Citation
A Zooarchaeological Perspective on the Formation of Maya States

Material Information

Title:
A Zooarchaeological Perspective on the Formation of Maya States
Creator:
Sharpe, Ashley E
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Anthropology
Committee Chair:
EMERY,KATHERINE FREANCES
Committee Co-Chair:
MILBRATH,SUSAN
Committee Members:
DEFRANCE,SUSAN D
KRIGBAUM,JOHN
BRENNER,MARK
INOMATA,TAKESHI
Graduation Date:
12/17/2016

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
archaeology
isotopes
maya
zooarchaeology
City of Gainesville ( local )
Florida Museum of Natural History ( local )
Genre:
Unknown ( sobekcm )

Notes

General Note:
This study examines how animals were used as both resources and symbols of wealth, status, and power during the development of Maya state society over the course of the Preclassic period (1000 B.C. - A.D. 200). The study uses traditional zooarchaeological analysis (identifications of animal bones and shells) in combination with stable isotopic analysis to examine how animals were used in relation to four major themes: subsistence and diet, social inequality and power, crafting and exchange relations, and rituals and symbolism. Faunal remains from ten archaeological sites across three lowland Maya areas in Guatemala are included in the analysis: 1) Ceibal and Caobal in the Pasion Region; 2) San Bartolo and Xultun in the northeastern Peten; and 3) Holmul, Cival, and several neighboring communities in the eastern Peten. Identifications of the invertebrate fauna from Cerros (Cerro Maya), a ceremonial center on the coast of northern Belize, are also used to compare marine resource exchange across overland routes into Guatemala. In order to trace the development of sites and their many uses of animal resources over time, faunal remains were compared between and within sites on the basis of taxonomy and relative abundance. Animal procurement strategies, including hunting and husbandry, were examined using habitat fidelity analysis, and in the case of Ceibal, using stable carbon and nitrogen isotope analysis to examine animal diet. The long-distance exchange of animal products was assessed in two ways: first by comparing the exchange of marine shells among inland sites and between the inland sites and Cerros (also known as Cerro Maya), a coastal site; and second by using strontium, lead, and oxygen isotope analysis to identify non-local terrestrial animals from Ceibal. There is evidence for social inequality and specific uses and demands for particular taxa, both local and non-local, at the various sites centuries before the Classic period state system was established. Furthermore, there was also a dynamic shift in the use of fauna at the sites toward the end of the Preclassic period that may have been the result of social instability experienced throughout the lowland area, which was responsible for the transformation of the Preclassic animal-related practices into those characteristic of Classic period states.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Embargo Date:
12/31/2017

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

A ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE FORMATION OF MAYA STATES By ASHLEY E. SHARPE A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2016

PAGE 2

2016 Ashley E. Sharpe

PAGE 3

3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many individuals have helped me get this far in my research, and some have been helping me long before the dissertation while I was an undergraduate just beginning to learn the history of the Maya civilization and zooarchaeology Fir st and foremost I cannot thank enough my advising chair, Kitty Emery, fo r how much time and effort she has taken to help me every step of the way. Her endless enthusiasm and love of science is incomparable I am also indebted to my ever supportive advisory committee, including Susan Milbrath, John Krigbaum, Susan deFrance, Mar k Brenner, and Takeshi Inomata. I was extremely fortunate to have a committee whose mem bers I could learn from on an individual basis, whether it be faunal analysis, interpreting Maya symbolism, preparing isotopic specimens, or excavating in the Gua temalan forest I am also much indebted to those other researchers not on my committee, but who advised me just the same and allowed me to excavate with their archaeological projects, analyze their faunal material, and were always available with words of scholar ly (and often just practical) advice Among these include the team from the Ceibal Petexbatun Archaeological Project, including Daniela Triadan (perhaps the best of excavation mentor s ), as well as Flory Pinz n, Victor Castillo, Juan Manuel Palomo, Ra l Ort z, Mar a Bel n Mndez Monica Cortave, Alejandra Co r dero, Ricardo Rodas, Melissa Burham, Jessica MacLellan (who has put up with me in the field for almost a decade now), Damien Bazy, and Kazuo Aoyama (whose advice about the lithic side of was instrumental to my faunal interpretations). As well, I thank Marcos Xe and Domingo Xe for answering my many questions about animals and Maya society today in the Pet n, and am most thankful to the Godoy family (particularly Wilver, Elder, Esli Ge rson and Roni ) and Eulogio Reyes for helping me collect river clams for

PAGE 4

4 comparative a nalysis, as well as for informing me about the Pasin River today. And I cannot forget the amazing assistance Ceibal lab manager Estella Pinto provided me when I made the une xpected move to stay in the lab house in Guatemala City for over six months in 2013. As well, I am grateful for the assistance of the San Bartolo Xultun Regional Archaeological Project, particularly Bill Saturno (my first mentor in the field), Boris Beltr n, Patricia Rivera Castillo, Rene Ozaeta Mary Clarke, and Franco Rossi. I am also thankful to the Holmul Archaeological Project for hosting me every year since 2012 at their lab and once in the field, particularly Francisco Estrada Belli and Diana Patric ia Mndez Lee For the Cerros Archaeology Project, I am most grateful to Debra Walker for providing information about the ancient history of the site as much as the not so ancient history of the archaeological excavations. I have many to thank at the Unive rsity of Florida who have assisted me every step of the way over the years. I appreciate the endless support and instructional time George Kamenov has spent training me in stable isotope geochemistry in the UF Department of Geological Sciences. I thank Jac en Curtis as well for helping me with the light isotope component of the study. I am also most grateful to Irv Quitmyer for all of his many years helping me learn zooarchaeological analysis in the Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH) 's Environmental A rchaeology Program labs. John Slapcinsky the FLMNH Invertebrate Collection manager, was instrumental in helping me identify the marine shells (and keeping track of their ever some will be outdated within a year), and John Pfeiffer helped me sort out the confusing ambiguity behind the Mesoamerican river clams. I also thank Erin Thornton (now

PAGE 5

5 graduated herself) for her advice regarding stable isotope s and turkey domestication, as well as lab guru Ben Valentine (also now grad uated) who taught me the valu e of meticulous isotope lab analysis Among the faculty in the Department of Anthropology not on my committee, I thank Susan Gillespie and Michael Moseley for providing insights into archaeological theory and historic details concerning archaeology in the Americas. And of course, I owe a huge debt of gratitude to the University of Florida Department of Anthropology staff, including Juanita Bagnall, Pamela Freeman, Patricia King, and Karen Jones, for helping me coordinate my stu dies with research and travel. Finally, I must give an Oscar style callout to the many friends and colleagues who helped me get this far, especially those that made me consider my research in a different light. These include but are not limited to the Univ ersity of Florida Anthropology crowd, including Miriam Dom nguez case here!) Petra Cunningham Smith, Lisa Duffy, Arianne Boileau, Michelle Eusebio, Ellen Lofaro, Kate Kolpan, Ann Laffey, Chin hsin Liu Jeff Vadala, Andrea Palmiotto, Michael Wylde, Randee Fladeboe, Scott Macrae, Michelle LeF ebvre, Nicole Cannaro z Donnel l Haiyan Xing Carmen Alondra D az Isaac Shearn, Gypsy Price, and Laura Van Voorhis As well, I thank Nayeli Jimnez Cano ( Universidad Autnoma de Madrid ) for her help identifying fish, and Liz Sotnik and Catherine Achorn (m y two former biology comrades at Boston University), for helping me put everything into perspective. And finally, of course I thank my family for their good humored patience during these last many years. This dissertation would not be possible without the generous aid of a National Science Foundation Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant (No. 1433043 ) a Sigma

PAGE 6

6 Xi Grant in Aid of Res earch, the Society for American Archaeology Dienje Kenyon Fellowship, the UF Latin American Studies Tinker Travel Grant, the Delores Auzenne Dissertation Award, the Charles H. Fairbanks Award, and travel funding from the UF Department of Anthropology.

PAGE 7

7 TAB LE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 3 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 11 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 14 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 18 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 20 The Development of Maya States ................................ ................................ ........... 21 Zooarchaeology and Maya Political Economics ................................ ..................... 23 Summary of the Major Research Questions ................................ ........................... 25 The Intrasite Study: Zooarchaeological and Stable Isotope Analyses at Ceibal ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 25 The Intersite Study: Zooarchaeological Analyses from Across the Lowlands ... 30 Significance of Research ................................ ................................ ........................ 33 2 BACKGROUND TO THE PRECLASSIC PERIOD AND INVESTIGATION SI TES 37 Overview of the Preclassic Period ................................ ................................ .......... 37 Overview of the Sites under Investigation ................................ ............................... 45 Ceibal ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 46 Holmul and Cival ................................ ................................ .............................. 52 San Bartolo and Xultun ................................ ................................ .................... 56 Cerros (Cerro Maya) ................................ ................................ ........................ 59 Summary of the Preclassic Period in the Maya Lowlands ................................ ...... 61 3 ZOOARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT POLITICAL ECONOMY ............................ 75 Animal Use in Classic and Postclassic Mesoamerican States ................................ 76 Subsistence and Diet: Hunting and Fishin g ................................ ...................... 76 Subsistence and Diet: The Domestication and Captivity of Animals ................ 80 Social Status and Power ................................ ................................ .................. 84 Tribute, Trade, and Crafting ................................ ................................ ............. 87 Rituals and Symbolism ................................ ................................ ..................... 94 Zooarchaeology and Protostate Development Studies beyond Mesoamerica ...... 100 Subsistence Practices: Animal Management and Garden Hunt ing ................ 101 Animals and Inequality: Luxuries and Limitations ................................ ........... 105 Exchange, Tribute, and Crafting ................................ ................................ ..... 109 Modes of exchange ................................ ................................ .................. 109 Craft production ................................ ................................ ....................... 111

PAGE 8

8 Rituals and Symbolism ................................ ................................ ................... 113 Summary of Zooarchaeology and Political Economy ................................ ............ 118 4 METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE ................................ ................................ 120 Excavation Methods and Animal Assemblage Recovery Procedures ................... 120 Laboratory Analysis, Identification, and Basic Quantification ................................ 124 Comparative Methods ................................ ................................ ........................... 129 Species Abundance, Diversity, and Habitat Representation .......................... 131 Comparisons of relative proportions ................................ ........................ 131 Species diversity ................................ ................................ ...................... 132 Habitat fi delity analysis ................................ ................................ ............ 133 Marine Resource Exchange ................................ ................................ ........... 135 Craft Production ................................ ................................ ............................. 136 Ritual Use of Animals ................................ ................................ ..................... 138 Use of Light Isotopes to Address Animal Diet and Husbandry .............................. 139 Overview of Stable Carbon and Nitrogen Isotope Ratios ............................... 139 Specimen Preparation and Analytical Procedure ................................ ........... 141 Use of Isotopes to Examine Animal Exchange and Migration ............................... 144 Overview of Stable Strontium, Oxygen and Lead Isotope Ratios .................. 144 Bone and Enamel Specimen Preparation and Analytical Procedure .............. 149 Lead Bedrock Preparation for Baseline Study ................................ ................ 151 Summary of Methodology and Procedure ................................ ............................. 152 5 ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL RESULTS FROM CEIBAL ................................ .......... 156 Comparison of the Preclassic and Classic Period Fauna ................................ ..... 156 General Overview of Results ................................ ................................ .......... 158 Overview of Results: The Mammals ................................ ............................... 160 Overview of Results: The Birds ................................ ................................ ...... 163 Overview of Results: The Reptiles and Amphibians ................................ ....... 167 Overview of Results: The Bony and Cartilaginous Fish ................................ .. 168 Overview of Results: The Freshwater Invertebrates ................................ ....... 169 Overview of Results: The Marine Invertebrates ................................ .............. 171 Overview of Results: The Terrestrial Snails ................................ .................... 174 Overview of Results: The Effect of Flotation on Results ................................ 175 Diversity and Equitability of Fauna at Ceibal over Time ................................ 179 Habitat Fidelity at Ceibal over Time ................................ ................................ 180 Summary of the Ceibal Fauna over Time ................................ ....................... 181 Comparison of the Core and Periphery Fauna at Ceibal ................................ ...... 183 Comparison of Core and Peripheral Fauna ................................ .................... 184 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 192 Comparison of Ritual/Special Deposits between Core and Periphery Contexts ... 193 Early Middle Preclassic Rituals and Special Deposits ................................ .... 195 Late Middle Preclassic Rituals and Special Deposits ................................ ..... 199 Late Preclassic Rituals and Special Deposits ................................ ................. 204 Terminal Preclassic Rituals and Special Deposits ................................ .......... 205

PAGE 9

9 Early Classic Rituals and Special Deposits ................................ .................... 205 Late and Terminal Classic Rituals and Special Deposits ................................ 207 A Un ique Late/Terminal Classic Deposit at Group D ................................ ...... 210 Summary of Rituals and Special Deposits ................................ ...................... 213 Crafting at Preclassic and Early Classic Ceibal ................................ .................... 214 Comparison of Ceibal and Its Subordinate Center, Caobal ................................ .. 220 Summary of the Faunal Analysis ................................ ................................ .......... 223 6 STABLE ISOTOPIC INVESTIGATION OF ANIMAL DIET AND EXCHANGE AT CEI BAL ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 307 Isotopic Analysis of Animal Exchange ................................ ................................ .. 309 Measuring Locality using Strontium ( 87 Sr/ 86 Sr) ................................ ............... 310 Comparison of Strontium ( 87 Sr/ 86 Sr) and Lead ( 208, 207, 206 Pb/ 204 Pb) Isotope Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 315 Comparison of Strontium ( 87 Sr/ 86 Sr) and Oxygen ( 18 O) Isotope Results ...... 319 Discussion of Isotopic Analysis of Animal Exchange ................................ ...... 320 Isotopic Assessment of Ancient Animal Diet at Ceibal ................................ .......... 324 Comparison of Collagen Carbon ( 13 C) and Nitrogen ( 15 N) Isotope Results 325 13 C ap coll Isotopic Results to Examine Whole Diet ........... 329 Comparison of 13 C and 18 O Results in Enamel and Bone Apatite .............. 329 Summary of Diet ................................ ................................ ............................. 332 Summary of Isotopic Results ................................ ................................ ................ 332 7 COMPARISON OF ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL RESULTS ACROSS THE LOWLANDS ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 369 Summary of the Zooarchaeological Analysis from the San Bartolo Xultun and Holmul Regions ................................ ................................ ................................ 372 Results of the San Bartolo and Xultun Analysis ................................ ............. 372 Discussion of the San Bartolo Xultun Results ................................ ................ 375 Results of the Holmul Regional Analysis ................................ ........................ 376 Discussion of the Holmul Regional Analysis ................................ ................... 379 Overall Chronological Results Compared with Ceibal ................................ .... 380 Diversity and Equitability for the Preclassic and Early Classic Periods .......... 384 Habitat Fidelity Comparisons a mong the Preclassic Centers ......................... 386 Marine Resource Exchange ................................ ................................ .................. 387 Results of the Cerros Shell Analysis ................................ .............................. 388 Comparison of Cerros with the Petn Study Sites ................................ .......... 390 Comparison of Marine Taxa with Other Regions ................................ ............ 394 Crafting Activities across the Preclassic Petn ................................ ..................... 396 Ritual Use of Animal Species ................................ ................................ ................ 401 Summary of Faunal Analysis across the Petn Lowlands ................................ .... 406 8 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ .... 473 The Intrasite Study: Zooarchaeological and Stable Isotope Analyses at Ceibal ... 473

PAGE 10

10 The Use of Animal Taxa Over Time ................................ ............................... 474 Consistency in Differential Access to Animal Resources ................................ 474 Inconsistency in Ritual Taxa and Ritual Events ................................ .............. 478 Ceibal and the Nearby Minor Center, Caobal ................................ ................. 481 The Intersite Study: Zooarchaeological Analyses from Across the Lowlands ....... 481 Continuity in Animal Taxa across the Preclassic Sites ................................ ... 481 Exotics and Trade ................................ ................................ .......................... 484 Ritual Symbolism and Practices ................................ ................................ ..... 487 Future Research to Define the Role of Animals in the Formation of Maya States 489 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 490 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 493 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 561

PAGE 11

11 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 1 Timeline of the lowland Maya chronology. ................................ .......................... 35 2 1 Ceibal ceramic chronology. ................................ ................................ ................ 63 4 1 Habitat fid elity values used in this study ................................ ........................... 153 5 1 Result s of the Ceibal faunal analysis ................................ ................................ 226 5 2 Identification of Ceibal faunal specimens recov ered from the flotation samples ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 239 5 3 Locations of where Ceibal faunal specimens were reco vered using flotation at Ceibal ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 243 5 4 Diversity and equitability o f the fauna at Ceibal over time ................................ 246 5 5 Diversity and equitability of the verte brate fauna at Ceibal over time ............... 246 5 6 NISP and proportions of key taxa in the C eibal ceremonial core over time ...... 247 5 7 NISP and proportions of key taxa in the Ceibal periphery over time ................. 248 5 8 Comparison of context types where fauna was recovered at Ceibal's ceremonial core over time ................................ ................................ ................ 249 5 9 Comparison of context types where fauna was recovered at Ceibal's periphery over time ................................ ................................ ........................... 253 5 10 Late/Terminal Classic midden deposi t in Ceibal Group D (CB 208A) ............... 256 5 11 Total cut, artifactual, and unworked specimens from the Preclassic and Early Classic core contexts at Ceibal ................................ ................................ ......... 258 5 12 Total cut, artifactual, and unworked specimens from the Preclassic and Early Class ic periphery contexts at Ceibal ................................ ................................ 258 5 13 Compari son of animal taxa involved in craft activities at Ceibal from the Early Middle Preclassic period ................................ ................................ ......... 259 5 14 Comparison of animal ta xa involved in craft activities at Ceibal from the Late Middle Preclassic period ................................ ................................ ................... 261 5 15 Comparison of animal taxa involved in c raft activities at Ceibal from the Late Preclassic period ................................ ................................ .............................. 263

PAGE 12

12 5 16 Comparison of animal taxa involved in craft activities at Ceibal from the Terminal Preclassic period ................................ ................................ ............... 264 5 17 Comparison of animal taxa involved in craft activities at Ceiba l from the Early Classic period ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 265 5 18 from the Early Middle Pr eclassic through Early Classic periods. ...................... 267 5 19 time, from the Early Middle Preclassic through Early Classic periods. ............. 268 5 20 Results of the Caoba l faunal analysis ................................ .............................. 269 5 21 Comparison of context types where fauna wa s recovered at Caobal over time 271 6 1 Lead results for archaeological specimens and mode rn baseline samples from Ceibal ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 336 6 2 Strontium and oxygen results for archaeological specimens and mode rn baseline samples from Ceibal ................................ ................................ ........... 341 6 3 Local strontium and lead baseline ranges for C eibal and the Southern Lowlands ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 347 6 4 Strontium and lead iso tope range s for the Maya region ................................ ... 348 6 5 Carbon and oxygen results from archaeolog ical animal specimens at Ceibal .. 349 6 6 Carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen results from archaeolog ical animal specimens at Ceibal ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 353 7 1 Total NISP of fauna identified at San Bartolo over time ................................ .... 410 7 2 Total NISP of fauna identified at Xultu n over time ................................ ............ 415 7 3 Total NISP of fauna identified at Holmul over time ................................ .......... 420 7 4 Total NISP of fauna ident ified at La Sufricaya over time ................................ .. 426 7 5 Total NISP of faun a identified a t Cival over time ................................ .............. 429 7 6 Total NISP of fauna identified at Hamont un over time ................................ ...... 432 7 7 Total NISP of fa una identified at K'o over time ................................ ................. 434 7 8 Total NISP of fauna identified at Dos Aguada s over time ................................ 436 7 9 Diversity and equitability for the sit es with the largest assemblages ................ 439

PAGE 13

13 7 10 Diversity and equitability for t he vertebrate fauna exclusively .......................... 439 7 11 Results of the invertebra te analysis from Cerros, Belize ................................ .. 440 7 12 Comparison of Preclassic period marine invertebrates found a t the sites under investigation ................................ ................................ ........................... 445 7 13 Comparison of Early Classic period marine invertebrates found at the sites under investigation. ................................ ................................ .......................... 446 7 14 Comparison of reported Preclassic period mollusks across the Mesoamerican region. ................................ ................................ ...................... 447 7 15 Total cut, artifactual, and unworked bone at the Preclassic lowland sites ........ 447 7 16 Comparison of Preclassic period animal taxa involved in craft activities at San Bartolo ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 448 7 17 Comparison of Preclassic period animal taxa involve d in craft activities at Xultun ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 449 7 18 Comparison of Preclassic period animal taxa involve d in craft activities at Holmul ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 450 7 19 Comparison of Preclassic period animal taxa involved in craft activitie s at Cival ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 451 7 20 Comparison of Preclassic period animal taxa involved in craft activities at Hamontun ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 452 7 21 Comparison of Preclassic period animal taxa invo 453 7 22 Comparison of Preclassic period invertebrate taxa involve d in craft activities at Cerros ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 454 7 23 Comparison of different types of crafted items at the Preclassic lowland sites 455 7 24 Special deposits of animals at t he Preclassic Peten study sites ....................... 456

PAGE 14

14 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 Map of Guatemala and Belize, featuring the four major Preclassic study areas. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 36 2 1 Map of the three core groups at Ceibal, G uatemala ................................ ........... 64 2 2 at Ceibal ................................ ...................... 65 2 3 Map of the surveyed area of the Ceibal Park, including the locations of Ceibal (Group A) and Caobal ................................ ................................ ........................ 66 2 4 Map of the Holmul regi on and the focus of excavations conducted by the Holmul Archaeological Pro ject ................................ ................................ ............ 67 2 5 Map of the central core of Holmul, Guat emala ................................ ................... 68 2 6 Map of the main groups at Cival, Guat emala ................................ ..................... 69 2 7 Map of the San Bartolo and Xu ltun region ................................ .......................... 70 2 8 Map of the major groups ("complexes") at San Barto lo, Guatemala ................... 71 2 9 Ma p of Xultun as of 2012 ................................ ................................ ................... 72 2 10 Detail of the North Wal l mural from San Bartolo ................................ ................. 73 2 11 Detail from the West Wall mur al from San Bartolo ................................ ............. 73 2 12 Map of the core and periphery of Cerros, Belize ................................ ................ 74 4 1 Carbon and nitrogen ratios for food groups in the Mesoame rica area .............. 155 5 1 Comparison of total verte brate and invertebrate proportions of the Cei bal faunal assemblage over time ................................ ................................ ............ 272 5 2 Distribution of vert ebrate taxa at Ceibal over time ................................ ............ 273 5 3 Distribution of freshwater and marine mol lusk taxa at Ceibal over time ........... 274 5 4 Comparison of dog and white tailed dee r specimens at Ceibal over time ........ 275 5 5 Deposit of at least two partial dog skeletons in the Karinel Group .................... 276 5 6 Four left sided astagali from four partial deer skeletons recovered from a ................. 277

PAGE 15

15 5 7 A partially articulated armadillo shell recovered from Ceibal ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 278 5 8 Cache 154, containing the limbs of a raptor (Accipitriformes, cf. Buteogallus urubitinga ) from the Group A Central Plaza fill at Ceibal ................................ .. 279 5 9 Comparison of different turtle tax a recovered at Ceibal over time .................... 280 5 10 Otoliths of two possible sea catfish ................................ ................................ ... 281 5 11 Possible great white shark (cf. Carcharodon carcharias ) or mako shark ( Isurus oxyrinchus ) tooth, recovered from Str. A 14 ................................ ......... 282 5 12 Sea urchin spines (Echinoidea) recovered from the Ter minal Classic palace midden ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 283 5 13 A s mall river clam nacre bead found in the flotation frac tion of the Central Plaza fill ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 284 5 14 Diversity and equitability o f the f auna at Ceibal over time ................................ 285 5 15 Diversity and equitability of the verte brate fauna at Ceibal over time ............... 286 5 16 Habitat fide lity values at Ceibal over time ................................ ......................... 287 5 17 Habitat fidelity values for the terrestri al habitats at Ceibal over time ................ 288 5 18 Comparison of the core and periphery fauna at Ceibal over time ..................... 289 5 19 Exa mple of olive shells used as ornaments in Ceibal art ................................ .. 290 5 20 A dog with an unusually recessed protoc one on both upper carnassials ......... 291 5 21 One of the earliest marine shel ls recovered from Ceibal, a s pondylus ( Spondylus cf. americanus ) valve ................................ ................................ ..... 292 5 22 Tibia of a white tailed deer in the process of having been cut into possibl e ................................ ................................ ............... 293 5 23 Apple snail middens at Ceiba l ................................ ................................ .......... 294 5 24 Buri al 126, from the Jul Group ................................ ................................ .......... 295 5 25 Buri al 104 from the Group A Central Plaza ................................ ..................... 296 5 26 Left and right mandible of a dog with a mandibular pathology .......................... 297 5 27 Some 132 Atlantic marginella (of 133) found in Burial 113 in the Late P reclassic Group A Central Plaza ................................ ................................ .... 298

PAGE 16

16 5 28 Total cut, artifactual, and unworked specimens from Preclassic and Early Classic period core contexts at Ceibal ................................ .............................. 299 5 29 Total cut, artifactual, and unworked specimens from Preclassic and Early Classic peri od periphery contexts at Ceibal ................................ ...................... 300 5 30 Example of an olive shell ornament, dating to the Early Classic period at the Karinel Group ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 300 5 31 Six of the punctured 75 jute snails found in an Early Middle Preclassic deposit from the Karinel Group ................................ ................................ ......... 301 5 32 The ma rgin portion of a river clam discarded while in the process of making ...................... 302 5 33 Dri lled and punctured snail shells ................................ ................................ ..... 303 5 34 Anim al ornaments from Burial 135 ................................ ................................ ... 304 5 35 Two examples of turtle ( Dermatemys mawii ) circular ornaments or possible spindle whorl s from the Early Classic period ................................ ................... 305 5 36 A subset of the extensive Late Middle Preclassic appl e snail midde n found at Caobal ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 306 6 1 Map of the southern Mesoamerica area depicting the regions discussed in the chapte r ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 358 6 2 Strontium results for all an imals and soil tested at Ceibal ................................ 359 6 3 Comparison of 87 Sr/ 86 Sr and 206 Pb/ 204 Pb ratios ................................ ................ 360 6 4 Comparison of 207 Pb/ 204 Pb and 206 Pb/ 204 Pb ratios ................................ ............ 361 6 5 Comparison of 208 Pb/ 204 Pb and 206 Pb/ 204 Pb ratios ................................ ............ 362 6 6 18 O and 87 Sr/ 86 Sr values at Ceibal ................................ .......... 363 6 7 13 15 N from animals at Ceibal ........................ 364 6 8 13 C ap c oll 15 N from collagen among several animals at Ceibal ................................ ................................ ................. 365 6 9 13 18 O among several animals at Ceibal ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 366 6 10 13 18 O among several animals at Ceibal 367

PAGE 17

17 6 11 13 18 O from the same individuals ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 368 7 1 Two examples of parrot fish grinders (cf. Sparisoma sp.) from Holmul ............ 457 7 2 Diversity and equitability resul ts from the lowland Petn sites .......................... 457 7 3 Diversity and equitability at the lowland Petn sites, excluding invertebrate material ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 458 7 4 Habitat fidelity results from the Preclassic fauna at Holmul, Cival, and San Bartolo ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 458 7 5 Habitat fidelity results without river and wetland taxa at Holmul, Cival, and San Barto lo during the Preclassic period ................................ .......................... 459 7 6 Shells from Early Classic ma rine themed deposits from t wo burials in Str. 11J7, Xultun ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 46 0 7 7 Map of the Mesoamerican region showing location of sites with reported Preclassic m arine shells used in this study ................................ ...................... 461 7 8 Total cut, artifactual, and unworked bon e at the Preclassic Petn si tes ........... 462 7 9 Examples of pierced conch shells from the Preclassic Holmul area ................. 463 7 10 Examples of pierced conch shells from the Preclassic period con texts at San Bartolo and Xultun ................................ ................................ ............................ 464 7 11 Circular shell disks, possib ly adornos or spindle whorls ................................ ... 465 7 12 Examples of Preclassic marine shell ornaments ................................ .............. 466 7 13 Examples of modified river clams from the northeast Petn sites .................... 467 7 14 Examples of carved Late Preclassic marine shells at Cerros ........................... 468 7 15 Two conch shells from Cerros, identified as axe heads ................................ .... 469 7 16 Examples of modified olive shells at S an Bartolo and the Holmul sites ............ 470 7 17 Spondylus p ectorals from Cival and Cerros ................................ ..................... 471 7 18 Examples of wild cats in rituals in the Sa n Bartolo Xultun area over time ........ 472

PAGE 18

18 A bstract 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 A ZOOAR CHAEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE FORMATION OF MAYA STATES By Ashley E. Sharpe December 2016 Chair: Kitty F. Emery Major: Anthropology This study examines how animals were used as both re sources and symbols of wealth, status and power during the developme nt of Maya state society over t he course of the Preclassic period ( 1000 B C A D 20 0). The study uses traditional zooarchaeological analysis (identifications of animal bones and shells) in combination with stable isotopic analysis to examine ho w animals were used in relation to four major themes: subsistence and diet, social inequality and power, crafting and exchange relations, and rituals and symbolism. Faunal remains from ten archaeological sites across three lowland Maya areas in Guatemala are included in the analysis: 1) Ceibal and Caobal in the Pasi n Region; 2) San Bartolo and Xultun in t he northeastern Petn ; and 3) Holmul, Cival, and several neighboring communities in the eastern Petn Identifications of the inver tebrate fauna from Cerros (Cerro Maya) a ceremonial center on the coast of northern Belize, are also used to compare marine resource exchange across overland routes into Guatemala. In order to trace the development of sites and their many uses of animal resourc es over time, faunal remains were co mpared between a nd within sites on the basis of taxonomy and relative abundance Animal procurement strategies, including

PAGE 19

19 hunting an d husbandry, were examined using habitat fidelity analysis and in the case of Ceibal, using stable carbon and nitrogen isot ope analysis to examine animal diet The l ong distance exchange of animal products was assessed in two ways: first by comparing the exchange of marine shells among inland sites and between the inland sites and Cerros (also known as Cerro Maya) a coastal s ite; and second by using stro ntium, lead, and oxygen isotope analysis to identify non local terrestrial animals from Ceibal. T here i s evidenc e for social inequality and specific uses and demands for particular taxa, both local and non local, at the various sites centuries before the Classic peri od state system was established. Furthermore, there was also a dynamic shi ft in the use of fauna at the sites toward the end of the Preclassic period that may have been the result of social instability experienced t h roughout the lowland area, which was responsible for the transformation of the Preclassic animal related practices into those characteristic of Classic period states

PAGE 20

20 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTIO N This study examines how animals were used as both resources and symbols of political status and power during the development of Maya state society. A century of archaeological research in the lowlands of Guatemala, Belize, and southern Mexico has enhanced our understanding o f th e Classi c period (c. A.D. 20 0 900 Table 1 1), when Maya society had already reached a full fledged statehood with a complex political and economic system. Yet recent investigations (e.g. Beach et al. 2015; Doyle 2012; Estrada Belli 2006, 2011; Garrison and Dunning 2009; H ansen 2001; Healy 2006; Inomata et a l. 2013 2015 b ) have shown that this sociocultural florescence occurred much earlier, and that the origin of Maya states, complete with social inequality, centralized governments, large monumental construction projects, extensive long distance trade networks, and even hieroglyphic writing, began during the Preclassic pe riod (c. 2000 B.C. A.D. 20 0). The purpose of the present study is to ex plore t he role of the differential use and control of animal resources in the establishment of social political, and economic inequality during the formation of the first lowland Preclassic states. This study uses traditional zooarchaeological analysis (identif ications of animal bones and shells) in combination with stable isotopic analysis to examine how animals were used as resources in relation to four major themes: subsistence and diet, social inequality and power, crafting and exchange relations, and ritual s and symbolism. These theme s are examined on both an intrasite and inter site basis over time. The large Maya site of Ceibal in Guatemala ( Figure 1 1) is the focus of the int ra site comparison, since this center has one of the oldest and longest occupationa l sequences of any site

PAGE 21

21 in the Mesoamerican lowlands (Inomata et al. 2013, 2015 b spans almos t two millennia (c. 1000 B.C. A.D. 950), allowing for a long term compariso n of faunal resource use. Intra site analysis of the faunal remains from the ceremonial core and peripheral residential groups across this two thousand year span enables us to explore how the earliest elites at the site may have secured and reinforced their political power using animals as symbols and resources st arting in the Midd le Preclassic period (c. 1000 400 B.C.). Faunal remains from the archaeological s ites in the San Bartol o Xultun and Holmul regions in the Petn Department of northern Guatemala are compared to Ceibal in the inter site analysis to examine t he nature of widespread soc ial consis tencies and changes with regard to activities that used animal resources throughout the Preclassic period and into the Early Classic period. Identifications of the i nverte brate fauna from Cerros, an important ceremonial center on the coast of northern Belize, are used to compare marine resource exchange across overland Preclassic trad e networks between the coast and inland communities Together, these four areas (Ceibal, San Bartolo Xultun, Holmul, and Cerros) provide a broad geographic range for zooarchaeological comparisons during the Preclassic period. The Development of Maya States It was originally believed that Maya state society developed during the Early Cla ssic period (c. A.D. 20 0 550), and was characterized by technological achievements that included masonry architecture and monumental construction projects, polychrome ceramics, glyphic writing and a calendar system (Estrada B elli 2011:44) It was also assumed that long distance exchange networks were est ablished at that time, and that the Maya ruling elite class resembled a bureaucracy with a royal court and king. The

PAGE 22

22 last few decades of archaeological research (e.g. Estrada Belli 2011; Hammond 1992; Inomata 2013; Saturno et al. 2006 a ) have shown that all of these developments took place much earlier during the Pr eclassic period (c. 2000 B.C. A.D. 20 0). The present study focuses on the Middle and Late Preclassic periods (1000 B.C. A.D. 20 0), when populations in the Maya area had grown to the point that the remains of small villages and towns from this time are still visible on the landscape, and when the first plazas and monumental construction projects began. The obsidia n exc hange network between the volcanic h ighlands in southern Guatemala and the lowlands to the north was established during this period, and precious commodities such as jade, greenstone, and marine shells, often used for ceremonial rituals, began to be exchan ged in increasingly large quantities. The n ature of this development remains largel y a mystery. We do not know the specific status tiers of the social elite during the Preclassic period, although by the Late Preclassic there were artistic depictions and gl yphic writing describing early kings (Saturno et al. 2005, 2006 a ; Taube et al. 2010) and material evidence supports there was already a distinction in place at the time between an emerging Symbolic similarities in the ceremonial and mythic art from large scale construction projects made during the Late Preclassic period at many Maya sites show that Maya community members held a shared notion of elite power and its associated symbolism (Doyle 2012; Estrada Belli 2006; F reidel 1988). However, whether these rulers had any form of centralized control over the management and distribution of resources in their domains is not well understood. This study examines how animals were used as resources and symbols in these developin as a means of establishing social

PAGE 23

23 inequality, for developing exchange relationships, and for reinforcing ritual performances. Zooarchaeology and Maya Political Economics The study of faunal remains, or zooarchaeology, can approach questions of sociopolitical development through an understanding of how animals are used to establish social norms and practices Zooarchaeology covers a diverse variety of topics, including ancient diet and hunting behavior, trade relations, rit uals and religious beliefs, tool and ornament production, and even past climate and environment conditions (Reitz and Wing 2008 ; Russell 2012 ). Faunal studies in Mesoamerica are growing in recognition, in part due to improved recovery techniques such as be tter screening practices and an increased awareness of the diverse roles that animals played in Mesoamerican, including Maya, society (Emery 2004a, b; Gtz and Emery 2013 ) From Classic, Postclassic, and Colonial period art and written records, we know that animals were a source of meat and other food products, served as raw materials for crafting and the manufacture of tools and weapons, were used as a symbolic representation of status wealth and authority, were participants in ritual performances and sacrifices, and were even characters in stories and myths. Historic records attest that dogs and deer were raised in confinement just as domesticated pigs are in the area today (Landa 1941:127, 145, 162; Pohl and Feldman 1982) Birds were raised for feathers, an integral component for ornamentation and the display of status ( Corona Martnez 20 08, 2013; Landa 1941:127) Some species, such as marine shells and stingray spines used for ritual bloodletting ceremonies, were traded long distances, as evidenced by their recovery at sites over a hundred kilometers inland from the nearest coast (Cunningham Smith 2011; Haines et al. 2008; Moholy Nagy 1985)

PAGE 24

24 Recent zooarchaeological studies have also shown that the diversity of species and quantities of remains from different species present in elite contexts differed from those recovered from non elite contexts, suggesting various social tiers had differential access to particular species (Emery 2003 a ; Masson 1999 a ; Pohl 1985 ; Sharpe and Emery 2015 ) During the Late Classic period, elites te nded to have greater access to a wider diversity of species, more exotic or nonlocal species (e.g. marine shells at inland sites), and more mature forest species (e.g. jaguars and tapirs), suggesting they were either provisioned with these animals or tha t they had special access to reserved hunting grounds (Sharpe and Emery 2015) Many of these species had symbolic connotations as well, perhaps fostering a connection between the ruling elite members of society and the supernatural. How and when these patt erns of animal resource distribution developed in earlier Preclassic times is the subject of this research study. How animals were used during the Preclassic period, while states were in the process of developing, is not well known. Preclassic Maya art, su ch as the San Bartolo murals in Guatemala that date to c. 100 B.C., depict animals in mythical settings, as gods, and as sacrificial offerings (Saturno et al. 2005; Taube et al. 2010). The exchange of marine shells to inland sites has also been noted at Pr eclassic Maya communities and has been cited by archaeologists as evidence of an extensive exchange network that may have existed during this time (Freidel et al. 2002; Hansen 2001; Hohmann 2002; Moholy Nagy 1986), although the details of this exchange sys tem are not well understood. A handful of Preclassic focused zooarchaeological investigations were undertaken previously in the Maya region, mostly in Belize (e.g. Carr 1986; Hohmann 2002; Scott 1982; Shaw 1991; Wing and Scudder 1991) but no comprehensive

PAGE 25

25 comparative analysis has been done throughout the lowlands. Zooarchaeological knowledge of the Preclassic Guatemalan sites is particularly under investigated. The present study examines the uses of animal resources across the Guatemalan P etn lowlands, focusing on how animals were used for subsistence, for establishing social economic, and political inequalities, for developing exchange routes, and for ritual activities as these early Maya communities developed into states. Summary of the Major Research Questions The Intra s ite Study: Zooarchaeological and Stable Isotope Analyses at Ceibal The first part of this study examines the intra site zooarchaeological analysis at Ceibal, comparing animal use over time at the site as a whole as well a s between the core and periphery areas These analyses include traditional zooarchaeological identifications of animal remains to study the differential use of animals over time across the site, in addition to stable isotopic testing to examine long distan ce exchange and animal management. The first research question of the intra site analysis is whether animal resource use was consistent over time at Ceibal between the Preclassic and Classic periods As is explained in Chapter 2, Ceibal ha s some of the earl iest securely dated monumental architecture in the Maya region (Inomata 2013), and was a contemporary of the Olmec civilization on the Gulf Coast. Evidence at the Middle Preclassic ceremonial core of Ceibal shows that the site was organized in a manner sim ilar to the Olmec sites (Inomata et al. 2015 b ), and that the early Ceibal inhabitants performed ritual caching ceremonies in the plaza with jade axe head s and figurines in much the same way that ceremonies were conducted at Olmec sites like La Ven ta (Inoma ta et al. 2016a ). Ceibal continued on as an important ceremonial center in the Petn long after the Olmec

PAGE 26

26 civilization dissipated. During the Terminal Preclassic period, the site began to experience a slow political decline along with many other lowland Ma ya sites in the Petn and Belize areas. A cessation of monumental construction activities at the site core suggests that the population level of Ceibal declined significantly during the early part of the Early Classic period (c. A.D. 300) but its populati on increased during the Late Classic peri od (Inomata et al. 2016b ). Ceibal h ad king s during the Early and Late Classic period s and became a dominant center during the Terminal Classic period, and was one of the last major centers to be abandoned during the Terminal Classic sociopolitical collapse that affected the entire lowland Maya region (Tourtellot and Gonzlez 2005). I t would therefore be expect ed that these soc ial developments would have had an e ffect and would have be en affected by, practices involving the acquisition, use, and deposition of animal resources. If social institutions rely on animals as political and ritual symbols and for economic support, we might expect to see changes in the type and use of animal taxa throughout the Preclassic period as Ceibal developed into an important regional ceremonial center, and perhaps a disruption of these practices during the period of sociopolitical instability during the Terminal Preclassic and Early Classic period. Comparing the two perio Late/Terminal Classic periods, we might expect to see similar uses of animals when inhabitants of the site were developing and reinforcing sociopolitical institutions and status ranks, establishing exch ange networks, and using animals as political and ritual symbols. However, it is also possible the use of animals was not closely tied to these

PAGE 27

27 sociopolitical changes, in which case we might expect to see no significant change in the use of animals over ti me. A related second important question would be whether animal resources were purposefully controlled in order to establish social inequalities in terms of political and economic power. As Chapter 3 explains, previous zooarchaeological investigations in the Maya area have established that Classic period state societies used animal resources to reinforce social distinctions (Emery 2003a; Pohl 1985, 1990; Sharpe and Emery 2015; Thornton 2011a). For example, artiodactyls such as deer and peccary were common at many sites, but the upper and ruling elite ranks tended to have proportionally more of these animals whereas the lesser and non elite ranks used proportionally more turtle s fish, and freshwater mollusk taxa. This indicates that river and wetland taxa may have been most accessible to these lower ranks whereas access to the larger terrestrial fauna was more common for the elites, perhaps because they had access to better hunting grounds or were the recipients of these animals as a form of tribute or th at there were restrictions on the extent to which the lower classes could use these animals (Sharpe 2011; Sharpe and Emery 2015). It is not known when these trends began, either during the Early Classic period or the Preclassic period when the first evide nce of early rulers appears in the archaeological record in the Maya lowland area. This study compares the uses of animals during the Preclassic through Classic periods between mon umental core presumab ly where the social elite had been living and/or condu cting ceremonies This part of the investigation compares the uses of animals as a means of subsistence as well as for materials for crafting decorative artifacts and tools, which is

PAGE 28

28 important for under standing how both food and modified products were made and exchanged throughout the community and whether there were changes over time in the extent to which exchange systems were impacted by, or reflected, differential access to certain items Stable iso topic analysis examining the diet of animals at the site in both the core and periphery also explores the question of differential access by asking whether animals may have been rais ed in captivity which may have been a means of controlling animal resourc es by the upper ranks or by occupational specialists We might expect evidence for animal rearing to increase over time at Ceibal as the site developed into a political state with attendant hierarchies and specialties A third area of inquiry seeks to addr ess how the long distance exchange of animal products reflected and/or played a role in the development of Maya states over time. We might expect to see increased numbers of exotic items appear at Ceibal as the s community members were able to secure stronger and more extensive exchange relationships with other developing Maya lowland centers throughout the Preclassic period. We might also expect to see evidence that ceremonial core inhabitants had greater access to the exotic items, if these early elite individuals were the ones main taining these trade connections. They may have been obtaining items as gifts as well as through exchange, and were possibly distributing these it ems to the peripheral residents Howeve r, it is also possible Preclassic Maya society lacked any form of a centralized distribution system, in which case we would expect to see the core and periphery inhabitants have more or les s the same proportions and types of exotic goods both taxonomicall y and in terms of crafted products In this analysis of Ceibal fauna long distance exchange is examined using

PAGE 29

29 identifications of marine taxa at Ceibal, since the site is located more than 150 km from the nearest coast, as well as using stable isotopic tes ting with stro ntium, lead, and oxygen to identify non local terrestrial vertebrates that are also available locally and thus not distinguishable by traditional identifications A fourth area of inquiry examines whether politically charge d ritual uses of animals change d at Ceibal over time. Since the site was an important ceremonial center during the Preclassic period, if animals were already symbolic representations of political hierarchies, we would expect to see animals involved in these ceremonies, per haps in the form of remains from sacrificial offerings, as the remains of feasting activities, or perh aps even the remains of costume ornaments or components of clothing used by actors and performers who had been involved in these activities. Public ceremo reputation in the developing sociopolitical sphere of the Maya lowlands and could have included performances and large scale feasting (Inomata 2006; Rosenswig 2007) More private, d omestic rituals would have been important for maintaining community bonds, such as in the case of burials. If certain animals were consistently used in these ceremonies we might be better able to determine their symbolic significance, and possibly relate t hese symbols to those that are more well understood from Classic period states (see Chapter 3). Finally, in a fifth set of studies, the uses of animals over time at Ceibal are compared with those from the nearby minor ceremonial center of Caobal to unders tand how animal use might have changed as smaller ceremonial centers developed in relation to the larger centers t hroughout the Preclassic period. Studies performed on

PAGE 30

30 Late and Terminal Classic states have shown that larger centers often have a broad er div ersity of taxa, especially marine taxa, than small centers nearby, suggesting individuals at the larger centers were in control of the inland trade networks (Sharpe 2011; Sharpe and Emery 2015); we might expect to see a version of these exchange networks a nd centralized control of certain products occur during the Preclassic period when comparing faunal remains between Ceibal and Caobal. Caobal is located about five kilometers from Ceibal, and if its sociopolitical history was similar to that of Ceibal, it would be expected to have used the same types of animals as were used at Ceibal for the same activities. Caobal might be expected to have had access to the same non local animal taxa if it was involved in the same exchange networks as Ceibal, and even thou gh its ceremonial core is much smaller than that of Ceibal, it might be expected to have been conducting similar ritual activities with animals. However, it is also possible that Caobal, and perhaps minor centers in general during the Preclassic period, di d not have access to the same animal resources as the major centers, and acquired and used animals for its own purposes, independent from those at the major centers. The latter scenario would provide evidence of a decentralized system of political and econ omic resource control among the early Preclassic developing states. The Inter s ite Study: Zooarchaeological Analyses from Across the Lowlands In addition to exploring animal use practices between community members within a single site, this study compares s uch practices among several lowland sites across Guatemala and Belize. The sites used in this comparison include Cei bal and Caobal in the Pasin area of the western Petn, San Bartolo and Xultun from the northeast Petn an Bartolo

PAGE 31

31 monumental centers established in th e Middle and Late Preclassic periods; with the exception of Cival, all of these sites had a Classic period occupational sequence as well, which allows for a long term comparison of the development of statehood at each of the sites. The first question the intersite study addresses is whether Preclassic Maya communities across the Petn focused on a similar subsistence and resource base, indicating a shared knowledge of how to acquire or raise certain animals for consumption and activities related to the sym bolic or ritual use of taxa and whether subsistence ritual, and crafting activities changed over time in a similar manner as sites developed into political states. The specific types of fauna are compared proportiona lly at every center to determine wheth er residents of the sites were acquiring and using the same animal taxa, and by extension, whether sites in the P reclassic period used a similar suite of animals as food, craft materials, and as symbols or for rituals The uses of animals for crafting dec orative objects and tools at each of the sites was more specifically examined by comparing which taxa were most often used and for what artifacts, in order to understand whether animal related crafting activities developed similarly across the Petn lowlan ds. T he inter site analysis also examines the extent to which marine fauna, particularly shells, were imported to the different sites over tim e. Marine shells are limited in distribution across the various coastlines, so tracking their source of origin pro vides fairly specific information about the likely routes of transport between inland communities and the coast. If marine taxa are similar with regard to species and

PAGE 32

32 proportions over time at th e sites, this would be evidence not only for shared values for the different taxa, but perhaps also for the development of an exchange netwo rk shared among the centers. Such an exchange network would also provide indirect evidence for a shared communication network between the sites, since exchange networks would hav e been the means of sharing news and information as well as goods. If marine taxa are dissimilar between the sites, or dissim ilar between regions, this might indicate not only differences in marine shell preferences, but also that there were different trade routes used among different sites, and that the different regions were not very closely linked. This part of the study also compares marine shells recovered and identified from the site of Cerros on the coast of Belize, wher e the most common shell types used at inland sites were available, in order to determine which taxa were imported inland. It compares reported faunal identifications from other Preclassic peri od Maya and Olmec sites to determine the direction from which di fferent marine shells may have been exchanged overland. Finally, t he i nter site analysis investigates whether the different Petn sites used the same animal taxa for similar ritual functions, which would indicate a degree of familiarity with the same symbol s and pract ices. We might expect that the development of widely recognized political symbols would have helped foster the growth of Maya states and establish political power for those individuals who were able to acquire the correct animal taxa for perform ing specific ritual activities at the monumental centers. Preclassic sites that also had a Classic period component might be expected to have evidence of early Preclassic ritual activities that resemble d those that were performed when the site became a pol itical state if there was continuity in animal ritual activities

PAGE 33

33 over the centuries. However, it is also possible that Preclassic ritual activities differed from those in the later Classic period times, revealing dissimilarities and a possible disassociati on between t he use of fauna in the early states in comparison to fully developed state level society. Significance of Research This investigation examines how animal resources were intentionally used and controlled during the Middle and Late Preclassic per iods as part of the establish ment of the social inequality, political control, and economic complexity that typify the first Maya states. I examine Maya Preclassic period by comparing the use of different animal taxa over time, as resources used for subsistence, economic and trade relation ships, crafting activities, and as symbols and of ferings in ritual activities and therefore as elements in the development of social, economic, and poli tical inequality The Late Classic, Terminal Classic, and Postclassic periods have, until recently, been the prime focus of Maya archaeology. In the last fifteen years the discovery of previously unknown Preclassic sites (e.g., San Bartolo) and recent exc avations under Late Classic centers to uncover their Preclas sic forebears (e.g., Ceibal) have begun to shed new light on the mysterious origins of the Maya, and to call into question earlier assumptions concerning the timing and development of Maya stateho od. Investigating how the distribution and differential control of animal resources enabled status and power distinctions in growing communities over time may clarify how and when the earliest Maya states began. The results of the study show that, in term s of animal use, Preclassic protostates resembled th e fully developed states of the Classic period having a form of centralized government that controlled access to valued goods, distinct social hierarchies with an

PAGE 34

34 elite class whose consumptive patterns s et themselves apart from the lower classes, and a complex sys tem of animal product exchange. The results of the study also show that the early Preclassic states did not develop directly into the later Classic state system, but rather underwent a period of drastic change and political economic disruption concerning the types and uses of taxa during the Terminal Preclassic and Early Classic periods. This transition established the trends observed in the use of animals throughoiut the lowlands that continued u ntil the Te rminal Classic period. By track ing the uses of animals throughout the lowlands for a period of two millennia, from the Middle Preclassic through Terminal Classic, this study shows that the use of animals as products and symbols went through peri ods of stability and change that affected the entire Maya lowlands, therefore providing evidence of how trends in the Maya social, economic, and political system changed over time as well.

PAGE 35

35 Table 1 1. Timeline of the lowland Maya chronology. Period Dates Early Preclassic Middle Preclassic c 2000 1000 B.C. c 1000 400 B.C. Late Preclassic c 400 10 0 B.C. Protoclassic/Terminal Preclassic c 100 B.C. A .D. 20 0 Early Classic c A.D. 20 0 550 Late Classic c A.D. 550 80 0 Terminal Classic c A.D. 80 0 1000 Postclassic c A.D. 1000 Spanish arrival

PAGE 36

36 Figure 1 1. Map of Guatemala and Belize, featuring the four major Preclassic study areas.

PAGE 37

37 CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND TO THE PRECLASSIC PERIOD AND INVESTIGATION SITES The precise definitions of what characterizes and differentiates the Preclassic and Classic periods of Maya history have changed over the years as a result of new discoveries and more intensive scrutiny of the slow and often intermittent changes in state development, technologica l innovation, and landscape alteration that occurred throughout the Mesoamerican lowlands. This chapter reviews the past and ongoing research into the Preclassic period and its transition into the Classic period. In addition, the chapter provides an overvi ew of the Preclassic period in the four lowland regions that are the central focus of the present investigation (Ceibal, Cival/Holmul, San Bartolo/Xultun, and Cerros), including the histories of the sites under investigation within each region and the zooa rchaeologic al investigations that were conducted at these sites prior to the current study. Overview of the Preclassic Period Although ranges vary, the Preclassic period is often cited as having begun around 2000 B.C. and having lasted until A.D. 20 0 (refe r to Table 1 1 for the lowland Maya chronological periods) The arbitrary nature of these specific chronological boundarie s has become increasingly apparent over the last few decades, as archaeologists have uncovered new evidence detailing the course of se ttlement growth in the Maya region, particularly in the lowla nds of Guatemala and Belize, the area of focus for this study. By convention, the start of the Preclassic period coincided with what was thought to be the origin of agriculture, particularly maiz e, in the lowland Maya area (Coe 2005:26) Based on the first analyses of pollen g rains from sediment cores, the origin of agriculture in the area was once estimated to be 2000 B.C. (Jones 1994) ;

PAGE 38

38 however, as increasingly more pollen analyses have been performed in the last two decades, the earliest evidence of definitive maize agriculture has been pushed back to at least 3400 B.C. (Leyd en 2002; Pohl et al. 1996; Rue et al. 2002) with macrofossil evidence from highland Mexico dating to at least 4000 B.C. ( Piperno and Flannery 2001 ). Genetic evidence now suggests Zea mays diverged between maize and teosinte in southern Mexico around 7000 B.C. ( Matsuoka et al. 2002 ). Therefore, the initial start of the Preclassic period in the Maya area, be it 2000 B.C. or earlier, is still debated. The Preclassic/Ear ly Classic transition of A.D. 20 0 was intended to mark the sudden appearance of a number of radical innovations in the Maya region, including masonry architecture, polychrome ceramics, and glyphic writing (Estrada Belli 2011:44) With many recent archaeological projects focusing on Preclassic period contexts, we now know that these innovations were not sudden, but rather there was a slow and steady development of masonry architecture beginning centuries before the E arly Classic period. P olychrome pottery appears at a number of sites by the Late Preclassic period (Estrada Belli 2011:45 46) and glyphic writing has been found on Late Preclassic lowland painted murals (Saturno et al. 2006 a and 2006b ) and highland incised monuments (Taube et al. 2010) The early appearance of glyph s suggests that the process of writing had already been refined to such a degree by the Late Preclassic period that there was some measure of shared continuity in script and symbolism throughout the region, and likely a much larger corpus of texts written on perishable materials that no longer exis t ( for early examples, see Carter and Dobereiner 2016 and Pendergast 1979:76, 78 ) The traditional view of the Preclassic period as a "formative" time of cultural development that suddenly blossomed into a "Classic" era of social

PAGE 39

39 achievements needs to be r eassessed, and is perhaps best viewed as a continuum of multiple sociopolitical and cultural changes over a long span of time. The first thousand years of Maya civilization is known as the Early Preclassic period (2000 1000 B.C.) when agriculture spr ead t hroughout the region as populations grew and more people entered the region Much of this evidence comes from Belize (Cuello 1991; Kosakowsky and Pring 1998) and the Mirador Basin of northern Guatemala (Wahl et al. 2007). Pollen evidence suggests that maiz e and other cultigens, includ ing species of squash, were grown in the lowlands in limited quantities millennia before the start of the Early Prec lassic (Pohl et al. 1996; Wahl et al. 2006 2007 ) The earliest known agricultural c ommunities have been found near rivers and perennial sources of water, often on hills and high points of terrain (Estrada Belli 2011:38 39; Fedick and Ford 1990; Lohse 2010; Lucero 1999) These early agriculturalists were most likely seeking prime locations on the landscape where they could have easy, year round access to water, could avoid seasonal floods, and had the broadest views across the surrounding area. Agricultural commodities w ere supplemented by hunting and foraging in the nearby forests. The scant faunal evidence that remains from this time, mainly from sites in northern Belize such as Pulltrouser Swamp (Covich 1983; Pohl et al. 1996) Cuello (Fradkin and Carr 2003; Wing and Scudder 1991), Colha (Shaw 1999) and San Antonio Ro Hondo (Bloom et al. 1983) suggests land and river snails, as well as freshwater clams and turtles, had a significant rol e in the Early Preclassic diet. Although these early communities usually consisted of a few low earthen mounds, likely supporting perishable thatch structures, many of these settlements would eventually become the locations of large stone residences centur ies later (Doyle 2013; Estrada

PAGE 40

40 Belli 2011:50 53; Ebert et al. 2016; Inomata et al. 2015 b ) Whether the later Preclassic inhabitants were direct descendants of these earliest communities, or simply opportunistic individ uals laying claim to prime real estate, is unknown The curre nt study has the potential to provide more information regarding these early centers by investigating the use of local resources across the Petn and addressing whether subsistence practices were consistent over long periods of time, which would suggest that these centers were occupied by the same social groups. The Middle Preclassic period (1000 400 B.C.) is oft en associated with the appearance of pottery in the Maya area. Cuello, a large farming community near the R o Hondo and New Rivers in northern Belize, has some of the earliest Maya pottery in the lowlands (c. 1200 B.C.) although the origins of this cerami c sphere remain a mystery (Kosakowsky and Pring 1998) Early ceramic evidence is also found in the Guatemalan highlands, possibly having been introduced through a route along the Pacific coast from Mexico or El Salvador (Inomata et al. 2014; Kosakowsky et al. 1999; Sharer and Gifford 1970) and in the Pas in Basin of central Guat emala, perhaps introduced from the highlands or by the Usumacinta River from the Gulf Coast (Clark and Cheetham 2002; Estrada Belli 2011:40 41; Lowe 1977; Sharer and Gifford 1970) Tracking the spread of these early ceramic types is particularly important for three reasons: first, these routes may coincide with the earliest migration routes people took to settle the Maya area; sec ond, these routes may have remained the primary avenues of contact, trade, and communication throughout the Preclassic period (and likely Cl assic as well); and third, the individuals living and trading along these routes may have shared a similar cultural history, with commun ities inhabiting one route involved in different sociocultural and

PAGE 41

41 economic interactions than those resident along another. The early spread of goods such as ceramics and, as this study examines, marine shells, is important to keep in mind when considering the organization and interactions of increasingly complex civic centers and states over time. In this study I examine the exchange of ma rine shells over land so as to identify early exchange networks and how they may have changed over the centuries The earliest masonry architecture in the lowlands including that which may be considered "monumental," also appeared during the Middle Preclassic period around 1000 700 B.C. (Doyle 2012; Garber et al. 2004 ; Healy et al. 2004; Inomata et al. 2013 ) These early monumental structures were built near the center s of communities and may have served as platforms for performances (Aimers and Rice 2006; Inomata 2006) as well as for physically and symbolically raising the residences of the early "elite members of the communities above the surrounding domiciles (Aimers et al. 2000; Hendon 2000) Many of these structures were aligned to the four cardinal direction s and were perhaps used to chart the movements of the sun and other celestial bodies across the sky while at the same time setting a precedent for the orientation of futu re structures nearby (Doyle 2012, 2013; Inomata et al. 2013; Rice 2004) In fact, many of the first Preclassic communities are more closely configured around the cardinal points than later Class ic centers, perhaps because later Classic structures and plazas were built at different intervals over the pre existing Preclassic settlements ( Doyle 2013; Estrada Belli 2011:67) At some sites, including Cerros (Freidel and Schele 1988), Cival (Estrada Belli 2006), and Ceib al (Inomata et al. 2016a ), jade and ceramic offerings were quincunx )

PAGE 42

42 arrangements toward the four cardinal directions. These types of foundation offerings occasionally had faunal remains, including mar ine shells, the significance of which is explored in the present study. Platform and pyramid construction continued at a rapid pace into the Late Preclassic period, likely dr iven by rising populations and, presumably, an increased degree of social inequal i ty (Inomata et al. 2015 a and b ; Sharer and Traxler 2006:178 179) Until recently, there has been very little evidence supporting the notion that Pr eclassic Maya society was anything more politically or economically complex than a chiefdom (Marcus 2003, 2004; Sharer and Traxler 2006:249 250) However, it has become increasingly clear that the symbolic origins of Classic Maya kingship, including the Ajaw or "lord" glyph, manifested in Preclassic times (Estrada Belli 2006; Saturno et al. 2006a) What is less certain is states, "polities when referring to the Classic period, were managed. It is also not clear what trade and communication routes existed across the lowlands and highlands. Although population estimates are always difficult to determine in the ancient past, Maya archaeologists generally bel ieve that populations during the Middle Preclassic period were relatively sparse, with only a few communities building monumental structures and plazas such as Ceibal, El Mirador, and Nakbe in the Petn (Hansen 1992, 2005 ; I nomata et al. 2013). Based on the rapid spread of certain ceramic styles like Mamom pottery, as well as evidence of postholes denoting perishable structures rather than masonry architecture for residences, some researchers suggest that communities were ephemeral and families moved ofte n (Estrada Belli 2011:52; Inomata et al. 2015 b ).

PAGE 43

43 Early monuments, although rare, these early monuments may have serv ed as centers for the sharing of technological and artistic innovations, such as Mamom ceramics. Some have argued that the large site of El Mirador was one of, if not the first, Maya urban capital center as far back as the Middle Preclassic, and that its b ase of power was fairly centralized given the number of sites in the region that appear to have been exchanging goods with this large community (Freidel et al. 2002; Hansen 2001, 2005). However, more recent investigations found that other sites, including Ceibal (Inomata et al. 2013, 2015 b ), were also fairly large durin g the Middle Preclassic and had monumental architecture that influence. By the Late Preclassic period whe n more monumental sites begin to appear on the landscape, ceramic types throughout the lowlands shared even more similarities, throughout the lowlands (Estrada Belli 2011:52 5 3; Willey et al. 1967). Architectural styles, including large stucco masks of monstrous jaguar like felines and the so called are found on many structures throughout the lowlands and exhibit remarkable similarity in design (Carrasco 2005; Estrada Belli 2006; Lucero 2007; Mathews 1985). This suggests that there were trained artists and craftspeople familiar with the same artistic techniques who could recreate these massive works of art and an expectation that the viewers would recog nize the shared symbols. T he evidence also suggests that there was a demand by the emerging elite class for these structures at

PAGE 44

44 the site ceremonial cores perhaps in part driven by the emerging elite ranks to secure their position Furthermore, in the Lat e Preclassic period large quantities of foreign items such as jade from the Motagua Valley (Hammond et al. 1977) and obsidian from t he volcanic Highlands (Aoyama 2016 ; Braswell 1996; Brown et al. 2004; Fowler et al. 1989; Moholy Nagy 2003) began to appear at small and large centers alike whereas previously these imported goods were mainly found at the largest centers. Shells, as well as possibly animals, were also exchanged a matter that the c urrent study investigates. Although we do not have enough infor mation to determine the extent to which these commercial networks were managed, such as by a more centralized or decentralized mode of control with the major sites of the time in charge, we do know that exchange was widespread and both small and large comm un ities were interacting under an increasingly standardized cultural sphere (Estrada Belli 2011:49 53; Hammond 1992; Reese Taylor and Walker 2002). Although the advent of masonry architecture, polychrome ceramics, and writing can no longer distinguish the Preclassic from Early Classic periods, there is now evidence that many of the Late Preclassic communities suffered a sociopol itical setback by around A.D. 200 possibly a consequence, in part of environmental stresses (Webster et al. 2007). This transiti on, sometimes termed the "Protoclassic" or "Terminal Preclassic" (Brady et al. 1998) is marked by a cessation of monumental construction at many lowland sites, including one of the largest Maya centers, El Mirador (Ha nsen 2001, 200 2 ) Many of these communities were completely abandoned. The fall of El Mirador alone, which was likely a major trade hub in the lowland interior, may have

PAGE 45

45 initiated the collapse of several nearby communities that had been reliant on its e conomic success (Estrada Belli 2011:119 122; Reese Taylor and Walker 2002) Some scholars have argued that the lowland abandonment was the result of the long term accumulation of agricultural sediment s in the shallow lakes and swamps ( bajos ) that had been nece ssary for irrigation and raised field crops, and there is palynological and geomorphological evidence that many of the seasona l swamps that exist today were perennial wetlands thousands of years ago (Beach et al. 2009 2015; C urtis et al. 199 8 ; McKilliop 2002; Rosenmeier et al. 2002; Webster e t al. 2007) Others have suggested an attack by foreign invaders based on evidence from Terminal Preclassic defensive architecture that includes hastily constructed walls and ditches (Estrada Belli 2011:131 133; Hansen 2001; Marcus 2003:80) Many archaeologists have adopted the stance that both environmental degradation (Dunning and Beach 2000; Dunning et al. 2002) and warfare (Hammond et al. 1991:41 42; Marcus 2003:81 82; Saul and Saul 1991:149 151) in addition to economic instability (Reese Taylor and Walker 2002), worked together to varying degrees in different regions to bring about the Preclassic/Early Classic transition. Regardless, new k ings were beginning to emerge in the lowland ar ea by A.D. 300 400, and former minor communities such as Tikal were taking advantage of the power vac uum supplied by the politically devastated Preclassi c civic centers to grow into expansive Maya states. Over view of the Sites under Investigation T he following section provides background information on the four regions, possibly early polities, involved i n the present study. These areas include the following sites: Ceibal and its minor ceremonial neighbor, Caob al; San Bartolo and its minor Preclassic neighbor, Xultun, the latter of which developed to become a massive Early

PAGE 46

46 and Late Classic center; Holmul and Cival in the Holmul Basin, along with several adas (the latter, like Xultun, developed into a large Classic center centuries later); and Cerros, the only Belizean and coastal site in this study. Because the site of Ceibal has significantly more faunal material than the other sites under examination an d a longer and more continuous occupation it is the main focus of the investigation. All communities in the present study are considered early ceremonial centers, given the fact that they all had monumental architecture and central plazas that would have been used for public performances and in certain cases may have been occupied by the emerging elite class residents The site ceremonial cores were surrounded by a residential periphery, often made up of numerous patio groups of a few structures where do m estic activities took place. The status ranks of those living at these residential groups during the Preclassic period is still unclear at all sites. Most of the faunal material was excavated from the ceremonial site cores, since this was the primary focus compared separately in this study, because excavations at the residences yielded a substantial faunal assemblage to compare with the Ceibal site core. Ceibal The si te of Ceibal (formerly "Seibal ", Figures 2 1 and 2 2 ) was a lowland center in the Pasin regio n of Guatemala, with occupation originating at the beginning of the Middle Preclassic and lasting well into the Terminal Classic period ( Table 2 1 ; Inomata et al. 2013, 2015 b ; Willey 1990) The site's long occupational history, unusual for a Maya community in the lowlands, may be attributable to its strategic location on the Pasin River, a tributary of the much larger Usuma cinta River that flows north into the

PAGE 47

47 Gulf of Mexico. The Pasin R iver basin is a large watershed used for milpa (maize and other cultigens) farming in western Guatemala today (Dunning 2004; Dunning and Beach 2000) and may have served a ver y similar function in the past. Although the local environment around Ceibal today is mostly deforested ( with the exception of the small park the archaeological s ite occupies ) until a few decades ago the region was covered by dense forest vegetation. The river abuts the eastern bank of the site. In addition to river resources, the Ceibal inhabitants would have had access to the wetlands that extend from the opposi te shore of the river, as well as oxbow lakes and aguadas (shallow ponds or pools) nearby. Radiocarbon and ceramic dating across the site, including the central ceremonial monum ental architecture, including platforms and a plaza, may have been constructed including the very act of constructing the early monuments themselves, may have attract ed individuals living in and traveling between the dispersed settlements o f the area (Inomata et al. 2015a ). A number of other ancient Maya settlements have been identified in the river basin, including Dos Pilas, Aguateca, Altar de Sacrificios, and Tamarindito (Demarest 1997, 2006 ) These communities coexi sted alongside Ceibal throughout much of the later Classic period, although excavations ( Inomata et al. 2009, 2013 2015a and b ) suggest Ceibal likely predated these other large centers by several hundred years, and may have been one of the last to be vacated during the Terminal Classic "collapse."

PAGE 48

48 Like many of the larger Maya centers first discovered by the early intrepid archa eologists and explorers in the Petn jungle, Ceibal has had an extensive excavation history that continued until 2015 (Pinzn and Inomata 2015). Working under the aegis of Harvard University's Peabody Museum in the late 1800s, Teobert Maler was one of the first investigators to produce a detailed map, drawings, and photos of Ceibal's site core and monumental structures, including stelae (Maler 1908; Schele and Matthews 1999:175) Later investigations sponsored by the Carnegie Institute of Washington were conducted by Sylvanus Morley (1937) in 1914 in an effort to record the glyphs found on the stelae and other monuments. Formal excavations did not begin at the site until 1 964, under the direction of Gordon R. Willey of the Peabody Museum (Graham 1990; Willey 1990) Excavations lasted through 1968, producing a revised site map of the core and its peripheries (Tourtellot 1988) and the first chronological history of the site based on ceramic data, one of the most thorough analyses performed at a Maya site at the time (Sabloff 1973, 1975; Smith 1982) A s econd series of excavations was begun by the Ceibal Petexbatun Archaeological Project (PACP) in 2005 (Ponciano et al. 2006) an international collaborative eff ort under the direction of Takeshi Inomata and Daniela Triadan of the University of Arizon a, Kazuo Aoyama of the University of Ibaraki, Japan, and Eric Ponciano, Flory Pinz n, Victor Castillo Aguilar and Juan Manuel Palomo of the Institute of Anthropology and History (IDAEH) Guatemala. The original excavations at Ceibal focused on mapping and investigating those monuments vi sible on or near the site surface (Tourtellot 1988, 1990) and so the majority of what is known of Cei bal's settlement organization pertains to its later Late and Terminal Classic occupation, but not its earlier site history. This later settlement

PAGE 49

49 pattern is what is observable at the site today, and is distinguished by three major hilltop groups (Groups A, C, and D), and a surrounding periphery of smaller patio groups, house mounds, platforms, and terraces, extending several kilometers around the site. The three principal groups are connected by a T shaped causeway. Excavations conducted by the Peabody Muse um first noted a large disparity in the timing of when these groups were initially built and occupied (Sablo ff 1975; Tourtellot 1988: 27 30, 39 5 402 ) identifying a Preclassic settlement underneath the large Late and Terminal Clas sic str uctures of Groups A and C, whereas later building efforts were concentrated in Group D, closer to the river. Ceramic and other artifactual analyses ( Inomata et al. 2016b Sabloff 1975; Smith 1982; Willey 1978) revealed Ceibal had two political apices, the first in the Late Preclassic and the se cond in the Terminal Classic, during which large sc ale construction projects and activity in the nearby peripheral patio groups were at their peak These two periods were separated by an interval of relative social dormancy, marked by a cessation of monumental construction projects and few artifactual rema ins. The reasons for this latent period remain unclear (Ponciano et al. 2007) Ceibal reached a second f lorescence relatively late compared to other Classic period sites in the lowland Maya region (Tourtellot and Gonzalez 2005) during a time when many nearby centers were suffering from a socioeconomic collapse that has been attri buted to a combination of rampant inter site warfare and environmental degradation (Demarest 2006; Houston and Inomata 2009 :288 295 ; Wright 2006) Ceibal boasts one of the last known dated monuments in all of the lowland area (Tourtellot and Gonzalez 2005) erected in 889 A.D. and marking the end of Classic Maya civilization in this region.

PAGE 50

50 Although t here is still interest in the later Classic occupation at Ceibal (e.g. Bazy and Inomata 2016 ) recent excavations focused their attention on the earl ier Preclassic occupation. Even though Preclassic sites ar e well documented in the Belize and northeast ern Petn region s (Estrada Belli 2011; Hammond 1991; Scarborough and Robertson 1986) and Guatemalan highlands ( Arroyo 2007a and b; Houston et al. 2005; Inomata et al. 2014; Popenoe de Hatch 2002) comparab ly little is known of this period in the Petexbatun region. Renewed excava tions by the PACP determined that the original Preclassic occupation of Ceibal was much older and considerably more extensive than had been originally believed (I nomata et al. 2013 2015 b ) In addition to developing a cultural heritage conservation effort at the site (Inomata and Castillo Aguilar 2012:2) the PACP's primary goals have been to obtain a better understanding of this initial Preclas sic occupation, through intensive excavation s in both the monumental core and periphery structures and by utilization of new methods that were not available to archaeologists in the 1960s. These latter methods include AMS radiocarbon dating to produce a more accurate chronological history of the site ( Inomata et al. 2013) as well as flotation and fine screening in certain deposits to collect archaeobotanical and microfaunal remains for environmental and dietary reconstructions (Nasu 2011; Yamada et al. 2011) New advances in human osteometrics and ceramic and lithic analysis still ongoing at Ceibal, also provide opportunities to investigate the social and economic history of the site ( Aoyama 2016 ; Aoyama and Munson 2012; Inomata et al. 2009 ; Palomo 2009, 2010, 2014 ) The majority of PAC P's excavation efforts were focused at the site core, mainly around Group A where the principal Preclassic occupation appears to have been

PAGE 51

51 (Figure 2 2) ; however, a number of excavations were also conducted at the surrounding peripheral mound groups (Burham and MacLellan 2013; Inomata et al. 2015 b ; Triadan et al. 2016 ), as well as at t he nearby site of Caobal (formerly "Anonal "; Figure 2 3 ; Munson 2012) The goal of these peripheral excavations was to determine the occupational history of the residential community living around Ceibal's ceremonial civic core, particularly to answer questions pertaining to the timing of mound occupation, the identities of those who in habited these mound groups, and what social and ritual activities took place in the periphery. Caobal is believed to have been a subordinate center of Ceibal based on similarities in its site core organization and construction fill materials (Munson 2012; Munson and Ino mata 2011) which also had a largely Preclassic occupation that may provi de information concerning inter site relations during the dev elopment of the first Pasin states (Aoyama and Munson 2012) The zooarchaeological material in the present study comes from Ceibal's core and periphery groups, as well as Caobal's central plaza and surrounding core structures. Contexts ra nge from architectural collapse and construction fill to middens, burials, and various ceremonial caches, the latter of which were particul arly prevalent in the Central Plaza of Gro up A and a focus of intensive excavations (Inomata et al. 2016a ; Pinzn 2011, 2012; Pinzn and Muylder 2014; Pinzn and Romn 2010) Preservation of faunal material at Ceibal, both bones and shel ls, is superior to many other sites in the lowland area. This has contributed to a considerable amount of zooarchaeological material recovered from all parts of the site. Preservation of organic remains is n otoriously poor in the Maya region where acidic s oils prevail (Emery 2004 a ; Stanchly 2004 ) but it is possible that the lack of soil disturbance and significant depth of

PAGE 52

52 occupational context s (usually one to several meters below the surface) has helped promote preservation. The present study focuses on the Prec lassic material recovered at the site. A previous faunal study performed at Ceibal was conducted b y Mary Pohl (1976, 1990) and was based on the material recovered in the 1960s which focused on the Late and Terminal Classic occupations. Pohl's analysis was one of the first comprehensive zooarchaeolo gical studies conducted in the Mesoamerica area, examining such issues as ritual activities (particularly burials), differential access to resources based on status, and hunting and husbandry strategies (e.g., Pohl 1985, 1990, 1994) The current zooarchaeological study provides an opportunity to build on these topics, as well as to incorporate other areas of inquiry, including issues of long term human environment interaction s the rise of early states and heightened social inequalit y inter and intra site trade and economics, and craft specialization. Holmul and Cival The Holmul Archaeological Project (HAP) is an investigation focused on several ancient Maya sites of varying sizes and chronological periods scattered throughout the H olmul River Basin of the northeast Petn Guatemal a (Figure 2 4 ; Estrada Belli 2002, 2005; Estrada Belli et al. 2003; Estrada Belli and Koch 2007) At one time, this part of the Petn was a region of densely populated ceremonial civic communities interspersed with agricultural fields and gardens (Es trada Belli and Wahl 2010; Wahl et al. 2013) Today the area is largely inaccessible, and covered by dense forest with inte rmittent patches of scrub and thorny bamboo groves surrounding low lying, often seasonal swamps known as bajos The earliest evidence of habitation in the region appears in the Middle Preclassic (Estrada Belli and Wahl 2010:5) in the form of small

PAGE 53

53 agricultural settlements of one or a few mounds The majority of these early mounds are found on the highest points of elevation throughout the basin, perhaps in an attempt to make use of the most arable soil and to manage terraces on the hillsides (Estrada Belli 2011:39) It was from these original, unassuming agricultural centers that many of the later large scale monumental centers emerged. The HAP is the first formal excavati on endeavor in the Holmul Basin and began in 2000 under the direction of Francisco Estrada Belli (Estrada Belli 2002; Estrad a Belli et al. 2000) Several of the sites in the region, including the site of Holmul itself ( Figure 2 5), had been mapped and briefly excavated by Raymond E. Merwin and George Vaillant (1932) for the Harvard University Peabody Museum in 1911. These early excavations are noteworthy for having produced the earliest ceramic sequence in the lowland area (Estrada Belli 2011:45) R esults of the excavations also suggested that the site of Holmul may have been a large ad ministrative center which boasted monumental architecture as far back as the Early Classic period Recent archaeological excav ations conducted by the HAP revealed Holmul's history extends back even further into the past possibly to the Middle Preclassic period (Estrada Belli 2012; Estrada Belli and Wahl 2010:23) One of the project's primary goals is to determine how state level society developed in the Holmul Basin. Annual excavations focused on a number of different sites of varying sizes throughout the region, including Cival, La Sufricaya, Hamontun, K'o, and Dos Aguadas (e.g. Estrada Belli 2007; 20 09, 2012; Estada Belli et al. 2009; Foley 2005; Paling et al. 20 08 ; Tomasic 2009; Tomasic and Bozarth 2011; Velsquez Lpez 2011) the fauna of which are included in the present study. The site of Holmul

PAGE 54

54 has remained the p roject's principal focus, because of its large size and long occupational history, exceeding that of the majority of other sites in the area. Thus far, excavations suggest that Cival (Figure 2 6 ) was the o riginal, politically dominant center in the region during the Mid dle Late Preclassic period (Estrada Belli 2005; Velsquez Lpez 2011) ; afterward, the center of power in the region shifted to Holmul during the later Classic period. Cival appears to have suffered a political and economic decline a long with several other Preclassic sites in the northern Petn and Belize, including one of the largest Maya cities ever built, El Mirador in the nearby Mirador Basin (Estrada Belli 2011:128) Although the reason for this Terminal Preclassic socioeconomic collapse is unclear, it was apparently the impetus for the development of Holmul as a Classic period capital and politically dominant center until the end of the Terminal Classic period ( Callaghan 2013; Estrada Belli and Tokovinine 2016). Although Cival reached political prominence centuries before Holmul, both sites have their origins in th e Middle Preclassic period ( 1000 800 B.C. ). The two sites are only a few kilometers apart and likely served as centers of ceremonial activity, which may have allowed local rulers to gain power and prestige in the region while at the same time uniting the surrounding farming communities (Estrada Belli 2005, 2006) E groups (a set of structures often oriented toward the east; see Aimers and Rice 2006 and Doyle 2012) adorned with large stucco masks of ancient deities, particularly sun, ra in, and underworld figures, were recently discovered at both of these sites ( Estrad a Belli 2014). Early Classic structures built at Holmul during th e time of Cival's abandonment also exhibit distinctly Central Mexican traits (Estrada Belli et al. 2009) indicating that these sites may have been involved in the theorized Entrada event.

PAGE 55

55 Braswell (2003) proposes that during this event a gro up of elites and their entourage journeyed from Teotihuacan, the largest city in Central Mexico during the Classic period, into both the lowland and highland regions of Guatemala. Reasons for this journey and its immediate aftermath remain unclear, althoug h a number of Teotihuacan style artifacts and architectural designs have been found throughout the lowlands (Estrada Belli 2011:122 127; Houston and Inomata 2009:106 106 ; Laporte 1997 ) including the site of Holmul. Remnants of a painted mural at an Early Classic subordinate center near Holmul, La Sufricaya, de pict a possi ble rendition of this Entrada event (Estrada Belli et al. 2009; Foley 2007; Tokovinine 2007) The present z ooarchae ological analysis of the sites in the Holmul Basin allows for the opportunity to investigate the role of animal resources in the rise of political power in this region, and how this power may have shifted over time particularly during the politically tumultuous Early Classic per iod By identifying the subsistence and ritual uses of animal taxa at the monumental site cores and the neighboring minor centers how early agricultural communities were managed in the Midd le Preclassic, how early status inequalities rose as a result of differential control of specific faunal species, and to what extent inhabitants of the Holmul region were involved in the long distance exchange of marine resources. The surrounding sites tha t have been excavated, many of which include evidence of a Preclassic occupation (Estrada Belli 2005) can provide further information as to whether they closely resembled (and were potentially controlled by ) the largest site s in the region namely Cival and Holmul, or were only loosely affiliated

PAGE 56

56 with these sites and managed their own resources and political affairs independently including the use of fauna for rituals and the importation of exotic marine items San Bartolo and Xultun The accidental discovery of a remarkably preserved painted mural at the previously undocumented site of San Bartolo ( Figures 2 7 and 2 8 ) in 2001 launched what would become known as the San Bartolo Xultun Regional Archaeological Project (Saturno 2002; Saturno et al. 2006 a and 2006b ) The project focuses on two ceremonial administrative centers in the northeast Petn believed to have once been part of the same polity (Garrison and Dunning 2009; Saturno and Rivera Castillo 2012:580) San Bartolo is the smaller of the two, with excavations having begun in 2002 and continuing through to today. Xultun, located 8 km to the south, is considerably larger ( Figure 2 9; Rivera Castillo and Saturno 2012:3) ; although mapped by Eric von Ew (1978) and the Carnegie Institute of Washington in 1975, excavations did not begin until 2008 (Urquiz and Saturno 2008) Both sites are located several kilometers from the nearest river, the Ixcanro, and were surrounded by intermittent dense forest and seasonal bajos lined with low canopy scrub brush (Garrison and Dun ning 2009). Although not a large site by lowland Maya standards, San Bartol o's murals are some of the oldest and best preserved murals discovered in Mesoamerica to date, with a radiocarbon age estimate of 100 B.C. ( Figures 2 10 and 2 11; Saturno et al. 2006 a ) These murals are significant not just for their age, but because they depict a local ruler being crowned with a mantle in a formal ceremony (Freidel 2008:198; Saturno 2009; Saturno et al. 2004) considered to be one of the earliest depictions of a king" in the Maya area. Furthermore, the majority of the mural scenes uncovered thus far alongside the king depict ancient origin and heroic myths that can be directly associated with the

PAGE 57

57 Popol Vuh a Maya book of myths transcribed into Spanish in the 18th century (Saturno et al. 2004, 2005, 2006 a ) This indicates the Maya maintained a remarkable degree of continuity in their religion, mythology, and symbolism over a period of nearly 2000 years. As a site, San B artolo probably served as a ceremonial center in the local area, and may have been the capital of a small early polity during the Late Preclassic period (Sat urno 2002; Saturno et al. 2006 a ) The majority of the structures at the site date to this Late Preclassic occupation, with several structures boasting ceremonial stucco masks of ancient deities and at least two plazas with ballcourts (Saturno et al. 2006 a and 2006b ; Urquiz and Saturno 2008) The site appears to have been rapidly and completely abandoned by the Early Classic period (Garrison 2004) coinciding with the abandonment of several nearby sites, including Cival a nd El Mirador (Estrada Belli 2011:128 133) A second wave of inhabitants came to briefly occupy the site during the Late Classic p eriod (Craig 2004; Saturno 2002) These ind ividuals reused and renovated several of the older structures (Davies 2012), including the Preclassic palace (Runngaldier 2009) ; however, they appear to have avoided the large pyramid c omplex containing the murals. Similar to the case of Cival and Holmul, it has been speculated that the Preclassic inhabitants of San Bartolo may have moved to Xultun during the Early Classic period (Garrison 2004; Saturno and Rivera Castillo 2012 b ) Although excavations have only recently been underway, there is evidence that Xultun began as a small hilltop c ommunity during the Middle Preclassic, since ceramic sherds dating to this period have been recovered from the highest point of elevation at the site ( del Cid

PAGE 58

58 et al. 2012; Rivera Castillo 2012:485 486) This particular location is also underneath the largest structure at the site (Str. 12H3), built up over several consecutive stages throughout the Early and Late Classic periods ( del Cid et al. 2012) Preclassic sherds have been found in a number of location s at Xultun thus far (Rivera Castillo 2012) primarily in the two larges t ceremonial plaza g roups, A and B. These groups contain the largest monumental structures at the site, several exceeding 20 meters in height, and which mainly date to both the Early and Late Classic periods (Rivera Castillo and Saturno 2012) Interestingly, Early and Late Classic murals have recently been discovered in Group A (Hurst 2012; Saturno et al. 2011) with one depicting a king and his attendants near a lunar calendar (Saturno et al. 2012 b ) Other ceremonial architecture, mostly in the form of stucco masks d epicting mythological figures in the Maya underwo rld, has been found on Early Classic structures around the site (Saturno et al. 2012 a ; Wildt 2015) This remarkably preserved art rare in the Maya region, s uggests a link with San Bartolo. I t is conjectured that th e rulership of San Bartolo may have moved its seat of power to Xultun at the end of the Late Preclassic period. In 2008 I performed a prel iminary analysis of the vertebrate faunal remains recovered at San Bartolo between the 2002 2006 field seasons (Sharpe 2009; Sharpe et al. 2014) This analysis did not include the mollusk material that had been recovered during these y ears. The analysis compared the Preclassic and Late Classic occupational periods at the site core and identified several distinct differ ences between the two periods. The present study will examine both bone and shell remains excavated

PAGE 59

59 from the core and peripheries of the site, and incorporate Preclassic and Early Classic material excavated at nearby Xultun. Cerros (Cerro Maya) Cerros ( Fig ure 2 12 ), also known as Cerro Maya, is a predominantly Late Preclassic site located on the northern Belizean coast by the Corozal Bay, near the mouth of the New River (Robertson and Freidel 1986) The site was excavated by the Cerros Pro ject under the direction of David Freidel from 1974 1981 (Garber 198 9; Robertson and Freidel 1986) and later by Debra Walker as part of the Cerros Cooperative Archaeological Development Project from 1993 1995 (Walker 2013) Both projects focused their excavations on the monumental site core, today located on the top of an escarpment by the sea. Other excavations ex amined the residential communities surrounding this ceremonial acrop olis, the majority of which were at one time separated f rom the acropolis by a canal made by the site residents (Cliff 1986; Scarborough 1983, 1986a) Cerros was one of the first Preclassic sites to be intensively investigated by archaeologists, providing some of the earliest evidence of ceremonial architecture, ritual activities, and polity developm ent in the Maya lowlands. The core of the site is relatively small, with four pyramidal structures located on a raised acropolis (Freidel 1986) Several caches containing smashed vessels, shells, and jade were found in and around this acropolis (Freidel et al. 2002; Garber 1983; Walker 1998, 2013) and one E Group structure boasts stucco masks similar to those found at San Bartolo, Cival, and Holmul (Estrada Belli 2011:104 ; Schele and Freidel 1990) The site's unique position on a jut of land, today known as Lowry's Point, may have been the reason a ceremonial center was situated on the edge of the sea where there exists a clear vantage of the rising sun

PAGE 60

60 and other astron omical phenomena (Aimers and Rice 2006; Schele and Freidel 1990 ; Vadala and Milbrath 2014, 2016 ) The ancient landscape around Cerros during the time of the Maya was likely very different from the landscape today. Cerros is largely inaccessible because of the dense surrounding forest, but archaeobotanical analysis indicates that much of the area had been cleared for agricul ture during the Middle and Late Preclassic periods (Crane 1996) C onstruction of the canal, perhaps intended both to segregate the surrounding residential community from the ceremonial acropol is and to provide a catchment for fresh water, was orchestrated during the Late Preclassic period while stone was quarried for the co nstruction of the core building s (Scarborough 1983, 1986b) Other ditches were found around the site and connected to the canal, presumably used for irrigation purposes. The canal was maintained through much of the Preclassic and beginning of the Early Classic period, possibly thr ough community involvement (Reese Taylor and Walker 2002) However, cleaning of the canal ceased when the central part of the site was abandoned, around 400 A.D. or even earlier (Reese Taylor an d Walker 2002; Vadala 2016). It is theorized the site may have suffered a decline at the end of the Late Preclassic along with many of the inland centers with which Cerros may have once served as an important coastal trade hub (Freidel et al. 2002) The site was briefly re inhabited during the Postclassic period by a considerably smaller population than during its Preclassic apogee (Robertson and Freidel 1986 ; Walker 2016 ) The majority of the vertebrate faunal material from Cerros was identified and reported on by Helen Sorayya Carr (Carr 1986; Robertson and Freidel 1986) but the shell remains were only partially identified (Hamilton 1987) and these initial shell

PAGE 61

61 identifications did not distinguish between Preclassic, Postclassic, and modern surface deposits The present study focuses exclusively on the invertebrate assemblage (both marine and freshwater) that has not been identified or in any way studied pr eviously, an d which was identified by me for the purposes of this study. The invertebrate fauna at Cerros can be used to compare with the inland sites, examining such questions as which taxa were imported to the Petn and why, how many taxa were imported, which taxa were not imported, and whether Cerros was using the same species of marine shells for ritual practices and crafting as were inland sites performing similar activiti es Summary of the Preclassic Period in the Maya Lowlands Original assumptions r egarding what defined the Preclassic and Classic periods were developed on the basis of the earliest investigations in the Maya lowlands that focused on th e largest, most visible archaeological sites on the landscape, most of which were Classic period site s that overshadowed earlier structures or were constructed upon earlier Preclassic foundations. These early investigations, which for many decades lacked the precise radiocarbon dating frequently employed today, created the false impression that the Maya e njoyed a brief sociocultural florescence or appearance and disappearance of large scale monumental architecture, polychrome pottery, glyphic writing, and presumably, the strongly hierarchal society that was responsible for these innovations. Just as archaeologists recognize today that the Maya A.D. 900 and that their descendants are coordinating many of the archaeological projec ts throughout Mesoamerica investigating their own heritage, archaeologists working in the Maya region now understand that there is no rigid boundary that defines the Preclassic and Classic periods. Technological

PAGE 62

62 and social changes did not progress together in a steady linear fashion, and instead varied across the lowlands from region to region. Furthermore, ongoing excavations and more intensive application of radiocarbon dating techniques are pushing back the dates ural activities were taking place. The next chapter examines the role of animals and animal resources in May a society during the Preclassic and later periods of occupation to explore th e connections between the socio p olitical changes discussed at the vario us sites described in this chapter and how animals may have been used at these communities.

PAGE 63

63 Table 2 1. Ceibal ceramic chronology. Period Ceramic Phase Years Early Middle Preclassic Real Xe 1 950 850 B.C. Real Xe 2 850 800 B.C. Real Xe 3 800 700 B.C. Late Middle Preclassic Escoba Mamom 1 700 600 B.C. Escoba Mamom 2 600 450 B.C. Escoba Mamom 3 450 350 B.C. Late Preclassic Cantutse Chicanel 1 350 300 B.C. Cantutse Chicanel 2 300 200 B.C. Cantutse Chicanel 3 200 100 B.C. Terminal Preclassic Xate 1 100 B.C. A.D. 50 Xate 2 A.D. 50 125 Xate 3 A.D. 125 200 Early Classic Junco 1 A.D. 200 300 Junco 2 A.D. 300 400 Junco 3 A.D. 400 450 Classic Hiatus A.D. 450 600 Late Classic Tepejilote Tepeu 1 A.D. 600 720 Tepejilote Tepeu 2 A.D. 720 760 Tepejilote Tepeu 3 A.D. 760 810 Terminal Classic Bayal A.D. 810 900

PAGE 64

64 Figure 2 1. Map of the three core groups at Ceibal, Guatemala. Map modified from Burham and MacLellan 2014: Figure 2

PAGE 65

65 Figure 2 2. text are labeled in red. Modified from Smith 1982: Map 1.

PAGE 66

66 Figure 2 3. Map of the surveyed area of the Ceibal Park including the locations of Ceibal (Group A) and Caobal. Map modified from Munson and Inomata 2011: Figure 2.

PAGE 67

67 Figure 2 4. Map of the Holmul region and the focus of excavations conducted by the Holmul Archaeological Project. Sites involved in the present study are denoted in red. White marks denote the extent of the mapped settlement, while the area within the white dashed region designat es the Holmul residential area. Map modified from Estrada Belli et al. 2016: Figure 1; original topographic data courtesy of NASA AIRSAR Star3i 1999 mission

PAGE 68

68 Figure 2 5. Map of the central core of Holmul, Guatemala. Map courtesy of the Holmul Archaeological Project (after Estrada Belli 2011: Figure 4.4)

PAGE 69

69 Figure 2 6. Map of the main groups at Cival, Guatemala. Map courtesy of the Holmul Archaeological Project (after Velsquez Lpez 2011: Figure 3)

PAGE 70

70 Figure 2 7. Map of the San Bartolo and Xultun region Map courtesy of the San Bartolo Xultun Regional Archaeological Pro j e ct (after Garrison and Dunning 2009: Figure 3).

PAGE 71

71 Figure 2 8. Map of the major groups ("complexes") at San Bartolo, Guatemala. Map courtesy of the San Bartolo Xultun Regional Archaeological Project (after Garrison and Dunning 2009: Figure 4)

PAGE 72

72 Figure 2 9. Map of Xultun as of 2012, courtesy of the San Bartolo Xultun Regional Archaeological Project, 2016

PAGE 73

73 Figure 2 10. Detail of the North Wall mural from San Bartolo, depicting the Maize Deity and his consort outside what may be the mythical Flower Mountain, home of various wild animals. Illustration by Hurst (modified from Urquiz and Saturno 2003). Figure 2 11. Detail from the West Wall mural from San Bartolo, depicting the Hero Twin Hunahpu luring the Principal Bird Deity from the sky through genital autosacrifice and the sacrifice of various animals. Illustration by Hurst (modified from Taube et al. 2010).

PAGE 74

74 Figure 2 12 Map of the core and periphery of Cerr os, Belize. Map modified from Scarborough 1991: Figure 2.1.

PAGE 75

75 CHAPTER 3 ZOOARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT POLITICAL ECONOM Y Animal resources would have been essential to all aspects of Maya life, from ritual to political to dietary needs, and would be expected to have had a role in developing Preclass ic Ma ya society. Animals were an integral part of the diet and subsistence pr actices of early societies, and in many, were controlled to some degree as symbols and r esources among the developing elite class as a means of securing power and p olitical ties. T hey may also have been markers of status wealth, and political authority in the Maya world, and as such, could have been used in the early ritual performances that elites or similar socially important figures conducted at the first monumental ceremonial centers (Hendon 2000; Inomata 2006; Looper 2009). The exchange and tribute of animals, including local and exotic taxa as w ell as crafted objects made of animal bone s and shells, would have also been important for establishing early alliances and trade networks in the developing economic system. This chapter is divided into two parts: first, the most commonly examined themes in zooarchaeology and political economy are examined in regard to what is known from Classic and Postclassic Mesoamerica including subsistence and diet, social inequality and power, crafting and exchange relat ions, and rituals and symbolism; second, the chapter reviews how other non Mesoamerican s ocieties used animal taxa to promote the development of state level society. The two sec tions consider how our current knowledge of Classic period and broader global uses of animals, both as symbols and as resources, may be used to ascertain the dynamic ro le of animals in the complex but still poorly understood Preclassic sociopolitical environment.

PAGE 76

76 Animal U se in Classic and Postclassic Mesoamerican States There has been increased interest in zooarchaeological studies around the world in recent decades, i ncluding the Mesoamerica area. The following four sections concern several important zooarchaeological themes as they pertain to Mesoamerican studies, with a focus on the Maya region in particular. These four topics have no clear divisions and any one them e relies heavi ly on the other three. T he distinctions among topics serve as loose ly defined vantages from which to examine the role of animals in ancient Classic Maya state society, which will in turn serve as the basis for inquiring into how these roles o riginally develop ed during the Preclassic period Subsistence and Diet : Hunting and Fishing It was once assumed the Maya lowland environment was homogen ous in terms of vegetation and animal life (Rathje 1971; Tourtellot and Sabloff 1972) and that because all settlements had access to the same species they were unified by a single "Maya diet Only in the l ast two decades has this myth been dispelled with the combined efforts of biologists and archaeologists (Emery 2004b, 2004c ; Marcus 2003:78) In reality, the lowland environment is characterized by a number of diverse ecosystems and ecotones, or transitional zones between ecosystems where many early Maya settlements originated (Estrada Belli and Wahl 2010; Fedick 1996; Fedick and F ord 1990; Yaeger and Robin 2004) Lowland ecosystems include mature and secondary forests, wetlands (seasonal and perennial), grasslands, and various river systems and lakes. Near the coast, environments may include fresh water, saltwater, and brackish marshes. Each of the diff erent water systems include s unique fish and mollusk species, which in turn are favored by particular land dwelling animals that may concentrate near these areas (Dunning et al. 1998) Furthermore, the lowland terrain is

PAGE 77

77 marked by numerous basins, escarpments, hills, and occasionally canyons and cave systems (Brady and Prufer 2005; Dunning et al. 2003; Dunning and Beach 2000, 2004) Maya settle rs who li ved in a particular ecosystem or ecotone would have known how to take advantage of the unique local wildlife and geography available to them. As such, they would have modified local environments and the landscape to varying degrees, including digging ditch es, canals, and reservoirs for irrigation and water control (Beach and Dunning 1997; Ford 1996; Lucero 1999; Scarborough 1983), terracing hillsides for agriculture (Dunning and Beach 1994; Fedick 1994; Healy et al. 1983), burning tracts of forest for growi ng crops and building communities (Abrams and Rue 1988; Deevey et al. 1979; Ross 2011), and possibly managing areas of the forest or making garden orchards ( Atran 1993, 2003; Fedick and Ford 1990; Ford and Nigh 2009, 2010). There is evidence th at unintenti onal consequences of these activities, such as soil erosion and soil nutrient depletion, also occurred (Beach et al. 2006, 2015; Brenner et al. 1990, 2002; Wahl et al. 2013). Unfortunately, because of the formerly prevalent assumption that Maya resources w ere more or less homogenous throughout the lowlands, many of the early faunal remains recovered from archaeological sites were either discarded or, if analyzed, were only included as a list of identified species in the appendices of project reports (Emery 2004b 2004c; also see Lyman 2015 for a discusson on the history of this practice in North American zooarchaeology ) Some of the first professional zooarchaeologists to move away from this habit in the Maya area included Elizabeth Wing and Mary Pohl, the former working mostly in the south central part of Mexico (Wing 1974, 1975, 1981) and the latter focusing on comparisons of faunal asse mblages

PAGE 78

78 from predominantly lowland Late Classic sites (Pohl 1976, 1983 1994 ) Wing and Pohl set a high bar for future zooarchaeologists working in the lowlands, challenging them to compare faunal assemblages between sites and time periods in order to gain an understanding of how subsistence practices among different Maya communities varied across time and space. They also addressed questions regarding animal husbandry and seasonal hunting practices based on the age or season of death of an animal (Pohl 1990; Pohl and Feldman 1982; Wing 1978, 2013; Wing and Scudder 1991). Although detailed questions such as these were being addressed in Old World faunal studies (Crabtree 1989, 1990; Meadow 1980; Zeder 1991) this was the first time they were investigated in Mesoamerican archaeology. Subsequent investigations into hunting and fishing practices have shown that the an cient Maya made use of a wide variety of resources. Sites on the coast obtained numerous different fish taxa, as well as sharks, rays, and manatees (e.g. Borhegyi 1961; Carr 1986; Cunningham Smith 2011; Haines et al. 2008; Hamblin 1984; McKillop 1984, 198 5; Wing 1981). Shellfish were also consumed in large quantities ( Beaubien 2004 ; Chase and Chase 1998b; Freidel et al. 2002; Hohmann 2002; McKillop and Winemiller 2004; Moholy Nagy 1963), and were often imported to inland sites, as will be discussed later i n this chapter. Freshwater taxa, including clams, snails, fish, crocodiles, and turtles, are also common in archaeological deposits across the lowlands (e.g. Emery 2003a and b; Healy et al. 1990; Masson 1999a and b; Powis 2004; Sharpe and Emery 2015; Thur ston and Healy 2010). Meticulous fine screening of special deposits has even uncovered the presence of Macrobrachium prawns (Emery 2005) and a wealth of diverse marine fauna (Beaubien 2004) at Copan indicating that although

PAGE 79

79 these taxa are difficult to tra ck in the faunal record, they were still a part o f the ancient subsistence base. Mammals and to a lesser extent, birds, are also found in many archaeological deposits. Deer and dogs are particularly common (Emery 2004e, 2010; Emery et al. 2000; Carr 1996; Montero Lopez 2009; White et al. 2004), although many small animals ranging from armadillos to raccoons to opossum s were eaten as well. Many mammals were likely used for secondary functions besides food, in that their pelts would have been worn as clothi ng or used as blankets, mats, and bags or wrappings (see, for example, Ker r Vases #748 and #2220; also Landa 1941:204 concerning hides). Some skins and skulls may have been set aside for use in displays and performances as costumes, evidence for which can be found in the archaeological record (e.g. a curated deer skull headdress found in situ at Cern, Brown 2002), art (e.g. the Bonampak murals), and ethnographic analogies (e.g. the cuch ritual, Pohl 1981). In addition, some animals m ay have been used fo r medicinal purposes. For example, modern ethno graphic accounts identified the widespread use of ground turtle shell as medicinals (Carr 1991; Emery 2011), and certain birds, including the ir bones and feathers, were recorded by the Spanish as having been c onsidered important for curing specific ailments (e.g. Corona Martnez 2008; Hernndez 1888 [1615]:260 261 and 269 describes the use of vulture feathers for curing wounds and entire hummingbirds for gout). Some archaeologists have also attempted to use l ipid residue analysis on ceramic vessels and lithic tools to identify ani mal fats, proteins, and blood. Although these studies have met with less success than those using stable isotopes because of

PAGE 80

80 preservation issues (Loughmiller Newman 2012), especially for older materials, several recent successes with Postclassic ston e tools (Meissner and Rice 2015 ) and Classic period ceramic vessels (Coytson 2002; Duffy and Garrett 2015; Duffy et al. 2016; Ma theson et al. 2008) imply that these techniques remain a prom ising avenue of inquiry that could assist future studies of subsistence and diet. Subsistence and Diet: The Domestication and Captivity of Animals It was originally believed that the Maya subsisted mainly by hunting and farming (see Morley 1955 and Thompso n 1970:306, the latter of whom believed hunting was work beneath the status of the elite class) as opposed to raising domesticated livestock as was done in other areas of the world, particularly Europe and the Middle East. However, consideration of Spanis h ethnohistoric accounts combined with zooarchaeology has changed this assumption. Pigs, goats, and other Old World domesticates are a mainstay of families who raise animals today in Mesoamerica (Fernndez et al. 2002; Levasseur and Olivier 2000; Nimis 1982:315 316) since they are relatively easy to ma nage and breed rapidly Dogs may have held the role that domestic pigs do today before the Spanish introduced the latter to the New World (Pohl and Feldman 1982) Isoto pic evidence (White et al. 2001) and Spanish records ( Landa 1941) confirm that dogs were fed large proportions of maize, and archaeological evidence shows that they were often killed before reaching full adulthood, much like many domesticated animals in the Old World (Clutton Brock and Hammond 1994) Although chickens, ducks, and t urkeys are commonly raised by households today, only the latter bird species was domesticated in Mesoamerica. Until recently it was thought that the wil Meleagris gallopavo ), the turkey species native to central Mexico and northward, was introduced to the tropical Maya lowlands

PAGE 81

81 during the Postclassic period (A.D. 1000 or later). This belief was a consequence of the dearth of bones f rom either species of turkey (including the local ocellated t urkey, Meleagris ocellata ) in many Preclassic and Early Classic period sites, combined with the difficulty of distinguishing between the northern t urkey and the ocellated turkey (Thornton and E me ry 2015; Emery et al. 2016; Thornton et al. 2016 ), the latter of which currently lacks evidence of having been do mesticated (Gotz et al. 2016 ). However, the recent discovery of northern turkey remains in the Late Preclassic contexts of El Mirador in Guatem ala revealed a much earlier appearance of this bird south of its natural range, quite possibly as a bird that was already domesticated (Thornton et al. 2012; Thornton and Emery 2015). The El Mirador remains included the bones of both males and females, and at least one subadult individual, and all were found in ritual deposits near the monumental Tigre complex, strongly suggesting that at least some of the birds were hatched at the site, that they were intentionally being raised from birth outs ide of their natural range and that they were being used for a function of special import. Carbon isotopic analysis performed on t he bones revealed that northern turkeys may have consumed maize, a pattern frequently observed in most of the Classic period northern turk eys examined, but not the ocellated turkeys that were tested in the same study (Thornton et al. 2016 ). Thus, these Late Preclassic turkeys were being raised much like those reared in Maya households centuries later. Various other birds could also have been raised in captivity. Franciscan friar Bernardino de Sahagn (2001:745) and Spanish historian Francisco Lpez de Gmara (1890 [1826]:220 222) both described the care given to birds, particularly eagles, in the n eagle ( Aquila chrysaetos ) skeletons

PAGE 82

82 have been found in the Templo Mayor of Tenochtitlan (Lpez Lu jn 1994:469 470; Lpez Lujn et al. 2012), exhibiting extensiv e osteological trauma that suggests they were held captive on tethers (Ramrez et al. 2010). S tomach content analysis of the birds revealed they had been fed quails before death. Spanish conquistador Hernn Corts (2011:85 86) described entire streets of Tlatelolco in central Mexico being dedicated to the sale of birds and numerous depictions of b irds, including captive and sacrificed birds, appear in the Mexican codices (Sharpe 2014) The long distance exchange of macaws ( Ara macao ) from the southern tropical Mesoamerican lowlands was well documented in the dry deserts of northern Mexico and the s outhwest United States (Minnis et al. 1993; Somerville et al. 2010; Watson et al. 2015). The macaw is a particularly difficult b ird to raise in captivity because of its restive nature (Fladeboe 2016) but eggshells and pens found at sites suggest the ancie nt bird keepers had found a way to manage them despite such difficulties. Nevertheless, comparison of the zooarchaeological record with Spanish accounts of the known species of birds used b y Mesoamerican communities showed bound species reared historically have not been recovered (Corona Martnez 2013). This probably reflects the lack of excavation s focusing on resi dential areas at most sites, and until recently, insufficient recovery strategies for faunal remains (Corona M artnez 2013:89). Although there is no conclusive evidence that deer were ever domesticated to the point that they were dependent on humans for survival as a species, young deer may have been raised in captivity for consumption. This is referenced in histo ric accounts by the Spanish, such as Bishop Diego de Landa's description of breast fed deer raised by women ( Landa 1941:127) D eer husbandry is not unknown today (Carr

PAGE 83

83 1996 ; Pohl and Feldman 1982:295 ) While speaking to local excavato rs assisting with the Ceibal Petexbatun Archaeological Project in the southwestern Petn, I learned that some had attempted to raise deer in the past or were considering it for a future business venture, although in this case the deer were coming from a sp ecialized breeder and not directly from the wild. Other animals, including peccary ( Tayassuidae; Donkin 1985; Morton 1984) agouti ( Cuniculus paca; Laska et al. 2003; Smythe 1987; Smythe and Brown de Guanti 1995 ) opossums (Holmes 199 1 ), and wild cats (Weller and Bennett 2001) can be raised in captivity, although successfully breeding and rearing these animals from birth is notoriously difficult even with modern veterinary technology and hormone supplements. Depict i ons of wild cats in what appear to be captive setting s are occasionally observed in Maya iconography, including several Late Classic stelae at Xultun that illustrate a king holding a young jaguar or similar spotted feline (Morley 1937 ). Stable isotope res earch into the diets of carnivores from the Pyramid of the Moo n at Teotihuacan revealed that Classic period wild cats, including pumas and jaguars, consumed relatively high quantities of maize, or perhaps more likely, maize fed dogs, rabbits, or even human s (Sugiyama et al. 2015). Measurement of stable isotope values on human skeletons, namely 13 C and 15 N, has enabled archaeologists to determine the components of human diet s in the past (Tykot 2002; van der Merwe et al. 2000; W hite 2004; White and Schwarcz 1989; Wright 1997) This include s how much maize an individual ate in relation to meat, and how much terrestrial meat protein was consumed compared to protein from marine species. As has been mentioned in the case of the turkeys and the Teotihuacan felines,

PAGE 84

84 these techniques were implemented successfully to identify the diets of potentially captive reared an imals from the wild, and we re used for this purpose in the present study. Soc ial Status and Power In addition to determin ing that different Maya sites made use of different animal resources, zooarchaeologists also focus ed on the specific contexts from which animal remains were recovered to ascertain whether social status distinctio ns could be identified (Emery 2003; Masson 1999b; Sharpe and Emery 2015; Thornton 2012) Such distinctions could indicate whether particular animal resources were purposeful ly controlled and used by different social classes, perhaps as a form of conspicuou s consumption. During the Late and Terminal Classic period s the amount of power that elites held over the rest of society, in terms of the extent of their political control over subordinates and the extent of their site t erritories, differed depending on the site and region. There is evidence for centralized control over resources and labor at some larger polity capitals, such as Tikal and Caracol (Chase and Chase 1996, 1998a; Haviland 1992). At other sites, however, there is no strong evidence that the ac tivities were strictly controlled by a governing body (Foias 2002; Foias and Emery 2012; Graham 2012; Iannone 2002). Rather, it appears that many sites were engaged in their own systems of localized production of goods like lithics, ceramic manufacture, an d presumably hunting, fishing, and production of craft items with bone and sh ell materials. Sites of different size within the Petexbatun region, the central Petn and Motul areas, and much of Belize all may have been allied with specific polities to some extent, but were not consistently operating under a ruling bureaucratic power (Foias 2002, 2007). Animal resource acquisition and use, therefore, was likely dependent on the needs of

PAGE 85

85 the community, both in terms of subsistence and what resources could be used for other purposes such as clothing and crafting, rituals and performances, and what could be exchang ed with other communities. Although there were ruling elites with royal courts who likely possessed different degrees of power depending on the polity (Houston and Inomata 2009:44 48; Martin and Grube 2000), and certainly on some occasions the community members would have been called upon to pool their resources for a feast or other major activity (LeCount 2001), many periphery residences appear to have been managing their own affairs most of the time. resembled this dynamic intermediate Classic centralized/decentralized political economic system, or whether they were somethi ng else entirely. El Mirador, as described in the previous chapter, seemed to be the exception among the Preclassic centers as a large monumental community that rivaled the size of later Classic capitals like Tikal, and may thus indicate that in at least o ne case, centralized power did exist in the northern Petn Mirador Basin (Estrada Belli 2011:49 53). Nevertheless, the variability observed in site sizes at the same time indicates that most communities were organized in a more decentralized political econ omic system. The nature of this system in the Preclassic and how local and non local animal resources would have been acquired, distributed, and used within it, is still largely unknown. Likely the Preclassic centers already had a form of elite society (o r at least a c hief or leader) present to manage the construction of the early monumental works that began to be put into place by the Middle Preclassic period (Doyle 2012; Hammond et al. 1 990; Hansen 2001; Inomata 2013). W e can thus look to what we know ab out animal resource procurement

PAGE 86

86 and use among the Classic elite and lesser/non elite classes to gain insights into how the early Preclassic states were managed. Some animal products, such as jaguar pelts and spondylus shells, were known to have been symbolic items of wealth and prestige during the Classic period based on their depictions in art and iconography (Freidel et al. 2002; Saunders 1994) Unsurprisingly, these species tend to be found in higher proportions in palace and elite midden or household contexts at Classic period sites (Emery 200 3 a ; Masson 1999 a ; Moholy Nagy 1997; Sharpe and Emery 2015) Whole and modified marine shells, stingray spines, and coral are often found in Classic period elite burials, suggesting the elite could afford such luxuries even in the afterlife ( Beaubien 2004 ; Chase and Chase 1998 b ; Davis Salazar 2007; Healy et al. 1998; Krejci and Culbert 1995; Spenard et al. 2013; Yaeger et al. 2015) Elite contexts also t end to possess larger proportions and a wider variety of animal remains than non elite contexts, perhaps suggesting that elite s had greater access to animal meat and a more diverse number of species than those households of lower status (Emery 2003 a ; Sharpe 2011; Sharpe and Emery 2015) Isotope studies focusing on die t have corroborated this proposition using the human skeletal remains from elite and non elite burials to some extent, although isotopic studies on human remains have shown that diet ary patterns were often variable from site to site (Somerville et al. 2013, 2016; White et al. 2010:147; Wright 2006; Wright et al. 2010) Z ooarchaeologists working with Classic period assemblages determined that i n addition to consuming greater quantities of meat and having a larger variety of animal species, the elite Maya also differentiated their diet from that of the non elite class by

PAGE 87

87 consuming species that may have been of particular value and by select ing choice parts of these species. Large bodied mammals, such as deer, peccary, and tapir, most commonly appear in elite contexts (Emery 2003 a 2006; Masson 199 9a; Sharpe et al. 2014; Teeter 2004; Thornton 2011a) River and wetland species, such as snails, mussels, and freshwater turtles, often appear in non elite contexts (Sh arpe 2011; Sharpe and Emery 2015) Although these proportions are not the norm for every site, there is sufficient evidence to speculate that t he elite Maya living in densely populated communities had better access to hunting grounds for game animals, or t o the favored animals hunted from communally available lands, than did non elites living at the same sites. Furthermore, elite Maya residences and middens often have significantly higher proportions of deer fore and hindlimbs (Sharpe 2011:102 103; Sharpe a nd Emery 2015; Thornt on 2011a:156 158 ) suggesting conspicuous consumption of the body parts that have the most meat. Evidence of dietary differences from smaller Classic period periphery centers, as well as Preclassic sites in general, is unfortunately la cking because of a dearth of excavated and analyzed faunal material (see Emery 2008, 2009; Masson 1999a; Pohl 1995; and Thornt on 2012 for exceptions that examine domestic structures in the Late through Postclassic periods, and Stanchly 2014 and Hohmann 200 2 for the vertebrate and shell remains respectively, from residences in Preclassic Pacbitun). Tribute, Trade, and Crafting If elites had greater access to certain species and select animal parts, it stands to reason that they had a role managing the trade and distribution of these resources. Certain animals and products, including the aforementioned large bodied mammals, deer fore and hindlimbs, and jaguar pelts, may have been given to elites in the form of

PAGE 88

88 tribute. Although the early Spanish chroniclers d id not record many instances of tribute in the Maya area, entire documents dedicated to the management of tribute items have been found in central Mexico, dating to immediately before and after the Spanish arrival (e.g. the Matrcula de Tributos and the C odex Mendoza) The reason we no longer have evidence of similar documents in the Maya area may be because these books were intentionally destroyed by the Spanish, such as those burned by Bishop de Landa. The tribute records from central Mexico detail exact quantities of items delivered to the Aztec government from surrounding areas, among them animal pelts (e.g. Mendoza 47r) bundles of feathers (e.g. Mendoza 43r, 47r) live and dead birds (e.g. Mendoza 31r, 47r, 55r) and seashells (e.g. Mendoza 38) This information could give us an idea of what animal products may have been used for local and long distance tribute in the Maya area. The traditional way to study long distance trade of animal products in the lowland sites has been to identify species that are not endemic to a local area This is easiest when marine items, particularly shells and stingray spines used for bloodletting rituals, are found at inland sites. Other marine species, including fish, mammals, and sea turtles, are far less common but their appearance outside of their local range is a clear indication of trade Stable isotope research using strontium ( 87 Sr/ 86 Sr) and oxygen ( 18 O) ratios can also track long distance exchange in the Maya region. These isotopes are particularly useful for identifying when terrestrial animals particularly species found throughout the Maya area such as deer or dogs, are moved over land. Although the application of stable isotopes for the purposes of tracking animal exchange is still relatively new in the

PAGE 89

89 Maya area, Thornton (2011a and 2011 b) has identified occasional instances of animals, namely deer and peccary, being imported to Classic period centers. Non local animals were often, but not always, found in ritual contexts (caches and burials), suggestin g that these animals were used as offerings either because they were non local and happened to be at the site, or because they were actively sought (either directly obtained from somewhere else or exchanged throu gh a bartering system) to be used for ritual activities How that occasionally non local animals can be found in construction fill, indicating that these imported animals may not have been exclu sively used for ritual event s although it cannot be ruled out that s ome ri tual related material may also have been incorporated into fill over time In addition to strontium and oxygen isotopes, lead isotopes ( 206 Pb/ 204 Pb, 207 Pb/ 204 Pb, and 208 Pb/ 204 Pb) have been used to track exchange and migration in other areas of the world (S haw et al. 2016; Valentine 2015), although they have not yet been used for such purposes in the Maya area The present study is the first use of lead isotope sourcing of zooarchaeological remains in the Maya area which will be used alongside strontium and oxygen analysis. The limited but growing amount of isotopic evidence for transp ort of terrestrial animals between communities within and between regions indicates that communities may have been both exchanging goods with one another in an equal two way process or that perhaps some communities (or individuals or families within communities) were gifting or otherwise providing only certain members of another community with these resources (Thornton 2011a and b) By asse ssing the speci fic contexts in w hich these non local remains were found, we might better un derstand the nature of these complex interactions For example, non local deer found in a palace patio may indicate that the

PAGE 90

90 deer was a tribute item to the ruler; on the other hand remains of a non local deer in a residential patio group may indicate that the household was gifted with this item or obtained it through trade or bartering (perhaps the household made something worth exchanging, which could be identifiable using clues f rom the other archaeologic al remains found nearby ). Since the Maya did not have pack animals, it would have been exceedingly difficult to carry large quantities of these species over land. Rivers were probably the major routes for trade ( Demarest et al. 2014; Drennan 1984) Nonetheless, the process of transporting items would have been slow even along rivers or roads, and temperatures and moisture levels are high in the lowland region. Salting, drying, and potentially smoking were the primary means of preserving meat, the latter perhaps with an earth oven like the pib used by Maya societies today ( Gtz 2010:101; McKillop 2004; Smythe 2016; Salazar et al. 2012). There is some evidence that fish were salted and transported across the Yucatan (Masson and Peraza Lope 2008) and in central Mexico (Rodrguez Galicia and Valadez Aza 2 013) after having been processed near the coast Marine fish have been identified at ancient inland Panamanian communities in the Cocl region ( Cooke and Ranere 1999 ), where, in addition to salting, it has been suggested that perhaps the fish were filleted and dried, much as fish are today in the coastal markets (Carvajal Contreras et al. 2008; Zohar and Cooke 1997). Fish were probably dried as well in the Maya area, and it seems likely that other animal products could h ave been preserved the same way In t erms of local trade, it is possible that families raised animals to exchange with other individuals with in the same community. As was mentioned in the previous section,

PAGE 91

91 zooarchaeological studies in recent years have found substantial evidence of elites having access to species and parts of species not found among the other social classes, indicating that they had been provisioned with these items (Emery 2003a; Sharpe and Emery 2015; Thornton 2011a). Gifting and tribute might also have been a means of exc hanging goods, the former occurring more among equals and the latter from a l ower social rank to one higher. Ethnographic and historic evidence document that a variety of animal species, both wild and domestic (i.e. dogs and turkeys), were raised by famil ies to exchange at markets (Carr 1996; Corts 2011:85 86; D e Landa 1941:94, 127; White et al. 2001) Women were often the ones who took on th e responsi bility of raising animals, performing these tasks while men left to work in the fields during the day (Nimis 1982; Pohl and Feldman 1982) Today, women are often the ones in charge of the smaller livestock (mainly chickens, turkeys, and pigs), and who sell their animals or work as butchers at the markets (Nimis 1982; Kahn 2006:85; Kistler 2014:22, 62, 74). Much work has been done in recent years to identify marketplaces at Late Classic sites (Bair and Terry 2012; Dahlin et al. 2007, 2009 ; Shaw 2012) W hether a form of market exchange economy existed during the Preclassic period is currently unknown, although worth consideration. Although no one has yet attempted to trace the movement of animal products thro ugh a Maya market system, there are at least two lines of evidence that can be sought to look for clues. Since the few marketplaces that have been identified are in the centers of sites (see, for example, Bair and Terry 2012; Dahlin et al. 2007, 2009; Shaw 2012), and assuming merchants were selling items in bulk (as ha ppens today, and as is visible i n the Late Classic

PAGE 92

92 Calakmul murals that appear to depict a marketplace scene; Carrasco Vargas and Cordeiro Baqueiro 2012), we can assume that merchants would ha ve stored items somewhere when they were not being sold. Looking for an area of the site near the marketplace w h ere faunal items were stored in bulk would be a start. This might be in the form of bones that had been attached to cuts of meat if the merchant was a butcher, the toes, crania, and possibly tailbones of animals if the merchant was selling skins, or shells or ornaments that had been sold in bulk. A second line of evidence would be proof that these items were distributed throughout various parts of the community, rather than only being found in one exclusive location (i.e. the royal palace). This would show that several people within the community had access to the ite ms, which would be expected in a marketplace economy. Crafted items of a particul ar design might be easier to track through a market system, since they are a resource limited by those who have the knowledge to make them. Crafting, using bone or shell materials, appears to have been done by both elites and non elites alike during the Cl assic period (Emery 2009; 2010:264 267; Moholy Nagy 2002; Widmer 2009) At the Late Classic site of Aguateca, debitage from crafted shell and bone objects was found in both elite and non elite residences ( Emery 2009; Inomata and Triadan 2000) At Aguateca and Motul de San Jose, there was greater evidence Thornton (2011a:104 105) found that, when comparing the nearby port community of Trinidad de Nosotros with the larger monumental site of Motul de San Jose, the latter had more f inished artifacts than the former. However, the middle class ranks at both Trinadad and Motul were involved in crafting bone and marine shell items, which appear

PAGE 93

93 to have been transported throughout the rest of the community to the other status ranks (altho ugh some finished products were used by the middle class ranks as well ; Emery 2012 and Emery and Foias 2012 ). Debitage evidence at both Aguateca and Piedras Negras suggest s that the middle and lower ranking elites crafted items from bone and shell to a gre ater extent than the other social ranks had done, and indication that they may have been specialized artisans (Sharpe and Emery 2015). At Aguateca, evidence of a scribe and other craftspeople who had been working for the ruling family as at tendants was rec overed, including evidence that when the site was quickly (see also Inomata and Triadan 2014 ) Emery and Aoyama (2007) fou nd that all residents at households in the Aguateca core had likely been crafting objects destined for either royal use or trade with other Aguateca households or sites. A shell crafting deposit recovered at Copan also appears to have been under the direct ion of the ruling nobility (Aoyama 2001; Widmer 2009). Yet not all crafters were elites. Emery (2009; 2010:188 192) recovered a unique Terminal Classic residential deposit at Dos Pilas that contained dense concentrations of bone and other artifactual debit age from the manufacture of utilitarian objects that continued after the ruling elites vacated the site, thereby supporting the notion that intensive crafting activities were not sponsored by nor performed for the benefit of the social elite alone. The pro duction of items at the household far exceeded the needs of the family, so it is likely that these items were exchanged either to other me mbers of the community perhaps through a type of marketplace transaction or to other communities nearby wh o lacked rea dy access to bone tools and related artifacts (Emery 2009, 2010).

PAGE 94

94 Similar evidence of Terminal Classic bone workshop acti vity like that of Dos Pilas was identified at Tikal near the Central Plaza (Emery 2010:245 247 ; Moholy Nagy 1997 ). It is very likely th at most households produced utilitarian worked animal products on a small scale for their own purposes, such as awls, pins, fishhooks, spindle whorls, and musical instruments. Rituals and Symbolism Rituals served such an impor tant function in Maya political economy that many researchers have described the Classic Maya system as a ritual economic system (Foias 2007; Ringle 1999; Watanabe 2007; Wells 2006; Wells and Davis Salazar 2007) R ecent research on Preclassic political institutions, including the site of Ceibal in the present study early monumental structures lik e E groups and round buildings, suggests that r itual performances may have been key to establishing and maintaining social order in the early Prec lassic period, just as they had been in the later Classic period ( Aimers et al. 2000; Doyle 2012; Hendon 2000; Inomata 2006 ; Inomata et al. 2013 ). The ability to attract attention using animals for performances or display would have been integral to drawing people together for commun al activities. Animals provided to the community as feast food may have secured allia nces, be they between kin, neighbors, patrons and clients of roughly equal standing, or between members of unequal social standing, such as tribute relationships (Foias 2007:172 173). Feasts and celebratory events were times of cementing deals and all iances, as well as paying tribute, as is depicted on some polychrome pottery scenes ( Reents Budet 2000 ) and on the Bonampak murals (Houston and Stuart 2001). Evidence for feasting at certain centers has been found as well from d eposits of ceremonial cerami cs and food preparation materials like manos

PAGE 95

95 and metates (LeCount 2001 ; Rosenswig 2007). In addition to these large scale ceremonial events, smaller, more personal domestic rites involving animals may have been performed as well. There is abundant evidence for cave rituals throughout the lowlands that had involved animals of various kinds (Brady and Scott 1997; Emery 2004d; Halperin 2003). There is also evidence, both in the archaeological record and from modern ethnographic studies, that hunters in highland Maya communities made offerings in rockshelter shrines before and after hunting ex peditions often interring the curated bones of the last successful hunt in the shrine (Brown 2005; Brown and Emery 2008 ; Emery and Brown 2012). These activities may have taken place in the lowlands as well Certain animal species were valued as symbolically significant as far back as the Middle and Late Preclassic periods, including spondylus shells, stingray spines for bl oodletting ceremonies, and wild cats, particularly jaguars (Freidel et al. 2002; Krejci and Culbert 1995; Saunders 1994) The lat ter were also significant in the ideology and art of the Olmec, who shared many early symbolic and religious concepts with the Preclassic Maya (Benson 1998; Coe 1972) Olmec symbolism and architectural styles appear in Maya art during the Middle and Late Preclassic period: for example, Olmec style jade axe heads and figurines have been found in t he early monumental plaza of Ceibal (Inomata 20 13; Inomata et al. 2016a ); the Middle Preclassic Ceibal site plan resembles that of the Olmec site of La Venta (Inomata 2013); the San Bartolo mural, which dates to about 100 B.C., contains imagery of the Maiz e God that parallels designs of the same deity from art in Olmec sites (Figure 2 10; Saturno et al. 2005; Taube et al. 2010); and Olmec style jade figurine fragments have been found in a Late

PAGE 96

96 Preclassic cache at Cerros (Freidel and Schele 1988). C lose asso ciation of the Preclassic Maya and Ol mec of the Gulf Coast, which likely involved a two way exchange of ideas and symbols (Flannery and Marcus 2000; Inomata 2013), suggests that the two cultures were likely not entirely separate but rather existed on a s ocietal continuum that spanned the southern Mesoamerica area. The symbols of the Olmec area are rife with feline, particularly jaguar, imagery, including human jaguar hybrids or jaguars which have been interpreted as having a r elation to the ethnog raphically recorded belief that spirits are tied to those of animals, and that certain powerful individuals such as shamans can transform into jaguars (Atran 2001; Coe 1972; Grove 1972; Saunders 1994). Cruciform or quincunx arrangements of jade, shell, and other artifacts interred in special deposits found at Olmec and Maya sites are also ritually significant. Olmec archaeologists have interpreted these arrangements as intended caches are found near the centers of the sites (Drucker et al. 1959; Estrada Belli 2006). The cardinal directions, important even in modern Maya religion, represent the f our sky and underworld sometimes denoted by a central point in the pattern; Milbrath 1999:19 20). Structural caching is even an important p art of Maya activities today (Emery 2013) landscape and in the universe had lasting significance at sites where these caches were found, such as La Venta (Drucker et al. 1959), Ceib al (Inomata et al. 2016a ; Smith 1982) and Cival (Bauer 2005; Estrada Belli 2006), and these sites continued to thrive

PAGE 97

97 for centuries, developing arou nd the sacredly demarcated center The significance of the shells associated with these caches, primarily spondylus, will be examined in the cur rent study. Ritual ceremonies may have been performed for any number of reasons, including to communicate with or to honor the gods, ancestors, and other supernatural entities or to reenact important mythical or real events (Freidel and Schele 1988; McAnany 1995) Zooarchaeological evidence, Classic period art, epigraphic descriptions, and Spanish records document the use of animals in these ceremonies, often as sacrifices. Reporting from sixteenth cen tury central Mexico, Sahagun (1997) described a number of animal centric c eremonies and performances in which certain priests were designated to care for and maintain creatures for the festivals, including animals used for sacrifices or birds whose feather s would be plucked and worn by specific actors. The actors themselves portrayed specific deities, often amalgamations of humans and animals that possessed qualities of both. In Classic period Maya art, actors are often depicted either disguised as animals or taking on the role of anthropomorphized animals and zoomorphic deities, such as is observed on the Bonampak murals, various vase illustrations (see, for example, Kerr V ases # 533, # 3054, # 5104, and # 5455), figurines (see, for example, Halperin 2014:127 1 30, 217; Looper 2009:216 217; Valds 2001; Willey 1978), and the surviving Postclassic Maya codices (e.g. Dresden 10 11, 25 28; Madrid 26, 39). Details about who these animal characters were and what they represented to the ancient Maya people are still l argely a mystery, although the frequency with which they are depicted in art in association with important events and elites (often, in fact, the costumed individuals are the elites; see

PAGE 98

98 Looper 2009), indicates that the symbolic portrayal of certain animal s was integral for the elites and ritual performers in catching the attention of the populace as well as sending messages that could be interpreted through these animal roles and symbols. Modern performers still celebrate the traditional Deer Dance ( la Dan za del Venado ) today throughout Mesoamerica; in fact, a number of excavators for the Ceibal Petexbatun Archaeological Project are routinely involved in the production of this dance near the town of Las Pozas every year (personal observation). There are sev eral modern versions of the deer dance throughout Mexico, Guatemala, and Belize, although each tends to focus on the relationship between the human hunter and the wildlife of the forest, particularly the deer (Hutcheson 2003; Looper 2009:192; Montol iu 1976 ). Some versions of the dance are humorous, although others are more popularity is dimini shing in some areas as younger generations lose the memory and the dance and weeks of arduous preparation leading up to the event as a frivolous waste of time, effort, and m oney (Steinberg 2002). The related cuch ceremony (Pohl 1981) involves the representing the cuch or cargo/burd en of the responsibility for the ties rer. The cuch ceremony also includes the ceremonial sacrifice of a bull, usually a ficticious sacrifice of a man dressed as a bull since many communities cannot afford a real animal for the ceremony. Pohl (1981) has associated this ritual with that of annu al hunting ceremonies

PAGE 99

99 and depictions of a similar deer sacrifice on Classic period vessels as part of the same complex renewal festival that focuses on honoring the forest deities and gods of the hunt. Although zooarchaeological evidence of such ceremonies may be difficult to identify, the overall themes exhibited by the Deer Dance and cuch ceremonies show that the Maya held a strong reverence for the treatment of animal remains was not regarded lightly. The h ighland practice of interring the bones of hunted animals in caves (Brown and Emery 2008), as was mentioned, is likely an extension of these beliefs. Animals may have been used at ritual feasting events as well; based on zooarchaeological evidence, these a ppear to have been large bodied mammals, including peccary and deer (Montero Lopez 2009; White et al. 2004) At C u au h temoc on the Pacific coast of Mexico, Rosenswig (2007) analyzed the reaffirmation of political power in a growin g hierarchal communit y through feasting activity at a Late Preclassic site and compared feasts with archaeological remains of possible feasting in Mexico. In many ways, feasts were a means of securing popularity while at the same time redistributing wealth throughout the community. Rosenswig drew parallels between the use of New Guinea pigs and Mesoamerican dogs at feasts, the distribution of valued items such as shells and obsidian, and the increased value placed on potatoes and maize over time that may have resulted from these feasting events. Feasting may have taken place as a celebration or for a political function, but there is also evidence of feasts that had themes and may have taken place more than once, such as annual holiday feasts are today. One example of this was found at

PAGE 100

100 Lagartero in Chiapas, Mexico where a large number of anim al bones, particularly dogs, as well as awls and pins for weaving and female figurines, were found in a dense midden ( Ekholm 1990; animals were part of a feast, and the activity may have had to do wit h women and/or was associated with a female goddess related to weaving, such as Ixchel. The significance of such an event show s that the purpose of feasts varied and that the animals involved were specifically and symbolically chosen for the activity. Anim al remains have also been found in ritual caches that may have been either the result of a feast or offering such as those made as initiation or termination offerings for marking the use (or disuse) of a structure or plaza (Chase and Chase 1998 b ; Emery et al. 2007; Krejci and Culbert 1995; Moholy Nagy 2004) Specific variations among species that appear in these offerings, as well as combinations of species along with other non animal offerings, has not been extensively studied, although surviving Spa nish accounts such as those by de Landa (1941:122 123, 154 156, 162) regarding calendrical festivals suggest the number and type of species offered was considered significant. Emery et al. (2009) attempted to associate some of these festivals with depictio ns of animal offerings, often on plates and platters, in the Dresden and Madrid codices. The turkey, deer, and fish offerings depicted on the Late Preclassic San Bartolo mural, which may illustrate a specific ceremony concerning the four cardinal direction s is possibly the earliest artistic representation of a specific Maya ceremony ( Figure 2 11; Saturno et al. 2004). Zooarchaeology and Protostate Development Studies beyond Mesoamerica To gain an understanding of how animals may have been used to promote the development of state level society in the Maya region, it is necessary to look to

PAGE 101

101 zooarchaeological studies beyond Mesoamerica. As was explained in Chapter 2, our understanding of Pr eclassic period society, including the political organization and economic systems that may have been in effect, is still evolving. The steps toward the development of state level society in the Maya region, including kingship, a bureaucratic government, o ccupational specialists, and merchants and a market system economy, may have occurred much earlier than was assumed a few decades ago, and almost certainly took place in an uneven fashion at disparate rates throughout the lowlands. The use of animal resour ces in the Preclassic period would have played a role in th is variegated development. Although we cannot and should not expect state level rise in the Maya area to closely parallel any other culture of the world, it is necessary to consider how other early protostate societies used animal taxa to gain insight s into how animals were used as symbols and resources to establish social inequalities, secure economic ties, and maint ain subsistence strategies in light of increasingly dens e populations Subsistence Practices: Animal Management and Garden Hunting All early protostate societies experienced pressure to support increasingly large and more densely settled populations; as such, it is not surprising that these societies increasingly relied on domesticated o r captive reared animal taxa. This trend is most apparent in many Old World societies, as having a more reliable source of meat protein and secondary products such as wool, skins, milk, and bone was worth the time and effort taken to rear sheep, goats, pig s, cattle, chickens, and other early domesticates. As human populations increased and hunting and fishing grounds became areas of contention and, in some cases, officially claimed by law, managing animals was the only means to survive and even produce a si de income from selling or exchanging animal

PAGE 102

102 products for other necessary resources and services (Vigne 2011; Zeder 2012). We might therefore expect that the Preclassic Maya increasingly relied on domesticated or managed animals over time. There may also be evi dence for the earliest socially imposed lim itations on where animals were hunted or fished, which could be identified in the zooarchaeological record if certain taxa that shou ld be common in an area are found only among specific households or monumenta l structures, indicating that only certain indi viduals had access to these resource s. In North America, dogs and, to a lesser extent in most areas, turkeys, were the only true domesticated vertebrate spe cies. A mong invertebrates, bees, specifically the sti ngless Melipona beecheii were cultivated for their honey ( Villanueva G et al. 2005) and cochineal ( Dactylopius coccus ) may have been transported throughout the Americas for use as dye (Rodrguez et al. 2001) The South American Andean societies had acces s to a large number of domesticates, including camelids like llamas ( L ama glama ) and alpacas ( Vicugna pacos ) guinea pigs ( Cavia porcellus ) and the Muscovy duck ( Cairina moschata ) the latter two of which eventually made their way to the Caribbean Islands (LeFebvre and deFrance 2014) and southern Central Amer ica (Stahl 2005), respectively. Domestication or husbandry of animal taxa requires considerable time and resource expenditures. By the time of the Maya Preclassic period, ancient Mesoamerican communiti es had already been domesticating and harvesting a wide number of plant species for millennia, including maize, squash, beans, chiles, and chocolate (Dunning et al. 1998; Hall et al. 1990; Jones 1994; Leyden 2002; Pohl et al. 1996). In the early Preclassic when there were fewer settlements on the landscape,

PAGE 103

103 these communities could have afforded to move more easily from one area to another when crops failed; however, this would have been increasingly more difficult to accomplish over time, especially as acc ess to natural resources became more limited and territorial claims to land were made, including land rights based on inherited and/or ancestral claims (Gillespie 2000; McAnany 1995:96 9 7; Wilk 1988). The Maya eventually formed a state level political syst em reminiscent of the Greek or Late Bronze Age city states, with polity capitals possessing variable amounts of centralized power within polity territories (Foias 2013; Marcus 2004). As was mentioned earlier in this chapter, the Mesoamerican landscape is h eterogeneous, even within the Maya area, and so just like other city state societies of the world, not all states would have had access to the same natural resources. In order to feed the people who lived within these states, especially those who lived in the more densely occupied capitals, I hypothesize that some degree of animal management in the Preclassic period would have been necessary. Maya zooarchaeologists have speculated that an increasing and steady supply of animal resources over time would have been necessary both to sustain a growing population and to meet the demand for having animals on hand for use as ritual, prestige, and medicinal items (see, for example, Clutton Brock and Hammond 1994; Emery 2013; and White et al. 2001). As was mentioned earlier, because the Mesoamerican communities lacked sheep, goats, and other large bod ied domesticates reared in pre state societies in the Old World, they may have been raising other animals that, perhaps because of less intensive management strategies, d id not reach full domestication. In addition to the large bodied animals that have already been discussed like deer and peccary, smaller

PAGE 104

104 animals may have been managed as well. Early European colonists in South America noted that Amazonian communities prac ticed turtle farming in specially segregated ponds (Carvajal in Medina 1934 [1541]:421 ). There is am p le ethnographic evidence that a similar method of confining freshwater fish in ponds occurs in communities around the globe, including various parts of Afr ica (de Bont and de Bont Hers 1952; Delince 1992; Maar et al. 1966), China (Liu et al. 2013; Ruddle and Zhong 1988), Indonesia (Costa Pierce 1988; Ruddle 1982), and Hawaii (Costa Pierce 1987). Snails may have been opular today in some cultures (e.g. Baruwa et al. 2012; Chah and Inegbedion 2013; Voichita 2013), and there is evidence of snail farming to varying extents during the Neolithic (Hutterer et al. 2014; Lubell 2004). Animal management does not necessarily re quire husbandry. Garden hunting, a term originally introduced by Linares (1976) to describe the practice of planting crops near the home or in particular areas that would attract certain animal taxa, is also a relatively non intensive means of controlling animals that has been suggested for the Maya world (Gtz 2008; Jorgenson 1993). Modern ethnograp hic evidence of garden hunting w as previously investigated elsewhere in Mesoamerica (Jorgenson 1993, 1995 ), Panama (Linares 1976; Smith 2005) and Peru (Naughto n Treves et al. 2003; Shepard et al. 2012). Garden hu nting, just like animal husbandry, would allow a family or community to stay within a particular area and so endure the growing territoriality exhibited by neighbors or, as local governments were put in place abide by specific territory regulations. As humans migrated less over time and settlements and even territories (i.e., polities) stabilized on the landscape during the Preclassic period, we

PAGE 105

105 might expect that there was a rise in garden hunting assoc iated with the increase of p ersonalized agricultural areas. One means of examining whet her these activities took place in the past would be to identify evidence of an intensified reliance on certain taxa over time, or on taxa highly fidelic to farmed and r esidential areas. Another means may be to use stable isotopic chemistry to identify animals that consume higher than anticipated amounts of maize, perhaps indicative of increasing amounts of crop foraging behavior. Although difficult to distinguish from di rectly feeding an animal with maize, maize foraging might be expected to have an intermediate stable carbon isotope signature between forest dwelling animals and animals li ving with humans, such as dogs. Animals and Inequality: Luxuries and Limitations There are a number of ways people today and in the past have used animals to establish social distinctions. Control over a valued animal resource is one means. Another is the use of animals as a symbolic representation of power or prestige. The utilitarian use of an animal for food or clothing is obvious, but the perceived v alue placed on a particular taxon or even a part of a taxon (for example, certain cuts of beef), can vary from culture to culture. What is valued in one culture may be worthless or even taboo in the next. nots Tha t is, presence of an animal taxon or part of a n animal in one area of a community as oppose d to the absence in another area is ofte n interpreted as one individual or group of individuals having preferential access (Crabtree 1990; deFrance 2009). Large bodied animals are frequently considered delicacies or luxury food in societies ( V an der Veen 2003), evidence of which can be found in the

PAGE 106

106 households and monumental structures of pre Colombian chiefdom communities in Hawaii had proportionally more pigs, dogs, and chickens whereas the commoner househol ds were mainly subsisting on rats, fish, and shellfish. Similarly, deer and turkeys both large bodied mammals and birds, were found in abundance in the elite contexts of ancient Mississippian sites in North America (Kelly 1997; Jackson and Scott 1995). Animals wi th more fat or grease are also considered luxury goods by some societies (Ervynck et al. 2003; Van der Veen 2003). In the Maya area, examples of these types of animals may include pacas and agoutis (Smythe 1987), and although larger animals can vary depend ing on diet and region, meat from deer can be higher in fat than many other neotropical animals (Arceo et al. 2005; Smith 1991). Altho ugh extremely difficult to document in the fau nal record, certain insects have high concentrations of fat as well and are eaten in Mesoamer ica today (Ramos Elorduy 1997). Diversity, too, can be used to identify elite power (deFrance 2009). This has been noted in numerous societies around the world, including the kitchens of the medieval elite in England (Syk es et al. 2006), t he Bronze Age temple s in Israel (Lev Tov and McGeough 2007), and the middens of elite mounds in the American southeast (Jackson and Scott 2003). There is evidence that this occurred to some extent among the Classic Maya elite (Emery 20 03a; Pohl 1985); howe ver, it was also noted that the middle ra nking elite tend ed to exhibit greater diversity in their diet than the highest ruling elite rank (Sharpe and Emery 2015), perhaps because the latter limited their diet to a select few coveted taxa, particularly deer We might expect in the Preclassic to see the start of

PAGE 107

107 class based divisions, reflected in the diversity exhibited by different households in the community. Class disparities in diet based on animal size have also been noted at numerous protostate sites i n the Middle East and Africa despite the long history in these regions of raising large bodied domesticates; in these cases, often the largest mammals like cattle were the preference in s ocial elite circles, perhaps because of the greater amount of effo rt it took to raise them in comparison to goats, sheep, and pigs ( Arbuckle 2014; Greenfield 201 5 ; Kim and Kuzimba 2008; Zeder 1991). Since such disparities have been found in state level, Classic period Maya sites as was discussed earlier in this chapter, it is very likely that the start of these class based distinctions in diet began sometime in the Preclassic period, perhaps the result of similar preferences for husbanded animals or animals for which more effort must be expended or risk taken, to captur e. Not only large bodied animals like domestic mammals and birds were valued; 2009). Exotic exchange items will be discussed in more detail in the following section, altho ugh it is worth noting on the subject of inequality that status is and was often based rare and unusual items. Rare marine shells were exchanged to many inland communities, such as those found in elite burials in the ancient central North American Mississippian sites (Trubitt 2000, 2003) or the early chiefdom powers in the Andes of South America (Stahl 2003). Like the aforementioned macaws in Mesoamerica and the American southwest, birds also w ere transported great distances, long before state development in many

PAGE 108

108 regions of the world. The blue peafowl or peacock ( Pavo cristatus ) journey out of India is still debated (Boev and Beech 2007:250 251). Sykes (2012) argued on the basis of avian and human bone trauma that the journey of the chicken ( Gallus gallus ) across Eurasia during the Neolithic, Bronze, and Iron Ages could be attributable, in part, to its use in cockfights, a demonstrati on of power by the male elites who owned and exchanged the b irds. This proposal is unique among zooarchaeological reports on status in that it moves beyond defined elite class, and proposes that gender inequality within status ranks must be considered as well. Similarly, c ultural tab oos and laws regarding who has access to specific taxa are also worth considering. Cooke (2004) noted that animals infrequently found in the faunal record in Panama are often depicted in art, perhaps because they were considered important. Early s tate leve l societies, such as medieval England (Grant 1988:178) and Tang period China (Schafer 1968), had special hunting reserves and rules for elite members of society; it can be postulated that the origin of such rules began as hunting pressures necessitated spe cial means for limiting hunting territory. As will be described in more detail in the following section on rituals, several ethnographic studies of Amazonian tribes (Descola 1994:97 98; Politis and Saunders 2002) have noted taboos against the hunting of ce rtain animals, including tapirs, deer, and jaguars, which certain Amazonian groups consider to be a nthropomorphic, or even humans that have assumed different forms. There are, however, exceptions to this: if a jaguar threatens a human it is considered a w ayward, dangerous spirit and acceptable to kill. In one noted case ( Andres Jimenez pers. comm. 1995 as related by Politis and Saunders 2002:116),

PAGE 109

109 necklace, a trophy of the kill, but the rest of the carcass was regarded as taboo for eating. Besting what was considered a wayward spirit allowed this hunter to gain status in the comm prove this success These complex social interact ions are important to consider when assessing what faunal remains are and are not in the archaeological record. Exchange, Tribute, and Crafting M odes of e xchange Goods exchanged within a single community are difficult to track in the archaeological record, but not impossible. These may include simple exchanges, gifts, tribute, and even loans. Skeletal part distribution has been considered to be a valuable means of identifying selective resource distribution within a community (Binford 1984; Reitz and Wing 2008: 216). We see this even today, in that the wealthy have their choice of the prime cuts of meat. Lupo (2001, 2006), along with Schmitt (2002, 2005) performed a number of ethnographic and experimental archaeological studies on the distribution patt erns resulting from hunting, butchering, and distribution of carcasses from kill sites in Cen tral Africa. Their studies found that the choice of what to bring back from a kill site, who distributes the meat, how it is distributed, and who receives a share is a fairly complex process even in small commu nities. Several studies of ancient Europe and the Middle East have also paid attention to such distributive activities in relation to status hierarchies (Grant 2002; Morris 2011; Pollard 1995; Serjeanston 20 11:63 65). Zeder (1991 ) examination of state development at several Bronze Age sites in the Middle East found that animal part distribution patterns varied among communities over time, implying that not every site responded to state development equally, evidence that different g overnmental or economic strategies may have been

PAGE 110

110 present on the ancient landscape. As was mentioned earlier, there have been similar studies done on Maya Classic period contexts that examin ed the distribution of deer skeletons across a site that have found that deer fore and hindlimbs are often disproportionately common in ruling elite contexts, suggesting these parts were provisioned to the palaces (Thornton 2011a; Sharp e 2011; Sharpe and Emery 2015). Long distance, overland exchange of animals has also be en identified in the archaeological record. Fish exchange, evidence of which had been mentioned previously in this chapter as having occurred in the Yucatan and Panama, has received much attention in archaeolo gy. Belcher (2005, 2011) reported an extensive network of overland dried fish trade between coastal and inland communities in th e Indus Valley during the third m illennium B.C., which intensified considerably over time as urban centers coalesced. In Norway, Perdikaris (1999) found archaeological evidenc e for the drying and export of fish in dispersed Iron Age chiefdom settlements; this activity intensified considerably when the Viking and Medieval periods saw the arrival of powerful leagues that began the commercialization of the northern European fish i ndustry. As has been men tioned in th is chapter, marine shellfish were frequently transported inland as well, although often for reasons having to do with status, adornment, and as will be discussed in the next section, rituals and ceremonies. The transport of marine taxa is an important part of the present study since the study sites span the interior lowlands as well as the coast (Cerros), and assessments of which sites are interacting and exchanging the same materials can be made. Transport of mammal meat particularly early domesticates, has been reported in several areas of the world. Miller and Burger (1995) identified the Andean exchange of

PAGE 111

111 dried llama meat, or based on the differing concentrations of skeletal portions at highland and lowland sites occurring as early as 500 400 B.C.; this practice intensified as state commerce emerged centuries later. Stable isotope analysis using stront ium and oxygen on tooth enamel also identified non local camelids that were transported between regions of t he Andes in proto and early state communities (Dufour et al. 2014; Thorn ton et al. 2011 ). A study by Arnold et al. (2013) initially undertaken to identify potential instances of transhumance i n early pastoralist communities in the Thuke la River Valley of South Africa inadvertently identified two cases where cattle had been transported far from their place of origin, perhaps attributable to early gifting or bride wealth practices, a loan, or even theft. The present study will use a similar isotopic techniq ue to track the exchange of terrestrial animals using strontium, lead, and oxygen isotopes. Craft production iduals with special skillsets who may be able to craft and produce an ob ject from bone or shell that other members of the group cannot. In larger communities, specialists were perhaps a necessity, since everyone cou ld not perform the same task if the community were to function properly. The exchange of crafted resources beyond the boundaries of a community was also important for establishing communication networks and forging alliances. Healthy exchange networks fostered prosperous communities, but they required effort on the pa rt of those maintaining them to keep running smoot hly. Specialized crafting of certain objects from animal materials, and the exchange of these crafted objects, has been noted in a number of archaeological contexts. Arnold and Munns (1994) found that social changes between the Middle and Late Periods

PAGE 112

112 (A.D 900 1600) on the California Channel Islands, including the slow emergence of an elite class, caused an increase (600 1000%) in shell craft manufacture in addition to more intensive crafting techniques, suggesting there was a demand for a certain type of crafted item made by the specialists. These shells were traded along several routes into the mainland Great Basin region, with an increase in number of shells exchanged over time matching the emergence of the elite class throughout the region (Bennyhoff a nd Hughes 1987). A similar pattern has been observed over time in the late Paleolithic and Neolithic Levant (Bar Yosef Mayer 1997, 2005), where shell beads were exchanged inland for millennia, but the number of species and variety of manufacture processes increased as a demand for certain types of objects, such as nacre pendants for an early elite class, rose over time. Like the exchange of shell objects, shell crafting and the distribution of certain types of shell ornaments will be examin ed in the p resent study to determine who did the crafting and who among (or possibly outs ide) the community receive d the crafted objects. Discussing bone craft workshops in the Neolithic Mediterranean, Perles and Vitelli (1999) note d that bone artifacts, much like ceramic or stone tools, would h ave been traded more extensively over time as demand for the particular design of a crafted bone item emerged; it was not the resource (bone) that was the limiting factor that set the demand, but rather the specialized skill required to craft a particular artifact. Interest in the chane opratoire or operational chain, in the study of artifact manufacture has lead several archaeologists to not only examine the sequence in which a bone or shell artifact was crafted, but to compare the procedural sequenc e across space and time to determine the exchang e of ideas throughout a region (Liolios 2006; Srensen 2004).

PAGE 113

113 Thi s has been done especially in Europe, where tracking the chane opratoire of bone tools can help identify the movement of cultural groups across the landscape (Choyke and Schibler 2007). In Mesoamerica, these techniques cou ld be applied to track the diffusio n of ideas as goods and peopl e moved across the landscape; already several studies assessing bone and shell crafting (Emery 2009, 2010; Hohmann 2002; Keller 2012) have made use of this tec hnique in the Maya area. Rituals and Symbolism As has been mentioned, animals were used symbolically for establishing and maintaining social distinctions of power, pres tige, and wealth in all proto state societies. Although the symbolic connotation of these animals no doubt was in part linked to their role in myths and religious beliefs that have been lost to time, some of these important animals may have been used in ritual ceremonies, such as performances and sacrifices, which can be tracked in the archa Social Zooarchaeology (2012:52 54), she stresses the difficulty of identifying ritual in the archaeological record. Clearly, the context in which an animal is found can lead one to argue that it was or wa s not part of a ritua l activity or sacrifice. But the detritus of many 2011). Furthermore, the exact nature of the ritual, in terms of whether it is a commonplace mundane ritual or an activ ity of immense import to the practitioner, must be considered as well. In state level societies there are often abundant representations in art, and sometimes, writing, that can help explain the symbolic import ance of animals and animal related rituals. I n earlier societies, such detailed supporting information about the culture is usually lacking.

PAGE 114

114 Exotic animals are frequently interpreted as ri tual items. The m acaws that were traded to northern Mexico and th e southwest United States are example s of long distance ritual exchange for they were used as sacrificial offerings as well as for the production of feathers for adornment (Borson et al. 1998; Creel and McKusick 1994; Minnis et al. 1993; Somerville et al. 2010; Watson et al. 2015). The ritual exchange of marine shells has received much attention in certain parts of the world: based on ethnohistoric and ethnographic evidence, trumpet shells transported into the southwest United States were believed to be involved in curing and sorcery practices (Mills a nd Ferguson 2008); Hohokam marine shells may have been involved in ritual performances and the costumes required for such ceremonies (Bayman 2002; Trubitt 2003); and in the Torres Strait, shell s were used alongside specially placed stones perhaps as a mea ns of controlling marine spirits and, interestingly, attracting marine 2004). Even if we can periods o f the Preclassic, the early monumental architecture where ritual performances took place would be a good location to note whether or not exotic, particularly marine, taxa are most common, indicating that they may have been imported for ritual activities co nducted by certain members of society. The aforementioned use of animals in ceremonies, which may or may not include exotics, is another means of identifying animal related rituals. These are often found in the concentrated deposits from feasting events, a s well as animal sacrifices. For example, zooarchaeological and ethnohistoric records from Hawaii provide evidence for the preferential use of pigs in war and agricultural

PAGE 115

115 2003). Elaborate animal sacrifices occurred in C hina long before the earliest dynasties (Olsen 1988; Yuan an d Flad 2005); although there is no direct evidence to explain the purpose of such deposits that include carefully arranged pigs, dogs, and cattle, one can surmise they may have been related to the much more ostentatiously elaborate dynastic interments that included hundreds of horses and other animals at a time. Such costly sacrifices were used as both a show of material wealth and as a sign of power, an ability to communicate with the gods and anc estors. As Yuan and Flad (2005) note d changes in formations and types of animals deposited over time likely signified intentional alterations of specific ceremonies, possibly as a means of improving the outcome following a sacrifice. Zooarchaeological and ethnographic studies among groups in the Andes of South America have reported similar significance placed on colors and arrangements of camelids and guinea pigs used for sacrificial offerings (Goepfert 2010 ; Rofes 2004; Rofes and Wheeler 2003; Sandweiss a nd Wing 1997). Complex animal interments, often as mummified bundles, have been found in abundance in ancient Egypt; these began sometime during the Meso and Neolithic periods, and included a large diversity of species in honor of various animal gods and their respective cults (Ikram 2003; Nicholson et al. 2015). Finally, animals deposited around sacred sites, particularly monoliths like Stonehenge (Craig et al. 2015; Pollard 1995) and Gbekli Tepe (Peters and Schmidt 2004), are another indication that the se particular species or individuals had important symbolic significance and played a role at these early ceremonial centers, either as food, ornamentation, or sacrifices. Unique animal interments, especially of whole animals, may be an indication at early Maya sites of animal caching. It would also provide evidence for which taxa were once considered

PAGE 116

116 sacred, and the specific locations of the c ache could provide clues as to why the animal was considered important to begin with. Animals recovered from human burials are a particularly useful means of distinguishing sacred and mundane. These animals may have been pets that were cherished by their h uman owners, or they may have been the remains of burial adornments, offerings (companions or food) for the afterlife, the remains of a feast afterlife. Such burials h ave been found in many parts of the world. Marine symbolism is particularly common; in Neolithic Oman, burials containing specially placed marine turtles, marine gastropods, and marine bivalves have been recovered in what has been interpreted to signify a connection between the ocean and death or the afterlife (Biagi et shell beads laid out as an artificial platform beneath an elite, possibly a deified ruler (Fowler 1991; Trub itt 2000); crushed murex (a marine snail) and helix (a landsnail) were found scattered around human interments in Mesolithic Greece, including one instance of a cave burial (Cullen 1995); and the Chinchorro mummies of 7000 B P had not only marine shells a nd ornaments found in their burials, but also harpoons and fishhooks from burials of both sexes (Arriaza et al. 2008:50). It is important to note that such marine related practices in the above examples occurred both on coasts and inland communities, refle cting a widespread association with water, particularly the ocean, and death or the afterlife. Besides marine animals, dogs often seem to have a cross cultural association with the afterlife (Morey 2006). This may be because they are seen as companions in

PAGE 117

117 many cultures, or simply because they are one of the few species that spread across the globe many millennia ago and so were familiar to most cultures. Dogs are abundant at many archaeological sites in the Caribbean, and are often found in human burials (G rouard et al. 2013; Newsom and Wing 2004:107, 137 ). A pan Mediterranean myth envisions dogs as guides to the underw orld for the recently deceased; zooarchaeological evidence supporting this goes back to the Bronze Age, where dogs and even occasional puppie s are found in burials (Day 1984). Dogs were common throughout Mesoamerica, and so we might expect to see dogs in Maya burials as well. Unfortunately, there are a number of rituals we may never be able to accurately identify in the archaeological record. E thnographic studies and historic records are our best means of identifying what we may potentially be missing in the past. For example, many cultures have strict rules and rituals determining which gender should eat certain food ( see Counihan 1999 and refe rences therein for a detailed global account of many of these rules). In some cultures, such as in various Amazonian tribes, there are rules pertaining to what time of the year an animal can be hunted and consumed (Politis and Saunders 2002); although seas onality studies are common, they are difficult to identify archaeologically in the tropics such as the Mesoamerican lowlands. Finally, animals used as ritual paraphernalia may be discarded with mundane refuse or in contexts identified. Tokens and good luck charms are found in nearly all cultures, but their identity is fairly enigmatic and, in some cases, might only 88). It is possible that some of these unique ritual items ended up in Maya burials, which might appear as jewelry, ornaments, or other objects placed around the body.

PAGE 118

118 Summary of Zooarchaeology and Political Economy Significant strides have been made over the last few decades in Mesoamerican zooarchae ology, in terms of understanding how animals have been used in political and economic roles through time. Animals can be used for subsistence and dietary purposes, for establishing and maintaining status ranks and social inequalities within a community, fo r crafting and exchange, and for symbolically charged social practices for establishing and maintaining social order including political authority. Each of these categories overlaps to varying degrees, but they serve as means of assessing faunal data from s lightly different perspectives. The majority of zooarchaeological research in Mesoamerica has been done on material excavated from state level, Classic, Postclassic, or Colonial time periods. What happened before that is largely speculation, although we can use the large corpus of non Mesoamerican protostate faunal studies performed around the globe to gain insight into what animal based activities may have taken place in the process of state development. Examples of what to look for may include increased evidence of animal management to control resources, evidence of restricted access to certain taxa or hunting/fishing grounds, evidence of greater taxonomic diversity in some households compared to others signifying early elite control or distribution of r esources, differential access to exotic goods such as marine shells, evidence of locations where crafted items were made and distributed as part of a growing economic system, and evidence of the developing ritual or symbolic uses of certain taxa as opposed to others over time, including animal caching in ceremonial and domestic contexts and the inclusion of animal bones or shells in human burials. Drawing upon previous worldwide studies provides a better understanding of what to look for in the archaeologic al record, how to

PAGE 119

119 look for certain trends (for example, stable isotope analysis to detect the long distance exchange of land animals), and how to interpret confusing or ambiguous results.

PAGE 120

120 CHAPTER 4 METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE This chapter describes the meth ods and procedure of the research, including th e zooarchaeological analyses and the stable isotopic geochemistry The chapter first describes the excavation methods used by the four projects involved in the study, how faunal material was recovered, and how and where the material was identified. Next the various techniques of zooarchaeological analysis are described, including quantification of specimen abundance, diversity, habitat fidelity analysis, artifactual modifications, and identification of potenti ally non local species, mainly marine taxa at inland sites. These measures of analysis are used to compare the zooarchaeological assemblages within parts of a site (intra well as comparing the d ifferent sites over time (inter site analysis). Finally, the methods of stable isotopic geochemistry are described, starting with the analysis of the lig ht isotopes carbon and nitrogen that are used to examine past diet, oxygen iso topes used to infer source of drinking w ater, followed by the heavier isotopes of strontium and lead, which are used to identify instances of long distance exchange or migration D iscussion of the lead isotopic analytical procedure also describes the development of a lead isotopic baseline that was necessary to construct before conduct ing the sourcing analysis. Excav ation Methods and Animal Assemblage Recovery Procedures Excavation procedures were conducted similarly by all four projects. Each used 1/4 inch screens for recov ering archaeological material. At Ceibal, soil flotation was carried out by project archaeobotanist Hiroo Nasu (Graduate University for Advanced Studies, Japan) for deposits believed to contain ancient plant and animal material All

PAGE 121

121 faunal material colle cted from the sites was accounted for whenever possible, which included terrestrial snails (if recovered, a practice that was variable among different excavators at the San Bartolo Xultun and Holmul Archaeological Projec ts) and artifcatually modified bones and shells (often stored separately from the majority of recovered faunal material at all four projects). Thus, with the occasional exceptio n of terrestrial snails and small specimens that had not been recovered by coarse gauge screening, all faunal mater ial was recovered from all contexts whenever possible. Faunal material from Ceibal comes from the 2005 2015 excavations, as well as the 2008 and 2009 excavations conducted at nearby Caobal. Excavations were conducted at a variety of lo cations around the si te to understand both the site core as well as its relationship to the surrounding peripheral residential groups the latter of which varied in size Thus, faunal material comes from the fill and floors of both large structures (pyramids and the pala ce at the site core) and residences (households of patio groups), from middens around these structures, from plazas and patio centers, from excavations in and around causeways, and from test excavations from areas lacking obvious features or past construction ep isodes around the site. Rem ains from the previous excavations conducted by Harvard University in the 1960s were identified by Pohl (1976, 1990) and included predominantly L ate and Terminal Classic fauna, and are not included in this Preclassic period study although they are referenced as a The faunal material from San Bartolo comes from excavations conducted between the years 2002 and 201 2 Preclassic and Early Classic period remains from

PAGE 122

122 Xultun are also included in the study, from excavations conducted between the years 2008 and 2012 Excavations at San Bartolo predominantly took place at the site's central core, particularly the structure housing the site's famous Late Preclassic murals and at the palace; therefore, faunal material at San Bartolo comes primarily from structure fill from monumental pyramids and the surrounding plazas Fewer excavations were carried out at Xultun and many of them focused on Late and Terminal Classic structures; in fact, the majority of Pre classic and Early Classic exc avations were conducted to re cover material that had been exposed by looters who had tunneled into the largest and oldest structures looking for burials. Thu s, much of Xultun's fauna in this study was recovered from burial contexts or structure fill that had been disturbed by looters. The faunal material s from Holmul, Cival, and the other sites investigated by the Holmul Archaeological Project (HAP) were excav ated between the years 2000 and 2014. Most excavations at Holmul, Cival, Dos Aguadas, K'o, and La Sufricaya were conducted in and around large structures (e.g. pyramids and palaces), as well as central plazas and looters' trenches. Many of the latter incl uded disturbed burials. Excavations at Hamontun focused on elite residential structures and so include material recovered from household floor and fill contexts in addition to middens and burials associated with these structures. Fauna recovered from exca vations conducted prior to 2000, including those during the early part of the 20th century, are not included in this study, althou gh reports of these remains are used as reference (Merwin and Vaillant 1932)

PAGE 123

123 Cerros was excavated in the 1970s and early 1980s, with later excavation episodes occurring during the mid 1990s. These excavations focused on both the core of the site, including ceremonial temple and plaza contexts, as well as the peripheral structures t hat ma de up the surro unding residential community. The invertebrate specimens that were collected from survey excavations around the coast (where the site had been damaged naturally by erosion and storms over the centuries) and from the canal at the center of the site were also included in this analysis. The majority of the vertebrate identif ications were performed and reported by Carr (1986) and a subset of the invertebrate remains was identified by Hamilton (1987). This study includes identifications of the remaining component of invertebrate remains that had been unident ified. Material from the Ceibal, San Bartolo Xultun, and Holmul projects was stored in either Tyvek or plastic Whirl Pak bags upon recovery. The Ceibal Project routinely washed all faunal material (bones and shells) before the 2012 season, and this may have altered the preser vation of some remains (mainly shells such as Pomacea flagellata that are often found intact only because they are held together with soil). Faunal material from the San Bartolo Xultun and Holmul projects was not washed with the excepti on of a few modifie d artifacts. A subset of the shells from Cerros had been washed. Faunal material recovered from most centers was in fair condition, with the greatest evidence of weathering and fragmentation occurring mainly among those remains that were recovered from the topsoil or from l have been largely undisturbed by human activity for the last thousand years, such preservati on patterns are to be expected.

PAGE 124

124 Laboratory Analysis, Identification, and Basic Quantification The same analytica l procedure was applied to the identification of remains from every site, the only exception being that the majority of the material from the Guatemala n sites was identified in the project labs in Guatemala City (Ceibal) and Antigua (San Bartolo Xultun and Holmul) without the use of a comparative collection, whereas the material from Cerros and subsets of the Ceibal and San Bartolo remains were identified in the United States with the assistance of museum collections. The Ceibal subset included problematic specimens and all fish and bird remains excavated prior to 2013 which were exported to the Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH) for identification using the Environmental Archaeology Program (E AP) zooarchaeological comparative collection under s upe rvision of museum curator Kitty Emery I analyzed the ver tebrate bones from the 2002 2008 field seasons at San Bartolo at the Harvard Peabody Museum in 2008 under supervision of Richard Meadow (Sharpe 2009) Specimens were identified to the lowest taxonomic rank possible. For the specimen s I identified in Guatemala, I used archival photos compiled by Emery, Christopher Gtz ( Universidad Autnoma de Yucatn ), me and others of modern animal specimens from the FLMNH EAP Ornithology, Herpetology, and Mammalogy collections which had been upl oaded on a database I access ed via the internet ( http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/envarch gallery/ ) I also used field and skeletal anatomy guides, including An Osteology of Some Maya Mammals (Olsen 1982) Mammalian Osteology (Gilbert 1980) and Avian Osteology (Gilbert et al. 1996) All species identification s used the most updated naming conventions as recognized by the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS, http://www.itis.gov/ ), the Encyclopedia

PAGE 125

125 of Life (EOL, http://eol.org/ ) and the World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS, http://www.marinespecies.org/ ). Any specimens that were taxonomically rare or problematic for identification were exported to the FLMNH EAP with permission of the Guatemalan Institute of Anthropology and History (Instituto de Antropologa e Historia IDAEH) and the project directors, so th at they could be identified using the Museum comparative collections. P hylogenetic relationship s of many freshwater invertebrate taxa from the Mesoamerican lowlands are still unknown. This includes the river clams ( family Unionidae) and the jute snails ( Pachychilus sp.). T he names presented in this study are subject to change in the near future as advan ces are made in discerning the genetic relationship s among taxa One such project aimed at identifying the modern ta xa of river clams living in the Pasin River today was initiated as a result of the current research and is ongoing As such, t he river clam genus and species designations used in this study separate taxa that were found to be genetically distinct species in the ongoing DNA analyses the results of which are in preparation to be published as of this writing (Pfeiffer et al. 2016a, 2016b ). An effort to distinguish between the morphotypes (physically distinct shells that may or may not be different species) within the genus Psorula (which may soon be synonymous with Psoronaias assemblage will be made after the modern taxonomy is better understood. The exact species identifications of jute are also not securely defined in the Mesoam erica area, since an intensive phylogenetic study has never been performed in the Guatemalan river systems. The species names Pachychilus glaphyrus (describing the larger, rough surfaced taxa) and Pachychilus indiorum (describing the sma ller,

PAGE 126

126 smooth surfac ed taxa) were previously assigned to the two types at Ceibal (Feldman 1978), and are used throughout most of the Usumacinta area (Emery 1989; Halperin 2003; Healy et al. 1990). However, I have found that small P. glaphyrus tend to resemble P. indiorum to t he extent they are nearly indistinguishable. The only noteworthy difference is that small (4 5 cm long) P. glaphyrus still tend to exhibit faint ringed markings around the aperture on the body, which eventually develop into ridges in the larger individuals I am, however, uncertain as to ho w diagnostic this trait is, since very small (~2 3 cm long) jute snails always lack ring marks. In addition to taxonomic identifications, o ther significant inform ation that was recorded for all specimen s in the study incl uded the element name, specific portion of element present (e.g. whole, distal half of shaft or proximal epiphysis ), the element side if applicable, sex and sex characteristic, age at death and characteristic used in aging the element ( stage of bone fusi on or tooth eruption, etc.) pathologies, evidence of butchery or artifactual modifications, evidence of burning, evidence of taphonomic alteration such as root, water damage, or animal gnawing, and any miscellaneous notes having to do with discolorations, recent or old break marks, etc. The primary means of quantification was the Number of Individual Specimens (NISP) technique, using the methods described in Zooarchaeology (Reitz and Wing 2008:202 210) and Quantitative Paleozoology (Lyman 2008) NISP was deemed n ecessary for the an alysis because of the wide variety of fauna in the assemblage that needed a standard means of comparison. In cases where remain s could be refit, perhaps caused by a recent break, specimens were counted as a single unit. Armadillo scutes found together in a single context were counted as one unit for this study. In

PAGE 127

127 cases where remains were highly fragmented (e.g. dust or many splintered remains in one context), this was both noted and counted as one unit. Instances of the latter were usually not included in the comparative analyses, since in almost every instance they were not identifiab le beyond class or even phylum. G astropods were counted conservatively by a minimum number based on the number of interior whorls present in an excavation lot or, if lacking, obvious differences in size of individuals in a lot The only exceptions to this quantification strategy were the modified gastropods carved into beads, which were counted as single specimens. Bivalves were counted using a similar technique from the minim um number of umbo nes and hinges in a lot. Where umbones and hinges were lacking, the minimum number per lot was counted based on the greatest number of overlapping segments of the same part. This was usually the anterior side of the bivalve, which tends to prese rve intact better than the less dense, more prominently placed posterior half. Differences in size, if visible, were also taken into consideration when assessing minimum numbers. Mini mum numbers of gastropods and valves were counted per lot because t his was the most consistent excavation unit used in all four projects and because mollusks were frequently found in most lots, particularly at Ceibal and Cerros, meaning that using a larger spatial scale to calculate a minimum number would have risked unde restimating the actual number of shells present. Similarly, using NISP to count shells would have severely overestimated the number of shells present in each lot, especially shell taxa that are more prone to fragmentation. If shell fragments from two or mo re lots were found to refit this was also taken into consideration and they were counted as a single individual. Weight was not used as a system of quantifying shells because washing the

PAGE 128

128 fragmentary apple snails and river clams in water to remove adhering soil would have destroyed many of the shells, and because minimum number estimates have been found to be a generally more accurate estimate of the number of shells in a deposit than weights (Mason et al. 1998). Weights were routinely taken with the same ba lance whenever possible, usually an Ohaus Model CL 201. Several of the Ceibal snail shells and large bones that contained soil were not weighed, as was the the case for remains recovered f rom the 2014 2015 seasons, when a balance was unavailable. A balance was also unavailable when the Holmul specimens were identified, and these specimens will need to be weighed in the future S pecimen weights are frequently used in zooarchaeological studies that examine estimates of live s pecimen size and weight, to addres s allometric analyses (see, for example, Erlandson et al. 1999; Madrigal and Holt 2002; Reitz et al. 1987; Reitz and Sandweiss 2001; Wing and Wing 2001), make estimates of taxonomic abundance (e.g. Claassen 2000; Erlandson 1994:15 16; Jerardino and Marean 2010; Morrison and Hunt 2007), and mode l mollusk preservation and recovery density (e.g. Faulkner 2011; Wolverton 2010) Nevertheless, because of the inconsistent nature of bone and shell preservation at the sites and the extent to which they were infilt rated with calcium or other minerals, in addition to my reluctance to wash bones and shells thoroughly to remove soil residue because of the potential for contaminating the specimens and compromising future isotopic and genetic analysis and because washin g apple snails and river clams would have destroyed them, I did not deem weight an appropriate or necessary means of quantifying specimens for c omparison in the present study.

PAGE 129

129 Comparative Methods Faunal asse mblages were compared among the formative chronological period s (Middl e Preclassic, Late Preclassic, Terminal Preclassic and Early Classic), both among sites and among deposits w ithin sites. At a ll four sites associated ceramic artifacts were used to apply chronologies to each excavat ed operation, which are recorded in the annual site excavation reports submitted to the Guatemalan government in the cases of the Ceibal, San Bartolo Xultun, and Holmul projects. I have confirmed many of the unreported date s with the site directors (Drs. In omata and Triadan, Saturn o and Castillo, and Estrada Belli, respectively). Radiocarbon dates were used to support the ceramic chronology estimates at all four sites Recent projects that refined the radiocarbon chro nologies using Bayesian statistical model ing at Ceibal (Inomata et al. 2013) and Cerros ( Vadala 2016 ), enabled especially refined dating schemata at these two sites. Since the development of a social hierarchy during the Precla ssic period is still not well understood, the principal focus of my st udy will be on distinctions of wealth and power as expressed among community members (status differenc es) and among sites of different size. S tatus differences are of course difficult to distinguish in the ancient past Unless sites have clearly demarcat ed elite and non elite contexts, many of my comparisons for social inequality are based on distinctions between the site cores (usually a central plaza and surrounding structures) in comparison to the residential peripheries (such as small house groups loc ated a hundred or more meters away from the site center). This is because social status ranks were just beginning to form during the Middle Preclassic period, and so it is difficult to attribute "elite" status to contexts dating to this time. Since the sit e cores are where the first monumental architecture can

PAGE 130

130 be found at each of the communitie s in this study, and are also the areas where palaces and administrative structures were established in the Late Preclassic and Early Classic periods, the site cores would be the most likely areas where social stratification began during the Middle Preclassic period If distinct Late Preclassic and Early Classic elite and non elite contexts were previously identified by archaeologists working at t he sites, I use d these designations. Evidence for animal related ritual activity is difficult to identify in archaeolo gical contexts (e.g. Brck 1999; Russell 2012:73 77; Wilson 1999). In this study, animals found in immediate association with burials and caches identified by the project archaeologists are considered special deposits and potentially remains of a ritual, although because all the deposits at all sites in this study are found within the construction fill of plazas and buildings, animal remains from the fill that a re unrelated to the burial or cache may have become incorporated into the special deposit accidentally As such, analysis of the special deposits take into consideration the fact that not all material in these deposits is necessa rily part of a ritual activ ity. U nusual ly dense animal deposits that were not designated a cache by the project archaeologists are also considered special deposits for the purposes of this study since deposit of discarded animal waste or a symbolically significant animal deposit These unique cases will hereafter be referred to as animal middens. This includes deposits such as dense collections of apple snails that wer e found at several of the sites. T h e frequency of the finds attests to the fact that the activity of depositing so many shells in one

PAGE 131

131 location was, in fact, a type of ritual, even if it may have been a domestic activity and The following sections describe the main topics I address in this study, includ ing animals as used for subsistence, for securing status and power relationships, for exchange and tribute, and for rituals. The examination of crafted items and their use at the different sites is also exami ned in association with these broader topics, including how crafted objects are exchanged within and between sites. Each of the major topic s is addressed on an intersit e and intra site basis, and change or constancy are compared over time. Species Abundanc e, Diversity, and Habitat Representation Comparisons of relative p roportions For intersite comparison one of the main questions of this study is how similar or different faunal assemblages were to one another over time. A related point of inquiry on an in trasite level is how similar or different faunal datasets are when compared across community residences of a site over time and what this tell s us about the history of animal acquisition and use by different community members at each site To address thes e questions, I used gross value comparisons of animal relative abundance (NISP and % of NISP), distribution among taxa, and representation of environmental zones by proxy to compare each of the faunal assemblages and subsets of the assemblages. These measu res w ere used to conduct a regional analysis that compares the sites within the three Petn regions (Ceibal, San Bartolo Xultun, and Holmul) by chronological period (Middle Preclassic, Late Preclassic, etc). In the case of Ceibal, which had much greater fa unal assemblage s than the other sites and fauna from both core and periphery centers, taxonomic proportions were compared between the core

PAGE 132

132 center, Caobal. This was done in part to assess whether status distinctions could be identified at the site over time, since the ceremonial core would have been the area where Preclassi c elites (or otherwise socially significant individuals) had conducted performances and other activitie s, and where the Classic elites had their palace and associated residential structures (Inomata 2013; 2015a). Species d iversity Closely related to the analysis of species abundance is that of diversity, which is composed of the components of taxonomic richness and equitability governed by the relative importance of each taxon in an assemblage or richness, in addition to how evenly individuals within taxa are distributed in an assemblage, or equitability For this study, diversity wa s calculated using the Shannon Weaver formula (Reitz and Wing 2008:245 247): H' = i )(log e p i ) ( 4 1 ) In this equation, H' is the Shannon Weaver diversity index value, and p i is the relative abundance (NISP) of individuals for each taxon in the assemblage. Higher H' values are more diverse than lower values. The most highly resolved taxonomic levels for taxa were used for this analysis to avoid overlapping categories For exam ple, "domestic dog" and "gray fox" were used rather than "carnivores" and the specimens B road categor ies such as "unidentified vertebrates" and "unidentified m ammals" were excluded entir ely. Equitability was measured using the formula described by Reitz and Wing (2008:247):

PAGE 133

133 V' = H'/log e S ( 4 2 ) Here, V' is the equitability value, H' is the Shannon Weaver diversity index, calculated for the sample in question, and S is the number of taxonomic categories for which the NISP values were derived. Equitability values range from 0 1.0, with 1.0 representing an even distribu tion of taxa whereas 0 is the most uneven ly distributed, meaning all specimens belong to a single taxon. Together, diversity and equitability can be used to examine how many animal taxa the inhabitants of a site or part of a site were able to obtain. Sites close to the ocean might be expected to have higher spe cies diversity than other sites located further inland regardless of time period because available faunal diversity is much higher in these areas The most politically powerful and largest Classic period citie s had animal resources that were more divers e t han smaller centers, likely because of their pol itical importance and economic role as strategic trade centers in an area ( Sharpe and Emery 2015; Thornton 2012). In this study I ask whether more powerful Preclassic sites also had more diverse animal assemb lages, and if so, were those the result of acquisition of diverse taxa through extensive trade networks given that the Preclassic was a time when there is no evidence for the existence of marketplaces in the Maya region. Sites that focused on a few key sp ecies would have the lowest diversity scores, and may be an indication of cultural norms and taboos or specialization on local resource availability Habitat fidelity a nalysis Habitat fidelity analysis examines the habita ts from which animals were hunted or fished The technique was developed based on similar ecological studies for modern taxa by Emery (1990; 1997:165 167; 2010:78 79) and was later used by Emery and

PAGE 134

134 Thornton (2008 a ) to determine whether anim al taxa were increasingly obtained from deforeste d environments during the course of the Classic period as human populations rose and to compare faunal remains from aquatic and terrestrial environments over the period of hypothesized drying across the lowlands at the end of the Late Classic (Emery and Thornton 2008b) The technique has also been used in other studies (Boileau 2013:139 142; Pohl 1990:153; Sharpe and Emery 2015; T hornton 2011a) to evaluate whether status groups within sites obtained animals from different habitats. At certain Late and Terminal Classic period sites located near rivers, lower classes wer e found to have relied predominately on river species, especiall y freshwater mollusks, fish, and turtles, while the highest ruling elite class utilized the greatest number of mature forest taxa, mainly wild cats and peccary. This suggests that certain social classes had preferential access or, in the case of the lowest classes, may have been limited to certain hunting and fishing grounds. Whether these distinctions existed in the Preclassic and Early Classic periods, or develop ed slowly over time, is examined in t he present dissertation Furthermore, because some sites are not located near a river, such as Xultun and Holm ul, the discovery of river fauna at these centers may indicate that these taxa were impo rted to the site, even if only from a few kilometers away This study examine s five habitat types: mature forest, s econdary or disturbed forest, agricultural fields or residential zones, rivers, and wetlands. Habitat fidelity values are derived from the prediction of proportionate time that individuals of a specific taxon spend in a particular habitat based on modern biological and ecological studies of the Central American region and research by wildlife biologists working in the area A full list of the averages used for this study, expressed as proportions, can be found in Table 4

PAGE 135

135 1. These proportions are used in co njunction with NISP values of each non overlapping taxon category to identify the proportional representation o f each habitat type in the zooarchaeological assemblage. Marine Resource Exchange Different sites might also have had differential access to non local species. Since San Bartolo, Cival, and many of the other communities in this study are located near riv er systems that traverse northern Belize and discharge into the Atlantic Ocean, one might predict that these sites would have more marine fauna, pa rticularly Atlantic species, than Ceibal. Ceibal is on the shore of the Pasin River, which is a tributary of the much longer Usumacinta River that flows north into the Gulf of Mexico. Thus, Ceibal may also have Atlantic species, although it would be diffi cult to determine whether they came from the Belizean coast (and thus were traded over land routes) or the Gulf. If the Atlantic species found at Ceibal differ from those found at Cerros, San Bartolo, Cival, an d their neighboring centers, this may indicate that they came from the Gulf rather than the Belizean coast. Since Ceibal is closer to the Pacific coast than are the eastern Petn sites, it stands to reason that it may have had greater access to Pacific Ocean species, indicating a trade route in the opposite direction and possibly through the Guatemalan or Chiapas highlands to the west If certain non local items traded over long distances were difficult to obtain, such as marine shells and fish at inland sites, then those individuals or households with t he greatest access and control over traded products would hypothetically have the most non local resources. Current models of political and state development (D'Altroy and Earle 1985; Feinman 1998; Marcus 1998) suggest that if early leaders were trying to distinguish themselves from the rest of the community, we would expect to see the most

PAGE 136

136 prestigious items and exotic animal products at the residences or in th e burials of these individuals. Although symbolically significant or "prestigious" animal species have been identified and investigated in Late Classic, Postcl assic, and even historical contexts whether these species held the same significance during the Preclassic period is not known. If there is continuity between Preclassic and later Classic period symbolism, we may expect to see elements of these noteworthy species, such as wild cat bones and stingray spines, appear exclusiv ely in core and elite contex ts. As such, marine taxa in this study are compared proportionally among all the sites for Preclassic and Early Cla ssic periods (part of the inter site analysis) as well as among the core and periphery areas over time at Ceibal (pa rt of the intra site analy sis). Marine taxa reported from other Preclassic sites beyond those that are the focus of this study ar e used as a source of reference to help track where particular marine species were being transported overland. These Cuello (Wing and Scudd er 1991), Cahal Pech (Powis et al. 1999), Chan (Keller 2012), and Pacbitun (Boileau 2013; Hohmann 2002; Stanchly 1999) in Belize, Chiapa de Corzo (Lee 1969) in southern Mexico, and Patarata (Stark 1974, identific ations by Wing) and San Andrs ( near La Venta, Rust 2008) in the Gulf area of Mexico. The latter two sites are used as a means of identifying whether Olmec sites may have been exchanging marine shells with Maya sites during the Middle Preclassic period. Craft Production Speci alized artisans of certain manufactured goods, such as stone tools or ceramic s, have been identified at some Preclassic period sites from material evidence like the debris from chert workshops recovered at Colha in northern Belize (Santone 1997; Shafer and Hester 1986) A marine shell industry was also identified at Pacbitun

PAGE 137

137 in the Belize Valley (Hohmann 2002) An increase over time in the number of crafted items made from bone and shell materials might be expect ed at Preclassic sites especially if households were producin g surplus items to trade to meet the growing demands of rising populations Similarly, if there was a demand over time for certain crafted items made from a species, we might expect to see more of that p articular item appear at sites. This study assesses c raft production based on whether bone and shell items exhibit some form of modification (carved/incised, punctured, polished, etc), and whether they appear to be in some state of production (i.e. the debitage of craft manufacture ). The species used for pro duction of craft materials are also assessed. Specimens that have been polished, incised, or punctured, including both complete and Specimens that have only been cut, both bones and shel ls, are considered debitage. This quantification technique was used because it i s a consistent method that could be employed at all were once part of a finished artifact and that a drilled and polished broken artifact discarded, and was never actually used. The majority of the crafted items in this study include ornamental objects, particula rly beads, although awls (potentially used as sewing pins, clothing or hair pins, or sharp implements), rasps for music, and bone or shell figurines are also included. As was discussed in Chapter 3, areas where there exist a higher proportion of debitage f rom crafting might be interpreted as workshop areas, which is a method that has been

PAGE 138

138 used to identify artisans during the Late Classic period (Emery 200 9, 2010; Sharpe and Emery 2015) The remains of finished items would be expected to be found in or near the residences and burials of those individuals who received the crafted items. Rit ual Use of Animals I compare symbolically and ritually significant species at each site both in terms of relative abundance of specific taxa known to be of symbolic value, and based on animal remains recovered from "ritual" deposits, which I define here as special deposits identified by the archaeologists as caches and animal remains directly associated with human burials, such as animal remains recovered from the immediate vicinity of human skeletons that appear ed to the archaeologists to have been strate gically pla ced around the body before interment Similar ritual deposits from the Middle and Late Preclassic period, such as E Group caches, are compared among the sites. Preclassic E Groups have been found at Ceibal, Cerros, Cival, Holmul, Dos Aguadas, an d San Bartolo, and definitive caches have been identified in the first three of these. As has been mentioned, although the symbolism behind specific species during Preclassic times is still unclear if myths and symbolism that are characteristic of the lat er Classic Maya were developing during the Preclassic, and if community leaders were beginning to make use of this symbolism for public performances to maintain order in the community and to cultivate their power (Inomata 2006; Looper 2009) we would expect to see a difference between species interred as ritual offerings in caches and burials and those relegated to non ritual deposits.

PAGE 139

139 Use of Light Isotopes to Address Animal Diet and Husbandry Overview of Stable Carbon and Nitrogen Isotope Ratios Both carbon and nitrogen isotop es can be used to determine the composition of different food groups that made up an animal's diet. Although elements maintain a specific number of protons by which they are classified, t heir number of neutrons can differ. This is why there are different i sotopes, with different masses of p articular elements. The stable isotopes of carbon, nitroge n and oxygen are considered to be "light" because they are elements with a relatively low number of protons in the ir nuclei (6, 7 and 8, respectively) and thus have lower mass than mos t other elements The stable isotopes of carbon can be used to determine the proportion of maize that comprised an animal's diet. Animal bone and tooth remains are appropriate tissues to analyze, in which the ratio of 13 C/ 12 C is det ermined using isotope ratio mass 13 C) relative to the modern recognized standard Vienna Pee Dee Belemnite ( v PDB) based on the PDB limestone, which comes from the Cretaceous belemnite Pee Dee formation in South 13 C is often reported as a negative number because PDB limestone has a higher 13 C/ 12 C ratio by comparison. The carbon delta values are calculated according to the following equat ion : 13 C (PDB) = [[( 13 C/ 12 C) sample ( 13 C/ 12 C) PDB ]/( 13 C/ 12 C) PDB ] x 1000 ( 4 3 ) 13 C values in terrestrial animals vary depending on the proportion of C3 to C4 plants in the diet of consum ers (Figure 4 1; Tykot 2002, 2004) C3 and C4 plants are distinguished by their photosynthetic pathways, which differentially select between 13 C and 12 C depending on their means of carbon fixation. C3 pla nts have 13 C values that average C4 plants, such as maize and arid adapted tropical grasses,

PAGE 140

140 are more enriched in 13 C and have higher values as a result, averaging (Bender 1968; Kohn 2010; Tykot 2010 ; Vogel 1993 ). CAM (Crassulacean Acid Metabolism) plants, including cacti, span the range of 13 C 1981; Vogel 1993). Today, white tailed deer in the United States preferentially feed on maize crops if available (Cormi e and Schwarcz 1994; Delger et al. 20 1 1; Nixon et al. 19 91 ). M aize is a C4 plant, and because it is enriched in 13 C compared to C3 plants, it has higher 13 C value s and can show whether deer are consuming agricultural crops. Previous studies measured carb on isotopes on ancient deer remains and found evidence of crop foraging (Emery and Thornton 2008 b ; Emery et al. 2000) and, in a few cases that 13 C values in both adults and juveniles, suggest ing these deer may have been fed maize intentionally from a young age (Freiwald 2010; van der Merwe et al. 2000; White et al. 2001) S table nitrogen isotope value 15 N) from bone collagen frequently accompany 13 C values in dietar y studies of humans and animals. The standard to which the sample 15 N/ 14 N is compared is atmospheric nitrogen, or AIR (Mariotti 1983). The delta value is calculated according to the following equati on : 15 N (AIR) = [[( 15 N / 14 N ) sample ( 15 N / 14 N ) AIR ]/( 15 N / 14 N ) AIR ] x 1000 ( 4 4 ) Nitrogen reflects food protein sources and can distinguish whether an animal consumed higher quantities of freshwater and/or marine species, and can also be indicative of troph ic level (Figure 4 1; Chisholm et al. 1982; Schoeninger 1989) Dogs 13 C values and high 15 N values may have been wild or hunting companions, whereas the reverse would be expected of commensal dogs that consumed a maize

PAGE 141

141 based human diet from table scraps (White et al. 2004) Other omni vores, par ticularly the peccary and paca, can be tested for possible husb andry evidence in this manner. Both carbon and nitrogen isotopes can be extracted from bone collagen, In humans and man y other animals, including dogs, the complete bone turnover rate may take several years (Clarke 2008; Frost 1969; Huja et al. 2006). Carbon can also be extracted from bone and tooth enamel apatite, the latter reflecting the diet of the animal when the toot h was formed. Carbon from bone collagen primarily reflects the carbon isotopic composition that comes from dietary protein, whereas carbon from bone and tooth apatite reflects the whole diet (Amb rose and Norr 1993; Norr 1995). Studies by Ambrose and Norr ( 1993) on laboratory rats were undertaken to assess the origin of collagen and apatite carbon and determine how variations in the 13 C The authors 13 C ap coll difference is a more accurate reflection of the carbon isotop ic si gnature from the whole diet, rather than just proteins obtained from collagen carbon. Rats that consumed a diet of mainly C4 protein and C3 13 C ap coll than rats that consumed a diet of mainly C3 protein and C4 energy (cane sugar, corn star ch, and corn oil) with monoisotopic (primarily C3 or C4 consumption) diets falling in between (Norr 1995: Figure 9.4). Specimen Preparation and Analytical Procedure This study used faunal tooth and bone specimens recovered from the site of Ceibal for stable isotopic analysis. I prepared both bone collagen and apatite and tooth apatite samples at the Bone Chemistry Labora tory, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, under the supervision of lab director John Krigbaum. In most

PAGE 142

142 cases, cortical bone was chosen for the analyses whenever possible since it wa s less likely to have been contaminated by soil leaching, water, weathering, or similar processes since it i s denser than cancellous epiphyseal bone Bone samples were first cleaned of visible surface contaminants, mainly adhering soil, by light sc raping with dental picks or with sonication in distilled d e ionized water (DI H 2 O). Samples were then crushed with a ceramic mortar and pestle and sieved in two sets of meshes t o retrieve fractions for analysis of bone collagen (0.25 0.5 mm) and apatite (<0.25 mm). About 500 mg of the collagen frac tion was placed into a centrifuge tube with 12 ml 0.2 M hydrochloric acid ( HCl ) The collagen fraction was allowed to react with the HCl for 24 hours was centrifuged and decanted, and was refreshed with new 0.2 M HCl every 24 hours until the bone collagen was fully demineralized (5 7 days) Once demineralized, each sample was r insed to neutral with DI H 2 O. 12 13 ml of 0.1 25 M sodium hydroxide (NaOH) was then a dded to the collagen a nd allowed to sit for ~20 hours. After 20 24 hours the contents of the tube were again centrifuged and rinsed to neutral. 10 ml 1x10 3 M HCl was then added to the collagen in the tube and the contents were transferred to a 20 ml glass scintillation vial, which was then placed in an oven, 5 hours. 30 40 l 1.0 M HCl was then added and the solution was returned to the oven for another 4 5 hours. The solution was then returned to the original test tube, centrifuged, and the solution (not precipitate) was transferred back to the vial for evaporation in the ov 2 ml remained the so lution was removed from the ov en and p laced, capped, in a freezer. Once frozen, the vial cap was loosened and placed in a freeze drier for 2 days and weighed to determine collagen yield Finally, the contents were loaded into a mass spectrometer for analysis

PAGE 143

143 at the Light Stable Isotop e Mass Spectrometer Laboratory, supervised by Jason Curtis in the Department of Geological Sciences, University of Florida. For the bone apatite fraction, ~ 250 mg was weighed out into a centrifuge tube with ~ 12 13 ml 2.5% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl). The a patite fraction was vortexed and le f t to sit for ~ 16 20 hours, with inte rmittent agitation every few hours. The sample was then rinsed to neutral with DI H 2 O, and the tube was filled with ~ 12 13 ml of 0.2 M acetic acid ( C 2 H 4 O 2 ), shaken, and le f t to sit for another 16 hours. Afterward the sample was again rinsed to neutral. The excess DI H 2 O was removed and the sample was placed in a freezer. Once frozen, the sample was removed and placed in a freeze drier with a slightly loosened cap for 2 days. The conten ts were then weighed to determine the carbonate yield, and then brought to the Light Stable Isotope Mass Spectrometer Laboratory for analysis. Regarding the tooth enamel apatite, teeth were cut and drilled to remove all exterior surface contaminants and de ntine residue using a diamond tipped Brasseler NSK Z500 drill. 20 25 m g of enamel was ground using an agate mortar and pestle, switching between samples to avoid cross contamination. The enamel powder was weighed and placed in a microcentrifuge tube and fi lled with ~1 ml 2.5 % NaOCl, vortexed and le f t to sit for ~ 16 hours, after which time the sample was rinsed to neutral with DI H 2 O. The microcentrifuge was then filled with ~1 ml of 0.2 M acetic acid, vortexed and le f t to sit another 16 hours. The sample was then rinsed to neutral a second time decanted, and placed in the freezer. Once frozen, the sample was placed in the freeze drier for 2 days weighed, and a fterward the dried samples were brought to the Light Stable Isotope Mass Spectrometer Laboratory for analysis.

PAGE 144

144 Use of Isotopes to Examine Animal Exchange and Migration Overview of Stable Strontium, Oxygen, and Lead Isotope Ratios Aside from identifying non local marine species at inland si tes, a second technique used in this study to track the trade and differential acquisition of non loca l wildlife is through oxygen isotope analysis and strontium and lead isotopic analysis, again performed with fauna from the site of Ceibal. Strontium and lead isotope s are considered to be "heavy" in tha t they have more protons and thus greater mass than many other elements. The lead, strontium, and oxygen isotopic signatures of tooth enamel may serve as proxies to the location where an animal was born and lived as it s teeth developed early in life. In humans, for example, the enamel of the first molar may reflect mineralization that occurred within the firs t three years of the individual s life (White and Folkens 2005:365 368) ; in other animals, the length of this p eriod of mineralization may be different an d is often shorter than th at in humans. Since bone apatite overturns throughout life as bone is constantly modified and remodeled, lead, strontium, and oxygen from bone apatite reflect s an average of the last few to ten years prior to an (Clarke 2008) Strontium ratios can be used to track pro visioning, tribute, and long distance exchange of animals as part of a socioeconomic network. They have recently been used in studies in the Maya region to identify nonlocal animals that had been interred in special deposits, such as ritual caches (Freiwald 2011; Thornton 2011a, 2011b; Thornton et al. 2016 ) Strontium ana lysis assesses the ratio 87 Sr/ 86 Sr isotopes, which may be unique to the local bed rock (Bentley 2006; Graust ein 1989; Price et al. 2002; Sealy et al. 1991) 87 Sr is radiogenic, produced from the decay of rubidium ( 87 Rb). The

PAGE 145

145 naturally forming, non radiogenic forms of strontium include 84 Sr, 86 Sr, and 88 Sr (Faure 2005:79). In general, older rock that has had m ore time for 87 Rb to decay into 87 Sr has higher 87 Sr/ 86 Sr, particularly older sedimentary and metamorphic rock. Younger, volcanic rock has much lower 87 Sr/ 86 Sr by comparison. Strontium is soluble and enters the water that plants and animals consume, often substituting for calcium in chemical bonds, including those responsible for the formation of enamel and bone apatite (Burton et al. 1999; Likins et al. 1960) Strontium isotopes are not prone to fractionation as a r esult of metabolic activity in animals and plants because of their large atomic mass (Blum et al. 2000; Stille and Shields 1997:7) and so the strontium isotopic ratio in bone apatite and shells generally reflects the local bedrock signature. Hodell et al. (2004) and others (Price et al. 2008; Thornton 2011a; Wright 2012) constructed a map of bedrock strontium isotope base lines throughout the May a area. Oxyg en isotopes compliment those of strontium and can assist in the identification of non local animals among different geographic regions. The two stable isotopes of oxygen that are measured are 18 O and 16 O (Longinelli 1984; Luz et al. 1984) 18 O value typically reflects th e ratio of these isotopes from water that has been imbibed, although a small amount may come from food as well. The 18 O value is calculated in relation to one of two nationally recognized standard, either Vienna Pee Dee Bele mnite (vPDB) or Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water (vSMOW), however, for terrestrial fauna vPDB is the appropriate standard to use Two types of oxygen may be studied in tissues, bioapatite or c arbonate and bone/tooth enamel carbonate 18 O is typically used in paleodiet ary studies, where as bioapatite phosphate 18 O is often used

PAGE 146

146 in paleoclimate studies, especially to examine past precipitation and temperature conditions, although recent advances in carbonate extraction and isolation procedures have allowed for both sources of oxygen to be used for paleoclimate research (Bryant et al. 1996; Sponheimer and Lee Thorp 1999, 2001). This study examines bioapatite carbonate specifically, since both the apatite carbon and oxygen can be sampled once rather than separately, as is the case with phosp hate. Using bioapaitite carbonate, the equation for calculating 18 O is: 18 O ( v PDB) = [[( 18 O / 16 O ) sample ( 18 O / 16 O ) vPDB ]/( 18 O / 16 O ) vPDB ( 4 5 ) 18 O values are influenced by a num ber of factors, including amount of precipitation, distance from the ocean, temperature, and the size of the body of water where oxygen resides ( Brenner et al. 2003; Lachniet and Patterson 2009) In the Maya area, oxygen isotopes have assisted in identifying the loca tion of orig in of humans in region s where strontium values do not differ significantly, such as the central Petn region of northern Guatemala (Price et al. 2010; Wright 2012) Because of the number of variables that affect 18 O values however, some bio and zooarchaeologists hav e begun to question how useful they are for assessing migration and movement across a landsc ape in Mesoamer ica (Scherer et al. 2015). Although 18 O values are often low in inland areas compared to coastal regions because the heavier isotope ( 18 O ) preferentially pr ecipitates out of rainwater as clouds of evaporated ocean w ater move inland, this pattern is not always reflect ed in the 18 O value s of lake or river water s, which each display their own rates of evaporation (Brenner et al. 2003)

PAGE 147

147 A study of 18 O fluctuations by Scherer and colleagues (2015) i n ponds lakes, aguadas (watering holes), civales (perennia l wetlands), caves, rivers, and collected precipitation over the course of five years in the northern Petn of Guatemala found that 18 O varies considerably between the rainy and dry seasons. The fluctuations are the result of a combination of differences in the amount of precipitation and the amount of In the rainy season, 18 O value s are relatively low as more 18 O depleted rainfall enters the hydraulic system in relation to the dry season. Furthe rmore, in the dry season, 18 O values increase as evaporation preferentially removes the lighter H 2 16 O from the standing water, leaving relatively more H 2 1 8 O behi nd. This pattern affects some regions to a greater extent than others. For example, a reservoir at the archaeological site of El Zotz had the highest and lowest 18 O extremes throughout the five year study. Rivers and streams showed more consistent 18 O value s during the s tudy period, supporting the notion that they were not significantly influenced by the evaporative effec t as were closed basin systems. Such fluctuations may explain why studies of human migration in the Petn using 18 O investigation of burials at Tikal, found a significant amount of variation in individuals who had been identified as local using strontium isotopes This does not mean that oxygen isotope analysis to detect migration is ineffectual in the Maya area; after all, in previous studies extreme outliers in 18 O obtained from ancient humans in th e Maya area also were identified as outliers using strontium analysis (Price et al. 2010; Wright et al. 2010; Wright 2012). It does, however, indicate that there is a need to take into consideration seasonality and the timing of

PAGE 148

148 tooth formation in an animal at a site, and to consider the size of the water body from which humans and other animals drank Lead isotopic sourcing may serve as an additional useful tool for identi fying non local animal and human individuals at a site. Lead is found naturally in the forms of 204 Pb, 206 Pb, 207 Pb, and 208 Pb. 206 Pb and 207 Pb decay from 238 U and 235 U, respectively, and can vary in proportion geographically (Kamenov and Gulson 2014; Gulson 2008) 208 Pb is produced from the decay of 232 Th. 204 Pb is often used as the standard of comparison among the other three le ad isotopes because it is no t continually produced by radioactive decay and maintains a consistent level in the Earth's crust. Like strontium, lead is adventitiously incorporated into the body of organisms, including the skeletons and tooth enamel of vertebrates, through the same rou te calcium is absorbed (berg et al. 1998) The low solubility of lead phosphate in water allows it to be consumed by drinking or consumption of food, although the majority of lead that is accumulated in living tissue comes from inhaled dust that is ingested (Alexan der et al. 1993; Bor n schein et al. 1985; Kamenov and Gulson 201 4). Lead accumulate s in the apatite of teeth as enamel is being produced early in an animal's life, and will not change later in life (Fincham et al. 1999) Like strontium, lead isotopes are heavy enough (i.e., there is very little proportional mass difference between isotopes) that they do not readily fractionate in the body or external environment, allowing for direct comparison between lead isotopic ratios in the environment and lead in body tissue. Nevertheless, modern anthropogenic sources of lead (i.e. pollu tion) have contaminate d "natural" lead signatures. In a ncient Europe, lead produced as a byproduct of silver and lead mining by the ancient Greeks, Roma ns, and other groups

PAGE 149

149 beginning around 3000 years ago has been detected in Greenland ice cores (Hong et al. 1994) and human teeth (Budd et al. 2004; Montgomer y et al. 2010). A nthropogenic lead released into the environment as a consequence of recent mining and leaded gasoline use has even contaminated the uninhabited ice sheets of A ntarctica (Rosman et al. 1994). T he Maya lowlands lacked substantial mining and metal smelting activity until the arrival of Spanish colonists in the 16th century and so ancient sources of lead would not have contaminated human or animal remains. Occasionally copper artifacts from west and central Mexico made their way east and sout h to the Maya region during the Classic and Postclassic periods, but these cases were exceedingly rare, the artifacts themselves, often bells, being used for adornments and special grave goods (Hosler and Macfar lane 1996). The smelting of copper to produce these artifacts would not have been intensive enough to influence lead values in the local soil, water, or vegetation. Furthermore, although 20 th century leaded gasoline use may have affected the soil lead isotope content of more populated regions and roadways in Mesoamerica, as would the implementation of fertilizers on fields, this would not be enough to contaminate archaeological remains buried underground in the central Pe tn forest, which is the had a negligible effect on underlying bedrock, which is the material that was used for creating a lead sourcing map for this study. Bone and Enamel Specimen Preparation and Analytical Procedure Bone and tooth enamel were cleaned and extracted at the Department of Anthropology Bone Chemistry Laboratory at the University of Florida. Bone apatite was prepared using the same technique discussed in the previous section ~ 30 50 mg of

PAGE 150

150 bone apatite was set aside for th e heavy isotope procedure, whereas the oxygen isotopic ratio was obtained along with the carbon apatite when the sample was brought to the Light Stable Isotope Mass Spectrometer Laboratory Department of Geological Sciences for analysis. Tooth enamel apatite that had been prepared for carbon isotope analysis was also used for oxygen isotope analysis For the heavy isotopes lead and strontium, tooth enamel was not ground but instead drilled u sing a diamond tip Brasseler NSK Z500 instrument to pro duce a ~ 30 50 mg enamel segment. For the heavy isotope p rocedure, the sample, either bone apatite or tooth enamel was weighed and placed in pre cleaned Teflon vials at the class 1000 clean labs of the Department of Geological Sciences, University of Florida, under the supervision of Dr. George Kamenov. 2 ml of 50% nitric acid (HNO 3 Optima) was added to each sample. Samples were until the nitri c acid was evaporated to dig est the sample for ion chromatography. Any sample that was tested for both lead and strontium went through the lead ion chromatography steps first. These samples were separated from single aliquots through ion chromatography columns using a Dowex 1X 8 resi n with a 1N hydrobromic acid (HBr) wash and then collected with a 20% Optima HNO 3 wash. The strontium component that was flushed from the chromatography steps with the HBr was placed uncapped on a hot plate with 1 ml 50% HNO 3 until evaporated which remove d the bromide and prevented it from reacting with the HNO 3 in the strontium ion chromatography steps, which would ot herwise form a dense reaction product that would block the strontium column separation. The strontium was isolated from the samples

PAGE 151

151 using st rontium selective crown ether resin (Sr spec, Eichrom Technologies, Inc.) with multiple washes of 3.5 N HNO 3 as outlined in the procedure of Pin and Bassin ( 1992). Both lead and strontium isotopes were measured using a "Nu Plasma" multiple collector inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer (MC ICP MS) in the Department of Geological Sciences at the University of Florida under direction of Kamenov Lead Bedrock Preparation for Baseline Study Sixty rock samples were ch osen to create the lead isoto pe baseli ne. Of these, 36 were material collected by Hodell and colleagues for their study of strontium isotopes (Hodell et al. 2004), 22 were collected in a previous study by University of Florida researchers who measured strontium isotope values in rock near the Chicxulub crater edge samples were chosen based on their geologic age, spatial distribution, and proximity t o archaeological sites. Carbonate samples ( ~ 30 50 mg) w ere ground, dissolve d in 2 ml of 50% HNO 3 ( Optima) in pre then allowed to evaporate to dryness. Silicate samples ( ~ 30 50 mg) were ground, dissolved in 1 ml of purified Optima HNO 3 and 2 ml hydrofluoric acid ( HF Optima) in pre cleaned before being allowed to evaporate to dryness. All samples were then separated from single aliquots through ion chromatography using a Dowex 1X 8 re sin with a 1N HBr wash and then collected with a 20% Optima HNO 3 wash. Lead isotop e ratios were obtained using the same MC ICP MS procedure described above. V alues for the NBS 981 standard used for the dataset were 206 Pb/ 204 Pb= 207 Pb/ 204 Pb= 208 Pb/ 204 Pb=

PAGE 152

152 run, intermixed by rock type and region, on several separate occasions, thereby decreasing the potential for a nalytical error Summary of Methodology an d Procedure The z ooarchaeological analytical methods and stable isotopic geochemistry procedur es outlined in this chapter were undertaken in combination to address questions pertaining to how animals were used in the development of early Maya state society The zooarchaeological analyses compare the four sites in the study ov er time on intersite and intra site bases, whereas the light and heavy stable isotope analyses of Ceibal fauna assess animal diet and potential instances of long distance exchange. Combi ned, these techniques can address the overarching themes of changing subsistence and dietary practices, the intensification of social inequality coinciding with rising populations, the use of animals as craft and exchange products to meet the demands of an expanding economic system, and the use of animals for ritual ceremonies as part of the develop ing trend toward a symbolically empowered political state.

PAGE 153

153 Table 4 1. Habitat fidelity values used in this study. MF = mature forest; SEC = secondary forest; AGR/RES = agricultural/residential area; RIV = river; WET = wetland. Values based on Emery and Thornton 2008 with additional reported data provided by Emery. Scientific Name Common Name MF SEC AGR/ RES RIV WET Mammals Didelphis virginianus Virginia opossum 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.2 Philander opossum gray four eyed opossum 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.3 Didel phidae opossums 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.2 Alouatta pigra howler monkey 0.6 0.4 Ateles geoffroyi spider monkey 0.8 0.2 Tamandua mexicana northern tamandua (anteater) 0.5 0.5 Dasypus novemcinctus nine banded armadillo 0.2 0.4 0.4 Sylvilagus sp. rabbit 0.5 0.5 Orthogeomys hispidus hispid pocket gopher 0.5 0.5 Geomyidae pocket gophers 0.5 0.5 Sciurus sp. squirrel 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 Dasyprocta punctata Central American agouti 0.45 0.45 0.1 Cuniculus paca lowland paca 0.25 0.25 0.1 0.2 0.2 Caviomorpha a agouti or paca 0.35 0.35 0.1 0.1 0.1 Urocyon cinereoargentus gray fox 0.2 0.4 0.4 Procyon lotor raccoon 0.1 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.25 Nasua narica white nosed coati 0.35 0.35 0.3 Potos flavus kinkajou 0.5 0.5 Eira barba tayra 0.5 0.5 Lontra longicaudis neotropical otter 1 Galictis vittata greater grison 0.4 0.4 0.2 Mustela frenata long tailed weasel 0.4 0.4 0.2 Leopardus pardalis ocelot 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 Leopardus wiedii margay 0.6 0.4 Leopardus sp. a ocelot or margay 0.55 0.35 0.05 0.05 Panthera onca jaguar 0.65 0.15 0.2 Puma concolor puma 0.4 0.4 0.2 Felidae, large jaguar or puma 0.525 0.27 5 0.1 0.1 Tapirella bairdii Baird's tapir 0.2 0.4 0.4 Pecari tajacu collared peccary 0.33 0.33 0.33 Tayassu pecari white lipped peccary 1 Tayassuidae a peccary 0.6 0.2 0.2 Mazama sp. brocket deer 0.6 0.3 0.1 Odocoileus virginianus white tailed deer 0.1 0.45 0.45 Birds Colinus virginianus northern bobwhite 0.5 0.4 0.1 Ortalis vetula plain chachalaca 0.5 0.5 Penelope purpurascens crested guan 1 Crax rubra greater curassow 0.8 0.2 Meleagris ocellata ocellated turkey 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 Meleagris sp. a turkeys 0.4 0.3 0.3 Dendrocygna sp. whistling duck 0.5 0.5

PAGE 154

154 Table 4 1. Continued Scientific Name Common Name MF SEC AGR/ RES RIV WET Anatidae ducks 0.5 0.5 Egretta sp. egrets 0.5 0.5 Nycticorax nycticorax black crowned night heron 0.5 0.5 Ardeidae herons 0.5 0.5 Anhinga anhinga anhinga (darter) 1 Fulica americana american coot 0.5 0.5 Columba sp. doves, pigeons 0.5 0.5 Accipitriformes (cf. Buteogallus urubitinga) great black hawk 0.4 0.6 Quiscalus mexicanus boat tailed grackle 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 Reptiles Chelydra serpentina snapping turtle 0.5 0.5 Trachemys venusta Mesoamerican slider 0.5 0.5 Dermatemys mawii Central American river turtle 1 Dermatemydidae or Emydidae river turtle or slider 0.75 0.25 Staurotypus triporcatus Mexican musk turtle 0.5 0.5 Kinosternon sp. mud turtle 0.5 0.5 Kinosternidae a mud or musk turtle 0.5 0.5 Crocodylus sp. crocodile 1 Fish Atractosteus tropicus tropical gar 1 Siluriformes catfish 1 Cichlisoma ( Mayaheros ?) cf. urophthalmus Mayan cichlid 1 Cichlidae cichlid 1 Actinopterygii b fish 1 Mollusks Megalonais cf. nervosa river clam 1 Unionidae river clam 1 Pachychilus glaphyrus jute snail 1 Pachychilus indiorum jute snail 1 Pachychilus sp. jute snail 1 Pomacea flagellata Central American apple snail 0.6 0.4 a Divided equally between two species within the broader taxa group b Assumed to be freshwater fish in this study

PAGE 155

155 Figure 4 1. Carbon and nitrogen ratios for food groups in the Mesoamerica area. Exact values for plants, terrestrial animals, and particularly aquatic fauna may vary depending on species and area. Figure modified from Tykot 2004: Figure 2 and Tyko t 2010: Figure 10 2.

PAGE 156

156 CHAPTER 5 ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL RESULTS FROM CEIBAL This chapter presents the results and discussion of the faunal analysis at Ceibal and its nearby minor center, Caobal. The first part examines the overall results of F irst I compare the record from the early Middle Preclassic through the Terminal Classic periods (refer to Table 2 observe overall trends throughout the h istory of the si between different parts of the site, mainly the core s tructures and outlying peripheral residential groups, to assess whether changes in the use of animal resources happened in a similar manner throughout the site as a whole or if there is any indication of differences based on the function of different parts of the site (e.g. increased ceremonial activity in the core) that intensified over time as the site became a political state. The third part of the chapter focuses on s pecial or ritual uses of taxa, such as unique midden deposits and animal caches, which are also compared between the core and periphery over time. This is followed by a section on the crafting activities conducted at the site, drawing c omparisons between t he co re and periphery areas to determine what items were being crafted and where, and who were the p rimary recipients. Finally, results from C eibal are compared with those from its neighboring minor center, Caobal, to see if similar trends are observed bet ween the two centers. Comparison of th e Preclassic and Classic Period Fauna compared over time. The section addresses several important questions about how the site developed and transformed from the early Middle Preclassic (the Real Xe ceramic phase) to Terminal Classic (the Bayal ceramic phase) periods. The most general

PAGE 157

157 questions are whether the faunal assemblage exhibits any change in proportion of specimens over time among the different taxa, and whether these changes coincide with the known social history of the site. For example, was the acquisition of faunal resources at the si te similar during both the late Middle Preclassic period and the Terminal Classic period, the tw o times when the site is known to have experienced large scale construction projects? How do these two periods of sociopolitical succe ss compare with the intermediate periods, the Terminal Preclassic and Early Classic (100 B.C. A.D. 600) when large scal e construction projects stopped temporarily and parts of Ceibal were abandoned? If there is no sign of change in the faunal record over time, we might assume Ceibal was able to maintain sociocultural continuity even through unstable periods of its past, an d that political successes and failures were not in any way tied to the acquisition and use of animal resources at the site. However, if the two cultural peaks exhib it similar uses of animals, whereas the abandonment phase differs, we might be able to say that sociocultural development in the Maya ar ea followed a pattern whereby social disruption is reflect ed in changes in how animals were used A third possibility is that the Preclassic and Classic period faunal records are different, and the abandonment p hase marks a period of transit ion between these two periods of ry. These three scenarios each reflect a different picture of how Ceibal developed into a Classic period state. The first part of this section provides a detailed summary of the r esults. This is followed by a review of the diversity and equitability analyses of the dataset. As was mentioned in Chapter 3, we might expect based on evidence from other developing state societies in the world that Ceibal would have had an increase in diversity during

PAGE 158

158 the periods of its history that experienced socioeconomic success, when the site residents might be expected to have had the most power and access to the widest variety of taxa. The period of population decline during the Early Classic per iod might be expected to have had the least faunal taxonomic diversity as individuals living at the site were unable to obtain as many animal resources. The third section discusses the results of the habitat fidelity analysis, examining the types of enviro nments animals were procured from over time at Ceibal, which might show if animal procurement strategies changed at the site and, possibly (although more difficult to verify), whether there were any ecological or habitat changes at the site that may have f orced the citizens of Ceibal to change their procurement strategies. A summary of the Ceibal faunal analyses and what they tell us regarding the initial questions in this section is provided at the end. General Overview of Results Table 5 1 shows the compl ete results of th e Ceibal analysis Using a conservative strategy to quantify the invertebrates (described in Chapter 4), a total of 27,652 remains were included in the analysis. The gross counts of specimens, as quantified by NISP, were greatest in the la te Middle Preclassic period (NISP=10,180) and least in the Terminal Preclassic period (NISP=854). Of the vertebrates, mammals were the most numerous when quantified by NISP (NISP=6437), followed by fish (NISP=3769) and then reptiles (NISP=2245). Amphibians were by far the least common (NISP=18), and mainly consisted of frogs or toads (Anura). Although birds were found in all chrono logical periods, they were never numerous (NISP=282). In terms of the invertebrates, freshwater mollusks were found in far great er quantities than any other mollusk type (NISP=10,478), whereas terrestrial snails and marine mollusks were much

PAGE 159

159 less common (NISP=1202 and 631, respectively). Echinoderms had the fewest remains of any invertebrat e category (NISP=11), which is not surprising considering they must have been imported from a distant coast. Figure 5 1 shows the proportional distribution of vertebrates and invertebrate s at the site over time. There wa s a gradual increase in the proportion of invertebrates at the site during the Preclassic phases, followed by a precipitous drop between the Terminal Preclassic and Early Classic periods as vertebrates beca me the dominant category Figure 5 2 shows that the proportional distrib ution of ve rtebrate taxa at the site varied over time. Mammals c a me to dominate the vertebrate assemblage toward the Late and Terminal Preclassic as well as the Terminal Classic periods, the two times when Ceiba l is believed to have experienced peak popula tion levels. The proportion of fish seems to run inverse to the prop ortion of mammals, since fish were least common (~10%) at these political peaks, although they we re much more common (~ 30 45%) in the Middle Preclassic period and the Early and Late Classi c periods. Rept iles, almost entirely turtles, we re proportionately more common in the Early and Terminal Classic periods than other periods. Birds we re never proportionally significant (<5% of vertebrates for all periods), with a slight proportional increa se occurring in the Late and Terminal Classic periods. Comparison of the marine and freshwater invertebrates (Figure 5 3) also shows considerable variation over time, with marine invertebrates ranging from 0.2% of the combined freshwater/marine inver tebrat e assemblage in the early Middle Preclassic period to 32.3% in the Terminal Classic period.

PAGE 160

160 Overview of Results: The Mammals Concerning the mammals, dogs ( Canis lupus familiaris ) and white tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ) were the two most common speci es (9.4% and 6.3% of all mammals, respectively). Many of the unidentified mammal remains likely belonged to these two taxa as well. The total number, as well as proportional amount, of dogs compared to deer in the assemblage over time is roughly inverse ( F igure 5 4), wit h dogs most common in the early Middle Preclassic (55.8% of mammals) and gradually decreasing thereafter, whereas deer were fairly uncommon in the Preclassic periods but grew to dominate the mammal assemblage by the Terminal Classic period ( 16.9% of mam mals). A large part of the early Middle Preclassic dog assemblage can be attributed to a single deposit containing at least two partial dog skeletons (operations CB 211C 12 7 4 through CB 211C 12 7 6, NISP=492 ; Figure 5 5). Since the dog skelet ons were incomplete, intermixed, and there were dog bones scattered throughout the surrounding excavation lots as well, the elements of these individuals were counted separately Likewise, the Terminal Classic period deer assemblage part of an elite resid ential midden, contains the remains of at least four partial white tailed deer skel etons (operation CB208A, NISP= 101, with minimum number estimated from number of whole same sided astragali; Figure 5 6). Although these midden deposits may bias the overall specimen counts for those periods, the proportions are still significant because even without these deposits, the numbers of specimens for these two taxa are still high during these periods. Furthermore, the nature of the deposits (several partial skeleton s in a single location) is uncommon at Ceibal, since most vertebrates are found as disarticulated and singular elements.

PAGE 161

161 Most of the other mammal taxa were recovered in far fewer numbers and proportions. The other deer species, the brocket deer ( Mazama sp .), was represented in nearly all time periods but in very low numbers (NISP=1 4, or 0.13% of all vertebrates). Peccaries (Tayassuidae) were found in all periods (0.35% of all vertebrates), especially during the Classic period. Peccaries may have included either the white lipped peccary ( Tayassu pecar i ) or the collared peccary ( Pecari tajacu ). These species could not be distinguished in this study because the bones were mostly fragmentary postcranial elements which are notoriously difficult to identify to the level of species. Of the other large bodied and common mammal taxa, tapirs ( Tapirella bairdii ) were found in nearly all chronological periods, but again, in low numbers (NISP=1 4, or 0.09% of all vertebrates) and usually only the teeth were recovered There were a number of carnivores found at the site, particularly foxes and wild cats. The gray fox ( Urocyon cinereoargenteus ) was found in contexts from nearly every period except the Terminal Preclassic. Felines were also found in all periods except the Terminal Preclassic. The two large felines, pum as ( Puma concolor ) and jaguars ( Panthera onca ), w ere primarily found in the late Middle Preclassic and Terminal Classic periods. Smaller cats, including margays ( Leopardus wiedii ) and ocelots ( Leopardus pardalis ), were almost exclusively recovered from the Classic period contexts. Similarly, of the procyonids, coati ( Nasua narica ) and kinkajou ( Potos flavus ) remains were only found in the Classic period, although two raccoon ( Procyon lotor ) remain s were recovered from the early Middle Preclassic period. Mus telids were also found at the site, all from in or immediately surrounding the Central Plaza: one long tailed weasel ( Mustela frenata ) mandible was found from an early Middle Preclassic

PAGE 162

162 level, a possible neotropical otter ( Lontra longicaudis ) canine was fo und from a late Middle Preclassic level, and a nearly complete greater grison ( Galictis vittata ) femur was found in a Late Classic period level. Rodents, including small rodents such as rats and mice, were found in all time periods across the site, particu larly the late Middle Preclassic and Terminal Classic periods. Of the large rodents, lowland paca ( Cuniculus paca ) remains were represented in every time period, but in low numbers (NISP=1 9, or 0.17% of all vertebrates). The smaller agoutis ( Dasyprocta pu nctata ) were about as common (0.23% of all vertebrates ) and were mostly found in the Late and Terminal Classic periods. Gophers (Geomyidae) and squirrels ( Sciurus sp.) were very rare at the site (0.06% and 0.02% of all vertebrates, respectively), appearin g intermittently in both the Preclassic and Classic periods. Concerning the other small mammals, rabbits and armadillos were found in all periods except the Terminal Preclassic period. Rabbits (0.14% of all vertebrates) were found in low numbers but were s lightly more common in the late Middle Preclassic and Terminal Classic periods. Like the peccary, the two species local to the area are indistinguishable based on postcranial remains: the eastern cottontail ( Sylvilagus floridanus ) and the forest cottontail (also known as the tapeti, Sylvilagus brasiliensis ). Armadillos, specifically the nine banded armadillo ( Dasypus novemcinctus 0.24% of all vertebrates), were infrequently found at Ceibal, although ther e was a unique case of an early Middle Preclassic arm adillo shell found in the construction fill between two plaster floors (Figure 5 7, counted as one specimen for this study due to its scutes having been articulated and clearly part of a single animal as opposed to the Middle Preclassic

PAGE 163

163 intermixed dog dep osits ). Opossums appeared in variable numbers (0.73% of all vertebrates), and were mainly the smaller gray four eyed opossum ( Philander opossum ). Many of the Terminal Classic opossums were found in the topsoil, and so it is questionable whether they were part of the original Terminal Classic deposits or a post occupat ional or even modern deposit. Thirty of the 32 Late Classic period Virginia opossum ( Didelphis virginianus ) remains came from what may have been the partial skeleton of a single individual fou nd in a dense midden like cultural deposit over Structure A 2. Only one specimen of each of the remaining mammals was identified including a bat (Chiroptera) from the Terminal Classic period, one bone from each of the two monkey species ( Alouatta pigra an d Ateles geoffr o yi ), and the humerus of a northern anteater ( Tamandua mexicana ). The two monkey bones, both long bones, were found in the uppermost topsoil layers and were therefore likely from a post occupational period. If so, then no monkeys were recove red in the Ceibal archaeological contexts from when the site was occupied by the ancient Maya. The northern anteater bone, a severely rodent gnawed humerus, was found in a midden located immediately behind and associated with the Terminal Classic period pa lace. Overview of Results: The Birds As has been mentioned, there were fewer birds than any other class of vertebrate in the assemblage (2.21% of all vertebrates), with the exception of amphibians (0.14% of vertebrates). This was possibly a consequence of poor preservation, since most bird bones have very thin walls and hollow interiors. Many of the bird bones that were recovered were impossible to identify because they were only splintered shaft fragments that lacked diagnostic characters. Even fine screen ing and

PAGE 164

164 flotation failed to recover any small identifiable bird remains (Table 5 2). Most of the birds that were identifiable belonged to larger species, and were only identifiable because enough of the bone was preserved to make a secure identification. I t is also noteworthy that considerably more birds, including small bird bones, were recovered from the Classic period contexts than the Preclassic contexts, possibly suggesting that poor preservation due to the time left in the ground may have been the rea son the Preclassic bird bones had failed to survive. As w ill be discussed later in this c hapter, the Preclassic inhabitants of the site occasionally repurposed old midden material in the construction of their building projects which may have led to the fr agmentation of small bird bones. The only partial bird skeleton found at the site, a possible hawk found purposefully placed beneath th e Central Plaza during the late Middle Preclassic period, began to crumble immediately upon exposure to the air; although considerable care was taken to coat it with paraloid B 72 preservative and remove the entire skeleton and surrounding soil as a single block, most of the bones, especially the epiphyses, disinte grated in the recovery process. Two alternative reasons that bird bones might not have been recovered as well as the other classes of animals is that they were not captured or used to the same extent as other animals, or that they were discarded in a different fashion. Since there are numerous bird species around th e site of Ceibal today, including aquatic birds near the water (personal observation), and because birds are often depicted in Maya art in the act of being captured, consumed, or sacrificed (e.g. the West Wall of the San Bartolo mural and the Dresden and Madrid codices), the possibility that they were not hunted seems unlikely. Bird bones have been known to be used for medicinal purposes,

PAGE 165

165 however (see, for example, Hernndez 1888 [1615]:260 261 and 269 on the use s of bird bones and feathers for curing dis ease and other ailments ) and may have b een destroyed in these activities ; furthermore, since birds feature prominently in Mesoamerican mythology, perhaps their remains were given preferential treatment and they were either burned or deposited in special lo cations, separate from the other midden refuse. The distinct lack of birds from the fine screened and flotation samples (Table 5 2) supports this possibility. Of the bird bones th at survived and were identified, many were Galliformes, particularly turkeys (0.26% of all vertebrates). Turkeys appear primarily in Classic period contexts, although one bone was recovered from a Terminal Preclassic deposit. Many of the bones could not be identified confidently on the basis of their morphological characters as belonging to the ocellated or wild/northern species Meleagris ocellata and Meleagris gallopavo respectively. Studies are ongoing to develop methods to distinguish t hese taxa (Emery et al. 2016 ). Five bones from Ceibal were submitted for an cient DNA (aDNA) testing as part of a larger pan Mesoamerican turke y study being performed by Erin Thornton (Washington State University), Kitty Emery (Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida), and Camilla Speller (University of York). Of the bones tested, one was identified as an ocellated turkey from the Late Classic period, and two were identified as northern turkeys from the Terminal Classic period. DNA analyses failed to identify the other two bones, alth ough as will be explained in Ch apter 6, carb on and nitrogen isotopic analyse bones suggest they were ocellated turkeys, and one of those two was found near the DNA confirmed Late Classic ocellated turkey. Regardless, it would appear that turkeys

PAGE 166

166 may have been a late addition to the site, unless preservation is the reason their bones were not recovered from the Middle or Late Preclassic periods. Two other galliformes were found at the site: a guan, possibly a crested guan ( Penelope cf. purpurascens ), and a quail likely a northern bobwhite ( Colinus virginianus ). The guan bones were found in one context near the Terminal Classic palace and likely represent a single individual. The quail bone was one of the few sma ll bird bones found in the late Middle Preclassic p eriod, recovered from a dense deposit with other animal bones in Str. A 18, described later in this chapter. Several water birds were recovered at the site (0.09% of all vertebrates), but always in low numbers. These included two duck species, including re mains of what may be two whistling ducks ( Dendrocy g n a sp.) from both the Middle Preclassic and Late Classic periods, and the coracoid of a ring necked duck (cf. Aythya col l aris ) from the Middle Preclassic. Several herons (Ardeidae) and a possible anhinga ( Anhinga anhinga ) were found exclusively in the Classic period deposits. Raptor birds were rare but there was one case of a partially articulated skeleton found at the center of the site. This was the aforementioned possible hawk (cf. Buteogallus urubiting a ), which was found without a head or backbone but in partial articulation (Figure 5 8). This bird will be discussed in more detail in the section on ritual remains later in this chapter. Other bir d remains include a tentatively identified barn owl (cf. T yto alba ) tarsometatarsus from the early Middle Preclassic period, a possible Late Classic vulture (Cathartidae), and two grackle like birds (Corvidae): one great tailed grackle ( Quiscalus cf. mexicanus ) from the late Middle Preclassic period, and an unide ntified grackle type bird from the Late Classic period.

PAGE 167

167 Overview of Results: The Reptiles and Amphibians Most (96.9%) of the reptile bones were from turtles, primarily turtle shells, although long bone and vertebral elements were not uncommon. There was mo re diversity among the turtle taxa in the Preclassic period than that of the Classic period, when the Central American river turtle ( Dermatemys mawii ) became the main species of focus throughout the site (Figure 5 9; 7.4% of all vertebrates). Interestingly the river turtle was fairly uncommon by comparison in the Preclassic contexts, and n o remains were found from early Middle Preclassic contexts. One possible explanation for this may be th at the turtle was actively transported throughout the Mesoamerican area during the Class ic period, as has been suggested by biologists who found disjunct populations of related river turtles across the Maya region (Gonzalez Porter 2011, 2013). This is not to say that this river tur tle species was introduced to the region, since there are low numbers of river turtle bones prior to the Early Classic period at Ceibal; however, perhaps the Classic period inhabitants had begun to either focus their procure ment strategies on this one taxo n or they were managing and moving the turtles along the river, and perhaps even raising them as will be discussed later. The pond slider ( Trachemys venusta ), another large turtle species but slightly smaller than the river turtle, is found in all time p eriods to varying extents (3.7% of all ve rtebrates), especially the late Middle Preclassic and Terminal Classic periods. The snapping turtle ( Chelydra serpentina 0.05% of all vertebrates) and mud turtles (Kinosternidae, 1.18% of all vertebrates), includin g the large Mexican musk turtle ( Staurotypus triporcatus ), were most commonly found in the Preclassic period contexts. Regarding the other reptiles, iguanas (Iguanidae) appear in al l time periods except the early Middle and Terminal Preclassic periods, but always in low numbers

PAGE 168

168 (NISP=1 5, or 0.1% of all vertebrates). These iguanas could belong to one of the species within the Ctenosaura genus of spinytail iguanas, or they could be the common green iguana ( Iguana iguana ), but criteria for distinguishing betw een the two genera morphologically is currently lacking, and the Ctenosaura genus is being remodified as a result of new phylogenetic studies. Snakes (Serpentes) and small lizards (Lacertilia) are also present in the assemblage, but rarely (0.02% of all ve rtebrates for both categories). Crocodiles ( Crocody l us sp.) are found mainly in the Classic period contexts (0.16% of all vertebrates), although a t least two were found in early Middle and Late Preclassic period contexts. Amphibians are the most infrequent ly recovered class of vertebrates at Ceibal (0.14% of all vertebrates). In almost every case they could be identified readily as frogs/toads (Anura), with one a mbiguous exception in the early Middle Preclassic period that may have been a salamander. Many o f the frog/toad bones were large, and may have belonged to a species of toad such as the cane or marine toad ( Rhinella marina ). Overview of Results: The Bony and Cartilaginous Fish Under the category of bony fish (Actinopterygii), gar and catfish ( Atractos teus tropicus and Siluriformes, respectively) were the most frequently recovered (3.1% and 2.3% of all vertebrates) and came from all time periods, especially the Middle Preclassic and Early and Late Classic periods. Cichlids (0.5% of all vertebrates), inc luding the Mayan cichlid ( cf. Mayaheros urop h thalmus ), were found in contexts from all time periods as well, with the exception of the Terminal Preclassic period. Many of the fish bones remain to be identified because they were recovered through flotation techniques and no comparative collection of modern fish specimens was available at th e time of their identification in the Ceibal lab in Guatemala City.

PAGE 169

169 Several species of catfish were represented in the assemblage, as noted by morphological variations in their skeletal structu re, but they have proven challenging to identify to species with any confidence. This is not surprising and the taxonomic diversity is reflected by the amount of phylogenetic research being carried out on this fish in the American tro pics today (Miller et al. 2005). Mesoamerican catfish species are understudied, and even their behavioral traits are not well understood. Nonetheless, a marine catfish, suc h as the hardhead catfish (Ariidae) Two otoliths (Figure 5 10) from the Middle and L ate Preclassic periods were shown to researchers who are experts in catfish identification, and who independently identified them as Ariopsis felis ( see also Cooke and Jim nez 2008 and Jimnez Cano and Masson 2016). 1 The possible implications of marine catfish at Ceibal will be discussed later in this chapter. Of the cartilaginous fish, only a single specimen was recovered. This was a great white or mako shark ( Carcharodon carcharias or Isurus oxyrinchus ) tooth found in the structural collapse of a building associated with the Terminal Classic palace, Str. A 14 (Figure 5 11). This find is clear evidence of trade in marine fish products, which will also be discuss ed later. Overview of Results: The Freshwater Invertebrates As Table 5 1 and Figure 5 1 show, the proportion of invertebrates in the faunal assemblage over time is the most immediately noticeable difference between the Preclassic and Classic periods. The f reshwater mollusks are a major component of this distinction (Figure 5 3), mainly the apple snails ( Pomacea flagellata ) and the river clams 1 Richard Cooke and Nayeli Jim nez Cano, personal communication

PAGE 170

170 (Unionidae). Apple snails are found in huge quantities throughout the site during the Preclassic period, often cl ust ered in dense deposits. Although they never disappear entirely from the faunal record, their numbers climb to 5294 in the late Middle Preclassic ( 81.6% of invertebrates and 51.6% of all specimens from that period based on a conservative count of only minim um number of shells), and fall to only 50 (10.5% of invertebrates or 1.4% of all specimens) in the Terminal Classic period. Likewise, the river clams never entirely disappear, although their numbers also decrease significantly over time (8. 6% of all specim ens in the late Middle Preclassic period to 2.5% in the Terminal Classic perio d). At least three valves of Megalonaias nervosa were fo und in a burial from the late Middle Preclassic period, but this was the only clear indication of this species at the site The species lives in the river today (personal observation). The ovaloid Unionid, cf. Sphenonaias sp. is al so commonly found in the Preclassic periods (2.8 % of all specimens in the early Middle Preclassic period), but by the Terminal Preclassic period i ts numbers significantly diminish (0.1% of all specimens). The rounder, rough surfaced cf. Psorula sp. ( which may soon become synonymized with Psoronaias sp.; see Chapter 4 for a discussion on Unionidae phylogeny), which includes several visually distinct morphotypes, does not diminish to the same extent but is still much less common in the Classic period s (4.6% of all taxa in the early Middle Preclassic period to 1.7% in the Terminal Classic period). Interestingly, the river snails known locally as jute ( Pachychilus sp.) do not experience major decline over time. Their total number s are greatest during the early Middle Preclassic period (NISP=87, or 1.7% of all specimens), but they are still found by the dozens in other time periods. Compared to the other freshwater mollusks, jute a re

PAGE 171

171 proportionally less common (2.3% of all invertebrates), and although apple snails and river clams are often deposited together in middens (described later in this chapter), jute were rarely included in these middens, and were instead usually recovered spora dically from the construction fill. One freshwater shell that is not included in the comparative analyses of this study is the Asia clam ( Corbicula fluminea ). As its name sugge sts, it is not from the Americas, having been introduced into the North American waterways in the 1920s (Sousa et al. 2008). Today it is one of the most prevalent and costly invasive species in the Americas, clogging waterways and ou tcompeting the native c lam taxa. They have recently been reported in Mexico (Lpez Lpez et al. 2009), but not in the Usumacinta River nor in Guatemala, although I have personally observed them on the Pasin shore s around Sayaxche and La Felicidad, modern communities near Ceibal The one found in the archaeological topsoil was likely deposited by an animal or bird in the recent past. Overview of Results: The Marine Invertebrates There is a large variety of marine invertebrate taxa at Ceibal, which changes considerably over time. The only taxon that is found in both Preclassic and Classic periods in numbers greater than a single individual is the olive snail ( Oliva sp., 0.75% of all invertebrates). The exact species of thes e shells could not be determined because their color, which is one of their most diagnostic features, had faded to white. Furthermore, their spires had been removed in every case because they had been made into beads, and most had been punctured under the exterior lip region. Some marine taxa are only found, or ma inly found, in the Preclassic periods. These include the Atlantic marginella ( Prunum apicinum 2.4% of all invertebrates, and

PAGE 172

172 17.1% of all invertebrates in the Late Preclassic period) and other marginella varieties, which, as will be discussed later in thi s chapter, were primarily found in burials. In almost every case these were punctured on one side. There is one instance of a single Atlantic marginella that was found in a Terminal Classic deposit, and some of the material from that context may have been intermixed with other layers since the area had been reused for multiple burials spanning the Pr eclassic and Classic periods 2 Because the shell had been punctured in an identical manner to others found in the Preclassic contexts, it seems likely it was al so originally from the Preclassic period. Concer ning other shells found predominately in the Preclassic periods, tusk shells ( Dentalium sp., 0.1% of all invertebrates) and West Indian chank shells ( Turbinella angulata 0.04% of all invertebrates) are found in multiple contexts in the Preclassic, but are much les s common in the Classic period. Specimen counts for spondylus (1.0% of all invertebra tes) in this study are biased because of difference s in shell modification over time. A probable Atlantic thorny o yster ( Spondylus cf. americanus ), one of the Atlantic varieties of spondylus, was found as a smoothed, incised, and punctured valve in a special deposit under t he Central Plaza from the early Middle Preclassic period (Cache #108). This was chronologically the earliest marine shell found at Ceibal. Later spondylus shells were only partial broken fragments, modified (often punctured) broken fragments, or beads. The 69 spondylus beads found in an Early Classic period burial (Burial #165) are one example of thi s; the beads were counted individually for Table 5 1 because they were artifacts, but they could have come from a single spondylus shell. Because all other spondylus besides 2 Jessica MacLellan, personal communication

PAGE 173

173 the cached shell in the Central Plaza were broken or modified, their species could not be ascertained. Som e shells were only found in Classic period contexts, or found once or intermittently across different periods. Dove snails ( Columbella mercatoria ) were only f ound in Terminal Classic deposits (0.28% of all invertebrates). Conch shel ls (Strombidae) were found intermittently in both Preclassic and Classic contexts in very low numbers (0.06% of all invertebrates), and included both the large queen and smaller fighting conchs Lobatus gigas and Strombus pugilis re spectively Two cone sh ells ( Conus s p.) were found in both the late Middle Preclassic and Late Classic period contexts. Of the remaining shell taxa, each was found only once, and many of these single finds occurred in Preclassic contexts, including a bean clam valve ( Donax cf. d enticulatus ), a ponderous ark clam valve ( Noetia ponderosa ), a limpet ( Diodora cayenensis or aspera ), a snowy dwarf olive ( Olivella nivea ), and fragments of a murex shell ( cf. Muricidae). The only mollusk taxa besides the dove snail that are unique t o the Classic period contexts include a nerite ( Nerita versicolor ) and a partial helmet snail (cf. Cassidae). Besides mollusks, echinoderms, specifically the spines of at least two sea urchins (Echinoidea), were found in the Late and Terminal Classic periods (Fi gure 5 12). Sea urchins are rarely found at Mesoamerican inland sites, Tikal being the only other reported site in Guatemala as of this writing (Coe 1990:370). Outside of Guatemala, the Late Classic site of Blue Creek in Belize also identified a tentative Echinometra lucunter were reported alongside numerous other marine offerings from

PAGE 174

174 26 royal tomb for Ruler 12, in the structure housing the Hieroglyphic St aircase ( Beaubien 2004:50). The sea urchins at Ceibal include one spine found near a Late Classic burial (Burial #121, in Str. A 2), and ten spines found in the palace midden dating to the Terminal Classic (behind Str. A 16). In both contexts, the spines w ere recovered from flotation an d fine screening (1 mm) of a ~2 liter soil sample each time. It is likely that there were more spines in the original contexts that were not Overview of Results: The Terrestrial Snails Finally, a number of terrestrial snails were also recovered in the excavations (9.8% of all invertebrates). Many of these were likely intrusive, since these snail taxa can burrow to great depths in the soil. Man y are also fairly small (1 mm 2 cm), such as Spiraxis sp Bulimulis sp., Helicina cf. amoena and Neocyclotus cf. dysonii and were probably not eaten. These are also found as large clusters of empty shells on the surface of the site today Nevertheless, the snails may be an indirect indication of activities t hat took place in the past, such as midden waste or food offerings that were open to the elements and that may have attracted these animals. The Terminal Preclassic Stenophysa sp. and Spiraxis sp. from operation C B 217A, for example, may be carnivorous sna ils that were attracted to waste material. This operation was located several meters behind a series of structures, on the slope of a ditch. Both snail species belong to the same family of predatory snails (Spiraxidae) and are known to eat worms and snails that eat plants and human waste, and so may indicate a compost area or latrine was located behind these structures.

PAGE 175

175 Overview of Results: The Effect of Flotation on Results The prior description of the overall assemblage results included all specimens reco vered from the site, including the specimens recovered from the flotation sample s This section examines the effect the flotation sample s had on these results. As was described i n Chapter 4, soil (usually ~2 liter samples) was collected from various contexts around the site at the discretion of the excavators Table 5 2 shows what specimens were recovered from these samples, and Table 5 3 shows the places from which these samples came As can be seen in the latter table, many archaeologists chose to c ollect samples from middens, caches, and burials in addition to construction or plaza fill. A total of 3103 specimens came from the flotation samples. The majority of these samples (71.0%) were fish remains, particularly small vertebrae. Many of these vert ebrae could not be identified without the assistance of a comparative skeletal collection, which was not on hand at the time of their analysis in the Ceibal Petexbatun Archaeological Project lab in Guatemala City. Fish that could be identified to the level of family from flotation samples were mainly gar (7.6% of the floated specimens, and 60.7% of all gar found at the site), cichlids (0.7% of the floated specimens, and 47.9% of all cichlids found), and catfish (0.3% of the floated specimens, and 3. 4% of al l catfish at the site). Several small boned animals not commonly recovere d from quarter inch screening from the rest of the site were recovered using flotation, although because of the fragmentary nature of their remains, it was often difficult to identify them beyond the level of class. Unidentified small mammals (usually small limbs lacking diagnostic epiphyses, but which may have been rodents, shrews, or even bats) comprised 3.1% of

PAGE 176

176 the flotation specimens. This was 90.6% of all unidentifiable small mamm als found at the site. Half the small rodent bones at the site (51.1%) were also recovered from the flotation remains (0.7% of the flotation sample). Two thirds of the small lizards found at the site (0.06% of the flotation specimens) were also recovered, although small lizards in general were very rare at Ceibal (a tot al of only three bones). O f the amphibians 22.2% were recovered from the flotation process, but like lizards, these too were uncommon at the site. In terms of invertebrates, all of the sea u rchin spines recovered at the site came from the flotation samples (Figure 5 12). These were found in the midden behind the Terminal Classic palace (Str. A 16) and from Str. A 2, and will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter. Several taxa that would have been expected to be recovered from flotation testing were either very rare or nonexistent in the sample s Interestingly, no bats could be definitively identified from the tiny limb fragments, partly because of the fragmented state of the recove red flotation bones and lack of epiphyses. Only a few small bird bones were found (0.1% of the flotation specimens, or 1.4% of all birds at the site), and these were fragmented and not dia gnostic to species. Snakes also were not recovered, and like amphibi ans and lizards, their bones are exceedingly rare at Ceibal. Table 5 3, which shows the locations at the site from which flotation samples recovered th e most materials, provides clues as to why only certain taxa, namely fish, were recovered from these soil tests. First, middens tended to have the most specimens, mainly fish. A late Middle Preclassic secondary midden that was in the construction fill of the Str. A 18 pyramid included many other animal bones in addition to those found with flotation, includin g two partial dog skeletons, a jaguar mandible, and

PAGE 177

177 several deer bones that exhibited cut marks and other modifications; the fact that 707 specimens (22.8% of the flotation remains) came from this one context is not surprising. Similarly, the Karinel Group had several animal bone middens scattered throughout its patio fill, Group D had a dense midden in its East Plaza that contained several deer and other animals that will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter, and the Str. A 2 excavations revea led that part of the structure had been covered with a mixed ceramic/animal bone midden. These areas, unsurprisingly, together produced a majority of the recovered flotation specimens (8.3% in the Karinel Group, 20.2% in the Group D East Plaza, and 11.9% i n the Str. A 2 midden). While excavating several meters under the East Court of Group A, Ceibal co director Daniela Triadan found evidence of basket load fill from mud carried from the river and deposited during the Middle Preclassic period to create the p latform of what would eventually become the site of the Terminal Classic palace (the original Harvard stopped their excavations after digging only a few meters before reac hing the Middle Preclassic deposits, assuming the platform was a natural hill; see Triadan and Burham 2010 and Triadan and Kravtsova 2011 for further discussion on this platform). This basket load fill, found in operations 201B and 201F, contained many tin y fish and unidentifiable vertebrate fragments, adding another 19.3% to the flotation specimens and 12.4% to all fish found at the site. Interestingly, the Group A Central Plaza, the main ceremonial center of the site throughout its history, produced very few faunal specimens from the flotation (2.5% of the flotation remains). This was a consequence of a lack of soil samples taken from this

PAGE 178

178 part of the site; of the 35 bags I examined, 20 had no faunal remains at all. This was also not the result of a concen tration of samples taken from any particular area in the plaza, since the samples spanned a large area across the plaza and also came from Two of the 44 specimens were ornamental, including a tiny pi erced river clam bead (Figure 5 13) and a marine tusk shell ( Dentalium sp.). Overall, the flotation samples reveal ed intriguing information regarding the history of use and construction of certain areas of the site. The Central Plaza may have been largely de void of animal debris because it was not used as a place to discard animals (which seems reasonable, considering its function), because it was swept clean most of the time, and because the fill used to construct the plaza did not contain secondary midden material. The construction of the East Court platform immediately east of the Central Plaza was constructed with mud from the river, an entirely different construction material from that of the Central Plaza. It is possible that the East Court fish were n ever part of the diet of the Middle Preclassic inhabitants of the site if they had naturally died in the river and happened to be in the river mud when it was used to construct the platform. The Karinel residential group and some of the structures around t he Central Plaza, including Strs. A 2 and A 18, were built with incorporated secondary midden material. It is worth noting, although unsurprising, that the areas of the site where the most bones were recovered using flotation also produced the most bones i n general, such as the Group D and Str. A 2 middens, both of which will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter. The flotation samples pro vided additional information for the content of these middens, particularly in regard to small fish.

PAGE 179

179 Diversity and Equitability of Fauna at Ceibal over Time Figure 5 14 and Table 5 4 show the diversity and equitability results for Ceibal across all time periods, including both vertebrate and invertebrate specimens and flotation specimens, when identifiabl e to species As was described in Chapter 4, diversity using the Shannon relative abundance of each species within an assemblage, in this case each chronological period. There is a clear, if not steady, increase in diversity at the site from the Preclassic to the Classic periods. The late Middle Preclassic period has the lowest Diversity decreases slightly during the Early Classic period, but then rises ag ain by the Late Classic period. Equitability, or evenness, measures how evenly distributed the taxa are within ange s on a scale from 0 1.0, with higher values representing the most evenly distributed. Figure 5 14 demonstrates that the equitabilit y, and, by association, diversity, increased over time at Ceibal Thus, as the diversity increases at Ceibal, there is less reliance on one or a few speci fic taxa. These patterns reflect the abundance of shells from freshw ater taxa, mainly apple snails, recovered from the Preclassi c phases, particularly the late inhabitants began to u se less of these specific taxa, ther e was a subsequent increase in diversity rather than a shift to another equally dominant taxon. When invertebrate taxa are removed from the diversity and equitability charts, a very different pattern emerges (Figure 5 15 and Table 5 5). The vertebrate faun a exhibit two peaks in diversity: once during the Late Preclassic period, and again during the Late Classic period. Other periods near these are still quite high, including the late Middle

PAGE 180

180 and the early more evenly distributed during the Preclassic than the Classic period, the opposite of the previous assessment that included the shells. This su ggests that, although the Preclassic periods relied a great deal on apple snails, they also obtained a diverse variety of vertebrate taxa. The Early Classic period relied on a few specific vertebrate taxa; from Table 5 1, these appear to have been the Cent ral American river turtles, although freshwater gar, deer, and dogs w ere also present in large quantities. During the Late and Terminal Classic periods, diversity again rises, although the evenness is slightly diminished compared to the Preclassic periods, perhaps because of the high numbers of deer and turtle remains in these later periods. Habitat Fidelity at Ceibal over Time Figure 5 16 shows the results of the habitat fidelity analysis using NISP, with both vertebrates and invertebrates included. Proportionally, river taxa always dominate the index, although there is a slight decrease in the Terminal Classic period. Based on the fauna analysi s (Table 5 1), these river taxa are primarily shellfish in the Preclassic periods, and fish and turtles in the Classic periods. The Early Classic peak is likely caused by the turtles and gar found in contexts dating from that period. Wetland taxa are also prominent in the Preclassic periods, but these decline starting in the Terminal Preclassic period. These taxa include the apple snails as well as turtles and water birds, and the decline indicates that although the river remained the primary habitat from w considering Ceib he nearby ponds and aguadas may not have serve d as hunting and fishing grounds to the same extent during the Classic

PAGE 181

181 periods. Thi exploit these resources, being unable to do so because of territorial reasons (for example, perhaps the wetlands were cut off or reserved for other functions ), or because the popula tions of these taxa had decreased for some reason over time, perhaps a result of human activity near the wetland areas, including overexploitation and increasing amounts of soil runoff in the river as a result of agricultural practices. Figure 5 17 focuses on the terrestrial habitats over time. Without the aquatic habitats, the results of the terrestrial habitats look remarkably similar throughout the based on these analyse used to a lesser degree. Mature forest taxa are relatively stable throughout, although there is a slight decrease during the Late Preclassic and Late Classic periods and a slight increase procurement strategies, at least in terms of t errestrial fauna, did not shift significantly over time, with the possible exception of the Early Classic period when there was an increase in mature forest and river taxa used at the site. Summary of the Ceibal Fauna over Time millennium history. In answer to the initial q uestions posed at the start of this section, residents during the Preclassic and Classic period signifying that animal resource use changed over time at the site and that phases of sociopolitical development that coincided with the construction of monumental projects and population increases did not entail the same animal procurement strategies.

PAGE 182

18 2 Perhaps the most noteworthy trend over time at the site is the decline in use o f freshwater invertebrate resources between the Preclassic and Classic periods. This decline does not appear to be sudden, although it should be noted that Early Classic deposits exhibit considerable mixing with earlier phases across the site, especially t he Terminal Preclassi c 3 the exact timing of which is unknown, although if it was a sudden event this might not be number of fres hwater shells may have been the result of mixing between the Terminal Preclassic and Early Classic phases. The use of dogs and certain marine taxa, such as Atlantic marginella shells, also declines toward the end of the Preclassic period. Likewise, there i s a rise in the Classic period of taxa not common in the Preclassic phases, such as white tailed deer, Central Ameri can river turtles, and turkeys. showing that during the sit vertebrates as well as a reliance on wetland and river taxa. Diversity decreased in the Terminal Preclassic through Early Classic periods, a trend more noticeable when invertebrates are remove d from the diversity measure ( Figure 5 15). During the Classic period, there was still a reliance on river taxa but far less so on wetland species, and the diversity of vertebrate taxa again rose as the site grew to become a state capital. The overall pat tern suggests a continuity in animal resource use during the Preclassic period that was broken by an interval of social upheaval during the Terminal Preclassic and Early Classic periods, and the establishment of new animal resource procurement 3 Takeshi Inomata, personal communication

PAGE 183

183 strategies i n the Late and Terminal Classic periods that, for the most part, did not resemble the trends observed in the Preclassic period. Comparison of the Core and Periphery Fauna at Ceibal This section examines the faunal assemblage as it is distributed between Ce how the use of fauna at the ceremonial core changed as the site grew and expanded throughout the Preclassic period, and how these patterns compare to the Classic period when th e site became a large state by the excavators as Group A during the Preclassic period through Early Classic period, including the Central Plaza and surrounding monumental structures (Figures 2 1 and 2 2) During the Late and Terminal Classic periods, both Groups A and D are included as ated at the site are considered peripheral zones Areas excavated in the intermediate zones between structura l groups (e.g. operation CB217A, located on the slop e of a natural furrow connected to the river) are not included in this part of the study. As was discussed in Chapter 2, the core Group A structures are some of the earliest securely dated features at Ce ibal, established around 1000 B.C. Although the palace area and its East Court are also considered to be part of Group A it should be Terminal Classic period, althoug h based on archaeological remains recovered from the area it likely served as an elite or emerging elite residence in the Preclassic and Early/Late Classic periods 4 ( Triadan 2011 2012 ) T hus, t he East Court area of Group A 4 A lso Daniela Triadan and Takeshi Inomata, personal communication

PAGE 184

184 was part of the early large scal e monumen tal activity at the site and may have been closely associated with the rest of the core and plaza functions. During the Late Classic period, elites who likely played an important bureaucratic role running the site were located in Group D, which is Classic periods for this comparative study. Group D was first occupied during the Terminal Preclassic period, although this occupation was not significant and no faunal material from this period is included in the study. The following section reviews the core and peripheral fauna over time, focusing are inc luded in these analyses pment into a state, but emphasis is placed on the Preclassic period since it is the focus of the present study. Since it is known that the site was a state capital during the Terminal Classic period, we might expect to see the greatest differences between the uses of fauna in the core and periphery at that time; however, it is also possible that these differences existed during the Preclassic period as well, when the site reached its first political apex, which would show that the differential use and distr ibution of taxa occurred in the Preclassic protostates in a similar manner as it had for Classic period states. However, it is also possible that the Preclassic period would exhibit little to no difference in the use of animal resources across the site unt il the Classic period, thereby indicating that the Preclassic period social structure was more egalitarian with respect to ho w animal resources were distributed and used, than during the time of the Classic period states. Comparison of Core and Peripheral Fauna Figure 5 18 shows the distribution of fauna between both the core and periphery at Ceibal over time. In general, changes in the faunal proportions at the site are often

PAGE 185

185 reflected in both the core and peripheral areas during the same periods. In the P reclassic periods, freshwater mollusks dominate both assemblages. Mammals, fish, and to a lesser extent, reptiles (i.e. turtles), come to dominate both assemblages in the Classic period. Marine mollusks are often found in the core of the site in higher nu mbers, although not always, with the Terminal Preclassic and T erminal Classic period peripheral residences having more marine mollusks especially in the Karinel Group near the Group A Central Plaza Birds are rare in all time periods, although there are somewhat more in the Classic period contexts, especially the Early and Late Classic period core fauna and Terminal Classic peripheral fauna. Table s 5 6 and 5 7 compare the distribution s of certain taxa between the two parts of the site. Whereas some animal s tend to appear in both the core and periphery during the same time periods, others vary considerably with respect to their appearance i n the two places Starting with the early Middle Preclassic period, both the core and periphery have a large number of freshwater taxa, but the core has mo re fish (12.2% vs 1.0% of early Middle Preclassic taxa) and clams (7.4% vs 1.2%) and the periphery has more apple snails (17.6% vs 25.2%). As was mentioned previously in this chapter, many of the fish from the core were from the Group A East Court, having been recovered by flotation and fine screening in a dense deposit of dark gray soil that appeared to have been brought from the river and deposited in basket loads that were visible from the excavation profile (Triadan 2 011:9). The fish may have been eaten, or they may have been from midden material carried from elsewhere, but I believe it is more likely that they came from the mud of the river that appears to have been the source of this structural fill. The apple snails were commonly found in dense midden like

PAGE 186

186 deposits, and will be discussed in more detail in the ritual section of this chapter. Terrestrial vertebrates were not common in either part of the si te (8.8% and 14.8% of all early Middle Preclassic fauna). A dens e deposit of at least two partial dog skeletons was found in the Karinel peripheral group ( Figure 5 5 ), contributing to the large number of dog bones in that part of the site, which will be discussed in more detail in the ritual section of this chapter. Du ring the late Middle Preclassic period, there were considerably more apple snails deposited in the periphery than the core (11.7% in the core vs 39.9% in t he periphery, based on all late Middle Preclassic fauna), mainly in dense midden deposits, although t he core still had more freshwater clams (3.9% vs 2.4%) and fish (9.4% vs 1.2%). The clams and fish would have come mainly from the river, whereas the apple snails are more common in the ponds and aguadas so possibly the inhabitants of the peripheral resid ences were obtaining more resources from the ponds than the river. This is corroborated by the large number of pond slider bones in the periphery (3.6% of all identified v ertebrates, or 1.0% of all late Middle Preclassic fauna) as well. Dogs and deer were found in both contexts in high numbers (within their own categories, ~1 7% of all fauna), as were a few bones of smaller animals (agoutis/pacas and rabbits). One peripheral group, Karinel, had at least two peccaries (NISP=5). It is possible that many of th e Karinel group deposits belonged to these pec caries, since splintered mammal shaft fragments are often di fficult to identify to species. The core had more marine s hells (1.0% vs 0.3% of all late Middle Preclassic fauna), especially Atlantic marginella shells that were found in and around a burial

PAGE 187

187 beneath the Central Plaza (Burial #153), although both had almost a dozen olive shells cut and punctured in the same manner. This suggests that decorative marine shells were not imported exclusively for the core, although many of the olive shells were found in the Karinel Group, and because of its proximity to Group A this group may have been occupied by individuals who were associated with activities that took p lace in the core 5 There was, however, one modified olive shell also found in the Jul Group (CB 210), as well as a large white spotted marginella ( Prunum cf. guttatum ), the only one found at the site, located near a Jul Group burial (Burial #126), further evidence that thes e unique marine shells were accessible to individuals in both the core and periphery during this period. The greater proportion of marine shells in the core suggests that the core may have been receiving these items first and perhaps distributed them in tu rn to individuals living in the periphery area, either as gifts or in exchange for something else. There is a considerable decrease in the number of animal remains found in the periphery during the Late Preclassic period (7.6% of all fauna recovered at Cei bal ), a consequence of fewer contexts from which these taxa derived as well as fewer animal midden deposits from this period. Apple snails and river clams were still present in large numbers in both the core and periphery, although the periphery had far fe wer apple snails than in previous periods (NISP=302, 14.4% of Late Preclassic fauna). Fish and turtles were uncommon in both parts of the site (fish being 3.9% and turtles 3.1% of all d were dogs or deer, and small mammals were present in low numbers at the core. Olive shells were ad a number of 5 Jessica MacLellan and Takeshi Inomata, personal communication

PAGE 188

188 burials (Burial 113, 114, 127, 145 with two individuals, 146, and 15 0) that contained the majority of the Atlantic marginella shells, all punctured identically on one side. These burials will be explained in more detail later in this chapter, but it is clear the shells were primarily imported for the special interments tha t took place in the plaza. The Terminal Preclassic period had the least number of specimens of all time periods (NISP=854, or 3.1% of all fauna recovered at Ceibal). Deer, dogs, and peccaries were found in both the core and periphery, but in equally low nu mbers of about a dozen bones or less. River clams and apple snails were also proportionally low (6.2% and 7.8% of all fauna). One olive shell was found a t the core of the site, and five Atlantic marginella shells were recovered from a burial u nder the Cent ral Plaza (Burial 111), but no marine shells from this time were found in th e peripheral groups Interestingly, the earliest turkey bone at the site, a coracoid, was found in the Karinel Group dating to this time period. It has not yet been determined if t his turkey was a member of either the wild or the ocellated specie s, although aDNA, morphometric, and stable isotope analyses on this and other specimens are ongoing. Ceibal fell into a major political and associated po pulation decline during the Early Classic period (starting in the Junco 1 ceramic phase) marked by a cessation of monumental construction projects and complete abandonment of certain areas of the si te (Inomata et al. 2016b ). Caching and burials in the Central Plaza ceased. This pattern is reflected in the distribution of fauna, which come from the few areas of the site that remained occupied. The main peripheral centers in use at this time were the Karinel Group, where much of the fauna from this period derived, as well as the Amoch, Jul, Pek, and Platform 97 groups. Dogs and deer were common in the periphery (2.3% for

PAGE 189

189 both based on all Early Classic fauna), but much less so in the core (<0.01% for both). Feline bones, usually found in the core during other time periods, were only found in the periphery. Central American river turtle bones were found in large quantities in both the core and periphery, almost twenty times more than from earlier deposits at the site (Figure 5 9). The periphery had almost three times as many of these turtles th an in the core (15.8% in the periphery vs 6.5% in the co re). Fish, particularly gar were found in large numbers in the aptly named Karinel Group ( k arinel a j kar i nel 6 ). Some of these remains were recov ered t hrough flotation and fine screening methods (Table 5 2), and one drilled gar scale was f ound in a burial (Burial #135). The Karinel Group also accounted for all of the marine shells recovered fro m the periphery during the Early Classic period (NISP=79), in cludin g 69 round beads of a possible s pondylus necklace from a burial (Burial 165), and two large olive shells. The core, by contrast, only had two marine shells from p latform Str. A 2 It would seem, then, that the Karinel Group was one of the remaining f o ci of occupation at Ceibal, whereas the rest of the site was largely abandoned, and somehow the residents of this group had managed to acquire marine shells when the core had very few, suggesting the residential group had its own means of obtaining them. The unique burial offerings, have been occupied by individuals unrelated to those who occupied the site during the Preclassic period, or perhaps the individuals livin g in the group took advantage of the power vacuum left from the departing core populace and became some of the prime 6 Jessica MacLellan, personal communication

PAGE 190

190 recipients of exotic marine items in the community. Although lacking evi dence of a superstructure, the Str. A 2 platform also had several u nique burials dating to the Early and Late Classic period with ceramic that may have come from the Central Petn 7 indicating that the reside nts of both Karinel and Str. A 2 had ties to a trade network toward the northeast. Activity returned in the core d uring the Late Classic period, which, at that time, also included several new monumental structures in Group D. Both dogs and deer were found in the core and periphery in greater numbers than during the Early Classic period. Turkey bones were recovered fro m several contexts in the core, including one turkey ulna found in the East Court of Group A that, as has been mentioned, aDNA analysis confirmed to be an ocellated turkey (per Thornton, Emery, and Speller). Several turkey bones, likely multiple individual s, were also found in Group D. The residential group, Pek, might have had a partial turkey tibiotarsus (poor preservation led to the uncertainty of its identification). Unlike previous periods, most turtle bones are found in the core during the Late Classi c period, particularly Central American river turtles, which were found in and around several different structures in Group A and Group D. Likewise, fish and even crocodile bones were recovered fr om these core contexts as well. River clams and apple snails also increase in number slightly during the Late Classic period, although they do not reach nearly the levels they did during the Preclassic periods (3.7% and 2.0% of all Late Classic period fauna, respectively). Interestingly, many (44.1%) river clams we re recovered from the East Court. Apple snails, in the meantime, were found scattered throughout Groups A and D, but only 7 Takeshi Inomata, personal communication

PAGE 191

191 singly and never in concentrations as were deposited during the Preclassic period. Marine taxa are, in general, rare at the site in th e Late Classic period deposits (0.5% of all fauna), with most found scattered in the construction fill of Group A. The Terminal Classic saw a rise in the number o f terrestrial vertebrates, whereas the numbers of freshwater invertebrates and fish were fairly low. Deer, particularly white tailed deer, were found in multiple contexts in both the core and peripheral groups. One deposit of at least four partial white tailed deer skel etons (operation CB2 08A, NISP= 101) was found behind the large Court A complex at Group D, and was likely part of a midden. The core contexts had more peccary and large rodents (agoutis/pacas) than the peripheral areas, although the latter had slightly more feline bones, partl y the res ult of a unique burial (Burial 152) in the Karinel Group that contained several cut and punctured feline metapodial beads. Turkeys were again most common in the core areas. Two turkeys tested using aDNA analysis were found to belong to the norther n turkey species ( Meleagris gallopavo ; identification per Thornton, Emery, and Speller). One came from Group D, the same deposit that contained the four deer, and another came from the Karinel Group. Numerous bird bones the size of a small duck were recove red from the Karinel Group as well during the Terminal Classic period but have yet to be identified because of a lack of comparative specimens on Pond slider and Cent ral American river turtle were frequently found in the core deposits (11.7% of all Terminal Classic fauna), but much less often in the peripheral groups (1.1%), continuing the reversed trend of more turtle bones in the Classic core contexts as opposed to t he Preclassic pattern of more turtles appearing in the peripheries.

PAGE 192

192 Finally, marine shells were found in both core and peripheral deposits, although the species differed: for example, the core had 78 olive shells from several deposits, particularly in Str. A 20 next to the Central Plaza and palace Str, A 14, whereas the periphery had dozens of spondylus and dove snail beads recovered from a cluster of burials in the Karinel Group (Burials 152, 155, and 156). The emphasis on olive shells during the Terminal Classic is mirrored in the stela art at the site from the same time, where individuals are depicted wearing olive shell ornaments cut in the fashion of those found at the site (F igure 5 19 ). Summary A s history, the core and periphery areas tend to exhibit similar trends over time. This suggests that animal procurement strategies largely affected the site as a whole. During the Preclassic period, especially the Middle Preclassic phases, the residents of the entire area consumed more river and freshwater invertebrates than at any time in the Classic period. Nevertheless, the type of taxa tended to differ (more river clams in the core, more apple snails in the periphery), and the depositional methods of th ese shells differed as well, as will be discussed in more detail in the next section. The core also tended to use unique taxa as parts of burials and offerings in the Central Plaza. The entire site underwent a period of drastic change as the political esta blishment began to degenerate in the Terminal Preclassic, and by the Early Classic period the periphery had the most marine shells and evidence for other animal related activities. During the Late Classic period the site was reoccupied, rebuilt, and expand ed, and deer, turtles, and turkeys began to appear in both the core and periphery in higher numbers than in the Preclassic period. Elaborate burials involving marin e shell

PAGE 193

193 ornaments were deposited at the periphery groups, suggesting these groups were occup ied by the social elite (or at least, individuals who could afford to bury their dead with dozens of marine shells), whereas areas around the elite structures in the core (now both Groups A and D) were used by the ruling elite for depositing a nimal refuse Most animals consumed around the site at t his time were vertebrates, whereas invertebrates were rare by comparison. All of this suggests that animal procurement strategies at Cei bal exhibited continuity in both the core and the periphery, and although dif ferent parts of the site were used for different functions over time, when social changes occurred they affected the site as a whole. Comparison of Ritual/Special Deposits between Core and Periphery Contexts Thi s section discusses the special or unique de posits of animals at Ceibal that may have been used for a ritual purpose based on evidence of how certain specimens had been used or whether they had been specially discarded The primary questions a ddressed in this section concern whether the ritual use o f certain species changed at the site over time, reflecting the large scale sociopolitical changes known to have occurred at the site. As part of this question, rituals in the ceremonial core are of the res idential patio groups, to determine if there we re distinctly different uses for taxa within the public ritual use of taxa was similar, no matter the setting. It might be expected that the greatest distinctions between the core and periphery activities occurred in the Late and Terminal Classic period s when the site had a ruling elite king, court, and palace; however, it is also possible th at the Preclassic ceremonial core used animals for special ritual activities to set itself apart from the rest of the society, and was the location where

PAGE 194

194 early public gatherings took place that drew increasingly more people to the site over time. A final q uestion this section examines is how similar the ritual uses of anima ls, including the species of animals considered important for activities, compares between the Preclassic and Classic periods, which would show whether early symbolic significance of anim al taxa began to be established Tables 5 8 and 5 9 show the animal taxa that were recovered from ritual or special/unique deposits at Ceibal over time. These deposits include burials, caches, dense animal bone/shell middens (re found at Bronze and Iron Age sites in Europe and the Middle East [Morris 2008; Wilson shells), and termination or unique depo sits. The deposit types are based on the designations made by the archaeologists and site directors who excavated the deposits or oversaw excavations, as well as post excavation determinations reassessing contexts following fieldwork. A method of presence/ absence was chosen to clearly show the distribution of taxa in these unique contexts across the different time periods and areas of the site. In some cases determinations of deposit type were not clear, even for the archaeologists involved with the excavat ions. For example, some middens were intermixed with burials, which may have been directly related to the burial (a feast associated with the interment process) or indirectly related (for example, a midden was later formed over the burial, or secondary mid den material from elsewhere at the site was used to cover the burial). These cases are m n the tables. Similarly, a number of caches and human burials were found in the Central Plaza, which were often intermixed and it was un clear if they had originally been

PAGE 195

195 associated with one another. It is also likely midden material was intermixed throughout most of the construction fill, although this fill is not included in this analysis. Because these deposits are closely associated con textually, burials, caches, and other unique deposits will be discussed in the following sections in order of their chronological periods. Early Middle Preclassic Rituals and Special Deposits The early Middle Preclassic period had very few animal related objects recovered from burials and caches. Animal middens were more common, however. Two particularly large animal middens were found next to Str. A 24 at the core of the site and within the Karinel Grou p in the periphery. Both contained the remains of several different vertebrates and invertebrates, although most common in both were dogs and fish, particularly catfish. At least two dogs were in the Karinel Group deposit (Figure 5 5). Their crania, or wha t is presumed to be the crania that belonged to the bodies, were recovered in the lot immediately above the main postcranial deposit. From my personal observation in the field, they appeared to be mostly complete and a single burial event, but at least par tly disarticulated. A cranium that was found near this deposit, which may or may not have been associated with it, exhibited several unusual pathologies. The cranium carnassials (both left and right sides) were entirely missing the signatory pr otocone extension characteristic of all carnivores (Figure 5 20 ). The protocone was not only reduced, but appeared to be absent. The bone surrounding the teeth had developed normally, filling the gap where the protocone should have been. Some of the maxill ary premolars of the dog also had fused roots. The rest of the postcranial skeleton and cranial elements did not appear to exhibit pathologies or unusual formations. I have not

PAGE 196

196 found evidence of this malformation on any other carnivore in biologi cal or pal eontological reports. The catfish in the two core and periphery midden deposits are also noteworthy, in that they appear to resemble marine catfish. In my preliminary identifications of the catfish elements found near Str. A 24 I noted that the pectoral an d dorsal spines most closely matched either Ariopsis felis or Bagre marinus The later excavations in the Karinel Group, specifically in the aforementioned dog deposit, recovered a large catfish otolith ( Figure 5 10) that was independently identified by tw o specialists in catfish osteology (Dr. Richard Cooke and Nayeli Jimenez) as belonging to an Ariopsis felis This suggests that the other catfish bones (at least three individuals based on the number of right sided pectoral spines) from Str. A 24 may belon g to marine catfish as well. The only two ways that catfish could have reached the site is overland by trade, or by swimming upstream. As was discussed in Chapter 3, the inland exchange of fish has been noted in the Yucatan at the land locked site of Mayap an (Masson and Peraza Lope 2008), although in that case the fish (catfish and otherwise) assemblage had a disproportionately low number of cranial elements, which led the zooarchaeologists to suspect that mainly the postcranial elements were imported to th e site possibly as salted meat. The presence of an otolit h at Ceibal indicates the cranium had been transported as well. Although hardhead catfish have not been reported to travel many kilometers upstream, they can survive in freshwater environments. Cook e (Cooke and Jimnez 2008) 8 has recently found evidence of marine catfish, the Cathorops tuyra and Notarius cookei traveling between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans through the 8 Also Richard Cooke, personal communicati on

PAGE 197

197 freshwater Panama Canal system. A recent ly discovered Ariid species, Potamariu s usumacintae or the Usumacinta Sea Catfish, has also been reported in the Usumacinta River (Betancur and Willink 2007), and may very well be this fish. Therefore the possibility of marine catfish traveling up the Usumacinta during the Preclassic period cannot be ruled out. With the exception of the dog and fish deposits, the nature of the other special deposits of this time vary considerably when compared between the core and periphery, was being used for important ceremonial rituals. There are no marine shells from the early Middle Preclassic period in the periphery, although there are several in special deposits in the Central Plaza. On e cache (Cache 108), perhaps one of the most unique recovered anywhere at the site, contained a single valve of a heavily modified spondylus ( Figure 5 21 ). The spondylus appears to be an Atlant ic species, Spondylus americanus based on its shape, although this is a very tentative identification since the shell has been heavily modified and secure identifications of even unmodif ied Spondylus are difficult 9 surface had been removed, and it had been incised to depict what may be the visage of a desiccated human he ad (Inomata et al. 2016a ). The shell had several perforations suggesting it may have been worn, possibly upside down and suggestive of a war trophy. The shell appeared to have been deposited intentionally before the fill and floor above it was constructed, and may have been an early foundation deposit or similar offering. 9 John Slapcinsky, personal communication

PAGE 198

198 The practice of interring humans with marine shell items began at this time as w ell in the Central Plaza. This was an activity that would be continued for almost a n specifically for these burials. Two marine shells were found in two different burials, in cluding a tusk shell in Burial 130 (recovered through flotation of the soil in and around the skeleton), and a punctured Atlantic marginella shell i n Burial 136. The individual buried with the tusk shell was only about a month old (Pa lomo 2014:165), whereas Burial 136 included a young adult male interred with several ceramic vessels containing the carbonized remains of burned offerings (Palomo 2014:166; Pinzn 2012:14 ). The two shells would have come from the Atlantic Ocean, and were likely difficult to obtain so early in the Preclassic period. Parting with the shells and depositing them in a burial may have been a sacrifice of sorts on the part of those interring thes e individuals. The activity was part of a recognized ritual, however, particularly in the case of the Atlantic marginella shell, for future plaza burials in the Preclassic period would include these shells in even greater numbers. As will be discussed in C hapter 7, this Preclassic burial practice occurred at other sites in the Petn and Belize as well. Only a few early Middle Preclassic burials have been found at Ceibal, and even fewer contained faunal remains. The few non human bones and shells found in bu rials from the periphery do not show any clear link with the burials themselves, and may have been part of the surrounding fill. These include fragments of turtle shell, apple snails, and river clam fragments, all in low numbers. Such material is commonly found

PAGE 199

199 in the rest of the structural fill from this period as well, and so they were probably not associated with the burials. Late Middle Preclassic Rituals and Special Deposits During the late Middle Preclassic period, the types of taxa found in core and periphery middens begins to differ significantly, and while the plaza continued to be used as a site for caches and human burial interments, burials with offerings that resembled those at the core also appeared in the periphery. In the core, burials of ind ividuals of varying age and sex continued to be placed in the Central Plaza along with marine shells, including Atlan tic marginella shells (Burials 104 and 153). A second possible spondylus pectoral, although cut and fragmented, was fou nd in Cache 149 unde r the plaza, perhaps worn in a similar ma nner as the one found in Cache 108. Further away from the Central Plaza, a small tusk shell was found in a vessel cache (Cache 135) behind the East Court platform, which would later become the site of the Terminal C lassic period palace. Tusk shells were also found in various parts of the fill of the Central Plaza, indicating that they had a role in the functions that occurred i n the plaza during this period. One unique deposit in the Central Plaza was the partial s ke leton of a large bird (Cache 154, Figure 5 8), tentatively identified as a raptor similar to the red shouldered hawk ( Buteogallus urubitinga ). As was mentioned earlier in this chapter, the bird was m issing its head and axial elements. The skeleton was remo ved from the ground with the bones partially intact in the surrounding clay like fill. Identification of the bird was made with the assistance of David Steadman once it had had been transported to the Florida Museum of Natural History to compare with the m Collection. The bird was found near a greenstone or

PAGE 200

200 now considered part of Cache 154), carved on one side to depict what m ay be an Olmec style serpent head 10 The sign ificance of the greenstone obj ect and the bird skeleton is unclear because it is such a unique find for this time period, but its location in the Central Plaza indicates that it was likely laid down as part of a ceremonial ritual offering, to go along with similar interments that were already being placed in this possibly sacred space. Middens including animal material were not as common in the core as they were i n the periphery during the late Middle Preclassic period, with one unique exception. To the north of the Central Plaza and Ea st Court, marking the northern edge of Group A, is the large pyramid Str. A 18 that was built up rapidly at this time. Excavations in the pyramid encountered a dense midden like deposit of ceramic sherds and animal bones belonging to various species (Casti llo Aguilar 2012). These included parts of a jaguar mandible, several partial dogs (at least two, possibly three), the bones of a rabbit, the tibia of a white tailed deer in the process of being cut to construct various potentially decorative objects ( Figu re 5 22 ), numerous fish elements, and the tibiotarsus of a quail, possibly a bobwhite ( Colinus virginianus ), the latter the only of its kind identified at the site. As will be discussed in Chapter 6 regarding the isotopes, the jaguar and one of the dogs are unique in that the jaguar app ears to have been consuming maize, and one of the dogs is not local to Ceibal or the Petn area. Based on the horizontal deposition of several ceramic sherds in the deposit, i t is l ikely that all of the sherds and bones bel onged to a primary deposition event placed within Str. A 18. 10 Takeshi Inomata, personal communication

PAGE 201

201 The distinction between middens and burials is blurred somewhat in the periphery at this time. Every peripheral group occupie d during the late Middle Preclassic period engaged in the practice of depositing large numbers of apple snails in dense deposits (Figure 5 23 ), often by the hundreds if not thousands. Large numbers of apple snails in single deposits have been found at other Middle and Late Preclassic sites, including Tikal (Moho ly Nagy 1978) K'axob (Harrigan 2004), and Lamanai (Emery 1989). In Chapter 7 I will elaborate on further instances of this activity at Cival and Cerros. The snails are not commonly eaten by inhabitants living around the Ceibal area today based on my own informal inter views, although they are still eaten elsewhere in Gu atemala and Belize (Keller 2012). 11 Ceibal's apple snail deposits are usually found near the limestone bedrock, and in two instances were in carve d out bedrock hollows known as chultuns Two deposits at C eibal were found over and around burials, and in one of these cases ( the Jul Group, Burial 126 ) the snails were found by the hundreds both over and under the skeleton (Burham 2012). It is possible these shells were part of the residue from a feasting event since animal bones are sometimes found in these midden like deposits. There was no indication the snails had been burned or boiled in their shells if they had been cooked, although taphonomic effects of boiling may be difficult to identify. Availability of apple snails around Ceibal is seasonal, primarily limited to the height of the rainy season in December and early January (from my inter views with local farmers in La Felicidad, my own investigations of the river and surrounding lagoons during the dry s eason that failed 11 Also Kitty Emery, personal communication

PAGE 202

202 to find any live snails, and also Emery 1989 ), so these deposits, including the chultun burial, probably occurred during those months. The aforementioned Jul Group Buri al 126 also contained several other unique animal deposits that were l ikely directly associated with the interment ritual. The individual was a male laid out in a supine position with a large freshwater clam placed near the hands in the center of the body (Figure 5 24 ; Burham 2012). The two valves of the clam had been placed one cupped inside the other the interior side facing upward. T his particular species is fairly uncommon at the site and resembles the ovoid genus Sphenonaias Interestingly, a similar shell was found in one of the Central Plaza burial s also dating to this period ( Burial 104, Figure 5 25 ; Inomata and Orozco 2008). The clam s of this second burial were found beside the skull On one side lay a pile of ob sidian blades along with several Sphenonaias shells, whereas on the other side several river clams of t he species known as Megalonaias cf. nervosa were found. The latter clam, although present in the river today (personal observation; I also collected a modern tissue sample that was verified as this species with DNA analysis, the results of which will be pu blishe d in Pfeiffer et al. 2016b ), was only found in this one deposit in the archaeological record. The majority of river clams at Ceibal belong to the genus Psorula/Psoronaias which were probably the main type of clam used for consumption and occasionall y decorative purposes. The larger clams appear to have been used for these special burial rituals, and the ancient inhabitants of the site appear to have intentionally used specific genera. Burial 126 included several other unique animal items. The femur a nd pelvis of a rabbit were also found near the bivalve shell on the right side of the individua l (Figure 5

PAGE 203

203 24 ), and, due to their position and the scarcity of rabbit bones in general at Ceibal were also likely part of the original burial. The significance of the rabbit in this context is unclear. A partial antler was found within the apple snail deposit, slightly above the human skeleton. The antler was still attached to part of the base of the cranium, and may have been either an offering or part of a hea ddress. The midden and burial also contained several shells, including the only white spotted marginella ( Prunum cf. guttatum ) found at the site and the interior whorls of possibly two large West Indian chank shells ( Turbinella angulata ), only five of whic h were found at Ceibal. It is possible the chank shells, which are a type of large conch, were used as musical instruments. Overall, this unique burial provides evidence that important individuals were interred outside the Central Plaza at this time. Withi n a mixed apple snail and animal bone midden in the Karinel Group, not far from the deposit containing the two parti al dog skeletons from the early Middle Preclassic period, the partial skulls and mandibles from two different dogs were recovered. Both of t hese dogs also exhibited unusual dental pathologies, signifying that the residents of the Karinel Group deposited at least three dogs possessing skeletal abnormalities during the Middle Preclassic period. Although the upper carnassials of these two dogs ha d develop ed protocones (unlike the early Middle Preclassic dog), the ramus of the mandibles was malformed in such a way that it began to incline steeply behind the first lower molar, causing the second molar to sit at a near 9 0 incline (Figure 5 26 ). Perh aps these unusual dogs, both the one lacking the protocone from earlier in the Middle Preclassic and the two with malformed jaws, were interred in the same area of the patio group for a reason having to do with their physical appearance. For

PAGE 204

204 example, the g enetic trait for hairlessness in the Mexican hairless dog, the xoloitzcuintli is linked to the same trait that causes some individuals to lack teeth (Blanco Padilla et al. 2008; Valadez Aza et al. 2009; Vil et al. 1999) Yet since these are some of the earliest dogs recovered from the site, these may have been specific breeds during the Middle Preclassic period that were specifically bred for these unique qualities or genetic traits associated with these malformations. Future ancient DNA testing on these Late Preclassic Rituals and Special Deposits Special deposits in the Late Preclassic period continued many of the trends observed in the late Middle Preclassic period, with some alterations. Seven interred individuals (Burials 113, 114, 127, 145 containing two individuals, 146, and 150) contained pierced Atlantic marginella beads, reaching a total of 207 beads in these burials alone (Figure 5 27 ). As before, they included individu als of multiple ages and both sexes. Most of these burials took place on the south side of the plaza; to the north, a large cache of animal remains, partial ceramic vessels, and burned lithic fragments was found (Cache 116; Fondebilla 2009). The animals in cluded elements of a large overall faunal assemblage), and a very large tapir incisor. The latter was tested for its light and heavy isotope values and as will be describe d in Chapter 6, was found to be one of the few non local animals identified at the site. The presence of the burials and dense animal deposits in separate parts of the plaza suggest that the area was used for multiple activities, the remains of which were interred in the plaza itself. In the periphery, the practice of depositing apple snail middens continued to occur across the site. At the residential Pek Group, a chultun was again used as a

PAGE 205

205 midden for depositing apple snails, river clams, and a number of small vertebrates including fish (cichlids and catfish), a snake, and dog bones. At the Karinel and Jul Groups, jute snails, apple snails, and river clams were often intermixed in middens and midden like deposits in the fill. Considering the core only has scattered evidence of these shells within the fill and never in clusters, consumption of these shells appears to have taken place primarily in the periphery at this time. No burials with extensive animal offerings were found in the periphery, as had occurr ed in the late Middle Preclassic period. Terminal Preclassic Rituals and Special Deposits As has been mentioned, fewer faunal remains were recovered from the Terminal Preclassic period than any other period at the site. In the core, there was still evidenc e of punctured Atlantic marginella shells appearing in burials deposited u nder the Central Plaza (Burial 111). No marine shells were found in the periphery during the Terminal Preclassic period, suggesting these exotic resources were only in use for core c eremonial functions, as they had been during the early Middle Preclassic period. Interestingly, the apple snail deposits cease in the Te rminal Preclassic as well. Whereas ceramic sherds and other artifactual debris are still found in some of the periphery groups at this time, the lack of ritual deposits or middens suggests that social practices at the site were beginning to change, perhaps caused in part by a decrease in population. Early Classic Rituals and Special Deposits By the Early Classic period, a g reat deal of ritual activity began to take place in the periphery, particularly the Karinel Group, in comparison to the ceremonial core. Burials at the Karinel Group, including those of ch ildren (Burials 125, 135 and 168),

PAGE 206

206 contained a number of unique grav e offerings, including punctured carnivore teeth (dogs, foxes, and in one instance a procyonid canine resembling either a kinkajou or coati), punctured garfish scales, and in one case ( Burial 165, a young adult), 69 round shell beads that appear to be carv ed from spondylus based on the presence of a vague orange pink eroded surface of a few beads (although most are now white). A burial of a child a bout four years of age, Burial 135 (MacLellan 2012:194; Palomo 2014:166), was f ound to contain two elaborately carved marine shell beads unlike any others found at the site. Such unique items suggest that the Karinel Group was occupied by individuals unlike those who lived at the group in earlier times, for they did not deposit large quantities of apple snails in t he fill, and performed burial activiti es with items unlike those anywhere else at the site. The practice of interring humans in the Central Plaza with marine shells ceased by the Early Classic period. In the south part of the core monumental area, a cluste r of burials was found on top of Str. A 2 along with a dense midden of ceramic sherds and animal bones (Cortave et al. 2012). Str. A 2 may have been an administrative role at the site during this time. The burials were not interred as a single event, but r ather continued to be placed in the structure throughout the Early and Late Classic periods. Thus, the animal debris may have been deposited during a series of events. Regardless, the Early Classic material in the deposit is unique. It contains multiple bi rds, including one of the earliest turkey bones found at the site (assuming the Early and Late Classic material had not intermixed), and several smaller birds that resemble doves and small galliformes. It also contains parts of a large crocodile, several c arapace and postcranial elements of at least two (possibly three, based on the number of right

PAGE 207

207 humeri) river turtles, and the partial mandible of a deer, one of the few found at the site. Interestingly, these burials lacked marine shell offerings, distingu ishing them from the individuals buried at the Karinel Group from the same period. As will be seen in Chapter burials are very different from those at the core of the site of Xultun from the same period, which, like Tikal (Moholy Nagy 1997), Caracol (Chase and Chase 1998a), and Chan (Keller 2012), was importing large quantities of marine invertebrates to inter in elite burials at the site core. Late and Terminal Classic Rituals and Special Deposits Ceibal ificantly around A.D. 300 Ritual activities and midden deposits during the Late and subsequent Terminal Classic periods do not resemble those of the Preclassic period. Human burials containing marine shells were no longer placed in the Central Plaza; in f act, Atlantic marginella almost entirely disappear from the site after the Terminal Preclassic period, with the exception of one pierced shell in a cluster of Terminal Classic burials at the Karinel Group which may have come from an underlying layer 12 It is also possible the shell was found by the Classic period inhabitants of the group and was used as a type of heirloom or curiosity, perhaps having been recognized as an ancient artifact (even then) that belonged to the Althoug h burials containing elaborate polychrome vessels are found in Group D at the site at this time, they do not often include animal offerings. Most such offerings are found interred in Str. A 2, as well as at the Karinel Group. One cluster of four Terminal C lassic burials at the Karinel group included a scattering of 18 carved beads 12 Jessica MacLellan, personal communication

PAGE 208

208 made from the metapodials of a large wild cat (puma or jaguar), 22 drilled marine dove snails ( Columbella mercatoria ), and 50 beads carved fro m a dense white material that appears to be spondylus, based on the presence of its signature orange pink surface on the exterior of a few beads. Dove snails are not common at Maya sites in the southern lowlands, but looking northward to the Yucatan they have been found at Tulum (Barrera Rubi o 1985) and Chichen Itza (Osario 2005), including 32 beads from the latter found at the Los Estucos structure near the site core, dating to the Late or Terminal Classic period. A single dove snail was recovered from Trinidad de Nosotros in the Petn (Thorn ton 2012), but otherwise dove snails are generally lacking in Guatemala. Th e presence of dove snails at Ceibal and the Yucatan suggests dove snails were traveling through inland exchange networks during th e Terminal Classic period The Ceibal beads were pr imarily associated with a child burial that had a group of flat stones placed around the body. Like the Early Classic, this is evidence of special treatment afforded to young individuals at the residential centers, which, at least in terms of animal grave goods and decorations, is not observed in or around the Central Plaza at the same time. Although there were no ceremonial deposits containing animals in the East Cour t and the Classic period palace, there is indirect evidence of the potential ceremonial use of animals found in the midden behind the palace (Str. A 16). A number of unique animal bones were recovered in this midden, including a large jaguar ulna and the o nly anteater bone found at the site. Yet the most intriguing specimens were a collection of ten sea urchin spines (Figure 5 12) recovered from the flotation and fine screening of a subset of the soil collected in the 2011 excavations. Unfortunately this wa s only a small amount (~2 liter bag) of soil, and the 2011 excavation was an extension of a 2009

PAGE 209

209 excavation that had not collected soil for fine screening or flotation. Thus, there were likely more sea urchin spines still in the soil, and possibly other st ructural elements as well. Regardless, the ten spines are a clear indication that the ruling elite at the palace had access to this rare marine resource. Curiously, one sea urchin spine was also recovered from the Late Classic burials deposited on Str. A 2 (Burial 121). Inomata 13 believes Str. A 2 may have held an important administrative role at the site during the Early, and perhaps also Late, Classic period, prior to the construction of the palace at the East Court to the north. The presence of sea urchi n spines in two different but important administrative structures on opposite sides of the Central Plaza during the Late and Terminal Classic periods indicates that these special invertebrates were likely used exclusively by the ruling elite throughout the course of the Classic period, and the elites had obtained these urchins on more than one occasion. The exchange of sea urchins to inland sites in the Maya region appear s to be limited to only one club spined and needle 1990:370). Maxwell (2000) speculated whether they were imported as foodstuffs or for bloodletting ceremonies, pe rhaps to mildly intoxicate the one shedding blood. Blue Creek in Belize had also reported a tentativ ( Bozarth and Guderjan 2004). At Copan, t he fragmented remains of one Echinometra lucunter were reported alongside numerous other marine offerings from the Late Classic 10L 26 royal tomb of Ruler 12, in the structure housing the Hieroglyphic Staircase ( Beaubien 2004:50). The small spines at Ceibal still need to be ev aluated in more detail 13 Takeshi Inomata, personal communication

PAGE 210

210 to determine their exact speci es, and whether this species contains toxins that affect humans. Besides the sea urchin, other unique remains were found in the palace deposit. One of these was a severely rodent gnawed humerus of an anteater ( Tamandua mexicanus ), the only evidence of such an animal at the site. Anteaters are occasionally found at Maya sites and inhabit the area locally today, but are not common. A very large jaguar ulna was found in the midden as well, which could have been used for ceremonial functions. Jaguar ulnae have been reported at other Maya sites around the palaces and residences of rulers, and Emery (2014:182, 196) has speculated that their shape bears remarkable resemblance to the awiil ceremonial staffs held by elite pe rsonages in Classic period art. A Unique Late/Terminal Classic Deposit at Group D An extensive midden (Table 5 10) remains from both the Late Classic and Terminal Classic occupations that likely threw the detritus of consumptive activities down the ste ep embank ment (Bazy and Inomata 2016 dissertation (1976) and subsequent reports (e.g. 1985, 1990) on the zooarchaeological analysis from the original Ceibal (then Seibal) exc avations run in the 1960s by Harvard University refer to dense deposits of Late and Terminal trash at the site, mainly at At Seibal, refuse was not used for structure fill to the extent that it was at sites like Tika l; Seibal residents let their garbage accumulate. Middens lay in sheets around structures Terminal Classic period, it was not the case as we have seen during the Preclassic, where faunal material of all varieti es was regularly incorporated into the construction fill.

PAGE 211

211 But the inhabitants of Group D appear to have been in the habit of piling large quantities activity, was a uni que practice in comparison to the rest of the site that should be briefly addressed, especially in relation to the Preclassic period. The most common animal in the dense midden behind the Court A was white tailed deer. A minimum of six deer (based on numbe r of right sided calcanei) was found in the Late Classic component of the midden, and at least four deer (again based on the number of right sided whole calcanei, as well as the same number of astragali) in the Terminal Classic component. Most of these dee r may have been deposited partially intact, for the midden included representative elements of nearly all parts of the skeleton, although all crania were missing. This pattern of dense Classic period deer deposits is thoroughly documented by Pohl (1976; 19 Classic period had more deer than any other site in her investigation (NISP=288; other sites included Altar de Sacrificios with NISP=24, Macanche with NISP=48, Flores with NISP=5, and Tikal with NISP=40). Pohl speculated that i t was possible deer were being 36, for instance, located near the Court A midden, was found to contain two antlers and resembled what the excavators considered to be a Other animals in the midden de posit included puma and ocelot bones, dogs, iguanas, crocodiles, fish (gar, catfish, and cichlids), turtles, and turkeys. The latter two are of particular interest, because the Central American river turtle and turkeys are rare to nonexistent throughout mo st of the Preclassic period. As was mentioned earlier, the Central American river turtle may have been actively transported from parts of central

PAGE 212

212 and south Mexico through the Usumacinta area based on patterns of modern genetic affinity between turtles in c entral and southern Guatemala and the Gulf region (Gonzalez Porter et al. 2011, 2013). This may explain why these turtles were so rare in the Preclassic period, and it may also suggest that at least some of the turtles at Ceibal in the Classic period were being held captive or managed in some way. The turtle shells in this deposit had been partially burned, and also included postcranial elements. Although there is evidence of wild turkeys at El Mirador in the Preclassic period (Thornton et al. 2012), neithe r species of turkey appears at Ceibal until the Terminal Preclassic period, and only during the Classic period do their numbers rise above a single bone. Most turkeys at Ceibal are found in the Group D midden, or at the Group A palace. Interestingly, the t urkeys at the palace were tested for aDNA and one was determined to be an ocellated turkey (the second test failed to amplify enough DNA to sequence; per Thornton, Emery, and Speller). A turkey bone tested from the Group D midden was found to be a northern turkey. As will be discussed in Chapter 6 concerning the isotopic data, the turkeys at the palace were eating a diet reflecting f orest level carbon values, whereas the northern turkey at the Group D midden had been eating corn and was likely husbanded or even domesticated. The significance of the Group D midden is not just that it was a unique, dense deposit of animal material. The turkeys and the dogs in the deposit were almost certainly raised in the community. The river turtles and deer might not have b een raised, but there is evidence that this is a possibility. Even if they were not managed in captivity, their presence in much higher quantities than at any time during the Preclassic

PAGE 213

213 perio d suggests that they were intentionally hunted or demanded as tribute for the benefit of those living Summary of Rituals and Special Deposits In summary, the history of the ritual use of animals and the special deposition of animals at Ceibal is complex. The Group A Central Plaza was us ed throughout the Preclassic period as a place where animals and humans were interred, perhaps public location. These activities wer e, for the most part, distinct from those that took place in the peripheral centers, which often involved the deposition of large quantities of freshwater invertebrates as well as numerous dogs and fish. The latter may have been ral Plaza. During the Terminal Preclassic and Early Classic periods, a political decline and cessation of large scale building activity was reflected in the lack of animal caching in the center of the site, although peripheral burials, mainly at the Karine l Group and Str. A 2, reveal that form of decorative items such as marine shell s and carnivore tooth pendants. When the site was reoccupied and expanded to become a cap ital center during the Late and Terminal Classic period, animal caching ceremonies were no longer obvious, although burials in the peripheral groups still had animal artifacts. Middens became the best source of evidence for the ritual use of fauna at this time, revealing a greater dependency on turkeys, Central American river turtles, and deer, the first two of which rarely appear at Ceibal during the Preclassic period. These trends may reflect the changing symbolic role of animals, or perhaps the introduct ion of certain animals to the region made them more valuable, such as may have been the case of the turkey

PAGE 214

214 (Thornton et al. 2012) and river turtle ( Gonzlez Porter et al. 2011, 2013). The ritual activity at Ceibal will be compared to the rituals at San Bar tolo, Cival/Holmul, and Cerros in Chapter 7, presenting a broader view of how common these activities were and how consistently they were performed at each site. Crafting at Preclassic and Early Classic Ceibal This section examines the c rafted items at Cei bal to understand if and how these items were made at the site, who was making th em who was receiving the items, and what the significance of the items may have been depending on the type of artifact and context in which they were found. This section foc uses on the Preclas sic and Early Classic phases, to understand if and how these crafting practices changed at the site over time. Remains of cutting and crafting were common across the site of Ceibal in the Preclassic period, as can be seen in Figures 5 28 and 5 29 and Table s 5 11 and 5 12 Both the site core and periphery groups engaged in crafting activities. During the early Middle Preclassic period there were more artifactually modified objects in the periphery (3.7% of specimens as opposed to 0.9% in the core). These items included the cut fragments of debitage from bone working or, occasionally, cuts on river clams that may have been made for creating tools or ornaments rather than to open the clam for consumption, which would have been a particularly difficult way of opening these dense clams (speaking from personal failed attempts, as well as observation of how the local residents open the shells by prying around the hinge area with their hands or with a sharp object) During the late Middle Preclass ic period, when the site reached its first political apogee, there were remarkably few crafted remains among the fauna recovered, both in

PAGE 215

215 the periphery as well as the core (3.4% of all specimens in the core, and 1.4% of specimens in the periphery). This ch anged during the Late Preclassic period when the practice of interring humans in the site plaza with decorative shell objects occurred multiple times, leading to 19.3% of the core fauna recovered from that time period having been modified, either cut or ma de into finished decorative objects or, in the case of awls and pins, possibly tools. Finished objects in the core made up 9 3.3% of the crafted items, whereas in t he periphery it was only 69.6%. The proportion of crafted objects in the core decreased in th e Terminal Preclassic period (3.4% of speci mens), whereas in the periphery it remained roughly the same proportionally as in previous periods (3.5%). The proportion of finished objects decreased in the core to 73.3%, still higher than the proportion of fin ished objects in the periphery (50.0%), but lower than when t he site had been at its height. This trend continued into the Early Classic period when for the first time the periphery had a higher proportion of finished artifacts than the core (85.8% in the periphery vs 46.7% in the core) In a sense, the roles of the core a nd periphery seemed to have reversed, or at least the core was no longer receiving the majority of crafted products. Table s 5 13 through 5 17 show the types of animals that provided the m aterial for maki ng crafted items from the early Middle Preclassic through the Early Classic periods, and Ta bles 5 18 and 5 19 show the types of objects that were made. Invertebrates were preferentially used for crafting in all time periods, particularly ma rine shells. In fact, it is likely the majority of marine shells were imported to the site either to be crafted into ornaments or, based on the consistency of how certain shells like the olives and marginellas were cut and pierced, they had already been mo dified prior to

PAGE 216

216 transportation. Consistency in the crafting of modified marine shell artifacts has been noted at other Preclassic period sites (see, for example, Hohmann 2002, Keller 2012, and Moholy Nagy 1963, 1985, and 1986). At Ceibal, there is a distin ct lack of marine shell debitage. For example, all of the olive shells are missing spires where a cut was made toward the apex of the shell (Figure 5 30 ), yet no olive spires have ever been found at the site. Spires for the more fragile jute snails have been recovered, however, leading me to believe the olive snails were modified on the coast or somewhere else along the route they were transported (the spires are still present on the shells in the eastern Petn sites, as is discussed in Chapter 7) but no t at Ceibal. In the early Middle Preclassic period, proportionally more crafted objects were found in the periphery than the core, especially vertebrate bones that had been used for making beads (Table s 5 18 and 5 19 ). An unusual deposit of 75 jute snails punctured in a near ly identical manner (Figure 5 31 ) found in the Karinel Group comprised the majority of these modified remains. It is unclear if these shells were used as decorations and were perhaps worn like other pierced gastropods such as olive shell s, or if this was a way of extracting meat from the animal. Keller (2012:298 299) noted a pattern similar to this at the site of Chan, and reported that piercing in the center spire of the shell is a way of removing the meat today. Healy et al. (1990) repo rted that the spire tips are removed to extract the meat, after the jute are cooked for a time in hot wa ter However, the shells in the Karinel Group context were pierced in the bodies near the aperture openings and not in the spire as at Chan, and the maj ority had their spires intact To date, there are no similar instances of jutes deposited in large numbers elsewhere at the site that have holes like these, and the consistency in size of the jute in this

PAGE 217

217 assemblage, compared to other jute at Ceibal that h ave variable sizes leads me to wonder if they had been used for a function besides simply food but may have also been ornamental like the pierced olive shells. Evidence for debitage from crafting activities was rare in both the cor e and periphery during the late Middle Preclassic period (19.6% of modified items in the core and 38.0% in the periphery; less than three dozen specimens in both areas). Crafting workshops in other Maya sites have, by comparison, hundreds of cut specimens, sometimes in a single context (e.g. Emery 2009; 2010; Widmer 2009). It is possible the areas where most crafting was taking place have not yet been found. In terms of finished products, marine s Middle Preclassic odified specimens), especially the small punctured Atlantic marginella beads found in burials. Vertebrate bones, particularly those of mammals, were used for crafting beads and awls in both the core and the periphery ( Table s 5 18 and 5 19 ). Olive shell bea ds were found in roughly equal proportions in both the core and periphery, suggesting they were distributed throughout the com munity as decorative items, whereas shells like the margine lla were preferentially used in burials. River clam ornaments and evide nce for their crafting were proportionally more common in the periphery than the core. Evidence for clams in the process of being modified included a few margins (edges) of clams that had been discarded with grooves or cut pieces of shell that would later go on to be carved into more el aborate decorations (Figure 5 32 ). Interestingly, a few instances of drilled apple snails and two possible cases of terrestrial snails (Figure 5 33 ) indicate that local gastropods were used for ornaments as well, although with the possible

PAGE 218

218 exception of the pierced jute, this practice did not occur in any other time period at Ceibal. Crafting debitage was still proportionally low in the Late Preclassic period, although it appears to a gr eater extent in the periphery than in the core (6.7% of modified remains in the core vs 30.4% in the periphery). This period saw a rise in the number of pierced marginella beads, used almost exclusively for burials at the core of the site. Other finished a rtifacts found in the core included polished awls and thin pins, beads, and rasps, the latter perhaps for making music (Table s 5 18 and 5 19 ). The periphery also had awls and bone beads, although fewer shell beads, suggesting most of these artifacts were f or individuals involved in ceremonial acti vities at the core of the site. There was a shift in how crafting and crafted objects were used at Ceibal during to wane an d people vacated the site. There was proportionally more debitage, or bones and shells exhibiting signs of cutting rather than finished objects, in both the core and periphery than had been found in earlier periods (Table s 5 11 and 5 12 ). This may imply ma ny of the elites had either left the site or that their authority had changed and they no longer had near exclusive control over certain crafted objects. Nevertheless, the only mo dified marine shells in fact all marine shells were found in the core and not the periphery, indicating that the core still held some degree of power over these resources that the outlying residential groups lacked. Mammal bones, primarily deer, were still carved into beads and other objects as they had been in the Preclassic p eriod, although the diversity of mammals used for cr afting seems to have decreased.

PAGE 219

219 River clams were used for making ornaments throughout the early Middle Preclassic period to the Early Classic period, and it is noteworthy that they were still being used f or this purpose during the Terminal Preclassic and Early Classic periods when their overall numbers had declined precipitously. This suggests that even if they were not consumed to the same extent as they were in the earlier Preclassic phase s, they were st ill occasionally used for making ornaments in the same proportions (for example, 3.3% of river clams in the late Middle Preclassic period were modified; during the Early Classic period, this was 3.6%). By the Early Classic period the majority of finished a rtifacts, including marine shells like spondylus and olive shells, were found in the periphery of the site (85.8% of artifacts in the periphery vs 46.7% in the core), primarily the Karinel Group. Many of these objects were found in burials, including pierc ed dog and coati teeth, as well as gar scales ( Figure 5 34 ). Crafting activities continued to take place in the periphery, and incorporated increasing numbers of turtle shells, including the Central American river turtle that was uncommon at the site durin g Preclassic times. In both the core and periphery, there was evidenc e of turtle plastrons that had been carved into flat disks with holes in the center, which may have been used as a type of spindle whorl o r circular ornament (Figure 5 35 ). The circular outlines for these disks can be found in some of the debitage from t he rest of the discarded shells Turtle shell crafting continued into the rest of the Classic period at Ceibal, and may be related to the increased numbers of Central American river turtle that appear at the site after the Preclassic pe riod.

PAGE 220

220 Overall, it appears the majority of crafting involving bone and shell material occurred in the periphery thro ugh the Preclassic period, whereas the core received the majority of finalized crafted items until the Early Classic period. The core also was able to obtain more crafted marine objects, until the periphery (particularly the Karinel Group) began to do so in the Early Classic period. Interestingly, this pattern mirrors that of the Classic period st ates, in that the upper/middle class residences were often the areas where crafting took place, whereas the highest ruling elites in the site cores were the recipients of these items (Emery 2012:318 320; Emery and Aoyama 2007; Sharpe and Emery 2015; for no n faunal evidence, see Aoyama 2007; Halperin and Foias 2012; Inomata and Triadan 2000; Reents Budet 1998), but as political and economic systems collapsed throughout the southern lowlands, the ruling elites often left communities first (e.g. Inomat a et al 2002; Palka 1997), whereas the remaining elites and non elite inhabitants continued to occupy the sites and craft objects for themselves (Emery 2009; 20 10:188 192). The difference was that Ceibal was able to recover after the Terminal Preclassic/Early Cl assic decline ; from the evidence seen at the Karinel Group, perhaps those that remained at the peripheries were able to secure and foster ties to local and long distant economic exchange networks and became the new political e lite during the Classic period Comparison of Ceibal and Its Subordinate Center, Caobal and how it compares to the faunal record at Ceibal. Caobal was a minor ceremonial center less than five kilometers to the west of Ceibal, and likely controlled by Ceibal to some extent while it was in use ( Figure 2 3; Munson 2012; Munson and Inomata 2011). Although construction at the site was not as intensive or large scale as that at Ceibal,

PAGE 221

221 many of the structures clos ely resemble the minor temple patio groups closer to (Aoyama and Munson 2012). Munson (2013) noted that the Middle Preclassic phases resemble those at Ceibal in terms of large quantities of refuse that had been used as construction materi al, whereas later phases utilized plastered surfaces without relying faunal analysis would re fle ct a similar pattern to that at Ceibal, especially if its political history was influenced by the activities that occurred at the larger center. Table 5 20 shows the results of the Caobal faunal analysis. Some of the Late Preclassic and Early Classic mater ial may, in fact, belong to the Terminal Preclassic period but this study uses the most recent chronological designations available from the excavators Although in general Caobal has far fewer faunal remains than Ceibal (NISP=1507), the distribution and types of fauna reveal an interesting pattern over time. ceremonial core as well as its peripheries. As Munson (2012, 2015) had noted, midden material had, indeed, been in corporated into the construction fill of the Middle Preclassic phases, just as had taken place at Ceibal during the Preclassic. This may partly explain excavations focused primar ily on the central patio and main structures of the site; if them. The presence of a broken olive shell in the Terminal Classic structural collapse

PAGE 222

222 suggests important individuals had still been occupying the site at that time, even if the rest of their animal refuse could not be located. Table 5 21 shows the contexts in which animal taxa were located, in terms of engaged in the activity of depositing hundreds of apple snails in a single deposit. One at least 891 snails (Figure 5 36 ). Other animals were recovered from this midden as well, including numerous river clams of different types, fish (catfish and gar), turtles, birds, and the remains of deer, a paca, and a rabbit. These animals are the same s pecies found in the Middle Preclassic middens at Ceibal. The only unique inclusion s were fragments of a cameo helmet shell ( Cassis cf. madagascariensis ). A possible helmet shell (cf. Cassidae) was found in presence of this type of marine shell at Caobal during the Middle Preclassic is unusual, suggesting that Caobal had access to a type of marine shell that Ceibal did not during the Prec lassic period. Interestingly, like Ceibal, a Late Preclassic burial in contained 16 pierced Atlantic marginella shells. Atlantic marginella shells did not appear rial would have taken place at the same Therefore, Caobal provides evidence of a variation on this burial style. Such interments they could also be performed at minor ceremonial centers, and those performing the activities at the minor centers were able to obtain the requisite marine shells to complete the ritual.

PAGE 223

223 animals were used at a site that appears to have been either emulating the practices of its larger neighbor, or participating in part of the same sociocultural activities. Temporally, the faunal pattern at Caobal matches that of Ceibal. The only animal fo und at Caobal that was not found at Ceibal was a cameo helmet, raising the possibility that perhaps Caobal Classic period fauna is lacking, but if it was emulating Ceibal at th e same time, the animals would have been deposited somewhere behind the main struct ures, an area which was not excavated. Summary of the Faunal Analysis political history throughout the Preclassic and Classic periods. Faunal trends in the Preclassic period exhibit continuity until the Terminal Preclassic, when Ceibal begins a slow political decline that appears to affect Caobal as well. Throughout the Preclassic phases the inhab itant s of Ceibal and Caobal relied on a mix of vertebrates, particularly dogs and fish, in addition to large quantities of f reshwater invertebrates that were deposited in concentrated middens within structural fill. Some burials and caches include unique items, particularly marine shells, and there is consistency in which type of shell is used for these occasions, especially in the Ceibal Group A Central Plaza. During the Terminal Preclassic period these activit ies bega n to slow down or cease altogether, and by the Early Classic period most animal related activity seems to have the Preclassic phases, such as the Central American river turtle. Animal remains at

PAGE 224

224 Caobal are exceedin gly rare after the Late Preclassic period, suggesting the After Ceibal renewed occupation at the center and at Caobal during the Late Class ic period saw the construction of the monumental Group D at Ceibal to the east of Group A and the Ceibal Central Plaza. Both parts of the site likely housed the ruling elite, who eventually turned the site into a prominent state capital by the Terminal Cla ssic period. The Central Plaza was no longer used for burials and the ritual caching of animals as it had been in the Preclassic period, although dense midden deposits around the monumental groups suggest the inhabitants were procuring large quantities of deer, as well as turtles and fish. Turkeys also appear in the archaeological record at this time. Freshwater invertebrates, particularly the apple snails, are largely la cking everywhere around Ceibal and at Caobal, indicating that resource procurement stra tegies had changed. The presence of different marine species i n the Classic period deposits, compared to the Preclassic phases indicates that overland exchange networks had changed as well, or at least the demand for certain items used for specific functi ons (e.g. Atlantic marginella shell beads for burials) no longer existed. These fascinating changes reveal the complexity behind how animals were used for subsistence, status, rituals, and exchange over the course of Ceibal and Caobal millennia hist ory. The next two chapters expand on these topics, zooarchaeological remains of San Bartolo, Cival/Holmul, and Cerros, in an effort to increase our understanding of how animals were used throughout the Maya lowlands

PAGE 225

225 during the Preclassic period, and how these uses changed as state level political economies emerged in the Classic period.

PAGE 226

226 Table 5 1. Results of the Ceibal faunal analysis. Val ues reported as NISP. "Total Unidentified Vertebrates" refers to those bones that could not be identified to the level of class. Percentages of totals based on either the number of identified vertebrates for vertebrates or the number of identified inverteb rates for invertebrates. EMP = Earl y Middle Preclassic, LMP = Late Middle Preclassic, LP = Late Preclassic, TP = Terminal Preclassic, EC = Early Classic, LC = Late Classic, TC = Terminal Classic. Scientific Name Common Name EMP (%) LMP (%) LP ( % ) TP ( % ) EC ( % ) LC ( % ) TC ( % ) Mixed (%) Total (%) cf. Didelphis virginiana Virginia opossum 1 (0.03) 32 (1.39) 33 (0.26) cf. Philander opossum gray four eyed opossum 1 (0.03) 2 (0.33) 13 (0.66) 6 (0.26) 24 (0.88) 1 (2.13) 47 (0.37) Didelphidae opossums 3 (0.16) 2 (0.07) 2 (0.33) 2 (0.63) 4 (0.15) 13 (0.10) Chiroptera bats 1 (0.04) 1 (0.01) cf. Alouatta pigra Guatemalan black howler monkey 1 (0.04) 1 (0.01) cf Ateles geoffroyi Geoffroy's spider monkey 1 (0.04) 1 (0.01) Tamandua mexicana northern tamandua (anteater) 1 (0.04) 1 (0.01) Dasypus novemcinctus nine banded armadillo 3 (0.16) 7 (0.24) 2 (0.33) 3 (0.15) 5 (0.22) 9 (0.33) 1 (2.13) 30 (0.24) Sylvilagus sp. rabbits 1 (0.05) 8 (0.27) 1 (0.17) 1 (0.05) 2 (0.09) 5 (0.18) 18 (0.14) Orthogeomys hispidus hispid pocket gopher 1 (0.31) 5 (0.18) 6 (0.05) cf. Geomyidae pocket gophers 1 (0.03) 1 (0.01) Sciurus sp. squirrel 2 (0.10) 2 (0.02) Heteromyidae pocket mice 1 (0.04) 1 (0.01)

PAGE 227

227 Table 5 1. Continued Scientific Name Common Name EMP (%) LMP (%) LP ( % ) TP ( % ) EC ( % ) LC ( % ) TC ( % ) Mixed (%) Total (%) cf. Peromyscus sp. deer mice 4 (1.25) 4 (0.03) Sigmodontinae New World rodents 1 (0.04) 1 (0.01) Dasyprocta punctata Central American agouti 1 (0.03) 1 (0.17) 1 (0.05) 11 (0.48) 15 (0.55) 29 (0.23) Cuniculus paca lowland paca 4 (0.21) 3 (0.10) 2 (0.33) 1 (0.31) 1 (0.05) 1 (0.04) 9 (0.33) 1 (2.13) 22 (0.17) Caviomorpha agoutis and pacas 1 (0.17) 1 (0.04) 1 (0.04) 3 (0.02) Rodentia rodents 2 (0.11) 13 (0.44) 1 (0.17) 5 (1.56) 2 (0.10) 5 (0.22) 16 (0.59) 1 (2.13) 45 (0.35) Canis lupus familiaris domestic dog 568 (30.42) 435 (14.84) 47 (7.85) 6 (1.88) 60 (3.07) 41 (1.78) 41 (1.50) 1 (2.13) 1199 (9.40) Urocyon cinereoargenteus gray fox 2 (0.11) 3 (0.10) 1 (0.17) 1 (0.05) 4 (0.17) 6 (0.22) 17 (0.13) Canidae dogs and foxes 4 (0.14) 4 (0.15) 8 (0.06) Procyon lotor raccoon 2 (0.11) 1 (0.04) 1 (0.04) 4 (0.03) Nasua narica white nosed coati 1 (0.05) 8 (0.35) 9 (0.07) cf. Potos flavus kinkajou 1 (0.04) 5 (0.18) 6 (0.05) Procyonidae raccoon, coati, or kinkajou 1 (0.04) 1 (0.01) cf. Lontra longicaudis neotropical otter 1 (0.03) 1 (0.01) cf. Galictis vittata greater grison 1 (0.04) 1 (0.01) cf. Mustela frenata long tailed weasel 1 (0.05) 1 (0.01)

PAGE 228

228 Table 5 1. Continued Scientific Name Common Name EMP (%) LMP (%) LP ( % ) TP ( % ) EC ( % ) LC ( % ) TC ( % ) Mixed (%) Total (%) Leopardus cf. pardalis ocelot 1 (0.05) 2 (0.09) 3 (0.02) Leopardus cf. wiedii margay 3 (0.11) 3 (0.02) Leopardus sp. ocelots and margays 1 (0.05) 2 (0.09) 2 (0.07) 5 (0.04) Panthera onca jaguar 5 (0.17) 3 (0.11) 8 (0.06) Puma concolor puma 1 (0.03) 1 (0.17) 1 (0.04) 3 (0.02) Felidae jaguar, puma, ocelot, or margray 10 (0.37) 10 (0.08) Felidae, large jaguar or puma 1 (0.03) 1 (0.17) 2 (0.10) 2 (0.07) 6 (0.05) Carnivora carnivores 9 (0.48) 20 (0.68) 6 (1.00) 2 (0.63) 1 (0.05) 7 (0.30) 8 (0.29) 1 (2.13) 54 (0.42) Carnivora, small small carnivores 1 (0.05) 1 (0.03) 1 (0.17) 1 (0.04) 4 (0.03) Tapirella bairdii Baird's tapir 1 (0.05) 1 (0.03) 2 (0.33) 2 (0.63) 2 (0.10) 4 (0.15) 12 (0.09) Tayassuidae peccaries 2 (0.11) 5 (0.17) 1 (0.17) 5 (1.56) 13 (0.66) 6 (0.26) 12 (0.44) 44 (0.35) Mazama sp. brocket deer 1 (0.03) 2 (0.33) 1 (0.31) 4 (0.20) 3 (0.13) 4 (0.15) 2 (4.26) 17 (0.13) Odocoileus virginianus white tailed deer 27 (1.45) 76 (2.59) 58 (9.68) 27 (8.44) 70 (3.58) 250 (10.88) 292 (10.68) 4 (8.51) 804 (6.30) Cervidae deer 5 (0.27) 7 (0.24) 6 (1.00) 10 (0.51) 8 (0.35) 19 (0.69) 55 (0.43)

PAGE 229

229 Table 5 1. Continued Scientific Name Common Name EMP (%) LMP (%) LP ( % ) TP ( % ) EC ( % ) LC ( % ) TC ( % ) Mixed (%) Total (%) Artiodactyla deer or peccary 1 (0.05) 1 (0.17) 2 (0.63) 7 (0.36) 1 (0.04) 5 (0.18) 17 (0.13) Mammalia unidentified mammals 255 (13.66) 549 (18.72) 190 (31.72) 79 (24.69) 221 (11.30) 264 (11.49) 633 (23.15) 2 (4.26) 2193 (17.20) Mammalia, Medium large Size unidentified mammals (size of deer or jaguar) 95 (5.09) 206 (7.03) 92 (15.36) 56 (17.50) 144 (7.36) 141 (6.14) 502 (18.36) 30 (63.83) 1266 (9.93) Mammalia, Medium small Size unidentified mammals (size of dog or opossum) 35 (1.87) 119 (4.06) 14 (2.34) 9 (2.81) 19 (0.97) 52 (2.26) 72 (2.63) 1 (2.13) 321 (2.52) Mammalia, Small Size unidentified mammals (size of bat or rat) 14 (0.48) 2 (0.33) 83 (3.61) 7 (0.26) 106 (0.83) Total Mammals 1018 (54.53) 1486 (50.68) 437 (72.95) 202 (63.13) 579 (29.60) 940 (40.92) 1730 (63.28) 45 (95.74) 6437 (50.48) cf. Colinus virginianus northern bobwhite 1 (0.03) 1 (0.01) Penelope cf. purpurascens crested guan 4 (0.15) 4 (0.03) Meleagris gallopavo wild turkey 2 (0.07) 2 (0.02) Meleagris ocellata ocellated turkey 1 (0.04) 1 (0.01) Meleagris sp. turkeys 1 (0.31) 1 (0.05) 13 (0.57) 15 (0.55) 30 (0.24) Galliformes turkeys, quails, guans 1 (0.05) 2 (0.09) 3 (0.11) 6 (0.05)

PAGE 230

230 Table 5 1. Continued Scientific Name Common Name EMP (%) LMP (%) LP ( % ) TP ( % ) EC ( % ) LC ( % ) TC ( % ) Mixed (%) Total (%) cf Dendrocygna sp. whistling duck 1 (0.03) 1 (0.04) 2 (0.02) Anatidae (cf. Aythya collaris? ) ring necked duck? 1 (0.05) 1 (0.01) Anatidae ducks and geese 1 (0.04) 1 (0.01) Egretta sp. herons 3 (0.11) 3 (0.02) Nycticorax nycticorax black crowned night heron 1 (0.04) 1 (0.01) Ardeidae herons 1 (0.04) 1 (0.04) 2 (0.02) cf. Anhinga anhinga anhinga (darter) 1 (0.04) 1 (0.01) Gruiformes (cf. Aramus guarauna ) tails, trumpeters (limpkin?) 1 (0.05) 1 (0.01) cf. Columba sp. doves, pigeons 1 (0.05) 1 (0.01) cf. Buteo sp. ( lineatus?) hawk (red shouldered hawk?) 1 (0.05) 1 (0.01) Accipitriformes (cf. Buteogallus urubitinga ) hawks, eagles, vultures (great black hawk?) 20 (0.68) 20 (0.16) cf. Cathartidae New World vultures 1 (0.04) 1 (0.01) cf. Tyto alba barn owl 1 (0.05) 1 (0.01) Corvidae crows, ravens, grackles 1 (0.04) 1 (0.01) Quiscalus cf. mexicanus great tailed grackle 1 (0.03) 1 (0.01)

PAGE 231

231 Table 5 1. Continued Scientific Name Common Name EMP (%) LMP (%) LP ( % ) TP ( % ) EC ( % ) LC ( % ) TC ( % ) Mixed (%) Total (%) Aves unidentified birds 2 (0.11) 16 (0.55) 2 (0.33) 3 (0.94) 11 (0.56) 44 (1.92) 34 (1.24) 112 (0.88) Aves, Medium large Size unidentified birds (size of a turkey) 6 (0.32) 2 (0.07) 3 (0.13) 14 (0.51) 25 (0.20) Aves, Medium small Size unidentified birds (size of a duck or hawk) 5 (0.27) 9 (0.31) 4 (0.67) 3 (0.15) 5 (0.22) 25 (0.91) 51 (0.40) Aves, Small Size unidentified birds (size of a quail or dove) 1 (0.05) 2 (0.07) 1 (0.17) 3 (0.15) 1 (0.04) 3 (0.11) 1 (2.13) 12 (0.09) Total Birds 16 (0.86) 52 (1.77) 7 (1.17) 4 (1.25) 22 (1.12) 75 (3.27) 105 (3.84) 1 (2.13) 282 (2.21) Chelydra serpentina snapping turtle 1 (0.05) 5 (0.17) 1 (0.04) 7 (0.05) Trachemys venusta Mesoamerican slider 61 (3.27) 129 (4.40) 5 (0.83) 13 (4.06) 14 (0.72) 17 (0.74) 230 (8.41) 469 (3.68) Dermatemys mawii Central American river turtle 24 (0.82) 8 (1.34) 27 (8.44) 560 (28.63) 90 (3.92) 230 (8.41) 939 (7.36) Dermatemydidae or Emydidae river turtle or slider 5 (0.27) 1 (0.03) 2 (0.33) 21 (1.07) 4 (0.17) 32 (1.17) 1 (2.13) 66 (0.52) cf. Staurotypus triporcatus Mexican musk turtle 22 (1.18) 30 (1.02) 2 (0.33) 1 (0.31) 2 (0.10) 7 (0.30) 8 (0.29) 72 (0.56) cf. Kinosternon sp. mud turtle 1 (0.05) 4 (0.14) 5 (0.04) Kinosternidae mud or musk turtle 6 (0.32) 30 (1.02) 25 (4.17) 1 (0.31) 6 (0.31) 5 (0.22) 1 (0.04) 74 (0.58) Testudines unidentified turtles 24 (1.29) 56 (1.91) 11 (1.84) 7 (2.19) 45 (2.30) 46 (2.00) 74 (2.71) 263 (2.06)

PAGE 232

232 Table 5 1. Continued Scientific Name Common Name EMP (%) LMP (%) LP ( % ) TP ( % ) EC ( % ) LC ( % ) TC ( % ) Mixed (%) Total (%) Testudines, Medium large Size unidentified turtle (size of river turtle) 16 (0.86) 24 (0.82) 11 (1.84) 31 (9.69) 31 (1.58) 50 (2.18) 78 (2.85) 241 (1.89) Testudines, Medium small Size unidentified turtle (size of mud or small slider) 1 (0.05) 6 (0.31) 1 (0.04) 8 (0.06) Testudines, Small Size unidentified turtle (size of small mud turtle) 7 (0.37) 9 (0.31) 1 (0.31) 7 (0.36) 8 (0.35) 32 (0.25) Iguanidae iguanas 1 (0.03) 5 (0.83) 3 (0.15) 3 (0.13) 1 (0.04) 13 (0.10) Lacertilia, Small unidentified small lizard 1 (0.05) 1 (0.03) 1 (0.04) 3 (0.02) Serpentes snakes 1 (0.17) 1 (0.05) 1 (0.04) 3 (0.02) Crocodylus sp. crocodile 1 (0.05) 1 (0.17) 6 (0.31) 10 (0.44) 2 (0.07) 20 (0.16) Reptilia unidentified reptiles 1 (0.03) 1 (0.17) 1 (0.05) 2 (0.09) 4 (0.15) 9 (0.07) Reptilia, Large unidentified reptiles (size of a crocodile or large iguana) 20 (0.87) 20 (0.16) Reptilia, Small unidentified reptiles (size of a gecko or small snake) 1 (0.04) 1 (0.01)

PAGE 233

233 Table 5 1. Continued Scientific Name Common Name EMP (%) LMP (%) LP ( % ) TP ( % ) EC ( % ) LC ( % ) TC ( % ) Mixed (%) Total (%) Total Reptiles 146 (7.82) 315 (10.74) 72 (12.02) 81 (25.31) 703 (35.94) 263 (11.45) 664 (24.29) 1 (2.13) 2245 (17.61) Bufonidae toads 3 (0.13) 1 (0.04) 4 (0.03) Anura frogs and toads 4 (0.21) 1 (0.03) 1 (0.17) 3 (0.15) 3 (0.13) 1 (0.04) 13 (0.10) cf. Amphibia unidentified amphibians 1 (0.05) 1 (0.01) Total Amphibians 5 (0.27) 1 (0.03) 1 (0.17) 3 (0.15) 6 (0.26) 2 (0.07) 18 (0.14) Atractosteus tropicus tropical gar 89 (4.77) 81 (2.76) 9 (1.50) 2 (0.63) 107 (5.47) 81 (3.53) 20 (0.73) 389 (3.05) cf. Ariopsis felis or Potamarius usumacintae hardhead or sea catfish 1 (0.05) 1 (0.17) 2 (0.02) Siluriformes (cf. Ariopsis / Bagre sp. ) catfish (marine?) 6 (0.32) 6 (0.05) Siluriformes (cf. Cathorops sp.) catfish 4 (0.14) 1 (0.04) 5 (0.04) Siluriformes catfish 57 (3.05) 95 (3.24) 11 (1.84) 2 (0.63) 15 (0.77) 91 (3.96) 10 (0.37) 281 (2.20) Cichlisoma ( Mayaheros ?) cf. urophthalmus Mayan cichlid 13 (0.44) 2 (0.10) 15 (0.12) Cichlidae cichlids 8 (0.43) 13 (0.44) 5 (0.83) 3 (0.15) 14 (0.61) 5 (0.18) 48 (0.38)

PAGE 234

234 Table 5 1. Continued Scientific Name Common Name EMP (%) LMP (%) LP ( % ) TP ( % ) EC ( % ) LC ( % ) TC ( % ) Mixed (%) Total (%) Centropomus sp. snook 1 (0.05) 1 (0.01) Actinopterygii unidentified bony fish 521 (27.91) 872 (29.74) 56 (9.35) 29 (9.06) 521 (26.64) 826 (35.96) 197 (7.21) 3022 (23.70) Total Bony Fish 682 (36.53) 1078 (36.77) 82 (13.69) 33 (10.31) 649 (33.18) 1013 (44.10) 232 (8.49) 3769 (29.56) Carcharodon carcharias or Isurus oxyrinchus great white or mako shark 1 (0.04) 1 (0.01) Total Cartilaginous Fish 1 (0.04) 1 (0.01) Total Identified Vertebrates 1867 (100.00) 2932 (100.00) 599 (100.00) 320 (100.00) 1956 (100.00) 2297 (100.00) 2734 (100.00) 47 (100.00) 12752 (100.00) Total Unidentified Vertebrates 393 807 168 70 192 543 385 11 2569 Spondylus cf. americanus Atlantic thorny oyster 1 (0.03) 1 (0.01) Spondylus sp. thorny oysters 2 (0.03) 69 (19.60) 50 (10.48) 121 (0.98) Noetia ponderosa ponderous ark clam 2 (0.43) 2 (0.02) Donax cf. denticulatus common caribbean donax/bean clam 1 (0.02) 1 (0.01) Veneridae venus clams 1 (0.28) 1 (0.01) Dentalium sp. tusk shell 2 (0.07) 9 (0.14) 1 (0.08) 1 (0.21) 13 (0.11) Diodora cayenensis or aspera limpet 1 (0.08) 1 (0.01)

PAGE 235

235 Table 5 1. Continued Scientific Name Common Name EMP (%) LMP (%) LP ( % ) TP ( % ) EC ( % ) LC ( % ) TC ( % ) Mixed (%) Total (%) Nerita versicolor four toothed nerite 1 (0.21) 1 (0.01) Conus cf. delessertii Sozon's cone snail 1 (0.02) 1 (0.01) Conus sp. cone snails 1 (0.30) 1 (0.01) Oliva sp. olive snails 23 (0.36) 4 (0.30) 1 (0.22) 2 (0.57) 5 (1.52) 57 (11.95) 92 (0.75) Olivella cf. nivea snowy dwarf olive 1 (0.02) 1 (0.01) cf. Cassidae helmet snail 1 (0.21) 1 (0.01) Prunum apicinum Atlantic marginella 2 (0.07) 61 (0.95) 227 (17.09) 5 (1.08) 1 (0.21) 296 (2.40) Prunum cf. labiatum royal marginella 1 (0.02) 1 (0.01) Prunum cf. amabile or labiatum Roosevelt's marginella or royal marginella 2 (0.03) 1 (0.08) 3 (0.02) Prunum cf. guttatum white spotted marginella 1 (0.02) 1 (0.01) Prunum sp. marginella snails 2 (0.03) 2 (0.02) Turbinella angulata West Indian chank shell 4 (0.06) 1 (0.21) 5 (0.04) cf. Muricidae murex or rock snail 1 (0.08) 1 (0.01) Lobatus gigas queen conch 2 (0.03) 1 (0.30) 1 (0.21) 4 (0.03) Strombus pugilis fighting conch 1 (0.03) 1 (0.21) 2 (0.02)

PAGE 236

236 Table 5 1. Continued Scientific Name Common Name EMP (%) LMP (%) LP ( % ) TP ( % ) EC ( % ) LC ( % ) TC ( % ) Mixed (%) Total (%) Strombidae conch snails 1 (0.02) 1 (0.01) Columbella mercatoria dove snail 35 (7.34) 35 (0.28) Gastropoda, Marine unidentified marine snails 1 (0.03) 11 (0.17) 3 (0.23) 4 (1.14) 4 (1.22) 5 (1.05) 28 (0.23) Gastropoda, Large Marine unidentified large marine snails 3 (0.05) 2 (0.57) 1 (0.30) 1 (1.67) 7 (0.06) Mollusca, Marine unidentified marine mollusks 3 (0.05) 3 (0.85) 2 (0.61) 8 (0.06) Total Marine Mollusks 7 (0.24) 128 (1.99) 238 (17.92) 8 (1.72) 81 (23.01) 14 (4.26) 154 (32.29) 1 (1.67) 631 (5.12) cf. Corbicula fluminea asia clam 1 (0.21) 1 (0.01) Unionidae (Sphenonaias sp .) river clam 143 (4.97) 69 (1.07) 21 (1.58) 1 (0.22) 4 (1.14) 11 (3.34) 5 (1.05) 254 (2.06) Megalonais cf. nervosa river clam 3 (0.05) 3 (0.02) Unionidae (Psoronaias/Psorula cf. semigranosa) river clam 147 (5.10) 252 (3.91) 163 (12.27) 19 (4.09) 25 (7.10) 33 (10.03) 22 (4.61) 3 (5.00) 664 (5.38) Unionidae (Psoronaias/Psorula sp .) river clam 89 (3.09) 226 (3.51) 121 (9.11) 29 (6.25) 43 (12.22) 45 (13.68) 40 (8.39) 9 (15.00) 602 (4.88) Unionidae river clam 65 (2.26) 93 (1.44) 28 (2.11) 4 (0.86) 12 (3.41) 29 (8.81) 23 (4.82) 254 (2.06) Pachychilus cf. glaphyrus jute snail 84 (2.92) 16 (0.25) 40 (3.01) 19 (4.09) 20 (5.68) 10 (3.04) 37 (7.76) 2 (3.33) 228 (1.85) Pachychilus cf. indiorum jute snail 3 (0.10) 5 (0.08) 4 (0.30) 13 (2.80) 3 (0.91) 5 (1.05) 33 (0.27)

PAGE 237

237 Table 5 1. Continued Scientific Name Common Name EMP (%) LMP (%) LP ( % ) TP ( % ) EC ( % ) LC ( % ) TC ( % ) Mixed (%) Total (%) Pachychilus sp. jute snails 3 (0.05) 5 (0.38) 2 (0.43) 8 (2.27) 3 (0.63) 21 (0.17) Pomacea flagellata Central American apple snail 2197 (76.28) 5254 (81.57) 656 (49.40) 67 (14.44) 107 (30.40) 63 (19.15) 50 (10.48) 24 (40.00) 8418 (68.27) Total Freshwater Mollusks 2728 (94.72) 5921 (91.93) 1038 (78.16) 154 (33.19) 219 (62.22) 194 (58.97) 186 (38.99) 38 (63.33) 10478 (84.97) Bulimulus sp. terrestrial snail 83 (2.88) 283 (4.39) 25 (1.88) 52 (11.21) 14 (3.98) 8 (2.43) 465 (3.77) Euglandina cf. ghiesbreghti wolf snail 3 (0.10) 7 (0.11) 2 (0.15) 7 (1.99) 11 (3.34) 5 (1.05) 35 (0.28) Euglandina sp. wolf snail 12 (0.42) 24 (0.37) 5 (0.38) 7 (1.51) 10 (2.84) 18 (5.47) 18 (3.77) 4 (6.67) 98 (0.79) Spiraxis sp. terrestrial snail 8 (0.28) 26 (0.40) 35 (7.54) 1 (0.21) 1 (1.67) 71 (0.58) cf. Stenophysa sp. terrestrial snail 151 (32.54) 151 (1.22) Helicina cf. amoena terrestrial snail 1 (0.03) 2 (0.03) 5 (1.08) 8 (0.06) Neocyclotus cf. dysonii tree snail 12 (0.42) 19 (0.29) 6 (0.45) 12 (2.59) 9 (2.56) 36 (10.94) 26 (5.45) 3 (5.00) 123 (1.00) Orthalicus cf. princeps tree snail 5 (0.17) 6 (0.09) 7 (0.53) 15 (3.23) 10 (2.84) 37 (11.25) 70 (14.68) 12 (20.00) 162 (1.31) Gastropoda, Terrestrial unidentified terrestrial snails 20 (0.69) 25 (0.39) 6 (0.45) 21 (4.53) 10 (3.04) 6 (1.26) 1 (1.67) 89 (0.72) Total Terrestrial Snails 144 (5.00) 392 (6.09) 51 (3.84) 298 (64.22) 50 (14.20) 120 (36.47) 126 (26.42) 21 (35.00) 1202 (9.75)

PAGE 238

238 Table 5 1. Continued Scientific Name Common Name EMP (%) LMP (%) LP ( % ) TP ( % ) EC ( % ) LC ( % ) TC ( % ) Mixed (%) Total (%) Gastropoda unidentified snails 1 (0.03) 1 (0.08) 2 (0.57) 1 (0.21) 5 (0.04) Bivalvia unidentified bivalves 4 (0.86) 4 (0.03) Total Mollusks 2880 (100.00) 6441 (100.00) 1328 (100.00) 464 (100.00) 352 (100.00) 328 (99.70) 467 (97.90) 60 (100.00) 12320 (99.91) Echinoidea sea urchins 1 (0.30) 10 (2.10) 11 (0.09) Total Echinodermata 1 (0.30) 10 (2.10) 11 (0.09) Total Invertebrates 2880 (100.00) 6441 (100.00) 1328 (100.00) 464 (100.00) 352 (100.00) 329 (100.00) 477 (100.00) 60 (100.00) 12331 (100.00) TOTAL 5140 10180 2095 854 2500 3169 3596 118 27652

PAGE 239

239 Table 5 2. Identification of Ceibal faunal specimens recovered from the flotation samples. All counts in NISP except for invertebrates (see Chapter 4 for invertebrate quantification procedure). Proportion (%) values are based on the original total value for each category in order to compare how much of the f lotation sample comprises the complete assemblage (Table 5 1). Categories with "N/A" denote where no specimens were identified in th e total assemblage. EMP = Early Middle Preclassic, LMP = Late Middle Preclassic, LP = Late Preclassic, TP = Terminal Preclas sic, EC = Early Classic, LC = Late Classic, TC = Terminal Classic. Scientific Name Common Name EMP (%) LMP (%) LP (%) TP (%) EC (%) LC (%) TC (%) Total (%) Dasypus novemcinctus nine banded armadillo 1 (14.29) N/A 1 (3.33) Rodentia rodents 2 (100.00) 9 (69.23) 5 (100.00) 2 (40.00) 5 (31.25) 23 (51.11) Canis lupus familiaris domestic dog 1 (2.44) 1 (0.08) Carnivora carnivores 1 (12.50) 1 (1.85) Carnivora, small small carnivores N/A N/A N/A 1 (100.00) 1 (25.00) Mammalia unidentified mammals 1 (0.39) 1 (0.38) 2 (0.09) Mammalia, Medium small Size unidentified mammals (size of dog or opossum) 1 (0.49) 1 (0.31) Mammalia, Small Size unidentified mammals (size of bat or rat) 10 (71.43) 1 (50.00) N/A N/A 82 (98.80) 3 (42.86) 96 (90.57) Total Mammals 3 (0.29) 21 (1.41) 1 (0.23) 5 (2.48) 85 (9.04) 11 (0.64) 126 (1.96) Aves unidentified birds 1 (6.25) 1 (50.00) 2 (1.79)

PAGE 240

240 Table 5 2. Continued Scientific Name Common Name EMP (%) LMP (%) LP (%) TP (%) EC (%) LC (%) TC (%) Total (%) Aves, Small Size unidentified birds (size of a quail or dove) 1 (100.00) 1 (50.00) N/A 2 (16.67) Total Birds 1 (6.25) 2 (3.85) 1 (14.29) 4 (1.42) Lacertilia, Small unidentified small lizard 1 (100.00) 1 (100.00) N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 (66.67) Total Reptiles 1 (0.68) 1 (0.32) 2 (0.09) Anura frogs and toads 1 (100.00) N/A 1 (33.33) 1 (33.33) 3 (23.08) cf. Amphibia unidentified amphibians 1 (100.00) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 (100.00) Total Amphibians 1 (20.00) 1 (100.00) N/A 1 (33.33) 1 (16.67) 4 (22.22) Atractosteus tropicus tropical gar 75 (84.27) 77 (95.06) 1 (11.11) 2 (100.00) 13 (12.15) 50 (61.73) 18 (90.00) 236 (60.67) Siluriformes unidentified catfish 1 (1.75) 7 (7.37) 1 (6.67) 1 (1.10) 10 (3.40 a ) Cichlisoma ( Mayaheros ) cf. urophthalmus Mayan cichlid N/A 9 (69.23) N/A N/A N/A N/A 9 (60.00) Cichlidae unidentified cichlids 1 (12.50) 8 (61.54) N/A 1 (33.33) 2 (14.29) 2 (40.00) 14 (22.22 b ) Actinopterygii unidentified bony fish 356 (68.33) 786 (90.14) 15 (26.79) 26 (89.66) 125 (23.99) 483 (58.47) 141 (71.57) 1932 (63.93) Total Bony Fish 433 (63.49) 887 (82.28) 16 (19.51) 28 (84.85) 140 (21.57) 536 (52.91) 161 (69.40) 2201 (58.40)

PAGE 241

241 Table 5 2. Continued Scientific Name Common Name EMP (%) LMP (%) LP (%) TP (%) EC (%) LC (%) TC (%) Total (%) Total Identified Vertebrates 439 (23.51) 912 (31.11) 18 (3.01) 33 (10.31) 141 (7.21) 622 (27.08) 172 (6.29) 2337 (18.33) Total Unidentified Vertebrates 117 (29.77) 339 (42.01) 8 (4.76) 30 (42.86) 22 (11.46) 141 (25..97) 65 (16.88) 722 (28.10) Dentalium sp. tusk shell 1 (50.00) N/A N/A N/A 1 (7.69) Prunum apicinum Atlantic marginella 2 (3.28) N/A N/A 2 (0.68) Total Marine Mollusks 1 (14.29) 2 (1.56) 3 (0.48) Unionidae (Sphenonaias sp .) river clam 1 (9.09) 1 (0.39) Unionidae river clam 2 (2.15) 2 (0.79) Pomacea flagellata Central American apple snail 1 (0.02) 1 (0.01) Total Freshwater Mollusks 3 (0.05) 1 (0.52) 4 (0.04) Bulimulus sp. terrestrial snail 4 (1.41) 3 (37.50) N/A 7 (1.51) Spiraxis sp. terrestrial snail 10 (38.46) N/A N/A N/A 10 (14.08) Neocyclotus cf. dysonii tree snail 1 (2.78) 1 (0.81) Gastropoda, Terrestrial unidentified terrestrial snails 4 (16.00) N/A 2 (20.00) 6 (6.74)

PAGE 242

242 Table 5 2. Continued Scientific Name Common Name EMP (%) LMP (%) LP (%) TP (%) EC (%) LC (%) TC (%) Total (%) Total Terrestrial Snails 18 (4.59) 6 (5.00) 24 (2.00) Total Mollusks 1 (0.03) 23 (0.36) 7 (2.13) 31 (0.25) Echinoidea sea urchins N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 (100.00) 10 (100.00) 11 (100.00) Total Echinodermata N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 (100.00) 10 (100.00) 11 (100.00) Total Invertebrates 1 (0.03) 23 (0.36) 8 (2.43) 10 (2.10) 42 (0.34) TOTAL 557 (10.84) 1274 (12.51) 26 (1.24) 63 (7.38) 163 (6.52) 771 (24.33) 247 (6.24) 3101 (11.21) a of all catfish b of all cichlids

PAGE 243

243 Table 5 3. Locations of where Ceibal faunal specimens were recovered using flotation at Ceibal. EMP = Earl y Middle Preclassic, LMP = Late Middle Preclassic, LP = Late Preclassic, TP = Terminal Preclassic, EC = Early Classic, LC = Late Classic, TC = Terminal Classic. Operation Core/Periphery Structure/Location Chrono. Phase Context Type NISP Fauna Group A Central Plaza CB 203B Core (Group A) Central Plaza excavations EMP Fill a 44 CB 203B Core (Group A) Central Plaza excavations LMP Fill 10 CB 203B Core (Group A) Central Plaza excavations LP Fill b 0 CB 203B Core (Group A) Central Plaza excavations TP Burial/Cache 18 CB 203C Core (Group A) Central Plaza excavations EMP Cache 5 CB 203H Core (Group A) Central Plaza excavations LMP Fill 0 CB 203H Core (Group A) Central Plaza excavations LP Fill 0 Group A East Court CB 201A Core (Group A) East Court; in front of Str. A 16 EMP Cache 1 CB 201B Core (Group A) East Court; in front of Str. A 15 EMP Fill 78 CB 201B Core (Group A) East Court; in front of Str. A 15 LMP Fill 98 CB 201C Core (Group A) Excavations in Str. A 14 LMP Fill 51 CB 201D Core (Group A) Behind the East Court (Palace Midden) TC Midden 11 CB 201E Core (Group A) West side of Str. A 14 EMP Fill 43 CB 201E Core (Group A) West side of Str. A 14 LC Midden 7 CB 201F Core (Group A) East Court excavations EMP Fill 297 CB 201F Core (Group A) East Court excavations LMP Fill 127

PAGE 244

244 Table 5 3. Continued Operation Core/Periphery Structure/Location Chrono. Phase Context Type NISP Fauna CB 201F Core (Group A) East Court excavations LC Fill 6 CB 201G Core (Group A) Behind Str. A 15 LMP Cache/Midden 30 Group A Other (Structures) CB 200B Core (Group A) Platform of Str. A 24 EMP Fill 42 CB 200B Core (Group A) Platform of Str. A 24 LMP Midden 127 CB 203D Core (Group A) Str. A 20, south side of stairs LMP Burial 6 CB 203E Core (Group A) Str. A 20 EMP Fill 20 CB 203F Core (Group A) Str. A 20, stairs (Str. Sub 6) EMP Fill 12 CB 203F Core (Group A) Str. A 20, stairs (Str. Sub 6) LMP Fill 0 CB 203G Core (Group A) Str. A 10 (Sub 2 extension) LC Fill 0 CB 203I Core (Group A) Str. A 12 (Sub 2) LP Fill 23 CB 204A Core (Group A) Str. A 19, west wall LMP Cache 8 CB 204A Core (Group A) Str. A 19, west wall LC Fill 5 CB 205A Core (Group A) Str. A 18 LMP Midden 707 CB 205A Core (Group A) Str. A 18 TP Fill 6 CB 205A Core (Group A) Str. A 18 TC Fill 7 CB 206A Core (Group A) North group of Central Plaza LP Fill 0 CB 207A Core (Group A) Str. A 2 TP Fill 10

PAGE 245

245 Table 5 3. Continued Operation Core/Periphery Structure/Location Chrono. Phase Context Type NISP Fauna CB 207A Core (Group A) Str. A 2 EC Midden/Burial 100 CB 207A Core (Group A) Str. A 2 LC Midden/Burial 258 Group D CB 208A Core (Group D) East Plaza LC Midden 471 CB 208A Core (Group D) East Plaza TC Midden 154 CB 209A Core (Group D) Group D Central Plaza LC Fill 23 CB 209A Core (Group D) Group D Central Plaza TC Midden 28 CB 212A Core (Group D) Patio B of West Plaza (northern side of Str. D 8) LC Burial 1 Jul Group CB 210A Periphery Jul Group LMP Midden over burial 10 CB 210A Periphery Jul Group LP Fill 3 CB 210B Periphery Jul Group TC Fill 0 Karinel Group CB 211A Periphery Karinel Group TP Fill 29 CB 211A Periphery Karinel Group TC Fill 6 CB 211B Periphery Karinel Group EMP Burial 15 CB 211B Periphery Karinel Group LMP Midden 103 CB 211B Periphery Karinel Group EC Fill 63 CB 211B Periphery Karinel Group TC Fill 39 CB 211C Periphery Karinel Group TC Fill 2 a Includes one Dentalium sp. from Burial 130; all other remains from fill b Includes one Unionidae bead from an area marked "terminal ritual?" on bag (not given a cache number in final reports; all other remains from fill)

PAGE 246

246 Table 5 4. Diversity and equitability of the fauna at Ceibal over time. This figure does not include terrestrial snails. EMP = Early Middle Preclassic, LMP = Late Middle Preclassic, LP = Late Preclassic, TP = Terminal Preclassic, EC = Early Classic, LC = Late Classic, TC = Terminal Classic. EMP LMP LP TP EC LC TC Diversity (H') 1.398898 1.111913 1.733891 2.346381 2.01826 2.607325 2.648292 Equitability (V') 0.396697 0.285705 0.483852 0.748329 0.554835 0.69758 0.660862 Table 5 5. Diversity and equitability of the vertebrate fauna at Ceibal over time. EMP = Earl y Middle Preclassic, LMP = Late Middle Preclassic, LP = Late Preclassic, TP = Terminal Preclassic, EC = Early Classic, LC = Late Classic, TC = Terminal Classic. EMP LMP LP TP EC LC TC Diversity (H') 1.371699 1.998512 2.239927 2.078792 1.483932 2.305239 2.102143 Equitability (V') 0.426142 0.576649 0.695872 0.767634 0.432131 0.659298 0.573798

PAGE 247

247 Table 5 6. NISP and proportions of key taxa in the Ceibal ceremonial core over time. Proportions (%) based on the number of specimens within the core's assemblage per chronological period. Late and Terminal Classic periods include both Groups A and D. The category of "Deer" includes all deer (white tailed, brocket, and indeterminate). EMP = Early Middle Preclassic, LMP = Late Middle Preclassic, LP = Late Preclassic, TP = Terminal Preclassic, EC = Early Classic, LC = Late Classic, TC = Terminal Classic. Common Name EMP % (2383) LMP % (3594) LP % (1135) TP % (219) EC % (525) LC % (2100) TC % (2077) Total % (12033) D eer 19 0.80 32 0.89 42 3.70 11 5.02 23 4.38 241 11.48 199 9.58 567 4.71 Peccary 2 0.08 0 0.00 1 0.09 1 0.46 6 1.14 6 0.29 11 0.53 27 0.22 Dogs 48 2.02 258 7.18 30 2.64 3 1.37 2 0.38 39 1.86 24 1.16 404 3.36 Felines 1 0.04 5 0.14 2 0.18 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 0.19 8 0.39 20 0.17 Agouti/P aca 3 0.13 2 0.06 4 0.35 0 0.00 1 0.19 12 0.57 23 1.11 45 0.37 Rabbits 1 0.04 5 0.14 1 0.09 0 0.00 1 0.19 0 0.00 5 0.24 13 0.11 Turkeys 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.19 15 0.71 15 0.72 31 0.26 Central American River Turtle 0 0.00 2 0.06 6 0.53 14 6.39 162 30.86 80 3.81 198 9.53 462 3.84 Slider 6 0.25 24 0.67 0 0.00 1 0.46 7 1.33 16 0.76 221 10.64 275 2.29 Crocodil es 1 0.04 0 0.00 1 0.09 0 0.00 2 0.38 10 0.48 2 0.10 16 0.13 Garfish 88 3.69 73 2.03 1 0.09 1 0.46 6 1.14 69 3.29 18 0.87 256 2.13 Catfish 59 2.48 86 2.39 7 0.62 2 0.91 8 1.52 80 3.81 10 0.48 252 2.09 Apple Sn ails 904 37.95 1189 33.08 354 31.19 38 17.35 12 2.29 62 2.95 31 1.49 2590 21.52 River Cl ams 381 15.99 402 11.19 190 16.74 37 16.89 13 2.48 109 5.19 58 2.79 1190 9.89 Atlantic Marginella Shells 2 0.08 60 1.67 227 20.00 5 2.28 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 294 2.44 Oliva Sh ells 0 0.00 13 0.36 3 0.26 1 0.46 0 0.00 5 0.24 56 2.70 78 0.65 Spondylu s 1 0.04 2 0.06 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 0.02 Other Marine Shells 4 0.17 24 0.67 7 0.62 2 0.91 2 0.38 8 0.38 8 0.39 55 0.46

PAGE 248

248 Table 5 7. NISP and proportions of key taxa in the Ceibal periphery over time. Proportions (%) based on the number of specimens within the periphery's assemblage per chronological period. The category of "Deer" includes all deer (white tailed, brocket, a nd indeterminate). EMP = Early Middle Preclassic, LMP = Late Middle Preclassic, LP = Late Preclassic, TP = Terminal Preclassic, EC = Early Classic, LC = Late Classic, TC = Terminal Classic. Common Name EMP % (2249) LMP % (5388) LP % (740) TP % (234) EC % (1690) LC % (406) TC % (999) Total % (11706) Deer 13 0.58 52 0.97 24 3.24 14 5.98 58 3.43 20 4.93 115 11.51 296 2.53 Peccary 0 0.00 5 0.09 0 0.00 2 0.85 7 0.41 0 0.00 1 0.10 15 0.13 Dogs 520 23.12 177 3.29 17 2.30 3 1.28 58 3.43 2 0.49 17 1.70 794 6.78 Felines 0 0.00 2 0.04 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 0.18 0 0.00 13 1.30 18 0.15 Agouti/P aca 1 0.04 2 0.04 0 0.00 1 0.43 1 0.06 1 0.25 2 0.20 8 0.07 Rabbits 0 0.00 3 0.06 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0.49 0 0.00 5 0.04 Turkeys 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.43 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0.20 3 0.03 Central American River Turtle 0 0.00 22 0.41 2 0.27 12 5.13 396 23.43 10 2.46 32 3.20 474 4.05 Slider 5 5 2.45 105 1.95 5 0.68 12 5.13 7 0.41 1 0.25 9 0.90 194 1.66 Crocodil es 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 0.24 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 0.03 Garfish 1 0.04 8 0.15 8 1.08 1 0.43 101 5.98 12 2.96 2 0.20 133 1.14 Catfish 5 0.22 13 0.24 5 0.68 0 0.00 7 0.41 12 2.96 0 0.00 42 0.36 Apple Sn ails 1293 57.49 4065 75.45 302 40.81 21 8.97 92 5.44 1 0.25 19 1.90 5793 49.49 River Cl ams 63 2.80 241 4.47 143 19.32 19 8.12 66 3.91 9 2.22 32 3.20 573 4.89 Atlantic Marginella Shells 0 0.00 1 0.02 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.10 2 0.02 Oliva Shells 0 0.00 10 0.19 1 0.14 0 0.00 2 0.12 0 0.00 1 0.10 14 0.12 Spondylu s 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 69 4.08 0 0.00 50 5.01 119 1.02 Other Ma rine Shells 0 0.00 19 0.35 0 0.00 0 0.00 8 0.47 1 0.25 38 3.80 66 0.56

PAGE 249

249 Table 5 8. Comparison of context types where fauna was recovered at Ceibal's ceremonial core over time. B = burial, M = midden, C = cache, T = possible termination ritual. "?" denotes uncertainty if specimen was associated or not (e.g. possible fill intermixed wit h special context). EMP = Early Middle Preclassic, LMP = Late Middle Preclassic, LP = Late Preclassic, TP = Terminal Preclassic, EC = Early Classic, LC = Late Classic, TC = T erminal Classic. Scientific Name Common Name EMP LMP LP TP EC LC TC cf. Didelphis virginiana Virginia opossum M cf. Philander opossum gray opossum B?, M Tamandua mexicana Northern tamandua (anteater) M Dasypus novemcinctus nine banded armadillo B, M B, M Sylvilagus sp. rabbits M M Orthogeomys hispidus Hispid pocket gopher M Heteromyidae pocket mice M Dasyprocta punctata Central American agouti M M Cuniculus paca lowland paca M B? Caviomorpha agoutis and pacas C Rodentia rodents M M M Canis lupus familiaris domestic dog M B, C, M, T C B, M M Urocyon cinereoargenteus gray fox B Procyon lotor raccoon M Nasua narica white nosed coati M Procyonidae raccoon, coati, or kinkajou B cf. Mustela frenata long tailed weasel T Leopardus cf. pardalis ocelot M Leopardus sp. ocelots and margays M Panthera onca jaguar M? M Puma concolor puma M Carnivora carnivores M M, T M

PAGE 250

250 Table 5 8. Continued Scientific Name Common Name EMP LMP LP TP EC LC TC Carnivora, small small carnivores M Tapirella bairdii Baird's tapir C Tayassuidae peccaries B, M M M Mazama sp. Brocket deer C Odocoileus virginianus white tailed deer M M C C B, M B, M M, T Cervidae deer M M, T M M M, T Artiodactyla deer or peccary M Meleagris gallopavo wild turkey M Meleagris sp. turkeys B B, M M Galliformes turkeys, quails, guans B Nycticorax nycticorax black crowned night heron B Ardeidae herons B cf. Anhinga anhinga anhinga (darter) M Gruiformes (cf. Aramus guarauna ) rails, trumpeters (limpkin?) M cf. Columba sp. doves, pigeons M cf. Buteo sp. ( lineatus?) hawk (red shouldered hawk?) M Accipitriformes (cf. Buteogallus urubitinga ) hawks, eagles, vultures (great black hawk?) C cf. Tyto alba barn owl M Quiscalus cf. mexicanus great tailed grackle M Aves unidentified birds M B B, M Aves medium large unidentified birds, size of a turkey M B, M M Aves, medium small unidentified birds, size of a duck or hawk M Aves, small unidentified birds, size of a quail or dove M

PAGE 251

251 Table 5 8. Continued Scientific Name Common Name EMP LMP LP TP EC LC TC Chelydra serpentina snapping turtle B? Trachemys venusta Mesoamerican slider M C M M M Dermatemys mawii Central American river turtle B B, M B, M M Dermatemydidae or Emydidae river turtle or slider C M cf. Staurotypus triporcatus Mexican musk turtle C, M C? M Kinosternidae mud or musk turtle B, T M Testudines unidentified turtles T B, M C B, M B, M M, T Testudines, medium large size unidentified turtle, size of river turtle M, T C B, M M Testudines, medium small size unidentified turtle, size of mud or small slider M B Testudines, small size unidentified turtle, size of small mud turtle M M Iguanidae iguanas B? M Lacertilia, small unidentified small lizard M Serpentes snakes M Crocodylus sp. crocodile C M M Reptilia unidentified reptiles M B, M Bufonidae toads M Anura frogs and toads M B Atractosteus tropicus tropical gar C, M B B B, M M Siluriformes catfish M C?, M B, M B, M M Mayaheros cf. urophthalmus Mayan cichlid M Cichlidae cichlids M B B, M M Actinopterygii unidentified bony fish C, M B, C, M C B B, M B, M M Spondylus cf. americanus Atlantic thorny oyster C

PAGE 252

252 Table 5 8. Continued Scientific Name Common Name EMP LMP LP TP EC LC TC Spondylus sp. thorny oysters C Veneridae venus clam M Dentalium sp. tusk shell B C, M Nerita versicolor four toothed nerite B Oliva sp. olive snails M?, T T Prunum apicinum Atlantic marginella B B, M?, T B B, C Prunum cf. amabile or labiatum Roosevelt's marginella or royal marginella M Prunum sp. marginella snails M cf. Cassidae helmet snail T Strombus pugilis fighting conch M Gastropoda, marine unidentified marine snails M Gastropoda, large marine unidentified large marine snails B Unionidae (Sphenonaias sp.) freshwater clam C, T B, C, M, T B M B Megalonais cf. nervosa freshwater clam B Unionidae (Psoronaias/Psorula cf. semigranosa) freshwater clam C, M, T B, M, T C M M B, M Unionidae (Psoronaias/Psorula sp.) freshwater clam M B, C, M, T B, C C M B, M Unionidae freshwater clam B, C, M, T B, C B, C B B, M B, C, M Pachychilus cf. glaphyrus jute snail B C B, M M Pachychilus cf. indiorum jute snail C C? M Pomacea flagellata Central American apple snail B, C, M, T B, C, M, T B, C B, C B, M B, M M Echiniodea sea urchins B? M

PAGE 253

253 Table 5 9. Comparison of context types where fauna was recovered at Ceibal's periphery over time. B = burial, M = midden, C = cache. "?" denotes uncertainty if specimen was associated or not (e.g. possible fill intermixed wit h special context). EMP = Early Middle Preclas sic, LMP = Late Middle Preclassic, LP = Late Preclas sic, TP = Terminal Preclassic, EC = Early Classic, LC = Late Classic, TC = Terminal Classic. Scientific Name Common Name EMP LMP LP TP EC LC TC cf. Didelphis virginiana Virginia opossum M cf. Philander opossum gray four eyed opossum B Sylvilagus sp. rabbits B Cuniculus paca lowland paca M Rodentia rodents M B Canis lupus familiaris domestic dog M B, M B, M B Urocyon cinereoargenteus gray fox B Nasua narica white nosed coati B M Leopardus cf. pardalis ocelot B Felidae jaguar, puma, ocelot, or margray B Tayassuidae peccaries M Mazama sp. Brocket deer C Odocoileus virginianus white tailed deer B, M B?, M B, C M B, C Cervidae deer B?, M C Artiodactyla deer or peccary M Aves unidentified birds B Aves, medium large unidentified birds, size of a turkey M Aves, medium small unidentified birds, size of a duck or hawk M B Aves, small unidentified birds, size of a quail or dove B Trachemys venusta Mesoamerican slider B, M B, M Dermatemys mawii Central American river turtle C

PAGE 254

254 Table 5 9. Continued Scientific Name Common Name EMP LMP LP TP EC LC TC cf. Staurotypus triporcatus Mexican musk turtle B M? Kinosternidae mud or musk turtle M M B Testudines unidentified turtles M M C Testudines, medium large size unidentified turtle, size of river turtle B Testudines, small size unidentified turtle, size of small mud turtle M C Serpentes snakes M Crocodylus sp. crocodile C Anura frogs and toads B B Atractosteus tropicus tropical gar M M B M Siluriformes (cf. Ariopsis / Bagre sp. ) catfish (marine?) M Siluriformes catfish M B?, M M B M Cichlidae cichlids M M B M Centropomis sp. snook B Actinopterygii unidentified bony fish B, M B, M M B, C M Spondylus sp. thorny oysters B B Oliva sp. olive snails B?, M C Prunum apicinum Atlantic marginella M B Prunum cf. guttatum white spotted marginella B?, M Columbella mercatoria dove snail B Turbinella angulata West Indian chank shell B?, M Gastropoda, marine unidentified marine snails B?, M B Mollusca, marine unidentified marine mollusks B?, M B Unionidae (formerly Nephronaias sp.) freshwater clam M B, M M

PAGE 255

255 Table 5 9. Continued Scientific Name Common Name EMP LMP LP TP EC LC TC Unionidae (Psoronaias/Psorula cf. semigranosa) freshwater clam B, M B, M B?, M B Unionidae (Psoronaias/Psorula sp.) freshwater clam M B, M B, M B C B B Unionidae freshwater clam B B, M M B Pachychilus cf. glaphyrus jute snail B?, M B?, M M B Pachychilus sp. jute snails B B B Pomacea flagellata Central American apple snail B, M B, C, M B, M B B, C M B

PAGE 256

256 Table 5 10. Late/Terminal Classic midden deposit in Ceibal Group D (CB 208A). This list does not include unidentified vertebrates or terrestrial snails. LC = Late Classic period; TC = Terminal Classic period. Scientific Name Common Name LC % TC % Total % Dasypus novemcinctus nine banded armadillo 2 0.29 2 0.13 Orthogeomys hispidus Hispid pocket gopher 1 0.14 1 0.06 Dasyprocta punctata Central American agouti 5 0.59 2 0.29 7 0.45 Rodentia rodents 2 0.24 5 0.72 7 0.45 Canis lupus familiaris domestic dog 9 1.06 10 1.43 19 1.23 Leopardus cf. pardalis ocelot 1 0.12 1 0.06 Leopardus sp. ocelots and margays 1 0.12 1 0.06 Panthera onca jaguar 1 0.14 1 0.06 Puma concolor puma 1 0.14 1 0.06 Carnivora carnivores 2 0.24 3 0.43 5 0.32 Odocoileus virginianus white tailed deer 158 18.61 101 14.49 259 16.75 Cervidae deer 1 0.12 1 0.14 2 0.13 Mammalia unidentified mammals 63 7.42 227 32.57 290 18.76 Mammalia, medium large size unidentified mammals, size of deer or jaguar 35 4.12 68 9.76 103 6.66 Mammalia, medium small size unidentified mammals, size of dog or opossum 21 2.47 5 0.72 26 1.68 Mammalia, small size unidentified mammals, size of bat or rat 1 0.12 2 0.29 3 0.19 Meleagris gallopavo wild turkey 1 0.14 1 0.06 Meleagris sp. turkeys 9 1.06 9 0.58 Aves unidentified birds 17 2.00 4 0.57 21 1.36 Aves medium large unidentified birds, size of a turkey 1 0.12 1 0.06 Trachemys venusta Mesoamerican slider 7 0.82 33 4.73 40 2.59 Dermatemys mawii Central American river turtle 2 0.24 5 0.72 7 0.45 Dermatemydidae or Emydidae river turtle or slider 1 0.14 1 0.06 cf. Staurotypus triporcatus Mexican musk turtle 1 0.12 1 0.14 2 0.13 Testudines unidentified turtles 2 0.24 4 0.57 6 0.39

PAGE 257

257 Table 5 10. Continued Scientific Name Common Name LC % TC % Total % Testudines, medium large size unidentified turtle, size of river turtle 8 0.94 55 7.89 63 4.08 Iguanidae iguanas 3 0.35 3 0.19 Crocodylus sp. crocodile 2 0.24 2 0.13 Reptilia unidentified reptiles 1 0.12 1 0.14 2 0.13 Bufonidae toads 1 0.12 1 0.14 2 0.13 Atractosteus tropicus tropical gar 55 6.48 15 2.15 70 4.53 Siluriformes catfish 31 3.65 5 0.72 36 2.33 Cichlidae cichlids 5 0.59 2 0.29 7 0.45 Actinopterygii unidentified bony fish 392 46.17 129 18.51 521 33.70 Unionidae (Sphenonaias sp. ) freshwater clam 5 0.59 5 0.32 Unionidae (Psoronaias/Psorula cf. semigranosa) freshwater clam 1 0.12 2 0.29 3 0.19 Unionidae (Psoronaias/Psorula sp .) freshwater clam 1 0.14 1 0.06 Unionidae freshwater clam 2 0.29 2 0.13 Pachychilus cf. glaphyrus jute snail 1 0.12 1 0.06 Pomacea flagellata Central American apple snail 6 0.71 6 0.86 12 0.78 TOTAL 849 100.00 697 100.00 1546 100.00

PAGE 258

258 Table 5 11. Total cut, artifactual, and unworked specimens from the Preclassic and Early Classic core contexts at Ceibal. EMP = Early Middle Preclassic, LMP = Late Middle Preclassic, LP = Late Preclassic, TP = Terminal Preclassic, EC = Early Classic. Cut specimen % Cut of all altered specimens Finished, broken or partial artifact % Artifact Not worked Total % Altered of total EMP 7 28.00 18 72.00 2739 2864 0.87 LMP 31 19.62 127 80.38 4384 4642 3.40 LP 18 6.67 252 93.33 1028 1398 19.31 TP 4 26.67 11 73.33 329 444 3.38 EC 8 53.33 7 46.67 572 687 2.18 TOTAL 68 14.08 415 85.92 9052 9635 5.01 Table 5 12. Total cut, artifactual, and unworked specimens from the Preclassic and Early Classic periphery contexts at Ceibal. EMP = Earl y Middle Preclassic, LMP = Late Middle Preclassic, LP = Late Preclassic, TP = Terminal Preclassic, EC = Early Classic. Cut specimen % Cut of all altered specimens Finished, broken or partial artifact % Artifact Not worked Total % Altered of total EMP 9 9.78 83 90.22 2316 2508 3.67 LMP 30 37.97 49 62.03 5560 5739 1.38 LP 7 30.43 16 69.57 774 897 2.56 TP 7 50.00 7 50.00 282 396 3.54 EC 16 14.16 97 85.84 1744 1957 5.77 TOTAL 69 21.50 252 78.50 10676 11097 2.89

PAGE 259

259 Table 5 13 Comparison of animal taxa involved in craft activities at Ceibal from the early Middle Preclassic period. All counts in NISP. Common Name Core c ut specimens Core f inished, broken, or partial artifact Core Total % of all specimens modified (C ore) Periph. c ut specimens Periph. f inished, broken, or partial artifact Periph. Total % of all specimens modified (P eriphery) % of taxa group (see Table 5 1) Domestic Dog 1 1 1.09 0.18 Small Carnivore 1 1 4.00 100.00 White tailed Deer 1 1 4.00 1 1 1.09 7.41 Deer (Brocket or White tailed) 1 1 1.09 20.00 Unidentified Mammal 3 3 12.00 2 1 3 3.26 2.35 Unidentified Medium Large Mammal 1 1 4.00 1 1 1.09 2.11 Unidentified Bird 1 1 1.09 50.00 Unidentified Medium large Bird 1 1 1.09 16.67 Pond Slider 4 1 5 5.43 8.20 Unidentified Medium Large Turtle 5 5 20.00 23.81 Unidentified Vertebrate 1 2 3 12.00 1 1 1.09 1.02 Spondylus 1 1 4.00 100.00 Atlantic Marginella 2 2 8.00 100.00 Fighting Conch 1 1 4.00 100.00 Marine Gastropod 1 1 4.00 100.00 River Clam ( Psoronaias/Psorula sp.) 1 3 4 16.00 1 1 1.09 2.12 Unidentified River Clam 1 1 4.00 1.54

PAGE 260

260 Table 5 13 Continued Common Name Core c ut specimens Core f inished, broken, or partial artifact Core Total % of all specimens modified (C ore) Periph. c ut specimens Periph. f inished, broken, or partial artifact Periph. Total % of all specimens modified (P eriphery) % of taxa group (see Table 5 1) Jute ( Pachychilus cf. glaphyrus) 1 1 4.00 76 76 82.61 91.67 TOTAL 7 18 25 100.00 9 83 92 100.00 Includes the category "River Turtle or Slider"

PAGE 261

261 Table 5 14. Comparison of animal taxa involved in craft act ivities at Ceibal from the late Middle Preclassic period. All counts in NISP. Common Name Core c ut specimens Core f inished, broken, or partial artifact Core Total % of all specimens modified (C ore) Periph. c ut specimens Periph. f inished, broken, or partial artifact Periph. Total % of all specimens modified (P eriphery) % of taxa group (see Table 5 1) Domestic Dog 5 1 6 3.80 1 1 1.27 1.61 Jaguar 1 1 0.63 1 1 1.27 40.00 Puma 1 1 0.63 100.00 White tailed Deer 3 3 1.90 3 2 5 6.33 10.53 Unidentified Mammal 7 8 15 9.49 3 7 10 12.66 4.55 Unidentified Medium large Mammal 3 6 9 5.70 5 3 8 10.13 8.25 Unidentified Medium small Mammal 1 1 0.63 0.84 Pond Slider 8 8 10.13 6.20 Small Mud or Musk Turtle 1 1 0.63 3.33 Tropical Gar 1 1 0.63 1.23 Catfish 1 1 0.63 1.05 Unidentified Vertebrate 4 14 18 11.39 10 10 12.66 3.47 Spondylus 2 2 1.27 100.00 Common Caribbean Donax (Bean Clam) 1 1 0.63 100.00 Sozon's Cone Snail 1 1 0.63 100.00 Olive Snail 13 13 8.23 10 10 12.66 100.00 Snowy Dwarf Olive Snail 1 1 1.27 100.00 Atlantic Marginella 60 60 37.97 1 1 1.27 100.00 Royal Marginella 1 1 0.63 100.00 White spotted Marginella 1 1 1.27 100.00

PAGE 262

262 Table 5 14. Continued Common Name Core c ut specimens Core f inished, broken, or partial artifact Core Total % of all specimens modified (C ore) Periph. c ut specimens Periph. f inished, broken, or partial artifact Periph. Total % of all specimens modified (P eriphery) % of taxa group (see Table 5 1) Marginella 2 2 1.27 100.00 Queen Conch 1 1 0.63 1 1 1.27 100.00 Marine Gastropod 3 3 1.90 4 2 6 7.59 81.82 Large Marine Gastropod 1 1 0.63 33.33 Unidentified Marine Mollusk 2 2 2.53 66.67 River Clam ( Megalonaias nervosa ) 1 1 0.63 33.33 River Clam ( Sphenonaias sp.) 1 1 2 1.27 3 3 3.80 7.25 River Clam ( Psoronaias/Psorula sp.) 2 1 3 1.90 4 1 5 6.33 1.67 Unidentified River Clam 4 4 2.53 2 1 3 3.80 7.53 Jute ( Pachychilus cf. glaphyrus) 2 2 1.27 1 1 1.27 18.75 Jute ( Pachychilus cf. indiorum) 1 1 0.63 20.00 Jute ( Pachychilus sp.) 1 1 1.27 33.33 Apple Snail 1 1 0.63 1 1 1.27 0.04 Terrestrial Snail ( Bulimulis sp.) 2 2 1.27 0.71 TOTAL 31 127 158 100.00 30 49 79 100.00

PAGE 263

263 Table 5 15. Comparison of animal taxa involved in craft activities at Ceibal from the Late Preclassic period. All counts in NISP. Common Name Core c ut specimens Core f inished, broken, or partial artifact Core Total % of all specimens modified (C ore) Periph. c ut specimens Periph. f inished, broken, or partial artifact Periph. Total % of all specimens modified (P eriphery) % of taxa group (see Table 5 1) Domestic Dog 1 1 2 0.74 1 1 4.35 6.38 Unidentified Carnivore 1 1 2 8.70 33.33 Peccary 1 1 0.37 100.00 Brocket Deer 1 1 0.37 50.00 White tailed Deer 6 6 2.22 1 1 2 8.70 13.79 Deer (Brocket or White tailed) 2 2 8.70 33.33 Unidentified Mammal 2 2 4 1.48 2 3 5 21.74 4.74 Unidentified Medium large Mammal 3 7 10 3.70 1 1 2 8.70 13.04 Unidentified Bird 1 1 0.37 50.00 Unidentified Medium small Bird 1 1 4.35 25.00 Unidentified Fish 2 2 8.70 3.57 Unidentified Vertebrate 4 4 1.48 2.38 Limpet 1 1 0.37 100.00 Olive Snail 3 3 1.11 1 1 4.35 100.00 Atlantic Marginella 226 226 83.70 99.56 Marine Gastropod 2 2 0.74 66.67 River Clam ( Sphenonaias sp.) 1 1 0.37 4.76 River Clam ( Psoronaias/Psorula sp.) 3 2 5 1.85 1 2 3 13.04 2.82

PAGE 264

264 Table 5 15. Continued Common Name Core c ut specimens Core f inished, broken, or partial artifact Core Total % of all specimens modified (C ore) Periph. c ut specimens Periph. f inished, broken, or partial artifact Periph. Total % of all specimens modified (P eriphery) % of taxa group (see Table 5 1) Unidentified River Clam 1 1 0.37 3.57 Jute ( Pachychilus cf. glaphyrus) 2 2 0.74 2 2 8.70 10.00 TOTAL 19 252 270 100.00 7 16 23 100.00 Not "cut" per se, but circular indentation outlined where tooth was to be drilled, but was never completed Table 5 16. Comparison of animal taxa involved in craft activities at Ceibal from the Terminal Preclassic period. All counts in NISP. Common Name Core c ut specimens Core f inished, broken, or partial artifact Core Total % of all specimens modified (C ore) Periph. c ut specimens Periph. f inished, broken, or partial artifact Periph. Total % of all specimens modified (P eriphery) % of taxa group (see Table 5 1) White tailed Deer 1 1 6.67 2 2 14.29 11.11 Unidentified Mammal 2 2 13.33 3 2 5 35.71 8.86 Unidentified Medium large Mammal 1 1 7.14 1.79 Unidentified Vertebrate 1 1 6.67 1 1 2 14.29 4.29 Olive Snail 1 1 6.67 100.00 Atlantic Marginella 5 5 33.33 100.00 River Clam ( Psoronaias/Psorula sp.) 1 1 6.67 2.08 Jute ( Pachychilus cf. glaphyrus) 4 4 26.67 4 4 28.57 42.11 TOTAL 4 11 15 100.00 7 7 14 100.00

PAGE 265

265 Table 5 17. Comparison of animal taxa involved in craft activities at Ceibal from the Early Classic period. All counts in NISP. Common Name Core c ut specimens Core f inished, broken, or partial artifact Core Total % of all specimens modified (C ore) Periph. c ut specimens Periph. f inished, broken, or partial artifact Periph. Total % of all specimens modified (P eriphery) % of taxa group (see Table 5 1) Lowland Paca 1 1 0.88 100.00 Domestic Dog 1 1 0.88 1.67 White nosed Coati 1 1 0.88 100.00 Peccary 1 1 0.88 7.69 Brocket Deer 1 1 2 1.77 50.00 White tailed Deer 2 2 13.33 2.86 Unidentified Mammal 2 2 4 26.67 2 6 8 7.08 5.43 Unidentified Medium large Mammal 1 1 6.67 1 1 0.88 1.39 Central American River Turtle 3 3 20.00 5 2 7 6.19 1.79 Pond Slider 1 1 6.67 7.14 Unidentified Turtle 1 1 0.88 2.22 Unidentified Medium large Turtle 1 1 2 1.77 3.85 Tropical Gar 1 1 0.88 0.93 Catfish 1 1 0.88 6.67 Unidentified Vertebrate 1 1 6.67 4 4 3.54 2.60 Spondylus 69 69 61.06 100.00 Olive Snail 2 2 1.77 100.00 Marine Gastropod 1 1 2 1.77 50.00 Large Marine Gastropod 1 1 6.67 1 1 0.88 100.00 Unidentified Marine Mollusk 3 3 2.65 100.00

PAGE 266

266 Table 5 17. Continued Common Name Core c ut specimens Core f inished, broken, or partial artifact Core Total % of all specimens modified (C ore) Periph. c ut specimens Periph. f inished, broken, or partial artifact Periph. Total % of all specimens modified (P eriphery) % of taxa group (see Table 5 1) River Clam ( Psoronaias/Psorula sp.) 1 2 3 2.65 4.41 Jute ( Pachychilus cf. glaphyrus) 2 2 13.33 2 2 1.77 20.00 TOTAL 6 9 15 100.00 14 99 113 100.00 Includes the category "River Turtle or Slider"

PAGE 267

267 Table 5 18 Comparison of different types of crafted items at Ceibal over time, from the early Middle Preclassic through Early Classic periods. Ceibal Core EMP LMP LP TP EC Total Drilled/modified tooth 0 1 2 a 0 1 4 Whole or partial bone bead 1 13 2 0 0 16 Fish bone bead 0 1 0 0 0 1 Bone awl or pin 1 9 8 0 1 19 Bone rasp 0 0 1 0 0 1 Turtle shell "pendant" b 0 1 0 0 0 1 Turtle shell spindle whorl or circular adorno 0 0 0 0 1 1 Carved/polished/incised bone (partial artifact) 6 6 4 0 4 20 Drilled/pierced shell bead or pendent 6 89 234 10 2 341 Carved shell bead 0 1 1 0 0 2 Shell spindle whorl or circular adorno 1 0 0 0 0 1 Spondylus pectoral 1 1 c 0 0 0 2 Carved shell (partial artifact) 2 5 1 1 0 9 TOTAL 18 127 253 11 9 418 a One tooth looks like attempted drill mark (counted as "cut" in other tables) b Entire carapace and plastron had probably been complete, hole was drilled in plastron to hang c Shattered pectoral, counted as 1

PAGE 268

268 Table 5 1 9 Comparison of different types of crafted items at Ceibal over time, from the early Middle Preclassic through Early Classic periods. Ceibal Periphery EMP LMP LP TP EC Total Drilled/modified tooth 1 2 1 0 2 6 Whole or partial bone bead 3 6 1 0 3 13 Fish bone bead 0 0 0 0 1 1 Bone awl or pin 1 11 7 2 5 26 Turtle shell spindle whorl or circular adorno 0 0 0 0 1 1 Carved/polished/incised bone (partial artifact) 2 5 0 1 6 14 Drilled/pierced shell bead or pendent 76 19 5 4 5 109 Carved shell bead Shell spindle whorl or circular adorno 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 72 1 72 2 Carved shell (partial artifact) 0 5 0 0 2 7 TOTAL 83 49 14 7 98 251

PAGE 269

269 Table 5 20 Results of the Caobal faunal analysis. Values reported as NISP. "Total Unidentified Vertebrates" refers to those bones that could not be identified to the level of class. Percentages of totals based on either the number of identified vertebrates for vertebrates or the number of identi fied invertebrates for invertebrates. MP = Middle Preclassic, LP = Late Preclassic, EC = Early Classic, LC = Late Classic, TC = Terminal Classic. Scientific Name Common Name MP % LP % EC % LC % TC % Mixed % Total % Sylvilagus sp. rabbits 3 6.25 3 2.78 Cuniculus paca lowland paca 1 2.08 1 0.93 Canis lupus familiaris domestic dog 1 2.08 1 0.93 Odocoileus virginianus white tailed deer 4 8.33 1 5.56 1 50.00 6 5.56 Mammalia unidentified mammals 9 18.75 34 94.44 7 38.89 1 50.00 51 47.22 Mammalia, medium large size unide ntified mammals, size of deer 2 5.56 2 11.11 3 100.00 1 100.00 8 7.41 Mammalia, medium small size unidentified mammals, size of dog or opossum 1 2.08 1 0.93 Total Mammals 19 39.58 36 100.00 10 55.56 2 100.00 3 100.00 1 100.00 71 65.74 Aves unidentified birds 4 8.33 4 3.70 Total Birds 4 8.33 4 3.70 Dermatemydidae or Emydidae river turtle or slider 22 45.83 22 20.37 Testudines unidentified turtles 1 5.56 1 0.93 Testudines, medium large size unidentified turtle, size of river turtle 6 33.33 6 5.56 Total Reptiles 22 45.83 7 38.89 29 26.85 Atractosteus tropicus tropical gar 1 2.08 1 0.93 Siluriformes catfish 1 2.08 1 0.93 Actinopterygii bony fish 1 2.08 1 5.56 2 1.85 Total Bony Fish 3 6.25 1 5.56 4 3.70 Total Vertebrates 48 100.00 36 100.00 18 100.00 2 100.00 3 100.00 1 100.00 108 100.00 Unidentified Vertebrates 1 6 2 9 Oliva sp. olive snails 1 7.14 1 0.07 Prunum apicinum Atlantic marginella 16 12.90 1 2.70 17 1.22 Cassis cf. madagascariensis cameo helmet 1 0.81 1 0.07

PAGE 270

270 Table 5 20. Continued Scientific Name Common Name MP % LP % EC % LC % TC % Mixed % Total % Total Marine Mollusks 17 13.71 1 2.70 1 7.14 19 1.37 Unionidae (Sphenonaias sp.) freshwater clam 28 2.34 1 0.81 2 5.41 1 8.33 1 14.29 33 2.37 Unionidae (Psoronaias/Psorula cf. semigranosa) freshwater clam 24 2.01 7 5.65 5 13.51 2 16.67 3 21.43 1 14.29 42 3.02 Unionidae (Psoronaias/Psorula sp.) freshwater clam 3 0.25 1 0.81 2 5.41 1 8.33 3 21.43 2 28.57 12 0.86 Unionidae freshwater clam 2 0.17 1 0.81 2 14.29 2 28.57 7 0.50 Pachychilus cf. indiorum jute snail 1 2.70 1 0.07 Pomacea flagellata Central American apple snail 1115 93.23 91 73.39 14 37.84 6 50.00 4 28.57 1 14.29 1231 88.56 Total Freshwater Mollusks 1172 97.99 101 81.45 24 64.86 10 83.33 12 85.71 7 100.00 1326 95.40 Bulimulus sp. terrestrial snail 15 1.25 1 0.81 3 8.11 19 1.37 Euglandina cf. ghiesbreghti wolf snail 1 0.08 1 0.81 4 10.81 1 7.14 7 0.50 Euglandina sp. wolf snail 2 1.61 2 0.14 Neocyclotus cf. dysonii tree snail 2 0.17 2 1.61 4 0.29 Orthalicus cf. princeps tree snail 1 0.08 2 5.41 2 16.67 5 0.36 Gastropoda, terrestrial unidentified terrestrial snails 5 0.42 3 8.11 8 0.58 Total Terrestrial Snails 24 2.01 6 4.84 12 32.43 2 16.67 1 7.14 45 3.24 Total Mollusks (Invertebrates) 1196 100.00 124 100.00 37 100.00 12 100.00 14 100.00 7 100.00 1390 100.00 TOTAL 1245 166 55 14 17 10 1507

PAGE 271

271 Table 5 21 Comparison of context types where fauna was recovered at Caobal over time. B = burial, M = midden, C = cache. MP = Middle Preclassic, LP = Late Preclassic, EC = Early Classic, LC = Late Classic, TC = Terminal Classic. Scientific Name Common Name MP LP EC LC Sylvilagus sp. rabbits M Cuniculus paca lowland paca M Odocoileus virginianus white tailed deer M Aves unidentified birds M Dermatemydidae or Emydidae river turtle or slider M Atractosteus tropicus tropical gar M Siluriformes catfish M Prunum apicinum Atlantic marginella B Cassis cf. madagascariensis cameo helmet M Unionidae (Sphenonaias sp.) freshwater clam M B B Unionidae (Psoronaias/Psorula cf. semigranosa) freshwater clam M B Unionidae (Psoronaias/Psorula sp .) freshwater clam B Unionidae freshwater clam M Pomacea flagellata Central American apple snail M B B

PAGE 272

272 Figure 5 1. Comparison of total vertebrate and invertebrate proportions of the Ceibal faunal assemblage over time. Invertebrate values include terrestrial snails. Vertebrate values only include specimens identified to the level of class. EMP = Early Middl e Preclassi c, LMP = Late Middle Preclassic, LP = Late Preclassic, TP = Terminal Preclassic, EC = Early Classic, LC = Late Classic, TC = Terminal Classic. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% EMP (N=4747) LMP (N=9373) LP (N=1927) TP (N=784) EC (N=2308) LC (N=2626) TC (N=3211) %Number of Individual Specimens Vertebrates Invertebrates

PAGE 273

273 Figure 5 2. Distribution of vertebrate taxa at Ceibal over time. The shark tooth from the Termin EMP = Earl y Middle Preclassic, LMP = Late Middle Preclassic, LP = Late Preclassic, TP = Terminal Preclassic, EC = Early Classic, LC = Late Classic, TC = Terminal Classic. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% EMP (N=1867) LMP (N=2932) LP (N=599) TP (N=320) EC (N=1956) LC (N=2297) TC (N=2734) % Number of Individual Specimens Fish Reptiles/Amphibians Birds Mammals

PAGE 274

274 Figure 5 3. Distribution of freshwater and marine mollusk taxa at Ceibal over time. discussion on methods). EMP = Earl y Middle Preclassic, LMP = Late Middle Preclassic, LP = Late Precla ssic, TP = Terminal Preclassic, EC = Early Classic, LC = Late Classic, TC = Terminal Classic. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% EMP (N=2735) LMP (N=6049) LP (N=1276) TP (N=162) EC (N=300) LC (N=208) TC (N=340) % Number of Individual Specimens Freshwater Mollusks Marine Mollusks

PAGE 275

275 Figure 5 4. Comparison of dog and white tailed deer specimens at Ceibal over time. EMP = Early Middle Preclassic, LMP = Late Middle Preclassic, LP = Late Pr eclassic, TP = Terminal Preclassic, EC = Early Classic, LC = Late Classic, TC = Terminal Classic. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 EMP LMP LP TP EC LC TC Number of Individual Specimens Dogs Deer

PAGE 276

276 Figure 5 5 Deposit of at le ast two partial dog skeletons in the Karinel Group (CB 211C 12 7 4 through 6), dating to the early Middle Preclassic period. Photo by MacLellan.

PAGE 277

277 Figure 5 6 Four left sided astagali from four partial deer skeletons recovered from a CB 208A). Photo by Sharpe.

PAGE 278

278 Figure 5 7 A p artially articulat at Ceibal. This context, which includes the fill above Floor 19 (operation CB 2 01F 3 12 5), dates to the early Middle Preclassic period. Photo by Triadan.

PAGE 279

279 Figure 5 8 Cache 154 containing the limbs of a raptor (Accipitriformes, cf. Buteogallus urubitinga ) from the Group A Central Plaza fill at Ceibal, dating to the late Middle Preclassic period (operation CB 203B 18 6 7). Photo by Pinzn.

PAGE 280

280 Figure 5 9. Comparison of different turtle taxa recovered at Ceibal over time. This figure does not include turtles not able to be identified beyond the level of EMP = Early Middl e Preclassic, LMP = Late Middle Preclassic, LP = Late Preclassic, TP = Terminal Preclassic, EC = Early Classic, LC = Late Classic, TC = Terminal Classic. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 EMP LMP LP TP EC LC TC Number of Individual Specimens Snapping Turtle Mud/Musk Turtle Mexican Musk Turtle Slider CA River Turtle

PAGE 281

281 Figure 5 10. Otoliths of two possible sea catfish, tentatively identified as Potamarius usumacin tae or Ariopsis felis A) A b urned cat fish otolith found in the early Middle Preclassic midden deposits of the Karinel Group (CB 211C 12 7 5). B) A catfish otolith found in the Late Preclassic structural fill of the Amoch Group (CB 215A 1 6 4). Photos by S harpe.

PAGE 282

282 Figure 5 11. Possible g reat white shark ( Carcharodon carcharias ) or mako shark ( Isurus oxyrinchus ) tooth, recovered from Str. A 14 in the Terminal Classic period East Court palace group (operation CB 201C 14 2 2). Photo by Sharpe.

PAGE 283

283 Figure 5 12. Sea urchin spines (Echinoidea) recovered from the Terminal Classic palace midden, on the platform slope to the northeast of the East Court (operation CB 201D 2 2 1). Photos by Sharpe.

PAGE 284

284 Figure 5 13. A s mall river clam nacre bead found in the flotation fraction of the Central Plaza fill (operation CB 203B 18 6 4 ) This was one of the very few specimens recovered from the Central Plaza flotation analysis. Although the plaza surface had likely been swept clean over the centuries, this small o rnament may have been left behind and was accidentally incorporated in the fill during later construction episodes. The scale in this photo is 1 cm. Photo by Sharpe.

PAGE 285

285 Figure 5 14. Diversity and equitability of the fauna at Ceibal over time. This figure does not include terrestrial snails. EMP = Early Middle Preclassic, LMP = Late Middle Preclassic, LP = Late Preclassic, TP = Terminal Preclassic, EC = Early Classic, LC = Late Classic TC = Terminal Classic. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 EMP LMP LP TP EC LC TC Diversity Index Diversity Equitability

PAGE 286

286 Figure 5 15. Diversity and equitability of the vertebrate fauna at Ceibal over time. EMP = Earl y Middle Preclassic, LMP = Late Middle Preclassic, LP = Late Preclassic, TP = Terminal Preclassic, EC = Early Classic, LC = Late C lassic, TC = Terminal Classic. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 EMP LMP LP TP EC LC TC Diversity Index Diversity Equitability

PAGE 287

287 Figure 5 16. Habitat fidelity values at Ceibal over time. Habitat acronyms include: MF = mature forest; SEC = secondary forest, AGR/RES = agricultural or residential areas; RIV = rivers, and WET = wetlands. EMP = Earl y Middle Preclassic, LMP = Late Middle Preclassic, LP = Late Preclassic, TP = Terminal Preclassic, EC = Early Classic, LC = Late Classic, TC = Terminal Classic.

PAGE 288

288 Figure 5 17. Habitat fidelity values for the terrestrial habitats at Ceibal over time. Habitat acronyms include: MF = mature forest; SEC = secondary forest, and AGR/RES = agricultural or residential areas. EMP = Early Middle Preclassic, LMP = Late Middle Preclassic, LP = Late Preclassic, TP = Terminal Preclassic, EC = Early Classic, LC = Lat e Classic, TC = Terminal Classic.

PAGE 289

289 Figure 5 18. Comparison of the core and periphery fauna at Ceibal over time. C = Core; P = Periphery. EMP = Early Middle Preclas sic, LMP = Late Middle Preclassic, LP = Late Preclassic, TP = Terminal Preclassic, EC = Early Classic, LC = Late Classic, TC = Terminal Classic.

PAGE 290

290 Figure 5 19. Example of olive shells ( Oliva sp.) used as ornaments in Ceibal art. A) Ceibal Stele 10, depicting Terminal Classic L ord Wat'ul Chatel with an oli ve shell rimm ed belt ( Schele No. 7 646 drawing from Schele and Freidel 1990:388). B) Olive shell ornaments from near the stairs of Str. A 20, dating to the Terminal Classic period (operation CB 203D 7 3 1 ). C) Olive shell ornament from platform of Str. A 24, dating to the late Middle Precl assic period ( operation CB 200B 14 8 9) Photos by Sharpe.

PAGE 291

291 Figure 5 20 A dog with an unusually recessed protocone on both upper carnassials, found in the late Middle Preclassic period contexts of the Ka rinel Group residential patio. A and B) Two views of the upper left carnassial (fou nd in operation CB 211C 12 7 5). C) T he upper right carnassial (found in operation CB 211C 14 7 1). D) A dog with a fully developed protocone for comparison (operation CB 202A 1 7 4). Note the mandibular bone in Photo s A and B extends to the limit of the tooth without any sign of abnormality. Photos by Sharpe.

PAGE 292

292 Figure 5 21 One of the earliest marine shells recovered from Ceibal, this spondylus ( Spondylus cf americanus ) valve was found in the Group A Cen tral Plaz a, dating to the early Middle Preclassic period (Cache 108) The valve was once used as a pectoral, and had possibly been worn upside down, mimicking a hanging trophy head (Inomata et al. 2016a ). Photos by Sharpe.

PAGE 293

293 Figure 5 22 Tibia of a white tailed deer in the process of having been cut into possible an animal midden from the late Middle Preclassic fill of Str. A 18 (operation CB 205A 1 7 15). Photo by Sharpe.

PAGE 294

294 Fi gure 5 23 Apple snail middens are common at Ceibal during the late Middle Preclassic period. A) Apple snail midden in the Karinel Group. B) recovered apple snails from a midden in the Jul Group Photo A by Sharpe; Photo B by Burham

PAGE 295

295 Figure 5 24 Burial 126, f rom the Jul Group (CB 210A 3 6 7). This male individual was buried beneath a midden of app le snails and dates to the late Middle Preclassic period. (A) and (B) show the burial after the apple snails had been removed. Note the location of the river clam and rabb it bones (circled in Photo B). C) The river clam (cf. Sphenonaias sp.), two valve s cupped within one another. D) T he innominate and femur of a rabbit ( Sylvilagus sp.). Photos A and B by Inomata; Photos C and D by Sharpe.

PAGE 296

296 Figure 5 25 Burial 104 (operation CB 202A 1 8 2 ) from the Group A Central Plaza. This individual was buried with many obsid ian and river shell fragments. A) Phot ograph of the burial and shells. B ) and C) T wo valves of two different river clams ( Megalonaias cf. nervosa ), the onl y ones of th is species identified at Ceibal. D) A live river clam of the same species found in the Pasin River, collected for DNA tissue sampling outside the Ceibal National Park grounds Consejo Nacional de reas Protegidas). Photo A by Inomata; Photos B D by Sharpe.

PAGE 297

297 Figure 5 26 Left and right mandible of a dog with a mandibular pathology. This dog was one of two individuals sharing the same pathological trait. Both dogs were found in an animal bone and shell midden in on the Karinel Group residential platform (operation CB 211 C 11 6 2), and date to the late Middle Preclassic period. Photos by Sharpe.

PAGE 298

298 Figure 5 27 Some 132 Atlantic marginella (of 133) found in Burial 113 in the Late Preclassic Group A Central Plaza. Photo by Sharpe.

PAGE 299

299 Figure 5 28 Total cut, artifactual, and unworked specimens from Preclassic and Early Classic period core contexts at Ceibal. EMP = Earl y Middle Preclassic, LMP = Late Middle Preclassic, LP = Late Preclassic, TP = Terminal Preclassic, EC = Early Classic. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% EMP LMP LP TP EC %Number of Individual Specimens Not worked Finished, broken or partial artifact Cut specimen

PAGE 300

300 Figure 5 29 Total cut, artifactual, and unworked specimens from Preclassic and Early Classic period periphery contexts at Ceibal. EMP = Early Middle Preclass ic, LMP = Late Middle Preclassic, LP = Late Preclassic, TP = Terminal Preclassic, EC = Early Classic. Figure 5 30 Example of an olive shell ornament, dating to the Early Classic period at the Karinel Group (operation CB 211F 2 7 4). Almost every oliv e shell at Ceibal had been cut crosswise at the spire region irrespective of chronological phase, and no loose spires have been recovered at the site. Photos by Sharpe. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% EMP LMP LP TP EC %Number of Individual Specimens Not worked Finished, broken or partial artifact Cut specimen

PAGE 301

301 Figure 5 31 Six of the punctured 75 jut e snails found in an early Middle Preclassic deposit from the Karinel Group (operation CB 211C 11 7 1). Photo by Sharpe.

PAGE 302

302 Fi gure 5 32 The margin portion of a river clam (Unionidae, cf. Psorula/Psoronaias sp.), for future use as ornaments. This specimen was found in an Early Classic fill deposit from the Karinel Group (operation CB 211A 2 5 1). Photos by Sharpe.

PAGE 303

303 Figure 5 33 Drilled and punctured snail shells. A) A drilled appl e snail recovered from the late Middle Preclassic fill of the Karinel Gr oup (operation CB 211B 4 5 4). B) T wo terrestrial snails (cf. Bulimulus sp.) found together in the late Middle Preclassic fill of the platform in front of Str. A 24. While terrestrial snails are not often used as ornaments in the Maya area, the uniformity of the puncture marks in these two snails, combined with the fact that they were the only snails found in this particularly context (operation CB 200B 19 8 9) a lot that also included bone beads, suggests these puncture marks were likely intentional. Photos by Sharpe.

PAGE 304

304 Figure 5 34 Animal ornaments from Burial 135 (operation CB 211A 2 5 2), an Early Classic int erment from the Karinel Group. A) Two marine shell beads, possibly spon dylus. B) A drilled gar fish scale. C) A dilled carnivore canine from a member of the Procyonidae famil y, likely a white nosed coati. D) A drilled domestic dog canine. Photos by Sharpe.

PAGE 305

305 Figure 5 35 Two examples of turtle ( Dermatemys mawii ) circular ornaments or possible spindle whorls from th e Early Classic period. A) A c ircular bone artif act from the fill under Burial 121 on Str. A 2 in Gr oup A (operation CB 207A 1 5 1). B) An a rtifact from the fill of the Karinel Group (operation CB 211B 4 4 3). Photos by Sharpe.

PAGE 306

306 Figure 5 36 A subset of the extensive late Middle Preclassic apple snail midden found at Caobal (operation AN 1A 1 19 1) Photo by Sharpe.

PAGE 307

307 CHAPTER 6 STABLE ISOTOPIC INVESTIGATION OF ANIMAL DIET AND EXCHANGE AT CEIBAL Dec ades of zooarchaeological research worldwide has shown that a nimal management and animal resource exchange are important for the development of state level societies. Archaeological evidence for these activities has been particularly difficult to track in the Maya area, but recent advances in isotopic research provide a novel opportunity to obs erve these practices. This chapter reviews new evidence for long distance exchange and animal management at Ceibal throughout the Precl assic and Classic periods to ga in an understanding of whether and how these activities changed over time as the region developed into a state level political economy This chapter begins with an assessment of resource exchange using the stable isotopes of strontium, lead, and oxygen, in an attempt to identify whether terrestrial animals were imported to Ceibal Recent work by Thornton (2011a and 2011b) has shown the efficacy of strontium isotope testing for providing evidence of the trade of animals across the ancient Maya landscape. Oxy gen has largely been used in studies of human migration in the Maya area (Wright 2012; Wright et al. 2010) and it is useful for detecting the source of water from where humans and animals drank Lead isotopic analysis has not been used to assess human or animal movements in the Ma ya region, and this is the first such study to incorporate its use in zooarchaeological analysis in Mesoamerica The three lead isotope ratios are intended to augment the information provided by s trontium and oxygen to clarify whe ther animals are local to the site, and if not, from where they may have originally come. The regions of southern Mesoamerica discussed in this chapter include the Northern Lowlands, Southern Lowlands, Maya

PAGE 308

308 Mountains, Metamorphic Province (including the Mo tagua Valley), and Volcanic Highlands/Pacific Coast (Figure 6 1). The primary question that this first section addresses is whether terrestrial ( non marine) animals were transported to Ceibal since most of these taxa are naturally ubiquitous across the Ma ya landscape Locality in this study is based on two scales: first, if an animal is local to Ceibal specifically (using several baseline samples as a comparison), and second, if the animal is local to the Petn/Southern Lowlands region. If evidence for non local animals at the site can be found isotopically, then subsequent questions address the time period(s) when these non local animals we re imported to Ceibal, the identit y of these animals, and the specific context in which they were found. T his investig ation also seeks to use geochemical sourcing techniques to track the place of origin of these non local animals. If there are non local terrestrial animals at Ceibal during the Pr eclassic period, this will enable r elationships with other areas in southern Mesoamerica as it developed into an early state. If non local animals can only be detected from Classic period contexts, this might mean that Ceibal only engaged in the exchange of terrestrial animal products when the Maya region had developed state level society. If no non local terrestrial animals can be found, this would mean the inhabitants of Ceibal were prim arily subsisting off of locally hunted or managed animal resources and, although they may have traded fo r obsidian, jade, and marine shells, other animal products were not involved in this long distance economic network. The second part of the chapter examines the results of stable carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen data as a means of assessing what animals ate in the past and whether

PAGE 309

309 they had been fed a maize diet by huma ns The study also examines whether s ome animals may have eaten maize in low quantities, a potential means of detecting garden or milpa foraging on the part of the animal and garden hunting on th e part of the humans. For animals that might have been raised in captivity, the study ex amines the specific contexts where potentially maize fed animals were discovered so that we might understand the use to which these animals were put in life, such as fo r food, as pets, or for ceremonial reasons. These studies build on prior investigations (i.e. Barton et al. 2009; Makarewicz and Tuross 2012; Somerville et al. 2016; White et al. 2001) showing the close relationship between carbon/nitrogen isotopes and an imal feed ing strategies, but incorporate oxygen in this endeavor as a means of determining the source of water from where animals were drinking, taking into consideration the effects of fractionation as a result of different metabolic patterns in different species (see, for example, Kohn 1996; Sponheimer and Lee Thorp 1999; Tuross et al. 2008). Isotopic Analysis of Animal Exchange This section examines whether there is isotopic evidence to support the notion that t errestrial animals were imported to Ceibal in the past Table s 6 1 and 6 2 show the results of the strontium, lead, and oxygen isotope analysis. The first pa rt of this section focuses specifically on the strontium data, since the geologic 87 Sr/ 86 Sr ratios are better understood i n the Maya region than lead and oxygen S trontium has been the most commonly used means of assessing locality in Mesoamerican archaeolog y to date. The strontium data are then compared with the three isotope lead ratios, 206 Pb/ 204 Pb, 207 Pb/ 204 Pb, and 208 Pb/ 204 Pb, to see whether the lead isotopes support the strontium results and evaluate if the lead ratios can identify patterns not evident in the strontium data alone for example, if a borderline non local strontium ratio appears as

PAGE 310

310 definitively local or n on local for any or all lead ratios. Finally, the strontium and lead results are compared with those of oxygen, which, although dependent on multiple variables, can still add an additional line of evidence as to whether animals were local or non local to t he site and provide information regarding where they may have come from. Measuring Locality u sing Strontium ( 87 Sr/ 86 Sr) Table 6 3 shows the baseline data ranges for the strontium isotope ratios, derived both from this study as well as for the Southern Lowlands as reported in Hodell et al. (2004). A total of 47 archaeological faunal specimens were included in this ana lysis. The NBS 987 av erage for nine runs was 0.710246 baseline samples were obtained from local specimens. One came from a potentially modern or post occupation opossum ( Philander opossum ) mandible found within the topsoil near the surface. Two land snail s ( Orthalicus princeps and Neocyclotus dysonii ), one from Ceibal and one from Caobal, were tes ted as well. All of these species only travel short distances during their lives and so would represent the local isotopic values. Four soil samples from both Groups A and D at Ceibal were also tested using different levels of acid leaching ( 0.1M HCl and 2.0M HCl) to determine if different fractions of the soil (the weathered rock components and the organic portions) had the same strontium values. Figure 6 2 sho ws the 87 Sr/ 86 Sr results of the 47 archaeological samples and seven baselines. The dark gray shaded area is the local region defined by the seven 87 Sr/ 86 Sr = 0.707496 ). The light gray shaded area is the range from the mean using two standard deviations reported by Hodell et al. (2004: Table 2) for the entire Southern Lowland area (mean 87 Sr/ 86 Sr = 0.707700 ). The local range of Ceibal reported in this study matches the

PAGE 311

311 values obtained for the site and area in a previous investigation (Krueger 1985). Since the baseline samples produced such a small range, they may lead to an overestimate of the number of animals that are non local to the site. The Hodell et al. (2004) range for the entire Southern Lowla nds may underestimate the number of non local animals at Ceibal however, because it accounts for such an expansive region. We might conclude that animals that fall in the dark gray shaded region are most likely local, that animals that fall in the light g ray shaded range are possibly local to the Ceibal area and probably local to the Southern Lowlands, and that animals that fall outside these categories are non local to both Ceibal and the Southern Lowlands. There are three non local specimens all dogs (3 of 27 specimens tested) that fall outside the shaded ranges (outside the Southern Lowlands) : the molar enamel of Dog A, and both the molar enamel and mandibular bone of Dog C. The mandibular bone of Dog A also falls outside the dark gray shaded local regi on for Ceibal. The t wo enamel samples (Sample Nos. 2a and 6a) wer e tested twice because they were found to be outliers, and when resampled and rerun were confirmed to be nearly the same (Sample Nos. 2b and 6b). As was explained in Chapter 4, the enamel of the dogs, just like any animal, reflects the isotopic composition of the geology of where they were born. The bone may reflect where the animal lived in the years before death, since bone, unlike enamel, remodels over time and incorporates new strontium fr om wherever the dog had Ceibal 87 Sr/ 86 Sr ratio if the dogs had moved from a distant location and lived at Ceibal for a period of time.

PAGE 312

312 It is also possible, however, that the bo nes had begun to take on the local strontium soil value after their final deposition in the ground as a result of diagenesis. Although the exact age of the two dogs is unknown, because bone in most animals takes several years to overturn (Clarke 2008; Fros t 1969; see Huja et al. 2006 for a recent assessment of dog bone remodeling rates), and dogs are not known fo r their long lifespans, it is unlikely the dogs lived long enough for the bone to equilibrate to such an extent and more likely that diagenesis had begun to occur. However, this would also mean that the 87 Sr/ 86 Sr ratios in all of the bones tested in the study were potentially subjected to a similar degree of diagenesis. Many researchers prefer to use tooth enamel as opposed to bone for strontium and lead isotopic testing because of the potential for local contamination (Bentley 2006; Hoppe et al. 2003). One way to determine if bone tissue is contaminated with post depositional strontium is by using infrared spectroscopy or X ray diffraction, both of w hich can examine the integrity of the apatite matrix (Nelson et al. 1986; Wright and Schwartz 1996). It may be necessary in the future to examine a few of th e Ceibal bone samples using these technique s to determine if diagenesis is the cause of the bone sa Several of the dog and deer specimens, as well as one tapir, fall outside the local Ceibal range but are still within the range of the broader Southern Lowland area (Figure 6 2) These represent 10 of 27 dog specimens 6 of 12 deer specimens and 1 of 2 tapir specimen s tested These specimens might be evidence of animals that had come from areas near Ceib al. Strontium values north and east of Ceibal in the Guatemalan Petn l average (Hodell et al. 2004, Thornton 2011b), so the animals whose 87 Sr/ 86 Sr ratios lie above the dark gray local bar

PAGE 313

313 in Figure 6 2 may be from these areas. 87 Sr/ 86 Sr ratios tend to be slightly lower than be a possible place of origin of the tapir (No. 70) and deer (No. 55) that fall below the local Ceibal range, but still belong to the Southern Lowland range. The Chiapas region of Mexico to the west has not been as extensively studied for strontium baseli ne values as has the Yucatan and Guatemala, so it is unknown how closely its ratios compare to the Petn. Using the results of baseline studies currently available, it would appear that Dogs A and C come from an area to the far south of the Petn lowlands. The extreme outlier has a 87 Sr/ 86 Sr ratio characteristic of the Volcanic Highlands (0.70493) in the southern part of Guatemala ( Table 6 4 ). Dog A (No. 2) also has a low 87 Sr/ 86 Sr ratio (0.70703), but it is higher than the r atios reported in the volcanic region and more similar to the range of central Guatemala such as Alta Verapaz, as well as the far south in and around the Motagua Valley. Since the Chiapas region, particul arly the Chiapas Highlands, has not been extensivel y investigated for strontium baseline valu es, that area could be another possible region from which these dogs came. Since the highlands of Central Mexico also exhibit similar 87 Sr/ 86 Sr ratios to those of southern Guatemala (Price et al. 2008), it is possi ble that the dogs came from that region, although the proba bility i s far less likely because of that region greater distance from Ceibal. Furthermore, Ceibal had access to Guatemalan obsidian througho ut its history (Aoyama 2016 ), evidence that Ceibal had a long term exchange network with the Guatemalan Hi ghlands Both Dogs A and C date to the Preclassic period, and both were found in Group A at the core of the site. Dog A was found in the midden like deposit of animal remains

PAGE 314

314 re covered from S tr. A 18, and dates to the late Middle Preclassic period (Castillo Aguilar 2012). Dog C was found in the fill of Str. A 10, within the third substructure dating to the Late Preclassic period (Palomo 2012). Since these were among the largest, oldest, and most important pyramids at Ceibal, having been used throughout the Middle Preclassic into the Terminal Classic period, the presence of two non local dogs in the fill suggests that the animals may have been involved in the ceremonial activities that took place in and around the site core as Ceibal rose to become a regi onal center of political power. Dog B and the jaguar were found in the same deposit as Dog A. Postcranial elements were found with both dogs, also confirming the presence of at leas t two 87 Sr/ 86 Sr values were slightly above the local Ceibal range, but close enough to assume and mandibular bone both matched the local Ceibal 87 Sr/ 86 Sr value. Interestingly, another dog (No. 28) found in the Early Classic construction phases of Str. A 18 had the highest 87 Sr/ 86 Sr value of any dog tested at the site. While this value is still with in the Southern Lowland range, if the dog was non local to Ceibal, it is suggestive of a long history of dogs being brought from other regions that may have been involved with the ceremonies or other activities near the site core. Four deer had 87 Sr/ 86 Sr v alues above the local Ceibal range (Figure 6 2; Table 6 2) These included Specimen Nos. 50, 58, 59, and 61. Specimen No. 55 fell below the local Ceibal range. Since these deer come from a variety of contexts and time periods throughout the Classic period, including Groups A, D, and the Karinel periphery group (an elite residence by the time of the Classic period), they may indicate that deer were

PAGE 315

315 hunted in an area or areas far from Ceibal. Since Caobal has the same local baseline as does Ceibal and is loca ted less than 5 kilometers away, the deer were probably obtained from a much greater distance away. They may also have been exchanged as products from another community in the Petn, perhaps one to the north or east in the case of the deer with the higher strontium ratios, since that area has 87 Sr/ 86 Sr ratios closer to the value of 0.7077 exhibited by these specimens. Studies of white tailed deer show they do not range more than a few kilometers (<10 km) in the wild, including the more mobile males (Beier a nd McCullough 1990; Fulbright and Ortega Santos 2013:37 38; Senz and Vaughan 1998), and so it is unlikely the deer migrated to Ceibal from an area with a noticeably different 87 Sr/ 86 Sr ratio. One of the two tapir molars that were tested had a 87 Sr/ 86 Sr ra tio belo w that of This tapir (No. 70) came from the fill near a Late Preclassic cache (Cache 116) that had been deposited in the northwest part of the Central Plaza, to the west of Str. A 87 Sr/ 86 Sr va lue (0.70737) suggests it may have come from an area t o the south of Ceibal, although the west in the Chiapas area is also a possibility since the strontium ratios in that region have not been well documented. The second tapir tooth that was tested came fr om the Early Classic period fill of the Karinel Group. The 87 Sr/ 86 Sr ratio of this second tapir was local to Ceibal ( 0.70749 ), indicating that the cached tapir tooth was a special item and that not all tapirs were imported to the site. Comparison of Strontium ( 87 Sr/ 86 Sr) and Lead ( 208, 207, 206 Pb/ 204 Pb) Isotope Results As was explained in Chapter 4, the three isotope ratios of lead used most frequently in archaeological sourcing studies are 206 Pb/ 204 Pb, 207 Pb/ 204 Pb, and 208 Pb/ 204 Pb. Comparison of thes e lead isotope ratios along with comparisons to other

PAGE 316

316 isotope ratios, can reveal slightly different trends (Budd et al. 2004; Gulson 2008; Montgomery et al. 2005) since the parent isotopes involved in each ratio differ. This section first compares 87 Sr/ 8 6 Sr with 206 Pb/ 204 Pb, followed by comparisons of 206 Pb/ 204 Pb with 207 Pb/ 204 Pb and 208 Pb/ 204 Pb. Values for the lead isotopes of the Ceibal faunal remains can be found on Table 6 1. The NBS 981 averages for five runs were as follows: 206 Pb/ 204 Pb= 16.936 207 Pb/ 204 Pb= 15.489 208 Pb/ 204 Pb = 36.693 Values and statistics for the lead isotopes of the geological samples tested from Ceibal and elsewhere in the Maya region of Mesoame rica are presented on Tables 6 3 an d 6 4 Figure 6 3 shows the comparison of the 87 Sr/ 86 Sr ratios with those samples that were tested for 206 Pb/ 204 Pb. The vertical brackets denote the ranges of 87 Sr/ 86 Sr for the Ceibal range using the baseline samples in this study (2 4 ), highlighted in red The horizontal brackets denote the local 206 Pb/ 204 Pb range of Ceibal using the baseline samples from this Table 6 3 match those of most of the Southern Lowlands (Table 6 4 ). In addition to the outliers observed from the 87 Sr/ 86 Sr analysis, there is one additional outlier: Specimen No. 27 a dog humerus found in a late Middl e Preclassic burial (Burial 115) in Str. A 20. The b uried individual was an adult male, and although laid out in a supine position, the skeleton was missing many of the bones belonging to the lower half of the body, including the pelvis, the sacrum, a femu r, and a tibia (Ortiz and vila 2011). The archaeologists who uncovered the burial concluded that the skeleton had been disturbed in antiquity, and that some bones had been removed.

PAGE 317

317 There were no obvious grave offerings, and it was not clear if the dog hum erus was directly associated with the burial or had been part of the construction fill and incidentally came into assoc iation with the human skeleton. 206 Pb/ 204 Pb ratio (18.334) combined with the local 87 Sr/ 86 Sr value (0.70756) raise s questions as to whether the sample had been contaminated w ith either modern lead or local strontium from the soil. Specimen No. 206 Pb/ 204 Pb ratio matches the ratios characteristic of t he Volcanic Highlands (Table 6 4 ), which would seem unlikely sinc e its 87 Sr/ 86 Sr rat io matches that of Ceibal. I f the 87 Sr/ 86 Sr ratio were co ntaminated by diagenesis and had thus taken on the local soil value, the 206 Pb/ 204 Pb ratio would also reflec t the diagenetic process It seems more likely, then, that the 206 Pb/ 204 Pb reflects modern lead contamination. I suspect thi s contamination came from the aluminum foil that the bone had been wrapped in after it was recovered from the ground At Ceibal, as is customary at most archaeologica l excavations, human remains were wrapped in aluminum foil. The dog humerus had been individually wrapped in this foil as well, and was in direct contact with the foil for several years before being analyzed for its lead isotopic signature. Modern lead isotopic ratios are fairly low, usua lly below 18.5 for 206 Pb/ 204 Pb (Kamenov and Gulson 2014). It would be worthwhile to perform an experiment using aluminum foil on bones in the future to assess whether the foil does, in fact, cause contamination of the lead isotopic signature. This would be important for future isotopic studies on bone, since many human burials are recovered and stored in aluminum foil. With the exception of Specimen No. 5, the mandibular bone of Dog C, all other animals identified at Ceibal exhibit local 206 Pb/ 204 Pb values.

PAGE 318

318 has a low 87 Sr/ 86 Sr signature as well (0.70688), so the anomalous 206 Pb/ 204 Pb ratio (18.612) reaffirms its potentially non local origin. The majority of the other animal s fall in a cluster between 19.0 and 19.5 Two leachates from the same soil sample from Group D using 0.1 M HCl and 2. 0 M HCl, along with one of the deer enamel samples from Group D (Specimen No. 55), had higher 206 Pb/ 204 Pb values between 20.0 and 20.5. These values are not uncommon for the Southern Lowlands (Table 6 4 ), and are likely reflective of the different ages and rates of 238 U decay to 206 Pb in the limestone bedrock at the site. Figures 6 4 and 6 5 compare 206 Pb/ 204 Pb with 207 Pb/ 204 Pb and 208 Pb/ 204 Pb, respectively. All samples fell within the local 207 Pb/ 204 Pb range for Ceibal, but several were outliers based on their 208 Pb/ 204 Pb ratios. Specimen Nos. 5 and 27 had the lowest 208 Pb/ 204 Pb ratios. Since 206 Pb is the product of 238 U decay, and 208 Pb is the product of 232 Th decay, this reaffirms that the two samples are potentially non local, but does not rule out the fact that Specimen No. 27 may be contaminated, which would also show a similarly low 208 Pb/ 204 Pb ratio. Three deer also have low 208 Pb/ 204 Pb ratios: Specimens No. 54, 56, and 57. Specimen No. 54 is the enamel of an Early Classic deer tooth found in the unusual midden like deposit in Str. A 2, which contained numerous animal bones and thousands of ceramic sherds (Cortave et al. 2011). Specimens No. 56 and 57 are from the bones of two left side astragali found in the Group D midden north of Court A, both of which date to the Late Classic phase of the midden. These two specimens had remarkably similar lead values for all three isotope ratios, and may have come from the same area. The tapir molar (Specimen No. 70) that had a lower 87 Sr/ 86 Sr value than the local Ceibal range also had a higher 208 Pb/ 204 Pb value (38.699) than the local range

PAGE 319

319 ( 38.4090 38.6311 ), and since its 206 Pb/ 204 Pb value is very low (bu t still within local 208 Pb/ 204 Pb range), it is also likely not from the immediate Ceibal vicinity. Comparison of Strontium ( 87 Sr/ 86 Sr) and Oxygen ( 18 O) Isotope Results The 18 O is affected by many environmental variables, and the behavior and consumptive patterns of animals may influence its value as well. Thus, when used for sourcing, 18 O results must be interpreted with the bio logy of the tested animals in mind. Furthermore, although the 18 O ranges f or the Petexbatun area were measured previously (Wright and Schwartz 1996), values from Ceibal specifically, measured throughout the year to study the extent of annual variation, are not known and would need to be examined from l ocal standin g, river, and rainwater to create a baseline for the site. With these caveats in mind, the preliminary oxygen results from the Ceibal analysis (Figure 6 6 ) corroborate many of the trends noted in the lead and strontium results. Most of the Ceib al fauna fall in the 18 O range of 1.0 to 5.0. This range of 18 O values is likely explained by seasonal differences in the rainfall pattern throughout the year at Ceibal, which would influence the proportion of 18 O to 16 O in the drinking water. This sam e pattern has been observed at other sites in the Petn that have examined 18 O in human remains (Wrigh t 2012), and has been noted in studies of the watersheds of the Petn as well ( Brenner et al. 2003; Scherer et al 2015). Values below 5.0 may be consid ered outliers for the Ceibal area pending future 18 O investigations to better understand the ranges of the local water. The three values that fall below a 18 O value of 5.0 include the two dogs previously identified as anomalous using st rontium and lead (Dogs A and C, Specimen Nos. 2 and 6), and the outlier tapir molar (Specimen No. 70). The latter is the most significant outlier ( 18 O= 7.7). This might be explained in part by the behavior of the

PAGE 320

320 animal, since tapirs tend to spend most of their time in th e water. However, another tapir tooth was tested in this study (Specimen No. 71), which had a 18 O value of 4.5 and local stro ntium values. This suggests the two tapirs came from different areas, and that behavior alone cannot explain the reason Specimen 18 O is so low. Low (more negative) 18 O values occur when 18 O molecules are relatively depleted in the water, which can happen at inland regions far from a coast, since the water molecules containing the heavier 18 O fall in greater abundance near the ocean. Closed bodies of water tend to exhibit more variation in their 18 O values than do rivers and streams in the Petn, because of differences in evaporation throughout the year due in part to the size of the water body, as larger bodies of water s uch as lakes lose a smaller proportion of their volume while smaller lakes and ponds lose a greater proportion by comparison (Scherer et al. 2015). 18 O values during dry weather as the lighter 16 O molecules are pr eferen tially evaporated leaving behind proportionately more 18 O in the water. During the rainy seasons, more 16 O falls in the rainwater and decreases 18 O. Thus, the tapir and dogs could have been coming from an area further inland than Ceibal, perhaps to the west or south, or near an area with a watershed with different characteristics compared to the river and aguadas around Ceibal. In the case of the do gs, which, based on their strontium and lead values may have been coming from the Volcanic Highlands or an area near the Highlands, the low 18 O are compatible. Discussion of Isotopic Analysis of Animal Exchange This section began by asking five questions regarding the exchange of animals at Ceibal. The first question was whether there is any stable isotopic evidence of terrestrial animals having been transported to the site. The answer is affirmative in the

PAGE 321

321 case of Ceibal, although no evidence was found at Caobal. Eight specimens were identified as having non local signatures at Ceibal out of a total of 46 archaeological specimens tested from that site. Only one specimen was tested from Caobal (Specimen No. 38), so it is still possible that with a larger sa mple size in future analyses non local specimens may be identifie d at Caobal Other questions concerned the chronological period in which these potentially non local specimens were identified, which sp ecies were identified, and where they were recovered. Two specimens, both dogs (Specimen Nos. 2 and 27), were identified as non local and dated to the late Middle Preclassic period. In the case of Specimen No. 27, which came from a human burial in one of the monumental structures near the Central Plaza, the l ead isotope values were anomalously low whereas the strontium and oxyge n values showed the dog to be local to Ceibal. This suggests that the bone had been contaminated with modern lead, and since this bone was wrapped in aluminum foil unlike the other rem ains, it may have been contaminated from the wrapping and was, in fact, local to Ceibal after all. The other non local dog from this period came from a possible midden, or secondary midden, of animal remains from the early construction phases of Str. A 18, one of the largest pyramids at the site. Three possible non local specimens dated to the Late Preclassic period. These included the tooth and mandibular bone of the same dog (Specimen Nos. 5 and 6, Dog C), and a tapir molar (Specimen No. 70). The dog mand ible was found in the construction fill of another early monument near the Central Plaza, Str. A 10. The tapir was found in a ceremonial cache deposited in the fill of the Central Plaza itself.

PAGE 322

322 The remaining specimens, all deer, came from the Early and Lat e Classic periods. These included Specimen Nos. 54, 56, and 57. Specimen No. 54 came from the Early Classic midden over the Str. A 2 burials (described in Chapter 5), and Specimen Nos. 56 and 57, both of which had very similar values, were two astragali th at The final question concerns whether the place of origin of these animals can be identified using the combination of isotopic techniques assessed in this study. The two dogs whose t eeth were tested twice in the study (and so were likely not contaminated) had low strontium, lead, and oxygen values. Dog C, whose values were the two most significant outliers, matched the values known from the Volcanic Highlands of Guatemala. Dog A, whos e values are lower than those of the Southern Lowlands but whose strontium value was higher than the Volcanic Highlands, may have come from just south of the Petn, possibly in the Alta Verapaz area, or possibly from the west, considering strontium is not well understood in the area of Chiapas. These dogs may have been traveling with their owners, or were otherwise transported, on the same route that passed through Guatemala between the Highlands and the Lowlands that was responsible for the obsidian exchan ge network. time it spent in water when compared to other animals. However, its oxygen value was much lower than the other tapir tested in the study, and its strontium and lead values were low (in the case of 208 Pb/ 204 Pb, it was an outlier compared to the local values). The tapir may have been living near a water source different from those that the other animals at Ceibal had access to. It may have been from a lake, pond, or agu ada some

PAGE 323

323 distance from Ceibal, and possibly a different part of the river, but was still from the residence and the tooth was located near postcranial tapir remains including a phalanx. Since the potentially non local tapir tooth was found in a cache in the Central made it important enough to inter in the plaza fill during a ce remony. This tooth was found without any postcranial tapir remains nearby, and may even have belonged to an artifact with a specific function, such as a headdress or ornament, that was brought to the site from elsewhere. The three deer seem to have come from an area near Ceibal, because their signatures for strontium and oxygen match the Southern Lowlands area. Their 208 Pb/ 204 Pb values are low, however, falling outside the bounds of the local Ceibal range, although they ar e still local to the Southern Lowlands region. Several other deer ( Nos. 50, 58, 59, and 61 ), all from the Classic period, have slightly higher strontium values than the local Ceibal range. These may have been hunted some distance from the site, or were exc hanged from residents of another site in or around the Petn to Ceibal. Combining what we know of the animals that have been identified as local to Ceibal with those that are outliers, we see that in general, most animals (about 40 of 43 tested, or ~93%) even forest animals like jaguars and margays, are local to the Ceibal and Petn area. Thus, most animals were hunted or, in the case of the turkeys and dogs, raised at or in the vicinity of the site. The same can be said for Caobal, at least for the one de er bone tested. During the Preclassic period, there is li mited but intriguing

PAGE 324

324 evidence that some dogs were transported to the site, possibly al ive with their owners, and were important enough to be buried in the fill of ceremonial str uctures. I t is not ho wever, clear if these animals were intentionally interred in these structures, or were part of secondary deposits used when the buildings were constructed employing fill from the surrounding area The tapir also provides evidence of animals having been transported from other areas for use in early ceremonies at the site core. The Early and Late Classic deer are evidence that not all deer were hunted from the immediate vici nity of the community; they may have been hunted in a distant forest, or exchanged or brought as tribute or gifts from other communities in the Southern Lowlands. The dichotomy of non local dogs in the Preclassic period and non local deer in the Classic period supports the notion that the use of these two resources changed over time at t he site, as was noted in Chapter 5 with the proportions of remains from these two taxa. It also shows that, even very early in nity. Isotopic Assessment of Ancient Animal Diet at Ceibal The following section examines the stable carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen isotopic data regarding ancient animal diet and potential captivity or domestication activities by humans. The first question this section addresses is whether the diets of dogs, the only confirmed domesticated species in the assemblage, have carbon isotope signatures indicative of maize feeding by humans. The northern turkeys ( Meleagris gallopavo ) in the assemblage may also have been domesticated, and might also be expected to have high maize signatures similar to the dogs if they, too, were fed maize. O ther animal taxa in the assemblage we re never domesticated, but may have been kept captive, in which case this might be observed in their carbon isotope signatures as well. If such evidence

PAGE 325

325 can be found, subsequent questions would be: what taxa were being fed? How many and how often? From what time period did they come, and from where at the site were these animals found? Such info rmation would allow us to understand the nature and extent of animal rearing in the past, and f or what purposes. It is also possible that some animals consumed maize from milpa fields or gardens, which would be expected to result in slightly higher than av erage C4 plant consumption in their diet and 13 C values In addition to comparing carbon and nitrogen from bone collagen and, in the case of carbon, bone and enamel apatite, this section also examines the 13 C and 18 O from bone and e namel apatite as a means of identify ing the source of water that animals drank. As was mentioned in Chapter 4, behavioral and, to an extent, metabolic factors can influence the oxygen isotopic content of an animal (Bryant and Froelich 1990; Luz et al. 198 4; Sponheimer and Lee Thorp 1999), but outliers within a single species may s how that an animal drank water from a region that was different from the norm for the area. Several animals were tested for both their bone and enamel apatite, th e latter having f ormed when th e animal was young and the former reflecting their diet a few years before death, so a combination of 13 C and 18 O can show whether there were isotopic dat a, this can provide a better understanding of the life history of certain animals, and how they played a role in the Ceibal community. Comparison of Collagen Carbon ( 13 C) and Nitrogen ( 15 N) Isotope Results Tables 6 5 and 6 6 shows the results of 13 C, 15 N, and 18 O from bone collagen, bone apatite, and in the case of 13 C and 18 O, enamel apatite. Figure 6 7 shows the results of the 13 C and 15 N in collagen, which reflects the protein component

PAGE 326

326 ll into one of two groups. One group has lower nitrogen (~8.0 and below) and carbon ( 17.0 and below), whereas the other has greater values of both isotopes ( 15 N ~ >6.0, 13 C ~ > 17 .0 ). The former that consu me plant material primarily in the fo rest; the latter group with higher values match es the signatures expected from omnivores and carnivores that eat at least a partial maize diet. The group with higher nitrogen and carbon values includes all of the dog s. Included with these dogs are the two northern turkeys, which have lower nitrogen than most of the dogs (probably a result of consuming insects rather than meat), and somewhat higher carbon ( 10 and above), perhaps because they were eating more maize than m ost of the dogs. The dog isotope ratios were somewhat different from one another so I surmise that all dogs were not fed the exact same diet. The two potentially non local dogs (Specimens Nos. 1 and 5) had the lowest nitrogen values of any of the dogs ( 1 5 N= 7.0 and 7.2), perhaps indicating they were not consuming as much meat. The dog found from the Str. A 20 burial that had perhaps been contaminated with modern lead (Specimen No. 27) has the highest nitrogen value of any dog ( 15 N= 11.5), suggesting it ate the most meat. The variation in dog diets may have been due to the breeds or functions of the dogs during life. O ne of the two jaguar bones (Specimen No. 34) had a high carbon isotope value ( 13 C co = 15.2 ), similar to that exhibited by the dogs. The jaguar mandible and its molar both had the local strontium and lead ratios so it had lived near Ceibal throughout its life. The enriched carbon ratio was found in its bone and enamel apatite, a s well, implying the jaguar had the same diet since it was very youn

PAGE 327

327 was found in the same late Middle Preclassic deposit in Str. A 18 as the non local Dog A (Specimen Nos. 1 and 2; Castillo Aguilar 2012) Thus, the jaguar comes from a unique deposit in the fill of one of the earlier monumental c onstruction phases at the site. The other jaguar bone tested, a large ulna, was found in a midden behind the East Court palace, but had 13 C and 15 N values more indicative of a carnivore that ate the meat of forest dwelling animals. In a recent study by researchers at Teotihuacan (Sugiyama et al. 2015) some jaguars, pumas, and raptors that had been buried in elaborate ceremonial caches in the pyramids were found to have high carbon isotope values, indicative of maize consumption. So me of these values were similar to the jaguar at Ceibal, and others were even higher. It was argued that these animals may have been held in captivity for ceremonial functions, and were f ed the meat of other animals, including possibly humans, that had high maize diets, thus contributing to the felines' enriched carbon isotope values Classic period Maya art also shows live young jaguars in captivity, as depicted on several stelae from Xul tun ( Morley 1937 ; also see Figure 7 18 b in this study). If s uch a scenario occurred at Ceibal in the case of this one jaguar the animal may be one of the earliest examples of a captive feline in the Americas. Most of the peccaries th at were tested had carbon isotope values indicative of forest (C3) vegetation consumption In the case of Specimen No. 64, however, it a ppears this animal consumed higher quantities of maize than the other animals ( 13 C co = 14.4). This peccary metatarsal was found in the Late Classic fill of the Group A East Court, in front of the palace (Triadan 2009). It was not the only peccary specimen tested from the East Court (see Table 6 6 ), and it seems most were hunted from the

PAGE 328

328 forest. The peccary with the enriched carbon value may h ave been held in captivity for a time and fed maize, or, because its carbon signature is not as high as the dogs, it may have consumed maize from a m ilpa field, and could represent evidence of garden hunting. One of the turkeys (Specimen No. 77), which has not yet been identified as belonging to either the ocellated or northern species, also had higher carbon in its diet than would be expected naturally ( 13 C co = 14.1). This turkey however, displayed lower 13 C and 15 N values compared to t he two northern t urkeys, but elevated 13 C compared to the confirmed ocellated turkey (Specimen No. 75, 13 C co = 17.8 ). Previous research on modern ocellated and northern turkeys in the May a area (Thornton et al. 2016 ) showed that ocellated turke ys tend to have low 13 C co values in th e range of 19.0 or below, whereas ocellated turkeys in the archaeological record that may have been raised in captivity have a mid range 13 C co collagen value between 19.0 and 11.0. The domesticated northern turkeys have 13 C co values great e r than 11.0. This suggests that the mid range birds in this study, including the confirmed ocellate d turkey, might have eaten maize for a period of time, possibly in captivity. The fifth b ird (Specimen No. 76) ate a predominantly C3 diet ( 13 C co = 22.7), a nd was probably an ocellated turkey. The remaining animals, including the 21 deer, the five other peccary, and the single paca from Caobal, had very low carbon isotope values. This suggests that these animals may have all been hunted from the forest. The v ariation in nitrogen values exhibited among the deer is possibly due to variation in the nitrogen fixing bacteria in the soil where the deer browse, as well as differences in nitrification and denitrification as a result of climatic effects on soil runoff (Cormie and Schwarcz 1994; Hedin et al.

PAGE 329

329 2009; Nad elho f fer and Fry 1988). These specimens come from both the Preclassic and obtaining most species, with the exceptions of dogs and possibly northern turkeys. The outlier turkeys, peccary, and jaguar suggest that managing animals in captivity was rare, and possibly occurred for different purposes, since while the peccary and turkeys may have been raised and consumed, the jagu ar likely was not and could have been used as a displa y of status, as is depicted by the young jaguar s on the Xultun stelae ( Morley 1937 ). Comparison of 13 C ap coll Isotopic Results to Examine Whole Diet 13 C ap coll difference (Figure 6 8 ) is a more accurate reflection of the carbon isotopic signature from the whole diet, rather than just proteins (Ambrose and Norr 1993; Norr 1995). We can see, however, that the overall pattern is similar to that observed in the collagen alone. The deer, paca, an d most peccaries fall into a range that previous dietary studies (Ambrose and Norr 1993) have associated with a monoisotopic diet, in this case C3 vegetation. The dogs, northern tu rkeys, and jaguars consumed a mixed diet, with the felines' carbon values li kely coming from meat rather 13 C ap coll probably consumed a mixed diet of C3 and C4 plants. Comparison of 13 C and 18 O Results in Enamel and Bone Apatite Comparing 13 C and 18 O value s allows us to examine both tooth and bone apatite. Tooth enamel apatite reflects the diet of an animal when the enamel originally formed 6 9 shows the tooth enamel apatite r esults, and Figure 6 10 shows the bone apatite

PAGE 330

330 results. Some animals were only represented by teeth, in which case they do not appear on Figure 6 10 and vice versa for those for which only bone was tested. Both graphs show, once again, that most animals f all into two large groups. The first are the forest dw elling animals with the lower 13 C values, which also tend to have higher 18 O values. This pattern of 18 O enriched herbivores in comparison to carnivores has been noted in previous studies of interspec ies variation (Sponheimer and Lee Thorp 1999), and is caused by the different drinking habits of the two groups of animals. The higher carbon and lower oxygen cluster is dominated by the dogs, as well as the anomalous jaguar (Specimen Nos. 34 and 35) whose tooth and bone apatite reflect the high maize diet, the peccary with th e higher collagen carbon isotope value (Specimen No. 64), and an additional peccary that was only represented by an incisor and so only had its enamel tested (Specimen No. 68). The latter came from the Early Classic midden on top of Str. A 2. Interestingly, the jaguar that had a depleted carbon isotopic signature (Specimen No. 36, 13 C ap = 12. 5), had a higher 18 O value, much like the herbivores ( 18 O ap = 2.4), indicating that a distinction between carnivorous and herbivorous diets was not the only reason for the variation in 18 O ap value. The 18 O shows that animals that may have been kept in captivity, specifically the jaguar and t he two peccaries, had ox ygen isotope values different from their wild counterparts. In fact, their oxygen values matched those of the domesticated dogs. If these animals were, in fact, kept in captivity, it would make sense that their oxygen values were similar if they were drink ing from the same water source (for example, a river as opposed to an aguada or pond) There is also considerable range within the oxygen isotopes in both types of animals, which may be reflective of seasonal wet and

PAGE 331

331 dry periods and similar climatic trends as has been mentioned earlier. Potentially non local specimens identified as defined by strontium and lead isotope sourcing also show up as outliers using oxygen isotopes as was mentioned previously. This includes Dogs A and C from Str. A 18 and Str. A 10 (Specimen Nos. 2 and 6), as well as the tapir molar from the Central Plaza cache (Specimen No. 70). The other tapir (Specimen No. 71) had lower oxygen than many of the other forest animals, but this may be a result of its behavior and lifestyle in the w ater since its strontium and lead isotope values were local. In some instances where a tooth was attach ed to a mandible, both were tested to see whe ther carbon and oxygen values changed during the Figure 6 11 shows the results of this comparison. All animals in this figure come from Preclassic deposits. Seven dogs were tested, along with the jaguar with the elevated carbon signature. One notewort hy pattern in these re sults is that there is greater variation in the e namel than in the bone apatite. In the cases of Dogs A and C, this may be explained by the two being born in or near the Volcanic Highlands and moving to Ceibal at some point in their lives. Dog B, which was found with Dog A, also exhibits this pattern to a lesser extent. This dog was shown to have a strontium signature that exceeded that of the Ceibal baseline, but still fell within the range of the Southern Lowlands. Even if this dog did not move extensively in its lifetime, this shift in carbon suggests diet changed from consuming more to less C4 plant material, or maize. Overall, the variability in enamel compared to the bone may indicate that once dogs became adults, their diets were more homogenous. When the dogs were young and their ena mel was

PAGE 332

332 forming, their diets were more variable. Perhaps dogs that survived to adulthood were fed in a similar manner an d drank water from the same source Summary of Diet From the results of the dietary analysis we can see that there is intriguing evidenc e for how animals were obtained from the wild or managed in captivity over time at Ceibal. Addressing the original research questions, there is, indeed, a clear distinction between the diets of dogs and the diets of other species a t the site. All dogs were fed maize and meat to some extent, although looking at dogs as a single category there is some variability, including the potentially non local dogs consuming greater amounts of maize than other dogs when their enamel was fo rming. The northern turkeys al so consumed more maize than most other animals, affirming that they were probably raised in captivity with t he dogs. Most other animals did not consume maize particularly the deer, and so were probably hunted from the forest. However, one jaguar and two p eccaries had higher than expected levels of 13 C in their diet that matched those of the dogs. This suggests that these animals were rai sed in captivity and ate maize or, in the case of the jaguar, were eating dogs or other animals that had themselves eate n maize. The ocellated turkeys also show signs of having eate n some quantity of maize It is possible that these turkeys, and perhaps the p eccaries, forag ed in milpa s, and were caught in the process of garden hunting. Overall, the data show that the inhabi tants of Ceibal relied on a combination of hunted, domesticated, and potentially husbanded or captive animals. Summary of Isotopic Results Combining the locality and dietary results we can see that the Ceibal inhabitants had a complex relationship with ani mals that changed over time. During the Preclassic

PAGE 333

333 period, activities in and around the Central Plaza made use of non local and captive animals. Dogs were mainly raised at the site, although one case of a jaguar found in the large Str. A 18 pyramid shows t hat it may have been captive from a young age and the core of the site, one found with the potentially maize fed jaguar and another found in Str. A 10 on the east side of the plaza, had strontium, lead, and oxygen values that fell outside of the local range for the Southern Lowlands and more closely matched the Volcanic Highlands. These dogs may have come with their owners along exchange networks between the Highland s and Lowland s region, perhaps the same route that was used to exchange obsidian. The dogs date to the Middle and Late Preclassic periods, suggesting th at dogs may have frequently traveled throughout the Maya region at that time. A potentially non local tapir mo lar found in a ceremonial cache in the Central Plaza from the Late Preclassic period also shows that non local animals may have been intentionally sought out for use in special functions. Throughout the Classic p eriod, deer became a priority taxon at Ceiba l and it appears that some may have come from areas outside of the immediate Ceibal vicinity. These d eer may have been hunted many kilometers from the site, especially since Caobal (~5 km away) was found to have the same local strontium isotopic signature as Ceibal. The deer may also h ave been imported as tribute, exchange items or even gifts or offerings as part of a feasting event These deer were found in middens throughout ar to have been hunted in the wild although in at least two instances peccaries had higher than expected 13 C values, suggesting they were either eating maize in milpa fields or were

PAGE 334

334 raised in captivity. Northern turkeys, the species known to have been in troduced to the Maya region at some point during the Preclassic period, appear to have been eating a maize based diet similar to the dogs in the Late and Terminal Classic periods. Other turkeys had different diet s ranging from a 13 C depleted signature (i.e. largely C3 plant comsumption) to an intermediate 13 C (i.e. a mixed C3/C4 diet) suggesting that some t urkeys, including the ocellated species n ative to the area, were being hunted while others may have been captured and raised in captivit y. The presence of Preclassic period non local dogs, a tapir, and a potentially maize fed jaguar at the ceremonial core of Ceibal is indicative of the site's political, economic, and likely ritual significance during a time when most of the Maya lowlands w ere characterized by dispersed, sparsely populated villages and hamlets. Ceibal would have been a central hub of exciting ceremonial activity, bringing in exotic materials such as jade, marine shells, and obsidian, as well as extra local wildlife, to incor porate in public ritual performances in the Central Plaza, one of the first to boast large scale monumental architecture in the region. By drawing people together for these activities, the early Ceibal leaders grounded and cultivated the site's identity in to the minds of the local inhabitants as well as onto the physical landscape. It is possible its reputation spread as far as the coa sts and the Volcanic Highlands more than 100 km s away, areas from which people brought their dogs as they traveled the obsid ian exchange routes. We might imagine that the growing Ceibal elite class manifested their authority by capturing wild cats, fearsome symbols of power that would be used over a millennium later to portray the authority of Maya kings and queens. The Classic period dependence on maize fed turkeys and deer from the forests shows that subsistence, exchange, and

PAGE 335

335 ceremonial practices had changed since the Preclassic and that the importation of dogs and tapir for ceremonial functions at the site core might not ha ve taken place any longer. The temporal distinction between animal related activities that occurred in the changed, but also shows that complex interactions with animals occurred even during the Middle Preclassic period, long before the development of state level society. Thus, the long distance exchange of animals and their products, as we ll as animal rearing for food and ceremonial purposes, was not limited to s tate level economies, but in fact happened much earlier. Future research might examine how commonplace these activities were prior to the Classic period, since it is possible that animal rearing and exchange activities underwent a slow process of developme nt and integration into societal norms throughout the Preclassic period, and may not have occurred at every site to the same extent.

PAGE 336

336 Table 6 1. Lead results for archaeological specimens and modern baseline samples from Ceibal. Under "Element", I = incisor, M = molar, P = premolar. Under "Site No.", CB = Ceibal, AN = Caobal. Specimen No. Sample Type Scientific Name Common Name Element Site No. Context Period 206 Pb/ 204 Pb error 207 Pb/ 204 Pb error 208 Pb/ 204 Pb error 1 Bone Canis lupus familiaris Dog A Mandible CB 205A 1 7 16 Midden LMP 19.150 0.001 15.635 0.001 38.558 0.001 2a (Run 1) Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog A M 2 CB 205A 1 7 16 Midden LMP 18.994 0.001 15.632 0.001 38.550 0.002 2b (Run 2) Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog A M 2 CB 205A 1 7 16 Midden LMP 19.173 0.005 15.652 0.004 38.609 0.011 3 Bone Canis lupus familiaris Dog B Mandible CB 205A 1 7 10 Intrusion fill LMP 19.002 0.001 15.673 0.000 38.512 0.001 4 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog B M 1 CB 205A 1 7 10 Intrusion fill LMP 19.274 0.002 15.644 0.002 38.487 0.004 5 Bone Canis lupus familiaris Dog C Mandible CB 203G 2 8 4 Fill LP 18.612 0.001 15.638 0.001 38.261 0.002 6a (Run 1) Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog C M 1 CB 203G 2 8 4 Fill LP 19.142 0.005 15.629 0.003 38.486 0.020 6b (Run 2) Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog C M 1 CB 203G 2 8 4 Fill LP 19.122 0.002 15.628 0.002 38.487 0.005 7 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog P 4 CB 201F 4 12 10 Fill EMP 19.455 0.001 15.631 0.001 38.557 0.002 9 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog P 4 CB 201F 2 13 3 Fill EMP 19.259 0.001 15.622 0.001 38.433 0.002 11 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog M 1 CB 203B 11 6 9 Fill LMP 19.248 0.002 15.633 0.002 38.493 0.004 13 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog M 1 CB 210A 3 6 4 Midden over Burial 126 LMP 19.370 0.002 15.641 0.001 38.520 0.003 15 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog M 1 CB 202A 1 7 4 Cache 101? (fill around area) LP 19.122 0.006 15.645 0.005 38.486 0.012

PAGE 337

337 Table 6 1. Continued Specimen No. Sample Type Scientific Name Common Name Element Site No. Context Period 206 Pb/ 204 Pb error 207 Pb/ 204 Pb error 208 Pb/ 204 Pb error 17 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog M 1 CB 200B 1 7 3 Midden? LMP 19.212 0.001 15.639 0.001 38.519 0.002 18 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog M 1 CB 200B 16 8 1 Fill LMP 19.506 0.001 15.646 0.001 38.553 0.002 19 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog M 1 CB 201B 7 8 3 Fill LMP 19.354 0.001 15.646 0.001 38.510 0.002 20 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog M 1 CB 201C 22 14 2 Fill LMP 19.298 0.002 15.642 0.001 38.485 0.003 21 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog M 1 CB 201C 22 14 4 Fill LMP 19.297 0.002 15.639 0.001 38.537 0.003 22 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog M 1 CB 201D 2 6 1 Fill LP 19.142 0.001 15.622 0.001 38.471 0.002 23 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog M 1 CB 203B 4 7 2 (#2) Fill LMP 19.377 0.001 15.631 0.001 38.508 0.003 24 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog M 1 CB 203B 4 7 2 (#3) Fill LMP 19.405 0.001 15.633 0.001 38.523 0.002 25 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog C L CB 203B 14 8 4 Fill EMP 19.214 0.001 15.633 0.001 38.496 0.003 26 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog M 1 CB 203B 19 8 6 Fill EMP 19.261 0.001 15.623 0.001 38.492 0.002 27 Bone Canis lupus familiaris Dog Humerus CB 203D 5 6 2 Burial 115 LMP 18.334 0.001 15.618 0.001 38.065 0.002 28 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog P 4 CB 205A 3 4 6 Fill EC 19.480 0.001 15.634 0.001 38.479 0.001 29 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog P 4 CB 207A 3 5 3 Fill TP 19.675 0.001 15.649 0.001 38.516 0.002 30 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog I 3 CB 211B 2 6 3 Fill LMP 19.158 0.001 15.637 0.001 38.508 0.002

PAGE 338

338 Table 6 1. Continued Specimen No. Sample Type Scientific Name Common Name Element Site No. Context Period 206 Pb/ 204 Pb error 207 Pb/ 204 Pb error 208 Pb/ 204 Pb error 31 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog P 4 CB 200A 1 20 1 (#6) Midden EMP 19.351 0.001 15.634 0.001 38.499 0.002 32 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog P 4 CB 200A 1 20 1 (#9) Midden EMP 19.182 0.001 15.638 0.001 38.569 0.002 34 Bone Panthera onca Jaguar A Mandible CB 205A 1 7 13 Fill LMP 19.293 0.001 15.636 0.001 38.542 0.002 35 Enamel Panthera onca Jaguar A M 1 CB 205A 1 7 13 Fill LMP 19.366 0.002 15.631 0.001 38.484 0.003 37 Enamel Leopardis wiedii Margay M 1 CB 201G 1 4 2 Fill TC 19.544 0.003 15.650 0.003 38.469 0.006 38 Bone Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Radius AN 1A 1 19 2 Fill LMP n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 39 Bone Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Humerus CB 200B 9 5 3 Fill LP n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 42 Bone Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Radius CB 201B 7 11 5 Fill EMP n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 50 Bone Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Radius CB 203B 10 7 1 Fill LMP 19.638 0.001 15.650 0.001 38.527 0.002 53 Enamel Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer M 3 CB 207A 1 4 7 Burial 121 EC 19.397 0.002 15.634 0.001 38.477 0.004 54 Enamel Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer M 3 CB 207A 4 5 1 Midden/ fill EC 19.129 0.003 15.622 0.002 38.369 0.006 55 Enamel Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer M 2 CB 208A 1 4 5 Fill TC 20.048 0.006 15.695 0.005 38.584 0.011

PAGE 339

339 Table 6 1. Continued Specimen No. Sample Type Scientific Name Common Name Element Site No. Context Period 206 Pb/ 204 Pb error 207 Pb/ 204 Pb error 208 Pb/ 204 Pb error 56 Bone Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Talus CB 208A 1 4 7 Midden LC 18.912 0.001 15.656 0.001 38.361 0.002 57 Bone Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Talus CB 208A 1 4 10 Midden (intrusion) LC 18.900 0.001 15.645 0.001 38.310 0.003 58 Bone Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Talus CB 208A 2 4 3 Fill TC 19.400 0.001 15.682 0.001 38.551 0.002 59 Bone Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Talus CB 208A 3 4 1 Fill TC 19.363 0.001 15.679 0.001 38.554 0.003 61 Bone Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Phalanx 1 CB 211A 1 5 5 Fill EC 19.075 0.001 15.667 0.001 38.509 0.001 68 Enamel Tayassuidae Peccary I 1 CB 207A 3 5 1 Midden/ fill EC 19.378 0.002 15.627 0.001 38.481 0.003 70 Enamel Tapirella bairdii Baird's tapir Molar CB 202A 3 4 4 Fill LP 18.861 0.001 15.643 0.000 38.699 0.001 71 Enamel Tapirella bairdii Baird's tapir Molar CB 211B 1 4 3 Fill EC 19.363 0.001 15.629 0.001 38.530 0.002 73 Bone Meleagris gallopavo Wild turkey Tarsometat arsus CB 208A 2 4 3 Fill TC n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 74 Bone Meleagris gallopavo Wild turkey Ulna CB 211A 1 1 2 Collapse/ fill TC n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Baselines: 78 Enamel Philander opossum Gray opos sum 4 Molars CB 201C 25 1 1 Humus (modern?) TC/ Moder n 19.166 0.002 15.627 0.002 38.451 0.004 79 Shell Neocyclotus dysonii Tree snail Shell AN 1B 1 8 3 Burial AN4 LP n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

PAGE 340

340 Table 6 1. Continued Specimen No. Sample Type Scientific Name Common Name Element Site No. Context Period 206 Pb/ 204 Pb error 207 Pb/ 204 Pb error 208 Pb/ 204 Pb error 80 Shell Orthalicus princeps Tree snail Shell CB 203B 17 8 6 Fill EMP n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 81 Soil CB 201F 2 13 5 Fill (Group A) EMP 19.510 0.004 15.617 0.003 38.496 0.007 82 Soil CB 201F 4 12 10 Fill (Group A) EMP 19.348 0.002 15.625 0.002 38.521 0.004 83 Soil CB 212A 1 3 1 Fill (Group D) LC 20.130 0.009 15.699 0.007 38.603 0.018 84 Soil CB 212A 1 3 1 Fill (Group D) LC 20.235 0.001 15.672 0.001 38.530 0.002

PAGE 341

341 Table 6 2. Strontium and oxygen results for archaeological specimens and modern baseline samples from Ceibal. Under "Element", I = incisor, M = molar, P = premolar. Under "Site No.", CB = Ceibal, AN = Caobal. Spec imen No. Sample Type Scientific Name Common Name Element Site No. Context Period 87 Sr/ 86 Sr error 18 O en VPDB) 18 O a p VPDB) 1 Bone Canis lupus familiaris Dog A Mandible CB 205A 1 7 16 Midden LMP 0.70742 0.00001 3.8 2a (Run 1) Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog A M 2 CB 205A 1 7 16 Midden LMP 0.70703 0.00001 6.3 2b (Run 2) Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog A M 2 CB 205A 1 7 16 Midden LMP 0.70709 0.00001 3 Bone Canis lupus familiaris Dog B Mandible CB 205A 1 7 10 Intrusion fill LMP 0.70762 0.00001 4.6 4 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog B M 1 CB 205A 1 7 10 Intrusion fill LMP 0.70760 0.00002 4.8 5 Bone Canis lupus familiaris Dog C Mandible CB 203G 2 8 4 Fill LP 0.70688 0.00001 4.8 6a (Run 1) Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog C M 1 CB 203G 2 8 4 Fill LP 0.70493 0.00001 5.4 6b (Run 2) Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog C M 1 CB 203G 2 8 4 Fill LP 0.70501 0.00001 7 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog P 4 CB 201F 4 12 10 Fill EMP 0.70748 0.00001 2.6 9 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog P 4 CB 201F 2 13 3 Fill EMP 0.70753 0.00001 3.4

PAGE 342

342 Table 6 2. Continued Spec imen No. Sample Type Scientific Name Common Name Element Site No. Context Period 87 Sr/ 86 Sr error 18 O en VPDB) 18 O ap VPDB) 11 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog M 1 CB 203B 11 6 9 Fill LMP 0.70757 0.00002 4.4 13 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog M 1 CB 210A 3 6 4 Midden over Burial 126 LMP 0.70756 0.00002 2.7 15 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog M 1 CB 202A 1 7 4 Cache 101? (fill around area) LP 0.70758 0.00003 n/a 17 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog M 1 CB 200B 1 7 3 Midden? LMP 0.70756 0.00001 3.5 18 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog M 1 CB 200B 16 8 1 Fill LMP 0.70754 0.00001 3.5 19 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog M 1 CB 201B 7 8 3 Fill LMP 0.70749 0.00001 3.5 20 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog M 1 CB 201C 22 14 2 Fill LMP 0.70756 0.00001 2.3 21 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog M 1 CB 201C 22 14 4 Fill LMP 0.70758 0.00001 3.1

PAGE 343

343 Table 6 2. Continued Spec imen No. Sample Type Scientific Name Common Name Element Site No. Context Period 87 Sr/ 86 Sr error 18 O en VPDB) 18 O ap VPDB) 22 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog M 1 CB 201D 2 6 1 Fill LP 0.70751 0.00001 3.6 23 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog M 1 CB 203B 4 7 2 (#2) Fill LMP 0.70758 0.00001 4.1 24 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog M 1 CB 203B 4 7 2 (#3) Fill LMP 0.70756 0.00001 2.4 25 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog C L CB 203B 14 8 4 Fill EMP 0.70752 0.00001 3.5 26 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog M 1 CB 203B 19 8 6 Fill EMP 0.70752 0.00001 4.3 27 Bone Canis lupus familiaris Dog Humerus CB 203D 5 6 2 Burial 115 LMP 0.70756 0.00001 4.5 28 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog P 4 CB 205A 3 4 6 Fill EC 0.70777 0.00001 2.6 29 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog P 4 CB 207A 3 5 3 Fill TP 0.70754 0.00002 3.7 30 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog I 3 CB 211B 2 6 3 Fill LMP 0.70758 0.00001 3.6

PAGE 344

344 Table 6 2. Continued Spec imen No. Sample Type Scientific Name Common Name Element Site No. Context Period 87 Sr/ 86 Sr error 18 O en VPDB) 18 O ap VPDB) 31 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog P 4 CB 200A 1 20 1 (#6) Midden EMP 0.70759 0.00001 2.8 32 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog P 4 CB 200A 1 20 1 (#9) Midden EMP 0.70775 0.00001 4.7 34 Bone Panthera onca Jaguar A Mandible CB 205A 1 7 13 Fill LMP 0.70752 0.00002 3.1 35 Enamel Panthera onca Jaguar A M 1 CB 205A 1 7 13 Fill LMP 0.70755 0.00002 3.4 37 Enamel Leopardis wiedii Margay M 1 CB 201G 1 4 2 Fill TC 0.70749 0.00001 2.9 38 Bone Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Radius AN 1A 1 19 2 Fill LMP 0.70753 0.00001 2.8 39 Bone Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Humerus CB 200B 9 5 3 Fill LP 0.70753 0.00002 2.0 42 Bone Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Radius CB 201B 7 11 5 Fill EMP 0.70756 0.00002 1.8 50 Bone Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Radius CB 203B 10 7 1 Fill LMP 0.70775 0.00001 3.4 53 Enamel Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer M 3 CB 207A 1 4 7 Burial 121 EC 0.70753 0.00002 1.6 54 Enamel Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer M 3 CB 207A 4 5 1 Midden/ fill EC 0.70758 0.00001 1.5 55 Enamel Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer M 2 CB 208A 1 4 5 Fill TC 0.70735 0.00001 2.8

PAGE 345

345 Table 6 2. Continued Spec imen No. Sample Type Scientific Name Common Name Element Site No. Context Period 87 Sr/ 86 Sr error 18 O en VPDB) 18 O ap VPDB) 56 Bone Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Talus CB 208A 1 4 7 Midden LC 0.70749 0.00001 3.0 57 Bone Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Talus CB 208A 1 4 10 Midden (intrusion) LC 0.70748 0.00001 3.3 58 Bone Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Talus CB 208A 2 4 3 Fill TC 0.70769 0.00002 2.2 59 Bone Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Talus CB 208A 3 4 1 Fill TC 0.70773 0.00002 1.8 61 Bone Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Phalanx 1 CB 211A 1 5 5 Fill EC 0.70775 0.00001 2.7 68 Enamel Tayassuida e Peccary I 1 CB 207A 3 5 1 Midden/ fill EC 0.70745 0.00002 3.6 70 Enamel Tapirella bairdii Baird's tapir Molar CB 202A 3 4 4 Fill LP 0.70737 0.00001 7.7 71 Enamel Tapirella bairdii Baird's tapir Molar CB 211B 1 4 3 Fill EC 0.70749 0.00001 4.5 73 Bone Meleagris gallopavo Wild turkey Tarsometa tarsus CB 208A 2 4 3 Fill TC 0.70747 0.00002 2.1 74 Bone Meleagris gallopavo Wild turkey Ulna CB 211A 1 1 2 Collapse/ fill TC 0.70746 0.00002 2.2 Baselines: 78 Enamel Philander opossum Gray opossum 4 Molars CB 201C 25 1 1 Humus (modern?) TC/ Modern 0.70750 0.00002 2.1 79 Shell Neocyclotu s dysonii Tree snail Shell AN 1B 1 8 3 Burial AN4 LP 0.70750 0.00001

PAGE 346

346 Table 6 2. Continued Spec imen No. Sample Type Scientific Name Common Name Element Site No. Context Period 87 Sr/ 86 Sr error 18 O en VPDB) 18 O ap VPDB) 80 Shell Orthalicus princeps Tree snail Shell CB 203B 17 8 6 Fill EMP 0.70750 0.00001 81 Soil CB 201F 2 13 5 Fill (Group A) EMP 0.70747 n/a 82 Soil CB 201F 4 12 10 Fill (Group A) EMP 0.70749 n/a 83 Soil CB 212A 1 3 1 Fill (Group D) LC 0.70752 0.00003 84 Soil CB 212A 1 3 1 Fill (Group D) LC 0.70749 0.00002

PAGE 347

347 Table 6 3. Local strontium and lead baseline ranges for Ceibal and the Southern Lowlands. Ceibal values from this study, strontium values from Hodell et al. ( 2004 ) lead values from Sharpe et al. ( 2016 ). Ceibal (7 samples Sr, 5 samples Pb): 87 Sr/ 86 Sr 206 Pb/ 204 Pb 207 Pb/ 204 Pb 208 Pb/ 204 Pb Baseline Average 0.70750 19.678 15.648 38.520 0.00001 0.478 0.036 0.056 0.00003 0.955 0.072 0.111 Upper Range with 2 Std Dev 0.70752 20.633 15.720 38.631 Lower Range with 2 Std Dev 0.70747 18.722 15.576 38.409 Southern Lowlands (86 samples Sr, 16 samples Pb): Baseline Average 0.70770 22.996 15.812 38.667 0.00026 6.754 0.331 0.147 0.00052 ---Upper Range with 2 Std Dev 0.70822 ---Lower Range with 2 Std Dev 0.70718 ---

PAGE 348

348 Table 6 4. Strontium and lead isotope ranges for the Maya region. Strontium ranges from Hodell et al. 2004, lead ranges from Sharpe et al. ( 2016 ). Motagua Valley included in the Metamorphic Province (as per Hodell et al. 2004) 87 Sr/ 86 Sr: Northern Lowlands Southern Lowlands Maya Mountains Metamorphic Province Motagua Valley Volcanic Highlands Number of Samples 40 86 3 50 26 34 Mean 0.70853 0.7077 0.71327 0.70743 0.70598 0.70415 Median 0.70851 0.70767 0.71275 0.70713 0.70621 0.70410 Range 0.70775 0.70921 0.70693 0.70845 0.71192 0.71514 0.70417 0.72017 0.70417 0.70725 0.70380 0.70492 206 Pb/ 204 Pb: Number of Samples 26 16 1 12 8 5 Mean 19.346 22.996 19.743 18.994 18.925 18.695 Median 19.060 20.768 19.743 18.865 18.804 18.698 Range 18.848 23.213 18.927 45.623 n/a 18.286 20.464 18.286 20.464 18.616 18.772 207 Pb/ 204 Pb: Number of Samples 26 16 1 12 8 5 Mean 15.676 15.812 15.726 15.651 15.638 15.594 Median 15.666 15.720 15.726 15.647 15.629 15.595 Range 15.624 15.815 15.617 16.944 n/a 15.590 15.761 15.590 15.761 15.572 15.616 208 Pb/ 204 Pb: Number of Samples 26 16 1 12 8 5 Mean 38.779 38.667 39.389 38.629 38.561 38.446 Median 38.788 38.638 39.389 38.639 38.639 38.444 Range 38.582 38.977 38.496 38.950 n/a 37.823 39.377 37.823 39.377 38.313 38.589

PAGE 349

349 Table 6 5. Carbon and oxygen results from archaeological animal specimens at Ceibal. Under "Element", I = incisor, M = molar, P = premolar. Specimen Nos. use same system as Table 6 1. Under "Site No.", CB = Ceibal, AN = Caobal. Specimen No. Sample Type Scientific Name Common Name Element Site No. Context Period 13 C en VPDB) 18 O en VPDB) 2 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog A M 2 CB 205A 1 7 16 Midden LMP 2.5 6.3 4 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog B M 1 CB 205A 1 7 10 Intrusion fill LMP 3.9 4.8 6 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog C M 1 CB 203G 2 8 4 Fill LP 2.7 5.4 7 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog D P 4 CB 201F 4 12 10 Fill EMP 9.0 2.6 9 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog E P 4 CB 201F 2 13 3 Fill EMP 9.0 3.4 11 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog F M 1 CB 203B 11 6 9 Fill LMP 9.2 4.4 13 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog G M 1 CB 210A 3 6 4 Midden over Burial 126 LMP 6.4 2.7 17 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog M 1 CB 200B 1 7 3 Midden? LMP 4.2 3.5 18 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog M 1 CB 200B 16 8 1 Fill LMP 2.3 3.5 19 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog M 1 CB 201B 7 8 3 Fill LMP 8.5 3.5

PAGE 350

350 Table 6 5. Continued Specimen No. Sample Type Scientific Name Common Name Element Site No. Context Period 13 C en VPDB) 18 O en VPDB) 20 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog M 1 CB 201C 22 14 2 Fill LMP 8.9 2.3 21 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog M 1 CB 201C 22 14 4 Fill LMP 4.8 3.1 22 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog M 1 CB 201D 2 6 1 Fill LP 2.4 3.6 23 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog M 1 CB 203B 4 7 2 (#2) Fill LMP 3.5 4.1 24 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog M 1 CB 203B 4 7 2 (#3) Fill LMP 6.0 2.4 25 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog Canine (lower) CB 203B 14 8 4 Fill EMP 8.9 3.5 26 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog M 1 CB 203B 19 8 6 Fill EMP 7.7 4.3 28 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog P 4 CB 205A 3 4 6 Fill EC 3.2 2.6 29 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog P 4 CB 207A 3 5 3 Fill TP 4.2 3.7 30 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog I 3 CB 211B 2 6 3 Fill LMP 2.0 3.6

PAGE 351

351 Table 6 5. Continued Specimen No. Sample Type Scientific Name Common Name Element Site No. Context Period 13 C en VPDB) 18 O en VPDB) 31 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog P 4 CB 200A 1 20 1 (#6) Midden EMP 5.0 2.8 32 Enamel Canis lupus familiaris Dog P 4 CB 200A 1 20 1 (#9) Midden EMP 5.9 4.7 35 Enamel Panthera onca Jaguar a M 1 CB 205A 1 7 13 Fill LMP 8.4 3.4 37 Enamel Leopardis wiedii Margay M 1 CB 201G 1 4 2 Fill TC 15.1 2.9 53 Enamel Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer M 3 CB 207A 1 4 7 Burial 121 EC 13.7 1.6 54 Enamel Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer M 3 CB 207A 4 5 1 Midden/ fill EC 12.8 1.5 55 Enamel Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer M 2 CB 208A 1 4 5 Fill TC 13.9 2.8 68 Enamel Tayassuidae Peccary I 1 CB 207A 3 5 1 Midden/ fill EC 6.7 3.6 70 Enamel Tapirella bairdii Baird's tapir Molar CB 202A 3 4 4 Fill LP 16.4 7.7

PAGE 352

352 Table 6 5. Continued Specimen No. Sample Type Scientific Name Common Name Element Site No. Context Period 13 C en VPDB) 18 O en VPDB) 71 Enamel Tapirella bairdii Baird's tapir Molar CB 211B 1 4 3 Fill EC 14.0 4.5 78 Enamel Philander opossum Gray four eyed opossum 4 Molars CB 201C 25 1 1 Humus (modern?) TC 13.5 2.1

PAGE 353

3 53 Table 6 6. Carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen results from archaeological animal specimens at Ceibal. Under "Element", I = incisor, M = molar, P = premolar. Specimen Nos. use same system as Table 6 1. Under "Site No.", CB = Ceibal, AN = Caobal. Spec imen No. Scientific Name Common Name Element Site No. Context Period 13 C ap VPDB) 18 O ap VPDB) 15 N co vs. AIR) 13 C co VPDB) wt %N wt %C C:N 1 Canis lupus familiaris Dog A Mandible CB 205A 1 7 16 Midden LMP 7.6 3.8 7.0 11.5 13.53 37.30 3.2 3 Canis lupus familiaris Dog B Mandible CB 205A 1 7 10 Intrusion fill LMP 7.9 4.6 8.3 11.2 15.45 40.34 3.0 5 Canis lupus familiaris Dog C Mandible CB 203G 2 8 4 Fill LP 7.2 4.8 7.2 8.5 13.85 37.17 3.1 8 Canis lupus familiaris Dog D Maxilla CB 201F 4 12 10 Fill EMP 8.3 3.7 9.8 13.5 14.29 36.96 3.0 10 Canis lupus familiaris Dog E Mandible CB 201F 2 13 3 Fill EMP 8.3 3.7 8.8 14.5 13.98 36.65 3.1 12 Canis lupus familiaris Dog F Mandible CB 203B 11 6 9 Fill LMP 10.3 4.5 10.6 14.9 13.53 35.54 3.1 14 Canis lupus familiaris Dog G Mandible CB 210A 3 6 4 Midden over Burial 126 LMP 7.6 4.7 9.7 12.6 14.61 38 3.0 16 Canis lupus familiaris Dog Mandible CB 202A 1 7 4 Cache 101 (fill around area) LP 9.5 8.4 14.58 38.44 3.1 27 Canis lupus familiaris Dog Humerus CB 203D 5 6 2 Burial 115 LMP 7.0 4.5 11.5 10.2 12.66 34.63 3.2 33 Canis lupus familiaris Dog Humerus CB 211B 2 6 3 Fill LMP 6.7 3.5 9.3 9.6 14.38 37.63 3.1

PAGE 354

354 Table 6 6. Contined Spec imen No. Scientific Name Common Name Element Site No. Context Period 13 C ap VPDB) 18 O ap VPDB) 15 N co vs. AIR) 13 C co VPDB) wt %N wt %C C:N 34 Panthera onca Jaguar a Mandible CB 205A 1 7 13 Fill LMP 8.7 3.1 10.4 15.2 13.55 37.57 3.2 36 Panthera onca Jaguar b Ulna CB 201D 1 2 3 Midden TC 12.5 2.4 7.8 19.5 14.14 39.17 3.2 38 Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Radius AN 1A 1 19 2 Fill LMP 10.0 2.8 6.0 19.5 14.02 38.61 3.2 39 Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Humerus CB 200B 9 5 3 Fill LP 9.5 2.0 7.0 19.2 13.29 36.50 3.2 40 Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Metapodial CB 200B 19 8 3 Fill LMP 9.0 2.3 4.0 20.2 13.93 38.47 3.2 41 Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Humerus CB 200B 30 5 5 Fill LP 9.8 2.9 6.0 20.5 13.65 38.76 3.3 42 Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Radius CB 201B 7 11 5 Fill LMP 10.6 1.8 43 Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Metacarpal CB 201C 22 11 4 Fill LMP 10.6 3.0 3.7 21.6 8.96 26.01 3.4 44 Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Tibia CB 201D 1 2 3 Midden TC 14.5 1.2 3.0 22.5 14.81 41.25 3.2 45 Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Pelvis CB 201E 1 4 6 Midden LC 10.7 2.1 3.0 20.1 14.48 40.38 3.3 46 Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Radius CB 201F 1 15 3 Fill EMP 3.7 21.7 12.85 35.82 3.3

PAGE 355

355 Table 6 6. Continued Spec imen No. Scientific Name Common Name Element Site No. Context Period 13 C ap VPDB) 18 O ap VPDB) 15 N co vs. AIR) 13 C co VPDB) wt %N wt %C C:N 47 Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Femur CB 201F 2 4 3 Fill LC 2.8 22.2 14.61 40.93 3.3 48 Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Metatarsal CB 202A 2 7 1 Fill LP 4.5 21.5 14.12 39.87 3.3 49 Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Radius CB 203A 1 4 3 Fill LC 5.4 24.1 14.33 40.27 3.3 50a (Run 1) Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Radius CB 203B 10 7 1 Fill LMP 11.3 3.4 8.4 21.3 13.59 36.37 3.1 50b (Run 2) Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Radius CB 203B 10 7 1 Fill LMP 11.5 3.2 51 Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Radius CB 203D 5 3 1 Termination Ritual? TC 5.2 21.1 14.23 39.85 3.3 52 Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Tibia CB 205A 1 7 15 Midden LMP 7.1 21.0 13.93 38.85 3.3 56 Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Astragalus CB 208A 1 4 7 Midden LC 10.3 3.0 6.6 20.9 14.96 38.63 3.0 57 Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Astragalus CB 208A 1 4 10 Midden (intrusion) LC 11.1 3.3 6.1 22.0 14.9 38.47 3.0 58 Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Astragalus CB 208A 2 4 3 Fill TC 10.0 2.2 3.7 22.4 15.43 39.71 3.0 59 Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Astragalus CB 208A 3 4 1 Fill TC 12.0 1.8 4.1 20.5 14.82 38.75 3.1

PAGE 356

356 Table 6 6. Continued Spec imen No. Scientific Name Common Name Element Site No. Context Period 13 C ap VPDB) 18 O ap VPDB) 15 N co vs. AIR) 13 C co VPDB) wt %N wt %C C:N 60 Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Antler CB 210A 2 6 3 Midden over Burial 126 LMP 3.3 20.4 13.62 39.06 3.3 61 Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Phalanx 1 CB 211A 1 5 5 Fill EC 12.1 2.7 5.2 21.9 14.64 38.68 3.1 62 Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer Astragalus CB 211B 2 4 4 Fill EC 3.2 22.0 14.38 40.42 3.3 63 Tayassuidae Peccary Tibia CB 201A 30 2 1 Collapse/ fill TC 13.2 2.1 3.4 21.3 12.99 36.87 3.3 64 Tayassuidae Peccary Metatarsal CB 201B 7 5 2 Fill LC 8.5 3.4 3.9 14.4 14.92 41.36 3.2 65 Tayassuidae Peccary Metapodial CB 201E 1 4 6 Midden LC 9.8 2.7 5.4 18.7 14.70 40.70 3.2 66 Tayassuidae Peccary Metacarpal IV CB 201E 5 5 1 Fill EC 9.1 3.3 4.4 21.0 14.15 39.58 3.3 67 Tayassuidae Peccary Radius CB 201F 2 13 4 Fill EMP 5.3 20.4 12.00 34.32 3.3 69 Tayassuidae Peccary Radius Ulna CB 211A 2 5 5 Fill TP 5.4 22.3 14.66 40.99 3.3 72 Cuniculus paca Lowland paca Tibia AN 1A 1 19 1 Midden LMP 11.1 2.9 4.6 21.0 13.76 38.35 3.3 73 Meleagris gallopavo Wild turkey Tarsometa tarsus CB 208A 2 4 3 Fill TC 5.2 2.07 6.33 9.68 3.3

PAGE 357

357 Table 6 6. Continued Spec imen No. Scientific Name Common Name Element Site No. Context Period 13 C ap VPDB) 18 O ap VPDB) 15 N co vs. AIR) 13 C co VPDB) wt %N wt %C C:N 74 Meleagris gallopavo Wild turkey Ulna CB 211A 1 1 2 Collapse/ fill TC 5.11 2.24 8.91 8.06 3.2 75 Meleagris ocellata Ocellated turkey Ulna CB 201B 13 4 5 Fill LC 9.07 3.62 8.63 17.76 3.2 76 Meleagris sp. Turkey Tarsometatarsus CB 201C 17 4 2 Fill TC 11.45 1.23 5.42 22.72 3.3 77 Meleagris sp. Turkey Ulna CB 207A 1 4 8 Burial 123 LC 6.39 2.61 5.15 14.1 3.3

PAGE 358

358 Figure 6 1. Map of the southern Mesoamerica area depicting the regions discussed in the chapter. Map modified from the U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Map of North America (public domain, http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/g mna/ ).

PAGE 359

359 Figure 6 2 Strontium results for all animals and soil tested at Ceibal. Duplicate samples denoted by letters are mandible bone (first) and tooth enamel (second; described on Table 6 2). The light gray bar denotes the local soil value for the entire Southern Lowlands denotes the local strontium value for Ceibal based on the soil, terrestrial snails, and modern opossum sample 3).

PAGE 360

360 Figure 6 3 Comparison of 87 Sr/ 86 Sr an d 206 Pb/ 204 Pb ratios The vertical brackets denote the ranges of 87 Sr/ 86 et al. (2004) in black and for the local Ceibal range using the basel ine samples in this study, highlighted in red ( 6 4 ). The horizontal brackets denote the local 206 Pb/ 204 Pb range of Ceibal using the baseline see Table 6 3 ). Specimens mentioned in the text are numbered.

PAGE 361

361 Figure 6 4 Comparison of 207 Pb/ 204 Pb and 206 Pb/ 204 Pb ratios. Ranges are not included in this figure since all values fell within the local 207 Pb/ 204 Pb ra nge for the Ceibal area (15.576 15.7 20, see Table 6 3 ). Specimens mentioned in the text are numbered.

PAGE 362

362 Figure 6 5. Comparison of 208 Pb/ 204 Pb and 206 Pb/ 204 Pb ratios. Ranges are based on the 3 ). Specimens mentioned in the text are numbered.

PAGE 363

363 Figure 6 6 Comparison of 18 O and 87 Sr/ 86 Sr values at Ceibal. Specimens mentioned in the te xt are numbered.

PAGE 364

364 Figure 6 7 Comparison of collagen 13 C and 15 N from animals at Ceibal. Specimens mentioned in the text are numbered.

PAGE 365

365 Figure 6 8 13 C ap coll difference and 15 N from collagen among several animals at Ceibal Specimens mentioned in the text are numbered.

PAGE 366

366 Figure 6 9 Comparison of enamel apatite 13 C and 18 O among several animals at Ceibal. Specimens mentioned in the text are numbered.

PAGE 367

367 Figure 6 10. Comparison of bone apatite 13 C and 18 O among sev eral animals at Ceibal. Specimens mentioned in the text are numbered

PAGE 368

368 Figure 6 11. Comparison of bone and tooth apatite 13 C and 18 O from the same individuals. Enamel apatite values reflect the diet and drinking habits of the animals when the tooth was formed, while bone apatite values reflect the diet 8 an d 10 have the same values.

PAGE 369

369 CHAPTER 7 COMPARISON OF ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL RESULTS ACROSS THE LOWLANDS The following chapter compares the faunal assemblages from the San Bartolo Xultun and Holmul regions of the Pe tn with that of Ceibal to examine whe ther the social changes reflected in the acquisition and use of animal taxa at Ceibal over time as the site developed into a Classic period state also occurred elsewhere in the Maya lowlands. The invertebrate remains identified from Cerros on the coast of Belize are also compared to examine resembles the use of these taxa at the inland sites, and whether and why certain species may have been imported inland. The first part of this chapter focuses on a r eview and discussion of the San Bartolo Xultun and Holmul faunal identifications and how these results compare with those from Ceibal over time. A primary question this comparison aims to address is whether similar trends are exhibited in the use of fauna over time at all sites; if such changes can be found, this provides evidence to support the claim that many of the same social practices were being conducted throughout the Petn and not just at Ceibal, and that the acquisition and use of certain species i n particular ways was recognized throughout the lowlands. If such evidence for similarities cannot be found, this would mean that the use of animal resources was not subject to any particular pan Maya cultural practices that existed in the lowlands during the Preclassic period. The transition between the Preclassic and Classic period s will also be examined to see whether animal resource use changed at this pivotal time when certain Preclassic sites were abandoned while others survived or were reoccupied to become Classic state capitals. Chapter 5 showed that, at Ceibal, the early hallmarks of a state

PAGE 370

370 level society and social disparities regarding the use of certain animals among the ceremonial elite core and periphery began during the Middle Preclassic pe riod, but that social changes in the Early Classic period led to changes in how these animals were used and to the cessation of certain Preclassic rituals. This same transition might be expected from the zooarchaeological records at the other sites if all sites were subject to the same social trends. It is also possible, however, that each region had its own set of unique fauna and different site histories, and that they may not have experienced these Preclassic/Classic social changes in the same way. Compa ring multiple neighboring sites in each region may help show whether this was the ca se and if all sites in a region used the same sets of animals in a similar way. After the initial comparison of sites, the chapter addresses the issues of resource exchange ritual, and crafting in greater detail. The first of these uses new invertebrate identifications from Cerros to determine whether marine invertebrates at a monumental Late Preclassic coastal site reflect those found in the inland Preclassic Petn area. I f invertebrates at Cerros differ from those of the inland sites, it may suggest that either Cerros, specifically, was not involved in inland exchange, or that coastal sites had a different prefere nce for taxa, perhaps for eating rather than for rituals or for decoration. It is possible that only certain taxa were transported inland for these latter functions, since, as was shown in Chapter 5, most marine shells at Ceibal exhibited some sign of modification for ornamental purposes and none appear to have bee n modified at the site (as indicated by a distinct lack of marine shell debitage) The section on marine exchange also compares other faunal reports from the Gulf coast, Chiapas, and Belize sites that were occupied in the Middle and Late Preclassic period to determine along

PAGE 371

371 which trade routes marine shells may have been transported inland from the sea. Similarities in shel l species are compared to see which sites may have been involved in the same trade partnerships The uses of animals in rituals and craft ing activities at all sites is also examined to determine whether all sites recognize d the same s ymbolic uses of animals and made use of animal resources for crafting in the same manner. The subject of ritual is important for determining whether different Maya communities throughout the Petn recognized the same symbolic associations of certain animal taxa. Ritual practices are compared over time to see whether, as at Ceibal, certain early domestic and ceremonial activities involving animals were commonplac e throughout the lowland Maya region and may have been part of the development of Maya state society. These spatial/temporal comparisons are also made to determine whether some activities may have ceased during the Early Classic period or continued into th e later Classic period, since either possibility would provide a different perspective on the origin of Maya state society and continuities between the Preclassic and Classic periods. Bone and shell crafting a ctivities are examined to determine whether the re was differential production and access to certain crafted animal based products during the Preclassic period and whether communities shared similar crafting methods with similar animal materials. It is possible that early monumental centers had a form o f class based crafting like that which was investigated at large Classic state centers, including Aguateca (Emery and Aoyama 2007) and Copan (Widmer 2009), where certain crafting activities were carried out by different social ranks using particular animal resources and methods It is are difficult to locate in

PAGE 372

372 Preclassic contexts, although these have been described at a small handful of sites, including Pacbitun (Hohmann 2002). Summary of the Zooarch a e ological Analysis from the San Bartolo Xultun and Holmul Regions Results of the San Bartolo and Xultun Analysis Although there is a clear distinction regarding the chronological distribution of faunal remains recovered from San Bartolo and Xultun as seen in Tables 7 1 and 7 2, those periods that overlap at both sites (i.e. the Late Preclassic and Late Classic periods) exhibit many similarities. Xultun's sparse Preclassic assemblage (NISP=38) is primarily a consequence of the site's brief and fair ly recent excavation history (this study only includes the fauna from three seasons between 2008 2012), and the fact that the Preclassic occupation levels are covered by the layers from the later Classic period occupation. A comparison of the two sites sho ws that the majority of taxa at both centers were mammals (40.5% and 56.9% of all taxa at San Bartolo and Xultun, respectively), although freshwater invertebrates were also very common during the Preclassic at San Bartolo (35.1% of Preclassic fauna). Both sites had proportionally more dogs and freshwater taxa (river clams, jute snails, and apple snails) during the Preclassic than the Late Classic period, and proportionally more deer and peccary in the Late Classic period. Although marine shells will be disc ussed in more detail later in this chapter, it is worth noting that of the few marine shells recovered from Xultun's Late Preclassic period (NISP=12), conchs (Strombidae, including the fighting conch Strombus pugilis ) and olive shells ( Oliva sp.) were the two most common species found at San Bartolo during the same period (62.2% of San Barto shells).

PAGE 373

373 T he majority (67.8%) of faunal material (Table 7 1) came from the Preclassic contexts. There were few identified animal rem ains from the Middle Preclassic period (NISP=30, or 2.1% of the assemblage), including the bones of a white tailed deer, a dog, and a dozen freshwater mollusks, mainly river clams and apple snails. These same taxa made up a significant proportion of the id entified Late Preclassic faunal assemblage. Dogs were proportionally more common than deer in the Preclassic (13.7% compared to 5.4% of all vertebrates), and river clams were slightly more common than apple snails (37.0% and 34.9% of all invertebrates). Se veral bird species were identified from the Late Preclassic period, which made up a sizable proportion of the overall vertebrate assemblage for this period (21.3%). These included three galliform taxa: turkeys ( Meleagris sp., 0.5%), curassows ( Crax rubra, 7.4%), and a quail that may have been a northern bobwhite (cf. Colinus virginianus 0.5%). Reptiles, including turtles, were uncommon in the Preclassic period (3.5% of vertebrates), as were fish (0.7% perhaps because of coarse gauge screening techniques ). At least seven different species of marine shellfish were identified, foremost among them the olive shells (2.3% of invertebrates) and fighting conchs (1.5%). By the Late Classic period, there was a strong focus on white tailed deer among the vertebrates (33.7%), as well as peccary (16.3%), fox (18.6%), and rabbits (7.0%). Only one bird and one reptile (a turtle) bone were recovered, and neither could be identified to species or even family level. No fish were recovered, and only a few freshwater mollusks were found. Two marine shells could be identified to species, which included those most popular in the Late Preclassic period, the olive shells and fighting conchs (both 2.0% of Late Classic invertebrates).

PAGE 374

374 Xultun's fauna taxa varied considerably over time both in terms of types and proportions of species. Dogs and deer were the only identified vertebrate taxa in the Preclassic period; all other vertebrate classes besides mammals were absent. Invertebrate taxa mainly consisted of marine shells (75.0% of Pr eclassic invertebrates), river clams (6.3%), and jute (6.3%). Many more species were identified from the Early Classic period deposits. The proportion of deer increased (8.2% of Early Classic mammals), although jaguars, armadillos, and rodents (the latter possibly intrusive in some cases) were also common. Birds were rare (4.0% of Early Classic vertebrates), although a few turtles were recovered (7.3%). A considerable number of marine taxa were recovered from several different contexts across the site, incl uding stingrays ( Dasyatis cf. sabina 26.0%, both spines and vertebrae), nine species of marine bivalves, and eight species of marine gastropods. During the Late Classic period, the focus on deer intensified (11.1% of vertebrates), and rabbits, armadillos, and rodents became more common ( although these may have been intrusive since they were recovered from chultun 84.8% of the assemblage at that time. Seven species of birds were identified, particularly th e galliforms (1 .9% of verte bates), rails and at least two birds belonging to the motmot family found in two different contexts. A few turtles, including a Mexican musk turtle ( Staurotypus triporcatus ) and a pond slider ( Trachemys venusta ) were identified, as were several iguanas and frogs from various contexts. Although Xultun is several kilometers from the nearest river (the Ixcanro), a catfish pectoral spine was recovered from the plaza fill, and the ritual implications (i.e. a possible b loodletting inst rument) will be discussed later in this chapter. Stingray spines were less common than in the Early

PAGE 375

375 Classic period, but were still present. Marine shells in general included fewer taxa an d, interestingly, different ones from the Early Classic period. Discu ssion of the San Bartolo Xultun Results It is not surprising that the Late Preclassic and Late Classic period assemblages at San Bartolo and Xultun are similar at both sites, since the sites were close neighbors and are believed to have been in constant as sociation while occupied based on ceramic and other artifactual remains (River a Castillo and Saturno 2012) 1 However, the unique change in Xultun's Early Classic faunal assemblage, particularly in terms of the diverse number of marine species in relation to all the marine taxa ever recovered at San Bartolo or recovered from later periods at Xultun, suggests that the inhabitants of the site had changed their commercial ties with trade routes to the coast. This population likely included the individuals who left San Bartolo after it was vacated at the en d of the Late Preclassic period. It is possible the trade routes or sites involved in such exchange activities changed, or that other political and, perhaps, symbolic associations and uses of certain taxa chan ged so that there was a demand for different species. Regardless of the reason, another shift seemed to occur between the Early Classic and later Classic periods, in which fewer and, in some cases, different taxa were imported. The increased focus on deer and peccary over dogs at both sites is a pattern that has been noted at many sites in the Maya region, including Colha and Cuello (Clutton Brock and Hammond 1994; Shaw 1991; Wing and Scudder 1991) as well as Ceibal (this study). Assuming dogs were used as food (in addition to possible ritual functions), this implies a pan Maya transition from a reliance on a domestic species to that of large 1 Also William Saturno, personal communication

PAGE 376

376 game animals. It is possible these animals were obtained by a specialized class of hunters within the society during the Classic period to meet the demand for these wild taxa (Carr 1996) Similarly, the transition away from freshwater mollusks between the Preclassic and Classic periods also suggests a change occurred regardi ng the procurement strategies for these invert ebrates, or that their populations may have decreased and were more difficult to obtain. It is also possible that the method of disposal for these organisms changed over time, in that they could have been ground and burned to be incorporated into lime for construction projects (Moholy Nagy 1978; Nations 1979) or possibly discarded beyond the site perimeters if they were considered 2 The increase in turtles and frogs over time at Xultun may be the result of aguadas constructed around the site after the Preclassic period, some of which were made from former limest one quarries (Ruane 2012), and which may have attracted these animals. These changes from the Preclassic through Late Classic period at both sites ind icate that a number of social practices, including possibly beliefs, trade relations, and subsistence activities, changed over time as state level society developed in the region. Results of the Holmul Regional Analysis Tables 7 3 through 7 8 provide the results for the Holmul region faunal analysis of Holmul had the most faunal remains and spanned the longest occupational history, although like Ceibal it experienced a significant population decline i n the Early Classic period that may account for the dearth of faunal remains recovered from that time La 2 Kitty Emery, personal communication

PAGE 377

377 Sufricaya, located only a kilometer away, may have been the site to which many of th e Holmul inhabitants migrated (see Chapter 2), and so its Early Cl assic remains grant a view of Holmul's Preclassic Classic transition. All six sites had more invertebrate remains than vertebrates. Holmul (Table 7 3) had the most vertebrate fauna (33.7% of the whole assemblage). Dogs, deer, and to a lesser extent, peccar y, were common in the Middle and Late Preclassic periods (~20 25% of vertebrates), and deer were most common in the Classic period (9.7% of Late/Terminal Classic vertebrates). Other classes of animals were relatively uncommon in both the Preclassic and Cla ssic periods. Fish were rare in the Preclassic (<3.0%), and parrotfish (cf. Sparisoma sp. Figure 7 1) made up more than a third of the fish bones from all periods. Freshwater shellfish, particularly river clams, were very common in the Middle Preclassic pe riod (46.8% of invertebrates) but decreased over time through the Late Classic period (5.9%). Of the marine taxa, which will be explained in more detail later in this chapter, conchs and spondylus were found in both periods, whereas all other taxa were fo und exclusively either in the Preclassic or Late Classic contexts. Although the dataset for La Sufricaya is small (Table 7 4), it has several noticeable sim ilarities and distinctions compared with the fauna at Holmul. La Sufricaya's Early Classic period fa una more closely resemble s the fauna of the Late Classic period at Holmul Preclassic phase. D eer represent the only vertebrate taxon identified beyond the level of class in the assemblage (2.7% of the total), freshwater shells are scarce compared to the other sites

PAGE 378

378 (13.5%), and the marine taxa, olive shells and spondylus, match those of Late Classic Holmul. Other taxa (birds, reptiles, amphibians, a nd fish) are noticeably absent. At Cival (Table 7 5), Holmul's large Preclassic neighbor to the north, fauna were recovered from deposits that dated to the Middle Preclassic through Early Classic period, with the majority (41.6%) hailing from the Late Preclassic period. Freshwater mollusks dominated all chronological periods (> 50% of all remains), particularly the Middle Preclassic when only one vertebrate bone (unidentifiable) was recovered. During the Late Preclassic period the proportional majority of mammals were dogs (37.5% of vertebrates), although no dogs were identified from Early Classic period contexts. Birds, turtles, and fish were only represented by a single bone each, the latter two from Preclassic contexts. Apple snails were the most commonly identified taxa to species level in the Middle Preclassic period (62.7% of all taxa), although river clams took that position in the Late Preclassic period (31.7%). Seven species of marine shells were identified from the Preclassic period ass emblages, including conchs, olive shells, and spondylus, whereas only one (a spondylus shell fragment) was recovered from an Early Classic deposit. 6 and 7 7) were both occupied during the Late Preclassic and Late Classic periods whereas Dos Aguadas (Table 7 8) was occupied from the Late Preclassic through Terminal Classic periods, but because it was only excavated for part of one field s eason, most of its fauna (89.9%) comes from the last occupational phase. Vertebrate fauna wer e rarely recovered at all three sites, although many small rodent bones were recovered from multiple contexts at K'o and Dos Aguadas (26.9% and 73% of each of the assemblages, respectively). Birds, reptiles,

PAGE 379

379 and fish were uncommon or entirely absent at the sites, although a Terminal Classic cache of bird bones belonging to various species from the site of Dos Aguadas considerably increased their proportion within the faunal assemblage for that period (7.7% of Terminal Classic vertebrates ; these small bird b ones included what may have been the bones of a swallow and small quails, but because a comparative collection of bird skeletons was unavailable at the time of they were analyzed, they have been ). A decrease i n fr eshwater shellfish is obvious at all three sites, even in Dos Aguadas's small Preclassic assemblage. Hamontun had the most marine shells in the Preclassic period, including spondylus, Atlantic marginella, and fighting conc hs, whereas Dos Aguadas had no ne. Discussion of the Holmul Regional Analysis Many of the Holmul regional excavations focused on the larger structures and cleaning the numerous looters' trenches that notoriously plague structures of any size in this region; for this reason, fewer verteb rate bones (not counting rodents) were recovered from these sites in comparison to other sites covered in this study. This is also the reason why many of the faunal specimens could not be securely dated, since looters trenches frequently mixed Preclassic and Classic phases of structures. The numerous marine specimens recovered from disturbed burials account for the higher proportion of these taxa in the assemblages from all six sites. Nevertheless, the datable faunal remains provide important information r egarding the use of animal resources at these sites, and how these practices changed over time. Holmul and Cival both had higher proportions of dogs in the Preclassic compared to the Early and Late Classic periods, and higher proportions of deer in the Cla ssic periods, paralleling the same trend observed at the other Maya sites in this study. Similarly, the

PAGE 380

380 Preclassic periods of all sites had the most river clams, jute snails, and apple snails, which decrease in number over time at the sites or, in some cas es, entirely disappear. Again, this indicates a regional trend where by the use of these taxa changed, particularly with regard to the apple snails and clams, since the decrease occurs in all taxa, including those that have different habitat preferences (th e apple snails preferring aguadas or wetlands, and the clams found exclusively in rivers). Therefore the decrease was probably not caused by environmental degradation or overhunting, but more likely by a change in the acquisition and/or deposition of the s hells. Despite the fact that all the sites in this study are located near sources of wa ter, particularly Cival which is beside the Holmul River, aquatic taxa other than shellfish, including birds, turtles, and fish, are largely lacking. Poor preservation of bird and smaller vertebrate bones likely does not account for this absence since human and even infant bones were found at many sites, and small animal bones such as rats and, in the case of the Dos Aguada cache, bird bones, have been found in large qu antities. The likely explanation for the lack of these animals is that residential bon e middens have not been located. Such middens are where most of these bones were likely discarded as was the case at Ceibal. Another possibility is that the smaller bones were burned or otherwise discarded away from the site which is done today in communities to avoid potential injuries to barefoot c hildren 3 Overall Chronological Results Compared with Ceibal Several of the initial questions posited at the beginning of this chapter can now be addressed, regarding the use of faunal resources over time at the sites under 3 Kitty Emery, personal communication

PAGE 381

381 investig ation. Even though the habitats of each site were different, all three study areas ha d more domestic dogs and freshwater shellfish in the Middle and Late Preclassic periods. This shows that there were common uses of certain animals, either for subsistence or other pur poses including ritual performances which were shared amo ng many Maya co mmunities at that time, both ac ross regions and at both major and minor centers. Ceibal had the most Middle Preclassic fauna, in part because of its long Middle Preclassic occupational sequence, and so this early phase is more difficult to compare with the other centers. However, the Late Preclassic faunal assemblages at all sites that had a Late Preclassic component (mainly San Bartolo, Xultu n, Holmul, Cival, and Hamontun) were primarily compo sed of freshwater mollusks and the residents had access to simi lar imported marine mollu sk taxa from the coast. Regarding change over time, there is a clear shift in taxa observed at all sites between the Preclassic and Classic periods. Sites with an Early Classic component, such as Xultun and La Sufricaya, show paral lels with Ceibal in that as the reliance on freshwater shellfish decreases precipitously, deer become proportionally more common than dogs in the assemblages, and the types of marine shellfish at the sites change, suggesting that either exchange networks w it h the coast had altered or that social practices necessitated a different set of shell taxa. A decreased reliance on dogs and shellfish shows that the time and effort previously used to engage in the se activities was redirected to other activities, possi bly hunting game animals or obtaining animals from hunters whose job it was to perform these tasks for the communities. The Late Classic period trends in the three regions under investigation show that the transition between the Late Pre classic and Early C lassic fauna set in motion a

PAGE 382

382 series of practices that intensified in later times. During the Classic period, large bodied game animals, mainly deer and peccary, appear to have be en the dominant source of protein a t the sites while other taxa were rare by c omparison. At Xultun, there was an increased r eliance on turtles and multiple turtle taxa, similar to the trend observed at Ceibal in the Classic period, possibly the result of the construction of aguadas near the center of the site (Ruane 2012). The lack of shellfish remains at the sites is puzzling, since the sites are all located near rivers or swamplands. It is possible that all sites in the investigation began to grind and burn shellfish to make lime for construction material sometime in the Classic pe riod, as was originally suggested by Moholy Nagy (1978), who noticed a similar decrease in freshwater shell taxa over time a t Tikal. This could be investigated further, possibly with a technique to test for shellfish proteins or microscopic shell particula te residue (Spensely 2004) in stucco and lime material from this period compared to stucco and lime from earlier times. Or it is possible that the practices of differential discard of dangerous products such as sharp edged shells were established at this time. Although the overall trends among the sites are similar, there are still several distinct differences. Ceibal has considerably more species, including non mammalian species, than any of the other sites for all time periods. This can be explained by t he different excavation strategies used at each site and the lack of residential middens recovered from the other centers. However, as will be discussed later in this chapter, certain animal based rituals like the extensive apple snail middens and Atlanti c marginella burials found at Ceibal were not recovered to the same extent at the other sites, although occasionally apple snails were found in small clusters and one Atlantic

PAGE 383

383 marginella was found in a Ham ontun burial, showing that although these activitie s were not performed in the same manner, a form of the activity was still recognized. The lack of fish and small boned animals from all sites besides Ceibal is almost certainly the result of the lack of residential middens, where most of these remains were recovered at Ceibal, even without the use of floatation and fine screening. The Early Classic transition is also different among the sites. River turtles became a dominant taxon at Ceibal at that time, and continued to make up a substantial component of t he vertebrate assemblage throughout the Classic period. However, no Central American river turtles were identified at the other sites. This is significant, since the genetic similarities between river turtles from the Tabasco area and the Motagua River is based on a shared similarity of genes in turtles found along the Usumacinta River, where Ceibal is located (Gonzlez Porter et al. 2011, 2013). River turtles in Belize and Yucatan, by contrast, have different sets of genes. Since the San Bartolo Xultun and Holmul areas are located between this boundary of genetic similarity, the sites may not have been involved in the management of these turt les, even if they were, in fact, intentionally se lected for hunting and management along the Usumancinta during the E arly Classic period. In sum, the overall similarity through time of the faunal assemblages from all three regions shows that the social practices involved in acquiring, using, and disposing of animal remains were shared across the Petn, and that social ch anges correlate with changes in animal use practices at all sites at about the same time. Terminal Preclassic period material from Ceibal shows that the transition from the Preclassic uses of fauna to that of the Early Classic was gradual, which provides a more fine grained view of how

PAGE 384

384 long this transition took relative to the shift at other si tes. Future investigations that identify Terminal Preclassic contexts with associated faunal material at the other sites should be assessed for a similar gradual transition Diversity and Equitability for the Preclassic and Early Classic Periods Diversity and equitability of the Preclassic and Early Classic assemblages were c ompared among the sites to determine which sites had the greatest diversity of resources and whether this provided information regarding the political control of these sites over differ ent taxa, since it might be expected that the sites with the greatest socioeconomic control over resources were the most politically powerful during the Preclassic period. Table 7 9 and Figure 7 2 show the diversity and equitability results for the Preclas sic assemblages from Holmul, Cival, Hamontun, San Bartolo, Xultun, and Ceibal, as well as the Early Classic assemblages from the latter two sites. Middle and Late Preclassic assemblages were combined for this comparison since most of the faunal material re covered at the sites, wi th the exception of Ceibal, had not yet been assigned to either period because ceramic analysi s for chronologica l dating at these sites is ongoing. Combined with the results of the faunal identifications and what is known regarding the political history of the sites, the diversity and equitability data show conflicting results compared to what would be expected if the model of increased diversity with higher political power is correct Xultun, which grew to become one of the first la which would conform with the hypothesis that the most politically powerful centers had which has a greater number of species than any other site in this comparison and, as

PAGE 385

385 discussed in Chapter 5, had a much more extensive Middle Preclassic occupational history than the other cen ters in the study, had the lowest ring th e Preclassic period. T dominated by one or a few categories of E fauna were apple snails and river clams. At the height of its monumental construction activity in the late Middle Preclassic period, 57.9% the faunal assemblage at Ceiba l was made up of these clams and apple snails, and its diversity during that period was 4). The diversity at Ceibal when it endured a is on par with the d iversity exhibited at the other Late Preclassic sites. Diversity and equitability alone, then, are not sufficient indicators for the amount of political and economic success of a site. M uch of the diversity exhibited in the faunal assemblages from the Late Preclassic sites, as well as Early Classic Xultun, can be attributed to the variety of marine taxa. If all invertebrates are removed from the assemblages (Table 7 3 and Figure 7 10), the diversity and equitability results at the si tes change substantially The terrestrial vertebrate assemblages from Early Classic Xultun and Preclassic Ceibal have mallest vertebrate assemblages have the lowest diversity; in the case of Hamontun, for =0.69). Based on the

PAGE 386

386 differences of the excavation strategies at all of the site s, it appear s that diver sity and equitability are not reliable measures for drawing meaningful comparisons between the taxa at communities, at least in this study. Habitat Fidelity Comparisons among the Preclassic Centers Figure 7 4 shows the habitat fidelity results at Holmul, C ival, and San Bartolo for the Preclassic assemblages. Of the three sites, Cival is t he only center located along a river, although both Holmul and San Bartolo are surrounded by seasonal swamps or bajos that occasionally fill with water and can release floo dwaters that connect to the rivers (Estrada Belli and Koch 2007:269; Garrison and Dunning 2009). This may explain why the habitat fidelity values for all the sites not just Cival, show a high reliance on river species. Wetland taxa fidelity values partic ularl y influenced by the number of apple snails, are higher at Cival and San Bartolo, although not nearly as high as 16). Removing the river and wetland habitats and focusing exclusively on the terrestrial envi ronment (Figure 7 5), it appears that San Bartolo acquired more taxa from the mature forest habitats, whereas Cival relied least o n these resources. Holmul is intermediate be tween the two. As was noted using the diversity measures (Table 7 9), San Bartolo had a greater diversity of terrestrial fauna than any of the other sites during the Preclassic period. This included animals not commonly found at the other sites, such as raccoons, curassows, and quails. It is plausible that the environment around San Bar tolo was more forested than that around the Holmul sites; certainly, the Late Preclassic San Bartolo murals depict a wide variety of forest dwelling creatures, including jaguars, snakes, d eer, and several birds near trees (Figures 2 10 and 2 11). Alternati vely, s

PAGE 387

387 monumental core of the site, perhaps the individuals living in the core or who performed ceremonies in the core intentionally sought terrestrial forest animals for ritual activi ties. It seasons, did not produce as many vertebrate remains as the other sites. One possible clearing the plaza prior t o departure) and lack of any subsequent occupation during the Classic period contributed to this pattern. Unlike the other centers, Cival was abandoned at some point during the Early Classic period, and no later Classic period occupation was built over the earlier Preclassic phases. The Preclassic phases of Ceibal, as well as large parts of San Bartolo and most of Holmul, were covered by Classic period construction projects that may have helped preserve the earlier Preclassic phases. Many o excavat ions were focused at the core of the site, especially the plaza, which may have been cleared of debris prior to abandonment. There are probably middens around the central area of the site, but with one exception (a midden containing freshwater shells const ituting 26.7% of the Late Preclassic freshwater taxa in the site assemblage), they simply may not have been discovered yet. Thus, in the absence of vertebrate middens, habitat fidelity results may not be entirely comparable among the different communities, particularly in the case of Cival. Marine Resource Exchange The following section uses the marine invertebrate analysis from Cerros (Cerro Maya) Belize, to compare with the Preclassic and Early Classic sites in the Petn. As was discussed in Chapt er 2, C erros was a unique site in that it was situated on the mouth of the New River as it opens into Corozal Bay (Robertson and Freidel 1986). The

PAGE 388

388 discovery of a dock at the site suggests that the community served as a transport station for trade goods which po tentially included marine resources that traveled upriver in the general direction of the sites in the northeast Petn. This chapter compares the Late Preclassic invertebrate remains from Cerros with the remains recovered from the Preclassic assemblages in the Ceibal, San Bartolo Xultun, and Holmul regions. The subset of the invertebrate assemblage identified by Hamilton (1987) is not included in this comp arison since contextual data were not included in that preliminary analysis, and identifications of the entire faunal assemblage, including the vertebrate material not previously identified by Carr (1986), is still ongoing. This section also compares the results of previous reports from other Preclassic sites throughout the Maya and Olmec region s to determi ne from which direction marine shells were exchanged overland. If exchange networks can be identified, these were likely also routes of communication between different communities, providing evidence of social networks in Preclassic times. Results of the C erros Shell Analysis The analysis of invertebrate material excavated at Cerros (Table 7 11) shows that the inhabitants of the site made use of a wide va riety of mollusk resources. These data support the results of previous analys is of a subset of the shell s from the site performed by Hamilton (1987), of the vertebrate assemblage that showed that the inhabitants of Cerros consumed about three dozen species of marine fish, the dominant proportion of the diet. The invertebrate as semblage analyzed for this comparative study of the inland sites included 4058 marine shells, using a conservative strategy for estimating the number of shells in the assemblage (described in Chapter 4). Marine gastropods were by far the most common class of

PAGE 389

389 invertebrates among the assemblage (41.3% of Preclassic invertebrates, at least 17 species and 1 species of scaphopod, Dentalium sp.), followed by marine bivalves (10.0% of Preclassic invertebrates, 19 species), terrestrial gastropods (6.9%), and freshw ater invertebrates (5.3%, the majority of which were apple snails). Other invertebrate classes included echinoderm s (0.5%) and coral (0.5%). Although crustaceans were recovered from Cerros, they were not included in this analysis because they had been prev iou sly identified and reported Certain taxa were particularly common in the assemblage, perhaps because they were the most accessible to the inhabitants living at the site, because of cultural preference, or a combination of the two. Foremost among these was the Caribbean crown conch ( Melongena melongena 34.8% of Preclassic invertebrates), which dwells locally in the muddy shallows near the shores of Corozal B ay (McKillop and Winemiller 2004:63). This medium large gastropod s pecies prefers shallow water and even tidal pools (Bruggeman Nannenga and Hummelinck 1986), so it would have been readily accessible t o the local Cerros inhabitants. Other common marine invertebrates found at Cerros included the Atlantic calico scallop ( Ar gopecten gibbus, 2.5%), the thick lucine ( Phacoides pectinatus 1.8%), and the queen and fighting conchs (1.5% and 1.2%, respectively). All of these species can be found relatively close to shore, the first two especially so (Frenkiel et al. 1996; Waller 1 969), and all are edible. Yet the second most common taxon found at the site was in fact not a marine shell, but the apple snail (5.0%). Since the inhabitants of Cerros constructed a canal around the center of the site where most of the excavations were pe rformed, it i s likely that many of these apple snails came from this canal, as well as

PAGE 390

390 from the river though fa rther away. Excavations in and around the canal showed that it needed continual maintenance (i.e. dredging) and that a series of smaller drain age canals connected to it from the su rrounding area likely directed rainwater into the main canal (Scarborough 1983). During the dry season, the canal was dammed and used as a reservoir. The lack of river clams and jute snails (0.25% and 0.02%), both of w hich pref er faster moving water than apple snails, also supports the hypothesis that the canal and possibly nearby aguadas (some of which are located within the site premises, see Figure 2 12) were the primarily locations from which freshwater taxa were obtained. Although a Late Classic period assemblage is l acking at Cerros the fact that the Late Preclassic period inhabitants relied on apple snails like the inhabitants of the Petn sites even though they had access to abundant marine mollusks, indicate s that apple snails were likely recognized across the Maya region as an important food source. Comparison of Cerros with the Petn Study Sites Table 7 12 compares the combined Middle and Late Preclassic period marine invertebrates for all study sites with the marine taxa found a t Cerros. The most commonly shared type of shell at the investigation sites was the fighting conch, recovered from at least seven of the centers a conch type shel l that could not be distinguished beyond the level of family (Strombidae) could very well have belonged to this species. Olive snails and spondylus she lls were also very common, and were found at six sites and in all three Petn regions. The tiny Atlantic marginella were found at five sites each and all three Petn regions. Two large gastropod species, the queen conch and the West Indian chank shell, were found at four sites in all three Petn r egions.

PAGE 391

391 Beyond these basic comparisons of similarity, there ar e some unique patterns and notable absences. T he most common species at Cerros, including the crown conch, thick lucine, and calico scallops, were nowhere to be found at the inland Petn sites in this analysis. Many other taxa found at Cerros are also missi ng at the inland centers. As will be discussed in the section on crafting, the conchs at Cerros were occasionally modified to make ornaments, which was the case for the majority of the conchs found at the inland sites; thus, these shells may have been tran sported inland for the purpose of ornamentation. The other shells most frequently found at Cerros very rarely exhibited such modifications, suggesting that there may have been a distinction which were the onl y ones transported inland. Whereas the shells may not have been transported, it is possible the meat was removed from the shells, dried and/or salted, and was then transported inland, leaving behind no evidence at the inland centers. As was discussed in Chapter 3, salting and d rying of meat for transport has been identified in Mesoamerica (Landa 1941:190; Masson and Lope 2008; Rodrguez Galicia and Valadez Aza 2013:64, 76) and at other ancient communities around the world, including fish in central Panama (Carvajal Contreras et al. 2008; Cooke and Ranere 1999) and the Indus Valley region (Belcher 2005, 2011), as well as llama charki in the Andes (Miller and Burger 1995). In contrast to the absence of the most common marine invertebrates f rom Cerros at the inland sites, there are also several taxa found at Ceibal that were missing from the Cerros assemblage This latter point is puzzling since in every case the taxa in questi on came from the Atlantic coast and would be expected to be found at a site

PAGE 392

392 located on that coast. Two possible explanations could be that the inhabitants of Cerros never procured these taxa, or more likely, they did not have access to them since these compatible with their ecological preferences or if they had been outcompeted by other mollusk species. These shell species included the ponderous ark clam ( Noetia ponderosa ), bean clams ( Donax cf. denticulatus ), limpets ( Diodora cayenensis or aspera ), cone snails ( Conus cf. delessertii ), various marginella taxa ( Prunum amabile/labiatum and guttatum both of which are twice the size of the tiny Prunum apicinum ), and rock snails (Muricidae). Five of these sh ells were from late Middle Preclassic period context s, three were from the Late Preclassic period, and one was from the Terminal Preclassic period. The larger that Ceibal had access to these taxa for an extended period of time. Bean clams prefer sandy and intertidal beaches (Wade 1967), which may have made them less accessible to the inhabitants of Cerros since the Corozal Bay coast is fairly muddy and forested with mangrove vegetation. However, the other taxa can be found in muddy and mangrove lined areas (see, for example, Abbott 1954; McClanahan 2002; also the Encyclopedia of Life, http://eol.org/ ). Nevertheless, the presence of so many marine shells at Ceibal but not at Cerros or the oth er sites suggests Ceibal had access to at least some marine shells through a different route. When the marine shells recovered from the Early Classic deposits at each sit e are compared (Table 7 13), it can be seen that the types of shell taxa declined to a few key species namely spondylus and olive shells, at most sites Conchs, one of the most common Preclassic taxa, were conspicuously absent, except at Xultun. The latter site

PAGE 393

393 was unique among the E arly Classic communities at that time, in that it ha d at least ten different species of marine bivalves, 12 species of marine gastropods, and one species of scaphopod (Figure 7 6). These taxa included some species not found at any other site in this study at any other time period, including the worm shell ( Vermicularia fargoi ), the banded tulip ( Cinctura lilium ), and the West Indian cup and saucer shell ( Crucibulum cf. auricular ). Most of these shells were unmodified, with a few exceptions (for instance, the banded tulip had been carved into the shape of a s mall mammal like animal; Figure 7 6g). The shells came from a number of different contexts across the site, in different plaza areas, suggesting that many individuals throughout Xultun had access to these items. Several of these s hells were found around bu rials in Str. 11J7, believed to be part of a marine themed offering (Rivera Castillo et al. 201 2 ). 4 It seems that during the Early Classic, many sites, including those that were dwindling in power ( Ceibal) as well as small, newly established monumental cen ters (La Suficaya) were either concentrating their demands on a few key marine taxa, or else these shells were the only taxa being imported across most inland routes. The case of Xultun was unusual, and underlies the fact that not all early state capitals developed in the same manner. Ceibal and the Holmul/La Sufricaya area became Late and Terminal Classic period capitals, but they did not have the trade connections and economic sway that Xultun exhibited during the Early Classic period. Overall, the Holmu l region as a whole shared more taxa with Ceibal than San Bartolo, since the latter did not have tusk shells (found at both Holmul and Cival), and Caobal and Holmul both had helmet snails. The Holmul sites are further south than San 4 Also Franco Rossi, personal communication

PAGE 394

394 Bartolo and Xultun, and may have been on a trade route that went through central Belize along the Belize River, which may have also supplied Ceibal across an overland route part of the way. Only one tusk shell was recovered from Cerros, whereas several were recovered from Ceib al and the Holmul area, which is also noteworthy and might even indicate that the single shell found at Cerros had been imported to the site from elsewhere, perhaps the same source that was supplying Holmul, Cival, and Ceibal. Yet in general, most of the t axa at the inland sites overlapped, including those that were found in the greatest numbers (i.e. fighting conch, olive shells, spondylus, and Atlantic marginella). This implies that there was a specific demand for these shells in th e Preclassic period, wh ich chang ed during the Early Classic period as the centers of power shifted between sites and new exchange relationships which would continue into the Late Classic period were established Comparison of Marine Taxa with Other Regions T o gain a better und erstanding of where marine taxa may have been exchanged along inland trade networks, I compared the reported identifications from several Preclassic period sites around the southern Mesoamerican region (Figure 7 7). The (Harrigan 2004) Cuello (Wing and Scudder 1991) Cahal Pech (Powis et al. 1999) Chan (Keller 2012) and Pacbitun (Boileau 2013; Hohmann 2002; Stanchly 1999) Sites from the Gulf area include Patarata (Stark 1974, identifications by Wing) and San Andrs, near La Venta (Rust 2008) which are used as a means of comparing the Preclassic Olmec with the Maya, since they had close associations with Ceibal in the Middle Preclassic period (see Chapter 2). This analysis also includes data from the inland site of Chiapa de Corzo (Lee 1969) located in southern Mexico, which has a site plan similar to that of Ceibal (Inomata et al. 2015b ).

PAGE 395

395 Table 7 14 shows the results of the compara tive analysis. Although there are currently limited data from the Gulf region, marine shells recovered from both Patarata and San Andrs show no similarities to the shells recovered from the Petn sites. This taxonomic dissimilarity s uggests the Maya sites, including Ceibal, had not obtained shells from a Gulf route, although this is difficult to confirm with any certainty from the present limited Olmec dataset. There are more similarities between Ceibal and the Belizean sites. Both Cu throughout the Petn as well, but these two sites lack the diversity of the central Belizean sites. This is noteworthy, since the two are located near the New River in northern Belize. Shells recov ered from the central Belizean sites along the Belize River olive shells, tusk shells, and bean clams ( Donax sp.). With the exception of the latter, these are also the most common taxa found in the San Bartolo X ultun and Holmul regions. In the west, 11 of the 15 taxa reported from Chiapa de Corzo came from the Pacific Ocean, suggesting that Chiapa had an exchange route with that coast. However, queen conch and Atlantic marginella were reported at the site, indicating that a demand for these Atlantic species may have existed at Chiapa, perhaps part of a shared cultural trend with the Petn and Belizean sites. Since conchs, olives, and marginella shells were modified (cut and punctured) at all of the sites, this suggests they were imported for ornamentation, which was probably their primary purpose at these inland centers, and which will be discussed later in the section on crafting. Overall, this comparative study shows th at the Belize River and sites along it may have been major source s of marine shells found in the Petn area. Cerros and the New

PAGE 396

396 River may have been an exchange network among the northern Belizean sites, but less so to the Petn. This pattern may indicate t hat the central Belize Petn route was a major Preclassic throughway for communication and the spread of ideas along with the exchange of marine items, and supports the notion that the Preclas sic period sites developed their political, economic, and ritua l practices in tandem throughout the Preclassic. Sites along the Hondo River, which forms the natural border between Mexico and Belize and whose source lies in the northeast Petn just north of Cerros, may be well worth investigating in the future to exami ne if this was the source of some of the Petn shells. Crafting Activities across the Preclassic Petn Signs of cutting and artifact manufacture, indicative of crafting activities at the different sites (Table 7 15; Figure 7 8) varied among communities fr om 4.3% of all artifacts at San Bartolo to 28.9% of artifacts at Xultun. Part of this variation can be d Preclassic burials that contained abundant evidence of worked bone and shell items. It is worth noting, however, that most (>75%) of the modified specimens were the remains of complete or partial artifacts, mainly ornamental items, and that signs of craf t manufacture and the debitage of worked items was lacking. Most of the Preclassic period at Ceibal (Table s 5 11 and 5 12 ) included equal, and sometimes greater, evidence of craft working compared to finished artifacts at both the core and the periphery. O ne exception to this, however, was the greater proportion of finished artifacts, mainly marine shell beads and ornaments (Tables 5 11, 5 15, and 5 18 ), found in the Late Preclassic period site core. Since the major excavations at the San Bartolo Xultun and Holmul region sites were

PAGE 397

397 focused on the Late Preclassic site cores, this trend would, in fact, be compatible with that found at Ceibal, showing that the early elite at these monumental ceremonial centers had a ccess to finished products, whereas the crafti ng of such artifacts occurred either in peripheral patio groups or at other sites (especially if marine shells were crafted into ornaments on or near the coast before they were imported inland). Regarding the specific taxa that were the focus of craftwork and the types of arti facts made (Tables 7 16 through 7 23 ), the majority tended to be invertebrates much like at Ceibal, particularly marine gastropods like conchs, olive shells, spondylus, and Atlantic marginella. Nearly every one of these shells that was found at the sites exhibited signs of cutting, piercing, or carving, and it is possible the majority were used as beads since tiny pierced holes were common on many At San Bartolo and the Holmul sites, fighting conchs were frequently found with the spir es removed and one or several holes pierced beneath the spine region, either in the external body or broken fragments of the interior whorl (Figure 7 9 and 7 10). These have also been reported at El Mirador and Nakbe in the far north Petn (Hansen 2001, 20 05). Hansen (2005) speculated they may have been used as currency during the Middle Preclassic period, but if such was the case, Ceibal was not a participant in this tradition. Shells that could not be identified beyond the level of class (bivalve or gastr opod) were often flat pierced disks or adornos (particularly prevalent at Cival; Figure 7 11) or carved circular beads (although other shapes, including four pointed cruciform or quincunx designs and five pointed stars were recovered as well; Figure 7 12). Occasionally the local river clams were used for crafting ornaments, especially at San Bartolo, Xultun, and Holmul, including small clams (5 6 cm long) that might not always have been chosen principally

PAGE 398

398 for consumption but rather, were tra nsported to the sites located fa rther away from the rivers for the purposes of making ornaments (Figure 7 13). I compared the inland Petn worked shells to those at Late Preclassic Cerros (Table s 7 16 through 7 22 ) and found that many of the most common shells crafted in to a rtifacts at the inland sites were also used exclusively for making artifacts at this coastal community. That is, every specimen of spondylus, olive snail, dwarf olive snail, and tusk snail found at Cerros was modified, often exhibiting similar modifica tions in comparison to the inland crafted objects, such as spir flat circular adornos and conchs cut near the spire region (Figure 7 14). Half (8 of 16) of the Atlantic marginella were pierced in the exact same manner as at the inland sites. Curiously, of the 1410 Caribbean crown conch shells, only one was modified. This one case was also notewo rthy in that, although most crown conchs have spines, this particular conch did not (the exact reason why some crown conchs lack spines is unknown and may be a response to localized environmental conditions 5 ) The shell was pierced in the side in a similar manner to the fightin g and queen conchs found at the other Petn sites. The pattern of modification exhibited on marine shells at Cerros therefore supports the conclusions dr awn from the examination of the shells imported to the centr al Petn area, in that only certain species were chosen for crafting, even on the coast, and it was mainly these taxa that were imported inland. Based on the rarity of some of these taxa at Cerros (for example, the single tusk shell and the t hree dwarf olives), it appear s that some of these modifie d shells were not found at Cerros but had been imported from another coastal settlement. Interestingly, larger, bulkier shells that 5 Irv Quitmyer and John Slapcinsky, personal communication

PAGE 399

399 were modified for tools at Cerros, such as conch shells that appear to have been carved into axe heads (Figure 7 15 ; identi fied as axes by Garber 1989:70 ) and a large worn core of a gastropod that may have been a tool for prying or chopping, were not imported inland bas ed on the results of this study, nor are they reported for other inland sites. Although there was no substan tial evidence of marine shell crafting at Ceibal ents of marine shells might simply represent broken fragme nts of artifacts and not debitage, there was more evidence from the Holmul sites of marine shell crafting. 12.8% of the marine shells from Cival that exhibited any sign of modification appear to have been discarded as debitage, often as pieces of cut nondesc ript gastropod fragments. One cut olive shell spire was found at Holmul (Figure 7 16). No oliv e shell spires were found at Ceibal even though every olive shell at the site had had its spire removed (as was discussed in Chapter 5) In the case of Holmul, the spire appears to have been made into an ornament; however, the fact that a lopped spire was found indicates that at least some olive shells arrived at certain inland sites with their spires intact. The Early Classic deposits at La Sufricaya, located only a kilometer from the Holmul site core, almost always had their spires intact, although Early Classic period olive shells found at Ceibal did not. This pattern su ggests that Ceibal may have received it s olive shells from a source different from the source for Holmul during the Preclassic and Early Classic periods, or that the spires were removed a t some point between the eastern Petn and Ceibal but not necessarily at the coast before being imported inland. As at Ceibal, many of the modified vertebrates that could be identified were dogs. Also like Ceibal, the roots of dog teeth at San Bartolo an d Holmul had been drilled for

PAGE 400

400 wearing as decorations. Holmul and San Bartolo made use of deer as well, although in both cases finished artifacts were carved and polished partial beads or, in the case of San Bartolo, often cut fragments that may have been d ebitage. Since these were also the most common vertebrates recovered from the sites, it stands to reason their remains would be recycled for bone crafting material. Interestingly, unlike Ceibal, there were no identifiable bird, reptile, or fish remains amo ng the artifacts. Unfortunately it was more difficult to identified the tiny bone pins found at the sites, and the lack of crafting debitage did not provide clues as to their identify, although in most cases they were likely larger mammals such as deer or possibly even humans, since the modification of human bones for ornaments, pins, and even musical instruments has been noted at other sites (Hammond et al. 2002; Tiesler and Cucina 2007:29; Trejo Mojica 2008; also personal observation from the Cerros a nd Xultun collections). Overall it would appear that the majority of Preclassic crafted artifacts at the San Bartolo Xultun and Holmul sites are decorative ornaments, mostly made from shell, which probably belonged to the early elit e class at that time b ased on the fact that they were recovered from the ceremonial cores of every site. Evidence of debitage is lacking, although as can be seen from Ceibal, this material can occasionally be found in the peripheral groups. In no case was an intensive craft wor kshop found, and since the Ceibal debitage was scarce even in the periphery mounds, this material might have been swept away and possibly deposited as refuse some distance from the patio areas. The pattern of recovery is largely the result of how excavatio ns at the study sites were conducted, in that the majority focused on the site cores and large monumental structures, and so an abundance of finished ornamental objects as opposed to debitage

PAGE 401

401 is to be expected. However, the fact that there is so little deb itage in the cores is evidence that crafting during the Preclassic period was an activity that may have taken place in the residences or periphery of the sites. Since marine shell artifacts exhibited remarkable similarity across the lowlands, it seems like ly these shell ornaments were crafted near the coast before being transported inland. Ritual Use of Animal Species Understanding the ritual use of animals during the Preclassic period is integral for interpreting how the ancient Maya viewed and used animal resources in particular ways, and comparing ritual uses of animals across the lowlands provides clues as to how commonplace certain animal related activities were recognized. Unlike Ceibal, there were no unique caches containing entire skeletons such as t he Middle Preclassic dog and bird deposits found at the other Petn sites; nevertheless, the burial, shell cache, and dense midden deposits of animals show several similarities (Table 7 24 ). Marine and freshwater shellfish were the most common taxa found i n burials at all sites. Freshwater shellfish may have come into accidental association with these deposits if they had been included in the construction fill that was placed on top of the special contexts, although as was noted at Ceibal (Chapter 5), the s pecific placement of cer tain river clams around the bodies of some humans and the use of hundreds of apple snails to cover burials seems to have held some degree of symbolic significance, and so the intentional association of these shells with the special deposits cannot be ruled out. Burial 33, for example, had more than three dozen apple snails in the depo sit, which seems to parallel the activities occurring at the same time at Ceibal.

PAGE 402

402 The inclusion of marine shell beads in the burials, mainly from Atlantic marginella, is also significant. One Late Preclassic burial at Hamontun (unnumbered, north of Str. 34 ) included an Atlantic marginella, much like the burials at Ceibal and Caobal. Alt hough not included in Table 7 24 marginella, accounting for 12.5% of the Atlantic marginella found at the site. The marginella shell s reported from Chiapa de Corzo and Chan were also found in burial dep osits This pattern suggests marginella shells may have been a common decorative item included with burials during the Late Preclassic period, a practice that took place throughout the l owlands but that was discontinued by the Early Classic period. Middle Preclassic evidence from Ceibal shows that the practice of including marginellas in burials began slowly first among the earliest elite interred at the center of the site, with the app earance of only one marginella in the largest Early Middle Preclassic burial (Burial #1 36, in the Central Plaza). O ver time this pattern continued until it reached a peak in the Late Preclassic period with over half a dozen such burials in the plaza with dozens of marginella s Whereas all the aforementioned marginella burials from every site were interred near an elite or ceremonial core structure, t hey were not consistently placed in the center of the plazas, s uch as was the case at Hamontun. We can only speculate on the significance of these shells outside of their use as personal adornment, but perhaps their association with the dead came from the widespread Mesoamerican belief in a watery realm of the afterlife, called Xibalba by the Colonial period (Brady and Ashmore 1999; Vogt and Stuart 2005) S hells of various species are frequently found in tombs and burials of the later Classic period particularly of the elite class, and often alongside coral and stingray spines as

PAGE 403

403 part of a sy mbolic association with Xibalba (Chase and Chase 1998a; Moholy Nagy 1985, 1997; Pohl 1983; also Xultun in the present study). The practice of interring marginella shells with burials in the Late Preclassic period may be an early representation of this beli ef. The caching of spondylus shells (Figure 7 17) in special deposits near the site centers is also significant. This practice occurred at both Cival and San B artolo. At Cival, two Late Preclassic offerings involving the burial of ceramic vessels arranged in a cruciform pattern near the cen ter of the site included nearly complete spondylus shells. In one deposit (operation CIV.T.08.24.10) the two valves were found facing one another under a Sierra Red bowl, along with other dedicatory offerings such as jade hematite, and cinnabar. Another bowl in the same deposit had a single spondylus valve with similar associated dedicatory items alongside it. The other cached deposit (operation CIV.T.64.06.10) found elsewhere at the site, included a single valve located near another Sierra Red vessel. The spines on all the valves had been scraped smooth and punctures were made near the umbones, suggesting the shells had been worn as pectorals before deposition. T he shells also included vaguely discerni ble incisions, some times in a cross shaped pattern. The spondylus shell found at San Bartolo at the activity. Other marine shells, including a small king venus valve ( Chione paphia ) and ark valve (Arcidae), we re also found among the debris. The caching of spondylus at the centers of sites is clearly an old practice, as is attested by the Early Middle Preclassic period valve that was found at Ceibal; in most cases, it seems these shells were worn before they were deposited, since in every case

PAGE 404

404 they have pierce or drill marks in more than one location on the valve, often near the umbo and hinge (Figure 7 17). It is worth considering whether the significance of the shells may have something to d o with the wearers. An elaborate tomb found at Xultun (Burial 10) dating to the Early Classic period included a large spondylus pectoral with the same puncture marks as those observed from the Preclassic deposits, and one found in an un dated burial at Ho lmul had another large, punctured valve. The early Ceibal valv e shows that these pectorals were once decorated with meaningful imagery; perhaps the later valves had been painted or otherwise decorated in some way, but such decorations are no longer visible Nevertheless, the symbolic significance of using spondylus in caches and burials seems to have had something to do with its role as a pectoral, in addition to being a colorful marine species that had symbolic ties to the watery Maya underworld. The lack of certain taxa that become symbolically important in later times at these sites is also worth noting. Wild cats, deer (particularly in the form of antlers), and stingray spines are found in later Classic period special deposits at these sites, as well as at Ceibal, but they are not or are very rarely found in the Preclassic period. This does not necessarily mean that these animals were not considered important; rather, it shows that the involvement of these animals in ritual practices was different during the Preclassic period, and that other animals, such as the freshwater and marine shells, were considered appropriate offerings. Xultun had several stingray spines, often recovered in burials, from the Early and Late Classic period, as well as one burial (Burial 10) that included the spinal vertebrae o f at least one stingray. A Late Classic pectoral spine of a catfish resembling that of a spiked stingray spine was also found in

PAGE 405

405 the plaza fill, which would have been brought to the site from the Ixcanro River several kilometers away, and was also likely used for bloodletting. Other Early Classic sites, foremost among them Tikal, also had abundant stingray spines in burials (Haines et al. 2008; Moholy Nagy 1998). The Late Preclassic San Bartolo murals show that genital bloodletting using sharp implements w as an important part of certain rituals (Figure 2 11; Saturno et al. 2005), which might explain in part the later Early and Late Classic period demand for ray and fish spines at Xultun. Similarly, wild cat bones, including the third phalanges of what may b e a young jagua r, based on morphology, were found in elite Early Classic burials at Xultun (Str. 11J7, Fi gure 7 18) but not in any Preclassic burials at any site. A live jaguar and several spotted wild cat pelts are depicted on the San Bartolo murals (Figu re 2 10; Saturno et al. 2005), including a pelt hanging behind the early ruler on his throne, and young jaguars are shown in the arms of rulers depicted on several Late Classic stelae at Xultun (Figure 7 18), indicating that the association between wild ca ts and rulership had a long history in this region. The fact that elites began to be buried with wild cats in the Early Classic period indicates that this symbolic association between the elite personage and the feline may have been even more significant i n the Classic period for defining social rank, enough so that the theme was carried into the afterlife in the form of burial offerings. Furthermore, the trio of animal sacrifices on the Late Preclassic San Bartolo mural (Figure 2 11), which include a deer, a bird, and a fish, are species not found among any Preclassic special deposits at the site. If these activities ever took place at the site, the remains may have been destroyed by burning or were deposited in a

PAGE 406

406 special location that the archaeologists ha ve yet to discover. The fill material of the Las Pinturas structures where the mural was recovered contained almost two doz en dog teeth from different individuals (based on repeated elements and the fact they were found in different construction phases), but these appear to have been part of the construction fill since they were scattered in different locations and not deposited together The fauna from Ceibal, however, shows that some caches can, in fact, include these unique offerings, such as in the ca se of the raptor bird in the Central Plaza or the fish deposits in the Karinel Group; perhaps similar Preclassic animal caches at San Bartolo have yet to be found. Comparing the ritual uses of animals, especially in caches and burials, shows that inhabitan ts o f the Preclassic lowland center s engaged in many of the same activities and by association must have recognized the symbolic importance associated with these taxa. Spondylus valve caches and Atlantinc marginella beads in burials show that there was a demand for these exotic items in the inland communities in order to carry out certain performances, even as far back as the Middle Preclassic period. During the Early and Late Classic period, these earlier Preclassic activities changed as uses and require ments for new and different taxa, such as wild cats and stingray spines, were established. The similiarity of ritual uses of certain taxa reveal that the lowland inhabitants shared a similar ideaology throughout the Preclassic and Classic periods, one that may have been shaped, but also influenced in return, the economic trade routes and developing socia l tiers over the centuries. Summary of Faunal Analysis across the Petn Lowlands Although excavation strategies differed across the sites under investigatio n, there are still noticeable similarities among the various centers, both in terms of types of

PAGE 407

407 faunal resources that were used and changes that occurred through time. The first major research question posited at the start of this chapter can therefore be answered as an affirmative, that is, the Pr eclassic Maya lowland sites used certain animal resources in preference to others, such as dogs and freshwater shellfish, indicating a certain degree of conformity existed throughout the region as early states wer e developing. There appears to be an increased demand by the Late Preclassic period at all sites for certain marine resources cut or carved in a particular fashion, namely olive, conch, and Atlantic marginella shells, the latter frequently used in burials Olive and marginella shells are pierced and cut in an identical fashion at all three regions, whereas the practice of piercing fighting co nch fragments seems to have occurred only in the two northeast Petn areas and not at Ceibal. The fact that these th ree most common shells are found in both major and minor centers, usually in elite contexts in patio groups or monuments near the centers of the sites, indicates that the early elite of the Preclassic period had a similar degree of control over these resou rces as was the case in the Classic period. Since these shells were not the most common species at Cerros, there must have been some symbolic significance religious or simply a shared that drove t he demand for these shells at the inland centers. During the Early Classic period, the use of certain animal resources changed significantly at all centers, underscoring the social upheaval that has been suggested by other archaeological investigations (Es trada Belli 2011:119 122; Hansen 2001, 2009; Reese Taylor and Walker 2002; Webster et al. 2007). At Ceibal, Xultu n, and La Sufricaya, there was increased use of deer and peccary as opposed to dogs and

PAGE 408

408 decrease d use of freshwater shells heralding the star t of a trend that would continue into the Late and Terminal Classic. As was mentioned in Chapter 3, Late and Terminal Class ic period centers appeared to subsist principally on large bodied hunted game animals (Emery 2010; Montero Lopez 2009; Sharpe and Eme ry 2015; Teeter 2004; Thornton 2011a). Dogs and shellfish never entirely disappeared from the diet, but it can be surmised that the activities involved in rearing dogs and collecting shells for food changed at some point around the Terminal Preclassic peri od. It is possible that part of this change was a consequence of populations moving in and out of the Petn region during the Terminal Preclassic. Theories regarding economic collapse (Reese Taylor and Walker 2002), warfare (Estrada Belli 2011:131 133; Ham mond et al. 1991:41 42; Hansen 2001), and environmental stresses such as drought (Beach et al. 2009; Dunning and Beach 2000; Webster et al. 2007) have been posited, although it is clear that at some sites like Ceibal and Cival, populations lingered into th e Early Classic. Whatever the reason, if there was a pan lowland social disruption during the Terminal Preclassic period, we can conclude that the M iddle and Late Preclassic proto states did not continue to grow and develop directly into the Classic period states, but instead exper ienced a tumultuous period when different cultural practices merged and transformed into what we today recognize as Classic period state society. This would explain the change in procurement strategies and reliance on certain anima l taxa, the cessation of certain ritual practices (large scale apple snail caches and burials involving marginella beads) and the formation of new ones (stingray spines, perhaps for bloodletting), and the demand for new and different marine fauna at the in land sites. Overall, the faunal evidence from this chapter shows that the animal

PAGE 409

409 resources at the different Maya centers provide intriguing information regarding the complex social changes that occurred across the lowlands, from the development of initial protostates that had shared consumptive, ritual, and economic uses of animals that fostered early social divisions, to the transformation of these practices into new and different forms in the Early Classic period and that continued into later Classic peri od society.

PAGE 410

410 Table 7 1. Total NISP of fauna identified at San Bartolo over time. "Total Unidentified Vertebrates" refers to those bones that could not be identified to the level of class. Percentages of totals based on either the number of identified vertebrates for vertebrates or the number of identified invertebrates for invertebrates. MP = Middle Preclassic, LP = Late Preclassic, EC = Early Classic, LC = Late Classic. Scientific Name Common Name MP % LP % Mixed MP/LP % LC % Unknown % Total % cf. Philander opossum gray four eyed opossum 1 0.47 1 0.15 Didelphidae opossums 6 2.62 6 0.91 Soricidae shrews 1 0.47 1 0.15 cf Ateles geoffroyi Geoffroy's spider monkey 3 2.61 3 0.45 Sylvilagus sp. rabbits 1 0.47 6 2.62 6 6.98 1 0.87 14 2.11 Dasyprocta punctata Central American agouti 1 0.47 1 0.44 2 2.33 4 0.60 Cuniculus paca lowland paca 1 0.44 1 0.15 Rodentia rodents 1 0.47 1 0.44 2 0.30 Canis lupus familiaris domestic dog 1 5.88 38 17.67 24 10.48 63 9.52 Urocyon cinereoargenteus gray fox 11 4.80 16 18.60 27 4.08 Procyon lotor raccoon 3 1.31 3 0.45 Leopardus sp. ocelots and margays 1 0.87 1 0.15 Felidae jaguar, puma, ocelot, or margray 14 6.11 14 2.11 Carnivora carnivores 2 0.93 2 0.30 Carnivora, small small carnivores 2 0.93 2 0.30 Tayassuidae peccaries 3 1.40 4 1.75 14 16.28 1 0.87 22 3.32 Mazama sp. Brocket deer 1 0.47 1 0.15

PAGE 411

411 Table 7 1. Continued Scientific Name Common Name MP % LP % Mixed MP/LP % LC % Unknown % Total % Odocoileus virginianus white tailed deer 1 5.88 7 3.26 17 7.42 29 33.72 6 5.22 60 9.06 Cervidae deer 1 5.88 1 0.47 2 0.30 Mammalia unidentified mammals 2 11.76 51 23.72 22 9.61 4 4.65 2 1.74 81 12.24 Mammalia, medium large size unidentified mammals, size of deer or jaguar 10 58.82 24 11.16 40 17.47 8 9.30 78 67.83 160 24.17 Mammalia, medium small size unidentified mammals, size of dog or opossum 23 10.70 52 22.71 5 5.81 7 6.09 87 13.14 Mammalia, small size unidentified mammals, size of bat or rat 5 2.33 5 2.18 9 7.83 19 2.87 Total Mammals 15 88.24 162 75.35 207 90.39 84 97.67 108 93.91 576 87.01 cf. Colinus virginianus Northern bobwhite 1 0.47 1 0.15 Crax rubra great curassow 16 7.44 16 2.42 Meleagris sp. turkeys 1 0.47 2 1.74 3 0.45 Galliformes turkeys, quails, guans 5 2.33 5 0.76 Aves unidentified birds 1 0.47 1 0.15 Aves, medium large size unidentified birds, size of a turkey 12 5.58 1 0.44 1 1.16 14 2.11 Aves, medium small size unidentified birds, size of a duck or hawk 8 3.72 0.00 8 1.21

PAGE 412

412 Table 7 1. Contined Scientific Name Common Name MP % LP % Mixed MP/LP % LC % Unknown % Total % Aves, small size unidentified birds, size of a quail or dove 2 11.76 2 0.93 6 2.62 5 4.35 15 2.27 Total Birds 2 11.76 46 21.40 7 3.06 1 1.16 7 6.09 63 9.52 Kinosternidae mud or musk turtle 1 0.47 1 0.44 2 0.30 Testudines unidentified turtles 2 0.93 11 4.80 1 1.16 14 2.11 Testudines, small size unidentified turtle, size of small mud turtle 1 0.44 1 0.15 Total Reptiles 3 1.40 13 5.68 1 1.16 17 2.57 Anura frogs and toads 1 0.47 2 0.87 3 0.45 Total Amphibians 1 0.47 2 0.87 3 0.45 Siluriformes catfish 1 0.47 1 0.15 Actinopterygii unidentified bony fish 2 0.93 2 0.30 Total Bony Fish 3 1.40 3 0.45 Total Identified Vertebrates 17 100.00 215 100.00 229 100.00 86 100.00 115 100.00 662 100.00 Total Unidentified Vertebrates 25 4 29 Spondylus sp. thorny oysters 1 0.36 1 0.14 Arca zebra turkey wing ark clam 1 0.48 1 0.14 Arcidae ark clams 2 0.72 2 0.27 cf. Chione paphia king venus 1 0.36 1 0.14 Oliva sp. olive snails 6 2.17 5 2.73 1 2.04 1 0.48 13 1.78 Prunum apicinum Atlantic marginella 1 0.36 1 0.55 2 0.27

PAGE 413

413 Table 7 1. Continued Scientific Name Common Name MP % LP % Mixed MP/LP % LC % Unknown % Total % Prunum labiatum or guttatum royal or white spotted marginella 1 0.48 1 0.14 Turbinella angulata West Indian chank shell 1 0.55 1 0.14 Lobatus gigas queen conch 1 0.36 1 0.55 1 0.48 3 0.41 Strombus pugilis fighting conch 3 1.08 4 2.19 1 2.04 2 0.96 10 1.37 Strombidae conch snails 3 1.08 1 0.48 4 0.55 Gastropoda, marine unidentified marine snails 1 0.55 1 2.04 2 0.27 Gastropoda, large marine unidentified large marine snails 6 2.17 6 0.82 Mollusca, marine unidentified marine mollusks 1 0.48 1 0.14 Total Marine Mollusks 24 8.66 13 7.10 3 6.12 8 3.85 48 6.58 Unionidae freshwater clam 10 76.92 90 32.49 73 39.89 7 14.29 18 8.65 198 27.12 Pomacea flagellata Central American apple snail 2 15.38 95 34.30 68 37.16 3 6.12 8 3.85 176 24.11 Total Freshwater Mollusks 12 92.31 185 66.79 141 77.05 10 20.41 26 12.50 374 51.23 Bulimulus sp. terrestrial snail 1 7.69 1 0.36 2 0.27 Euglandina cf. ghiesbreghti wolf snail 2 0.72 1 0.55 2 4.08 4 1.92 9 1.23 Euglandina sp. wolf snail 12 4.33 4 2.19 1 2.04 2 0.96 19 2.60

PAGE 414

414 Table 7 1. Continued Scientific Name Common Name MP % LP % Mixed MP/LP % LC % Unknown % Total % Spiraxidae terrestrial snail 1 0.36 1 0.55 2 0.27 Helicina cf. amoena terrestrial snail 13 4.69 1 0.55 15 7.21 29 3.97 Neocyclotus cf. dysonii tree snail 9 3.25 14 7.65 89 42.79 112 15.34 Orthalicus cf. princeps tree snail 26 9.39 7 3.83 32 65.31 43 20.67 108 14.79 Pomatiidae ( Chondropoma sp.?) terrestrial Snail 21 10.10 21 2.88 Gastropoda, terrestrial unidentified terrestrial snails 4 1.44 1 0.55 1 2.04 6 0.82 Total Terrestrial Snails 1 7.69 68 24.55 29 15.85 36 73.47 174 83.65 308 42.19 Total Mollusks 13 100.00 277 100.00 183 100.00 49 100.00 208 100.00 730 100.00 TOTAL 30 517 416 135 323 1421

PAGE 415

415 Table 7 2. Total NISP of fauna identified at Xultun over time. "Total Unidentified Vertebrates" refers to those bones that could not be identified to the level of class. Percentages of totals based on either the number of identified vertebrates for vertebrates or th e number of identified invertebrates for invertebrates. MP = Middle Preclassic, LP = Late Preclassic, EC = Early Classic, LC = Late Classic, TC = Terminal Classic. Scientific Name Common Name LP (some MP) % EC % LC % LC/TC (mostly TC) % Mixed Classic % Unk nown % Total % cf. Didelphis virginiana Virginia opossum 1 0.12 1 0.07 cf. Philander opossum gray four eyed opossum 9 1.05 9 0.61 Didelphidae opossums 14 1.63 1 0.39 15 1.01 Soricidae shrews 4 2.26 1 0.39 5 0.34 Chiroptera bats 1 0.56 20 2.33 1 0.39 22 1.48 Dasypus novemcinctus nine banded armadillo 2 1.13 12 1.40 1 0.87 3 1.18 18 1.21 Sylvilagus sp. rabbits 1 0.56 14 1.63 1 0.87 3 1.18 19 1.28 Orthogeomys hispidus Hispid pocket gopher 2 0.23 2 0.13 Sciurus sp. squirrel 1 0.39 1 0.07 Cuniculus paca lowland paca 1 0.12 1 0.87 1 1.67 1 0.39 4 0.27 Caviomorpha agoutis and pacas 2 0.23 2 0.13 Rodentia rodents 1 5.00 27 15.25 96 11.16 2 3.33 9 3.53 135 9.08 Canis lupus familiaris domestic dog 2 10.00 1 0.56 7 0.81 4 1.57 14 0.94 Urocyon cinereoargenteus gray fox 1 0.56 8 0.93 9 0.61 cf. Potos flavus kinkajou 11 4.31 11 0.74 Leopardus cf. pardalis ocelot 1 0.87 1 0.07 Leopardus cf. wiedii margay 1 0.87 1 0.07 Panthera onca jaguar 6 3.39 6 0.40 Puma concolor puma 1 0.87 2 0.78 3 0.20 Felidae jaguar, puma, ocelot, or margay 1 0.12 1 0.39 2 0.13 Felidae, large jaguar or puma 1 0.12 1 0.07 Felidae, small young feline or ocelot/margay 1 0.12 1 0.07 Carnivora carnivores 4 0.47 2 0.78 6 0.40 Carnivora, small small carnivores 2 0.23 2 0.13 Tayassuidae peccaries 1 0.56 6 0.70 1 0.87 5 1.96 13 0.87 Mazama sp. Brocket deer 1 0.56 9 1.05 2 1.74 6 2.35 18 1.21 Odocoileus virginianus white tailed deer 2 10.00 8 4.52 95 11.05 34 29.57 11 18.33 32 12.55 182 12.24

PAGE 416

416 Table 7 2. Continued Scientific Name Common Name LP (some MP) % EC % LC % LC/TC (mostly TC) % Mixed Classic % Unknown % Total % Cervidae deer 1 5.00 11 1.28 5 1.96 17 1.14 Artiodactyla deer or peccary 3 0.35 1 0.87 1 1.67 5 0.34 Mammalia unidentified mammals 11 55.00 38 21.47 244 28.37 30 26.09 17 28.33 58 22.75 398 26.77 Mammalia, medium large size unidentified mammals, size of deer or jaguar 2 10.00 9 5.08 101 11.74 12 10.43 27 45.00 47 18.43 198 13.32 Mammalia, medium small size unidentified mammals, size of dog or opossum 1 5.00 4 2.26 40 4.65 2 1.74 11 4.31 58 3.90 Mammalia, small size unidentified mammals, size of bat or rat 6 3.39 26 3.02 3 1.18 35 2.35 Total Mammals 20 100.00 110 62.15 729 84.77 88 76.52 59 98.33 207 81.18 1213 81.57 cf. Colinus virginianus Northern bobwhite 1 0.56 3 0.35 6 2.35 10 0.67 Penelope purpurascens crested guan 1 0.12 2 0.78 3 0.20 Crax rubra great curassow 1 0.12 1 0.07 Meleagris sp. turkeys 2 0.23 4 1.57 6 0.40 Galliformes turkeys, quails, guans 9 1.05 2 0.78 11 0.74 cf. Fulica americana American coot 3 0.35 3 0.20 cf. Rallidae rails 4 0.47 4 0.27 Psarocolius montezuma Montezuma oropendola 1 0.39 1 0.07 cf. Momotidae motmots 2 0.23 2 0.13 Aves unidentified birds 1 0.12 8 6.96 9 3.53 18 1.21 Aves, medium large size unidentified birds, size of a turkey 4 0.47 1 0.39 5 0.34 Aves, medium small size unidentified birds, size of a duck or hawk 6 0.70 6 5.22 3 1.18 15 1.01 Aves, small size unidentified birds, size of a quail or dove 6 3.39 11 1.28 4 3.48 5 1.96 26 1.75 Total Birds 7 3.95 47 5.47 18 15.65 33 12.94 105 7.06

PAGE 417

417 Table 7 2. Continued Scientific Name Common Name LP (some MP) % EC % LC % LC/TC (mostly TC) % Mixed Classic % Unknown % Total % Chelydra serpentina snapping turtle 4 0.47 4 0.27 Trachemys venusta Mesoamerican slider 1 0.12 1 0.07 Kinosternidae mud or musk turtle 8 4.52 2 1.74 10 0.67 Testudines unidentified turtles 1 0.56 3 0.35 6 2.35 10 0.67 Testudines, medium large size unidentified turtle, size of river turtle 8 0.93 8 0.54 Testudines, small size unidentified turtle, size of small mud turtle 4 2.26 4 0.47 8 0.54 Iguanidae iguanas 1 0.56 8 0.93 4 3.48 13 0.87 Serpentes snakes 8 0.93 1 0.39 9 0.61 Crocodylus sp. crocodile 1 0.87 1 0.07 Reptilia, large unidentified reptiles, size of a crocodile or large iguana 6 2.35 6 0.40 Reptilia, small unidentified reptiles, size of a gecko or small snake 9 1.05 9 0.61 Total Reptiles 14 7.91 45 5.23 7 6.09 13 5.10 79 5.31 Anura frogs and toads 31 3.60 1 0.87 1 1.67 2 0.78 35 2.35 Total Amphibians 31 3.60 1 0.87 1 1.67 2 0.78 35 2.35 Siluriformes catfish 1 0.12 1 0.07 Actinopterygii unidentified bony fish 1 0.87 1 0.07 Total Bony Fish 1 0.12 1 0.87 2 0.13 Dasyatis cf sabina Atlantic stingray 46 25.99 7 0.81 53 3.56 Total Cartilaginous Fish 46 25.99 7 0.81 53 3.56 Total Identified Vertebrates 20 100.00 177 100.00 860 100.00 115 100.00 60 100.00 255 100.00 1487 100.00 Total Unidentified Vertebrates 2 77 138 5 3 35 260

PAGE 418

418 Table 7 2. Continued Scientific Name Common Name LP (some MP) % EC % LC % LC/TC (mostly TC) % Mixed Classic % Unknown % Total % Spondylus sp ( americanus ?) thorny oysters 6 7.41 2 1.24 8 2.08 Plicatula cf. gibbosa Atlantic kitten's paw 3 3.70 3 0.78 Ostreidae oysters 2 2.47 3 5.88 5 1.30 Arca zebra turkey wing ark clam 2 1.24 2 0.52 Noetia ponderosa ponderous ark clam 1 1.23 1 0.62 2 3.92 4 1.04 Anomalocardia flexuosa Carib Pointed Venus Clam 1 1.23 1 0.26 Chione cancellata Cross barred Venus 1 1.23 1 0.26 Mulinia cf. lateralis dwarf surf clam 1 1.23 1 0.26 Cardites floridanus Broad ribbed Carditid 1 1.23 1 0.26 Trachycardium cf. isocardia West Indian prickly cockle 1 1.23 1 0.26 Trachycardium sp. prickly cockles 2 2.47 1 1.96 3 0.78 Cardiidae cockles 1 1.23 1 0.26 Chamidae jewel box clams 3 3.70 3 0.78 Dentalium sp. tusk shell 4 2.48 1 20.00 1 1.96 6 1.56 Crepidula cf. aculeata spiny slippersnail 4 4.94 4 1.04 Crepidula cf. maculosa spotted slipper limpet 6 7.41 1 1.96 7 1.82 Crucibulum cf. auricula West Indian cup and saucer 9 11.11 9 2.34 Nerita versicolor four toothed nerite 1 1.23 1 0.62 2 0.52 Oliva sp. olive snails 1 6.25 3 3.70 4 2.48 1 20.00 1 1.96 10 2.60 Olivella cf. nivea snowy dwarf olive 1 1.43 1 0.26 Prunum apicinum Atlantic marginella 1 0.62 1 20.00 2 0.52 Lobatus gigas queen conch 1 1.96 1 0.26 Strombus pugilis fighting conch 6 37.50 6 1.56 Strombidae conch snails 4 25.00 3 5.88 7 1.82 Cinctura lilium banded tulip 1 1.23 1 0.26

PAGE 419

419 Table 7 2. Continued Scientific Name Common Name LP (some MP) % EC % LC % LC/TC (mostly TC) % Mixed Classic % Unknown % Total % Columbella mercatoria dove snail 1 1.23 1 0.26 Vermicularia fargoi Fargo's worm shell 2 2.47 2 0.52 Gastropoda, marine unidentified marine snails 1 6.25 6 7.41 6 3.73 2 2.86 1 20.00 16 4.17 Mollusca, marine unidentified marine mollusks 1 1.23 1 0.62 2 0.52 Total Marine Mollusks 12 75.00 57 70.37 22 13.66 3 4.29 4 80.00 13 25.49 111 28.91 Unionidae freshwater clam 1 6.25 8 9.88 12 7.45 5 7.14 3 5.88 29 7.55 Pachychilus cf. glaphyrus jute snail 1 6.25 1 0.26 Pomacea flagellata Central American apple snail 1 1.23 5 3.11 5 9.80 11 2.86 Total Freshwater Mollusks 2 12.50 9 11.11 17 10.56 5 7.14 8 15.69 41 10.68 Bulimulus sp. terrestrial snail 2 1.24 2 0.52 Euglandina sp. wolf snail 1 1.23 2 1.24 1 1.43 1 1.96 5 1.30 Spiraxis sp. terrestrial snail 3 3.70 3 0.78 Helicina cf. amoena terrestrial snail 2 1.24 1 1.96 3 0.78 Neocyclotus cf. dysoni tree snail 2 12.50 3 3.70 94 58.39 61 87.14 24 47.06 184 47.92 Orthalicus cf. princeps tree snail 14 8.70 1 20.00 2 3.92 17 4.43 Pomatiidae ( Chondropoma sp.?) terrestrial snail 2 2.47 3 1.86 2 3.92 7 1.82 Gastropoda, terrestrial unidentified terrestrial snails 5 6.17 5 3.11 10 2.60 Total Terrestrial Snails 2 12.50 14 17.28 122 75.78 62 88.57 1 20.00 30 58.82 231 60.16 Bivalvia unidentified bivalves 3 3.70 3 0.78 Total Mollusks 16 100.00 80 98.77 161 100.00 70 100.00 5 100.00 51 100.00 383 99.74 Anthozoa coral 1 1.23 1 0.26 Total Invertebrates 16 100.00 81 100.00 161 100.00 70 100.00 5 100.00 51 100.00 384 100.00 Unidentified Inertebrates* 1 1 TOTAL 38 336 1159 190 68 341 2132 *Mostly shell like organisms; could be crustacean, echinidoidea, gastropod, bivalve, etc

PAGE 420

420 Table 7 3. Total NISP of fauna identified at Holmul over time. "Total Unidentified Vertebrates" refers to those bones that could not be identified to the level of class. Percentages of totals based on e ither the number of identified vertebrates for vertebrates or the number of identified invertebrates for invertebrates. MP = Middle Preclassic, LP = Late Preclassic, EC = Early Classic, LC = Late Classic, TC = Terminal Classic. Scientific Name Common Name MP (%) LP (%) General Preclassic (%) EC (%) LC (%) TC (%) General Classic (%) Mixed/Unknown (%) Total (%) cf. Didelphis virginiana Virginia opossum 2 (2.15) 1 (1.39) 1 (0.70) 4 (1.01) cf Ateles geoffroyi Geoffroy's spider monkey 1 (0.70) 1 (0.25) Dasypus novemcinctus nine banded armadillo 1 (1.08) 1 (0.25) Sylvilagus sp. rabbits 1 (2.56) 1 (0.25) Dasyprocta punctata Central American agouti 1 (1.08) 1 (0.25) Caviomorpha agoutis and pacas 1 (0.70) 1 (0.25) Rodentia rodents 1 (1.08) 1 (1.39) 21 (14.69) 23 (5.78) Canis lupus familiaris domestic dog 1 (2.78) 26 (27.96) 5 (6.94) 9 (6.29) 4 (10.26) 45 (11.31) Urocyon cinereoargenteus gray fox 3 (4.17) 1 (2.56) 4 (1.01) Eira barbara or Procyonidae tayra or raccoon/coati 1 (0.70) 1 (0.25) Puma concolor puma 1 (0.70) 1 (0.25) Felidae, large jaguar or puma 2 (5.13) 2 (0.50)

PAGE 421

421 Table 7 3. Continued Scientific Name Common Name MP (%) LP (%) General Preclassic (%) EC (%) LC (%) TC (%) General Classic (%) Mixed/Unknown (%) Total (%) Carnivora carnivores 3 (3.23) 1 (1.39) 4 (1.01) Tayassuidae peccaries 7 (19.44) 2 (2.15) 1 (1.39) 2 (1.40) 12 (3.02) Mazama sp. Brocket deer 1 (2.78) 1 (0.70) 2 (0.50) Odocoileus virginianus white tailed deer 7 (19.44) 18 (19.35) 1 (7.69) 1 (100.00) 3 (4.17) 16 (11.19) 9 (23.08) 55 (13.82) Cervidae deer 1 (7.69) 1 (1.39) 2 (0.50) Mammalia unidentified mammals 13 (36.11) 26 (27.96) 10 (76.92) 33 (45.83) 1 (100.00) 43 (30.07) 12 (30.77) 138 (34.67) Mammalia, medium large size unidentified mammals, size of deer or jaguar 8 (8.60) 5 (6.94) 8 (5.59) 2 (5.13) 23 (5.78) Mammalia, medium small size unidentified mammals, size of dog or opossum 1 (7.69) 2 (2.78) 11 (7.69) 8 (20.51) 22 (5.53) Mammalia, small size unidentified mammals, size of bat or rat 2 (1.40) 2 (0.50) Total Mammals 29 (80.56) 88 (94.62) 13 (100.00) 1 (100.00) 56 (77.78) 1 (100.00) 118 (82.52) 39 (100.00) 345 (86.68) Odontophorus guttatus spotted wood quail 1 (0.70) 1 (0.25) Aves unidentified birds 3 (2.10) 3 (0.75) Aves, medium large size unidentified birds, size of a turkey 2 (5.56) 2 (2.15) 4 (1.01) Aves, medium small size unidentified birds, size of a duck or hawk 1 (1.08) 1 (1.39) 3 (2.10) 5 (1.26)

PAGE 422

422 Table 7 3. Continued Scientific Name Common Name MP (%) LP (%) General Preclassic (%) EC (%) LC (%) TC (%) General Classic (%) Mixed/Unknown (%) Total (%) Aves, small size unidentified birds, size of a quail or dove 1 (0.70) 1 (0.25) Total Birds 2 (5.56) 3 (3.23) 1 (1.39) 8 (5.59) 14 (3.52) Dermatemydidae or Emydidae river turtle or slider 1 (1.08) 1 (0.25) Kinosternidae mud or musk turtle 1 (0.70) 1 (0.25) Testudines unidentified turtles 1 (2.78) 3 (2.10) 4 (1.01) Testudines, medium large size unidentified turtle, size of river turtle 3 (8.33) 3 (0.75) Viperidae viper 1 (0.70) 1 (0.25) Serpentes snakes 1 (1.39) 2 (1.40) 3 (0.75) Total Reptiles 4 (11.11) 1 (1.08) 1 (1.39) 7 (4.90) 13 (3.27) Sparisoma sp. parrotfish 1 (2.78) 1 (1.08) 2 (2.78) 2 (1.40) 6 (1.51) Actinopterygii unidentified bony fish 8 (11.11) 8 (5.59) 16 (4.02) Total Bony Fish 1 (2.78) 1 (1.08) 10 (13.89) 10 (6.99) 22 (5.53) Dasyatis cf. sabina Atlantic stingray 4 (5.56) 4 (1.01) Total Cartilaginous Fish 4 (5.56) 4 (1.01)

PAGE 423

423 Table 7 3. Continued Scientific Name Common Name MP (%) LP (%) General Preclassic (%) EC (%) LC (%) TC (%) General Classic (%) Mixed/Unknown (%) Total (%) Total Identified Vertebrates 36 (100.00) 93 (100.00) 13 (100.00) 1 (100.00) 72 (100.00) 1 (100.00) 143 (100.00) 39 (100.00) 398 (100.00) Total Unidentified Vertebrates 3 18 55 12 Spondylus sp. thorny oysters 1 (2.38) 2 (5.88) 1 (1.08) 1 (0.40) 5 (0.93) Arca zebra turkey wing ark clam 2 (5.88) 2 (0.37) Donax sp. bean clam 1 (0.40) 1 (0.19) Dentalium sp. tusk shell 1 (1.27) 1 (0.19) Oliva sp. olive snails 2 (5.13) 2 (0.37) Olivella cf. nivea snowy dwarf olive 1 (0.40) 1 (0.19) Sinistrofulgur sinistrum whelk 1 (0.40) 1 (0.19) Tonnoidea triton and helmet snails 1 (1.27) 1 (0.19) Strombus pugilis fighting conch 1 (2.56) 2 (5.88) 7 (7.53) 10 (1.86) Strombidae conch snails 1 (1.08) 1 (0.19) Gastropoda, marine unidentified marine snails 1 (1.27) 1 (2.38) 2 (5.13) 1 (2.94) 9 (3.61) 14 (2.61) Gastropoda, large marine unidentified large marine snails 1 (1.27) 2 (4.76) 1 (0.40) 4 (0.74) Mollusca, marine unidentified marine mollusks 1 (1.27) 1 (100.00) 4 (1.61) 6 (1.12) Total Marine Mollusks 5 (6.33) 4 (9.52) 5 (12.82) 7 (20.59) 1 (100.00) 9 (9.68) 18 (7.23) 49 (9.12)

PAGE 424

424 Table 7 3. Continued Scientific Name Common Name MP (%) LP (%) General Preclassic (%) EC (%) LC (%) TC (%) General Classic (%) Mixed/Unknown (%) Total (%) Unionidae freshwater clam 37 (46.84) 18 (42.86) 12 (30.77) 2 (5.88) 29 (31.18) 5 (2.01) 103 (19.18) Pachychilus cf. glaphyrus jute snail 1 (1.27) 8 (23.53) 9 (1.68) Pachychilus cf. indiorum jute snail 6 (7.59) 7 (16.67) 2 (5.13) 1 (2.94) 16 (2.98) Pachychilus sp. jute snails 2 (5.88) 2 (0.37) Pomacea flagellata Central American apple snail 7 (8.86) 5 (11.90) 8 (20.51) 4 (11.76) 30 (32.26) 6 (2.41) 60 (11.17) Total Freshwater Mollusks 51 (64.56) 30 (71.43) 22 (56.41) 17 (50.00) 59 (63.44) 11 (4.42) 190 (35.38) Bulimulus sp. terrestrial snail 1 (1.27) 1 (2.38) 3 (8.82) 9 (3.61) 14 (2.61) Euglandina cf. ghiesbreghti wolf snail 9 (11.39) 3 (7.14) 5 (12.82) 1 (1.08) 18 (3.35) Euglandina sp. wolf snail 2 (0.80) 2 (0.37) Helicina cf. amoena terrestrial snail 1 (1.27) 1 (0.19) Neocyclotus cf. dysonii tree snail 6 (7.59) 1 (2.94) 124 (49.80) 131 (24.39) Orthalicus cf. princeps tree snail 5 (6.33) 3 (7.14) 7 (17.95) 23 (24.73) 12 (4.82) 50 (9.31) Pomatiidae ( Chondropoma sp.?) terrestrial snail 6 (17.65) 1 (1.08) 68 (27.31) 75 (13.97)

PAGE 425

425 Table 7 3. Continued Scientific Name Common Name MP (%) LP (%) General Preclassic (%) EC (%) LC (%) TC (%) General Classic (%) Mixed/Unknown (%) Total (%) Gastropoda, terrestrial unidentified terrestrial snails 1 (1.27) 3 (1.20) 4 (0.74) Total Terrestrial Snails 23 (29.11) 7 (16.67) 12 (30.77) 10 (29.41) 25 (26.88) 218 (87.55) 295 (54.93) Gastropoda unidentified snails 1 (2.38) 1 (0.19) Bivalvia unidentified bivalves 1 (0.40) 1 (0.19) Total Mollusks 79 (100.00) 42 (100.00) 39 (100.00) 34 (100.00) 1 (100.00) 93 (100.00) 248 (99.60) 536 (99.81) Anthozoa coral 1 (0.40) 1 (0.19) Total Anthozoa 1 (0.40) 1 (0.19) Total Invertebrates 79 (100.00) 42 (100.00) 39 (100.00) 34 (100.00) 1 (100.00) 93 (100.00) 249 (100.00) 537 (100.00) TOTAL 115 138 52 1 124 2 291 300 1023

PAGE 426

426 Table 7 4. Total NISP of fauna identified at La Sufricaya over time. "Total Unidentified Vertebrates" refers to those bones that could not be identified to the level of class. Percentages of totals based on either the number of identified vertebrates for vertebrates or the number of identified invertebrates for invertebrates. EC = Early Classic, TC = Terminal Classic. Scientific Name Common Name EC % TC % General Classic (Likely Early) % Mixed/Unknown % Total % Odocoileus virginianus white tailed deer 3 25.00 3 25.00 Mammalia, medium large size unidentified mammals, size of deer or jaguar 7 58.33 7 58.33 Mammalia, medium small size unidentified mammals, size of dog or opossum 2 16.67 2 16.67 Total Mammals 12 100.00 12 100.00 Total Identified Vertebrates 12 100.00 12 100.00 Total Unidentified Vertebrates 1 Spondylus sp. thorny oysters 7 26.92 4 25 11 11.22 Bivalvia, marine marine bivalve 1 3.85 1 1.02 Oliva sp. olive snails 1 3.85 3 18.75 4 4.08 Gastropoda, marine unidentified marine snails 4 15.38 4 4.08

PAGE 427

427 Table 7 4. Continued Scientific Name Common Name EC % TC % General Classic (Likely Early) % Mixed/Unknown % Total % Gastropoda, large marine unidentified large marine snails 1 3.85 1 1.02 Mollusca, marine unidentified marine mollusks 1 3.85 1 1.02 Total Marine Mollusks 15 57.69 7 43.75 22 22.45 Unionidae freshwater clam 2 12.5 2 2.04 Pachychilus cf. glaphyrus jute snail 1 6.25 1 1.02 Pomacea flagellata Central American apple snail 10 38.46 2 12.5 12 12.24 Total Freshwater Mollusks 10 38.46 5 31.25 15 15.31 Euglandina cf. ghiesbreghti wolf snail 2 12.5 2 2.04 Neocyclotus cf. dysonii tree snail 56 100.00 56 57.14 Orthalicus cf. princeps tree snail 2 12.5 2 2.04 Total Terrestrial Snails 56 100.00 4 25 60 61.22

PAGE 428

428 Table 7 4. Continued Scientific Name Common Name EC % TC % General Classic (Likely Early) % Mixed/Unknown % Total % Gastropoda unidentified snails 1 3.85 1 1.02 Total Mollusks 26 100.00 56 100.00 16 100 98 100.00 Total Invertebrates 26 100.00 56 100.00 16 100 98 100.00 TOTAL 26 56 12 17 111

PAGE 429

429 Table 7 5. Total NISP of fauna identified at Cival over time. "Total Unidentified Vertebrates" refers to those bones that could not be identified to the level of class. Percentages of totals based on either the number of identified vertebrates for vertebrates or the number of identified invertebrates for invertebrates. MP = Middle Preclassic, LP = Late Preclassic, EC = Early Classic. Scientific Name Common Name MP % LP % General Preclassic % EC % Mixed/Unknown % Total % Sylvilagus sp. rabbits 1 8.33 1 4.35 Canis lupus familiaris domestic dog 3 37.50 5 41.67 8 34.78 Canidae dogs and foxes 1 12.50 1 4.35 Odocoileus virginianus white tailed deer 1 12.50 1 100.00 2 8.70 Mammalia unidentified mammals 1 12.50 1 8.33 2 8.70 Mammalia, medium large size unidentified mammals, size of deer or jaguar 1 12.50 1 4.35 Mammalia, medium small size unidentified mammals, size of dog or opossum 5 41.67 5 21.74 Total Mammals 7 87.50 12 100.00 1 100.00 20 86.96 Aves, medium large size unidentified birds, size of a turkey 1 100.00 1 4.35 Total Birds 1 100.00 1 4.35 Testudines unidentified turtles 1 100.00 1 4.35 Total Reptiles 1 100.00 1 4.35 Actinopterygii unidentified bony fish 1 12.50 1 4.35

PAGE 430

430 Table 7 5. Continued Scientific Name Common Name MP % LP % General Preclassic % EC % Mixed/Unknown % Total % Total Bony Fish 1 12.50 1 4.35 Total Identified Vertebrates 1 100.00 8 100.00 12 100.00 1 100.00 1 100.00 23 100.00 Total Unidentified Vertebrates 4 Spondylus sp. thorny oysters 10 5.85 4 5.71 1 1.49 1 1.82 16 3.87 Codakia orbicularis tiger lucine 1 1.43 1 0.24 Dentalium sp. tusk shell 1 0.58 1 0.24 Oliva sp. olive snails 1 0.58 1 0.24 Turbinella angulata West Indian chank shell 1 1.43 1 0.24 Lobatus gigas queen conch 1 2.00 1 1.43 2 0.48 Strombus pugilis fighting conch 9 5.26 8 11.43 2 3.64 19 4.60 Strombidae conch snails 2 4.00 3 1.75 8 11.43 3 5.45 16 3.87 Gastropoda, marine unidentified marine snails 6 12.00 18 10.53 11 15.71 8 14.55 43 10.41 Gastropoda, large marine unidentified large marine snails 1 1.43 1 0.24 Mollusca, marine unidentified marine mollusks 2 4.00 5 2.92 2 2.86 7 12.73 16 3.87 Total Marine Mollusks 11 22.00 47 27.49 37 52.86 1 1.49 21 38.18 117 28.33

PAGE 431

431 Table 7 5. Continued Scientific Name Common Name MP % LP % General Preclassic % EC % Mixed/Unknown % Total % Unionidae freshwater clam 6 12.00 58 33.92 16 22.86 10 14.93 14 25.45 104 25.18 Pachychilus cf. glaphyrus jute snail 6 3.51 1 1.49 6 10.91 13 3.15 Pomacea flagellata Central American apple snail 32 64.00 22 12.87 13 18.57 47 70.15 10 18.18 124 30.02 Total Freshwater Mollusks 38 76.00 86 50.29 29 41.43 58 86.57 30 54.55 241 58.35 Bulimulus sp. terrestrial snail 1 0.58 1 0.24 Euglandina cf. ghiesbreghti wolf snail 1 2.00 1 0.58 1 1.82 3 0.73 Helicina cf. amoena terrestrial snail 1 0.58 1 1.82 2 0.48 Neocyclotus cf. dysonii tree snail 31 18.13 31 7.51 Orthalicus cf. princeps tree snail 3 1.75 4 5.71 8 11.94 2 3.64 17 4.12 Gastropoda, terrestrial unidentified terrestrial snails 1 0.58 1 0.24 Total Terrestrial Snails 1 2.00 38 22.22 4 5.71 8 11.94 4 7.27 55 13.32 Total Mollusks 50 100.00 171 100.00 70 100.00 67 100.00 55 100.00 413 100.00 Total Invertebrates 50 100.00 171 100.00 70 100.00 67 100.00 55 100.00 413 100.00 TOTAL 51 183 82 68 56 440

PAGE 432

432 Table 7 6. Total NISP of fauna identified at Hamontun over time. "Total Unidentified Vertebrates" refers to those bones that could not be identified to the level of class. Percentages of totals based on either the number of identified vertebrates for vertebrates or the number of identified invertebrates for invertebrates. LP = Late Preclassic, LC = Late Classic. Scientific Name Common Name LP % General Preclassic % LC % General Classic % Mixed/Unknown % Total % Felidae, large jaguar or puma 1 100.00 1 33.33 Total Mammals 1 100.00 1 33.33 Sparisoma sp. parrotfish 1 50.00 1 33.33 Siluriformes catfish 1 50.00 1 33.33 Total Bony Fish 2 100.00 2 66.67 Total Identified Vertebrates 2 100.00 1 100.00 3 100.00 Total Unidentified Vertebrates 2 Spondylus sp. thorny oysters 4 4.30 2 2.06 6 2.22 Oliva sp. olive snails 4 4.12 4 1.48 Prunum apicinum Atlantic marginella 2 2.94 2 0.74 Strombus pugilis fighting conch 1 1.08 1 1.03 2 0.74 Strombidae conch snails 1 1.08 1 1.47 1 1.03 3 1.11 Gastropoda, marine unidentified marine snails 2 2.15 3 4.41 3 3.09 8 2.96 Mollusca, marine unidentified marine mollusks 2 2.94 2 0.74 Total Marine Mollusks 8 8.60 8 11.76 11 11.34 27 10.00 Unionidae freshwater clam 7 7.53 9 13.24 2 40.00 2 28.57 14 14.43 34 12.59

PAGE 433

433 Table 7 6. Continued Scientific Name Common Name LP % General Preclassic % LC % General Classic % Mixed/Unknown % Total % Pachychilus cf. glaphyrus jute snail 21 22.58 1 1.47 1 20.00 20 20.62 43 15.93 Pachychilus cf. indiorum jute snail 1 20.00 1 0.37 Pachychilus sp. jute snails 2 2.15 2 0.74 Pomacea flagellata Central American apple snail 10 10.75 19 27.94 2 28.57 33 34.02 64 23.70 Total Freshwater Mollusks 40 43.01 29 42.65 4 80.00 4 57.14 67 69.07 144 53.33 Bulimulus sp. terrestrial snail 4 4.30 1 1.47 5 1.85 Euglandina cf. ghiesbreghti wolf snail 8 8.60 18 26.47 1 1.03 27 10.00 Helicina cf. amoena terrestrial snail 1 1.47 1 0.37 Neocyclotus cf. dysonii tree snail 1 1.08 4 5.88 14 14.43 19 7.04 Orthalicus cf. princeps tree snail 2 2.15 7 10.29 1 20.00 3 42.86 4 4.12 17 6.30 Pomatiidae ( Chondropoma sp.?) terrestrial snail 28 30.11 28 10.37 Gastropoda, terrestrial unidentified terrestrial snails 2 2.15 2 0.74 Total Terrestrial Snails 45 48.39 31 45.59 1 20.00 3 42.86 19 19.59 99 36.67 Total Mollusks 93 100.0 68 100.00 5 100.00 7 100.00 97 100.0 270 100.00 Total Invertebrates 93 100.0 68 100.00 5 100.00 7 100.00 97 100.0 270 100.00 TOTAL 93 72 5 8 97 275

PAGE 434

434 Table 7 7. Total NISP of fauna identified at K'o over time. "Total Unidentified Vertebrates" refers to those bones that could not be identified to the level of class. Percentages of totals based on either the number of identified vertebrates for vertebrates or the number of identified invertebrates for invertebrates. LP = Late Precl assic, EC = Early Classic LC = Late Classic. Scientific Name Common Name LP % General Preclassic % EC % LC % General Classic % Mixed/Unknown % Total % cf. Didelphis virginianus virginia opossum 1 25.00 1 1.03 cf. Philander opossum gray four eyed opossum 1 50.00 1 1.03 Dasyprocta punctata Central American agouti 1 2.78 1 1.03 Liomys pictus painted spiny pocket mouse 32 88.89 32 32.99 Oryzomys sp. rice rat 50 94.34 50 51.55 Rodentia rodents 2 100.00 2 2.06 Odocoileus virginianus white tailed deer 1 2.78 1 1.03 Mammalia unidentified mammals 1 1.89 3 75.00 4 4.12 Mammalia, medium small size unidentified mammals, size of dog or opossum 2 5.56 2 2.06 Total Mammals 2 100.00 51 96.23 36 100.00 1 50.00 4 100.00 94 96.91 Bufonidae toads 2 3.77 2 2.06 Total Amphibians 2 3.77 2 2.06 Total Identified Vertebrates 2 100.00 53 100.00 36 100.00 2 100.00 4 100.00 97 100.00 Total Unidentified Vertebrates 1 Spondylus sp. thorny oysters 8 9.09 8 3.74 Crepidula sp. slipper limpet 1 1.14 1 0.47 Oliva sp. olive snails 1 1.14 1 0.47 Strombidae conch snails 1 1.20 1 1.14 2 0.93 Gastropoda, marine unidentified marine snails 2 2.41 2 0.93 Mollusca, marine unidentified marine mollusks 2 2.41 1 4.17 1 50.00 2 2.27 6 2.80 Total Marine Mollusks 5 6.02 1 4.17 1 50.00 13 14.77 20 9.35 Unionidae freshwater clam 4 25.00 19 22.89 1 4.17 1 50.00 18 20.45 43 20.09 Pachychilus cf. glaphyrus jute snail 6 7.23 1 4.17 7 3.27 Pomacea flagellata Central American apple snail 10 62.50 38 45.78 3 12.50 29 32.95 80 37.38

PAGE 435

435 Table 7 7. Continued Scientific Name Common Name LP % General Preclassic % EC % LC % General Classic % Mixed/Unknown % Total % Total Freshwater Mollusks 14 87.50 63 75.90 5 20.83 1 50.00 47 53.41 130 60.75 Bulimulus sp. terrestrial snail 3 3.41 3 1.40 Euglandina cf. ghiesbreghti wolf snail 2 12.50 1 100.00 9 37.50 2 2.27 14 6.54 Spiraxis sp. terrestrial snail 12 14.46 12 5.61 Helicina cf. amoena terrestrial snail 1 1.14 1 0.47 Neocyclotus cf. dysonii tree snail 3 3.61 3 3.41 6 2.80 Orthalicus cf. princeps tree snail 9 37.50 9 4.21 Pomatiidae ( Chondropoma sp.?) terrestrial snail 2 2.27 2 0.93 Gastropoda, terrestrial unidentified terrestrial snails 12 13.64 12 5.61 Total Terrestrial Snails 2 12.50 15 18.07 1 100.00 18 75.00 23 26.14 59 27.57 Total Mollusks 16 100.00 83 100.00 1 100.00 24 100.00 2 100.00 83 94.32 209 97.66 Anthozoa coral 5 5.68 5 2.34 Total Anthozoa 5 5.68 5 2.34 Total Invertebrates 16 100.00 83 100.00 1 100.00 24 100.00 2 100.00 88 100.00 214 100.00 TOTAL 18 136 1 60 5 92 312

PAGE 436

436 Table 7 8. Total NISP of fauna identified at Dos Aguadas over time. "Total Unidentified Vertebrates" refers to those bones that could not be identified to the level of class. Percentages of totals based on either the number of identified vertebrates for vertebrates or the number of identified invertebrates for invertebrates. LP = Late Preclassic, EC = Early Classic, LC = Late Classic, TC = Terminal Classic. Scientific Name Common Name LP (%) General Preclassic (%) EC (%) LC (%) TC (%) General Classic (%) Mixed/Unknown (%) Total (%) cf. Didelphis virginiana Virginia opossum 3 (13.04) 1 (2.78) 4 (0.36) Chiroptera bats 29 (2.85) 5 (21.74) 5 (13.89) 39 (3.56) Cuniculus paca lowland paca 3 (13.04) 3 (0.27) Caviomorpha agoutis and pacas 1 (4.35) 1 (0.09) Sigmodonitdae New World rats and mice 80 (7.87) 80 (7.29) Rodentia (Sigmodontidae?) rodents 12 (100.00) 755 (74.24) 1 (4.35) 1 (2.78) 769 (70.10) cf. Canis lupus familiaris? domestic dog? 1 (50.00) 1 (0.09) Carnivora carnivores 1 (14.29) 1 (0.09) Tayassuidae peccaries 2 (8.70) 2 (0.18) Mazama sp. Brocket deer 1 (4.35) 1 (0.09) Mammalia unidentified mammals 6 (85.71) 1 (50.00) 4 (0.39) 11 (1.00) Mammalia, medium large size unidentified mammals, size of deer or jaguar 1 (0.10) 1 (0.09) Mammalia, medium small size unidentified mammals, size of dog or opossum 1 (4.35) 1 (0.09) Mammalia, small size unidentified mammals, size of bat or rat 40 (3.93) 1 (4.35) 41 (3.74)

PAGE 437

437 Table 7 8. Continued Scientific Name Common Name LP (%) General Preclassic (%) EC (%) LC (%) TC (%) General Classic (%) Mixed/Unknown (%) Total (%) Total Mammals 7 (100.00) 12 (100.00) 2 (100.00) 909 (89.38) 18 (78.26) 7 (19.44) 955 (87.06) Progne sp. swallow 1 (0.10) 1 (0.09) Rallidae rails 4 (0.39) 4 (0.36) Aves unidentified birds 20 (1.97) 1 (4.35) 21 (1.91) Aves, small size unidentified birds, size of a quail or dove 53 (5.21) 53 (4.83) Total Birds 78 (7.67) 1 (4.35) 79 (7.20) Kinosternon sp. mud or musk turtle 2 (8.70) 2 (0.18) Testudines unidentified turtles 1 (2.78) 1 (0.09) Testudines, small unidentified turtle, size of small mud turtle 1 (0.10) 1 (0.09) Reptilia unidentified reptiles 1 (0.10) 1 (0.09) Total Reptiles 2 (0.20) 2 (8.70) 1 (2.78) 5 (0.46) Bufonidae, large toads 20 (1.97) 2 (8.70) 22 (2.01) Anura frogs and toads 8 (0.79) 28 (77.78) 36 (3.28) Total Amphibians 28 (2.75) 2 (8.70) 28 (77.78) 58 (5.29) Total Identified Vertebrates 7 (100.00) 12 (100.00) 2 (100.00) 1017 (100.00) 23 (100.00) 36 (100.00) 1097 (100.00) Total Unidentified Vertebrates 28 1 12 Spondylus sp. thorny oysters 2 (10.53) 2 (8.00) cf. Chamidae jewel box clam 1 (50.00) 1 (4.00)

PAGE 438

43 8 Table 7 8. Continued Scientific Name Common Name LP (%) General Preclassic (%) EC (%) LC (%) TC (%) General Classic (%) Mixed/Unknown (%) Total (%) Oliva sp. olive snails 1 (5.26) 1 (4.00) Gastropoda, marine unidentified marine snails 1 (50.00) 1 (4.00) Mollusca, marine unidentified marine mollusks 4 (21.05) 4 (16.00) Total Marine Mollusks 2 (100.00) 7 (36.84) 9 (36.00) Unionidae freshwater clam 1 (100.00) 12 (63.16) 13 (52.00) Pachychilus cf. indiorum jute snail 1 (100.00) 1 (4.00) Pomacea flagellata Central American apple snail 1 (100.00) 1 (4.00) Total Freshwater Mollusks 1 (100.00) 1 (100.00) 1 (100.00) 12 (63.16) 15 (60.00) Pomatiidae ( Chondropoma sp.?) terrestrial snail 1 (100.00) 1 (4.00) Total Terrestrial Snails 1 (100.00) 1 (4.00) Bivalvia unidentified bivalves 2 (10.53) 2 (8.00) Total Mollusks 1 (100.00) 1 (100.00) 1 (100.00) 1 (100.00) 2 (100.00) 19 (100.00) 25 (100.00) Total Invertebrates 1 (100.00) 1 (100.00) 1 (100.00) 1 (100.00) 2 (100.00) 19 (100.00) 25 (100.00) TOTAL 8 1 12 3 1046 26 67 1163

PAGE 439

439 Table 7 9. Diversity and equitability for the sites with the largest assemblages. Diversity calculations do not include terrestrial snails. PC = Preclassic period, EC = Early Classic period. San Bartolo (PC) Xultun (PC) Xultun (EC) Holmul (PC) Cival (PC) Hamontun (PC) Ceibal (PC) Ceibal (EC) Diversity 2.016392894 1.486124129 2.80794987 2.088433826 1.622073772 1.525606644 1.377813835 2.018260274 Equitability 0.598816675 0.763716726 0.783573331 0.697136338 0.598982165 0.733661713 0.336516337 0.554835043 Table 7 10. Diversity and equitability for the vertebrate fauna exclusively. PC = Preclassic period, EC = Early Classic period. San Bartolo (PC) Xultun (PC) Xultun (EC) Holmul (PC) Cival (PC) Hamontun (PC) Ceibal (PC) Ceibal (EC) Diversity 2.170592788 1.011404265 1.878153311 1.727775455 1.043793881 0.693147181 1.855385049 1.504105712 Equitability 0.737183825 0.920619836 0.693544496 0.72053833 0.648545603 1.000000000 0.506442972 0.442228293

PAGE 440

440 Table 7 11. Results of the invertebrate analysis from Cerros, Belize. LP = Late Preclassic. Scientific Name Common Name LP % Mixed LP/Postclassic % Postclassic/Modern % Total % Spondylus cf. americanus Atlantic thorny oyster 14 0.34 29 4.18 43 0.89 cf. Ostrea sp. oysters 42 1.03 25 3.60 67 1.38 Argopecten cf. gibbus Atlantic calico scallop 102 2.51 5 5.81 81 11.67 188 3.89 Argopecten cf. irradians Atlantic bay scallop 1 0.02 1 0.14 2 0.04 Argopecten sp. Atlantic scallops 6 0.15 5 0.72 11 0.23 Euvola ziczac zigzag scallop 14 0.34 8 1.15 22 0.45 Pectinidae ( Argopecten sp?) scallops (Atlantic genus?) 2 0.05 3 0.43 5 0.10 Pectinidae scallops 15 0.37 1 1.16 11 1.59 27 0.56 Anadara notabilis eared ark clam 7 0.17 2 0.29 9 0.19 Anadara sp. ark clams 1 0.02 3 0.43 4 0.08 Arcidae ark clams 1 0.02 1 0.14 2 0.04 Anomalocardia flexuosa Carib pointed venus clam 3 0.07 3 0.06 Anomalocardia puella pointed venus clam 7 0.17 3 0.43 10 0.21 Anomalocardia sp. pointed venus clams 2 0.05 1 1.16 3 0.06 Asaphis deflorata gaudy sanguin 4 0.10 4 0.08 Dosinia discus disk dosinia 2 0.05 2 0.04 Clathrolucina costata costate lucine 2 0.05 2 0.04 Eurytellina cf. lineata rose petal tellin 1 0.02 1 0.02 Eurytellina sp. tellins 5 0.12 5 0.10 Codakia orbicularis tiger lucine 2 0.05 2 0.04 Phacoides pectinatus thick lucine 72 1.77 4 4.65 66 9.51 142 2.94 Trachycardium sp. prickly cockle 1 0.02 1 0.02 Chione cancellata cross barred venus 20 0.49 2 2.33 4 0.58 26 0.54

PAGE 441

441 Table 7 11. Continued Scientific Name Common Name LP % Mixed LP/Postclassic % Postclassic/Modern % Total % Chione paphia king venus 8 0.20 2 2.33 12 1.73 22 0.45 Chione sp. venus clams 5 0.12 5 0.10 Veneroida marine bivalves (inc. cockles, venus clams, tellins) 8 0.20 4 0.58 12 0.25 cf. Mytilidae sea mussels 33 0.81 33 0.68 Bivalvia, Marine unidentified marine bivalves 27 0.67 1 1.16 10 1.44 38 0.79 Total Marine Bivalves 407 10.03 16 18.60 268 38.62 691 14.28 Dentalium sp. tusk shell 1 0.02 1 0.02 Nerita tessellata checkered nerite 1 0.02 1 0.02 Neritina usnea olive nerite 1 0.02 1 0.02 Polinices cf. brunnea moon snail 2 0.05 2 0.04 Oliva sp. olive snails 6 0.15 1 1.16 7 0.14 Olivella sp. dwarf olive snails 3 0.07 3 0.06 Olividae olive snails 1 0.02 1 0.02 Prunum apicinum Atlantic marginella 16 0.39 16 0.33 Turbinella angulata West Indian chank snail 4 0.10 1 0.14 5 0.10 Vasum muricatum Caribbean vase 1 0.02 1 0.02 Charonia variegata Atlantic triton 3 0.07 3 0.06 Cassis sp. helmet snails 1 0.02 1 0.02 Lobatus gigas queen conch 60 1.48 3 3.49 21 3.03 84 1.74 Strombus pugilis fighting conch 48 1.18 4 4.65 24 3.46 76 1.57 Strombidae conchs 3 0.07 2 0.29 5 0.10 Melongena melongena Caribbean crown conch 1410 34.75 28 32.56 53 7.64 1491 30.82

PAGE 442

442 Table 7 11. Continued Scientific Name Common Name LP % Mixed LP/Postclassic % Postclassic/Modern % Total % Triplofusus giganteus Florida horse conch 2 0.05 2 0.04 Macrocypraea cervus Atlantic deer cowry 2 0.05 2 0.04 Macrocypraea cervus or zebra measled cowry 1 0.02 1 0.02 Cerithium atratum dark cerith 3 0.07 3 0.06 Cerithiidae ceriths 12 0.30 12 0.25 Cittarium pica West Indian top shell 2 0.05 4 0.58 6 0.12 Gastropoda, Marine unidentified marine gastropods 69 1.70 6 6.98 44 6.34 119 2.46 Gastropoda, Large Marine unidentified large marine gastropods (>10 cm long) 14 0.34 8 1.15 22 0.45 Gastropoda, Small Marine unidentified small marine gastropods (<1 cm long) 11 0.27 11 0.23 Total Marine Gastropods and Scaphopods 1677 41.33 42 48.84 157 22.62 1876 38.78 Mollusca, Marine unidentified marine mollusk 57 1.40 13 1.87 70 1.45 Total Marine Mollusks 2141 52.76 58 67.44 438 63.11 2637 54.51 Unionidae river clam 10 0.25 10 0.21 Pachychilus cf. glaphyrus jute snail 1 0.14 1 0.02 Pachychilus sp. jute snails 1 0.02 1 0.02 Pomacea flagellata apple snail 202 4.98 28 4.03 230 4.75 Total Freshwater Mollusks 213 5.25 29 4.18 242 5.00

PAGE 443

443 Table 7 11. Continued Scientific Name Common Name LP % Mixed LP/Postclassic % Postclassic/Modern % Total % Bulimulus sp. terrestrial snail 7 0.17 2 0.29 9 0.19 Euglandina sp. wolf snail 17 0.42 1 1.16 15 2.16 33 0.68 Spiraxis sp. terrestrial snail 1 0.02 1 0.02 Spiraxidae terrestrial snail 43 1.06 3 0.43 46 0.95 cf. Stenophysa sp. terrestrial snail 30 0.74 30 0.62 Helicinidae terrestrial snail 12 0.30 2 0.29 14 0.29 Neocyclotus cf. dysoni tree snail 55 1.36 15 17.44 61 8.79 131 2.71 Orthalicus cf. princeps tree snail 82 2.02 12 13.95 76 10.95 170 3.51 Pomatiidae ( Chondropoma sp.?) terrestrial snail 31 0.76 43 6.20 74 1.53 Gastropoda, terrestrial unidentified terrestrial snails 1 0.02 1 0.02 Total Terrestrial Gastropods 279 6.88 28 32.56 202 29.11 509 10.52 Gastropoda unidentified gastropod 12 0.30 2 0.29 14 0.29 Gastropoda, small a unidentified small gastropods (<1.0 cm long) 1362 33.56 2 0.29 1364 28.19 Mollusca b unidentified mollusks 7 0.17 2 0.29 9 0.19 Total Mollusks 4014 98.92 86 100.00 675 97.26 4775 98.70 Clypeaster cf. rosaceus sea biscuit 21 c 0.52 13 c 1.87 34 0.70 Echinidae sea urchins 1 0.02 1 0.02 Anthozoa coral 20 0.49 5 0.72 25 0.52 Invertebrate unidentified invertebrates 2 0.05 1 0.14 3 0.06

PAGE 444

444 Table 7 11. Continued Scientific Name Common Name LP % Mixed LP/Postclassic % Postclassic/Modern % Total % Total Invertebrates 4058 100.00 86 100.00 694 100.00 4838 100.00 a Many could be terrestrial b Counted clusters of small unidentifiable shell fragments per lot as one specimen c Conservative estimate; full count was 78 fragments from the Late Preclassic, 18 fragments from the Postclassic/Modern layers

PAGE 445

445 Table 7 12. Comparison of Preclassic period marine invertebrates found at the sites under investigation. See Table 7 11 for those shells found at Cerros that were not recovered from the inland sites. Lower level taxonomic divisions were also included in upper level categories where relevent ( ex: Spondylus americanus was also counted as Spondylus sp.). Scientific Name Common Name Ceibal Caobal Holmul Cival Hamontun K'o San Bartolo Xultun Cerros Total # Sites Spondylus cf. americanus Atlantic thorny oyster x x 2 Spondylus sp. thorny oysters x x x x x x 6 Noetia ponderosa ponderous ark clam x 1 Arcidae ark clams x x 1 Chione paphia king venus x x 2 Codakia orbicularis tiger lucine x x 2 Donax cf. denticulatus common Caribbean donax/bean clam x 1 Dentalium sp. tusk shell x x x x 4 Diodora cayenensis or aspera limpet x 1 Conus cf. delessertii Sozon's cone snail x 1 Oliva sp. olive snails x x x x x x 6 Olivella cf. nivea snowy dwarf olive x x? 2 Cassis cf. madagascariensis cameo helmet x x? 2 Tonnoidea triton and helmet snails x x x 3 Prunum apicinum Atlantic marginella x x x x x 5 Prunum cf. amabile or labiatum Roosevelt's marginella or royal marginella x 1 Prunum cf. guttatum white spotted marginella x 1 Turbinella angulata West Indian chank shell x x x x 4 cf. Muricidae murex or rock snail x 1 Lobatus gigas queen conch x x x x 4 Strombus pugilis fighting conch x x x x x x x 7 Strombidae conch snails x x x x x x x x 8

PAGE 446

446 Table 7 13. Comparison of Early Classic period marine invertebrates found at the sites under investigation. Scientific Name Common Name Ceibal Caobal La Sufricaya Cival Xultun Spondylus sp. thorny oysters x x x x Plicatula cf. gibbosa Atlantic kitten's paw x Ostreidae oysters x Arca zebra turkey wing ark clam x Noetia ponderosa ponderous ark clam x Anomalocardia flexuosa Carib Pointed Venus Clam x Chione cancellata Cross barred Venus x Veneridae venus clams x x Mulinia cf. lateralis dwarf surf clam x Cardites floridanus Broad ribbed Carditid x Trachycardium cf. isocardia West Indian prickly cockle x Trachycardium sp. prickly cockles x Cardiidae cockles x Chamidae jewel box clams x Dentalium sp. tusk shell x Crepidula cf. aculeata spiny slippersnail x Crepidula cf. maculosa spotted slipper limpet x Crucibulum cf. auricula West Indian cup and saucer x Nerita versicolor four toothed nerite x Oliva sp. olive snails x x x Olivella cf. nivea snowy dwarf olive x Prunum apicinum Atlantic marginella x x Lobatus gigas queen conch x Strombus pugilis fighting conch x Strombidae conch snails x Cinctura lilium banded tulip x Columbella mercatoria dove snail x Vermicularia fargoi Fargo's worm shell x Anthozoa coral x

PAGE 447

447 Table 7 14. Comparison of reported Preclassic period mollusks across the Mesoamerican region. Region Site Total Identified Shells # Taxa Categories Shared Species with Peten Sites (this study) Shared Genera with Peten Sites (this study) a Veracruz Patarata 113,923 18 0 0 Tabasco San Andres 894 12 0 0 Belize K'axob 8 1 0 1 Belize Cuello 1 1 0 1 Belize Cahal Pech 1150 4 0 4 Belize Chan 642 11 4 1 Belize Pacbitun 3672 b 15 3 6 Chiapa s Chiapa de Corzo (not available) 15 2 2 a If only identified to genus level at the Pet n sites; ex: Oliva sp. b 589 from Boileau ( 2013 ) and Stanchl y ( 1999 ) 3083 from Hohmann ( 2002:116 ) Table 7 15. Total cut, artifactual, and unworked bone at the Preclassic lowland sites. Data from Cerros only includes Late Preclassic (unmixed provenience) invertebrate material. Site Cut specimens % Cut of all altered specimens Finished, broken, or partial artifact % Artifact Not worked Total % Altered of Total San Bartolo 10 23.81 32 76.19 921 963 4.26 Xultun 2 18.18 9 81.82 27 38 28.95 Holmul 1 4.76 20 95.24 284 305 6.89 Cival 11 12.79 75 87.21 230 316 27.22 Hamontun 2 14.29 12 85.71 151 165 8.48 K'o 2 22.22 7 77.78 145 154 5.84 Cerros 10 10.64 84 89.36 3964 4058 2.32

PAGE 448

448 Table 7 16. Comparison of Preclassic period animal taxa inv olved in craft activities at San Bartolo All counts in NISP. Common Name Cut specimens Finished, broken, or partial artifact Total % of all specimens modified % of taxa group (see Table 7 1) Domestic Dog 1 1 2.44 1.59 White tailed Deer 5 2 7 17.07 28.00 Unidentified Mammal 2 2 4.88 2.67 Unidentified Medium large Mammal 3 3 6 14.63 8.11 Unidentified Vertebrate 3 3 7.32 10.34 Olive Snail 8 8 19.51 72.73 Atlantic Marginella 2 2 4.88 100.00 Queen Conch 1 1 2.44 50.00 Fighting Conch 2 2 4.88 28.57 Conch (Fighting or Queen) 1 1 2.44 33.33 Marine Gastropod 1 3 4 9.76 100.00 Unidentified River Clam 1 3 4 9.76 2.31 TOTAL 10 31 41 100.00

PAGE 449

449 Table 7 17. Comparison of Preclassic period animal taxa involved in craft activities at Xultun. All counts in NISP. Common Name Cut specimens Finished, broken, or partial artifact Total % of all specimens modified % of taxa group (see Table 7 2) Unidentified Mammal 1 1 2 18.18 18.18 Olive Snail 1 1 9.09 100.00 Fighting Conch 6 6 54.55 100.00 Conch (Fighting or Queen) 1 1 9.09 25.00 Marine Gastropod 1 1 9.09 100.00 TOTAL 2 9 11 100.00

PAGE 450

450 Table 7 18. Comparison of Preclassic period animal taxa involved in craft activities at Holmul. All counts in NISP. Common Name Cut specimens Finished, broken, or partial artifact Total % of all specimens modified % of taxa group (see Table 7 3) Domestic Dog 1 1 4.76 3.70 White tailed Deer 1 1 4.76 3.85 Unidentified Medium Large Mammal 2 2 9.52 25.00 Spondylus 1 1 4.76 100.00 Olive Snail 2 2 9.52 100.00 Fighting Conch 1 1 4.76 100.00 Marine Gastropod 4 4 19.05 100.00 Large Marine Gastropod 3 3 14.29 100.00 Unidentified Marine Mollusk 1 1 4.76 100.00 Unidentified River Clam 2 2 9.52 2.99 Jute Snail ( Pachychilus cf. indiorum ) 3 3 14.29 18.75 TOTAL 1 20 21 100.00

PAGE 451

451 Table 7 19. Comparison of Preclassic period animal taxa involved in craft activities at Cival. All counts in NISP. Common Name Cut specimens Finished, broken, or partial artifact Total % of all specimens modified % of taxa group (see Table 7 5) Dog or Fox 1 1 1.16 100.00 Unidentified Medium large Mammal 1 1 1.16 100.00 Spondylus 1 7 8 9.30 57.14 Olive Snail 1 1 1.16 100.00 Queen Conch 1 1 1.16 50.00 Fighting Conch 2 15 17 19.77 100.00 Conch (Fighting or Queen) 2 6 8 9.30 61.54 Marine Gastropod 4 30 34 39.53 97.14 Unidentified Marine Mollusk 9 9 10.47 100.00 Unidentified River Clam 6 6 6.98 7.50 TOTAL 11 75 86 100.00

PAGE 452

452 Table 7 20 Comparison of Preclassic period animal taxa inv olved in craft activities at Hamontun All counts in NISP Common Name Cut specimens Finished, broken, or partial artifact Total % of all specimens modified % of taxa group (see Table 7 6) Unidentified Vertebrate 1 1 7.14 50.00 Spondylus 1 3 4 28.57 100.00 Atlantic Marginella 2 2 14.29 100.00 Fighting Conch 1 1 7.14 100.00 Conch (Fighting or Queen) 1 1 7.14 50.00 Marine Gastropod 3 3 21.43 60.00 Unidentified Marine Mollusk 2 2 14.29 100.00 TOTAL 2 12 14 100.00

PAGE 453

453 Table 7 21 Comparison of Preclassic period animal taxa inv All counts in NISP Common Name Cut specimens Finished, broken, or partial artifact Total % of all specimens modified % of taxa group (see Table 7 7) Conch (Fighting or Queen) 1 1 11.11 100 Marine Gastropod 1 1 2 22.22 100 Unidentified Marine Mollusk 2 2 22.22 100 Jute Snail ( Pachychilus cf. indiorum ) 4 4 44.44 66.67 TOTAL 2 7 9 100.00

PAGE 454

454 Table 7 22. Comparison of Preclassic period invertebrate taxa involved in craft activities at Cerros. All counts in NISP. Common Name Cut specimens Finished, broken, or partial artifact Total % of all specimens modified % of taxa group (see Table 7 11) River Clam 3 3 3.19 30.00 Atlantic Thorny Oyster 2 12 14 14.89 100.00 Oysters 1 1 1.06 2.38 Eared Ark Clam 1 1 1.06 14.29 Tusk Shell 1 1 1.06 100.00 Moon Snail 1 1 1.06 50.00 Olive Snails 6 6 6.38 100.00 Dwarf Olive Snails 3 3 3.19 100.00 Atlantic Marginella 8 8 8.51 50.00 West Indian Chank Shell 1 1 1.06 25.00 Atlantic Triton 2 2 2.13 66.67 Queen Conch 5 4 9 9.57 15.00 Fighting Conch 2 2 2.13 4.17 Caribbean Crown Conch 1 1 1.06 0.07 Deer Or Measled Cowry 1 1 1.06 100.00 Unidentified Marine Gastropods 1 7 8 8.51 11.59 Unidentified Large Marine Gastropods (>10 cm long) 1 1 1.06 7.14 Unidentified Marine Mollusk 29 29 30.85 50.88 Sea Biscuit 2 2 2.13 9.52 TOTAL 10 84 94 100.00

PAGE 455

455 Table 7 23 Comparison of different types of crafted items at the Preclassic lowland sites. The data from Cerros only includes invertebrate fauna. Artifact Type San Bartolo Xultun Holmul Cival Hamontun K'o Cerros Drilled/modified tooth 1 1 Whole or partial bone bead 4 Bone awl or pin 5 1 1 Carved/polished/incised bone (partial artifact) 3 3 1 a Drilled/pierced shell bead or pendent 15 8 8 29 4 5 26 Carved shell bead 2 3 34 Shell spindle whorl or circular adorno 1 2 36 3 2 Spondylus pectoral 3 Shell "spoon" 3 Conch horn? 1 Large interior whorl "tool"? 1 Axe head b 2 Carved "arc" 2 Carved shell (partial artifact) 3 6 4 1 15 TOTAL 32 9 20 75 12 7 84 a Possible human cranium b Identified as "axe head" by Garber (1989:70)

PAGE 456

456 Table 7 24 Special deposits of animals at the Preclassic Peten study sites. B = Burial, C = Cache, M = Midden or midden like special deposits containing animals. "?" denotes uncertainty if specimen was associated or not (e.g. possible fill intermixed with special context). Scientific Name Common Name San Bartolo Xultun Cival Hamontun K'o Oryzomys sp. rice rat B Rodentia rodents B Canis lupus familiaris domestic dog C Aves, small unidentified birds, size of a quail or dove C Testudines unidentified turtles M Bufonidae toads B Sparisoma sp. parrotfish M Siluriformes catfish M Spondylus sp. thorny oysters C B, C B, M Arcidae ark clams C Chione paphia king venus C Oliva sp. olive snails M? B* Prunum apicinum Atlantic marginella B, M Lobatus gigas queen conch M Strombus pugilis fighting conch M M Strombidae conch C M M M Gastropoda, marine unidentified marine snails M M M Unionidae freshwater clam B, C, M M M Pachychilus cf. glaphyrus jute snail M M Pachychilus sp. jute snail B Pomacea flagellata Central American apple snail M? B, M B, M M *looter's trench possibly disturbed burial debris

PAGE 457

457 Figure 7 1. Two examples of parrot fish grinders (cf. Sparisoma s p.) from Holmul. These two came from a disturbed Late Classic context from Group 1 Building D which had been partly tunneled by looters in the near past (operation HOL.L.10. 16.y15). Figure 7 2. Diversity and equitability results from the lowland Petn sites. Preclassic period diversity from Ceibal is calculated from a combination of Middle, Late, and Terminal Preclassic fauna since the Preclassic period contexts at the other sites do not often distinguish between these periods. PC = Preclassic period; EC = Early Classic period. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Diversity Index Diversity Equitability

PAGE 458

458 Figure 7 3. Diversity and equitability at the lowland Petn sites, excluding invertebrate material. PC = Preclassic period; EC = Early Classic period. Figure 7 4. Habitat fidelity results from the Preclassic fauna at Holmul, Cival, and San Bartolo. Habitat acronyms include: MF = mature forest; SEC = seco ndary forest; AGR/RES = agricultural or residential areas; RIV = rivers; and WET = wetlands. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Diversity Index Diversity Equitability 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 Fidelity Index MF SEC AGR/R ES Holmul Cival San Bartolo

PAGE 459

459 Figure 7 5. Habitat fidelity results without river and wetland taxa at Holmul, Cival, and San Bartolo during the Preclassic period. Habitat acronyms include: MF = mature forest; SEC = secondary forest; and AGR/RES = agricultural or residential areas. 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 FIdelity Index MF SEC AGR/RES Holmul Cival San Bartolo

PAGE 460

460 Figure 7 6. Shells from Early Classic marine themed deposits from two burials in Str. 11J7, Xultun. A) West Indian cup and saucer ( Crucibulum cf. auricular ) B) Plicatula cf. gibbosa ). C) F our toothed nerite ( Nerita versicolor ) D) Vermicularia cf. fargoi ) E) P rickly cockle ( Trachycardium sp. ) F) S potted slipper limpet ( Crepidula cf. maculosa ) G) B anded tulip ( Cinctura lilium ), carved in the shape of a possible agouti (a small ceramic figurine of an agouti like an imal was found with this shell). H) B road ribbed c arditid ( Cardites floridanus ). I) West Indian cup and saucer ( Crucibulum cf. auricular ) (operation s X UL 11J 7 A 5 2 and XUL 11J 7 A 12 1). Photos by Sharpe.

PAGE 461

461 Figure 7 7 Ma p of the Mesoamerican region showing location of sites with reported Preclassic ma rine shells used in this study.

PAGE 462

462 Figure 7 8 Total cut, artifactual, and unworked bone at the Preclassic Petn sites. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% San Bartolo Xultun Holmul Cival Hamontun K'o %Number of Individual Specimens Not worked Finished, broken, or partial artifact Cut specimens

PAGE 463

463 Figure 7 9 Examples of pierced conch shells from the Preclassic Holmul area A) Mixed fighting and queen conchs ( Strombus pugilis and Lobatus gigas ) from Str. 20 at Cival, fill deposit (operation CIV.T.29.03.10.01 07 ). B) Fi ghting conch ( Strombus pugilis ) from Str. 31 at Cival, fill disturbed by looter activity (operation CIV.L.04.01.10.01 ). C) S mall conch (Strombidae) from Str. 1 at Cival, fill deposit around stucco mask (operation CIV.1.10.02 ). D) L arge conch or possible ch ank shell ( Turbinella angulata ) from Building N, Grou p II at Holmul, fill deposit (operation HOL.T.71.02.10.01 ). Photos by Sharpe.

PAGE 464

464 Figure 7 10 Examples of pierced conch shells from the Preclassic period contexts at San Bartolo and Xultun A) Str. 12H3 at Xultun, fill deposit (operation XUL 12H3 A 21 5 ) B) Las Ventanas Structure at San Bartolo, fill deposit (operation SB 6A 2 9 ) C) Las Pinturas Structure at San Bartolo, near the buried Ixbalambke substructure (operation SB 1A 32 12 ) D) Str. 86 at San Bartolo, fill deposit from a possible lithic workshop (operation SB 16A 2 4 ). Photos by Sharpe.

PAGE 465

465 Figure 7 11. Circular shell disks, possibly adornos or spindle whorls, are frequently found in the Petn sites during the Preclassic period. Mo st are made from large gastropods, including the queen conch ( Lobatus gigas ). A) Large disk from the fill of Hill Group 45, Cival (operation CIV.T.51.05.10.01 ). B) T wo disks from a mixed midden/burial context in a Mid dle Preclassic chultun (Burial 133, ope ration CIV.T.28.11.10.06 &07). C) T wo disks from the same mi xed midden/burial deposit as the artifact in Photo B (Burial 133, operation CIV.T.28.02.10.02 &03). D) D isk from Str. 9 at Cival, fill deposit (operation CIV.T.12.50 ). E) U nevenly carved disk from S tr. 20 at Cival, fill deposit (operation CIV.T.47.02.10.03 ). F) U nevenly carved disk from the Las Pinturas Sturcture at San Bartolo, fill deposit in Sub 1 (operation SB 1A 1 ). G) D isk from Building N, Group II at Holmul, fill deposit ( HOL.T.71.30.10.01 ). Photos by Sharpe.

PAGE 466

466 Figure 7 12 Examples of Preclassic marine shell ornaments. A) Carved spondylus in quincunx shape from Burial 25 at Cival (operation CIV.T.22.12.10.02) B) S tar shaped shell ornament from a midden in Group 34 at Hamontun (operation HAM.T.29.07.10.02 ). C) C arved shell possibly depicting the Venus glyph from the fill of Building N, Group II at Holmul (operation HOL.T.71.71.10.01 ). D) C arved shell in quincunx shape from a fill deposit disturbed by looters in Building F, Group II at Holm ul (operation HOL.L.01.01.10.01 ). Photos by Sharpe.

PAGE 467

467 Figure 7 13. Examples of modified river clams f rom the northeast Petn sites. A) Two valves from the fill of Str. 146/148, La Sufricaya ( possibly Early Classic period; op eration SUF.T.23.51.10.01&02 ). B) M odified valve from the corner of Str. 87, San Bartolo ( possible Late Preclassic period; operation SB 16A 2 7). C) S KOL.T.15.20.10.01 ). D) F ragment of modified valve margin from the Late Preclassic fill of Building C, Group II (operation HOL.T.83.12.10.03 ). Photos by Sharpe.

PAGE 468

468 Figure 7 14. Examples of carved Late Preclassic marine shells at Cerros that bear resemblance to artifacts found at the inland Preclassic Petn sites. A) Fighting conch ( Strombus pugilis ) cut at the spire in the same manner as the Petn conchs (SF 0650, Str. 1A, Op 33a 001 ). B) O live shell bead or pendant ( SF 0963 Str. 1A, Op 34a 172 ). C) C arved star like decorative ornament (SF 1378, Str. 46A Op 129a 6 ). D) T wo Atlantic marginella, one pierced ( CM1 10301 Str. 1A; Op 34a 127 ). Photos by Sharpe.

PAGE 469

469 Figure 7 15. Two conch shells from Cerros, identified as axe heads by Garber (1989:70). The shell on the left ( SF 1468 ) came from a mixed deposit from the sur face of the monumental site core (Str. 1A). The shell on the right (SF 0042) came from a Late Preclassic deposit in the same structure (Str. 1A, Op 6a 13 ). Photo by Sharpe.

PAGE 470

470 Figure 7 16. Examples of modified olive shells at San Bartolo and the Holmul sites. (A) and (C) are two spire less olive shell ornaments from San Bartolo (A is from the Las Pinturas Structure fill, operation SB 1A 34 66; C is from the palace structure, El T igrillo (operation SB 8D 45 13). B) A spire that has been cut from an olive snail at Holmul and was possibly later used as an ornament after a hole was made at the tip (operation HOL.T.71.11.10.01 ). D) A n olive shell with spire intact from La Sufricaya (operation SUF.T.24.03.10.01 ). Photos by Sharpe.

PAGE 471

471 Figure 7 17. Spondylus pe ctorals from Cival and Cerros. A and B) One of the two pierced valves found in a Late Preclassic cache at Cival, in front of Str. 7 and believed to be associated with Stela 2 ( operation CIV.T.08.24.10.01 ; Ba uer 2003; Estrada Belli 2006). C and D) A second valv e found in the same deposit as the shell in Photos A and B (operation CIV.T.08.24.10.02 ). E and F) P ierced valve found in a quincunx style vessel cache in Hill Group 1 at Cival, dating to the Late Preclassic period (operation CIV.T.64.06.10.01 ). G and H) P ierced valve found in a large broken vessel associated with Burial 20 in the Cerros ceremonial core, dating to the Late Preclassic period (SF 0508, 1A B20, Op 30a 3/4 ). Photos by Sharpe.

PAGE 472

472 Figure 7 18. Examples of wild cats in rituals in the S an Bartolo Xultun area over time. A) The Late Preclassic San Bartolo ruler, one of the earliest depictions of an enthroned king in the Maya area, alongside a spotted wild cat pelt (drawing by Hurst; from Urquiz and Saturno 2002: Figure 29). B) Xultun Stel a 10, depicting a king holding what is believed to be a jaguar cub (drawing by von Euw 1978). C and D) T wo third phalanges of a small wild cat, possibly a young jaguar based on morphology. Both were found in an Early Classic period tomb in Str. 11J7 at Xul tun (operation XUL 11J 7A 13 6). Photos by Sh arpe.

PAGE 473

473 CHAPTER 8 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS In order t o examine the development of state l evel society, this study focuses on animal use as it relates to four major themes in zooarchaeology: subsistence and die t, social inequality and power, crafting and exchange relations, and rituals and symbolism. It explored these thematic areas with the goal of describing the links between animal use and the development of social and political inequality as part of the rise of early states in the Maya area. Ceibal was the focus of much of the intra site analysis investigating these themes over an extended period of time, as Ceibal has one of the oldest and longest occupational sequences in the Maya lowlands and because excavations at the site had recovered a substantial amount of animal material from the ceremonial core and periphery gro ups with which to assess intra site changes over t ime. Sites in the San Bartolo Xultun and Holmul regions were used as p art of the inter site analysis to examine how widespread social consistencies and changes occurred in the use of animal resources throughout the Preclassic period an d into the Early Class ic, and new invertebrate analyses from Cerros were used to compare marine resource exchange across overland trade networks during the Preclassic period. The Intra site Study: Zooarchaeological and Stable Isotope Analyses at Ceibal The first part of th e rese arch focused on the intra site zooarchaeological analysis at Ceibal, comparing animal use over time at the site as well as between the monumental core and residential periphery areas, each representing what were likely the Preclassic emerging elit e and less er/non elite classes.

PAGE 474

474 The Use of Animal Taxa Over T ime The first major question was whether animal resource use was consistent over time at Ceibal between the Preclassic and Classic periods, or whether the use of these resources changed in tandem with know n sociopolitical transitions that took place in the Petn lowlands during the Terminal Preclassic and Early Classic periods. It was found that taxa did, indeed, change significantly over time at the site, especially during the time of social unrest between the Preclassic and Classic periods before the site became a state capital in the Terminal C lassic period. During the early Middle and late Middle Preclassic periods, the Ceibal inhabitants focused their subsistence practices on acquiring large numbers of fish and shellfish from the Pasin River and wetlands, and also raised dogs on a predominantly maize based diet. During the Late Preclassic period the focus on river taxa and dogs began to decrease somewhat, a transition that continued throughout the cou rse of the Terminal Preclassic period. During the Early Classic period the site inhabitants began to consume larger proportions of deer, peccary, and turtles, most particularly the large Central American river turtle that had been mostly absent from the Ce ibal faunal record previously. This type of subsistence strategy continued throughout the rest of the Classic period, indicating that not only were the Preclassic and Classic period subsistence bases different, but that the transition occurred slowly throu ghout the Late and Terminal Preclassic periods, with the Early Classic period marking the start of the later Classic period subsistence base. Consistency in Differential Access to A nimal R esources A second question posited at the start of this investigatio n asked whether animal resources may have been purposefully controlled to establish social inequalities in terms of political and economic power. Toward this end, I tested for an observable

PAGE 475

475 oup A and its Central Plaza) compared to those used in the peripheries. I also tested whether these taxa were obtained by upper (those living or engaging in activities in the ceremonial core) and lower status (those living in the peripheral groups) reside nts from different habitat areas, as has been noted at other sites in the Petn during the later Classic period (Pohl 1994:131; Sharpe and Emery 2015; Thornton 2011a:108 110), which would indicate control over resource acquisition areas. I also examined wh ether the inhabitants of the core had greater access to non local species and finished craft items than did th e inhabitants of the periphery. I determined that trends exhibited among the taxa were often similar between the core and periphery, with some not able exceptions. The focus on dogs and freshwater taxa was common at both the core and periphery in the Preclassic periods, although middens containing large numbers of dog bones or apple snail s and river clam shells were more commonly f ound in the periphe ral groups. Although not as common as dogs and freshwater mollusks, other Precalssic taxa in the periphery included animals such as deer, armadillos, pacas, rabbits and pond sliders. Marine taxa were more frequently found in the core, even during the earl y Middle Preclassic period when the periphery had no marine taxa, suggesting that differential access to exotic species indeed occurred during the earliest phas surmise, therefore, that unequal access to marine resources had ceremonial core grew to a monumental scale Remains of crafting debitage, although scarce, also show that the Preclassic periphery inhabitants were crafti ng more ornamental objects, whereas the core inhabitants were receiv ing many of the finished

PAGE 476

476 objects in addition to ornamental marine shell artifacts from the coast. Furthermore, the isotope results from the animal remains indicate that at least two of the dogs in the Middle and Late Preclassic c ore were from in or around the h ighlands region of Guatemala. The dogs may have been imported to the site as gifts or tribute, or perhaps they came with their owners who were themselves early elites involved in the activities of the core. Altogether, the zooarchaeological and isoto pic results reinforce the notion that differential access to and use of certain animal resourc es occurred during the Preclassic period, much as it did in the later Classic period. Nevertheless, even if these early Preclassic protostates resembled later Cla ssic period states, the Preclassic inhabitants of Ceibal experienced a slow political and economic breakdown in the Terminal Preclassic period that destabilized the use of animal resources. During the Early Classic period the periphery inhabitants, particu larly those living at the residential Karinel Group, were the prime consumers of exotic and crafted marine shell artifacts, revealing that they, rather than the residents of the site core, now had control over this valuable resource. Similarly, crafting ac tivities in the core now took plac e as often as in the periphery, but crafting in the core used more mammal bone and river turtle shells for creating utilitarian produc ts rather than adornments, whereas the periphery had access to more marine shell ornamen ts. This sugg ests that the former core elite class residents had either dissipated and/or that the ruling members of the former core elite class had left the site after which parts of the core were occupied by individuals who may have come from the surrou nding periphery. During the Late Classic period the core was reinvented, new monumental architec ture was constructed (especially the expansion of Group D to the east), and the

PAGE 477

477 core was again used as a powerful elit e center. Peripheral groups who had access to the most animal species (including marine shells) during the Early Classic period, such as the Karinel Group, continued to have access to these resources in the Late Classic period and may have remained in important elite residences while the central c ore was reestablished. The similarity of Late Classic taxa in the Karinel Group and the newly established Group D, such as deer, turkeys, and Central American river turtles, reinforces this notion. This trend continued during the Terminal Classic period, w h en Ceibal experienced a resurgence in political power for a brief time starting around A.D. 829 (Schele and Matthews 1998), when most other sites in the region (i.e. Aguateca and Dos Pilas in the Petexbatun, and the Usumacinta sites to the north like Yaxc hilan and Piedras Negras) had already collapsed or were suffering from political turmoil and population decline after many decades of war. Ceibal continued to erect stela e and carry out monumental construction projects until A.D. 889 (the last date recorde d at the center), or slightly later (Tourtellout and Gonzlez 2005). During its time as a capita l, s had proportionally similar access as the core elite to large bodied mammals like deer, peccary, and turkeys, as well as exotic goods such as marine shells, indicating that these patio groups may have been occupied by an intermediate elite class, perhaps the relatives of the ruling family who benefited from to the site based on isotopic analysis, with a few exceptions of deer that may have come from somewhere else in the Petn A ll had been consuming forest (C3) vegetation with the

PAGE 478

478 exception of the dogs, some turkeys (including at least one Meleagris gallopa vo ), and one pec cary found in the palace patio. Thus, although differential access to resources based on social distinctions appears to have existed during the Preclassic period, the nature of these class based disparities differed between the Preclassic a nd Classic period s Terminal Preclassic and Early Classic demise, there is no evidence in the faunal record of social disruption toward the end of the Terminal Classic period, when the site was permanently abandoned. This coincides wit h the other artifactual and architectural evidence from the site (Tourtellot and Gonzalez 2005). Hieroglyphic writing on the Central Plaza stelae indicate that it was one of the last state capitals in the Petn, and unlike the other sites in the Petexbatun area, had not succumbed to a disastrous defeat in any battle. There is limited evidence in the periphery of Postclas sic ceramics (Tourtellot 1988:407 408 ; Triadan 2015:131 134), which suggests that the elite core inhabitants simply left while the surroun ding residential populace remained or, based on the nature of the Postclassic ceramic styles in the periphery, individuals from the central Petn began to move into the region 1 Inconsistency in Ritual Taxa and Ritual E vents A third question raised at the start of th e study was whether pol itically charged ritual uses of animals changed at the site over time. Animals and animal symbolism were integral to elite class ceremonial activities and exhibitions of power during the Classic period, which helped establ ish the social significance of Ceibal on the landscape at this early time when the site had few contemporary rivals. Thus, this 1 Takeshi Inomata, personal communication

PAGE 479

479 question is important for understanding whether and how the symbolic beliefs related to various animal taxa compare between the Preclassic protostates and Classic period state c apitals. T he use of animals in ceremonial contexts, such as caches and burials, was fairly complex at Ceibal. Certain taxa, such as a carved spondylus valve and a partial raptor bird, were interred or possib the Middle Preclassic ceremonies, much like the ceremonial jade and obsidi an artifacts that were found in the core. This suggests that animals were integral to these early ritual perfor mances. The isotopic evidence from a jaguar found in one of the early pyramid s (Str. A 18) suggest the animal was fed maize from an early age which shows that Preclassic elites (or their retainers) were rearing wild animals in captivity. Live animals like this jaguar may have been used as an impressive public display of power wielded by the early elites who conducted ceremonial activities. Ceremonial use of animals in the site core in both the Preclassic and Classic periods differed from ritual uses of animals in the periphery, where the space may not the ceremonial plaza. Some of these activities may hav e been domestic rituals, those rituals that took place at the household level and included animals for sacrifice s or offering s (for example a foundation or termination offering), as part of a human burial, or as the remains of a ceremony, feast, or other special occasion (Plunket 2002). Unusual deposits of near complete dogs, as well as immense deposits of hundreds of apple snails and river clams, provide evidence for these early domestic activities. The fact that these deposits were found in several conte xts attests to the idea that they were, in fact, part of a recognized ritual performance. Although Middle Preclassic burials that include specially placed river

PAGE 480

480 clams were found in both the core and periphery, a series of Late Preclassic burials in the cor h contained a few to several dozen Atlantic marginella shell beads in dicates that these shells were used for burials of specific individuals at that time. Ongoing osteological and stable isotopic research on the human remains f rom these burials may provide information as to who th ey were, and why they received special interments. Ritual animal caching ceased during the Terminal Preclassic and Early Classic periods, and although burials still included marine she ll items, the taxa were different a nd frequently found in peripheral residential patios that included interments of individuals ranging in age from adults to children. The most unique of these were at the Karinel Group, containing dozens of spondy lus shell beads. S pondylus beads were also included in Late and Terminal Classic period burials in this group, signifying that this practice began in the Early Classic. This again underscores the social transitions of the time, in that the Central Plaza was no longer the center of c eremonial activities, and political power at Ceibal itself had become decentralized in comparison to earlier periods Animals were not interred as caches in the Central Plaza during the Late and Terminal Classic period when the site recovered to become a state capital; however, animal resources that may have been involved in ritual functions, such as sea urchin spines and a shark tooth, were found in midden and fill contexts associated with the palace and ruling elite residences, showing that the types of symbolically important animals and the types of rituals in which they were used at the site may have changed even if animals were not necessarily interred as caches when they were discarded.

PAGE 481

481 Ceibal and the Nearby Minor C enter, Caobal Finally, the question of how Ceibal compares with the nearby minor center of Caobal over time is important for interpreting how smaller ceremonial cente rs developed in relation to similar to that of Ceiba similar between the two even though Caobal had a much smaller dataset. Caobal had abundant freshwater shells during the Middle and Late Preclassic periods, including Middle Preclassic apple s nail middens just like at Ceibal. One Late Preclassic elite burial also included several Atlantic marginella shell beads, indicating that Caobal also participated in this ceremony, which is interesting since it only seems to have occurred al Plaza. This may indicate there was an association between the individuals interred in the Ceibal Central Plaza and the early Caobal elite. The Inter site Study: Zooarchaeological Analyses from Across the Lowlands Continuity in Animal T axa a cross the Prec lassic S ites The first questions the inter site study set to address were whether Preclassic Maya communities across the Petn focused on a similar subsistence base, indicating a shared knowledge of how to acquire or raise certain animals for consumption, a nd whether subsistence practices change d over time in similar ways between sites in relation to the social upheaval that occurred at some Maya centers during the Early Classic period, including Holmul, Cival, and San Bartolo. The results of the f aunal analyses at the sites indicate d that the majority had higher proportions of dogs and freshwater mollusks during their Preclassic phases, and that these proportions decreased over time as deer and peccary became more common in the Classic period. This is si gnificant, since it is the same pattern observed at Ceibal, and reflects past

PAGE 482

482 studies that focused exclusively on either the Preclassic or Classic period, noting that dogs were often common in the Preclassic period sites (Clutton Brock and Hammond 1994; Em ery et al. 2013; Shaw 1991:168 169; Wing and Scudder 1991) and deer were common in the Classic (Pohl 1990; Montero Lopez 2009; Sharpe and Emery 2015) The pattern indicates that more effort was put into raising dogs and collecting shells in the Preclassic than Classic period. There are several explanations for this. First, regarding dogs, it has been previously posited (White et al. 2001) that dogs were raised for ceremonial functions in the Preclassic period, which is why they we re fed maize, often in very large amounts. This is certainly possible, and the presence of non local dogs at Ceibal which had the highest 13 C isotope signatures (indicative of ma ize consumption) clearly demonstrates that they were important enough to be transported long distances at that early time. However, dogs were common across Ceibal, particularly in the periphery residences and in possible domestic ritual deposits that included the multiple Middle Pr eclassic dog interments, and isotopic evidence shows tha t all dogs consumed m aize. The dogs from the other Petn sites have not been measured is otopically, although it is possible they ate maize as well, as was found in studies from Belizean sites (White et al. 2001; White et al. 2004). Thus, perhaps some dogs were used for ceremon ies, including those that were fed greater proportions of maize, and perhaps dog related ceremonies were more common in the Preclassic skeleton early Middle Preclassic patio groups and numerous dog teeth were found in the Las Pinturas structure at San Bartolo. Yet there is no evidence that dogs were raised primarily for ceremonies. Ongoing morphometric and

PAGE 483

483 aDNA research into the breeds of dogs us ed at Ceibal may provide evidence that certain dogs were used for specific functions, perhaps distinguishing between types of dogs that were used for activities in the central core of the site compared with dogs that were raised at the periphery residences The pattern exhibited among the freshwater she llfish is also intriguing. Whereas apple snail middens containing hundreds of shells were found only at Ceibal, smaller versions of these middens were found at Holmul, Cival, and Hamontun. The number of river clams decrease d over time at all of the sites as well, even though the eastern Petn species differ from those of Ceibal and the Petexbatun region. This decrease may have been the result of environmental changes over time. Effects that may have caused env ironmental change could have been anthropogenic in origin, if ancient Maya agricultural practices affected the rivers, perhaps by inundating water sources with large quantities of soil eroded from cleared lands, evidence of which has been discovered from b ajos and aguadas in some areas of the Petn (Beach et al. 2006; Brenner et al. 2002; Dunning et al. 2002; Wahl et al. 2013). Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that these activities were intensive enough to affect all the river systems and wetlands where clam s and apple snails reside d The changes might also have been climate related; sedimentation and pollen analyse s from soil in the Petn and northern Belize (Beach et al. 2006, 2009; Wahl et al. 2013), in addition to remote sensing (Estrada Belli and Koch 20 07), indicate that the landscape and water catchment areas in the eastern Petn changed over time. Where there are intermittent aguadas on the landscape today, there may have been larger bodies of water or even perennial streams. Even today, the water tabl e throughout t he region is transforming as a consequence of sea level rise (Beach et

PAGE 484

484 al. 2008 ; McKillop 2002 ), bu t studies have not explore d how this is affecting or affected the fauna in the past. It is also possible that people chose not to consume these animals as much, although why this would be remains a mystery. At some sites in the Late Classic period, jute snails were commonly consumed (Halperin et al. 2003; Healy et al. 1990), especially by the lower classes of some state capitals (Sharpe and Emery 2015), and river clams were preferentially used for making ornaments at Aguateca, a Late Classic capital very close to Ceibal (Emery 2010; Emery and Aoyama 2007). Another possibility is that the animals were still consumed, but the shells were discarded i n such a way as to make them archaeologically in visible. Moholy Nagy (1978) posited that perhaps the shells were used for making lime for stucco, based on the fact that the shells are sometimes used for making lime for cooking today among the Lacandon. Dir ect evidence for this is lacking, however, and might be worth investigating using chemical or micromorphological analysis. Regardless of why the shells began to decrease in number, I can definitively say that the same pattern is found in much of the Maya l owlands, and mainly resulted in a decrease of apple snails and, to a lesser extent, river clams. Exotics and T rade Anoth er important question the inter site analysis intended to address was whether marine shells were similar among the different sites in the study, especially those shells used as ornaments found at the site cores which might indicate a more centralized system of acquisition of these exoti c resources. This part of the study also included a comparison of the marine shells identified at the inland sites of the investigation with shells identified from the coastal Late Preclassic monumental site of

PAGE 485

485 Cerros, to determine which shells from the co astal settlement were imported inland. Shells reported from previous zooarchaeological studies of Preclassic fauna from the Gulf, Chiapas, and Belize areas were also used to determine which dir ection marine shells were imported inland. The results of these analyses found a number of intriguing patterns that indicate a remarkable degree of similarity among the modes of distribution of marine taxa, perhaps brought on by similar demands for shells for specific functions or shared status markers during the Prec lassic period. The most common shell taxa at the inland sites from all three Petn study areas include olive shells, spondylus, conchs, and Atlantic although the peripheral groups from the San Bartolo Xultun and Holmul sites have not been extensively studied yet, the fact that these shells were common at the ceremonial cores of these sites at least indicates that these taxa were used among the elites in charge of creating the early monumental centers. This suggests that, to some extent, there may have been a c entralized distribution system f or these marine shells among the early elite that filtered to the periphery, although much more evidence from the periphery gr oups is needed to test this hypothesis. More information is also needed from the coast as well to determine from what area(s) specificall y these shells were coming study found that Cerros had very few of these imported taxa. The fact that a few key shell types were imported, combined with the fact that they were often cut in near identical manners (possibly before importation given the distinc t lack of shell debitage at most of the sites), suggest s that there was a very specific demand for shell s of these

PAGE 486

486 species possibly for specific functions. One such special function is evidenced by the Atlantic marginella beads occurring predominantly in core Late Preclassic burials. D irection s in which the m arine shells were exchanged are also intriguing, since this information provides clues as to which sites were in contact with one another in the past. Surprisingly, most of Cerros imported to the Petn sites, t common taxa, the Caribbean crown conch and lucine clams, which were probably used for food. Th e preferred taxa that were used for decoration at inland sites were, with the exception of conchs, relatively rare at Cerros. This suggests that the Cerros inha bitants might not have had access to populations of these shell taxa and needed to import them for special functions, they chose not to collect them except for special functions, or they exported most of these taxa to the inland sites, leaving very few for their own use. The Petn sites appear to share more similarities with the central Belize sites, such as Chan, Cahal Pech, and Pacbitun, than they do with sites to commo n with the Middle Preclassic Gulf coast sites occupied by the Olmec, even though both the Belize and Gulf sites might have had access to the same Atlantic shell species. Ceibal also had greater marine shell diversity than the other Pet n sites, indicating its residents potentially acquired she lls via other exchange routes. It would seem, therefore, that an extensive exchange network occurred along the Belize River into the Petn during the Preclassic period, and it stands to reason that this route also serv ed as an important means for transfer of news and i deas as well. This route faltered during the Terminal Preclas sic and Early Classic periods when many of the Pe tn sites were abandoned and the po litical and economic systems were

PAGE 487

487 reorganized into what woul d become the Classic period state society, when trade networks were reestablished. Evidence from the Early Classic period at Xultun, and to some extent La Sufricaya, shows that some sites began to receive large quantities of diverse marine shells at that t ime, althoug h these taxa were different from those found in the Preclassic centers, indicating that a different trade network had formed to supply these inland sites with shells during the Early Classic. Ritual S ymbolism and P ractices Finally, the inter site analysis investigated whether the different Petn sites used the same animal taxa for ritual functions, which would indicate a degree of familiarity with the same symbols and practices and, by extension, a means of symbolic political control over cert ain animal resources. As was discussed in Chapter 2, the sites shared other non animal rituals and symbols in common, including the caching of sacred items like jade and ceramic vessels in a cruciform arrangement in the Middle Preclassic period. M arine she lls carved or punctured in a particular manner and used at the ceremonial cores of the major centers can likely be interpreted as items that had once held symbolic import for ritual activities, in the form of ornaments worn by the practitioners and partici pants of these performances. The Atlantic marginella beads found in Late Preclassic human buri als were part of another widely recognized activity, even at minor cente rs such as Caobal and Hamontun. Ritual caching of entire animals, possibly as sacrifices, was however, uncommon; though found at Ceibal during the Middle Preclassic phases, only spondylus shells that had once been used as pectorals seem to have been ceremonially deposited in Preclassic caches at Cival and Cerros These activities occurred at t he centers of the sites; in the case of Cival, two such deposits were part of vessel offerings

PAGE 488

488 arranged in a cruciform (or quincunx ) pattern. The large spondylus pectoral found at Ceibal was not part of a cruciform deposit per se although it was found nea r jade and greenstone axeheads arranged in cruciform patterns. These arrangements to the cardinal directions have been interpreted as foundation offerings, deposits made to r cardinal Maya themselves, the grounding of the community within the universal cosmology. Spondylus pectorals appear to have been a part of this grounding event, and p erhaps the identity of the pectoral had been part of the reason these items were interred within the offerings. Overall, the comparison of the different sites from the Preclassic period and into the Early Classic shows that, although each site had access to a slightly different suite of taxa, there was still a high degree of confo rmity in the overall patterns concerning how animal taxa were used, both in terms of local and non local resources. Similarities exhibited among the core elite assemblages at all of the sites show that at least by the Late Preclassic period (and likely the Middle Preclassic at Ceibal), there existed a form of centralized control of certain resources and a familiarity with their use in ceremonial contexts that parallels the pan Maya rituals observed in the Classic period use of animal resources, as well as the differential use of animals among other state and protostate societies around the world (see Chapter 3). Furthermore, sociopolitical transitions at all of the sites cau sed the types and proportions of taxa to change as well. Sites that survived into the Early Classic period, or which were reoccupied in the Late Classic period, show that those changes that resulted from the Preclassic/Classic transition

PAGE 489

489 defined subsistenc e, economic, and ritual uses of taxa in later times. Many of the Preclassic social practices involving animals, therefore, did not carry on into the Classic period. Future Research to Define the Role of Animals in the Formation of Maya States Using this st udy as a basis, there are three areas where future research is most needed. First, the establishment of early social divisions using animals during the Early and Middle Preclassic period is still a murky area of Maya pre history. By the time the Ceibal inh abitants began to construct monumental architecture during the earliest extent. How animals were used before thi s period remains a mystery, in part because of the distinct lack of faunal data from Early Preclassic communities. Second, the role of animals in the site peripheries throughout the Preclassic period is still uncertain. This study compared Ceibal residential patio groups with the site core, but more extensive exca vations are needed in residential groups thro ughout the Maya area to understand the lives of i ndividuals who inhabited the areas outside the ceremonial centers and who made up the majority of the Maya population. Finally, the events of the Terminal Precla ssic and Early Classic period need to be more closely investigated, which require s greater accuracy and precision in dating excavated contexts. If this study is any indication, future investigations will likely find that the role of animals in Preclassic p eriod s ociety had a long and varied history, the results of which are still reflected on the landscape and culture of the people who live in the area today

PAGE 490

490 Conclusions This investigation was performed to examine how the differential use and distribution of animal resources played a role in establishing early social inequality and the formation of the first lowland Maya states. Using a combination of traditional zooarchaeological identification and analysis of faunal remains along with stable isotope analy sis, the study explored how and when animal resources may have been used in the development of social inequality, focusing on how they potentially served as symbols of political power in early monumental centers and may have been differentially distributed between the earliest elite and lesser/non elite status tiers, whether certain species had been raised in captivity as a source of food and economic or status display and how animals were exchanged within local communities or major/minor neighboring cente rs and across long distance routes. To date, this study is the most comprehensive investigation of the Preclassic use of animals as resources and symbols in the Maya lowlands. By virtue of the fact that many of the sites had Preclassic and Classic compone nts, the study was also able to compare the transition of protostates into true state level society over the course of two thousand years. The study examined the role of animals in all aspects of Maya life by addressing such important topics as subsistence and diet, social inequality and power, crafting and exchange relations, and rituals and symbolism. By comparing the results with what is known from other regions of the world regarding the use of animal taxa in early urban societies, it appears that even during the Middle Preclassic period there is evidence for the controlled use and distribution of certain animal taxa. Although there is periphery during the Preclassic, the fact that some exotic taxa were relegated

PAGE 491

491 predominantly to the core for certain functions, as well as the fact that these same taxa are found in similar contexts in the San Bartolo Xultun and Holmul regions, suggests that a degree of centralized control o nce existed in the distribution and use of these resources. The faunal data therefore suggests that these ceremonial centers not only paralleled the practices of later states, but that they operated under a shared cultural, economic, and political system t hat spanned the entire lowlands. The fact that minor centers like Caobal were involved in these activities, although to a lesser extent than the larger centers, indicates that this political economic system was multi tiered in the manner of Classic period state society as well. Yet these early states did not last, as is also revealed from the faunal record. The role of animals in society changed permanently after the Preclassic period, and although animals were involved in complex exchange networks, status displays, and symbolic interactions, they were not the same taxa nor the same activities that took place in Preclassic times. The evidence from Ceibal shows that the sociopolitical decline that affected the entire lowland area resulted in a slow transition in the distribution and use of fauna, both in terms of local resources and overland exchange networks. The result of this transition was the start of trends in the use of animal resources in the Early Classic period that became more commonplace thereafter characterizing the Late and Terminal Classic periods. One might wonder what would have happened if there had not been a period of socia l disruption during the Terminal Preclassic Would the social practices and associated roles of animals observed in the Classic period never have occurred? Certainly, the trajectory of Maya state society would have been much different. Yet the decline of the Preclassic protostates resulted

PAGE 492

492 in the reorganization of older practices and the incorporation of different taxa fo r new activities. The results of this study demonstrate that the uses of animals as resources and symbols during the Preclassic period were fairly complex among the study sites, an d although there was evidence of social inequality at the ceremonial site cores and selective use of different animals for specific functions, there was also evidence of dynamic social transformations over time that affected how animals were used and perceived during the Early Classic pe riod and into the Late and Terminal Classic. Animals did indeed play an integral role in the development of Maya states, but the process of state development among the Maya was an inconsistent and tumultuous trajectory marked by political disruption and ph ases of community abandonment and reorganization. The faunal record shows how Maya communities adapted to these changes over time, transforming earlier Preclassic practices or inventing entirely new ones during the Early Classic that would later sustain im mense Classic period states and cities.

PAGE 493

493 LIST OF REFERENCES Abbott, R. Tucker 1954 American Seashells D. Van Nostrand Company, New York. berg, Gran, Gisle Fosse, and Helge Stray 1998 Man, Nutrition and Mobility: A Comparison of Teeth and Bone from the Medieval era and the Present from Pb and Sr Isotopes. Science of the Total Environment 224(1 3):109 119. Abrams, Elliot M., and David J. Rue 1988 The Causes and Consequences of Deforestation among the Prehistoric Maya. Human Ecology 16(4):377 39 6. Aimers, James J., Terry G. Powis, and Jaime J. Awe 2000 Preclassic Round Structures of the Upper Belize River Valley. Latin American Antiquity 11(1):71 86. Aimers, James J., and Prudence M. Rice 2006 E Assemblages. Ancient Mesoamerica 17(1):79 96. Alexander, Leslie M., Anne Heaven, Hugh Trevor Delves, Jennifer Moreton, and Michael J. Trenouth 1993 Relative Exposure of Children to Lead from Dust and Drinking Water. Archives of Envi ronmental Health: An International Journal 48(6):392 400. Ambrose, Stanley H., and Lynette Norr 1993 Experimental Evidence for the Relationship of the Carbon Isotope Ratios of Whole Diet and Dietary Protein to Those of Bone Collagen and Carbonate. In Preh istoric Human Bone: Archaeology at the Molecular Level edited by J. B. Lambert and G. Grupe, pp. 1 37. Springer Verlag, Berlin. Aoyama, Kazuo 2001 Classic Maya State, Urbanism, and Exchange: Chipped Stone Evidence of the Copn Valley and Its Hinterland. American Anthropologist 103(2):346 360. 2007 Elite Artists and Craft Producers in Classic Maya Society: Lithic Evidence from Aguateca, Guatemala. Latin American Antiquity 18:3 26. 2016 Early Maya Economy: Lithic Production and Exchange in and Around Ceibal, Guatemala. Ancient Mesoamerica in press. Aoyama, Kazuo, and Jessica Munson 2012 Ancient Maya Obsidian Exchange and Chipped Stone Production at Caobal, Guatemala. Mexicon 34(2):34 42

PAGE 494

494 Arbuckle, Benjamin S. 2014 The Rise of Cattle Cultures in Bronze Age Anatolia. Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies 2(4):277 297. Arceo, Gloria, Salvador Mandujano, Sonia Gallina, and Luis Alfredo Perez Jimenez 2007 Diet Diversity of White tailed Deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ) in a Tropical Dry Forest in Mexico. Mammalia 69(2):159 168. Arnold, Elizabeth R., Haskel J. Greenfield, and Robert A. Creaser 2013 Domestic Cattle Mobility in Early Farming Villages in Southern Afric a: Harvest Profiles and Strontium ( 87 Sr/ 86 Sr) Isotope Analyses from Early Iron Age Sites in the Lower Thukela River Valley of South Africa. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 5(2):129 144. Arnold, Jeanne E., and Ann Munns 1994 Independent or Atta ched Specialization: The Organization of Shell Bead Production in California. Journal of Field Archaeology 21(4):473 489. Arriaza, Bernardo T., Vivien G. Standen, Vicki Cassman, and Calogero M. Santoro 2008 Chinchorro Culture: Pioneers of the Coast of the Atacama Desert. In The Handbook of South American Archaeology edited by Helaine Silverman and William H. Isbell, pp. 45 58. Springer New York. Arroyo, Brbara 2007a Excavaciones en Naranjo, Guatemala. In XX Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueolgicas en G uatemala, 2006 edited by Juan Pedro Laporte and Hctor Meja. Museo Nacional de Arqueologa y Etnologa, Guatemala City. 2007b The Naranjo Rescue Project: New Data from Preclassic Guatemala. Report submitted to the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoa merican Studies (FAMSI). Atran, Scott 1993 Itza Maya Tropical Agro Forestry. Current Anthropology 34(5):633 700. 2001 The Vanishing Landscape of the Peten Maya Lowlands: People, Plants, Animals, Places, Words, and Spirits. In On Biocultural Diversity: Linking Language, Knowledge, and the Environment edited by Luisa Maffi, pp. 157 174. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 2003 Anthropogenic Vegetation: A Garden Experiment in the Maya L owlands. In The Lowland Maya Area: Three Millennia at the Human Wildland Interface edited by Arturo Gomez Pompa, Michael F. Allen, Scott L. Fedick, and Juan J. Jimenez Osornio, pp. 517 532. Food Products Press, New York.

PAGE 495

495 Bair, Daniel A., and Richard E. Terry 2012 In Search of Markets and Fields: Soil Chemical Investigations at Motul de San Jos. In Motul de San Jos: Politics, History, and Economy in a Classic Maya Polity edited by Antonia E. Foias and Kitty F. Emery, pp. 357 385. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Bar Yosef Mayer, Daniella E. 1997 Ne olithic Shell Bead Production in Sinai. Journal of Archaeological Science 24(2):97 111. 2005 The Exploitation of Shells as Beads in the Palaeolithic and Neolithic of the Levant. Palorient 31(1):176 185. Barrera Rubio, Alfredo 1985 Litoral marine Economy at Tulum, Quintana Roo, Mxico. In The Lowland Maya Postclassic edited by Arlen F. Chase and Prudence M. Rice, pp. 50 61. University of Texas Press, Austin. Barton, Loukas, Seth D. Newsome, Fa Hu Chen, Hui Wang, Thomas P. Guilderson, and Robert L. Betti nger 2009 Agricultural Origins and the Isotopic Identity of Domestication in N orthern China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(14):5523 5528. Baruwa, O. I., P. O. Abogan, and R. Kassali 2012 Economics of raising African Giant Land Snail (Archachatina marginata) in Osun State, Nigeria. International Journal of Agriculture Economics & Rural Development 5(1):46 54. Bauer, Jeremy R. 2005 Between Heaven and Earth: The Cival Cache and the Creation of the Mesoamerican Cosmos. In Lords of Creati on: The Origins of Sacred Maya Kingship edited by Virginia M. Fields and Dorie Reents Budet, pp. 28 29. Scala Publishers Limited, London. Bayman, James M. 1996 Shell Ornament Consumption in a Classic Hohokam Platform Mound Community Center. Journal of Field Archaeology 23(4):403 420. Bazy, Damien, and Takeshi Inomata 2016 Multiple Waves of Political Disintegration in the Classic Maya Collapse: New Insights from the Excavation of Group D, Ceibal, Guatemala. Journal of Field Archaeology in review. Beach, Timothy, and Nicholas P. Dunning 1997 An Ancient Maya Reservoir and Dam at Tamarindito, El Peten, Guatemala. Latin American Antiquity 8:20 29.

PAGE 496

496 Beach, Timothy, Nicholas P. Dunning, Sheryl Luzzadder Beach, Duncan E. Cook and Jon C. Lohse 2006 Impacts of the Ancient Maya on Soils and Soil Erosion in the Central Maya Lowlands. Catena 65(2):166 178. Beach, Timothy, Sheryl Luzzadder Beach, Nicholas Dunning, and Duncan Cook 2008 Human and Natural Impacts on Fluvial and Karst Depressions of the Maya Lowlan ds. Geomorphology 101(1 2):308 331. Beach, Tim, Sheryl Luzzadder Beach, Duncan Cook, Nicholas Dunning, Douglas J. Kennett, Samantha Krause, Richard Terry, Debora Trein, and Fred Valdez 2015 e Analog? Quaternary Science Reviews 124:1 30. Beach, Tim, Sheryl Luzzadder Beach, Nicholas Dunning, John Jones, Jon Lohse, Tom Guderjan, Steven R. Bozarth, Sarah Millspaugh, and Tripti Bhattacharya 2009 A Review of Human and Natural Changes in Maya Lowla nd Wetlands over the Holocene. Quaternary Science Reviews 28(17 18):1710 1724. Beaubien, Harriet 2004 Excavation and Recovery of a Funerary Offering of Marine Materials from Copan. In Maya Zooarchaeology: New Directions in Method and Theory edited by Kit ty F. Emery. Institute of Archaeology, University of California Los Angeles Press, Los Angeles. Beier, Paul, and Dale R. McCullough 1990 Factors Influencing White Tailed Deer Activity Patterns and Habitat Use. Wildlife Monographs (109):3 51. Belcher, Wil liam R. 2005 Marine Exploitation in the Third Millennium BC The Eastern Coast of Pakistan. Palorient 31(1):79 85. 2011 An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Marine Coastal Fish Butchery in Pakistan. In Ethnozooarchaeology: The Present and Past of Human Animal Relationships edited by Umberto Albarella, pp. 93 104. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Bender, Margaret M. 1968 Mass Spectrometric Studies of Carbon 13 Variations in Corn and Other Grasses. Radiocarbon 10(2):468 472. Bennyhoff, James A., and Richard E Hughes 1987 Shell Bead and Ornament Exchange Networks between California and the Western Great Basin American Museum of Natural History, New York.

PAGE 497

497 Benson, Elizabeth P. 1998 The Lord, the Ruler: Jaguar Symbolism in the Americas. In Icons of Power: Feli ne Symbolism in the Americas edited by Nicholas J. Saunders, pp. 53 76. Routledge, New York. Bentley, R. Alexander 2006 Strontium Isotopes from the Earth to the Archaeological Skeleton: A Review. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 13(3):135 187. Berdan, Frances F., and Patricia Rieff Anawalt (editors) 1997 The Essential Codex Mendoza, Vol. 1 University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Betancur R, Ricardo, and Philip W. Willink 2007 A New Freshwater Ariid (Otophysi: Siluriformes) from the Ro Usumacinta Basin. Copeia 2007(4):818 828. Biagi, Paolo, Wolfgang Torke, Maurizio Tosi, and Hans Peter Uerpmann 1984 Qurum: A Case Study of Coastal Archaeology in Northern Oman. World Archaeology 16(1):43 61. Binford, Lewis R. 1984 Butchering, Sharing, and the Archaeological Record. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3(3):235 257. Blanco Padilla, Alicia, Christopher Gotz, Gabriel Mestre, Bernanrdo Rodrguez Galicia, and Ral Valadez Aza 2008 El Xoloitzcuintle Prehispnico y el Estndar Actual de la R aza. AMMVEPE 19(5):131 138. Bloom, Paul R., Mary Pohl, Cynthia Buttleman, Frederick Wiseman, Alan Covich, Charles Miksicek, Joseph Ball, and Julie Stei n 1983 Prehistoric Maya Wetland Agriculture and the Alluvial Soils Near San Anton io Rio Hondo, Belize. Nature 301(5899):417 419. Blum, Joel D., E. Hank Taliaferro, Marie T. Weisse, and Richard T. Holmes 2000 Changes in Sr/Ca, Ba/Ca and 87 Sr/ 86 Sr Ratios Between Trophic Levels in Two Forest Ecosystems in the Northeastern U.S.A. Biogeoch emistry 49:87 101. Boev, Zlatozar, and Mark J. Beech 2007 The Bird Bones. In Nicropolis ad Istrum: A Late Roman and Early Byzantine City The Finds and Biological Remains edited by A. G. Poulter, pp. 242 253. Oxbow Books, London.

PAGE 498

498 Boileau, Arianne 201 3 Maya Exploitation of Animal Resources during the Middle Preclassic Period: An Archaeozoological Analysis from Pacbitun, Belize. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough. Borhegyi, Stephen F., de 1961 Shark Teet h, Stingray Spines, and Shark Fishing in Ancient Mexico and Central America. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 17(3):273 296. Bornschein, R. L., P. Succop, K. N. Dietrich, C. S. Clark, S. Que Hee, and P. B. Hammond 1985 The Second International Conference on Prospective Studies of Lead: The Influence of Social and Environmental Factors on Dust Lead, Hand Lead, and Blood Lead Levels in Young Children. Environmental Research 38(1):108 118. Borson, Nancy, Frances Berdan, Ed ward Strak, Jack States, and Peter J. Wettstein 1998 Origins of an Anasazi Scarlet Macaw Feather Artifact. American Antiquity 63(1):131 142. Bozarth, Steven R., and Thomas H. Guderjan 2004 Biosilicate Analysis of Residue in Maya Dedicatory Cache Vessels from Blue Creek, Belize. Journal of Archaeological Science 31(2):205 215. Brady, James E., and Wendy Ashmore 1999 Mountains, Caves, Water: Ideational Landscapes of the Ancient Maya. In Archa eologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives edited by Wendy Ashmore and A. Bernard Knapp, pp. 124 145. Blackwell Publishers, Malden and Oxford. Brady, James E., Joseph W. Ball, Ronald L. Bishop, Duncan C. Pring, Norman Hammond, and Rupert A. Housley 1998 Ancient Mesoamerica 9(1):17 38. Brady, James E., and Keith M. Prufer (editors) 2005 In the Maw of the Earth Monster Uni versity of Texas Press, Austin. Brady, James E., and Ann Scott 1997 Excavations in Buried Cave Deposits: Implications for Interpretation. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies 59(1):15 21. Braswell, Geoffrey E. 1996 A Maya Obsidian Source: The Geoarchaeology, Settlement History, and Ancient Economy of San Martin Jilotepeque, Guatemala. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Tulane University, New Orleans.

PAGE 499

499 Braswell, Geoffrey E. (editor) 2003 The Maya and Teotihuacan: Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction University of Texas Press, Austin. Brenner, Mark, Barbara Leyden, and Mic hael W. Binford 1990 Recent Sedimentary Histories of Shallow Lakes in the Guatemalan Savannas. Journal of Paleolimnology 4(3):239 252. Brenner, Mark, David A. Hodell, Jason H. Curtis, Michael F. Rosenmeier, Flavio S. Anselmetti, and Daniel Ariztegui 2003 Paleolimnological Approaches for Inferring Past Climate Change in the Maya Region: Recent Advances and Methodological Limitations. In The Lowland Maya Area: Three Millennia at the Human Wildland Interface edited by Arturo Gomez Pompa and Scott L. Fedick, pp. 45 76. Haworth Press, New York. Brenner, Mark, Michael F. Rosenmeier, David A. Hodell, and Jason H. Curtis 2002 Paleolimnology of the Maya Lowlands: Long term Perspectives on Interactions among Climate, Environment, and Humans. Ancient Mesoamerica 13( 1):141 157. Brown, David O., Meredith L. Dreiss, and Richard E. Hughes 2004 Preclassic Obsidian Procurement and Utilization at the Maya Site of Colha, Belize. Latin American Antiquity 15(2):222 240. Brown, Linda A. 2002 Household and Community Animal Use at Cern. In Before the Volcano: The Ancient Cern Village in Central America edited by Payson Sheets, pp. 151 158. University of Texas Press, Austin. 2005 Planting the Bones: Hunting Ceremonialism at Contemporary and Nineteenth Century Shrines in the Guatemalan Highlands. Latin American Antiquity 16:131 146. Brown, Linda A., and Kitty F. Emery 2008 Negotiations with the Animate Forest: Hunting Shrines in th e Guatemalan Highlands. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 15:300 337. Brck, Joanna 1999 Ritual and Rationality: Some Problems of Interpretation in European Archaeology. European Journal of Archaeology 2(3):313 344. Bruggeman Nannenga, M. A., a nd P. Wagenaar Hummelinck 1986 Notes on the Caribbean Crown Conch Melongena Melongena Studies on the Fauna of Curacao and Other Caribbean Islands 212:148 190. Bryant, David J., and Philip N. Froelich 1990 A Model of Oxygen Isotope Fractionation in Body W ater of Large Mammals. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 59:4523 4537.

PAGE 500

500 Bryant, J. Daniel, Paul L. Koch, Philip N. Froelich, William J. Showers, and Bernard J. Genna 1996 Oxygen Isotope Partitioning between Phosphate and Carbonate in Mammalian Apatite. Geochi mica et Cosmochimica Acta 60(24):5145 5148. Budd, Paul, Janet Montgomery, Jane A. Evans, and Mark Trickett 2004 Human Lead Exposure in England from Approximately 5500 BP to the 16th Century AD. Science of the Total Environment 318(1 3):45 58. Burham, Melissa 2012 Excavaciones en las Unidades Residenciales 54 y F4 15: Operaciones CB210 y CB213. In Proyecto Arqueolgico Ceibal Petexbatun Informe de la Temporada de Campo 2012 edited by Victor Castillo Aguilar and Takeshi Inomata, pp. 163 192. Instituto d e Antropologa e Historia, Guatemala City. Burham, Melissa, and Jessica MacLellan 2014 Thinking Outside the Plaza: Ritual Practices in Preclassic Maya Residential Groups at Ceibal, Guatemala. Antiquity 88. Burton, James H., T. Douglas Price, and William D. Middleton 1999 Correlation of Bone Ba/Ca and Sr/Ca due to Biological Purification of Calcium. Journal of Archaeological Science 26:609 616. Callaghan, Michael G. 2013 Politics through Pottery: A View of the Preclassic Classic Transition from Building B Group II, Holmul, Guatemala. Ancient Mesoamerica 24(2):307 341. Carvajal Contreras, Diana Roco, Richard Cooke, and Mximo Jimnez 2008 Taphonomy at Two Contiguous Coastal Rockshelters in Panama: Preliminary Observations Focusing on Fishing and Curing F ish. Quaternary International 180(1):90 106. Carr, Helen Sorayya 1986 Faunal Utilization in a Late Preclassic Maya Community at Cerros, Belize. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Tulane University, New Orleans. 1991 The Maya Medic inal Turtle, Xkokak, and a Suggested Alternate Reading of Two Yucatec Ethnomedical Texts. Journal of Ethnobiology 11(2):187 192. 1996 Precolumbian Maya Exploitation and Management of Deer Populations. In The Managed Mosaic: Ancient Maya Agriculture and Re source Use edited by Scott L. Fedick, pp. 251 261. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

PAGE 501

501 Carrasco, Michael David 2005 The Mask Flange Iconographic Complex: The Art, Ritual, and History of a Maya Sacred Image. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, Departme nt of Anthropology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin. Carrasco Vargas, Ramn, and Mara Cordeiro Baqueiro 2012 The Murals of Chiik Nahb Structure Sub1 4, Calakmul, Mexico. In Maya Archaeology 2 edited by Charles Golden, Stephen Houston, and Joel Skidmore, pp. 8 59. Precolumbia Mesoweb Press, San Francisco. Carter, Nicholas P., and Jeffrey Dobereiner 2016 Multispectral Imaging of an Early Classic Maya Codex Fragment from Uaxactun, Guatemala. Antiquity 90(351):711 725. Castillo Aguilar, Victor 201 2 Excavacin en la Estructura A 18: Operacin CB205A. In Proyecto Arqueolgico Ceibal Petexbatun: Informe de la Temporada de Campo 2012 edited by Victor Castillo Aguilar and Takeshi Inomata, pp. 110 117. Instituto de Antropologa e Historia, Guatemala Cit y. Chah, Jane Mbolle, and Grace Inegbedion 2012 Characteristics of Snail Farming in Edo South Agricultural Zone of Edo State, Nigeria. Tropical Animal Health and Production 45(2):625 631. Chase, Arlen F., and Diane Z. Chase 1996 More than Kin and King: C entralized Political Organization among the Late Classic Maya. Current Anthropology 37(5):803 810. Chase, Arlen F., and Diane Z. Chase 1998a Late Classic Maya Political Structure, Polity Size and Warfare Arenas. In Anatoma de una Civilizacin: Aproximaci ones Interdisciplinarias a la Cultura Maya edited by Andres Ciudad Ruiz, pp. 11 29. Sociedad Espanola de Estudios Maya, Madrid. Chase, Diane Z., and Arlen F. Chase 1998b The Architectural Context of Caches, Burials, and Other Ritual Activities for the Classic Period Maya (as Reflected at Caracol, Belize). In Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture edited by Stephen D. Houston, pp. 299 332. Dumbarton Oaks, Washin gton, D.C. Chisholm, Brian S., D. Erle Nelson, and Henry P. Schwarcz 1982 Stable Carbon Isotope Ratios as a Measure of Marine versus Terrestrial Protein in Ancient Diets. Science 216(4):1131 1132.

PAGE 502

502 Choyke, Alice Mathea, and Jorg Schibler 2007 Prehistoric bone tools and the archaeozoological perspective: research in Central Europe. In Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies pp. 51 65. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. Claassen, Cheryl 2000 Quantifying S hell: Comments on Mason, Peterson, and Tiffany. American Antiquity 65(2):415 418. Clark, John E., and David T. Cheetham 2002 The Archaeology of Tribal Societies edited by William A. Parkinson, pp. 278 339. Internation al Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor. Clarke, Bart 2008 Normal Bone Anatomy and Physiology. Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 3(Supplement 3):S131 S139. Cliff, Maynard B. 1986 Excavations in the Late Preclassic Nucleated Village. I n Archaeology at Cerros, Belize, Central America: Volume 1: An Interim Report edited by Robin A. Robertson and David A. Freidel, pp. 45 64. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas. Clutton Brock, Juliet, and Norman Hammond 1994 Hot Dogs: Comestible C anids in Preclassic Maya Culture at Cuello, Belize. Journal of Archaeological Science 21(6):819 826. Coe, Michael D. 1972 Olmec Jaguars and Olmec Kings. In The Cult of the Feline edited by Elizabeth P. Benson, pp. 1 12. Dumbarton Oaks Library and Collect ion, Washington, D.C. 2005 The Maya, 7th Ed. 7th ed. Thames and Hudson, New York. Coe, William R. 1990 Excavations in the Great Plaza, North Terrace and North Acropolis of Tikal: Tikal Report No. 14, Volume II and VI University Museum Monograph 61. Unive rsity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Cooke, Richard G. 2004 Semiotic Tradition of Pre Columbian Panama. In Behaviour Behind Bones. The Zooarchaeology of Ritual, Religion, Stat us and Identity edited by Sharyn Jones ODay, Wim Van Neer, and Anton Ervynck, pp. 114 127. Oxbow Books, Liverpool. Cooke, Richard, and Mximo Jimnez 2008 Pre Columbian use of Freshwater Fish in the Santa Maria Biogeographical Province, Panama. Quaternary International 185(1):46 58.

PAGE 503

503 Cooke, Richard G., and Anthony J. Ranere 1999 Precolumbian Fishing on the Pacific Coast of Panama. In Pacific Latin America in Prehistory: the Evolution of Archaic and Formative Cultures edited by Michael Blake, pp. 103 122. Washington State University Press, Pullman. Cormie, A.B., and Henry P. Schwarcz 1994 Stable Isotopes of Nitrogen and Carbon of North American White Tailed Deer and Implications for Paleodietary and Other Food Web Studies. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 107:227 241. Corona Martnez, Eduardo 2008 Las Aves Como Recurso Curativo En El Mxico Antiguo Y Sus Posibles E videncias En La Arqueozoologa. Archaeobios 2:11 18. 2013 Birds of the Prehispanic Domestic Spheres of Central Mexico. In Archaeology of Mesoamerican Animals edited by Christopher Gtz and Kitty F. Emery, pp. 79 94. Lockwood Press, Georgia and Open Context, Alexandria Digital Archives. Cortave, Monica, Ashley Sharpe, and Anastasiya Kravtsova 2011 Excavaciones en la Estructura A 2: Operacin 207A. In Informe de Proyecto Arqueologico Ceibal Petexbatun la Temporada 2011 edited by Victor Castillo Aguilar and Takeshi Inomata, pp. 135 143. Instituto de Antropologa e Historia, Guatemala City. Corts, Hernn 2011 Cart as de relacin Editorial Linkgua USA. Costa Pierce, Barry A. 1987 Aquaculture in Ancient Hawaii. BioScience 37(5):320 331. 1988 Traditional Fisheries and Dualism in Indonesia. Naga 11(2):3 4. Counihan, Carole 1999 The Anthropology of Food and Body: Gen der, Meaning, and Power Psychology Press, Routledge, New York. Covich, Alan 1983 Mollusca: A Contrast in Species Diversity from Aquatic and Terrestrial Habitats. In Pulltrouser Swamp: Ancient Maya Habitat, Agriculture, and Settlement in Northern Belize edited by Billie Lee Turner II and Peter D. Harrison, pp. 120 139. University of Texas Press, Austin. Coyston, Shannon 2002 Noble Chemists and Archaeologists: Chemical Analyses of Food Residues from Ancient Maya Vessels. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology McMaster University, Hamilton.

PAGE 504

504 Crabtree, Pam J. 1989 Sheep, Horses, Swine, and Kine: A Zooarchaeological Perspective on the Anglo Saxon Settlement of England. Journal of Field Archaeology 16(2):205 213. 1990 Zooarchaeology and C omplex Societies: Some Uses of Faunal Analysis for the Study of Trade, Social Status, and Ethnicity. Archaeological Method and Theory 2:155 199. Craig, Harmon 1957 Isotopic Standards for Carbon and Oxygen and Correction Factors for Mass Spectrometric Anal ysis of Carbon Dioxide. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 12(1):133 149. Craig, Jessica 2004 Dedication, Termination, and Perpetuation: A Late Classic Period Shrine at San Bartolo, Peten Symposium of Archaeological Investigations in Guatemala, 2004. Report submitted to the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. (FAMSI). Craig, Oliver E., Lisa Marie Shillito, Umberto Albarella, Sarah Viner Daniels, Ben Chan, Ros Cleal, Robert Ixer, Mandy Jay, Pete Marshall, Ellen Simmons, Elizabeth Wri ght, and Mike Parker Pearson 2015 Feeding Stonehenge: Cuisine and Consumption at the Late Neolithic Site of Durrington Walls. Antiquity 89(347):1096 1109. Crane, Cathy J. 1996 Archaeobotanical and Palynological Research at a Late Preclassic Maya Community, Cerros, Belize. In The Managed Mosaic: Ancient Maya Agriculture and Resource Use edited by Scott L. Fedick, pp. 262 277. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Creel, Dar rell, and Charmion McKusick 1994 Prehistoric Macaws and Parrots in the Mimbres Area, New Mexico. American Antiquity 59(3):510 524. Cullen, Tracey 1995 Mesolithic Mortuary Ritual at Franchthi Cave, Greece. Antiquity 69(263):270 289. Cunningham Smith, Petr a 2011 Fish from Afar: Marine Resource Use at Caracol, Belize. Unpublished MA Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Central Florida, Orlando.

PAGE 505

505 Curtis, Jason H., Mark Brenner, David A. Hodell, Richard A. Balser, Gerald A. Islebe, and Henry Hooghiemstra 1998 A Multi proxy Study of Holocene Environmental Change in the Maya Lowlands of Peten, Guatemala. Journal of Paleolimnology 19(2):139 159. Dahlin, Bruce H., Daniel Bair, Tim Beach, Matthew Moriarty, and Richard Terry 2009 The Dirt on Food: Ancient Feasts and Markets among the Lowland Maya. In Pre Columbian Foodways: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Food, Culture, and Markets in Ancient Mesoamerica edited by John E. Staller and Michael D. Carrasco, p p. 191 232. Springer, New York. Dahlin, Br uce H., Christopher T. Jensen, Richard E. Terry, David R. Wright, and Timothy Beach 2007 In Search of the Ancient Maya Market. Latin American Antiquity 18(4):363 384. 1985 Staple Finance, Wealth Finance, and Storage in the Inka Political Economy. Current Anthropology 26:187 206. David, Bruno, Joe Crouch, and Ugo Zoppi 2005 Historicizing the Spiritual: Bu Shell Arrangements on the Island of Badu, Torres Strait. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 15(1):71 91. Davies, Di ane 2012 Past Identities, Present Legitimation: The Reuse of a Late Preclassic Residential Group at the Maya Site of San Bartolo, Guatemala. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Tulane University, New Orleans. Davis Salazar, Karla L. 2007 Ritual Consumption and the Origins of Social Inequality in Early Formative Copan, Honduras. In Mesoamerican Ritual Economy: Archaeological and Ethnological Perspectives edited by E. Christian Wells and Karla L. Davis Salazar, pp. 197 220. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Day, Leslie Preston 1984 Dog Burials in the Greek World. American Journal of Archaeology 88(1):21 32. De Bont, A. F., and M. J. de Bont Hers 1952 Mollusc Control and Fish Farming in Central Africa. Nature 170(4321):323 324. Del Cid, Ricardo David, Omar Andrs Alcover, and Henry Vincente Prez Pablo 2012 Excavaciones en la Pramide 12H3, Sitio Arqueolgico Xultun, Petn. In Proyecto Arqueolgico Regional San Bartolo Xultun: Informe de Resultados de Investigaciones Temporada de Campo No. 11, Ao 2012 edited by Patricia Rivera Castillo and William A. Saturno, pp. 359 394. Instituto de Antropologa e Historia, Guatemala City.

PAGE 506

506 Deevey, Edward S., Don S. Rice, Prudence M. Rice, H.H. Vaughan, Mark Brenner, and M. S. Flannery 1979 May an Urbanism: Impact on a Tropical Karst Environment. Science 206:298 306. deFrance, Susan D. 2009 Zooarchaeology in Complex Societies: Political Economy, Status, and Ideology. Journal of Archaeological Research 17:105 168. Delger, Joshua A., Kevin L. Mon teith, Lowell E. Schmitz, and Jonathan A. Jenks 2011 Preference of White Tailed Deer for Corn Hybrids and Agricultural Husbandry Practices during the Growing Season. Human Wildlife Interactions 5(1):32 46. Delinc, Guy 1992 The Ecology of the Fish Pond Ec osystem: With Special Reference to Africa In Developments in Hydrobiology, pp. 1 230. Springer Science & Business Media. Demarest, Arthur A. 1997 The Vanderbilt Petexbatun Regional Archaeological Project 1989 1994: Overview, History, and Major Results of a Multi disciplinary Study of the Classic Maya Collapse. Ancient Mesoamerica 8(2):1 33. Demarest, Arthur A. (editor) 2006 The Petexbatun Regional Archaeological Project: A Multidisciplinary Study of the Maya Collapse Vanderbilt Institute of Mesoamerican Archaeology, Nashville. Demarest, Arthur A., Chlo Andrieu, Paola Torres, Mlanie Forn, Toms Barriento, and Marc Wolf 2014 Economy, Exchange, and Power: New Evidence from the Late Classic Maya Port City of Cancuen. Ancient Mesoamerica 25(1) :187 219. Descola, Philippe 1994 In the Society of Nature: a Native Ecology of Amazonia Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Donkin, Robin Arthur 1985 The Peccary: With Observations on the Introduction of Pigs to the New World. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 75(5):1 152. Doyle, James A. 2012 Re Preclassic Maya Lowlands. Latin American Antiquity 23(4):355 379. 2013 Early Maya Geometric Planning Conventions at El Palmar, Guatemala. Journal of Archaeological Science 40(2):793 798.

PAGE 507

507 Drennan, Robert D. 1984 Long Distance Movement of Goods in the Mesoamerican Formative and Classic. American Antiquity 49:27 43. Drucker, Philip, R. F. Heizer, and R. H. Squier 1959 Excav ations at La Venta, Tabasco. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 170 Duffy, Lisa G., and Timothy J. Garrett 2015 Investigating Ancient Beverages from Cerro Maya, Belize through Chemical Residue Analysis Poster Presentation for the 80st Society for Ame rican Archaeology Annual Meeting, San Francisco. Duffy, Lisa G., Ann O. Laffey, and Timothy J. Garrett 2016 Distribution of Organic Residues in a Pottery Vessel from Cerro Maya, Belize Poster Presentation for the 81st Society for American Archaeology Ann ual Meeting, Orlando. Dufour, Elise, Nicolas Goepfert, Belkys Gutirrez Lon, Claude Chauchat, Rgulo Franco Jordn, and Segundo Vsquez Snchez 2014 Pastoralism in Northern Peru during Pre Hispanic Times: Insights from the Mochica Period (100 800 AD) Bas ed on Stable Isotopic Analysis of Domestic Camelids. PLOS ONE 9(1):e87559. Dunning, Nicholas 2004 Ancient Maya Commoners edited by Jon C. Lohse and Fred Valdez Jr., pp. 97 116. University of Texas Press, Austin. Dunning, Nicholas P., and Timothy Beach 1994 Soil Erosion, Slope Management, and Ancient Terracing in the Maya Lowlands. Latin American Antiquity 5(1):51 69. 2000 Stability and Instability in Prehispanic Maya Landscapes. In Imperfec t Balance edited by David Lentz, pp. 179 202. Columbia University Press, New York. 2004 Noxious or Nurturing Nature? Maya Civilization in Environmental Context. In Continuities and Changes in Maya Archaeology edited by Charles W. Golden and Greg Borgstede, pp. 125 141. Routledge, New York. Dunning, Nicholas P., Timothy Beach, Patricia Farrell, and Sheryl Luzzadder Beach 1998 Prehispanic Agrosystems and Adaptive Regions in the Maya Lowlands. Culture and Agriculture 20:87 106.

PAGE 508

508 Dunning, Nicholas P. John G. Jones, Timothy Beach, and Sheryl Luzzadder Beach 2003 Physiography, Habitats, and Landscapes of the Three Rivers Region. In Heterarchy, Political Economy, and the Ancient Maya: The Three Rivers Region of the East Central Yucatn Peninsula edi ted by Vernon L. Scarborough, Nicholas Dunning, and Fred Valdez Jr., pp. 14 24. Unive rsity of Arizona Press, Tucson. Dunning, Nicholas P., Sheryl Luzzadder Beach, Timothy Beach, John G. Jones, Vernon L. Scarborough, and T. Patrick Culbert 2002 Arising fro m the Bajos: The Evolution of a Neotropical Landscape and the Rise of Maya Civilization. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 92(2):267 283. Ebert, Claire E., Brendan J. Culleton, Jaime J. Awe, and Douglas J. Kennett 2016 AMA 14 C Dating of Pr eclassic to Classic Period Household Construction in the Ancient Maya Community of Cahal Pech, Belize. Radiocarbon 58(1):1 19. Ekholm, Susan M. 1990 Una Ceremonia de Fin de Ciclo: El Gran Basurero Ceremonial de Lagartero, Chiapas. In La poca Clsica: Nuevos Hallazgos, Nuevas Ideas edited by Amalia Cards de Mndez, pp. 455 467. Museo Nacional de Antropologia, Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Mexico City. Emery, Kitty F. 1989 Jute ( Pachychilus sp.): A Discussion of the Physical Character istics, Habitat Preferences, and Available Population. Unpublished Report prepared for Paul Healy. Manuscript on file with Emery and Healy. Trent University, Peterborough. 1990 Postclassic and Colonial Period Dietary Strategies in the Southern Maya Lowlan ds: Faunal Analyses from Lamanai and Tipu, Belize. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto, Toronto. 1997 The Maya Collapse: A Zooarchaeological Investigation, Volumes I and II. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Cornell University, New York. 2003a The Noble Beast: Status and Differential Access to Animals in the Maya World. World Archaeology 34(3):498 515. 2003b The Economics of Natural Resource Use at Ancient Motul de San Jose, Guatemala. Mayab 16:33 48. 2004a Making the Most of the Data: Issues of Method and Theory in Tropical Zooarchaeology. Archaeofauna 13:7 10.

PAGE 509

509 Emery, Kitty F. 2004b Maya Zooarchaeology: Historical Perspectives on Current Research Directions. In Maya Zooarchaeology: New Directions in Method and Theory edited by Kitty F. Emery, pp. 1 12. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles. 2004c Maya Zooarchaeology: In Pursuit of Cultural Variability and Environmental Heterogeneity. In Cont inuities and Changes in Maya Archaeology: Perspectives at the Millennium edited by Charles Golden and Greg Borgstede, pp. 217 241. Routledge Press, New York. 2004d Animals from the Maya Underworld: Reconstructing Elite Maya Ritual at the Cueva de los Que tzales, Guatemala. In Behavior Behind Bones: The Zooarchaeology of Ritual, Religion, Status and Identity edited by Sharyn Jones ODay, Wim Van Neer, and Antn Ervynck, pp. 101 113. Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the International Council of Archaeoz oology, Durham, Oxbow, Oxford. 2004 e Tropics? Archaeofauna 13:37 56. 2005 Animals and Ritual in the Copn Acropolis: Zooarchaeology of Special Deposits (2004 Research Season). Report submitted to the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Archaeology, Inc. (FAMSI). 2006 Definiendo el Aprovechamiento de la Fauna por la Elite: Evidencia en Aguateca y Otros Sitios de Petexbatun, Guatemala. 4:1 16. 2008 Techniques of Ancient Maya Bone Working: Evidence from a Classic Maya Deposit. Latin American Antiquity 19(2):204 221. 2009 Perspectives on Ancient Maya Bone Crafting from a Classic Period Bone artifact Manufacturing Assemblage. Journal of Anthropological Archaeolog y 28(4):458 470. 2010 Dietary, Environmental, and Societal Implications of Ancient Maya Animal Use in the Petexbatun: A Zooarchaeological Perspective on the Collapse Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville. 2011 Medicinal Use of Animal Products by the Maya of Guatemala: Implications for Zooarchaeology. Paper presented at the 2011 Society for Ethnobiology Annual Meeting, Columbus. 2012 The Motul de San Jos Animals in an Economic Perspective. In Motul de San Jos: Politics, History, and Economy in a Cla ssic Maya Polity edited by Antonia E. Foias and Kitty F. Emery, pp. 291 325. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

PAGE 510

510 Emery, Kitty F. 2013 Animal Sacrifices in the Ancient Maya World. Paper presented at the Society for American Archaeology 78th Annual Meeting, Honolulu. 2014 Aguateca Animal Remains. In Life and Politics at the Royal Court of Aguateca: Artifacts, Analytical Data, and Synthesis edited by Takeshi Inomata and Daniela Triadan, pp. 158 200. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Emery, Kitty F., and Kazuo Aoyama 2007 Bone, Shell, and Lithic Evidence for Crafting in Elite Maya Households at Aguateca, Guatemala. Ancient Mesoamerica 18(1):69 89. Emery, Kitty F., and Linda A. Brown 2012 Maya Hunting Sustainability: Perspectives from Past an d Present. In The Ethics of Anthropology and Amerindian Research: Reporting on Environmental Degradation and Warfare edited by Richard J. Chacon and Rubn G. Mendoza, pp. 79 116. Springer, New York. Emery, Kitty F., Linda A. Brown, Elyse M. Anderson, Eri n Kennedy Thornton, and Michelle LeFebvre 2007 Ethno Zoology of Modern Maya Ritual Animal Bone Caches and Implications for Interpretations of Ancient Maya Diet and Ritual. In Proceedings of the University of Calgary Chacmool Conference Calgary. Emery, Ki tty F., and Antonia E. Foias 2012 Landscape, Economies, and the Politics of Power in the Motul de San Jos Polity. In Motul de San Jos: Politics, History, and Economy in a Classic Maya Polity edited by Antonia E. Foias and Kitty F. Emery, pp. 401 418. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Emery, Kitty F., and Erin Kennedy Thornton 2008a Zooarchaeological Habitat Analysis of Ancient Maya Landscape Changes. Journal of Ethnobiology 28(2):154 179. 2008b A Regional Perspective on Biotic Change During t he Classic Maya Occupation Using Zooarchaeological Isotopic Chemistry. Quaternary International 191(1):131 143. Emery, Kitty F., Erin Kennedy Thornton, Nicole C. Cannarozzi, Stephen Houston, and Hector L. Escobeco 2013 Ancient Animals of the Southern Maya Highlands: Zooarchaeology of Kaminaljuyu. In Archaeology of Ancient Mesoamerican Animals edited by Christopher Gotz and Kitty F. Emery. Oxbow Press, David Brown Book Company, Woodbridge.

PAGE 511

511 Emery, Kitty F., Erin Kennedy Thornton, Ashley Sharpe, Petra Cunningham Smith, Lisa Duffy, and Brandon McIntosh 2016 Testing Osteometric and Morphological Methods for Turkey Species Determination in Maya Faunal Assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports in press. Emery, Kitty F., Susan Milbrath, Elyse Anderson, and Erol Kavountzis 2009 Maya Codices, Caves, and Animals: Zooarchaeological and Symbolic Evidence. Paper presented at the Symposium on the Animal Symbolism in the Mesoamerica n Codex Tradition, Albuquerque. Emery, Kitty F., Lori E. Wright, and Henry Schwarcz 2000 Isotopic Analysis of Ancient Deer Bone: Biotic Stability in Collapse Period Maya Land use. Journal of Archaeological Science 27:537 550. Encyclopedia of Life (EOL) 2016 Encyclopedia of Life (EOL). Electro nic database, http://eol.org/ accessed August 16, 2016. Environmental Archaeology Image Search, Florida Museum of Natural History 2016 Environmental Archaeology Image Search, Environmental Archaeology Program, Florida Museum of Natural History. Electroni c database, http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/envarch gallery/ accessed August 16, 2016. Erlandson, Jon 1994 Early Hunter Gatherers of the California Coast Plenum Press, New York. Erlandson, Jon M., Torben C. Rick, Ren L. Vellanoweth, and Douglas J. Kennett 1999 Maritime Subsistence at a 9300 Year Old Shell Midden on Santa Rosa Island, California. Journal of Field Archaeology 26(3):255 265. Ervynck, Anton, W. Neer, H. Hster Plogmann, and J. Schibler 2003 Beyond Affluence: The Zooarchaeology of Luxury. World Archaeology 34(3):428 441. Estrada Belli, Francisco 2002 Anatoma de una Ciudad Maya: Holmul. Mexicon 24(5):107 112. 2005 Cival, La Sufricaya and Holmul: The Long History of Maya Political Power and Settlement in the Holmul Region. In Archaeological Investigations in the Eastern Maya Lowlands: Papers of the 2004 Belize Archaeology Symposium edited by Jaime Awe, John Morris, Sherilyne Jones, and Christophe G.B. Helmke, 2:pp. 193 207. Institute of Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and History, Belmopan. 2006 Lightning, Sky, Rain, and the Maize God: The Ideology of Preclassic Maya Rulers at Cival, Petn, Guatemala. Ancient Mesoamerica 17(1):57 78.

PAGE 512

512 Estrada Belli, Francisco 2011 The First Maya Civilization: Ritual and Power before the Classic Per iod Routledge, London and New York. Estrada Belli, Francisco (editor) 2007 Investigaciones Arqueolgicas en la Regin de Holmul, Peten: Holmul, Cival, la Instituto de Antropologa e Historia, Guat emala City. 2009 Investigaciones arqueolgicas en la regin de Holmul, Petn: Holmul y Hamontun, Informe Preliminar de la Temporada 2009 Instituto de Antropologa e Historia, Guatemala City. 2012 Investigaciones Arqueolgicas en la Regin de Holmul, Pet n: Holmul y Dos Aguadas. Informe Preliminar de la Temporada 2012 Instituto de Antropologa e Historia, Guatemala City. 2014 Investigaciones Arqueolgicas en la Regin de Holmul, Petn: Holmul y Cival. Informe Preliminar de la Temporada 2014 Instituto d e Antropologa e Historia, Guatemala City. Estrada Belli, Francisco, Jason Gonzales, Marc Wolf, Laura J. Kosakowsky, and Justin Ebersole 2000 Investigaciones Arqueolgicas en Holmul, Guatemala Informe de la Primera Estacin de Campo, Mayo Junio del 2000 Instituto de Antropolo ga e Historia, Guatemala City. Estrada Belli, Francisco, Nicholai Grube, Marc Wolf, Kristen Gardella, and Claudio Loranzo Guerra Librero 2003 Preclassic Maya Monuments and Temples at Cival, Petn, Guatemala. Antiquity 77 (296). Estr ada Belli, Francisco, and Magaly Koch 2007 Remote Sensing and GIS Analysis of a Maya City and Its Landscape: Holmul, Guatemala. In Remote Sensing in Archaeology edited by James Wiseman and Farouk El Baz, pp. 263 281. Springer, New York. Estrada Belli, Fr ancisco, and Alexandre Tokovinine 2016 Temple at Holmul. Latin American Antiquity 27(2):149 168. Estrada Belli, Francisco, Alexandre Tokovinine, Jennifer M. Foley, Heather Hurst, Gene A. Ware, David Stuart, and Nicholai Grube 2009 Evidence from Murals 7 and 9. Latin American Antiquity 20(1):228 259.

PAGE 513

513 Estrada Belli, Francisco, and David Wahl 2010 Prehistoric Hu man Environment Interactions in the Southern Maya Lowlands: The Holmul Region Case. Final Report to the National Science Foundation Electronic document, http://www.bu.edu/holmul/reports/Holmul_NSF_hum an_environment_interactions.pdf accessed August 16, 2016. Faulkner, Patrick 2011 Quantifying Shell Weight Loss in Archaeological Deposits. Archaeology in Oceania 46:118 129. Faure, Gunter, and Teresa M. Mensing 2005 Isotopes: Principles and Applications 3rd ed. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken. Fedick Scott L. 1994 Ancient Maya Agricultural Terracing in the Upper Belize River Area: Computer Aided Modeling and the Results of Initial Field Investigations. Ancient Mesoamerica 5(1):107 127. 1996 New Perspectives on Ancient Maya Agriculture and Resource U se. In The Managed Mosaic: Ancient Maya Agriculture and Resource Use edited by Scott L. Fedick, pp. 1 14. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Fedick, Scott L., and Anabel Ford 1990 The Prehistoric Agricultural Landscape of the Central Maya Lowlands : An Examination of Local Variability in a Regional Context. World Archaeology 22(1):18 33. Feinman, Gary M. 1998 Scale and Social Organization: Perspectives on the Archaic State. In Archaic States edited by Gary M. Feinman and Joyce Marcus, pp. 95 133. School of American Research Press, Sante Fe. Feldman, Lawrence H. 1978 Seibal and the Mollusks of the Usumacinta Valley. In Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten, Guatemala edited by Gordan R. Willey, pp. 166 167. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum, Vol 14, no. 1. Harvard University, Cambridge. Fernandez, Fabian G., Richard E. Terry, Takeshi Inomata, and Marcus Eberl 2002 An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Chemical Residues in the Floors and Soils of Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 17(6):487 519. Fincham, A. G., J. Moradian Oldak, and J. P. Simmer 1999 The Structural Biology of the Developing Dental Enamel Matrix. Journal of Structural Biology 126(3):270 299.

PAGE 514

514 Fladeboe, Randee 2016 Macaw Husba ndry in the Ancient Greater Southwest Paper presented at the 81st Society for American Archaeology Annual Meeting, Orlando. Flannery, Kent V., and Joyce Marcus 2000 Journal of Anthropologi cal Archaeology 19:1 37. Foias, Antonia E. 2002 At the Crossroads: The Economic Basis of Political Power in the Petexbatun Region, Southwest Peten, Guatemala. In Ancient Maya Political Economies edited by Marilyn A. Masson and David A. Freidel, pp. 223 2 48. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek. 2007 Ritual, Politics, and Pottery Economies in the Classic Maya Southern Lowlands. In Mesoamerican Ritual Economy: Archaeological and Ethnological Perspectives edited by E. Christian Wells and Karla L. Davis Salazar, pp 167 194. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. 2013 Ancient Maya Political Dynamics University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Foias, Antonia E., and Kitty F. Emery 2012 Politics and Economics: Theoretical Perspectives of the Motul de San Jose Project In Politics, History, and Economy in the Classic Maya Polity of Motul de San Jose, Guatemala edited by Antonia E. Foias and Kitty F. Emery, pp. 1 29. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Foley, Jennifer M. 2005 En Busca de la Poblacin Clsico Tem prano en La Sufricaya, Petn. In XVII Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueolgicas en Guatemala edited by Juan Pedro Laporte, Brbara Arroyo, and Hctor E. Meja. Museo Nacional de Arqueologa y Etnologa, Guatemala City. 2007 Correlating Archaeological and Epigraphic Evidence at La Sufricaya, Holmul, Petn. The Foundation Granting Department: Reports Submitted to FAMSI. Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. (FAMSI) Fondebilla, Graldine 2009 Excavacin en la Parte Norte de la Plaza Central: Operacin CB202A. In Informe del Proyecto Arqueolgico Ceibal Petexbatun: La Temporada de 2009 edited by Otto Romn, Takeshi Inomata, and Daniela Triadan, pp. 89 97. Instituto de Antropologa e Historia, G uatemala City. Ford, Anabel 1996 Critical Resource Control and the Rise of the Classic Period Maya. In The Managed Mosaic: Ancient Maya Agriculture and Resource Use edited by Scott L. Fedick, pp. 297 303. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

PAGE 515

515 Ford, Anabel, and Ronald B. Nigh 2009 Origins of the Maya Forest Garden: A Resource Management System. Journal of Ethnobiology 29(2):213 236. 2010 The Milpa Cycle and the Making of the Maya Forest Garden. Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 7:183 190. Fow ler, Melvin L. 1991 Mound 72 and Early Mississippian at Cahokia. In New Perspectives on Cahokia: Views from the Periphery edited by James B. Stoltman, pp. 1 28. Prehistory Press, Madison. Fowler, William R. Jr., Arthur A. Demarest, Helen V. Michel, Frank Asaro, and Fred Stross 1989 Sources of Obsidian from El Mirador, Guatemala: New Evidence on Preclassic Maya Interaction. American Anthropologist 91(1):158 168. Fradkin, Arlene, and Helen Sorraya Carr 2003 Middle Preclassic Landscapes and Aquatic Resource Use at Cuello, Belize. Bulletin of the Florida Museum of Natural History (Special Issue: Zooarchaeology: Contributions in Honor of Elizabeth S. Wing) 44(1):35 42. Freidel, David A. 1986 The Monumental Architecture. In Archaeology at Cerros, Belize, Centr al America edited by David A. Freidel, Robin A. Robertson, and H. Sorayya Carr, pp. 1 22. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas. 2008 Maya Divine Kingship. In Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond edited by Nicole Bri sch, pp. 191 206. Oriental Institute Seminars 4. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Chicago. Freidel, David A., Kathryn Reese Taylor, and David Mora Marn 2002 The Origins of Maya Civilization: The Old Shell Game, Commodity, Treasure, an d Kingship. In Ancient Maya Political Economies edited by Marilyn A. Masson and David A. Freidel, pp. 41 86 Altamira Press, Walnut Creek. Freidel, David A., and Linda Schele 1988 Kingship in the Late Preclasic Maya Lowlands: The Instruments and Places o f Ritual Power. American Anthropologist 90(3):547 567. Freiwald, Carolyn R. 2010 Dietary Diversity in the Upper Belize River Valley: A Zooarchaeological and Isotopic Perspective. In Pre Columbian Foodways: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Food, Culture, and Markets in Ancient Mesoamerica edited by John Staller and Michael Carrasco, pp. 399 420. Springer, New York.

PAGE 516

516 Freiwald, Carolyn R. 2011 Maya Migration Networks: Reconstructing Population Movement in the Belize River Valley during the Late and Terminal Classic. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin Madison, Madison. Frenkiel, L., O. Gros, and M. Moueza 1996 Gill Structure in Lucina pectinata (Bivalvia: Lucinidae) with Reference to Hemoglobin in Bivalves with Symbiotic Sulphur Oxidizing Bacteria. Marine Biology 125:511 524. Frost, Harold M. 1969 Tetracycline based Histological Analysis of Bone Remodeling. Calcified Tissue Research 3(1):211 23 7. Fulbright, Timothy Edward, and Jos Alfonso Ortega Santos 2013 White Tailed Deer Habitat: Ecology and Management on Rangelands T exas A&M University Press, College Station. Garber, James F. 1983 Patterns of Jade Consumption and Disposal at Cerros, Nor thern Belize. American Antiquity 48(4):800 807. 1989 Archaeology at Cerros, Belize, Central America: Volume II: The Artifacts Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas. Garber, James F., M. Kathryn Brown, Jaime J. Awe, and Chistopher J. Hartman 2004 M iddle Formative Prehistory of the Central Belize Valley: An Examination of Architecture, Material Culture, and Sociopolitical Change at Blackman Eddy. In The Ancient Maya of the Belize Valley: Half a Century of Archaeological Research edited by James F. G arber, pp. 25 46. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Garrison, Thomas G. 2004 The Transition from the Late Preclassic Period to the Early Classic Period in the Intersite Zone of Xultun and San Bartolo in Peten Report submitted to the Foundation fo r Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. (FAMSI). Garrison, Thomas G., and Nicholas Dunning 2009 Settlement, Environment, and Politics in the San Bartolo Xultun Territory, El Petn, Guatemala. Latin American Antiquity 20(4):525 552. Gheoca, Voichita 2013 Edible Land Snail Helix pomatia Legislation, Evolution, Perspectives. Advances in Environment, Ecosystems and Sustainable Tourism 1:144 149.

PAGE 517

517 Gilbert, B. Miles 1980 Mammalian Osteology Modern Printing Co., Laramie. Gi lbert, B. Miles, Larry D. Martin, and Howard G. Savage 1996 Avian Osteology Missouri Archaeological Society, Inc., Columbia. Gillespie, Susan D. 2000 American Anthropologist 1 02(3):467 484. Gilli, Adrian, David A. Hodell, George D. Kamenov, and Mark Brenner 2009 Geological and Archaeological Implications of Strontium Isotope Analysis of Exposed Bedrock in the Chicxulub Crater Basin, Northwestern Yucatn, Mexico. Geology 37(8): 723 726. Goepfert, Nicolas 2010 The Llama and the Deer: Dietary and Symbolic Dualism in the Central Andes. Anthropozoologica 45(1):25 45. Gonzlez, Giovanni 2011 Excavaciones en la Plaza Este del Grupo D: Operacin 208A. In Informe del Proyecto Arqueologico Ceibal Petexbatun la Temporada 2011 edited by Victor Castillo Aguilar and Takeshi Inomata, pp. 144 147. Instituto de Antropologa e Historia, Guatemala City. Gonzlez Porter, Gracia P., Frank Hailer, Oscar Flores Villela, Rony Garca Anleu, and Jess E. Maldonado 2011 Patterns of Genetic Diversity in the Critically Endangered Central American River Turtle: Human Influence since the Mayan Age? Conservation Genetics 12(5):1229 1242. Gonzlez Porter, Gracia P., Jess E. Maldonado, Oscar Flores Villela, Richard C. Vogt, Axel Janke, Robert C. Fleischer, and Frank Hailer 2013 Cryptic Population Structuring and the Role of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec as a Gene Flow Barrier in the Critically Endangered Central American River Turtle. PLOS ONE 8(9):e716 68. Gtz, Christopher M. 2008 Coastal and Inland Patterns of Faunal Exploitation in the Prehispanic Northern Maya Lowlands. Quaternary International 191:154 169. 2010 Una Mirada Zooarqueolgica a los Modos A limenticios de los Mayas de las Tierras Bajas del N orte. In Identidades y Cultura Material en la Regin Maya edited by Hctor Hernndez lvarez and Marcos No Pool Cab, pp. 89 109. Ediciones de la Universidad Autnoma de Yucatn, Mrida.

PAGE 518

518 Gtz, Christopher M., and Kitty F. Emery (editors). 2013 The Archaeology of Mesoamerican Animals Archaeobiology 1. Lockwood Press, Atlanta. Gtz, Christopher M., Amada Rubio Herrera, and Carlos Andrs Garca Paz 2016 Turkeys and their Koos : A Comparison of What We Know about Modern and Prehispanic Techniques of Tu rkey Husbandry in the Northern Maya Lowlands. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports in press. Graham, Elizabeth 2012 Control without Controlling: Motul de San Jos and Its Environs from an Motul de San Jos: Politics, Hist ory, and Economy in a Classic Maya Polity edited by Antonia E. Foias and Kitty F. Emery, pp. 419 430. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Graham, John A. 1990 Excavations at Seibal: Monumental Sculpture and Hieroglyphic Inscriptions Vol. Memoirs o f the Peabody Museum, Vol. 14, no. 1. Harvard University, Cambridge. Grant, Annie 1988 Animal Resources. In The Countryside of Medieval England edited by Grenville Astill and Annie Grant, pp. 149 187. Basil Blackwell, Oxford. 2002 Food, Status and Socia l Hierarchy. In Consuming Passions and Patterns of Consumption edited by Preston Miracle and Nicky Milner, pp. 17 24. Oxbow Books, Cambridge. Graustein, W. C. 1989 87 Sr/ 86 Sr Ratios Measure the Sources and Flow of Strontium in Terrestrial Ecosystems. In S table Isotopes in Ecological Research edited by P. W. Rundel, J. R. Ehlerginger, and K. A. Nagy, pp. 491 512. Springer Verlag, New York. Greenfield, Tina L. 2015 The Palace Versus the Home: Social Status and Zooarchaeology at Tushan (Ziyaret Tepe), a Neo Assyrian Administrative Provincial Capital in Southeastern Turkey. Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology & Heritage Studies 3(1):1 26. Grouard, Sandrine, Sophia Perdikaris, and Karyne Debue 2013 Dog Burials Associated with Human Burials in the West Indies during the Early Pre Columbian Ceramic Age (500 BC 600 AD). Anthropozoologica 48(2):447 465. Grove, David C. 1972 Olmec Felines in Highland Central Mexico. In The Cult of the Feline edited by E lizabeth P. Benson, pp. 153 164. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington D.C.

PAGE 519

519 Gulson, Brian 2008 Stable Lead Isotopes in Environmental Health with Emphasis on Human Investigations. Science of the Total Environment 400(1 3):75 92. Haines, Helen R., P. Willink, and Da vid Maxwell 2008 Stingray Spine Use and Maya Bloodletting Rituals: A Cautionary Tale. Latin American Antiquity 19(1):83 98. Hall, Grant D., Stanley M. Tarka, W. Jeffrey Hurst, David Stuart, and Richard E. W. Adams 1990 Cacao Residues in Ancient Maya Vesse ls from Rio Azul, Guatemala. American Antiquity 55(1):138 143. Halperin, Christina T. 2014 Maya Figurines: Intersections between State and Household University of Texas Press, Austin. Halperin, Christina T., and Antonia E. Foias 2012 Motul de San Jose Palace Pottery Production: Reconstructions from Wasters and Debris. In Motul de San Jose: Politics, History, and Economy in a Classic Maya Polity edited by Antonia E. Foias and Kitty F. Emery, pp. 167 193. University Press of Florida, Ga inesville. Halperin, Christina T., Sergio Garza, Keith Prufer, and James E. Brady 2003 Caves and Ancient Maya Ritual Use of Jute. Latin American Antiquity 14(2):207 219. Hamblin, Nancy L. 1984 Animal Use by the Cozumel Maya University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Hamilton, Rachel J. 1987 The Archaeological Mollusca of Cerros, Belize. Unpublished B.A. Senior Honors Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Sarasota. Hammond, Norman 1992 Preclassic Maya Civilization. In New Theories on the Ancient Maya edited by Elin C. Danien and Robert J. Sharer, pp. 137 144. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Hammond, Norman (editor) 1991 Cuello: An Early Maya Community in Belize Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

PAGE 520

520 Hammond, N orman, Arnold Aspinall, Stuart Feather, John Hazelden, Trevor Gazard, and Stuart Agrell 1977 Maya Jade: Source Location and Analysis. In Exchange Systems in Prehistory edited by Timothy K. Earle and Jonathan E. Ericson, pp. 35 67. University of Missouri, Colombia. Hammond, Norman, Juliette Cartwright Gerhardt, and Sara Donaghey 1991 Stratigraphy and Chronology in the Reconstruction of Preclassic Developments at Cuello. In Cuello: An Early Maya Community in Belize edited by Norman Hammond, pp. 23 69. Camb rid ge University Press, Cambridge. Hammond, Norman, Amanda Clarke, and Cynthia Robin 1990 Middle Preclassic Buildings and Burials at Cuello, Belize: 1990 Investigations. Latin American Antiquity 2(4):352 363. Hammond, Norman, Julie Mather Saul, and Frank P. Saul 2002 Ancestral Faces: A Preclassic Maya Skull Mask from Cuello, Belize. Antiquity 76(294):951 952. Hansen, Richard D. 1992 El Proceso Cultural de Nakbe y el rea del Peten Nor central: Las pocas Tempranas. In V Simposio de Investigaciones en Gua temala edited by Juan Pedro Laporte, Hector L. Escobedo, and Sandra Villagrn de Brady, pp. 81 96. Museo Nacional de Arqueologa y Etnologa, Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto de Antropologa e Historia de Guatemala, Asociacin Tikal, Guatemala City. 2001 The First Cities The Beginnings of Urbanization and State Formation in the Maya Lowlands. In Maya: Divine Kings of the Rain Forest edited by Nikolai Grube, pp. 50 65. Konemann Press, Verlag. 2005 Perspectives on Olmec Maya Interaction in the Middle Formative Period. In New Perspectives on Formative Mesoamerican Cultures edited by Terry G. Powis, pp. 51 72. Archaeopress, Oxford. 2009 Mirador Basin 2008 9 Progress Report Summary Global Heritage Fu nd Mirador Basin Progress Report. Hansen, Richard D., Steven R. Bozarth, John S. Jacob, David Wahl, and Thomas Schreiner 2002 Climatic and Environmental Variability in the Rise of Maya Civilization: A Preliminary Perspective from Northern Peten. Ancient M esoamerica 13:273 295. Harrigan, Ryan 2004 an Ancient Maya Village edited by Patricia A. McAnany, pp. 399 412. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

PAGE 521

521 Haviland, William A. 1992 Status and Power in Classic Maya Society: The View from Tikal. American Anthropologist 94:937 985. Healy, Paul F. 2006 Preclassic Maya of the Belize Valley: Key Issues and Questions. In Research Reports in Belizean Archa eology edited by John Morris, Sherilyne Jones, Jaime Awe, and Christophe Helmke, pp. 13 30. Belize Institute of Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and History, Belmopan. Healy, Paul F., Jaime J. Awe, and Hermann Helmuth 1998 An Ancient Maya Multi ple Burial at Caledonia, Cayo District, Belize. Journal of Field Archaeology 25(3):261 274. Healy, Paul F., Kitty F. Emery, and Lori E. Wright 1990 Ancient and Modern Maya Exploitation of the Jute Snail ( Pachychilus ). Latin American Antiquity 1(2):170 183 Healy, Paul F., Bobbie Hohmann, and Terry G. Powis 2004 The Ancient Maya Center of Pacbitun. In The Ancient Maya of the Belize Valley: Half a Century of Archaeological Research edited by James F. Garber, pp. 207 227. University Press of Florida, Gaines ville. Healy, Paul F., John D.H. Lambert, J.T. Arnason, and Richard J. Hebda 1983 Caracol, Belize: Evidence of Ancient Maya Agricultural Terraces. Journal of Field Archaeology 10(4):397 410. Hedin, Lars O., E. N. Jack Brookshire, Duncan N. L. Menge, and Alexander R. Barron 2009 The Nitrogen Paradox in Tropical Forest Ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 40(1):613 635. Hendon, Julia A. 2000 Round Structures, Household Identity, and Public Performance in Preclassic Maya Society. Latin American Antiquity 11(3):299 301. Hernndez, Francisco 1888 [1615] Quatros Libros de la Naturaleza y Virtudes Medicinales de las Plantas y Animales de la Nueva Espaa Escuela de Artes, Morelia. Hodell, David A., Rhonda L. Quinn, Mark Brenner, and George Kamenov 2004 Spatial Variation of Strontium Isotopes ( 87 Sr/ 86 Sr) in the Maya Region: A Tool for Tracking Ancient Human Migration. Journal of Archaeological Science 31(5):585 601.

PAGE 522

522 Hohmann, Bobbie M. 2002 Preclassic Maya Shell Ornament Production in the Belize Valley, Belize. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Holmes, Donna J. 1991 Social Behavior in Captive Virginia Opossums, Didelphis virginiana. Journal of Mammalogy 72(2):402 410. Hong, Sungmin, Jean Pierre Candelone, Clair C. Patterson, and Claude F. Boutron 1994 Greenland Ice Evidence of Hemispheric Lead Pollution Two Millennia Ago by Greek and Roman Civilizations. Science 265(5180):1841 1843. Hoppe, U., R. Kranold, A. Ghosh, C. Landron, J. Neuefeind, and P. Jvri 2003 Environments of Lead Cations in Oxide Glasses Probed by X ray Diffraction. Journal of Non Crystalline Solids 328(1 3):146 156. Hosler, Dorothy, and Andrew Macfarlane 1996 Copper Sources, Metal Production, and Metals Trade in Late Postclassic Mesoamerica. Science 273(5283):1819 1824. Houston, Stephen D., and Takeshi Inomata 2009 The Classic Maya Cambridge University Press, New York. Houston, Stephen D., Zachary N. Nelson, Carlos Chiriboga, Carlos Alvarado, Hector L. Escobedo, and Karl A. Taube 2005 Nuevas Perspectivas sobre la Acrpolis de Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala. In XVIII Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueolgicas en Guatemala, 2004 edited by Juan Pedro Laporte, Brbara Ar royo, and Hctor E. Meja, pp. 505 510. Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Guatemala City. Houston, Stephen D., and David Stuart 2001 The Decipherment of Ancient Maya Writing edited by Stephen Houston, Oswaldo Chinchilla, and David Stuart, pp. 449 464. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Huja, Sarandeep S., Soledad A. Fernandez, Kara J. Hill, and Yan Li 2006 Remodeling Dynamics in the Alveolar Process in Skeletally Mature Dogs. The An atomical Record. Part A, Discoveries in Molecular, Cellular, and Evolutionary Biology 288(12):1243 1249.

PAGE 523

523 Hurst, Heather 2012 Documentacin del Arte de Xultun: Pintura Mural y Estuco Modelado. In Proyecto Arqueolgico Regional San Bartolo Xultun: Info rme de Resultados de Investigaciones Temporada de Campo No. 11, Ao 2012 edited by Patricia Rivera Castillo and William A. Saturno, pp. 451 460. Instituto de Antropologa e Historia, Guatemala City. Hutcheson, Maury 2003 Cultural Memory and the Dance Dra mas of Guatemala: History, Performance, and Identity among the Achi Maya of Rabinal. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, State University of New York, Buffalo. Hutterer, Rainer, Jrg Linstdter, Josef Eiwanger, and Abdeslam Mikdad 2014 Human Manipulation of Terrestrial Gastropods in Neolithic Culture Groups of NE Morocco. Quaternary International 320:83 91. Iannone, Gyles 2002 Annales History and the Ancient Maya State: Some Observations on the American Anthropolog ist 104(1):68 78. Ikram, Salima 2003 Death and Burial in Ancient Egypt Longman, Harlow. Inomata, Takeshi 2006 Plazas, Performers, and Spectators: Political Theaters of the Classic Maya. Current Anthropology 47(5):805 842. Inomata, Takeshi, and Victor C astillo Aguilar (editors). 2012 Proyecto Arqueolgico Ceibal Petexbatun: Informe de la Temporada de Campo 2012 Instituto de Antropologa e Historia, Guatemala City. Inomata, Takeshi, Jessica MacLellan, and Melissa Burham 2015a The Construction of Public and Domestic Spheres in the Preclassic Maya Lowlands. American Anthropologist 117(3):519 534. Inomata, Takeshi, Jessica MacLellan, Daniela Triadan, Jessica Munson, Melissa Burham, Kazuo Aoyama, Hiroo Nasu, Flory Pinzn, and Hito shi Yonenobu 2015b Development of Sedentary Communities in the Maya Lowlands: Coexisting Mobile Groups and Public Ceremonies at Ceibal, Guatemala. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(14):4268 4273. Inomata, Takeshi, and Andrea Orozco 2008 Pozo de Sondeo en la Plaza Central del Grupo A de Ceibal: Operacin CB202A. In Informe del Proyecto Arqueolgico Ceibal Petexbatun: La Temporada de 2008 edited by Takeshi Inomata and Daniela Triadan, pp. 25 31. Instituto de Antropolo ga e Historia, Guatem ala City.

PAGE 524

524 Inomata, Takeshi, Ral Ortiz, Brbara Arroyo, and Eugenia J. Robinson 2014 Chronological Revision of Preclassic Kaminaljuy, Guatemala: Implications for Social Processes in the Southern Maya Area. Latin American Antiquity 25(4):377 408. Inomata, Takeshi, Ral Ortz, Flory Pinzn, Mara Beln Mndez, Ashley Sharpe, Otto Romn, and Juan Manuel Palomo 2016a Public Ritual and Inter regional Interactions: Excavations of the Central Plaza of Group A, Ceibal. Ancient Mesoamerica in review. Inomata, Takeshi, and Daniela Triadan 2000 Craft Production by Classic Maya Elites in Domestic Settings: Data from Rapidly Abandoned Structures at Aguateca, Guatemala. Mayab 13:57 66. Inomata, Takeshi, and Daniela Triadan (editors) 2014 Life and Politics at the Ro yal Court of Aguateca: Artifacts, Analytical Data, and Synthesis University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Inomata, Takeshi, Daniela Triadan, and Kazuo Aoyama 2016b After 40 Years: Revisiting Ceibal to Investigate the Origins of Lowland Maya Civilization. Ancient Mesoamerica in review. Inomata, Takeshi, Daniela Triadan, Kazuo Aoyama, Victor Castillo, and Hitoshi Yonenobu 2013 Early Ceremonial Constructions at Ceibal Guatemala, and the Origins of Lowland Maya Civilization. Science 340:467 471. Inomata, Takeshi, Daniela Triadan, Erick Ponciano, Estela Pinto, Richard E. Terry, and Markus Eberl 2002 Domestic and Political Lives of Classic Maya Elites: The Excavation of Rapidly Abandoned Structures at Aguateca, Guatemala. Latin American Antiquity 13:305 330. Inomata, Takeshi, Daniela Triadan, Otto Romn, Estela Pinto, Jessica Munson, and Kenichiro Tsukamoto 2009 Cambios Sociales Durante los Perodos Preclsico y Clsico en Ceibal: Los Resultados del Proyecto Arqueolgico Ceibal Petexbatun. In XXII Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueolgicas en Guatemala, 2008 edited by Juan Pedro Laporte, Brbara Arroyo, and Hctor E. Meja, pp. 593 602. Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto de Antropologa e Historia, and Asociacin Tikal, Guatemala City. Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) 2016 Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). Electronic database, http://www.itis.gov accessed August 16, 2016 Jackson, H Edwin, and Susan L. Scott 1995 The Faunal Record of the Southeastern Elite: The Implications of Economy, Social Relations, and Ideology. Southeastern Archaeology 14(2):103 119.

PAGE 525

525 Jackson, H. Edwin, and Susan L. Scott 2003 Patterns of Elite Faunal Utilizati on at Moundville, Alabama. American Antiquity 68(3):552 572. Jerardino, Antonieta, and Curtis W. Marean 2010 Shellfish Gathering, Marine Paleoecology and Modern Human Behavior: Perspectives from Cave PP13B, Pinnacle Point, South Africa. Journal of Human Evolution 59(3 4):412 424. Jimnez Cano, Nayeli G., and Marilyn A. Masson 2016 Estimation of Fish Size from Archaeological Bones of Hardhead Catfishes ( Ariopsis felis ): Assessing Pre Hispanic Fish Acquisition of Two Mayan Sites. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 8:116 120. Jones, John 1994 Pollen Evidence for Early Settlement and Agriculture in northern Belize. Palynology 18:205 211. Jorgenson, Jeffrey P. 1993 Gardens, Wildlife Densities, and Subsistence Hunting by Maya Indians in Quintana Roo, Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 1995 Maya Subsistence Hunters in Quintana Roo, Mexico. Oryx 29(1):49 57. Kahn, Hilary E. 2006 uatemala, and Beyond University of Texas Press, Austin. Kamenov, George D., and Brian L. Gulson 2014 The Pb Isotopic Record of Historical to Modern Human Lead Exposure. Science of the Total Environment 490:861 870. Keller, Angela H. 2012 Creating Commun ity with Shell. In Chan: An Ancient Maya Farming Community edited by Cynthia Robin, pp. 253 270. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Kelly, Lucretia S. 1997 Patterns of Faunal Exploitation at Cahokia. In Cahokia: Domination and Ideology in the Miss issippian World edited by Timothy R. Pauketat and Thomas E. Emerson, pp. 69 88. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Kerr, Justin 2016 Maya Vase Database: An Archive of Rollout Photo graphs. Electronic database, http://research.mayavase.com/kerrmaya.html accessed August 16, 2016

PAGE 526

526 Kim, Nam C., and Chapurukha M. Kusimba 2008 Pathways to Social Complexity and State Formation in the Southern Zambezian Region. African Archaeological Review 25(3 4):131 152. Kirch, Pa 2003 New Archaeological Insights into Food and Status: A Case Study from Pre contact Hawaii. World Archaeology 34(3):484 497. Kistler, S. Ashley 2014 Maya Market Women: Power and Tradition in San Juan Chamelco, Guatemala University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Kohn, Matthew J. 1996 Predicting A 18 O: Accounting for Diet and Physiological A daptation. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 60(23):4811 4829. 2010 Carbon Isotope Compositions of Terrestrial C3 Plants as I nd icator s of (Paleo)Ecology and (Paleo)C limate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(46):19691 19695. Kosakowsky, Laura J., Francisco Estrada Belli, and Hector Neff 1999 Late Preclassic Ceramic Industries of Pacific Guatemala and El Salvador: The Pacific Coast as Core, Not Periphery. Journal of Field Archaeology 26(4):377 390. Kosakowsky, Laura J., and Duncan C. Pring 1998 The Ceramics of Cuello, Belize. Ancient Mesoameri ca 9:55 66. 2005 Identifying Social Drama in the Maya Region: Fauna from the Lagartero Basurero, Chiapas, Mexico. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee. Krejci, Estella, and T. Pat rick Culbert 1995 Preclassic and Classic Burials and Caches in the Maya Lowlands. In The Emergence of Classic Maya Civilization edited by Nicholai Grube, pp. 103 116. Acta Mesoamericana 8, Verlag von Flemming, Mockmuhl. Krueger, Harold W. 1985 Sr Isotopes and Sr/Ca in Bone. Paper presented at the 1985 Biomineralization Conference, Warrenton. Lachniet, Matthew S., and William P. Patterson 2009 Oxygen Isotope Values of Precipitation and Surface Waters in Northern Central America (Belize and Guatemal a) are Dominated by Temperature and Amount Effects. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 284:435 446.

PAGE 527

527 Landa, Fray Diego de 1941 Translated by Alfred Tozzer. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 18. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Laporte, Juan Pedro 1997 Exploracin y Restauracin en el Templo del Talud Tablero, Mundo Perdido, Tikal (Estructura 5C 49). In XI Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueolgicas en Guatemala, 1997 edited by Juan Pedro Laporte and Hector L. Escobeco, pp. 22 40. Museo Nacional de Arqueologa y Etnologa, Guatemala City. Laska, Matthias, J. M. Luna Batlazar, and E. Rodriguez Luna 2003 Food Preferences and Nutrient Composition in Captive Pacas, Agout i paca (Rodentia, Dasyproctidae). Mammalian Biology 68(1):31 41. LeCount, Lisa J. 2001 Like Water for Chocolate: Feasting and Political Ritual among the Late Classic Maya at Xunantunich, Belize. American Anthropologist 103(4):935 953. Lee, Thomas A. 1969 The Artifacts of Chiapa de Corzo, Chiapas, Mexico Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation. Bringham Young University, Provo. LeFebvre, Michelle J., and Susan D. deFrance 2014 Guinea Pigs in the Pre Columbian West Indies. The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 9(1):16 44. Lev Tov, Justin, and Kevin McGeough 2007 Examining Feasting in Late Bronze Age Syro Palestine through Ancient Texts and Bones. In The Archaeology of Food and Identity edited by Katheryn C. Twiss, pp. 85 111. Southern I llinois University Press, Carbondale. Levasseur, V., and A. Olivier 2000 The Farming System and Traditional Agroforestry Systems in the Maya Community of San Jose, Belize. Agroforestry Systems 49(3):275 288. Leyden, Barbara W. 2002 Pollen Evidence for Climatic Variability and Cultural Disturbance in the Maya Lowlands. Ancient Mesoamerica 13:85 101. Likins, R. C., H. G. McCann, A. S. Posner, and D. B. Scott 1960 Comparative Fixation of Calcium and Strontium by Synthetic Hydroxyapatit e. The Journal of Biological Chemistry 235(7):2152 2156. Linares, Olga F. 1976 Human Ecology 4(4):331 349.

PAGE 528

528 Liolios, Despina 2006 Reflections on the Role of Bone Tools in the Definition of the Early Aurignacian. In Reflections on the Role of Bone Tools in the Definition of the Early Aurignacian edited by Ofer Bar Yosef and J. Zilhao, pp. 37 51. Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia, Lisboa. Liu, Yunhui, Meichun Duan, and Zhenrong Yu 2013 Agricultural Landscapes and B iodiversity in China. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 166:46 54. Lohse, Jon C. 2010 Archaic Origins of the Lowland Maya. Latin American Antiquity 21(3):312 352. Longinelli, Antionio 1984 Oxygen Isotopes in Mammal Bone Phosphate: A New Tool for Pale ohydrological and Paleoclimatological Research? Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 48:385 390. Looper, Matthew G. 2009 To Be Like Gods: Dance in Ancient Maya Civilization University of Texas Press, Austin. Lpez de Gmara, Francisco 1890 [1826] Historia de las conquistas de Hernando Corts Impr. de la testamentara de Ontiveros, Mexico City. Lpez Lpez, Eugenia, J. Elias Sedeo Daz, Perla Tapia Vega, and Eloiza Oliveros 2009 Invasive Mollusks Tarebia granifera Lamarck, 1822 and Corbicula fluminea Mller, 1774 in the Tuxpam and Tecolutla Rivers, Mexico: Spatial and Seasonal Distribution Patterns. Aquatic Invasions 4(3):435 450. Lpez Lujn, Leonardo 1994 The Offerings of the Templo Mayor of Tenochtitlan University of Colorado, Boulder. Lpez Luj n, Leonardo, Ximena Chvez Balderas, Belem Ziga Arellano, Alejandra Aguirre Molina, and Norma Valentn Maldonado 2012 Un Portal al Inframundo: Ofrendas de Animales Sepultadas al Pie del Templo Mayor de Tenochtitlan. Estudios de Cultura Nhuatl 44:9 40. Loughmiller Newman, Jennifer Ann 2012 The Analytic Reconciliation of Classic Mayan Elite Pottery: Squaring Pottery Function with Form, Adornment, and Residual Contents. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany.

PAGE 529

529 Lowe, Gareth W. 1977 The Mixe Zoque as Competing Neighbors of the Early Lowland Maya. In Origins of Maya Civilization edited by R.E.W. Adams, pp. 197 248. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Lubell, David 2004 P rehistoric Edible Land Snails in the Circum Mediterranean: The Archaeological Evidence. Petits Animaux et Socits Humaines. Du Complment Alimentaire Aux Ressources Utilitaires XXIV Lucero, Lisa J. 1999 Water Control and Maya Politics in the Southern Ma ya Lowlands. Archaeological Papers of American Anthropological Association 9(1):35 49. 2007 Classic Maya Temples, Politics, and the Voice of the People. Latin American Antiquity 18(4):407 427. Lupo, Karen D 2001 Archaeological Skeletal Part Profiles and Differential Transport: An Ethnoarchaeological Example from Hadza Bone Assemblages. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20(3):361 378. 2006 What Explains the Carcass Field Processing and Transport Decisions of Contemporary Hunter Gatherers? Measures of Economic Anatomy and Zooarchaeological Skeletal Part Representation. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 13(1):19 66. Lupo, Karen D., and Dave N. Schmitt 2002 Upper Paleolithic Net Effort: A View from the Ethnographic and Ethnoarchaeological Record of the Congo Basin. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 9(2):147 179. 2005 Small Prey Hunting Technology a nd Zooarchaeological Measures of Taxonomic Diversity and Abundance: Ethnoarchaeological Evidence from Central African Forest Foragers. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 24:335 353. Luz, Boaz, Yehoshua Kolodny, and Michal Horowitz 1984 Fractionation o f Oxygen Isotopes between Mammalian Bone Phosphate and Environmental Drinking Water. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 48(8):1689 1693. Lyman, R. Lee 2008 Quantitative Paleozoology Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2015 in North American Zooarchaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 39:42 50.

PAGE 530

530 Maar, A., M. A. E. Mortimer, and I. Van der Lingen 1966 Fish Culture in Central East Africa Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Madrigal, T. C regg, and Julie Zimmermann Holt 2002 White Tailed Deer Meat and Marrow Return Rates and Their Application to Eastern Woodlands Archaeology. American Antiquity 67(4):745 759. MacLellan, Jessica 2012 Excavaciones en la Unidad Residencial 45: Operacin CB211. In Proyecto Arqueolgico Ceibal Petexbatun Informe de la Temporada de Campo 2012 edited by Victor Castillo Aguilar and Takeshi Inomata, pp. 193 215. Instituto de Antropologa e Historia, Guatemala City. Makarewicz, Cheryl, and Noreen Tuross 2012 Finding Fodder and Tracking Transhumance: Isotopic Detection of Goat Domestication Processes in the Near East. Current Anthropology 53(4):495 505. Maler, Toebert 1908 Explorations of the Upper Usumatcintl a and Adjacent Regions: Altar de Sacrificios; Seibal; Itsimte Scl uk; Cankuen Memoirs 4(1). Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge. Marcus, Joyce 1998 The Peaks and Valleys of Ancient States: An Extension of the Dynamic Model. In Archaic States edited by Gary M. Feinman and Joyce Marcus. School of American Research Press, Sante Fe. 2003 Recent Advances in Maya Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Res earch 11(2):71 148. 2004 Primary and Secondary State Formation in Southern Mesoamerica. In Understanding Early Classic Copn edited by Ellen E. Bell, Marcus A. Canuto, and Robert J. Sharer, pp. 357 373. University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia. Mariotti, Andr 1983 Atmospheric Nitrogen is a Reliable Standard for Natural 15 N Abundance Measurements. Nature 303(5919):685 687. Martin, Simon, and Nikolai Grube 2000 Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens: Deciphering the Dynasties of the Ancient Maya Thames and Hudson, London.

PAGE 531

531 Mason, Roger D., Mark L. Peterson, and Joseph A. Tiffany 1998 Weighing vs. Counting: Measurement Reliability and the California School of Midden Analysis. American Antiquity 63(2):303 324. Masson, Marilyn A. 1999a Animal Resource Manipulation in Ritual and Domestic Contexts at Postclassic Maya Communities. World Archaeology 31(1):93 120. 1999b Postclassic Maya Ritual at Laguna de On Island, Belize. Ancient Mesoamerica 10(1):51 68. Masson, Marilyn A., and Ca rlos Peraza Lope 2008 Animal Use at the Postclassic Maya Center of Mayapn. Quaternary International 191(1):170 183. Matheson, Carney, Jay Hall, and Rene Viel 2009 Drawing First Blood from Maya Ceramics at Copn, Honduras. In Archaeological Science under a Microscope: Studies in Residue and Ancient DNA Analysis in Honour of Thomas H. Loy edited by Michael Haslam, Gail Robertson, Alison Crowther, Susan Nugent, and Luke Kirkwood, pp. 190 197. Terra Australis 30. ANU E Press, Canberra. Matsuoka, Yoshihiro, Yves Vigouroux, Major M. Goodman, Jesus Sanchez G, Edward Buckler, and John Doebley 2002 A Single Domestication for Maize Shown by Multilocus Microsatellite Genotyping. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99(9):6080 6084. Maxwell, David 2000 B eyond Maritime Symbolism: Toxic Marine Objects from Ritual Contexts at Tikal. Ancient Mesoamerica 11:91 98. McAnany, Patricia A 1995 Living with the Ancestors: Kinship and Kingship in Ancient Maya Society University of Texas Press, Austin. McClanahan, T R. 2002 A Comparison of the Ecology of Shallow Subtidal Gastropods between Western Indian Ocean and Caribbean Coral Reefs. Journal of Coral Reefs 21:399 406. McKillop, Heather 1984 Prehistoric Maya Reliance on Marine Resources: Analysis of a Midden from Moho Cay, Belize. Journal of Field Archaeology 11(1):25 35. 1985 Prehistoric Exploitation of the Manatee in the Maya and Circum Caribbean Areas. World Archaeology 16(3):337 353. 2002 Salt: White Gold of the Ancient Maya University Press of Florida, Gai nesville.

PAGE 532

532 McKillop, Heather 2004 The Classic Maya Trading Port of Moho Cay, Belize. In The Ancient Maya of the Belize Valley: Half a Century of Archaeological Research edited by James F. Garber, pp. 257 272. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. McKi llop, Heather and Terance Winemiller 2004 Ancient Maya Environment, Settlement, and Diet: Quantitative and GIS Analyses Maya Zooarchaeology: New Directions in Method and Theory edited by Kitty F. Emery, pp. 57 80. Institute of Archaeology, University of California Los Angeles Press, Los Angeles. McNiven, Ian 2004 Saltwater People: Spiritscapes, Maritime Rituals and the Archaeology of Australian Indigenous Seascapes. World Archaeology 35(3):329 349. Meadow, Richard H. 1980 Animal Bones: Problems for the Archaeologist Together with Some Possible Solutions. Palorient 6(6):65 77. Medina, Jose Toribio 1934 [1541] The Discovery of the Amazon According to the Account of Friar Gaspar de Carvajal and Other Document s American Geographical Society, New York. Merwin, Raymond E., and George C. Vaillant 1932 The Ruins of Holmul, Guatemala Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 3, no. 2. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Milbrath, Susan 19 99 Star Gods of the Maya: Astronomy in Art, Folklore, and Calendars University of Texas Press, Austin. Miller, G. R., and Richard L. Burger 1995 Our Father the Cayman, Our Dinner the Llama: Animal Utilization at Chavin de Huantar, Peru. American Antiqui ty 60:421 458. Miller, Robert Rush, W. L. Minckley, and Steven Mark Norris 2005 Freshwater Fishes of Mexico University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Minnis, Paul E., Michael E. Whalen, Jane H. Kelley, and Joe D. Stewart 1993 Prehistoric Macaw Breeding in t he North American Southwest. American Antiquity 58(2):270 276. Moholy Nagy, Hattula 1963 Shells and other Marine Material from Tikal. Estudios de Cultura Maya 3:65 83.

PAGE 533

533 Moholy Nagy, Hattula 1978 The Utilization of Pomacea Snails at Tikal, Guatemala. American Antiquity 43(1):65 73. 1985 The Social and Ceremonial Uses of Marine Molluscs at Tikal. In Prehistoric Lowland Maya Subsistence Economy edited by Mary D. Pohl. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 77. Harvard University, Cambridge. 1986 Formed Shell Beads from Tikal, Guatemala. In Proceedings of the 1986 Shell Bead Conference: Selected Papers edited by Charles Haynes III and Lynn Ceci, pp. 139 156. Rochester Museum and Science Center Research Records 20, Rochester. 1997 Middens, Construction Fill, and Offerings: Evidence for the Organization of Classic Period Craft Production at Tikal, Guatemala. Journal of Field Archaeology 24(3):293 313. 2002 The Artifacts of Tikal: Utilitarian Artifacts and Unworked Materials Tikal Report 27, Part B. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 2003 Source Attribution and the Utilization of Obsidian in the Maya Area. Latin American Antiquity 14(3):301 310. 2004 Vertebrate Fauna in Tikal Burials and Caches. In Maya Z ooarchaeology: New Directions in Method and Theory edited by Kitty F. Emery. University of California Los Angeles Press, Los Angeles. Montero Lopez, Coral 2009 Sacrifice and Feasting Among the Classic Maya Elite and the Importance of the White Tailed Dee r: Is There a Regional Pattern? Journal of Historical and European Studies 2:53 68. Montgomery, Janet, Jane A. Evans, Simon R. Chenery, Vanessa Pashley, and Kristina Killgrove 2010 Geogr aphic Origins in the Roman Period in Britain. Journal of Roman Archaeology Suppl. 78:199 226. Montgomery, Janet, Jane A. Evans, Dominic Powlesland, and Charlotte A. Roberts 2005 Continuity or Colonization in Anglo Saxon England? Isotope Evidence for Mobil ity, Subsistence Practice, and Status at West Heslerton. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 126:123 138. Montoli, Maria 1976 Algunos Aspectos del Venado en la Religin de los Mayas de Yucatatn. Estudios de Cultura Maya X:149 172.

PAGE 534

534 Morey, Darcy F. 2006 Burying Key Evidence: The Social Bond between Dogs and People. Journal of Archaeological Science 33(2):158 175. Morley, Sylvanus G. 1937 The Inscriptions of the Peten Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication 437. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, D.C. 1955 The Maya of Yucatan. In National Geographic on Indians of the Americas edited by Matthew W. Stirling, pp. 182 215. National Geographic Society, Washington D.C. Morris, James 2011 Investigating Animal Burials; Ritual, Mu ndane and Beyond British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. Morrison, Alex E., and Terry L. Hunt 2007 Human Impacts on the Nearshore Environment: An Archaeological Case Study University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Morton, John 1984 The Domestication of the Savage Pig: The Role of Peccaries in Tropical South and Central America and Their Relevance for the Understanding of Pig Domestication in Melanesia. Canberra Anthropology 7(1):20 70. Munson, Jessica 2012 Temple Histories and Communities of Practice in Early Maya Society: Archaeological Investigations at Caobal, Petn, Guatemala. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson. 2013 From Metaphors to Practice. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 22(2):428 460. Munson, Jessica, and Takeshi Inomata 2011 Temples in the Forest: The Discovery of an Early Maya Community at Caobal, Petn, Guatemala. Antiquity 85(328). Nasu, Hiro 2011 Resultados Preliminares de las Investigaciones Arq ueobotnicas en Ceibal. In Informe del Proyecto Arqueolgico Ceibal Petexbatun: La Temporada 2011 edited by Victor Castillo Aguilar and Takeshi Inomata, pp. 154 156. Instituto de Antropologa e Historia, Guatemala City. Nadelhoffer, Knute J., and B. Fry 1988 Controls on Natural Nitrogen 15 and Carbon 13 Abundances in Forest Soil Organic Matter. Soil Science Society of America Journal 52(6):1633.

PAGE 535

535 Nations, James D. 1979 Snail Shells and Maize Preparation: A Lacandon Maya Analogy. American Antiquity 44(3):568 571. Naughton Treves, Lisa, Jose Luis Mena, Adrian Treves, Nora Alvarez, and Volker Christian Radeloff 2003 Wildlife Survival Beyond Park Boundaries: The Impact of Slash and Burn Agriculture and Hunting on Mammals in Tambopata, Peru. Conservati on Biology 17(4):1106 1117. Nelson, D. G. A., G. J. Wood, J. C. Barry, and J. D. B. Featherstone 1986 The Structure of (100) Defects in Carbonated Apatite Crystallites: A High Resolution Electron Microscope Study. Ultramicroscopy 19(3):253 265. Newsom, L ee A., and Elizabeth S. Wing 2004 On Land and Sea: Native American Uses of Biological Resources in the West Indies University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Nicholson, Paul T., Salima Ikram, and Steve Mills 2015 The Catacombs of Anubis at North Saqqara. A ntiquity 89(345):645 661. Nimis, Marion M. 1982 The Contemporary Role of Women in Lowland Maya Livestock Production. In Maya Subsistence: Studies in Memory of Dennis E. Puleston edited by Kent V. Flannery, pp. 313 326. Academic Press, New York. Nixon, C harles M., Lonnie P. Hansen, Paul A. Brewer, and James E. Chelsvig 1991 Ecology of White Tailed Deer in an Intensively Farmed Region of Illinois. Wildlife Monographs 118:3 77. Norr, Lynette 1995 Interpreting Dietary Maize from Bone Stable Isotopes in the American Tropics: The State of the Art. In Archaeology in the Lowland American Tropics: Current Analytical Methods and Recent Applications edited by Peter W. Stahl, pp. 198 223. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1981 Carbon Isotop e Fractionation in Plants. Phytochemistry 20(4):553 567. Olsen, Stanley J. 1982 An Osteology of Some Maya Mammals Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 73. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. 1988 The Horse in Ancient China and Its Cultural Influence in Some Other Areas. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 140(2):151 189.

PAGE 536

536 Ortiz, Jos Ral, and Oswaldo Sal vila 2011 Excavaciones al Lado de la Escalinata de la Estructura A 10: Operacin 203D. In Informe del Proyecto Arqueolgico Ceibal Petexbatun: La Temporada 2011 edited by Takeshi Inomata and Victor Castillo Aguilar, pp. 88 97. Instituto de Antropologa e Historia, Guatemala City. Osario, Jos F. 2005 La Sub estructura de los Estucos (5C 4 I): Un Ejemplo de Arquitectura Temprana en Chichen Itza. In XVIII Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueolgicas en Guatemala, 2004 edited by Juan Pedro Laporte, Brbara Arroyo, and Hctor Meja, pp. 836 846. Museo Nacional de Arqueologa y Etnologa, Guatemala City. Paling, Jason S. R., Renee Morgan, Martn Rangel, Varinia Matute Rodrguez, and 2011 Entre Dos Rivales: Vida en un Centro Intermedio, Hamontun. In XXV Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueolgicas en Guatemala edited by Brbara Arroyo, L. Paiz, A. Linares, and Ana Luca Arroyave, pp. 296 319. Museo Nacional de Arqueologa y Etnologa, Guatemala City. Palka, Joel W. 1997 Reconstructing Classic Maya Socioeconomic Differentiation and the Collapse at Dos Pilas, Peten, Gu atemala. Ancient Mesoamerica 8(2):293 306. Palomo, Juan Manuel 2010 Los Restos "seos Humanos de Ceibal. In Informe del Proyecto Arqueolgico Ceibal Petexbatun: La Temporada 2010 edited by Otto Romn and Takeshi Inomata, pp. 113 120. Instituto de Antropol oga e Historia, Guatemala. 2012 Excavacin de la Estructura A 10: Operacin CB203G. In Informe del Proyecto Arqueolgico Ceibal Petexbatun: La Temporada 2012 edited by Victor Castillo Aguilar and Takeshi Inomata, pp. 58 71. Instituto de Antropologa e H istoria, Guatemala City. 2014 Anlisis de Entierros. In Informe del Proyecto Arqueolgico Ceibal Petexbatun: La Temporada 2014 edited by Flory Mara Pinzn and Takeshi Inomata, pp. 162 169. Instituto de Antropologa e Historia, Guatemala. Palomo, Juan Manuel, Otto Romn, Takeshi Inomata, and Daniela Triadan 2009 Los Restos "seos Humanos de Ceibal. In Informe del Proyecto Arqueolgico Ceibal Petexbatun: La Temporada 2009 pp. 131 134. Instituto de Antropologa e Historia, Guatemala. Pendergast, David M. (editor) 1979 Excavations at Altun Ha, Belize, 1964 1970, Vol. 1 Publications in Archaeology. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto.

PAGE 537

537 Perdikaris, Sophia 1999 From Chiefly Provisioning to Commercial Fishery: Long term Economic Change in Arctic Norway. World Archa eology 30(3):388 402. Perles, Catherine, and Karen D. Vitelli 1999 Craft Specialization in the Neolithic of Greece. In Neolithic Society in Greece edited by Paul Halstead, pp. 96 107. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. Peters, Joris, and Klaus Schmidt 2004 Animals in the Symbolic World of Pre Pottery Neolithic Gbekli Tepe, South eastern Turkey: A Preliminary Assessment. Anthropozoologica 39(1):179 218. Pfeiffer, John, Ashley E. Sharpe, Carla Atkinson, Kitty F. Emery, and Larry Page 2016a Molecular Phy logenetic Analysis of Several Virtually Unknown Mesoamerican Freshwater Mussel Genera and the Biogeographic Implications of their Systematic Position. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution in prep. Pfeiffer, John, Ashley E. Sharpe, Nathan Johnson, Kitty F. Emery, and Larry Page 2016b Mitochondrial Homogeneity across North and Central America Populations of the Freshwater Mussel Genus Megalonaias Hydrobiologia in prep. Pin, Christian, and Chantal Bassin 1992 Evaluation of a Sr specific Extraction Chroma tographic Method for Isotopic Analyses in Geological Materials. Analytica Chimica Acta 269(2):249 255. Pinzn, Flory 2011 Excavaciones Frente a la Escalinata de Estructura A 10: Operacin 203B. In Informe del Proyecto Arqueolgico Ceibal Petexbatun: La Te mporada 2011 edited by Victor Castillo Aguilar and Takeshi Inomata, pp. 75 87. Instituto de Antropologa e Historia, Guatemala City. 2012 Excavaciones en la Parte este de la Plaza Central: Operacin CB203B. In Proyecto Arqueolgico Ceibal Petexbatun edi ted by Victor Castillo Aguilar and Takeshi Inomata, pp. 7 31. Instituto de Antropologa e Historia, Guatemala City. Pinzn, Flory Mara, and Sebastin de Muylder 2014 Excavaciones en la Plaza Central: Operacines CB203K y CB203L. In Informe del Proyecto Arqueolgico Ceibal Petexbatun: La Temporada 2014 pp. 7 28. Instituto de Antropologa e Historia, Guatemala City. Pinzn, Flory Mara, and Takeshi Inomata (editors) 2015 Proyecto Arqueolgico Ceibal Petexbatun Informe de la Temporada de Campo 2015 Instituto de Antropologa e Historia, Guatemala City.

PAGE 538

538 Pinzn, Flory Mara and Otto Rodrigo Romn 2010 Excavaciones en la Escalinata y al Frente de la Estructura A 10: Operacin CB203B. In Informe del Proyecto Arqueolgico Ceibal Petexbatun: La Tempora da 2010 edited by Otto Romn and Takeshi Inomata, pp. 79 90. Instituto de Antropologa e Historia, Guatemala City. Piperno, Dolores R., and Kent V. Flannery 2001 The Earliest Archaeological Maize ( Zea mays L .) From Highland Mexico: New Accelerator Mass S pectrometry Dates and their Implications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98:2101 2103. Pohl, Mary D. 1976 The Ethnozoology of the Maya: An Analysis of Faunal Remains from Five Sites in Peten, Guatemala. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, Depa rtment of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge. 1981 Ritual Continuity and Transformation in Mesoamerica: Reconstructing the Ancient Maya Cuch Ritual. American Antiquity 46(3):513 529. 1983 Maya Ritual Faunas: Vertebrate Remains from Burials, Cach es, Caves, and Cenotes in the Maya Lowlands. In Civilization in the Ancient Americas: essays in honor of Gordon R. Willey edited by Richard M. Leventhal and Alan L. Kolata, pp. 55 103. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 1985 The Privileges of M aya Elites: Prehistoric Vertebrate Fauna from Seibal. In Prehistoric Lowland Maya Environment and Subsistence Economy edited by Mary D. Pohl, pp. 133 145. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 77. Harvard University, Cambridge. 1990 E thnozoology of the Maya: Faunal Remains from Five sites in Peten, Guatemala. In Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten, Guatemala edited by Gordon R. Willey and John A. Graham, pp. 147 174. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Memoir 16(3). Ha rvard University, Cambridge. 1994 The Economics and Politics of Maya Meat Eating. In Economic Anthropology of the State edited by Elizabeth M. Brumfiel, pp. 121 149. University Press of America, New York. 1995 Late Classic Maya Fauna from Settlement in the Copn Valley, Honduras: Assertion of Social Status through Animal Consumption. In The Copn Residential Zone edited by Gordon R. Willey, Richard Leventhal, Arthur A. Demarest, and William Fash, pp. 459 476. Papers of the Peabody Museum. Harvard Un iversity Press, Cambridge.

PAGE 539

539 Pohl, Mary D., and Lawrence H. Feldman 1982 The Traditional Role of Women and Animals in Lowland Maya Economy. In Maya Subsistence edited by Kent Flannery, pp. 295 311. Academic Press, New York. Pohl, Mary D., Kevin O. Pope, John G. Jones, D.R. Jacob, Dolores R. Piperno, Susan D. deFrance, David L. Lentz, J.A. Gifford, Marie E. Danforth, and J.K. Josserand 1996 Early Agriculture in the Maya Lowlands. Latin American Antiquity 7(4):355 372. Politis, Gustavo G., and Nicholas J. Saunders 2002 Archaeological Correlates of Ideological Activity: Food Taboos and Spirit animals in an Amazonian Hunter gatherer Society. In Consuming Passions and Patterns of Consumption edited by Preston Miracle and Nicky Milner, pp. 113 130. Oxbow Book s, Cambridge. Pollard, Joshua 1995 Inscribing Space: Formal Deposition at the Later Neolithic Monument of Woodhenge, Wiltshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 61:137 156. Ponciano, Erick M., Takeshi Inomata, and Daniela Triadan (editors). 2006 In forme del Proyecto Arqueolgico Ceibal Petexbatun: La Temporada de Campo 2006 Informe entregado a Instituto de Antropologa e Historia de Guatemala. Guatemala City. Ponciano, Erick M., Takeshi Inomata, Daniela Triadan, Estela Pinto, Jessica Munson, and O mar Schwendener 2007 Revisitando Ceibal: Cambios Sociales Durante el Preclsico y Clsico Terminal en la Regin del Pasin. In XX Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueolgicas en Guatemala, 2006 edited by Juan Pedro Laporte, Brbara Arroyo, and Hctor Meja, pp. 448 463. Museo Nacional de Arqueologa y Etnologa, Guatemala City. Popenoe de Hatch, Marion 2002 New Perspectives on Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala: Regional Interaction during the Preclassic and Classic Periods. In Incidents of Archaeology in Central Americ a and Yucatn: Studies in Honor of Edwin M. Shook edited by Michael W. Love, Marion Popenoe de Hatch, and Hector L. Escobedo, pp. 277 296. University Press of America, Lanham. Powis, Terry G. 2004 Ancient Lowland Maya Utilization of Freshwater Pearly Mus sels ( Nephonaias spp). In Maya Zooarchaeology: New Directions in Method and Theory edited by Kitty F. Emery, pp. 125 141. University of California Los Angeles Press, Los Angeles. Powis, Terry G., Norbert Stanchly, Christine D. White, Paul F. Healy, Jaime J. Awe, and Fred J. Longstaffe 1999 A Preliminary Reconstruction of Middle Preclassic Subsistence Economy at Cahal Pech, Belize. Antiquity 73(280):364 376.

PAGE 540

540 Price, T. Douglas, James H. Burton, and R. Alexander Bentley 2002 The Characterization of Biologic ally Available Strontium Isotope Ratios for the Study of Prehistoric Migration. Archaeometry 44(1):117 135. Price, T. Douglas, James H. Burton, Paul D. Fullagar, Lori E. Wright, Jane E. Buikstra, and Vera Tiesler Blos 2008 Strontium Isotopes and the Study of Human Mobility in Ancient Mesoamerica. Latin American Antiquity 19(2):167 180. Price, T. Douglas, James H. Burton, Robert J. Sharer, Jane E. Buikstra, Lori E. Wright, Loa P. Traxler, and Katherine A. Miller 2010 Kings and Commoners at Copan: Isotopic Evidence for Origins and Movement in the Classic Maya Period. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 29:15 32. Price, T. Douglas, Seiichi Nakamura, Shintaro Suzuki, James H. Burton, and Vera Tiesler 2014 New Isotope Data on Maya Mobility and Enclaves at C lassic Copan, Honduras. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 36:32 47. Ramrez, Osiris Quezada, Norma Valentn Maldonado, and Amaranta Arguelles Echevarra 2010 Taxidermia y Cautiverio de guilas en Tenochtitlan. Arqueologa Mexicana 105:18 23. Ramos E lorduy, B. Julieta 1997 The Importance of Edible Insects in the Nutrition and Economy of People of the Rural Areas of Mexico. Ecology of Food and Nutrition 36(5):347 366. Rathje, William L. 1971 The Origins and Development of Lowland Classic Maya Civiliza tion. American Antiquity 36(3):275 285. Reents Budet, Dorie 1998 Elite Maya Pottery and Artisans as Social Indicators. In Craft and Social Identity. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 8 edited by Cathy Costin and Rita P Wright, pp. 71 89. American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C. Reents Budet, Dorie, Ronald L. Bishop, Jennifer T. Taschek, and Joseph W. Ball 2000 Out of the Palace Dumps: Ceramic Production and Use at Buenavista del Cayo. Ancient Mesoamerica 11:99 121.

PAGE 541

541 Reese Taylor, Kathryn, and Debra S. Walker 2002 The Passage of the Late Preclassic into the Early Classic. In Ancient Maya Political Economies edited by Marilyn A. Masson and David A. Freidel, pp. 87 122. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek. Reitz, Elizabeth J., Irvy R. Quitmyer, H.S. Hale, Sylvia J. Scudder, and Elizabeth S. Wing 1987 Application of Allometry to Zooarchaeology. American Antiquity 52:304 317. Reitz, Elizabeth J., and Daniel H. Sandweiss 2001 Environmental Change at Ostra Base Camp, a Peruvian Pre ceramic Site. Journal of Archaeological Science 28(10):1085 1100. Reitz, Elizabeth J., and Elizabeth S. Wing 2008 Zooarchaeology 2nd ed. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Rice, Prudence M. 200 4 Maya Political Science: Time, Astronomy, and the Cosmos University of Texas Press, Austin. Rivera Castillo, Patricia 2012 Cronologa Preliminar de los Sitios San Bartolo y Xultun: Estudios Cermicos. In Proyecto Arqueolgico Regional San Bartolo Xultun : Informe de Resultados de Investigaciones Temporada de Campo No. 11, Ao 2012 edited by Patricia Rivera Castillo and William A. Saturno, pp. 467 516. Instituto de Antropologa e Historia, Guatemala City. Rivera Castillo, Patricia, Boris Beltrn, Weagli Veliz Casasola, and Ricardo David Del Cid 2012 Estructura 11J7: Recintos Ceremoniales; Entierros 10 y 12, Xultun. In Proyecto Arqueolgico Regional San Bartolo Xultun: Informe de Resultados de Investigaciones Temporada de Campo No. 11, Ao 2012 edited by Patricia Rivera Castillo and William A. Saturno, pp. 211 242. Instituto de Antropolo ga e Historia, Guatemala City. Rivera Castillo, Patricia, and William A. Saturno (editors) 2012 Proyecto Arqueolgico Regional San Bartolo Xultun: Informe de Resultados de Investigaciones Temporada de Campo No. 11, Ao 2012 Instituto de Antropologa e Historia, Guatemala City. Ringle, William M. 1999 Pre Classic Cityscapes: Ritual Politics among the Early Lowland Maya. In Social Patterns in Pre Classic Mesoamerica edit ed by David C. Grove and Rosemary A. Joyce, pp. 183 223. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington DC.

PAGE 542

542 Robertson, Robin A., and David A. Freidel (editors) 1986 Archaeology at Cerros, Belize, Central America. Volume 1: An Interim Report S outhern Methodist University Press, Dallas. Rodriguez Galicia, Bernardo, and Ral Valadez Aza 2013 Coastal Resources in the City of the Gods. In The Archaeology of Mesoamerican Animals edited by Christopher M. Gtz and Kitty F. Emery, pp. 49 80. Archaeo biology 1. Lockwood Press, Atlanta. Rodrguez, Luis C., Marco A. Mndez, and Hermann M. Niemeyer 2001 Direction of Dispersion of C ochineal ( Dactylopius coccus Costa ) within the Americas. Antiquity 75(287):73 77. Rofes, Juan 2004 Prehispanic Guinea Pig Sacrifices in Southern Peru, the Case of El Yara. In Behavior Behind Bones: The Zooarchaeology of Ritual, Religion, Status and Identity 100. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Rofes, Juan, and Jane C. Wheeler 2003 Sacrificio de Cuyes en los Andes: El Caso de El Yaral y una Revisin Biolgica, Arqueolgica y Etnogrfica de la Especie Cavia porcellus Archaeofauna 12:29 45. Rosenmeier, Michael F., David A. Hodell, Mark Brenner, Jason H. Curtis, Jonathan B. Martin, Flavio S. Anselmetti, Daniel Ariztegui, and Thomas P. Guilderson 2002 Influence of Vegetation Change on Watershed Hydrology: Implications for Paleoclimatic Interpretation of Lacustrine Records. Journal of Paleolimnology 27(1):117 131. Rosenswig, Robert M. 2007 Beyond Identifying Elites: Feasting as a Means to Understand Early Middle Formative Society on the Pacific Coast of Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26:1 27. Rosman, Kevin J. R., Warrick Chisholm, Claude F. Boutron, Jean Pierre Candelone, and Clair C. Patterson 1994 Anthropogenic Lead Isotopes in Antarctica. Geophysical Research Letters 21(24):2669 2672. Ross, Nanci J. 2011 N orthwest Belize. Ecological Applications 21(1):75 84.

PAGE 543

543 Ruane, Jonathan 2012 Excavaciones en la Aguada XUL 11J19. In Proyecto Arqueolgico Regional San Bartolo Xultun: Informe de Resultados de Investigaciones Temporada de Campo No. 11, Ao 2012 edited b y Patricia Rivera Castillo and William A. Saturno, pp. 167 180. Instituto de Antropologa e Historia, Guatemala City. Ruddle, Kenneth 1982 Traditional Integrated Farming Systems and Rural Development: The Example of Ricefield Fisheries in Southeast Asia. Agricultural Administration 10(1):1 11. Ruddle, Kenneth, and Gongfu Zhong 1988 Integrated Agriculture Aquaculture in South China: The Dike Pond System of the Zhujiang Delta Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Rue, David J., David L. Webster, and Alfr ed Traverse 2002 Late Holocene Fire and Agriculture in the Copan Valley, Honduras. Ancient Mesoamerica 13:267 272. Runngaldier, Astrid 2009 Memory and Materiality in Monumental Architecture: Construction and Reuse of a Late Preclassic Maya Palace at San B artolo, Guatemala. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, Boston University, Boston. Russell, Nerissa 2012 Social Zooarchaeology: Humans and Animals in Prehistory Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Rust, William F. 2008 A Settlement Survey of La Venta, Tabasco, Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Sabloff, Jeremy A. 1973 Continuity and Disruption during Terminal Late Classic Times at Seibal: Ceramic and Other Evidence. In The Class ic Maya Collapse edited by T. Patrick Culbert, pp. 107 132. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 1975 Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten, Guatemala: Ceramics Peabody Museum Memoirs, Vol. 13, no. 2. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Senz, Joel C., and Christopher Vaughan 2015 Ambito de Hogar y U tilizaci n de Hbitat de dos Grupos de V enados Cola Blanca Odocoileus virginianus (Artiodactyla: Cervidae) R eubicados en un Ambiente T ropical. Revista de Biologa Tropical/International Journa l of Tropical Biology and Conservation 46(4):1185 1197.

PAGE 544

544 Sahagn, Bernardino de 1997 Primeros Memoriales: Paleography of Nahuatl Text and English Translation University of Oklahoma, Norman. 2001 Libro Undecimo: De las Propiedades de los Animales, Aves, Peces, Arboles, Yervas, Flores, Metales y Piedras, y de las Colores. In Historia General de las Cosas de la Nueva Espaa, II edited by Juan Carlos Temprano II, pp. 877 1064. Dastin, Madrid. Salazar, Carmen, Daniel Zizumbo Villarreal, Stephen B. Brush, a nd Patricia Colunga GarcaMarn 2012 Earth Ovens ( Pib ) in the Maya Lowlands: Ethnobotanical Data Supporting Early Use. Economic Botany 66(3):285 297. Sandweiss, Daniel H., and Elizabeth S. Wing 1997 Ritual Rodents: The Guinea Pigs of Chincha, Peru. Journal of Field Archaeology 24(1):47 58. Santone, Lenore 1997 Transport Costs, Consumer Demand, and Patterns of Intraregional Exchange: A Perspective on Commodity Production and Distribution from Northern Belize. Latin American Antiquity 8(1):71 88. Sat urno, William A. 2002 Archaeological Investigation and Conservation at San Bartolo, Guatemala Report submitted to the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. (FAMSI). 2009 Centering the Kingdom, Centering the King: Maya Creation and Legitimization at San Bartolo. In The Art of Urbansm: How Mesoamerican Cities Represented Themselves in Architecture and Imagery edited by William L. Fash and Leonardo Lopez Lujan. Dumbarton Oak s, Washingtion D.C. Saturno, William A., Heather Hurst, and Franco Rossi 2012a Observaciones Preliminares sobre la Iconografa de la Acrpolis Los rboles (12F19), Xultun. In Proyecto Arqueolgico Regional San Bartolo Xultun: Informe de Resultados de Inve stigaciones Temporada de Campo No. 11, Ao 2012 edited by Patricia Rivera Castillo and William A. Saturno, pp. 561 574. Instituto de Antropolo ga e Historia, Guatemala City.

PAGE 545

545 Saturno, William A., David Ricardo del Cid, and Franco Rossi 2011 Nuevos Descubr imientos en el Sitio Arqueolgico Xultun. In Informe Preliminar de la Novena Temporada de Campo 2010, Proyecto Arqueolgico Regional San Bartolo edited by Luis Alberto Romero and William A. Saturno, pp. 106 108. Instituto de Antropolo ga e Historia, Guate mala City. Saturno, William A., and Patricia Rivera Castillo 2012a Introduccin. In Proyecto Arqueolgico Regional San Bartolo Xultun: Informe de Resultados de Investigaciones Temporada de Campo No. 11, Ao 2012 edited by Patricia Rivera Castillo and William A. Saturno, pp. 3 14. Instituto de Antropologa e Historia, Guatemala City. 2012b Resultados Generales Temporada de Campo No. 11, Ao 2012. In Proyecto Arqueolgico Regional San Bartolo Xultun: Informe de Resultados de Investigaciones Temporada de Campo No. 11, Ao 2012 edited by Patricia Rivera Castillo and William A. Saturno, pp. 575 580. Instituto de Antropologa e Historia, Guatemala City. Saturno, William A., David Stuart, and Boris Beltran 2006a Early Maya Writing at San Bartolo, Guatemala. Science 311:1281 1283. Saturno, William A., Karl Taube, David Stuart, Boris Beltrn, and Edwin Romn 2006b Nuevos Hallazgos Arquitectnicos y Pictricos en la Pirmide Las Pinturas, San Bartolo, Petn. In XIX Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueolgicas en Guatemala, 2005 edited by Juan Pedro Laporte, Brbara Arroyo, and Hctor E. Meja, pp. 627 636. Museo Nacional de Arqueologa y Etnologa, Guatemala City. Saturno, William A., Karl A. Taube, and David Stuart 2004 The Identification of the West Wall Figur es at Pinturas Sub 1, San Bartolo, Peten Symposium of Archaeological Investigations in Guatemala, 2004. Report submitted to the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. (FAMSI). Saturno, William A., Karl A. Taube, David S. Stuart, and Heather Hurst 2005 The Murals of San Bartolo, El Petn, Guatemala. Part I: The North Wall. Ancient America 7:1 56. Saturno, William A., David Stuart, Anthony F. Aveni, and Franco Rossi 2012b Ancient Maya Astronomical Tables from Xultun, Guatemala. Science 336:714 717. Saul, Frank P., and Julie M. Saul 1991 The Preclassic Population of Cuello. In Cuello: An Early Maya Community in Belize edited by Norman Hammond, pp. 134 158. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

PAGE 546

546 Saunders, Nicholas J. 1994 Preda tors of Culture: Jaguar Symbolism and Mesoamerican Elites. World Archaeology 26(1):104 117. Scarborough, Vernon L. 1983 A Preclassic Maya Water System. American Antiquity 48(4):720 744. Scarborough, Vernon L. 1986a Drainage Canal and Raised Field Excavat ions. In Archaeology at Cerros Belize, Central America Vol 1: An Interim Report edited by Robin A. Robertson and David A. Friedel, pp. 75 87. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas. 1986b The Dispersed Settlement. In Archaeology at Cerros, Belize, C entral America, Volume I: An Interim Report edited by Robin A. Robertson and David A. Freidel, pp. 23 44. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas. Scarborough, Vernon L. (editor) 1991 Archaeology at Cerros, Belize, Central America. Volume III: The Se ttlement System in a Late Preclassic Maya Community Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas. Scarborough, Vernon L., and Robin A. Robertson 1986 Civic and Residential Settlement at a Late Preclassic Maya Center. Journal of Field Archaeology 13(2):155 175. Schafer, Edward H. 1968 Hunting Parks and Animal Enclosures in Ancient China. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 11(3):318 343. Schele, Linda, and David A. Freidel 1990 A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the Ancient Maya Quill, New York. Scherer, Andrew K., Alyce de Carteret, and Sarah Newman 2015 Local Water Resource Variability and Oxygen Isotopic Reconstructions of Mobility: A C ase Study from the Maya Area. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 2:666 676. Schoeninger, Margaret J. 1989 Reconstructing Prehistoric Human Diet. In The Chemistry of Prehistoric Human Bone edited by T. Douglas Price, pp. 38 67. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Scott, Robert F. 1982 Notes on the Continuing Faunal Analysis fo r the Site of Colha, Belize: Data from the Early Postclassic. In Archaeology at Colha, Belize: The 1981 Interim Report edited by Thomas R. Hester, Harry J. Shafer, and Jack D. Eaton, pp. 203 288. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas, Sa n Antonio.

PAGE 547

547 Sealy, J. C., N. J. Van der Merwe, A. Sillen, F. J. Kruger, and H. W. Krueger 1991 87 Sr/ 86 Sr as a Dietary Indicator in Modern and Archaeological Bone. Journal of Archaeological Science 18:399 416. Serjeantson, Dale 2011 Review of Animal Remains from the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age of Southern Britain English Heritage; Research Department Report Series, Portsmouth. Shafer, Harry J., and Thomas R. Hester 1986 Maya Stone Tool Craft Specialization and Production at Colha, Belize: Reply t o Mallory. American Antiquity 51(1):158 166. Sharer, Robert J., and James C. Gifford 1970 Preclassic Ceramics from Chalchuapa, El Salvador, and Their Relationships with the Maya Lowlands. American Antiquity 35(4):441 462. Sharer, Robert J., and Loa P. Tr axler 2006 The Ancient Maya, 6th Edition Stanford University Press, California. Sharpe, Ashley E. 2009 From Ritual to Rubbish: The Maya Osteoarchaeological Record from San Bartolo, Guatemala. Unpublished B.A. Honors Thesis, Department of Archaeology, Bos ton University, Boston. 2011 Beyond Capitals and Kings: A Comparison of Animal Resource Use among Ten Late Classic Maya Sites. Unpublished MA Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 2014 A Reexamination of the Birds in the Central Mexican Codices. Ancient Mesoamerica 25(2):317 336. Sharpe, Ashley E., and Kitty F. Emery 2015 Differential Animal Use within Three Late Classic Maya States: Implications for Politics and Trade. Journal of Anthr opological Archaeology 40:280 301. Sharpe, Ashley E. George D. Kamenov, Adrian Gilli, David A Hodell, Kitty F. Emery, Mark Brenner, and John Krigbaum 2016 Lead (Pb) Is otope Baselines for Studies of Ancient Human Migration and Trade in the Maya Region PL o S ONE 11(11): e0164871 Sharpe, Ashley E., William A. Saturno, and Kitty F. Emery 2014 Shifting Patterns of Maya Social Complexity through Time: Preliminary Zooarchaeological Results from San Bartolo, Guatemala. In Animals and Inequality in the Ancient World edited by Sue Ann McCarty and Benjamin Arbuckle, pp. 85 106. University of Colorado Press, Boulder.

PAGE 548

548 Shaw, Heidi, Janet Montgomery, Rebecca Redfern, Rebecca Gowland, and Jane Evans 2016 Identifying Migrants in Roman London Using Lead and Strontium St able Isotopes. Journal of Archaeological Science 66:57 68. Shaw, Leslie C. 1991 The Articulation of Social Inequality and Faunal Resource Use in the Preclassic Community of Colha, Northern Belize. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 1999 Social and Ecological Aspects of Preclassic Maya Meat Consumption at Colha, Belize. In Reconstructing Ancient Maya Diet edited by Christine D. White, pp. 83 100. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 2012 The Elusive Maya Marketplace: An Archaeological Consideration of the Evidence. Journal of Archaeological Research 20:117 155. Shepard Jr., Glenn H., Taal Levi, Eduardo Ges Neves, Carlos A. Peres, and Douglas W. Yu 2012 Hunting in Ancient and Modern Amazo nia: Rethinking Sustainability. American Anthropologist 114(4):652 667. Smith, A ugustus Ledyard 1982 Excavations at Seibal: Major Architecture and Caches Memoirs of the Peabody Museum 15(1). Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Smith, Derek A. 2005 Garden Game: Shifting Cultivation, Indigenous Hunting, and Wildlife Ecology in Western Panama. Human Ecology 33(4):505 537. Smith, Winston Paul 1991 Odocoileus virginianus Mammalian Species 388:1 13. Smythe, Michael P. 2016 Storage, Tribute, and Politic al Administration among the Lowland Maya. In Storage in Ancient Complex Societies: Administration, Organization, and Control edited by Linda R. Manzanilla and Mitchell S. Rothman, pp. 251 270. Routledge, New York. Smythe, Nicholas 1987 The Paca ( Cuniculu s paca ) as a Domestic Source of Protein for the Neotropical, Humid Lowlands. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 17:155 170. Smythe, Nicholas, and O. Brown de Guanti 1995 La domesticacin y cra de la paca ( Agouti paca ) Gua de Conservacin #26. FAO, Roma.

PAGE 549

549 Somerville, Andrew D., Mikael Fauvelle, and Andrew W. Froehle 2013 Applying New Approaches to Modeling Diet and Status: Isotopic Evidence for Commoner Resiliency and Elite Variability in the Classic Maya Lowlands. Journal of Archaeological Science 40(3): 1539 1553. Somerville, Andrew D., Ben A. Nelson, and Kelly J. Knudson 2010 Isotopic Investigation of Pre Hispanic Macaw Breeding in Northwest Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 29:125 135. Somerville, Andrew D., Nawa Sugiyama, Linda R. Manzan illa, and Margaret J. Schoeninger 2016 Animal Management at the Ancient Metropolis of Teotihuacan, Mexico: Stable Isotope Analysis of Leporid (Cottontail and Jackrabbit) Bone Mineral. PLo S ONE 11(8):e0159982. Srensen, Mikkel 2004 The Chane Opratoire Applied to Arctic Archaeology. In Dynamics of Northern Societies, pp. 31 44. Proceedings of the SILA/NABO Conference on Arctic and North Atlantic Archaeology, Copenhagen, May 10th 14 th Copenhagen. Sousa, R., C. Antunes, and L. Guilh ermino 2008 Ecology of the Invasive Asian Clam Corbicula fluminea (Mller, 1774) in Aquatic Ecosystems: An Overview. International Journal of Limnology 44(2):85 94. Spenard, Jon, Teresa B. Wagner, and Terry G. Powis 2013 Of Shells, Soda Straws, Caves, and Kings: Crafting, Body Practices, and Identity Making among the Ancient Maya of Pacbitun, Belize. Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 10:147 155. Spensley, Ellen 2004 Results of Micro Morphological Studies in Sediments, Stuccos and Soils at Trinidad, Petn Report submitted to the Foundation for Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. (FAMSI). Sponheimer, Matt, and Julia A. Lee Thorp 1999 Oxygen Isotopes in Enamel Carbonate and their Ecological Significance. Journal of Archaeological Science 26(6):723 728. 2001 The Oxygen Isotope Composition of Mammalian Enamel Carbonate from Morea Estate, South Africa. Oecologia 126:153 157. Stahl, Peter W. 2003 Pre Columbian Andean Animal Domesticates at the Edge of Empire. World Archaeology 34(3):470 483.

PAGE 550

550 Stahl, Peter W. 20 05 An Exploratory Osteological Study of the Muscovy Duck ( Cairina moschata ) (Aves: Anatidae) with Implications for Neotropical Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:915 929. Stanchly, Norbert 1999 Preliminary Report on the Preclassic Faunal Re mains from Pacbitun, Belize: 1995 and 1996 Field Seasons. In Belize Valley Preclassic Maya Project: Report on the 1996 and 1997 Field Seasons edited by Paul F. Healy, pp. 41 52. Trent University Occasional Papers in Anthropology, No. 13, Peterborough. 20 04 Picks and Stones May Break My Bones: Taphonomy and Maya Zooarchaeology. In Maya Zooarchaeology: New Directions in Method and Theory edited by Kitty F. Emery, pp. 35 43. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. 2014 Preclassic Period Vertebrate Animal Resource Use at Pacbitun. In Zooarchaeology of the Ancient Maya Centre of Pacbitun (Belize) pp. 18 33. Occasional Papers in Anthropology No. 16. Trent University Press, Peterborough. Stark, Barbara L. 1974 Patarata Island, Veracruz, Mexico and the Role of Estuarine Mangrove Swamps in Ancient Mesoamerica. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Yale University, New Haven. Steinberg, Michael K. 2002 The Second Conquest: Religious Conversion and the Erosion of the Cultural Ecological Core among the Mopan Maya. Journal of Cultural Geography 20(1):91 105. Stille, Peter, and Graham Shields 1997 Radiogenic Isotope Geochemistry of Sedimentary and Aquatic Systems Springer Verlag, Berlin. Sugiyama, Nawa, Andrew D. Somerville, and Margaret J. Schoeninger 2015 Stable Isotopes and Zooarchaeology at Teotihuacan, Mexico Reveal Earliest Evidence of Wild Carnivore Management in Mesoamerica. PLoS ONE 10(9):e0135635. Sykes, Naomi 2012 A Social Perspective on the Introduction of Exotic Animals: The Case of the Chicken. World Archaeology 44(1):158 169. Sykes, Naomi J., Judith White, Tina E. Hayes, and Martin R. Palmer 2006 Tracking Animals Using Strontium Isotopes in Teeth: The Role of Fallow Deer ( Dama dama ) in Ro man Britain. Antiquity 80:948 959.

PAGE 551

551 Taube, Karl, William A. Saturno, David Stuart, and Heather Hurst 2010 The Murals of San Bartolo, El Petn, Guatemala, Part II: The West Wall Ancient America 10:1 108. Teeter, Wendy G. 2004 Animal Utilization in a Gro wing City: Vertebrate Exploitation at Caracol, Belize. In Maya Zooarchaeology: New Directions in Method and Theory edited by Kitty F. Emery, pp. 177 192. University of California Los Angeles Press, Los Angeles. Thompson, J. Eric S. 1970 Maya History and Religion University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Thornton, Erin Kennedy 2011a Animal Resources in Ancient Maya Economy and Exchange: Zooarchaeological and Isotopic Perspectives. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Flori da, Gainesville. 2011b Reconstructing Ancient Maya Animal Trade through Strontium Isotope ( 87 Sr/ 86 Sr) Analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 38(12):3254 3263. 2012 Animal Resource Use and Exchange at an Inland Maya Port: Zooarchaeological Investigat ions at Trinidad de Nosotros. In Politics, History, and Economy in the Classic Maya Polity of Motul de San Jos, Guatemala edited by Antonia E. Foias and Kitty F. Emery, pp. 326 355. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Thornton, Erin Kennedy, Susan D. deFrance, John Krigbaum, and Patrick Ryan Williams 2011 Isotopic Evidence for Middle Horizon to 16th Century Camelid Herding in the Osmore Valley, Peru. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 21:544 567. Thornton, Erin Kennedy, and Kitty F. Emery 2 015 The Uncertain Origins of Mesoamerican Turkey Domestication. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory pp. 1 24. Thornton, Erin Kennedy, Kitty F. Emery, and Camilla Speller 2016 Ancient Maya Turkey Husbandry: Testing Theories through Stable Isotope Analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports in press. Thornton, Erin Kennedy, Kitty F. Emery, David W. Steadman, Camilla Speller, Ray Matheny, and Dongya Yang 2012 Earliest Mexican Turkeys ( Meleagris gallopavo ) in the Maya Region: Implications for Pre Hispanic Animal Trade and the Timing of Turkey Domestication. PLoS ONE 7(8):1 8.

PAGE 552

552 Thurston, Elizabeth, and Paul F. Healy 2011 Crocodiles and the Ancient Maya: A Consolidated Examination of the Iconographic and Z ooarchaeological Data. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough. Tiesler, Vera, and Andrea Cucina (editors) 2007 New Perspectives on Human Sacrifice and Ritual Body Treatments in Ancient Maya Society Springer, New York. Tokovinine, Alexandre 2007 Excavations at La Sufricaya, Holmul Region, 2007 Field Report Report submitted to the Instituto de Antropologa e Historia de Guatemala, Guatemala City. Tomasic, John Joseph 2009 Investigating Terminal Preclassic and Guatemala. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville. Tomasic, John, and Steven R. Bozarth 2011 at the 76th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Sacramento. Tourtellot, Gair 1988 Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten Guatemala: Per ipheral Survey and Excavations: Settlement and Community Patterns Peabody Museum Memoirs, Vol. 17, no. 2. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. 1990 Population Estimates for Preclassic and Classic Seibal, Peten. In Precolumbian Population History in the Maya Lowlands edited by T. Patrick Culbert and Don S. Rice, pp. 83 102. University of New Mexic o Press, Albuquerque. Tourtellot, Gair, and Jason J. Gonzlez 2005 The Last Hurrah: Continuity and Transformation at Seibal. In The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation edited by Arthur A. Demarest, Prudence M. Rice, and Don S. Rice, pp. 60 82. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Tourtellot, Gair, and Jeremy A. Sabloff 1972 Exchange Systems among the Ancient Maya. American Antiquity 37(1):126 135. Trejo Mojica, Juana Amalia 2008 Los Restos "seos Humanos como Objetos Ideolgicos del Periodo Clsico Maya. Dimensin Antropolgica 42:7 31.

PAGE 553

553 Triadan, Daniela 2009 Excavaciones en la Estructura A 15: Operacin CB201B. In Informe Arqueolgico Ceibal Petexbatun: La Temporada 2009 edited by Otto Romn, Takeshi Inomata, and Daniela Triadan, pp. 17 30. Informe entregado a Instituto de Antropologa e Historia, Guatemala City. Triadan, Daniela 2011 Excavaciones enfrente de la Estructura A 15: Operacin 201B. In Informe del Proyecto Arqueolg ico Ceibal Petexbatun la Temporada 2011 edited by Victor Castillo Aguilar and Takeshi Inomata, pp. 7 22. Instituto de Antropologa e Historia, Guatemala City. 2012 Excavaciones en la Corte Este: Operacin 201F. In Proyecto Arqueologico Ceibal Petexbatun Informe de la Temporada de Campo 2012 edited by Victor Castillo Aguilar and Takeshi Inomata, pp. 91 109. Instituto de Antropologa e Historia, Guatemala City. 2015 Excavaciones en la Plataforma 97: CB222. In Proyecto Arqueologico Ceibal Petexbatun Informe de la Temporada de Campo 2015 edited by Flory Mara Pinzn and Takeshi Inomata, pp. 131 145. Instituto de Antropologa e Historia, Guatemala City. Triadan, Daniela, Victor Castillo Aguilar, Takeshi Inomata, Juan Manuel Palomo, Mara Beln Mndez, Monica Cortave, Jessica MacLellan, Melissa Burham, and Erick Ponciano 2016 Power and Social Relations in a Middle Preclassic Community: Elite Residential Complexes at Ceibal. Ancient Mesoamerica in review. Trubitt, Mary Beth D. 2000 Mound Building and P restige Goods Exchange: Changing Strategies in the Cahokia Chiefdom. American Antiquity 65(4):669 690. 2003 The Production and Exchange of Marine Shell Prestige Goods. Journal of Archaeological Research 11(3):243 277. Tuross, Noreen, Christina Warinner, Karola Kirsanow, and Cynthia Kester 2008 Organic Oxygen and Hydrogen Isotopes in a Porcine Controlled D ieta ry S tudy. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry 22(11):1741 1745. Tykot, Robert H. 2002 Contribution of Stable Isotope Analysis to Understanding Dietary Variation among the Maya. In ACS Symposium Series, Vol. 831: Archaeological Chemistry pp. 214 230. ACS Symposium Series, Washington DC. 2004 Stable Isotopes and Diet: You Are What You Eat. In Proceedings of the edited by Marco Martini, Mario Milazzo, and Mario Piacentini, pp. 433 444. IOS Press, Amsterdam.

PAGE 554

554 Tykot, Robert H. 2010 Isotope Analyses and the Histories of Maize. In Histories of Maize in Mesoamerica: Multidisciplinary Approaches edited by J. E. Staller, Robert H. Tykot, and B. F. Benz, pp. 131 142. Left Coast Press, Amsterdam. Urquiz, Mnica, and William A. Saturno 2003 Proyecto Arqueolgico Regional San Bartolo Informe Anual No. 2, Segunda Temporada 2008 Instituto de Antropologa e Historia, Guatemala City. 2008 Proyecto Arqueolgico Regional San Bartolo Informe Anual No. 7, Septima Temporada 2008 Instituto de Antropologa e Historia, Guatemala City. U.S. Geological Survey Map of North America 2016 U.S. Geological S urvey Map of North America. Electronic map, http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/gmna/ accessed August 16, 2016. Vadala, Jeffrey 2016 Caches as Events: Diachronic Analysis of Ancient Maya Caching Practices at Preclassic Cerros, Belize Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, De partment of Anthr opology, University of Florida, Gainesville. Vadala, Jeffrey, and Susan Milbrath 2014 Astronomy, Landscape, and Idealogical Transmissions at the Coastal Maya Site of Cerros, Belize. Journal of Caribbean Archaeology 14:1 21. 2016 Using Vi rtual Reality to Understand Astronomical Knowledge and Historical Landscapes at Preclassic Cerros, Belize. Journal of Skyscape Archaeology 2(1):25 44. Valadez Aza, Ral, Alicia Blanco Padilla, Bernanrdo Rodrguez Galicia, and Christopher M. Gtz 2009 Perros Pelones del Mxico P rehispnico. Arqueobios 3(1):5 18. Valds, Juan Antonio, Mnica Urquiz, Horacio Martnez Paiz, and Carolina Daz Samayoa 2001 Lo que Expresan las Figurillas de Aguateca Acerca del Hombre y los Animales. In XIV Simposio de Inves tigaciones Arqueolgicas en Guatemala edited by Juan Pedro LaPorte, A. C. Suasnvar, and Brbara Arroyo, pp. 654 676. Museo Nacional de Arqueologa y Etnologa, Guatemala City. Valentine, Benjamin, George D. Kamenov, Jonathan Mark Kenoyer, Vasant Shinde, Veena Mushrif Tripathy, Erik Otarola Castillo, and John Krigbaum 2015 Evidence for Patterns of Selective Urban Migration in the Greater Indus Valley (2600 1900 BC): A Lead and Strontium Isotope Mortuary Analysis. PLoS ONE 10(4):e0123103.

PAGE 555

555 Van der Merwe, Nikolaas J., Robert H. Tykot, Norman Hammond, and Kim Oakberg 2000 Diet and Animal Husbandry of the Preclassic Maya at Cuello Belize: Isotopic and Zooarchaeological Evidence. In Biogeochemical Approaches to Paleodietary Analysis edited by M. Anne Katzenbe rg and Stanley H. Ambrose, pp. 23 38. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York. Van der Veen, Marijke 2003 When is Food a Luxury? World Archaeology 34(3):405 427. Velsquez Lpez, Antoln 2011 Geografa y Territorio, Patrn de Asentamiento del Sitio Arqueolgico Cival, Petn Guatemala. Unpublished Licenciatura Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala, Guatemala City. Vigne, Jean Denis 2011 The Origins of Animal Domestication and Husbandry: A Major Change in the History of Humanity and the Biosphere. Comptes Rendus Biologies 334(3):171 181. V il, Carles, Jess E. Maldonado, and Robert K. Wayne 1999 Phylogenetic Relationships, Evolution, and Genetic Diversity of the Domestic Dog. Journal of Heredity 90(1):71 77. Villanueva G, Rogel, David W. Roubik, and Wilberto Colli ucn 2005 Extinction of Melipona beecheii and traditional beekeeping in the Yucatn peninsula. Bee World 86(2):35 41. Vogel, John C. 1993 Variabil ity of Carbon Isotope Fractionation during Photosynthesis. In Stable Isotopes and Plant Carbon/Water Relations edited by James R. Ehleringer, Anthony E. Hall, and Graham D. Farquhar, pp. 29 46. Academic Press, San Diego. Vogt, Evon Z., and David Stuart 2 005 Some Notes on Ritual Caves among the Ancient and Modern Maya. In In the Maw of the Earth Monster: Mesoamerican Ritual Cave Use edited by James E. Brady and Keith M. Prufer, pp. 155 185. University of Texas Press, Austin. Von E u w, Eric 1978 Corpus of Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions. Volume 5, Part 1: Xultun Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge. Wade, Barry A. 1967 Studies on the Biology of the West Indian Beach Clam, Donax denticulatus Linne. Bulletin of Marine S cience 17(1):149 174.

PAGE 556

556 Wahl, David, Roger Byrne, Thomas Schreiner, and Richard Hansen 2006 Holocene Vegetation Change in the Northern Peten and its Implications for Maya Prehistory. Quaternary Research 65:380 389. Wahl, David, Roger Byrne, Thoma s Schreiner, and Richard Hansen 2007 Palaeolimnological Evidence of Late Holocene Settlement and Abandonment in the M irador Basin, Peten, Guatemala. The Holocene 17( 6 ): 813 8 20. Wahl, David, Francisco Estrada Belli, and Lysanna Anderson 2013 A 3400 Year Pale olimnological Record of Prehispanic Human Environment Interactions in the Holmul Region of the Southern Maya Lowlands. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 379 380:17 31. Walker, Debra S. 1998 Smashed Pots and Shattered Dreams: The Material E vidence for an Early Classic Maya Site Termination at Cerros, Belize. In The Sowing and the Dawning: Termination, Dedication and Transformation in the Archaeological and Ethnographic Record of Mesoamerica edited by Shirley Boteler Mock, pp. 81 99. Univers ity of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 2013 Caching in Context at Cerros, Belize Cerros Research Online Catalogue Report. Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville. Walker, Debra S. (editor). 2016 Perspectives on the Ancient Maya of Chetumal Bay Un iversity Press of Florida, Gainesville. Watanabe, John M. 2007 Ritual Economy and the Negotiation of Autarky and Interdependence in a Ritual Mode of Production. In Mesoamerican Ritual Economy: Archaeological and Ethnological Perspectives edited by E. Chr istian Wells and Karla L. Davis Salazar, pp. 301 322. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Watson, Adam S., Stephen Plog, Brendan J. Culleton, Patricia A. Gilman, Steven A. LeBlanc, Peter M. Whiteley, Santiago Claramunt, and Douglas J. Kennett 2015 Earl y Procurement of Scarlet Macaws and the Emergence of Social Complexity in Chaco Canyon, NM. PNAS 112(27):8238 8243. Webster, James W., George A. Brook, L. Bruce Railsback, Hai Cheng, R. Lawrence Edwards, Clark Alexander, and Philip P. Reeder 2007 Stalagmite Evidence from Belize Indicating Significant Droughts at the Time of Preclassic Abandonment, the Maya Hiatus, and the Classic Maya Collapse. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 250(1 4):1 17.

PAGE 557

557 Weller, Sara H., and Cynthia L. Bennett 2001 Twenty four Hour Activity Budgets and Patterns of Behavior in Captive Ocelots ( Leopardus pardalis ). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 71(1):67 79. Wells, E. Christian 2006 Recent Trends in Theorizing Prehispanic Mesoamerican Economies. Journal of Archaeological Research 14(4):265 312. Wells, E. Christian, and Karla L. Davis Salazar 2007 Mesoamerican Ritual Economy: Materialization as Ritual and Economic Process. In Mesoamerican Ritual Economy: Archaeological and Ethnological Perspectives edit ed by E. Christian Wells and Karla L. Davis Salazar, pp. 1 26. University of Colorado Press, Boulder. White, Christine D. 2004 Stable Isotopes and the Human Animal Interface in Maya Biosocial and Environmental Systems. Archaeofauna 13:183 198. White, Chr istine D., Fred J. Longstaffe, and Henry Schwarcz 2010 Social Directions in the Isotopic Anthropology of Maize in the Maya region. In Histories of Maize in Mesoamerica: Multidisciplinary Approaches edited by John E. Staller, Robert H. Tykot, and Bruce F. Benz, pp. 142 1 58. Left Coast Press, New York. White, Christine D., Mary D. Pohl, Henry P. Schwarcz, and Fred J. Longstaffe 2001 Isotopic Evidence for Maya Patterns of Deer and Dog use at Preclassic Colha. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:89 107. Whi te, Christine D., Mary D. Pohl, Henry P. Schwarcz, and Fred J. Longstaffe 2004 Feast, Field and Forest: Deer and Dog Diets at Lagartero, Tikal, and Copan. In Maya Zooarchaeology: New Directions in Method and Theory edited by Kitty F. Emery, pp. 141 158. U niversity of California Los Angeles Press, Los Angeles. White, Christine D., and Henry P. Schwarcz 1989 Ancient Maya Diet: As Inferred from Isotopic and Chemical Analysis of Human Bone. Journal of Archaeological Science 16:451 474. White, Tim D., and Pieter A. Folkens 2005 The Human Bone Manual Elsevier Academic Press, Burlington. Widmer, Randolph J. 2009 Elite Household Multicrafting Specialization at 9N8, Patio H, Copan. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 19(1):174 20 4.

PAGE 558

558 Wildt, Jennifer 2015 A Tale of Three Plazas: The Development and Use of Public Spaces in a Classic Maya Ritual and Residential Complex at Xultun, Guatemala. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, Department of Archaeology, Boston University, Boston. Willey Gordon R. (editor) 1978 Excavations at Seibal: Artifacts Memoirs of the Peabody Museum, Vol. 14, no. 1. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. 1990 Excavations at Seibal: General Summary and Conclusions Memoirs of the Peabody Museum, Vol. 14, no. 4. Har vard University Press, Cambridge. Willey, Gordon R., T. Patrick Culbert, and Richard E. W. Adams 1967 Maya Lowland Ceramics: A Report from the 1965 Guatemala City Conference. American Antiquity 32(3):289 315. Wilson, Bob 1999 Displayed or Concealed? Cross Cultural Evidence for Symbolic and Ritual Activity Depositing Iron Age Animal Bones. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18(3):297 305. Wing, Elizabeth S. 1974 Vertebrate Faunal Remains. In Excavation of an Early Shell Midden on Isla Cancun, Quintana Roo, Mexi co edited by E. Wyllys Andrews IV, Middle American Research Institute Publication no. 21, pp. 186 188. Tulane University, New Orleans. 1975 Animal Remains from Lubaantun. In Lubaantun: A Classic Maya Realm edited by N. Hammond, pp. 379 383. Peabody Muse um of Archaeology and Ethnology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. 1978 Use of Dogs for Food: An Adaptation to the Coastal Environment. In P rehistoric Coastal Adaptations: The Economy and Ecology of Maritime Middle America. edited by Barbara L. Stark and Barbara Voorhies, pp. 29 41. Studies in Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. 1981 A Comparison of Olmec and Maya Foodways. In The Olmec and Their Neighbors edited by Elizabeth Benson, pp. 20 28. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. 2013 Dog Remains fr om the Marismas Nacionales. In The Archaeology of Mesoamerican Animals edited by Christopher M. Gtz and Kitty F. Emery, pp. 23 48. Archaeobiology 1. Lockwood Press, Atlanta. Wing, Elizabeth S., and Silvia J. Scudder 1991 The Exploitation of Animals. In Cuello: An Early Maya Community edited by Norman Hammond, pp. 84 97. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

PAGE 559

559 Wing, Stephen R., and Elizabeth S. Wing 2001 Prehistoric Fisheries in the Caribbean. Coral Reefs 20:1 8. Wolverton, Steve, Charles R. Randklev, and James H. Kennedy 2010 A Conceptual Model for Freshwater Mussel (Family: Unionidae) Remain Preservation in Zooarchaeological Assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science 37(1):164 173. World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS) 2016 World Regi ster of M arine Species (WoRMS). Electronic database, http://www.marinespecies.org/ accessed August 16, 2016. Wright, Lori E. 1997 Ecology or Society? Paleodiet and the Collapse of the Pasion Maya Lowlands. In Bones of the Maya: Studies of Ancient Skeletons edite d by Stephen L. Whittington and David M. Reed, pp. 181 195. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 2006 Diet, Health, and Status among the Pasion Maya: A Reappraisal of the Collapse Vanderbilt Institute of Mesoamerican Archaeology, Nashville. 2 012 Immigration to Tikal, Guatemala: Evidence from Stable Strontium and Oxygen Isotopes. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 31(3):334 352. Wright, Lori E., and Henry P. Schwarcz 1996 Infrared and Isotopic Evidence for Diagenesis of Bone Apatite at Dos Pilas, Guatemala, Palaeodietary Implications. Journal of Archaeological Science 23:933 944. Wright, Lori E., Juan Antonio Valdes, James H. Burton, T. Douglas Price, and Henry P. Schwarcz 2010 The Children of Kaminaljuyu: Isotopic Insight into Diet and Long Distance Interaction in Mesoamerica. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 29(2):155 178. Yaeger, Jason, M. Kathryn Brown, Christophe Helmke, Marc Zender, Bernadette Cap, Christie Kokel Rod riquez, and Sylvia Batty 2015 Two Early Classic Elite Burials from Buenavista del Cayo, Belize. Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 12:181 191. Yaeger, Jason, and Cynthia Robin 2004 Heterogeneous Hinterlands: The Social and Political Organization of Commoner Settlements near Xunantunich, Belize. In Ancient Maya Commoners edited by Jon C. Lohse and Fred Valdez Jr., pp. 147 174. University of Texas Press, Austin.

PAGE 560

560 Yamada, Kazuyoshi, Hitoshi Yonenobu, Toshiyuki Fujiki, Yoshitsugu Shinozuka, Mitsuru O kuno, and Yasuharu Hoshino 2011 Investigaciones de Sedimentos Lacustres. In Informe del Proyecto Arqueolgico Ceibal Petexbatun: La Temporada 2011 edited by Victor Castillo Aguilar and Takeshi Inomata, pp. 148 153. Instituto de Antropologa e Historia, Guatemala City. Yuan, Jing and Rowan Flad 2005 New Zooarchaeological Evidence for Changes in Shang Dynasty Animal Sacrifice. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 24:252 270. Zeder, Melinda A. 1991 Feeding Cities: Specialized Animal Economy in the Ancie nt Near East Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 2012 The Domestication of Animals. Journal of Anthropological Research 68(2):161 190. Zohar, Irit, and Richard G. Cooke 1997 The Impact of Salting and Drying on Fish Bon es: Preliminary Observa tions on Four Marine Species from Parita Bay, Panama. Archaeofauna 6:59 66.

PAGE 561

561 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Ashley Sharpe studied archaeology and biology at Boston University, Massachusetts. She received research the same year at the University of Florida, working at the Florida Museum of Natural History Environmental Archaeology Program for the next seven years. She r the Department of Anthropology in 2011, and her Ph.D. in the same field in 2016. Sharpe has participated in archaeological excavations in Guatemala, Belize, and Syria, and has analyzed faunal remains from archaeological sites in these countries as well as from throu ghout North and Central America and the Andes