Arianne Boileau M.A. Thesis 2013 Maya Exploitation of Animal

MAYA EXPLOITATION OF ANIMAL RESOURCES DURING THE MIDDLE
PRECLASSIC PERIOD: AN ARCHEOZOOLOGICAL ANALYSIS FROM PACBITUN,
BELIZE
A Thesis Submitted to the Committee of Graduate Studies
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts
in the Faculty of Arts and Science
TRENT UNIVERSITY
Peterborough, Ontario, Canada
(c) Copyright by Arianne Boileau 2013
Anthropology Graduate M.A. Program
January 2014
ABSTRACT
Maya Exploitation of Animal Resources during the Middle Preclassic Period:
An Archaeozoological Analysis from Pacbitun, Belize
Arianne Boileau
This study examines the foraging strategies of animal resource exploitation during
the Middle Preclassic period (900–300 BC) at the ancient Maya site of Pacbitun, Belize.
The faunal remains analyzed in this study were recovered from various domestic
structures associated with the production of shell artifacts. Detailed taphonomic analyses
have revealed that the Pacbitun faunal remains were particularly affected by weathering
and density-mediated attrition. White-tailed deer was the prey most frequently acquired
by the Middle Preclassic Maya of Pacbitun, followed by other lower-ranked artiodactyls.
A variety of less profitable prey were sometimes included in the diet breadth. Using the
central place forager prey choice model as a framework, the analysis of diet breadth,
habitat use, and carcass transport patterns suggests that most animal resources were
acquired from terrestrial habitats, at short distances from the site. Complete carcasses of
large game appear to have been frequently transported to the site, where they were
exploited for their meat and marrow. Comparisons with other Middle Preclassic faunal
assemblages indicate significant differences in terms of taxonomic composition, with an
emphasis on the procurement of fish and turtles. It is suggested that the Middle Preclassic
Maya adopted foraging strategies focusing on the exploitation of local habitats, with
occasional use of exotic resources.
Keywords: Archaeozoology, subsistence, foraging theory, animal resource exploitation,
taphonomy, ancient Maya, Middle Preclassic, Pacbitun, Belize.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The completion of this thesis would not have been possible without the support of
many individuals. First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisor Dr. Eugène Morin,
who showed support and endless patience every step of the way. His edits and advice
have helped me to become a better writer and researcher. I am deeply thankful for all the
time and effort he invested in teaching me and cannot thank him enough for the
opportunities he has granted me. I would also like to express my gratitude to Dr. Paul
Healy, who kindly shared his love of Maya archaeology with me. His help, advice, and
encouragements are deeply appreciated. I am indebted to Dr. Terry Powis for inviting me
to join the Pacbitun Regional Archaeological Project (PRAP) and allowing me to examine
the faunal material from Pacbitun. He certainly deserves special mention for answering an
immeasurable number of emails concerning the excavations at Pacbitun. I also wish to
thank Dr. Carolyn Freiwald who graciously accepted to serve as my external examiner.
Comments and suggestions provided by all the members of my committee contributed to
improve this thesis.
I would like to thank the Institute of Archaeology (IOA) in Belize, especially Drs.
Jaime Awe and John Morris, for granting permission to export the faunal material
analyzed in this study to Canada. My gratitude also goes to the staff of the Department of
Vertebrate Paleontology at the Royal Ontario Museum, particularly Dr. Kevin Seymour
and Brian Iwama, for their warm welcome and for providing access to the ROM
vertebrate comparative collections. Further thanks go to fellow Maya archaeozoologists,
Norbert Stanchly and Dr. Erin Thornton, who provided useful information on the
identification of vertebrate remains from tropical environments. I also greatly appreciated
iii
and learned much from my discussions with them. I extend my gratitude to Dr. Jocelyn
Williams for her assistance in the identification of human remains.
I am deeply grateful to Dr. Gyles Iannone for inviting me to participate in the
Social Archaeology Research Program (SARP) in Belize and for allowing me to collect
animal specimens that are now part of the archaeozoological reference collection at Trent
University. Gyles provided me with my first opportunity to excavate at a Maya site and
trusted me in the supervision of an excavation unit, which I am thankful for. This first trip
to Belize made me discover an incredible country filled with history and beautiful people.
I never looked back at my decision to study Maya archaeology from that moment.
This project would not have been possible without the financial support from a
number of sources. My research was funded by a Joseph-Armand Bombardier Canada
Graduate Scholarship from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council
(SSHRC) and a Fond de Recherche Société et Culture du Québec Master’s scholarship. I
also wish to acknowledge the financial support of Trent University which allowed me to
complete the present study.
Thanks also go to my fellow anthropology graduate students. In particular, I am
grateful to Shannen Stronge and Esther Beauregard for reading over and editing my
chapters. I also would like to thank all the people who, over the course of the past three
years, have become both friends and colleagues: Steven “Morgan” Moodie, Esther
Beauregard, Kendall Hills, Shannen Stronge, Jodi Schmidt, Kat Elaschuk, Amandah Van
Merlin, Dan Savage, Véronique Belisle, Hannah Schmidt, and Kristine Williams. Their
support, help, and humour have made my stay in Peterborough an unforgettable
experience! I also wish to thank them all for answering an endless flow of questions about
proper English grammar and syntax.
iv
Last, but not least, I would like to thank my family. Merci à vous tous pour votre
amour, vos encouragements et votre support, car sans eux, je n’aurais pu surmonter
toutes les épreuves qui ont entravé mon chemin. Maman et Papa, je vous remercie de
n’avoir jamais questionné mon désir de devenir archéologue et pour toujours m’avoir
poussée à réaliser mes rêves. Cela a fait toute la différence. Philippe, merci d’être le
frère dont j’ai besoin et de nourrir mes heures de travail de bonnes suggestions de
musique. Grand-maman, merci de toujours me poser les questions les plus pertinentes
concernant mes recherches et de m’avoir incluse dans tes prières.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract .............................................................................................................................. ii
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents ..............................................................................................................vi
List of Figures ....................................................................................................................ix
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... x
CHAPTER 1 : Introduction .............................................................................................. 1
1.1 Research objectives .................................................................................................... 2
1.2 The setting .................................................................................................................. 3
1.3 The Middle Preclassic period ..................................................................................... 5
1.4 Thesis overview ......................................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER 2 : Middle Preclassic Maya Diet ................................................................... 9
2.1 History of Maya archaeozoology ............................................................................... 9
2.2 Ancient Maya diet .................................................................................................... 11
2.2.1 Plant remains .................................................................................................... 11
2.2.2 Animal resources .............................................................................................. 14
2.2.3 Middle Preclassic use of animals ..................................................................... 22
2.2.4 Stable isotope analysis ...................................................................................... 27
2.3 Summary .................................................................................................................. 29
CHAPTER 3 : Site Description and Previous Research .............................................. 30
3.1 Geographical context ............................................................................................... 30
3.2 Archaeological investigations .................................................................................. 35
3.3 Site chronology ........................................................................................................ 38
3.4 Middle Preclassic investigations .............................................................................. 41
3.5 Artifactual assemblages from the Middle Preclassic period .................................... 46
3.6 Subsistence practices ............................................................................................... 48
3.7 The Middle Preclassic at Pacbitun: A summary ...................................................... 51
CHAPTER 4 : Foraging Theory ..................................................................................... 53
4.1 Theoretical approach ................................................................................................ 53
vi
4.1.1 Prey choice model ............................................................................................. 54
4.1.2 Patch choice models ......................................................................................... 55
4.1.3 Central place forager prey choice model ......................................................... 57
4.2 Archaeological applications of foraging theory ....................................................... 59
4.2.1 Use of foraging models in this study ................................................................. 59
4.2.2 Prey rankings .................................................................................................... 60
4.2.3 Abundance indices ............................................................................................ 64
4.3 Animal ecology and behavior .................................................................................. 65
CHAPTER 5 : Methodology ........................................................................................... 75
5.1 Definitions and identification procedures ................................................................ 75
5.2 Quantification methods ............................................................................................ 76
5.2.1 Strengths and weaknesses of NISP, MNE, and MNI ......................................... 78
5.2.2 Use of quantification methods in this study ...................................................... 81
5.3 Refitting ................................................................................................................... 82
5.4 Age and sex .............................................................................................................. 83
5.5 Taphonomic modifications ...................................................................................... 85
5.5.1 Fractures ........................................................................................................... 85
5.5.2 Butchery and tool use........................................................................................ 86
5.5.3 Carnivore ravaging ........................................................................................... 88
5.5.4 Fragmentation................................................................................................... 90
5.5.5 Burning ............................................................................................................. 91
5.5.6 Additional taphonomic agents .......................................................................... 92
5.6 Summary .................................................................................................................. 94
CHAPTER 6 : Sample Description and Taphonomy ................................................... 95
6.1 The Pacbitun faunal assemblages ............................................................................ 95
6.2 Taphonomy .............................................................................................................. 99
6.2.1 Testing the stratigraphic sequence ................................................................. 100
6.2.2 Recovery methods ........................................................................................... 102
6.2.3 Density-mediated attrition .............................................................................. 104
6.2.4 Bone burning ................................................................................................... 108
6.2.5 Post-depositional destruction ......................................................................... 109
6.2.6 Bone surface preservation .............................................................................. 111
6.2.7 Human and carnivore agents .......................................................................... 114
vii
6.2.8 Taphonomy of fish and birds........................................................................... 119
6.3 Summary ................................................................................................................ 121
CHAPTER 7 : Results ................................................................................................... 123
7.1 Taxonomic composition......................................................................................... 123
7.2 Skeletal part representation .................................................................................... 125
7.3 Mortality profiles ................................................................................................... 129
7.4 Scheduling of activities .......................................................................................... 133
7.5 Diet breadth ............................................................................................................ 133
7.6 Habitat use ............................................................................................................. 139
7.7 Transport selectivity............................................................................................... 142
7.8 Processing of skeletal parts .................................................................................... 147
7.9 Pacbitun foraging strategies: A discussion ............................................................ 149
7.10 Subsistence strategies in the southern Maya lowlands ........................................ 152
CHAPTER 8 : Conclusion............................................................................................. 160
8.1 Research summary ................................................................................................. 160
8.2 Limitations and significance .................................................................................. 162
8.3 Future Directions ................................................................................................... 163
Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 165
Appendix A ..................................................................................................................... 200
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Map of the Maya subarea including sites discussed in the present study. .........4
Figure 3.1 Map of the Belize Valley .................................................................................31
Figure 3.2 Location of Pacbitun in the Upper Belize Valley ............................................32
Figure 3.3 Map of the Pacbitun settlement survey............................................................34
Figure 3.4 Plan of the epicenter of Pacbitun. ....................................................................35
Figure 3.5 Core zone of Pacbitun......................................................................................36
Figure 3.6 Chronology and ceramic complexes of Pacbitun in comparison to those of
Barton Ramie, Xunantunich, and Cahal Pech. ...................................................................39
Figure 3.7 Plan of the Middle Preclassic sub-structures in Plaza B..................................43
Figure 3.8 Plan of the Middle Preclassic Sub-Structure A-1 in Plaza A. .........................45
Figure 4.1 Ranking of mammals at Pacbitun according to body mass .............................63
Figure 6.1 Fragment size distribution by screen size for all faunal specimens in the
Pacbitun Middle Preclassic assemblages. ........................................................................103
Figure 6.2 %NNISP of long bone portions of white-tailed deer versus bone density
values (g/cm3) ..................................................................................................................107
Figure 6.3 %MAU of long bone portions of white-tailed deer versus bone density values
(g/cm3)..............................................................................................................................107
Figure 6.4 Gnaw and cut marks on the distal end of a right white-tailed deer femur .....118
Figure 7.1 White-tailed deer body part representation in the Middle Preclassic
assemblages at Pacbitun ...................................................................................................126
Figure 7.2 Comparison of white-tailed deer element frequencies (%NNISP) in the
Pacbitun assemblages with the reindeer MUI, grease index, and UMI. ..........................145
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Plant remains recovered from Middle Preclassic deposits at southern lowland
Maya sites. .........................................................................................................................12
Table 2.2 List of identified taxa recovered from Middle Preclassic deposits at southern
lowland Maya sites (NISP counts). ....................................................................................23
Table 3.1 Possible source location for local and exotic raw materials found at Pacbitun.47
Table 3.2 Vertebrate and invertebrate remains identified by Stanchly (1999) .................49
Table 4.1 Data and references for body mass of mammalian taxa at Pacbitun. ................63
Table 5.1 Taxonomic groups based on body size. ............................................................76
Table 6.1 Number of specimens by primary and secondary contexts for the Middle
Preclassic assemblages. ......................................................................................................96
Table 6.2 Pre- and post-refit NISP counts by time period. ...............................................96
Table 6.3 Distribution of faunal remains by zoological class for the early and late Middle
Preclassic samples at Pacbitun. ..........................................................................................97
Table 6.4 Identified taxa by NISP and MNI for the early and late Middle Preclassic
samples at Pacbitun. ...........................................................................................................98
Table 6.5 Taxonomic representation in the Middle Preclassic samples by mesh size, in
percentages. ......................................................................................................................104
Table 6.6 Bone density values of Rangifer tarandus compared to %NNISP and %MAU
values for white-tailed deer long bone portions in the Middle Preclassic Pacbitun
assemblages. .....................................................................................................................106
Table 6.7 Degree of post-depositional completeness by time period..............................110
Table 6.8 NISP counts for green- and dry-bone fractures by time period. .....................111
Table 6.9 Overall surface state for the Middle Preclassic Pacbitun assemblages. ..........112
Table 6.10 Percentage of observable surface in the Middle Preclassic samples. ............113
Table 6.11 Frequencies of cutmarks on identified specimens and indeterminate long bone
shafts by overall surface state for the Middle Preclassic samples at Pacbitun. ...............114
Table 6.12 Frequencies of anthropogenic marks observed in the Middle Preclassic
Pacbitun assemblages. ......................................................................................................115
x
Table 6.13 Frequencies of carnivores marks observed in the Middle Preclassic Pacbitun
assemblages. .....................................................................................................................117
Table 6.14 Extent of carnivore gnawing on bone surfaces for the Middle Preclassic
samples at Pacbitun. .........................................................................................................118
Table 7.1 Skeletal part frequencies for white-tailed deer in the Middle Preclassic
assemblages from Pacbitun ..............................................................................................127
Table 7.2 Skeletal part frequencies (NISP) of armadillo, peccary, and red brocket deer for
the Middle Preclassic period at Pacbitun. ........................................................................128
Table 7.3 Number of specimens identified per category of epiphyseal fusion for whitetailed deer in the early and late Middle Preclassic samples at Pacbitun ..........................131
Table 7.4 Habitat fidelity values for the mammalian species identified in the Middle
Preclassic assemblages at Pacbitun ..................................................................................140
Table 7.5 Analysis of habitat fidelity for the Pacbitun assemblages, by time period .....140
Table 7.6 Spearman’s rank order correlations between skeletal part representation and the
MUI, grease index, and UMI. ..........................................................................................146
Table 7.7 Percentages of vertebrate taxa identified in Middle Preclassic assemblages at
Pacbitun, Tolok group at Cahal Pech, Colha and Bayak .................................................154
Table 7.8 Results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests for the Middle Preclassic
assemblages from the southern lowlands. ........................................................................156
Table 7.9 Abundances of marine fish at southern lowlands Maya sites during the Middle
Preclassic period, with average distances from the coast of the Caribbean Sea ..............158
xi
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
For decades, archaeological research on the ancient Maya focused almost
exclusively on documenting the ways of life of the Classic period (AD 300–900).
Although these efforts contributed significantly to our understanding of the Maya, little
was known about the early developments of this civilization during the Preclassic period
(2000 BC–AD 250). This situation was also partly attributable to the Mesoamerican
tradition of building new structures on top of older ones, which made it difficult for
archaeologists to access Preclassic cultural remains, as they were often buried under
meters of construction fill. However, in the past thirty years, more research projects have
focused on documenting the social, political, and economic systems of the Preclassic
Maya at sites such as Blackman Eddy (Garber et al. 2004a; Garber et al. 2004b), Cahal
Pech (Healy and Awe 1995b, 1996; Powis et al. 1999; Healy et al. 2004), Cuello
(Hammond 1991, 2005), Colha (Hester et al. 1982, 1994), and Cival (Estrada-Belli 2011).
Unfortunately, growing interest in the excavations of Preclassic structures did not
go in tandem with increased attention aimed at the recovery of faunal remains. As a
result, the strategies of animal resource exploitation of the Preclassic Maya remain poorly
documented. Several research projects have produced detailed analyses of animal
procurement strategies for sites located in northern Belize (e.g., Shaw 1991; Masson
2004b; Carr and Fradkin 2008), but information for inland sites located in the Belize
River Valley or the Peten region of Guatemala remains scarce. This problem is also
exacerbated by the small sample size of many faunal assemblages, which often precludes
detailed investigation of animal use during this early time period.
2
1.1 Research objectives
The goal of this study is to contribute to filling this gap in research by
investigating the strategies of animal resource exploitation adopted by the Preclassic
Maya in the southern lowlands. This issue is examined using faunal remains recovered
from Middle Preclassic (900–300 BC) deposits at Pacbitun, an ancient Maya site located
at the southern rim of the Belize River Valley and occupied from the Middle Preclassic to
Terminal Classic periods. Faunal remains recovered during the 1995 and 1996 field
seasons have previously been presented in a preliminary report by Norbert Stanchly
(1999). The present study includes the material from the 1997 and 2008–2011
excavations to provide a fuller archaeozoological analysis of the Middle Preclassic faunal
remains from Pacbitun. The objectives of this analysis are as follows:
1) To complete a taphonomic analysis of the faunal remains and evaluate the impact
of anthropogenic and natural agents on the assemblages;
2) To characterize the foraging strategies of the Maya of Pacbitun during the Middle
Preclassic period through an investigation of diet breadth, habitat use, transport
decisions, and skeletal part processing;
3) To consider how strategies of animal resource exploitation at Pacbitun contrast
with that of other Middle Preclassic sites in the southern Maya lowlands.
This study will examine the relationship that existed between the ancient Maya
and the animal populations of the Belize River Valley during the Middle Preclassic.
Additionally, this research will enhance our overall understanding of how the early Maya
of the southern lowlands interacted with their environment. Although this research relies
strictly on empirical faunal data to examine foraging strategies, the author would like to
3
remind that cultural beliefs about animals also play an important role in food choices and
overall animal use. However, these considerations are outside the scope of this study. It
should also be noted that the data presented in this study focus exclusively on the
southern lowlands. Although more attention has recently been directed at documenting
Middle Preclassic occupations in the northern lowlands (e.g., Rissolo et al. 2005; Stanton
and Ardren 2005; Anderson 2011), information on the exploitation of animals resources
in this region remains scanty. In fact, the only published faunal analysis of vertebrate
remains known to the author from this region is that of Dzibilchaltun by Wing (1980).
The sample for this site was considered too small (NISP = 53) to be included in this
study. The next sections of this chapter provide general information on the Maya subarea
and the cultural developments of the Middle Preclassic period.
1.2 The setting
The ancient Maya inhabited the southeastern portion of Mesoamerica for over two
millennia (2000 BC–AD 1500). During this period, the Maya subarea (Figure 1.1)
encompassed southeastern Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, and the western regions of
Honduras and El Salvador (Demarest 2004:11). The subarea is generally divided into
three loosely defined environmental regions: the highlands, northern lowlands, and
southern lowlands (Sharer 1994:20; Demarest 2004:121).
The Maya highlands are formed by the mountainous region which stretches from
the highlands of Chiapas, Mexico, to El Salvador. This region is characterized by valleys
and basins of rich and fertile soils which lie above 800 m in elevation (Sharer 1994:26–
32; Demarest 2004:121). The northern lowlands are formed by the northern section of the
Yucatan peninsula of Mexico and comprise the states of Campeche, Quintana Roo, and
4
Yucatan. The terrain is relatively flat, with the exception of the Puuc Hills. The region is
characterized by a dry environment; there is little rainfall (500–2000 mm) and surface
N
Figure 1.1 Map of the Maya subarea including sites discussed in the present study. Map
modified from Brown and Witschey (2008), retrieved from:
http://mayagis.smv.org/maps_of_the_maya_area.htm.
5
water is generally scarce, with the exception of natural sinkholes. As a result, scrub
vegetation prevails and soils are generally thin and show low fertility (Demarest
2004:120–127; McKillop 2004a:29–34).
The southern lowlands—the focus of this study—separate the highlands from the
northern lowlands and include the country of Belize, the Peten district of Guatemala,
parts of Chiapas and lowland Honduras (McKillop 2004a:29). This region presents a
more hilly terrain, with the Maya Mountains constituting the highest elevation on the
landscape. The southern lowlands receive abundant rainfall (2000–3000 mm) and, as a
result, are covered with lush rainforests. Large rivers and their tributaries also cover the
landscape. These would have provided access to potable water and may have constituted
important navigation routes in ancient times. Soils can be quite fertile in this region,
especially in floodplains (Sharer 1994:34; Demarest 2004:120–127; McKillop 2004a:29–
34).
1.3 The Middle Preclassic period
Despite its importance for understanding the origins of the Maya civilization, the
Preclassic period (2000 BC–AD 250) is poorly documented in comparison to the Classic
(AD 250–900) and Postclassic (AD 900–1525) periods (Powis 2005; Healy 2006).
Archaeological evidence from the Early Preclassic (2000–1000 BC) indicates that a
handful of farming villages were established in the southern lowlands at sites such as
Cahal Pech, Nakbe, Seibal, Cival, Tikal, and Blackman Eddy (Figure 1.1). The
architectural remains identified at these sites are modest (Estrada-Belli 2011). Domestic
pole-and-thatch structures were generally erected directly on, or slightly above, the
ground surface (Hansen 1998; Garber et al. 2004a; Healy et al. 2004). It is believed that
6
little social or economic differentiation existed within these communities, although larger
villages might have been headed by a chief (Garber et al. 2004a; Healy et al. 2004).
The farming village lifeway established during the Early Preclassic likely
continued during the Middle Preclassic period (1000–300 BC). This latter period,
however, was marked by the first indications of increased social and economic
complexity, even though these signs are subtle at most sites (Healy 2006). In fact, the
Middle Preclassic period may have coincided with a transition from a relatively
egalitarian to a ranked society (Healy 2006). Most scholars divide the Middle Preclassic
into two sub-periods: the early Middle Preclassic (1000–600 BC) and the late Middle
Preclassic (600–300 BC).
During the early Middle Preclassic, increasing complexity can be found in
architecture, as wooden structures were being built on top of platforms made of modest
stone walls and covered with plastered floors. These constructions were commonly
organized around an open plastered-surface patio. It is believed that these clusters of
structures functioned as residential groups, perhaps for an extended family (Hammond
and Gerhardt 1990). Examples of these structures were found at Blackman Eddy (Garber
et al. 2004a), Cahal Pech (Healy et al. 2004), Cuello (Hammond and Gerhardt 1990), and
Nakbe (Hansen 1998), among others. The emergence of ritual ideology is possibly
evidenced by the presence of dedication and termination caches in some of these
structures (Garber et al. 2004a; Estrada-Belli 2011). Increasingly elaborate architecture
also appears in the form of E-Groups at Seibal (Inomata et al. 2013), Tikal (LaPorte and
Fialko 1995), and Cival (Estrada-Belli 2011). Considered as the first form of public
architecture in the lowlands, the construction of these large structures demonstrates the
ability of an emerging elite to marshal increasing amounts of labor (Estrada-Belli 2011).
7
It is hypothesized that E-Groups may have been constructed as a way to legitimize and
express the political authority of new elite groups on the landscape (Doyle 2012).
Signs of social and economic complexity became more apparent during the late
Middle Preclassic, a period that witnessed the development of monumental public
architecture at several sites, including Cahal Pech (Healy et al. 2004), Itzan (Johnston
2006), and Cuello (Hammond 1991, 2005). Large blocks of cut stones were used for the
first time in the lowlands at Nakbe (Hansen 1998), whereas the first sculpted architectural
decoration appeared in the form of stucco masks at Blackman Eddy (Garber et al. 2004a).
These larger structures were some of the first occurrences of civic-ceremonial
architecture and possibly served as places for public ritual and performance (Healy 2006).
Trade networks within and outside the Maya subarea also intensified during the Middle
Preclassic period. Exotic goods, such as greenstone, obsidian, and marine shells, were
obtained from the Motagua Valley, Guatemalan highlands, and Caribbean coast (Garber
et al. 2004a; Healy et al. 2004; Hammond 2005; Healy 2006). The early occurrence and
diverse origins of these goods suggest the existence of extensive systems of long distance
trade and exchange by the beginning of the first millennia BC.
It should be noted that not all Middle Preclassic sites developed at the same rate.
Indeed, many of the cultural developments mentioned above for the early Middle
Preclassic only took place during the late Middle Preclassic or even the Late Preclassic
periods at a majority of sites (e.g., Buenavista del Cayo, Ball and Taschek 2004). Overall,
the religious, artistic, and architectural developments of the Middle Preclassic period
appear to have provided a strong foundation for the political and cultural changes
observed during the Late Preclassic (300 BC–AD 250). It is during this time period that
we see throughout the Maya lowlands the first recognizable depictions of Maya kings and
8
the establishment of hereditary dynasties that would characterize the Maya civilization for
centuries (Healy 2006; Estrada-Belli 2011).
1.4 Thesis overview
This thesis is organized in eight chapters covering different aspects of my
research. Chapter 2 offers a general overview of Maya subsistence strategies during the
Middle Preclassic period. Chapter 3 introduces the site of Pacbitun and discusses the
research conducted at the site. Chapter 4 reviews the foraging models used to interpret the
faunal remains and provides a summary of the ecology and behavior of the prevalent
animal species identified at the site. The methods used to quantify the faunal assemblages
and assess the integrity of the samples are presented in Chapter 5, whereas Chapter 6
describes the samples analyzed in this study and considers the taphonomic history of the
faunal remains. Chapter 7 presents the results of this study and discusses their
implications for our understanding of animal resource exploitation at Pacbitun during the
Middle Preclassic period. This chapter also considers how the faunal data align with
research conducted at other Middle Preclassic sites in the southern lowlands. Lastly,
Chapter 8 discusses the significance of the results and offers suggestions for future
research.
9
CHAPTER 2: MIDDLE PRECLASSIC MAYA DIET
This chapter provides a comprehensive account of previous research regarding
Maya subsistence during the early developments of this civilization. It begins with a
summary of Maya archaeozoology. The second half of this chapter presents the results of
botanical, faunal, and isotopic studies relevant to the Maya diet during the Middle
Preclassic period (1000–300 BC).
2.1 History of Maya archaeozoology
The first archaeozoological studies in the Maya area were performed in the 1930s,
when the Carnegie Institution of Washington and the Museum of Zoology of the
University of Michigan jointly funded archaeological and biological research in British
Honduras (modern-day Belize) and Guatemala (Chase et al. 2004; Emery 2004c, 2010).
Alongside archaeological fieldwork, the emphasis was put on collecting biological
specimens of vertebrate and invertebrate faunas of the Neotropics (Hubbs 1935; Murie
1935; Stuart 1935; van Tyne 1935; Goodrich and van der Schalie 1937) .
The importance of animal resources for the ancient Maya was first discussed in
excavation reports from the sites of Uaxactun (Ricketson 1937), Piedras Negras (Coe
1959), and Holmul (Merwin and Vaillant 1932). Early faunal studies were generally
carried out by zoologists who limited their analysis to the taxonomic identification of
specimens, producing species lists that were appended to site reports (Kidder et al.
1946:152–157; Moedano-Koer 1946; Woodbury and Trik 1954; Pina-Chan 1968).
Typically, only specimens recovered from special deposits and artifacts made of bone and
shell were analyzed. The results of the faunal studies were rarely integrated into
interpretative frameworks (Emery 2004c, 2010). Although a considerable amount of
10
research was devoted to studying Maya subsistence strategies in the 1950s and 1960s,
archaeozoological studies remained fairly limited in scope. Because it was largely
assumed that animal proteins did not play an important role in the Maya diet, the study of
animal resources was not considered an important avenue of research (Clutton-Brock and
Hammond 1994; Emery 2004c, 2010).
Under the influence of the “New Archaeology,” the analysis of faunal remains
was progressively integrated into discussions regarding the paleoenvironment and
subsistence of the ancient Maya (e.g., Savage 1971; Olsen 1972; Andrews et al. 1974;
Luther 1974; Wing 1975; Pohl 1976; Olsen 1978; Hamblin 1984). Simultaneously, Maya
archaeozoologists developed strategies to mitigate problems of sample recovery,
preservation, and quantification (Clutton-Brock and Hammond 1994; Emery 2004c). As a
result of these concerns, archaeologists began using finer mesh sieving (e.g., 1/8 and 1/16
inch mesh screen), which facilitated the recovery of fish and molluscs specimens from
archaeological contexts. This, in turn, stimulated research on the importance of marine
and riverine resources to the Maya diet (Moholy-Nagy 1963; Andrews 1969; Lange 1971;
Moholy-Nagy 1978; McKillop 1984; Hamblin 1985; McKillop 1985; Moholy-Nagy
1985; Healy et al. 1990).
Since the 1980s, archaeozoological studies form an integral component of most
Maya archaeological projects. In addition to the study of subsistence and dietary
adaptations to environmental changes (Carr 1985, 1986; Cliff and Crane 1989; Pohl 1990;
Wing and Scudder 1991; Powis et al. 1999; Shaw 1999; Teeter 2001; Carr and Fradkin
2008; Götz 2008; Emery 2010), several new themes have emerged, such as the
investigation of social structure and differential access to animal resources (Pohl 1994;
Emery 1999; Shaw 1999; Teeter 2001; Collins 2002; Emery 2003; Götz 2009). The use
11
of animals in rituals and feasting has become a popular topic of study (Pohl 1981, 1983;
Carr 1985; Pohl 1990; Masson 1999; Teeter 2001; Montero-Lopez 2009). Transport and
exchange of animal resources are also investigated (Carr 1996; Emery 1999; Masson and
Lope 2008; Thornton 2011), as well as the origins and process of animal domestication
and husbandry (Hamblin 1984; Pohl 1990; Clutton-Brock and Hammond 1994; Carr
1996; Masson and Lope 2008). Isotopic analyses of animal remains have recently become
an additional component of archaeozoological studies (Emery et al. 2000; White et al.
2001b; White 2004; Emery and Thornton 2008a; Repoussard 2009; Freiwald 2010;
Thornton 2011).
2.2 Ancient Maya diet
Information about the subsistence of the Maya during the Middle Preclassic period
(1000–300 BC) is quite limited. This partly results from research biases, as archaeological
projects in the study area have largely focused on the development of major centres
during the Classic period (AD 300–900) (Healy and Awe 1995a; Healy 1999a; Powis
2005; Healy 2006). Additionally, organic remains are often scarce, perhaps due to
unfavorable conditions of preservation. The following sections summarize our
understanding of the Maya diet during the Middle Preclassic period by considering
botanical, faunal, and isotopic data recovered from sites located in the southern lowlands.
2.2.1 Plant remains
Ethnohistorical accounts (e.g., Tozzer 1941) indicate that the Maya diet was
traditionally based on the exploitation of three cultigens: maize (Zea mays), beans
(Phaseolus vulgaris), and squash (Cucurbita spp.). Together, they formed the
Mesoamerican triumvirate (Turner and Miksicek 1984; Lentz 1999; Tykot 2002; Lentz et
12
al. 2005). Research conducted in the Maya subarea (Figure 1.1) suggests that maize and
squash were domesticated around 3500 BC and 1500 BC, respectively (Pohl et al. 1996).
The introduction of the common bean appears to date to the Middle Preclassic, although
its utilization may be older (Lentz 1999; Lentz et al. 2005). The recovery of beans from
the archaeological record is relatively sparse, possibly because they do not preserve well
in the humid tropics (Lentz 1999). All three taxa have been recovered in Middle
Preclassic deposits at southern lowland Maya sites (Table 2.1).
Table 2.1 Plant remains recovered from Middle Preclassic deposits at southern lowland
Maya sites.
Taxon
Triumvirate
Maize
Beans
Squash
Root crops
Manioc
Malanga
Other plants
Avocado
Bottle gourd
Cacao
Cashew
Chili peppers
Coyol palm
Fig
Guava
Hogplum
Kinep
Mamey
Nance
Ramón
Cahal
Pech
x
x
x
Pulltrouser
Swamp
Tikal
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Colha
Copan
Cuello
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Source: Cahal Pech (Lawlor et al. 1995; Powis et al. 1999; Wiesen and Lentz 1999; Lentz et al. 2005),
Colha (Turner and Miksicek 1984; Jones 1994), Copan (Turner and Miksicek 1984; Lentz 1991), Cuello
(Miksicek et al. 1981a; Miksicek 1991), Pulltrouser Swamp (Turner and Miksicek 1984; Pohl et al. 1996),
Tikal (Turner and Miksicek 1984).
13
In addition to the triumvirate, the Maya relied on tree cropping (Puleston 1982;
Turner and Miksicek 1984; Lentz 1991), as is attested by the recovery of
archaeobotanical remains of domesticated fruit trees, such as the avocado (Persea
americana), cashew (Anacardium occidentale), and cacao (Theobroma cacao) (Lentz
1999) (Table 2.1). A variety of fruits, including the fig (Ficus spp.), guava (Psidium
guajava), hogplum (Spondias mombin), kinep (Talisa oliviformis), mamey (Calocarpum
mammosum), and nance (Byrsonima crassifolia), as well as chili peppers (Capsicum
annuum), were likely exploited for food (Roys 1931:346–348; Turner and Miksicek 1984;
Miksicek 1991; Lentz 1999; Powis et al. 1999; Wiesen and Lentz 1999; Colunga-García
Marín and Zizumbo-Villarreal 2004; Lentz et al. 2005). These were likely cultivated in
orchards and gardens (Turner and Miksicek 1984; Lentz 1991, 1999) or gathered in the
forest (Lentz 1999).
Although Bronson (1966) has argued that root crops might have been important
staples in Maya agriculture, the degree to which they contributed to the Maya diet is still
debated (Lentz 1999). Sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas), yam bean (Pachyrhizus erosus),
malanga (Xanthosoma sp.), and manioc (Manihot esculenta) are frequently mentioned in
ethnohistoric records (e.g., Roys 1931:346; Tozzer 1941:196). However, they are rarely
recovered from archaeological sites, again likely due to poor preservation (Turner and
Miksicek 1984; Hather and Hammond 1994; Lentz 1999). Certain plants, such as the
coyol (Acrocomia aculeata), cohune (Attalea cohune), and ramón (Brosimum alicastrum),
were possibly consumed during times of famine (Tozzer 1941:200; Miksicek et al. 1981b;
Marcus 1982; Turner and Miksicek 1984; Lentz 1991; McKillop 1996; Lentz 1999;
Wiesen and Lentz 1999). In addition to being exploited for food, many of these plants
14
may have been used as medicine, animal fodder, and construction material (Roys 1931;
Tozzer 1941).
2.2.2 Animal resources
Animal species diversity in the Maya subarea is one of the richest in the world
(Emmons 1997; Emery 2010:45). Archaeological, ethnohistoric, and iconographic
evidence indicates that animals had both socioeconomic and symbolic importance for the
residents of this region from the Late Preclassic to Colonial periods (Tozzer 1941; Pohl
1983; Hamblin 1984; Emery 2010). However, during the Middle Preclassic, animals seem
to have been used primarily for food and utilitarian purposes (Willey 1978; Pohl 1990;
Shaw 1991; Wing and Scudder 1991; Stanchly 1995; Moholy-Nagy 1998; Powis et al.
1999; Harrigan 2004; Masson 2004a, 2004b; Carr and Fradkin 2008; Emery 2010). It is
probable that the Middle Preclassic Maya made use of animals for religious purposes, but
little archaeological data is currently available to support this idea. One of the only
examples come from Cahal Pech, where several hundred complete specimens of apple
snails were discovered in a cache (Stanchly 1995). At Blackman Eddy, a concentration of
faunal remains associated with multiple serving vessels was interpreted as the remnants of
a feasting event (Brown 2007). Therefore, in order to present a complete range of the
possible roles animals may have played in the Middle Preclassic society, this section
presents the main taxa exploited by the ancient Maya, including information on the use of
animals in rituals from later time periods.
15
Artiodactyls were among the most valuable animal resources used by the ancient
Maya. The white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)1, red brocket deer (Mazama
americana), collared peccary (Pecari tajacu), and white-lipped peccary (Tayassu pecari)
are the most common taxa recovered in Middle Preclassic deposits (Pohl 1990; Shaw
1991; Wing and Scudder 1991; Stanchly and Dale 1992; Stanchly 1995; Powis et al.
1999; Carr and Fradkin 2008; Emery 2010). They seem to have been a favoured source of
food and raw material (Tozzer 1941:204; Pohl 1990; Hopkins 1992; Carr 1996; Teeter
2001:215–217; Emery 2010). Specifically, the white-tailed deer is regarded as the main
animal staple in the Maya diet (Pohl 1990; Emery 2010). Commonly used in sacrifices
during the Classic and Postclassic periods, deer legs and heads, as well as peccary heads,
are depicted as offerings in the Maya codices2 (Tozzer and Allen 1910; Tozzer 1941:115,
163–165; Pohl 1983). Deer skulls were also recovered in ritual caches dating to the Late
Preclassic at Cuello (Wing and Scudder 1991). Ethnohistoric accounts suggest that the
Postclassic Maya managed deer and peccary herds (Tozzer 1941:127; Hamblin
1984:132–133; Donkin 1985; Carr 1996). It is believed that this activity involved feeding
the animals with significant quantities of maize (Emery et al. 2000; van der Merwe et al.
2000). However, stable isotope analyses of carbon and nitrogen on deer and peccary
bones do not support this hypothesis for the Middle Preclassic period, as both species
exhibit a diet composed predominantly of wild plants (Tykot et al. 1996; Emery et al.
2000; van der Merwe et al. 2000; White et al. 2001b).
1
Latest taxonomic nomenclature retrieved from the Integrated Taxonomic Information System
(www.itis.gov, accessed March 28, 2013).
2
The Maya codices are screen-fold books written by the ancient Maya during the Late Postclassic period
(AD 1250–1520). The books are made of bark paper on which glyphs and pictures were painted. They
record ritual and astronomical information (Vail and Aveni 2004).
16
Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) seem to have been the only domesticated animal
sued by the Maya during the Middle Preclassic, likely serving both as pets and hunting
companions (Tozzer 1941:203; Hamblin 1984; Pohl 1990; White et al. 2001b). Associated with death and the
journey to the underworld, dogs played a large role in Maya religion during the Classic
and Postclassic periods. For instance, they were frequently offered as sacrificial victims in
rites associated with annual renewal ceremonies (Tozzer and Allen 1910; Tozzer
1941:143; Pohl and Feldman 1982; Pohl 1983; Hamblin 1984:117–120; White et al.
2001b). Dog skulls and teeth were also recovered as offerings in burial contexts dating to
the Late Preclassic (Carr 1986:254; Valdez 1995). In a society where hunting was the
primary means of acquiring proteins and fats, domesticated dogs possibly constituted a
reliable source of food when other resources were scarce (Tozzer 1941:203; Pohl 1990;
Clutton-Brock and Hammond 1994; White et al. 2001b). Stable isotope analyses
conducted on dog remains recovered from middens dating to the Middle Preclassic period
showed large variations in results, suggesting that dogs were not fed a stable household
diet, but more likely scavenged, hunted, and foraged on their own (Tykot et al. 1996; van
der Merwe et al. 2000; White et al. 2001b). Dogs recovered from special deposits,
however, contrast with other dogs as their diet was rich in maize. It was suggested that
these animals may have been purposefully fattened for sacrificial purposes (Tykot et al.
1996; White et al. 2001b). Another canid, the gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), is
also present in the Maya subarea and might have been hunted for its pelt (Teeter 2001)
and for food (Hamblin 1984:151–152).
Some small game species also seem to have been economically important for the
Maya during the Middle Preclassic (Pohl 1990; Shaw 1991; Wing and Scudder 1991;
Stanchly and Dale 1992; Stanchly 1995; Powis et al. 1999; Masson 2004a; Carr and
17
Fradkin 2008; Emery 2010). The armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) was probably hunted
for its meat as well as for its carapace, which might have been used as a container or
instrument (Tozzer 1941:204; Hopkins 1992; Emery 2010). Rabbits, including the
cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) and forest rabbit (S. brasiliensis), may have been
exploited for their meat and pelt (Tozzer 1941:204; Hopkins 1992; Emery 2010). Two
large rodents, the agouti (Dasyprocta punctata) and paca (Cuniculus paca), were also
probably hunted for their fatty meat (Stuart 1964; Hopkins 1992; Emery 2010).
The use of other mammals as a source of food is speculative. Only identified at a
handful of Middle Preclassic sites (see Wing and Scudder 1991; Shaw 1999; Carr and
Fradkin 2008), it is uncertain if the pocket gopher (Orthogeomys hispidus) was
considered as a food source or if it is intrusive to the archaeological record (Hopkins
1992; Emery 2010). Other rodents, such as rats and mice, are more likely to have entered
archaeological deposits on their own, given that they often live in burrows (Pohl 1983;
Emery 2010). Pohl (1983), however, suggests that they might have held some symbolic
importance for the Maya because of their occasional occurrence in ceremonial deposits.
Ethnohistoric accounts indicate that the common opossum (Didelphis marsupialis) and
Virginia opossum (D. virginiana) were used as food sources (Hamblin 1984:154; Teeter
2001; Emery 2010). Similarly, Bishop de Landa reports that the Maya occasionally
hunted tapirs (Tozzer 1941:203). Procyonids, including raccoons (Procyon lotor),
kinkajous (Potos flavus) and coatis (Nasua narica), are frequent agricultural pests today
and, perhaps for this reason, were often used to depict human thieves and gluttons in the
Maya codices (Tozzer 1941:205; Emery 2010). Landa reports that coatis were raised by
Maya women as pets and were sometimes eaten (Tozzer 1941:204–205; Hamblin
18
1984:147–149). Although all these animals seem to have been exploited during the
Postclassic and Colonial periods, their use during the Middle Preclassic is unclear.
Felines, including the puma (Puma concolor), jaguarundi (Puma yagouaroundi),
margay (Leopardus wiedii), and ocelot (Leopardus pardalis), played an essential role in
Maya religion and were often sacrificed in ceremonies during the Classic and Postclassic
periods (Tozzer 1941:163; Hopkins 1992). The jaguar (Panthera onca), in particular, has
long been associated with sorcery and the supernatural underworld (Tozzer and Allen
1910:355–358; Pohl 1983; Hamblin 1984:164; Emery 2010). Jaguar skins and teeth were
important status markers during the Classic period. Priests and rulers appear to have worn
them as a sign of their divine power (Pohl 1983; Hopkins 1992; Emery 2010), whereas
lesser elites may have used ocelot and margay skins as a display of their status (Emery
2010). It is not known if felines were used in a similar fashion during the Middle
Preclassic period.
Galliforms, including the curassow (Crax rubra), crested guan (Penelope
purpurascens), and ocellated turkey (Meleagris ocellata), were probably the most
important birds used as food sources (Hamblin 1984; Emery 2010:91). Also possibly
hunted for meat were the ground-dwelling tinamous (Tinamidae), ducks and their
relatives (Anatidae), herons (Ardeidae), cranes (Gruidae), rails (Rallidae), pigeons and
doves (Columbidae) (Tozzer 1941; Shaw 1991:201–203). Although none of these birds,
with the exception of the wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), were domesticated at the
time of conquest, ethnohistoric sources suggest that birds were occasionally captured and
penned. The Maya may also have stolen eggs from nests in order to raise the chicks
(Tozzer 1941:202; Hamblin 1984:93–94). Many birds, the turkey above all, held special
symbolic importance for the Classic and Postclassic Maya. Parts from these birds were
19
repeatedly used as offerings or deposited in caches and burials (Tozzer and Allen
1910:325–327; Tozzer 1941; Pohl 1983; Hamblin 1984:95; Emery 2010), while colorful
feathers were used to decorate clothing, headdresses, and banners (Tozzer 1941:89;
Hamblin 1984:95; Emery 2010). Although they possibly represented a valuable source of
food, bird remains are usually rare at Maya sites, perhaps because their fragile bones do not
preserve well in tropical environments.
Disagreement generally surrounds the interpretation of amphibians recovered from
Maya sites. Although some pre-Hispanic groups, such as the Campa and Wayapi, seem to
have eaten frogs and toads, there is no solid archaeological or ethnohistoric evidence that
the Maya consumed amphibians (Hamblin 1984; Teeter 2001). Several authors have
suggested that these animals might have been associated with shamanistic rituals and that
a poison secreted by the marine toad (Rhinella marina) may have been used as a
hallucinogenic drug (Hamblin 1984:53–57; Emery 2010). Because of their rarity at
archaeological sites and their tendency to dig burrows, many of the amphibians recovered
from Maya sites are believed to be intrusive (Wing and Scudder 1991; Carr and Fradkin
2008; Emery 2010).
Many reptile taxa had both an economic and ceremonial role for the Classic and
Postclassic Maya. Crocodiles (Crocodylus sp.) were seen as lords of the underworld
(Tozzer and Allen 1910; Emery 2010). They were offered in sacrifices and are frequently
depicted in the Maya codices (Tozzer 1941; Pohl 1983:163; Thurston 2011). Snakes,
associated with water and fertility, held important ceremonial role and were often
depicted in scenes of blood sacrifice in Classic Maya art (Pohl 1983; Emery 2010).
Iguanas, either of the green (Iguana iguana) or black (Ctenosaura similis) variety, were
prized for food in Postclassic and historic times (Tozzer 1941:191; Stuart 1964; Hamblin
20
1984:68–69; Emery 2010). They are often represented in the codices as sacrificial
offerings (Tozzer and Allen 1910; Emery 2010:318). It is difficult to form conclusions
about the use of these reptiles during the Middle Preclassic because their remains are
seldom recovered in archaeological deposits from this time period.
Ethnohistoric accounts indicate that both freshwater and marine turtles were
valued for their meat and eggs, as well as their carapaces, which could be used as rattles,
drums, shields, and containers (Tozzer and Allen 1910; Tozzer 1941:114, 192; Stuart
1964; Emery 2010). Turtles represent one of the most abundant taxa in Middle Preclassic
assemblages and, therefore, it has been suggested that the Preclassic Maya subsisted
heavily on turtles (Shaw 1991; Stanchly 1995; Powis et al. 2002; Fradkin and Carr 2003).
Common species include the mud turtles (Kinosternon spp.), giant musk turtle
(Staurotypus triporcatus), common slider turtle (Trachemys scripta) and Central
American river turtle (Dermatemys mawii).
Fish probably constituted another source of proteins and fats for the Preclassic
Maya (Tozzer 1941:190–191; Hamblin 1984). Freshwater fish, such as the catfish
(Ictaluridae), mojarra (Cichlasoma spp.) and swamp-eel (Synbranchus marmoratus), were
possibly locally available at most Maya sites (Powis et al. 1999; Powis et al. 2002;
Fradkin and Carr 2003; Carr and Fradkin 2008; Emery 2010). During the Middle
Preclassic, marine fish, including the bonefish (Albula vulpes), parrotfish (Scaridae),
snapper (Lutjanidae) and jack (Carangidae), were sometimes imported to inland sites over
considerable distances (>100 km) (Powis et al. 1999; Powis et al. 2002). During the
Classic period, marine fish bones and stingray spines were used in ceremonies performed
by the elite, particularly for bloodletting rituals (Pohl 1983; Emery 2010).
21
Freshwater molluscs commonly found at archaeological sites included the
gastropods apple snail (Pomacea flagellata) and jute (Pachychilus spp.), as well as the
pearly mussel (Nephronaias spp.). Although they are occasionally eaten by the modern
Maya (Moholy-Nagy 1963, 1978; Healy et al. 1990), the frequency with which
freshwater molluscs were consumed by the ancient Maya is debated (Covich 1983;
Stanchly 1995; Solis 2011). Their low nutritional returns suggest that they served at best
as a supplementary source of food (Moholy-Nagy 1978; Powis 2004; Solis 2011). In
archaeological settings, freshwater shells are often fashioned into utilitarian and
ornamental artifacts (Moholy-Nagy 1963, 1978; Healy et al. 1990; Stanchly and Dale
1992; Harrigan 2004; Emery 2010). Frequently recovered in caches and burials from the
Late Preclassic onwards, they might have played an important role in ceremonies and
mythology (Moholy-Nagy 1963, 1978; Harrigan 2004).
Marine molluscs were considered symbols of death and rebirth and often used for
ceremonial and ornamental purposes from the Late Preclassic to Postclassic periods
(Moholy-Nagy 1963; Pohl 1983; Moholy-Nagy 1985; Hohmann 2002). During the
Classic period, the most highly valued ceremonial molluscs were the colorful spiny oyster
(Spondylus spp.), olive (Oliva spp.), conch shell (Strombus spp.) and marginella (Prunum
apicinum) which were often worked into jewelry and decorative objects (Tozzer 1941;
Moholy-Nagy 1985; Harrigan 2004; Emery 2010). During the Middle Preclassic, marine
shells were imported from the coast to inland sites for the manufacture of ornaments (Lee
and Awe 1995; Hohmann 2002). It is not clear if the animal was consumed in the process
(Powis et al. 1999).
22
2.2.3 Middle Preclassic use of animals
The dominant foraging strategy during the Middle Preclassic involved hunting,
fishing, and collecting animals procured in the immediate vicinity of the sites. Animal use
included the exploitation of terrestrial animals, particularly white-tailed deer, brocket
deer, armadillo, peccary, agouti, rabbit, and opossum (Pohl 1990; Shaw 1991; Wing and
Scudder 1991; Stanchly 1995; Moholy-Nagy 1998; Powis et al. 1999; Masson 2004a,
2004b; Carr and Fradkin 2008; Emery 2010) (Table 2.2). In northern Belize, the Middle
Preclassic Maya also seem to have relied on the exploitation of mud and musk turtles,
which they likely acquired in the wetland areas surrounding the sites (Wing and Scudder
1991; Fradkin and Carr 2003; Masson 2004a, 2004b; Carr and Fradkin 2008).
Archaeological evidence suggests that dogs were likely consumed as food (Pohl 1990;
Shaw 1991; Wing and Scudder 1991; Clutton-Brock and Hammond 1994; Masson
2004a). At Cuello, the average mortality age of dogs (around one year old) coupled with a
high frequency of spiral fractures on green bone and cutmarks support the theory of
regular consumption of dogs by the Preclassic Maya (Clutton-Brock and Hammond
1994).
The Preclassic Maya likely practiced a modified form of “garden hunting”
(Linares 1976), which involved the procurement of animals near milpas. Most of the
animals frequently identified in faunal assemblages are known to visit open clearings and
cultivated fields (Pohl 1990; Masson 2004a, 2004b; Carr and Fradkin 2008; Emery 2010).
The presence of the brocket deer, tapir, and paca—animals that thrive in undisturbed
dense forests—also indicates that hunting trips were occasionally taken to forested areas
(Pohl 1990; Shaw 1999; Masson 2004a; Carr and Fradkin 2008).
Table 2.2 List of identified taxa recovered from Middle Preclassic deposits at southern lowland Maya sites (NISP counts).
Scientific Name
MAMMALS
Didelphis spp.
Dasypus novemcinctus
Canidae
Canis lupus familiaris
Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Procyon lotor
Mustela frenata
Galictis sp.
Felidae
Tapirus bairdii
Artiodactyla
Cervidae
Odocoileus virginianus
Mazama americana
Tayassuidae
Pecari tajacu
Tayassu pecari
Rodentia
Dasyproctidae/Cuniculidae
Cuniculus paca
Dasyprocta punctata
Geomyidae
Orthogeomys hispidus
Sylvilagus spp.
BIRDS
Galliformes
Meleagris ocellata
Common Name
Opossum
Armadillo
Dog, fox, coyote
Domestic dog
Gray fox
Raccoon
Long-tailed weasel
Grison
Felines
Tapir
Cervids
White-tailed deer
Red brocket deer
Peccaries
Collared peccary
White-lipped peccary
Agouti and paca
Paca
Agouti
Pocket gophers
Hispid pocket gopher
Rabbits
Ocellated turkey
Northern Belize
Central Belize
Cuello Colha K’axob
Cahal Pech
69
1007
10
381
15
16
4
2
4
6
261
698
78
42
5
1
44
1
23
32
19
2
152
6
7
11
12
34
298
11
Petén
Altar de
Bayak Seibal
Sacrificios
26
4
17
2
4
9
2
1
1
1
27
68
2
1
4
17
1
1
5
31
2
5
10
1
1
13
28
3
6
3
1
1
59
2
3
2
5
2
15
2
7
2
1
1
13
1
2
23
Scientific Name
Other birds
Unidentified birds
AMPHIBIAN
Ranidae
Rhinophrynus dorsalis
Rhinella marina
REPTILES
Testudines
Dermatemys mawii
Emydidae
Trachemys scripta
Rhinoclemmys areolata
Kinosternidae
Claudius angustatus
Kinosternon spp.
Staurotypus triporcatus
Chelydra serpentina
Serpentes
Colubridae
Viperidae
Crotalinae
Iguanidae
Crocodylidae
FISH
Marine fish
Ariidae
Albula vulpes
Carangidae
Gerreidae
Gobiomorus dormitor
Lutjanidae
Common Name
Northern Belize
Central Belize
Cuello Colha K’axob
Cahal Pech
10
17
Frogs
Mexican burrowing toad
Marine toad
Turtles
Central American river turtle
Pond turtles
Terrapin/bokatora
Furrowed wood turtle
Mud and musk turtles
Narrow-bridged musk turtle
Mud turtles
Mexican giant musk turtle
Common snapping turtle
Snakes
Colubrids
Vipers
Rattle snakes
Iguanas
Crocodiles
Sea catfish
Bonefish
Jack
Marine mojarra
Bigmouth sleeper
Snappers
6
4
29
32
3
88
70
103
31
15
46
68
708
8
6
6
3
2
4
5
4
3
3
54
Petén
Altar de
Bayak Seibal
Sacrificios
39
2
1
12
160
63
5
1
13
10
1
2
16
4
1
8
16
2
3
2
1
1
2
182
4
6
2
3
4
1
2
41
1
24
Scientific Name
Common Name
Scaridae
Scarus spp.
Sparisoma spp.
Serranidae
Freshwater fish
Ictaluridae
Cichlidae
Cichlasoma spp.
Synbranchus marmoratus
Unidentified fish
MOLLUSCA
Freshwater shellfish
Pachychilus spp.
Pomacea flagellata
Psoronaias spp.
Nephronaias ortmanni
Marine shellfish
Strombidae
Strombus spp.
Prunum spp.
Oliva spp.
Dentalium spp.
Parrotfish
Parrotfish
Parrotfish
Grouper
Catfish
Cichlids
Cichlid (mojarras)
Swamp eel
Jute
Apple snail
River clam
Pearly mussel
Strombus
Queen conch
Marginella
Olive
Tusk shell
Northern Belize
Central Belize
Cuello Colha K’axob
Cahal Pech
6
1
18
1
1
13
37
19
30
532
3
9
4
1
Petén
Altar de
Bayak Seibal
Sacrificios
8
3
6
2
633
643
2076
80
–
–
–
–
418
3327
813
315
4085
–
–
–
–
1054
68
4
2
22
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
8
399
3
3
58
14
Source: Cuello (Miksicek 1991; Wing and Scudder 1991; Clutton-Brock and Hammond 1994; Carr and Fradkin 2008), Colha (Shaw 1999), K’axob (Harrigan
2004; Masson 2004a), Cahal Pech (Stanchly and Dale 1992; Stanchly 1995; Powis et al. 1999), Altar de Sacrificios (Pohl 1990), Bayak (Emery 2010), Seibal
(Feldman 1978; Pohl 1990).
– No data available.
25
26
Freshwater molluscs are not particularly abundant at Middle Preclassic sites, with
the exception of Cahal Pech. These molluscs might have served as a supplementary
source of food (Miksicek 1991; Stanchly 1995; Powis et al. 1999; Harrigan 2004),
although their importance to the Maya diet is difficult to assess because they were not
considered in the faunal analyses of Colha, Altar de Sacrificios, and Seibal. These
animals could also have been used in the production of shell ornaments (Wing and
Scudder 1991). Similarly, the interpretation of fish remains is limited by the difficulty of
identifying tropical fish taxa (Stanchly 1995; Powis et al. 1999). Among these, it should
be noted that freshwater fish (e.g., cichlids, catfish) could have been exploited within a
radius of 10 km at all sites (Shaw 1991; Wing and Scudder 1991; Masson 2004a; Emery
2010). The near absence of fish bones at Seibal and Altar is unexpected, because both
sites sit on the banks of the Pasión River. This pattern may result from the recovery
strategy adopted during the excavations, as sediments were not sieved at the site (Pohl
1990).
The minor representation of marine fish (e.g., bonefish, parrotfish, jack, and
snapper) suggests that animal products were sometimes procured from considerable
distance, but they do not seem to have been dietary staples at the sites (Shaw 1991; Wing
and Scudder 1991; Stanchly 1995; Fradkin and Carr 2003; Masson 2004a; Carr and
Fradkin 2008). The inhabitants of Cuello, Colha, and K’axob may have acquired fish
from Chetumal Bay (35 km to the north) or the Caribbean Sea (50 km to the east) (Wing
and Scudder 1991; Fradkin and Carr 2003; Masson 2004a; Carr and Fradkin 2008). The
presence of fish at the inland site of Cahal Pech indicates transport over a distance of at
least 100 km (Stanchly 1995; Powis et al. 1999; Powis et al. 2002). Fish may have been
27
smoked or salted for inland transport, or kept alive in containers filled with water
(Stanchly 1995; Powis et al. 1999; Powis et al. 2002).
Likewise, marine molluscs (e.g., olive, marginella, thorny oyster, and conch
shells) represent a very small component of the assemblages, with the exception of Cahal
Pech. It has been suggested that marine shells were acquired for the manufacture of
artifacts (Wing and Scudder 1991; Lee and Awe 1995; Stanchly 1995; Powis et al. 1999),
which might have involved consumption of the associated meat (van der Merwe et al.
2000). The presence of marine species at Middle Preclassic sites is frequently attributed
to the direct exploitation of the coastal environment or the existence of exchange
networks (Shaw 1991; Stanchly 1995; Powis et al. 1999; Powis et al. 2002). Animals
from remote habitats are nearly absent from the sites in the Petén region (Altar de
Sacrificios, Bayal, Seibal, and Tikal), with the exception of a stingray spine recovered
from a burial at Tikal (Moholy-Nagy 1998).
2.2.4 Stable isotope analysis
Animal and plant remains recovered from archaeological sites are useful for
determining the types of resources available to the ancient Maya. Stable isotope analysis
can add to these results by determining which foods were consumed and in what
proportions. More precisely, stable isotope analysis of human bones can help detecting
the consumption of maize (a C4 plant) in comparison to C3 plants (e.g., root crops, fruits,
nuts, legumes, and vegetables), as well as determining the main sources of proteins
(terrestrial versus aquatic resources) in the diet.
Stable isotope studies from Middle Preclassic sites suggest considerable dietary
heterogeneity between sites located in Belize versus the Petén region (White and
28
Schwarcz 1989; Tykot et al. 1996; White 1997; Wright 1997, 2006). Such variation has
been attributed to differences in local ecology and population density (van der Merwe et
al. 2000; Wright 2006:196). People at sites located in the Petén (i.e., Seibal and Altar de
Sacrificios) are believed to have relied heavily on maize and animals characterized by a
diet rich in C4 plants. These include domestic dogs and animals that may browse in
agricultural fields, such as deer and peccaries (Wright 1997, 2006). The high nitrogen
values observed in the analyses may be indicative of the consumption of large quantities
of terrestrial herbivores as well as freshwater fish (Wright 2006:192–196).
In comparison, the Preclassic Maya living in northern Belize apparently subsisted
on a broader diet, consuming a wider range of plant foods and animal resources (van der
Merwe et al. 2000; Wright 2006). Consistently more negative collagen values at Belizean
sites suggest a greater access to plants other than maize relative to the Petén region
(White and Schwarcz 1989; Henderson 1998; Coyston et al. 1999; Henderson 2003). The
range of carbon and nitrogen values may indicate that a variety of terrestrial animals, such
as deer, dog, and peccary, constituted the main protein sources, with the possible addition
of turtles (White and Schwarcz 1989; Tykot et al. 1996; Henderson 1998). The stable
isotope analyses reveal that marine and reef resources do not seem to have contributed
substantially to the diet in northern Belize. This result is not unexpected considering that
all three sites are located approximately 50 km inland (White and Schwarcz 1989;
Henderson 1998; van der Merwe et al. 2000; Young 2002; Hammond and Young 2003;
Henderson 2003). Small amounts of freshwater fish, however, were presumably
consumed at Cuello (Young 2002:117–118; Hammond and Young 2003) and Lamanai
(White and Schwarcz 1989).
29
Located only seven km from the Caribbean Sea, the residents of Altun Ha seem to
have relied heavily on the exploitation of the coastal environment. Stable isotope analyses
suggest that marine and reef resources likely constituted the main protein sources at the
site (White et al. 2001a). This interpretation is supported by the recovery of many
vertebrate and molluscan marine remains (Pendergast 1979:7–12). Maize is argued to
have formed the main dietary staple, with the addition of other wild and cultivated plants
(White et al. 2001a).
At Cahal Pech, in central Belize, the carbon and nitrogen isotopic values are
similar to those observed at inland sites in northern Belize. This further supports the
argument that maize represented a significant, but not dominant, component of the diet
during the Middle Preclassic (Powis et al. 1999). Combined carbon and nitrogen values
suggest that terrestrial herbivores were consumed as well as reef fish. This last result is
surprising because the frequent consumption of marine fish seems incompatible with the
location of the site (Powis et al. 1999).
2.3 Summary
Faunal, paleobotanical, and isotopic data recovered from sites in the southern
Maya lowlands points to a broad-based subsistence pattern during the Middle Preclassic
period. The ancient Maya were relying heavily on cultivated plants, such as maize,
squash, and beans, which they supplemented with an assortment of fruits, root crops, and
vegetables. They consumed wild game and domesticated animals, as well as invertebrates
and wild plants. The next chapter turns to a description of the research undertaken at
Pacbitun.
30
CHAPTER 3: SITE DESCRIPTION AND PREVIOUS RESEARCH
This chapter provides contextual information about the ancient Maya site of
Pacbitun. It begins with a description of the environmental setting and geographic
location of Pacbitun. Then, the various archaeological excavations carried out at the site
are described, followed by a presentation of the history of occupation of Pacbitun. The
chapter concludes with a description of the architectural remains and artifactual
assemblages dating from the Middle Preclassic period, and a discussion of local
subsistence practices.
3.1 Geographical context
Pacbitun is a medium-sized center located within the southern Maya lowlands, in
west-central Belize. It lies on the southern edge of the upper Belize River Valley, three
kilometers east of the modern village of San Antonio (Figure 3.1). The site was occupied
between 900 BC and AD 900 and is one of many centers that flourished during the
Classic period (AD 300–900) in the Belize River Valley (Healy et al. 2004b; Healy et al.
2007).
Pacbitun’s location on the southern rim of the Belize River Valley, at the junction
of two ecozones, namely the lowland tropical rainforest and the upland pine ridge, made
it unique from other sites in the area. It has been suggested that this location was chosen
by the early Maya to take advantage of the locally contrasted microenvironments and
their diverse resources (Graham 1987; Campbell-Trithart 1990; Healy 1990a). The
lowland tropical rainforest borders Pacbitun to the west, north, and east. This ecozone is
31
Figure 3.1 Map of the Belize Valley (modified from Chase and Garber 2004:2).
characterized by a dense tropical broadleaf forest which provides a habitat for numerous
animals (e.g., agouti, coati, white-lipped peccary, curassow, and red brocket deer)
(Schlesinger 2001). Around Pacbitun, fertile soils are found in natural catchment basins
and depressions created by the hilly terrain (Wright et al. 1959:190–191; Healy 1990a;
Sunahara 1995; Healy et al. 2007). Further south, the tropical rainforest gives way to the
Mountain Pine Ridge (Figure 3.2), an ecozone that is sparsely covered with highland oak
and pine. The lack of cultivable lands in this region has limited permanent habitation by
the ancient Maya, although they likely exploited other resources, such as granite, slate,
and pinewood (Wright et al. 1959:171–175; Graham 1987; Healy 1990a).
32
Figure 3.2 Location of Pacbitun in the Upper Belize Valley (Hohmann and Powis
1999:2).
The Pacbitun Maya also had access to the Belize River and its two principal
tributaries, the Mopan (Western Branch) and Macal (Eastern Branch) Rivers. In addition,
multiple secondary and tertiary streams are found within kilometers of the site, such as
Barton Creek, Slate Creek, Tutu Creek, and Privassion Creek (Figure 3.2) (CampbellTrithart 1990; Hohmann and Powis 1999). This river system provided the ancient Maya
with continuous access to aquatic resources, such as fish, molluscs, waterfowl, iguanas,
and turtles (Hohmann 2002:61), and facilitated the transportation of goods from the
Caribbean Sea to the interior of the Maya subarea (Willey et al. 1965; Chase and Garber
2004). Settlement surveys at Pacbitun also revealed the existence of permanent water
springs and a major reservoir near the site (Healy et al. 2007).
33
Pacbitun is located within the tierra caliente (“hot land”) zone of the tropics (West
and Augelli:46). In this tropical to sub-tropical climate, temperatures are nearly constant
throughout the year, ranging between 25–30°C (Wright et al. 1959; West and Augelli
1966). The climate is also characterized by distinct dry and wet seasons. In the San
Antonio sub-region where the site of Pacbitun is located, the dry season lasts from
January to April, whereas the wet season occurs between May and December. This subregion receives about 125–175 cm of rainfall per year (Wright et al. 1959). Palaeoclimate
records from the lakes of Punta Laguna (Curtis et al. 1996) and Chichancanab (Hoddell et
al. 1995), in northern Yucatan Peninsula, suggest that the climate during the Middle
Preclassic was slightly wetter than today.
The central precinct of Pacbitun lies 240 meters above sea level and sits atop a
limestone plateau that is oriented east-west. This elevated position in the landscape
provided a peripheral view of the hilly terrain surrounding the site, which can be divided
into three zones: the epicenter, the core zone, and the periphery (Figure 3.3). Research
suggests that the epicenter (0.5 km2) formed the religious and political heart of Pacbitun
during the 2000 years of occupation of the site (Healy et al. 2007:17–18). The current
configuration of this zone consists of 40 masonry structures, including temple-pyramids,
palace-like range structures, one ball court, two causeways, and 20 whole and partial
stelae and altars (Figure 3.4). It also contains three major (A, B, and C) and two
secondary (D and E) plazas, the latter located to the north of the main site axis, and a
number of smaller courtyard groups. During the Classic period, the use of the epicenter
was likely restricted to the elite class, with few exceptions (Bill 1987; Healy 1990a;
Healy et al. 2007).
34
Epicenter
Core Zone
Periphery Zone
Figure 3.3 Map of the Pacbitun settlement survey. The concentration of monumental
architecture in the center of the map forms the epicenter. The dashed square around the
epicenter coincides with the 1 km2 core zone. The four dashed rectangles delineate the
periphery zone. All architectural remains are drawn in black. Shaded circular areas are
possible reservoirs (modified from Healy et al. 2007:20).
The core zone includes the epicenter as well as small, medium, and large mounds
constructed within an area of 1 km2 from Plaza A (Figure 3.5). The earthen mounds are
the remains of domestic structures that are generally considered residences for lesser-elite
or non-elite individuals living outside the epicenter (Campbell-Trithart 1990:319–322;
Healy et al. 2007). The periphery zone surrounds the core zone and covers an additional 8
km2 (Figure 3.3). This zone was probably the sustaining agricultural area of Pacbitun. It is
35
Figure 3.4 Plan of the epicenter of Pacbitun. Structures are shown as first found
(unexcavated) and rendered in the standard isometric convention. Stelae and altars are
drawn as conventional rectangles and circles, respectively (modified from Healy et al.
2007:19).
characterized by a scatter of small housemounds, typically located on hilltops or elevated
ridges, perhaps in order to maximize the use of fertile lands for agriculture (Richie 1990;
Sunahara 1995:132–133; Healy et al. 2007). Most structures were probably residential in
nature, but some may have been used for small-scale craft production, storage, or as
kitchens (Richie 1990:199; Sunahara 1995:103; Healy et al. 2004b).
3.2 Archaeological investigations
The first reference to the site of Pacbitun is attributed to D. H. Snow (1969), an
ethnologist conducting research in San Antonio, who mentioned the presence of
36
Figure 3.5 Core zone of Pacbitun, indicated by dashed lines. Core zone mounds are
rendered as black-shaded forms. Possible reservoirs are represented by gray-shaded
circular areas (Healy et al. 2007:27).
prehistoric mounds and a large pyramidal structure—presumably Structure 1—near the
village. In 1971, the site came to the attention of the Department of Archaeology of
Belize (then British Honduras) when Structure 41 was quarried for the construction of a
modern roadway. Peter Schmidt, then Archaeology Commissioner, conducted a
preliminary survey and officially designated the site as “Pacbitun,” which translates to
37
“stones set in earth.” The name might refer to the standing stelae in Plaza A (Healy
1990a).
A surface survey was conducted in 1980 by Paul F. Healy. This work showed the
presence of numerous well-preserved architectural structures and a widely terraced
periphery. Systematic archaeological excavations were first conducted at Pacbitun in
1984, 1986 and 1987 by the Trent University-Pacbitun Archaeological Project, directed
by Healy. The aim of the project was to provide a comprehensive perspective on the
ancient occupation of Pacbitun by documenting the diachronic development of the site,
both in the site core and its periphery (Healy 1990a). Excavations in the epicenter
exposed the different architectural phases of constructions, including those relevant to
Structures 1, 2, 4, 5, 14, 15, and 23 (Bill 1987; Healy 1988, 1990a, 1992; Healy et al.
2004a; Healy et al. 2004b). The survey of the core zone focused on an area of 1 km2
around the epicenter (Campbell-Trithart 1990), while four transect zones extending 1 km
from the epicenter mapped the housemounds located in the periphery zone (Richie 1990;
Sunahara 1995).
Excavations were also conducted from 1995 to 1997 by the Trent UniversityPreclassic Maya Project in Plazas B, C, and D (Arendt et al. 1996; Hohmann and Powis
1996, 1999; Hohmann et al. 1999). This project aimed to document the Preclassic
occupations at the site, with a focus on the organization, social structure, subsistence, and
economy of Middle Preclassic domestic households (Healy and Awe 1995a, 1995b, 1996;
Healy 1999c). The research also examined the evidence for specialized shell production
and its role in the development of socioeconomic complexity in the Belize River Valley
(Hohmann and Powis 1996, 1999; Hohmann et al. 1999; Hohmann 2002).
38
Since 2008, new excavations in Plazas A and B were performed by the Pacbitun
Regional Archaeological Project (PRAP), under the direction of Terry G. Powis (Powis
2009, 2010, 2011). This project focuses on documenting the earliest occupations at
Pacbitun. In addition, PRAP also investigates caves, causeways, and minor centres in the
southern periphery of Pacbitun (Powis 2010; Spenard 2011; Valdez et al. 2011; Weber
2011; Weber and Powis 2011; Powis 2012). This new research program seeks to define
the extent of settlement around the site and to document the interactions between
Pacbitun and its periphery (Powis 2010:23).
During the 1995–1997 and 2008–2011 field seasons, excavations were conducted
by trowel and shovel, following the cultural stratigraphy. Artifacts were recovered from
both primary (floor and perimeter deposits) and secondary (construction fill, structural
fill, and secondary middens) contexts. Particular attention was given to the excavation of
Plaza B sub-structures in 2008–2010. Floor deposits were excavated according to 5 cm
intervals in order to control for the recovery of artifacts embedded in the floor surface.
Any artifacts found below the initial 5 cm depth were considered as secondary fill rather
than primary floor deposits. During the excavations, visible artifacts were collected by
hand and all deposits were dry-screened in the field using a 1/4 inch (6 mm) wire mesh
screen. Additionally, in 2008 and 2009, all the floor deposits from Sub-Structures B-1 and
B-2 in Plaza B were wet-screened with the use of 1/16 inch (1.2 mm) mesh screen (Powis
2009:18–20).
3.3 Site chronology
Excavations at Pacbitun have revealed a long sequence of occupations extending
from the early Middle Preclassic (ca. 900 BC) to the Terminal Classic (ca. AD 900)
39
periods (Healy 1990a). The cultural history was first established by cross-dating ceramics
with cultural sequences already established for other sites in the Belize Valley (Figure
3.6), specifically Barton Ramie (Gifford 1976) and Cahal Pech (Awe 1992). The
chronology was then tested with 22 radiocarbon dates (Healy 1990a, 1999b; Healy et al.
2004b). Additional radiocarbon dates obtained by PRAP also helped to refine the
chronology for the Middle Preclassic occupations (Powis 2009).
Figure 3.6 Chronology and ceramic complexes of Pacbitun in comparison to those of
Barton Ramie, Xunantunich, and Cahal Pech (Healy et al. 2007:21).
To this date, there has been no secured evidence that Pacbitun was permanently or
densely occupied before the Middle Preclassic (900–300 BC). This time period is locally
40
referred to as the Mai phase and is subdivided into early and late periods at ca. 650 BC.
Pacbitun was then a small farming village, relying on swidden agriculture (Wiesen and
Lentz 1999) and involved in the manufacture of shell ornaments (Hohmann 2002; Powis
2009, 2010). The village was likely confined to the epicenter given that surveys of
housemounds in the core and periphery zones failed to find evidence of clear Middle
Preclassic occupation (Sunahara 1995:108; Healy et al. 2007). Because the Middle
Preclassic is the focus of the present study, this period is discussed in greater details in
sections 3.4–3.6.
The Late Preclassic Puc (300–100 BC) and Terminal Classic Ku (100 BC – AD
300) phases witnessed the construction of the first monumental architecture in the site
core. The major buildings in Plaza A formed an E-Group complex, which consisted of a
standard trio of temple-pyramids (Structures 1, 4 and 5) opposing a lone temple-pyramid
(Structure 2) (Figure 3.4). Plazas A and E were plastered during this time period and a
ceremonial ballcourt (Structures 14 and 15) was also constructed (Healy 1990a, 1992;
Healy et al. 2004b). The presence of E-Groups and ballcourts at Pacbitun likely reflects
an early involvement in ceremonial activities at the site (Healy 1990a, 1992). Importantly,
it is during this time period that the core zone and the periphery were first settled by small
groups (Campbell-Trithart 1990:313; Richie 1990:194–195; Sunahara 1995:100; Healy et
al. 2007).
During the Early Classic Tzul phase (AD 300–550), many major public structures
were enlarged (e.g., Structures 1, 2, 4, 5, 14, and 15), while others, such as elite
residences (Str. 23 and 38), were constructed (Healy 1990a; Cheong 2013). Elite
individuals were interred with substantial quantities of exotic goods (Bill 1987; Healy
1990a). New monuments were erected, including a carved stela (Stela 6) portraying the
41
accession to the throne of a Pacbitun lord around AD 485. This stela is one of the earliest
dated monuments in the southern Maya lowlands (Healy 1990b; Helmke et al. 2006). All
these activities attest to the increasing wealth of the site and suggest that Pacbitun was
already playing a dominant role in the eastern region of the southern lowlands during this
period (Healy et al. 2004b).
The developmental peak of Pacbitun occurred during the Late Classic Coc phase
(AD 550–700). Almost every building in the epicenter underwent massive architectural
renewal at this time (P.F. Healy, 2013, personal communication). Large stone monuments
were carved and erected. Fine local or imported objects were frequently deposited as
offerings in elite burials (Healy 1988, 1990a; Healy et al. 2004a). The population is
believed to have peaked during the Late to Terminal Classic period, with an estimate of
5000–7000 persons living within an area of 9 km2. This coincided with an unprecedented
period of agricultural intensification, resulting in the widespread use of hillslope terracing
(Campbell-Trithart 1990:317–318; Richie 1990:194–197; Healy 1990a; White et al. 1993;
Sunahara 1995:114–116; Healy et al. 2007). The periphery was extensively occupied
during this time period (Richie 1990:198–199; Sunahara 1995:100).
The site continued to grow and expand during the Terminal Classic Tzib phase
(AD 700–900), although on a smaller scale, before it started to decline. Pacbitun was
abandoned around AD 900. There is little evidence of activity during the subsequent
Postclassic period (Richie 1990:194; Healy 1990a).
3.4 Middle Preclassic investigations
Given that the faunal remains discussed in this study were recovered exclusively
from Mai phase deposits, more information is provided about the Middle Preclassic
42
architectural and artifactual findings of the 1995–1997 and 2008–2011 excavations at
Plaza A, B, C, and D (Figure 3.4).
The earliest architectural remains of Plaza B date to the early Middle Preclassic
(900–650 BC) and consist of two partially exposed platforms (Sub-Structures B-1 and B4) and a wall (Sub-Stone Alignment B-12) lying about 10–15 centimeters above the
bedrock (Figure 3.7). The structures were modest, consisting of low platforms with
retaining walls formed of two courses of roughly-shaped limestone blocks. The presence
of postholes in the decomposed bedrock suggests that the platforms supported perishable
superstructures (Hohmann and Powis 1996, 1999; Hohmann et al. 1999). These platforms
are the earliest constructed at Plaza B and, perhaps, at Pacbitun. Two radiocarbon samples
collected from Sub-Str. B-1 provided an age of 815–530 BC and 760–410 BC3. Those
dates are consistent with the ceramic typology (Healy 1999b; T. G. Powis, personal
communication, 2012).
Some changes occurred during the late Middle Preclassic (650–300 BC). Sub-Strs.
B-1 and B-4 were abandoned around 650 BC and partially covered over, providing a
stable foundation for the construction of eleven new platforms (Sub-Strs. B-2, 3, 5–11,
13, and 14). Radiocarbon samples retrieved from Sub-Strs. B-2 and B-3 provided date
ranges of 770–375 BC and 905–400 BC, respectively (Healy 1999b). The newer
platforms were better constructed and larger than previous phases of construction, with
walls made of three courses of cut limestone blocks (Hohmann and Powis 1996). The
close proximity of the platforms and common extramural areas suggest that the structures
were organized as a patio group with several platforms situated around an open plaza.
3
All radiocarbon dates provided in this study are calibrated and presented with two sigma deviations.
43
Figure 3.7 Plan of the Middle Preclassic sub-structures in Plaza B. The early Middle
Preclassic structures are shaded in black (Hohmann et al. 1999:22).
This is a common residential pattern observed at many lowland Maya sites (McKillop
2004a:150; Powis 2010:11). While each of the buildings may have served a distinct
function, such as kitchens, storage areas, or residences, the presence of substantial
quantities of domestic refuse both within and around the structures suggest that they were
principally domestic households (Hohmann and Powis 1999; Powis 2010).
Sometime during the late Middle Preclassic, the late Mai sub-structures were
abandoned and covered with a dense, midden-like deposit. The midden is characterized
by a dark organic soil with significant quantities of artifacts and ecofacts. Because it was
44
not found in association with architectural features, it has been inferred that the midden
was made from materials derived from other areas of the site and used as construction fill
to level and possibly enlarge the plaza (Hohmann and Powis 1999). A radiocarbon sample
provided a date range of 780–395 BC for this construction (Healy 1999b), whereas the
ceramic typology indicates that it was likely deposited closer to the end of the late Mai
phase, ca. 400–300 BC (Hohmann and Powis 1996). Despite the discrepancy in the age
estimates, both sets of dates fall within the late Middle Preclassic period.
Excavations in Plaza A have exposed an alignment dating from the transitional
period (300–100 BC) between the late Middle Preclassic and early Late Preclassic.
Located in front of Str. 4, this wall made of cut limestone possibly forms the edge of a
platform, but further excavations are needed to determine its size and function. The
modes of construction of this sub-structure are very similar to the sub-structures found in
Plaza B (T. G. Powis, personal communication, 2012). In the center of the plaza, a
retaining wall (Sub-Str. A-1) was also uncovered (Figure 3.8). Ceramics found outside of
the structure, below a plaza floor, provided a late Middle Preclassic date (400–200 BC)
for this construction. Below this floor, three additional sealed plaza floors (Levels 6–8)
were uncovered. An early Middle Preclassic occupation was confirmed by a radiocarbon
sample from Level 8 (which provided a date range of 700–400 BC) and the ceramic
typology. Four plaza floors with a comparable chronology were also observed inside SubStr. A-1 (Powis 2011; T. G. Powis, personal communication, 2012). The chronology for
Plaza A shows the same temporal sequence identified in Plaza B (T. G. Powis, personal
communication, 2012) and on the adjacent Eastern Court (Cheong 2013).
Excavations in Plaza C have revealed the presence of two early Mai (Sub-Str. C-2
and C-3) and two late Mai structures (Sub-Str. C-1 and C-4) (Arendt et al. 1996;
45
Hohmann et al. 1999; Hohmann 2002:191). Two additional Middle Preclassic stone
alignments were uncovered on the western slope of Plaza C (Hohmann et al. 1999). These
structures are all similar to those uncovered in Plaza B, although no alleyway or perimeter
deposit were encountered (Hohmann 2002:191). A cist burial (BU-C1) dating to the
Middle Preclassic was also identified. The interment included a 30–40 years old
individual lying in a prone position, with the head oriented to the west. The cist contained
one mano fragment, two shell disk beads, one obsidian blade fragment, and three simple
vessels (Arendt et al. 1996; Healy et al. 2004b).
Figure 3.8 Plan of the Middle Preclassic Sub-Structure A-1 in Plaza A. Image courtesy of
PRAP.
46
A small test unit in Plaza D exposed a total of five marl floors and four stone
alignments (Sub-Stone Alignments D-1, 2, 3, and 4). The earliest stone alignment dates to
the transition from the early to late Middle Preclassic, ca. 650–600 BC. The three others
date to the late Middle Preclassic. Artifacts were sparse (Hohmann et al. 1999).
3.5 Artifactual assemblages from the Middle Preclassic period
The artifacts recovered at Pacbitun are numerous and diverse. Local materials
include granite, slate, and chert (Table 3.1). These could be quarried from sources in the
Belize River Valley as well as the Mountain Pine Ridge (Figure 3.2) (Graham 1987;
Healy et al. 1995; Hohmann and Powis 1996). Three types of Preclassic artifacts were
acquired through long-distance trade: obsidian, jade, and marine shell (Table 3.1).
Physiochemical analysis of 18 Middle Preclassic obsidian specimens demonstrated that
the volcanic glass was imported from three highland Guatemalan sources (Healy 1990a;
Awe et al. 1996; Hohmann and Powis 1996:118–119), while the greenstone and jade
possibly came from the Motagua River Valley of Guatemala (Healy 1990a; Hohmann and
Powis 1996).
Marine shells were imported whole from the Caribbean coast and used in the
manufacture of shell ornaments. A small proportion of the artifacts were also made from
local freshwater species, namely the pearly mussel and the locally available jute
(Hohmann 2002:115–117; Powis 2009, 2010). The majority of the shells were
transformed into small disks and irregular beads (Hohmann 2002:125). Evidence suggests
that the early Maya of Pacbitun were involved in the specialized production of shell
ornaments at the household level. The majority of ornaments were likely destined for
47
export to other Maya sites, likely into the Petén region of Guatemala (Hohmann
2002:192–194; Powis 2009).
Table 3.1 Possible source location for local and exotic raw materials found at Pacbitun.
Artifact types
Granite
Local/Exotic
Local
Possible sources
Stann Creek
Macal River
Mountain Pine Ridge
Distance
5–10 km
Slate
Local
Slate Creek
Little Vaquero Creek
Barton Creek
5–10 km
Chert/Chalcedony
Local
Belize River Valley
10–20 km
Marine shell
Exotic
Caribbean coast
~100 km
Jade/Greenstone
Exotic
Motagua River Valley
~150 km
Obsidian
Exotic
El Chayal
San Martin Jilotepeque
Ixtepeque
400–500 km
Temporal changes in the quantity and quality of artifacts recovered from the substructures suggest subtle social and economic differences during the Middle Preclassic
(Arendt et al. 1996; Hohmann and Powis 1996, 1999; Hohmann et al. 1999; Powis 2009,
2010). The artifacts indicate that the Pacbitun inhabitants were essentially egalitarian
during the early Middle Preclassic. During the late Middle Preclassic, the social system
may have become gradually hierarchical, as indicated by the higher frequency and greater
diversity of long-distance exchange goods and the presence of substantial quantities of
shell ornaments. There are also signs of a greater degree of standardization in the
production of artifacts, such as disk shell beads (Hohmann 2002).
48
3.6 Subsistence practices
As discussed in Chapter 2, it is believed that the Preclassic Maya subsisted
primarily on the cultivation of three cultigens: maize, beans, and squash (Turner and
Miksicek 1984; Lentz 1999; Lentz et al. 2005). Unfortunately, evidence for agriculture
during the Middle Preclassic is scarce at Pacbitun, perhaps as a result of poor organic
preservation. Few preserved kernel cupules of maize were identified in two late Middle
Preclassic samples (Wiesen and Lentz 1999), but no paleobotanical remains of beans or
squash were recovered. The recovery of multiple fragments of grinding tools, such as
mano and metate, may constitute indirect evidence for the consumption of wild and
domesticated plants, including maize (Hohmann and Powis 1996; Duffy 2011). Remains
of the coyol palm, “turtlebone” (Pithecolobium sp.), and ramón have also been identified
(Wiesen and Lentz 1999). Wiesen and Lentz (1999) suggest that the residents of Pacbitun
possibly exploited these plants for various usages, such as food, medicine, artifact
manufacturing, construction materials, and fuel.
Faunal remains recovered from Preclassic contexts during the 1995 and 1996
excavations in Plaza B and C were previously analyzed by Norbert Stanchly (1999). The
preliminary report provided NISP counts (Table 3.2). MNI values were not calculated.
According to Stanchly (1999), a total of 2,327 specimens were recovered, with 1,575
invertebrate remains (67.7% of the assemblage) and 752 vertebrate remains (32.3%).
Freshwater molluscs include jute snails, apple snails, and pearly mussels. More
than 100,000 jute remains were recovered between 1995 and 1997 from Plaza B
investigations. From this, 225 jute were selected for analysis. All specimens presented a
broken apex or punctured spire. Both methods are believed to facilitate the detachment of
the snail from the shell after it is cooked (Healy et al. 1990; Stanchly 1999). Based on the
49
Table 3.2 Vertebrate and invertebrate remains identified by Stanchly (modified from
Stanchly 1999:49–50).
VERTEBRATES
Taxon
Osteichthyes
Ictaluridae
Unidentified fish
Aves
Bird?
Unidentified bird
Reptilia
Chelonia?
Chelonia
Kinosternon spp.
Staurotypus triporcatus?
Unidentified reptile
Mammalia
Dasypus novemcinctus
Dasypus novemcinctus?
Sylvilagus sp.
Sylvilagus sp.?
Tapirus bairdii
Carnivora
Canis lupus familiaris
Canis lupus familiaris?
Cervidae
Cervidae?
Odocoileus virginianus
Mazama americana
Tayassuidae
Rodentia
Rodentia?
Cuniculus paca
Cuniculus paca?
Homo sapiens
Unidentified mammal
Unidentified specimens
Total
n
1
1
12
1
6
3
14
1
2
12
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
66
29
53
3
4
1
1
5
1
4
434
90
752
INVERTEBRATES
Taxon
Gastropoda
Strombus pugilis
Strombus sp.
Strombus sp.?
Pachychilus indiorum
Pachychilus glaphyrus
Pachychilus sp.
Pachychilus sp.?
Pomacea flagellata
Pomacea sp.?
Prunum apicinum
Orthalicus sp.?
Olividae
Neritida
Pelecypoda
Nephronaias ortmanni
Donax sp.
Chamidae
Arcinella sp.
Scaphopoda
Dentalium sp.
Mollusca
Unidentified shell
Total
n
2
565
4
158
64
3
1
24
4
12
1
1
1
725
1
1
1
1
5
1575
extremely large numbers of jute recovered at Pacbitun in fill and midden contexts, Healy
and colleagues (1990), as well as Stanchly (1999), suggested that the freshwater snail
possibly played a significant role in the subsistence of the Preclassic Maya. However,
more recent analyses by Solis (2011) indicate that natural processes and rodent activity
50
may alter the shells in a fashion identical to the patterns created by cultural activities.
Therefore, broken spires may not necessarily be indicative of human consumption of jute,
as frequently argued in the Maya literature. Solis (2011) suggested instead that the
presence of jute in Terminal Preclassic deposits at the site of Minanha is more likely due
to the incidental inclusion of jute in river clays used as construction fill. A re-examination
of the archaeological contexts and artifacts associated with the Pachychilus remains could
help to determine the use of these snails at Pacbitun.
Similarly, the importance of apple snails and pearly mussels to the diet is poorly
understood (Stanchly 1999). Powis (2004) has suggested that freshwater mussels possibly
served as a dietary supplement or famine food when other protein sources were
unavailable. Marine molluscs, which were used for the manufacture of shell ornaments,
may also have been imported from the coast as a source of food, the meat being salted or
smoked (McKillop 2004b). However, data is currently lacking to test these hypotheses.
Of the 752 vertebrate remains from Plaza B and C, 224 were identified below
class level by Stanchly (1999). Mammalian species include white-tailed deer, red brocket
deer, paca, rabbit, armadillo, domestic dog, peccary, and tapir. Turtle remains are
represented by shell fragments of small mud turtles and possibly the giant Mexican musk
turtle. Fish remains include one catfish element. Bird remains are also present, but are too
fragmented to be identified below class level. The size of the fragments suggests the
presence of a medium to large bird. All of these vertebrate species were probably
consumed as subsistence items. Deer specimens dominate the assemblage. The
unidentified mammalian fragments are consistent with this picture (Stanchly 1999).
Stanchly suggests that the Preclassic Maya of Pacbitun hunted both small and large
terrestrial game and gathered turtles and shellfish. Most of the animals could have been
51
obtained from local ecozones. The wide spectrum of species exploited, despite the small
sample of the assemblage, is typical of lowland Maya faunas (Stanchly 1999).
3.7 The Middle Preclassic at Pacbitun: A summary
During the Middle Preclassic period, which is the focus of this research, Pacbitun
was a small farming village consisting of a dispersed scatter of households, as evidenced
by the presence of sub-plaza structures in the epicenter. Indeed, the various programs of
excavations revealed that the Middle Preclassic settlement extended to portions of at least
four plazas (A, B, C, and D), covering an area of 300 m (east-west) by 125 m (northsouth). There seems to be no evidence of Middle Preclassic settlement outside the
epicenter based on the extant data. Healy and colleagues (2007) have estimated a
population of 16–49 persons, but this value is likely underestimated because it only takes
into account the structures uncovered in Plaza B.
The various classes of artifacts recovered within and around the structures (e.g.,
ceramics, jade and shell ornaments, lithics tools) all indicate that the Middle Preclassic
residents of Pacbitun were involved in typical household activities, such as food
preparation and tool manufacture. The presence of exotic goods, such as obsidian, jade,
and marine shells, confirms that Pacbitun was participating in inter-regional exchange
systems at an early date. The preliminary paleobotanical and archaeozoological data
suggest that the Pacbitun Maya practiced swidden agriculture, which they may have
supplemented with the hunting and gathering of an array of locally available animals and
plants.
This chapter has presented the geographical context and cultural history of
Pacbitun as well as detailed the archaeological investigations undertaken at the site. This
52
background information will be necessary to an interpretation of the Pacbitun faunal
material (Chapter 7). The following chapter turns to the theoretical framework used to
analyze this material.
53
CHAPTER 4: FORAGING THEORY
The theoretical approach guiding this research is foraging theory. This chapter
defines and examines three types of foraging models used in archaeozoology: the prey
choice model, patch choice model, and central place foraging model. After presenting the
assumptions and predictions of each model, this chapter considers how the central place
foraging prey choice model is most appropriate for interpreting faunal assemblages at
Pacbitun. It also discusses how foraging theory can be applied to the archaeological
record. The second part of the chapter offers a description of the ecology and behavior of
the species identified at Pacbitun.
4.1 Theoretical approach
Foraging theory is a family of models derived from human behavioral ecology.
Central to this theoretical framework is the premise that foraging behaviors are under
selection and contribute to enhance an individual’s chances of survival and reproductive
success (Smith 1983; Bird and O'Connell 2006). Specifically, in anthropology, it is
assumed that foragers were concerned with maximizing their net rate of energy
acquisition under a certain set of environmental conditions. This approach is commonly
applied to the study of subsistence strategies, transport decisions, and technological
changes (Bird and O'Connell 2006). The following section discusses three fundamental
sets of foraging models used in archaeozoology to examine the decisions underlying the
acquisition of animal resources.
54
4.1.1 Prey choice model
The prey choice model, also known as the diet breadth model, aims to predict
which resources a forager should include in its diet or ignore. When foragers encounter
prey, they have to decide whether they should exploit it or continue searching for a more
profitable one (Smith 1983; Stephens and Krebs 1986). The prey choice model assumes a
“fine-grained” environment; that is, an environment within which prey are randomly
distributed (MacArthur and Pianka 1966; Smith 1983). The model further postulates that
a forager searches for all types of prey simultaneously and encounters them sequentially
in the environment (MacArthur and Pianka 1966; Stephens and Krebs 1986; Bird and
O'Connell 2006; Lupo 2007). Foraging time is divided into two mutually exclusive
activities: searching and handling. Searching is defined as the time devoted to looking for
resources. Handling consists of the time spent pursuing, capturing, processing, and
consuming a prey item that has been encountered (MacArthur and Pianka 1966; Smith
1983; Stephens and Krebs 1986; Bird and O'Connell 2006; Lupo 2007). The model
postulates that foragers can accurately estimate the likely encounter and post-encounter
return rate for all potential prey types because they possess prior information about the
abundance of resources in a habitat and the costs and benefits associated with their
acquisition (Stephens and Krebs 1986).
The prey choice model requires resources to be ranked as a function of their
“profitability”, which is measured as the net post-encounter return rate (Smith 1983;
Stephens and Krebs 1986; Bird and O'Connell 2006; Lupo 2007). According to the
model, prey types are added to—or deleted from—the diet as a function of their rank
order so that the overall foraging return rate is maximized (Smith 1983; Stephens and
Krebs 1986; Bird and O'Connell 2006; Lupo 2007). As a result, foragers are expected to
55
always pursue the highest-ranked prey type whenever encountered because this strategy
provides the highest net gain of energy per unit of handling time (Smith 1983; Bird and
O'Connell 2006; Lupo 2007). Less profitable prey types, regardless of their abundance in
the environment, should be included in or excluded from the diet depending on the
probability of encountering higher-ranked resources. In fact, low-return prey taxa should
always be ignored if their acquisition does not result in an increase of the overall foraging
return rate (Smith 1983; Stephens and Krebs 1986).
Given these predictions, variations in diet breadth (i.e., number of prey types
exploited) can be used to assess foraging efficiency. In a rich environment, foragers
should have a narrow diet dominated by a relatively small number of prey types.
However, if the availability of highly profitable resources declines substantially, either
through predation or environmental change, foragers may be forced to handle an
increasing number of less profitable prey types. This situation should progressively
produce a broader diet (Smith 1983).
The prey choice model postulates that prey types are found in a fine-grained
environment. However, this assumption is violated when resources are clumped together,
that is, when they form “patches.” The patch choice model, which is discussed next,
represents a useful alternative in this situation.
4.1.2 Patch choice models
First developed by MacArthur and Pianka (1966) as a complement to the prey
choice model, the patch choice model predicts foraging behaviors in environments where
resources occur in patches (Smith 1983). Patches are assumed to be distant from one
another and the time spent travelling from one patch to another is considered
56
unproductive (Stephens and Krebs 1986). Two mutually exclusive activities are defined
by the model: travelling and handling (MacArthur and Pianka 1966; Lupo 2007). The
patch choice model presumes that patches are encountered randomly and sequentially in
the environment and are ranked according to their respective profitability (MacArthur and
Pianka 1966; Stephens and Krebs 1986). Ranks are established as a function of the return
rate expected from searching for and handling prey types within each patch, while taking
into account the cost of travelling to them (Bird and O'Connell 2006). Overall, the model
predicts that foragers add patches to their itinerary in rank order until the average foraging
return per unit (including travelling) declines (Smith 1983; Lupo 2007).
Although the patch choice model is designed to determine which patches foragers
should exploit, it does not consider time allocation within these patches. The marginal
value theorem proposed by Charnov (1976) acts as a natural extension to the patch choice
model and focuses on explaining these issues (Smith 1983; Stephens and Krebs 1986). At
the heart of the model is the assumption that foraging generally depletes a patch from its
resources (Charnov 1976). As a forager spends more time in a patch, highly-ranked prey
normally become rarer; the energy cost of searching for resources gradually increases,
which results in a steady decline of the marginal return rate of that particular patch (Smith
1983; Winterhalder and Kennett 2006; Lupo 2007). As a consequence, the marginal value
theorem predicts that a forager should leave a patch when travelling to and exploiting
another patch yields higher return rates (Smith 1983; Bird and O'Connell 2006;
Winterhalder and Kennett 2006; Lupo 2007). A central assumption of the model is that
the optimal time allocation to any patch is a function of the average return rates for all
utilized patches. In general, when resources are abundant or when patches are in close
proximity to one another, foragers should not spend much time in a patch. However,
57
when food availability declines or when travel time between patches increases, it
becomes more profitable to increase time residency (Smith 1983; Stephens and Krebs
1986). Ultimately, patches will be ignored unless their marginal return rate equals to or is
greater than the average rate for the utilized set of patches (Smith 1983; Lupo 2007).
The previous models assume that foragers consume prey at the point of capture.
However, foragers may preferentially transport resources to a central place for
consumption or provisioning (Orians and Pearson 1979; Cannon 2003). This issue is
addressed by central place foraging models.
4.1.3 Central place forager prey choice model
Central place foraging (CPF) models (e.g., Orians and Pearson 1979; Schoener
1979) are designed to examine how travel and transport costs influence foraging decisions
regarding prey choice, load size, patch selection, and patch time allocation (Lupo 2007).
Following the assumption that the goal of foragers is to maximize their net rate of energy
delivery to a central place, these models seek to predict which prey types foragers should
transport and how their decisions vary as a function of the distance from a central place
(Orians and Pearson 1979). However, most CPF models do not take into account how the
processing of resources at their location of acquisition can increase the utility of a load.
Small prey items may not need to be processed. In contrast, when foragers capture large
prey, they often need to decide which parts to bring home and which ones to leave behind
so as to maximize the net delivery rate (e.g., Metcalfe and Barlow 1992; Bird and Bliege
Bird 1997; Cannon 2000, 2003; Bird and O'Connell 2006).
Cannon’s (2003) central place forager prey choice model is designed to predict
foraging decisions regarding prey selection and field processing for foragers who travel
58
from and to a central place, taking into account that there is a maximum load size that can
be transported. Similar to the prey choice model, the CPF prey choice model ranks prey
types in decreasing order as a function of their profitability. However, unlike the former
which only considers post-encounter return rates for ranking prey types, the latter also
takes into consideration search, travel, and, when it applies, field-processing costs to
estimate the utility of prey types (Cannon 2003). Because search costs are included in the
calculation of delivery rates, a taxon ranked high when abundant near the site is
considered of lower value when found in distant patches. Additionally, the CPF prey
choice model does not assume that all resources are searched for simultaneously. On the
contrary, Cannon (2003) indicates that central place foragers often leave on foraging trips
with a specific resource in mind, even though they might come back with a different one.
Furthermore, the model does not presume that resources are clumped in space, although it
is compatible with the presence of patches in the environment (Cannon 2003).
In Cannon’s model, the relationship between processing time and load utility is
assumed to approximate a diminishing-returns function (Cannon 2003). When search or
transport costs increase, foragers should invest more time in field-processing large-bodied
prey taxa in order to maximize the net delivery of food to the central place (Cannon
2003). Consequently, the analysis of skeletal part representation may provide information
on past foraging strategies. Skeletal profiles reflecting low average search times should
include a wide range of parts, including low-utility portions, while higher average search
times should result in assemblages heavily dominated by highly-ranked portions.
If the goal of central place foragers is to maximize the net rate of energy delivery,
these foragers should select the prey types that provide the highest delivery rates.
Considering equivalent search, transport, and field processing times, large prey types (i.e.,
59
high-ranked prey) should be more profitable than small-sized animals (Cannon 2003).
However, if the abundance of highly profitable prey taxa in patches near the camp
declines, the cost associated with their acquisition increases. In this situation, an initially
high-ranked taxon may become a new, lower-ranked prey type if it must be acquired in a
remote location. The CPF prey choice model predicts that, at this point, foragers may
concentrate their efforts on the procurement of lower-ranked, smaller-sized resources that
are abundant near the residential site (Cannon 2003). However, if the search and transport
costs of the small taxa increase as well near the site, foragers should increase their net
delivery rate by focusing on high-ranked resources located in distant patches. This
prediction of the CPF prey choice model implies that an increase in the abundance of
large prey types relative to smaller ones, combined with an increase in field-processing
intensity, may signal decreased rather than increased foraging efficiency (Cannon 2003).
4.2 Archaeological applications of foraging theory
4.2.1 Use of foraging models in this study
Foraging models are commonly used in archaeology to make predictions about
foraging behaviours and to test hypotheses about resource depression and foraging
intensification. The models are most frequently used to assess changes in foraging
efficiency on the long term (Bird and O'Connell 2006; Lupo 2007). However, such
application may be limited at Pacbitun. Although the faunal material was recovered from
two distinct occupations (i.e., early Middle Preclassic and late Middle Preclassic), small
sample size may require the assemblages to be combined, which prevents temporal
comparisons between the two phases of the Middle Preclassic period. Given that the
Maya were sedentary farmers, the CPF prey choice model was selected to investigate the
60
exploitation of animal resources at Pacbitun. In accordance with Cannon’s model, the diet
breadth at Pacbitun will be characterized through the use of prey ranking and abundance
indices (see below). Foraging efficiency and acquisition of resources will also be
examined through a consideration of transport decisions.
4.2.2 Prey rankings
Applications of foraging theory to archaeology must start with the ranking of prey
types. Traditionally, prey body size has been used as a proxy for estimating the net return
rate of resources (e.g., Broughton 1994; Cannon 2003; Broughton et al. 2011). In these
studies, the relationship between body size and profitability is assumed to be curvilinear.
Very small prey types, such as mice, and very large animals, such as whales, are not
considered as profitable as prey of intermediate sizes because a considerable amount of
energy must be invested in handling them. Between the two extremes, it is generally
considered that profitability increases with body size; large prey animals (e.g., deer and
tapir) are ranked higher than smaller animals such as rabbits or agoutis (Broughton 1994).
Hunting technology may, however, impact return rates. For instance, the profitability of
some small animals, such as rabbits, may be increased if these are collected en masse
(Jones 2006); this situation would be in contradiction with the body size because it alters
the relationship between prey body size and energetic return rates. Additionally,
gregarious species may be considered more profitable than solitary ones because many
individuals may be handled in one foraging bout. In the Pacbitun assemblages, such
animals would be the peccary and coati (see section 4.3).
The use of the prey body size as a proxy for prey profitability also fails to take
into account the impact of prey mobility on return rates. Indeed, high prey velocity should
61
result in decreasing probability of capture (Stiner et al. 2000; Bird et al. 2009; Bird et al.
2012). In order to examine this issue, Morin (2012) compared the body mass and
maximum running speed of a broad range of mammals. He concluded that the body size
rule works best for mammalian taxa within the size range of 50–700 kg. Unfortunately,
most mammals inhabiting tropical forests, with the exception of the tapir and jaguar,
weigh less than 50 kg. For these last species, rankings based on body size can be
confounded by differences in prey mobility and predatory defense mechanisms (Stiner et
al. 2000; Bird et al. 2009; Bird et al. 2012). Sessile and slow-moving animals using
carapaces or quills (e.g., molluscs, tortoise, porcupine) to deter predators are generally
associated with lower pursuit costs and higher chances of capture than animals of similar
body weight (e.g., agouti, rabbit) that escape at great speed (Stiner et al. 2000; Bird et al.
2009; Morin 2012). This situation result in a violation of the body size rule if a smallsized animal was to be found to be more profitable than a larger one. This seems to be the
case in Australia where Bird and colleagues (2009; 2012) suggest that prey mobility is
often a better criterion for estimating the likelihood of capturing small prey items (<25
kg) than body mass.
Morin (2012) suggests that, when prey types are well-separated from one another
in term of body size, overlap in return rates and, therefore, rank inversions are less likely.
To test this hypothesis, he compared the net return rates and body masses of faunas from
different latitudinal environments. He observed that the body size rule is stronger in
cooler habitats where faunal communities are comprised of several large-sized taxa of
variable body weights. This implies that the body size rule may not be the most robust
measure of profitability for tropical environments where faunas are generally
characterized by a narrow range of similarly-sized animals. Concerning this issue,
62
Broughton and colleagues (2011) argue that when two taxa are well-separated in body
size and are considered of similar mobility (e.g., “fast” prey such as hare vs. deer), the
larger taxon should provide a higher return rate than the small prey type in accordance
with the body size rule (Broughton et al. 2011). However, prey mobility may have a
stronger impact on prey rankings and cause rank inversions when the faunal data set only
includes a very narrow range of small-bodied prey (<30 kg).
The construction of prey rankings at Pacbitun was established using body mass as
a proxy for net return rates. However, as a result of the above concerns, interpretations of
the results at the site will need to consider the issue of mobility, en masse collection, and
gregariousness of certain species. Body weights of mammalian taxa were obtained from
Emmons (1997) and Reid (2009) (Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1). Although carnivores were
likely procured by the Maya for raw materials (e.g., pelt, teeth, and long bone shafts) or
ritual purposes (Pohl 1983; Hopkins 1992; Emery 2010), they could also have been
consumed. Therefore, they were included in the rankings for comparisons with other taxa.
The tapir would have been the highest-ranked species by a considerable margin, followed
by a group of highly-ranked prey taxa comprised of large felines (i.e., jaguar and puma)
and artiodactyls (i.e., white-tailed deer, white-lipped peccary, red brocket deer, and
collared peccary). The ocelot, paca, margay, nine-banded armadillo, coati, and agouti
form a second group of intermediate sizes (3–10 kg). Four animals, the opossum, rabbit,
pocket gopher, and long-tailed weasel, occupy the lowest positions on the ranking scale
(<3 kg). Turtles were not included in prey ranking because, as slow-moving animals, they
possibly were always included in the optimal diet despite their small size (Morin 2012),
in violation with the body size rule. Small sample size and limited taxonomic
identification made the ranking of fish and bird species impracticable in the present case.
63
Table 4.1 Data and references for body mass of mammalian taxa at Pacbitun.
Mass (in kg) 1
180.0
65.0
44.5
34.0
33.5
22.0
19.0
10.8
8.5
5.0
4.6
3.8
3.5
1.5
1.0
0.8
0.5
Common Name
Tapir
Jaguar
Puma
White-tailed deer
White-lipped peccary
Red brocket deer
Collared peccary
Ocelot
Paca
Nine-banded armadillo
White-nosed coati
Margay
Agouti
Opossums
Rabbits
Pocket gophers
Long-tailed weasel
Source
Reid (2009)
”
”
”
”
”
”
”
”
”
”
”
”
”
”
Emmons (1997)
”
Comparative specimens
(Didelphis marsupialis)
(Sylvilagus brasiliensis)
(Orthogeomys hispidus)
1
When a range of weights was available or when values were given separately for males and females,
midpoints were used to calculate body mass.
Tapir
Jaguar
Puma
White-tailed deer
White-lipped peccary
Red brocket deer
Collared peccary
Ocelot
Paca
Nine-banded armadillo
White-nosed coati
Margay
Agouti
Opossums
Rabbits
Pocket gophers
Long-tailed weasel
0
20
40
60
80
100
Mass (in kg)
120
140
160
180
Figure 4.1 Ranking of mammals at Pacbitun according to body mass. Data from Table
4.1.
64
Animal resources may have been procured by the Maya not only for their meat,
but also for their fat content. In the Maya subarea, certain animals of intermediate size,
such as the agouti, paca, and armadillo, are lean during the dry season, but during the wet
season, they can put on layers of fat greater than 2.5 cm in thickness (Hill et al. 1984).
This proportion of fat to body weight is extremely high compared to that of the whitetailed deer, whose fat content fluctuates from 2% during the dry season to 10% during the
wet season (Hill et al. 1984). This difference in fat content may cause rank inversions if
the Maya would have targeted small fatty animals, particularly during the wet season.
Unfortunately, it is not possible to test this hypothesis at Pacbitun because of a lack of
data. Percentage of fat relative to body weight is difficult to estimate and is not reported
for a large number of taxa (Morin 2012). For instance, data on fat percentage to body
weight was only found for four mammals in the Pacbitun assemblages, which is not
sufficient for ranking prey according to this criterion.
4.2.3 Abundance indices
Abundance indices are often used as proxy estimates to interpret variations in the
faunal record. Abundance indices generally compare a group of high-ranked prey to a
group of lower-ranked taxa, taking the form of Ʃ large taxa / (Ʃ small taxa + Ʃ large taxa)
(Morin 2012; Ugan and Simms 2012). These subsets may be established for prey of
similar mobility but of different sizes (e.g., leporids versus artiodactyls in Cannon 2003;
Broughton et al. 2011) or, inversely, for prey of similar body size, but of different
maximum velocity (e.g., tortoises versus hares in Stiner et al. 2000). Grouping prey types
into high- and low-return categories limits the problem of rank inversions and strengthens
65
the relationship between return rates and body size. However, the use of these indices is
appropriate only if the two subsets are composed of taxa with clear differences in ranking.
Errors may arise if animals of similar profitability (e.g., paca vs. agouti) are compared.
Abundance indices should also exclude small-bodied taxa that are likely to be collected
en masse (Morin 2012). The abundance indices used in this study are presented in greater
details in Chapter 7.
4.3 Animal ecology and behavior
This section provides a summary of the ecology and behavior of animals
recovered in Middle Preclassic deposits at Pacbitun. It serves as a basis for interpreting
taxonomic representation and habitat use in subsequent chapters. It should be noted that
reliable information on many Neotropical animals is scarce. Often, little is known about
the seasonality and reproduction cycle of these animals because of limited research in the
lowland Maya region (Ojasti 1996; Emmons 1997; Emery and Brown 2012).
The white-tailed deer is one of the largest herbivores found in the tropics. It is
ecologically plastic and can live in a wide variety of habitats, such as tropical savannas,
and lightly wooded or swampy areas (Ojasti 1996; Emmons 1997; Reid 2009), but is not
a rainforest animal (Ojasti 1996; Emmons 1997; Reid 2009). It thrives in mosaic
environments and most often resides at the edge of open and covered landscape (Ojasti
1996; Geist 1998). In Belize, the white-tailed deer is often seen in second growth forests
and thickets, forest edges, pine savannas, and sometimes in milpas (Méndez 1984). It is
tolerant of altered habitats, adapting quickly to changing environments (Ojasti 1996).
Active day and night, the white-tailed deer is most often spotted at dawn or dusk when it
ventures in open areas to feed (Ojasti 1996; Reid 2009). The white-tailed deer is a
66
browser and selective feeder that concentrates on plants that are easily digested and feeds
predominantly on leaves, fruit, nuts, seeds, and legumes (Méndez 1984; Brown 1994;
Ojasti 1996; Emmons 1997; Reid 2009). Highly fibrous plants, such as grasses, contribute
little to the diet, but may be consumed when herbaceous forage is unavailable (Verme and
Ullrey 1984; Kroll 1994; Ojasti 1996). The white-tailed deer may also feed on crops, such
as maize, sorghum, and beans (Ojasti 1996).
In the tropics, the white-tailed deer lives in small groups of two to six individuals,
but it may also be solitary (Ojasti 1996; Emmons 1997; Reid 2009). Family herds occupy
permanent small home ranges (Ojasti 1996). Although reproduction of this animal is
synchronous in the north, breeding and fawning seasons extend for several months in
Central America (Ojasti 1996; Geist 1998). In fact, breeding can take place at any time of
the year, but it generally peaks in certain seasons so that fawning does not occur during
times of adverse weather (Geist 1994; Hirth 1994; Geist 1998). As a result, peaks in
birthing are generally synchronous within a given locality (Hirth 1994; Jacobson 1994;
Ojasti 1996). For instance, fawns are born from April to June in the Yucatán and southern
Mexico, from January to June in Honduras, and from May to July in Costa Rica (Ojasti
1996). Females generally give birth to one fawn per year (Ojasti 1996). Tropical whitetailed bucks bear branched antlers, but these are smaller in comparison to northern
whitetails. Because the antler cycle is irregular in the tropics, males may be encountered
in any stage of antler growth (Geist 1998). Antlers are shed every year (Méndez 1984;
Geist 1998; Reid 2009).
The red brocket deer is a small tropical ungulate adapted to live in forested
environments (Reid 2009). Its small size, short antlers, and rounded back allow it to move
through dense vegetation (Ojasti 1996; Emmons 1997). As a result, it is not surprising
67
that this animal favors closed, mature forests, although it may occasionally visit small
clearings (Emmons 1997; Reid 2009) and cultivated areas (Ojasti 1996; Emmons 1997).
This animal primarily feeds on fruit and flowers found in the underbrush, but may also
browse in forest clearings (Ojasti 1996; Emmons 1997). The red brocket deer is a solitary
and territorial animal; it occupies the same home range year after year (Ojasti 1996).
Bucks bear short, spiked antlers (Emmons 1997; Geist 1998; Reid 2009) which may be
retained for more than a year but can be shed at any time (Geist 1998). Similar to most
tropical mammals, reproduction in brocket deer may take place year-round (Ojasti 1996;
Geist 1998). Peaks in birthing occur at specific times of the year in different regions.
Fawns are born between September and April in Surinam, whereas the calving season
extends from April to August in Chiapas, Mexico (Ojasti 1996). The red brocket deer
normally gives birth to a single young (Ojasti 1996; Reid 2009).
Morphologically similar to a pig, the white-lipped peccary is a medium-sized
ungulate (Mayer and Wetzel 1987). This gregarious animal lives in large herds formed of
40 to 200 individuals of both sexes (Donkin 1985; Mayer and Wetzel 1987; Ojasti 1996;
Emmons 1997; Reid 2009). Its preferred habitats are virgin or near-pristine humid
tropical forests (Mayer and Wetzel 1987; Emmons 1997; Reid 2009). It generally avoids
disturbed habitats and the proximity of humans (Ojasti 1996). This species is considered
nomadic; herds travel long distances throughout the tropical forest and do not stay more
than a day or two in a particular area (Mayer and Wetzel 1987; Ojasti 1996; Emmons
1997; Reid 2009). It subsists on a mix of fruit, leaves, seeds, roots, and small vertebrates
and invertebrates (Donkin 1985; Mayer and Wetzel 1987), and may sometimes exploit
crops, such as maize, sweet potatoes, and manioc (Mayer and Wetzel 1987; Reid 2009). It
68
is believed to breed year-round, with females typically giving birth to twins (Mayer and
Wetzel 1987; Ojasti 1996; Reid 2009).
The collared peccary is smaller than the white-lipped peccary (Ojasti 1996; Reid
2009). It lives in herds composed of about 15 adults and their young (Donkin 1985;
Emmons 1997; Reid 2009). The composition of the group is loose and males may
occasionally leave the herd to forage alone (Ojasti 1996; Emmons 1997). The collared
peccary occupies permanent home ranges (Ojasti 1996; Reid 2009), but is more versatile
than the white-lipped peccary. This species can live in both mature and secondary forests
and adapts well to disturbed areas (Donkin 1985; Ojasti 1996; Reid 2009). Its diet
consists of fruit, seeds, roots, grasses, invertebrates, and small vertebrates (Donkin 1985;
Ojasti 1996; Emmons 1997; Reid 2009). This species commonly raids crops (Ojasti 1996;
Reid 2009). Like other ungulates in Central America, the collared peccary can breed yearround. The birthing season lasts from July to August in the southern United States and
from March to April in Venezuela. Two birth peaks were observed in southern Mexico,
the first extending from January to February, the second from September to October
(Ojasti 1996). Females give birth to two offspring on average (Reid 2009).
The Baird’s tapir is a large perissodactyl. This animal is normally solitary, but
family groups composed of a cow and her offspring are sometimes observed (Emmons
1997; Reid 2009). The tapir favors waterside habitats with dense, low vegetation.
Nonetheless, it is ecologically plastic and travels extensively throughout the forest to
forage (Emmons 1997; Reid 2009). Being a shy animal, the tapir tends to avoid human
settlements, but it may occasionally be spotted raiding crops (Reid 2009).
The nine-banded armadillo occupies a wide range of primary and secondary
habitats, but is most often seen in thickets and areas of dense vegetation (Emmons 1997;
69
Reid 2009). Sedentary, the animal dens in large burrows during the day and feeds at night
on insects and small invertebrates. It may occasionally eat berries and other plants
(McBee and Baker 1982; Ojasti 1996; Emmons 1997; Reid 2009). Individuals are
solitary, but show no tendency toward territoriality (McBee and Baker 1982; Reid 2009).
The periodicity and frequency of armadillo reproduction in Central America is unknown.
It is believed that the mating season coincides with the onset of rains from May to August
(McBee and Baker 1982; Ojasti 1996).
The paca is a large rodent that occupies a wide ecological range of forested
environments, from mature and secondary forests to riverine habitats and wetlands (Pérez
1992; Ojasti 1996; Emmons 1997; Reid 2009). It may also occupy wooded areas near
agricultural zones (Ojasti 1996; Reid 2009). This animal is mainly active at night when it
leaves its underground burrow to forage on fruit, seeds, and young plants (Pérez 1992;
Ojasti 1996; Reid 2009). Living in monogamous pairs, the paca occupies an exclusive
territory (Ojasti 1996; Emmons 1997). Females generally give birth to a single young
(Pérez 1992; Reid 2009). They may have one or two litters per year (Pérez 1992; Ojasti
1996).
The agouti is another large rodent inhabiting the tropical forests of Central
America. Smaller than the paca, the agouti thrives in forested habitats. Because it is fairly
tolerant of modified environments, it can also be found near cultivated lands (Ojasti 1996;
Emmons 1997; Reid 2009). As a forest-dweller, this small mammal feeds on a wide
variety of fruit and seeds, occasionally supplementing its diet with fungi, sprouts, and
crops (Ojasti 1996; Emmons 1997; Reid 2009). Agoutis are most active in the morning or
the late afternoon (Ojasti 1996; Reid 2009). A breeding pair of agoutis usually occupies a
70
territory of two to three hectares (Ojasti 1996; Reid 2009). They can breed year-round,
with two litters a year as a rule (Ojasti 1996; Reid 2009).
Pocket gophers are large, rat-like rodents that live in small isolated communities.
These animals spend most of their lives underground where they build deep, complex
burrow systems (Emmons 1997). They prefer open habitats with well-drained soils, such
as agricultural clearings or hilly forested areas. They generally feed on plant parts that
grow underground, such as tubers and stems, but they can also pull down aboveground
plants from below (Emmons 1997).
Two types of rabbits can be found in Central America: the tapiti and the cottontail.
Both species are browsers and grazers (Chapman et al. 1980; Emmons 1997). The tapiti is
the only type of rabbit that truly resides in mature tropical forests (Emmons 1997).
Mainly nocturnal, it commonly forages in habitat edges and agricultural fields, finding
shelter in thickets of dense vegetation (Emmons 1997; Reid 2009). In Chiapas, Mexico,
this species breeds year-round (Reid 2009). The cottontail prefers to live in open areas,
such as savannas, grasslands, and agricultural fields (Reid 2009). Although this animal is
solitary, it is not territorial (Chapman et al. 1980; Reid 2009). Females may have five to
seven litters per year (Reid 2009).
The white-nosed coati preferentially lives in wooded habitats, but it is
occasionally seen near savannas or agricultural fields (Gompper 1995; Emmons 1997;
Reid 2009). It spends most of its time foraging on the ground, but it may climb in the
canopy to forage fruit trees or rest (Gompper 1995; Reid 2009). Adult females and their
offspring travel in groups of about 20 individuals, whereas males are usually solitary
(Gompper 1995; Emmons 1997; Reid 2009). This animal is omnivorous and feeds on
fruit, invertebrates, and small vertebrates (Gompper 1995; Emmons 1997; Reid 2009). In
71
the few populations surveyed, coatis breed synchronously once per year, although the
timing of the breeding season differs between regions (Gompper 1995).
The long-tailed weasel efficiently occupies a wide range of environments. It can
inhabit forested locales but it usually prefers open areas and agricultural lands (Emmons
1997; Reid 2009). This animal is a generalist predator (Sheffield and Thomas 1997). In
tropical settings, it preys on small mammals (less than 50 g), rabbits, pocket gophers,
birds and their eggs (Sheffield and Thomas 1997; Reid 2009). Out of the den, it is active
day and night; most of the time is spent foraging and feeding (Sheffield and Thomas
1997). Nests are habitually found in burrows made by other animals or under rocks
(Sheffield and Thomas 1997; Reid 2009). This animal is solitary, but a male and a female
may remain together during the non-breeding season (Sheffield and Thomas 1997).
The Virginia opossum is a small, highly opportunistic animal. It can live in many
types of forested and open habitats and is generally found in the wetter areas of its range,
near streams and swamps. It is known to frequently forage in human refuse piles and, as a
result, is commonly found near human settlements (McManus 1974; Emmons 1997; Reid
2009). The diet of this omnivorous animal consists of insects and other invertebrates,
small vertebrates, carrion, fruit, and other plant matter (Emmons 1997). Mainly active at
night, the Virginia opossum spends most of its time travelling and feeding on the ground
although it may climb readily (Emmons 1997; Reid 2009). It is known to “play dead”
when disturbed or threatened (Emmons 1997; Reid 2009).
The common opossum is similar in its habits to the Virginia opossum. It mainly
lives on the ground, but may climb in trees to feed or escape danger (Emmons 1997; Reid
2009). This animal focuses on the exploitation of small animals (e.g., insects, worms, and
small vertebrates), although regularly forages for fruit and other plant matter (Emmons
72
1997; Reid 2009). In addition, it frequently takes advantage of the presence of garbage
dumps in rural areas (Reid 2009). At night, it may travel one to three kilometers in search
for food, but it remains in well-defined home ranges (Reid 2009). This animal thrives in
secondary forests and disturbed areas, although it is also found in mature, humid forests
(Emmons 1997; Reid 2009).
All felines found in the Maya subarea occupy the rainforests. Solitary hunters,
they handle almost anything they encounter, including mammals, snakes, birds, turtles,
caimans, fish, and even large insects (Emmons 1997). All species are believed to breed
year-round in the tropics, with litter size varying from one to four kittens (Tewes and
Schmidly 1987; Emmons 1997; Reid 2009). All species are mainly active nocturnally
(Tewes and Schmidly 1987; Emmons 1997).
The ocelot is a small feline that targets a variety of small- and medium-sized prey
(e.g., rodents, birds, snakes, lizards, and other small vertebrates). It spends most of its
time foraging on the ground and seldom climbs in trees (Tewes and Schmidly 1987;
Emmons 1997; Reid 2009). The ocelot may occupy many different habitats (e.g.,
rainforest, tropical deciduous forest, secondary forest, and scrubs), as long as they provide
sufficient cover (Tewes and Schmidly 1987; Emmons 1997; Reid 2009). It may also live
in disturbed areas and near human settlements (Emmons 1997; Reid 2009).
Slightly larger than a house cat, the margay is another small feline inhabiting
tropical rainforests (Tewes and Schmidly 1987; Emmons 1997). This species is the most
arboreal cat in the Americas. It hunts and rests in trees, but travelling is done on the
ground (Emmons 1997; Reid 2009). As a consequence of its arboreal habits, the margay
is found almost exclusively in mature and secondary forests and does not adapt well to
human disturbance (Tewes and Schmidly 1987; Emmons 1997; Reid 2009). Small
73
mammals, birds, and reptiles form the bulk of its diet (Emmons 1997; Reid 2009). Strictly
nocturnal, the margay spends daylight hours hidden among dense trees (Tewes and
Schmidly 1987).
Two large cats inhabit the tropical forests of the Maya subarea. The puma is a
solitary animal, usually wary of humans (Emmons 1997; Reid 2009). This animal is
highly adaptable and can be found in a variety of habitats, such as rainforests, scrubs, and
mountains (Emmons 1997; Reid 2009). The jaguar is the largest cat in the Americas. It
favors undisturbed forested habitats and waterside areas (Tewes and Schmidly 1987;
Emmons 1997; Reid 2009). Both species predominantly prey upon medium- and largesized mammals, such as deer, peccary, agouti, and paca. Depending on local availability,
they may also feed on turtles, caimans, birds, fish, and smaller mammals (Tewes and
Schmidly 1987; Emmons 1997; Reid 2009). Jaguars and pumas are sedentary animals
that presumably occupy defined home ranges (Tewes and Schmidly 1987; Emmons
1997).
Both the black and green iguanas live in tropical moist and dry forests, although
the black variety may also be found in open savannas (Campbell 1998). The green iguana
is arboreal. It spends most of its time in trees and is normally found near permanent
sources of water (e.g., rivers, streams, and lakes). In contrast, the black iguana lives closer
to the ground and rests in underground burrows or hollow logs (Campbell 1998). Both
species are primarily herbivorous, feeding on leaves, flowers, and fruit. It is reported that
the black iguana can eat small birds, rodents, and reptiles. Females lay eggs during the
dry season, from February to June (Campbell 1998).
Mud and musk turtles (Kinosternidae) are found in shallow backwaters of streams
and lakes, marshes, swamps, and aguadas. Generally, these turtles are only active
74
seasonally, because they bury themselves into the mud during the dry season (Campbell
1998). The northern giant musk turtle (Staurotypus triporcatus) is the only species living
near large, permanent bodies of water and active year-round. These turtles are usually
active at night. They are poor swimmers and forage at the bottom of ponds and lakes.
They do not need to emerge from the water to bask (Campbell 1998). Their diet is
composed of a mix of aquatic invertebrates, such as insects, shrimps, molluscs and crabs,
vegetable matter, tadpoles, and carrion (Campbell 1998).
These observations about the ecology and behavior of the most prevalent species
recovered at Pacbitun are central to an interpretation of the subsistence behaviors of the
Middle Preclassic Maya. However, before any interpretation can take place, the
quantitative and taphonomic methods used in the analysis of the faunal remains need to
be examined. They are the focus of the following chapter.
75
CHAPTER 5: METHODOLOGY
In order to interpret subsistence strategies at Pacbitun, it is necessary to evaluate
the integrity of the study sample. Indeed, multiple pre- and post-depositional processes
may have altered faunal assemblages before and after their recovery by the archaeologist.
Consequently, this chapter presents the methods used to assess taphonomic signatures on
the Pacbitun assemblages, along with a description of the quantification methods used in
the analysis of taxonomic composition and skeletal part representation. The chapter also
considers why the chosen methods are appropriate for studying faunal assemblages
recovered in tropical environments.
5.1 Definitions and identification procedures
Several important concepts used throughout this analysis must be defined prior to
any discussion regarding the faunal assemblages investigated in this study. A “skeletal
element” refers to a single complete anatomical unit, such as a humerus or a molar. A
“specimen” is described as any skeletal remain anatomically complete or a fragment
thereof, such as a proximal humerus or a molar fragment. The implication is that all
skeletal elements are specimens, but not all specimens are skeletal elements (Grayson
1984:16; Lyman 2008:5).
The identification of faunal remains was carried using comparative collections
from the Archaeozoology Laboratory at Trent University and the Department of
Vertebrate Paleontology at the Royal Ontario Museum. Manuals by Olsen (1982), Barone
(1986), and Gilbert (1993) were also consulted. Vertebrate remains were identified to the
highest taxonomic level possible. All identified specimens were examined using a 10X
magnification lens to observe surface modifications.
76
5.2 Quantification methods
The Number of Identified Specimens (NISP) is a fundamental measure of faunal
quantification (Grayson 1984; Lyman 2008; Reitz and Wing 2008). It is defined as the
number of skeletal elements and fragments identified to taxon. Specimens counted in
NISP are generally identified to the skeletal element and to at least the genus level
(Lyman 2008:27). However, in this study, NISP values also include bird, reptile, and fish
specimens identified to the class level, as these taxa could not always be identified as
precisely as mammalian specimens. Isolated teeth were counted as separate elements if
they could not be associated with another cranial element. If they were still in articulation
with the maxilla or mandible, they were considered part of the cranial element and were
not added to the NISP. When mammal bones could not be identified to family or genus,
they were attributed to broader taxonomic groups (Table 5.1), following the body size
classes defined by Savage (1971) and Emery (2007a).
Table 5.1 Taxonomic groups based on body size.
Small mammal
Gopher
Mouse
Squirrel
Medium mammal
Domestic dog
Armadillo
Opossum
Agouti
Paca
Small felines
Rabbits
Raccoons
Large mammal
White-tailed deer
Brocket deer
Tapir
Jaguar
Puma
Peccary
The Minimum Number of Elements (MNE) corresponds to the minimum number
of skeletal portions necessary to account for all the specimens representing a particular
element (Bunn and Kroll 1986:434–435; Lyman 1994:102). MNE estimates were
determined by manually counting, for each skeletal element, the number of portions with
77
overlapping landmarks (Todd and Rapson 1988) or zones (Morlan 1994) for proximal and
distal ends, as well as for shafts. Derived from MNE, the Minimum Number of
Individuals (MNI) is a measure of abundance consisting of the smallest number of
individuals necessary to account for all of the specimens of a particular taxon in an
assemblage (Klein and Cruz-Uribe 1984; Lyman 2008). MNI values were calculated on
the basis of the most common anatomical element for each taxon.
For both MNE and MNI, age, sex, and specimen size were not taken into account,
because the use of these characteristics tends to inflate the representation of diagnostic
specimens, such as teeth and epiphyses, in comparison to less diagnostic specimens, for
instance, long bone shaft and rib fragments (Morin 2012:68). Only stratigraphic
provenience (early Middle Preclassic versus late Middle Preclassic deposits) was
considered in the calculation of MNE and MNI estimates. MNE was used to measure
both the frequencies of skeletal parts and the abundance of distinct individuals.
Derived from MNE as well, the Minimal Animal Units (MAU) is used to describe
skeletal part frequencies (Lyman 2008). MAU values were determined by dividing MNE
estimates for each element by the number of times this element is represented in a
complete skeleton. The values were then standardized (%MAU) by dividing all MAU
values by the greatest MAU value in the assemblage (Binford 1984:50). This procedure
reduces much of the variation in MNE values caused by the differential frequency of
skeletal elements in a complete skeleton (Lyman 2008:233–237).
A similar protocol was adopted for the use of NISP in the analysis of skeletal part
frequencies. NISP counts for each skeletal element were divided by the number of times
this element occurs in a particular taxon, resulting in a Normed NISP (NNISP) (Grayson
and Frey 2004; Grayson and Delpech 2008). For example, NNISP values for long bones
78
were obtained by dividing the NISP counts by two. The same procedure was applied to
cranial elements, as crania and mandibles are represented in the assemblages by isolated
left and right fragments. NNISP counts were also standardized (%NNISP) to the
abundance of the most common element for each taxon.
5.2.1 Strengths and weaknesses of NISP, MNE, and MNI
The main advantage of NISP lies in its simplicity. NISP is a direct tally of
identified specimens. As new specimens are identified and added to the analysis, the
researcher does not have to recalculate the totals. NISP is also easily replicable. Two
different observers, assuming comparable skills in identification and access to the same
collections, should obtain similar NISPs for the same faunal assemblage (Grayson
1984:20; Klein and Cruz-Uribe 1984:25; Lyman 2008:28). In addition, because it is
cumulative, NISP does not suffer from problems of aggregation between units or layers
(Grayson 1984). One specimen is always considered to be one specimen no matter where
it was found or how it is aggregated. Finally, as different analysts would likely tally NISP
more or less the same way, NISP has the advantage of facilitating comparisons of
assemblages from different sites. This is particularly true for Maya archaeozoology given
that the majority of lowland Maya faunal analyses are based on NISP counts (Emery
1997:90).
NISP does, however, suffer from various shortcomings. First, NISP is sensitive to
inter-taxonomic and intra-taxonomic variation. Indeed, different taxa do not share the
same number of skeletal elements and some taxa or elements may be more easily
identified than others. Some skeletal elements or taxa are also more likely to be
fragmented or destroyed as a result of differential structural density (Grayson 1984:20–
79
25; Klein and Cruz-Uribe 1984:25; Marshall and Pilgram 1993; Ringrose 1993; Lyman
2008:29–34). Given these problems, the abundance of certain elements or taxa may be
under- or over-represented relative to their initial abundance in the deposited assemblage
as assessed by NISP. Differential identification and fragmentation can be mitigated by
refitting (discussed in section 4.3). Refitting is defined as piecing back together
specimens that belong to the same skeletal element (mechanical refit) or by reassembling
together skeletal elements from a same individual (anatomical refit) (Enloe and David
1989, 1992; Hofman 1992). Differential representation caused by differences in total
number of elements between species can be controlled for with the use of additional
quantification methods, such as normed NISP (NNISP).
NISP is also plagued by the problem of interdependence (Grayson 1984; Lyman
2008; Reitz and Wing 2008:203), given that it does not account for the fact that multiple
specimens identified to a taxon may be from a single individual. For instance, if the NISP
is 50, it is not possible to determine whether those specimens represent 1 or 50
individuals. In this context, NISP may exaggerate the sample size of individuals or
elements. The problem of interdependence may preclude the use of basic statistical tests
as most require independent observations (Grayson 1984:23–26; Lyman 2008:36–38). A
high degree of fragmentation may also amplify the problem of interdependence (Klein
and Cruz-Uribe 1984:25; Marshall and Pilgram 1993). This drawback of NISP can
partially be countered by conducting refit studies and by using derived quantification
measures, such as the minimum number of individuals (MNI). MNI solves the problem of
interdependence as it avoids counting the same individual twice. Similarly, it is not
affected by the problem of inter-taxonomic variation of skeletal elements, as it is based on
the most common skeletal element of a taxon in an assemblage (Lyman 2008:38–39, 44).
80
Although MNI was introduced to overcome the problems associated with NISP
counts, several problems with this quantification method have also been identified. MNI
is more difficult to tally than NISP as it is not cumulative. Moreover, there is no
consensus on how MNI estimates should be derived (Klein and Cruz-Uribe 1984:26;
Marean et al. 2001; Lyman 2008:46), which may reduce comparability between
assemblages. This problem can, to some extent, be controlled for if the same methods are
used (Klein and Cruz-Uribe 1984:26–28; Marean et al. 2001; Lyman 2008:46–48).
Additionally, MNI counts can exaggerate the importance of rare taxa. This problem can
be assessed if MNI estimates are considered together with NISP values (Klein and CruzUribe 1984:32–33; Plug and Plug 1990; Lyman 2008:46–47).
MNI values can also be affected by sample aggregation. The MNI count for an
entire site will likely differ from the MNI estimates calculated for multiple distinct units
of the same site, because a given skeletal part might not constitute the most abundant
element across different aggregates. For instance, although the left humerus of a given
taxon might be the most abundant skeletal part at a site, other elements might occur more
frequently if the assemblage is divided in multiple aggregates (Grayson 1984:29–30; Plug
and Plug 1990; Lyman 2008:58–63). Refitting can help overcome the problem of
aggregation, as it reduces the possibility of aggregates sharing specimens from the same
individuals (Lyman 2008:68–69).
The nonlinear increase of MNI with increasing sample size also constitutes a
problem. Similar to NISP, MNI increases with fragmentation. However, as the intensity
of fragmentation increases, it becomes increasingly difficult to identify fragments because
they retain fewer and fewer diagnostic landmarks (Lyman and O'Brien 1987; Marshall
and Pilgram 1993; Lyman 2008:43). At some point, the rate of increase of MNI will
81
decrease relative to the rate of increase of NISP (Marshall and Pilgram 1993) because the
probability of adding a specimen of a new, unrepresented individual to MNI counts
decreases concomitantly (Grayson 1984:61–64; Lyman 2008:48–50).
Another derived measure, MNE, has many of the same advantages and problems.
Like MNI, MNE is used to control for the problem of interdependence. MNE ensures that
each element will not be tallied twice which helps to circumvent the problem of
differential fragmentation. At first glance, MNE may represent a better unit than NISP for
quantifying the abundance of skeletal parts (Lyman 2008:222). However, like MNI, MNE
is influenced by strategies of aggregation and sample size (Lyman 2008:222–224).
Due to the problems of differential preservation, fragmentation, and identification,
NISP and MNI values cannot be considered as ratio-scale data (Grayson 1984:94–96).
Nonetheless, NISP and MNI can provide reliable ordinal data when taxa are well
separated in terms of abundance. Indeed, the greater the difference in abundance between
taxa, the less likely that specimen interdependence (for NISP) or the use of different
aggregation methods (for MNI) will alter the rank order of those taxa (Grayson 1984:97–
99; Lyman 2008:73–75). The same reasoning applies to MNE estimates (Lyman
2008:226–228).
5.2.2 Use of quantification methods in this study
The small size of the Pacbitun assemblages may affect and limit the use of certain
quantification methods. MNE derived counts, such as the MNI and MAU, are not, in
comparison to NISP, particularly accurate when used to describe small samples (Grayson
1978; Plug and Plug 1990). This problem is also amplified by the high species diversity
that characterizes the assemblages. As a result of small sample size, the results obtained
82
from statistical tests based on MNE and MAU values may not be very robust. To limit the
problems associated with each quantification unit, NISP and MNE were used conjointly
to measure taxonomic composition, whereas NNISP and MAU values were used to
investigate skeletal part representation. The use of several quantification methods should
increase the robustness of the results with respect to taxonomic composition and skeletal
part representation.
5.3 Refitting
Refitting is useful because conjoining two or more fragments together can
increase the identifiability of otherwise nondiagnostic fragments, particularly long bone
shaft fragments (Marean and Kim 1998). Additionally, the stratigraphic integrity of an
archaeological sequence can be tested through an analysis of the provenience of the
refitted fragments (Hofman 1992; Morin et al. 2005). Although refitting an entire faunal
assemblage is tedious and time-consuming (Marean and Kim 1998), even partial refitting
of an assemblage can provide substantial information on occupation mixing (Morin et al.
2005).
Because of the small sample size of the Pacbitun assemblage, it was possible to
attempt to refit all long bone shaft fragments, rib fragments, and taxonomically identified
specimens. Efforts were made to refit unidentified shaft fragments with other specimens
from the same unit. Identified specimens were tentatively refitted with other fragments
from the same unit, as well as with all specimens belonging to the same element and
taxon. This procedure was carried out across all levels. A distinction was made between
dry bone and green bone given that they can yield information on site formation processes
and occupation mixing (Todd and Stanford 1992).
83
5.4 Age and sex
The analysis of animal age and sex can produce important information on
seasonality of occupation, human prey choice, and husbandry practices. Epiphyseal
fusion is a common method used to estimate the age at death of particular individuals in
faunal assemblages. Because bones often fused successively during the life of animals,
the sequence of fusion can be used to establish coarse age classes, particularly for
juvenile specimens (Reitz and Wing 2008:72). However, when all the bones of a skeleton
are fused, it is seldom possible to distinguish between stages of older individuals (e.g.,
prime adults versus senile individuals). Therefore, epiphyseal age classes may only
provide coarse information on mortality profiles. This problem may be accentuated by the
fact that unfused epiphyses are more easily affected by destructive processes (e.g.,
carnivore gnawing, post-depositional processes) than fused ones, which can lead to biases
against younger individuals (Klein and Cruz-Uribe 1984:41–43).
Fortunately, the use of teeth for estimating age frequently yields more precise
information than epiphyseal fusion. First, teeth are generally more durable than epiphyses
and are less likely to be damaged by post-depositional destruction (Klein and Cruz-Uribe
1984:43–44). Second, teeth erupt at a certain age and wear down more or less
continuously throughout the life of an animal (Klein and Cruz-Uribe 1984:43–44; Reitz
and Wing 2008:72–73). Consequently, the relative age of mammals can often be
estimated by using extant sequences of dental eruption and wear (Klein and Cruz-Uribe
1984:46–55; Hillson 2005:215–222). Age for worn teeth is frequently measured with the
maximum height of the crown of cheek teeth, both deciduous and permanent (Payne
1973; Hillson 2005:214–222; Reitz and Wing 2008:72–73). However, the method
84
requires complete teeth, which can limit the number of specimens suitable for
constructing age profiles (Klein and Cruz-Uribe 1984:52–54). Additionally, there can be
significant variation in dental eruption and wear between populations (Klein and CruzUribe 1984:52) and, in some species, between sexes (Gee et al. 2002; Hillson 2005:223).
Data is not always available for wild animals (Klein and Cruz-Uribe 1984:41–43), but
both biologists (e.g., Severinghaus 1949; Gilbert and Slolt 1970; Gee et al. 2002) and
archaeologists (e.g., Elder 1965; Wolverton et al. 2008) have been successful in using this
method for white-tailed deer, the most common species at Pacbitun.
At Pacbitun, age determination focused on white-tailed deer. Data on epiphyseal
fusion was compared to sequences recorded by Purdue (1983). Epiphyses were coded as
unfused, intermediate, or fused. Bones in the intermediate category are those for which
the line of fusion is still clearly visible. Age from teeth was estimated using
measurements provided by Severinghaus (1949). Crown height measurements were
recorded for mandibular premolars and molars. Following the approach adopted by Gee
and colleagues (2002), specimens were assigned to one of three age categories: juvenile
(<1 year old), subadult (1–2 years old), and adult (>2 years old). The adult class was
subsequently split into young and old adults based on dental wear. When possible, age
was also determined for other species if published sequences of epiphyseal fusion or
dental eruption and wear were available.
Concerning sex determination, one of the simplest methods consists of recording
the presence or absence of antlers for ungulates (Klein and Cruz-Uribe 1984:39–40). Sex
can also be determined based on osteometric differences between males and females.
However, this technique requires bone specimens sufficiently complete to allow adequate
85
measurements to be taken (Klein and Cruz-Uribe 1984:39–41). The absence of antlers,
small sample size, and substantial fragmentation prevented sex determination at Pacbitun.
5.5 Taphonomic modifications
Anthropic, biological, chemical, and physical factors may all affect
archaeological assemblages and distort the interpretation of human behaviours inferred
from faunal analyses. Therefore, multiple lines of evidence are examined here in order to
determine which agent(s) is(are) responsible for the formation of the faunal assemblages
at Pacbitun.
5.5.1 Fractures
Although taphonomic and actualistic studies have shown that there is no simple
correlation between a type of fracture and the agent that produced it (Binford 1981;
Haynes 1983b; Johnson 1985), the study of fracture morphology can help to infer the
timing of bone fracturing. The importance of studying fracture morphologies on long
bone fragments should be emphasized because fractures constitute constant properties of
broken bones (Villa and Mahieu 1991). It may be possible to study fractures even when
cortical surfaces are heavily weathered, as is frequent in tropical environments, or when
cutmarks or gnawing marks have become obscured by poor surface preservation.
In this study, fractures on long bone fragments have been assigned to two types:
green-bone and dry-bone fractures. Green-bone fractures tend to have a homogeneous
color and show a smooth texture and spiral shape (Morlan 1980:48–49; Haynes 1983a;
Johnson 1985:176, 222). Dry-bone fractures often exhibit a rough texture in cross-section,
have a more or less transverse shape and may present a different color than the outer
cortical surface (Morlan 1980:48–49; Johnson 1985:176–178, 222). Only unambiguous
86
fractures were recorded following this procedure. Although this method has mainly been
used with mammal remains, it can also be applied to the analysis of avian long bones
(Higgins 1999; Serjeantson 2009). Additionally, following the terminology of Villa and
Mahieu (1991), the shape of proximal and distal fractures on long bones was assigned to
one of the following types: curved, v-shaped, oblique, transverse, irregular, or ragged.
Fracture edges were recorded following Villa and colleagues (2005) as fresh, slightly
abraded, abraded, and very abraded, as this information can potentially help to infer about
site formation processes.
5.5.2 Butchery and tool use
Butchery can be defined as all sets of human activities, such as skinning,
disarticulation, and meat removal, associated with the extraction of consumable resources
from an animal carcass (Lyman 1994:294–296). Cutmarks can result from such actions
(Binford 1981:46–47; Bunn 1983b), as well as from the manufacture of bone tools
(Emery 2008a). Therefore, cutmarks constitute the best indicator of human involvement
in assemblage formation (Villa et al. 2004). Because they can be mistaken with marks
produced by the action of carnivores or by trampling, only unambiguous cutmarks were
recorded in this analysis.
Marrow constitutes an important source of fat and nutrients. Bones are generally
cracked open by humans with a hammerstone-on-anvil technique, which may leave
percussion marks and notches (Johnson 1985:192–194; Pickering and Egeland 2006).
Because they penetrate the thickness of the bone, notches are less easily obscured by
weathering than marks left on the cortical surface of the bone. As a result, they can be
used, with some limitations, to identify the agents responsible for the formation of
87
archaeological assemblages (Capaldo and Blumenschine 1994). Unfortunately, notches
made by carnivores can be very similar to notches produced by humans (Bunn 1989).
Nonetheless, Capaldo and Blumenschine (1994) suggest that the morphology of notches
produced by humans and carnivores can be statistically distinguished for small bovids
(less than 115 kg). In a recent study, Galán and colleagues (2009) observed considerable
overlap between carnivore-induced and hammerstone-induced notches on small bovid
assemblages and concluded that the pattern for small bovids is much weaker than
proposed by Capaldo and Blumenschine. Castel (2004) also noticed that, in some
instances, the morphology of notches produced by wolves on sheep bones can be similar
to that produced by human activities. Despite this lack of agreement in the literature, all
notches were recorded in this study. Because of the marginal presence of carnivores in the
Pacbitun assemblages (see Chapter 6), it is believed that notches are probably the result of
anthropogenic fracturing.
The Maya manufactured a wide range of artifacts (e.g., needles, scrapers, fishhooks, beads, pins, and musical instruments) from bone, tooth, and antler (Hamblin 1984;
Pohl 1990; Moholy-Nagy 1994:110; Emery 2008a, 2009). Bone artifacts recovered from
Maya sites, such as Tikal (Moholy-Nagy 1994) and Dos Pilas (Emery 2008a, 2009),
indicate that these were generally made of mammalian bones. The Maya preferentially
selected the straightest and strongest bones for this purpose, in particular the tibia, femur,
and metapodial (Hamblin 1984; Emery 2008a, 2009). Bones from white-tailed deer was
the preferred raw material, but other medium and large mammals (felids, peccary, dog,
and brocket deer) were also exploited (Moholy-Nagy 1994:107; Emery 2008a, 2009).
Fragile cranial fragments and scapulae might also have been selected for the production
of disks and other flat artifacts (Moholy-Nagy 1994:107; Emery 2008a, 2009). In some
88
cases, the edges of broken bones were used as tools without further shaping. These
expedient tools can be identified by the polish visible on the bone surface (Pohl
1990:158). One artefact made from a mammal long bone was identified in the sample.
Bone debris resulting from artifact production may also be present, but were not
identified during the analysis.
5.5.3 Carnivore ravaging
Carnivores can be important agents of accumulation and transformation of faunal
assemblages. Unfortunately, studies focusing on the action of carnivores in tropical
environments are rare. The literature, however, abounds with actualistic and
archaeological studies in other areas of the world (e.g., Binford 1981; Marean and
Spencer 1991; Stiner 1994). These provide considerable insight on how to recognize the
signature of carnivore agents in faunal assemblages.
The most destructive agent at Maya sites is likely to have been the domestic dog
(Stanchly 2004). As companions, dogs possibly scavenged household waste or were fed
butchery scraps (Pohl 1990; van der Merwe et al. 2000; Stanchly 2004). Therefore, they
could have both accumulated and transformed the faunal assemblages at Pacbitun. Dogs
can cause extensive damage to animal bones. They often destroy the cancellous
epiphyses, gnawing the ends into the shaft to extract fat. Relatively complete shafts or
“bone cylinders” may remain from this process (Binford 1981; Johnson 1985:191–192;
Cruz-Uribe 1991; Castel 2004). In contrast, humans tend to break bones along the midshaft, which results in a high proportion of fragmented bones or “splinters” (Bunn 1983a;
Pickering and Egeland 2006). Therefore, long bone shaft fragmentation (see section
4.5.4) is an important aspect to consider when determining the impact of carnivores on a
89
faunal assemblage. It should be noted that dogs can also fracture bones through static
loading, producing notches and pits (Johnson 1985:192; Capaldo and Blumenschine
1994; Castel 2004). In dog experiments, punctures and furrows occur frequently on the
epiphyses, while scoring and pitting are more common on the diaphysis (Binford
1981:44–49). Dogs also tend to swallow bone fragments or small bones while eating.
These bones may be chemically eroded to varying degrees during digestion (Andrews and
Evans 1983).
Pumas and jaguars also accumulate and modify faunal assemblages, but not as
actively as other carnivores (Seymour 1989; Martín and Borrero 1997). Large cats rarely
cause heavy gnawing damage, because they do not tend to consume grease and marrow
contained in bones. However, they can leave few, relatively deep and large punctures and
furrows on the epiphyses (Haynes 1983b; Martín and Borrero 1997; Montalvo et al. 2007;
Mondini and Muñoz 2008; Muñoz et al. 2008). Smaller felids, including the ocelot,
margay, and jaguarundi, may also significantly damage small mammal (<5 kg) bones
(Álvarez et al. 2012), but are less likely to cause important damage to large carcasses.
Although felids do not tend to come near human settlements and rarely scavenge on
carcasses (Seymour 1989), they nonetheless could have accumulated or modified the
faunal assemblages at Pacbitun.
Other animals present in the habitats surrounding Pacbitun can potentially
accumulate or alter faunal assemblages. Procyonids (e.g., coati, raccoon, and kinkajou)
are omnivorous. They feed mainly on fruits and invertebrates, and occasionally on small
rodents and birds (Lotze and Anderson 1979; Ford and Hoffmann 1988; Gompper 1995,
1996). Mustelids, including the long-tailed weasel and tayra (Eira barbara), are
carnivorous. They consume a variety of insects and small vertebrates, including small
90
rodents, rabbits, iguanas, and birds of small to medium size (Sheffield and Thomas 1997;
Presley 2000). Therefore, despite their small size, mustelids and procyonids may prey on
the same small taxa as humans do. Some species may live near human habitations, taking
advantage of food found in gardens, orchards, and agricultural fields (Ford and Hoffmann
1988; Gompper 1995, 1996; Presley 2000). These carnivores probably have little impact
on the bones of large animals, because their carnassial teeth are poorly developed
compared to larger carnivores (Ford and Hoffmann 1988; Gompper 1995). However, they
are known to accumulate small-sized vertebrates, particularly in dens and burrows
(Andrews and Evans 1983). Lastly, rodents, such as the agouti and paca, also transport
and gnaw bones. Rodent gnaw marks can easily be identified because of the distinctive
furrows they produce with their incisors (Binford 1981; Johnson 1985:180).
Following Binford (1981:44–51), carnivore gnaw marks were classified in this
study as tooth pits, punctures, crenulated edges, scoring, furrows, scooping, and traces of
digestion. The extent of carnivore gnawing was also recorded as marginal, limited to one
section, or extensive (Morin 2012:73). Because both surface preservation and bone
fragmentation can affect the observation of marks on bones, data on fragment size,
completeness and circumference of long bone shafts is also required to understand animal
activity.
5.5.4 Fragmentation
The study of bone fragmentation can reveal the extent of anthropic and animal
action at a site, as well as convey information on the impact of taphonomic disturbance.
As mentioned earlier, human activities generally tend to produce a majority of splinters,
whereas assemblages deposited by carnivores are frequently characterized by a high
91
proportion of long-bone cylinders with deleted epiphyses (Binford 1981:171–177; Bunn
1983a, 1989; Villa et al. 2004).
Several measures of fragmentation were used in this analysis. First, maximum
length and maximum width were measured for all identified specimens. Length of all
unidentified specimens was also recorded using 1 cm size classes. The circumference of
long bone fragments was described as follows: less than half of the original
circumference (<1/2), more than half (>1/2), or complete (Bunn 1983a; Villa and Mahieu
1991). Similarly, all long bone shafts were coded as a fraction of the original length: less
than one quarter (<1/4), between one quarter and one half (1/4–1/2), less than three
quarters (1/2–3/4), and three quarters to complete (>3/4) (Villa and Mahieu 1991).
Finally, long bone fragments were recorded using a simple system of five bone portions:
proximal end, proximal shaft, middle shaft, distal shaft, and distal end (Marean and
Spencer 1991).
5.5.5 Burning
Burned bones are generally considered direct evidence of anthropogenic activity
(Stiner et al. 1995; Villa et al. 2004). Intentional burning of bones can result from
cooking, disposal of rubbish in fires, use of bones as fuel, or cremation (Gilchrist and
Mytum 1986; Nicholson 1993; Villa et al. 2004). Bones can also be burned accidentally
in a natural fire or due to their proximity to a fireplace (Gilchrist and Mytum 1986; Villa
et al. 2004).
Burned bones can exhibit different colors, these being a function of the maximum
temperature reached by the bone (Nicholson 1993; Lyman 1994:385; Stiner et al. 1995).
Bones that are slightly burned tend to be brownish. When reaching carbonization, they
92
turn black. As the intensity of the fire increases to calcination, bones shift from black to
gray to white, sometimes passing through shades of blue or green (Shipman et al. 1984;
Gilchrist and Mytum 1986; Nicholson 1993; Stiner et al. 1995).
Burned bones tend to be more brittle than unburned bones. Their mechanical
strength varies according to the extent to which they have been burned. Indeed, as
burning intensity increases, bone become more friable and porous (Gilchrist and Mytum
1986; Stiner et al. 1995). Consequently, fragment size can be an important variable in
determining burning intensity (Stiner et al. 1995). As bones become more susceptible to
fragmentation, they may lose some of their diagnostic features, hindering taxonomic and
skeletal identification. Bones will not necessarily be destroyed by burning, but rather may
become analytically absent as they slowly become unidentifiable (Lyman and O'Brien
1987; Buikstra and Swegle 1989; Lyman 1994:391; Stiner et al. 1995).
In this study, the color of burned bones (brown, black, gray, green, blue, or white)
was recorded for the entire assemblage. This method was chosen because colors are easily
discernible to the naked eye and have proven reliable for diagnosing burning damage on
archaeological bones (Stiner et al. 1995). The maximal length in centimeters of all burned
fragments was also recorded to document fragmentation of the burned portion of the
assemblage.
5.5.6 Additional taphonomic agents
Post-depositional processes may have an impact on the preservation of faunal
assemblages and affect the identification of marks left on bones. Several types of
alterations were recorded for all specimens: exfoliation, sheeting, root etching, staining,
and cracking. Exfoliation can be defined as the loss of the first few millimeters of cortical
93
bone, while sheeting describes the fracturing of cortical bone into one or more sheets that
tend to be parallel to the cortical surface (Morin 2012:70). The six weathering stages
identified by Behrensmeyer (1978) were not used in this study, because the criteria of
cracking, flaking, and splintering used to categorize bone preservation were seldom
observed on the Pacbitun assemblages. This is probably explained by the significant
differences existing between the Belizean tropical rainforest and the Kenyan savannah
where Behrensmeyer’s experiments were conducted.
In a different study, Tappen (1994) suggested that bone modifications caused by
weathering in a savannah climate differ from those in a tropical rainforest. She observed
that subaerial weathering, which caused the most important damage to the bones studied
by Behrensmeyer, was slower in rainforests. She attributed this to the reduced sunlight,
high moisture, and low variation of humidity and temperature distinctive of tropical
rainforests. She occasionally observed exfoliation on the cortical surface of the bones,
which is generally attributed to the chemical action of natural acidic soils and biological
agents, such as roots, algae, and fungi (Tappen 1994; Fernández-Jalvo et al. 2002). This
observation applies particularly to the Pacbitun assemblages, as it is the most common
damage observed on the faunal remains.
As Tappen does not provide a methodology to study specifically bones recovered
in tropical environments, bone surface condition was observed and assigned to one of
four categories: intact, slightly damaged, damaged, or poor (Morin 2012:71). In this
classification, a surface is considered intact when almost no surface damage is recorded.
A surface with superficial damage is considered slightly damaged. This would be the case
for a bone surface with local damage, but with visible marks or morphological features.
When landmarks are faint and the surface is significantly altered, the specimen is coded
94
as damaged. Poorly preserved bones have a considerably damaged cortical surface. Marks
on this type of surface are unlikely to have survived. Finally, an estimate of the
percentage of the remaining original bone surface was also recorded by 10% intervals (E.
Morin, personal communication, 2012).
5.6 Summary
The methods described in this chapter, which are used in the analysis of the
Pacbitun assemblages, will provide detailed taphonomic and quantitative data about the
foraging strategies adopted by the Preclassic Maya at Pacbitun. The next chapter
examines the stratigraphic and taphonomic integrity of the study sample.
95
CHAPTER 6: SAMPLE DESCRIPTION AND TAPHONOMY
This chapter assesses the integrity of the Pacbitun faunal assemblages. It begins
with a description of the material analyzed in this study, while the second half focuses on
measuring the impact of different taphonomic processes on the Middle Preclassic
samples.
6.1 The Pacbitun faunal assemblages
The faunal assemblages examined in this study date exclusively to the Middle
Preclassic period (900–300 BC). The animal remains that were analyzed were recovered
in Plazas A, B, C, and D during the excavations conducted from 1995 to 1997 by the
Trent University-Preclassic Maya Project and from 2008 to 2011 by the Pacbitun
Regional Archaeological Project (PRAP). The material recovered during the 1995 and
1996 field seasons has previously been identified by Norbert Stanchly. However, it was
decided that this material would be reanalyzed in this study because different methods
were used to assess the impact of taphonomic processes. The samples were retrieved from
both primary (floor and perimeter deposits) and secondary contexts (fill and midden)
(Table 6.1).
The assemblages of vertebrate remains recovered from Pacbitun include a total of
1,730 specimens, with 566 specimens dating from the early Middle Preclassic and 1,164
from the late Middle Preclassic (Table 6.1). Most of the assemblages consist of
unidentifiable mammal fragments (n = 1,110) and indeterminate specimens (n = 328).
The use of refitting during analysis reduced the initial NISP count by 39.0%, for a postrefit total of 292 identified specimens (Table 6.2). Only post-refit NISP counts are used in
96
the following analysis because they help to mitigate problems of differential
fragmentation and identification, as well as minimize the problem of specimen
interdependence (Morin 2012:75). As such, post-refit NISP constitutes a more accurate
estimate of taxonomic composition and skeletal part representation than pre-refit NISP.
Table 6.1 Number of specimens by primary and secondary contexts for the Middle
Preclassic assemblages.
Contexts
Primary contexts
Floor deposits
Perimeter deposits
Secondary contexts
Plaza fill
Construction fill
Secondary midden
Total
early Middle Preclassic
n
late Middle Preclassic
n
Total
n
451
84
357
139
808
223
2
29
0
566
26
21
621
1164
28
50
621
1730
Table 6.2 Pre- and post-refit NISP counts by time period.
Time period
early Middle Preclassic
late Middle Preclassic
Total
Total bone
count
566
1164
1730
Pre-refit NISP*
n
210
269
479
Post-refit NISP
n
125
167
292
* Pre-refit counts include all refitted fragments.
Mammals are the most frequently identified animals in the samples (96.8% of the
total assemblages, Tables 6.3 and 6.4). Artiodactyls, including the white-tailed deer,
peccary, and red brocket deer, dominate both the early Middle Preclassic (56.8%) and late
Middle Preclassic samples (66.5%). Armadillos are the second most abundant taxon
(12.0%). Carnivores, represented by the domestic dog, coati, weasel, and various felines
(jaguar, puma, margay, and ocelot), represent 4.0% and 3.6% of the early Middle
97
Preclassic and late Middle Preclassic samples, respectively. Other identified mammals
collectively form less than 8.0% of the assemblages and include the pocket gopher,
opossum, tapir, paca, agouti, and rabbit. It should be noted that the collared peccary
(Pecari tajacu) and white-lipped peccary (Tayassu pecari) are considered difficult to
differentiate osteologically (Olsen 1982; Emery 2010:64). The limited comparative
collections available to the author did not permit taxonomic distinction between the two
species.
Table 6.3 Distribution of faunal remains by zoological class for the early and late Middle
Preclassic samples at Pacbitun.
Taxon
Mammals
Reptiles
Fish
Birds
Amphibians
Total
early Middle Preclassic
n
%
405
94.8
14
3.3
6
1.4
2
0.5
0
0.0
566
100.0
late Middle Preclassic
n
%
952
97.6
17
1.7
2
0.2
3
0.3
1
0.1
1164
99.9
Total
n
%
1357 96.8
31
2.2
8
0.6
5
0.4
1
0.1
1730 100.0
Reptiles form the second most important class (2.2%) in the assemblages. This
group is dominated by turtle (early Middle Preclassic = 8.8%; late Middle Preclassic =
3.6%). Most turtle remains are carapace or plastron fragments lacking taxonomically
diagnostic features. Only one specimen was specifically identified as a mud turtle. Snakes
(3.1%) represent the second most common reptile group, with six colubrid and three viper
remains. Remains of iguanas (1.7%) constitute the only specimens of lizards identified in
the samples.
98
Table 6.4 Identified taxa by NISP and MNI for the early and late Middle Preclassic
samples at Pacbitun.
Scientific Name
Osteichthyes
Ictaluridae
Serranidae
Sparisoma spp.
Unidentified fish
Amphibia
Rhinella marina
Reptilia
Iguanidae
Testudines
Kinosternon spp.
Colubridae
Viperidae
Aves
Galliformes
Unidentified bird
Mammalia
Didelphis marsupialis
Didelphis virginiana
Common Name
early Middle Preclassic
NISP
%
MNI
%
late Middle Preclassic
NISP
%
MNI
%
Catfish
Grouper
Parrotfish
1
1
4
0.8
0.8
3.3
1
1
-
4.2
4.2
-
1
1
0.6
0.6
1
-
4.2
-
Marine toad
-
-
-
-
1
0.6
1
4.2
Iguana
Turtle
Mud turtle
Colubrid
Viper
2
11
1
-
1.6
8.8
0.8
-
1
1
1
-
4.2
4.2
4.2
-
3
5
1
5
3
1.8
3.0
0.6
3.0
1.8
1
1
1
1
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
Turkey, guan
2
1.6
1
4.2
1
2
0.6
1.2
1
-
4.2
-
2
1.6
1
4.2
1
1
0.6
0.6
1
1
4.2
4.2
17
13.6
4
16.7
18
10.8
2
8.3
1
1
1
1
1
2
6
1
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.6
4.8
0.8
1
1
1
1
-
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
-
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
6
1.2
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
4.2
3.6
1
1
1
1
1
-
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
-
51
40.8
2
8.3
88
52.7
3
14.8
7
4
1
3
2
2
125
5.6
3.2
0.8
2.4
1.6
1.6
100.1
1
2
1
1
1
24
4.2
8.3
4.2
4.2
4.2
100.0
10
3
1
2
167
6.0
1.2
0.6
1.2
100.0
1
1
1
1
24
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
100.0
Common opossum
Virginia opossum
Nine-banded
Dasypus novemcinctus
armadillo
Canidae
Dog, fox
Canis lupus familiaris Domestic dog
Nasua narica
White-nosed coati
Mustela frenata
Long-tailed weasel
Felidae
Cats
Puma concolor
Cougar, puma
Panthera onca
Jaguar
Leopardus wiedii
Margay
Leopardus pardalis Ocelot
Tapirus bairdii
Tapir
Artiodactyla
Artiodactyl
Tayassuidae
Peccary
Cervidae
Cervid
Odocoileus
White-tailed deer
virginianus
Mazama americana Red brocket deer
Orthogeomys spp.
Pocket gopher
Dasyproctidae
Agoutis, pacas
Cuniculus paca
Paca, gibnut
Dasyprocta punctata Agouti
Sylvilagus spp.
Rabbit
Total
99
Fish remains were rarely encountered during analysis (0.6% of the total
assemblages). The only identified specimen of freshwater species is a catfish vertebra,
whereas marine species are represented by remains of grouper and parrotfish.
Identification of archaeological fish remains from Maya sites is generally considered
challenging due to high species diversity, the non-diagnostic nature of many post-cranial
fragments, and the propensity of fish remains to preserve poorly (Hamblin 1984; Powis et
al. 1999; Stanchly 2004; Wake 2004a). Bird remains are also uncommon at the site (0.4%
of the total assemblages). One specimen is identified as a gallinaceous bird. Although the
high level of fragmentation precluded identification, the comparative material suggests
the presence of medium- to large-sized birds. The amphibian assemblage is composed of
a single bone from a marine toad.
Overall, mammals dominate the Middle Preclassic assemblages, while reptiles,
fish, and birds only form a fraction of the material. Before discussing the significance of
these observations regarding taxonomic composition, the second half of this chapter
considers taphonomic processes that possibly affected the Pacbitun faunal samples.
6.2 Taphonomy
Taphonomy is a field of study that has received little attention from Maya
archaeozoologists. In fact, published papers dealing specifically with the taphonomy of
Maya faunal assemblages are nearly nonexistent (for an exception, see Stanchly 2004)
and taphonomy is rarely addressed in the studies of animal resource exploitation. The
impact of taphonomic processes in assemblage formation is examined in dissertations by
Pohl (1976:67–81), Shaw (1991:243–249), and Emery (1997:72–92), but the scope of
these analyses remains limited.
100
This bias may be attributed to the generally accepted idea that unfavorable tropical
environments are mainly responsible for poor preservation of organic remains at Maya
sites. Although high soil acidity and humidity likely constitute the main factors
responsible for the rapid deterioration of organic remains in the tropics, many other
natural and cultural processes may also have impacted the preservation of faunal remains.
Therefore, as pointed out by Stanchly (2004), it is necessary to conduct detailed
taphonomic analyses in order to identify the processes that might have shaped past faunal
assemblages. The following section considers taphonomic factors relevant to the
interpretation of the faunal samples at Pacbitun, including recovery methods, postdepositional attrition, burning, differential fragmentation and preservation, and carnivore
ravaging.
6.2.1 Testing the stratigraphic sequence
Bone refits were used in this analysis to test the stratigraphic integrity of the
faunal assemblages. A total of 81 refit sets were found in the Middle Preclassic
assemblages, for an average of 3.3 specimens per set. Seventy-two of these sets are refits
on dry-bone fractures and likely represent post-depositional breakage. Several specimens
were also refitted on recent breaks probably produced during or after the excavations. All
dry-bone refits are intra-level sets from the same unit. No anatomical refit was identified.
Because fractures on green bone are produced during the occupation of the site,
they are more informative about site formation processes than dry-bone fractures (Morin
et al. 2005). Nine sets of fragments involve green-bone fractures. Eight of them match
specimens found within the same level of the same unit. Only one refit set on green-bone
fracture is indicative of level disturbance, as it involves two fragments of a white-tailed
101
deer metacarpal recovered from an early Middle Preclassic deposit (Unit 2, Level 6b) and
a late Middle Preclassic deposit (Unit 3, Level 4).
Overall, all but one refit involve fragments found in close proximity to one
another. This suggests that post-depositional disturbance was limited at Pacbitun. This
interpretation seems congruent with what was observed during the excavations at Plaza B.
Although the Maya had the habit of constructing new structures on top of older ones or
modifying existing structures for new purposes (Garber et al. 2004a:25), the substructures at Plaza B do not seem to have been affected by this practice (T. G. Powis,
personal communication, 2013). Indeed, the sub-structures appear to have been protected
from later modifications by the thick midden that was laid over them at the end of the late
Middle Preclassic period. The presence of intact floor and alleyway surfaces (i.e., primary
deposits) for both the early and late Middle Preclassic structures provides additional
evidence for limited post-depositional disturbance. Additionally, no re-use of stones from
the Middle Preclassic platforms for later constructions was observed (T. G. Powis,
personal communication, 2013).
Concerning the late Middle Preclassic faunal remains recovered from the midden
deposit, the small size of the artifact sample from this layer suggests a secondary nature
(Hohmann and Powis 1999; T. G. Powis, personal communication, 2013). Nevertheless,
the covering of the plaza with construction fill during the Late Preclassic and Late Classic
(Hohmann and Powis 1996) seems to have protected the midden deposit from disturbance
during later time periods.
102
6.2.2 Recovery methods
The techniques used in the recovery of archaeological artifacts can affect sample
composition in terms of species and skeletal representation, particularly when different
screening methods are used (Payne 1975; Shaffer 1992; Emery 2004b). At Pacbitun, all
deposits were dry-sieved in the field using a 1/4 inch (6.35 mm) mesh screen. However,
excavation methods were not constant given that a 1/16 inch (1.2 mm) mesh screen was
used to wet-sieve all floor deposits from Sub-Structures B-1 and B-2 in 2008 and 2009.
This variation in mesh size may affect the analysis of the Pacbitun samples. Indeed,
studies have shown that the exclusive use of large sieves (i.e., 1/4 inch) typically creates a
bias towards the recovery of large specimens (Casteel 1972; Shaffer 1992; Wake 2004b),
whereas the use of finer mesh sizes often improves the recovery of smaller specimens,
including that of fish, birds, and rodents (Shaffer and Sanchez 1994; Masson 2004b;
Wake 2004b; Serjeantson 2009). Therefore, it is necessary to consider the impact of the
recovery methods on the abundance of small fragments at Pacbitun.
The difference between the samples sieved with 1/4 (6 mm) and 1/16 (1.2 mm)
inch mesh screen is not statistically significant (Kolmogorov-Smirnov D = 0.33, p = 0.81,
Figure 6.1). This suggests that, although different recovery methods were used during the
excavations, they did not influence the representation of small bone fragments. The size
distribution of the fragments in Figure 6.1 also indicates that the Pacbitun assemblages
are highly fragmented, with 74.2 % of the material classified as smaller than 2 cm,
whereas less than 4.5% of the specimens are larger than 4 cm. The lowest size category
(<1 cm) may be artificially depressed, because faunal specimens of this size are often not
systematically collected. This partly results from the difficulty of sorting bones smaller
103
than 0.5 cm, particularly when large quantities of minute bone fragments are present in
faunal assemblages (Villa et al. 2004).
60
1/4 inch (n = 1278)
% of specimens
50
1/16 inch (n = 452)
40
30
20
10
0
<1
1–2
2–3
3–4
4–5
5+
Length in cm
Figure 6.1 Fragment size distribution by screen size for all faunal specimens in the
Pacbitun Middle Preclassic assemblages.
Frequencies of identified species for both sieve sizes were also compared (Table
6.5). Intuitively, one would expect to recover a higher frequency of small animals when a
smaller screen mesh is used. However, at Pacbitun, the use of a 1/16 inch mesh screen did
not lead to the recovery of a higher frequency of small animals, such as fish, birds, or
rodents (D = 0.22, p = 0.95).
These results suggest that the use of a finer mesh size at Pacbitun did not result in
an increased recovery of smaller fragments or taxa. However, other factors might have
prevented the preservation of small specimens or species. These possibilities are explored
in section 6.2.8 which provides a more detailed discussion of the taphonomy of fish and
birds in the Pacbitun assemblages. In essence, it can be concluded that the use of two
104
different sampling strategies at Pacbitun has not greatly affected the assemblages in terms
of fragment size and taxonomic composition.
Table 6.5 Taxonomic representation in the Middle Preclassic samples by mesh size, in
percentages.
Taxon
White-tailed deer
Brocket deer
Peccary
Armadillo
Agouti/paca
Reptiles
Small rodents
Fish
Birds
Total
1/4 inch (6 mm)
48.4
6.9
5.9
15.4
1.6
13.3
3.2
3.7
1.6
100.0
1/16 inch (1.2 mm)
64.9
5.4
2.7
8.1
5.4
8.1
1.4
1.4
2.7
100.0
6.2.3 Density-mediated attrition
In general, bones with low structural density are more prone to destruction by
taphonomic processes than bones of higher mineral densities (Lyman 1994). This is
because bone density is correlated with bone porosity. As the porosity of a given bone
increases, so does the surface area per volume. As a result, mechanical and chemical
attrition should affect more intensely bones of high porosity (or low density) simply
because there is a greater surface to work on (Lyman 1982, 1994).
This observation is particularly important for this study, as the effects of acidic
soils, water leaching, and plant and tree roots commonly observed on Maya faunal
assemblages may preferentially damage and destroy bones of low density (Stanchly
2004). In addition, because their pores are filled with grease (Brink 1997), the spongy
low-density portions of bones are attractive to humans and carnivores. These parts can
possibly be removed from faunal assemblages by carnivore ravaging and human
105
activities, such as grease extraction and the use of bone as fuel (Binford 1981; Lyman
1982, 1994; Brink 1997; Morin 2010). Bone parts of high structural density are more
likely to be targeted for object manufacture, because dense sections of bones are often
preferred for tool and ornament production (Lyman 1982, 1994; Stanchly 2004; Emery
2008a, 2009).
In addition to anthropic and carnivore destruction, transport decisions may
produce correlations with density, particularly when low-density elements (e.g.,
vertebrae) are discarded at kill sites (Binford 1978, 1981). For instance, vertebrae and
crania were rarely encountered in the Pacbitun assemblages, but this might result from
transport selectivity. Skulls may also have been preferentially used in the making of
headdresses (Pohl 1981; Brown and Sheets 2000). To avoid this problem, only long bone
portions were considered for examining density-mediated attrition in this study. Long
bones are good candidates for this type of analysis because they are characterized by
heterogeneous density, shafts usually being significantly denser than epiphyses.
Additionally, long bones should not be affected by transport decisions to the same extent
as low-density elements, given that it is unlikely that long bone shafts and epiphyses were
transported separately (Binford 1981).
To determine if density-mediated taphonomic processes have affected the
Pacbitun assemblages, frequencies of long bone portions of white-tailed deer were
compared to density values. Although density values are available for deer (Odocoileus
spp.), the method used by Lyman (1982, 1994) does not exclude the volume of the
internal cavity and, therefore, significantly underestimates true bone density (Lam et al.
1999; Lam et al. 2003). Consequently, values for reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) were used
106
instead (Lam et al. 1999) (Table 6.6). Data from the early and late Middle Preclassic
periods were considered together because of small sample size.
Table 6.6 Bone density values of Rangifer tarandus (Lam et al. 1999) compared to
%NNISP and %MAU values for white-tailed deer long bone portions in the Middle
Preclassic Pacbitun assemblages.
Bone portion
Humerus proximal
shaft
distal
Radius
proximal
shaft
distal
Ulna
proximal
shaft
Metacarpal proximal
shaft
distal
Femur
proximal
shaft
distal
Tibia
proximal
shaft
distal
Metatarsal proximal
shaft
distal
Scan site
HU1
HU3
HU5
RA1
RA3
RA5
UL1
UL2
MC1
MC3
MC6
FE1
FE4
FE6
TI1
TI3
TI5
MR1
MR3
MR6
Density (g/cm3)
0.26
1.12
0.48
0.53
1.09
0.49
0.49
0.84
0.92
1.10
0.68
0.52
1.15
0.32
0.35
1.13
0.73
0.90
1.08
0.59
%NNISP
0.0
100.0
37.5
25.0
37.5
0.0
37.5
37.5
75.0
81.3
18.8
12.5
62.5
62.5
25.0
50.0
12.5
37.5
43.8
18.8
%MAU
0.0
100.0
50.0
33.3
33.3
0.0
33.3
50.0
83.3
100.0
16.7
16.7
66.7
83.3
33.3
50.0
16.7
33.3
50.0
16.7
Using Spearman’s rank order correlation coefficient (rs), both %NNISP and
%MAU values are positively and significantly correlated with reindeer bone density
values (%NNISP rs = 0.61, p = 0.004; %MAU rs = 0.52, p = 0.02) (Figures 6.2 and 6.3).
These results suggest that the densest bone portions (shafts) of white-tailed deer were
recovered more frequently than the less dense bone portions (epiphyses) from the same
bones. Therefore, a destructive agent or process has probably affected the recovery of
deer skeletal elements in the Pacbitun assemblages. It should be noted, however, that
107
120
rs = 0.61, p = 0.004
100
sHUM
sMTC
%NNISP
80
pMTC
sFEM
dFEM
60
sTIB
40
pULN
dHUM
sULN
pRAD
dMT
pTIB
20
dMC
pFEM
pHUM
0
0.00
sMT
sRAD
pMTT
dTIB
dRAD
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
Density (g/cm3)
Figure 6.2 %NNISP of long bone portions of white-tailed deer versus bone density
values (g/cm3). Data from Table 6.6. Abbreviations: p = proximal; s = shaft; and d =
distal.
120
rs = 0.52, p = 0.02
100
sMC sHUM
%MAU
pMC
dFEM
80
sFEM
60
40
pTIB
20
sTIB
sULN
dHUM
pULN
sMT
pMT
pRAD
sRAD
dMC
pFEM
dTIB
dMT
0
0.00
pHUM
0.20
dRAD
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
Density (g/cm3)
Figure 6.3 %MAU of long bone portions of white-tailed deer versus bone density values
(g/cm3). Data from Table 6.6. Abbreviations: p = proximal; s = shaft; and d = distal.
108
19.8% of the indeterminate portion of the assemblages is made of spongy bone.
Therefore, cancellous bone has not disappeared from the assemblages. Instead, it is
proposed that skeletal elements and element portions of low density have been
fragmented by destructive processes to the extent that spongy specimens have become
analytically absent from the samples (Lyman and O'Brien 1987; Morin 2010).
Differential preservation caused by bone density may not only affect skeletal part
representation, but also the taxonomic composition of faunal assemblages. Unfortunately,
it was not possible to perform analyses of bone density on smaller taxa due to small
sample size and/or lack of bone density values.
In sum, the analysis of density-mediated attrition at Pacbitun simply indicates a
correlation between bone density and element frequency. In order to identify the
attritional agent(s) responsible for the destruction of spongy bones, the subsequent
sections discuss bone burning, post-depositional destruction, and carnivore ravaging.
6.2.4 Bone burning
Because bones tend to become more friable as burning intensity increases (Stiner
et al. 1995), it is necessary to assess the impact of burning on the Pacbitun material. At
Pacbitun, only a fraction of the assemblages (2.2%, n = 38) is affected by burning.
Burned bones are small, with no specimen larger than 4 cm. In fact, the majority (65.8%)
are smaller than 2 cm. Although fragmentation might have affected bone identification,
given that most burned bones are unidentified specimens, no difference in level of
fragmentation was found between the burned and unburned portions of the assemblages
(D = 0.17, p = 0.999).
109
Interestingly, none of the burned remains in the Pacbitun assemblages are from
spongy bone. Many authors (e.g., Villa et al. 2004; Morin 2010) have argued that the
preponderance of burned spongy bone in a faunal assemblage may be indicative of the
use of bone as fuel. In contrast, cortical and spongy bone should be recovered in similar
proportions if burning was used as a way to dispose of food waste (Clark and Ligouis
2010). Given the absence of burned spongy bone at Pacbitun, it seems unlikely that bone
was used as fuel at the site. Overall, the low frequency of burned specimens seems
inconsistent with burning as a major taphonomic agent in the Middle Preclassic
assemblages at Pacbitun.
6.2.5 Post-depositional destruction
In order to assess the impact of post-depositional destruction, Marean (1991) has
proposed a completeness index which estimates the fragmentation of small, compact
elements, including the carpals, tarsals (with the exception of the calcaneus), lateral
malleolus, and sesamoids. These bones were chosen by Marean because they are rarely
fragmented by humans or carnivores for the extraction of nutrients. In rare instances, they
may be fragmented for bone grease production (Binford 1978:164–165). These bones
may also be swallowed by carnivores, but this does not seem of great concern at Pacbitun
given that no digested remains were identified in the assemblages. Villa and colleagues
(2004) recommended the inclusion of the third phalanx in the index, because it should be
more sensitive to post-depositional breakage given the small marrow cavity of this
element. Following Villa and colleagues (2004), compact elements were coded as
complete (CO), almost complete (ACO), or fragmented (FR). Bones with traces of
percussion, chopping, or gnawing/digestion were excluded from the sample because their
110
fragmentation may not result from post-depositional destruction (Marean 1991). Both
white-tailed deer and red brocket deer specimens were considered in the analysis.
The results of the completeness index (Table 6.7) may suggest that postdepositional breakage has not significantly altered the Middle Preclassic assemblages.
Indeed, the majority of the compact bones from both the early (66.7%) and late Middle
Preclassic (75.0%) samples are complete or almost complete. Nevertheless, the
percentages also indicate that post-depositional breakage is responsible for at least some
bone fracturing at the site. It should be noted that the index is influenced by the degree of
identification of the remains. More complete specimens are easier to identify than
fragmented ones, which may inflate the index of completeness. As a result, additional
methods are required to assess the impact of post-depositional destruction on faunal
assemblages.
Table 6.7 Degree of post-depositional completeness by time period.
Time period
early Middle Preclassic
late Middle Preclassic
Total
Total compact bones
15
20
35
NISP CO+ACO
10
15
25
%CO+ACO
66.7
75.0
71.4
Villa and colleagues (2004) argue that a high proportion (~70%) of green-bone
fractures on long bones, combined with high values for the completeness index, is
indicative of minimal post-depositional destruction. At Pacbitun, all long bone fragments
from identified and indeterminate medium and large mammals were considered for
analysis. Recent breaks were not included for obvious reasons. In the Pacbitun Middle
Preclassic samples, green-bone fractures are more common than dry-bone fractures,
forming 69.8% (n = 104) of the assemblages (Table 6.8). The differences in the
111
frequencies of green-bone and dry-bone fractures between the early and late Middle
Preclassic samples is not statistically significant (χ2 = 0.01, p = 0.91).
Table 6.8 NISP counts for green- and dry-bone fractures by time period.
Fracture type
Green-bone
Dry-bone
Total
early Middle Preclassic
n
%
36
69.2
16
30.8
52
100.0
late Middle Preclassic
n
%
68
70.1
29
29.9
97
100.0
Total
n
%
104
69.8
45
30.2
149
100.0
The high frequency of fractures on green bone, as well as the results of the
completeness index, is indicative of limited post-depositional breakage. It also suggests
that a majority of long bone specimens were likely fractured before the deposition of the
assemblages. To determine which agent is responsible for bone fracturing at Pacbitun,
anthropic and carnivore activity at the site are discussed in the remainder of this chapter.
6.2.6 Bone surface preservation
Marks left on bones by carnivores and humans are critical for inferring the role of
these two agents on assemblage formation, but surface damage may alter the presence of
marks on faunal specimens. Therefore, before discussing anthropic and carnivore
attrition, it is necessary to assess the preservation of bone surfaces at Pacbitun.
The preservation of the faunal remains ranges from poor to moderate (Table 6.9).
A majority of specimens (69.6%) display a poorly preserved surface, with few bones
(0.9%) considered as intact. This pattern is not unusual at Maya sites given that organic
remains in the humid tropics do not appear to preserve well (Stanchly 2004; Wake
2004a). For instance, Emery (1997:315) reported that bone surfaces in the Petexbatun
assemblages were highly eroded and, in many cases, had entirely disappeared.
112
Table 6.9 Overall surface state for the Middle Preclassic Pacbitun assemblages.
Preservation state
Poor
Damaged
Slightly damaged
Intact
Total
early Middle Preclassic
n
%
302
53.4
158
27.9
98
17.3
8
1.4
566
100.0
late Middle Preclassic
n
%
902
77.5
168
14.4
87
7.5
7
0.6
1164
100.0
Total
n
1204
326
185
15
1730
%
69.6
18.8
10.7
0.9
100.0
The percentage of undamaged surface area was also recorded for all faunal
specimens (Table 6.10). Each category of observable surface is represented in the two
samples, but a majority of specimens are in damaged or poor condition. Fifty-five percent
of the assemblages are characterized by a preserved surface area lesser than 20% of the
initial bone surface, whereas only 12.9% have retained more than 60% of the original
surface. This poor to moderate surface preservation may be partially attributed to the
effects of weathering, given that exfoliation and root etching were observed on 94.7% and
21.3% of the fragments, respectively. Other less common alterations include staining
(6.2%), cracking (3.8%), and sheeting (1.0%). Overall, comparison of bone surfaces for
the two samples suggests that the late Middle Preclassic material was more severely
damaged by taphonomic processes than the early Middle Preclassic material. This is
confirmed by statistical tests, given that differences in frequencies between the early and
late Middle Preclassic samples are highly significant for both the overall surface
condition (χ2 = 106.0, p < 0.0001) and the percentage of observable surface (χ2 = 174.5, p
< 0.0001).
The significant damage caused to the bone surfaces limited the taxonomic
identification of the material, particularly long bone shaft fragments, by destroying
113
Table 6.10 Percentage of observable surface in the Middle Preclassic samples.
Observable surface
%
0–10
10–20
20–30
30–40
40–50
50–60
60–70
70–80
80–90
90–100
Total
early Middle Preclassic
n
%
22
3.9
87
15.4
90
15.9
109
19.3
85
15.0
59
10.4
53
9.4
24
4.2
19
3.4
18
3.2
566
100.0
late Middle Preclassic
n
%
175
15.0
411
35.3
166
14.3
135
11.6
115
9.9
53
4.6
47
4.0
22
1.9
20
1.7
20
1.2
1164
100.0
Total
n
197
498
256
244
200
112
100
46
39
38
1730
%
11.4
28.8
14.8
14.1
11.6
6.5
5.8
2.7
2.3
2.2
100.0
muscle attachments and landmarks. Similarly, the poor surface preservation possibly
hindered the identification of marks. Because of their faint nature, cutmarks may have
been partly or entirely obliterated on a significant portion of the assemblages. Cutmarks
were identified on only eight specimens at Pacbitun and were observed almost
exclusively on specimens displaying a slightly damaged or damaged surface (Table 6.11).
An increase in cutmark frequency from the slightly damaged to damaged categories may
indicate that these two categories of objects have possibly not been affected by surface
damage to the same extent as the other two groups. The presence of only one specimen in
the poor category, given that nearly half of the sample (49.3%) presents a poorly
preserved surface, suggests that the total frequency of cutmarks may be somewhat
underestimated in the assemblages. Taking these observations into consideration, the final
section of this chapter examines the role of human and carnivore agents in the formation
of the Pacbitun assemblages.
114
Table 6.11 Frequencies of cutmarks on identified specimens and indeterminate long bone
shafts by overall surface state for the Middle Preclassic samples at Pacbitun.
Preservation state
Poor
Damaged
Slightly damaged
Intact
Total
n
213
117
94
8
432
ncut
1
5
2
0
8
%cut
0.5
4.3
2.1
0.0
1.9
6.2.7 Human and carnivore agents
A priori, the Pacbitun faunal assemblages have been produced primarily by
human activity. Most of the material was recovered inside or within the periphery of
domestic structures (see Table 6.1) and found in association with ceramics, lithic tools,
and shell beads (Arendt et al. 1996; Hohmann and Powis 1996, 1999; Hohmann et al.
1999; Powis 2009, 2010, 2011). Faunal remains recovered in secondary contexts (i.e.,
secondary midden, plaza fill, and construction fill) were also found with important
quantities of domestic refuse. However, given the presence of domesticated dogs at Maya
sites during the Middle Preclassic period (Pohl 1990; Shaw 1991; Wing and Scudder
1991; Clutton-Brock and Hammond 1994; Masson 2004a), this species may have
modified or contributed to the faunal assemblages. Other carnivores, such as felines,
mustelids, and procyonids, also have the ability to alter and accumulate bone assemblages
(Andrews and Evans 1983; Seymour 1989; Martín and Borrero 1997; Álvarez et al.
2012).
The presence of cutmarks, percussion notches, and burning on bone specimens
(Table 6.12) indicate that humans were involved in the formation of the Pacbitun faunal
assemblages. Very few cutmarks (n = 8) were observed on the faunal specimens, but, as
previously mentioned, this is likely the result of the generally poor preservation of bone
115
surfaces. This pattern seems typical of Maya sites, given that cutmarks are frequently
identified on less than 1% of the faunal assemblages (e.g., Hamblin 1984:184–185; Carr
1986:293; Pohl 1990:157; Shaw 1991:226; Emery 1997:315). The cutmarks identified at
Pacbitun were found on the following skeletal elements: white-tailed deer femur (n = 1),
white-tailed deer calcaneus (n = 1), white-tailed deer naviculocuboid (n = 1), white-tailed
deer rib (n = 1), jaguar phalanx (n = 1), turtle shell fragment (n = 1), and mammal long
bone fragments (n = 2).
Table 6.12 Frequencies of anthropogenic marks observed in the Middle Preclassic
Pacbitun assemblages.
Time period
early Middle Preclassic
late Middle Preclassic
Total
n*
7
1
8
Cutmark
total1
178
254
432
%
3.9
0.4
1.9
Percussion notch
n* total1
%
0
178
0.0
4
254
1.6
4
432
0.9
n
11
27
38
Burning
total
566
1164
1730
%
1.9
2.3
2.2
* n represents the number of specimens displaying at least one cutmark or percussion notch.
1
the total includes identified specimens and indeterminate long bone shafts only.
Burned bones, an unambiguous marker of anthropogenic activity, are rare at
Pacbitun, representing only 2.2% of the total assemblages. Similar percentages were
observed at Copán (2.6%; Collins 2002), while other Maya sites present higher values
ranging from 5–16% (e.g., Hamblin 1984:185; Carr 1986:304; Shaw 1991:227; Emery
1997:315). Most of the burned bones in the Pacbitun assemblages are of brown or black
color suggesting fires of moderate temperatures (Nicholson 1993; Stiner et al. 1995).
White or blue bones, more likely indicative of higher fire temperatures (Nicholson 1993;
Stiner et al. 1995), were rarely encountered. This observation applies to both the
identified and indeterminate portions of the assemblages.
116
The presence of notches was recorded during the analysis. However, due to
overlap in notch morphologies produced by humans and carnivores (Capaldo and
Blumenschine 1994; Galán et al. 2009), they were not strictly considered diagnostic of
human action. None of the four observed percussion notches were associated with gnaw
marks at Pacbitun, which might suggest that these were produced during marrow
cracking. Combined with the above reservations, percussion notches are presented along
with cutmarks and burning as possible evidence of human involvement in assemblage
formation.
Carnivore remains are rare at Pacbitun, forming only 3.8% of the assemblages (n
= 11, see Table 6.4). No single species dominate this group composed of dogs, coatis,
weasels, and various large and small felines. One specimen, a jaguar phalanx, shows
cutmarks, perhaps indicative of skinning. This suggests that at least some carnivore
specimens were accumulated by the Maya.
Gnawing marks (e.g., tooth pits, punctures, furrows, etc.) affect only 1.9% of the
assemblages (Table 6.13). These results are similar to those observed at Colha and
Cozumel, where carnivore marks were identified on 1.2% (Shaw 1991:244) and 2.0%
(Hamblin 1984:186) of the total assemblage, respectively. However, the frequency of
carnivore-modified bones increases to 6.5% when unidentified specimens are excluded.
The low incidence of carnivore marks in the indeterminate portion of the assemblages
may be caused by increased fragmentation, most unidentified specimens (84.8%) being
no longer than 2 cm. Surface preservation might also be responsible for this pattern,
considering that the majority of small indeterminate specimens have a poorly preserved
surface.
117
Table 6.13 Frequencies of carnivores marks observed in the Middle Preclassic Pacbitun
assemblages.
Time period
early Middle Preclassic
late Middle Preclassic
Total
n
14
19
33
Gnawing
total
566
1164
1730
%
2.5
1.6
1.9
n
0
0
0
Digestion
total
566
1164
1730
%
0.0
0.0
0.0
No traces of digestion or rodent marks were identified. Given the high level of
fragmentation and the poor to moderate preservation of the Pacbitun faunal assemblages,
it is possible that the digested remains did not survive at the site. As a matter of fact,
digested specimens are more vulnerable to taphonomic processes than intact specimens
because of the corrosion caused by gastric acids (Holwitz 1990). Therefore, their
frequency may be slightly underestimated at Pacbitun, although digested bones do not
seem common at Maya sites (Shaw 1991:244).
A qualitative assessment of the extent of gnawing on bone surfaces suggests that
carnivore ravaging was limited at the site (Table 6.14). Most carnivore marks were coded
as marginal (75.8%), meaning that they were uncommon on the bone surface. They
appear almost exclusively on spongy bones, such as the vertebrae and epiphyses of long
bones. This pattern is expected given that carnivores are primarily attracted to greasy
bone parts. It also suggests that carnivores may be responsible to some extent for the
fragmentation of spongy bone observed at the site.
Overall, the data on cutmarks, percussion notches, and burning suggests that most
of the remains at Pacbitun were brought to the site and processed by humans. The low
incidence of gnawing marks and digested remains probably indicates that carnivores
contributed minimally to the bone assemblages and did not significantly modify
118
Table 6.14 Extent of carnivore gnawing on bone surfaces for the Middle Preclassic
samples at Pacbitun.
Time period
Marginal
early Middle Preclassic
late Middle Preclassic
Total
n
11
14
25
%
78.6
73.7
75.8
Limited to one
section
n
%
2
14.3
2
10.5
4
12.1
Covered
n
1
3
4
%
7.1
15.8
12.1
Total
n
14
19
33
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
the material. In fact, it seems reasonable to argue that carnivores, domestic dogs in
particular, had secondary access to faunal remains after these had first been exploited by
humans. The combined presence of cut and gnaw marks on a white-tailed deer femur
(PAC-97BO-002) seems to support this idea (Figure 6.4). Several punctures and tooth pits
were observed on the lateral condyle of the distal end of the femur, whereas a set of
cutmarks were identified in the intercondylar fossa.
Figure 6.4 Gnaw and cut marks on the distal end of a right white-tailed deer femur. On
the left: two cutmarks in the intercondylar fossa. On the right: view of the lateral condyle
with gnawing marks.
0
1 cm
0
1 cm
119
Prey size may also constitute an argument in favor of this hypothesis. Indeed, the
majority of gnaw marks (28/33, 84.8%) were found on bones of large mammals, such as
white-tailed deer, red brocket deer, and peccary. However, most carnivores present in the
Maya subarea, with the exception of large felines, do not prey on animals of this size.
Studies have even shown that dogs are rarely successful in catching and killing deer
(Marchinton 1994). Therefore, it is most likely that carnivores modified assemblages first
created by human activity. Nevertheless, the possibility that carnivores may have
contributed sporadically to the assemblages, particularly by introducing smaller taxa such
as rabbits, agoutis, and opossums, cannot be ruled out.
6.2.8 Taphonomy of fish and birds
Up to this point, this chapter has mainly focused on the impact of taphonomic
processes on mammalian remains, the most common taxonomic class identified at
Pacbitun. This is not surprising given that mammals form 96.8% of the Pacbitun
assemblages. However, under comparable depositional circumstances, remains of birds
and fish may not behave in a manner similar to mammal remains. As a result, this section
discusses the taphonomic history of fish and bird specimens recovered in the Middle
Preclassic assemblages at Pacbitun.
Fish and bird bones are generally considered less robust than mammalian bones
(Lyman 1994; Higgins 1999). For instance, actualistic research has shown that bird and
fish specimens have a tendency to weather more rapidly than mammal remains (e.g.,
Nicholson 1996; Behrensmeyer et al. 2003; Cruz 2008). Fish remains are sensitive to the
action of gastric acids and acidic soils, particularly if they have been boiled or moderately
burned (Wheeler and Jones 1989; Butler 1990; Lubinski 1996). Because of their thin
120
cortical surface, bird bones may be easily fragmented and even destroyed by carnivore
ravaging (Dirrigl 2001; Cruz 2008; Serjeantson 2009), although they might appear less
attractive to carnivores than mammal bones as a result of their low marrow content
(Serjeantson 2009). It is also considered difficult to identify evidence of cultural
modifications on avian remains (Dirrigl 2001). Cutmarks are generally more difficult to
recognize on small- and medium-sized birds, because cutting or chopping implements
may not be needed to disarticulate small skeletons. Birds of small size may also not need
to be butchered because they can be cooked whole. Such practice would not leave any
marks on the bones (Serjeantson 2009).
Similar to mammalian bone, some elements of bony fishes tend to preserve better
than others. Cranial elements are generally considered to weather faster than vertebrae
(Butler 1990; Butler and Chatters 1994; Lubinski 1996), with the exception of teeth and
otoliths, which are some of the most durable elements of fish (Butler and Chatters 1994).
It is important to note that fish of different families may not be affected by taphonomic
processes to the same degree as a result of differences in the size, shape, and density of
their skeleton (Wheeler and Jones 1989; Butler and Chatters 1994; Lubinski 1996; Butler
and Schroeder 1998). Concerning birds, bone density has been recorded using different
methods (e.g., Higgins 1999; Dirrigl 2001; Broughton et al. 2007), but the ranking of
skeletal elements from densest to least dense is inconsistent between different studies. In
general, thin and flat bones, such as the sternum and skull, are considered more fragile
than long bones (Serjeantson 2009).
Different criteria may be combined in order to distinguish between culturally and
naturally deposited assemblages of fish (Butler 1993; Zohar et al. 2001) and birds
(Serjeantson 2009), including taxonomic diversity, specimen size, bone structural density,
121
skeletal element representation, spatial distribution of the remains, and presence of
burning and cutmarks. Due to the small size of both fish (n = 8) and bird (n = 5) samples
at Pacbitun, these methods could not be applied. The fish remains are mostly represented
by centrum fragments which lack spines. This considerably limited identification. One
bird remain is identified as the fibula of a Galliform, whereas other specimens consists of
three long bone fragments and one sternum fragment. None of the fish or bird remains
display traces of human or carnivore modification. All fractures on bird long bones were
identified as dry-bone fractures or were classified as ambiguous.
Because of the small size of the fish and bird samples and the absence of carnivore
or anthropic marks on them, it is difficult to be conclusive about their mode of
introduction in the Pacbitun assemblages. It is possible that the low frequency of small
birds and fish was caused by differential preservation of these remains over time. It is
possible that fish and bird remains were affected by taphonomic processes to a greater
extent. They also might have been discarded elsewhere at the site (Emery 2004a, 2008b).
For instance, the discovery of pits filled with fish at Colha led Shaw (1991:238) to
suggest that fish may have been buried quickly and separately from other food refuse.
The presence of domestic dogs at Pacbitun may also have decreased the probability of
recovering fish and bird specimens because these may have been deleted from the
assemblages by carnivores. Finally, these small species may also be absent simply
because they were rarely exploited by the ancient Maya.
6.3 Summary
This chapter has shown that the Middle Preclassic assemblages at Pacbitun have
been shaped by several taphonomic processes. The use of different recovery methods
122
does not seem to have affected the taxonomic composition of the assemblages. In
comparison, weathering has altered a majority of faunal remains. This situation has
significantly impeded the identification of the material. It is suggested that fragmentation
of spongy bone may have been caused by carnivore ravaging of human-accumulated
debris, some post-depositional destruction, and perhaps burning. Humans were likely
responsible for the accumulation of most remains in the Middle Preclassic samples,
although carnivores possibly contributed and modified a small portion of the
assemblages. Overall, the extent of bone surface damage seems to be the only taphonomic
process that has affected the early and late Middle Preclassic samples differently. The
next chapter examines the subsistence strategies associated with the exploitation of
animal resources at Pacbitun.
123
CHAPTER 7: RESULTS
This chapter examines how the ancient Maya of Pacbitun utilized animal
resources during the Middle Preclassic period. The chapter first begins with a description
of the assemblages in terms of taxonomic composition, skeletal part representation,
mortality profiles, and seasonality. Using the central place foraging prey choice model
presented in Chapter 4, this chapter investigates the foraging strategies adopted by the
Pacbitun Maya. Finally, the findings of this study are compared with the subsistence
patterns observed at other Middle Preclassic sites.
7.1 Taxonomic composition
Species abundances in the Pacbitun assemblages are presented using NISP counts.
MNI counts were not used in this study because of small sample size. A highly significant
correlation between NISP and MNE values (early Middle Preclassic rs = 0.95, p < 0.001;
late Middle Preclassic rs = 0.90, p < 0.001) also suggests that the ranking of identified
species provided by these two quantification methods are similar. Therefore, the use of
both methods in the presentation of taxonomic composition would be redundant.
The Middle Preclassic assemblages at Pacbitun are quite diverse given their small
size (less than 170 identified specimens per time period). The early Middle Preclassic
assemblage is represented by 18 different taxa, while 21 taxa were identified in the late
Middle Preclassic sample (Table 6.4). The early Middle Preclassic assemblage is
dominated by white-tailed deer (40.8%). Other ungulates, namely the red brocket deer
and peccary, comprise 5.6% and 4.8% of the sample, respectively. In the early Middle
Preclassic sample, most specimens identified as large mammals (n = 39) are also
presumed to be from white-tailed deer. Although many of these specimens are long bone
124
shafts and rib fragments lacking diagnostic features, they present characteristics, such as
size and density, that are consistent with that of white-tailed deer elements.
The armadillo (13.6%) and turtles (8.8%) also form a significant portion of the
assemblage. However, it should be noted that the use of NISP counts may overestimate
the importance of these two taxa in the present case. Indeed, both species have a very
large number of bones as a result of the shells that form their carapace (Emery 2007b).
These bony scutes tend to preserve well and are highly diagnostic (Soibelzon et al. 2012).
While carapace or plastron fragments constitute the majority of identified turtle
specimens, the armadillo is mainly represented by long bone fragments. The armadillo
also produced the second highest MNE (n = 13), which may suggest that it was an
important small game for the Pacbitun Maya. Other small game include large rodents
(agouti and paca), which collectively represent 4.8% of the sample, and the pocket gopher
(3.2%). Rare species (less than 2% of the assemblage) include the Virginia opossum,
rabbit, iguana, colubrid snake, and all carnivores (i.e., domestic dog, coatimundi, jaguar,
and ocelot). Fish remains are also not abundant (6.9%). Two specimens were attributed to
the Ictaluridae (freshwater catfish) and Serranidae (grouper) families. Similarly, bird
remains are infrequent (1.6%) and could not be identified more precisely than the class
level.
The late Middle Preclassic assemblage is similar in composition to the early
Middle Preclassic (Kolmogorow-Smirnov D = 0.21, p = 0.74). The white-tailed deer is
the most common taxon, representing 52.7% of the sample. It is followed by the
armadillo (10.8%), red brocket deer (6.0%), and peccary (4.2%). Like the early Middle
Preclassic sample, most remains identified as large mammals (n = 65) are probably from
white-tailed deer. Turtles are much less common in this sample (3.6%). One specimen
125
was identified as a mud turtle, while most of the other specimens are heavily weathered,
poorly diagnostic carapace fragments. The proportion of rodents is also lower in the late
Middle Preclassic assemblage, with agouti and pocket gopher representing only 0.6% and
1.8% of the sample, respectively. Other mammals are rare (<2%). Fish are also less
common than in the early Middle Preclassic sample, with one specimen identified as a
parrotfish and another only identified as indeterminate fish. In contrast, reptile remains
are proportionately more abundant in the late Middle Preclassic assemblage (colubrid =
3.0%; viper = 1.8%; iguanas = 1.8%). Birds are again rare (1.8%), with one specimen
identified as a gallinaceous bird. One marine toad was also encountered. Although the
Middle Preclassic assemblages are characterized by considerable taxonomic diversity, the
following discussion focuses principally on white-tailed deer because of small sample
size.
7.2 Skeletal part representation
This section describes skeletal part representation for the white-tailed deer and
offers a general description of skeletal element frequencies for three other taxa: the
armadillo, peccary, and brocket deer. Small sample size precluded a detailed discussion
of the other identified species. Standardized NNISP counts (%NNISP) were obtained by
dividing all identified elements by the highest NNISP count. %NNISP values are used
because they facilitate comparisons of assemblages. MNE and MAU values are presented
with NNISP counts, although they are not used in this study to investigate skeletal part
representation. At Pacbitun, NNISP and MAU values show similar rankings, as is
suggested by the highly significant correlation between NNISP and MAU values for
126
white-tailed deer (rs = 0.96, p < 0.001). Therefore, the use of one method over the other
should result in similar interpretations.
Due to small sample size, the early and late Middle Preclassic assemblages were
combined in order to investigate skeletal patterns for white-tailed deer. The most common
elements are mandibular and maxillary teeth, which are present in similar proportions
(Table 7.1, Figure 7.1). It is not unexpected for teeth to be abundant in the samples even
though the Pacbitun assemblages are poorly preserved. Teeth are among the densest
skeletal elements (Reitz and Wing 2008:46) and can be easily distinguished from bone
Maxillary teeth
Mandibular teeth
Atlas
Axis
Cervical vertebrae
Thoracic…
Lumbar vertebrae
Sacrum
Rib
Scapula
Humerus
Radius
Ulna
Carpals
Metacarpal
Innominates
Femur
Tibia
Tarsals
Metatarsal
Phalanx 1
Phalanx 2
Phalanx 3
Large sesamoid
0
20
40
60
80
%NNISP
Figure 7.1 White-tailed deer body part representation in the Middle Preclassic
assemblages at Pacbitun. Data from Table 7.1.
100
127
Table 7.1 Skeletal part frequencies for white-tailed deer in the Middle Preclassic
assemblages from Pacbitun. Bone portions not shown have a frequency of zero.
Body portion
Maxillary teeth
Mandibular teeth
Cervical vertebrae
Thoracic vertebrae
Lumbar vertebrae
Rib
Scapula
Humerus, shaft
Humerus, distal
Radius, proximal
Radius, shaft
Ulna, proximal
Ulna, shaft
Scaphoid
Lunatum
Triquetrum
Capitatum
Metacarpal, proximal
Metacarpal, shaft
Innominate
Femur, proximal
Femur, shaft
Femur, distal
Tibia, proximal
Tibia, shaft
Tibia, distal
Malleolar
Astragalus
Calcaneum
Naviculocuboid
Greater cuneiform
Metatarsal, proximal
Metatarsal, shaft
Metapodial, shaft
Metapodial, distal
Phalanx 1
Phalanx 2
Phalanx 3
Large sesamoid
Total
NISP
8
9
2
1
1
7
1
8
3
2
3
3
3
1
1
2
1
6
5
3
1
5
5
2
4
1
3
5
6
6
4
3
2
3
3
9
8
3
5
148
NNISP
4.00
4.50
0.29
0.08
0.17
0.27
0.50
4.00
1.50
1.00
1.50
1.50
1.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.50
3.00
2.50
1.50
0.50
2.50
2.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.50
2.50
3.00
3.00
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.75
0.75
1.13
1.00
0.38
0.31
%NNISP
88.9
100.0
6.3
1.7
3.7
6.0
11.1
88.9
33.3
22.2
33.3
33.3
33.3
11.1
11.1
22.2
11.1
66.7
55.6
33.3
11.1
55.6
55.6
22.2
44.4
11.1
33.3
55.6
66.7
66.7
44.4
33.3
22.2
16.7
16.7
25.0
22.2
8.3
6.9
MNE
3
4
2
1
1
5
1
6
3
2
2
2
3
1
1
2
1
5
5
2
1
4
5
2
3
1
3
4
5
5
4
2
2
2
2
6
7
3
5
118
MAU
1.50
2.00
0.29
0.08
0.17
0.19
0.50
3.00
1.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.50
2.50
2.50
1.00
0.50
2.00
2.50
1.00
1.50
0.50
1.50
2.00
2.50
2.50
2.00
1.00
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.75
0.88
0.38
0.31
%MAU
50.0
66.7
9.5
2.6
5.6
6.4
16.7
100.0
50.0
33.3
33.3
33.3
50.0
16.7
16.7
33.3
16.7
83.3
83.3
33.3
16.7
66.7
83.3
33.3
50.0
16.7
50.0
66.7
83.3
83.3
66.7
33.3
33.3
16.7
16.7
25.0
29.2
12.5
10.4
fragments even when heavily weathered. The rest of the sample is dominated by long
bones, with shaft fragments being slightly more common than epiphyses. As discussed in
128
Chapter 6, this situation probably results from mediated-density attrition. The humerus is
the most common long bone, followed by the metacarpal and femur. Tarsals, and to a
lesser extent carpals and phalanges, are also abundant. Cranial elements and mandibles
are only represented by loose teeth. Elements of the axial skeleton, such as vertebrae and
ribs, are rare in the assemblages. The under-representation of these elements may result
from differential preservation, as elements of low structural density are less frequent in
the assemblages than elements of higher density.
The peccary and red brocket deer have a respective NISP of 13 and 17 (Table 7.2).
As for the white-tailed deer, elements of the axial skeleton are poorly represented in these
species. Long bone specimens are well represented for the brocket deer (7/17, 41.2%), but
Table 7.2 Skeletal part frequencies (NISP) of armadillo, peccary, and red brocket deer for
the Middle Preclassic period at Pacbitun. Bone portions that are not listed have a
frequency of zero.
Body part
Armadillo Peccary Brocket deer
Maxillary teeth
1
Cervical vertebrae
1
Scapula
1
Humerus
1
Radius
2
2
Ulna
1
1
Carpals
3
Metacarpal
1
2
Femur
2
1
Tibia
10
1
Fibula
2
Tarsals
2
2
2
Metatarsal
1
2
Phalanx 1
1
3
4
Phalanx 2
3
Phalanx 3
1
Scute
12
Total
35
13
17
129
not as abundant for the peccary (3/13, 23.1%). Phalanges, carpals, and tarsals are most
common in these species (peccary = 8/13, 61.5%; brocket deer = 10/17, 58.8%). The
armadillo is primarily represented by bony scutes (12/35, 34.2%). This pattern is not
surprising given that these elements are highly diagnostic. Long bones are also frequent,
particularly the tibia (10/35, 28.6%).
7.3 Mortality profiles
As it is the case for most faunal assemblages recovered from Maya sites, data
concerning prey age and sex is very limited in the sample. Osteometric measurements
could not be applied in this study due to the highly fragmented nature of the specimens. It
should be noted that the usefulness of osteometric data in the tropics may be limited to
few animals, including white-tailed deer, because many mammal species present in the
study region, such as the peccary, rabbit, or agouti, do not exhibit any apparent or only
show weak sexual dimorphism (Ojasti 1996).
Antlers may also provide coarse information on the sex and age composition of an
assemblage. Unfortunately, antler remains are absent from the Pacbitun samples. This
pattern may have several causes. For instance, the Preclassic Maya may have
preferentially used crania (with attached antlers) for decorative and ritual purposes, for
instance in the making of headdresses (Pohl 1981; Brown and Sheets 2000) or as
offerings in hunting shrines (Brown 2005). Antlers may also have been left at kill sites
because they are heavy to carry and possess little food value (Binford 1978). However,
this observation may not apply to the present study. Because of the small size of whitetailed deer in the tropics (30–50 kg), small groups of foragers or even a single hunter may
have been able to transport complete carcasses back to the site, including crania with
130
antlers. Lastly, a hunting strategy biased against male individuals could also have created
this pattern.
Data on age profiles was gathered from the analysis of tooth eruption and wear
and epiphyseal fusion for white-tailed deer. The only tooth dated to the early Middle
Preclassic was too fragmented for adequate measurement. In the late Middle Preclassic
sample, two deciduous teeth were available for analysis. The first one is a lower fourth
premolar. Crown height measurement, combined with the absence of dental wear,
suggests an age of less than seven weeks (Severinghaus 1949). The second deciduous
tooth is also a lower fourth premolar, which exhibits considerable wear. The age of this
individual is estimated between 17–20 months, falling within the subadult category (1–2
years old) (Severinghaus 1949; Gee et al. 2002). The number of permanent teeth
adequately preserved for crown height measurements is also relatively small. Three
specimens are classified as subadults: two lower first molars correspond to an age at death
of 20–26 months, whereas one second lower molar exhibiting little wear provides an age
of about 13–14 months (Severinghaus 1949). Only one tooth, a lower third molar, is
classified as pertaining to an adult (>2 years old). The presence of little to no wear (Gee et
al. 2002) suggests the presence of a young individual. No completely worn teeth were
identified in the Middle Preclassic assemblages, suggesting the absence of old and very
old individuals.
Although it may only provide coarse information on mortality profiles, the age of
white-tailed deer specimens was also determined using sequences of epiphyseal fusion
(Purdue 1983). The main drawback of this method is that it does not allow to extrapolate
the age of an individual passed the time of bone fusion. For the early Middle Preclassic
sample, 19 bones were analyzed (Table 7.3). From these, three specimens show unfused
131
epiphyses. The identification of these unfused bone portions indicate the presence of
young individuals (<2 years old) in the assemblage. The presence of four fused first
phalanges, which are completely fused between 17–20 months of age, indicates that
subadults and adults may have been taken. Finally, ten out of nineteen specimens are
element portions which are completely fused between 26–38 months of age. This
suggests that about half of the specimens in the sample are from adult individuals.
Table 7.3 Number of specimens identified per category of epiphyseal fusion for whitetailed deer in the early and late Middle Preclassic samples at Pacbitun. Age of epiphyseal
fusion is provided in months.
Time period
early Middle Preclassic
(19 specimens)
late Middle Preclassic
(31 specimens)
Element
Radius, px
2nd phalanx
1st phalanx
Metacarpal
Ulna, px
Calcaneum
Femur, di
Tibia, px
Ulna, px
Cervical vertebra, ant
Radius, px
Coxal
2nd phalanx
Humerus, di
1st phalanx
Tibia, di
Metacarpal
Calcaneum
Metatarsal
Femur, di
Femur, px
Unfused
Intermediate
Age1 n Age
n
20–23
20
1
1
23–29
1
20–23
1
Fused
Age1
5–8
11–17
17–20
26–29
n
1
1
4
3
26–29
26–38
26–38
26–38
38
5–8
8–11
11–17
12–20
17–20
20–23
26–29
26–29
26–29
26–38
32–38
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
3
5
1
2
3
3
3
1
1
Data on epiphyseal fusion in months from Purdue (1983). A range of values is provided when data for
males and females differed.
Abbreviations: px = proximal, di = distal, and ant = anterior.
Only one specimen in the late Middle Preclassic assemblage, a distal metapodial
epiphysis which generally fuses at 20 months of age, is unfused (Table 7.3). Sixteen
132
specimens are from bones which fuse between 11–23 months of age, suggesting the
presence of individuals which can be considered as subadults or full adults. Twelve
additional specimens are completely fused between 26–38 months of age. Therefore,
40.0% of the late Middle Preclassic specimens would belong to the subadult or young
adult category.
Published sequences of teeth eruption and wear are also available for the domestic
dog, peccary, and paca. However, the information obtained for these taxa is very limited:
no more than one or two teeth could be analyzed for each species. Based on the timing of
dental eruption for collared peccary (Kirkpatrick and Sowls 1962), an upper third
premolar from the early Middle Preclassic was identified as belonging to an individual at
least 18 months old. However, the fact that it shows considerable wear suggests that the
animal was much older. The only dog tooth identified in the samples is a lower first molar
from the late Middle Preclassic period. This tooth erupts between three to five months of
age (Silver 1969). Given the limited degree of wear observed on the cusps, the tooth is
attributed to a juvenile individual. In the case of the paca, the presence of intact folds on a
lower first molar, which become isolated early in the wear sequence (Ungar 2010:215),
suggests a very young individual. Another paca tooth was identified as a lower third
molar. Although this tooth erupts at about 14 months of age (Oliveira and Canola 2007),
the heavy wear and isolated folds indicate a much older individual. These two teeth date
to the early Middle Preclassic period.
Overall, data on tooth wear and epiphyseal fusion for white-tailed deer suggests
that the Pacbitun Maya focused on the exploitation of subadults and young adults. Very
old individuals appear to have been absent in the assemblages. However, this pattern may
be an artefact of small sample size, given that only six teeth were available for analysis.
133
There is also limited evidence for the exploitation of very young individuals. However, it
should be noted that unfused epiphyses, as well as deciduous teeth, are more vulnerable to
the action of post-depositional destruction or carnivore ravaging than completely formed
bones or teeth (Klein and Cruz-Uribe 1984:43). Given that the Pacbitun assemblages have
been affected to some degree by these two processes, very young individuals may be
under-represented because of differential preservation.
7.4 Scheduling of activities
The Middle Preclassic residents of Pacbitun occupied a landscape which was
spatially and seasonally diverse. Given that they largely subsisted on agriculture, the
ancient Maya would have had to integrate animal resource procurement into the
scheduling of agricultural activities throughout the year. Ethnographic accounts suggest
that swidden agriculture, the type of agriculture which is believed to have been practiced
at Pacbitun during the Middle Preclassic (Healy et al. 2004b), was more likely carried out
during the wet season, although wetlands can also be cultivated during the dry season
(Pohl 1990:155). Given that most species in the tropics can breed year-round, or have
birthing peaks extending over several months (Chapter 4), it was not possible to
determine the season of capture of the species identified at Pacbitun. This situation
inhibited insights regarding activity scheduling.
7.5 Diet breadth
The investigation of diet breadth can provide information about past foraging
efficiency and animal procurement strategies. At Pacbitun, diet breadth was examined by
comparing taxonomic abundances using the prey ranks presented in Chapter 4. According
to the body size rule (Figure 4.1), the tapir should be considered the highest-ranked prey
134
type. At Pacbitun, this animal is only represented by a single specimen. Following the
predictions of the central place forager prey choice model, it is suggested that the scarcity
of tapir possibly reflects a decline in the abundance of this animal in patches located near
the site. Consequently, the residents of Pacbitun should have invested more time in
searching for and handling resources ranked lower on the body mass scale (see discussion
about artiodactyls). It is also possible that this animal was infrequently encountered
because of its behavioral habits. Indeed, tapirs are solitary animals, which travel
extensively and prefer to live in the dense, low vegetation of mature forests. In fact, this
animal is seldom encountered at Maya sites. Ethnohistoric and ethnographic accounts
report that the tapir is not usually taken by the Maya; it is either regarded as too difficult
to kill and transport (Tozzer 1941:203; Jorgenson 1999) or as non-edible (Hopkins 1992;
Fry 2009).
The jaguar and puma occupy the second and third ranks on the body mass scale
(Figure 4.1). Although predatory defense mechanisms make carnivores dangerous to
exploit in comparison to the relatively docile white-tailed deer, tapir, or peccary, this
parameter may explain why felines would have been taken by the Maya. Indeed, pursuing
large, high-risk animals may not always be the most profitable activity in terms of return
rates, but it can confer prestige onto hunters (McGuire and Hildebrandt 2005; Lupo
2007). At Pacbitun, felines are not abundant in the Middle Preclassic assemblages (early
Middle Preclassic = 2.4% of NISP, late Middle Preclassic = 1.8%). However, carnivores
are generally encountered less frequently than herbivores as a result of their high rank in
the trophic chain.
Evidence from the Classic period suggests that bones of large felines were used in
the manufacture of objects (Moholy-Nagy 1994; Emery 2008a, 2009) and that their skins
135
and teeth were worn by priests and rulers as a symbol of their high social status (Pohl
1983; Hopkins 1992; Emery 2010). It is not known if the animals were consumed during
the Classic period. Felines may have been used in a similar fashion during the Middle
Preclassic. Skeletal patterns may provide evidence for the exploitation of pelts given that
phalanges, metapodials, and caudal vertebrae may be left with the pelt when fur-bearing
animals are skinned (Fairnell 2008; Reitz and Wing 2008:127). At Pacbitun, four out of
six feline elements fall within this category: two phalanges from a jaguar and a small
felid, one navicular from a margay, and one caudal vertebra from a small felid. Two
humeri from a puma and an ocelot complete the assemblage. Although this skeletal
pattern seems to point towards the exploitation of pelts, the jaguar phalanx displays three
sets of deep cutmarks which probably result from the disarticulation rather than the
skinning of the foot. Overall, the very small sample size of the feline assemblage makes it
difficult to reach conclusions about the exploitation of these animals at Pacbitun. It seems
probable that humans were involved in the accumulation of felines during the Middle
Preclassic, although these taxa are only present in limited proportions at the site.
Four other ungulates are also considered high-ranked resources. These are the
white-tailed deer, red brocket deer, white-lipped peccary, and collared peccary. Following
Emery (2008b), an abundance index was calculated to evaluate the importance of these
large animals relative to smaller taxa. This “artiodactyl index” was calculated as follow: Ʃ
artiodactyls / Ʃ (artiodactyls + all other mammals excluding tapir, jaguar and puma).
During the early Middle Preclassic, hunting strategies seem to have focused on the
exploitation of the four ungulates, as suggested by a value of 0.65 for the artiodactyl
index. Higher values were observed for the late Middle Preclassic sample (artiodactyl
index = 0.77), but the difference in proportions of artiodactyls between the two time
136
periods is not statistically significant (K-S D = 0.33, p = 0.97). From these four taxa, the
white-tailed deer was the species most commonly targeted by the Middle Preclassic
Maya. This taxon comprises 79.7% of the artiodactyl sample from the early Middle
Preclassic period and 83.8% of the late Middle Preclassic artiodactyl sample. It is
suggested that the Pacbitun Maya concentrated their efforts on the procurement of these
four artiodactyls because higher ranked prey types were infrequently encountered.
Many of the mammals of small and intermediate size, which are ranked low on the
body mass scale, are rare in both the early and late Middle Preclassic samples. This
pattern is, with the exception of the armadillo, in accordance with the prey ranking. It is
possible that the high frequency of armadillo does not relate to the amount of meat it can
procure, but rather to the amount of fat it can provide. During the wet season, armadillos
build an extremely thick layer of fat relative to their body size (Hill et al. 1984; Hill et al.
1987). This characteristic could make them a desirable prey type in comparison to other
small- and medium-sized mammals that tend to be much leaner. Unfortunately, the lack
of quantitative data on body fat does not allow the testing of this hypothesis. Other taxa
that likely violate the body size rule include turtles. These were exploited at Pacbitun,
although their high frequency in the samples may be exaggerated by the use of NISP
counts. Nonetheless, turtles were possibly always included in the optimal diet. As slowmoving animals, they provide important quantities of meat for little handling costs. Birds
and fish seem to have been considered as resources of low profitability given that they are
rare at the site.
In Chapter 4, it was discussed that the en masse collection of small animals may
have created rank inversions. Given the low abundance of nearly all small prey items at
Pacbitun, the Middle Preclassic Maya do not appear to have invested much time in this
137
hunting strategy. Similarly, certain animals may have been preferentially targeted because
their gregarious behavior increases the chances of handling multiple individuals during a
foraging bout. Two species identified at Pacbitun live in large groups: the peccary and
coati. Given that only one specimen of coati was identified in the samples, the
gregariousness of this medium-sized animal does not appear to have modified its low
ranking on the body mass scale. According to the prey ranking, the peccary is an animal
of high utility at Pacbitun. Therefore, its gregarious behavior would not have affected its
ranking given that it is already included in the optimal diet.
The presence of snakes at Pacbitun raises the question of whether they were
exploited by the Maya. Snakes are known to have been used as offerings in sacrificial
ceremonies or as ornaments by the Classic period Maya (Pohl 1990; Emery 2010). They
might also have been used as a source of food. Unfortunately, none of the snake
specimens identified at Pacbitun present traces of anthropic activity. The presence of
snakes at archaeological sites is often considered to be incidental because they are
attracted to human habitations and may die there naturally. However, given that snakes
are not scavengers, they do not naturally dwell in middens or refuse piles. Fradkin (2004)
suggests that their presence in important quantities in this type of deposits likely result
from anthropic activity. This information is crucial for the interpretation of snake
exploitation at Pacbitun given that a majority of snake specimens (66.7%) were recovered
in the secondary midden dating to the late Middle Preclassic period. Additionally, the size
of two viper vertebrae indicates the presence of large snakes which could have provided
sizeable quantities of meat. In sum, although evidence for the exploitation of snakes at
Pacbitun is conjectural, it is suggested that the Middle Preclassic Maya may have
intentionally captured and exploited these reptiles.
138
The only amphibian remains recovered at Pacbitun is that of a marine toad. The
presence of this species in the assemblage is also difficult to interpret. It is not clear if this
giant toad was eaten by the Maya because its parotoid glands produce secretions which
are toxic (Campbell 1998:68). Marine toads thrive in disturbed habitats and are often
found near human settlements (Campbell 1998:69). As a result, the specimen identified at
Pacbitun may be intrusive or perhaps was used as poison or hallucinogenic drug.
At this point, the discussion of diet breadth has focused on hunted animals.
Domestic dogs are known to have been used by the Maya during the Middle Preclassic
period. These animals likely served as pets and hunting companions, but evidence from
sites in northern Belize suggests that they were also used as a source of food (Shaw 1991;
Wing and Scudder 1991; Clutton-Brock and Hammond 1994; Masson 2004a). This
practice seems unlikely at Pacbitun given that only three specimens of Canidae were
recovered at the site. However, the possibility that some dogs were given a mortuary
treatment different from that of other taxa cannot be discounted (Losey et al. 2011). For
instance, at Cuello, dogs were recovered in special deposits and interpreted as having
been used in sacrifices (Tykot et al. 1996; White et al. 2001b). Therefore, it is possible
that dog remains were not frequently recovered near residential structures or in middens
at Pacbitun because their remains were buried elsewhere.
In summary, the taxonomic data suggests that diet breadth at Pacbitun during the
Middle Preclassic was, on average, relatively narrow. Procurement of animal resources
focused on white-tailed deer. Other artiodactyls were exploited in much lower
proportions. The highest ranked taxa, namely the tapir, jaguar, and puma, appear to have
been infrequently encountered. The available data demonstrate that a variety of lowerranked resources were also included in the diet, but their low abundances in the samples
139
suggest that they were only occasionally taken. Although the early and late Middle
Preclassic samples are small in size, they both offer a similar picture of animal resource
procurement (K-S D = 0.21, p = 0.74).
7.6 Habitat use
The species identified in the Pacbitun vertebrate assemblages can inform us on the
types of habitats exploited by the Middle Preclassic Maya. Generally, information derived
from analyses of habitat use is coarse in nature because many tropical animals can thrive
in a variety of habitats. The use of habitat fidelity statistics may help to overcome this
limitation because values are assigned to animal species as a function of their fidelity to
different types of habitats. Habitats considered in this analysis include closed canopy
forest, secondary/disturbed forest, riverine/lacustrine habitats, agricultural/open areas, and
residential areas (Table 7.4). In this study, the NISP count of identified species was
multiplied by values of habitat fidelity obtained from Emery and Thornton (2008b). It
should be noted that this analysis only includes mammalian taxa because of a lack of data
and/or less precise taxonomic identification for birds, reptiles, and fish in the Pacbitun
assemblages. Although these animals are excluded from the analysis of habitat fidelity,
they are included in the general discussion of habitat use.
The analysis of habitat fidelity suggests that the Pacbitun Maya focused their
efforts on the procurement of animals which mainly thrive in secondary forests (41.3%)
or agricultural fields (36.8%, Table 7.5). These results are not unexpected. At Pacbitun,
the practice of swidden agriculture during the Middle Preclassic period likely resulted in
the partial deforestation of the landscape. This farming strategy generally leads to the
formation of areas of second growth vegetation which act as a transition between
140
undisturbed canopy forests and open cultivated areas (Emery 2010). The majority of
mammals identified in the assemblages might have been attracted to this patchy
environment because they can find shelter in second-growth forests during the day and
visit agricultural fields and household gardens at night to feed on crops, fruit trees, and
other greens. These animals include the white-tailed deer, collared peccary, and smaller
game, such as the agouti, opossum, armadillo, and rabbit.
Table 7.4 Habitat fidelity values for the mammalian species identified in the Middle
Preclassic assemblages at Pacbitun. Values from Emery and Thornton (2008b:164).
Taxon
Opossum
Armadillo
Coatimundi
Long-tailed weasel
Cougar
Jaguar
Margay
Ocelot
Tapir
Peccary
White-tailed deer
Red brocket deer
Pocket gopher
Paca
Agouti
Rabbit
MF
0.1
0.2
0.35
0.4
0.4
0.65
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.6
0.1
0.6
0.45
0.25
SEC
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.5
RIV
0.2
AGR
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
RES
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.8
0.2
0.45
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.4
Abbreviations: MF = mature/closed canopy forest, SEC = secondary/disturbed forest, RIV = riverine or
lacustrine habitats, AGR = habitats with low arboreal vegetation, including savannas and agricultural fields,
and RES = residential areas.
Table 7.5 Analysis of habitat fidelity for the Pacbitun assemblages, by time period.
Results are provided in percentages.
Time period
early Middle Preclassic
late Middle Preclassic
Total
MF
20.5
18.3
19.4
SEC
40.9
41.6
41.3
RIV
2.4
1.9
2.1
AGR
35.7
37.9
36.8
RES
0.5
0.3
0.4
Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
141
Animals which occupy closed forested areas also seem to have been acquired
(19.4%), but not to the same extent as animals which thrive in disturbed habitats. This
result is consistent with the low abundance of forest-dwelling animals in the assemblages,
such as the white-lipped peccary, red brocket deer, paca, jaguar, margay, and tapir. These
animals do not adapt well to human presence and are most commonly found in
undisturbed dense forests. Therefore, the presence of these species in the Middle
Preclassic assemblages suggests that hunting trips were at least occasionally taken to
forested habitats.
Riverine habitats do not appear to have been extensively exploited (2.1%). This is
unexpected given that many secondary and tertiary water sources are available within 5–
10 km of Pacbitun. This result is supported by the low abundance of freshwater fish in the
assemblages. However, it should be noted that the exclusion of reptiles from the analysis
of habitat fidelity may distort the picture. Indeed, iguanas spend most of their time in
trees found near permanent sources of water, whereas turtles can be found in a variety of
freshwater habitats. The very large quantities of invertebrate remains recovered in the
1995 and 1996 excavations also provide evidence for the exploitation of freshwater
habitats (Stanchly 1999). Unfortunately, the dietary importance of the identified species,
namely the jute snails, apple snails, and pearly mussels, remains poorly understood
(Powis 2004; Solis 2011). In sum, the combined presence of fish, iguanas, and turtles in
the assemblages suggests that the Pacbitun Maya exploited riverine resources, perhaps in
proportions slightly higher than that suggested by the habitat fidelity analysis.
There is also evidence at Pacbitun for the procurement of resources from non-local
habitats. The identification of marine fish, such as the parrotfish and grouper, is indicative
142
of long-distance trade or the exploitation of the Caribbean coast, located 150 km east
from Pacbitun.
Overall, animal procurement strategies during the Middle Preclassic seem to have
focused on the exploitation of local terrestrial habitats, with possible access to resources
acquired from distant locales, such as the Caribbean Sea. Foraging strategies appear to
have targeted prey types that could be acquired at little distance from the site, particularly
in secondary growth forests or agricultural fields. Patterns of habitat use are similar for
both the early and late Middle Preclassic periods (K-S D = 0.2, p = 0.999).
7.7 Transport selectivity
At Pacbitun, none of the species identified in the Middle Preclassic assemblages
are represented by complete skeletons. As explained in Chapter 4, central place foragers
who hunt large prey items often need to make decisions regarding which parts to bring
home and which ones to leave behind. In order to investigate such decisions,
archaeozoologists have developed indices of economic utility (e.g., Binford 1978;
Metcalfe and Jones 1988; Morin 2007; Morin and Ready 2013). These indices assume
that different skeletal parts yield different amounts of meat, marrow, and grease. As a
result, skeletal elements can be ranked according to their food value.
If foragers were highly selective about which parts to transport to a central place,
skeletal elements of higher food utility should be more abundant in the archaeological
record than those of low utility. However, if carcasses were brought whole, all skeletal
elements should be present in roughly equal proportions. This observation may apply to
three high-ranked species exploited at Pacbitun: white-tailed deer, red brocket deer, and
peccary. Given that these large prey items all weigh less than 50 kg, it may have been
143
possible for a small group of foragers or even a single hunter to transport entire carcasses
back to the site. The abundance of skeletal parts in the Pacbitun assemblages is compared
here to different utility indices to determine if different currencies (e.g., meat, marrow,
bone grease, raw material) guided transport decisions at Pacbitun.
In Chapter 6, it was argued that bone portions of low density were underrepresented in the assemblages because of the effects of density-mediated processes,
including differential preservation and carnivore ravaging. As a result, only elements of
high bone density were selected for comparison with utility indices. According to the
shape-adjusted reindeer bone density values provided by Lam and colleagues (1999),
high-density portions for cervids are crania, mandibles, limb bone shafts, and the glenoid
portion of the scapula. Although meat and marrow utility indices have been derived for
white-tailed deer (Madrigal 2004), they were not used in this study because values were
not available for all the elements which are of interest in this analysis. Three utility
indices constructed for reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) were used instead (Binford 1978;
Metcalfe and Jones 1988; Morin 2007). Because the anatomical structure of ungulates is
similar across species (Lam et al. 1999), using indices constructed for another cervid
should provide comparable results.
The first utility index, named the simplified Meat Utility Index (MUI), measures
the quantity of meat, marrow, and bone grease—or overall food content—of different
skeletal parts (Metcalfe and Jones 1988). The simplified MUI is an intuitive measure of
utility for the Pacbitun assemblages, because the residents of the site most likely
consumed meat, as indicated by the presence of cutmarks, and extracted marrow from
long bones (see section 7.8). The second utility measure can be termed the “grease
index.” The data used to construct this index comes from an ethnographic episode
144
documented by Binford in spring 1971, during which he observed a Nunamiut woman
selecting reindeer parts for bone grease rendering (Binford 1978). Data for phalanges in
the MUI and grease index were obtained from Morin and Ready (2013), who corrected
the values provided by Binford (1978) and Metcalfe and Jones (1988) to account for the
fact that each foot in artiodactyls has two sets of three phalanges. The third economic
measure is the Unsaturated Marrow Index (UMI) developed by Morin (2007). This index
calculates the total quantity of unsaturated fatty acids in marrow-bearing bones, which are
a major source of fats in ungulates.
Figure 7.2 compares the NNISP values for a restricted set of white-tailed deer
elements to the reindeer MUI, grease index, and UMI. Because of small sample size, the
early and late Middle Preclassic assemblages were combined in the analysis (Table 7.1).
It is expected that, if overall food value was the most important currency in transport
decisions, the highest correlation should be found with the MUI. Instead, if within-bone
fat content was the main currency in skeletal transport decisions, white-tailed deer
skeletal abundances should correlate more strongly with the UMI or grease index.
All three correlations with the utility indices are weak and non-significant (Table
7.6). This result suggests that the Pacbitun Maya were relatively non-selective in terms of
which long bones were transported to the site. This result may not be surprising. Given
the small size of white-tailed deer in the tropics, carcasses of this animal could have been
transported whole to the site by a small foraging party.
145
120
100
MAN
HUM
MAX
%NNISP
80
MC
60
FEM
TIB
40
MT
RAD
20
SCA
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
%MUI
120
100
%NNISP
HUM
80
MC
60
FEM
TIB
40
MT
RAD
20
SCA
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
%grease
120
100
%NNISP
HUM
80
MC
60
FEM
TIB
40
RAD
MT
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
%UMI
Figure 7.2 Comparison of white-tailed deer element frequencies (%NNISP) in the
Pacbitun assemblages with the reindeer MUI, grease index, and UMI.
146
Table 7.6 Spearman’s rank order correlations between skeletal part representation and the
MUI, grease index, and UMI. n indicates the number of skeletal elements considered in
the correlations.
Index
MUI
Grease rendering
UMI
n
9
7
6
rs
0.08
0.45
–0.61
p
0.85
0.31
0.20
Before accepting this interpretation of transport decisions at Pacbitun, it may be
necessary to review factors that may confound the results. The absence of correlation may
result from small sample size. Indeed, the sample of white-tailed deer elements selected
for analysis has a NISP of 46, which is very small. Additionally, because only a small
number of categories of elements were considered (MUI n = 9; grease index n = 7; UMI n
= 6), the statistical power of the comparisons is fairly low. An examination of the
representation of other skeletal parts in the assemblages can provide further insight into
transport decisions.
As mentioned in section 7.2, crania and mandibles are the most common elements
in the assemblages, although they are only represented by teeth. Because teeth are more
easily identified than bone fragments, their representation may be inflated in the samples.
Generally, it is considered that ungulate skulls are bulky, heavy, and of low nutritional
value (Binford 1978). Ethnographic observations often report that skulls are discarded at
kill sites because foragers do not want to invest energy in transporting skeletal elements
which are considered of low profitability. However, as previously mentioned, this
observation may not apply to small ungulates such as white-tailed deer which could be
transported whole. At Pacbitun, the abundance of cranial and mandibular teeth suggests
that these elements were frequently transported to the site.
147
Feet are another bulky skeletal portion which may not be brought back to a central
place because of its marginal utility value (Binford 1978). At Pacbitun, the first and
second phalanges of white-tailed deer are quite abundant (phalanx 1: n= 9, %NNISP =
25.0; phalanx 2: n = 8, %NNISP = 22.2), whereas the third phalanx is only represented by
three specimens (%NNISP = 8.3%). Five sesamoids are also present. This high frequency
of feet elements (16.9%) may suggest that they were not frequently discarded at kill sites.
High abundances of these elements were also observed in the skeletal profiles of peccary
(46.2%) and red brocket deer (29.4%).
In sum, the absence of correlation between utility indices and long bone portions
of high density suggests that the Pacbitun Maya regularly transported whole carcasses
back to the site. The abundance of crania, mandibles, and feet elements in the Middle
Preclassic assemblages seems to support this interpretation.
7.8 Processing of skeletal parts
Given that the Pacbitun Maya were not selective regarding which skeletal
elements should be transported back to the site, it may be possible to gain further insight
into the decisions related to animal resource procurement by considering patterns of onsite skeletal part processing. At Pacbitun, long bones of white-tailed deer seem to have
been systematically marrow-cracked. Green-bone fractures, which exhibit a curved
fracture edge and a smooth fracture surface, were observed in high proportions (76.1%).
This type of fracture can be produced during marrow cracking, although trampling and
carnivore ravaging may also create this type of damage. Although the sample is small, the
presence of green-bone fractures on the long bones of smaller artiodactyls (peccary and
brocket deer) suggests that these species were subjected to marrow exploitation as well.
148
None of the notches in the Pacbitun assemblages were observed in association
with gnaw marks or cutmarks. Although there is evidence for carnivore overprinting in
the Pacbitun samples (Chapter 6), these animals only form a small fraction (3.8%) of the
Middle Preclassic assemblages. As a result, most notches are believed to have been
produced by anthropogenic fracturing. It should be noted that heavy weathering of the
material made it difficult to observe notches on fracture edges. Frequent abrasion of the
edges may have obscured the identification of notches.
Intensity of marrow exploitation can be investigated through the examination of
elements containing marginal amounts of marrow, such as the mandible, phalanges,
calcaneum, and astragalus. In periods of food scarcity, humans may resort to extract
marrow from some of these parts (Binford 1978). At Pacbitun, only white-tailed deer
elements were considered in this analysis. In the early Middle Preclassic assemblage, all
specimens of astragalus (n = 2), calcaneus (n = 3), first (n = 2) and second (n = 1)
phalanges are fragmented, with the exception of two first phalanges which are complete.
None of these elements bear traces of carnivore gnawing. The picture is similar for the
late Middle Preclassic sample. Most elements with a small marrow cavity are fragmentary
(calcaneus = 3/3; astragalus = 2/3; first phalanx = 5/5; second phalanx = 4/7). Although
several specimens of calcaneum and first phalanges show edges consistent with green
bone fractures, three specimens also display gnaw marks. As a result, it is difficult to
determine whether phalanges and tarsals were fragmented as a result of marrow-cracking
activities, carnivore ravaging, or both.
Bone grease rendering may be another indicator of nutritional stress. Indeed, the
extraction of bone grease is a strenuous activity with high processing costs and low
returns (Brink 1997). Grease rendering is the most destructive of all butchering processes
149
and can result in extensive fragmentation of long bone epiphyses. If this activity had been
systematically practiced at Pacbitun, epiphyses would be severely depleted in comparison
with long bone shafts. Although epiphyses of white-tailed deer are less common than
shafts, differences in frequency (shafts = 53.2%; proximal = 27.4%; distal = 19.4%)
between the bone portions are not sharp (K-S D = 0.29, p = 0.88). Morin (2012:210)
suggests that pounding and crushing marks associated with significant fragmentation of
spongy bones may provide additional evidence for grease extraction. However, such
marks were not observed in the Pacbitun samples. The destruction of epiphyses in the
Pacbitun assemblages more likely results from carnivore ravaging and post-depositional
destruction (Chapter 6). Burning of spongy bone may also create a similar signature in the
archaeological record (Morin 2010), but there is little evidence for the use of bone as fuel
at Pacbitun given that none of the burned specimens (n = 38) are from cancellous bone.
Overall, marrow-cracking of long bones appear to have been systematic at the site.
It is not possible to ascertain if marginal marrow-bearing elements were also exploited
due to a lack of data. There is also little evidence for grease rendering during the Middle
Preclassic at Pacbitun.
7.9 Pacbitun foraging strategies: A discussion
At Pacbitun, it appears that the Middle Preclassic Maya concentrated their efforts
on some of the most profitable prey items, such as white-tailed deer and other smaller
artiodactyls. However, less profitable prey types were also occasionally included in the
diet breadth. These resources consist of a wide variety of small- and medium-sized game
(e.g., paca, agouti, opossum, rabbit, armadillo, iguana, and bird). It was suggested that
felines and snakes were likely exploited by the Middle Preclassic Maya of Pacbitun.
150
However, it is not possible to determine whether they were procured for food, as a source
of raw material, and/or as a result of symbolic importance. Although there is evidence for
the acquisition of exotic resources, such as marine fish, these resources seem to have been
very marginal to the diet. Domestic dogs do not appear to have been an important source
of food.
Vertebrate aquatic resources were also exploited, but in much smaller proportions
than terrestrial animals. However, data presented by Stanchly (1999) regarding the
exploitation of freshwater molluscs at Pacbitun tends to emphasize the importance of
freshwater resources in the Maya diet. Freshwater molluscs represent 42.1% of the
samples collected in 1995 and 1996. However, the importance of these animals may be
over-estimated in this sample. First, molluscs are more easily identified than vertebrate
remains. Second, as a result of their calcium carbonate composition, shell remains tend to
preserve better than bone in highly acidic soil conditions. Third, although Stanchly argues
that freshwater molluscs, particularly the jute, contributed significantly to the Preclassic
diet, other authors (e.g., Solis 2011) disagree and conclude that their inclusion in the
archaeological record may be incidental. For instance, 85.2% of the jute found during the
1995 and 1996 excavations were recovered from the thick secondary midden deposit
which was laid on top of the Plaza B sub-structures at the end of the late Middle
Preclassic period. It is possible that the jute were included in the midden as part of
riverbed soils which would have been used to level the plaza floor. Overall, these data
suggest that freshwater resources were infrequently acquired at Pacbitun. Because they
are slow-moving animals which can be easily captured, turtles probably constituted an
exception to this pattern.
151
Cannon (2003) explains that, when high-ranked resources are depleted from an
environment, foragers need to invest more time in pursuing and acquiring lower-ranked
prey types in order to continue maximizing their net delivery rate. This seems to have
been the case at Pacbitun. Indeed, the scarcity of tapirs, the highest-ranked prey type, in
the Pacbitun assemblages suggests that this prey item was infrequently encountered,
possibly as a result of resource depression. Although the Pacbitun Maya are believed to
be among the first settlers of the southern rim of the Belize River Valley, animal
populations may have been under hunting pressure during earlier time periods, such as the
Early Preclassic (2000–1000 BC) or even the Archaic period. The Pacbitun Maya seem to
have responded to this situation by concentrating their foraging efforts on a relatively
narrow set of smaller-sized, but still highly profitable, prey items.
In sum, white-tailed deer, a relatively high-ranked species, appear to have formed
the bulk of the diet at Pacbitun. Lower-ranked artiodactyls were also included in the diet,
whereas a variety of other items may have been taken on occasion. The high frequency of
long bones of white-tailed deer in the assemblages, combined with the abundance of
crania, mandibles, tarsals, and phalanges, points to the frequent transport of whole
carcasses. Animals were presumably exploited for their meat and marrow. Foraging
clearly focused on the exploitation of terrestrial habitats, particularly those located near
the site, with occasional trips taken to distant locales, such as mature forests and water
sources. Although the early and late Middle Preclassic samples sometimes needed to be
combined, the patterns of both assemblages seem consistent in terms of diet breadth,
habitat use, and skeletal element exploitation.
152
7.10 Subsistence strategies in the southern Maya lowlands
As mentioned earlier, research on the subsistence of the Maya during the Middle
Preclassic period is very limited. Only a handful of faunal assemblages recovered in the
southern lowlands and dating to this time period have been analyzed (Table 2.2).
Unfortunately, some of these assemblages are affected by small sample size (e.g., Altar
de Sacrificios, Seibal), which considerably limits interpretation of past subsistence
strategies. Another prevalent problem is the lack of taphonomic data, as information on
recovery methods and taphonomic history is not always available. Moreover, although
evidence for anthropic manipulation is often mentioned, other factors that may cause
differential preservation of faunal remains, including carnivore ravaging, weathering, and
other density-mediated processes, are not reported. Keeping in mind these issues, one site
from each of the sub-regions defined in Chapter 2 (i.e., Petén region of Guatemala, Belize
River Valley, and northern Belize) was selected for comparison with the Pacbitun
assemblages. It should be noted that questions regarding the exploitation of meat,
marrow, or fat from skeletal elements of large mammals could not be explored because
this issue is rarely addressed by the studies.
The site of Cahal Pech is the only Middle Preclassic site from the Belize River
Valley for which we have faunal data. Cahal Pech is located on the banks of the Belize
River (Figure 2.1) and was occupied as early as the end of the Early Preclassic period
(1200–900 BC). The faunal dataset presented in this analysis was recovered exclusively
from the Tolok group, a small community established in the periphery of the site core
(Powis et al. 1999). All faunal remains were found in an undisturbed midden deposit
dated to the latter phase of the late Middle Preclassic period (450–300 BC).
153
The Cahal Pech assemblage is dominated by fish remains (95.4%, Table 7.7), the
majority of which have not been identified beyond class level (Powis et al. 1999). This
pattern is not surprising given that Cahal Pech is located at the junction of three major
river systems, the Macal, Mopan, and Belize Rivers. Marine fish (0.9%) have also been
identified. Their presence at an inland site located some 110 km away from the Caribbean
coast is attributed either to the existence of long-distance trade networks or to direct
exploitation of the coast by the Cahal Pech Maya. Interestingly, the presence of skull
elements from marine fish, some of which present traces of burning, suggests that marine
resources were transported whole to the site where they would have been processed and
consumed (Powis et al. 1999). Terrestrial mammals are the second most important
taxonomic group in the sample (2.0%), but they are only represented by eight taxa,
including white-tailed deer, brocket deer, domestic dog, paca, armadillo, rabbit, opossum,
and small rodents. White-tailed deer is the most common mammal at Cahal Pech (0.7% of
total NISP), whereas other artiodactyls are rare (<0.1%). Powis and colleagues (1999)
suggest that most of these species were acquired within the local environment. They
conclude that the foraging strategies at Cahal Pech would have focused on the
procurement of terrestrial herbivores, marine reef fish, and small quantities of freshwater
fish. It should be noted that preliminary analyses of faunal assemblages recovered from
Structure B-4 at Cahal Pech suggests that the residents of the site core focused on the
exploitation of terrestrial mammals (57.7%) (Stanchly and Dale 1992). Fish was rarely
identified in these last assemblages (6.5%). One wonders whether this disparity in
taxonomic composition results from variations in recovery procedures, differential
preservation, spatial distribution of faunal remains, or foraging strategies.
154
Table 7.7 Percentages of vertebrate taxa identified in Middle Preclassic assemblages at
Pacbitun (this study), Tolok group at Cahal Pech (Powis et al. 1999), Colha (Shaw 1999)
and Bayak (Emery 2010).
Scientific Name
Osteichthyes
Siluriformes
Serranidae
Cichlidae
Lepisoteiformes
Sparisoma spp.
Lachnolaimus spp.
Lutjanidae
Unidentified fish
Amphibia
Rhinella marina
Reptilia
Iguanidae
Testudines
Dermatemys sp.
Emydidae
Trachemys scripta
Rhinoclemmys areolata
Staurotypus sp.
Chelydra serpentina
Kinosternon spp.
Colubridae
Viperidae
Crocodylidae
Unidentified reptile
Aves
Galliformes
Unidentified bird
Mammalia
Didelphis spp.
Dasypus novemcinctus
Canidae
Canis lupus familiaris
Nasua narica
Mustela frenata
Felidae
Tapirus bairdii
Artiodactyla
Tayassuidae
Cervidae
Odocoileus virginianus
Mazama americana
Rodentia
Orthogeomys spp.
Dasyproctidae
Cuniculus paca
Dasyprocta punctata
Sylvilagus spp.
Total
Common Name
Catfish
Grouper
Cichlid
Gar
Parrotfish
Hogfish
Snappers
Marine toad
Iguana
Turtle
Central American River turtle
Pond turtles
Terrapin
Furrowed wood turtle
Musk turtles
Common snapping turtle
Mud turtle
Colubrid
Viper
Crocodile
Turkey, curassow
Common opossum
Nine-banded armadillo
Dog, fox
Domestic dog
White-nosed coati
Long-tailed weasel
Cats
Tapir
Artiodactyl
Peccary
Cervid
White-tailed deer
Red brocket deer
Pocket gopher
Agoutis, pacas
Paca, gibnut
Agouti
Rabbit
Pacbitun Cahal Pech
n = 292 n = 2171
95.4
2.7
0.3
0.1
0.3
<0.1
0.3
1.7
0.3
0.3
10.6
1.7
5.5
0.7
<0.1
<0.1
94.4
0.0
0.8
0.1
0.1
Colha
n = 1550
40.8
Bayak
n = 268
38.9
2.3
0.8
5.3
40.8
0.0
30.5
0.0
47.5
53.1
17.5
0.8
10.3
4.1
0.3
32.4
5.0
0.4
11.7
0.3
0.5
0.3
2.1
1.0
6.1
3.1
6.1
0.4
1.7
0.3
1.4
84.6
1.4
12.0
0.3
0.7
0.3
0.3
2.1
0.3
0.7
4.5
2.4
47.6
5.8
2.4
0.3
1.0
1.0
1.4
100.0
0.6
1.7
0.1
1.6
2.0
0.4
0.1
0.1
1.7
0.4
0.4
11.2
0.5
0.7
0.8
2.2
0.8
0.8
7.3
0.1
0.7
<0.1
0.2
0.1
1.7
4.4
0.1
0.4
0.4
5.0
0.8
0.3
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.1
100.0
0.2
0.1
100.0
0.4
100.0
155
A group of three sites in northern Belize, Colha, Cuello, and K’axob, was
presented in Chapter 2 (Table 2.2). Because taxonomic composition is similar at the three
sites (Kruskall-Wallis ANOVA4 H = 3.71, p = 0.155), only one site is presented here.
Colha is located in northern Belize, roughly 45 km from the Caribbean Coast, near
Rancho Creek (Shaw 1999). The faunal assemblages discussed here were recovered from
middens associated with domestic structures (Operations 2012 and 2031). During the
Middle Preclassic, the Colha Maya appear to have taken advantage of local terrestrial and
aquatic habitats and strongly focused on the exploitation of wetlands. This is evidenced
by the predominance of fish (40.8%) and turtles (45.2%) in the samples (Table 7.7).
Unfortunately, although both freshwater and marine fish were identified, the majority of
fish remains could rarely be identified beyond class level. According to Shaw (1999), the
small size of the fish vertebrae is more consistent with the anatomy of freshwater than
marine fish. Therefore, she believes that most fish in the samples are from freshwater
habitats. A fuller analysis of the fish remains will be needed to resolve this issue. A
variety of terrestrial mammals (n = 11) were also exploited and form a small portion of
the assemblages (11.2%). White-tailed deer (4.4%) and the domestic dog (2.2%) are the
most common mammals.
From the three sites in the Petén region of Guatemala, only Bayak (Emery 1997)
had a sample size sufficient for comparisons with other sites. Indeed, the identified
vertebrate assemblages from Altar de Sacrificios (n = 24) and Seibal (n = 72) are very
small. Bayak is a very small Preclassic site located on the edge of the Petexbatun Lake, in
Guatemala. Fish (38.9%) and turtles (52.7%) form the bulk of the samples, whereas
4
The Kruskall-Wallis ANOVA test was preferred over the chi-square test of independence because the
assumptions of the latter test were not met by the datasets compared in this analysis.
156
terrestrial mammals, dominated by white-tailed deer (5.0%), only constitute a small part
of the assemblage (7.3%). Fish are represented by almost equal proportions of cranial and
axial elements, suggesting that they were used whole or prepared at the site. Analysis of
habitat fidelity for the site of Bayak shows that riverine (75.5%) and swamp (21.8%)
habitats were frequently used by the residents of the site (Emery 1997). These results are
consistent with the location of the site on an elevated shoreline of the Petexbatun River.
Non-local faunal remain, such as marine fish, were not identified at this inland site.
Overall, data from Pacbitun, Colha, Cahal Pech, and Bayak suggest that the
Middle Preclassic Maya adopted foraging strategies consistent with the habitats in which
they lived. Regional variation in species use is relatively high. In fact, differences in
taxonomic composition between the four faunal assemblages are statistically significant
(Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA H = 16.8, p = 0.0008) (Table 7.8). Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests
show that differences are not statistically significant for two pairs of sites: Cahal Pech and
Colha, and Cahal Pech and Bayak, possibly as a result of similar strategies of animal
procurement. Indeed, faunal analyses show that the residents of these sites largely
subsisted on fish and did not exploit terrestrial mammals in large quantities.
Table 7.8 Results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests for the Middle Preclassic
assemblages from the southern lowlands.
Sites
Pacbitun
Cahal Pech
Colha
Bayak
Pacbitun
–
0.75
0.60
0.67
Cahal Pech
<0.001
–
0.33
0.44
Colha
<0.001
0.31
–
0.55
Bayak
<0.001
0.14
0.002
–
Values below the dashes correspond to the D value, while those above are the p-values.
During the Middle Preclassic, the emphasis appears to have been placed on the
exploitation of resources available in local micro-environments. Pacbitun, a site
157
surrounded by the tropical forest, is the only one where the population apparently focused
on the exploitation of terrestrial animals of intermediate and large size. Conversely, the
Maya of Colha, which cultivated both milpas and wetlands, took advantage of the
resources they could acquire in the vicinity of agricultural fields. This includes turtles,
freshwater fish and, to a lesser extent, terrestrial mammals. The residents of Bayak, which
lived on the shore of a large lake, focused nearly exclusively on the exploitation of
freshwater fish and turtles. Cahal Pech is the only site which presented variation in the
taxonomic composition of the assemblages recovered at the site. At Tolok, fish clearly
dominate the sample, whereas preliminary analyses of samples recovered from the site
core (Structure B-4) indicate that terrestrial mammals were the most common resources
acquired in this part of the site. Because of a lack of data on the taphonomic history of
these assemblages and the preliminary nature of the faunal analysis of Structure B-4, it is
not possible to identify the cause(s) of this variation.
The presence of marine fish at some of these sites is also surprising. Table 7.9
presents the frequencies of marine fish at southern lowlands sites, with the average
distance between each site and the Caribbean coast. As expected, no specimens of marine
fish were recovered at the sites located in the Petén region of Guatemala, at a distance of
250–400 km from the coast. However, it is surprising that remains of marine fish were
not identified at the two sites located closest to the Caribbean Sea, that is, K’axob and
Colha. It is suggested that this absence may result from an incomplete analysis of the fish
samples. Indeed, significant quantities of fish remains were recovered from both sites, but
a majority of specimens were not identified beyond class level. This explanation remains
speculative. Small quantities of marine fish were also identified at Cuello, a site located
about 35–50 km from the coast.
158
Table 7.9 Abundances of marine fish at southern lowlands Maya sites during the Middle
Preclassic period, with average distances from the coast of the Caribbean Sea.
Sites
K'axob
Colha
Cuello
Cahal Pech
Pacbitun
Bayak
Seibal
Altar de Sacrificios
NISP
0
0
30
28
2
0
0
0
%
0
0
0.49
1.18
0.68
0
0
0
Distance
15–20 km
20 km
35–50 km
110 km
150 km
250–300 km
300 km
400 km
Sources: Altar de Sacrificios (Pohl 1990), Bayak (Emery 2010), Cahal Pech (Stanchly 1995; Powis et al.
1999), Cuello (Wing and Scudder 1991; Carr and Fradkin 2008), Colha (Shaw 1999), K’axob (Masson
2004a), Pacbitun (this study), and Seibal (Pohl 1990).
The most surprising finds come from the inland sites of Cahal Pech and Pacbitun,
where remains of parrotfish, grouper, and snapper were identified. Stable isotope analysis
of carbon and nitrogen at Cahal Pech suggests that reef fish were consumed on a regular
basis. This result appears incompatible with the location of the site, as well as with the
very small amounts of marine fish in the archaeological assemblages (1.2%). It is
suggested that differential preservation, sampling strategy, and/or difficulty of
distinguishing between freshwater and marine fish species may explain the scarcity of
marine fish at Cahal Pech, but also at other southern lowland sites. Overall, marine fish
only formed a very small portion of the assemblages at the sites where they have been
identified. No correlation was found between the quantity of fish identified in the faunal
assemblages and a site’s distance from the Caribbean Sea (rs = –0.13, p = 0.74).
Additionally, it was not also possible to determine whether the presence of marine fish at
Middle Preclassic sites reflect long-distance fishing trips or the beginnings of exchange of
goods between communities located in different habitats.
159
A point should be made concerning the argument that domestic dogs were heavily
used as a source of food during the Preclassic period. This pattern, which was first
inferred at Cuello (Clutton-Brock and Hammond 1994), is not supported at Pacbitun,
Bayak, or Cahal Pech. However, Shaw (1991) reported that there is unambiguous
evidence for the consumption of dogs at Colha in the form of cutmarks. She also explains
that many bones are burned, a situation which she attributes to the cooking of these
animals for food consumption. It is suggested here that the use of dogs as a source of food
during the Middle Preclassic period may have been a restricted to northern Belize.
Lastly, the taxonomic composition from Colha, Cahal Pech, and Bayak suggests
that, contrary to what was found at Pacbitun, the prey items most frequently taken were
not always be the largest in terms of body mass. In fact, terrestrial mammals only form a
small portion of the assemblages, with ungulates generally constituting the most abundant
terrestrial taxa (Cahal Pech = 0.7% of NISP; Colha = 6.3%; Bayak = 6.5%). According to
the central place forager prey choice model, the scarcity of large terrestrial game may
indicate depletion of these resources in patches located near the three sites. In fact, the
emphasis placed on the exploitation of other less profitable resources at Cahal Pech,
Bayak, and Colha may reflect a broadening of the diet. Fish, an important resource at the
three sites, was perhaps favored because it can be mass-collected with the use of nets.
This fishing technology can increase the net return rate of energy acquisition, particularly
if small fish do not need to be processed extensively. The exploitation of turtles also
seems to have been the focus of foraging strategies at Bayak and Colha, two sites which
had access to many water sources. As previously mentioned, turtles are slow-moving
animals which can provide important quantities of meat for little costs. As such, they may
always have been part of the optimal diet.
160
CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSION
This study has investigated the foraging strategies related to the acquisition of
animal resources during the Middle Preclassic period at the ancient Maya site of Pacbitun.
This concluding chapter revisits the objectives outlined in Chapter 1 and summarizes the
findings of the faunal analysis. It also examines several limitations of this study and
considers the significance of this research. Recommendations for future research are also
provided.
8.1 Research summary
The results of this study are summarized here according to the objectives outlined
in Chapter 1.
1) Taphonomic analysis:
A detailed analysis of the Pacbitun faunal assemblages has revealed that several
taphonomic processes have shaped the samples. The use of two different recovery
methods does not seem to have affected the taxonomic composition of the assemblages,
although selective recovery may have depleted the assemblages of specimens smaller
than 1 cm. A majority of faunal remains have been severely affected by weathering, a
situation which impeded taxonomic identification and possibly obliterated the
identification of marks left on bone surfaces. Carnivores, in particular domestic dogs,
appear to have had secondary access to the bone deposits and possibly altered the
assemblages. Depletion of elements and bone portions of low density may also result
from post-depositional destruction and perhaps burning. Findings of the taphonomic
analysis were similar for both the early and late Middle Preclassic assemblages, although
bones surfaces were more poorly preserved in the late Middle Preclassic sample.
161
2) Analysis of foraging strategies at Pacbitun:
Archaeozoological analysis of the faunal samples indicates that the Middle
Preclassic Maya of Pacbitun exploited a wide variety of vertebrate animal resources,
including mammals, reptiles, fish, and birds. Animal procurement strategies focused on
the exploitation of ungulate species, with white-tailed deer constituting by far the primary
prey item. The most profitable prey types according to the body mass scale, that is, the
tapir, jaguar, and puma, seem to have been infrequently encountered. Low-ranked prey
taxa were occasionally exploited. These included a variety of small- and medium-sized
game. Secondary growth forests and agricultural fields, two habitat types which would
have been located at short distance from the site, were the primary focus of hunting
activity. The low abundances of freshwater resources and forest-dwelling animals suggest
that riverine areas and mature forests were less heavily utilized. Analysis of skeletal
patterns suggests that the carcasses of large ungulates were transported whole to the site.
Animal resources appear to have been exploited for their meat and marrow fat content.
Labor-intensive activities, such as bone grease rendering and marrow-cracking of
marginal marrow-bearing elements, do not appear to have been practiced on a regular
basis.
3) Animal resource exploitation in the southern Maya lowlands:
Comparisons of faunal assemblages from four Maya sites suggest that, during the
Middle Preclassic, procurement of animal resources focused on taxa which could be
acquired in local habitats. Exotic resources, such as marine fish, were also imported in
small quantities to sites located inland. This possibly attests to the presence of longdistance trade networks during this early time period. The foraging patterns identified at
162
Pacbitun differ from those observed at Cahal Pech, Colha, or Bayak. People at these three
sites relied more heavily on fish and, in the case of Colha and Bayak, turtles. While large
terrestrial game is the prey item most frequently taken at Pacbitun, it only forms a fraction
of the assemblages at other Middle Preclassic sites. It is suggested that depletion of largesized prey types in patches located near the sites may have led to a broadening of the diet
and the subsequent exploitation of less profitable resources, such as fish.
8.2 Limitations and significance
The primary limiting factor of this investigation is the small sample size of the
Pacbitun assemblages (early Middle Preclassic NISP = 125; late Middle Preclassic NISP
= 167). In some instances, this situation precluded comparisons of the early and late
Middle Preclassic samples. Additionally, because of small sample size, many species
were only represented by one or two specimens. In those cases, the question remains of
whether these taxa are rare in the assemblages as a result of sample size or because they
were not exploited by the ancient Maya.
Additionally, as a result of small sample size, the statistical power of this study is
fairly low. Indeed, in order for statistical tests to be robust (i.e., to identify significant
relationships among data), samples must be relatively large. This is because the effect of
outliers is much greater in small samples, a situation which can obscure or exaggerate
trends within the sample. To control for this situation, nonparametric statistical tests were
employed in this study because they are less prone to the effects of small sample sizes and
abnormally distributed data than parametric tests (Chenorkian 1996). Despite small
sample size, trends emerged from the analysis of the Pacbitun faunal data, such as a clear
focus on the exploitation of white-tailed deer by the residents of the site. Hopefully,
163
continuing research at Pacbitun should help to increase the size of the faunal samples and
confirm the patterns observed in this study.
Despite these limitations, this study shows that the Pacbitun Maya took advantage
of resources locally available, focusing mainly on large prey items such as artiodactyls.
The data also lend support to the notion that foraging strategies during the Middle
Preclassic were highly focused on the exploitation of local habitats. Although there is
evidence for the acquisition of animal resources from distant locales, the vast majority of
prey items were acquired in the vicinity of the sites.
8.3 Future Directions
Although it was shown in this study that the use of different screen mesh sizes did
not affect the Pacbitun assemblages in terms of fragment size or taxonomic composition,
it is suggested that finer mesh screens should be used in the future in order to increase the
chances of recovering smaller specimens and/or taxa. However, the use of finer mesh
screens is a relatively time-consuming activity, particularly when soils are of clay
composition as it is the case at Pacbitun. A reasonable strategy might be to draw random
soil samples and to screen them with fine mesh screens (e.g., 1/8 or 1/16 inch mesh
screen) to determine which mesh size is the most adequate for maximizing the recovery
of faunal remains. It is should be noted that the use of finer mesh screens do not
necessarily lead to the increased recovery of faunal remains because small remains may
have disappeared in poorly preserved faunal assemblages.
Because the Maya exploited animals for economic, social, political, and religions
purposes, faunal data alone may not always be sufficient to detect the multiple ways in
which animals were used. As a result, it is suggested that many lines of evidence should
164
be used to interpret faunal data. Alongside iconographic, ethnohistoric and ethnographic
records which are typically used by Maya zooarchaeologists, evidence for past animal use
may be obtained from more recently developed methods, such as residue analysis and
stable isotope analysis. For instance, at Pacbitun, the analysis of habitat fidelity only
provided coarse information about the provenience of the animals exploited by the site’s
residents. However, given the location of Pacbitun between two ecozones, the tropical
rainforest and the pine ridge, it may be interesting to determine if prey taxa were
preferably acquired from one of these two ecozones or even if animals, in particular
terrestrial species, might have been procured from the Belize River Valley or other
regions in the southern lowlands. Had the scope of this research been larger, this question
could have been investigated through strontium isotope analysis.
165
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Álvarez, M. C., C. A. Kaufmann, A. Massigoge, M. A. Gutiérrez, D. J. Rafuse, N. A.
Scheifler and M. E. González
2012 Bone Modification and Destruction Patterns of Leporid Carcasses by
Geoffroy’s Cat (Leopardus geoffroyi): An Experimental Study. Quaternary
International 278:71–80.
Anderson, D. S.
2011 Xtobo, Yucatan, Mexico, and the Emergent Preclassic of the Northern
Maya Lowlands. Ancient Mesoamerica 22:301–322.
Andrews, E. W. I.
1969 The Archaeological Use and Distribution of Mollusca in the Maya
Lowlands. Middle American Research Institute Publication 34. Tulane University,
New Orleans.
Andrews, E. W. I., M. P. Simmons, E. S. Wing, E. W. V. Andrews and J. M. Andrews
(editors)
1974 Excavations of an Early Shell Midden on Isla Cancún, Quintana Roo,
Mexico. Middle American Research Institute Publication 21. Tulane University,
New Orleans.
Andrews, P. and E. M. N. Evans
1983 Small Mammal Bone Accumulations Produced by Mammalian Carnivores.
Paleobiology 9:289–307.
Arendt, C., S. Rhan-Ju and P. F. Healy
1996 The 1995 Excavations in Plaza C, Pacbitun, Belize: A Middle Preclassic
Burial and a Late Classic Stela. In Belize Valley Preclassic Maya Project: Report
on the 1995 Field Season, edited by P. F. Healy and J. J. Awe, pp. 128–138.
Occasional Papers in Anthropology 12. Trent University, Peterborough.
Awe, J. J.
1992 Dawn in the Land Between the Two Rivers: Formative Occupation at
Cahal Pech, Belize and Its Implications for Preclassic Occupation in the Central
Maya Lowlands. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Institute of Archaeology,
University of London, London.
Awe, J. J., P. F. Healy, C. M. Stevenson and B. Hohmann
1996 Preclassic Maya Obsidian in the Belize Valley. In Belize Valley Preclassic
Maya Project: Report on the 1995 Field Season, edited by P. F. Healy and J. J.
Awe, pp. 153–174. Occasional Papers in Anthropology 12. Trent University,
Peterborough.
166
Ball, J. W. and J. T. Taschek
2004 Buenavista del Cayo: A Short Outline of Occupational and Cultural
History at an Upper Belize Valley Regal-Ritual Center. In The Ancient Maya of
the Belize Valley: Half a Century of Archaeological Research, edited by J. F.
Garber, pp. 149–167. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Barone, R.
1986 Anatomie Comparée des Mammifères Domestiques : Tome 1 Ostéologie.
3rd ed. Vigot, Paris.
Behrensmeyer, A. K.
1978 Taphonomic and Ecologic Information from Bone Weathering.
Paleobiology 4:150–162.
Behrensmeyer, A. K., C. T. Stayton and R. E. Chapman
2003 Taphonomy and Ecology of Modern Avifaunal Remains from Amboseli
Park, Kenya. Paleobiology 29:52–70.
Bill, C.
1987 Excavations of Structure 23: A Maya Palace at the Site of Pacbitun, Belize.
Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Trent University,
Peterborough.
Binford, L. R.
1978 Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, London.
1981 Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. Academic Press, London.
1984 Faunal Remains from River Klasies Mouth. Academic Press, New York.
Bird, D. W. and R. Bliege Bird
1997 Contemporary Shellfish Gathering Strategies among the Meriam of the
Torres Strait Islands, Australia: Testing Predictions of a Central Place Foraging
Model. Journal of Archaeological Science 24:39–64.
Bird, D. W., R. Bliege Bird and B. F. Codding
2009 In Pursuit of Mobile Prey: Martu Hunting Strategies and Archaeofaunal
Interpretation. American Antiquity 74:3–29.
Bird, D. W., B. F. Codding, R. Bliege Bird and D. W. Zeanah
2012 Risky Pursuits: Martu Hunting and the Effects of Prey Mobility: Reply to
Ugan and Simms. American Antiquity 77:186–194.
Bird, D. W. and J. F. O'Connell
2006 Behavioral Ecology and Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research
14:143–188.
167
Brink, J. W.
1997 Fat Content in Leg Bones of Bison bison, and Applications to
Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Science 24:259–274.
Bronson, B.
1966 Roots and the Subsistence of the Ancient Maya. Southwestern Journal of
Anthropology 22:251–279.
Broughton, J. M.
1994 Declines in Mammalian Foraging Efficiency during the Late Holocene,
San Francisco, California. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 13:371–401.
Broughton, J. M., M. D. Cannon, F. E. Bayham and D. A. Byers
2011 Prey Body Size and Ranking in Zooarchaeology: Theory, Empirical
Evidence, and Applications from the Northern Great Basin. American Antiquity
76:403–428.
Broughton, J. M., D. Mullins and T. Ekker
2007 Avian Resource Depression or Intertaxonomic Variation in Bone Density?
A Test with San Francisco Bay Avifaunas. Journal of Archaeological Science
34:374–391.
Brown, C. T. and W. R. T. Witschey
2008 The Electronic Atlas of Ancient Maya Sites. Electronic document,
http://mayagis.smv.org/maps_of_the_maya_area.htm, accessed November 22,
2012.
Brown, K. M.
2007 Ritual ceramic use in the Early and Middle Preclassic at the sites of
Blackman Eddy and Cahal Pech, Belize. Report submitted to the Foundation for
the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies (FAMSI).
Brown, L. and P. Sheets
2000 Distinguishing Domestic from Ceremonial Structures in Southern
Mesoamerica: Suggestions from Cerén, El Salvador. MAYAB 13:11–21.
Brown, L. A.
2005 Planting the Bones: Hunting Ceremonialism at Contemporary and
Nineteenth-Century Shrines in the Guatemalan Highlands. American Antiquity
16:131–146.
Brown, R. D.
1994 Digestion. In Deer, edited by D. Gerlach, S. Atwater and J. Schnell, pp.
66–70. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg.
168
Buikstra, J. E. and M. Swegle
1989 Bone Modification Due to Burning: Experimental Evidence. In Bone
Modification, edited by R. Bonnichsen and M. H. Sorg, pp. 247–258. Peopling of
the Americas Publications. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Institute
of Quaternary Studies, University of Maine, Orono.
Bunn, H. T.
1983a Comparative Analysis of Modern Bone Assemblages from a San HunterGatherer Camp in the Kalahari Desert, Botswana, and from a Spotted Hyena Den
near Nairobi, Kenya. In Animals and Archaeology 1: Hunters and their Prey,
edited by J. Clutton-Brock and C. Grigson, pp. 143–148. BAR International Series
Vol. 163. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.
1983b Evidence on the Diet and Subsistence Patterns of Plio-Pleistocene
Hominids at Koobi Fora, Kenya, and Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. In Animals and
Archaeology 1: Hunters and their Prey, edited by J. Clutton-Brock and C.
Grigson, pp. 21–30. BAR International Series Vol. 163. British Archaeological
Reports, Oxford.
1989 Diagnosing Plio-Pleistocene Hominid Activity with Bone Fracture
Evidence. In Bone Modification, edited by R. Bonnichsen and M. H. Sorg.
Peopling of the Americas Publications. Center for the Study of the First
Americans, Institute of Quaternary Studies, University of Maine, Orono.
Bunn, H. T. and E. M. Kroll
1986 Systematic Butchery by Plio/Pleistocene Hominids at Olduvai Gorge,
Tanzania. Current Anthropology 27:430–452.
Butler, V. L.
1990 Distinguishing Natural from Cultural Salmonid Deposits in Pacific
Northwest North America. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle.
1993 Natural Versus Cultural Salmonid Remains: Origin of the Dalles Roadcut
Bones, Columbia River, Oregon, U.S.A. Journal of Archaeological Science 20:1–
24.
Butler, V. L. and J. C. Chatters
1994 The Role of Bone Density in Structuring Prehistoric Salmon Bone
Assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science 21:413–424.
Butler, V. L. and R. A. Schroeder
1998 Do Digestive Processes Leave Diagnostic Traces on Fish Bones? Journal
of Archaeological Science 25:957–971.
169
Campbell-Trithart, M. J.
1990 Ancient Maya Settlement at Pacbitun, Belize. Unpublished M.A. thesis,
Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough.
Campbell, J. A.
1998 Amphibians and Reptiles of Northern Guatemala, the Yucatán, and Belize.
University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Cannon, M. D.
2000 Large Mammal Relative Abundance in Pithouse and Pueblo Period
Archaeofaunas from Southwestern New Mexico: Resource Depression among the
Mimbres-Mogollon? Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19:317–347.
2003 A Model of Central Place Forager Prey Choice and an Application to
Faunal Remains from the Mimbres Valley, Mexico. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 22:1–25.
Capaldo, S. D. and R. J. Blumenschine
1994 A Quantitative Diagnosis of Notches Made by Hammerstone Percussion
and Carnivore. American Antiquity 59:724–748.
Carr, H. S.
1985 Subsistence and Ceremony: Faunal Utilization in a Late Preclassic
Community at Cerros, Belize. In Prehistoric Lowland Maya Environment and
Subsistence Economy, edited by M. D. Pohl, pp. 115–132. Papers of the Peabody
Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 77. Harvard University, Cambridge.
1986 Faunal Utilization in a Late Preclassic Maya Community at Cerros, Belize.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Tulane University,
New Orleans.
1996 Precolombian Maya Exploitation and Management of Deer Populations. In
The Managed Mosaic: Ancient Maya Agriculture and Resource Use, edited by S.
L. Fedick, pp. 251–261. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Carr, H. S. and A. Fradkin
2008 Animal Resource Use in Ecological and Economic Context at Formative
Period Cuello, Belize. Quaternary International 191:144–153.
Casteel, R. W.
1972 Some Biases in the Recovery of Archaeological Faunal Remains.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 38:382–388.
Castel, J.-C.
2004 L'Influence des Canidés sur la Formation des Ensembles Archéologiques:
Caractérisation des Destructions Dues au Loup. Revue de Paléobiologie
23(2):675–693.
170
Chapman, J. A., J. G. Hockman and M. M. Ojeda
1980 Sylvilagus floridanus. Mammalian Species 136:1–8.
Charnov, E. L.
1976 Optimal Foraging, the Marginal Value Theorem. Theoretical Population
Biology 9:129–136.
Chase, A. F., D. Z. Chase and W. G. Teeter
2004 Archaeology, Faunal Analysis and Interpretation: Lessons from Maya
Studies. Archaeofauna 13:11–18.
Chase, A. F. and J. F. Garber
2004 The Archeology of the Belize Valley in Historical Perspective. In The
Ancient Maya of the Belize Valley: Half a Century of Archaeological Research,
edited by J. F. Garber, pp. 1–14. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Chenorkian, R.
1996 Pratique Archéologique Statistique et Graphique. Errance, Paris.
Cheong, K. F.
2013 Archaeological Investigations of the North Group at Pacbitun, Belize: The
Function, Status, and Chronology of an Ancient Maya Epicenter Residential
Group. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Trent University,
Peterborough.
Clark, J. L. and B. Ligouis
2010 Burned Bone in the Howieson's Poort and Post-Howieson's Poort Middle
Stone Age Deposits at Sibudu (South Africa): Behavioral and Taphonomic
Implications. Journal of Archaeological Science 37:2650–2661.
Cliff, M. B. and C. J. Crane
1989 Changing Subsistence Economy at a Late Preclassic Maya Community. In
Prehistoric Maya Economies of Beliz, edited by P. A. McAnany and B. L. Isaac,
pp. 295–324. JAI Press, London.
Clutton-Brock, J. and N. Hammond
1994 Hot Dogs: Comestible Canids in Preclassic Maya Culture at Cuello,
Belize. Journal of Archaeological Science 21:819–826.
Coe, W. R.
1959 Piedras Negras Archaeology: Artifacts, Caches, and Burials. University
Museum Monograph 18. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia.
171
Collins, L. M.
2002 The Zooarchaeology of the Copan Valley: Social Status and the Search for
a Maya Slave Class. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge.
Colunga-García Marín, P. and D. Zizumbo-Villarreal
2004 Domestication of Plants in Maya Lowlands. Economic Botany 58:S101–
S110.
Covich, A. P.
1983 Mollusca: A Contrast in Species Diversity from Aquatic and Terrestrial
Habitats. In Pulltrouser Swamp: Ancient Maya Habitat, Agriculture, and
Settlement in Northern Belize, edited by B. L. Turner II and P. D. Harrison, pp.
120–139. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Coyston, S. L., C. D. White and H. P. Schwarcz
1999 Dietary Carbonate Analysis of Bone and Enamel for Two Sites in Belize.
In Reconstructing Ancient Maya Diet, edited by C. D. White, pp. 221–243.
University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Cruz-Uribe, K.
1991 Distinguishing Hyena from Hominid Bone Accumulations. Journal of
Field Archaeology 18:467–486.
Cruz, I.
2008 Avian and Mammalian Bone Taphonomy in Southern Continental
Patagonia: A Comparative Approach. Quaternary International 180:30–37.
Demarest, A.
2004 Ancient Maya: The Rise and Fall of a Rainforest Civilization. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Dirrigl, F. J.
2001 Bone Mineral Density of Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) Skeletal
Elements and Its Effects on Differential Survivorship. Journal of Archaeological
Science 18:467–486.
Donkin, R. A.
1985 The Peccary – With Observations on the Introduction of Pigs to the New
World. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society Vol. 75. American
Philosophical Society, Philadelphia.
Doyle, J. A.
2012 Regroups on "E-Groups": Monumentality and Early Centers in the Middle
Preclassic Maya Lowlands. Latin American Antiquity 23:355–379.
172
Duffy, L. G.
2011 Maize and Stone: A Functional Analysis of the Manos and Metates of
Santa Rita Corozal, Belize. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of
Anthropology, University of Central Florida, Orlando.
Elder, W. H.
1965 Primeval Deer Hunting Pressures Revealed by Remains from American
Indian Middens. Journal of Wildlife Management 29:366–370.
Emery, K. F.
1997 The Maya Collapse: A Zooarchaeological Investigation. Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Cornell University, Ithaca.
1999 Continuity and Variability in Postclassic and Colonial Animal Use at
Lamanai and Tipu, Belize. In Reconstructing Ancient Maya Diet, edited by C. D.
White, pp. 63–82. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
2003 The Noble Beast: Status and Differential Access to Animals in the Maya
World. World Archaeology 34(3):498–515.
2004a In Search of Assemblage Comparability: Methods in Maya
Zooarchaeology. In Maya Zooarchaeology: New Directions in Method and
Theory, edited by K. F. Emery, pp. 15–33. Monograph 51. Cotsen Institute of
Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
2004b Making the Most of the Data: Issues of Method and Theory in Tropical
Zooarchaeology. Archaeofauna 13:7–10.
2004c Maya Zooarchaeology: Historical Perspectives on Current Research
Directions. In Maya Zooarchaeology: New Directions in Method and Theory,
edited by K. F. Emery, pp. 1–11. Monograph 51. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology,
University of California, Los Angeles.
2007a Aprovechamiento de la Fauna en Piedras Negras: Dieta, Ritual y Artesanía
del Periodo Clásico Maya. MAYAB 19:51–69.
2007b Assessing the Impact of Ancient Maya Animal Use. Journal for Nature
Conservation 15(3):184–195.
2008a Techniques of Ancient Maya Bone Working: Evidence from a Classic
Maya Deposit. Latin American Antiquity 19:204–221.
2008b A Zooarchaeological Test for Dietary Resource Depression at the End of
the Classic Period in the Petexbatun, Guatemala. Human Ecology 36:617–634.
173
2009 Perspectives on Ancient Maya Bone Crafting from a Classic Period BoneArtifact Manufacturing Assemblage. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
28:458–470.
2010 Dietary, Environmental, and Societal Implications of Ancient Maya
Animal Use in the Petexbatun: A Zooarchaeological Perspective on the Collapse.
Vanderbilt Institute of Mesoamerican Archaeology Vol. 5. Vanderbilt University
Press, Nashville.
Emery, K. F. and L. A. Brown
2012 Maya Hunting Sustainability: Perspectives from Past and Present. In The
Ethics of Anthropology and Amerindian Research: Reporting in Environmental
Degradation and Warfare, edited by R. J. Chacon and R. G. Mendoza, pp. 79–
116. Springer, New York.
Emery, K. F. and E. K. Thornton
2008a A Regional Perspective on Biotic Change during the Classic Maya
Occupation using Zooarchaeological Isotopic Chemistry. Quaternary
International 191:131–143.
2008b Zooarchaeological Habitat Analysis of Ancient Maya Landscape Changes.
Journal of Ethnobiology 28:154–178.
Emery, K. F., L. E. Wright and H. Schwarcz
2000 Isotopic Analysis of Ancient Deer Bone: Biotic Stability in Collapse
Period Maya Land-Use. Journal of Archaeological Science 27:537–550.
Emmons, L. H.
1997 Neotropical Rainforest Mammals: A Field Guide. 2nd ed. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Enloe, J. G. and F. David
1989 Le Remontage des Os par Individus : Le Partage du Renne chez les
Magdaléniens de Pincevent (La Grande Paroisse, Seine-et-Marne). Bulletin de la
Société Préhistorique Française 86(9):275–281.
1992 Food Sharing in the Paleolithic: Carcass Refitting at Pincevent. In Piecing
Together the Past: Applications of Refitting Studies in Archaeology, edited by J.
L. Hofman and J. G. Enloe, pp. 296–315. BAR International Series 578. British
Archaeological Reports, Oxford.
Estrada-Belli, F.
2011 The First Maya Civilization: Ritual and Power before the Classic Period.
Routledge, London and New York.
174
Fairnell, E.
2008 101 Ways to Skin a Fur-Bearing Animal: The Implications for
Zooarchaeological Interpretation. In Experiencing Archaeology by Experiment:
Proceedings of the Experimental Archaeology Conference, Exeter 2007, edited by
P. Cunningham, J. Heeb and R. Paardekooper, pp. 47-60. Oxbow Books, Oxford.
Feldman, L.
1978 Seibal and the Mollusks of the Usumacinta Valley. In Excavations at
Seibal, edited by G. R. Willey, pp. 166–167. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of
Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 14, No. 1–3. Harvard University, Cambridge.
Fernández-Jalvo, Y., B. Sánchez-Chillón, P. Andrews, S. Fernández-Lopez and L. Alcalá
Martínez
2002 Morphological Taphonomic Transformations of Fossil Bones in
Continental Environments, and Repercussions on their Chemical Composition.
Archaeometry 3:353–361.
Ford, L. S. and R. S. Hoffmann
1988 Potos flavus. Mammalian Species 321:1–9.
Fradkin, A.
2004 Snake Consumption among Early Inhabitants of the River of Grass, South
Florida, USA. Archaeofauna 13:57–69.
Fradkin, A. and H. S. Carr
2003 Middle Preclassic Landscapes and Aquatic Resource Use at Cuello, Belize.
Bulletin of the Florida Museum of Natural History 44(1):35–42.
Freiwald, C. R.
2010 Dietary Diversity in the Upper Belize River Valley: A Zooarchaeological
and Isotopic Perspective. In Pre-Columbian Foodways: Interdisciplinary
Approaches to Food, Culture, and Markets in Ancient Mesoamerica, edited by J.
E. Staller and M. D. Carrasco, pp. 399–420. Springer, New York.
Fry, J.
2009 How to Cook a Tapir: A Memoir of Belize. University of Nebraska Press,
Lincoln and London.
Galán, A. B., M. Rodríguez, S. de Juana and M. Domínguez-Rodrigo
2009 A New Experimental Study on Percussion Marks and Notches and their
Bearing on the Interpretation of Hammerstone-Broken Faunal Assemblages.
Journal of Archaeological Science 36:776–784.
Garber, J. F., M. K. Brown, J. J. Awe and C. J. Hartman
2004a Middle Formative Prehistory of the Central Belize Valley: An Examination
of Architecture, Material Culture, and Sociopolitical Change at Blackman Eddy.
In The Ancient Maya of the Belize Valley: Half a Century of Archaeological
175
Research, edited by J. F. Garber, pp. 25–47. University Press of Florida,
Gainesville.
Garber, J. F., M. K. Brown, W. D. Driver, D. M. Glassman, C. J. Hartman, F. K. Reilly
and L. Sullivan
2004b Archaeological Investigations at Blackman Eddy. In The Ancient Maya of
the Belize Valley: Half a Century of Archaeological Research, edited by J. F.
Garber, pp. 48–85. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Gee, K. L., J. H. Holman, M. K. Causey, A. N. Rossi and J. B. Armstrong
2002 Aging White-Tailed Deer by Tooth Replacement and Wear: A Critical
Evaluation of a Time-Honored Technique. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:387–393.
Geist, V.
1994 Origin of the Species. In Deer, edited by D. Gerlach, S. Atwater and J.
Schnell, pp. 2–16. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg.
1998 Deer of the World. Stackpole Books, Mechanicburg.
Gifford, J. C.
1976 Prehistoric Pottery Analysis and the Ceramics of Barton Ramie in the
Belize Valley. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology
Vol. 18. Harvard University, Cambridge.
Gilbert, F. F. and S. L. Slolt
1970 Variability in Aging Maine White-Tailed Deer by Tooth-Wear
Characteristics. Journal of Wildlife Management 34:532–535.
Gilbert, M.
1993 Mammalian Osteology. Missouri Archaeological Society, Columbia.
Gilchrist, R. and H. C. Mytum
1986 Experimental Archaeology and Burnt Animal Bone from Archaeological
Sites. Circaea 4:29–38.
Gompper, M. E.
1995 Nasua narica. Mammalian Species 487:1–10.
1996 Sociality and Asociality in White-Nosed Coatis (Nasua narica): Foraging
Costs and Benefits. Behavioral Ecology 7:254–263.
Goodrich, C. and H. van der Schalie
1937 Mollusca of Petén and North Alta Vera Paz, Guatemala. University of
Michigan Museum of Zoology Miscellaneous Publications 34. University of
Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
176
Götz, C. M.
2008 Coastal and Inland Patterns of Faunal Exploitation in the Prehispanic
Northern Maya Lowlands. Quaternary International 191:154–169.
2009 ¡Venados para Todos!: Diferencias Socioeconómicas en el Uso de
Animales Vertebrados en las Tierras Bajas Mayas del Norte. In XXII Simposio de
Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala, 2008, edited by J. P. LaPorte, B.
Arroyo and H. E. Mejía, pp. 873–889. Museo Nacional de Arqueología y
Etnología, Guatemala.
Graham, E.
1987 Resource Diversity in Belize and Its Implications for Models of Lowland
Trade. American Antiquity 52:753–767.
Grayson, D. K.
1978 Minimum Numbers and Sample Size in Vertebrate Faunal Analysis.
American Antiquity 43:53–65.
1984 Quantitative Zooarchaeology: Topics in the Analysis of Archaeological
Faunas. Academic Press, Orlando.
Grayson, D. K. and F. Delpech
2008 The Large Mammals of Roc de Combe (Lot, France): The Châtelperronian
and Aurignacian Assemblages. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27:338–
362.
Grayson, D. K. and C. J. Frey
2004 Measuring Skeletal Part Representation in Archaeological Faunas. Journal
of Taphonomy 2:27–42.
Hamblin, N. L.
1984 Animal Use by the Cozumel Maya. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
1985 The Role of Marine Resources in the Maya Economy: A Case Study from
Cozumel, Mexico. In Prehistoric Lowland Maya Environment and Subsistence
Economy, edited by M. D. Pohl, pp. 159–174. Papers of the Peabody Museum of
Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 77. Harvard University, Cambridge.
Hammond, N.
2005 The Dawn and the Dusk: Beginning and Ending a Long-Term Research
Program at the Preclassic Maya Site of Cuello, Belize. Anthropological Notebooks
11:45–60.
1991 Cuello: An Early Maya Community in Belize. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
177
Hammond, N. and J. C. Gerhardt
1990 Early Maya Architectural Innovation at Cuello, Belize. World Archaeology
21:461–481.
Hammond, N. and S. Young
2003 Rango Social y Prácticas Funerarias Mayas : La Evidencia de Dieta y
Ritual Durante el Preclásico en Cuello. In Antropología de la Eternidad : La
Muerte en al Cultura Maya, edited by A. C. Ruiz, M. H. Ruiz and M. J. I. Ponce
de León, pp. 279–297. Sociedad Española de Estudios Mayas, Madrid.
Hansen, R. D.
1998 Continuity and Disjunction: The Pre-Classic Antecedents of Classic Maya
Architecture. In Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture, edited by S.
D. Houston, pp. 49–122. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.
Harrigan, R.
2004 Mollusca of K’axob: For Supper and Soul. In K’axob: Ritual, Work, and
Family in an Ancient Maya Village, edited by P. A. McAnany, pp. 399–412.
Monumenta Archaeologica 22. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of
California, Los Angeles.
Hather, J. G. and N. Hammond
1994 Ancient Maya Subsistence Diversity: Root and Tuber Remains from
Cuello, Belize. Antiquity 68:330–335.
Haynes, G.
1983a Frequencies of Spiral and Green-Bone Fractures on Ungulate Limb Bones
in Modern Surface Assemblages. American Antiquity 48:102–114.
1983b A Guide to Differentiating Mammalian Carnivore Taxa Responsible for
Gnaw Damage to Herbivore Limb Bones. Paleobiology 9:164–172.
Healy, P. F.
1988 Music of the Maya. Archaeology 41(1):24–31.
1990a Excavations at Pacbitun, Belize: Preliminary Report on the 1986 and 1987
Investigations. Journal of Field Archaeology 17:247–262.
1990b An Early Classic Maya Monument at Pacbitun, Belize. Mexicon
12(6):109–110.
1992 The Ancient Maya Ballcourt at Pacbitun, Belize. Ancient Mesoamerica
3:229–239.
1999a Preclassic Maya of the Belize Valley: Some Observations (1999). In Belize
Valley Preclassic Maya Project: Report on the 1996 and 1997 Field Seasons,
178
edited by P. F. Healy, pp. 83–102. Occasional Papers in Anthropology 13. Trent
University, Peterborough.
1999b Radiocarbon Dates from Pacbitun, Belize: Results from the 1995 Field
Season. In Belize Valley Preclassic Maya Project: Report on the 1996 and 1997
Field Seasons, edited by P. F. Healy, pp. 69–82. Occasional Papers in
Anthropology 13. Trent University, Peterborough.
2006 Preclassic Maya of the Belize Valley: Key Issues and Questions. Research
Reports in Belizean Archaeology 3:13–30.
1999c Belize Valley Preclassic Maya Project: Report on the 1996 and 1997 Field
Seasons. Occasional Papers in Anthropology 13. Trent University, Peterborough.
Healy, P. F. and J. J. Awe
1995a Preclassic Maya of the Belize Valley: 1994–1995 Project Research
Objectives. In Belize Valley Preclassic Maya Project: Report on the 1994 Field
Season, edited by P. F. Healy and J. J. Awe, pp. 1–17. Occasional Papers in
Anthropology 10. Trent University, Peterborough.
1995b Belize Valley Preclassic Maya Project: Report on the 1994 Field Season.
Occasional Papers in Anthropology 10. Trent University, Peterborough.
1996 Belize Valley Preclassic Maya Project: Report on the 1995 Field Season.
Occasional Papers in Anthropology 12. Trent University, Peterborough.
Healy, P. F., J. J. Awe and H. Helmuth
2004a Defining Royal Maya Burials. In The Ancient Maya of the Belize Valley:
Half a Century of Archaeological Research, edited by J. F. Garber, pp. 228–237.
University of Florida Press, Gainesville.
Healy, P. F., J. J. Awe, G. Iannone and C. Bill
1995 Pacbitun (Belize) and Ancient Maya Use of Slate. Antiquity 65:337–348.
Healy, P. F., D. Cheetham, T. G. Powis and J. J. Awe
2004 Cahal Pech: The Middle Formative Period. In The Ancient Maya of the
Belize Valley: Half a Century of Archaeological Research, edited by J. F. Garber,
pp. 101–124. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Healy, P. F., K. F. Emery and L. E. Wright
1990 Ancient and Modern Maya Exploitation of the Jute Snail (Pachychilus).
Latin American Antiquity 1:170–183.
Healy, P. F., C. G. B. Helmke, J. J. Awe and K. S. Sunahara
2007 Survey, Settlement, and Population History at the Ancient Maya Site of
Pacbitun, Belize. Journal of Field Archaeology 32:17–39.
179
Healy, P. F., B. Hohmann and T. G. Powis
2004b The Ancient Maya Center of Pacbitun. In The Ancient Maya of the Belize
Valley: Half a Century of Archaeological Research, edited by J. F. Garber, pp.
207–227. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Helmke, C. G. B., N. Grube, J. J. Awe and P. F. Healy
2006 A Reinterpretation of Stela 6, Pacbitun, Belize. Mexicon 28(4):70–75.
Henderson, H. H.
1998 The Organization of Staple Crop Production in Middle Formative, Late
Formative, and Classic Period Farming Households at K’axob, Belize.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of
Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.
2003 The Organization of Staple Crop Production at K’axob, Belize. Latin
American Antiquity 14:469–496.
Hester, T. R., H. J. Shafer and J. D. Eaton (editors)
1982 Archaeology at Colha, Belize: The 1981 Interim Report. Center for
Archaeological Research, University of San Antonio, San Antonio.
1994 Continuing Archaeology at Colha, Belize. Studies in Archaeology No. 16.
Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory, University of Texas, Austin.
Higgins, J.
1999 Túnel: A Case Study of Avian Zooarchaeology and Taphonomy. Journal
of Archaeological Science 26:1449–1457.
Hill, K., K. Hawkes, M. Hurtado and H. Kaplan
1984 Seasonal Variance in the Diet of Ache Hunter-Gatherers in Eastern
Paraguay. Human Ecology 12:101–135.
Hill, K., H. Kaplan, K. Hawkes and A. M. Hurtado
1987 Foraging Decisions Among Aché Hunter-Gatherers: New Data and
Implications for Optimal Foraging Models. Ethology and Sociobiology 8:1–36.
Hillson, S.
2005 Teeth. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hirth, D. H.
1994 Does Behavior during Breeding Season. In Deer, edited by D. Gerlach, S.
Atwater and J. Schnell, pp. 122–128. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg.
Hofman, J. L.
1992 Putting the Pieces Together: An Introduction to Refitting. In Piecing
Together the Past: Applications of Refitting Studies in Archaeology, edited by J.
180
L. Hofman and J. G. Enloe, pp. 1–20. BAR International Series 578. British
Archaeological Reports, Oxford.
Hohmann, B. and T. G. Powis
1996 The 1995 Excavations at Pacbitun, Belize: Investigations of the Middle
Formative Occupation in Plaza B. In Belize Valley Preclassic Maya Project:
Report on the 1995 Field Season, edited by P. F. Healy and J. J. Awe, pp. 98–127.
Occasional Papers in Anthropology 12. Trent University, Peterborough.
1999 The 1996 Excavations at Plaza B at Pacbitun, Belize. In Belize Valley
Preclassic Maya Project: Report on the 1996 and 1997 Field Seasons, edited by
P. F. Healy, pp. 1–18. Occasional Papers in Anthropology 13. Trent University,
Peterborough.
Hohmann, B., T. G. Powis and C. Arendt
1999 The 1997 Investigations at Pacbitun, Belize. In Belize Valley Preclassic
Maya Project: Report on the 1996 and 1997 Field Seasons, edited by P. F. Healy,
pp. 19–29. Occasional Papers in Anthropology 13. Trent University,
Peterborough.
Hohmann, B. M.
2002 Preclassic Maya Shell Ornament Production in the Belize Valley, Belize.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of New
Mexico, Albuquerque.
Holwitz, L. R. K.
1990 The Origin of Partially Digested Bones Recovered from Archaeological
Contexts in Israel. Paléorient 16:97–106.
Hopkins, M. R.
1992 Mammalian Remains. In Artifacts from the Cenote of Sacrifice, Chichen
Itza, Yucatan, edited by C. C. Coggins, pp. 369–385. Peabody Museum of
Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge.
Hubbs, C. L.
1935 Fresh-Water Fishes Collected in British Honduras and Guatemala.
University of Michigan Museum of Zoology Miscellaneous Publications 28.
University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Inomata, T., D. Triadan, K. Aoyama, V. Castillo and H. Yonenobu
2013 Early Ceremonial Constructions at Ceibal, Guatemala, and the Origins of
Lowland Maya Civilization. Science 340:467–471.
Jacobson, H. A.
1994 Reproduction. In Deer, edited by D. Gerlach, S. Atwater and J. Schnell,
pp. 98–108. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg.
181
Johnson, E.
1985 Current Developments in Bone Technology. In Advances in
Archaeological Method and Theory, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 157–235 Vol. 8.
Academic Press, New York.
Johnston, K. J.
2006 Preclassic Maya Occupation of the Itzan Escarpment, Lower Río de la
Pasión, Petén, Guatemala. Ancient Mesoamerica 17:177–201.
Jones, E. L.
2006 Prey choice, mass collecting, and the wild European rabbit (Oryctolagus
cuniculus). Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25:275–289.
Jones, J. G.
1994 Pollen Evidence for Early Settlement and Agriculture in Northern Belize.
Palynology 18:205–211.
Jorgenson, J. P.
1999 Wildlife Conservation and Game Harvest by Maya Hunters in Quintana
Roo, Mexico. In Hunting for Sustainability in Tropical Forests, edited by J. G.
Robinson and E. L. Bennett, pp. 251–266. Columbia University Press, New York.
Kidder, A. V., J. D. Jennings and E. H. Shook
1946 Excavations at Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala. Carnegie Institution of
Washington Publication 576. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington,
D.C.
Kirkpatrick, R. D. and L. K. Sowls
1962 Age Determination of the Collared Peccary by the Tooth-Replacement
Pattern. Journal of Wildlife Management 26:214–217.
Klein, R. G. and K. Cruz-Uribe
1984 The Analysis of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Kroll, J. C.
1994 Internal Anatomy. In Deer, edited by D. Gerlach, S. Atwater and J.
Schnell, pp. 24–31. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg.
Lam, Y. M., X. Chen and O. M. Pearson
1999 Intertaxonomic Variability in Patterns of Bone Density and the Differential
Representation of Bovid, Cervid, and Equid Elements in the Archaeological
Record. American Antiquity 64:343–362.
Lam, Y. M., O. M. Pearson, C. W. Marean and X. Chen
2003 Bone Density Studies in Zooarchaeology. Journal of Archaeological
Science 30:1701–1708.
182
Lange, F. W.
1971 Marine Resources: A Viable Subsistence Alternative for the Prehistoric
Lowland Maya. American Anthropologist 73:619–639.
LaPorte, J. P. and V. Fialko
1995 Un Reencuentro con Mundo Perdido, Tikal, Guatemala. Ancient
Mesoamerica 6:41–94.
Lawlor, E., A. J. Graham and S. L. Fedick
1995 Preclassic Floral Remains from Cahal Pech, Belize. In Belize Valley
Preclassic Maya Project, edited by P. F. Healy and J. J. Awe, pp. 150–172.
Occasional Papers in Anthropology No. 10. Trent University, Peterborough.
Lee, D. and J. J. Awe
1995 Middle Formative Architecture, Burials, and Craft Specialization: Report
on the 1994 Investigations at the Cas Pek Group, Cahal Pech, Belize. In Belize
Valley Preclassic Maya Project, edited by P. F. Healy and J. J. Awe, pp. 95–115.
Occasional Papers in Anthropology No. 10. Trent University, Peterborough.
Lentz, D. L.
1991 Maya Diets of the Rich and Poor: Paleoethnobotanical Evidence from
Copan. Latin American Antiquity 2:269–287.
1999 Plant Resources of the Ancient Maya: The Paleoethnobotanical Evidence.
In Reconstructing Ancient Maya Diet, edited by C. D. White, pp. 3–18. University
of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Lentz, D. L., M. D. Pohl and K. O. Pope
2005 Domesticated Plants and Cultural Connections in Early Mesoamerica:
Formative Period Paleoethnobotanical Evidence from Belize, Mexico, and
Honduras. In New Perspectives on Formative Mesoamerican Cultures, edited by
T. G. Powis, pp. 121–126. BAR International Series 1377. Archaeopress, Oxford.
Linares, O. F.
1976 “Garden Hunting” in the American Tropics. Human Ecology 4:331–349.
Losey, R. J., V. L. Bazaliiskii, S. Garvie-Lok, M. Germonpré, J. A. Leonard, A. L. Allen,
M. A. Katzenberg and M. V. Sablin
2011 Canids as persons: Early Neolithic dog and wold burials, Cis-Baikal,
Siberia. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30(2):174–189.
Lotze, J.-H. and S. Anderson
1979 Procyon Lotor. Mammalian Species 119:1–8.
183
Lubinski, P. M.
1996 Fish Heads, Fish Heads: An Experiment on Differential Bone Preservation
in a Salmonid Fish. Journal of Archaeological Science 23:175–181.
Lupo, K. D.
2007 Evolutionary Foraging Models in Zooarchaeological Analysis: Recent
Applications and Future Challenges. Journal of Archaeological Research 15:143–
189.
Luther, E.
1974 Analysis of Faunal Material. In Excavations at Actún Polbilche, Belize,
edited by D. M. Pendergast, pp. 62–80. Archaeology Monograph 1. Royal Ontario
Museum, Toronto.
Lyman, R. L.
1982 Bone Density and Differential Survivorship of Fossil Classes. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 3:259–299.
1994 Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
2008 Quantitative Paleozoology. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Lyman, R. L. and M. J. O'Brien
1987 Plow-Zone Zooarchaeology: Fragmentation and Identifiability. Journal of
Field Archaeology 14:493–498.
MacArthur, R. H. and E. R. Pianka
1966 On Optimal Use of a Patchy Environment. The American Naturalist
100(916):603–609.
Madrigal, T. C.
2004 The Derivation and Application of White-Tailed Deer Utility Indices and
Return Rates. Journal of Taphonomy 2:185–199.
Marchinton, R. L.
1994 Deer and Dogs. In Deer, edited by D. Gerlach, S. Atwater and J. Schnell,
pp. 231–232. Stachpole Books, Mechanicsburg.
Marcus, J.
1982 The Plant World of the Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Lowland
Maya. In Maya Subsistence: Studies in the Memory of Dennis E. Puleston, edited
by K. V. Flannery, pp. 239–273. Academic Press, New York.
Marean, C. W.
1991 Measuring the Post-Depositional Destruction of Bones in Archaeological
Assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science 18:677–694.
184
Marean, C. W., Y. Abe, P. J. Nilssen and E. C. Stone
2001 Estimating the Minimum Number of Skeletal Elements (MNE) in
Zooarchaeology: A Review and a New Image-Analysis GIS Approach. American
Antiquity 66:333–348.
Marean, C. W. and S. Y. Kim
1998 Mousterian Large-Mammal Remains from Kobeh Cave: Behavioral
Implications for Neanderthals and Early Modern Humans. Current Anthropology
39:S79–S114.
Marean, C. W. and L. M. Spencer
1991 Impact of Carnivore Ravaging on Zooarchaeological Measures of Element
Abundance. American Antiquity 56:645–658.
Marshall, F. and T. Pilgram
1993 NISP vs. MNI in Quantification of Body-Part Representation. American
Antiquity 58:261–269.
Martín, F. M. and L. A. Borrero
1997 A Puma Lair in Southern Patagonia: Implications for the Archaeological
Record. Current Anthropology 38:453–461.
Masson, M. A.
1999 Animal Resource Manipulation in Ritual and Domestic Contexts at
Postclassic Maya Communities. World Archaeology 31:93–120.
Masson, M. A.
2004a Contribution of Fishing and Hunting to Subsistence and Symbolic
Expression. In K’axob: Ritual, Work, and Family in an Ancient Maya Village,
edited by P. A. McAnany, pp. 383–397. Monumenta Archaeologica 22. Cotsen
Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
2004b Fauna Exploitation from the Preclassic to the Postclassic Periods at Four
Maya Settlements in Northern Belize. In Maya Zooarchaeology: New Directions
in Method and Theory, edited by K. F. Emery, pp. 97–122. Monograph 51. Cotsen
Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Masson, M. A. and C. P. Lope
2008 Animal Use at the Postclassic Maya Center of Mayapán. Quaternary
International 191:170–183.
Mayer, J. J. and R. M. Wetzel
1987 Tayassu pecari. Mammalian Species 293:1–7.
McBee, K. and R. J. Baker
1982 Dasypus novemcinctus. Mammalian Species 162:1–9.
185
McKillop, H.
1984 Prehistoric Maya Reliance on Marine Resources: Analysis of a Midden
from Moho Cay, Belize. Journal of Field Archaeology 11:25–35.
1985 Prehistoric Exploitation of the Manatee in the Maya and Circum-Caribbean
Areas. World Archaeology 16:337–353.
1996 Prehistoric Maya Use of Native Palms: Archaeobotanical and
Ethnobotanical Evidence. In The Managed Mosaic: Ancient Maya Agriculture and
Resource Use, edited by S. L. Fedick, pp. 278–294. University of Utah Press, Salt
Lake City.
2004a The Ancient Maya: New Perspectives. W.W. Norton & Company, New
York.
2004b The Classic Maya Trading Port of Moho Cay. In The Ancient Maya of the
Belize Valley: Half a Century of Archaeological Research, edited by J. F. Garber,
pp. 257–272. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
McManus, J. J.
1974 Didelphis virginiana. Mammalian Species 40:1–6.
Méndez, E.
1984 Mexico and Central America. In White-Tailed Deer: Ecology and
Management, edited by L. K. Halls, pp. 513–524. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg.
Merwin, R. E. and G. C. Vaillant
1932 The Ruins of Holmul, Guatemala. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of
Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 3, No. 2. Harvard University, Cambridge.
Metcalfe, D. and K. R. Barlow
1992 A Model for Exploring the Optimal Trade-off between Field Processing
and Transport. American Anthropologist 94:340–356.
Metcalfe, D. and K. T. Jones
1988 A Reconsideration of Animal Body-Part Utility Indices. American
Antiquity 53:486–504.
Miksicek, C. H.
1991 The Ecology and Economy of Cuello. In Cuello: an Early Maya
Community, edited by N. Hammond, pp. 70–84. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Miksicek, C. H., R. M. Bird, B. Pickersgill, S. Donaghey, J. Cartwright and N. Hammond
1981a Preclassic Lowland Maize from Cuello, Belize. Nature 289:56–59.
186
Miksicek, C. H., K. J. Elsesser, I. A. Wuebber, K. O. Bruhns and N. Hammond
1981b Rethinking Ramon: A Comment on Reina and Hill’s Lowland Maya
Subsistence. American Antiquity 46:916–919.
Moedano-Koer, H.
1946 Jaina: Un cementerio Maya. Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropológicos
8:217–242.
Moholy-Nagy, H.
1963 Shells and Other Marine Material from Tikal. Estudios de Cultura Maya
3:65–83.
1978 The Utilization of Pomacea Snails at Tikal, Guatemala. American Antiquity
43:65–73.
1985 The Social and Ceremonial Uses of Marine Molluscs at Tikal. In
Prehistoric Lowland Maya Environment and Subsistence Economy, edited by M.
D. Pohl, pp. 147–158. Papers of Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology
Vol. 77. Harvard University, Cambridge.
1994 Tikal Material Culture: Artifacts and Social Structure at a Classic Lowland
Maya City. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
1998 A Preliminary Report on the Use of Vertebrate Fauna from Tikal,
Guatemala. In Anatomía de una Civilización : Aproximaciones Interdisciplinarias
a la Cultura Maya, edited by A. Ciudad Ruiz, M. Y. F. Marquínez, J. M. G.
Campillo, M. J. I. Ponce de León, A. L. García-Gallo and L. T. S. Castro, pp.
115–129. Sociedad Española de Estudios Mayas, Madrid.
Mondini, M. and A. S. Muñoz
2008 Pumas as Taphonomic Agents: A Comparative Analysis of Actualistic
Studies in the Neotropics. Quaternary International 180:52–62.
Montalvo, C. I., M. E. M. Pessino and M. E. González
2007 Taphonomic Analysis of Remains of Mammals Eaten by Pumas (Puma
concolor, Carnivora, Felidae) in Central Argentina. Journal of Archaeological
Science 34:2151–2160.
Montero-Lopez, C.
2009 Sacrifice and Feasting Among the Classic Maya Elite, and the Importance
of the White-Tailed Deer: Is There a Regional Pattern? . Journal of Historical and
European Studies 2:53–68.
Morin, E.
2007 Fat Composition and Nunamiut Decision-Making: A New Look at the
Marrow and Bone Grease Indices. Journal of Archaeological Science 34:69–82.
187
2010 Taphonomic Implications of the Use of Bone as Fuel. Palethnologie
2:209–217.
2012 Reassessing Paleolithic Subsistence: The Neanderthal and Modern Human
Foragers of Saint-Césaire. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Morin, E. and E. Ready
2013 Foraging Goals and Transport Decisions in Western Europe During the
Paleolithic and Early Holocene. In Zooarchaeology and Modern Human Origins,
edited by J. L. Clark and J. D. Speth, pp. 1–43. Springer, New York (in press).
Morin, E., T. Tsanova, N. Sirakov, W. Rendu, J.-B. Mallye and F. Lévêque
2005 Bone Refits in Stratified Deposits: Testing the Chronological Grain at
Saint-Césaire. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:1083–1098.
Morlan, R. E.
1980 Taphonomy and Archaeology in the Upper Pleistocene of the Northern
Yukon Territory: A Glimpse of the Peopling of the New World. National Museum
of Man Mercury Series Paper No. 94. National Museums of Canada, Ottawa.
1994 Bison Bone Fragmentation and Survivorship: A Comparative Method.
Journal of Archaeological Science 21:797–807.
Muñoz, A. S., M. Mondini, V. Durán and A. Gasco
2008 Los Pumas (Puma concolor) como Agentes Tafonómicos. Análisis
Actualístico de un Sitio de Matanza en los Andes de Mendoza, Argentina.
Geobios 41:123–131.
Murie, A. M.
1935 Mammals from Guatemala and British Honduras. University of Michigan
Museum of Zoology Miscellaneous Publication 26. University of Michigan Press,
Ann Arbor.
Nicholson, R. A.
1993 A Morphological Investigation of Burnt Animal Bone and an Evaluation of
Its Utility in Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Science 20:411–428.
1996 Bone Degradation, Burial Medium and Species Representation: Debunking
the Myths, an Experiment-Based Approach. Journal of Archaeological Science
23:513–533.
Ojasti, J.
1996 Wildlife Utilization in Latin America: Current Situation and Prospects for
Sustainable Management. FAO Conservation Guide 25. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
188
Oliveira, F. S. and J. C. Canola
2007 Erupção Dental em Pacas (Agouti paca) Criadas em Cativeiro. Arquivo
Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia 59(2):390–394.
Olsen, S. J.
1972 Animal Remains from Altar de Sacrificios. In The Artifacts of Altar de
Sacrificios, edited by G. R. Willey, pp. 243–246. Papers of the Peabody Museum
of Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 64, No. 1. Harvard University, Cambridge.
1978 Vertebrate Faunal Remains. In Excavations at Seibal, Department of
Petén, Guatemala, edited by G. R. Willey, pp. 172–176. Memoirs of the Peabody
Museum of Anthropology and Ethnology Vol. 14, No. 1. Harvard University,
Cambridge.
1982 An Osteology of Some Maya Mammals. Papers of the Peabody Museum of
Archaeology and Ethnology 73. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Orians, G. H. and N. E. Pearson
1979 On the Theory of Central Place Foraging. In Analysis of Ecological
Systems, edited by D. J. Horn, G. R. Stairs and R. D. Mitchell, pp. 155–177. Ohio
State University Press, Columbus.
Payne, S.
1973 Kill-Off Patterns in Sheep and Goats: The Mandibles from Aşvan Kale.
Anatolian Studies 23:281–303.
1975 Partial Recovery and Sample Bias. In Archaeozoological Studies, edited by
A. T. Clason, pp. 7–17. American Elsevier, New York.
Pendergast, D.
1979 Excavations at Altun Ha, Belize, 1964–1970, Volume 1. Royal Ontario
Museum, Toronto.
Pérez, E. M.
1992 Agouti paca. Mammalian Species 404:1–7.
Pickering, T. R. and C. P. Egeland
2006 Experimental Patterns of Hammerstone Percussion Damage on Bones:
Implications for Inferences of Carcass Processing by Humans. Journal of
Archaeological Science 33:459–469.
Pina-Chan, R.
1968 Jaina: La Casa en el Agua. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia,
Mexico City.
189
Plug, C. and I. Plug
1990 MNI counts as Estimates of Species Abundance. The South African
Archaeological Bulletin 45(151):53–57.
Pohl, M. D.
1976 Ethnozoology of the Maya: An Analysis of Fauna from Five Sites in the
Peten, Guatemala. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia.
1981 Ritual Continuity and Transformation in Mesoamerica: Reconstructing the
Ancient Maya Cuch Ritual. American Antiquity 46:513–529.
1983 Maya Ritual Faunas: Vertebrate Remains from Burials, Caches, and
Cenotes in the Maya Lowlands. In Civilization of the Ancient Americas: Essays in
Honor of Gordon R. Willey, edited by R. M. Leventhal and A. L. Kolata, pp. 55–
103. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
1990 The Ethnozoology of the Maya: Faunal Remains from Five Sites in Peten,
Guatemala. In Excavations at Seibal, edited by G. R. Willey, pp. 143–174.
Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 1–4.
Harvard University, Cambridge.
1994 Late Classic Maya Fauna from Settlement in the Copan Valley, Honduras:
Assertion of Social Status through Animal Consumption. In Ceramics and
Artifacts from Excavations in the Copan Residential Zone, edited by A. A.
Demarest and W. L. Fash. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and
Ethnology Vol. 80. Harvard University, Cambridge.
Pohl, M. D. and L. H. Feldman
1982 The Traditional Role of Women and Animals in Lowland Maya Economy.
In Maya Subsistence: Studies in the Memory of Dennis E. Puleston, edited by K.
V. Flannery, pp. 295–311. Academic Press, New York.
Pohl, M. D., K. O. Pope, J. G. Jones, J. S. Jacob, D. R. Piperno, S. D. deFrance, D. L.
Lentz, J. A. Gifford, M. E. Danforth and J. K. Josserand
1996 Early Agriculture in the Maya Lowlands. Latin American Antiquity 7:355–
372.
Powis, T. G.
2004 Ancient Lowland Maya Utilization of Freshwater Pearly Mussels
(Nephronaias spp.). In Maya Zooarchaeology: New Directions in Method and
Theory, edited by K. F. Emery, pp. 125–140. Monograph 51. Cotsen Institute of
Archaeology, Los Angeles.
2005 Formative Mesoamerican Cultures: An Introduction. In New Perspectives
on Formative Mesoamerican Cultures, edited by T. G. Powis, pp. 1–14. BAR
International Series 1377. Archaeopress, Oxford.
190
2009 Pacbitun Preclassic Project: Report on the 2008 Field Season. Report
submitted to the Institute of Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and
History, Belmopan, Belize.
2010 Pacbitun Preclassic Project: Report on the 2009 Field Season. Report
submitted to the Institute of Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and
History, Belmopan, Belize.
2011 Preliminary Investigations into Sub-Plaza Deposits in Plaza A at Pacbitun,
Belize. In Pacbitun Regional Archaeological Project (PRAP): Report on the 2010
Field Season, edited by T. G. Powis, pp. 142–151. Report submitted to the
Institute of Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and History, Belmopan,
Belize.
2012 Pacbitun Regional Archaeological Project (PRAP): Report on the 2010
Field Season. Report submitted to the Institute of Archaeology, National Institute
of Culture and History, Belmopan, Belize.
Powis, T. G., J. J. Awe, P. F. Healy and N. Stanchly
2002 La Explotación de Recursos Animales por los Antiguos Mayas del Periodo
Formativo Medio : Nueva Evidencia del Grupo Tolok en Cahal Pech. In
Memorias del Tercer Congreso Internacional de Mayistas, 1995, edited by A. L.
Izquierdo y de la Cueva, pp. 505–518. Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas y
Centro de Estudios Mayas, Universidad Autónoma de México, Mexico City.
Powis, T. G., N. Stanchly, C. D. White, P. F. Healy, J. J. Awe and F. Longstaffe
1999 A Reconstruction of Middle Preclassic Subsistence Economy at Cahal
Pech, Belize. Antiquity 73:364–376.
Presley, S. J.
2000 Eira barbara. Mammalian Species 636:1–6.
Puleston, D. E.
1982 The Role of Ramón in Maya Subsistence. In Maya Subsistence: Studies in
the Memory of Dennis E. Puleston, edited by K. V. Flannery, pp. 353–366.
Academic Press, New York.
Purdue, J. R.
1983 Epiphyseal Closure in White-Tailed Deer. Journal of Wildlife Management
47:1207–1213.
Reid, F. A.
2009 A Field Guide to the Mammals of Central America and Southeast Mexico.
2nd ed. Oxford University Press, New York.
191
Reitz, E. J. and E. S. Wing
2008 Zooarchaeology. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Repoussard, A.
2009 Stable Carbon and Oxygen Isotopes in Bone: Tracing Droughts during the
Maya Era Using Archaeological Deer Remains. Unpublished M.A. thesis, School
of Geography and Earth Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton.
Richie, C. F.
1990 Ancient Maya Settlement and Environment of the Eastern Zone of
Pacbitun, Belize. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Trent
University, Peterborough.
Ricketson, E. B.
1937 The Artifacts. In Uaxactún, Guatemala: Group E––1926–1931, edited by
O. G. J. Ricketson and E. B. Ricketson, pp. 204–208. Carnegie Institution of
Washington, Washington, D. C.
Ringrose, T. J.
1993 Bone Counts and Statistics: A Critique. Journal of Archaeological Science
20:121–157.
Rissolo, D., J. M. Ochoa Rodriguez and J. W. Ball
2005 A Reassessment of the Middle Preclassic in Northern Quintana Roo. In
Quintana Roo Archaeology, edited by J. M. Shaw and J. P. Mathews, pp. 66–77.
University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Roys, R. L.
1931 The Ethno-Botany of the Maya. Middle American Research Series No. 2.
Tulane University, New Orleans.
Savage, H. G.
1971 Faunal Material. In Excavations at Eduardo Quiroz Cave, British
Honduras (Belize), edited by D. M. Pendergast, pp. 78–110. Art and Archaeology
Occasional Papers 21. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto.
Schlesinger, V.
2001 Animals and Plants of the Ancient Maya: A Guide. University of Texas
Press, Austin.
Schoener, T. W.
1979 Generality of the Size-Distance Relation in Models of Optimal Feeding.
The American Naturalist 114:902–914.
Serjeantson, D.
2009 Birds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
192
Severinghaus, C. W.
1949 Tooth Development and Wear as Criteria of Age in White-Tailed Deer.
Journal of Wildlife Management 13:315–321.
Seymour, K. L.
1989 Panthera onca. Mammalian Species 340:1–9.
Shaffer, B. S.
1992 Quarter-Inch Screening: Understanding Biases in Recovery of Vertebrate
Faunal Remains. American Antiquity 57:129–136.
Shaffer, B. S. and J. L. J. Sanchez
1994 Comparison of 1/8″- and 1/4″-Mesh Recovery of Controlled Samples of
Small-to-Medium-Sized Mammals. American Antiquity 59:525–530.
Sharer, R. J.
1994 The Ancient Maya. 5th ed. Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Shaw, L. C.
1991 The Articulation of Social Inequality and Faunal Resource Use in the
Preclassic Community of Colha, Northern Belize. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
1999 Social and Ecological Aspects of Preclassic Maya Meat Consumption at
Colha, Belize. In Reconstructing Ancient Maya Diet, edited by C. D. White, pp.
83–100. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Sheffield, S. R. and H. H. Thomas
1997 Mustela frenata. Mammalian Species 570:1–9.
Shipman, P., G. Foster and M. Schoeninger
1984 Burnt Bones and Teeth: An Experimental Study of Color, Morphology,
Crystal Structure and Shrinkage. Journal of Archaeological Science 11:307–325.
Silver, I. A.
1969 The Ageing of Domestic Animals. In Science in Archaeology: A Survey of
Progress and Research, edited by D. Brothwell, E. Higgs and C. Grahame, pp.
283–302. Thames and Hudson, London.
Smith, E. A.
1983 Anthropological Applications of Optimal Foraging Theory: A Critical
Review. Current Anthropology 24:625–651.
Snow, D. H.
1969 Late Classic Maya Occupation in the San Antonio (Cayo District) SubRegion, Western British Honduras. Katunob 7(1):47–49.
193
Soibelzon, E., M. Medina and A. M. Abba
2012 Late Holocene armadillos (Mammalia, Dasypodidae) of the Sierras of
Córdoba, Argentina: Zooarchaeology, diagnostic characters and their
paleozoological relevance. Quaternary International
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.09.009.
Solis, W.
2011 Ancient Maya Exploitation of Jute (Pachychilus spp.) at Minanha, West
Central Belize. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Trent
University, Peterborough.
Spenard, J.
2011 Heading to the Hills: A Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on Pacbitun’s
Regional Landscape. In Pacbitun Regional Archaeological Project (PRAP):
Report on the 2010 Field Season, edited by T. G. Powis, pp. 33–89. Report
submitted to the Institute of Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and
History, Belmopan, Belize.
Stanchly, N.
1995 Formative Period Maya Faunal Utilization at Cahal Pech, Belize:
Preliminary Analysis of the Animal Remains from the 1994 Field Season. In
Belize Valley Preclassic Maya Project: Report on the 1994 Field Season, edited
by P. F. Healy and J. J. Awe, pp. 124–149. Occasional Papers in Anthropology 10.
Trent University, Peterborough.
1999 Preliminary Report on the Preclassic Faunal Remains from Pacbitun,
Belize: 1995 and 1996 Field Seasons. In Belize Valley Preclassic Maya Project:
Report on the 1996 and 1997 Field Seasons, edited by P. F. Healy, pp. 41–52.
Occasional Papers in Anthropology 13. Trent University, Peterborough.
2004 Picks and Stones May Break My Bones: Taphonomy and Maya
Zooarchaeology. In Maya Zooarchaeology: New Directions in Method and
Theory, edited by K. F. Emery, pp. 35–43. Monograph 51. Cotsen Institute of
Archaeology, Los Angeles.
Stanchly, N. and J. Dale
1992 An Analysis of the Faunal Remains from Structure B-4, Units 4 and 5,
Cahal Pech, Belize. In Progress Report of the Fourth Season (1991) of
Investigations at Cahal Pech, Belize, edited by J. J. Awe and M. D. Campbell, pp.
141–167. Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough.
Stanton, T. W. and T. Ardren
2005 The Middle Formative of Yucatan in Context. Ancient Mesoamerica
16:213–228.
Stephens, D. W. and J. R. Krebs
1986 Foraging Theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
194
Stiner, M. C.
1994 Honor among Thieves: A Zooarchaeological Study of Neandertal Ecology.
Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Stiner, M. C., S. L. Kuhn, S. Weiner and O. Bar-Yosef
1995 Differential Burning, Recrystallization, and Fragmentation of
Archaeological Bone. Journal of Archaeological Science 22:223–237.
Stiner, M. C., N. D. Munro and T. A. Surovell
2000 The Tortoise and the Hare: Small-Game Use, the Broad-Spectrum
Revolution, and Paleolithic Demography. Current Anthropology 41:39–79.
Stuart, L. C.
1935 A Contribution to a Knowledge of the Herpetology of a Portion of the
Savanna Region of Central Petén, Guatemala. Miscellaneous Publications No. 29.
Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
1964 Fauna of Middle America. In Handbook of Middle American Indians Vol.
1, edited by R. C. West and R. Wauchope, pp. 316–362. University of Texas
Press, London.
Sunahara, K. S.
1995 Ancient Maya Settlement: The Western Zone of Pacbitun, Belize.
Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Trent University,
Peterborough.
Tappen, M.
1994 Bone Weathering in the Tropical Rain Forest. Journal of Archaeological
Science 21:667–673.
Teeter, W. G.
2001 Maya Animal Utilization in a Growing City: Vertebrate Exploitation at
Caracol, Belize. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of California, Los Angeles.
Tewes, M. E. and D. J. Schmidly
1987 The Neotropical Felids: Jaguar, Ocelot, Margay, and Jaguarundi. In Wild
Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America, edited by M. Novak
and J. Baker, pp. 697–711. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto.
Thornton, E. K.
2011 Reconstructing Ancient Maya Animal Trade through Strontium Isotope
(87Sr/86Sr) Analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:3254–3263.
195
Thurston, E. B.
2011 Crocodiles and the Ancient Maya: An Examination of the Iconographic
and Zooarchaeological Evidence. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of
Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough.
Todd, L. C. and D. J. Rapson
1988 Long Bone Fragmentation and Interpretation of Faunal Assemblages:
Approaches to Comparative Analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 15:307–
325.
Todd, L. C. and D. J. Stanford
1992 Application of Conjoined Bone Data to Site Structural Studies. In Piecing
Together the Past: Applications of Refitting Studies in Archaeology, edited by J.
L. Hofman and J. G. Enloe, pp. 21–35. BAR International Series 578. British
Archaeological Reports, Oxford.
Tozzer, A. M.
1941 Landa’s Relación de las Cosas de Yucatan. Papers of the Peabody
Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 18. Harvard University,
Cambridge.
Tozzer, A. M. and G. M. Allen
1910 Animal Figures in the Maya Codices. Papers of the Peabody Museum of
American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 4, No. 3. Harvard University,
Cambridge.
Turner, B. L. and C. H. Miksicek
1984 Economic Plant Species Associated with Prehistoric Agriculture in the
Maya Lowlands. Economic Botany 38:179–193.
Tykot, R. H.
2002 Contribution of Stable Isotope Analysis to Understanding Dietary
Variation among the Maya. In Archaeological Chemistry: Material, Methods, and
Meaning, edited by K. A. Jakes, pp. 214–230. ACS Symposium Series 831.
American Chemistry Society, Washington, D.C.
Tykot, R. H., N. J. van der Merwe and N. Hammond
1996 Stable Isotope Analysis of Bone Collagen, Bone Apatite, and Tooth
Enamel in the Reconstruction of Human Diet: A Case Study from Cuello, Belize.
In Archaeological Chemistry: Organic, Inorganic, and Biochemical Analysis,
edited by M. V. Orna, pp. 355–365. ACS Symposium Series 625. American
Chemistry Society, Washington, D.C.
Ugan, A. and S. Simms
2012 On Prey Mobility, Prey Rank, and Foraging Goals. American Antiquity
77:179–185.
196
Ungar, P. S.
2010 Mammal Teeth: Origin, Evolution, and Diversity. John Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore.
Vail, G. and A. Aveni
2004 Research Methodologies and New Approaches to Interpreting the Madrid
Codex. In The Madrid Codex: New Approaches to Understanding an Ancient
Maya Manuscript, edited by G. Vail and A. Aveni, pp. 1–30. University Press of
Chicago, Boulder.
Valdez, F.
1995 Religion and Iconography of the Preclassic Maya at Rio Azul, Peten,
Guatemala. In Religión y Sociedad en el Area Maya, edited by C. Varela
Torrecilla, J. L. Bonor and M. Y. Fernández Marquínez, pp. 211–218. Sociedad
Española de Estudios Mayas, Madrid.
Valdez, S. V., J. B. Lee, A. Wittke and A. Vaughan
2011 Excavations at Two Sites Within the Pacbitun Cave System: Report on the
2010 Season of the Pacbitun Regional Archaeological Project. In In Pacbitun
Regional Archaeological Project (PRAP): Report on the 2010 Field Season,
edited by T. G. Powis, pp. 19–32. Report submitted to the Institute of
Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and History, Belmopan, Belize.
van der Merwe, N. J., R. H. Tykot, N. Hammond and K. Oakberg
2000 Diet and Animal Husbandry of the Preclassic Maya at Cuello, Belize:
Isotopic and Zooarchaeological Evidence. In Biogeochemical Approaches to
Paleodietary Analysis, edited by S. H. Ambrose and M. A. Katzenberg, pp. 23–38.
Advances in Archaeological and Museum Science Vol. 5. Kluwer
Academic/Plenum, New York.
van Tyne, J.
1935 The Birds of the Northern Petén. University of Michigan Museum of
Zoology Miscellaneous Publications 27. University of Michigan Press, Ann
Arbor.
Verme, L. J. and D. E. Ullrey
1984 Physiology and Nutrition. In White-Tailed Deer: Ecology and
Management, edited by L. K. Halls, pp. 91–118. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg.
Villa, P., J.-C. Castel, C. Beauval, V. Bourdillat and P. Goldberg
2004 Human and Carnivore Sites in the European Middle and Upper Paleolithic:
Similarities and Differences in Bone Modification and Fragmentation. Revue de
Paléobiologie 23:705–730.
Villa, P. and E. Mahieu
1991 Breakage Patterns of Human Long Bones. Journal of Human Evolution
21:27–48.
197
Villa, P., E. Soto, M. Santonja, A. Pérez-González, R. Mora, J. Parcerisas and C. Sesé
2005 New Data on Ambrosa: Closing the Hunting versus Scavenging Debate.
Quaternary International 126–128:223–250.
Wake, T. A.
2004a On the Paramount Importance of Adequate Comparative Collections and
Recovery Techniques in the Identification and Interpretation of Vertebrate
Archaeofaunas: A Reply to Vale & Gargett (2002). Archaeofauna 13:173–182.
2004b A Vertebrate Archaeofauna from the Early Formative Period Site of Paso
de la Amada, Chiapas, Mexico: Preliminary Results. In Maya Zooarchaeology:
New Directions in Method and Theory, edited by K. F. Emery, pp. 209–222.
Monograph 51. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles.
Weber, J.
2011 Investigating the Ancient Maya Landscape: A Settlement Survey in the
Periphery of Pacbitun. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology,
Georgia State University, Atlanta.
Weber, J. U. and T. G. Powis
2011 The Role of Caves at Pacbitun: Peripheral to the Site Center or Central to
the Periphery? . Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 8:198–207.
Wheeler, A. and A. G. K. Jones
1989 Fishes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
White, C. D.
1997 Ancient Diet at Lamanai and Pacbitun: Implications for the Ecological
Model of Collapse. In Bones of the Maya: Studies of Ancient Skeletons, edited by
S. L. Whittington and D. M. Reed, pp. 171–180. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.
2004 Stable Isotopes and the Human-Animal Interface in Maya Biosocial and
Environmental Systems. Archaeofauna 13:183–198.
White, C. D., P. F. Healy and H. P. Schwarcz
1993 Agriculture, Social Status, and Maya Diet at Pacbitun, Belize. Journal of
Anthropological Research 49:347–375.
White, C. D., D. M. Pendergast, F. J. Longstaffe and K. R. Law
2001a Social Complexity and Food Systems at Altun Ha, Belize: The Isotopic
Evidence. Latin American Antiquity 12:371–393.
White, C. D., M. D. Pohl, H. P. Schwarcz and F. J. Longstaffe
2001b Isotopic Evidence for Maya Patterns of Deer and Dog Use at Preclassic
Colha. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:89–107.
198
White, C. D. and H. P. Schwarcz
1989 Ancient Maya Diet: As Inferred from Isotopic and Elemental Analysis of
Human Bone. Journal of Archaeological Science 16:451–474.
Wiesen, A. and D. L. Lentz
1999 Preclassic Floral Remains at Cahal Pech and Pacbitun, Belize: Summary
Report. In Belize Valley Preclassic Maya Project: Report on the 1996 and 1997
Field Seasons, edited by P. F. Healy, pp. 53–67. Occasional Papers in
Anthropology 13. Trent University, Peterborough.
Willey, G. R.
1978 Bone and Related Artifacts. In Excavations at Seibal, edited by G. R.
Willey, pp. 168–171. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and
Ethnology Vol. 14, No. 1–3. Harvard University, Cambridge.
Willey, G. R., W. R. Bullard Jr., J. B. Glass and J. C. Gifford
1965 Prehistoric Maya Settlements in the Belize Valley. Papers of the Peabody
Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 54. Peabody Museum, Cambridge.
Wing, E. S.
1975 Animal Remains from Lubaantún, Guatemala. In Lubaatún: A Classic
Maya Realm, edited by N. Hammond, pp. 379–383. Peabody Museum of
Archaeology and Ethnology Monograph 2. Harvard University, Cambridge.
1980 Vertebrate Faunal Remains from Dzibilchaltun. In Excavations at
Dzibilchaltun, Yucatan, Mexico, edited by E. W. Andrews IV and E. W. Andrews
V, pp. 326–331. Publication 48. Middle American Research Institute, Tulane
University, New Orleans.
Wing, E. S. and S. Scudder
1991 The Ecology and Economy of Cuello: The Exploitation of Animals. In
Cuello: An Early Maya Community in Belize, edited by N. Hammond, pp. 84–97.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Winterhalder, B. and D. J. Kennett
2006 Behavioral Ecology and the Transition from Hunting and Gathering to
Agriculture. In Behavioral Ecology and the Transition to Agriculture, edited by D.
J. Kennett and B. Winterhalder, pp. 1–20. University of California Press,
Berkeley.
Wolverton, S., L. Nagaoka, J. Densmore and B. Fullerton
2008 White-Tailed Deer Harvest Pressure and Within-Bone Nutrient
Exploitation during the Mid- to Late Holocene in Southeast Texas. Before
Farming 2008/2, article 3:1–22.
199
Woodbury, R. B. and A. S. Trik
1954 The Ruins of Zaculeu, Guatemala. United Fruit Company, William Byrd
Press, New York.
Wright, A. C. S., D. H. Romney, R. H. Arbuckle and V. E. Rial
1959 Land in British Honduras: A Report of the British Honduras Land Use
Survey Team. Colonial Research Publications No. 24. Her Majesty’s Stationery
Office, London.
Wright, L. E.
1997 Ecology or Society? Paleodiet and the Collapse of the Pasión Maya
Lowlands. In Bones of the Maya: Studies of Ancient Skeletons, edited by S. L.
Whittington and D. M. Reed, pp. 181–195. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D. C.
2006 Diet, Health, and Status among the Pasión Maya: A Reappraisal of the
Collapse. Vanderbilt Institute of Mesoamerican Archaeology Series Vol. 2.
Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville.
Young, S.
2002 Metabolic Mechanisms and the Isotopic Investigation of Ancient Diets
with an Application to Human Remains from Cuello, Belize. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge.
Zohar, I., T. Dayan, E. Galili and E. Spanier
2001 Fish Processing During the Early Holocene: A Taphonomic Case Study
from Coastal Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:1041–1053.
200
APPENDIX A
Pacbitun faunal datasets by time period
201
ABBREVIATIONS
Identification
Code
Scientific name
Common name
ART
CER
ODO
MAZ
TAY
TAP
CAN
DOG
COA
MUS
ARM
OPOV
OPOM
CAT
JAG
PUM
OCE
MAR
GOP
DAS
PAC
AGO
RAB
AVES
GAL
COL
VIP
IGU
TES
KIN
FISH
ICT
SER
PAF
BUF
STM
MTM
LTM
UNIM
UNI
Artiodactyla
Cervidae
Odocoileus virginianus
Mazama americana
Tayassuidae
Tapirus bairdii
Canidae
Canis lupus familiaris
Nasua narica
Mustela frenata
Dasypus novemcinctus
Didelphis virginiana
Didelphis marsupialis
Felidae
Panthera onca
Puma concolor
Leopardus pardalis
Leopardus wiedii
Orthogeomys spp.
Dasyproctidae
Cuniculus paca
Dasyprocta punctata
Sylvilagus spp.
Aves
Galliformes
Colubridae
Viperidae
Iguanidae
Testudines
Kinosternon spp.
Unidentified fish
Ictaluridae
Serranidae
Sparisoma spp.
Rhinella marinus
Small terrestrial mammal
Medium terrestrial mammal
Large terrestrial mammal
Indeterminate mammal
Indeterminate specimen
Artiodactyls
Cervids
White-tailed deer
Red brocket deer
Peccaries
Baird’s tapir
Canids
Domestic dog
Coatimundi
Weasel
Armadillo
Virginia opossum
Common opossum
Cats
Jaguar
Puma
Ocelot
Margay
Pocket gophers
Agouti, paca
Paca
Agouti
Rabbits
Birds
Turkey, guan
Colubrid
Vipers
Iguanas
Turtles
Mud turtle
Catfish
Grouper
Parrotfish
Marine toad
202
Bone element
ANT
SKL
FRN
OCC
NAS
PAR
PET
ROS
TEM
ZYG
PMX
MAN
MAX
IN
CN
PM
MO
DP
TTH
HYD
Antler fragment
Skull fragment
Frontal
Occipital
Nasal
Parietal
Petrous (bulla)
Rostrum
Temporal
Zygomatic
Premaxilla
Mandible
Maxilla
Incisor
Canine
Premolar
Molar
Deciduous premolar
Tooth fragment
Hyoid
ATL
AXI
CEV
TRV
LMV
CDV
VER
SAC
STX
RIB
CC
Atlas
Axis
Cervical vertebra
Thoracic vertebra
Lumbar vertebra
Caudal vertebra
Vertebral fragment
Sacrum
Sternum
Rib
Coastal cartilage
SCA
HUM
RAD
RUL
ULN
CAP
HAM
LUN
PIS
SCP
TRQ
Scapula
Humerus
Radius
Radius-ulna
Ulna
Capitatum
Hamatum
Lunate
Pisiform
Scaphoid
Triquetrum
ILM
INN
ISH
PUB
PAT
FEM
TIB
FIB
TFB
AST
CAL
CUB
GC
MAL
NAV
SC
NVB
SES
MTC
MTP
MTT
PH1
PH2
PH3
PHA
SHL
DRS
LBF
UNI
Ilium
Innominate fragment
Ischium
Pubis
Patella
Femur
Tibia
Fibula
Tibia-fibula
Astragalus
Calcaneus
Cuboid
Greater cuneiform
Malleolar
Navicular
Smaller cuneiform
Naviculo-cuboid
Sesamoid
Metacarpal
Metapodial
Metatarsal
Phalanx 1
Phalanx 2
Phalanx 3
Phalanx fragment
Shell
Dorsal spine
Long bone fragment
Unidentified bone element
SYN
TBT
CMT
TMT
PPX
DPX
UNG
RNG
FUR
COR
LSA
QUA
SCL
CUN
Synsacrum
Tibiotarsus
Carpometacarpus
Tarsometatarsus
Proximal phalanx (wing)
Distal phalanx (wing)
Ungus (talon)
Tracheal ring
Furcula
Coracoid
Lumbosacral
Quadrate
Scapholunar
Cuneiform
203
End
PE
PS
MS
DS
DE
ANT
POST
CRA
CAU
UP
LO
ACE
CEN
W
W-S
S
F
Proximal end
Proximal shaft
Middle shaft
Distal shaft
Distal end
Anterior
Posterior
Cranial
Caudal
Upper tooth
Lower tooth
Acetabulum
Centrum (vertebra)
Whole
Fish vertebra with intact centrum but lacking all spines
Shaft fragment
Fragment
Side
L
R
AX
Left
Right
Axial element
Fusion
FU
U
I
Fused
Unfused
Intermediate (fused by line clearly visible)
Only for deer teeth
FAW
Fawn: <1 year old
YEA
Yearling: 1–2 years old
ADU
Adult: >2 years old
Max length
<1
1–2
2–3
3–4
4–5
measuring less than 1 cm
measuring between 1.00–1.99 cm
measuring between 2.00–2.99 cm
measuring between 3.00–3.99 cm
measuring between 4.00–4.99 cm
Surface state
PO
DA
SD
IT
Poor
Damaged
Slightly damaged
Intact
204
Taphonomy
CRK
RT
EX
SH
STG
CT
PN
DR
BUR
GN
Cracking
Root
Exfoliation
Sheeting
Staining
Cut mark
Percussion notch
Drilled
Burned
Gnawing
Table A.1 Pacbitun dataset for the early Middle Preclassic period
Catalogue number
Side Count Fusion
Max
length
Max
width
Surface
state
Plaza
Unit
Level
ID
Bone
End
PAC-08BO-014-01
B
1
6
UNIM
UNI
F
3
<1
DA
EX
PAC-08BO-014-02
B
1
6
UNIM
UNI
F
5
1–2
DA
EX
PAC-08BO-015-01
B
1
6
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
SD
EX
PAC-08BO-015-02
B
1
6
LTM
LBF
F
1
5.5
1.9
DA
EX
PAC-08BO-015-03
B
1
6
DAS
IN
F
1.6
0.4
DA
EX
PAC-08BO-015-04
B
1
6
IGU
ILM
F
L
1
U
1.3
1.3
DA
EX, RT
PAC-08BO-020-01
B
1
7
LTM
VER
F
AX
1
FU
2.1
1.5
SD
EX, GN
PAC-08BO-020-02
B
1
7
TAY
RAD
PS+MS+DS
R
1
7.3
1.8
SD
EX, RT
PAC-08BO-022-02
B
2
6
ODO
RIB
POST
R
1
2.6
1.2
SD
EX, RT
PAC-08BO-024-01
B
1
7
UNI
UNI
F
2
<1
PO
EX
PAC-08BO-025-01
B
1
7
LTM
CDV
F
1
2.1
DA
EX, GN
PAC-08BO-026-01
B
2
7
UNI
UNI
F
1
<1
PO
EX
PAC-08BO-026-02
B
2
7
UNIM
LBF
F
1
2.8
PAC-09BO-007/008-01
B
1
6B
UNI
UNI
F
1
3–4
PAC-09BO-007/008-02
B
1
6B
LTM
LBF
F
1
4.8
PAC-09BO-007/008-03
B
1
6B
ODO
ULN
PE+PS
8.0
PAC-09BO-007-01
B
1
6B
UNI
UNI
F
3
1–2
PAC-09BO-007-02
B
1
6B
UNIM
LBF
F
1
2.6
0.8
PAC-09BO-007-03
B
1
6B
LTM
LBF
F
1
4.1
PAC-09BO-007-04
B
1
6B
ARM
MTT 4
W
R
1
FU
PAC-09BO-007-05
B
1
6B
JAG
PH2
W
L
1
PAC-09BO-007-06
B
1
6B
MTM-LTM
SCA
PRO
L
1
PAC-09BO-008-01
B
1
6B
UNI
UNI
F
2
PAC-09BO-008-02
B
1
6B
UNIM
UNI
F
PAC-09BO-008-03
B
1
6B
UNIM
LBF
F
1
AX
R
1.0
PO
EX, RT
DA
EX, RT
1.1
PO
EX, RT
3.2
SD
EX, RT, GN
DA
EX
SD
EX
1.1
PO
EX, SH, STG
1.7
0.7
DA
EX, RT
FU
2.0
1.4
DA
EX, CT
FU
1.7
1.3
PO
EX, GN
<1
PO
EX
5
1–2
PO
EX
2
2–3
DA
EX
1
FU
1.1
Taphonomy
205
Max
length
Max
width
Surface
state
2.6
2.5
SD
EX
1.4
0.9
DA
EX
U
1.6
1.2
PO
EX
U
3.2
1.5
SD
EX, GN
1
2.4
0.5
SD
EX, STG
1
1.6
1.0
DA
EX
2.7
1.3
DA
EX, CT
1.6
1.0
DA
EX, RT
1
1.4
1.3
DA
EX, CRK
F
7
<1
PO
EX
UNI
F
10
1–2
SD
EX
UNI
F
15
1–2
PO
EX
UNIM
UNI
F
3
2–3
PO
EX, CRK
6B
UNIM
LBF
F
1
2.0
0.7
SD
RT, BUR
1
6B
UNIM
LBF
F
1
1.6
0.9
IT
RT
1
6B
STM
LBF
F
1
2.4
0.5
PO
EX, RT
B
1
6B
LTM
UNI
F
1
3.8
1.5
PO
SH, CRK
PAC-09BO-010-10
B
1
6B
STM-MTM
SKL
F
1
1.1
0.9
SD
PAC-09BO-010-11
B
1
6B
ODO
AST
PRO
R
1
FU
2.7
1.5
DA
EX
PAC-09BO-010-12
B
1
6B
ODO
NVB
F
R
1
FU
2.2
1.2
SD
EX
PAC-09BO-010-13
B
1
6B
MAZ
CAP
W
L
1
FU
1.1
1.0
SD
EX
PAC-09BO-010-14
B
1
6B
MTM-LTM
MAN?
F
2.9
1.3
PO
EX, CRK, SH
PAC-09BO-010-15
B
1
6B
ODO
CAL
PE+PS+MS
L
1
FU
5.8
2.2
SD
EX, CT
PAC-09BO-010-16
B
1
6B
ODO
MTC
PE+PS
L
1
FU
3.1
1.5
SD
EX, CRK
PAC-09BO-010-17
B
1
6B
ODO
AST
DE
R
1
FU
1.8
1.7
SD
EX
PAC-09BO-010-18
B
1
6B
ODO
RIB
POST
L
1
FU
2.2
1.0
SD
EX
PAC-09BO-010-19
B
1
6B
ODO
CAL
DE
L
1
FU
2.8
1.4
SD
EX
Catalogue number
Plaza
Unit
Level
ID
Bone
End
Side Count Fusion
PAC-09BO-008-04
B
1
6B
ODO
FEM
DE
PAC-09BO-008-05
B
1
6B
ODO
MO
UP
PAC-09BO-008-06
B
1
6B
ARM
TIB
PE+PS
L
1
PAC-09BO-008-07
B
1
6B
ARM
TIB
PE+PS+MS
R
1
PAC-09BO-008-08
B
1
6B
ARM
FIB
MS+DS
L
PAC-09BO-008-09
B
1
6B
ART
MO-PM
F
PAC-09BO-008-10
B
1
6B
MTM-LTM
UNI
F
PAC-09BO-008-11
B
1
6B
OPOV
MAN
DIS
L
1
PAC-09BO-009-01
B
1
6B
ODO
MO1-2
UP
R
PAC-09BO-010-01
B
1
6B
UNI
UNI
PAC-09BO-010-02
B
1
6B
UNIM
PAC-09BO-010-03
B
1
6B
UNIM
PAC-09BO-010-04
B
1
6B
PAC-09BO-010-05
B
1
PAC-09BO-010-06
B
PAC-09BO-010-07
B
PAC-09BO-010-09
R
1
U
1
1
FU
1
Taphonomy
206
Catalogue number
Plaza
Unit
Level
ID
Bone
End
Side Count Fusion
PAC-09BO-010-20
B
1
6B
ODO
PH1
W
PAC-09BO-010-21
B
1
6B
TAY
AST
F
PAC-09BO-010-22
B
1
6B
ARM
TFB
PAC-09BO-010-23
B
1
6B
ARM
TIB
PAC-09BO-010-24
B
1
6B
LTM
VER
F
PAC-09BO-018-01
B
2
6
UNIM
UNI
F
PAC-09BO-018-02
B
2
6
UNIM
UNI
F
PAC-09BO-018-03
B
2
6
CER
ULN
DS
R
PAC-09BO-018-04
B
2
6
ODO
TIB
MS
R
PAC-09BO-018-05
B
2
6
ART
PHA
DS+DE
PAC-09BO-018-06
B
2
6
ODO
TIB
PE
L
1
PAC-09BO-018-07
B
2
6
MTM
ISH
ACE
L
1
PAC-09BO-018-08
B
2
6
UNIM
UNI
F
PAC-09BO-019/021
B
2
6B
ODO
FEM
PS
PAC-09BO-019-01
B
2
6B
MAZ
ULN
PS+MS
PAC-09BO-019-02
B
2
6B
UNI
UNI
F
PAC-09BO-020-01
B
2
6B
UNI
UNI
PAC-09BO-020-02
B
2
6B
UNIM
PAC-09BO-020-03
B
2
6B
PAC-09BO-020-04
B
2
6B
PAC-09BO-020-05
B
2
PAC-09BO-020-06
B
PAC-09BO-020-07
PAC-09BO-020-08
Max
length
Max
width
Surface
state
Taphonomy
1
FU
3.9
1.4
SD
EX
R
1
FU
1.4
1.0
DA
EX, GN
DE
R
1
U
2.2
0.9
PO
EX, RT, CRK
DS+MS
L
1
2.9
1.0
DA
EX, RT
AX
1
1.8
1.3
DA
EX
3
1–2
PO
EX
1
1–2
SD
EX
1
1.3
0.6
DA
EX
1
3.2
1.3
SD
EX, STG
1
1.5
0.9
SD
FU
3.4
2.8
SD
EX, GN
FU
1.5
1.2
DA
EX, RT
PO
EX, CRK
1
2–3
R
1
5.2
2.0
PO
EX
R
1
5.5
0.7
DA
EX, GN
1
2–3
PO
EX, RT
F
5
<1
PO
EX
UNI
F
5
1–2
PO
EX
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
PO
EX
UNIM
LBF
F
3
2–3
PO
EX, RT, STG
6B
UNIM
LBF
F
1
2–3
SD
RT, STG
2
6B
TAY
SCA
CRA
B
2
6B
LTM
LBF
F
B
2
6B
LTM
UNI
F
PAC-09BO-021-01
B
2
6B
UNIM
UNI
PAC-09BO-021-02
B
2
6B
UNIM
PAC-09BO-021-03
B
2
6B
MAZ
R
2.2
1.4
SD
EX, RT
1
5.1
1.7
PO
SH, CRK
1
3.8
1.5
PO
EX, RT
F
2
1–2
PO
EX
UNI
F
1
1–2
DA
EX
MTC
PE+PS+MS+DS
SD
EX, GN
L
1
1
FU
FU
8.1
1.3
207
Max
length
Max
width
Surface
state
1
2.8
0.5
SD
RT
F
1
1.0
0.8
DA
EX, STG
LBF
F
1
1.9
0.7
DA
EX, RT, STG
LBF
F
1
2.5
0.9
DA
EX, RT
UNI
UNI
F
1
<1
PO
EX
6B
AGO
IN1
UP
1
1.2
IT
RT, STG
3
6B
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX, RT
4
6
UNIM
UNI
F
1
<1
SD
EX
B
4
6
UNI
UNI
F
1
1–2
SD
EX
PAC-09BO-041-03
B
4
6
UNIM
UNI
F
2
1–2
PO
EX, RT
PAC-09BO-041-04
B
4
6
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
PO
EX, RT
PAC-09BO-041-05
B
4
6
TES
SHL
F
1
1.5
1.4
PO
EX
PAC-09BO-041-06
B
4
6
TES
SHL
F
1
1.4
1.4
PO
EX
PAC-09BO-045-01
B
4
6B
UNI
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-09BO-046-01
B
4
6B
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-09BO-046-02
B
4
6B
MTM-LTM
LBF
F
1
4.0
PO
EX, RT, STG
PAC-09BO-047-01
B
4
6B
UNI
UNI
F
6
<1
PO
EX
PAC-09BO-047-02
B
4
6B
UNI
UNI
F
5
<1
SD
PAC-09BO-047-03
B
4
6B
UNIM
UNI
F
5
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-09BO-047-04
B
4
6B
UNIM
UNI
F
3
2–3
DA
EX
PAC-09BO-047-05
B
4
6B
UNIM
UNI
F
2
<1
DA
EX
PAC-09BO-047-06
B
4
6B
ODO
ULN
PE+PS
L
1
FU
4.1
2.0
DA
EX, RT, CRK, STG
PAC-09BO-047-07
B
4
6B
ODO
CEV
CRA
AX
1
FU
4.8
4.3
DA
EX, RT, CRK
PAC-09BO-047-08
B
4
6B
ODO
FEM
DE
L
1
FU
2.2
2.1
PO
EX, GN
PAC-09BO-047-09
B
4
6B
UNIM
UNI
F
3
1–2
DA
EX, RT, CRK
PAC-09BO-047-10
B
4
6B
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
DA
EX, RT
PAC-09BO-047-13
B
4
6B
ODO
SES
W
1
SD
EX
Catalogue number
Plaza
Unit
Level
ID
Bone
End
PAC-09BO-021-04
B
2
6B
AGO
HUM
MS+DS
PAC-09BO-021-05
B
2
6B
TES
SHL
PAC-09BO-030-01
B
3
6A
UNIM
PAC-09BO-030-02
B
3
6A
UNIM
PAC-09BO-030-03
B
3
6A
PAC-09BO-031-01
B
3
PAC-09BO-032-01
B
PAC-09BO-041-01
B
PAC-09BO-041-02
Side Count Fusion
R
R
FU
0.8
0.3
1.4
0.6
Taphonomy
208
Catalogue number
Side Count Fusion
Max
length
Max
width
Surface
state
1.2
1.0
SD
Plaza
Unit
Level
ID
Bone
End
PAC-09BO-047-14
B
4
6B
ODO
SES
F
1
PAC-09BO-048-01
B
4
6B
UNIM
UNI
F
1
<1
PO
EX
PAC-09BO-048-02
B
4
6B
UNIM
UNI
F
6
1–2
DA
EX
PAC-09BO-048-03
B
4
6B
UNIM
UNI
F
2
2–3
DA
EX, RT
PAC-09BO-048-04
B
4
6B
LTM
UNI
F
1
2.5
1.8
SD
EX, RT
PAC-09BO-048-05
B
4
6B
CAT
CDV
W
PAC-09BO-048-06
B
4
6B
ODO
PH1
PE
PAC-09BO-048-07
B
4
6B
ODO
GC
W
PAC-09BO-048-08
B
4
6B
LTM
LBF
F
PAC-10BO-003-01
A
1
8
UNIM
UNI
F
PAC-10BO-008-01
A
1
6
COA
TEM
F
1
2.4
PAC-10BO-009-01
A
1
7
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PAC-10BO-009-02
A
1
7
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1.9
PAC-10BO-009-03
A
1
7
ODO
ULN
PE
R
1
FU
PAC-10BO-009-04
A
1
7
ODO
RAD
PE+PS
L
1
FU
PAC-10BO-009-05
A
1
7
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
PAC-10BO-015-01
B
3
6B
UNIM
UNI
F
1
PAC-10BO-015-02
B
3
6B
UNIM
UNI
F
PAC-10BO-015-03
B
3
6B
UNI
UNI
PAC-10BO-016-01
B
3
6B
STM-MTM
LBF
PAC-10BO-016-02
B
3
6B
MAZ
MTC
PE+PS+MS
R
1
PAC-10BO-016-03
B
3
6B
RAB
FEM
DE
L
1
PAC-10BO-016-04
B
3
6B
MTM
CN
F
PAC-10BO-016-05
B
3
6B
GOP
PM4
LO
PAC-10BO-017-01
B
3
6B
UNI
UNI
PAC-10BO-017-02
B
3
6B
UNIM
PAC-10BO-017-03
B
3
6B
FISH
AX
FU
Taphonomy
1
FU
1.3
0.5
PO
EX, RT
1
FU
1.6
0.9
PO
EX
1
FU
1.6
0.9
PO
EX
1
6.0
1.9
DA
EX, RT, CRK, STG
1
1–2
DA
EX, RT
PO
EX
PO
EX
0.8
SD
EX, BUR
6.6
3.1
PO
EX, RT
4.9
3.1
DA
EX, RT
1–2
PO
EX
1
1–2
SD
EX
F
1
1–2
SD
RT
F
1
1.4
0.6
DA
EX, RT, CRK
FU
4.8
1.0
DA
EX, RT, CRK, STG
FU
0.8
0.8
SD
EX
1
1.0
0.3
IT
RT
1
1.0
0.4
DA
EX, RT
F
1
<1
SD
EX
UNI
F
3
1–2
PO
EX
VER
W-S
1
0.5
L
R
L
AX
1.8
0.4
SD
209
Catalogue number
Side Count Fusion
Max
length
Max
width
Surface
state
Plaza
Unit
Level
ID
Bone
End
PAC-10BO-017-03
B
3
6B
UNI
UNI
F
1
1–2
SD
RT
PAC-10BO-018-01
B
3
6B
UNIM
UNI
F
1
<1
PO
EX
PAC-10BO-018-02
B
3
6B
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-10BO-019-01
B
3
6B
UNIM
UNI
F
1
<1
PO
EX
PAC-10BO-019-02
B
3
6B
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
PO
EX, RT
PAC-10BO-021/022
B
5
6
ODO
MTC
PE+PS+DS
PO
EX, CRK, GN
PAC-10BO-021-01
B
5
6
UNI
UNI
F
2
<1
PO
EX
PAC-10BO-022-01
B
5
6
UNIM
UNI
F
5
<1
PO
EX
PAC-10BO-022-02
B
5
6
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX, RT
PAC-10BO-023-01
B
5
6
UNI
UNI
F
4
<1
PO
EX
PAC-10BO-023-02
B
5
6
TES
SHL
F
1
PAC-10BO-023-03
B
5
6
MAZ
PH1
DE+DS+MS
1
PAC-10BO-024-01
B
5
6
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PAC-10BO-024-02
B
5
6
PAC
MO1
LO
1
1.2
PAC-10BO-025-01
B
5
6B
UNIM
UNI
F
5
PAC-10BO-025-02
B
5
6B
UNIM
UNI
F
2
PAC-10BO-025-03
B
5
6B
UNIM
UNI
F
1
3–4
PAC-10BO-025-04
B
5
6B
ODO
NVB
W
PAC-10BO-025-05
B
5
6B
OPOV
ULN
PAC-10BO-026-01
B
5
6B
FISH
VER
PAC-10BO-026-02
B
5
6B
IGU
MAN+TTH
Mesial
PAC-10BO-026-03
B
5
6B
STM
LBF
PAC-10BO-026-04
B
5
6B
STM
PAC-10BO-027-01
B
5
6B
UNI
PAC-10BO-027-02
B
5
6B
PAC-10BO-028-01
B
5
PAC-10BO-028-02
B
5
R
L
1
FU
FU
7.5
1.8
Taphonomy
2.2
1.3
PO
EX, CRK
1.6
0.8
SD
EX
PO
EX
SD
RT, STG
<1
PO
EX
1–2
DA
EX, RT
DA
EX, RT
0.7
R
1
FU
2.8
2.4
DA
EX, RT, CT
PE
R
1
FU
1.1
0.6
SD
EX, RT
W-S
AX
1
0.5
0.4
IT
R
1
1.4
0.5
SD
EX, RT
F
1
0.8
0.3
SD
EX
LBF
F
1
2.1
0.4
SD
EX
UNI
F
1
<1
SD
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX, RT
7
UNIM
UNI
F
4
1–2
PO
EX
7
UNIM
UNI
F
2
2–3
PO
EX
210
Max
length
Max
width
Surface
state
1
1.0
0.6
DA
EX
1
1.6
0.6
DA
EX, STG
1
1.3
0.5
PO
EX, STG
1
3–4
PO
EX, RT
F
8
<1
PO
EX
F
6
1–2
PO
EX
1
0.7
0.6
PO
EX
1
1.0
0.4
SD
EX
F
1
<1
SD
EX
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX
STM
UNI
F
1
0.8
SD
BUR
UNI
UNI
F
7
<1
PO
EX
6B
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX, RT
6
6B
LTM
LBF
F
1
2.4
B
6
6
UNI
UNI
F
1
<1
PO
EX
B
6
6
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-10BO-035A-01
B
6
6B
PAC
MO3
LO
1
1.7
SD
RT
PAC-10BO-035B-01
B
6
6B
UNI
UNI
F
2
<1
DA
EX
PAC-10BO-035B-02
B
6
6B
UNIM
UNI
F
6
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-10BO-035B-03
B
6
6B
UNIM
LBF
F
1
2.0
0.9
PO
EX
PAC-10BO-035B-04
B
6
6B
LTM
LBF
F
1
3.6
1.8
PO
EX, RT
PAC-10BO-035B-08
B
6
6B
STM
LBF
F
1
1.4
0.4
PO
EX, STG
PAC-10BO-036A-01
B
6
6B
UNI
UNI
F
2
<1
PO
EX, STG
PAC-10BO-036B-01
B
6
7
UNI
UNI
F
4
<1
PO
EX
PAC-10BO-036B-02
B
6
7
ODO
LUN
F
R
1
1.7
0.9
SD
EX
PAC-10BO-036B-03
B
6
7
ODO
SCP
F
L
1
1.6
0.8
PO
EX
PAC-10BO-036B-04
B
6
7
ARM
SHL
F
0.4
0.3
DA
EX
Catalogue number
Plaza
Unit
Level
ID
Bone
End
PAC-10BO-028-03
B
5
7
ARM
SHL
F
PAC-10BO-028-04
B
5
7
LTM
RIB
F
PAC-10BO-028-05
B
5
7
GOP
TIB
PS+MS
PAC-10BO-028-06
B
5
7
UNIM
UNI
F
PAC-10BO-032-01
B
6
6
UNI
UNI
PAC-10BO-032-02
B
6
6
UNIM
UNI
PAC-10BO-032-03
B
6
6
ARM
SHL
F
PAC-10BO-032-04
B
6
6
GOP
PM4
LO
PAC-10BO-033-01
B
6
6
UNI
UNI
PAC-10BO-033-02
B
6
6
UNIM
PAC-10BO-033-03
B
6
6
PAC-10BO-034A-01
B
6
6B
PAC-10BO-034A-02
B
6
PAC-10BO-034A-03
B
PAC-10BO-034B-01
PAC-10BO-034B-02
Side Count Fusion
R
L
R
1
FU
0.4
1.4
0.7
Taphonomy
PO
211
Catalogue number
Side Count Fusion
Max
length
Plaza
Unit
Level
ID
Bone
End
PAC-10BO-038-01
B
8
6
UNI
UNI
F
2
<1
PAC-10BO-038-02
B
8
6
ODO
PH2
F
1
2.5
PAC-10BO-040-01
PAC-11BO-001-01
B
10
6
A
1E
7
UNI
UNIM
UNI
UNI
F
F
3
1
<1
2.8
UNI
F
1
1–2
PAC-11BO-001-02
A
1E
7
UNIM
PAC-11BO-002-01
A
1E
8
ODO
PH1
DE+DS+MS
1
PAC-11BO-003-01
A
1F
7
PAC-11BO-003-02
A
1F
7
MTM-LTM
UNIM
LBF
UNI
F
F
7
UNI
UNI
8
UNIM
PAC-11BO-003-03
PAC-11BO-004-01
A
A
1F
1F
FU
Max
width
Surface
state
Taphonomy
PO
EX
1.3
PO
EX
PO
EX
1.2
DA
RT, BUR
PO
EX, RT
2.5
1.1
SD
EX, RT, STG
1
1
2.7
1.3
1.3
0.7
PO
EX, RT, BUR, DR
SD
RT, BUR
F
1
1–2
SD
RT
UNI
F
1
EX
1
2–3
3.7
PO
W
1.3
SD
EX, CRK, BUR
8.4
4.7
DA
EX, RT
PAC-11BO-004-02
A
1F
8
ODO
PH1
PAC-11BO-004-03
A
1F
8
ODO
SCA
PRO
PAC-96BO-064-01
B
2b
6
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-064-02
B
2b
6
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
PO
EX, RT
PAC-96BO-064-03
B
2b
6
ODO
MTP
DE
L
1
1.9
1.7
DA
EX
PAC-96BO-064-04
B
2b
6
ODO
HUM
DS
R
1
5.1
2.1
DA
EX, CRK
PAC-96BO-066-01
B
2+2b
5
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-066-02
B
2+2b
6
ODO
HUM
DS
1
4.3
PO
EX, RT
PAC-96BO-067-01
B
12
7
UNI
UNI
F
4
<1
IT
EX, RT
PAC-96BO-067-02
B
12
7
UNI
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-067-03
B
12
7
ODO
RIB
POST
L
1
3.3
0.8
DA
EX, STG
PAC-96BO-067-04
B
12
7
ARM
TIB
DE+MS+DS
R
1
4.2
1.7
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-067-05
B
12
7
AVES
LBF
F
1
2.3
0.6
DA
RT
PAC-96BO-068-01
B
11
7
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-068-02
B
11
7
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
SD
EX
PAC-96BO-068-03
B
11
7
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
SD
EX
PAC-96BO-068-04
B
11
7
MTM-LTM
UNI
F
1
2.5
PO
EX, RT
L
R
1
FU
U
FU
1.9
1.2
212
Max
length
Max
width
Surface
state
1
2.2
1.3
PO
EX, RT
F
1
2.1
1.6
PO
EX, RT
UNI
F
3
<1
PO
EX
UNI
F
3
1–2
PO
EX
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
PO
EX, RT
MTM-LTM
LBF
F
1
3.5
1.1
PO
EX, RT
6B
OCE
HUM
DE
1.4
1.2
PO
EX, STG
6b
MTM-LTM
LBF
F
1
3.9
0.9
PO
EX, RT
8
6B
ODO
MTT
S
1
3.4
1.4
PO
EX, RT
B
1
8
UNI
UNI
F
4
<1
SD
EX
PAC-96BO-099-02
B
1
8
UNIM
UNI
F
4
1–2
DA
EX
PAC-96BO-099-03
B
1
8
UNIM
UNI
F
2
1–2
PO
EX, RT
PAC-96BO-099-05
B
1
8
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-099-06
B
1
8
MTM-LTM
LBF
F
1
3.1
1.4
DA
EX, RT
PAC-96BO-099-07
B
1
8
MTM-LTM
LBF
F
5.5
0.8
DA
EX, RT
PAC-96BO-099-08
B
1
8
ODO
MTC
PE
1.5
1.4
DA
EX
PAC-96BO-099-09
B
1
8
ODO
MTP
S
1
3.6
0.7
DA
EX, RT
PAC-96BO-099-10
B
1
8
ODO
PHA
DE+DS
1
FU
1.4
1.2
SD
EX
PAC-96BO-099-11
B
1
8
RAB
ULN
PE
1
FU
1.4
0.7
SD
RT, STG
PAC-96BO-099-12
B
1
8
TES
SHL
F
1
1.0
0.5
SD
EX, CRK
PAC-96BO-099-13
B
1
8
TES
SHL
F
1
2.4
1.2
SD
EX, RT, STG, CT
PAC-96BO-099-14
B
1
8
MTM
LBF
F
1
1.6
1.4
DA
EX, RT, GN, BUR
PAC-96BO-100-01
B
8
8
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
SD
EX, STG
PAC-96BO-100-02
B
8
8
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX, STG
PAC-96BO-103-01
B
6
7
UNI
UNI
F
6
<1
DA
EX
PAC-96BO-103-02
B
6
7
UNIM
UNI
F
3
1–2
DA
EX
PAC-96BO-103-03
B
6
7
UNIM
UNI
F
4
2–3
DA
EX
Catalogue number
Plaza
Unit
Level
ID
Bone
End
PAC-96BO-068-05
B
11
7
MTM-LTM
UNI
F
PAC-96BO-068-06
B
11
7
MTM-LTM
LBF
PAC-96BO-084-01
B
8
6B
UNI
PAC-96BO-084-02
B
8
6B
UNIM
PAC-96BO-084-03
B
8
6B
PAC-96BO-084-04
B
8
6b
PAC-96BO-084-05
B
8
PAC-96BO-084-05
B
8
PAC-96BO-084-06
B
PAC-96BO-099-01
Side Count Fusion
R
1
FU
1
L
R
1
FU
Taphonomy
213
Catalogue number
Side Count Fusion
Max
length
Max
width
Surface
state
Plaza
Unit
Level
ID
Bone
End
PAC-96BO-103-04
B
6
7
UNIM
UNI
F
4
1–2
DA
EX
PAC-96BO-103-05
B
6
7
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-103-09
B
6
7
LTM
UNI
F
1
2.5
2.2
PO
EX, RT
PAC-96BO-103-10
B
6
7
LTM
LBF
F
1
2.4
1.6
PO
EX, RT, CT
PAC-96BO-103-11
B
6
7
ODO
TRQ
W
L
1
FU
2.2
1.6
SD
EX, STG
PAC-96BO-103-12
B
6
7
ARM
ULN
PE+PS+MS
R
1
FU
2.6
1.1
DA
EX, RT, STG
PAC-96BO-103-13
B
6
7
ARM
CDV
F
AX
1
U
1.6
0.6
DA
EX, RT
PAC-96BO-103-14
B
6
7
ARM
TIB
DS+MS
R
1
3.4
1.2
DA
EX, RT
PAC-96BO-103-15
B
6
7
ARM
FIB
DS+MS
R
1
2.4
1.6
DA
EX, RT
PAC-96BO-105-01
B
8
7
UNI
UNI
F
1
<1
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-105-02
B
8
7
UNIM
UNI
F
2
1–2
DA
EX
PAC-96BO-105-03
B
8
7
FISH
VER
W-S
1
1.3
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-107-01
B
8
6B
UNI
UNI
F
1
1–2
SD
RT, BUR
PAC-96BO-108-01
B
11
6B
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-108-02
B
11
6B
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
PO
EX, RT
PAC-96BO-108-03
B
11
6B
UNIM
UNI
F
1
4–5
PO
EX, RT
PAC-96BO-108-04
B
11
6b
STM-MTM
LBF
F
1
2.2
0.5
PO
EX, RT, CRK, STG
PAC-96BO-108-05
B
11
6b
LTM
LBF
F
1
3.0
1.5
PO
EX, RT
PAC-96BO-108-06
B
11
6B
ODO
NVB
F
2.9
2.5
PO
EX, RT, STG
PAC-96BO-109-01
B
11
6B
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
PO
EX, RT
PAC-96BO-109-02
B
11
6b
LTM
LBF
F
1
3.5
PO
EX, RT
PAC-96BO-109-02
B
11
6B
UNIM
UNI
F
1
<1
SD
CRK
PAC-96BO-109-03
B
11
6b
STM-MTM
LBF
F
1
2.0
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-110-01
B
6
6
UNIM
UNI
F
3
<1
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-110-02
B
6
6
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-110-03
B
6
6
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-110-04
B
6
6
UNIM
UNI
F
1
4–5
DA
EX
AX
L
1
FU
0.5
1.6
0.7
Taphonomy
214
Max
length
Max
width
Surface
state
2.4
1.3
PO
EX
1
4.6
1.8
PO
EX, RT
Marginal
1
1.2
1.1
PO
EX
F
4
<1
PO
EX
UNI
F
2
<1
DA
EX
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
SD
EX
7
ARM
FEM
MS
7
UNIM
UNI
F
10
7
PAC
ULN
PE+PS
B
10
7
UNI
UNI
F
1
PAC-96BO-116-01
B
3
6
UNI
UNI
F
PAC-96BO-116-02
B
3
6
UNI
UNI
F
PAC-96BO-117-01
B
6
6
UNIM
UNI
PAC-96BO-117-02
B
6
6
LTM
PAC-96BO-117-03
B
6
6
PAC-96BO-118-01
B
3
6
PAC-96BO-118-02
B
3
PAC-96BO-118-03
B
PAC-96BO-119-01
PAC-96BO-119-02
Catalogue number
Plaza
Unit
Level
ID
Bone
End
PAC-96BO-110-05
B
6
6
ODO
ULN
PE
PAC-96BO-110-06
B
6
6
LTM
LBF
F
PAC-96BO-110-07
B
6
6
TES
SHL
PAC-96BO-111-01
B
8
7
UNI
UNI
PAC-96BO-112-01
B
8
7
UNI
PAC-96BO-112-02
B
8
7
PAC-96BO-112-03
B
8
PAC-96BO-113-01
B
10
PAC-96BO-113-02
B
PAC-96BO-113-03
Side Count Fusion
R
L
1
U
PO
EX, RT
DA
EX
SD
EX, RT
<1
PO
EX, STG
7
<1
PO
EX
7
1–2
PO
EX
F
2
1–2
PO
EX
LBF
F
1
3.1
1.5
PO
EX, RT
COL
VER
W
0.9
0.8
SD
UNI
UNI
F
1
1–2
6
STM
LBF
F
1
1.1
3
6
MTM
LBF
F
1
0.9
B
4
6
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
B
4
6
LTM
LBF
F
1
4.0
PAC-96BO-120-01
B
2c
6
UNIM
UNI
F
1
PAC-96BO-121-01
B
9
6
UNI
UNI
F
PAC-96BO-121-02
B
9
6
UNIM
UNI
PAC-96BO-121-03
B
9
6
LTM
LBF
PAC-96BO-121-04
B
9
6
UNIM
PAC-96BO-121-05
B
9
6
PAC-96BO-132-01
B
6
8
R
AX
1
2.5
1
1–2
1
1
FU
FU
3.5
1.4
Taphonomy
1.2
PO
EX
0.5
PO
SH
0.9
DA
EX, RT
DA
EX
PO
EX, RT
1–2
DA
EX
4
<1
DA
EX
F
1
1–2
DA
EX, RT
F
1
3.2
SD
EX, STG
UNI
F
5
1–2
PO
EX
UNI
UNI
F
2
2–3
DA
EX
MTM-LTM
LBF
F
1
2.6
PO
EX, RT
1.4
1.6
1.4
215
Catalogue number
Side Count Fusion
Max
length
Max
width
Surface
state
Plaza
Unit
Level
ID
Bone
End
PAC-96BO-142-01
B
1
6
UNI
UNI
F
2
<1
DA
EX
PAC-96BO-142-02
B
1
6
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
DA
EX
PAC-96BO-142-03
B
1
6
TES
SHL
F
3
0.8
0.7
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-142-04
B
1
6
AVES
STX
F
AX
1
1.0
0.5
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-142-05
B
1
6
GOP
TIB
PE+PS
L
1
0.8
0.7
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-143-01
B
2c
6
UNIM
UNI
F
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-143-02
B
2c
6
TAY
PM3
UP
PAC-96BO-148-01
B
5
7
ARM
TIB
DS+MS
PAC-96BO-149-01
B
5
7
UNIM
UNI
PAC-96BO-151-01
B
6
7
UNIM
UNI
PAC-96BO-158-01
B
8
6
UNI
UNI
F
PAC-96BO-158-02
B
8
6
CAN
CN
UP
PAC-96BO-160-01
B
10
6
TAY
PH2
W
1
PAC-96BO-161-01
B
10
7
STM-MTM
LBF
F
PAC-96BO-162-01
B
11
6B
ODO
ILM
F
PAC-96BO-163-01
B
11
7
UNI
UNI
F
PAC-96BO-163-02
B
11
7
UNIM
UNI
PAC-96BO-163-03
B
11
7
UNIM
PAC-96BO-163-04
B
11
7
PAC-96BO-163-05
B
11
7
PAC-96BO-163-06
B
11
PAC-96BO-163-08
B
PAC-96BO-163-09
PAC-96BO-163-10
U
Taphonomy
1
3–4
L
1
1.0
0.9
DA
EX
R
1
2.5
1.1
PO
EX, RT, STG
F
1
1–2
PO
EX, RT
F
2
2–3
DA
EX
2
<1
DA
EX
1
1.5
0.5
DA
EX, RT
1.8
1.0
SD
EX, RT
1
1.5
0.7
DA
EX, RT, CRK, GN
1
3.8
1.5
PO
EX, STG
5
<1
PO
EX
F
2
2–3
PO
EX, RT
UNI
F
2
2–3
PO
EX, RT
UNIM
UNI
F
4
1–2
DA
EX
UNIM
UNI
F
4
2–3
DA
EX
7
UNIM
UNI
F
2
2–3
SD
EX
11
7
STM
LBF
F
1
1.5
0.4
DA
EX, STG
B
11
7
LTM
LBF
F
1
3.6
0.9
SD
RT
B
11
7
LTM
LBF
F
1
3.7
1.4
DA
EX, RT
PAC-96BO-163-11
B
11
7
LTM
LBF
F
1
3.9
1.4
PO
EX, RT
PAC-96BO-163-12
B
11
7
LTM
LBF
F
1
5.5
1.6
SD
EX, RT
PAC-96BO-163-13
B
11
7
ARM
SHL
F
1
1.4
0.5
SD
EX
L
L
FU
216
Max
length
Max
width
Surface
state
1.1
0.9
DA
EX, RT
1
4.7
1.6
DA
EX, RT, STG
1
1.8
1.1
PO
EX
1
1.7
0.5
SD
RT, STG
1
1.4
0.5
DA
EX, RT
1.2
1.0
DA
EX
DA
EX
DA
EX, RT, GN
<1
PO
EX
4
1–2
PO
EX
F
1
1–2
PO
SH, CRK
F
1
4.1
1.9
DA
EX, RT
UNI
F
1
2.2
1.2
SD
RT, BUR
UNI
UNI
F
1
<1
PO
EX
6
SER
CDV
W-S
6
TAY
PH1
PE+PS
1
97-SU4
6
MTM
UNI
F
B
97-RU1
6C
UNIM
UNI
PAC-97BO-027-01
B
97-SU3
6
UNIM
PAC-97BO-029-01
B
97-U1
6
UNI
PAC-97BO-029-02
B
97-U1
6
PAC-97BO-029-03
B
97-U1
6
PAC-97BO-029-04
B
97-U1
6
PAC-97BO-031-01
B
97-U3
6
PAC-97BO-031-02
B
97-U3
6
PAC-97BO-031-03
B
97-U3
PAC-97BO-052-01
B
97-U1
Catalogue number
Plaza
Unit
Level
ID
Bone
End
Side Count Fusion
PAC-96BO-163-14
B
11
7
MAZ
MAL
W
L
1
PAC-96BO-163-15
B
11
7
ODO
TIB
MS
R
PAC-96BO-163-16
B
11
7
ODO
PH3
PE+PS
PAC-96BO-163-17
B
11
7
ICT
DRS
ANT
AX
PAC-96BO-163-18
B
11
7
FISH
DRS
ANT
AX
PAC-96BO-163-20
B
11
7
ODO
SES
W
1
PAC-96BO-164-01
B
11
7B
UNIM
UNI
F
2
1–2
PAC-96BO-164-02
B
11
7B
TES
SHL
F
1
1.2
PAC-97BO-007-01
B
97-SU1
6
UNIM
UNI
F
1
PAC-97BO-007-02
B
97-SU1
6
UNIM
UNI
F
PAC-97BO-007-03
B
97-SU1
6
UNIM
UNI
PAC-97BO-011-01
D
97D1
7
UNIM
LBF
PAC-97BO-011-02
D
97D1
7
UNIM
PAC-97BO-016-01
B
97-U1
6
PAC-97BO-016-02
B
97-U1
PAC-97BO-016-03
B
97-U1
PAC-97BO-021-01
B
PAC-97BO-025-01
AX
FU
FU
1.0
0.7
DA
EX
0.7
0.5
PO
EX
1
1.3
0.4
PO
BUR
F
1
<1
SD
EX
LBF
F
1
1.8
SD
EX
UNI
F
1
<1
PO
EX
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX
ODO
RIB
F
R
1
2.0
0.7
DA
EX, CT
ODO
MO
LO
L
1
1.2
0.5
PO
EX
UNIM
UNI
F
1
<1
PO
EX
UNIM
UNI
F
3
1–2
PO
EX
6
MAZ
LUN
W
PO
EX
8
UNI
UNI
F
DA
EX
L
1
0.8
Taphonomy
1
3
FU
FU
1.3
<1
0.6
1.0
217
Catalogue number
Plaza
Unit
Level
ID
Bone
End
PAC-97BO-052-02
B
97-U1
8
UNIM
UNI
F
PAC-97BO-052-03
B
97-U1
8
ODO
CAL
DE+MS
Side Count Fusion
1
R
1
Max
length
Max
width
2–3
FU
4.3
1.6
Surface
state
Taphonomy
DA
EX
DA
EX
218
Table A.2 Pacbitun dataset for the late Middle Preclassic period
Catalogue number
Side
Surface
Taphonomy
state
Level
ID
Bone
End
P95-00-02
B
1
5
UNIM
UNI
F
2
1–2
SD
EX, CRK
P95-00-03
B
1
5
UNIM
UNI
F
3
2–3
DA
EX
P95-00-04
B
1
5
UNIM
UNI
F
1
3–4
PO
EX, RT
P95-00-05
B
1
5
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1.1
0.7
IT
BUR
P95-00-06
B
1
5
LTM
LBF
F
1
2.9
1.4
PO
EX, RT
P95-00-07
B
1
5
LTM
LBF
F
1
3.7
1.0
PO
EX, RT
P95-00-08
B
1
5
LTM
LBF
F
1
5.6
1.2
PO
EX, RT, STG, PN
P95-02-01
B
1
4
LTM
LBF
F
1
6.3
1.9
PO
EX
P95-03-01
B
1
3
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1.2
PO
EX
P95-04-01
B
1
5
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1.2
PO
EX
P95-05-01
B
1
5
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2.2
PO
EX
P95-06-01
B
1
4
UNI
UNI
F
4
<1
PO
EX
P95-06-02
B
1
4
UNI
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX
P95-06-03
B
1
4
UNI
UNI
F
2
2–3
PO
EX
P95-06-04
B
1
4
LTM
LBF
F
1
6.0
2.1
DA
EX, RT, SH, STG
P95-06-05
B
1
4
IGU
VER
F
AX
1
1.0
0.9
DA
EX, RT, STG
P95-07-01
B
1
3
ODO
CEV
CAU
AX
1
2.6
2.2
DA
EX, RT
P95-07-02
B
1
3
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1.0
PO
EX
P95-07-03
B
1
3
LTM
LBF
F
1
3.8
PO
EX, RT, STG
P95-08-01
B
1
5
UNI
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX
P95-09-01
B
1
3
UNIM
UNI
F
5
<1
PO
EX
P95-09-02
B
1
3
UNIM
UNI
F
13
1–2
PO
EX, STG
P95-09-03
B
1
3
UNIM
LBF
F
3
1–2
PO
EX
P95-09-04
B
1
3
UNIM
LBF
F
4
2–3
PO
EX
P95-09-05
B
1
3
ODO
AST
PRO
PO
EX, STG, CRK
1
Fusion
Max
width
Unit
L
Count
Max
length
Plaza
FU
3.0
1.0
2.2
219
Plaza
Unit
Level
ID
Bone
End
Side
Count
Fusion
Max
length
Max
width
P95-09-06
B
1
3
ODO
HUM
DE
R
1
FU
3.8
1.5
PO
EX, CRK
P95-09-07
B
1
3
MAR
NAV
W
R
1
FU
1.0
0.8
PO
EX
P95-09-08
B
1
3
COL
VER
W
AX
1
FU
1.0
1.0
PO
EX
P95-09-09
B
1
3
COL
VER
W
AX
1
FU
1.0
1.0
PO
EX
P95-09-10
B
1
3
LTM
UNI
F
1
3.6
1.2
PO
EX
P95-09-11
B
1
3
LTM
LBF
F
1
2.8
1.4
PO
EX, RT
P95-09-12
P95-09-14
B
1
3
MTM
3
AVES
F
DS
1
1
2.6
2.4
0.9
0.7
STG
1
LBF
TBT
PO
B
SD
RT, STG
P95-09-14
B
1
3
LTM
LBF
F
1
4.7
1.3
PO
EX, RT, CRK
P95-11-01
B
1
4
UNIM
UNI
F
6
<1
PO
EX
P95-11-02
B
1
4
ODO
NVB
W
R
1
P95-11-03
B
1
4
ODO
HUM
DE+DS
R
1
P95-11-04
B
1
4
ODO
GC
F
R
1
P95-12-01
B
1
3
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2.0
P95-12-02
B
1
3
ARM
SHL
F
1
0.8
P95-13-01
B
1
3
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1.6
PO
EX
P95-14-01
B
1 ext.
3
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1.4
PO
EX
P95-15-01
B
1
3
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX
P95-15-02
B
1
3
ARM
CAL
F
DA
EX
P95-16-01
B
1
3
UNI
UNI
F
4
<1
PO
EX
P95-16-02
B
1
3
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1.7
PO
EX
P95-16-04
B
1
3
LTM
LBF
F
1
7.9
PO
EX, STG
P95-17-01
B
1
5
UNIM
UNI
F
2
1–2
DA
EX
P95-17-02
B
1
5
UNIM
LBF
F
1
1.7
DA
EX, BUR
P95-18-01
B
1
3
UNI
UNI
F
3
1–2
PO
EX
P95-18-02
B
1
3
UNI
UNI
F
1
2.8
1.3
PO
EX
P95-18-03
B
1
3
LTM
UNI
F
1
1.9
1.6
PO
EX
Catalogue number
R
L
1
FU
FU
FU
Surface
Taphonomy
state
2.7
2.4
DA
RX, RT, STG
5.7
2.3
DA
EX
1.7
0.8
SD
EX, STG
DA
EX
1.9
0.6
0.8
1.9
IT
220
Max
length
Max
width
1
2.2
1.4
DA
EX
1
3.7
1.6
PO
EX
<1
PO
EX
1–2
PO
EX, CRK
2–3
PO
EX
2
3–4
PO
EX
F
1
3–4
PO
EX
F
1
4–5
PO
EX
UNI
F
2
1–2
PO
EX
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
PO
EX
3
UNI
UNI
F
2
1–2
PO
EX
3
UNIM
UNI
F
9
1–2
PO
EX, STG
1
3
UNIM
LBF
F
2
2–3
PO
EX, RT
B
1
3
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX, GN
P95-21-04
B
1
3
ARM
FEM
PE
P95-21-05
B
1
3
TAY
PH1
W
P95-21-06
B
1
3
ODO
CAL
DE+DS
P95-21-07
B
1
3
MTM-LTM
LBF
F
1
P95-21-09
B
1
3
ODO
SES
W
1
P95-22-01
B
1
3
UNIM
UNI
F
7
<1
P95-22-02
B
1
3
UNIM
UNI
F
10
1–2
P95-22-03
B
1
3
STM
LBF
F
1
2.0
P95-22-04
B
1
3
STM
LBF
F
1
P95-22-05
B
1
3
DOG
MO1
LO
L
1
P95-22-06
B
1
3
MAZ
MAL
W
L
1
P95-22-07
B
1
3
ODO
MO3
LO
R
P95-22-08
B
1
3
MTM-LTM
LBF
F
Catalogue number
Plaza
Unit
Level
ID
Bone
End
Side
Count
P95-18-04
B
1
3
ODO
TIB
PE
L
P95-18-05
B
1
3
ODO
ILM
F
R
P95-19-01
B
UNIM
UNI
F
1
P95-19-02
B
UNIM
UNI
F
1
P95-19-03
B
UNIM
UNI
F
1
P95-19-04
B
UNIM
UNI
F
P95-19-05
B
UNIM
LBF
P95-19-06
B
UNIM
UNI
P95-20-01
B
1
3
UNIM
P95-20-02
B
1
3
P95-20-04
B
1
P95-21-01
B
1
P95-21-02
B
P95-21-03
L
R
Fusion
Surface
Taphonomy
state
1
FU
1.0
0.9
PO
EX, GN
1
FU
1.3
0.6
PO
EX
1
FU
3.4
1.9
PO
EX
3.3
0.9
PO
EX, RT, BUR
0.9
0.9
PO
EX
PO
EX
PO
EX
0.4
PO
EX, RT
1.5
0.4
PO
EX, RT
2.2
2.2
PO
EX, CRK, STG
0.9
0.8
PO
EX, RT
1
2.2
0.9
DA
EX
1
2.0
0.9
PO
EX
FU
FU
221
Catalogue number
Side
Fusion
Max
width
Surface
Taphonomy
state
Unit
Level
ID
Bone
End
P95-23-01
B
1
3
UNIM
UNI
F
6
<1
PO
EX
P95-23-02
B
1
3
UNIM
UNI
F
2
1–2
PO
EX
P95-23-03
B
1
3
UNIM
UNI
F
2
2–3
PO
EX
P95-23-04
B
1
3
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1.9
0.9
SD
BUR
P95-23-05
B
1
3
CER
TRV
F
AX
1
1.1
1.0
PO
EX
P95-23-06
B
1
3
LTM
VER
F
AX
1
2.0
1.7
DA
EX
P95-24-01
B
1
3
UNIM
UNI
F
2
1–2
PO
EX
P95-24-02
B
1
3
UNIM
UNI
F
3
2–3
PO
EX
P95-24-03
B
1
3
MTM
LBF
F
1
2.6
0.9
PO
EX, PN
P95-24-04
B
1
3
MTM
LBF
F
1
2.0
1.1
PO
EX, RT
P95-25-01
B
1
4
UNIM
UNI
F
16
<1
PO
EX
P95-25-02
B
1
4
UNIM
UNI
F
7
1–2
PO
EX
P95-25-03
B
1
4
UNIM
UNI
F
3
1–2
PO
EX
P95-25-04
B
1
4
MTM-LTM
LBF
F
1
3.4
1.0
PO
EX, BUR
P95-25-06
B
1
4
TAY
RUL
PE+PS
P95-25-07
B
1
4
MAZ
PH1
DE+DS+MS
P95-25-08
B
1
4
ARM
CAL
PE+PS
P95-26-01
B
UNIM
UNI
F
6
P95-26-02
B
UNIM
UNI
F
P95-26-03
B
UNIM
UNI
F
P95-26-04
B
UNIM
UNI
P95-26-05
B
UNIM
UNI
P95-26-06
B
ARM
SHL
F
P95-26-06
B
ODO
FEM
PS
P95-26-07
B
TES
SHL
P95-27-01
B
UNIM
P95-27-02
B
UNIM
R
Count
Max
length
Plaza
1
FU
5.2
2.0
DA
EX, RT, CRK
1
FU
2.5
0.9
PO
EX, RT
1
FU
1.4
1.1
DA
EX
<1
PO
EX
6
1–2
PO
EX, STG
7
1–2
PO
EX
F
2
2–3
PO
EX
F
3
2–3
SD
RT, BUR
1
0.9
0.5
DA
EX, STG
1
4.7
1.3
PO
EX
F
1
2.1
1.5
PO
EX
UNI
F
1
2–3
PO
EX
UNI
F
1
3–4
PO
EX
R
L
222
Catalogue number
Fusion
Surface
Taphonomy
state
Level
ID
Bone
End
P95-28-01
B
1
4
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
DA
EX
P95-29-01
B
1
3+4
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
SD
STG
P95-29-02
B
1
3+4
UNIM
UNI
F
PO
EX
P95-30-01
B
BUF
HUM
W
L
1
P95-30-03
B
ODO
DP4
LO
R
P95-30-04
B
UNIM
UNI
F
P95-30-05
B
TES
HUM
F
P95-32-01
B
UNIM
UNI
F
P95-32-02
B
MAZ
TIB
PS+MS
P95-32-03
B
ARM
RAD
PE+PS+MS
P95-33-01
B
1
4
UNIM
UNI
F
8
P95-33-02
B
1
4
UNIM
UNI
F
3
P95-33-03
B
1
4
UNIM
UNI
F
4
1–2
P95-33-04
B
1
4
MTM-LTM
SKL
F
1
2.4
P95-33-05
B
1
4
UNIM
LBF
F
1
1.2
P95-33-06
B
1
4
UNIM
UNI
F
1
4–5
P95-33-07
B
1
4
ODO
PH3
W
1
P95-33-09
B
1
4
TAP
PM3
LO
L
1
P95-33-10
B
1
4
GOP
IN1
UP
R
1
P95-33-11
B
1
4
MTM
PH3
W
P95-33-12
B
1
4
IGU
ULN
DE+DS+MS
P95-34-01
B
UNIM
UNI
F
1
P95-34-02
B
MAZ
PH1
DE+DS+MS
1
P95-41-01
B
1
4
UNI
UNI
F
1
1–2
P95-75-01
B
1
3
UNIM
LBF
F
1
1.1
P95-90-01
B
CER
MTT
PS
1
PAC-08BO-001-01
B
UNIM
LBF
F
1
4
Count
Max
width
Unit
1
Side
Max
length
Plaza
1
L
1–2
1.8
0.5
IT
1
1.1
1.1
SD
EX
1
1–2
DA
EX, RT, BUR
IT
RT, STG
1
FU
FU
1.5
0.6
3
1–2
L
1
8.8
2.9
SD
EX, RT, STG, GN
R
1
1.8
0.5
SD
EX
<1
PO
EX
1–2
PO
EX
PO
EX
1.5
PO
EX, RT
0.7
DA
EX, BUR
PO
EX, STG
R
R
FU
FU
SD
3.0
1.3
SD
EX
1.8
1.5
PO
EX, STG
1.8
1.4
SD
EX, RT
1
FU
1.6
0.7
DA
EX
1
FU
1.8
0.3
SD
EX
PO
EX
PO
EX, GN
PO
EX
0.6
SD
BUR
3.3
0.8
PO
EX, STG
2.1
1.9
PO
EX
1–2
FU
1.9
0.9
223
Catalogue number
Plaza
Unit
Level
ID
Bone
End
PAC-08BO-002-01
B
1
4
UNI
UNI
F
PAC-08BO-003-01
B
1
4
ARM
TIB
DS
PAC-08BO-004-01
B
1
4
UNIM
UNI
PAC-08BO-005-01
B
1
4
UNIM
UNI
PAC-08BO-005-02
B
1
4
UNIM
PAC-08BO-006-01
B
1
5
UNIM
PAC-08BO-006-02
B
1
5
PAC-08BO-006-03
B
1
5
PAC-08BO-006-04
B
1
PAC-08BO-007-01
B
PAC-08BO-007-02
PAC-08BO-008-01
Side
Count
Fusion
Max
length
1
1–2
1
2.2
F
1
F
3
UNI
F
UNI
F
UNIM
UNI
F
ODO
TRV
F
L
5
LTM
VER
F
AX
1
1
5
UNIM
UNI
F
1
B
1
5
UNIM
UNI
F
B
1
5
UNIM
UNI
F
PAC-08BO-009-01
B
1
5
UNIM
UNI
PAC-08BO-009-02
B
1
5
UNIM
PAC-08BO-009-03
B
1
5
PAC-08BO-010-02
B
1
5
PAC-08BO-010-03
B
1
5
PAC-08BO-011-01
B
1
5
PAC-08BO-011-02
B
1
PAC-08BO-012-01
B
1
PAC-08BO-012-02
B
PAC-08BO-013-01
Max
width
Surface
Taphonomy
state
PO
EX
PO
EX, RT, STG
1–2
PO
EX
<1
PO
EX
1
1–2
SD
EX
1
<1
PO
EX
2
1–2
PO
EX
1
1.6
1.4
PO
EX, STG, CRK
1.7
1.6
PO
EX, RT
<1
PO
EX
1
2–3
DA
EX
5
<1
PO
EX
F
2
<1
PO
EX
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX
VIP
VER
F
UNIM
UNI
F
FISH
VER
W-S
UNIM
UNI
5
ODO
5
UNIM
1
5
B
1
PAC-08BO-013-02
B
PAC-08BO-013-03
B
PAC-08BO-016-01
R
AX
1
U
FU
0.7
0.8
PO
EX
DA
EX
SD
EX
SD
EX, RT, STG
DA
SH, CRK
PO
EX
1–2
DA
EX, STG
1
1–2
PO
EX
F
1
1–2
PO
EX
F
1
1.9
PO
EX, RT
UNI
F
10
<1
PO
EX
UNIM
UNI
F
4
1–2
PO
EX
VIP
VER
F
PO
EX
2
1–2
1
0.6
F
1
4–5
MTP
S
1
3.6
UNI
F
1
1–2
UNIM
UNI
F
1
5
UNIM
UNI
F
1
5
UNIM
UNI
1
5
STM
LBF
B
2
4
UNIM
PAC-08BO-016-02
B
2
4
PAC-08BO-016-03
B
2
4
AX
AX
1
FU
1.8
0.3
0.5
1.2
0.5
0.8
224
Catalogue number
Side
Count
Fusion
Max
length
Max
width
Surface
Taphonomy
state
Plaza
Unit
Level
ID
Bone
End
PAC-08BO-017-01
B
2
4
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
SD
STG
PAC-08BO-018-01
B
2
5
UNIM
UNI
F
1
<1
PO
EX
PAC-08BO-018-02
B
2
5
UNIM
UNI
F
2
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-08BO-018-03
B
2
5
UNIM
UNI
F
2
2–3
PO
EX, RT
PAC-08BO-019-01
B
2
5
UNIM
UNI
F
3
<1
PO
EX
PAC-08BO-019-02
B
2
5
UNIM
UNI
F
2
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-08BO-021-01
B
1
4
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
SD
EX
PAC-08BO-023-01
B
2
5
UNI
UNI
F
1
1–2
SD
PAC-08BO-023-02
B
2
5
AVES
LBF
F
1
2.1
PAC-09BO-001-01
B
1
4
UNIM
UNI
F
6
PAC-09BO-001-02
B
1
4
UNIM
UNI
F
PAC-09BO-001-03
B
1
4
UNIM
UNI
F
PAC-09BO-001-04
B
1
4
UNIM
UNI
PAC-09BO-002-01
B
1
5
UNI
PAC-09BO-002-02
B
1
5
PAC-09BO-002-03
B
1
5
PAC-09BO-002-04
B
1
PAC-09BO-002-05
B
PAC-09BO-002-06
PAC-09BO-003-01
DA
EX, RT
<1
PO
EX
2
1–2
PO
EX
2
2–3
PO
EX, RT
F
1
1–2
PO
EX, CRK
UNI
F
1
<1
PO
EX
UNIM
LBF
F
1
1.7
PO
EX, RT
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
PO
EX, RT
5
ODO
NVB
F
1
5
STM
LBF
F
B
1
5
CER
MTP
B
1
5
UNI
UNI
PAC-09BO-003-02
B
1
5
UNIM
PAC-09BO-003-03
B
1
5
PAC-09BO-003-06
B
1
PAC-09BO-003-07
B
1
PAC-09BO-003-08
B
PAC-09BO-003-09
PAC-09BO-003-10
L
1
FU
0.5
0.6
1.4
1.0
PO
EX
1
1.5
0.4
PO
EX, RT
S
1
3.8
1.3
PO
EX, STG, PN
F
4
<1
PO
EX
UNI
F
10
1–2
PO
EX
UNIM
UNI
F
3
2–3
PO
EX
5
UNIM
LBF
F
1
1.6
1.3
DA
EX, RT, BUR
5
ODO
PH1
DE+DS+MS+PS
1
FU
3.6
1.3
PO
EX
1
5
ODO
PH1
DE
1
FU
1.2
1.0
PO
EX, CRK
B
1
5
ODO
PH2
DE
1
FU
1.8
1.4
SD
EX, BUR
B
1
5
ODO
PH2
PE+PS
1
FU
1.9
1.4
SD
EX, BUR
225
Plaza
Unit
Level
ID
Bone
End
Side
Count
Fusion
Max
length
Max
width
PAC-09BO-003-11
B
1
5
PUM
HUM
DE
L
1
FU
5.2
4.9
PO
EX, RT
PAC-09BO-003-12
B
1
5
ODO
HUM
DS
R
1
2.8
1.6
DA
EX, STG
PAC-09BO-003-13
B
1
5
GOP
IN1
LO
1
1.8
0.4
SD
EX, RT
PAC-09BO-003-14
B
1
5
STM
LBF
F
1
1.1
0.4
PO
EX, RT, STG
PAC-09BO-003-15
B
1
5
MTM-LTM
LBF
F
1
4.7
1.1
DA
EX, RT
PAC-09BO-004-01
B
1
5
UNI
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX, STG, CRK
PAC-09BO-005-01
B
1
5
UNI
UNI
F
19
<1
PO
EX
PAC-09BO-005-02
B
1
5
UNIM
UNI
F
7
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-09BO-005-03
B
1
5
UNIM
UNI
F
1
3–4
PO
EX, RT
PAC-09BO-005-04
B
1
5
UNIM
UNI
F
1
3–4
DA
EX, RT
PAC-09BO-005-05
B
1
5
CER
TRV
CEN
AX
1
FU
1.6
1.0
PO
EX
PAC-09BO-005-06
B
1
5
LTM
LMV
F
AX
1
FU
3.3
2.1
DA
EX
PAC-09BO-005-07
B
1
5
LTM
LMV
F
AX
1
FU
2.2
1.2
DA
EX
PAC-09BO-005-08
B
1
5
MTM-LTM
VER
CEN
AX
1
FU
1.1
0.7
SD
RT
PAC-09BO-005-11
B
1
5
LTM
VER
CEN
AX
1
FU
1.8
1.1
DA
EX, GN
PAC-09BO-006-01
B
1
5
UNI
UNI
F
1
<1
DA
EX
PAC-09BO-006-02
B
1
5
STM
LBF
F
1
1.2
PO
EX
PAC-09BO-011-01
B
2
4
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX, RT
PAC-09BO-012-01
B
2
5
UNIM
UNI
F
1
<1
PO
EX, RT
PAC-09BO-013-01
B
2
5
UNIM
UNI
F
1
<1
PO
EX
PAC-09BO-013-02
B
2
5
ODO
MTP
DE
1
DA
EX, GN
PAC-09BO-014-01
B
2
5
UNI
UNI
F
6
<1
PO
EX
PAC-09BO-014-02
B
2
5
UNIM
UNI
F
3
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-09BO-014-03
B
2
5
UNI
UNI
F
1
1–2
DA
EX
PAC-09BO-014-04
B
2
5
UNIM
LBF
F
1
2.2
1.2
DA
EX, RT
PAC-09BO-014-05
B
2
5
ODO
PUB
ACE
2.2
1.9
PO
EX
PAC-09BO-014-06
B
2
5
LTM
LBF
F
5.0
1.6
PO
EX, CRK, STG
Catalogue number
L
1
1
U
FU
2.0
0.3
1.8
Surface
Taphonomy
state
226
Catalogue number
Plaza
Unit
Level
ID
Bone
End
Side
Count
PAC-09BO-015-01
B
2
5
UNIM
UNI
F
3
PAC-09BO-015-03
B
2
5
ODO
SES
W
1
PAC-09BO-016-01
B
2
5
UNI
UNI
F
1
PAC-09BO-016-02
B
2
5
UNIM
UNI
F
7
PAC-09BO-016-04
B
2
5
UNIM
UNI
F
4
PAC-09BO-016-05
B
2
5
UNIM
LBF
F
PAC-09BO-016-06
B
2
5
UNIM
UNI
F
PAC-09BO-016-07
B
2
5
ODO
RAD
PS
R
PAC-09BO-016-08
B
2
5
ODO
CAP
W
R
1
PAC-09BO-016-09
B
2
5
MAZ
PH3
W
PAC-09BO-016-10
B
2
5
ODO
MTP
PAC-09BO-016-11
B
2
5
ODO
PH3
PAC-09BO-016-12
B
2
5
AGO
MTT 4
PE+PS+MS
PAC-09BO-016-13
B
2
5
TES
SHL
F
PAC-09BO-016-14
B
2
5
LTM
UNI
PAC-09BO-016-15
B
2
5
LTM
UNI
PAC-09BO-017-01
B
2
5
UNIM
PAC-09BO-022-01
B
3
4
PAC-09BO-022-02
B
3
PAC-09BO-023-01
B
3
PAC-09BO-024-01
B
PAC-09BO-024-02
Fusion
Max
length
Max
width
PO
EX
SD
EX
<1
PO
EX
1–2
PO
EX
1–2
DA
EX, RT
1
2–3
DA
EX, RT
2
2–3
DA
EX, STG
1
2.9
1.0
DA
EX, STG
FU
1.7
1.3
PO
EX, GN
1
FU
1.8
1.0
DA
EX
DE
1
FU
1.2
1.2
PO
EX
W
1
FU
2.4
1.5
PO
EX
1
FU
2.0
0.5
PO
EX
1
1.1
1.1
PO
SH
F
1
3.9
0.9
DA
EX, RT
F
1
2.6
1.8
PO
EX
LBF
F
1
3.2
1.4
PO
EX, RT
UNIM
UNI
F
5
1–2
PO
EX, RT
4
UNIM
LBF
F
1
1.4
PO
EX, RT, BUR
5
UNI
UNI
F
1
<1
PO
EX, RT
3
5
UNI
UNI
F
10
<1
PO
EX
B
3
5
UNIM
UNI
F
22
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-09BO-024-03
B
3
5
UNIM
UNI
F
7
2–3
PO
EX, RT
PAC-09BO-024-06
B
3
5
UNIM
UNI
F
5
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-09BO-024-07
B
3
5
ODO
PH1
DE+DS+MS+PS
1
FU
3.5
1.1
PO
EX, GN
PAC-09BO-024-08
B
3
5
ODO
HUM
DE
1
FU
2.9
2.7
PO
EX
PAC-09BO-024-09
B
3
5
ODO
PH1
PE
1.8
0.7
DA
EX
R
L
1
1–2
Surface
Taphonomy
state
FU
1.0
1.0
1.2
227
Max
length
Max
width
1
1.8
0.9
PO
EX
F
1
4.6
1.3
PO
EX
UNI
F
1
2.7
1.7
PO
EX
UNI
F
1
3.2
1.9
PO
EX
UNIM
UNI
F
4
1–2
PO
EX, RT
4
UNI
UNI
F
6
<1
PO
EX
1
4
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX, RT
1
4
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX, RT
B
1
4
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
DA
EX, RT
PAC-09BO-028-01
B
1
4
UNI
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-09BO-029-01
B
3
5
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX, RT
PAC-09BO-033-01
B
4
4
UNIM
UNI
F
1
<1
PO
EX
PAC-09BO-033-02
B
4
4
UNIM
UNI
F
3
2–3
PO
EX, RT
PAC-09BO-033-04
B
4
4
ODO
CAL
DE+DS
PO
EX, SH, CRK
PAC-09BO-034-01
B
4
4
UNI
UNI
F
2
<1
PO
EX, RT
PAC-09BO-034-02
B
4
4
UNIM
UNI
F
3
1–2
PO
EX, RT
PAC-09BO-034-03
B
4
4
UNIM
UNI
F
2
1–2
SD
EX
PAC-09BO-034-04
B
4
4
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX, CRK, BUR
PAC-09BO-034-05
B
4
4
UNIM
LBF
F
1
2.6
1.1
PO
EX, RT
PAC-09BO-034-06
B
4
4
STM-MTM
LBF
F
1
1.2
0.7
DA
CRK, BUR
PAC-09BO-034-07
B
4
4
MTM-LTM
MO-PM
F
1
1.5
0.6
PO
EX, RT
PAC-09BO-035-01
B
4
4
UNI
UNI
F
4
<1
PO
EX
PAC-09BO-035-02
B
4
4
UNIM
UNI
F
4
1–2
PO
EX, RT
PAC-09BO-035-03
B
4
4
UNIM
UNI
F
1
3–4
PO
EX, RT
PAC-09BO-036-01
B
4
4
ODO
MO
UP
1
1.1
SD
EX, BUR
PAC-09BO-037-01
B
4
4
UNIM
UNI
F
11
<1
PO
EX
PAC-09BO-037-02
B
4
4
UNIM
UNI
F
2
1–2
PO
EX
Catalogue number
Plaza
Unit
Level
ID
Bone
End
Side
Count
PAC-09BO-024-10
B
3
5
ODO
PM3-4
UP
R
PAC-09BO-024-11
B
3
5
LTM
LBF
PAC-09BO-024-12
B
3
5
LTM
PAC-09BO-024-13
B
3
5
LTM
PAC-09BO-025-01
B
1
4
PAC-09BO-026-01
B
1
PAC-09BO-026-02
B
PAC-09BO-026-03
B
PAC-09BO-027-01
L
L
1
Fusion
FU
2.9
1.7
0.6
Surface
Taphonomy
state
228
Catalogue number
Plaza
Unit
Level
ID
Bone
End
PAC-09BO-037-04
B
4
4
UNIM
UNI
F
PAC-09BO-037-05
B
4
4
ODO
RAD
PE
PAC-09BO-037-06
B
4
4
MTM
VER
F
PAC-09BO-038-01
B
4
5
UNIM
UNI
F
PAC-09BO-039-01
B
4
5
UNIM
UNI
PAC-09BO-039-02
B
4
5
MTM-LTM
PAC-09BO-039-03
B
4
5
PAC-09BO-040-01
B
4
5
PAC-09BO-040-02
B
4
PAC-09BO-040-03
B
PAC-09BO-040-04
PAC-09BO-040-06
Side
Count
Fusion
2
R
Max
width
2–3
PO
EX, RT
1.0
SD
EX
1
1.5
0.7
PO
EX, RT
1
1–2
PO
EX
F
3
1–2
PO
EX
LBF
F
1
3.0
1.3
PO
EX, RT
ODO
MTT
PE
2.1
1.5
DA
EX
UNI
UNI
F
3
<1
PO
EX
5
UNIM
UNI
F
9
1–2
PO
EX
4
5
UNIM
UNI
F
3
2–3
PO
EX
B
4
5
UNIM
LBF
F
B
4
5
ODO
GC
F
R
1
PAC-09BO-040-07
B
4
5
ODO
RAD
DE
R
PAC-09BO-040-08
B
4
5
MTM-LTM
LBF
PAC-09BO-042-01
B
4
5
UNIM
PAC-09BO-043-01
B
5
4
UNIM
PAC-09BO-044-01
B
5
4
PAC-09BO-049-01
B
5
PAC-09BO-050-01
B
PAC-09BO-050-02
B
PAC-09BO-051-01
1
FU
Surface
Taphonomy
state
1.4
L
1
Max
length
FU
1
2.6
1.3
DA
EX
1.4
0.9
PO
EX
1
4.0
1.1
PO
EX, RT
F
1
5.1
1.2
PO
EX, RT
LBF
F
1
2.7
1.1
PO
EX
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX
4
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
SD
EX
5
4
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX
5
4
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX
B
6
4
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX, RT
PAC-09BO-052-01
B
6
4
LTM
LBF
F
1
2.9
1.6
PO
EX, RT
PAC-09BO-053-01
B
7
4
MTM-LTM
TTH
F
1
1.3
0.7
PO
RT
PAC-09BO-054-01
B
8
4
UNIM
UNI
F
1
<1
PO
EX
PAC-09BO-054-02
B
8
4
UNIM
UNI
F
3
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-09BO-054-03
B
8
4
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
PO
EX
PAC-09BO-054-04
B
8
4
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX
FU
229
Catalogue number
Side
Surface
Taphonomy
state
Level
ID
Bone
End
PAC-09BO-055-01
B
10
4
UNIM
UNI
F
4
<1
PO
EX
PAC-09BO-055-02
B
10
4
UNIM
UNI
F
4
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-09BO-056-01
B
2
4
UNI
UNI
F
5
<1
PO
EX
PAC-09BO-056-02
B
2
4
UNIM
UNI
F
13
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-09BO-056-03
B
2
4
UNIM
UNI
F
5
1–2
DA
EX
PAC-09BO-056-04
B
2
4
UNIM
UNI
F
2
2–3
PO
EX, RT
PAC-09BO-056-05
B
2
4
UNIM
LBF
F
1
1.3
1.2
SD
EX, RT, BUR
PAC-09BO-056-08
B
2
4
MTM-LTM
RIB
F
1
3.8
0.8
PO
EX, SH
PAC-09BO-056-09
B
2
4
ODO
MO2
LO
1.5
1.5
SD
EX, RT
PAC-09BO-057-01
B
2
4
UNIM
UNI
F
2
1–2
PO
EX, RT
PAC-09BO-058-01
B
4
4
UNI
UNI
F
11
<1
PO
EX
PAC-09BO-058-02
B
4
4
UNIM
UNI
F
9
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-09BO-058-03
B
4
4
UNIM
UNI
F
3
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-09BO-058-04
B
4
4
LTM
LBF
F
1
5.9
1.9
PO
EX
PAC-09BO-058-05
B
4
4
ARM
SHL
F
1
0.8
0.6
DA
EX
PAC-09BO-058-06
B
4
4
TAY
PH1
PE
1
U
0.9
0.8
PO
EX
PAC-09BO-058-07
B
4
4
ODO
MAL
F
L
1
FU
1.6
1.3
PO
EX, RT
PAC-09BO-058-08
B
4
4
ODO
DP4
LO
R
1
YEA
1.4
0.9
PO
EX
PAC-09BO-058-09
B
4
4
CER
MO-PM
UP
1
1.1
0.6
DA
EX, RT
PAC-09BO-059-01
B
4
5
UNIM
UNI
F
1
<1
PO
EX
PAC-09BO-059-02
B
4
5
UNIM
UNI
F
3
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-09BO-059-03
B
4
5
MTM-LTM
LBF
F
1
5.7
1.3
DA
EX, RT, CRK, GN
PAC-09BO-059-04
B
4
5
LTM
LBF
F
7.8
1.7
PO
EX, RT
PAC-09BO-059-05
B
4
5
ODO
MTC
PE+PS
L
1
FU
6.7
2.4
PO
EX, RT
PAC-09BO-059-06
B
4
5
ODO
AST
W
R
1
FU
3.6
2.3
DA
EX, RT, GN
PAC-09BO-059-07
B
4
5
ODO
MTC
DS
L
1
5.6
1.3
PO
EX, RT, CRK, STG
PAC-09BO-059-08
B
4
5
GAL
FIB
PE
R
1
1.5
0.8
DA
EX, RT, STG
1
Fusion
Max
width
Unit
R
Count
Max
length
Plaza
YEA
1
U
230
Max
length
Max
width
1
2.5
1.2
1
1–2
1
1–2
1
4.3
F
1
UNI
F
UNI
UNI
UNIM
LBF
PAF
PMX
PRO
4
ODO
NVB
F
10
4
UNIM
UNI
F
3
1–2
10
4
UNIM
LBF
F
1
2.7
0.9
A
1
5
GOP
FEM
PE+PS+DE
2.3
1.3
SD
PAC-10BO-007-01
A
1
5
UNIM
UNI
F
PAC-10BO-014-01
B
3
5
UNIM
UNI
F
PAC-10BO-014-03
B
3
5
ODO
MAL
F
L
1
PAC-10BO-014-04
B
3
5
IGU
CDV
F
AX
1
PAC-10BO-014-05
B
3
5
MAZ
PH1
DE+S
PAC-10BO-014-06
B
3
5
MUS
MAN+LM2
F
R
PAC-10BO-014-07
B
3
5
ODO
MO3
UP
L
PAC-10BO-014-08
B
3
5
UNIM
UNI
PAC-10BO-020-01
B
5
5
UNI
PAC-10BO-020-02
B
5
5
PAC-10BO-020-03
B
5
5
PAC-10BO-020-04
B
5
PAC-10BO-020-05
B
PAC-10BO-020-08
B
Catalogue number
Plaza
Unit
Level
ID
Bone
End
Side
Count
PAC-09BO-060-01
B
10
4
DOG
HUM
PS
L
PAC-09BO-061-01
B
10
4
UNIM
UNI
F
PAC-09BO-062-01
B
10
4
UNIM
UNI
F
PAC-09BO-062-02
B
10
4
ODO
TIB
DS
PAC-09BO-063-01
B
10
4
UNI
UNI
PAC-09BO-063-02
B
10
4
UNIM
PAC-09BO-063-03
B
10
4
PAC-09BO-063-04
B
10
4
PAC-09BO-063-05
B
10
4
PAC-09BO-063-06
B
10
PAC-09BO-064-01
B
PAC-09BO-064-02
B
PAC-10BO-006-01
Fusion
Surface
Taphonomy
state
PO
EX
PO
EX
PO
EX
PO
EX, RT
<1
PO
EX
2
1–2
PO
EX
F
1
1.3
0.4
PO
BUR
F
1
1.6
1.1
PO
EX, RT
L
1
1.8
0.9
SD
EX
L
1
1.8
1.4
PO
EX
PO
EX
PO
EX, RT
R
R
1
FU
FU
1
2.0
3–4
6
EX, RT
DA
EX
1.5
1.1
SD
EX
1.1
0.7
SD
EX
2.0
0.7
DA
SH, CRK
1
1.8
0.8
SD
EX
1
1.5
1.2
SD
EX, RT
F
1
<1
DA
EX
UNI
F
1
<1
PO
EX
UNIM
UNI
F
3
1–2
DA
EX, STG
UNIM
UNI
F
2
2–3
PO
EX
5
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1.2
0.8
SD
RT, BUR
5
5
LTM
LBF
F
1
5.4
1.2
PO
EX, RT
5
5
TAY
FEM
PE
1.4
0.7
DA
EX
1
L
1
1–2
PO
FU
FU
FU
231
Catalogue number
Max
length
Max
width
1
1.8
1.4
DA
EX
1
1.1
0.9
PO
EX, RT
1.0
0.7
SD
EX
4.1
2.2
SD
EX, RT, STG
1.9
0.9
PO
EX, RT, STG
PO
EX
Plaza
Unit
Level
ID
Bone
End
Side
Count
Fusion
PAC-10BO-020-09
B
5
5
ODO
RIB
F
L
PAC-10BO-020-10
B
5
5
ODO
MO
UP
PAC-10BO-020-11
B
5
5
ODO
MO-PM
UP
R
1
PAC-10BO-029-01
B
6
5
ODO
TIB
DS+DE
L
1
FU
PAC-10BO-029-02
B
6
5
RAB
INN
ACE
L
1
FU
PAC-10BO-030-01
B
6
5
UNI
UNI
F
PAC-10BO-030-02
B
6
5
UNIM
UNI
F
PAC-10BO-030-03
B
6
5
MAZ
NVB
W
PAC-10BO-031-01
B
6
5
UNI
UNI
F
4
PAC-10BO-031-02
B
6
5
UNIM
UNI
F
PAC-10BO-031-03
B
6
5
UNIM
UNI
PAC-10BO-031-04
B
6
5
MTM-LTM
LBF
PAC-10BO-031-05
B
6
5
LTM
PAC-10BO-031-06
B
6
5
PAC-10BO-031-07
B
6
PAC-10BO-037-01
B
8
PAC-10BO-039-01
B
PAC-96BO-065-01
2
<1
1
PO
EX, RT
DA
EX, RT
<1
PO
EX
4
1–2
PO
EX
F
2
2–3
PO
EX, RT
F
1
4.4
0.8
PO
EX, RT
LBF
F
1
3.6
1.6
PO
EX
ODO
MO3
LO
R
1
ADU
2.3
0.9
DA
EX
5
ODO
MO1-2
LO
R
1
YEA
5
ODO
PH2
PE+PS
9
5
VIP
VER
F
B
2b
3
UNIM
UNI
PAC-96BO-065-02
B
2b
3
UNIM
PAC-96BO-065-03
B
2b
3
ODO
PAC-96BO-069-01
B
3c
4
PAC-96BO-069-02
B
3c
4
PAC-96BO-069-03
B
3c
4
PAC-96BO-069-05
B
3c
4
PAC-96BO-069-06
B
3c
4
PAC-96BO-073-01
B
1
PAC-96BO-074-01
B
8
R
1
1–2
Surface
Taphonomy
state
FU
2.0
1.5
2.3
1.0
DA
EX
1
2.0
1.5
PO
EX
1
1.0
0.9
PO
EX
F
2
2–3
PO
EX, RT
UNI
F
1
PH1
DE
1
UNI
UNI
F
1
UNIM
UNI
F
UNIM
UNI
MTM-LTM
LBF
LTM
3
3
AX
3.2
0.9
PO
EX, RT, BUR
1.7
1.0
PO
EX
<1
PO
EX
1
1–2
PO
EX
F
2
1–2
PO
EX
F
1
3.2
1.6
PO
EX, RT
LBF
F
1
5.9
2.1
PO
EX, RT
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
PO
EX, RT
UNI
UNI
F
3
<1
PO
EX
FU
232
Catalogue number
Side
Surface
Taphonomy
state
Level
ID
Bone
End
PAC-96BO-074-02
B
8
3
UNIM
UNI
F
9
1–2
PO
EX, RT
PAC-96BO-074-03
B
8
3
UNIM
UNI
F
2
2–3
PO
EX, RT
PAC-96BO-074-07
B
8
3
MTM-LTM
LBF
F
1
3.9
1.2
DA
EX, RT
PAC-96BO-074-10
B
8
3
ODO
FEM
PS
1
3.5
1.9
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-077-01
B
3
3
UNIM
UNI
F
1
3–4
SD
EX, BUR
PAC-96BO-078-01
B
3b
3
LTM
UNI
F
1
3.5
PO
EX, RT
PAC-96BO-079-01
B
11
3
UNI
UNI
F
1
<1
DA
EX
PAC-96BO-079-02
B
11
3
STM
LBF
F
1
1.5
PO
EX, RT
PAC-96BO-080-01
B
6
3
UNIM
UNI
F
1
<1
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-080-02
B
6
3
MAZ
MTT
DS
1
1.8
0.8
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-080-03
B
6
3
ODO
FEM
DE
R
1
FU
2.8
1.8
PO
EX, CRK
PAC-96BO-080-04
B
6
3
ARM
PH1
W
L
1
FU
0.6
0.5
DA
EX
PAC-96BO-080-05
B
6
3
COL
VER
W
AX
1
1.0
0.9
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-080-06
B
6
3
COL
VER
W
AX
1
1.0
0.9
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-080-07
B
6
3
COL
VER
W
AX
1
1.0
1.0
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-081-01
B
3
5
UNI
UNI
F
3
<1
PO
EX, RT
PAC-96BO-081-02
B
3
5
UNIM
UNI
F
16
1–2
PO
EX, RT
PAC-96BO-081-03
B
3
5
UNIM
UNI
F
5
2–3
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-081-04
B
3
5
MTM-LTM
LBF
F
1
2.9
1.2
PO
EX, RT
PAC-96BO-081-05
B
3
5
MTM-LTM
LBF
F
1
2.9
1.1
PO
EX, RT
PAC-96BO-081-07
B
3
5
ODO
MTC
PE+PS+MS
L
1
FU
11.1
2.2
SD
EX, RT, GN
PAC-96BO-081-08
B
3
5
ODO
LMV
F
AX
1
FU
1.0
0.9
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-081-09
B
3
5
ODO
PH2
PE
1
FU
1.2
1.0
SD
PAC-96BO-081-10
B
3
5
LTM
LBF
F
1
5.4
1.8
DA
EX, RT
PAC-96BO-082-01
B
3d
2
ARM
TIB
MS+DS
1
2.5
0.8
PO
EX, RT, STG
PAC-96BO-083-01
B
6
5
UNI
UNI
F
3
<1
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-083-02
B
6
5
UNIM
UNI
F
4
1–2
PO
EX
L
Fusion
Max
width
Unit
L
Count
Max
length
Plaza
1.6
0.3
233
Catalogue number
Side
Count
Fusion
Max
length
Max
width
Plaza
Unit
Level
ID
Bone
End
PAC-96BO-083-03
B
6
5
UNIM
UNI
F
PAC-96BO-083-05
B
6
5
ODO
MTT
PE
L
1
FU
2.0
1.7
PAC-96BO-083-06
B
6
5
ODO
DP4
LO
L
1
FAW
1.5
PAC-96BO-083-07
B
6
5
ODO
MO1
LO
L
1
YEA
1.9
PAC-96BO-085-01
B
4
3
UNIM
UNI
F
1
PAC-96BO-086-01
B
5
3
UNIM
UNI
F
PAC-96BO-087-01
B
6
2
UNIM
UNI
PAC-96BO-088-01
B
3b
2
UNIM
UNI
PAC-96BO-089-01
B
9
3
ODO
FEM
DS
PAC-96BO-090-01
B
3b
4
UNI
UNI
PAC-96BO-090-02
B
3b
4
UNI
PAC-96BO-090-03
B
3b
4
UNIM
PAC-96BO-090-04
B
3b
4
PAC-96BO-090-06
B
3b
PAC-96BO-091-01
B
PAC-96BO-091-03
B
PAC-96BO-092-01
1
SD
EX, RT
DA
EX
0.7
SD
EX
0.8
DA
EX
2–3
PO
EX, RT
1
2–3
PO
EX, RT
F
1
3–4
PO
EX, RT
F
1
1.6
0.9
SD
RT, BUR
1
5.3
2.3
DA
EX
F
1
<1
PO
EX
UNI
F
2
1–2
PO
EX
UNI
F
2
1–2
DA
EX
UNIM
UNI
F
1
3–4
PO
EX, RT
4
LTM
LBF
F
1
3.9
PO
EX, RT
2d
4
UNIM
UNI
F
2
2d
4
ARM
MTC
DE+DS
1
B
6
3
MTM-LTM
LBF
F
PAC-96BO-093-01
B
5
4
KIN
SHL
PAC-96BO-094-01
B
6
5
UNI
PAC-96BO-094-02
B
6
5
UNIM
PAC-96BO-094-03
B
6
5
PAC-96BO-094-04
B
6
PAC-96BO-094-06
B
PAC-96BO-094-07
B
PAC-96BO-095-01
L
3–4
Surface
Taphonomy
state
1.5
1–2
DA
EX
0.7
0.5
DA
EX
1
4.2
1.2
PO
EX, RT
F
1
1.4
1.0
PO
EX
UNI
F
9
<1
DA
EX
UNI
F
3
1–2
DA
EX, RT
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
PO
EX
5
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
PO
EX, RT
6
5
ARM
SHL
F
1
0.5
0.5
DA
EX
6
5
CER
MO-PM
F
1
1.0
0.5
SD
RT
B
13
5
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-095-02
B
13
5
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-096-01
B
2d
5
UNI
UNI
F
1
<1
PO
EX
FU
234
Catalogue number
Side
Surface
Taphonomy
state
Level
ID
Bone
End
PAC-96BO-096-02
B
2d
5
UNIM
UNI
F
4
1–2
DA
EX
PAC-96BO-097-01
B
6
5
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
SD
EX
PAC-96BO-098-01
B
7
5+6
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
DA
EX
PAC-96BO-098-02
B
7
5+6
ODO
MTT
DS
R
1
3.7
1.7
PO
EX, CRK
PAC-96BO-098-03
B
7
5+6
ODO
RIB
POST
R
1
2.4
1.3
SD
EX
PAC-96BO-101-01
B
5
5
UNI
UNI
F
3
<1
DA
EX
PAC-96BO-101-02
B
5
5
UNIM
UNI
F
5
1–2
DA
EX
PAC-96BO-101-03
B
5
5
UNIM
LBF
F
1
2–3
SD
EX
PAC-96BO-101-04
B
5
5
ARM
SHL
F
1
0.7
0.5
DA
EX
PAC-96BO-101-05
B
5
5
ODO
GC
F
1.7
0.9
SD
EX
PAC-96BO-101-07
B
5
5
LTM
LBF
F
1
6.5
1.2
PO
EX, RT, SH
PAC-96BO-102-01
B
11
3
UNI
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX, RT
PAC-96BO-104-01
B
10
4
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-104-02
B
10
4
UNIM
UNI
F
1
3–4
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-104-03
B
10
4
MTM-LTM
LBF
F
2.3
1.0
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-104-04
B
10
4
ODO
TRQ
W
R
1
FU
2.1
1.4
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-104-05
B
10
4
ODO
MAL
W
L
1
FU
1.6
1.5
SD
EX
PAC-96BO-106-01
B
2c
5
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-106-02
B
2c
5
UNIM
UNI
F
2
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-106-03
B
2c
5
ARM
SHL
F
1
0.7
0.5
SD
EX
PAC-96BO-106-04
B
2c
5
ODO
MTT
PE
2.0
0.8
DA
EX
PAC-96BO-122-01
B
1
5
UNI
UNI
F
1
<1
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-122-02
B
1
5
UNIM
UNI
F
2
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-123-01
B
3d
5
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
PO
EX, CRK
PAC-96BO-123-02
B
3d
5
LTM
LBF
F
1
2.9
1.5
DA
EX, RT, PN
PAC-96BO-123-03
B
3d
5
LTM
LBF
F
1
3.6
1.6
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-123-04
B
3d
5
MTM-LTM
LBF
F
1
2.9
0.7
DA
SH, CRK, STG
1
Fusion
Max
width
Unit
R
Count
Max
length
Plaza
FU
U
1
R
1
FU
235
Max
length
Max
width
1
0.6
0.5
F
3
<1
UNI
F
3
1–2
LBF
F
1
2.9
UNI
F
1
UNI
F
UNIM
UNI
LTM
LBF
5
UNIM
4
5
B
8
B
8
PAC-96BO-129-03
B
PAC-96BO-129-04
Catalogue number
Plaza
Unit
Level
ID
Bone
End
PAC-96BO-124-01
B
3
5
ARM
SHL
F
PAC-96BO-125-01
B
3
5
UNI
UNI
PAC-96BO-125-02
B
3
5
UNIM
PAC-96BO-125-03
B
3
5
UNIM
PAC-96BO-126-01
B
2b
5
UNIM
PAC-96BO-127-01
B
7
5+6
UNIM
PAC-96BO-127-02
B
7
5+6
PAC-96BO-127-03
B
7
5+6
PAC-96BO-128-01
B
4
PAC-96BO-128-02
B
PAC-96BO-129-01
PAC-96BO-129-02
Side
Count
Fusion
Surface
Taphonomy
state
IT
BUR
DA
EX
PO
EX
PO
EX
1–2
PO
EX
3
1–2
PO
EX
F
1
4–5
DA
EX
F
1
6.8
SD
EX, RT
LBF
F
1
2–3
PO
EX
ODO
FEM
DE
PO
EX
5
UNI
UNI
F
2
<1
DA
EX
5
UNIM
UNI
F
6
1–2
PO
EX
8
5
UNIM
UNI
F
1
3–4
PO
EX, CRK
B
8
5
OPOV
MAN
F
L
1
1.3
0.9
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-129-05
B
8
5
ARM
RAD
PE+PS+MS
R
1
2.0
0.4
PO
EX, RT
PAC-96BO-129-06
B
8
5
ODO
MO
UP
R
1
1.5
1.0
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-129-07
B
8
5
STM
LBF
F
1
1.2
0.5
DA
SH
PAC-96BO-130-01
B
12
5
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
DA
EX
PAC-96BO-130-02
B
12
5
LTM
LBF
F
1
3.6
1.7
PO
EX, SH
PAC-96BO-130-03
B
12
5
LTM
UNI
F
1
3.0
1.7
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-131-01
B
10
5
STM
LBF
F
1
2.2
0.5
DA
EX, GN
PAC-96BO-131-02
B
10
5
CAT
PH1
DE+DS
1
0.6
0.6
SD
PAC-96BO-133-01
B
7
5
UNIM
UNI
F
PAC-96BO-134/141-01
B
1
5
ODO
HUM
DS
PAC-96BO-137-01
B
11
3
UNIM
UNI
PAC-96BO-138-01
B
1
3
UNIM
PAC-96BO-138-02
B
1
3
UNIM
L
1
FU
FU
2.2
1
3–4
1
5.2
F
1
UNI
F
UNI
F
R
1.0
1.7
2.0
PO
EX, RT
PO
EX, RT, SH
1–2
PO
EX
2
<1
PO
EX
1
1–2
PO
EX, CRK
1.7
236
Catalogue number
Side
Count
Fusion
Max
length
Max
width
Surface
Taphonomy
state
Plaza
Unit
Level
ID
Bone
End
PAC-96BO-139-01
B
1
4
UNI
UNI
F
1
<1
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-140-01
B
1
5
UNIM
UNI
F
3
1–2
DA
EX
PAC-96BO-140-02
B
1
5
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-140-03
B
1
5
LTM
LBF
F
1
4.8
PO
EX, SH, CRK
PAC-96BO-141-01
B
1
5
UNI
UNI
F
2
<1
SD
EX
PAC-96BO-141-02
B
1
5
UNI
UNI
F
1
<1
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-141-03
B
1
5
UNIM
UNI
F
1
<1
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-141-04
B
1
5
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
DA
EX, RT
PAC-96BO-141-05
B
1
5
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-144-01
B
2b
4
UNIM
UNI
F
1
<1
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-145-01
B
3b
4
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-146-01
B
3
5
UNI
UNI
F
1
<1
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-150-01
B
5
5
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX, RT
PAC-96BO-150-02
B
5
5
STM-MTM
LBF
F
1
2.3
SD
RT
PAC-96BO-152-01
B
6
5
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-152-02
B
6
5
ODO
MTP
S
1
1.3
0.7
SD
RT, STG
PAC-96BO-152-03
B
6
5
TES
SHL
F
1
0.8
0.6
DA
EX
PAC-96BO-153-01
B
7
3+5
UNIM
UNI
F
2
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-154-01
B
7
3
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-155-01
B
8
3
UNI
UNI
F
1
<1
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-155-02
B
8
3
UNIM
UNI
F
8
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-155-04
B
8
3
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
PO
EX
PAC-96BO-155-05
B
8
3
TAY
PH2
W
PAC-96BO-155-06
B
8
3
MAZ
HUM
DE
PAC-96BO-155-07
B
8
3
MTM-LTM
LBF
F
PAC-96BO-156-01
B
8
5/6B
UNI
UNI
PAC-96BO-156-02
B
8
5/6B
UNI
UNI
1.2
0.7
1
FU
1.6
1.0
PO
EX, RT, GN
1
FU
1.5
1.3
PO
EX
1
4.9
0.6
PO
EX, RT
F
4
<1
DA
EX
F
3
1–2
DA
EX
L
237
Catalogue number
Side
Count
Fusion
Max
length
Max
width
Surface
Taphonomy
state
Plaza
Unit
Level
ID
Bone
End
PAC-96BO-156-03
B
8
5/6B
UNI
UNI
F
PAC-96BO-156-04
B
8
5/6B
TAY
NAV
W
PAC-96BO-159-01
B
9
5
UNI
UNI
F
6
PAC-96BO-159-02
B
9
5
UNIM
UNI
F
2
PAC-96BO-159-03
B
9
5
ODO
PH2
W
1
FU
3.0
PAC-96BO-159-05
B
9
5
TAY
PH2
W
1
FU
1.7
PAC-97BO-002-01
B
97-U5
3
UNI
UNI
F
10
<1
PO
PAC-97BO-002-02
B
97-U5
3
UNIM
UNI
F
9
<1
PO
PAC-97BO-002-03
B
97-U5
3
UNI
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
PAC-97BO-002-04
B
97-U5
3
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
PO
PAC-97BO-002-05
B
97-U5
3
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-97BO-002-06
B
97-U5
3
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
PO
EX
PAC-97BO-002-07
B
97-U5
3
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
SD
EX
PAC-97BO-002-08
B
97-U5
3
ODO
FEM
DE
L
1
FU
PAC-97BO-002-09
B
97-U5
3
ODO
FEM
PE
L
1
FU
PAC-97BO-002-10
B
97-U5
3
ODO
FEM
PS+MS+DS
L
1
PAC-97BO-002-11
B
97-U5
3
ODO
CAL
DE+DS+MS
R
1
PAC-97BO-002-12
B
97-U5
3
ODO
HUM
DS
L
1
PAC-97BO-002-13
B
97-U5
3
ODO
AST
F
R
1
PAC-97BO-003-01
B
97-U2
3
UNIM
UNI
F
1
<1
PAC-97BO-003-02
B
97-U2
3
UNI
UNI
F
1
PAC-97BO-003-03
B
97-U2
3
UNIM
UNI
F
PAC-97BO-004-01
B
97-SU1
3
UNIM
UNI
PAC-97BO-004-02
B
97-SU1
3
UNIM
UNI
PAC-97BO-004-04
B
97-SU1
3
UNIM
PAC-97BO-005-01
B
97-U4
3
PAC-97BO-005-02
B
97-U4
3
1
R
1
2–3
FU
DA
EX, RT
PO
EX, RT
<1
PO
EX
1–2
PO
EX
1.3
PO
EX, GN
1.0
PO
EX
1.7
1.1
EX
5.5
5.3
DA
EX, RT, CT, GN
4.5
3.1
DA
EX, RT, GN
21.2
4.8
DA
EX, RT, CRK
6.3
2.3
DA
EX
5.5
1.8
SD
EX
1.6
1.5
SD
EX
PO
EX
<1
PO
EX
1
1–2
PO
EX
F
2
1–2
PO
EX
F
1
1–2
DA
EX
UNI
F
1
2–3
PO
EX, RT
UNI
UNI
F
1
<1
PO
EX
UNI
UNI
F
2
1–2
PO
EX
FU
FU
238
Catalogue number
Side
Surface
Taphonomy
state
Level
ID
Bone
End
PAC-97BO-006-01
C
97C5
4
UNIM
UNI
F
4
<1
PO
EX
PAC-97BO-006-02
C
97C5
4
UNIM
UNI
F
4
<1
PO
EX
PAC-97BO-006-03
C
97C5
4
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
SD
EX
PAC-97BO-006-04
C
97C5
4
UNIM
UNI
F
2
1–2
DA
EX, CRK
PAC-97BO-006-05
C
97C5
4
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-97BO-006-06
C
97C5
4
LTM
UNI
F
1
3.3
PO
EX, CRK
PAC-97BO-009-01
C
97C2
4
UNIM
UNI
F
1
3–4
DA
EX
PAC-97BO-010-01
B
97-RU1
5
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
DA
EX
PAC-97BO-010-02
B
97-RU1
5
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
SD
EX
PAC-97BO-010-03
B
97-RU1
5
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
PO
EX
PAC-97BO-012-01
B
97-RU1
3
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-97BO-012-02
B
97-RU1
3
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
PO
EX
PAC-97BO-013-01
B
97-SU4
3
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-97BO-019-01
B
97-U3
3
UNIM
UNI
F
1
<1
PO
EX
PAC-97BO-019-02
B
97-U3
3
UNIM
UNI
F
3
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-97BO-019-03
B
97-U3
3
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-97BO-019-04
B
97-U3
3
UNIM
UNI
F
2
1–2
SD
EX
PAC-97BO-019-05
B
97-U3
3
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
DA
EX
PAC-97BO-019-06
B
97-U3
3
ARM
SHL
F
1
0.7
0.6
PO
EX
PAC-97BO-020-02
C
97C5
5
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1.9
1.4
DA
EX, RT
PAC-97BO-020-03
C
97C5
5
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-97BO-020-04
C
97C5
5
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
PO
EX
PAC-97BO-023-01
B
97-U4
5
UNI
UNI
F
5
<1
PO
EX
PAC-97BO-023-02
B
97-U4
5
UNIM
UNI
F
9
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-97BO-023-03
B
97-U4
5
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
SD
EX, RT, STG
PAC-97BO-023-04
B
97-U4
5
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
PO
EX, RT
PAC-97BO-023-06
B
97-U4
5
ODO
RIB
F
DA
EX
1
Fusion
Max
width
Unit
R
Count
Max
length
Plaza
FU
2.0
1.1
0.9
239
Max
length
Max
width
1
1.0
0.8
F
1
1–2
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX
UNI
F
1
<1
DA
EX
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
DA
EX
3
UNIM
UNI
F
1
3–4
SD
EX
97-SU5
4
UNIM
UNI
F
2
1–2
PO
EX
97-SU5
4
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
PO
EX
B
97-SU5
4
UNIM
UNI
F
1
3–4
PO
EX
PAC-97BO-033-01
B
97-SU5
3
UNIM
UNI
F
3
<1
PO
EX
PAC-97BO-033-02
B
97-SU5
3
UNIM
UNI
F
3
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-97BO-036-01
B
97-TU1
3
UNIM
UNI
F
1
<1
PO
EX
PAC-97BO-036-02
B
97-TU1
3
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX
PAC-97BO-036-03
B
97-TU1
3
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
SD
EX
PAC-97BO-036-04
B
97-TU1
3
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
DA
EX
PAC-97BO-039-01
B
97-U4
5
UNI
UNI
F
5
<1
PO
EX
PAC-97BO-039-02
B
97-U4
5
UNIM
UNI
F
3
1–2
SD
EX
PAC-97BO-039-03
B
97-U4
5
UNIM
UNI
F
2
1–2
DA
EX, RT, CRK
PAC-97BO-039-04
B
97-U4
5
UNIM
UNI
F
5
2–3
PO
EX, RT
PAC-97BO-039-05
B
97-U4
5
UNIM
UNI
F
1
3–4
PO
EX
PAC-97BO-039-06
B
97-U4
5
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2.0
1.4
PO
RT, BUR
PAC-97BO-039-12
B
97-U4
5
MTM
MAX
F
R
1
2.2
1.7
DA
EX
PAC-97BO-039-13
B
97-U4
5
ARM
TIB
DS+MS
L
1
3.3
0.9
PO
EX, STG
PAC-97BO-040-01
B
97-U4
4
UNIM
UNI
F
1
2–3
PO
EX
PAC-97BO-040-02
B
97-U4
4
OPOM
FEM
PS+MS+DS
1
4.2
PO
EX, RT, STG
PAC-97BO-041-01
B
97-U4
4
UNIM
UNI
F
1
1–2
PO
EX, CRK
PAC-97BO-041-02
B
97-U4
4
UNIM
UNI
F
1
3–4
PO
EX, RT
Catalogue number
Plaza
Unit
Level
ID
Bone
End
PAC-97BO-023-07
B
97-U4
5
TES
SHL
F
PAC-97BO-024-01
B
97-TU4
5
UNIM
UNI
PAC-97BO-024-02
B
97-TU4
5
UNIM
PAC-97BO-028-01
B
97-TU2
3
UNIM
PAC-97BO-028-02
B
97-TU2
3
PAC-97BO-028-03
B
97-TU2
PAC-97BO-032-01
B
PAC-97BO-032-02
B
PAC-97BO-032-03
Side
R
Count
Fusion
Surface
Taphonomy
state
PO
EX, RT
IT
0.6
240
Catalogue number
Max
length
Max
width
1
4.0
1.3
SD
RT
1
2.8
1.0
PO
EX
3.1
2.1
PO
EX, CRK
4.9
2.4
PO
EX, RT, GN
1
2.5
0.7
PO
EX, RT, CRK, STG
1
2.2
0.4
PO
RT, CRK, STG
0.8
0.6
PO
EX
3.6
1.5
PO
EX, RT
PO
EX
IT
BUR
<1
DA
EX
1–2
PO
EX
1–2
PO
EX, RT
1–2
DA
EX
7
<1
SD
EX
5
1–2
PO
EX
F
1
1–2
SD
EX, RT
UNI
F
1
2–3
DA
EX, CRK
UNI
F
1
<1
DA
EX
Plaza
Unit
Level
ID
Bone
End
Side
PAC-97BO-041-03
B
97-U4
4
LTM
LBF
F
PAC-97BO-041-04
B
97-U4
4
LTM
UNI
F
PAC-97BO-043-01
B
97-U5
3
ODO
HUM
DS
R
1
PAC-97BO-043-02
B
97-U5
3
ODO
HUM
DE+DS
R
1
PAC-97BO-043-03
B
97-U5
3
MTM-LTM
UNI
F
PAC-97BO-043-04
B
97-U5
3
MTM-LTM
UNI
F
PAC-97BO-045-01
B
97-SU9
4
RAB
NAV
W
PAC-97BO-050-01
B
97-U1
5
LTM
LBF
F
1
PAC-97BO-054-01
B
97-TU2
5
UNIM
UNI
F
<1
PAC-97BO-055-01
B
97-SU4
4
UNIM
LBF
F
1
1
PAC-97BO-057-01
B
97-SU2
3
UNIM
UNI
F
1
PAC-97BO-058-01
B
97-SU2
4
UNIM
UNI
F
1
PAC-97BO-060-01
C
97C1
3
UNIM
UNI
F
1
PAC-97BO-062-01
B
97-SU3
4
UNIM
UNI
F
1
PAC-97BO-063-01
B
97-SU2
3
UNIM
UNI
F
PAC-97BO-063-02
B
97-SU2
3
UNIM
UNI
F
PAC-97BO-063-03
B
97-SU2
3
UNIM
UNI
PAC-97BO-063-04
B
97-SU2
3
UNIM
PAC-97BO-133-01
B
97-SU2
3
UNI
L
Count
1
Fusion
FU
FU
1.0
0.5
Surface
Taphonomy
state
241
Table A.3 Pacbitun dataset for the transitional period late Middle Preclassic-early Late Preclassic
Catalogue
number
Plaza
Unit
Level
ID
Bone
End
PAC-10BO-012-01
A
2
4
UNI
UNI
F
PAC-10BO-012-02
A
2
4
MAZ
MTT
PE+PS+MS
PAC-10BO-012-03
A
2
4
ODO
PH2
PAC-10BO-013-01
A
2
4
UNI
UNI
PAC-10BO-013-02
A
2
4
ODO
PH2
Side
Count
Fusion
1
L
Max
length
Max
width
1–2
Surface
state
Taphonomy
PO
EX
1
FU
6.6
1.2
PO
EX, RT, CRK
W
1
FU
3.3
1.9
DA
EX, RT, GN
F
1
PO
EX
W
1
PO
EX
<1
FU
2.6
1.4
242