17 Archaeological Practice, Archaic Presence, and Interaction in Indigenous Societies in Cuba

Archaeological practice in Cuba is immersed in a new moment. This moment is related to the intellectual maturity of a new generation of archaeologists whose formation and interests transcend the waves of traditional thinking and the ties to old postures of the island’s social sciences. It is also tied to new concepts and data. Both elements are a result of a focus that breaks with the idea of the precolonial history as a lineal process, where human groups are isolated within the Cuban space or with respect to other islands. At the same time, it questions the perception of the indigenous occupation as one of continuous evolution, from simple to complex expressions that are correlated to levels of antiquity.

This chapter discusses basic aspects of the information that supports these changes, looking carefully at how important characteristics of the indigenous communities that were established in Cuban territory are valued, and in details regarding the interactions associated with them. It will highlight the role of the Archaic societies as one of the axes for the indigenous presence on the island. It will attempt to show, using the analysis of specific themes and key moments, that the Archaic societies were more complex than traditionally considered, and that they had an important role in situations of biological and cultural arrangements that were decisive in creating the diversity identified in the Cuban archipelago and the beginnings of the multicultural mosaic of the Greater Antilles.

For many reasons Cuba has had a principal role in the historical development of the Antilles. Archaeologically, Cuba’s role is expressed in the tendency toward positions of regional singularity. The archaeology that has been developed within Cuba has been important in the creation of patterns and ideas that would later dominate Caribbean research. At the beginning of the twentieth century, data collected on the island provided material evidence for the ethnohistoric denominations: Siboney, Taíno, and Guanahatabey (Harrington 1935), thus creating the nomenclature that was transferred to all of the other islands in the region as the basic typology of pre-Columbian cultures. In the long run, Cuban archaeological practice, which was more interested in the material evidence than in ethnohistorical documents, opted to move away from these categories that remain today at the center of discussion and debates among specialists in the region.

As the discipline matured, researchers proposed alternatives to the dominant tendencies in the cultural historic paradigm, basically represented by Irving Rouse. From this perspective, the discipline began to take into consideration economic phenomena, straying from research that considered the study of ceramics and lithic typologies as the basic tools, and would be a pioneer in valuing the role of Archaic groups in the formation of posterior pre-Columbian societies. It would also introduce the concept of transculturation¹ as a way of explaining situations of ties and interaction and the origin of panoramas of cultural diversity detected in different spaces at different times (Guarch 1990; Godo 1994).

Nonetheless, this independence of criteria and creative capacity runs parallel to circumstances of isolation, and it does not exclude the permanence of the eclectic normativism, where Marxist research is joined by old methods of historical particularism. In many ways, the tendency to simplify precolonial history by reducing it to levels of socioeconomic development or chronological segments dominates Cuba, as well as the majority of the Caribbean. That cultural diversity and variability is fundamentally perceived in relation to these categories, in some cases organizing itself automatically within predefined schemes of the superstructures and sociopolitical organization.

A change in this perspective has begun in the past decades in the development of regional studies and of a coherent consideration of cultural processes. Parallel to this is the improvement of excavation methods, data registry, the increase of absolute dates, and the improvement in interdisciplinary and archaeometric studies, obtaining information that questions the traditional schemes of classification and chronological order.

The history of precolonial Cuba has been divided into two aspects or moments. The first stage is one without agriculture or ceramics, with an economy that depended on the appropriation of natural resources, without the capacity of production (also called a “preagroalfarera” stage), and a later stage, marked by the arrival of societies that introduced pottery and agriculture, and changed the human and cultural panorama on the island (“agroalfarera” stage).² In this scheme the initial component is perceived as backwards and rudimentary and without any significant impact on the development that was cut short by the European arrival.

The oldest settlements in Cuban territory have been designated under different terms, among them Paleolithic communities, Seboruco-Mordán complex, protoArchaic groups, Paleo-Indian, hunter-gatherers, and others. This plethora of definitions, related to different moments in research and dominant paradigms emphasizes not only the antiquity of the components but also the link to economic methods based fundamentally on hunting, fishing, and gathering, within a context of workshops near large rivers where there are concentrations of silicified limestone nodes, and a preeminent management of a lithic industry of a macrolítico (macrolithic) character.

From a chronological perspective, it was considered that these societies went back as far back as 6000 b.p. (Pino 1995), and there have been estimates of older dates (Guarch 1985). Some of the principal sites, in the zones of Mayarí and Levisa in the east of the island (Kozlowski 1975, 1980; Febles 1984, 1990, 1991b; Febles and Rives 1983, 1991), report the use of knives, scrapers, and chisels. There are similar expressions in other parts of the Antilles (especially on the island of Hispaniola), which have been associated with migrations from Central America, in particular from the Caribbean coasts of Nicaragua, Belize, and Honduras (Rouse 1965; Veloz Maggiolo 1980, 1991, 2003; Wilson 2007). In the Cuban case, there has been an effort to look to the North for its provenience because there are similarities between the artifacts found in Cuba and those from the Western Lithic co-Tradition of the United States (Febles 1991c; Davis et al. 1969), although recently more attention has been given to the relation with the Central American area (Izquierdo and González 2007).

In the last two decades the identification of these two contexts has extended over other Cuban territories, in particular the central (Sampedro et al. 2001; Izquierdo and Sampedro 2008; Lorenzo 2010) and western (Godo et al. 1987; Rives and Baena 1993) provinces, with some presence in the most western part (see Figure 17.1). The perception of the stratigraphic structure in these contexts is not clear. The macrolítico technology is reported in over 200 sites, almost all with superficial deposits without any indication of subsistence activities. In only four sites have there been any faunal reports,³ three of which are multicomponent and integrate materials of other Archaic components, and even ceramics in one of them. The current critique considers that the lithic tools were driving the creation of economic and cultural perceptions regarding these communities (mostly named hunters due to the dimensions and typology of their stone artifacts), ignoring that these types of instruments can appear in contexts in which other types of assemblage dominate (Izquierdo and González 2007). This may indicate an intensive and extensive relationship with communities that were assumed to be later and not the result of intrusions due to the common use of certain spaces at different times.

Another point of interest is that macrolitismo could be more diverse than generally considered, and that different expressions, different from the so-called tool assemblage Seboruco-Levisa, could reflect responses to cultural and migratory differences. The reported artifacts are then relevant for the first time for Cuba and the Antilles, like the so-called protobiface axes (Sampedro et al. 2001; Izquierdo and Sampedro 2008), and the perception of what is considered a regional tool assemblage in the north of the Villa Clara province (Morales 2010). The current debates consist of an independent character or their inclusion within the Seboruco-Mordán Antillean lithic tradition (Izquierdo and Sampedro 2008). This debate introduces diversity not only in the chronology and typology but also in the environmental characteristics and the availability of raw materials. The diversity is also associated with possible continental migration routes that would directly impact North Central Cuba, which supposes an alternative to the traditional vision of East–West displacement associated with the Seboruco- Levisa nucleus in the east of Cuba (see Figure 17.1).

It had been estimated that around 3500 to 3000 b.p. these so-called hunters interacted with Archaic groups that had other technological traditions, including a shell industry tied to the Manicuaroid Tradition and the lithic industry of Banwaroid Tradition. This event marks the exit, or at least the loss of a primary role of the hunters in the cultural panorama of the island. However, recent studies at the Canímar Abajo site (next to the western coastline) indicate that the Archaic component with Banwaroid or Manicuaroid elements could be contemporaneous, and perhaps later than the beginnings of the so-called hunter presence. The deeper levels of Canímar Abajo have been radiocarbon dated (Martínez López et al. 2008) to 4700 ± 70 years b.p. (UBAR-171, 5311–5586 years cal b.p., 2 sigma), although an intermediate context registers a date of 6460 ± 140 years b.p. (UNAM-0715, 7151–7594 years cal b.p., 2 sigma), which makes it one of the oldest sites in Cuba and the Antilles.

Canímar Abajo does not maintain a macrolítico tradition, but it does have evidence of numerous artifacts potentially from the Banwaroid Tradition. The study of the site (Arredondo Antúnez et al. 2007; Martínez López et al. 2007; Martínez López et al. 2009; Pajón et al. 2007) reveals a repeated management of the area at different times by different groups. The uses vary from domestic space linked to food processing, with various hearths, to burial space linked to a cemetery. The various uses indicate a complexity and diversity in the use of space that is far from the idea of hunter camps with only superficial evidence of lithic artifacts.

The cemetery at Canimar Abajo (Cordero Cabrera 2007), from which 135 individuals have been exhumed (Vento 2002:19, cited by Garcell Domínguez 2008:101), is characterized by its limited extension, no more than 20 square meters, and for the high density of individuals per surface unit (Martínez López et al. 2007). Zooarchaeological studies suggest that the exploitation of mangrove resources could have been important for these individuals (Arredondo Antúnez et al. 2007). In the site, ground stones were found with starch grains of plant species including maize (Zea mays), sweet potato (Ipomoea batata), and leguminous plants, which indicate an early system of plant management (Pajón et al. 2007).

The funerary traits of Canimar Abajo are repeated in other Archaic contexts in Cuba, making the formation of cemeteries an important practice in these communities, which distinguishes a particular relationship with determined spaces and landscapes. It could also indicate forms of territorial control that in some places, like the Cauto River basin, in southeastern Cuba, go in hand with the development of stable settlements and potentially large populations. Due to its variety and presence in the Cuban territory, including numerous locations of cave art, the Archaic context is evidence of a successful human occupation that covered a long temporal dimension, occurring in different environments. In this sense it is important to recognize that human presence could have had a significant impact on the natural resources of the archipelago, including the importation of animals and plants.

The research done on Canimar Abajo shows that the earliest expression of the Archaic context in Cuba is not exclusive to hunters or to Archaics with macroliticos, but was a blend of communities with diverse technologies and economic behaviors. It is also related to the management of plants that, due to its antiquity, must have developed into more complex and productive forms. This confirms the old perception of Cuban archaeology, latent in the conception of the so-called phenomenon protoagricultor. The term has been used since the 1970s to explain contexts with an Archaic base that showed the capacity for ceramic production or indications of neolithization (plant management). It was inferred that the former lived in sedentary or semisedentary settlements with a wide variety of lithic tools, potentially directed to vegetable processing, including palm fruits (Ulloa and Valcárcel 2002) and maní (Arachis hypogaea), excavated in the Birama site in central Cuba (Angel Bello et al. 2002).

Research on the archaeological sites Arroyo del Palo and Mejías, in the east of the island, allowed identification of a new culture (Tabío and Guarch 1966) that coexisted with the last expressions of the, then called, Ciboney Cayo Redondo Culture and the first of the sub-Taíno (Tabío and Rey 1966), the typical agroalfarero of Cuba. It was a context in which the elements found were related to fishing activities, some minor hunting and gathering, alongside pottery. To that moment, except for the research done by Felipe Pichardo Moya on the south of Camagüey, and some very few other authors, it had been considered that pottery making was one of the fundamental aspects for assigning indigenous communities to a Neolithic status. The consideration of Mayarí as a new culture (Tabío and Rey 1966) contributed to the classification of similar archaeological assemblages as expressions of different groups and to a certain degree isolated from the preceding Archaic component. This idea has been expressed in several variations and has been developed according to unilineal evolutionary thinking or diffusionist aspects.

The 1980s marked important reformulations at the Antillean level, due especially to research done in similar archaeological sites in Dominican Republic (Rimoli and Nadal 1980, 1983; Veloz Maggiolo et al. 1974), and due to the discovery and investigation of other settlements with simple ceramics and gatherer assemblages in Cuba. Among them Aguas Verdes, Canimar,⁴ and Playitas (Dacal 1986; Febles 1982; Kozlowski 1975) that added a different perspective. With these new sites, in which ceramics were fewer and simpler, greater attention was given to the lithic technology with the identification of particular characteristics that became one of the most important lines of evidence used to trace these communities across different regions of Cuba. A supposed independent category that was not tied to the development of the Archaic was thus reaffirmed. Following what was previously discussed, external origins were attributed and by comparing lithic traits, two regions of America appeared to be possible points of origin: Jaketown in the Mississippi Valley and the Momil I culture of the so-called formative period of Colombia. In the end it was attributed to the former with migration proposed toward the zone of Canimar (Febles 1991a). These ideas were the foundation for other theses. A vision of cultural sequences, where sites similar to Canimar were the precedent for those similar to Arroyo del Palo in Mayarí, established a lineal chronological and evolutionary relationship between two distinct expressions within the same phenomenon. Another proposal argued for a period of transition between the preagroalfarera and agroalfarera stages (Tabio 1984). Instead of shedding light on the richness and diversity of the phenomenon, it contributed to pigeonholing, in a manner that the same record could be assigned to different classifications according to the trait that was evaluated (microliths or pottery).

A comprehensive attempt at evaluating those expressions is found in the research of José M. Guarch (1990). Guarch outlines the complexity of a phenomenon that cannot be pigeonholed in a generic manner within a pattern while there are differences in the organization of economic activities and in the technological complexes of the communities involved. Also, it leaves open the possibility that the complexity is related to aspects proceeding from a different culture, and not associated with a chronological referent. In this case, the phenomenon is evaluated as a manifestation of change in the Archaic, in which it is not possible to disregard the evolution, or influences in processes of transculturation within this complex and between them and the agroalfarero groups.

Recent trends of thought (Godo 1997, 2001; Ulloa and Valcárcel Rojas 2002; Ulloa 2005) encounter the problem from the Archaic modos de vida⁵ and their consolidation in particular regions. Their variety is of fundamental importance for evaluating the diversity within the process referred to as protoagrícola. It is perceived as tied to the Archaic and the local creation or the acquisition of ceramics. From a multiplicity of situations other cultural aspects are produced, which in essence indicate a complexity of societies with a tendency toward neolithization. In some of them, pottery is important and functional, it stops being utilitarian when it is combined with plant management, which indicates the process of an incipient agriculture (see Figures 17.2 and 17.3). Following that line of thought, it is necessary to indicate that it is a phenomenon that is not unique to Cuban or Hispaniolan contexts. Its existence on other islands has been taken into consideration in a Pre-Arawak Pottery Horizon (Rodríguez Ramos et al. 2008).

The Archaic context with ceramics in Cuba can be tied to communities whose permanence in the region combines the use of camps with more stable settlements. An important trait is a symbiotic relationship that combines the exploitation of various environments. Settlements such as Arroyo del Palo, Mejías, La Escondida de Bucuey, Belleza, and Catunda on the eastern side of the island show an intense relationship with the interior forests, valleys, and alluvial basin. In them the preeminence of a food tradition associated with these environments is revealed (Reyes 2001) that does not disregard the initial management of certain vegetable species. On the other hand, sites like Caimanes III, Corintia III, and Playitas ratify the existence of a marine-gathering tradition, without invalidating the possibility of mixed and intense exploitations of both ecosystems.

From 1990 the archaeology in Cuba began to link the protoagrícola phenomenon with certain aspects of the origin of the Meillacoid ceramics⁶ (Celaya 2000), as the expression of transculturation processes between farming and Archaic groups (Godo 1994). The connection between both components is not only reflected in the ceramics but also in diverse material and environmental aspects (see Sinelli, this volume).

In contrast with the Chicoid ceramics that are only found in the easternmost part of Cuba, the Meillacoid manifestations, typical of the agricultores ceramistas,⁷ extends to the majority of the territory, including areas near Havana. Their predominance is attributed to a large presence according to the earliest dates obtained in the El Paraíso and Damajayabo sites, on the southeastern coast of the island, which date to a.d. 820 and 830, respectively, although calibrations (Cooper 2007) indicate that the earliest occupations maybe have begun in the seventh century a.d. The presence of similar pottery in Hispaniola, the common management of iconographic elements and certain ethnohistoric references suggest migrations from Hispaniola to Cuba. It also suggests constant interaction between both spaces.

The Meillacoid occupation is distinguished by adaptation to a variety of landscapes and natural environments, and for developments of regional character that potentially refer to differentiated ethnic identities (Celaya and Godo 2000). These developments have been recognized in Cuban archaeological literature under the denomination of Variantes Culturales (Guarch 1990) and are associated with important concentrations of sites that exhibit certain particularities of ceramic and economic connotation and environmental adaptation. In the case of the southeastern coast, there is evidence of red paint at a very low percentage, a trait that has also been noted in Ostionoid pottery (Trincado and Ulloa 1996:75).

Close to the time frame of the earliest sites of the southern coast, there are some sites on the northeast of the island like Aguas Gordas and Loma de La Forestal, inhabited from ninth century a.d., according to calibrated radiocarbon dates. These sites maintain an essentially Meillacoid base (Valcárcel 2002), although they lack some of the particularities that seem to tie the southeastern region with pottery defined under the style of White Marl in Jamaica (Ulloa 2010), and that could indicate processes of interaction and inter-island exchange facilitated by geographic proximity (see Wesler, this volume).

In sites to the north of the eastern side it is evident that there is a readjustment of Meillacoid traits to typically regional forms. In them the Meillacoid profile predominates and possible Ostionoid elements are few or absent. This author refers to the ceramics from mound 1 of the Aguas Gordas site, which although it seems to be Meillacoid it lacks the dotted motif common to the initial stages of the subseries (Veloz et al. 1981). In addition, their forms of appliqué are less complex and varied, and there is a greater weight to incisions within the decoration techniques. In their opinion the fact that these ceramics differ from the traditional Meillacoid patterns suggests a modification that could have been initiated before arrival to the island. There is also increased contrast with sites on the southeast, which may reflect differences of migratory character (Valcárcel 2002, 2008).

The convergence of Ostionoid and Meillacoid decorative elements seem to be evident in an Archaic context on the eastern portion of the island, Arroyo del Palo (cal a.d. 895–1223). The significance of this case is that there is a local ceramic (non-Saladoid) that incorporates new traits and perhaps influences the new style (Godo 1997:27; Jouravleva and González 2000; Ulloa and Valcárcel 2002:165). The site is included in the Ostionan Ostionoid subseries (Rouse 1992:95) because this detail has been ignored or denied. The case of Arroyo del Palo supposes the possibility that the process of occupation of the agricultores ceramista in Cuba is not constituted only by the reception of Meillacoid migrations from Hispaniola but also by the formulation and reformulation of the interaction with the Archaic groups that had been established on the island from earlier periods. In that line of interaction both groups could provide and receive traits that contribute to the Cuban regional developments. It must be noted that the contribution of the Archaic groups to the agricultores ceramistas included artifacts made of shell (different types of gouges, vessels, picks, points) and also knowledge of the environment and its resources. In this sense, the reiterative use of specific regions is notable, especially in the southeastern coastlines, the north-central and the northwestern part of Cuba. It is an interaction marked by the implicit diversity of both societies that changed the demographic and cultural landscape imposing schemes of neolithization or consolidating what was already underway (Valcárcel 2008). The previous statement would follow an extensive temporal coexistence between Archaic, Archaic with ceramics, and farmer groups that constitute the basic premise for the development of multiple forms of interaction (see Figure 17.4 with calibrated dates graph from Cuba).⁸

The farmer occupation in Cuba is distinguished by the diverse use of landscape and settlement systems that do not only respond to environmental conditions but also to different cultural lines or different migration flows. In this last sense it is important to note that despite the similarities between Puerto Rico and Hispaniola, established by dental analysis (Coppa et al. 2008), studies of facial variation differ from the rest of the Cuban agricultores ceramistas as well as individuals of the Greater Antilles and Florida, suggesting the possibility of Central American origin for the former (Ross 2004:296).

The expression in Cuba of what Rouse called the Chican Ostionoid subseries is significantly different from its expressions in Hispaniola or Puerto Rico, and it never reaches its aesthetic potential or the same level of formalization in ceremonial spaces. One of the causes for this difference has been associated with its arrival to Cuba after blending with Meillacoid elements in Hispaniola (Guarch 1978:128). The existence of Meillacoid sites and of contexts of mixed Meillacoid and Chicoid ceramics (Martínez Arango 1980) on the eastern side of the island, an area were the Chicoid traits are accentuated, suggests that this process persisted in Cuba. In the current state of research, it is difficult to define the chronology of these interactions because there is only one radiocarbon date for a Chicoid site⁹ (a.d. 1310). In any case, it is peculiar that the Chicoid concentration is only in the easternmost part of the island, associated with cultural elements like plazas bounded within earthen walls and a notable emphasis on iconographic aspects. The situation is marked by a high level of complexity, at least when compared to other Cuban contexts. Such aspects have served to propose integration within the so-called Classic Taíno (Rouse 1992). Chicoid pottery elements appear in low frequencies in other parts of Cuba (Valcárcel 2002:65–66), and even in some parts of the center of the island such as the Los Buchillones site. This phenomenon occurs in later periods under mixed traits or possible exchanged goods, suggesting substantial mobility and interisland or intraisland interaction (Valcárcel 2008).

The available chronology for the agricultores settlements indicate that between the eleventh and twelfth century a.d. there were occupations of new spaces on the east of the island, and in the thirteenth century a.d. this tendency increased and included the central and western regions of the island. This last dispersion seems to have influenced situations of increased population and other environmental aspects, creating the population panorama that lasted until the fifteenth century a.d. It is estimated (Rives et al. 1996) that during this period there was an ENSO (El Niño climatic event) that generated intense drought in the east of Cuba, which could have influenced the displacement of groups toward zones with better conditions on the western side. Nonetheless, the climatic factor is only one possible catalyst for the readjustment and population movement that began in earlier periods (Valcárcel 2008).

In essence, population flows from east to west constituted a basic tendency, although considering the current state of investigations a more complex process must be considered. In this sense, waves of migration from the central or western coast are not excluded. Some interesting ideas about the central and western coasts weigh upon the possible establishment of groups from Florida, according to similarities in pottery and lithics with early sites from the Weeden Island period (Rives et al. 1996). Potentially, groups from Cuba could have migrated to other islands like the Bahamas, an idea that is maintained by the presence of pottery of Cuban origin and the management of certain raw materials and typological traits related with the Cuban Archaic, in Ostionoid sites (Berman et al. 1999). These ideas do not exclude that some of these elements may also be related to the settlement of Hispaniola (Berman and Gnivecki 1995).

The interaction of Cuba with other islands was not only generated by population movement, it also seems to include other forms of indigenous existence such as various forms of alliances and sociopolitical integration. It is important to note that the ties with western Hispaniola are documented ethnohistorically, and it seems to have happened with high frequency. The ties could have included forms of interisland integration that may explain the reception that people from the neighboring island received in Cuba after being displaced because of the Spanish conquest. There is also evidence of a cacique that maintained his status in Cuba and became a leader in the anti-Spanish resistance (Valcárcel 2008).

Traditionally it has been considered that the sociopolitical expressions in Cuba did not have the same complexity reached in Hispaniola and Puerto Rico. Nonetheless, certain schemes of territorial arrangement have been identified that suggest the existence of centers of ideological, and maybe political, power (Valcárcel 1999, 2002). An example of these centers is in the Banes region, where the large number of sites suggests a high population density and where there are settlements with a high frequency of sumptuary and ceremonial materials, with evidence of a preeminent position in certain areas and some indication of possible forms of social differentiation. Combined with other sociopolitical variables and with an incomplete process of territorial colonization of the island, there seem to be traits distinguished from the existence of agricultores ceramistas at the time of European arrival. The Archaic presence at that moment has not been archaeologically proven, although many researchers assume it following certain details from ethnohistoric data.

According to data obtained during the past decades, the need to incorporate mechanisms of interaction to understand the complexity of indigenous development in the precolonial history of Cuba is evident. Doing so would contribute to better explaining the origin of the different cultural complexes that inhabited the island, how they related to each other, and the role of that relation in its formation and evolution.

During the processes of formation and evolution, the Archaic component had a more important role than generally considered, not only because it had an extensive and diverse occupation but also because it managed to insert itself in later developments, providing particular traits. The evaluation of these processes will be useful to understanding situations that developed in and outside of the island. It is also, without a doubt, the connecting axis of Cuban archaeology with other parts of the Antilles.

The reevaluation outside of Cuba of the importance of Archaic groups in the development of Meillacoid groups (Keegan 2006; Rodríguez Ramos et al. 2008; Wilson 2007), and the idea of multifocal emersion in different spaces in the Greater Antilles¹⁰ from eighth century a.d. (Ulloa 2010), provide greater support to Cuban perspectives. This chapter contradicts the idea of a unique center or component to explain the origins of any of the cultural phenomena in the Greater Antilles. The cultural manifestations on these islands seem to exhibit a marked diversity from their earliest moments and to be connected to processes of fusion, influences, and interactions, in which different components will have greater or lesser weight. In this case, the diversity of Archaic groups and their link with the agricultores ceramistas not only helps in understanding the particularities of their occupation in Cuba, but it also contributes in a better comprehension of all the pre-Columbian history of the island and the Antilles.