Verification of an Archaic Age Occupation on Barbados, Southern Lesser Antilles

Abstract

The Caribbean Archaic Age (about 3000–500 BC) is thought to represent the earliest migration of humans from South America into the Lesser Antilles. However, there is a conspicuous absence of these early sites on islands south of the Guadeloupe Passage. To date, only a single radiocarbon date derived from a Queen conch (Strombus [Eustrombus] gigas) shell at the Heywoods site on Barbados was indicative of an Archaic occupation in the southern Antilles apart from a scattering of poorly reported (and mostly undated) sites. Given a number of issues associated with reliance on a single date to establish a cultural horizon, along with other problems derived from possible carbonate cement contamination and dating marine shells of a longer-lived species such as Queen conch, 2 additional samples were taken from the same unit and context at Heywoods to confirm whether the site is truly representative of an occupation during the Archaic Age. Results from a Queen conch shell adze in Context 7 dated to 2530–2200 BC (2 σ) and overlaps with the only other Archaic date from the site dating to 2320–1750 cal BC, while a juvenile specimen of the same species from Context 8 at 3280–2940 BC (2 σ) indicates that Barbados may have been settled even earlier. This suggests that Heywoods may be the oldest site between Trinidad and Puerto Rico. While further confirmation is required, these new dates have implications for understanding the nature of migratory ventures in the Caribbean, such as whether the “Southward Route” hypothesis—which postulates that earlier migration events from South America during the Ceramic Age (beginning ∼500 BC) initially bypassed the southern Lesser Antilles—also applies to the Archaic, and if other phenomena such as active volcanism may have played a role in structuring settlement patterns. Questions also remain as to why Heywoods does not exhibit the typical lithic Archaic tool kit.

Genetic Diversity in the Lesser Antilles and Its Implications for the Settlement of the Caribbean Basin

“…The frequencies of each mtDNA haplogroup may reflect the effects of genetic drift on patterns of genetic diversity on the islands, or perhaps reveal differences in the founding populations of the island groups as a result of multiple migrations into and throughout the region [ 3 ]. Despite the fact that archeological data suggest contacts between Greater Antillean and Mesoamerican populations, our data do not provide clear support for genetic relationships between indigenous groups from these regions.…”

“…The initial presence of human populations within the region has been dated to 7,200 years before present (ybp) based on evidence from the Banwari Trace site in Trinidad [ 2 ]. Aside from this site, the first human settlement in the Caribbean dates to a migration event around 8,000–5,000 ybp marked by sites on Cuba, Hispañola and Puerto Rico [ 3 – 5 ]. Within the northern Lesser Antilles and Barbados, human occupation dates back as far as 5,000–3,000 ybp [ 3 ].…”

“…Aside from this site, the first human settlement in the Caribbean dates to a migration event around 8,000–5,000 ybp marked by sites on Cuba, Hispañola and Puerto Rico [ 3 – 5 ]. Within the northern Lesser Antilles and Barbados, human occupation dates back as far as 5,000–3,000 ybp [ 3 ]. Both archeological and linguistic research suggest that, for the remaining islands of the Antilles, a series of migrations ending just prior to 1500 AD resulted in human presence throughout the region [ 6 ].…”

Prehistoric migration in the Caribbean: past perspectives, new models and the ideal free distribution of West Indian colonization

“…Island settlement is measured in calendar years BP based on the midpoint of the earliest calibrated radiocarbon date(s) or, where radiocarbon dates are unavailable, the archaeologically indicated colonization date (Table 1 and Supplemental data; Callaghan 2013; Cherry et al 2012;Cooper 2010;Drewett 2006;Fitzpatrick 2006Fitzpatrick , 2011Haviser 1997;Keegan 1991;Wilson 2007). Both the overall sequence of island colonization, irrespective of cultural affiliation, and the pattern of Ceramic Age colonization are examined.…”

“…Occupation status was determined by reviewing known Archaic Age radiocarbon chronologies for individual islands (Cherry, Ryzewski, and Leppard 2012;Drewett 2006;Fitzpatrick 2006Fitzpatrick , 2011. Those with Archaic sites dated within 1000 years of the first radiocarbon dates/evidence for Ceramic Age settlement were considered to have extant Archaic populations at the time of Ceramic Age colonization (Table 1 and Supplemental data).…”