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