# Obsidian in the Caribbean islands? Mysterious Ceramic Age glass artefacts in the Lesser Antilles

Arthur Leck, Ludovic Bellot-Gurlet, Guillaume Carazzo, Bernard Gratuze, Jessica Langlade, François-Xavier Le Bourdonnec, Céline Bressy-Leandri, Isaac Shearn, Christian Stouvenot, Alain Queffelec

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

► To cite this version:

Arthur Leck, Ludovic Bellot-Gurlet, Guillaume Carazzo, Bernard Gratuze, Jessica Langlade, et al. "Obsidian in the Caribbean islands? Mysterious Ceramic Age glass artefacts in the Lesser Antilles." Archaeometry, 2024, 10.1111/arcm.12980. hal-04580258

HAL Id: hal-04580258

https://hal.science/hal-04580258

Submitted on 21 May 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Obsidian in the Caribbean islands? Mysterious Ceramic Age glass artefacts in the Lesser Antilles

Arthur Leck, Ludovic Bellot-Gurlet, Guillaume Carazzo, Bernard Gratuze, Jessica Langlade, François-Xavier Le Bourdonnec, Céline Bressy-Leandri, Isaac Shearn, Christian Stouvenot, Alain Queffelec

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

► To cite this version:

Arthur Leck, Ludovic Bellot-Gurlet, Guillaume Carazzo, Bernard Gratuze, Jessica Langlade, et al. "Obsidian in the Caribbean islands? Mysterious Ceramic Age glass artefacts in the Lesser Antilles." Archaeometry, 2024, 66 (6), pp.1255-1279. 10.1111/arcm.12980. hal-04580258v2

HAL Id: hal-04580258

https://hal.science/hal-04580258v2

Submitted on 21 May 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

# Obsidian in the Caribbean islands? Mysterious Ceramic Age glass artefacts in the Lesser Antilles

Arthur Leck<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" /> ID | Ludovic Bellot-Gurlet<fnref n="3" /> ID | Guillaume Carazzo<fnref n="4" /> ID |

Bernard Gratuze<fnref n="5" /> | Jessica Langlade<fnref n="6" /> |

François-Xavier Le Bourdonné<fnref n="2" /> ID | Céline Leandri<fnref n="7" />,<fnref n="8" /> |

Isaac Shearn<fnref n="9" /> | Christian Stouvenot<fnref n="10" />,<fnref n="11" /> | Alain Queffelec<fnref n="1" />

**Correspondence**

Arthur Leck and Alain Queffelec, UMR5199 PACEA, CNRS, Univ. Bordeaux, Ministère de la Culture, Pessac, France.

Email: arthur.leck@gmail.com and

Email: alain.queffelec@u-bordeaux.fr

**Funding information**

Ministère de la Culture; Conseil Régional de Guadeloupe; Université de Bordeaux

**Abstract**

The Caribbean islands witnessed a population expansion of ceramic-using horticulturalists during the Early Ceramic Age (ca. 500 BC to 750 AD) from the Orinoco Valley to Puerto Rico. We examined 18 lithic artefacts from Guadeloupe and Dominica initially thought to be obsidian, a material believed to be absent from those islands. We investigated the volcanic or meteoritic origin of this unique and yet unknown material through observation (binocular, SEM, microtomography) and geochemical analyses (PIXE, SEM-EDS, ED-XRF, EPMA, LA-ICP-MS). Elemental analyses rule out the hypothesis of an origin from a meteoritic impact (i.e. identification as tektites). Most of the artefacts have an andesitic composition (<63% SiO₂), which appears to be unique among ‘massive’ glasses. The only artefact with a rhyolitic composition has been traced back to the Guadeloupe’s Volcan du Tuf, where glassy fragments have been collected and analysed. The geological source of the other vitreous artefacts that exhibit an andesitic composition could be from a sublocal subduction-arc volcanism (maybe from Martinique), although no volcanic vitreous material of this kind has ever been reported worldwide. These results once again highlight the regional mobility of Early Ceramic populations and the production of standard lithic products using a highly original, albeit low-quality, local lithic resource, and provide valuable references for future identification of similar materials.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2024 The Authors. *Archaeometry* published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of University of Oxford.

<footnote n="1">¹UMR5199 PACEA, CNRS, Univ. Bordeaux, Ministère de la Culture, Pessac, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²UMR6034 Archéosciences Bordeaux, CNRS, Univ. Bordeaux Montaigne, Pessac, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³UMR8233 MONARIS, CNRS, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris (IPGP), CNRS, Univ. Paris Cité, Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵UMR7065 IRAMAT-CEB, CNRS, Univ. d'Orléans, Orléans, France</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶UAR3113, CNRS, Univ. Brest, Plouzané, France</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷SRA Corse, Ministère de la Culture, Ajaccio, France</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸UMR5608 TRACES, CNRS, Ministère de la Culture, Univ. Toulouse, Toulouse, France</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹Morgan State University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰SRA Guadeloupe, Ministère de la Culture, Baillif, France</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹UMR8096 ARCHAM, CNRS, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris, France</footnote>
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

# Obsidian in the Caribbean islands? Mysterious Ceramic Age glass artefacts in the Lesser Antilles

Arthur Leck<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" /> ID | Ludovic Bellot-Gurlet<fnref n="3" /> ID | Guillaume Carazzo<fnref n="4" /> ID |

Bernard Gratuze<fnref n="5" /> | Jessica Langlade<fnref n="6" /> |

François-Xavier Le Bourdonné<fnref n="2" /> ID | Céline Leandri<fnref n="7" />,<fnref n="8" /> |

Isaac Shearn<fnref n="9" /> | Christian Stouvenot<fnref n="10" />,<fnref n="11" /> | Alain Queffelec<fnref n="1" />

**Correspondence**

Arthur Leck and Alain Queffelec, UMR5199 PACEA, CNRS, Univ. Bordeaux, Ministère de la Culture, Pessac, France.

Email: arthur.leck@gmail.com and

Email: alain.queffelec@u-bordeaux.fr

**Funding information**

Ministère de la Culture; Conseil Régional de Guadeloupe; Université de Bordeaux

**Abstract**

The Caribbean islands witnessed a population expansion of ceramic-using horticulturalists during the Early Ceramic Age (ca. 500 BC to 750 AD) from the Orinoco Valley to Puerto Rico. We examined 18 lithic artefacts from Guadeloupe and Dominica initially thought to be obsidian, a material believed to be absent from those islands. We investigated the volcanic or meteoritic origin of this unique and yet unknown material through observation (binocular, SEM, microtomography) and geochemical analyses (PIXE, SEM-EDS, ED-XRF, EPMA, LA-ICP-MS). Elemental analyses rule out the hypothesis of an origin from a meteoritic impact (i.e. identification as tektites). Most of the artefacts have an andesitic composition (<63% SiO₂), which appears to be unique among ‘massive’ glasses. The only artefact with a rhyolitic composition has been traced back to the Guadeloupe’s Volcan du Tuf, where glassy fragments have been collected and analysed. The geological source of the other vitreous artefacts that exhibit an andesitic composition could be from a sublocal subduction-arc volcanism (maybe from Martinique), although no volcanic vitreous material of this kind has ever been reported worldwide. These results once again highlight the regional mobility of Early Ceramic populations and the production of standard lithic products using a highly original, albeit low-quality, local lithic resource, and provide valuable references for future identification of similar materials.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2024 The Authors. *Archaeometry* published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of University of Oxford.

<footnote n="1">¹UMR5199 PACEA, CNRS, Univ. Bordeaux, Ministère de la Culture, Pessac, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²UMR6034 Archéosciences Bordeaux, CNRS, Univ. Bordeaux Montaigne, Pessac, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³UMR8233 MONARIS, CNRS, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris (IPGP), CNRS, Univ. Paris Cité, Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵UMR7065 IRAMAT-CEB, CNRS, Univ. d'Orléans, Orléans, France</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶UAR3113, CNRS, Univ. Brest, Plouzané, France</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷SRA Corse, Ministère de la Culture, Ajaccio, France</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸UMR5608 TRACES, CNRS, Ministère de la Culture, Univ. Toulouse, Toulouse, France</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹Morgan State University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰SRA Guadeloupe, Ministère de la Culture, Baillif, France</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹UMR8096 ARCHAM, CNRS, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris, France</footnote>
## KEYWORDS

andesite, Ceramic Age, impactites, Lesser Antilles, obsidian, sourcing, tektites

## INTRODUCTION

The archipelago of Caribbean islands was settled late in the history of the peopling of the Americas, first by hunter-gatherers during what is called the Archaic Age, and from ca. 500 BC onward, by ceramic-using horticulturalists originating from the Lower Orinoco during what is called the Ceramic Age (Keegan et al., 2013; Reid, 2018). This migration of Amerindians during the Early Ceramic period, producing specific ceramics grouped in the Saladoid series (Rouse, 1992), was very successful in colonising the archipelago up North to Puerto Rico while remaining strongly homogeneous in their way of life as seen in their settlement patterns, food production and consumption, and production of goods such as ceramics and lapidary ornaments (Bérard, 2013; Queffelec, 2023). Their culture underwent a transformation from ca. 750 AD, evolving into more distinct regional groups marked by varying settlement patterns, shifts in material culture, and alterations in societal organisation (Hofman, 2013). Then, during the Recent Ceramic period, the remaining part of the Caribbean archipelago was settled until the arrival of Europeans in the late 15th century.

During the Ceramic Age, the nonperishable material culture is mainly formed of ceramics for diverse types of pots, shells for tools and adornments, and lithics for cutting, scraping, and grinding tools, as well as personal adornments. The production of flaked stone tools, of particular interest for this work, is mainly driven by production of small unretouched flakes by bipolar percussion (Bérard, 2011; Walker, 1979) to be used for different activities including the production of teeth for manioc graters (Walker, 1979). The principal raw materials for flaked industry are flint and jaspers, respectively coming mainly from Antigua and from local sources near the archaeological sites (Knippenberg, 2007; Queffelec et al., 2023). The provenance of the lithic raw materials used to produce tools, ornaments such as beads and pendants, or other symbolic artefacts like trigonoliths have been one of the main proxies employed by archaeologists to study the regional mobility and networks in the Caribbean islands (e.g. Cody, 1993; Garcia-Casco et al., 2013; Knaf et al., 2021; Knippenberg, 2007; Queffelec, 2022; Queffelec, 2023).

When investigating the origins of lithic raw materials to gain a deeper understanding of the ‘litho-space’ of ancient societies (Delvigne et al., 2021), one invaluable resource on a global scale is the natural glass known as obsidian. This vitreous silica-rich volcanic rock originates from the cooling of a very viscous magma, preventing its crystallization (Tuffen et al., 2020). It has a geochemical composition specific to the volcano—and even to the eruption—which produced the magma (Shackley, 1998, p. 5). Obsidian has served a dual purpose, having been widely utilised by past civilizations for its knapping capabilities and by archaeologists for its high potential in geochemical fingerprinting (e.g. Cann & Renfrew, 1964; Poupeau et al., 2010). Despite the extensive use of obsidian in various regions across the Americas, proving highly effective in unveiling insights into the past networks and mobility of people (Glascock, 2002; Golitko et al., 2012; Mills et al., 2013), it was a prevailing consensus among archaeologists and geologists that the Caribbean islands are devoid of such raw material despite the volcanic origin of most islands in the Lesser Antilles. The volcanic arc of the Lesser Antilles originates from the subduction of the Atlantic plate beneath the Caribbean plate. This geological process predominantly produces andesitic magma, which differs from the silica-rich rhyolitic magma essential to the formation of obsidian sensu stricto. To the best of our knowledge, no andesitic volcanic
## KEYWORDS

andesite, Ceramic Age, impactites, Lesser Antilles, obsidian, sourcing, tektites

## INTRODUCTION

The archipelago of Caribbean islands was settled late in the history of the peopling of the Americas, first by hunter-gatherers during what is called the Archaic Age, and from ca. 500 BC onward, by ceramic-using horticulturalists originating from the Lower Orinoco during what is called the Ceramic Age (Keegan et al., 2013; Reid, 2018). This migration of Amerindians during the Early Ceramic period, producing specific ceramics grouped in the Saladoid series (Rouse, 1992), was very successful in colonising the archipelago up North to Puerto Rico while remaining strongly homogeneous in their way of life as seen in their settlement patterns, food production and consumption, and production of goods such as ceramics and lapidary ornaments (Bérard, 2013; Queffelec, 2023). Their culture underwent a transformation from ca. 750 AD, evolving into more distinct regional groups marked by varying settlement patterns, shifts in material culture, and alterations in societal organisation (Hofman, 2013). Then, during the Recent Ceramic period, the remaining part of the Caribbean archipelago was settled until the arrival of Europeans in the late 15th century.

During the Ceramic Age, the nonperishable material culture is mainly formed of ceramics for diverse types of pots, shells for tools and adornments, and lithics for cutting, scraping, and grinding tools, as well as personal adornments. The production of flaked stone tools, of particular interest for this work, is mainly driven by production of small unretouched flakes by bipolar percussion (Bérard, 2011; Walker, 1979) to be used for different activities including the production of teeth for manioc graters (Walker, 1979). The principal raw materials for flaked industry are flint and jaspers, respectively coming mainly from Antigua and from local sources near the archaeological sites (Knippenberg, 2007; Queffelec et al., 2023). The provenance of the lithic raw materials used to produce tools, ornaments such as beads and pendants, or other symbolic artefacts like trigonoliths have been one of the main proxies employed by archaeologists to study the regional mobility and networks in the Caribbean islands (e.g. Cody, 1993; Garcia-Casco et al., 2013; Knaf et al., 2021; Knippenberg, 2007; Queffelec, 2022; Queffelec, 2023).

When investigating the origins of lithic raw materials to gain a deeper understanding of the ‘litho-space’ of ancient societies (Delvigne et al., 2021), one invaluable resource on a global scale is the natural glass known as obsidian. This vitreous silica-rich volcanic rock originates from the cooling of a very viscous magma, preventing its crystallization (Tuffen et al., 2020). It has a geochemical composition specific to the volcano—and even to the eruption—which produced the magma (Shackley, 1998, p. 5). Obsidian has served a dual purpose, having been widely utilised by past civilizations for its knapping capabilities and by archaeologists for its high potential in geochemical fingerprinting (e.g. Cann & Renfrew, 1964; Poupeau et al., 2010). Despite the extensive use of obsidian in various regions across the Americas, proving highly effective in unveiling insights into the past networks and mobility of people (Glascock, 2002; Golitko et al., 2012; Mills et al., 2013), it was a prevailing consensus among archaeologists and geologists that the Caribbean islands are devoid of such raw material despite the volcanic origin of most islands in the Lesser Antilles. The volcanic arc of the Lesser Antilles originates from the subduction of the Atlantic plate beneath the Caribbean plate. This geological process predominantly produces andesitic magma, which differs from the silica-rich rhyolitic magma essential to the formation of obsidian sensu stricto. To the best of our knowledge, no andesitic volcanic
glass suitable for flaking has been documented in archaeological or geological literature. Such andesitic glass is exceptionally rare and typically forms exclusively due to cosmic impacts, either as impactites or tektites. Impactites are terrestrial rocks formed by the high energy and pressure generated by a high velocity, massive asteroid or comet impact (Osinski & Pierazzo, 2013). They primarily record the geochemistry of the impacted material and can thus exhibit considerable compositional variation. With large impacts, some material may be ejected into the atmosphere, where it rapidly cools and vitrifies before falling back to Earth hundreds or even thousands of kilometres from the impact site—these are known as tektites (Osinski & Pierazzo, 2013). Tektites, as microfragments in deep-sea deposits, have been identified in the southern Caribbean (Barbados), marking the southernmost extent of the North-East American tektite field (Glass et al., 1984). Certain rocks discovered in Haiti could also be linked to a meteorite impact, one that occurred around the Cretaceous-Tertiary transition and was responsible for the Chicxulub crater in the Yucatan. However, this interpretation remains contentious (Jéhanno et al., 1992; Kring & Boynton, 1992), and in any case, these rocks are far too small to be used for knapping. The recent discovery of a new field of tektites of andesitic composition in Belize, referred to as 'belizites', calls this into question: the largest of these tektites can form nodules a few centimetres in diameter (Rochette et al., 2021 fig. 2).

In this article, we present the first identification of archaeological stone tools made of natural glass coming from several archaeological sites in Guadeloupe and Dominica. A thorough description of these artefacts is presented, as well as geochemical and mineralogical characterization combining several analytical techniques. Most of these artefacts being vitreous andesite, major questions have been raised about their geological and geographical origin. As one of the artefacts was made of obsidian, we collected a sample of rhyolitic glass identified in the eastern part of Guadeloupe. We were also able to obtain a sample of rhyolitic glass from Puerto Rico to determine whether it was the source material used. Based on the detailed characterization achieved, we are investigating the origin of this hitherto unknown raw material and its distribution in several archaeological sites from the Ceramic Age.

## MATERIAL AND METHODS

For the sake of reproducibility and transparency, note that we use throughout the text the MeRIT system as per Nakagawa et al. (2023): Initials of authors, but also of acknowledged people, are used to precisely identify individual contributions.

### Archaeological artefacts

Nineteen archaeological artefacts from eight Ceramic Age sites, made of natural glass, were identified in the literature (Table 1 and Figure 1). We were able to access and scrutinize 16 of these (Figure 2). Most of them come from development-led archaeology and were initially identified thanks to the vigilant efforts of CS in monitoring grey literature sources.

Out of the 19 artefacts listed in literature, 16 originate from archaeological sites situated in Guadeloupe. Bisdary is 1 km from the sea, on the foothills of the Caribbean Mountains (Romon, 2004). This site underwent surveying in 2004 and subsequent excavation in 2006 revealing the remains of a Cedrosan Saladoid site dating back to approximately 500–800 cal. AD. In addition to its unique geographical location, quite far from the shore for this period, this site yielded five archaeological objects recorded as being made of ‘obsidian’ (of which only four were found in the curated collection so far) (Fouéré, 2006, p. 34). The site of Tourlourous, located near the southwestern shore of Marie-Galante, is also attributed to the Cedrosan Saladoid (Colas, 2002). Seven archaeological artefacts made of natural glass were identified during
glass suitable for flaking has been documented in archaeological or geological literature. Such andesitic glass is exceptionally rare and typically forms exclusively due to cosmic impacts, either as impactites or tektites. Impactites are terrestrial rocks formed by the high energy and pressure generated by a high velocity, massive asteroid or comet impact (Osinski & Pierazzo, 2013). They primarily record the geochemistry of the impacted material and can thus exhibit considerable compositional variation. With large impacts, some material may be ejected into the atmosphere, where it rapidly cools and vitrifies before falling back to Earth hundreds or even thousands of kilometres from the impact site—these are known as tektites (Osinski & Pierazzo, 2013). Tektites, as microfragments in deep-sea deposits, have been identified in the southern Caribbean (Barbados), marking the southernmost extent of the North-East American tektite field (Glass et al., 1984). Certain rocks discovered in Haiti could also be linked to a meteorite impact, one that occurred around the Cretaceous-Tertiary transition and was responsible for the Chicxulub crater in the Yucatan. However, this interpretation remains contentious (Jéhanno et al., 1992; Kring & Boynton, 1992), and in any case, these rocks are far too small to be used for knapping. The recent discovery of a new field of tektites of andesitic composition in Belize, referred to as ‘belizites’, calls this into question: the largest of these tektites can form nodules a few centimetres in diameter (Rochette et al., 2021 fig. 2).

In this article, we present the first identification of archaeological stone tools made of natural glass coming from several archaeological sites in Guadeloupe and Dominica. A thorough description of these artefacts is presented, as well as geochemical and mineralogical characterization combining several analytical techniques. Most of these artefacts being vitreous andesite, major questions have been raised about their geological and geographical origin. As one of the artefacts was made of obsidian, we collected a sample of rhyolitic glass identified in the eastern part of Guadeloupe. We were also able to obtain a sample of rhyolitic glass from Puerto Rico to determine whether it was the source material used. Based on the detailed characterization achieved, we are investigating the origin of this hitherto unknown raw material and its distribution in several archaeological sites from the Ceramic Age.

## MATERIAL AND METHODS

For the sake of reproducibility and transparency, note that we use throughout the text the MeRIT system as per Nakagawa et al. (2023): Initials of authors, but also of acknowledged people, are used to precisely identify individual contributions.

### Archaeological artefacts

Nineteen archaeological artefacts from eight Ceramic Age sites, made of natural glass, were identified in the literature (Table 1 and Figure 1). We were able to access and scrutinize 16 of these (Figure 2). Most of them come from development-led archaeology and were initially identified thanks to the vigilant efforts of CS in monitoring grey literature sources.

Out of the 19 artefacts listed in literature, 16 originate from archaeological sites situated in Guadeloupe. Bisdary is 1 km from the sea, on the foothills of the Caribbean Mountains (Romon, 2004). This site underwent surveying in 2004 and subsequent excavation in 2006 revealing the remains of a Cedrosan Saladoid site dating back to approximately 500–800 cal. AD. In addition to its unique geographical location, quite far from the shore for this period, this site yielded five archaeological objects recorded as being made of ‘obsidian’ (of which only four were found in the curated collection so far) (Fouéré, 2006, p. 34). The site of Tourlourous, located near the southwestern shore of Marie-Galante, is also attributed to the Cedrosan Saladoid (Colas, 2002). Seven archaeological artefacts made of natural glass were identified during
<table><caption>TABLE 1 List of archaeological and geological sites with volcanic glass artefacts or glassy geological samples and their location (+: yet to be confirmed, *: lost). MGCT02-3 and PSF-1 were analysed in PIXE in 2007 but are now lost. SJB-1 could only be analysed by pXRF during a preliminary study and could not be brought to the laboratory for logistical reasons. The nucleus from Antigua is only listed in literature, we were not able to study it.</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="7">Artefacts from archaeological sites</th></tr><tr><th>Sample code</th><th>Site</th><th>City</th><th>Island</th><th>Longitude</th><th>Latitude</th><th>Period</th><th>Bibliography</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Bis-01</td><td>Bisdary</td><td>Gourbeyre</td><td>Basse-Terre</td><td>-61.709</td><td>15.988</td><td>Early Ceramic</td><td>Romon et al., 2006</td></tr><tr><td>Bis-02</td><td>Bisdary</td><td>Gourbeyre</td><td>Basse-Terre</td><td>-61.709</td><td>15.988</td><td>Early Ceramic</td><td>Romon et al., 2006</td></tr><tr><td>Bis-03</td><td>Bisdary</td><td>Gourbeyre</td><td>Basse-Terre</td><td>-61.709</td><td>15.988</td><td>Early Ceramic</td><td>Romon et al., 2006</td></tr><tr><td>Bis-04</td><td>Bisdary</td><td>Gourbeyre</td><td>Basse-Terre</td><td>-61.709</td><td>15.988</td><td>Early Ceramic</td><td>Romon et al., 2006</td></tr><tr><td>RRC-01</td><td>Ruelle Roches Caraïbes</td><td>Baillif</td><td>Basse-Terre</td><td>-61.736</td><td>16.038</td><td>Early Ceramic</td><td>Bonnissent &amp; Chancerel, 2001</td></tr><tr><td>RRC-02</td><td>Ruelle Roches Caraïbes</td><td>Baillif</td><td>Basse-Terre</td><td>-61.736</td><td>16.038</td><td>Early Ceramic</td><td>Bonnissent &amp; Chancerel, 2001</td></tr><tr><td>MGCT02-1</td><td>Tourlourous</td><td>Capesterre-de-Marie-Galante</td><td>Marie-Galante</td><td>-61.224</td><td>15.889</td><td>Early Ceramic</td><td>Colas, 2002</td></tr><tr><td>MGCT02-2</td><td>Tourlourous</td><td>Capesterre-de-Marie-Galante</td><td>Marie-Galante</td><td>-61.224</td><td>15.889</td><td>Early Ceramic</td><td>Colas, 2002</td></tr><tr><td>MGCT02-3 *</td><td>Tourlourous</td><td>Capesterre-de-Marie-Galante</td><td>Marie-Galante</td><td>-61.224</td><td>15.889</td><td>Early Ceramic</td><td>Colas, 2002</td></tr><tr><td>MGCT02-4</td><td>Tourlourous</td><td>Capesterre-de-Marie-Galante</td><td>Marie-Galante</td><td>-61.224</td><td>15.889</td><td>Early Ceramic</td><td>Colas, 2002</td></tr><tr><td>MGCT02-5</td><td>Tourlourous</td><td>Capesterre-de-Marie-Galante</td><td>Marie-Galante</td><td>-61.224</td><td>15.889</td><td>Early Ceramic</td><td>Colas, 2002</td></tr><tr><td>MGCT02-6</td><td>Tourlourous</td><td>Capesterre-de-Marie-Galante</td><td>Marie-Galante</td><td>-61.224</td><td>15.889</td><td>Early Ceramic</td><td>Colas, 2002</td></tr><tr><td>MGCT02-7</td><td>Tourlourous</td><td>Capesterre-de-Marie-Galante</td><td>Marie-Galante</td><td>-61.224</td><td>15.889</td><td>Early Ceramic</td><td>Colas, 2002</td></tr><tr><td>CB-050a</td><td>Caille à Bélasse</td><td>Terre de Bas</td><td>Ilets de Petite Terre</td><td>-61.11</td><td>16.17</td><td>Late Ceramic</td><td>Gagnepain, 2007</td></tr><tr><td>CB-051a</td><td>Caille à Bélasse</td><td>Terre de Bas</td><td>Ilets de Petite Terre</td><td>-61.11</td><td>16.17</td><td>Late Ceramic</td><td>Gagnepain, 2007</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>TABLE 1 List of archaeological and geological sites with volcanic glass artefacts or glassy geological samples and their location (+: yet to be confirmed, *: lost). MGCT02-3 and PSF-1 were analysed in PIXE in 2007 but are now lost. SJB-1 could only be analysed by pXRF during a preliminary study and could not be brought to the laboratory for logistical reasons. The nucleus from Antigua is only listed in literature, we were not able to study it.</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="7">Artefacts from archaeological sites</th></tr><tr><th>Sample code</th><th>Site</th><th>City</th><th>Island</th><th>Longitude</th><th>Latitude</th><th>Period</th><th>Bibliography</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Bis-01</td><td>Bisdary</td><td>Gourbeyre</td><td>Basse-Terre</td><td>-61.709</td><td>15.988</td><td>Early Ceramic</td><td>Romon et al., 2006</td></tr><tr><td>Bis-02</td><td>Bisdary</td><td>Gourbeyre</td><td>Basse-Terre</td><td>-61.709</td><td>15.988</td><td>Early Ceramic</td><td>Romon et al., 2006</td></tr><tr><td>Bis-03</td><td>Bisdary</td><td>Gourbeyre</td><td>Basse-Terre</td><td>-61.709</td><td>15.988</td><td>Early Ceramic</td><td>Romon et al., 2006</td></tr><tr><td>Bis-04</td><td>Bisdary</td><td>Gourbeyre</td><td>Basse-Terre</td><td>-61.709</td><td>15.988</td><td>Early Ceramic</td><td>Romon et al., 2006</td></tr><tr><td>RRC-01</td><td>Ruelle Roches Caraïbes</td><td>Baillif</td><td>Basse-Terre</td><td>-61.736</td><td>16.038</td><td>Early Ceramic</td><td>Bonnissent &amp; Chancerel, 2001</td></tr><tr><td>RRC-02</td><td>Ruelle Roches Caraïbes</td><td>Baillif</td><td>Basse-Terre</td><td>-61.736</td><td>16.038</td><td>Early Ceramic</td><td>Bonnissent &amp; Chancerel, 2001</td></tr><tr><td>MGCT02-1</td><td>Tourlourous</td><td>Capesterre-de-Marie-Galante</td><td>Marie-Galante</td><td>-61.224</td><td>15.889</td><td>Early Ceramic</td><td>Colas, 2002</td></tr><tr><td>MGCT02-2</td><td>Tourlourous</td><td>Capesterre-de-Marie-Galante</td><td>Marie-Galante</td><td>-61.224</td><td>15.889</td><td>Early Ceramic</td><td>Colas, 2002</td></tr><tr><td>MGCT02-3 *</td><td>Tourlourous</td><td>Capesterre-de-Marie-Galante</td><td>Marie-Galante</td><td>-61.224</td><td>15.889</td><td>Early Ceramic</td><td>Colas, 2002</td></tr><tr><td>MGCT02-4</td><td>Tourlourous</td><td>Capesterre-de-Marie-Galante</td><td>Marie-Galante</td><td>-61.224</td><td>15.889</td><td>Early Ceramic</td><td>Colas, 2002</td></tr><tr><td>MGCT02-5</td><td>Tourlourous</td><td>Capesterre-de-Marie-Galante</td><td>Marie-Galante</td><td>-61.224</td><td>15.889</td><td>Early Ceramic</td><td>Colas, 2002</td></tr><tr><td>MGCT02-6</td><td>Tourlourous</td><td>Capesterre-de-Marie-Galante</td><td>Marie-Galante</td><td>-61.224</td><td>15.889</td><td>Early Ceramic</td><td>Colas, 2002</td></tr><tr><td>MGCT02-7</td><td>Tourlourous</td><td>Capesterre-de-Marie-Galante</td><td>Marie-Galante</td><td>-61.224</td><td>15.889</td><td>Early Ceramic</td><td>Colas, 2002</td></tr><tr><td>CB-050a</td><td>Caille à Bélasse</td><td>Terre de Bas</td><td>Ilets de Petite Terre</td><td>-61.11</td><td>16.17</td><td>Late Ceramic</td><td>Gagnepain, 2007</td></tr><tr><td>CB-051a</td><td>Caille à Bélasse</td><td>Terre de Bas</td><td>Ilets de Petite Terre</td><td>-61.11</td><td>16.17</td><td>Late Ceramic</td><td>Gagnepain, 2007</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>TABLE 1 (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="10">Artefacts from archaeological sites</th></tr><tr><th>Sample code</th><th>Site</th><th>City</th><th>Island</th><th>Longitude</th><th>Latitude</th><th>Period</th><th>Bibliography</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>DEL-3-1</td><td>Delices 3</td><td>Saint Patrick Parish</td><td>Dominique</td><td>-61.256</td><td>15.275</td><td>Early Ceramic</td><td>Shearn, 2014</td></tr><tr><td>SJB-1</td><td>Stade José Bade</td><td>Capesteres-de-Marie-Galante</td><td>Marie-Galante</td><td>-61.224</td><td>15.889</td><td>Early Ceramic</td><td>Serrand, 2016</td></tr><tr><td>PSF-1 *</td><td>Place Saint François</td><td>Basse-Terre</td><td>Basse-Terre</td><td>-61.73</td><td>15.995</td><td>Early Ceramic</td><td>Sellier-Ségard, 2001</td></tr><tr><td>Not included yet</td><td>Mill Reef+</td><td>Saint Philip</td><td>Antigua</td><td>-61.679</td><td>17.057</td><td>Middle/Late Ceramic</td><td>Murphy, 1999</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>TABLE 1 (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="10">Artefacts from archaeological sites</th></tr><tr><th>Sample code</th><th>Mass(g)</th><th>Type</th><th>SEM-EDS</th><th>PIXE</th><th>EPMA</th><th>LA-ICP-MS</th><th>ED-XRF</th><th>Raman</th><th>Microtomography</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Bis-01</td><td>1.312</td><td>Flake</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Bis-02</td><td>2.21</td><td>Flake</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Bis-03</td><td>4.318</td><td>Nucleus</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Bis-04</td><td>2.367</td><td>Flake</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>RRC-01</td><td>2.733</td><td>Flake</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>RRC-02</td><td>5.504</td><td>Undetermined</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>MGCT02-1</td><td>1.394</td><td>Flake</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>MGCT02-2</td><td>4.063</td><td>Flake</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>MGCT02-3 *</td><td>N.A.</td><td>Undetermined</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MGCT02-4</td><td>2.792</td><td>Nucleus</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>MGCT02-5</td><td>0.156</td><td>Flake</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>MGCT02-6</td><td>16.896</td><td>Flake</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>MGCT02-7</td><td>2.682</td><td>Flake</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>CB-050a</td><td>0.901</td><td>Flake</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>TABLE 1 (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="10">Artefacts from archaeological sites</th></tr><tr><th>Sample code</th><th>Site</th><th>City</th><th>Island</th><th>Longitude</th><th>Latitude</th><th>Period</th><th>Bibliography</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>DEL-3-1</td><td>Delices 3</td><td>Saint Patrick Parish</td><td>Dominique</td><td>-61.256</td><td>15.275</td><td>Early Ceramic</td><td>Shearn, 2014</td></tr><tr><td>SJB-1</td><td>Stade José Bade</td><td>Capesteres-de-Marie-Galante</td><td>Marie-Galante</td><td>-61.224</td><td>15.889</td><td>Early Ceramic</td><td>Serrand, 2016</td></tr><tr><td>PSF-1 *</td><td>Place Saint François</td><td>Basse-Terre</td><td>Basse-Terre</td><td>-61.73</td><td>15.995</td><td>Early Ceramic</td><td>Sellier-Ségard, 2001</td></tr><tr><td>Not included yet</td><td>Mill Reef+</td><td>Saint Philip</td><td>Antigua</td><td>-61.679</td><td>17.057</td><td>Middle/Late Ceramic</td><td>Murphy, 1999</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>TABLE 1 (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="10">Artefacts from archaeological sites</th></tr><tr><th>Sample code</th><th>Mass(g)</th><th>Type</th><th>SEM-EDS</th><th>PIXE</th><th>EPMA</th><th>LA-ICP-MS</th><th>ED-XRF</th><th>Raman</th><th>Microtomography</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Bis-01</td><td>1.312</td><td>Flake</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Bis-02</td><td>2.21</td><td>Flake</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Bis-03</td><td>4.318</td><td>Nucleus</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Bis-04</td><td>2.367</td><td>Flake</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>RRC-01</td><td>2.733</td><td>Flake</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>RRC-02</td><td>5.504</td><td>Undetermined</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>MGCT02-1</td><td>1.394</td><td>Flake</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>MGCT02-2</td><td>4.063</td><td>Flake</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>MGCT02-3 *</td><td>N.A</td><td>Undetermined</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MGCT02-4</td><td>2.792</td><td>Nucleus</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>MGCT02-5</td><td>0.156</td><td>Flake</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>MGCT02-6</td><td>16.896</td><td>Flake</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>MGCT02-7</td><td>2.682</td><td>Flake</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>CB-050a</td><td>0.901</td><td>Flake</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>TABLE 1 (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="11">Artefacts from archaeological sites</th></tr><tr><th>Sample code</th><th>Mass(g)</th><th>Type</th><th>SEM-EDS</th><th>PIXE</th><th>EPMA</th><th>LA-ICP-MS</th><th>ED-XRF</th><th>Raman</th><th>Microtomography</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>CB-051a</td><td>0.299</td><td>Flake</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>DEL-3-1</td><td>0.373</td><td>Flake</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>SJB-1</td><td></td><td>Flake</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>pXRF</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PSF-1 *</td><td></td><td>Flake</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Not included yet</td><td></td><td>Nucleus</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th colspan="11">Samples from geological formations</th></tr><tr><th>Sample code</th><th>Site</th><th>City</th><th>Island</th><th>Longitude</th><th>Latitude</th><th>Type of rock</th><th>SEM-EDS</th><th>PIXE</th><th>LA-ICP-MS</th><th>ED-XRF</th></tr><tr><td>Volc.Tuf</td><td>Volcan du Tuf</td><td>Vieux-Habitants</td><td>Basse-Terre</td><td>-61.734</td><td>16.051</td><td>Rhyolite</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Riv.Capesterre</td><td>Rivière de Capesterre</td><td>Capesterre-Belle-Eau</td><td>Basse-Terre</td><td>-61.609</td><td>16.072</td><td>Andesite</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Est.Carbet</td><td>Embouchure du Grand-Carbet</td><td>Capesterre-Belle-Eau</td><td>Basse-Terre</td><td>-61.574</td><td>16.021</td><td>Andesite</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>BoisJoli</td><td>Bois Joli</td><td>Terre-de-Haut</td><td>Les Saintes</td><td>-61.609</td><td>16.072</td><td>Andesite</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>ObsPR</td><td>Yunque National Forest</td><td></td><td>Puerto Rico</td><td>-65.777</td><td>18.299</td><td>Rhyolite</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>TABLE 1 (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="11">Artefacts from archaeological sites</th></tr><tr><th>Sample code</th><th>Mass(g)</th><th>Type</th><th>SEM-EDS</th><th>PIXE</th><th>EPMA</th><th>LA-ICP-MS</th><th>ED-XRF</th><th>Raman</th><th>Microtomography</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>CB-051a</td><td>0.299</td><td>Flake</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>DEL-3-1</td><td>0.373</td><td>Flake</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>SJB-1</td><td></td><td>Flake</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>pXRF</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PSF-1 *</td><td></td><td>Flake</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="10">Not included yet</td><td>Nucleus</td></tr><tr><th colspan="11">Samples from geological formations</th></tr><tr><th>Sample code</th><th>Site</th><th>City</th><th>Island</th><th>Longitude</th><th>Latitude</th><th>Type of rock</th><th>SEM-EDS</th><th>PIXE</th><th>LA-ICP-MS</th><th>ED-XRF</th></tr><tr><td>Volc.Tuf</td><td>Volcan du Tuf</td><td>Vieux-Habitants</td><td>Basse-Terre</td><td>-61.734</td><td>16.051</td><td>Rhyolite</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Riv.Capesterre</td><td>Rivière de Capesterre</td><td>Capesterre-Belle-Eau</td><td>Basse-Terre</td><td>-61.609</td><td>16.072</td><td>Andesite</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Est.Carbet</td><td>Embouchure du Grand-Carbet</td><td>Capesterre-Belle-Eau</td><td>Basse-Terre</td><td>-61.574</td><td>16.021</td><td>Andesite</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>BoisJoli</td><td>Bois Joli</td><td>Terre-de-Haut</td><td>Les Saintes</td><td>-61.609</td><td>16.072</td><td>Andesite</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>ObsPR</td><td>Yunque National Forest</td><td></td><td>Puerto Rico</td><td>-65.777</td><td>18.299</td><td>Rhyolite</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

FIGURE 1 Map indicating the locations of the archaeological sites from which the artefacts originate, and the locations of the geological deposits that have been sampled (Guadeloupe and Puerto Rico) or are scheduled for sampling but already used as comparative data (Martinique). SJB and MGCT02 are located on the same spot as the sites are only a few tens of metres apart.

the excavation and were analysed in 2007 by PIXE in a preliminary project, but we only recovered six of them during our recent study. Excavated in the adjacent parcel of Tourlourous in 2014, the Stade José Bade is considered to be part of the same site (Sellier-Segard & Casagrande, 2016). One flake made of a similar glassy material has been found on the site, regrettably, it comes from levels containing a mixture of Cedrosan Saladoid and Troumassan Troumassoid artefacts. We had access to this artefact during a preliminary study conducted in Guadeloupe, with only pXRF available at this time, but the object was no longer available when we conducted more detailed laboratory analyses. Place Saint François was excavated in
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

FIGURE 1 Map indicating the locations of the archaeological sites from which the artefacts originate, and the locations of the geological deposits that have been sampled (Guadeloupe and Puerto Rico) or are scheduled for sampling but already used as comparative data (Martinique). SJB and MGCT02 are located on the same spot as the sites are only a few tens of metres apart.

the excavation and were analysed in 2007 by PIXE in a preliminary project, but we only recovered six of them during our recent study. Excavated in the adjacent parcel of Tourlourous in 2014, the Stade José Bade is considered to be part of the same site (Sellier-Segard & Casagrande, 2016). One flake made of a similar glassy material has been found on the site, regrettably, it comes from levels containing a mixture of Cedrosan Saladoid and Troumassan Troumassoid artefacts. We had access to this artefact during a preliminary study conducted in Guadeloupe, with only pXRF available at this time, but the object was no longer available when we conducted more detailed laboratory analyses. Place Saint François was excavated in
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 2** Macrophotographs of the sixteen glassy artefacts recovered from six archaeological sites that we were able to access.</figcaption></figure>

2001, just in front of the cathedral of Basse-Terre, and is interpreted as a Cedrosan Saladoid occupation (Sellier-Ségard, 2001). One artefact made of glassy rock comes from this site and was analysed in 2007 by PIXE and has since been lost. Similarly, the Ruelle des Roches Caraïbes site, excavated in 2001, a few kilometres south of Volcan du Tuf, yielded two glassy artefacts from the Cedrosan Saladoid levels (Bonnissent & Chancerel, 2001). The Caille à Bélasse site is the only Late Ceramic site having yielded glassy artefacts. It is interpreted as a
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 2 Macrophotographs of the sixteen glassy artefacts recovered from six archaeological sites that we were able to access.</figcaption></figure>

2001, just in front of the cathedral of Basse-Terre, and is interpreted as a Cedrosan Saladoid occupation (Sellier-Ségard, 2001). One artefact made of glassy rock comes from this site and was analysed in 2007 by PIXE and has since been lost. Similarly, the Ruelle des Roches Caraïbes site, excavated in 2001, a few kilometres south of Volcan du Tuf, yielded two glassy artefacts from the Cedrosan Saladoid levels (Bonnissent & Chancerel, 2001). The Caille à Bélasse site is the only Late Ceramic site having yielded glassy artefacts. It is interpreted as a
Troumassan Troumassoid settlement and located on the Ilets de Petite Terre in the southwest-
ern part of the Guadeloupean archipelago (Gagnepain, 2007).

Two artefacts were discovered outside Guadeloupe. One was unearthed 20–30 cm below the surface by IS, in the site called Delices 3, on the southwest coast of Dominica (Shearn, 2014, p. 318). It is attributed to a Cedrosan Saladoid occupation. Additionally, there is a ‘small reduced core’ designated as ‘obsidian’ at the Mill Reef site (Antigua) (Murphy, 1999, p. 208), which could not be included in the present study. It is worth noting that there are mentions of other volcanic glass in the literature, but it seems that these are all misidentifications. A blade from the Maruca site in Puerto Rico was described as obsidian (Febles, 2004; Rodríguez Ramos, 2013) despite being identified initially as black chalcedony (Rodriguez, 2001) and subsequently confirmed as such (Rodriguez Ramos, comm. pers.to AQ 2020). In Martinique, a report on the Early Saladoid site of Fond-Brûlé listed nine ‘volcanic glass’ artefacts (Mattioni, 1982). However, upon a thorough examination of the complete archaeological collection, this identification can be discarded, because every artefact photographed in the report has been found in the curated collection, and there is not a single volcanic glass artefact (black jaspers and flints are present).

All the 16 artefacts available for study are small flakes and nuclei originating from bipolar
percussion technique (Figure S1), as already noted by Fouéré (2006) for those found in Bisdary
site. They do not differ significantly from artefacts made of other raw materials in the respective
sites, which are mainly made of flint from Antigua, and are also mainly produced by bipolar
technique (Bérard, 2011; Davis, 2002; Knippenberg, 2007; Queffelec et al., 2023). Based on
ethnographic comparisons and traceological study (Walker, 1979), the main hypothesis for the
function of small-sized flakes produced by bipolar percussion in the Ceramic Age of the Lesser
Antilles is their use as teeth for cassava grater boards. Some authors recommend a more site-
specific interpretation and not a general application of this hypothesis (Bérard, 2004; Crock &
Bartone, 1998), and because no traceological study has been conducted on these artefacts, we
prefer not to make any hypothesis on this subject. Technical drawings and surface views from
the 3D models acquired by microtomography are presented in Figure S1 and S2 to support this
interpretation.

Finally, it must be noted that AQ conducted a survey of the Caribbean archaeological
community by email and during the IACA 2022 congress. None of the respondents (see
Acknowledgements) reported ever seeing a single black vitreous artefact during their career in
the Caribbean islands, and no participant of the conference came forward either to say so.

Geological volcanic glass

Volcanic glass worldwide is mostly of rhyolitic composition and is referred to as obsidian. Rhyolitic rocks are very scarce in the Lesser Antilles, with only three to four occurrences with no description of obsidian (Guen et al., 1982; Smith et al., 1980). The only obsidian described in geological literature, dated to 325 ka, is located in the Volcan du Tuf area (Basse-Terre, Guadeloupe) and consists of a brecciated dyke containing perlitic obsidian originating from maar eruptive activity (Gadalia et al., 1988). Fieldwork enabled us to identify the location of this obsidian source in the commune of Vieux-Habitants (Basse-Terre, Guadeloupe), on the edge of the Volcan du Tuf maar (Table 1). Several samples were taken, all with very poor knapping qualities (Figure S3).

A lone obsidian block from Puerto Rico is known to exist, having been discovered by a local
worker while clearing a drainage ditch beside the PR 191 road in the El Yunque national forest
(Walker pers. com. to AQ 2022). Despite additional fieldwork conducted in the area, no other
blocks matching this description were located (Knippenberg pers. com. to AQ 2022).
Regrettably, the precise geological origin of this high-quality obsidian block, provided by JW
Troumassan Troumassoid settlement and located on the Ilets de Petite Terre in the southwest-
ern part of the Guadeloupean archipelago (Gagnepain, 2007).

Two artefacts were discovered outside Guadeloupe. One was unearthed 20–30 cm below the surface by IS, in the site called Delices 3, on the southwest coast of Dominica (Shearn, 2014, p. 318). It is attributed to a Cedrosan Saladoid occupation. Additionally, there is a ‘small reduced core’ designated as ‘obsidian’ at the Mill Reef site (Antigua) (Murphy, 1999, p. 208), which could not be included in the present study. It is worth noting that there are mentions of other volcanic glass in the literature, but it seems that these are all misidentifications. A blade from the Maruca site in Puerto Rico was described as obsidian (Febles, 2004; Rodríguez Ramos, 2013) despite being identified initially as black chalcedony (Rodriguez, 2001) and subsequently confirmed as such (Rodriguez Ramos, comm. pers.to AQ 2020). In Martinique, a report on the Early Saladoid site of Fond-Brûlé listed nine ‘volcanic glass’ artefacts (Mattioni, 1982). However, upon a thorough examination of the complete archaeological collection, this identification can be discarded, because every artefact photographed in the report has been found in the curated collection, and there is not a single volcanic glass artefact (black jaspers and flints are present).

All the 16 artefacts available for study are small flakes and nuclei originating from bipolar
percussion technique (Figure S1), as already noted by Fouéré (2006) for those found in Bisdary
site. They do not differ significantly from artefacts made of other raw materials in the respective
sites, which are mainly made of flint from Antigua, and are also mainly produced by bipolar
technique (Bérard, 2011; Davis, 2002; Knippenberg, 2007; Queffelec et al., 2023). Based on
ethnographic comparisons and traceological study (Walker, 1979), the main hypothesis for the
function of small-sized flakes produced by bipolar percussion in the Ceramic Age of the Lesser
Antilles is their use as teeth for cassava grater boards. Some authors recommend a more site-
specific interpretation and not a general application of this hypothesis (Bérard, 2004; Crock &
Bartone, 1998), and because no traceological study has been conducted on these artefacts, we
prefer not to make any hypothesis on this subject. Technical drawings and surface views from
the 3D models acquired by microtomography are presented in Figure S1 and S2 to support this
interpretation.

Finally, it must be noted that AQ conducted a survey of the Caribbean archaeological
community by email and during the IACA 2022 congress. None of the respondents (see
Acknowledgements) reported ever seeing a single black vitreous artefact during their career in
the Caribbean islands, and no participant of the conference came forward either to say so.

Geological volcanic glass

Volcanic glass worldwide is mostly of rhyolitic composition and is referred to as obsidian. Rhyolitic rocks are very scarce in the Lesser Antilles, with only three to four occurrences with no description of obsidian (Guen et al., 1982; Smith et al., 1980). The only obsidian described in geological literature, dated to 325 ka, is located in the Volcan du Tuf area (Basse-Terre, Guadeloupe) and consists of a brecciated dyke containing perlitic obsidian originating from maar eruptive activity (Gadalia et al., 1988). Fieldwork enabled us to identify the location of this obsidian source in the commune of Vieux-Habitants (Basse-Terre, Guadeloupe), on the edge of the Volcan du Tuf maar (Table 1). Several samples were taken, all with very poor knapping qualities (Figure S3).

A lone obsidian block from Puerto Rico is known to exist, having been discovered by a local
worker while clearing a drainage ditch beside the PR 191 road in the El Yunque national forest
(Walker pers. com. to AQ 2022). Despite additional fieldwork conducted in the area, no other
blocks matching this description were located (Knippenberg pers. com. to AQ 2022).
Regrettably, the precise geological origin of this high-quality obsidian block, provided by JW
and SK, therefore remains unknown. Although there is documented evidence of a silicic suite in the northeastern Antilles, primarily dating back to the Albian age (113.0 ± 1.0 to 100.5 ± 0.9 Ma) and found in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands (Jolly et al., 2008), the composition of these rocks, predominantly rhyolites, does not align with that of our sample (ObsPR). Even though these Albian rocks have likely undergone significant devitrification due to their age, this observation underscores the capacity of the tectonic conditions in this particular region of the Antilles to generate high-silica rocks similar to the ObsPR sample analysed in this study.

In addition to our search for obsidian from the Volcan du Tuf, we carried out a prospecting campaign in the Guadeloupe archipelago to locate vitreous andesitic material. Based on data from the geological map and indications from local prospectors, we identified and collected three deposits of glassy andesitic rocks trapped in ash deposits in the Capesterre river and at the estuary of the Grand-Carbet river (Capesterre-Belle-Eau, Basse-Terre, Guadeloupe) and at Bois Joli (Terre-de-Haut, Saintes Archipelago, Guadeloupe) (Table 1). Unfortunately, none of these deposits contained glassy rocks massive enough to be knapped and potentially matching the material of the studied artefacts.

## Methods

All samples underwent macroscopic and binocular observations. The various methods of analysis applied to each sample are reported in Table 1. The artefact from Stade José Bade (SJB) could only be analysed by portable X-Ray Fluorescence (pXRF) because it remained in Guadeloupe. This pXRF analysis confirmed its andesitic composition.

AQ conducted binocular observations using a Leica Z16APO to observe the texture and the structure of samples, as well as the distribution of phenocrysts. Photographs were taken with a Leica Flexacam C1 camera and the LAS X 5.0 software.

LBG and CL performed nondestructive elemental analysis by Particle-Induced X-ray Emission (PIXE) on the AGLAE facility (Calligaro et al., 2002) using the procedures presented in Bellot-Gurlet et al. (1999). The AGLAE facility of the Laboratoire de Recherche des Musées de France is based on a two MV tandem accelerator Pelletron 6SDH-2 built by National Electrostatics Co. For obsidian analyses, LBG and CL used an external proton beam with an energy of 3 MeV before its exit outside the accelerator vacuum. The entire X-ray spectrum is recorded by means of two Si (Li) detectors, for matrix and trace elements respectively. The instrument is calibrated with obsidian reference materials.

AL and AQ observed and analysed the artefacts by scanning electron microscope (SEM) coupled with energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) in a JEOL IT500HR electron microscope (FEG source). The SEM images and EDS spectra were acquired without carbon coating, in a low-vacuum mode (here 40 Pa). The images were acquired with a backscattered electron detector, whereas the EDS analysis were performed with two Oxford Ultimax 100 detectors at 20 kV for 30 s, producing spectra with 4.0–4.5 million counts.

AL conducted an analysis of the artefacts and geological samples using energy dispersive x-ray fluorescence (ED-XRF) on a Hitachi SEA 6000vx device. This device is equipped with a rhodium source (50 kV/1 mA) and a Vortex SDD detector, and a specialised protocol was developed specifically for the study of silica-rich archaeological artefacts (Leck, 2022; Leck et al., 2018). The PCA was carried out using CoDaPack software (Comas & Thió-Henestrosa, 2011). The data were prior transformed by a centred log ratio transformation (Aitchison, 2003).

Four micro-samples were prepared for electron microprobe analyses (EPMA) and laser ablation—inductively-coupled plasma—mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) analyses by AQ. EPMA and LA-ICP-MS analyses were only conducted on a very limited selection of samples: three of them were cut with a wire saw (Well3500) and epoxy resin (Araldite 2020): two
and SK, therefore remains unknown. Although there is documented evidence of a silicic suite in the northeastern Antilles, primarily dating back to the Albian age (113.0 ± 1.0 to 100.5 ± 0.9 Ma) and found in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands (Jolly et al., 2008), the composition of these rocks, predominantly rhyolites, does not align with that of our sample (ObsPR). Even though these Albian rocks have likely undergone significant devitrification due to their age, this observation underscores the capacity of the tectonic conditions in this particular region of the Antilles to generate high-silica rocks similar to the ObsPR sample analysed in this study.

In addition to our search for obsidian from the Volcan du Tuf, we carried out a prospecting campaign in the Guadeloupe archipelago to locate vitreous andesitic material. Based on data from the geological map and indications from local prospectors, we identified and collected three deposits of glassy andesitic rocks trapped in ash deposits in the Capesterre river and at the estuary of the Grand-Carbet river (Capesterre-Belle-Eau, Basse-Terre, Guadeloupe) and at Bois Joli (Terre-de-Haut, Saintes Archipelago, Guadeloupe) (Table 1). Unfortunately, none of these deposits contained glassy rocks massive enough to be knapped and potentially matching the material of the studied artefacts.

## Methods

All samples underwent macroscopic and binocular observations. The various methods of analysis applied to each sample are reported in Table 1. The artefact from Stade José Bade (SJB) could only be analysed by portable X-Ray Fluorescence (pXRF) because it remained in Guadeloupe. This pXRF analysis confirmed its andesitic composition.

AQ conducted binocular observations using a Leica Z16APO to observe the texture and the structure of samples, as well as the distribution of phenocrysts. Photographs were taken with a Leica Flexacam C1 camera and the LAS X 5.0 software.

LBG and CL performed nondestructive elemental analysis by Particle-Induced X-ray Emission (PIXE) on the AGLAE facility (Calligaro et al., 2002) using the procedures presented in Bellot-Gurlet et al. (1999). The AGLAE facility of the Laboratoire de Recherche des Musées de France is based on a two MV tandem accelerator Pelletron 6SDH-2 built by National Electrostatics Co. For obsidian analyses, LBG and CL used an external proton beam with an energy of 3 MeV before its exit outside the accelerator vacuum. The entire X-ray spectrum is recorded by means of two Si (Li) detectors, for matrix and trace elements respectively. The instrument is calibrated with obsidian reference materials.

AL and AQ observed and analysed the artefacts by scanning electron microscope (SEM) coupled with energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) in a JEOL IT500HR electron microscope (FEG source). The SEM images and EDS spectra were acquired without carbon coating, in a low-vacuum mode (here 40 Pa). The images were acquired with a backscattered electron detector, whereas the EDS analysis were performed with two Oxford Ultimax 100 detectors at 20 kV for 30 s, producing spectra with 4.0–4.5 million counts.

AL conducted an analysis of the artefacts and geological samples using energy dispersive x-ray fluorescence (ED-XRF) on a Hitachi SEA 6000vx device. This device is equipped with a rhodium source (50 kV/1 mA) and a Vortex SDD detector, and a specialised protocol was developed specifically for the study of silica-rich archaeological artefacts (Leck, 2022; Leck et al., 2018). The PCA was carried out using CoDaPack software (Comas & Thió-Henestrosa, 2011). The data were prior transformed by a centred log ratio transformation (Aitchison, 2003).

Four micro-samples were prepared for electron microprobe analyses (EPMA) and laser ablation—inductively-coupled plasma—mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) analyses by AQ. EPMA and LA-ICP-MS analyses were only conducted on a very limited selection of samples: three of them were cut with a wire saw (Well3500) and epoxy resin (Araldite 2020): two
from two rather large archaeological artefacts for which the shape would not be altered by the
sampling (BIS-03 and MGCT02–06), one from the natural glass from Puerto Rico. Several
glass fragments from Volcan du Tuf were also impregnated in epoxy resin. All samples were
abraded with silicon carbide discs and polished with diamond paste. We obtained the official
authorization of cutting small subsamples from both archaeological artefacts via the French
Ministry of Culture.

EPMA and LA-ICP-MS were conducted to obtain accurate geochemical composition of both major, minor and trace elements. JL determined the major-element compositions of the glasses by EPMA analysis using a Cameca SX100 from the *Microsonde Ouest* platform using wavelength dispersive spectrometers at 15 KV accelerating voltage, 10–12 nA beam current, and a spot size ranging from 10 to 20 µm. Minerals (wollastonite [Si, Ca], orthoclase [K], albite [Na], apatite [P]), oxide (MnTiO₃ [Mn, Ti]), Al₂O₃ [Al], Fe₂O₃ [Fe], Cr₂O₃ [Cr], FeS₂ [S] and so forth, and metal standards (Ni) were used for calibration. In order to avoid the heterogeneity effects induced by small crystals or inclusions, the compositions of the glasses given here are averages of two to six analyses depending on the sample. BG performed the LA-ICP-MS measurements using a Thermo Fisher Scientific ELEMENT XR mass spectrometer with a linear dynamic range of 12 orders of magnitude thanks to the combination of a Faraday detector and a dual-mode SEM detector. The laser was a Resonetics M50E excimer laser operating at a wavelength of 193 nm, 5 mJ and a repetition rate of 10 Hz. The sampling cell is flushed with an argon/helium glass flow of 1 L/min Ar + 0.65 L/min He. The analytical protocols followed are those typically employed for the analysis of glass (Gratuze, 2016), which include a pre-ablation time of 20 s and the acquisition of nine mass scans for 58 elements. Trace elements data were normalised to N-MORB (Gale et al., 2013) and normalised to chondrite (Barrat et al., 2012).

AQ performed micro-Raman spectroscopy analysis on phenocrysts located inside the devitrifications centres in several samples with a Bruker SENTERRA Raman microspectrometer equipped with a 532 nm laser and a 1200-line diffraction grating resulting in a resolution of 3 to 5 cm⁻¹, after cleaning the samples with hydrogen peroxide and ultrasonic bath. Spectra were interpreted using the RRUFF database (Lafuente et al., 2016).

Before microsampling for EPMA and LA-ICP-MS, 3D reconstruction of the surface and the inner structure of the samples was realized by NV via X-ray microtomography using a GE VTOMEX-S 240/180. Depending on the size of the artefacts and on the fact that they would suffer or not the microsampling for geochemical analysis, the microscan performed have variable resolutions between 6 and 21 µm³ per voxel. AQ extracted isosurfaces from these 3D models using the Avizo software.

RESULTS

The andesitic artefacts consist of a matrix that is entirely translucent, with a slight brownish-
orange hue (see Figure 2). A perlitic structure is evident across all pieces, suggesting quenching,
as this is the most likely way this material with this chemical composition formed naturally. A
few phenocrysts of various morphologies can be observed on the surface: Some are bipyrami-
dal, showing fluidity and probably resulting from crystallization in the magma chamber or
chimney, others are definitely devitrification spherules (Figures 2, S4, and S5). Some pieces
exhibit significant vesiculation, with vesicles accounting for approximately half the volume of
certain pieces (Figure S4). Microtomography scanning reveals that these vesicles are of various
types, sizes, shapes, and orientations (Figure S6), signifying different degassing and solidifica-
tion events. Last, the size of the artefacts and the occasional presence of cortical surfaces lead
us to estimate that the original blocks were likely rounded and had a diameter of approximately
5 cm. It is also conceivable that these blocks were likely collected in a primary or subprimary
from two rather large archaeological artefacts for which the shape would not be altered by the
sampling (BIS-03 and MGCT02–06), one from the natural glass from Puerto Rico. Several
glass fragments from Volcan du Tuf were also impregnated in epoxy resin. All samples were
abraded with silicon carbide discs and polished with diamond paste. We obtained the official
authorization of cutting small subsamples from both archaeological artefacts via the French
Ministry of Culture.

EPMA and LA-ICP-MS were conducted to obtain accurate geochemical composition of both major, minor and trace elements. JL determined the major-element compositions of the glasses by EPMA analysis using a Cameca SX100 from the *Microsonde Ouest* platform using wavelength dispersive spectrometers at 15 KV accelerating voltage, 10–12 nA beam current, and a spot size ranging from 10 to 20 µm. Minerals (wollastonite [Si, Ca], orthoclase [K], albite [Na], apatite [P]), oxide (MnTiO₃ [Mn, Ti]), Al₂O₃ [Al], Fe₂O₃ [Fe], Cr₂O₃ [Cr], FeS₂ [S] and so forth, and metal standards (Ni) were used for calibration. In order to avoid the heterogeneity effects induced by small crystals or inclusions, the compositions of the glasses given here are averages of two to six analyses depending on the sample. BG performed the LA-ICP-MS measurements using a Thermo Fisher Scientific ELEMENT XR mass spectrometer with a linear dynamic range of 12 orders of magnitude thanks to the combination of a Faraday detector and a dual-mode SEM detector. The laser was a Resonetics M50E excimer laser operating at a wavelength of 193 nm, 5 mJ and a repetition rate of 10 Hz. The sampling cell is flushed with an argon/helium glass flow of 1 L/min Ar + 0.65 L/min He. The analytical protocols followed are those typically employed for the analysis of glass (Gratuze, 2016), which include a pre-ablation time of 20 s and the acquisition of nine mass scans for 58 elements. Trace elements data were normalised to N-MORB (Gale et al., 2013) and normalised to chondrite (Barrat et al., 2012).

AQ performed micro-Raman spectroscopy analysis on phenocrysts located inside the devitrifications centres in several samples with a Bruker SENTERRA Raman microspectrometer equipped with a 532 nm laser and a 1200-line diffraction grating resulting in a resolution of 3 to 5 cm⁻¹, after cleaning the samples with hydrogen peroxide and ultrasonic bath. Spectra were interpreted using the RRUFF database (Lafuente et al., 2016).

Before microsampling for EPMA and LA-ICP-MS, 3D reconstruction of the surface and the inner structure of the samples was realized by NV via X-ray microtomography using a GE VTOMEX-S 240/180. Depending on the size of the artefacts and on the fact that they would suffer or not the microsampling for geochemical analysis, the microscan performed have variable resolutions between 6 and 21 µm³ per voxel. AQ extracted isosurfaces from these 3D models using the Avizo software.

RESULTS

The andesitic artefacts consist of a matrix that is entirely translucent, with a slight brownish-
orange hue (see Figure 2). A perlitic structure is evident across all pieces, suggesting quenching,
as this is the most likely way this material with this chemical composition formed naturally. A
few phenocrysts of various morphologies can be observed on the surface: Some are bipyrami-
dal, showing fluidity and probably resulting from crystallization in the magma chamber or
chimney, others are definitely devitrification spherules (Figures 2, S4, and S5). Some pieces
exhibit significant vesiculation, with vesicles accounting for approximately half the volume of
certain pieces (Figure S4). Microtomography scanning reveals that these vesicles are of various
types, sizes, shapes, and orientations (Figure S6), signifying different degassing and solidifica-
tion events. Last, the size of the artefacts and the occasional presence of cortical surfaces lead
us to estimate that the original blocks were likely rounded and had a diameter of approximately
5 cm. It is also conceivable that these blocks were likely collected in a primary or subprimary
position, possibly within an ash layer, as the cortical surfaces show no signs of erosion caused by transport.

The rhyolitic artefact, in contrast, features a dark grey vitreous matrix with a banded texture highlighted by submillimetric phenocrysts of feldspar (Figure S4). The perlitic structure is remarkably prominent, to the extent that it probably hindered the development of a useful conchoidal fracture for knapping.

Noninvasive techniques—to ensure the conservation of these rare artefacts—were used on most samples to assess the homogeneity of the collection. SEM-EDS and PIXE data showed a very homogeneous glass composition and revealed the andesitic composition of most samples (Figure 3, Table S1 & S2). ED-XRF analysis confirmed the overall high homogeneity among trace elements for the archaeological andesitic artefacts and the close proximity of the rhyolitic artefact with the Volcan du Tuf source, as PIXE already did in the initial study (Figure 4 and Table S1, S3 & S4). Andesites containing vitreous phases sampled in Guadeloupe do not match the archaeological artefacts’ composition. SEM-EDS analysis detected plagioclase feldspar and rare Fe-Ti oxides. It revealed the fibrous structure of plagioclase feldspars within voids (Figure S7), likely formed due to matrix devitrification. These spherulites displayed bow-tie and spherical shapes. Their alignment is probably due to the original alignment of crystallisation nuclei in fluidal planes (Figure S4). Raman spectroscopy (Figures S5) confirmed the identification of most crystals as labradorite, indicating their formation in fluidal planes likely occurred within the magma chamber prior to the eruption, rather than through devitrification, due to the

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 3 Total alkali silica (TAS) diagram (Le Maitre et al., 2005) illustrates the elemental composition measured using PIXE and EPMA on glassy archaeological and geological samples. All the artefacts, with the exception of one, consist of an unusual andesitic glass, whereas the geological samples are composed of obsidian, a more typical rhyolitic glass.</figcaption></figure>
position, possibly within an ash layer, as the cortical surfaces show no signs of erosion caused by transport.

The rhyolitic artefact, in contrast, features a dark grey vitreous matrix with a banded texture highlighted by submillimetric phenocrysts of feldspar (Figure S4). The perlitic structure is remarkably prominent, to the extent that it probably hindered the development of a useful conchoidal fracture for knapping.

Noninvasive techniques—to ensure the conservation of these rare artefacts—were used on most samples to assess the homogeneity of the collection. SEM-EDS and PIXE data showed a very homogeneous glass composition and revealed the andesitic composition of most samples (Figure 3, Table S1 & S2). ED-XRF analysis confirmed the overall high homogeneity among trace elements for the archaeological andesitic artefacts and the close proximity of the rhyolitic artefact with the Volcan du Tuf source, as PIXE already did in the initial study (Figure 4 and Table S1, S3 & S4). Andesites containing vitreous phases sampled in Guadeloupe do not match the archaeological artefacts’ composition. SEM-EDS analysis detected plagioclase feldspar and rare Fe-Ti oxides. It revealed the fibrous structure of plagioclase feldspars within voids (Figure S7), likely formed due to matrix devitrification. These spherulites displayed bow-tie and spherical shapes. Their alignment is probably due to the original alignment of crystallisation nuclei in fluidal planes (Figure S4). Raman spectroscopy (Figures S5) confirmed the identification of most crystals as labradorite, indicating their formation in fluidal planes likely occurred within the magma chamber prior to the eruption, rather than through devitrification, due to the

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 3 Total alkali silica (TAS) diagram (Le Maitre et al., 2005) illustrates the elemental composition measured using PIXE and EPMA on glassy archaeological and geological samples. All the artefacts, with the exception of one, consist of an unusual andesitic glass, whereas the geological samples are composed of obsidian, a more typical rhyolitic glass.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 4 PCA on ED-XRF data (trace elements only) from all artefacts as well as geological samples collected in the Guadeloupean archipelago (rhyolitic and andesitic). Each point on the graph relates to one measurement on the sample.</figcaption></figure>

low calcium concentration of the obsidian. It also identified the presence of augite, cristobalite, and quartz in the clusters or lines of minerals.

Based on these noninvasive results and in order to obtain high accuracy measurements from these surprising artefacts and potential sources, we conducted EPMA and LA-ICP-MS analysis (Table 2). The homogeneity and the andesitic nature of the archaeological was confirmed, as well as the rhyolitic composition of both nonarchaeological glass (Figure 3). The homogeneity of the two archaeological artefacts is incredibly high, for all the major and trace elements that we were able to measure (51 in total), clearly indicating that these two artefacts, unearthed from two different archaeological sites, originate from the same volcanic event, probably from the andesitic volcanism of the central Lesser Antilles subduction context (Figure 5).

For the andesitic archaeological artefacts, no enrichment in Cr, Ni, or Co are visible, indicating that no extraterrestrial contamination can be suspected from this data (Koeberl, 1998; Koeberl, 2014; Rochette et al., 2021).

On the other hand, the trace elements and REE spectra suggest an origin from an andesitic volcanism that could be related directly to central Lesser Antilles context like the andesites from the northwestern part of Martinique, where the Mont Conil and the Montagne Pelée have been sampled (Figure 5). Other andesitic rocks from the region have been sampled and analysed previously (Fedele et al., 2021; Germa et al., 2011; Howe et al., 2015; Labanieh, 2009), and if the
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 4 PCA on ED-XRF data (trace elements only) from all artefacts as well as geological samples collected in the Guadeloupean archipelago (rhyolitic and andesitic). Each point on the graph relates to one measurement on the sample.</figcaption></figure>

low calcium concentration of the obsidian. It also identified the presence of augite, cristobalite, and quartz in the clusters or lines of minerals.

Based on these noninvasive results and in order to obtain high accuracy measurements from these surprising artefacts and potential sources, we conducted EPMA and LA-ICP-MS analysis (Table 2). The homogeneity and the andesitic nature of the archaeological was confirmed, as well as the rhyolitic composition of both nonarchaeological glass (Figure 3). The homogeneity of the two archaeological artefacts is incredibly high, for all the major and trace elements that we were able to measure (51 in total), clearly indicating that these two artefacts, unearthed from two different archaeological sites, originate from the same volcanic event, probably from the andesitic volcanism of the central Lesser Antilles subduction context (Figure 5).

For the andesitic archaeological artefacts, no enrichment in Cr, Ni, or Co are visible, indicating that no extraterrestrial contamination can be suspected from this data (Koeberl, 1998; Koeberl, 2014; Rochette et al., 2021).

On the other hand, the trace elements and REE spectra suggest an origin from an andesitic volcanism that could be related directly to central Lesser Antilles context like the andesites from the northwestern part of Martinique, where the Mont Conil and the Montagne Pelée have been sampled (Figure 5). Other andesitic rocks from the region have been sampled and analysed previously (Fedele et al., 2021; Germa et al., 2011; Howe et al., 2015; Labanieh, 2009), and if the
<table><caption>TABLE 2 Major and minor elements composition measured by EPMA and trace elements abundances measured by LA-ICP-MS.</caption><thead><tr><th>EPMA (%)</th><th>ObsPR</th><th>VolcanTuf</th><th>MGCT02-6</th><th>BIS-03</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>SiO<sub>2</sub></td><td>76.36</td><td>78.02</td><td>61.74</td><td>62.00</td></tr><tr><td>TiO<sub>2</sub></td><td>0.22</td><td>0.15</td><td>0.57</td><td>0.57</td></tr><tr><td>Al<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub></td><td>11.54</td><td>12.58</td><td>16.94</td><td>16.99</td></tr><tr><td>FeO</td><td>2.16</td><td>1.80</td><td>5.49</td><td>5.40</td></tr><tr><td>MnO</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.12</td></tr><tr><td>MgO</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.14</td><td>2.66</td><td>2.65</td></tr><tr><td>CaO</td><td>0.11</td><td>1.51</td><td>6.87</td><td>6.72</td></tr><tr><td>Na<sub>2</sub>O</td><td>4.92</td><td>4.22</td><td>3.35</td><td>3.48</td></tr><tr><td>K<sub>2</sub>O</td><td>4.83</td><td>2.22</td><td>1.29</td><td>1.29</td></tr><tr><td>P<sub>2</sub>O<sub>5</sub></td><td>0.02</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.23</td><td>0.23</td></tr><tr><td>SO<sub>2</sub></td><td>0.03</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>F</td><td>0.14</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Cl</td><td>0.20</td><td>0.24</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.06</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>100.72</td><td>101.01</td><td>99.35</td><td>99.51</td></tr><tr><th>LA-ICP-MS (µg/g)</th><th>ObsPR</th><th>VolcanTuf</th><th>MGCT02-6</th><th>BIS-03</th></tr><tr><td>V</td><td>3.98</td><td>0.24</td><td>124</td><td>124</td></tr><tr><td>Cr</td><td>0.31</td><td>0.48</td><td>8.54</td><td>8.57</td></tr><tr><td>Co</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.88</td><td>12.9</td><td>13.8</td></tr><tr><td>Ni</td><td>&lt;LOD</td><td>0.33</td><td>4.51</td><td>4.59</td></tr><tr><td>Cu</td><td>0.04</td><td>13.9</td><td>142</td><td>147</td></tr><tr><td>Zn</td><td>236</td><td>35.7</td><td>70.4</td><td>69.7</td></tr><tr><td>Ga</td><td>30.1</td><td>11.6</td><td>17.2</td><td>17.2</td></tr><tr><td>As</td><td>3.45</td><td>0.97</td><td>2.00</td><td>1.66</td></tr><tr><td>Rb</td><td>200</td><td>47.2</td><td>38.8</td><td>39.6</td></tr><tr><td>Sr</td><td>1.82</td><td>80.5</td><td>221</td><td>218</td></tr><tr><td>Y</td><td>92.2</td><td>36.4</td><td>15.3</td><td>14.9</td></tr><tr><td>Zr</td><td>852</td><td>136</td><td>79.5</td><td>77.3</td></tr><tr><td>Nb</td><td>75.1</td><td>3.57</td><td>2.57</td><td>2.62</td></tr><tr><td>Mo</td><td>5.66</td><td>1.18</td><td>2.34</td><td>2.40</td></tr><tr><td>Sn</td><td>5.23</td><td>1.48</td><td>1.22</td><td>1.35</td></tr><tr><td>Sb</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.39</td><td>0.30</td></tr><tr><td>Cs</td><td>3.81</td><td>1.52</td><td>1.84</td><td>1.91</td></tr><tr><td>Ba</td><td>8.87</td><td>273</td><td>203</td><td>202</td></tr><tr><td>La</td><td>36.9</td><td>13.9</td><td>10.2</td><td>9.97</td></tr><tr><td>Ce</td><td>89.3</td><td>31.5</td><td>21.2</td><td>20.7</td></tr><tr><td>Pr</td><td>9.85</td><td>3.98</td><td>2.47</td><td>2.47</td></tr><tr><td>Nd</td><td>35.7</td><td>18.1</td><td>10.4</td><td>10.4</td></tr><tr><td>Sm</td><td>9.29</td><td>4.69</td><td>2.52</td><td>2.62</td></tr><tr><td>Eu</td><td>1.49</td><td>0.79</td><td>0.78</td><td>0.78</td></tr><tr><td>Gd</td><td>9.66</td><td>4.78</td><td>2.34</td><td>2.30</td></tr><tr><td>Tb</td><td>2.00</td><td>0.89</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.41</td></tr><tr><td>Dy</td><td>13.9</td><td>5.87</td><td>2.58</td><td>2.50</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>TABLE 2 Major and minor elements composition measured by EPMA and trace elements abundances measured by LA-ICP-MS.</caption><thead><tr><th>EPMA (%)</th><th>ObsPR</th><th>VolcanTuf</th><th>MGCT02-6</th><th>BIS-03</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>SiO<sub>2</sub></td><td>76.36</td><td>78.02</td><td>61.74</td><td>62.00</td></tr><tr><td>TiO<sub>2</sub></td><td>0.22</td><td>0.15</td><td>0.57</td><td>0.57</td></tr><tr><td>Al<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub></td><td>11.54</td><td>12.58</td><td>16.94</td><td>16.99</td></tr><tr><td>FeO</td><td>2.16</td><td>1.80</td><td>5.49</td><td>5.40</td></tr><tr><td>MnO</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.12</td></tr><tr><td>MgO</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.14</td><td>2.66</td><td>2.65</td></tr><tr><td>CaO</td><td>0.11</td><td>1.51</td><td>6.87</td><td>6.72</td></tr><tr><td>Na<sub>2</sub>O</td><td>4.92</td><td>4.22</td><td>3.35</td><td>3.48</td></tr><tr><td>K<sub>2</sub>O</td><td>4.83</td><td>2.22</td><td>1.29</td><td>1.29</td></tr><tr><td>P<sub>2</sub>O<sub>5</sub></td><td>0.02</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.23</td><td>0.23</td></tr><tr><td>SO<sub>2</sub></td><td>0.03</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>F</td><td>0.14</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Cl</td><td>0.20</td><td>0.24</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.06</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>100.72</td><td>101.01</td><td>99.35</td><td>99.51</td></tr><tr><th>LA-ICP-MS (µg/g)</th><th>ObsPR</th><th>VolcanTuf</th><th>MGCT02-6</th><th>BIS-03</th></tr><tr><td>V</td><td>3.98</td><td>0.24</td><td>124</td><td>124</td></tr><tr><td>Cr</td><td>0.31</td><td>0.48</td><td>8.54</td><td>8.57</td></tr><tr><td>Co</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.88</td><td>12.9</td><td>13.8</td></tr><tr><td>Ni</td><td>&lt;LOD</td><td>0.33</td><td>4.51</td><td>4.59</td></tr><tr><td>Cu</td><td>0.04</td><td>13.9</td><td>142</td><td>147</td></tr><tr><td>Zn</td><td>236</td><td>35.7</td><td>70.4</td><td>69.7</td></tr><tr><td>Ga</td><td>30.1</td><td>11.6</td><td>17.2</td><td>17.2</td></tr><tr><td>As</td><td>3.45</td><td>0.97</td><td>2.00</td><td>1.66</td></tr><tr><td>Rb</td><td>200</td><td>47.2</td><td>38.8</td><td>39.6</td></tr><tr><td>Sr</td><td>1.82</td><td>80.5</td><td>221</td><td>218</td></tr><tr><td>Y</td><td>92.2</td><td>36.4</td><td>15.3</td><td>14.9</td></tr><tr><td>Zr</td><td>852</td><td>136</td><td>79.5</td><td>77.3</td></tr><tr><td>Nb</td><td>75.1</td><td>3.57</td><td>2.57</td><td>2.62</td></tr><tr><td>Mo</td><td>5.66</td><td>1.18</td><td>2.34</td><td>2.40</td></tr><tr><td>Sn</td><td>5.23</td><td>1.48</td><td>1.22</td><td>1.35</td></tr><tr><td>Sb</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.39</td><td>0.30</td></tr><tr><td>Cs</td><td>3.81</td><td>1.52</td><td>1.84</td><td>1.91</td></tr><tr><td>Ba</td><td>8.87</td><td>273</td><td>203</td><td>202</td></tr><tr><td>La</td><td>36.9</td><td>13.9</td><td>10.2</td><td>9.97</td></tr><tr><td>Ce</td><td>89.3</td><td>31.5</td><td>21.2</td><td>20.7</td></tr><tr><td>Pr</td><td>9.85</td><td>3.98</td><td>2.47</td><td>2.47</td></tr><tr><td>Nd</td><td>35.7</td><td>18.1</td><td>10.4</td><td>10.4</td></tr><tr><td>Sm</td><td>9.29</td><td>4.69</td><td>2.52</td><td>2.62</td></tr><tr><td>Eu</td><td>1.49</td><td>0.79</td><td>0.78</td><td>0.78</td></tr><tr><td>Gd</td><td>9.66</td><td>4.78</td><td>2.34</td><td>2.30</td></tr><tr><td>Tb</td><td>2.00</td><td>0.89</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.41</td></tr><tr><td>Dy</td><td>13.9</td><td>5.87</td><td>2.58</td><td>2.50</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>TABLE 2 (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th>LA-ICP-MS (µg/g)</th><th>ObsPR</th><th>VolcanTuf</th><th>MGCT02-6</th><th>BIS-03</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Ho</td><td>3.15</td><td>1.31</td><td>0.57</td><td>0.56</td></tr><tr><td>Er</td><td>9.57</td><td>3.86</td><td>1.65</td><td>1.60</td></tr><tr><td>Tm</td><td>1.51</td><td>0.59</td><td>0.24</td><td>0.24</td></tr><tr><td>Yb</td><td>11.4</td><td>4.39</td><td>1.90</td><td>1.83</td></tr><tr><td>Lu</td><td>1.67</td><td>0.66</td><td>0.29</td><td>0.28</td></tr><tr><td>Hf</td><td>22.6</td><td>4.15</td><td>2.20</td><td>2.16</td></tr><tr><td>Ta</td><td>3.77</td><td>0.23</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.17</td></tr><tr><td>W</td><td>0.58</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.37</td><td>0.39</td></tr><tr><td>Pb</td><td>20.9</td><td>5.12</td><td>2.92</td><td>5.78</td></tr><tr><td>Th</td><td>16.8</td><td>4.01</td><td>3.69</td><td>3.60</td></tr><tr><td>U</td><td>6.32</td><td>1.30</td><td>1.14</td><td>1.13</td></tr></tbody></table>

general shape of the diagram is similar, the absolute values do not match the results from the archaeological artefacts (Figure S8). There is apparently a large enough variability in trace elements and REE in the Lesser Antilles context, between islands, and between periods of volcanic activity to propose a potential provenance of the archaeological material from Martinique. The samples of rhyolites (ObsPR and VolcanTuf) exhibit typical compositions of differentiated volcanic rocks, such as a negative anomaly in Eu. However, it can be observed that these two rocks are not derived from the same type of magma. The Puerto Rico obsidian is low in alkaline earth elements and does not display anomalies in Nb and Ta, which may indicate a significant contribution from the oceanic crust in the formation of the magma during subduction (Briqueu et al., 1984; Jolly et al., 2008). The composition of the obsidian from the Volcan du Tuf corresponds, in turn, to the ultimate term of a tholeiitic arc series, as previously suggested by Gadalia et al. (1988).

## DISCUSSION

The results presented here introduce, for the first time, fragments of glassy material found in several archaeological sites from the Ceramic Age in the Caribbean islands. These 19 pieces were discovered within an area of only a 50 km radius. Our extensive review of the literature and survey of the Caribbean archaeologist community has confirmed that these are the only artefacts of this kind currently known. The thorough analysis of these objects, from both an archaeological and geological perspective, aims to document them and bring them to the attention of the community. It also sought to determine their origin, as this type of material is traditionally used in archaeology to study the mobility of materials, people, and exchange networks. Two different materials have been identified in this archaeological corpus: obsidian sensu stricto and vitreous andesite, a material hitherto unknown.

### A single obsidian artefact

Obsidian sensu stricto is a vitreous volcanic rock, oversaturated with silica and typically of rhyolitic composition (Tuffen et al., 2020). Although all the archaeological samples from this study were initially recognized as such on the field, their geochemical analysis using PIXE yielded unexpected results by unveiling the presence of a single rhyolitic sample within the
<table><caption>TABLE 2 (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th>LA-ICP-MS (µg/g)</th><th>ObsPR</th><th>VolcanTuf</th><th>MGCT02-6</th><th>BIS-03</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Ho</td><td>3.15</td><td>1.31</td><td>0.57</td><td>0.56</td></tr><tr><td>Er</td><td>9.57</td><td>3.86</td><td>1.65</td><td>1.60</td></tr><tr><td>Tm</td><td>1.51</td><td>0.59</td><td>0.24</td><td>0.24</td></tr><tr><td>Yb</td><td>11.4</td><td>4.39</td><td>1.90</td><td>1.83</td></tr><tr><td>Lu</td><td>1.67</td><td>0.66</td><td>0.29</td><td>0.28</td></tr><tr><td>Hf</td><td>22.6</td><td>4.15</td><td>2.20</td><td>2.16</td></tr><tr><td>Ta</td><td>3.77</td><td>0.23</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.17</td></tr><tr><td>W</td><td>0.58</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.37</td><td>0.39</td></tr><tr><td>Pb</td><td>20.9</td><td>5.12</td><td>2.92</td><td>5.78</td></tr><tr><td>Th</td><td>16.8</td><td>4.01</td><td>3.69</td><td>3.60</td></tr><tr><td>U</td><td>6.32</td><td>1.30</td><td>1.14</td><td>1.13</td></tr></tbody></table>

general shape of the diagram is similar, the absolute values do not match the results from the archaeological artefacts (Figure S8). There is apparently a large enough variability in trace elements and REE in the Lesser Antilles context, between islands, and between periods of volcanic activity to propose a potential provenance of the archaeological material from Martinique. The samples of rhyolites (ObsPR and VolcanTuf) exhibit typical compositions of differentiated volcanic rocks, such as a negative anomaly in Eu. However, it can be observed that these two rocks are not derived from the same type of magma. The Puerto Rico obsidian is low in alkaline earth elements and does not display anomalies in Nb and Ta, which may indicate a significant contribution from the oceanic crust in the formation of the magma during subduction (Briqueu et al., 1984; Jolly et al., 2008). The composition of the obsidian from the Volcan du Tuf corresponds, in turn, to the ultimate term of a tholeiitic arc series, as previously suggested by Gadalia et al. (1988).

## DISCUSSION

The results presented here introduce, for the first time, fragments of glassy material found in several archaeological sites from the Ceramic Age in the Caribbean islands. These 19 pieces were discovered within an area of only a 50 km radius. Our extensive review of the literature and survey of the Caribbean archaeologist community has confirmed that these are the only artefacts of this kind currently known. The thorough analysis of these objects, from both an archaeological and geological perspective, aims to document them and bring them to the attention of the community. It also sought to determine their origin, as this type of material is traditionally used in archaeology to study the mobility of materials, people, and exchange networks. Two different materials have been identified in this archaeological corpus: obsidian sensu stricto and vitreous andesite, a material hitherto unknown.

### A single obsidian artefact

Obsidian sensu stricto is a vitreous volcanic rock, oversaturated with silica and typically of rhyolitic composition (Tuffen et al., 2020). Although all the archaeological samples from this study were initially recognized as such on the field, their geochemical analysis using PIXE yielded unexpected results by unveiling the presence of a single rhyolitic sample within the
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 5** Comparison of both archaeological artefacts, the two obsidian samples analysed by LA-ICP-MS, with Belizites (from Rochette et al., 2021, Pb is below detection limit in this analysis) and some andesites from Northwest Martinique (from Labanieh, 2009, tm are lacking in these analysis). (a) N-MORB-normalised trace elements patterns. (b) Chondrite-normalised REE patterns.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 5 Comparison of both archaeological artefacts, the two obsidian samples analysed by LA-ICP-MS, with Belizites (from Rochette et al., 2021, Pb is below detection limit in this analysis) and some andesites from Northwest Martinique (from Labanieh, 2009, tm are lacking in these analysis). (a) N-MORB-normalised trace elements patterns. (b) Chondrite-normalised REE patterns.</figcaption></figure>
corpus. These findings were subsequently confirmed through the application of other analytical techniques. The RRC-01 sample sets itself apart from other glassy artefacts in our study due to its distinct geochemical composition and its dark grey coloration (Figures 3 and 4). The combination of its chemical profile and macroscopic features strongly suggests it originates from the Volcan du Tuf, the sole known rhyolitic volcano in Guadeloupe, situated at a mere distance of less than 2 km from the archaeological site where it was unearthed.

Despite its uniqueness in the archaeological record, this artefact provides valuable insights. It attests the choice of experimenting with local materials when the knappable lithic raw materials in Guadeloupe are scarce. The low knapping quality of this obsidian underscores the Early Ceramic Age inhabitants' ability to work with relatively poor quality raw materials. Most of the lithic tools produced in the Lesser Antilles are based on good quality flint from Antigua, jasper from several islands, and radiolarite from La Désirade (de Waal & Knippenberg, 2020; Knippenberg, 2007; Queffelec et al., 2023; van Gijn, 1993). Interestingly, they decided to produce some flaking products with a poor quality material, while they could have used this shiny and unique material to produce other kind of artefacts such as the diverse beads or pendants made using other hard and difficult to work stones such as rock crystal, amethyst or nephrite (Queffelec, 2022; Raymond et al., 2022), including some rare black ones (Brock et al., 2020; Queffelec et al., 2020). We think that this novelty could be related to the exploration of yet uncharted areas of the islands, as Early Ceramic occupations are predominantly coastal, at least as evidenced by the archaeological record (Stouvenot & Casagrande, 2017).

Although it is possible that this particular raw material may never be encountered again in any other archaeological site, our work has established a geochemical reference for both a plausible source of volcanic glass in the Caribbean islands and for the artefact. Furthermore, the search for the source of this artefact has allowed us to discover the existence of a likely obsidian deposit in Puerto Rico, analyse a sample from it, and thereby provide a reference for the composition of this obsidian. This may prove highly valuable for future provenance studies if similar materials are uncovered in the Caribbean again.

## Andesitic glass artefacts

The confirmed andesitic glass artefacts were recovered in a 50 km radius area, where the southern site is located on the southeast coast of Dominica and the northernmost site is located in the southern half of the island of Basse-Terre (Guadeloupe). If the artefact from Mill Reef (Antigua) was to be confirmed, it would significantly modify the geographical extent even if keeping it constrained to the central Lesser Antilles. Apart from two exceptions, they were all recovered in Early Ceramic context. Two samples originate from an archaeological project at the Caille à Bélasse site, on the Ilet de Petite Terre, which regrettably remains incomplete due to the passing of the excavator. This site, despite remaining unpublished, is considered to be Late Ceramic in age (Gagnepain, 2007).

The technological analysis conducted on the artefacts connects them all to a *chaîne opératoire* using bipolar percussion techniques. They do not differ in this way from the artefacts made from other raw materials in the sites where they were unearthed and in many sites from this period (Bérard, 2011; Rodriguez Ramos, 2001; Walker, 1979). It is therefore interesting to note that despite being a very unusual material, probably seen for the first time by the crafter, the method employed was exactly the same as with the jasper or the flint they usually knapped.

Given the poor quality of the material and the simplicity of the products, it seems unlikely that these rocks were part of an exchange network. They would therefore suggest that the same
corpus. These findings were subsequently confirmed through the application of other analytical techniques. The RRC-01 sample sets itself apart from other glassy artefacts in our study due to its distinct geochemical composition and its dark grey coloration (Figures 3 and 4). The combination of its chemical profile and macroscopic features strongly suggests it originates from the Volcan du Tuf, the sole known rhyolitic volcano in Guadeloupe, situated at a mere distance of less than 2 km from the archaeological site where it was unearthed.

Despite its uniqueness in the archaeological record, this artefact provides valuable insights. It attests the choice of experimenting with local materials when the knappable lithic raw materials in Guadeloupe are scarce. The low knapping quality of this obsidian underscores the Early Ceramic Age inhabitants' ability to work with relatively poor quality raw materials. Most of the lithic tools produced in the Lesser Antilles are based on good quality flint from Antigua, jasper from several islands, and radiolarite from La Désirade (de Waal & Knippenberg, 2020; Knippenberg, 2007; Queffelec et al., 2023; van Gijn, 1993). Interestingly, they decided to produce some flaking products with a poor quality material, while they could have used this shiny and unique material to produce other kind of artefacts such as the diverse beads or pendants made using other hard and difficult to work stones such as rock crystal, amethyst or nephrite (Queffelec, 2022; Raymond et al., 2022), including some rare black ones (Brock et al., 2020; Queffelec et al., 2020). We think that this novelty could be related to the exploration of yet uncharted areas of the islands, as Early Ceramic occupations are predominantly coastal, at least as evidenced by the archaeological record (Stouvenot & Casagrande, 2017).

Although it is possible that this particular raw material may never be encountered again in any other archaeological site, our work has established a geochemical reference for both a plausible source of volcanic glass in the Caribbean islands and for the artefact. Furthermore, the search for the source of this artefact has allowed us to discover the existence of a likely obsidian deposit in Puerto Rico, analyse a sample from it, and thereby provide a reference for the composition of this obsidian. This may prove highly valuable for future provenance studies if similar materials are uncovered in the Caribbean again.

## Andesitic glass artefacts

The confirmed andesitic glass artefacts were recovered in a 50 km radius area, where the southern site is located on the southeast coast of Dominica and the northernmost site is located in the southern half of the island of Basse-Terre (Guadeloupe). If the artefact from Mill Reef (Antigua) was to be confirmed, it would significantly modify the geographical extent even if keeping it constrained to the central Lesser Antilles. Apart from two exceptions, they were all recovered in Early Ceramic context. Two samples originate from an archaeological project at the Caille à Bélasse site, on the Ilet de Petite Terre, which regrettably remains incomplete due to the passing of the excavator. This site, despite remaining unpublished, is considered to be Late Ceramic in age (Gagnepain, 2007).

The technological analysis conducted on the artefacts connects them all to a *chaîne opératoire* using bipolar percussion techniques. They do not differ in this way from the artefacts made from other raw materials in the sites where they were unearthed and in many sites from this period (Bérard, 2011; Rodriguez Ramos, 2001; Walker, 1979). It is therefore interesting to note that despite being a very unusual material, probably seen for the first time by the crafter, the method employed was exactly the same as with the jasper or the flint they usually knapped.

Given the poor quality of the material and the simplicity of the products, it seems unlikely that these rocks were part of an exchange network. They would therefore suggest that the same
group was highly mobile within different islands of the Guadeloupe archipelago, Dominica, and perhaps Antigua.

Despite intensive literature research and discussion with volcanologists, including glass specialists, and archaeologists specialised in obsidian, no such andesitic glass has been ever identified, neither in the Caribbean nor anywhere else in the world. This vitreous andesite, and its origin in particular, is thus of tremendous interest, both for archaeologists and geologists. There are two concurrent hypotheses: It was produced by volcanoes but never identified or studied by geologists, or it originates from an impact and would therefore add to the list of meteoritic material used by people in the past, beside meteoritic iron in Arctic, Egypt, or Europe (Buchwald, 1992; Comelli et al., 2016; Hofmann et al., 2023; Rehren et al., 2013), and impactites, especially Libyan glass (e.g. Lull García, 2014). Surprisingly, despite tektites being found in many archaeological sites, including some where obsidian was used as raw material for knapping, no mention of modified tektites has been found (Cornec et al., 2013; Hildebrand et al., 1994; Marwick et al., 2021).

The only mentions of naturally occurring andesitic composition glass we could locate all pertained impactites and tektites. Several rocks of this type exhibit significant similarities with our vitreous andesites: automorphic feldspars, originating from the pre-existing target rock of the meteorite impact, embedded within the perlite-structured impact glass (French, 1998, p. 90), as well as closely related elemental compositions (Izett, 1991): The chemical composition of the rock mainly copy the chemical composition of the impacted rock, it can therefore be glass of a very diverse range of compositions. Recently, a new field of tektites has been identified in Belize, of which unmodified elements have been found in some Mayan archaeological sites (Rochette et al., 2021). These rocks display elemental compositions quite similar to the andesites we are studying and are notably located in the Caribbean region. Several lithic materials found in the Caribbean islands already pointed to Central America, such as part of the jadeite jade celts (Garcia-Casco et al., 2013; Knaf et al., 2021) but also, as a working hypothesis, the green lapidary material sudoite, which could come hypothetically from Costa Rica (Queffelec et al., 2021; Queffelec et al., 2023).

We focused our efforts on investigating various indicators that could help us identify an extraterrestrial origin for these artefacts or, conversely, confirm a volcanic origin whose exact source might potentially be traced. First, as mentioned earlier, the raw nodules were likely generally spherical, akin to many tektites. However, their dimensions would have approached approximately 5 cm in diameter, which is an exceptionally large size for tektites especially if they were far from the impact (Montanari & Koeberl, 2000, p. 58). Furthermore, the chemical composition of the artefacts, even though they could be derived from several blocks, is highly uniform. Moreover, no variation in the chemical composition of the glass is observed at the microscopic scale with the SEM-EDS (Table S2). This characteristic is more commonly shared by volcanic rocks than by impact glasses, whether tektites or impactites, which can exhibit significant heterogeneity (French, 1998). Although some tektites can be relatively homogeneous (Rochette et al., 2021), their level of homogeneity is not comparable with what we observe here (Table S5).

No positive anomalies in chromium, cobalt, or nickel were observed, which are typically indicators of contamination by meteoritic material, frequently found in impactites (Koeberl, 2014). The profiles of trace elements and rare earth elements are, in turn, consistent with arc volcanism, specifically aligning with recent volcanic activity in the central part of the Lesser Antilles (Figure 5) where the artefacts were recovered.

A volcanic origin therefore appears to be the most likely scenario. However, as of now, we have not been able to trace the exact source of this material. The distribution of artefacts suggests a probable origin in the southern part of the Guadeloupean archipelago. Yet, this may be influenced by the robust state of archaeology in Guadeloupe due to standard and developmentled archaeology, compared to neighbouring islands. In 2021, we conducted a survey in this
group was highly mobile within different islands of the Guadeloupe archipelago, Dominica, and perhaps Antigua.

Despite intensive literature research and discussion with volcanologists, including glass specialists, and archaeologists specialised in obsidian, no such andesitic glass has been ever identified, neither in the Caribbean nor anywhere else in the world. This vitreous andesite, and its origin in particular, is thus of tremendous interest, both for archaeologists and geologists. There are two concurrent hypotheses: It was produced by volcanoes but never identified or studied by geologists, or it originates from an impact and would therefore add to the list of meteoritic material used by people in the past, beside meteoritic iron in Arctic, Egypt, or Europe (Buchwald, 1992; Comelli et al., 2016; Hofmann et al., 2023; Rehren et al., 2013), and impactites, especially Libyan glass (e.g. Lull García, 2014). Surprisingly, despite tektites being found in many archaeological sites, including some where obsidian was used as raw material for knapping, no mention of modified tektites has been found (Cornec et al., 2013; Hildebrand et al., 1994; Marwick et al., 2021).

The only mentions of naturally occurring andesitic composition glass we could locate all pertained impactites and tektites. Several rocks of this type exhibit significant similarities with our vitreous andesites: automorphic feldspars, originating from the pre-existing target rock of the meteorite impact, embedded within the perlite-structured impact glass (French, 1998, p. 90), as well as closely related elemental compositions (Izett, 1991): The chemical composition of the rock mainly copy the chemical composition of the impacted rock, it can therefore be glass of a very diverse range of compositions. Recently, a new field of tektites has been identified in Belize, of which unmodified elements have been found in some Mayan archaeological sites (Rochette et al., 2021). These rocks display elemental compositions quite similar to the andesites we are studying and are notably located in the Caribbean region. Several lithic materials found in the Caribbean islands already pointed to Central America, such as part of the jadeite jade celts (Garcia-Casco et al., 2013; Knaf et al., 2021) but also, as a working hypothesis, the green lapidary material sudoite, which could come hypothetically from Costa Rica (Queffelec et al., 2021; Queffelec et al., 2023).

We focused our efforts on investigating various indicators that could help us identify an extraterrestrial origin for these artefacts or, conversely, confirm a volcanic origin whose exact source might potentially be traced. First, as mentioned earlier, the raw nodules were likely generally spherical, akin to many tektites. However, their dimensions would have approached approximately 5 cm in diameter, which is an exceptionally large size for tektites especially if they were far from the impact (Montanari & Koeberl, 2000, p. 58). Furthermore, the chemical composition of the artefacts, even though they could be derived from several blocks, is highly uniform. Moreover, no variation in the chemical composition of the glass is observed at the microscopic scale with the SEM-EDS (Table S2). This characteristic is more commonly shared by volcanic rocks than by impact glasses, whether tektites or impactites, which can exhibit significant heterogeneity (French, 1998). Although some tektites can be relatively homogeneous (Rochette et al., 2021), their level of homogeneity is not comparable with what we observe here (Table S5).

No positive anomalies in chromium, cobalt, or nickel were observed, which are typically indicators of contamination by meteoritic material, frequently found in impactites (Koeberl, 2014). The profiles of trace elements and rare earth elements are, in turn, consistent with arc volcanism, specifically aligning with recent volcanic activity in the central part of the Lesser Antilles (Figure 5) where the artefacts were recovered.

A volcanic origin therefore appears to be the most likely scenario. However, as of now, we have not been able to trace the exact source of this material. The distribution of artefacts suggests a probable origin in the southern part of the Guadeloupean archipelago. Yet, this may be influenced by the robust state of archaeology in Guadeloupe due to standard and developmentled archaeology, compared to neighbouring islands. In 2021, we conducted a survey in this
region, guided by a thorough review of geological literature, geological maps, and their descrip-
tions. However, we did not find any vitreous andesite blocks; only porphyritic andesites were
discovered, with a matrix that is largely vitrified but unsuitable for toolmaking. These rocks
were analysed, and their compositions do not fit with the same volcanic event (Table 1,
Figure 4). Comparisons with rocks from Guadeloupe or Dominica revealed pattern similarities
in the general, qualitative shape of trace and REE spectra, pointing to the possibility of finding
such patterns in andesites originating from subduction in the region. It is only with rocks from
northern Martinique that qualitative and quantitative very good fits were observed (Figures 1
and 5). This region is particularly challenging to access, mostly uninhabited, and no surveys
have been possible thus far. However, we plan to conduct explorations in the coming years to
search for a source of vitreous andesite.

Another hypothesis that can be considered is that the original deposit has now vanished or
is inaccessible. Indeed, erosion is quite pronounced in this tropical climate, where raining events
can be important and even catastrophic in case of hurricanes. The deposit of these highly dis-
tinctive vitreous andesites is, or was, almost certainly very limited and may have been eroded.
Additionally, the region experiences very active volcanic activity, and large portions of the land
available to Early Ceramic inhabitants have been covered by recent eruption products. The fact
that almost all artefacts were unearthed in sites dated to the Early Ceramic period may indicate
that the source disappeared around 500 CE. Recent volcanic eruptions on the islands of Guade-
loupe, Dominica, and Martinique are well known and may have covered the potential source,
as, for example, the well-known P2 Plinian eruption, dated to 280 AD, which entirely covered
archaeological sites in Martinique, like the site of Vivé, under a few cm of dilute pyroclastic
flow deposits overlain by 10 to 50 cm of pumice fallout deposits (Carazzo et al., 2019).

CONCLUSION

We present here the first identification of natural glass artefacts in the Ceramic Age context in
the Caribbean Islands. One among these samples is identified as obsidian sensu stricto, for
which the origin is the Volcan du Tuf, located near the archaeological site, on the Western part
of Basse-Terre island in Guadeloupe. This raw material, despite its bad quality for knapping,
seems to have been attractive for inhabitants of Guadeloupe during the Early Saladoid, with
which they produced at least a small flake by bipolar percussion, as they usually do with other
raw materials. Looking for the obsidian sources in the Caribbean islands led us to identify an
obsidian deposit in Puerto Rico, which does not appear to have been utilised by any population
because of its current absence in the archaeological series. The deposit is only known through
secondary sources but provides a massive and impurity-free material of very good quality for
crafting. We provide here a geochemical reference framework that will make it possible to proper-
ly identify this material if it is ever found in an archaeological site. We present a geochemical
reference framework here that will enable the proper identification of this material if it is ever
found at an archaeological site.

The other artefacts have been identified as vitreous andesites, which are highly atypical
rocks whose origin is a real challenge to identify. Although a formation related to a meteorite
impact has been extensively considered, our observations and analysis lead us to favour the
hypothesis of a volcanic origin. Geochemical similarities with volcanic deposits from Marti-
nique demonstrate that the volcanism from the central part of the Lesser Antilles could produce
andesitic lava of such a composition. However, despite geologists' work conducted in Guade-
loupe and Martinique for decades, and despite some field surveys in Guadeloupe, we have not
been able to locate the original deposit or even find a few secondary vitreous andesites. There-
fore, we seriously consider the possibility that the source, if it was located in Guadeloupe or
Martinique, could now be lost, perhaps covered by more recent volcanic deposits. Additional
region, guided by a thorough review of geological literature, geological maps, and their descrip-
tions. However, we did not find any vitreous andesite blocks; only porphyritic andesites were
discovered, with a matrix that is largely vitrified but unsuitable for toolmaking. These rocks
were analysed, and their compositions do not fit with the same volcanic event (Table 1,
Figure 4). Comparisons with rocks from Guadeloupe or Dominica revealed pattern similarities
in the general, qualitative shape of trace and REE spectra, pointing to the possibility of finding
such patterns in andesites originating from subduction in the region. It is only with rocks from
northern Martinique that qualitative and quantitative very good fits were observed (Figures 1
and 5). This region is particularly challenging to access, mostly uninhabited, and no surveys
have been possible thus far. However, we plan to conduct explorations in the coming years to
search for a source of vitreous andesite.

Another hypothesis that can be considered is that the original deposit has now vanished or
is inaccessible. Indeed, erosion is quite pronounced in this tropical climate, where raining events
can be important and even catastrophic in case of hurricanes. The deposit of these highly dis-
tinctive vitreous andesites is, or was, almost certainly very limited and may have been eroded.
Additionally, the region experiences very active volcanic activity, and large portions of the land
available to Early Ceramic inhabitants have been covered by recent eruption products. The fact
that almost all artefacts were unearthed in sites dated to the Early Ceramic period may indicate
that the source disappeared around 500 CE. Recent volcanic eruptions on the islands of Guade-
loupe, Dominica, and Martinique are well known and may have covered the potential source,
as, for example, the well-known P2 Plinian eruption, dated to 280 AD, which entirely covered
archaeological sites in Martinique, like the site of Vivé, under a few cm of dilute pyroclastic
flow deposits overlain by 10 to 50 cm of pumice fallout deposits (Carazzo et al., 2019).

CONCLUSION

We present here the first identification of natural glass artefacts in the Ceramic Age context in
the Caribbean Islands. One among these samples is identified as obsidian sensu stricto, for
which the origin is the Volcan du Tuf, located near the archaeological site, on the Western part
of Basse-Terre island in Guadeloupe. This raw material, despite its bad quality for knapping,
seems to have been attractive for inhabitants of Guadeloupe during the Early Saladoid, with
which they produced at least a small flake by bipolar percussion, as they usually do with other
raw materials. Looking for the obsidian sources in the Caribbean islands led us to identify an
obsidian deposit in Puerto Rico, which does not appear to have been utilised by any population
because of its current absence in the archaeological series. The deposit is only known through
secondary sources but provides a massive and impurity-free material of very good quality for
crafting. We provide here a geochemical reference framework that will make it possible to proper-
ly identify this material if it is ever found in an archaeological site. We present a geochemical
reference framework here that will enable the proper identification of this material if it is ever
found at an archaeological site.

The other artefacts have been identified as vitreous andesites, which are highly atypical
rocks whose origin is a real challenge to identify. Although a formation related to a meteorite
impact has been extensively considered, our observations and analysis lead us to favour the
hypothesis of a volcanic origin. Geochemical similarities with volcanic deposits from Marti-
nique demonstrate that the volcanism from the central part of the Lesser Antilles could produce
andesitic lava of such a composition. However, despite geologists' work conducted in Guade-
loupe and Martinique for decades, and despite some field surveys in Guadeloupe, we have not
been able to locate the original deposit or even find a few secondary vitreous andesites. There-
fore, we seriously consider the possibility that the source, if it was located in Guadeloupe or
Martinique, could now be lost, perhaps covered by more recent volcanic deposits. Additional
field surveys on the Northwestern coast of Martinique might be interesting to organise in the future. The thorough mineralogical and geochemical description of the artefacts will allow to easily connect any new discovery of artefacts or raw material to these samples.

Surveying the literature and the community of archaeologists in the Antilles, we confirmed that the use of volcanic glass is extremely rare and that, outside the Guadeloupean artefacts, currently only one artefact is confirmed in Dominica and one still needs to be confirmed in Antigua. This constrained geographical distribution allows us to make the hypothesis that the source material would be located in Guadeloupe or a neighbouring island. Although we have not yet identified the original source of these vitreous andesites, this study allows us to include this material in the limited list of materials discovered in Antillean archaeological sites for which provenance can be traced. The list is currently rather short and is composed of the Antiguan flint, the St. Martin calci-rudite and cherto-tuffite, and the numerous lapidary raw materials. By adding two new geochemically fingerprinted raw materials to this list, this study may facilitate future endeavours to determine the provenance of similar artefacts and help reconstruct the lithospaces of different sites (Delvigne et al., 2021). It is only by conducting and combining the analysis of the techno-economical pattern of different lithospaces of sub-contemporaneous sites that one can approach a dynamic vision of the structure and relations that existed during the Early Ceramic inhabitants of the Caribbean islands.

## AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

**Conceptualization:** Alain Queffelec, Arthur Leck, and Christian Stouvenot.
**Funding acquisition:** Alain Queffelec.
**Investigation:** Arthur Leck, Alain Queffelec, Bernard Gratuze, Céline Leandri, Isaac Shearn, Ludovic Bellot-Gurlet, Guillaume Carazzo, and Jessica Langlade.
**Methodology:** Arthur Leck, Alain Queffelec, and François-Xavier Le Bourdonnec.
**Formal analysis:** Arthur Leck.
**Project administration:** Alain Queffelec.
**Resources:** Alain Queffelec, Bernard Gratuze, Christian Stouvenot, François-Xavier Le Bourdonnec, Isaac Shearn, and Ludovic Bellot-Gurlet.
**Supervision:** Alain Queffelec.
**Visualisation:** Arthur Leck and Alain Queffelec.
**Writing—original draft:** Arthur Leck and Alain Queffelec.
**Writing—review and editing:** All authors.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank Nicolas Vanderesse for the microtomography acquisitions, Yannick Lefrais for his help with the SEM-EDS analyses and Jean-Alix Barrat who kindly proposed to make the EPMA analysis. We thank Jeff Walker for providing us with the sample of obsidian from Puerto Rico via Sebastiaan Knippenberg. We also want to thank Erwan Bourdon (BRGM) for providing help during the prospecting campaign, and Charles Le Losq and Pierre Rochette for discussion on volcanic glasses and tektites. Finally, we want to thank all the respondents to our survey about the presence of such material in the Caribbean archaeological record and the discussion about it, beyond those already mentioned: Benoît Bérard, Andrzej T. Antczak, Dominique Bonnissent, Arie Boomert, John Crock, Antonio Curet, Scott M. Fitzpatrick, Pierrick Fouéré, Jonathan A. Hanna, Jay Haviser, Queta Kaye, Reniel Rodriguez Ramos, Nathalie Sellier-Segard, Nathalie Serrand, Peter E. Siegel, and Martijn Van den Bel.

This work was conducted in the framework of the Projet Collectif de Recherche MAPLA (MAtières Premières Lithiques dans les Antilles), funded by the French Ministry of Culture (SRA Guadeloupe) and the Regional Council of Guadeloupe. This study also received financial support from the French government in the framework of the University of Bordeaux's IdEx 'Investments for the Future' programme/GPR 'Human Past'.

For the purpose of Open Access, a CC-BY public copyright licence has been applied by the authors to the present document and will be applied to all subsequent versions up to the Author Accepted Manuscript arising from this submission.
field surveys on the Northwestern coast of Martinique might be interesting to organise in the future. The thorough mineralogical and geochemical description of the artefacts will allow to easily connect any new discovery of artefacts or raw material to these samples.

Surveying the literature and the community of archaeologists in the Antilles, we confirmed that the use of volcanic glass is extremely rare and that, outside the Guadeloupean artefacts, currently only one artefact is confirmed in Dominica and one still needs to be confirmed in Antigua. This constrained geographical distribution allows us to make the hypothesis that the source material would be located in Guadeloupe or a neighbouring island. Although we have not yet identified the original source of these vitreous andesites, this study allows us to include this material in the limited list of materials discovered in Antillean archaeological sites for which provenance can be traced. The list is currently rather short and is composed of the Antiguan flint, the St. Martin calci-rudite and cherto-tuffite, and the numerous lapidary raw materials. By adding two new geochemically fingerprinted raw materials to this list, this study may facilitate future endeavours to determine the provenance of similar artefacts and help reconstruct the lithospaces of different sites (Delvigne et al., 2021). It is only by conducting and combining the analysis of the techno-economical pattern of different lithospaces of sub-contemporaneous sites that one can approach a dynamic vision of the structure and relations that existed during the Early Ceramic inhabitants of the Caribbean islands.

## AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

**Conceptualization:** Alain Queffelec, Arthur Leck, and Christian Stouvenot.
**Funding acquisition:** Alain Queffelec.
**Investigation:** Arthur Leck, Alain Queffelec, Bernard Gratuze, Céline Leandri, Isaac Shearn, Ludovic Bellot-Gurlet, Guillaume Carazzo, and Jessica Langlade.
**Methodology:** Arthur Leck, Alain Queffelec, and François-Xavier Le Bourdonnec.
**Formal analysis:** Arthur Leck.
**Project administration:** Alain Queffelec.
**Resources:** Alain Queffelec, Bernard Gratuze, Christian Stouvenot, François-Xavier Le Bourdonnec, Isaac Shearn, and Ludovic Bellot-Gurlet.
**Supervision:** Alain Queffelec.
**Visualisation:** Arthur Leck and Alain Queffelec.
**Writing—original draft:** Arthur Leck and Alain Queffelec.
**Writing—review and editing:** All authors.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank Nicolas Vanderesse for the microtomography acquisitions, Yannick Lefrais for his help with the SEM-EDS analyses and Jean-Alix Barrat who kindly proposed to make the EPMA analysis. We thank Jeff Walker for providing us with the sample of obsidian from Puerto Rico via Sebastiaan Knippenberg. We also want to thank Erwan Bourdon (BRGM) for providing help during the prospecting campaign, and Charles Le Losq and Pierre Rochette for discussion on volcanic glasses and tektites. Finally, we want to thank all the respondents to our survey about the presence of such material in the Caribbean archaeological record and the discussion about it, beyond those already mentioned: Benoît Bérard, Andrzej T. Antczak, Dominique Bonnissent, Arie Boomert, John Crock, Antonio Curet, Scott M. Fitzpatrick, Pierrick Fouéré, Jonathan A. Hanna, Jay Haviser, Queta Kaye, Reniel Rodriguez Ramos, Nathalie Sellier-Segard, Nathalie Serrand, Peter E. Siegel, and Martijn Van den Bel.

This work was conducted in the framework of the Projet Collectif de Recherche MAPLA (MAtières Premières Lithiques dans les Antilles), funded by the French Ministry of Culture (SRA Guadeloupe) and the Regional Council of Guadeloupe. This study also received financial support from the French government in the framework of the University of Bordeaux's IdEx 'Investments for the Future' programme/GPR 'Human Past'.

For the purpose of Open Access, a CC-BY public copyright licence has been applied by the authors to the present document and will be applied to all subsequent versions up to the Author Accepted Manuscript arising from this submission.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that supports the findings of this study are available in the supplementary material of this article

PEER REVIEW

The peer review history for this article is available at https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1111/arcm.12980.

ORCID

Arthur Leck https://orcid.org/0009-0004-8819-9970

Ludovic Bellot-Gurlet https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7995-6261

Guillaume Carazzo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0395-2595

François-Xavier Le Bourdonnec https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1051-5337

REFERENCES

Aitchison, J. (2003). *The statistical analysis of compositional data*. Blackburn Press.

Barrat, J.-A., Zanda, B., Moynier, F., Bollinger, C., Liorzou, C., & Bayon, G. (2012). Geochemistry of CI chondrites: Major and trace elements, and cu and Zn isotopes. *Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta*, *83*, 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gea.2011.12.011

Bellot-Gurlet, L., Poupeau, G., Dorighel, O., Calligaro, T., Dran, J.-C., & Salomon, J. (1999). A PIXE/fission-track dating approach to sourcing studies of obsidian artefacts in Colombia and Ecuador. *Journal of Archaeological Science*, *26*(8), 855–860. https://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.1999.0396

Bérard, B. (2004). *Les premières occupations agricoles de l'Arc Antillais, Migrations et insularité* (Vol. 1299). Paris mono-graph in American archaeology 15. Archaeopress. https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841716497

Bérard, B. (2011). L'utilisation de la percussion sur enclume par les premières populations agro-céramistes des Antilles. *PALEO: Revue d'Archéologie Préhistorique*, 2009-2010 (spécial), 221-230.

Bérard, B. (2013). The Saladoid. In W. F. Keegan, C. L. Hofman, & R. Rodríguez Ramos (Eds.), *The Oxford handbook of Caribbean archaeology* (pp. 184–197). Oxford University Press.

Bonnissent, D., & Chancerel, A. (2001). Ruelle des Roches caraïbes, Jude Plessis, Saint-Robert, Commune de Baillif. Rapport d'opération archéologique d'urgence AFAN, SRA Guadeloupe.

Briqueu, L., Bougault, H., & Joron, J. L. (1984). Quantification of Nb, Ta, Ti and V anomalies in magmas associated with subduction zones: Petrogenetic implications. *Earth and Planetary Science Letters*, *68*(2), 297–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/0012-821X(84)90161-4

Brock, F., Ostackkowicz, J., Collinson, M. E., Bull, I. D., Dyer, C., Lane, D. W., Domoney, K., & Uden, J. (2020). Dark materials: Pre-Columbian black lithic carvings from St Vincent and the wider Caribbean. *Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports*, *32*, 102393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102393

Buchwald, V. F. (1992). On the use of iron by the Eskimos in Greenland. *Materials Characterization*, *29*(2), 139–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/1044-5803(92)90112-U

Calligaro, T., Dran, J.-C., Moignard, B., Pichon, L., Salomon, J., & Walter, P. (2002). Ion beam analysis with external beams: Recent set-up improvements. *Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms*, *188*(1-4), 135–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-583X(01)01062-X

Cann, J. R., & Renfrew, C. (1964). *The characterization of obsidian and its application to the Mediterranean region* (Vol. 30) (pp. 111–133). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00015097

Carazzo, G., Tait, S., & Kaminski, E. (2019). Marginally stable recent Plinian eruptions of Mt. Pelée volcano (Lesser Antilles): the P2 AD 280 eruption. *Bulletin of Volcanology*, *81*(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-018-1265-6

Cody, A. K. (1993). Distribution of exotic stone artifacts through the Lesser Antilles: their implications for prehistoric interaction and exchange. In A. Cummins & P. King (Eds.), *Proceedings of the 14th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology* (pp. 204–226).

Colas, C. (2002). Le Tourlourous, Marie-Galante. Document final de Synthèse INRAP, SRA Guadeloupe.

Comas, M., & Thió-Henestrosa, S. (2011). CoDaPack 2.0: A stand-alone, multi-platform compositional software. In J. J. Egozcue, R. Tolosana-Delgado, & M. I. Ortego (Eds.), *Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on compositional data analysis* (pp. 1–10). International Center for Numerical Methods in Engineering (CIMNE).

Comelli, D., D'orazio, M., Folco, L., El-Halwagy, M., Frizzi, T., Alberti, R., Capogrosso, V., Elnaggar, A., Hassan, H., Nevin, A., Porcelli, F., Rashed, M. G., & Valentini, G. (2016). The meteoritic origin of Tutankhamun's iron dagger blade. *Meteoritics & Planetary Science*, *51*(7), 1301–1309. https://doi.org/10.1111/maps.12664
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that supports the findings of this study are available in the supplementary material of this article

PEER REVIEW

The peer review history for this article is available at https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1111/arcm.12980.

ORCID

Arthur Leck https://orcid.org/0009-0004-8819-9970

Ludovic Bellot-Gurlet https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7995-6261

Guillaume Carazzo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0395-2595

François-Xavier Le Bourdonnec https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1051-5337

REFERENCES

Aitchison, J. (2003). *The statistical analysis of compositional data*. Blackburn Press.

Barrat, J.-A., Zanda, B., Moynier, F., Bollinger, C., Liorzou, C., & Bayon, G. (2012). Geochemistry of CI chondrites: Major and trace elements, and cu and Zn isotopes. *Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta*, **83**, 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gea.2011.12.011

Bellot-Gurlet, L., Poupeau, G., Dorighel, O., Calligaro, T., Dran, J.-C., & Salomon, J. (1999). A PIXE/fission-track dating approach to sourcing studies of obsidian artefacts in Colombia and Ecuador. *Journal of Archaeological Science*, **26**(8), 855–860. https://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.1999.0396

Bérard, B. (2004). *Les premières occupations agricoles de l'Arc Antillais, Migrations et insularité* (Vol. 1299). Paris mono-graph in American archaeology 15. Archaeopress. https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841716497

Bérard, B. (2011). L'utilisation de la percussion sur enclume par les premières populations agro-céramistes des Antilles. *PALEO: Revue d'Archéologie Préhistorique*, 2009-2010 (spécial), 221-230.

Bérard, B. (2013). The Saladoid. In W. F. Keegan, C. L. Hofman, & R. Rodríguez Ramos (Eds.), *The Oxford handbook of Caribbean archaeology* (pp. 184–197). Oxford University Press.

Bonnissent, D., & Chancerel, A. (2001). Ruelle des Roches caraïbes, Jude Plessis, Saint-Robert, Commune de Baillif. Rapport d'opération archéologique d'urgence AFAN, SRA Guadeloupe.

Briqueu, L., Bougault, H., & Joron, J. L. (1984). Quantification of Nb, Ta, Ti and V anomalies in magmas associated with subduction zones: Petrogenetic implications. *Earth and Planetary Science Letters*, **68**(2), 297–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/0012-821X(84)90161-4

Brock, F., Ostackkowicz, J., Collinson, M. E., Bull, I. D., Dyer, C., Lane, D. W., Domoney, K., & Uden, J. (2020). Dark materials: Pre-Columbian black lithic carvings from St Vincent and the wider Caribbean. *Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports*, **32**, 102393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102393

Buchwald, V. F. (1992). On the use of iron by the Eskimos in Greenland. *Materials Characterization*, **29**(2), 139–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/1044-5803(92)90112-U

Calligaro, T., Dran, J.-C., Moignard, B., Pichon, L., Salomon, J., & Walter, P. (2002). Ion beam analysis with external beams: Recent set-up improvements. *Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms*, **188**(1-4), 135–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-583X(01)01062-X

Cann, J. R., & Renfrew, C. (1964). *The characterization of obsidian and its application to the Mediterranean region* (Vol. 30) (pp. 111–133). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00015097

Carazzo, G., Tait, S., & Kaminski, E. (2019). Marginally stable recent Plinian eruptions of Mt. Pelée volcano (Lesser Antilles): the P2 AD 280 eruption. *Bulletin of Volcanology*, **81**(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-018-1265-6

Cody, A. K. (1993). Distribution of exotic stone artifacts through the Lesser Antilles: their implications for prehistoric interaction and exchange. In A. Cummins & P. King (Eds.), *Proceedings of the 14th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology* (pp. 204–226).

Colas, C. (2002). Le Tourlourous, Marie-Galante. Document final de Synthèse INRAP, SRA Guadeloupe.

Comas, M., & Thió-Henestrosa, S. (2011). CoDaPack 2.0: A stand-alone, multi-platform compositional software. In J. J. Egozcue, R. Tolosana-Delgado, & M. I. Ortego (Eds.), *Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on compositional data analysis* (pp. 1–10). International Center for Numerical Methods in Engineering (CIMNE).

Comelli, D., D'orazio, M., Folco, L., El-Halwagy, M., Frizzi, T., Alberti, R., Capogrosso, V., Elnaggar, A., Hassan, H., Nevin, A., Porcelli, F., Rashed, M. G., & Valentini, G. (2016). The meteoritic origin of Tutankhamun's iron dagger blade. *Meteoritics & Planetary Science*, **51**(7), 1301–1309. https://doi.org/10.1111/maps.12664
Corsec, J. H., Corsec, L. H., & Povenmire, H. (2013). A layered tektite from the central American strewn field. In *44th Annual Lunar and Planetary Science Conference* (Vol. 1123).

Crock, J. G., & Bartone, R. N. (1998). Archaeology of Trants, Montserrat. Part 4. Flaked stone and stone bead industries. *Annals of Carnegie Museum Pittsburgh, 67*(3), 197–224. https://doi.org/10.5962/p.329340

Davis, D. D. (2002). Flaked stone artifacts from the Tutu site. In E. Righter (Ed.), *The tutu Archaeological Village site* (pp. 274–283). Routledge.

de Waal, M. S., & Knippenberg, S. (2020). On the reconstruction of prehistoric social territories: The La Désirade lithic workshops and the distribution of La Désirade chert (French West Indies). *Journal of Lithic Studies, 7*(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.2218/jls.3061

Delvigne, V., Lafarge, A., Fernandes, P., Pesesse, D., Angevin, R., Bindon, P., Langlais, M., Piboule, M., Queffelec, A., Tuffery, C., & Raynal, J. P. (2021). Quels territoires en Préhistoire? Une analyse par réseaux de lieux pour penser l'espace au Paléolithique supérieur. *Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française, 118*(S), 27–69.

Febles, J. (2004). *Informe de análisis tecnotipológico del material litico, sitio arqueológico Maruca, Barrios Canas, Ponce, Puerto Rico*. Consejo para la Protección del Patrimonio Arqueológico Terrestre.

Fedele, L., Cole, P. D., Scarpati, C., & Robertson, R. E. (2021). Petrological insights on the last 1000 years of explosive activity at La Soufrière volcano, St. Vincent (Lesser Antilles). *Lithos, 392*, 106150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lithos.2021.106150

Fouéré, P. (2006). Étude du mobilier lithique. In T. Romon (Ed.), *Gourbeyre « Bisdary » (Guadeloupe). Un site amérindien de piémont*. Service régional de l'Archéologie, DRAC Guadeloupe.

French, B. M. (1998). *Traces of catastrophe: A handbook of shock-metamorphic effects in terrestrial meteorite impact structures*. Lunar and Planetary Institute.

Gadalia, A., Gstalter, N., & Westercamp, D. (1988). La chaîne volcanique de Bouillante, Basse-Terre de Guadeloupe, (Petites Antilles): Identité pétrographique, volcanologique et géodynamique. *Géologie de la France, 2–3*, 101–130.

Gagnepain, J. (2007). Première approche du site de Caille-à-Bélasse. In *Campagne de 2006-2007. Ilets de Petite-Terre. Terre-de-Bas. Rapport d'opération de fouille archéologique*. Service régional de l'Archéologie, DRAC Guadeloupe.

Gale, A., Dalton, C. A., Langmuir, C. H., Su, Y., & Schilling, J.-G. (2013). The mean composition of ocean ridge basalts. *Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 14*(3), 489–518. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GC004334

Garcia-Casco, A., Knippenberg, S., Rodríguez Ramos, R., Harlow, G. E., Hofman, C. L., Pomo, J. C., & Blanco-Quintero, I. F. (2013). Pre-Columbian jadeitite artifacts from the Golden rock site, St. Eustatius, Lesser Antilles, with Special Reference to Jadeitite Artifacts from Elliot's, Antigua: Implications for Potential Source Regions and Long-Distance Exchange Networks in the Greater Caribbean. *Journal of Archaeological Science, 40*(8), 3153–3169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.03.025

Germa, A., Quidelleur, X., Lahitte, P., Labanieh, S., & Chauvel, C. (2011). The K-Ar Cassignol–Gillot technique applied to western Martinique lavas: A record of Lesser Antilles arc activity from 2Ma to Mount Pelée volcanism. *Quaternary Geochronology, 6*(3–4), 341–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quageo.2011.02.001

Glascock, M. D. (2002). Obsidian provenance research in the Americas. *Accounts of Chemical Research, 35*(8), 611–617. https://doi.org/10.1021/ar010041f

Glass, B., Burns, C., Lerner, D., & Sanfilippo, A. (1984). North American tektites and microtektites from Barbados, West Indies. *Meteoritics, 19*, 228.

Golitko, M., Meierhoff, J., Feinman, G. M., & Williams, P. R. (2012). Complexities of collapse: the evidence of Maya obsidian as revealed by social network graphical analysis. *Antiquity, 86*(332), 507–523. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00062906

Gratuze, B. (2016). Glass Characterization Using Laser Ablation-Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry Methods. In L. Dussubieux, M. Golitko, & B. Gratuze (Eds.), *Recent advances in laser ablation ICP-MS for archaeology* (pp. 179–196). Natural Science in Archaeology, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49894-1_12

Guen, L., de Kerneizon, M., Carron, J.-P., Maury, R., Bellon, H., & Dupuy, C. (1982). Les rhyolites à fayalite et ferroaugite de Sainte-Lucie (arc insulaire des Petites Antilles). *Bulletin de Mineralogie, 105*(2), 203–211. https://doi.org/10.3406/bulmi.1982.7606

Hildebrand, A. R., Moholy-Nagy, H., Koeberl, C., May, L., Senftle, F., Thorpe, A. N., Smith, P. E., & York, D. (1994). Tektites found in the ruins of the Maya city of Tikal, Guatemala. In *Abstracts of the 25th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference*, held in Houston, TX, 14-18 March 1994 (Vol. 25, p. 549).

Hofman, C. L. (2013). The Post-Saladoid in the Lesser Antilles (AD 600/800-1492). In W. F. Keegan, C. L. Hofman, & R. R. Ramos (Eds.), *The Oxford handbook of Caribbean archaeology* (pp. 205–220). Oxford University Press.

Hofmann, B. A., Schreyer, S. B., Biswas, S., Gerchow, L., Wiebe, D., Schumann, M., Lindemann, S., García, D. R., Lanari, P., & Gfeller, F. (2023). An arrowhead made of meteoritic iron from the late bronze age settlement of mörigen, Switzerland and its possible source. *Journal of Archaeological Science, 157*, 105827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2023.105827

Howe, T. M., Lindsay, J. M., & Shane, P. (2015). Evolution of young andesitic–dacitic magmatic systems beneath Dominica, Lesser Antilles. *Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 297*, 69–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2015.02.009
Corsec, J. H., Corsec, L. H., & Povenmire, H. (2013). A layered tektite from the central American strewn field. In *44th Annual Lunar and Planetary Science Conference* (Vol. 1123).

Crock, J. G., & Bartone, R. N. (1998). Archaeology of Trants, Montserrat. Part 4. Flaked stone and stone bead industries. *Annals of Carnegie Museum Pittsburgh*, 67(3), 197–224. https://doi.org/10.5962/p.329340

Davis, D. D. (2002). Flaked stone artifacts from the Tutu site. In E. Righter (Ed.), *The tutu Archaeological Village site* (pp. 274–283). Routledge.

de Waal, M. S., & Knippenberg, S. (2020). On the reconstruction of prehistoric social territories: The La Désirade lithic workshops and the distribution of La Désirade chert (French West Indies). *Journal of Lithic Studies*, 7(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.2218/jls.3061

Delvigne, V., Lafarge, A., Fernandes, P., Pesesse, D., Angevin, R., Bindon, P., Langlais, M., Piboule, M., Queffelec, A., Tuffery, C., & Raynal, J. P. (2021). Quels territoires en Préhistoire? Une analyse par réseaux de lieux pour penser l'espace au Paléolithique supérieur. *Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française*, 118(S), 27–69.

Febles, J. (2004). *Informe de análisis tecnotipológico del material litico, sitio arqueológico Maruca, Barrios Canas, Ponce, Puerto Rico. Consejo para la Protección del Patrimonio Arqueológico Terrestre.*

Fedele, L., Cole, P. D., Scarpati, C., & Robertson, R. E. (2021). Petrological insights on the last 1000 years of explosive activity at La Soufrière volcano, St. Vincent (Lesser Antilles). *Lithos*, 392, 106150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lithos.2021.106150

Fouéré, P. (2006). Étude du mobilier lithique. In T. Romon (Ed.), *Gourbeyre « Bisdary » (Guadeloupe). Un site amérindien de piémont*. Service régional de l'Archéologie, DRAC Guadeloupe.

French, B. M. (1998). *Traces of catastrophe: A handbook of shock-metamorphic effects in terrestrial meteorite impact structures*. Lunar and Planetary Institute.

Gadalia, A., Gstalter, N., & Westercamp, D. (1988). La chaîne volcanique de Bouillante, Basse-Terre de Guadeloupe, (Petites Antilles): Identité pétrographique, volcanologique et géodynamique. *Géologie de la France*, 2–3, 101–130.

Gagnepain, J. (2007). Première approche du site de Caille-à-Bélasse. In *Campagne de 2006-2007. Ilets de Petite-Terre. Terre-de-Bas. Rapport d'opération de fouille archéologique*. Service régional de l'Archéologie, DRAC Guadeloupe.

Gale, A., Dalton, C. A., Langmuir, C. H., Su, Y., & Schilling, J.-G. (2013). The mean composition of ocean ridge basalts. *Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems*, 14(3), 489–518. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GC004334

Garcia-Casco, A., Knippenberg, S., Rodríguez Ramos, R., Harlow, G. E., Hofman, C. L., Pomo, J. C., & Blanco-Quintero, I. F. (2013). Pre-Columbian jadeite artifacts from the Golden rock site, St. Eustatius, Lesser Antilles, with Special Reference to Jadeite Artifacts from Elliot's, Antigua: Implications for Potential Source Regions and Long-Distance Exchange Networks in the Greater Caribbean. *Journal of Archaeological Science*, 40(8), 3153–3169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.03.025

Germa, A., Quidelleur, X., Lahitte, P., Labanieh, S., & Chauvel, C. (2011). The K-Ar Cassignol–Gillot technique applied to western Martinique lavas: A record of Lesser Antilles arc activity from 2Ma to Mount Pelée volcanism. *Quaternary Geochronology*, 6(3–4), 341–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quageo.2011.02.001

Glascock, M. D. (2002). Obsidian provenance research in the Americas. *Accounts of Chemical Research*, 35(8), 611–617. https://doi.org/10.1021/ar010041f

Glass, B., Burns, C., Lerner, D., & Sanfilippo, A. (1984). North American tektites and microtektites from Barbados, West Indies. *Meteoritics*, 19, 228.

Golitko, M., Meierhoff, J., Feinman, G. M., & Williams, P. R. (2012). Complexities of collapse: the evidence of Maya obsidian as revealed by social network graphical analysis. *Antiquity*, 86(332), 507–523. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00062906

Gratuze, B. (2016). Glass Characterization Using Laser Ablation-Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry Methods. In L. Dussubieux, M. Golitko, & B. Gratuze (Eds.), *Recent advances in laser ablation ICP-MS for archaeology* (pp. 179–196). Natural Science in Archaeology, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49894-1_12

Guen, L., de Kerneizon, M., Carron, J.-P., Maury, R., Bellon, H., & Dupuy, C. (1982). Les rhyolites à fayalite et ferroaugite de Sainte-Lucie (arc insulaire des Petites Antilles). *Bulletin de Mineralogie*, 105(2), 203–211. https://doi.org/10.3406/bulmi.1982.7606

Hildebrand, A. R., Moholy-Nagy, H., Koeberl, C., May, L., Senftle, F., Thorpe, A. N., Smith, P. E., & York, D. (1994). Tektites found in the ruins of the Maya city of Tikal, Guatemala. In *Abstracts of the 25th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference*, held in Houston, TX, 14-18 March 1994 (Vol. 25, p. 549).

Hofman, C. L. (2013). The Post-Saladoid in the Lesser Antilles (AD 600/800-1492). In W. F. Keegan, C. L. Hofman, & R. R. Ramos (Eds.), *The Oxford handbook of Caribbean archaeology* (pp. 205–220). Oxford University Press.

Hofmann, B. A., Schreyer, S. B., Biswas, S., Gerchow, L., Wiebe, D., Schumann, M., Lindemann, S., García, D. R., Lanari, P., & Gfeller, F. (2023). An arrowhead made of meteoritic iron from the late bronze age settlement of mörigen, Switzerland and its possible source. *Journal of Archaeological Science*, 157, 105827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2023.105827

Howe, T. M., Lindsay, J. M., & Shane, P. (2015). Evolution of young andesitic–dacitic magmatic systems beneath Dominica, Lesser Antilles. *Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research*, 297, 69–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2015.02.009
Izett, G. A. (1991). Tektites in cretaceous-tertiary boundary rocks on Haiti and their bearing on the Alvarez impact extinction hypothesis. *Journal of Geophysical Research, Planets*, 96(E4), 20879–20905. https://doi.org/10.1029/91JE02249

Jéhanno, C., Boclet, D., Froget, L., Lambert, B., Robin, E., Rocchia, R., & Turpin, L. (1992). The cretaceous-tertiary boundary at Beloc, Haiti: No evidence for an impact in the Caribbean area. *Earth and Planetary Science Letters*, 109, 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/0012-821X(92)90086-B

Jolly, W. T., Lidiak, E. G., & Dickin, A. P. (2008). Bimodal volcanism in Northeast Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands (Greater Antilles Island arc): Genetic links with cretaceous subduction of the mid-Atlantic ridge Caribbean spur. *Lithos*, 103(3-4), 393–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lithos.2007.10.008

Keegan, W. F., Hofman, C. L., & Rodriguez Ramos, R. (2013). *The Oxford handbook of Caribbean archaeology*. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195392302.001.0001

Knaf, A. C. S., Habiba Shafie, T., Koornneef, J. M., Hertwig, A., Cárdenas-Párraga, J., García-Casco, A., Harlow, G. E., Schertl, H.-P., Maresch, W. V., López Belando, A. J., Hofman, C. L., Brandes, U., & Davies, G. R. (2021). Trace-elemental and multi-isotopic (Sr-Nd-Pb) discrimination of jade in the circum-Caribbean: Implications for pre-colonial inter-island exchange networks. *Journal of Archaeological Science*, 135, 105466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2021.105466

Knippenberg, S. (2007). *Stone artefact production and exchange among the Lesser Antilles*. Amsterdam University Press. https://doi.org/10.5117/9789087280086

Koeberl, C. (1998). Identification of meteoritic components in impactites. *Geological Society, London, Special Publications*, 140(1), 133–153. https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.1998.140.01.11

Koeberl, C. (2014). The Geochemistry and Cosmochemistry of Impacts. In H. D. Holland & K. K. Turekian (Eds.), *Treatise on geochemistry* (Second ed.) (pp. 73–118). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-095975-7.00130-3

Kring, D. A., & Boynton, W. V. (1992). Petrogenesis of an augite-bearing melt rock in the Chicxulub structure and its relationship to K/T impact spherules in Haiti. *Nature*, 358(6382), 141–144. https://doi.org/10.1038/358141a0

Labanieh, S. (2009). *Géochimie de l'île de la Martinique aux Petites Antilles*, PhD Thesis. Université Joseph Fourier (Grenoble; 1971–2015).

Lafuente, B., Downs, R. T., Yang, H., & Stone, N. (2016). The power of databases: the RRUFF project. In W. De Gruyter (Ed.), *Highlights in mineralogical crystallography* (pp. 1–30). T. Armbruster & R. M. Danisi. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110417104-003

Le Maitre, R. W., Streckeisen, A., Zanettin, B., Le Bas, M. J., Bonin, B., & Bateman, P. (2005). *Igneous rocks: a classification and glossary of terms: recommendations of the International Union of Geological Sciences Subcommission on the systematics of igneous rocks*. Cambridge University Press.

Leck, A. (2022). *Economie des matériaux lithiques en Corse pré-et protohistorique: dynamiques d’exploitations, circulation et diffusion de la rhyolite*, PhD Thesis. Université Bordeaux Montaigne.

Leck, A., Le Bourdonnec, F.-X., Gratuze, B., Dubernet, S., Ameziane-Federzoni, N., Bressy-Leandri, C., Chapoulie, R., Mazet, S., Bontempi, J.-M., & Marini, N. (2018). Provenance d'artefacts en rhyolite corse: évaluation des méthodes d'analyse géochimique. *Comptes Rendus Palevol*, 17(3), 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crpv.2017.10.003

Lull García, J. (2014). A Stone tool made with Libyan desert silica Glass from the great Sand Sea. In J. P. Montesino (Ed.), *Varia Cybeliana* (Vol. 1, pp. 7–10). Editions Cybèle.

Marwick, B., Son, P. T., Brewer, R., & Wang, L.-Y. (2021). Tektite geoarchaeology in mainland Southeast Asia. *SocArXiv*. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/93fpa

Mattioni, M. D. (1982). *Salvage excavations at the Fond-Brule site, Martinique: Final report*. Department of Anthropology, University of Manitoba.

Mills, B. J., Clark, J. J., Peeples, M. A., Haas, W. R. Jr., Roberts, J. M. Jr., Hill, J. B., Huntley, D. L., Borck, L., Breiger, R. L., & Clauset, A. (2013). Transformation of social networks in the late pre-Hispanic US southwest. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, 110(15), 5785–5790. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1219966110

Montanari, A., & Koeberl, C. (Eds.). (2000). Distal ejecta and tektites. In *Impact stratigraphy: The Italian record* (pp. 57–99, Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0010315

Murphy, A. R. (1999). *The prehistory of Antigua, Ceramic Age: Subsistence, settlement, culture and adaptation within an insular environment*. University of Calgary.

Nakagawa, S., Ivimey-Cook, E. R., Grainger, M. J., O'Dea, R. E., Burke, S., Drobniaki, S. M., Gould, E., Macartney, E. L., Martinig, A. R., Morrison, K., Paquet, M., Pick, J. L., Pottier, P., Ricolfi, L., Wilkinson, D. P., Willcox, A., Williams, C., Wilson, L. A. B., Windecker, S. M., ... Lagisz, M. (2023). Method reporting with initials for transparency (MeRIT) promotes more granularity and accountability for author contributions. *Nature Communications*, 14(1), 1788. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-37039-1

Osinski, G. R., & Pierazzo, E. (2013). *Impact cratering: Processes and products*. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118447307

Poupeau, G., Lugliè, C., D'Anna, A., Carter, T., Le Bourdonnec, F.-X., Bellot-Gurlet, L., & Bressy, C. (2010). Circulation et origine de l'obsidienne préhistorique en Méditerranée: un bilan de cinquante années de recherches. *Archéologie Des Rivages Méditerranéens*, 50, 183–191.
Izett, G. A. (1991). Tektites in cretaceous-tertiary boundary rocks on Haiti and their bearing on the Alvarez impact extinction hypothesis. *Journal of Geophysical Research, Planets*, 96(E4), 20879–20905. https://doi.org/10.1029/91JE02249

Jéhanno, C., Boclet, D., Froget, L., Lambert, B., Robin, E., Rocchia, R., & Turpin, L. (1992). The cretaceous-tertiary boundary at Beloc, Haiti: No evidence for an impact in the Caribbean area. *Earth and Planetary Science Letters*, 109, 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/0012-821X(92)90086-B

Jolly, W. T., Lidiak, E. G., & Dickin, A. P. (2008). Bimodal volcanism in Northeast Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands (Greater Antilles Island arc): Genetic links with cretaceous subduction of the mid-Atlantic ridge Caribbean spur. *Lithos*, 103(3-4), 393–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lithos.2007.10.008

Keegan, W. F., Hofman, C. L., & Rodriguez Ramos, R. (2013). *The Oxford handbook of Caribbean archaeology*. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195392302.001.0001

Knaf, A. C. S., Habiba Shafie, T., Koornneef, J. M., Hertwig, A., Cárdenas-Párraga, J., García-Casco, A., Harlow, G. E., Schertl, H.-P., Maresch, W. V., López Belando, A. J., Hofman, C. L., Brandes, U., & Davies, G. R. (2021). Trace-elemental and multi-isotopic (Sr-Nd-Pb) discrimination of jade in the circum-Caribbean: Implications for pre-colonial inter-island exchange networks. *Journal of Archaeological Science*, 135, 105466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2021.105466

Knippenberg, S. (2007). *Stone artefact production and exchange among the Lesser Antilles*. Amsterdam University Press. https://doi.org/10.5117/9789087280086

Koeberl, C. (1998). Identification of meteoritic components in impactites. *Geological Society, London, Special Publications*, 140(1), 133–153. https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.1998.140.01.11

Koeberl, C. (2014). The Geochemistry and Cosmochemistry of Impacts. In H. D. Holland & K. K. Turekian (Eds.), *Treatise on geochemistry* (Second ed.) (pp. 73–118). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-095975-7.00130-3

Kring, D. A., & Boynton, W. V. (1992). Petrogenesis of an augite-bearing melt rock in the Chicxulub structure and its relationship to K/T impact spherules in Haiti. *Nature*, 358(6382), 141–144. https://doi.org/10.1038/358141a0

Labanieh, S. (2009). *Géochimie de l'île de la Martinique aux Petites Antilles*, PhD Thesis. Université Joseph Fourier (Grenoble; 1971–2015).

Lafuente, B., Downs, R. T., Yang, H., & Stone, N. (2016). The power of databases: the RRUFF project. In W. De Gruyter (Ed.), *Highlights in mineralogical crystallography* (pp. 1–30). T. Armbruster & R. M. Danisi. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110417104-003

Le Maitre, R. W., Streckeisen, A., Zanettin, B., Le Bas, M. J., Bonin, B., & Bateman, P. (2005). *Igneous rocks: a classification and glossary of terms: recommendations of the International Union of Geological Sciences Subcommission on the systematics of igneous rocks*. Cambridge University Press.

Leck, A. (2022). *Economie des matériaux lithiques en Corse pré-et protohistorique: dynamiques d'exploitations, circulation et diffusion de la rhyolite*, PhD Thesis. Université Bordeaux Montaigne.

Leck, A., Le Bourdonnec, F.-X., Gratuze, B., Dubernet, S., Ameziane-Federzoni, N., Bressy-Leandri, C., Chapoulie, R., Mazet, S., Bontempi, J.-M., & Marini, N. (2018). Provenance d'artefacts en rhyolite corse: évaluation des méthodes d'analyse géochimique. *Comptes Rendus Palevol*, 17(3), 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crpv.2017.10.003

Lull García, J. (2014). A Stone tool made with Libyan desert silica Glass from the great Sand Sea. In J. P. Montesino (Ed.), *Varia Cybeliana* (Vol. 1, pp. 7–10). Editions Cybèle.

Marwick, B., Son, P. T., Brewer, R., & Wang, L.-Y. (2021). Tektite geoarchaeology in mainland Southeast Asia. *SocArXiv*. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/93fpa

Mattioni, M. D. (1982). *Salvage excavations at the Fond-Brule site, Martinique: Final report*. Department of Anthropology, University of Manitoba.

Mills, B. J., Clark, J. J., Peeples, M. A., Haas, W. R. Jr., Roberts, J. M. Jr., Hill, J. B., Huntley, D. L., Borck, L., Breiger, R. L., & Clauset, A. (2013). Transformation of social networks in the late pre-Hispanic US southwest. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, 110(15), 5785–5790. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1219966110

Montanari, A., & Koeberl, C. (Eds.). (2000). Distal ejecta and tektites. In *Impact stratigraphy: The Italian record* (pp. 57–99, Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0010315

Murphy, A. R. (1999). *The prehistory of Antigua, Ceramic Age: Subsistence, settlement, culture and adaptation within an insular environment*. University of Calgary.

Nakagawa, S., Ivimey-Cook, E. R., Grainger, M. J., O'Dea, R. E., Burke, S., Drobniaki, S. M., Gould, E., Macartney, E. L., Martinig, A. R., Morrison, K., Paquet, M., Pick, J. L., Pottier, P., Ricolfi, L., Wilkinson, D. P., Willcox, A., Williams, C., Wilson, L. A. B., Windecker, S. M., ... Lagisz, M. (2023). Method reporting with initials for transparency (MeRIT) promotes more granularity and accountability for author contributions. *Nature Communications*, 14(1), 1788. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-37039-1

Osinski, G. R., & Pierazzo, E. (2013). *Impact cratering: Processes and products*. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118447307

Poupeau, G., Lugliè, C., D'Anna, A., Carter, T., Le Bourdonnec, F.-X., Bellot-Gurlet, L., & Bressy, C. (2010). Circulation et origine de l'obsidienne préhistorique en Méditerranée: un bilan de cinquante années de recherches. *Archéologie Des Rivages Méditerranéens*, 50, 183–191.
Queffelec, A. (2022). *Parures amérindiennes en matériaux lithiques dans les Antilles à l'Âge Céramique: de la car-actérisation à la répartition spatiale et chronologique*, PhD Thesis. Université de Bordeaux.

Queffelec, A. (2023). Diversity and similarity in the Ceramic Age lapidary production in the Caribbean islands. *SocArXiv*. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/r9vmp

Queffelec, A., Bellot-Gurlet, L., Foy, E., Lefrais, Y., & Fritsch, E. (2021). First identification of sudoite in the Caribbean Ceramic Age lapidary craftsmanship. *Gems & Gemology*, 57(3), 206–226. https://doi.org/10.5741/GEMS.57.3.206

Queffelec, A., Delvigne, V., Leck, A., de Parthenay, M., Bellot-Gurlet, L., Leandri-Bressy, C., Shearn, I., & Stouvenot, C. (2023). Lithic raw materials provenance in the Caribbean islands: flint, jasper, obsidian and so on. *SocArXiv*. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/pqzux

Queffelec, A., Fouéré, P., Bellot-Gurlet, L., & Bérard, B. (2020). Stone ornaments from Guadeloupe and Martinique Early Ceramic period sites (200 BC–AD 400), detailed analysis and comparison with a Late Ceramic period site (AD 750–1000). *Journal of Caribbean Archaeology*, 20, 1–44. https://hal.science/hal-02916398v1/document

Raymond, M., Fouéré, P., Ledevin, R., Lefrais, Y., & Queffelec, A. (2022). Technological analysis and experimental reproduction of the techniques of perforation of quartz beads from the Ceramic period in the Antilles. *Peer Community Journal*, 2, e66. https://doi.org/10.24072/pcjournal.184

Rehren, T., Belgya, T., Jambon, A., Káli, G., Kasztovszky, Z., Kis, Z., Kovács, I., Maróti, B., Martinón-Torres, M., & Miniaci, G. (2013). 5,000 years old Egyptian iron beads made from hammered meteoritic iron. *Journal of Archaeological Science*, 40(12), 4785–4792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.06.002

Reid, B. A. (2018). *The archaeology of Caribbean and circum-Caribbean farmers (6000 BC-AD 1500)*. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351169202

Rochette, P., Beck, P., Bizzarro, M., Braucher, R., Cornec, J., Debaille, V., Devouard, B., Gattacceca, J., Jourdan, F., Moustard, F., Moynier, F., Nomade, S., & Reynard, B. (2021). Impact glasses from Belize represent tektites from the Pleistocene Pantasma impact crater in Nicaragua. *Communications Earth & Environment*, 2(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-021-00155-1

Rodríguez, M. (2001). Excavations at Maruca, a preceramic site in southern Puerto Rico. In J. H. Winter (Ed.), *Proceedings of the 17th congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology*. Rockville Center.

Rodríguez Ramos, R. (2001). Lithic reduction trajectories at La Hueca and Punta Candelero sites, Puerto Rico: A preliminary report. In *Proceedings of the 18th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology* (pp. 216–232).

Rodríguez Ramos, R. (2013). Isthmo-Antillean Engagements. In W. F. Keegan, C. L. Hofman, & R. R. Ramos (Eds.), *The Oxford handbook of Caribbean archaeology* (pp. 155–170). Oxford University Press.

Romon, T. (2004). *Bisdary (Gourbeyre, Guadeloupe). Diagnostic Archéologique. Rapport de diagnostic archéologique*. SRA Guadeloupe.

Romon, T., Bertran, P., Fouéré, P., & Hildebrand, M. (2006). Gourbeyre "Bisdary" (Guadeloupe). Un site amérindien de piémont. Rapport final de fouille. SRA Guadeloupe.

Rouse, I. (1992). *The Tainos: rise & decline of the people who greeted Columbus*. Yale University Press.

Sellier-Ségard, N. (2001). *Place Saint-François, Basse-Terre (Guadeloupe). Rapport de fouille archéologique*. INRAP.

Sellier-Ségard, N., & Casagrande, F. (2016). Les assemblages lithiques des occupations cedrosan-saladoïdes et troumassan-troumassoïdes. In N. Serrand (Ed.), *Stade José Bade: Les occupations cedrosan-saladoïde et troumassan-troumassoïde de Tourlourous* (Vol. 1) (pp. 237–274). SRA Guadeloupe.

Serrand, N. (2016). Stade José Bade: Les occupations cedrosan-saladoïde et troumassan-troumassoïde de Tourlourous. Rapport d'opération de fouille archéologique, SRA Guadeloupe.

Shackley, M. S. (1998). Current Issues and Future Directions in Archaeological Volcanic Glass Studies: An Introduction. In M. S. Shackley (Ed.), *Archaeological obsidian studies: Method and theory* (Vol. 3). Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-9276-8_1

Shearn, I. (2014). *Pre-Columbian regional community integration in Dominica*. University of Florida Gainesville.

Smith, A. L., Roobol, M. J., & Gunn, B. M. (1980). The Lesser Antilles—a discussion of the island arc magmatism. *Bulletin Volcanologique*, 43(2), 287–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02598033

Stouvenot, C., & Casagrande, F. (2017). Recherche des occupations précolombiennes dans les hauteurs de Capesterre-Belle-Eau (Guadeloupe): résultats préliminaires. In *Proceedings of the 26th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology*.

Tuffen, H., Flude, S., Berlo, K., Wadsworth, F., & Castro, J. (2020). Obsidian. In D. Alderton & S. A. Elias (Eds.), *Encyclopedia of geology* (2nd ed.) (pp. 196–208). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.12527-8

van Gijn, A. L. (1993). Flint exploitation on Long Island, Antigua, West-Indies. *Analecta Praehistoria Leidensia*, 26, 183–197.

Walker, J. B. (1979). Analysis and replication of lithic artifacts from the sugar factory pier site, St. Kitts. In S. M. Lewenstein (Ed.), *Proceedings of the 8th International Congress for the Study of Pre-Columbian cultures of the Lesser Antilles*, Anthropological Research Paper, No. 22 (pp. 69–79). Arizona State University.
Queffelec, A. (2022). *Parures amérindiennes en matériaux lithiques dans les Antilles à l'Âge Céramique: de la car-actérisation à la répartition spatiale et chronologique*, PhD Thesis. Université de Bordeaux.

Queffelec, A. (2023). Diversity and similarity in the Ceramic Age lapidary production in the Caribbean islands. *SocArXiv*. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/r9vmp

Queffelec, A., Bellot-Gurlet, L., Foy, E., Lefrais, Y., & Fritsch, E. (2021). First identification of sudoite in the Caribbean Ceramic Age lapidary craftsmanship. *Gems & Gemology*, 57(3), 206–226. https://doi.org/10.5741/GEMS.57.3.206

Queffelec, A., Delvigne, V., Leck, A., de Parthenay, M., Bellot-Gurlet, L., Leandri-Bressy, C., Shearn, I., & Stouvenot, C. (2023). Lithic raw materials provenance in the Caribbean islands: flint, jasper, obsidian and so on. *SocArXiv*. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/pqzux

Queffelec, A., Fouéré, P., Bellot-Gurlet, L., & Bérard, B. (2020). Stone ornaments from Guadeloupe and Martinique Early Ceramic period sites (200 BC–AD 400), detailed analysis and comparison with a Late Ceramic period site (AD 750–1000). *Journal of Caribbean Archaeology*, 20, 1–44. https://hal.science/hal-02916398v1/document

Raymond, M., Fouéré, P., Ledevin, R., Lefrais, Y., & Queffelec, A. (2022). Technological analysis and experimental reproduction of the techniques of perforation of quartz beads from the Ceramic period in the Antilles. *Peer Community Journal*, 2, e66. https://doi.org/10.24072/pcjournal.184

Rehren, T., Belgya, T., Jambon, A., Káli, G., Kasztovszky, Z., Kis, Z., Kovács, I., Maróti, B., Martinón-Torres, M., & Miniaci, G. (2013). 5,000 years old Egyptian iron beads made from hammered meteoritic iron. *Journal of Archaeological Science*, 40(12), 4785–4792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.06.002

Reid, B. A. (2018). *The archaeology of Caribbean and circum-Caribbean farmers (6000 BC-AD 1500)*. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351169202

Rochette, P., Beck, P., Bizzarro, M., Braucher, R., Cornec, J., Debaille, V., Devouard, B., Gattacceca, J., Jourdan, F., Moustard, F., Moynier, F., Nomade, S., & Reynard, B. (2021). Impact glasses from Belize represent tektites from the Pleistocene Pantasma impact crater in Nicaragua. *Communications Earth & Environment*, 2(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-021-00155-1

Rodríguez, M. (2001). Excavations at Maruca, a preceramic site in southern Puerto Rico. In J. H. Winter (Ed.), *Proceedings of the 17th congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology*. Rockville Center.

Rodríguez Ramos, R. (2001). Lithic reduction trajectories at La Hueca and Punta Candelero sites, Puerto Rico: A preliminary report. In *Proceedings of the 18th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology* (pp. 216–232).

Rodríguez Ramos, R. (2013). Isthmo-Antillean Engagements. In W. F. Keegan, C. L. Hofman, & R. R. Ramos (Eds.), *The Oxford handbook of Caribbean archaeology* (pp. 155–170). Oxford University Press.

Romon, T. (2004). *Bisdary (Gourbeyre, Guadeloupe). Diagnostic Archéologique. Rapport de diagnostic archéologique*. SRA Guadeloupe.

Romon, T., Bertran, P., Fouéré, P., & Hildebrand, M. (2006). Gourbeyre “Bisdary” (Guadeloupe). Un site amérindien de piémont. Rapport final de fouille. SRA Guadeloupe.

Rouse, I. (1992). *The Tainos: rise & decline of the people who greeted Columbus*. Yale University Press.

Sellier-Ségard, N. (2001). *Place Saint-François, Basse-Terre (Guadeloupe). Rapport de fouille archéologique*. INRAP.

Sellier-Ségard, N., & Casagrande, F. (2016). Les assemblages lithiques des occupations cedrosan-saladoïdes et troumassan-troumassoïdes. In N. Serrand (Ed.), *Stade José Bade: Les occupations cedrosan-saladoïde et troumassan-troumassoïde de Tourlourous* (Vol. 1) (pp. 237–274). SRA Guadeloupe.

Serrand, N. (2016). Stade José Bade: Les occupations cedrosan-saladoïde et troumassan-troumassoïde de Tourlourous. Rapport d'opération de fouille archéologique, SRA Guadeloupe.

Shackley, M. S. (1998). Current Issues and Future Directions in Archaeological Volcanic Glass Studies: An Introduction. In M. S. Shackley (Ed.), *Archaeological obsidian studies: Method and theory* (Vol. 3). Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-9276-8_1

Shearn, I. (2014). *Pre-Columbian regional community integration in Dominica*. University of Florida Gainesville.

Smith, A. L., Roobol, M. J., & Gunn, B. M. (1980). The Lesser Antilles—a discussion of the island arc magmatism. *Bulletin Volcanologique*, 43(2), 287–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02598033

Stouvenot, C., & Casagrande, F. (2017). Recherche des occupations précolombiennes dans les hauteurs de Capesterre-Belle-Eau (Guadeloupe): résultats préliminaires. In *Proceedings of the 26th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology*.

Tuffen, H., Flude, S., Berlo, K., Wadsworth, F., & Castro, J. (2020). Obsidian. In D. Alderton & S. A. Elias (Eds.), *Encyclopedia of geology* (2nd ed.) (pp. 196–208). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.12527-8

van Gijn, A. L. (1993). Flint exploitation on Long Island, Antigua, West-Indies. *Analecta Praehistoria Leidensia*, 26, 183–197.

Walker, J. B. (1979). Analysis and replication of lithic artifacts from the sugar factory pier site, St. Kitts. In S. M. Lewenstein (Ed.), *Proceedings of the 8th International Congress for the Study of Pre-Columbian cultures of the Lesser Antilles*, Anthropological Research Paper, No. 22 (pp. 69–79). Arizona State University.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section
at the end of this article.

**How to cite this article:** Leck, A., Bellot-Gurlet, L., Carazzo, G., Gratuze, B., Langlade, J., Le Bourdonnec, F.-X., Leandri, C., Shearn, I., Stouvenot, C., & Queffelec, A. (2024). Obsidian in the Caribbean islands? Mysterious Ceramic Age glass artefacts in the Lesser Antilles. *Archaeometry*, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12980
SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section
at the end of this article.

How to cite this article: Leck, A., Bellot-Gurlet, L., Carazzo, G., Gratuze, B., Langlade, J., Le Bourdonnec, F.-X., Leandri, C., Shearn, I., Stouvenot, C., & Queffelec, A. (2024). Obsidian in the Caribbean islands? Mysterious Ceramic Age glass artefacts in the Lesser Antilles. *Archaeometry*, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12980