ANTILLEAN AXES/ADZES: PERSISTANCE OF AN ARCHAIC TRADITION

Peter O' B. Harris

INTRODUCTION

Several thousand grooved and eared axes from the Lesser Antilles exist in museums and private collections. They have been largely ignored by researchers since so few have been found in archaeo­logical context. However, they represent too large a body of data to omit from Caribbean prehistory, and this paper is an attempt to impro­ve the situation.

I have lived with the problem a long time. In 1882, my wife's great grandfather, E.Y. Connell of Nevis started to catalog his 'Carib Axes' with accurate life-size dravings, and notes as to prove­nance, stone, weight, etc. In 1971, I inherited his final 190 page catalog (ConnellMS 1929), and made a promise to complete his work.

My first attempt was in 1973. At the inauguration of the Museo del Hombre Dominicano, I realized that most Lesser Antilles axes belong within an Archaic tradition. South and north of the area, earliest dates are respectively BC 4000 - 3000 in Trinidad (Banwari 2), and BC 1250 in Santo Domingo (El Porvenir). I presumed that Lesser Antilles axes' fitted chronologically in between. This was the gist of my 1973 paper. Alghough I felt that the Santo Domingo Archaic sur­vived to become an important element in the later Taino culture, I did not consider whether the same might have happened in the Lesser Antilles.

My next attempt was in 1975. Ronald Taylor of the Barbados Museum allowed me to examine physically many items from the Sir John Hutson collection. I realized that many 'axes' were 'adzes"; that some were hand tools, while others were hafted. A local amateur, Albert Hughes, pointed out that "'adzes' and axes are the normal boat buil­ding tool of the pre-industrial 'coastal' fisherman" 1 made extensive notes on Earle Kirby's collection (St. Vincent), and Edgar Clerc's collection (Guadeloupe) but the paper was never completed.

In 1977 I visited the Andes, like other before me on a search for the cultural roots of our Caribbean Ceramic peoples. In Peru, I noted that Archaic-style axes survived into Huari and Inca times (AD 850 and 1500); they were never replaced by the celt, petaloid or otherwise. In 1979 at the St. Kitts Congress, the three elements under­lined above fused into a new perspective, which is now stated as the hypothesis of this paper: Lesser Antilles adzes and axes were the boat-building tools of Ceramic Period populations. This activity was essential to their lifeway, and given equal importance in their ritual. A boat building tradition probably began in Archaic times (viz. items of Lesser Antilles stone at Banwari, Trinidad BC 4000-3000). An Archaic look survived in the tools due to the conservatizing effect of ritual.

258

This suggests that the different types of Lesser Antilles adzes and axes may reflect different stages of technical/stylistic develop­ment, covering a period of almost 3,000 years CBC 1250, El Porvenir -AD 1500). The purpose of this paper is to see whether a meaningful framework of such types can be established.

METHOD

The problem was approached in four stages:

1. Physical Examination. Seventy-one examples were handled to permit some degree of empathy with the manufacturer/user, and exami­ned physically for attributes to use as indicators (Sources given in list 1).

2. Data Analysis. Nineteen butt and seventeen blade shapes were selected as primary attributes; and additional examples from publications and notes increased the sample to 553 items. For each butt type, a tentative sequence of blade types was established based on secondary attributes: these were both functional Ceg. neck treat­ment) and non-functional (eg. butt design). Chronological and prove­nience data were also plotted, where available.

3.Tentative Framework. Sequences and geographic distribution were then amalgamated to produce a preliminary framework. This still contains inconsistencies, but initial spatial and chronological obser­vations can be made. The present paper stops at this point. It is intended to reprocess the frame-work by computer to reduce the incon­sistencies.

4. Anthropological Interpretations. Inferences on lifeway, cul­ture and demography will be made in a further paper.

PART I: PHYSICAL EXAMINATION

Seventy-one examples were examined physically from the following viewpoints: Kinetic feel (i.e. trial holding/wielding in the hand), design, wear, size, material. Intentions were twofold:(lj to permit a degree of empathy with the manufacturer/user, and incorporate this into the typology; (2) to check which attributes had value as indi­cators of relationship, difference and pattern. Useful data were produced on tool repertoire, methods of hafting, and use of material, which are summarized briefly here:

Tool Repertoire. Five functions are identified (Chart 1) ; proba­bly more if size variation is included: eg. chopping axe (large), trimming axe (medium - small). Major functions are adze and axe , most of which are easy to differentiate (cutting-edge wear, kinetic balance). Minor functions of chisel, spokeshave and multiuse also seem to be present, but identification is normally uncertain. Almost all exam­ples, even the most elaborate, show signs of use or resharpening. A small degree of shape/function admixture is also noted; eg. axe-shape /hammer- f unction .

259

Hafting.At least five methods of hafting appear to be present (Table 1). Unhafted (i.e. handtools) are normally easy to identify (kinetic balance). Vertical lever hafting (eg. elbow for adze, straight for axe) is also usually clear (preparation for binding, balance). Cap hafting (hand adzes), sleeve (chisel), and horizontal lever (spokeshave) seem to be present, but identification is uncer­tain.

Use of Material .Almost all items are made of unpolished grey-brown volcanic stone, probably local. This contrasts strikingly with the polish, green/black colours and largely imported stone of Ceramic Period petaloid celts.

I had hoped that variation in tool length/thickness ratio might provide a time indicator, with higher ratios reflecting progres­sively better use of the material. The situation is complicated, however, by other factors and this attribute was not used; other factors being that thickness varies according to tool length, and a probable variation based on individual user /'manufacturer diffe­rence. In order to remove attributes based on tool function, the physical sample was classified under the five tools identified above and reviewed. The two major tools, adze and axe, shared a similar set of butt and blade shapes, and these were selected as primary attributes. Relationaship between types was implied by a number of transitional examples. Functional and non functional secon­dary attributes were also apparent: eg. variations within butt-type, neck treatment, side projections, asymetricals, quality, decoration, etc..

PART 2: DATA ANALYSIS

The sample was increased to 553 by adding examples physically examined in previous years, and published items (list 2). This produced varying sample sizes for each island:

(T) Trinidad, 12; (SV) St. Vincent, 225; (A) Antigua, 1; (To) Tobago, 4; (SL) St.Lucia, 52; (SK) St.Kitts and Nevis, 17; (B) Barbados, 1; (D) Dominica, 5; (Gr)Grenada, 5; (G) Guadeloupe, 144; (VI) Virgins, 1; (GA) Greater Antilles, 19; (?) Unknown, 67.

Thumbnail sketches were made of all examples. 19 butts types (butt end and neck), and 17 blade types (budy of the blade from neck to cutting edge) were defined (/Table 1).

For each butt type, a tentative Blade sequence was made inde­pendently (Figs 1-12), based on transitional examples and secondary attributes or subtypes. Typical subtypes used were:

Butt : pair studs, single stud, notch, 3 notch; beaks, studs, pegs; 2-lobe, 2-ear, 2-peg; short ears, long ears, half-cap; etc.

Neck : aligned, parallel, bulging; side-notch, groove, ridge; archaic, narrow, general, pecked grooves, and with concave lower edge, etc..

260

Working edge : tapered, sharp, blunt-finished, square profile,

Asymetrical : plano-convex, concavo-convex or -piano, offset butt, slant blade, (dissimilar convex, dissimilar neck).

The last two need further defining and were not utilized. Chrono­logical data were reviewed, distribution charts made, and occasional attributes listed: eg. side-projections, decoration, hole, multi-notch, 'bindings'.

Brief comments on each butt type follow

1. Knob 0.18 examples) (Figs. 1-2) . Primary attributes are a rounded knob with its lower edge defined by all round grinding. Seve­ral with the latter attribute have beaks (20%) and seem related to cutaway beak. Sequence is reasonably clear, and is based on asymetri-cals and groove subtypes. Many examples are asymetrical (59%); many have a groove or pecked area round the neck (40%). There is no one major blade; almost the whole set of blades is present, including two unusual types (shovel, billhook). A new long artefact is present in rect/billhook/pear: this seems to be a two-handed adze. Most examples are from Guadeloupe (57%); billhook blade is unique to this island; long artefact and spoon B blade are more or less so. Knob must be considered a Guadeloupe characteristic, possibly deriving from the Archaic groove of shovel blade type, and persisting throughout the blade sequence.

2-5.Cutaway Beak Groups (134 examples) (Figs. 3-4). Primary attributes are cutaway beaks and rounded butt. The types are diffe-renciated by notch (es) in the butt J[Type 2) , long cutaway side sec­tion (Type 3), short cutaway section (Type 4), and flat or slightly concave butt (Type 5). Typically examples cover four blade types (87%); here the sequence seems clear and is based on transitions, asymetricáis, notch sub-types (Type 2) and major blade types (Type 2-4). These are trapezoid (34% of Type 2), pear (41% of Type 3), rounded (51% of Type 4); Remainder of sequence is unclear (Arc and Spoon Blades). Forty one per cent are asymetrical; development of a two handed adze in St. Vincent (pear-spoott C) should be noted.

6-Beak and Notch (or Stud) (55 examples) (Fig 5). Primary attri­butes are beaks, studs or notches, and a well defined neck. Sequence is reasonably clear; and is based on transitional examples, beak sub-types, stud/notch subtypes, and alignment of neck and studs.

Typically examples cover three blade-types (91%) and are syme-trical (89%); major blade is trapezoid (38%); 24% are elaborate (i.e. higher quality work than required by function); 20% have a hole, typically in the butt; 12% seem related to Type 8 (Fishtail and Groove).

261

7. Specials (6 examples) (Fig.5). This type contains a few elaborate examples, which do not fit in with other butt types. In some respects they seem related to beak and notch. The Guadeloupe examples may form an independent type.

8-10. Wide Groove Group (51 examples) (Fig. 6). Primary attribute is a well-defined wide shallow groove around the neck. Butts vary: 'fishtail (Type 8), flat and notch (Type 9), and flat (Type 10). The sequence is partially clear. Complex transitions suggest that more than one factor is present. Based on stud and beak sub-types, two parallel sequences may be present: trapezoid/pear/rounded/? Spoon B, and spade/long arc/arc. The arc group of blades may repre­sent a specific activity. Typically examples are symetrical (94%); major blade is arc (33%); 22% are elaborated; some holes are present, but major location is now at blade centre. There are relationships with and differences from beak and notch (Type 6) .

11. Cap (23 examples) (Fig. 7). Primary attribute is the well-defined separation of the butt-end from the blade to form a cap. Quite possibly this type is a monolith, ie. a representation in stone of a flint blade with wooden cap-hafting. The sequence is unclear despite an abundance of information: transitions, butt and asymetrical sub-types. There appears to be a discontinuity between rectangular/trapezoid/spoon B/spoon C and pear/rounded. The type seems limited to St.Vincent (87%); many are asymetrical (74%); there seems to be a relationship with the 2-ears sub-type of Type 12. The colourful spokeshave (MR 12) should be noted.

12. Two Ears (28 examples) (Fig. 8). This is a loosely defined type, the primary attribute being a pair of extensions to the butt. There are four sub-types: two-Beak (13); two-Peg (3); two-Lobe (9) ; two-Ear (3). The sequence is unclear and is based on butt and asy­metrical sub-types. Many examples are asymetrical (46%) ,- major blade type is pear (43%) . Two-Beak sub-type with a wide groove would be fishtail (Type 8) , arid with a round of flat butt would be cutaway beak (type 4 or 3). Two-Peg sub-type may be related to Arauquinoid or Ostionoid horned pottery lugs. Two-Ear sub-type seems related to cap (Type 11).

13. Narrow (53 examples) (Fig. 9) . Primary attribute is a narrow butt without any thickening to form a knob, and in many cases it seems prepared for sleeve hafting. Some examples (13%) show a pecked or flaked butt apparently for this purpose. Sequence is consistent but thinly supported, and shows a clear trapezoid before arc blade order.

14. Pointed (32 examples) (Fig. 10). Primary attributes are a tapering butt, and/or demarcation of the neck, ie. side notches, groove, ridge (like a cap), ridge (like a rope binding). The sequence is clear, and seems to reverse the normal rectangular/trapezoid blade order. It is based on neck, butt and asymetrical sub-types, and crude examples. Most are symetrical (81%); major blades are trapezoid (28%) with Guadeloupe predominating, and rounded (25%) mainly from St. Vincent. Two sub-types (side notches, crude)

262

emphasize further the difference between Guadeloupe and St. Vincent. Ridge-cap and notched butt examples show a small but clear relation­ship between St. Vincent (spade) and the Greater Antilles (trap/spade/ pear).

15-17. Two End Group (33 examples) (Fig. 11). Primary attributes are similarity in shape between blade and butt-end, and normally. similarity in size and working edge. The types are a mixture of shape and function: two bit (Type 15) with a cutting edge at each end; two end grinder (Type 17) with a grinding/peening edge at each end; and one bit (Type 16) with a single cutting edge. The sequence is clear; and is based on neck sub-types (crude notch, groove, notch with wear, notch, cutaway, neck) and working-edge sub-types (battered, sharp, blunt-finish, grinder). There are several asymetricals (27%), some of which seem a factor of hafting. Although typically a Greater Antilles artefact, the two-end groups' presence in St.Vincent in mid-sequence, and the spread of the maul shape as a grinding/peening tool through the islands north of St. Vincent is interesting.

18-19.Butt Hafted Group (20 examples) (Fig.12). Primary attri­butes are a wide prepared butt (shallow-convex or slotted) presumably to fit into or onto the haft and side notches (Type 6) or wings (Type 7), to assist binding the butt to the haft with fibres (Boomert 1979: 104, 106). Butt hafting distinguishes this group from all other Lesser Antilles types, where neck hafting seems to be the norm. Types 6 and 7 more or less align with Boomert's types Bla, Cla, Clb, and C2bl, which are typical of the Guyanas in proto-historic and historic times. The island with most examples is St. Lucia (50%). Just over 50% of Type 6 have a slanting butt; this sub-type 'provides evidence of an important link between the two areas (Guianas and Lesser Antilles), since this specific axe form is found nowhere else in northern South America' (ibid: 108).

PART 3: TENTATIVE FRAMEWORK

Blade Sequence

Individual sequences show a high degree of consistency (Chart 2).

Rect/'Trap/Pear/Rounded (323 examples= 58%) . These four blades appear consistently in the same order; except for pointed butt (Type 14), where trap/rect may be preferable.

Arc and Billhook (72 examples = 13%). These two blades, presu­med to be sub-areal versions of the same implement, seem close to pear, but may vary according to butt type, ie, immediately before pear (16)(cutaway beak group, knob); parallel (17) (narrow); imme­diately after (19) (beak and notch, wide groove group).

Spade/Long Arc (52 examples = 9%). These two blades seem to be in the above order, immediately before or parallel with Arc. In two bit (Type 15), typically a Greater Antilles shape, long arc appears to precede spade.

263

Spoon A, B, C (52 examples = 9%). Spoon A, consisting of "natural" cobble or crude examples, is presumed early in the sequence. Spoon B (spoon-shape) and C (shield, pointed or celt shape) are rather unclear. Most are tentatively placed between pear and rounded, however they do not always fit there easily. In knob (Type 1 - mostly from Guadeloupe) a spoon A/B/C/rectangular sequence is also possible; in Cap (Type 11-mostly from St. Vincent) two distinct sequences trap/rect/spoon B/C and pear/rounded seem to be present.

Shovel and Rough ("19 examples = 4%) . These are presumed to start Lesser and Greater Antilles sequences respectively, because of their early dates.

Reet B/'Snub/Pointed (20 examples= 4%). These are presumed to close Lesser Antilles sequence because of the clear association with the Guyanas, and their late prehistoric and historic context there.

Maul (14 examples = 3%) . This is presumed late in the Greater Antilles sequence, because of its high degree of work and symetry.

A tentative framework of blade types is proposed in Chart 3. (Note: except for Spoon A,B,C, blade types have been loosely defined. Each blade type requires a tabulation of butt types represented to tighten up definition).

Occasional Attributes (96 examples= 18%)

Several attributes occur occasionally in most blade types. Sometimes they cluster, eg. three attributes on one example. They seem mainly non-functional. The following have been plotted (from Lesser Antilles examples only), and each shows some degree of pattern:

Elaborate (52) covers superior examples (Types 6, 8-10) and decorated butts (other types) (Chart 4.) Beak and notch peak in trapezoid blade (10), wide groove group in arc (6), and cap in spoon B/C (9).

Decoration (13) is distributed evenly across butt and blade types (Chart 5) ; however cap (4), trapezoid (3) and pear (3) should be noted. Also techniques and motifs tend to cluster: ie. Excision/ Incision (3) limited to trap blade, modeling (2) to pear/spoon B; Saladoid motifs earlier, Chicoid motifs later.

Hole (23) covers circular perforation, partial drilling, hole extended to notch, and one triangular (Chart 6). During the sequence, hole location moves from mainly in the butt (rect, trap) to side of the blade (spade) to blade centre (arc, pear, spoon B).

Multinotch (14) covers serrated butt, blade or sides (Chart 7). Butt serration seems related to the studs and notches of beak and notch (Type 6), occurs throughout the sequence, and peaks in pear (4). The only blade serration occurs in arc;, side serration does not appear till spoon C/rounded.

264

Bindings (3) which look like a rope wrapped around the blade or neck, occur only in three blades Greet, trap, spoon C) .

Side Projections (.15) appear to have different purposes: unclear (possibly for horizontal hafting), key (probably to pre­vent blade turning in a sleeve handle), horizontal handle, decora­tion (Chart 8).

It is reasonable to assume the above attributes reflect some degree of cultural importance and/or technical specialization. Considered together (Chart 9) , a cultural plateau is indicated against rect/spade/arc/pear/spoon B & C blades (average 13.2 attributes each), with a cultural peak in trapezoid (40 attributes) Different percentages of attribute per butt type indicate a pro­bable ranking in cultural importance: ie cap (83%), fish (45%), beak and notch (36%), cutaway beak and notch (29%), flat and groove (27%), etc..

Chronology

Sixteen examples are more or less datable (Chart 10), plus the Guianas blades. Many are insecure or single. They suggest marked time differences between Mainland (including Trinidad and Tobago), Lesser Antilles, and Greater Antilles. They do not show if blades form a time-sequence, but they are more supportive of this than not. Decoration motifs are even more open to subjective interpretation. However, they also are generally supportive of a blade-time sequence (Chart 11). Taking into account the cultural curve suggested in Chart 9, and some of the distribution details discussed below, the following very tentative chronology is proposed :

PERIOD

Archaic (BC 1250 - AD 0) Ceramic Period 1 (AD 0 - 350)

Period 2 (AD 350 - 650)

BLADE TYPES

Rough, Shovel, Spoon A Rectangular, Trapezoid Spade, Long Arc, Arc

Period 3 (AD 650 - 1100) : Pear, ? Spoon B & C Period 4 (AD 1100 - 1500): Rounded, Maul, Guianas blades

Distribution

Different numbers of examples per island suggest that parti­cipation in the adze/axe activity varies considerably:

Major Medium Minor

Zero

St. Vincent (225), Guadeloupe (144) St. Lucia (52) St. Kitts-Nevis (17), Trinidad (12), Grenada (5) Dominica (5), Tobago (4), Antigua (1), Virgins (1), Barbados (1) Martinique.

It is possible that the overall sample is biassed against Grenada, St. Kitts and Dominica, and further cataloguing may well move these islands into the Medium range. The culture area seems to extend from Grenada to St. Kitts, with St. Vincent and Guade­loupe as important centres. Minimal and zero representations

265

from Antigua and Martinique are worth noting, as both are well-researched islands. If these tools are for boat-building as hypo­thesized, the mythical association of Martinique with women may have made the island taboo for this activity.

Comparison

Distribution of blades (Chart 12) and butts (Chart 13) show appreciable differences between St. Vincent and Guadeloupe: the Shovel/Spoon A blade with "Archaic" groove is more or less limited to Guadeloupe, suggesting a relationship with Archaic Trinidad, which seems absent in St. Vincent and Greater Antilles. Archaic groove continues to exert an influence on most subsequent blade shapes in Guadeloupe, in the form of knob butt. In St. Vincent and Guadeloupe, the rect/trap specimens are reasonably similar. However, cap butt is exclusive to St. Vincent; long artifacts start, and are exclusive to Guadeloupe; and knob is noticeable stronger there. Arc blade is much stronger in St. Vincent. Billhook blade and long are exclusive to Guadeloupe, and knob continues to be stronger there. Cap butt is exclusive to St. Vincent. Knob continues to be stronger in Guadeloupe, and Spoon blades are slightly stronger there despite that island's overall smaller sample. Rounded blade is much stronger in St. Vincent. Maul which is presumed to reflect influence from the Greater Antilles. Two bit shape is absent from St. Vincent, reaching only as far south as St. Lucia. The Guianas blades do not occur in either Major island (St. Vincent or Guadeloupe), but occurs in Medium/ Minor islands (St. Lucia, Dominica, St. Kitts).

Comparison of butt/blade distribution between islands adds further detail. Beak and notch, special and wide groove group all seem related. Considered together, the blade sequence suggests an interesting pattern (Chart 14): among the rect, beck and notch starts strongly in St. Vincent and less so in St. Lucia and Guadeloupe. The trap type spreads strongly to St. Lucia, Guadeloupe and St. Kitts. In Guadeloupe, special starts strongly. Groove group also starts in St. Vincent and Guadeloupe, more strongly in the latter; possibly it results from that island's Archaic groove tradition. In the arc type, groove group replaces beak and notch in Guadeloupe, overtakes this butt in St. Vincent.While in the pear type, groove group replaces beak and notch in St. Lucia, and in the spoon B type, groope group replaces beak and notch in St. Vincent.

Knob and cutaway beak group also seem related. Considered toge­ther (Chart 15), cutaway beak is shown to predominate in St. Vincent, and to spread to St. Lucia and Guadeloupe only in peak blades: ie trap, pear; and to a lesser extent rect, rounded. Knob predominates in Guadeloupe; however, it is reasonably present in St. Vincent, especially in arc, pear and rounded; it spreads to St. Lucia and St. Kitts in rect and pear.

Factors

The tentative butt/blade framework (Chart 3) seems the result of four major factors: chronology, distribution, culture and function.

266

Chronology. The generally consistent blade and secondary attribute sequences (e.g. St. Vincent similar to Guadeloupe; long artifact; neck, asymetrical; occasional attributes, etc. ) suggest that mostly these reflect time, and therefore offer a reasonable basis for a valid time-framework. Dates and decoration data (Charts 10, 11) are more supportive of the framework than not. However, some blades are not yet clearly located in the sequence (the Arc group; Spoon group; the transition from Spoon A to Rectangular). And some blades may also reflect function (Arc, Billhook).

Distribution. There is relatively little influence from outside the Lesser Antilles, however, some interesting exceptions should be noted. (1) Mainland South America. There is a strong suggestion that Archaic people from Trinidad settled in Guadeloupe (archaic groove), and influenced the subsequent tradition there (knob/butt), and in the Lesser Antilles (wide groove butt group). There is also a strong suggestion that people from the Guianas settled in the medium/ minor islands in proto-historic times (butt-hafted butt group); (2) Greater Antilles. A small relationship with St. Vincent is sugges­ted (pointed butt, two bit butt), at some point in time during the period, say AD 350-1100; some kind of relationship with the islands north of St. Vincent is suggested in late ceramic times (say post AD 1100), by the distribution of maul shape (two bit - Greater Antilles; peening hammer - Lesser Antilles);(3) Unknown. The appea­rance of Cap butt in St. Vincent seems intrusive and may indicate influence from another area outside the Lesser Antilles, with perhaps a different technological tradition. Within the Lesser Antilles, St. Vincent and Guadeloupe appear to be adze-axe activity centres; and their differences probably divide the area into two sub- areas, south­ern and northern.

Culture. There is some suggestion that butt shapes reflect cultural tradition (eg. knob, special - Guadeloupe; cap - St. Vincent; two bit - Greater Antilles; side-notched, winged - Guianas). Also the duality themes (two-beak, two-ear, two-lobe, two-peg, fishtail, etc.) probably have a cultural meaning. Variations in cultural level are suggested by the following: (High), elaborate butt types; special, cap, fishtail and groove, beak and notch (Chart 9 lower); the cultural plateau and peak suggested by occasional attributes x Blade types (Chart 9 upper); the apparent spread from major to medium/minor islands of certain butts x certain blade types (Charts 14, 15). (Low). The occurence of Guiana butts in medium/minor islands only, and not in the two major islands (Chart 13). (Change). The replace­ment of Beak and Notch butt by Wide Groove group (Chart 14). (? Incipient decadence). The apparent mixture of shape with function (e.g. Axe-shaped peening hammer, Two End Grinder etc..)

Function. One cannot ignore the influence of this factor in certain artifact shapes or their precursors: e.g. Narrow, Flat or Cutaway, Butt-hafted group, Half-Cap (butt); Arc, Billhook (blade); Long-Guadeloupe, large Side Projections - St. Vincent (two-handed adze).

(Note: although not mentioned in this paper, two handed adzes probably include the Elbow shape - Greater Antilles, and Fewkes' Anchor shape - Guadeloupe).

267

CONCLUSION

From the physical examination (Part 1) five probable tool types emerge, of which Adze and Axe are the most numerous. These tools share largely similar sets of Butt and Blade shapes, which are selected as Primary attributes for data analysis.

In the data analysis (Part 2) Butt and Blade types are defined. A sequence of blades is developed for each butt type based on Secondary attributes,and these form the basis of a tentative butt/ blade framework. Occasional attributes, provenience and the sparse chronological data are also entered. It should be noted that certain Blade types still require tighter definition.

The tentative framework (Part 3) seems reasonably consistent. Factors of chronology, distribution, culture and function appear to be present, and to offer a real basis for a time/culture frame­work.

Rework is needed before proceeding to interpretations (Part 4), and testing the boat-building hypothesis. I believe however, that the preliminary framework has provided a respectable basis for further research in this neglected artifact area; and already interesting new archeological and anthropological perspectives are beginning to emerge.

REFERENCES

Barbotin, Maurice 1973 Tentative d'explication de la forme et du volume des haches

précolombiennes de Marie-Galante et de quelques autres pier­res. Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress for the Study of Pre-Columbian Cultures of the Lesser Antilles. (St.Lucia, 1971), pp.140-150.

Boomert, Aad 1979 The prehistoric stone axes of the Guianas: a typological

classification. Journal of the Walter Roth Museum of Archaeol­ogy and Anthropology, 2 (2), (Guyana), pp.99-124.

Bullen, Adelaide K. and Ripley P. Bullen 1968 Two stratigraphie tests at the Grande Anse site, St.Lucia.

The Amerindians in St.Lucia, (St.Lucia Archaeological and Historical Society), pp.24-38.

1972 Archaeological Investigations on St.Vincent and the Grena­dines, West Indies. William L. Bryant Foundation, American Studies, 8.

Clerc, Edgar 1968 Sites précolombiens de la cote nord-est de la Grande Terre

de Guadeloupe. Proceedings of the Second International Congress for the Study of Precolombian Cultures of the Lesser Antilles, (Barbados, 1967), pp.47-60.

268

Connell, Ernest Y. 1922 Illustrated manuscript of his collection (unpublished),

Fewkes, J. Walter 1922 A prehistoric island culture area of America. Thirty-

fourth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnol­ogy, (Smithsonian Institution).

Harris, Peter O'B. 1976 The preceramic period in Trinidad. Proceedings of the

First Puerto Rican Symposium in Archaeology, 1973, pp. 33-64.

Jesse, C. 1968 The Amerindians in St. Lucia(St. Lucia Archaeological

and Historical Society).

Joyce, Thomas A. 1916 Central American and West Indian Archaeology .

Kay, Katheryne 1976 A survey of Antillean sculptured stone. Proceedings

of the Sixth International Congress for the Study of Pre-rColumbian Cultures of the Lesser Antilles (Guade­loupe, 1975), pp.187-199.

Loven, Sven 1935 Origins of the Tainan Culture, West Indies.

Mason, Otis T 1884 The Guesde collection of antiquities in Pointe-à-Pitre,

Guadeloupe, West Indies. Paper relating to Anthropology, pp.731-837.

Olsen, Fred 1974 On the trail of the Arawaks.

Pinchón, Robert 1961 L'outillage lithique précolombien de Sainte-Lucie.

Annales des Antilles No. 9 (Société d'Histoire de la Martinique), pp.11-29.

Veloz Maggiolo, Marcio and Orgega, Elpidio 1973 El preceramico de Santo Domingo, nuevos lugares, y su

posible relación con otros puntos del area Antillana. Museo del Hombre Dominicano, Papeles Ocasionales No.l.

Harris, Peter O'B. 1980 Excavation Report: Lovers Retreat Period IV, Tobago.

Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress for the Study of the Pre-Columbian Cultures of the Lesser Antilles. (St. Kitts, 1979), pp-.524-552.

269

Table 1.

BUTT GROUP BUTT TYPES BLADE TYPES

Cutaway Beak

Wide Groove

Two End

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

( 8. ( 9

10.

(Kn) Knob

(CB-N) Cutaway Beak S Notch

(F-CB) Flat & Cutaway Beak

(L-CB) Long Cutaway Beak

(S-CB) Short Cutaway Beak

(BN) Beak & Notch/Stud

(Sp) Special

(Fish) Fishtail Si Groove

(FNG) Flat, Notch & Groove

(FG) Flat & Groove

1. Rough

11.

12.

13.

14.

(15.

¡16.

(C) Cap

(2E) Two Ears

(N) Narrow

(P) Pointed

(2B) Two Bit

(IB) One Bit

(17. (2N) Two End Grinder

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7-

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

Shovel

Spoon A

Rectangular

Trapezoid

Spade

Long Arc

Arc

Billhook

Pear

Spoon B

Spoon C

Rounded

Maul

Rectangular B

Snub

Pointed

Butt Hafted (18. (SN) Side Notched

19. (W) Winged

270

LIST 1 sources of Examples Examined Physically

Cornell collection residue, Trinidad (C) 3

Museum of the American Indian Research Annexe, New York (MR) 20

Fred Olsen collection, Connecticut (O) 48 71

LIST 2 sources of Additional Examples

Examined physically in previous years: 114

Edgar Clerc collection, Guadeloupe (Cl) 16

Sir John Hutson collection, Barbados (H) 52

Earle Kirby collection, St. Vincent (K) 31

Harris, 1976 (3); Harris collection, Trinidad (1)(PH) 4

Tom Cambridge collection, Tobago (TC) 11

Museum Material: 23

Carter collection, Buddleigh Salterton (Car) 1

Museum of the American Indian, New York (M) 16

Museo Manuel Garcia Arevalo, Santo Domingo (MGA) 4

Museo del Hombre Dominicano, Santo Domingo (MHD) 1

Trinidad & Tobago Museum, Port of Spain (POS) 1

Published Material : 345

*Bullen & Bullen, 1968 (B) (Fig 3.k) 1

*Bullen & Bullen, 1972 (PI 35.a) (1)

*Connell,1922 (29); Connellcollection (1) (C) 30

*Fewkes, 1922 (F) 150

*Mason, 1884, Guesde collection (G) 118

Jesse, 1968 (Je) (Third plate) 1

*Joyce, 1916 (J) (PI 24, Fig 56) 11

*Kay, 1976 (KK) 1

*Olsen, 1974 (5); Olsen collection (2) (0) 7

*Pinchon, 1961, Ferguson collection (P) 24

Veloz y Orgega, 1973 (V) (page 34) 2

482

•Illustrations show published reference: eg. Fewkes 1922 Plate 15 item E=F 15.E.

271

LIST 3 Sources of Chart 10 Dates

PHI Banwari Trace, Trinidad: surface (Harris 1976:38).

PH5 Atagual, Trinidad: surface (Harris S Boomert: MS in prepa­ration) .

TC14 Guayaguayare, Trinidad: surface (Harris 1980:538).

Type 18 Hertenrits, Kwatta, Barbakoeba, Koriabo, Browsberg (Suri­name) ; Rupununi (Guyana) (Boomert 1979: 101).

Type 19 Hertenrits, Kwatta, Koriabo, Brownsberg, Taruma (Suriname) (Ibid).

C1I Morel 2, Guadeloupe (Clerc 1968: 49, 52) .

K3 Amos Vale, St. Vincent: cultural zone (Bullen & Bullen 1972: 76, 77)

Bl Grande Anse, St. Lucia: upper third of Suazoid Layer (Bullen s Bullen 1968:30).

Kl5 Stubbs, St. Vincent: bulldozed material, Caliviny - Suazoid (64%), Simon (32%) (Bullen S Bullen 1972: 59).

049 similar example from El Porvenir, Santo Domingo: presumed below 75cm (Veloz y Ortega 1973: 6, 16).

VI Sánate, Santo Domingo (ibid: 6,17).

MR13 similar example from Serralles, El Porvenir, Santo Domingo: presumed above 75 cm (ibid: 6, 17).

Ml3 similar example from Batey Negro, Santo Domingo: presumed 25-50 cm (ibid: 5, 19).

V2 Sánate, Santo Domingo (ibid: 34, 61).

272

(S3* (XD *

CCD &

ï O Q J 0 3 í C C 3 1 C Z 3 ¿

(£3>i XjJ* CQlDa \ggs»

' ^

ur A

z o o

c».

r j § r-j <*;§ A

H

ÖO* ^í^1 "©i cfl

o

i: o

cG>* O * Œ*

j lü

«o

<OÎ fâh QO* (E3t(Oí GO I- * î COs (©f * V i 001

273

ft z

«0* <3s Q i eg,-<><3ic3*c3)i

«r \ tS

* O 1 c3¿

<dl> O* ^ o

i tú

CQÍ (T^\t c3) 3-

J

d>d> c3̂ <0*

aC3í ^ 3 O 1 c=<); S S

? t/l 2

5 ta *i 5

274

icQ. «0

(XZ>c3fG)* •C^>ic^pi

C3* » i c3 2 c 3 C3S Q i ^ CG*

C0* Q Í CCDi C 3

*<X3'C^(E<> f O* 4 &

C3* c3«

5 c3 i cg* C3» O* C31 £3*

C3* O2 C3i

C3*c3* ^ O

O O * C3«

w

D U O z o

0) Oí >1

4J 4J 3 03

X U B O 2

H

<

U

ft >1 •p

+J

CD

• H CM

275

O' ^ Oí

<* <* o* o §: O S O S Q Í C 3 Í C 3 Í

«0 2 o

íes* l

!Q*os

o ^ í G ^ Q ^ 1

C3* (3l o? O O G * » KÍ*

C3? c 3 5

Q * € Q S C 3 *

OQO*

276

? ( 3 Q» C3-: » *

4

p ' £

C3cC2>

11)

€3 fc) s

o £3-rl3-

(3 03

! D1 H u w ft w

0) ft >1 JJ

•M

4J 3 m

o D H w n o

K U O 3

co

0)

ft •M

•P

CD

O)

• H

Cu

£ 3 C 3 £ 3 £ 3 £C3*£3e

C 3 ^ t3»C3* Z3*f^3t C3* C^íO*

s ur u.

CIDI ^

i)l@s Q s Q i C3* £-3

211

A U) fi

K3S

o Q a «0

«O" ) 3

$3* ÖC3)Ï

>o

SO1

•Mg

«r ld «CD» «

4 1 T » .?

M "3 •o-

5 J.5

278

A ? s

Z o

<Û

Z o

p

' *¿%i

aö*

93*

H35 tî>*

5 ) ?

CD* 2 D ï

0<H* 03:

A

03*03?

CD» t ö

Pu

u

(1)

> i •P

+J 4->

PU

(1)

en -H

z s 3

3¿ O

O a

3

<3'£3 v»

C-^C23 5

s;« o

<4

C3i * 2

C3í C3>£3 !

C3> «)«£C3;

a C3i

O

H

<D & 4->

4-1

3 PQ

ai u 3

•H

279

fi /3

c3*c¡ ) f cgi c= )̂i <«)?

3

UJ

t Oí o 3 O

0)

4J

D

CTi

0)

Cn •M

i ê

S?

<i^T)?

SPoo*i A

<3ö \ !y wJ

0 w

teer

öö LJ uj «if/

i i M'*-

7R./VP

ÊÜ * 3 - qt

^ 1 )

$7 <^

ö â W » * 1 ' R. .C

l ÎÏ/ pn-8

i<»Aï>e

FJo-C f * * * *

V*'/v

FïoB

/"STÍ1?

ÔÔ A«jrt3 of.

ÔÔ va. F*-*

îftjOM C

Is. J

P/1

Figure 10. Butt type 14: POINTED.

2 8 ]

J

G* G^

Z

I

Î ê z 3

0-<

«0

£

C3>i CQi

C3»0' C3 C3

J i

GD Ç

O) ft >i +J

•p • P

3 m

H CQ

O

CU ft > 1 p 4-> P 3 m

H ff)

i m 2 H H

ft > i Q 4J Z

a -P +1 S m H

•H Pu

CÛ £3 ¿£>

m

O-1

D D a

u H o z

I H Q

00

OJ ft >l p

p p 3 m

QJ in D Cn

•H

282

Chart 1. TOOL FUNCTION X METHOD OF HAFTING

Terr? MMA.c4"ú'vr^**^»«v^

4<<3c

/b*.

cud SpdctdcJ*,

- (tAys. I ot»ntX.

-0±e-J<ÀXxx.

»tÀy.b*.t.] ttfrK

T*U

ToK?

3 0 .

X£

1

^

5"

ƒ

H

}

1 1

(KL^I

/S"

9

/

/

3 ƒ

2

3/

(Jí— 2.

1

1

1

S

S&UXC

/ 3

IX

*£

ƒ

/

(iMctu^f

1

Ï

1

X

ñ

283

CHART 2. BUTT TYPE AND INDIVIDUAL BLADE SEQUENCE

1.

6.

7.

12.

18.

KNOB

Shovel 13 Spoon A 6 Spoon B 6 Spoon C 8 Rect 15 Trap 15 Spade 3 Long Arc 6 Arc 10 Billhook 13 Pear 19 Rounded 8

(118)

BEAK & NOTCH

Rect 16 Trap 21 Spade 12 Pear 2 Arc 4

(55)

SPECIALS

Trap 5 Long Arc 1

(6)

TWO EARS

Shovel 1 Trap 4 Long Arc 2 Pear 12 Spoon B 1 Spoon C 2 Billhook 2 Rounded 4

(28)

SIDE NOTCH

Rect B 8 Snub 5

(13)

2. CB tV NOTCH

Rect 6 Trap 10 Long Arc 1 Arc 3 Pear 6 Spoon C 2 Rounded 1

(29)

8. FISH & GROOVE

Trap 6 Spade 2 Long Arc 3 Pear 4 Arc 14 Spoon B 1 Rounded 3

(33)

13. NARROW

Shovel 1 Rect 1 Trap 15 Spade 2 Long Arc 5 Arc 17 Pear 6 Rounded 6

(53)

19. WINGED

Snub 4 Pointed 3

(7)

3. FLAT CB

Rect 2 Trap 8 Arc 1 Pear 3 Rounded 3

(17)

FLAT, NOTCH 9. & GROOVE

Trap 1 Pear 1 Arc 1 Spoon B 2 Rounded 2

(7)

14. POINTED

Spoon  3 Rect 4 Trap 9 Spade 3 Pear 4 Spoon C 1 Rounded 8

(32)

4. LONG CB

Rect Trap Long Arc Arc Pear Spoon Rounded

(39)

4 10 2 2 16 X 3

10. FLAT & GROOVE

Spade 1 Long Arc Pear Arc Spoon B Rounded

(ID

15. TWO BIT

Rough Shovel Long Arc Spade Trap Rounded Arc Spoon B Maul

(21)

2 2 2 2 2

3 1 3 3 1 2 2 2 4

5. SHORT CB

Rect 3 Trap 9 Spade 1 Pear 7 Spaan 4 Roufirfpti 25

Í

(.49)

LL. CAP

Rect 3 Txap 6 Spoon. B 6 Spaan C 4 Fear 3 Ratmvdeá 1

C23)

J IS. ONE BIT

Trap 1 Arc 1 Maul 3

(5)

L7. TWO END CRINDER

Maul 7

(7)

284

Chart 3. TENTATIVE FRAMEWORK : BLADE TYPES X BUTT TYPES

xA

1

r *

* 3

* 3 * «û

* t ± a-

» *

A U) ci

= O

» £

- I - *

" «5: - I U v.?

* J S

« uS

a t o *

1/

cf> vo o~

•

CO —

CO

—

—

CO VO

<

^< 64 v*

-

—

^*<r

- »o

4-

cn vO

—

10

lo

£ c<

co C-

* s c i too

va o

4 f

«o -*• r - v> c< a us —

-

en co c<

«*>

cf lo r-

A a

- a d

—

ci co 4-

—

K *

-

c< c<

-

— CO

W vS $ ^

¿ 1

to 4* o- <» oo rt - ^

a c<

«*-. — w

VU ^a

¿ — ci 4-

CO VÖ 4 * -

ci H c{

- ci c<

4- — co

ci

r - * wj

vû «S co

co ro

vfl c{ —

C ^ M) C^ tj«j

su O O

^ J-3M

4- f>j CT* CO

4- co

j Cjt> to

1^

CO

<r

< /̂

co

ill

r-

CO

1 ^

v>

c i

c i co

K n s zz

Y^

CO CO

<J>

LA

o -

cr­eo

£-

*7

00

Í £

285

Chart 4. Chart S. ELABORATE & DECORATED BUTT. DECORATION TECHNIQUE.

ê!<J«s\^

tejí

roft¿¿e

¿ r u * roc

físu*JLtÁ

Ttfaís

i.

2

X

1 10

X

iS

7-

S

1

&

s.

t

1

6 t

1

1

II

2

S

1

s h-

n

1 * .

p

1

X

3

TrtUs

4 XI

S 1 G X

G

G

1

5TZ

/ * i o

2

/

X

1

G

Ine,

3

3

£ x o

/

/

z

A(«<

/

2.

r^e*

2

3

2

3 1

13

Chart 6. Chart 7. Chart 8. HOLE LOCATION. MULTINOTCH LOCATION FUNCTION OF SIDE-PROJECTION

B l o i e s ^ ^

4u*

Ave

-

M

7 3

f

/<r

çî<Je

3

/

^

/

3 2

7

7* Vate

¿

2

3

XG

BuH

2 2

2

/

/

/ 2

td$e

1

1

oLÀz

2

3

Tfrfcvfc

2 3

h

3

2

/6

?

3 2

/

G

fcj,

a

2

^

i/vive

2

a

ííec •>

/

2

3

Ttfflis

3

/

3

/S"

286

Chart 9. OCCASIONAL ATTRIBUTE ANALYSIS X BLADES (upper), X BUTTS (lower) (excludes Greater Antilles).

Ht* TU,.)

A ~

Jiv»vO

ipwK C

Au*l£

OHMÁP

%&Cs

4 XI

S

1

X

;

SX

i e t

3 2

2

3

1

/3

Hoíc

3

8

G

h

1

3

2 6

4..W,

2

3

2

3 2

/£

8 i i

/ /

i

3

3 4

/

3

A

/5

o.lV.kut'ci

/ S * 0

3 /S-

/ / to lit

3

/ 2 S

Í2

7 3

/ f

7

2

q«r

IS

1 •T4

1 IG

XÇ 2-1 SX>

IÇ

* 3

2 3

i°l ¿8

lo 8 9 3

5"3 <f

6

0

11%

xsi

0

IX%

631

n 0

0

0

0

. —

/. KMÁ,

x C¿,/Wt4

3. fUcé

y. Çuïcé 6. 6u¿.h<t¿

7. ^tc^J?

lo. OUfrG,

K. T U t O

•7. 7«vBJi

if. U^J

<M¡M

X

13

M

»7

3

5 2

/

/

2

/

2

/

1

13

1

II

1

l l

4

/

Vf

1

1

1

1

3

/

/ *

1

2

3

/

2

A

2

2

4-

f S

5"

9

3 1

3o 9

'7 /

3 2 8

6

tzi

S

8

3 l

xo

IS 1 3

S h-s

is

f IS

xs 17

sr 6

3 3

7

23

2 8

s/ 2?

7 '3 7

S"3f

+Î.

n

n 191

0

0

0

0

0

m

287

Chart 10. DATABLE EXAMPLES (BUTT TYPE/ NUMBER)

BLADE

Rough

Shovel

Spoon A

Rect/Trap

Spade

Long Arc

trap/Pear

Fear

Rounded

Reet B

Snub

MAINLAND

1/PH1. BC 3200 (T)

1/PH3. est prior BC 1000 (T)

1/PH4. " " " " (T)

1/Car. " " " " (T)

1/TC1. M .. .• .i ( T )

5/PH5. prob ça A D O (T)

12/TCU. prob ça AD 900 (T)

19 AD 700-1700 (Gu)

18 " " " (Gu)

9

LESSER ANTILLES

1/Cll.ca^AD 500 (G)

11/K3 prob ça AD 410 (SV)

4/B1, ça AD 1240 (SL)

9/K15. prob AD 1000 -1500 (SV)

4

GREATER ANTILLES

15/049,prior BC 905 (SD)

13/V1. BC 700 - AD 400 (SD)

15/MR13. post BC 905 (SD)

15/M13. post BC 650 (SD)

14/V2. BC 700 - AD 400 (SD)

5

REFERENCES (SITE)

PH 1 (Banwari), 3(Pointe-a-Pierre), 4(Parrylands). (Harris 1976 : 38, 50)

TC 14 (Guayaguayare). (Harris 1980: 538)

-Butt types 18, 19 (Suriname). (Boomert 1979 : 101).

Cll (Morel 2). (Clerc 1968 : 49, 52).

K 3 (Arnos Vale), K 15 (Stubbs). (Bullen and Bullen 1972: 76, 77; 59)

B 1 (Grande Anse ). (Bullen 1968 : 30)(Bullen and Bullen 1970 : 77)

0 49 same shape as El Porvenir example (Veloz y Ortega 1973 : 60)

V 1, V 2 (somate )(ibid : 34)

MR 13, similar shape to Serrallesexample (ibid : 17)

MR 13, similar shape to Batey. Negro example (ibid : 19)

288

C h a r t 1 1 . DECORATION MOTIFS (CULTURE PERIOD)

BLADE

Rough

Shovel

Rect

Trap

Spade

Long Arc

Trap/Pear

Pear

J

MAINLAND

12/TC14 Horns (?Ar)

1

LESSER ANTILLES

12/MU Horns (?0)

6/K5 Curlicue (S) Reverse Z (A)

14/M16 Crescentic (S)

11/F32D Curvilinear zone (S)

11/F32E " " (S)

7/028 Semi square spiral (S)

Í2/P1A Horns (?0)

6/G76 Semi square spiral (S)

10/F32A Rectilinear (?TS)

10/H43 Chevrons (?Ar)

1/G74 Curviline (?)

4/Mil Curlicue (S) Shortline (Ch)

8/P30 Ovals (Ch)

13

GREATER ANTILLES

15/077.4 Square spiral (A)

2/M14 Square spiral (A)

15/MGA1 Triang spiral (A)

3

CULTURE PERIODS

A - Archa ic TS - Terminal Sa l ado id Ch - Chico id

S - Sa lado id A r , 0 - Arauquino id , Os t i ono id

289

Chart 12. DISTRIBUTION OF BLADE TYPES X ISLANDS.

SptrVK. A

A¡yc

SfvTXxê

Sprtu. C

lUt^i

TetJU

T

l

1

l

1

1

3

IX

To

1

1

1

1

h-

6

/

_

/

<i'

/ X

;

/

5"

sv

i

0-¥

10

9 35

h-X

8 10

37

X%5

SL.

/

s to

3

X

S

1

1

1 1

3

h-3

52.

ï>

<

;

/

/ /

s

$

9 G

IX

32.

G 7 5

15 '9 / /

2 8 6

Iff

A

/

/

S.ÍC

1

1 X

1

X

X

X

n

VI

1

Í

7

1

II

¡H

3

10

la

X

13

1

X

67

«irt

3

1

1

3 3 »

X

1

*t-

/9

Tofcvls:

3

9 5-4-

M l ¿8

3.4-

^7 / S

S5

19 68 1 ^

8 9 3

553

Chart 13. DISTRIBUTION OF BUTT TYPES X ISLANDS.

1. /CK*6

a. 6 0 <- ArfcA

3. PUcâ

't. U*3 ce

s. fUjcê

7. SpcunJt

10 f(*i* <j***yc

(J- 7»/» OU*

/J. fou^u)

19. 7>v* fcï

!(,. flot fct

19. WaA<U

M¿,

T

S

l

1

1

1

3

IX

To

t

X

1

h-

Q>

1

1

&

1

X

l

1

s

sv

xs 18

12.

XS

XO

23

1

IX

h-

6

XO

IS

11

a.

235

SU

4.

3

s s

h-

X

s

3

1

1

G

.sa.

b

/

í

f

3 .

5

5

es

X

13

S

10

X

1

1

3 7 9 3

/v^

A

/

,

/

s<

X

s

1

X

X

X

n

VI

/

/

•7

12-

X

é

S

ƒ

/

3 S 5

1

X

1

67

ÇA

/

X

h

IX

/9

ï&JZs.

118

n

ss 6

3 3

7

2 3

SX

XI

S 7

/3 7

5 S 3

Chart 14. DISTRIBUTION OF RELATED BUTTS: 6,7,8,9,10.

CMA<T H» . 6t*A.HjA ty/,,SfiüuA Vlll, $»»<* gnu.fi ZD-

Chart 15. DISTRIBUTION OF RELATED BUTTS: 1,2,3,4,5.

ST YfAJC&JT

9~<

ftJLY

%%

% %Í

I'lHillll lkilll l l l l l

'%^/M/////////////A H m

íx&m'^ i1

1 m

my^yy/f/M\mM}^^^^$^^^^ ¿~1