<%BANNER%>

The Social Construction of Community, Polity, and Place in Ancient Puerto Rico (AD 600 - AD 1200)

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0043729/00001

Material Information

Title: The Social Construction of Community, Polity, and Place in Ancient Puerto Rico (AD 600 - AD 1200)
Physical Description: 1 online resource (595 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Torres, Joshua Marion
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: archaeology -- caribbean -- community -- gis -- ostionoid -- polity -- taino
Anthropology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Anthropology thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: This study examines the significance and process of community formation in the development of pre-contact polities in ancient Puerto Rico. Current perspectives of emerging polities in the Caribbean rely on the concept of "chiefdom" emphasizing elite aggrandizers and neo-evolutionary trajectories of social development and change. Through an examination of the relations between humans and landscapes, this research documents the (trans)formation of social communities between AD 600 and AD 1200 and the implications for the development of regional political institutions. A central theme of this research is the recursive relationship between small-scale social groups and the landscapes they occupy and how processes of community building and settlement structured social and political change. This study focuses on south-central Puerto Rico and the region associated with the Ceremonial Center of Tibes. Tibes is one of the most elaborate ceremonial centers on the island and considered the seat of an incipient polity between AD 600 and AD 1200. This research shows that Tibes was part of a supravillage community heretofore undocumented. Corroborating this are the results of an archaeological survey immediately surrounding the site that yielded small dispersed settlements primarily dating between AD 900 and AD 1200. The survey results are situated within the broader socio-historical landscape of the south-central region through settlement pattern analyses. The analyses show that the rise of Tibes and its community was coeval with the proliferation of new settlements and supravillage communities throughout the region between AD 600 and AD 1200 due to population growth and dispersion. The increased complexity in regional socio-spatial networks promoted localization and fundamental changes in residential social groups evident in decreases in the size of settlements and domestic structures. Settlement composition and longevity, evident in radiocarbon dates and artifact accumulations research, suggests that land tenure and heritable property became increasingly important. This form of settlement and community organization contrasts with socio-spatial configurations and regional sociality prior to AD 600. Settlement changes catalyzed new forms of social integration which are examined through the use and construction of plazas/ballcourts. Variability in the size, distribution, and labor required to construct these features suggests different social functions and that the power structure of local communities and incipient polities of the period was situational and regionally variable from AD 600 to AD 1200. Ultimately, settlement and ritual practices of the period served to promulgate community identity, status, and corporate consolidation of natural, social, and symbolic resources. This research provides an alternative view to formulaic models of political development typically entailing the expropriation of power by elite, static hierarchical institutions, and the passivity of social groups inherent in current interpretations.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Joshua Marion Torres.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Heckenberger, Michael J.
Local: Co-adviser: Keegan, William F.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0043729:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0043729/00001

Material Information

Title: The Social Construction of Community, Polity, and Place in Ancient Puerto Rico (AD 600 - AD 1200)
Physical Description: 1 online resource (595 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Torres, Joshua Marion
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: archaeology -- caribbean -- community -- gis -- ostionoid -- polity -- taino
Anthropology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Anthropology thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: This study examines the significance and process of community formation in the development of pre-contact polities in ancient Puerto Rico. Current perspectives of emerging polities in the Caribbean rely on the concept of "chiefdom" emphasizing elite aggrandizers and neo-evolutionary trajectories of social development and change. Through an examination of the relations between humans and landscapes, this research documents the (trans)formation of social communities between AD 600 and AD 1200 and the implications for the development of regional political institutions. A central theme of this research is the recursive relationship between small-scale social groups and the landscapes they occupy and how processes of community building and settlement structured social and political change. This study focuses on south-central Puerto Rico and the region associated with the Ceremonial Center of Tibes. Tibes is one of the most elaborate ceremonial centers on the island and considered the seat of an incipient polity between AD 600 and AD 1200. This research shows that Tibes was part of a supravillage community heretofore undocumented. Corroborating this are the results of an archaeological survey immediately surrounding the site that yielded small dispersed settlements primarily dating between AD 900 and AD 1200. The survey results are situated within the broader socio-historical landscape of the south-central region through settlement pattern analyses. The analyses show that the rise of Tibes and its community was coeval with the proliferation of new settlements and supravillage communities throughout the region between AD 600 and AD 1200 due to population growth and dispersion. The increased complexity in regional socio-spatial networks promoted localization and fundamental changes in residential social groups evident in decreases in the size of settlements and domestic structures. Settlement composition and longevity, evident in radiocarbon dates and artifact accumulations research, suggests that land tenure and heritable property became increasingly important. This form of settlement and community organization contrasts with socio-spatial configurations and regional sociality prior to AD 600. Settlement changes catalyzed new forms of social integration which are examined through the use and construction of plazas/ballcourts. Variability in the size, distribution, and labor required to construct these features suggests different social functions and that the power structure of local communities and incipient polities of the period was situational and regionally variable from AD 600 to AD 1200. Ultimately, settlement and ritual practices of the period served to promulgate community identity, status, and corporate consolidation of natural, social, and symbolic resources. This research provides an alternative view to formulaic models of political development typically entailing the expropriation of power by elite, static hierarchical institutions, and the passivity of social groups inherent in current interpretations.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Joshua Marion Torres.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Heckenberger, Michael J.
Local: Co-adviser: Keegan, William F.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0043729:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF COMMUNITY, POLITY, AND PLACE IN ANCIENT PUERTO RICO (AD 600 AD 1200) By JOSHUA M. TORRES A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF T HE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012

PAGE 2

2 201 2 Joshua M. Torres

PAGE 3

3 For my Grandfather, Marion B aldwin Krauser

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I received help from a number of people without whom this dissertation wo uld not be possible. First, and foremost I would like to thank my dissertation advisors Dr. Michael Heckenberger and Dr. William Keegan for their guidance and encouragement during my years at UF. Their insights on many issues greatly inspired me to think outside the box question the status quo, and pursue alternative perspectives. Both have been great mentors and I am very fortunate for having the opportunity to work with both of them I must thank Dr. Heckenberger for allowing me to work on aspects of the Xingu project during my first two years as a student at UF. This was a great experience and to which I had not been previously exposed Dr. Heckenberger has also been extremely patient an d accommodating of my non traditional student lifestyle. I have greatly benefitted from our discussions and sincerely appreciate all of the time he has invested in me and my work. Special thanks to my co chair Dr. William Keegan for always making himself available to go over ideas, read drafts, write recommendation letter s and offer advice on managing academic and family life He also allowed me the use of his office and constant access to the Ripley Bullen Library a privilege that I wil l sorely miss upo n graduation. I sincerely value our many conversations and hope to continue our discussions for years to come. I would also like to thank Drs. Ken Sassaman and Michael Binford for serving on my committee and for all of their guidance and patience during t his process, allowing me room to explore ideas, and providing helpful feedback which greatly improved the

PAGE 5

5 final product I am especially grateful to Dr. Ken Sassaman who has been a source of intellectual an d professional inspiration. His support and enco uragement during my stay at UF has been a constant. I would also like to thank Dr. Michael Binford for agreeing to be on my committee despite his many other commitments. His knowledge of Geographical Information Systems, geography and perspectives on hu man landscapes helped to round out my committee His thoughtful advice and comments on this work were well taken and greatly improved the final product Finally, I would like to thank my friend and mentor Dr. Antonio Curet for also serving on my committee and for his long term commitment to my personal and professional development For more than a decade I have been fortunate enough to work with Antonio at Tibes and on several collaborative research projects His encouragement and guidance since my forma tive days in Colorado has been steadfast and his good nature, openness to new ideas and overall excitement for archaeology has inspired me over the years I look forward to years of our continued collaboration and friendship. I want to express my sincere gratitude to another friend Rich Wilshusen. I do not think Rich knows how much of an impact he has had on me and others. Rich is not only a brilliant archaeologist and teacher but a good friend whose advice and insights on managing family and career wer e some of the best lessons received during this time. I also must thank him for helping me find my way during the hardest and most difficult time during this process (although I do not think he knows it).

PAGE 6

6 Many thanks to Jeff Walker, Jose Oliver and Migu el Rodrguez Lpez who all gave me help and guidance at one point or another I am grateful for their shared wisdom and friendship. My deepest gratit ude to my good friend s and colleagues Reniel Rodrguez Ramos and Ivan Batun Apulche. Both helped me devel op many of the ideas in this research and motivated me to peruse them Since my arrival to Gainesville, both have been (and continue to be despite their absence) steadfast friends and sources of inspiration. Thanks also my good friend and colleague Chris Altes. Chris became a sounding board for many ideas in this work and he helped me slug through portions of the analyses Chris is a brilliant thinker and I anticipate great things from him in the future. I look forward to years of continued friendship and collaboration with all of them. This work would not exist without the efforts of the Tibes Archaeological Survey Project field crew : Ricardo Magrina, Patricia Concepcion, Lisa Marrero, Carmen L a g uer Angel Vega, Rogelio Velasquez and Juan Santos The y all worked tirelessly to help the project come through. I will always fondly remember our summer together in Juana Diaz and Ponce and wish them all the best in their future endeavors. Thanks to the staff of the Officina de Esta tal de Conservacin Hist rica es pecially, Mickey Bonini, Yasha Rodr guez Melendez, and Berenice Sueiro for helping to administer and support the project. Also, special thanks to the Museum Staff at Tibes -for over a decade they have made me feel at home at the park and a member o f their community. Sincere thanks to my fri en d and colleague Geoff Du C hemin. Geoff took two months away from his fa mily to help with the field survey His good nature and patience

PAGE 7

7 helped to keep it running smoothly. I am also grateful for the help and f riendship of Carmen Laguer who also was a huge help with the project I would like to acknowledge both David McCullough of the Army Corps of Engineers and Chris Espenshade of New South and Associates for sharing information regarding their work in the Ponc e area. Both have been kind enough to provide me with copies of reports and take time out of their busy schedules to assist in answering my many questions I would like to acknowledge my e mployers during the time I have made Gainesville home Dr. Lucy Wa yne and Ma rtin Dickinson of SouthArc, Inc. were kind enough to hire me teach me about Florida archaeology, and provide a means to help me support my family during my first 5 years in Florida. I will always be grateful for their kindness generosity, and support. I also want to thank my new employers at SEARCH Inc. for all of the opportunities they have given me In particular I want to thank Dr. Lisabeth (Betsy) SEARCH for getting me a job with SEARCH and giving me the chance work with her o n projects in the West Indies I have learned much from our working together over the last two year s and highly value her guidance and friendship. I want to thank my family a nd particularly my mother Susan and g randparents, Marion and Pauline for their enduring love and support throughout my life. Without them, I would never have been able to do this. During the course of writing this dissertation my grandfather Marion passed away. I wish he was able to see me complete this important stage of my life he would ha ve been very proud. I also want to thank my mother and father in law Mary and Lou Berlin for all of their support and

PAGE 8

8 allowing me to hold their daughter and grandchildren captive in northern Florida for so long As always, I have saved the best for last I want to thank my dear wife Gretchen for all of the sacrifices she has made for me in pursuit of my goals. She is my heart, my bedrock and my true north; this work is as much hers as it is mine. Last, but certainly not least, I want to thank three l ittle boys, my sons Gavin, Dylan and Jason for constantly reminding me of all that is good in life.

PAGE 9

9 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLE S ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 14 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 16 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ........................... 20 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 21 CHAPTERS 1 THEMES AND AIMS OF RESEARCH ................................ ................................ .... 23 The Cacicazgo : An Enduring Design ................................ ................................ ...... 25 Statement of the Problem ................................ ................................ ....................... 26 Research Objective and Analytical Approach ................................ ......................... 29 A Map to this Study ................................ ................................ ................................ 33 2 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXTS OF SOCIOPOLITICAL CHANGE IN PRE CONTACT PUERTO RICO ........................ 37 The Study of Sociopolitical Organization i n Pre contact Puerto Rico ...................... 37 Rousean Time Space Systematics ................................ ................................ ......... 43 Pre Contact Culture History of Puerto Rico ................................ ............................ 49 Period I: Pre 4000 BC AD 100) ............... 49 Period II: Saladoid/Huecoid Series (ca. 500 BC AD 600) ................................ 52 Saladoid and Huecoid Material Culture ................................ ...................... 54 Cuevas (Period IIb Period III ca. AD 400 AD 1000?) ........................... 56 Period II Settlement Patterns and Sociopolitical Organization ................... 57 Period III: Early Ostionoid Series (ca. AD 600 1200) ................................ ..... 60 The Ostionan and Elenan Ostionoid Subseries ................................ ......... 62 Period III Settlement Patterns and Sociopolitical Organization .................. 64 Period IV: The Late Ceramic Age (ca. AD 1200 AD 1500) ............................ 66 Chican Ostionoid Subseries ................................ ................................ ....... 66 Period IV Settlement Patterns and Sociopoliti cal Organization .................. 68 Archaeology of the South Central Region ................................ ............................... 71 Army Corps of Engineers and the Cerrillos/Bucana River Projects .................. 76 Portugus River ................................ ................................ ................................ 80 Camp Santiago ................................ ................................ ................................ 82 Other Research and Field I nvestigations of the South Central Region ............ 84 Chronology and Radiocarbon Dates of the South Central Region .......................... 90 Summary and Conclus ions ................................ ................................ ..................... 94

PAGE 10

10 3 CONCEPTUALIZING SOCIAL AND POLITICAL COMMUNITIES ......................... 96 Incipient Polities in Context ................................ ................................ ..................... 96 The Concept of Community ................................ ................................ .................. 101 Social Composition of Communities ................................ ................................ ..... 102 Kinship and Community ................................ ................................ .................. 103 Households and Houses ................................ ................................ ................ 107 Rituality, Memory, and Place ................................ ................................ .......... 109 Community Geographies and the Structuration of Society ................................ ... 111 Summary: Communities in Archaeology and Practice ................................ .......... 116 4 METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDER ATIONS FOR THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY OF COMMUNITIES ................................ ................................ ................. 118 Analytical Strategies ................................ ................................ ............................. 11 8 Landscapes of Settlement: Concepts and Contexts ................................ ............. 123 Settlement Patterns Studies in Archaeology ................................ .................. 125 Sociopolitical Approaches to Settlement Patterns Research .......................... 127 Settlement Patterns Research in the Caribbean ................................ ............ 129 Regional Studies and Settlement Research in Puerto Rico ............................ 133 Regions and Localities ................................ ................................ .......................... 135 Spatialities of Social and Political Life ................................ ................................ ... 137 Social Considerations f or Residential Settlements ................................ ... 140 Political Distances and Territories ................................ ............................ 142 Project Approach Summary ................................ ................................ .................. 143 5 SEEKING THE COMMUNITY: THE TIBES ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROJECT (TASP) ................................ ................................ ................................ 146 Environmental Contexts of the South Central Region ................................ ........... 148 Previous Archaeological Investigations in the Survey Area ................................ .. 153 Survey Universe and Methods ................................ ................................ .............. 156 TASP Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 162 The Caas River Drainage ................................ ................................ ............. 166 PO 46 (Caas II) ................................ ................................ ...................... 167 PO 47 (Caas I) ................................ ................................ ....................... 168 Isolated Finds ................................ ................................ ........................... 169 The Portugus River Drainage ................................ ................................ ....... 170 PO 53 (PR 10 Midden) ................................ ................................ ............ 170 PO ................................ ................................ ......... 172 PO 52 (Finca Feliciano) ................................ ................................ ........... 174 PO 42 (La Mineral) ................................ ................................ .................. 176 PO 43 (Los Gongolones) ................................ ................................ ......... 179 PO 45 (La Vaquera) ................................ ................................ ................ 181 Isolated Finds ................................ ................................ ........................... 182 PO 44 (La Mineral II) ................................ ................................ ............... 182 Chiquito River Drainage ................................ ................................ ................. 183

PAGE 11

11 PO 48 (Escuela Ro Chiquito) ................................ ................................ .. 184 PO ................................ ................................ ........ 185 Isolated Finds ................................ ................................ ........................... 186 Additional Investigations ................................ ................................ ................. 187 PO 2 (Tibes II) ................................ ................................ ......................... 187 PO 51 (Ro Bayagan I) ................................ ................................ ............. 188 Summary of Survey Results ................................ ................................ ................. 190 6 WHAT THEY LEFT BEHIND: TASP ARTIFACT ANALYSES ............................... 193 Pottery Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 194 Saladoid Pottery ................................ ................................ ............................. 194 Ostionan Ostionoid Pottery ................................ ................................ ............. 196 Elenan Ostionoid Pottery ................................ ................................ ................ 197 Chican Ostionoid Pottery ................................ ................................ ................ 199 Pottery Analyses ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 200 Paste Types ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 204 Temper Size ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 207 Wall Thickness ................................ ................................ ............................... 208 Rim Morphology and Vessel Form ................................ ................................ 211 Surface Finish and Diagnostic Elements ................................ ........................ 225 Settl ement Chronology ................................ ................................ ................... 227 Lithic Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 231 Raw Material Types ................................ ................................ ........................ 232 Debitage and Stone Tools ................................ ................................ .............. 233 Shell Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 236 Shell and Coral Tools ................................ ................................ ..................... 239 Summary of Artifacts and Site Interpretations ................................ ....................... 245 7 THE REGIONAL SETTLEMENT LANDSCAPE: PATTERNS AND PROCESS .... 251 Region al Dataset ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 252 Assumptions and Issues of Interpretation ................................ ....................... 254 Settlement Types and Nomenclature: When is a Village? .............................. 255 Settlement Variability: General Trends through Time ................................ ........... 256 Cost Catchment Analysis: Community Clusters and Near Village Territories ....... 270 Period II ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 272 Period III ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 274 Branching Out, Settling In: Settlement E xpansion (Period II to Period III) ...... 276 Period IV ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 280 Regional Settlement Structure ................................ ................................ .............. 284 Network Structure ................................ ................................ ........................... 286 Contradictions in Expansive Social Networks and Community Formation ...... 295 Regional So cial Diversity ................................ ................................ ...................... 299 Settlement Landscape of the South Central Region: Summary and Conclusions 303

PAGE 12

12 8 ENVISIONING THE LOCAL LANDSCA PE: RESIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT AND COMMUNITY COMPOSITION ................................ ................................ ............. 307 Organizational Patterns of Residential Settlement ................................ ................ 308 Households and C o resident Corporate Groups ................................ ................... 310 Size Matters: Changes in Residential Settlement ................................ ................ 314 Domestic Structures ................................ ................................ ....................... 320 Settlement Continuity and Local Identity ................................ ........................ 329 Modeling Residential Settlement Composition and Occupation ............................ 335 Summary: Local Communities in Context ................................ ............................. 344 9 THE SYMBOLIC CONSTRUCTION OF COMMUNITIES: PLAZAS AND BATEYS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 348 Plazas and Bateys : Archaeological and Historic Contexts ................................ .... 350 Constructing Histories, Identities, and Place ................................ ......................... 361 Performance, Function, and Scale ................................ ................................ ........ 364 Rank Size Analysis ................................ ................................ ........................ 372 Summary and Functional Interpretations ................................ ........................ 379 Of Flesh and Stone: The Material Construction of Plazas/ Bateys and Community ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 382 Stone Enclosures at Tibes and El Bronce ................................ ...................... 387 Calculating Labor Estimates ................................ ................................ ........... 391 Results and Discussion ................................ ................................ .................. 395 Summary and Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................... 399 10 COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION AND THE SOCIOPOLITICAL LANDSCAPE OF SOUTH CENTRAL PUERTO RICO AD 600 AD 1200 ................................ ....... 404 Settlement History of the South Centr al Region and Contexts of Social Change 408 Summary: Oscillating Socialities and the Contexts of Social Change .................. 413 Spatial Patt erns and Community Composition/Organization ................................ 414 Residential Settlements ................................ ................................ .................. 416 Households and Co resident Social Groups ................................ ................... 420 Summary: Community Formation and the AD 600 Landscape ............................. 422 Rituality, Land, and Local Identities ................................ ................................ ...... 425 The Political Landscape of South Central Puerto Rico (AD 600 AD 1200) ........ 430 Concluding Remarks ................................ ................................ ............................. 434 APPENDIX A RADIOCARBON DATES FOR THE SOUTH CENTRAL REGION ....................... 438 B THE TIBES ARCHAEOLGICAL SURVEY SHOVEL TEST LOG .......................... 443 C FIELD SPEC IMEN LOG ................................ ................................ ....................... 461 D ARTIFACT CATALOG ................................ ................................ .......................... 472

PAGE 13

13 E VESSEL LOT ANALYSIS ................................ ................................ ..................... 487 F SHELL ANALYSIS ................................ ................................ ................................ 530 G SOUTH CENTRAL REGION ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE DATABASE ................. 538 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 546 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 595

PAGE 14

14 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Idealized representation of sociopolitical evolution for Puert o Rico.. .................. 39 5 1 Previously documented pre Colonial sites in or immediately adjacent the survey universe. ................................ ................................ ............................... 155 5 2 Total proportio n of the river drainages sampled. ................................ .............. 163 5 3 Site artifact summaries. ................................ ................................ .................... 166 5 4 Sites identified during the course of field investiga tions. ................................ .. 191 6 1 Sherd type frequencies of vessel portions by site ................................ ............. 203 6 2 Minimum number of vessels (MNV) for each site ................................ ............. 203 6 3 Temper type frequencies for vessel lots by site. ................................ ............... 206 6 4 Temper size frequencies for vessel lots by site. ................................ ............... 208 6 5 Rim form frequencies by site. ................................ ................................ ........... 212 6 6 Frequency of vessel types by site. ................................ ................................ .... 214 6 7 Surface finishing frequencies for sherds by site. ................................ .............. 225 6 8 Radiocarbon determinations from PO 42 and PO 43. ................................ ...... 229 6 9 Summary of lithic raw material types by site ................................ ..................... 233 6 10 Summary of lithic debitage. ................................ ................................ .............. 234 6 11 Lithic Tools recovered from sites. ................................ ................................ ..... 235 6 12 Summary of shell and coral by site. ................................ ................................ .. 236 6 13 Summary of shell and coral recovered from seven sites. ................................ 238 6 14 Summary of recovered shell tools from all sites. ................................ .............. 239 6 15 Site summary. ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 247 7 1 Site ma p index. ................................ ................................ ................................ 257 7 2 Settlement neighbors represented by connected 5 km cost catchments through time. ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 297

PAGE 15

15 8 1 Sample of sites with d omesti c structures from Puerto Rico .............................. 323 8 2 Accumulations estimates for PO 42 and PO 43. Assumes 10 vessels used per household. ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 341 9 1 Documented ball court/plaza sites within the south central region study area. 368 9 2 Boulder lithologies of Tibes and El Bronce ................................ ....................... 391 9 3 Stone inventories for Tibes and El Bronce. ................................ ....................... 391 A 1 Radiocarbon dates for the south central region. ................................ ............... 439 B 1 Tib es Archaeological Survey shovel test log ................................ .................... 444 C 1 Field Specimen Log ................................ ................................ .......................... 462 D 1 Artifact catalog ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 473 E 1 Vessel lot analysis ................................ ................................ ............................ 488 F 1 Shell Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 531 G 1 South central region archaeological site database ................................ ........... 539

PAGE 16

16 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 Study area, south central Puerto Rico. ................................ ............................... 31 2 1 Socio temporal framework for Puerto Rico ................................ ........................ 46 2 2 Temporal distribution of pottery styles for the island of Puerto Rico. High Low logs are based median 2 ............................ 47 2 3 Documented distributions of pottery styles Puerto Rico during Period III ( ca. AD 600 AD 1200). ................................ ................................ ........................... 61 2 4 Well documented re sidential settlements from the south central region discussed in the text. ................................ ................................ .......................... 72 2 5 Box plot of radiocarbon median dates (cal 2 ) for pottery styles of the south central region compared to Rouse (1992:5 2) and Rodrguez Ramos (2010). .... 91 5 1 Tibes Archaeological S urvey Project (TASP) location. ................................ ..... 147 5 2 Physiographic region s of the south central region. ................................ .......... 150 5 3 Previous surveys and site s within the TASP survey area ................................ 154 5 4 Percent slope and relative area proportions in the survey area. ....................... 159 5 5 Shovel test map and sampling units intensively surveyed within thin the survey universe. ................................ ................................ ............................... 164 5 6 Sites identified during the survey. ................................ ................................ ..... 165 5 7 Location and ST map of PO 46. ................................ ................................ ....... 168 5 8 Location and ST map of PO 47 and isolated find at PO 54. ............................. 169 5 9 Location and ST map of PO 53. ................................ ................................ ....... 171 5 10 Location and ST map of PO 50. ................................ ................................ ....... 173 5 11 Location and ST map of PO 52, PO 45, and PO 2 ................................ ........... 175 5 12 Location and ST map of PO 42. ................................ ................................ ....... 176 5 13 Map of batey feature at PO 42. ................................ ................................ ........ 177 5 14 Location and ST map of PO 43. ................................ ................................ ....... 179

PAGE 17

17 5 15 Map of potential batey feature at PO 43. ................................ .......................... 180 5 16 Location and ST map of PO 48. ................................ ................................ ....... 185 5 17 Locatio n and ST map of PO 49. ................................ ................................ ....... 186 5 18 Location map of PO 51 showing push piles and collection areas. .................... 189 6 1 Vessel lot thickness for eight sites ................................ ................................ .... 210 6 2 Commonly occurring vessel forms. ................................ ................................ ... 213 6 3 Examples of restricted vessel types. ................................ ................................ 216 6 4 Documented vessel sizes for restricted forms. ................................ ................. 217 6 5 Examples of unrestricted vessel types. ................................ ............................ 218 6 6 Documented vessel sizes for restricted rim forms ................................ ............ 220 6 7 Examples of shallow bowls. ................................ ................................ .............. 22 1 6 8 Examples of plates. ................................ ................................ .......................... 222 6 9 Examples of burens ................................ ................................ ......................... 224 6 10 Diagnostic incised Cap incised pottery from PO 42 and PO 52. .................... 227 6 11 Ceramic seriation by vessel lot style frequency.. ................................ .............. 228 6 12 Representative sample of shell scrapers. ................................ ......................... 240 6 13 Representative sample of worked shell tips. ................................ ..................... 241 6 14 Representative sample of shell hammers. ................................ ........................ 242 7 1 Per iod II site distributions in rela tion to physiographic regions. ....................... 261 7 2 PIII site distributions in rela tion to physiographic regions. ............................... 263 7 3 PIV site distributions in relation to physiographic regions. ................................ 265 7 4 Site distributions in relation to physiographic zones through time. ................... 268 7 5 Site trends through time. ................................ ................................ .................. 269 7 6 Period II settlements and cost catchments. ................................ ...................... 273 7 7 Period III settlements and cost catchments. ................................ ..................... 275

PAGE 18

18 7 8 Settlement trends from Period II to Period III. ................................ ................... 278 7 9 PIV settlements bounded by 2.5 and 5 km cost catchments. ........................... 281 7 10 Area (ha) of near village cost catchments ( 2.5 km and 5 km) through time. ..... 283 7 11 Period II settlement spacing based on MST. ................................ .................... 287 7 12 PII MST regional network showing distances between residential settlements. ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 288 7 13 Period III settlement spacing based on MST. ................................ ................... 289 7 14 PIII MST regional network showing distances between residential settlements. ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 290 7 15 Period IV settlement spacing based on MST. ................................ ................... 291 7 16 PIV MST regional network showing distances between residential settlements. ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 293 7 17 Period III settlement centrality based on number of adjacent neighbors. ......... 296 7 18 Pottery distribution of Ostiones and Elenan Ostionoid pottery styles and Jennrich Turner Ra nges (90% probability ellipse). ................................ ........... 302 8 1 Residential settlement sizes through time. ................................ ....................... 317 8 2 Documented domestic structures from e xcavated sites with evidence of post AD 600 occupation within 11 km of Tibes. ................................ ........................ 325 8 3 Radiocarbon determinations for residential settlements possessing documented domestic structures from the south central region. ...................... 326 8 4 Radiocarbon dates from well dated small settlements. ................................ ..... 331 9 1 Examples of plaza /bateys ................................ ................................ ................ 353 9 2 Chloropleth map showing the distribution of registered sites with plaza/ bateys throughout the island. ................................ ................................ ....................... 358 9 3 Temporal distribution of plaza/ batey sites for the south central region. ............ 360 9 4 Documented plaza/ batey sizes for Period II I on the south central region. ....... 370 9 5 MST and size distribution of Period III batey s showing linkages and 2.5 km clustering. ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 371

PAGE 19

19 9 6 Rank size plot for all PIII plaza/ballcourt features. Plot based on structure size m. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 376 9 7 Rank size plot for all PIII plaza/ batey sites with area data. Plot based on plaza/ batey size m (central water shed). ................................ ......................... 377 9 8 Rank size plot for all PIII plaza/ batey sites with area data. Plot based on plaza/ batey size m (eastern water shed). ................................ ........................ 378 9 9 Rank size plot for south central region PIII plaza/ ba tey sites with area data. Plot based on plaza/ batey size m ................................ ................................ .... 379 9 10 Map of the plaza/ batey features at Tibes. ................................ ......................... 388 9 11 Map of the plaza/ batey feature at El Bronce. ................................ .................... 390 9 12 Histogram of stone weights documented in the plazas/ batey s at Tibes ........... 394 9 13 Labo r estimates in person days (p d) with increases in personnel. .................. 396

PAGE 20

20 LIST OF ABBREVIATION S ACE Army Corps of Engineers cal. Calibrated cmbs Centimeters below surface CPT Central Place Theory CRM Cultural Resource Management ES RI Environmental Research Institute GIS Geographical Information Systems ha Hectares ICP Instituto de Cul tura Puertorriquea (Institute of Puerto Rican Culture) k m Kilometers m Meters MST Minimum Spanning Tree MNV Minimum Number of Vessels MNI Minimum Numb er of Individuals p d Person days PRSHPO Puerto Rico State Historic Preservation Office SEARCH Southeastern Archaeological Research TASP Tibes Archaeological Survey Project

PAGE 21

21 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF COMMUNITY, POLITY AND PLACE IN ANCIENT PUERTO RICO (AD 600 AD 1200) By Joshua M arion Torres May 201 2 Chair: Michael J. Heckenberger Cochair: William F. Keegan Major: Anthropology This study examines the significance and process of community formation in the development of pre contact polities in ancient Puerto Rico. Current perspectives of emerging polities in the Car aggrandizers and neo evolutionary trajectories of social development and change. Through an examination of the relations between humans and landscapes, this research documents the (trans)formation of social communities between AD 600 and AD 1200 and the implications for the development of regional political institutions. A central theme of this research is the recursive relationship between small scale social groups and the landscapes they occupy and how processes of community building and settlement structured social and political change. This study focuses on south central Puerto Rico and the region associated with the Ceremonial Center of Tibes. Tibes is one of the most elaborate ceremonial cen ters on the island and considered the seat of an incipient polity between AD 600 and AD 1200. This research shows that Tibes was part of a supravillage community heretofore undocumented. Corroborating this are the results of an archaeological survey

PAGE 22

22 imme diately surrounding the site that yielded small dispersed settlements primarily dating between AD 900 and AD 1200. The survey results are situated within the broader socio historical landscape of the south central region through settlement pattern analyses The analyses show that the rise of Tibes and its community was coeval with the proliferation of new settlements and supravillage communities throughout the region between AD 600 and AD 1200 due to population growth and dispersion. The increased complex ity in r egional socio spatial networks promoted localization and fundamental changes in residential social groups evident in decreases in the size of settlements and domestic structures. Settlement composition and longevity, evident in radiocarbon dates a nd artifact accumulations research, suggests that land tenure and heritable property became increasingly important. This form of settlement and community organization contrasts with socio spatial configurations and regional sociality prior to AD 600. Sett lement changes catalyzed new forms of social integration which are examined through the use and construction of plazas/ballcourts. Variability in the size, distribution, and labor required to construct these features suggests different social functions an d that the power structure of local communities and incipient polities of the period was situational and regionally variable from AD 600 to 1200. Ultimately, settlement and ritual practices of the period served to promulgate community identity, status, a nd corporate consolidation of natural, social, and symbolic resources. This research provides an alternative view to formulaic models of political development typically entailing the expropriation of power by elite, static hierarchical institutions, and t he passivity of social groups inherent in current interpretations.

PAGE 23

23 CHAPTER 1 THEMES AND AIMS OF R ESEARCH In this study I draw on a range of archaeological data from south central Puerto Rico to document historical trajectories of development leading to th e emergence of formative polities at the time of European contact the cacicazgos. The aim of this research is to elucidate some of the major social and cultural transformations that occurred in the region between approximately AD 600 and AD 1200. A centr al theme of this research is the recursive relationship between human groups and the landscapes they occupy and how process of community building and settlement structured social and political change. The study of ancient polities 1 has been and continues to be a central theme in the social sciences particularly in political science and archaeology Research pertaining to the formation and organization of ancient polities is attractive to modern scholars because it provides substantive material for expla ining some of the enduring questions of our shared humanity including: human sociality the origins social stratification the rise and fall of political institutions, the emergence of the state, ethnogen e sis, factionalism and nationalism. Within contemp orary archaeological research contexts of the Americas a polit y typically refers to regional political units associated with state level societies with the spotlight on regions and cultures where these developments are most visible such as Mesoamerica and the Andes (see Yoffee 200 5 for discussion). However, this term also refer s to incipient political formations of regionally organized, socially stratified non state societies also 1 The term polity is derived from the classical Greek word polis which refers to ancient city states (Oxford Dictionary 2010). For detailed discussion of traditional conceptions of the polity, a history of the Greek city state and conceptualizations of the polity in the context of mode rn political science see Ferguso n and Mansbach 1996.

PAGE 24

24 C onventionally defined chiefdoms imply a level of s ocial complexity entailing the emergence of institutionalized social inequality and the formation of mu lti village political units (or polities ) under a centralized political authority (Johnson and Earle 2000; Redmond 1998). Because of this definition, th e concept has come to represent a fundamental difference in the arrangement of human societies and a precursor to the state (Carneiro 1970, 19 81 ; Yoffee 1993, 2005 ). At the inception of these early polities small scale social groups, primarily focused on village and family life articulated into larger social and ideological collectives. According to Carneiro, its significance lies in the fact that it represented, for the first time in human history, the transcending of village autonomy and the establishm The process of regionalization is usually concomitant with substantive transformations that entail the redefinition of the relational linkages between individuals, households, communities and landscapes H owever, the concept of the chiefdom and other typological constructs tell us little abou t the historical circumstances and socio cultural processes leading to regionalization and the organization of social groups at finer social scales Simply put while societa l typologies provide a level of utility in describing complex phenomena isolating some cross cultural commonalities among societies possessing similar demographic and/or organizational features, they have little explanatory power in and of themselves ( Dre nnan 2008 ) To redress this issue, it is necessary to examine how people, at finer social scales, are socially and materially constituted and articulated into larger social and political collectives Central to this is a concern for understanding how soci al collectives, form a medium for political consolidation. I

PAGE 25

25 contend that in order to move beyond traditional archaeological approaches focused on elite age ncy and evolutionary narratives, it is necessary our understanding of community and region help to construct concepts of identity and shape historical by extension, polity. In this research I question pre contact population s as passive agents and instead highlight aspects of human sociality in the development of formative political institutions on the island and in ancient societies in general The Cacicazgo : An Enduring Design The study of chiefdoms has been at the heart o f archaeological research and interpretation of pre contact societies in the Caribbean, and in particular Hispaniola and Puerto Rico. Upon arrival to the Greater Antilles, Spanish chroniclers documented sociopolitical networks of indigenous Tano peoples as a series of cacicazgos (or chiefdoms) under the centralized leadership of caciques (or chiefs) (Las Casas 19 5 1; Oviedo 1959, 1975; Pan 1999). For the past 20 years, archaeological research in the region has focused on the development of regional polit ies emphasizing processes leading to the centralization of authoritative power ( e.g. Curet 1992a, 1996; Keegan 2007; Siegel 1999, 2004, 2006). The typological concept of chiefdom is engrained in archaeological perspectives of the Caribbean where it was, in part, initially conceived (Oberg 1955; Steward and Faron 1959) and where it now represents the apex of social evolution of pre contact societies of the region. Studies of the caicicazgo in the Greater Antilles promote a history of caciques and their abi lity to centralize social and political power through the manipulation of religious ideology in community based r ituals (Curet 1996; Oliver 2009 Siegel 1999). To support this perspective researchers have relied on ceremonial architecture, namely stone li ned

PAGE 26

26 plazas and batey s (ball courts), as evidence for the temporal and spatial distribution of centers of political power and ideological control (Siegel 1991, 1996; Torres 2005). Ceremonial architecture has been a key component in this respect as these fe atures are deemed representative of the formalization of political authority based on the implied power and decision making authority necessary to appropriate the labor for their construction (Alegra 1983:118). Indeed few would disagree that complex re gional polities characterized late pre contact (AD 1200 AD 1500) societies of Puerto Rico and Hispaniola However, our understanding of their organization and the underlying social, cultural, and demographic conditions leading to their inception remain underdeveloped by a complacency induced through an enduring overreliance on the chiefdom concept. Statement of the Problem some idea about when and where social complexity developed details about how and why remain unknown and disagreement pertains to this topic et al. 2004:18 [original emphasis]; also see Wilson 2007:111). Complicating our understanding of the how and why are several con ceptual and methodological problems underpinning archaeological research and interpretation in the region. The first problem relates to the traditional cultural historical framework developed by Irving Rouse (1992). R ecent research in Puerto Rico indicate s a more complex framework (Rodrguez Ramos 2010) the possibility for the engagements of diverse social groups in the creation of cultural

PAGE 27

27 traditions and so cial institutions Further, implicit in this framework is a lineal perspective of sociopolitical development whereby social groups necessarily evolve into more complicated and differentiated forms. The second issue complicating matters is the uncritical use of ethnohistoric documents as a basis for archaeological interpretation. In many cases, researchers employ the ethnohistoric record from a few islands to infer political organization for sing periods of time several centuries prior to their writing (Curet 2003; Curet and Stringer 2010). This promotes regional homogeneity in the organizational form and diversity of social groups through time and space, yet continu es to serve as a cornerstone for archaeological inference in Hispaniola and Puerto Rico. i nterpretation in the Caribbean and Americas in general (Pauketat 2007). More often than not, the concept functions as an explanatory destination rather than a point of departure for examining variable and diverse socialities within socially and historical ly mitigated landscapes. Hence, ideas of the polity (or cacicazgo ) in the Caribbean are cultivated by a perspective of linear development, social homogeneity, and uniform political structure rather than a plurality and diversity of organizations, communit ies, identities, and histories (Curet 2003). This perspective has come at the expense of other domains of archaeological inquiry particularly the underlying conditions shaping regional socialities and the formation of communities (Pauketat 2007; Sassaman and Randall 2007; Yeager and Canuto 2000).

PAGE 28

28 One of the major issues resulting from an overemphasis on the chiefdom concept is the intellectual disconnect between our understanding of the emergence of powerful leaders and the development of supravillage soci al groups which are treated as separate analytical domains albeit highly dependent phenomena. And while I neither deny the emergence of powerful leaders within any society, nor their tremendous impact on the lives they influence, the processes responsible for their emergence is but one small part of a larger (hi)story (Hegmon 2008:222 223) that entails a dialectical relationship between social collectives and institutions of leadership and power (Roscoe 1993; Saitta 1997). Because of these perspectives, i nterpretations of the political landscape of ancient Puerto Rico is punctuated by the role of singular ce ntral places, mainly ceremonial centers or large settlements as points from which political power is centralized and delegated down to subordinate vil lages (Siegel 1996a, 1999, 2004) This position essentializes people and places within space, treating them as individualized and static phenomena. To the contrary, these features are evidence for the historical engagements of people and their interactio ns within the larger world as parts of relational social fields, networks, arenas, institutional structures, and landscapes (Bourdieu 1977; Latour 1999). To develop a fuller understanding of incipient political formations on Puerto Rico it is necessary to critically examine the social and historical conditions under which small scale social groups created and negotiated their social realities in relation to the broader social landscape s in which they lived This approach relies on examining the materialit y of landscape and the important commonalities [that] unite certain groups of individuals

PAGE 29

29 to varying degrees while separating them from those in other similarly defined This perspective recognizes that peopl e are simultaneo usly articulated and fragmented at different scales and in discernible ways based on identities of geograph y kinship, cultural affiliation, political allegiances, and history. Research Objective and Analytical Approach In this research I propose that that the inception of the polity in parts of Puerto Rico was a product of the promotion of communal status and identity. At the core of this idea is a primary concern for studying human sociality and the processes /conditions that served to articulate, reinfor ce and perpetuate social collectives as durable social, symbolic, and political institutions. In this research, the examination of small scale local social groups serves as a starting point for this endeavor. By examining local social formations, within broader historical and organizational contexts of landscapes, I intend to arrive at an understanding of cultural and social phenomena less structured by typological concepts that dictate what incipient polities are and instead focus on how they were devel oped, organized, reproduced, and transformed. In this work I use the concept of community as it forms a relational link between people, place and time and offers a kaleidoscope through which to examine scalar properties of social collectives At one scal e, the community represents local, interdependent, residential social groups that engage in regular face to face interactions bound together in the use of local social and natural resources (Kolb and Snead 1997; Murdock 1949) At another scale, communitie s are socially and symbolically (Isbell 2000), entities that are forged through historical interactions symbolic associations, and negotiations of identity

PAGE 30

30 In order to link concepts about what communities are to the a rchaeological record I focus on their 1) composition and 2) organization evinced through the materiality of settlement, and 3) their symbolic construction through the use and construction of ritual integrative facilities. To do this I rely on multiple lines of archaeological evidence, derived from a variety of sources including : published and unpublished documents on excavated settlements, a Geographical Information Systems database of sites, new research associated with ceremonial centers, a suite of radiocarbon dates, and the results of a field survey I recent ly conducted in the foothills of the south central portio n of the island (Torres 2008). Analytically, I emphasize settlement patterns to examine the composition of social groups, infer aspects re lated to the ir organization, and to show how these transformed through time at local and regional scales In doing so, I show how communities were ( re ) defined between AD 600 and AD 1200 and the implications of these changes on the formation of the cacicaz gos evide nt at European contact Crit ical examination of plaza/ batey s from the region, including an evaluation of their function in the material and symbolic construction of communit y and landscape supplement these analyses. In this research, I focus on the region surrounding the ceremonial center of Tibes just north of the modern city of Ponce in southern Puerto Rico (Figure 1 1). Three mountain chain compose the sou th central region as discussed in this study. These include (from west to east) the Yauco Portugus, and Coamo watersheds. In total, the total landmass.

PAGE 31

31 Tibes is one of the earliest and most complex c eremonial centers on the island, and the Greater Antilles in general. Based on current research Tibes was a modest settlement established by AD 500 ( Curet and Stringer 2010; Gonzlez Coln 1984 ; Pestle 2010 ). Sometime between AD 700 and AD 1100 previously cleared central plaza areas were delimited through the construction of stone lined plazas / batey s that eventually resulted in the twelve stone structures at the site (Curet and Stringer 2010) Figure 1 1. Study area, south central Puerto Rico. In its heyday (ca. AD 900 AD 1200) Tibes was an important social, economic, religious, and political center at the heart of a burgeoning polity ( Gonzlez Colon 1984;

PAGE 32

32 Curet et al. 2006; Curet and Stringer 2010; Torres 2010). Ongoin g archaeological investigations at Tibes, and the surrounding region, indicate that it was an important node within a broader social network at a time of ideological and cultural transformation on the island and across the Caribbean in general (Curet 2005; Curet et al. 2004, 2006; Torres 2005, 2010). Regionalization, shifts in materiality, and the formation of higher level ritual and political institutions often emerge during times when social groups and rules are in flux because of shifting relations in l ocal and regional populations. Therefore, by focusing on the region immediately surrounding Tibes I anticipated that archeological evidence for these changes, and some of the underlying conditions responsible for them, to be readily apparent. This study c ontributes to a growing body of research that offers new insights on ancient history of the Caribbean, a region often relegated to the backburner of archaeological research of the Americas, and questions previous assumptions regarding formative political i nstitutions in the New World based on an evolutionary narrative. This research also highlights processes of community formation and the dynamics of small scale residential social groups in the development of incipient political systems. Fueling the timel y examination of the region, and the issues presented in this work, are recent publications of the pre contact history of Tibes (Curet and Stringer eds. 2010), the island (Rodrguez Ramos 2010), the extraordinary and controversial finds at PO 29 (Espenshad e and Young 200 8 2011 ; Siegel et al. 2009 ), and the region as a focal point of indigenous political resistance since the time of European contact (Sued Badillo 2008). Finally, this research strives to promote the

PAGE 33

33 rimony and contribute to the ongoing narrative of A Map to this Study This work consists of ten chapters; including this introduction. In Chapter 2 I review the cultural historical framework and archaeological contexts for the islan d with specific focus on the south central region I begin by presenting a brief review of research related to sociopolitical development and organization on the island followed by an overview of the cultural historical framework developed by Irving Rouse (1992). The heart of this chapter consists of an in depth discussion of current archaeological evidence from the island to provide a nuanced historical context for the research presented here The final portion of this chapter summarizes previous resear ch from the south central region and evaluates available radiocarbon dates from the area to contextualize the present study in its immediate archaeological and geographical setting s. Chapter 3 introduces some of the key theoretical concepts discussed in th is work. In the first part of this chapter, I briefly discuss anthropological approaches to formative political institutions. I then examine the concept of community by emphasiz ing aspects structuring the organization of small scale residential social gr oups. Here, I focus on the role of kinship, households, and ritual as important dimensions that structure communiti es. I conclude this chapter with a brief discussion of landscape and how it links people and places in the structuration of society Chapte r 4 supplies background and methodological considerations for this research. I first outline the analytical strategies and methodologies guiding this research. As a large portion of this work employs settlement pattern data, I then give a

PAGE 34

34 review of settl ement research in archaeology and the Caribbean In this chapter I also discuss some of the factors influencing the spatiality of social groups and patterns of distance that structure settlement and social interaction. This discussion contribute s to the interpretation of patterns observed in the archaeological data as presented in C hapters 7, 8 and 9. Chapter 5 presents the methods and detailed results of the Tibes Archaeological Survey Project (TASP), an archaeological survey I conducted in the regio n immediately surrounding the ceremonial center of Tibes ( Torres 2008 ). This section gives descriptions of the sites identified during the survey and characterizes settlement variability in the Tibes locality. The results of this survey form a foundation for further analysis and a point of departure for comparative examination of community organization throughout the broader study region. In Chapter 6 I provide the analyses and interpretations of the artifacts and sample of faunal remains recovered during the survey. These materials situate social groups within the local landscape associated with Tibes and provide clues to the functional and temporal context of the newly identified archaeological sites. I revisit the pottery data from this chapter in C ha pter 8 to evaluate the composition and temporal duration of residential settlements in relation to other similarly constituted settlements in the south central region between AD 600 and AD 1200. Chapter 7 presents the settlement pattern analyse s for the so uth central region Through detailed examination of regional settlement landscapes I characterize the variability in regional settlement through time elucidate the distribution and organization of regional populations and discuss the implications on th e (trans ) formation of

PAGE 35

35 communities. In doing so, I reveal a major reconfiguration in the regional social landscape between AD 600 and AD 1200 that entailed a fundamental restructuring of local and regional social relations during that period In Chapter 8 I return to the local landscape associated with Tibes to discuss community organization by examining the composition of residential settlements In this chapter I focus on co resident social groups and households to elucidate community members in their most elemental settings. Here, I compare data from two residential settlements recorded during the field survey (PO 42 and PO 43) to other sim ilar c oeval settlements in the south central region betwee n AD 600 and AD 1200 Through this, I demonstrate how the changing structure of residential settlement contributed to the creation of local identities and new forms of community that contrast with previous social formations. In Chapter 9, I conclude the analytical portion of this work through a review and eva luation of plazas/ batey s from the region This chapter explores the use of these spaces and their role in the social and material construction of people and that came to define social, symbolic, and political communities in the post AD 600 landsc ape of Puerto Rico This discussion relies on spatial distributions, size, and labor estimates of a sample of these features to address assumptions of political development, consolidation, and regional hierarchies. This chapter also examines the role of these features in the articulation of social communities the implications for the organization of local and regional social groups. To conclude this study, the final chapter (Chapter 10) offers a synthesis and discussion of this research which demonstrates that the social construction of the

PAGE 36

36 community, variously structured and imagined between AD 600 and AD 1200 served as a basis for local and regional social order and a foundation for incipient political institutions in the region Ultimately, this work provides an alternative view to the formulaic models of political development on the island entailing the expropriation of power by the elite, static hierarchies, and the passivity of non elite inherent in current interpretations. Here the cacicazgos of a ncient Puerto Rico were living communities of people, intimately tied to one another through social relations, history, and places on the landscape I conclude this chapter with suggestions for future research for the region, the island and for studies o f ancient polities and communities in general.

PAGE 37

37 CHAPTER 2 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL C ONTEXTS OF SOCIOPOLITICAL CHANGE IN PRE CONTACT PUERTO RICO In this chapter I present the cultural historical framework and archaeological contexts for this s tudy. Writing this chapter was a challenge because the traditional cultural historical framework developed by Irving Rouse (1992) is rapidly changing. Stimulating these changes is a wealth of new data generated from cultural resource management (CRM) and academic research projects on the island since the 1980s. This research demonstrates that there is more variability in the spatial and temporal arrangement of peoples on the island, bringing into question traditional notions of social and cultural develo pment. I begin this chapter by summarizing recent research regarding the development and organization of the cacicazgo time space systematics that defines basic terms and concepts and identifies some o f the problems associated with their use. Next, I provide culture historical contexts for the island with particular attention to the social and cultural milieu between AD 600 and AD 1200. This was a period of marked social and cultural transformations a nd represents the temporal focus of this work. I conclude this chapter with a brief review of archaeological research from the south central region. Here I summarize the major archaeological finds a nd evaluate a suite of radiocarbon assays which serve as points of reference and units of comparison later in this study. The Study of Sociopolitical Organization in Pre contact Puerto Rico As briefly introduced in Chapter 1, our current perception of sociopolitical organization in ancient Puerto Rico derives from ethnohistoric documents depicting a series of complex, territorial polities ( cacicazgos ) on the islands of Hispaniola and

PAGE 38

38 Puerto Rico upon European contact. Described by Spanish chroniclers, cacicazgos are large territories, comprising many smaller v illages ( yucayake ), under the leadership of a paramount cacique 1 (chief or lord) that controls the social, economic and ritual aspects of society. Ethnohistoric descriptions of the cacicazgos of Hispaniola and Puerto Rico primarily come from the writings of Columbus (1969), Pan (1999), Oviedo y Valdz L as Casas (19 51 ). The most detailed descriptions of indigenous sociopolitical organization are from Hispaniola and many scholars often utilize these accounts as direct analogs for describing Late Ceramic Age (AD 1200 AD 1500) society and culture in Puerto Rico. Scholars also rely on the writings of Fernndez de Ovido y Valdez whose Histora general y natural de las Indias (1959; 1975) gives a detail ed second hand account of major events that transpired at the time of Spanish settlement and conquest of the island. Early research of the cacicazgos on Puerto Rico and Hispaniola focused on the identification of political territories and the location of c hiefly settlements described in the Spanish chronicles 2 ( e.g. Fewkes 1907; Loven 2010 [1935]; Rouse 1952; Vescielus 1980). It was not until the late 20 th century that scholars began to study process of development and the organizational dynamics of these 1980s, researchers employed adaptationist perspectives that focused on subsistence economy to explain social, cultural, and political chan ge 3 (Binford 1968; Vargas Arenas 1 The word cacique was interpreted by the Spanish to mean king or governor but in the native language the word was perhaps ka siqua meaning with house or head of houses (Arrom in Pan 1999:8). 2 See Carbone 1980, Curet 2003 and Curet and Stringer 2010 for discussion. 3 See Curet 1992a 82 97 for discussion

PAGE 39

39 1985; Veloz Maggiolo 19 84). However, while population/resource imbalances undoubtedly affected the formation of regional polities on the island, these factors do not appear to be the primary causes for their development (C ur et 1992a; Torres and Curet 2008 ). Through the 1980s and 1990s, archaeologists became interested in processes of political consolidation and the evolution of social complexity in mid range societies. During this time, researchers working in the Caribbean (and other regions ) stressed neo evolutionary schemas of societal development from tribes to chiefdoms and between simple and complex forms of the latter (Table 2 1; Moscoso 1981; Siegel 1996 a ). 4 Table 2 1. Idealized representation of sociopolitical evo lution for Puerto Rico 5 Period Social Org. Community Org Ideological Org Mortuary Patterns Cultural Complex PIV AD 1200 AD 1500 Simple Complex Chiefdom s Polity Based Village Hierarchy Ancestor worship with ideology of domination Clan based; Socially partitioned by grave goods Esperanza, Capa, Boca Chica PIII AD 600 AD 1200 Complex Tribe Simple Chiefdom Small village Large village batey Ancestor Worship; Incipient ascripitive social inequality Community based ballcourts Monserrate Santa Elena PII 50 0 BC AD 600 Tribe Complex Tribe Village Oriented, Central Plaza Ringed by communal houses Ancestor Worship; Egalitarian Ethic Community based central plaza area Hacienda Grande, Cuevas 4 Siegel (2010) has recently shifted his definition of evolution to imply social and cultural change in the broader sense of the word. 5 Adapted from Seigel, P.E. (1996) Ideology an d Culture Change in Prehistoric Puerto Rico: A View from the Community. Journal of Field Archaeology 23(3):313 333.

PAGE 40

40 By the late 1990s, concepts associated with political economy, empha sizing economic and ideological processes, served as the central platform for framing research questions and interpreting archaeological data. In this research, the evolution of the cacicazgos was reliant upon the ability of powerful self aggrandizers to successfully command labor and production through control and manipulation of social, religious, and symbolic capital (Curet 1992a; 1996; Moscoso 1981; Oliver 1992a, 1998; Siegel 1991, 1996 a 1999). For Siegel (2004, 2006, 2010) this process stimulated re gional antagonism and conflict among social groups which he conceives as the primary impetus for the regional consolidation of local social collectives. Current wisdom suggests that the centralization of political power on Puerto Rico was a result of elite based strategies associated with the corporate mode of political economy. 6 Here motivated self aggrandizers consolidated political power through hosting perfromative rituals demonstrating access to apical ancestors and control over associated ideological symbols and objects (Curet 1996; Oliver 2009; Siegel 1996 a 1999). Supporting this hypothesis is the proliferation of ceremonial objects, shifts in settlement patterns, and the emergence of communal based integrative ritual facilities (plazas/ batey s) thr oughout the island after AD 600. 6 Blanton and colleagues (1996) initially conceived of corporate and network political economic strategies as occurring in a variety of soci al formations; not constrained to a particular societal type or scale of development. The corporate sociopolitical power within all societies (Blanton et al. 1996:3). In the network mode, a ccess to power is through the acquisition of wealth based on a prestige good economy in which elites control access to preciosities and/or critical natural resources in exclusionary exchange networks. In contrast, the corporate mode posits that the centra lization of power is through control over communal ritual activities and staple finance (Blanton et al. 1996: 7). Broadly conceived, the model represents a continuum with both modes present to varying degrees at any particular point in time.

PAGE 41

41 Additional evidence s upporting the centralization of political power through corporate strategies, are archaeological correlates indicating the reduction in size of domestic structures (and by extension -households [Curet 1 992b]) and exclusionary mortuary practices that point to a decreased emphasis on kinship and the crystallization of institutions of status and rank (Curet and Oliver 1998). Research from Puerto Rico and southeastern Hispaniola indicates that symbolically charged objects, such as three pointed cemi s, stone colla rs, and ritually charged spaces are the material referents for the personification of elite power and authority ( Alegra 1995; Curet 1996; Oliver 2009; Siegel 1999; Walker 1993). These changes are a lso thought to represent shifts in the domestic economy (Moscoso 1981). Both interpretations are complementary and emphasize the narrowing of social and political power to particular individuals. Fundamental to current interpretations are stone lined plaz as and batey s (ballcourts). These features are considered the primary evidence for the temporal and spatial distribution of centers of political power, communal ceremonies, and corve labor projects controlled by chiefly individuals (Alegra 1983; Ortiz A guil 2009; Siegel 1991, 1999 ). However, noted variability in the distribution, size, spatial arrangement, construction techniques, and pet roglyphs on the stones composing these features suggests that sociopolitical organization and its ideological basis was regionally variable among the peoples of the Greater Antilles (Curet 2003; Keegan 2007:57; Oliver 2007, 2009). The structural variability of these features and their underlying implications on the organization of local and regional social groups of th e island have yet to be fully explored and documented.

PAGE 42

42 Traditionally, the political landscape of Puerto Rico is seen as a tiered hierarchy based on the total area of plazas/ batey s at a given site. Regional analysis supporting this interpretation rests on a limited number of sites with emphasis on those utilized immediately prior to European contact (Siegel 1991, 1999). This axiom promotes the role of singular central places from which ideological, administrative, and ultimately political power is centrali zed and delegated down to subordinate residential settlements. A troubling consequence of this schema is the homogenization of organizational variability of regional social groups during and prior to the late pre contact era. Moreover, this perspective o bfuscates a relational perspective of interacting social groups at finer social scale of analysis T his perspective is unwittingly perpetuated throughout the archeological literature of the region. Current scholarly discourse regarding political developme nt and organization in the region advocates a shift from one dimensional portrayals of the past to approaches that examine various social and cultural processes at finer social and temporal scales of analysis ( e.g. Curet and Stringer 2010; Keegan 2007; Ol iver 2009; Rodrguez Ramos has gone toward the collection of more refined data at the smaller level of community or household in order to develop more detailed and reali 2010:3). I contend that this endeavor is also restrained by the lack of attention paid to the dialectic between communal bodies and institutions of power in the structuration of society (Giddens 1984; Roscoe 1993). This s tudy is a response to these issues. Here the focus on communities, and the historical circumstances influencing the formation of local social groups, reveals some of the conditions for how people coalesced in

PAGE 43

43 particular places at particular times articul ated into broader social and political communities, and how such interactions may have changed over time. Rousean Time Space Systematics Irving Rouse devised the cultural historical framework for Puerto Rico and the Caribbean during the Classificatory His torical period of North American archaeology. 7 than five decades and contemporary scholars are indebted to his many contributions (as noted in Petersen et al. 200 4). Rou several times since the late 1930s ( e.g. Cruxent and Rouse 19 58 ; Rouse 1939, 1948a, 1948b, 1951, 1952, 1964, 1986, 1992, Rouse and Cruxent 1963) and is in revision again, particularly for Puerto Rico ( e.g. Rodrguez Ramos 2010; Rodrguez Ramos et al. 2010). of (in ascending order) style (or complex), subseries, and series His motivation for developing this system was principally for track and space (Rouse 1986; Siegel 1996b). He created the framework through defining styles of pottery (and other archaeological materials), and grouping these into larger classificatory units based on similarities in at tributes or modes observed through comparative analysis. The categories w culturally Rouse classified pottery styles on the concept of modes that represent sets of commonly occurring attribu tes in artifacts. Modes, and the stylistic qualities of other aspects of material culture, were considered to reflect the cultural norms of the people 7 See Wiley and Sabloff 1974 for historical overview.

PAGE 44

44 who made them (Cruxent and Rouse 1958:2; Rouse 1952 :326 327; Rouse 1972; Siegel 1996b). Hence, similar 26, Keegan 2007:52 58; Petersen et al. 2004). For Puerto Rico, Rouse never formally published all of the ceramic modes and recent critiques note inconsistencies in the stylistic attributes for classifying pottery as well as the interpretive implications associated with his framework (Gutirrez and Rodrguez 2009). historical schema is the unit of style or comp lex In his book, The Tanos Rouse defines ceramic styles in two ways: 1) the -a site ceramic traits that has spread to neighboring peoples or has survived among subsequent peoples a trait Rouse typically used the first definition and reserved the term complex rather than style for material culture associated with Lithic and Archaic cultures (Cruxent and Rouse 1958:3; Rouse 1992). Rouse n oted that pottery assemblages from different geographical areas and times shared many similarities but were not identical. Hence, he proposed that some ceramic styles, and by extension cultures and peoples, were related based on these shared modes. Spati ally and temporally related styles sharing common modes were considered descendant from a common ancestor (Siegel 1996b). Thus, Rouse developed the term series

PAGE 45

45 not all, of their diagnostic mod es forming a continuous series, extending through time or 184). 8 Until the mid 1980s, pottery styles in Puerto Rico (Santa Elena, Early (Pure) Ostiones, Late (Modified) Ostiones, Cap, Esperanza, and Boca Chica) were classifi ed into three separate series: Ostionoid, Elenoid, and Chicoid (Rouse 1982, 1986:143). This categorization had the unintended consequence of obfuscating variability in the material culture and the historical relationships among the three series. In 1980 Gary Vescielus created an intermediate taxonomical level between the style and series termed subseries which Rouse later adopted ( Vescielus 1980; Rouse 1992:33). 9 and cultures tha diverged or evolved from a common ancestral style could be grouped together as a subseries. The processes that distinguish one subseries from one another were explained either through decreased interaction between daughter styles or the adoption of foreign elements and/or innovations that were shared by daughter styles of one of the subseries but not the others (as summarized in Weaver et. al 1992). Style, subseries, and series terms ar e all frequently used to denote cultural manifestations as well as the temporal range in which a particular style, subseries or series is thought to have spanned. In each case, these terms apply to different conceptual contexts that are often neither cons istently maintained nor explicitly defined 8 Series were named from the first style in which the series was identified or from the earliest instance or most typical style for the series. To distinguish them from styles, series n ames are followed by the su ffix oid ( e.g. Saladero yields Salad oid). 9 Subseries are named after the style most typical of the subseries proceeded by the suffix an to distinguish it from both sty le and series.

PAGE 46

46 in archaeological studies of the Caribbean. Nonetheless, most Caribbean researchers continue to use these terms for delineating cultures, space, and time. Rouse identified one Archaic complex and nine ceramic sty les for Puerto Rico (Figure 2 1) which he categorized into four distinct cultural periods (PI, PII, PIII and PIV) each with an early and late (a, b) component (Rouse 1992:52 and 107). These periods are traditionally used to define the Archaic age (PI) (c. a. 1000 BC 300 BC) and the ceramic sequences associated with the Saladoid (PII) series (300 BC AD 600), the Elenan and Ostionan Ostionoid (PIII) subseries (AD 600 1200) and, the Chican Ostionoid (PIV) subseries (AD1200 1500). DATE (APPROXIMATE) PERI OD SERIES SUBSERIES COMPLEX/STYLE WEST EAST WEST EAST AD1200 1500 IVa Ostionoid Chican Cap/Boca Chica Esperanza AD 900 1200 IIIb Ostionan Elenan Late Modified Ostiones Santa Elena AD 600 900 IIIa Early Pure Ostiones Monserrate AD 400 600 IIb Late Saladoid Huecoid Saladoid Cedrosan (for Saladoid only) Cuevas 300 BC AD 400 200 BC AD 600 500 BC AD 400 IIa | | | La Hueca Hacienda Grande 4000 BC AD 100 Ib Ortoroid Coroso Figure 2 1. Socio temporal f ramework for Puerto Rico 10 Recently Rodrguez Ramos (2010) show ed that cultural development is neither temporal boxes. Using a suite of recalibrated radiocarbon dates from the island, he demonstrat e d that the temporal 10 Adapted from Rouse, I. (1992) The Tainos pp. 52 53, 107. Yale Unive rsity Press, New Haven

PAGE 47

47 distribution of pottery shows instances where more than one culture overlapped in time and space (Figure 2 2) suggesting a more dynamic and plural landscape than previously conceived. 11 As a result, Rodrguez Ramos promotes a reticulat e model of cultural development rather than one characterized by clear phylogenic relationships. Figure 2 2. Temporal distribution of pottery styles for the island of Puerto Rico. High lack boxes denote ranges based on Rouse (1992). (Figure based on Rodrguez Ramos 2010). 11 perpetuated by others) has heavily influenced conceptualizations of the development of social complexity whereby earlier cultures were l ess evolved or developed than those of later time periods.

PAGE 48

48 the temporal distribution of radiocarbon dates and associated pottery styles reveals several discrepancies. For instance, earlier cultural manifestations represented by Hacienda Grande and La Hueca styles persist much longer and overlap with purportedly e arlier Archaic complexes as well as later pottery of the Osti onoid series. Further, Cuevas pottery is documented in the same context with Ostiones, Monserrate, and Santa Elena styles at some sites, while at others only one style is present. Similarly, Mo dified Ostiones and the Santa Elena styles overlap with the dates of purportedly earlier Pure Ostiones and Monserrate styles. The variability points to a landscape characterized by diverse social g is not always the result of mechanical admixtures or post Despite problems with the current cultural chronology, it is important to note that there are patterns in the temporal and spatial distribution of material culture on the island that promote the diachronic examination of local and regional social groups. I contend that the variability in cultural expressions is contingent upon particular local contexts that are not necessarily tempo rally synchronized for the island as a whole. In this sense, the varying temporal distributions of material culture reflect historical trajectories of social groups occupying smaller regions ( i.e. micro regions) or locales ( sensu Giddens 1984) and emer gent interaction spheres that may lose interpretive precision over larger geographical scales (Thomas and Ehrich 1969). Hence, one of the primary goals of current research should be the development of regional and micro regional histories (Keegan 2001). This scale of analysis lends itself to understanding

PAGE 49

49 social and cultural transformations, like the emergence of ancient social and political communities that, while linked at larger inclusive social and spatial scales, become more apparent at smaller ones (Curet 2003). It is at these smaller scales where social agents make decisions and where shifts in social practices leading to social and cultural change originate. Pre C ontact Culture History of Puerto Rico temporal periods (I, II, III and IV) form the basis for the following cultural historical overview of the island. While the details and timing of specific social and cultural manifestations is still a matter of contention, I utilize periods as a rough guide for distinguishi ng major cultural trends evident in the archaeological record. Of particular importance is recognition that the distinct socio periods of interaction and transformation rathe r than strict delimiters of them. Hence the use of periods should not limit our ability to envision the existence of socially and culturally diverse communities with unique identities and histories. Period I: Pre 4000 BC AD 100) The earliest evidence for human occupation on the island of Puerto Rico is defi ned Ortoiroid Series) Coroso complex (Rouse 1992). Artifact assemblages lacking pottery but containing abundant stone (particularly groundstone) and shell tools (Alegra 1965; Rouse 1992) traditionally define this complex. Archaic habitation sites are generally considered small, ephemeral occupations located near coastal or estuarine environments (Alegra et al. 1955; Ayes Surez 19 89; Rodrguez Lpez 1999, 2004; Rouse and Alegra 1990). While Rouse conceived that the Archaic peoples were culturally homogenous, recent research suggests that the island may

PAGE 50

50 have been a point of convergence of multiple social groups from Central and So uth America (Rodrguez Ramos 2010; Veloz Maggiolo 1993). Archaic social organization is based on evolutionary models of complexity associated with hunter gatherer societies where social groups are comprised of small mobile bands lacking pottery and cultige ns (Alegra et al. 1955:113; Rouse 1992:58). Because of this, Archaic groups on Puerto Rico were thought to have little if any impact on the development of subsequent cultural groups and their sociopolitical formations (Curet 2005; Rouse 1992; also see R odrguez Ramos 2010; Rodrguez Ramos et al. 2010). The earliest evidence of the settlement of Puerto Rico comes from the sites of Angostura, which produced a radiocarbon date of 4900 cal. BC (Ayes Surez 1993) and Maruca, located on the south central co ast, dating to 2700 cal. BC (Rodrguez Lpez 1999, 2004). These dates are also supported by evidence for early anthropogenic landscape modifications through intentional burning and clearing of forested areas (Burney et al. 1994; Siegel et al. 2005). E vidence from Cueva Mara de la Cruz (Rouse and Alegra 1990), Paso del Indio (Clark et al. 2003; Walker 2005), and Yanuel 9 (Tronolone et al. 1984) show that Archaic populations existed at least through AD 100 and interacted with Saladoid populations (Ro drguez Ramos 2010:150 155). Hence, instead of the Saladoid colonizers rapidly replacing the previous inhabitants, they lived side by side for as long as 600 years. Archaic settlement patterns are not well documented, especially in the interior river vall eys. Data for existing sites primarily comes from coastal locations. Angostura is a

PAGE 51

51 large site exceeding 5 ha on the northern coast of the island and other large Archaic period sites are registered for the south central region at Cayo Cofres (Veloz et a l. 197 5 ) and Maruca (Rodrguez Lopez 199 9 ) The presence of postmolds indicating semi permanent structures at Paso del Indio (Walker 2005) and Maruca (Rodrguez Lpez 199 9 ) suggest some degree of sedentism. Burial clusters registered at Maruca suggest l ong term use and brings into question the degree of mobility (and ultimately Paleobotanical research from several Archaic contexts provides evidence that Archaic groups cultivate d a wide variety of plants (deFrance and Newsom 2005; Newsom 1993; 2008; Newsom and Pearsall 2003; Newsom and Wing 2004; Pagn Jimnez et al. 2005). The results from these studies indicate the presence of maize ( Zea Mays ), manioc ( Manihot esculenta) yam ( Dioscorrea spp. ), and sweet potato ( Ipomoea batatas) centuries prior to the arrival of later Saladoid and Huecan groups the purported purveyors of horticulture and plant domestication to the island In addition, pottery has been recovered from Archaic contexts at over a dozen sites on Puerto Rico. Current research shows that many of the design motifs from this early pottery are replicated in later Ostionoid pottery assemblages, suggesting that the development of the Ostionoid period culture groups was in part a product of interactions between Saladoid/Huecoid colonists and Archaic groups (Chanlatte Baik 1990; Rodrguez Ramos 2010). In a recent paper, Rodrguez Ramos and colleagues suggest that Ostiones pottery emerged directly from Archaic pottery trad itions in Hispaniola (Rodrguez Ramos et al. 2008).

PAGE 52

52 Based on this combined evidence, Rodrguez Ramos (2010) refers to these groups as pre circumscription, subsistence orientation, an d lack of ceramic technology. The early emplacement of pre Arawakan people and their long term occupation on the island indicates a social landscape well established upon the arrival of Saladoid and Huecoid colonists ( Chanlatte Baik 1995; Keegan 2006 ; Sie gel 1989; Rodrguez Ramos 2010). Hence while their use of plants, pottery, and stone tools likely varied from later colonizers, they were neither easily displaced nor eradicated from the cultural landscape. The full implications of the interactions betwe en pre Arawakan and later cultures are still in development. However, the view that they were unsophisticated passive agents is no longer tenable with current evidence indicating prolonged interaction and mixing of pre Arawak and later colonizing populati ons. Period II: Saladoid/Huecoid Series (ca. 500 BC AD 600) Around 500 BC ceramic bearing horticulturalists migrated to the island. These groups are defined by Rouse as the Arawak speaking Cedrosan Saladoid and (linguistically undetermined) Huecan pottery making groups. Traditional conceptualizations of Saladoid migration into Puerto Rico point to northeastern Venezuela and the Orinoco River basin as points of origin (Rouse 1992). Their arrival to Puerto Rico and surrounding islands has been (and continu es to be) a subject of scholarly interest tied to studies of migration from and population movements within the South American continent (Heckenberger 200 2 2005; Keegan 2004, 2009 a ). Rouse conceived migrations to Puerto Rico as a stepping stone model in which populations from South America moved into the region by successively following the

PAGE 53

53 model is evidence for the earliest documented Saladoid sites in the northern Lesser Antilles and in Puerto Rico indicating a direct migration from the South American mainland (Callaghan 2003; Haviser 1997:61; Keegan 2004, 2009a ; Torres and Rodrguez Ramos 2008). For instance, one of the earliest known Saladoid sites in the Antilles is T ecla, located in southern Puerto Rico, dating to approximately 500 cal. BC ( Narganes Storde 1999). In contrast, there is little evidence for Saladoid settlements in Trinidad or the Windward islands until around AD 200 (Haviser 1997; Keegan 2004). 12 Later settlement of the Windward Islands appears to reflect population expansion north from South America and movement south from Puerto Rico and the Leeward Islands. Both Siegel (2010) and Keegan (20 09a ) suggest that the process of migration was characterized settlements with continued interactions and subsequent arrivals once they were established. In addition to evidence for colonists from South America, unpainted pottery called La Hueca suggest s migrations from the Isthmo Columbian region (Rodrguez Ramos 2010). This style of pottery was first recognized at La Hueca Sorc by Chanlatte Baik (1990) and later at Punta Candelero by Miguel Rodrguez Lopez ( 1991). Rouse (1992) envisioned La Hueca as diverging from a common Saladoid ancestry and made it a sub series of the Saladoid series. Initially supporting this idea were pottery studies that did not see significant variation in vessel attributes between Hacienda Grande and Huecan assemblages (Car ini 1991; Roe 1989). Hence, earlier perspectives viewed Huecan and Saladoid pottery makers as two culturally similar but competing ethnic 12 In a recent publication Siegel notes potential Saladoid settlement of Barbados by BC 400 and Trinidad by BC 300 BC 400 (Siegel 2010:4).

PAGE 54

54 groups (Roe 1989). Rouse originally thought La Hueca material represented an offshoot of the Hacienda Grande style a nd not a separate cultural series (1982:48 49). classification of Huecan materials within the Saladoid series caused substantial debate. Chanlatte (1990), not seeing the connection between La Hueca and Hacienda Grande, placed this ne w complex at the level of series calling it Huecoid or Agro I, and re named the Saladoid series to Agro II. A rtifact assemblages recovered from the sites of La Hueca Sorc and Punta Candelero site in eastern Puerto Rico (Rodrguez Lpez 1991), Hope Estate and other sites in St. Martin (Haviser 1991; Hofman and Hoogland 1999), and Morel I in Guadeloupe (Hofman et al. 2001) further support the idea of a distinct cultural group different from the previously defined Saladoid series (Oliver 1999). Saladoid and Huecoid Material Culture Hacienda Grande pottery on Puerto Rico marks the earliest material manifestation of the Saladoid series (ca. 500 BC AD 600). The distribution of Hacienda Grande sites is generally confined to the eastern third of Puerto Rico, w ith further migration west Hispaniola (Veloz Maggiolo 1972, 1991, 1993). The high quality Hacienda Grande pottery is thin, well fired, and of fine paste with few aplastic inclusions. Diagnostic for the style are painted design elements consisting of bichromatic painting (particularly white on red) using curvilinear and anthropomorphic motifs (Rouse and Alegra 1990). Fragments of ceramic griddles (or burens ) also are com mon in early Saladoid sites. The presence of these griddles generally indicates reliance on cultivated plants, and in particular, manioc. However, recent research demonstrates that other foods such as maize and meats were also being prepared and

PAGE 55

55 cooked o n them as well (Pagn Jimnez 2008a and 2008b; Rodrguez Surez and Pagn Jimnez 2008; VanderVeen 2009). Hacienda Grande pottery makers also used stone, shell, coral, and bone to produce a variety of tools and items of personal decoration. Of particular note are finely worked ground stone beads, amulets and pendants. Common amongst the amulets and pendants are intricately carved and polished shell and semi precious exotic stone artifacts representing a simple frog motif. These amulets have a widespread distribution from Puerto Rico through much of the Lesser Antilles and northern South America (Cody 1993). Other items created from bone and shells consist of needles, spoons, gouges, celts, hoes, and simple three pointers or cemis ( e.g. Rodrguez Lpez 1983). Similarities in the widespread distribution of motifs (in pottery and other items), is sug a collection of superficial resemblances that served 2009a ). This veneer would have provided a common ideological arena for the interaction of widely dispersed groups; serving as a socially integrative mechanism to mitigate risks associated with the colonization of a new social landscape. In contrast, La Hueca (ca. 200 BC AD 800) pottery has modeled incised decoration. The geographic distribution of this style is primarily limited to the eastern edge of Puerto Rico and the northern Lesser Antilles. In addition to pottery, unique to the Huecoid assemblages are condor like pe ndants with both animal and human figures clasped in their claws (Chanlatte Baik 1981, 1983; 1993; Chanlatte Baik and Narganes Storde 1980, 1990: Rodrguez Lpez 1991). Other differences between Huecoid and Hacienda Grande assemblages are noted in lithic reduction sequences (Rodrguez

PAGE 56

56 Ramos 2001, 2010). The differences in material culture between Huecoid and Saladoid assemblages do not mean that there were not shared commonalities between them. In fact, Oliver notes the ceremonial use of cohoba and assoc iated paraphernalia as points of similarity (Oliver 2009:33). I n light of recent archaeological discussions it is now generally accepted that Saladoid and Huecoid are two distinct cultural groups that migrated to the region at approximately the same time either together or separately (Curet et al. 2004; Keegan 2004; 20 09a ). Cuevas (Period IIb Period III ca. AD 400 AD 1 0 00?) Cuevas pottery conventionally represents the latter i.e. Period IIb). Cuevas pottery is a continuat ion of Saladoid traditions and its early manifestations ( i.e. prior to AD 600) reflect the changing social and cultural landscape on Puerto Rico. Sites with Cuevas pottery are widely distributed; spanning from the eastern Dominican Republic (Veloz Maggio lo 1991, 1993) to the Virgin Islands (Hayward and Cinquino 2002; Righter 2002). Cuevas related settlements are well documented across Puerto Rico (see SEARCH 2008 :19 21 for a discussion) and include Tibes, Las Flores, Caas, PO 38, and Collores in the sou th central region; AR 39 in the Arecibo river valley in the northwest; and Punta Candelero and the Kings Helmet site, on the southeast coast near Yabucoa. Rainey first documented Cuevas pottery at the site of Caas 13 which contributed to defining decorativ e motifs and vessel forms for the style (Rainey 1940:35 62). Contrasting to Hacienda Grande and La Hueca pottery, Cuevas shows a decline in design elements, manufacture, and overall aesthetics (Curet 1997). Rouse initially 13 Located within the south central study region approxim ately 5 km southeast of Tibes.

PAGE 57

57 dated Cuevas pottery to AD 400 600. However, work conducted by Siegel (1991) at Maisbel, Oliver at Lower Camp (19 92 b ), and a reevaluation of radiocarbon dates by Rodrguez Ramos (Rodrguez Ramos et al. 2010) suggest that Cuevas pottery continues several hundred years past AD 600, part icularly on the eastern side of the island, where it persists to about AD 1000 (also see SEARCH 2011a, 2011b ). Current research indicates that while the Cuevas pottery began late in Period II, framework) from Cuevas to later pottery styles ( e.g. Monserrate to Santa Elena). Instead, the broad occurrence of the Cuevas style suggests that there is a tradition of finely made, red painted pottery that carried on into Period III. Hence, it is likel y that Cuevas pottery developed from the red painted tradition of the Saladoid style, but continued to make up a small component of the ceramic repertoire in later Ostionan and Elenan Ostionoid assemblages ( SEARCH 2011b ). Period II Settlement Patterns and Sociopolitical Organization Saladoid settlements are typically located a short distance from the coast, occupying areas adjacent to freshwater streams or rivers representing an opportunistic and flexible subsistence adaptation (Boomert 2001; Curet 2005; Si egel 1989, 1993; Torres 2005). However, settlement locations during this time may have served other purposes related to sociopolitical organization; such as maintaining regional contact with other widely dispersed groups, through both land and water trave l (Keegan 2004, 2010; Siegel 1991, 1993). Despite their general coastal orientation, Hacienda Grande pottery is documented in the lowest levels at several inland sites that are spatially transitional between the coastal plains and foothills physiographic z ones. Examples of settlements on the south

PAGE 58

58 central coast are Tecla (Chanlatte Baik 1976), Caas (Rouse 1952), Tibes (Curet and Stringer eds. 20 10 ; Gonzlez Colon 1984), Hernndez Colon (Maz Lpez 2002), and Collores ( Rodrguez Lpez 1983). Saladoid vill ages tend to be oriented in a circular or horseshoe pattern with domestic structures surrounding large open plaza areas relatively devoid of cultural material (Siegel and Bernstien 1991) 14 The spatial organization of villages is posited to stem from tradi tional cosmological conceptualizations that Arawak speaking groups brought with them from South America (Heckenberger 200 2 2005; Siegel 1995). In Puerto Rico, early Saladoid settlements are relatively large averaging up to approximately 8 ha (Siegel 1996 ). Current evidence indicates these settlements were permanent and functionally undifferentiated, consisting of one or more multi family domestic structures (Boomert 2001; Curet 1992; Siegel 1989). In this context, the maloca style domestic structure is believed the type used for Saladoid sites in Puerto Rico and may have continued to be used in some post Saladoid sites in the Lesser Antilles (Siegel 1992). The central clearings, or plazas, in villages, appear to have been utilized communally for both rel igious ceremonies and daily activities (Curet and Oliver 1998: 22; Oliver 1992:7; Siegel 1996: 319, 1999:216). At some Saladoid settlements, this central space also functions as a burial ground (Curet and Oliver 1998; Keegan 20 10 ; Rodrguez Lpez 1991; Sieg el 1999). This central space is thought to represent the axis mundi through which spiritual connections with deceased ancestors were formed 14 R ecent research has noted potentially more variability in the spatial organization of Saladoid villages than previously observed during this time (see Keegan 2009) and there has been some debate on this issue (see Si egel 2010)

PAGE 59

59 during religious ceremonies (Siegel 1996, 1999:216; 2010; Oliver 1992). Saladoid social groups did not physically segregate this space through the construction of stone alignments. By the end of the 4 th century AD, the onset of Cuevas pottery coincided with an increased diversity in settlement locations -including areas further inland and parts of eastern Hispaniola ( Curet 2005; Lundberg 1985; Rodrguez Lpez 1983; Torres 2001, 2005). Late Cuevas related settlements (after AD 600) show more diversity in sizes, probably a reflection of coastal vs. inland settlement locations and the topographic variability of habitable landforms in each of these settings. For example, research of late Cuevas related sites in the municipality of Ceiba (CE 34 [ SEARCH 2011]), Yabucoa (Kings Helmet [Garca Goyco 2008]) and Arecibo (AR 38 and AR 39 [ SEARCH 2008 ]) all indicate the prevalence of relatively small settlements comprised of nuclear family domestic dwellings. Diversity in settlement size is thought to reflect new Traditional conceptualizations o f early Cuevas and Saladoid sites indicate a decentralized regional system lacking formal settlement hierarchies (Lundberg 1985; Oliver 1992 a :8; Siegel 1996, 1999; Torres 2005). Implicit in this interpretation are usufruct land rights and relatively equal access to social and environmental resources across the landscape. Because of these observations, most researchers believe that and Oliver 1998; Hardy 2008; Hofman an d Hoogland 2004; Moscoso 1986:307; Siegel 2010:4) -However, the extent to which hierarchical sociopolitical relationships had developed

PAGE 60

60 during this time is currently a point of debate with some suggesting incipient chiefdoms developing through elite based strategies associated with the network mode of political economy in the Northern Lesser Antilles (Crock 200 0 ; Hardy 2008). Other researchers indicate that highly developed soci al hierarchies were brought to the islands by Saladoid colonizers (Heckenberger 2001; 2005). By the end of the 6 th (Keegan 2010) began to dissolve on the island of Puerto Rico with the development of are comparatively poor in prestige items and other personal adornos and religious et al. 1995:26; also noted in Curet 1996). Period III: Early Ostionoid Series (ca. AD 600 1200) By AD 600, new social and cultural configurations developed on Puerto Rico and adjacent islands. These changes are recognizable in the emergence of new pottery styles, shifts in settlement patterns, domestic architect ure, and the development of ritual integrative facilities in the form of stone lined plazas/ batey s The proliferation of new settlements intensified on the coastal plains, and new settlements formed in the interior valleys of the foothills and in the moun tainous uplands (Curet 2005; Oliver 2009; Rodrguez Lpez 1991; Torres 2001, 2005). These changes accompanied the development of regionally distinct identities, increased sociopolitical organization, and It was during Period IIIa that human settlement of all ecological zones of the island occurs. It was possibly the moment of During this time several regionally specific p ottery styles are evident on the island. These styles are traditionally associated with Ostionan and Elenan Ostionoid subseries

PAGE 61

61 the western portion of the island and Mons errate and Santa Elena (Period IIIb) styles in the east (Figure 2 3) (Rouse 1986). Figure 2 3. Documented distributions of pottery styles Puerto Rico during Period III ( ca. AD 600 AD 1200). The spatial distribution of Ostionan and Elenan pottery s tyles, particularly after AD 600, are not isolated and are found in varying proportions at sites between the eastern and western portions of the island with distributional frequencies contingent on distance from either end (Goodwin and Walker 1975; Hayward and Cinquino 2001:200; Robinson 1985; Rodrguez Lpez 1992; Rouse 1986). Sites with mixed assemblages are common where social groups producing Ostionan and Elenan ceramic pottery spatially converge on the island, as noted for the region surrounding Tibes ( e.g.

PAGE 62

62 Thomas and Swanson 1987; Robinson 1985; Weaver et al. 1992; Torres 2009). 15 I discuss this dimension of regional interaction and its impact on community formation in the south central region between AD 600 and AD 1200 later in this dissertation. T he Ostionan and Elenan Ostionoid Subseries In contrast to the ceramic styles of the previous period, Elenan and Ostionan ceramics represent a general decrease in aesthetic quality from Hacienda Grande and Cuevas pottery styles (Curet 1996:118 119). Morpho logically, Ostionan and Elenan Ostionoid pottery tends to be thicker and coarser, and there is a notable reduction of stylistic painting from the previous period. According to Rouse, both Ostiones and Monserrate pottery developed from the Cuevas style (Ro use 1992); however, these two pottery styles are different in terms of both their geographic origin and morphological characteristics. The following discussion briefly highlights archaeological contexts associated with Elenan and Ostionan Ostionoid styles A detailed discussion of the pottery (as well as Cuevas and later Chican Ostionoid styles) is in Chapter 6 of this work. Early evidence for Ostionan style pottery comes from sites in the Dominican Republic dating to approximately AD 300 (Ulloa Hung 2005 ) suggesting that early Ostionoid culture developed in Hispaniola and spread east to Puerto Rico (Keegan 2006; Rodrguez Ramos et al. 2008). Early Ostionan pottery, also known as Pure Ostiones, was defined by Irving Rouse from the type site in Cabo Rojo on the west side of Puerto Rico (1940:15 25). Several other sites were also used in determining the 15 As noted by Rouse, more variation in ceramic sub series appears to exist within the island than between each end and its adjacent island neighbor (Rouse 1951 1986). began to trace the distribution of the styles, I was surprised to find their main boundaries cut across the

PAGE 63

63 chronological placement and stylistic classification of the Ostiones style including Boquern, Las Cucharas, Llanos Tuna, Buenos Aires, Caas, Carmen, and Diego Hernndez (Rouse 1952:544). At the Caas site, Cuevas and plain, red painted Pure Ostiones pottery developed from Cuevas (Rouse 1952:344). Indeed, Cuevas and Pure Ostiones pottery share many similarities and are found mixed in single contexts in western Puerto Rico Ostiones (ca. after AD 600) are considered a result of the influence of people living in Hispaniola whose pottery contained similar decorative techniques (Rouse 1992:110). Generally, the cultural material recovered on the western half of Puerto Rico is more reminiscent of forms from Hispaniola. The earliest documented Ost iones pottery from the south central region (and the island in general) comes from the site of PO 23 in the Cerrillos River Valley dating to the beginning of the 5 th century AD (Krause 1989). Another site, Las Flores, is also located in the south central region, and contains deposits associated with Cuevas and early Ostiones pottery; it also yielded one of the earliest dates ( ca. AD 600) on the island attributable to a stone lined batey ( Wilson 1991:145 146). Contrasting with early Ostiones pottery, Monser rate style pottery was identified at the type site located near Luquillo Beach in northeast Puerto Rico (Roe et al. 1985). Santa Elena or earlier Cuevas styles. The te rminal date associated with Monserrate pottery is AD 900; however, work conducted at HU 6 and HU 7 in southeast Puerto

PAGE 64

64 Rico by New South Associates (2002) demonstrates a transitional Monserrate/Santa Elena style at approximately AD 1000. Several sites in the south central region exhibit evidence of Monserrate pottery and are, without exception, associated with sites possessing late Cuevas pottery including Tibes, PO 29, and Collores. Santa Elena pottery is named for the type site of Santa Elena (TB 7), loc ated in the contemporary municipality of Toa Baja (Rouse 1952) Santa Elena pottery is documented at many sites with earlier Saladoid components in eastern Puerto Rico demonstrating the longevity and continuity of many settlements throughout the island. This pattern is also evident in the south central region at the sites of Tibes, Collores, Caracoles, El Bronce, and Las Flores where early Saladoid pottery has been documented. Period III Settlement Patterns and Sociopolitical Organization Elenan and Ostio nan Ostionoid settlement patterns possess considerable variation, with a diversity of site types and sizes including large villages, small villages, hamlets, farmsteads, and specialized activity areas ( SEARCH 200 8 ; Siegel 2007; Torres 2001, 2005, 2008, 201 0). At the level of the residential settlement, there is a purported decrease in the size of domestic structures through Period III, which has been used to denote an increased emphasis on the nuclear family household (Curet 1992 b :170). Research by Mosco so (1981 1986 ) suggests that this was a time of socio economic transition from communal based production to a tribute based system indicative of an emergent chiefdom. However, as will be discussed later in this work, shifts in domestic architecture were influenced by other social, cultural, and environmental factors.

PAGE 65

65 Domestic structures generally continue to be arranged around central open plaza areas; however, significant changes occurred in spatial arrangements at the village level during this time. In addition to a decline in house size, human burials beneath house floors, or in house contexts ( i.e. associated middens), became common (Curet and Oliver 1998). The most significant change in settlement organization is the emergence of integrative ritual facilities in the form of stone lined plazas/ batey structures (Alegra 1983:59 118). Siegel (1992, 1996, 1999) posits that the development of these features resulted from an evolution of ritual behaviors associated with ancestor veneration. In this conte xt, ritual was a platform from which the ruling class emerged. At the regional level, the number and elaborateness of monumental architectural features are interpreted as centers of political power (Siegel 1996, 1999; Vescelius 1977) and reflect an increa se in territoriality (Torres 2005). This too will be further discussed in the proceeding chapters. Current wisdom suggests that between the AD 1000 and 1200 regional territorial units began to emerge coinciding with a narrowing of social power to a small number of individuals (Curet 1996; Oliver 2009; Siegel 1991, 1992, 1996, 1999, 2004). Concomitant with these developments, especially by ca. AD 1200, is the proliferation of ceremonial objects in the form of cemis, stone collars and duhos that point to an increase in symbolic and iconographic elaboration associated with perfromative ritual practices and elite power (Curet 1996; Oliver 2009). These developments are traditionally conceived as the genesis of centralized authority, social stratification, and the emergence of the chiefdoms evident at the time of European c ontact (Oliver 2009;

PAGE 66

66 Siegel widely accepted that cultural diversity became more pronounced during Periods III and I 2003:18). Period IV: The Late Ceramic Age (ca. AD 1200 AD 1500) The final period of indigenous habitation on the island is characterized by the nded throughout the Greater and Northern Lesser Antilles (Rouse 1992). It is during this time that sociopolitical territories are thought to have become formalized and powerful chiefs on Puerto Rico and adjacent islands ruled (Siegel 1992; 1999; 2004; Wil son 1992). Traditional perspectives suggest that the Tano were in a Despite si milarities in symbolic and material manifestations among peoples from Hispaniola and Puerto Rico, considerable social and cultural variability existed, bringing entity ( Curet 2008; Rodrguez Ramos 2008). In their comprehensive reconstruction of the languages of the Caribbean islands, Granberry and Vescelius (2004) highlight this cultural complexity by presenting evidence for a variety of native languages spoken in the re gion at the time of European contact. Chican Ostionoid Subseries By AD 1200 new pottery styles emerged on the island defined by the Chican subseries of the Ostionoid series. Three pottery styles are documented on the island for this period: Cap, Esper anza, and Boca Chica. Current evidence indicates that the Chican Ostionoid subseries was influenced by the Atajadizo style (previously Punta

PAGE 67

67 style) from the eastern Dominican Republic (Veloz Maggiolo et al. 1976) which spread eastward across the Mona Pas sage and through the Vieques Sound. As in the preceding period, Chican Ostionoid assemblages are regionally variable based on an east/west trend in distribution. Cap style pottery was identified during the analysis of pottery recovered from ations at the Ceremonial Center of Caguana, and collections made by Rouse from the sites of Las Cucharas, Minillas, Palma, and Machuca ( Rouse 1952 ). The Cap style is considered more common in western Puerto Rico and in the mountainous interior of the isl and. In the eastern portion of the island, the Esperanza style is predominant. Esperanza style pottery was first identified by Rouse at the type site of Esperanza on the island of Vieques (1952:352 354). Esperanza pottery generally resembles Santa Elen a pottery in surface and paste characteristics. Boca Chica, less common in Puerto Rico and the most elaborate of the Chican styles, also developed from the Atajadizo style and is commonly associated with the eastern half of the Dominican Republic. Boca Ch ica pottery is considered an intrusive style in Puerto Rico. This pottery style is characterized by complicated vessel forms and the most elaborately decorated pottery in the region during this time. Boca Chica pottery has been identified at several sites in the south central region and mountainous interior including Cayito, Villn, El Bronce (Robinson et al. 1985) and at the site of PO 29, located approximately 4km north of Tibes (Espenshade et al. 200 8 ). Further, recent excavations by Rodrguez Melend ez (2007) as part of her dissertation research identified Boca Chica pottery at the site of Sonadora in Utuado

PAGE 68

68 demonstrating that while not pervasive, Boca Chica pottery was widespread during the Late Ceramic Age The presence of Boca Chica pottery is inte resting because it demonstrates continued connections between Puerto Rico and the eastern portion of Hispaniola. E vidence for Boca Chica pottery from the south central region is becoming increasingly common demonstrating the flow of objects, information and likely people from the Eastern Dominican Republic during this time (Rodrguez Lpez 2007). Period IV Settlement Patterns and Sociopolitical Organization By AD 1200, indigenous peoples were settled throughout the entire island of Puerto Rico ( e.g. moun tain valleys, river valleys, coastal plains). Residential settlements varied with respect to size and associated domestic and ritual features, ranging from sites with evidence of one or two domestic structures to larger villages with multiple ball courts and plazas (Siegel 1999; Oliver 1992 b 2005). Smaller residential settlements tend to be in the foothills and island interior, with larger settlements located on the coastal plains. Small domestic structures suggest that household organization focused on nuclear family households, and variation in domestic architecture may be indicative of class differentiation or social status (Curet 1992b). In the south central region, previous research suggests demographic shifts in which populations may have moved fro m coastal and foothill physiographic regions to those of the islands mountainous interior (Curet 2005; Lundberg 1985; Torres 2001, 2005). The reasons for these shifts and the subsequent social formations resulting from them remain some of the most interes ting and unresolved issues for the region (Torres 2009, 2010).

PAGE 69

69 Work conducted by Jose Oliver and Juan Rivera Fontn provided important data for understanding social and political organization during the Chican Ostionoid in the central mountainous portions of the island (Oliver 2007; Oliver et al. 1999 ). They identified numerous small residential sites both with and without plazas/ batey s as well as several sites possessing these features but lacking clear evidence of domestic occupation. The small residen (Oliver 2007). These sites often possess a single plaza or batey with slabs displaying petroglyphs and associated midden deposits that fal l down slope into the valley below ( e.g. UA 27 [Oliver 2007; River Fontn 2003]). Other similarly interpreted sites possess a single midden but lack definitive evidence of stone lined enclosures. Interestingly, nowhere in these mountainous regions is th sized Ceremonial architecture during this period is purportedly at its highest frequency and Oliver suggests that most batey sites were occupied (Oliver 2007). Oviedo y Valdez note s that most Tano villages possess a plaza or batey in which certain rituals ( areyetos ) were carried out and in which the ballgame was played (1959:296 300). The ceremonial sites of Caguana and Viv represent relatively large complex manifestations of pla za/ batey sites that emphasize group oriented ritual activity in the constitution of social and political life (Oliver 1998; Oliver and Rivera Fontn 2004; Rodrguez Melendez 2007). This will be further discussed in Chapter 9. Non residential batey sites a re also identified, such as UA 53 (Oliver et al. 1999). The stones delimitating the plaza/ batey s at these sites lack petroglyphs although they

PAGE 70

70 sometimes have one or two terminal monuments carved with petroglyphs. Excavations show they are limited in art ifacts and ecofacts suggesting a lack of activities associated with long term domestic occupation. These sites are typically situated on narrow ridges intervisable with nearby farmsteads (Oliver 2007). Based in rank/size of ceremonial features, Sigel sug gest ed (1990, 1999) that there was regionally organized hierarchical system of sociopolitical organization in place throughout the island during this time. On the island of Hispaniola, serious consideration has been given to the regional organization of sociopolitical power and it appears the island was divided into at least five major cacicazgos (potentially subdivided into smaller territories) at the time of European contact (Wilson 1992:108 109). In contrast Puerto Rico is noted as being composed of a pproximately 18 political territories at the time of the Spanish arrival (Coll y Toste 1907; Rouse 1952; Oliver 1999). Glenis Tavares Mara (1996) suggests that the island of Hispaniola, like Puerto Rico, was likely divided into smaller sociopolitical div isions and in a variety of ways that escaped the European chroniclers. Supporting the presence of hierarchical social divisions in Tano society, archaeologists (with the use of ethnohistoric data) posit that there were status divisions between the elite n itainos and the naborias or commoners (Moscoso 1981: 216 220; Keegan 1997:116). Ethnohistoric evidence also suggests that variation in domestic architecture is indicative of class differentiation or social status (Curet 1992b:161 162; Fewkes 1907:41 47; Garrow 1995:37; see Samson 2010 for discussion). According to caney and has a rectangular

PAGE 71

71 shape with a small porch, in front of the batey or small plaza; the other Indians houses ( bohio ) were circu 16 As for Puerto Rico, the sociopolitical landscape during this time appears to be divided into smaller, competing polities with most of the cacicazgos mentioned in the chronicles located either in river or intermontane valleys (Curet et al. 2004; Oliver 2009). Supporting this idea is a historic document which describes Puerto Rico as being composed of small cacicazgos, each one governing a river valley (Ponce de Len y Troche and Santa Clara, 1914 [1582]). At the time of European contact, no major chiefdoms or political territories are noted by Spanish explorers for Ponce. However, Sued Badillo contends that the site PO 10 (Caracoles), in Ponce, was the main village associated with the cacique Aguebana II who helped l ead the indigenous rebellion against the Spanish in 1511 (Sued Badillo 2008). And although the cacicazgo is well founded ethnohistorically, their formation and organization is still poorly understood in the centuries prior to Spanish conquest. Expanding our knowledge of small scale social formations and local organizational dynamics can facilitate an understanding of the cacicazgos and the underlying conditions of social change leading to their development. Archaeology of the South Central Region South ce ntral Puerto Rico has a rich archaeological history. Field investigations in the region over the past century have supplied a corpus of data making it one of the most intensively studied areas on the island (see Rodrguez Lpez 1983 Appendices I 16 Curet notes that this observation may have been a product of European influences on indigenous groups and the adaptation by the later of European architectural style (Curet 1992). However, several researchers indicate the likely possibility for variability in domestic architecture based on status (Curet 1992; Kaplan 2009).

PAGE 72

72 A through I D for detailed listing; Pantel 2006). While not exhaustive, the following review provides an overview of archaeological work conducted in the region. To help orient the reader, Figure 2 4 shows the location of the sites presented in the following disc ussion. Figure 2 4. Well documented residential settlements from the south central region discussed in the text.

PAGE 73

73 The archaeology of the south central region is intimately tied to the historical development of archaeology in Puerto Rico. 17 The earliest archaeological research on the island dates to the late 19th century to the work of Alphonse Pinart and Augustin Stahl (Pinart 1893; Stahl 1889) who visited several sites in the 1880s. In the 1890s Cayetano Coll y Toste visited several sites on the north coast and documented in his 1907 publication on the prehistory of the island (Coll y Toste 1979[1907]). Investigations during this time were motivated by general interests in antiquarianism, the history of initial European colonization of the island, and a search for national identity by some independentist scholars. The first anthropological investigations in Puerto Rico were conducted by Jesse Walter Fewkes through Bureau of American Ethnology (BAE) and prompted by the acquisition of Puerto Rico by the United States during the Spanish American War in The Aborigines of Porto Rico and Neighboring Islands w as a significant contribution to Puerto Rican archaeology and continues to serve as a key reference for modern researchers. early portion of the 20th century. Sponsored by the New York Academy of Sciences, the Scientific Survey of Porto Rico provided opportunities for several scholars from the United States to conduct archaeological investigations on the island. R.T. Aitken (1917 1918), H.K. Haberlin (1917) and J. Alden Mason (1917, 1941) all conducted research 17 For detailed history of the history of archaeological research in Puerto Rico the reader is referred to Carbone (1980) and Curet (1992a). Also see Pagn Jimenez and Rodrguez Ramos (2008) for post Colonial critique of this history.

PAGE 74

74 under the guidance of Dr. Franz Boas of Columbia University who in 1914 was placed in charge of the anthropological portion of the study (Carbone 1980). work is perhaps most notable because he conduct ed the first archaeological investigations at the Ceremonial Center of Caguana in the contemporary municipality of Utuado (Mason 1917, 1941). On the south central coast, the first documented archaeological survey was conducted by Padre Nazario (1893:137 13 9, 159 162) with the first known excavation in 1875 by Dr. Souquet at the site of Cayito (Rainey 1940; Rouse 1952:515). Survey work was later conducted by Fewkes (1907:86 87), Britton (1930:167), Mason (1941: 269 270), R.S. Prescott, and Spinden ( as noted in Rouse 1952). Hebert J. Spinden excavated several sites in the south central region prior to the onset of World War I including the site of Carmen in the Coamo River Valley (located approximately 30 km east of Tibes). Samuel K. Lothrop also conducted research on the southern coast in 1915 and 1916 excavating at two large sites, Esperanza and La Florida (Los Indios) in the municipality of Salinas, however; the details of these investigations were never published. Archaeological research on the island pr ior to the 1930s was largely focused on A 3) and verifying historic accounts. Minimal attempts to establish regional chronology were made and early efforts were hindered by the limited number of excavated sites and published documents. Froehlich Rainey, with the support of the Yale Peabody Museum, The American Museum of Natural History in New York, and the University of

PAGE 75

75 Puerto Rico, conducted archaeological investigations in 1934 and 1 935 to expand the inventory of archaeological sites on the island. Discussions with Dr. J.L. Montalvo Guenard, regarding the presence of white on red pottery, motivated Rainey to commence excavations at the site of Caas. Based on excavations at Caas, Rainey developed a chronological sequence defined by an earlier Crab culture followed by a Shell culture (1940) based on differences in pottery stratigraphically associated with lenses of crab and shell. Rainey also excavated the site of Collores in Ponce which was later visited by Rouse (1952) and then by Miguel Rodrguez Lpez as part of his Masters research during the 1980s (Rodrguez Lpez 1983). In addition to the North Americans, several Puerto Rican researchers were engaged in archaeological inves tigations during the early 20 th century. Most notably is the work of Dr. J.L. Montalvo Guenard (1933) and Dr. Aldofo de Hostos (1919, 1938, 1941). J.L. Montalvo Guenard was a local antiquarian from Ponce who visited many sites in the region and helped Ra iney and Rouse in their early investigations. Hostos, who would later become the official historian for the island from 1936 to 1950, excavated a batey site just northeast of the town of Juana Diaz called Minas. However, no other information is available regarding the site and its precise location is unclear (Rouse 1952:516). In 1936 Irving Rouse, under the guidance of Rainey, engaged in a series of excavations in throughout the island. The details of his findings are documented in his 1952 work which se t the stage for archaeological research in the region for the next 50 years. Within the area defined by the present study, Rouse excavated the sites of Arba,

PAGE 76

76 Buenos Aires, Caas, Collores, Diego Hernndez, Esperanza, Carmen, Villn, Buenos Aires and Cayi to. With the development of Federal regulations for the preservation of cultural resources in the 197 0s and 198 0s the south central region (and island in general) saw an increase in archaeological field research. Several regional avocational organizations were independently developed during this time including the Sociedad Guayna de Arqueologa e Historia de Ponce and the Sociedad Arqueologa del Sur Oeste de Puerto Rico to conduct survey and site evaluations (Carbone 1980). The Sociedad Guayna del Sur Oeste de Puerto Rico excavated at Tibes in the mid 197 0s after the site was discovered in the aftermath of Hurricane Elosa (Alvarado Zayas and Curet 2010: 19 37). Army Corps of Engineers and the Cerrillos/Bucana River Projects In the 1970 s the U.S. Army C orps of Engineers (ACE) began archaeological compliance work, as part of several interrelated water control management projects, in the Ce r rillos/Bucana and Portugus Rivers. Investigations revealed almost a dozen new archaeological sites and several of t hem were subject to intensive excavation. Of particular importance to the research presented here are associated survey investigations conducted by Pantel (1978), Sols Magaa (1985, 1987) and Oakley (1990) as well as excavations at El Bronce (Robinson et al. 1985), PO 21 (Espenshade 1987), PO 23 and PO 27 (Krause 1989), PO 38 (Weaver et al. 1992), PO 39 (Garrow et al. 1995), and more recently PO 29 (Espenshade 2009a, 2009b, 2011). These sites, and others in the immediate vicinity of Tibes, are summariz ed below to provide an archaeological context for the area.

PAGE 77

77 Robinson excavated El Bronce (PO 11) in the early 1980s as part of the ACE Bucana River drainage channelization project. The site measured about 1.7 ha and had a single ballcourt or batey dating to the 8 th century AD (Robinson et al. 1985). The batey was approximately 20 x 20 m and many of the stones lining it were elaborated with petroglyphs (Robinson 1985:A1 A12). Documented post molds indicated several structures; at least two were designate d as nuclear domestic dwellings (Curet 1992b; Kaplan 2009). Middens at the site contained substantial quantities of pottery, lithics, shell, and bone suggesting permanent residential settlement. The middens yielded a combination of Elenan, Ostionan, and Chican Ostionoid pottery styles mixed in single contexts leading Robinson to suggest that a single occupation witnessed the use of all three styles simultaneously (Robinson 1985:F24). Radiocarbon determinations from the site place primary occupation betwe en approximately cal. 2 AD 700 and AD 1400. Just northeast from El Bronce, Garrow & Associates excavated several sites in the Cerrillos River Valley in the 1980s (Espenshade 1987). These first of these, PO 21, is relatively small measuring approximately .5 ha. Pottery recover ed from midden contexts at the site yielded Early Ostionan Ostionoid pottery (Espenshade 2000). A pit/post mold feature produced a radiocarbon date of cal. 2 AD 465 870 (Beta 18191) which coincides with the temporal range generally associated with Pure Ostiones pottery (Espenshade 2000). Although no conclusive evidence was found, local area residents reported two rows of parallel stones at the site before historic leveling activities. Espenshade (1987, 2000) interpreted the site as a small hamlet consi sting of three to six nuclear dwellings.

PAGE 78

78 A few hundred meters north of PO 21 are PO 23 and PO 27. Oakley Sols Magaa (OSM) Associates excavated the pre contact component at these sites from 1986 to 1988. Both are relatively small (approximately .5 and 2 ha respectively) consisting of domestic refuse with a probable house structure at PO 23 and the ruins of a plaza/ batey (30 x 24 m) at PO 27. Pre contact ceramics from PO 23 indicate an early Ostionan Ostionoid component (Pure Ostiones style). Two radioc arbon dates were recovered from PO 23: cal. 2 AD 258 AD 597 (Beta 23282) and AD 445 AD 890 (Beta 23283) (Krause 1989). The former date is the earliest registered date for Ostiones pottery from the south central region and one of the earliest for the style from the island (Rodrguez Ramos et al. 2010). Calibrated radiometric age determinations from PO 27 (cal. 2 AD 990 AD 1210 [Beta 41467], AD 1020 AD 1210 [Beta 41478], AD 1290 AD 1440 [Beta 41477]) in conjunction with the Ostionan and Chican pottery place it late in Rouse's Period III a nd interpretation regarding these two sites, both appear to be small settlements based on the abundance and diversity of recovered artifacts, the presence of several post mold s, as well as hearth features. Garrow & Associates also excavated PO 38 as part of the ACE Cerrillos River project. Initial excavations at the site yielded a Cuevas and late Ostionan/Elenan component with radiocarbon date ranging between cal. 2 AD 420 770 AD (Beta 45290) and AD 1040 AD 1290 (Beta 33259) (Garrow et al. 1989). Phase II investigations revealed that the primary occupation was associated with the Ostionoid component and appears to be contemporaneous with PO 21 (Weaver et al. 199 2).

PAGE 79

79 Stone alignments are present at the site, but their dimensions and function are not discernible from documented sources (Weaver et al. 1992). Archaeologists interpreted the site as a small settlement based on presence of at least one house structure PO 39, also excavated for the Cerrillos River project, is thought to have functioned as a local ceremonial center during the Elenan/Ostionan occupation of the area (Garrow et al. 1995). The site possesses a minor Chican Ostionoid component evinced by C ap and Esperanza style pottery. The site consists of three loci that represent discrete functional activity areas. Locus 1 contained a batey (10 x 20 m) delineated by upright stones. Locus 2 contained deeply buried midden deposits and appears to have b een used for food processing and cooking. Locus 3 contained a complete 10 m diameter circular stone structure that appears to have been a small ceremonial area or et al. 1995; Garrow 2006). All three loci appear to be con temporaneous based on six radiocarbon dates (cal. 2 range AD 760 AD 1260) and the respective artifact collections. Garrow interpreted PO 39 as an uninhabited ceremonial site likely used as not residential; instead, it appears to have functioned as a minor ceremonial center periodically used by et al. 1995:iii). Espenshade resi dential argument is whether the deposits of Locus 2 (the buried midden) could really have accumulated from feasting 39 to Tibes raises several questions regarding community and political organization in the region. B ased on current interpretations PO 39 indicates that there may have been different levels of ceremonial activity that did

PAGE 80

80 not require higher level integrative facilities like Tibes (Garrow 2006; Espenshade 2009:23). This point is addressed in Chapter 9 of this work. Portugus River Following early archaeological investigations at Tibes ( Gonzlez Colon 1984), several pre contact sites were documented in the late 197 0s and early 198 0s during archaeological survey of the drainage for the ACE Portugus River d am project (Oakley 1990; Sols Magaa 1985; Espenshade 2007, 2009; 2011). These sites are generally small limited activity areas and will be discussed in further detail in Chapter 5. However, one exception to these was the site of PO 29 which will be dis cussed shortly. Tibes (PO 1) is a relatively large site (approximately 5 ha) situated on an open alluvial terrace of the Portugus River. Based on radiocarbon dating conducted by Pestle (Pestle 2010) Tibes was established as a residential settlement by ca AD 500 (cal. 2 median AD 497 [AA83953]). Sometime after AD 900 the previously cleared plazas were delimited through the construction of several stone lined plazas/ batey s 1300 [Beta 198876]) and rel ative absence of Chican Ostionoid pottery, Tibes appears to have fallen into disuse shortly after AD 1200, although it appears that small groups of people may have visited the site sporadically after this time (Curet 2010). The site consists of several m iddens, and twelve stone structures ten of which are currently visible at the site today. Early research by Gonzlez Coln (1984 ) indicated that all structures belong to Period IIIb (ca. AD 900 AD 1200). In addition, early excavations revealed two clus ters of burials with one located under the central, quadrangular plaza and the other, 50 m southeast under batey 3 (Gonzlez Coln 1984) Both clusters appear to belong to the Saladoid series and are older than the

PAGE 81

81 overlying stone structu res. Additional burials, belonging to the Elenan Ostionoid subseries, were identified dispersed across the site, in what appear to be domestic contexts (refuse middens and/or possible house floors), typical for Ostionoid mortuary patterns in Puerto Rico ( Curet and Oliver 1998). PO 29 (Rodrguez Soler/La Jcana) is located, approximately 4 km north of Tibes on the last available large river terrace before the drainage becomes deeply incised and constricted. The site measures approximately 2.5 ha stretchi ng along the terrace. PO 29 is a complex multi component, habitation site that includes a plaza/ batey a midden mound, several areas of domestic occupation, and numerous burials. Hundreds of post molds and other features were documented at the site. In his recent thesis, Jeremiah Kaplan i dentified at least 16 nuclear domestic structures (Kaplan 2009). Excavations of a large (40 x 50 m) batey yielded evidence of multiple, highly elaborate petroglyphs (Loubser 2009; Espenshade 2009, 2011). At wri ting of this dissertation, the final report has not been publically available and therefore the final interpretations are in progress ( Espenshade and Young 2011 ). Presently, current research suggests that the site consists of three pre contact components ba sed on pottery and radiocarbon dates recovered from excavations. The first component dates from approximately AD 400 600 ( Beta 272032) and includes a late Cuevas and early Monserrate component ( Espenshade and Young 2011 ). The houses and the batey are f rom a later component and cover much of this deposit. The second component dates ranging from approximately AD 680 AD 820 based on seven radiocarbon determinations (Beta 272023, 272025 272030). Espenshade suggests limited evidence for occupation from AD 800 and AD 1300 based

PAGE 82

82 on the absence of expected Santa Elena and Modified Ostiones pottery styles ( Espenshade and Young 2011 ). Pottery from the dated deposits includes Monserrate styles, with Pure Ostiones influences. Dense domestic middens, several houses many burials, a midden mound, possible conucos and an earlier batey (a smaller version with simple petroglyphs) characterize this component ( Espenshade and Young 2011 ). The site appears to have been reoccupied sometime shortly after AD 1300. This third component is evinced by Cap, Boca Chica, and Esperanza style pottery corroborated by five calibrated radiocarbon dates ranging between cal. 2 AD 1260 AD 1520 (Beta 247736, 247737, 272024, 272031, 272033). The 40 x 50 m batey and the expansion and use of the midden mound date to this component. During this period relatively little midden accumulation occurred, and Espenshade suggests that it was not a residential site during this time ( Espenshade and Young 2011 ). Camp Santiago Archaeological investigati ons at t h e Camp Santiago National Guard T raining Center, in the eastern portion of the study region, were initiated in the mid 1980s by Miguel Rodrguez (Rodrguez Lpez 1985). Initial survey consisted of a ten percent stratified sample of the 12,000 acre facility that resulted in the identification of 22 new archaeological sites. In 2001, archaeological studies resumed at Camp Santiago because of a cooperative agreement between the Caribbean National Forest and the Puerto Rico Army National Guard. Under the direction of U.S. Forest Service, archaeological investigations were conducted during 2000 2003 which added additional sites to the base inventory. Archaeological surveys and site assessments continue to be conducted as regular part of Federal preser vation rules and legislation. Detailed information regarding many sites on Camp Santiago is unavailable beyond Rodrguez

PAGE 83

83 documented and are of note. The first, Ochos Concheros (F 4 01), consists of a series of shell middens or concheros occupying a hill top, south 2004:5) The site, initially documented in 1985 by Rodrguez Lpez (1985:90, 93), is in the southwestern portion of Camp Santiago between two seasonal tributaries. Caribbean National Forest archaeologists revisited the site in 2001 and identified eight shell middens. Wake Forest University archaeological field school excavated the site in 2003. The Wake Forest field inves tigations were unable to relocate the previously described eight shell middens but did identify four large and five small midden concentrations (Robinson 2004a:14). The scatter of shell, likely from a domestic occupation, was found along the edge of the h ill top. Pottery recovered from the site consists of plain and red painted wares that are consistent with Cuevas and Santa Elena pottery styles (Robinson 2004a:13). Based on this description, and critical examination of the report (Robinson 2004a: Figures 42 47), the site also appears to contain a minor Chican component; however, the predominance of Santa Elena pottery at the site indicates primary occupation during Period IIIb (Rodrguez Lpez 1985: 88; Rouse 1992:107, 124). Robinson interpreted the site as a small hamlet (Robinson 2004:13). The second site, SN 28 (G 15 01), is on a terrace on the north side of the Salinas River floodplain in the eastern portion of Camp Santiago (Robinson 2004b:2).

PAGE 84

84 Rodrguez Lpez also documented this site in 1985 and identified a batey surrounded by numerous concheros (Rodrguez Lpez 1985:90 and 93). Excavations conducted by Wake Forest University (2004b) confirmed a series of domestic middens surrounding a small plaza/ batey (19.5 m east west by 17 m north south). Li plain and painted wares that are consistent with pottery of the Middle to Late Elenoid (Robinson 2004b: F igures 32 38) indicate Ostiones and possible Monserrate styles suggesting that the site was occupied sometime between approximately AD 600 and 1200. Like Ochos Concheros, G 15 01 represents a small habitation site; albeit slightly larger than others docu mented at Camp Santiago (Robinson 2004:17). However, unlike Ochos Concheros the batey feature at G 15 01 likely played a role in hosting ceremonial activities that may have included proximally related settlements (Robinson 2004:17) Other Research and Fiel d Investigations of the South Central Region Several other sites from the south central region offer additional reference for the observations and interpretations presented later in this work. These sites are discussed below and presented alphabetically b ased on the PRSHPO site number. Jos Ortz Aguil excavated CO 1 (Las Flores) in the 1970 s where he recorded several middens surrounding a batey The site measures approximately 3 ha with the batey accounting for approximately 1000 m. Analysis of excava ted objects suggests long term domestic occupation associated with Saladoid and Ostionoid pottery. Diagnos tic material consists of Cuevas, Ostionan, and Elenan pottery (Eicholz 1976). Unfortunately, the excavation results have never formally been publish ed and are based

PAGE 85

85 on few conference proceedings (Ortz Agulu 1975 2006). The importance of Las Flores lies in the fact that it yielded one of the earliest dates for a plaza/ batey feature in the region (ca. 7 th century AD [Wilson 1991:195 196]). CO 2 ( V illn/Cuyn) was a residential settlement situated in the foothills of the Ro Cuyn valley approximately 36 km east of Tibes. The site occupied a hilltop at the intersection of the Cuyn R iver and a small tributary stream. Villn measured approximately 280 m northwest to southeast by approximately 100 m east to west at its widest point. 18 Surrounding the site were several middens in an elliptical shape that followed the natural contour of the hill top. Vill n is notable for its multiple stone enclosure s which appear to be primarily associated with a late Ostionoid (possible late Period IIIb and Period IV) component (Alegra 1983; Rouse 1952:502 507). Rouse observed that the proportions of the Ostiones pottery were higher in the lower levels of the site with Santa Elena pottery predominating in the upper levels. Rouse also noted a small quantity of Boca Chica pottery at the site (Rouse 1952). Like many other sites documented in the south central region ( e.g. El Bronce [Robinson et al. 1985], PO 31 [T homas and Swanson 1987]) the mixture of pottery emphasizes social diversity in the region and the fluidity of regional boundaries and interaction. In 2007, the author visited this site and noted shell and pottery scattered about the surface. However, th e batey and associated midden features were could not be relocated. Housing construction and residential development likely destroyed these features. 18 Based on the map in Rouse 1952:505 Figure10.

PAGE 86

86 Rouse documented CO 3 ( Buenos Aires) as a large village site on the southern edge of the modern town of Coamo (Rouse 1952). The site measures approximately 2 ha consisting of a continuous midden deposit approximately 75 cm in depth. Rouse recovered a variety of stone and shell tools from the site (Rouse 1952:519). The presence of a small amount of Cuevas pottery with a later primary Ostiones and Santa Elena component at the site lead Rouse to interpret occupation during Period III (1952:519). Tecla (GA 1), in Guayanilla, is one of the earliest documented Saladoid settlements in the Greater Antilles with a radiocarbon date of ca. cal. 2 500 BC. Luis Chanlatte Baik excavated the site in the early 197 0s (Chanlatte Baik 1976) recording a series of stratified midden deposits in a sugarcane field covering approximately 20 ha. The middens extend to a depth of 80 cm with Ostionoid pottery pr esent in the upper 30 cm associated with the shell middens (Chalatte Baik 1976). Chanlatte was able to identify a long term occupation sequence at the site ranging from approximately 500 BC to AD 800. The early cultural component at the site contains Hac ienda Grande pottery with later components consisting of Cuevas and Ostionan Ostionoid pottery ( Narganes Storde 1991, 1999). Collores (JD 6) sits on the banks of the Ro Guayo east of Tibes in the modern municipality of Juana Diaz. The site is approximate ly 2 ha consisting of two large published the results (1952:532). Rouse visited this site in the 194 0s and used material investigations demonstrated that the upper levels of the site predominately contained

PAGE 87

87 Ostiones pottery mixed with a lesser quantity of Santa Elena pottery (Rouse 1940, 1952b). Miguel Rodrguez Lpez excavated the site in the 198 0s as part of his thesis (Rodrguez Lpez 1983). Rodrguez Lpez identified Saladoid and Ostionoid occupations at the site showing that occupation began toward the end of the Hacienda Grande pottery style (ca. AD 400) continuing through Cuevas an d Monserrate (with three dates ranging from cal. 2 AD 745 885 [I 6894 6896). The site included material associated with Pure and Modified Ostiones assemblages evinced by bat head lugs and loop handles (albeit in small proportions). Hernndez Coln (PO 13) is approximately 13 km north of the southern coa stline at the base of the Cerrillos River Valley. The site was recently investigated by Edgar a residential settlement measuring about 1.5 ha occupied from approximate ly AD 300 to AD 650 (Maz Lpez 2002; 2004). Pottery from the site consists of Hacienda Grande, Cuevas and early Ostiones styles (Maz Lpez 2004). Fine screening of midden deposits recovered substantial quantities of faunal material indicative of long term residential habitation. PO 10 (Caracoles) is large settlement located approximately 5 km south of Tibes. Miguel Rodrguez Lpez (1985b) conducted initial archaeological testing and Juan Gonzlez Coln (1985) conducted a subsequent Phase III mitigatio n at the site. PO 10 consists of a series of mounded middens covering approximately 5 ha. The site is interpreted as a town or local population center of one of the great Tano caciques, Aguebuena II (Sued Badillo 2008).

PAGE 88

88 Pottery recovered from the site consists of Monserrate and Santa Elena styles as well as Pure and Modified Ostiones styles. Later components include substantial quantities of Boca Chica, Esperanza, and Capa style pottery (Rodrguez Lpez personal communication 2010; 1985b). Other item s of note are fragments of shell and clay amulets and many small cemis (Rodrguez Lpez personal communication 2010). Several postmolds that appear to be associated with nuclear dwellings, were documented in a semicircular fashion away from the trash mid dens ( Gonzlez Colon 1985). Several batey stones were also identified; however, these appear to have been displaced from historic sugar cane cultivation and looters. Despite the identification of a stone line segment, not enough of the batey remained to determine its dimensions. Pantel recently excavated SI 04 (Los Indios) as part of the mitigation for a utility corridor right of way a along the southern coast (Pantel 2003, 2006; Rodrguez Lpez 2007). The site yielded a potential plaza feature, several related post molds, and human internments. The plaza area (20 x 39 m) and a potential road leading to it were exhibited by anthropogenic soils (Rodrguez Lpez 2007:202). No stone alignments were identified and it is assumed these were removed by agricul tural activities in the area. Two clusters of burials also were identified. Excavations at the site yielded a wide array of stone tools, pottery, and an abundance of terrestrial vertebrate fauna and marine shell. Pottery recovered from the site consists mainly of Santa Elena and Boca Chica styles indicating Period IIIb and Period IV occupation. Cayito (SI 7) is on the coast adjacent to mouth of the Coamo River. Cayito was investigated by a number of researchers but Rouse was the first to conduct control led

PAGE 89

89 excavations in the 1930s (Rouse 1952:502 532). Rouse documented the site as encompassing 2.4 ha and interpreted it as a residential settlement. The site consisted of several dense midden deposits containing pottery, bone, and human burials. Rouse re covered Boca Chica pottery from the site indicating primary occupation after AD 1200. A single radiocarbon determination from the site corroborates this interpretation with a median date of cal. 2 AD1295 (Rouse and Alegra 1979). arge shell heap with several smaller middens along its series of depressions in the shell deposits suggesting that they represented ballcourts surrounded by houses. The site contains Ostiones, Santa Elena, and Esperanza style pottery -although Cuevas, Boca Chica and Cap style pottery are also represented. In addition to the pottery a wide array of other material including stone axes, grinders, elbow stones and stone collars According to Rouse the site appears to be occupied sometime around AD 600 AD 1500 (Rouse 1952: 542). Rouse documented YA 2 (Diego Hernndez) measuring approximately 1 ha in area (Rouse 1952:537). The center of the site contained a limited amount of artifacts leading Rouse to conclude that it was a plaza/ batey area; however, no evidence for a stone lined batey was documented. Early Ostionan pottery was recovered from the site as well as a substantial quantity of serpenti ne and jade pendants (Rouse 1952). The site of La Florida (YA 1) lies in the Ro Yauco valley. The site appears to represent a long term habitation site that was occupied uninterrupted from approximately AD 500 to approximately AD 1200 with the final exte nt of occupation

PAGE 90

90 measuring approximately 1.5 ha. Pottery recovered from the site consists primarily of Cuevas and Ostiones style pottery (both Pure and Modified) (Maz Lpez 2008). Chronology and Radiocarbon Dates of the South Central Region As previously mentioned, Rodrguez Ramos (2010) has demonstrated significant variation in the temporal distribution of pottery styles. The results of these efforts indicate that pottery styles often begin earlier and extend longer than proposed by Rouse -with the sign ificant overlap in many cases. This variation represents the pluralistic and socially diverse landscape and the non linearity of socio cultural development of the island. Yet, w hile the disparity between material culture and time as presented by Rouse is tend to occur more frequently within particular period of time and in particular locales. Hence, it is useful to critically examine this variation within smaller regions to refine temporal expressions of materi al culture and social diversity (Keegan 2001). To provide a chronological framework for the south central region, and facilitate the temporal placement of settlements later in this work, I examined all of the currently available radiocarbon dates from exca vated archaeological sites from the south central region and their association with particular pottery styles. One hundred and nine radiocarbon determinations are available from 19 sites and form the basis for examining the chronology of the south central region presented here (Appendix A). The pottery components associated with this sample were compared to observations made by 5 ).

PAGE 91

91 Figure 2 5. Box plot of radiocarbon median dates (cal 2 ) for pottery styles of the south central region compared to Rouse (1992:52) and Rodrguez Ramos (2010). (HG=Hacienda Grande, CVS=Cuevas, MONS=Monserrate, OP=Ostiones Pure, SE=Santa Elena, OM=Ostiones Modified, Chican=Chican Ostionoid).

PAGE 92

92 The dates were ca librated using the reported conventional radiocarbon BP ages and standard error ranges with Calib6.0 software (Reimer et al. 2009; Stuiver and Reimer 1993). The calibrated 2 median dates were then used to create a box plot for visual comparison. A caut ionary note: many of the dates possess limited information on the type of artifacts and specific stratagraphic contexts from which the material was dated. Further, the definition of pottery styles has changed through time and the identification of partic ular styles can sometimes be confused or misidentified. Finally as there are several styles with few samples of particular styles ( e.g. Cuevas and Monserrate) available determinations cannot be interpreted as expressing the full range for which a particu lar style was made and used in the region. However, this exercise is useful for the development of more regionally specific chronologies to address the diversity among t he pre contact SEARCH 2008 :33). This exercise is also useful for refining the temporal placement of settlements in the region lacking radiocarbon dates but possessing pottery. The box plot displays the minimum and maximu m ranges of dates from the south central region for each style as well as the first and third quartiles. Through this it is possible to visualize the potential temporal range of particular styles in the region and Ramos shows that Hacienda Grande and Cuevas styles persisted longer and overlapped with pottery of the early Ostionoid Series; with Hacienda Grande extending to AD 650 and both La Hueca and Cuevas extending to AD 8 00. Further, Monserrate begins later (AD 700) and extends to AD 1000, while the date span of Santa Elena style

PAGE 93

93 pottery nearly doubles (AD 700 1300). Modified Ostiones also extends to AD 1300. The Chican Ostionoid dates are the only ones that generally c temporal division for the period (AD 1200 1500), with Esperanza beginning slightly earlier than the other styles. Examination of the data from the south central region of pottery for the Hacienda Grande style (n=29) runs from approxi mately 500 B.C. to AD 650 with 50% of the dates ranging between AD 100 and AD 500. However, the current sample of dates is predominately from the site of Tecla (Chanlatte Baik 1976). One additional radiocarbon date associated with Hacienda Grande pottery (cal. 2 mean AD 640) is from the site of Hernndez Colon located approximately 5 km east of Tibes ( Maz Lpez 2002). Unfortunately contexts with Cuevas style pottery, while well documented in the region (Caas, Tibes) are not well dated from the south central re gion with only five dates from three sites (Tibes, PO 29, and PO 38) documented. While capturing the potential early development of this style in the south central region (AD 250 at PO 38), the latest mean date extends to AD 880 (Tibes) which is in line w ith dates documented for eastern Puerto Rico. Similarly Monserrate style is characterized by a limited number of dates (n=7) with all radiocarbon determinations coming from the site of PO 29. The style has a temporal range from about AD 520 to AD 820 with 50% of the dates ranging between AD 725 recent research at the site of CE 34 in eastern Puerto Rico (Torres and SEARCH 2010)

PAGE 94

94 The sample of radiocarbon determinations for Pure Ostiones style pottery (n=35) extends from AD 430 to AD 1150. Fifty percent of these samples range between approximately AD 680 and AD 900 which is comparable to Rou s A single rad iocarbon determination from the site of PO 23 yielded a date range of AD 258 AD 597 (Beta 23282) which is one of the earliest dates for this style from the island. The latest date for the temporal extent of the style, in the region comes from the site o f Hernndez Colon dating to the middle of the 11 th century (Maz Lpez 2002). Santa Elena style (n=25) ranges from AD 820 to AD 1350 with 50% of the dates occurring between AD 970 and AD 1150. Modified Ostiones also ranges from AD 500 to AD 1350 again wi th 50% of the dates spanning AD 990 to AD 1110. Due to the limited number of dated Chican Ostionoid samples, pottery characterized by Cap, Boca Chica and Esperanza styles were compressed into a single Chican Ostionoid category generally define the rang e of Late Ceramic Age pottery. Based on the box plots, these dates range b etween AD 1100 and 1510 with 50 % of the dates between AD 1150 and AD 1360 generally conforming to the traditional material temporal framework developed by Rouse. In sum, the prepond erance of the dates within the first and third quartile ranges from the south However, looking at the full range of the median dates there is substantial variation Summary and Conclu sions Our conceptualizations of time, space, and the nature of the post Saladoid sociopolitical landscape is changing dramatically. Researchers currently stress a dire need to refine regional chronology and the dynamic interplay between social groups both within the island and its broader spatial and social contexts. Current perspectives

PAGE 95

95 are emerging that address some of these issues and paint a very different picture of the social landscape than previously conceived in traditional socio cultural and temp oral models. space framework was developed by classifying pottery decorations and other forms of material culture according to general similarities and differences. However, these categories were developed from a normative perspective that mphasized similarities and differences at higher levels of analysis ( i.e. cultures and peoples) that may be inappropriate for the study of social processes that are mostly related to lower levels such as immediate regions, communities, households, or indi revision, and chronology in disarray, archaeological research focused on specific regions offers an important opportunity to identify variability in material culture and examine sociopolitical processes at more localized scales. The preceding overview demonstrates that in addition to a socially diverse landscape multiple social, cultural, and historical processes were at work which ultimately led to the development of regional so ciopolitical units evident at the time of European contact The available archaeological data hints at these processes in which the formation of the polity was not only a result of social process related to reproduction and maintenance of basic social gro ups, but also entail ed the redefinition of social groups with diverse histories, worldviews, and identities. For the remainder of this work, I will attempt to identify some of these processes and discuss their implications on the development of social and political communities for the south central region.

PAGE 96

96 CHAPTER 3 CONCEPTUALIZING SOCI AL AND POLITICAL COM MUNITIES In this chapter I present concepts underlying the study of incipient polities and social communities in archaeological research. In the first section of this chapter I present some of the themes implicit in archaeological approaches to the development of emergent polities with particular emphasis chiefdom I then give an overview of communit y as theorized and employed in anthropology and archaeology Here I concentrate on recent archaeological approaches to communities that demonstrate its utility unit of analysis for examining co resident ial social groups, the scalar properties of human sociality and the social construction of (Hegmon 2002, 2008, Isbell 2000; Pauketat 2007, 2008; Varien and Potter 2008; Knapp 2003). In this context I focus my attention on the compo sition of small scale social groups and factors that enable and constrain social action. This also includes a discussion of social landscapes and the role of spatiality in the structuration of society. Incipient Polities in Context Approaches for explaining the emergence and organization of incipient polities are largely predicated o n factors which emphasize social dominance in the interaction s between emerging elite and community members. In this context, processes of social integration and political centralization generally focus on a small segment of society and their ability to e fficiently organize and manipulate economy and ideology at the expense of the collective (Blanton et al. 1996 ; Brumfiel and Fox 1994; Earle 1997; also see Crumley 1995; Dobres and Robb 2000 and Pauketat 2008 for discussion and counterpoint) T he impetus f or sociopolitical development is often portrayed as the result of singular causal factors with the result being a description of the process by

PAGE 97

97 which social groups passively become members of a hierarchical collectivity (Dillehay 2004). The evolutionary f ramework and the underlying assumptions associated with these views have come to represent archaeological dogma over the last 40 years (Crumley 1987; Pauketat 2007; Yoffee 200 5 ). Guided by neo evolutionary perspectives developed during the middle of the 20 th century, archaeologists traditionally viewed societal development as a series of progressive stages. Popularized by Elman Service (196 8 ) these stages: bands, tribes and chiefdoms (with the archaic state added later) represented societal organization a s a series of types whose inherent level of complexity was tied to subsistence production strategies, regional organization and degree (or scale) of social hierarchy. The process ward spiral of intensification primarily contingent on the systemic relationships between perspective transitions from simple to more complex forms of organization that e ntails increases in scale and differentiation of internal structures ( Earle 1989; Drennan and Uribe 1987) In terms of development, several causal factors have been put forth for the emergence of the chiefdom including circumscription involving populatio n resource imbalances ( e.g. Johnson and Earle 2000 ) or warfare ( e.g. Carneiro 1998). Another (and widely accepted) perspective related to the development of chiefdoms is based on the emergence of political economies of staple finance, in which surplus pr oduction finances the institutions of chieftaincy (D'Altroy and Earle 1985; Earle 1997). Within the context of an emergent chiefly political economy, local leaders attempt to expand the

PAGE 98

98 insti tutions of leadership and socio political power through access to agricultural surplus. This is generally operationalized through promoting the intensification of agricultural technologies and/or by attracting followers as a labor base for agricultural production (Earle 1997; McIntosh 1999). Both strategies inherently promote conflict in which power is contested among local chiefs in the pursuit to control the regional political economy. Hierarchical relationships are thought to develop from temporary resolution of this conflict. In this case, l ocal leaders consolidate an area by increasing their access to labor and agricultural surplus through the incorporation of local villages. Consolidation assumes different forms depending upon the degree of mobility and access to resources by other villages In conditions where mobility and access to resources is constrained consolidation strategies c an take the form of coercion. Here ability to incorporate new lands and the associated labor force may be accomplished through defeating rivals at war (Carneiro 1998; E arle 1997; Johnson and Earle 2000). In settings where mobility and access to resources is relatively unrestricted regional consolidation strategies may take the form of a persuasive process through which local chiefs attract followers from rivals usually through the manipulation of ideological sources of power ( DeMarris et al. 1996 ; Earle 1990; 1997). Critically, this perspective is teleological in its approach to history and, by virtue of evolution as a fundamental aspect of human societies, spatial varia tion and human agency are ignored (Smith 2003:33 ; Spencer 1993 ). Underemphasized are the engagements of socially diverse groups and how they resisted or made choices towards developing communal efforts to integrate or consolidate on their own terms

PAGE 99

99 with in the limits placed upon them by history and tradition ( Saitta 1997 ) Such choices promote the status, power, prestige and social memories of communities, houses ( sensu L vi Strauss 1982), lineages or clans rather than that of specific individuals per se ( Emerson 1997 ). From this view people may arrange themselves along various dimensions of vertical (hierarchical) and horizontal (heterarchical) complexity that represent d iffering forms of organization as well as structure their political allegiances bas ed on circumstances benefitting the group ( Crumley 1985; Dietler and Hayden 2001; Dillehay 2004; Ehrenreich et al. 1995; Hayden 1995; McIntosh 1999; Mehrer 2000; Renfrew 1986 ) 1 An o ver emphasis of the elite in current models of political development has caused an interpretive disconnect between our understanding of the emergence of powerful leaders and the development of supravillage social groups which have been treated as divergent, mutually exclusive processes. As a result, the analytical focus of som e researchers tends to overlook many of the underlying social, demographic and historical conditions which contribute to sociopolitical organization and change as well as set the stage for the emergence of powerful individuals within society For instanc e, in the study of political landscapes the focus tends to promote the role of singular central places, typically ceremonial centers or large settlements, as the focal point from which ideological and political power is centralized and delegated down to su bordinate peoples and places (de Mont millon 1989 ; Steponaitis 1981; also see Smith 2003 for detailed discussion and counterpoint). This position essentializes people and places 1 As noted by Yoffee, in incipient pol downward. Social actors, who could be members of more than one group (including king groups and their options, including their social identities, and, as circumstances changed, could transfer their allegiance to 05 :34).

PAGE 100

100 within space, treating them as individualized phenomenon, rather than socially constructed networks, and forces a set of preconceived hierarchical relationships (that may or may not be real) onto the social and political landscape. M issing in this narrative are workings of smaller social groupings that constitute these formations and are constituted by a multiplicity of interrelated dimensions of social life. Hence, central to understanding are the organizing principles by which social groups structure internal order and construct their communal identities ( e.g. Maxham 2000) I believe the processes of socialization imbedded in routine social practices was critical in enabling social groups to engage in self directed modes of political production (Saitta 1997). Through the liv ed histories of place, cooperative labor projects, and communal ritual performances, small scale e.g. Wilson 2005:4). Ultimately, t he strength in archaeol ogical research for the interpretation of incipient political formations is the diachronic perspective that archaeology can bring to bear regarding the human communities that constitute them ( Trigger 1978 :155). A community based perspective offers a means to critically examine the morphological constructs of social groups at varying spatial and temporal scales to identify their social and material composition as well as some of the historical conditions that served to structure them (Pauketa t 200 0 a, 200 0 b; Schachner 2008). T herefore instead of more importantly, (Cobb 2003).

PAGE 101

101 The Concept of Community The concep t of community provides a productive realm of inquiry that offers a lens through which to examine the histories of place through locally based social aggregates and their articulation to more inclusive social and political bodies. In his book Peasants Er ic Wolf notes that small scale agricultural communities form an integral part of larger, complex societies (Wolf 1956). In his study of peasant group relations in Mexico, Wolf cogently notes: Communities which form part of a complex society can thus be vi ewed no longer as self contained and integrated systems in their own right. It is more appropriate to view them as the local termini of a web of group relations which extend through intermediate levels from the level of the community to that of the nation (Wolf 19 5 6: 1065). This simple, but insightful, quote by Wolf highlights the relational and recursive nature of local social groups and the scalar relationships between individuals and larger social and political formations The concept of community 2 an d the study of larger social collectives, has a long history in the social sciences ( e.g. Durkheim 1933 [1893] ). Early usage of the term stems from attempts to differentiate between a body of direct interactive social relationships distinct from the state Tnnies ( 1967[ 1887 ] ) initially distinguished the dichotomy between relations of community (Gemeinschaft), and those of the state or society ( Gessellschaft ). For mid 20 th century ethnographers, communities were inherent in all societies ( e.g. Bell and Newby 1971; Firth 1936; Murdock 1949 ; Redfield 1955 ) representing cultural facts that could be revealed and documented through ethnographic fieldwork 2 Etymologically the term community is derived from the Latin communitas consisting of a compound of the mor phemes cum (with/together) and munus (gift) (Oxford English Dictionary 2010).

PAGE 102

102 (see Knapp 2003:566 for discussion). With the proliferation of ethnographic research during this era th e community came natural and necessary, a homogenous integrated whole without segmentation or factionalism, and a bounded self 248). In these early studies, the community became an essentialized entity, w ith distinct organizational, behavioral and evolutionary properties homogenizing space, culture, economic interests and worldview As a spatial entity the term community typically references the village or cluster of associated domestic structures How ever, it has only been within the past decade that epistemological consideration has been given to its broader social connotations and application in archaeological research ( Hegmon 2002; Pauketat 2008 ; Varien and Potter 2008; Yeager and Can uto 2000). Recent archaeological approaches emphasize that the community and village (or residential settlement) are not necessarily synonymous and the relationships that form the basis of social groups extend beyond the boundaries of a single spatial loc idea is based on the non mutual exclusivity of various social relationships ( e.g. religious, kin, corporate work groups etc.) and their reproduction as durable social institutions. Social Composition of Communities At the heart of co ncepts of community is the condition of human sociality that is the tendency of people to form social links with others, coalesce and live in social collectives This dimension of humanity is fundamental to our understanding of people as social beings an d the rise of that contextualize political, economic and cultural actions which create ever new variations on the theme of social (Carrithers 1990: 189 ). An understanding of sociality entails characterizing the compos ition and morphology of social groups and the ways in which they are linked

PAGE 103

103 and differentiated. These linkages assume a variety of forms that possess both centripetal and centrifugal properties in which social identities within and between groups emerge. It is because of this differentiation that higher level integrative order to form community whose borders may be harder or looser, politically defined and/or cultura Yoffee 2005 :15). Communities are not homogenous, to the contrary the various social relationships that compose them promote differences within and among them (Joyce and Hendon 2000; Pauketat 2000). People simultaneously belong to multi ple communities; some are nested in a scalar fashion, while others are cross cutting. At the heart of these various relationships are interactions amongst individuals that compose kin groups, corporate domestic units, localities, and broader so cial and po litical imaginings. Kinship and Community Traditional studies of communities were primarily concerned with the reconstruction of kinship systems and post marital residence patterns ( e.g. Murdock 1949). For archaeologists the problems in identifying the m aterial correlates of ancient kinship systems has been sufficiently addressed over the last 4 0 years (Ember 1973; Gibson 1973; Gillespie 2000; Peregrine 2001) As a result, many have shifted away from kinship studies and adaptive/functional approaches to households (Beck 2007; Gillespie 2000, 200 7 ). At the core of the kinship critique is the notion that it does not necessarily govern social life and that kinship studies emphasize aspects of society that do not necessarily conform to categorical classifica tion or practice. The primary problem for archaeologists also is the difficulty in identifying kinship in the archaeological record as any number of kinship structures c an produce similar material

PAGE 104

104 signatures ( Gillespie 2000 ). However, a s noted by Gibson although clearly recognizing the kin basis of political economy, seems to ignore or and Carr 2004:238). I n general I tend to agree with arguments t hat kinship rules do not rigidly determine all dimensions of social life and that the identification of social structure in the archaeological record is difficult at best ( e.g. Gillespie 2000:1). At the same time I realize that kinship and descent are ce ntral factors influencing the organization of relationships among individuals through establishing These rules, while not always adhere d to, cause us to think about some of the fundamental structures that influence social relationships and connect individuals at varying scales within society. Further, it is important to recognize that emerging polities are often organized based on kinshi p associations that group such as a lineage (Ferguson and Mansbach 1996; Leach 1964; Yoffee 2005; also see Curet 2002 for discussion regarding succession and descent in the Caribbean). 3 Here kinship forms a central aspect in the constitution of political communities particularly in processes of alliance building, ritual consolidation the communal construction of social spaces (or place s ) and durable social institutions. This is particularly evident where ancestry legitim izes access to social and natural resources 3 As noted by Hec k e widely recognized as legitimate, depend to a large degree on actual geneal 2007:293).

PAGE 105

105 At a basic level kinship offers a way to negotiate organizational problems associated with the maintenance of social and political order, land rights and access to resources through time ( Fox 1967; Fried 1960; Leach 1964 ; Murdock 1949 ). A key point in this regard are emic concepts of kin or kindreds (Thomas 1982) that structure the basic relationships that bind people together in an enduring social order that is inherently political To tie kin groups togethe r in a wider system, and to perpetuate the biological reproduction of its members marriage rules and alliances are critical (Ensor 2003 n.d. ). In many kin based social groups, descent and social membership is often tra ced through a common ancestor. Crit ical to this point is that fact that kin based social groups often have their social base in a physical space or locale Loca lly based kin groups are often exogamous and marriage within a lineage or clan is typically prohibited. Marriage relations betwee n kin groups shape alliances that structure social and political life in important ways and the spatiality of these relationships underscores the idea that communities are not necessarily neatly bounded entities For instance, because of marriage rules lo cal social groups may include in marrying spouses but not out marrying siblings. Hence if a lineage is localized in a single spatial location or village then, based on the rule of descent group exogamy, spouses will have to come from one of the other surr ounding villages a process which binds such villages together. This will provide outside political alliances at wider spatial scales across the landscape. In contrast, it is not unusual for several different kin groups to reside in a single residential se ttlement In this case, if the lineages or clans are strongly corporate they are likely to be separated into wards or sectors with each descent group occupying its

PAGE 106

106 own segment of a village ( Tuzin 2001 ). M arriage in this case can take place within the vil lage among the various kin groups. In situations where a hamlet or town includes several kin groups, each may be related to groups in other villages. So in another village, perhaps several miles away, there are other lineages related to the first. In th is system the ties between the lineages in different villages may transcend the social propinquity of everyday affairs with the ties of common descent linking dispersed groups in different villages. This is important, as wherever several descent groups li ve in a single settlement or spatially contiguous locality, what they do collectively as members of separate descent groups or lineages may be as important as what they do within the local contexts of their residential settlement. Conversely, there are cas es where s ocial propinquity may override kinship rules, forming an important aspect of structuring relations between unrelated social groups. For instance in studies of Guianese groups researchers note that those who live together tend to be identified as consanguineal kin, whether through the use of Similarly Rivire notes group of which the criteria of memb ership are indistinguishably kin ship and co residence 1995:199). So, while formal links of kinship serve an important facet of social cohesion and identity the associations with place s and the consistent day to day interaction of non co residen t social groups can also act serve as a form of self identification and group affiliation. Finally in marriage relations between groups the relation of affinity seldom connects all members of one group with all members of another. Some systems of

PAGE 107

107 affin ial relationships are pervasive, stable and enduring across generations. These systems are generally known as alliance systems (Levi Strauss 1949; as discussed for the Tano in Ensor 2003). There are many problems associated with developing an understand ing of kinship in archaeological research ; however, the concepts discussed above hopefully bring to light some of the organizational dynamics of small scale social groups and how they can be organized and linked to other groups at broader scales. These st ructures have interpretive ramifications for the ways in which ritual and sociopolitical relations are pl ayed out across the landscape in terms of how social groups identify themselves with each other and the places in which they live Households and House s H ouseholds are traditionally conceived as basic reproductive social units, sharing economic tasks, social and natural resources and generally co residence and kinship (Ashmore and Wilk 1988:6; Blanton 1994:6). However, house and the household are two se parate things with the former referring to the physical structure and the latter to the people who dwell within it. As a concept and social reality households are dynamic entities. Household members are generally part of larger corporate groups linked at varying scales including the supra household, the residential settlement, the local community and polity. Hence interactions between households within a given village or locality, creates opportunities and constraints that are constantly structured an d negotiated. This view of the household as an activity group moves away from given definitions and towards a focus on the actions and interactions of people through household co (Souvatzi 20 08:10).

PAGE 108

108 W hether dispersed or nucleated residential settlements are com posed of households (Wilk 1988). In traditional horticultural and agricultural communities households often form the basis for the most fundamental economic and social units in soci ety ( Blanton 1994 ). Ethnographic data from lowland South America shows that in some cases households consist of either singular nuclear families residing in a single dwelling or several related nuclear families that are spatially clustered forming a domes tic compound (Butt 1970; Meggers 1971; Roe and Siegel 1982; Siegel 1990; Siegel and Roe 1986; Yde 1965). In other cases, extended families reside in a single large communal dwelling ( e.g. Crocker 1985; Gregor 1977; Heckenberger 2005; Jackson 1983; Seeger 1981; Wilbert 1981; Yde 1965). The interaction of communal or large extended households structures social action in a variety of ways. T he extended family has tensions which are not as evident as in the nuclear family (Wolfe 1966:68) and the social mech anisms used to integrate small dispersed village settlements are often inadequate for those that are larger and more densely populated ( Tuzin 2001 ). These relationships are intensified within and between settlements with increases in size and population ( Johnson 1978, 1982). 4 In this context the opportunities and constraints by which households are organized and integrated in small scattered populations may be quite different from regions with larger more concentrated populations. In the case of the lat ter perpetuation of the residential settlement can only be achieved through the production of organizational structures flexible enough to maintain social cohesion in the face of changing social and 4 And while political formations do not necessarily conform neatly to demographic or economic conditions (Heckenberger 2005:16) there are aspects of population that facilitate an understanding of the historical properties of settlement and a context that influences (not determines) o rganization at varying levels.

PAGE 109

109 demographic factors. There are several choices people c an make to relieve social pressures within the residential settlement including labor exchange, food sharing and integrative mechani sms for solidarity (Hegmon 1989 ). In recent years, Lvi Maison and Socites Maison (Lvi Strauss 198 2; 1987) or notions of have gained momentum as an interpretive model guiding social and political process at varying scales (Beck 2005; Gillespie 2000). As originally conceived by Lvi Strauss (1982), the House is a corpora te body whose material and immaterial wealth constitute an estate that is perpetuated through the transmission of name, nobility, materiality and ideology or symbolism through time. This temporal dimension is legitimized through kinship, affi nity, or both. The advantage of the House concept is that it attempts to overcome and integrate principles related to alliance, descent, endogamy and exogamy that are incompatible with traditional kinship studies (Rivire 1995). In house societies the e state is primary and kinship is one of several dimensions used to preserve it through time (Gillespie 2000). From this perspective, Houses represent long lived self identifying corporate social formations of which kinship is but one underl ying element (Gi llespie 2000). Rituality, Memory and Place While many archaeologists have veered away from causal explanat ions associated with population/ resource imbalances, few would disagree that with increases to maintain order and soci al cohesion These synapses are both relational and scalar linking people, places and time and require mechanisms that integrate social groups at varying spatial and demographic levels within the soci ety. Without these structuring

PAGE 110

110 principles to order social life and the capacity to accommodate social change, the fabric hereditary rank and wealth, without stable judici al and police mechanisms for discouraging disruptive, divisive behavior, and without the rules of the political game allowing actors to shift allegiances fairly readily, local communities are never secure in Tuzin 2001 :67). Theories of social complexity have predicted that sedentary population concentrations will frequently be unstable, with fissioning the predominant mechanism for resolving conflict (Bandy 2004; Chagnon 1968; Carn ei ro 19 98 ). It is also suggested that village fissioning will cease with the emergence of higher level integrative institutions ( Tuzin 2001 ). Because of this, group oriented ritual activity is central to the survival of any community in order to reinforce sociopolitical and religious ideologies, social relatio nships and resolve disputes (Adler and Wilshusen 1990; Cohen 1985; Connerton 1989 ; Earle 1997:153 154; Geertz 1980; Inomata and Coben 2006; Hegmon 1989:6 9 ; Turner 1969). Shared sacredness centralizes the interests of local groups in a variety of ways in western tradition separates and identifies as religio n, economy, and politics may have either been combined differently or more likely constituted a single inter penetratin g 1985:257). Ritual practices bring together social groups that often act separately in observance of an apical ancestor (or ancestors) which unite participants in shared sacredness. Hence, communities can consist of living and deceased members and the com munications and transactions between the living and the dead are central to

PAGE 111

111 reaffirming group membership through shared histor ies (Connerton 1989; Keesing 1975; Kopytoff 1971; Hoffman et al. 2010). Because of the importance of ritual in social reproductio n it is also an important arena for competition and social change. Ritual practices can be altered and manipulated to transform power structures, ideologies and histories. I nstitutions of rank and social power often become encapsulated in myth and ritua lity (Leach 1964; Geertz 1980). For this reason ritual and the organization and control o f communal ceremonies is highly political The contentious nature of ritual performance as a political tool is often exacerbated during times when regional populatio ns are in flux (Pauketat 2007; Schachner 2001). Ritual practices are often conducted within spaces characterized by spatially segregated public or civic architecture and a fundamental characteristic of the community is its creation through the shared con struction and use of the integrative ceremonial facilities (Adler and Wilshusen 1990 ; Geertz 1980; Earle 1997:155 158; Hegmon 2002 ; Inomata and Coben 2006). Through the construction of these features, and the perfromative rituals that occur at them commu nal identities are produced and inscribed in place (Tambiah 1979; Connerton 1989; Meskell 2007; Santos Granero1998; Thomas 2001). The importance of ceremonial architecture within a sociopolitical landscape is therefore evident in the function it serves to crosscut metaphysical domains, gather meaning and cite broader social frameworks. As such the archaeological examination of ritual facilities is fruitful for understanding community morphology and the ways in which people socially produce their collecti ve identities Community Geographies and the Structuration of Society As implied throughout this discussion communities are both people and place (Varien 1999:21; Pauketat 2008; Rodman 1992; Soja 1985). Communities have

PAGE 112

112 spatiality and are locales or micr o regions which situate co present social actors in their daily lives and tie them to other proximally related communities (Giddens 1984) In this section I provide a brief discussion of the conceptual relations between community, spatiality, landscapes, and the structuration of society. I offer additional methodological consideration of these issues in Chapter 4. As a framework for discussing social groups within the contexts of history and place, the concept of landscape is an important element of archa eological and anthropological research ( e.g. Anscheutz et al. 2001; Bender 1993; Crumley 1990; Knapp 1999; Low 2003; Thomas 2001). Traditional perspectives of landscape in the social sciences tend to view it as the physical or ecological setting for socia l action. However, recent perspectives recognize that landscapes emerge through lived experiences and are both a medium and product of social actions ( Thomas Tilley 1994:23). These two perspectives of landscape reflect differences betwe en concepts of spa ce and place. Space is usually defined as the physical setting within which everything occurs. It is conceptualized in mathematics and physics as Euclidean, topological, and infinite. This perspective is attribut able to Descartes, who conceived space as an absolute containing all senses and bodies (Smith 2003) In contrast p laces can be regarded as the outcome of the social process of valuing space (Lefebvre 1991). Hence, l andscapes can represent predominant patterns of social action and thought that fo rm an emergent system of reference underscored by materia lity (Soja 1985; Ingold 1993). Landscapes are socially produced and consumed and social networks, economic activities, and political opportunities are influenced by the physical reality of geography

PAGE 113

113 as well as the historical contingencies and relationality of people and place (Pred 1985). A central component to this is how people create their social realties in relation to particular places and how these identities and places are juxtaposed in relati on to other identities and places. Landscapes are thus an outcome of practices of identity whether self, or group, or nation state through engaging and re engaging, appropriating and contesting t he sedimented pasts that make up the landscape The application of structuration theory within geographical analysis offers a basis for conceptualizing these relations The use of structuration theory initiated in the 1980 s explor ed the ways in which social theory could inform understandings of the socio spatial dialectic (Soja 1980). For Giddens, the problem of social order and the constitution of political society was not discovering the innate underlying patterns of social life but rather a concern for how social systems are bound together in time and space (Giddens 1979 1984 ) concept of the duality of structure in which neither human agent nor societ y is regarded as having primacy in sociopolitical formation. Rather, this duality is a recursive process (Giddens 1981:5) fuelled by intended and unintended consequences of human action. In this context, social systems are regularized relations between i ndividuals and groups founded on habitual social practices within time and space. These engagements are enabled and constrained by rules and resources ( i.e. structure) available to social actors. It is the recursive relationship between rules, resources, and social action that dialectically reproduces social systems. Agency, exhibited through social action, is

PAGE 114

114 embodied in experience and therefore indivisible from time and space. Hence, people are spatially and temporally constrained. By extension, soci al action and interaction can only occur within particular spaces and times which limits the settings in which such interactions occur, structures how these settings are organized, and results in the social production of space (Giddens 1984). Understanding community organization, and the structuration of broader sociopolitical formations, requires an examination of landscapes through the materiality of lived spaces (Soja 1980, 1985). From this perspective residential settlements may be best considered not as individual sites, or points on a landscape, but as events or nodes in a network of relations based on kinship, social propinquity, the physical resistances of the land, resource locations, and the historically contingent circumstances related to their e mergence. Therefore, rather than viewing ceremonial architecture or clusters of residential settlements simply as indicators of community interaction these should be seen as the materialization of social organization, the outcome of complex social negotia tions and about the form and function of local sociopolitical networks across time and space (Schachner 2008). As cogently noted by thing of land and body, and a criti cal element of this is the history of places, and how Residential settlements, localities (or locales [Giddens 1979]), and regions are the spatial units of analysis use d in this research to study communities. Residential settlements have distinct boundaries evident in the material remains of archaeological residues of recurrent past human activities features, middens and artifact scatters.

PAGE 115

115 Residential settlements defin ed in this study are interpreted as the primary dwellings (or habitations) of individuals and their respective households. The identification and examination of residential settlement clusters has been central to identifying communities (Varien 1999:23; V arien and Potter 2008:2) and has forced archaeologists to move beyond individual sites as the primary unit of analytical interpretation. In this research I define a local community as a supravillage social group who live in proximity to one another withi n a geographically limited area, who have face to face interaction on a regular basis, and who share access to critical social and natural resources (Varien 1999:4). As a function of these relationships, the spatial proximity of communities and the locati on of the residential settlements of their constituent members will influence the degree to which social groups interact and share forms of meaning and behavior relative to their unique space/time contexts (Giddens 1984; Varien 1999; Yeager and Canuto 2000 :125). Here the community and the village are not synonymous and the relationships that form the basis of social and political groups By extension, the members of a politi cal community are tied to individuals in other communities through social relationships that influence their social roles and behaviors within their own, as well as within neighboring ones. The material manifestations of these linkages are evident not onl y in the interconnections between residential settlements, but also through nodes of ritualality and gathered humanity in the form of ceremonial spaces (Adler and Wilshusen 1989; Sassaman and Randall 2006). Therefore, the organization and development of s ocial groups within the landscape are influenced through the interactions am arena in which

PAGE 116

116 sociopolitical relationships are negotiated or played out" (Blanton et al. 1996; Kolb and Snead 1997:610). The social production of sp ace, and the control over places, is a focal point for understanding the social dimensions of political communities. According to ritual centralization, even in the abse nce of economic or administrative centralization; it forms a distinctive aspect of power critical in many non (Heckenberger 2005:25). It is through the production of these spaces that the sociopolitical relations within and b etween groups materializes in particular geogr aphic localities (Leach 1964). Summary: Communities in Archaeology and Practice Regardless of what approach we take to understanding social and political life in the past whether they be kin groups, households, Maisons, religious sects or other inclusive social, ideological or political imaginings they are all tied to notions of community. In contrast to early conceptualizations of community used by mid 20 th century ethnographers, I consider communities as both people and place historically situated and emergent based on networks of social interactions at varying scales. In this context, people make informed choices and pursue goals that have different sources of motivation and varying outcomes, with intended a nd unintended consequences, circumscribed and configured by spatiality, social practice and historical contingency. Further the community is here not considered a single location or site but at one scale a local network of social relations and at another a broader social imagining. As

PAGE 117

1 17 which social identity, residence, occupational history, land tenure, and resource use are spatialized supra household leve ; Leach 1961 ) Following this perspective, the construction of ancient political communities necessarily involve s the development of social institutions to cut across social divisions and recombine them to form broader social and politica l imaginings. This process of groupings contesting rights, privileges, histories, and resource access on a local level. Hence, i n developing the problem orientation to examine the political landscape through community organization I do not presuppose a societal typological construct to conceptualize the polity. Rather, I suggest critical study of the relations between humans and landscapes and the underlying conditions indicative of political structure at smaller scales as well as how communities construct and promote their own identities

PAGE 118

118 CHAPTER 4 METHODOLOGICAL CONSI DERATIONS FOR THE AR CHAEOLOGICAL STUDY O F COMMUNITIES This chapter provides analytical strategies and some of the methodological considerations for the archaeological study of communities presented in this research. Beyond the chiefdom attribute list of Peebles and Kus (1977), I contend that an understanding of incipient political institutions begins wit h examining small scale local social groups or communities. To pursue this endeavor it is necessary to link concepts about what communities are to how they are manifested in the archaeological record. This discussion builds off of conceptions of communit y presented in Chapter 3 and focuses on how small scale social groups settle inhabit and ultimately produce local and regional landscapes. In the first section of this chapter, I discuss the analytical domains explored in this work. This section provide s the epistemological approach that informs the progression of analyses and subsequent interpretations throughout this research As settlement data forms a primary line of evidence in this research, the second portion of this chapter offers a general revi ew of settlement studies with particular emphasis on previous studies from the Caribbean. The final section of this chapter offers a detailed discussion of the socio spatial factors influencing settlement, community formation, and social interaction at lo cal and regional scales. Analytical Strategies A variety of approaches have been use to study communities archaeologically (Canuto and Yeager eds. 2000; Kolb and Snead 1997; Varien and Pottery eds. 2008). Recent research focuses on detailed studies of do mestic life (Horning 2000), the use of integrative ritual facilities for solidifying social and political identities (Inomata and

PAGE 119

119 Coben 1996; Kolb and Snead 1997), the creation of social and symbolic landscapes (Snead 2008), and/or population movement (Sch achner 2007). In this research I focus on three analytical domains directly linked to these aforementioned topics including: the 1) composition and 2) organization of communities, evinced through the materiality of settlement, and 3) their symbolic constr uction through the building and use of integrative ritual facilities. Taken together, these analytical domains provide a rich view of local social groups, their articulation within the social landscape, and the creation of contexts conducive to social ch ange. Central to examining communities is a need to understand the composition of the social groups which comprise them. A necessary step in this endeavor is the identification of residential settlements and characterization of the regional settlement pat tern. Through an examination of the size, distribution, and occupational continuity of residential settlements analysis can be conducted to posit group size, variability in organization, and how they articulated to the broader social landscape through tim e. Moreover, examination of the size and occupational duration of settlements offers insight to potential relationships between settlement density, nucleation, and its impacts on social and political centralization in particular localities (Fletcher 2007; Roscoe 1994). Social and economic distances, such as those that posit a relationship between the distance of agricultural fields from residential settlements ( e.g. Chilsom, 1979; Stone 1991; Varien 1999) and/or the social spacing of settlements, can also be identified. Distance between settlements, while potentially reflecting dimensions of the subsistence economy, can yield clues to the social interactions among community

PAGE 120

120 members and how they may have interacted as larger corporate collectives (Hayden a nd Cannon 1982; Varien 1999). Other organizational dimensions, such as degree of integration, competition, and authoritative control or autonomy can also be gleaned through analysis of settlement distributions, sizes and/or sizes of ritual integrative fac ilities (Adler and Wilshusen 1990; Li Lu 1997; Johnson 1980). Critical examination of factors of distance and the distribution of residential settlement allows for an analysis of how physical and human geographies create opportunities for or constraints on agency and action. Th is relational approach differs from traditional perspectives of landscapes reliant upon central place concepts because it focuses on the structure of interacting units. Here a ctors and their actions are viewed as interdependent rath er than independent and the links between actors are channels for the transfer of information and resources (either material or nonmaterial). The organization of communities and the distribution of their residential settlements structures and is structur ed by access to social and symbolic resources, notably people in neighboring communities. Such access depends on a variety of factors including relative topographic position within the region (Clarke and Blake 1994; Johnson 1977:492). For instance, some basic features of the landscape ( e.g. mountains, steep valleys, and rough coastlines) will inhibit travel and communication to some areas; other features ( e.g. mountain passes, level terrain, and navigable rivers) funnel social contact into specific area s. Inherent potential for travel, coupled with distribution of critical resources, influences settlement locations, sizes, population densities, permanence, and future growth (Fletcher 2007). Hence, in the broader contexts of the settlement system some r esidential settlements will be central and

PAGE 121

121 others peripheral to differentially distributed social groups and critical resources (Clarke and Blake 1994). By examining the composition and arrangement of social groups in particular localities it also possible to discuss aspects related to territorial development and the sociopolitical landscape at broader scales (Sack 1986). For instance, Netting (1990) and Stone (1991) have argued that systems of land tenure and boundary maintenance are central to the organi zation of small scale agricultural groups. Congruently, many researchers have indicated that the formalization of land use and property rights are primary evidence for political consolidation (see Gerritsen 2003; Hayden and Cannon 1982; Sack 1986). Here the limiting associations to land, tied to social identity and history, are inherently political (Delaney 2005; Smith 2003). Land tenure and territory have symbolic as well as physical components evident in settlement patterns. For instance, s patial manifestations of territoriality are also evident in the distribution of ritual integrative facilities which legitimize land rights and access to local resources. Further, investments in distinctive stylistic features of various components of mater ial culture ( e.g. pottery, petroglyphs) may reflect community identity and boundaries at different scales (Barth 1969; Hodder 1985; Wobst 1977). Such boundaries are both communal and political in that their construction yields divisions in identities tha t establish differences between social groups at local and regional scales. The social and symbolic construction of communities is perhaps most conspicuous in landscape modifications entailing the construction of integrativ e ritual facilities (A dler and Wi lshusen 1990). The symbolic and ideological dimensions of these features serve

PAGE 122

122 to sediment social groups in places by acting as visible referents for the community and differentiating them from others. Further, examination of the use and quantification o f the construction of ritual integrative facilities yields clues to the composition of communities through indentifying potential associations between their size and the number of people that may have used them (Kolb and Snead 1997). Methodologically, th is work takes a relational perspect ive to landscapes and the study of community organization that while recognizing the influence of central (ized) spaces (and places) seeks to unpack dimensions of the social, political, and historical processes that forme d them In developing the problem approach, I avoid a falsificationist methodology focused on a hypothetico deductive logic. Such approaches in archaeology are often employed for rejecting grand and complex theories that, more often than not, overstep th e scale at which the archaeological data at hand is able to address (Hodder 2000; 1987b). Reliance upon such approaches to the past promote a dichotomous black/white yes/no mode of categorical thinking that omits large amounts of useful and interesting su bject matter necessary for contextualizing and interpreting the archaeological record (Hodder 1986, 1987a; McIntosh 1998, 2005; Shanks and Tilley 1992). different contexts, thus, the best way to examine the origins and effects of similarities and differences is through comparison of the archaeological record on its own terms. A historical comparative perspective allows us to determine what is unique about certain social cont exts that promote (or inhibit) change ( Pauketat 2001). Hence, analysis and interpretation throughout this work relies on identifying and interpreting central

PAGE 123

123 tendencies in the data A productive way for approaching this is to focus on variables and analy ses that identify commonalities or divergences based on empirical examination of the data at hand. In this context, the identification of central tendencies in the data facilitates the detect ion and interpret ation of structural patterns This approach do es not seek to promote a normative perspective to the structure of social and political organization in the sense of suggesting universal patterns. To the contrary, it acknowledges that variability exists and recognizes the need to explain both patterns o f similarit y and differences present in the data. In the following sections I give a review of settlement pattern studies as relevant to this research. I specifically focus on the spatiality of small scale agricultural communities which provide analytical and interpretive foundations for the settlement analysis conducted in Chapters 7 and 8. These sections seek to flesh out some of the settlement factors structuring social life and in particular those which contribute to the organization of locally distin ct social groups. These sections also deal with methodological considerations including conceptualizations of region, locality, time, and settlement nomenclature. Details regarding ritual integrative facilities are reserved for a detailed treatment prese nted in Chapter 9. Landscapes of Settlement: Concepts and Contexts Settlement landscapes are the fundamental empirical component of human geography and regional studies in archaeology. A settlement is generally defined as a place in which people live and dwell, and where they are most involved in aspects of daily life. The variability in settlement, as discussed in geography, is based on population size and identifiable structural (often architectural) features that represent functional differences in th em. Such typologies are the cornerstones of modern

PAGE 124

124 geographical research and founded on principles of transportation, administration, and economics which are used to characterize settlement systems. In geography, settlement systems are generally classifie d as urban or rural (Aitken and Valentine 2006). In the case of the former, analytical categories focus on high density, large population centers generally characterizing modern settlement systems and industrial complexes composing cities and towns. In t he case of the latter, the focus is on smaller population aggregates of low density settlement systems within agricultural communities like villages, hamlets, and farmsteads (Fletcher 2007). The adaptation of these categorical descriptors in archaeologica l research generally employs elements of either or both simultaneously depending on the scale of the society under examination. In archaeological research the discussion of settlements and settlement patterns have become so common that many researchers take for gra nted the terms utilized to describe and interpret settlements However, recent research of ancient social and political landscapes brings into question our ability to readily define or identify immediate differences between urban and rural, ci ty and village (see Heckenberger 2008, 2009; McIntosh 1998, 2005; Pauketat 2007). These shifting epistemologies are a product of refocused views of human sociality in the social sciences. For the purposes of this research I generally follow concepts and terminology associated with the study of rural agricultural settlements in geography (Nagle 1996 ; Roberts 1996 ) As archaeological research in Puerto Rico and other areas of the Caribbean continues, it will be useful for researchers to critically engage t heir conceptions of settlement to fully interpret the social implications of the archaeological patterns observed.

PAGE 125

125 Geographers, generally describe settlement distributions as either dispersed or clustered (nucleated) ( Nagle 1996 ). These terms usually refe r to the distribution of individual domestic structures across the landscape; however, they also can describe the spatial organization of settlements themselves such as villages, towns, and/or cities. Dispersed settlements are those that are widely distri buted over a broad area. In contrast, a clustered pattern is one in which structures or settlements are nucleated in a smaller area Clustered patterns of settlement tend to develop where natural resources are patchy, although there are other socially mi tigating factors that can contribute to the nucleation of settlement. Clustered patterns often take a variety of configurations including variations of dendric (web like) and linear formations. Linear patterns of settlement refer to the distributions th at tend to follow roads, coastlines or rivers and are common in regions where such features define the physical landscape Dendric or open patterns are common in areas where resources or topography is more evenly distributed. Critical examination of the form and distribution of settlements facilitates an understanding of the factors structuring them and the composition of the social groups that create them. Settlement Patterns Studies in Archaeology The study of regional settlement patterns has been an important aspect of archaeological research since the 1950s ( Chang [ed.] 1968 ; Trigger 196 7, 1968 ; Willey 1953, 1956 ) Stimulated by innovations in quantitative spatial analysis developed in geography in the 1950s and 1960s the study of settlement patter ns grew in practical application in archaeological research throughout the 197 0s ( e.g. Flannery 1976; Hodder and Orton 1976). This trend has gained momentum over the past 25 years ; largely a result of advancements in computer technology and the developme nt of

PAGE 126

126 Geographical Information Systems (GIS) for managing, generating, storing, manipulating, analyzing and presenting spatial data (Aldenderfer and Maschner 1996, Maschner [ed.] 1996; Wheatly and Gillings 2004). Settlement studies in archaeology are typi cally approached from one of two perspectives focused either on human environmental relationships or po litical /economic organization. While complementary in many respects, each possesses their own objectives and underlying assumptions. Recognition of the se differences and their impact on how archaeologists think about social and cultural processes has been a point of debate since the inception of the approach ( e.g. Rouse 1968). Environmental approaches to settlement patterns in archaeology grew out of cu ltural ecological studies in the 1960s where analyses focused on discerning the logic of settlement distributions to explain local cultural phenomenon as environmental and ecological adaptation (Steward 1955). Later studies focused on economic organizatio n and resource exploitation of natural environments. For example, c atchment analysis ( Viti Finzi and Higgs 1970) offered a useful tool for examining subsistence exploitation strategies by developing ranges of distance from a given settlement and calculati on of resource types that could be tapped within the area defined by it Subsequent research in this vein emphasized quantification of environmental variables to develop locational or predictive models of where various archaeological sites might be locat ed (Kvamme 2006). Both models assume a least cost perspective in which humans are seen as situating their activities in such a way as to conserve the amount of energy needed to access or distribute resources. The major critique of this

PAGE 127

127 approach has been that human environmental interaction determines the spatial arrangement of settlements and ultimately the organization of society. Sociopolitical Approaches to Settlement Patterns Research Contrasting with sett lement studies focused on human environmental interaction s sociopolitical approaches seek to interpret organizational dynamics by identifying social and/or political rules or conditions which influenced the distribution of material remains across the landscape. In this context the focus is on ident ifying centers of political power and their position in regional administrative hierarchies ( e.g. Flannery 1976; Johnson 1977 ; Li Liu 1996 ) At the heart of these analyses is a hierarchical conceptualization of space founded on Central Place Theory (CPT) CPT assume s major centers will be equally spaced from one another and surrounded by a nested hierarchy of increasingly smaller sites ( Losch 1954; Christaller 1966). CPT theory was developed to explain the spatial distribution of modern urban societies e ngaged in market economies. German geographer Walter Christaller was the first to notice that towns of a certain size were roughly equidistant from one another and surrounded by smaller settlements (Christaller 1966 [ 1933 ] ). By examining and defining the functions of the settlement structure and the size of the hinterland Christaller was able to model the pattern of settlement locations using hexagons based on hierarchical principles of organization Two principles of Christaller s model have been centra l to archaeological studies of settlement and regional sociopolitical organization: the transport and administrative principle s. According to the transport principle, central places are evenly distributed with lower order centers located at the midpoint b etween larger centers of gr e ater importance. This principle highlights patterns of equal spacing in which settlements

PAGE 128

128 minimize their costs and maximize efficiency of economic transport networks. In his administrative model, the organizing principle was b ased upon the notion that political or administrative centers could not be overlapping and that subordinate centers were directly tied to a primate center. Following Christaller, archaeologists generally view the regional distribution of central places, an d their subordinate settlements, as a n indicator of de cision making levels within a regional sociopolitical hierarchy (de Montmillon 1989; Johnson 1977; Wright and Johnson 1975). Settlement hierarchies are typically based on site size and relative amounts of ceremonial/public architecture or public space at a given settlement (de Montmillon 1989; Flannery 1976; Spencer 1998; Steponaitis 1981; Wright and Johnson 1975 ; see Siegel 199 9 for discussion on Puerto Rico). Rank size studies suggest that the intens ity of centralization in a settlement system is a function of the degree to which a site is dominant based on its size ( i.e. assumed population) relative to associated sites ( e.g. Johnson 1977; Li Liu 1996; Savage 1997) Centralized political control is often considered evident in regional settlement hierarchies represented by two or three tiers. At the top of the hierarchy, is often an identifiable regional center characterized by either the largest in size or possessing the most ceremonial/public space in the region (Flannery 1976; Spencer 1998). According to Anderson command structure thus provide an effective measure of the organizational complexity of chiefdom (Anderson 19 96:232). Further, settlements of primary importance ( i.e. centers) are often considered proximally located in relation to other settlements and critical environmental resources. Lower levels in the hierarchy tend to be smaller in size

PAGE 129

129 with less ceremoni al/publ ic space attributed to them. These spatial characteristics are generally ascribed to the regional organization of chiefly politie s and indicative of based hierarchies associated with CP T that are ignored in archaeological settlement studies and which obfuscate our understanding of social and political landscapes. CPT is essentially static, explaining the existence of a regional spatial structure but failing to explain the historical cont ingencies of how the structure emerges and changes through time (Smith 2003). Further, CPT assumes that regions are isotropic (flat), that populations are evenly distributed, that resources are evenly distributed, and that development and change generally follows a mathematical pattern based on exponential growth. H idden within these idealized patterns are histories, horizontal power structures, social rules and tensions influencing the spatiality of living peoples In this research ex amination of the mo rphology of settlement and organization of communities is inspired by studies that examine the relational linkages in similar but spatially discontinuous supra (Renfr ew 1986:1). Here emphasis is placed on the morphological and relational constructs of these formations that seek to explain how they were ordered, articulated, fractionated, and mutually constituted at local and regional scales. Settlement Patterns Resear ch in the Caribbean In spite of its long and rich archaeological history, the study of regional settlements in the Caribbean is limited. Early settlement research focused on the Greater Antilles and Virgin Islands with an emphasis on site locations in rel ation to their natural environments for inferring subsistence exploitation and processes of island colonization

PAGE 130

130 ( e.g. Rouse 1956; Sleight 1965 ). Due to the complexity and diversity of island ecologies, these approaches have maintained their currency o ver the past 30 years Since the 198 0s settlement studies in the region have focused on human environmental relationships to examine economic organization and potential change through time (Armstrong 1980; Bradford 200 Keegan and Diamond 1987; Keegan 1985; Lundberg 1985; Righter 1999; Siegel 1993; Torres 2001). In more recent studies, human environmental interactions have been utilized to document and test models related to island demography and the capacity of specific geographic settings to support region al populations (Curet 1992, 2005; Torres and Curet 2008). Settlement studies emphasizing human environmental relationships have also been utilized to assist in the development of predictive models to identify potential site locations as a management to ol for regional survey and site inventory programs ( e.g. Cooper 200 7 ; Rodrguez Lopez 1985; Reid 2008). In contrast, studies emphasizing sociopolitical perspectives of settlement are limited with most research focused on determining the structure of the caci cazgos on Hispaniola and Puerto Rico at or immediately prior to European contact ( e.g. Wilson 1992; Siegel 1996). settlement studies to take a holistic perspective by employing an array of spa tial analyses to explore Saladoid and Ostionoid sociopolitical organization on the island. More recent research related to sociopolitical settlement patterning comes from the Lesser Antilles. In her recent doctoral dissertation, Hardy examined exchange n etworks among pre contact social groups in the Virgin Islands (Hardy 2008). Using GIS and systems theory approach, she identified spheres of interaction founded on a complex

PAGE 131

131 network of exchange relationships which she interprets as the basis of an emergen t regional political economy as early as AD 400. In her research, Hardy postulates these interaction become the nexus for broader regional patterns of sociopolitical rela tions. However, the processes by which these networks emerged and the outcomes on the regional social and political system are not explained. Keegan and Mclachalan (1989) presented one of the few studies to emphasize social organization as central to the spatial structuring of sociopolitical groups. As the distributions, production, exchange, and political relations as the determining factors of settlement locations. Se (Keegan and Mclachalan 1989:613). In their research in the Bahamian archipelago the authors suggest that Ta no settlements evolved over time in three phases. The first was made up of settlemen ts which were randomly distributed. During the second the settlements became regularly spaced pairs. Finally settlements become clustered and plaza communities emerge ( Keegan and Mclachalan 1989: 624 626). Based on the preponderance of proximally related settlement pair s 1 observed during the study they interpret the relationships between communities representing intermarrying clans. For Keegan and Mc reflected the practice of localizing males in a society that practiced mat rilineal descent and matrilocal Keegan 2007:155). In this context they posited that the aggregation of males represented a shift to avunculocal residence among Tano elites. However, the 1 Over 90 percent of the settlements occur in pairs (Keegan 1992, 2007).

PAGE 132

132 major criticism leveled against the model (as with many settlement studies) relates to contemporaneity of s ites and the idea that patterns of kinship are not readily visible in the archaeological record (Gillespie 2000) Despite these critiques, it is important to note that they recognize the influence of soc ial organization in the spatiality of the archaeological landscape. S tudies of migration and demography have also been a focus of inquiry 1997 settlement study of the Caribbean islands, in conjunction with radiocarbon dates, offered one of the earliest and most interesting views of non linear migration in the region. In terms of demography, recent work by Curet (2005) examined settlement patterns from four drainage basins in Puerto Rico (including Yauco and Salinas). that different regions while showing similarities in growth during Period III, displayed considerable demographic variation. The majority of the settlement oriented research in the Caribbean has been product of survey projects resulting in general descrip tions and documenting site inventories ( Haviser 1985; Ma z Lpez and Questell Rodrguez 1990 ; Tronolone and Cinquino 1990 ; Rodrguez Lopez 1985 ) However, rarely are studies carried to their logical conclusion leading to a fully developed perspective of t he regional sociopolitical history. A notable exception is presented in the recent work of de Wa a l (2006) who surveyed and tested several sites in eastern Guadeloupe. Focusing on micro region al dynamics de Wa a l was able to not only characterize regional settlement variability but also document substantive changes i n settlement through time which served to form the foundation for broader social and political interpretations in the region.

PAGE 133

133 Regional Studies and Settlement Research in Puerto Rico Early anthr opological research documenting the spatiality of sociopolitical organization in Puerto Rico can be traced back to Few ke s who provided a synthesis of the geographical descriptions of the cacicazgos from ethnohistoric accounts (1907:35 41). In later work, Rouse presented the potential location of the villages of Puerto Rican caciques at the time of contact in map form (1952:370). Rico, was highly developed for its time. His survey and testing program facilitated an understan ding of the islands regional sociocultural variation and continues to be utilized as a primary resource today. How ever, it was not until the 1970 s, with the work of Gary Vescelius that the spatial organization of regional polities was critically examined In his 1977 paper Vescelius studied the distribution of ballcourts for the island of Puerto Rico and noted that they tended to be distributed on or near the proposed boundaries of cacicazgos documented at the time of European contact. This prompted Ves celius to suggest that these features served as integrative facilities between local ly competing sociopolitical groups. In more rec ent work, Siegel conducted rank size analysis on a sample of plaza/ball court sites to model the sociopolitical landscape (Si egel 1996 1999 2004). For Siegel variations in the amounts of ceremonial space associated with particular sites through time is considered evidence of competitive regional building episodes and the centralization of political control (1999). Oliver, ( 1998, 1999, 2007) also examined the organization of the political landscape based on the distribution of plaza/ batey s in the region surrounding Caguana in the mountains of central Puerto Rico. Oliver observed a tiered network of settlements with larger ce remonial sites representing higher positions in the regional hierarchy (Oliver et al. 1998, 1999, 2009). However, he

PAGE 134

134 suggests that the ubiquity of ceremonial features throughout the landscape indicate a more complex picture of sociopolitical organization l ikely involving the shifting importance of local lineages or clans (Oliver 2007 2009). In an earlier study, Lundberg examined settlement trends for south central Puerto Rico through time environ mental and political factors by examining physiographic settings and the distribution ceremonial centers. For Lundberg the analysis of both (environmental and political) indicate theoretical incompatibility but rather to find out how far each may be pursued on its own merits and to make apparent those shifts in the location of ceremonial sites through time a nd was perhaps one of the first to suggest the instability of pre Tano polities This research also demonstrated trends in the movement of settlements inland through time and the concomitant emergence of ritual facilities. The observations and gaps in k nowledge pointed out in her research catalyzed subsequent investigations ( Curet 2005; Torres 2001, 2005, 2010) and are influential in the research presented in this dissertation. To conclude this brief overview, s ettlement pattern analysis offers a n import ant tool for characterizing regional viability and changes in the organization and development of regional social groups. Settlement studies in the Caribbean are gradually moving from the definition of first order variables and predictive location modelin g to an understanding of second order variables and analysis of social and political organization and change through time.

PAGE 135

135 Inferences resulting from settlement studies can yield an understanding of human landscape interactions and sociopolitical organiza tion of human populations through time. Importantly settlement studies provide a means for contextualizing the spatiality of social life and the history of lived landscapes. T he underlying implication here is that these patterns represent processes that are both the medium and outcome of historically mitigated social practices which come to form the landscape When used in conjunction with other lines of data, settlement patterns provide a powerful tool for examining the organization of sociopolitical fo rmations and change through time Regions and Localities Archaeological definitions of region vary with particular research interests, but are usually defined by topography and the distribution of material culture traits (Crumley and Marquardt 19 90 ; Duff 2 000; Willey and Phillips 1958:19). Regions are often a spatially defined scale within which archaeologists believe some type of social phenomena or social interactions of a particular group of people during a particular period were concentrated. However, a closer look at regions suggests that they are less internally coherent than we might expect ( e.g. McGuire 1996). The question then becomes not only whether we can identify coherent regions but how to study lived landscapes in a meaningful way through those that constituted them (Duff 2000:71 ). In this work the region as a conceptual entity is the outcome of the relational links between localities The identification of these relationships, and the ability to interpret the organizational properties o f the settlement landscape, lies in discerning similarities and differences in the distribution of material culture through time and space Locales (Giddens 1984) or localities are defined here as micro regions in which social interactions are concentrated in particular geographic locations based on social

PAGE 136

136 propinquity and the friction of distance (Soja 1989:149). It is through the social propinquity of residential settlements that allows for regular face to face interaction among individuals which promotes the iden interactions with others who are physically co Giddens 1979:64 72). In this work locales/localities denote enduring social spaces that are stabilized socially and spatially through the settlement of habita tion sites (Soja 1989:151; Varien and Potter 2008). The physical geography and materiality of locales give form to communities and the persistence of some habitations form enduring institutions within the social and political landscape As noted in the previous discussion, settlement pattern studies are typically focused on examining hierarchical relationships among sites contingent upon concepts associated with CPT (Christaller 1966; King 1984). In archaeology, critiques in the application of CPT note that the model was originally developed to examine economic relationships in modern European industrial societies ( Hassig 1991:19; Smith 2003 ). From this perspective the model relies on innate assumptions of social interaction and power that dictate the u nderlying form of hierarchical structures among social g roups Problematically, these assumed relations of power and centrality are what need to be discovered by archaeologists and cannot be assumed ipso facto Hence the role of centers should neither be viewed strictly in and of themselves nor should we assume that these places are entirely synonymous in function. In this work the Ceremonial Center of Tibes offers a conceptual focal point for examining community organization and the sociopolitical lands cape. While Tibes and other sites with ceremonial architecture are certainly it is important to view them

PAGE 137

137 as lived communal spaces, or nodes in a network, where power and identity w ere negotiated through their social and material construction While this research examines the organization o f community groups of the south central region, it should be understood that this represents one small snapshot in a wider Circum c.f. Peregrine et al. 19 96 ) of social cultural and historical processes. In contrast to r ecent trends that emphasize broad macro regional connections of materiality and sociality (Bright 2011; Hofman 1995; Hofman and Hoogland 2004 ) it is the purpose of this work to examine soci al processes at smaller regional and micro regional scales of analysis so that we may begin to develop local histories of the communities that once lived in them. 2 As cogently noted by place the community scale of direct lived experience and interpretation, and space the regional scale which aggregate human action and socionatural forces impact local places, necessarily leads to understandings as to what was going on among the people who created the archaeologic al sites we [original emphasis] ). Spatialities of Social and Political Life To interpret the settlement patterns presented in the proceeding chapters it is important to consider how concepts of territory and the physicality of dist ance serve to structure social relationships by enabling and constraining human interactions. Distance and the distribution of settlements denote inherent properties related to emic constructions of social and political spaces (Soja 1985 ; Santos Granero 1 998 ). In most pre Columbian societies the primary mode of transportation was walking. In the 2 the best way to understand [pre Columbian] populations is b y analyzing small localities, and not whole islands, at a time

PAGE 138

138 contexts of the ancient Caribbean, walking is supplemented by water travel of marine environments and navigable inland waterways. In the case of the study regio n, all navigable watercourses flow north to south and are limited to their inland extent by the narrowing of watercourses as distance from the coast increases. This is particularly evident in the uplands and foothill regions of the island where the shallo w and r ocky nature of these water courses precludes travel by canoe. While these waterways were certainly corridors, interaction between most social groups would likely have been based on travel by foot Traditional archaeological studies regarding the mo vement of people through a given landscape have emphasized the relationships between resource locations and the travel distance necessary to acquire those resources by individuals ( e.g. Arnold 1985; Chisholm 19 68 ; Varien 1999; Viti Finzi and Higgs 1971 ). Cross cultural studies established travel cost as a critical factor in movement through landscapes which offers insight to the interaction between local social groups. The speed at which one can walk has been documented between approximately 2.75 km and 3.5 km per hour (Arnold 1985:34; Cotterell and Kamminga 1990:193 196; Drennan 1984; Stone 1991). Based on this calculation, an individual could travel between 22 and approximately 28 km walking eight hours, non stop in a single day (over level terrain). T hese studies have been summarized in a number of works regarding sedentary agricultural groups including research presented by Arnold (1985), Stone (1991) and Chisholm (19 68 ). Research conducted by Chisholm (19 68 ) examined distances farmers would walk to fields from their settlement and concluded that distances were typically less than 1 km with trips beyond 3 to 4 km the upper threshold. In more

PAGE 139

139 detailed studies, Stone (1991) examined how far Kofyar farmers travelled to participate in cooperative work gr oups and found that travel was limited to less than 1 km with 2 km the upper threshold. For societies with shifting cultivation practices, such as in New Guinea ( Tuzin 2001 ; Clarke 1971) and Amazonia (Gregor 1980; Carneiro 19 60 ) agriculture is generally co nducted within 5 km of the habitation site and distances greater than this require substantive modification to the settlement system (Arnold 1985). Usually, such modification entails settlement fissioning through the development of a farmhouse adjacent to cultivated land which is initially occupied on a semi permanent basis. In this Garden Plot model (Butt 1971) the household responsible for its upkeep will often permanently relocate to these locations. Once residence is permanently established, these fa rmsteads tend to develop into hamlets or small villages based on attraction of additional households or through birth and rules of residence in subsequent generations ( e.g. Heckenberger 2005 ). In general, cultural studies of small scale agricultural commu nities supports that 2.5 to 5 km as a reasonable estimate for the size of the area most frequently utilized areas for cultivation and the activities associated with daily social life around the residential settlement (Arnold 1985; Stone 1991). This area i n the immediate vicinity of constituted by numerous specialized activity sites ( Gregor 1977; Heckenberger 2005:238). These socially created places, also known as world and each other.

PAGE 140

140 The connection between a people and the physical spaces they occupy is central for considering local histories and the devel opment of supravillage social groups not only because of familiar ity and dependence but also because people come to think of themselves and place s as organically and even spiritually linked (Basso 1996; Naranjo 2008; Santos Granero 1998) From this persp ective, residential settlements are fixed localities in the organization of the landscape and become places to which histories and myths are attached, which play a role in the way that communities identified themselves with the land and leg itimized claims to it The emergence of community as place vis vis territoriality, can be expected in sedentary societies because it is an efficient device for establishing differential access to locally social and natural resources as well as instilling in those that dwell within it a sense of identity (Gerritsen 2003; Sack 1986:59). Increases in local populations and infringement on these spaces create new challenges for the maintenance and reproduction of social and biological life (Sack 1986:59 ; Tuzin 2001 ). While I certainly do not advocate monocausal explanations for social and political change, few would argue that substantial increase in population places stress on the organizational capacity of social groups ( Carneiro 1992; G iddens 1984; Johnson 1977 ). Hence factors of demography and the distribution of regional populations influence the organization of social groups and the structure of the networks among and between them. In turn, historical conditions predicate how local social groups will situate themsel ves in geographical spaces and develop social relationships. Social Considerations for Residential Settlements While archaeologists tend to focus on ecological and economic factors affecting the locational choices of settlements, there are other social fa ctors contributing to the

PAGE 141

141 spatiality of ancient communities. Without denying that it is important for people in formative agricultural communities to settle in close proximity to natural resources (especially cultivable land and water) there are several o ther factors (as alluded to in the previous section) which contribute to the location and organization of settlement. For instance, factors which favor nucleation include joint and cooperative working of the land, social organization, defensibility, rules of inheritance (Ross et al. 2000). Nucleated patterns also emerge where people are blood related and/ or have strong social ties. Cross cultural examples are readily evident where toponyms refer to particular families and the locales in which they live Areas of nucleated settlement may also emerge from patterns of inheritance. Where land is divided equally between sons and daughters of landowners, a nucleated pattern will form as successive generations build houses on the same site. Finally a nucleate d pattern s or large settlements promote safety through the availability of a pool of warriors in the event of intergroup violence ( e.g. Chagnon 1968). Social conditions which favor dispersed settlement can be seen in situations where settlement was cond ucted by individual pioneering families where blood ties and group belonging are weaker (Keesing 1975). Further, dispersed patterns are also prevalent w here inheritance is decided on the law of primogeniture (land is passed to the eldest son or daughter) and ission off to build their own farmsteads (Murdock 1949). Dispersed settlement is also conducive to s lash and burn agriculture where immediate areas surrounding settle ments are necessary for the cultivation of domesticates

PAGE 142

142 Political D istance s and Territories Settlement patterns are also tied to social valuation of spaces and ingrained in community and political identities. The control, rights, and identities fused with land gives substance to political formations and their existence. Territorial associations and rights to land were likely a central dimension to the historic Tano and it is logical to assume that this condition had its roots in earlier process of settlement and regional interaction. 3 Previous archaeological studies reg arding the spatial dimensions of social interaction, particularly related to the territorial extent of fledgling polities, suggest that most territories encompass an area within about a one half days travel from administrative residential settlements Thi s distance is variable based on local physiographic conditions and has been differentially documented in previous research. In one instance, Spencer has suggested that the spatial limit in Venezuela is a radius for about a half da y travel from the regional center, or about 11 km (Spencer 1982:6 7, 1987:375). In another case from the American Bottom, Hally suggests that Mississippian political centers ( AD 1000 AD 1550) greater than 18 km apart belonged to different polities (Hall y 1993) Finally, in her study of Panamanian chiefdoms, Helms found that regional paramount centers were spaced travel apart (1979:53). These distances conform to independent observations made by Roscoe (199 3 ) who indicates that political centralization is tied to the connections 3 As noted by Lovn union in the Greater Antilles depe nded politically on the culture, quality and extension o f the cacicazgos Ta nos liv ed on the islands in distinct dominions, bound ed politically, by one another. No one could hunt or fish in a domain, forei gn to him. Such a trespass constituted grounds for war The cacicazgos possessed different territorial extension in the various reg ions, over the village alone, or over an Indian province with its several village ( Lovn 2010:71).

PAGE 143

143 between individuals and the ability of rulers to consistently interact with their political constituency. Spatial distances between larger social aggregates promote local group identities and connections to place. Such identities are often defined by affiliations of kinship and as such social or political locales define areas inhabited by lineages, clans or local descent groups. Emphasis on spatiality of these relationships facilitates broader social ordering and the development of structural order for marriage partners and political alliances in various ways. The delineation of such areas and their control by locally related kin groups may cause increased focus on the underlying ancestral relations defining them (Siegel 1999). A final, yet important factor, to consider is the gravitational affects of p articular localities and larger settlements -particularly those with ceremonial architecture. Since these places operate as specialized centers of communal activ ity they may have been visited by people from more distant locations (DeBoer and Blitz 1991; Lekson et al. 1988). Travel to and from these locations, particularly for extended ritual activities or feasting events may have entailed travel times beyond a si ngle day While such ritual migrations of gathered humanity brings to mind annual pilgrimages to Mecca, or travels among ancient societies of the southwestern United States to Chaco, this research is emphasizes immediate and localized patterns that form t he base for these social and political experiences. Project Approach Summary In this research communities are seen as local social groups for whom the spatial proximity of their constituent residential settlements and households allowed members to interac t on a frequent basis in first order or co present (Giddens 1984) social

PAGE 144

144 relationships. As such the residential settlement forms the smallest archaeological unit of analysis for identifying locales of persistent interaction as well as for exploring the o rganization and articulation of social groups in broader social and political networks. In developing an approach to studying the regional landscape, I chose to emphasize aspects of spatiality pertaining to the composition of communities and the implicat ions of the available archaeological data to characterize organizational dynamics and the underlying conditions leading to social change. Hence my focus is on analytical dimensions associated with these problems and variables. 4 In this work, I view the e mergence of communities as part of a recursive and historically mitigated processes involving settlement, population dynamics, and negotiations of status and identity within particular localities As such, it is necessary to provide an understanding of co mmunities both within their local contexts as well as beyond their perceived At the outset of this chapter, I identified the analytical domains and strategies which form the basis for the research presented in this work. These entail determining the 1) composition 2) organization and 3) symbolic construction of communities. To examine these analytical domains of community, the following chapters address local and regional settlement patterns and the construction and use of integrati ve ritual facilities present in the form of plaza/ batey s In this work I employ a historical, comparative perspective that attempts to situate and understand social practices within 4 While I view the human environmental relationships as important in influencing social life I feel that political themes cannot be addressed a s a simple by product of a study of environment acting on mollin 1989:9).

PAGE 145

145 specific temporal and regional contexts instead of relying on overarching determinative models or power relations. In the two chapters which follow this one (Chapters 5 and 6), I characterize the settlement variability of the local landscape associated with Tibes. In these chapters I focus on the identification of residential settlements to provide a basis for developing interpretations related to those findings in the Ro Portugus as a comparative tool for examining the organization and structure of other similarly constructed localities in the south central region. This cha pter also provides data for conducting regional (Chapter 7) and local (Chapter 8) analysis and interpretation of communities. These chapters are then linked to aspects of the symbolic construction of local communities within the broader landscape through a critical examination of plaza/ball court features (Chapter 9). Rather than give a compartmentalized discussion of the data and individual methods for the varying analyses presented in this work I explain them as they are employed to assist the reader i n following the logical progression of the study.

PAGE 146

146 CHAPTER 5 SEEKING THE COMMUNIT Y: THE TIBES ARCHAEO LOGICAL SURVEY PROJE CT (TASP) Situated along the Portugus River, where the coastal plains begin their ascent to the steep, mountainous interior, I conduct ed an archaeological surface and subsurface survey to identify residential settlements associated with the ceremonial center of Tibes (Figure 5 1). 1 This chapter provides the methods and results associated with this survey the Tibes Archaeological Survey Project (TASP). I chose this area because the number and size of the plaza/ batey features documented at Tibes suggested that it was focal point of social activity potentially serving a large local population (Curet et al. 2006; Curet and Stringer 2010; Go nzalez Colon 1984). Supporting this idea is the discovery of, and recent excavations at, the extraordinary site of PO 29, located approximately 4 km up river from Tibes (Espenshade et al. 2011). The presence of t wo temporally sequential 2 and elaborate ce remonial sites so close to one another is unprecedented in Puerto Rico and suggests that the Portugus drainage was an important and persistent place of social activity in antiquity But where are the residential settlements composing the supporting commun ity? Is there more to the local settlement structure than Tibes and PO 29? If so, what does the timing and distribution of these settlements tell us about the composition and organization of the social community associated with Tibes and how do these pat terns translate to other contemporaneous localities in the south central region? 1 The survey was conducted with funding from the National Park Service Historic Preservation Fund and administered through the Oficina Estat al de Conservaci n Hist rica (Puerto Rico State Historic Preservation Office [PRSHPO]) as part of a program geared towards increasing their cultural resource inventory. The survey was conducted between May and July 2008 2 Current median (cal. 2 ) radiocarbon dates from Tibes indicate occupation between approximately AD 450 and AD 13 20 with PO 29 indicating occupation between AD 600 and AD 800 and 1300 and 1500.

PAGE 147

147 Figure 5 1. Tibes Archaeological Survey Project (TASP) location. Base map : ESRI World Imagery 2010. While regional settlement data exist to explore these questions (as di scussed in Chapter 7); it is necessary to establish a baseline for relative comparison in terms of what residential settlements look like. T his first entails identifying the residential settlements and analysis of the artifacts that compose them. Through this it is possible to characterize local settlement variability and their situation in time and space. Diachronic examination of the distribution of residential settlements also provides a basis for examining process of community growth and settlement c hange through time.

PAGE 148

148 I anticipated that the local landscape associated with Tibes compris ed several residential settlements and that data from these would characterize settlement variability and the population density of the area i mmediately associated with it This data can then be compared to other co eval localities in the south central region to understand regional settlement variability, community organization and the political landscape To contextualize the local and regional landscape, th e first sec tion of this chapter describes the geographical and environmental setting of the area Th e second portion of this chapter details the survey design, and methods pertaining to the execution of fieldwork and collection of data I then provide the results o f th e survey with a description of each new site 3 To conclude this chapter, I summarize the survey findings which from a basis for contextualizing the analysis of recovered artifacts (Chapter 6), a detailed settlement pattern study (Chapter 7), and recon struction of communities in the south central region (Chapter 8). Environmental Contexts of the South Central Region South central Puerto Rico is part of the Subtropical Dry Forest Life Zone and is the driest part of the island (Ewel and Whitmore 1988). P revailing winds produce heavy south coast in a shadow of decreased precipitation. Rainfall in Ponce averages 21 inches annually, 60 % of which occurs between April an d November (Gierbolini 1979). Hurricane season is from June to November. The region is relatively hot throughout the 3 A detailed field report of the project was submitted to the PRSHPO (Torres 2008) in accordance with the conditions of the HPF grant (Contract Number 2008 155037) and provides additional information regarding field procedures and cultural resource management recommendations for sites documented during field investigations

PAGE 149

149 year with winter temperatures averaging between 77 and 67 degrees (F) and 82 to 89 degrees (F) in the summer (Gierbolini 1979). The stud y region encompasses three broadly defined physiographic zones including coastal plains, foothi lls, and uplands (Figure 5 2). The coastal plain begins at the southern coastline and extends to the base of the semiarid foothills (about 70 m AMSL). This zone is relatively flat ranging between 0 and 7 percent slope. The width of the coastal plain varies considerably within the study region where areas in the east, such as Santa Isabel and Salinas, are broader and more open than Peuelas and Yauco in the west. The coastal plains are composed of sand, loam, and clayey soils that are well suited for a variety of agricultural crops (Gierbolini 1979). Vegetation consists of grasses and shrubs suited for the dry environment with mangroves and marsh areas along the coastline. The foothills zone constitutes a transition between the coastal plains and the upland region of the study area. This zone is topographically diverse with steep to moderately steep sloped low lying ridges that converge with moister upland envir onments. Elevations in this zone begin at about the 70 m contour interval and extend to approximately 350 m AMSL. Low lying portions of river valleys in the foothills are characterized by river terraces adjacent to streams and rivers.

PAGE 150

150 Figure 5 2. Phys iographic regions of the south central region. A. Looking north to the uplands from the foothills of the Portugus river drainage. B. Looking to the co a st from uplands in the Chiquito river drainage. C. Looking north across the coastal plains in Santa Isabel. D. Looking to a lagoon and ridges near Punta Guayanilla. E. Mangroves at Punta Cucharas. (Photos courtesy of Joshua Torres; Base map : modified USGS Digital Elevation Model based on Gould 2004).

PAGE 151

151 The upland zone is associated with the steep slopes of the islands central mountainous interior -the Cordillera Central. Elevations in this zone (within the study region) range from approximately 350 to 900 m AMSL. The foothill and mountainous zones are composed of uplifted igneous rock formations, overl ain by sedimentary beds of limerock and sandstone (Pic 1974). The potential for landslides is high due to steep inclines, rainfall, and shallow soils. Because of the steep topography and shallow soils in the uplands, their agricultural productivity is l imited (Gierbolini 1979). Rivers of the south central region originate on the southern slopes of the Cordillera Central. Drainages are deeply weathered narrow valleys that meander south through the foothills gradually widening as they open onto the coasta l plain and empty into the Caribbean Sea. Natural erosion in the foothills and uplands is a product of scouring caused by high flow rates of streams and rivers during the rainy season. Hence, the riverine processes in this area are primarily erosional ra ther than depositional. During the rainy season, increased flow rates scour interior valleys transporting and depositing sediments at the base of the foothills with most of the alluvium carried to the coastal plains. Despite the dry climatic conditions ca used by the rain shadow effect, much the foothills and uplands are densely forested. Natural vegetation includes a variety of trees with Guam Americano, Flamboyn, Cap Negro, Cap Blanco, Almcigo, Algarrobo, Tamarindo, Mab, Acacia, Higuero and Ceiba b eing common species ( Ewel and Whitmore 1973; Gierbolini 1979; Miner Sol 2000). The understory consists of vines, native grasses and shrubs (Gierbolini 1979). Several of trees are indigenous fruit producing species including, Genip ( Genipa a mericana ), Ma mey ( Mamea americana ),

PAGE 152

152 Soursop ( Annoa americana) and Cocoplum ( Chrysobalanus inaco ) ( Miner Sol 2000). Palm (Palme) fruit remains were identified by Pearsall (1985 : B:15 ) in pre contact archaeological contexts at the site of El Bronce just southwest of T ibes. Wild papaya also was identified from the site of PO 38 approximately 2 km west of Tibes (Weaver et al. 1992). The prehistoric forests of the foothills were rich in a variety of avian, terrestrial, and aquatic riverine species (Curet et al. 2006; de France et al. 2010; Maz 2002, 2004). Several species of bird have been identified in midden deposits at Tibes and other sites in the region including Herons and bitterns ( Ardeiformes ), West Indian tree duck ( Dendrocygna arborea ), dove, and pigeon (Columb idae). Terrestrial fauna includes lizards (Lacertilla), turtles (Testudines), snakes (Serpentes), spiny rat ( Heteropsomys sp. ), guinea pig ( Cavia porcellus ), hutia ( Isolobodon portoricensis ), and frogs (Anura) ( deFrance et al. 2010; Maz Lopez 1996, 2002) The rivers contain gobies (Gobiodea) and mountain mullet ( Agonostromus monticule ) as well as freshwater shrimp. These diverse terrestrial resources formed a central component of the diet of ancient social groups in the region (Pestle 2010). Removal of vegetation and intensive monocroping for sugarcane over the last 100 years has eroded and destabilized soils throughout the region especially on the coastal plains. Intensive cultivation of sugarcane and other cash crops, particularly coffee, in the Portu gus and adjacent river valleys ceased in the middle of the 20 th century and ranching activities have been limited since the mid 198 0s ( Sols Magaa 1985 ). Coffee production was the chief economic focus of foothill sections in the Caas drainage with catt le ranching the main activity in the Chiquito drainage. However,

PAGE 153

153 intensive agricultural production throughout the survey area is now almost a distant memory. Cultivated domesticates still produced in the area are limited, consisting of small scale hortic ultural crops for household consumption ( Sols Magaa 1985 ). Cattle ranching and dairy production in the study area is also virtually non existent and small numbers of horses roam open pastures. With the abandonment of intensive agricultural production o f sugarcane in the area, native vegetation is beginning to regenerate (Gierbolini 1979). Previous Archaeological Investigations in the Survey Area E xtensive background research provided a basis for developing field methods and identifying patterns of histo ric land use in the survey area Background research entailed examination of aerial photos, historic and topographic maps and various published (and unpublished) sources on previous archaeological investigations An archaeological records search was als o conducted at the PRSHPO and the Consejo para la Proteccin del Patrimonio Arqueolgico Terrestre de Puerto Rico (Instituto de Cultura Puertorriquea [ICP]) in July 2007 and June of 2008. Archival research at the PRSHPO and ICP indicated two surveys and f ive pre Columbian sites within the boundaries of the survey universe ( Figure 5 3, Table 5 1 ). Previous archaeological surveys in the Portugus drainage were associated with the ACE Portugus and Cerrillos/Bucana River water control project s (Oakley 1990; Pantel 1978 ; Sols Magaa 1985 ). Additional survey was also conducted at the confluence of the Portugus and Chiquito drainages at a historic thermal spring (Baos Quintana); however, these investigations yielded scant evidence of pre contact material ( Ko ski Karrell and Ortiz 1984 ). Another small survey was identified in association with the Portugus River dam project but was not filed with the PRSHPO at the time of the field

PAGE 154

154 investigations (Cinquino et al. 1997). No surveys or sites were registered in the proposed survey area f or the adjacent Caas and Chiquito river drainages at the time this research was conducted Figure 5 3. Previous surveys and sites within the TASP survey area Base map : Ponce (19 82 ), Peuelas (19 82 ) USGS 1:20,000 quadrangle

PAGE 155

155 Table 5 1 Previously documented pre Colonial sites in or immediately adjacent the survey universe. Site Number Name Component Description Reference PO 1 Tibes PII PIII Settlement/ Batey s Gonzlez Coln 1984 PO 2 Tibes II PII PIII? Limited Activity Pa ntel 1978 PO 25 Hacienda Tibes Prehistoric/Historic Limited Activity Oakley 1990; Pantel 1978; Sols 1985 PO 22 2 No Name Prehistoric/Historic Limited Activity Oakley 1990; Pantel 1978 PO 22 4 No Name Prehistoric/Historic Isolated Find Oakley 1990 N/A Baos Quintana Prehistoric/Historic Thermal Baths Koski Karrell and Ortiz 1984 PO 29 Jacana (Rodriguez Soler) PIII PIV Settlement/ Batey s Oakley 1990: Espenshade 2007 PT 2 No Name Prehistoric Limited Activity Oakley 1990 PT 3 No Name Prehistoric Isolated Find Oakley 1990 Pantel conducted the first archaeological survey of the Portugus River drainage in the 1970 s during the early phases of the ACE water management project (Pantel nonetheless lead to the discovery of several sites. At the time of these investigations, test excavations at the Ceremonial Center of Tibes were underway (Gonzlez Coln 1984). the intensity and coverage of the survey was considered insufficient (Sols Magaa 1985; Es penshade et al. 1987). This le d to additional subsurface survey within selected areas

PAGE 156

156 to be impacted by dam construction in both the Portugus and Cerrillos/Bucana drainages (Oakley 1990; Sols Magaa 1985 ). This work yielded several new sites followed by test excavation of several sites The majority of these sites are in the Cerrillos River drainage Previously identified sites in the Portugus drainage save for PO 29 did not yield substantive subsurface archaeological deposits (Oakley 1990). Arguably landscape modifications associated with historic agriculture and settlement of the area, could have obliterated extant archaeological deposits. However, even though major historic disturbances were documen ted in previous investigations, as well as during T ASP fieldwork, these activities would not have erased all archaeological evidence for substantial residential settlem ents, as the middens that compose them would still be evident as dispersed surface scatters or intact deposits below the plow zone. Hence, the general lack of substantive sites with midden deposits and large surface scatters identified during previous sur veys gave the initial impression that the Portugus drainage was not intensively settled in antiquity. Survey Universe and Methods The TASP sampling universe encompasses approximately 20 km (2,000 ha), extending 5 km east west by 4 km north south, and inc ludes portions of the Caas (in the west), Chiquito (in the east) and Portugus River drainages ( Figure 5 1 and Figure 5 3). Two factors contributed to defining the survey area. First, lands south of Tibes are densely populated urban areas that are not c onducive for archaeological survey due to logistics of property access and the lack limited potential for intact deposits due to modern development Second, while small portions of the Portugus River drainage have been previously surveyed virtually no i ntensive systematic archaeological

PAGE 157

157 subsurface survey exists for the area. The intermediate foothills and mountainous portions of the island, covering 75% of the islands surface, are relatively understudied and research from the region shows these areas co ntain significant pre contact residential settlements ( Espenshade et al. 1987, 2007; Garrow et al. 1995; Rodrguez Lpez 1983; Weaver et al. 1992). Finally, the survey universe was determined by what could be sampled considering available time and resourc es. Areas further up the Portugus drainage were considered for survey; however, these areas were politically sensitive at the time of field investigations due to the controversial excavations at PO 29. Further, the adjacent Caas and Chiquito River drain ages (within the survey universe) had no survey coverage and therefore additional efforts were placed on identifying residential settlements in these drainages parallel to the Portugus River. It was assumed, that the identification of residential settlem ents in these adjacent drainages could contribute to understanding of the extent and timing of settlement in foothills and provide additional units of comparison for anticipated finds within the Portugus drainage surrounding Tibes. Due to the steep terrai n and general lack of surface visibility, linear transect survey was deemed impractical and pedestrian survey, relying on surface observations alone, insufficient for the identification of archaeological remains (see Zeidler 1995 for discussion of survey i n the tropics). Therefore, TASP field investigations focused on archaeological subsurface shovel testing supplemented by pedestrian surface inspection Pedestrian surface survey consisted of a combination of systematic surface examination, following prop osed shovel test transects and opportunistic ground

PAGE 158

158 inspection in areas of exposed soils such as road cuts, plowed fields, eroded river banks and trails. Topography was likely major factor limiting the physical location of pre contact residential sites a nd areas greater than 20 % slope compose approximately 60 % of the physical landscape in the survey universe (Figure 5 4 ). Since freshwater resources are located in the valley bottoms, and these areas are generally associated with level terraces, I assume d settlements would be located in these areas and off the steep ridge slopes Following these assumptions, I used topographic data and distance to water to develop three levels of probability to guide the sampling strategy. H IGH P OTENTIAL All areas less than 20 % slope and within 100 meters of water. M EDIUM P OTENTIAL All areas less than 20 % slope and over 100 meters from water. L OW P OTENTIAL All areas greater than 20 % slope and over 100 meters from water. These areas are low potential due to the distance from potable water and the inhospitable nature of steep and rocky ridge slopes in the area. Survey efforts concentrated on sampling areas determined to be high and medium potential. Areas of low potential were not intensively examined; h owever, a sample of these areas, including side slope terraces and ridge tops were judgmentally inspected and shovel tested to avoid overt sampling bias. Finally, as some portions of the Portugus River were subject to previous investigations emphasis was placed on areas lacking prior intensive archaeological investigation Because of the constricted topography, the survey universe was divided into 200 x 200 m sampling units (equaling 4 ha or approximately 10 acres each). Sampling units were judgmentally selecte d based on the potential for archaeological sites and consideration of other factors including: extent of development, historic land use, and

PAGE 159

159 landowner access. The number of sampling units initially proposed was based on a 7% sampling fraction of the tota l area within each of the major drainages, totaling 36 sampling units (140 ha) of the 2,000 ha survey universe Figure 5 4. Percent slope and relative area proportions in the survey area S ubsurface survey entailed the excavation of shovel tests at re gularly spaced intervals to identify archaeological site s, delimit horizontal and vertical extent of cultural deposits, and collect sufficient artifact samples for temporal and functional interpretations. As mentioned in Chapter 3, pre contact settlements in Puerto Rico are

PAGE 160

160 often circular or semi circular with an open or cleared central plaza (in some cases with a ballcourt/ batey ) surrounded by domestic structures bounded by trash middens ( e.g. Siegel 1996). Although no substantial sample of site sizes f or any period or region is available for the island I assume d that settlements were at least 50 m in diameter. Assuming a 25 m radius, I developed a sampling interval for shovel testing based on a simple geometric equation As proposed by Krakker and col leagues (1983), to find a site of a known radius ( r ) the sampling interval ( i ) can be calculated as: i Hence, in addition to encountering every site with a radius at least equal to the sampling interval divided by will encounter some smaller sites in the area (Krakker et al. 1983:471). Using the 50 m diameter site size the sampli ng interval was calculated as i with i equal to 35 m. Based on this calculation, the sampling interval needed to be at least 35 m in high probability areas to locate a site with a 25 m radius (or 50 m in diameter). Hence, at a 3 5 m interval there is almost a 100 % chance of finding sites 50 m or greater i n diameter provided subsurface d eposits are evenly distributed (Krakker et al. 1983). To increase potential for site discovery, shovel tests were reduced to 25 m interval s in areas of high potentia l. Areas of medium potential were sampled at 25 and 50 m intervals based on field conditions defined by soils and vegetation Positive shovel tests were delineated by additional shovel tests placed in a cruciform pattern at minimum of 25 m intervals. Ho wever, i n this interval was often reduced to 12.5 m to acquire finer grained resolution of the horizontal and vertical distribution of subsurface deposits

PAGE 161

161 J udgmental shovel tests complemented systemic testing in areas identified in the field as having pot ential to yield subs urface archaeological deposits. This included some areas outside of selected sampling units. These locations were typically prominences overlooking river terraces or small ridge benches adjacent to the river. In selected areas near t he river with potentially deep soil deposition, a auger (10.16 was used in the bottom of excavated shovel tests to test for potentially deeply stratified deposits. All shovel tests were 50 x 50 cm and excavated in 2 0 cm levels with in natural soil strata Shovel tests were excavated to a depth of 1 m or until bedrock or sterile soils were encountered Shovel tests were excavated with digging bars and shovels Soils were sifted in the field through with inch hardw are cloth. All artifacts (historic and pre contact ) from all positive shovel tests were collected and retained for analysis. Further, all visible artifacts on the surface within a 1 m square around shovel tests also were collected. Six column samples wer e excavated and collected from midden deposits identified during field investigations Column samples were selected based on the results of post field processing of shovel test data and focused on areas containing high quantities of artifacts, shell and/o r faunal material. Column samples were 50 x 50 cm square and hand excavated in 10 cm levels within natural strata. Each 10 cm level was bagged in total and transported off site for processing. The units were profiled and photographed to document stratig raphy of the deposits. The samples were later water screened of pottery, lithics, and shell removed and incorporated in the analyses presented in this research All faunal material and the

PAGE 162

162 small fraction of the c olumn samples were retained for future analysis and are not presented here This material is part of a future study that will compare the faunal assemblage amongst several sites in the Portugus drainage to examine dietary patterns and land use (DuChemin 2009 2010 ) Shovel tests were documented using specialized field forms denoting test unit location (based on an arbitrary grid coordinate system), soil stratigraphy dominant vegetation, proximity to natural and cultural features, and presence/absence of cultural material. Additional comments also were made regarding field conditions and any unique or unusual circumstances in field notebooks. Field maps, consisting of 1:10,000 modern aerial photographs, were maintained denoting shovel test locations Si tes were photographed and sketch maps produced in the field. All shovel test locations and survey tracks were recorded using WASS enabled Magellean eXplorist Global Positioning System (GPS) unit s accurate to +/ 3 meters. The shovel test log containing d etails of the depth, stratigraphy, disturbances and presence or absence of cultural material is presented in Appendix B. Local area residents also were consulted during the course of field investigations to assist in the identification of archaeological si tes. Discussions with local residents also helped in documenting historical land use activities and areas of disturbance. TASP Results As completed, approximately 192 hectares (48 sampling units) were intensively surveyed within the survey universe Thi s totals 9.6 % o f the total project area and 22 % of the total area defined as high and medium potential (Figure 5 5, Table 5 2). Field investigations included intensive surface inspection of an additional four sampling units

PAGE 163

163 (16 ha) to the east of the surv ey universe near the Bayagan River drainage where an undocumented settlement was reported by a loca l resident Table 5 2. Total proportion of the river drainages sampled. Drainage Total drainage area in the survey universe # of 200 x 200 m sampling units s urveyed % of drainage surveyed in the survey universe Caas 614 ha 9 5 % (36 ha ) Portugus 697 ha 31 17 % (124 ha ) Chiquito 525 ha 8 6 % (32 ha ) Bayagan N/A 4 N/A (16 ha ) Seven hundred and thirty seven shovel tests were excavated and approximately 3 5 linear km examined through surface inspection. The survey identified four pre contact sites, five colonial/historic era structures/sites, nine multi component sites and five isolated finds (Figure 5 6 ). The following discussion and artifact analyses pr esented in Chapter 6 focuses on the pre contact sites.

PAGE 164

164 Figure 5 5. Shovel test map and sampling units intensively surveyed within thin the survey universe.

PAGE 165

165 Figure 5 6 Sites identified during the survey. (Note: PO 51 outside the formal survey univ erse.)

PAGE 166

166 Table 5 3. Site artifact summaries. Sites Pottery C t Pottery w t (g) Lithic Ct Lithic w t (g) Shell ct Shell wt (g) PO 2 2 3.2 0 0 2 47.8 PO 42 668 3 056.1 52 1 891 5 701 9 041.5 PO 43 646 2 370.8 86 483 8 181 11 469. 7 PO 44 0 0 0 0 10 51.6 PO 45 10 34 1 58 99 78.5 PO 46 4 25.4 0 0 3 4.1 PO 47 54 205.6 2 12 0 0 PO 48 74 424.2 34 516 0 0 PO 49 5 34 4 200 0 0 PO 50 54 1 978.1 2 257 11 25.9 PO 51 59 406.8 0 0 62 276.9 PO 52 73 1 509.9 26 3 820 506 2 331 PO 53 32 289.7 16 194 212 361.5 P O 54 (Isolate) 1 3.6 1 8 1 5.6 PO 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 PO 57 (Isolate) 1 4.5 0 0 0 0 Isolate d Finds N650 E4150 0 0 1 385 0 0 N650 E4300 1 5 0 0 0 0 N550 E4250 1 1.9 2 3 0 0 Totals 1 685 10 345.9 227 7 827 14 788 23 694. 1 The Caas River Drainage The Caas River drainage is in the western portion of the study area. Topographic and soils maps show the river valley is restricted by increasingly steep slopes (ranging from 20 to 40 %) as it winds north from Ponce through the foothills. Level landfor ms are limited and few are undeveloped. The main cultural feature of the river drainage is Hwy 123 (or the old PR 10) which is the historic route connecting Ponce and Arecibo. Modern settlement along the Caas River within the survey area is limited to sm all clusters of homes on the few available flat landforms adjacent to the river. Areas of highest population and historic disturbance are at the mouth of the river at the base of

PAGE 167

167 the foothills. Areas on the west side of the river (in the foothills) were historically used for agriculture -primarily coffee production. At the time of this survey, no archaeological sites were documented in this drainage within the survey universe. However, a few kilometers south of the survey area, on the east side of the r iver, is the Caas site (PO 8) which, Rouse and Rainey excavated in the 1930s and early 1940s (Rouse 1952). Nine sampling units (36 ha) were tested for archaeological deposits in the Caas drainage (Figure 5 5). Survey of these areas identified two mult i component sites (PO 46, PO 47) and one historic site (PO 54) with a pre Columbian isolated find. PO 46 (Caas II) PO 46 is on a terrace on the east side of the river. The site is somewhat cleared of vegetation and in secondary growth. Scattered through out the property, along the edges of the surveyed area adjacent to the river, is a mix of hardwood trees including Mang, Acacia, and Cap. Forty three shovel tests were excavated in two sampling units (Figure 5 7). The dominant stratigraphy in the major ity of shovel tests consisted of compacted pale to dark brown clays to a depth of 60 cmbs over dense impenetrable yellowish brown gravelly clay. The area is heavily disturbed from historic settlement of the terrace and the extent of historic refuse defines the boundaries of the site (Torres 2008). Pre Columbian artifacts were evidenced by a few pieces of pottery and shell found on the surface south and west of an abandoned house (within one meter of N1525 E 1550) and one positive shovel test unit northwest of this area (N1600 E1475) (Table 5 3).

PAGE 168

168 Figure 5 7. Location and ST map of PO 46 PO 47 ( Caas I ) PO 47 is multi component site just north of PO 46 and PO 54. The site boundaries measure 230 m north south and 50 m east west (Figure 5 8). The site is sparsely vegetated with Guinea grass and scrub with hardwood trees limited to the edges of the river terrace. Portions of the area, particularly along the base of the western slopes, were historically leveled and plowed. Eighty one shovel tests were excavated in four sampling units. The dominant soil stratigraphy in the survey unit consists of highly compacted brown to dark brown clays

PAGE 169

169 to a depth of 60 cm, underlain by highly compacted yellowish brown gravelly clay and eroded bedrock. Pre Columbian artifacts were recovered from 6 shovel tests containing sixty three pottery sherds, two lithics and a small amount of charcoal (Table 5 3). No shell or faunal material was recovered from this site. Figure 5 8. Location and ST map of PO 47 and isolated find at PO 54. Isolated Finds One historic site, PO 54, was identified approximately 250 m south of PO 47. The site consists of a historic stone structure measuring approximately 40 x 40 x 35 ft. and

PAGE 170

170 associated historic artifact scatter. The structure appears to date between the late 18 th to early 19 th centuries -its function is unclear. Positive shovel tests yielded historic structural remains consisting of brick fragments, historic ceramics and nails. Fourteen shovel tests were excavated in this ar ea. Stratigraphy in this area consists of a highly compacted pale brown silty loam to 100 cmbs and dense clayey soils mixed with unconsolidated bedrock beyond this depth. An isolated find, consisting of a small piece of pre Columbian pottery, one piece o f lithic debitage, and one shell fragment were recovered (Figure 5 8). The Portugus River Drainage The Portugus drainage occupies the central portion of the project area and is the largest of the three investigated. In comparison to the adjacent drain ages, the Portugus drainage is wider and less constricted with more level landforms conducive for prehistoric settlement. Because of this, and the location of Tibes and PO 29, field investigations focused the majority of its efforts on this drainage. Thi rty one sampling units (approximately 124 ha) were shovel tested with portions of an additional 15 surface inspected and judgmentally tested (Figure 5 5). Substantial areas of land within the Portugus drainage are in low brush and grass consistent with s econdary growth associated with abandoned pasture; however, many areas, especially steep slopes, are heavily vegetated. Survey investigations identified six new pre Columbian sites and four isolated finds in the drainage PO 53 (PR 10 Midden) PO 53 is a disturbed midden deposit about 500 m southeast of Tibes. The site sits on a bench at the southern base of a small ridge overlooking highway PR 10 (Figure 5 9). The area is sparsely vegetated with few Acacia trees, scrub and Guinea

PAGE 171

171 grass. The site is ev idenced by a surface scatter and limited subsurface deposits composed of pottery and shells that extend east west along an existing fence line. The site was reportedly much larger prior to the construction of the adjacent highway extending approximately 5 0 x 75 m (Curet, personnel communication 2008, Juan personnel communication 2008). Figure 5 9. Location and ST map of PO 53. Shovel testing at the site consisted of two transects oriented east west at 5 m intervals. The close interval sampling at th is site was employed to ascertain the extent

PAGE 172

172 of the midden and identify any intact subsurface deposits or features. Additional judgmental shovel tests were placed in areas surrounding the midden to clarify its boundaries and to make sure no associated dep osits were left undiscovered. One column sample (N562, E3985) was hand excavated and collected from the site. Stratigraphy consists of two strata: a dark brown compacted clayey loam layer to 20 cmbs underlain by a brown clayey loam substrate with pale br own clay inclusions between 20 and 50 cmbs. At approximately 50 cm there is a layer of unconsolidated bedrock composed of highly compacted yellowish brown gravelly clay. Survey of the site yielded 7 positive shovel tests. Shovel tests contained pottery, shell, and lithics between 0 and 45 cmbs (T able 5 3). One clay bead was also recovered. Surface inspection on the opposite side of the highway south of the site did not reveal any evidence for cultural material. PO 50 PO 50 is a multi component site situated in a horse pasture at the base of a steep hill west of PR 503, and approximately .6 km northwest of Tibes. The site is approximately 160 x 70 m (at its widest extent in north south and east west) extending from the pasture south, a cross a small relic drainage running southeast to the Portugus River. Vegetation consists of Guinea grass and shrubs on the north side of the drainage with a mix of hardwood tress to the south. The site is disturbed from historic farming activities. Th e north central portion of the site contains an intact colonial trash scat ter underlain by a pre contact ceramic deposit. Shovel testing was conducted at 25 m intervals with several shovel tests staggered at 12.5 m to define the extent of the cultural dep osit. Fifty four shovel tests were excavated with 11 yielding cultural material (Figure 5 10) Shovel tests and

PAGE 173

173 surface scatter yielded pre Columbian pottery, lithics and historic ceramics ( Table 5 3). Soil stratigraphy consists of dark brown compacted clays to 65 cmbs, underlain by highly compacted impenetrable yellowish brown gravelly clay substrate. Figure 5 10. Location and ST map of PO 50. Shovel tests yielded 52 pre Columbian pottery sherds. Pottery was recovered from 0 and 40 cmbs with denses t concentration between 0 and 20 cmbs. The majority of the sherds are large (>10 cm in diameter) indicating limited post depositional

PAGE 174

174 disturbance. Bur en fragments were also recovered indicating activities associated with food preparation. Neither shells nor bones were recovered from this site. PO 52 (Finca Feliciano) PO 52 consists of foundation of a historic finca ( i.e. rural residence or country home) situated on top of a pre contact domestic midden (Figure 5 11). The site is approximately 190 x 63 m. The historic foundation and midden, the area of densest artifact concentration, are in the southern portion of the site. The area is overgrown with Cap, Guam Americano, Mang, Higuero and Genip trees and a dense understory of vines. Soil stratigrap hy at the site is compacted clay to 40 and 60 cmbs underlain by impenetrable compacted yellowish brown rocky clay. The pre Columbian component at this site consists of a dense midden deposit of pottery, lithic and shell measuring approximately 12 m in diam eter with areas of lower density artifacts scattered to the north of this area. Sixty two shovel tests were excavated with 13 positive shovel tests and the extent of the surface scatter defining the ucted at a 25 m interval with several units placed at 12.5 m to define the extent of subsurface deposits. A surface collection was made of all materials within 1 m of shovel tests. Testing of the adjacent dairy farm property, just east of the site, was prohibited by the property manager. Hence, it is quite possible that additional subsurface deposits are located there as well. However, visual inspection of that area and interview with the ma yor doma (female property manager) suggested that no known pre Columbian remains are within the property (Doa Carmen 2008, personal communication).

PAGE 175

175 Figure 5 11. Location and ST map of PO 52, PO 45, and PO 2 Ninety four pieces of pre Columbian pottery, 26 lithics, and 2.3 kg of shell were recovered from the site ( Table 5 3). Sherds tended to be large (> 5cm in diameter) indicating minimal post depositional disturbance; however, several looter pits were noted in the immediate vicinity of the midden. Contact was made with a local resident during the course of fil ed investigations of this site who possesses pottery and a fragment of a massive stone collar which all come from the site. If the provenience of the stone collar fragment is true, it would be one of a limited number documented for the Portugus drainage (Gonzlez Colon 1984; Walker 2010). As stone collars are

PAGE 176

176 considered property of the elite (Walker 1993; Oliver 1999) the site may have been the residence of an important individual in antiquity. PO 42 (La Mineral) PO 42 is on the east side of the Portugu s River near an old water pumping facility known as La Toma The site straddles a small drainage that descends west from the adjacent side slopes to the river (Figure 5 12). The drainage is deeply cut, with large boulders scattered throughout. The site is vegetated with Cap Negro and Blanco, Mang, a few young Ceiba trees and an u nderstory of vines and shrubs. Figure 5 12. Location and ST map of PO 42.

PAGE 177

177 The site is oriented northwest to southeast along edge of the river terrace and measures approxim ately 300 x 100 m at its widest dimensions. On the south side of the relic drainage are several intact midden deposits that run along the edge of the river The remains of a small batey (6 x 15 m) were iden tified within the boundaries of the site ( Figure 5 13). Figure 5 13. Map of batey feature at PO 42. A: Showing east wall and looter trench. B : Showing looter pit. The batey is composed of two simple and fragmented stone rows that define its norther n and eastern boundaries. The stones, elongated river cobbles set on end,

PAGE 178

178 appear to be of local origin (primarily andesites). The east wall of the batey is oriented 155 degrees northeast to southwest. Shovel testing and subsurface probing did not find a ny indication that western or southern walls of this feature existed. Recent looting activities are evident in the area of the batey One relatively large looter pit (1 x 2 m) runs roughly east west 5 cm south of the north wall of the batey (Figure 5 13A ). A looter trench approximately 15 m long and 20 cm wide parallels the east wall along its length (Figure 5 13B). Several stones are missing from the eastern wall potentially indicating the removal of petroglyph bearing stones. Eighty shovel tests were excavated and 36 were positive for cultural material. The site was tested at 25 m intervals and reduced to 12.5 m in areas of high artifact concentrations. Shovel tests in midden locations yielded artifacts between 0 and 50 to 60 cmbs. Soil stratigraph y at the site consisted of dark brown compacted clayey soils to depths of approximately 60 cmbs, underlain by a highly compacted clay and rocky yellowish brown sterile substrate. Several judgmental shovel tests were also placed in areas surrounding and wi thin the batey as well as along the edge of the river terrace. Judgmental shovel tests inside the batey yielded a limited number sherds and no other artifacts were recovered within the batey area. Two column samples were collect from the site one from a midden deposit on north side of the drainage (N2337.5, E2562.4) and one from the south side (N2245, E2705). The column samples and shovel tests placed in these areas, yielded substantial quantities of pottery, lithics, shell and bone. Six hundred and six ty eight pieces (after cross mends) of pottery, and 9 kg of shell were recovered from the site ( Table 5 3 ).

PAGE 179

179 PO 43 (Los Gongolones) This site sits on a small bluff on the east bank of the Portugus River approximately 400 meters north of PO 42 The site me asures 140 x 90 m (Figure 5 14) The northern portion of the site terminates at the base of a hill that ascends sharply to a ridge. The western boundary is a steep slope that descends to the Portugus River. The south side of the site begins 60 m from t of the bluff. Vegetation at the site consists of a canopy of Cap Negro and Blanco, Mang, Ucar, and Acacia trees with an understory of vines and shrubs. Figure 5 14. Location and ST map of PO 43.

PAGE 180

180 Previous r esearch in the area originally documented the site as a low mound/midden with three stone features (Cinquino et al. 1997:3). At the time of TASP investigations the report and site had not been registered with the PRSHPO. TASP field investigations relocat ed the site which revealed a series of discrete midden deposits surrounding a cleared open area potentially representing a batey (Figure 5 15). Figure 5 15. Map of potential batey feature at PO 43. A: Looking north along east line of stones. B: Triang ular stone and pile at south end of west alignment. The batey delineates the central portion of the site and is composed of two disarticulated parallel rows of boulders and river cobbles oriented roughly north south.

PAGE 181

181 The stone rows are approximately 25 m apart (east west) and extend approximately 30 m north south. The west wall is partially buried under cultural and natural deposition and is difficult to fully discern. There is a large looter pit in the center of the possible batey feature (approx 2 x 3 m) and midden deposits on the southwest side of the site show additional evidence of minor looting activities. However, these disturbances are isolated to a few discrete areas and several intact midden deposits border the western and southern edges of th e site. Shovel testing at PO 43 began with testing at a 25 m sampling interval. This interval was reduced to 12.5 m through the center of the site to refine the horizontal and vertical distribution of subsurface deposits. Sixty two shovel tests were exca vated and 35 tested positive for pre Columbian artifacts. Three column samples were collected from PO 43: one from the southern (N2703, E2512.5) eastern (N2687.5, E2512.5) and western (N2723, E2555) middens at the site. These columns, as with those colle cted from PO 42, yielded a high quantity of pottery, lithics, shell, and bone. One shovel test (N2700 E 2525) excavated inside the batey yielded a small quantity of what appear to be large mammal bone fragments at approximately 60 cmbs. However, due to t he fragmentary nature of the specimen, positive identification is not currently possible. Soil stratigraphy consists of compacted dark brown clayey soils to a depth of approximately 60 cmbs underlain by highly compacted, sterile eroding bedrock parent ma terial. Six hundred and forty six pottery sherds (after cross mends), 87 lithics and 11.5 kg of shell were collected from this site ( Table 5 3). PO 45 (La Vaquera) PO 45 is on the southern edge of the abandoned dairy farm (as discussed for (PO 52) and is comprise d of a small midden deposit of shell and low density scatter of

PAGE 182

182 pottery along the north edge of an existing road ( Figure 5 11). The site measures approximately 100 m east west and 30 m north south. Vegetation at the site consists of Almacgo, Higuero, Mang and Cap Negro trees. The understory of the area consists of grasses, shrubs and vines. The northern portion of the site, to the banks of the river, is disturbed from historic leveling for agriculture and house construction. This area rec eived only limited surface inspection due limitations of access enf orced by the property manager. Thirteen shovel tests were excavated. Soil stratigraphy consists of light brown compact loam between 0 and 20 cmbs, underlain by compact brown clay between 2 0 and 40 cm and a light brown highly compacted and gravelly substrate between 40 and 80 cmbs. At 80 cmbs the soils became impenetrable due to dense gravel and eroding bedrock. Artifacts recovered from this site consist of 10 pieces of pre Columbian potte ry, shell, and one lithic ( Table 5 3). Isolated Finds In addition to the sites documented in the Portugus drainage four isolated finds were identified i n the drainage ( Figure 5 6 ). Th ree are in the southeastern portion of the survey area near PO 53. Th e location coordinates and materials recovered are listed in Table 5 3 The proximity of these materials to Tibes and PO 53 suggests that the artifacts are likely associated with these sites. However, based on the lack of contiguity with other positive s hovel tests and the lack of association with other artifacts or features, the y are designated isolated finds PO 44 (La Mineral II) approximately 200 m west of the Portugus Rive r and 100 meters west of an

PAGE 183

183 abandoned motel on the west side of Route 503 (Torres 2008). The area is approximately 50 meters in diameter on a level area on top of a hill. An unimproved road cuts the southern edge of the hill with the north and west sides defined by relatively steep slopes in either direction. This area was rumored to have a batey and conchero based on discussion with local residents and the property owner (Juan 2008, personal communication; Angel Prez 2008, personal communication). How ever, field investigation revealed that the site was historically leveled and did not contain any observable pre Columbian artifacts beyond 1 possible lithic and a few pieces of shell ( Table 5 3). Twenty three shovel tests were excavated in this area on a 12.5 meter grid in hopes of capturing a portion of a remaining intact deposit. There is little surface deposition on the site and bedrock is at or close to the surface in many places. Soil stratigraphy at the site consisted of a pale yellowish brown ro cky clay soil to 40 cmbs underlain by dark yellowish brown highly compacted rocky clay between 40 and 70 cm in areas with soil deposition. Due to the limited quantity of material recovered from this site, its function in antiquity is not clear. For mana gement purposes for the PRSHPO, based on the recovery of the lithic and shell as well as discussion with local residents, the site was given a formal site number. However, for the purposes of this study it is treated as an isolated find. Chiquito River Dr ainage The Chiquito River drainage, like the Caas drainage, is steeply cut with few naturally occurring level landforms. Historic and modern settlement in this river valley is restricted to the few terraces and artificially leveled areas where it converg es with the

PAGE 184

184 Portugus River. Eight sampling units (48 ha) were surveyed in portions of this drainage ( Figure 5 5). At the time of archaeological investigations, no archaeological surveys had been conducted and no pre Columbian sites were documented in the upper portions of the drainage. Interviews with local residents yielded no additional information regarding potential sites in the area. Moreover, local residents that were interviewed intimated that the valley was uninhabited in antiquity, emphasizing the Portugus River as the primary area of settlement in pre Columbian times. PO 48 (Escuela Ro Chiquito) PO 48 is a multi component site on the grounds of an old school. This site sits on the western side of the Chiquito River adjacent to a small barrio in the northern part of the sampling universe. The site is approximately 40 x 60 meters and conforms to the extent of the abandoned school grounds (Figure 5 16). The site is likely to extend along the edge of the river terrace and into the adjacent cat tle pasture an additional 50 m south where it terminates at the base of a step ridge. However, the mayordomo of the property refused the survey crew access to this area. Vegetation at the site consisted of a few small tress bordering the eastern portion the edge of the river. Twelve shovel tests were excavated at the site supplemented by intensive surface inspection of the surrounding property. Soil stratigraphy at the site consisted of dark brown, highly compacted clay to a depth of one meter on the e ast side of the site. The western portion of the site contained compacted pale brown soils to a depth from 0 50 cmbs. Sherds were visible on the surface of the site and shovel testing yielded pottery, lithics and animal bone (Table 5 3).

PAGE 185

185 Figure 5 16. Location and ST map of PO 48. PO 49 PO 49 is a multi component site located on a large river terrace on east side of the Chiquito River midway up the drainage. Portions of the property were historically leveled and graded. An interview with the adjacent landowner, who was born and raised on the property, was not aware of any pre Columbian sites in the area (Juni, 2008, personal communication). Thirty six shovel tests were excavated of which four were positive for cultural material. An additional 800 meters on both sides of the river were surface inspected for cultural materials (Figure 5 17). Soil stratigraphy at the site yielded highly compacted

PAGE 186

186 and rocky yellowish pale brown clays to depths of approximately 40 cmbs underlain by a lay er of impenetrable eroded bedrock. Subsurface survey in northwestern portion of the property produced a small quantity of pre Columbian pottery and historic ceramics ( Table 5 3). Figure 5 17. Location and ST map of PO 49. Isolated Finds One pre Colum bian isolated find was documented in the Chiquito River drainage associated with PO 57. PO 57 is a multi component site primarily evidenced by its

PAGE 187

187 historic components that include the remains of an aqueduct and brick wall/foundation and a few colonial/his toric era artifacts. Shovel tests yielded soil stratigraphy characterized by compacted pale brown loamy clay to a depth of approximately 60 cmbs underlain by an impenetrable pale yellowish rocky substrate. One pre Columbian pottery sherd was recovered fr om one shovel test in the western portion of the site ( Table 5 3). No additional material or evidence of pre Columbian activity was noted during survey of the area. Additional Investigations In addition to the systematic survey within selected sampling un its, field investigations conducted additional work focused on surface inspection and judgmental testing of a sample of ridge tops within the sampling universe. No cultural material was documented in examination of these areas. This observation is import ant because marginal areas such as ridge tops would have been settled if severe limitations to available settlement locations and or for defensibility. Additional work also included attempts to relocate PO 2 (Pantel 1978) as well as verify the existence of one site, located outside the sampling universe, reported by a local resident (Juan 2008, personal communication) to possess a batey The results of these efforts are discussed below. PO 2 (Tibes II) Pantel originally documented this site in his 1978 sur vey T he site was not located through subsurface testing but rather a limited surface inspection at an unspecified survey interval. The site was originally identified as a small campsite with late (Modified) Ostionan Ostionoid pottery (Pantel 1978).

PAGE 188

188 TAS P field efforts attempted to relocate and provide better documentation of the site. Investigations in this area consisted of twenty two shovel tests and intensive surface inspection ( Figure 5 11). Two of these tests yielded pre Columbian pottery in the v icinity of the reported site. Soil stratigraphy in the area yielded mottled brown and pale brown gravelly clay to a depth of 60 cm indicating modern grading and leveling. Two shovel tests yielded two pieces of pre Columbian pottery and one small shell ha mmer fragment ( Table 5 3). It was determined that the site has recently been destroyed by the construction of PR 10 and a large concrete culvert. The area is currently under several meters of fill and heavily vegetated. Young Acacia and Cap trees are present in this area substantiating recent clearing and leveling activities. No additional evidence for PO 51 (Ro Bayagan I) PO 51 is just outside of the southeastern portion of the sampling universe. The site encompasses a slope that ascends to a series of naturally level benches leading to a small ridge top. Most of the area is in pasture with Guinea grass and patches of trees such as Acacia, Mab, Hig u ero and Guam Americana. The site was reported to have batey s surrounded by conchero stimulated investigation of this area. Survey of the property consisted of a systematic walkover that yielded a multi component (historic and pre Columbian) artifact scatter in the southwest corner of the property on the north side of Calle A. A 1 x 1 m surface collection of material was gathered from the area of densest surface materials. Surface inspection of the balance of the property led to the identification of the rumored pre Columbian site.

PAGE 189

189 The site is located on the first major bench as one ascends the slope to the ridge peak just north of an existing residential housing development (Figure 5 18). The area has been rec ently cleared and graded and large quantities of pre Columbian pottery and shell are scattered across the site and in push piles along the edges of the bench. Collections were made from the push piles consisting of two 1 x 1 m areas on the east and wester n portions of the site. Sixty nine sherds and sixty four shells were collected from the site ( Table 5 3). Figure 5 18 Location map of PO 51 showing push piles and collection areas.

PAGE 190

190 No batey structures were observed during site inspection, as these w ould have been destroyed during clearing of the area Based on the size of the bench (which undoubtedly represented the boundaries of the site on three sides), and the quantity and diversity of material it is likely that this was a substantive residential settlement in antiquity However, the site is not close to any natural water resources and its location atop the steep slope may be related to its commanding view of the southern coastal plains. Summary of Survey Results Archaeological survey of the Port ugus and adjacent river drainages yielded eleven archaeological sites with pre contact components and five isolated finds. In general, the sites tend to be small, yielding a limited quantity of artifacts from discrete locations. Several sites exhibited evidence of disturbance from historic and modern settlement and agricultural practices of area. However, despite the modest survey results, several important observations can be made that set the stage for detailed examination and interpretation of the co mmunity associated with Tibes. It must be noted that the quantity of recovered artifacts is a relatively small sample from extant deposits at the sites. Hence, my interpretations are conservative based on the available data. Preliminary evaluation of the sites based on size, quantity, and diversity of recovered material indicates small residential settlements and limited activity areas in the Portugus and adjacent river drainages (Table 5 4). Six sites (PO 42, PO 43, PO 48, PO 52, PO 53, and PO 51) prov ide strong evidence for permanent long term residential settlement. PO 42 and PO 43 yielded substantive quantities of pottery, lithics, and shell as well as two ceremonial structures ( batey s ) suggesting an even more

PAGE 191

191 complex ritual landscape than previousl y conceived in the Portugus drainage Several other sites (PO 45, PO 47, PO49 and PO 50) also suggest the presence of additional residential settlements however; the disturbed nature of these sites limits detailed interpretation of their functional use and duration of occupation. Table 5 4. Sites identified during the c ou rse of field investigations. Site No. Area (m 2 ) Positive shovel tests Disturbances Description PO 42 24,570 36/Surface Collection Looting, Cattle Grazing Midden deposits with batey (surface and subsurface) PO 43 13,705 35/Surface Collection Looting, Cattle Grazing Midden deposits with possible batey (surface and subsurface) PO 45 3,414 2 Heavily Disturbed Deflated surface shell heap and light subsurface deposits PO 46 7,533 3/Surf ace Collection Residential Development Light surface scatter and subsurface deposit PO 47 11.254 7 Agricultural Plowing Subsurface deposits (pottery only) PO 48 4,426 7 School Construction Subsurface deposits (bone present) PO 49 10,566 3 Heavily Distur bed/Land Clearing/Plowing Subsurface deposit (light) PO 50 9,193 11 Agricultural Plowing/Horse Pasture Surface scatter and subsurface deposit PO 51 47,455 Surface Collection Heavily Disturbed/Land Clearing Surface scatter possible subsurface deposits int act PO 52 8,656 11/Surface Collection Historic Settlement, Looting Surface and subsurface deposit PO 53 1,101 (partial) 7 Road Construction Surface scatter and subsurface deposit Based on the results of the survey, the general characteristics of docume nted sites is inconsistent with what would be expected from burgeoning sociopolitical systems

PAGE 192

192 characterized by densely clustered settlements indicative of large residential populations ( e.g. Johnson 1982: Figure 21.1). This pattern also contrasts with Sa ladoid settlements that tend to be much larger than those documented in the survey. Instead, settlements are relatively small and dispersed with multiple, closely related batey features. This pattern of settlement also appears to be similar to the recent findings of Oliver and colleagues who found small, dispersed, late pre contact settlements throughout the mountainous interior of the island in the region surrounding Caguana (Oliver 2007 ; Oliver et al. 1999 ). The settlement pattern suggests a low densi ty residential population which is supported by three observations. Given high density residential populations, it would be expected that sites: 1) have large mounded middens with extremely dense concentrations of artifacts and food refuse, 2) be tightly spaced ( i.e. even closer together), and 3) be located in more marginal areas of the landscape ( e.g. ridge tops and side slopes). None of these expectations were met based on the results of the survey; and in the case of the last point, while the survey sampling strategy did not specifically target areas considered poor for settlement, shovel testing and inspection of a sample of ridge tops and side slopes did not yield any evidence of human occupation. To conclude, small residential settlements appear to have been the prevalent form of settlement for the foothills and mountainous regions of the area The results of these findings lead us to ask why did settlements conform to this pattern, which varies considerably from the Saladoid era, and how did they get that way? Both of these questions are explored in further detail in the following chapters.

PAGE 193

193 CHAPTER 6 WHAT THEY LEFT BEHIN D: TASP ARTIFACT ANA LYSES In the previous chapter I presented the results of an archaeological survey that I conducted in the f oothills immediately surrounding the ceremonial center of Tibes. In this chapter, I analyze and discuss the artifacts recovered during the survey. These artifacts are fragments of the lives of people who once constituted part of the social community asso ciated with Tibes. An examination of the recovered artifacts offers a glimpse of the activities performed by these people at various locations in the local landscape, and gives insight to the organization of the ancient community that once occupied this a rea. These data also provide a foundation for identifying and characterizing residential settlements, their social composition, and a basis for comparison with other coeval settlements throughout the south central region. Understanding what residential s ettlements are, in terms of the material evidence regarding the activities of social groups in their most elemental contexts, is critical for developing an archaeological perspective of community and for pushing research in the region forward. In the absen ce of physical dwellings, archaeologists often rely on a suite of characteristics to identify permanent residential settlements. These generally include: Quantity and diversity in the artifact assemblage indicating a wide range of functional activities. Discrete activity areas. Longevity or temporal durability. Evidence of food processing and consumption. Evidence of tool production and use.

PAGE 194

194 Artifacts recovered during the TASP consist of ceramics, lithics, and shells (modified and unmodified) which can b e used to provide a functional and temporal context for the newly documented sites. Due to the abundance of pottery and shell in the collection, this chapter primarily focuses on these artifact classes. The survey also recovered substantial quantities of bone, particularly from column samples; however, analysis and interpretation of this material is not presented here, as it is the subject of a forthcoming study (DuChemin 2009, 2010). Pottery Overview The goals of the ceramics study are to document and ch aracterize the vessel assemblages from each site to infer activities that occurred at them and to identify diagnostic design or production elements to facilitate their temporal association. Pottery identification relies on the work of Irving Rouse who def ined the styles for the region which are still in use today -even i f highly contested (see Gutirrez and Rodrguez 2009; Rodrguez Lpez 2007 for recent critiques). To contextualize the ceramic analyse s presented here, I briefly review the pottery styles from the region. Saladoid Pottery 1 Hacienda Grande style pottery is high quality relatively thin (<6 mm), well fired and of fine paste with few aplastic inclusions. Surfaces are smooth although somewhat uneven Unpainted surfaces are light tan orange (or salmon colored), or grey in color Design elements mainly consist of bichromatic painting -particularly white on red (Curet 1997:498). Incisions are common, especially zone incised crosshatched designs which are sometimes filled with wh ite paint. 1 This section d oes not include a detailed discussion of La Hueca pottery as none of this style was recovered during the survey.

PAGE 195

195 Bo w ls, incense burners, bottles, jars and plates are c ommon vessel forms. Bottles and jars are typically circular or ovoid with annular bases. Vessels in the shape of inverted bells are common, but in slightly less frequency than in the Cuevas style. Out ward flaring rim shapes indicative of unrestricted vessel forms predominate over vertical and restricted forms. Cuevas style pottery is more rounded than the Hacienda Grande style which contribut es to its graceful appearance (Rouse 1952:336 338) T her e is a n overall decrease in the use of polychrome painting and incision for decoration The practice of white on red painting does continue; however, the frequency of occurrence diminishes through the duration of the style Decorative elements are largel y restricted to red paint over the entire body of the vessel or as a single band along flattened, outflaring portions of the rim Rouse and Rainey also note d the use of red paint to cover the interior base of shallow open bowls (Ra iney 1940:44; Rouse 1952 :442). Non painted vessel surfaces are often self slipped, with a light brown to ivory color, giving them Hacienda Grande style, is well fired with fine paste and thin -usually measuring a round 6 mm thick. However, paste becomes slightly coarser and vessel walls thicker in later occurrences of the style Diagnostic s tructural elements consist of D shaped handles and tabular lugs. D shaped handles extend from the shoulder to the top of th e rim (Rainey 1940:51). Tabular lugs occur on opposing sides of oval and round vessels slightly elevated above the edge of the rim and are in shape (Rainey 1940:52). Tabular lugs can also be flat with simple edge points on rims.

PAGE 196

196 Com characterized by an outflaring rim This form, while occurring in the earlier Hacienda Grande style, is at its highest frequency in Cuevas pottery assemblages. Plates and oval serving dishes are also frequent forms ( SEARCH 2011 a ). Rims are often internally thickened and tend to be round rather than angular. Researchers generally acknowledge that the inception Cuevas style pottery was concurrent with Hacienda Grande style around AD 400. However, Cuevas pottery has been documented with Elenan and Ostionan Ostionoid assemblages indicating a perpetuation of the style to about AD 1000 in eastern Puerto Rico (Oliver 1995; SEARCH 2011 b ). Ostionan Ostionoid Pottery Commonly occurring in western Puerto Ri co before AD 600, Early (Pure) Ostiones style pottery is well made and relatively thin ( 6 7 mm). M onochrome red painting / slip over the entire vessel is diagnostic. The red color ed Pure Ostiones slips are often lighter than the bright reds associated with Saladoid painted surfaces giving them a red wares while diagnostic for the style actually make up a small percent age of the overall Ostiones pottery assemblage which are more often smoothed or semi burnished and dark brown in color ( SEARCH 2008 ; Goodwin and Walker 1975:64; Rainey 1940:15). Raised loop handles above the rim and rectangular lugs are common. Rims tend to have thickened lips beveled inwards similar to Cuevas assemblages, which later develops to flat or rounded lips (Rouse 1952:343). The unrestricted bell shaped bowls, common in the Cuevas style, are absent and restricted incurvate forms increase in frequency ( SEARCH 2008).

PAGE 197

197 Generally occurring after AD 600, style consists of geometric line and dot incision and horizontal bands (Rouse 1952:343). Complex appliqud and modeled designs, particularly zoomorphic adornos are also frequent The incorporation of adornos, modeling and incision in Modified Ostiones pottery is considered a result of contacts with Hispaniola and emergent from pre Arawakan pottery traditions ( Rodrguez Ramos et al. 2008). Rainey identified fourteen vessel forms (seven common and seven rare) for Ostiones pottery (Rainey 1940:16 20). Mor e recently, Espenshade proposed ten early Ostiones vessel forms which vary in shape and sizes. Vessels range from 6 cm diameter round bowls to 50 cm round cooking pots. Diagnostic v essel forms are navicular and hemispherical and globular shaped bowls. R e stricted vessel forms are common. Elenan Ostionoid Pottery Monserrate style appears throughout eastern Puerto Rico around AD 700. It is the least understood and difficult to identify of all the styles Because it is poorly defined differences in report ing tend to emphasize traits associated with Cuevas or Santa Elena styles resulting in somewhat conflicting desc riptions and documentation of the style (compare SEARCH 2009 : 10; Curet et al. 2004; Garrow et al. 1995:31 32). While lacking some of the decora tive and morphological attributes present in Cuevas assemblages, Monserrate pottery has tabular lugs, strap handles, and red painted and slipped ceramics. While sharing many similarities with Cuevas pottery, Monserrate style has some distinctive character istics, albeit irregularly represented throughout eastern Puerto Rico

PAGE 198

198 Monserra te style pottery is thicker, coarser and rougher than Hacienda Grande and Cuevas style pottery Monserrate vessels lack definitive shoulders or carina s, and tend to have out ro unded shoulders although more vertical shapes increase in frequency. Rounded and internally thickened rims become common and secondary morphological features consist of loop handles. Design elements consist of limite painti ng applied to buff backgrounds and areas of black smudging to create negative design patterns. Red painting is common on vessel interiors, particularly in trays and open bowls Incision is not a decorative design element A dichotomy between ut ilitarian and finer wares has been distinguished with painted vessels, better fired and manufactured possessing slightly thinner walls and polished surface treatments that are not present in the coarser plain utilitarian wares (Garrow et al. 1995:47). Br ushing and scraping is a common surface treatment later in the sequence. Santa Elena style pottery commonly occurring in eastern Puerto Rico after AD 900, are thick with average wall thickness around 8 mm. Paste is coarse, often containing an abundance o f large (> 1.0 mm) aplastic inclusions Vessel color ranges from pale to medium brown orange, or reddish brown in color. Painting, evident in Cuevas and Monserrate assemblage, is rarely used Surfaces are seldom slipped or burnished. Simple incision modeling and appliqu are frequent (Rouse 1952:344 347 ) Diagnostic design elements consist of crude vertical incisions on the exterior of the vessel running from the rim to just above the shoulder. Other design elements consist of incis ed interior hori zontal lines just below the rim on unrestricted bowls and appliqu strips running vertically from rim to shoulder.

PAGE 199

199 Vessels tend to be large, open hemispherical bowls with roughly shaped rounded walls, restricted orifices and round or flat bases Vessel profiles are generally smooth albeit crudely formed, and not angular. I n Santa Elena pottery the coils used to construct vessels are relatively thick contributing to terminal coil breaks alon g rims (Rodrguez Lopez 1989). Chican Ostionoid Pottery Cap style pottery is common to western Puerto Rico. It is more friable and elaborately decorated than Esperanza style pottery which occurs in eastern Puerto Rico (Rouse 1992:111). Cap pottery is often sand tempered with vessel walls averaging around 7 mm in thickness Painting is not used and vessels tend to be brown to very dark brown. Burnishing is a common surface treatment giving vessels a lustrous sheen. Decorat ive elements mainly consist of broad line incisions forming geometric patterns, punctation s, zoomorphic lugs (but no true handles) and appliqu and modeling. Incisions are deep and extensive usually restricted to the shoulder areas of the vessel (Rouse 1952:450). Vessel forms are predominately incurving or carinated ( cazuela ) bowls. Rims fr om this period are tapered and upturned at the lip. Esperanza style pottery common to eastern Puerto Rico after AD 1200, is generally light brown to medium reddish brown in color. Esperanza vessels are rarely slipped and surface treatment mainly consists of smoothing. Like Santa Elena vessels, Esperanza vessel wall s are thick ranging between 8 and10 mm P ast e is medium coarse to coarse with aplastic inclusions ranging from approximately .5 to 2 mm. H andles are absent from the style and globular vessel forms are common Diagnostic design motifs for this style consist of double or triple sets of incised straight, curvilinear or oblique parallel lines. Wide, downward curvilinear lines are

PAGE 200

200 reminiscent of the double rainbow mythological theme (Stevens Arr oyo 2006). Incised lines are broad, deep and widely spaced. Incision is restricted to the upper portion of the vessel between the rim and shoulder. Another common design element is singular horizontal line under the rim. Boca Chica is the finest of the Chican Ostionoid styles, with hard and well finished surfaces, complicated vessel forms and intricate design motifs ( Garrow et al. 1995; Rouse 1952 :348). Burnishing is a common finishing technique Rouse (1952:347) thick walls (averaging 8 mm) and tapered rims. Boca Chica design elements include elaborate incision, punctation, and modeling. Rouse (1952:349) describes the common the center and flanked with semicircular lines; horizontal oblique, and vertical parallel lines; ovoid figures, each encircling a line or a series of dots; and a maze a defining characteristic of Boca Chica. Modeled plastic design elements include zoomorphic and anthropomorphic head lugs similar to those encountered in late Ostionan Ostionoid assemblages (Modified Ostiones), albeit in more complicated form s Pottery Analyses The TASP pottery collection is a complex sample representing several sites, multiple styles and numerous vessel forms with different material characteristics With so much variability, the question becomes how to examine them in a meaningful way? In previous research, C uret (1992 a ) analyzed a collection from multiple sites recovered from the valley of Maunabo using multi dimensional scaling (MDS) techniques. With this technique, he was successfully able to attribute the various site assemblages to particular styles. Wh ile the study was successful in establishing socio temporal

PAGE 201

201 associations based on clustering of diagnostic attributes, it had the unintended consequence of overlooking some of functional dimensions of vessels and the implications of various forms for inter preting social activities at the level of the residential settlement. To address this issue, I evaluate the pottery collection through a comparative examination of techno functional elements from each site to tease out, to the extent possible, activities r elated to pottery production and use While regional variability exists in the manufacture of various styles, potters generally followed certain rules in the production of pots in specific space time contexts. These rules included the construction of par ticular forms, design elements, clay recipes, and surface finishing techniques. Research conducted by Garrow & Associates at the sites of PO 21 (Espenshade et al. 1987), PO 38 (Weaver et al. 1992), and PO 39 (Garrow et al. 1995), ce (1985:F1 F48), and more recent work in Arecibo by Southeastern Archaeological Research (2008) serve as points of methodological reference for the present analysis. In contrast to a sherd based analysis, I focus on the collection of data related to the m anufacture, form, and ultimately function of vessels. To accomplish this, sherds were combined to form lots representing individual vessels. V essel based analysis compresses the data in such a way as to alleviate some of the issues associated with analyt ical disparities in quantification based on sherd count or weight as primary variables of representation This method is useful for extrapolating the number of vessels within the assemblage, or Minimum Number of Vessels (MNV), and provides a better framew ork for understanding the function of pots within the use contexts of living

PAGE 202

20 2 peoples (Braun 1980 1983 ; Deal 1983, 1998; Hally 1984, 1986; Rice 1987). Quantification of the assemblage in this way lends itself to evaluating other dimensions of residential settlements. For instance, Espenshade (2000) in Puerto Rico and Varien and Mills (1997) in the American Southwest successfully used MNV to model artifact accumulation rates to refine estimates of site population and duration of occupation. I utilize the sample of pottery recovered from PO 42 and PO 43 in a similar manner in Chapter 8 of this work. The pottery collection consists of 1,688 sherds from 11 sites (10.4 kg). The majority of sites yielded modest amounts of pottery (barring PO 42 and PO 43) and sherds are generally limited in size with 88% of the collection falling between 2 and 6 cm in diameter. Initial examination identified cross mends within each shovel test. During this process, sherds less than 1 cm in diameter were counted, weighed, and removed from the sample, as these are generally too small to yield reliable data related to vessel form or style. Concluding the identification of mendable sherds (with cross mended fragments counting as one) 1,332 sherds remained and were subject to fur ther study During initial sorting, I quantified sherd types to get a sense of the composition of the overall assemblage and that from each site ( Table 6 1 ) I then sorted sherds from within each shovel test unit into vessel lots to estimate the MNV for e ach site. Lots were formed by grouping sherds that potentially belong to the same vessel through establishing cross mends and/or similarities in surface treatment and paste. As shovel testing occurred at distances over 12.5 m, I assumed that sherds of th e same vessel were not distributed across shovel tests.

PAGE 203

203 Table 6 1. Sherd type frequencies of vessel portions by site (isolates excluded). Nine hundred and forty unique vessel lots (exc luding isolated finds) were created from the assemblage (Table 6 2). Each lot was analyzed separately for several variables including paste type, wall thickness, temper size and abundance, surface and interior treatments, surface color, rim and lip charac teristics (if present), vessel orientation (where available), vessel type, and style (if possible). The raw data for the analysis is in Appendix D. Table 6 2. Minimum number of vessels (MNV) for each site (isolates excluded). Site Total Number of Sherds per Site MNV PO 42 538 344 PO 43 490 366 PO 45 8 6 PO 46 4 4 PO 47 33 31 PO 48 66 53 PO 49 5 2 PO 50 46 31 PO 51 59 26 PO 52 58 51 PO 53 30 26 Total 1332 940 First impressions of the pottery assemblage indicated the predominance of non Sal adoid styles for all sites based on several factors including the coarseness of surface Sherd Type Site PO Total 42 43 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 Bases 9 9 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 1 23 Buren 7 8 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 13 1 32 Handles 9 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 18 Body Sherd s 443 390 7 4 24 59 4 34 47 39 23 1070 Rim 65 68 1 0 6 5 1 8 9 6 4 172 Shoulder 5 9 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 16 Total 538 490 8 4 33 66 5 46 59 58 30 1332

PAGE 204

204 finish and paste, wall thickness, and the general lack of paint or slip. In general, the collections from all sites share the following characteristics: Smoothed and s emi burnished sherds prevail within the assemblage accounting for 80% of the total collection. Evidence of red slip or painting is limited T he majority of the pottery is plain and undecorated Red slip and paint are strongly associated with Hacienda G rande, Cuevas and Ostiones style s. Incised sherds are rare in the assemblage. Incision is a common decorative technique in Santa Elena and Modified Ostiones pottery styles as well as those associated with th e Chican Ostionoid subseries. Anthropomorphic l ugs or adornos are non existent, and are common among Late Ostionan and Chican Ostionoid styles. Paste is predominately medium to medium coarse. Coarser pastes are typically associated with the post Saladoid pottery styles (Curet 1997). Based on vessel si ze form, and evidence for post firing heat attrition, most of the pots appear to have been used for cooking and serving. H andles are largely absent from the assemblage. Handles are common in Saladoid and Ostionan Ostionoid pottery styles Paste Types The identification of paste types is useful for understanding the exploitation of different clay resources for manufacturing vessels. Paste types in this research conform to those identified in petrographic studies of pottery from Ro Tanama and Roosevelt Ro ads by Ann Cordell ( SEARCH 2008, 2011). Cordell ( SEARCH 2008:261 271) identified eight types to characterize pottery from the island. These include fine, medium, and coarse felsic, quartz, volcanic, mafic 2 limestone, partially vitrified, and mixed felsi c pastes. 2 Mafic pastes were absent from the collection, although mafic constituents comprised a small proportion of specimens with felsic and volcanic pastes.

PAGE 205

205 Felsic paste contains granitic rock fragments, quartz, and feldspar grains. The various felsic pastes types noted by Cordell were compressed into a single felsic category as temper size was documented separately. Quartz paste is primarily compo sed of quartz grains with lesser quantities of felsic and volcanic constituents. Volcanic paste has volcanic rock fragments often with small quantities of mafic inclusions. Felsic, volcanic, and quartz constituents are naturally occurring in the local cl ays of the south central coast foothills where underlying igneous volcanic rocks predominate (Gierbolini 1978). Limestone paste consists of naturally occurring calcareous fragments with lesser amounts of felsic and/or volcanic constituents. Clays with cal careous constituents are found on the coastal plains and in karstic regions of the island where sedimentary rocks composed of concreted marine shell form. Vitrified pastes are characterized by a SEARCH 20 08:271) where vitrification likely represents repeated high temperature firing events ( SEARCH 2008). Other categories were created to document a limited number of sherds with grog and/or shell additives. Based on the local geology (Pico 1974), and soil c omposition of the foothills (Gierbolini 1978), it was expected that vessels would consist primarily of felsic and volcanic clays with a limited number of specimens possessing quartz and limestone pastes. Paste types were identified for each lot through an examination sherd profiles under 10x magnification (Table 6 3). Vessel lots with felsic (n=490) and volcanic (n=343) pastes compose 89% of the total sample with quartz paste (n=49) composing 5%. The balance of the assemblage comprised a limited number of limestone pastes and pastes with shell or grog additives.

PAGE 206

206 Table 6 3. Temper type frequencies for vessel lots by site. S ite PO Paste Type 42 43 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 Total Volcanic (n=343) 98 164 0 0 15 29 0 7 12 12 6 343 Quartz (n=49) 28 15 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 49 Limestone (n=6) 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 Felsic (n=490) 208 145 5 3 14 22 2 20 14 39 18 490 Vitrified (n=3) 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Limestone/Grog (n=27) 0 26 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 Felsic/Grog (n=14) 3 9 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 14 Volcan ic/Shell n=2) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 Quartz/Shell (n=1) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Felsic/Shell (n=5) 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Total 344 366 6 4 31 53 2 31 26 51 26 940 Vessels from PO 42 consist of 60% (n=208) felsic, 28% (n=98) volcanic, and a small nu mber of specimens with quartz paste (n=28). Pottery from PO 43 was more evenly distributed with 42% (n=145) of the assemblage composed of felsic and 44% (n=164) of volcanic pastes. PO 43 also contained a small number (n=26) of sherds with calcareous lime stone inclusions mixed with grog. Paste types documented for the balance of the sites are similar to PO 42 and PO 43 with felsic and volcanic constituents dominating the collection. Paste types at PO 47, PO 48, and PO 51 are somewhat evenly distributed be tween volcanic and felsic pastes whereas lots from PO 49, PO 50, PO 52, and PO 53 are mainly felsic pastes. The rest of assemblage consists of a limited number of specimens with quartz, limestone, and felsic pastes mixed with shell or grog. Vessel lots w ith pastes other than volcanic, quartz, or felsic types are rare in the collection and do not appear to represent dominant paste recipes for producing pottery in this locality. In all, the preponderance of felsic and volcanic pastes meets expectations for the use of local clay resources.

PAGE 207

207 The presence of few lots with limestone paste indicates some level of interaction with extra local settlements and/or infrequent use of non local clay resources. The sourcing of clays to examine exchange, interaction, and population movement in the region has yet to be explored. However, the prevalence of felsic and volcanic paste types noted in the TASP collection strongly suggests that potters focused on the acquisition and use of immediately available clay resources fo r pottery manufacture. Temper Size Temper size also provides clues to the pottery assemblages. While temper size may represent functional differences in vessel performance and use (Rice 1987:226), the variability in temper size in Puerto Rico is often an indicator of style. As noted in previous studies, Saladoid and early Ostionan Ostionoid wares tend to consist of finer pastes with few aplastic inclusions, while later styles tend to have more and coarser inclusions. This is obvious in Santa Elena and Es peranza pottery that commonly contain medium coarse and coarse aplastic inclusions. Other incidences of coarse tempered pottery are noted for burens which typically have aplastic inclusions over 1 mm ( e.g. Espenshade 198 7 ; Garrow. et al. 1995, SEARCH 2011 a, 2011b ). Vessel lots were classified into four categories based on the size of the most abundant aplastic inclusions in the paste (Table 6 4) Size categories consist of fine (<.25 mm), medium (.26 .5 mm), medium coarse (.6 1.0 mm), and coarse (1.0 2.0 mm) grains (Table 6 4). Initial examination of temper frequencies suggested a preference for pastes with medium to medium coarse aplastic inclusions. Medium sized temper (.25 .5 mm) predominates with 53% (n=485) of the total sample falling into this ca tegory. Following this, are samples with medium coarse (.5 1.0 mm) pastes comprising 31% (n=293) of the total assemblage.

PAGE 208

208 Table 6 4. Temper size frequencies for vessel lots by site. Site None Fine (0 .25mm) Medium (.26 .5 mm) Medium Coarse (.6 1.0mm ) Coarse (> 1mm) Total PO 42 0 30 182 126 6 344 PO 43 4 96 177 83 6 366 PO 45 0 0 5 1 0 6 PO 46 0 0 3 1 0 4 PO 47 0 5 17 8 1 31 PO 48 0 0 43 10 0 53 PO 49 0 0 0 2 0 2 PO 50 0 1 11 16 3 31 PO 51 0 2 11 13 0 26 PO 52 0 1 23 24 3 51 PO 53 0 1 13 9 3 26 Total 4 136 485 293 22 940 Fine tempered ( < .025 mm) pottery was documented from seven sites (PO 42, PO 43, PO 47, PO 50, PO 51, PO 52, and PO 53) but in small quantities (n=136, 14%). The remaining 2% of the assemblage consists of coarse (n=22) a nd non tempered vessels (n=4). The coarse tempered (1.0 2.0 mm) vessels are primarily associated with buren fragments. Non tempered ( i.e. fine grained sand) vessels are present in four specimens from PO 43 and appear to be associated with Cuevas or Pu re Ostiones style supported by wall thickness and evidence for painting/slipping on some of the lots. Fine tempered (0 .25 mm) specimens from PO 42, PO 43, PO 47, PO 50, PO 51, PO 52, and PO 53 suggests a minor Cuevas or Pure Ostiones component at these s ites albeit limited. Based on temper size lot frequencies, pottery from all sites appears to primarily consist of post Saladoid styles. Wall Thickness Wall thickness often relates to vessel size and its intended function. For instance, larger vessels usu ally require thicker walls for stability and structural support. As a consequence, thick vessels require more energy to heat but retain heat longer (Rice

PAGE 209

209 1987). In contrast, thin walled vessels transmit heat to the vessel contents quickly. Most utilitar ian vessels of a given pottery style tend to conform to a range of specified sizes and therefore thickness can also correspond to traditions in pottery manufacture ( SEARCH 2008; SEARCH 2011 a, 2011b ). In fact, Rouse documented distinctive associations in s herd thickness and pottery styles particularly between Saladoid, Elenan, Ostionan and Chican Ostionoid assemblages (1952). To examine wall thickness, measurements for lots were compressed into 15 size categories ranging from < 5 mm to > 18.1 mm. Thickness w as calculated by taking the mean measurement of all body and rim sherds 3 within each vessel lot. Sites possessing less than 25 lots were omitted from examination because they were, based on sample size, deemed unable to yield meaningful intra and inter s ite trends. Eight sites were examined for sherd thickness including PO 42, PO 43, PO 47, PO 48, PO 50, PO 51, PO 52, and PO 53 (Figure 6 1). In the case of PO 42, 45% (n=153) of the site sample is within the 6 to 8 mm range with 27% (n=91) between 6.1 and 7 mm. PO 43 is similar with 44% (n=159) of the site sample between 6.1 and 8 mm and 26% (n=94) between 6.1 and 7 mm. Vessel thickness of the PO 47 sample is also high in this range with 55% of the site sample between 6.1 and 8 mm of which 29% is between 7.1 and 8 mm. T he overall pattern for thickness (as well as temper size) for these three sites indicate strong similarities in the pottery assemblages. Several other sites exhibit peaks in these size ranges including PO 48 (40%), PO 51 (50%), PO 52 (31% ), and PO 53 (27%). Peaks in the relative percentages within this range are most common for Ostionan and Cap styles. 3 Measurements on rims taken approximately on the body portion of the sherd 3 cm below the rim.

PAGE 210

210 Figure 6 1. Vessel lot thickness for eight sites

PAGE 211

211 In the case of PO 48, PO 50, PO 52, and PO 53 the highest frequencies of sherds are i n the 8 10 mm range which is generally associated with Santa Elena and Esperanza styles. The sample from PO 48 shows a bimodal distribution with 23% of the lots ranging between 6 and 7 mm and 25% between 8 and 9mm suggesting a mixed Ostionan Ostionoid/Cap and Santa Elena/Esperanza style assemblage. Several sites (PO 42, PO 43, PO 48, PO 50, PO 52, and PO 53) have lots greater than 15 mm and are likely associated with large vessels and buren fragments. The total sample also has a number of specimens falli ng in the lower end of this spectrum which indicates the presence of small vessels and/or Saladoid style pottery. However, the due to the overall high indices of vessel lots with thickness ranges between 7 and 10 mm generally indicate post Saladoid assemb lages. The presence of many sites with high frequencies of vessels in multiple size ranges also may be indicative of stylistic change through time and/or potential coeval mixing of styles. Rim Morphology and Vessel Form One hundred and eighty five lots wi th rims were recovered from 11 sites (Table 6 5 ). Lots possessing at least 5% of the rim were profiled and orifice diameter measured. Seventy five percent of the rim fragments were, not surprisingly, recovered from sites PO 42 (n=68) and PO 43 (n=71). E xamination of the rim sherds from all sites revealed forms described by Rouse (1952:337). Rim forms are characterized by types that have parallel (n=115, 62%) interior and exterior walls to the lip. Parallel rims are common in post Saladoid assemblages, particularly late Ostionoid styles. The second most frequent type in the sample are thinned rims (n=28, 15%) in which the interior and exterior walls taper to the lip characteristic for late Ostionan and Chican Ostionoid pottery (Rouse 1952). Rims with t hickened interior and exteriors are also present in the

PAGE 212

212 total collection but in smaller proportions (n=11, 6%) and appear to be Santa Elena style. These observations support those made in the previous discussions of temper size and wall thickness that ind icate the assemblages are primarily post Saladoid. Table 6 5. Rim form frequencies by site. Rim Definition S ite PO Total 42 43 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 Flat In Platformed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Indeterminate 3 4 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 11 Parallel 4 1 54 0 1 0 2 0 6 7 2 2 115 Thickened Ext. Angular 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Thickened Ext. Round 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Thickened In Angular 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Thickened In Round 7 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 11 Thickened In/Ext 1 4 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 11 Thinned 11 6 0 0 3 1 0 1 1 3 2 28 Total 68 71 1 1 6 6 2 8 9 7 6 185 Vessel forms and types were determined from rim orientation, orifice diameter, and extant portions of lots with non rim body sherds that indicated vessel form ( e.g. carinated shoulders rounded shoulders). Particular vessel types were then postulated based on commonly occurring types documented from the region (Figure 6 2). While not representing the full range of vessel types for all periods, these generalized types offer a useful he uristic for inferring vessel form and function. Vessels consist of globular and composite types for restricted forms and hemispherical, shallow, outflaring, and two open bowl types (convex out and vertical) for unrestricted forms. A small number of other specialized vessel types are also represented including jars, buren /griddles, plates, and oval dishes. Variability in size noted within types indicates potential differences in function as observed in recent studies (Espenshade 2000; SEARCH 2008, 2011 b ). In general it is assumed that both

PAGE 213

213 medium to larger sized pots were likely used for cooking or serving while smaller ones may have been used for storage of powders, seeds, herbs (Rowe 2011) or for personal food consumption. Figure 6 2 Commonly occurr ing vessel forms. One hundred and sixty one vessel lots from 11 sites were attributed to a particular vessel form and type (Table 6 6). Variability in documented vessel types suggests diversity in activities conducted at each site. Obviously, this diver sity relates, to some degree to the size of the site samples. For instance, PO 42 and PO 43 have the greatest diversity in vessel types represented (11 for each) indicating a wide range of functional activities. PO 51 possesses six different types with f ive documented at PO 50 and PO 47. PO 48 and PO 53 each possess four different types of vessels and each with buren s pecimens. PO 53 contains three different vessel types and PO 45

PAGE 214

214 and PO 46 each have one vessel type. Despite the relatively large sample of pottery fragments collected from PO 52, only three vessel types were identified. Of these 13, burens were documented. A discussion of the various vessel types and their function is provided in the following sections. Table 6 6. Frequency of vesse l types by site. Vessel 42 43 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 Total Restricted Forms Composite 6 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 12 Globular 4 5 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 13 UID Restricted 6 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 15 Unrestricted Forms Hemispherical 8 12 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 25 Open Bowl Convex Out 5 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 12 Outflaring 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 Shallow Bowl 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 6 Open Vertical 6 7 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 16 Specialized Forms Buren 8 8 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 13 1 33 Jar 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Plate 8 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 15 Navicular/Oval Dish 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Total 56 58 1 1 5 4 1 6 8 17 5 161 Restricted vessels (n=40) narrow between shoulder and rim with the maximum body diameter exceed ing the orifice diameter. R estricted vessels consist of two types: globular and carinated or composite/ cazuela bowls Globular bowls are spherical and gradually in curving from the shoulder to the rim. In contrast, composite bowls are acutely angled inward with carinated or keel ed shoulders. Both types have interior walls orientated less than 90 degrees above the shoulder causing a restriction of the vessel orifice. Rim sherds, where orientation could be determined but no orifice and/or

PAGE 215

215 characteristics of the shoulder could be identified, were classified as indeterminate restricted vessels. Restricted vessels are good for storage and heat retention. These vessels also limit access to the contents, permit a higher degree of control during transport (Hally 1986) and reduces spi llage during cooking (Espenshade 2000). Restricted bowls tend to be more frequent in non Saladoid styles (Rouse 1952; also see SEARCH 2008, 2011 a, 2011b for case studies). Restricted forms are registered at eight of the 11 sites and from the 40 vessels, 13 are globular, 12 composite and 15 indeterminate (Figure 6 3). PO 42 and PO 43 constitute 77% of the total sample of restricted forms with globular and composite types in somewhat equal proportions between the two sites. Three restricted vessels also were recovered from PO 52, two from PO 47, and single specimens from PO 48, PO 50, PO 51, and PO 53. Out of the 40 restricted vessels, the sizes for 27, from six sites, could be determined (Figure 6 4). Using orifice diameter as a proxy for vessel size a variety of functional types becomes apparent. Vessel sizes range from 6 cm to 34 cm. PO 42 and PO 43 display the greatest range, with 6 cm to 24 cm for PO 43 and 10 cm to 34 cm for PO 42. Vessels from all other sites cluster between the 10 cm and 14 cm range (mode of 12 cm). Medium and larger sized vessels would have been good for cooking pepper pot style soups, for which heat retention and controlled access of the contents would be useful.

PAGE 216

216 Figure 6 3. Examples of restricted vessel types. Large ves sels ( > 16 cm) were documented from PO 42 and PO 43 with the largest coming from PO 42 measuring 34 cm in diameter. Large vessels would be able to accommodate large fish, birds, and iguanas that were noted as part of the indigenous diet by contact period 1964 ). These large vessel sizes may also indicate the preparation of communal meals. Smaller vessels ( < 10 cm) are almost exclusive to PO 43. These vessels may indicate small cups or bowls for personal food consumption or s torage.

PAGE 217

217 Figure 6 4. Documented vessel sizes for restricted forms. Unrestricted vessels (n=63) are oriented straight out, convex vertical, convex out, and outflaring (Figure 6 5). Interior walls angle from 90 to 130 degrees. Unrestricted vessels offer access to contents and are good for serving (Rice 1987 : Table 7.2); however they retain heat poorly and do not allow for as much control of the contents as unrestricted forms. Unrestricted forms dominate the TASP pottery collection with 63 specimens id entified from 10 sites. Thirty four percent of these were recovered from PO 42 and 39 % from PO 43 (Table 6 6).

PAGE 218

218 Figure 6 5. Examples of unrestricted vessel types.

PAGE 219

219 The primary unrestricted type is hemispherical bowls (n= 25 ) Like globular vessels, hemis pherical types are spherical in shape; however, the orifice is along the central axis of the sphere as opposed to the top. Hemispherical types generally produce rim profiles that are convex vertical with the interior wall curving gradually to vertical fro m the base to the orifice. Unlike vertical vessel types, only a small portion of the rim is vertical where the vessel orifice terminates at the central axis of the sphere. Hemispherical vessel forms are common in Ostionan Ostionoid pottery assemblages an d occurring in smaller frequencies in the Santa Elena and Esperanza pottery styles (Rouse 1952). Open bowls with vertical walls constitute the second most frequent vessel type with 1 6 specimens identified from 5 sites. These types have rim orientations of approximately discernible curvature evident. PO 42 and PO 43 possess 6 and 7 vessels respectively of this type accounting for 81% of those recovered. Single specimens of this type were also collected from PO 46, PO 49, PO 50, and PO 51. Convex out bowls h ave a rim form that curves outward with straight parallel interior and exterior walls near the lip. These vessels are generally characteristic of large open bowls. Twelve specimens were identified from four sites including PO 42, PO 43, PO 48, and PO 53. Outflaring bowls constitute a small portion of the assemblage with only four recovered from three sites PO 42 PO 47 and PO 50 Rim forms of this type open gradually from the central axis or keel forming a small outflaring platform at the orifice. Out flaring vessels are generally associated with Saladoid style pottery. Of the 63 unrestricted vessels identified in the collection, sizes for 36 (excluding shallow bowls) are presented in Figure 6 6. Unrestricted forms range in size from 8 cm

PAGE 220

220 to 38 cm wit h the majority of vessel lots clustering to medium size bowls between 14 cm and 18 cm, a pattern similar to that observed for the restricted forms. As with the restricted forms, PO 42 exhibits the widest range in distribution from 10 cm to 32 cm. Similar to the pattern of restricted vessels exhibited at PO 43 are the presence of smaller vessels which may indicate pots for personal use. Figure 6 6. Documented vessel sizes for restricted rim forms (not including shallow bowls). Unique among the unrestr icted vessel types are shallow open bowls (Figure 6 7). These vessels differ from the others previously discussed, because of their shallow nature they have limited volume capacity and would not be particularly useful for

PAGE 221

221 cooking. Six shallow open bowls are present from 5 sites with single specimens coming from PO 42, PO 43, PO 46, PO 47, PO 48, PO 51 and PO 53 and two from PO 50. These vessels range from medium to large from 14 cm to 32 cm. with the largest collected from PO 43. No smaller specimens un der 14 cm are present in the collection. Smaller bowls may have been used for personal consumption, while larger shallow bowls may have been used for presenting communally served meals. Figure 6 7. Examples of shallow bowls. Specialized v essel f orms (n=58) were identified in the assemblages and do not fall within the general restricted or unrestricted categories These types include plates, jars, oval dishes and burens /griddles.

PAGE 222

222 Fifteen plates were recovered from six sites. This vessel type has a r im orientation that is straight out with straight interior walls at an angle between 130 and (Figure 6 8 ). Half of the plates were recovered from PO 42 (n=8) with two plates recovered from both PO 43 and PO 52. Single specimens were also registered at PO 48, PO 50, and PO 52 respectively. Plate diameters range from 14 cm to 22 cm too smal l to be burens despite the thickness of several specimens. Plates would have been used to serve non liquid items such as meats, fish, or casva bread. Recent research suggests the plates may have also been utilized as cohoba trays (SEARCH 2011a; Oliver 19 90). Figure 6 8 Examples of plates.

PAGE 223

223 Narrow orifice vessels ( < 10 cm) were registered from two sites (PO 42 and PO 43) and posses straight vertical rim orientations. While no portion of the vessel below the neck was present, the small orifice diamete r and orientation of these rims suggest they are jars. Jars are good for storage which limit access to the interior and facilitate containment of the vessels contents. Jars are also good for transporting materials where potential spillage is an issue. I t is assumed that jars were not utilized for cooking. Jars are largely absent in Santa Elena style, but are common in Chican Ostionoid assemblages (Rodrguez Lpez 1989; Rouse 1952). Two oval dishes were found at PO 43 This type of vessel, found in othe r sites in Puerto Rico and is primarily associated with late Cuevas and Ostionan Ostion oid assemblages (Goodwin and Walker 1975) These ve ssel types in Ostiones assemblages typically possess strap handles above the rim at either end of the vessel similar in form to a boat Cuevas forms often have tab ular handles that are semi lunate in shape. The tabs have identifiable rim points. Two fra gments, from separate vessels were collected from PO 43 These sherds have no evidence of surface attrition from heat and are consistent with other vessels of this type documented from other sites on the island ( e.g. SEARCH 2008) These vessels are assum ed to have been used for serving. Despite limited mention of vessel types in ethnohistoric documents, griddles or burens are frequently discussed (Las Casas 195 1 40 41; Oviedo y Valdes 1959:232). Burens are generally flat and circular in shape (averaging about 50 cm in diameter) with rough exterior surfaces (bottoms) and smoothed interiors (tops). They are typically thick, often exceeding 14 mm, with coarse paste containing large aplastic inclusions (>

PAGE 224

224 1 mm). Thirty three buren /griddles were identified i n the assemblage (Figure 6 9 ). Their function is conventionally associated with cooking cassava bread however; recent research has demonstrated that they also were used to cook or prepare an array of foodstuffs including maize, sweet potato and fish ( Pag n Jimenez 2009; Rodrguez Suarez and Pagn Jimnez ; Vanderveen 2009). Figure 6 9 Examples of burens Buren fragments identified from seven sites and represent less than 1% of the total assemblage by count (but 16% of the total assemblage by weight). Approximately 50% of these buren lots (by count) were recovered from PO 42 (n=8) and PO 43 (n=8) with 78% by weight (1.2 kg) and 39% by count (n=13) from PO 52. The buren collection is fragmented and intact rims are limited. In most cases, the buren spe cimens were too fragmented to ascertain their diameter. Thickness of the buren sherds in the collection range from 11 mm to a very thick specimen recovered from PO 43 measuring 32 mm (mean 17.5 mm, Std. 4.6). No decorated buren fragments, often documente d in Ostiones sites (Robinson 1985; Rouse 1952:343; Rainey 1940 19, 24), were identified.

PAGE 225

225 The identification of burens is important because they denote, perhaps more than any other vessel type, activities associated with domestic habitation. Owing to the ir size, weight and friable nature they are not easily transportable Their general association with processing manioc and other food stuffs indicates non expedient food preparation indicative of relatively sedentary domestic occupation activities. Surfac e Finish and Diagnostic Elements Surface finish refers to the method by which a vessel is smoothed and evened during and after shaping (Rice 1987:136 138). Paint is typically considered an additive decorative element but is also considered here. Seven ca tegories of surface treatment were recorded for each vessel lot. These included evidence for smoothing, smoothing/floating (or self slipped surfaces), smudging, burnishing, slipping, painting and lots lacking identifiable surface treatment ( SEARCH 2008:27 3) (Table 6 7). Table 6 7 Surface finishing frequencies for sherds by site (based on vessel exteriors) S ite PO Surface Treatment 42 43 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 Total Smoothed 169 168 2 2 10 34 2 24 10 32 17 470 Floated/Self Slipped 49 77 1 1 2 5 0 0 5 4 1 145 Smudged 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 9 Burnished 45 19 3 0 7 5 0 3 3 3 3 91 Slipped 32 44 0 0 7 3 0 0 4 1 1 92 Eroded/Battered 38 44 0 1 4 6 0 4 3 11 4 115 Painted 11 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 Total 344 366 6 4 31 53 2 31 26 51 26 940 Like ma ny sites in the region, the majority of sherds recovered during the survey are plain undecorated wares. Examination of surface finish reveals 50% of the total assemblage is characterized by smoothing (n=470). Formal surface finishes in the collection are limited. Approximately 15% of the total assemblage has floated or self

PAGE 226

226 slipped surfaces with the majority specimens from PO 42 and PO 43. A small number of self slipped specimens also were recovered from PO 51. Burnished sherds account for approximatel y 10% of the assemblage. Smoothing, floating and burnishing leaves the surfaces fine grained and smooth regardless of the coarseness of the paste, reducing permeability and leakage serving both aesthetic and functional purposes (Schiffer and Skibo 1987). Red paint and red/pink slips are diagnostic surface treatments primarily associated with Saladoid, Monserrate, and Ostiones styles. Forty five lots were identified possessing red/pink slips in the assemblage. Red slipped lots were identified from PO 42 ( n=18), PO 43 (n=6), and PO 51 (n=1) with pink slipped specimens recovered from PO 42 (n=5), PO 43 (n=11), PO 47 (n=1), PO 48 (n=1), PO 51 (n=1), and PO 53 (n=1). Nineteen painted sherds were identified with 11 specimens from PO 42 and eight from PO 43. T hese specimens, while limited in number, suggest a minor Cuevas or early Ostionan Ostionoid component from these sites. As Cuevas pottery is now accepted to occur up to AD 1000 in other parts of the island, it is likely that these sherds may post date AD 600. No painted sherds were identified from the other sites. Incised sherds were rare in the collection and only 19 specimens from seven sites were documented. While incision occurs in Hacienda Grande, and to a limited extent Cuevas vessels, no zone inci sed crosshatched specimens are present in the assemblage. The majority of incised specimens are severely fragmented and do not offer much insight to their stylistic association. However, three incised specimens are worthy of note (Figure 6 10 ). These co nsist of two specimens, from the same shovel test, at PO 42 (FS 70) and appear to be Cap style. Another specimen was recovered

PAGE 227

227 from PO 52 and is suggestive of Cap or Boca Chica style pottery (FS 52) (Elvis Babilonia personal communication, 2011). Fig ure 6 10 Diagnostic incised Cap incised pottery from PO 42 and PO 52. Chronology To evaluate the chronological placement of each site, vessel lots were assigned to a particular style. In some cases, this assignment was easy based on visible diagnostic elements. However, as most of the pottery lacked obvious diagnostic design elements it was difficult to ascribe many lots to a particular style. These being the case, lots lacking diagnostic attributes were cross tabulated based on rim form (where avail able) temper size, thickness, surface treatment, and surface color. These were compressed into general stylistic categories representing Cuevas/Pure Ostiones, Elenan and Ostionan Ostionoid (including Monserrate, Santa Elena and Modified Ostiones), and Chi can Ostionoid (including Cap, Boca Chica, and Esperanza). The results were

PAGE 228

228 seriated based on relative proportional frequencies by site (Figure 6 1 1 ). Current problems with pottery chronologies, and the fragmented nature of the sample, hindered a refined delineation of the temporal association of the pottery from each site; however, general patterns are apparent. Figure 6 1 1 Ceramic seriation by vessel lot style frequency. Bars represent percentage of total number (n) of vessel lots from each site. Relative percentages show PO 42, PO 43, PO 51, PO 52, PO 48, and PO 53 possess limited evidence of Cuevas/Pure Ostiones pottery and, in general, the majority of specimens from all sites indicate Late Ostiones and/or Elenan wares (Period IIIb). Further, s everal sites including PO 42, PO 43, PO 46, PO 47, PO 48, PO 50, PO 52, and PO 53 exhibit evidence for Chican Ostionoid pottery with the highest proportional frequencies registered at PO 46, PO 47, PO 52, and PO 53. Four shell specimens were selected fr om two sites, PO 42 and PO 43, for radiocarbon analysis. Shell specimens were collected from the bottom of hand excavated column samples from discrete midden deposits at each site. Determining occupation dates for these sites was important for developing local settlement

PAGE 229

229 chronology because these sites provided the best evidence for residential occupation in close proximity to Tibes. The Center for Applied Isotope Studies at the University of Georgia made the determinations utilizing Accelerator Mass Spect rometer (AMS). The dates were calibrated using OXCal 6.0.1 software (Stuiver and Reimer 1993). The two samples recovered from PO 42 yielded radiocarbon dates of cal. AD 1290 (FS 116) and AD 1290 AD 1600 (FS 112). The two samples from PO dates of AD 960 AD 1300 (FS 289) and AD 1080 AD 1420 (FS 292) (Table 6 8). 4 Table 6 8. Radiocarbon determinations from PO 42 and PO 43. Site Ass ociated Pottery Period Conventional Radiocarbon Age Calibrated Date Range FS Material Dated PO 42 Santa Elena/ Modified Ostiones III 124025 940 12 90 (FS116) Shell PO 42 Santa Elena / Esperanza/ Cap IIIB IV 95025 1290 1600 (FS112) Shell P O 43 Pure/Modified Ostiones III 131025 960 1300 (FS289 ) Shell PO 43 Modified Ostiones/ Cap IIIB IV 116025 1080 1420 (FS292 ) Shell Date ranges coincide with what would be typically expected for the Late Ostionan Ostionoid and Chican Ostionoid wares collected from both sites. Pottery recovered from PO 42 in FS 112 is associated with late Ostionoid pottery. Three lots from this context also may be associated with Santa Elena, Esperanza, or Cap style and two definitive Cap style lots were recovered in the adjacent shovel test (FS 70; Figure 6 9). Additional pottery from the same site consists of evidence for Modified Ostiones and 4 The R values for the marine reservoir calculations were applied based on recent values from Tibes (Pestle and Curet 2011).

PAGE 230

230 Santa Elena style lots mixed in single contexts (FS 116). Pottery from PO 43 appears to be primarily Modified Ostiones (FS 289) and Chican Ostionoid style pottery (FS 292). Some mixing of the Modified Ostiones wares with potential Cuevas/Pure Ostiones pottery is also present. Based on the dates and associated pottery, it appears that both sites were potentially occupied a t least between AD 960 to AD 1420, and as such they would both have been potentially occupied during the construction of the plazas/ batey s at Tibes and PO 29. Further, based on the pottery seriation, the slightly elevated percentage of Cuevas/Pure Ostione s pottery in PO 43 over PO 42, and the slightly higher frequency of Chican Ostionoid pottery from PO 42, suggests that PO 43 may have been settled slightly earlier than PO 42 and that PO 42 persisted slightly longer than PO 43. What is also important is t hat both may have been coeval. While limited, these dates provide a basis from which to begin to contextualize residential settlement within the local landscape associated with Tibes. Summary of the P ottery A ssemblage Potters of the foothills immediately surrounding Tibes created vessels using locally acquired clay resources. Limited quantities of alternative paste types indicate interactions or movement of clays/pottery from outside of the immediate locality. Based on the technofunctional and stylistic characteristics of the pottery, all sites appear to possess post Saladoid pottery styles. Based on the analysis presented here, in conjunction with the radiocarbon dates presented in Chapter 2, it appears that the primary occupation of the newly documente d TASP sites range from Period III through Period IV with primary occupations likely between AD 900 and AD 1300.

PAGE 231

231 Evaluation of the vessel forms indicates that a range of activities were conducted at each of the sites. Vessel functions from several sites in dicate a variety of domestic activities associated with food preparation and consumption, as evinced through the diversity of vessel forms; especially the presence of plates, and burens The greatest diversity in vessel forms come from the sites of PO 42, PO 43, PO 50, and PO 53 in the Portugus drainage, PO 47 in the Caas drainage, PO 51 near the Bayagan River, and PO 48 in the Chiquito drainage. All present clear evidence of food processing, serving, and consumption. The presence of griddles or burens at seven of the sites, particularly PO 52, also suggests domestic activities. The presence of burens is a good indication of residential settlement, because they are too cumbersome to transport and are susceptible to breakage. Admittedly, burens could ha ve been produced for expedient purposes; however, when taken in the contexts of the total artifact assemblage from any given site they provide an additional line of evidence for domestic occupation. The functional interpretation of sites is revisited at t he conclusion of this chapter. Lithic Analysis Stone tools and the byproducts of stone tool production represent a small fraction of the TASP artifact assemblage (n=227, 7.8 kg). Lithics were sorted by material type and analyzed for use wear, thermal alte ration, and amount of cortical material present. Lithics were then divided into flaked stone and formal tool categories; further characterized by descriptive attributes related to the reduction sequence in the process of making tools. The lithic assembl age is relatively limited and no specimens of beads, celts, stone collars, or other lapidary items were recovered. The majority of the lithics are commonly

PAGE 232

232 occurring local stone types, thereby precluding any interpretations of regional interaction and/or exchange of raw materials. Further, while lithics are useful for determining certain activities and the movement of people and materials across the landscape, they are relatively poor chronological indicators in Puerto Rico. According to Walker lithics i n This persistence of stone tool production, and the limited variability in the tool diversity noted in the TASP ass emblage, may be attributable to the fact that there was little need for a highly developed stone tool tradition. This idea is based on the availability of other materials that could be expediently employed as tools, particularly in areas where shell was r eadily accessible. However, this hypothesis has yet to be formally tested and is beyond the scope of this research. Raw Material Types The lithic assemblage displays evidence for the exploitation of local materials (Table 6 9). The availability of these materials from the Ro Portugus and surrounding region has been documented in recent research associated with Tibes (Rice Snow 2010; Walker 2010) and PO 29 (Espenshade 2009; n.d.) as well as previous work conducted at El Bronce (Walker 1985) and sites in the Cerrillos River Valley (Espenshade 198 7 ; Garrow et al. 1995; Weaver et al. 1992). This observation is not surprising as the Portugus river bed contains a wide array of raw materials which include plutonic, volcanic, and sedimentary stones (Rice Snow et al. 2010; also noted in Walker 2010). The selection of raw materials generally conforms to observation made in recent lithic assemblages at Tibes that indicate the use of green and grey tuffs for

PAGE 233

233 flaking, porphyry and breccias for pounding and sandston e for grinding (Walker 2010:156). Table 6 9. Summary of lithic raw material types by site (isolates excluded). Site PO Material Data 42 43 45 47 48 49 50 52 53 54 Total Basalt ct 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 wt (g) 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Flint ct 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 wt (g) 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Grnstone ct 8 4 0 0 2 0 0 7 0 0 21 wt (g) 17 5 1 7 0 0 10 0 0 589 0 0 791 Grey Flint ct 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 wt (g) 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 M volcanic ct 41 80 1 2 32 4 1 19 15 1 196 wt (g) 1708 45 9 58 12 509 199 255 3224 120 8 6550 Quartz ct 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 wt (g) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.9 0 72 0 74 Total Count 52 86 1 2 34 4 2 26 16 1 224 Total Weight (g) 1892 482 59 12 519 199 256 3813 192 8 7431 Debitage and Stone Tools Lithic debitage accounts f or 201 out of 227 specimens. Lithics from all sites is dominated by evidence of bipolar reduction techniques, subsequent refinement or tool maintenance by the presence of thinning flakes, and shatter, indicates various stages of tool production. Lithic de bitage was documented from nine sites with the highest quantities (by count) recovered from PO 42 (n=46), PO 43 (n=84), PO 48 (n=32), PO 52 (n=20) and PO 53 (n=12) and smaller quantities from PO 45 (n=1), PO 47 (n=2), PO 49 (n=3) and PO 50 (n=1) (Table 6 1 0). The greater quantity of debitage recovered from PO 42, PO 43, and PO 48 in conjunction with the pottery recovered from these sites indicates a diverse array of activities and strong evidence for domestic occupation.

PAGE 234

234 Table 6 10. Summary of lithic deb itage (isolates excluded). Site PO Debitage Data 42 43 45 47 P48 49 50 52 53 Total Bipolar Flake ct 6 21 1 1 2 0 0 5 1 37 wt (g) 121 58 58 10 9 0 0 361 2 618 Shatter ct 11 34 0 0 8 3 1 5 10 72 wt (g) 27 70 0 0 9 13 2 10 82 212 Thinning Flake ct 29 29 0 1 22 0 0 10 1 93 wt (g) 394 131 0 1.8 173 0 0 571 12 1290 Total Count 46 84 1 2 32 3 1 20 12 201 Total Weight (g) 54 1 277 58 12 191 13 2 942 96 2113 Seven formal tool types totaling 24 specimens from 9 sites were recovered during the surv ey (Table 6 11). Seven tools were collected from PO 42 and PO 52 and three abraders from PO 53. These specimens consist of three small grey metavolcanic pebbles with distinctive faceting on multiple edges. Three blade flakes were recovered during the su rvey with one specimen each from PO 42, PO 48 and PO 52. All specimens appear to be metavolcanic in origin with common step terminations. These flakes are relatively linear with parallel sides and are twice as long as they are wide (Garrow et al. 1995:20 0). The edges of these flakes generally show evidence of use and some retouch. These flakes would have been used for scraping or cutting. Seven cores were collected from PO 42, PO 43, and PO 52. All appear to be random cores with no identifiable patter n to flake removal. All of the cores are of metavolcanic origin consisting of grey tuffs. These cores could have been used for the production of usable flakes or could have been employed as choppers. However, no evidence of edge wear on the cores was no ted during the analysis. One edge grinder was recovered from PO 42. This tool is an elongated cobble of grey tuff with diagnostic edge wear consisting of smoothing with battered terminal surfaces. This wear pattern has been observed in previous investig ations as potentially associated with the

PAGE 235

235 processing of vegetal items (Rodrguez Ramos 2006). This specimen was recovered from the north wall of the batey at PO 42. Table 6 11. Lithic Tools recovered from sites (isolates excluded). S ite PO Debitage Data 42 43 48 49 50 52 53 Total Abrader ct 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 wt (g) 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 91 Blade Flake ct 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 wt (g) 66 0 4 0 0 138 0 207 Core ct 3 1 0 0 0 3 0 7 wt (g) 641 130 0 0 0 849 0 1620 Edge Grinder ct 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 wt (g) 635 0 0 0 0 0 0 635 Grnd Stone ct 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 6 wt (g) 10 94 324 186 255 0 5 872 Hmmr.rstone ct 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 wt (g) 0 0 0 0 0 1885 0 1885 Total Count 6 2 2 1 1 6 4 22 Total Weight (g) 1351 224 327 186 255 2871 96 5310 Six ground stone artifacts w ere recovered, one each from PO 42, PO 43, PO 48, PO 49, PO 50 and PO 53. These artifacts consist of metavolcanic pebbles and cobbles that show smoothed or faceted surfaces. The smaller specimens may have been burnishing stones or abraders with the large r specimens for grinding food other vegetal materials or smoothing wood. Two hammer stones were recovered from PO 52. These specimens are relatively large cobbles with distinctively battered surfaces. Summary of the L ithic A ssemblage The lithic assemb lage denotes practices associated with stone tool production and use at several sites. Based on raw materials the collection shows procurement primarily from local riverine sources. Production techniques emphasize bipolar core reduction for the creation of tools. The relatively high incidence of thinning flakes,

PAGE 236

236 particularly from PO 42, PO 43 and PO 48 also support a range of tool making activities. The edge grinder recovered from PO 42 and other ground stone tools present at PO 42, PO 43, PO 48, PO 49, PO 50, and PO 53 indicate the possible processing of vegetal material for food. Shell Analysis Marine shell is an important indicator of past human activities because of its use as a food source, for tools, and the implied landscape associations based on the connection between the habitat of particular species and the locations where they are recovered. Eight sites yielded marine shell including PO 42, PO 43, PO 45, PO 46, PO 50, PO 51, PO 52, and PO 53 (Table 6 12). PO 46 and PO 50 yielded too few speci mens and were omitted from further analysis. No shell was recovered from PO 47, PO 48, or PO 49 5 Seven sites yielded sufficient quantities of shell to discuss food consumption, tool use/production, and landscape associations. Table 6 12. Summary of shell and coral by site (includes large fraction from column samples, isolates excluded). Site Shell and Coral ct Shell and Coral w t (g) PO 42 5701 9041.5 PO 43 8181 11469.6 PO 45 99 78.5 PO 46 3 4.1 PO 50 11 25.9 PO 51 62 276.9 PO 52 506 2331 PO 5 3 212 361.5 Total 14775 23589.05 5 Although one parrot fish ( Scaridae ) premaxilla was recovered from PO 48, the northern most site in the Ro Chiquito drainage.

PAGE 237

237 All shell specimens collected from shovel tests were analyzed. Materials recovered from column samples are not presented; they are currently the subject of a detailed faunal analysis to be presented in future work (DuC hemin n.d.). The identification of specific taxa was through examination of comparative source materials (Warmke and Abbot 1961) including collections from the Florida Museum of Natural History. Analysis documented raw counts ( i.e. number of individual specimens [NISP]) and weights for each taxon from each shovel test. The calculation of Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) was through the identification of non repeatable elements within each taxon for each shovel test with the results tabulated for each site (Appendix E). Shell tools identified in the analysis were subject to additional study. The sample of analyzed shell totaled 5,673 specimens (NISP), representing 1,600 individuals (MNI) weighing 11.9 kg. The sample comprises a variety of gastropods and bivalves with the latter composing the majority of the sample by both MNI and weight (Table 6 13). Gatropods form 34% of the total sample population by weight and 15% by MNI. Sites PO 42, PO 43, PO 51, PO 52, and PO 53 account for 92% of the total she ll sample by MNI. The majority of shell from these sites consists of bivalves dominated by Carib pointed venus ( Anomalocardia brasiliana) and Zebra Ark ( Arca zebra ) specimens. The Carib pointed venus are common in shallow water habitats buried in interti dal mudflats. Zebra arks are common in rocky or reef habitats, and attach themselves to rock or coral. Other commonly occurring bivalves in the shell sample include clams from the Lucinidae Lucine family (particularly Codakia and Lucina ) and Veneridae ha rd shell clams including Chione Oyster fragments, particularly Isognoman and

PAGE 238

238 Crassostrea also were also recovered but in smaller quantities. The high proportion of bivalves suggests that marine shells were collected through exploitation of coastal flats and shallow water habitats. Bivalves, and particularly the smaller species, like Carib pointed venus, were likely cooked and eaten as part of pepper pot type soups because processing them individually would have been too time and labor intensive. Table 6 1 3 Summary of shell and coral recovered from seven sites Site Data Gastropods Bivalves Coral UID M o ll u scs Totals PO 42 Sum of MNI 119 744 0 0 863 Sum of NISP 350 2850 60 16 3276 Sum of wt (g) 1482.5 3321. 2 514.2 12.8 5330. 7 PO 43 Sum of MNI 66 3 33 0 0 399 Sum of NISP 180 1252 82 10 1524 Sum of wt (g) 696.5 2525 .3 421.2 2.3 3645. 3 PO 45 Sum of MNI 0 17 0 0 17 Sum of NISP 8 89 0 0 97 Sum of wt (g) 16.9 53.6 0 0 70.5 PO 50 Sum of MNI 0 0 0 0 0 Sum of NISP 11 0 0 0 11 Sum of wt (g) 25.9 0 0 0 25.9 PO 51 Sum of MNI 7 16 0 0 23 Sum of NISP 11 52 0 0 63 Sum of wt (g) 186.6 99 0 0 285.6 PO 52 Sum of MNI 34 164 0 0 198 Sum of NISP 87 404 5 3 499 Sum of wt (g) 1513.6 648.5 65.5 1.2 2228.8 PO 53 Sum of MNI 16 65 0 0 81 Sum of NISP 21 175 2 5 203 Sum of wt (g) 111.3 226.5 17.1 1.2 356.1 Total Sum of MNI 242 1339 0 0 1581 Total Sum of NISP 668 4822 149 34 5673 Total Sum of wt (g) 4033.3 6874 1018 17.5 11942.8 C ommon gastropod species recovered were the variegate turretsnail ( Tu rritella variagata ) and conch ( Strombus spp ). Conchs prefer shallow water habitats and

PAGE 239

239 grassy or sandy bottoms whereas the t urretsnails prefer shallow mud bottomed bays. Another gastropod, the nerite ( Nerita sp ), was also collected from midden deposits Nerites are found attached to rocks in the intertidal zone The presence of large gastropods at several sites indicates the acquisition of material for tools. Supporting this are studies demonstrating that larger gastropods are usually processed near or at the place where they are gathered as the shell to meat ratio and size of the shells inhibits transport over long distances (Bird et al. 200 8 ; Keegan 1986). As noted by SEARCH represents di SEARCH 2008 :105). Shell and Coral Tools Ninety one tools from six sites were identified including PO 42, PO 43, PO 51, PO 52, and PO 53, and one shell tool each from the isolated finds at PO 2 and P O 44. Shell and coral tools were identified through use wear patterns exhibited by non natural breakages and surface striations. Tools were sorted into types based on currently 1 ). Six types were ide ntified in the sample consisting of abraders, celts, hammers, picks, scrapers, and tips (Table 6 14). Table 6 1 4 Summary of recovered shell tools from all sites. Tool Type PO 2 PO 42 PO 43 PO 44 PO 51 PO 52 PO 53 Total Abrader 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 4 Celts 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 Hammers 1 5 2 0 1 1 1 11 Picks 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 Planners 0 2 2 0 0 1 1 6 Scrapers 0 20 13 0 0 2 2 37 Tips 0 17 5 1 0 4 1 28 Total 1 45 25 1 3 11 5 91

PAGE 240

240 The predominant tool type is bivalve shell scrapers (n=37) that were recovered from f our sites (PO 42, PO 43, PO 52, and PO 53). Scrapers exhibit wear primarily on the exterior (top) of the shell (Figure 6 1 2 ) and are particularly as well as along growth lines where they are often worn smooth and tend to break. Scrapers comprise large ti ger lucine ( Codakia orbicularis ) and faust tellin ( Tellina fausta) specimens. These tools would have been useful for scrapping and possibly shearing, and cutting. The tools ing or SEARCH 2009:105) or for peeling vegetal material, such as manioc, as described in the chronicles. Figure 6 1 2 Representative sample of shell scrapers.

PAGE 241

241 Tools made from conch ( Strombus sp.) include hammers, picks, planers, an d tips recovered and Keegan 2003:286 286). Thirty one tips were recovered from four sites including PO 42 PO 43, PO 52 and PO 53 (Figure 6 1 3 ). Figure 6 1 3 Representative sample of worked shell tips.

PAGE 242

242 Tips are defined as small picks where the spire has been intentionally removed. These tools may have been used for detailed tasks involving chiseling, graving or gouging. Use wear patterns are evinced by beveling and flaking on the remaining inferior end. All appear to be small Queen Conch ( Strombus gigas ) and West Indian Fighting Conch ( Strombus pugilis) specimens. Eleven hammer fragments were also re covered during the survey (Figure 6 1 4 ). Hammers are characterized by mature Strombus sp. shells with the lip and portion of the outer whorl removed. Use wear is consistent with hammering or battering of shell which is often evinced by blunt rounded edge at the termination of the inferior collumella. Figure 6 1 4 Representative sample of shell hammers.

PAGE 243

243 Three celts were recovered from two sites: PO 52 and PO 51 and six planners from PO 42, PO 43, PO 52, and PO 53. These tools would have been good f or working wood. Shell picks are also present in the form of worked column fragments from Queen conch ( Strombus gigas ) and West Indian fighting conch ( Strombus pugilis ) specimens (n=2). These tools are made from the inner whorls of the collumella and dis play beveled wear patterns on the inferior end tip of the specimens. Finally, four coral specimens, recovered from PO 42, PO 43 and PO 51 and PO 52, show evidence of abrading. However, it should be noted that despite direct evidence for tool use on all do cumented coral fragments, the presence of represents some type of use This observation is a based on the notion that, unlike shell that is a subsistence resource, coral does not serve subsistence needs and people would likely have been reluctant to carry it from the coast unless they intended to somehow use it. The natural rough surfaces make good abraders, shapers, rasps, or polishers (Lammers 2007: 108), which have been shown experimentally to sometimes be more effective than tools made of stone (Kelly 2003). Summary of the Shell and Coral Assemblage Substantial quantities of shell recovered from shovel tests and partially exposed concheros indicate that w hile th e immediate environment s associated with the foothills surrounding Tibes were utilized by th e people living in them for basic subsistence needs (deFrance et al. 2010; Pestle 2010) was routinely utilized. Eight sites contained shell suggesting the exploitation of marine resources that came from the coast loca ted about 8 km to the south The quantity and diversity of marine shell both bivalves and gastropods, recovered from these sites also indicate the use of different coastal zones for the

PAGE 244

244 collection of these mollusks. The abundance of bivalves indicates in tertidal flats as a preferred resource (as noted for Tibes in deFrance et al. 2010). Due to the small size of SEARCH 2008 ). However, in relative terms the amount of shell recovered and that observed does not indicate strong reliance on marine resources as primary subsistence source as one would expect larger shell heaps in this situation (see Mardquardt 2010). Due to the distance from the coast, the transport of substantial quanti ties of small bivalves for consumption would have entailed considerable labor expenditure. Based on research conducted by Cotterell and Kaminga (1990:194), a human can travel a maximum of 11 km encumbered with 60 kg (on one leg of the trip) over level ter rain. Halving this value as a proxy for uneven terrain, suggests that 6.5 km is the maximum range for a round trip. Even with lesser loads, the distance over uneven terrain, places settlements in the foothills at, or just over, this value. This provides support that a subsistence diet based solely on shell fish would have been economically inefficient on a daily basis. Nonetheless the amount of shell recovered indicates consistent, albeit perhaps infrequent, consumption. This supposition appears to coi ncide with recent findings by Pestle (2010) who indicates that diet of the people interred at Tibes was largely composed of terrestrial fauna. Hence, shellfish at sites further distant from the coast may have been more of a delicacy for people of the foot hills rather than a primary staple ( e.g. Curet and Pestle 2010) The shell recovered from these sites not only indicates subsistence activities but also other practices associated with tool production and use. The abundance of shell may have influenced t he lithic tool technology of the region whereby the expedient

PAGE 245

245 manufacture of shell tools decreased the necessity for elaborate lithic tool manufacture. In this scenario, one would expect the proliferation and elaboration of lithic tools in areas where she ll is less available. 6 Sites PO 42, PO 43, and PO 52 yielded the higher quantities and diversity of tools suggesting a wide range of functional activities which, when taken into account with other aspects of material culture previously discussed here, str ongly indicates long term domestic habitation. Finally, the shell remains recovered from the archaeological sites here allude to interactions that may have existed between people and their broader social and physical environment in antiquity. The shell a ssemblage reveals that people in the foothills around Tibes were potentially engaged in fishing and shoreline/shallow water gathering practices. However, it is also possible that these items were gathered and brought upriver by people living closer to the coast. In either scenario, the presence of marine shell demonstrates that inhabitants of the foothills were connected, if not through infrequent interaction, with coastal settlements. Summary of Artifacts and Site Interpretations Through examination of t he artifacts recovered during the survey, it is possible to characterize variability in the local settlement pattern and develop a temporal context for the documented sites. The artifacts discussed in this chapter represent a small sample from each site w hich undoubtedly contains more material to be revealed through future excavation. Because of this, the functional assessment of the sites is conservative and as a result I feel this increases the validity of the interpretations presented here, particularl y in making the case for domestic occupation for several of them. 6 One example of this is seen at PO 38 in the Cerrillos River valley where an abundance and diversity of lithic tools is noted but no shell (Weaver et al. 1998).

PAGE 246

246 Variability in site types relate to their size presence of ceremonial features potential duration of occupation and the types of artifacts recovered from them Settlements with evidence of domestic occupation are central to understanding the local community as they from the nexus of lived practices and interactions which structure daily social life. Further, the presence of stone enclosures or batey s documented at PO 42 and PO 43 also in dicate potential ritual activit ies Domestic occupations can be inferred from the implied range of functional activities performed at particular sites based on the relative quantity and diversity of material present. Assuming that the several settlements presented in this study were at least overlapping for a short period, the image created here of the community is one characterized by a neighborhood comprising small residential settlements and specialized activity areas. E xamination of the material recov ered from each site shows five (PO 42, PO 43, PO 51, PO 52 and PO 53) with strong evidence for domestic occupation (Table 6 1 5 ). Each of these sites contains evidence for activities associated with pottery making and use, food processing and consumption, and lithic and shell tool production and use. The presence of substantial quantities of marine fauna and shell s at several sites indicates long term activities associated with resource procurement and consumption In contrast, f our of the documented sites (PO 45, PO 46 and PO 48, PO 50) have limited evidence for the exploitation and use of marine resources and/or lack middens or other features indicative of permanent domestic occupation

PAGE 247

247 Table 6 15. Site summary. (Date ranges approximated based seria ted pottery styles compared with radiocarbon dates from Chapter 2 X indicates presence ). Site PO Cuevas/ Pure Ostiones Modified Ostiones Santa Elena Chican Ostionoid Lithics Ground S tone Shell Shell Tools Bone Buren Site Type Date Range AD 42 X X X X X X X X X X Habitation w/ batey 9 00 1 5 00 4 3 X X X X X X X X X X Habitation w/ possible batey 8 00 1300 45 X X X X X X Possible Habitation 600 1200 46 X X X X Limited Activity 900 1500 47 X X X X Possible Habitation 700 1300 48 X X X X X X X Habitation 600 1 500 49 X Limited Activity 600 1200 50 X X X X X X X Possible Habitation 900 1500 51 X X X X X X Habitation 6 00 1 200 52 X X X X X X X X Habitation 700 1 5 00 53 X X X X X X X X X Habitation 900 1500

PAGE 248

248 Examinatio n of artifacts offer important data to contextualize settlement and community organization within the local landscape associated with Tibes as well as within the broader region in general. Pottery recovered from all sites indicates post Saladoid occupatio n with strong evidence for primary settlement of the area during Period III and into Period IV (ca. 600 1500) Tibes, possessing both a Cuevas and Hacienda Grande component, is mainly similar to the newly documented settlements in its later pottery compon ents (Alvarado Zayas 1981). Hence, it appears that intensive settlement of the Portugus and adjacent drainages d id not begin until at least AD 600. The lack of Saladoid pottery styles and the prevalence of late Ostionan, Elenan, and Chican Ostionoid styl es strongly indicate that Saladoid settlers were primarily focused outwards towards the coast. Explanations for this could be that Saladoid settlers were reluctant to initially establish settlements in the foothills and mountainous interiors because of li mitations on the ability to recreate large settlements in these interior areas, and/or it would have secluded them from access to the broader regional network, and/or the presence of pre Arawak settlements in the these areas precluded their colonization. Obviously none of these factors are mutually exclusive. Examination of the shell recovered from sites indicates extensive use of the broader landscape and connections to groups situated outside the foothills segment of the Portugus and adjacent river drai nages The presence of the shells at several sites could have been the result of three non mutually exclusive factors: 1) procurement from the source, 2) they were brought in by non local residents, or 3) traded somewhere between the coast and the site. All three of these cases involve potential interaction

PAGE 249

249 with other groups outsid e of the local community, even if it only entailed brief encounters while procuring the shell fish directly from the source. In the case of sites displaying evidence for permanen t habitation our focus necessarily shifts to the smaller end of the interpretive spectrum These s maller domestic sites are likely limited in their social composition to perhaps fewer than 10 households ( e.g. Espenshade 2000; Espenshade et al. 1987). Ol iver has previously noted small settlements as the primary organizational pattern for the Chican Ostionoid landscape in the mou ntainous interior of the island (Oliver 2007 ; Oliver et al. 1999 ). However, the transformation from previous Saladoid models of settlement to these later formations has not been sufficiently addressed. In this chapter I have begun to characterize settlement of local landscape in foothill in the area surrounding Tibes Evidence presented here indicates the proliferation of small re sidential settlements in the foothills after AD 600. These settlements appear to have formed neighborhoods, focused on the acquisition of local resources for their subsistence and production of lithic tools and pottery. Yet many questions remain regardin g the organization of local groups and the formation of the political landscape. How did these neighborhoods form? Is the settlement pattern presented here unique to the Tibes locality? What are the implications of these patterns on the organization of local communities and what does this tell us about the inception of formative political groups in the region? In the following chapter I will address these questions through a detailed examination of the settlement landscape of the south central region. In doing so, it will be possible to revisit the Tibes locality later in this work to discuss the

PAGE 250

250 implications of the observed patterns on the organization local communities and how these compare with other localities throughout the region

PAGE 251

251 CHAPTER 7 THE R EGIONAL SETTLEMENT L ANDSCAPE: PATTERNS A ND PROCESS In the previous chapter I presented archaeological data from the local landscape immediately associated with Tibes that depicts a burgeoning community comprised of small residential settlements and their a ssociated activity areas occupied after AD 600. Yet, how are the settlements and spatial patterns of social life observed in this locality indicative of processes of settlement and community formation of the broader south central region between AD 600 and AD 1200? What are some of the underlying processes responsible for these developments and what are the implications of these patterns on the organization of the social and politic al landscape during that time? To address these questions, this chapter pr esents a diachronic examin ation of settlement patterns for the south central region to develop a history of the social landscape and to show how local populations were organized and articulated through time. To begin, the first section of this chapter pres ents an examination of settlement so, I identify general temporal trends, laying the groundwork for subsequent analyses and discussion. Next I model near village te rritories to identify settlement clusters or local es ( sensu Giddens 1984:375 ) where face to face social interactions were concentrated based on occupational continuity, social propinquity and the friction of distance ( Soja 1989:14). In this section, I fo cus on the implications of settlement clustering and changes in near landscape and with one another. This section also presents a discussion of the

PAGE 252

252 settlement expansio n that occurred around AD 600 and evidence indicating aspects of continuity and change in the occupation of particular localities In the third section of this chapter, I explore the regional settlement network to offer insight into the structure and histo rical formation of the social landscape. This discussion highlights identifiable trends in social distancing and how settlement structure may have influenced social interactions in the region. Here I highlight spatial patterns indicating that while regio nal social networks were expanding, they were concomitantly becoming increasingly insulated and localized. In the final portion of this chapter I examine the spatial distribution of pottery styles from the south central region to evaluate the evidence for and implications of increased social diversity that developed between AD 600 and AD 1200. I conclude this chapter with a summary of the major transformations in settlement and how these changes capes. Ultimately I show how population growth and processes of settlement influenced the development of social communities and reconfigur ation in the organizational structure of post Saladoid social groups Regional Dataset As an analytical tool for exam ining regional settlement patterns, Geographical Information System s technology (GIS) provides a means to generate visual heuristics, descriptive statistics, and conduct analysis of spatial features. 1 The baseline data used in this chapter consist of topo graphic data and archaeological sites. The topographic data is a 1:20,000 Digital Elevation Model (DEM) acquired from the U.S. Geological 1 See Aldenderfer 1996 and Wheatly and Gillings 2004 for overview of GIS applications in archaeology.

PAGE 253

253 Survey (USGS 2001). A DEM is a raster (or grid) based elevation map in which each cell represents a 30 x 30 m area. Through the GIS the DEM can be used to create additional datasets such as slope and cost friction surfaces The cost friction surface is used to model cost catchments and cost paths that serve as proxies for near village territories and the potential pat hs linking settlements Specifically, these datasets quantify distances between settlements based on costs of tra velling through the landscape and for examining the potential relationships between settlements through time At the heart of the regional set tlement analysis is the archaeological site database. S ite data was initially acquired in a GIS format (ESRI point shapefile) from the PRSHPO (Officina Estatal de Conservacon Historca) in July of 2003 The tabular data associated with the shapefile con sists of information denoting site size, cultural material present ( e.g. pottery, shell, and bone), architectural features (plazas/ batey s ), socio temporal affiliation and date of recordation I subsequently modified this database based on a review of pub lished and unpublished sources including cultural resource management reports, journal articles, books and academic papers. Modifications to the database included updat ing site sizes, styles of pottery present, standardization of cultural/temporal affili ation (by Periods) number and size of ceremonial features and potential site function Previously documented sites present in the literature review but not included in the original dataset also were added. These additions included the sites documented during TASP survey presented in the previous chapters Site specific information from the GIS database used in this study is in Appendix F

PAGE 254

254 Assumptions and Issues of Interpretation Prior to delving into the analyses, it is necessary to point out some of the issues associated with the use of the site data. The first relates to the nature of the sample of sites which over the past century, were identified through a variety of methods ranging from accidental discovery to systematic survey Many early fiel d investigations in the region were not formally published 2 and little or no information is available for several known sites in the region Second, there are analytical problems stemming from variability in the registered information for sites due to sit e recordation strategies based on when and under what circumstances they were documented Third, many sites have been destroyed by historical agricultural practices and the expansion of urban development. Hence, the sample of sites is not complete. Final ly, temporal association of sites in the absence of radiometric data is an obstacle hindering the interpretation of settlement patterns in the region. T emporal assessment of most site s is limited to relative dating of pottery often to t he series or sub s eries level. To the advantage of this study, the south central region (and particularly Ponce) possesses a number of well dated sites that facilitates the chronological placement of pottery assemblages from the region (as presented in Chapter 2). As the traditional socio temporal framework is under development I warily use the Period classification devised by Irving Rouse (1992:107) to delineate time. I do not to realize that the broad segmentation of time for interpreting settlement processes can 2 For instance the site of Minas, in Juana Diaz excavated by de Hostos and the work of Spinden in Salinas were never published (as noted in Rouse 1952).

PAGE 255

255 result in the over generalization of idealized patterns. However, the focus of this work is not to recreate the social landscape at an exact moment in time -Binford (1981) has ef fectively criticized the methodological problems of this approach Instead the focus here is on identifying systematized patterns of social relations that underlie broad structural trends through time These central tendencies are less affected by short term chronological deficiencies in the data and are more appropriate for discerning meaningful patterns problems associated with the data, site distributions conform to a logical and meaningful construct based on relationships between people and the physical spaces they occupy which do not preclude their use for evaluating and interpreting settlement patterns. Settlement Types and Nomenclature: When is a Village ? To characterize settlement varia bility I use concepts derived from geographies of rural agricultural systems as a basis for organization and discussion. In contrast to methods of classification that emphasize hierarchical relationships I focus on the materiality of social practices and types of functional activities indicative of domestic habitation and communal ritual activities. This categorization is influenced by site size, and owing to this variation, one gains a sense of site function through occupational density and intensity of use. Settlement categories are informed by the results of the TASP survey and archaeological literature from the island This leads us to the five categories: S ITES WITH CEREMONIAL ARCHITECTURE ( PLAZAS / BATEY S ) BUT NO EVIDENCE DOME STIC HABITATION T hese sites possess plaza / batey s features but no evidence for domestic occupation Examples tentatively include PO 41 and PO 39 H ABITATION ( RESIDENTIAL SETTLEME NTS / VILLAGE ) WITH CEREMONIAL ARCH ITECTURE : T hese sites are from 1 to ~ 5 ha and defined by evidence of long term occupation (based on ceramic assemblages and/or radiocarbon dates), household features

PAGE 256

256 and/or substantial midden deposits indicative of loci of domestic life. These sites also possess at least one plaza/ batey Examples include El Bronce (P O 11 ), Tibes, and PO 42 documented during TASP investigations (see C hapter 5 ). H ABITATION ( RESIDENTIAL SETTLEME NT / VILLAGE ) WITH NO EVIDENCE OF CEREMONIAL ARCHITECTURE Defined as the previous except lacking plaza/ batey features H AMLETS OR SMALL RESI DENTI AL SETTLEMENTS These sites are < 1 ha and lack ceremonial architecture Differing from other habitation sites hamlets tend to be small and not as intensively occupied as villages Sites classified as hamlets were either noted as such in previous repor ts or based on the spatial extent of the site. Broadly conceived, this category also encompasses farmsteads. L IMITED ACTIVITY AREA S These sites do not possess artifact quantity/ diversity indicative of domestic occupation ( e.g. midden mounds or dense ar tifact scatters) and lack plaza/ batey features. These sites are typically < .5 ha and include cave s petroglyph only s ites and those registered in previous studies One hundred and twenty seven sites were placed into one of the five categ ories, and attributed to particular periods based on relative ( i.e. pottery) and/or radiometric data The chronological placement of sites is first based on the range represented by available radiocarbon dates and then by particular pottery styles where the former is absent. Settlement Variability: General Trends through Time This portion of the study presents settlement distributions in relation to physiographic zones and major watersheds The goal of this discussion is to characterize regi onal settlement variability through time and to form a foundation from which explore these patterns in more detail While preliminary analysis and interpretation of these general patterns have been presented in previous work ( e.g. Curet 2005; Lundberg 19 85; Torres 2001, 2005, 2010), a brief review and update based on recent research is warranted. Table 7 1 provides a list of the sites including their map identification numbers (MAPID) for referencing the maps in discussion throughout this chapter.

PAGE 257

257 Table 7 1. Site map index. Site # MAPID Site Name Site # MAPID Site Name PRAI004 1 Vega del Suburruco PRPN005 37 El Oregano PRAI005 2 Los Burgos PRPO002 38 Tibes II PRCY001 3 Jajome PRPO003 39 Tibes III PRCY002 4 Las Planas PRPO008 40 Caas PRCO001 5 Las Flores PRPO029 42 PO 29 PRCO002 6 Vill n/Cuyn PRYA002 43 Duey/Diego Hernandez PRCO003 7 Buenos Aires PRYA008 46 PRCO004 8 Canters PRYA011 47 YA11 PRCO005 9 Baos de Coamo PRYA012 48 La Fraternidad PRGN013 10 PRPO005 49 Tuque PRGN014 11 PRPO015 50 Holiday Inn PRGY001 12 Tecla PRYA004 51 Barinas II PRGY004 14 Antes Cotui PRYA009 52 PRGY005 15 Cueva Vallejo PRYA010 53 PRGY006 16 Los Sitios PRPO001 54 Tibes PRGY013 20 GU13 PRPO012 55 Maraguez PRGY014 21 GU14 PRPO013 56 Hernan dez Colon PRGY015 22 GU15 PRPO014 57 Tizol PRGY016 23 GU16 PRPO016 58 Tito Castro PRGY017 24 GU17 PRPO031 59 Lagos Geley PRGY018 25 GU18 PRPO038 62 El Parking CT2 PRJD001 27 Santi PRPO039 63 La Iglesia de Maraguez (CT 4) PRJD004 28 Guayabal PRP O009 64 Tiburnes PRJD005 29 Cueva Lucero PRPO010 65 Caracoles PRJD007 30 Ro Caas PRSN015 66 P 1 (K 8 02) PRJD002 31 Autopista PRSN016 67 P 2 (F 4 01) PRJD003 32 Venegas/JD 3 PRSN017 68 P 3 (M 18 01) PRJD006 33 Collores PRSN018 69 P 4 (M 14 01)

PAGE 258

258 Table 7 1. Continued. Site # MAPID Site Name Site # MAPID Site Name PRPN001 34 Caracoles/PE 1 PRSN021 70 P 7 (E 5 01) PRPN003 35 La Jagua PRSN022 71 P 8 (E 6 01) PRPN004 36 Olefinas PRSN023 72 P 9 (E 7 01) PRSN024 73 P 10 (F 3 01) PRGA002 117 El Pa lo PRSN025 74 P 11 (G 4 01) PRGY010 120 Cemetario de Guayanilla PRSN026 75 P 12 (G 4 02) PRGY011 121 GU 11 PRSN027 76 P 13 (G 4 03) PRGY012 122 GU12 PRSN028 77 P 14 (G 15 01) PRPO021 129 PO 21 PRSN029 78 P 15 (H 1 01) PRPO027 131 PO 27 PRSN030 79 P 1 6 (H 7 01) PRSI004 132 La Florida/Los Indios PRSN031 80 P 17 (J 5 02) PRPO011 135 El Bronce PRSN032 81 P 18 (L 13 01) PRPO023 136 PO 23 PRSN033 82 P 19 (N 5 01) PRPO037 137 CT 1 PRSN034 83 P 20 (P 12 01) PRSN004 138 La Plena I PRSN035 84 P 21 (P 13 02) PRSN007 139 El Coco PRSN036 85 P 22 (R 13 01) PRSN010 140 Carmen PRSI008 86 Peuelas PRSN013 141 La Arbolead A PRSN003 87 Turrado PRSN014 142 La Arbolead B PRSN005 88 La P lena II PRSN012 143 Las Marias PRSN037 89 SA 37 PRSN002 144 Esperanza P RSN038 90 SA 038 PRPO051 145 Ro Bayagan PRSN039 91 Las Yeyesas PRPO050 146 Pico's Ranchero PRSN011 92 El Llano PRPO043 147 Los Gongolones PRSN020 93 P 6 (B 8 01) PRPO042 148 La Mineral PRSI001 94 Jauca I PRPO052 149 Finca Feliciana PRSI002 95 Jau ca II PRPO049 150 Reyes Ranchero PRSI003 96 Jauca III/Texidor PRPO048 151 Escuela Ro Chiquito PRSN006 98 Aguirre PRPO046 152 Caas II

PAGE 259

259 Table 7 1. Continued. Site # MAPID Site Name Site # MAPID Site Name PRSN008 99 Abeynos PRPO045 153 La Vaquera PRSI006 106 Las Ollas PRPO053 156 PR 10 Midden PRSI007 107 El Cayito PRYA003 157 Mattei Y 3 PRVL004 108 VL 4 Bronce III 158 El Bronce III PRGA008 110 XP 3/4 Bronce II 159 El Bronce II PRGA009 111 X P 5 El Monte 160 El Monte PRPO041 163 El Colmad o Perez PRPO047 164 Caas I PRYA001 167 La Florida

PAGE 260

260 The number of sites in the region with evidence of occupation prior to AD 600 (Period II) is limited to 19 of which 16 are residential habitations ( Figure 7 1 ). No hamlets and only a few limited activity sites are documented. In general, settlement s follow the major river drainages with the highest frequencies at the interface of the coastal plains and foothills The distributional pattern shows 53 % (n=10) of the total number of sites a r e on the coastal plains with 42 % (n=8) in the foothills. One site (CY 02) in the northeastern portion of the study area is in the uplands. Only two other sites, Las Flores (CO 1) and PO 38 are located at substantial distances inland. The Period II se ttlement pattern supports previous research suggesting that prior to AD 600 people had a primary coastal orientation but positioned themselves to take advantage of multiple ecological zones as part of opportunistic adaptive strategies to local resources (N ewsom and Wing 2004; Siegel 1993). Proximity to both coastal and inland settings would have maximized the ability to efficiently exploit subsistence resource s from both zones and allow for travel overland along the coastal plain as well as by sea. In add ition to the sites previously mentioned, several well documented settlements form this period include Tecla (GY 01), Hernndez Colon (PO 13), Tibes (PO 1) and Collores (JD 06) all of which are at the interface of the coastal plains and foothills physiograp hic zones. The relatively high proportion of settlements in the western watershed, in conjunction with evidence for early settlement at Tecla, suggests that this area was perhaps and early locality of Saladoid colonization.

PAGE 261

261 Figure 7 1. Period II sit e distributions in relation to physiographic regions. Bracketed sites [ ] have radiocarbon dates.

PAGE 262

262 Between AD 600 and AD 1200 (Period III) there was an explosion of new sites evident in an increase of appro ximately 400 % (n=98) ( Figure 7 2) Of the 98 docu mented sites 81 % (n=80) are residential habitations. Fifty eight percent (n=47) of the 80 settlements are in the foothills, 38% (n=31) on the coastal plains and 4 % (n= 3 ) in the uplands. The proliferation of new settlements during this period is thought to represent a dramatic rise in population that began just before AD 600. Increases in population during this time are generally attributed to the successful adaptation of Saladoid colonizers to the newly settled island environments (Siegel 2004). While this is indeed likely the case, rapid settlement expansion belies processes associated with village expansion that may or may not have been a direct result from social tensions catalyzed by increases in population. It may also suggest immigration of grou ps into the region from other, more distant areas. Obviously, these are not necessarily mutually exclusive scenarios. With increases in settlement and population came the formation of new social networks. Several consequences resulted from these changes including the potential for increased social mobility, as individuals would have more opportunities to interact with a variety of people from different settlements. The outcome of these interactions would have increased potentialities to form new social l inks through marriage alliances (Ensor 2003; in press), exchange, or cooperative labor projects among members of interacting settlements. These interactions may have also caused tension through competition over resources and ambiguity in social relationsh ips caused by increasingly complex and dense settlement networks.

PAGE 263

263 Figure 7 2. PIII site distributions in relation to physiographic regions. Bracketed sites [ ] have radiocarbon dates.

PAGE 264

264 Increases in site frequencies were accompanied by settlement divers ity. Changes in settlement size, discussed further in Chapter 8, is documented with smaller settlements in the foothills and some larger settlements on the coastal plains However, the most conspicuous element of the settlement landscape emerging at this time is the proliferation of stone lined plazas/ batey s Thirty sites, or 38% of the total sample from this period possess these features. Sites with these features are most frequent in the eastern and central watersheds and 50% of these sites are locat ed in the foothills. Between AD 1200 and AD 1500 (Period IV) there was yet another shift in regional settlement. However, in this case, the number of sites decrease s by 38 %, from 98 to 61 (Figure 7 3) Of the 61 registered sites, 79 % (n=48 ) are classifie d as habitations Examination of these 48 residential settlements shows that 48 % (n=23 ) are o n the coastal plains with 44% (n=21) in the foothills and 8% ( n=4) in the uplands. Notably, while many sites occupy inland settings, settlement frequencies on th e coastal plains (particularly in the eastern portion of the study region) increase. The largest settlements during this period, are on the coastal plains with the site of Lago Gely (PO 33) measuring about 9 ha (Thomas and Swanson 1986). However, the larg e size of this site (and perhaps others on the coastal plains) may be a slight overestimation due to site deflation from historic agricultural practices. The next largest settlements in the region, Caracoles (PO 10) and La Florida/Los Indios (SI 4), both measure just over 4 ha. In fact, the majority of sites from this Period are well under this size and the preponderance of so many small settlements during this time contradicts long held perceptions that the Tano were primarily settled in large villages (Loven 2010 [1935]).

PAGE 265

265 Figure 7 3. PIV site distributions in relation to physiographic regions.

PAGE 266

266 It is also during Period IV that the frequency of sites with plazas/ batey s is thought to reach its apex throughout the island, signaling the form alization of regional territorial political units (Siegel 1996, 1999). However, this does not appear to be the case for the south central region. In fact, sites with plaza/ batey features in the region are at their highest frequency in the preceding perio d with 30 documented for Period III versus only 19 in Period IV. In contrast to the south central region, research from other parts of the island indicate an increase in site frequencies during Period IV, particularly in the mountainous interior (Curet 200 5; Oliver 2007; Oliver et al. 1999) as well as along the eastern coast ( SEARCH 2011b ) with a prevailing pattern of small dispersed hamlet sized settlements The decrease in sites in the south central region, and increase in other areas, may have been the result of several factors including hurricane activity (Rodriguez 1985) climate variability, and/ or processes related to the cyclical nature of incipient polities in which social groups fission and fusion in different stages of the political cycle (Anders on 1996a, 1996b ; Blitz 1999 ). Of particular note during this time is the eventual disuse or abandonment of Tibes shortly before AD 1300 (Curet and Stringer 2010; Curet and Torres 2010) and the apparent concomitant rise of PO 29 in the Portugus River drain age (Espenshade et al. 200 11 ; Torres 2010 ). The settlement changes documented for the late pre contact period in the region remain poorly understood and with the abandonment of Tibes and other major village sites in the south central region, this change is an important avenue of future investigation (Torres 2001; Curet 2005)

PAGE 267

267 Summary of r egional s ettlement v ariability : Diachronic examination of settlement patterns for the south central region indicates major shifts in the distribution of regional populat ions through time (Figure 7 4). The settlement landscape during Period II depicts a relatively dispersed pattern of habitation sites that, while having some penetration into the foothills and uplands, are generally concentrated on the coastal plains. Thr ough time the intensification of settlement follows a pattern of inland movement culminating in the emergence of densely settled localities in the foothills and some upland areas by AD 600. After AD 1200 there was some sort of realignment of the regional settlement structure evidenced by a decrease in the overall number of sites and shifts in some residential sites back on the coastal plains particularly in the eastern portion of the study area. It is important to note that the form of the regional settlem ent landscape is predicated, to some degree, by what comes before. For instance the density of residential settlement in particular parts of the landscape evident in Period III was influenced by settlement that developed during Period II. Hence, initial settlement of certain areas would have influenced locations of daughter settlements and processes of expansion based on areas available for settlement at any given point in time (a point to be addressed the proceeding discussion).

PAGE 268

268 Figure 7 4 Site distr ibutions in relation to physiographic zones through time. A regional change in the organization of the social landscape is evident in the diversity and in the types of sites that emerged after AD 600 (Figure 7 5). During Period II there appears to be lim ited diversity in the morphology and function of settlements. The limited number of specialized activity sites during this time indicates that most activities were focused on areas immediately associated with the residential settlement. Settlements durin g this time are generally large ( > 3 ha) and there is little evidence indicating otherwise. These sites are relatively dispersed across the landscape and limited in number.

PAGE 269

269 By AD 600 more variability is visible in the types of settlements ranging from sma ll and medium sized habitation sites to sites with multi court ceremonial features and proliferation of specialized activity areas. This variability is concomitant with a distributional shift in regional populations and intensification of settlement of in land foothills areas. The increase in settlement density and the implied challenges facing the regional population highlight some of the new social conditions that emerged during this time In the remaining portions of this chapter I present additional e vidence to discuss the implications of these settlement changes on the development and organization of local communities throughout the region between AD 600 and AD 1200. Figure 7 5. S ite trends through time. ( Note: Period II settlements noted with ce remonial architecture develop them in Period III ).

PAGE 270

270 Cost Catchment Analysis: Community Clusters and Near Village Territories Cost models have proven an effective tool in archaeological research for modeling potential social interaction between residential s ettlements and their articulation in larger social formations ( e.g. Varien 1999). At the heart of cost based models of interaction is the idea of social propinquity that suggests people in close proximity to one another spatially will interact more frequ ently and form social groups (Festinger et al. 1950 ). From this perspective (as outlined in Chapters 2 and 4) the friction of distance directly influence s the formation and organization of local social and political networks ( e.g. Powell 1960; Tuzin 2001 ). Although societies differ in the ex tent of their spatial awareness and social interdependence, in most cases individuals focus on direct experience. The immediacy of social awareness is typically centered on the residential settlement, it s immediately surroundi ng near village territory, and neighboring social groups T his local area and those that dwell within it are therefore become the most intimately known ( Ingold 1993; Soja 19 85 ; Taun 1997 ). Hence, in this study I focused on residential settlement s ( i.e. habitations/hamlets) to discuss the implications of cost modeling because these spaces form the nexus of local social groups and the foundation for first order, face to face, social relationships Cost models measure surface distance based on im pedance factors, which take into account characteristics of the natural topography. Differing from other models of travel based on two dimensional modeling techniques, cost models measure resistance units across a topographically non uniform plane to calc ulate a least accumulative surface from a given point location. In the present study, the DEM was used to

PAGE 271

271 generate slope for the region, which in turn is used to develop a friction surface for measuring cost distance s. As the slope increases, cos t values increase accordingly. The generation of the friction surface is based on the following formula applied to the slope g rid: (((slopegrid/45)*3.168)+1) In this formula slope is divided by 45 to convert from degrees to vertical proportion per cell width (Ca rlisle 2007; Van Luesen 1998). This value is then multiplied by an ascent cost factor of 3.168 taken from the conventional backpacker equation (Van Luesen 1998:3), and increased by a value of 1 to represent the effort required to traverse the horizontal d istance of the cell. The resulting raster is an isotropic friction surface that uses slope to determine relative energetic cost of moving across the landscape. From the isotropic surface, I modeled cost catchments for all residential settlements from Per iods II, III, and IV. Based on the available data, 96 sites are habitations/hamlets From this sample 16 are from P eriod II with 80 f rom P eriod III and 48 f rom P eriod IV I generated cost catchments at 2.5 and 5 k m distance intervals for settlements f or each period. The 2.5 km cost interval serves as a heuristic to visualize the approximate extent of lands most intensively utilized by a settlement for its most basic social and subsistence activities (Chisholm 19 68 :131; Stone 1991:347, 1992:16 6; Varien 1999, 2002:174 175 ). I use a 5 km cost interval to represent a more inclusive range of settlement activities that that closely relate to ranges documented for near village territories in formative agricultural societies (as discussed in Chapter 4) When a djusted for the energy it takes to traverse variable terrain, the areas of the cost catchments are in many cases smaller than the areas of circles with 2.5 and 5 km radii. This is because the terrain in particular portions of the landscape, especially in

PAGE 272

272 foothills and upland locations is much more difficult to traverse than the coastal plains. This will become increasingly apparent in examination of Periods III and IV. I n the following discussion, I show how the physical realities of topography and chang es in settlement through time affected interaction s between social groups at the local and regional levels. Period II C ost catchments for the 16 Period II habitatio n sites show three distinct clusters of settlement in the western, central, and eastern wate rsheds ( Figure 7 6 ). E xamination of the clusters reveals denser settlement in the west, becoming more dispersed to the east. Examination of the 2.5 km cost catchments shows habitation sites are loosely linked with only 43 % (n=7) shar ing catchment boundar ies. O ne settlement pair (GY 0 1 and GY 10) and one triplet (YA 0 1, YA 0 2 and YA 12) are present in the west, with one pair in the center (PO 13 and PO 38) and one pair in the east (CO 0 1 and CO 0 3). The 2.5 km settlement clusters in the west suggest a m ore nucleated pattern, while in the east settlements are a more dispersed. At the 5 km cost interval, distinct clusters of settlements are evident which tend to fall within the major watershed boundaries. At this distance 82 % of the documented settlement s shar e cost catchment boundaries Early sites in the region dating to this period, such as Tibes, Hernandez Colon, Tecla, and Caas would have benefited from the presence of other nearby settlements while maintaining ample distance between them to limit competition for local resources (Keegan n.d.; Moore 2001).

PAGE 273

273 Figure 7 6 Period II settlements and cost catchments (* Sites noted with plaza/ batey features develop them in PIII ).

PAGE 274

274 Period II I Period II I shows a dramatic increase in the number of residenti al settlements which contributes to the dense clustering of the post AD 600 landscape (Figure 7 7) E xamination of the 2.5 km cost catchments shows that 93 % of residential settlements (n=74) share a catchment boundary with at least one other settlement. At th e 5km cost interval 99 % (n=79) of all settlements share catchment boundaries with at least one other settlement. The three major settlement clusters noted for the previous period, expand substantially continuing to conform to the rsheds Two important observations are made from the cost catchments that likely had major ramifications on community organization and social interaction during this time. First, decreases in the spacing between coeval settlements would have promoted the extension of social networks outside of primary village contexts This increase in interaction, while at one level serving to strengthen local social relationships, may have also promoted fractious behavior arising from scalar stress (Johnson 1982). Addi tional stress may have been placed on residential social groups because of the reduction of immediate near village territories causing competition for resources in densely settled areas. Second as social networks became increasingly inter connected and co mplex, the buffering of settlements and their spread inland to topographically restricted/secluded areas, would have resulted in increasing insulation of some settlements from others Hence, while the regional settlement system was expanding it was also contracting, with some residential settlements (or small clusters of sites) becoming segregated from other like small clustered settlements in discrete areas. This will be discussed in further later in this chapter. For now, I briefly discuss settlement expansion from Period II to Period III before returning to cost catchments for Period IV.

PAGE 275

275 Figure 7 7 Period III settlements and cost catchments

PAGE 276

276 Branching Out, Settling In: Settlement Expansion (Period II to Period III) The proliferation of new settl ements during Period III suggests that they may have developed as a part of village fissioning. It is generally accepted by anthropologists that fissioning is strongly tied to settlement size and increases in the population of residential settlements ( e.g Chagnon 1976:14; Whitten 1976:125; Rivire 1984:27). However, anthropologists often differ on the particularities of exactly how and why this happens. Further, and perhaps more important to this study, are the outcomes (perhaps unintended) of this pro cess for the recreation of social communities. Here I briefly discuss processes of settlement expansion, with an emphasis on fissioning, and its implications on the social landscape sometime between Period II and Period III. I revisit this concept and so me of the underlying conditions and particular outcomes evident in the archaeological record during this time in Chapter 8. Two scenarios for the creation of new settlements are present in the data which influence the structure of the regional social lands cape and community formation during Period III. First, daughter settlements would settle a short distance from parent sites to maintain social ties. The relative short distance from the parent settlement would have promoted continued interaction and part icipation in local corporate work group activities as well as access to critical social and natural resources This intensive use of the local landscape creates occupational persistence and continuity in particular localities and the centralization of par ticular kin/social groups in the landscape. Second the development of new settlements outside of this range implies the potential avoidance of earlier residential sites and their near village territories In this situation, the expansion of settlements into previously unsettled areas creates new associations between people and the landscape.

PAGE 277

277 Of the total 80 habitation sites associated with Period III, 66 are new settlements with 14 persisting from previous period. These persisting settlements are locate d in the western (n=4), central (n=5), and eastern (n=5) watersheds (Figure 7 8) Looking at the individual watersheds it is possible to denote differential rates of settlement growth and dispersal. The western watershed accounts for only 7% of regional settlement growth the formation of 5 new settlements. The central and eastern watersheds account for 38% and 55% of regional settlement growth. While some of the variation in the number of settlements may be attributed to relative size of the watersheds, the paucity of new settlements for Period III in the western watershed may be due to topographical constraints. In this region the coastal plain is narrow and the foothills are near the coast. Forty five percent (n=30) of new settlements develop with in t he 5 km of the preexisting Period II settlements and 55% are outside this range. Of the 25 new settlements in the central watershed 72% (n=18) are within the 5 km cost catchments surrounding the sites from Period II (particularly Tibes) with only 28% (n=7 ) outside of these areas. This pattern is also evident in the western watershed where 60% (n=3) of the 5 new settlements in that watershed emerge within the Period II 5 km cost catchments. In both cases, the creation of new settlements so close to those from the previous period suggests the maintenance of close ties with parent settlements and persistence in the occupation of settlement localities. This pattern also suggests a potential trend toward consolidation of local social groups and their associat ed near village territories.

PAGE 278

278 Figure 7 8. Settlement trends from Period II (yellow) to Period III (red).

PAGE 279

279 In contrast, the eastern watershed shows that only 25% (n=9) of the 36 new settlements are within the Period II 5 km catchments and 75% (n=27) ar e outside these areas. In this instance, the pattern suggests avoidance of earlier settlements and the formation of new settlement territories. The clustering of Period III settlements in these new areas implies the creation of social groups independent of parent settlements. This does not mean that these settlements had no connections with the earlier parents, but that rather these settlement choices would have stimulated more autonomy in the daily lives of social groups. Further, the settlement of new areas would have required new configurations in associations between people and the landscape. Two outcomes of settlement fissioning are noted that have a direct influence on the organization of social groups. In the first situation, kinship associations are maintained with settlement divisions treated as territorial segments (Widmer 1994) In this case fissioning does not create new ranks since no new lineages are created. This scenario suggests that the creation of new villages results in the replicat ion of basic social units and by extension, settlement form Here social organization is perpetuated and interaction is maintained with parent settlements through exchange and likely corporate labor endeavors such as clearing nearby fields, house buildin g or the construction of communal ritual integrative facilities. In another scenario, settlement fissioning has a different outcome When a village fissions the lineage also fissions and new ones are formed. While these new lineages are autonomous, they typically recognize genealogical connection to the parent settlement and its founding ancestor. These splits create a rank order of splits from the parent settlement Hence, the order of dispersal or fissioning from the parent settlement

PAGE 280

280 can become a ran k social order materialized on the landscape In this scenario the material outcome of these patterns can entail a replication in settlement form similar to the original parent settlement but also may take alternative forms as social groups vie for rank a mongst many new settlements Although these are just two social outcomes of settlement fissioning, the implications are important when considering the reconfiguration of socio settlement systems as indicators of continuity and change not only in the organ ization of social groups but in relations between people and landscapes. This will be further discussed in Chapters 8 and 9 of this work. Period IV As noted, during Period IV there is a decline in the number of settlements in the region and many (includi ng Tibes) fall into disuse ( Figure 7 9 ) S ettlement frequencies decrease by approximately 40% from 80 to 48 residential settlements within the study area resulting in a relaxing of the compactness in the landscape and near village territories With the de crease in the number of settlements, cost catchments become less connected and the density of settlement changes in some areas. This is visible in the easter n portion of the study area where settlements shift back towards the coast and in other research w here settlement frequencies increase in the mountains (Oliver et al. 1999) In the western watershed, five settlements are registered with only three linked at the 5 km cost catchment interval Interestingly, the site with public/ritual architecture ( YA 0 3) is located northwest of these sites and not connected to any other settlement at the 5 km interval. It could be that the site is connected to other spheres of interaction outside of the area captured in this research; however, its specific regional rel ationships during this time are not clear.

PAGE 281

281 Figure 7 9 PIV settlements bounded by 2.5 and 5 km cost catchments.

PAGE 282

282 Cost c atchment a nalysis s ummary : C ost catchment polygons show how topography played a role in the potential movement and settlement of peo ple in the region as well as how residential settlement became more clustered or localized through time. An important observation is that the dramatic increase in settlements from Period II to Period III contributed to a more densely packed landscape part icularly in the central and eastern watersheds Moreover, the cost catchments suggest the intensification of social interactions between potential coeval neighboring villages. Settlement expansion during Period III provides evidence for both continuity an d change in relationships within and between settlement clusters as well as the landscape during this time The development of new settlements in areas immediately adjacent to those inhabited in Period II indicate continuity and the persistence of occupat ion of particular localities while new settlements outside of Period II near village territories point to av oidance of earlier settlements and the creation of new social localities. The clustering observed during Period III resulted in changes in the size and shape of the near village territories as shown by the 5 km cost catchment polygons ( Figure 7 10 ). During Period II the median catchments were approximately 869 and 2450 ha for the 2.5 and 5 km cost catchments respectively. In the proceeding period th ese values drop dramatically with the median catchment sizes at approximately 434 and 844 ha In Period IV this area is slightly relaxed with median catchment sizes at 529 and 1296 ha The changes in the size of near village territories would have alter ed the availability of cultivable lands and locations for future settlement. Hence as time

PAGE 283

283 progressed, densely settled localities would have become points of contestation not only as a result of increased interactions among proximally related settlements, but also within broader regional contexts as social groups sought to claim legitimacy of and access to the social and natural resources associated with them. Figure 7 10. Area (ha) of near village cost catchments (2.5 km and 5 km) through time. (Peri od II n= 16, Period III n= 80, Period IV n=48). Finally, as observed in the connectivity of the boundaries of the near village territories, settlements during Period III became increasingly linked particularly at the local level. However, while the clust ering of the near village territories indicates the increases in the potential social connections of settlements within the region, it also

PAGE 284

284 suggests that they bec a me increasingly insulated at the local level This can be visualized by the number of near v illage neighbors of a given site that would have had a buffering effect from further distant settlements. Further, inland settlement of the constricted river valleys of the south central coast would have contributed to the insulation of local social group s from other more distant groups occupying similar topographically restrictive drainages. Regional Settlement Structure In this discussion, I employ aspects of cost modeling from the previous section to examine the morphological structure of settlement inf luencing community formation and interactions leading to the Period III social landscape. One method, frequently employed by habitat ecologists for modeling interaction amongst wildlife populations utilizes least cost paths as a realistic measure of conn ectivity (or its inverse, spatial isolation) rather than linking points using standard Euclidean distance s ( e.g. Chardon et al. 2003; Coulon et al. 2004) The development of cost paths employs similar spatial computations and the cost friction surface as used for the cost catchments; however, the creation of the cost paths finds the least cost distance linking settlement nodes together. From this data, distance matrices (and connectivity graphs) can be generated which allow for further manipulation and a nalysis. Examining the structure of the regional network offers insight into several important aspects of the social landscape through time. For instance, by establishing the morphological structure of the network it is possible to develop an understandin g of how co resident ial social groups were positioned within the network and how shifts in settlement affected interactions within and settlement localities through time. The d ifferences in how connected settlements are may be a key indicator of the cohes ion or

PAGE 285

285 fragmentation of social groups that can be examined diachronically and at different scales of analysis. To develop the least cost paths and associated distance matrices in this study the Landscape Genetics toolbox was used in ArcGIS 9.2 ( Etheringto n 2010 ) This tool box possesses a function to compute matrices of effective geographic distances among points (or nodes), based on a least cost path algorithm (Adriaensen et al. 2003) The sample points, in this case residential settlements for each per iod were used in conjunction with the friction surface (used for generating cost catchments) to represent the cost of movement through the landscape between settlements Creation of the network develops a polyline shapefile linking each residential settl ement resulting in (n*n 1)/2 links ( i.e. nodes are not linked to themselves) and matrices of effective (cost) distances. In developing a least cost path approach for examination of the regional network through time, I focus on the cascading linkages betw een settlements that were most likely to interact on a consistent basis. Because the calculation of the network mentioned in the previous section takes into ac count the total linkages between each settlement in the region, the network becomes saturated an d meaningful patterns in the morphology of residential social groups become difficult to discern. Further, total linkages create redundancies in the data and consist of overlapping segments that pass through multiple nodes/settlements in the regional netw ork. To address this shortcoming, I constructed a subset of the total cost paths for each period The subset was based on the construction of Minimum Spanning Trees (King 1985; Supowit 1983; Yao 1982) (Figures 7 11 and 7 12). The Minimum Spanning Tree

PAGE 286

286 (M ST) is a subset of a Relative Neighbor Graph (Toussaint 1980) and displays the minimum least cost to nearest neighbor linkages with no loops or cycles. As such the MST is considered representative of the core structure of any network Examination of the n etwork here focuses on social spacing and the implied cohesion and centrality of particular settlements, settlement clusters, and places on the landscape. Given these conditions, tw o types of networks are here defined. The first is a geographical network of distance, representing a hypothesis of shortest links between settlements The second is a relation al network of co presence, representing settlem (Giddens 1984). In the case of the former, these paths should b e targets for future archaeological testing for the presence of additional settlement activity as one might expect additional settlements located along them. In the case of the latter, paths represent linkages between coeval settlements and a platform for examining the regional interaction and the distribution of social communities. Network Structure Examination of the MST for each period allows for more critical examination of settlement distributions based on the quantification of the distances between s ettlements. Since the MST represents single links connecting nearest neighbors, it is the core of structure of the network with no redundant linkages. The implications of this spacing and the morphology of the regional network are discussed below for eac h period. During Period II, linkages at the 2.5 km cost distance account for just 25% (n=4) of the settlements with the majority connected at further distances -between 5 and 7.5 km (40% total) (Figures 7 12 and 7 13). Settlements during this time are re latively

PAGE 287

287 the linkages at this level indicating the notable gaps between watersheds. As viewed on the map these longer bridging links are blue lines. With the remov al of these links the density of local interactions within settlement clusters becomes more obvious Figure 7 11. Period II settlement spacing based on MST. The morphology of the regional settlement network, as alluded to in the previous discussions i west along the interface of the foothills and coastal plains with relatively few branches extending to inland locations. Occupation of the Portugus and the adjacent Cerrillos River

PAGE 288

288 drainages s hows that initial settlement occurred a t the mouth of valleys as they open on the coastal plain. Paths to inland areas can be seen following these drainages. with sett lements having relatively unimpeded access to others (Clarke and Blake 1994). Figure 7 1 2 PII MST regional network showing distances between residential settlements. In Period III distances between settlements d ecrease (Figures 7 13 and 7 14). T he M ST shows 49% of settlements are linked at the 2.5 km interval and 93% at the 5 km cost interval. The preponderance of settlements at short distance s indicates a high

PAGE 289

289 degree of interaction among local social groups. Interestingly the relative distance bet ween settlement clusters, of the western, central and eastern watersheds is maintained with bridging links between the peripheries at distances over 1 2.5 km. These distances, approximating a one day round trip, would have been even further for settlement s at the center of settlement clusters. These distances, as indicated by Spencer (1998), often differentiate localities of social and political action. Figure 7 13. Period III settlement spacing based on MST. In contrast to the network for Period II, other major changes are visible for Period III. While the central trunk of the network from Period II remains, running east west

PAGE 290

290 along the coastal plains, Period III exhibits settlements branching out into the interior river valleys. So, in addition to east west vectors of interaction the social landscape after AD 600 was complicated by north south interactions between people of the interior and coast. Figure 7 14. PIII MST regional network showing distances between residential settlements. The str ucture of the settlement network for Period IV (Figure 7 15 and 7 16) continues to display tight clustering of settlements as noted for Period III based on the high frequency of settlements linked at the 2.5 cost interval. However, these local

PAGE 291

291 clusters ar e separated by further distances indicating an increased spacing between localities. This is clear in the proportional increase in the number of settlements connected by distances over 10 km during this period. Figure 7 15. Period IV settlement spacin g based on MST. Examination of the MST for Period IV shows that the tightly linked clusters in the east and west change. In the east, clustered settlements are arranged horizontally along the coast. The presence of sites in this area along the coast, in conjunction with many of them possessing Boca Chica pottery from the Dominican Republic, appears to indicate that this area may have been nodes linking the regions by water travel. The

PAGE 292

292 linear arrangement of settlements along the coast during this time wo uld also have allowed for easy exploitation of the salt salinas located in the area. Importantly, a shift in settlements denotes that social groups in the eastern portion of the study region became focused on the coast and the affordances in interaction i t would have provided. In the central portion of the study region, while several sites are abandoned, the network still maintains many links at the 2.5 km interval. This is particularly evident in the Portugus river drainage with several settlements pers isting form the previous period. Further the central location of Caracoles (PO 10) on the coastal plains and so close to the coast also indicates a focus on coastal interactions. This is also supported by high quantities of Boca Chica pottery at this sit e during this time. Looking at the various periods, two types of settlement are clearly identifiable, Linear systems of settlement are an important settlement pattern structuring s ocial relationships and are prevalent in areas where rivers are abundant (Flannery 1976; Starke and Young 19 8 1). Somewhat comparable patterns of linear settlements as noted in the foothills, have been noted ethnographically among the Waiyana of Surinam an d French Guiana (Butt 1970; Duin 2009). Habitation sites documented on the banks of the Maroni, Yari and Tapanahony Rivers are small areas comprised of domestic structures on alluvial terraces with adjacent garden plots. Settlement populations in these ethnographic settings are generally small ranging from 15 to 70 people (Butt 970:42)

PAGE 293

293 Figure 7 16. PIV MST regional network showing distances between residential settlements. Settlements at the mouths of the rivers, where drainages open on the coastal plains, inland and those on the coast. landscape which would have contributed to its social and ritual importance durin g Period III. As a historical process it is likely that settlements further down the line of these linear networks began to form stronger alliances with social groups further inland and became less dependent on th ose settlements further south.

PAGE 294

294 E xamined a s part of a network, certain properties of spatiality in the different settlement configurations become salient. First, t hose upriver were more insulated from those down river and other communities scattered along the coastal plains Second, a ssuming tha t groups were frequently moving down river to acquire resources from coastal environments (as suggested for several sites in the previous chapter) would have entailed consistent interaction with those located further south as people moved towards the coast In this way, depending on the location of the settlement, individuals located further up river would have passed by settlements down river twice as often. Conversely, those settlements located further upriver would have had more autonomy in their daily activities particularly as one progress north into the uplands These dendric configurations are highly visible during Period III and Period IV. Third, the intensification of settlement of particular river drainages would have afforded some groups with c ontrol over movement along them. Here l inear settlement systems create a strong locational dichotomy between centrally and marginally situated obst 1976:56 ). These factors may have contributed the rise or increase in importance of some residential settlements over others. C ontrasting with foothill linear patterns of settlement, are settlement configurations on the coastal plains. Settlements on the coastal plains are repre sented by a dispersed or open pattern s of residential settlements clustered in particular localities. This is particularly obvious during Period II and Period IV where settlements are arranged along the coasts and would have p romoted frequent interaction among regional social groups. This pattern is observed in the area surrounding El Bronce (PO 11) where

PAGE 295

295 three other small settlements were identified in the vicinity of the site forming a local cluster or site complex This pa ttern is also observed in the eastern portion of the study area on the coastal plains of Santa Isabel and Salinas. The major difference between the coastal or open forms of settlement is that in linear settlements each residential settlement has unimpeded access to only one or two significant neighbors where as in open systems there are more opportunities for movement and interaction Hence in open systems interaction is highly varied with increased numbers of potential neighbors (Clarke and Blake 1994 ). Increasing isolation of groups through the configuration of liner river settlements would have limited these unimpeded interactions thereby contributing to the localization of social groups through time. Contradictions in Expansive Social Networks and Com munity Formation As alluded to throughout the previous discussions, the settlement of inland river valleys during Period III would have resulted in the insulation of local social groups from other more distant groups occupying drainages with equally limiti ng topographic constraints. This is not only a result of the restrictions of topography but also a result of the increase in the number of neighbors which create intervening nodes along the network creating a buffering effect of some settlements from othe rs. The insulation of social groups within particular localities would have led to the intensification of social interaction and formation of localized social groups, or communities, in these areas. Examination of the number of near village neighbors repr esented by the 5 km cost path intervals and visualized through the 5 km cost catchments makes this point obvious Figure 7 17). First, examination of the number of near village neighbors of a ork theory (Wasserman

PAGE 296

296 199 5 ), demonstrates the increased number of immediate adjacent connections between individuals within particular settlements. Here, while the social connections observed during Period III were increasingly connected at the regional l evel, they appear to have been contracting or intensifying locally. Hence, while the clustering of near village territories indicates the increased connectivity of settlements, it also appears that they become increasingly insulated at the local level Figure 7 17. Period III settlement centrality based on number of adjacent neighbors. In conjunction with the map showing the degree or number of adjacent neighbors of settlements during this time, other aspects of the MST network can be used to

PAGE 297

297 quantify this phenomenon (Table 7 2 ). Using tools from social network analysis, I constructed a distance matrix noting the number of steps along the MST network between all settlements This was done using UCINET social network analysis software (Borgatti et al. 2002). The software uses an algorithm that finds the number of links in the shortest path between settlements creating a matrix of geodesic distances. I then used the data to compute the harmonic mean of the entries in the distance matrix ( i.e. the nor malized sum of the reciprocal of all the distances) to measure network compactness Compactness has a value of 1 when the network is a clique (everyone is adjacent) and zero when the network is entirely made up of isolated nodes Table 7 2. Settlement neighbors represented by connected 5 km cost catchments through time. Period Number of Residential Settlements Neighbor Adjacency (Degree) Mode Avg. Distance Compactness Mean Number of neighbors Period II 16 3 4.4 .36 2.6 Period III 80 5 13.9 .14 4.5 Period IV 48 4 10.4 .18 3.6 The data show that in Period II the most frequent number of adjacent neighbors (3) and the average distance linking all settlements (4.4) was low. Despite the limited number of sites, the compactness of the network is relati vely high at .36. In contrast, during Period III the number of adjacent neighbors (5) and the average distance linking all settlements was high (13.9). This supports the idea that people are becoming more insulated because while people are more locally c onnected (shown by the neighbor adjacency value) it takes more steps (the average distance) to other members of the network. Finally, the compactness is very low (.14) indicating localized cliques more

PAGE 298

298 insulated from the broader regional network. This pa ttern is also evident for Period IV although these values decrease slightly. In sum, while social connections during Period III became increasingly linked at varying spatial scales, they appear to also have been contracting or becoming more locally focuse d. Summary of regional n etwork d ynamics : Settlement pattern analysis at the local level demonstrates that there were two simultaneous settlement configurations operating within the south central region after AD 600. The first settlement type consists of a loosely clustered linear settlement pattern along the major river courses up into the narrow valleys of the foothills The second consisted of more open settlement configurations scattered throughout the coastal plains. This latter settlement configura tion is present during Period II and can be observed for Saladoid settlement of adjacent islands of Vieques and the northern Virgin Islands (Altes 2010; Hardy 2008). Two important patterns are evident here. First, in linear systems settlements have access to one or two significant neighbors while in open systems interaction is less restricted. Second, in linear systems settlements will have differential access to others depending on their position in the network. The important observation here is that wi th restricted from the broader settlement system. Using aspects of social network analysis to quantify these measures, I demonstrate that while the social network during Per iod III was expanding, social groups were contracting and becoming more locally focused. This localization (or regionalization depending upon the scale of discussion) is readily apparent in other dimensions of sociality and materiality. I elaborate on th is concept further in the proceeding section.

PAGE 299

299 Regional Social Diversity Similarities and differences in the diachronic distribution of pottery styles offer a way to look at historic patterns of the distribution of cultural traditions (or ideas) to provide a contextual basis for examining historical realms of regional interest and social interaction (Caldwell 1964) during Period III The discussion at this point is strategic in that I intend to demonstrate that among some of the demographic changes in regio nal settlement there were concomitant processes related to the regionalization and negotiation of social identities which contributed to the emergence of political communities. While detailed understanding of the spatial and temporal origins related to th e development of pottery traditions is beyond the scope of this work, the implications noted in the distribution of pottery for the south central region holds important clues to the socially and politically diverse landscape that developed in the region af ter AD 600. As a material medium, pottery is one artifact class through which information is expressed ( Hegmon 2005 ; Ortman 2008 ; Wobst 1977 ). While highly contested as a temporal and cultural indicator both within the Caribbean ( cf. Rodriguez Ramos 2007, 2010; Rodriguez Ramos et al. 2010) and other parts of the world the importance of the stylistic distributions of pottery can be utilized to denote the spatiality of broader ideas and ways of being that are more intimately situated in the actions of people daily lives (Hegmon and Kulow 2005) From this perspective pottery represents a historical connection to regional interactions that while not necessarily determinative of social identity per se these materials provide a backdrop for regional interacti on and social diversity. By briefly examining this aspect of materiality it is possible to contextualize

PAGE 300

300 some of the social and political transformations implied in previous and later discussions, for the south central region Typically pottery styles o f the Ostionoid series are considered to be more or less affiliated with social groups from the Mona Passage (Ostionan) and Vieques Sound (Elenan) areas in which the spatial distribution of pottery styles are found in varying ratios between the east and we st portions of the island and appear to be related to the distance from either area (Goodwin and Walker 1975; Robinson 1985; Rouse 1952). The differentiation of east and west horizontal interaction spheres manifested in Ostionoid sty les begin to emerge i n this south central region around AD 500 with Pure Ostiones style pottery registered just east of Tibes in the Cerrillos River Valley at sites PO median AD 427) and PO median AD 598). Shortly after AD 600 several sites around Tibes begin to show mixing of pottery styles at sites like El Bronce, Lago Gely, Collores, and El Parking (Robinson 1985; Rodriguez 1983; Thomas and S wanson 1986; Weaver et al. 1992). Currently the earliest solid evidence of mixed Ostionoid style pottery comes from El Bronce (with Ostiones and Santa Elena pottery), to the southeast of Tibes (C14 [Robinson et al. 1985]). In the area aro und Tibes, many sites show evidence of Elenan and Ostionan assemblages from associated stratagraphic contexts mixed in similar proportions (Weaver et al. 1992; Robinson 1985; Rodriguez Lopez 1985; Rouse 1952; Thomas and Swanson 1986). And while this mixin g of assemblages is not uncommon in different parts of the island ( e.g. Goodwin and Walker 1975), the frequency of occurrence and similarity in ratios at some sites around Tibes suggest that the region was a point of

PAGE 301

301 interaction in which social groups his torically associated with the Mona Passage and Vieques Sound areas overlapped. In addition to the mixed pottery assemblages at sites around Tibes, some sites in the area do actually display more affiliation with Ostiones or Elenan styles. For instance, Hernndez Colon, a site within 5 k m cost distance of Tibes, and with evidence of earlier Saladoid occupation, is primarily characterized by Ostiones ceramics (Maz 2002) -as is PO 21 in the Cerrillos Valley east of Tibes (Espenshade 1987) suggesting strong er ties to western Puerto Rico. Conversely, Tibes, La Mineral, Los Gongolones and PO 29 all display more affiliation with Elenan styles, which would indicate stronger ties to areas in eastern Puerto Rico. Sites in the study region during this time that p ossess similar pottery assemblages are often immediately adjacent to one another. To visualize the distribution of po ttery styles and their overlap i n the region, I both Elenan and Ostiones pottery styles (Fig. 7 18) Home range models are generally utilized by wildlife ecologists for visual representation of a nimal territories (Burt 1943). Examination of the distribution of pottery style by settlement clusters (or localities) thr oughout the study area generally conforms to an expected pattern whereby sites in the west are more homogeneous represented primarily by pottery of the Ostiones sub series and sites in the eastern portion of the study are possessing more Elenan sub series. However, in the center of the study region immediately surrounding Tibes and some distance east there is considerably more diversity in the representation of pottery styles suggesting that the social groups settled around Tibes while developing locally, had historical connections to groups to eastern and western Puerto Rico. Further, it

PAGE 302

302 points to the Tibes locality as part of a larger system of interaction between social networks from these two areas and as a point of articulation of people and ideas fr om different spheres of historical and social influence. Figure 7 1 8 Pottery distribution of Ostiones and Elenan Ostionoid pottery styles and Jennrich Turner Ranges (90% probability ellipse ). Fredrick Barth (1969) predicted that soc ial group distinc tions would be come less pronounced in areas of interaction because the two groups would tend to become economically interdependent and thus wish to deemphasize differences that could potentially become divisive. While this mimetic practice is often the ca se it sometimes

PAGE 303

303 works in reverse in instances of interaction and conflicting interest groups may tend to emphasize their identity in opposition to others (Ct and Levine 2002) In the first scenario, one would expect a hybridization of design elements and pottery forms. However, while some mixing of vessel morphology and design elements have been noted (Robinson 1985) the majority of documented sites in the region maintain distinct stylistic designs and vessel morphologies suggesting a strong tendency towards the maintenance of socially learned practices of pottery making that were tied to the eastern and western spheres of interaction. Certainly, while the pottery distributions in the region are represented in mixed contexts, the practice of making th e pots themselves continued to follow a particular grammar that was regionally specific among local social groups. This would suggest that while there was considerable mai communities. Settlement Landscape of the South Central Region : Summary and Conclusions While the analyses presented in this chapter only begin to scratch the surface of the compl exities of the south the underlying processes influencing community formation between AD 600 and AD 1200 are discernible To summarize, population growth and the expansion of settlements between Peri od II and Period III likely led to an increase in the complexity of regional social networks. These developments presented new challenges at various levels within society including the maintenance of moral and ideological order, access to resources, and u ltimately the negotiation of social identity. The consequence of these

PAGE 304

304 new socio spatial configurations, while linking people in more inclusive regional social interactions, promoted the localization and centralization of social groups. Initial conditio ns in the south central region during Period II shows settlements as widely dispersed along the coastal plains with limited penetration into the foothills and interior portions of the island. Cost distance modeling indicates that settlements were loosely linked at the 5km interval with settlement clusters at distances roughly equivalent to or greater than a one day walk. Based on the core structure of the regional network, settlement and interaction during Period II appears to have been oriented horizontal ly east west along the coast. The dispersed spacing of settlements and small settlement clusters may have provided some level of autonomy in the handling of daily social and local political affairs. The spacing between settlements would also have reduced competition over natural resources because arable lands would have been readily available. By AD 600 the proliferation and widespread distribution of settlements suggests rapid growth in regional populations. In some instances, settlements emerged in are as near those occupied during Period II and in other cases they did not. In the case of the former the development of new settlements near preexisting Saladoid villages indicates continuity of local social relationships and occupation of particular locali ties. In the case of the later, it suggests the formation of new local social groups and relations between people and their settlement landscape. In both scenarios, settlement expansion promoted the emergence of new socio spatial networks entailing the cr eation of social synapses between various social groups that had not previously existed in the south central region. In particular, Saladoid

PAGE 305

305 networks oriented east west along the coast became complicated by north south interior to coast relationships th at developed during Period III One of the most important observation s for this period is that while the social landscape became increasingly dense and socially connected, settlement clusters in different portions of the landscape became increasingly insu lated because of settlement buffering and occupation of geographically restricted areas ( e.g., narrowly constricted river drainages). As a result of increased populations and the complexification of regional interactions, ambiguities in regional social re lationships likely emerged; exacerbating differences between settlement localities At the local level, network linkages between settlements within the 5 km cost interval suggest particular localities, comprising several neighboring settlements, emerged. These neighboring settlements, or multi settlement social communities, would have been constituted by first order, or face to face social relationships. Interaction at this scale involves those who are co present, have the greatest potential to intimately interact form local social networks and develop symbolically shared forms of meaning and behavior relative to their unique space time contexts Interactions at this level lead to systematized patterns of social relations from which enduring social inst itutions emerge (Giddens 1984). Yet, even though local social communities were emerging and shared many interests, the overlapping catchments of settlement clusters would have stimulated increased competition for local social and natural resources. Indi viduals living in densely clustered settlement configurations would have had to negotiate access to these resources not only with members of their community cluster but also with

PAGE 306

306 neighboring ones I ncreased competition for these resources would have promp ted conflicts and required new mechanisms for establishing land rights and maintaining social order. The establishment of communal identities, linked to kinship and geography, would have relieved some of the ambiguities engendered by emerging social netwo rks by establishing land rights and tenure rules of marriage /alliances and who could be called on in times of need. Based on the available data, it appears that social networks during this time were evolving in a context of differing social realms of int erest (Garrow et al. 1995: 233) This point is readily apparent in the regional social diversification represented in the material traditions of pottery that emerged along this east west vector of interaction indicating the emergence of new social interac tion spheres in different parts of the island. The mixing of pottery styles at many sites in the region surrounding Tibes during Period III indicates that this was a place of articulation between diverse spheres of interaction amongst regional communities While the data indicate some similarities in social and demographic processes at the regional level, differences in settlement configurations within watersheds indicates that some of these processes were contingent on situational responses to local engag ements. With these new social configurations came new challenges for post AD 600 denizens of the south central region and likely other parts of the island. In the next chapter I elaborate further on some of the processes presented in this chapter to exam ine how the transformation in regional settlement affected the structure of co resident groups and the organization of social communities.

PAGE 307

307 CHAPTER 8 ENVISIONING THE LOCA L LANDSCAPE: RESIDE NTIAL SETTLEMENT AND COMMUNITY COMPOSITION In the previous chapter I presented a diachronic view of the south central region depicting major changes in the settlement configuration of social groups between AD 600 and AD 1200. This was a period of increased population, the creation of new settlements and the emergence of new social and symbolic ideals as evident in material cultural throughout the region particularly pottery and the construction of stone lined plazas/ batey s With the surge in population, and the expansion of settlements throughout the landscape social networks became increasingly connected and complex At the same time, social groups concentrated in particular portions of the landscape resulting in constraints on interaction due to settlement location and growing complexity of regional social networks These changes, observed at the regional level, were concomitant with other social transformations at smaller social scales evident in the organization of residential settlements and co resident ial corporate groups. In this chapter, I present archaeologi cal data from the Tibes locality and other well documented s ites from the south central region to examine the composition of residential settlements and the organization of co resident ial corporate groups between AD 600 and AD 1200. To do this I documen t changes in the spatiality of residential settlements in terms of size, general layout, and domestic structures to explain the implications of these patterns on the formation of communities in the region during this time I initiate this discussion by fir st briefly reviewing relevant ethnographic examples of settlement configurations from lowland South America and archaeological conceptualizations of co resident ial corporate groups to contextualize socio spatial

PAGE 308

308 organizational patterns at the scale of the residential settlement I then relate these observations to archaeological data for the south central region for settlement sizes and domestic structures to characterize changes in the structure of co resident ial corporate groups in the region between AD 600 and AD 1200 I evaluate these observations with evidence from two residential settlements recorded during the course of the TASP survey which I presented in C hapter 5 (PO 42 and PO 43) Through an examination of their settlement layouts, sizes, and p ottery accumulation rates, I provide estimates for their residential population and duration of occupation. Through this I develop an image of residential settlements and provide a basis for comparison with other well documented habitation sites in the re gion. Ultimately, I reveal Period III represented a fundamental restructuring of basic social groups that differed from previous forms of community organization Specifically, the data presented in this chapter indicates that permanent, small, dispersed residential settlements became the primary socio spatial configuration during this time. These settlement shifts, and the associated organizational changes implied by them, appear to have promoted heritability of property through social and occupational continuity of particular localities which served as a foundation for the creation of local identities and the development social and political communities. Organizational Patterns of Residential Settlement Ethnographic literature from northern lowland Sout h America and Amazonia describe numerous indigenous groups with varying settlement configurations; however, two types of residential settlement stand out and offer useful points for comparison for the discussion and interpretations presented in this chapte r These include the single communal house and the multi house nucleated village (Rivire 1995).

PAGE 309

309 In the single communal house settlement, the residential settlement is typically characterized by a single large round or oval domestic structure ( i.e. maloc a ) in which all members of the settlement reside (Hugh Jones 1985) The ethnographic literature of the region is replete with examples of such settlements ( e.g., Chagnon 1968; Hugh Jones 2007 ). In contrast, the nucleated settlement is composed of several domestic structures clustered in a single location. Domestic structures in this context can either be large, comprising multiple extended families ( e.g., Heckenberger 2005) or smaller s ( e.g., Siegel 19 89 ) Nucleated settlements often possess a clearly defined central plaza, bounded by residential structures configured in a horseshoe or circular fashion, with the circumference of the habitation area bounded by domestic refuse middens (Gregor 1977; Se eger 2010:14; V ersteeg 1991; Versteeg and Schinkel 1992; Wst 1994; also see Means 2007 for overview) Circular village settlements are considered a primary form of socio spatial organization and scholars have used concentric and diametric models to explain the symbolic importance of this pattern in the ordering of social life ( Heckenberger 2005; Lev Strauss 1963 ; Means 2007 ). Within the settlement, the central plaza space often axis mundi linking th e settlement to the cosmos Circular/horseshoe settlement configurations, considered common for Saladoid settlements, are present in archaeological contexts from the Lesser Antilles and Puerto Rico (Siegel 1996a). A rchaeologically documented settlements in Puerto Rico, as with modern analogs from South America, this space likely served as a space for conducting both ritual and quotidian activities. In many of the documented Saladoid

PAGE 310

310 settlements in Puerto Rico this central space also functions as a public burial ground ( e.g., Curet and Oliver 1998; Gonzlez Colon 1984; Keegan 2009; Rodrguez Lopez 1992; Siegel 1999). 1 Households and Co resident Corporate Groups Questions of identity and long term transformations in the fabric of communities cannot be disc ussed without specific focus on the household (Gerritsen 2003:105). As introduced in Chapter 3 the household is typically defined as a social group formed through relations of blood and/or marriage, that shares a single residence and who cooperate regu larly in a number of basic socio economic activities (Ashmore and Wilk 1988:6; Wilk et al. 1984). Households perpetuate themselves through social transmission, economic, and ritual practices, and in particular marriage, and post marital residence. Despi te the fact that households seem to be recognizable in all societies, theoretical and methodological applications of the concept have proven to be a challenge to many scholars who acknowledge that overarching cross cultural definitions are futile. These p roblems stem from how households are contextually constituted and the realization that economic roles and social membership can vary considerably within a given society. Recent approaches to understanding households emphasize their mutual constitution with in broader social constellations ( e.g., Gerritsen 2003; Soutavzi 2008). In this context, emphasis is placed on the habitual activities performed by interacting households and what these activities can tell us about the relational properties and 1 Based on a suite of radiocarbon dates, Siegel indicates potential continuation of this practice up to AD 1150 at Maisabel, and Pestle to approximately AD 900 at Tibes (Pestle 2010; Siegel 1999).

PAGE 311

311 ordering o f small scale social groups The underlying corporate (Goodenough 1951) 2 nature of these relationships can form a durable socio symbolic institution that structures interactions amon g its constituent social actors ( Beck 2005; Gillespie 2000). Hence, the formation of more inclusive corporate collectives and communities. Despite arguments regarding social membership and co residence based on shared architectural space, I assume that asp ects of group organization are manifested in spatial patterns at the site level, particularly the size of settlements and domestic architecture. While not necessarily equivalent, domestic struc tures provide us with some idea about the size, composition, a nd membership of co resident groups associated with households ( e.g., Kolb 1985) V ariation in the size and distribution of domestic structures within a residential settlement is often used to infer corporate functions of household s ( e.g., production, di stribution, transmission, and reproduction) (Hayden and Cannon 1982 ; Wilk and Rathje 1982). Hayden and Cannon note two main types of residential corporate groups based on the size of domestic structures (1982:141 142). The first is characterized by sever al families living in single large structure. In their second type each family unit Both small and large households each have select advantages for accomplishing various tasks particularly in terms of scheduling and organizing labor. For instance, large extended family households are better suited for coping with many simultaneous 2 Goodenough (1951:30 31) defined corporate groups

PAGE 312

312 tasks, part icularly in situations where there are incompatible activity requirements. the resi dential settlement. Extended family households are also prevalent in situations where labor is in short supply but land is abundant (Netting 19 93 ). As such, the pooling of labor is a way of intensifying resource procurement. However, Hayden and Cannon ( 1982) note that there must be strong factors (typically economic, environmental, or defensive) for groups of families to co inhabit multi extended family houses within a single residential settlement, since extended families are harder to maintain due to c onflict and jealousy ( c.f. Chagnon 1968). In contrast, nuclear family households are more common in situations where labor is abundant but land is scarce. Nuclear households generally require fewer resources due to their constituent size and tend to be m ore productive since it is easier to allocate/schedule tasks and single out noncontributing individuals. Smaller households also are considered best suited for situations where mobility is important or where linear scheduling of spatially restricted resou rces takes place (Wilk and Rathje 1982). Byrd (2000:90 91) argues for the primacy of the nuclear family household over the extended family on the grounds that the nuclear family possesses adaptive flexibility in economic situations where settlement patter ns and subsis tence strategies are in flux. These adaptive responses represent the ability for smaller domestic units to be less constrained in their economic choices Nuclear households are also considered to denote a shift towards increasing importance on personal property and the most effective way of passing resources from generation to generation by alleviating

PAGE 313

313 ambiguity in heritable property rights. Also, smaller households have the advantage of fewer people which reduces scalar stress and intragrou p conflict. The status or standing of households and co resident ial corporate group s is based on wealth and prestige stemming from control over social symbolic, and /or natural resources. totems, magic agricultural societies this wealth is also expressed in the most important r esources necessary for survival -land and labor. Accumulated or inherited wealth and politi cal productive lands to the groups that first laid claim to a territory. In this context, wealth was also a product of positioning within the local and regional settlement an d social networks which influence the effectiveness of households to cooperatively interact and form labor alliances. Social groups engaged in incipient agricultural practices often develop mechanisms for the transmission of collective land rights that emp hasize legitimacy through ancestry and unilineal descent (Keesing 1975; Forde 1947:70; Netting 1993; Sack 1986). The importance of reckoning descent in such settings can be seen in the reduction of conflict over land through establishing heritable propert y rights based on kinship (Netting 1993). For example, research conducted amongst the Tsembaga Maring tribe of New Guinea indicates that a single kin group with low population density relatives, but as Rappaport 1968:28 28).

PAGE 314

314 Influencing the membership of residential corporate groups are the relations betwe en locally situated households and their shared rights and responsibilities as kith and kin. In the post AD 600 landscape of the south central region these links were transformed based on the consequences of settlement dispersion, the occupation of new te rritories and the increased complexity of regional social networks Critically, I believe these changes structured and were structured by a fundamental shift in concepts about collective rights, responsibilities and identities of social groups both with in their residential domestic settings as well as the broader lo cal sociopolitical community. As will be demonstrated for the remainder of this chapter, the reconfiguration of the social landscape between AD 600 and AD 1200 coincides with social practices that facilitated the solidification of collective rights, responsibilities, and identities. Specifically, this entailed the creation of smaller domestic units to promote heritability in property and to sediment members of co resident ial corporate groups w ithin local and regional social networks. While seemingly contradictory, the consequences of these changes also promoted the centralization of social groups within particular spaces and places which reinforced the formation of social and political communi ties. Size Matters: Changes in Residential Settlement Diachronic examination of settlement sizes offers a starting point to refine our understanding of residential settlement and community (trans)formations in the region. Settlement size is used in many studies as an indicator of both population and political importance ( e.g., Johnson 1980). Coincidentally, m ost researchers agree that settlement size is one of the primary factors influencing settlement dispersion and village fissioning; however, there is some debate as to how the process occurs The

PAGE 315

315 common perspective is that as settlement populations increase competition for natural resources particularly game or cultivable land lead s to internal conflicts (Overing and Passes 2000). This becomes a cen tripetal force dispersing people out and away from parent settlements. Another perspective suggests that the larger the settlement the more complex the social composition; an idea initially promoted by Carneir o (1967) (also see Tuzin 2001 ). In this conte xt, sheer social density leads to interpersonal conflicts as increased population decreases relatedness (Chagnon 1968 ) through an increase in the proportion of delicate affinial relations or by multiplying the number of internal groupings ( or cliques of various types ) that have potential to become politic al factions (Mayberry Lewis 1967 ). On the issue of how large a village can grow before fissioning varie s from 50 70 persons ( Arvelo Jimenez 1977:109) to 70 100 persons ( W hitten 1976 :125) and as much as 1 00 200 persons (Maybury Lewis: 1967; Chagnon 1968 :18). Archaeologically, one of the problems noted in the use of settlement size as a proxy for evaluating residential populations are the site formation processes related to the duration and intensity of sett lement occupation t hrough time. For instance, older settlements tend to be larger by virtue of occupation continuity and rates of artifact accumulation and patterns of discard ( e.g., Varie n and Mills 1997; Schiffer 1987 ; also see Espenshade 2000 for an ex ample from Puerto Rico). Further, differential intensities of settlement in different portions of a given site through time can be misleading, as can changes in residential population through time Yet despite these issues, it is widely accepted that the re is some allometric association between settlement size and resident population ( e.g., Chamberlin 2006; Curet 1998; Kirch 1980 ) Comparative examination

PAGE 316

316 of the archaeological record provides a basis to evaluate the relative settlement variability throug h time and to develop explanations related to the processes associated with these patterns. Examination of regional settlement through time shows substantial changes in the size of settlements between the pre and post AD 600 landscape (Figure 8 1). Reside ntial settlements with evidence of occupation during Period II range in size from 1 to 15 ha (mean 2.7 ha, std. 3.5 ha). Approximately 68 % of settlements from this period are between 3 and 11 ha. The largest of these sites, particularly those 6 ha or gre ater, are al l situated along the coastal plains. Several large Period II settlements from the study region include Caas (PO 08), Tecla (GY 01), Hernndez Colon (PO 13) and Collores (JD 06). The relatively large size of early Saladoid residential settle ments is also documented in other parts of the island including the site s of Maisabel (Siegel 1992; 1999) and Punta Candelero (Rodrguez Lpez 1991, 1993) Thirty percent of P eriod II sites in the region range between 1 and 2 ha in size and the majority po ssess Cuevas and Ostionoid pottery styles suggesting that they may have been settled between approximately AD 400 and AD 600/ 1000 The implication of this pattern is that between AD 400 AD 600 population was dispersing, settlements began to fragment. Assuming that the data for Saladoid settlements is true, then based on the size of settlements presented here and documented in other regions (as discussed in Chapter 2), t hree important aspects of organiz ation can be inferred. First, the larger residential settlements promote safety (in numbers) in a potentially hostile landscape ( e.g., Chagnon 1968). This is particularly relevant in light of the fact that Saladoid immigrants

PAGE 317

317 to the island entered a land scape already occupied by Archaic social groups that may, or may not, have been welcoming (Keegan 2009; Siegel 1991). 3 Figure 8 1. Residential settlement sizes through time. Second the size (and shape) of the settlement may not only be an indicati on of population, but also the ability of these settlements to accommodate visitors from more distant regions for various social, economic, and ritual interactions In this context, larger settlement size would allow for periodic intervillage social gathe rings between widely dispersed settlements as well as potential incoming migrants Third, larger 3 Current evidence not only shows absence of conflict, but positive evidence of interaction between Archaic groups and Saladoid immigrants ( e.g. Cueva Maria La Cruz and Punta Candelero).

PAGE 318

318 settlements could accommodate reasonably large residential populations consistent with what is expected for sites comprising multiple extended family househol ds (Heckenberger and Petersen 1999; Versteeg and Shinkel 1992; Versteeg 1991) Looking forward to Period III, there is a notable decrease in the size of residential settlements with 69% of habitation sites measuring less than 2 ha (mean 1.6 ha, std. 1.9 ha ). Only 22% of settlements from this period measure between 3 and 5 ha with less than 10% of the sample of settlements over 4 ha. Settlements with areas ove r 4 ha are primarily situated along the coast and possess Period II components This change in se ttlement size contrasts with the prevalence of larger settlement s noted for the previous period. Critically, the increase in smaller settlements during Period III coincides with the expansion of existing social groups into topographically restricted areas in the foothills and uplands. The creation of these smaller settlements also supports processes of dispersal and/or fissioning of larger Saladoid settlements into smaller habitation sites. Settlements after AD 1200 follow a similar pattern from Period II I although there is a decrease in the overall number of sites throughout the south central region (Curet 2005; Torres 2001, 2005, 2010) Further, there is a slight decrease in the number of smaller settlements between .5 and 1 ha and a slight increase in the number of sites over 3 ha (mean 1.6 ha, std. 1.7 ha). This pattern alludes to aggregation of local populations during Period IV particularly on the coastal plains (Torres 2001; Curet 2005) However, the average settlement sizes for this period remain relatively small. Almost 86% of all settlements in the region during this period are under 5 ha with Caracoles (PO 10) and La Florida/Los Indios (SI 4) both measuring just over 4 ha.

PAGE 319

319 Some larger settlements are documented during this time in the eastern portion of the study region along the coast. There are several inferences that can be made regarding the observed changes in settlement size particularly between Period II and Period III. First, assuming an allometric relationship between settlement size and population it is reasonable to expect Period III residential settlements comprise smaller populations than those in Period II Second, the decrease in size of residential settlement s for Period III also indicates limiting of space available for large scale communal activities and the number of visitors a given site could accommodate for the physical act of such activities This observation suggests that for some habitation sites, the hosting of large feasts and interregional engagements was not a par regional settlement network. In this context, the ability of every settlement to accommodate higher level social engagements became less important. By extension, this also suggests that whil e the regional settlement system was expanding social groups were becom ing less focused on the maintenance of broad social relationships at the social scale of the residential settlement. This is not to say that interregional social relationships did not exist or were not important, but rather that there is an increased focus on the relations between local social groups and their immediate neighbors. Supporting this idea is the formal construction of integrative ritual facilities at many sites which beca me community centers to negotiate and solidify local and regional identities. Smaller facilities complemented larger ones that were likely used for social or ritual activities at the level

PAGE 320

320 of the residential settlement and its immediate neighbors. I disc uss this topic further in Chapter 9. Another important observation is that a s settlements fission they will replicate the organizational pattern of the parent settlement. However, settlement configurations during Period III contradict organizational patte rns from Period II based on the implications presented by changes in settlement size and (as will be shown) domestic structures Cross cultural research conducted by Murdock notes that such shifts in residence patterns often precede fundamental changes in social organization primarily This transformation in residential settlement has other implications in the construction of social and political communities specifically the fragmentati on and recombination of social houses (or perhaps lineages [Widmer 1994] ). The reconfiguration of local social groups and particularly increased clustering of people within specific localities required new forms of social order and integration. However prior to turning our attention to these issues, it is first necessary to complete the discussion of residential settlements and the archaeological evidence for how the people who dwelled within them were situated within the local and regional social land scape Domestic Structures A study of living communities and their articulation to broader social formations relies on our ability to characterize the residential settlement both in term s of its domestic and social morphology or in other words, their comp osition In general, there appears to be a decrease in the size of domestic structures through Period III on the island of Puerto Rico ( Curet 1992b). Researchers suggest that t he reduction in the size of domestic structures indicates a shift in emphasis on the nuclear family unit as a

PAGE 321

321 response to changing sociopolitical conditions, which necessitated increases in domestic efficiency ( Moscoso 1981) and the consolidation of personal and heritable property (Curet 1992b). Combining concepts of property, espe cially landownership, which in farming communities also means production, with the theme of locating or sedimenting social groups in space leads to developing links between dwellings, temporal succession, and ancestral lines (Lvi Strauss 1987:152). Yet d espite the recent discovery of several post Saladoid domestic structures on the island ( e.g., SEARCH 2008 ; Kaplan 2009) the implications of changes in domestic structures, as related to the organization of households, co resident corporate groups, and broa der social communities remain poorly understood. The majority of our understanding regarding domestic structures in Puerto Rico and Hispaniola comes from ethnohistoric documentation at the time of European contact. Spanish chroniclers indicate that domest ic structures (or bohio ) were round and constructed with wooden posts and thatch (see Curet 1992; Kaplan 2009; Loven 2010, Samson 2010). Ethnohistoric records also note that the average house size was approximately 9 12 m in diameter ( Las Casas 1951 :I:243 ) with that of the village head of households (or cacique ) potentially much larger Large structures have been documented at the Saladoid/Elenan Ostionoid site of Mais a bel (Siegel 199 2 [576 m ]) and at the Elenan Ostionoid site of Lujan on Vieques (Rivera and Perez 199 4 [ 11 and 21 m in diameter]). Research by Miguel Rodrguez Lpez at Punta Candelero documented a large number of post molds of which many were very large indicating large structures. However, this has yet to be formally documented (Curet 201 1, personnel communication). While relatively few domestic

PAGE 322

322 structures associated with Saladoid components have been documented in Puerto Rico, there are several examples of large domestic structures dating to this period from the Lesser Antilles. One not able case is presented by Versteeg and Schinkel (1992) who identified several structures including two relatively large domestic structures at the site of Golden Rock on St. Eustatius measuring 19 and 14 m in diameter respectively. Common to the archaeolog ical record of post AD 600 Puerto Rico, and several islands in the Lesser Antilles, are smaller nuclear domestic structures ranging from approximately 4 to 12 m in diameter. Evidence for potential nuclear family structures during this time are recorded at G ol Ridge (Hoogland 1996), Tutu (Robinson Righter 2002 ) and Anse la Gourde (Hofman and Hoogland 2004). Recent research by Samson at the site of El Cabo in the eastern Dominican Republic also documented ev idence supporting this pattern with late Ostionoid domestic structures ranging between 7 and 8 m in diameter (Samson 2010). By presenting these patterns I am not trying to generalize the changes and process that created them but merely indicate that these material changes are well documented over a wide region during this time. Until recently, archaeological evidence for domestic structures post dating AD 600 in Puerto Rico was limited to only a few sites (Curet 1992) However, recent studies provide a la rger sample that offer s a basis for examining the composition of small scale residential social groups after this time (Table 8 1). For instance, SEARCH recently documented several domestic structures at AR 38 located on the north side of the island in th e municipality of Arecibo ( SEARCH 2008 ).

PAGE 323

323 Table 8 1. Sample of sites with domestic structures from Puerto Rico. Evidence for additional structures but no metrics Site Location Shape LxW or Diam Area m Component Source Maisabel Vega Alta Oval/ Oblong 52x14 576 Saladoid/Elenan Siegel 1992 AR 38 Arecibo Circular 7 38.5 Ostionan SEARCH 2008 AR 38 Arecibo Circular 7 38.5 Ostionan SEARCH 2008 AR 38 Arecibo Oval/Oblong 6x3 18 Ostionan SEARCH 2008 AR 38 Arecibo Circular 5 19.6 Ostionan SEARCH 2 008 AR 38 Arecibo Circular 6 28.2 Ostionan SEARCH 2008 AR 38 Arecibo Indet. 8 50.2 Ostionan SEARCH 2008 AR 38 Arecibo Circular 6 28.2 Ostionan SEARCH 2008 Playa Blanca 5 Ceiba Oval/Oblong 7.1x6.6 37 Chican Rivera and Rodriguez 1991 El Bronce Ponce Oval/Oblong 5.2x5 20.4 Elenan/Chican Robinson et al. 1985 El Bronce Ponce Oval/Oblong 5.6x5.3 23.3 Elenan/Chican Robinson et al. 1985 El Bronce Ponce Circular 7.6X4 23.8 Elenan/Chican Robinson et al. 1985 PO 29 ( # 1) Ponce Oval/Oblong 7x4.2 35.4 Ostion oid Kaplan 2009 PO 29 ( # 3) Ponce Oval/Oblong 7.4 38.9 Ostionoid Kaplan 2009 PO 29 ( # 5) Ponce Circular 6.5x6.8 44.2 Ostionoid Kaplan 2009 PO 21 Ponce Oval/Oblong 8X6 48 Ostionan Espenshade 1987 PO 39 Ponce Circular 7.4x6.6 48.8 Ostionan Garrow et al. 19 95 PO 27* Ponce Circular 7.2 50.2 Ostionan/Chican Krause 1989 PO 38* ( # 1) Ponce Circular 6 50.2 Ostionan Weaver 1992 PO 38 ( # 2) Ponce Oval/Oblong 7 50.2 Ostionan Weaver 1992 PO 38 ( # 3) Ponce Circular 7.3 50.2 Ostionan Weaver 1992 Ro Cocal (A) Sab Se ca Circular 4.7 17.4 Chican Goodwin & Ass oc. 2003 Ro Cocal (B) Sab Seca Circular 3.5 9.5 Chican Goodwin & Ass oc. 2003 Ro Cocal (C) Sab Seca Circular 5X6 23.7 Chican Goodwin & Assoc 2003 Ro Cocal (D) Sab Seca Circular 5 19.6 Chican Goodwin & Assoc 2003 Lujan Vieques Circular 21 346.3 Elenan Rivera and Perez 1997

PAGE 324

324 1490), she recorded seven potential domestic structures; all round to oval in shape and measuring 5 to 8 m in diameter. Other examples from Puerto Rico with similar structural configurations includ e Playa Blanca 5 (Rivera and Ro drguez 1991), Ro Cocal (Goodwin & Associates 2003) and Lujan (Rivera and Perz 1997) all measuring less than 8 m in diameter. This pattern in domestic architect ure is also well represented in the south central region of Puerto Rico E vidence for domestic structures in the immediate region surrounding Tibes comes from 12 structures associated with six sites 4 : PO 11, PO 21, PO 27, PO 29, PO 38 and PO 39 (Figure 8 2). Based on the available sample, structures range in size from 5 to 12 meters in diameter with a mean of 8.2 m. The sizes and dimensions of these structures are congruent with those generally associated with nuclear dwellings (see Kolb 1985) and are mu ch smaller than expected for an extended family maloca style dwelling purported to be the norm for Saladoid social groups Importantly, the size of these structures appears to conform to other structures documented from the island that date to after AD 60 0. The vast majority of the residential settlements possessing these small domestic structures also have primary occupational evidence between AD 600 and AD 1300 (Figure 8 3) suggesting this was likely accepted practice in the region during this time. Ass it is probable that these 4 Additional structures were identified at PO 29 (Kaplan 2009). However, at the time of this study, they have not been formally analyzed. Further, structures presented for PO 38 and PO 27 are projected tation from these sites. Additional evidence for nuclear domestic structures near TIbes was also revealed in excavations at the site of Caracoles ( Gonzlez Colon and Rodrguez Garcia19 85). However, no formal measurements regarding the interpreted size co nfigurations of posthole features are documented in the report.

PAGE 325

325 changes included modifications in the nature, size and form of indigenous domestic b :161). It is important to note that such re organization s often follow c hanges in larger social, cultural or ideological orders rather than short term 1994:26). The question here then not only becomes why smaller houses, but how? Figure 8 2. Documented domestic structures from excavated sites with evidence of post AD 600 occupation within 11 km of Tibes

PAGE 326

326 Figure 8 3. Radiocarbon determinations for residential settlements possessing documented domestic structures from the south central regio n The answer to the latter part of this question lies partly in the data presented in Chapter 7 and earlier sections of this one which discuss settlement dispersal and fissioning. While conflict in its many forms is inherent at all levels of society, th ere is ample research to indicate that this process may not have consistently entailed physical violence (Simmel 1964). Several documented cases indicate that social groups will split prior to the onset of violence and well below settlement population cap acities (Chagnon 1968; Carneiro 2000; Tuzin 2001 ). One explanation for the emergence of new permanent settlements involves the

PAGE 327

327 societies with shifting cultivation practi ces, such as in New Guinea and Amazonia agriculture is generally conducted within 5 km of the habitation site and the development of fields greater than this distance will often require substantive modification to the settlement system (Arnold 1985). Usu ally, such modification entails the creation of residential settlements outside the parent settlement through the development of a farmhouse adjacent to cultivated land, which are initially occup ied on a semi permanent basis. These often become permanent through time and represent one form of new settlement creation. E thnographic research conducted by Butt (1970) among the Akawaio of the Guiana Highlands, reports the emergence of new, small settlements because of the at sh orter distances outside of primary village settings where families often prefer to spend most of their time (Butt 1970:38 39). Heckenberger (2005) also notes the creation of new settlements that frequently develop immediately outside or at the edges of th e near village territory to be closer to cultivable garden plots and maintain ties to the parent settlement In time, the household responsible for its upkeep will sometimes move to these locations where they establish permanent residence (Butt 1970) On ce residence is permanently established, these locations can develop into hamlets or small villages based on attraction of additional households or through birth and rules of residence in subsequent generations. In the case of wholesale fissioning, in whic h segments of the village up and move to new locations, one would expect a replication of the spatial structures present in the parent settlement Specifically, one would assume the fissioning of Saladoid settlements result in the replication of larger si tes and domestic structures ( maloca ) at

PAGE 328

328 new sites as families attempt to recreate their social order H owever, they do not and it appears tha t post AD 600 settlements are smaller settlements with nuclear domestic structures and likely fewer inhabitants w hich support the Garden Plot model of settlement dispersion Smaller settlements and their associated domestic structures would also have been selectively advantageous as social groups moved into the foothills of the islands where settlement space was inc reasingly restricted due to topography. These changes held important consequences for community formation. First, changes in the form of domestic structures would also have promoted new identities through creating associations between place and households (Gerritsen 2003). Second, these changes likely also co incided with reorganization i n the relations of production tied to availability of labor and land (Curet 1992b; Moscoso 1981 1986, 1999 ) se moves have the effect of both decentralizing local power and expanding the overall position of the All of these factors entail a recombination of social groups that required new ways of articu lating people and maintaining order within the broader social community This was partially done through the recreation of shared life histories that were intimately connected to particular localities in the increasingly packed regional landscape after AD 600. This will be discussed in further detail in Chapter 9 For now, I continue to focus on the occupational contexts of residential settlement of the post AD 600 landscape to develop an understanding of the composition of local social groups and how or ganizational patterns at this level affected broader social and political community formations.

PAGE 329

329 Settlement Continuity and Local Identity The dispersal of residential settlements and an infilling of the landscape impacted the organization of local groups in measurable ways -most notably in residential mobility and continuity. Residential mobility and continuity are important aspects that structure the organization of social groups and local and regional landscapes First, as demonstrated in the previous ch apter, the location of earlier settlements contributes to the locational positioning of social groups within broader networks as well as influencing interrelationships amongst old and new settlements. As the location of new settlements was guided by the l ocations of those already existing, the ability to establish occupation continuity would have been important for sedimenting people within regional social networks. By virtue of their continuity or persistence, such settlements and local landscapes come t o take on symbolic or perhaps metonymic associations between peoples ( e.g., lineages, clans) and the places in which they live. Such associations between people and landscape are well documented in the anthropological literature ( e.g., Gerritsen 2003; San tos Granero 1998 ; 2002 ) and provide the local groups with a basis of group membership that permits access to social and natural resources within particular areas. Second, settlement mobility and persistence are important because they relate to social group critical resources in agricultural societies specifically land and labor (Varien 1999:208). The movement of social groups or their persistent occupation within particular localitie s is based on several factors including rules of residence and demography. One critical factor affecting the persistence of residential settlements is generational domestic cycle (Goody 1958). Residential settlements (and households) grow as children are born and

PAGE 330

330 decline as inhabitants leave to form their own households (Gerritsen 2003:107 for discussion) Settlements are often abandoned when inhabitants become elderly and die or move to be cared for by another household. Recent research suggests that th ere are also demographic constraints on the occupation duration of small scale residential groups and that this influences domestic cycling (Chamberlin 2006) Gaines and Gaines (1997) modeled population dynamics of small residential settlements in the A merican Southwest focusing on the biological, cultural and behavioral characteristics of the settlement group and tracking what happened to individuals living in the settlement for a period of 70 years. They noted the continuity of small residential sett lements was influenced by mortality rates, marriage and post martial residence rules. S hifts in the ages and genders of surviving members of the group also effected population growth and the continued occupation or abandonment (collapse) of the settlemen t. Their study revealed that less than half (47%) survived for 70 years and in 90% of the cases there was little or no growth during the last 40 years of the settlement. Hence, it would be expected that settlement locations would shift after having been occupied for 40 to 60 years. While this case study was specific to factors involving communities of the ancient American Southwest, it is important to note the constraints on settlement longevity of small residential social groups ( e.g., Hassan 1981) E xa mination of the available radiocarbon dates of residential settlements from the south central region 4). Specifically, relatively small (<3 ha) well dated residential settlements in the r egion persist for long periods of time and in many cases for several centuries Supporting this

PAGE 331

331 longevity is relative chronological data based on pottery evidence (despite noted temporal overlap in styles) indicating a range of long term occupation compon ents spanning centuries Figure 8 4. Radiocarbon dates from well dated small settlements (<3 ha). Radiocarbon and pottery evidence suggests that particular social groups maintained generational continuity in particular localities for extended period s. This observation is heightened when taken in conjunction with the observation that while the entire region experienced the creation of new settlements through dispersion, areas

PAGE 332

332 where new settlements emerged in close proximity to those from the previous period indicate persistence and settlement continuity of particular localities. R ecent research by Samson corroborates this observation. In her recent doctoral dissertation, Samson demonstrates the persistence and social continuity of not only the resid ential settlement but the actual domestic dwellings themselves. In her study, Samson showed that particular households occupied the same location for a period of several centuries (Samson 2010). This pattern of settlemen t continuity reflects the as a tangible corporate and symbolic institution. Such permanency of residential settlement is often found in situations where there is strong linearity in the local kinship systems (Fox 1967; Sack 1986). The longevity of small residential settlements not e d for the south central region may have been a product of limited access of lands (as noted previously). However, the persistence of these settlements suggests a durability of the household or more broadly the It must be noted that settlement permanence is also well documented for Saladoid settlements in the region. Indeed, available data suggest that habitation sites in Puerto Rico are generally permanent fixtures with populations tending towards long term occupation of specific lo cales. Similar observations can be made for many low land South American groups where large settlements of extended identities ( e.g., Heckenberger 2005, 2007 ; Santos Gr anero 2000 ). However, what is unique in this situation is the permanence of small residential settlements despite the demographic various constraints associated with domestic cycling noted in previous studies (Gerritsen 2003; Varien 1999). Also it is use ful to see how some localities on

PAGE 333

333 the landscape formed long lived settlement histories particularly in areas where the emergence of new settlements occurred in areas immediately associated with earlier Saladoid settlements. Such residential stability would have limited the subsequent location of daughter settlements and created persistent places associated with particular families. The limiting of new areas for settlement would have fostered systems of heritable property, land tenure, and long term negotia tions of access and use with neighbors. This all seems to suggests that settlement/house structure locations, and likely associated lands immediately associated with the residential settlement, were passed down f rom one generation to another. These persi stent places, as noted previously, structure the landscape in meaningful ways and would have become symbolically associated with their residents. Such persistence grounds local identities based on kinship relations (through blood and marriage) and shared histories of place through dwelling and living in particular localities. Land tenure is a risk reducing strategy ensuring local social groups perpetual access to local resources (Adler 1996). Systems of land tenure vary from communal access 5 to formal sy stems of heritable property rights associated with particular individuals. In agricultural societies where land use is unrestricted land is owned as long as it is actively utilized (a form of usufruct ownership) ; this is often the case where land is read ily available and population is limited. When land availability is restricted, the p ermanency of residential settlements indicated by the persistent occupation of 5 This does not necessarily mean equal access by everyone but rather ownership and use rights for groups above the individual or household.

PAGE 334

334 particular locales indicate a shift from usufruct land rights, assumed to be the pattern ass ociated with Saladoid households, to one more associated with inherited property The observations, and the construction of local identities are also supported through subfloor inhumation s and burials in domestic contexts a practice which becomes increasi ngly common in the post AD 600 landscape of the island ( e.g., SEARCH 2008; Curet and Oliver 1998; Rivera and Rodriguez Lopez 1991; Robinson 1985) of burials beneath domestic s tructures, and in other contexts, is a symptom of the Curet and Oliver (1998) also note that this shift in burial represents an increased importance on particular families or households and perhaps the narrowing of social status and wealth during this time. While the present discussion suggests that labor, land rights and the prestige were perhaps narrowing, the clustering of coeval settlements in particular localities points to a high degree of soc ial and economic interdependence among them Assuming this to be the case, land use rights and access would have been negotiated among the broader community to maximize labor and production as well local social stability Such negotiations would have int imately linked proximally related settlements in more inclusive social formations, providing a contrasting perspective from previous models of political development in the Caribbean, which indicates that kinship decreased in importance. To the contrary, s uch negotiations simultaneously reflect the importance of kinship and local corporate groups as a communal institution s and the importance of the accumulation of community level prestige and status within particular localities

PAGE 335

335 Modeling Residential Settlem ent Composition and Occupation The size of the residential unit is one aspect of household reconstruction that has been the subject of considerable study. Cross cultural research indicates some correlation between the total floor area of domestic dwelling s and settlement population, although mean values are highly variable ( e.g., Kolb 1985; Naroll 1962 ). One of the most widely cited studies is that of Naroll (1962), who estimated 10 m domestic structure floor area per individual to estimate prehistoric p opulations within a household and criticized by archaeologists to estimate the number of individuals residing in residential structures and, by extension, the settlement. In the absence of physical structures, resea rchers have employed a range of methods for estimating population of residential settlements. These include the use of formulae for estimating population based on settlement size or the rates o f accumulations of various material remains. As noted in prev iously, researchers generally assume an allometric relationship between site size and population. By contrast, accumulations research is based on the assumption that there is a correspondence between population size and the number of objects or material r emains used and discarded by that population (Schiffer 1987). In the final portion of this chapter, I critically examine two small residential settlements from south central region betw een AD 600 and AD 1200. The two settlements that form the focus of the present discussion, PO 42 and PO 43, are immediately north of Tibes and documented during the course of the survey presented in Chapter 5. Through the following discussion and analysi s, I create a deeper understanding of the social

PAGE 336

336 landscape and a firmer basis for inferring the organization of broader social communities during this time. The examination of the two settlements presented in this section entails an evaluation of their com position and occupation duration through the development of population estimates and pottery accumulation rates The purpose here is not to establish thresholds for inferring demographic basis of social complexity ( e.g., Wobst 1974) While certainly usef ul for contextualizing regional demography, my primary concern is the social composition of residential settlement s and showing how households were organized and articulated across the social landscape during this time. PO 42 and PO 43 were selected for th is portion of the study for several reasons. First, the radiocarbon and pottery evidence indicates that the sites were occupied sometime between AD 600 and as late as AD 1500 with the likely period of intensive settlement being between about AD 900 and AD 1400. This is both during the apex and life and the emergence of PO 29 as well as during a period when changes in regional settlement were solidifying. Second, both sites appear to represent a similar range of quotidian and ritual p ractices evident in the artifact assemblages, faunal remains, and the stone lined batey features. Finally, the condition of the sites and the amount of material recovered from them allows for the projection of accurate site size and accumulation rates. To initiate this discussion, I estimate population for residential settlements using the logarithmic formulae as developed by Curet based on settlement size. In previous research Curet employed ethnographic data from lowland South America as an analog for c alculati ng settlement populations (Cure t 1998). Curet developed t wo formulae for

PAGE 337

337 calculating these estimates; one for small (<9,000 m) and one for larger sites (>9,000 m) respectively. 6 To calculate the population of the sites based on size, I first su btract ed the projected area of the plaza/ batey features from the total site area s as this space while potentially used for various activities is not the location of domestic living space. The results of the calculations indicate relatively large popula tions for both sites. For PO 42 (measuring approximately 2.5 ha) the site estimate totals 368 people, or assuming a maximum of six individuals per nuclear household, 61 domestic structures. Similarly, the estimates for PO 43 (measuring approximately 1.4 ha) are 183 people or 31 domestic structures. While C has proven effective for providing rough population estimates for settlements (Samson 2010; To rres and Curet 2008 ) the initial calculation s revealed values that were slightly higher than what could be intuitively projected for both sites based on the density and distribution of midden deposits across the site. Specifically, the locations of midden deposits mapped at the sites are considered directly associated to particular domestic structures as these would have been formed through the activities most closely associated with them such as cleaning living spaces and cooking As such, spaces lacking refuse in immediate association with the middens are assumed to be the locati on of domestic structures as these areas would have likely been kept clean of long term refuse dumping. Based on the configuration of the middens at both sites and the projected size of domestic structures during this time, 6 The regression formulae are listed in Curet 1998. The formulae for estimating population based on sites less than 9,000 m is: y= 441.37 + 149.89 LOG(x). For sites greater than 9,000 m the equation is: y = 2579.2 + 671.58*LOG(x). In both equations, x is the size of the settlement in m.

PAGE 338

338 current settlement configuratio ns at both sites could not easily accommodate the Recent research presented by Samson for the site of El Cabo appears to support this observation (Samson 2010:302). Samson u sed nuclear house structures to calculate settlement population and found that the equation developed by Curet was estimates). This over inflation can also be compared to res earch conducted by Espenshade at the site of PO 21, approximately 3 km due east of the Ro Portugus (based on site size of approximately .5 ha). In contrast, accumulatio ns research conducted by Espenshade (2000) at the site indicated 1 to 6 concurrent domestic structures. According are consistent with ethnographic datasets and the site contexts that fit well with the strong technological an d stylistic the site contained 1 to 6 structures and that each housed 6 people this would have yielded a population of between 6 to 36 people occupying the site Examin ation of the artifact accumulations offers an opportunity to refine the and offer a view of residential settlement composition in terms of number of domestic structures, and by extension households Potter y accumulation studies have been an important dimension of archaeological research over the past 30 years (Schiffer 1987; Varien and Mills 1997). These studies address how and why materials accumulate in the archaeological record based on the underlying a ssumption that particular types of refuse materials will

PAGE 339

339 accumulate at consistent rates thereby establishing a relationship between the use group population and occupation duration. Based on the relatively intact nature and the large ceramic assemblage f rom PO 42 and PO 43, these sites offer the opportunity to explore these questions and compare them to method. The primary assumption in this an alysis is that the total number of vessels deposited can be extrapolated from the excavated sample and t hat this projected value can be used to estimate the accumulation rate of deposition, thereby offering a proxy to calculate potential site population and the length of settlement. In this work, I genially follow methods used by Espenshade (2000:18) at the site of PO 21. At PO 42 and PO 43, vessel lots identified in Chapter 6 are used to estimate the minimum number of vessels at the site. In total 344 lots were recovered from PO 42 and 366 from PO 43. Based on shovel testing, the highest density areas of the site are represented by the intact midden deposits at each site. These cover approximately 4% (1083 m) of the total site area for PO 42 and 3 % (441 m) for PO 43. Due to the uneven distribution of cultural material across the sites, I approximated that the sample of material from each site represented about 5% of the total extant pottery assemblage. Hence, the proportional density of vessel lot s can be projected as 3,354 individual vessels at PO 4 2 and 3,568 at PO 43. This estimate assumes that po rtions of vessels found in the midden deposits may be distributed throughout the site, with each vessel not limited to a si ngle point in space (see Espenshade 2000). The next step is to determine an estimate of vessel use life in order to calculate the rat e of vessel accumulation in the middens. Examination of several

PAGE 340

340 ethnoarchaeological studies indicates a diverse range in the use life of ceramic vessels (Deal 1983, 198 5 1998 ; DeBoer 1974, 1985; DeBoer and Lathrap 1975; Gill 1981). Experimental studies have complemented this research by examining how production and use affect breakage rates (Schiffer and Skibo 1987; Skibo 1992). These studies indicate that pots with the highest rates of attrition are those used for cooking (1.7 years) and serving (1.2 y ears) (Varien and Mills 1997). Vessels used for storage (7.5 years), fermentation of alcoholic beverages (10.3 years), or ritual functions (11.6 years) have use lives extending well beyond those of cooking and serving vessels (Varien and Mills 1997:152, T able II). 7 It is assumed that the primary function of the vessels at both PO 42 and PO 43 was cooking and serving which was demonstrated in the vessel form analysis presented in Chapter 6 and supported by their association with domestic middens co mprised o f food (faunal) remains at both sites. Based on the values associated with cooking vessels documented in previous research, the lifespan of individual vessels from PO 42 and PO 43 is estimated at 1.7 years. The final step is to determine the number of ve ssels in use 8 at one time within a given household. With a household defined as a nuclear family group comprising approximately six people (Curet 1992 b 1998), the number of vessels potentially utilized by this household at a particular point in time is e stimated at 1 0. This estimate is based on ethnographic studies that show that anything less than 10 pots per nuclear family household is likely too low (Rice 1987; Varien and Mills 1997). Following the previous 7 Fitzp atrick and colleagues recently identified a ritual vessel on Carricou dating several hundred years earlier than the associated assemblages indicating that certain ritual vessels have extremely long use lives through heirlooming (Fitzpatrick et al. 2009) 8 Also referred to the systemic number in previous accumulations studies (Schifffer 1987:51).

PAGE 341

341 assumptions, it is possible to estimate occ upation duration through the use of the formula developed by Pauketat (1989:291) and applied by Espenshade (2000) where: Time = (Total Number of Vessels x Use Lifespan)/Average Household Pot Assemblage. Based on the projected 3,354 (PO 42) and 3,568 (PO 43) vessels and a 1. 7 year average lifespan for cooking pots a single nuclear household using 1 0 vessels would have taken 570 years to deposit the material in the modeled midden deposits at PO 42 and 607 years at PO 43 (assuming a constant population) These occupation durations obviously decrease with an increase in projected number of households (Table 8 2 ). Table 8 2. Accumulations estimates for PO 42 and PO 43. Assumes 1 0 vessels used per household. *Duration in years. Site PO Vessel Lots Projec ted Number of Vessels Average Use Life Years Households/Occupation Duration 1 2 3 4 5 42 344 3,354 1.7 570 285 190 143 114 43 366 3,568 1.7 607 303 202 152 121 Assuming the radiocarbon dates collected from each site offer a starting point to approximate temporal occupation range s, these initial values can be further refined. Looking at the median date ranges for PO to AD 1445 or 325 years. Similarly for PO 130 to AD 1250 or 120 years. Based on the estimates provided here, and the general distribution of the midden deposits at these sites, it is possible to develop an image of what these settlements may have looked like in antiquity. Based on the radiocarbo n dates, artifact accumulations, and general distribution of pottery, PO 42 was likely comprised of 1 to 3 dom e stic structures on the south side of the drainage during the

PAGE 342

342 early phase of occupation with perhaps two domestic structures developing to the nor th side of the drainage with the onset of the Period IV component (Figure 8 4 ) In the case of PO 43 radiocarbon determinations indicate that the site was occupied for a shorter period of time. The site configuration shows domestic midden deposits surroun ding a likely central plaza/ batey feature. B ased on the distribution of the middens and the accumulation rates in conjunction with the radiocarbon estimates suggests 3 5 domestic structures present at the site at any one time I contend that both PO 42 an d PO 43 under conservative estimation, were likely comprised 5 or fewer domestic structures at any point during their occupation This puts the number of individuals occupying each site at under 50 people at any given time. As 68% of the documented sett lements in the region from Period III are of similar size to PO 42 and PO 43 ( i.e. < 2 .5 ha.) this pattern may not be an isolated phenomena S everal other well documented sites in the region show similar patterns For instance, in addition to the aforeme ntioned PO 21 (2000), Robinson (1985) notes very large, and it seems quite likely that there never were more than six residential structures (if that many) at any given In another study, excavations at the Elenan Ostionoid settlement of G 15 01 in Salinas yielded similar interpretations. G 15 01 was noted as a small habitation site interpreted as consisting of no more than 10 households at the site at any one time (Robinson 2004a) Similar to PO 42 and PO 43, G 15 01 possesses a small plaza/ batey feature which potentially served for hosting local ceremonial activities (Robinson 2004:17) In addition to G 15 01, the of F 4 01 (Ochos Concheros) also

PAGE 343

343 located within Camp Santiago yielded comparable results with shell middens at the site consisting of localized concentrations less than 10 meters in size (Robinson 2004b) Based on excavations at the site Rob i nson compared this site to the PO 21 six household estimates (Robinson 2004:13). Both G 15 01 and F 4 01 are both noted to be relatively large compared to other documented sites within Camp Santiago indicating that the majority of settlements were likely smaller settlements comprised of fewer t han 6 to 10 households (Robinson 2004:13). Additional e x a mples of such settlements are also apparent in the Cerrillos R iver drainage with the mid to late Ostionoid sites PO 38, PO 23, and PO 27 all yielding similar results. Another important observation is the fact that these settlements are occupied for extended periods of time well over 100 years in the case of PO 42 and PO 43 and at least 300 years in the case of El Bronce (Robinson 1985), well beyond the proposed demographic models (Gaines and Gaine s 1997). This continuity in settlement would have contributed to the sedimentation of local social groups in particular places on the landscape. The short distances noted between many residential settlements as presented in the previous chapter indicates that, while maintaining some level of autonomy at the scale of the household, they were engaged in interdependent social relationships with neighboring settlements Hence, local social communities appear to have consisted of interdependent small residenti al settlements comprising multi household corporate groups linked through relations of kinship, affinity, and social propinquity. These groups likely engaged in various communal activities that could have consisted of house

PAGE 344

344 building, cultivation of garden plots and the construction of and ritual participation at communal ceremonial facilities Summary: Local Communities in Context The patterns observed in this chapter show a dramatic transformation in the organization of residential settlements and their associated households between AD 600 and AD 1200 in the south central region. These settlement changes indicate a complete reformatting of social communities which emerged in the foothills of the south central region and which did not replicate earlier Sa ladoid settlement patterns. The archaeological data indicate changes in social organization at basic levels that entailed the emergence of small interdependent settlements in particular localities on the landscape. One of the major changes noted is the pr oposed transition from large settlements, consisting of one or more extended family dwellings, to small, dispersed residential settlements comprised of multiple nuclear family domestic structures Based on site sizes and population modeling the archaeolo gical data suggests that these settlements likely comprised an extended famil y and their affines residing in under 10 nuclear family structures, and more likely 3 to 5 structures. This transformation in settlement appears to have been associated with proce sses of dispersion and mobility in which social groups created new social places in the landscape. Due to the lack of evidence for widespread physical violence, this appears to have been a result of three processes of settlement dispersion from parent set tlements that were not necessarily mutually exclusive. The first suggests that social groups bud off parent settlements because of social conflict. These conflicts may have been the result of a variety of factors including jealousy which is commonly note d as a

PAGE 345

345 factor influencing fissioning. Another factor may have resulted from shifting power relations and attempts for households to maintain social equality or autonomy through settlement fragmentation (Overing and Passes 2000). Finally, dispersion may b e a direct result of settlement growth where social groups gradually shift the focus of their activities to areas they most frequent, in this case, perhaps small garden plots at the edge of near village territories associated with large parent villages. As mentioned previously and documented elsewhere (Heckenberger 2005) farmhouses are usually built because distance to agricultural fields or garden plots becomes inefficient to traverse from the parent settlement. In this situation, the cultivable lands sur rounding the immediate/convenient area of the parent village are all accounted for. As a result, families set up and ultimately move to new farmhouse locations on available land outside or at the borders of the near village territory. Over a generation o r two the farmstead transforms into a hamlet or small village. In any of these scenarios, the dispersion of settlements would have contributed to the decentralizing local power and expansion of the overall community (Heckenberger 2005:244). It is not hard to conceive of these initial farmhouses taking the form of a small bohio or hut. As the settlement grows (through births or in moving relatives) in the next generation other huts sprout up at this location. Since inland locations on the island possess limited space for settlement and cultivation due to their restrictive topography the social groups able to organize and persist in small scattered settlements would have had an advantage for maintaining land rights and perpetuating their position within t he broader social landscape

PAGE 346

346 Current evidence indicates that once established, settlements were indeed relatively stable fixtures within the landscape with many occupied for several centuries This the concretization and legitim ization of land rights and local identities The implications of these pa tterns suggest that particular localities, and perhaps river drainages, became intimately linked with proximally related, interdependent co resident ial social groups which contribute d to the formation of social communities above the residential settlement Through the nucleation of households in particular localities it is not hard to see how communities bec a me more clearly defined as d id their wealth, status and position within t he local and regional network As a result power and prestige were likely centralized in particular households Heads of households ( i.e. caciques ) often hold sway on scheduling of events at the household and residential settlement s cale. Some come to represent social groups in different settings and at different scales raging from the household, residential settlement (multi house corporate groups) and supra village agglomerations (Heckenberger 2005). Head of household s likely emer ged becoming responsible for managing aspects of communal family life such that the house and residential settlement comes to be respected by outsiders. While seemingly contradictory, the consequence of emergent heads of households would have promoted the centralization of local social groups, through associations with land and neighboring settlements, which likely reinforced more inclusive social and political relations To conclude, local social community, comprised of multiple residential settlements an d strongly associated with particular localities, became prominently represented as a

PAGE 347

347 coherent sociopolitical entity in the Ostionoid through its stable and proximally related settlements and construction of its ritual integrative facilities. This all in d icates that certain localities had authority invested in local and micro regional iss ues of land use and habitation. In many of these matters, communities probably acted as a cohesive entity much like single settlement Saladoid communities would have in th e previous period This may seem at odds with the suggestion made by the reduction in size of households that indicates that nuclear family households become more important accumulators of wealth and status. However, it should not be forgotten that claim s by individual households would never had been exclusive. It is likely that the settlement groups retained a certain measure of control over arable lands irrespective of whether they were farmed individually. Hence land use may have been regulated by lo cal social groups comprised of clusters of residential settlements. This shift required a complete reformatting of social identities and the social landscape. The answer as to how these social groups were able to maintain social cohesion and establish lo cal identities relates to a process of the way in which people construct their identities and shared histories in relation to place.

PAGE 348

348 CHAPTER 9 THE SYMBOLIC CONSTRU CTION OF COMMUNITIES: PLAZAS AND BATEYS In the previous chapter s I documented settlement and social changes at the regional and local levels which demonstrate major transformations in the organization of basic social groups in south central Puerto Rico between AD 600 and AD 1200. An important outcome of these changes was the proliferation of sma ll residential settlements and their clustering in particular localities. In this redefined landscape, new challenges would have emerged including competition for resources maintenance of moral and social order, and resolving ambiguities in social relati ons caused by increasingly complex social networks. While the reduction in the size of households and the establishment of persistently occupied localities many have reduced some of the ambiguity related to persons and property, maintaining social cohesion and reifying the interests of household corporate groups would have become increasingly important. The resolution of this problem required the creation of new mechanisms to structure the engagements between local and regional communities and contribute t o the formation of their social identities. M aterial evidence for the resolution of these issues is visible in the formation of ritual integrative facilities in the form of stone lined plazas and batey s 1 The emergence of ritual integrative facilities in the Greater Antilles and other parts of the Americas is often viewed as a response to organizational stress stimulated by regional population increases (Adler and Wilshusen 1990; Carneiro 1967; Johnson 1977; Tuzin 2001 ). In this context these features are generally considered the outcome 1 Other aspects of material culture which indicate dynamic socio cultural transformations during this time are the emergence of artifacts meant for public display (discussed in Curet 1996) such as stone collars (Walker 1993) and elaboration of cemis (Oliver 2009) which are only found in Puerto Rico and southeastern Hispaniola.

PAGE 349

349 of elite agency to create social and political order while serving their individual interests ( e.g., E arle 1997) Yet, despite current conceptualizations regarding these features in Puerto Rico there are still critica l aspects related to their construction, function, articulation, and meaning that have elude d archaeological interpretation, specifically questions persist regarding the full range of activities associated with these features as well as the consequences of their development (Rodrguez Melendez 2007; Curet and Torres 2010). One of the major limitations hindering interpretation of the se features in Puerto Rico are perspectives that adhere to inflexible hierarch al models and homogenous trajectories of regional sociopolitical organization and development T hese perspectives lack consideration of the relational properties of people and places and the role of these features in the social and symbolic construction of communal identities. Because of this a multip licity of structural relationships is compressed obfuscating organizational variability and the intricacies of human sociality at local and regional scales In recent studies from other parts of the Americas researchers highlight the social role of ritua l facilities for negotiating social diversity which entail the dialectical relationships between the cons truction of communal biographies in the creation and solidification of i denti ty as well as institutions of power ( e.g., Heckenberger 2005, 2007 ; Pauket at 2000, 2007 ). This is a necessary point for further elaboration for researchers seeking to explain how communities are linked in soci al, symbolic, ideological and political relationships at varying scales. In this chapter I attempt to discuss some of t hese processes based on available data for plazas/ batey s from the south central region. To do so entails examining

PAGE 350

350 plazas/ batey s within the contexts of community formation and how they may have functioned at different scales. This requires a critical eva luation of the variability of these features, their construction and the implications of their emergence in the contexts of societal continuity and change. In the first part of this chapter I provide a brief overview of the scholarly research related to p lazas/ batey s on the island. This section also examines the archaeological data for these features with specific focus on the south central region. Here I examine the timing for the emergence of these features and the regional social and spatial contexts in which they develop. In the second portion of this chapter, I evaluate the functional roles of these features at different scales within the region In this section I demonstrate that their development reflects a more variable pattern in the structure of community power relationships than previously conceived. In the third and final section of this chapter, I present a discussion related to the physical construction of these features in order to demonstrate how these spaces formed part of the ideologi cal and social fabric that sensu Heckenberger 2007) local communities in sacred histories of people and place. Ultimately, I demonstrate that the emerging sociopolitical landscape between AD 600 and 1200 was organized in a series of cascadin g social relationships that promoted local community status and identity through shared ancestral biographies. This organization also suggests that the sociopolitical landscape was more variable and fluid than previously conceptualized. Plazas and Bateys : Archaeological and Historic Contexts Since the late 19 th century, plazas and batey structures have stirred the imaginations of many who study the island s pre colonial past. Through the years

PAGE 351

351 plazas and batey s have served as a focal point of scholarly inquiry and as noted earlier in this work, continue to form the basis for the archaeological interpretation of supra village political units throughout the island While not exhaustive, the following discussion offers a context to situate the present stu dy in relation to recent research For a comprehensive overview of plazas and batey s on the island of Puerto Rico the reader is directed to the work of Barnes (1999), Curet and Stringer (2010), Curet and Torres (2010), Gonzalez Colon (1984); Oliver (1998 2007), Rodrguez Melendez (2007), Siegel (1996 1999 Ballcourts and Ceremonial Plaza s in the West Indies (Alegra 1983). 2 Plazas and batey s in Puerto Rico are generally defined by the presence of stone lined enclos ures typically arranged in a square or rectilinear fashion. 3 These features often consist of two opposing parallel stone rows either lying flat like a pavement ( e.g., Tibes), or as partially buried upright slabs that enclose a cleared open public space ( e .g., Caguana) (Figure 9 1). V ariations on these structural themes are present throughout the island (see Rodrguez Melendez 2007). For instance, some structures are represented as a simple single row of stones with the opposing end bounded by natural roc k formations. Other shapes of plaza / batey s are also noted consisting of square and (a limited number of) circular structures (as observed at Tibes and Caguana and possibly PO 39). 2 For additional background and perspective the reader is directed to Fox (1996), Scarboro Hohokam. 3 Soil is also noted as construction element for some plazas in Hispaniola and plaza/ batey s are not all necessarily rectangular.

PAGE 352

352 Considerable variability is also present in the documented number and size of features at a given site ranging from small single enclosures under 100 m to large multi structure complexes with over 4000 m of delineated space In many instances, elaborate petroglyph carvings are found on the stones c onstituting these structures particularly at sites during the Late Ceramic Age ( e.g., Caguana and PO 29). These features are also known to demarcate public cemeteries typically associated with earlier Saladoid components (Curet and Oliver 1998; Keegan 2009; Rodrguez Lopez 1997; Sie gel 1992, 1996, 1999). The basis of our knowledge regarding plaza / batey s in the Greater Antilles primarily comes from documents written by Spanish chronicle r s at the time of European contact in reference to the ball game (Oviedo y Valdez 1975; Las Casas 19 51 ). Sixteenth century chroniclers describe the ball court s and the game, both called batey as central architectural and social features of Tano settlements. Oviedo notes the ubi quity of in every village there was a place set asid ball game (Oviedo y Valdez 1975:104). Las Casas also notes these features within settlements stating: there was a large clearing, better swept and smoother, longer than wide, which in the tongue of these islands they called batey .There were other houses too very near to this clearing, and if the town was very large, there were other clearings or courts for the ball game which were of lesser size (Alegra 1983:8) Bartolom de Las Casas provided one of the best physical descriptions for the batey noting their dimensions approximately three times longer in length than width (1967: 350). Based on this description, batey s are generally considered such if they are rectangular and those of other shapes ( e.g., squar e or circular) are considered plazas

PAGE 353

353 as they are considered to be better suited for different types of activities not associated with the ballgame (Cure t and Torres 2010). Figure 9 1. Examples of plaza / batey s Looking southeast at Batey de Herradura a t Tibes (top). Looking east at western row of Plaza A at Caguana (bottom). Note slab construction and elaborate petroglyphs (Photos courtesy of Josh Torres).

PAGE 354

354 R ecent research emphasizes the potential variability in the functional uses of features classif ied as batey s and criticizes the overreliance of ethnohistoric analogs dependent upon the ball game for their functional interpretation and social import in pre contact society (Rodrguez Melendez 2007). Two related but different question s are : how such s ites functioned to integrate social groups at varying scales and how do they reflect the social and political order of the island (Oliver 2007; Curet 2010b; Curet and Torres 2010) ? A ssumptions of centrality and hierarchical order are typically invoked by many Caribbean archaeologists in answering these questions where the presence of plaza / batey s signifies the presence of chiefdom type sociopolitical organization ipso facto The first scholarly research of plaza / batey s in the modern era was conducted by Au gustin Stahl in the late 188 0s Stahl identified plaza / batey s as batey s and provided discussion and interpretation of these features based on Spanish ethnohistoric accounts (Stahl 1889). Fewke s (1907), also relying heavily on Spanish accounts (and in la rge existence and function of these features on the island. Caguana (also known as Cap) in 191 5 (Mason 1941). Caguana, located in the modern municipality of Utuado, was the first ceremonial site to be intensively studied on the island. During field investigations, Mason documented several stone lined enclosures -many with elaborate petroglyphs. landscape modifications entailing several construction episodes of building and

PAGE 355

355 rebuilding structures at the site. 4 In the 193 0s Fr oehlich Rainey and Irving Rouse also documented plaza / batey s at several sites in the foothills and mountains ; however, they did not consider these sites within broader regional social and political contexts. Based on the early findings of Mason, Rainey and Rouse, plaza / batey features were thought to be associated only with the late cer amic age populations (Curet 2010). This idea was based on ethnohistoric documents and supported by early archaeological investigations where sites possessing these features primarily yielded late pre contact pottery assemblages ( i.e. Chican Ostionoid). It was not until the archaeological investigations at Tibes that the existence of plaza/ batey features predating the late pre contact era were recognized ( Gonzlez Colon 1984; Curet 2010). This was later supported by archaeological investigations in the i mmediate region surrounding Tibes at the sites of El Bronce (Robinson et al. 1985) and Las Flores (Ortiz Aguil 1975) both of which provided evidence suggesting construction and use of these features prior to AD 800. Since the documentation of these site s in the late 1970 s and early 1980s additional plaza/ batey s have been identified from the south central region that appear to have temporal components pre dating AD 1200 ( e.g., Garrow et al. 1995; Robinson 2004; Espenshade et al. 2011 ). s the first modern synthesis of plazas and batey s in the Caribbean ( 1951; 1983). Alegra noted the majority of these features were primarily located in the mountainous interior with limited numbers on the coastal plains. He attributes this distributional pattern to historic agricultural practices. According to Alegra: 4 Recent work by Oliver (1998, 1999) and Juan Rivera Fontn (1992, 1999) provides and excellent overview and interpretation of the site.

PAGE 356

356 Lack of archaeological remains on the coast could be explained by the fact that the coastal plains have been intensively cultivated with sugar cane since the late 16 th century, destroying all evidence of batey s The interior of the island, especially the small valleys between the rivers, was densely populated during the Tano occupation of the island. These areas have been used primarily for coffee growing, cultivation of which does not r equire total clearance of the land, thus preventing the destruction of the rows of stones which mark the batey s (Alegra 1983: 115 117) researchers have studied the distribution of these features throughout the island including Gonzlez Colon (1984), Rodrguez Lopez (1995) and most recently Rodrguez Melendez (2007). The number of registered sites possessing plaza / batey s has grown over the past 20 years in large part due to the increase in cultural resource manageme nt projects on the island (Barnes 1999; Rodrguez Melendez 2007). The origin of these features on Puerto Rico is currently a matter of speculation. Alegra suggests they were likely the result of Mesoamerican influences which diffused through Lower Cent ral America to Northeastern South America and eventually reaching the Greater Antilles (1983). Recent research alludes to morphological and structural similarities between Puerto Rican plazas/ batey s and stone pavements registered in Costa Rica ( Rodrguez Ramos and Pagn Jimnez 2006 ; Wilson 2007). The structural similarities between these features, in conjunction with other similarities in stylistic attributes in gold, jade and lapidary artifacts appears to indicate potential social and ideological linkag es between Puerto Rico an d the isthmo Columbian region (Rodrguez Ramos 2010 ). However, the nature of these relationships and their influence on the development of Puerto Rican plazas/ batey s remains unanswered. Puerto Rico contains the highest number of r egistered stone lined plazas and batey s in the Caribbean with approximately 150 sites currently documented possessing

PAGE 357

357 these features (Rodrguez Lopz 1995; Rodrguez Melendez 2007). Yet despite the frequency of these structures on the island, intensive ar chaeological investigations of them remains limited (as noted by Barnes 1990; Rodrguez Melendez 2007:18). The majority of existing data often consists of brief descriptions that lack their specific location, dimensions, and the number and geologic compos ition of stones constituting them. Unfortunately historical agricultural processes, and more recently urban development and looting, are rapidly erasing evidence of these structures (and important pre contact sites in general) from the archaeological reco rd of the island. However, despite these issues in recordation and preservation, data is available for many which provide a basis for their regional context in this study. In her recent doctoral dissertation Rodrguez Melendez (2007) compiled a detailed list of all registered sites possessing plaza/ batey features on the island. Many of the sites reported have limited information, largely due to the circumstances related to their initial documentation. Despite the lack of fine grained data, all reported sites can be placed within specific municipios (analogous to counties in the United States). Municipo boundaries, while representing arbitrary modern political divisions, are in most cases predicated on the natural landforms such as rivers and mountain ra nges and offer a means for spatially visualizing these distributions across the island. Using the list provided by Rodrguez Melendez (2007:43 51), a map was generated for the island showing the number of features registered within each municpio (Figure 9 2). No attempts were made at this level to refine or distinguish temporal association as the distributional configuration of these features at this scale is telling in and of itself.

PAGE 358

358 Obviously survey coverage of the island and historical landscape alter ations may skew some of the distributional patterns. Figure 9 2. Chloropleth map showing the distribution of registered sites with plaza/ batey s throughout the island (based on Alegra 1983, Rodrguez Melendez 2007 ; Siegel 1999). Cursory examination of the distribution of sites possessing plaza / batey s reveals that the majority of them are located in the in the mountainous interior within and surrounding the municipality of Utuado as well as dense clusters in the south central

PAGE 359

359 region in the municipalitie s of Ponce 5 Coamo, and Salinas. The general temporal association of these features, while tentative in many cases, indicates that those in the central, mountainous portion of the island are generally later than those documented in the foothills and coast al plains to the south (Alegra 1983; Oliver et al. 1999). This follows empirical observations presented in Chapter 7 and previous research regarding island wide settlement patterns where earlier Saladoid residential sites are primarily located along the coastal plains and foothills and move inland in greater numbers around AD 600 Of particular note is the relative paucity of these features in both the western and eastern portions of the island. While the lack of documented plaza/ batey features in the we stern part of the island is likely a result of limited archaeological investigation in that area, their relative absence in eastern Puerto Rico is not as easily explained as large areas have been subject to intensive archaeological survey ( e.g., Sanders et al. 1994, 1997, 1998; Sara and Franz 2006; Sara and Mclintock 2008; Sara and Ortz Agulu 2003; SEARCH 2011 b; Tronolone and Cinquino 1984; Tronolone et al. 1984). Shifting our attention to the south central region, an examination of available chronologica l data ( i.e. radiocarbon dates and pottery) indicates that all but three sites with these features possess a Period III component (Figure 9 3). The majority of sites with a Period III only component are documented in the eastern watershed. Out of the 16 sites with these features, only half persist into Period IV. In contrast, out of the twelve sites in the central watershed with Period III components more than half persist 5 Rouse mentions that plaza/ batey s were generally earlier and more elaborate in sites possessing Elenan Ostionoid potter y (associated with the Vieques Sound interaction sphere) than on Ostionan Ostionoid sites (associated with the Mona Passage interaction sphere) (Garrow et al. 1995:32).

PAGE 360

360 into the proceeding period. This observation coincides with the settlement patter ns presented in Chapter 7 which denotes a decrease in settlements throughout the region and shifting of populations in the eastern watershed during Period IV. Figure 9 3 Temporal distribution of plaza/ batey sites for the south central region. Importa ntly, variability in the temporal shift in these features during Period IV suggests that there were different organizational process occurring above the local level during the previous period which produced these later patterns. This coincides with previo us work conducted by Curet (2005) who suggests micro regional variability in

PAGE 361

361 demographic processes. This variability in organization will be discussed in the proceeding sections. Constructing Histories, Identities and Place Plazas are inherently spaces for social encounters (Gregor 1980; Fox 1996; Heckenberger 2005; Morre 2004; Scarborough and Wilcox ed s 1993; Whalen and Minnis 1996 ). 6 While typically associated with the Antillean ballgame, other uses of stone lined enclosures in Puerto Rico are detail ed in European documents. 7 One important function of these spaces recorded in ethnohistoric documents shows that they served as arenas for the performance of areyetos or ceremonial dances which recounted important social events. According to Oviedo y Va ldez: These people had a good and pretty way of recalling the past and ancient things; and this was in their chants and dances, which they call arey e to The areyeto was performed thus. When they wished to have pleasure, celebrating some notable feast am ong them, or lacking that, as a simple pastime, a great many Indians of both sexes would come together (sometimes only the men, at others the women alone). In the general festivals, such as celebration of victory or defeat of their enemies, or the marriag e of a chief or king of their province, or for other cause, which brought pleasure to everyone, me n and women were mixed together. (Oviedo y Valdez 1975:69) Among indigenous societies of Puerto Rico, it is not difficult to imagine how group identity was t ied to these spaces regardless of their quality, size and in some cases apparent lack of ritual specialization (Rodrguez Melendez 2007). Such variability in these features is likely functiona ll y related to use group size where not all of them 6 1980:51). 7 European chronicles also indicate that these spaces served as political arenas for the negotiation of power and disputes as well as betting. In one famous case, a young Christian, taken captive during the revolt of 1511, was tied to a tree and Valdez 1975).

PAGE 362

362 served as loci of large scale community or intercommunity events. The arrangement and materiality of these spaces thus likely served to link people at different social scales from the level of the smallest residential settlement to the broadest conception of commun ity. Here it becomes useful to envision these features as socially produced places whereby the recounting of histories through performative action articulated ( sensu Oliver 2004:263) social groups in shared sociality anchoring them in lived topographies o f landscape. Archaeological research in conjunction with ethnographic documentation presents strong evidence that in addition to the ballgame, if not more so, stone enclosures were utilized for ritual practices associated with ancestor veneration, recantin g myths and communal memories (Oliver 2009; Siegel 1999; Stevens Arroyo 2006). Current archaeological data from many of the earliest documented stone enclosures indicates that these spaces were utilized as burial grounds in which the plazas were built to delimit the extent of pre existing Saladoid interments (Curet and Oliver 1998; Siegel 1999; Keegan 2009). While there is some debate regarding the continu ity of this practice through Period III current research indicates that they were somewhat variable with evidence of continued use for burials at some sites past AD 800 (Siegel 1999) while not at others. D etailed treatment of the variability in mortuary patterns throughout the island is beyond the scope of the present work ; however, it is important to n ote how these socially constructed spaces served to articulate the worlds of the living and th e dead with the landscape. Keegan has recently postulated that Saladoid burial practices may represent postmortem mobility whereby the burial of community membe rs residing (post martially)

PAGE 363

363 in locations outside the immediate locality were interred at death in their natal community (Keegan 2009). 8 is compelling. If true, such practices support the emergence of supravillage identity formation during Period II Whether or not this was indeed the case, it is clear that during Period III these negotiations of identity, and arenas of broader social interaction, became increasingly public through performative ritu al practices that served as a central component to community formation R itual performances and moments of gathered humanity were likely accompanied by communal feasting -a primary form of human socialization (Hodder 2005; Potter 2000). Feasting celebrat ions offer one way in which to collectively assemble local and supra local community groups for various exchanges of goods, information and marriage partners (Rossman and Rubel 1986). Such events (and the places where they occur) gather individuals toget her from diverse social arenas from both within and outside the local community. Feasting events, and the communal performances enacted at them, would have been inherently political because they offer an opportunity to bring to the forefront differences i n identity and power between social groups for negotiation. One commonly cited function of c ommunal ritual events is that they allow for the sharing of ancestors which becomes a point of both unity and contestation (Hecken berger 2005:302; Siegel 1999). He sites of these rituals, of social and symbolic reproduction, are critical nodes not only of space but of cultural memory, as In this context, a strong focus on unilineal descent 8 argued that Saladoid burials in the central plaza more likely represent regional integration and not

PAGE 364

364 provides a structuring mechanism for o rdering social groups and individuals within and between communities. T he relationships between the living and the dead are materialized on the landscape and become powerful symbols structuring social groups through time and space. The convergence of the se associations promote s the identity and status of local groups as durable institutions. Ritual practices and the materiality of their construction had direct effects on the structuring of the social landscape where these features conveyed local property rights through peoples associations to place Through time, such histories and spaces can be conteste d, manipulated, and transformed. To be sure, the emergence of stone lined plazas and batey s represents a significant transformation in the ordering of soc ial groups from earlier cultural manifestations (Curet 1996; Siegel 1999). Less developed is an understanding of how these features operated at varying social scales in social and political ordering of communities (Curet and Torres 2010; Rodrguez Melende z 2007). To elaborate on this concept I examine two key analytical dimensions regarding these structures. The first deals with scalar aspects of functionality The second examines the implications of the construction of these features to support the ide a of differing scales of functionality and to elucidate the composition and organization of local community groups. Performance, Function, and Scale In a cross cultural ethnographic study of middle range societies in the Americas, Adler and Wilshusen (199 1) note that integrative ritual facilities are common and that some facilities are meant to be used by entire communities, while others serve smaller low level facilities whi ch indicate differential scales of usage. Low level facilities describe those

PAGE 365

365 spaces and structures that serve to integrate only a segment of a community (Adler and Wilshusen 1990). These features are generally associated with small scale architectural f eatures constructed and used by households within a given residential settlement. They also note these spaces tend to be more functionally generalized serving a range of uses for both quotidian (profane) and ritual (sacred) purposes; a point suggested (bu t not formally demonstrated) for smaller stone enclosures in Puerto Rico (Oliver 2007; Rodrguez Melendez 2007). In contrast to low level facilities, high level facilities are for social activities involving groups from multiple low level facilities incor porating several households or residential settlements. These features are typically ritually specialized and utilized by relatively large use group s, often including the members of several interacting, but separate communities ( Adler and Wilshusen 1990). The formalization of these specialized integrative facilities does not necessarily imply an increase in the number of activities associated with them but rather a decrease in their generalized function and overall profane usage. In many cases high leve l ritual facilities are inhabited by a small population that maintains it and coordinates communal gatherings ( Adler 1989 ). Based upon the amount of labor required, the number of people involved in the construction, and specialized uses of the facilities in a single location, large (or level category (Adler and Wilshusen 1991:135; Moore 2004; Kolb 1997; Kolb and Snead 1997). T hey also showed a correlation between use group and facility sizes in whic h small low level facilities typically accommodate fewer than 180 people and large high level facilities communities over 250 individuals ( Adler and Wilshusen 1991:143).

PAGE 366

366 Specialized integrative facilities that operate at different functional scales are wel l documented in several regions of lowland South America where segregated communal space is present within a central residential settlement that serves its constituent members as well as other settlements from the surrounding community ( e.g., Butt 1977; Gr egor 1977; Thomas 1982; Heckenberger 2005). S pecialized structures within the community, and open public plaza spaces that serve a broader array of local constituents. Her e, it is possible to see how different facilities served as overlapping nodes of interaction which cascade out to broader mor e inclusive social formations. In the case of plaza/ batey s this point corroborated in the ir ability to physically accommodate diff erent use group sizes and how they a ffected communication. In his 2004 study, Moore showed that there are relationships between the organization of ritual spaces (specifically plazas) and the nature of communicative ritual performances engaged at them (M oore 2004). Using concepts derived from linguistics, Moore identifies modes of ritual communication within plaza settings based on structural characteristics of ceremonial architectural space and the bodily interactions of individuals and groups within th em. Moore notes: Ritual concepts are expressed and created via paralinguistic, verbal, and nonverbal modes of human communication. Because of the innate properties of human perception, spatial thresholds structure the ability to communicate over distance And consequently, the architectural settings of rite reflect the modes of ritual communication that occurred in those spaces. (Moore 2004: 789). Moore recognized that the increase in size of ceremonial facilities increased the physical distance between speakers (or performers) and observers. Based on the distance between speakers, the perceptive qualities of human interaction vary from

PAGE 367

367 intimate to public with each associated with differe distinct Variability in the sizes of documented plaza/ batey features stimulates consideration of the scales interaction and their socio symbolic function within the residential settlement and broader community. Hence the various sizes of a given plaza/ batey like ly reflect the potential communicative function of these spaces based on the number of individuals they can physically accommodate and the contextual scale of the performative actions conducted within them T o explore this idea we can look at the census of registered plaza/ batey sites in the region surrounding Tibes. T here are 30 sites registered with ceremonial features associated with Period III in the region (Table 9 1). Unfortunately, not all of the sizes of these features are documented due to the c ontext of their recordation and impacts of historic agricultural and modern development. However, a small sample of sites with documented areas (n=12) is available and provides a means to discuss how these features functioned at varying scales. Available data show s a wide range in size s from sites with single, very small structures (SN 24, 37 m) to large multi structure sites ( Tibes, totaling 4434 m) (Figure 9 4). 9 Variability in size suggests that these features functioned at different scales of socia l interaction based on the number of people that could be accommodated by them. 9 Examination of the size distribution of registered sites with ceremonial architecture indicates the median ceremonial space is 720 m (std. 1185.1 m).

PAGE 368

368 Table 9 1. Documented ball court/plaza sites within the south central region study area. Site No. Name Period Site Area Plaza Area m # of Structures Reference AI 04 Vega d el Seburuco PIIIb ? ? 1 Site Form; CO 01 Las Flores PIIIb 20234 1000 1 Alegra 1983;Ortiz Agulu 1991; Siegel 1999 CO 02 Villon/Cuyn PIIIb/PIV 32500 1620 3 Alegra 1983; Siegel 1989 CY 01 Jajome PIV ? ? ? Rodrguez Melendez 2007; Site Form CY 02 Las P lanas PIIIb/PIV 4046 ? ? Site Form GA 09 XP 5 PIIIb 25000 ? ? Site Form JD 03 Venegas PIV 2023 ? 2 Lundberg 1985; Site form JD 07 Ro Caas PIIIb 4046 ? 1 Site Form PN 01 Caracoles PIII/PIV ? ? 1? Gonzlez Colon ; Site Form PN 03 La Jagua PIIIb ? ? 1 G onzlez Colon 1984; Site Form PO 01 Tibes PIIIb 40468 4435 9 Curet et al. 2010; Gonzlez Colon 1984; Site form PO 10 Caracoles PIIIb/PIV 44100 ? 1? Rodrguez 1985; Site form PO 12 Maraguez PIIIb 4046 ? 1? Site Form PO 27 PO 27 PIIIb/PIV 20188 720 1 Kra use 1989; Sols Magana 1989 PO 29 PO 29 PIIIb/PIV 20234 2000 1 Espenshade 2009; Espenshade in press PO 39 La Iglesia de Maraguez PIIIb/PIV 5400 200 1 Garrow and Associates 1995 PO 43 Los Gongolones PIIIb/PIV 13705 750 1 Torres 2008 PO 42 La Mineral PII Ib/PIV 24570 90 1 Torres 2008 PO 41 El Colmado Perez PIIIb/PIV 4046 480 1 Site Form; Site visit by author SI 06 Las Ollas PIIIb 8093 ? ? Rodrguez 1985 SN 03 Turrado PIIIb/PIV 2023 ? 1 Rodrguez 1985 SN 05 La Plena 2 PIIIb/PIV 2023 ? 1 Rodrguez 1985 SN 11 El Llano PIIIb 4046 ? 1 Rodrguez 1985 SN 16 F 4 01 PIIIb 12140 ? 1 Rodrguez1985

PAGE 369

369 Table 9 1. Continued. Site No. Name Period Site Area Plaza Area m # of Structures Reference SN 18 M 14 01 PIIIb ? ? 1 Rodrguez1985 SN 28 G 15 01 PIIIb ? 343 1 Rodrguez1985 SN 30 P16 PIIIb ? ? 1 Rodrguez1985 SN 33 P19 PIIIb/PIV ? ? 1 Rodrguez1985 SN 34 P20 PIIIb/PIV ? ? 1 Site Form SI 04 La Florida/Los Indios PIIIb/PIV 40468 ? 1 Rodrguez 1985; Pantel 2006; Rouse 1952 PO 11 El Bronce PIIIb/PIV 16956 400 1 Robinson et al. 1985 SN 04 La Plena 1 PIIIb 8093 ? 1 Rodrguez 1985 SN 07 El Coco PIIIb/PIV 12140 ? 1 Rodrguez 1985 SN 02 Esperanza PIIIb/PIV ? ? ? Alegra 1983109 111, Pantel 1977, Rouse 1952 YA 03 Mattei PIIIb/PIV ? ? 1 Rouse 1952; Alegra 198 3

PAGE 370

370 Figure 9 4 Documented plaza/ batey sizes for Period III on the south central region (n=number of stone enclosures present at the site).

PAGE 371

371 The distribution and size data show how these features may have articulated at different scales and form ing a network of social interaction (Figure 9 5 ) Documented plaza/ batey sites are primarily located in the central and eastern watersheds with no plaza/ batey features registered for the western watershed for Period III. At the 2.5 km interval plaza/ batey s ites are loosely clustered in the eastern watershed and more densely in the area around Tibes. This arrangement likely reflects differences in the interactions within and between local communities in the region with high level ritual facilities forming hu bs linking smaller low level facilities and community clusters. Figure 9 5. MST and s ize distribution of Period III batey s showing linkages and 2.5 km clustering.

PAGE 372

372 The geographic distributional pattern suggests that there was regional variability in the organization of local social groups. In eastern watershed these sites are linked over a greater distance and cover a wider geographic area than the displayed in the central watershed. In the central watershed sites with these features are tightly grouped Two additional observations can be noted. First, the clusters of ballcourts in the central and eastern watersheds are separated at distances over a days walk indicating socio ritual interaction between the two groups was likely not occurring on a day to day basis. This conforms to pre vious discussions suggesting that incipient sociopolitical units that are delineated by ju st over a single day's walking distance (Spencer 1982; Helms 1979; Halley 1993). Second, the higher level integrative facilities l ike Tibes and Villon occur at the convergence of small these features tend to occur at the convergence of settlement clusters or potential sociopolitical groups. The i mplications of these patterns will be further discussed in the following sections. Rank Size Analysis A rank size analysis was conducted to critically evaluate the potential scalar function s inherent in the sizes of the various plaza/ batey features in the region. Rank Size analysis has traditionally been demonstrated as a useful tool for identifying hierarchical patterns in regional settlement systems (Crumley 1976, Johnson 1977; Li Liu 1996; Savage 1997). According to Johnson, "The rank size rule consist s of the empirical observation that rank size distributions from many different settlement systems have the same basic form, specifically that a settlement of rank r in the descending array of settlement sizes has a size equal to 1/r of the size of the lar gest

PAGE 373

3 73 size analysis correlates the relative sizes of sites to each other to examine hierarchy, integration and codependence (Drennan and Peterson 2004; Johnson 1980; Savage 1997). This measure reli es upon the tendency for centralization given specific levels hierarchical organization. The presumption here is that hierarchical patterns will show a distribution of settlement sizes which correspon d to some measure of importance within the regional com munity network The rank size rule was developed by economic geographers as empirical generalization of settlements (Haggett 1966, Stewart 1958) to inductively explain, the processes that created them. The relationship was originally observed by Auerbach (1913) and further developed by Zipf (1949). Rank size analysis is based on concepts associated with CPT which predicts that a hierarchy of places will develop because of economic activities. In this case settlement sizes conform to a series of graded si zes based on their relation to the primate or regional center. The result is a stepwise ranking system in which places of equivalent function should be of equivalent size ( C h ristaller 1966). However rank size analysis is considered a more robust method f or identifying these patterns as the reality of settlement sizes is often represented by continuous gradations that do not necessarily conform to a neat step wise pattern. Critically, Crumley (1976:65) and other researchers (Savage 1997) have suggested th at the utility of the rank size analysis is not in the identification of steps in the distribution but rather interpretation and implications of the curve itself which can (and often does) deviate from a log normal pattern.

PAGE 374

374 Interpretation of rank size anal ysis is based on deviations from a log normal distribution, in which each rank is twice the size of the previous one. Deviations from the log normal line have been variously interpreted (Savage 1997:234). For instance, compared to the log normal plot, a convex curve (rising over the log normal line) indicates settlements larger than the expected values. This suggests lack of integration or a network based on horizontal (peer) relationships (Johnson 1980). In reality, such a distribution does not necessa rily indicate equal standing, as access to particular resources, be they social, political, or economic, may differenti ate equally sized settlements. In contrast a primate plot (falling under the log normal line) indicates smaller than expected values like ly representing greater aggregation with less horizontal integration and hierarchical structure (Johnson 1982). Primate distributions are indicative of strong vertical integration, that is settlements are integrated in a set of hierarchical relationships emphasizing particular centers, rather than as distributed horizontal networks. In this idealized model, settlements are articulated to one another through larger settlements. This is the pattern could be created by a large settlement with public integra tive facilities (Siegel 1996) surrounded by smaller settlements or integrative structures. Primate patterns may suggest the existence of higher order ceremonialism and/or inter regional exchange (Li Liu 1996). Rank size analysis has been utilized in the C aribbean albeit in a limited number of cases. Wilson (1989) employed rank size analysis on Nevis to examine regional settlement structure and contemporaneity among Ostionoid settlements. Recently, Hardy utilized rank size analysis to examine the integra tion of settlements in the Virgin

PAGE 375

375 Islands (Hardy 2008). Previous application of rank size analysis in Puerto Rico was used by Siegel (1996) to demonstrate political hierarchies during the late pre contact period. d the rank size analysis of plaza/ batey features focusing on demonstrating the ranks or tiers in the sociopolitical system rather than interpretation of the curves themselves. Further, the sample used in the study was represented by few sites for the enti re island. At this scale the implicit assumption is that the island represents the social and spatial unit of analysis. However, I would contend that while at this scale may suggest regional hierarchies they are more likely to reflect the size and organ ization of the local use group populations rather than a spatially broad or overarching hierarchical or political ranking system. In this study rank size analysis was conducted for Period III plaza/ batey s for each basin, to provide a picture of the fract al nature of regional political landscape and to provide a springboard for further discussions of function related to size. Examination of the Period III data, based on the size of ceremonial features incident at a given site, is also represented by a stro ng primate curve (Figure 9 6 ). Examination of the curve in relation to the log normal line shows three to four tiers indicating a potential hierarchy of ritual integration during this time. This pattern observations in that integrative r itual facilities appear to be graded in distinct tiers. In this case Tibes is clearly the primate center. However, is the regional rank size necessarily indicative of regional authoritative socio political structures and a strict vertical hierarchy or d oes it reflect local patterns of community organization ?

PAGE 376

376 Figure 9 6 Rank size plot for all PIII plaza/ballcourt features. Plot based on structure size m. To address this question it is necessary to examine rank size at the sub or micro regional le vel. The western watershed while containing a limited number of plaza/ball court features lack a sufficient sample and the size data necessary for analysis. Hence, they are not considered in the following analysis Examination of the rank size plot for the central watershed exhibits a strongly primate curve with Tibes clearly representing the primate center again (Figure 9 7). However, variability in the curve below the log normal line suggests other organizational dynamics with what appears to be a sec ondary tier flowed by a sharp drop off in the size of ceremonial space. These differences suggest that there were differential scales of ritual integrative facilities in the area. So, while the immediate region surrounding Tibes strongly indicates a prim ate or

PAGE 377

377 strongly hierarchical pattern, the balance of the sites indicates the potential for secondary and local use group facilities that may have provided for ritual activities independent of Tibes. Figure 9 7. Rank size plot for all PIII plaza/ batey s ites with area data. Plot based on plaza/ batey size m (central water shed). Shifting our focus to the eastern watershed a different pattern emerges which demonstrates a convex curve above the log normal line. This pattern indicates a less vertically in tegrated system and one characterized by more horizontal relationships than vertical (Figure 9 8).

PAGE 378

378 Figure 9 8 Rank size plot for all PIII plaza/ batey sites with area data. Plot based on plaza/ batey size m (eastern water shed). Removal of Tibes from the rank size plot of the central watershed reveals a strong convex plot with steps above the log normal line as expected in rank size analysis when the primate center is not included (Figure 9 9) However, while Tibes clearly represents a primate ritual center in the region, it is problematic to assume that it served all portions of the study area equally as areas further distant outside the local community, particularly one to two days walk, were likely part of more local sociopolitical engagements

PAGE 379

379 F igure 9 9 Rank size plot for south central region PIII plaza/ batey sites with area data. Plot based on plaza/ batey size m (Tibes removed). Summary and Functional Interpretations The implications of the previous discussion suggest that the sociopolitic al landscape during Period III consisted of local community formations that had ritual integrative facilities which performed different functions at different s ocial scales. T he analysis present ed here suggests that larger features were likely high level facilities with smaller features acting as low level facilities as noted by Adler and Wilshusen (1990). B ased on the differences between the watersheds it appears that there were different levels of organization and interaction that were regionally variab le and not necessarily organized in a strictly defined regional hierarchy ( e.g., Crumley 2003) Instead, the sizes of the stone enclosures in both the eastern and central watersheds indicate

PAGE 380

380 variation in use group size and represent the scalar linkages of ritual practices in which lower level facilities are more prevalent and were nested in ever increasingly larger public realms. The smaller facilities represented in the sample, indicate ritual performances in more intimate settings entailing smaller use g roup s. These lower level facilities occupy the lowest level of the rank size plots Due to the small sizes of many of these they would likely not have been functional for the playing of the Antillean ballgame. Use group s associated with these spaces we re likely comprised of individuals from the immediate or perhaps adjacent residential settlement. Importantly, these smaller spaces were likely not places for the engagement of large numbers of individuals for large scale community events. The use of sm all sites like PO 27, PO 11 (El Bronce), PO 39 and PO 42 indicate areas for events involving a limited number of people (20 30 perhaps) based on the number of individuals these spaces could physically accommodate. Further, the location of these features within or adjacent to identified settlements possessing larger facilities suggest that they fulfilled a variety of functions reserved for the individual settlement with larger facilities serving the broader community or intercommunity functions Marriage, puberty rites, conflict resolution are a few of the village based ritual functions these smaller feature may have served (Garrow et al. 1995; Oliver 2009:41; Stevens Arroyo 2006) with the larger adjacent ritual facilities serving for community or intercom munity social activities. In sum, the size of these smaller features suggests that the daily regulation of ritual social life was conducted at the scale of the individual settlement

PAGE 381

381 In contrast to these smaller stone enclosures larger and multi structure complexes indicate the ability to accommodate larger use group s in less intimate and more public settings. In the case of Tibes (4435 m) and Villon (1620 m), the size of these features in relation to the overall site sizes (representing 24 and 34 perce nt of the total site sizes respectively) and based on the presence of multiple stone enclosures indicates they would have been physically able to support public oriented ritual activities While not possessing multiple structures Las Flores (1000 m) als o indicates its uses for large social engagements. Medium sized ritual facilities range in size from 343 m to 480 m and 720 m and 780 m. While not as large as Tibes or Villon they are not as small as PO 42 or PO 39. The wide spread distribution of t hese small features throughout the region indicates they may have been the location for engagements between local settlements within the community. Further the distribution of these sites, in relation to larger stone enclosure sites, potentially suggests that they were the locations of local leaders who may have been central in the community power structure. The emergence of ritual integrative features, in conjunction with the intensification of settlement presented in previous chapters suggests increased social and symbolic focus on the local unilineal descent group or lineage for maintaining social order and the materialization of people and place. Hence, stone enclosures represent the history and organization of the local community inscribed on the lan dscape whereby the size of these facilities not only indicates the organizational complexity of local and regional interactions but the scalar structure of ritual and kinship that tied local social groups into broader imagined communal formations.

PAGE 382

382 Of Fle sh and Stone: The Material Construction of Plazas/ Bateys and Community As a final point of inquiry, I examine the implications of the construction of plaza/ batey features in relation to the organization of local communities and the social production of pl ace. Here I present labor estimates from two proximally related but very different plazas/ batey sites from the south central region Tibes and El Bronce. This examination supports the previous discussion regarding the scalar functions of these spaces both within the contexts of local villages as well as within the broader web of community relations and political landscape. Through this discussion I address factors related to potential use group population and how place is socially and materially tied to t he construction of these features. Here I suggest that the construction of these features served to integrate communities as much as the sacred performances that throug h which social actors transform fleeting identities into historical facts, then the result of conscious actors using architecture to write different forms of community onto the (Joyce and Hendon 2000:154). Over the last thirty years many studies of the construction of public architecture emphasize labor organization within the context of specialized economies in stratified social systems (Abrams 19 87, 1995; Abrams and Bolland 1999 Moseley 1975 ). By virtue of the socio cultural contexts, political organization is generally interpreted based on a particular typological construct in which power and the appropriation of labor are assumed to positively correlate to comple xity a priori This can be problematic in attempting to model or interpret potential organizational dynamics of mid range

PAGE 383

383 societies where the composition of corporate groups and the interplay between labor organization and sociopolitical structure is high ly fluid. Most archaeological research regarding labor organization of mid range societies have conflated the ability to appropriate labor with other dimensions of social structure -including political power which generally assume public labor projects rep resent coerced or corve labor relations (Kirch 1990) Such models entail an innate assumption that the processes associated with the mobilization of labor are inherently exploitive to the benefit of the elite. In fact, archaeological research emphasizin g these opting, preempting, or more As discussed in previous sections of this chapter, and throughout this research in g eneral, there are other often overlooked aspects related to the political organization of social groups. This is particularly true for the construction of public integrative facilities that are absent from archaeological interpretation in the Caribbean. As with other dimensions of interpretation these discussions generally focus on interpreting labor relations based on previously conceived evolutionary societal typologies rather than exploring the ways in which our understanding of society and politics is informed by the archaeological evidence f or these relations (Saitta 1997; Saitta and McGuire 1998). Elliot Abrams has perhaps been the major contributor to the sociopolitical implications of architectural construction and labor studies in the New World. Abrams has developed this area of research known as architectural energetics (cf. Abrams material and physical construction costs and the roles of craftsman and spec ialists in

PAGE 384

384 architectural projects. His research emphasizes the correlations between the scale of the structure and sociopolitical and economic complexity as well as the systemic dimensions of status and power relative to labor organization (Abrams and Bol land 1999 ; Arco and Abrams 2006 ). For Abrams, labor associated with building construction measurement upon which comparative assessments of power or status within and In the Caribbean, the construction of plazas and batey s are typically viewed in such exploitative terms that ultimately assume that ceremonial spaces were constructed under coercive o r controlling circumstances (Ortiz Agulu 2009). This concept is based on the idea that the cacique or shaman ( behique ) ultimately assumes control of these spaces and was therefore central to the motivation and appropriation of labor necessary for its con struction. It is also assumed that these construction projects were considerable undertakings that required complex systems of organization and courts, the construction of e arth embankments, and alignment of stones required a powerful chief, as well as a society with a food surplus to sustain the laborers who were Alegra 1983:6). While this appears to be the case in some instances ( e.g., Caguana an d perhaps Tibes), what about other sites with smaller features? While certain dimensions of these interpretations are valid we can neither assume coercive labor relations nor does the nature of these relations need to tie to typologically based organizati onal analogies. Current research suggests that the emergence of

PAGE 385

385 formally defined public ceremonial spaces represents a rupture with previous traditions and a change in the way people inscribe meaning to p lace As such, it would be expected that the motiv ation and appropriation of labor would be sensitive to disrupting the social order of potentially unstable incipient political formations. Hence, I am skeptical of coercive labor relations in the construction of these features, particularly early on in th eir regional emergence on the island. With this in mind, I think it becomes clear that there are other dimensions of sociality that warrant consideration in relation to the motivation for the construction and use of these communal labor projects in Puerto Rico. I agree that the creation of formalized ceremonial space on the island points to dramatic changes sociopolitical organization and the way social groups created and negotiated their social realties across the landscape. Importantly, it represents a new structuring of communal identity and associations tied to space and place. By shifting our focus to the empirical evidence for the construction and labor involved in these features, it is possible begin to form a firmer foundation for other interpret ations that focus on the material construction of communities and how they were organized. Research regarding the labor investment of public architectural features emphasizes labor arrangements at the level of the household and supra household scales. Wh en considering variability in the organization of these arrangements it is useful to conceive of them as a continuum evident in three types of architectural features: family, festive and corve respectively (Kolb and Snead 1997:267). Family architectural feature are the most frequent type encountered in the archaeological record. These include domestic structures and associated outbuildings, small

PAGE 386

386 agricultural works and other features are generally utilized for basic domestic activities. An important as pect of family oriented labor works is that they generally lack bureaucratic involvement and are typically small scale projects in which labor is appropriated from within the domestic kinship group (Kolb 199 4 ; Kolb and Snead 1997). A t the opposite end of the spectrum are the aforementioned corve architectural markers that are considered common in societies where differences in status and privilege are pronounced. These architectural features are necessarily involving supra family social groups and vary in degree of monumentality depending on the scale of labor invested in the structure (Abrams 1995; 1999; Kolb a nd Snead 1997). These projects often include large scale agricultural works, elite residences, defense systems and monumental ceremonial archite cture. Corve labor is characterized by labor relations where organization is highly centralized and participation obligatory (Kolb 1997). In many cases, the labor force consists of a full time specialized worker force and or craftsman (Abrams 1984; Mose ley 1975). As incipient political formations are generally unstable, it seems unlikely that undue demands be placed on small local populations. Between these two extremes are festive architectural features. These are typically defined as larger than fa at the level of the local community and labor is often exchanged for commodities such as food, prestige or sec urity (Kolb and Snead 1997:4). These architectural features often consist of local level ritual facilities (Adler and Wilshusen 1990) or other public works ( e.g., raised fields, drains or canals) where ownership is usufruct at the level of

PAGE 387

387 the community. While many labor projects and their associated organizational dynamics defy clear classification this framework offers a heuristic discussing use group population and by extension elucidating the organizational dynamics of the local communities presented in this research. Stone Enclosures at Tibes and El Bronce The site of Tibes is composed of several middens, and twelve stone structure, ten of which are visible at the site today (Figure 9 10 ). In addition to the stone structures, the original excavations uncovered two clusters of burials (Gonzlez Coln 1984) : the first one is under the Plaza Principal, the central plaza of the site, while the second one is 50 m to the southeast of this under the Batey del Cemi. Both burial clusters see m to belong to the Saladoid series and are thus older than the overlying stone structures (Pestle 2010) Other burials belonging to the Elenan Ostionoid subseries were found dispersed over the site, in most cases associated with domestic contexts (kitchen middens and/or possible house floors) -typical of Ostionoid mortuary patterns in Puerto Rico (Curet and Oliver 1998). Recent studies have suggested that the Saladoid occupation began on the north side of the site near Batey del Cacique. Through time wit h later intrasite development, the density of deposits gradually shifted south. However, it seems that the area occupied by the Plaza de Estrella and the Plaza Principal remained the primary focus of the site throughout its history (Curet 2010).

PAGE 388

388 Figure 9 10 Map of the plaza/ batey features at Tibes ( adopted from Curet 2010:13).

PAGE 389

389 Detailed documentation of the plaza/ batey features at Tibes was conducted in 2001 by Castor and. Castor who completed a detailed survey of the stones that were used in construc tion of the batey s and plazas at Tibes (Rice Snow et al. 2010). The objective of the study was to evaluate the representation of different rock types in the Tibes plazas, through identification and comparison of rock types in the present day Portugus Riv er bed because they would have provided the most convenient source of construction materials. The location of each stone within the batey s and plazas at Tibes were documented with tape and compass. Each stone was also documented based on its precise posi tion within a particular plaza/ batey s. The inventory ultimately registered 5,483 stones with each individually recorded for size and lithology. Based on this study, the stones used in the construction of the batey s were noted as being virtually all of lo cal origin (Rice Snow et al. 2010). This resulted in a large data set useful for the calculation of labor. El Bronce is a much smaller site (Figure 9 11). The space encompassed by the plaza/ batey is projected to measure approximately 20 x 20 m and many o f the stones lining this feature were elaborated with petroglyphs (Robinson 1985:I1 I12). Thirty six stones were documented comprising the stone enclosure. Unlike the stones documented at Tibes, which have small simple petroglyphs, many of these stones a t El Bronce possessed highly elaborated petroglyphs (n=11).

PAGE 390

390 Figure 9 11. Map of the plaza/ batey feature at El Bronce ( adopted from Robinson 1985:I7). The lithologies of the stones and their dimensions were also documented during mitigation of the site (Robinson 1985:I16). Because of the number and differences in the size of the features between these two sites, it is thought that examination of their construction will highlight the differences in their use group size and function. Table 9 2 summarizes the stone lithologies from both sites and Table 9 3 their stone inventories

PAGE 391

391 Table 9 2. Boulder lithologies of Tibes (Rice Snow et al. 2010:185) and El Bronce (Robinson 1985:I6). Boulder Lithology Density (g/cm 3 ) Tibes Avg. Boulder Intermediate Dimensi on (cm) Tibes Number of Boulders El Bronce Number of Boulders El Bronce Avg. Boulder Intermediate Dimension (cm) Quartz Diorite 2.8 28.5 713 Gabbro 2.9 26.6 485 Andesite Porphyry 2.9 27.6 330 12 26.5 Volcanic Breccia 2.5 27.6 932 2 29.6 Green Volc anic Breccia 2.8 28.7 181 Tuff 2.2 23.2 419 1 17.3 Black Tuff 2.7 25.8 79 Brown tuff 2.6 24.2 507 Green Tuff 2.6 24.8 690 Banded Tuff 1.8 27.9 67 Tuffaceous Lithic Sandstone 2.6 25.1 981 1 33 Calcareous Sandstone 2.5 22.1 52 20 27.5 Limes tone 2.7 27.0 36 Packed Biosparite 2.7 25.2 65 TOTAL 5537 36 Table 9 3. Stone inventories for Tibes and El Bronce (Tibes data after Rice Snow et al. 2010. El Bronce data after Robinson 1985 Appendix I). Plaza/Batey (Tibes) Total Number of Stones % Surveyed Total Projected Weight (kg) Batey Herradura (Tibes) 867 95 21,602 Batey del Cemi (Tibes) 1674 95 41,425 Batey de una Hilera (Tibes) 30 100 454 Plaza Principal (Tibes) 1882 100 97,371 Plaza de Estrella (Tibes) 652 50 27,2 02 # 8 (Tibes) 332 100 9,319 Batey del Cacique (Tibes) 111 100 4,340 El Bronce 36 100 1,468 Calculating Labor Estimates Labor expenditure is often measured in cost of human energy expressed in person days (p

PAGE 392

392 represents time as a fraction of a 24 hour day (Abrams 1999). In this research I rely on the classic work of Charles Erasmus who in the 196 0s conducted field experiments in Tikul Mexico to calculate labor estimates related to the construction of the ceremonial measuring time costs of several individuals carrying cut stone weighing on average between 23 and 34 kg over several distance increments : 250, 500, 750 and 1000 meters. At these distance intervals, the amount of stone transported was 950, 500, 517 and 250 kg per person per day (Erasmus 1965:286 287). Based on the documentation of the stones at Tibes and El Bronce it was possible to calcu late d ensity values for the different rock types to develop calculations of individual weights based on specific densities of the stones. These density measurements were made from river bed samples (and in the case of the calcareous sandstone, similar app earing samples from outcrops in the Ponce area), with between one and four rock samples tested per lithologic type. Sample weights were obtained on a laboratory balance, and volumes determined by calculation of specific gravity through the immersion of sa mples in a known volume container with water poured from a graduated cylinder. Density values for lithologies varied between 1.8 and 2.9 g/cm 3 (Table 9 2). Volumes for individual stones were approximated by taking measured horizontal dimensions values as equivalent spherical diameters as many of the stones were partially burie d Combined with density values for the lithologies, these measurements offered good first order approximations for calculating the weight of the boulders comprising the surveyed st one enclosures. As the stone inventory at El Bronce was previously published (Robinson 1985) and included size dimensions and

PAGE 393

393 boulder lithologies for the stones comprising the ball court s pecific densities for each of the stones at El Bronce was determi ned based on the analogs provided by the research at Tibes. The next step in developing the labor estimate model in person days was to calculate the approximate weights ( i.e. mass) for each of the stones for each plaza/ballcourt. This was done by calcul ating the spherical volume (v=4/3* *r 3 ) for each stone using its horizontal dimensions for diameter in centimeters. The volume of each stone was them multiplied by its sp ecific density, yielding weight to volume (g/cc), based on its lithology. This resulted in the approximate weight of each stone (g). Using this method total mass for all stones for each plaza were calculated and converted to kilograms for subsequent calc ulations. For the El Bronce stones, calculation of the volume of the stone was conducted directly from the length, width and height measurements documented in the report (Robinson 1985:I6) The weight frequencies of rock types used in the plaza/ballcourt c onstruction at Tibes show that the majority of stones weighed 30 kg or less (n=3738) (Figure 9 12 ) the ideal weight for hand carrying stones (Craig 1998; Erasmus 1965). Within this weight range, 32% were between 0 and 10 kg, 39 % between 10 and 20 kg and 28 % between 20 and 30 kg. Based on this observation and recent research demonstrating the adjacent riverbed as the likely source of construction material (Rice Snow et al. 2010), I also assume this to be the primary source of the stones comprising the str uctures. The Portugu s River is approximately 250 m from the center of Tibes and El Bronce lies adjacent to the Bucana River Because of this I used

PAGE 394

394 transporting stone .5 kilometers per person day (500 kg) as a conservative estimat e for the acquisition of construction material. Figure 9 12. Histogram of stone weights documented in the plazas/ batey s at Tibes (weight represented in kg) While ample material would have been available likely on site and within the 250 m range, it is likely that small stones that could be hand carried from the associated river beds may be depleted and builders would have to go to more distant locations that were slightly beyond this to acquire sufficient material. As such, t he total mass for each b allcourt was divided by 500 kg to solve for the labor expenditures in person days (p d). Like Erasmus, I assume a 5 hour work day as labor parties in tropical climates both start

PAGE 395

395 and finish demanding physical activities early to avoid intense afternoon he at (Erasmus 1965:283). Results and Discussion The results of the calculations for the construction investment of the plazas/ballcourts are presented in Figure 9 13. These figures show the number of person days based on increases in labor personnel. The h ighest labor expenditure calculated was for Plaza 6 (Plaza Principal) at Tibes which would have taken approximately 195 p d. Based on the calculated estimates it appears that the features constructed at Tibes in total required a modest labor effort equali ng approximately 466 p d. In contrast, the labor require to construct the stone enclosure at El Bronce would have taken 2.9 p d. The size of the architectural features at Tibes suggests that they were constructed by local corporate groups comprised of ind ividuals from multiple households and from multiple residential settlements in the area. Based on the general nature of construction, which I determine to be simple transport of building material to the site by hand, it appears that no specialized labor w as required to construct these features. All that was required was leveling the ground surface, digging a trench, setting the stones, and firming the ground around them. No masons or other technological specialists were necessary to acquire and move the stones. However, post construction modifications to a few of the stones, in the form of petroglyphs, may indicate some specialized knowledge of symbols and authority to be allowed to modify them. This would also have been true for El Bronce which possess ed several modified stones.

PAGE 396

396 Figure 9 13. Labor estimates in person days (p d) with increases in personnel. The estimate for the stone row at El Bronce clearly indicates that large amounts of labor were not required for its construction. This point is highlighted when comparing the labor required constructing the court at El Bronce with larger constructions at Tibes. Other significant differences can be inferred in the construction of facilities smaller than El Bronce in the immediate vicinity of Tibe s, such as PO 42 which indicate that the feature would have taken a day or two to construct. The limited amount of energy required to construct these smaller facilities indicates construction at the level of the residential settlement that did not require or use labor from surrounding settlements.

PAGE 397

397 In contrast, the labor investments for Tibes, while relatively modest, would likely have required labor from surrounding settlements to complete. Such deviations from the normal activities of daily life may hav e caused temporary decreases in household production and efficiency in other areas particularly since residential settlements in the vicinity appear to be composed of relatively small populations. Because of this it is likely that these features were not constructed as a single event but sequentially with labor pooled from the surrounding community to expedite the process. Within the contexts of these estimates, and stemming from my inferences, it is possible to suggest supravillage organization and coordi nation was necessary to construct some of the features at Tibes. At one level of the organizational structure are individuals necessary for determining the general layout and location of each structure and another level characterized by a labor force. Be cause at Tibes these structures were constructed in specific areas delineating ancestral (Saladoid) burials (Curet 2010; Gonzlez Colon 1984) the organization and construction of the features would necessarily require institutional communal memory of where these burials were located. This is also notable for other sites with stone enclosures in the area in which they delineated communal burial grounds ( e.g., PO 29 [ Espenshade and Young 2011 ]) assuming these features were constructed af ter the burials were in terred. As two stone enclosures at Tibes delimit earlier Saladoid interments this points to a dimension of a social memory of maintained knowledge where the bodies were (albeit perhaps imperfect as some of the burials appear to have been impacted by some c onstruction activities). This also suggests that these areas were probably used for ceremonial activities prior to the construction of the plazas/ batey s, as memory of the

PAGE 398

398 burial locations would have been carried through time as a product of recurrent ritu al practices carried out in these spaces. Here labor appears to have been the product of community coordination perhaps This by no means suggests that the organizing individuals did not physically participate in the construction of these features. To the contrary, in many incipient political institutions, particularly in non ranked and ranked societies lacking stratification, the elite are intimately involved in contributing to labor as a communal enterprise and reification of their active role within the community. In fact, supporting evidence demonstrates people in kin based societies have power to resist egregious labor demands of the elite (Bender 1990). Based on the previous discussion labor relations involved in the construction of the scales of the community when one compares the large r effort at Tibes to efforts at El Bron ce and other small er sites in the area. The construction of public ceremonial space represents a materialization of beliefs and perceptions on the way in which the world is ordered (Geertz, 1980; Heckenberger 2005 Tambiah, 1979). Hence, the construction o f these spaces themselves was transformative in that the physical act of their construction itself may have served to solidify communal identity and communal membership. From this perspective, it is not only the subsequent ritual and performative acts con ducted within the structure which binds people in communal solidarity it is also the construction process itself (as also observed by Tuzin for the construction of ritual facilities in New Guinea [ Tuzin 2001 :104 106]).

PAGE 399

399 General concepts regarding ownership of ritual spaces/integrative facilities often relate to the transference of group power and identity to apical community members who link the past and present as well as the living and the dead (Curet and Oliver 1997; Heckenberger 2005, 2007; Siegel 1999). However the ownership of these spaces also underscore s the relationship between community and its leaders. Here it is possible to also envisage the construction of these spaces as communal property which was transferred to particular members of the comm unity who embodied their collective history, through sacred knowledge and/or the close hereditary links to the past through deceased (but still existing) members of the community (Heckenberger 2007). From this perspective it seems likely that construction labor may have relied on donations motivated by the promotion of community status support local ceremony is quite common in peasant and tribal societies worldwide and deemed necessary in many cases for the participation of households within larger communal collectives ( Rubel and Rossman 1986). At the level of the community, the construction of these features linked social groups in an order of ancestry and place. In the contexts of the b r oader social and political lands cape, the mobilization of communal labor stimulated competition between disparate communities throughout the south central region. Here, local communities rather than individuals per se sought to garner prestige and influence through the materialization o f their heredity in space denoting rights to property and visible displays of public wealth in the form of visible physical labor and sacred symbolism. Summary and Conclusions The previous chapter has highlighted the role of plazas/ batey s in the social co nstruction of communities in south central Puerto Rico between AD 600 and AD

PAGE 400

400 1200. Although the construction of the plazas/ batey s at many sites in the south central region have not been formally dated, current archaeological data point to their emergence in this region prior to AD 1000 (Curet et al. 2006; Gonzalez Colon 1984; Wilson 1991 ). Several of the documented plaza/ batey features for this region are the earliest registered for the island at sites such as Tibes, Las Flores and El Bronce. The early manifestation of these features in the region indicates a transformation and intensification of ritual practices from the previous Saladoid life ways in some localities These transformations also demonstrate the consolidation of local social groups and the formation of political communities founded on the sacred connections between ancestry and place. Through their construction, these spaces became visible referents of community identity that could be actively mobilized and politicized. The clustering o f these features within particular localities suggests well defined loci of sociopolitical engagements and the development of ritualized landscapes where local communities sought to create social order and situate themselves within the burgeoning social la ndscape that was emerging after AD 600. The amount of ceremonial space registered at sites with plaza/ batey structures has typically been used to create regional hierarchical models of sociopolitical power particularly for the late pre contact period (Sie gel 1992, 1996, 1999). However, examination of the available sizes indicates a more dynamic picture of their use than previously conceived. The rank size analysis indicates regional variation in the organizational dynamics of particular localities. Based on variation in the documented sizes of these features throughout the region, it appears that these features served different functions in the

PAGE 401

401 integration of social groups at different scales In the case of lower level integrative facilities, these spac es likely served the individual settlement and perhaps immediately adjacent neighbors in village level ritual capacities. The proliferation of low level integrative facilities within smaller settlements suggests some level of ritual and perhaps political independence through access to and use of these features within the contexts of smaller segments of the community. In contrast, larger more elaborate facilities would have promoted the communication of public messages and served larger group s in higher le vel social capacities. However, the presence of so many lower level facilities at different points in the landscape indicates that social groups at different scales had some access to the underlying regional religious/political ideologies. Hence, I would suggest that the sociopolitical system was decentralized with little administrative control of local settlements and their daily activities Differences in function and scaling links of communal association are also supported when one considers the labor required to construct them. Smaller enclosures were likely the product of labor invested by the households within a given settlement. As the size of these features grew additional sources of labor were necessary to build them so that individuals that con structed low level facilities may also have been involved in the construction of higher level integrative facilities. Hence, local social groups were not only a source of labor but also a source of power. With increased scarcity of land and abundance of available labor, as indicated by the organization of domestic groups, labor was channeled into ideological power through the construction of higher level integrative facilities The construction of these larger multi plaza/ batey complexes served to insti tutionally codify the power, durability and

PAGE 402

402 legitimacy of local community groups by sedimenting their association with particular locales. Through this process, local communities would have differentiated themselves from other similarly constructed commu nities which may have formed a basis for competition and regional differentiation. The creation of these features would have come to serve in the negotiation of regional interactions by stressing boundary maintenance within local or regional systems. As such these features not only tied social and ideological order together at varying scales but linked people and places within the landscape. Hence, these features served to give legitimacy to particular residential groups for membership in the social comm unity and all of the rights allowed as a result of that membership particularly (I would argue) land tenure rights. Collectively, plaza/ batey features may be symbolic representations of local lineages that demarcated property rights and ancestral notions o local groups in an increasingly packed landscape. Therefore, these spaces may represent different ancestral within the community (Oliver 1998; 2007; 2009). Residential settlements with ceremonial features were through th eir construction and use, became centers of social and ideological production for larger social and political communit ies The construction of these spaces represents the materialization of new forms of integration that were qualitatively diff erent from earlier socio cultural formations on the island. This transformation is part of the process o f the development of multi village communities in which local groups negotiated their social realities within larger spheres of interaction. What this all suggests is the use of a shared ideological

PAGE 403

403 framework above the village level that was employed, manipulated and transformed at the local level in the service of the construction of communal identities. This framework formed a basis for the creation social biographies linking places, history and memory through ritual actions that facilitated community formation and transcendence from village life to the emergence of the polity.

PAGE 404

404 CHAPTER 10 COMMUNITY ORGANIZATI ON AND THE SOCIOPOLI TICAL LANDSCAPE OF S OUTH CENTRAL PUERTO RICO AD 600 AD 1200 The image of the past created in this research is one of a landscape of diverse began some 6,000 years ago with the arriv emphasizes the period between approximately AD 600 and AD 1200 as an important era colonial past. Through an examination of settlement landscapes, ritu ality, and the social and historical contexts of these developments, I provide a number of insights into the origins of new forms of community organization and their relationship to the emergence of regional sociopolitical institutions. Some of these new forms of sociality drew upon social principles of the past, while others lacked historical antecedents. To explain processes of social change and the emergence of incipient political institutions archaeologists of the Caribbean (and elsewhere) have relie d heavily on neo evolutionary typologies as conceptual and analytical referents for interpretation. levels of social complexity and determining trajectories of societal development and change resulting in an historical narrative focused on elite individuals. Indeed, the concept of chiefdom is a useful heuristic for identifying cross cultural organizational features in societies past and present (Drennan 2008) Problematically, an o verreliance on the chiefdom concept has hindered an understanding of the historical circumstances, social processes, and variability in the ways in which people construct and negotiate their social and political realities.

PAGE 405

405 In this research I have sought to redress these problems by examining some of the underlying conditions and processes that structured pre contact social groups in ancient Puerto Rico between AD 600 and AD 1200. To study these factors I focused on the concept of community to document soci etal change, the formation of local corporate social collectives, and how they may have been organized during this time. In this research I discovered that population growth and processes of settlement played a central role in structuring interaction and the formation of social communities. The consequences of these developments resulted in the consolidation of people in particular localities who created new forms of integration and maintained their access to crucial social and natural resources by constr ucting local identities based on symbolic associations to places through their settlement and ritual practices. The focus on communities presented in this work examines social organization and change at a different scale than is typically presented in Cari bbean archaeology which tends to emphasize single settlements or the region s While investigations at both of these scales are necessary for developing a rich view of he relations between locally situated interacting social groups and the processes responsible for the structuring of community level institutions To examine these processes, this archaeological study focused on the settlement landscape of south central Pue rto Rico and in particular the region immediately associated with the Ceremonial Center of Tibes, located just north of the modern city of Ponce. Tibes is one of the earliest and most elaborate ceremonial centers on the island, and considered the seat of an incipient polity between AD 600 and AD 1200.

PAGE 406

406 Because of its size and architectural complexity, I anticipated that Tibes served a broader social community heretofore undocumented. Through identification and examination of new residential settlements as sociated with Tibes, patterns of community organization are contextualized within broader regional social and political transformations. In this concluding chapter, I present a synthesis and discussion of my research findings. I begin by providing an over view of regional settlement patterns to highlight the socio historical conditions leading to the emergence of the AD 600 AD 1200 social and settlement landscape s of the south central region. Here I focus on the implications of settlement, population inc rease and social interaction, to show how these played a role in changes in human sociality This discussion serves to contextualize the information presented in the rest of this chapter by showing how these shifts influenced and were influenced by chang es in community organization. In the second portion of this chapter, I discuss socio spatial organization of communities between AD 600 and AD 1200. I first present the archaeological evidence for residential settlements during this time. I then discuss the implications of these patterns on the structure of local social groups. This section also provides an explanation for how these new communities may have formed and the organizational challenges presented as a consequence of their development. The vie w of community scale social organization presented in this research also shows what we can learn about the creation and character of social collectives by identifying how and why they emerge in the past.

PAGE 407

407 Following this discussion I explain how these new fo rms of community were articulated through the construction and use of integrative ritual facilities which served to sediment identities, communal membership, and link people to place s in a socially diverse landscape. Drawing on the discussion related to t he construction and use stone lined plazas/ batey s presented in Chapter 9 I explain how these features formed the symbolic and material referents for the promulgation of community identities and consolidation of local social groups through the authoring of collective biographies. I also show that these new forms of integration and identity building were fluid and regionally variable. In the final section of this chapter I present an interpretation of the political landscape that emerged between AD 600 and AD 1200 in the south central region. In this section I examine the dialectical relationships between community and incipient political institutions. Ultimately, I contend that the promotion of communal identity and status served as the foundation for the emergence of regional sociopolitical units in the region. To conclude this section I present a brief comment on how these conditions influenced later transformations and the emergence of caciques and the cacicazgos in the post AD 1200 landscape. By focus ing on the interplay between regional settlement history and community formation, this research renders a rich view of the process by which ancient societies form broader social and political collectives. This research highlights the ability of people to transform society, especially during periods when social groups and rules were in flux because of shifts in regional population and settlement. The case presented in this work of the south central region represents an excellent example of

PAGE 408

408 the complexity o f intraregional settlement processes and its relationship to community formation, political and ethno genesis, and social change in the past. Settlement History of the South Central Region and Contexts of Social Change Over the course of this work I analyz ed a number of parameters to characterize settlement variability among Saladoid and post Saladoid social groups to show how these factors influenced interaction, community formation, and organization. However, these processes and their subsequent interpre tation cannot be understood without reference to and characterization of broader historical trends in settlement and human sociality. Looking at Period II, the primary form of settlement is large relatively autonomous villages. This pattern appears to be a continuation of social and spatial canons brought to the island by migrants from South America (Heckenberger 200 2, 2005 ; Siegel 2010; Veersteeg 1991). The analysis presented in Chapter 7 supports this with relatively large settlements situated along maj or river drainages on the coastal plains. Settlements were few in number and dispersed amongst the major regional drainage basins. Examples of this settlement configuration in the south central region include Tecla, Caas, and Hernandez Colon. Current pe rspectives regarding Saladoid settlements suggests that they are generally circular, oval or horse shoe shaped with several large extended family houses around a central open plaza area. These open plazas often served as burial grounds and likely as space s for quotidian and ritual activities alike. It appears that the village formed the primary social and political community of day to day social life during this time.

PAGE 409

409 The data presented in this research suggests that regional social networks prior to AD 6 00 were spatially oriented horizontally among settlements along the coast. This spatial vector of interaction is supported by the paucity of settlement in the foothills predating AD 600. This observation has been documented in other studies (Curet 2005; Curet et al. 2004; Lundberg 1985; Rodrguez Lopez 1985; Torres 2001) and is demonstrated in this work whe re newly identified settlements the Portugus and adjacent drainages yielded evidence of intensive residential settlement after AD 600 and primarily be tween AD 900 and AD 1200 This is not to say that Saladoid groups did not settle interior portions of the island or interact with extant pre Arawakan social groups who likely inhabited these areas but that interior portions of the island were not intensi vely settled during this time. Current perspectives suggest that Saladoid settlements were connected over broad geographical areas where long distance trade (by land or water) supplied the foundation for maintaining regional or pan regional social connecti ons. D ecorated ceramics and exotic shell and lithic amulets sharing similar iconographic motifs served to symbolically reinforce ties among widely scattered communities. These similar iconographic motifs are noted across the Antilles from South America t o Puerto Rico and are generally symbolic expressions (Keegan 2004). The longevity of Saladoid settlements contributed to the maintenance of long distance interactions w h ere persistent ha bitation sites served as nodes in the pan regional social network. For instance radiocarbon dates and pottery assemblages from Tecla suggest that the site was occupied continuously for over a millennium (Chanlatte

PAGE 410

410 Baik 1976). Other settlements with Sala doid components such as Tibes and Hernandez Colon also possess radiocarbon evidence indicating some level of domestic occupation for as long as 600 years. Caas too, while lacking radiocarbon evidence, demonstrates similarly long term occupation based on size and stratagraphic depth of midden deposits as well continuity in pottery styles from Hacienda Grande through Modified Ostiones pottery styles found at the site (Rainey 1941). The persistence of Saladoid settlements structured the social landscape in i mportant and meaningful ways. First persistent settlements become points of dispersal from which smaller daughter settlements form ed Second, because of their longevity these settlements bec a me important symbols on the landscape denoting past ownership a nd land use. Hence, the social landscape that emerged after AD 600 was not only characterized by increasing population densities but also by both persistent ly occupied and abandoned settlements which became powerfully charged symbols. These places form i mportant symbolic resource s that individuals and households drew upon as they developed new settlements and negotiated access to land, labor, and social networks. Around AD 600 the landscape exploded with new settlements throughout the south central region that was stimulated by rapid population growth. New settlements pushed further inland into the foothills and uplands following river drainages. Accompanying this increase in settlement was a diversity of settlement types, new pottery traditions, and the proliferation of ritual integrative facilities in the form of stone lined plazas and batey s

PAGE 411

411 In some cases new settlements formed in close proximity to preexisting Saladoid settlements, while in other cases they developed in areas lacking evidence for pri or occupation. In the case of the former, the development of settlements in close proximity to parent sites indicates persistence in the occupation of particular localities, the consolidation of local residential settlements, and continuity in the history of local social groups. This pattern is evident in the western and central watersheds of the region and particularly in the immediate area surrounding Tibes. In the case of the latter, the development of new settlements in areas away from preexisting Sa ladoid settlements denotes potential avoidance and the formation of new social groups and relations with the landscape. This pattern of settlement is visible in the eastern watershed in the area of Salinas. While settlement dispersal may have been stimula ted by factors associated with village fissioning ( e.g., intrasite social conflict, population density ,resource depletion or some combination thereof ), newly formed settlements did not replicate previous Saladoid village organizational patterns. Instead, new settlements consisted of small hamlets / villages made up of several interdependent nuclear family structures. The adoption of these radically new forms of residential settlement represents a dramatic break with nearly 1000 years of prior settlement tra dition. As the number of residential settlements increased, the settlement landscape became increasingly dense and the area of the immediate territories surrounding them decreased. Represented by settlement clusters these localities of dense settlement b ecame focal points of social interaction. As sites increased in their frequency and distribution across the landscape, so too must have the intensity of interactions between

PAGE 412

412 co present denizens of the region. Increased interaction among contemporaneous r esidential settlements would have intensified the extension of social and political networks outside of primary village contexts to incorporate members of locally dispersed but proximally related residential settlements. Two important observations struct uring the social landscape and the diversification of regional social groups are worthy of note here. First, as networks along the coast continued through time, east west interactions were complemented by interior to coast relationships. Coastal populati ons would have continued to be idea receivers from distant locales based on interactions via water travel. By AD 600 the transmission of ideas being leveled by coastal and seaborne interactions were now complemented through a set of exchang es between inte rior and coast. Connections between coast and inland settlements are evident in the Portugus and other river drainages in the region where substantial quantities of marine fauna are located in midden deposits ( e.g., PO 29, PO 42, PO 43, Tibes) in the foot hills at distances pushing 7 km from the coast. Interestingly these interactions between the coast and interior appear to dwindle with distance as marine fauna becomes increasingly scarce at distances over a walk (about 10 to 11 km) from the coast. Second, while social groups became increasingly connected by virtue of the densifying landscape, some settlement localities became insulated from others. This is visible not only in the dense settlement clustering which buffered settlements in cluster c ores from other more distant cluster cores but also in the increased settlement of constricted interior river drainages that constrained horizontal spatial interaction across

PAGE 413

413 drainages. This observation suggests that while social networks may have been e xpanding regionally, they were contracting locally. Supporting this hypothesis is archaeological evidence pointing to the regionalization of social groups and the development of local social identities. First, a wide variety of local pottery styles emerge d, and evidence for long distance trade interactions diminished. Second, creation of ritual integrative facilities emerged which formed markers of local community history and identity writ large on the landscape. Third, the abandonment of central plaza b urials which were markers of community in Saladoid settlements, shifted to burials in domestic contexts representing the emerging localization of social identity (Curet and Oliver 1998; Keegan 2009). Summary: Oscillating Socialities and the Contexts of S ocial Change By AD 600, the social landscape of south central Puerto Rico was growing rapidly. As the landscape became increasingly packed with the proliferation of new settlements social networks became increasingly complex and interconnected. R egional shifts in population and settlement were likely accompanied by ambiguities in social relationships inherent to large social networks. Similar situations have been documented in the American Bottom and Southwest (Pauketat 2007; Schachner 2007), where drast ic shifts in regional populations blur the social order and can cause tension over legitimate claims to natural resources ( e.g., land rights) as well as individuals or groups suitable for alliances, exchange, and marriage. With these shifting regional cond itions, social groups clustered in particular localities. This is not to say that these groups did not have interaction with one another or perhaps more distant social groups outside the region, but that these social

PAGE 414

414 conditions would have fostered the c onsolidation of proximally related social collectives an increased focus on local In the example presented in this research, when regional social structures are predicated upon the stability an d maintenance of long distance social relationships (as evident for the Saladoid), people will employ symbols of identification which will be widely distributed, to solidify communal bonds. As social groups and regional networks diversified after AD 600, diversification of material culture and local elaboration and similarities of ideology and symbolism become a means for social groups to materialize their identity locally. Through materially differentiating themselves from others people generate their communal identities within socially diverse landscapes and differentiated spheres of interaction. This process of oscillating socialit y is noted in other parts of the world where supra village community formations emerge from landscapes of plurality and c hange (Pauketat 2007 ; Sassaman and Randall 2007 ). By AD 600 competition for land and prestige based on access to local social and natural resources turned social focuses inward, highlighting identity formation through apical ancestry to legitimize proper ty rights and the associated symbolic power of such associations. These shifts in sociality during this time were structured through social practices of settlement and rituality. The identification of these broad shifts in sociality allow us to contextua lize and interpret changes in community organization and their relation to post AD 600 social and political landscape of the south central region. Spatial Patterns and Community Composition/ Organization I began this research by presenting the results of an archaeological survey I conducted in a small region surrounding the Ceremonial Center of Tibes in the foothills just north of the modern city of Ponce. The purpose of the survey was to characterize

PAGE 415

415 the local archaeological landscape through the identific ation of residential settlements spatially and temporally related to this important site. I had expected the presence of community during the apex of its use. The results of the TASP survey discussed in Chapters 5 and 6 confirmed this through the identification of several settlements occupied during Period II I This archaeological evidence offers a basis for interpreting the organization of local communities in the Tibes loc ality and as a comparative unit of analysis for other parts of the south central region during this period Before reviewing the results of the survey, it is useful to return to the definition of community used in this study. In this research I d efined co mmunity as a group of people who live in proximity to one another within a geographically limited area, who have face to face interaction on a regular basis and who share access to social and natural resources. Here, group membership is based on relations of kinship, marriage, and economics and founded upon recognizable ideological and symbolic frames of reference. Spatially, the proximity of places of day to day dwelling influences the degree to which groups share forms of meaning and behavior as individ uals and as members of a group. These frames of reference and the social propinquity inherent in consistent face to face interaction can produce inclusive communal relationships above individuals and households that are corporate in nature and structured by similar economic motivations and worldview. These face to face interactions are what Giddens refers to as interactions with others who are physically co present (1979:64 72). The social interaction in the contexts of co presence reproduces and transf orms social structure in fundamental

PAGE 416

416 ways. Settlement clustering has been a primary analytical component in the study of communities and a proxy for developing a model of potential interaction between residential social groups and locales of persistent oc cupation of portions of the regional landscape Settlement clustering and concepts related to the spatiality of social interaction also forces archaeologists to move beyond individual sites as the unit of analytic al interpretation (Soja 1985). The habitua l practices of local social actors invariably entail the production of places that come to have meanings and histories for those that dwell in these areas. As such, communities are both people and place (Varien 1999). I think from this perspective it bec omes easy to see that rather than viewing settlement patterns as static indicators of human activity in the past, these patterns become a history of the interaction between diverse social actors that define the form of local social networks and landscapes Residential Settlements By AD 600 the settlement landscape of the south central coast was undergoing rapid and profound changes which entailed the reconfiguration of the socio spatial organization of basic social groups. C hanges in settlement are eviden t in the dramatic increase in the number of residential settlements throughout the region with the expansion of regional populations into the foothills and mountainous portions of the island. The increase in the number of settlements during Period III as observed in the south central region is congruent with previous studies suggesting an increase in regional population and settlement expansion in other parts of the island during this time ( Curet 2005; Rodrguez Lpez 1992:13).

PAGE 417

417 The most dramatic change i n settlement organization documented in this study is the shift from large regionally dispersed residential sites, consisting of multi family domestic structures, to smaller settlements with nuclear family domestic structures. This pattern of small locall y dispersed residential settlements became the primary socio spatial form of organization in the region in the post AD 600 landscape. This pattern of settlement fostered the creation of multi settlement social communities in a number of important ways whi ch will be discussed in the following sections. T he results of the TASP survey positively identified seven residential settlements (PO 42, PO 43, PO 47, PO 48, PO 51, PO 52 and PO 53), two potential additional domestic sites (PO 45 and PO 50), and two limi ted activity areas (PO 46 and PO 49). All of the newly identified sites indicate evidence of post Saladoid occupation based on the presence of Elenan and Ostionan Ostionoid and Chican Ostionoid pottery styles. Radiometric dating from Tibes, PO 42, and PO 43 suggest that they were potentially coeval with one another and Tibes for at least for a short period during the latter half of Period III (ca. 900 1200). Additional radiometric dates and pottery from other settlements in the surrounding region indicat e similar timing in the expansion of residential settlements and the intensive settlement of the foothills. Based on the results of the survey, the post AD 600 the settlement pattern of the Portugus drainage appears to consist of small dispersed residenti al settlements (typically under 2.5 ha.), situated along river terraces and available flat expanses of land in the topographically diverse foothills Larger settlements (generally > 3 ha.) appear to be confined to coastal settings ( e.g., Carmen, Los Ind ios, Caracoles) although these are

PAGE 418

418 generally limited in number and small dispersed residential settlements predominate throughout the region during this time. Based on the available data, the rapid development of new settlements was not a result of fission ing in the formal sense but rather appears to have entailed the dispersal and expansion of local populations. If the proliferation of settlements was the result of fissioning I would expect a replication of the socio spatial organizational patterns of the parent settlements in new ones. However, the vast majority of residential settlements during Period III are drastically different from previously conceived (albeit under documented) Saladoid configurations. One likely scenario for how this dispersal tran spired may be explained through ethnographic analogy. As discussed in Chapters 7 and 8, in po rtions of northern lowland South America and Amazonia smaller farm houses or hamlets are often constructed as a result of the model of settlement ex pansion (Butt 1971; Heckenberger 2005). In this model smaller settlements are created at moderate (3 7 km) distances away from the parent settlement to establish new lands for cultivation. These plots and associated field houses are typically created in situations where available space for crop cultivation in the immediate proximity to the parent settlement is limited. Due to the distance from the parent settlement small farm houses are constructed and are often small huts which are the property of part icular households. In time, these garden plots develop into separate hamlet type settlements as households managing these lands come to spend more and more time at them. The data in this research shows that the settlement dispersal and expansion, while similar in its outcome ( i.e. smaller settlements and residential structures), was regionally

PAGE 419

419 variable with differential rates of growth and patterns of dis persal throughout the south central region. In the central and western watersheds, many of the new s ettlements were developed a short distances from existing Saladoid settlements -often within 5 km In this case the occupation of areas proximal to parent settlements indicates continuity in the social and settlement history of particular locales. In con trast, in the eastern portion of the study region settlements occupy areas further way (> 5 km) from parent settlements indicating possible avoidance. This all is not to say that t he catalyst for settlement dispersal evident during Period III was not tied to some of the underlying conditions that typically trigger fissioning such as intravillage conflict. Indeed this may have likely been the case. However I emphasize that the outcome does not indicate a process of fissioning in the tra ditional sense of r eplication. The consequences of this dispersal and fragmentation of larger Saladoid settlements are important in several ways. First, the shifting pattern of settlement suggests that households were moving because it was a better option than aggregating i n large settlements or that institutional mechanisms fostering aggregation beyond certain population levels were not supported ( Tuzin 2001 ). Second, the dispersal of households indicates that people were free to make choices to establish their own settlem ents. Third, settlement dispersal would have been a mechanism to decentralize power and expand the overall footprint of the social community. Fourth, the placement of residential settlements appears to have been a means by which households were free to c laim land and begin to develop personal property rights independent of the parent settlement. Finally, settlement dispersion was a means by which individuals and

PAGE 420

420 households gained access to social resources by placing residential settlements in close prox imity to other dispersed households to bolster productive interdependent relationships. Through time, such relationships form ed the basis for corporate social groups and the founding of political institutions and positions of authority. Households and Co resident Social Groups The smaller size of residential settlements during Period III was coincident with the development of smaller domestic structures associated indicating a reorganization of basic co resident ial corporate groups, households and/or socia from earlier Saladoid village pattern s This spatial shift represents a fundamental transformation in the organization of village life and local co resident ial corporate groups during Period III. Smaller nuclear family domestic dwellings and sm aller dispersed settlements replaced large co resident ial corporate groups, previously represented by extended family domestic dwellings within the larger Saladoid community settlement Based on the data presented in this research, residential structures in the post AD 600 landscape appear to be small nuclear family structures of approximately 8 m in diameter. This size of structure falls within a range previously noted in several studies to be primarily associated with nuclear households (Curet 1992b; Ko lb 1985). As discussed in Chapter 8, several settlements with evidence for occupation after AD 600 throughout the south central region (and the island in general) support the presences these smaller structures indicating these structures were likely the p rimary form of residential socio spatial organization during this time. Based on an analysis of the size of settlements, accumulations studies for PO 42 and PO 43, and evidence from other well documented sites throughout the region, it appears that these s mall residential settlements were composed of less than 10 of

PAGE 421

421 these domestic structures at any one point in time. Further, while strong evidence for the longevity of particular domestic structures is not demonstrable with the evidence at hand (as that pre sented in Samson 2010), settlement persistence is evident at many of those sites documented in the Portugus and Cerrillos drainages and throughout the south central region in general. Settlement longevity is impossible to attain in small confined settleme nts based on demographic constraints. Hence the persistence of the small settlements documented throughout the south central region that are occupied for more than 100 years ( e.g., PO 42, PO 43, El Bronce, PO 23, PO 21, Hernandez Colon, Caracoles etc. ) is important to note. Specifically, this indicates that residential settlements were not isolated and that residential mobility between settlements and community clusters was likely fluid. The question here becomes: Why do people live in separate houses? W hy not replicate the larger maloca style houses purportedly the predominate form for Saladoid social groups ? One explanation is that the founding of new settlements began with smaller garden huts which eventually became residences. The outcome of this pr ocess would have promoted a means for households to manage their own resources. This would also have the consequence of redefining power, access to origins, ancestors and territory/resources. This practice of settlement, in time may have been replicated at new hamlet/settlement locations through the birth of children and the establishment of their own hous eholds or through incoming households. Importantly, t hrough the ir nucleation, households become more clearly defined as d id their wealth, status, and position within the local community and broader social landscape

PAGE 422

422 The persistence of settlements over long periods of time, and particularly Saladoid parent settlements that continued to be occupied during Period III influenced the social landscape in impo rtant ways. First, persistent settlements provided the basis for long lived corporate groupings and would have provided a labor base for the construction of houses, organization of fishing and hunting trips, clearing garden plots and constructing of large community cer emonial facilities like Tibes, Las Flores, and Villon Second, such fixity in place promoted the concretization of history and the legitimization of land and heritable property rights I view these factors, of persistence, heritability, an d land tenure as an important part of the local rules or part of the structure that came to enable and constrain households in their new relations with others and an important historical element in the formation of social and political communities in south central Puerto Rico after AD 600. Summary: Community Formation and the AD 600 Landscape Settlement of fertile and somewhat secluded river drainages would have provided ideal spaces for the development and growth of small groups of related families and the emergence of multi village communities. These areas while susceptible to flooding in lower portions of the valleys would have provided some sheltering from frequent tropical storms and allowed for interdependent residential corporate groups to control re sources within them based on their settlement longevity and linear configuration in the constricted topography of the drainages. The shift to smaller residential settlements and domestic structures represents a fundamental reorganization of basic social groups of the post AD 600 landscape. Implied in these changes are the fragmentation of and the reconfiguration of residential corporate groups. Individuals and households used the

PAGE 423

423 practice of residential movement through dispersi on to gain access to productive resources both natural and social This access became negotiated at larger social scale s because individuals and households lived close to many others who sought access to the same resources. In the larger region, individu als and households not only negotiated among themselves for access to local resources, but also as communities they acted to perpetuate their collective land use rights in the larger regional landscape composed of many communities. The survey and settleme nt data from the Tibes locality were used to refine the geographical, demographical, and socio historical composition of south central region communities, producing a model of settlement patterns and organization heretofore undocumented for this period. H ere social and settlement communities can be viewed as areas of dense residential settlement and public architecture. The se densely settled localities form residential neighborhoods or communit ies (perhaps analogous to barrios ) that were likely the means by which land use rights of individuals and households were ensured at a social scale larger than that o f the individual residential settlement. Further, the continuous use of particular settlements and the persistence of habitation in particular locales imply continuity in ownership and social history of the community. Social fluidity and variability are evident in the longevity of small residential settlements and the spatial organization of settlement in the south central region. Based on the availabl e data, it appears that social groups were relatively free to create new settlements and experiment with new forms of organization at the level of the residential settlement. Although settlement clusters can be defined quantitatively, and appear to have b een meaningful socially, they should not be viewed as completely

PAGE 424

424 bounded or static entities. While there is evidence that distance between clusters influenced the creation of regularized and locally intense social engagements the distances between the cl usters could have easily been traversed in a day This is particularly true for settlements at the margins of the clusters but perhaps more difficult between settlements in the heart of them In the case of the Tibes community cluster, fluidity of social interaction is clearly seen based on the distribution of pottery from eastern and western Puerto Rico in mixed contexts at many sites. Similarly, these differences are more clearly defined between the western and eastern clusters with pottery in each pri marily associated with Ostionan Ostionoid and Elenan Ostionoid pottery respectively. Here, the formation of the community cluster associated with Tibes formed a point of articulation on the landscape between social groups developing in increasingly differ entiated spheres of interaction between the east and western sides of the island as well as emerging interior to coastal interactions The dispersion of settlements and the increased complexity of social networks required new forms of integration and socia l arenas for engagements between burgeoning social collectives The need for these mechanisms of integration and identity creation were perhaps especially necessary in the region surrounding Tibes, where population movements and the emerging regional dive rsity of the south central region contributed to the ambiguity of social relations between the Tibes locality and its neighboring communities to the east and west. Hence, new institutions would have been necessary to maintain relationships with other sett lements for marriage exchanges, land tenure, negotiate disputes and maintain reciprocal corporate labor

PAGE 425

425 arrangements at local and regional levels. These new forms of integration required people to develop new rules which became formalized in these new set tlement configurations through the construction and use of stone lined plazas/ batey s Rituality, Land, and Local Identities Traditionally, plaza/ batey features have been viewed as areas for playing of the ballgame documented at the time of European contact as static representations of the sociopolitical landscape, and indicators of chiefdom type political organization ipso facto. The degree to which these interpretations are true and relevant to archaeological interpretation I argue varies upon the resear ch context. However, what is clear is that plaza/ batey features, whether explicitly or implicitly recognized, were much more. Here I would add to current interpretations that plazas/ batey s became a primary medium for the creation of community identity th rough ritual practices, the formalization of land rights, and arenas negotiations of power. Here I agree with most interpretations that these features formed the material metaphors between the living, the dead and the landscape (Siegel 1999; Curet and Ol iver 1998; Keegan 2009). However, I believe that plazas/ batey s served different functions at different scales of social and mythical interaction which served to structure these interrelationships The varying functional uses of these features for differen t types of interaction are most evident in the ir range of sizes which, as I have argued, directly relates to the number of people associated with their construction and use These differential functions served social groups at different scale s from the re sidential settlement to the local community to the br oader multi community social landscape. Hence, these features formed the primary arena for community interactions which likely mirrored the scalar nature of local kin based and supra local or virtual relationships.

PAGE 426

426 One way to contextualize the differences in function and articulation of these features can be viewed in terms of their function as high level and low level ritual facilities. In the case of lower level integrative facilities, th ese spaces served individual settlement and perhaps immediately adjacent neighbors in village level ritual capacities. The smaller sizes of residential settlements no longer meant that large social gatherings could be conducted within all individual settl ements and large social engagements required new venues. At the same time settlements would still require spaces for the performance of ritual activities perhaps related to marriage, puberty, or ancestor veneration rites. Based on their size, these space s were suitable for conveying messages to a small number of people in more intimate settings For example, in addition to Tibes three newly documented batey sites to the north (El Colmado Perez, La Mineral and Los Gongolones) indicate local use of these sp aces due to their relatively small size and inability to physically accommodate large numbers of people at any one time. Their close proximity to one another appears to suggest some level of symbolic interdependence. Conversely, their close proximity to one another indicates little authoritative control over ritual activity and a weak administrative hierarchy. In contrast, larger more elaborate facilities (such as Tibes and Villon) would have promoted the communication of social and ideological messages t o larger groups in higher level capacities. Messages conveyed at these larger facilities were likely grander, performance oriented public spectacles (Inomata and Coben 2006). In these contexts, broader community or inter community engagements could take place. Yet while the variation in the size of these facilities denotes different levels of

PAGE 427

427 communication, it is likely that they were underwritten by a broader set of historically situated ideologies symbols and social relationships that extended beyond particular localities and prestige would have been manifested in the performative ritual activities associated with them and in particular feasts and social events at the larger high level communal centers. A common way worldwide for leaders to maintain social cohesion in contexts where political roles are not institutionalized is by sponsoring feasts in public places (Dietler 2001:66; Hayden 2001; Whalen and Minnis 2000 :177). Assuming that feasting activities took place at larger ceremonial sites like Tibes (Curet 2010), it would have been a communal event that negotiated group identities and established symbolic social order. Such fea s ts would have also promoted the prestige of the community and/or certain segments of it (Rossman and Rubel 1986) in juxtaposition to others The use of these spaces for events sponsored by an individual or group would be consistent with a situation in which new political roles were bein g negotiated. Regardless, whether the events that took place at the higher level facilities like Tibes were communal, sponsored, or some combination of the two, the analysis presented in Chapter 9 indicates that these were places where communitywide socia l negotiations took place during and after their construction. The presence of burials in association with the plazas at Tibes is important in three founding ancest ors (Keegan 2009). Demonstrable associations between the living and

PAGE 428

428 the dead, materialized in these spaces, would have legitimized group membership and the rights and responsibilities thereof including access to land and labor. Second the construction of the plazas over these burial clusters suggests some degree of institutional memory of the location of these burials and continuity in the social history of the local group. A suite of radiocarbon dates acquired from recent research at the site (Pestle 201 0) indicates that the majority of the burials at Tibes were interred prior to AD 800 and the construction of these features. While many plazas/ball courts in the region do not have evidence of human interments beneath their central surfaces the physical a ct of their construction represented social practices associated with the collective memory of the community. Third, and by extensions these features likely became associated with particular stemming from earlier Saladoid se ttlements ( e.g., Heckenberger 2005; also see Oliver 1998, 2007) In this context, the proliferation of these features and their various sizes represent a nesting of community history and power within particular localities. Here I break from previous pyra midal or strictly vertical hierarchical conceptualizations of these features within the landscape and broader are n a of social relationships. I believe that these features are not independent hierarchical parts but form part of a nested network of history and symbolic power which constitutes community identity and order of social and political life ( e.g., Leach 1964). The labor necessary to construct the features at Tibes, although not requiring substantial investments, would have drawn on the small local population for labor. This contrasts with smaller plaza/ batey features ( e.g., El Bronce, PO 42 and, PO 27) that could have been constructed by the households of the residential settlement in which it

PAGE 429

429 is located within a few days or less. The use of labo r for higher level facilities such as Tibes and Villon indicates the bringing together of different households from dispersed settlements in the construction of these spaces. These projects were likely considered tailing donated labor intended for the benefit of the broader social community. L abor in this case emphasizes cooperative engagement of the community that promoted the status of the group rather than particular individual s per se. Here it is also possibl e to see how solidarity was created through the construction of these features as much as ritual activities conducted at them. While individuals within the social landscape had interaction with others from dispersed settlements in the local area, the const ruction of Tibes and other higher level integrative facilities would have provided a venue for exchange of information, marriage partners and ideas. These places would have also served as arenas for the negotiation of power relationships at the local and regional levels. Hence, these became areas of negotiation to demark community claims to land and social networks Several villages registered with Saladoid and Ostionoid ceramic assemblages in the region surrounding Tibes including Caas Collores and, Tecla all possess evidence of long term occupation but do not show evidence for the development of ceremonial architecture. Why is this? Here it is likely that some settlements adopted the new forms of plaza construction to facilitate cont inuity of the now dispersed Saladoid social community. This is evident at early manifestations of these features at Tibes and Las Flores and on the north side of the island at Maisabel These progressives emphasized their priority in the regional social and settlement

PAGE 430

430 system by building stone lined enclosures around their burial grounds Other Saladoid settlements and settlement localities that persisted into the AD 600 may have been more conservative and did not adapt these new forms of organization suc h as at Tecla, and the western watershed of the south central region where these features are generally absent All of t his runs counter to previous conceptualizations of these spaces that strictly focus o n the increase in the centralization of political p ower in which the loci of political decision making and the decision makers themselves independently come to control the broader community (Anderson 1994:120, 1999:220; Siegel 1999). While leadership roles existed, their perpetuation and legitimacy requir consent. Hence, the high level ritual integrative facilities at Tibes and within other settlements during Period III were built at a time when there was not an exclusive association between these distinctions and public arch itecture. The Political Landscape of South Central Puerto Rico (AD 600 AD 1200) As demonstrated throughout this work, the political landscape of south central Puerto Rico was fueled by the creation of social identities and the authoring of collective b iographies. While aspects of this process has been implicitly suggested in current conceptualization s of sociopolitical development on the island (Siegel 1999; Curet 1996), the underlying conditions and process are what require further elaboration and has been the primary goal in this work. construct such things, but it was the construction itself considered in terms of population movements, community identities, political theater, and cultural pluralism that requires

PAGE 431

431 The data presented in this work strongly suggest that settlement and ritual practices facilitated the development of symbolically constructed identit ies linking proximally situated residential settlements into an imagine d or virtual community is central to the establishment of the polity The multi village communities that developed in the post AD 600 landscape primarily comprised small proximally related dispersed residential settlements and their accompanying ritual in tegrative facilities. Residential settlement clusters became consolidated into ritual districts articulated through the presence of high level integrative facilities in the form of community ceremonial religious nodes as seen in the Portugus, Cerrillos, and Coamo river drainages. These localities likely had their own internal power structures -articulated to suit local conditions as seen in the network analysis in Chapter 7 and rank size analysis in Chapter 9. Regional clusters were separated by about 1 days walk with few interven ing settlements and appear to conform to the spatiality of incipient political units noted in other parts of the world and as discussed in Chapter 4. The spacing of these units is generally attributed to the area local leader s could travel to establish their authority through the maintenance of face to face social relationships in pedestrian societies (Roscoe 1993:117; Spencer 1998). Through the analyses presented in this work we can begin to see how the development of particu lar localities became the social and geographical basis for emergent political institutions. The internal cohesiveness of these political communities while influenced by the social frictions of distance and propinquity, was molded by kin and marriage rel ations, as well as material/symbolic reminders of the internal social order reflecting access to social, supernatural and natural resources

PAGE 432

432 The longevity of settlements and continuity in the use of public spaces like at Tibes suggests that patterns of au thority within the broader community took on an institutional role of transmitting wealth and power between successive generations. Here the sedimentation of particular groups within portions of the landscape would have created tangible social institution s within the boarder regional landscape through which the prestige of the community and its relationship to its neighbors became politicized (Pauketat 2007). The similarities in the timing of all of these changes point s to some type of situation characteri zed by symbiotic relations and or c ompetitive emulation between peer communities or polities ( sensu Renfrew 1986). Social practices associated with the symbolic construction of community, as people and place, and the construction of identities that enable d land rights became emergent political projects that escalated through interactions with other similarly constructed community collectives and other more distant localities. The strategic role of the community comes into play here because of the potentia l for relieving the ambiguity associated with conflict, contradictory claims of resources and overall risk s that individuals and households suffer as a result of changes in their social or natural settings. I n this scenario I argue that politics were fou nded on establishing local identities that promoted access to land and control over networks of relationships Like many incipient political institutions in the new world these formations were likely unstable, particularly during their inception when socia l and political roles and the landscape itself was being redefined. Yet, as in many situations documented throughout the Americas, these small peer polities shared to some degree similarity in

PAGE 433

433 cultural values and traits that gave the region and the isla nd in general an enduring social and material character. The most salient characteristic of these polities is the importance placed on ritual performance. In the case of Tibes and other settlements with ritual integrative facilities, these sites may have been the residence of important community members that had varying roles and positions of power within the community based on their demonstrated ; Oliver 2009; Siegel 1999 ). The rise of Tibes and the produ ction of ritual space at the site likely denote community activities related to the settlement of the initial ancestral line and their sedimentation within Ro Portugus locality. The political landscape of this time likely consisted of a loose hegemony w ith a principle ceremonial axis mundi surrounded by a constellation of smaller settlements that constituted the political community. However, unlike previous conceptualizations of leadership in traditional models of political development in the region I would argue that the south central region appears to be comprised of a system that lacked direct control by local rulers over daily life. The household heads/ caciques sought to dramatize power and order rather than administer it ( e.g., Geertz 1980:49 ; Oli ver 2007 ). The residents of villages had reasons for participating in practices that helped create the polity even though some of these practices may have also legitimated social inequalities. Motivations for participation likely included the negotiation of strategic alliances that enabled access to land and other resources as well as satisfying familial (or community) obligations. The differences marked by various material domains were overlapping and not coterminous, which indicates that social differen tiation was not a

PAGE 434

434 simple structural difference between the elite and non elite but was a complicated emergent product negotiated and continually recreated in daily practice. T he emergence and organization of political communities during this time were al so tied to social practices at local levels in which individuals and groups sought to sediment themselves to particular places on the landscape. The consolidation of negoti ation of power within and between communities. Here the power relationships within communities were between dispersed heads of households who did not dictate the actions of people in their day to day activities. The contexts of political power were likel y situational and exercised during times of duress as well as formal ritual events at both the local and broader community scales. Hence, it is likely that while there were certainly hierarchical power relationships within locales and regions, local and r egional politics were dominated by heterarchical relationships yet to be fully understood Concluding Remarks This research reveals how the idea of community constitutes both a physical reality of interacting people and an elastic symbolic construct that holds a variety of contradictory meanings around which diverse social practices occur. In this increasingly connected modern world exploring the idea of communities is of considerable benefit for anthropologists seeking to understand social group formati on through the negotiation of identity and border networks of sociality. No longer seen as naturally occurring, apolitical spaces, communities are and always have been socially constructed networks and places (real imagined or virtual ) of politic al enga gement and contestation. In this research I examined how transformations in social communities were tied to the emergence of incipient political formations in ancient societies typologically

PAGE 435

435 associated with chiefdoms or as they are known in the Antilles ca cicazgos. As a political construct notions of community are useful for rethinking roles of history, sociality the traditional anthropological or archaeological discourse of the region. In the south central region of Puerto Rico post AD 600 communities were the outcome of actions of local social actors residing in dispersed settlements but situated in broader histories, socialit ies, and ideologies. To understand the emerge nce of incipient political institutions it is necessary to develop an understanding of the more localized, contingent, and historical factors: the interplay of multi dimensional social, cultural and ecological fact ors that interact variably under contingent socio historical conditions ( Heckenberger 2001:39). Future research regarding the development and organization of sociopolitical landscape of Puerto Rico, would benefit from refining regional chronology and his tory of landscapes to understand how social groups were organized and interrelated at finer scales (Curet 2003 ; Keegan 2001). However, this requires filling important gaps in current knowledge of th e region. Specifically, there is a need for more systemat ic survey with testing and dating of as many sites as possible. This research is imperative in Puerto Rico (and other parts of the Caribbean) where modern development is rapidly erasing the archaeological record at an alarming rate. Without this data, it is impossible to determine how many settlements existed when they were occupied as well as how they may have been articulated Further, it is necessary to expand investigations to consider comparative inter site analyses between proximally related sites to establish variability in particular

PAGE 436

436 artifact assemblages that would give clues to interrelationships between sites and indicators of power and identity through material culture. Such studies also permit for the creation of local histories and the cont exts for studying regional social and cultural change. There is also a need to develop a better understanding about ritual integrative architecture should be reevaluated. In th is context, it is necessary to elucidate the varying roles of these features at different social scales. Both of these avenues of inquiry require detailed documentation of extant plaza/ batey features in terms of their size and material composition. Analy sis of certain material classes associated with these features may also provide clues to different types of activities performed at different level integrative facilities and the temporal and geographical range from which the people that used them were ass ociated. Most critically, there is a need to reevaluate how we think of politics, human sociality, and social change in the past Confined to neo evolutionary paradigms it is presume d that the cacicazgos and complex regional political formations evident a t the time of European contact requires simple origins, social homogeneity, or single monocausal trajectories of development. Rather than perpetuate past descriptions of bands, tribes, and chiefdoms it is necessary to think about how and why social groups were organized the way they were and the underlying social and historical conditions responsible for their emergence To characterize this variability and move archaeology in the regi on ahead requires the development of nuanced regional histories that un derscore the complexities of incipient political institutions as living communities in the

PAGE 437

437 regions ancient past. Such efforts promise to yield new insights to the histories and socialites of the people a nd communities who lived there

PAGE 438

438 APPENDIX A RADIOCA RBON DATES FOR THE SOUTH CENTRAL REGION The following appendix lists all of the radiocarbon dates for the south central region that have been associated with particular pottery styles. 1 The table contains the following fields: S ITE : Site the date is assoc iated with S TYLE : Pottery style associated with the date. P ERIOD : Period (based on Rouse) associated with the DATE. R AD A GE : Uncalibrated radiocarbon age. 2 L : Calibrated 2 sigma low date. 2 H : Calibrated 2 sigma high date. 2 M EDIAN : Calibrated 2 s igma median date. S AMPLE : Sample number: M ATERIAL : Material on which the radiocarbon determination was made. S OURCE : Source of the date 1 A suite of additional dates are available from Tibes that are not associated with pottery (Pestle 2010).

PAGE 439

439 Table A 1. Radiocarbon dates for the south central region. Site Style Period Rad. Age 2SL 2SH M edian 2S Sample Mate rial Source Aguilita Capa/Esperanza IV 63090 1226 1440 1333 Beta 106918 Charcoal Gonzalez 1997 Aguilita Capa/Esperanza IV 54050 1300 1445 1373 Beta 106919 Charcoal Gonzalez 1997 Cayito Boca Chica IV 70080 1178 1413 1296 Y 1243 Charcoal Rouse and Aleg ra 1979 Collores Ostiones P IIIA 120585 665 986 826 I 6896 Charcoal Veloz (1973) cited in Rodrguez (1983) Collores Ostiones P IIIA 112585 681 1115 898 I 6894 Charcoal Veloz (1973) cited in Rodrguez (1983) Collores Ostiones P IIIB 106585 772 1164 9 68 I 6895 Charcoal Veloz (1973) cited in Rodrguez (1983) Diego Hernandez Ostiones P IIIA 133060 909 1196 1053 Beta 30356 Strombus Ma z 2002 El Bronce Ostiones/ S. Elena IIIB 1320100 545 962 754 Beta 10383 Charcoal Robinson et al. 1985 El Bronce Ostion es/ S. Elena IIIB 119080 673 988 831 Beta 10388 Charcoal Robinson et al. 1985 El Bronce Ostiones/ S. Elena IIIB 118090 672 1013 843 Beta 10382 Charcoal Robinson et al. 1985 El Bronce Ostiones/ S. Elena IIIB 77050 1161 1376 1269 Beta 10387 Charcoal Robins on et al. 1985 El Bronce Ostiones/ S. Elena IIIB 77050 1161 1376 1269 Beta 10387 Charcoal Robinson et al. 1985 El Parking (PO 38) Cuevas IIB 1780130 41 543 251 Beta 33260 Charcoal Weaver et al. 1992 El Parking (PO 38) Ostiones P IIIA 143090 424 773 5 99 Beta 45290 Charcoal Weaver et al. 1992 El Parking (PO 38) Ostiones P IIIA 129080 607 942 775 Beta 45291 Charcoal Weaver et al. 1992 El Parking (PO 38) Ostiones P IIIA 128080 615 948 782 Beta 45292 Charcoal Weaver et al. 1992 El Parking (PO 38) Osti ones P IIIA 100070 890 1207 1049 Beta 45293 Charcoal Weaver et al. 1992 Hernandez Colon Hacienda Grande IIA 1420110 409 869 639 Beta 23902 Charcoal Maz 2002 La Florida Ostiones m IIIB 111040 783 1018 901 Beta 171304 Charcoal Maz p.c. 2005 Las Flore s Ostiones mod./ S. Elena IIIB 106045 884 1115 1000 P 2729 Charcoal Agulu cited in Wilson 1991

PAGE 440

440 Table A 1. continued Site Style Period Rad. Age 2SL 2SH M edian 2S Sample Material Source Las Flores Ostiones mod./ S. Elena IIIB 100045 903 1158 1031 P 2598 Charcoal Agulu cited in Wilson 1991 Las Flores Ostiones mod./ S. Elena IIIB 99050 902 1168 1035 P 2595 Charcoal Agulu cited in Wilson 1991 Las Flores Ostiones mod./ S. Elena IIIB 60045 1291 1414 1353 P 2599 Charcoal Agulu cited in Wilson 1991 PO 21 O stiones P IIIA 136090 445 890 668 Beta 18191 Charcoal Espenshade 2000 PO 23 Ostiones P IIIA 161070 258 597 428 Beta 23282 Charcoal Krause 1989 PO 23 Ostiones P IIIA 136090 445 890 668 Beta 23283 Charcoal Krause 1989 PO 23 Ostiones P IIIA 1100110 687 1155 921 Beta 23284 Charcoal Krause 1989 PO 27 Esperanza/Capa IV 94060 995 1216 1106 Beta 41467 Charcoal Krause 1989 PO 27 Esperanza/Capa IV 93050 1021 1210 1116 Beta 41478 Charcoal Krause 1989 PO 27 Esperanza/Capa IV 55060 1296 1443 1370 Beta 41477 Charcoal Krause 1989 PO 29 Cuevas/Monserrate IIB 155040 420 610 515 Beta 272032 Charcoal Espenshade and Young 2011 PO 29 Monserrate/Pure Ostiones IIIA 131040 650 780 715 Beta 272023 Charcoal Espenshade and Young 2011 PO 29 Monserrate/Pure Ostiones IIIA 130040 660 810 735 Beta 272028 Charcoal Espenshade and Young 2011 PO 29 Monserrate/Pure Ostiones IIIA 124040 660 880 770 Beta 272030 Charcoal Espenshade and Young 2011 PO 29 Monserrate/Pure Ostiones IIIA 125040 670 880 775 Beta 272025 Charco al Espenshade and Young 2011 PO 29 Monserrate/Pure Ostiones IIIA 119040 690 950 820 Beta 272026 Charcoal Espenshade and Young 2011 PO 29 Monserrate/Pure Ostiones IIIA 122040 690 950 820 Beta 272027 Charcoal Espenshade and Young 2011 PO 29 Cap/Boca Ch ica/Esperanza IV 71040 1260 1390 1325 Beta 272031 Charcoal Espenshade and Young 2011 PO 29 Cap/Boca Chica/Esperanza IV 54040 1310 1360 1335 Beta 247736 Charcoal Es penshade and Young 2011 PO 29 Cap/Boca Chica/Esperanza IV 58040 1300 1430 1365 Beta 272024 Charcoal Espenshade and Young 2011 PO 29 Cap/Boca Chica/Esperanza IV 55040 1320 1440 1380 Beta 272033 Charcoal Espenshade and Young 2011 PO 29 Cap/Boca Chica/Esperanza IV 44060 1400 1620 1510 Beta 247737 Charcoal Espenshade and Young 2011

PAGE 441

441 Table A 1. continued Site Style Period Rad. Age 2SL 2SH M edian 2S Sample Material Source PO 39 S. Elena/Ostiones M IIIB 104070 783 1163 973 Beta 45286 Charcoal Weaver et al. 1992 PO 39 S. Elena/Ostiones M IIIB 104070 783 1163 973 Beta 45286 Charcoal W eaver et al. 1992 PO 39 S. Elena/Ostiones M IIIB 102080 784 1212 998 Beta 45288 Charcoal Weaver et al. 1992 PO 39 S. Elena/Ostiones M IIIB 99060 898 1205 1052 Beta 36518 Charcoal Weaver et al. 1992 PO 39 S. Elena/Ostiones M IIIB 97090 893 1252 1073 B eta 31038 Charcoal Weaver et al. 1992 PO 39 S. Elena/Ostiones M IIIB 95050 998 1208 1103 Beta 36519 Charcoal Weaver et al. 1992 PO 39 S. Elena/Ostiones M IIIB 89070 1023 1260 1142 Beta 31039 Charcoal Weaver et al. 1992 PO 42 Ostiones M /Cap III 12402 5 940 1290 1115 UGAMS 6279 (FS116) Shell Torres 2009 PO 42 Modified Ostiones/Cap IIIB IV 95025 1290 1600 1445 UGAMS 6279 (FS112) Shell DuChemin 2011 PO 43 Ostiones M III 131025 960 1300 1130 UGAMS 6280 (FS289 Shell Torres 2009 PO 43 Modified Ostiones IIIB IV 116025 1080 1420 1250 UGAMS 6280 (FS292 Shell DuChemin 2011 Tecla 1 Hacienda Grande IIA 238080 769 234 502 I 13856 Charcoal Narganes 1989 Tecla 1 Hacienda Grande IIA 205080 354 125 115 I 13867 Charcoal Narganes 1989 Tecla 1 Hacienda Gra nde IIA 202080 351 207 72 I 13855 Charcoal Narganes 1989 Tecla 1 Hacienda Grande IIA 202080 351 207 72 I 13921 Charcoal Narganes 1989 Tecla 1 Hacienda Grande IIA 195080 164 238 37 I 13820 Charcoal Narganes 1989 Tecla 1 Hacienda Grande IIA 19508 0 164 238 37 I 13930 Charcoal Narganes 1989 Tecla 1 Hacienda Grande IIA 192080 149 320 86 I 13929 Charcoal Narganes 1989 Tecla 1 Hacienda Grande IIA 190080 89 331 121 I 13866 Charcoal Narganes 1989 Tecla 1 Hacienda Grande IIA 178085 34 429 232 I 1 3922 Charcoal Narganes 1989 Tecla 1 Hacienda Grande IIA 178080 69 421 245 I 10914 Charcoal Narganes 1989 Tecla 1 Hacienda Grande IIA 177580 70 424 247 I 9680 Charcoal Narganes 1989 Tecla 1 Hacienda Grande IIA 172080 128 533 331 I 10916 Charcoal Narga nes 1989 Tecla 1 Hacienda Grande IIA 1600150 82 685 384 I 14428 Charcoal Narganes 1989 Tecla 1 Hacienda Grande IIA 165080 223 592 408 I 14361 Charcoal Narganes 1989 Tecla 1 Hacienda Grande IIA 165080 223 592 408 I 14431 Charcoal Narganes 1989 Tecla 1 Hacienda Grande IIA 161080 255 604 430 I 14427 Charcoal Narganes 1989 Tecla 1 Hacienda Grande IIA 161080 255 604 430 I 14430 Charcoal Narganes 1989 Tecla 1 Hacienda Grande IIA 160080 256 614 435 I 14483 Charcoal Narganes 1989 Tecla 1 Hacienda Grand e IIA 156080 268 648 458 I 14362 Charcoal Narganes 1989 Tecla 1 Hacienda Grande IIA 155080 344 649 497 I 14429 Charcoal Narganes 1989 Tecla 1 Hacienda Grande IIA 153080 354 657 506 I 14382 Charcoal Narganes 1989 Tecla 1 Hacienda Grande IIA 151580 38 8 661 525 I 9677 Charcoal Narganes 1989

PAGE 442

442 Table A 1. continued Site Style Period Rad. Age 2SL 2SH M edian 2S Sample Material Source Tecla 1 Ostiones P IIIA 149085 389 680 535 I 13923 Charcoal Narganes 1989 Tecla 1 Ostiones P IIIA 148080 409 676 543 I 13 924 Charcoal Narganes 1989 Tecla 1 Hacienda Grande IIA 148095 355 767 561 I 9108 Charcoal Narganes 1989 Tecla 1 Hacienda Grande IIA 146080 415 761 588 I 14360 Charcoal Narganes 1989 Tecla 1 Ostiones P IIIA 146080 415 761 588 I 9873 Charcoal Narganes 1989 Tecla 1 Ostiones P IIIA 139085 434 860 647 I 10915 Charcoal Narganes 1989 Tecla 1 Ostiones P IIIA 1400150 343 972 658 I 13854 Charcoal Narganes 1989 Tecla 1 Ostiones P IIIA 137080 538 872 705 I 13853 Charcoal Narganes 1989 Tecla 1 Ostiones P II IA 136080 544 870 707 I 13931 Charcoal Narganes 1989 Tecla 1 Ostiones P IIIA 131585 570 935 753 I 10913 Charcoal Narganes 1989 Tecla 1 Ostiones P IIIA 129585 598 949 774 I 10912 Charcoal Narganes 1989 Tecla 1 Ostiones P IIIA 128595 599 970 785 I 910 7 Charcoal Narganes 1989 Tecla 1 Ostiones P IIIA 122080 663 972 818 I 9679 Charcoal Narganes 1989 Tecla 1 Ostiones P IIIA 105580 779 1158 969 I 9678 Charcoal Narganes 1989 Tecla II Hacienda Grande IIA 185060 26 331 179 I 13868 Charcoal Narganes 1989 Tecla II Hacienda Grande IIA 170585 133 536 335 I 10921 Charcoal Narganes 1989 Tecla II Hacienda Grande IIA 150080 399 665 532 I 13932 Charcoal Narganes 1989 Tecla II Hacienda Grande IIA 141085 430 777 604 I 10920 Charcoal Narganes 1989 Tecla II Ost iones P IIIA 1350110 434 948 691 I 13933 Charcoal Narganes 1989 Tibes S. Elena IIIB 121080 666 978 822 I 13713 Gonzalez 1984 Tibes S. Elena IIIB 108060 778 1117 948 136326 Charcoal Newsom and Curet 2000 Tibes S. Elena IIIB 104050 888 1152 1020 1363 25 Charcoal Newsom and Curet 2000 Tibes S. Elena III 101040 901 1155 1028 136327 Charcoal Newsom and Curet 2000 Tibes S. Elena IIIB 95040 1016 1179 1098 136324 Charcoal Newsom and Curet 2000 Tibes S. Elena IIIB 93040 1023 1206 1115 136328 Charcoal Ne wsom and Curet 2000 Tibes 89040 1035 1245 1140 109679 Charcoal Curet 2010 Tibes S. Elena IIIB IV 75040 1220 1300 1260 198876 Charcoal Curet 2010 Tibes S. Elena IIIB 66090 1210 1438 1324 I 13714 Gonzalez 1984

PAGE 443

443 APPENDIX B THE TIBES ARCHAEOLGI CAL SURVEY SHOVEL TEST L OG This appendix presented the data collected as relevant for each shovel test excavated during the Tibes Archaeological Survey Project. The table associated with the log contains the following fields: N ORTHING : Arbitrary grid northing coordinates E ASTING : Arbitrary grid easting coordinates P OS /N EG : Positive or negative shovel test (1= positive, 0=negative) P REHIST : Prehistoric cultural material present or not. C OMMENT : General comments related to the shovel test or surrounding envir on. X: UTM NAD 83 ZN 19 Easting coordinate Y: UTM NAD 83 ZN 19 Northing coordinates

PAGE 444

444 Table B 1. Tibes Archaeological Survey s hovel test l og Northing Easting Pos/Neg Prehist Comment X Y 525 4250 0 FALSE Possibly disturbed 752288 1996027 550 4200 0 FALS E Disturbed 752238 1996052 550 4225 0 FALSE 752263 1996052 550 4250 1 TRUE PR 10 @ 100 m S 752288 1996052 550 4275 0 FALSE Rocks 752313 1996052 560 3985 1 TRUE Possibly disturbed 752023 1996062 560 3990 1 TRUE Possibly disturbed 752028 1996062 560 3 995 0 FALSE Possibly disturbed 752033 1996062 560 4000 1 TRUE Possibly disturbed 752038 1996062 560 4005 1 TRUE Possibly disturbed 752043 1996062 562 3985 1 TRUE Column Sample 6 752023 1996065 562 4005 1 TRUE Possibly disturbed 752043 1996065 562.5 40 00 0 FALSE Bedrock near surface 752038 1996065 562.5 4010 0 FALSE Possibly disturbed 752048 1996065 565 3980 0 FALSE Possibly disturbed 752018 1996067 565 3985 0 FALSE Possibly disturbed 752023 1996067 565 3990 0 FALSE Possibly disturbed 752028 1996067 565 3995 0 FALSE Possibly disturbed 752033 1996067 565 4000 0 FALSE Possibly disturbed 752038 1996067 565 4005 0 FALSE PR 10 @ 30 m S 752043 1996067 570 3985 0 FALSE 752023 1996072 570 3990 0 FALSE 752028 1996072 570 4000 0 FALSE 752038 1996072 575 4250 0 FALSE 752288 1996077 580 3975 0 FALSE 752013 1996082 580 3985 0 FALSE 752023 1996082 580 4000 1 TRUE 752038 1996082 580 4010 0 FALSE 752048 1996082 590 4000 0 FALSE 752038 1996092 600 2350 0 FALSE Modern trash in unit 0 40 750388 199 6102 600 4000 0 FALSE 752038 1996102 600 4150 0 FALSE 752188 1996102 600 4200 0 FALSE Auger in bottom of unit 752238 1996102 600 4250 0 FALSE 752288 1996102 625 4000 0 FALSE 752038 1996127 625 4150 0 FALSE Auger in bottom of unit 752188 1996127 625 4300 0 FALSE 752338 1996127 650 2350 0 FALSE 750388 1996152 650 3600 0 FALSE Auger in bottom of unit 751638 1996152 650 3650 0 FALSE Ridge top 751688 1996152 650 3750 0 FALSE 751788 1996152 650 3800 0 FALSE 751838 1996152 650 3850 0 FALSE Au ger in bottom of unit 751888 1996152 650 3900 0 FALSE Ridge top S of Tibes 751938 1996152

PAGE 445

445 Table B 1. continued Northing Easting Pos/Neg Prehist Comment X Y 650 3950 0 FALSE Bedrock near surface 751988 1996152 650 4000 0 FALSE 752038 1996152 650 405 0 0 FALSE 752088 1996152 650 4100 0 FALSE Auger in bottom of unit 752138 1996152 650 4125 0 FALSE 752163 1996152 650 4150 1 TRUE Auger in bottom of unit 752188 1996152 650 4175 0 FALSE 752213 1996152 650 4200 0 FALSE Trash/Fence 10 m north 752238 1 996152 650 4250 0 FALSE 752288 1996152 650 4275 0 FALSE 752313 1996152 650 4300 1 TRUE Auger in bottom of unit 752338 1996152 650 4325 0 FALSE Rocks 752363 1996152 650 4350 0 FALSE Auger in bottom of unit 752388 1996152 650 4400 0 FALSE Modern tr ash in the area 752438 1996152 650 4450 0 FALSE Parent material in bottom 752488 1996152 675 4150 0 FALSE Rock and Asphalt in area 752188 1996177 675 4300 0 FALSE 752338 1996177 700 3600 0 FALSE 751638 1996202 700 3650 0 FALSE Auger in bottom of uni t 751688 1996202 700 4050 0 FALSE Bedrock near surface 752088 1996202 700 4100 0 FALSE 752138 1996202 700 4150 0 FALSE 752188 1996202 725 4100 0 FALSE Bedrock near surface 752138 1996227 725 4150 0 FALSE Concrete @ 30 cmbs 752188 1996227 750 3600 0 FALSE Auger in bottom of unit 751638 1996252 750 3650 1 FALSE 751688 1996252 750 3675 0 FALSE 751713 1996252 750 4050 0 FALSE Auger in bottom of unit 752088 1996252 750 4075 0 FALSE 752113 1996252 750 4100 1 FALSE 752138 1996252 750 4125 0 FALSE Steep slope 752163 1996252 750 4150 0 FALSE 752188 1996252 750 4175 0 FALSE Modern trash and trails 752213 1996252 775 4100 0 FALSE 752138 1996277 775 4150 0 FALSE 752188 1996277 800 3600 0 FALSE 751638 1996302 800 3650 1 FALSE Auger in bottom o f unit 751688 1996302 875 3625 0 FALSE 751663 1996377 900 3600 0 FALSE Road to the northeast 751638 1996402 925 3575 0 FALSE 751613 1996427 950 3525 0 FALSE 751563 1996452 950 3550 1 FALSE Abandoned house to the W 751588 1996452 950 3575 0 FALSE 751613 1996452 950 3600 0 FALSE 751638 1996452

PAGE 446

446 Table B 1. continued Northing Easting Pos/Neg Prehist Comment X Y 950 4050 0 FALSE Fence 10 m S 752088 1996452 950 4075 0 FALSE 752113 1996452 950 4100 0 FALSE Boulders and steep slope 752138 1996452 950 4125 0 FALSE Boulders and steep slope 752163 1996452 950 4150 0 FALSE Fill. Disturbed soils 752188 1996452 950 4175 0 FALSE Fill. Modern trash @ 40cm 752213 1996452 950 4200 0 FALSE Fill. Concrete and plast ic 752238 1996452 950 4250 0 FALSE Fi ll. Modern trash @ 65cm 752288 1996452 950 4300 0 FALSE Fill. Cement and trash 752338 1996452 962.5 5262.5 0 FALSE 753300 1996465 975 3500 1 TRUE 751588 1996477 975 3525 0 FALSE Abandoned house to the W 751563 1996477 975 3550 0 FALSE 751588 1996 477 975 3575 0 FALSE Brick fragments in unit, 751613 1996477 975 4275 0 FALSE 752313 1996477 975 4475 0 FALSE 752513 1996477 1000 3550 0 FALSE 751588 1996502 1000 4050 0 FALSE Gravel 752088 1996502 1000 4075 0 FALSE Steep Slope 752113 1996502 100 0 4100 0 FALSE Gravel 752138 1996502 1000 4125 0 FALSE Disturbed soils 752163 1996502 1000 4275 0 FALSE 752313 1996502 1000 4475 0 FALSE 752513 1996502 1025 3500 0 FALSE 751538 1996527 1025 3525 0 FALSE 751563 1996527 1025 4125 0 FALSE 752163 19 96527 1025 4350 0 FALSE 752388 1996527 1025 5125 0 FALSE Bedrock near surface 753163 1996527 1025 5150 0 FALSE 753188 1996527 1025 5175 0 FALSE 753213 1996527 1025 5175 0 FALSE 753213 1996527 1025 5175 0 FALSE 753213 1996527 1025 5200 1 FALSE 753238 1996527 1050 3475 0 FALSE 751513 1996552 1050 3500 0 FALSE Modern trails 751538 1996552 1050 4350 0 FALSE 752388 1996552 1050 5175 0 FALSE Area has been scraped 753213 1996552 1075 5125 0 FALSE Bedrock near the surface 753163 1996577 1075 51 50 0 FALSE 753188 1996577 1075 5175 0 FALSE 753213 1996577 1075 5200 0 FALSE 753238 1996577 1100 5175 0 FALSE 753213 1996602 1125 3150 0 FALSE 751188 1996627 1125 3175 0 FALSE 751213 1996627

PAGE 447

447 Table B 1. continued Northing Easting Pos/Neg Prehi st Comment X Y 1125 3200 0 FALSE 751238 1996627 1125 3225 0 FALSE 751263 1996627 1125 5125 0 FALSE 753163 1996627 1125 5150 0 FALSE 753188 1996627 1125 5162.5 0 FALSE 753200 1996627 1125 5175 0 FALSE 753213 1996627 1137.5 5162.5 1 FALSE 75320 0 1996640 1150 3150 0 FALSE 751188 1996652 1150 3175 0 FALSE 751213 1996652 1150 3200 1 TRUE 751238 1996652 1150 3225 0 FALSE 751263 1996652 1150 3250 0 FALSE 751288 1996652 1150 3275 0 FALSE 751313 1996652 1150 3300 1 TRUE 751338 1996652 11 50 4425 0 FALSE Fill? Mottled soils 752463 1996652 1150 5100 0 FALSE 753138 1996652 1150 5125 1 TRUE 753163 1996652 1150 5150 1 FALSE 753188 1996652 1150 5150 0 FALSE 753188 1996652 1150 5150 0 FALSE 753188 1996652 1150 5162.5 1 FALSE 753200 1 996652 1150 5175 0 FALSE 753213 1996652 1175 3150 0 FALSE 751188 1996677 1175 3175 0 FALSE 751213 1996677 1175 3200 0 FALSE 751238 1996677 1175 3225 1 TRUE 751263 1996677 1175 3250 0 FALSE 751288 1996677 1175 3275 0 FALSE 751313 1996677 1175 3300 1 FALSE 751338 1996677 1175 3325 0 FALSE Ditch 751363 1996677 1175 5162.5 0 FALSE 753200 1996677 1200 3150 0 FALSE 751188 1996702 1200 3175 0 FALSE 751213 1996702 1200 3225 0 FALSE 751263 1996702 1200 3275 0 FALSE 751313 1996702 1200 330 0 0 FALSE 751338 1996702 1200 5100 0 FALSE Cliff edge 753138 1996702 1200 5125 0 FALSE 753163 1996702 1200 5150 0 FALSE 753188 1996702 1225 3262.5 0 FALSE 751300 1996727 1225 3275 0 FALSE Livestock/Pasture 751313 1996727 1225 3300 0 FALSE 751338 1996727 1225 3312.5 0 FALSE 751350 1996727 1250 3250 0 FALSE 751288 1996752

PAGE 448

448 Table B 1. continued Northing Easting Pos/Neg Prehist Comment X Y 1250 3260 0 FALSE 751298 1996752 1250 3262.5 1 TRUE Auger in bottom of unit 751300 1996752 1250 3275 0 FALSE 751313 1996752 1250 3287.5 1 TRUE 751325 1996752 1250 3300 1 TRUE Modern trash dump 10 m E 751338 1996752 1250 3312.5 1 TRUE 751350 1996752 1250 3325 0 FALSE On fence line 751363 1996752 1250 5150 0 FALSE 753188 1996752 1251 3300 1 TRUE 7 51338 1996753 1262.5 3262.5 0 FALSE Clay Sample 751300 1996765 1262.5 3287.5 0 FALSE 751325 1996765 1262.5 3300 1 TRUE 751338 1996765 1262.5 3312.5 1 TRUE 751350 1996765 1262.5 3325 0 FALSE 751363 1996765 1275 3250 0 FALSE 751288 1996777 1275 3 275 0 FALSE 751313 1996777 1275 3287.5 1 FALSE 751325 1996777 1275 3300 1 TRUE 751338 1996777 1275 3312.5 1 TRUE 751350 1996777 1275 3325 0 FALSE 751363 1996777 1275 4625 0 FALSE 752663 1996777 1287.5 3262.5 0 FALSE 751300 1996790 1287.5 3287 .5 0 FALSE 751325 1996790 1287.5 3312.5 0 FALSE 751350 1996790 1300 3250 0 FALSE 751288 1996802 1300 3275 0 FALSE 751313 1996802 1300 3300 1 TRUE 751338 1996802 1300 3325 0 FALSE 751363 1996802 1300 5150 0 FALSE 753188 1996802 1312.5 3262.5 0 FALSE 751300 1996815 1312.5 3287.5 0 FALSE 751325 1996815 1312.5 3312.5 0 FALSE 751350 1996815 1325 3250 0 FALSE 751288 1996827 1325 3275 0 FALSE 751313 1996827 1325 3300 0 FALSE 751338 1996827 1325 5050 0 FALSE 753088 1996827 1325 5075 0 FA LSE 753113 1996827 1325 5100 0 FALSE 753138 1996827 1400 3275 0 FALSE Bedrock near surface 751313 1996902 1425 1450 0 FALSE 749488 1996927 1425 1475 0 FALSE 749513 1996927 1450 1450 0 FALSE 749488 1996952 1450 1475 0 FALSE 749513 1996952 1475 1450 0 FALSE Mottled soils and bedrock 749488 1996977

PAGE 449

449 Table B 1. continued Northing Easting Pos/Neg Prehist Comment X Y 1475 1475 1 FALSE 749513 1996977 1475 1500 0 FALSE 749538 1996977 1475 1525 0 FALSE 749563 1996977 1475 1550 0 FALSE Adjacent to existing road 749588 1996977 1500 1450 0 FALSE 749488 1997002 1500 1475 0 FALSE Borrow pit/pond construct 749513 1997002 1500 1500 0 FALSE 749538 1997002 1500 1525 1 FALSE 749563 1997002 1500 1550 1 TRUE 749588 1997002 1525 1450 0 FALSE 74948 8 1997027 1525 1475 0 FALSE 749513 1997027 1525 1500 0 FALSE 749538 1997027 1525 1525 0 FALSE Area graded 749563 1997027 1525 1550 1 TRUE 749588 1997027 1550 1450 0 FALSE In drainage 749488 1997052 1550 1475 0 FALSE 749513 1997052 1550 1525 0 FA LSE Slope 749563 1997052 1550 1550 0 FALSE 749588 1997052 1575 1450 0 FALSE Boulders 749488 1997077 1575 1475 0 FALSE 749513 1997077 1575 1500 0 FALSE 749538 1997077 1575 3475 0 FALSE Bedrock near surface 751513 1997077 1600 1450 0 FALSE 749488 1 997102 1600 1475 1 TRUE 749513 1997102 1600 1500 0 FALSE 749538 1997102 1600 1525 0 FALSE 749563 1997102 1600 3400 0 FALSE Bedrock near surface 751438 1997102 1600 3425 0 FALSE Bedrock near surface 751463 1997102 1600 3450 0 FALSE Steep slope 7514 88 1997102 1612.5 3450 0 FALSE 751488 1997115 1625 1475 0 FALSE 749513 1997127 1625 1500 0 FALSE 749538 1997127 1625 1525 0 FALSE 749563 1997127 1625 1525 0 FALSE 749563 1997127 1625 3400 0 FALSE Bedrock near surface 751438 1997127 1625 3425 0 FALSE Bedrock near surface 751463 1997127 1625 3437.5 0 FALSE 751475 1997127 1625 3450 0 FALSE 751488 1997127 1625 3475 0 FALSE 751513 1997127 1650 1475 1 FALSE Nail and bottle glass 749513 1997152 1650 1500 1 FALSE 749538 1997152 1650 1525 1 FA LSE 749563 1997152 1650 1550 1 FALSE Graded? 749588 1997152 1650 3400 0 FALSE Bedrock near surface 751438 1997152

PAGE 450

450 Talble B 1. continued Northing Easting Pos/Neg Prehist Comment X Y 1650 3425 0 FALSE Bedrock near surface 751463 1997152 1650 3450 0 F ALSE Modern trash throughout 751488 1997152 1650 3475 0 FALSE Unit 2 m north of trail a 751513 1997152 1675 1475 1 FALSE 749513 1997177 1675 1500 0 FALSE 749538 1997177 1675 1525 0 FALSE 749563 1997177 1675 1550 0 FALSE 749588 1997177 1675 3400 0 FALSE 751438 1997177 1687.5 3050 0 FALSE 751088 1997190 1687.5 3062.5 0 FALSE 751100 1997190 1687.5 3075 1 TRUE 751113 1997190 1687.5 3087.5 1 TRUE 751125 1997190 1687.5 3100 0 FALSE 751138 1997190 1687.5 3112.5 0 FALSE 751150 1997190 1700 1 475 0 FALSE 749513 1997202 1700 3000 0 FALSE 751038 1997202 1700 3012.5 1 FALSE 751050 1997202 1700 3025 1 FALSE 751063 1997202 1700 3037.5 0 FALSE 751075 1997202 1700 3037.5 0 FALSE 751075 1997202 1700 3050 1 FALSE 751088 1997202 1700 3062.5 0 FALSE 751100 1997202 1700 3075 0 FALSE 751113 1997202 1700 3087.5 0 FALSE 751125 1997202 1700 3400 0 FALSE Bedrock near surface 751438 1997202 1700 3425 0 FALSE 751463 1997202 1700 3450 0 FALSE Bedrock near surface 751488 1997202 1712.5 3025 0 FALSE 751063 1997215 1712.5 3037.5 1 TRUE 751075 1997215 1712.5 3050 0 FALSE 751088 1997214 1712.5 3062.5 0 FALSE 751100 1997214 1712.5 3075 0 FALSE 751113 1997214 1712.5 3087.5 0 FALSE 751125 1997214 1725 3037.5 0 FALSE Area leveled 751075 19 97227 1750 3400 0 FALSE Bedrock near surface 751438 1997252 1750 3425 0 FALSE Land Modification. 751463 1997252 1750 3450 0 FALSE 751488 1997252 1750 3475 0 FALSE Bedrock @ 40 cmbs 751513 1997252 1800 2825 0 FALSE 750863 1997302 1800 2850 0 FALSE 750888 1997302 1800 3400 0 FALSE Bedrock near surface 751438 1997302 1800 3450 0 FALSE Graded 751488 1997302 1805 2837.5 1 TRUE 750875 1997307 1805 2850 1 TRUE 750888 1997307

PAGE 451

451 Table B 1. continued Northing Easting Pos/Neg Prehist Comment X Y 1820 2837.5 1 TRUE 750875 1997322 1825 2800 1 FALSE 750838 1997327 1825 2825 1 FALSE 7m S of conchero 750863 1997327 1825 2837.5 1 TRUE Charcoal noted @ 20 40 cm 750875 1997327 1825 2840 1 TRUE 750878 1997327 1825 2850 1 TRUE 750888 1997327 1825 2875 0 FALSE Standing water 750913 1997327 1825 3175 1 TRUE 751213 1997327 1835 2825 1 TRUE 8 m SE of conchero. 750863 1997337 1837 2850 0 FALSE Boulders/Bedrock @ 35cm 750888 1997340 1837.5 2800 0 FALSE 750838 1997340 1837.5 2837.5 1 TRUE 750875 19973 40 1837.5 2875 0 FALSE 750913 1997340 1837.5 2875 0 FALSE Mottled soils. 750913 1997340 1850 2775 0 FALSE 750813 1997352 1850 2800 1 FALSE Historic disturbance 750838 1997352 1850 2825 1 FALSE 750863 1997352 1850 2836 1 TRUE 750874 1997352 1850 2850 1 TRUE 750888 1997352 1850 2875 0 FALSE 750913 1997352 1850 3175 0 FALSE 751213 1997352 1853 2845 1 TRUE Surface collection only 750883 1997355 1862.5 2825 0 FALSE 750863 1997365 1862.5 3175 0 FALSE 751213 1997365 1875 2775 0 FALSE 750813 1997377 1875 2800 0 FALSE 750838 1997377 1875 2825 0 FALSE 750863 1997377 1875 2850 0 FALSE 750888 1997377 1875 2875 0 FALSE 750913 1997377 1875 3050 0 FALSE Slope 751088 1997377 1875 3075 0 FALSE In drainage 751113 1997377 1875 3125 0 FALSE 75 1163 1997377 1875 3175 0 FALSE Fill. Gravel 751213 1997377 1900 2725 0 FALSE 750763 1997402 1900 2750 0 FALSE Steep slope 750788 1997402 1900 2775 0 FALSE 750813 1997402 1900 2800 1 TRUE 750838 1997402 1900 2825 0 FALSE Auger in bottom of unit 7 50863 1997402 1900 2850 0 FALSE 750888 1997402 1900 2875 0 FALSE 750913 1997402 1900 3050 0 FALSE Area artificially 751088 1997402 1900 3075 0 FALSE 751113 1997402 1900 3100 0 FALSE JU1 GPS verified. 751138 1997402 1900 3125 0 FALSE 751163 199740 2

PAGE 452

452 Table B 1. continued Northing Easting Pos/Neg Prehist Comment X Y 1900 3150 0 FALSE Construction of PR 10 751188 1997402 1900 3175 1 TRUE 751213 1997402 1900 3200 0 FALSE Graded trail 751238 1997402 1900 3400 0 FALSE 751438 1997402 1925 2725 0 FALSE 750763 1997427 1925 2725 0 FALSE Area scraped 750763 1997427 1925 2750 0 FALSE 750788 1997427 1925 2775 0 FALSE 750813 1997427 1925 2800 0 FALSE 750838 1997427 1925 2825 0 FALSE Land Modification. 750863 1997427 1925 2850 0 FALSE Land Modi fication. 750888 1997427 1925 3025 0 FALSE Power pole 751063 1997427 1925 3050 0 FALSE Bedrock @ the surface 751088 1997427 1925 3075 0 FALSE 751113 1997427 1925 3150 0 FALSE Fill from construction 751188 1997427 1925 3175 0 FALSE 751213 1997427 1950 2725 0 FALSE Judgmental near test unit 750763 1997452 1950 2750 0 FALSE 750788 1997452 1950 2775 0 FALSE Unit in drainage. 750813 1997452 1950 2800 0 FALSE 750838 1997452 1950 2825 0 FALSE Modern trash throughout t 750863 1997452 1950 2850 0 FA LSE Land modification. 750888 1997452 1950 3000 0 FALSE 751038 1997452 1950 3075 0 FALSE 751113 1997452 1950 3175 0 FALSE 751213 1997452 1975 2725 0 FALSE 750763 1997477 1975 2750 0 FALSE 750788 1997477 1975 2775 0 FALSE Historic building remain 750813 1997477 1975 2800 0 FALSE Bedrock near surface 750838 1997477 1975 2825 0 FALSE 750863 1997477 2000 2725 0 FALSE 750763 1997502 2000 2750 0 FALSE Steep slope 750788 1997502 2000 2775 0 FALSE Steep slope 750813 1997502 2000 2800 0 FALSE 750 838 1997502 2025 2725 0 FALSE 750763 1997527 2025 2750 0 FALSE Boulders 750788 1997527 2025 2775 0 FALSE Steep slope 750813 1997527 2050 2412.5 0 FALSE Area leveled? 750450 1997552 2050 2425 0 FALSE Area leveled? 750463 1997552 2050 2437.5 0 FALSE A rea leveled? 750475 1997552 2062.5 2412.5 0 FALSE Area leveled? 750450 1997565 2062.5 2425 0 FALSE Area leveled? Bedrock 750463 1997565 2062.5 2437.5 0 FALSE Area leveled? 750475 1997565 2062.5 2450 0 FALSE Area leveled? 750488 1997565

PAGE 453

453 Table B 1. co ntinued Northing Easting Pos/Neg Prehist Comment X Y 2075 2412.5 0 FALSE Area leveled? 750450 1997577 2075 2425 0 FALSE Area leveled? 750463 1997577 2075 2437.5 0 FALSE Area leveled? Bedrock 750475 1997577 2075 2450 0 FALSE Area leveled? 750488 1997577 2075 2725 0 FALSE Steep slope 750763 1997577 2075 2750 0 FALSE 750788 1997577 2087.5 2412.5 0 FALSE Area leveled? 750450 1997590 2087.5 2425 0 FALSE Area leveled? 750463 1997590 2087.5 2437.5 0 FALSE 750475 1997590 2087.5 2450 0 FALSE 750488 1997 590 2100 2412.5 1 TRUE Area leveled? 750450 1997602 2100 2425 1 TRUE Area leveled? 750463 1997602 2100 2437.5 1 TRUE 750475 1997602 2100 2450 0 FALSE Area leveled? 750488 1997602 2100 2462.5 0 FALSE 750500 1997602 2100 3550 0 FALSE 751588 1997602 2112.5 2412.5 0 FALSE 750450 1997615 2112.5 2425 1 TRUE Area leveled? 750463 1997615 2112.5 2437.5 1 TRUE 750475 1997615 2112.5 2450 0 FALSE Boulders 750488 1997615 2150 2725 0 FALSE 750763 1997652 2150 2750 0 FALSE 750788 1997652 2150 2775 0 FA LSE 750813 1997652 2150 2800 0 FALSE Steep slope 750838 1997652 2175 2700 1 TRUE 750738 1997677 2175 2725 1 TRUE 750763 1997677 2175 2750 1 TRUE 750788 1997677 2175 2775 0 FALSE Bedrock @ 40cm 750813 1997677 2175 2800 0 FALSE Steep slope 750838 1 997677 2175 3200 0 FALSE Auger in bottom of unit 751238 1997677 2187.5 3200 0 FALSE Rubble and trash throughout 751238 1997690 2200 2675 1 TRUE 750713 1997702 2200 2700 1 TRUE 750738 1997702 2200 2725 1 TRUE 750763 1997702 2200 2750 1 TRUE 750788 1997702 2200 2775 0 FALSE Large boulder 10 m N 750813 1997677 2200 2800 0 FALSE Steep slope 750838 1997702 2212.5 2675 1 TRUE 750713 1997715 2212.5 2712.5 0 FALSE 750750 1997714 2220 2662.5 1 TRUE 750700 1997722 2225 2650 1 TRUE 750688 1997727 2225 2657.25 1 TRUE 750695 1997727 2225 2662.5 1 TRUE 750700 1997727 2225 2675 1 TRUE 750713 1997727

PAGE 454

454 Table B 1. continued Northing Easting Pos/Neg Prehist Comment X Y 2225 2687.5 1 FALSE 750725 1997727 2225 2700 1 TRUE 750738 1997727 2225 2725 1 FALSE 750763 1997727 2225 2750 0 FALSE 750788 1997727 2225 2775 0 FALSE Unit follows base of slop 750813 1997727 2225 2800 0 FALSE 750838 1997727 2226 2657.5 1 TRUE CS2 located 30 CM. north 750695 1997728 2237.5 2675 1 TRUE 750713 1997740 2240 2706.5 1 TRUE 750744 1997742 2245 2690 1 TRUE 750728 1997747 2245 2705 1 TRUE 750743 1997747 2245 2709.5 1 TRUE 750748 1997747 2250 2625 0 FALSE In drainage 750663 1997752 2250 2640 0 FALSE 750678 1997752 2250 2650 0 FALSE 750688 1997752 2250 2662.5 0 FALSE 750700 1997752 2250 2675 1 TRUE 750713 1997752 2250 2687.5 1 TRUE 750738 1997749 2250 2700 1 TRUE 750738 1997752 2250 2712.5 1 TRUE 750750 1997752 2250 2725 1 TRUE 750763 1997752 2250 2750 0 FALSE Large boulder to the S 750788 1 997727 2250 2775 0 FALSE 750813 1997752 2252 2705 1 TRUE 750743 1997755 2262 2662.5 1 TRUE 750700 1997765 2275 2600 0 FALSE In drainage 750638 1997777 2275 2625 1 TRUE Rocks encountered @ 40cm 750663 1997777 2275 2650 0 FALSE 750688 1997777 2275 2675 0 FALSE 750713 1997777 2275 2700 1 TRUE 750738 1997777 2275 2725 0 FALSE 750763 1997777 2275 2750 0 FALSE 750788 1997777 2275 2775 0 FALSE 750813 1997777 2275 2800 0 FALSE 750838 1997777 2300 2650 1 TRUE Old foundation to the south 750688 1997802 2300 2675 1 TRUE 750713 1997802 2300 2700 0 FALSE Bedrock encountered @ 50 750738 1997802 2300 2725 0 FALSE In drainage 750763 1997802 2300 2750 0 FALSE Hard rocky soils 750788 1997802 2325 2575 0 FALSE 750613 1997827 2325 2600 0 FALSE 75 0638 1997827 2325 2625 0 FALSE 750663 1997827 2325 2650 0 FALSE Bedrock @ 40cm 750688 1997827 2325 2675 0 FALSE 750713 1997827

PAGE 455

455 Table B 1. continued Northing Easting Pos/Neg Prehist Comment X Y 2325 2700 0 FALSE 750738 1997827 2325 2725 0 FALSE 750763 1997827 2325 2750 0 FALSE 750788 1997827 2325 2750 0 FALSE In drainage 750788 1997827 2337.5 2562.4 1 TRUE CS 1 located 10 cm west 750600 1997840 2337.5 2562.5 1 TRUE 750600 1997840 2337.5 2575 1 TRUE 750613 1997840 2337.5 2600 1 TRUE 7506 38 1997840 2350 2562.5 1 TRUE 750600 1997852 2350 2575 0 FALSE 750613 1997852 2350 2600 0 FALSE 750638 1997852 2350 2625 0 FALSE 750663 1997852 2350 2625 0 FALSE 750663 1997852 2350 2650 0 FALSE 750688 1997852 2350 2675 0 FALSE 750713 1997852 2350 2750 0 FALSE Rocks @ 40 cm 750788 1997852 2375 2537.5 0 FALSE 750575 1997877 2375 2575 0 FALSE 750613 1997877 2375 2575 0 FALSE 750613 1997877 2400 2525 0 FALSE 750563 1997902 2400 2575 0 FALSE 750613 1997902 2400 2750 0 FALSE 750788 199 7902 2425 2550 0 FALSE 750588 1997927 2425 2575 0 FALSE 750613 1997927 2450 2550 0 FALSE 750588 1997952 2450 2575 0 FALSE 750613 1997952 2475 2550 0 FALSE 750588 1997977 2475 2575 0 FALSE 750613 1997977 2475 3700 0 FALSE 751738 1997977 2475 3725 0 FALSE Auger in bottom of unit 751763 1997977 2500 2550 0 FALSE 750588 1998002 2500 2575 0 FALSE 750613 1998002 2500 3700 0 FALSE Area has been scraped 751738 1998002 2500 3725 1 TRUE Bedrock near surface 751763 1998002 2500 3750 0 FALSE Area has been scraped 751788 1998002 2500 3800 0 FALSE 751838 1998002 2525 2550 0 FALSE 750588 1998027 2525 2575 0 FALSE 750613 1998027 2525 3725 0 FALSE 751763 1998027 2525 3725 0 FALSE Area has been scraped 751763 1998027 2525 3775 0 FALSE 751813 1 998027 2525 3800 0 FALSE Area has been scraped 751838 1998027 2550 2550 0 FALSE 750588 1998052 2550 2575 0 FALSE 750613 1998052

PAGE 456

456 Table B 1. continued Northing Easting Pos/Neg Prehist Comment X Y 2550 3725 0 FALSE 751763 1998052 2550 3775 0 FALSE Area has been scraped 751813 1998052 2550 3800 0 FALSE 751838 1998052 2550 3850 0 FALSE 751888 1998052 2575 2550 0 FALSE 750588 1998077 2575 2575 0 FALSE 750613 1998077 2575 3775 0 FALSE 751813 1998077 2575 3800 0 FALSE 751838 1998077 2575 382 5 0 FALSE 751863 1998077 2575 3850 0 FALSE Modern trash in first 10cm 751888 1998077 2600 2550 0 FALSE 750588 1998102 2600 2575 0 FALSE 750613 1998102 2600 3700 0 FALSE Push pile to the W 751738 1998102 2600 3725 0 FALSE 751763 1998102 2600 3750 0 FALSE Eroding bedrock in unit 751788 1998102 2600 3800 0 FALSE 751838 1998102 2600 3850 1 FALSE 751888 1998102 2625 2550 0 FALSE 750588 1998127 2625 2575 0 FALSE 750613 1998127 2625 3700 0 FALSE Area has been scraped 751738 1998127 2625 3725 1 TRUE 751763 1998127 2625 3750 0 FALSE 751788 1998127 2625 3825 0 FALSE 751863 1998127 2625 3850 0 FALSE 751888 1998127 2650 1075 0 FALSE 749113 1998152 2650 1100 1 FALSE 749138 1998152 2650 1125 0 FALSE Berm/push pile 749163 1998152 2650 2500 0 FALSE 750538 1998152 2650 2512.5 0 FALSE 750550 1998152 2650 2525 0 FALSE 750563 1998152 2650 2550 1 TRUE 750588 1998152 2650 2575 0 FALSE 750613 1998152 2650 3675 0 FALSE Area has been scraped 751713 1998152 2650 3700 1 TRUE Trail 1 m N 75173 8 1998152 2650 3725 0 FALSE 751763 1998152 2650 3750 0 FALSE 751788 1998152 2662.5 2512.5 0 FALSE 750550 1998165 2662.5 2525 1 TRUE 750563 1998164 2662.5 2537.5 0 FALSE 750575 1998165 2675 1075 0 FALSE Brick fragments 749113 1998177 2675 1100 1 TRUE 749138 1998177 2675 1120 1 FALSE Brick fragments 749158 1998177 2675 1125 1 FALSE Brick fragments 749163 1998177 2675 2475 0 FALSE Slope to the west 750513 1998177

PAGE 457

457 Table B 1. continued Northing Easting Pos/Neg Prehist Comment X Y 2675 2500 1 TRUE 750538 1998177 2675 2512.5 1 TRUE 750550 1998177 2675 2525 0 FALSE 750563 1998177 2675 2537.5 1 TRUE 750575 1998177 2675 2550 1 TRUE 750588 1998177 2675 2575 0 FALSE 750613 1998177 2675 3700 0 FALSE Pasture 751738 1998177 2675 3725 0 FA LSE 751763 1998177 2675 3775 0 FALSE Area has been scraped 751813 1998177 2687.5 2512.5 1 TRUE CS 4 750550 1998190 2687.5 2518 1 TRUE 750555 1998190 2687.5 2525 1 TRUE 750563 1998190 2687.5 2537.5 1 TRUE 750575 1998190 2687.85 2512.5 1 TRUE 7505 50 1998190 2700 1100 0 FALSE Bricks and wall fall 749138 1998202 2700 1125 1 FALSE Brick fragments 749163 1998202 2700 2475 0 FALSE Slope to the W 750513 1998202 2700 2500 1 TRUE 750538 1998202 2700 2512.5 1 TRUE 750550 1998202 2700 2525 1 TRUE 7 50563 1998202 2700 2537.5 1 TRUE 750575 1998202 2700 2550 1 TRUE 750588 1998202 2700 2575 0 FALSE 750613 1998202 2703 2512.5 1 TRUE CS 3 750550 1998205 2712.5 2512.5 1 TRUE 750550 1998215 2712.5 2525 1 TRUE 750563 1998215 2712.5 2537.5 1 TRUE 750576 1998215 2720 2555 1 TRUE 750593 1998222 2722 2555 1 TRUE CS 5 750593 1998225 2725 1075 0 FALSE 749113 1998227 2725 1100 1 TRUE 749138 1998227 2725 1125 0 FALSE 749163 1998227 2725 2475 0 FALSE Steep slope 750513 1998227 2725 2500 1 TRUE 750538 1998227 2725 2512.5 1 TRUE 750550 1998227 2725 2525 0 FALSE 750563 1998227 2725 2537.5 1 TRUE 750575 1998227 2725 2550 1 TRUE 750588 1998227 2725 2575 0 FALSE 750613 1998227 2737.5 2512.5 1 TRUE 750550 1998240 2737.5 2525 1 TRUE 750563 1998240 2737.5 2537.5 1 TRUE 750575 1998240 2750 1075 0 FALSE 749113 1998252 2750 1100 1 TRUE Full of bricks. 749138 1998252

PAGE 458

45 8 Table B 1. continued Northing Easting Pos/Neg Prehist Comment X Y 2750 1125 0 FALSE 749163 1998252 2750 2475 0 FALSE 7 50513 1998252 2750 2500 1 TRUE 750538 1998252 2750 2512.5 0 FALSE 750550 1998252 2750 2525 0 FALSE 750563 1998252 2750 2537.5 0 FALSE 750575 1998252 2750 2550 1 TRUE 750588 1998252 2750 2575 1 TRUE 750613 1998252 2750 2600 0 FALSE 750638 1998 252 2762.5 2512.5 1 TRUE 750550 1998265 2762.5 2525 1 TRUE 750563 1998265 2762.5 2537.5 0 FALSE 750575 1998265 2775 2500 0 FALSE 750538 1998277 2775 2512.5 0 FALSE 750551 1998277 2775 2525 0 FALSE 750563 1998277 2775 2550 1 TRUE 750588 199827 7 2775 2575 0 FALSE 750613 1998277 2775 2575 0 FALSE 750613 1998277 2775 4250 0 FALSE 752288 1998277 2800 2550 0 FALSE 750588 1998302 2850 3625 0 FALSE 751663 1998352 2875 900 0 FALSE In drainage. 748938 1998377 2875 950 0 FALSE In drainage 748 988 1998377 2875 1000 0 FALSE In drainage 749038 1998377 2875 1025 0 FALSE In drainage 749063 1998377 2900 950 0 FALSE 748988 1998402 2900 1025 0 FALSE In river 749063 1998402 2925 875 0 FALSE On slope. 748913 1998427 2925 900 0 FALSE In drainage 74 8938 1998427 2925 925 0 FALSE In drainage 748963 1998427 2925 950 1 FALSE Slope 748988 1998427 2925 975 0 FALSE 749013 1998427 2925 1000 1 FALSE Bedrock near surface. 749038 1998427 2925 1025 0 FALSE 749063 1998427 2950 875 0 FALSE Slope. 748913 19 98452 2950 925 0 FALSE Bedrock near surface. 748963 1998452 2950 950 1 TRUE 748988 1998452 2950 975 0 FALSE 749013 1998452 2950 1000 0 FALSE 749038 1998452 2950 1025 1 FALSE Modern trash in unit 749063 1998452 2950 1050 0 FALSE Berm/push pile 7490 88 1998452 2950 1100 0 FALSE 749138 1998452 2975 875 0 FALSE 748913 1998477 2975 900 0 FALSE 748938 1998477

PAGE 459

459 Table B 1. continued Northing Easting Pos/Neg Prehist Comment X Y 2975 925 0 FALSE Bedrock near surface. 748963 1998477 2975 950 0 FALSE 748988 1998477 2975 975 0 FALSE 749013 1998477 2975 1000 1 FALSE 749038 1998477 2975 1025 0 FALSE 749063 1998477 3000 875 0 FALSE Slope 748913 1998502 3000 900 0 FALSE 748938 1998502 3000 925 0 FALSE 748963 1998502 3000 950 0 FALSE 748988 199 8502 3000 975 0 FALSE 749013 1998502 3000 1000 0 FALSE 749038 1998502 3000 1025 0 FALSE 749063 1998502 3025 925 0 FALSE S of fence line 748963 1998527 3025 950 0 FALSE 748988 1998527 3025 975 0 FALSE Eroding parent material 749013 1998527 3025 1000 0 FALSE 749038 1998527 3025 1025 0 FALSE 749063 1998527 3050 875 0 FALSE Slope 748913 1998552 3050 900 0 FALSE 748938 1998552 3050 925 0 FALSE 748963 1998552 3050 950 0 FALSE 748988 1998552 3050 975 0 FALSE 749013 1998552 3050 1000 0 FALS E 749038 1998552 3050 1025 0 FALSE 749063 1998552 3050 1050 0 FALSE 749088 1998552 3075 925 0 FALSE 748963 1998577 3075 950 0 FALSE 748988 1998577 3075 975 0 FALSE 749013 1998577 3075 1000 1 FALSE Adjacent to a trail/road 749038 1998577 3075 1 025 0 FALSE 749063 1998577 3075 1037.5 0 FALSE 749075 1998577 3075 1050 0 FALSE 749088 1998577 3087.5 1012.5 0 FALSE Building materials 749050 1998590 3100 875 0 FALSE Slope 748913 1998602 3100 900 0 FALSE Eroding bedrock 748938 1998602 3100 925 0 FALSE 748963 1998602 3100 950 0 FALSE Dense gravel pockets 748988 1998602 3100 975 0 FALSE Bedrock near surface. 749013 1998602 3100 1000 0 FALSE 749038 1998602 3100 1025 1 TRUE Augered @ 80 cmbs 749063 1998602 3100 1037.5 1 TRUE 749075 1998602 3100 1050 1 TRUE 749088 1998602 3112.5 1000 0 FALSE 749038 1998615 3125 950 0 FALSE 748988 1998627 3125 975 0 FALSE 749013 1998627

PAGE 460

460 Table B 1. continued Northing Easting Pos/Neg Prehist Comment X Y 3125 1000 0 FALSE 749038 1998627 3125 1025 1 TR UE 749063 1998627 3125 1037.5 1 TRUE 749075 1998627 3150 875 0 FALSE 748913 1998652 3150 900 0 FALSE 748938 1998652 3150 950 0 FALSE 748988 1998652 3150 975 0 FALSE 749013 1998652 3150 1000 0 FALSE 749038 1998652 3150 1025 0 FALSE 749063 199 8652 3155 950 0 FALSE 748988 1998657 3175 975 0 FALSE 749013 1998677 3175 1000 1 FALSE 749038 1998677 3200 1000 0 FALSE 749038 1998702 3400 2550 0 FALSE 750588 1998902 3400 2600 0 FALSE 750638 1998902 3475 2425 0 FALSE 750463 1998977 3500 25 50 0 FALSE 750588 1999002 3600 2400 0 FALSE 750438 1999102 3800 4245 0 FALSE Basketball court 752283 1999302 3805 4215 0 FALSE 752253 1999307 3805 4220 1 TRUE Adjacent to abandoned school 752258 1999307 3820 4215 0 FALSE Well and water pump 752253 1999322 3820 4220 1 TRUE 752258 1999322 3820 4225 1 TRUE 752263 1999322 3820 4245 1 TRUE Adjacent to abandoned school 752283 1999322 3820 4255 1 TRUE 752293 1999322 3825 4245 0 FALSE 752283 1999327 3830 4245 1 TRUE 752283 1999332 3835 4210 0 F ALSE 752248 1999337 3835 4220 1 TRUE Adjacent to abandoned school 752258 1999337 3835 4230 0 FALSE 752268 1999337 3835 4245 0 FALSE 752283 1999337

PAGE 461

461 APPENDIX C FIELD SPECIMEN LOG This appendix provides the field specimen log for the artifacts recove red during the TASP. Due to formatting limitations, the columns of the log are abbreviated. Columns for each row in the table are: FS: Unique Field Specimen Number identifying provenience S ITE : Site specific num ber. N ORTH : Arbitrary Northing Coordinate E AST : Arbitrary Easting Coordinate. S URFACE C OLLECT : Indicates whether or not surface collection was made that that location L VL : Level at which the material was collected. T OP DPT( CM ) : Top depth of level cmbs. B OTTOM DPT ( CM ) : Bottom depth of level c mbs. P OT ( CT ) : Count of pottery sherds collected. P OT ( WT ) : Weight of sherds in grams R ESID ( CT ) : Count of sherds under 1 cm collected. R ESID ( WT ) : Weight of sherds under 1 cm collected grams L ITHIC ( CT ) : Count of lithics collected. L ITHIC ( WT ) : Weig ht of lithics collected in grams S HELL ( CT ) : Count of shell collected.* S HELL ( WT ) : Weight of shell collected* in grams B ONE ( CT ) : Count of bone collected.* B ONE ( WT ) Weight of bone collected.* Analysis of material collected from column samples i n progress DuChemin n.d.

PAGE 462

462 Table C 1. Field Specimen Log FS Site PO North East Surface Collect Lvl. Top DPT. (cm) Bot DPT (cm) Pot ct Pot wt Resid. ct Resid. wt Lithic ct Lithic wt Shell ct Shell wt Bone ct Bone wt 1 52 1825 2840 TRUE 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 448 0 0 2 52 1825 2837.5 TRUE 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 628 0 0 4 52 1820 2837.5 TRUE 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 218 0 0 0 0 5 52 1825 2837.5 TRUE 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 500 0 0 0 0 9 52 1825 2837.5 FALSE 1 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 15.5 0 0 10 52 1825 2840 FALSE 2 20 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 10.8 0 0 11 52 1825 2837.5 FALSE 2 20 40 3 12.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 52 1820 2837.5 FALSE 2 20 40 0 0 0 0 5 10 0 0 0 0 13 52 1825 2837.5 FALSE 3 40 60 1 1.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 52 1825 2837.5 FALSE 3 40 60 1 2.1 0 0 1 12 0 0 0 0 16 52 18 37.5 2837.5 FALSE 1 0 20 2 7.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 52 1837.5 2837.5 FALSE 3 40 60 1 1.7 0 0 1 21 0 0 0 0 22 IF 650 4300 FALSE 1 0 20 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 IF 650 4150 FALSE 1 0 20 0 0 0 0 1 385 0 0 0 0 25 IF 550 4250 FALSE 1 0 20 1 1.9 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 30 2 1825 3175 TRUE 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 45.6 0 0 31 42 2337.5 2562.4 TRUE 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 294 0 0 32 42 2337.5 2562.5 TRUE 1 0 0 1 1.2 0 0 0 0 10 30.5 0 0 33 42 2350 2562.5 TRUE 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 27.1 0 0 34 53 560 4005 TRUE 1 0 0 6 63.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 53 562 4005 FALSE 1 0 20 1 3.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 IF 975 3500 TRUE 1 0 0 2 17.4 1 1.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 43 2720 2555 FALSE 1 0 20 7 39.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 53 562 4005 TRUE 1 0 0 2 9.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 53 580 4000 TRUE 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 42 47 3125 1037.5 TRUE 1 0 20 2 40.2 0 0 1 10 0 0 0 0 44 42 2200 2675 FALSE 1 0 20 4 33.5 0 0 0 0 35 9.3 0 0

PAGE 463

463 Table C 1. continued FS Site PO North East Surface Collect Lvl. Top DPT. (cm) Bot. DPT (cm) Pot ct Pot wt Resid. ct Resid. wt Lith ic ct Lithic wt Shell ct Shell wt Bone ct Bone wt 46 42 2225 2675 FALSE 1 0 20 8 182.2 2 1.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 42 2225 2675 FALSE 2 20 40 2 19.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 42 2250 2675 FALSE 1 0 20 6 95.8 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 42 2250 2675 FALSE 2 20 40 1 2.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 42 2175 2700 FALSE 1 0 20 2 13.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 42 2200 2700 FALSE 2 20 40 1 2.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 42 2200 2725 FALSE 1 0 20 6 26.2 2 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 42 2225 2700 FALSE 1 0 20 4 27.1 1 1.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 42 2250 2700 FALSE 1 0 20 11 61.8 4 2 6 49 0 0 0 0 55 42 2275 2700 FALSE 1 0 20 2 4.5 1 0.7 1 6 0 0 0 0 56 42 2252 2705 FALSE 1 0 20 9 31 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 57 42 2252 2705 FALSE 2 20 40 4 19.3 2 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 42 2250 2712.5 FALSE 1 0 20 4 16.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 42 2250 27 12.5 FALSE 2 20 40 1 3.7 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 60 42 2245 2709.5 FALSE 1 0 20 1 5.6 1 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 42 2245 2709.5 FALSE 2 20 40 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 62 42 2240 2706.5 FALSE 1 0 20 2 7.2 0 0 1 22 0 0 0 0 63 42 2245 2709.5 TRUE 1 0 0 2 8.7 0 0 1 223 0 0 0 0 65 42 2245 2709.5 TRUE 1 0 0 5 112.9 0 0 1 410 0 0 0 0 66 42 2252 2705 TRUE 1 0 0 2 19.4 0 0 1 36 0 0 0 0 67 42 2337.5 2562.5 FALSE 1 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 3 0 0 68 42 2337.5 2562.5 FALSE 2 20 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 4 69 42 2337.5 2562.5 FALSE 1 0 20 24 132.3 15 18.2 4 68 1539 1820 1 2 70 42 2337.5 2562.5 FALSE 2 20 40 15 79.6 3 2 4 22 302 343 0 0 71 42 2350 2562.5 FALSE 1 0 20 5 23.5 0 0 0 0 103 114 0 0 72 42 2350 2562.5 FALSE 2 20 40 5 28.8 0 0 0 0 116 120 0 0 73 42 2337.5 2562.5 FALSE 3 40 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2.3 0 0

PAGE 464

464 Table C 1. continued FS Site PO North East Surface Collect Lvl. Top DPT. (cm) Bot. DPT (cm) Pot ct Pot wt Resid. ct Resid. wt Lithic ct Lithic wt Shell ct Shell wt Bone ct Bone wt 74 42 2262 2662.5 FALSE 1 0 20 8 34.3 4 1.5 0 0 59 73 0 0 75 42 2225 2657.3 TRUE 1 0 0 5 72.3 0 0 1 69 0 0 0 0 76 42 2225 2657.3 FALSE 1 0 20 110 392.6 0 0 6 52 497 672 4 2 77 42 2225 2657.3 FALSE 2 20 40 4 55.7 1 0.5 0 0 26 18.7 0 0 78 42 2237.5 2675 FALSE 2 20 40 1 2.5 0 0 1 8 0 0 0 0 79 42 2237.5 2675 FALSE 3 40 60 0 0 3 2.5 0 0 0 0 80 42 2212.5 2675 FALSE 1 0 20 5 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 42 2337.5 2575 FALSE 1 0 20 2 22.1 0 0 0 0 10 20 0 0 82 42 2337.5 2575 FALSE 2 20 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3.5 0 0 83 42 2337.5 2575 FALSE 3 40 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.25 0 0 84 42 2300 2650 FALSE 1 0 20 1 4.1 0 0 0 0 1 0.3 0 0 85 42 2175 2725 FALSE 1 0 20 2 12.2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 42 2175 2750 FALSE 1 0 20 7 24 2 2.5 2 2 0 0 0 0 87 42 2200 2750 FALSE 1 0 20 2 25.1 2 1.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 42 2250 27 25 FALSE 2 20 40 1 1.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89 42 2250 2725 FALSE 1 0 20 2 5.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 42 2225 2650 TRUE 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 386 0 0 91 42 2225 2650 FALSE 1 0 20 43 232.6 16 18.5 2 137 567 1318 1 1 92 42 2225 2650 FALSE 3 40 60 4 16.4 2 2.4 1 11 30 37.6 0 0 93 42 2225 2662.5 FALSE 1 0 20 1 3.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 42 2337.5 2562.5 TRUE 1 0 0 1 12.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 42 2337.5 2562.4 FALSE 1 10 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 40 0 0 96 42 2226 2657.5 FALSE 1 0 20 2 13.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 42 2225 2650 FALSE 2 20 40 10 43.6 6 2 0 0 460 310 0 0 98 42 2250 2687.5 FALSE 1 0 20 10 89 2 2.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 42 2275 2625 FALSE 1 0 20 0 0 0 0 3 9 0 0 0 0

PAGE 465

465 Table C 1. continued FS Site PO North East Surface Collect Lvl. Top DPT. (cm) Bot. DPT (cm) Pot ct Pot wt R esid. ct Resid. wt Lithic ct Lithic wt Shell ct Shell wt Bone ct Bone wt 101 42 2337.5 2600 FALSE 2 20 40 1 2.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 103 42 2300 2675 FALSE 1 0 20 0 0 0 0 1 39 0 0 0 0 107 52 1825 2850 FALSE 1 0 20 1 9.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 52 1825 2850 FALSE 2 20 40 3 20.2 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 109 52 1825 2850 FALSE 3 40 60 5 50.8 8 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 42 2337.5 2562.4 FALSE 1 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 421 1270 0 0 111 42 2337.5 2562.4 FALSE 1 10 20 9 33.1 5 6 0 0 549 1092 0 0 112 42 2337.5 2562.4 FALSE 2 20 30 13 61.7 8 7 2 11 159 133 0 0 113 42 2226 2657.5 FALSE 1 0 10 41 171.1 3 2 0 0 147 201 0 0 114 42 2226 2657.5 FALSE 1 10 20 41 148.2 16 15 0 0 196 212 0 0 115 42 2226 2657.5 FALSE 2 20 30 46 296.9 17 15 7 17 301 422 0 0 116 42 2226 2657.5 FALSE 2 30 36 10 93.7 4 4 1 5 91 69 0 0 117 52 1835 2825 TRUE 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 109 0 0 118 52 1835 2825 FALSE 1 0 20 3 20.3 0 0 0 0 101 236 0 0 119 52 1835 2825 FALSE 2 20 40 1 6.9 0 0 0 0 22 37.1 0 0 120 52 1835 2825 FALSE 3 40 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 19 .2 0 0 121 52 1835 2825 FALSE 4 60 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 122 52 1853 2845 TRUE 1 0 0 5 29.4 0 0 0 0 91 296 0 0 123 52 1850 2836 FALSE 1 0 20 12 45.9 4 5 2 10 106 72.9 0 0 124 52 1850 2836 FALSE 2 20 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 6.2 0 0 125 52 1850 2850 FALSE 1 0 20 2 16.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 126 52 1805 2850 TRUE 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6.2 0 0 129 52 1805 2837.5 TRUE 1 0 0 17 1268 0 0 13 3049 51 445 0 0 132 44 2100 2412.5 TRUE 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 45.4 0 0 133 44 2100 2425 FALSE 1 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.4 0 0 134 44 2 100 2437.5 FALSE 2 20 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2.1 0 0

PAGE 466

466 Table C 1. continued FS Site PO North East Surface Collect Lvl. Top DPT. (cm) Bot. DPT (cm) Pot ct Pot wt Resid. ct Resid. wt Lithic ct Lithic wt Shell ct Shell wt Bone ct Bone wt 135 44 2112.5 2437.5 FALSE 1 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.5 0 0 136 44 2100 2412.5 FALSE 2 20 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.2 0 0 137 44 2112.5 2425 FALSE 1 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 140 47 3100 1025 FALSE 1 0 20 6 33.1 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 141 47 3100 1025 FALSE 2 20 40 4 9.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 142 47 3100 1025 FALSE 3 40 60 13 57.3 14 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 143 47 3100 1025 FALSE 4 60 80 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 144 47 3100 1037.5 FALSE 1 0 20 1 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 145 47 3100 1050 FALSE 1 0 20 2 17.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 146 47 3125 1025 FA LSE 1 0 20 4 22.6 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 147 53 560 3985 TRUE 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 87 117 0 0 148 53 560 3985 FALSE 1 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 189 1 3 149 53 560 3990 FALSE 1 0 20 1 1.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 53 560 3985 FALSE 2 20 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 30.2 0 0 152 53 560 4000 FALSE 1 0 20 4 13.1 0 0 1 5 13 4.1 0 0 153 53 560 4000 FALSE 2 20 40 1 5.6 2 2.3 0 0 8 5.7 0 0 154 53 560 4005 TRUE 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 8.5 0 0 155 53 560 4005 FALSE 1 0 20 1 13.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 156 53 562 3985 FALSE 3 20 30 3 89.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 157 50 1250 3262.5 TRUE 1 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 159 50 1250 3300 FALSE 1 0 20 3 25.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 160 50 1250 3312.5 FALSE 1 0 20 1 8.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 161 50 1250 3312.5 FALSE 2 20 40 3 14.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 162 50 1262.5 3300 FALSE 1 0 20 3 39.4 2 3 0 0 0 0 5 5 163 50 1262.5 3312.5 FALSE 1 0 20 2 29.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 164 50 1150 3300 FALSE 1 0 20 2 5.4 1 1.4 0 0 0 0 0 0

PAGE 467

467 Table C 1. continued FS Site PO North East Surface Collect Lvl. Top DPT. (cm) Bot. DPT (cm) Pot ct Pot wt Resid. ct Resid. wt Lithic ct Lithic wt Shell ct Shell wt Bone ct Bone wt 165 50 1251 3300 TRUE 1 0 0 2 83.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 166 52 1900 2800 FALSE 1 0 20 1 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 167 42 2226 2657.5 TRUE 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 635 0 0 0 0 168 50 1262.5 3300 TRUE 1 0 0 10 159.8 5 4.6 1 255 3 19.9 0 0 169 50 1300 3300 TRUE 1 0 0 17 1582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 170 50 1150 3200 FALSE 2 20 40 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 171 50 1175 3225 FALSE 1 0 20 1 2.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 173 50 1175 3300 FALSE 2 20 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 174 50 1275 3 300 FALSE 1 0 20 1 7.2 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 175 50 1275 3312.5 FALSE 1 0 20 1 12.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 176 50 1275 3312.5 FALSE 2 20 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 178 47 2950 950 FALSE 1 0 20 1 7.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 182 42 2220 2662.5 TRUE 1 0 0 4 6.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 83 42 2250 2712.5 TRUE 1 0 0 3 8.7 2 2 1 52 0 0 0 0 184 42 2245 2705 FALSE 1 0 10 10 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 185 42 2245 2705 FALSE 1 10 20 3 10.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 186 42 2245 2705 FALSE 2 10 20 5 11.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 187 42 2252 2705 TRUE 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.5 0 0 188 42 2245 2690 FALSE 1 0 20 2 7.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 189 42 2245 2690 FALSE 2 20 40 2 4.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 190 53 562 3985 FALSE 1 0 10 6 64.4 0 0 1 12 9 7 0 0 191 53 562 3985 FALSE 1 10 20 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 53 562 3985 FALSE 2 20 30 4 2 2.2 0 0 13 175 0 0 0 0 193 45 1712.5 3037.5 FALSE 1 0 20 4 9.6 2 1 1 58 94 67.7 0 0 194 45 1712.5 3037.5 FALSE 2 20 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2.8 0 0 195 43 2703 2512.5 FALSE 2 20 40 1 4.1 0 0 0 0 1 0.1 0 0

PAGE 468

468 Table C 1. continued FS Site PO North East Surface Collect Lvl. Top DPT. (cm) Bot. DPT (cm) Pot ct Pot wt Resid. ct Resid. wt Lithic ct Lithic wt Shell ct Shell wt Bone ct Bone wt 196 43 2703 2512.5 FALSE 1 0 20 4 11.8 4 2 16 163 0 0 0 0 198 45 1687.5 3075 FALSE 3 40 60 1 10.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 199 45 1687.5 3075 FALSE 4 60 80 2 11.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 45 1687.5 3087.5 FALSE 1 0 20 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 8 0 0 201 43 2675 2500 FALSE 2 20 40 12 46.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 202 43 2700 2500 FALSE 1 0 20 8 26.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 203 43 2725 2500 FA LSE 2 20 40 3 15.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 204 43 2725 2500 FALSE 3 40 60 2 5.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 205 43 2750 2500 FALSE 1 0 20 1 5.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 206 43 2712.5 2512.5 FALSE 1 0 20 17 100.4 0 0 1 8 3 1 0 0 207 43 2725 2512.5 FALSE 1 0 20 4 30.5 0 0 1 14 0 0 0 0 208 43 2737.5 2512.5 FALSE 1 0 20 2 13.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 209 43 2762.5 2512.5 FALSE 1 0 20 1 4.1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 210 43 2762.5 2512.5 FALSE 3 40 60 3 11.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 211 43 2662.5 2525 FALSE 1 0 20 1 2.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 212 43 2687.5 2525 FALS E 1 0 20 9 73.3 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 213 43 2687.5 2525 FALSE 2 20 40 1 8.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 214 43 2700 2525 FALSE 1 0 20 3 10.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 215 43 2700 2525 FALSE 3 40 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 35 216 43 2712.5 2525 FALSE 1 0 20 19 82.9 5 7 1 8 0 0 0 0 21 7 43 2737.5 2525 FALSE 1 0 20 3 26.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 218 43 2737.5 2525 FALSE 2 20 40 4 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 219 43 2650 2550 FALSE 1 0 20 1 3.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 220 43 2675 2550 FALSE 1 0 20 15 97.3 1 1 0 0 8 16.3 0 0 221 43 2675 2550 FALSE 2 20 40 8 23. 6 0 0 1 5 4 0.9 0 0 222 43 2700 2550 FALSE 1 0 20 24 122.8 7 10 7 129 2 0.4 0 0

PAGE 469

469 Table C 1. continued FS Site PO North East Surface Collect Lvl. Top DPT. (cm) Bot. DPT (cm) Pot ct Pot wt Resid. ct Resid. wt Lithic ct Lithic wt Shell ct Shell wt Bo ne ct Bone wt 223 43 2725 2550 FALSE 1 0 20 12 43.4 3 2 6 14 49 47 0 0 224 43 2750 2550 FALSE 1 0 20 1 4.7 0 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 225 43 2775 2550 FALSE 1 0 20 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 226 43 2750 2575 FALSE 1 0 20 1 1.8 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 227 43 2687.5 2518 FALSE 1 0 20 14 44 9 14 3 19 592 1344 0 0 228 43 2687.5 2518 FALSE 2 20 40 3 9.3 0 0 0 0 175 332 0 0 229 43 2675 2512.5 FALSE 1 0 20 14 91.2 4 4 0 0 27 27.2 0 0 230 43 2687.5 2512.5 FALSE 1 0 20 10 30.1 0 0 0 0 72 330 9 4 231 43 2700 2512.5 FALSE 1 0 20 17 49.5 11 15 4 4 623 1588 0 0 232 43 2675 2537.5 FALSE 1 0 20 10 86.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 233 43 2687.5 2537.5 FALSE 1 0 20 0 0 0 0 1 23 0 0 0 0 234 43 2700 2537.5 FALSE 1 0 20 5 14.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 235 43 2700 2537.5 FALSE 1 0 20 8 31.5 0 0 0 0 4 0.75 0 0 236 43 2712.5 2537.5 FALSE 1 0 20 5 33.1 3 2.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 237 43 2725 2537.5 FALSE 1 0 20 6 22.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 238 43 2737.5 2537.5 FALSE 1 0 20 7 31.4 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 239 43 2762.5 2525 FALSE 1 0 20 2 9.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 240 43 27 62.5 2525 FALSE 2 20 40 1 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 241 43 2722 2555 FALSE 1 0 10 1 2.9 0 0 0 0 12 8.3 0 0 242 49 2625 3725 FALSE 2 20 40 2 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 243 49 2500 3725 FALSE 1 0 20 3 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 244 43 2703 2512.5 FALSE 1 0 10 47 126.5 9 6 5 14 489 1214 0 0 245 43 2703 2512.5 FALSE 1 10 20 27 136.1 17 10.8 0 0 745 1085 0 0 246 43 2703 2512.5 FALSE 2 10 20 23 143 20 13.5 1 2 729 1029 0 0 247 43 2703 2512.5 FALSE 2 30 40 4 9.7 4 2.9 0 0 132 256 0 0 250 49 2650 3700 FALSE 1 0 20 0 0 0 0 4 200 0 0 0 0

PAGE 470

470 Table C 1. continued FS Site PO North East Surface Collect Lvl. Top DPT. (cm) Bot. DPT (cm) Pot ct Pot wt Resid. ct Resid. wt Lithic ct Lithic wt Shell ct Shell wt Bone ct Bone wt 251 48 3820 4255 TRUE 1 0 0 5 28.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 252 48 3820 4225 FALSE 1 0 20 3 13.2 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 253 48 3820 4245 FALSE 1 0 20 14 48.3 0 0 11 39 0 0 0 0 254 48 3820 4245 FALSE 2 20 40 12 41 0 0 8 13 0 0 0 0 255 48 3830 4245 FALSE 2 20 40 1 24.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 256 48 3820 4220 FALSE 3 40 60 2 23.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 257 48 3835 4220 FALSE 1 0 20 2 20.9 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 258 48 3835 4220 FALSE 2 20 40 3 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 259 48 3835 4220 FALSE 3 40 60 4 6.8 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 260 48 3830 4245 FALSE 1 0 20 4 19.3 1 1 6 87 0 0 0 0 261 48 3805 4220 FALSE 2 20 40 4 47.4 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 262 48 3805 4220 FALSE 3 40 60 1 5.2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 263 48 3820 4255 FALSE 1 0 20 9 80.2 1 1 8 371 0 0 0 0 264 48 3820 4255 FALSE 2 20 40 2 19.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 267 57 1150 5125 FALSE 1 0 20 1 4.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 272 54 267 5 1100 FALSE 2 20 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5.6 0 0 274 54 2725 1100 FALSE 1 0 20 1 3.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 275 54 2750 1100 FALSE 1 0 20 0 0 0 0 1 8 0 0 0 0 276 46 1525 1550 TRUE 1 0 0 3 23.5 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 13 277 46 1650 1525 TRUE 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 279 46 1500 1550 FALSE 1 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 282 51 0 0 TRUE 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 91.6 0 0 283 51 0 0 TRUE 1 0 0 59 406.8 0 0 0 0 59 185 0 0 285 2 1900 3175 FALSE 1 0 20 2 3.2 0 0 0 0 1 2.2 0 0 287 43 2687.9 2512.5 FALSE 1 0 10 14 42.9 24 13 5 13 0 0 0 0 288 43 2687.9 2512.5 FALSE 1 10 20 22 71.6 4 3 4 13 2510 2174 0 0 289 43 2687.9 2512.5 FALSE 3 20 30 7 23.4 4 4 5 6 825 738 0 0

PAGE 471

471 Table C 1. continued FS Site PO North East Surface Collect Lvl. Top DPT. (cm) Bot. DPT (cm) Pot ct Pot wt Resid. ct Re sid. wt Lithic ct Lithic wt Shell ct Shell wt Bone ct Bone wt 290 43 2722 2555 FALSE 1 0 10 23 90 0 0 11 13 746 584 0 0 291 43 2722 2555 FALSE 1 10 20 29 133.5 15 11 5 4 248 518 0 0 292 43 2722 2555 FALSE 2 20 30 18 130.7 9 21 6 24 185 177 0 0 293 46 1500 1550 FALSE 2 20 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.1 0 0 294 46 1600 1475 FALSE 1 0 20 1 1.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 1340 10049.9 348 321.7 227 7827 14788 23693 86 80

PAGE 472

472 APPENDIX D ARTIFACT CATALOG This appendix represents all prehistoric cultural material recovere d during the Tibes Archaeological Project Survey. Columns for each row in the table are: FS : Unique Field Specimen Number identifying provenience N ORTH : Arbitrary Northing Coordinate. E AST : Arbitrary Easting Coordinate. L EVEL : Level at which the materi al was collected. M ATERIAL : Artifact material class ( i.e. pottery, stone type, shell type) D EFINITION : Artifact type ct: Count of artifacts. wt: Weight artifacts. C OMMENT : General comments regarding the artifact.

PAGE 473

473 Table D 1. Artifact catalog FS North Ea st Level Material Definition ct wt Comment 4 1820.00 2837.50 1 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 17.3 Single Platform 4 1820.00 2837.50 1 Greenstone Thinning Flake 1 200.7 Single Platform 5 1825.00 2837.50 1 Metavolcanic Core 1 453.1 Single Platform 5 1825 .00 2837.50 1 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 46.5 Retouched 11 1825 2837.5 2 Pottery Indeterminate 1 3.5 11 1825 2837.5 2 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 6.3 11 1825 2837.5 2 Pottery Rim 1 2.5 12 1820.00 2837.50 2 Metavolcanic Shatter 2 3.7 12 1820.00 2837.50 2 Metavolcanic Shatter 3 6.2 13 1825 2837.5 3 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 1.7 14 1825 2837.5 3 Pottery Rim 1 2.1 14 1825.00 2837.50 3 Metavolcanic Bipolar Flake 1 11.8 16 1837.5 2837.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 2 7.5 18 1837.5 2837.5 3 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 1.7 18 1837.50 2837.50 3 Greenstone Thinning Flake 1 20.5 Single Platform 22 650 4300 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 5 23 650.00 4150.00 1 Metavolcanic Core 1 384.3 Single Platform Pyramidal 25 550 4250 1 Pottery Regul ar Body Sherd 1 1.9 25 550.00 4250.00 1 Chert Shatter 2 2.9 32 2337.5 2562.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 1.2 34 560 4005 1 Pottery Base Convex 1 7.9 34 560 4005 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 4 41.1 34 560 4005 1 Pottery Rim 1 14.6 35 562 4005 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 3.3 36 975 3500 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 2 17.4 37 2720 2555 1 Pottery Base Flat 1 15.3 37 2720 2555 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 6 23.8 38 562 4005 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 1.6 38 562 4005 1 Pottery Shou lder OUT 1 8.2 39 580.00 4000.00 1 Metavolcanic Bipolar Flake 1 2.4 42 3125 1037.5 1 Pottery Buren 1 5.3 42 3125 1037.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 34.9 42 3125.00 1037.50 1 Metavolcanic Bipolar Flake 1 9.7 44 2200 2675 1 Pottery Base Flat 1 1 3.5 44 2200 2675 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 3 20 46 2225 2675 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 4 12.4 46 2225 2675 1 Pottery Rim 4 169.8 47 2225 2675 2 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 2 19.8

PAGE 474

474 Table D 1. continued FS North East Level Material Definition ct wt Comment 48 2250 2675 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 5 25.9 48 2250 2675 1 Pottery Rim 1 69.9 49 2250 2675 2 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 2.7 50 2175 2700 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 3.9 50 2175 2700 1 Pottery Shoulder OUT 1 9.4 51 2200 2700 2 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 2.7 52 2200 2725 1 Pottery Base Flat 1 11.2 52 2200 2725 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 4 12.5 52 2200 2725 1 Pottery Rim 1 2.5 53 2225 2700 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 4 27.1 54 2250 2700 1 Pottery Base Flat 1 10.2 54 2250 2700 1 Pottery Handle/strap indeterminate 1 2.7 54 2250 2700 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 5 13.3 54 2250 2700 1 Pottery Rim 4 35.6 54 2250.00 2700.00 1 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 6.8 Single Platform 54 2250.00 2700.00 1 Met avolcanic Thinning Flake 1 9.7 Collapsed Platform 54 2250.00 2700.00 1 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 6.7 Single Platform 54 2250.00 2700.00 1 Metavolcanic Shatter 2 2.4 54 2250.00 2700.00 1 Greenstone Thinning Flake 1 23.1 Multiple Platforms 55 2275 2 700 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 2 4.5 55 2275.00 2700.00 1 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 6.3 Single Platform 56 2252 2705 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 8 29.3 56 2252 2705 1 Pottery Rim 1 1.7 56 2252.00 2705.00 1 Greenstone Shatter 2 1.7 57 2252 2 705 2 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 4 19.3 58 2250 2712.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 3 14.1 58 2250 2712.5 1 Pottery Rim 1 2.3 59 2250 2712.5 2 Pottery Handle Lug or Cylindrical 1 3.7 59 2250.00 2712.50 2 Metavolcanic Bipolar Flake 1 4.8 60 2245 2 709.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 5.6 61 2245.00 2709.50 2 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 1.4 Trimmed single platform 62 2240 2706.5 1 Pottery Base Flat 1 4.8 62 2240 2706.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 2.4 62 2240.00 2706.50 1 Metavolcanic Thin ning Flake 1 21.7 Single Platform 63 2245 2709.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 2 8.7 63 2245.00 2709.50 1 Metavolcanic Core 1 222.7 Secondary Core, Pyramidal 65 2245 2709.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 5 112.9

PAGE 475

475 Table D 1. continued FS North East Level Material Definition ct wt Comment 65 2245.00 2709.50 1 Metavolcanic Core 1 410.4 Single Platform 66 2252 2705 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 17.6 66 2252 2705 1 Pottery Rim 1 1.8 66 2252.00 2705.00 1 Metavolcanic Bipolar Flake 1 35.4 69 2337.5 256 2 1 Pottery Buren 1 15.6 69 2337.5 2562 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 23 116.7 69 2337.50 2562.50 1 Basalt Thinning Flake 1 1.4 Feather termination 69 2337.50 2562.50 1 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 55.7 Multiple Platforms 69 2337.50 2562.50 1 Metavol canic Shatter 1 1.4 69 2337.50 2562.50 1 Metavolcanic Bipolar Flake 1 9.7 70 2337.5 2562 2 Pottery Indeterminate 1 1 70 2337.5 2562 2 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 11 57.8 70 2337.5 2562 2 Pottery Rim 3 20.8 70 2337.50 2562.50 2 Greenstone Thinning Flake 1 4.8 Single Platform 70 2337.50 2562.50 2 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 12.3 Single Platform 70 2337.50 2562.50 2 Metavolcanic Shatter 2 4.7 71 2350 2562.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 5 23.5 72 2350 2562.5 2 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 4 23.6 72 2350 2562.5 2 Pottery Rim 1 5.2 74 2262 2662.5 1 Pottery Base Flat 1 15.6 74 2262 2662.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 7 18.7 75 2225 2657.25 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 4 39.1 75 2225 2657.25 1 Pottery Rim 1 33.2 75 2225.00 2657.25 1 Greens tone Thinning Flake 1 68.8 Single Platform 76 2225 2657.25 1 Pottery Base Flat 2 16.5 76 2225 2657.25 1 Pottery Handle/Residual w/inc 1 2.7 76 2225 2657.25 1 Pottery Indeterminate 1 2.9 76 2225 2657.25 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 92 304.6 76 2225 2657.25 1 Pottery Rim 14 65.9 76 2225.00 2657.25 1 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 7.8 Single Platform 76 2225.00 2657.25 1 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 7.6 Single Platform 76 2225.00 2657.25 1 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 1.9 Single Platform 76 2225 .00 2657.25 1 Metavolcanic Grader 1 9.7 76 2225.00 2657.25 1 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 14.8 Single Platform 76 2225.00 2657.25 1 Metavolcanic Bipolar Flake 1 11.4 77 2225 2657.25 2 Pottery Buren 1 50.2 77 2225 2657.25 2 Pottery Regular Body Sher d 3 5.5 78 2237.5 2675 2 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 2.5

PAGE 476

476 Table D 1. continued FS North East Level Material Definition ct wt Comment 78 2237.50 2675.00 2 Metavolcanic Bipolar Flake 1 8.2 80 2212.5 2675 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 2 4.8 80 2212.5 2675 1 Pottery Rim 3 12.2 81 2337.5 2575 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 2 81 2337.5 2575 1 Pottery Rim 1 20.1 84 2300 2650 1 Pottery Rim 1 4.1 85 2175 2725 1 Pottery Base Flat 1 8.5 85 2175 2725 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 3.7 86 2175 2750 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 6 22.4 86 2175 2750 1 Pottery Rim 1 1.6 86 2175.00 2750.00 1 Metavolcanic Shatter 1 1.4 Shatter 86 2175.00 2750.00 1 Metavolcanic Shatter 1 1.3 87 2200 2750 1 Pottery Buren 1 17.6 87 2200 2750 1 Pottery Regular Body Sh erd 1 7.5 88 2250 2725 2 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 1.7 89 2250 2725 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 2 5.4 91 2225 2650 1 Pottery Buren 1 9.3 91 2225 2650 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 39 183.5 91 2225 2650 1 Pottery Rim 3 39.8 91 2225.00 2650.00 1 Greenstone Thinning Flake 1 71.2 primary flake with outer pass termination; chipped platform 91 2225.00 2650.00 1 Metavolcanic Blade Flake 1 65.6 step termination 92 2225 2650 3 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 4 16.4 92 2225.00 2650.00 3 Metavolcanic Sh atter 1 10.7 93 2225 2662.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 3.2 94 2337.5 2562.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 12.8 96 2226 2657.5 1 Pottery Rim 2 13.2 97 2225 2650 2 Pottery Handle Lug Residual 1 3.7 97 2225 2650 2 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 8 3 8 97 2225 2650 2 Pottery Rim 1 1.9 98 2250 2687.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 9 78.5 98 2250 2687.5 1 Pottery Rim 1 10.5 100 2275.00 2625.00 1 Grey Flint Thinning Flake 1 2.4 Single Platform and Feather termination 100 2275.00 2625.00 1 Metavolca nic Thinning Flake 1 4.4 Single Platform 100 2275.00 2625.00 1 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 2.8 Feather termination 101 2337.5 2600 2 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 2.9 103 2300.00 2675.00 1 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 38.7 Single Platform

PAGE 477

477 Table D 1. continued FS North East Level Material Definition ct wt Comment 107 1825 2850 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 9.2 108 1825 2850 2 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 2 5.4 108 1825 2850 2 Pottery Rim 1 14.8 109 1825 2850 3 Pottery Buren 2 32.2 109 1825 28 50 3 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 3 18.6 111 2337.5 2562.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 7 25.8 111 2337.5 2562.5 1 Pottery Rim 2 7.3 112 2337.5 2562.5 3 Pottery Buren 1 2.2 112 2337.5 2562.5 3 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 11 57 112 2337.5 2562.5 3 Po ttery Rim 1 2.5 112 2337.50 2562.40 2 Metavolcanic Core 1 7.7 Single Platform Core 112 2337.50 2562.40 2 Greenstone Shatter 1 2.8 113 2226 2657.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 36 153.6 113 2226 2657.5 1 Pottery Rim 3 6.4 113 2226 2657.5 1 Pottery S houlder OUT 2 11.1 114 2226 2657.5 1 Pottery Buren 1 12.1 114 2226 2657.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 35 112.3 114 2226 2657.5 1 Pottery Rim 4 7.5 114 2226 2657.5 1 Pottery Shoulder OUT 1 16.3 115 2226 2657.5 2 Pottery Base Convex 1 19.8 115 2 226 2657.5 2 Pottery Buren 2 42.2 115 2226 2657.5 2 Pottery Handle/strap indeterminate 1 2.3 115 2226 2657.5 2 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 34 190.6 115 2226 2657.5 2 Pottery Rim 8 42 115 2226.00 2657.50 2 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 4.8 Single Pla tform 115 2226.00 2657.50 2 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 1.4 Single Platform 115 2226.00 2657.50 2 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 2.8 Single Platform 115 2226.00 2657.50 2 Greenstone Thinning Flake 1 2.5 Single Platform 115 2226.00 2657.50 2 Metavolcan ic Thinning Flake 1 2.4 Single Platform 115 2226.00 2657.50 2 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 2.2 Collapsed Platform 115 2226.00 2657.50 2 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 2.3 Collapsed Platform 116 2226 2657.5 2 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 9 90.7 116 2226 2657.5 2 Pottery Shoulder OUT 1 3 116 2226.00 2657.50 2 Flint Thinning Flake 1 4.8 Single Platform 118 1835 2825 1 Pottery Buren 1 10.7 118 1835 2825 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 2 9.6 119 1835 2825 2 Pottery Buren 1 6.9 122 1853 2845 1 Pottery Re gular Body Sherd 5 29.4

PAGE 478

478 Table D 1. continued FS North East Level Material Definition ct wt Comment 123 1850 2836 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 10 36.8 123 1850 2836 1 Pottery Rim 2 9.1 123 1850.00 2836.00 1 Metavolcanic Bipolar Flake 1 7.2 123 185 0.00 2836.00 1 Greenstone Thinning Flake 1 2.9 Single Platform 125 1850 2850 1 Pottery Buren 1 13.7 125 1850 2850 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 3 129 1805 2837.5 1 Pottery Buren 8 1203 129 1805 2837.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 8 60.1 129 1805 2837.5 1 Pottery Rim 1 4.2 129 1805.00 2837.50 1 Metavolcanic Bipolar Flake 1 82.6 129 1805.00 2837.50 1 Metavolcanic Core 1 163.4 Random 129 1805.00 2837.50 1 Metavolcanic Bipolar Flake 1 131.0 129 1805.00 2837.50 1 Metavolcanic Bipolar Flake 1 128 .6 129 1805.00 2837.50 1 Metavolcanic Blade Flake 1 137.5 step termination 129 1805.00 2837.50 1 Greenstone Core 1 232.4 Secondary Core, Pyramidal 129 1805.00 2837.50 1 Metavolcanic Hammer stone 1 Round shaped percutor 129 1805.00 2837.50 1 Greenston e Thinning Flake 1 66.8 Single Platform 129 1805.00 2837.50 1 Greenstone Thinning Flake 1 31.5 Single Platform 129 1805.00 2837.50 1 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 88.7 Multiple Platforms 129 1805.00 2837.50 1 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 61.9 Multiple Platforms 129 1805.00 2837.50 1 Greenstone Thinning Flake 1 34.3 Unifacial retouch 129 1805.00 2837.50 1 Metavolcanic Hammer stone 1 330.2 Percussion tool 140 3100 1025 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 4 23.5 140 3100 1025 1 Pottery Rim 2 9.6 141 3100 1 025 2 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 4 9.9 142 3100 1025 3 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 10 52.1 142 3100 1025 3 Pottery Rim 3 5.2 144 3100 1037.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 2.5 145 3100 1050 1 Pottery Base Flat 1 13.1 145 3100 1050 1 Pottery Rim 1 4.4 146 3125 1025 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 3 15.7 146 3125 1025 1 Pottery Shoulder OUT 1 6.9 146 3125.00 1025.00 1 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 1.8 Multiple Platforms 149 560 3990 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 1.6 152 560 4000 1 Pottery Regu lar Body Sherd 3 8.6 152 560 4000 1 Pottery Rim 1 4.5 152 560.00 4000.00 1 Metavolcanic Ground Stone 1 4.5 153 560 4000 2 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 5.6

PAGE 479

479 Table D 1. continued FS North East Level Material Definition ct wt Comment 155 560 4005 1 P ottery Rim 1 13.2 156 562 3985 3 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 3 89.6 159 1250 3300 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 3 25.3 160 1250 3312.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 8.6 161 1250 3312.5 3 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 3 14.4 162 1262.5 3300 1 Pottery Base Flat 1 20.6 162 1262.5 3300 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 2 18.8 163 1262.5 3312.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 2 29.7 164 1150 3300 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 2.1 164 1150 3300 1 Pottery Rim 1 3.3 165 1251 3300 1 Pottery Regular Body She rd 1 42.9 165 1251 3300 1 Pottery Shoulder OUT 1 40.2 166 1900 2800 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 3.5 167 2226.00 2657.50 1 Metavolcanic Edge Grinder 1 634.7 168 1262.5 3300 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 10 159.8 168 1262.50 3300.00 1 Metavolcani c Grader 1 254.5 169 1300 3300 1 Pottery Base Flat 2 377.5 169 1300 3300 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 9 643.1 169 1300 3300 1 Pottery Rim 6 560.9 170 1150.00 3200.00 2 Quartz Shatter 1 1.9 171 1175 3225 1 Pottery Rim 1 2.4 174 1275 3300 1 Potte ry Regular Body Sherd 1 7.2 175 1275 3312.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 12.3 178 2950 950 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 7.5 182 2220 2662.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 4 6.9 183 2250 2712.5 1 Pottery Handle Lug Residual 1 2.1 183 2250 2712.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 3 183 2250 2712.5 1 Pottery Rim 1 3.6 183 2250.00 2712.50 1 Metavolcanic Bipolar Flake 1 51.5 184 2245 2705 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 10 41 185 2245 2705 1 Pottery Handle Tabular 1 2.9 185 2245 2705 1 Pottery Re gular Body Sherd 2 7.7 186 2245 2705 2 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 4 9.7 186 2245 2705 2 Pottery Rim 1 2 188 2245 2690 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 2 7.1 189 2245 2690 2 Pottery Handle/strap indeterminate 1 1.9 189 2245 2690 2 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 2.9 190 562 3985 1 Pottery Buren 1 19.2

PAGE 480

480 Table D 1. continued FS North East Level Material Definition ct wt Comment 190 562 3985 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 5 45.2 190 562.00 3985.00 1 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 11.6 Single Platform 19 1 562 3985 2 Clay Clay bead 1 0.5 191 562 3985 1 Pottery Indeterminate 1 1 192 562 3985 2 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 3 15.2 192 562 3985 2 Pottery Rim 1 7 192 562.00 3985.00 2 Quartz Shatter 1 72.3 192 562.00 3985.00 2 Metavolcanic Shatter 9 9.9 192 562.00 3985.00 2 Metavolcanic Abrader 3 91.4 Abraders (pulidores) 193 1712.5 3037.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 4 9.6 193 1712.50 3037.50 1 Metavolcanic Bipolar Flake 1 57.8 195 2703 2512.5 2 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 4.1 196 2703 2512.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 2 4.7 196 2703 2512.5 1 Pottery Rim 1 1.6 196 2703 2512.5 1 Pottery Shoulder OUT 1 5.5 196 2703.00 2512.50 1 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 14 23.6 Single Platform 196 2703.00 2512.50 1 Metavolcanic Shatter 1 7.9 196 2703 .00 2512.50 1 Metavolcanic Core 1 130.4 Multiple Platforms 198 1687.5 3075 3 Pottery Rim 1 10.1 199 1687.5 3075 4 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 2 11.3 200 1687.5 3087.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 2 201 2675 2500 2 Pottery Base Flat 1 4.6 201 2675 2500 2 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 6 21.2 201 2675 2500 2 Pottery Rim 5 21 202 2700 2500 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 8 26.7 203 2725 2500 2 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 3 15.5 204 2725 2500 3 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 2 5.1 205 2750 2500 1 Potter y Regular Body Sherd 1 5.4 206 2712.5 2512.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 14 55.7 206 2712.5 2512.5 1 Pottery Rim 1 2.6 206 2712.5 2512.5 1 Pottery Shoulder OUT 2 42.1 206 2712.50 2512.50 1 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 7.7 Single Platform 207 272 5 2512.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 2 7.4 207 2725 2512.5 1 Pottery Rim 2 23.1 207 2725.00 2512.50 1 Greenstone Thinning Flake 1 13.7 Multiple Platforms 208 2737.5 2512.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 2 13.3 209 2762.5 2512.5 1 Pottery Rim 1 4.1 210 2762.5 2512.5 3 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 2 5.4

PAGE 481

481 Table D 1. continued FS North East Level Material Definition ct wt Comment 210 2762.5 2512.5 3 Pottery Rim 1 5.7 211 2662.5 2525 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 2.2 212 2687.5 2525 1 Pottery Buren 2 9.2 212 2687.5 2525 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 5 44.1 212 2687.5 2525 1 Pottery Rim 2 20 213 2687.5 2525 2 Pottery Buren 1 8.8 214 2700 2525 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 3 10.4 216 2712.5 2525 1 Pottery Handle/strap indeterminate 1 3.5 216 2712.5 2525 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 15 52 216 2712.5 2525 1 Pottery Rim 3 27.4 216 2712.50 2525.00 1 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 8.2 Feather termination and single platform 217 2737.5 2525 1 Pottery Base Flat 1 19.2 217 2737.5 2525 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 2 7.6 218 2737.5 2525 2 Pottery Base Flat 1 19.5 218 2737.5 2525 2 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 3 13.5 219 2650 2550 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 3.7 220 2675 2550 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 13 70.3 220 2675 2550 1 Pottery R im 2 27 221 2675 2550 2 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 8 23.6 221 2675.00 2550.00 2 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 4.7 Feather Termination 222 2700 2550 1 Pottery Base Flat 1 11.6 222 2700 2550 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 18 84.8 222 2700 2550 1 Potte ry Rim 4 22 222 2700 2550 1 Pottery Shoulder OUT 1 4.4 222 2700.00 2550.00 1 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 2 17.7 Single Platform 222 2700.00 2550.00 1 Metavolcanic Shatter 4 16.5 222 2700.00 2550.00 1 Metavolcanic Ground Stone 1 93.6 Groundstone 223 2725 2550 1 Pottery Base Flat 1 10.2 223 2725 2550 1 Pottery Handle Lug or Cylindrical 1 5.2 223 2725 2550 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 8 23.8 223 2725 2550 1 Pottery Rim 2 4.2 223 2725.00 2550.00 1 Metavolcanic Shatter 6 14.3 224 2750 2550 1 Po ttery Regular Body Sherd 1 4.7 224 2750.00 2550.00 1 Basalt Shatter 2 6.3 Calcite and Basalt 225 2775 2550 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 3 226 2750 2575 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 1.8 226 2750.00 2575.00 1 Metavolcanic Bipolar Flake 1 1.5

PAGE 482

482 Tab le D 1. continued FS North East Level Material Definition ct wt Comment 227 2687.5 2518 1 Pottery Base Flat 1 17 227 2687.5 2518 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 11 23 227 2687.5 2518 1 Pottery Rim 2 4 227 2687.50 2518.00 1 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 14.6 Multiple Platforms 227 2687.50 2518.00 1 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 2.3 Multiple Platforms 227 2687.50 2518.00 1 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 1.8 Single Platform 228 2687.5 2518 2 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 2 6 228 2687.5 2518 2 Pottery Rim 1 3.3 229 2675 2512.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 9 45.1 229 2675 2512.5 1 Pottery Rim 3 10.9 229 2675 2512.5 1 Pottery Shoulder OUT 2 35.2 230 2687.5 2512.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 7 19.4 230 2687.5 2512.5 1 Pottery Rim 3 10.7 231 2700 2512.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 16 46.9 231 2700 2512.5 1 Pottery Rim 1 2.6 231 2700.00 2512.50 1 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 1.4 Single Platform 231 2700.00 2512.50 1 Greenstone Thinning Flake 1 1.4 Single Platform 231 2700.00 2512.50 1 Metavo lcanic Thinning Flake 1 1.4 Single Platform 231 2700.00 2512.50 1 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 1.2 Collapsed Platform 232 2675 2537.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 9 82.8 232 2675 2537.5 1 Pottery Rim 1 3.7 233 2687.50 2537.50 1 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 22.3 Single Platform 234 2700 2537.5 1 Pottery Handle/strap above rim 1 4.2 234 2700 2537.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 4 10.1 235 2700 2537.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 7 24.1 235 2700 2537.5 1 Pottery Shoulder OUT 1 7.4 236 2712.5 25 37.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 4 24.6 236 2712.5 2537.5 1 Pottery Rim 1 8.5 237 2725 2537.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 6 22.8 238 2737.5 2537.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 6 29.9 238 2737.5 2537.5 1 Pottery Rim 1 1.5 239 2762.5 2525 1 Potte ry Regular Body Sherd 2 9.4 240 2762.5 2525 2 Pottery Rim 1 3.5 241 2722 2555 1 Pottery Rim 1 2.9 244 2703 2512.5 1 Pottery Handle/strap indeterminate 1 1.6 244 2703 2512.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 39 110.7 244 2703 2512.5 1 Pottery Rim 7 14. 2 244 2703.00 2512.50 1 Metavolcanic Shatter 5 13.7

PAGE 483

483 Table D 1. continued FS North East Level Material Definition ct wt Comment 245 2703 2512.5 1 Pottery Buren 1 11.2 245 2703 2512.5 1 Pottery Handle/strap with button 2 4.3 245 2703 2512.5 1 Potte ry Regular Body Sherd 17 52 245 2703 2512.5 1 Pottery Rim 5 24.3 245 2703 2512.5 1 Pottery Shoulder IN 1 25.9 245 2703 2512.5 1 Pottery Shoulder OUT 1 18.4 246 2703 2512.5 2 Pottery Buren 1 30.6 246 2703 2512.5 2 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 21 77. 8 246 2703 2512.5 2 Pottery Rim 1 34.6 246 2703.00 2512.50 2 Metavolcanic Shatter 1 2.2 247 2703 2512.5 2 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 4 9.7 250 2650.00 3700.00 1 Metavolcanic Shatter 3 13.1 250 2650.00 3700.00 1 Metavolcanic Ground Stone 1 186.3 251 3820 4255 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 4 27 251 3820 4255 1 Pottery Rim 1 1.3 252 3820 4225 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 3 13.2 253 3820 4245 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 14 48.3 253 3820.00 4245.00 1 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 7 28.3 Single Platform 253 3820.00 4245.00 1 Metavolcanic Bipolar Flake 2 8.6 253 3820.00 4245.00 1 Metavolcanic Shatter 2 2.3 254 3820 4245 2 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 11 37.9 254 3820 4245 2 Pottery Rim 1 3.1 254 3820.00 4245.00 2 Greenstone Thinning Flake 1 1.4 Single Platform 254 3820.00 4245.00 2 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 3.1 Single Platform 254 3820.00 4245.00 2 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 1.4 Single Platform 254 3820.00 4245.00 2 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 2.2 Single Platform 254 3820.00 424 5.00 2 Metavolcanic Shatter 3 4.2 254 3820.00 4245.00 2 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 3.2 Single Platform, Retouched 255 3830 4245 2 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 24.2 256 3820 4220 3 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 3.7 256 3820 4220 3 Pottery Rim 1 19. 5 257 3835 4220 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 11.7 257 3835 4220 1 Pottery Rim 1 9.2 258 3835 4220 2 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 3 39 259 3835 4220 3 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 4 6.8 260 3830 4245 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 3 17 260 3830 4245 1 Pottery Rim 1 2.3 260 3830.00 4245.00 1 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 2.4 Single Platform

PAGE 484

484 Table D 1. continued FS North East Level Material Definition ct wt Comment 260 3830.00 4245.00 1 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 4.7 Single Platform 260 3830.0 0 4245.00 1 Greenstone Thinning Flake 1 8.8 Multiple Platforms 260 3830.00 4245.00 1 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 3.1 Single Platform 260 3830.00 4245.00 1 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 1.4 Multiple Platforms 260 3830.00 4245.00 1 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 66.8 Multiple Platforms 261 3805 4220 2 Pottery Buren 1 27.7 261 3805 4220 2 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 3 19.7 261 3805.00 4220.00 2 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 6.2 Multiple Platforms 262 3805 4220 3 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 5.2 263 3820 4255 1 Pottery Handle Tabular other 1 12.7 263 3820 4255 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 8 67.5 263 3820.00 4255.00 1 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 11.1 Single platform with feather termination and very marked percussion bulb 263 3820.00 4255.00 1 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 16.2 Single platform flake with wedge termination 263 3820.00 4255.00 1 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 13.1 Single Platform 263 3820.00 4255.00 1 Metavolcanic Blade Flake 1 3.8 Collapsed platform; step termination 263 3820.0 0 4255.00 1 Metavolcanic Ground Stone 1 323.5 263 3820.00 4255.00 1 Metavolcanic Shatter 3 2.9 264 3820 4255 2 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 2 19.2 267 1150 5125 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 4.5 274 2725 1100 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 3.6 275 2750.00 1100.00 1 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 8.2 Feather termination 276 1525 1550 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 3 23.5 283 0 0 1 Pottery Buren 1 10.62 283 0 0 1 Pottery Handle/strap indeterminate 2 16.7 283 0 0 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 47 30 7 283 0 0 1 Pottery Rim 9 72.5 285 1900 3175 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 2 3.2 287 2687.85 2512.5 1 Pottery Buren 1 12.5 287 2687.85 2512.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 11 23.9 287 2687.85 2512.5 1 Pottery Rim 2 6.5 287 2687.85 2512.50 1 Metav olcanic Shatter 1 1.4 287 2687.85 2512.50 1 Metavolcanic Bipolar Flake 1 2.8 287 2687.85 2512.50 1 Metavolcanic Bipolar Flake 3 8.9 288 2687.85 2512.5 1 Pottery Base Concave 1 3.6

PAGE 485

485 Table D 1. continued FS North East Level Material Definition ct wt Comment 288 2687.85 2512.5 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 19 63.4 288 2687.85 2512.5 1 Pottery Rim 2 4.6 288 2687.85 2512.50 1 Metavolcanic Thinning Flake 1 8.7 Single Platform 288 2687.85 2512.50 1 Greenstone Shatter 2 1.7 288 2687.85 2512.50 1 Meta volcanic Bipolar Flake 1 1.8 289 2687.85 2512.5 3 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 6 21.6 289 2687.85 2512.5 3 Pottery Rim 1 1.8 289 2687.85 2512.50 3 Metavolcanic Shatter 4 1.9 289 2687.85 2512.50 3 Metavolcanic Bipolar Flake 1 3.8 290 2722 2555 1 Pot tery Regular Body Sherd 18 75.5 290 2722 2555 1 Pottery Rim 5 14.5 290 2722.00 2555.00 1 Metavolcanic Bipolar Flake 6 10.2 290 2722.00 2555.00 1 Metavolcanic Shatter 5 2.2 291 2722 2555 1 Pottery Base Flat 1 32 291 2722 2555 1 Pottery Regular Bod y Sherd 25 92.3 291 2722 2555 1 Pottery Rim 3 9.2 291 2722.00 2555.00 1 Metavolcanic Shatter 3 1.4 291 2722.00 2555.00 1 Metavolcanic Bipolar Flake 1 1.6 291 2722.00 2555.00 1 Metavolcanic Bipolar Flake 1 2.3 292 2722 2555 2 Pottery Buren 2 69 292 2722 2555 2 Pottery Indeterminate 1 8.7 292 2722 2555 2 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 13 42 292 2722 2555 2 Pottery Rim 2 11 292 2722.00 2555.00 2 Metavolcanic Bipolar Flake 3 17.2 292 2722.00 2555.00 2 Metavolcanic Bipolar Flake 1 3.2 292 2722. 00 2555.00 2 Metavolcanic Bipolar Flake 2 4.1 294 1600 1475 1 Pottery Regular Body Sherd 1 1.9 2 1825 2837.5 1 Strombus gigas Tip 1 2 1825 2837.5 1 Strombus sp. Celt 1 30 1825 3175 1 Strombus sp. Hammer 1 45.6 32 2337.5 2562.5 1 Codakia orbicul aris Scraper 1 69 2337.5 2562.5 1 Anthozoa Abrader 1 69 2337.5 2562.5 1 Codakia orbicularis Scraper 7 69 2337.5 2562.5 1 Lucinadae Scraper 3 69 2337.5 2562.5 1 Strombus pugilis Hammer 2 69 2337.5 2562.5 1 Strombus sp. Tip 8 69 2337.5 2 562.5 1 Tellina fausta Scraper 1 70 2337.5 2562.5 2 Strombus gigas Scraper 1

PAGE 486

486 Table D 1. continued FS North East Level Material Definition ct wt Comment 70 2337.5 2562.5 2 Strombus sp. Pick 4 76 2225 2657.3 1 Strombus sp. Pick 4 1 1825 2840 1 Strombus sp. Tip 4 76 2225 2657.3 1 Tellina fausta Planer 3 91 2225 2650 1 Strombus sp. 4 91 2225 2650 1 Codakia orbicularis 1 91 2225 2650 1 Lucinadae 2 91 2225 2650 1 Strombus pugilis 1 91 2225 2650 1 Tellina fausta 1 118 1835 2825 1 Codakia orbicularis 1 122 1853 2845 1 Strombus pugilis 1 122 1853 2845 1 Strombus sp. 4 122 1853 2845 1 Codakia orbicularis 1 124 1850 2836 2 Strombus sp. 1 126 1805 2850 1 Strombus sp. 1 133 2100 2425 1 Strombus sp. 1 148 560 3985 1 Codakia orbicularis 1 148 560 3985 1 Strombus sp. 2 150 560 3985 2 Strombus sp. 1 152 560 4000 1 Bivalvea 1 216 2712.5 2525 1 Strombus sp. 1 227 2687.50 2518.00 1 Anthozoa 1 227 2687.50 2518.00 1 Coda kia orbicularis 2 227 2687.50 2518.00 1 Lucinadae 4 227 2687.50 2518.00 1 Phacoides pectinatus 1 227 2687.50 2518.00 1 Strombus sp. 2 227 2687.50 2518.00 1 Tellina fausta 2 228 2687.5 2518 2 Codakia orbicularis 1 230 2675 2512 .5 1 Strombus sp. 2 230 2675 2512.5 1 Tellina fausta 1 231 2700 2512.5 1 Anthozoa 2 231 2700 2512.5 1 Codakia orbicularis 2 231 2700 2512.5 1 Strombus sp. 5 283 Strombus sp. 2

PAGE 487

487 APPENDIX E VESSEL LOT ANALYSIS This appendix presents the raw data related to the vessel lot analysis. The table contains the following fields: S ITE (PO) : Site from which the vessel lot is from N : Northing coordinates of the shovel test from which the lot is from. E : Easting coordinates of the shov el test from which the lot is from. P TX T : Paste texture/size of aplastic inclusions in paste. P TYPE : Type of paste determined by the most abundant aplastic constituents. S RFTRT : Surface treatment of the vessel. I NT TRT : Interior treatment of the vessel. P NT _S LP : Paint or slip noted on the vessel. T H K : Average thickness of the sherds in the vessel lot. W T : Cumulative weight of the sherds in the vessel lot. # : Number of sherds in the vessel lot. R IM : Form of rim D.: Orifice diameter inferred from rim. O RIENT : Orientation of vessel. L IP : Form of lip S TYLE : Inferred stylistic association of the vessel. *Each row in the table is a single vessel lot.

PAGE 488

488 Table E 1. Vessel lot analysis Site (PO) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftrt Inttrt Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Orient D # Style IF 550 4250 Med Crse. Felsic Eroded Eroded Org. Brn N/A 1.9 9.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Elenan Ost IF 650 4300 Med Crse. Felsic Eroded Eroded Org N/A 5 8.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost IF 975 3500 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 12. 7 10. 9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas/ Ost Puro IF 975 3500 Med Crse. Quartz Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 4.7 7.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 2 1900 3175 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Buff N/A 3.2 5.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 42 2175 2700 Med. Felsic Brnshd Smthd Brn N/A 9.4 7.4 N/ A N/A Convex in 0 1 Cuevas/ Ost Puro 42 2175 2700 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 3.9 8.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 42 2175 2725 Med. Felsic Smthd Burnish Brn N/A 8.5 7.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 42 2175 2725 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 3.7 6.4 N /A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2175 2750 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 9.8 6.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 4 UID Ost 42 2175 2750 Med. Felsic w/ grog Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 10.1 8.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Monserrate 42 2175 2750 Med. Quartz Painted Smthd Buff Red paint 2.5 6.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 42 2175 2750 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 1.6 5.6 Thinned Flat Indet. 0 1 UID Ost 42 2200 2675 Fine Felsic Slf. Slip Smthd Brn N/A 13.5 6.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 42 2200 2675 Med. Felsic Slipped Slipped Other Re d slip 13.8 8.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Puro 42 2200 2675 Med. Felsic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Brn N/A 3.3 8.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2200 2675 Med. Vlcanic Brnshd Burnish Brn N/A 2.9 6.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 42 2200 2700 Med Crse. Felsic Eroded Smthd Org. Brn N/A 2.7 10. 9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 42 2200 2725 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 2.5 6.2 Parallel Round Indet. 0 1 Ost Mod 42 2200 2725 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 4 5.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 42 2200 2725 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Reds h Brn N/A 3.5 6.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Monserrate 42 2200 2725 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 11.2 6.9 N/A N/A N/A 20 1 UID Ost 42 2200 2725 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Slf. Slip Redsh Brn N/A 5 6.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Monserrate 42 2200 2750 Fine Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 7.5 6.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 42 2200 2750 Med Crse. Felsic Eroded Eroded Org. Brn N/A 17.6 15. 5 N/A N/A Buren 0 1 Indet.

PAGE 489

489 Table E 1. continued Site (PO) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftrt Inttrt Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Orient D # St yle 42 2212. 5 2675 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 5.9 6.4 Parallel Round bevele d in Convex out 14 1 Cuevas/ Ost Puro 42 2212. 5 2675 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Pale Brn N/A 3.6 4.8 Parallel Flat Convex out 0 1 UID Ost 42 2212. 5 2675 Med. Quartz Painted Smthd Buff Red paint 2.9 5.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 42 2212. 5 2675 Med. Quartz Smthd Smthd Pale Brn N/A 1.9 6.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 42 2212. 5 2675 Med Crse. Vlcanic Smthd Burnish Redsh Brn N/A 2.7 5.7 Parallel Flat Plate 0 1 UID Ost 42 2220 2662.5 M ed. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 4.7 6.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 3 UID Ost 42 2220 2662.5 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 2.2 6.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2225 2650 Crse. Felsic Eroded Eroded Redsh Brn N/A 9.3 17. 1 N/A N/A Buren 0 1 UID Ost 42 2225 2650 Fine Fel sic Smthd Eroded Pale Brn N/A 3.7 8.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 42 2225 2650 Fine Felsic Smthd Slipped Buff Org slip 6.4 7.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 42 2225 2650 Fine Felsic Smthd Slf. Slip Brn N/A 5.4 7.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2225 2650 Med. Felsi c Brnshd Smthd Dark Brn N/A 10.2 7.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Monserrate 42 2225 2650 Med. Felsic Brnshd Slf. Slip Brn N/A 2.5 7.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2225 2650 Med. Felsic Eroded Eroded Org. Brn N/A 2.4 5.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2225 2650 Med. Felsi c Painted Painted Buff Red slip 4.3 6.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas/ Ost Puro 42 2225 2650 Med. Felsic Painted Smthd Brn Pink slip 3.5 7.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 42 2225 2650 Med. Felsic Slipped Smthd Redsh Brn Red slip 16.3 8.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Puro 42 2 225 2650 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 9.2 5.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 Monserrate 42 2225 2650 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 75.1 6.4 Thinned Round Straight out 0 15 UID Ost 42 2225 2650 Med. Felsic Slf. Slip Smthd Brn N/A 3 6.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2225 2650 Med. Felsic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Pale Brn N/A 7.5 9.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 42 2225 2650 Med. Felsic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Redsh Brn N/A 4.2 6.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2225 2650 Med. Felsic w/ grog Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 12.8 8.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2225 2650 Med. Quartz Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 5 6.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2225 2650 Med. Vlcanic Brnshd Burnish Dark Brn N/A 14.9 6.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 3 UID Ost 42 2225 2650 Med. Vlcanic Eroded Eroded Org. Brn N/A 5.4 9.8 N/A N/ A N/A 0 2 UID Ost

PAGE 490

490 Table E 1. continued Site (PO) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftrt Inttrt Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Orient D # Style 42 2225 2650 Med. Vlcanic Painted Smthd Redsh Brn Red slip 2.1 6.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Puro 42 2225 2650 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 6.9 7.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 42 2225 2650 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Slf. Slip Brn N/A 3.6 6.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2225 2650 Med Crse. Felsic Brnshd Burnish Brn N/A 8.5 6.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2225 2650 Med Crse. Felsic Erod ed Eroded Brn N/A 5.5 12. 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Indet. 42 2225 2650 Med Crse. Felsic Eroded Eroded Brn N/A 9.6 9.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 42 2225 2650 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 4.8 5.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Puro 42 2225 2650 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 13.2 10. 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 Snta Elena 42 2225 2650 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Dark Brn N/A 17.2 8.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 3 UID Ost 42 2225 2650 Med Crse. Quartz Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 3.4 9.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 42 2225 2650 Med Crse. Vlcanic Brnshd Burnish Dark Brn N/A 1.6 5.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2225 2650 Med Crse. Vlcanic Painted Smthd Buff Pink slip 6 6.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas/ Ost Puro 42 2225 2650 Med Crse. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 1.6 6.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2225 2650 Med Crse. Vlcanic Smthd Slf. Slip Brn N/A 3.5 8.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2225 2650 Med Crse. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Smthd Pale Brn N/A 4 9.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2225 2657.3 Crse. Flesic w/ shell Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 4.5 8.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2225 2657.3 Fine Vlcanic Eroded Smthd Dark Brn N/A 50.2 21. 0 Parallel Round Buren 0 1 UID Ost 42 2225 2657.3 Fine Vlcanic Slipped Slipped Buff Pink slip 3.2 4.5 Parallel Flat Straight vertical 0 1 Cuevas 42 2225 2657.3 Fine Vl canic Slipped Slipped Buff Pink slip 1.7 6.8 Parallel Round bevele d in Indet. 0 1 Cuevas/ Ost Puro 42 2225 2657.3 Med. Felsic Brnshd Burnish Redsh Brn N/A 3.5 6.3 Thinned Round bevele d out Indet. 0 1 UID Ost

PAGE 491

491 Table E 1. continued Site (PO) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftrt Inttrt Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Orient D # Style 42 2225 2657.3 Med. Felsic Brnshd Smthd Brn N/A 8.2 8.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas/Mo nserrate 42 2225 2657.3 Med. Felsic Brnshd Smthd Brn N/A 17 8.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 42 2225 2657.3 Med. Felsic Brnshd Slf. Slip Dark Brn N/A 3.8 5.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas/ Ost Puro 42 2225 2657.3 Med. Felsic Eroded Eroded Org. Brn N/A 3.4 6.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2225 2657.3 Med. Felsic Eroded Smthd Org. Brn N/A 6 10. 2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 42 2225 2657.3 Med. Felsic Slipped Smthd Redsh Brn Indet. 3.6 7.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas/ Ost Puro 42 2225 2657.3 Med. Felsic Slipped Smthd Brn Brn slip 3.6 5.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2225 2657.3 Med. Felsic Smthd Burnish Brn N/A 5.4 7.0 Parallel Fl at Straight vertical 0 1 UID Ost 42 2225 2657.3 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 10.9 5.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 5 Cuevas 42 2225 2657.3 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 2.3 8.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Elenan Ost 42 2225 2657.3 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 19.1 9. 7 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 Esperanza 42 2225 2657.3 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 5.8 6.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 42 2225 2657.3 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 27.3 9.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 5 Snta Elena 42 2225 2657.3 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 73.7 7 .3 N/A N/A N/A 0 26 UID Ost 42 2225 2657.3 Med. Felsic Smthd Slf. Slip Org. Brn N/A 4.5 8.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 42 2225 2657.3 Med. Felsic Smthd Slf. Slip Brn N/A 3.2 7.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2225 2657.3 Med. Felsic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Pale Brn N/A 1.9 6.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 42 2225 2657.3 Med. Felsic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Pale Brn N/A 3.3 6.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Monserrate 42 2225 2657.3 Med. Felsic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Brn N/A 1.4 4.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 42 2225 2657.3 Med. Felsic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Pale Brn N/A 5 7.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 42 2225 2657.3 Med. Felsic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Brn N/A 7.5 7.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 42 2225 2657.3 Med. Limest one Slipped Smthd Brn Brn slip 1.6 5.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2225 2657.3 Med. Quartz Painted Smthd Pale Brn Org slip 6.3 13. 2 Thicken ed Ext. Round Round Indet. 0 1 Snta Elena 42 2225 2657.3 Med. Quartz Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 3.2 5.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 Cuevas 42 2225 2657.3 Med. Quartz Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 6.6 7.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 3 UID Ost 42 2225 2657.3 Med. Vlcanic Brnshd Smthd Brn N/A 3.6 5.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 42 2225 2657.3 Med. Vlcanic Slipped Burnish Redsh Brn N/A 2.5 3.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Puro 42 2225 2657.3 Med. Vlcanic Slipped Slipped Brn Brn slip 11.4 5.6 Para llel Flat Compos ite 20 1 Cuevas/Mo nserrate

PAGE 492

492 Table E 1. continued Site (PO) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftrt Inttrt Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Orient D # Style 42 2225 2657.3 Med. Vlcanic Slipped Smthd Brn Pale Brn slip 3.1 7.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 22 25 2657.3 Med. Vlcanic Slipped Slf. Slip Brn Brn slip 1.5 4.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2225 2657.3 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Dark Brn N/A 5.5 6.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 42 2225 2657.3 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Buff N/A 4.9 9.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 42 2225 2657.3 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 36.6 6.5 Parallel N/A N/A 0 17 UID Ost 42 2225 2657.3 Med. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Burnish Brn N/A 6.3 5.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 42 2225 2657.3 Med. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Burnish Brn N/A 3.3 6.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Os t Mod 42 2225 2657.3 Med. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Smthd Brn N/A 10.6 7.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 42 2225 2657.3 Med. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Pale Brn N/A 3.8 6.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 42 2225 2657.3 Med. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Brn N/A 16.5 6.4 N/A N /A N/A 0 4 UID Ost 42 2225 2657.3 Med Crse. Felsic Eroded Eroded Redsh Brn N/A 5.9 8.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2225 2657.3 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Eroded Org. Brn N/A 6.7 8.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 42 2225 2657.3 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Slipped Red sh Brn Pale Brn slip 3.8 8.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2225 2657.3 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 6.5 9.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 Snta Elena 42 2225 2657.3 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 8.9 7.8 Parallel Round bevele d in Convex out 20 1 U ID Ost 42 2225 2657.3 Med Crse. Felsic w/ grog Smthd Slf. Slip Brn N/A 33.2 8.3 Thicken ed In Round Round bevele d in Convex out 32 1 Ost Mod 42 2225 2657.3 Med Crse. Quartz Smthd Slipped Brn Red slip 8.8 8.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 42 2225 2657.3 Med Crse. Quartz Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 6.7 6.6 Parallel Flat Straight vertical 0 1 Cuevas 42 2225 2657.3 Med Crse. Quartz Slf. Slip Smudg ed Pale Brn N/A 3.1 7.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 42 2225 2657.3 Med Crse. Vlcanic Slipped Slipped Brn Brn slip 2 8.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2225 2657.3 Med Crse. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Pale Brn N/A 9.8 8.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2225 2657.3 Med Crse. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Burnish Brn N/A 4.9 7.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Chican Ost

PAGE 493

493 Table E 1. continued Site (PO) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftr t Inttrt Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Orient D # Style 42 2225 2657.3 Med Crse. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Brn N/A 8.8 7.5 Parallel Round Convex in 16 2 UID Ost 42 2225 2662.5 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 3.2 6.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Os t 42 2225 2675 Med. Felsic Eroded Slf. Slip Brn N/A 17.2 11. 4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2225 2675 Med. Felsic Slipped Smthd Brn Brn slip 3.2 6.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2225 2675 Med. Felsic Smthd Slipped Redsh Brn Brn slip 3.1 6.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 U ID Ost 42 2225 2675 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 17.7 6.7 Parallel Round Indet. 0 1 UID Ost 42 2225 2675 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 2.6 6.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2225 2675 Med Crse. Felsic Brnshd Smthd Brn N/A 132 11. 9 Thicken ed In Angular Round bevele d in Convex in 34 1 Ost Puro 42 2225 2675 Med Crse. Felsic Slipped Smthd Redsh Brn Red slip 3.6 7.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Puro 42 2225 2675 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Slipped Brn Red slip 7.9 10. 6 Parallel Round bevele d in Convex vertical 0 1 Capa 42 2225 2675 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 14.4 9.2 Thicken ed In/Ext N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 42 2225 2700 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 6.6 7.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2225 2700 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 9.3 8.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Monserrate 42 2225 2700 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 11.2 11. 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Crse. Felsic Eroded Smthd Org. Brn N/A 42.2 21. 9 N/A N/A Buren 0 2 Indet. 42 2226 2657.5 Fine Felsic Brnshd Slf. Slip Dark Brn N/A 2.1 5 .3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Fine Felsic Painted Smthd Buff Org on Buff 3 5.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 42 2226 2657.5 Fine Felsic Slipped Slipped Red Red slip 1.9 5.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas/ Ost Puro 42 2226 2657.5 Fine Felsic Slipped Slipped Red Red slip 6.4 7.5 Parallel Flat Straight vertical 18 1 Ost Puro 42 2226 2657.5 Fine Felsic Smthd Smthd Buff N/A 2.1 5.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 42 2226 2657.5 Fine Felsic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 15.9 5.5 Parallel N/A N/A 18 5 UID Ost

PAGE 494

494 Table E 1. con tinued Site (PO) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftrt Inttrt Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Orient D # Style 42 2226 2657.5 Fine Felsic Slf. Slip Slipped Brn Whit e on Red 1.7 5.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Fine Vlcanic Slipped Slipped Buff Red slip 2.5 6 .2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas/ Ost Puro 42 2226 2657.5 Fine Vlcanic Slipped Smthd Brn Brn slip 2.4 7.2 Parallel Flat Indet. 0 1 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Fine Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Buff N/A 4.1 6.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 42 2226 2657.5 Fine Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Re dsh Brn N/A 9.4 5.8 Thinned N/A N/A 0 5 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Fine Vlcanic Slf. Slip Smthd Brn N/A 2.4 6.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Fine Vlcanic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Pale Brn N/A 17.9 5.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 3 Cuevas 42 2226 2657.5 Fine Vlcanic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Dark Brn N/A 8.9 7.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas/Mo nserrate 42 2226 2657.5 Med. Felsic Brnshd Burnish Redsh Brn N/A 3.9 4.9 Thicken ed Ext. Angular Flat Straight vertical 0 1 Cuevas/ Ost Puro 42 2226 2657.5 Med. Felsic Brnshd Burnish Brn N/A 4 6.5 Parallel Flat Compos ite 20 1 Ost Mod 42 2226 2657.5 Med. Felsic Brnshd Burnish Dark Brn N/A 2.5 5.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Med. Felsic Brnshd Slipped Redsh Brn Pale Brn slip 3.4 6.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Med. Fels ic Brnshd Smthd Brn N/A 1.1 5.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Med. Felsic Eroded Eroded Org. Brn N/A 2.1 9.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Med. Felsic Eroded Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 3.1 8.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Esperanza 42 2226 2657.5 Med. Fel sic Eroded Smthd Org. Brn N/A 2.9 6.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Med. Felsic Slipped Slipped Redsh Brn Red slip 2.6 5.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 42 2226 2657.5 Med. Felsic Slipped Slipped Redsh Brn Brn slip 2.1 5.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2 226 2657.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Burnish Brn N/A 20.4 6.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 3 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Slipped Org. Brn Brn slip 2 6.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org N/A 2.7 6.0 Thinned Tapere d Compos ite 0 1 Ca pa 42 2226 2657.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 2.3 3.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Elenan Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Pale Brn N/A 7.9 13. 4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 42 2226 2657.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 39.6 6.0 Thinned N/A N/A 0 1 9 UID Ost

PAGE 495

495 Table E 1. continued Site (PO) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftrt Inttrt Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Orient D # Style 42 2226 2657.5 Med. Felsic Slf. Slip Eroded Brn N/A 56.4 7.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Med. Felsic Slf. Slip Smthd Pal e Brn N/A 3.4 8.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Elenan Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Med. Felsic Slf. Slip Smthd Brn N/A 36.4 7.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 4 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Med. Felsic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Brn N/A 21.2 6.4 Parallel Round Indet. 0 6 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Med. Flesic w/ shell Slipped Slipped Redsh Brn Red slip 17.2 6.1 Thinned Round Straight vertical 22 1 Cuevas/ Ost Puro 42 2226 2657.5 Med. Flesic w/ shell Smthd Smthd Orgish Red N/A 2.9 5.3 Thinned Round bevele d in Indet. 0 2 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Med. Limest one Sm thd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 2.8 5.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Med. Quartz Brnshd Smthd Brn N/A 6.3 5.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Med. Quartz Brnshd Slf. Slip Brn N/A 33.8 7.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 42 2226 2657.5 Med. Quartz Smthd Eroded Pale Brn N/A 0.9 7.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Med. Quartz Smthd Smthd Pale Brn N/A 6.7 7.2 Thicken ed Ext. Round N/A N/A 0 3 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Med. Vlcanic Brnshd Burnish Dark Brn N/A 2.3 4.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2226 2657 .5 Med. Vlcanic Brnshd Smthd Brn Brn slip 53.6 7.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Med. Vlcanic Brnshd Slf. Slip Brn Brn slip 10.5 6.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Med. Vlcanic Eroded Slf. Slip Buff Pink slip 1.9 5.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuev as/ Ost Puro 42 2226 2657.5 Med. Vlcanic Slipped Slipped Redsh Brn Red slip 2.9 6.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas/ Ost Puro 42 2226 2657.5 Med. Vlcanic Slipped Slipped Brn Brn slip 3.6 5.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Med. Vlcanic Slipped Smthd Brn Brn slip 2.4 6.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Burnish Brn N/A 7.3 5.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 11.7 10. 9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 42 2226 2657.5 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 25.4 6.3 Parallel N/A N/A 10 10 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Slf. Slip Brn N/A 8.8 9.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Med. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Smthd Brn N/A 4.4 5.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Med Crse. Felsic Brnshd Burnis h Smudgin g N/A 7 5.5 Parallel Flat Indet. 0 1 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Med Crse. Felsic Brnshd Smthd Dark Brn N/A 3.1 7.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost

PAGE 496

496 Table E 1. continued Site (PO) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftrt Inttrt Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Orient D # Sty le 42 2226 2657.5 Med Crse. Felsic Eroded Slipped Redsh Brn Pale Brn slip 2.3 10. 1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Med Crse. Felsic Eroded Smthd Org. Brn N/A 11.9 10. 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 42 2226 2657.5 Med Crse. Felsic Eroded Smthd Brn N/ A 14.7 9.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Med Crse. Felsic Slipped Slipped Brn Brn slip 2.7 6.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Eroded Brn N/A 7.6 6.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Sm thd Org. Brn N/A 7.4 10. 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 Snta Elena 42 2226 2657.5 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 8.6 7.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 4 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Slf. Slip Brn N/A 4.6 7.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Med Crse. Fel sic Slf. Slip Smthd Brn N/A 25.7 11. 3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 42 2226 2657.5 Med Crse. Felsic Slf. Slip Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 4.9 6.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Med Crse. Felsic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Org. Brn N/A 2.7 5.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Os t 42 2226 2657.5 Med Crse. Quartz Brnshd Slf. Slip Brn Brn slip 6 7.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Med Crse. Quartz Smthd Smthd Pale Brn N/A 7.7 6.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 3 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Med Crse. Vlcanic Brnshd Burnish Dark Brn N/A 7 5.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Med Crse. Vlcanic Brnshd Smudg ed Brn N/A 16.3 5.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Med Crse. Vlcanic Slipped Smthd Brn Pale Brn slip 5.1 7.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2226 2657.5 Med Crse. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd B rn N/A 4.2 5.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 Cuevas 42 2226 2657.5 Med Crse. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 25.3 5.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 3 UID Ost 42 2237. 5 2675 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 2.5 6.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost

PAGE 497

497 Table E 1. continued Site (PO) N E Ptxt P type Srftrt Inttrt Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Orient D # Style 42 2240 2706.5 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 2.4 7.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2240 2706.5 Med Crse. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 4.8 7.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2245 2690 Fine Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Buff N/A 2.9 5.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 42 2245 2690 Fine Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 1.9 5.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2245 2690 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 3.7 5.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2245 2690 Med. Vlcanic Sm thd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 3.4 6.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2245 2705 Med. Felsic Smthd Burnish Brn N/A 2.1 7.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2245 2705 Med. Felsic Smthd Eroded Redsh Brn N/A 1.9 6.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2245 2705 Med. Felsic Smthd Smt hd Redsh Brn N/A 8.5 9.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 42 2245 2705 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 18.7 6.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 6 UID Ost 42 2245 2705 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 5.6 8.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Monserrate 42 2245 2705 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smth d Brn N/A 6.1 9.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 42 2245 2705 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 3.2 5.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2245 2705 Med Crse. Felsic Eroded Eroded Pale Brn N/A 2.4 8.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2245 2705 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 2 9.7 Indtermi nate Round Indet. 12 1 Snta Elena 42 2245 2705 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 12.8 9.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 4 UID Ost 42 2245 2709.5 Fine Felsic Slf. Slip Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 4.1 5.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas/ Ost Puro 42 2245 27 09.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 7.3 7.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Monserrate 42 2245 2709.5 Med. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Smthd Brn N/A 4.6 6.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2245 2709.5 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Eroded Redsh Brn N/A 16.1 6.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Monserra te 42 2245 2709.5 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 49.8 10. 6 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 Snta Elena 42 2245 2709.5 Med Crse. Quartz Eroded Smthd Brn N/A 39.7 11. 4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 42 2245 2709.5 Med Crse. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 5.6 6.0 N/A N/A N/ A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2250 2675 Med. Felsic Brnshd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 13 12. 5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Esperanza 42 2250 2675 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 6.9 7.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost

PAGE 498

498 Table E 1. continued Site (PO) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftrt Inttrt Srf. Clr. P nt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Orient D # Style 42 2250 2675 Med. Vlcanic Brnshd Smthd Brn N/A 69.9 8.9 Parallel Round bevele d in Convex in 34 1 Ost Mod 42 2250 2675 Med. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Org. Brn N/A 3.4 8.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2250 2675 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 5.3 7.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 42 2250 2687.5 Fine Vlcanic Painted Painted Brn Red slip 10.5 5.0 Thicken ed In Round Round Convex vertical 22 1 Cuevas 42 2250 2687.5 Med. Felsic Eroded Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 27 13. 5 Thinned Round bevele d out Plate 22 1 UID Ost 42 2250 2687.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 4.8 6.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2250 2687.5 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Burnish Dark Brn N/A 5.2 7.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2250 2687.5 Med. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Br n N/A 7.3 6.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas/ Ost Puro 42 2250 2687.5 Med Crse. Felsic Eroded Smthd Brn N/A 9.1 12. 2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2250 2687.5 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 10.9 8.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Monserrate 42 2250 2687.5 Med Crse. Fe lsic Smthd Slf. Slip Redsh Brn N/A 7.6 8.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 42 2250 2687.5 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Slf. Slip Brn N/A 1.7 5.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2250 2687.5 Med Crse. Vlcanic Brnshd Smthd Brn N/A 4.9 6.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2250 2 700 Fine Vlcanic Painted Smthd Buff Red on Buff 22.8 6.4 Indtermi nate Indet. Outflari ng 22 1 Cuevas 42 2250 2700 Fine Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 2.7 6.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 42 2250 2700 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 6.9 5.7 Parallel N/A N/A 0 3 UID Ost 42 2250 2700 Med Crse. Felsic Eroded Eroded Org N/A 2.3 6.1 Thicken ed In Round Round bevele d in Indet. 0 1 Cuevas 42 2250 2700 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 15.5 6.7 N/A Indet. Plate 0 3 UID Ost 42 2250 2700 Med Crse. Felsic Slf. Slip S mthd Brn N/A 3 6.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2250 2700 Med Crse. Limest one Smthd Smthd Red N/A 8.6 12. 1 Thicken ed In Angular Round bevele d in Plate 0 1 UID Ost

PAGE 499

499 Table E 1. continued Site (PO) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftrt Inttrt Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Orient D # Style 42 2250 2712.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 5.1 10. 8 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 Snta Elena 42 2250 2712.5 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 2.6 6.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2250 2712.5 Med Crse. Felsic Slf. Slip Smthd Brn N/A 8.4 6. 7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2250 2712.5 Med Crse. Vlcanic Brnshd Burnish Dark Brn N/A 3.7 10. 5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 42 2250 2712.5 Med Crse. Vlcanic Slipped Smthd Redsh Brn Red slip 2.3 7.2 Parallel Round Indet. 0 1 Monserrate 42 2250 2712.5 Med Crs e. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Dark Brn N/A 3.6 10. 9 Thinned Round Indet. 0 1 Snta Elena 42 2250 2712.5 Med Crse. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 3.1 6.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2250 2725 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 1.7 6.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2 250 2725 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 5.4 6.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 42 2252 2705 Fine Quartz Smthd Smthd Buff N/A 2.6 5.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 42 2252 2705 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 10.6 8.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Monserate/ Snta Elena 4 2 2252 2705 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 9.3 8.2 Parallel N/A N/A 0 3 UID Ost 42 2252 2705 Med. Felsic Slf. Slip Smthd Brn N/A 6.7 9.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 42 2252 2705 Med. Vlcanic Brnshd Smthd Brn N/A 17.6 6.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 22 52 2705 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 6.6 6.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 42 2252 2705 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 3.5 6.4 Parallel N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 42 2252 2705 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd White/Gr ey N/A 12.8 7.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 4 UID Ost 42 2262 2662.5 Med. Quartz Smthd Smthd Pale Brn N/A 1.5 5.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2262 2662.5 Med. Quartz Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Brn N/A 2.8 6.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2262 2662.5 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 17.6 7.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 42 2262 2662.5 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 3.7 7.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2262 2662.5 Med Crse. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 5 7.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 42 2262 2662.5 Med Crse. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Burnish Brn N/A 3.7 7.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UI D Ost 42 2275 2700 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 2.2 6.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2275 2700 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 2.3 7.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost

PAGE 500

500 Table E 1. continued Site (PO) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftrt Inttrt Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt T h k Rim Lip Orient D # Style 42 2300 2650 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 4.1 5.7 Parallel Flat Convex in 14 1 UID Ost 42 2337.5 2562 Crse. Felsic Brnshd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 7.7 14. 2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2337.5 2562 Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 15.6 16. 5 N/A N/A Buren 0 1 UID Ost 42 2337.5 2562 Med. Felsic Eroded Burnish Smudgin g N/A 17.2 8.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 3 UID Ost 42 2337.5 2562 Med. Felsic Eroded Eroded Redsh Brn N/A 9 7.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 42 2337.5 2562 Med. Felsic Eroded Sm thd Org. Brn N/A 5.7 7.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 42 2337.5 2562 Med. Felsic Painted Eroded Org. Brn N/A 2.5 6.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2337.5 2562 Med. Felsic Slipped Slipped Brn Red slip 2.8 6.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Puro 42 2337.5 2562 Med. Felsic S mthd Burnish Redsh Brn N/A 2.5 8.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Monserrate 42 2337.5 2562 Med. Felsic Smthd Burnish Redsh Brn N/A 10.4 9.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2337.5 2562 Med. Felsic Smthd Eroded Redsh Brn N/A 4.7 11. 1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2337.5 2562 M ed. Felsic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 7.2 8.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 42 2337.5 2562 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 10.9 7.7 Parallel N/A N/A 0 3 UID Ost 42 2337.5 2562 Med. Felsic Slf. Slip Burnish Brn N/A 21 8.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2337.5 25 62 Med. Felsic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Redsh Brn N/A 2 6.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Elenan Ost 42 2337.5 2562 Med. Vlcanic Brnshd Burnish Dark Brn N/A 2 8.1 Thicken ed In Round Round bevele d in Indet. 0 1 UID Ost 42 2337.5 2562 Med. Vlcanic Eroded Slf. Slip Brn N/A 2 5.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2337.5 2562 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 4.1 18. 3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Monserrate 42 2337.5 2562 Med Crse. Felsic Brnshd Burnish Brn N/A 16.2 12. 8 Parallel Round bevele d in Compos ite 11 1 Capa 42 2337.5 2562 Med Crse. Felsic Brnshd Burnish Redsh Brn N/A 8.5 12. 7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Monserrate 42 2337.5 2562 Med Crse. Felsic Brnshd Painted Brn Red paint 3.3 7.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Puro 42 2337.5 2562 Med Crse. Felsic Brnshd Slipped Dark Brn Red paint 3.6 9.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas/ Ost Puro

PAGE 501

501 Table E 1. continued Site (PO) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftrt Inttrt Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Orient D # Style 42 2337.5 2562 Med Crse. Felsic Eroded Burnish Brn N/A 11.7 9.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2337.5 2562 Med Crse. Felsic Er oded Eroded Org. Brn N/A 7.5 6.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 3 UID Ost 42 2337.5 2562 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Eroded Brn N/A 6.2 10. 4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 42 2337.5 2562 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Eroded Brn N/A 4.6 8.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2337.5 2562 Med Crs e. Felsic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 5.6 8.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 Capa 42 2337.5 2562 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 4.7 9.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 42 2337.5 2562 Med Crse. Felsic Slf. Slip Burnish Org. Brn N/A 3.4 9.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Monserrate 42 2337.5 2562 Med Crse. Felsic Slf. Slip Painted Org. Brn Brn slip 2.8 5.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2337.5 2562 Med Crse. Quartz Slf. Slip Smthd Red N/A 6.5 12. 2 N/A Double bevele d Straight vertical 0 1 Snta Elena 42 2337.5 2562.5 Crse. Felsic Eroded Ero ded Dark Brn N/A 2.2 13. 2 N/A N/A Buren 0 1 UID Ost 42 2337.5 2562.5 Med. Felsic Brnshd Burnish Brn N/A 1.9 7.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2337.5 2562.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org N/A 2.5 8.6 Thicken ed In Round Flat Convex out 0 1 Snta Elena 42 2337.5 2562.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 3.9 8.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 42 2337.5 2562.5 Med. Vlcanic Brnshd Burnish Dark Brn N/A 3.6 5.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2337.5 2562.5 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Burnish Org. Brn N/A 5.3 6.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta E lena 42 2337.5 2562.5 Med. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Smthd Brn N/A 3.3 8.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2337.5 2562.5 Med Crse. Felsic Brnshd Smthd Brn N/A 11 8.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2337.5 2562.5 Med Crse. Felsic Eroded Eroded Buff N/A 5.9 10. 2 N/A N/A N/ A 0 2 UID Ost 42 2337.5 2562.5 Med Crse. Felsic Eroded Slipped Dark Brn Pale Brn slip 14.6 11. 4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2337.5 2562.5 Med Crse. Felsic Eroded Smthd Dark Brn N/A 4.3 13. 3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2337.5 2562.5 Med Crse. Felsic Slippe d Slipped Redsh Brn Red slip 1.2 5.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Puro

PAGE 502

502 Table E 1. continued Site (PO) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftrt Inttrt Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Orient D # Style 42 2337.5 2562.5 Med Crse. Felsic Slipped Smthd Orgish Red Red slip 12.8 10. 2 N/ A N/A N/A 0 1 Monserrate 42 2337.5 2562.5 Med Crse. Felsic Slipped Slf. Slip Brn Pale Brn slip 2.5 8.8 Thicken ed In Round Flat Indet. 0 1 Capa 42 2337.5 2562.5 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Dark Brn N/A 7.2 12. 5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 42 2337.5 2562. 5 Med Crse. Felsic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Brn N/A 3.7 10. 7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2337.5 2562.5 Med Crse. Limest one Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 2.3 8.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2337.5 2562.5 Med Crse. Quartz Brnshd Eroded Dark Brn N/A 2.6 9.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2337.5 2562.5 Med Crse. Quartz Smthd Smthd Dark Brn N/A 3.2 12. 2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2337.5 2562.5 Med Crse. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Dark Brn N/A 4.8 13. 5 Parallel Round Indet. 0 1 Boca Chica 42 2337.5 2562.5 Med Crse. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Org N/A 6.7 10. 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 42 2337.5 2562.5 Med Crse. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Dark Brn N/A 3.3 7.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2337.5 2575 Med Crse. Felsic Brnshd Smthd Brn N/A 20.1 11. 0 Parallel Round bevele d in Convex in 20 1 Capa 42 2337. 5 2575 Med Crse. Quartz Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 2 7.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2337.5 2600 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 2.9 8.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2350 2562.5 Fine Quartz Smthd Slf. Slip White/Gr ey N/A 3 5.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 4 2 2350 2562.5 Med. Felsic Eroded Eroded Redsh Brn N/A 5.4 9.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2350 2562.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 3 6.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Elenan Ost 42 2350 2562.5 Med. Felsic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Brn N/A 6.5 11. 1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Elenan O st 42 2350 2562.5 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Burnish Brn N/A 6.7 9.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2350 2562.5 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 4.5 9.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Elenan Ost 42 2350 2562.5 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 1.9 7.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 U ID Ost

PAGE 503

503 Table E 1. continued Site (PO) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftrt Inttrt Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Orient D # Style 42 2350 2562.5 Med Crse. Felsic Slf. Slip Eroded Pale Brn N/A 9.6 7.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 42 2350 2562.5 Med Crse. Quartz Eroded Eroded Brn N/A 6.5 8.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Elenan Ost 42 2350 2562.5 Med Crse. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 5.2 6.8 Thicken ed In Round Round bevele d in Convex out 12 1 UID Ost 43 2650 2550 Fine Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 3.7 6.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2 662.5 2525 Med Crse. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 2.2 7.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2675 2500 Fine Felsic Eroded Smthd Brn N/A 5.4 9.7 Thicken ed In/Ext Flat Straight vertical 0 1 UID Ost 43 2675 2500 Fine Felsic Slf. Slip Smthd Buff N/A 4.1 6.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 43 2675 2500 Fine Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 8.9 6.5 N/A Tapere d Other 0 2 Cuevas/ Ost Puro 43 2675 2500 Fine Vlcanic Smudg ed Smthd Smudgin g N/A 2.4 6.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Monserrate 43 2675 2500 Med. Felsic Slipped Slf. Slip D ark Brn N/A 4.7 5.1 Parallel Round bevele d in Straight out 8 1 Snta Elena 43 2675 2500 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 4.6 6.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 43 2675 2500 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 9.7 6.6 Parallel Round Indet. 0 2 UID Ost 43 2 675 2500 Med. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Smthd Brn Other 2.4 5.2 Parallel Round bevele d in Convex out 12 1 Monserrate 43 2675 2500 Med Crse. Vlcanic Slipped Smudg ed Dark Brn Brn slip 4.6 5.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2675 2512.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 3.9 6.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 43 2675 2512.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 4.5 5.0 Parallel Round Indet. 0 1 UID Ost 43 2675 2512.5 Med. Felsic Slf. Slip Smthd Pale Brn N/A 27.7 6.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 43 2675 2512.5 Med. Felsic Slf. Sli p Slf. Slip Pale Brn N/A 3 7.7 Parallel Flat Indet. 0 1 UID Ost 43 2675 2512.5 Med. Limest one Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 4.3 7.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2675 2512.5 Med. Vitrified Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 5.7 6.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2675 2512.5 Med. Vlcan ic Smthd Smthd Pale Brn N/A 9.6 9.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2675 2512.5 Med. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Burnish Dark Brn N/A 5.8 5.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2675 2512.5 Med. Vlcanic w/ grog Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 2.5 7.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost

PAGE 504

504 Table E 1. continued Site (PO) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftrt Inttrt Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Orient D # Style 43 2675 2512.5 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 3.1 9.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2675 2512.5 Med Crse. Felsic Slf. Slip N/A Redsh Brn N/A 5.4 7.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 43 2675 2512.5 Med Crse. Felsic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Org. Brn N/A 12.3 10. 1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Elenan Ost 43 2675 2512.5 Med Crse. Felsic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Redsh Brn N/A 3.4 5.5 Thinned Tapere d Indet. 6 1 Esperanza 43 2 675 2537.5 Fine Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 5.5 10. 9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2675 2537.5 Fine Vlcanic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Brn N/A 18.8 6.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Monserrate 43 2675 2537.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 7.5 5.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UI D Ost 43 2675 2537.5 Med. Felsic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Redsh Brn N/A 5.1 8.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2675 2537.5 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 7.4 7.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 43 2675 2537.5 Med. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Brn N/A 34.7 8.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Monserrate 43 2675 2537.5 Med. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Org. Brn N/A 3.7 8.0 Parallel Round bevele d in Convex in 16 1 UID Ost 43 2675 2537.5 Med Crse. Felsic Eroded Eroded Redsh Brn N/A 3.8 9.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2675 2550 Fine Fe lsic Slipped Slipped Buff Other 3.6 5.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas/ Ost Puro 43 2675 2550 Fine Felsic Slf. Slip Smthd Brn N/A 2.2 8.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 43 2675 2550 Fine Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 2.6 6.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 43 2675 2550 Fine V lcanic Slf. Slip Smthd Brn N/A 3.8 5.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2675 2550 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 23.7 9.5 Parallel Flat Straight vertical 6 3 Snta Elena 43 2675 2550 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 1.9 4.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2675 2550 Med. Quartz Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Brn N/A 3.6 6.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2675 2550 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 1.9 7.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Monserrate 43 2675 2550 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 29.1 7.0 Parallel Round bevele d in Other 0 2 Ost Mod 43 2675 2550 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 11.4 6.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 4 UID Ost 43 2675 2550 Med. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Smthd Dark Brn N/A 4.4 6.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2675 2550 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 5.3 9.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 43 2675 2550 Med Crse. Vlcanic Slipped Slf. Slip Brn Brn slip 4 6.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost

PAGE 505

505 Table E 1. continued Site (PO) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftrt Inttrt Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Orient D # Style 43 2675 2550 Med Crse. Vlcanic Smthd Eroded Dark Brn N/A 7.3 9.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 43 2675 2550 Med Crse. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 8.5 6.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 43 2675 2550 Med Crse. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Pale Brn N/A 7.6 6.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 43 2687.5 2512.5 Fine Felsic Smthd Smthd O rg. Brn N/A 2.4 5.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Monserrate 43 2687.5 2512.5 Fine Felsic Slf. Slip Smthd Brn N/A 6.4 7.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Monserrate 43 2687.5 2512.5 Fine Vlcanic Smthd Slipped Red Red slip 5.6 6.3 Parallel Flat Straight vertical 18 1 Cuevas 43 2687.5 2512.5 Fine Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Buff Other 3.2 5.0 Thinned Tapere d Indet. 0 1 Cuevas/ Ost Puro 43 2687.5 2512.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 3.8 7.0 Thicken ed In Round Round bevele d in Straight out 0 2 UID Ost 43 2687.5 2512.5 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Burnish Brn N/A 2.7 6.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2687.5 2512.5 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Slf. Slip Brn N/A 2.7 4.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2687.5 2512.5 Med. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Burnish Brn N/A 1.7 6.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2687.5 2512.5 Not Temper ed Q uartz Smthd Smthd Red N/A 1.6 7.1 Parallel N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2687.5 2518 Fine Vlcanic Slf. Slip Slipped Brn Pale Brn slip 2 5.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2687.5 2518 Med. Felsic Brnshd Smthd Dark Brn N/A 2 5.1 Thicken ed Ext. Round Round bevele d in Convex in 8 1 Ost Mod 43 2687.5 2518 Med. Felsic Brnshd Smthd Dark Brn N/A 7 6.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 3 UID Ost 43 2687.5 2518 Med. Felsic Eroded Burnish Redsh Brn N/A 4 4.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 43 2687.5 2518 Med. Felsic Slipped Smthd Dark Brn Pale Brn sli p 4 6.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 43 2687.5 2518 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 9.3 6.7 Parallel Flat Indet. 0 3 UID Ost 43 2687.5 2518 Med. Vlcanic Brnshd Smthd Pale Brn N/A 17 11. 3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2687.5 2518 Med. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Brn N/A 2 4.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2687.5 2518 Med Crse. Felsic Brnshd Slf. Slip Dark Brn N/A 2 7.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2687.5 2518 Med Crse. Vlcanic Brnshd Slf. Slip Dark Brn N/A 4 6.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost

PAGE 506

506 Table E 1. continued Site (P O) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftrt Inttrt Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Orient D # Style 43 2687.5 2525 Med. Felsic Slipped Slipped Orgish Red Pink slip 20 5.6 Thinned Flat Indet. 10 2 Ost Puro 43 2687.5 2525 Med. Indet. Painted Painted Redsh Brn N/A 2.6 11. 1 N/A N/A Buren 0 1 Indet. 43 2687.5 2525 Med. Vlcanic Slipped Slf. Slip Brn Pale Brn slip 8.4 7.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2687.5 2525 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 29.6 7.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 Snta Elena 43 2687.5 2525 Med. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Redsh Brn N/A 3.1 8.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 43 2687.5 2525 Med. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Brn N/A 3 8.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2687.5 2525 Med Crse. Felsic Eroded Eroded Org. Brn N/A 8.8 32. 0 Indtermi nate Round Buren 0 1 Indet. 43 2687. 5 2525 Med Crse. Felsic Painted Painted Redsh Brn N/A 6.6 15. 1 N/A N/A Buren 0 1 UID Ost 43 2687.9 2512.5 Crse. Felsic Eroded Eroded Redsh Brn N/A 12.5 16. 0 N/A N/A Buren 0 1 Indet. 43 2687.9 2512.5 Crse. Felsic Eroded Smthd Brn N/A 4.3 7.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2687.9 2512.5 Fine Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 1.9 5.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2687.9 2512.5 Fine Indet. Slipped Slipped Buff Pink slip 1.8 5.5 Parallel Flat Indet. 0 1 Ost Puro 43 2687.9 2512.5 Fine Vlcanic Eroded Slf. Slip Brn N/A 1.6 4.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2687.9 2512.5 Fine Vlcanic Slipped Burnish Pale Brn Pale Brn slip 2.4 7.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2687.9 2512.5 Fine Vlcanic Smthd Burnish Brn N/A 2 7.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2687.9 2512.5 Fine Vlcanic Smthd Eroded Brn N/A 1.7 5.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2687.9 2512.5 Fine Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 11.8 5.8 Parallel Round N/A 0 4 UID Ost 43 2687.9 2512.5 Fine Vlcanic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Brn N/A 3.8 8.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 43 2687.9 2512.5 Fine Vlcanic Sl f. Slip Smudg ed Brn N/A 2.7 4.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2687.9 2512.5 Med. Felsic Eroded Eroded Redsh Brn Red slip 2.5 6.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2687.9 2512.5 Med. Felsic Slipped Slipped Brn Other 1.7 5.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 43 2687.9 2512.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Eroded Redsh Brn Org on Buff 2.6 6.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2687.9 2512.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Dark Brn N/A 4.6 8.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Esperanza 43 2687.9 2512.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 4.4 6.7 Parallel N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost

PAGE 507

507 Table E 1. continued Site (PO) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftrt Inttrt Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Orient D # Style 43 2687.9 2512.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Slf. Slip Redsh Brn N/A 2.7 5.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2687.9 2512.5 Med. Vlcanic Brnshd Burnish Dark Brn N/A 2.8 6.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2687.9 2512.5 Med. Vlcanic Eroded Burnish Dark Brn Brn slip 3.7 6.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2687.9 2512.5 Med. Vlcanic Eroded Eroded Redsh Brn N/A 3.6 6.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2687.9 2512.5 Med. Vlcani c Eroded Slf. Slip Org. Brn N/A 1.6 7.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2687.9 2512.5 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Burnish Redsh Brn N/A 2.7 5.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2687.9 2512.5 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Eroded Brn Red slip 2.4 6.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas/ Ost Puro 43 2687.9 2512.5 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 10.3 7.5 Parallel Flat Convex out 0 3 UID Ost 43 2687.9 2512.5 Med. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Eroded Brn Org slip 2 5.1 Parallel Round Convex vertical 6 1 UID Ost 43 2687.9 2512.5 Med. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Slipped Brn Pink slip 2.2 5.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Puro 43 2687.9 2512.5 Med. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Dark Brn N/A 5 5.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 43 2687.9 2512.5 Med Crse. Felsic Slipped Slipped Brn Pale Brn slip 8.6 10. 2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2687.9 2512.5 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 2.2 8.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2687.9 2512.5 Med Crse. Flesic w/ shell Eroded Eroded Redsh Brn N/A 4.6 9.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2687.9 2512.5 Med Crse. Vlcanic Eroded Eroded Redsh Brn N/A 6.2 9.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2687.9 2512.5 Med Crse. Vlcanic Eroded Smthd Brn N/A 3.6 6.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2687.9 2512.5 Med Crse. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Brn N/A 3.2 7.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2687.9 2512.5 Med Crse. Vlcanic w/ grog Eroded Burnish Dark Brn N/A 2.2 5.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2687.9 2512.5 Med Crse. Vlcanic w/ grog Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Brn N/A 4.3 7.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2687.9 2512.5 Not Temper ed Vlcanic Smudg ed Slf. Slip Black N/A 1.7 5.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2700 2500 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 14.2 7.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 3 UID Ost 43 2700 2500 Med. Vlcanic Eroded Smthd Brn N/A 1.7 6.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost

PAGE 508

508 Table E 1. continued Site (PO) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftrt Inttrt Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Or ient D # Style 43 2700 2500 Med. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Smthd Brn N/A 2.4 6.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2700 2500 Med Crse. Felsic Eroded Eroded Brn N/A 3 5.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 43 2700 2500 Med Crse. Vlcanic Slipped Slipped Pale Brn Brn slip 5.4 7.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2700 2512.5 Fine Felsic Slipped Slipped Dark Brn Brn slip 2.6 6.7 Parallel Flat Indet. 0 1 UID Ost 43 2700 2512.5 Fine Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 2.6 6.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2700 2512.5 Fine Vlcanic Slipped Slipped Buff Pink slip 1 4.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 43 2700 2512.5 Fine Vlcanic Slipped Slipped Buff Pink slip 2 6.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas/Mo nserrate 43 2700 2512.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Buff N/A 5.4 5.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 3 UID Ost 43 2700 2512.5 Med. Felsic w/ grog Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Brn N/A 4.2 6.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2700 2512.5 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 1.7 6.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 43 2700 2512.5 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 9.7 6.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 4 UID Ost 43 2700 2512.5 Med. Vlc anic Slf. Slip Burnish Brn N/A 1.8 5.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2700 2512.5 Med. Vlcanic w/ grog Smthd Smthd Buff N/A 1.5 7.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2700 2512.5 Med Crse. Felsic w/ grog Smthd Painted Dark Brn N/A 15.4 9.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 4 3 2700 2512.5 Med Crse. Vlcanic Slipped Smthd Brn Brn slip 1.6 5.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2700 2525 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 2.7 9.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 43 2700 2525 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Eroded Brn N/A 3.3 7.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 43 2700 2525 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 4.4 7.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 43 2700 2537.5 Fine Indet. Smthd Smthd Buff N/A 1.3 4.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 43 2700 2537.5 Fine Indet. Smthd Smthd Buff N/A 3.5 5.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Puro 43 2700 2537.5 Fine Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 3.8 4.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 43 2700 2537.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 2.5 5.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2700 2537.5 Med. Quartz Smthd Smthd Buff N/A 7.4 8.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Esperanza 43 2700 2537.5 Med. Quartz Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 5.3 8.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2700 2537.5 Med. Vlcanic Brnshd Smthd Dark Brn N/A 5.2 5.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2700 2537.5 Med. Vlcanic Slipped Slipped Redsh Brn Red slip 2.6 8.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Puro 43 2700 2537.5 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 4.2 5.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas

PAGE 509

509 Table E 1. continued Site (PO) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftrt Inttrt Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Orient D # Style 43 2700 2537.5 Med Crse. Felsic w/ grog Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Br n N/A 4.6 13. 2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 43 2700 2537.5 Med Crse. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 2.7 8.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2700 2537.5 Not Temper ed Indet. Smthd Smthd Buff N/A 2.7 5.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 43 2700 2550 Fine Felsic Smthd Sm thd Buff N/A 3.5 6.3 Parallel Round bevele d out Compos ite 0 1 Cuevas 43 2700 2550 Fine Felsic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 13 6.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 3 UID Ost 43 2700 2550 Fine Vlcanic Painted Eroded Buff Pink slip 3.6 7.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Monserrate 43 2700 2550 Fine Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Pale Brn N/A 2.2 5.3 Parallel Tapere d Convex in 0 1 Monserrate 43 2700 2550 Fine Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 3.5 8.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 43 2700 2550 Fine Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 12.3 6.7 Parallel N/A N/A 0 4 UI D Ost 43 2700 2550 Fine Vlcanic Slf. Slip Smthd Brn N/A 4.3 4.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2700 2550 Fine Vlcanic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Brn N/A 13.8 9.0 Parallel Flat Convex out 32 1 UID Ost 43 2700 2550 Fine Vlcanic w/ grog Smthd Smthd Dark Brn N/A 6.3 6 .7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2700 2550 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 17 9.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 Snta Elena 43 2700 2550 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 6.2 6.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 43 2700 2550 Med. Felsic w/ grog Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 4.8 11. 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2700 2550 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 11.7 7.5 N/A N/A N/A 10 3 UID Ost 43 2700 2550 Med Crse. Vlcanic Smthd Eroded Pale Brn N/A 15.9 8.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2700 2550 Med Crse. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 4.7 4.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Crse. Vlcanic Slipped Slf. Slip Dark Brn Brn slip 4.3 9.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Crse. Vlcanic Smthd N/A Org. Brn N/A 30.6 21. 2 N/A N/A Buren 0 1 Indet. 43 2703 2512.5 Fine Felsic Eroded Ero ded Orgish Red Pink slip 1.6 6.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas/ Ost Puro 43 2703 2512.5 Fine Felsic Eroded Eroded Pale Brn N/A 1.9 7.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost

PAGE 510

510 Table E 1. continued Site (PO) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftrt Inttrt Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Orient D # Style 43 2703 2512.5 Fine Felsic Slipped Smthd Brn Brn slip 4.4 7.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Fine Felsic Smthd Slipped Brn N/A 2.6 8.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Fine Felsic Smthd Smthd Pale Brn N/A 3 5.9 Parallel N/A N/A 0 2 Cuevas 43 2703 2512.5 Fine Felsic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 1.6 4.9 Indtermi nate Flat N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Fine Indet. Slipped Slipped Org Pale Brn slip 1.8 4.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 43 2703 2512.5 Fine Indet. Slipped Slipped Dark Brn Brn slip 1.8 4.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Fine Indet. Smthd Smthd Pale Brn N/A 3.1 4.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 43 2703 2512.5 Fine Indet. Smthd Smthd Dark Brn N/A 3 4.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Fine Indet. Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Brn N/A 4.5 6.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas/ Ost Puro 43 2703 2512.5 Fine Indet. Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Brn N/A 1.7 6.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Fine Quartz Eroded Eroded Buff Red on Buff 4.6 7.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 43 2703 2512.5 Fine Vlcanic Brnsh d Smthd Dark Brn N/A 13.5 7.8 Parallel Round bevele d out Plate 20 1 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Fine Vlcanic Eroded Eroded Buff N/A 4.8 5.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 43 2703 2512.5 Fine Vlcanic Painted Painted Buff Red on Buff 1.9 6.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 43 2703 2512.5 Fine Vlcanic Painted Smthd Buff Red on Buff 1.9 5.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 43 2703 2512.5 Fine Vlcanic Slipped Slipped Dark Brn N/A 12.3 8.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Fine Vlcanic Slipped Smthd Brn N/A 2.7 5.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Fine Vlcanic Smthd Burnish Dark Brn N/A 2.6 5.0 Parallel Round Convex in 10 1 Cuevas 43 2703 2512.5 Fine Vlcanic Smthd Eroded Brn N/A 2.4 8.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Fine Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Buff N/A 6.3 6.2 Parallel F lat Straight vertical 4 3 Cuevas 43 2703 2512.5 Fine Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 7 5.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 4 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Fine Vlcanic Slf. Slip Eroded Brn N/A 2.3 5.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Fine Vlcanic Slf. Slip Smthd Smudgin g N/A 1.5 4.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Fine Vlcanic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Dark Brn N/A 3.5 4.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas

PAGE 511

511 Table E 1. continued Site (PO) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftrt Inttrt Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Orient D # Style 43 2703 2512.5 Fi ne Vlcanic Smudg ed Smthd Smudgin g N/A 5.7 6.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Fine Vlcanic w/ grog Smthd Eroded Dark Brn N/A 2.1 6.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Fine Vlcanic w/ grog Smthd Slf. Slip Pale Brn N/A 6.4 9.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 U ID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Med. Felsic Brnshd Burnish Org. Brn N/A 5.5 7.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Med. Felsic Eroded Eroded Brn N/A 1.5 6.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Med. Felsic Painted Smthd Black Black on Buff 2.7 4.3 N/A N/A N /A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Med. Felsic Slipped Slipped Redsh Brn Red slip 34.6 6.9 Parallel Flat Compos ite 22 1 Cuevas/Mo nserrate 43 2703 2512.5 Med. Felsic Slipped Slipped Org Org slip 4.1 5.6 Thinned Flat Straight vertical 12 2 UID Ost 43 2703 2512 .5 Med. Felsic Slipped Smthd Dark Brn N/A 3.4 4.9 Thinned N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Med. Felsic Slipped Slf. Slip Dark Brn Brn slip 5.5 7.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Painted Org. Brn N/A 3.4 7.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Pale Brn N/A 1.8 4.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 43 2703 2512.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 20 5.9 Thicken ed In/Ext N/A N/A 0 9 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Slf. Slip Brn N/A 3.7 5.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Med. Felsic Slf. Slip Eroded Brn N/A 2.7 5.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Med. Felsic Slf. Slip Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 3.9 6.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Med. Felsic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Dark Brn N/A 7.9 6.5 Par allel N/A N/A 0 3 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Med. Felsic Smudg ed Smudg ed Dark Brn N/A 2.1 7.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Med. Felsic w/ grog Eroded Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 1.6 6.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Med. Felsic w/ grog Smthd Smth d Dark Brn N/A 1.9 7.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Med. Quartz Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Dark Brn N/A 1.6 5.9 Parallel Flat N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Med. Vitrified Slf. Slip Smthd Dark Brn N/A 6.2 8.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Me d. Vitrified Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Pale Brn N/A 3.5 4.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas/Mo nserrate 43 2703 2512.5 Med. Vlcanic Eroded Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 1.6 7.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Slipped Dark Brn N/A 2.6 3.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost

PAGE 512

512 Table E 1. continued Site (PO) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftrt Inttrt Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Orient D # Style 43 2703 2512.5 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Pale Brn N/A 25.3 6.3 Parallel N/A N/A 0 8 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Med. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Smth d Dark Brn N/A 13 6.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Med. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Black N/A 7.3 5.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Med Crse. Felsic Slipped Smthd Red N/A 18.4 9.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Med Crse. Felsi c Smthd Painted Pale Brn N/A 2.6 8.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Slipped Org. Brn N/A 4.2 6.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 25.9 12. 5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 43 2703 2512.5 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 13.3 14. 7 Parallel Flat Buren 0 2 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Med Crse. Felsic Slf. Slip Smthd Brn N/A 3.9 6.0 Parallel Round Indet. 0 1 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Med Crse. Felsic w/ grog Smthd Eroded Buff N/A 12.2 9. 4 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Med Crse. Vlcanic Eroded Eroded Brn N/A 2.4 6.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Med Crse. Vlcanic Slipped Slf. Slip Dark Brn Brn slip 7.2 8.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Med Crse. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 1.9 6.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Esperanza 43 2703 2512.5 Med Crse. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 2.8 8.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 43 2703 2512.5 Med Crse. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Dark Brn N/A 3 5.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Med Cr se. Vlcanic Smudg ed Smthd Dark Brn N/A 2.4 7.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Med Crse. Vlcanic w/ grog Brnshd Slf. Slip Dark Brn N/A 9.5 7.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2703 2512.5 Med Crse. Vlcanic w/ grog Slf. Slip Smthd Org. Brn N/A 3.2 8.2 N/ A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 43 2712.5 2512.5 Fine Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 5.1 5.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 43 2712.5 2512.5 Fine Felsic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Brn N/A 1.6 4.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2712.5 2512.5 Fine Vlcanic Smthd Smudg ed Dark Brn N/A 2 .1 5.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2712.5 2512.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 8.5 7.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2712.5 2512.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Slf. Slip Redsh Brn N/A 3.2 5.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2712.5 2512.5 Med. Felsic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip O rg. Brn N/A 23.7 6.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost

PAGE 513

513 Table E 1. continued Site (PO) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftrt Inttrt Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Orient D # Style 43 2712.5 2512.5 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Slf. Slip Brn N/A 3.6 8.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2712.5 2512.5 Med. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Dark Brn N/A 33.6 5.4 N/A N/A Compos ite 20 1 Ost Puro 43 2712.5 2512.5 Med. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Redsh Brn N/A 4.2 5.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 43 2712.5 2512.5 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Pale Brn N/A 4.5 5 .9 Parallel N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 43 2712.5 2512.5 Med Crse. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 1.7 7.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2712.5 2512.5 Med Crse. Vlcanic w/ grog Slipped Slf. Slip Dark Brn N/A 6.4 9.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 43 2712.5 2525 Fine Vlcanic Slipped Slipped Buff Pink slip 2.6 5.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas/ Ost Puro 43 2712.5 2525 Fine Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 1.5 4.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2712.5 2525 Med. Felsic Eroded Eroded Org. Brn N/A 4.1 7.2 Parallel Round bevele d in Indet. 0 1 UID Ost 43 2712.5 2525 Med. Felsic Eroded Smthd Pale Brn N/A 6 13. 2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2712.5 2525 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 7.4 8.8 Parallel Flat Convex vertical 14 1 Snta Elena 43 2712.5 2525 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Pale Brn N/A 5.7 7.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2712.5 2525 Med. Felsic Smthd Smudg ed Brn N/A 1.8 5.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2712.5 2525 Med. Quartz Slipped Slipped Org. Brn Org slip 1.5 5.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 43 2712.5 2525 Med. Quartz Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 3.5 6.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2712.5 2525 Med. Vlcanic Brnshd Slf. Slip Black N/A 1.8 5.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2712.5 2525 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 3.5 5.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas/ Ost Puro 43 2712.5 2525 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 1 .7 7.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2712.5 2525 Med. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Slipped Brn Red slip 1.6 6.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas/ Ost Puro 43 2712.5 2525 Med. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Slipped Brn Other 8.2 6.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2712.5 2525 Med. Vlcanic Slf. Sl ip Slf. Slip Brn N/A 3.3 5.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2712.5 2525 Med. Vlcanic w/ grog Eroded Eroded Brn N/A 3.5 7.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2712.5 2525 Med Crse. Felsic w/ grog Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 2.7 7.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2712.5 2525 Med Crse. Quartz Smthd Smthd Buff N/A 6.6 9.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost

PAGE 514

514 Table E 1. continued Site (PO) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftrt Inttrt Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Orient D # Style 43 2712.5 2525 Med Crse. Vlcanic w/ shell Slipped Slipped Org Pale Brn slip 15.9 6.8 Parallel Round bevele d in Convex vertical 16 1 Cuevas/Mo nserrate 43 2712.5 2537.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Burnish Brn N/A 9.7 12. 5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 43 2712.5 2537.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Eroded Brn N/A 3.3 8.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2712.5 2537.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 11.6 6.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 43 2712.5 2537.5 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 8.5 6.9 Parallel Flat Indet. 0 1 UID Ost 43 2720 2555 Fine Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Dark Brn N/A 2.2 4.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2720 2555 Fine Vlcanic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Pale Brn N/A 1.8 5.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 43 2720 2555 Med. Felsic Eroded Eroded Org. Brn N/A 3.5 6.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2720 2555 Med Crse. Felsic Eroded Slf. Slip Redsh Brn N/A 3.7 7.0 N/ A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2720 2555 Med Crse. Felsic Slipped Smthd Org Pale Brn slip 15.3 12. 2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 43 2720 2555 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 5.6 6.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2720 2555 Med Crse. Vlcanic Slipped Slipped Brn Pink slip 7 7.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Puro 43 2722 2555 Crse. Felsic Smthd N/A Redsh Brn N/A 66.4 17. 2 N/A N/A Buren 0 1 UID Ost 43 2722 2555 Crse. Quartz Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 4.4 13. 1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2722 2555 Fine Felsic Smthd Painted Org. Br n N/A 1 5.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2722 2555 Fine Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 2.9 5.0 Parallel Round bevele d in Straight vertical 6 1 Cuevas 43 2722 2555 Fine Felsic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Org. Brn N/A 2.7 4.7 Parallel Round bevele d in Convex out 0 1 UID Ost 43 2722 2555 Fine Vlcanic Brnshd Burnish Brn N/A 3.3 5.5 Parallel Indet. Straight vertical 12 1 UID Ost 43 2722 2555 Fine Vlcanic Brnshd Smudg ed Smudgin g N/A 1.6 4.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2722 2555 Fine Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 2.9 5.5 Para llel Round Indet. 0 1 UID Ost 43 2722 2555 Fine Vlcanic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Redsh Brn N/A 1.9 5.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 43 2722 2555 Med. Felsic Brnshd Burnish Brn N/A 1.9 5.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost

PAGE 515

515 Table E 1. continued Site (PO) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftr t Inttrt Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Orient D # Style 43 2722 2555 Med. Felsic Brnshd Slf. Slip Dark Brn N/A 4.4 5.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2722 2555 Med. Felsic Eroded Eroded Org. Brn N/A 6.8 9.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2722 2555 Med. Fels ic Eroded Smthd Pale Brn N/A 2 5.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2722 2555 Med. Felsic Slipped Slipped Org Pale Brn slip 1.9 4.3 Parallel Round Indet. 0 1 UID Ost 43 2722 2555 Med. Felsic Slipped Smthd Pale Brn Pink slip 4.2 7.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Puro 43 2722 2555 Med. Felsic Slipped Smthd Pale Brn Pale Brn slip 3 6.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2722 2555 Med. Felsic Smthd Eroded Brn N/A 7.7 8.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 43 2722 2555 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 40.9 8.0 Thinned Tapere d Indet. 0 8 UI D Ost 43 2722 2555 Med. Felsic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Brn N/A 13.6 7.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 3 UID Ost 43 2722 2555 Med. Quartz Slipped Burnish Brn Red slip 2.6 5.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2722 2555 Med. Quartz Slipped Slipped White/Gr ey Pale Brn slip 6.4 6.2 N /A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2722 2555 Med. Quartz Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 3.8 9.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2722 2555 Med. Quartz Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Pale Brn N/A 2.2 6.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 43 2722 2555 Med. Quartz Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Brn N/A 2.5 5.1 Parallel Flat Straight vertical 0 1 UID Ost 43 2722 2555 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Dark Brn N/A 3.2 7.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 43 2722 2555 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 63.7 6.2 Thicken ed In/Ext N/A N/A 14 9 UID Ost 43 2722 2555 Med. Vlcanic Slf. Sl ip Smthd Dark Brn N/A 2.2 5.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2722 2555 Med. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Dark Brn N/A 13.1 6.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 3 UID Ost 43 2722 2555 Med. Vlcanic Smudg ed Smthd Black N/A 2.1 5.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2722 2555 Med. Vlcanic w/ grog Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 6.3 8.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2722 2555 Med Crse. Felsic Eroded Eroded Org. Brn N/A 3.7 7.1 Parallel Round Indet. 0 1 UID Ost 43 2722 2555 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Eroded Pale Brn N/A 2.2 8.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2722 2555 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Painted Brn N/A 8.4 6.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod

PAGE 516

516 Table E 1. continued Site (PO) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftrt Inttrt Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Orient D # Style 43 2722 2555 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 20.1 8 .6 N/A N/A N/A 0 7 UID Ost 43 2722 2555 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smudg ed Brn N/A 3.2 9.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2722 2555 Med Crse. Felsic Smudg ed Slf. Slip Brn N/A 3.6 6.5 Parallel Round Indet. 9 1 UID Ost 43 2722 2555 Med Crse. Vlcanic Eroded Slf. S lip Brn N/A 5.4 6.5 Parallel N/A Plate 22 1 UID Ost 43 2722 2555 Med Crse. Vlcanic Slipped Slf. Slip Redsh Brn Other 4.4 6.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 43 2722 2555 Med Crse. Vlcanic Smthd N/A Brn N/A 1.9 6.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2722 2555 Med Crse. V lcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 2 9.0 Thicken ed In/Ext Flat Convex vertical 0 1 Capa 43 2722 2555 Med Crse. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 7.4 8.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 43 2722 2555 Med Crse. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Eroded Redsh Brn N/A 2.9 5.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID O st 43 2722 2555 Med Crse. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Dark Brn N/A 2.4 5.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2722 2555 Med Crse. Vlcanic w/ grog Smthd Slf. Slip Brn N/A 5.3 7.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2725 2500 Fine Vlcanic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Dark Brn N/A 3.6 7.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2725 2500 Med. Felsic Eroded Eroded Brn N/A 1.5 7.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2725 2500 Med. Vlcanic Slipped Eroded Brn Pale Brn slip 7.7 6.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Monserrate 43 2725 2500 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 4. 5 6.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Monserrate 43 2725 2500 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 3.3 6.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2725 2512.5 Fine Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 4.2 7.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2725 2512.5 Med. Felsic Painted Painted Brn Other 6.4 5.7 Th icken ed Ext. Round Round bevele d in Straight out 16 1 Monserrate 43 2725 2512.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 16.7 7.1 Parallel Flat Convex vertical 12 1 Monserrate 43 2725 2512.5 Med Crse. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Smthd Brn N/A 3.2 5.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 U ID Ost 43 2725 2537.5 Fine Felsic Smthd Smthd Buff N/A 4.4 6.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Monserrate 43 2725 2537.5 Fine Vlcanic Smthd Slf. Slip Brn N/A 5.8 7.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Monserrate

PAGE 517

517 Table E 1. continued Site (PO) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftrt Inttrt Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Orient D # Style 43 2725 2537.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 4.6 6.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Monserrate 43 2725 2537.5 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 2.4 5.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Monserrate 43 2725 2537.5 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 5.6 6.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 43 2725 2550 Fine Vlcanic Brnshd Smthd Pale Brn Pale Brn slip 2.6 5.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 43 2725 2550 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 2.2 5.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2725 2550 Med. Quartz Slf. S lip Slf. Slip Redsh Brn N/A 3.8 6.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2725 2550 Med. Vlcanic Brnshd Smthd Redsh Brn Other 3.4 4.0 Parallel N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 43 2725 2550 Med. Vlcanic Eroded Smthd Brn N/A 2.4 9.0 Indtermi nate Flat Indet. 0 1 UID Ost 43 2725 2 550 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 19.3 7.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 4 UID Ost 43 2725 2550 Med. Vlcanic w/ grog Slf. Slip Smthd Dark Brn N/A 4.5 7.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2725 2550 Med Crse. Vlcanic Brnshd Eroded Dark Brn N/A 5.2 9.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 O st Mod 43 2737.5 2512.5 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Slf. Slip Redsh Brn N/A 4.5 5.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 43 2737.5 2512.5 Med Crse. Felsic w/ grog Smthd Eroded Brn N/A 8.8 9.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2737.5 2525 Fine Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Pale Brn N/A 19.5 8. 1 N/A N/A N/A 16 1 Cuevas 43 2737.5 2525 Med. Felsic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Brn N/A 19.2 8.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 43 2737.5 2525 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Slipped Redsh Brn Brn slip 5.8 8.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2737.5 2525 Med Crse. Felsic Eroded Erod ed Redsh Brn N/A 3 7.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2737.5 2525 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 4.6 8.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2737.5 2525 Med Crse. Flesic w/ shell Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Redsh Brn N/A 4.5 8.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2737.5 2525 Med Crse. Vlcanic Eroded Eroded Org. Brn N/A 3.2 7.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2737.5 2537.5 Fine Felsic Smthd Smthd Pale Brn N/A 1.5 7.2 Parallel Round N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2737.5 2537.5 Fine Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 19.5 6.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost

PAGE 518

518 Table E 1. continued Site (PO) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftrt Inttrt Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Orient D # Style 43 2737.5 2537.5 Med. Felsic Eroded Eroded Brn N/A 1.6 10. 2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2737.5 2537.5 Med. Vlcanic Eroded Eroded Org. Brn N/A 5.1 6.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2737.5 2537.5 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 1.8 6.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2737.5 2537.5 Not Temper ed Indet. Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 1.9 4.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 43 2750 2500 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 5.4 6. 3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2750 2550 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Eroded Brn N/A 4.7 6.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2750 2575 Fine Vlcanic Eroded Eroded Org N/A 1.8 10. 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2762.5 2512.5 Fine Felsic Painted Painted Buff Red on Buff 4.1 9 .0 Parallel Flat Straight out 0 1 Monserrate 43 2762.5 2512.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Slipped Redsh Brn Pale Brn slip 2.7 7.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2762.5 2512.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 5.7 5.2 Parallel Round Convex in 10 1 UID Ost 43 2762.5 2512.5 Med. Felsic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Org. Brn N/A 2.7 6.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2762.5 2525 Fine Felsic Slf. Slip Eroded Org. Brn N/A 6.8 8.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2762.5 2525 Med. Vlcanic Eroded Smthd Org. Brn N/A 3.5 8.1 Parallel Flat Inde t. 0 1 Monserrate 43 2762.5 2525 Med Crse. Felsic Eroded Eroded Brn N/A 2.6 7.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 43 2775 2550 Fine Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 3 4.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 45 1687.5 3075 Med. Felsic Brnshd Burnish Org. Brn N/A 10.1 5.6 Thicken ed In/Ext Round bevele d out Convex out 20 1 UID Ost 45 1687.5 3075 Med. Felsic Brnshd Smthd Dark Brn N/A 10.1 7.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 45 1687.5 3075 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 1.2 6.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 45 1687.5 3087.5 Med Crse. Vlcanic w/ grog Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Brn N/A 2 7.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 45 1712.5 3037.5 Med. Felsic Brnshd Smthd Pale Brn N/A 2.7 7.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 45 1712.5 3037.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 6.9 7.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 3 UID Ost 46 1525 1550 Med. Felsic Eroded Eroded Org N/A 2.4 8.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 46 1525 1550 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 8.8 6.9 Parallel Indet. Straight vertical 24 1 UID Ost 46 1525 1550 Med Crse. Quartz Slf. Slip Smthd Org. Brn N/A 12.3 10. 2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 E speranza 46 1600 1475 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 1.9 7.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost

PAGE 519

519 Table E 1. continued Site (PO) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftrt Inttrt Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Orient D # Style 47 2950 950 Med. Quartz w/ shell Smthd Slipped Brn Pal e Brn slip 7.5 10. 3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 47 3100 1025 Fine Felsic Slipped Slf. Slip Buff Pale Brn slip 4.2 6.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 47 3100 1025 Fine Felsic Smthd Eroded Buff Other 11.2 5.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas/ Ost Puro 47 3100 1025 Fine Vlcanic Brnshd Burnish Brn N/A 3.2 4.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 47 3100 1025 Fine Vlcanic Slipped Slipped Redsh Brn Other 4.3 5.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas/ Ost Puro 47 3100 1025 Med. Felsic Brnshd Burnish Redsh Brn N/A 14.2 7.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 47 3100 1025 Med. Felsic Eroded Eroded Org. Brn N/A 2.2 6.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 47 3100 1025 Med. Felsic Slipped Burnish Buff Pale Brn slip 3.1 5.2 Thicken ed Ext. Angular Round bevele d in Convex in 0 1 Ost Mod 47 3100 1025 Med. Felsic Slipped Slipped Buff Pink sl ip 2.9 5.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas/ Ost Puro 47 3100 1025 Med. Felsic Slipped Slipped Buff Pale Brn slip 2 5.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 47 3100 1025 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 2.2 6.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 47 3100 1025 Med. Felsic Slf. Slip Bur nish Brn N/A 3 7.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 47 3100 1025 Med. Felsic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Pale Brn N/A 2.1 5.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 47 3100 1025 Med. Vlcanic Brnshd Burnish Brn N/A 3.5 4.8 Indtermi nate Round bevele d out Indet. 0 2 UID Ost 47 3100 1025 Med. Vlcanic Brnshd Eroded Org. Brn N/A 7 6.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 47 3100 1025 Med. Vlcanic Slipped Burnish Brn Pale Brn slip 6.5 6.9 Thinned Round Indet. 0 1 Ost Mod 47 3100 1025 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Burnish Brn N/A 14.2 10. 1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 47 3100 1025 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 1.7 5.2 Thinned Round bevele d out Indet. 0 1 UID Ost 47 3100 1025 Med Crse. Vlcanic Brnshd Burnish Redsh Brn N/A 2.1 8.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 47 3100 1025 Med Crse. Vlcanic Brnshd Slipped Org Brn slip 3.2 7.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod

PAGE 520

520 Table E 1. continued Site (PO) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftrt Inttrt Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Orient D # Style 47 3100 1025 Med Crse. Vlcanic Eroded Slipped Org. Brn Pale Brn slip 4 6.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 47 3100 1025 M ed Crse. Vlcanic Slipped Smthd Redsh Brn Brn slip 2.1 9.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 47 3100 1025 Med Crse. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 1.4 7.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 47 3100 1037.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 2.5 6.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 47 3100 1050 Fine Felsic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 4.4 7.1 Thinned Round bevele d in Outflari ng 0 1 Cuevas 47 3100 1050 Med Crse. Quartz Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 13.1 11. 1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 47 3125 1025 Med. Vlcanic Brnshd Slipped Redsh Brn N/A 6. 9 6.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 47 3125 1025 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 13.8 7.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 Ost Mod 47 3125 1025 Med Crse. Vlcanic Smudg ed Smthd Brn N/A 1.9 7.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 47 3125 1037.5 Crse. Felsic Eroded Eroded Brn N/A 5.3 14. 9 N/A N/A Buren 0 1 UID Ost 47 3125 1037.5 Med Crse. Felsic Eroded Eroded Buff N/A 34.9 7.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 48 3805 4220 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org N/A 5.2 6.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 48 3805 4220 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Eroded Org. Brn N/A 4.4 8.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 48 3805 4220 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 10 9.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 48 3805 4220 Med. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Org. Brn N/A 5.3 7.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 48 3805 4220 Med Crse. Felsic Eroded Smthd Redsh Brn N/ A 27.7 17. 2 Thicken ed In/Ext Indet. Buren 0 1 UID Ost 48 3820 4220 Med. Felsic w/ grog Slf. Slip Smthd Org. Brn N/A 3.7 8.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 48 3820 4220 Med. Vlcanic Eroded Smthd Brn N/A 19.5 8.5 Thicken ed In Round Round bevele d in Indet. 0 1 Snt a Elena 48 3820 4225 Med. Felsic Smthd Smudg ed Brn N/A 8.1 8.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 48 3820 4225 Med. Vlcanic Slipped Slipped Brn Pale Brn slip 2.6 8.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 48 3820 4225 Med. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Smudg ed Redsh Brn N/A 2.5 5.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost

PAGE 521

521 Table E 1. continued Site (PO) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftrt Inttrt Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Orient D # Style 48 3820 4245 Med. Felsic Brnshd Smthd Brn N/A 5.2 7.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 48 3820 4245 Med. Felsic Slipped Eroded Buff Pi nk slip 3.1 5.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas/ Ost Puro 48 3820 4245 Med. Felsic Smthd Slipped Org. Brn Pale Brn slip 1.9 5.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 48 3820 4245 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 5.3 8.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 Ost Mod 48 3820 4245 Med. Felsic Smt hd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 3.1 5.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 48 3820 4245 Med. Felsic Smthd Slf. Slip Brn N/A 2.1 6.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 48 3820 4245 Med. Quartz Smthd Smthd Buff N/A 4.2 8.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 48 3820 4245 Med. Vlcanic Brnshd Smthd D ark Brn N/A 11.3 6.2 Thinned Round bevele d in Compos ite 12 3 Ost Mod 48 3820 4245 Med. Vlcanic Eroded Eroded Dark Brn N/A 1.2 5.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 48 3820 4245 Med. Vlcanic Eroded Smthd Brn N/A 4.2 6.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 48 3820 4245 Med. Vl canic Smthd Burnish Brn N/A 5 7.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 48 3820 4245 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Eroded Brn N/A 3.1 5.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 48 3820 4245 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 2 6.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 48 3820 4245 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smt hd Org. Brn N/A 13.4 6.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 4 UID Ost 48 3820 4245 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Slipped Redsh Brn Org slip 3.4 6.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 48 3820 4245 Med Crse. Vlcanic Slipped Slipped Brn Pale Brn slip 14.2 9.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 48 3820 424 5 Med Crse. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 4.2 8.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 48 3820 4245 Med Crse. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 2.4 5.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 48 3820 4255 Med. Felsic Eroded Slipped Brn Pale Brn slip 11.2 10. 1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 48 3820 4255 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 12.7 8.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas/Mo nserrate 48 3820 4255 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 1.3 8.2 Indtermi nate Round bevele d in Indet. 0 1 Esperanza 48 3820 4255 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 7.8 11. 1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 48 3820 4255 Med. Felsic Smthd Slf. Slip Redsh Brn N/A 11.7 6.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 Ost Mod

PAGE 522

522 Table E 1. continued Site (PO) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftrt Inttrt Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Orient D # Style 48 3820 4255 Med. Vlcanic S mthd Burnish Dark Brn N/A 3.6 6.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 48 3820 4255 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Eroded Brn N/A 23 11. 2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 48 3820 4255 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Slipped Org. Brn Org slip 5.3 7.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 48 3820 4255 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 4.1 9.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 48 3820 4255 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Slf. Slip Org. Brn N/A 11.2 7.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 48 3820 4255 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Eroded Org. Brn N/A 6.2 13. 1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 48 3820 4255 Med Crse. F elsic Slf. Slip Eroded Brn N/A 4.9 8.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 48 3820 4255 Med Crse. Vlcanic Brnshd Smthd Dark Brn N/A 14.3 8.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 48 3820 4255 Med Crse. Vlcanic Smthd Eroded Brn N/A 8 10. 1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 48 3820 4255 Med Crse. Vlcanic Smthd Eroded White/Gr ey N/A 2.4 12. 2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 48 3830 4245 Med. Felsic Eroded Eroded Org. Brn N/A 6.7 14. 5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 48 3830 4245 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 4.5 7.8 Parallel N/A N/A 0 2 Ost Mod 48 383 0 4245 Med. Vlcanic Brnshd Smthd Brn N/A 24.2 7.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 48 3830 4245 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 8.1 10. 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 48 3835 4220 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 4.3 7.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 3 UID Ost 48 3835 4220 Med. Felsic Smthd Slf. Slip Brn N/A 0.9 7.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 48 3835 4220 Med. Felsic Slf. Slip Slipped Org Pale Brn slip 9.2 6.1 Parallel Round Plate 18 1 UID Ost 48 3835 4220 Med. Vlcanic Brnshd Slf. Slip Org. Brn N/A 11.7 8.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 48 3835 4220 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Burnish Redsh Brn N/A 3.1 6.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 48 3835 4220 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 5.2 6.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Ost Mod 50 1150 3300 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 3.3 7.9 Parallel Round Indet. 0 1 UID Ost 50 1150 3300 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Dark Brn N/A 2.1 9.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 50 1175 3225 Med. Vlcanic Brnshd Smthd Dark Brn N/A 2.4 4.2 Parallel Round Indet. 0 1 UID Ost 50 1250 3300 Med. Felsic Eroded Smthd Brn N/A 3.5 9.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cu evas/ Ost Puro 50 1250 3300 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 8.9 11. 4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas/ Ost Puro 50 1250 3300 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Dark Brn N/A 12.9 9.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost

PAGE 523

523 Table E 1. continued Site (PO) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftrt Inttr t Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Orient D # Style 50 1250 3312.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 8.6 12. 7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 50 1250 3312.5 Med Crse. Felsic Eroded Slipped Brn Org slip 1.7 5.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 50 1250 3312.5 Med Crs e. Felsic Eroded Smthd Brn N/A 1.5 8.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 50 1250 3312.5 Med Crse. Vlcanic Smthd Burnish Dark Brn N/A 11.2 13. 2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 50 1251 3300 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Black N/A 40.2 9.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas/ Ost Puro 50 1251 3300 Med Crse. Quartz Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 42.9 11. 5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 50 1262.5 3300 Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 20.6 11. 9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 50 1262.5 3300 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 20.8 8.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 3 Cuevas/ Ost Puro 50 1262.5 3300 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 29.9 10. 5 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 50 1262.5 3300 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 17.9 14. 4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Elenan Ost 50 1262.5 3300 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 12.5 9.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 50 1262.5 3300 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 75.4 12. 5 N/A N/A N/A 0 4 UID Ost 50 1262.5 3300 Med Crse. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 22.1 13. 2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 50 1262.5 3312.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N /A 29.7 9.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 50 1275 3300 Med. Felsic Brnshd Burnish Brn N/A 7.2 8.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 50 1275 3312.5 Med Crse. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Dark Brn N/A 12.3 11. 7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 50 1300 3300 Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 723 16. 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 5 UID Ost 50 1300 3300 Crse. Felsic w/ grog Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 65 12. 5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 50 1300 3300 Fine Felsic Eroded Eroded Org N/A 23.1 6.6 Thicken ed In/Ext Flat Outflari ng 0 1 Cuevas 50 1300 3300 Med. Felsic Brnshd S mthd Black N/A 19.9 7.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas/ Ost Puro

PAGE 524

524 Table E 1. continued Site (PO) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftrt Inttrt Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Orient D # Style 50 1300 3300 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 221 11. 8 Parallel Round bevel e d out Straight vertical 32 1 Cuevas/ Ost Puro 50 1300 3300 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Dark Brn N/A 268 8.6 Thinned Round bevele d out Convex out 24 3 UID Ost 50 1300 3300 Med Crse. Limest one Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 115 6.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 50 1300 3300 Med Crse. Quartz Smthd Smthd Buff N/A 55.3 17. 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 50 1300 3300 Med Crse. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Dark Brn N/A 90.7 9.9 Parallel N/A N/A 0 3 UID Ost 51 0 0 Fine Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 12.4 7.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 3 UID Ost 51 0 0 Fine Vlcanic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Brn N/A 10.9 5.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 3 UID Ost 51 0 0 Med. Felsic Brnshd Burnish Brn N/A 2.2 5.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 51 0 0 Med. Felsic Eroded Slf. Slip Org. Brn Pink slip 8 6.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas/ Ost Puro 51 0 0 Med Felsic Smthd Burnish Org N/A 10.6 6.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 51 0 0 Med. Felsic Smthd Slipped Buff Whit e on Red 6.2 7.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 51 0 0 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Pale Brn N/A 104 7.5 Parallel N/A N/A 14 17 UID Ost 51 0 0 Med. Felsic Slf. Slip Smthd Org. Brn Org slip 7.1 6.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 51 0 0 Med. Felsic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Org. Brn N/A 8.6 6.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 51 0 0 Med. Vlcanic Brnshd Burnish Org. Brn N/A 11.7 5.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 51 0 0 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Slipped Buff Whit e on Red 27.4 5.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 51 0 0 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 33.3 5.8 Thinned N/A N/A 14 5 UID Ost 51 0 0 Med Crse. Felsic Eroded Smthd Org. Brn Org slip 5.2 7.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas/ Ost Puro 51 0 0 Med Crse. Fels ic Eroded Smthd Org. Brn N/A 10.6 12. 9 N/A N/A Buren 0 1 Indet. 51 0 0 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 6.7 10. 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 51 0 0 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org N/A 37 7.1 Thicken ed In Round N/A N/A 20 5 UID Ost 51 0 0 Med Cr se. Vlcanic Brnshd Burnish Dark Brn N/A 6.6 7.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost

PAGE 525

525 Table E 1. continued Site (PO) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftrt Inttrt Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Orient D # Style 51 0 0 Med Crse. Vlcanic Slipped Slipped Org. Brn Pale Brn slip 12.3 9 .7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Esperanza 51 0 0 Med Crse. Vlcanic Slipped Smthd Pale Brn Pale Brn slip 2.8 7.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 51 0 0 Med Crse. Vlcanic Slipped Slf. Slip Org. Brn Whit e on Red 11.2 10. 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 51 0 0 Med Crse. Vlcanic Sli pped Slf. Slip Pale Brn Pale Brn slip 2.1 6.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 51 0 0 Med Crse. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 12.1 9.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 51 0 0 Med Crse. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Pale Brn N/A 27 7.6 Parallel Round bevele d in Convex vertical 20 4 UID Ost 51 0 0 Med Crse. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Buff N/A 9.4 5.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 52 1805 2837.5 Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 118 19. 6 N/A N/A Buren 0 1 UID Ost 52 1805 2837.5 Crse. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 414 20. 1 N/A N/A Bure n 0 1 UID Ost 52 1805 2837.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Slipped Org. Brn Org slip 3.7 5.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 52 1805 2837.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 4.2 5.8 Parallel Round Indet. 0 1 UID Ost 52 1805 2837.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Slf. Slip Redsh Brn N/A 3. 8 5.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 52 1805 2837.5 Med Crse. Felsic Eroded Eroded Brn N/A 3.8 6.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 52 1805 2837.5 Med Crse. Felsic Eroded Smthd Org. Brn N/A 18.3 11. 0 N/A N/A Buren 0 1 Indet. 52 1805 2837.5 Med Crse. Felsic Eroded Smthd Org. Brn N/A 44.5 7.4 N/A N/A Buren 0 2 UID Ost 52 1805 2837.5 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Eroded Brn N/A 12.9 11. 5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 52 1805 2837.5 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 17.2 8.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Esperanza 52 1805 2837.5 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 530 16. 6 Thicken ed In/Ext N/A Buren 36 2 Indet.

PAGE 526

526 Table E 1. continued Site (PO) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftrt Inttrt Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Orient D # Style 52 1805 2837.5 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 78.4 19. 4 N/A N/A Buren 0 1 UID Ost 52 1805 2837.5 Med Crse. Felsic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Brn N/A 18.7 8.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 3 UID Ost 52 1825 2837.5 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 2.5 6.2 Thinned Round bevele d in Compos ite 10 1 Capa 52 1825 2837.5 Med. Felsic S mthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 2.1 8.1 Thinned Tapere d Indet. 0 1 UID Ost 52 1825 2837.5 Med Crse. Felsic Eroded Burnish Org. Brn N/A 1.7 8.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 52 1825 2837.5 Med Crse. Felsic Eroded Slf. Slip Brn N/A 6.3 7.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 52 18 25 2837.5 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 3.5 11. 4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 52 1825 2850 Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 11.7 12. 4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 52 1825 2850 Fine Felsic Smthd Smthd Org N/A 2.1 8.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 52 18 25 2850 Med. Felsic Smthd Burnish Brn N/A 14.8 8.6 Thicken ed In Round Round bevele d in Plate 22 1 UID Ost 52 1825 2850 Med. Vlcanic Brnshd Smthd Brn N/A 3.4 7.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 52 1825 2850 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 3.3 10. 7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 52 1825 2850 Med Crse. Felsic Eroded Eroded Org. Brn N/A 19.9 15. 0 N/A N/A Buren 0 1 Indet. 52 1825 2850 Med Crse. Felsic Eroded Smthd Org. Brn N/A 3.5 10. 5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 52 1825 2850 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd N/A Org. Brn N/A 12.3 1 6. 1 N/A N/A Buren 0 1 Indet. 52 1825 2850 Med Crse. Vlcanic Brnshd Burnish Brn N/A 9.2 7.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 52 1835 2825 Med. Felsic Eroded Eroded Org. Brn N/A 13.5 10. 3 N/A N/A Buren 0 2 UID Ost 52 1835 2825 Med. Felsic Eroded Smthd Org. Brn N/A 6.8 3.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 52 1835 2825 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 6.9 16. 2 N/A N/A Buren 0 1 Indet. 52 1837.5 2837.5 Med. Vlcanic Slipped Smthd Dark Brn Brn slip 1.7 5.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 52 1837.5 2837.5 Med. Vlcanic Smthd S mthd Brn N/A 3.8 8.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Esperanza

PAGE 527

527 Table E 1. continued Site (PO) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftrt Inttrt Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Orient D # Style 52 1837.5 2837.5 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 3.7 8.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Esperanza 52 1850 2836 Med. Felsic Brnshd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 9.3 8.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 52 1850 2836 Med. Felsic Smthd Burnish Dark Brn N/A 3.7 6.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 52 1850 2836 Med. Felsic Smthd Slipped Org. Brn N/A 5 6.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 UID Ost 52 1850 2836 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 1.7 7.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 52 1850 2836 Med. Felsic Slf. Slip Slf. Slip Org. Brn N/A 1.7 4.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 52 1850 2836 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Burnish Brn N/A 2.7 6.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Esperanza 5 2 1850 2836 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 9.1 7.7 Thinned Round Indet. 12 2 UID Ost 52 1850 2836 Med Crse. Felsic Eroded Smthd Org. Brn N/A 2.7 7.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 52 1850 2836 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Slipped Brn N/A 4.8 7.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Esp eranza 52 1850 2836 Med Crse. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Dark Brn N/A 5.2 9.0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 52 1850 2850 Med Crse. Felsic Eroded Eroded Redsh Brn N/A 3 10. 1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 52 1850 2850 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd N/A Redsh Brn N/A 13.7 19. 1 N/A N /A Buren 0 1 UID Ost 52 1853 2845 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 5.9 7.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 52 1853 2845 Med. Felsic Slf. Slip Slipped Pale Brn Org slip 2.1 6.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 52 1853 2845 Med. Vlcanic Slf. Slip Burnish Org. Brn N/A 1.2 5 .1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas/ Ost Puro 52 1853 2845 Med Crse. Vlcanic Smthd Burnish Brn N/A 7.4 10. 2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 52 1853 2845 Med Crse. Vlcanic Smthd Slf. Slip Dark Brn N/A 12.8 11. 1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 52 1900 2800 Med. Felsic Smthd Burn ish Redsh Brn N/A 3.5 6.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 53 560 3990 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 1.6 5.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 53 560 4000 Med. Felsic Brnshd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 2.5 5.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 53 560 4000 Med. Felsic Smthd Burnish Da rk Brn N/A 4.2 12. 6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 53 560 4000 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 4.5 7.4 Parallel Round bevele d out Indet. 0 1 UID Ost 53 560 4000 Med Crse. Felsic Brnshd Burnish Redsh Brn N/A 1.9 8.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost

PAGE 528

528 Table E 1. continued Site (PO) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftrt Inttrt Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Orient D # Style 53 560 4000 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 5.6 9.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 53 560 4005 Crse. Felsic Eroded Smthd Org N/A 9.5 9.8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Elenan Ost 53 560 4005 Med Crse. Felsic Slipped Smthd Org Pink slip 13.2 7.2 Parallel Round bevele d in Convex out 0 1 Cuevas/ Ost Puro 53 560 4005 Med Crse. Felsic Smthd Eroded Org. Brn N/A 16.8 11. 8 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Elenan Ost 53 560 4005 Med./ C rse. Felsic Smthd Smt hd Brn N/A 20.5 9.5 Thinned Round bevele d in Convex out 0 2 Snta Elena 53 560 4005 Med./ C rse. Felsic Slf. Slip Smthd Brn N/A 8.9 9.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 53 560 4005 Med./ C rse. Vlcanic w/ shell Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 7.9 8.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Ele na 53 562 3985 Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Buff N/A 7.3 10. 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 53 562 3985 Crse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 19.2 17. 4 Flat In Platform ed Flat Buren 0 1 UID Ost 53 562 3985 Fine Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 1 2.3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Inde t. 53 562 3985 Med. Felsic Brnshd Slf. Slip Brn N/A 7 5.5 Thinned Flat Convex vertical 14 1 Capa 53 562 3985 Med. Felsic Eroded Smthd Redsh Brn N/A 23 8.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 53 562 3985 Med. Felsic Smthd Smthd Dark Brn N/A 5.5 7.9 N/A N/A N/A 0 3 U ID Ost 53 562 3985 Med. Quartz Eroded Burnish Org N/A 25.1 7.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Cuevas 53 562 3985 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Burnish Dark Brn N/A 30.7 7.8 Indtermi nate Round bevele d in Indet. 0 1 Ost Mod 53 562 3985 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Smthd Org. Brn N/A 11.6 9. 6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 53 562 3985 Med./ C rse. Felsic Smthd Smthd Brn N/A 1.5 6.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 53 562 3985 Med./ C rse. Felsic Slf. Slip Burnish Brn N/A 11.5 10. 4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Monserate/ Snta Elena 53 562 3985 Med./ C rse. Vlcanic Smthd Erode d Org. Brn N/A 33.8 8.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena 53 562 4005 Med. Felsic Eroded Eroded Redsh Brn N/A 1.6 6.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 53 562 4005 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Burnish Brn N/A 8.2 9.1 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 53 562 4005 Med. Vlcanic Smthd Slf. Sli p Org. Brn N/A 3.3 5.7 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost

PAGE 529

529 Table E 1. continued Site (PO) N E Ptxt Ptype Srftrt Inttrt Srf. Clr. Pnt_ Slp Wt Th k Rim Lip Orient D # Style 54 2725 1100 Med. Felsic Smthd Slf. Slip Brn N/A 3.6 6.6 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 UID Ost 57 1150 5125 Med. Felsic Smthd Burnish Dark Brn N/A 4.5 6.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Snta Elena

PAGE 530

530 APPENDIX F SHELL ANALYSIS This appendix contains the results of the analysis of shell and coral recovered during the Tibes Archaeological Survey Project. Columns for each row in the table are: T AXON : Family, Genus and/or species of the shell or coral specimen. D ATA : Metrics for the following: o NISP: Number of Individual Specimens o MNI: Minimum Number of Individuals o Wt.: Weight S ITE : Site from which the specimen(s) was retrieved T OTAL : Total for metrics listed under DATA (above) for each site.

PAGE 531

531 Table F 1. Shell Analysis Taxon Data PO 42 PO 43 PO 45 PO 50 PO 51 PO 52 PO 53 Total Aequipecten sp. NISP 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 MNI 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 wt (g) 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.5 6.5 Anadara che mnitzi NISP 2 0 0 0 0 0 6 8 MNI 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 7 wt (g) 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 12.7 14.2 Anadara floridana NISP 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 7 MNI 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 6 wt (g) 0 0 0 0 0 24.7 15.3 40 Anadara notabilis NISP 8 11 0 0 1 5 0 25 MNI 5 8 0 0 1 3 0 17 wt (g) 51.1 57.7 0 0 8.2 46.8 0 163.8 Anadara ovalis NISP 11 1 0 0 11 2 38 63 MNI 6 1 0 0 1 2 27 37 wt (g) 37.5 6.7 0 0 53.1 8.3 70.9 176.5 Anadara sp. NISP 12 9 0 0 1 1 15 38 MNI 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 wt (g) 9.8 14 0 0 3.4 0.8 9.1 37.1 Anadarinae NISP 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 MNI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 wt (g) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.7 0.7 Anomalocardia brasiliana NISP 1083 288 54 0 32 176 5 1638 MNI 490 122 12 0 14 94 2 734 wt (g) 822.8 233.5 20.8 0 20.3 129.1 2.2 1228.7 Anthozoa NISP 60 82 0 0 0 5 2 149 MNI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 wt (g) 514.2 421.2 0 0 0 65.5 17.1 1018

PAGE 532

532 Table F 1. continued Taxon Data PO 42 PO 43 PO 45 PO 50 PO 51 PO 52 PO 53 Total Arca sp. NISP 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 MNI 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 wt (g) 0 0 0 0 0 0.7 0 0.7 Arca inbricata NISP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 MNI 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 wt (g) 1.1 0.8 0 0 0 0 0 1.9 Arca zebra NISP 474 282 7 0 0 61 6 830 MNI 160 135 5 0 0 32 4 336 wt (g) 885.9 815.25 13.4 0 0 162.5 15.7 1892.8 Arcidae NISP 86 298 16 0 0 2 10 412 MNI 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 wt (g) 48.8 283.8 16 0 0 1.2 2.7 352. 5 Astreae sp. NISP 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 MNI 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 wt (g) 8.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.5 Barbatia cancellaria NISP 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 MNI 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 wt (g) 0 6.3 0 0 0 0 0 6.3 Bivalvea NISP 573 30 10 0 0 56 50 719 MNI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 wt (g) 329.6 5 523.35 2.3 0 0 19.3 9.1 883.7 Brachidontes recurvis NISP 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 6 MNI 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 wt (g) 0.5 1.6 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 Calliostoma javanicum NISP 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MNI 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 wt (g) 0 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0.4

PAGE 533

533 Table F 1. continued Taxon D ata PO 42 PO 43 PO 45 PO 50 PO 51 PO 52 PO 53 Total Cas sis sp. NISP 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 MNI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 wt (g) 3.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.8 Cerithum algicola NISP 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MNI 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 wt (g) 0 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 Cerithum auricoma NISP 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 MNI 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 wt (g) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 0.9 Cerithum eburneum NISP 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 MNI 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 wt (g) 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 Chama macerophylla NISP 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 MNI 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 wt (g) 1.3 0 0 0 0 3.7 0 5 Cham a sp. NISP 19 13 0 0 0 1 0 33 MNI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 wt (g) 17.6 7.9 0 0 0 0.9 0 26.4 Chione cancellata NISP 9 6 0 0 0 7 31 53 MNI 4 4 0 0 0 5 19 32 wt (g) 10.4 7.2 0 0 0 9 43.8 70.4 Citarium pica NISP 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 MNI 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 wt (g) 3.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.6 Codakia costada NISP 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 MNI 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 wt (g) 5.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.3

PAGE 534

534 Table F 1. Shell analysis Taxon Data PO 42 PO 43 PO 45 PO 50 PO 51 PO 52 PO 53 Total Codakia orbicularis NISP 73 49 0 0 1 10 3 136 MNI 19 16 0 0 1 6 2 44 wt (g) 164.8 91.05 0 0 1 29.7 35.3 321.85 Crassostrea rhizophorae NISP 129 26 0 0 4 66 0 225 MNI 22 7 0 0 1 15 0 45 wt (g) 221.7 30.6 0 0 8.8 185.8 0 446.9 Diplo ria sp. NISP 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MNI 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 wt (g) 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 Donax straiatus NISP 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 4 MNI 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 4 wt (g) 0 2.2 0 0 2.1 0 0 4.3 Echininus nodulosus NISP 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 MNI 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 wt (g) 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 Gastropoda NISP 73 28 0 11 1 5 2 112 MNI 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 wt (g) 49 .3 17.7 0 25.9 2.7 2.5 1.9 94 Lucinadae NISP 87 82 2 0 0 5 1 177 MNI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 wt (g) 53.1 93.9 1.1 0 0 2.9 1 152 Lyropecten nodosus NISP 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 MNI 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 wt (g) 0 0 0 0 0 14.9 0 14.9 Mullosca NISP 16 10 0 0 0 3 5 34 M NI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 wt (g) 12.8 2.3 0 0 0 1.2 1.2 17.5

PAGE 535

535 Table F 1. continued Taxon Data PO 42 PO 43 PO 45 PO 50 PO 51 PO 52 PO 53 Total Murex breviforns NISP 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 MNI 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 wt (g) 4 0 0 0 0 5.2 0 9.2 Murex pomum NISP 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MNI 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 wt (g) 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 26 Murex sp. NISP 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 MNI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 wt (g) 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Muricidae NISP 3 4 0 0 0 1 0 8 MNI 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 wt (g) 4.2 3.6 0 0 0 0.7 0 8.5 Mytilopsis domingensis NISP 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 9 MNI 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 8 wt (g) 4.5 1 0 0 0 0 0 5.5 Neitina virginea NISP 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 MNI 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 wt (g) 0 4.2 0 0 0 0 0 4.2 Nerita tessellata NISP 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 MNI 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 wt (g) 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 Neritina sp NISP 17 8 0 0 0 0 0 25 MNI 17 3 0 0 0 0 0 20 wt (g) 8.15 2.7 0 0 0 0 0 10.85 Neritina virginea NISP 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 MNI 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 wt (g) 1.2 0.7 0 0 0 0 0 1.9

PAGE 536

536 Table F 1. continued Taxon Data PO 42 PO 43 PO 45 PO 50 PO 51 PO 52 PO 53 To tal Nertitina puntculata NISP 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MNI 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 wt (g) 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 Phacoides pectinatus NISP 17 35 0 0 0 1 0 53 MNI 8 16 0 0 0 1 0 25 wt (g) 42 117.7 0 0 0 2.2 0 161.9 Plicatula gibbosa NISP 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 MNI 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 wt (g) 2.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 Pseudochama radians NISP 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 MNI 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 wt (g) 83.1 1.4 0 0 0 0 0 84.5 Solen obliquus NISP 26 0 0 0 0 2 0 28 MNI 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 wt (g) 10.1 0 0 0 0 2.1 0 12.2 Strombadea NISP 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 MNI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 wt (g) 0 0 0 0 0 1.9 0 1.9 Strombus costatus NISP 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 MNI 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 wt (g) 0 0 0 0 0 197.6 0 197.6 Strombus gigas NISP 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 MNI 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 wt (g) 15.3 0 0 0 0 255.8 0 271.1 Strombu s pugilis NISP 26 10 0 0 2 19 2 59 MNI 23 10 0 0 2 14 2 51 wt (g) 807.8 368.4 0 0 63.1 763.4 46.2 2048.9

PAGE 537

537 Table F 1. continued Taxon Data PO 42 PO 43 PO 45 PO 50 PO 51 PO 52 PO 53 Total Strombus sp. NISP 160 91 8 0 7 45 12 323 MNI 37 23 0 0 4 9 9 82 wt (g) 472.75 237.8 16.9 0 118.9 249.2 50.1 1145.7 Tellina fausta NISP 47 28 0 0 0 0 0 75 MNI 15 13 0 0 0 0 0 28 wt (g) 290.2 122.2 0 0 0 0 0 412.4 Tellina radiate NISP 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MNI 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 wt (g) 0 1.9 0 0 0 0 0 1.9 Tellini dae NISP 170 76 0 0 0 3 1 250 MNI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 wt (g) 226.1 103.3 0 0 0 3.9 1.5 334.8 Trachycardium isochardia NISP 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 MNI 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 wt (g) 0 0.4 0 0 2.1 0 0 2.5 Truncatella puchella NISP 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 MNI 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 wt (g) 1.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 Turbo castanea NISP 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MNI 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 wt (g) 0 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 Turretilla variegate NISP 50 29 0 0 1 11 4 95 MNI 25 17 0 0 1 9 4 56 wt (g) 96 33.5 0 0 1.9 37.3 12.2 180.9 Total Sum of NISP 327 6 1524 97 11 63 499 203 5673 Total Sum of MNI 871 403 17 0 27 201 81 1600 Total Sum of Weight (g) 5330.7 3645.3 70.5 25.9 285.6 2228.8 356.1 11943

PAGE 538

538 APPENDIX G SOUTH CENTRAL REGION ARCHA EOLOGICAL SITE DATAB ASE The following appendix provides details regarding the archaeological sites from the Geographical Information Systems data used inthis study. Explanantions for the table columns are listed below. S ITE # : PRSHPO site number. ID : ID reference number used on maps in this work. N AME : Official si te name. PII : Presence (1) or absence (0) of Saladoid material culture at the site. PIII : Presence (1) or absence (0) of Ostionan Ostionoid material culture at the site. PIV : Presence (1) or absence (0) of Chican Ostionoid material culture at the site. HG : Presence (1) or absence (0) of Hacienda Grande pottery at the site. CVS : Presence (1) or absence (0) of Cuevaspottery at the site. SE : Presence (1) or absence (0) of Santa Elena pottery at the site. OST.: Presence (1) or absence (0) of Pure/Modifie d Ostiones pottery at the site. MO : Presence (1) or absence (0) of Monserrate pottery at the site. BC : Presence (1) or absence (0) of Boca Chica pottery at the site. C AP : Presence (1) or absence (0) of Cap pottery at the site. E SP : Presence (1) or ab sence (0) of Esperanza pottery at the site. ST : Functional site type (1) Ceremonial architecture no habitation, (2) Habitation with ceremonial architecture, (3) Habitation with no ceremomnial architecture, (4) Hamlet, (5) Limited activity area. P T : Pres ence (1) or absence (0) of petroglyphs at the site. H A : Size of the site in hectares. P. Area : Total area of plaza/ batey features at a site (if any) in m P#: N mber of plazas at a given site. S OURCE : Source of the site inf ormation

PAGE 539

539 Table G 1. South central region archaeological site database Site # ID Name PII PIII PIV HG CV SE OM Mo BC C p E p ST PT Ha. PA P # Source AI004 1 Vega del Suburruco 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0.6 0 1 Site form AI005 2 Los Burgos 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0.6 0 0 Site form CY001 3 Jajome 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0.6 0 0 Site form CY002 4 Las Planas 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 0.4 ? 0 Site form CO001 5 Las Flores 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 1000 1 Site form;Siegel 1999; Alegria 1983; Aguilu in Wilson 1991 CO002 6 Villon/Cuy on 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3.2 1620 3 Site form/Siegel 1989/Alegria 1983 CO003 7 Buenos Aires 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 1.6 0 0 Weaver et al. 1992; Rouse 1952; Site form CO004 8 Canters 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 0.1 0 0 Site form CO005 9 Banos de Coam o 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0.4 0 0 Site form GN013 10 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0.1 0 0 Site form; Pantel 2004 GN014 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0.1 0 0 Pantel 2004; Site form GY001 12 Tecla 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 2.0 0 0 Siegel 1989; Moscoso 198 1; Chanlatte 1975; Narganes 1989 GY004 14 Antes Cotui 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0.1 0 0 Site form GY005 15 Cueva Vallejo 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 Site form. GY006 16 Los Sitios 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 Site form GY013 20 GU13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 Site form GY014 21 GU14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0.1 0 0 Site form GY015 22 GU15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0.1 0 0 Site form GY016 23 GU16 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0.3 0 0 Site form. GY017 24 GU17 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0.3 0 0 Site form; Maiz 1990 GY018 25 GU18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0.4 0 0 Maiz 1990

PAGE 540

540 Table G 1. continued Site # ID Name PII PIII PIV HG CV SE OM Mo BC C p E p ST PT Ha. PA P # Source JD001 27 Santi 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0.4 0 0 Pantel 2006 JD004 28 Guaya bal 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0.2 0 0 Pantel 2006; Site form JD005 29 Guayabal II/Cueva Lucero 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 Site form JD007 30 Ro Caas 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0.4 0 1 Site form JD002 31 Autopista 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 0.2 0 0 Site form; Gonzlez Colon 1997; Pantel 2006 JD003 32 Venegas/JD 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0.2 0 2 Site form; Lundberg 1985:L16 JD006 33 Collores 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 2.2 0 0 Lundberg 1985, Site form, Pantel 1978; Rodrigues 1983; Ro use 1952 PN001 34 Caracoles/P E 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0.6 0 1 Site form; Gonz alez Colon 1984; Pantel 2006 PN003 35 La Jagua 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0.6 0 1 Site form; Plaza based on Gonzlez Colon 1984 PN004 36 Olefinas 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 Pantel 200 6 Site form PN005 37 El Oregano 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 Site form; Pantel 2006 PO002 38 Tibes II 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0.4 0 0 Pantel 1978; Miguel 2008; Pantel 2006 PO003 39 Tibes III 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 Pantel 1978 ; Solis Magan a 1989

PAGE 541

541 Table G 1. continued Site # ID Name PII PIII PIV HG CV SE OM Mo BC C p E p ST PT Ha. PA P # Source PO008 40 Caas 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 2.0 0 0 Site form; Peabody Cata log; Rainey 1940; Rouse 1952 ; Chanlatte Baik 1975 PO029 42 PO 29 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 2.0 2000 1 Espenshade 2007, 2009; Kaplan 2009 YA002 43 Duey/Diego Hernandez 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 0.8 0 0 Maiz 1985, Lundberg 1985. Rouse 1952, Weaver et al. 1992 YA008 46 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0.16 0 0 Maiz 1990, Site form YA011 47 YA11 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0.6 0 0 Site form. YA012 48 La Fraternidad 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0.6 0 0 Site form; Maiz 1985 PO005 49 Tuque 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 1 0.04 0 0 Site form; Lundberg 1985 PO015 50 Holiday Inn 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 0.04 0 0 Site form. YA004 51 Barinas II 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0.4 0 0 Maiz 1990; Site form YA009 52 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0.6 0 0 Site form; Maiz 1990 YA010 53 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 5 0 0.0 1 0 0 Maiz 1985 ; Site form PO001 54 Tibes 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 2 1 4.04 4434 .5 9 Site form Siegel, Curet et al. 2006 PO012 55 Maraguez 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.40 0 1 Site form PO013 56 Hernandez Colon 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 1.5 0 1 Maiz 2003; Maiz 2002; Site are a from 2003: PO014 57 Tizol 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 0.04 0 0 Site form PO016 58 Tito Castro 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 Site form PO031 59 Lagos Geley 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 9.2 0 0 Thomas and Swanson 1986; Site form

PAGE 542

542 Table G 1. continued Site # ID Name PII PIII PIV HG CV SE OM Mo BC C p E p ST PT Ha. PA P # Source PO038 62 El Parking CT2 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 0 0.4 0 0 Weaver et al. 1992 PO039 63 La Iglesia de Maraguez (CT 4) 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0.5 200 1 Garrow et al. 1995 PO009 64 Tiburnes 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 0. 04 0 0 Site form PO010 65 Caracoles 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 4.4 0 1 Site form; Newsom and Curet 200; Ridriguez 1985 SN015 66 P1 (K 8 02) 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0.4 0 0 Rodrguez 1985 SN016 67 P 2 (F 4 01) 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1.7 0 0 Rodrg uez 1985 SN017 68 P 3 (M 18 01) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0.6 0 0 Rodrguez 1985 SN018 69 P 4 (M 14 01) 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0.6 0 0 Rodrguez 1985 SN021 70 P7 (E 5 01) 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0.6 0 0 Rodrguez 1985 SN022 71 P8 (E 6 01) 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0.6 0 0 Rodrguez 1985 SN023 72 P9 (E 7 01) 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0.6 0 0 Rodrguez 1985 SN024 73 P10 (F 3 01) 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0.6 37.2 1 Rodrguez 1985 SN025 74 P11 (G 4 01) 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0.6 0 0 Rodrguez 1985 SN026 75 P12 (G 4 02) 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0.4 0 0 Rodrguez 1985 SN027 76 P13 (G 4 03) 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0.4 0 0 Rodrguez 1985 SN028 77 P14 (G 15 01) 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0.6 343. 75 1 Rodrguez 1985 SN029 78 P15 (H 1 01) 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0.6 0 0 Rodrguez 1985 SN030 79 P16 (H 7 01) 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0.6 0 0 Rodrguez 1985 SN031 80 P17 (J 5 02) 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0.6 0 0 Rodrguez 1985 SN032 81 P18 (L 13 01) 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0.6 0 0 Rodrguez 1985

PAGE 543

543 Table G 1. continued Site # ID Name PII PIII PIV HG CV SE OM Mo BC C p E p ST PT Ha. PA P # Source SN033 82 P19 (N 5 01) 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0.6 0 1 Rodrguez 1985 SN034 83 P20 (P 12 01) 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0.6 0 0 Rodrguez 1985 SN035 84 P21 (P 13 02) 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0.4 0 0 Rodrguez 1985 SN036 85 P22 (R 13 01) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0.4 0 0 Rodrguez 1985; Pantel 2006 SI008 86 Penuelas 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0.6 0 0 Rodrguez 1985/S i te form SN003 87 Turrado 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0.8 0 1 Rodrguez 1985/S ite form SN005 88 La Plena II 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0.8 0 1 SN037 89 SA 37 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 Site form; Pantel 2006 SN038 90 SA 038 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 Pantel 2006 SN039 91 Las Yeyesas 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 Site form SN011 92 El Llano 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0.4 0 0 Pantel 2006; Rodrguez 1985 SN020 93 P6 (B 8 01) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0.4 0 0 Rodrguez 1985 SI001 94 Jauca I 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2.0 0 0 Rodrguez 1985; Site form SI002 95 Jauca II 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0.4 0 0 Rodrguez 1985;S ite form SI003 96 Jauca III/Texidor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0.4 0 0 Rodrguez 1985;S ite form SN006 98 Aguirre 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0.6 0 0 Rodrguez 1985/S ite form SN008 99 Abeynos 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 Pantel 2006 ; Rodrguez 1985 SI006 106 Las Ollas 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0.8 0 1 Rodrguez 1985;S ite form

PAGE 544

544 Table G 1. continued Site # ID Name PII PIII PIV HG CV S E OM Mo BC C p E p ST PT Ha. PA P # Source SI007 107 El Cayito 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 2.0 0 0 Site form; Garrow 1995 ;Lundberg 1985; Rouse 1952; Rodrguez 1985 VL004 108 VL 4 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0.8 0 0 GA008 110 XP 3/4 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 .5 0 0 Site form GA009 111 X P 5 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 2.5 0 0 Site form GA002 117 El Palo 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 GY010 120 Cemetario de Guyanilla 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0.4 0 0 Site form GY011 121 GU 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 Site form GY012 122 GU12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 Site form PO021 129 PO 21 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0.5 0 0 Espenshade 1987; 2000 PO027 131 PO 27 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 1 2.0 720 1 Krause 1989.; Soili Magana 1989 SI004 132 La Florida/Los Ind ios 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 4.0 780 1 Rodrguez 1985; Site form; Pantel 1978; Rouse 1952 Rodrguez 2007; Rodrguez Lopez 2007 PO011 135 El Bronce 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 1.6 400 1 Robonson et al. 1985 PO023 136 PO 23 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0.4 0 0 Krause 1989 PO037 137 CT 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0.0 0 0 Site form; Pantel 2006 SN004 138 La Plena I 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0.8 0 1 Rodrguez 1985/Site form SN007 139 El Coco 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1.2 0 1 Pantel 2006 SN010 140 Carmen 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2.0 0 0 Rodrguez 1985; Rouse SN013 141 La Arbolead A 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0.4 0 0 SN014 142 La Arbolead B 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0.4 0 0

PAGE 545

545 Table G 1. continued Site # ID Name PII PIII PIV HG CV SE OM Mo BC C p E p ST PT Ha. P A P # Source SN012 143 Las Marias 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0.4 0 0 SN002 144 Esperanza 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 2.0 0 1 Alegria 1983 Pantel 1977, Rouse 1952 PO051 145 Ro Bayagan 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 4.7 0 0 Torres 2008 PO050 146 Pico's Rancher o 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 4 0 0.9 0 0 Torres 2008 PO043 147 Los Gongolones 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 1.3 750 1 Torres 2008 PO042 148 La Mineral 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 2.4 90 1 Torres 2008 PO052 149 Finca Feleciana 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 4 0 0.8 0 0 Torr es 2008 PO049 150 Reyes Ranchero 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 1.0 0 0 Torres 2008 PO048 151 Escuela Ro Chiquito 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 0.4 0 0 Torres 2008 PO046 152 Caas II 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 0.7 0 0 Torres 2008 PO045 153 La Vaqueria 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 0.3 0 0 Torres 2008 PO053 156 PR 10 Midden 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0.4 0 0 Torres 2008 YA003 157 Mattei Y 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0.6 0 1 Alegria 1983 Bronce III 158 El Bronce III 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 4 0 0.8 0 0 Robinson et al. 1985 Bronce II 159 El Bronce II 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 4 0 0.8 0 0 Robinson et al. 1985:77 El Monte 160 El Monte 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 4 0 0.8 0 0 Robinson et al. 1985:77 PO041 163 El Colmado Perez 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.4 480 1 Nate MountJoy 10/27/ 07 PO047 164 Caas I 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 1.1 0 0 Torres 2008 YA001 167 La Florida 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 1.5 0 0 Maiz Lopez 2008

PAGE 546

546 LIST OF REFERENCES Abrams, E. M. 1987 Economic Specialization and Construction Personnel in Classic Period Copan, Honduras. American Antiquity 52(3):485 499. 1995 A model of fluctuating labor value and the establishment of state power: An application to the. Latin American Antiquity 6(3):196. Abrams, E. M. and T. W. Bolland 1999 Architectural Energetics, Ancient M onuments, and Operations Management. Journal of Archaeological Method & Theory 6(4):263 291. Adler, M.A. 2002 The Ancestral Pueblo Community as Structure and Strategy. In Seeking the Center Place edited by M. D. Varien and R. H. Wilshusen. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Adler, M.A., and R. Wilshusen 1990 Large Scale Integrative Facilities and Tribal Societies: Cross Cultural and Southwestern Examples. World Archaeology 22:133 147. Aitken, S. C. and G. Valentine 2006 Approaches to human ge ography SAGE, London. Aldenderfer, M. and H. D. G. Maschner (editors) 1996 Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Information Systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Alegra, R. E. 1951 The Ball Game Played by the Aborigines of the Antilles. American Antiquity 16(4):348 352. 1965 On Puerto Rican Archaeology. American Antiquity 31(2, Part 1):246 249. 1983 Ball Courts and Ceremonial Plazas in the West Indies Yale University Publications in Anthropology Number 79. Department of Anthropology Yale Univ ersity, New Haven. 1995 Vestimenta y Adornos de los Caciques Tanos y la parafernalia asociada a Magico religiosas In Proceedings of the 15th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology pp. 121 129., Puerto Rico. 1997 The Study of Aboriginal Peoples: Multiple ways of Knowing In The Indigenous People of the Caribbean edited by S. M. Wilson, pp. 9 19. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Alegra, R. E., H. B. Nicholson and G. R. Willey 1955 The Archaic Tradition in Puerto R ico. American Antiquity 21(2):113 121.

PAGE 547

547 Alvarado Zayas, P. A. 1981 La Cermica Del Centro Ceremonial de Tibes Estudio Descriptivo Universidad Catlica, P.R. Alvarado Zayas, P. A. and L.A. Curet 2010 Tibes: History and First Archaeological Work. In Ti bes: People, Power, and Ritual at the Center of the Cosmos edited by L. Antonio Curet and Lisa M. Stringer, pp. 19 38. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Anderson, D. 1996 Fluctuations between Simple and Complex Chiefdoms: Cycling in the Late Pr ehistoric Southeast. In Political Structure and Change in the Prehistoric Southeastern United States edited by J. F. Scarry, pp. 231 252. The Ripley P. Bullen Series, Florida Museum of Natural History, University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Anschu etz, K., R. H. Wilshusen and C. L. Scheick 2001 An Archaeology of Landscapes: Perspectives and Directions. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 9(2):157 211. Arco, L. J. and E. M. Abrams 2006 An essay on energetics: the construction of the Aztec chinampa system. Antiquity 80(310):906 918. Armstrong, Douglas V. 1980 Shellfish Gatherers of St. Kitts. A study of archaic subsistence and settlement patterns. Proceedings of the Eighth International Congresses for the Study of the Pre Columbian Cult ures of the Lesser Antilles pp. 152 167. Arizona State Anthropological Research Papers Number 22, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona. Arnold, D. E. 1985 Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Arvelo Jimnez, N. 1977 A study of the Process of Village formation in Ye'cuana society In Carib Speaking Indians. Culture, Society, and Language edited by E. B. Basso, pp. 106 112. Anthropological Papers. Vol. 28. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Ashmore, W. a nd R. Wilk 1988 Household and Community in the Mesoamerican Past In Household and Community in the Mesoamerican Past edited by R. Wilk and W. Ashmore. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

PAGE 548

548 Ayes Surez 1989 Excavaciones arqueolgicas en Angos tura, Barrio Florida Afuera, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico. Ecos de la Plazuela 1(3):9 11. 1993 Angostura: un campamento arcaico temprano del Valle Maunatabn, Bo. Florida, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico On file at the Consejo para la Proteccin del Patrimonio Ar queolgico terrestre de Puerto Rico, San Juan. Bandy, M.S. 2004 Fissioning, Scalar Stress, and Social Evolution in Early Village Societies. American Anthropologist 106(2):322 333. Barnes, M. R., G. Toste and M. Bonini (editors) 1999 Ball Court / Plaza Sites of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands National Park Service, Washington D.C. Barth, F. 1969 Ethnic groups and boundaries: The social organization of culture difference Boston: Little Brown Basso, K. 1996 Wisdom Sits in Places In Senses of Place edited by S. Feld, pp. 53 58. School of American Research, Sante Fe. Beck, R. A. J. 2007 The durable house: house society models in archaeology Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University. Bell, C. and Newby H. 19 71 Community Studies. An Introduction to the Study of the Local Community. London: Unwin. Bender, B. 1990. Sociopolitics in small scale sedentary societies. Edited by S. Upham, pp. 247 63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1993 Introduction: Landscape -Meaning and Action In landscape Politics and Perspectives edited by B. Bender, pp. 1 17. Berg, Providence. Binford, L. R. 1981 Behavioural Archaeology and the "P ompeii Premise". Journal of Anthropological Research 37:195 208. Bird, Douglas W. and Brian F. Codding 2008 Human Behavioral Ecology and the Use of Ancient Landscapes. In Handbook of Landscape Archaeology edited by B. David and J. Thomas, pp. 396 408 Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA:

PAGE 549

549 Bird, Douglas W., Jennifer L. Richardson, Peter M. Veth, and Anthony J. Barham 2002 Explaining Shellfish Variability in Middens on the Meriam Islands, Torres Strait, Australia. Journal of Archaeological Science 29:45 7 469. Blanton, R. E. 1994 Houses and Households: A comparative study Plenum Press, New York. Blanton, R. E., G. M. Feinman, S. A. Kowalewski and P. N. Peregrine 1996 A Dual Processual Theory for the Evolution of Mesoamerican Civilization. Current Ant hropology 37(1):1 14. Blitz, J. H. 1999 Mississippian Chiefdoms and the Fission Fusion Process. American Antiquity 64(4):577 592. Boomert, A. 2001 Saladoid Social Political Organization. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth Congress of the International As sociation for Caribbean Archaeology edited by the International Association of Caribbean Archaeology Guadeloupe Region, pp. 55 72. Grenada. Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G. and Freeman, L.C. 2002 UCInet for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies. Bourdieu, P. 1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice Translated by R. Nice. Cambridge Studies in Social and Cultural Anthropology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bradford, M. 2001 Caribbean Perspectives on Se ttlement Patterns: The Windward Island Study In Proceedings of the 19th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology pp. 67 74, Aruba. Braudel, F. 1980 On history Weidenfeld and Nicolson, Chicago. Braun, David P. 1980 Experime ntal Interpretation of Ceramic Vessel Use on the Basis of Rim and Neck Formal Attributes. In The Navajo Project, Archaeological Investigations edited by D. Fiero, R. Munson, M.T. McClain, F.M. Wilson, and A.H. Vier, pp. 171 231. Research Paper 11. Muse um of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff. 1983 Pots as tools. In Archaeological Hammers and Theories. Edited by James A. Moore and Arthur S. Keene, pp. 107 134. Academic Press, New York.

PAGE 550

550 Bright, A.J. 2011 Blood is Thicker than Water. Sidestone Press, Leiden Brumfiel, E. M. and J. W. Fox 1994 Factional Ascendance, Dimensions of Leadership and the Development of Centralized Authority In Factional competition and political development in the New World edited by E. M. Brumfiel and J. W. Fox, pp. 3 17. Camb ridge University Press, Cambridge. Burney, David A., L.P. Burney, and R.D.E. MacPhee 1994 Holocene Charcoal Stratigraphy from Laguana Tortuguero, Puerto Rico, and the Timing of Human Arrival to the Island. Journal of Archaeological Science 21:273 281. B utt, A. J. 1977. Land use and social organization of tropical forest peoples of the Guianas. In Human Ecology in the Tropics ed. J. P. Garlick, R. W. J. Keay, pp. 33 49. New York: Pergamon. Byrd, B. 2000 Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social O rganization, Identity, and Differentiation, edited by Ian Kuijt Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York. Caldwell, J. 1964 Interaction spheres in prehistory. In Hopewellian Studies edited by J. R. Caldwell y R. L. Hall. Illinois State Museum Scient ific Papers 12:135 143. Callaghan, R.T. 2003 Comments on the Mainland Origins of the Preceramic Cultures of the Greater Antilles. Latin American Antiquity 14:323 338. Canuto, M. A. and J. Yaeger eds. 2000 The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspec tive Routledge, London. Carbone, V. A. 1980 Puerto Rico Prehistory: An Outline. Appendix A In A Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of Five Projects in Puerto Rico. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District. Carini, S.P. 1991 Compositional Analysis o f West Indian Saladoid Ceramics and their Relevance to Puerto Rican Prehistory. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Connecticut. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

PAGE 551

551 Carlisle, K. 2007 Central place foraging and the winter village: a settlement pattern ana lysis in the lower Salmon River Canyon in Idaho Oregon State University. Carneiro, R. 1960 Slash and Burn Agriculture and Its Implications for Settlement Patterns In Men and Cultures: Selected Paper of the Fifth International Congress of Anthropologica l and Ethnological Sciences edited by A. F. C. Wallace. University of Philadelphia Press, Philadelphia. 1967 On the Relationship between Size of Population and Complexity of Social Organization. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 23(3):234 243. 1970 T heory on the Origins of the State. Science (169):733 738. 1981 The Chiefdom as Precursor to the State In The Transition to the State in the New World edited by G. D. Jones and R. Kautz, pp. 37 79. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1998 What Happen ed at the Flashpoint? Conjectures on Chiefdom Formation at the Very Moment of Conception In Chiefdoms and chieftaincy in the Americas edited by E. M. Redmond, pp. 18 43. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 2000 The muse of history and the science o f culture Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Carrithers, M. 1990 Why Humans Have Cultures. Man 25(2):189 206. Chagnon, N. A. 1968 Yanomamo: The Fierce People Second Edition ed. Case Studies in Cultural Anthropology. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New Yor k. 1976 Fission in an Amazonian Tribe The Sciences 16(1) January/February: 14 18. Chamberlin, A. 2006 Demography in Archaeology Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Chang, K. C. (editor) 1968 Settlement Archaeology N ational Press Books, Palo Alto. Chanlatte Baik, Luis A. 1976 Investigaciones arqueolgicas en Guayanillia Investigaciones de Museo del Hombre Dominicano. Museo del Hombre Dominicano Fundacin Garca Arvalo, Inc., Santo Domingo. 1981 La Hueca y Sorc (Vieques, Puerto Rico): Primeras migraciones agroalfareras Antillanas: Nuevo esquema para los procesos culturales de la arqueologia Antillana. Privately printed, Santo Domingo. 1983 Catlogo Arqueologa de Vieques: Exposicin del 13 del Marzo al 22 de Abr il de 1983. Museo de Antropologa, Historia y Arte, University of Puerto Rico, Ro Piedras.

PAGE 552

552 1990 Cultura Ostionoide: Un Desarrollo Algroalfarero Antillano. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress for Caribbean Archaeology edited by Pantel Tek akis, Agamemnon Gus, Iraida Vargas Arenas, and Mario Sanoja Obediente, pp 312 327. La Fundacin Arqueolgica, Antropolgica e Histrica de Puerto Rico, San Juan. 1993 Presencia huecoide en Hacienda Grande, Loza. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Internati onal Congress for Caribbean Archaeology edited by R. E. Alegra and M. Rodrguez, pp. 501 510. Centro de Estudios Avanzados de Puerto Rico y el Caribe. San Juan de Puerto Rico. 1995 Los Archaicos y el Formative Antillano (6000 BC AD 1492). Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Congress for Caribbean Archaeology edited by Conseil Rgional de la Guadeloupe, pp. 267 274. Basse Terre, Guadeloupe. Chanlatte Baik and Narganes Storde 1980 La Hueca, Vieques: nuevo complejo cultural agroafarero en la arq ueologa antillana. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Congresses for the Study of the Pre Columbian Cultures of the Lesser Antilles edited by Suzanne M. Lewenstein, pp. 501 523. Arizona State Anthropological Research Papers Number 22, Arizona S tate University, Tempe, Arizona. 1983 Vieques Puerto Rico: Asiento de una nueva cultura aborigen antillian Impresora Corporn, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. 1990 La nueva arqueologa de Puerto Rico (su proyeccin en Las Antillas ) Taller, Santo Dom ingo. Chisholm, M. 1968 Rural Settlement and Land Use. Hutchinson University Library, London. Christaller, W. 1966 Central Places in Southern Germany Translated by C. Baskin. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Cinquino, M., M. Hayward and F. J. Schieppati 1997 Archaeological Site Assessment of the Ro Portugs Dam Disposal Area Portugs and Bucana Rivers, Municipio of Ponce Puerto Rico. Prepared for the US Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville Office. Contract Number DACW 17 94 D 0010. Cl arke, J.E. and M. Blake 1994 The Power of Prestige: Competitive Generosity and the Emergence of Ranked Societies in Lowland Meso America. In Factional Competition and Political development in the New World, E. Brumfiel and J.W. Fox eds. pp. 17 30. New Directions in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Clark, Jeffrey J., Jeff Walker, and Reniel Rodrguez Ramos 2003 Depositional History and Evolution of the Paso del Indio Site, Vega Baja, Puerto Rico. Geoarchaeology: An International Jo urnal 18:625 648.

PAGE 553

553 Clarke, W.C. 1971. Place and people, an ecology of a New Guinean community University of California Press, Berkeley. Cobb, C. R. 2003 Mississippian Chiefdoms: How Complex? Annual Review of Anthropology 32(1):63 84. Cohen, A. P. 1985 T he Symbolic Construction of Community Key Ideas. Routledge, New York. Coll y Toste 1907 Prehistoria de Puerto Rico Tip. Boletin mercantile, San Juan. Connerton, P. 1989 How Societies Remember Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Cooper, J. 2010 M odeling mobility and exchange in pre Columbian Cuba: GIS led approaches to identifying pathways and reconstructing journeys from the archaeological record. Journal of Caribbean Archaeology Special publication No. 3: Mobility and exchange from a Pan Caribbe an perspective: 122 137. Cotterell, B. and J. Kamminga 1992 Mechanics of Pre Industrial Technology: An Introduction to the Mechanics of Ancient and Traditional Material Culture Cambridge University Press. Ct, J. E., & Levine, C. G. 2002 Identity f ormation, agency, and culture: A social psychological synthesis Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Craig, D. B., J. P. Holmlund and J. J. Clark 1998 Labor Investment and Organization in Platform Mound Construction: A Case Study from the Tonto Basin of Centra l Arizona. Journal of Field Archaeology 25(3):245 259. Crock, J. G. 2000 Interisland interaction and the development of chiefdoms in the Eastern Caribbean. Ph.D., University of Pittsburgh. Crocker, C. 1985 Vital souls, Bororo cosmology, natural symbolis m and shamanism Tucson, Ariz.: University of Arizona Press.

PAGE 554

554 Crumley, C. 1976 Toward a Locational Definition of state Systems of Settlement. American Anthropologist 78:59 73. 1995 Heterarchy and Analysis of Complex Societies In Heterarchy and Analysis of Complex Societies edited by R. Ehrenreich and C. Crumley, pp. 1 6. American Anthropological Association, Washington D.C. 2003 Alternative Forms of Social Order In Heterarchy, Political Economy, and the Ancient Maya: The Three Rivers Region of the Eas t Central Yucatan Peninsula edited by V. Scarborough, F. J. Valdes and N. P. Dunning, pp. 136 145. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Crumley, C. and W. H. Marquardt 1990 Landscape: A Unifying Concept in Regional Analysis In Interpreting Space: GIS an d Archaeology edited by E. Zubrow, K. M. Allen and S. W. Green, pp. 73 79. Taylor & Francis, Ltd., London. Cruxent, Jos M. and Irving Rouse 1958 An Archaeological Chronology of Venezuela Vol. 1 and 2 Pan American Union, Washington, D.C. Curet, L. An tonio 1992a The Development of Chiefdoms in the Greater Antilles: A Regional Study of the Valley of Maunabo, Puerto Rico PhD dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 1992b House Structure and Cultural Change in th e Caribbean: Three Case Studies from Puerto Rico. Latin American Antiquity 3(2):160 174. 1996 Ideology, Chiefly Power, and Material Culture: An Example from the Greater Antilles. Latin American Antiquity 7(2):114 131. 1997 Technological Changes in Prehis toric Ceramics from Eastern Puerto Rico: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Archaeological Science 24:497 504. 1998 New Formulae For Estimating Prehistoric Populations For Lowland South American and the Caribbean Cambridge: Antiquity Publications. 2002 The Chief Is Dead, Long Live... Who? Descent and Succession in the Protohistoric Chiefdoms of the Greater Antilles. Ethnohistory 49(2, The Caribbean Basin):259 280. 2003 Issues on the Diversity and Emergence of Middle Range Societies of the Ancient Caribbean : A Critique. Journal of Archaeological Research 11(1):1 42. 2005 Caribbean Paleodemography University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2008 The Tano Concept From a Sociopolitical Perspective. Paper presented at 73 rd Annual Meeting of the Society for Ame rican Archaeology, Vancuover. Curet, L. Antonio, Lee A. Newsom, and Susan D. deFrance 2006 Cultural Continuity and Discontinuity in the Social History of Ancient Puerto Rico: The Case of the Ceremonial Center of Tibes. Journal of Field Archaeology 31(1): 23 39.

PAGE 555

555 Curet, L. Antonio and Jos R. Oliver 1998 Mortuary Practices, Social Development, and Ideology in Precolumbian Puerto Rico. Latin American Antiquity 9(3):217 239. Curet, L. Antonio and William J. Pestle 2010 Identifying High Status Foods in the A rchaeological Record. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 29:413 134. Curet, L. Antonio and Lisa M. Stringer 2010 Introduction. In Tibes: People, Power, and Ritual at the Center of the Cosmos edited by L. Antonio Curet and Lisa M. Stringer, pp. 1 1 8. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Curet, L. A. and J. M. Torres 2010 Plazas, Bateyes and Ceremonial Centers: The Social and Cultural Context of Tibes in the Ancient History of Puerto Rico In At the Center of the Cosmos: People, Power, and Sacr ed Place at the Ceremonial Center of Tibes, Puerto Rico edited by L. A. Curet and L. Stringer. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Curet, L. Antonio, Joshua Torres, and Miguel Rodrguez 2004 Political and Social History of Eastern Puerto Rico: The Ceramic Age. In Late Ceramic Societies in the Eastern Caribbean edited by A. Delpuech and C. L. Hofman, pp. 59 85. BAR International Series 1273, Oxford. Curet, L. Antonio, Daniel Welch, W. Derek Hamilton, and Lee A. Newsom 2005 In Search of Lost Featu res: A Progress Report of a Geophysical Study at the Civic Ceremonial Center of Tibes, Puerto Rico. In Proceedings of the Twentieth International Congress for Caribbean Archaeology edited by Glenis Tavares Mara and Manuel Garca Arvalo, pp. 65 74. Mus eo del Hombre Dominicano and Fundacin Garca Arevalo, Santo Domingo. 1985 Staple Finance, Wealth Finance, and Storage in the Inka Political Economy [and Comments and Reply]. Current Anthropology Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 187 206 de Montmollin, O. 1989 The archaeology of political structure: settlement analysis in a classic Maya polity Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England; New York. de Wall, M. 2006 Pre Columbian Social Organization and Interaction Interpreted throug h the Study of Settlement Patterns. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Leiden, Netherlands.

PAGE 556

556 Deal, Michael 1983 Pottery Ethnoarchaeology Among the Tzeltal Maya Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University. Canad ian Theses Services, Ottawa Canada. 1985 Household pottery disposal in the Maya highlands: An ethnoarchaeological interpretation. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 4(4):243 291. 1998 Pottery Ethnoarchaeology in the Central Maya Highlands University o f Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Deboer, Warren R. 1974 Ceramic Longevity and Archaeological Interpretation: An Example from the Upper Ucayali, Peru. American Antiquity 39(2):335 343. 1985 Pots and Pans Do Not Speak, nor Do They Lie: The Case for Occasiona l Reductionism. In Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics edited by B.A. Nelson, pp. 247 357. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. Deboer, W.R. and J. Blitz 1991 Ceremonial Centers of the Cachi. Expedition 33(1):53 62. Deboer, Warren R. and Samuel K. Lathrap 1979 The Making and Breaking of Shipibo Conibo Ceramics In Ethnoarchaeology: Implications of Ethnography for Archaeology edited by C. Kramer, pp. 102 138. Columbia University Press, New York. deFrance, Susan D. 2010 Animal Use at the Tibes Ceremonial Center. In At the Center of the Cosmos: People, Power, and Sacred Place at the Ceremonial Center of Tibes, Puerto Rico edited by L. A. Curet and L. Stringer, pp. 115 151. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. deFrance, Susan D. and Lee A. Newsom 2005 Status of Paleoethnobiological Research on Puerto Rico and Adjacent Islands. In, Ancient Borinquen: Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Native Puerto Rico Peter E. Siegel, ed., pp. 122 184. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. de Hostos, Adolfo 1919 Prehistoric Porto Rican Ceramics. American Anthropologist 21:376 399. 1938 Investigaciones histricas. San Juan, Puerto Rico. Copy on file, Castillo de San Marcos National Monument Research Library, St. Augustine, Florida. 1941 Anthropologic al papers, based principally on studies of the prehistoric archaeology and ethnology of the Greater Antilles San Juan, Puerto Rico. Office of the Historian. DeMarrais, E., L. J. Castillo and T. K. Earle 1996 Ideology, Materialization, and Power Strateg ies. Current Anthropology 37(1):15 31.

PAGE 557

557 Dietler, M. and B. Hayden 2001 Digesting the Feast Good to Eat, Good to Drink, Good to Think: An Introduction In Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power edited by M. Dietler and B. Hayden, pp. 1 20. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. Dillehay, T. 2004 Social landscape and ritual pause: Uncertainty and integration in formative Peru Journal of Social Archaeology, 4(2): 239 268 Dobres, M. A. and J. E. Robb 200 0 Agency in Archaeology: Paradigm or Platitude? In Agency in Archaeology edited by M. A. Dobres and J. E. Robb, pp. 3 17. Routledge, London. Drennan, R.D. 1984 Long Distance Movement of Goods in the Mesoamerican Formative and Classic. American Antiquity 49(1):27 43. 2008 Chiefdoms of Southwestern Columbia. In Handbook of South American Archaeology edited by H. Sliverman and W.H. Isbell, pp.381 405. Springer Science and Business Media, LLC, New York. Drennan, R. D. and C. E. Peterson 2006 Patterned v ariation in prehistoric chiefdoms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103(11):3960 3967. Drennan, R. D. and C. A. Uribe 1987 Introduction In Chiefdoms in the Americas edited by R. D. Drennan and C. A. Uribe, pp. vii xii. University Press of America, Lanham. DuChemin, G. 2009 Increased Recovery: Zooarchaeological Survey Strategies in South Central Puerto Rico. Paper Presented at the 74 th Annual Meeting for the Society for American Archaeology. Atlanta, Georgi a. 2010 Food and Community: Zooarchaeology in South Central Puerto. Paper presented at the 75 th Annual Meeting for the Society for American Archaeology, St. Louis Mo. Duff, A. 2000 Scale, Interaction, and Regional Analysis in Late Pueblo Prehistory. I n The Archaeology of Interaction: Religion, Warfare, and Exchange Across the American Southwest and Beyond edited by M. Hegmon, pp. 71 98. University of Colorado Press, Boulder. Duin, R. S. 2009 Wayana socio political landscapes : multi scalar regionality and temporality in Guiana Unpublished PhD dissertation University of Florida, Gainesville.

PAGE 558

558 Durkheim, E. 1933[1893] The Division of Labor in Society. (G. Simpson, Translation). New York: MacMillan. Earle, T. K. 1989 The Ev olution of Chiefdoms. Current Anthropology 30(1):84 88. 1990 Style and Iconography as Legitimation in Complex Chiefdoms In The Uses of Style in Archaeology edited by M. Conkey and C. Hastorf, pp. 73 81. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1997 How Chi efs Come to Power Stanford University Press, Stanford. Ehrenreich, R., C. Crumley, and J. Levy eds. 1995 Heterarchy and Analysis of Complex Societies In Heterarchy and Analysis of Complex Societies American Anthropological Association, Washington D.C. Ember, M. 1973 An archaeological indicator of matrilocal versus patrilocal residence. American Antiquity 38(2):177 182. Emerson, T. E. 1997 Cahokia and the archaeology of power University of Alabama Press. Ensor, B. E. 2003 Crow Omaha marital allia nces and social transformations: archaeological case st Hohokam, and Archaic Lower Mississippi Valley Unpublished Dissertation, University of Florida. n.d. Tano Kinship, Social Organization, and Emergent Chiefdoms. In The Oxford Handbook of Caribbean Archaeology edited by W.F. Keegan, C.L. Hofman, and R. Rodrguez Ramos. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Erasmus, C. J. 1965 Monument Building: Some Field Experiments. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 21(4):277 301. Espenshade, C T. 2000 Reconstructing Household Vessel Assemblages a nd Site Duration at an Early Ostionoid Site from South Central Puerto Rico. Journal of Caribbean Archaeology 1:1 22. 2009 Research Methods: Archaeological Study of PO 29. Paper presented at the 74 th Annual Meeting for the Society for American Archaeolog y, Atlanta, Georgia. Espenshade, C. T. and S. Young 2008 End of Field Progress Report: Phase III Investigations of Site PO 29, Municipio de Ponce, Puerto Rico Report Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville ed. New South Associates, St one Mountain, Georgia.

PAGE 559

559 Espenshade, C. T. and S. Young (compilers) 2011 The Cultural Landscape of Jcana: Archaeological Investigations of Site PO 29, Municipio de Ponce, Puerto Rico New South Associates, Inc., Stone Mountain, Georgia. Submitted to the Jacksonville District, U.S. Army Corps of En gineers, Jacksonville, Florida. Espenshade, Christopher T., J. Foss, and Joseph W. Joseph 1987 Data Recovery Excavations at Site PO 21, Cerrillos River Valley, Puerto Rico Garrow and Associates, Inc., Atlanta. Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engin eers, Jacksonville District, Jacksonville, Florida. Espenshade, Christopher T., Peter E. Siegel, J. Loubser, and H.B. Matternes 2007 Detailed Phase II archaeological Testing and Data Recovery Planning, Site PO 29, Portugus Dam and pool, Puerto Rico New South Associates, Inc., Stone Mountain, Georgia. Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, Jacksonville, Florida. Ewel, J. J. and L. Whitmore 1973 The Ecological Life Zones of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands U.S. For est Service Research Paper ITF 18. U.S. Forest Service, Ro Piedras, Puerto Rico. Ferguson, Yale H. and R.W. Mansbach 1985 Polities: authority, identities, and change University of South Carolina Press, Columbia. Festinger, L., Schachter, S., Back, K. 1950 The Spatial Ecology of Group Formation. In Social Pressure in Informal Groups L. Festinger, S. Schachter, & K. Back (eds.), Chapter 4. Stanford University Press, Palo, Alto. Fewkes, Jesse Walter 1907 The Aborigines of Puerto Rico and Neighboring Isla nds. Twenty Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. Firth, R. 1965 We the Tikopia, kingship in primitive Polynesia Beacon Press, Boston Fitzpatrick, S., Q. Kaye, J. Feathers, J. Pavia and K Marsaglia 2009 Evidence for Inter island Transport of Heirlooms: Luminescence Dating and Petrographic Analysis of Ceramic Inhaling Bowls from Carriacou, West Indies. Journal of Archaeological Science 36:596 606.

PAGE 560

560 Flannery, K. V. 1976 The Early Meso Amer ican Village edited by K. V. Flannery. Academic Press, San Diego. Fletcher, R. 2007 The limits of settlement growth: a theoretical outline New studies in archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York, NY, USA. Fortes, M. 1953 The Structure o f Unilineal Descent Groups. American Anthropologist, 55:17 41. 1959 Descent, Filiation, and Affinity. Man 63:12 13. Fox, R. 1967 Kinship and marriage: an anthropological perspective Cambridge University Press. Freeman, D. 1961 On the Concept of the Kindred. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 91:192 220. Gaines, S.W. and W.M. Gaines 1997, Simulating success or failure: Another look at small population dynamics, American Antiquity 62, 4, 683 697 Garca Goyco, Osvaldo 2008 Informe Fin al Evaluacin Arquelgica Fase III Tomo 1: Proyecto: Kings Helmet, Palmas del Mar, Yabucoa, Puerto Rico. Submitted to Consejo Para la Proteccin del Patrimonio Arqueolgico Terrestre de Puerto Rico, Instituto de Cultura Puertorriquea. Electronic documen t, h ttp://caribearqueologico.org/kings_helmet_1.pdf. Garrow, P.H. 2006 La Iglesia de Maraguez: A Local Ceremonial Center in the Cerrillos River Valley, Puerto Rico. Paper presented at the 71st Annual Meeting for the Society for American Archaeology, San Juan, Puerto Rico. Garrow, P.H., C.H.J. McNutt, G.G. Weaver, and J.R. Oliver 1989 Archaeological Data Recovery at El Parking (PO 38) Site, Barrio Maragez, Ponce, Puerto Rico, Phase I Results Report submitted to the Jacksonville District, U.S. Army Corp s of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida. 1995 La Iglesia de Maraguez (PO 39): Investigation of a Local Ceremonial Center on the Cerrillos River Valley, Ponce, Puerto Rico Garrow and Associates, Atlanta. Geertz, C. 1980 Negara: The Theatre State in Ninete enth Century Bali Princeton University Press, Princeton.

PAGE 561

561 Gerritsen, F. A. 2003 Local identities: landscape and community in the late prehistoric Meuse Demer Scheldt region Amsterdam University Press. Gibson, J. L. and P. J. Carr 2004 Signs of power: the rise of cultural complexity in the Southeast University of Alabama Press. Giddens, A. 1979 Central problems in social theory: action, structure, and contradiction in social analysis. University of California Press, Berkeley. 1981 A Contemporary critiqu e of Historical Materialism, vol. 1. Power Property and the State. University of California Press, Berkeley. 1984 The Constitution of Society. University of California Press, Berkeley. Gierbolini, R. E. 1979 Soil Survey of Ponce Area of Southern Puerto Rico United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington D.C. Gill, M. N. 1981 The potter's mark: contemporary and archaeological pottery of the Kenyan southeastern highlands Boston University. Gillespie, S. D. 2000 Beyond K inship: An Introduction In Beyond Kinship, social & material reproduction in house societies. edited by R. A. Joyce and S. D. Gillespie, pp. 1 21, Philadelphia. 2007 When is a house? In The Durable House: House Society Models in Archaeology edited by R. A. J. Beck, pp. 25 52. Southern Illinois University, Center for Archaeological Investigations occasional Paper 35, Carbondale. Gonzlez Colon, J. 1984 Tibes: Un Centro Ceremonial Indgena. Unpublished Masters Thesis. Centro de Estudios Avanzados de Pu erto Rico y el Caribe. Gonzlez Colon, J. and L. A. Rodrguez Garcia 1985 Proyecto de investigacin informe preliminar: Sitio Caracoles, Ponce, Puerto Rico Prepared for C&S Construction Company, Ponce. Goodwin, R. Christopher and Jeff B. Walker 1975 Vil la Taina de Boquern Inter American University Press, San Juan.

PAGE 562

562 Goody, J. 1958 The fission of domestic groups among the LoDagaba In The Developmental Cycle of Domestic Groups edited by J. Goody, pp. 53 91. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Gould, B. and B. Edwards 2004 La Fisiografa de Puerto Rico. Institute of Tropical Forestry. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Ro Piedras, Puerto Rico. Granberry, Julian and G.S. Vescelius 2004 Languages of the Pre Columbian Antilles. The University of Alabam a Press, Tuscaloosa. Gregor, Thomas 1977 Mehinaku: The Drama of Daily Life in a Brazilian Indian Village University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. Gutirrez, Madeliz and Jorge Rodrguez 2009 The Use of the Style Category in Puerto Rico: Moving Towards a Reevaluation of the Concept. Bulletin of the Peabody Museum of Natural History 50(1):119 145. Hally, D.J. 1984 Vessel Assemblages and Food Habits: A Comparison of Two Aboriginal Southeastern Vessel Assemblages. Southeastern Archaeology 3(1):46 64. 1986 The Identification of Vessel Function: A Case Study from Northwestern Georgia. American Antiquity 51:267 295. 1993 The territorial size of Mississippian chiefdoms. In Archaeology of Eastern North America, Papers in Honor of Stephen Williams, Sto ltman, J. B. (ed.), Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Archaeological Report No. 25, Jackson, pp. 143 168. Hardy, Meredith D. 2008 Saladoid Economy and Complexity on the Arawakan Frontier. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Florida State Unive rsity, Tallahassee, Florida. Available from: ProQuest Dissertations and Theses [online database]; http://www.proquest.com/ (publication No. AAT 3321489). Hassan, F. A. 1981 Demographic archaeology Academic Press. Hassig, R. 1991 Roads, Routes, and Ties That Bind. In: Ancient Road Networks and Settlement Hierarchies in the New World, Trombold, C. D. ed. Pp. 17 27. Cambridge.

PAGE 563

563 Haviser, Jay B. 1985 An Inventory of Prehistoric Resources on St Eustatius, Netherlands Antilles In Proceedings of the 10th Cong ress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology pp. 239, Martinique 1983: 61 81. 1991 Development of a Prehistoric Interaction Sphere in the Northern Lesser Antilles. Nieuwe West Indische Gids 65(3 & 4):129 151. 1997 Settlement Strategie s in the Early Ceramic Age. In The Indigenous People of the Caribbean, edited by Samuel M. Wilson, pp. 57 60. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Hayden, B. 1995 Pathways to power: principles for creating socioeconomic inequalities In Foundations of social inequality edited by T. Price and G. M. Feinman, pp. 15 86. Plenum Press, New York. Hayden B and A. Cannon 1982 The corporate group as an archaeological unit. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:132 58. Hayward, M.H. and M.A. Cinquino 2002 Archaeological Investigations at the Aklis Site, Sandy Point National Refuge, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands Southeast Archaeological Center, Florida. SEAC Technical Reports No. 10. Heckenberger, Michael J. 2002 Rethinking the Arawakan Diaspora: H ierarchy, Regionality, and the Amazonian Formative. In Comparative Arawakan Histories: Rethinking Language Family and Culture Area in Amazonia edited by J. Hill and F. Santos Granero, pp. 99 122. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. 2005 Ecology of Po wer: Culture, Place and Personhood in the Southern Amazon AD 1000 2000 Routledge: New York. 2007 Xinguano Heroes, Ancestors, and Others Materializing the Past in Chiefly Bodies, Ritual Space, and Landscape In Time and Memory in Indigenous Amazonia Anth ropological Perspectives edited by C. Fausto and M. Heckenberger, pp. 284 311. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. 2008 Amazonian Mosaics: Identity, Interaction, and Integration in the Tropical Forest In Handbook of South American Archaeology edi ted by H. Silverman and W. H. Isbell, pp. 941 962. Springer. 2009 Lost Cities of the Amazon. Scientific American, 301:64 71 Heckenberger, M. J. and J. B. Petersen 1999 Concentric Circular Village Patterns in the Caribbean: Comparisons from Amazonia In Proceedings of the 16th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology Guadeloupe. Hegmon, Michelle

PAGE 564

564 1989 Social Integration and Architecture In The Architecture of Social Integration in Prehistoric Pueblos edited by W. D. Lipe a nd M. Hegmon, pp. 5 15. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez. 2002 Concepts of Community in Archaeological Research. In Seeking the Center Place edited by M. D. Varien and R. H. Wilshusen, pp. 263 279. University of Utah Press, Tuscaloosa. 2008 St ructure and Agency in Southwest Archaeology In The Social Construction of Communities: Agency, Structure, and Identity in the Prehispanic Southwest edited by M. D. Varian and J. M. Potter, pp. 217 231. Altamira, Lanham. Hegmon, M. and S. Kulow 2005 Pai nting as Agency, Style as Structure: Innovations in Membres Pottery Designs from Southwest New Mexico. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12(4):313 334. Helms, M. W. 1979 Ancient Panama: Chiefs in Search of Power University of Texas Press, Aust in. Hodder, I. 1982 Theoretical Archaeology: A Reactionary View In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology edited by I. Hodder. Cambridge University Press. Hodder, I. and S. Hutson 2003 Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hodder, I. and C. Orton 1976 Spatial Analysis in Archaeology Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. Hofman, C. 1995 Inferring Inter Island Relationships from Ceramic Style: a View from the Leeward Islan ds In Proceedings of the 15th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology pp. 550, Puerto Rico. Hofman, C.L. and Menno L.P. Hoogland 1999 Tano Expansion Towards the Lesser Antilles: The Case of Saba. Journal de la Socit des Amricanistes 85:93 113. 2004 Social Dynamics and Change in the Northern Lesser Antilles. In Late Ceramic Societies in the Eastern Caribbean edited by A. Delpuech and C. L. Hofman, pp. 47 58. BAR International Series 1273, Oxford. Hofman, C.L., A Delpu ech and Menno L.P. Hoogland 2001 Archaeological Investigations at the Site of Anse la Gourde, Guadeloupe. Stratigraphy, Chronology and Settlement Data. In Proceedings of the 18th

PAGE 565

565 Congress for Caribbean Archaeology (pp. 162 172). Basse Terre: Internati onal Association for Caribbean Archaeology. Hoogland, M.L.P. 1996 In search of the native population of Pre Columbian Saba (400 1450 A.D.) part two settlements in their natural and social environment, Ph.D. dissertation Leiden University, Leiden. Hugh Jones, C 2007 From the Milk River: spatial and temporal processes in Northwest Amazonia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hugh Jones, S. 1985 The maloca a world in a house in The hidden peoples Amazon, E. Carmichael, S. Hugh Jones, B. Moser an d D. Tayler, eds., London. Ingold, Tim 1993 Temporality of the Landscape. World Archaeology 25:152 174. Inomata, T. and L. S. Coben 2006 Overture In Archaeologies of Performance: Theaters of Power, Community and Politics edited by T. Inomata and L. S. Coben. Altamira Press, Lanham. Isbell, W. H. 2000 What We Should Be Studying: The "imagined community" and the natural community In The Archaeology of Communities edited by M. A. Canuto and J. Yaeger, pp. 243 266. Routledge, London. Jackson JE. 1983 The Fish People: Linguistic Exogamy and Tukanoan Identity in Northwest Amazonia Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge. Johnson, G. A. 1977 Aspects of Regional Analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology 6:479 508. 1978 Information Sources and the Developmen t of Decision Making Organizations In Archaeology as Social Science edited by C. Redman. Academic Press, New York 1980 Rank Size Convexity and system Integration: A View from Archaeology. Economic Geography 56(3):234 247. 1982 Organizational Structure a nd Scalar Stress In Theory and Explanation in Archaeology edited by C. Renfrew, M. Rowlands and B. Seagraves, pp. 389 421. Academic Press, New York. Johnson, G.A. and T. Earle 2000 The Evolution of Human Societies: From Foraging Group to Agrarian State Stanford University Press, Stanford.

PAGE 566

566 Joyce, R. A. and J. Hendon 2000 Heterarchy, History, and Material Reality: communities in Late Classic Honduras In The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective edited by M. A. Canuto and J. Yaeger, pp. 143 160. Routledge, London. Kaplan, Jeremy 2009 The Excavation, Analysis, and Comparison of Structural Configurations in the Feature Exposure Trench 12 Area at Site PO 29: Phase III Data Recovery Efforts for the Portugus Dam and Pool Project, Ponce, Puerto Rico. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University, Leiden, Holland. Keegan, William F. 1986 The Ecology of Lucayan Arawak Fishing Practices. American Antiquity 51(4):816 825. 2001 Archaeological Investigations on Ile Rat, Proceedings of the International Congress for Caribbean Archaeology pp. 233 239. Conseil Rgional de la Guadeloupe. Basse Terre, Guadeloupe. 2004 Islands of Chaos. In Late Ceramic Societies in the Eastern Caribbean edit ed by A. Delpuech and C. L. Hofman, pp. 33 44. BAR International Series 1273, Oxford. 2006 Archaic Influences in the Origins and Development of Tano Societies. Caribbean Journal of Science 42:1 10. 2007 Tano Indian Myth and Practice: The Arrival of the Stranger King University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 2009a Continent of Islands: New Perspectives on the Pre Columbian Colonization of the Insular Caribbean. Paper presented at the 16 th Annual Symposium of the Pre Columbian Society of Washington, D .C. Saturday, September 19, 2009. 2009b Central Plaza Burials in Saladoid Puerto Rico: An Alternative Perspective. Latin American Antiquity 20(2):375 385. Keegan, William F. and Jarrod M. Diamond 1987 Colonization of Islands by Humans: A Biogeographica l Perspective. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 10, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 49 92. Academic Press, San Diego. Keegan, W. F. and M. D. Maclachlan 1989 The Evolution of Avunculocal Chiefdoms: A Reconstruction of Tano Kinship a nd Politics. American Anthropologist 91(3):613 630. Keegan, W., M. D. Maclachlan and B. Byrne 1998 Social Foundations of Tano Caciques In Chiefdoms and chieftaincy in the Americas edited by E. M. Redmond, pp. 217 245. University Press of Florida, Gaine sville. Keesing, R. M. 1975 Kin Groups and Social Structure Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.

PAGE 567

567 Kelly, H. 2003 Amerindian Coral Tools, a Pilot Study in Experimental Archaeology on Coral Artefacts from Anse la Gourde, Guadeloupe. M.A. Thesis, Faculty of Arachaeology, Leiden University, Leiden, Holland. King, L. 1984 Central Place Theory. Sage, Beverly Hills. Kirch, Patrick Vinton 1980 The Archaeological Study of Adaptation: Theoretical and Methodological Issues (Ch.3) In Advances in Archaeologica l Method and Theory pp. 101 155. vol. 3. Academic Press, New York. 1984 Evolution of Polynesian Chiefdoms Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1990 Monumental Architecture and Power in Polynesian Chiefdoms: A Comparison of Tonga and Hawaii. World Arch aeology 22(2, Monuments and the Monumental):206 222 Knapp, A. B. 2003 The Archaeology of Community on Bronze Age Cyprus: Politiko "Phorades" in Context. American Journal of Archaeology 107(4):559 580. Kolb, C.C., 1985 Demographic estimations in archaeo logy: contributions from ethnoarchaeology on Mesoamerican peasants. Current Anthropology 26.5, 581 599. Kolb, M. J 1994 Monumentality and the Rise of Religious Authority in Pre contact Hawai'i [and Comments and Reply]. Current Anthropology 35(5):521 547. Kolb, M. J. and J. E. Snead 1997 archaeology. American Antiquity 62(4). Koski Karell, D. and L. Ortiz 1984 Research of the Quintana Thermal Baths, Puerto Rico Prepared for t he US Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville Office. Contract Number DACW17 84 M 0291,Karell Archaeological Services, Washington D.C. Krakker, J. J., M. J. Shott and P. D. Welch 1983 Design and Evaluation of Shovel Test Sampling in Regional Archaeological Survey. Journal of Field Archaeology 10(4):469 480. Krause, Richard A. 1989 Cerrillos River Valley OSM Archaeological Consultants, Moundville, Alabama.

PAGE 568

568 Submitted to the Army Co rps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, Jacksonville, Florida. Kvamme, K.L. 2006 There and back again: Revisiting archeological location modeling. In GIS and archaeological site location modeling M. Mehrer and K. Wescott (eds.), pp. 4 34. CRC Press, Boca Raton. Lammers, Yvonne L. 2007 Tracing Traces from Present to Past Leiden University Press, Leiden, the Netherlands. Las Casas, B. 1909 Apologtica historia de Las Indias Nueva Biblioteca de Autores Espaoles 13, Madrid. 1951[1875] Historia d e las Indias Fondo de Cultura Economica, Mexico, Mexico City. Las Casas, F. B. d. 1967 Apologtica historia sumaria Universidad Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico City. Latour, B. 1999 A Collective of Humans and Nonhumans In Pandora's Hope pp. 174 215. Harv ard University Press, Cambridge. Leach, E. R. 1961 Pul Eliya, a village in Ceylon: A study of land tenure and kinship. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1964 Political Systems of Highland Burma Harvard University Press, Massachusetts. Lefebvre, H. 1991 The Production of Space Translated by D. Nicholson Smith. Blackwell, Oxford. Lewis, M. W. 1991 Elusive Societies: A Regional Cartographical Approach to the Study of Human Relatedness. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 81(4):605 6 26. Lvi Strauss, C. 1963 Structural Anthropology Basic Books, New York. 1969[1949] Elementary Structures of Kinship (Trans.J. Bell and J. Von Strummer) Beacon Press, Boston. 1982 The Way of the Masks. Translated by S. Modelski. University of Briti sh Columbia Press, Vancouver Liu, L. 1996 Settlement Patterns, Chiefdom Variability, and the Development of Early States in North China. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 15(3):237 288.

PAGE 569

569 L sch, A. 1954 The Economics of Settlement Location Yale Uni versity Press, New Haven. Loubser, J. 2009 Ball court petroglyph boulders at PO 29. Paper presented at the 74 th Annual Meeting for the Society for American Archaeology, Atlanta, Georgia. Lovn, S. 2010[1935] Origins of the Tainan Culture, West Indies Preface by L. Antonio Curet. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Low, S. M. and D. Lawrence Ziga 2003 Locating Culture In The Anthropology of Space and Place edited by S. M. Low and D. Lawrence Ziga, pp. 1 47. Blackwell, Malden. Lundberg, E. R. 1985 Settlement Pattern Analysis for South central Puerto Rico. In Archaeological Data Recovery at El Bronce, Puerto Rico: Final Report Phase 2, Appendix L, edited by L.S. Robinson. Lundberg, Emily R. and Ken S. Wild 2006 Virgin Islands Monserrate Complex: An Initial Understanding Emerges through Compliance Archaeology. Paper presented at the 71 st Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, San Juan, Puerto Rico. Magaa, C. S. 1985 Archaeological Testing and Evaluation of Sites within the Prop osed Portugus and Bucana River Projects, in the Barrios of Tibes and Maraguez, Municipio de Ponce Puerto Rico OSM Archaeological Consultants. Copies available from DACW17 84 C 0026. Maz Lpez, E. 1996 La fauna ornitolgica de la familia columbiadae e n el sitio arqueolgico Hernndez Colon de Puerto Rico In Ponecial de Primer Seminario de Arqueolgica del Caribe edited by M. Veloz Maggiolo and A. Caba Fuentes, pp. 90 99. Museo de Arqueolgico Regional Altos de Chavn, Altos de Chavon. 2002 El sitio arqueolgico Hernndez Coln de Puerto Rico: Actividades subsistenciales de los antiguos habitantes del valle del Ro Cerrillos Bucan, Ponce Puerto Rico Unpublished Masters thesis, Centro de Estudios Puertoriqueos ye El Caribe, San Juan. Maz, E. and E. Rodrguez 1990 Reconocimiento Arqueolgico Preliminar de la Cuenca Hidrografica del Ro Yauco In Proceedings of the 11th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology Puerto Rico.

PAGE 570

570 Marquardt, William H. 2010 Shell Mounds in the S outheast: Middens, Monuments, Temple Mounds, Rings, or Works? American Antiquity 75(3):551 570. Maschner, H. D. G. (editor) 1996 New Methods, Old Problems: Geographic Information Systems in Modern Archaeological Research. 23. Center for Archaeological Inv estigations, Carbondale. Mason, John Alden 1917 Excavations of a New Archaeological Site in Puerto Rico. Proceedings of the International Congress of Americanists 19:220 223. Washington, D.C. 1941 A Large Archaeological Site at Cap, Utuado, with Notes on Other Porto Rico Sites Visited in 1914 15. In Scientific Survey of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands Vol. XVIII, part 2. New York Academy of Sciences, New York. 1964 De Orbe Nov: The Eight Decades of Peter Martyr D'Anghera Translated by F. A. MacNutt. Putnam, New York. Mayberry Lewis, D. 1967 Akwe Shavante Society Oxford, Oxford. Maxham, M. D. 2000 Rural Communities in the Black Warrior Valley, Alabama: The Role of Commoners in the Creation of the Moundville Landscape. A merican Antiquity 65(2):337 354. McGuire, R. H. 1996 The Limits of a World Systems Theory for the Study of Prehistory In Pre Columbian World Systems edited by P. N. Peregrine and G. M. Feinman, pp. 39 51. Prehistory Press, Madison. McIntosh, R. J. 1998 The Peoples of the Middle Niger. The Peoples of Africa Blackwell, Malden. 2005 Ancient Middle Niger: urbanism and the self organizing landscape Cambridge University Press. Means, B. K. 2007 Circular Villages of the Monongahela Tradition University o f Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Meggers, B. J. 1971 Amazonia: Man and Culture in a Counterfeit Paradise Chicago: Aldine Atherton.

PAGE 571

571 Mehrer, M. W. 2000 Heterarchy and Hierarchy: The community plan as institution in Cahokia's polity In The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective edited by J. Yaeger and M. A. Canuto. Routledge, London. Meskell, Lynn 2007 Archaeologies of Identity In Archaeology of Identities: A Reader edited by T. Insoll, pp. 21 43. Routledge, London. Miner Sol, E. 2000 rboles de Puerto Rico y exticos Puerto Rico Ecolgico 1. Ediciones Servilibros, Puerto Rico. Montalvo Guenard, Jos Leandro 1933 Rectificaciones histricas Editorial del Llano: Ponce, Puerto Rico.Moore, J. D. Moore, J. D. 2004 The Social Basis of Sacred Spaces in teh Prehispanic Andes: Ritua Landscapes of the Dead in Chim and Inka Societies. Journal of Archaeological Method & Theory 11(1):83 124. Moscoso, F. 1981 The Development of Tribal Society in the Caribbean. Ph.D. dissertation, State Univ ersity of New York at Binghamton. 1986 Tribu y Clases en el Caribe Antiguo Ediciones de la Universidad Central del Este, Santo Domingo. 1999 Agricultura y Sociedad en Puerto Rico, Siglos 16 al 18: Un Acercamiento Desde la Historia. Instituto de Cultura Puertorriquea, Colegio de Agrnomos de Puerto Rico, San Juan. Murdock, Phillip 1949 Social Structure First ed. Mcmillian, New York. Narganes Storde, Yvonne M. 1997 Analysis de los restos faunisticos de Maruca, Ponce: Primero parte, vertebrados y invert ebrados. Submitted to Arql. Miguel Rodrguez. Toa Baja, Puerto Rico. Naranjo, T. 2008 Life as Movement: A Tewa View of Community and Identity In The Social Construction of Communities: Agency, Structure, and Identity in the Prehispanic Southwest edit ed by M. D. Varian and J. M. Potter, pp. 251 262. Altamira, Lanham. Naroll, R., 1962 Floor Area and Settlement Population. American Antiquity 27:587 588.

PAGE 572

572 Nazario, Padre J.M. 1893 Gauaynilla y la Historia de Puerto Rico Ponce. Nelson, B. A. 1995 C omplexity, Hierarchy, and Scale: A Controlled Comparison between Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, and la Quemada, Zacatecas. American Antiquity 60(4):597 618. Netting, R. M. C. 1990 Population, Permanent Agriculture, and Polities: Unpacking the Evolutionary Por tmanteau. In The Evolution of Political Systems: Sociopolitics in Small Scale Sedentary Societies Steadman Upham (ed.), pp. 21 61. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1993 Smallholders, householders: farm families and the ecology of intensive, su stainable agriculture Stanford University Press, Palo Alto. New South Associates 2002 Archaeological Data Recoveries at Sites HU 6 and HU 7. Ro Antn Ruz Flood Control Project, Municipio de Humacao, Puerto Rico Technical Report No. 862. Submitted t o U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District. New South Associates, Stone Mountain, Georgia. Newsom, L.A. 1993 Native West Indian Plant Use Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 2008 Caribbean Pale oethnobotany: Present Status and New Horizons. In Crossing the Borders: New Methods and Techniques in the Study of Archaeological Materials from the Caribbean edited by C. Hoffman, M. Hoogland and A. van Gijn, pp. 173 194. University of Alabama Press, T uscaloosa. Newsom, L.A. and Pearsall 1993 Trends in Caribbean Island Archaeobotany. In People and Plants in Ancient Eastern North America edited by P.E. Minnis, pp. 347 412. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Newsom, L.A. and E. Wing 200 4 On Land and Sea. Native American Uses of Biological Resources in the West Indies University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Oakley, C.B., and C. Sols Magaa 1990 Archaeological Testing of High Probability Areas in the Portugs Dam Area, Tibes, Ponce, Puerto Rico OSM Archaeological Consultants, Northport, Alabama. Report submitted to the Jacksonville District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida.

PAGE 573

573 Oberg, K. 1955 Types of Social Structure among the Lowland Tribes of South and Central Am eri ca. American Anthropologist 57(3):472 487. 2001 Expedient Shell Tools from the Northern West Indies. Latin American Antiquity 12(3):274 290. 2010 Exploring the Longhouse and Community in Tribal Society. American Antiquity 75(3):571 597. Oliver, Jos R. 1992a Chican Taino Iconography and Spatial Symbolism at Caguana, Puerto Rico. Paper presented at the 91st annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, San Francisco. 1992b Resu lts of the Archaeological Testing and Data Recovery Investigations at the Lower Camp Site, Culebra Island, Puerto Rico Submitted to the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Atlanta. Copies available from the State Office of Historic C onservation, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 1998 El Centro ceremonial de Caguana, Puerto Rico BAR International Series. Archaeopress, Oxford. 1999 The La Hueca Complex in Puerto Rico and the Caribbean: Old Problems, New Perspectives, Possible Solutions. In Archae ological Investigations on St. Martin, (Lesser Antilles): The Sites of Norman Estate, Hope Estate & Anse des Peres. Archaeological Studies Leiden University edited by C Hofman and M Hoogland, pp. 4: 253 297. Leiden, Holland. 2007 Highland Civic Ceremoni al Centers of Puerto Rico AD 1200 1500: Old Problems, New Perspectives. Paper presented at Symposium Honoring Irving Peabody Museum, April 20 21, 2007. 2008 El universo material y espiritual de los Tanos. In El Caribe precolombino: Fray Ramn Pan y el universo tano edited by J. Oliver, C. McEwan and A. Casas, pp. 137 201. Ministerio de Cultura, Museu Barbier Amrica, Fundacin Caixa Galicia, Barcelona. 20 09 Caciques and Cemi Idols. The Web Spun by Tano Rulers Between Hispaniola and Puerto Rico University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Oliver, J.R., C. McEwan and A. Casas 2008 El Caribe precolombino: Fray Ramn Pan y el universo tano Ministerio de C ultura, Museu Barbier Caixa Galicia, Barcelona.

PAGE 574

574 Oliver, Jos R., and Juan Rivera Fontn 2006 Bateyes de Viv (U 1). Final Report: Nomination to the National Register of Historical Places. Document on f ile at the Puerto Rico State Historic Preservation Office in San Juan and the United States National Park Service, Atlanta. Oliver, Jos, J.A. Rivera Fontn, and Lee Newsome 1999 Arqueologa del Barrio Caguana, Puerto Rico: Resultados preliminaries de las temporadas 1996 1997. In Segundo encuentro de investigadores: Trabajos de investigacin arqueolgica en Puerto Rico, edited by J.A. Rivera Fontn, pp. 7 26. Publicacin Ocasional de la Divisin de Arqueologa, Instituto de Cultura. Puertorriquea. O rtiz Aguil, Juan Jos 1975 Las Flores: An Early Ostionold Village Site in South central Puerto Rico. Paper presented at:6 th International Congress of Caribbean Archaeology, Point a Pitre, Guadeloupe. 2006 Roads, Sites and Territories: A Pilot Study on Pr e Columbian Landscape Use in Puerto Rico. Paper presented at the 71 st Annual Meeting for the Society for American Archaeology, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 2009 Indigenas y su Significado en Terminos de Fuerza Laboral Paper presented at the 2do Simposio de Est udios del Pasado, Recinto de Mayaguez, Universidad de Puerto Rico. Ortman, S. G. 2008 Action, Place, and Space in the Castle Rock Community In The Social Construction of Communities: Agency, Structure, and Identity in the Prehispanic Southwest edited by M. D. Varian and J. M. Potter, pp. 125 154. Altamira, Lanham. Ostapkowicz, Joanna 1999 Tano Wooden Sculpture: Rulership and the Visual Arts in the 12 16th Century Caribbean. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Center for the Visual Arts, University of Eas t Norwich. 1998 Tano Wooden Sculpture: Duhos, Rulership and the Visual Arts in the 12th 16th Century Caribbean. Ph.D. dissertation, University of East Anglia. Overing, J. and A. Passes 2000 The anthropology of love and anger: the aesthetics of convivial ity in Native Amazonia Routledge. Oviedo, G.F. de (1535) 1959[1535] Natural History of the West Indies Edited and translated by S.A. Stoudemire. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 1975 The Conquest and Settlement of the Island of Borinqu en or Puerto Rico Translated by D. Turner. The Cardavon Press, Inc., Avon, Connecticut.

PAGE 575

575 Oxford Dictionary 2010 Oxford Dictionary of English. Third Edition, Oxford University Press, Clarendon. Pagn Jimnez, J.R. 2006 Uso de plantas en una comunidad Saladoide tardo del Este de Puerto Rico (Punta Candelero): estudio de residuos vegetales (almidones) en artefactos lticos, cermicos y de concha Report submitted to MR Archaeological Services. Copy available in Consejo de Arqueologa Terrestre de Puer to Rico, San Juan. 2007 De antiguos pueblos y culturas botnicas en el Puerto Rico indgena Paris Monographs in American Archaeology 18/British Archaeological Reports International Series. Archaeopress, Oxford. 2008a Envisioning ancient human plant use at the Ro Tanam Site 2 (AR 39) through starch analysis of lithic and clay griddle implements. In A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Data Recovery at Two Village Sites on the Ro Tanam L. Carlson, comp., pp. 241 257. Southeastern Archaeological Resea rch, US Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville. Copy available in Puerto Rico State Historic Preservation Office, San Juan. 2008b Uso de plantas y dinmicas socioculturales en una comunidad precolombina Saladoide (Kings Helmet) de Yabucoa, Puerto Rico: estudio de residuos vegetales (almidones) en artefactos lticos y cermicos. In Informe de Mitigacin O. Garca y F. Freytes, comps. Copy available in Consejo de Arqueologa Terrestre de Puerto Rico, San Juan. 2 009 Nuevas perspectivas sobre las culturas botnicas precolombinas de Puerto Rico: implicaciones del estudio de almidones en herramientas lticas, cermicas y de concha. Cuba Arqueolgica II(2):7 23. Pagn Jimnez, J.R., M.A. Rodrguez Lpez, L.A. Chanla tte Baik and Y. Narganes Storde 2005 La temprana introduccin y uso de algunas plantas domsticas, silvestres y cultivos en Las Antillas precolombinas. Una primera revaloracin desde la Dilogo Antropol gico 3(10):7 33. Pan, F. Ramn 1999 [1571] An Account of the Antiquities of the Indians. Chronicles of the New World Encounter A New Edition with an Introductory Study, Notes and Appendixes by Jos Juan Arrom. Translated by Susan C. Criswold. Duke University Press, Durham. Pantel, A. G. 1978 Portugs and Bucana Rivers, Puerto Rico: Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to the Jacksonville District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida. 2003 Evaluaciones Arqueolgicas Fase II. C onector Sur de Santa Isabel, Puerto Rico Sometido al Consejo de Arqueologa Terrestre.

PAGE 576

576 2006 Evaluacin de Recursos Culturales Fase IA Autoridad de Energia Electrica: Salinas Prepared for Gray & Pape, Inc. Copies available from the Office of the State Historic Preservation Officer, San Juan, Puerto Rico. Pauketat, T. R. 1989 Monitoring Mississippian Homestead Occupation Span and Economy Using Ceramic Refuse. American Antiquity 54(2):288 310. 2000a Politicization and Community in the Pre Columbian Mississippian Valley In The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective edited by M. A. Canuto and J. Yaeger, pp. 16 43. Routledge, London. 2000b The Tragedy of the Commoners In Agency in Archaeology edited by M. A. Dobres and J. Robb, pp. 113 129. Routledge, London. 2001 Practice and History in Archaeology: An Emerging Paradigm. Anthropological Theory 1:773 98. 2003 Resettled Farmers and the Making of a Mississippian Polity American Antiquity 68(1). 2007 Chiefdoms and Other Archaeological Delusions Altamira Press, Lanham. 2008 The Grounds for Agency in Southwest Archaeology In The Social Construction of Communities: Agency, Structure, and Identity in the Prehispanic South west edited by M. D. Varian and J. M. Potter, pp. 233 249. Altamira, Lanham. Pearsall, D.M. 1985 Analysis of Soil Phytoliths and Botanical Macroremains from El Bronce Archaeological Site. Appendix B in Archaeological Data Recovery at El Bronce, Puerto Ri co, Final Report, Phase 2. by Linda S. Robinson, Emily Lundberg, and Jeffery B. Walker. Archaeological Services, Inc. Peebles, C. S. and S. M. Kus 1977 Some Archaeological Correlates of Ranked Societies. American Antiquity 42(3, Essays on Archaeological Problems):421 448. Peregrine, P. N. 2001 Matrilocality, corporate strategy, and the organization of production in the Chacoan world. American Antiquity 66(1):36 46. Peregrine, P. N., G. M. Feinman and C. K. Chase Dunn 1996 Introduction: World Systems T heory and Archaeology In Pre Columbian World Systems edited by P. N. Peregrine and G. M. Feinman, pp. 1 22. Prehistory Press, Madison. Pestle, William J. 2010 Diet and Society in Prehistoric Puerto Rico: An Isotopic Approach. Ph.D. Dissertation. Unive rsity of Illinois, Chicago.

PAGE 577

577 Pestle, William J., L.A. Curet, M. Rodrguez Lpez, and R. Ramos Rodrguez 2011 Rico Paper presented at the 77 th Annual Meeting for the Society for American Archaeology. Petersen, J.B., C.L. Hofman, and L.A. Curet 2004 Time and Culture: Chronology and Taxonomy in the Eastern Caribbean and the Guianas. In Late Ceramic Societies in the Eastern Caribbean edited by A. Delpuech and C. L. Hofman, pp. 1 7 32. BAR International Series 1273, Oxford. Pico, R. 1974 The Geography of Puerto Rico Aldine, Chicago. Pinart, Alphonse L. 1890 Note sur les ptroglyphes et antiquits des Grandes et Petites Antilles. Manuscript. Paris. 1893 Note sur les ptrogly phes et antiquits des Grandes et Petites Antilles. Heliotype 1888 89 Annual Report of the U.S. Bureau of American Ethnology 10:136 140. Washington, DC. Ponce de Len y Troche, J. and J.A. de Santa Clara 1914[1582] Memorias de Melgarejo. In C. Coll y Toste (ed.), Boletn Hstorico de Puerto Rico 1, 75 91. Powell, H. A. 1960 Competitive Leadership in Trobraind Political Organization. The Journal of the Royal Anthropologi cal Institute 90(1):118 145. Pred, A. 1985 The Social Becomes Spatial, the Spatial Becomes Social: Enclosures, Social Change and the Becoming of Places in Skane In Social Relations and Spatial Structures edited by D. Gregory and J. Urry, pp. 337 365. S t. Martins Press, New York. Rainey, Froelich G. 1940 Porto Rican archaeology. In Scientific survey of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands Vol. 18. New York Academy of Sciences, New York. Rappaport, R. 1968 Pigs for the Ancestors University of Michiga n Press, Ann Arbor. Reid, Basil 2008 Developing Weights of Evidence Predictive Models for the Cultural Resource Management of Pre Columbian sites in Trinidad. In Archaeology and

PAGE 578

578 Geoinformatics in the Caribbean, edited by B. Reid, pp. 33 73. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Redfield, Robert 1955 The Little Community: Viewpoints for the Study of a Human Whole, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Redmond, E. M. (editor) 1998 Chiefdoms and chieftaincy in the Americas. University Press of Flori da, Gainesville. 1998 Introduction: The Dynamics of Chieftaincy and the Development of Chiefdoms In Chiefdoms and chieftaincy in the Americas edited by E. M. Redmond, pp. 1 18. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Renfrew, C. 1986 Introduction: pe er polity interaction and socio political change In Peer Polity Interaction and Sociopolitical Change edited by C. Renfrew pp. 1 18. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Rice, Prudence M. 1987 Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook University of Chicago P ress. Rice Snow, R. S., M. Castor, A. Castor, J. D. Grigsby, R. H. Fleugeman and L. A. Curet 2010 Boulder Lithiology Survey at the Ceremonial Center of Tibes Site In Tibes: People, Power, and Ritual at the Center of the Cosmos edited by L. A. Curet and L. M. Stringer, pp. 177 190. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Righter, Elizabeth C.. 1999 A Critical Look at Prehistoric Settlement Pattern in the U. S. Virgin Islands: In Proceedings of the 16th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology pp. 561, Guadeloupe. 2002 The Tutu Archaeological Village Site: A Multidisciplinary Case Study in Human Adaptation. Routledge, London and New York. Rivera Virginia, Sixto A. Prez 1994 Estudio Preliminar De La Distribucion Espacia l En La Comunidad Aborigen De Lu Juan I Proceedings of the 17th Congress for Caribbean Archaeology. 17: 266 281. Nassau, New Providence Bahamas. Rivera, V. and M. Rodrguez Lpez 1991 The Playa Blanca 5 Site: A Late Prehistoric Ceramic site in eastern P uerto Rico: Prelimin. In Proceedings of the 13th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology pp. 595, Curacao 1989: 541 552. Rivera Fontn, J. and J. R. Oliver

PAGE 579

579 2003 Imapctos Y Patrones De Occupatin Histrica Jibra Sobre Component es Taanos: El Sitio "Vega De Nelo Vargas" (UTU 27) Caguana, Municipio De Utuado, Puerto Rico Paper presented at the Twentieth International Congress for Caribbean Archaeology, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. Rivire, P. 1995 Houses, places and peo ple: community and continuity in Guiana. In About the House. Lvi Strauss and Beyond edited by J. Cartsen, S. Hugh Jones,. pp. 189 205. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Roberts, B. K. 1996 Landscapes of Settlement: Prehistory to the Present Routl edge, London. Robinson, L. S., E. R. Lundberg and J. B. Walker 1985 Archaeological Data Recovery at El Bronce, Puerto Rico Final Report, Phase 2 Archaeological Services, Inc.. Copies available from Report Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ja cksonville District. Copies available from the Office of the State Historic Preservation Officer, San Juan, Puerto Rico. Robinson, K.W. 2004a Archaeological Testing Site F 4 01 Ochos Concheros Camp Santiago Training Site Salinas, Puerto Rico Report Prep ared for the Caribbean National Forest And the Puerto Rico Army National Guard. Wake Forest University, Salem. 2004b Archaeological Testing Site G 15 01 (Batey Site) Camp Santiago Training Site Salinas, Puerto Rico Report Prepared for the Caribbean Nat ional Forest And the Puerto Rico Army National Guard. Wake Forest University, Salem. Rodrguez Lpez, Jorge Arturo 2007 La Presencia Del Estilo boca Chica en La Costa Sur Central de Puerto Rico. Su Importancia y Repercusiones en el Proceso de Prehispani co de la Region. Ph.d. Dissertation Universidat Complutense de Madrid, Spain. Rodrguez Lpez, Miguel 1983 Prehistoria de Collores Centro de Estudios Avanzados de Puerto Rico y el Caribe. 1985 Cultural Resources Survey at Camp Santiago, Salinas, Puerto Rico Museum of Turabo University, Caguas, Puerto Rico. Submitted to the Puerto Rico National Guard. Copies available from the Office of the State Historic Preservation Officer, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 1989 Ceramic Styles of Puerto Rico. Unpublished gui de on file at the University of Turabo Museum, San Juan. 1991 Arqueologa de Punta Candelero, Puerto Rico. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Congress for Caribbean Archaeology, edited by E. N. Ayubi and J. B. Haviser, pp. 605 627. Institute of the Netherlands Antilles, Willemstad, Curaao. 1992 Diversidad cultural en la tarda prehistoria del este de Puerto Rico. La Revista del Centro de Estudios Avanzados de Puerto Rico y el Caribe 15:58 74.

PAGE 580

580 1997 Religious Beliefs of the Saladoid People In The Indigenous People of the Caribbean edited by S.M. Wilson, pp. 80 88. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. 1999 Excavations at Maruca, a Preceramic Site in Southern Puerto Rico. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Congress of the Internationa l Association for Caribbean Archaeology, edited by J.H. Winter, pp. 166 180. Molloy College, Rockville Centre, New York. 2003 Yacimientos Sin Burenes en Puerto Rico. In Proceedings of the Twentieth Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology pp. 341 348. Museo del Hombre Dominicano y Fundacin Garca Arvalo, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. 2004 Excavaciones en el yaciemiento Arcaico de Maruca, Ponce Puerto Rico: Informe Final. On file at the Consejo para la Proteccin del Pa trimonio Arqueolgico terrestre de Puerto Rico, San Juan. Rodrguez Melndez, Yasha N. 2007 Social Life of Bateyes: Archaeology, Preservation and Heritage in Puerto Rico. Ph.D. Dissertation, Anthropology Department, Cornell University. Rodrguez Ramos, R. 2001 Lithic Reduction Trajectories at La Hueca and punta Candelero Sites (Puerto Rico) In Proceedings of the 18th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology pp. 45 51., Grenada. 2005a The Function of the Edge Ground Cobble Put to Test: An Initial Assessment. Journal of Caribbean Archaeology. 6:1 22. 2005b The Crab Shell Dichotomy Revisited: The Lithics Speak Out. In Ancient Borinquen: Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Native Puerto Rico pp. 1 54. P.E. Siegel (Ed.). Universi ty of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2008 Evident Evidence. Ethnohistory 55(3):393 415. 2010 Rethinking Puerto Rican Precolonial History The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Rodrguez Ramos, Reniel, Elvis Babilonia, L. Antonio Curet, and Jorge Ulloa 2008 The Pre Arawak Pottery Horizon in the Antilles: A New Approximation. Latin America Antiquity 19:47 63. Rodrguez Ramos, R. and J.R. Pagn Jimnez 2005 El caribe en el contexto del cir cum caribe: medio siglo ms tarde. In Proceedings of the Twenty first International Congress for Caribbean Archaeology edited by Basil Reid. University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad. 2006 Interacciones multivectoriales en el circum Caribe precolonial. Un vistazo desde Las Antillas. Caribbean Studies 34(2):103 143.

PAGE 581

581 Rodrguez Ramos, Reniel, Joshua M. Torres, and Jos R. Oliver 2010 Rethinking Time in Caribbean Archaeology. In Island Shores, Distant Pasts: Archaeological and Biological App roaches to the Pre Columbian Settlement of the Caribbean edited by Scott Fitzpatrick and Anne Ross. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. Rodrguez Surez, R. and J.R. Pagn Jimnez 2006 Primeras evidencias directas del uso de plantas en la dieta de los grupos agroalfareros del Oriente de Cuba. Catauro: Revista Cubana de Antroploga 8(14):100 120. 2008 The burn in Cuban Pre Columbian archaeology: New Insights about Plant and Clay Griddle Use during the Late Ceramic Age of Western Caribbean through Starch Analysis. In Crossing the Borders: New Methods and Techniques in the Study of Archaeological Materials from the Caribbean edited by C. Hoffman, M. Hoogland and A. van Gijn, pp. 159 169. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Rodman, M. C. 1992 Empowering Place: Multilocality and Multivocality In The Anthropology of Space and Place edited by S. M. Low and D. Lawrence Ziga. vol. 204 223. Blackwell, Oxford. Roe, Peter G. 1987 Village Spatial Organization in the South Amerindian Lowlands: Evi dence from Ethnoarchaeological. Paper presented at the 52 nd Annual Meeting for the Society for American Archaeology, Toronto, Canada. 1989 Grammatical Analysis of Cedrosan Saladoid Vessel Form Categories and Surface Decoration: Aesthetic and Technical St yles in Early Antillean Ceramics. In Early Ceramic Population Lifeways and Adaptive Strategies in the Caribbean edited by P.E. Siegel, pp. 267 382. BAR International Series 506. Oxford. 2000 Jardines de Loiza: Analysis of the Ceramic Component Prepar ed for Ing. Juan Gonzlez Coln, M.A., Arquelogico. Ponce, PR. Roe, Peter G, A.G. Pantel and M.B. Hamilton 1985 Monserrate Restudied: The 1978 Centro Field Season at Luquillo Beach: Excavation Overview, Lithics and Physical Anthropological Remains. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress for Caribbean Archaeology edited by A.G. Pantel, I.V. Arenas, and M.S. Obediente, pp. 338 369. University of Puerto Rico, Ro Piedras. Roscoe, P. B. 1993 Practice and Political Centralisation: A New App roach to Political Evolution [and Comments and Reply]. Current Anthropology 34(2):111 140. Rosman, A. and P. G. Rubel 1986 Feasting with mine enemy : rank and exchange among northwest coast societies Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, Ill.

PAGE 582

582 Ross, S., J. M organ and R. Heelas 2000 Essential AS Geography Nelson Thornes Limited. Rouse, Irving 1939 Prehistory in Haiti: A Study in Method. Yale University Publications in Anthropology, No. 21. 1940 Some Evidence Concerning the Origins of West Indian Pottery Ma king. American Anthropologist 42:49 80. 1941 An Analysis of the Artifacts of the 1914 1915 Porto Rican Survey. Appendix in Scientific Survey of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands. The New York Academy of Science 18(Part 2). 1948a The Arawak In The Cir cum Caribbean Tribes: Handbook of South American Indians edited by J.H. Steward, pp. 50 96. Bulletin of the Bureau of American Ethnography, Vol. 4. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. 1948b The Carib. In The Circum Caribbean Tribes: Handbook of S outh American Indians edited by J.H. Steward. Bulletin of the Bureau of American Ethnography, Vol. 4. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. 1951 Areas and Periods of Culture in the Greater Antilles. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 7(3):248 265 1952 Porto Rican Prehistory. In Scientific Survey of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands, Vol. 18, pts. 3 4. New York Academy of Science, New York. 1956 Settlement Patterns in the Caribbean area. In Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the New World, edite d by G. Willey, pp. 23:165 172. New York: Wenner Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology. 1964 Prehistory of the West Indies. Science 144:499 513. 1968 Prehistory, typology and the study of society. In Settl ement Archaeology, edited by K.C. Chang, pp. 10 30. Yale University Press, New Haven. 1972 An Introduction to Prehistory: a systematic approach. McGraw Hill, New York. 1982 Ceramic and Religious Development in the Greater Antilles. Journal of New World Archaeology 5(2):45 55. 1986 Migrations in Prehistory: Inferring Population Movement from Cultural Remains. Yale University Press, New Haven. 1992 The Tanos: Rise and Decline of the People Who Greeted Columbus Yale University Press, New Haven. Rouse Irving and Ricardo E. Alegra 1990 Excavations at Maria de la Cruz Cave and Hacienda Grande Village Site, Loiza, Puerto Rico Yale University Publications in Anthropology, Number 80, New Haven. Rouse, Irving and J. W. Cruxent 1963 Venezuelan archaeolo gy. Caribbean Series No. 6. New Haven: Yale University Press.

PAGE 583

583 Sack, R. D. 1986 Human territoriality: its theory and history Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Saitta, D. J. 1994 Agency, Class and Archaeological Interpretation. Journal of Anthro pological Archaeology 13:210 227. 1997 Power, Labor, and the Dynamics of Change in Chacoan Political Economy. American Antiquity 62(1):7 26. Saitta, D. J. and R. H. McGuire 1998 Dialectics, Heterarchy, and Western Pueblo Social Organization. American Anti quity 63(2):334 336. Samson, A. V. M. 2010 Renewing the house: trajectories of social life in the yucayeque (community) of El Cabo, Higey, Dominican Republic, AD 800 to 1504 Sidestone Press, Leiden. Sanders, S., J.R. Oliver, E. Edwards, J.A. Calabrese, and D. Maher 1994 Phase I Archaeological Survey of 860 Acres of Naval Station Roosevelt Roads, Ceiba, Puerto Rico. Submitted to the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic Division, Norfolk, Virginia, by Goodwin & Associates Inc. Sanders, S., L.A. Curet, and D. Maher 1997 Archaeological Survey of Portion of NAVSTA Roosevelt Roads (Year 2), Ceiba, Puerto Rico. Submitted to the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic Division, Norfolk, Virginia by Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Sanders, S., E. Saint Onge, and R. Christopher Goodwin 1998 Archaeological Survey of Portion of NAVSTA Roosevelt Roads (Year 3), Ceiba, Puerto Rico. Submitted to the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Com mand, Atlantic Division, Norfolk, Virginia, by Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Santos Granero, Fernando 1998 Writing History into the Landscape: Space, Myth, and Ritual in Contemporary Amazonia. American Ethnologist 25(2):128 148. 2002 Arawakan Matrix: Ethos History, Language and History in Native South Ameri ca. In Comparative Arawakan Histories, edited by J.D. Hill and F. Santos Granero, pp. 25 50. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Sara, Timothy R., and David M. Franz 2006 Archaeological Survey of 80 Acres and Limited Evaluations for Sites RR GMI 2, RRGMI 3, and RR GMI 4, Naval Station Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico. Miscellaneous Report of Investigations Number 347. Submitted to the Department of

PAGE 584

584 the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atl antic Division, Norfolk, Virginia, by Geo Marine, Inc. Sara, Timothy R., and Stacy McClintock 2005 Archaeological Survey and Site Evaluations, Naval Station Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico Miscellaneous Report of Investigations Number 323. Submitted to t he Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic Division, Norfolk, Virginia, by Geo Marine, Inc. Sara, Timothy R., and Juan J. Ortz Aguil 2003 Paleoenvironmental Investigations of Navy Lands on Vieques Island, Puerto Rico. Mis cellaneous Report of Investigations Number 280. Submitted to the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic Division, Norfolk, Virginia, by Geo Marine, Inc. Sassaman, K. E. and A. Randall 2007 The Alterity of Complexity and th e Illusion of Change Paper presented at the 72nd Annual Meeting for the Society of American Archaeology, Austin, Texas. Savage, S. H. 1997 Assessing Departures from Log Normality in the Rank Size Rule. Journal of Archaeological Science, 24:233 244. Sc arborough, V. L. and D. R. Wilcox eds. 1993 The Mesoamerican Ballgame University of Arizona Press. Schachner, G. 2001 Ritual Control and Transformation in Middle Range Societies: An Example from the American Southwest. Journal of Anthropological Archae ology 20:168 19. 2007 Population Circulation and the Transformation of Ancient Cibola Communities Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Arizona State University. 2008 Imagining Communities in the Cibola Past In The Social Construction of Communities: Ag ency, Structure, and Identity in the Prehispanic Southwest edited by M. D. Varian and J. M. Potter, pp. 171 190. Altamira, Lanham. Schiffer, M.B. 1975 Archaeology as Behavioral Science. American Anthropologist 77(4):836 848. 1987 Formation Processes o f the Archaeological Record University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Schiffer, M.B. and Skibo, J.M. 1987 Theory and Experiment in the Study of Technological Change. Current Anthropology 28:595 622.

PAGE 585

585 Schweizer, T. and D. White (eds.) 1998 Kinship, N etworks, and Exchange. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Seeger, A. 1981 Nature and society in Central Brazil: the Suya Indians of Mato Grosso. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Service, E. R. 1968 Primitive Social Organization : An Evolutionary Perspective Random House, New York. Shanks, M. and C. Tilley 1992 Positivisim and the New Archaeology In Re Constructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice Routledge, London. Siegel, P.E. 1989 Site Structure, Demography, and Social C omplexity in the Early Ceramic Age of the Caribbean. In Early Ceramic Population Lifeways and Adaptive Strategies in the Caribbean, edited by P.E. Siegel, pp. 193 245. BAR International Series 506, Oxford, England 1991 Political evolution in the Caribbe an. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Congress for Caribbean Archaeology edited by Edwin N. Ayubi and Jay B. Haviser, pp. 232 250. Reports of the Archaeological and Anthropological Institute of the Netherlands Antilles, No. 9, Curaao. 1992 Ideology, Power, and Social Complexity in Prehistoric Puerto Rico Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York at Binghamton, Binghamton. 1993 Saladoid Survival Strategies: Evidence from Site Locations. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology edited by Alissandra Cummins and Phillipa King. Barbados Museum and Historical Society, Barbados. 1996a Ideology and Culture Change in Prehistoric Puerto Rico: A View from the Community. Journal of Field Archaeology 23(3):313 333. 1996b An Interview with Irving Rouse. Current Anthropology 37:671 689. 1999 Contested Places and Places of Contest: The Evolution of Social Power and Ceremonial Space in Prehistoric Puerto Rico. Latin American Antiquity 10(3):209 238. 2004 What Happened After AD 600 in Puerto Rico? Corporate Groups, Population Restructuring, and Post Saladoid Social Changes. In Late Ceramic Societies in the Eastern Caribbean edited by A. Delpuech and C. L. Hofman, pp. 87 100. BAR Inter national Series 1273, Oxford. 2006 Competitive Polities and Territorial Expansion in the Caribbean In 71st Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology San Juan, Puerto Rico. 2007 Dynamic Dualism: A Structural Analysis of Circular Communities. Proceedings of the Twenty first International Congress for Caribbean Archaeology pp. 525 536. University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago.

PAGE 586

586 2010 Continuity and change in the evolution of religion and political organization on pre co ntact Puerto Rico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 29(3):302 326. Siegel, P. E. and D. Bernstein 1991 Sampling for Site Structure and Spatial Organization in the Saladoid: A Case Study In Proceedings of the 12th Congress of the International Asso ciation for Caribbean Archaeology pp. 281 290, French Guiana. Siegel, P.E., C.T. Espenshade, and D.L. McCullough 2009 Mitigation Plus: The US Army Corps of Engineers Application of Section 106 to Site Ponce 29, Puerto Rico. The SAA Archaeological Record 9(4):24 29. Siegel, P.E., J.G. Jones, D.M. Pearsall, and D.P. Wagner 2005 Environmental and Cultural Correlates in the West Indies: A View from Puerto Rico. In Ancient Borinquen: Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Native Puerto Rico edited by P.E. Siegel, pp. 88 121. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Siegel, P. E. and P. G. Roe 1986 Shipibo archaeo ethnography: Site formation processes and archaeological interpretation. World Archaeology 18, 96 115. Simmel, G. 1964[1908] Conflict And The Web Of Group Affiliations Free Press. Skibo, J.M. 1992 Pottery Function: A Use Alteration Perspective Plenum Press, New York. Sleight, F.W. 1965 Certain environmental considerations in West Indian archaeology. American Antiquity 31(2):226 231 Smith, A. T. 2003 The Political Landscape University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Snead, J. E. 2008 History, Place, and Social Power in the Galisteo Basin, A.D. 1250 1325 In The Social Construction of Communities: Agency, Structure, and Identity i n the Prehispanic Southwest edited by M. D. Varian and J. M. Potter, pp. 155 167. Altamira, Lanham. Soja, E. J. 1980 The Socio Spatial Dialectic. Annals of American Geographers 70:207 25. 1985 The Spatiality of Social Life: Towards a Transformative Re theorisation In Social Relations and Spatial Structures edited by D. Gregory and J. Urry, pp. 90 127. St. Martin's Press, New York.

PAGE 587

587 Sols Magaa C. 1985 Archaeological Testing and Evaluation of Sites within the Proposed Portugs and Bucana River Pro jects, in the Barrios of Tibes and Maraguez, Municipio de Ponce Puerto Rico Report submitted to the Jacksonville District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida. Southeastern Archaeological Research, Inc. (SEARCH) 2008 A Multidisciplinary Approach to Site Testing and Data Recovery at Two Village Sites (AR 38 and AR 39) on the Lower Ro Tanam, Municipality of Arecibo, Puerto Rico. By Lisabeth A. Carlson, Ph.D. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District. 2009 Signifi cance Evaluations of Eight Archaeological Sites at the Naval Facility Formerly Known as Roosevelt Roads, Ceiba, Puerto Rico By Lisabeth A. Carlson, Ph.D. Prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering Command. 2011a Phase II Evaluations of Three Archaeologica l Sites (CE 34, CE 35, and RR 10) Located on Punta Medio Mundo, Naval Activity Puerto Rico By Joshua M. Torres and Lisabeth A. Carlson, Ph.D. Prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southeast, Jacksonville, Florida. 2011b Phase III Data Recove ry Investigations at Three Prehistoric Archaeological Sites (CE 11, CE 32, and CE 33) Municipality of Ceiba, Naval Activity Puerto Rico By Lisabeth A. Carlson, Ph.D. and Joshua M. Torres. Prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southeast, Jack sonville, Florida. Souvatzi, S. 2008 A Social Archaeology of Households in Neolithic Greece, An Anthropological Approach Cambridge University Press, New York. Spencer, C. S. 1982 The Cuicatlan Canada and Monte Alban: A Study of Primary State Formation. Academic Press, New York 1993 Human Agency, Biased Transmission, and the Cultural Evolution of Chiefly Authority. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 12(1):41 74. 1998 Investigating the Development of Venezuelan Chiefdoms In Chiefdoms and Chieftainc y in the Americas edited by E. M. Redmond. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Stahl, Agustin 1889 Los Indios Borinqueos Impr. de Acosta: Puerto Rico. Stark, B. L. and D. L. Young 1981 Linear Nearest Neighbor Analysis. American Antiquity 46(2): 284 300. Steponaitis, V. P. 1981 Settlement Hierarchies and Political Complexity in Nonmarket Societies: The Formative Period of the Valley of Mexico. American Anthropologist 83(2):320 363.

PAGE 588

588 Steward, J. H. 1948 The Circum Caribbean tribes: An introductio n. In The Circum Caribbean Tribes, Handbook of South American Indians edited by J. H. Steward, pp. 1 41. Bulletin of the Bureau of American Ethnology. vol. 4. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. 1955 The concept and method of cultural ecology Bobbs Merrill, College Division. Stevens Arroyo, Antonio M 2006 Cave of the Jagua: The Mythological World of the Tanos. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Steward, J. H. and L. C. Faron 1959 Native Peoples of South America. McGraw Hill Company, Ne w York. Stone, G. D. 1991 Agricultural Territories in a Dispersed Settlement System. Current Anthropology 32(3):343 353. 1992 Social Distance, Spatial Relations, and Agricultural Production Among the Kofya of Namu District, Plateau State, Nigeria. Journa l of anthropological archaeology 11(2):152 172. Stuiver, M. and Reimer, P.J. 1993, Extended 14 C data base and revised CALIB 3.0 14 C age calibration program, Radiocarbon, 35:215 230. Sued Badillo, J. 2008 Agueyban El Bravo Ediciones Puerto Inc., San Ju an. Tambiah, S. J. 1979 A Performative approach to Ritual. Proceedings of the British Academy 65:113 169. 1985 Culture, Thought, and Social Action : An Anthropological Perspective Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press. Thomas, H.L. and Ehrich, R.W. 1969 Som e Problems in Chronology. World Archaeology, 1:2, pp. 143 156. Thomas, J. 2001 Archaeologies of Place and Landscape In Archaeological Theory Today edited by I. Hodder, pp. 165 186. Polity and Blackwell, Malden. Thomas, P. M., Jr. and M. T. Swanson 1986 A Cultural Resources Reconnaissance and Testing Program of a 100 Acre Clay Borrow Areas, Ponce, Puerto Rico New World Research. Copies available from 86 1.

PAGE 589

589 Tilley, C. 1994 A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments Berg, Oxford. T nnie s, F.F. 1967[1887] Community and Society. Harper Torchbooks, New York. Torres, Joshua M. 2001 Settlement Patterns and Political Geography of the Saladoid and Ostionoid Peoples of South Colo rado 2005 Deconstructing the Polity: Communities and Social Landscapes of the Ceramic Age Peoples of South central Puerto Rico. In Ancient Borinquen: Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Native Puerto Rico edited by P.E. Siegel, pp. 202 229. University of A labama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2008 The Tibes Archaeological Survey Project: Location, Documentation and Preliminary Evaluation of Pre Colonial Cultural Resources La Oficina Estatal de Conservacion Historica Copies available from 2008 155037. 2009 The Tibes Ar chaeological Survey Project: Recent Research and New Directions in Socio Political Complexity of Post Saladoid South Central Puerto Rico. Paper presented at the 74 th Annual meeting of the Society of American Archaeology Atlanta, Georgia. 2010 Tibes and the Social Landscape: Integration, Interaction and, the Community. In At the Center of the Cosmos: People, Power, and Sacred Place at the Ceremonial Center of Tibes, Puerto Rico edited by L. A. Curet and L. Stringer, pp. 231 261. University of Alabama Press Tuscaloosa. Torres, Joshua M. and L. A. Curet 2008 Population Reorganization and Sociopolitical Change in the South Central Coast of Puerto Rico Paper presented at the 73rdAnnual meeting of the Society of American Archaeology, Vancouver, British Colum bia. Torres, Joshua M., and Reniel Rodrguez Ramos 2008 The Caribbean: A Continent Divided by Water. In Archaeology and Geoinformatics: Case Studies from the Caribbean edited by Basil Reid. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Toussaint, G. 1980 The relative neighborhood graph of a fnite planar set. Pattern Recognition 12, 4 261 268. Trigger, B. G. 1967 Settlement Archaeology -Its goals and Promise. American Antiquity 32(2):149 160. 1968 Determinants of Settlement Patterns In Settlement Archae ology edited by K. C. Chang, pp. 53 79. National Press Books, Palo Alto.

PAGE 590

590 1978 Chapter 7: The Concept of the Community In Time and Traditions: Essays in Archaeological Thought pp. 115 121. Columbia University Press, New York. Tronolone, M. Cinquino and Vandrei 1984 Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Survey for the Vieques Naval Reservation. Report on file at the Puerto Rico State Historic Preservation Office, San Juan. 1990 Prehistoric Resources on the Vieques Naval Reservation relative to prehistoric Se ttlement Patterns In Proceedings of the 11th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology Puerto Rico. Tuan, Yi Fu 1997 Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Turner,V. 1969 Liminality and communitas. The Ritual Process. Harmondsworth. Penguin. Tuzin, D. 2001 Social Complexity in the Making: A Case Study Among the Arapesh of New Guinea Routledge, London. Ulloa Hung, J. 2005 Approaches to Early Ceramics in the Caribbean: B etween Diversity and Unilineality. In Dialogues in Cuban Archaeology edited by L.A. Curet, S.L. Drawdy, and G. La Rosa Corzo, pp. 103 124. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. U.S. Geological Survey 2004 1:20,000 Quadrangle. Penuelas, Ponce, Sali nas, Yauco, Santa Islabel 2004 1:20,000 Digital Elevation Models. Penuelas, Ponce, Salinas, Yauco, Santa Islabel VanderVeen, James M. 2009 Subsistence Patterns as Markers of Cultural Exchange: European and Tano Interactions in the Dominican Republic Ph .D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Indiana University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. van Luesen, M. 1998 Viewshed and Cost Surface Analysis Using GIS (Cartographic Modeling in a Cell Based GIS II) In 26th CAA in Barcelona, Spain Barcelon a, Spain. Varien, Mark D. 1999 Sedentism and Mobility in a Social Landscape. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

PAGE 591

591 Varien, Mark D., and Barbara J. Mills 1997 Accumulations Research: Problems and Prospects for Estimating Site Occupation Span. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 4(2):141 191. Varien, M. and J. M. Potter 2008 The Social Production of Communities: Structure, Agency, and Identity In The Social Construction of Communities edited by M. Varien and J. M. Potter, pp. 1 20. Alatamira, Boulder. Veloz Maggiolo, M. 1972 arqueologa Prehistorica De Santo Domingo McGraw Hill, New York. 1991 Panorama Historico del Caribe Precolombino Edicion del Banco Central de la Republica Dominicana, Santo Domingo. 1993 La Isla de Santo Domingo Antes de Coln. Banco Central de la Repblica Dominicana, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. Veloz Maggiolo, M., J. Gonzles Coln, and E. Maiz 1975 El Preceramico de Puerto Rico a La Luz de Los Hallazgos de Cayo Cofresi. Paper presented at the 41st Internat ional Congress of Americanists, Mexico City. Veloz Maggiolo, M., E. Ortega, M. Sanoja and I. Vargas 1976 Preliminary report on archaeological investigations at El Atajadizo, Dominican Republic. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress for the S tudy of Pre Columbian Cultures of the Lesser Antilles pp. 283 294. Socit d'Histoire de la Guadeloupe, Pointe Pitre, Guadeloupe. Versteeg, Aad H. 1989 The Internal Organization of a Pioneer Settlement in the Lesser Antilles: The Saladoid Golden Rock Site on St. Eustatius, Netherlands Antilles. In Early ceramic lifeways and adaptive strategies in the Caribbean edited by Peter Siegel, pp. 171 192. BAR International Series 506: Oxford. 1991 Saladoid Houses and Functional Areas around them. The Golden Rock Site, St. Eustatius, N. W. I. In Proceedings of the 12th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology French Guiana. Versteeg, Aad H. and K. Schinkel 1992 The Archaeology of St. Eustatius: The Golden Rock Site Publication of the St. Eustatius Historical Foundation, No. 2, St. Eustatius. Vescelius, Gary S. 1977 Ball courts and boundaries in the eastern Antilles. Manuscript on file in the Department of Anthropology, Peabody Museum, Yale University, New Haven. 1980 A Cultural Taxonomy for West Indian Archaeology. Journal of the Virgin Islands Archaeological Society (10):36 39.

PAGE 592

592 Vilaa, A. 2002 Making kin out of others in Amazonia. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (N.S.) 8, 347 65. Vita Finci and C. S. Higgs. 1970 Prehistoric economy in the Mount Carmel area of Palestine. Site Catchment analysis. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society : 36:1 37. Walker, Jeff 1985 Analysis of the Lithic Artifacts from El Bronze Archaeological Site, Puerto Rico. Appendix G. In Archaeological Data Recovery at El Bronze, Puerto Rico, Final Report, Phase 2 edited by L.S. Robinson, E. Lundberg and J.B. Walker. Archaeological Services, Inc., Florida. Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District. Copies available from the State Office of Historic Conservation, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 1993 Stone collars, elbow stones and three pointers, and the nature of Tano ritual and myth. Ph.D. Dissertation. Washington State University. 2005 The Paso del Indio Site, Vega Baja, Puerto Rico: A Progress Report. In Ancient Borinquen: Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Native Puerto Rico edited by Peter E. Siegel, pp. 122 184. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Warmke, Germaine Le Clerc, and R. Tucker Abbott 1961 Caribbean Seashells: A Guide to the Marine Mollusks of Puerto Rico and Other West Indian Islands, Bermuda and the Lower Florida Keys. Livingston Publishing Company, Narberth, Pennsylvania. Wasserman, S. and K. Faust 1995 Social network analysis: methods and applications Cambridge University Press. Weaver, Guy G., Patrick H. Garrow, and Jos R. Oliver 1992 Phase II Archaeological Data Recovery at PO 38, El Parking Site, Barrio Maraguez, Ponce, Puerto Rico. Garrow and Associates, Memphis. Whalen, M. E. and P. E. Minnis 1996 Ballcourts and Political Centralization in the Casas Grandes Region. American Antiquity 61(4):732 746. Wheatley, David and Mark Gillings 2002 Spatial Technology and Archaeology: The Archaeological Applications of GIS Taylor &Francis London and New York. Whitten, N. E. 1976 Sacha Runa University of Illinois Press, Urban

PAGE 593

593 Willey, G. R. 1953 Pre hispanic settlement patterns in the Viru valley, Peru. In Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin No. 155 Washington DC. Willey, G. R and P. Phillips 1958 Chapter 1: Archaeological Unit Concepts In Method and Theory in American Archaeology University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Wilk, R. R. and W. Ashmore (eds.) 1988 Household and community in the Mesoamerican past. University of New Mexico Press. Wilk, R. and R. Netting 1984 Households: comparative and historical studies of the domestic group Wenner Gren Foundation for Anthropological, Research, edited by R Wilk, R. Netting and E. Arnould, pp. 1 28. University of California Press. Wilk, R.R., and W. Rathje 1982 Household Archaeology. American Behavioral Scientist 25(6):617 40. Wilson, G. 2005 Between Plaza and Palisade: Household and Community Organization at Early Moundville. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthr opology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Wilson, Samuel 1989 The Prehistoric Settlement Pattern of Nevis, West Indies. Journal of Field Archaeology 16(4):427 450. 1991 Current Research. American Antiquity, 56(1):143 160. 1992 Hispaniola: Car ibbean Chiefdoms in the Age of Columbus University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2007 The Archaeology of the Caribbean Cambridge University Press, New York. Wobst, H. M. 1976 Locational Relationships in Paleolithic Society. Journal of Human Evolution 5:4 9 58. 1977 Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange In Papers for the Director: Research Essays in Honour of James B. Griffin edited by C. Cleland, pp. 317 342. vol. Anthropology Papers 61. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Wolf, Eric R. 1 956 Aspects of Group Relations in a Complex Society: Mexico. American Anthropologist 58:6 pp. 1065 1078.

PAGE 594

594 Wright, H. T., Johnson, G. A. 1975 Population, exchange, and early state formation in southwestern Iran. American Anthropologist 77:267 8 Wst, Irmhild 1994 The eastern Bororo from an archaeological Perspective. pp. 315 342. Amazonian Indians from Prehistory to Present. Anna Roosevelt (editor) The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Yaeger, J. and M. A. Canuto 2000 Introducing an Archaeology of Communities In The Archaeology of Communities edited by J. Yaeger and M. A. Canuto, pp. 1 15. Routledge, London. Yde, J. 1965 Material Culture of the Waiwai Copenhagen: National Museum, Publication No. 10. Yoffee, N. 1993 Too Many Chiefs? (or Safe texts for the 90s) In Archaeological Theory: Who Sets the Agenda? edited by N. Yoffee and A. Sherratt, pp. 60 78. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2005 Myt hs of the Archaic State Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Zeidler, J. 1995 Archaeological Survey and Site Discovery in the Forested Neotropics. In Archaeology in the Lowland South American Tropics: Current Analytical Methods and Applications, P. S tahl ed., pp. 7 41. Cambridge University Press.

PAGE 595

595 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Joshua M. Torres was born in 1971 in Fairfax, Virginia. He received his BA in Anthropology in 1998 and MA in Anthropology in 2001 from the University of Colorado, Denver. Between 1999 and 2004 he worked full time as an archaeologist and Geographical Information Systems (GIS) specialist for the Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Since reentry to graduate school in 2004 Josh has worked in the private sector as a p roject archaeologist conducting archaeological survey and excavation projects throughout the Southeastern United States and the ancient political systems, settlement patterns, the ar chaeology of communities, GIS applications in archaeology, and ancient societies of the Caribbean and American Southeast He currently lives in Alachua, Florida with his wife and three sons