Saltfish vs. Parrotfish: The Role of Fish and
Mollusks in English Colonial Foodways at
Betty’s Hope Plantation, Antigua, West Indies
by
Alexis Ohman
B.A. (Hons.), University of Victoria, 2010
Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Arts
in the
Department of Archaeology
Faculty of Environment
© Alexis Ohman 2014
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
Summer 2014
Approval
Name:
Alexis Ohman
Degree:
Master of Arts
Title of Thesis:
Saltfish vs. Parrotfish: the Role of Fish and Mollusks
in English Colonial Foodways at Betty’s Hope
Plantation, Antigua, West Indies
Examining Committee:
Chair: George Nicholas
Professor
Catherine D’Andrea
Senior Supervisor
Professor
Ross Jamieson
Supervisor
Associate Professor
Peter Stahl
Supervisor
Professor
Anthropology
University of Victoria
Barnet Pavao-Zuckerman
External Examiner
Associate Professor
Anthropology
University of Arizona
Date Defended/Approved: July 8, 2014
ii
Partial Copyright Licence
iii
Abstract
One of the most quintessential components of colonial Caribbean foodways is
imported saltfish. However, there has been little historical zooarchaeological research
addressing the potential roles and values of fish and mollusks in English colonial
foodways, particularly the local species. Betty’s Hope plantation in Antigua, British West
Indies, has a substantial collection of historical archives called the Codrington Papers,
which provides the basis for understanding the site’s historical daily life. This research
employs an analysis of these archives compared to the fish and mollusk remains
recovered from the site’s zooarchaeological assemblage, with the intention of
understanding the extent to which local fish and mollusk resources were utilized. Despite
the emphasis on saltfish in the archives and the almost total absence of references to
mollusks, the zooarchaeological assemblage was dominated by local tropical fish taxa
rather than imported saltfish. This not only informs on the types of fish consumed on the
plantation, but also demonstrates selection preferences and practices between the Great
House and the middle-class outbuildings that will contribute to the overall understanding
of plantation foodways and daily life in the colonial Caribbean.
Keywords:
Historical zooarchaeology; foodways; Caribbean; fish; mollusks; Betty’s
Hope
iv
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I would like to thank Dr. Catherine D’Andrea for being my
senior supervisor and for sticking with my project as it morphed into what it is today. Her
encouragement, guidance, and especially patience, has helped me develop as both a
student and a scholar. Dr. Ross Jamieson provided significant support in the
organization of this thesis since its inception. His enthusiasm for all things historical,
especially the odd and obscure, has been wonderfully contagious. Dr. Peter Stahl
graciously agreed to join my committee when I found myself wading into a
zooarchaeological component to this thesis. His concise counsel and unfailing
encouragement for exploration was always appreciated. I am also very appreciative to
Dr. Barnet Pavao-Zuckerman for agreeing to be the external examiner in my defense.
Although our time together was brief, I am very thankful for her positivity and helpfulness
with this thesis.
This research project could not have been possible without Dr. Reg Murphy and
Dr. Georgia Fox, who generously permitted me to analyze the faunal materials for this
thesis. Their constant support and assistance has allowed our group of site researchers
to become close-knit as both colleagues and friends. Additional thanks to Nicola Murphy,
whose incredible organization makes the Betty’s Hope Field School possible each
season.
I am grateful to Dr. Kitty Emery and Irv Quitmyer who granted me access to the
comparative zooarchaeological collection at the Florida Museum of Natural History,
where the faunal identifications were made. Irv’s daily insights and wonderful stories
helped to get me through the rough days as well as the good ones. Additional gratitude
goes out to Dr. Betsy Reitz, who provided encouragement while there, as well as
afterwards.
I would also like to thank the members of the SFU Department of Archaeology:
Merrill Farmer, Laura Walker, and Chris Papaianni were of incredible assistance
pertaining to the inner workings of the department and university. Peter Locher and
Shannon Wood were wonderful lab managers. Dr. George Nicholas, Dr. Jon Driver, and
v
Dr. David Maxwell were particularly helpful and supportive, and their mentorship is very
much appreciated.
Additional thanks goes out to Dr. Bruce Kaiser and Dr. Lee Drake for the
unexpected introduction into the world of portable X-ray fluorescence (PXRF) and its
zooarchaeological applications. Dr. Rudy Reimer was an excellent guide in the
Geophysics Lab at SFU, and I am thankful for his time and insight.
Very special thanks to Nicole Kroesen (for her unfailing support for all of our
years together and apart), Doug Bourks (for providing love, laughter, and adventure),
Charlotte Goudge (for providing both sanity during the mind-shredding moments, and
wonderful insanity during the catharses), Cate Davis (for being her enthusiastic,
adventurous, hilarious, encouraging self), Geneviève Godbout (for her thoughtful
insights and being a willing supporter and collaborator), Cory Look (for suggesting that I
delve into zooarchaeology), Sharon Podesta (for continued Cave Reunions and getting
“moosely wild”), Misha Puckett (for innumerable laughs and immeasurable support), and
Emily Benson (for her unwavering encouragement). Additional thanks to Shea Henry,
Antonia Rodriguez, Fernando Astudillo, Daniella Balanzátegui, Heather and Fiona
Munroe, Isabelle Brunet, and fellow cohort members for criticism, sanity, and odd
adventures as required. I am also extremely grateful to Dr. Claire Carlin and Dr. Bruce
Wonder for encouraging me to come to British Columbia in the first place for my
university education, and of course to my parents and relatives for their continued
support.
The digitization of the Codrington Papers was made possible by Don Taylor and
the financial support of the SFU Scholarly Digitization Fund. MicroCom Sys. Ltd.,
Vancouver, was responsible for transforming the microfilm reels into PDF’s, and they did
a wonderful job.
Lastly, this research would not have been possible without the generous funding
from
the
Graduate
opportunities
with
Fellowship
Jodie
(2012),
Ann-Warren
in
Teaching
Assistantships,
Criminology’s
Entomology
Work
Lab,
Study
GSS
Professional Development Grant, Travel and Minor Research Awards, Research
vi
Assistantship with Dr. Jon Driver, Dr. Jack Nance Memorial Graduate Scholarship,
Alexei Sepideh Kiaii Graduate Scholarship, and RPA Scholarship.
And of course, this thesis would have never been possible without copious
amounts of caffeine.
vii
Table of Contents
Approval ............................................................................................................................. ii
Partial Copyright Licence .................................................................................................. iii
Abstract ............................................................................................................................. iv
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ v
Table of Contents............................................................................................................ viii
List of Tables..................................................................................................................... xi
List of Figures ................................................................................................................. xiii
Chapter 1. Background and Research Objectives .................................................... 1
1.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
1.2. Geography and Environment ................................................................................... 2
1.3. Pre-contact Period ................................................................................................... 6
1.4. Colonialism............................................................................................................... 9
1.5. Betty’s Hope ........................................................................................................... 11
1.5.1. Historical Context ...................................................................................... 11
1.5.2. Modern Context......................................................................................... 13
1.5.3. Codrington Archives .................................................................................. 15
1.6. Research Objectives .............................................................................................. 15
1.7. Chapter Summary .................................................................................................. 17
Chapter 2. Colonial Caribbean Foodways ............................................................... 18
2.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 18
2.2. Fish and the English .............................................................................................. 18
2.2.1. Medieval and Tudor England .................................................................... 19
2.2.2. Seventeenth Century ................................................................................ 20
2.2.3. Eighteenth Century ................................................................................... 21
2.2.4. Nineteenth Century ................................................................................... 22
2.3. Fish in Antigua ....................................................................................................... 23
2.4. Foodways and Plantation Archaeology .................................................................. 26
2.5. Chapter Summary .................................................................................................. 29
Chapter 3. Methods .................................................................................................... 30
3.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 30
3.2. Field Methods ........................................................................................................ 30
3.2.1. Great House .............................................................................................. 33
3.2.2. Service Buildings ....................................................................................... 38
3.2.2.1. 2011: Test Units ....................................................................................... 39
3.2.2.2. 2012: Kitchen Yard and Service Buildings Excavation ............................ 40
3.3. Archival Methods ................................................................................................... 41
3.4. Zooarchaeological Laboratory Methods ................................................................. 42
3.4.1. Biomass .................................................................................................... 44
3.4.2. MNI (Minimum Number of Individuals) ...................................................... 44
3.5. Chapter Summary .................................................................................................. 46
viii
Chapter 4. Archival Research Results ..................................................................... 47
4.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 47
4.2. Mollusks ................................................................................................................. 48
4.3. Fish ........................................................................................................................ 50
4.3.1. Clupeidae (herring, shad, sardine) ............................................................ 50
4.3.2. Gadidae (cod, haddock) ............................................................................ 51
4.3.3. Salmonidae (salmon, trout) ....................................................................... 52
4.3.4. “Scale fish” ................................................................................................ 53
4.3.5. Scombridae (mackerel, tuna) .................................................................... 53
4.3.6. Serranidae (sea bass, grouper) ................................................................ 53
4.3.7. “Fish” ......................................................................................................... 54
4.4. Tools ...................................................................................................................... 55
4.4.1. Casting Net ............................................................................................... 55
4.4.2. Deep Sea Lines......................................................................................... 56
4.4.3. Fish Hooks ................................................................................................ 56
4.4.4. Fish Pots ................................................................................................... 56
4.4.5. Fishing Line ............................................................................................... 57
4.4.6. Fishing Rod ............................................................................................... 57
4.5. Miscellaneous References ..................................................................................... 57
4.5.1. Fish Kettles ............................................................................................... 58
4.5.2. Fishermen ................................................................................................. 58
4.5.3. Sold Fish ................................................................................................... 59
4.5.4. House Expenses ....................................................................................... 59
4.5.5. Hogsheads for Fish ................................................................................... 60
4.5.6. Fish Sauce ................................................................................................ 60
4.6. Informative Excerpts .............................................................................................. 60
4.6.1. Local Fishing ............................................................................................. 60
4.6.2. Saltfish ...................................................................................................... 64
4.7. Chapter Summary .................................................................................................. 67
Chapter 5. Description of Zooarchaeological Assemblages ................................. 68
5.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 68
5.2. Great House Context ............................................................................................. 69
5.2.1. Subcontext: Food Preparation Area .......................................................... 74
5.2.2. Subcontext: Wall Deposit .......................................................................... 77
5.2.3. Subcontext: Laundry ................................................................................. 79
5.2.4. Subcontext: Great House (Miscellaneous)................................................ 80
5.3. Service Buildings Context ...................................................................................... 82
5.3.1. Feature 1000: Undocumented Outbuilding ............................................... 87
5.3.2. Feature 1003: Masonry Building ............................................................... 90
5.4. Chapter Summary .................................................................................................. 93
Chapter 6. Discussion and Interpretation ................................................................ 94
6.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 94
6.2. Objective 1: Quantitatively determine the extent to which fish and mollusks
were incorporated into the English diet at Betty’s Hope. ....................................... 95
6.2.1. Role of Mollusks at Betty’s Hope .............................................................. 95
ix
6.2.2. Role of Fish at Betty’s Hope ...................................................................... 99
6.3. Objective 2: Compare the proportion of local tropical fish to nonlocal. ................ 100
6.3.1. Saltfish .................................................................................................... 100
6.3.2. Local Fishing ........................................................................................... 103
6.4. Objective 3: Determine if the archival records and literature are accurate
representations of English dietary patterns on Caribbean plantations, and
how well the zooarchaeological evidence articulates with archival data. ............. 110
6.5. Chapter Summary ................................................................................................ 112
Chapter 7. Conclusions ........................................................................................... 113
7.1. Conclusions.......................................................................................................... 113
7.2. Contributions and Future Research ..................................................................... 115
References Cited......................................................................................................... 117
Appendix A.
Archives Citation Information ............................................................... 126
Appendix B. Zooarchaeological Taxa Inventory .......................................................... 130
Mollusks ............................................................................................................... 130
Fish
................................................................................................................ 140
x
List of Tables
Table 5.1.
NISP totals of fish and mollusks in the two main contexts at Betty’s
Hope. ....................................................................................................... 68
Table 5.2.
Complete list of Great House fish, NISP and weight (g) ............................ 70
Table 5.3.
Great House fish by family, NISP and weight (g) ....................................... 70
Table 5.4.
Complete list of Great House mollusks, NISP and weight (g). ................... 73
Table 5.5.
Most common mollusks present in entire Great House assemblage,
NISP and weight (g). ............................................................................... 73
Table 5.6.
Complete taxa representation of the Food Preparation Area, NISP
and weight (g).......................................................................................... 75
Table 5.7.
Most common fish by family in the Food Preparation Area, NISP
and weight (g).......................................................................................... 76
Table 5.8.
Complete list of mollusks in Food Preparation Area subcontext of
the Great House, NISP and weight (g). ................................................... 77
Table 5.9.
Complete list of fish in Wall Deposit subcontext in Great House,
NISP and weight (g). ............................................................................... 78
Table 5.10. Most common fish by family in the Wall Deposit subcontext, NISP
and weight (g).......................................................................................... 78
Table 5.11. Complete list of mollusks present in Wall Deposit subcontext of
Great House, NISP and weight (g). ......................................................... 78
Table 5.12. Complete list of fish in the Laundry subcontext of the Great House,
NISP and weight (g). ............................................................................... 79
Table 5.13. Complete list of mollusks in the Laundry subcontext in the Great
House, NISP and weight (g). ................................................................... 79
Table 5.14. Complete list of fish in the Great House (Miscellaneous) subcontext,
NISP and weight (g). ............................................................................... 81
Table 5.15. Most common fish by family in the Great House (Miscellaneous)
subcontext, NISP and weight (g). ............................................................ 81
Table 5.16. Complete list of mollusks in the Great House (Miscellaneous)
subcontext, NISP and weight (g). ............................................................ 82
Table 5.17. Mollusks in the rest of the Great House assemblage otherwise
unclassified to another subcontext. ......................................................... 82
Table 5.18. Complete list of Service Buildings fish, NISP and weight (g). .................... 83
Table 5.19. Service Buildings fish by family, NISP and weight (g). ............................... 84
Table 5.20. Complete list of Service Buildings mollusks, NISP and weight (g). ............ 86
xi
Table 5.21. Most common mollusks in the Service Buildings, NISP and weight
(g). ........................................................................................................... 86
Table 5.22. Complete list of fish associated with Feature 1000 in Service
Buildings context, NISP and weight (g). .................................................. 88
Table 5.23. Most common fish by family associated with Feature 1000, NISP
and weight (g).......................................................................................... 88
Table 5.24. Complete list of mollusks associated with Feature 1000, NISP and
weight (g)................................................................................................. 90
Table 5.25. Most common mollusks associated with Feature 1000, NISP and
weight (g)................................................................................................. 90
Table 5.26. Complete list of mollusks associated with Feature 1003, NISP and
weight (g)................................................................................................. 91
Table 5.27. Most common fish taxa by family associated with Feature 1003,
NISP and weight (g). ............................................................................... 91
Table 5.28. Complete list of mollusks associated with Feature 1003, NISP and
weight (g)................................................................................................. 92
Table 5.29. Most common mollusks associated with Feature 1003, NISP and
weight (g)................................................................................................. 93
xii
List of Figures
Figure 1.1.
Map of Caribbean Islands, with Antigua (south) and Barbuda (north)
in red. ........................................................................................................ 3
Figure 1.2.
Map of Antigua ............................................................................................. 4
Figure 1.3.
Map of Barbuda ........................................................................................... 6
Figure 1.4. Codrington’s lease of Barbuda. .................................................................. 12
Figure 1.5. Map of Betty’s Hope demonstrating buildings and selected features.
(1) Great House; (2) cisterns; (3) windmills; (4) boiling and curing
house; (5) Manager’s House; (6) stables; (7) trough; (8) cistern............. 14
Figure 3.1. Kite photograph of the Great House excavations, facing northnorthwest ................................................................................................. 32
Figure 3.2. Map of Betty’s Hope plantation demonstrating location of primary
buildings and location of Features 1000 and 1003 excavated in
the Service Buildings context. See Figure 1.5 for legend........................ 33
Figure 3.3. Food preparation area attached to Great House ....................................... 34
Figure 3.4. Currently unidentified large iron artifact in the food preparation
subcontext. Scarus spp. vertebrae (not shown here) located
across the diameter of the concentric circles. ......................................... 35
Figure 3.5. Subcontext where faunal specimens were likely deposited during
construction of this wall ........................................................................... 36
Figure 3.6. Laundry unit west of the adjacent food preparation subcontext. The
Crassostrea rhizophorae deposit was located in the corner on the
quarter-circle ledge.................................................................................. 37
Figure 3.7. Map of Betty’s Hope, with the colored section demonstrating where
the 2011 surveys were undertaken. ........................................................ 40
Figure 3.8. Addendum of features identified in 2011 and then renamed in 2012. ........ 41
Figure 4.1. Reference to mangrove oysters. ................................................................ 49
Figure 4.2. Reference to “Conkshells.” ......................................................................... 49
Figure 4.3. Reference to Fishermen and Sold Fish. ..................................................... 59
Figure 4.4. Reference to catching fish around Barbuda. .............................................. 61
Figure 5.1. Representation of most common fish by family in the Great House,
NISP and weight (g). ............................................................................... 71
Figure 5.2. Proportion of total Great House fish, nonlocal vs. local percentage. ......... 72
Figure 5.3. Representation of mollusks in the Great House, NISP and weight
(g). ........................................................................................................... 74
Figure 5.4. Scarus spp. vertebrae articulated across diameter of concentric iron
circles of large unidentified iron artifact. .................................................. 76
xiii
Figure 5.5. Representation of Service Buildings fish by family, NISP and weight
(g). ........................................................................................................... 84
Figure 5.6. Representation of Service Buildings mollusks, NISP and weight(g). ......... 87
Figure 6.1. Proportion of local to confirmed nonlocal fish at Betty’s Hope. ................ 101
Figure 6.2. Proportion of local to nonlocal fish at Betty’s Hope if it is assumed
that all of the Clupeidae specimens were imported............................... 102
Figure 6.3. Proportion representation of the most common fish taxa identified
the combined Great House and Service Buildings contexts. ................ 103
xiv
Chapter 1.
Background and Research Objectives
The codfish lays a thousand eggs
The homely hen lays one.
The codfish never cackles
To tell you what she’s done.
And so we scorn the codfish
While the humble hen we prize
Which only goes to show you
That it pays to advertise.
(Anonymous American rhyme, in Kurlansky 1997:29)
1.1. Introduction
Historical zooarchaeology has become increasingly common as a means of
understanding daily life on plantation sites, particularly in foodways studies. While the
southeastern United States has been at the forefront of historical archaeological
investigations of this type, historical archaeology in the Caribbean was not practiced on
a large scale until the 1980s (Armstrong and Hauser 2009:593). However, due to the
dispersed nature of the island chain, it is much more challenging to bring together a
cohesive understanding of the region as a whole. The differing geological foundations of
each island underlie a multitude of ecosystems that were exploited by humans in
different ways in both the precontact and colonial periods. Because the islands do not
have a shared history across the entirety of the region, each island should be considered
carefully in terms of geological, environmental, ecological, and historical contexts by its
own unique circumstances (Armstrong and Hauser 2009:599).
Although there is a significant amount of historical data in the Caribbean in the
form of plantation records, military ventures, and travelers’ accounts, archaeological
1
research has a long history of revealing many overlooked aspects of daily life that do not
make it into the historical records. In order to continue to build on the existing
archaeological database for the colonial Caribbean, a wider range of archaeological
work must be conducted. On the Lesser Antillean island of Antigua, the Betty’s Hope
Project was designed with this goal in mind, by combining a variety of theoretical
perspectives and materials in order to inform on plantation daily life, compare archival
and archaeological evidence, cultural ecology, and more (Fox 2013:4). After seven field
seasons of excavation at the plantation site there is now a close network of researchers
working to reveal the daily lives of its various occupants. The Chair of the project is Dr.
Reginald Murphy, and the principal investigator for the site is Dr. Georgia Fox. Other
graduate students conducting research are: Catherine Davis (MA candidate, California
State University Chico), Geneviève Godbout (PhD candidate, University of Chicago),
Charlotte Goudge (PhD candidate, University of Bristol), and Cory Look (PhD candidate,
City University of New York).
The research conducted for this thesis is primarily an archaeofaunal study but it
also combines zooarchaeological analysis with a critical investigation of the historical
archives associated with the site, known as the Codrington Papers. The focus for the
zooarchaeological and archival analysis is to ascertain the role of fish and mollusks in
English colonial foodways, which will provide a solid foundation for future analysis of
foodways activities at the site. This vein of research has been very successful in
revealing social, economic, and cultural divides across plantations due to the intensive
segregation of peoples and spaces for sites like this. Specific research objectives will be
outlined at the end of this chapter, following a description of the environmental and
historical contexts for Antigua and Barbuda.
1.2. Geography and Environment
The Caribbean island chain arcs from the southernmost tip of Florida in the
United States down to the northernmost tip of Venezuela in South America. There are
several ways of classifying the island nations that comprise the Caribbean, the most
common being the large islands including the Greater Antilles in the north, and the small
2
islands that comprise the Lesser Antilles from the tip of Puerto Rico to the coastline of
South America (Harris 1965:1) (Figure 1.1).
Figure 1.1.
Map of Caribbean Islands, with Antigua (south) and Barbuda (north)
in red.
Courtesy of © Raimond Spekking / Wikimedia Commons / CC-BY-SA-3.0 & GDFL.
Within the Lesser Antilles, there are two main subdivisions: the Windward Islands
(south) and the Leeward Islands (north). Two geologically distinct island arcs comprise
the Leewards: the outer limestone arc to the east, and the inner volcanic arc to the west.
Antigua and Barbuda are part of the limestone arc of the Leeward Islands in the Lesser
Antilles (Harris 1965:1; Newsom and Wing 2004:77). There were also political divisions
that changed during the battles amongst European powers to colonize the Caribbean,
and these are reflected in place names such as British West Indies, French West Indies,
Netherland Antilles, etc. However, Antigua and Barbuda were under English colonial
control almost uninterrupted, save for an eight-month invasion by the French in 1666
(Dyde 2000:24). The results of these skirmishes are still evident today, where the
remains of forts, cannons, and overlooks pepper the dozens of bays around Antigua.
3
Antigua covers about 281 square kilometers in land mass, and 61 kilometers
north of it lies the smaller island Barbuda, which covers approximately 160 square
kilometers. While Barbuda is almost completely flat, Antigua is comprised of three
geological zones: the northeastern hills of the limestone district; the central plain; and
the southwestern mountainous volcanic region (Figure 1.2). Although the volcanic region
technically provides the most fertile soils, the topography is too uneven to be suitable for
farming or other development. The central plains soil is comprised of heavy clay that
requires significant labor input for agricultural productivity. Therefore, the northeastern
district was the best region for plantations because calcareous soils are both fertile and
tillable (Dyde 2000:4).
Figure 1.2.
Map of Antigua
Modified from Harris (1965:14)
Antigua is highly susceptible to droughts and has no permanent freshwater
resources. There are seasonal creeks that appear during the rainy season, but they are
not significant enough to sustain a freshwater-dependent animal population. However,
many marine fish do spend at least part of their lives, frequently at the juvenile stage, in
4
brackish water or freshwater lower reaches of insular rivers/streams (Wing 2001:499).
Despite this, there now exists a reservoir on Antigua due to the construction of the
Potswork Dam in the 1950s which supports a handful of freshwater species that were
introduced for sport fishing, such as tilapia (Dyde 2001:273; Froese and Pauly 2014).
Barbuda is about half the size of Antigua (Figure 1.3). Its size ranges from
approximately 160-175 square kilometers of landmass due to the fluctuating size of the
mudflats and lagoon. The island is composed primarily of limestone (Dyde 2000:4-5) but
it has a very different ecosystem than Antigua. Unlike the variety of ecozones and
elevations present in Antigua, Barbuda’s highest point is only 206 kilometers above sea
level. The geology is also uniform, with basement deposits consisting of coral limestone.
There are reefs surrounding the island, the most significant of which lie on the eastern
side. These are the reefs that ships were wrecked upon because of the Trade Winds.
The Codrington family profited from salvaging these wrecks when the family leased the
island from the Crown for 200 years (Dyde 2001:4-5; Harris 1965:19-23). The role of
Barbuda in the colonial period will be discussed further later in the chapter.
5
Figure 1.3.
Map of Barbuda
Modified from Harris (1965:20)
1.3. Pre-contact Period
The pre-contact cultural history of Antigua and Barbuda and their place in the
Caribbean network is still debated despite new contributions and interpretations of
historical and archaeological evidence (for overviews, see Armstrong and Hauser 2009;
Dyde 2000:3-7; Harlow et al. 2006; Harris 1965; Hofman et al. 2007; Newsom and Wing
2004; Palmié and Scarano 2011; Rouse 1989; Saunders 2005; Wilson 2001; Wing
2001). Not only are the natures of the ethnic groups that inhabited the Caribbean islands
6
still under debate, but their movements amongst the islands and their daily lifeways
continue to be explored by archaeologists (Dyde 2001:5-7; Harris 1965:71-73; Keegan
and Carlson 2008; Newsom and Wing 2002; Saunders 2005; Wilson 2001; Wing 2001).
Three ethnic groups were responsible for the peopling of the West Indies:
Guanahatabeys, Taínos, and Island-Caribs. The Guanahatebeys were previously
erroneously called the Ciboney (also Siboney), but this has since been corrected (Rouse
1989:119-120). On Antigua and Barbuda, the group currently identified as the Arawak—
also known as Eastern Taíno (Keegan and Carlson 2008:2-3)—are descendants of the
first wave of indigenous South American groups who appeared as early as 3100 BC The
Caribs were the third wave of settlement in the Caribbean, and considered a different
group despite a similar Arawakan linguistic origin. They may have expelled the previous
Arawak inhabitants in Antigua and Barbuda, or the islands may already have been
vacated by that time, but it was the Caribs that were present when Columbus arrived in
the Caribbean (Dyde 2000:6-7).
Alternatively, the Caribs may not have been permanently settled on Antigua and
Barbuda but instead came over from Dominica and St. Kitts to use the islands for
additional resource procurement (Harris 1965:73). Until the early island populations are
better understood, particularly in the Lesser Antilles, it is often more inclusive to use the
term “Amerindian” to refer to the indigenous populations in the area. Still others, such as
Newsom and Wing (2004) refer to culture groups as defined by the archaeological
record rather than attempting to impose ethnic labels from an outside perspective. The
culture history of the Lesser Antilles begins with the Archaic Period beginning around
5000 BC, followed by the Ceramic or Saladoid Age from around 400-500 BC, and lastly
the post-Saladoid period from approximately AD 500-1000 (Newsom and Wing 2004:7879).
There was considerable variation in human adaptations to various islands in the
Caribbean. Most of the dietary resources were procured from the coastal regions.
However, the Greater Antilles had considerably more landmass and potential inland
ecosystems to exploit, which meant that there were more terrestrial resources available
there than in the Lesser Antilles (Keegan and Carlson 2008:4; Newsom and Wing
7
2004:193). It is interesting to note that indigenous groups demonstrated little to no use of
mangrove taxa, but there is no explanation as to why this was so except for the
possibility of an unknown cultural norm that discouraged incorporation of these taxa in
foodways (Newsom and Wing 2004:195-196).
Among the most common marine resources procured by indigenous Taíno of the
Bahamas were five West Indian fish: grunts (Haemulidae), grouper (Serranidae),
snapper (Lutjanidae), and jacks (Carangidae). However, there was some variability; for
example, site MC-6 in the Middle Caicos contained bonefish (Albulidae) as the most
common taxon (Keegan and Carlson 2008:37). Cartilaginous fishes (sharks, skates, and
rays) were also utilized, but these species may not preserve as well archaeologically
except for specific elements including ossified vertebral centrae, teeth, dermal denticles,
and stingray stingers (Keegan and Carlson 2008:22).
Various methods of procuring fish are widely known based on the environmental
niche and feeding behaviors of a particular family, and the pre-Contact peoples of the
Caribbean are no exception. For example, solitary predators such as groupers,
snappers, tunas, and barracuda were procured using baited hooks (made of shell, or
perhaps even wood and thorns) and fibrous cords. Nets made of plant fiber cordage and
weighted with shells were used to capture small, pelagic, schooling fish that live near the
surface, such as herrings and silversides (Newsom and Wing 2004:208-209), but smallbodied schooling reef fish such as grunts (Haemulidae) were also captured in this
fashion (Keegan and Carlson 2008:55). Other reef fish were predominantly procured
using traps that restricted the maximum size of caught fishes (Newsom and Wing
2004:208-209). Since both nets and traps equally capture a wide range of fish, for
certain species to dominate a zooarchaeological assemblage requires active cultural
selection. Moreover, the nature of coral reefs make fish traps the ideal form of
procurement technology in this ecological niche, because nets snag on the various
corals (Wing 2001:515; Wing and Wing 1995:140-141). It is important to bear in mind
these
feeding
habits
and
acquisition
zooarchaeological quantifications.
8
techniques
when
we
examine
the
There are only a handful of mollusks that are reported from the archaeological
record, both pre- and postcontact. A variety of clams were utilized, but tiger lucines
(Codakia orbicularis) and Donax clams were the most common and easily obtainable
(Keegan and Carlson 2008:59). The most well-known mollusk taxon in this region by far
is the queen conch (Lobatus gigas, formerly Strombus gigas), utilized for both its proteinrich flesh and the shell itself, which was used to produce artifacts (Keegan and Carlson
2008:63; Saunders 2005:79).
Despite the wide variety of resources available on and around the Caribbean
islands, most local foods were viewed negatively by Europeans (Newsom and Wing
2004:215). The Spanish even went so far as to state that when their rations ran out, they
were reduced to eating “herbs, fish and other scum and vermin” from the local area
(Scarry and Reitz 1990).
1.4. Colonialism
Antigua was first sighted by a European during Columbus’ second voyage in
1493 and was given the name Santa Maria la Antigua (Dyde 2000:34). The Amerindian
populations on Antigua and Barbuda successfully fought off European colonists until
around 1632. This is the generally accepted date for English colonization even though
the actual year is unknown (Dyde 2003:8).
The Lesser Antilles is typically presented and analyzed over broad regional
scales despite the various ecological and geological characteristics that make each
small island unique. Alternatively, they may be historically considered based on the
colonial power that controlled certain islands during certain time periods (e.g., the British
West Indies, French West Indies, etc.). This latter consideration restricts researchers
linguistically to islands whose archives and literature they can read and access
(Armstrong and Hauser 2009:604). These still-standing colonial frames of reference do
not do justice to the unique ecologies of the islands, which were so dramatically changed
during the colonial era in very different ways. This is particularly important to bear in
mind during colonial-era analyses, because these unique traits caused the colonists to
act and react in physically and culturally diverse ways. The French, English, Spanish,
9
Portuguese and Dutch all controlled their islands, plantations, and people differently,
which would clearly impact any historical, archaeological, or other studies conducted on
the islands (Armstrong and Hauser 2009; Dunn 1973; Gilmore 2005; Mintz 1985 32-38,
52-59; Price 1966). Antigua and Barbuda are classic examples of this, because even
though they were closely linked geographically and colonially, each island was distinctly
different from the other and was exploited in completely separate ways. However,
Barbuda’s importance and contribution is often neglected in broader historical analyses
because it was not a “sugar island” as was Antigua, and it is excluded from the sugarcentric and politico-economic analyses of the Atlantic Trade. It is instead relegated to the
more in-depth research of the colonial Leeward Islands, or to its own separate
investigations, and highlights the challenges in attempting to impose broader patterns
across these diverse islands (for example, Bennett 1951; Berleant-Schiller 1977; Dyde
2000; Dunn 1973:18, 145; Harris 1965; Watters and Reitz 1992).
The first cash crops grown by the settlers were tobacco, ginger, and indigo,
which are easy to plant and provide a fast yield to sell. However, they were commercially
unsuccessful on a large scale (Dyde 2000:20). Sugar was introduced early on, but it did
not become the dominant industry until the mid-1600s. Sugar was brought to Barbados
as early as 1642, and consequently it was the first island to develop a sugar plantation
industry (Dyde 2000:21). The man responsible for this intensification of sugar in
Barbados was Christopher Codrington, the future Governor General of the Leeward
Islands, and the first of a series of Christopher Codringtons that rose to prominence
during this period. As the naming and succession of these individuals can be confusing,
this will be elucidated here before continuing.
The first Christopher Codrington to arrive in the Caribbean from England and
settle in Barbados in 1649 was Christopher Codrington I (Dyde 2000:29). His son,
Christopher Codrington II, moved to Antigua from Barbados. However, because he is the
first Christopher Codrington to be in Antigua, and was so influential to the island’s
development, he is frequently referred to as Christopher Codrington I in Antiguan history.
His son, who only briefly took over the position of Governor General in the early 1700s,
was actually Christopher Codrington III, but because of the adjustment to his father’s
name, is frequently noted as Christopher Codrington II in Antiguan history. For the sake
10
of clarity and consistency, I will be using the designations I, II, and III rather than just I
and II.
Christopher Codrington II came to prominence during the French invasion of
Antigua in 1666 when he helped repel them after just eight months. As a reward he was
granted Betty’s Hope plantation. He moved there in 1674, after which Betty’s Hope
became the seat of English colonial power for several decades (Dyde 2000:29).
1.5. Betty’s Hope
1.5.1.
Historical Context
Betty’s Hope was built by Governor Keynell in 1651, at which time the population
of European colonists in Antigua was still under 1000 (Dyde 2000:16-17). After he died
in 1651, the plantation was taken over by his widow, but when the French invaded in
1666 she fled to nearby Nevis. When she returned she discovered that the English
government, as punishment to those who defected, had confiscated her property in her
absence and turned it over to Christopher Codrington II (Cartensen 1993:3).
By the time Christopher Codrington II took over Betty’s Hope, African slaves
were becoming the laborers of choice over white indentured servants. In 1672, 600
Africans were enslaved on Antigua. By the mid-1670’s black populations had overtaken
the white populations, and by 1678 there were nearly 3000 slaves (Dyde 2003:25).
Sugar was so important and prolific that it became the primary form of currency
throughout the Leeward Islands by the 1670s. In contrast, because Barbuda was not an
independent colony but instead relied on, and was relied upon, by Antigua, the
population remained low and it did not develop as an independent colony. Moreover, it
ended up being privately leased from the Crown by the Codrington family for almost 200
years at the cost of one fat sheep per year (Figure 1.4).1 The island acted as a personal
resource for the Codrington family’s six plantations, thus they did not rely heavily on
1
Letter from William Codrington to L. Lovell, 3 April 1789, in “Letter Book of Sir William
Codrington 1783-1789,” page 129 of 131.
11
imports as did other Lesser Antillean planters. Barbuda was even used as a base for
salvaging shipwrecks from its nearby reefs, which further increased the Codrington
family’s wealth (Dyde 2000:38).
Figure 1.4. Codrington’s lease of Barbuda.
Codrington Papers Excerpt, see footnote 1.
Despite the clear benefit of Barbuda to the Codrington estates, it was still
necessary to import a large number of goods from the British Isles, Newfoundland, and
New England. Additionally, slaves were still expected to grow some of their own food,
such as corn (“Indian” and “Guinea” varieties, the latter of which refers to sorghum) and
sweet potatoes, with some supplemented imports including salt fish, barreled pork and
beef, and flour. All of this was produced by manual labor, even after the Agricultural
Revolution in Europe when plows and other labor-saving devices were used (Dyde
2000:38, 67-68, Harris 1965:115).
In 1689 Codrington II became Governor General of the Leeward Islands, and
subsequently only occasionally resided at Betty’s Hope since he had to make
administrative tours to other islands in the chain. During this time there were frequent
skirmishes against the French, but there were no more invasions of Antiguan and
Barbudan soil. After taking over his father’s position as Governor General for only a few
years, Christopher Codrington II resigned from the position in 1699, and two years later
retired to Barbados where he had been born (Dyde 2000:38-39, Simmons 1972:33). His
eldest son, Christopher Codrington III, took over in 1700 but was not as successful as
his predecessors and resigned in 1704 (Dyde 2000:47). The estates passed to the
control of his nephew, who later changed his name to William Codrington. He passed on
the estates to his nephew Christopher, who later added another surname Bethell to his
name, becoming Christopher Bethell Codrington (sometimes Bethell-Codrington) (Dyde
12
2000:117). From then on, successive Codringtons resided at their Dodington estate in
Gloucestershire, England, and rarely visited Antigua. In their absence, attorneys
managed their West Indian estates, which was not an uncommon practice during this
time (Cartensen 1993:4).
On August 1, 1834, immediate emancipation of the nearly thirty thousand slaves
on Antigua was granted (Dyde 2000:135). However, a provision called the Contract Act
still required the newly freed slaves to essentially continue their work under their same
master for a year following emancipation. The only difference from the former
arrangement was that they would receive wages instead of food and clothes, which
effectively released the planter or other master from providing for their well-being even in
the most limited sense. Moreover, after the contract year was up, they were able to work
wherever they pleased, but they could not be idle or vagrants, which was punishable by
jail time and grueling labor (Dyde 2000:134-135).
1.5.2.
Modern Context
The Betty’s Hope historical site was purchased in 1984 by the Friends of Betty’s
Hope in order to preserve the site. In 1990, they formed the Betty’s Hope Trust
(Cartensen 1993:1). Since then, it has developed into an open-air museum to educate
locals and tourists about the history of Antigua, Barbuda, colonialism, and the slave
trade via the history of Betty’s Hope and the Codrington family (Figure 1.5). A building
previously used as a cotton storehouse has been converted into the visitor’s center, filled
with examples of artifacts, copies of historical paintings and a model of Betty’s Hope
based on the maps in the archives. Visitors are encouraged to interact with the
archaeologists and ask questions about the site, its history, and the archaeological
research.
13
F1000 F1003
6
5
1
8
7
2
3
4
3
Figure 1.5. Map of Betty’s Hope demonstrating buildings and selected features. (1)
Great House; (2) cisterns; (3) windmills; (4) boiling and curing
house; (5) Manager’s House; (6) stables; (7) trough; (8) cistern.
Courtesy of Cory Look.
The Betty’s Hope Archaeological Field School was started by Dr. Reginald
Murphy (Chair of the Betty’s Hope Project) and Dr. Georgia Fox (Betty’s Hope Site
Director) in 2007. The field school has been held every summer since then, allowing
student archaeologists and local volunteers to excavate the site. As more graduate
students join the project, additional research venues are being explored. These include:
survey work to find the Service Buildings and current and historical borders of the
property (see Davis and Godbout 2011; Look 2011); dining and hospitality studies via
ceramics analysis (see Godbout 2012); and faunal analysis discussed in this thesis. In
2013, focus shifted from the Great House excavation to the rum distillery (also called the
Still House) for PhD student Charlotte Goudge’s research using portable X-ray
fluorescence (PXRF) to investigate the rum trade via analysis of historic bottle glass.
The combination of these various projects, and others to come, help in developing a
more detailed and holistic understanding of daily life on the plantation for all people
involved in its operation from its construction in 1651 to its abandonment in 1944.
14
1.5.3.
Codrington Archives
All research is ultimately based in the historical archives for Betty’s Hope, which
are collectively called the “Codrington Papers.” The most accessible form of these
archives were 15 microfilm reels (digitized in the context of my research; see Chapter 3)
which contain a large amount of information pertaining to Betty’s Hope and other
Codrington properties and activities. These records include letters, letterbooks (books
where copies of letters were written), shipment requests, inventories, sales records, etc.
Additional archives do exist, but they are only available for use in person at the British
Library in London, England. Additional archival materials are also located in Antigua, but
they are not open to researchers at this time.
1.6. Research Objectives
The research completed at southeast US plantations has provided a framework
for research on Caribbean plantations, and an effective approach that has been
underutilized in this region is zooarchaeology. Zooarchaeological analysis and related
foodways research has provided an entirely new data set with which to examine social
structure, cultural habits, economic motivations, power relations, and even religious
activities (for example, see Crader 1984, 1990; Scott 2001; Singleton 1995; Swanson
2009; Thomas 1998; Tuma 2006).
In order to reduce the scale of this project for the purpose of a Master’s thesis,
the focus for analysis was restricted to fish and mollusks. This is in part because there
was a question that arose from preliminary field identifications by Cory Look during the
2011 excavations in the Great House which recovered several distinctive parrotfish
premaxillae and dentaries as well as barracuda vertebrae (see Appendix B for additional
identification information). This led to the question of exactly what the presence of local
tropical fish might be in the Great House context, despite so much emphasis in the
historical archives and existing literature on saltfish. As previously mentioned, Barbuda
was used for resource production for the Codrington estates on Antigua, and it was
known that many fresh resources including fish were sent over, but there was little idea
of which type of local fish and how many might have been utilized. Combined with the
15
general sentiment of English resistance and distrust towards consuming local resources
in the tropics (Dunn 1965:263-264, Kupperman 1984; Newsom and Wing 2004:215), the
presence of these taxa were unexpected in the Great House context, which was the
realm of the English upper class. But is this disdain of local resources as common as it
appears to be? Or were there nuances to the English diet in the Caribbean that are
confounded by archival and other written reports?
By deciding to address the question of local vs. nonlocal resource utilization, the
focus on fish and mollusks became even more beneficial. Even though the original
intention was to only examine the fish, the preliminary mollusk identifications also
reflected the use of local resources. Except for Lobatus gigas (queen conch, frequently
still called Strombus gigas), mollusks are rarely mentioned in archival sources. When
additional mollusk taxa such as Cittarium pica (West Indian topsnail) were preliminarily
identified as local tropical specimens, it seemed reasonable to include these as well. The
additional benefit of using fish and mollusks to inform on local resource utilization is that
these taxa can almost always be identified as local or nonlocal based on taxonomic
identification alone. When Klippel (2001) examined mammal bones at Brimstone Hill fort
in St. Kitts, he had to use stable carbon isotope analysis to determine if the mammals
had been raised on the island or had been raised in Europe. By contrast, fish and
mollusks are too sensitive to changes in environment to be transported live by ship, as
were livestock, fowl, and even turtles. By identifying these species, one can therefore
determine exploitation of resources from certain environmental niches in specific ways.
In order to pursue these questions pertaining to Betty’s Hope foodways, three
main research objectives were formed. I intend to:
1) quantitatively determine the extent to which fish and mollusks were
incorporated into the English diet at Betty’s Hope;
2) determine the proportion of local tropical fish to nonlocal;
3) determine if the archival records and literature are accurate
representations of English dietary patterns on Caribbean plantations,
and how well the zooarchaeological evidence articulates with archival
data.
In order to accomplish these objectives, first the Codrington Papers were
examined for both quantitative and qualitative information. The former was consulted to
16
calculate raw amounts of quantities and weights of the types of taxa recorded. The latter
was recorded in an attempt to ascertain perceptions, prejudices, and other commentary
towards fish, mollusks, and related activities such as fishing, collection, tools of
acquisition, and more.
Second, the zooarchaeological remains of fish and mollusks recovered from
Betty’s Hope were separated from the rest of the assemblage and analyzed. Primary
data in the form of number of identified specimens (NISP) and weight (g) were collected
in order to ascertain presence/absence of taxa, as well as frequency and relative
abundance. The zooarchaeological material was also analyzed according to two broad
contexts that correspond with two social classes: the upper class planters occupying the
Great House, and the middle class occupants associated with the Service Buildings. The
combination of zooarchaeological and archival data revealed far more than examining
either data on their own could have done, and has provided even more information than
the original research objectives hoped to accomplish.
1.7. Chapter Summary
This chapter provides the background information for the island of Antigua and
Barbuda in order to understand the unique parameters that affected the pre-Contact
indigenous peoples as well as the colonists who later arrived and took over the islands.
Pre-Contact and colonial actions, influences, and ramifications were introduced. This
was followed by a discussion of the history of Betty’s Hope plantation, its historical
archives, and the current state of the site as both an archaeological excavation and an
open air museum to help educate local and visiting groups about the site, and inform on
its historical and archaeological significance. The research objectives for this MA thesis
were also presented.
17
Chapter 2.
Colonial Caribbean Foodways
“The Spaniard eats, the German drinks, and the English exceed in both.”
(Thomas Muffet [1655] in Drummond and Wilbraham 1991:106).
2.1. Introduction
This chapter presents the preexisting attitudes of the 19th century English
towards fish and mollusks in general, as well the specific species consumed such as
oysters, gadids (cod), and clupeids (herring, shad, and sardines). Additionally,
determinations of value, development of technologies, and modifications in practices
relating to food storage all changed over time. The habits and traditions established in
the British Isles provided the foundation for foodway habits in the Caribbean as well, and
so it is useful to address the major transitions that occurred from the medieval period
through the nineteenth century. The bulk of the information on English diet was obtained
from Drummond and Wilbraham (1991).
2.2. Fish and the English
The incorporation of fish and mollusks into the English diet changed significantly
over time and varied between the north and south and between town and country
dwellers, but the most significant determinant was social class. The wealthy classes
were able to enjoy a much wider variety of foods and more foods of higher quality, while
the poorer classes had to get by with whichever foods were cheap and available in their
area. Fresh meats were more expensive, and much of the population across England
became used to eating a variety of salted or pickled meat. In order to properly
18
understand the relationship that the English developed with fish and mollusks as food, I
will provide a brief overview of how fish were used over time. Although the focus of this
thesis is on the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, it is still important to include a brief
consideration of foodways from the medieval period through the seventeenth century in
order to demonstrate the origin and development of these traits and habits.
2.2.1.
Medieval and Tudor England
Fish became more popular in English diets after an act of Parliament made
Saturday a fish day for religious purposes in 1548 (Spencer 2008:1221). However, fresh
fish could only be transported a certain distance inland unless it was salted, dried,
pickled, or smoked. During this period, shellfish was still preferred over fish but the
poorer classes heavily relied on pickled or smoked herring to survive the winter (Spencer
2008:1219). Both fresh water and marine fish were procured, but fresh water fish could
be kept on hand more easily by keeping them in artificial ponds (Drummond and
Wilbraham 1991:38-39). Indeed, William Codrington requested that “the upper pond [be]
stocked with carps and tench.”23 Mussels were also plentiful during this period, which
meant they were usually inexpensive, and therefore popular (Drummond and Wilbraham
1991:39). But aside from the wealthy who could keep their own ponds stocked with fish
and those who were not far from the coasts, fresh fish was not generally an option. Two
fishmonger companies controlled the fish trade:
“…the Stockfishmongers, dealing in dried fish (Norwegian: stokfisk),
mainly cod, haddock, pollack and ling, coming for the most part from
Iceland and Norway, and the Salt-fishmonger who handled the large
quantities of salted and pickled herrings, cod, eels, whiting and mackerel,
coming from the East Coast, or Holland and the Baltic. In 1536 the two
became united as the Fishmongers’ Company” (Drummond and
Wilbraham 1991:39, emphasis in original).
2
Letter from William Codrington to Parker(?), November(?) 1718, in “Codrington Family West
Indies Correspondence, page 32 of 324.
3
Tench (Tinca tinca) is in the same family as carps (Cyprinidae). It is a freshwater native to most
of Europe and prefers densely vegetated lakes and muddy backwaters (Kottelat and Freyhof
2007:646).
19
The trade in herring was considerable, and was processed in two ways: salting or
pickling, the latter of which was often called “white” herring (Drummond and Wilbraham
1991:39). White herring makes a handful of appearances in the Codrington Papers
relating to the family’s Antiguan estates (see Chapter 4). But there is an additional
important economic trait in herring that should be kept in mind: prices varied
considerably over decades and centuries (Drummond and Wilbraham 1991:40). For
consumers that had few other options, these fluctuations could have a devastating
impact.
2.2.2.
Seventeenth Century
During this period in England, the results of investments from early colonial
period exploration and exploitation were yielding substantial fortunes to some families,
such as the Codringtons. They were able to build and maintain large estates with
gardens, orchards, ponds stocked with fish and lands teeming with game and fowl to
hunt and trap for sport (Drummond and Wilbraham 1991:91, 98). By contrast, bread,
beef, and beer were the usual mainstay of the diet of the poor, but cheese, pickled
herring, sheep heads or pig feet often replaced beef when the prices rose too high.
Rations were incorporated into labor houses and ships, but it is interesting to note that
fishing ships encouraged crews to acquire their own fresh fish from the sea during
voyages in order to supplement their usual rations (Drummond and Wilbraham 199:102).
Oysters were still generally inexpensive during this time and remained part of the lower
class diets, but they were also incorporated into upper class dinners even though they
were an inexpensive food (Drummond and Wilbraham 1991:39, 191).
During this time, the main way people perceived food in relation to their health
and well-being was through the humoral doctrine. This had been established in Greece
by Aristotle and Hippocrates, was later expanded upon by Galen in 2 AD, and then
changed very little for nearly two millennia. The theories were based on the elements of
nature (earth, air, water, fire), their qualities (dry, cold, moist, hot), their equivalent in the
body, and their effect on health and personality. The bodily equivalents of the natural
elements were called “humors,” and were categorized as phlegm, black bile, yellow bile,
and blood, which all needed to be in balance to ensure good health and a stability of
20
being (Drummond and Wilbraham 1991:65). When one of the humors became
imbalanced due to the types of food one was eating, the state of an individual’s health
and temperament would be affected. This imbalance could be remedied by including
more foods of a contrasting category into one’s diet, but the baseline recommended
diets changed from childhood to adulthood to old age (Drummond and Wilbraham
1991:66).
These theories also affected perceptions of how food was digested. There were
generally three established substances of foods appropriate for three types of people:
the young and growing, the hardy physical laborers, and the elderly. Several types of
fish were included in the diet of physical laborers: saltfish, ling [cod], tunnis [tuna], and
salt salmon alongside other meats, including powdered beef, bacon, goose, and swan.
Additionally, fish such as sturgeon joined lamb and pork under the classification of ‘hot in
the first degree.’ Other food descriptions were variably described as moist, dry, or cold
(Drummond and Wilbraham 1991:121-122). These perceptions affected which foods
were selected, and were used as an explanation for why certain physical or mental
ailments may have been plaguing an individual.
2.2.3.
Eighteenth Century
The divide between the wealthy and impoverished still dictated most dietary
choices during the 18th century. The poor still largely depended on salted and pickled
meats, particularly herring; even in the country, fresh meat was often too expensive to
acquire (Drummond and Wilbraham 1991:208-209), while those on the estates still lived
exceptionally well. The estates were stocked with gardens, fish ponds, orchards, and
forests filled with game that supplied tables with fresh provisions to which they added
foreign luxuries including spirits, sugar, coffee, tea, and chocolate (Drummond and
Wilbraham 1991:201; Mintz 1985)
Although a reasonable quantity of fresh fish could make it to London’s new
Billingsgate market, sometimes from as far as 110 to 160 kilometers away, preserved
fish was still the reliable mainstay for the lower social classes. Oysters remained plentiful
despite decades of intensive collection, and were still somewhat inexpensive
21
(Drummond and Wilbraham 1991:191). However, in the second half of the eighteenth
century, the poor suffered very hard times. Although there was considerable discussion
of options to solve this problem, little was done. The suggested possible arrangements
to alleviate this are significant: it was suggested that coastal fisheries could be
intensified, additional dried fish could be imported from the Newfoundland fishery, and
that Carolina could provide inexpensive rice to supplement food stores (Drummond and
Wilbraham 1991:221). Despite this hardship, the eighteenth century was still one of
gluttony. According to Drummond and Wilbraham, “A word must be said about the gross
over-indulgence of the eighteenth-century Englishman. The rich at all times, the poor
when they could, were intemperate in meat and drink to an extent which made the
English notorious all over Europe” (1991:252).
2.2.4.
Nineteenth Century
This century marked an important turning point in food technologies and hygiene
that affected how foods of all kinds were stored and shipped, and this in turn affected
fish and fishing in a variety of ways. First, fish acquisition was intensified by improved
technologies in both fishing equipment and steam-powered ships. Secondly, the later
part of the century marked the advent of canning and freezing meats which greatly
increased access to fish. Thirdly, increased knowledge and practice of good hygiene
meant that quality was improved and fears of rotten fish were reduced, which had
previously been a significant deterrent (Drummond and Wilbraham 1991:307-308). This
had an enormous impact on the preserved fish industry from around 1850 onward, when
the popularity of salted and pickled herrings declined rapidly even for the inland
populations that had relied on them for so long. Additionally, this period marked the rise
in cost of overfished oysters, and it required the use of artificial oyster beds to save the
populations (Drummond and Wilbraham 1991:308-309).
For the wealthy, little changed in their diets except for the advent of what is now
considered the traditional English breakfast (Drummond and Wilbraham 1991:335). But
during this time, new classifications of foods were arising as the Galenian theories were
finally losing ground to newer and more scientifically-oriented ideas (Drummond and
Wilbraham 1991:343-346). An 1824 account of ‘Beauty Training for Ladies’ completely
22
forbade fish from the diet, as well as butter, cream, milk, and cheese (Drummond and
Wilbraham 1991:335-336). However, the French influence on English diet, which had
begun in the previous century, was still popular amongst the upper classes. For
example, in 1824 it was stated in The Family Oracle of Health: “It is a bad dinner when
there are not at least five varieties: a substantial dish of fish, one of meat, one of game,
one of poultry, and, above all, a ragout with truffles…They form the absolute minimum
and sine qua non of a dinner for one person” (Drummond and Wilbraham 1991:337).
2.3. Fish in Antigua
Despite the apparent widespread lack of concern by Europeans towards the local
fish and mollusks on Antigua and other Lesser Antillean islands, a journal entry by Janet
Schaw in 1774 made specific reference to several species of fish served to her and her
company when she wrote the details of a meal:
“The method of placing the meal is in three rows the length of the table;
six dishes in a row, I observe, is the common number. On the head of the
centre row, stands the turtle soup, and at the bottom of the same line the
shell. The rest of the middle row is generally made of fishes of various
kinds, all exquisite. The King fish is that most prized; it resembles our
Salmon, only the flesh is white. The Crouper4 is a fish they much esteem,
its look is that of a pike, but in taste far superior. The Mullets are vastly
good. These three I think are what they principally admire, but there are
others that also make up the table. The Snapper eats like a kind of
Turbot, not less delicate than what ye have. They named thirteen different
fishes all good, many of which I have eat and found so” (Schaw 1922:9697).
This account is interesting because not only does it list specific types of fish and
comments on the quality of their flesh, but it also highlights the gaps in our knowledge of
fish in foodways in the colonial Caribbean. Schaw provides names and details for just
four of the fish on the table, while thirteen were named and consumed. This is an
unfortunate lapse in description, considering that she continues to list the various other
forms of fruit, flesh and pastry.
4
“Crouper” is likely a misspelling of “grouper,” a member of Serranidae.
23
Perhaps the most comprehensive contribution to the natural history of Antigua
was information compiled by Mrs. Lanaghan (1844), and includes a number of fish and
their particular traits. Deceased horses were used as bait for shark fishing, but sharks
were primarily sold to slaves and laborers to be made into stew (Lanaghan 1844:230).
They do not appear to have become incorporated into the planter class diets. What was
historically termed the “Jew-fish,” but is now the Atlantic goliath grouper (Serranidae),
was considered “one of the greatest luxuries the West Indian seas offered” (Lanaghan
1844:232). Also “esteemed for their gastronomic qualities” were the kingfish (also
mentioned by Schaw 1922),5 cavallie,6 and barracuda.7 However, the barracuda was
also known for its occasionally poisonous flesh, although at the time the cause of its
toxicity was unknown. Lanaghan (1844:232) notes that some speculated that the
barracuda was seasonally poisonous, either from “feeding on copper banks” or “feeding
upon the ‘galley-fish’,”8 the latter of which is an antiquated term for sea anemone and/or
jellyfish. Nutting (1919) also notes that barracuda are sometimes poisonous, but offers
no explanation as to why despite the educational intention of the expedition to Antigua
and Barbados.
We now know that the poisonous effects in barracuda and other large predatory
fish, such as carangids (jacks), are caused by ciguatera toxins in the flesh of the fish,
which is produced by marine plankton species (dinoflagellates) that live on coral, algae,
and seaweed in tropical and subtropical waters. The toxin builds as it continues up the
food chain, resulting in the larger predators being the most toxic, which would include
barracudas, large sea basses and groupers, snappers, and even parrotfish (Newsom
and Wing 2004:4; Robertson 2003:41). Lanaghan (1844:232-233) also reports that there
were other species of poisonous fish, two of which—the conger eel and horse-eyed
5
Kingfish could refer to the wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri in Scombridae). However, there is
also a king mackerel that it can be confused with (Scomberomorous cavalla). The species
name is also similar to the Crevalle jack (see footnote 5), which has other common name
variations that include “cavalli” or “cevalle.” It has also sometimes been called “kingfish,” further
confounding which species are being referred to.
6
This is likely referring to the Crevalle jack (Caranx hippos), which is in the Carangidae family.
7
Barracuda was frequently archaically spelled “barracoota” or similar variations.
8
Archaic term for sea anemone, possibly conflated with jellyfish.
24
cavallie9— are among the predators that would likely also be affected by ciguatera
toxicity.
Lastly, edible fish in Lanaghan’s list included: “snappers, hinds, silks, mullets,
doctors, angels, old wives, nurses, Spanish mackerel, &c”10 (Lanaghan 1844:233) as
varieties that are found in Antiguan markets. However, she does note that not all of the
fish on that list are valued as foods, and this is a particularly important point to make
when attempting to analyze faunal remains from different social contexts. Both the toadfish (Lanaghan 1844:235-236) and parrotfish are considered to have “rank flesh” to the
European palate: “The negroes11 always call it ‘blue parrat;’ its flesh is much esteemed
by them, but the flavor is so rank, that it is never admitted at any respectable table”
(Lanaghan 1844:233). Regarding the toad-fish’s12 use as food, she stated: “It is eaten by
many of the negroes, who are not famed for the delicacy of their palates, although the
flesh is very rank” (Lanaghan 1844:236). The need to keep what is considered a good,
respectable table was no longer an English tradition transferred to the tropics; it had
become proverbial for West Indian tables to be filled with culturally appropriate and yet
simultaneously exotic foods (Lanaghan 1844:207).
Despite the considerable contribution towards knowledge of fish and the general
attitudes towards several species, Lanaghan frustratingly concludes the section with the
statement, “There are a great number of other edible fish which might be deservedly
mentioned, but the pages of this work have so multiplied, that I must pass them over
without further mention” (1844:233-234). Although she continues her natural history
9
This likely refers to the horse-eyed jack (Caranx latus), which is in the Carangidae family.
Snappers are members of Lutjanidae; hinds are in Serranidae; silks are an unconfirmed
identification and could refer to the Bermuda silk snapper (Lutjanus vivanus), grey snapper
(Lutjanus griseus), or silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis); mullets are in the Mugilidae family;
doctors could be Acanthuridae but today doctor fish is also known as tench (Tinca tinca),
however, this is a freshwater fish that has not been introduced to Antigua or Barbuda; angels
are now angelfish in the family Pomacanthidae; old wives are now known as triggerfish in the
family Balistidae; nurses likely refer to the nurse shark (Ginglymostoma cirratum); Spanish
mackerel is in the family Scombridae.
11
Like the vast majority of writers during and before this time, Lanaghan’s use of the word
“negroes” reflects the racial prejudices of the period. Despite Emancipation on August 1, 1834
for the slaves on Antigua, racial attitudes remained for a long time. This term is also present
throughout the Codrington Papers.
12
Toad-fish is now called frogfish in the family Antennariidae.
10
25
account with some additional descriptions of marine life, such as the “sea-porcupine”
(porcupine fish, puffer fish) that is both used for meat as well as stuffed as a curio
(Lanaghan 1844:234), it is clear that the role of fish in diet and daily life is not considered
to be as important as other aspects.
These descriptions by Schaw (1922) and Lanaghan (1844) are only about the
fish themselves, not their methods of capture. This could be because the methods of
capture may not have differed much from those used in England. The fish were included
in discussion either because their exoticism piqued curiosity, and/or because the
discussion of fish largely pertained to their suitability to a proper, generously laden West
Indian table.
The last point to mention regarding the role of fish in Caribbean diets is the issue
of spoilage. Prior to refrigeration, red meat could spoil in less than one day, but fish
could spoil after just a few hours at the market (Dunn 1972:276). Nutting (1919) noted
that local residents were hired to run fish to various buyers as soon as they were
acquired. This would ensure access to the freshest fish without needing to wait until it
got to market or to be transported home. There are some accounts of attempts to
preserve local fish by salting or brining, but many of the fish reportedly became mealy
from salting, brining, or pickling (Dunn 1972:276; Nutting 1919:68). Fish tended to be
more common at homes that were near to the coastline itself, but there are no
indications that these homes were more open to a wider variety of fish, such as the
parrotfish, which was disdained by Lanaghan.
2.4. Foodways and Plantation Archaeology
All living things require food in order to stay alive. From carbon-dioxide
consuming plants to insectivorous birds to omnivorous mammals, all rely on food for
their continued survival. However, food occupies additional, unique spaces in the lives of
humans. Aside from fulfilling the basic biological requirement of providing energy for
proper bodily function, food is inextricably linked to concepts of society, culture, and
religion. It is essential for social, psychological, and emotional survival. In the words of
Sidney Mintz:
26
“There is no infallible guide to what is naturally the best food for human
beings. We appear to be capable of eating (and liking) just about anything
that is not immediately toxic. Cross-cultural studies of dietary preference
reveal…[that] their ‘natural environments’ are clearly social, symbolically
constructed universes. What constitutes a ‘good food’…is a social, not a
biological matter” (1985:8).
The social, cultural, and emotional importance of food is not a new concept. Even
the notion of having comfort foods, which may not be particularly nutritious or of high
quality, can hold social and personal significance. These aspects of food are so closely
linked to one’s self-definition, that “people who eat strikingly different foods or similar
foods in different ways are thought to be strikingly different, sometimes even less
human” (Mintz 1985:3). By adding this concept of dehumanization to the sociocultural
complexities of food, an extremely important aspect has been revealed: the direct link
between food and power relations.
Food is constantly utilized as a means of generating, maintaining, legitimizing,
and deconstructing a particular authority or power (for example, see Crouch and O’Neill
2000:181-183; Douglas 1972:1-2; Hamilakis 1999:40; Mintz and DuBois 2002:109). Not
only does it have the power to nourish people physically, but food also nourishes socially
and culturally on individual and group levels. Normally this is something that develops
over time for a group of people, but on plantations it was another means of reinforcing
class distinctions in both the southeastern United States and the Caribbean. Titus
(1992:14) states:
“In the South, where social institutions were shaped by racial institutions,
food became a particularly complex cultural text. If in the North, table
rituals demarcated social classes, in the South they confirmed white
aristocracy. Thus in both plantation fiction and romantic memoirs of the
Old South we find numerous accounts of lavish dinners about heavilyladen tables. Accounts of the complex ritual of formal dinner at wealthy
plantations functions as symbolic descriptions of southern paternalism in
action. The elegance and even extravagance of these meals testify to the
aristocratic status of their host and hostess and suggest that nature
blesses their social order. Ceremonial dining confirmed the white family’s
position in the hierarchical order of the plantation.”
This notion of class distinction affects foodways on every level, because
foodways do not simply entail the action of eating. They encompass perceptions of food
27
itself, from acquisition, to preparation, cooking, serving, and consumption (Singleton
1995:124). Zooarchaeological analyses can address many of these aspects: which
animals are being used and consumed; butchery patterns and meat cut analyses;
methods of preparation; quality of diet; and, ethnic background and religious habits of
the communities on the plantations (for example, see Crader 1984, 1990; Scott 2001;
Singleton 1995; Swanson 2009; Thomas 1998; Tuma 2006). The notion of class as a
motivator and separator of people via food consumption pattern is one that was played
out repeatedly on plantations all over the world.
Historical zooarchaeology therefore provides a highly effective lens through
which plantation foodways and their implications can be examined. Although only a
limited set of fauna are analyzed in this project, the fish and the mollusks are actually the
most basic representation of necessity and availability vs. preference. Mammals and
birds could be imported from Europe and North America to the Caribbean to supply the
planters with familiar domesticates from England. Temperate fish and mollusks could not
be transported live; therefore, unfamiliar fish and mollusks had to be identified and
categorized as “good” or “bad,” and then incorporated (or not) into the transplanted
English diet. The English in Antigua had to work with what the tropics provided them,
despite their intense distrust of the local resources. Yet it is here, in this nebulous zone
of necessity vs. preference that the incorporation of local fish and mollusks into English
colonial foodways did occur despite shared phobias, and often in contradiction with
historical accounts.
This is a distinct gap in our understanding of daily life in the colonial Caribbean,
but it is easily guided by the existing research on plantation foodways that have
successfully utilized a historical zooarchaeological approach. These studies also use
historical biogeography and environmental archaeology to take into account the dramatic
environmental and ecological changes that occurred during the colonial period, as well
as to highlight how much was being exchanged across the Atlantic world to turn
zooarchaeological assemblages into local and nonlocal components. It takes all of these
components to disentangle and understand the material remains recovered from colonial
Caribbean sites.
28
2.5. Chapter Summary
This chapter has presented information pertaining to the role of fish and mollusks
in traditional English foodways from the medieval period through the nineteenth century.
This was achieved in order to elucidate potential motivations and decisions on the part of
the English planters pertaining to their foodway habits in the Caribbean. The types of fish
and mollusks reportedly present around Antigua and Barbuda were presented, which
briefly alluded to attitudes towards specific fish and their viability as appropriate to upper
class English fare. Finally, plantation foodways were addressed in the context of
historical zooarchaeological studies.
29
Chapter 3.
Methods
3.1. Introduction
For this project, archival and zooarchaeological research methods are utilized.
Comparisons between each methodology are important for revealing invisibilities in
either the historical records or the archaeological records. Crader (1990) demonstrated
this well for Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello Plantation by revealing discrepancies
between the zooarchaeological remains and the historical archives (Jefferson’s journal,
called the Farm Book). Due to the excellent historical archives in the form of the
Codrington Papers for Betty’s Hope, this plantation provides an excellent range of
evidence to engage in a similar analysis. This type of historical zooarchaeology has
garnered considerable success in the southeastern United States to interpret plantation
foodways and daily life, yet the methods and theories have been put to limited use in the
Caribbean. Betty’s Hope is the ideal situation with which to engage in this type of
research utilizing the methods and theories associated with these two types of data sets.
3.2. Field Methods
Excavation began at Betty’s Hope in 2007 by the California State University
(CSU) Chico field school, under the direction of Dr. Georgia Fox, and Dr. Reginald
Murphy, chair of the Betty’s Hope Project. Due to the presence of some still-standing
buildings and with the aid of the maps in the Codrington Papers, the Great House was
located and selected as the first place to begin excavations. By the end of the 2012 field
season two large contexts had emerged: the Great House (Figure 3.1) and the Service
30
Buildings (Figure 3.2), which were separated both by physical location as well as the
social class of the occupants of the buildings.
The Great House was the realm of the upper class. Betty’s Hope was the seat of
power when two successive Christopher Codringtons were the Governor General of the
Lesser Antilles. But after Christopher Codrington III retired from the position in 1704, the
Codringtons became absentee planters whereby they ran their Caribbean business from
their Dodington estate in Gloucestershire, England (Dyde 2000:51). This meant that the
Great House was inhabited by the attorneys who executed the Codringtons’ instructions
on their behalf. The Codringtons made occasional visits to the plantation, and
distinguished guests occasionally did as well (Cartensen 1993:4).
The Service Quarters was a context that changed significantly over time due to
remodeling and repurposing of this area of the site. As a result, the types of people
occupying this space would have varied depending on its use at a given point in time.
The first subcontext, Feature 1000 (Undocumented Outbuilding) has been interpreted as
the detached kitchen yard that was punctuated by periods of destruction and/or
modification (Godbout 2012:11-12). By contrast, Feature 1003 (Masonry Building) has
been interpreted as part of a cattle pasture, and part of a succession of use as a store
room, servants’ quarters, and bookkeeper’s house (Godbout 2012:16-17). Despite the
varied uses, the area as a whole would be collectively considered to be a middle class
context, where the workers and/or occupants are working for the benefit of the Great
House, but are still above the slave class.
Each of these contexts contained subcontexts that were focused on due to
concentrations of faunal remains, but were distinguished from each other architecturally.
For example, the Food Preparation Area subcontext, bounded by walls to the east and
west, a different floor feature to the south, and unexcavated earth to the north, was
examined due to high concentrations of recovered faunal remains. On the other side of
the western wall is the subcontext that has been tentatively named as the Laundry. This
area was examined due to the deposition of dozens of Crassostrea rhizophorae
(mangrove oyster) specimens.
31
Figure 3.1. Kite photograph of the Great House excavations, facing northnorthwest
Courtesy of Dr. Reg Murphy
32
F1000 F1003
6
5
1
8
7
2
3
4
3
Figure 3.2. Map of Betty’s Hope plantation demonstrating location of primary
buildings and location of Features 1000 and 1003 excavated in the
Service Buildings context. See Figure 1.5 for legend.
Courtesy of Cory Look.
3.2.1.
Great House
The Great House was the seat of power on the plantation and fell within the
realm of the upper class. Within this context, four distinct subcontexts were identified:
1) Food preparation area (Figures 3.3 and 3.4): This was a possible kitchen or
other intermediary food preparation context prior to delivery for consumption to the
dining room. If it turns out to be a confirmed kitchen area, it must be a later period
kitchen because seventeenth- and eighteenth-century kitchens tended to be placed
away from the main house to reduce risk of fire spreading, and to reduce heat. This area
was extremely dense with various faunal remains deposited throughout.
33
Figure 3.3. Food preparation area attached to Great House
34
Figure 3.4. Currently unidentified large iron artifact in the food preparation
subcontext. Scarus spp. vertebrae (not shown here) located across
the diameter of the concentric circles.
2) Wall deposit (Figure 3.5): The second level of Unit 38 has a high density of
faunal remains and other refuse in a gap in the wall separating two rooms in the Great
House. It had either been dumped as a single event or accumulated during a short time
period prior to the rest of the wall being constructed. None of the other excavated walls
on the interior or exterior of the Great House have this type of deposit and to this extent;
walls may contain some faunal remains but not in the vast quantity found in this case.
This suggests that this degree of deposition was not part of typical construction
methods.
35
Figure 3.5. Subcontext where faunal specimens were likely deposited during
construction of this wall
3) Laundry (Figure 3.6): The current interpretation for this area is that it is a
possible laundry or other washing room, even potentially related to the Food Preparation
Area. For the sake of simplicity, this subcontext will be called the Laundry in this thesis.
Although it was adjacent to the food preparation area, preserved faunal specimens were
not as dense. However, there did appear to be another possible single or short-term
depositional event consisting primarily Crassostrea rhizophorae, as well as other small
fauna and fragments of glass and ceramics. This unusual and large deposit of a single
mollusk taxon is of particular interest.
36
Figure 3.6. Laundry unit west of the adjacent food preparation subcontext. The
Crassostrea rhizophorae deposit was located in the corner on the
quarter-circle ledge.
4) Great House (Miscellaneous): This is a broad categorization that is essentially
a catchall for any units that fell within the walls of the structure but did not stand out in a
more significant way in terms of preserved faunal remains.
The majority of the units excavated in the Great House contexts were 2x2m
squares and divided into quadrants for each level. Levels were determined based on
natural stratigraphy, and soils were color-coded using Munsell charts. Excavations
utilized trowels, brushes, and rock hammers as needed with 1/8-inch (3 mm) dry screens
for artifact recovery.
An additional 10 L sample from the food preparation subcontext was screened
through a fine (1/16-inch or ½ mm) screen to determine if small-scale faunal specimens,
particularly very small fish specimens could be recovered that might be missed in the 3
37
mm screen (Quitmyer 2003:134-137). Although some tiny fragments of bone and shell
were recovered in addition to many more eggshell fragments, these were either
unidentifiable beyond Class or included heavily fragmented remains of taxa that were
already identified in the assemblage. As excavations continue in upcoming seasons,
additional fine screen samples will be taken in order to determine if this pattern holds for
different contexts, but at this point, it appears that 3 mm screens have been sufficient for
the recovery of fish and mollusk remains.
When the project first began, not all artifacts were retained from the excavation
due to issues of storage space and long-term curation. A discard policy was established
at the outset that all students followed, and while bone was always retained (except if a
surface find), shell was not. According to the discard policy, “Unassociated shell,
particularly in a surface context, is not retained; a representative sample of shell thought
to be associated with features will be kept” (Fox 2013:42). However, when I began
excavating in 2011 with an eye towards foodways and zooarchaeological specimens, I
suggested that all shell be retained except for the two prolific species of land snails
(Subulina octona and Bulimulis guadalupensis), which could continue to be collected as
representative samples. Although it is likely that many of those specimens are invasive,
they still can serve a purpose as indicator species for micro-environmental changes over
time (Bar-Yosef Mayer 2002:1). Fortunately, the artifact catalogues for the years 20072010 seem to indicate that minimal shell was recovered and discarded to begin with, so
it seems unlikely that this had a large impact on the mollusk assemblage.
3.2.2.
Service Buildings
The units comprising the second broad context are located in the dense
vegetational overgrowth just north of the Great House (see Figure 3.2). These
excavations were comprised of test units that sought to determine the archaeological
potential for the kitchen yard and middle class service buildings associated with the
Great House according to the 1750 and 1830 maps (Godbout and Davis 2011:2). The
excavations were conducted by MA candidate Catherine Davis (CSU Chico) and PhD
candidate Geneviève Godbout (University of Chicago) for their respective thesis
projects. Excavations of these units were conducted using a variety of tools, including
38
trowels, shovels, mattocks, and rock hammers as required. Layers were usually
determined by natural soil stratigraphy, except for occasional integration of 10 cm
arbitrary levels if they were particularly thick and/or heterogeneous. All units were
screened with a 3 mm mesh (Godbout 2012:4), and all faunal specimens were retained
for identification and analysis. The subcontexts identified in the course of their
excavations are described below.
3.2.2.1. 2011: Test Units
Eleven 50x50cm test units were excavated by natural stratigraphy to identify
changes in levels. Nine of these units were staggered along a 10m grid to systematically
sample the area, while the last two were situated near Feature D/1003, a partially
standing building (Godbout and Davis 2011:2) (Figure 3.7). Faunal remains were
minimal from these units, and fish and mollusk remains were only present in four of the
11 units. Three features associated with fauna were identified:
a) Feature A/1000: STU19, STU20
b) Feature D/1003 and E/1004: STU25
c) Discard Layers: STU26
These features were combined with the features listed in the following section,
which were renamed the following season after excavation clarified the features (see
next section for Table 3.1).
39
Figure 3.7. Map of Betty’s Hope, with the colored section demonstrating where the
2011 surveys were undertaken.
Map
of Betty’s
Plantation archaeological
site
Courtesy
of Cory
LookHope
and Genevieve
Godbout.
–
3.2.2.2. 2012: Kitchen Yard and Service Buildings Excavation
Five units were excavated in the kitchen yard and service buildings (from here
onward referred to collectively as the Service Buildings) using natural levels to identify
changes in levels. Faunal remains were recovered from all of the units, which were
associated with two of the features mentioned in the previous section (Table 3.1):
a) Undocumented outbuilding (Feature 1000): STU100, STU103, STU104
b) Masonry Building (Feature 1003): STU101, STU102.
Temporary 2011 Designation
Description
Permanent 2012 Designation
Feature A
Mound
Feature 1000
Feature B
Modern trash pile
Feature 1001
Feature C
Disarticulated masonry structure
Feature 1002
40
Feature D
Partially standing building
Feature 1003
Feature E
Retaining wall
Feature 1004
Figure 3.8. Addendum of features identified in 2011 and then renamed in 2012.
Modified from Davis and Godbout (2011:23).
The material culture surrounding the Undocumented Outbuilding has been
interpreted as the result of successive episodes of construction and demolition. There
are currently two identified phases of occupation, and the material culture seems to
indicate that both administrative and domestic activities occurred here (Godbout
2012:17).
The Masonry Building has been interpreted as a succession of several types of
occupation, based on the material culture recovered from this feature. It is suggested
that this building operated as a storeroom, servants’ quarters, and bookkeeper’s house;
this is reinforced by references in the Codrington Papers (Godbout 2012:17-18).
3.3. Archival Methods
The historical archives for Betty’s Hope are contained within the Codrington
Family West Indies Correspondence (“Codrington Papers”).
These archives were originally acquired as a set of 15 microfilm reels that had
been made in the early 1970s in the Gloucester Records Office. With financial support
from the Simon Fraser University Library Digitization Fund and with permission from the
government of Antigua and Barbuda via Dr. Reginald Murphy, the microfilms of the
Codrington Papers were converted into Portable Document Format (PDF) and are now
available through open access in the SFU library digital collection. See Appendix A for
more details regarding the background information, digitization process, citations, and a
web link.
The Codrington Papers were scrutinized for any mention of specific types of fish
and mollusks, tools for acquiring them, and any commentary pertaining to fish and
mollusks. These references may be in the form of presence in a list of goods, such as
orders for barrels of salted fish, or references to the activity of fishing. Even though the
41
archaeological focus of this research is on the Betty’s Hope plantation, the Codrington
Papers address all facets of the family’s holdings in Antigua, the lease of Barbuda, and
their related business ventures in England. Therefore, the lists of resources may be
referring to any of the other plantations, including Betty’s Hope, Clare Hall, Jennings,
Bolen, Garden, Cotton, Cotton New Work, and Cotton Old Work. As a result, the archival
analysis takes into account both the information specifically relating to Betty’s Hope and
Barbuda’s resource production, as well as the overall patterns demonstrated by the
Codrington family’s management of their various Caribbean properties and business.
In order to appropriately analyze the archives, the types of references to fish and
mollusks were tallied. This information includes: Item (e.g., “salt fish,” “herring,” “casting
net”), Quantity (e.g., numbers of barrels, weight), Month and Year (e.g., of the order,
invoice, or letter excerpt), [Sent] From (e.g., England, Barbuda, etc.), [Sent] To (e.g.,
Betty’s Hope, Cotton Works, etc.), and Excerpt (if qualitative only). This information was
then analyzed for patterns at Betty’s Hope specifically, and for patterns of the Codrington
family’s management overall.
3.4. Zooarchaeological Laboratory Methods
All archaeological materials recovered from excavations in Antigua are stored in
the Field Research Center on the island. There, the fish and mollusk remains from the
2008-2012 Betty’s Hope excavation seasons were separated from the rest of the faunal
remains. The fish and mollusks were then identified at the Florida Museum of Natural
History (FLMNH) in Gainesville, Florida, which contains the most extensive comparative
collection for Caribbean fish and mollusks in the world.
All specimens excavated from Betty’s Hope from 2008 through 2012 were
identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible, dependent on the elements present in
each sample, their overall preservation, and particular breakage patterns. Primary data
were obtained by recording the number of identifiable specimens (NISP), weight (g), and
cultural or natural taphonomic processes if evident. Primary data were recorded in
Microsoft Excel and include: Year, Bag Number, Unit, Level, Quadrant (if required),
Screen Size, Taxon, Element, Portion, Side, NISP, Weight (g), Measurements (if
42
complete element), Modifications (e.g. burning, butchery), and Comments. Later,
columns for Common Name and taxonomic order were added.
NISP and weight were used as the main form of quantification because they are
two types of primary data that are complementary to each other. Although NISP is
intended to be a basic count of the specimens present in an assemblage, it is still
criticized for having a number of problems. Lyman (2008) provides an extensive and
detailed account and analysis of the arguments for and against NISP over the past
several decades, but I will only highlight the most pertinent arguments here.
Many of the arguments against NISP can be resolved analytically or via other
methods of quantification. For example, the argument that NISP does not accurately
measure diet due to differential meat contributions by different animals is invalid
because it is not intended to do that. Secondary types of data such as biomass will
account for such differences. However, one of the main issues with NISP that should be
taken seriously is that fragmentation can drastically inflate the numbers and therefore
affect relative abundance. One common way to counteract this is to use MNI as a means
of accounting for interdependence; that is, that multiple elements could belong to the
same individual. MNI was not used for this project for several reasons, which will be
discussed shortly. Alternatively, basic weight can be used in the same fashion in order to
use primary data rather than secondary.
Using weight to counteract NISP inflation is particularly important for
understanding shell weight. Fish bones generally do not vary in size, weight, and density
as much as other taxa, although parrotfish premaxillae, dentaries, and pharyngeal
grinders are a notable exception in this particular assemblage. Shell weight, on the other
hand, can vary dramatically because some shells are particularly large and thick while
others are particularly thin and fragile. This is demonstrated well in the mollusk
assemblages for Betty’s Hope. For example, the queen conch (Lobatus gigas) is the
largest mollusk in the Caribbean; it commonly reaches 30 centimeters in length and is
very robust. Even a few small fragments can contribute a significant amount of weight
compared to other mollusk taxa. In contrast, the Atlantic pearl oyster (Pinctada
imbricata) has a particularly thin shell that fragments easily. It may contribute a large
43
number in terms of NISP, but its overall weight contribution will be very low. By using
weight to complement the NISP values, a better representation of relative contribution of
taxa can be considered.
Secondary data, specifically biomass and Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI)
were not calculated and reasons for not doing so will be discussed below.
3.4.1.
Biomass
Biomass was not calculated simply due to the lack of available elements in the
assemblages. For fish, biomass is best calculated by measuring the diameter of the
anterior face of the atlas (Casteel 1972:83-84). Other vertebrae are too inconsistent in
size for accurate measurements of biomass, and other elements in the fish are similarly
unsuitable as alternatives due to lack of available data. In the Betty’s Hope assemblage,
only four atlas vertebrae were recovered, making any calculations of biomass
statistically insignificant. Additionally, two of the atlases had butchery marks that
removed one of the condylar facets and the lateral aspect of the anterior face, thus
excluding them from the potential calculation pool.
3.4.2.
MNI (Minimum Number of Individuals)
The issue of MNI (Minimum Number of Individuals) has been debated since the
1970s (for example, Binford 1981; Bobrowsky 1982; Bököniy 1970; Casteel and
Grayson 1977; Grayson 1973, 1978, 1979, 1984; Plug and Plug 1990; see Lyman 2008
and Reitz and Wing 2008 for the most up-to-date, comprehensive discussions). Although
the debate appears to have waned significantly since then, a singular, definitive answer
has not yet been reached. For this project inclusion of MNI did not appear to be either
necessary or helpful, in large part simply due to the nature of this assemblage, which is
entirely comprised of fish and mollusks. I explain this further, below.
The calculation of MNI requires the combination of basic element and taxonomic
identification with assessments of age, sex, size, archaeological context, and the
numbers of that element found in the skeleton (Reitz and Wing 2008:206). Although this
definition appears to be straightforward, methods of calculating MNI can and do vary
44
depending on the decisions of the individual researcher. For example, Lyman (1994:100)
points out: “[MNI] it is a derived unit because it may or may not take inter-specimen
variation such as age, sex or size into account” (emphasis added). Clearly, there are
potential issues with MNI from the very moment of deciding to calculate it, particularly in
regards to replicability and comparability. However, while it does have its merits in
certain types of assemblages and research questions, MNI is neither useful nor
appropriate for this research for three key reasons: 1) the nature of the assemblage itself
(i.e., including fish and mollusks); 2) the issue of aggregation in archaeological
assemblages; and 3) the intention of this particular research.
1) Nature of the assemblage. Due to the scale of the research project, only the
fish and mollusks were examined from the Betty’s Hope assemblage. Fish and mollusks
differ considerably in their anatomy from higher vertebrates, particularly mammals.
Osteology of the higher vertebrates (i.e., mammals, birds, etc.) tends to be the standard
by which all MNI calculations are derived, the evidence of which is in the definitions of
MNI themselves, which require the analyst to take into account age, sex, and size during
MNI calculation (Reitz and Wing 2008:206). However, fish and mollusks do not grow and
age in the same ways that higher vertebrates do, and so estimates of size, age, and sex
are particularly unhelpful. Although age and growth can be assessed, the methods are
extremely time consuming and not necessary for this particular project. Sexing fish and
mollusks is almost never possible given the frequently hermaphroditic nature of many
species, either as a permanent state or temporary phase. Some species such as salmon
may undergo some skeletal changes during spawning, but in the vast majority of cases
this would be impossible and unhelpful.
2) Aggregation. Grayson (1984), Lyman (2008), and Reitz and Wing (2008) have
discussed the issue of aggregation at great length, concluding that MNI frequently
provides a poor demonstration of taxonomic frequency in a given assemblage.
Depending on whether MNI is calculated per level, per unit, or for the entire site, the
numbers will vary significantly to the point of providing data that cannot be accurately
compared to other assemblages. Therefore, the calculated frequency of the taxa present
may actually be a result of the analytical choices made by the researcher towards a
specific research goal, rather than a true representation of the assemblage. Even the
45
most recent proponent of MNI at time of writing, Dominquez-Rodrigo (2012:51), admits
that “if the two aggregates are from the same site and/or level (e.g., different trenches),
then aggregation obviously is a biasing factor in the estimation of MNI.” A calculation
that changes with every decision is not a reliable, replicable, or comparable form of
measurement, especially when compounded with the issues discussed above.
3) Intentions of Research. As stated in Chapter 1, the overall intention of this
research is to provide a foundation for additional plantation zooarchaeology research in
the Caribbean region so that future research may progress into new venues of
discussion such as those in the southeastern United States. Primary data in the form of
NISP and weight are the most comparable forms of data, whereas aggregation decisions
for MNI calculations are often not comparable due to subjective and incomparable MNI
determinations.
MNI can contribute to zooarchaeological quantifications when the assemblage
and research questions are ideal for its incorporation in the research methodology.
However, due to the variables outlined above, the zooarchaeological quantification
methods utilized in this research project are restricted to NISP and weight.
3.5. Chapter Summary
This chapter demonstrated and discussed the various methods used in
excavation, the contexts and subcontexts identified at Betty’s Hope, collection of the
archival and zooarchaeological data, identification methods, recording practices, and a
discussion on zooarchaeological quantifications. The research objectives will be
interpreted based on the analysis of the archival and zooarchaeological data presented
in the upcoming chapters.
46
Chapter 4.
Archival Research Results
4.1. Introduction
In order to attain a fuller understanding of the extent to which fish and mollusks
appear in the Codrington Papers, all entries that make reference to any types of fish,
mollusks, acquisition tools, and acts of fishing were first recorded in the notes taken on
paper for the archives as a whole. These instances were then entered into an Excel
spreadsheet to be quantified. This was accomplished by recording each instance of a
reference, for example, if a single invoice contained references to three hogsheads13 of
saltfish, six barrels of alewives, and then another four barrels of alewives, a total of three
entries would be recorded for that invoice so that it could ultimately be calculated that
the invoice contributed 10 barrels of alewives and three hogsheads of saltfish. For
references that were excerpts from letters, these were simply recorded in the same
manner, but were used as sources of information rather than included in quantifications.
The results of this process will first address the mollusks, then fish by taxon,
followed by a presentation of the variety of tools, and finally miscellaneous references
and informative excerpts. All references to fish fall between the years 1714-1861,
although the full range of the Codrington Papers relating to the West Indian estates
spans the years 1700-1899.
13
A hogshead is equal to 52½ Imperial gallons in Britain, but different liquids varied in value. It
may also have referred to a large cask or barrel, but this is less exact. Differences also exist
between American and British measures (Jones 1963:67-68).
47
4.2. Mollusks
Mollusks are nearly absent in the archives. Of a total of four references to shells
(none were to mollusk meat consumption, processing, or acquisition) two were requests
for “a bag of shells” (once in 1715 and once in 1720), and one was a request in 1741 for
“a box of shells.” In addition to not knowing which shells were sent and for what purpose,
the vague “bag” and “box” containers do not even hint at a potential quantity based on
the size of the order. However, this does demonstrate that it is the shells that were
desirable, not the mollusk meat itself as a food source. What this suggests is that the
shellfish of Antigua and Barbuda were more coveted for their shells as decorations and
curiosities than as food. Local mollusks must have been consumed on both Antigua and
Barbuda, but they were not discussed in the same manner as other foods were.
This notion of curiosities is reinforced by a telling passage from between 17891791 (actual year of the letter is difficult to determine), which was from a list of goods
that Christopher Bethell Codrington requested to be sent to Bristol: “No 9 a Box of
Mangrove Oysters with pieces of the Mangrove tree they grow on, this and No. 2 [‘a Box
of Stone Specimens as p list inclosed’] are curiosities” (Figure 4.1).14 In this case, it is
clearly stated that the shells are requested as a curiosity, and this is several decades
after the original requests mentioned above indicating that the desire for shell specimens
continued over time.
14
Letter from Jarritt at Betty’s Hope to Christopher Bethell Codrington, 1 May 1830, in
“Correspondence of Christopher Bethell Codrington with R. Jarritt,” page 33 of 65.
48
Figure 4.1. Reference to mangrove oysters.
Codrington Papers Excerpt; see footnote 14
Although not as directly explained as in the passage above, another letter
excerpt demonstrates a similar notion of shell as a curio. This time, it is William
Codrington placing the request in 1720, and even though ink smudging coupled with
archaic spelling made parts of the passage difficult to interpret, the mollusk reference
remains clear: “…& I pray send me a small bag of Negro and bird pepper and some
_ayd(?) Cowish & some Conkshells…” (Figure 4.2).15 The queen conch (Lobatus gigas)
is perhaps the most quintessentially Caribbean mollusk that simultaneously symbolizes
the tropics and exotic travels; even today, it is exceptionally large at 15-30 centimeters
(Abbott 1974:144) and instantly recognizable. Still, more people would know what the
shell looked like versus how the meat of the conch tastes.
Figure 4.2. Reference to “Conkshells.”
Codrington Papers Excerpt; see footnote 15.
15
Letter from William Codrington to brother, 19 December 1720, in “Codrington Family West
Indies Correspondence,” page 59 of 324. “Negro pepper” likely refers to black pepper; “_ayd”
may be “dayd” or “layd,” the former of which may suggest “dead”?; “Cowish” may refer to
cowrie shell, but this is purely hypothetical; “Conkshells” refers to the queen conch.
49
Crassostrea rhizophorae and the Lobatus gigas are the only two mollusks
specifically mentioned in the Codrington Papers, and all five references to mollusks refer
to the shells rather than the organism. Even though the meat of local Caribbean
mollusks would have been consumed in Antigua and Barbuda, it appears that the
mollusks were not sent back as food to be incorporated into foodways, but were only
desired in England as decoration and/or curiosities.
4.3. Fish
4.3.1.
Clupeidae (herring, shad, sardine)
The clupeids remain one of the most important families of fishes used today in
commercial fisheries. They include mainly coastal marine fish that live in schools, and
can range in length from 2-75 cm (Froese and Pauly 2014; Smith 1997:331-332). There
are several common names within this family that are used in the Codrington Papers,
which include slight variations possibly influenced by archaic spellings and/or individual
spelling patterns. These fish are:
Alewives: Also recorded twice as “alewife fish,” and only in these instances are
the fish in “bundles.” The rest of the 151 instances recorded from lists were for barreled
alewives that totaled 633 barrels ordered. The two bundles of “alewife fish” are
drastically different; although ordered in the same quantity during the same month and
year, they cost £1.5.0 and £4.45.0. Although no additional weight measurements were
provided, this cost discrepancy potentially suggests that the bundles were of different
sizes.
Herrings: There are no variations in spelling for this fish, but there are
occasionally additional descriptors attached with the lists of imported herrings, including
“best pickled,” “English,” “spoiled,” and “white.” There were 177 recorded instances from
lists that totaled 1700 barrels ordered, plus an additional 11 references in letter excerpts.
All herring was contained in barrels except for 20 bundles recorded when “best pickled”
were ordered, and there were 21 barrels of “English herrings” specifically recorded.
Twenty barrels of herrings were returned due to being “spoiled,” “proving bad,” and thus
50
“not fit for use.”16 In terms of Betty’s Hope plantation specifically, 194 of those 1700
barrels were specifically for Betty’s Hope, but 616 barrels were listed for “Antigua
Estates,” and six more for “Windward Estates,” both of which denote all of the estates
belonging to the Codrington family.
Pilchards: This has the most variation in spelling, and also includes “pilcards” and
“pilchers.” There were 26 entries for orders, totaling 120 barrels between 1760 and
1814, but most were ordered between 1812-1814.
Shads: There is only one additional description associated with shads, and it is
one order in 1764 that specifically states that the order of shads was “for the negroes.”
This qualifier suggests that the imported fish was shared amongst the various classes on
the plantations, likely with distinctions in terms of quality and/or type of fish. There were
345 barrels ordered over 54 entries between 1760-1828.
4.3.2.
Gadidae (cod, haddock)
Codfish: In the Codrington Papers, there is only one name variation for this
family, which is the “ling fish.” According to Froese and Pauly (2014), there are 11 taxa
that contain “ling” as the common name, classified as either Gadidae (family) or
Gadiformes (order). However, the modern fish with the common name lingcod is actually
in the order Scorpaeniformes. All are edible and commercially used. This order for ling
fish was also different from the rest of the orders in that it simply noted “33” for the
amount and lacked “lbs” or “wt” afterwards, suggesting that only 33 individual ling fish
were being ordered. However, it could also be inferred that the amount as a weight
would be obvious, or it could have been omission by human error. Between 1793-1861 a
total of 34,652 lbs (15,718 kg) of codfish were ordered and imported for the Codrington
estates.
Interestingly, codfish are never reported as “barreled” as are the clupeids and
other fishes. They are recorded in basic weight (lbs), boxes, casks, drums and
16
Accounts: Captain Mills, August 1792, in “Ledger 1792-1796; West Indian Accounts of the
Estates of Christopher Codrington,” pages 10, 14 of 69.
51
hogsheads. Sometimes both a container and a weight are listed, for example, “1 hhd
codfish 896lbs.”17 These weights clearly demonstrate that there were ranges in weights
even within a single size, such as the hogshead. It is also likely that a few taxa of
Gadidae could be used and labeled as “codfish,” rather than a single specific type.
The importance of codfish in England, coupled with the prevalence of salt codfish
in what is now considered traditional Caribbean food from old slave recipes, suggests
that codfish was important to both upper and lower classes. Codfish also appears to
have been used as an incentive for good behavior. In 1715, William Codrington
instructed his managers: “…& [ensure] that Beck & Florah they have each of them one
barrell of beef & 200wt of good sound Cod fish.”18 This suggests that there was a
sociocultural importance to codfish specifically, over other rations and meats that made it
a special reward for higher status slaves at the plantations.
4.3.3.
Salmonidae (salmon, trout)
Salmon: There are only two references to salmon in the Codrington Papers. The
first was an order for 5 kegs of salmon in 1799 in Barbuda. The second reference was
50 tierces of pickled salmon recovered from a wreck off the coast of Barbuda in 1828:
“…an American vessel had got __ in Barbuda on the night of the 27 July,
she was laden with flower [flour] salmon and staves, her __ saved about
two hundred and fifty barrels flower fifty tierces of pickled salmon, and a
few staves with the sails and rigging....”19
This demonstrates that salmon was rarely imported, evidence for which could
potentially be found on Barbuda.
17
Clare Hall for Provisions Purchased, 18 August 1832, in “Accounts of Clare Hall Estate,
Antigua 1832,” page 5 of 8. “Hhd” is the abbreviation for “hogshead.”
18
To William Byam, Joseph Jones, and John Lightfoot from William Codrington, 1715 (on or
before 27 June), in “Codrington Family West Indies Correspondence,” page 17 of 324.
19
To Christopher Bethell Codrington from John Winter in Antigua, 5 August 1831, in “Letters to
Christopher Bethell Codrington and Christopher William Codrington from John Winter,” page 4
of 28.
52
4.3.4.
“Scale fish”
“Scale fish” is a common name no longer in use, and so it is difficult to say with
certainty which taxon is indicated. However, I believe it is likely that the fish in question is
sturgeon (Acipenseridae) because of the large, scaly plates covering its body (scutes). It
is a large-bodied taxon restricted to temperate and cold waters in the Atlantic (Froese
and Pauly 2014) as well as on the coast of the southeast US, and has been an important
commercial fish for both meat and roe (Smith 1997:299).
In the Codrington papers, there were orders for either casks of scale fish (totaling
2700 lbs/1225 kg in 1828 but just 1000 lbs/454 kg in 1830) or simply weight
measurements (totaling 6350 lbs/2676 kg between 1826-1831). Because of the unusual
nature of the measurements, this suggests that the fish is similar to imported codfish in
terms of quality and/or desirability, which is consistent with the status of the sturgeon
over other lower quality fishes.
4.3.5.
Scombridae (mackerel, tuna)
Mackerel: There are several species of mackerel, and it is likely that more than
one taxon was imported to the Antiguan estates. Between 1741-1830 there were 31
entries for mackerel orders totaling 97 barrels. In one particularly telling order, the
mackerel was noted as being “for the sloop,”20 which refers to the Codrington family’s
sloop that they used to bring goods back and forth from Antigua and Barbuda to Africa
and England.
4.3.6.
Serranidae (sea bass, grouper)
Sea bass: It is likely that more than one type of sea bass was utilized as an
imported food resource. However, there are only two barrels requested for the Antiguan
estates, both in 1764.
20
Sampson Account with Estate of William Codrington, December 1741, in “Accounts of
Benjamin King, Attorney 1741-1751,” page 5 of 40.
53
4.3.7.
“Fish”
The category of “fish,” despite the additional descriptors sometimes added to it, is
still very uninformative in terms of determining which species were being consumed at
Betty’s Hope and the other estates.
“Corned fish”: There are only three entries for this type of fish, totaling just three
barrels ordered for estates. They were all purchased in 1782. Despite using the term
“corned” over “salt[ed],” corning is still a way of preserving fish with a combination of
salting and drying.
“Fish”: There was a wide variety of ways in which “fish” were stored. They were
contained in tierces,21 barrels,22 boxes (no standardized measurement; Jones 1963:36),
hogsheads, quintals,23 and basic weights in pounds or hundredweight. Fifty-two
hogsheads were reportedly “from St. John’s,”24 which suggests two interesting
scenarios: either the fish came from Antiguan and/or Barbudan waters, and sold locally
(salted or fresh), or the fish were imported from St. John’s, Newfoundland to be sold
locally as needed (Ryan 1986). A less likely but still possible option is that there was
also a Danish island with the same namesake. There were also some orders for “pickled
fish” totaling 51 barrels between 1762-1832, but mostly occurring between 1830-1832.
“Salt fish,” the term most quintessential to Caribbean cuisine, totaled 117,101 lbs
(53,116 kg) from 1742 to 1860. An additional 8,806 lbs (3,994 kg) were ordered in 14
hogsheads between 1744-1764.
Interestingly, there are patterns in the container and their contents. When codfish
is ordered, it is never in a barrel; instead, it may be in a box, cask, drum, hogshead, or
simply noted by a weight. Conversely, herrings, mackerel, pickled fish, shads, and
pilchards (which are all in the Clupeidae family) are contained in barrels. This could aid
21
One tierce is approximately 36 Imperial gallons (Jones 1963:113).
One barrel ranges considerably in volume capacity and weight. It is typically between 31-42
Imperial gallons, with 42 Imperial gallons being the British standard (Jones 1963:31-32).
23
One quintal was approximately a hundredweight (Jones 1963:99).
24
For Sundry Freights Brought by His Shallop, March 1744, in “Accounts of Benjamin King,
Attorney 1740-1745, pages 17, 22, 24 of 81.
22
54
in interpreting the instances where simply “fish” is used as a descriptive term; if it is a
cask of fish or hogshead of fish, it is highly unlikely that is contained any Clupeidae.
Although certainly not a hard and fast rule, it does provide some instances of speculation
where the container, weight, and other potential pieces of information can be combined
to fill in the blanks for what could have been in those containers, even if it cannot be
definitively determined.
4.4. Tools
The actual breakdown by specific taxon revealed little in terms of local fish
procurement, and as such, the next aspect to examine is the presence of the tools of
acquisition required in order to capture fish. These included nets, lines, hooks, pots,
rods, and lines that permitted catching a range of fish types based on feeding habits and
aquatic habitats.
4.4.1.
Casting Net
One entry in 1718 referred to a “casting net for fish”25 going to Antigua. Clearly
this implies that certain fish were being caught by nets, which suggests that they were
not particularly large and/or aggressive. For example, fish that are solitary predators are
usually caught by a baited line and fishing rod rather than by a net, such as serranids
(sea basses and groupers), lutjanids (snappers), and scombrids (tunas) (Newsom and
Wing 2004:208). There are a variety of different types of nets that can be used, such as
seine nets that encircle fish to trap them, while other nets like reef nets are used for
scooping (Flick 2012:15). It is likely that most nets would be ineffective in reef
ecosystems due to issues of tangling on the reef’s numerous corals (Wing 2001:515;
Wing and Wing 1995:140-141), thus the aptly-named reef net would be more effective.
Like other nets, casting nets are used for fish that are not predatory, but this would have
to be used in a location where tangling is not an issue. As a result, fish traps are more
commonly used to procure fish from the reefs.
25
Invoice of Sundry goods, November 1718, in “Codrington Family West Indies
Correspondence,” page 85 of 324.
55
4.4.2.
Deep Sea Lines
There are a few entries for deep sea lines. The basic references are listed
between 1744-1806, including an order for a “double deep sea line” in 1793. A request in
1829 asked for “deep sea lead and lines,” but this was the only instance of such a
combination. Lastly, there were three requests in 1782 for deep sea lines “for lining for
ground” or “for lining of land.” Although it is possible that these lines for the ground/land
could be an archaic way of referring to the landlines required for reeling in the casting
nets mentioned above, the lining of the ground could also simply be a secondary,
unrelated use.
4.4.3.
Fish Hooks
There were only four entries referring to fish hooks. Three of these also included
an order for tow lines between 1827-1831. The other entry was from 1743 and
requested “fish hooks and wires for the sloop.”26 This specification “for the sloop”
coupled with the orders for tow lines suggests that these fish hooks would be used on
board a vessel rather than on the shore. This also means that the sailors on the sloop
would be able to (and/or be expected to) procure fresh fish during the voyage.
4.4.4.
Fish Pots
Fish pot is another term for fish trap. There were a total of four references to fish
pots totaling 31 items ordered. They were ordered in 1762, then again between 18271833. All of the recorded instances were for the island of Barbuda rather than Antigua,
which is consistent with the accounts that Barbuda was used for resource production
while the slaves on Antigua focused specifically on the sugar plantation work. Fish pots
are usually used for lobsters, crabs, and whelk, but may also be used to catch fish if they
are of the right size to get into but not escape the trap through the gaps in the netting
(Newsom and Wing 2004:209, Wing and Wing 1995:140-141).
26
King Account in Books with Estate of William Codrington, November 1743, in “Accounts of
Benjamin King, Attorney 1741-1751, page 26 of 40.
56
4.4.5.
Fishing Line
There are just two records of fishing lines. The first is a request for two small
fishing lines “for the sloop”27 in 1744. This parallels the requests for hooks and wires on
sloops, suggesting that fishing was occurring during travel rather than for consumption
on Antigua and/or Barbuda. The second record was for fishing line “for a chalk line”28 in
1747. Although the chalk line use is unclear, it does suggest that the fishing line, like the
deep sea line, may not have been used for its original intended purpose.
4.4.6.
Fishing Rod
There is only one entry for a fishing rod,29 which dates to around 1715. This is
from an invoice of sundry goods going to Antigua from Bristol, which suggests that
fishing could possibly have been done around Antigua, but the early and singular
occurrence of this could indicate that it was a rare or experimental item. However, a
number of the fish recovered from Betty’s Hope, such as the families Carangidae (jacks),
Serranidae (sea basses and groupers), and Sphyraenidae (barracudas) are solitary
predators largely caught by baited lines and rods. Although these taxa can be caught by
traps or nets when young, deliberate acquisition would be via fishing rods and lines,
potentially in part for the sport of it prior to consumption.
4.5. Miscellaneous References
The following are references for fish in some capacity, but do not fall under the
categories already mentioned.
27
King Account in Books with Estate of William Codrington, November 1743, in “Accounts of
Benjamin King, Attorney 1741-1751, page 27 of 40.
28
Reed Account with Estate of William Codrington, December 1741, in “Accounts of Benjamin
King, Attorney 1741-1751, page 10 of 40.
29
Invoice of Sundry Goods, 1715?, in “Codrington Family West Indies Correspondence,” page 16
of 324.
57
4.5.1.
Fish Kettles
This item is used for cooking fish, generally by poaching. There are a few
instances where additional descriptors of “large” and “tin” were added; it is unknown if
this meant that the usual metal was not tin, and the usual size was not large. However,
these were ordered between 1769 through 1798, and then again in 1827. This kitchen
item suggests that fish were being caught fresh locally and prepared accordingly. It is
also likely that this was a tool used in the Great House kitchen, since slaves had to rely
on coarse earthenware vessels (currently collectively called Afro-Antiguanware until a
more detailed typology is created). This would be an interesting aspect to consider,
because it demonstrates the use of local resources within the Great House.
4.5.2.
Fishermen
There are only two references to fishermen, both from March 1860 in Barbuda
that simply indicates a payment for 10 and then 16 more fishermen (Figure 4.3).30 It is a
particularly vague entry, but it constitutes another association with Barbuda and fishing.
On pre-Emancipation Barbuda (prior to August 1834), slaves were engaged in fishing.
However, post-Emancipation laborers would require payment, but this begs the question
of whether these fishermen were part of the white or black community, and why only in
this particular instance is there a record of payment? It is an interesting anomalous
account, but leads to more questions than answers.
30
Fish, March 1860, in “Summary Memoranda of Sales from Barbuda and Expenses on Wages
1855-1858, and Quarterly Accounts 1860-1861,” page 18 of 82.
58
Figure 4.3. Reference to Fishermen and Sold Fish.
Codrington Papers Excerpt; see footnote 30.
4.5.3.
Sold Fish
In addition to the reference to the fishermen above in 1860, there are two entries
from the Barbuda accounts in March 1860 noting “sold fish” (Figure 4.3).31 In conjunction
with the fishermen above, it suggests that the fishermen were paid for the service of
catching fish, and the fish were then sold from Barbuda for profit. However, it is difficult
to understand what was special about these fishermen and the fish sold that would merit
a specific entry that had not been used before, and was not used again.
4.5.4.
House Expenses
Three entries between 1751-1752 were recorded as a house expense for fresh
fish and meat at the table. The charges were made to William Codrington by Samuel
Redhead, and the costs were substantial: £75.16.1, £50.12.0, and £62.19.1½.
31
Fish, March 1860, in “Summary Memoranda of Sales from Barbuda and Expenses on Wages
1855-1858, and Quarterly Accounts 1860-1861,” page 18 of 82.
59
4.5.5.
Hogsheads for Fish
In 1740 there was a single request for seven empty hogsheads specifically “to
put fish in.”32 Although only one entry is recorded, it suggests that the fish would be
caught and salted locally to distribute as needed. It is unlikely that hogsheads would be
used to re-distribute already imported quantities of saltfish.
4.5.6.
Fish Sauce
There is a single entry for fish sauce in 1827 on Barbuda.33 It was a surprising
entry since fish sauce would likely have been made from scratch, and not all types of
fish would create the same type of sauce flavor. However, it is possible that this fish
sauce actually refers to the pickle in fish barrels as described by the Antiguan slave
Mary Prince: “…[the slaves] that have yams or potatoes, or fire-wood to sell, hasten to
market to buy a dog’s worth of salt fish or pork, which is a great treat for them. Some of
them buy a little pickle out of the shad barrels, which they call sauce, to season their
yams and Indian corn” (Prince 1831:16).
4.6. Informative Excerpts
4.6.1.
Local Fishing
In addition to the categories previously discussed, there are excerpts from letters
that provide critical information regarding the development of fishing around Barbuda.
Despite this, there are still no references to specific fish being procured from around the
island;
they
are
described
simply
as
“fish,”
which
is
uninformative
for
a
zooarchaeological comparison. However, the reports from Barbudan activities also
demonstrate changes over time that occurred in response to changing politics and
economics and how planters had to adjust in response to those changes.
32
King Account in Books with Estate of William Codrington, October 1740, in “Accounts of
Benjamin King, Attorney 1741-1751,” page 22 of 40.
33
Barbuda Disbursements, May 1827, in “Barbuda Island Accounts 1826-1827,” page 9 of 14.
60
The first reference to local fresh fish is in a 1717 letter of instruction from William
Codrington to Captain Joseph Smith in which Codrington requests “that my negroes
might have to the value of 130 barrels of herrings per annum or fish proportion live.”34
The next references occur a few years later in 1720 and 1721. In 1720, William
Codrington suggests that enough fish might be caught around Barbuda to feed all of the
slaves working on his various Antiguan estates. An excerpt from the following year
demonstrates the motivation, namely because the price of imported herring was
becoming too high: “…and I hope you'll ketch fish enough at Barbuda to serve all my
Negroes and to salt them for here is not a herring to be had at 40 p barrel so you must
catch all you can to bring over to Antigua…” (Figure 4.4).35
Figure 4.4. Reference to catching fish around Barbuda.
Codrington Papers Excerpt; see footnote 35.
It is important to note that it is not the slaves on Antigua who were sent to fish
around the waters of that island. The island of Barbuda and the slaves inhabiting it were
utilized purely for the purpose of resource production for all of the Codrington estates on
Antigua (Dyde 2000:38). To divert labor from the sugar plantations would have been
detrimental to the profit made from those estates. However, it appears that this plan
changed over time. In 1779, the town agent Mr. Lindsey wrote to William Codrington with
some suggestions as to how Barbuda might be made more profitable:
“I think alterations [to how Barbuda is managed] might be made for the
better. I will mention a few instances. --The negroes might be plentifully
supplyed with the fork from the sea and as there is a great deal of salt
collected upon the island this fish might be preserved a long time. I
34
Letter of instructions from William Codrington to Babe and Captain Joseph Smith, 1717, in
“Codrington Family West Indies Correspondence,” page 23 of 324.
35
Letter from Dodington Estate to Brother, 1721, in “Codrington Family West Indies
Correspondence,” page 103 of 324.
61
observed the seans [seines] were lent out in the most partial manner; the
Head Negroes (as they are called) had the seans whenever they applyed
for them, and whatever they caught was for themselves, so that the
poorer negroes who stood most in need got nothing; now I should think
that the seans out to be hauled for the general benefit of the island, and
the fish distributed amongst the whole without any partiality or favour; this
would prevent jealousies amongst the negroes and give spirits to the
poorer ones to work with more chearfulnes.”36
Not only is this a clear demonstration that Barbudan slaves had gained access to
resources unattainable to Antiguan slaves, this passage also highlights that fishing and
how the fish were distributed amongst them was associated with status. This is a very
different experience from the slaves on Antigua, and over the years there are frequent
laments from the Codringtons to various managers about how the Barbudan slaves were
underworked and overfed, that they were surly and insubordinate, and they used the
island and its resources as if it were their own. It is also telling that the manager and
white servants of Barbuda were not mentioned at all in regards to the seine or the fish
procured by them. Despite the apparent plenty, it is only slaves who were consuming
these fish.
However, even though the slaves on Barbuda were benefitting from the “fork
from the sea,” it appears that Antigua was not yet benefitting from this resource. In 1809
the current manager at Barbuda, James Athill, wrote to Christopher Bethell Codrington:
“…no salted fish had ever to my knowledge been supplied from Barbuda
to the estates. It never occurred to me to attempt it as the quantity to be
caught could have never furnished a regular supply, nor is there in my
opinion a sufficient quantity near the island to make it worth attending
to.”37
Between the excerpts and the items ordered in the early to mid-eighteenth
century for the estates (i.e., empty hogsheads for fish, fishing rods, fishing lines, etc.), it
seemed that there were instances where fish were procured and distributed locally. But it
appears that during this time, fishing may only have been for personal and/or occasional
36
Letter from Lindsay to William Codrington, June 1779, in “Letters to William Codrington from
Town Agent in St. John, Antigua,” page 4 of 20.
37
Letter from James to Christopher Bethell Codrington, April 1809, in “Letters to Christopher
Bethell Codrington from John James 1807-1828,” page 6 of 97.
62
use, such as for the sloop or the Barbudan slaves rather than for the plantation.
Whatever local fishing was occurring, it was not significant enough to warrant the
attention of the absentee proprietor family. However, there is an entry from a letter dated
between 1781-1794 (exact year of the letter could not be determined with confidence)
which suggests that fishing was actually discouraged because it would distract both the
resident managers and detract the slaves’ and/or servants’ labor towards unprofitable
ends. Christopher Bethell Codrington’s nephew writes to him:
“…[as a resident] you may feed your negroes __ the such on fish etc etc
but those things become disadvantageous to an absentee; if you keep a
boat to carry round your sugar etc the overseer is daily out a fishing or
pleasuring, if you keep a net, the overseer employ your negroes daily to
haul the seine, and afterwards sends them with the fish to market...”38
By 1824, the attitude appears to have changed quite dramatically. James Athill,
the manager of Barbuda at the time, reports:
“We leave the seine as they like; some times 3 or 4 days together when
fish are plenty; they have occasionally wild hog and goat meat, many of
them have their own nets, and scarcely does one of your vessels go to
Antigua without a quantity of fowls, and salt fish to sell....”39
This is a drastic change in attitude compared to previous entries, and it reveals
something significant: even though local fish could not support the entirety of the
Codrington’s slaves on all of their Antiguan estates (which was usually around 700800+), the slaves on Barbuda were benefitting significantly from fishing to supplement
their diets. They could also have been benefitting from the fish being sold on Antigua,
however, this profit could have gone to the estates and not to the slaves themselves.
It should be noted that Athill was likely correct about the sustainability of the fish
population in Barbudan waters. Although it was a good resource for the Barbudan slaves
to use to feed themselves, it is unlikely that all of the slaves owned by the Codrington
family would have been able to be fed exclusively on fish procured from Barbuda over
38
Nephew to Christopher Bethell Codrington, n.d. [between 1781-1794], in “Correspondence of
Christopher Bethell 1781-1794,” page 12 of 40.
39
Letter from James to Christopher Bethell Codrington, September 1824, in “Letters to
Christopher Bethell Codrington from John James 1807-1828.
63
the long term. Recent zooarchaeological research on fish remains from Bermuda
demonstrates that even with just a population of 1000 in the early colonial period,
overfishing in just 80 years decreased the size of fish decreased by half due to
overfishing (Quitmyer et al. 2012). Although Bermuda is smaller than Barbuda, it likely
represents a similar circumstance, and it is interesting that it was assumed early on that
the Barbuda fish population could not support all of Codrington’s slaves. However these
attitudes clearly changed over time so that local fishing became more intensified as the
nineteenth century progressed.
There are also occasional references to sport fishing on Barbuda in order to
entertain guests at the Codrington mansion. In 1785 there is a very telling entry
regarding the frequent use of the island for sport by the other wealthy planters and
politicians, in this case, the former governor:
“…Mr. Woodley, our late Governor has applied to be allowed a trip to
Barbuda. I wish he had not applied but I know not how to refuse him. I
shall refer him to you for the time and he means to indulge in the varieties
of fresh provisions for the tables, fishing, and shooting....”40
Despite the reluctance to have Woodley at Barbuda, it is clear that it have been
in poor taste to turn down the request. Even though there is still a total lack of reference
to specific local fish for sport, it does provide another motive behind fishing and a
potential explanation for certain taxa appearing in the zooarchaeological record.
4.6.2.
Saltfish
As implied above, the use of local fish appears to be linked to the use of imported
saltfish. This is elaborated in a passage questionably from 1714, but possibly from 1715:
“You may dispose of all the first excepting 100, or 150 quentiles which I would have you
keep for my negroes and white servants which will save the buying of beef and
herrings.”41 This parallels the earlier reference to catching fish around Barbuda to avoid
40
Letter of instructions from Jamse [sic] to Mr. Lovell, August 1785, in “Letter Book of Sir William
Codrington 1783-1789,” page 58 of 131.
41
Letter of instructions from William Codrington to Parker, November 1714?, in “Codrington
Family West Indies Correspondence,” page 29 of 324.
64
purchasing imported herring, but this passage also includes the white servants as well
as the slaves as the consumers of this local fish, in addition to members of the Great
House.
Although there is a noticeable lack of discussion about the actual fish involved in
local procuring and processing, the types and quality of saltfish are discussed in more
detail and variety in both letter excerpts and descriptions of orders. Moreover, there are
very specific calculations for the allocation of saltfish that were not seen in the local fish
references. For example, in 1781 the calculations for Jennings Estate dictated:
“Allowing each negroe 4 herrings per week for 6 months and supposing a
barrel to contain only 700 or thereabouts, 26 barrels will be sufficient,
which, at the average price of 6 dollars per barrel, will amount to 144
dollars or…59.8.0 currency = 33.19.5 sterling.”42
These calculations were made based on the fact that Jennings is one of the
smaller Codrington estates with just 162 slaves (at the time, Bolans had the fewest with
only 135 slaves), and all of the estates made these calculations. The barrels “might
contain 10000 [individual fish] tho they seldom contain more than 700 to 800.”43 But
these herrings also had to follow certain specifications. Between 1789-1791, there was a
request for “100 barrels herring by two different ships dispatched in salt not pickle (and
not large).”44 Moreover, there was consideration of saltfish quality and from which region
to get the fish from. A letter from Athill in 1752 requests:
“…Would you for another time advise my sending you out any British
herring and what quantity and at what price. I din'd in company t'other day
with some gentlemen of St Kitts they thot our herrings too salt and that
the Irish were better, but Mr Beckford has sent a good many to Jamaica,
so that there is a great difference in opinion about them.”45
42
Letter from nephew to Christopher Bethell Codrington, March 1781, in “Correspondence of
Christopher Bethell 1781-1794,” page 21 of 40.
43
Letter from [unknown] to Christopher Bethell Codrington, n.d. [between 1781-1794], in
“Correspondence of Christopher Bethell 1781-1794,” page 27 of 40.
44
Letter from [unknown] to William Codrington, n.d. [between 1789-1791], in “Letter Books of
Christopher Bethell Codrington 1789-1791,” page 66 of 90.
45
Letter from Jamse [sic] to Redhead, July 1752, in “Codrington Family West Indies
Correspondence,” page 228 of 324.
65
This consideration of quality is interesting considering that herring appear to be
primarily intended for the slaves and white servants based on most of the excerpts
examined here. The slaves in particular would generally have been given the cheapest
goods with little consideration of quality, much less flavor. But the above quote indicates
that there was still a more careful consideration of quality that was not given to the local
fish populations, which still did not provide a single specific reference to parrotfish,
barracuda, grunts, snappers, or any of the other species available around the islands.
Further discussion of saltfish quality, again for imported herrings, is demonstrated in
even further detail alongside the allocation requirements:
“…in November if you think proper to order by her [the sloop] sixty or 80
barrels of herrings I should be glad to have them, from ___ I always wish
to give the people these aids in the fall of the year, but __ act obliges us
to do it weekly, salt fish of American herrings come higher, are not so
wholesome and are more disadvantageously distributed than Scotch
herrings--by the by I do not, whatever the consequences may be comply
with the act rigidly, I am sure I have experienced, that the proportions
allowed are injurious and if continued will be so to a more serious
degree…” (emphasis in original). 46
Another entry regarding herring quality appears to reinforce the notion that the
quality of imported herring would depend on who is consuming the herring: “…herrings,
fancy, have not been given upon these estates, nor indeed are they usually allowed….”47
Requiring permission for a certain type of higher quality “fancy” herring suggests that the
slaves would not be allowed such a treat. However, it could also potentially be a control
mechanism on the part of the Codrington family, who were controlling the Caribbean
estates from their Dodington home in England to ensure that managers were not
spending too much of the Codringtons’ money on what would be considered
unnecessary extravagances. This was a frequent problem for many absentee plantation
owners, and the Codringtons dealt with considerable villainy on the part of some of their
managers (e.g., Benjamin King).
46
Letter from Athill to Christopher Bethell Codrington, April 1800, in “Letters to William Codrington
and Christopher Bethell Codrington from Samuel Athill,” page 21 of 51.
47
Letter from [unknown] to Christopher Bethell Codrington, n.d. [between 1781-1794], in
“Correspondence of Christopher Bethell 1781-1794,” page 27 of 40.
66
4.7. Chapter Summary
This chapter presented the results of the archival analysis of the Codrington
Papers. Fish and mollusks were each addressed separately in terms of qualitative and
quantitative information. The data for the mollusks in the archives were extremely
limited, but the information regarding fish demonstrated a wide range of tools as well as
opinions regarding local fish and imported saltfish. It is clear that fish not only played a
significant role in diet for both planters and slaves, but it also was the source of
considerable social distinction between the planters and slaves, as well as between the
“ranks” of slaves. However, the archives were still vague regarding species of fish
procured locally; although nets and traps appear to have been the primary tools of
acquisition, the only descriptions of the local fish consisted of the term “fish.”
67
Chapter 5.
Description of Zooarchaeological Assemblages
5.1. Introduction
This chapter presents data on the fish and mollusks recovered from the Betty’s
Hope plantation excavations, with a focus on NISP data, weight, taxon frequencies, and
relative abundance in the two main contexts—the Great House and the Service
Buildings—and their subcontexts (Figure 3.2 in Chapter 3) (Table 5.1). The assemblage
total for all fish and mollusks from both contexts is 4,432, with 66.2% (NISP=2,934) fish
and 33.8% (NISP=1,498) shell specimens. In the Great House context, there were 1,697
fish and 403 mollusk specimens, totaling 2,100 in the assemblage. In the STU Service
Buildings context, there were 1,237 fish and 1,095 mollusk specimens totaling 2,332
(Table 5.1).
Table 5.1.
Context
Fish
Mollusks
Totals
Great House
1697
403
2100
Service Buildings
1237
1095
2332
Total NISP
2934
1498
4432
NISP totals of fish and mollusks in the two main contexts at Betty’s
Hope.
The patterns in the fish assemblages are most apparent between rather than
within families. The traits shared by each family also generally inform on habitat, diet,
behavior and human relationships. Moreover, considering the apparent lack of
knowledge or care on the part of the English colonists towards distinguishing specific
taxa, a broader grouping of taxon by family aids in understanding potential reasons for
acquisition and the likely tools for capture. Information pertaining to the major fish and
68
mollusk taxa discussed in this chapter can be found in Appendix B, including images of
notable elements for identification.
5.2. Great House Context
The Great House context is associated with 1,697 fish and 403 mollusk
specimens (Table 5.2). In this assemblage, 70% (NISP=1,194) of the fish were
identifiable only as Actinopterygii (ray-finned bony fish), superclass Osteichthyes (bony
fish). No specimens of superclass Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fish such as sharks,
skates, and rays) were identified. Most of the Actinopterygii specimens consist of the
numerous spines that fish these possess, as well as other taxonomically unidentifiable
elements such as ribs and branchiostegals. Therefore, the resulting calculations are
based on the fish taxa that could be identified below class (NISP=503).
Taxon
Common Name
NISP (#)
%
Weight (g)
%
Actinopterygii
Ray-finned bony fish
1194
70.36
93.14
50.2
Albula vulpes
Bonefishes
10
0.59
0.76
0.4
Gadidae
Cods, haddocks
13
2.6
3.74
4.1
Serranidae
Sea basses, groupers
68
13.5
27.2
29.5
Epinephelus spp.
Groupers
2
0.12
1.19
0.6
Carangidae
Jacks
6
0.35
0.22
0.1
Caranx spp.
Jacks
3
0.18
0.22
0.1
Caranx hippos
Crevalle jacks
1
0.06
0.06
0.03
Haemulidae
Grunts
16
0.94
1.91
1
Anisotremus spp.
Grunts
17
1
1.53
0.8
Haemulon spp.
Grunts
70
4.13
12.43
6.7
Lutjanidae
Snappers
16
0.94
1.14
0.6
Lutjanus spp.
Snappers
77
4.54
7.49
4
Calamus spp.
Porgies
10
0.59
1.83
1
Holocanthus spp.
Angelfishes
4
0.24
0.46
0.3
Pomacanthus spp.
Angelfishes
2
0.12
0.14
0.08
Mugilidae
Mullets
1
0.06
0.12
0.06
Mugil spp.
Mullets
5
0.3
0.51
0.3
Mugil curema
White mullet
1
0.06
0.11
0.06
Sphyraena spp.
Barracudas
27
1.59
2.72
1.5
69
Taxon
Common Name
NISP (#)
%
Weight (g)
%
Labridae
Wrasses
1
0.06
0.06
0.03
Scaridae
Parrotfishes
18
1.06
2.09
1.1
Scarus spp.
Parrotfishes
47
2.77
11.69
6.3
Scarus coeruleus
Blue parrotfishes
2
0.12
1.39
0.8
Sparisoma spp.
Parrotfishes
32
1.89
4.37
2.4
Sparisoma viride
Stoplight parrotfish
11
0.65
5.74
3.1
Acanthurus spp.
Surgeonfishes
33
1.95
2.56
1.4
Balistidae
Leatherjackets, triggerfishes
2
0.12
0.15
0.08
Diodon spp.
Porcupinefish
2
0.12
0.18
0.1
Ostraciidae
Boxfishes
6
0.35
0.24
0.1
1697
100
185.39
100
Total
Table 5.2.
Complete list of Great House fish, NISP and weight (g)
Scaridae (parrotfish) was the most frequent taxon in the Great House context,
comprising 22% (NISP=110) of the total NISP (Table 5.3) (Figure 5.1). It is closely
followed by Haemulidae (grunts) at 21% (NISP=103), Lutjanidae (snappers) at 19%
(NISP=93), Serranidae (sea basses and groupers) at 14% (NISP=70) and Acanthuridae
(surgeonfishes) at just 7% (NISP=33). However, the bone weight by family does not
follow the same pattern. For example, even though the high weight for Scaridae is due to
their distinctive premaxillae and dentaries that comprise the “beak” that is their
namesake, Serranidae actually contributes a higher weight. This is because more of the
identifiable Serranidae elements are denser, though not necessarily larger, than the few
preserved Scaridae elements.
Family
Common Name
NISP (#)
%
Weight (g)
%
Serranidae
Sea basses, groupers
70
13.9
28.4
30.8
Lutjanidae
Snappers
93
19.0
8.6
9.4
Haemulidae
Grunts
103
21.0
15.9
17.2
Scaridae
Parrotfishes
110
22.4
25.3
27.4
Acanthuridae
Surgeonfishes
33
6.7
2.6
2.8
Table 5.3.
Great House fish by family, NISP and weight (g)
70
Figure 5.1. Representation of most common fish by family in the Great House,
NISP and weight (g).
In terms of potential saltfish presence, Gadidae (cod) are identified in this
assemblage, but only represented 3% (NISP=13) of the identifiable assemblage at 3.7g.
All Gadidae specimens are thoracic, caudal, or indeterminate vertebrae. This is
consistent with the butchery patterns of gadids when making saltfish, although it was
generally the poorer-quality cod that would retain vertebral bones due to sloppy
processing (Kurlansky 1997:102-103, 118; Ryan 1986:29). There were no specimens
recovered for Clupeidae (herring) in this context. This is in sharp contrast to the huge
emphasis on saltfish that was documented in the Codrington Papers and occurred
throughout the Caribbean. Even taking into account butchery and taphonomic factors,
which will be discussed further in Chapter 6 (Discussion and Interpretation), one would
expect much more of a gadid and clupeid presence in the assemblage. Instead, the
Great House context is dominated by tropical fish taxa, at 97% (Figure 5.2), where the
five most frequent taxa (Figure 5.1) represent 84% of the identifiable assemblage.
71
Figure 5.2. Proportion of total Great House fish, nonlocal vs. local percentage.
The entire Great House mollusk assemblage contained 403 specimens weighing
1249.4g (Table 5.4). The most common taxon by far for both weight and NISP was
Crassostrea rhizophorae (mangrove oyster) (NISP=148, 426.4g) and comprised over a
third of the entire mollusk assemblage for both quantification methods. Phacoides
pectinata (thick lucine) represented 21% (NISP=83) of the assemblage, followed by
Isognomon alatus (flat tree-oyster) with at 5.5% (NISP=22) (Table 5.5 and Figure 5.2).
However, the second and third highest weight contributions were made by Lobatus gigas
(queen conch) and Cittarium pica (West Indian topsnail) with just 16 NISP and 21 NISP
respectively. Like fish, some mollusks have a much higher weight due to their size and
density, but it is much more pronounced for mollusk taxa. Some taxa present in the
mollusk assemblage, such as Lobatus gigas and Cittarium pica, are much heavier and
sturdier and therefore contribute a high weight per NISP even with a relatively small
fragment count. Alternatively, other taxa such as the Isognomon genus and Pinctada
imbricata (Atlantic pearl oyster) are light and friable, which increases chance of
fragmentation, and inflates NISP in relation to weight (Grayson 1984:20-24; Lyman
2008:29-30; Peres 2010:27; Reitz and Wing 2008:180).
Taxon
Common Name
NISP (#)
%
Weight (g)
%
Mollusca
Mollusk
15
3.7
4.7
0.4
Anadara floridana
Ark
1
0.3
0.2
0.02
Bivalvia
Bivalve
28
7.0
9.7
0.8
Brachidontes exustus
Scorched mussel
6
1.5
2
0.2
Barbatia candida
White beard ark
2
0.5
1.1
0.1
Isognomon alatus
Flat tree-oyster
22
5.5
14.1
1.1
72
Pteriidae
Oyster
7
1.7
1.7
0.1
Crassostrea spp.
Oyster
6
1.5
6.4
0.5
Crassostrea rhizophorae
Mangrove oyster
148
36.7
426.4
34.1
Codakia orbicularis
Tiger lucine
11
2.7
63.6
5.1
Divaricella quadrisulcata
Cross-hatched lucine
1
0.3
0.2
0.02
Phacoides pectinata
Thick lucine
83
20.6
202.3
16.2
Trachycardium spp.
Pricklycockle
2
0.5
0.9
0.1
cf. Tellinidae
Tellin
1
0.3
2.7
0.2
Asaphis deflorate
Gaudy sanguine
1
0.3
0.8
0.1
Anomalocardia flexuosa
Carib pointed venus
15
3.7
25.4
2
Gastropoda
Gastropod
3
0.7
0.3
0.02
Fisurella barbadensis
Barbados keyhole limpet
1
0.3
0.7
0.1
Acmaeidae
Limpet
1
0.3
1.2
0.1
Cittarium pica
West Indian topsnail
21
5.2
209
16.7
Turbinidae
Turban
2
0.5
0.7
0.1
Nerita spp.
Nerite
1
0.3
0.9
0.1
Nerita fulgurans
Antillean nerite
1
0.3
2.2
0.2
Tectarius muricatus
Beaded periwinkle
1
0.3
1.7
0.1
Lobatus gigas
Queen conch
16
4.0
265
21.2
Cypraeidae
Cowries
1
0.3
4.4
0.4
Nitidella nitida
Glossy dovesnail
1
0.3
0.3
0.02
Nassarius vibex
Bruised nassa
1
0.3
0.4
0.03
Leucozonia spp.
Latirus
2
0.5
0.3
0.02
Olividae
Olive
1
0.3
0.1
0.01
Bulla striata
Striate bubble
1
0.3
0.4
0.03
403
100
1249.4
100
Total
Table 5.4. Complete list of Great House mollusks, NISP and weight (g).
Taxon
Common Name
NISP (#)
%
Weight (g)
%
Isognomon alatus
Flat tree-oyster
22
5.5
14.1
1.1
Crassostrea rhizophorae
Mangrove oyster
148
36.7
426.4
34.1
Phacoides pectinata
Thick lucine
83
20.6
202.3
16.2
Cittarium pica
West Indian topsnail
21
5.2
209.0
16.7
Lobatus gigas
Queen conch
16
4.0
265.0
21.2
Table 5.5. Most common mollusks present in entire Great House assemblage,
NISP and weight (g).
73
Figure 5.3. Representation of mollusks in the Great House, NISP and weight (g).
The following quantifications are for archaeological subcontexts identified within
the Great House context: the Food Preparation Area, the Wall Deposit, the Laundry, and
the miscellaneous specimens from the Great House. This will highlight some of the
patterns that occur in specific areas of the Great House which are associated with
features that have been uncovered in the Service Buildings excavations.
5.2.1.
Subcontext: Food Preparation Area
As described in Chapter 3, the food preparation area had a very dense
concentration of faunal specimens, particularly fish (Table 5.6). It contained 42%
(NISP=708) of the total fish in the entire Great House context, and 36% of the total
mollusk specimens. Scaridae was by far the most frequent taxon in the Food
Preparation assemblage (Table 5.7), representing 34% (NISP=77) of the identifiable fish
specimens. At a distant second, Haemulidae, represented 18% (NISP=41) of the
assemblage, followed by Serranidae at 15% (NISP=34), Lutjanidae at 12% (NISP=27),
and Acanthuridae at 8% (NISP=19). Additionally, eight of the 12 total Gadidae
specimens in the Great House context were found in the Food Preparation Area, which
comprises 4% of the identifiable fish specimens in this subcontext.
Taxon
Common Name
NISP (#)
74
%
Weight (g)
%
Taxon
Common Name
NISP (#)
%
Weight (g)
%
Actinopterygii
Ray-finned bony fish
481
67.9
39.1
42.8
Albula vulpes
Bonefishes
3
.4
0.09
.1
Gadidae
Cods, haddocks
8
1.1
2.8
3.1
Serranidae
Sea basses, groupers
34
4.8
17.3
19.0
Carangidae
Jacks
2
.3
0.2
.2
Caranx hippos
Crevalle jack
1
.1
0.1
.1
Lutjanidae
Snappers
5
.7
0.3
.3
Lutjanus spp.
Snappers
22
3.1
1.9
2.1
Haemulidae
Grunts
4
.6
0.4
.4
Anisotremus spp.
Grunts
9
1.3
1.1
1.2
Haemulon spp.
Grunts
28
6.9
4.0
4.4
Calamus spp.
Porgies
4
.6
1.0
1.1
Holacanthus spp.
Angelfishes
3
.4
0.4
.4
Mugil spp.
Mullets
2
.3
0.2
.2
Mugil curema
White mullet
1
.1
0.1
.1
Sphyraena spp.
Barracuda
2
.3
0.02
.02
Labridae
Wrasses
1
.1
0.06
.07
Scaridae
Parrotfishes
8
1.1
1.5
1.6
Scarus spp.
Parrotfishes
35
4.9
10.7
11.7
Scarus coeruleus
Blue parrotfish
2
.3
1.4
1.5
Sparisoma spp.
Parrotfishes
25
3.5
3.8
4.2
Sparisoma viride
Stoplight parrotfish
7
1.0
3.6
3.9
Acanthurus spp.
Surgeonfishes
19
2.7
1.4
1.5
Ostraciidae
Boxfishes
1
.1
0.02
.02
Diodon spp.
Porcupinefishes
1
.1
0.04
.04
708
100
91.3
100
Total
Table 5.6. Complete taxa representation of the Food Preparation Area, NISP and
weight (g).
Family
Common Name
NISP (#)
%
Weight (g)
%
Serranidae
Sea basses, groupers
34
15
17.3
33.2
Lutjanidae
Snappers
27
11.9
2.2
4.1
Haemulidae
Grunts
41
18.1
5.5
10.5
Scaridae
Parrotfishes
77
33.9
20.9
40.1
Acanthuridae
Surgeonfishes
19
8.4
1.4
2.7
75
Table 5.7. Most common fish by family in the Food Preparation Area, NISP and
weight (g).
The Food Preparation Area is also particularly interesting due to the presence of
a set of seven articulated Scarus spp., precaudal to caudal vertebrae. These vertebrae
were found lying across the diameter of a set of concentric iron circles that lay on top of
a much larger unidentified iron artifact (Figure 5.3).
Figure 5.4. Scarus spp. vertebrae articulated across diameter of concentric iron
circles of large unidentified iron artifact.
There were 102 mollusk specimens in this subcontext with a total weight
contribution of 247.1g (Table 5.8). This represents 36% of the total mollusks in the Great
House context. Phacoides pectinata contributes by far the most in both NISP and
weight. The general category Bivalvia was the next most common NISP, although
Codakia orbicularis (tiger lucine) contributed the second highest weight to this
subcontext, even though it only contributed 7 NISP to the assemblage. Crassostrea
rhizophorae has the third most frequent NISP with 11, but is the fourth highest by weight.
76
The heavier Cittarium pica contributed the fourth highest NISP, but the third highest
weight.
Taxon
Common Name
NISP (#)
%
Weight (g)
%
Mollusca
Mollusk
8
7.8
0.7
0.3
Bivalvia
Bivalve
15
14.7
3.9
1.6
Brachidontes exustus
Scorched mussel
2
2
1.2
0.5
Crassostrea spp.
Mangrove oyster
4
3.9
1.7
0.7
Crassostrea rhizophorae
Mangrove oyster
11
10.8
27.9
11.3
Codakia orbicularis
Tiger lucine
7
6.9
45.9
18.6
Phacoides pectinata
Thick lucine
38
37.3
118.9
48.1
Anomalocardia flexuosa
Carib pointed venus
2
2
0.6
0.2
Gastropoda
Gastropod
2
2
0.2
0.1
Cittarium pica
West Indian topsnail
9
8.8
41.3
16.7
Nerita spp.
Nerite
1
1
0.9
0.4
Nerita fulgurans
Antillean nerite
1
1
2.2
0.9
Tectarius muricatus
Beaded periwinkle
1
1
1.7
0.7
Olividae
Olive
1
1
0.1
0.04
102
100
247.2
100
Total
Table 5.8. Complete list of mollusks in Food Preparation Area subcontext of the
Great House, NISP and weight (g).
5.2.2.
Subcontext: Wall Deposit
Although the Wall Deposit contained an abundance of faunal material, the fish
specimens only comprised 16% (NISP=81) of the total identifiable fish, and 10% of the
entire fish assemblage for the Great House (NISP=165) (Table 5.9). Within this
subsample, Haemulidae comprised 33% (NISP=27) of the identifiable fish specimens,
followed by Lutjanidae at 28% (NISP=23), Serranidae at 16% (NISP= 13), and
Sphyraenidae at 15% (NISP=12) (Table 5.10). There are a few aspects of this
assemblage that are interesting. First, there are no Scaridae specimens present at all in
this deposit. Given the preponderance of this taxon throughout the site, it would be
expected in most contexts. Second, this is also the first instance where Sphyraenidae is
one of the more prevalent taxa; in the food preparation context, there were only two
elements so it is interesting to note the greater number in this deposit. Lastly, there were
two Gadidae vertebrae in this subcontext but no herring present.
77
Taxon
Common Name
NISP (#)
%
Weight (g)
%
Actinopterygii
Ray-finned bony fish
84
50.9
14
40.5
Albula vulpes
Bonefishes
1
0.6
0.1
0.3
Gadidae
Cods, haddocks
2
1.2
0.8
2.3
Serranidae
Sea basses, groupers
12
7.3
6.5
18.8
Epinephelus spp.
Sea basses, groupers
1
0.6
1
2.9
Lutjanus spp.
Snappers
23
13.9
2.7
7.8
Haemulidae
Grunts
7
4.2
1.2
3.5
Haemulon spp.
Grunts
20
12.1
6.4
18.5
Calamus spp.
Porgies
2
1.2
0.3
0.9
Sphyraena spp.
Barracudas
12
7.3
1.5
4.3
Ostraciidae
Boxfishes
1
0.6
0.1
0.3
165
100
34.6
100
Total
Table 5.9. Complete list of fish in Wall Deposit subcontext in Great House, NISP
and weight (g).
Family
Common Name
NISP (#)
%
Weight (g)
%
Serranidae
Sea basses, groupers
13
16.1
7.5
36.3
Haemulidae
Grunts
27
33.3
7.6
36.9
Lutjanidae
Snappers
23
28.4
2.7
13.2
Sphyraenidae
Barracudas
12
14.8
1.5
7.3
Table 5.10. Most common fish by family in the Wall Deposit subcontext, NISP and
weight (g).
The mollusk contribution was much smaller in this subcontext (Table 5.11), with
just 14 NISP totaling 45.29g. This only accounted for 3.5% of the total mollusk NISP in
the Great House assemblage, and only 3.6% by weight. Although the sample size for the
mollusks in this subcontext is very small, it is almost entirely comprised of Crassostrea
rhizophorae, which contribute the highest NISP, while Cittarium pica contributes the
most weight despite only a few specimens (NISP=2).
Taxon
Common Name
NISP (#)
%
Weight (g)
%
Pteriidae
Oyster
6
42.9
1.3
2.8
Crassostrea rhizophorae
Mangrove oyster
6
42.9
16.2
35.8
Cittarium pica
West Indian topsnail
2
14.3
27.8
61.4
Table 5.11. Complete list of mollusks present in Wall Deposit subcontext of Great
House, NISP and weight (g).
78
5.2.3.
Subcontext: Laundry
Most of the Laundry subcontext did not contain a significant amount of fauna.
However, the mollusk specimens are the most notable, as mentioned in Chapter 3. Fish
only comprised 2.4% (NISP=41) of both the total identifiable fish specimens and the total
fish specimens in the Great House, with just 12 specimens identified below the level of
class Actinopterygii (Table 5.12). Serranidae were the most abundant (NISP=6),
followed by Acanthuridae (NISP=4).
Taxon
Common Name
NISP (#)
%
Weight (g)
%
Actinopterygii
Ray-finned bony fish
29
70.7
1.8
64.3
Serranidae
Sea basses, groupers
6
14.6
0.5
17.9
Lutjanidae
Snappers
1
2.4
0.2
7.1
Acanthuridae
Surgeonfishes
4
.3
0.3
10.7
Ostraciidae
Boxfishes
1
.02
0.02
.7
41
100
2.8
100
Total
Table 5.12. Complete list of fish in the Laundry subcontext of the Great House,
NISP and weight (g).
The Laundry assemblage is comprised of 166 mollusk specimens, which
represents 41% of the total mollusk specimens in the Great House and 33% of the total
weight (Table 5.13). It is almost entirely comprised of complete or mostly complete
valves of Crassostrea rhizophorae, representing 76% of the Laundry mollusk
assemblage (NISP=125). A much smaller but significant contribution to this subcontext
was Phacoides pectinata (NISP=20) at 12% of the laundry deposit. Closely following
with 16 NISP and contributing to 10% of this subcontext is Isognomon alatus (NISP=16).
Taxon
Common Name
NISP (#)
%
Weight (g)
%
Bivalvia
Bivalve
3
1.8
0.7
0.2
Brachidontes exustus
Scorched mussel
1
0.6
0.1
0.03
Isognomon alatus
Flat tree-oyster
16
9.6
5.6
1.4
Crassostrea rhizophorae
Mangrove oyster
125
75.3
361.4
87.6
Phacoides pectinata
Thick lucine
20
12.1
44.7
10.8
Turbinidae
Turban
1
0.6
0.1
0.02
166
100
412.6
100
Total
Table 5.13. Complete list of mollusks in the Laundry subcontext in the Great
House, NISP and weight (g).
79
5.2.4.
Subcontext: Great House (Miscellaneous)
The remaining Great House units otherwise not ascribed to a specific subcontext
are associated with 585 total fish specimens, representing 35% of all fish found in the
Great House (Table 5.14). Of these, 189 identifiable fish specimens represented 37% of
all identifiable fish found in the Great House. Lutjanidae (NISP=47) were by far the most
abundant, representing 25% of the assemblage. Haemulidae (NISP=35) is second with
19%, followed by Scaridae (NISP=31) at 16%, Serranidae (NISP=17) at 9% and
Sphyraenidae (NISP=14) at 5% (Table 5.15).
Taxon
Common Name
NISP (#)
%
Weight (g)
%
Actinopterygii
Ray-finned bony fish
585
75.6
37.5
67.7
Albula vulpes
Bonefishes
5
0.7
0.4
0.7
Gadidae
Cods, haddocks
3
0.4
0.2
0.4
Serranidae
Sea basses, groupers
16
2.1
2.9
5.2
Epinephelus spp.
Sea basses, groupers
1
0.1
0.2
0.4
Carangidae
Jacks
4
0.5
0.1
0.2
Caranx spp.
Jacks
3
0.4
0.2
0.4
Lutjanidae
Snappers
16
2.1
1.2
2.2
Lutjanus spp.
Snappers
31
4
2.7
4.9
Haemulidae
Grunts
5
0.7
0.4
0.7
Anisotremus spp.
Grunts
8
1
0.4
0.7
Haemulon spp.
Grunts
22
2.8
2.04
3.7
Calamus spp.
Porgies
4
0.5
0.6
1.1
Holacanthus spp.
Angelfishes
1
0.1
0.1
0.2
Pomacanthus spp.
Angelfishes
2
0.3
0.1
0.2
Mugilidae
Mullets
1
0.1
0.1
0.2
Mugil spp.
Mullets
3
0.4
0.3
0.5
Sphyraena spp.
Barracudas
14
1.8
1.2
2.2
Scaridae
Parrotfishes
9
1.2
0.5
0.9
Scarus spp.
Parrotfishes
12
1.6
1
1.8
Sparisoma spp.
Parrotfishes
7
0.9
0.6
1.1
Sparisoma viride
Stoplight parrotfish
3
0.4
1.2
2.2
Acanthurus spp.
Surgeonfishes
10
1.3
0.9
1.6
cf. Scombridae
Mackerels
1
0.1
0.1
0.2
Balistidae
Triggerfishes
2
0.3
0.2
0.4
cf. Balistidae
Triggerfishes
2
0.3
0.1
0.2
80
Taxon
Common Name
NISP (#)
%
Weight (g)
%
Diodon spp.
Porcupinefishes
1
0.1
0.1
0.2
Ostraciidae
Boxfishes
3
0.4
0.1
0.2
774
100
55.4
100
Total
Table 5.14. Complete list of fish in the Great House (Miscellaneous) subcontext,
NISP and weight (g).
Family
Common Name
NISP (#)
%
Weight (g)
%
Serranidae
Sea basses, groupers
17
9.0
3.1
17.6
Lutjanidae
Snappers
47
24.9
3.9
22.2
Haemulidae
Grunts
35
18.5
2.8
15.7
Sphyraenidae
Barracudas
14
7.4
1.2
6.8
Scaridae
Parrotfishes
31
16.4
3.3
18.6
Table 5.15. Most common fish by family in the Great House (Miscellaneous)
subcontext, NISP and weight (g).
By contrast, the mollusks in this assemblage totaled 142 specimens, which
represents 35% of the total mollusk specimens in the entire Great House and 44% of the
mollusks by weight (Table 5.16). The most frequent taxon was Phacoides pectinata
(NISP=25), followed by Lobatus gigas (NISP=16), the latter of which also contributed the
most weight. Anomalocardia flexuosa (Carib pointed-venus) (NISP=13) contributed the
third highest frequency but Cittarium pica (NISP=10) contributed the second highest
weight at 139.85g (Table 5.17).
Taxon
Common Names
NISP (#)
%
Weight (g)
%
Mollusca
Mollusk
7
5.8
4.02
0.7
Anadara floridana
Ark
1
0.8
0.2
0.04
Bivalvia
Bivalve
10
8.3
5.1
0.9
Brachidontes exustus
Scorched mussel
3
2.5
0.6
0.1
Barbatia candida
White beard ark
2
1.7
1.1
0.2
Pteriidae
Oyster
1
0.8
0.5
0.1
Isognomon alatus
Flat tree-oyster
6
5
8.4
1.5
Crassostrea rhizophorae
Mangrove oyster
7
5.8
25.5
4.7
Crassostrea spp.
Mangrove oyster
1
0.8
0.2
0.04
Codakia orbicularis
Tiger lucine
4
3.3
17.7
3.2
Divaricella quadrisulcata
Cross-hatched lucine
1
0.8
0.2
0.04
Phacoides pectinata
Thick lucine
25
20.7
38.8
7.1
81
Taxon
Common Names
NISP (#)
%
Weight (g)
%
Trachycardium spp.
Pricklycockle
2
1.7
0.9
0.2
cf. Tellinidae
Tellin
1
0.8
2.7
0.5
Asaphis deflorate
Gaudy sanguine
1
0.8
0.8
0.2
Anomalocardia flexuosa
Carib pointed venus
13
10.7
24.8
4.6
Gastropoda
Gastropoda
1
0.8
0.1
0.02
Fisurella barbadensis
Barbados keyhole limpet
1
0.8
0.7
0.1
Acmaeidae
Limpet
1
0.8
1.2
0.2
Cittarium pica
West Indian topsnail
10
8.3
139.9
25.7
Turbinidae
Turban
1
0.8
0.6
0.1
Lobatus gigas
Queen conch
16
13.2
265.04
48.6
Monetaria annulus
Gold ringer cowry
1
0.8
4.4
0.8
Nitidella nitida
Glossy dovesnail
1
0.8
0.3
0.1
Leucozonia spp.
Latirus
2
1.7
0.3
0.1
Nassarius vibex
Bruised nassa
1
0.8
0.4
0.1
Bulla striata
Striate bubble
1
0.8
0.4
0.1
121
100
544.9
100
Total
Table 5.16. Complete list of mollusks in the Great House (Miscellaneous)
subcontext, NISP and weight (g).
Taxon
Common Names
NISP (#)
%
Weight (g)
%
Crassostrea rhizophorae
Mangrove oyster
7
4.9
25.5
4.7
Phacoides pectinata
Thick lucine
25
17.6
38.8
7.1
Anomalocardia flexuosa
Carib pointed venus
13
9.2
24.8
4.6
Cittarium pica
West Indian topsnail
10
7.04
139.9
25.7
Lobatus gigas
Queen conch
16
11.3
265.04
48.7
Table 5.17. Mollusks in the rest of the Great House assemblage otherwise
unclassified to another subcontext.
5.3. Service Buildings Context
This Service Building assemblage is comprised of 1,237 fish specimens. Similar
to the Great House, 70% of the fish specimens were categorized as Actinopterygii,
leaving 366 identified below class (Table 5.18). There were also no specimens from the
superclass Chondrichthyes. This assemblage included many of the same taxa as the
82
Great House, but it also had some additional species that may be interesting in terms of
socioeconomic implications for the plantation.
Taxon
Common Names
NISP (#)
%
Weight (g)
%
Actinopterygii
Ray-finned fishes
871
70.4
39.57
45.2
Albula vulpes
Bonefishes
42
3.4
4.87
5.6
Clupeidae
Herrings
41
3.3
0.67
0.8
Gadidae
Cods, haddocks
16
1.3
3.33
3.8
Belonidae
Needlefishes
10
0.8
0.2
0.2
Serranidae
Sea basses, groupers
24
1.9
8.64
9.9
Cephalopholis spp.
Sea basses
1
0.08
0.24
0.3
Caranx spp.
Jacks
8
0.7
1.45
1.7
Haemulidae
Grunts
8
0.7
0.57
0.7
Haemulon spp.
Grunts
20
1.6
1.1
1.3
Lutjanidae
Snappers
11
0.9
1.15
1.3
Lutjanus spp.
Snappers
10
0.8
0.63
0.7
Rhomboplites aurorubens
Vermillion snapper
1
0.08
0.08
0.09
Calamus spp.
Porgies
1
0.08
0.32
0.4
Mugilidae
Mullets
6
0.5
0.45
0.5
Sphyraena spp.
Barracudas
22
1.8
1.82
2.1
Scaridae
Parrotfishes
7
0.6
0.89
1.02
Scarus spp.
Parrotfishes
19
1.5
2.92
3.3
Scarus croicensis
Striped parrotfish
1
0.08
0.24
0.3
Sparisoma spp.
Parrotfishes
38
3.1
3.02
3.5
Sparisoma chrysopterum
Redtail parrotfish
4
0.3
0.32
0.4
Sparisoma viride
Stoplight parrotfish
18
1.5
9.98
11.4
Acanthurus spp.
Surgeonfishes
56
4.5
3.96
4.5
Balistes spp.
Leatherjackets, triggerfishes
2
0.2
1.22
1.4
1237
100
87.64
100
Total
Table 5.18. Complete list of Service Buildings fish, NISP and weight (g).
The most frequent family was again Scaridae at 23% (NISP=87) (Table 5.19)
(Figure 5.4). Acanthuridae was a distant second at 15% (NISP=56), and Albulidae
(bonefishes) and Clupeidae (NISP=42 and NISP=41, respectively) were third in
abundance. Serranidae made up just 7% (NISP=25) of the assemblage, and then
Sphyraenidae at 6% (NISP=22). Gadidae specimens were also present, but only 4%
(NISP=16) of the identifiable specimens. Clupeids could not be identified beyond family
83
level, and so they could represent either local herrings or imported saltfish. Regardless
of where they came from, it is interesting that they were only recovered from the Service
Buildings context and not at all in the Great House context.
Family
Common Name
NISP (#)
%
Weight (g)
%
Albulidae
Bonefishes
42
11.5
4.9
10.1
Clupeidae
Herrings
41
11.2
0.7
1.4
Serranidae
Sea basses, groupers
25
6.8
8.6
18
Sphyraenidae
Barracudas
22
6.0
1.8
3.8
Scaridae
Parrotfishes
87
23.8
17.4
36.1
Acanthuridae
Surgeonfishes
56
15.3
4.0
8.2
Table 5.19. Service Buildings fish by family, NISP and weight (g).
Figure 5.5. Representation of Service Buildings fish by family, NISP and weight
(g).
The mollusks in the Service Buildings units were also different from the Great
House assemblage. Although the difference in NISP is the most striking—NISP=1095 in
the Service Buildings vs. NISP=403 in the Great House—it is important to note that this
is a factor of intense fragmentation of one taxon in particular, Pinctada imbricata.
However, the total weight difference between the contexts was only 88g, so the NISP-
84
weight distinction is important to note for this context when interpreting the numbers and
rank (Table 5.20).
Taxon
Common Name
NISP (#)
%
Weight (g)
%
Mollusca
Mollusk
70
6.4
22
1.6
Bivalvia
Bivalve
50
4.6
20
1.5
Arcidae
Ark
3
0.3
6.2
0.5
Arca zebra
Turkey wing ark
2
0.2
6.1
0.4
Brachidontes spp.
Mussel
6
0.6
0.4
0.03
Brachidontes exustus
Scorched mussel
1
0.1
0.04
0.003
Pteriidae
Oyster
1
0.1
0.5
0.04
Pinctada imbricata
Atlantic pearl-oyster
258
23.5
48.5
3.5
Isognomon spp.
Oyster
3
0.3
1.3
0.1
Isognomon alatus
Flat tree-oyster
140
12.8
88
6.4
Isognomon radiatus
Lister purse-oyster
7
0.6
2
0.2
Ostreidae
Oyster
11
1.0
10.8
0.8
Crassostrea spp.
Oyster
5
0.5
8.7
0.6
Crassostrea rhizophorae
Mangrove oyster
16
1.5
42.1
3.1
Aequipecten phrygium
Spathate scallop
1
0.1
1
0.07
Codakia orbicularis
Tiger lucine
138
12.6
275.3
19.9
Phacoides pectinata
Thick lucine
34
3.1
48.7
3.5
cf. Chama spp.
Jewelbox
1
0.1
0.1
0.01
Donax spp.
Beanclam, coquina
1
0.1
0.5
0.04
Anomalocardia flexuosa
Carib pointed venus
178
16.2
211.7
15.3
Chione spp.
Venus
3
0.3
4.8
0.4
Gastropoda
Gastropod
8
0.7
5.1
0.4
Lottia leucopleura
Black-rib limpet
2
0.2
1.7
0.1
Cittarium pica
West Indian topsnail
95
8.7
413.1
30
Turbinidae
Turban
1
0.1
0.1
0.01
Turbo spp.
Turban
1
0.1
0.7
0.1
Nerita spp.
Nerite
2
0.2
1.5
0.1
Nerita fulgurans
Antillean nerite
9
0.8
16
1.2
Nerita peloronta
Bleeding tooth nerite
1
0.1
3.6
0.3
Nerita tessellata
Checkered nerite
16
1.5
26.9
2
Nerita versicolor
Four-tooth nerite
2
0.2
1.7
0.1
Lobatus gigas
Queen conch
26
2.4
105.4
7.6
Monetaria annulus
Gold ringer cowry
1
0.1
4.4
0.3
85
Taxon
Common Name
NISP (#)
%
Weight (g)
%
cf. Cymantium spp.
Triton
1
0.1
1.2
0.1
Nassarius vibex
Bruised nassa
1
0.1
0.4
0.03
Chiton spp.
Chiton
3
0.3
1.8
0.1
1098
100
1382.3
100
Total
Table 5.20. Complete list of Service Buildings mollusks, NISP and weight (g).
When overall NISP is considered, the dominant taxon is clearly Pinctada
imbricata at 24% (NISP=258), followed by Anomalocardia flexuosa at 16% (NISP=178),
and Isognomon alatus, at 13% (NISP=140) (Table 5.21). However, weights clearly
demonstrate a different pattern, where Cittarium pica contributes the most weight,
followed by the large Codakia orbicularis clams, Anomalocardia flexuosa, Isognomon
alatus, and Lobatus gigas.
Taxon
Common Name
NISP (#)
%
Weight (g)
%
cf. Pinctada imbricata
Atlantic pearl oyster
258
23.6
48.5
3.5
Isognomon alatus
Flat tree-oyster
140
12.8
88.0
6.4
Codakia orbicularis
Tiger lucine
138
12.6
275.3
20.0
Anomalocardia flexuosa
Carib pointed venus
178
16.3
211.7
15.4
Cittarium pica
West Indian topsnail
95
8.7
413.1
30.0
Lobatus gigas
Queen conch
26
2.4
105.4
7.6
Table 5.21. Most common mollusks in the Service Buildings, NISP and weight (g).
86
Figure 5.6. Representation of Service Buildings mollusks, NISP and weight(g).
5.3.1.
Feature 1000: Undocumented Outbuilding
This subcontext within Service Buildings is now designated as an undocumented
out building (Godbout 2012). Feature 1000 was associated with 1,031 fish specimens,
which represented 83% of all fish specimens recovered from the Service Buildings
(Table 5.22). This feature included 284 specimens identified beyond the level of class.
Of the identifiable fish, Scaridae was again the most common at 28% (NISP=78) (Table
5.23). Second was Acanthuridae at 19% (NISP=53), then Clupeidae at 11% (NISP=32).
Closely following are Albulidae and Haemulidae at 10% (NISP=28), and Serranidae at
8% (NISP=23).
Taxon
Common Name
NISP (#)
%
Weight (g)
%
Actinopterygii
Ray-finned bony fish
747
72.5
32.9
47.5
Albula vulpes
Bonefishes
28
2.7
3.1
4.5
Clupeidae
Herrings
32
3.1
0.6
0.9
Gadidae
Cods, haddocks
8
0.8
1.5
2.2
Belonidae
Needlefishes
3
0.3
0.1
0.2
Serranidae
Sea basses, groupers
22
2.1
8.3
12
Cephalopholis spp.
Sea basses
1
0.1
0.2
0.3
87
Taxon
Common Name
NISP (#)
%
Weight (g)
%
Caranx spp.
Jacks
3
0.3
0.9
1.3
Lutjanidae
Snappers
11
1.1
1.2
1.7
Lutjanus spp.
Snappers
5
0.5
0.3
0.4
cf. Rhomboplites aurorubens
Vermillion snapper
1
0.1
0.1
0.2
Haemulidae
Grunts
8
0.8
0.6
0.9
Haemulon spp.
Grunts
20
1.9
1.1
1.6
Mugilidae
Mullets
6
0.6
0.5
0.7
Sphyraena spp.
Barracudas
3
0.3
0.2
0.3
Scaridae
Parrotfishes
7
0.7
0.9
1.3
Scarus spp.
Parrotfishes
17
1.6
1.9
2.7
Sparisoma spp.
Parrotfishes
38
3.7
3.02
4.4
Sparisoma chrysopterum
Redtail parrotfish
4
0.4
0.3
0.4
Sparisoma viride
Stoplight parrotfish
12
1.2
6.6
9.5
Acanthurus spp.
Surgeonfishes
53
5.1
3.7
5.3
Balistes spp.
Leatherjackets, triggerfishes
2
0.2
1.2
1.7
1031
100
69.2
100
Total
Table 5.22. Complete list of fish associated with Feature 1000 in Service Buildings
context, NISP and weight (g).
Family
Common Name
NISP (#)
%
Weight (g)
%
Albulidae
Bonefishes
28
9.9
3.11
8.6
Clupeidae
Herrings
32
11.3
0.6
1.6
Serranidae
Sea basses, groupers
23
8.1
8.6
23.7
Haemulidae
Grunts
28
9.9
1.7
4.6
Scaridae
Parrotfishes
78
27.5
12.7
35.2
Acanthuridae
Surgeonfishes
53
18.7
3.7
10.2
Table 5.23. Most common fish by family associated with Feature 1000, NISP and
weight (g).
Mollusks contributed 577 NISP and 760.2g to the Feature 1000 assemblage
(Table 5.24). Isognomon alatus contributed the most specimens (NISP=118, 77.5g),
while Codakia orbicularis contributed the most by weight with 140.7g despite ranking
third in abundance (NISP=80) (Table 5.25). Anomalocardia flexuosa ranked second in
frequency (NISP=87), but third in weight (110.1g). However, this is arguably the most
significant contribution overall, because these shells are relatively small despite their
88
robusticity, compared with taxa that have a disproportionate NISP to weight ratio such as
the very thick and heavy Cittarium pica and Lobatus gigas, or the very friable and light
Isognomon alatus and Pinctada imbricata. The significance of Anomalocardia flexuosa
will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 6. The broad designation Mollusca was
necessary for a significant portion of this subcontext (NISP=63) but contributing a very
low weight of just 21g due to the small size of the fragments.
Taxon
Common Name
NISP (#)
%
Weight (g)
%
Mollusca
Mollusk
63
10.9
21
2.8
Bivalvia
Bivalve
37
6.4
16.1
2.1
Arcidae
Ark
3
0.5
6.2
0.8
Arca zebra
Turkey wing ark
1
0.2
5.4
0.7
Brachidontes spp.
Mussel
5
0.9
0.3
0.04
Brachiodontes exustus
Scorched mussel
1
0.2
0.04
0.01
Pinctada imbricata
Atlantic pearl-oyster
32
5.6
3.1
0.4
Isognomon spp.
Oyster
3
0.5
1.3
0.2
Isognomon alatus
Flat tree-oyster
118
20.5
77.5
10.2
Isognomon radiatus
Lister purse-oyster
7
1.2
2
0.3
Ostreidae
Oyster
6
1
7.6
1
Crassostrea spp.
Oyster
4
0.7
6.5
0.9
Crassostrea rhizophorae
Mangrove oyster
11
1.9
37.8
5
Aequipecten phrygium
Spathate scallop
1
0.2
1
0.1
Codakia orbicularis
Tiger lucine
80
13.9
182.1
24
Phacoides pectinata
Thick lucine
26
4.5
44.1
5.8
cf. Chama spp.
Jewelbox
1
0.2
0.1
0.01
Anomalocardia flexuosa
Carib pointed venus
87
15.1
110.1
14.5
Chione spp.
Venus
3
0.5
4.8
0.6
Gastropoda
Gastropod
5
0.9
3.8
0.5
Lottia leucopleura
Black-rib limpet
1
0.2
0.9
0.1
Cittarium pica
West Indian topsnail
39
6.8
140.7
18.5
Nerita spp.
Nerite
1
0.2
1
0.1
Nerita fulgurans
Antillean nerite
9
1.6
16
2.1
Nerita tessellata
Checkered nerite
15
2.6
25.1
3.3
Lobatus gigas
Queen conch
15
2.6
40.5
5.3
Monetaria annulus
Gold ringer cowry
1
0.2
4.4
0.6
Nassarius vibex
Bruised nassa
1
0.2
0.4
0.1
Chiton spp.
Chiton
1
0.2
0.3
0.04
89
Taxon
Common Name
NISP (#)
%
Weight (g)
%
577
100
760.1
100
Total
Table 5.24. Complete list of mollusks associated with Feature 1000, NISP and
weight (g).
Taxon
Common Name
Mollusca
NISP (#)
%
Weight (g)
%
Mollusk
63
10.9
21.0
2.8
Isognomon alatus
Flat tree-oyster
118
20.5
77.5
10.2
Codakia orbicularis
Tiger lucine
80
13.9
182.1
24
Anomalocardia flexuosa
Carib pointed venus
87
15.1
110.1
14.5
Phacoides pectinata
Thick lucine
26
4.5
44.1
5.8
Cittarium pica
West Indian topsnail
39
6.8
140.7
18.5
Table 5.25. Most common mollusks associated with Feature 1000, NISP and
weight (g).
5.3.2.
Feature 1003: Masonry Building
The units associated with this feature contained 206 fish specimens, 82 of which
were identifiable below the level of class (Actinopterygii) (Table 5.26). These specimens
account for 22% of all identifiable fish and 17% of all fish in the Feature 1003 context.
Although the identifiable number of specimens is low for this context, some patterns are
still detectable (Table 5.27). The most frequent taxon is Sphyraenidae (NISP=19 and
representing 23% of the identifiable taxa), closely followed by Albulidae (NISP=14,
17%), and Scaridae and Clupeidae (NISP=9, 11%). Again, it cannot be determined
whether the clupeids were from local or nonlocal resources. However, Gadidae does
contribute to 10% (NISP=8) of this subcontext and follows the same pattern as in the
Great House context in that the gadids are all represented by damaged caudal
vertebrae.
Taxon
Common Name
NISP (#)
%
Weight (g)
%
Actinopterygii
Ray-finned bony fish
124
60.2
6.7
36.2
Albula vulpes
Bonefishes
14
6.8
1.8
9.7
Clupeidae
Herrings
9
4.4
0.1
0.5
Gadidae
Cods, haddocks
8
3.9
1.8
9.7
Belonidae
Needlefishes
7
3.4
0.1
0.5
90
Taxon
Common Name
NISP (#)
%
Weight (g)
%
Serranidae
Sea basses, groupers
2
1
0.3
1.6
Caranx spp.
Jacks
5
2.4
0.6
3.2
Lutjanus spp.
Snappers
5
2.4
0.3
1.6
Calamus spp.
Porgies
1
0.5
0.3
1.6
Sphyraena spp.
Barracudas
19
9.2
1.6
8.6
Scarus croicensis
Striped parrotfish
1
0.5
0.2
1.1
Scarus spp.
Parrotfishes
2
1
1.1
5.9
Sparisoma viride
Stoplight parrotfishes
6
2.9
3.3
17.8
Acanthurus spp.
Surgeonfishes
3
1.5
0.3
1.6
206
100
18.5
100
Total
Table 5.26. Complete list of mollusks associated with Feature 1003, NISP and
weight (g).
Family
Common Name
NISP (#)
%
Weight (g)
%
Sphyraenidae
Barracudas
19
23.2
1.6
13.4
Clupeidae
Herrings
9
11
0.1
0.8
Albulidae
Bonefishes
14
17.1
1.8
14.5
Gadidae
Cods, haddocks
8
9.8
1.8
15.2
Belonidae
Needlefishes
7
8.5
0.1
1.07
Scaridae
Parrotfishes
9
11
4.6
38.3
Table 5.27. Most common fish taxa by family associated with Feature 1003, NISP
and weight (g).
By comparison, the mollusks contributed 521 specimens to the Feature 1003
assemblage, with 623.1g in weight (Table 5.28). The most frequent taxon cf. Pinctada
imbricata again, but with just 45.38g in weight contribution. As previously mentioned, the
high NISP of this taxon (NISP=226) is due to the fragmentation that occurred during
shipment from Antigua to the FLMNH, but the shell weight aids in compensating for this
inflation. Cittarium pica contributes the most weight to the assemblage with 272.34g from
just 56 specimens (Table 5.29). The most striking contribution is again by
Anomalocardia flexuosa, ranking second for both frequency and weight (NISP=91,
101.6g).
Taxon
Common Name
Mollusca
Mollusk
91
NISP (#)
%
Weight (g)
%
7
1.3
1
0.2
Taxon
Common Name
NISP (#)
%
Weight (g)
%
Bivalvia
Bivalve
13
2.5
4
0.6
Brachidontes spp.
Mussel
1
0.2
0.1
0.02
Arca zebra
Turkey wing ark
1
0.2
0.7
0.1
Isognomon alatus
Flat tree-oyster
22
4.2
10.6
1.7
Pinctada imbricata
Atlantic pearl-oyster
226
43.4
45.4
7.3
Pteriidae
Oyster
1
0.2
0.5
0.1
Ostreidae
Oyster
5
1
3.2
0.5
Crassostrea spp.
Oyster
1
0.2
2.2
0.4
Crassostrea rhizophorae
Mangrove oyster
5
1
4.3
0.7
Codakia orbicularis
Tiger lucine
58
11.1
93.2
15
Phacoides pectinata
Thick lucine
8
1.5
5.6
0.9
Donax spp.
Beanclam, coquina
1
0.2
0.5
0.1
Anomalocardia flexuosa
Carib pointed venus
91
17.5
101.6
16.3
Gastropoda
Gastropod
3
0.6
1.2
0.2
Lottia leucopleura
Black-rib limpet
1
0.2
0.9
0.1
Cittarium pica
West Indian topsnail
56
10.8
272.3
43.7
Turbinidae
Turban
1
0.2
0.1
0.02
Turbo spp.
Turban
1
0.2
0.7
0.2
Nerita spp.
Nerite
1
0.2
0.6
0.1
Nerita peloronta
Bleeding tooth nerite
1
0.2
3.6
0.6
Nerita tessellata
Checkered nerite
1
0.2
1.8
0.3
Nerita versicolor
Four-tooth nerite
2
0.4
1.7
0.3
Lobatus gigas
Queen conch
11
2.1
64.8
10.4
cf. Cymantium spp.
Triton
1
0.2
1.2
0.2
Chiton spp.
Chiton
2
0.4
1.5
0.2
521
100
623.3
100
Total
Table 5.28. Complete list of mollusks associated with Feature 1003, NISP and
weight (g).
Taxon
Common Name
NISP (#)
%
Weight (g)
%
Isognomon alatus
Flat tree-oyster
22
4.2
10.6
1.7
cf. Pinctada imbricata
Atlantic pearl-oyster
226
43.4
45.4
7.3
Codakia orbicularis
Tiger lucine
58
11.1
93.2
15
Anomalocardia flexuosa
Carib pointed venus
91
17.5
101.6
16.3
Cittarium pica
West Indian topsnail
56
10.7
272.3
43.7
Lobatus gigas
Queen conch
11
2.1
64.8
10.4
92
Table 5.29. Most common mollusks associated with Feature 1003, NISP and
weight (g).
5.4. Chapter Summary
This chapter presented the data from the fish and mollusks in the
zooarchaeological assemblage from Betty’s Hope. The taxa were quantified for mollusks
and fish totals for the Great House and Service Buildings contexts, and their respective
subcontexts. The patterns have revealed significant differences between the two
contexts, both in terms of which taxa are present and in what quantities, which reinforces
the original hypotheses regarding differential distribution of resources by class.
Additionally, the gadids and clupeids were highlighted due to the definite status of
Gadidae specimens as imports, and issues involved in determining if the clupeids were
imported or locally acquired. The following chapter will attempt to interpret the patterns
demonstrated by both the archival data as well as the zooarchaeological data in order to
ascertain the role of fish and mollusks in English colonial foodways for this plantation
site.
93
Chapter 6.
Discussion and Interpretation
Saltfish
Big money does run behind it
Saltfish
Man does lick down man to find it
Saltfish
It’s sweeter than meat
When you want to eat
All saltfish sweet.
(Excerpt of lyrics from “Saltfish” by Mighty Sparrow)
6.1. Introduction
This chapter will demonstrate how the three objectives set forth in Chapter 1
were accomplished by discussing the results of the archival and zooarchaeological
analyses relating to Betty’s Hope. The following objectives will be discussed:
1) quantitatively determine the extent to which fish and mollusks were
incorporated into the English diet at Betty’s Hope;
2) compare the proportion of local tropical fish to nonlocal;
3) determine if the archival records and literature are accurate
representations of English dietary patterns on Caribbean plantations,
and how well the zooarchaeological evidence articulates with archival
data.
The combination of zooarchaeological (Chapter 5) and archival (Chapter 4) data
have revealed far more than examining either on its own could have done, and have
provided even more information than the original research objectives had hoped to
accomplish.
94
6.2. Objective 1: Quantitatively determine the extent to
which fish and mollusks were incorporated into the
English diet at Betty’s Hope.
Analysis of Betty’s Hope fish and mollusks has resulted in two interesting
observations. First, mollusks receive very little attention or discussion in historical
archives and related sources, yet the zooarchaeological analyses have revealed that a
considerable variety of mollusks were utilized at the Betty’s Hope site. In contrast, fish
had a significant presence in the Codrington Papers, but the focus was entirely on
saltfish in the form of gadids and clupeids. Although there was some discussion
pertaining to the act of fishing (especially with seine nets), there was not a single
reference to any local fish taxa. Ultimately, the basic proportion of local to nonlocal
specimens in the zooarchaeological record was drastically different than expected; local
tropical taxa dominated the assemblages in both the Great House and Service Buildings
contexts by up to 97%. This directly contradicts the assumptions referred to in Chapter 1
where the English were distrustful of many local tropical resources (Dunn 1965:263-264,
Kupperman 1984; Newsom and Wing 2004:215). This is not to say that those attitudes
did not exist, however, they appear to not be as pervasive as originally expected.
6.2.1.
Role of Mollusks at Betty’s Hope
The Codrington Papers are relatively silent with respect to mollusks; the four
references encountered were only about shells, once specifically of conch (Lobatus
gigas) and another specifically of mangrove oysters (Crassostrea rhizophorae) with
attached mangrove wood. There were no references at all to the local acquisition of
mollusks, even when referring to slave fishing and utilization of other resources on
Barbuda such as turtle, birds, etc. The local mollusks appear to have only been valuable
to the English in terms of exporting the shell to England as curiosities, if the Codrington
Papers are to be taken at face value.
This result is not particularly surprising, because there are no records that state
that mollusks were imported to Antigua; amongst the various invoices for resources
delivered from the British Isles and the east coast of North America, mollusks are not
included. The use of local mollusks as food at Betty’s Hope and the Codrington family’s
95
other estates, be it for the planter class or the slaves, is entirely absent from the archival
record. There are occasional vague references in other accounts of Antiguan living and
dining in which mollusks do make their way to the Great House table, but the most
specific references are to the presence of clams, whelks, cockles, and oysters. However,
even these are non-specific descriptions considering the number of different taxa that
these common names can include.
The conch is an obvious exception, but despite general references to other
univalves and bivalves, there is almost no mention of their use as food despite the fact
that they made it to the table and were referred to in travelers’ accounts such as
Lanaghan (1844), Schaw (1922), and Nutting (1919). However, even these accounts
were overshadowed by the vast array of other, much more “exciting” foods. The conch
also made a notable appearance in the zooarchaeological assemblage, although it was
primarily in terms of a few heavy fragments. The mangrove oyster is also mentioned
specifically in the Codrington Papers and other accounts, likely because oysters were
already familiar and frequently used in the British Isles. The vast majority of oyster
specimens were from the Great House context, with the primary contribution coming
from the Laundry deposit. However, there appears to be considerably more variety of
mollusks consumed at Betty’s Hope than the archives and other accounts suggest. The
distinct variations in taxon frequency also appear to indicate differential selection and
distribution of resources across the site. This will be discussed further in Objective 2.
In terms of the mollusks represented in the zooarchaeological assemblages, the
contribution varied significantly by frequency and weight, but all specimens were local
tropical varieties. Like the differential distribution between the Great House and Service
Buildings context for the fish remains, there were also differential distribution of the
mollusk taxa between the two contexts. The greatest overall frequency for Betty’s Hope
mollusks was of Pinctada imbricata, but as previously mentioned, this number is likely
inflated due to significant post-excavation fragmentation from shipping.
Interestingly, the next most frequent taxon is Anomalocardia flexuosa, and it is
the least affected by fragmentation due to its small but robust nature and deeper valve
cup. In terms of weight, Cittarium pica is by far the most significant contributor, not just
96
because of its size and thickness, but also in terms of specimen completeness. Lobatus
gigas would easily be the highest weight contributor if even just one specimen was
complete, but most of the specimens recovered were relatively small, including nodules
or columella fragments. This suggests that the shells were not frequently retained,
possibly because the mollusk was removed and the shell disposed of off-site: the shell
was shipped as a curiosity; or, the shells may have been frequently utilized for other
purposes.
Additionally, Cittarium pica shells may not actually represent consumption of the
mollusk meat, but may instead be a byproduct of the shell’s utilization by hermit crabs
(Robertson 2003:33-34). All, some, or none of the Cittarium pica mollusk may have been
consumed by the occupants of Betty’s Hope, and this is an important aspect to bear in
mind despite its significant contribution to the zooarchaeological record. What the
assemblage does show is that the mollusks were also procured from a wide range of
environments, suggesting that certain taxa were sought out for specific reasons. These
reasons also likely responsible for the differential distribution between the Great House
and Service Buildings contexts previously alluded to, and this will be discussed further in
the next chapter.
The Great House context contained many Crassostrea rhizophorae. Phacoides
pectinata was the next highest contributor, followed by Isognomon alatus, Cittarium pica,
and Lobatus gigas (Table 5.5 and Figure 5.2 in Chapter 5). However, the Service
Buildings are associated with more mollusks than the Great House context. Although
Pinctada imbricata contributed the highest frequency due to fragmentation of the fragile
shells, Anomalocardia flexuosa and Codakia orbicularis contributed the highest
frequency and weight (Table 5.20 and Figure 5.5).
Anomalocardia flexuosa is not a large mollusk; each valve is about one inch long,
yet it is relatively thick and durable, which lends to good preservation and thus
identification. It is extremely easy to retrieve in shallow waters, so ease in collection
makes up for the small amount of food each individual would provide. This taxon also
appeared as a significant component in a dirt floor feature found during the 2013
continued excavation of the Service Buildings. It was located beneath two levels of
97
flagstone flooring, and the specimens seemed to be interspersed with fragments of tile
and other potsherds. Although a full analysis and report has not yet been completed for
2013 in the Service Buildings, it does provide tantalizing clues towards some of the
secondary uses for mollusks at Betty’s Hope and other Lesser Antillean plantation sites.
Like the bone specimens found in the Wall Deposit subcontext, this might indicate use of
shell as a construction material. However, the primary difference in this case is the focus
on a single specific species utilized for a single specific purpose rather than the mixed
waste deposit recovered from the Wall Deposit.
The overall patterns appear to demonstrate a significant difference in terms of
quantity of mollusks at the Great House and Service Buildings contexts. When looking at
the raw numbers, the Great House context has less than half of the mollusk remains in
terms of frequency than do the Service Buildings. Given the dismissive attitude of the
upper class towards local resources as noted in the Codrington Papers, Drummond and
Wilbraham (1991), Dunn (1973), Mintz (1985), Newsom and Wing (2004), this appears
to reinforce the notion that local resources were more frequently utilized by the lower
classes than the upper class. However, even if the Great House actively incorporated
mollusks into their daily foodways, the types of mollusks identified and their quantities
varied greatly. For example, the Great House did not reveal any specimens of Pinctada
imbricata, and this context also contained far fewer Anomalocardia brasiliana than the
Service Buildings context. This strongly suggests varying motivations behind selection
practices that unfortunately cannot yet be untangled.
The range of taxa demonstrated by the mollusks in the zooarchaeological
assemblage not only informs on taste and social patterns, but also on which habitats
were being exploited. In addition to the shallows that Anomalocardia flexuosa can be
collected from with ease, the rocky coastlines were also the source of many mollusk taxa
(Nutting 1919:200). The various nerites, Cittarium pica, arks, and chitons are all
collected from this area, as well as the common Phacoides pectinata and Codakia
orbicularis. Mangroves are the home to such taxa as Crassostrea rhizophorae,
Isognomon alatus and Isognomon radiatus. Additionally, even though Betty’s Hope is
relatively near to the coastline, it is not so close that these mollusks could arrive at the
98
site by accident. Even when sea birds such as gulls drop mollusks onto rocks to break
their shells, they do not travel any distance to accomplish this task.
It is clear that our knowledge of the incorporation of local mollusks into English
colonial foodways is currently insufficient, and this is problematic because the
zooarchaeological record has revealed a wide variety of taxa that are not even
mentioned in passing in the Codrington Papers and other accounts. It also appears that
there was differential distribution of certain taxa to the upper class Great House vs. the
middle class Service Buildings. Future research on the role of mollusks both at this site
and others on Antigua (e.g., fort sites), as well as with information from other islands in
the Lesser Antilles, will assist in developing an increased understanding of the role of
mollusks in foodways, their secondary uses, how they were selected, how they were
perceived in terms of cultural and culinary value, and more.
6.2.2.
Role of Fish at Betty’s Hope
The information gleaned on the role of fish from both the historical archives and
the zooarchaeological assemblage was substantial, especially compared to the
mollusks. In fact, it far exceeded expectations in terms of quantity and variety of local
taxa given the focus in the literature on use of saltfish on plantations, with vague passing
references to “fish” acquired from local waters. Not only was the zooarchaeological
assemblage dominated by tropical taxa (up to 97%) (Figure 5.2 in Chapter 5), the
assemblage also demonstrated that a wide range of taxa were utilized, and from multiple
environmental niches, such as the inshore, reef, and pelagic environments. The results
of this research have suggested which fish were utilized and in what quantities, hinted at
selection preferences and practices, and revealed that a significant amount of
information is currently lacking in the archival data pertaining to the role of fish and
fishing in the colonial period. This will be elaborated upon further in the following
discussion for Objective 2.
It is well known that saltfish was a cornerstone of colonial foodways throughout
the Caribbean. The Codrington Papers reinforce this notion with the hundreds of entries
pertaining to saltfish from a number of taxa, including cod, herring, shad, alewives,
99
“scale fish,” and more. But not all saltfish were created equal; there were certainly
grades in terms of quality, and different fish were regarded in different ways. While
herring and other clupeids appear to have been primarily rationed out to the slaves,
codfish seems to have had additional importance attached to it. The excerpt highlighted
in Chapter 4 (Archival Research Results) demonstrated this point, when it was instructed
that two higher-status slaves, Beck and Florah, should each receive a special ration of
beef and good codfish. Food is one of the many ways in which status is reaffirmed socioculturally (as discussed in Chapter 2), and fish is no exception to this rule. Further
discussion of the role of local fish and saltfish in English colonial diet will continue in the
discussion of Objective 2.
6.3. Objective 2: Compare the proportion of local tropical
fish to nonlocal.
6.3.1.
Saltfish
The locally acquired taxa demonstrated a greater variety of both fish and
mollusks than originally expected due to the lack of discussion about specific types of
local fish that were utilized in the Codrington Papers. The total number of nonlocal fish
elements (all vertebrae) was also much lower than anticipated. Of the total 503 fish
specimens in the Great House context identified below the level of class Actinopterygii,
Gadidae represented just 2.6% (NISP=13), with no Clupeidae specimens present. This
is a 97.4% representation of local tropical taxa in this context. By contrast, the Service
Buildings context contained 4.4% (NISP=16) of the Gadidae specimens and also
contained a significant 11.2% (NISP=41) of Clupeidae specimens. Although the clupeids
could not be positively identified as deriving from the local tropical waters around
Antigua and Barbuda rather than the varieties imported from Europe, the hypothetical
implications of this are still significant.
100
If the clupeid specimens were all from local rather than imported taxa, then this
would mean that a surprising 96.7% of the taxa were tropical varieties (Figure 6.1). This
would also mean that the only nonlocal taxon was Gadidae. This suggests that acquiring
clupeids locally, which was a taxon already familiar to and esteemed by the English, was
cheaper than importing them. These fish also held up well to salting, unlike other
reported tropical fish (Dunn 1972:276), and so they could also bypass the issue of rapid
spoiling through immediate salting and preservation.
Figure 6.1. Proportion of local to confirmed nonlocal fish at Betty’s Hope.
However, even if all of the Clupeidae specimens could be determined to be
imported, 91.9% of the assemblage would still be locally acquired (Figure 6.2). This is a
very surprising result given the sheer quantity of these fish that were imported.
Moreover, although the lack of Gadidae specimens is likely due to butchery practices;
clupeids were always left with bones intact and are only gutted prior to preservation. It is
reasonable to expect that Clupeidae specimens would significantly outnumber Gadidae
specimens, however, the proportion of these remains present in the assemblage is still
surprisingly low.
101
Figure 6.2. Proportion of local to nonlocal fish at Betty’s Hope if it is assumed that
all of the Clupeidae specimens were imported.
In addition to the domination of local tropical taxa at Betty’s Hope, there are also
clearly preferred species as well as other patterns that differed between the Great House
and Service Buildings contexts. Not only does this suggest that there were specific
selection preferences and practices occurring, but that this could also have varied
depending on class. This is reinforced by the differential distribution of mollusks between
the Great House and Service Buildings contexts. Interestingly, the most common fish in
the assemblages for both contexts was Scaridae, even though the five most common
taxa by family varied between the two contexts. In fact, Scaridae alone contributed to
23.5% (NISP=197) of the total identifiable specimens, and 29.8% of the most common
taxa (Figure 6.3).
102
Figure 6.3. Proportion representation of the most common fish taxa identified the
combined Great House and Service Buildings contexts.
6.3.2.
Local Fishing
As demonstrated in Chapter 4, the Codrington Papers presented information
about how local fish were procured from Barbuda and occasionally distributed to the
Codrington’s other Antiguan estates. Although the act of fishing was only described for
the use of seine nets on Barbuda, additional tools of acquisition in inventories and
shipment requests demonstrate that other types of fish were sought. It appears that fish
pots and nets were the most common methods of capture. This is reinforced by the
types and quantities of fish identified in the zooarchaeological assemblage, which were
primarily those that would be acquired by net or fish trap rather than the large predatory
fish that were generally caught with baited hooks (e.g., sea basses and groupers, jacks,
and barracuda). These taxa are generally too aggressive for nets and traps, and the
addition of sport in their capture is a further component of their acquisition. It is possible
that smaller and younger individuals could still be trapped in this manner. However, an
interesting aspect about local fishing was that it seems that the majority of locally caught
fish were procured from the waters around Barbuda, rather than from Antigua. Because
the Codrington family leased Barbuda from the crown for about two hundred years, they
used the island exclusively for resource production so that the estates on Antigua could
focus on sugar cultivation and processing its byproducts (i.e., molasses, rum).
103
Although the Codrington Papers fail to refer to any local fish by specific taxon,
there are a few accounts from other sources (i.e., Lanaghan 1844; Nutting 1919; Schaw
1922) that suggest there were several varieties of local fish that were acceptable for an
English table. For example, Nutting (1919) notes that barracuda and red snapper were
the most desirable fish around Antigua. Schaw describes the kingfish, grouper, mullet,
and snapper as being excellent, but failed to name the other “thirteen different fishes, all
good, many of which I have eat and found so” (1922:96). Lanaghan (1844) noted that
that kingfish (unconfirmed identification), “jewfish” (Atlantic goliath grouper, of the
Serranidae), barracuda (Sphyraenidae), cavallie (Carangidae), snapper (Lutjanidae),
hinds
(Serranidae),
silks
(Lutjanidae?),
mullets
(Mugilidae),
Spanish
mackerel
(Scombridae), doctorfish (Acanthuridae?), angelfish (Pomacanthidae), and old wives
(triggerfish, of the Balistidae) were all edible to varying degrees. Parrotfish (Scaridae)
was deemed to be too foul to be appropriate for an English table, even though the slaves
valued it immensely. Frogfish (Antennariidae) were similarly designated as too repulsive
for the English palate, but this taxon was not identified in the zooarchaeological
assemblage; however, it may be expected to appear in the slave quarters context(s)
when that area of the site is excavated.
These data do provide some information as to popular fish amongst the English
upper classes on Antigua. However, they simultaneously highlight the difficulties in truly
understanding the variety of fish—and especially mollusks—procured during this time
period on English plantations. Indeed, the fish appear to have more of a socioeconomic
and sociocultural role in distinguishing the classes rather than simply providing an
additional protein source for slaves. Moreover, with such specifications as to which food
was fit for an upper class table versus those which were not, this must have also been
accompanied by requirements for how fish was procured and distributed. This is where
the zooarchaeological assemblage provides a missing link and establishes a foundation
for future research. As with mollusks, more analysis of specimens from other sites on
Antigua (plantation or otherwise), as well as on different islands, will elucidate the
patterns of acquisition and perception, how they might have changed over time,
differences between European origin of the colonists, regional availability, and more.
104
The local taxa present in the Betty’s Hope zooarchaeological record demonstrate
a complete domination of local over nonlocal taxa for both fish and mollusks. All mollusk
specimens recovered and identified at the site were tropical in origin. There were no
references to importing preserved mollusks from Europe or North America in the
historical archives. However, the proportion of local fish to nonlocal was drastically
different than expected. Even when considering that the gadid specimen count would
likely be quite low due to the nature of standardized butchery practices that removed
most of the bones prior to drying and salting, the clupeids should have made a much
higher contribution than they did. Moreover, it was surprising that all of the clupeid
remains were in the Service Buildings context but not the Great House, since herring
were included in diets of all classes.
One of the challenges in assessing the proportion of local vs. nonlocal fish
utilized at the site is the identification of Clupeidae specimens. It was expected that
gadids and clupeids would be the indicators of imported fish due to the emphasis in
historical records that both taxa were salted imports to the Caribbean from the North
Atlantic. This still holds true for codfish, which are only native to cold waters and
therefore could not have been procured from anywhere in the Caribbean. However,
there are two issues in assessing actual representation of cod in the zooarchaeological
record. First, the butchery process for cod prior to salting and drying requires the
removal of most of the bones. The head is completely removed, as is most of the
vertebral column. Some vertebrae may remain either more cranially and/or more
caudally, depending upon butchery practices. It has also been suspected that the salting
and drying processes would decrease the durability of the remaining bones, also
reducing the chances of those remains being recovered archaeologically. These two
factors would have a dramatic effect on the potential quantity of recovered bones. While
Gadidae specimens contributed just 3% of the fish remains identified below class, it is
likely that the zooarchaeological assemblage drastically underrepresents gadids. It is
fortunate that the historical archives are able to compensate for this underrepresentation
when attempting to assess dietary significance of gadids in English colonial diet at
Betty’s Hope.
105
There is a separate set of issues with the Clupeidae remains. This family of fish
inhabits a wide range of environments, with various species in both temperate and
tropical waters in the Atlantic. Unfortunately, the specimens from Betty’s Hope, which
were recovered from the Service Buildings only and consisted entirely of vertebral
elements, could not be identified below family level. These specimens could therefore
either have been procured locally or imported. As a result, the final proportion of local to
nonlocal fish cannot be assessed with absolute certainty. However, if all of the herring
remains (NISP=41) turned out to be imported, this would bring the total percentage of
nonlocal fish to a maximum of 8% (NISP=70) for Betty’s Hope. If all of the herring
remains turned out to be locally acquired, the percentage of nonlocal remains would
remain at just 3% from the gadid specimens.
In terms of the interpretive value of saltfish, these represent the business aspect
of the plantation, which is based more on expenditure and profit than quality and taste.
For example, it is stated that “fancy herrings” were rarely or never ordered for
plantations; this is likely because, as their name suggests, they are of a quality deemed
too high for the slaves. Moreover, the clupeids themselves were calculated down to the
last fish for each barrel ordered for each estate to determine both plantation expenses
as well as perceived minimum requirements for the slaves to remain productive, as
demonstrated in the Codrington Papers.48
However, herring had figured into the upper class English diet of all classes for
centuries, which leads to the question of why none of these specimens was recovered
from the Great House context. The most likely explanation is that herring had become
too closely associated with food for slaves. English habits are generally defined along
class lines in terms of hierarchical order, but the Atlantic Slave Trade caused racial
segregation to also be considered as a means of distinguishing groups. However, habits
and practices change over time, particularly in the colonial Caribbean, and so it is likely
that certain foods took on new meanings over time; as a result, the hierarchies would
need to be readjusted and reinforced.
48
Citation from Chapter 4: Letter from nephew to Christopher Bethell Codrington, March 1781, in
“Correspondence of Christopher Bethell 1781-1794,” page 21 of 40. (Similar calculations exist
for the other estates Codrington owned at this time, found in the same document).
106
Originally, the planter class was phobic and disparaging of the local resources in
the Caribbean despite their freshness, and would have rather relied upon imported
salted versions of familiar foods from the British Isles, New England and Newfoundland.
However, as poor-grade saltfish became the mainstay of slave diets, it is likely that the
English upper classes would have wanted to ensure their distinction from the slaves by
incorporating drastically different foods into their diet. This would have been a
simultaneously race- and class-based distinction, as suggested by Dunn (1973:263264):
“…the Caribbean planters, like all Europeans in the seventeenth century,
conceived of food and clothing in hierarchical terms. Each rank in the
social order…had its own distinct style of dress, diet, and habitation. By
the late seventeenth century…the island colonists had erected a graded
social system in which the big planters, small planters, servants, and
slaves were meticulously ranked and segregated. Naturally the masters
wished to distinguish themselves from their slaves by the clothes they
wore and the food they ate. So the masters dressed and ate like the
gentry in England, while the slaves…went seminaked and ate tropical
produce.”
It is likely that as saltfish in its various forms became associated with the slaves,
the only alternative was to use fresh meat as an indicator of the wealth and status
required to use the meat before it spoiled in the tropical heat. To host guests with a wide
variety of meats, including the fish discussed in Chapter 4, would require a significant
amount of resources and perfect timing to prevent spoilage. This demonstration of plenty
of fresh foods is in sharp contrast to the strict, repetitive rations doled out to the slaves. It
is also more similar to how the country gentlemen lived and ate on their nearly selfsustaining estates back in England (Drummond and Wilbraham 1991:210-218), but the
Caribbean version combines tropical exotic foods with familiar domestics, and also
tended to be more opulent than what would respectably occur in England:
“…the English planters did not exactly imitate the habits of gentry at
home. Having plenty of easy money to spend, they freely indulged in
conspicuous consumption, living in a more showy fashion than persons of
their station would do in England. And because of the year-round humid
heat, they drank more and slept less than Englishmen at home” (Dunn
1973:264).
107
As European occupation in the Caribbean endured, many fish were determined
as appropriate or inappropriate for the English table. In 1752, Jamse [sic] reported to Mr.
Redhead that a gentleman from St. Kitts thought that their British herring was too salty,
and that the Irish herrings were better (see Chapter 4, footnote 45). This would suggest
that salted herring of a certain quality and/or style was desired by members of the upper
class, and so it is perplexing that only the Service Buildings context contained these
specimens in the zooarchaeological assemblage. It is unlikely that the herring being
referred to in this passage was for the slaves, because the rations provided to the slaves
was generally of such low quality that standards of taste were irrelevant.
Regardless of salted or fresh status, it would be expected that there would be
many more clupeid specimens recovered from the site, and yet that is not the case.
Perhaps herring had become so quintessential to the slaves in both racial and class
divisions that its consumption by anyone in the white community was looked down upon.
This would reflect what was discussed in Chapter 2, where it was noted by Mintz that
“people who eat strikingly different foods or similar foods in different ways are thought to
be strikingly different, sometimes even less human” (Mintz 1985:3).
There is yet another possibility regarding the lack of clupeid remains recovered
from the site. While Gadidae specimens are primarily modified by their method of
butchery prior to preservation, clupeids are more impacted by their method of cooking
and consumption. Smaller clupeids are often fried as “kippers” and consumed whole,
including the bones. This usually results in complete dissolution of the bone during
digestion (Wheeler and Jones 1989:69-74). Alternatively, even if clupeid bone
specimens did survive digestion, they would likely have been deposited in a latrine
context rather than in a food refuse context.
The use of saltfish also varied from island to island. In Barbados, the practice
was to import the poorest grade of New England cod and English herring for the slaves
to eat, while planters opted for mackerel or salmon when they elected to eat salted fish
(Ligon 1657:35-37). Salmon specimens were not identified in the zooarchaeological
assemblage, and salmon was only mentioned twice in the Codrington Papers, one of
which was from historic salvage of a wreck off the coast of Barbuda (see Chapter 4).
108
There is a final aspect to consider when attempting to understand the role of fish
in English colonial foodways. While the archival records such as the Codrington Papers
do provide details of daily life on plantations, the travelers’ accounts that are used as
supplementary information are substantially biased. However, they are not necessarily
biased by the writers themselves; they are biased because they are being treated as
valued guests rather than as locals. In Carmichael’s (1833) account of the five years she
spent residing in St. Vincent and Trinidad, she comes to realize that she had not been
treated as a local until she resided in St. Vincent for nearly two years, and part of this
transition from guest to local was marked by the role fish played in daily diet:
“Those who have been long settled, and who are accustomed to this style
of living [dining daily on jack-fish and roasted plantain or yam], take it very
contentedly, and ask their intimate friend ‘to come and eat fish with them;’
but they know this is not the style of living in England, and it is not before
a considerable lapse of time that they consider you sufficiently creolized,
to invite you to come and eat fish, and when they do, it is a sure sign that
they consider you no longer a ceremonious visitor” (Carmichael 1833:53).
Although the above account is specific to St. Vincent, it does highlight that the
historical accounts that are relied upon to provide information pertaining to daily life can
be biased even if the writer is unaware of this. Even when attempting to be an objective
observer, the circumstances in which they are writing are controlled by their hosts. Their
reports will then likely reflect more ceremonial occasions rather than the everyday. This
is important to consider when historical narratives are utilized to inform on daily life.
Not only did practices vary among islands, but they also would have changed
over time in response to economic pressures or other factors (permanent or temporary),
and could have even come down to personal preference. Going a step further, there
were considerable issues with managers using absentee owners’ money to live lavishly
while altering the accounts to show that the money was going towards necessary
plantation expenses. The Codrington family had these issues as well, reflected in
several letters pertaining to Benjamin King as well as the “Accounts of Clarke and
Martin’s Knavery.” In fact, there is a simple irony in William Codrington’s furious
declaration to his brother that “I have never been so scandalously used in all ye days of
109
my life,”49 when by 1715 he had over five hundred slaves between the Antiguan estates
and Barbuda.
Future excavations in the slave quarters will likely shed more light on the actual
extent of fish and mollusks in foodways on Caribbean plantation site by demonstrating
the types of faunal specimens that were most common in the slave community. This
would potentially resolve interpretations pertaining to race- and class-based distribution
of fish, mollusks, and other animals utilized for food.
6.4. Objective 3: Determine if the archival records and
literature are accurate representations of English
dietary patterns on Caribbean plantations, and how
well the zooarchaeological evidence articulates with
archival data.
Based on the zooarchaeological evidence recovered from Betty’s Hope, it is clear
that there are significant gaps in our knowledge of English foodways on Caribbean
plantations. The near total absence of discussion pertaining to use of local mollusks is a
defining feature of the historical archives and associated literature, such as Lanaghan
(1844), Nutting (1919), Prince (1831), and Schaw (1922). Aside from Lobatus gigas,
viewed as the most quintessential curiosity of the Caribbean for both food and
ornamentation, mollusks received little recognition save for their shipment back to
England as unnamed shells and curiosities. However, the zooarchaeological
assemblage of mollusks recovered from Betty’s Hope demonstrates a wide variety of
mollusks accumulated from different habitats.
The specimens recovered also suggest differential distribution of these local
mollusks across the site, which appears to reinforce the notion that mollusks were
procured for specific purposes, from certain environments, and had different values
attached to them. These patterns and potential implications should not be ignored, and
49
Letter from William Codrington to his brother, April 1721, in “Codrington Family West Indies
Correspondence, page 100 of 324; “ye” is shorthand for “the”
110
more research should be undertaken in order to improve our understanding of the role of
mollusks in English colonial diets. Due to the lack of information provided by historical
archives, even ones so detailed and covering a wide span of time such as the
Codrington Papers, it is clear that zooarchaeological analysis will be one of the key ways
in which this information can be revealed and discussed.
The zooarchaeological assemblage for fish both reinforces and contradicts the
historical records. While many of the species represented in the zooarchaeological
record also appear in the archives and other primary literature as important and tasteful
to the colonists, some do not. The most notable contradiction is the parrotfish, which was
the most frequently occurring taxon in the overall assemblage for Betty’s Hope, as well
as in both the Great House and Service Buildings contexts. However, parrotfish was also
specifically referred to as one of the most distasteful fish to the English palate, one which
would not be permitted on any respectable English table. This is particularly interesting
because the Great House contained the greatest number of parrotfish remains
(NISP=110), although the Service Buildings contained a slightly higher percentage of
these remains (24%, compared to 22% in the Great House) despite their lower
frequency (NISP=87).
How
can
we
account
for
the
prolific
presence
of
parrotfish
in
the
zooarchaeological record when they were considered so distasteful? Although Scaridae
elements are highly identifiable to genus and even species due to certain very durable
elements, their presence in the zooarchaeological record is still significant. Even when
the archives and other accounts appear to provide such crucial information pertaining to
taste, class, and related habits, the zooarchaeological record can still yield unexpected
results. This illustrates why historical zooarchaeology should be included in more
archaeological projects of this nature, and particularly for such a variable and
multifaceted region that experiences dramatic cultural and ecological changes over a
relatively brief period of time. Although the historical archives provide a wealth of
knowledge about the business aspects of plantations, they can contain startlingly little
pertaining to many aspects of daily life. These are the aspects that archaeologists most
commonly come across, and so this disjointed nature of the historical and archaeological
111
data pertaining to daily life must be remedied in order to truly understand how
plantations operated in the colonial Caribbean.
6.5. Chapter Summary
This chapter demonstrated how each research objective (Chapter 1) was met in
the course of research conducted in this thesis. The roles of fish and mollusks in English
colonial foodways were examined via the results of the archival and zooarchaeological
data sets from Betty’s Hope plantation. Butchery and taphonomic considerations were
highlighted for both categories of taxon, but even with these caveats the results
overwhelmingly demonstrated that local tropical resources were utilized much more than
the historical archives and other resources allude to. Moreover, it is clear that these were
not simply easily accessible and stable sources of protein due to the differential
distribution of the taxa between the Great House and Service Buildings contexts. This is
likely due to the strict hierarchical distinctions that the English and other Europeans of
this time implemented race- and class-based distinctions between groups of people.
112
Chapter 7.
Conclusions
7.1. Conclusions
The role of fish and mollusks in Caribbean plantation foodways has been
understudied and relegated to the patchy commentary of historical accounts without
affording these taxa the same analytical attention as mammals, birds, and sea turtle.
Although fish and mollusks are often simply viewed as a stable and relatively easy to
acquire protein supply, this is clearly not the full story. Fish and mollusks were subject to
the same preferential and selective practices as other animals, and analysis of these
taxa in the historical archives and the zooarchaeological record offers an interesting
contradiction.
The English in the Caribbean were frequently touted as being ill-equipped to
handle life in the tropics, and succeeded at dying in droves rather than adjusting their
North Atlantic habits to fit a tropical island lifestyle (Dunn 1972; Kupperman 1984). They
were also particularly suspicious about many of the local resources, yet despite this,
many local tropical resources were included in their daily diets including fish and
mollusks. Some historical accounts describe certain species as appearing on English
tables as appropriate specimens for consumption, and yet some species such as
Scaridae (parrotfish) were considered disgusting to the palate and only appreciated by
the slaves. More frustratingly from a researcher’s perspective are the broad descriptions
found in historical accounts such as “clam” which are zooarchaeologically too general.
Betty’s Hope is an ideal plantation context in which to undertake this type of
investigation. It has a long period of occupation spanning from the mid-seventeenth to
mid-twentieth century, during which time records were kept that became Codrington
Papers. This collection of historical archives coupled with remains recovered from six
seasons of excavation provides both a stable foundation and an appropriate sample size
113
for a zooarchaeological analysis. Although a full range of zooarchaeological material has
been recovered from the site, this study has focused only on the fish and mollusk
specimens, and will be expanded upon in the future.
The historical archives for Betty’s Hope demonstrated a distinct lack of
discussion pertaining to mollusk collection or consumption, save for the use of shells as
souvenirs and curiosities. However, the zooarchaeological record for Betty’s Hope has
revealed a significant presence of local tropical mollusks in both the Great House and
Service Buildings contexts. Moreover, the differential patterns of representation between
the two contexts may be demonstrating that social class determined which mollusks
would be available for that particular group.
Contradictions had been expected from the outset, but determining the
proportion of local tropical fish to nonlocal taxa was vastly different than expected. This
also meant that assessing and interpreting the role of fish in plantation foodways differed
significantly from expectations. Despite the emphasis on saltfish in the Codrington
Papers, specifically gadids and clupeids, the majority of fish remains were locally
acquired. Moreover, the patterns of remains recovered from the two different contexts at
Betty’s Hope, the Great House and the Service Buildings, suggest differential distribution
based on social rank. The clupeid remains that were recovered were only located in the
Service Buildings context, but the overwhelming opinion tends to be that clupeids were
imported almost exclusively for the slaves. Gadids have been recovered from both
contexts, but their presence was already expected to be low due to the nature of their
required butchery and preservation.
Despite this, local taxa particularly from the reefs made up the majority of the fish
taxa consumed at the site, with up to 98% of tropical origin and just 2% from the North
Atlantic. If the Clupeidae specimens were actually North Atlantic imports, then the
percentage of imported fish recovered from Betty’s Hope would decrease to
approximately 92%. Even with this decrease, the overwhelming majority of fish remains
recovered from the site were of local tropical origin, all of which could be procured from
the waters surrounding Antigua and Barbuda.
114
7.2. Contributions and Future Research
One of the most significant contributions of this research is the digitization of the
Codrington Papers and their transformation into open access documents via the SFU
library website. This has a significant impact on the accessibility of the documents for
both researchers and the public, and will hopefully encourage more research on Antigua
and Barbuda. In addition to increasing accessibility, the digitization process also
provides an additional form of preservation for the documents in case of damage to the
physical archives and/or microfilm copies.
The quantitative results and analysis of two types of data have also highlighted
significant gaps in our knowledge of Caribbean plantation foodways and lifeways.
However, it is also important to note that Betty’s Hope plantation and the Codrington
family’s other estates benefitted significantly from the use of Barbuda for resource
production. The use of this island effectively provided the Antiguan estates with a means
to escape the biggest issue for Lesser Antillean plantations, the lack of surplus land. In
the Greater Antilles and the southeast US, there were many more local environments to
procure resources from that would have increased the diversity of diet for both planters
and slaves alike. But the vast majority of plantations in the Lesser Antilles had to
carefully calculate allotments of land to maximize both sugarcane production as well as
other food crops such as yams, eddoes, corn, and sorghum. This may have required the
Codrington plantations on Antigua to actually utilize more local resources because they
were shipped from Barbuda.
Future research for Betty’s Hope includes a comprehensive analysis of all of the
zooarchaeological remains recovered from site contexts to more appropriately place the
fish and mollusks into a more complete zooarchaeological context. In addition to the two
site contexts discussed in this project, the Great House and the Service Buildings, the
next context for comparison is the slave village once excavations in that part of the site
begin in the summer of 2014. The results of this excavation will be a pivotal aspect of
sociocultural analysis and differential use of resources. Due to the long occupation of the
site, it should also provide information pertaining to pre- and post-Emancipation
foodways and lifeways for the slaves and laborers at Betty’s Hope. There are certainly
115
many more opportunities for additional analysis for this site, which will further elucidate
the daily lives of all communities who lived and worked at Betty’s Hope for nearly three
hundred years.
116
References Cited
Abbott, Elizabeth
2009 Sugar: A Bittersweet History. Duckworth Overlook, London.
Abbott, R. Tucker
1974 American Seashells: The Marine Mollusca of the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts
of North America. 2nd ed. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York.
Agbe-Davies, Anna S.
2009 Scales of Analysis, Scales of Value: Archaeology at Bush Hill House,
Barbados. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 13:112-126.
Armstrong, Douglas V. and Mark W. Hauser
2009 A Sea of Diversity: Historical Archaeology in the Caribbean. In International
Handbook of Historical Archaeology. T. Majewski and D. Gaimster (eds.)
pp.583-612. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.
Bar-Yosef Mayer, Daniella E.
2002 An Introduction to Archaeomalacology. In Archaeomalacology: Molluscs in
Former Environments of Human Behaviour. Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer
(ed.) pp. 1-4. Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the International Council
of Archaeozoology, Durham, August 2002. Oxbow Books, Oxford.
Barber, Sarah
2012 Who Owns Knowledge? Heritage, Intellectual Property and Access in and to
the History of Antigua and Barbuda. Archival Science 12(1).
Bennett, Harry J., Jr.
1951 The Problem of Slave Labor Supply at the Codrington Plantations. The
Journal of Negro History 36(4):406-441.
Berleant-Schiller, Riva
1977 The Social and Economic Role of Cattle in Barbuda. Geographical Review
67(3):299-309.
Bobrowsky, Peter T.
1982 An Examination of Casteel’s MNI Behavior Analysis: A Reductionist
Approach. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 7(2):171-184.
117
Bököniy, S.
1970 A New Method for the Determination of the Number of Individuals in Animal
Bone Material. American Journal of Archaeology 74:291-292.
Brumfiel, Elizabeth M.
2003 It’s a Material World: History, Artifacts, and Anthropology. Annual Review of
Anthropology 32:205-23.
Carmichael, Mrs. [Five Years a Resident in St. Vincent and Trinidad]
1833 Domestic Manners and Social Condition of the White, Coloured, and Negro
Population of the West Indies. Volume 1. Negro Universities Press, New York.
Carney, Judith A. and Richard Nicholas Rosomoff
2009 In the Shadow of Slavery: Africa’s Botanical Legacy in the Atlantic World.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Cartensen, Birgit
1993 Betty’s Hope: An Antiguan Sugar Plantation. Betty’s Hope Trust, St. John’s.
Casteel, Richard W.
1972 A Method for Estimation of Live Weight of Fish from the Size of Skeletal
Elements. American Antiquity 39(1):94-98.
Casteel, Richard W.
1976 Fish Remains in Archaeology and Paleo-environmental Studies. Academic
Press, London.
Crader, Diana C.
1984 The Zooarchaeology of the Storehouse and the Dry Well at Monticello.
American Antiquity 49(3):542-558.
Crader, Diana C
1990 Slave Diet at Monticello. American Antiquity 55(4): 690-717.
Crouch, Mira and Grant O’Neill
2000 Sustaining Identities? Prolegomena for Inquiry into Contemporary Foodways.
Social Science Information 39(1):181-192.
Day, Ivan (editor)
2000 Eat, Drink and Be Merry: The British at the Table (1600-2000). Philip Wilson
Publishers, London.
Domínguez-Rodrigo, Manuel
2012 Critical Review of the MNI (Minimum Number of Individuals) as a
Zooarchaeological Unit of Quantification. Archaeological and Anthropological
Sciences 4(1):47-59.
118
Douglas, Mary
1972 Deciphering a Meal. Daedalus 101(1):61-81.
Drummond, J. C. and Anne Wilbraham
1991 The Englishman’s Food: A History of Five Centuries of English Diet. Pimlico,
London.
Dunn, Richard S.
1972 Sugar and Slaves: The Rise of the Planter Class in the English West Indies,
1624-1713. W. W. Norton and Company, New York.
Dyde, Brian
2000 A History of Antigua: The Unsuspected Isle. Macmillan Education, London.
Ferguson, Leland
1992 Uncommon Ground: Archaeology and Early African America, 1650-1800.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
Fox, Georgia L.
2013 Betty’s Hope Archaeological Site Report, 2007-2012. For Dr. Reginald
Murphy, Principle Oversight, Betty’s Hope Trust.
Fox-Genovese, Elizabeth
1988 Within the Plantation Household: Black and White Women of the Old South.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Froese, R. and D. Pauly (editors)
2014 FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. www.fishbase.org, version
(01/2014).
Godbout, Geneviève
2013 Excavation of the Kitchen Yard at the Betty’s Hope Plantation Site (PEH001), June-July 2012: Preliminary Site Report. Prepared for The Betty’s Hope
Trust and Nelson’s Dockyard National Park.
Godbout, Geneviève and Catherine Davis
2012 Survey of the Kitchen Yard and Service Building Compound at Betty’s Hope
Plantation (PEH-001): Preliminary Field Report. On file at Nelson’s Dockyard
National Park, Antigua and Barbuda.
Granata, Linda Ankenman, George J. Flick, Jr., and Roy E. Martin (editors)
2012 The Seafood Industry: Species, Products, Processing, and Safety. 2nd ed.
Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken.
Grayson, Donald K.
1973 On the Methodology of Faunal Analysis. American Antiquity 39(4):432-439.
119
Grayson, Donald K.
1978 Minimum Numbers and Sample Size in Vertebrate Faunal Analysis. American
Antiquity 43(1):53-65.
Grayson, Donald K.
1979 On the Quantification of Vertebrate Archaeofaunas. Advances in
Archaeological Method and Theory 2:199-237.
Grayson, Donald K.
1984 Quantitative Zooarchaeology: Topics in the Analysis of Archaeological
Faunas. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando.
Hamilakis, Yannis
1999 Food Technologies/Technologies of the Body: The Social Context of Wine
and Oil Production and Consumption in Bronze Age Crete. World Archaeology
31(1): 38-54.
Handler, Jerome S.
1997 An African-Type Healer/Diviner and His Grave Goods: A Burial from a
Plantation Slave Cemetery in Barbados, West Indies. International Journal of
Historical Archaeology 1(2): 91-125.
Harlow, George E., A. Reg Murphy, David J. Hozjan, and Alfred A. Levinson
2006 Pre-Columbian Jadeite Axes from Antigua, West Indies: Description and
Possible Sources. Canadian Mineralogist 44:305-321.
Harris, David R.
1965 Plants, Animals, and Man in the Outer Leeward Islands, West Indies: An
Ecological Study of Antigua, Barbuda, and Anguilla. University of California
Press, Berkeley.
Hofman, Corinne L., Alistair J. Bright, Arie Boomert, and Sebastiaan Knippenberg
2007 Island Rhythms: The Web of Social Relationships and Interaction Networks in
the Lesser Antillean Archipelago between 400 B.C. and A.D. 1492. Latin
American Antiquity 18(3):243-268.
Humann, Paul
1992 Reef Creature Identification: Florida, Caribbean, Bahamas. Paramount Miller
Graphics, Inc., Jacksonville, Ned DeLoach (editor).
Jones, Stacy V.
1963 Weights and Measures: An Informal Guide. Public Affairs Press, Washington,
D.C.
Kaplan, Eugene H.
1988 A Field Guide to Southeastern and Caribbean Seashores: Cape Hatteras to
the Gulf Coast, Florida, and the Caribbean. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
120
Keegan, William F. and Lisabeth A. Carlson
2008 Talking Taíno: Essays on Caribbean Natural History from a Native
Perspective. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Klippel, Walter
2001 Sugar Monoculture, Bovid Skeletal Part Frequencies, and Stable Carbon
Isotopes: Interpreting Enslaved African Diet at Brimstone Hill, St Kitts, West
Indies. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:1191-1198.
Kottelat, M. and J. Freyhof
2007 Handbook of European Freshwater Fishes. Publications Kottelat, Cornol.
Kupperman, Karen Ordahl
1984 Fear of Hot Climates in the Anglo-American Colonial Experience. The William
and Mary Quarterly 41(2):213-240.
Kurlansky, Mark
1997 Cod: A Biography of the Fish that Changed the World. Penguin Group, New
York.
Lanaghan, Mrs.
1844 Antigua and Antiguans: A Full Account of the Colony and its Inhabitants from
the Time of the Caribs to the Present Day. Vols. I and II. Saunders and Otley,
London.
Landon, David B.
2009 An Update on Zooarchaeology and Historical Archaeology: Progress and
Prospects. In International Handbook of Historical Archaeology, edited by T.
Majewski and D. Gaimster, pp. 77-104. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.
LeFebvre, M. J.
2007 Zooarchaeological Analysis of Prehistoric Vertebrate Exploitation at the
Grand Bay Site, Carriacou, West Indies. Coral Reefs 26:931-944.
Ligon, Richard
1657 A True and Exact History of the Island of Barbados. For Humphrey Moseley,
at the Prince Armes in St. Paul’s Church-yard, London.
Lyman, R. Lee
1994 Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Lyman, R. Lee
2008 Quantitative Paleozoology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Mintz, Sidney
1985 Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History. Penguin
Group.
121
Mintz, Sidney and Christine M. Du Bois
2002 The Anthropology of Food and Eating. Annual Review of Anthropology 31:
99-119.
Nelson, J. S.
1994 Fishes of the World. 3rd edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
Newsom, Lee A. and Elizabeth S. Wing
2004 On Land and Sea: Native American Uses of Biological Resources in the West
Indies. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Nutting, Charles Cleveland
1919 Barbados-Antigua Expedition: Narrative and Preliminary Report of a
Zoological Expedition from the University of Iowa to the Lesser Antilles Under the
Auspices of the Graduate College. University of Iowa Studies: Studies in Natural
History 8(3):1-244.
Oliver, A. P. H.
1975 The Larousse Guide to Shells of the World. Larousse and Co., Inc., New
York.
Peres, Tanya M.
2010 Methodological Issues in Zooarchaeology. Integrating Zooarchaeology and
Paleoethnobotany: A Consideration of Issues, Methods, and Cases. Springer
Science+Business Media, LLC, New York.
Plug, Cornelis and Ina Plug
1990 MNI Counts as Estimates of Species Abundance. South African
Archaeological Bulletin 45:53-57.
Price, Richard
1966 Caribbean Fishing and Fishermen: A Historical Sketch. American
Anthropologist 68(6):1363-1383.
Prince, Mary
1831 The History of Mary Prince, A West Indian Slave. Related by Herself. With a
Supplement by the Editor. To Which is Added, The Narrative of Asa-Asa, A
Captured African. F. Westley and A. H. Davis, London.
Quitmyer, Irvy R.
2003 Zooarchaeology of Cinnamon Bay, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands: PreColumbian Overexploitation of Animal Resources. Bulletin of the Florida Museum
of Natural History 44(1):131-158.
122
Quitmyer, Irvy R., Stephen C. Atkins, and Joanne Bowen
2012 The Zooarchaeology of the Middle 17th and Late 18th Centuries, King’s
Castle, Bermuda: The Cost of Living in Paradise. Bermuda Journal of
Archaeology and Maritime History 20:114-141.
Reitz, Elizabeth J.
1992 Vertebrate Remains from Highland House and Codrington Castle, Barbuda.
Ms. on file, Zooarchaeology Laboratory, University of Georgia, Athens. pp.51
Reitz, Elizabeth J. and Elizabeth S. Wing
2008 Zooarchaeology. 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Robertson, Robert
2003 The Edible West Indian “Whelk” Cittarium pica (Gastropoda: Trochidae):
Natural History with New Observations. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural
Sciences of Philadelphia 153:27-47.
Robins, C. Richard, Reeve M. Bailey, Carl E. Bond, James R. Brooker, Ernest A.
Lachner, Robert N. Lea, and W. B. Scott
1991 Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States and Canada.
5th edition. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 20. American
Fisheries Society, Bethesda.
Rouse, Irving
1989 Peopling and Repeopling of the West Indies. In Biogeography of the West
Indies: Past, Present, and Future. Sandhill Crane Press, Gainesville.
Ryan, Shannon
1986 Fish Out of Water: The Newfoundland Saltfish Trade 1814-1914. Breakwater
Books, St. John’s.
Saunders, Nicholas J.
2005 The Peoples of the Caribbean: An Encyclopedia of Archaeology and
Traditional Culture. ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara.
Scarry, Margaret C. and Elizabeth J. Reitz
1990 Herbs, Fish, Scum, and Vermin: Subsistence Strategies in Sixteenth-century
Spanish Florida. In Columbian Consequences, Vol. 2: Archaeological and
Historical Perspectives in the Spanish Borderlands East. David Hurst Thomas
(ed.), pp. 343-354. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Schaw, Janet
1922 Journal of a Lady of Quality: Being the Narrative of a Journey from Scotland
to the West Indies, North Carolina, and Portugal in the Years 1774 to 1776. E. W.
Andrews and C. M. Andrews (eds.). Yale University Press, New Haven.
123
Scott, Elizabeth M
2001 Food and Social Relations at Nina Plantation. American Anthropologist
103(3): 671-690.
Simmons, George C.
1972 Towards a Biography of Christopher Codrington the Younger. Caribbean
Studies 12(1):32-50.
Singleton, Theresa A
1995 The Archaeology of Slavery in North America. Annual Review of
Anthropology 24: 119-140.
Smith, C. Lavett
1997 National Audubon Society Field Guide to Tropical Marine Fishes of the
Caribbean, the Gulf of Mexico, Florida, the Bahamas, and Bermuda. Alfred A.
Knopf, Inc., New York.
Spencer, Colin
2008 V.C.4: The British Isles. In The Cambridge World History of Food. Kenneth F.
Kiple and Kriemhild Coneè Ornelas (eds.), pp. 1217-1226. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Stokes, Joseph F.
1980 Handguide to the Coral Reef Fishes of the Caribbean and Adjacent Tropical
Waters Including Florida, Bermuda and the Bahamas. Lippincott and Crowell,
Publishers, New York.
Swanson, Drew A.
2009 Wormsloe’s Belly: The History of a Southern Plantation Through Food.
Southern Cultures 15(4): 50-66.
Thomas, Brian W.
1998 Power and Community: The Archaeology of Slavery at the Hermitage
Plantation. American Antiquity 63(4):531-551.
Titus, Mary
1992 “Groaning tables” and “Spit in the kettles”: Food and Race in the NineteenthCentury South. Southern Quarterly 30(2-3):11-21.
Tuma, Michael W.
2006 Ethnoarchaeology of Subsistence Behaviors within a Rural African American
Community: Implications for Interpreting Vertebrate Faunal Data from Slave
Quarters Areas of Antebellum Plantation Sites. Historical Archaeology 40(4):126.
124
Turgeon, Donna D., Arthur E. Bogan, Eugene V. Coan, William K. Emerson, William G.
Lyons, William L. Pratt, Clyde F. E. Roper, Amelie Scheltema, Fred G. Thompson, and
James D. Williams
1988 Common and Scientific Names of Aquatic Invertebrates from the United
States and Canada: Mollusks. American Fisheries Society Special Publication
16. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda.
Wheeler, Alwyne C. and Andrew K. G. Jones
1989 Fishes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Wilson, Samuel M.
2001 Chapter 25: The Prehistory and Early History of the Caribbean. In
Biogeography of the West Indies: Patterns and Perspectives. 2nd ed. Charles A
Woods and Florence E. Sergile (eds.), pp. 519-528. CRC Press LLC, Boca
Raton.
Wing, Elizabeth S.
2001 Chapter 24: Native American Use of Animals in the Caribbean. In
Biogeography of the West Indies: Patterns and Perspectives. 2nd ed. Charles A
Woods and Florence E. Sergile (eds.), pp. 481-518. CRC Press LLC, Boca
Raton.
Wing, Elizabeth S. and Stephen R. Wing
1995 Prehistoric Ceramic Age Adaptation to Varying Diversity of Animal Resources
Along the West Indian Archipelago. Journal of Ethnobiology 15(1):119-148.
Young, Amy L., Michael Tuma, and Cliff Jenkins
2001 The Role of Hunting to Cope with Risk at Saragossa Plantation, Natchez,
Mississippi. American Anthropologist 103(3): 692-704.
125
Appendix A.
Archives Citation Information
As described in Chapters 1 and 3, the archives utilized for this project were the
Codrington Papers, specifically those that relate to West Indian estates. These originally
existed as a copy of microfilm reels that were first made by the Gloucester County
Archives Office in the 1970s. In 1980, one year before Antigua and Barbuda became an
independent nation, Simon Codrington wanted to privately sell some of his family’s
property to help offset debts he had accrued. However, this sparked a controversy
because the section relating to West Indian affairs involved the heritage of descendant
communities living in Antigua and Barbuda (Barber 2012). Despite the heated debate
about the legality and ethics of selling items relating to other peoples’ heritage, the
auction of the papers took place. Even though the government of Antigua and Barbuda
had raised a significant sum (£90,000), an anonymous buyer ultimately purchased the
Codrington Papers West Indian Affairs and later donated the documents to Antigua
(Barber 2012:6). The originals are now housed in the National Archives Building in St.
John’s, which was donated to the government specifically for the archives, and more
microfilm copies were made and distributed (Barber 2012:11; Cartensen 1993:4).
The SFU Central Research Library system has a copy of these reproduced
microfilm reels, which I obtained at the beginning of my research. However, with the
prospect of travelling all summer across the US and Caribbean, came the trouble of how
the reels could be read when a microfilm reader was frequently unavailable. After some
research, a digitization company, MicroCom Systems Ltd., was located in Vancouver
and was able to convert the microfilm reels into PDF documents. The first several reels
126
were digitized at personal expense, but later I obtained reimbursement and additional
funding from the SFU Scholarly Digitization Fund. With the permission of the Antiguan
government via Dr. Reginald Murphy, the Codrington Papers relating to West Indian
archives were digitized and posted on the SFU Library website as an open access
resource.
As a result of this digitization, the files required reorganization to appropriately
reflect the new medium of storage and information access. The original files were
organized by reel number (1-15), coupled with the coding system used by the
Gloucester Archival office. Specific letters, for example, may also contain the names of
the sender and recipient, and date of writing. When the archives were digitized, the reel
numbers were retained at first, but this became unnecessary when the files were
reorganized to reflect the section names. Rather than the Gloucester coding that is no
longer relevant, the title of the document section becomes the primary way of narrowing
the search, and then the page numbers of the PDF are the faster and more accurate
way of tracking down a given page, coupled with the additional descriptors such as date,
letter sender/recipient, etc.
For example, in Chapter 4, footnote 14, the first archival citation is for the letter
excerpt: “No 9 a Box of Mangrove Oysters with pieces of the Mangrove tree they grow
on, this and No. 2 [‘a Box of Stone Specimens as p list inclosed’] are curiosities.” The
footnote citation for this quote is: “Letter from Jarritt at Betty’s Hope to Christopher
Bethell Codrington, 1 May 1830, in ‘Correspondence of Christopher Bethell Codrington
with R. Jarritt,’ page 33 of 65.” In order to find the citation in the open access archives,
you would download the file named “Correspondence of Christopher Bethell Codrington
with R. Jarrit.” This section was originally coded as Microfilm no. 351, Section no. 10,
127
Glos. R.O. reference of section D1610 C29, and this information can still be found at the
beginning of the document. In this document, the page number of the PDF that this
excerpt is on is page 33 out of a total of 65 pages in that file. The rest of the descriptive
data were obtained from either the beginning or the end of that particular letter, for
example, the date and recipient at the top of the same page, and the sender at the
bottom of the next. Although the title of the document already states that the section is
specifically for correspondence between Christopher Bethell Codrington (frequently
addressed simply as “Bethell”) and R. Jarritt, there are instances in other files where
there may be a mix of documents from various senders.
There are also many instances of confusion when reading the archives, some of
which have been shown when incorporating quotes from the Codrington Papers in this
thesis. This may be due to unclear handwriting, inability to interpret a word into a modern
equivalent (e.g., different spelling that confounds interpretation), or damage to the
original archives that affected subsequent copies (e.g., torn pages, smeared ink,
overlapping ink from opposite page, etc.). When attempting to relate a direct quotation,
some placeholders or adjustments were made despite all attempts to replicate the
original. This may result in use of one of two symbols. Underscores (_) were inserted to
demonstrate a completely incomprehensible letter in a word or an entire word. No letters
or potential translations were possible. If a question mark in parentheses after a word is
provided, then an attempt has been made to transcribe the word but uncertainty as to
spelling or certain letters may result in an inaccurate translation of the word. For
example, in footnote 15, Letter from William Codrington to brother, 19 December 1720,
in “Codrington Family West Indies Correspondence,” page 59 of 324, there was
considerable confusion as to the translation of the phrase. The quote was: “…& I pray
128
send me a small bag of Negro and bird pepper and some _ayd(?) Cowish & some
Conkshells…”. In this case, the word “_ayd” incorporated both symbols because the first
letter of the word could not be confirmed even within the context of the entire word or
phrase. Additionally, the entire word could not be confirmed both due to the unknown
first letter as well as the combination of the rest of the letters in the word. Explanations
pertaining to archaic spellings were addressed in footnotes as needed, linking archaic
and common names to scientific ones.
It is hoped that this digitization process will facilitate research using these
documents now that they are open access through the SFU library system. In addition to
making the documents more accessible to both researchers and the public, it has also
aided in their preservation in the event of physical damage to the originals or the
microfilm copies. A computer with an internet connection is much easier to access than
a microfilm reader, the quality is better, and it is easier to reference the documents. The
link
for
the
digitized
Codrington
Papers
via
http://content.lib.sfu.ca/cdm/landingpage/collection/cwc.
129
the
SFU
library
system
is:
Appendix B.
Zooarchaeological Taxa Inventory
This section presents an inventory of the most common mollusk and fish taxa
highlighted in this chapter. It provides additional information pertaining to habitat,
behavior, and methods of acquisition, and also includes images of common identifiable
bones and shell. These images are not exhaustive of the full range of identifiable
elements and features for each taxon, especially for the fish bones, but the most
common and distinctive elements are used for representation purposes.
Mollusks
The following mollusks all represented the most frequent taxa in both quantity
and weight at Betty’s Hope in both the Great House and Service Buildings contexts. All
of the mollusks listed are edible, but some are more well-known in the Caribbean than
others. One of the challenges in mollusk identification in zooarchaeological assemblages
is keeping up with the frequently changing scientific and common names of the various
taxa. Although academic databases now exist to keep pace with recent changes, and
accepted/preferred or no longer valid names, zooarchaeologists frequently rely on the
same sources (e.g., Abbott 1974; Robins et al. 1991; Turgeon et al. 1988) for
identifications. While the identifications using these books are sound, particularly when
coupled with a comparative collection, a range of common and scientific names are
incorporated into the literature. For example, although the queen conch is now Lobatus
gigas, it is still frequently listed as Strombus gigas in archaeological literature. In an
effort to link current accepted nomenclature with other resources that may use older
names, I have included alternate names below. There is still some disagreement
amongst the most current academic databases, but I have chosen to rely on three for
the sake of consistency while still providing the latitude to cross-check information:
FishBase (http://www.fishbase.org), the Encyclopedia of Life (http://www.eol.org), and
World Register of Marine Species (http://www.marinespecies.org).
130
Isognomon alatus (flat tree-oyster)
Although the flat tree-oyster (Figure B.1) has a rather fragile shell, the more
durable hinge is the most distinctive feature of this taxon. It is also one of the
distinguishing features between the species Isognomon alatus and Isognomon radiatus:
the former has eight to 12 oblong-shaped hinge sockets and purplish coloring, while the
latter has four to eight square-shaped hinge sockets and yellower coloring. This color
may fade archaeologically. The mollusk is frequently found in dense groups attached to
mangrove tree roots (Abbott 1974:441).
Figure B.1. Isognomon alatus (left)50 and Isognomon radiatus (right).51 Onecentimeter scale.
Crassostrea rhizophorae (mangrove oyster)
The mangrove oyster (Figure B.2) is a common and edible West Indian mollusk
which varies considerably in size and shape depending on the environment and how
closely clustered the individuals are to each other on mangrove roots. The bivalve is
50
51
Catalogue number: BH2012-STU100-7; Service Quarters context; STU100, level 7.
Catalogue number: BH2012-STU100-5-2; Service Quarters context; STU100, level 5.
131
comprised of a deep-cupped lower valve and a flatter upper valve, with the lower valve
being more irregularly shaped than the more ovular upper valve (Abbott 1974:456). This
taxon was referred to in Chapter 4 when Codrington requested a sample of these
oysters sent to England, including the wood they attached to, as a curiosity.
Figure B.2. Crassostrea rhizophorae.52 Deep-cupped lower valve (left) and flatter
upper valve (right). One-centimeter scale.
Pinctada imbricata (Atlantic pearl-oyster)
Although heavy fragmentation makes a positive identification of this taxon
tentative for the Atlantic pearl oyster (Figure B.3), the hinge, tooth, umbo, and wing are
the most morphologically consistent with Pinctada imbricata. This taxon is common in
shallow waters attached to rocks (Abbott 1974:440).
52
Catalogue number: BH-309-3-14-12. Great House context; Unit 309, level 3.
132
Figure B.3. Pinctada imbricata fragments depicting umbo and wing on exterior
(left) and hinge and tooth on interior aspect (right).53 One-centimeter
scale.
Codakia orbicularis (tiger lucine)
The tiger lucine (Figure B.4) is another very common clam in the Caribbean. It is
the largest bivalve recovered from Betty’s Hope (maximum size is 7 - 9.5cm long) and
quite thick (Abbott 1974:459). This also lent well to preservation archaeologically.
Although generally white in color when recovered archaeologically, the interior of the
shell along the tooth and hinge to the anterior and posterior margins may retain traces of
pink-orange coloring. This coloration is much more vibrant in recently deceased
mollusks found along the beach.
53
Catalogue number: BH2012-STU102-4-10. Service Quarters context; STU102, level 4.
133
Figure B.4. Codakia orbicularis specimens.54 Interior (right) demonstrating
residual pink coloration. Exterior of valve (left) demonstrating
pattern. One-centimeter scale.
Phacoides pectinata (thick lucine)
Originally named Lucina pectinata, this bivalve was reclassified to the genus
Phacoides (Figure B.5). This is another relatively large and common taxon in the region,
ranging 3 - 7 centimeters in length, and inhabiting shallow waters (Abbott 1974:460).
54
Catalogue number: BH-300-5-1-12. Great House context; Unit 300, level 5.
134
Figure B.5. Phacoides pectinata exterior of valve.55 One-centimeter scale.
Anomalocardia flexuosa (Carib pointed-venus)
Formerly called Anomalocardia brasiliana, the Carib pointed-venus (Figure B.6)
is very common in shallow waters and relatively heavy despite its small size (only 2 – 4
centimeters long) (Abbott 1974:526). The robusticity of the shell has allowed it to
preserve very well archaeologically at Betty’s Hope as complete or mostly complete
specimens. It is frequently off-white in color, but there may be some purple or brown
coloration to the exterior of the shell.
55
Catalogue number: BH-300-1-34-11. Great House context; Unit 300, level 1.
135
Figure B.6. Anomalocardia flexuosa valves demonstrating possible exterior
coloration patterns (left) and interior morphology (right).56 Onecentimeter scale.
Cittarium pica (West Indian topsnail)
The West Indian topsnail (Figure B.7) is extremely common in the West Indies in
rocky intertidal zones. It is highly distinctive due to the purple zigzags and mottled
coloring on the exterior of the shell coupled with the pearly interior (Abbott 1974:24).
Although the mollusk itself can be eaten, the shell is also frequently re-used by hermit
crabs (Robertson 2003) and so interpretation regarding their role in foodways should be
considered carefully.
56
Catalogue number: BH2012-STU102-4-10. Service Quarters context; STU102, level 4.
136
Figure B.7. Cittarium pica.57 One-centimeter scale.
Lobatus gigas (queen conch)
Formerly Strombus gigas and later Eustrombus gigas, the queen conch (Figure
B.8 and B.9) is the best known to outsiders, both in historical and modern times, and
used for a variety of purposes. The meat of the conch is very good by all accounts, and
its thick shell is used for decoration (indoors and outdoors), tools, ornaments, etc. It is by
far the largest mollusk in this region, reaching 15.5 – 30.5 centimeters in length on
average and found amongst sea grasses approximately 2-12 meters deep (Abbott
1974:144). The large overall size and thickness of features makes this taxon particularly
durable and distinctive in archaeological assemblages even when fragmented. However,
because the shell is often discarded on beaches after the meat is procured,
representation of the shell on site will be distorted (Keegan and Carlson 2008: 48).
57
Catalogue number: BH-201-1-26-11. Great House context; Unit 201, level 1.
137
Conversely, the use of the shell as decoration may lead to the empty shell being
procured and brought back to the site for ornamentation or other secondary uses. This
should be considered when interpreting their presence at a site.
Figure B.8 Lobatus gigas specimen demonstrating apex, spires, and the striations
visible on the columella when the outer lip is removed.58 Onecentimeter scale.
58
No catalogue number; specimen not recovered archaeologically from Betty’s Hope. This
specimen has lost its pink color from sun bleaching, but it can remain pink for thousands of
years when not exposed to the sun (i.e., when recovered archaeologically).
138
Figure B.9. Lobatus gigas fragments, exterior lip (left) and nodule from spire
(right).59 One-centimeter scale.
Methods of Acquisition
Mollusks are generally harvested by hand or with a simple tool such as a
rake to dredge up clams from the sand. Some require more effort than others. For
example, Lobatus gigas tends to reside in sea grass beds up to depths of 12 meters,
which usually requires a diver to retrieve them (Abbott 1974:144; Saunders 2005:79).
These may be procured one at a time or by bringing a net to collect several before
returning to the surface. By contrast, the smaller Cittarium pica lives on rocky coastlines
and is easy to pick up along with nerites. Chitons cling to rocks and can be wedged off
with a simple pointed tool (Keegan and Carlson 2008:63-64). Bivalves require only
slightly greater effort to dig out of the sand, which usually requires a rake or a digging
stick. Even in the modern seafood industry, many of the univalves and bivalves are still
59
No catalogue number; specimen not recovered archaeologically from Betty’s Hope.
139
collected by hand, although there has been some mechanization of the process by using
hydraulic or other types of dredges (Flick 2012:24).
Fish
The nomenclature for fish has not changed as dramatically as it has for mollusks.
However, this is likely due in large part to the focus on family-level analysis rather than
focusing on specific genera and species. The taxa below are the most common fish
families recovered from both the Great House and Service Buildings contexts at Betty’s
Hope. They are all edible fish with at least some commercial value, be it as a food fish
and/or sport fish. Fish associated with ciguatera poisoning (see Chapter 2) are also
noted.
Albulidae (bonefish)
Albulidae represents a group of fish with a long, slender body. There is only one
genus with at least two species, but it is Albula vulpes that lives in the Caribbean region
(Figure B.10). It lives near the surfline in shallow flats, mangroves, and river mouths.
Although their flesh is not esteemed, the fish is highly valued for sport (Smith 199:303).
The vertebrae are round and flat, rather than cylindrical like most other vertebrae.
Another distinctive feature of this taxon is that their upper jaw and throat is lined with
teeth that act as grinders.
140
Figure B.10. Albulidae examples of parasphenoid (left), distinctive shape of
vertebrae (center), and scale fragment (right).60 One-centimeter
scale.
Clupeidae (herrings)
Also called shads, pilchards, sardines, menhaden, and pilchards, there are
around 20 species of herring in the tropical Atlantic (Smith 1999:332). Herring can be
found in the shallows around reefs, mangroves, estuaries, lagoons, and near the surface
in coastal waters (Smith 1999:332-335). They range in size from 2-75cm and this family
is one of the most important in terms of commercial value; they may be processed for
food, fish oil, or meal (Froese and Pauly 2014). Only vertebrae (Figure B.11) were
recovered at Betty’s Hope, which could not be identified below class.
60
Catalogue number: BH2012-STU102-7-14. Service Quarters context; STU102, level 7.
141
Figure B.11. Anterior (left) and lateral (right) views of Clupeidae vertebrae.61 Onecentimeter scale.
Serranidae (sea basses and groupers)
Serranids can grow up to three meters long and weigh up to 400 kg (Nelson
1994:600), and are another taxon that inhabits the coral reefs. Although they frequently
live in groups comprised of a single male and multiple females, they are solitary hunters
that particularly seek out small grunts and parrotfish, as well as crustaceans and
cephalopods (Humann 1999:232-233). Some genera are important food fishes (including
the groupers of Epinephelus, Cephalopholis, Myctoperca, and Paranthias). In the
Caribbean, there are 22 genera (Smith 1999:432), 14 of which are found around Antigua
and Barbuda (Froese and Pauly 2014). Although challenging to identify below class due
to the many similarities between Cephalopholis spp. and Epinephelus spp., the family
itself is easily identifiable. The premaxillae and dentaries (Figure B.12) have multiple
rows of sockets for teeth, while Haemulidae and Lutjanidae tooth sockets are in one row.
Lutjanids also have large canines anteriorly. The posterior aspect of Serranidae cleithra
are distinctively robust and pointed, and their vertebrae are also easily identifiable.
61
Catalogue number: BH2012-STU103-2-8. Service Quarters context; STU103, level 2.
142
Figure B.12. Examples of typical Serranidae elements.62 Mostly complete
cleithrum (left), premaxilla (right top) and dentary (right bottom).
One-centimeter scale.
Haemulidae (grunts)
Grunts inhabit coral reef ecosystems including sea grass beds, and range in size
from small to moderately large (Smith 1997:506-516). Like the parrotfish, their
pharyngeal plates produce a grinding sound that provides the basis for their common
name. In the Caribbean islands, there are six genera and 23 species (Smith 1997:506),
and around Antigua and Barbuda there are four genera and 18 species (Froese and
Pauly 2014). These fish are also highly abundant in zooarchaeological assemblages of
the West Indies (Wing 2001:497).
Cranial bones in the Haemulidae and Lutjanidae families can appear very
similar. However, Haemulidae elements often have spaces, such as in the dentary bone
shown in Figure B.13.
62
Catalogue number: BH-31-2-20-08. Great House context; Unit 31, level 2.
143
Figure B.13. Haemulidae dentary and premaxilla (left) demonstrating spaces on
the dentary distinctive of many elements for this taxon. Examples of
vertebrae (right), from left to right: thoracic, thoracic, precaudal, and
precaudal-caudal transitional morphology.63 One-centimeter scale.
Lutjanidae (snappers)
Snappers (Figure B.14) can reach up to one meter in length, and constitute
another important food fish in the coral reef ecosystem. They can be predators that eat
crustaceans, another fishes, or planktivores. Snappers are valued as food but can
occasionally cause ciguatera poisoning (Nelson 1984:523). In this area, there are seven
genera and 22 species of snapper (Smith 1999:423).
63
Catalogue number: BH-31-2-28-08. Great House context; Unit 31, level 2.
144
Figure B.14. Lutjanidae dentary specimens demonstrating less negative space
than seen in Haemulidae dentaries, and single row of teeth (left).64
Examples of vertebrae, all caudal (right).65 One-centimeter scale.
Sphyraenidae (barracuda)
Barracuda often reach up to 1.8 meters in length but can exceed this. They are
efficient predators built for speed, but are also highly valued as food in some areas of
the Caribbean. They have frequently been blamed for ciguatera poisoning (Nelson
1984:523). There is only one genus represented, Sphyraena, with 20 species, of which
three or four are found in the Caribbean region. They inhabit the open ocean as well as
the murky inshore waters and mangrove shores (Smith 1999:643). Their dentaries and
teeth are distinctive, as are their hourglass-shaped vertebrae (Figure B.15).
64
65
Catalogue number: BH2012-STU103-2-5. Service Quarters context; STU103, level 2.
Catalogue number: BH-31-2-20-08. Great House context; Unit 31, level 2.
145
Figure B15. Broken Sphyraenidae dentary with teeth (left).66 Example of
hourglass-shaped vertebrae (right), precaudal and caudal.67 Onecentimeter scale.
Scaridae (parrotfish)
Parrotfish are the most common fish in almost any tropical western Atlantic coral
reef system. They constitute a keystone species in the reefs because they are the
primary producers of sand via their unique eating habits. Their teeth and jaws are fused
into the “beak” which has contributed to the common name of the fish (Figure B.16). The
powerful beak is used to break off fragments of coral skeleton. This coral is then ground
in the pharyngeal mill in the throat of the parrotfish—producing a distinctive sound—and
passes through the rest of the digestive tract until it is excreted as sand (Humann
1999:281).
Parrotfish are only active during the daytime, and often travel in schools. At night,
they surround themselves in mucous to protect themselves from predators, either to
mask their scent or to act as an early warning against predators such as moray eels
poking around the protective nooks and crannies in the reefs. Similar to other grazers,
they feed in several areas rather than just one so that they do not destroy any single
66
67
Catalogue number: BH-31-2-31-08. Great House context; Unit 31, level 2.
Catalogue number: BH-31-2-28-08. Great House context; Unit 31, level 2.
146
food source. In the Caribbean, Bahamas, Florida, and Bermuda, there are four genera
and 14 species of Scaridae (Smith 1997:571), but only three genera inhabit the waters
around Antigua and Barbuda.
Figure B.16. Sparisoma viride (Stoplight parrotfish) premaxilla specimen (left).68
Scaridae (Sparisoma spp.) vertebrae (right), from left to right:
precaudal, precaudal-caudal transitional, caudal.69 One-centimeter
scale.
Acanthuridae (surgeonfish)
Also known as doctorfishes or tangs, surgeonfish are one of the most common
and noticeable fish living in the shallow waters of coral reefs. They are often brightly
colored daytime herbivores that travel in large groups. Their namesake comes from the
large, very sharp spine near the tail that can extend outward at a 45-degree angle and is
an effective defense against both predatory fish and humans. In the Caribbean, there
are four species that comprise a single genus, Acanthurus (Smith 1999:640-641). In
68
69
Catalogue number: BH-63-1-14-09. Great House context; Unit 63, level 1.
Catalogue number: BH2012-STU103-2-8. Service Quarters context. STU103, level 2.
147
addition to the robust spine base, the vertebrae are also readily identifiable (Figure
B.17).
Figure B.17. Acanthuridae spine base, sometimes found with one or two spines
still attached (far left, top and bottom). Vertebrae examples, from left
to right: precaudal, precaudal-caudal transitional (2), caudal (2).70
One-centimeter scale.
70
Catalogue number: BH2012-STU104-2-12. Service Quarters context; STU104, level 2.
148