Island networks: Transformations of inter-community social relationships in the Lesser Antilles at the advent of European colonialism

Abstract

The Caribbean Sea was a conduit for human mobility and the exchange of goods and ideas during the whole of its pre-colonial history. The period cal. AD 1000-1800, covering the Late Ceramic Age and early colonial era, represents an archaeologically understudied time during which the Lesser Antilles came under increasing influence from the Greater Antilles and coastal South America and participated in the last phase of indigenous resistance to colonial powers. This article summarizes the results of the Island Network project, supported by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) in which a multidisciplinary set of archaeological, archaeometric, geochemical, GIS, and network science methods and techniques have been employed to disentangle this turbulent era in regional and global history. These diverse approaches reveal and then explore multi-layered networks of objects and people and uncover how Lesser Antillean communities were created and transformed through teaching, trade, migration, movement, and exchange of goods and knowledge.

The pre-Columbian site of Roseau (Guadeloupe, F. W. I.): intra-site chronological variability of the subsistence strategies in a Late Ceramic archeological vertebrate assemblage

“…In terms of vessel shapes, the Roseau collection includes containers that can be compared to the type-shapes 2, 3, 5 and probably also to shape 7 of Boomert topology (Boomert 1986). We found in the series a whole set of Cayo characteristic decorations (Boomert 1986;Hofman et al 2019Hofman et al , 2020: vertical appliqué nubbin, adornos on vertical strap handles, head lugs on vessel body and punctuated designs.…”

“…The results were compared with various Troumassoid reference collections that are clearly described in the literature: Trou Massé "B" and Micoud in Ste Lucia (McKusick 1960); L'espérance, Paquemar and Macabou in Martinique (Allaire 1977); Spring Bay and Kelbey's Ridge in Saba (Hofman 1993); Mill Reef and Marmora Bay in Antigua (Rouse and Faber Morse 1999); and Baie au Prunes in St. Martin (Bonnissent 2005). Cayo elements were characterized after the pioneering work of Boomert (Boomert 1986) supplemented by more recent contributions (Boomert 2011;Hofman et al 2019Hofman et al , 2020.…”

“…This ceramic style has been identified in deposits demonstrating the importance of the contacts and influences involving Island Carib/Kalinago people of the Lesser Antilles, other Amerindian populations, and Europeans during this pre-colonial phase. In these assemblages a Suazan Troumassoid cultural background is associated with elements of European, continental (Koriabo) and northern (Chicoid and Meillacoid) origin (Hofman et al 2019(Hofman et al , 2020. The Cayo ceramic of Roseau is characterized by the use of sandy and sometimes vegetable tempering agents and a care brought to the surface treatments.…”

Archaeological occurrences of terrestrial herpetofauna in the insular Caribbean: cultural and biological significance

“…BP and is characterized by the emergence of a regional culture system marked by a well-developed hierarchy and a significant production of prestige goods in the Greater Antilles [35]. This period ends with the arrival of Columbus in the Antilles in 1492 AD, which marks the start of the Contact period characterized by the emergence of the Cayo ceramic style in the Lesser Antilles as well as substantial contact with continental Indigenous groups and Europeans [34,36,37]. This last period ends with the near complete disappearance of Indigenous groups in the eighteenth century who were mostly replaced by Europeans and African populations.…”

Incomplete Histories and Hidden Lives: The Case for Social Network Analysis in Historical Archaeology

“…While recognizing the debates surrounding the meaning of the signifier "historical archaeology" itself (see Hall and Silliman, 2009;Orser 2017), we simply refer to those North American archaeologists seeking to approach the past through the use of both documentary and archaeological evidence primarily during and after European colonization and focusing on such issues as, for example, Indigenous-settler/colonizer dynamics, archaeologies of African enslavement or diaspora, archaeologies of capitalism and industrialization, or the archaeology of the contemporary. Within this disciplinary domain defined by a combination of methodological approaches, temporal context, theoretical applications, and a concern with modernity in its varied forms, the adoption of method and theory from the network sciences to North American historical archaeology has been minimal (although see Babin 2018;Blair 2015;Hart and Engelbrecht 2012;Hofman et al 2020;Kamp-Whittaker 2021;Mathwich and Giomi 2021;McGovern 2019;Orser 2005;Pezzarossi 2020;Roberts Thompson 2020).…”