limited and impoverished range of Cuevas modes.
The loss of various "classic" Cuevas vessel forms and decoration was "compensated" by an
overproduction of a few existing Cuevas vessels, most notably the open bowl with interiorly
beveled rims painted in red over a cream colored paste. Given all of the above, it is evident that
Lower Camp's ceramics lie at the extreme, or perhaps beyond the extreme, of the norms that
characterize Cuevas style. The issue is, therefore, what to do with Lower Camp. Is it or not a
Cuevas style component? More to the point, is this a useful or a misguided question? Looking

ACTAS DEL XV CONGRESO INTERNACIONAL DE ARQUEOLOGA DEL CARIBE

493

beyond such classificatory issues, what hypotheses can one propose to explain (and test) Lower
Camp's simultaneous Saladoid conservatism and rejection of Ostionoid innovations taking place
elsewhere?

CORE, PERIPHERY, CULTURAL VARIATION & THE CONCEPT OF FACIES

A style, by definition, is normative. It only includes, as the necessary and sufficient qualifications for membership, those sets of modes that are shared from site to site and component to
component (Rouse 1952:324-330; Rouse 1972:78-94). All those attributes that are not systematically shared, by definition, cannot be part of the stylistic norms that define Cuevas. Consequently, the concept of style has little room for variability precisely because the objective is to
define normality and, hence, to enable one to demarcate the formal, temporal and spatial
(area) distributions of a "core" culture. It so happens that Lower Camp's modal complex does
not conform to Cuevas style; it is at the periphery in terms of time, spatial location and in terms
of the mode complex.
The single most outstanding stumbling block in dealing with components like Lower Camp
is that most researchers still have trouble in applying one of the principal lessons of Processual/
New Archaeology, that variability cannot be studied by classifying to produce norms (e.g., Green
and Perlman 1985:4-6; Oliver 1992:74-80). It follows that the study of variability must be done
at a different analytical level than that of style (norms). In his review of the Lower Camp monograph (Oliver 1992), Rouse synthesized the problem so clearly that I can do no better that cite
it in extenso:
Your phrase 'core area' has inspired me to think further about the contrast between the typical form of a culture [and style] in the center of its distribution and the variants on its peripheries. I overlooked this distinction when preparing the table of strategy in my Migrations in Prehistory [Rouse 1986: Fig. 30]. There, I implicitly placed the study of both the culture of the core and
its peripheral variants in my Level 3, on the assumption that both are normative, and I contrasted
them with the study of variability in Level 4. Your [Lower Camp] monograph has made me realize that this was a mistake. I would now say that level 3 is limited to the study of cores, that is, to
the identification of ceramic styles and their cultures and to [the] reconstruction of their development. On Level 4, we examine all the variations from the situation in the cores, including the
transitional forms of culture in frontier zones as well as the differences in activity that occur
throughout the culture.
To put it in another way, on Level 3 we do classification in order to form the normative units
that we call peoples and cultures and to study their history. On Level 4, we abandon the procedure of [normative] classification in order to investigate the variations within and among the
normative units. It is because of these differences that I have rejected attempts to classify transitional cultures as separate cultures [as] for example, in the case of the Epi-Saladoid period in the
Virgin Islands" (Irving Rouse, personal communication, February 1, 1992; clarifications in brackets
mine).
Rouse's reasoning echoes my own. The whole problem of "transitionality" (see Lundberg et
al. 1992) in time and/or space is a question of level of analysis. In order to understand and
identify the processes involved in cultural change we must first know as accurately as possible
what are the norms and the acceptable range of variation about the norms so as to define its
core, both in time and in space. Once the norms (modes) are identified and their distributions
are plotted, then it is possible to identify what constitute acceptable deviant or divergent components and to outline the margins or borders where they occur. This allows developing and
testing hypotheses about the nature and character of the variant components. We would be able
to entertain explanations about border vs. core interaction and variability, as well as frontier
phenomena. It is crucial to note that notions of core-periphery involve a consideration of both
space and time (e.g., components at the border between eastern and western Puerto Rico, or

494

JOS R. OLIVER

the border/transition between two temporally different core styles such as between Cuevas and
Monserrate, or between Cuevas and early Ostiones).
It is quite probable that this argument is what Gary Vescelius had in mind when he brought
forth the concept of facies (but unfortunately did not elaborate or publish). I propose that we
adopt this unit to refer to border and peripheral phenomena or, if you will, "transitional" components. Analysis of frontier phenomena requires a distinct classificatory unit than that of
style. Style, as already noted, is a taxonomie unit based on classifying norms. Facies, on the
other hand, is a kind of taxonomie unit that is based on shared variability. A facies -like Lower
Camp and possibly some Epi-Saladoid components in the Virgin Islands- is defined only with
reference to (1) the differences (variability) between the core and peripheral areas and (2) the
variations in activity from site to site. In addition, facies can never be understood or even
recognized without a simultaneous consideration of the temporal dimension. For example, one
would expect that the peripheral facies of a style/culture to have survived for a longer period
than the style/culture in the core.
One may disagree with my adoption and elaboration of Vescelius' concept of facies and,
certainly, this idea needs much more refinement. What is undeniable is that those of us working
with frontier societies and subcultures (rather than core peoples and cultures) can no longer
cling to style as the unit of classification and analysis and expect to understand the nature of
sociocultural variation.
LOWER CAMP: A REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Let us examine briefly the developments taking place in Puerto Rico around A.D. 650, when
Lower Camp was occupied. By this time in Eastern Puerto Rico, the divergence from Cuevas to
Monserrate was well on its way (if not already accomplished), especially in the northeast (Rodriguez Lpez 1990, 1992; Oliver 1990). Most archaeologists are in agreement that the core
area of Monserrate style is in Eastern Puerto Rico, and most likely centered along the northeastern coastal plains and Rio Grande Basin (e.g., Vaca Talega, Loza-23). Despite the proximity of Culebra Island to Eastern Puerto Rico, the modal complex known for the few well described Monserrate style sites was never adopted by the Lower Camp's potters. Resist painting,
smudging, black on red painted designs, incision and applique decoration, red painted curvilinear designs, and a wide range of vessel forms are entirely absent in Lower Camp.
In short, while in Eastern Puerto Rico most of the communities (components) had jumped
into the new Elenan Ostionoid bandwagon, the Lower Camp inhabitants continued the "devolutionary" process of loosing a vast array of Cuevas style modes, of simplifying and limiting the
range of variation of an already impoverished local Cuevas ceramic "vocabulary", and yet compensating the loss by overemphasizing a few of the traditional Cuevas vessel forms and surface
treatments.
Any hypothesis that attempts to explain the persistence of a Cuevas background in Lower
Camp must consider the marginal position -both geographic and ecological- of Culebra Island
vis-a-vis Eastern Puerto Rico and the somewhat more bountiful, larger Virgin Islands (St. Thomas, St. Croix). The rejection of Elenan ceramic traits can only imply that Lower Camp's inhabitants did not interact strongly (if at all) with Elenans in Eastern Puerto Rico. The ensuing
isolation prevented a convergence toward Elenan cultural patterns in Lower Camp. The Cuevas
facies/society of Lower Camp was essentially a fishing town, marginal -by choice or circumstance- to the developments of Puerto Rico. This phenomenon is not unlike what one sees
today in western nations, between conservatives and liberals, between rightist and leftists, and
in modern Puerto Rico, between mountain jbaros and coastal/urban dwellers.
If Lower Camp inhabitants did not maintain a strong interaction with Elenans in Puerto
Rico, then it is possible, perhaps likely, that a more intense interaction was sustained with other
such "conservative" peripheral communities. If so, several Lower Camp-like peripheral compo-

ACTAS DEL XV CONGRESO INTERNACIONAL DE ARQUEOLOGA DEL CARIBE

495

nents would have far more in common as a group than with the communities and people of the
core area (and style). That this is likely to be the case is hinted by the possible presence of
Cuevas fades components in marginal areas such as Vieques Island. Chanlatte and Narganes
have reported (but must yet describe and publish) impoverished Lower Camp-like components
surviving as late as A.D. 800 in Vieques Island and in Guayanilla in Southwestern Puerto Rico
(Narganes 1991).
By grouping these peripheral (space) and transitional or terminal (time) components as a
fades of Cuevas style, we will have arrived at some sort of understanding of what are some
essential features of frontier societies, and of what the nature of the periphery is both in terms
of content and in terms of the possible processes that generated these variations from the cores.
In sum we would have a way to identify the unit needed to address issues about sociocultural
phenomena in peripheries and borders. I do not expect a facies to be a neatly packaged, closed
system (as a style is) since its very existence is based on variation. Further, a facies cannot be
construed only as a trait list of variations, but rather it must be based on interrelationships of
variations among peripheral components and between borders and cores. At the very least, by
grouping peripheral and transitional components with similar kinds of interrelationships to
each other and to cores, we shall recognize the "beast" by an agreed-upon name.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to acknowledge Sarah Bridges of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Atlanta) and John Ehrenhard of the National Park Service (Atlanta) for their interest and for
facilitating the investigations in Culebra Island. The data recovery at Lower was funded by the
cited institutions (purchase order #144PX500092-255) and carried out by Garrow and Associates, Inc. I am also indebted to Irving Rouse for his extensive comments on the technical monograph and to Patrick Garrow for his useful comments on this paper. My thanks go to Henri
Petitjean Roget for translating into French the abstract. Their insights and suggestions have
been incorporated here; however, all errors and shortcomings are my sole responsibility.

REFERENCES CITED
Chanlatte Baik, L. and Y. M. Narganes Storde
1983. Vieques, Puerto Rico: Asiento de una nueva cultura aborigen antillana. Impresora Corporn, Santo Domingo.
Green, S. W. and S. Perlman
1985. Frontiers, Boundaries, and Open Social Systems. In The Archaeology of Frontiers and
Boundaries, edited by S.W. Green and S. Perlman, pp. 3-13. Academic Press, Orlando.
Lundberg, E., E. E. Righter, and M. D. Caesar
1992. The Late Ceramic Age in the Northern Virgin Islands. Paper read at the 57 th Annual
Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Pittsburgh.
Oliver, J. R.
1990. Ceramic Analysis. In: Excavation and Analysis Results of the Archaeological Investigations at Mediana Alta (L-22) and Vieques (L-23), Loiza, Puerto Rico, pp. 71-121.
Submitted to PRASA and US-EPA, San Juan Puerto Rico. Grossman and Associates,
Inc., New York.
1992. Results of the Archaeological Testing and Data recovery Investigations at the Lower
Camp Site, Culebra Island National Wildlife Refuge, Puerto Rico. Submitted to U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service, Atlanta. Garrow and Associates
Inc., Atlanta.

496

JOS R. OLIVER

Narganes Storde, Y. M.
1991. Secuencia cronolgica de dos sitios arqueolgicos de Puerto Rico (Sorc, Vieques y
Tecla). Paper presented at the Fourteenth International Congress of Caribbean Archaeology, Barbados.
Rodrguez Lpez, M.
1983. Prehistoria de Collores. Unpublished Master Thesis. Centro de Estudios Avanzados
de Puerto Rico y El Caribe, San Juan.
1990. Archaeology of the Loza River System. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh International
Congress for Caribbean Archaeology. A. Pantel, I. Vargas, & M. Sanoja editors, pp.
287-294. Fundacin Arqueolgica, Antropolgica e Historica de Puerto Rico, San
Juan.
1992. Late Ceramic Age Diversity in Eastern Puerto Rico. Paper read at the 57 th Annual
Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Pittsburgh.
Roe, P. G.
1989. A Grammatical Analysis of Cedrosan Saladoid Vessel Form Categories and Surface
Decoration: Aesthetic and Technical Styles in Early Antillean Ceramics. In Early Ceramic Population Lifeways and Adaptive Strategies in the Caribbean, edited by Peter
Siegel, pp. 267-282. B.A.R. International Series #506, London.
Roe, P. G., A. G. Pantel and M. B. Hamilton
1990. Monserrate Restudied: A Preliminary Report on the Excavation and Mapping, Lithic
Artifacts, and Human Osteological Collections from the 1978 CEAPRC Field Season.
In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress for Caribbean Archaeology. A.
Pantel, I. Vargas, & M. Sanoja editors, pp. 338-369. Fundacin Arqueolgica,
Antropolgica e Historica de Puerto Rico, San Juan.
Rouse, I.
1952. Porto Rican Prehistory: Introduction; Excavations in the West and North. Scientific
Survey of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands, Vol 18(3):307-460. New York Academy of
Sciences, New York.
1986. Migrations in Prehistory. Yale University Press, New Haven-London.
1972. Introduction to Prehistory: A Systematic Approach. McGraw-Hill, New York.
1992. The Tainos: Rise and Decline of the People Who Greeted Columbus. New Haven-London: Yale University Press.
Stuiver, M. and P. J. Reimer
1993. Extended 14C and Revised Calib 3.0 Age Calibration Program. Radiocarbon 35:215230.

ACTAS DEL XV CONGRESO

INTERNACIONAL

DE ARQUEOLOGA

DEL

CARIBE

497

Punta de >'.'^
Maguey < 5 * * "

Playa de Cascajo

contour interval = 5 meters

?

mile
North

feet

4000

PROJECT AREA

kilometer
1
Map Source: Culebra and Adjacent Islands, P.R. Quadrangle, 7.5 minute.

Fig. 1. Topographic Map Showing

the Location of Lower Camp Site.

498

JOS R. OLIVER

HABITAT
Terrestrial Crustacea
Reef and Banks
Multiple Marine
Beach
Coast/estuary
Terrestrial Vertebrates
10
15
20
25
30
Percent of Total Vertebrate & Crustacean MNI

35

Fig. 2a. Precent of Total MNI Faunal Remains by Habitat.

m Level 1
m Level 2
a Level 3

Cittarium pica

Strombus ssp.

Fig. 2b. Percent of Selected MNI Gastropods

80
g 70

Other Gastropoda

by Level.

;
;

t 30-

g 20
;
a

Codakia spp.

Trachycardium spp.

m Tivela spp.

;
5
" 50
;
ce
41

-FY

s 10
0 '_

iiti.

Level 1

_n 1
jdBhKl 1
Level 2

Fig. 2c. Percent of Selected MNI Bivalves by Level.

Level 3

E3

Asaphis spp.

Arca/Anadara spp.

D
0
H

Tellina spp.
All oysters
Other

40

ACTAS DEL XV CONGRESO INTERNACIONAL DE ARQUEOLOGA DEL CARIBE

Dimension
1. Temper /Size

2. Rims/Lip

3. Rim/Wall Angle

4. Body Inflection

COUNT
Levell Level2 Level3

Code Mode/Mode combination

1
2
3
4
5

Large Grit
Small Grit
Coarse Sand
Fine Sand
Sand/Grit
TOTAL

61
453
416
49
17
996

5
54
39
7
5
110

90
781
728
92
27
1718

4.55
6.12
3.92
44.77
49.09
4548
44.61
41.77
35.45
636
5.88
4.92
4.55
0.82
1.71
100.00 100.00 100.00

524
45.46
4237
536
IS!
100.00

1
9
4
3
2
8
11
14
X

Rounded
Triangular, thick, Interior bevel
Slightly expanded, bilateral
Tapered
Flat
Interior bevel, simple, rounded
Round Up, outward Up Hit
Griddle, thick raised rim, round Up
all other modes
TOTAL

33
7
7
3
2
4
1
1
3
61

84
12
10
7
6
2
5
1
4
131

5
5
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
12

122
24
17
11
9
S
S
2
7
204

41.67
54.10
64.12
41.67
11.48
9.16
7.63
11.48
8.33
4.92
534
458
3.28
833
153
6.56
3.82
1.64
1.64
0.76
4.92
3.05
100.00 100.00 100.00

59.80
1176
33
539
441
254
254
03$
3.43
100.00

1
2
3
4
S
6

Outsloplng rim/convex waU

Upright/concave wall
Outflaring rim/outflarlng waU
Insloplng rim/lnsloplngwaU
Incurving rim/ Incurving waU
Raised rim/zero wall (griddle)
TOTAL

2
6
18
1
2
2
31

7
10
47
5
1
1
71

0
1
6
0
0
0
7

9
17
71
6
3
3
109

0.00
6.45
9.66
19.35
1429
14.08
58.06
66.20
85.71
3.23
7.04
6.45
141
6.45
Ml
100.00 100.00 100.00

826
15.60
65.14
5.50
275
275
100.00

1
2

Rounded
Sharp

7
9
16

9
30
39

2
6
8

IS
45
63

43.75
23.08
25.00
75.00
56.25
76.92
100.00 100.00 100.00

2857
71.43
100.00

11
0
0
11

8
1
3
12

2
0
0
2

21
1
3
25

66.67 100.00
833
25.00
100.00 100.00

84.00
4.00
12.00
100.00

14
27
1
1
20
63

51
45
3
3
32
134

8
3
0
0
1
12

73
75
4
4
53
209

38.06
66.67
22.22
42.86
33.58
25.00
1.59
224
1.59
224
31.75
23.88
8.33
100.00 100.00 100.00

3453
35.89
151
151
2536
100.00

4
19
8
0
7
2
19
0
0
4
63

8
36
16
1
34
3
16
2
1
17
134

0
1
3
0
2
0
5
0
0
1
12

12
56
27
1
43
5
40
2
1
22
209

6.35
100.00

42
10
2
5
4

86
15
4
14
15

10
1
0
0
1

138
26
6
19
20

66.67
15.87
3.17
7.94
6.35

1
2
2

6. Surface Luster

1
2
3
4
5

7. Surface Color

1.1
22
33
44
5.5
7.7
8.8
9.9
8.11
X

6. Surface Evenness

PERCENT
PERCENT (%)
Levell Level 2 Levels AU Levels

24
274
273
36
5
612

TOTAL
5. Bases

Total
Count

499

1.1
22
12
2.1
X

Flat, simple
Flat, with exterior shoulder
Flat, dimpled
TOTAL
Exterior/Interior
Burnished/burnished
Opaque/opaque
Burnished/opaque
Opaque/burnished
All other modes
TOTAL
Exterior/Interior
Light brown/light brown
Brown/brown
Dark brown/dark brown
Very dark brown/very dark brown
Red brown/red brown
Dark red brown/dark red brown
Cream/ cream
Kaolin whtte/kaoUn white
Kaoline white/gray
Other mode combinations
TOTAL
Exterior/Interior
Even/even
Uneven/uneven
Even/uneven
Uneven/even
All other mode combinations
TOTAL

63

134

12

209

100.00

100.00

6.35
30.16
12.70
11.11
3.17
30.16

100.00

5.97
26.87
8.33
11.94
25.00
0.75
2537
16.67
224
11.94
41.67
149
0.75
12.69
833
100.00 100.00
64.18
11.19
2.99
1045
11.19
100.00

83.33
8.33

8.33
100.00

Note: All calculations based on totals after mending ceramic fragments.

Fig. 3. Absolute & Relative Frequency of Selected Modes and Mode Combi-nations.

574
2679
1252
0.48
20.57
239
19.14
056
0.48
1053
100.00
66.03
12.44
2.87
9.09
9S7
100.00

500

JOSR. OLIVER

COUNT
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Vessel Segment
Rims, vessels
Rims, griddle
Keels (inflections)
Handles
Negative Handles
Labial tabs
Ceramic disc
Bases
Body,bottleneck
Body, drilled
Body, griddle
Body, other
Residual sherdlets
TOTAL

63
2
16
9
1
1
0
11
1
0
10
486
0
600

134
1
39
13
4
5
1
12
3
0
23
966
415
1616

12
0
8
3
0
1
0
2
1
1
3
221
152
404

Total
Count
209
3
63
25
5
7
1
25
5
1
36
1673
567
2620

PERCENT (%)
Levell Level2 Level 3
10.50
0.33
2.67
1.50
0.17
0.17
1.83
0.17
1.67
81.00
100.00

8.29
0.06
2.41
0.80
0.25
031
0.06
0.74
0.19

PERCENT
All Levels

2.97

7.98
0.11
2.40
0.95
0.19
0.27
0.04
0.95
0.19
0.04
1.37
63.85
21.64
100.00

1.98
0.74
0.25

0.50
0.25
0.25
0.74
1.42
59.78
54.70
25.68
37.62
100.00 100.00

Fig. 4. Absolute & Relative Frequency of Ceramics by Vessel Segment.

DECORATION
Unpainted/unslipped
Red slip/paint
Orange wash
Geometric labial tabs
White; white-on-red paint
TOTAL

COUNT
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
578
13
8
1
0
600

1581
16
14
5
0
1616

395
5
3
1
0
404

Total
Count
2554
34
25
7
0
2620

PERCENT (%)
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
96.33
2.17
1.33
0.17

97.83
0.99
0.87
0.31

PERCENT
All Levels
97.48
1.30
0.95
0.27
0.00
100.00

97.77
1.24
0.74
0.25

100.00

100.00

100.00

Fig. 5. Absolute & Relative Frequency of Decorated & Plain Ceramics.

Temper/Size
Small Grit
Coarse Sand
Fine sand
Sand/Grit
Large Grit
Large Grit, griddle
Sample Size

UNIT Yl
Mean Wall Thickness (mm)

UNITY!
SD () of Mean Thickness (mm)

Average
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 All Levels

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

6.79
6.67
5.90
8.20
8.40
61

6.65
5.92
5.90
6.00
7.00
13.80
172

5.50
5.13
6.00
6.00
7.20
10.97
49

6.72
6.04
5.90
6.44
7.41
12.10
282

Fig. 6. Mean Wall Thickness and Standard Deviation by Temper.

1.35
0.97
1.00
1.93

1.54
1.25
0.84
1.41
1.09
1.13

0.39
0.31
1.41
1.41
1.69
0.64

Average
All Levels
1.46
1.19
0.89
1.40
1.47
1.70