Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-21T23:33:39.843Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

AMS Radiocarbon Date for Precolumbian Caribbean Rock Art: Borbón Cave No. 1, Dominican Republic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2022

Marcos García-Diez*
Affiliation:
Departamento de Prehistoria, Historia Antigua y Arqueología, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Adolfo López
Affiliation:
Comisión de Ciencias Sociales de la Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic
Isabel Sarró Moreno
Affiliation:
Centro Nacional de Investigación sobre la Evolución Humana, Burgos, Spain
Pilar Fatás Monforte
Affiliation:
Museo Nacional y Centro de Investigación de Altamira, Santillana del Mar, Spain
*
(diez.garcia.marcos@gmail.com; corresponding author)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We present an AMS radiocarbon date from a bird image in a cave on the island of Hispaniola in the northern Caribbean. Borbón Cave No. 1 contains a key rock art assemblage that likely reflects a significant part of past native Taíno societies’ symbolic thought and beliefs. The grouping has already served to define one rock art style in the Antilles: the Borbón School. Our sample yielded a date of 890 ± 30 BP (1045–1225 cal AD). This result, as well as additional published dates for the region, confirms that these images were created before European contact with the region. Further dating comparison indicates that Taíno artistic traditions persisted for some years after the arrival and settlement of Spanish colonists on the island.

Presentamos una fecha de radiocarbono AMS de una imagen de pájaro de la cueva de Borbón n° 1, en la isla Hispaniola, en el norte del Caribe. Ésta contiene un conjunto clave de arte rupestre que probablemente refleja una parte importante del pensamiento y las creencias simbólicas de las sociedades nativas taínas. Su arte, junto a otras cavidades, permitió definir el estilo Escuela de Borbón. La muestra arrojó una fecha de 890 ± 30 aP (1045–1225 cal dC). El resultado, así como otras fechas publicadas para la región, confirma que estas imágenes se crearon antes del contacto europeo con la región. Su contextualización con otras fechas muestra que las tradiciones taínas persistieron años después de la llegada y asentamiento de colonos españoles en la isla.

Type
Report
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for American Archaeology

In recent years, new scientific applications have enabled an appreciation of the origins of rock art on different continents, adding to our understanding of its development (Hayward et al. Reference Hayward, Atkinson, Cinquino, Richard, Keagan, Hofman and Rodríguez2013; Ochoa et al. Reference Ochoa, García-Diez, Domingo and Martins2020; Podestá and Strecker Reference Podestá and Strecker2014; Rodríguez Reference Rodríguez2017; Samson et al. Reference Samson, Wrapso, Cartwright, Sahy, Stacey and Cooper2017). Despite constraints arising from sample types and their relationship to the graphic process, poor preservation, the amount of sample needed, contamination, potential pitfalls in pretreatment protocols, and contradictory data results (Alcolea and Balbín-Behrmann, Reference Alcolea and Balbín-Behrmann2007; Bonneau et al. Reference Bonneau, Staft, Highman, Brock, Pearce and Mitchell2017; David et al. Reference David, Delannoy, Petchey, Gunn, Huntley, Veth and Genuite2019; Hedges et al. Reference Hedges, Ramsey, van Klinken, Pettitt, Nielsen-Marsh, Etchegoyen, Fernandez Niello, Boschin and Llamazares1998; Pike et al. Reference Pike, Hoffmann, Pettitt, García-Diez and Zilhao2017; Valladas et al. Reference Valladas, Tisnerat-Laborde, Kaltnecker, Cachier, Arnold and Clottes2006), the different analytic techniques used and the results obtained have yielded insights on the origin and development of each prehistoric art tradition, posing new questions and sometimes challenging previous assumptions.

The application of AMS 14C dating can determine the age of organic pigments and support an enhanced understanding of rock art, including when and how this form of graphic communication developed and when and why morpho-stylistic changes occurred; it thus enables rock art to be connected to territory and other forms of evidence from archaeological or climate studies. Rock art in the Caribbean, and particularly in the Dominican Republic, has long been the subject of thematic, stylistic, and interpretive studies (Duvall Reference Duvall2007; Hayward et al. Reference Hayward, Atkinson, Cinquino, Richard, Keagan, Hofman and Rodríguez2013; López Belando Reference López Belando, Hayward, Atkinson and Cinquino2009, Reference López Belando and García Arévalo2012, Reference López Belando2018). Yet, research on the development of these visual representations has largely been based on relative or imprecise dating methods. The existence of several direct method AMS 14C dates has notably expanded our understanding of rock art chronology (Foster et al. Reference Foster, Harley McDonald, Beeker and Conard2011; Rodríguez Reference Rodríguez2017; Samson et al. Reference Samson, Wrapso, Cartwright, Sahy, Stacey and Cooper2017). Our study discusses the implications of an AMS 14C date obtained for a zoomorphic pictograph in Borbón Cave No. 1 in the Dominican Republic. We also address its significance with regard to other published dates from the island.

Borbón Cave No. 1

The limestone Borbón Caves are in the San Cristóbal Province in the protected area known as the Monumento Natural Reserva Antropológica Cuevas de Borbón o Pomier (Figure 1). Seventeen sites with prehistoric art have been documented in that area (López Belando et al. Reference López Belando, Jorge Broca and Guzmán2015): their thematic, technical, and stylistic diversity signifies that this is a critical rock art group for understanding the artistic and symbolic development of Caribbean culture.

Figure 1. (A) Location of Borbón Cave No. 1 and its survey, marking the position of (B) the sampled motif.

The first rock art figures were discovered by Sir Robert Schomburgk in 1849, but it was not until 1978 that a large-scale study was published (Pagán Perdomo Reference Pagán Perdomo1978). The most representative site is Borbón Cave No. 1. It contains prehispanic remains and burials corresponding to the pottery-producing populations that inhabited the island from the seventh to the sixteenth centuries (López Belando Reference López Belando2008). Recently, the archaeological deposits were removed when the cave was prepared for tourism and public access. The rock art ensemble consists of 471 pictographs and 36 petroglyphs, including zoomorphs, anthropomorphs, and anthropo-zoomorphs (López Belando Reference López Belando2008).

The representations in the cave include a high density and large variety of images that we interpret as depictions of the magic and religious rituals of the ancient inhabitants of the island, scenes of nature, and the original fauna of the ancient Hispaniola. Many of these scenes may reflect beliefs and cosmology of the Arawakan language speakers who lived on the island before the arrival of the Europeans, as documented in the book about the myths of the Taínos, Relación de las Antigüedades de los Indios by Friar Ramón Pane, written in the late fifteenth century and reissued in Reference Pane1987.

The most frequently represented animals in the cave are birds, turtles, and some terrestrial mammals, such as dogs. The birds appear alone or in groups, sometimes interacting among themselves or with semi-human (bird people) or human individuals. Based on ethnographic information, these images may be interpreted as representations of spirit helpers of the Taíno shamans (behiques). These helpers helped the shamans fly, while in a trance, to the abode of the gods to consult them and then return to earth to communicate their words to the inhabitants of the settlement. There are also scenes of sex between animals and between a bird person and a bird. A possible representation of the ethnohistorically recorded myth of Taino twins is presented through depictions of twins joined in their bodies and arms. Another frequent topic is the inhalation of cohoba, a hallucinogenic product consumed by the shamans. Astronomical bodies, like the sun and the moon, also appear.

The art represented in the Borbón caves has a specific manner of representation that appears in other caves on the island of Hispaniola, with parallels in other Caribbean islands such as Puerto Rico and Jamaica (Dubelaar et al. Reference Dubelaar, Hayward and Cinquino1999; López Belando Reference López Belando2005). It therefore constitutes an artistic school known as the Borbón School, which is characterized mainly by the following features: (1) the concentration of petroglyphs in the entrances of the caves, which stand out because of their shape or position; (2) drawings in dark areas and in places lit by sunlight; (3) use of a single color, generally black or dark gray; (4) choice of walls of a particular color or shape that makes the motifs stand out; (5) some examples of figures drawn with a sense of perspective; (6) groups in panels and some isolated motifs; (7) the general absence of superimpositions of pictographs; and (8) a large proportion of zoomorphs, especially birds (López Belando Reference López Belando2004).

AMS 14C Dating

After examining the rock art to determine which motifs were best conserved for extraction of the sample, we selected a bird image, possibly a little blue heron (Egretta caerulea; Figure 2); it is part of a panel with other motifs (López Belando Reference López Belando2018:99). Macro-visual inspection of the layer of paint determined that the charcoal had been applied directly, as a “pencil.” We did not observe any important taphonomic processes, such as washing, deposition of clay, or anthropic action.

Figure 2. Bird figure dated in Borbón Cave No. 1 and the sampling points BOR-1.1 and BOR-1.2. (Photograph courtesy of the authors.) (Color online)

The sample used for dating came from two points on the image shown in Figure 2: BOR-1.1 in the uppermost part of the body and BOR-1.2 from the lower posterior part, near the start of the limb. The samples were collected with a sterilized blade and stored in a sterilized plastic tube. They were observed with an Olympus optical microscope using reflected light at 10–50× and analyzed by Raman spectroscopy (Thermo Fisher DRX confocal Raman with 532 nm excitation laser, 20 exposures for 5 sec, laser power 1mW, and 50 μm pinhole) at the Spanish Centro Nacional de Investigación sobre la Evolución Humana (Sarró and Barros Reference Sarró and Barros2013). The results of the Raman analysis confirmed that the samples are of a carbonaceous substance, because the spectrum identified wide peaks in the D and G bands (Figure 3). Observation with the optical microscope confirmed that the cellular structure corresponds to charcoal (Figure 4), although the small size of the samples precluded any further identification.

Figure 3. Spectrum of the sample BOR-1.1 obtained by Raman spectroscopy.

Figure 4. Optical micrographs of the sample BOR-1.2 where the cellular structure of wood can be recognized. (Color online)

Beta Analytic carried out the dating process using acidic-basic-acidic (ABA) pretreatment. Because of the small size and weight of the samples, there was a high likelihood that no results would be obtained if they were processed individually; therefore, we combined them. The similarity in the composition and the technical homogeneity in the execution of the figure allow us to consider the samples to be a single graphic temporal event, so their combination (BOR-1.1 + BOR-1.2; sample 568016; see Table 1) does not imply different graphic action events. The calibration of the result using IntCal20 and Oxcal 4.4 determined an interval at 95.4% probability of 1045–1223 cal AD, distributed between 1120 and 1223 cal AD at 69.6%, 1045 and 1086 cal AD at 23.1%, and 1092 and 1105 cal AD at 2.8% probability.

Table 1. Characterization of the Dated Sample.

The result comes from the dating of the purified charcoal, which represents the material of the “ancient” charcoal after the contaminants were removed. The pretreatment was carried out in the routine way using acidic-basic-acidic preparations in the complete process. The weight of the datable charcoal (0.64 mg) was greater than 0.5 mg, a borderline indicator for good accuracy. Moreover, the microscopic observation and analysis before the dating process did not identify any potential pollutants, such as bat excreta, fungi, lichen, bacteria, or the action of cave-dwelling fauna. Therefore, the sample was of optimal quality, and the result can be accepted with confidence.

Discussion

Appraisal of the archaeological significance of the result should consider the potential old wood effect (Schiffer Reference Schiffer1986) and the possible use of charcoal that did not correspond temporally with the moment of the decoration because “old charcoal” had been used. Because of the impossibility of determining the charcoal taxonomically and the lack of deep knowledge of the archaeological context spatially linked to the art, we cannot resolve these issues.

The dated sample is associated with the Borbón School graphic tradition (López Belando Reference López Belando2018). The AMS 14C result confirms that the image dates to at least ± 270 years before Christopher Columbus reached Hispaniola in the fifteenth century, when the island was inhabited only by the Indigenous population.

Similar dates for the emergence of Taíno rock art production have been obtained at other Caribbean sites. In El Puente Cave in the Dominican Republic, a schematic anthropomorph with closed arms was dated to between 1036 and 1226 cal AD (Foster et al. Reference Foster, Harley McDonald, Beeker and Conard2011). In Gemelos Cave in Puerto Rico, a solar-type anthropomorph of the Borbón School provided a date between 1045 and 1264 cal AD (Rodríguez Reference Rodríguez2017; Rodríguez et al. Reference Rodríguez, Acosta-Colon and Pérez2021). Other motifs in Puerto Rico that might be attributed to the Borbón School provide more recent dates. In Matos Cave, three dates define a continuous interval between 1281 and 1619 cal AD, and in Cave Lucero seven dates support a long graphic continuity that began in about 1225 cal AD and persisted until the eighteenth or nineteenth century.

The long duration of the Borbón School confirms that the artistic tradition of the Taíno culture continued over several centuries and was even maintained after the Spanish arrived on the island (García Arévalo Reference García Arévalo2019). This proposal agrees with other archaeological and anthropological studies claiming that “indigenous features persist in the spiritual and material culture of the Caribbean and constitute an important part of the everyday life” (Hofman et al. Reference Corinne L., Rojas, Hung, Beaule and Douglass2020:70).

Our research has characterized rock art linked to the Taíno culture from the eleventh to the early thirteenth century. The development of systematic dating programs will enable us to better understand the origin and evolution of Caribbean rock art and how population movements and human interactions affected the cultural and artistic traditions of Indigenous groups.

Acknowledgments

The research was authorized by the Ministry of the Environment of the Government of the Dominican Republic. It results from two projects: (1) Origen y desarrollo del arte rupestre antillano: Aplicación del AMS en la República Dominica (T002020N0000044487) funded by the Spanish Ministry of Culture and Sports and (2) Datación del Arte Rupestre Prehispánico de la República Dominicana funded by the Comisión de Ciencias Sociales de la Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana and Guahayona Institute of Puerto Rico.

Data Availability Statement

All original data produced as part of this study are presented.

Competing Interests

The authors declare none.

References

References Cited

Alcolea, Javier, and Balbín-Behrmann, Rodrigo 2007 14C et style: La chronologie de l'art parietal a l'heure actuelle. L'Anthropologie 11:435466.Google Scholar
Bonneau, Adelphine, Staft, Richard A., Highman, Tristan, Brock, Fiona, Pearce, D. G., and Mitchell, P. J. 2017 Successfully Dating Rock Art in Southern Africa Using Improved Sampling Methods and New Characterization and Pretreatment Protocols. Radiocarbon 59:659677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, Bruno, Delannoy, Jean-Jacques, Petchey, Fiona, Gunn, Robert, Huntley, Jillian, Veth, Peter, Genuite, Kim, et al. 2019 Dating Painting Events through By-Products of Ochre Processing: Borologa 1 Rockshelter, Kimberley, Australia. Australian Archaeology 85:5794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubelaar, Cornelius N., Hayward, Michele, and Cinquino, Michael A. 1999 Puerto Rico Rock Art: A Resource Guide. Puerto Rico State Historic Preservation Office, San Juan.Google Scholar
Duvall, Daniel 2007 Rock Art of the Dominican Republic. Buho, Santo Domingo.Google Scholar
Foster, John W., Harley McDonald, K., Beeker, Charles D., and Conard, Geoffrey W. 2011 Let There be Light in the Dark Zone: Insights into Taíno Cave Paintings in the Eastern Dominican Republic. Paper presented at the 76th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Sacramento, California. https://www.academia.edu/9274548/Let_There_Be_Light_in_the_Dark_Zone_Insights_into_TaC3ADno_Cave_Paintings_in_the_Eastern_Dominican_Republic, accessed March 2, 2022.Google Scholar
García Arévalo, Manuel 2019 Tainos, arte y sociedad. Banco Popular, Santo Domingo.Google Scholar
Hayward, Michele H., Atkinson, Lesley-Gail, Cinquino, Michael A., and Richard, Gérard 2013 Rock Art of the Caribbean. In The Oxford Handbook of Caribbean Archaeology, edited by Keagan, William F., Hofman, Corinne L., and Rodríguez, Reniel, pp. 450486. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hedges, R. E. M., Ramsey, Christopher Bronk, van Klinken, G. J., Pettitt, Paul B., Nielsen-Marsh, Christina, Etchegoyen, Alberto, Fernandez Niello, J. O., Boschin, M. T., and Llamazares, A. M. 1998 Methodological Issues in the 14C Dating of Rock Paintings. Radiocarbon 40:3544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corinne L., Hofman, Rojas, Roberto Valcárcel, and Hung, Jorge Ulloa 2020 Colonization, Transformations, and Cultural Persistence in the Caribbean. In The Global Spanish Empire: Five Hundred Years of Place Making and Pluralism, edited by Beaule, Christine and Douglass, John G., pp. 5582. SUNY Press, Albany, New York.Google Scholar
López Belando, Adolfo 2004 El arte en la penumbra: Pictografías y petroglifos en las cavernas del Parque Nacional del Este, Santo Domingo. Grupo BHD, Dominican Republic.Google Scholar
López Belando, Adolfo 2005 El Arte Rupestre en el Caribe Insular, una Propuesta de Declaración Seriada Transnacional Como Patrimonio Cultural Mundial. World Heritage Papers 14:166171. UNESCO, Paris.Google Scholar
López Belando, Adolfo 2008 La Cueva de Las Maravillas y la Cueva n° 1 de Borbón, dos centros ceremoniales rupestres irreversiblemente afectados por su puesta en uso público, Santo Domingo. República Dominicana. Boletín del Museo del Hombre Dominicano 42:373380.Google Scholar
López Belando, Adolfo 2009 Rock Art of the Dominican Republic and the Caribbean. In Rock Art of the Caribbean, edited by Hayward, Michele, Atkinson, Lesley-Gail, and Cinquino, Michael A., pp. 102114. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Google Scholar
López Belando, Adolfo 2012 El arte rupestre prehispánico en La Española. In Taínos: Orígenes, cultura, creencias, arte, herencia, edited by García Arévalo, Manuel A., pp. 221235. Odebrecht, Santo Domingo.Google Scholar
López Belando, Adolfo 2018 La memoria de las rocas: Arte rupestre en la República Dominicana. Fundación Eduardo León Jiménes, Centro León y Fundación García Arévalo, Santo Domingo.Google Scholar
López Belando, Adolfo, Jorge Broca, Máximo Herrera, and Guzmán, Laura 2015 Monumento Natural Reserva Antropológica Cuevas de Borbón o Pomier, Plan de Manejo 2015–2020. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, Santo Domingo.Google Scholar
Ochoa, Blanca, García-Diez, Marcos, Domingo, Inés, and Martins, Andrea 2020 Dating Iberian Prehistoric Art: Methods, Sampling, Data, Limits and Interpretations. Quaternary International 572:88105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagán Perdomo, Dato 1978 Nuevas pictografías en la Isla de Santo Domingo, Las Cuevas de Borbón. Museo del Hombre Dominicano, Santo Domingo.Google Scholar
Pane, Ramón 1987 Relación acerca de las antigüedades de los indios. Versión de José Juan Arrom. Editorial Siglo XXI, Mexico City.Google Scholar
Pike, Alistair W. G., Hoffmann, Dirk L., Pettitt, Paul, García-Diez, Marcos, and Zilhao, Joao 2017 Dating Palaeolithic Cave Art: Why U–Th is the Way to Go. Quaternary International 432(B):4149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podestá, María Mercedes, and Strecker, Matthias 2014 South American Rock Art. In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, edited by Claire Smith. Springer, New York. DOI:10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2_1623.Google Scholar
Rodríguez, Reniel 2017 La Temporalidad absoluta del arte rupestre pictográfico en Puerto Rico. Oficina Estatal de Conservación Histórica, San Juan, Utuado, Puerto Rico.Google Scholar
Rodríguez, Reniel, Acosta-Colon, Angel A., and Pérez, Roberto 2021 Una aproximación a la temporalidad absoluta del arte rupestre pictográfico de Puerto Rico. Ciencia y Sociedad 46:727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samson, Alice V. M., Wrapso, Lucy J., Cartwright, Caroline R., Sahy, Diana, Stacey, Rebeca J., and Cooper, Jago 2017 Artists before Columbus: A Multi-Method Characterization of the Materials and Practices of Caribbean Cave Art. Journal of Archaeological Science 88:2436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarró, María Isabel, and Barros, María Amor 2013 CENIEH: A Research Center for Human Evolution, Innovation and Technology for Cultural Heritage Conservation and the Advancement of Our Understanding of Human Origins. Coalition 24:210.Google Scholar
Schiffer, Michael B. 1986 Radiocarbon Dating and the “Old Wood” Problem: The Case of the Hohokam Chronology. Journal Archaeological Science 13:1330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valladas, Hélène, Tisnerat-Laborde, Nadine, Kaltnecker, Evelyne, Cachier, Henry, Arnold, Maurice, and Clottes, Jean 2006. La datation de l'art parietal par la methode du carbone 14: Apports et perspectives. Bulletin de la Société Prehistorique de l'Ariege 61:5160.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. (A) Location of Borbón Cave No. 1 and its survey, marking the position of (B) the sampled motif.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Bird figure dated in Borbón Cave No. 1 and the sampling points BOR-1.1 and BOR-1.2. (Photograph courtesy of the authors.) (Color online)

Figure 2

Figure 3. Spectrum of the sample BOR-1.1 obtained by Raman spectroscopy.

Figure 3

Figure 4. Optical micrographs of the sample BOR-1.2 where the cellular structure of wood can be recognized. (Color online)

Figure 4

Table 1. Characterization of the Dated Sample.