THE CUEVA DE LA MOMIA (COMERí0, PR) PETROGLYPHS: A CASE STUDY IN FIELD TECHNNOLOGY

Peter G. ROE, José Rivera MELENDEZ, James BYERLY and Nicole CORNELL

❐ ABSTRACTThe Cueva de la Momia lies just 75 meters from the huge Cueva de la Mora, Comerío, Puerto Rico, a smaller butstill impressive limestone cavern with a unique eponymous solution “crypt” and an assemblage of petroglyphscarved into a massive stalagtite-stalagmite projection. The cylindrical main chamber, accessible from a lateralsolution tube, has a natural “skylight” yielding columns of light that provided native artisans some illumination.As in La Cueva de Mora, cave chambers beyond the light boundary have no carvings. The central petroglyph isan early Taïno crowned visage, but unique Pre-Taïno figures with projecting limbs indicate the eminence’s revi-sitation. A CIIPR team documented this assemblage from 1998-1999, in both photographs and 1:1 clear poly-ethylene tracings. The principal chamber was mapped planometrically and topographically with a custom-desi-gned camera tripod-mounted “field transit”. It consists of a fabricated aluminum housing for an inexpensiveLaser Level, an Electronic Compass and a battery goose-neck lamp, together with stackable stadia rod segmentsmade from fiberglass external-frame tent poles. Such an instrument is more portable and less costly than alter-natives, ideal for inaccessible caves.

ResumenLa Cueva de la Momia queda solamente 75 metros de la Cueva de la Mora, Comerío, Puerto Rico. Es maspequeño, pero todavia impresivo, con un tubo de solución único de caliza que da su nombre a la cueva porqueparece una “cripta” y un asemblaje de petroglífos tallada en una masiva stalagtita-stalagmita. La bóveda princi-pal es cilíndrica y esta acesible por un tubo de solución lateral y también, usando los raises aeriales de los arbolesde arriba, por una “ventana” natural de arriba. Ese apertura del techo caido admite columnas de luz durante eldía que daba iluminación para los artesanos de antiguedad para taller los petroglifos debajo. Como en La Cuevade Mora, las bóvedas afuera de la frontera de luz no contienen nada de diseños. El petroglifo central es del tiem-po Taïno temprano y representa una cara con corona, pero figuras Pre-Taïnos únicos al lado tienen extremosproyectando en forma de una reloj de arena indicando la revisitación de la cueva durante al menos dos épocas. Unequipo de la CIIPR documentaron este asemblaje durante 1998-1999 en retratos y 1:1 calcados en plástico trans-parente. Además, la bóveda principal fué dibujado en un mapa planométrica y topográfico con un transito por-table de nuestro diseño para aprovechar de los nuevos instrumentos electrónicos y baratos. Fué construido paramontar en un tripode de cámera 35mm. Una montura fabricado de aluminium contiene una nivel de Laser, uncompás electrónica y una luz flexible, todos fácil de transportar y desmontar. Para el uso con el transito fué inven-tado una vara de estadia utilizando los segmentos de vidrio fibroso para sostener a un toldo. Tal instrumento esmucho mas barato y mas facil a transportarse a las cuevas inacesibles que un transito y vara profesional.

❐ INTRODUCTION

The Centro de Investigaciones Indígenas de Puerto Rico, Inc. (CIIPR) has instituted a program ofdocumentation of the extensive rock art present on the island of Puerto Rico (Dubelaar, Hayward andCinquino 1999). Many of the sites it has investigated are already known to the local archaeologicalcommunity, but like so much knowledge about the island of Borinquen, they have remained in thelimbo of the unwritten oral tradition. The object of the CIIPR program is to change this by publishingdetailed descriptive and interpretative studies of these monuments, with particular emphasis on theintroduction of new field techniques that are both portable and affordable. This field technology isdesigned to bring a higher standard of documentation to an important form of aboriginal art that hasall-too-often been eschewed by professional archaeologists.

The CIIPR program has researched all the major categories of pictographs and petroglyphs on theisland: beach petroglyphs (which it documented for the first time at Maisabel Playa, Vega Baja, on thenorth coast of Puerto Rico, c.f., Roe 1991), ball park petroglyphs at Caguana, Utuado in the west-cen-

311

tral highlands (Roe 1993), river boulder petroglyphs (at Pueblito Carmen, Guayama, southern high-lands, c.f., Roe and Rivera 1999), and cave petroglyphs (La Cueva de la Mora, Comerío, c.f., Roe, Riveraand DeScioli 1995). Pictographs, although rarer (Díaz 1990, 1992), have also been studied, as in CuevaEspinal on Mona (Roe 1997) and at La Cueva de la Mora in Comerío.

The field techniques pioneered by the CIIPR, and now used by other investigators, are the simul-taneous employment of rubbings, photographs (still and Hi8mm. video) and clear polyethylene 1:1 tra-cings to record the petroglyphs and pictographs and the application of latex peels to obtain accuratenegative copies of the petroglyphs in the field. A combination of portable electronic altimeters, GPSunits and electronic compasses have been used to locate the rock art assemblages on USGS topogra-phic maps and laser levels and laser electronic rangefinders have been employed within caves to deter-mine distances and establish level grid lines for the planometric mapping of the cave floor and asso-ciated rock art. The study of La Cueva de la Mora presented at the Bahamas conference of the ICCA in1997 presented the first planometric map of a major Puerto Rican cavern, accurately locating theassemblages of both pictographs and petroglyphs within it. The purpose of this paper is to present refi-ned field technology based on new portable electronic instruments used to publish the first topogra-phic map of a nearby cave in Puerto Rico with it’s associated rock art.

The goals of this program of rock art documentation is first (1.) to establish a corpus of accuraterenderings of rock art done at 1:1 scale and photographically reduced for the major sites on the island.This will (2.) allow for a componential analysis of the major components of forms (motifs) that are pre-sent within the corpus, as well as (3.) a grammatical analysis of the recombination of those motifs togenerate expectable images. The resulting catalogs and inventories may allow for a definition of (4.)stylistic provinces, perhaps mirroring the ones already established by ceramic analysis. How muchvariability is there in both Puerto Rican petroglyphs and pictographs and what sort of images are pre-sent in each medium, and how do the respective media interact? The growing corpus allows us tobegin to answer these questions. Lastly, (5.) using both ethnographic analogy with related lowlandSouth Amerindian groups and ethnohistorical work with the Cronistas like Pané (Arrom 1997; Pané1988[1498?]), one may hypothesize possible iconographic and symbolic meanings (the cultural seman-tics) behind these sacred images.

The careful mapping of co-occuring rock art also allows us to establish (6.) the “syntax” of theinterrelationships of pictographs and petroglyphs, such as our discovery in Mora of the structuralequation, peripheral small and simple petroglyphs:guardian figures::central large and complex picto-graphs:central cult images. Thus we now have a kind of functional “division of labor” between genres,particularly when they appear together. We have explored both the roles of petroglyphs in (7.) “socialmarking” (at Maisabel Playa), where they apparently struck a claim to valued subsistence resourcessuch as fishing stations, and (8.) as “narrative scenes” (at Caguana, Utuado) that represent key figuresand episodes in myths of uniquely South Amerindian, not Mesoamerican, cultural affinities in islandball parks. These identifications of the Frog Woman (in her local manifestation as the Earth GoddessAttabeira) help our culture historical reconstructions of diffusion versus parallel evolution for theemerging cultural complexity on the island.

The correct renditions of “decorative” details within the petroglyphs also permits us to see (9.) the“cross-media isomorphisms” between major genres of material culture within the same culture, suchas similar motifs executed in both ceramic incision and stone carving. These cross-media similaritieshighlight the communicative “redundancy” and centrality of the unique Taïno and Pre-Taïno styles.We have also investigated (10.) the “mortuary contexts” of river boulder and cave petroglyphs and pic-tographs as links to the ancestors (via the “wrapped ancestral figures” of Pueblito Carmen and LaMora). Specific symbolic linkages to the shaman in the pictographs of far-flung caves (Cueva Espinal,Mona/Cueva Catedral, Camuy) establish him as the sacred intermediary between worshipper-des-cendants and their ancestors within the context of native American ethno-physiological concepts of fer-tility. Thus like all stylistic expressions (Roe 1995a), rock art conveys meaning on many different levels:the personal, the social, the mythic and the structural.

Moreover, arte rupestre has both a spatial and a temporal aspect as an enduring assemblage ofoften immobile and resistant artifacts that transcend preservational bias and spatial relocation(Dubelaar 1986). Even subsequent vandalization, or “recreation” of analogous images, are usually evi-dent after careful visual inspection, although, as we will see here, there can still be problems of attri-

312

bution of individual images as modern people revisit the artifacts of the ancients and alter them. Theestablishment of an accurate corpus will make easier (11.) the task of “artifact authentication”, identi-fying such modern “neo-Taïno” petroglyphs and pictographs from the originals. After all, the creativeimperative of rock art did not cease with the disappearance of the Taïno and their ancestors, but anycurrent production cannot be mixed into the same sample with them.

The social aspect of rock art has been explored via the observation that petroglyphs and picto-graphs do not date to the earliest tribal horticultural and ceramic-using Indians to reach the island withtheir small-scale but exquisite material culture of “personal presentation” (Figure 1). Rather, rock artcomes in simultaneously with monumental architectural ballparks as the harbingers of a static andlong-distance visible material culture of “public power” associated with growing social stratificationof the incipient chiefdoms of the Pre-Taïno Ostionoid cultures. The first seriation, or relative chronolo-gy, of petroglyphs in the Caribbean (Roe and Rivera 1999) then charts that evolution from Phase A“simple face” petroglyphs to Phase B full torso petroglyphs and pictographs that shift the center ofvisual attention from egalitarian human visages to the accoutrements of power (ear-spools, head-dresses, breast plates, etc., that signal hierarchy in early Taïno times and reaches, in Phase C, its heightof execution, elaboration and cross-media isomorphisms in classic Taïno times (Figure 2). This seria-tion began with unique local eolinitic formations that encased dateable ceramics in the same lithifieddunes that petroglyphs were incised into, passed through assemblages such as those at El Bronce thathad reasonably secure C-14 dating with associated middens and ended in classic corpi such as the pro-tohistoric Caguana ball park “menhir” petroglyphs (Oliver 1992;Roe 1993). Nevertheless, a careful exa-mination of the three phases within this seriation shows clear conceptual (in the dynamic dualism ofthe representations, c.f., Roe 1999) and stylistic continuity from the earliest Saladoid migrants bydemonstrating the importation of early devices from ceramic (and probably body) painting to laterrock painting and incising. Perhaps the key graphic and plastic device that echoes that continuity withthe Saladoid ancestors, and beyond them to the lowlands of South America from whence they came,is “visual ambiguity”. This stylistic convention is the positive/negative play of figure-ground rela-tionships that can transform the background into figure or figure into background at will. Below, wewill see this device present in La Cueva de la Momia as well as illustrations of “naturefact transfor-mation”, a species of “artifactual animism” as revelatory of common Amerindian attitudes towardnature. This occurs when natural features of boulders or cave walls are used to suggest volume andrelief in minimalist carvings, such as a bulbous stalagmite used to suggest the roundness of an incisedhuman face. We will explore both devices within the impressive petroglyph assemblage of La Cuevade la Momia near La Cueva de la Mora in Comerío, the eastern highlands of Puerto Rico.

❐ LA CUEVA DE LA MOMIA

La Cueva de la Momia (“The Mummy’s Cavern”) is located only 75 meters up-slope from thehuge La Cueva de la Mora in the rugged limestone karst topography of the eastern-central cordilleraof Puerto Rico (Cox and Briggs 1973;USGS 1982), between the highland towns of Cidra and Comerío.These caverns honeycomb the mountains that rise above the Río Arroyata, a tributary of the Río de LaPlata. The “Moorish Woman’s Cave”, with its exceptional assemblage of both entrance-guarding petro-glyphs and central chamber life-size pictographs, was reported on at the 17th International Congressof Caribbean Archaeology. In that preliminary study we stated that one of the white pictographs,PIC1N1 (the 1st pictograph on the North wall of the main gallery “1”), could not be reached even byour rappellers due to its extreme height above the cave floor and a lack of natural footholds. Its inac-cessible location stands as mute testimony to the rapelling skills of the ancient artisan who painted it,probably using jungle vines. Having exhausted all means to approach this drawing by using non-inva-sive lashing techniques, one of us, Byerly, was able to reach the pictograph in 1998 using a permanentbolt anchor and manual hammer-drill. Close inspection (Figure 3) revealed a second, more westerlypictograph next to the original one, which accordingly had to be labeled “PIC1Na” (Figure 4). Bothfigures were photographed and traced using 1:1 clear polyethylene. The first pictograph shows a sche-matic human figure with a large ovoid head and slanted lozenge-shaped eyes, an open mouth and acurious vertical “I” body with “X”-shaped limbs. The treatment of the face recalls a similar anthropo-

313

morph high on the south wall of the main chamber 1, PIC1S5 (Roe, Rivera and DeScioli 1997:Fig. 15a),also fitted with a vertical “I” schematic torso. The second pictograph (Figure 4, PIC1N1), the one ori-ginally visible from the cave floor, is a “crowned head” with an encircling half-moon diadem endingin symmetrical rectangular projections. This is a variant of the “semi-circular diadem” of my compo-nential analysis of Puerto Rican rock art figures (Roe 1991:Fig. 22w). In its visual emphasis on status-indicating accoutrements like a crown, this face coheres with other élite images on the north wall ofchamber 1 (Roe, Rivera and DeScioli 1997:Figure 21b, PIC2N15, Fig.26, PIC2N24), thus reinforcing thepotential structuralist equation, north wall pictographs:élite secular anthro-pomorphs::south wall pic-tographs:sacred ancestral anthropomorphs. Such an equation has its limits, however, as indicated bythe numerous “wrapped ancestors” on the north wall. With the accurate drawing of these two figuresthe documentation of La Cueva de la Mora pictographs is now complete.

The bulk of our efforts have now shifted to a new cave. La Cueva de la Momia is much smallerthan the La Cueva de la Mora. It is composed of a large cylindrical solution chamber with a natural“skylight” formed by an opening in the roof framed by large boulders. This is not an entrance,although one can rapell on a line down into the main chamber, or haul equipment such as our articu-lated ladders, two twelve-foot units lashed together, from out of it (Figure 5). Even today, sturdy aerialroots hang down into the cave below from the surface via this opening. Indeed, it is likely that Indiansfirst reached this cave by shimmying down and up these substantial natural “bush ropes”. This natu-ral window also admits long shafts of light that probe into the darkness below and provide dim illu-mination for the ancient artists who carved in its depths. At noon a powerful column of light rests upona large ceiling detritus boulder that fell long ago onto the floor in the middle of the main chamber. Onecan imagine the feelings of “enlightenment” that the original visitors to the cave would have sensed ifthey were seated there (certainly locals who have visited the cave recount such experiences, c.f., JuanTorres, Personal Communication, 1999). In the lowlands of South America the metaphor of “light”from the sun is often used to indicate shamanic awareness and mystical “union” (Roe 1982); similarmeanings by cognate groups in the Caribbean may have given this unique and beautiful chamber aspecial air of contemplation that could have induced people to make carvings within it. We do know,just as in the nearby La Cueva de la Mora, that rock art is only found within the light boundary for-med by these shafts of light.

Meanwhile, outside the cave, some fifteen meters from the skylight, climbing downward over ajumble of boulders and outcrops, one comes upon the low and narrow cave entrance (Figure 6). It is asolution tube portal for waters that poured into the main chamber, sculpting it. After twisting from asharp descent which the intrepid caver must execute backwards, it broadens into a 3 meter high andwide tunnel that ends in a ledge over the central chamber. From that ledge it is a 7 meter drop onto thetalus at the top of the central chamber. Above looms the vertical cylinder of the chamber and the dis-tant skylight. A laser rangefinder yielded 14 meters from the skylight to the floor below with good tar-get quality. Unlike La Mora, la Momia is not inhabited by bats, so respirators are not required. The firstmembers of our 6 person party rapelled down this wall from the entrance tube ledge to the floor, secu-ring the two lashed aluminum articulated ladders that had been laboriously hauled in via the solutiontube lower entrance. This composite ladder (Figure 5) allowed the efficient transfer of team membersand equipment and could be unlashed and folded for easier transport through narrow galleries.

The roughly ovoid main chamber measures 9.5m. X 5.60m., partially demarcated by a detritusblock natural retaining wall that juts into the main chamber floor. Below and to the south of that wallis a lower elongated floor that measures 10.63m. X 5m. (Figure 7). Both floors of the main chamber areoriented north-south. To the east, some 4 meters from the entrance tube ledge, both floors terminateprecipitously, sloping rapidly off into a steep chute formed by running water draining into a lower gal-lery. We rapelled down that chute (using hauser-thick aerial roots from the natural skylight above) toinvestigate the lower gallery for cultural remains. The light frontier ends at the precipice into the chute,the roughly circular lower chamber lying in complete darkness. Perhaps because of this it has no car-vings. Therefore, it was not mapped.

314

❐ THE STALAGMITE PETROGLYPHS: A “NATUREFACT” ASSEMBLAGE

La Cueva de la Momia is so-named because of a unique human-sized vertical solution tube on thesouth wall of the lower floor of the main chamber. An individual can stand up inside this unique fea-ture like a mummy within its sarcophagus (Figure 8). But the cult center of this lower floor is a largestalagtite-stalagmite that projects out from the south wall closer to the lower chamber precipice. On thehuge columnar stalagmite are carved a number of petroglyphs (Figure 9). At one time the stalagmitewas connected to the stalagtite that formed it by multiple drip shafts, but these have been broken offby vandals. New (“neo-Taïno”) petroglyphs, one with a single feather modeled on North Amerindians,have been carved between 1998 and 1999 into the drip projections behind the stalagmite (these beingbarely visible curving around the middle shaft in the center of Figure 9). Much recent grafitti has beenspray-painted on the south wall behind the stalagmite and the multiple projections of the overhangingstalagtite have been battered, with at least one “new” petroglyph pecked into the foremost projection.For the most part, the new petroglyphs are easily detectable both stylistically and in the shallownessof their pecking.

The prehistoric petroglyphs cover the 1.45m. tall stalagmite (Figure 10). They have been givencatalog numbers according to their cardinal direction placement on the various faces of the stalagmi-te, numbered in sequence from top-to-bottom. Thus, the small “simple face” pecked high into the nor-thwest face of the stalagmite becomes “NW1”. The whole figures cut into the eastern face of the sta-lagmite become E1, and below it, E2. On the very “toe” of the “boot-shaped” lower portion of the sta-lagmite, oriented precisely to the north, the large simple face becomes “N1”. The focal point of this car-ved “naturefact” is the deeply carved central image on the main projecting boss of the stalagmite, acrowned head looking northeast, hence “NE1”. Below it are four pits, which were part of the mainface’s torso, indicating its wrapped nature. It is a double variant of the “vertically-pitted” torso typefrom a componential analysis of Puerto Rican rock art, c.f., Roe 1991:Fig. 27t). Below that, on a thinner“buttress” under the boss is a “bat” face, oriented in the same direction, hence “NE2”.

The most interesting of these glyphs are the “twin” figures carved with horizontally-projectingnubbin limbs on the eastern facet of the stalagmite (Figure 11). While these figures are unique, theirtorso style evokes the “key-shaped” type (1991:Fig. 27t) found elsewhere on the island. Evidently theupper figure, E1, was carved subsequent to the larger lower figure, E2, because the crowding of thelower figure’s head constricted the space available for the legs of the upper figure. The aboriginal artistresponded to these space constraints (produced by a “plan-ahead” problem), reducing them to a mis-shapen one rather than two appendages (Figure 12b-c, from the poly-tracings). These paired figuresillustrate a long-enduring dualism of the island’s art (Roe 1999) and may represent “twin” figures suchas are very popular on the mainland (Roe 1982). A large simple face with indicated mouth (N1) takesadvantage of the naturally-rounded protruberance of the “toe” of the stalagmite “boot” to suggestvolume and roundness (Figure 10-N1), an act of “naturefact transformation” that is abundantly echoedin other caves. An even simpler visage, composed of an incompletely-closed ovoid head with just twoeyes pecked into it (NW1), occupies the upper western flank of the stalagmite and is of a type that isubiquitous on the island. Yet, its very simplicity makes this type easy to “fake”, and the shallownessof this depiction may mark it as a “neo-Taïno” effort.

Yet the main cult image that this assemblage of subsidiary visages was viewing/worshipping wasclearly the largest, most complex and deepest incised face, NE1 (Figure 13). It represents the head of a“wrapped ancestor” with dotted torso and a curved lower edge of the body that simultaneously formsthe top of a face below. The features of this face (NE1) are deeply channeled into the rock, much moreprofoundly than the shallow pecking of the other figures. Not only does this give relief to the head,which again takes advantage of the “naturefact transformation” of the main projecting boss of the sta-lagmite to suggest volume, but it is also carved in such a way as to suggest “positive” mass “negati-vely” (Figure 14a). This positive-negative play dates all the way back to the Saladoid ancestors of thesepeople (Roe 1989), but now in carving rather than painting. Note how the visage’s curved diadem orcrown is a “positive” motif, but one that is defined “negatively” by carving away into low relief thestone around it. Thus the crown appears to “float” over the head. The eyes and mouth are deeplyindented, like the free-standing stone sculpture that invariably has encrustations of shell or preciousmetal. Perhaps at one time this figure also had such incrustations; they would certainly have glowed

315

in the columns of light that illuminate this rock. This figure has a nose as well as traces of a finer “V”-shaped forehead line. These details will help to date this image with a high degree of certainty.

Below the main figure NE1, and sharing a defining line with it (the lower part of the upper figu-re’s torso is the lower figure’s forehead line) is NE2. On the original monument this head is highlyupwardly-curved, the top of its head ending in two well-defined prongs (Figure 12), because it wascarved to wrap around the natural pylon, or drip buttress, below the stalagmite’s overhanging “boss”.Once again, the indigenous carver made use of the natural modeling of the parent rock to suggest volu-me in what is essentially a two-dimensional pecked face. The drawing (Figure 14b) flattens this natu-ral arc as an unavoidable artifact of reproducing in two dimensions what was carved in three. This facerecalls the more strongly defined “bat” petroglyph incised in the lower chamber of the neighboringCueva de la Mora (Roe, Rivera nd DeScioli 1997:Fig. 5, PET10W7) carved in a similar manner on a ver-tical projection. It too probably represents a bat, once again as a mythical figure evoking the spirits ofthe dead, the Opía (Arrom and García Arévalo 1988; García Arévalo 1997; Morbán Laucer 1988). Thesyntax of its placement, below the dead “wrapped ancestor” himself, reiterates that assignment as itdid in the larger cavern.

Once again the images in this cave are of the dead, powerful ancestral images that would havefunctioned as cult objects. Because here there are no pictographs the central image acts as their analogin carving, being larger and more elaborate than the surrounding faces and figures, perhaps of the des-cendants-worshipers themselves.

The Dating of the Images and the Complexities of “Revisitation”

Before the seriation one would have treated all these images, which are, after all, found on thesame rock, as a contemporary “scene”, all dating to the same time. In a sense that is correct, but at leastthe main figure was “retouched” in prehistoric times (hence the deepness of its incisions) to more clo-sely convey notions of emerging hierarchy in the parent society. The simple faces and the “amoebic”full figures all display the schematic quality and crudity of Phase A in the seriation, dating relativelyto early Pre-Taïno times, specifically the middle Elenan period, that is, from 800-1000 A.D. (Roe andRivera 1999). At that time there was probably already a face carved on the prominent boss of the sta-lagmite, but it was to be partially effaced and redone (hence the very deep carving) in late Pre-Taïnotimes, in Phase B of the rock art seriation, circa 1100-1200 A.D. The face possesses the semi-circularcrown of contemporary El Bronce petroglyphs, as well as the presence of a nose (a late trait). Yet thecrown does not exhibit internal carving to produce decorative details, nor does it have the “goggled”(closed) eyes, nor the “winged” nose (nostrils indicated) of the classic Phase C Taïno menhir petro-glyphs of Caguana, circa 1300-1492 A.D. However, the general cast of the wrapped figure does recallone Caguana personage (Roe 1991:Fig.3b), and there is evidence of Phase C “retouching” of the face ofthe La Momia figure. The “V” forehead hair-line is a diagnostic trait of Phase C classic Taïno depic-tions. It gives the face a heart-shaped appearance, especially when the upper crown-of-the-head line isomitted. The stalagmite boss head of the La Momia figure shows a faint incision indicating such a “V”-shaped feature. Therefore, it is now clear that so important was this visage, and the wrapped figure towhich it was attached, that it was worked on during three periods in the evolution of rock art on theisland, “revisited” and “refreshed” in the same manner that the famous Cueva del Indio in Arecibo car-vings were (Frassetto 1960). The cave of the “Mummy” was indeed an important and enduring cult sitefor the prehistoric Indians of Borinquen.

Field Technology for Cave Documentation: It Has to be Portable

We are now in an age of increasingly inexpensive, yet ever more capable electronics (Wardell2000). The sub-field of cave archaeology can especially benefit from these small and portable instru-ments to bring a higher quality of field documentation than has hitherto been the case. Caves are dif-ficult to get to, involving long climbs, as here, through thick vegetation, crawling through highlyconstricted spaces, such as the solution tube entrance. Once inside, they are dark, humid and trying towork within. All of these conditions place a premium on lightweight equipment that is multi-purposeand accurate, each instrument compensating for the limitations of the others. Full-scale equipment

316

such as a laser transit with tripod, or even a less complex rotating laser level, are very costly and arefar too bulky and heavy to bring into a cave. No wonder that nobody had done accurate planometricor topographic maps of caves in Puerto Rico until the CIIPR’s La Cueva de la Mora Project, which useda small laser mounted on a level affixed to a tripod to do the first planometric map of a large cave!

This project represents the next step in the quest for precision and ease of transport in cave docu-mentation by fabricating a portable laser transit out of inexpensive equipment readily available in anymail-order catalog. The previous laser used in La Mora was a small unit running off “button” style bat-teries. It did not yield sufficient work time before the laser light dimmed. The new unit (Figure 15) isbuilt around a larger instrument operating off AA batteries and projecting a long-lasting laser dot upto 50 meters away. The $80.00 unit is configured like a level with two bubbles on different axes, facili-tating the leveling of the instrument. Two additional bubbles were attached to the mounting bracketon separate axes. We fabricated an adaptor mounting bracket out of scrap aluminum, tapped to sit onthe main screw of a camera tripod, and thus obviated the need for a special tripod. The adaptor brac-ket was fitted with side set screws to cradle and align an $80.00 “Wayfarer” electronic compass, itselfbacklit (car-mounted electronic compasses like the $50.00 “Co-Pilot” will also work), but also illumi-nated by a small goose-necked light powered by AAA cells and velcroed to the laser’s steel housing(Figure 16). The result is a portable laser transit for $160.00 that can be made by anyone with a tap-and-die set, a portable electric drill, a hacksaw, some scrap aluminum, stainless screws and some sandpaper. It was employed to make the first topographic map (Figure 17) of a Puerto Rican cave and wor-ked perfectly (Figure 7).

The other essential element in topo-mapping is a stadia rod. Commercial versions are as bulkyand heavy as the standard transit tripod and also as expensive. The solution was a set of fiberglass sup-port rods from the senior author’s tent. They socket into each other and are designed to support tentswith an external frame. A package of the rods themselves can be purchased for $10.00 from any cam-ping supply store if one does not have a tent. The senior author printed out elevation number labelson his computer printer and taped them to the rods (Figure 18), sealing them in wide transparent tape.The result is a lightweight set of telescoping stadia rods that can also double as cave ceiling height mea-suring devices when fully articulated. The only other equipment needed to do the topo-map was a thir-ty meter tape and surveyor’s flags to mark the radial transects and the measuring points (for elevation)along them. High precision mapping need not be the sphere of hired surveyors, nor even of professio-nal archaeologists; sketch maps of caves no longer suffice for adequate documentation of rock art(Swartz 1981).

❐ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors thank the Centro de Investigaciones Indígenas de Puerto Rico, Inc., for field ResearchGrants. We also thank the Office of Undergraduate Research, the International Studies Program andthe Department of Anthropology (Fortner Fellowship Program) of the University of Delaware for threeGrants-in-Aid to support the participation of Mr. Byerly and Ms. Cornell. We gratefully acknowledgethe help of Sr. Modesto de Huertas Torres (“Moré”) and the Comerío Defensa Civil for the use of a 4X4truck to make the difficult ascent to the high ground above the cave and for his rapelling skills insideLa Cueva de la Momia. The CIIPR team also extends heartfelt thanks to the family of Sr. Juan Torresand Sra. Modesta Sánchez for their generous support in providing lodging and fieldwork lliason forthe project. Lastly, the senior author thanks Mr. Nicholas Wasileski for his design and fabrication of theportable transit and for his exploded isometric drawing.

317

❐ REFERENCES CITED

Arrom, J. J.1997 “The Creation Myths of the Taïno”. In Fatima Bercht et al. (Eds.), Taïno: Precolumbian Art

and Culture from the Caribbean. Pp. 68-79. New York: Monacelli Press.

Arrom, J. J. and M. A. García Arévalo1988 El murciélago y la lechuza en la cultura taína. Santo Domingo, R.D.: Ediciones Fundación

García-Arévalo.

Cox, D. P. and R. P. Briggs1973 “Metallogenic Map of Puerto Rico”. Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations, Map I-721.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.

Díaz González, M.1990 Proyecto recuperación arqueológica arte rupestre de la Cueva de la Catedral barrio Bayaney:

Hatillo, Puerto Rico. Unpublished M.A. thesis, San Juan, P.R.: Centro de Estudios Avanzadosde Puerto Rico y el Caribe.

1992 “El arte rupestre en la Cueva Catedral de Bayaney, Puerto Rico”. Paper presented at the XSymposio Internacional, Asociación de Literaturas Indígenas Latinoamericanas(LAILA/AILA). Old San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Dubelaar, C. N.1986 South American and Caribbean Petroglyphs. Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en

Volkenkunde. Caribbean Series 3. Dordrecht, Holland/Riverton, NJ: Foris Publications.

Dubelaar, C. N., M. H. Hayward and M. A. Cinquino1999 Puerto Rican Rock Art: A Resource Guide. Buffalo, NY: Panamerican Consultants, Inc. for

Puerto Rico State Historic Preservation Office, San Juan.

Frassetto, M.1960 “A Preliminary Report on Petroglyphs in Porto Rico.” American Antiquity 25:381-391.

García Arévalo, M. A.1997 “The Bat and the Owl: Nocturnal Images of Death”. In Fatima Bercht et al. (Eds.), Taïno:

Precolumbian Art and Culture from the Caribbean. Pp. 112-123. New York: Monacelli Press.

Morbán Laucer, F.1988 “El murciélago: sus representaciones en el arte y la mitología precolombina.” Boletín del

Museo del Hombre Dominicano 15 (21):37-57.

Oliver, J. R.1992 “The Caguana Ceremonial Center: A Cosmic Journey Through Taïno Spatial & Iconographic

Symbolism”. Paper presented at the X Symposio Internacional, Asociación de LiteraturasIndígenas Latinoamericanas (LAILA/AILA). Old San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Pané, Fray Ramón1988 Relación de acerca de las antigüedades de los indios. José Juan Arrom (ed.), 2nd Ed. México,

D.F.: Siglo Veintiuno Editores. [1498?].

Roe, P. G.1982 The Cosmic Zygote: Cosmology in the Amazon Basin. New Brunswick: Rutgers University

Press.1989 “A Grammatical Analysis of Cedrosan Saladoid Vessel Form Categories and Surface

318

Decoration: Aesthetic and Technical Styles in Early Antillean Ceramics”. In Peter E. Siegel(ed.), Early Ceramic Population Lifeways and Adaptive Strategies in the Caribbean, Pp. 267-382. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series.

1991 “The Petroglyphs of Maisabel: A Study in Methodology”. Comptes Rendus desCommunications du Douzième Congrès International d’Archeologie de la Caraïbe, Cayenne,Guyane Française, 1987. Pp. 317-370. Martinique: Association Internationale d’Archeologiede la Caraïbe.

1993 “Cross-Media Isomorphisms in Taïno Ceramics and Petroglyphs from Puerto Rico”. InAlissandra Cummins and Philippa King (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Congress ofthe International Association for Caribbean Archaeology. Pp. 637-671. St. Ann’s Garrison, St.Michael, Barbados. 1991.

1995 “Style, Society, Myth and Structure”. In Christopher Carr and Jill E. Neitzel (eds.), Style,Society, and Person. Pp. 27-76. New York: Plenum Publishing Corporation.

1997 “Just Wasting Away: Taïno Shamanism and Concepts of Fertility”. In Fatima Bercht et al.(Eds.), Taïno: Precolumbian Art and Culture from the Caribbean. Pp. 124-157. New York:Monacelli Press.

1999 “Utilitarian Sculpture: Pictorial Kinesics and Dualism in Dominican Republic ChicanOstionoid Pottery”. In Gerard Richard (ed.), Actes du XVI Congrés International D’Archeologie De La Caraïbe, Basse Terre, Guadeloupe 1995, Pp. 272-291. Conseil Régional dela Guadeloupe, Mission Archéologique et du Patrimoine.

Roe, P. G. and J. R. Meléndez1999 “Recent Advances in Recording, Dating and Interpreting Puerto Rican Petroglyphs”. In

Gerard Richard (ed.), Actes du XVI Congrés International D’ Archeologie De La Caraïbe,Basse Terre, Guadeloupe 1995, Pp. 444-461. Conseil Régional de la Guadeloupe, MissionArchéologique et du Patrimoine.

Roe, P. G., J. Rivera Meléndez and P. DeScioli1997 “The Cueva de Mora (Comerío, PR) Pictographs and Petroglyphs: A Documentary Project”.

A paper presented at the 17th International Congress of Caribbean Archaeology, Nassau,Bahamas, July 21-27, 1997.

Swartz, B.K. Jr.1981 “Recording Standards for Petroglyphs and Pictographs”. Journal of Field Archaeology 8:118-

119.United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey (USGS)1982 “Comerío Quadrangle, Puerto Rico”. N1807.5-W6607.5/7.5 (7.5 Minute Series, Topographic),

1:20,000, 10 foot contour interval. PR Catalog No. 000127. San Juan: Commonwealth ofPuerto Rico, Department of Transportation and Public Works.

Wardell, C.2000 “Home Technology: Tech for Your Toolbox”. Popular Science 256(2):37.

319

❐ LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 : A chart showing the interrelationship between changing patterns in aesthetic material cultu-re and levels of socio-cultural evolution in Puerto Rico. Note the joint appearance of petroglyphs andball parks as the first monumental art reflecting the concern with public power in the pre-Taïno periodof complex tribes or incipient chiefdoms, Elenan Ostionoid phase.

Figure 2 : A chart depicting the first tentative three-phase qualitative seriation for Puerto Rican petro-glyphs.

Figure 3 : A close-up photograph of the two pictographs on the north wall of the main chamber (1) ofthe nearby La Cueva de la Mora documented in this paper. In the center of the frame is the crownedhead (PIC1N1) and to its left the schematic ovoid-headed figure (PIC1Na).

Figure 4 : Drawings of the two pictographs recorded at 1:1 scale on clear polyethylene and photogra-phically reduced. This is their same relative position as in Figure 1.

Figure 5 : Two of the CIIPR field crew extracting our telescoping articulated aluminum ladders fromout of the skylight that illuminates the central chamber below of the Cueva de la Momia. The two lad-ders, which had been lashed together, were hauled out by rope after they had been brought in via thelower solution tube entrance and used to gain access to the floor of the central chamber.Figure 6: James Byerly, expedition rapeller, entering the lower solution tube entrance to the “Mummy’sCave”. Ingress has to be achieved backwards due to the restricted doorway.

Figure 7 : The topographic map of the principal chamber of La Cueva de la Momia made with the por-table laser transit fabricated for this expedition. The countour interval is 10cm. and the measurementwas done along radial transects from two separate instrument stations.

Figure 8 : Nicole Cornell, CIIPR expedition videocamera operator, standing inside the unique solutionconcavity. Like a mummy’s sarcophagus, it has given its name to the cavern. It is located on the southwall of the main chamber just to the east of the carved petroglyphs.

Figure 9 : A photo of the large stalagmite on the south wall of the principal chamber that is covered inpetroglyphs. Note the distal battering it has suffered due to vandalism. In the center of the picture,wrapped around a stalagtite fused to the wall behind the stalagtite-stalagmite are some modern “Neo-Taïno” petroglyphs executed sometime during 1998-1999. Below, on the stalagmite, one sees the upper-most simple face (NW1).

Figure 10 : The senior author’s drawing of the stalagtite-stalagmite set with all the principal prehisto-ric petroglyphs, together with their catalog numbers and measurements.

Figure 11 : A close-up of the eastern face “twins”, E1, E2. Note how E1’s execution was hampered byE2’s prior placement, and the resultant spacing problems that led to a single amorphous “leg” for E1.

Figure 12 : A scale drawing, derived from photographs, videos and polyethylene tracings, of the prin-cipal simpler petroglyphs of the stalagmite. Seriational evidence indicates that these pertain to laterElenan Elenoid times, circa 800-1100 A.D.

Figure 13 : A close-up of the main elaborate face and torso of the crowned wrapped élite ancestor ofthe stalagmite, NE1. Note how the deep channel incision-pecking defines the positive semi-circulardiadem “negatively”, a pictorial device dating back to Saladoid times. Seriation suggests this was car-ved in its present form, probably via retouch, from a simpler Elenan representation in late Pre-Taïnotimes, 1200-1300, with further retouch in the classic Taïno period, 1300-1492.

320

Figure 14 : Drawings, based on poly-tracings, of the main visage (a.), NE1 and the simpler “bat” (c.)below it (NE2). The lower head is more curved in perception than it is here in representation since itwas carved into a drip buttress below the stalagmite boss head, wrapping around that naturefact fea-ture (b.). The four pits below the head form it’s torso’s decoration and the edges of the buttress consti-tute the sides of the torso. The upper line of NE2’s head functions as the base of the main ancestor’swrapped torso.

Figure 15 : A profile close-up photo of the $160.00 home-made laser transit. Note the two levelingbubbles on the laser and the goose-neck lamp mounted with velcro in front of the compass for illumi-nation. The whole instrument can be broken down into its five parts for transport: camera tripod, elec-tronic compass, fabricated aluminum mounting bracket and illuminator light.

Figure 16 : An exploded isometric drawing by Nicholas Wasileski of his fabricated aluminum housingfor the portable laser transit designed by Peter Roe.

Figure 17 : The senior author doing a topographic map with the home-made laser level. This instru-ment station (1 of 2) was placed high on the talus of the main chamber floor.

Figure 18 : Two members of the CIIPR mapping team determining an elevation point with the home-made stadia rod for the laser transit. It was fabricated out of fiberglass external frame tent supporttubes that insert into each other and are covered with computer-printed elevation numbers sealed inclear tape. These technicians are measuring elevation along a laser-generated azimuth transect, and itsdistance, from the instrument station with a 30 m. tape. Note the modern spray grafitti on the southwall.

321

322

Figure 1 : A chart showing the interrelationship between changing patterns in aesthetic material culture and levels of socio-cultural evolution in Puerto Rico. Note the joint appearance of petroglyphs and ball parks

as the first monumental art reflecting the concern with public power in the pre-Taïno period of complex tribes or incipient chiefdoms, Elenan Ostionoid phase.

323

Figure 2 : A chart depicting the first tentative three-phase qualitative seriation for Puerto Rican petroglyphs.

324

Figu

re 3

: A

clos

e-up

pho

togr

aph

of th

e tw

o pi

ctog

raph

s on

the

nort

h w

all o

f th

e m

ain

cham

ber

(1)

of th

ene

arby

La

Cue

va d

e la

Mor

a d

ocum

ente

d in

this

pap

er. I

n th

e ce

nter

of

the

fram

e is

the

crow

ned

hea

d(P

IC1N

1) a

nd to

its

left

the

sche

mat

ic o

void

-hea

ded

fig

ure

(PIC

1Na)

.

325

Figu

re 4

: D

raw

ings

of

the

two

pict

ogra

phs

reco

rded

at 1

:1 s

cale

on

clea

r po

lyet

hyle

ne a

nd p

hoto

grap

hica

lly r

educ

ed.

Thi

s is

thei

r sa

me

rela

tive

pos

itio

n as

in F

igur

e 1.

326

Figu

re 5

: Tw

o of

the

CII

PR f

ield

cre

w e

xtra

ctin

g ou

r te

lesc

opin

g ar

ticu

late

d a

lum

inum

lad

der

s fr

om o

ut o

f th

e sk

ylig

ht th

at il

lum

inat

es th

ece

ntra

l cha

mbe

r be

low

of

the

Cue

va d

e la

Mom

ia. T

he tw

o la

dd

ers,

whi

ch h

ad b

een

lash

ed to

geth

er, w

ere

haul

ed o

ut b

y ro

pe a

fter

they

had

been

bro

ught

in v

ia th

e lo

wer

sol

utio

n tu

be e

ntra

nce

and

use

d to

gai

n ac

cess

to th

e fl

oor

of th

e ce

ntra

l cha

mbe

r.

327

Figu

re 6

: Jam

es B

yerl

y, e

xped

itio

n ra

pelle

r, en

teri

ng th

e lo

wer

sol

utio

n tu

be e

ntra

nce

to th

e “M

umm

y’s

Cav

e”. I

ngre

ss h

as to

be

achi

eved

bac

kwar

ds

due

to th

e re

stri

cted

doo

rway

.

328

Figu

re 7

: T

he to

pogr

aphi

c m

ap o

f th

e pr

inci

pal c

ham

ber

of L

a C

ueva

de

la M

omia

mad

e w

ith

the

port

able

lase

r tr

ansi

t fab

rica

ted

for

this

exp

edit

ion.

The

cou

ntou

r in

terv

al is

10c

m. a

nd th

e m

easu

rem

ent

was

don

e al

ong

rad

ial t

rans

ects

fro

m tw

o se

para

te in

stru

men

t sta

tion

s.

329

Figure 8 : Nicole Cornell, CIIPR expedition videocamera operator, standing inside the unique solution concavity.

Like a mummy’s sarcophagus, it has given its name to the cavern. It is located on the south wall of the main chamber just to the east of the carved petroglyphs.

330

Figure 9 : A photo of the large stalagmite on the south wall of the principal chamber that is covered in petroglyphs. Note the distal battering it has suffered due to vandalism. In the center of the picture, wrap-

ped around a stalagtite fused to the wall behind the stalagtite-stalagmite are some modern “Neo-Taïno” petroglyphs executed sometime during 1998-1999. Below, on the stalagmite,

one sees the uppermost simple face (NW1).

331

Figure 10 : The senior author’s drawing of the stalagtite-stalagmite set with all the principal prehistoricpetroglyphs, together with their catalog numbers and measurements.

332

Figure 11 : A close-up of the eastern face “twins”, E1, E2. Note how E1’s execution was hampered by E2’s prior placement, and the resultant spacing problems that led to a single amorphous “leg” for E1.

333

Figure 12 : A scale drawing, derived from photographs, videos and polyethylene tracings,of the principal simpler petroglyphs of the stalagmite. Seriational evidence indicates

that these pertain to later Elenan Elenoid times, circa 800-1100 A.D.

334

Figure 13 : A close-up of the main elaborate face and torso of the crowned wrapped élite ancestor of the sta-lagmite, NE1. Note how the deep channel incision-pecking defines the positive semi-circular diadem “nega-

tively”, a pictorial device dating back to Saladoid times. Seriation suggests this was carved in its presentform, probably via retouch, from a simpler Elenan representation in late Pre-Taïno times, 1200-1300, with

further retouch in the classic Taïno period, 1300-1492.

335

Figure 14 : Drawings, based on poly-tracings, of the main visage (a.), NE1 and the simpler “bat” (c.)below it (NE2). The lower head is more curved in perception than it is here in representation since it

was carved into a drip buttress below the stalagmite boss head, wrapping around that naturefact feature (b.). The four pits below the head form it’s torso’s decoration and the edges of the buttress

constitute the sides of the torso. The upper line of NE2’s head functions as the base of the main ancestor’s wrapped torso.

336

Figu

re 1

5 : A

prof

ile c

lose

-up

phot

o of

the

$160

.00

hom

e-m

ade

lase

r tr

ansi

t. N

ote

the

two

leve

ling

bubb

les

on th

e la

ser

and

the

goos

e-ne

ck la

mp

mou

nted

wit

h ve

lcro

in f

ront

of

the

com

pass

for

illu

min

atio

n. T

he w

hole

inst

rum

ent c

an b

e br

oken

dow

n in

to it

s fi

ve p

arts

for

tran

spor

t: ca

me-

ra tr

ipod

, ele

ctro

nic

com

pass

, fab

rica

ted

alu

min

um m

ount

ing

brac

ket a

nd il

lum

inat

or li

ght.

337

Figu

re 1

6 : A

n ex

plod

ed is

omet

ric

dra

win

g by

Nic

hola

s W

asile

ski o

f hi

s fa

bric

ated

alum

inum

hou

sing

for

the

port

able

lase

r tr

ansi

t des

igne

d b

y Pe

ter

Roe

.

338

Figu

re 1

7 : T

he s

enio

r au

thor

doi

ng a

topo

grap

hic

map

wit

h th

e ho

me-

mad

e la

ser

leve

l. T

his

inst

rum

ent s

tati

on (

1 of

2)

was

pl

aced

hig

h on

the

talu

s of

the

mai

n ch

ambe

r fl

oor.

339

Figu

re 1

8 : T

wo

mem

bers

of

the

CII

PR m

appi

ng te

am d

eter

min

ing

an e

leva

tion

poi

nt w

ith

the

hom

e-m

ade

stad

ia r

od f

or th

e la

ser

tran

sit.

Itw

as f

abri

cate

d o

ut o

f fi

berg

lass

ext

erna

l fra

me

tent

sup

port

tube

s th

at in

sert

into

eac

h ot

her

and

are

cov

ered

wit

h co

mpu

ter-

prin

ted

ele

vati

onnu

mbe

rs s

eale

d in

cle

ar ta

pe. T

hese

tech

nici

ans

are

mea

suri

ng e

leva

tion

alo

ng a

lase

r-ge

nera

ted

azi

mut

h tr

anse

ct, a

nd it

s d

ista

nce,

fro

m th

ein

stru

men

t sta

tion

wit

h a

30 m

. tap

e. N

ote

the

mod

ern

spra

y gr

afit

ti o

n th

e so

uth

wal

l.