91

___________________________________________________________________________

STEWART CASTLE AND RETREAT, JAMAICA: RESULTS OF A NEW DIGITALMAPPING SURVEY

Philip Allsworth-Jones and Michiel Kappers

__________________________________________________________________________

These two sites (T4 and A13 in Dr James Lee’s notation) are well known internationally, since they were among the first open air Arawak (Taino) sites in the island to be excavated and published, the first by Duerden (1897)and the second by de Booy (1913). Both were said to have a number of distinct occupation mounds. Duerdenmentioned 6 at Stewart Castle, and there seems to have been at least 16 at Retreat. Unusually, sketch plans ofboth sites were published by the original excavators, but they are not adequate by today’s standards. Hence anew digital mapping survey was carried out in January 2004, using an infrared theodolite and handheld GPSsystem. Contour maps, as well as 2D and 3D site and area maps, were produced in this manner, and will bedemonstrated. The Stewart Castle site, now owned by the JNHT, is in good condition and the 6 moundsoriginally noted by Duerden are more or less intact. The Retreat site (originally part of the estate owned by theMoulton Barrett family) has been damaged by house construction and farming activities, but has not beencompletely destroyed. In both cases, our survey confirms that the mounds were arranged in a roughly circularpattern. It is possible that this is no accident, and that the village plan with an open area (or “plaza”) in themiddle corresponded to that noted by Siegel (1996, 1999) in Puerto Rico and elsewhere.

Estos dos sitios (T4 y A13 en la anotación del Dr. James Lee) son muy conocidos internacionalmente, porqueeran entre los primeros sitos Arawak (Taino) al aire libre, excavados en la isla y posteriormente publicados, elprimero por Duerden (1897) y el segundo por de Booy (1913). Dijeron que los dos tenían una cantidad deterrenos de ocupación distintos. Duerden mencionó 6 en el castillo Stewart, y parece que había por lo menos 16en el Parador. Raramente, los planes de dibujo de los dos sitios fueron publicados por los excavadoresoriginales, pero no son adecuados por los estándares actuales. Así una nueva inspección de trazado digital fueefectuada en enero de 2004, usando un teodolito infrared y un sistema GPS de mano. Los mapas de contornoasí como mapas de sitio y de área 2D y 3D fueron producidos de esta manera y serán demostrados. El sitio delCastillo Stewart, ahora propiedad del JNHT está de buena condición y los 6 terrenos originalmente anotadospor Duerden están más o menos intactos. El sitio del Parador (originalmente una parte de la plantación queperteneció a la familia Moulton Barrett) ha sido dañado por la construcción de viviendas y las actividades de lacultivación, pero no ha sido completamente destruido. En ambos casos, nuestra inspección confirma que losterrenos fueron arreglados en un diseño básicamente circular. Es posible que éste no sea accidente y que elplan del pueblo con un área al aire libre (o “plaza”) en el centro corresponda con ese plan anotado por Siegel(1996, 1999) en Puerto Rico y en otras partes.

Ces deux sites (T4 et A13 dans les notations de Dr James Lee) sont bien connus internationalement, car ilsétaient parmi les premiers sites Arawak (Taino) en plein air sur l’île où on a fait des fouilles et qui ont étépubliés, le premier parDuerden (1897) et le deuxième par de Booy (1913). On a dit que les deux contenaient uncertain nombre de tumuli. Duerden en a mentionné 6 à Stewart Castle, et semble qu’il y en a eu au moins16 àRetreat. Exceptionnellement, des plans sommaires des deux sites ont été publiés par les premiers fouilleurs maisils ne conviennent pas aux normes actuelles. Donc en janvier 2004, on a fait un nouveau levé cartographiquedigital avec un théodolite infrarouge et un système de prise à mains GPS. Des cartes avec courbes de niveau, de même que des cartes de sites et de zones à 2 et à 3 dimensions avaient été produites de cette manière et serontexpliquées. Le site de Stewart Castle qui appartient maintenant au NHT de la Jamaïque (Musée national) est enbonne condition et les 6 tumuli que Duerden avait découverts sont plus ou moins intacts. Le site Retreat (qui àl’origine fait partie de la propriété de la famille Moulton Barrett) a été endommagé par la construction d’unemaison et des activités agricoles, mais n’a pas été complètement détruit. Dans les deux cas, notre levé confirmeque les tumuli étaient disposés d’une manière à peu près circulaire. Il est possible que ce n’est pas par hasardet que le plan du village avec un espace ouvert (ou “plaza”) au milieu correspondait à ce qu’avait observéSiegel (1996, 1999) à Porto Rico et ailleurs.___________________________________________________________________________________________

Chapter:

10

92

Introduction

During the first two weeks of January 2004 a site survey was carried out by a team from TheUniversity of the West Indies (UWI) in the central northern part of Jamaica (Figure 1 plusinset). The objective was to make detailed 2D and 3D digital maps of the investigated sitesand the surrounding areas. The UWI team, led by Dr Philip Allsworth-Jones, was advised onall technical matters by Drs Michiel Kappers, who also provided his own equipment for useduring the survey. This presentation will deal for the most part with the methodologyemployed to produce the digital maps.

Two known Amerindian sites were investigated, Stewart Castle near Duncans,Trelawny (Figure 1 left side 3D image) and Retreat west of Browns Town, St. Ann (Figure 1right side 3D image). Both sites had been investigated before, by Duerden in 1897 and by deBooy in 1913. Both made sketch maps of the sites with their associated midden mounds(Figures 2a and 2b).

Stewart Castle

Excavated by J. E. Duerden in 1897 and by C.A. Matley in 1922. According to Duerden, “inthe principal mound digging was continued to a depth of 6 feet; remains being met with for 5feet”. In the other mounds the depth of deposit varied between 4 and 2 feet. Distinct layeringwas visible in the central mound, “fine greyish-blue ashes” alternating with “burnt earth andsoil” (Duerden 1897). Matley confirmed the existence of at least two layers of ash in thismound (Sherlock 1939).

In a general way, the six mounds recognised in 2004 resemble those indicated byDuerden, but their position and size are more accurately recorded here. Two of the moundsshow clear traces of trenches which were driven right through them (Figures 3a and 4a). Thesite as a whole appears to have been minimally disturbed in recent years.

Retreat

Excavated by Duerden in 1897, following initial investigations by Miss Moulton Barrett.Described by him as “a ridge of land connecting two hills, covered with small mounds”.Called “Cacique’s Ridge” or “Little Nigger-ground Hill” (Duerden 1897). Furtherexcavations were conducted by T. de Booy in 1913. He suggested that the middens on the“original summit” of the hill, which by then was “practically level”, had probably beenremoved by the first two persons (de Booy 1913). His own excavations were concentrated onthe northern, eastern, and southern slopes. He roughly mapped 16 middens and excavatedfour of them, particularly his numbered midden 4. From the “direction of the shell and ashdeposits” he concluded that the “aboriginal abode” had been on the “top of the hummock”and that “the inhabitants threw the refuse and discarded artefacts in three quadrants of acircle” around it, leaving them “one clean, clear space” in front (de Booy 1913). Another ofthe hitherto untouched middens was excavated by M. de Wolf in 1933, and the archaeological material was defined as “Jamaican Meillac” (de Wolf 1953). The site was relocated by DrJames Lee, and its area (which was then undisturbed) was mapped in about 1970. He hadearlier referred to additional excavations by Father Osborne (Lee 1965), but no written record of these is available.

The land is now owned by Mr David Grant, who farms part of it. A house has beenbuilt on the north eastern side, and it is directly over at least one midden, traces of which are

93

visible beneath it. But much of the site is still unharmed. About 11 mounds (some of themquite small) are still recognisable, apart from the one beneath the house, although no exactcorrelation can be established between them and the middens recorded by de Booy (Figures3b and 4b).

Digital versus Analogue

Our goal was to be able to generate contour maps of both sites showing the archaeologicalmidden mounds which were present. This was achieved in two ways. The survey team ofapproximately 15 persons, including 12 students from UWI, was divided into two groups.One (the bigger group) would take measurements in an analogue manner using analoguemeasurement equipment, including a conventional theodolite, a dumpy level and measuringtapes. This way the UWI students would learn how to work with the analogue equipment andget used to the basics of field measurements. The other group (the smaller group) would takemeasurements in a digital manner using a modern infrared theodolite. Two students at anyone time would help doing the digital measurement work. These students would rotate everyday. This way all the UWI students would have at least one day’s training with the digitalmeasurement work.

The difference between the two types of measurement work is significant. While theanalogue team was limited in the amount of measurements taken due to the great amount oflabour required, the digital team was able to take a far larger amount of measurements in thesame time. Approximately 3,000 measurements on both sites together were taken by thedigital team (Figures 3a and 3b) while the analogue team was able to take approximately 110measurements.

A Word on Map Projections

While creating the maps and taking measurements we had to deal with the several differentmap projections used on Jamaica (Mugnier 2003). The several base maps used all haddifferent projections. In order to avoid struggling with this complex matter it was decided touse and take all measurements within the worldwide system WGS84 (World GeodeticSystem 84, Zone 18 North). This way all coordinates are comparable and if necessary can beconverted into one of the Jamaican systems.

The Digital Field Method

In order to take the digital measurements in the field a Sokkia Powerset infrared theodolitewas used as well as a handheld GPS system. On both sites the handheld GPS was used to setout two main points per site. These two main points were used as a baseline to orientate theinfrared theodolite within the local measurement systems. The GPS used has an accuracy ofseveral meters. Given the nature of this survey, it was important that the measurements takenwith the infrared theodolite should be as accurate as possible. Ideally, this should result in thesite being located within the region with an accuracy of approximately 1 to 2 meters while the measurements taken within the site itself should be accurate to less than 1 cm. To try toachieve this goal, the inaccuracy of the handheld GPS was mitigated by taking multiplereadings on both of the two points for each site baseline. In practice, this resulted in a

94

measurement system with an accuracy of several tens of centimeters on the whole whilewithin the system the high accuracy of 1 cm was achieved.

Using the infrared theodolite and a reflector, measurements were taken by walkinglines across the sites and placing the reflector approximately every 3–4 meters. At the end ofeach line a new parallel line also approximately 3–4 meters from the first line was walkedback doing the same (Figures 3a and 3b). Due to bush and trees on the sites the infraredtheodolite had to be placed on several different locations in order to cover them completely.These extra station points were set out from the baseline. This way both sites ended up withapproximately 7 station points from which the site could be covered completely.

The Digital Lab Method

The measurements taken in the field had to be processed in order to plot them on a map. Thetotals of all measurements per site were then used to create 2D and 3D surface maps and 2Dcontour line maps. The software used for this was MapInfo 7.0 en Surfer 7.0. Also specialsoftware that came with the infrared theodolite was used for the first measurement processingbefore work could start with the other software. The measurements were used to create sitemaps while standard base maps with a scale of 1:12,500 were used to create maps for theareas surrounding the sites. To achieve this, parts of these maps were digitized and used tocreate 2D and 3D maps. To be able to calibrate these maps with the other measurementstaken on the sites a GPS reading was taken on several locations surrounding the sites. Withthese WGS84 GPS readings the maps (with different Jamaican projections) could becalibrated and digitized.

Conclusion

The digital mapping exercise has successfully produced maps of the two sites within theirrespective regions. These maps can be compared with the sketch plans produced by theoriginal investigators (Duerden 1897; de Booy 1913). In both cases the mounds are clearlyvisible. Especially at Stewart Castle, it is clear that all 6 mounds recognised by Duerden in1897 are still present. At Retreat, the mounds are somewhat more difficult to distinguish.The handmade contour map shows the mounds more clearly in this case (Figure 5). This ispartly explained by the fact that some of these mounds are very slight elevations indeed.While making a hand drawn map, features that are actually less evident can be deliberatelyemphasised in the field and drawn on paper instantly. On the other hand, the digital mapsgenerated from the measurements taken with the total station show real elevations, but do notemphasise minor relief differences automatically.

From this investigation it has become clear that the use of modern measurementequipment not only produces more accurate results than analogue instruments used duringpast fieldwork activities, but also achieves a higher rate of resolution in less time.

The results also allow us to reconsider the significance of these sites. In both cases, itcan be seen that the mounds are arranged near or at the tops of hills, and in both cases theirarrangement follows a roughly circular pattern. It is possible that this is no accident, and thatin both cases the dwellings of the villagers were arranged in an approximate circle, with anopen area (or “plaza”) in the middle. De Booy’s argument that his predecessors had entirelyremoved the middens on the top of the hill at Retreat is not convincing, since that was not the practice of the time. As shown at Stewart Castle, the practice was rather to put trenchesthrough the middle of the mounds and leave it at that. The pattern shown here therefore is

95

reminiscent of that noticed by Siegel (1996, 1999) at several Saladoid sites in Puerto Ricoand elsewhere. In his view, in those cases, the circular aspect of the cosmos was reproducedon the ground and the central space or plaza represented an axis mundi. Whether or not weaccept that interpretation, and granted that these sites are later than Saladoid, the coincidenceof circular patterns is striking. This is therefore a promising line of research to be pursued infuture.

AcknowlegementsThanks go to the UWI Mona Campus Committee for Research and Publications and Graduate Awards for

funding the UWI side of this work. Drs Kappers’ expenses in coming from the Netherlands to participate in this

project were met by the Reed Foundation (New York) facilitated by the Capital Campaign Unit at UWI and the

American Foundation for UWI (New York). We are grateful to the JNHT for permission to carry out the work

at Stewart Castle (and to the caretaker Mr Irvin Dixon) and also to Mr David Grant for allowing us to work on

his land at Retreat. We thank the students for their hard work, including cutting bush, under the vigilant eye of

Mr Ivor Conolley.

References Cited

Booy de, T.1913 Certain Kitchen-middens in Jamaica. American Anthropologist 15 (3): 425–

434.Duerden, J.E.

1897 Aboriginal Indian Remains in Jamaica. Journal of the Institute of Jamaica2(4): 1–51.

Lee, J.W.1965 Archaeology Jamaica 1965 (5): 2.

Mugnier, C. J. 2003 Grids & Datums, Jamaica. In Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote

Sensing, pp. 497–500. American Society for Photogrammetry and RemoteSensing, Louisiana State University, Center for Geoinformatics.

Sherlock, P.M. 1939 The Aborigines of Jamaica. The Institute of Jamaica, West Indian Committee,

London.Siegel, P.E.

1996 Ideology and Culture Change in Prehistoric Puerto Rico. Journal of FieldArchaeology 23: 313–333.

Siegel, P.E. 1999 Contested Places and Places of Contest: The Evolution of Social Power and

Ceremonial Space in Prehistoric Puerto Rico. Latin American Antiquity 10(3): 209–238.

Wolf, de, M. 1953 Excavations in Jamaica. American Antiquity 18 (3): 230–238.

96

Figures

Figure 1

Figure 2a, Stewart Castle, after Duerden 1897 Figure 2b, Retreat, after de Booy 1913

97 Figure 3a, digital measurements Stewart Castle Figure 3b, digital measurements Retreat

Figure 4a, digital contour lines Stewart Castle Figure 4b, digital contour lines Retreat

Figure 5, analogue contour lines with midden mounds

Retreat