University of Florida Thesis Or Dissertation Formatting

Home , Geography of Puerto Rico, Human settlement, Ponce Municipal Band, Tibes, Tuskaloosa

ANIMAL USE AND COMMUNITY IN PRE-COLUMBIAN PUERTO RICO: ZOOARCHAEOLOGY OF THE RÍO PORTUGUÉS

GEOFFREY R. DUCHEMIN

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

2013

To my girls: Michelle, Emma, and Bella

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are so many people who helped me during the long process of researching and writing this dissertation that I fear I could never remember them all. First, I need to express my utmost gratitude to Dr. Susan deFrance, my graduate advisor, dissertation committee chair, teacher, and mentor. I have her to thank for giving me the opportunity to pursue a higher education. Susan went above and beyond her advisory role, continuously offering her support and advice. She served as my advocate, leading me towards quality research opportunities. I thank her for her patience and guidance as I wrote (and rewrote) this dissertation.

I also thank my other dissertation committee members, Drs. Michael Moseley,

William Keegan, and ecologist, Brian Silliman. Dr. Moseley showed me that the one of the best ways to learn is in a friendly environment—and maybe over a few beers. He has been a continuous source of advice and inspiration during my years at UF. Bill

Keegan introduced me to Caribbean archaeology, and encouraged me to challenge established ideas—and to develop alternate perspectives on Caribbean prehistory. I also thank Bill for always being available to offer advice, read and comment on drafts, and point me toward new and important literature. Also, many thanks go to Brian

Silliman, who served as my outside dissertation committee member. He kindly agreed to join my committee while busy with his own ecology students and research projects. I appreciate the perspectives he offered, which reminded of the importance of a scientific approach.

I also would like to thank Dr. Antonio Curet for welcoming me into the Tibes team, where I began my journey into Puerto Rican archaeology. My participation in excavations at the Ceremonial Center of Tibes provided my first opportunity to explore 4

my own research in the region. Antonio and Dr. William Pestle were kind enough to include me in their research projects at Tibes.

The Tibes Archaeological Survey Project was performed with the help of students from the University of Puerto Rico, Río Piedras. Those team members included:

Patricia Concepcion, Ricardo Magraina, Lisa Marrero, Juan Santos, Angel Vega, and

Rogelio Velasquez. I extend my gratitude to them and their professor, Dr. Reniel

Rodriguez Ramos, who is also a colleague and friend. TASP would not have been possible without Carmen Lageur Díaz, who helped to keep the project afloat. In the field, Carmen assisted me with the excavation and documentation of column samples, in the lab, she managed the recordation and sorting of artifacts, and everywhere else she served as our translator.

I am also appreciative to Chris Espenshade and his team at New South

Associates for giving me the opportunity to work on the La Jácanas project. I must thank the many helpful individuals at the Florida Museum of Natural History, including

Dr. Kitty Emery, the curator of environmental archaeology, and Irv Quittmyer, the collections manager. Work in the museum over the years has been a joy thanks to the other zooarchaeologist and researchers who were always quick to offer advice or assistance with a difficult identification. Specifically, many thanks goes to Nicole

Cannarozzi, who assisted with the identification of invertebrate remains from La

Jácanas. Nicole is a brilliant zooarchaeologist with a wealth of knowledge—and never hesitates to offer help with any challenge.

I extend my sincerest gratitude to my colleague and dear friend, Dr. Josh Torres.

As the principal investigator of the Tibes Archaeological Survey Project, Josh made this

dissertation possible. Josh was kind enough to invite me to help with the project, and gave me the academic freedom to pursue my own research objectives. His support, advice, and friendship continue to be a source of encouragement for me.

Lastly, I thank those who are closest to me. I thank my mother-in-law and father- in-law, Les and Pat Michael, for all the help throughout the years. My father, Richard

DuChemin, has supported me in every way possible. After the death of my mother, he worked tirelessly to provide for me and my younger sister. He always pushed me to follow my dreams, whatever they may be. I know he would do anything to help me accomplish any goal.

There are no words to express the gratitude I have for my wife, Michelle. She has made many sacrifices so I could pursue my graduate studies. I thank her for her love, patience, and inspiration. No one worked harder than her to make this work possible— not even me. And finally, I thank my daughters, Emma and Bella. I am sustained by their love and laughter.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... 4

LIST OF TABLES ...... 10

LIST OF FIGURES ...... 15

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... 17

ABSTRACT ...... 18

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 20

2 NATURAL AND HISTORICAL SETTING ...... 29

Culture History ...... 29 The Rousean Model ...... 29 Prehistory of Puerto Rico...... 31 Natural and Physical Setting ...... 40

3 THEORETICAL APPROACH TO INTERPRETATION OF REMAINS AND PRESENTATION OF THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS ...... 50

Interpretive Trends in Zooarchaeology ...... 51 Food and Community...... 57 Symbolic Role of Animals in Puerto Rico and the Caribbean ...... 60 Defining Ceremonial Space ...... 66 Research Questions, and Hypotheses...... 68 Detecting a Unifying Social Structure ...... 69 Ceremonialism and Bateys ...... 72 Community Interaction...... 75

4 MATERIALS AND METHODS ...... 77

La Jácanas ...... 78 Tibes Archaeological Survey Project ...... 82 Methods of Recovery of TASP ...... 85 Column samples and fine-screening ...... 86 Descriptions of column samples ...... 93 Identification of Bone and Shell ...... 99 Vertebrate Identification ...... 99 Invertebrate Identification ...... 101 Determining Meat Weight Contributions of Certain Taxa ...... 102

Calculating Diversity and Equitability of Certain Samples ...... 103 Radiocarbon Dating ...... 104

5 FAUNAL ANALYSIS ...... 105

La Jácanas ...... 105 Identified Invertebrate Taxa ...... 135 Identified Vertebrate Taxa ...... 136 TASP Fauna ...... 140 La Minerál Invertebrates ...... 140 Column Sample 1 ...... 144 Column Sample 2 ...... 147 Los Gongolones Invertebrates ...... 149 Column Sample 3 ...... 154 Column Sample 4 ...... 157 Column Sample 5 ...... 160 TASP Vertebrates ...... 163 Summary of Results...... 165

6 COMPARATIVE INTERPRETATION of animal acquisition and consumption ...... 167

Patterns of Animal Use through Time at La Jácanas ...... 168 Comparison of Vertebrate Use ...... 169 Comparison of Invertebrate Use ...... 171 Patterns of Animal Use in Ceremonial and Non-Ceremonial Contexts ...... 174 at La Jácanas ...... 174 Comparison of Vertebrate Use ...... 175 Comparison of Invertebrate Use ...... 178 Patterns of Animal Use at La Minerál and Los Gongolones ...... 180 Site Comparison ...... 181 Comparative Interpretations of Column Samples ...... 184 Evidence of Habitat Use ...... 188 Represented Animals and Their Habitats ...... 188 Interpretation of Human Behavior ...... 191

7 ANIMAL USE IN SOUTH-CENTRAL PUERTO RICO ...... 192

Trends in Animal Use...... 193 Interpretation of Invertebrate Use ...... 198 Regional control of invertebrate use ...... 200 Local control of invertebrate use ...... 202 Interpretation of Vertebrate Use ...... 206 Animal symbolism ...... 207 Significance of resource habitat exploitation ...... 208 Regional vs. local control of vertebrate use ...... 211 Why No Bones? ...... 214 The Tibes connection ...... 215

Chapter Summary ...... 217

8 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ...... 221

APPENDIX

A LA JÁCANAS INVERTEBRATES BY EXCAVATION UNIT AND FEATURE ...... 230

B LA JÁCANAS VERTEBRATES BY EXCAVATION UNIT AND FEATURE ...... 256

C COLUMN SAMPLE VERTEBRATE IDENTIFICATIONS ...... 276

LIST OF REFERENCES ...... 279

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 312

LIST OF TABLES

Table page

2-1 Rouse’s cultural chrological model for Puerto Rico ...... 32

3-1 Pre-Columbian occupation components at La Jácanas ...... 71

3-2 Radiocarbon date ranges for selected shell samples at La Minerál and Los Gongolones ...... 71

3-3 Dimensions of Bateys at each site ...... 74

4-1 Allometric Regression Values used to Determine Edible Meat Weight Estimates ...... 103

4-2 Radiocarbon dates from selected column samples at La Minerál and Los Gongolones...... 104

5-1 Analyzed prehistoric contexts from La Jácanas with temporal and spatial components ...... 106

5-2 All Identified taxa from La Jácanas, common names, and associated habitats 107

5-3 Invertebrates identified from all prehistoric contexts in measured and relative quantities ...... 111

5-4 Vertebrates identified from all prehistoric contexts, with measured and relative quantities ...... 114

5-5 Invertebrates from Batey-Associated Jácana 2 Contexts at La Jácanas ...... 117

5-6 Invertebrates from Batey-Associated Jácana 2/4 Contexts at La Jácanas ...... 119

5-7 Invertebrates from Batey-Associated Jácana 4 Contexts at La Jácanas ...... 121

5-8 Vertebrates from Batey-Associated Jácana 2 Contexts La Jácanas ...... 123

5-9 Vertebrates from Batey-Associated Jácana 2/4 Contexts at La Jácanas ...... 124

5-10 Vertebrates from Batey-Associated Jácana 4 Contexts La Jácanas ...... 126

5-11 Invertebrates from All Batey-Associated Contexts La Jácanas ...... 128

5-12 Vertebrates from All Batey-Associated Contexts La Jácanas ...... 131

5-13 Invertebrates from All Non-Batey Contexts La Jácanas ...... 133

5-14 Vertebrates from All Non-Batey Contexts at La Jácanas ...... 134

5-15 All Identified invertebrate taxa from Los Gongolones, common names, and associated habitats ...... 141

5-16 Invertebrates identified from all column samples at La Minerál in measured and relative quantities ...... 143

5-17 Invertebrates identified from Column Sample 1 at La Minerál in measured and relative quantities ...... 146

5-18 Invertebrates identified from Column Sample 2 at La Minerál in measured and relative quantities ...... 148

5-19 All Identified invertebrate taxa from Los Gongolones, common names, and associated habitats ...... 150

5-20 Invertebrates identified from the three column samples at Los Gongolones in measured and relative quantities ...... 153

5-21 Invertebrates identified from Column Sample 3 at Los Gongolones in measured and relative quantities ...... 156

5-22 Invertebrates identified from Column Sample 4 at Los Gongolones in measured and relative quantities ...... 159

5-23 Invertebrates identified from Column Sample 5 at Los Gongolones in measured and relative quantities ...... 162

5-24 All vertebrate taxa identified from column samples with associated habitats ... 164

5-25 Identified vertebrate taxa with associated column samples ...... 165

6-1 Diversity and equitability calculations for vertebrate taxa in batey and non- batey contexts ...... 178

6-2 Diversity and equitability calculations for invertebrate taxa in batey and non- batey contexts ...... 180

6-3 The relationship between distance form the coast and the percentage of marine fauna identified from each site, with statistical data from a simple regression analysis ...... 190

A-1 Invertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 126 (Jácanas 2/4) ...... 230

A-2 Invertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 127 (Jacanas 2/4) ...... 231

A-3 Invertebrates from Feature 101, Trench 19 Units 126 and 127 (Jácanas 2/4) . 232

A-4 Invertebrates from Midden Mound Unit 107 (Jácanas 2/4) ...... 233

A-5 Invertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 151, Strata A, B, and C (Jácanas 2/4) ...... 234

A-6 Invertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 151, Strata D and E (Jácanas 2) ...... 234

A-7 Invertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 151, Feature 280 (Jácanas 2) ...... 235

A-8 Invertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 151, Feature 279 (Jácanas 2) ...... 235

A-9 Invertebrate Faunal Remains from Trench 19 Unit 145, Strata B and C (Jácanas 2/4) ...... 236

A-10 Invertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 145, Stratum E (Jácanas 2)...... 237

A-11 Invertebrates from Trench 19 Units 145 and 147, Feature 116 (Jácanas 2/4) . 237

A-12 Invertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 146, Stratum A (Jácanas 4)...... 238

A-13 Invertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 146, Strata B and C (Jácanas 2/4) ...... 238

A-14 Invertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 146, Strata D and E (Jácanas 2) ...... 239

A-15 Invertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 146, Feature 115 (Jácanas 2/4) ...... 240

A-16 Invertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 147, Strata B and C (Jácanas 2/4) ...... 241

A-17 Invertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 147, Strata D and E (Jácanas 2) ...... 242

A-18 Invertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 148, Strata B and C (Jácanas 2/4) ...... 243

A-19 Invertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 148, Strata D and E (Jácanas 2) ...... 244

A-20 Invertebrates from Feature 111, Trench 19 Units 148 and 149 (Jácana 2) ...... 245

A-21 Invertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 149, Strata B and C (Jácanas 2/4) ...... 246

A-22 Invertebrates from Feature 112, Trench 19 Units 149 and 150 (Jácana 4) ..... 246

A-23 Invertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 150, Strata B and C (Jácanas 2/4) ...... 247

A-24 Invertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 150, Strata D and E (Jácanas 2) ...... 248

A-25 Invertebrates from Feature 108, Trench 19 Unit 150 (Jácanas 4) ...... 249

A-26 Invertebrates from N. Batey Trench Unit 153 Levels 1 and 2 (Jácanas 4/5) .... 250

A-27 Invertebrates from N. Batey Trench Unit 153, Levels 3-6 (Jácanas 4) ...... 251

A-28 Invertebrates from Trench 7 Unit 138 (Jácanas 2/4) ...... 252

A-29 Invertebrates from Trench 7 Unit 138, Feature 217 (Jácanas 4) ...... 253 12

A-30 Invertebrates from Trench 7 Unit 138, Feature 218 (Jácanas 4) ...... 253

A-31 Invertebrates from Scrape F, General Collection ...... 253

A-32 Invertebrates from Scrape F, Grab Collection (FX-F Jácanas 2) ...... 254

A-33 Invertebrates from Scrape F, Feature 491 (FX-F Jácanas 2) ...... 255

B-1 Vertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 126 (Jácanas 2/4) ...... 256

B-2 Vertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 127 (Jácanas 2/4) ...... 256

B-3 Vertebrates from Feature 101, Trench 19 Units 126 and 127 (Jácanas 2/4) .... 257

B-4 Vertebrates from Midden Mound Unit 107 (Jácanas 2/4) ...... 258

B-5 Vertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 151, Strata A, B, and C (Jácanas 2/4) ...... 259

B-6 Vertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 145, Stratum A (Jácanas 4) ...... 259

B-7 Vertebrate Faunal Remains from Trench 19 Unit 145, Strata B and C (Jácanas 2/4) ...... 260

B-8 Vertebrates from Trench 19 Units 145 and 147, Feature 116 (Jácanas 2/4) .... 261

B-9 Vertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 146, Strata B and C (Jácanas 2/4) ...... 262

B-10 Vertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 146, Strata D and E (Jácanas 2) ...... 263

B-11 Vertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 146, Feature 115 (Jácanas 2/4)...... 263

B-12 Vertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 147, Strata B and C (Jácanas 2/4) ...... 264

B-13 Vertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 147, Strata D and E (Jácanas 2) ...... 265

B-14 Vertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 148, Strata B and C (Jácanas 2/4) ...... 265

B-15 Vertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 148, Strata D and E (Jácanas 2) ...... 266

B-16 Vertebrates from Feature 111, Units 148 and 149 (Jácana 2) ...... 266

B-17 Vertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 149, Strata B and C (Jácanas 2/4) ...... 267

B-18 Vertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 149, Strata D and E (Jácanas 2) ...... 268

B-19 Vertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 150, Stratum A (Jácanas 4) ...... 268

B-20 Vertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 150, Strata B and C (Jácanas 2/4) ...... 269

B-21 Vertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 150, Strata D and E (Jácanas 2) ...... 270 13

B-22 Vertebrates from Feature 108, Trench 19 Unit 150 (Jácanas 4) ...... 271

B-23 Vertebrates from N. Batey Trench Unit 153 Levels 1 and 2 (Jácanas 4/5) ...... 271

B-24 Vertebrates from N. Batey Trench Unit 153, Levels 3-6 (Jácanas 4) ...... 272

B-25 Vertebrates from Trench 7 Unit 138 (Jácanas 2/4) ...... 273

B-26 Vertebrates from Trench 7 Unit 138, Feature 217 (Jácanas 4)...... 273

B-27 Vertebrates from Trench 7 Unit 138, Feature 218 (Jácanas 4)...... 274

B-28 Vertebrates from Trench 12 Unit 142 (Jácanas 2/4) ...... 274

B-29 Vertebrates from Trench 12 Unit 144 (Jácanas 2) ...... 275

C-1 Vertebrate totals from Column Sample 1 at La Minerál ...... 276

C-2 Vertebrate totals from Column Sample 2 at La Minerál ...... 277

C-3 Vertebrate totals from Column Sample 3 at Los Gongolones ...... 277

C-4 Vertebrate totals from Column Sample 4 at Los Gongolones ...... 278

C-5 Vertebrate totals from Column Sample 5 at Los Gongolones ...... 278

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

2-1 Map of the circum-Caribbean region showing the location of Puerto Rico ...... 42

2-2 Ecological habitat zones for south central Puerto Rico with examples of exploitable fauna identified in this study ...... 44

4-1 Site map of La Jácanas indicating the location of landmarks and excavation units ...... 81

4-2 Map showing the boundaries of the Tibes Archaeological Survey Project in South-Central Puerto Rico ...... 84

4-3 Members of the TASP team excavating and collecting a column sample ...... 91

4-4 Reinforced plastic bags containing 25 liter samples from one column sample ... 91

4-5 Author processing column sample through 1/16th-inch mesh screens with water at low pressure ...... 92

4-6 Large fraction material from water screening of Column Sample 1 ...... 93

4-7 Site map of La Minerál indicating the locations of Column Sample 1 and Column Sample 2 ...... 95

4-8 Site map of Los Gongolones indicating the locations of Column Sample 3, Column Sample 4, and Column Sample 5 ...... 98

6-1 A comparison of minimum meat weight contributions of identified vertebrate classes from the Jácana 2 and Jácana 4 temporal components at La Jácanas ...... 170

6-2 A comparison of bivalve and gastropod distribution by %MNI and %Meat Weight in Jácana 2 and Jácana 4 temporal components at La Jácanas ...... 172

6-3 A map of PO-29 indicating the locations of the Midden Mound (Trench 19) and FX-F. These two loci provide faunal material for the spatial comparative analysis at the site...... 175

6-4 A comparison of minimum meat weight contributions of identified vertebrate classes from batey-associated and non-batey spatial contexts at La Jácanas . 176

6-5 A comparison of bivalve and gastropod distribution by %MNI and %Meat Weight in batey-associated and non-batey spatial contexts at La Jácanas ...... 179

6-6 A comparison of the relative abundances of bivalves and gastropods at La Minerál (PO-42) and Los Gongolones (PO-43) ...... 182 15

6-7 A comparison of the relative abundances of bivalves and gastropods at from Column Sample 1 and Column Sample 2 at La Minerál ...... 183

6-8 A comparison of the relative abundances of bivalves and gastropods at from Column Sample 1 and Column Sample 2 at La Minerál...... 184

7-1 Chronology of La Jácanas, La Minerál, and Los Gongolones based on radiocarbon date ranges at each site ...... 197

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

BCE Before the common era

CE Common era cm Centimeters g Grams

GIS Geographic information system

GPS Global positioning system kg Kilograms km Kilometers

L liters m Meters

MNI Minimum number of individuals

NISP Number of individual specimens sp. Species (singular) spp. Species (plural)

TASP Tibes archaeological research project

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

ANIMAL USE AND COMMUNITY IN PRE-COLUMBIAN PUERTO RICO: ZOOARCHAEOLOGY OF THE RÍO PORTUGUÉS

Geoffrey R. DuChemin

December 2013

Chair: Susan deFrance Major: Anthropology

This dissertation presents a zooarchaeological study of three contemporaneous archaeological sites that were settled within a single river drainage in pre-Columbian south-central Puerto Rico (600-1500 CE). It is the first study of its kind, and offers a unique opportunity to observe changes in animal use through time and across the region. The study had three primary goals. First, I explored the affect of growing social and political influences in the region on the ways in which people used animals for food and ceremony. Second, I explored how ceremonialism affected animal use, and whether certain animals were more likely to be found in ceremonial contexts. Third, I explored the nature of inter-community relationships, as they pertained to animal acquisition, distribution, and perhaps (ceremonial) communal sharing. The study of animal remains from these sites provides evidence of food acquisition, distribution, and consumption, as well as the use of animals in ceremonialism. The comparative analysis of multiple temporal and spatial contexts indicates growing congruency in the ways people used animals at these sites. There is also some evidence that certain animals, specifically the guinea pig (an exotic domesticate), may be more associated with ceremony. Faunal remains may also indicate that certain coastal resources may have 18

been restricted. Communities may have coordinated efforts to acquire resources at the coast, and maintained relationships through food sharing or ceremony. This study provides important information that can be used comparatively with other sites on

Puerto Rico to broaden our knowledge of prehistoric activities during times of increasing social complexity.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

This dissertation presents the first ever regional zooarchaeological study of three sites with periods of contemporaneous occupation, located within a single river drainage in Puerto Rico. The study allows for the exploration of the interactions between small communities, and the role they played in the dynamic social and political processes that eventually led to the development of the large polities that existed at European contact.

I examine how people living in different communities in south-central Puerto Rico dictated access and use of animals for food and ceremony; and whether it was uniform or variable throughout time and across the landscape. Recent research carried out in the foothills, north of the city of Ponce, provides zooarchaeological remains for this study. The archaeological sites of La Jácanas (PO-29), La Minerál (PO-42), and Los

Gongolones (PO-43) are situated along the Portugués River, and range from 10-12 km, inland, from the south coast of the island. These sites were occupied after 600 CE, during a time when regional social and political influences were beginning to form, resulting in an increasingly unifying social structure. Small settlements dispersed across the region as a reaction to these social processes (see Torres 2012), perhaps in order to maintain local or kin-based customs. This study aims to determine whether the ways in which animals were used at these sites reflect the broader social phenomena that occurring at the time. Each site contains defined ceremonial spaces in the form of bateys, cleared stone-lined plazas providing an opportunity to explore the role of animals in ceremonialism at both small sites, and larger sites that developed in later temporal contexts.

Archaeological faunal remains reflect certain characteristics of the natural environment within which those animals once lived. The absence or presence of particular animals, as well as their size or health, reflect the local natural setting.

However, the presence of animals in the archaeological record indicates human interaction with, and adaptation to, the natural environment without accounting for the choices people make concerning the food they eat (Burger et al. 2005; Butler and

Campbell 2004; Keegan 1986; Kelly 1992, 1995; Smith 1983). A community exists within a natural environment that cannot be separated from culture (Stahl 2008). People have a reciprocal relationship with their environment in which each transforms the other.

Human actions modify local habitat and affect the flora and fauna within it. At the same time, the natural environment determines the species available for hunting and gathering and influences gardening and agricultural practices. The modified landscape contains spaces that are defined by the activities that occurred there. As a result, it is integrated into the ideology of the people who inhabit it (Knapp and Ashmore 1999; also

Stahl 2008).

Faunal materials recovered from these archaeological sites provide important information pertaining to social, political, and ideological practices of human societies through time. They can also indicate how past societies organized their political, religious, and quotidian practices. Ceramic and lithic typologies and taxonomies are commonly used to interpret aspects of social organization by identifying patterns of change through time and across space (Dunnell 1986; Rouse 1960). In the same way, divergent or convergent patterns of food consumption and distribution between people of differing social and political affiliations, communities, or who are separated by

distance, provide evidence of how organizational social structures dictated access and use of animals. These distinctions exist in modern society and throughout human history.

Historically, zooarchaeology has been grounded in processual approaches that sought to explain human action as adaptive in nature, and therefore, predictive cross- culturally (Kenneth 1996). The study of material culture recovered from archaeological sites should reveal patterns that indicate either the accommodation of, or resistance to, organized social or political influences at a local, or even household, level (Pauketat

2005; Pauketat et al. 2002). Socio-political changes of this kind would affect the identity and way of life of those who once inhabited the region of study. For this reason, it is necessary to interpret archaeological data focusing on the community level, rather than at the level of the unit of a perceived centralized polity.

Prior to roughly 600 CE, settlements on Puerto Rico consisted primarily of large autonomous villages of pottery-making horticultural groups with historical ties to similar groups in South America (Curet 1996; Curet and Oliver 1998; Rouse 1992; Siegel

1999). After 600 CE, south central Puerto Rico saw the dispersal of populations out of larger sites and into smaller community settlements (Torres 2012). These settlement patterns correspond to a time period during which it has been suggested that a consolidation of social and political power and increase in social complexity took place

(Curet 1992; Rouse 1992; Siegel 1996, 1999). While complex polities eventually arose late in Caribbean prehistory (1200-1500 CE) and existed at the time of European contact, the formation of these political structures was gradual and involved complex processes. For this reason, references to social complexity and political power are

avoided, especially when discussing early temporal components. Rather, community dispersal was a result of expanding regional social and political influence. Torres (2012) argues that these trends of settlement dispersal, and the establishment of community identities, are crucial elements in understanding how social and political power developed later in the region. Following this explanatory model, this zooarchaeological study aims to answer the question: Did patterns of animal use change through time as a result of an expanding unifying social structure, and the dispersal and interaction of community settlements? I hypothesize that animal use patterns will be more similar in later temporal contexts as regional influence on animal exploitation, food use, and ceremonialism increases. Conversely, I would expect to see less congruency in earlier contexts where local control of animal use was being asserted.

Well-defined temporal contexts can facilitate the detection of changes in animal use through time. Excavations at the site of Tibes, also on the Portugués River—three to five kilometers to the south of the three sites studied here—have revealed that formative social processes occurred through time on some level (Curet 2005; Curet and

Stringer 2010). However, zooarchaeological analysis at Tibes suggests that there was little or no change in patterns of animal use with exception of the introduction of the guinea pig (Cavia porcellus) late in its occupation (deFrance et al. 2010). Excavations at

La Jácanas have revealed gradual expansion and intensification of the site over time

(Espenshade 2011). The earliest components encompass a 500 year occupation wherein the site acted primarily for habitation. After around 650 CE, La Jácanas was a small, permanent settlement that contained a small batey. A period of abandonment, beginning around 900 CE, lasted approximately 400 years until the site was reoccupied

around 1300 CE. The last pre-Columbian occupation period, lasted approximately to the time of European contact. After the site was re-occupied, La Jácanas saw the construction of the large stone-lined batey, with the incorporation of iconography, in the form of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic petroglyphs, overlying dozens of burials. The occupation of two smaller sites, La Minerál and Los Gongolones were occupied primarily during the period when La Jácanas was abandoned, with one midden dating to the period after reoccupation. The marked changes in site use before and after abandonment, and the possible role of the two smaller sites during that time, offer a unique opportunity to observe patterns of animal use between these two time periods.

The composition of animal taxa recovered from each distinct spatial and temporal context allows for animal use patterns to be tracked, and specific components to be compared, in order to determine if congruency increases between the sites through time. Chapter 2 is overview of Puerto Rican prehistory including the detailed chronologies of the region of study. These three sites are placed within their regional historical context in Chapter 2, and the natural and physical attributes of the region are described.

Dispersed community settlements were arranged in networks that interacted through cooperative relationships that were likely maintained through ceremonial activities. This is evidenced by the existence of bateys, or small stone-lined plazas or ball courts associated with ceremonialism (Alegria 1983; Siegel 1999), that exist at many of these settlements in the area (Torres 2012:263). Small community settlements existed until after 1200 CE when populations began to concentrate into the larger polities that existed when the first Europeans arrived in the early part of the 16th century.

Later occupation components at La Jácanas are indicative of increased ceremonialism with the construction of the large batey and increased occurrences of iconography.

Ceremonial space, bateys, and animal symbolism are further discussed in Chapter 3.

Chapter 3 also fully describes the theoretical approach to the study, in which animal foods are understood within the contexts of individual communities that exist of the landscape and within the natural environment.

In south central Puerto Rico, dispersed community settlements contained bateys where ceremonial activities, coordinated by the local rulers, may have taken place to strengthen and maintain inter-community relationships (Torres 2012). Since the archaeological sites studied all contain ceremonial space (bateys), I ask: Did ceremonialism affect the patterns of animal use at these sites? I hypothesize that faunal material recovered from middens that were in (direct) contact with bateys would contain high-status, or luxury animals, which, in the Caribbean would be larger fish, sea mammals, large sea turtles, and other rare or exotic species (see deFrance 2009:124-

125).

Ceremonial activities are widely accepted as being controlled by higher status individuals (deFrance 2009; Pauketat 2005). In the Caribbean, areas of high status activities have been identified (e.g. Deagan 1986, 2004), however, archaeological evidence in the Caribbean of the use of animals for ceremonial purposes is rare

(deFrance 2009). One exception is the use of river crabs in San Miguel cave near the central Puerto Rican site of Caguana in association with mortuary activities (Oliver and

Narganes Storde 2003). The the abundance and diversity of marine resources available to the inhabitants of tropical islands may make it difficult to detect species of

greater importance. However, all three sites are situated between 10 and 12 km inland from the coast. The presence of marine taxa at inland sites demonstrates a significant level of organization, either for fishing expeditions, trade, or negotiation for use of coastal fishing and collecting grounds. Coordinated efforts among small communities would have provided a valuable source of labor for the acquisition and transport of marine animal resources, and also strengthened the ability of inland communities to negotiate for access to marine habitats and trade. This leads to the third question: Did interactions between small community settlements, perhaps possessing elements of shared identity, affect the faunal assemblage at the sites? I hypothesize that if cooperation between sites occurred, particularly for access to fishing and collection grounds, then the faunal assemblages would contain animals from all surrounding habitats. This would also lead to assemblages with similar composition, especially if the cooperating communities were sharing equally.

The results of the zooarchaeological analysis are presented in Chapter 5. The regional comparative interpretations are discussed in Chapter 6. Chapter 7 includes the discussion of animal use in south-central Puerto Rico within communities that were interacting with, and participating in, a sociopolitical network that included local and regional influences. The analysis indicates that the development of regional social and political influences affected patterns of animal use at the sites. The relative abundances of animal taxa from various contexts within each site are most similar from later temporal components, suggesting increasing regional control of practices regarding animals. Additionally, results from earlier temporal contexts indicate unique patterns, with taxonomic compositions that suggest local autonomy of animal use and

consumption in community settlements. Regarding the question of ceremonialism, the comparison of faunal material from batey-associated middens with those from domestic contexts at La Jácanas, indicates that mammals and gastropods were more common in batey contexts, and that domesticated guinea pig (Cavia porcellus), and less-common pelagic fish were recovered only from ceremonial contexts.

Considering the influence of inter-community interaction and cooperation, it was expected that animals from all available habitats would be evident at each site and that sites would have similar compositions. However, results of the faunal analysis do not indicate such patterns. In fact, the archaeological faunal assemblage at La Minerál and

Los Gongolones contain very few vertebrate remains. This may be the result of limited access to reef or pelagic fishing grounds, but does not account for the lack of local vertebrate fauna. Another possible scenario is that cooperative relationships meant to obtain animal resources were reinforced by the ceremonial sharing of food. The lack of vertebrate material in certain contexts could be explained, especially if animals were shared at neutral ceremonial sites. This may be what is observed at Tibes, where despite the presence of multiple bateys and ceremonial space, differential use of animal foods is not visible (deFrance 2010; deFrance et al. 2009).

Chapter eight summarizes the study and discusses areas of future investigation in Puerto Rico, the Caribbean and the broader applicable implications of contextual zooarchaeological investigations that consider social complexity. In this study, I use data from the zooarchaeological analysis of faunal remains from sites La Jácana, La

Minerál, and Los Gongolones to address patterns of animal use at the sites through time and at locations of ceremonial and domestic function. The faunal data are

interpreted with consideration of specific contexts and associations. My contextual archaeological approach considers faunal remains as part of a larger archaeological assemblage and can be interpreted based on specific contexts. Therefore, faunal data are used in conjunction with other lines of evidence to answer questions that go beyond those of subsistence and environment.

CHAPTER 1 NATURAL AND HISTORICAL SETTING

Culture History

The current model of prehispanic human settlement in the Caribbean and on the island of Puerto Rico was established by Irving Rouse in the 20th century, culminating in his book, The Tainos (1992), in which he presents his final socio-temporal framework based on modal artifact typologies. He primarily uses pottery to develop his model, though in pre-ceramic temporal contexts he defined culture groups based on lithic and ground-stone tools. As archaeological investigations continue in the Caribbean, more accurate dates with greater temporal resolution provide greater understanding of the human past continues to accumulate. Because of this, strict adherence to the Rouean model results in inaccurate interpretation archaeological sites (see Rodriquez-Ramos et al. 2010). This dissertation uses a regionally specific chronology following events at site

La Jácanas (La Jácana) (Espenshade 2011). Virtually all discussions of Antillean prehistory utilize Rouse’s (1992) model, even when the intent is to modify or redefine it.

Therefore, I will outline his methodology and its utility.

The Rousean Model

Rouse’s decades of research, beginning in the 1930s, began as an attempt to classify ceramic vessels based on specific attributes. The overwhelming diversity of specific characteristics of pottery, deriving from processes of manufacture and decoration led to an analytical scheme that began extremely broad and transcended the categorization of artifacts by types (Seigel 1996). Rouse’s model therefore identifies artifact features, or “modes”, that identify how the artifact was produced (Rouse 1939,

1992). The analysis of artifacts resulted in a suit of modes for each object.

Combinations of these modes defined the “style” of artifacts, which were used to classify them into like groups. Artifact assemblages, and the presence or absence of specific modes within them, could then be used to define corresponding regions or time periods (Rodriguez Ramos 2007; Rouse 1952). Individual styles were typically associated with specific localities—and often named accordingly. Following this idea,

Rouse regarded style to define not only artifacts, but also the people who inhabited a site during the periods in which those artifacts were made, and by extension the cultural attributes of those people (Rouse 1990, 1992).

The definition of culture groups based on the styles of artifacts they produced led

Rouse to derive a system in which he could define both under one term. This led to the need to development of the term “series” which defined a people and their material culture based upon artifact style (Rouse and Cruxent 1963). Names of series contain the suffix -oid and broadly define culture groups both temporally and spatially. Rouse’s definition assumes all people and artifacts within a single series have a cultural evolutionary relationship, having derived from a common ancestor (Rouse 1992:184).

Following the same evolutionary scheme, series are further divided into

“subseries” denoted by the suffix –an. Subseries define culture groups at smaller temporal and spatial scales than series, based on patterns of common artifact modes.

The historical relatedness between different pottery styles could then be determined, much like the evolutionary relatedness of animal species through shared traits (see

Rouse 1986; Siegel 1996).

The danger in such a classificatory scheme is that, as in biology, the taxonomist must be careful not to assume the relatedness of two species simply because they have

share one or more traits. For example, a humming bird is not closely related to a dragonfly despite the fact that they both have wings and can hover when they fly.

Rather, phylogeny is based upon shared derived traits, which can be supported by genetic studies (see Pestle 2011; Zwicki and Hillis 2002). The assumed unilineality of

Rouse’s scheme runs the risk of classifying unrelated culture groups whose artifact manufacturing processes share independently-invented technique.

The temporal component of Rouse’s model eventually led to chronologies that could be used to trace the migrations of people to the Caribbean. The model assumes few migration events as well as culture-groups, as defined by series and subseries, descended from one another through time (Rouse 1990, 1992). New temporal data analyzed by Reniel Rodriguez Ramos and his colleagues (2010) suggest interpretive discrepancies resulting from strict adherence to Rouse’s model.

Prehistory of Puerto Rico

Rouse derived four cultural periods (I, II, III, and IV) for the Caribbean that mirrored the four age system used to describe the culture history of North America (see

Wiley and Philips 1958). Rouse’s framework is used here to describe the culture history of the Puerto Rico and the related Caribbean in general (Table 2-1), but with the acknowledgement that current and recent research is demonstrating that the pottery styles used by Rouse to define people and time periods are far more variable across the landscape, and extend temporally across Rouse’s established date markers (Gutierrez and Rodriguez 2008; Rodriguez-Ramos 2010; Rodriguez-Ramos et al. 2009).

Table 2-1. Rouse’s cultural chrological model for Puerto Rico (Rouse 1992:52) Date Period Series Subseries Style in East Style in West 1200- IVa Ostionoid Chican Esperanza Boca 1500 CE Chica/Capá 900- IIIb Elenan Ostionan Santa Elena Modified 1200 CE (East) (West) 600-900 IIIa Monserrate Pure CE 400 BCE IIb Cedrosan Cuevas – 600 CE IIa Hacienda La Grande Hueca/Hacienda Grande 1000 – I Ortoroid Corosan Coroso 400 CE

The Archaic (Ortoroid Series) and the Lithic (Casimiroid Series) people together make up Rouse’s Period I. The earliest human settlements in the Antilles are Lithic-age sites that date to ca. 5000 BCE. Sites from this period are characterized by the presence of flaked stone (lithic) tools and shell, but an absence of pottery or ground stone. The earliest known settlements on the island of Puerto Rico date to a time period known as the Lithic Age (5000-3000 BCE). Rouse identifies the material culture of this time period as consisting of stone tools but lacking ground-stone artifacts as well as any pottery. He designates this type of artifact assemblage as the Casimiroid series.

Casimiroid sites are most common in Cuba and on the island of Hispaniola, although

Rouse suggested that the series may have extended to Jamaica and Puerto Rico. Two sites in Puerto Rico, Angostura and Maruca, have provided radiocarbon dates to ca.

4000 BCE (Rodriguez-Ramos 2005; Suarez 1990). The dates for these sites extend into the Archaic age (3000 BCE-1CE). Within the rigid Rousean temporal model, the earliest evidence of human occupation on the island of Puerto Rico dates to the Lithic age. However the artifact assemblages from these sites, including ground stone pebble

grinders, indicate that they should be classified as Archaic sites (Rodriguez-Ramos

2005). The temporal definitions of the Lithic and Archaic ages are being redefined. The sites of Cayo Cofresi on the south coast (Veloz Maggiolo 1975) and Angostura on the

North coast (Suarez 1990), along with Maruca in south-central Puerto Rico, have distinct attributes in their artifact assemblages, including ground-stone tools, indicating that they are related to Archaic sites in Trinidad and northeastern Venezuela (Rouse

1992). This assemblage is designated the Ortoroid series and differs from the

Casimiroid, which indicates possible migration from Central America (Rouse 1992).

This would indicate that the earliest human inhabitants of the island migrated out of

South America. However, it should be noted that the Angostura site may contain elements of both Casimiroid and Ortoroid artifact assemblages (Suarez 1990).

Lithic and Archaic age peoples are characterized as “pre ceramic” and by extention are typically assumed to subsist by a foraging lifestyle according to cultural evolutionary interpretations. They, therefore, were assumed by Rouse and others to have organized themselves socially into band-level groups that had little impact on the environment and lacked any form of animal or plant domestication (Rouse 1992:58).

Recently, however, these notions have been challenged. Archaeological evidence of permanent structures have been identified at Paso del Indio and Maruca, contradicting the notion of permanent mobility (Rodriguez Lopez 1997; Walker 2005). Evidence from

Archaic components near the Maisabel site dating to 3000 BCE demonstrates landscape modification, clearing of forests, and perhaps horticulture (Siegel et al. 2005).

Paleobotany from various Archaic sites on the island have identified several cultigens including maize (Zea maize) and manioc (Manihot esculenta) that were previously

associated with the influx of ceramic producing groups (deFrance and Newsom 2005;

Newsom and Wing 2004; Pagan Jimenez et al. 2005). Rodriguez Ramos (2010) suggest that Archaic Burials at Maruca indicate the importance of place. In fact, evidence of pottery production at the Paso del Indio site (Rodriquez Ramos et al. 2008) along with the extention of Archaic artifact assemblages into the first century CE (Clark et al. 2003; Walker 2005) points to interaction between and even influence on later ceramic-producing people.

Period II (500 BCE-600 CE) is designated by Rouse (1992) as the Saladoid series and was signified by the earliest pottery-making horticultural peoples on the island (1992). Further organization of pottery style on the island of Puerto Rico is suggests that the Saladoid pottery belongs to the Cedrosan subseries. Throughout the island the Hacienda Grande style of Cedrosan Saladoid pottery has been recovered.

This pottery was finely made and painted in red or white (Curet 1997; Siegel 1992).

The general consensus among archaeologists is that Cedrosan Saladoid people migrated from northeastern Venezuela based on the distribution of similar pottery styles throughout the Orinoco River Basin (Rouse 1992). The earliest known site in Puerto

Rico is Tecla on the south-central coast (Chanlatte 1975; Narganess Storde 1999).

Radiocarbon dates from the site indicate that is was settled near 500 BCE. The obvious assumption based on the origins of Saladoid peoples is that they would have migrated north to Puerto Rico, establishing colonies in the Lesser Antilles along the way.

However, with few exceptions (see Siegel 2010), the most well-established early dates for the settlement of the Southern Caribbean remain at 200 CE. Newer investigations indicate that the Saladoid migrations took a direct route from the mainland of South

America, after which people moved south into the Lesser Antilles (Callaghan 2001;

Keegan 2010; Torres and Rodriguez Ramos 2008).

Saladoid sites in general and on Puerto Rico appear to be large and autonomous in nature and situated near coasts. They contained large, communal houses that were arranged in a semicircle around a central plaza. This arrangement mirrors Saladoid sites in South America (Curet 1992, 2005; Seigel 1996), and suggests a linguistic and historical relationship with the Arawakan-speaking groups that currently exist in South

America, as well as the Arawakan-speakers who greeted the first Europeans to the

Caribbean (Heckenberger 2005). Villages appear to be evenly spaced and likely functioned autonomously (Siegel 1991). The uniformity of artifact types and styles between sites, as well as the even distribution of artifact types throughout sites, indicate an egalitarian level of social organization (Curet 1996; Curet and Oliver 1998; Rouse

1992; Siegel 1999). Saladoid mortuary practices include central-place burials in the cleared plazas of each site. Such a practice suggests the importance of community, and perhaps that communities existed as individual descent groups arranged on the landscape (Curet and Oliver 1998; Keegan 2009; Keegan et al. 1998). Despite the autonomous nature of Saladoid villages, Saladoid people shared characteristics and practices (village arrangement, tool and ceramic-making styles, ideology and ceremony) that likely prevented conflict during the settlement period (Keegan 2004, 2010).

Although contemporaneous with Cedrosan Saladoid sites containing Hacienda

Grande style pottery, the sites of La Hueca-Sorcé on Vieques and Punta Candalero in eastern Puerto Rico contained a different style of pottery (La Hueca style) that lacked painting and was decorated with zoomorphic forms and cross-hatched decoration

(Chanlatte and Narganes 1980; Curet 2005). Further analysis of material culture from

La Hueca sites indicated distinct forms and production techniques of lithic tools

(Rodriguez-Ramos 2007). A very distinct decorative motif that includes pendants decorated in the zoomorphic form of the condor appears to demonstrate a link to the

Isthmo-Columbian region of South America (Rodriguez-Ramos 2010). More recent findings concerning the La Hueca style indicate that Rouse’s evolutionary scheme does not work with the apparent absence of a common ancestor. It is therefore inappropriate to follow Rouse’s (1982) La Hueca Style, or his appointment of La Hueca pottery as a subseries of Saladoid (Huecan) (Rouse 1992). Archaeologists working in Puerto Rico generally identify La Hueca Pottery as its own distinct series, Huecoid (after Chanlatte

1990). This indicates that the Huecan pottery makers comprised a distinct cultural group, different from that of the Hacienda Grande pottery makers. Lacking the shared origins and cultural practices with other Saladoid makers, the La Hueca complex of material culture remained isolated to Vieques and the eastern-most portion of the island, and seems to disappear entirely by around 400 BCE, being replaced by the dominant Hacienda Grande makers and the later Cuevas.

Cuevas style pottery appears during the later part of Rouse’s Period II (400-600

CE), and appears to be consistent with gradual change of the earlier Saladoid styles

(Siegel et al. 2008). These changes in material culture are likely related to cultural and political changes taking place in Puerto Rico during the late Saladoid Period (Torres

2012). Cuevas pottery is characterized by a reduction in decorative elements and forms

(Curet 1997). Initially, Cuevas was thought to be an intermediate form, between the earlier Saladoid styles and what were eventually later Ostionoid styles. Recent

research, however, indicates that despite its reduction in distinct motifs, Cuevas pottery can be identified in later contexts, perhaps persisting into the second millennium CE

(Rodriguez Ramos et al. 2010; Torres 2012). The latest dates for Cuevas pottery on

Puerto Rico seems to be isolated to the eastern half of the island (Torres 2012).

The eventual development of Cuevas potter late in Period I mirror other cultural changes taking place on the island during that time. Torres (2011:62) suggests that between 400 and 500 CE, Saladoid and early Cuevas settlements began to appear further away from the coast, and are smaller in both settlement and house size. This dispersal of larger Saladoid settlements likely resulted from social processes, namely the gradual increase in social complexity and inequality (Torres 2012:63).

Period III (600-1200 BCE) was designated the Ostionoid series by Rouse (1992), and consists of two divergent subseries that divides the island between east and west.

The Elenan subseries occured in the east and the Ostionan occured in the west. During this period there is an increase in ceramic variability. Ostionan pottery tends to exist in either Pure or Modified styles; and Elenan takes the form of Monserate or Santa Elena style (Rouse 1986). Of these, the earlier styles (Monserate and Pure Ostiones) appear to be the result of gradual change from late Saladoid styles, with earlier forms retaining characteristics such as red paint and vessel forms (Curet 2005). Variability increases over time, with loss of aesthetic refinement occurring more rapidly in the east (Curet

2005), perhaps due to interaction with pottery making archaic groups (Keegan 2010;

Rodriguez Ramos 2010). The earliest known Ostionoid settlements occur at the sites of

PO-23 (Krause 1989) and Tecla I (Narganes 1991) both situated on the south coast. In fact, the majority of Period III sites are concentrated on the southern coastal plain and

immediate foothills but extend into the cordillera (Curet 2004; Siegel 1999; Torres 2001,

2005).

The south-central region of Puerto Rico, is an area of interest. Sites along the southern coast and in the adjacent foothills and river valleys typically see a mixing of styles of both Elenan and Ostionan pottery subseries. An increase in sociopolitical complexity at the wider regional level likely resulted in an increase in diversity between local groups.

In general, the number of sites during this period increases substantially (Curet et al. 2004), and their arrangement exists in clusters for the first time (Torres 2001).

Period III sites are characterized by a general decrease in house size through time.

Curet (1992) suggests that increasing social complexity resulted in the reduction of the household unit to that of the nuclear family, due to increased hereditary inequality. This period also produces stone-lined plazas or ball courts (bateys) suggesting an increase in ritual activities (Alegria 1983). Bateys, lined by large upright stones and containing ceremonial iconography, are interpreted as the segregation of sacred space, and hence, the partitioning of social rankings within the institution of unified religious and ceremonial practices, allowing for the centralization of political power (Curet 2003;

Siegel 1996, 1999). Bateys occurring at each local site may also reflect an increase in local territoriality (see Torres 2005). Other unifying ceremonial forms, including the appearance of cemís and ceremonial centers, are first seen during the latter part of

Period III (Alegria 1983; Curet and Stringer 2010; Curet et al. 2003; Rouse 1992).

The Chican subseries of the Ostionoid series comprise the cultural groups during

Period IV (1200-1500 CE). According to Rouse (1986, 1992), the Chican subseries

arose on Hispaniola latter Period III. On Puerto Rico, Chican pottery exists in two styles which, like earlier Ostionoid subseries, are differentiated by their occurrence in eastern or western parts of the island. The Esperanza style was produced in the eastern part of

Puerto Rico, while the Capá style was produced in the west and is common in the cordillera. Both styles are exemplified by punctated and incised decorations, particularly on the shoulders of vessels. Red paint or slip has been observed in very few Capá vessels, which tend to be more ornate, but is primarily absent during this period (Curet 1992; Rouse 1992).

During Period IV the apparent importance of the south-central region of the island as a region of cultural interaction continues with the presence of a Boca Chica style

(Chican Ostionoid) pottery. Boca Chica pottery is associated with groups from eastern

Hispaniola and tends to be more ornate with more complicated forms (Torres 2012).

Recent research in the region is more commonly identifying Boca Chica pottery in their assemblages, including La Jácanas of this study (Espenshade 2009). South-central

Puerto Rico had already been established as a region of interaction and cultural mixing during Period III (Torres 2005, 2011). In Period IV, this role seems to have expanded to accommodate interactions, trade, and migration from groups living on other islands

(Torres 2012).

The Chican Ostionoid pottery makers are identified as the historic Taino that populated the island at European contact (Rouse 1992). Whether or not they should be considered a single cultural group is debatable considering current studies that indicate wide variability (Curet 2008; also see Torres 2012:71). During period IV settlements appear to have moved to the interior of the island from the coast (Torres 2005). Some

sites grew even larger during this period, containing multiple large bateys, although considerable variability in site size is observed. Households, primarily located at smaller sites containing one or two small bateys, continue to decrease in size (Curet

1992; Oliver 1998). Large sites with extensive ceremonial architecture (ceremonial centers) rarely have evidence of extended habitation by large populations (Alegria 1983;

Curet 2005; Siegel 1999).

Other evidence of increased ceremonialism includes greater numbers of (and more elaborate) cemís, duhos, masks, and stone collars (Alegria 1983; Curet 1992;

Rodriguez Ramos 2007; Rouse 1992). This evidence of ceremonial elaboration originating in the practices of previous periods indicates the continuation of increasing social complexity. Regional socio-political organization therefore appears ranked, with paramount leaders supported by constituent local leaders as was documented by

Europeans at contact (Curet 2003; Siegel 1999).

Natural and Physical Setting

Puerto Rico is located in the Caribbean Sea and is the easternmost island in the in the Greater Antilles. At around 9,100 Km2, it is the smallest of the Greater Antillean islands. The island is situated east of the Mona Passage, which separates it from the island of Hispaniola, and west of the Virgin Islands and the smaller islands of the Lesser

Antilles, which extend south to the Venezuelan coast (Figure 2-1).

The overall climate of Puerto Rico is considered subtropical, although depending upon elevation and regional geography, temperature and precipitation varies markedly from tropical rainforests to subtropical dry forests and savannas (Ewel and Whitmore

1988). William Pestle (2011) analyzed climate data from multiple studies, including lake

and seafloor core sediments, paleoliminolology, and stable isotope studies to assemble a climate history for the island during the time of its human occupation:

Taken together, these lines of evidence suggest that: 1) from about 8,200- 3,900 cal bp, climatic conditions were largely warmer and wetter than those experienced at present, 2) from 3,200-1,500 cal bp conditions became drier and cooler, 3) from 1,500-900 cal bp, conditions were again warmer and moister, and 4) from around 900 cal bp through the present, climate conditions returned to the comparatively cooler and dryer tropical regime we know today (Pestle 2011:14-15).

Map created byMap Josh

Puerto Rico of( showing the location gion

Caribbean re -

Torres 1. Map of the circum of Map the 1.

Figure 2

The topography of the island of Puerto Rico consists of multiple mountain ranges.

The largest of these is the Cordillera Central, which runs along the center of the island from east to west, and rises as much as one thousand meters in elevation (Picó 1974).

Foothills surround the rugged mountain range and include uneven, karstic limestone regions in the north and gentler, more gradually rolling hills in the south. Both the north and the south of the island include a coastal plain, much wider in the north—as the northern coast is situated further from the highest elevations. The island includes several climate zones. In the rainforests of the north and east of the island, rainfall can exceed 430 cm per year. In contrast, areas along the south coast that lie within the rain shadow of the Cordillera Central may experience as little as 75 cm per annum (Bonnin et al. 2006). Rainfall in the mountain is drained by rivers and streams that originate in the high elevation of the Cordillera. The foothills and coastal plains are characterized by many rivers that cut their way to the coast, often terminating in wet, estuarine landscapes that include mangroves, swamps, and brackish waterways (Picó 1974).

Coastal and associated marine regions are also highly variable in Puerto Rico.

The northern coast of the island contains highly eroded rocky shores that experience high-energy surf and currents. These conditions are due to the steeper slope and deeper waters of the Northern Atlantic. The Puerto Rico Trench, which includes the is the deepest point in the Atlantic Ocean, lies immediately north of the island (Picó

1974:134) In contrast, the southern coast experiences calmer surf conditions with more flats and shallow sandy or muddy sea floors (Kendal et al. 2001).

Figure 2-2. Ecological habitat zones for south central Puerto Rico with examples of exploitable fauna identified in this study. Adapted from deFrance et al. (2010) Animal Use at the Tibes Ceremonial Center. In Tibes: People, Power, and Ritual at the Center of the Cosmos,edited by Antonio Curet and Lisa M Stringer (Figure 6.2, page 142) University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa

Considering the variety of terrain and geology, temperature and rainfall, and high and low energy coastal zones exhibited throughout the island, Puerto Rico contains a variety of exploitable ecological zones. Ecological zones are identified following the model established by Kendall et al. (2001) and modified by deFrance et al. (2010)

(Figure 2-2). Ecological niches exist along a continuum of changing physiography, from

terrestrial and riverine habitats that exist in the upland environments to deep-water pelagic habitats—all of which provided ample plant and animal resources to the inhabitants of the island.

The ecophysiography of the research area. The regional study associated with this is located in south-central Puerto Rico in the foothills of the Cordillera Central, the mountain chain that spans the central part of the island. It includes three archaeological sites, La Jácanas, La Minerál, and Los Gongolones that lie along the banks of the Rio

Portugués, or Portugués River (Figure 2-3) at elevations between 100 and 150 meters and approximately nine and 11 kilometers from the south coast of Puerto Rico, 14 kilometers if traveled by river. The local climate of the region falls within the Subtropical

Dry Forest Life Zone (Ewel and Whitmore 1988). This area of the island receives only

100 cm of rain per year and is considered the driest zone on the island. Tropical, moisture-carrying winds affect the island on the north and eastern coasts, providing heavy rains on those parts of the island. However, the mountains of the cordillera produce a barrier or rain shadow that prevents precipitation in the south. The region experiences most of its rainfall in the late summer and fall, while winter months are driest (Pico 1974: 157). The rainy season corresponds with the the period of most frequent hurricane. As is the case today, hurricanes cause substantial flooding of the

Portugués River. The Portugués River, which forms in higher elevations of the

Cordillera Central and empties into the Caribberan Sea south of modern city of Ponce, drains all precipitaton from the area. The region of study is situated at the position of the river where the gradient first begins to decrease (Espenshade 2011). It is suggested that historically, this would have been an ideal area for settlement, since the

marked decrease in river gradient would have slowed down the flow of the river causing it to be wider and deeper (Espenshade 2011). Settlement along the river further upstream would have been more difficult due to the scarecity of level landforms, as well as the swift-flowing river. Another significant benefit of the sites’ locations is that the

Portugués River served as a conduit to nearby settlements as well as a mode of transport to and from the coast.

Figure 2-3. Map showing the locations of the three sites examined in this study as well as well as the location of the Tibes site. Map created by Josh Torres and modified by the author.

Human settlements in the region had direct access to a variety of habitats able to provide ample sources of subsistence. The upland forests provided habitat for the terrestrial fauna exploited by its inhabitants. Human activities at the site, especially horticultural activities, likely produced microhabitats (gardens, clearings, domestic areas, refuse, etc.) that would have attracted animals, such as hutia, birds, and iguanas, increasing ease of capture. The climate and geology of the region would have permitted manioc horticulture. Manioc is known as an important food source for pre-Columbian peoples throughout the neotropics, including the Amazon (Newsom and Wing 2004;

Wilson 2007). Flat, elevated areas, especially like those that surround La Minerál and

Los Gongolones would have been suitable for root-crop cultivation (Espenshade et al.

2011; Siskind 1973). The ecology of the area would also have provided fruit trees, which are common in the area today. Recent paleothnobotanical studies of Puerto Rico suggest that fruit trees were tended and cultivated on the island, as is seen with indigenous groups throughout the tropics (deFrance and Newsom 2005; Newsom 2006;

Newsom and Wing 2004).

The three archaeological sites included in this study are situated adjacent to the

Portugués River. Marine and riverine resources represent the majority of fauna in archaeological deposits in the region. The rivers acted as a source of brackish and freshwater fish species and various edible invertebrates including freshwater shrimp and crabs (deFrance et al. 2010). Turtles (Pseudemys sp.) are present in the river as well as ducks, rails, and herons. The Portugués river also provides freshwater, riverine and brackish water, and mangrove habitats for edible fish species including mullet

(Mugil sp.), gobies (family Gobiidae), and freshwater eels (Anquilla rostrata) (Froes and

Pauly 2013).

Several marine ecological zones within one to two kilometers of the mouth of the

Portugués River include intertidal habitats (lagoon and flats), coral reef, and deep water

(pelagic) habitats (Kendall et al. 2001) (Figure 2-2). Rather than heavily eroded rocky shores common on the north coast, the south coast contains calm bays, flats, and mangrove swamps (Kendall et al. 2001). These habitats provide many mollusks, including species of arks (Arcidae), lucines (Lucinidae), tellins (Tellinidae), West Indian pointed venus (Anomalocardia brasiliana), Caribbean oysters (Crassostrea rhizophorae), as well as marine snails, such as conchs (Strombidae), helmets

(Cassidae), and Murexes (Muricidea). Many of these mollusks are distinct from those found off the turbulent north coast of the island. The results of this study, and others in the area, indicate that both gastropod and bivalve species recovered from these sites were specific to shallow water habitats (deFrance et al. 2010; Robinson 1985).

CHAPTER 3 THEORETICAL APPROACH TO INTERPRETATION OF REMAINS AND PRESENTATION OF THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This chapter examines the various approaches of faunal interpretation, focusing on ways in which zooarchaeologists can provide specific and more detailed information about people in the past. Animal remains are more than just a record of environmental and dietary patterns. Rather, they reveal human practices that reflect various social identities. The archaeological faunal record offers generalizing information concerning paleoecology, diet, and nutrition as well as the specific details of human food preferences, distribution, and symbolic meaning of food and the animals that provide it.

The intersection of these natural and cultural realms occurs within the community which is comprised of human agents behaving within a natural landscape. For this reason, zooarchaeology is well-suited to investigate the human past at the community level.

Following current models pertaining to social organization, the archaeological sites studied in this dissertation could be interpreted as fitting into a political structure where daily activities might include rituals, chiefly tribute, or feasting events (Rouse

1992; Siegel 1991, 1996)—and the acquisition, allocation, and consumption of animal foods, may be presupposed accordingly. By reducing the scale at which the results are interpreted, human behavior can be considered at the local level.

I begin the chapter with a brief overview of the current approaches to zooarchaeological interpretation followed by a discussion of the cultural significance of food. Community is established as the contextual unit of interpretation and defined as a function of human sociocultural elements and their relationship to the natural environment and local landscape. I also include a section in this discussion of the symbolic role of animals in pre-Columbian Puerto Rico and the Caribbean that

transcends their use as merely a food resource. Finally, I address the specific research questions addressed in the study and present my hypotheses.

Interpretive Trends in Zooarchaeology

Historically, zooarchaeology had been grounded in processual approaches that sought to explain human action as adaptive in nature and therefore predictive cross- culturally (e.g., Cannon 2003; Davis 1988; Earlandson and Moss 2001; Twiss 2007;

Ugan and Bright 2001; Winterhalder and Goland 1993). Today, zooarchaeologists transcend the role of mere specialist, responsible for providing species lists and ecological information for others to interpret. Zooarchaeologists, and other archaeological “specialists,” are directly involved in the interpretation of the human condition from material culture. The natural environment, or at least aspects of it, can be discerned from the faunal record. The absence or presence of particular animals, as well as their size or health, reflect the local ecology. The zoological and ecological sciences provide information regarding the habitat, range, and migratory patterns of animals, and therefore, their presence in the archaeological record indicates human interaction with, and adaptation to, their natural environment. Patterns of environmental adaptation can then be applied cross-culturally to other people who inhabit similar environments without accounting for the choices people make concerning the food they eat.

Another common area of inquiry involves predicting what animals are most likely to be exploited. For example, a recent study by Broughton et al. (2011) used zooarchaeological data from the Northern Great Basin of North America to show a positive correlation between abundance and body size and hunting efficiency and prey- choice. While such studies indicate that the applications of such models can be useful

to zooarchaeologists in general, optimal foraging or ‘prey-choice’ models, fail to consider food preference. Rather, they assume that ‘choice’ is simply a function of a species’ nutritional value, abundance, size, and ease of capture. This approach can again be applied cross-culturally based on the composition of the natural environment within which a site exists. The existence of possible food taboos, taste preferences, or the social importance of an animal are not considered (see Burger et al. 2005,; Butler and Campbell 2004; Keegan 1986; Kelly 1992; Smith 1983 for applicable discussions of optimal foraging theory).

The more detailed aspects of food and its cultural significance to the people who consume it may not fit into predictive models. Rather, the archaeological faunal record should be interpreted as a record of site-specific activities that are structured by cultural norms that may exist at the community, household, or individual level. This would follow recent archaeological interpretive trends that attempt to define the contextual unit of interpretation at the local level (Canuto and Yeager 2000; Hegmon 2002; Pauketat

2008; Varien and Potter 2008). In order to do this, zooarchaeologists consider specific contexts, such as burials, houses, or ceremonial architecture, and interpret their data along with other lines of evidence, such as ceramics and lithics (see Crock and Carder

2011). Interpretation can be finer-grained, especially within sites that show evidence of individuals with social roles, (i.e. leaders, hunters and other specialists, matriarchs/patriarchs, etc.; Kelly 1997; Pauketat et al. 2002). Consideration should be given to the activities involved in acquiring and processing animals and how these affect how they are distributed or shared.

Ethnoarchaeological studies have been carried out among tropical groups concerning the procurement and sharing of animal foods that may elucidate the behaviors of people in the pre-Columbian Caribbean. For example, the study of groups living in tropical environments of Africa indicate that sharing occurs because taking of more challenging large game requires the cooperation of multiple households, while smaller game is often not shared at all (Marshall 1994). While there is no large game on Puerto Rico, the model may apply to the inhabitants of the island when considering the effort necessary to obtain marine resources, especially from habitats that are a distance from shore. Boats and other specialized equipment, such as nets, traps, harpoons, poison, etc., would have been necessary. To people inhabiting inland communities, the significant travel required to access the coast would also affect cooperative and sharing strategies when distributing food. The coast would also include shoreline and shallow-water habitats for the collection of mollusks. Shellfish, analogous to small game—or even foraged—foods in the African studies (Marshall 1994), would have required less effort (and cooperation) to attain. Although larger game is often ranked higher than small game in prey choice/optimal foraging models, social factors such as the sex and age of the forager/hunter, season of capture, and technology may result in data that contradict the model. For instance, if a certain technology, such as a trap or snare, results in the ability to capture large amounts of small game, then the rank of small game should be increased (Lupo and Schmitt 2005). This would also be applicable in the Caribbean if technology allowed for the acquisition of large amounts of one species of mollusk. Faunal deposits could reflect such activities, but archaeologist may also take into consideration the human proclivity to go against social norms, as

enthographers can witness both adherence to, and violation of rules concerning food distribution (e.g., Marshall 1994:74).

Food shapes several aspects of people’s identities. Social status, economic status, ideological beliefs, ethnicity, and gender identity encompass multiple social, economic and political realms. Multiple aspects of identity exist in each individual, including the archaeologist (Twiss 2007). Food can reflect an outward expression of important aspects of Identity such as social status, especially during times of social change (see Thomas 2007). Consumptive patterns may also socially signify origin or ethnicity through the maintenance of foodways that are foreign to local areas following migration or relocation (deFrance 2003).

Ceramic and lithic technologies are directly associated with food. Ceramics are used for processing, serving and storing food while lithic technology is associated with procurement and butchering of animals and processing vegetal foodstuffs. Changes in lithic and ceramic typologies or styles over time are the usual proxy for sociocultural trends. However, their given relationship with food suggests that patterns of consumption, as determined by faunal analysis, should also serve as a proxy for consumptive behavior. Furthermore, patterns of consumption can be used to determine cultural processes at a more detailed level, especially concerning social organization and formative development (Jackson and Scott 2003; Pauketat et al. 2002).

The close relationship between food production, procurement, and distribution and utilitarian proxies (ceramic and lithic forms) for social and cultural characteristics suggests the value of zooarchaeological investigation to studies of prehistory. Patterns through time and space in the consumption of animals can be used to determine the

social, political, and cultural processes that occurred on those planes. The analytical approach should consider characteristics of a faunal assemblage that could indicate specific practices. Animals are not necessarily distributed whole (depending upon the size of the animal); rather particular portions of an animal may have cultural significance. Such data can be interpreted along multiple levels. For instance, meatier cuts, identified by proximal limbs and ribs of mammals, may be indicative of social status (deFrance 2009; Reitz 1986). Furthermore, discernible patterns may exist that define specific animals as having cultural importance or limited to elite, ritual, or other use. The characteristics that define these animals’ social importance may be based on its rarity, exotic nature, size, color, or difficulty of capture. It can be difficult to determine what proxies indicate ‘special’ foods. When available, higher status foods can be defined with the aid of historic or ethnohistoric accounts (deFrance 2003; Reitz 1986).

This is specifically useful when detailed accounts of the distribution of meat cuts are recorded for ceremonial use (Lev-Tov and McGeough 2007). Ethnographic analogy may be useful in defining preferred foods as well, as demonstrated by Kirch and O’Day

(2003) where animals with higher fat content, preferred in ethnographic records, were corroborated by archaeological evidence as well as linguistic data.

The study of status, ritual, and feasting are popular among zooarchaeologists

(Deagan 2004; deFrance 2009, 2010; Jackson and Scott 2003; Kelly 2000, 2001; Kirch and O’Day 2003). However, other characteristics of human agency and identity are becoming common areas of inquiry. The study of gender in archaeology is an important area of study as it adds an important aspect to our understanding of past human action

(Geller 2009; Hendon 1997). The male-centered interpretations of the past have

misrepresented the social dynamics of past cultures (Wylie 1991). It may be difficult, or even impossible, to find hard empirical evidence for gender in the archaeological record.

However, gender studies, or ‘feminist archaeology’ has resulted in the acknowledgement that women, and children as well, were important actors in the past

(Joyce and Claassen 1997; Twiss 2007). Zooarchaeological interpretation should consider the role of women and children in the acquisition, preparation, and distribution of food (Jones and Quinn 2009; Kirch and O’Day 2003). Division of labor should be considered, but with caution. It is easy to assign western ideas concerning gender to non-western societies of the past. Ethnography and historical accounts document that, in certain societies, women and children were essential in the collection, capture, or hunting of certain foods. Gender roles and taboos also existed, and in some cases ethnohistoric accounts indicate which food preferences and restrictions were based on gender (e.g., Kirch and O’Day 2003).

Trends in zooarchaeology toward a more interpretive approach should not result in the abandonment of the previous environmentally-focused studies. Rather they should be integrated into a more complete approach. Broad models are most useful as something against which to test your data. For instance, when the composition of a faunal assemblage contradicts the predictions made by prey-choice models, those data may be ignored or seen as anomalies or outliers. However, such results may indicate important aspects of food acquisition such as the age or gender of the person who caught or collected the animal (Ambrose et al. 2003; Deagan 2004; deFrance 2009;

Lupo and Schmitt 2005). Or, it may indicate technological innovation—traps or nets may facilitate the capture of smaller prey in higher abundance (e.g., Keefer et al. 1998;

Lupo and Schmitt 2005). Social rules concerning the sharing or distribution of food may also be indicated (Marshall 1994).

Food and Community

Faunal remains provide important information about both the natural environment, and about food. In all cultures and throughout history, food represents multiple aspects of human identity. The consumption of food is tied to social norms, restrictions, personal taste, social settings, special events, and a host of other things. It can symbolically reflect social status, ideology, family ties, age, gender, and so on (e.g.,

Ashley et al. 2004; Bell and Valentine 1997; Hohmann and Fruth 1996; Whiten et al.

1999). A community encompasses the natural environment, the use the local landscape, and the people who live and interact within it. For this reason, zooarchaeology is well-suited to study the human condition at the community level.

Food acts as symbolic communication that conveys cultural meaning. In doing so, it both homogenizes and differentiates groups of people (Appadurai 1981), and perhaps more so than language, defines our cultural surrounding from infancy. Just as words and phrases have meanings that are difficult to translate to non-native speakers, the meaning of certain foods also have symbolic meanings that are specific to culture groups (Weismantel 1998). Identity at the group or community level is embedded in behaviors and ideas surrounding food. While this is certainly manifested in food taboos such as pork in Jewish and Muslim communities, or Beef in Hindu communities, it should be noted that chicken—consumed in all three communities—will also have culture-specific meanings. How a food is grown (or hunted/gathered), prepared, and consumed determines its symbolic significance (Appadurai 1981; Weismantel 1998).

Groups who eat the same foods can differentiate themselves based on how a food is

prepared and served (Mintz 1985). Food acts to maintain and reinforce ethnic identities, especially when multiple ethnicities make up a single population (Douglas

1984). In such cases (e.g., historic Americas), food customs far outlive other group- specific behaviors, including language (e.g., deFrance 2003).

A community is a political and economic entity that also encompassed aspects of kin or family. The concept is a useful analytical tool that considers social relationships smaller, local scales—especially when broader, more complex power structures are in place (Isbell 2000; Knapp 2003). It is also defined in terms of space and placement. It is the area on the landscape where people meet with other familiar people and participate in activities that are central to their lives. The way in which archaeologists define community, especially how it will be visible in the archaeological record, is difficult. For this reason, there are multiple definitions and multiple approaches to community. Some see the community as a functional unit that plays a role in broader historical concepts of sociopolitical and economic development. As a unit of analysis within a broader framework, little attention is paid to local meaning or identity (Curet

2005; Pauketat 2000; Yeager and Canuto 2000). Others look at community as an entity that is defined by individuals’ personal identities. These identities are shaped, or

‘structured’, by various social forces defined by a group’s shared culture (Anderson

1991; Canuto and Yeager 2000). This approach fails to account for social or group identities that exist at a scale larger than the individual but smaller than a polity.

Zooarchaeologists interpret data that define the physical and natural environments, nutrition and diet, along with important social phenomena that deals with food—including social organization, preference, and ideology and ritual. A community

exists within a natural environment that cannot be separated from culture (Stahl 2008).

People have a reciprocal relationship with their environment in which each transforms the other. Human actions modify local habitat and affect the flora and fauna within it.

Land is cleared in order to make room for houses and other structures. Non-native plants are introduced and planted in gardens or agricultural fields. Animals, such as dogs and other domesticates, become a part of the interaction with the local plant and animal species and affect the natural setting. At the same time, the natural environment determines the species available for hunting and gathering. Local climate, precipitation, and other ecological factors influence gardening and agricultural practices. The elements of the natural world are therefore integrated into the ideology of the people who inhabit a community.

The presence of people on a natural landscape ultimately results in its artificial modification. As a result, a community is also partially defined by the impact it has on the local landscape. This notion is particularly important to archaeological investigations that rely on easily identifiable past human impact. In a generic sense, a landscape is the anthropogenic spatial organization within which archaeological evidence, both material and immaterial, is exposed (Knapp and Ashmore 1999). It provides crucial contextual information that adds to the meaning of material culture.

Space within a landscape is defined by the activities that occurred there. When applied to the archaeology of food, the place where food is consumed sheds light on the cultural meaning of that food. The consumption of food is a daily activity required for the maintenance of health—however, special events (feasts, rituals etc.) almost always

involve the consumption of food. The spatial contexts of food remains must be considered when interpreting their meaning.

A community is made up of individuals who have varying levels of personal and group identities. Their actions are guided by multiple layers of cultural norms that are both followed and rejected. These cultural norms are integrated in ideology, politics, economy, and individuality. Food preferences are both culturally prescribed and a matter of personal taste. While the latter may not be visible in the archaeological record, it cannot be excluded from discussion of food consumption in the past.

Therefore, I define community as it pertains to this zooarchaeological investigation. It is comprised of individual agents acting on their created and organized landscape within a natural environment that affects and is affected by their actions. Zooarchaeology can answer broad questions pertaining to the past natural environment and specific question about local foodways and, by proxy, multiple local identities.

Symbolic Role of Animals in Puerto Rico and the Caribbean

Archaeological investigations in the Caribbean have exemplified, in various ways, the roles animals had in the lives of the people inhabiting the islands. Animals encompass both utilitarian and cultural importance. While an important nutritional resource, providing calories and protein, they also provide raw material for tools and decoration. Archaeological evidence demonstrates that animals played an important part in the ideology of the pre-Columbian people of the islands through the use of zoomorphic art and decoration (Hayward et al. 2009; Loubser et al. 2011; Roe 2005).

Where these two roles intersect, it is possible to interpret the role that animals played in the dynamic socio-political realm where higher status individuals began to control the economy, while at the same time were responsible for religious/ceremonial activities.

The role of animals as a source of food is universal. The need to provide the necessary calories to sustain a population invariably affects human behavior and various cultural characteristics of a society (e.g., Doshi 1985; Messer 1984; Sobolik

1984; Stinson 1992). There were, of course, other utilitarian uses for animals in the ancient Caribbean. Shell and bone were used as raw material to produce tools, as well as decorative elements such as beads (see Carlson 1999). Dogs are found in multiple contexts throughout the Caribbean and in all parts of Puerto Rico including the earliest ceramic period contexts on the island (deFrance and Newsom 2005; deFrance et al.

2009; Roe 1995). Dogs served as companion animals, and were also useful in hunting as well as helping to keep a village clean and free of pests. Animals attracted to human-occupied areas, such as rodents and birds, would also play a role in the lives of its human inhabitants both as a nuisance and as a food source (Linares 1976;

Naughton-Treves 2002). As an integral part of the natural landscape, animals gain symbolic importance that is visible in the archaeological record.

Archaeological evidence from sites in the Caribbean demonstrates that animals were important elements in the ideology of the early Caribbean people. Artistic representations of animals are recovered in many forms and in many media. The earliest artistic animal symbols in the Caribbean are zoomorphic forms incised or applied as adornos on Saladoid pottery found throughout the Antilles (Roe 1989;

Waldron 2011). Small carved stone artifacts in the shape of animals are also found associated with Saladoid pottery. Animals depicted include bats and frogs. The depiction of animals in artistic pieces, and the recurrence of the same types of

animals—each of which were not primary food animals—indicates the social and perhaps ideological importance of these animals.

The small and rather un-formalized characteristics of Saladoid art may be connected to the same characteristics in social organization of the time. During the period in which Saladoid pottery was being produced, social organization is understood to be community-based and egalitarian (Rouse 1982, 1992). Roe (1989, 2005) argues that artistic expression among the Saladoid people was therefore a matter of personal expression.

The connections that people had to the animals that shared their natural landscape could therefore be expressed in a personal way, not yet formalized by a unifying social or cultural ideology. However, as people settled and populations grew, regional social and political influence was consolidated. Changes in the material culture, including artistic expression, is evident in the archaeological record as the

Saladoid cultural traditions dissolved and gave rise to the Ostionoid traditions. Personal artistic expression, such as finely decorated pottery became rarer in lieu of more utilitarian forms (Curet 1997, 2005; Rouse 1992). During the Ostionoid time period, artistic depictions became more formalized and permanent over time in the form of ceremonial iconography, including cemís and bateys with petroglyphs (see Alegria

1983; also Curet 2005; Siegel 1996;1999). Petroglyphs also were associated primarily with contexts that are considered ceremonial or religious in nature, such as caves and bateys, and zoomorphic forms are not uncommon petroglyphs depictions (Loubser

2009; see Roe 1989, 2005). The symbolic importance of the frog is solidified in the form of the Frog Lady, or Frog Goddess, depicted at both Caguana and La Jácanas in

Puerto Rico (Loubser et al. 2011; Oliver 2005). Jose Oliver (2005), illustrates that depictions of the frog form in iconography is most often associated with that of the cacique or chief, where the cacique is depicted as having descended from the Frog

Lady, the primordial ancestor (Oliver 2005:270). By the arrangement petroglyphs,

Oliver posits that the frog is therefore a symbol of fertility and human procreation. It is not surprising that frogs were important to the Caribbean people. It not only would have shared their landscape, but was also a primary component of their soundscape. Even today, the coqui is considered a national symbol in Puerto Rico. Other animals also are considered ideologically important due to their depictions in the petroglyphs of

Caguana. Animals, including fish, birds, and dogs, have been interpreted as messengers between the natural and supernatural realms of the sky, the sea, and the realm of the dead (Oliver 2005).

Two earlier sites, Maisabel in the north and El Bronce in the south are near the coasts. The petroglyphs located at these sites are of marine animals including different types of fish, shark, and sea turtle (Roe 2005). A glyph at Maisabel may even depict a fish trap (Roe 2005:327-328). This indicates that the inhabitants of these sites acknowledged the important role the animals played in their lives. This may also indicate how important the animals were to the traditions and history of the people.

When multiple petroglyphs are regarded as a whole rather than individual works, they may illustrate the important stories that were told and retold by the people who made them (Roe 2005). Animals, as a part of the landscape and as source of food, were probably integrated into oral history and religious traditions of the early Caribbean inhabitants rather easily.

As a food source, animals undoubtedly held cultural significance. Throughout history, food consumption has been central to many important social and cultural practices. As populations in the Caribbean began to organize socially and politically, higher ranked individuals also began to control the political economy. This may have included the distribution of food. The redistribution of goods would have been necessary with larger populations and at the same time would be advantageous to those in power by justifying and strengthening their status. The island environment of the Caribbean, however, complicates this structure. Animal foods were plentiful at sites near the coast, where marine resources were easily obtained. However, at inland sites animals were more limited. With no large game or large animal domesticates, it was necessary to travel to the coast in order obtain the necessary protein to sustain larger populations. Political economic control of access to fishing and collecting grounds at the coast would serve the same purpose as distributive control of food goods. The local elite at inland sites would then have secondary control of food distribution within the villages.

Archaeological evidence from the nearby site of Tibes, thus far has failed to detect whether or not animal goods were a source of elite capital (deFrance et al. 2010). This also seems to be the case throughout Puerto Rico and the Caribbean (deFrance 2009).

This could be because of the abundance and diversity of marine resources. If political economic control of access to coastal fishing were the case, it would be difficult to detect in the archaeological record. However, secondary distribution of food at inland sites where food is less plentiful would be detectable if elite contexts can be identified.

At the local level, we would expect to find larger fish, sea mammals, large sea turtles, and other rare animals in elite contexts if the accepted models of complex societies holds true (deFrance 2009). The ability to define such a context is difficult, however. The material culture and characteristics of elite contexts—decorated pottery, carved ornaments, proximity to monumental architecture or earthworks—are the same characteristics one could use to define ceremonial contexts. This is because the elite were commonly in control of ceremonial activities both civic and religious (likely one in the same). If ceremonial activities included feasts, wherein food was evenly distributed among all people, the resulting archaeological faunal assemblage would appear egalitarian. Such activities would serve to strengthen the social order and legitimize ruling elite by temporarily and symbolically dissolving social inequality, as in Victor

Turner’s (1969) model of communitas. Unfortunately, the zooarchaeological signature of elite political economical control would be blurred. Such may be the case at Tibes where differential use of animal foods cannot be determined, and in fact appears equal

(deFrance et al. 2009; deFrance et al. 2010).

Animals had multiple roles in the lives of the inhabitants of pre-Columbian Puerto

Rico, ranging from utilitarian to ideological. As society became more complex, so did the roles of animals. The utilitarian and the ideological were intertwined as ruling elite began to control the political economy. These complex roles can be better understood by archaeologists with an approach that better accounts for the natural and sociocultural contexts within which animal remains are recovered. Community, understood as incorporating the natural environment, the landscape, and shared human identity, is a

level of interpretation that allows for investigation of the symbolic relationship between people and animals.

Defining Ceremonial Space

This investigation includes comparative analyses of faunal material based on their associative relationships with spatial contexts deemed ceremonial and non-ceremonial.

The designation of ceremonial space on the landscape relies on what is understood to be past human behavior at specific loci within an archaeological site. The three sites observed in this study contain easily defined ceremonial space, along with associated dense midden deposits. A brief discussion of the cultural and historical significance of these ceremonial features follows.

The first Europeans to encounter the natives of the West Indies described large plazas at the center of villages, upon which a ball game was played. The indigenous inhabitants referred to both the game and the plazas as batey (Oviedo 1975). The use and significance of bateys at the time of European contact, however, does not illuminate their significance in the culture history of Puerto Rico.

Recent research in south-central Puerto Rico indicates that after around 600 CE, people began to disperse across the region and settle into smaller residential communities, often situated near a single larger site (Curet and Springer 2010; Torres

2007, 2012). Changes in settlement structure, together with concurrent changes in pottery styles, point to apparent sociocultural transformations. The clustering of these settlements in association with larger sites, suggests the importance of a local identity, which was likely a reaction to the increasingly organized power structures (Torres

2012). At the same time, activities in these small communities would have also likely served to reinforce and maintain such sociopolitical structures (Pauketat 2007). As

evident by this study, and other studies in the south-central region of Puerto Rico, small sites typically contain segregated areas for ritual or ceremonial practices that mirror similar architectural features at larger sites. These stone-lined plazas, or bateys, appear both locally and at large sites (Alegria 1993; Torres 2012).

This study defines ceremonial space by spatial associations with bateys. Bateys in

Puerto Rico and the West Indies have been the subject of numerous archeological investigations (Alegria 1983; Curet and Stringer 2010; Curet and Torres 2010;

Rodrigues Melendez 2007; Siegel 1996, 1999, 2010). Bateys occur on the landscape as flat, cleared areas, set apart and defined by their delineation by upright stones and or natural formations on the landscape (Alegria 1983; Siegel 1999). Archaeological excavations indicate that bateys typically overlie burials that predate the batey. This suggests that bateys occupy spaces that were historically prescribed as sacred, and likely reflects the veneration of ancestors, as well as the importance of place and kinship (Keegan 2009). Bateys also commonly contain religious iconography in the form of petroglyphs, often etched into the stones that line the batey (Roe 1993, 2005).

Such iconography includes common zoomorphic and anthropomorphic motifs (see discussion in Chapter 3). Numerous petroglyphs appear at Caguana and La Jácanas

(Espenshade 2012; Oliver 1998; Roe 2005). The typical Puerto Rican batey is rectangular, although Tibes and Caguana are exceptions with round or irregular stone- lined plazas (Curet and Stringer 2010; Oliver 1998).

Physically defined on the landscape with borders of stone, and occupying areas of ancestral importance, bateys were areas reserved for ritual and important social and ceremonial activities. One pertinent activity that could have been associated with

bateys is feasting, as demonstrated by the presence of midden deposits in direct contact with bateys. The large quantities of faunal material associated with feasting activities makes its interpretation central to zooarchaeolgical studies such as this

(deFrance 2009:141-143). Feasting events are shown to act socially at multiple levels: strengthening community cohsion, fostering inter-community relationships, establishing and maintain regional systems of reciprocity (Bray 2003; deFrance 2009; Dietler 2001;

Dietler and Hayden 2001). In south-central Puerto Rico, feasting activities would likely have served at multiple levels as well. The role of feasting activities associated with bateys at these sites could have developed cooperation between small sites, while at the same time establishing local identities. Such activities are defined and prescribed by larger power structures, but at the same time strengthen local cohesion through community activities (Torres 2012:384). The ball games observed by the Spanish chroniclers were similar competitive events that served to strengthen inter-group alliances, and solidify community cohesion (Oviedo 1975).

Material culture associated with bateys, areas designated for ceremonial activities, is therefore apt to elucidate patterns that differ from material culture elsewhere on the archaeological landscape. Associations with bateys, specifically, material from middens that are in direct physical contact bateys, are therefore used in this study to define ceremonial contexts.

Research Questions, and Hypotheses

This dissertation explores aspects of human behavior in south-central Puerto Rico and how it relates to use of animals as food, and in ceremonies. The study focuses on a time period after around 600 CE, and before the arrival of Europeans to the island at the beginning of the 16th century. These comparative studies track social and cultural

changes through this time of formative social and cultural unification. The theoretical perspectives detailed in this chapter are applied to three areas of inquiry. First, patterns of animal use are observed and compared through time at three archaeological sites.

Second, ceremonial space is investigated with regard to patterns of animal use. Third, in light of new models concerning the dispersal and development of small community settlements during this formative period, aspects of community interaction, including ceremonialism, are explored. This section formally presents three research questions and their corresponding hypotheses, and presents the empirical correlates upon which these questions are investigated.

Detecting a Unifying Social Structure

Models pertaining to the formation of “complex” social and political structures in

Puerto Rico (Curet 1992; Rouse 1992; Siegel 1996, 1999) are being challenged by newly introduced models. In south-central Puerto Rico, recent research has proposed a model that contextualizes these social processes as the products of dynamic interactions between dispersed groups of people over time (see Torres 2012).

Consequently, this study explores the gradual unification of social and political influence in the region and avoids reference to terms such as “complexity,” “elite,” or “status”— especially when exploring early temporal components. This gradual unifying influence is the subject of my first research question: Did patterns of animal use change through time as a result of a unifying social structure, and the dispersal and interactions of community settlements? I hypothesize that animal use patterns will be more similar in later contexts as region influence on animal exploitation and food use increased. In earlier contexts, the faunal analysis should reveal patterns that are dissimilar, indicating more local influence and autonomy regarding animal use behavior. A unifying regional

influence would result in similar access to resource areas, distribution patterns, and technology associated with animal use. Similar patterns of animal use would reflect integrated cultural ideology. Possible visible patterns of animal use include taxa that are consistently the most common, animals that are identified in certain consistent ratios, indications of consistent exploitation of specific habitats, etc. The level of congruency in such patterns of animal use between sites in the region should increase through time as individual communities were subjected to increasingly unifying social and political structures.

To test this, the relative abundances of taxonomic classes are observed for each temporal context. The percentage of minimum number of species (MNI) and estimated edible meat weight is used to quantify these abundances. The invertebrate taxonomic classes compared are bivalves and gastropods. Vertebrate classes include fish, reptile, bird, and mammal1. Change in the ratios of contributed estimated meat weight for these classes is used as a proxy for changes in either the importance of, or access to, these types of animals.

The expectation of gradual increase in regional influences is based on the apparent expansion of the largest site in the study, La Jácana. Excavations at La

Jácanas have revealed gradual expansion of the site over time. The earliest components, Jácana 1 and 2, encompass a 500 year occupation wherein the site was a small permanent settlement. A period of abandonment, Jácana 3, beginning around

900 CE, lasted approximately 400 years until the site was reoccupied around 1300 CE.

1 For the purposes of this study, class Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fishes such as sharks and rays) and superclass Osteichthyes (bony fish) are combined into the category “fish”. It should be noted that all bony fish identified in this study belong to the class Actinopterygii (ray-finned fishes). A complete explanation of current vertebrate taxonomy can be referenced in the Integrated Taxanomic Information System (ITIS) (www.itis.gov).

The last pre-Columbian occupation period, Jácana 4, lasted approximately to the time of

European contact (Table 3-1). After the site was re-occupied, La Jácanas saw the construction of the large stone-lined batey, with the incorporation of iconography, overlying dozens of burials. The occupation of two small sites, La Minerál and Los

Gongolones were occupied primarily during the period in which La Jácanas was abandoned (see Table 3-2).

Table 3-1. Pre-Columbian occupation components at La Jácanas as defined in Foss et al. (2011: 28) Temporal Component Years of Occupation Associated Material Culture Late Cuevas; early Monseratte Jácana 1 circa 400-600 CE

Monseratte; pure Ostiones; some Jácana 2 circa 650-900 CE Cuevas style elements Jácana 3 circa 900-1300 CE No associated material culture

Jácana 4 circa 1300-1500 CE Capá, Boca Chica, Esperanza

Table 3-2. Radiocarbon date ranges for selected shell samples at La Minerál and Los Gongolones Site Calibrated Date Range CE

La Minerál-Sample 1 1230-1280

La Minerál-Sample 2 1400-1430

Los Gongolones- Sample 1 1050-1126

Los Gongolones-Sample 2 1155-1211

Pre-Columbian communities in south-central Puerto Rico were subject to increasing regional influence, and social or political systems that connected settlements developed throughout the region (Torres 2012). The small settlements, that initially dispersed in order to assert group autonomy and identity, also needed interaction with

neighboring communities for trade, reciprocation, cooperative resource acquisition, resolution of disputes, etc. These connections played a role in the dynamic social processes that eventually led to their reintegration into large polities late in prehistory

(Torres 2012). Changes in animal use over time at these sites should culminate in congruencies in animal use. When congruencies are absent, the scope of regional social or political influence may have been diminished. According to Pauketat and his colleagues (2002), if formative processes existed then excavations should reveal patterns that indicate processes whereby people “accepted or accommodated” the organization of power and the resulting changes in identity and way of life (Pauketat et al. 2002:275). Similar patterns elsewhere in the region (see Torres 2005, 2012) indicate the need for an interpretation that focuses on the “community-based” level—at which native populations in the New World tended to organize themselves historically—rather than regional central-power models that are so often applied to chiefly societies (Kelly

2001:357). Community-centered investigations are intended to explore how community identities were initially asserted in response to regional influences and how they changed over time as that regional influence continued to grow.

Ceremonialism and Bateys

The three sites included in this study each contain one batey. The unique sizes of each batey at La Jácanas, La Minerál, and Los Gongolones are given in Table 3-3.

Larger bateys exist at the sites of Tibes and Caguana, also located in south-central

Puerto Rico, which have been deemed ceremonial centers (Curet and Stringer 2010;

Oliver 1998). At two of the three sites studied in this dissertation, La Jácanas and Los

Gongolones, bateys are in direct contact, intersecting or abutting, dense midden

deposits. These middens contain large amount of shell, along with ceramics, animal bones, and, at La Jácanas, several burials (Espenshade 2012).

Table 3-3. Dimensions of Bateys at each site Site Length of Batey (m) Width of batey (m) Area of Batey (m2) La Jácanas 50 40 2000 La Minerál 25 15 375 Los Gongolones 15 10 150

Even during the early temporal component at La Jácanas, before its apparent abandonment, the site contained a small batey (Espenshade 2012). Bateys are used to define ceremonial space, and are locations on the landscape where ceremonial activities occurred (Alegria 1983; Siegel 1999). Faunal material recovered from these middens is more likely to have been associated with ceremonial activities that took place on the batey. Well-defined domestic contexts have been identified at La Jácanas, and at La Mineral, two middens are located 50m and 150m from the batey. These middens, since they are not associated with the bateys are considered non-ceremonial.

The comparison of faunal remains between ceremonial and non-ceremonial contexts is made in order to determine if differential use of animals was practiced and whether certain taxa were restricted to ceremonial activities. This leads to my second research question: Did ceremonialism affect animal use at the sites by dictating the types and kinds of animal used? I hypothesize that faunal material recovered from middens in direct contact with (abutting) the bateys will contain certain luxury animals, animals of high importance, or animals that are rare, exotic, or difficult to obtain. Hence, I hypothesize that certain large fish, sea mammals, large sea turtles, or exotic or rare species, would be recovered in higher frequencies from contexts that are in direct contact with bateys (see deFrance 2009:124-126). The composition of species will be observed from each context in order to determine if certain taxa appear exclusively in either. I also compare the relative abundances of vertebrate and invertebrate classes

present in ceremonial and non-ceremonial contexts by examining the ratios between them.

The existence of bateys at La Minerál, Los Gongolones, and La Jácanas suggests that ceremonialism played a role in the social and cultural identities of their inhabitants.

Ceremonial activities also were likely involved in the relationships between the sites, the emerging regional unifying ideology that affected behavior pertaining to animal use. This line of inquiry is intended to investigate differences in animal use spatially across the landscape within sites as well as between sites.

Community Interaction

The inland location of the La Jácanas, La Minerál, and Los Gongolones provides another area of inquiry concerning the presence of marine fauna in the middens at each site. The presence of marine taxa at these inland sites, located at least 10 km from the coast, demonstrates some degree of logistical and technological organization. Small communities could have benefitted from cooperation for the organization of fishing expeditions, trade, or negotiation for use of coastal fishing and collecting grounds. The negotiation and coordination required for such endeavors may have involved ceremonial activities or the sharing of food, both of which involve animal use. The third research question is: Did interactions between small community settlements affect the faunal assemblage? I hypothesize that if cooperation between sites occurred for the procurement of animal resources, especially for negotiation and access to fishing and collecting grounds, then the faunal assemblages would contain the remains of animals from all surrounding terrestrial and marine habitats. If equal sharing of these animal resources occurred at these sites, then faunal assemblages would be similar in composition. Conversely, if faunal assemblages from one or more sites only contain

animals from certain habitats, then people from these communities may have had limited access to certain coastal areas and fishing grounds. It could also indicate that certain animals were not consumed at some sites due to local preferences, or organized social activities. In order to test this, composition of animal taxa identified from each site is compared. Specifically, the relative abundance of identified classes of taxa will be measured in order to detect the absence or presence of animals from specific habitats.

This question bridges the other two research questions asked in this study. It considers both the social and political context of the region as it pertains to the dispersal and interaction of small community settlements. As batey sites, ceremonialism may have played a role in these negotiation, both between small inland settlements, and with coastal sites that may have controlled access to the marine habitat.

CHAPTER 4 MATERIALS AND METHODS

The faunal data are from two independent archaeological projects on the Rio

Portugués in foothill region of south-central Puerto Rico. Excavations at La Jácanas were conducted in 2006 and 2007 by New South Associates, Inc. The work was commissioned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in advance of the construction of the Portugués Dam and Pool Project. The investigations at La Jácanas revealed a multi-component, pre-Columbian complex that includes a large batey that included multiple petroglyphs and an associated midden mound. Several domestic contexts and human burials were also identified (Espenshade 2011).

The second project associated with this dissertation was the Tibes Archaeological

Survey Project. This survey was conducted between May and July of 2008 by Joshua

Torres with my assistance. It was funded by the National Park Service and administered through Puerto Rico’s State Historic Preservation Office. The purpose of the survey was to locate and identify sites surrounding the Tibes Ceremonial Site and the local communities that may utilized the ceremonial center. During the course of the survey, two batey-containing sites, La Minerál and Los Gongolones, were located and subjected to subsurface testing. Results of the survey are reported by Torres (2012).

This chapter discusses methods used to recover and analyze faunal remains from these two projects. The ultimate goal of the project is to answer questions regarding the dynamic social and political relationships between the three sites as regional influence gradually increased over time. The methods described in this chapter were devised with this question in mind and are intended to facilitate the comparison of zooarchaeological data across the sites and through specific temporal contexts.

La Jácanas

Complete field methodology and timeline of the field project is detailed in Part 1 of the report submitted by New South Associates to the Army Corps of Engineers and

Puerto Rico SHPO (Espenshade 2011).The original intent of excavations at La Jácanas was to quickly and efficiently recover as much cultural material as possible from a large, multi-component site. The proposed dam construction was to result in the total submersion (and destruction) of the site by the resulting reservoir. The geomorphology and testing of the area indicated that the deposit was likely very deep. Alluvial and colluvial activity also have buried the archaeological deposit in the centuries since the site’s final indigenous abandonment (see Chapter 2). Initially, machine-assisted excavation was utilized to facilitate the expediency needed to complete the project. The use of heavy machinery resulted in the discovery of a large batey (40mX50m). Upright stones, some of which contained petroglyphs, comprised its borders. Upon the discovery of the batey, and the determination of its cultural and historical significance, the decision was made to halt excavation and preserve the site. The following section outlines the strategies used to recover cultural material, including zooarchaeological remains, during both mechanical and hand excavation at La Jácanas.

Methods of recovery at la jácanas. Mechanical trenching was utilized to establish the depth of the deposit and map the natural and cultural stratigraphy.

Thirteen trenches, 1 meter in width and 3 meters in length, were excavated to a depth of

1.7 meters. A backhoe was used to remove 20-40 centimeters of soil in each pass. The resulting back dirt was sorted by hand, with the use of trowels, but was not sieved through screens. Any material culture observed during the sorting was collected. The purpose of these trenches was to determine the subsurface characteristics throughout

the site. While the recovery of archeological material was not the goal of these explorations, material was collected judgmentally. Information concerning the densities of cultural deposits was used to determine the locations of further investigation.

Following the excavation of the initial 13 trenches, seven areas, measuring 5X5 meters each, were excavated to uncover archaeological features. These feature exposure areas (FXs) were also excavated with the help of a mechanical backhoe. A skilled machine operator carefully removed soil overburden under the observation and guidance of archaeologists. The locations of feature exposure areas and subsequent units of investigation mentioned in this section are indicated in Figure 4-1. During the excavations, archaeological features were marked for further investigation and documentation. These features were photographed and mapped. Hand implements were used to bisect each feature to document its profile, and describe the soil. Soil was removed and processed with flotation in order to recover all material of cultural significance, including faunal and botanical remains.

Initial trench excavations also helped to define the size and scope of the large midden mound, which was associated with the batey. A trench was excavated through the midden mound (Midden Mound Trench) in order to document the stratigraphy within the mound and determine its depth. This trench was excavated in a similar fashion as the initial geomorphology trenches. Despite the use of heavy machinery, progress was slowed due to the discovery of many burials within the mound. The excavation of the midden mound was also halted several times due to concerns about the significance of the site itself. The number of burials across the site, as well as the discovery of the large batey and elaborate petroglyphs indicated that excavation should be slowed and

the site preserved. Pressure from local indigenous groups as well as some archaeologists resulted in the eventual halting of mechanical excavation before the base of the midden mound was reached.

The results of the FX areas were used to determine the location of 50 1X1 meter hand-excavated units. Spaded shovels and trowels were used to excavate these units.

Soil was removed in arbitrary 10cm levels within the previously identified strata.

Excavated material was processed through ¼ inch (6.35mm) screens. The sieving of the soil matrix was sometimes carried out with the aid of running water pumped from the river. Each level was carefully mapped in both profile and plan views and photographed.

During excavation, archaeological features were also mapped and photographed. They were bisected and mapped and photographed in profile. The soil from features was collected and processed separately and subjected to flotation.

Figure 4-1. Site map of La Jácanas indicating the location of landmarks and excavation units. Adapted from Espenshade, Christopher. 2009. End of Field Progress Report of Phase III Investigations and Recordation and Interpretation of Petroglyphs at Site PO-29, Municipio Ponce, Puerto Rico (Figure 9, Page 28) New South Associates Inc. Technical Report 172

Tibes Archaeological Survey Project

Along with the La Jácanas excavation, materials from two sites identified during the Tibes Archaeological Survey Project (TASP) comprise the information analyzed in this dissertation. TASP was planned by Joshua Torres as a regional study dissertation project (Torres 2012). The goal of TASP was to identify pre-Columbian human settlements in the areas immediately surrounding Tibes—and in adjacent river drainages—in order to better understand the cultural congruity and relative temporal contexts of archaeological sites in south-central Puerto Rico. The study was a regional survey of three river basins (Figure 4-2). The Portugués River at the ceremonial site of

Tibes was to be the center the study area. The survey extended west to the Cañas

River basin, and east to the Chiquito River basin. The area of the regional survey was 5 km east-west by 4 km north-south. The area south of the study area was heavily developed in association with the modern city of Ponce and its associated suburban sprawl. Tibes is situated in the less-developed foothills region. Immediately north of the study area is site La Jácanas on the Portugués River.

The project involved surface reconnaissance, and archaeological subsurface testing. Within the project area, the archeological potential of specific loci was determined using three criteria: proximity to water, percent slope, and consideration of development history and documented land use. From this information, areas of low, medium, and high potential were indicated. Areas where the slope was less than 20% and within 100 meters of a freshwater source were deemed areas of high potential.

Areas further than 100 meters from a source of fresh water, but still exhibiting a slope less than 20% were considered medium potential areas. Low potential areas were defined as areas with greater than 20% slope regardless of proximity to fresh water

(Torres 2012:171). Arbitrary subsurface testing was planned in medium and high potential areas only. Low-potential areas were subject to walkover survey and judgmental subsurface testing. Additional project strategies and methodology of TASP can be found in Torres (Torres 2012:169).

Figure 4-2. Map showing the boundaries of the Tibes Archaeological Survey Project in South-Central Puerto Rico with the locations of La Jácanas (PO-29), La Minerál (PO-42) and Los Gongolones (PO-43). Map created by Josh Torres.

Methods of Recovery of TASP

The Tibes Archaeological Survey Project’s goals exceeded the mere identification and demarcation of archaeological sites surrounding Tibes. An additional goal was to acquire a sample of material culture that was adequate for the determination of the temporal scope and function of sites upon their discovery. Testing was performed on an arbitrary grid system based on the potentiality of cultural deposits. Locations of shovel tests were pre-loaded into hand-held global positioning system (GPS) devices. The

GPS devices were then used by field crews to locate the proper testing location. Areas of high potential were tested with shovel tests with intervals of 25 meters arranged in a cardinal grid on the landscape. Areas of medium potential were tested at either 25 or 50 meters, depending upon the condition of the soil and the severity of the slope. Positive shovel tests were delineated at 12.5 meter intervals in the four cardinal directions to establish the extent of the deposits. In all areas of the survey, surface artifacts or features would require judgmentally-placed shovel tests in their immediate vicinity. The location of judgmental shovel tests, as well as features or other culturally significant elements on the landscape were recorded using the hand-held GPS devices.

Shovel tests were excavated with spaded shovels. Occasionally, the use of heavy iron digging bars was required to break up hard clayey or rocky soils. Shovel test units were square and measured 50X50 centimeters. Soil was removed in 20 centimeter arbitrary levels to a depth of 100 centimeters, or until soil became sterile or bedrock.

When 100 centimeters was reached and the cultural deposit was present, a clay auger was utilized to determine its depth. Material was removed in 20 centimeter levels until sterile soil or bedrock was reached. Soil was sifted through ¼ inch (6.35mm) screens.

All cultural material was collected for analysis. Arbitrary grid coordinates, soil

stratigraphy, soil and vegetation descriptions, cultural materials collected, and other notes of importance were recorded on shovel test forms. The results of the analysis of material collected from shovel tests were reported by Torres (2012).

The TASP survey also included the excavation of six column samples. The location of these column samples were determined based on the preliminary findings from positive shovel tests excavated during the TASP survey. The animal remains interpreted in this dissertation were recovered from these column samples. The excavation strategy and column sample methodology is discussed in the next section.

Column samples and fine-screening

During the Tibes Archaeological Survey Project the goal was not only to locate and document new sites in the area surrounding the Ceremonial Site of Tibes, but also to glean as much data and information, from these sites as possible. The controversy surrounding the impact and irreversible damage caused to La Jácanas by the expedient excavations there, emphasize the importance of maximizing how much we can learn from a site2. At the same time, we should have the goal of minimizing the destructive nature of our research. We have only one chance to collect data appropriately. Once we remove objects from their associations and contexts in the ground, we can never return them. As the project zooarchaeologist, I devised a strategy to recover adequate faunal samples for analysis and integrated it into the Tibes Archaeological Survey

Project. The result was the recovery of ample faunal material with minimal impact. I

2 The original intent of the excavation of La Jácanas was to document the site before it was to be destroyed by inundation of a dam reservoir. For this reason, the use of heavy machinery was used to expedite the process of excavation. As a result, irreversible damage was done to some of the site’s features. The discovery of the elaborate iconography led to the decision by the Puerto Rico State Historical Preservation Office, the Consejo para la Conservación del Patrimonio Arqueológico Terrestre and the Army Corps of Engineers to amend the damming project in order to preserve the site.

also argue that the approach also benefits other areas of inquiry by sampling more detailed information and increasing the contextual resolution even in preliminary studies and survey projects.

The first step in devising the approach was to consider the basic requirements of an adequate faunal sample. In the Caribbean, where small fish comprise a arge portion of faunal deposits, it is essential to sieve the excavated matrix through fine-meshed screen of 1/16” (1.7mm). There are a multitude of published studies that demonstrate the benefits of fine-screening (deFrance 1988; Gordon 1993; James 1997; Quitmyer

2003, 2004; Shaffer 1992; Shaffer and Baker 1999; Shaffer and Sanchez 1994; Wake

2004; Wing and Brown 1979). Fine-screening reduces bias for large fauna—and results in a more representative sample by increasing the number of overall identified taxa.

This increases the diversity of the sample and provides a more accurate representation of the relative abundance of taxa within a specific context. The investigator is then able to interpret the ecological/cultural characteristics of the past in terms of species richness and species evenness (or equitability). Importantly, since archaeological faunal deposits were manipulated by people, a more representative sample gives us more information concerning the nature of past animal use (Casteel 1972, 1976; Gordon

1993; James 1997; Quitmyer 2003, 2004; Schaffer 1992; Schaffer and Sánchez 1994).

Since fine-screening is crucial, it is important to process an appropriately-sized soil sample. While some specialists, such as archeaeobotonists, require smaller soil samples for their analyses, zooarchaeological research in the circum-Caribbean has shown that volumetric samples of 25 liters are adequate (Reitz and Quitmyer 1988).

This volume is based on the volume one 10 cm level of a 50 cm x 50 cm column

sample. The determination of this volume is based upon the relationship of the minimum number of individual animals identified during analysis (MNI) and the number of identified animal taxa identified. There is a direct relationship between sample size and MNI. However, an ample sample size is indicated at the point in which the number of identified species levels off or reaches diminishing returns (Reitz and Wing

1999:107). Studies in the Caribbean indicate that 25 liters maximizes the overall recovery of faunal species with regard to richness, in the smallest volume of excavated soil matrix (deFrance 1988; Quitmyer 2004). Maintaining this standard volumetric sample size, in conjunction with fine-screening, zooarchaeologists increase the comparability of samples within and between archaeological sites.

It is important to note that this approach was also intended to improve the survey results in general. The first stage archaeological survey involves identifying areas with high probability of past human occupation—and then digging relatively small holes

(rather quickly) in order to determine if cultural material is present. As with most archaeological investigations, time and money is often limited in survey. Many procedures that are meant to maximize data collection cannot be employed. Shovel tests excavated in 20 cm levels decreases the overall resolution of artifact associations.

Exploratory tests are typically dug using shovels only. Careful excavation by trowel and other smaller instruments makes it easier to identify artifact concentrations and features, as well as natural and cultural levels via soil changes. Such techniques are often sacrificed during early-phase archaeological survey. Exact measurements, especially the precise depth of significant artifacts, are difficult to determine as time constraints require expedient excavation. Detailed notes taken for each shovel test include soil

descriptions and measurements. However, no precise profile maps are created. During a typical survey, soil is sieved through quarter-inch screen. In addition to the loss of small faunal material and botanical remains, cultural material smaller than a quarter- inch, such as microliths or beads, can also be lost. Considering these things, I developed a strategy for recovering adequate faunal material that would also increase the general knowledge of any site at this early stage of investigation.

As discussed in the previous section, the TASP was designed to locate and document previously unknown archaeological sites in the foothills of south-central

Puerto Rico, just north of the city of Ponce. Shovel tests were dug on a grid that covered areas of high probability for human occupation based on proximity to water and degree of slope. When material culture was recovered, the distance of intervals between shovel tests was decreased in order to define cultural features on the landscape. In these circumstances, additional shovel tests were placed judgmentally.

Such tests provided a clearer understanding of the characteristics of the deposit and better defined the boundaries of the feature. In this way, the general survey determined the locations where additional 50 cm x 50 cm column samples that would be productive.

Column samples were then excavated as part of this new approach.

Observations and documentation made during the excavation of the shovel tests were used to determine the location of stand-alone column samples (meaning that they are not attached to any other excavation unit). Each column sample was placed within

2 m of a pre-existing shovel test that was observed to have the richest deposit. Column samples were treated as larger excavation units. They were carefully measured to ensure the correct dimensions. Keeping in mind the time constraints, it was important

to balance faster techniques, such as the use of the shovel, with more deliberate excavation. Primarily, the trowel was used in the excavation of column samples and provided much more control and precision. This enabled the excavator to identify soil changes and any subsurface features. Contextual resolution was increased by excavating in 10 cm levels. Excavation was stopped at bedrock, or in some cases, sterile soil. The depth of the deposits was easily anticipated based on the recorded information from nearby shovel tests.

Detailed notes were taken throughout the excavation, documenting and describing the nature of the matrix, artifacts, soil color and characteristics, as well as descriptions and locations of clusters of artifacts or faunal material. Following excavation, a profile map of each wall documenting stratigraphy and any other subsurface features was carefully measured and prepared.

Each level was collected as a soil sample that measured approximately 25 L in volume. All matrix, except for large rocks, was bagged and then transported off site to be processed (Figures 4-3, 4-4). The soil was sieved through nested 6.35 mm and 1.7 mm screens with the aid of water at low pressure (Figures 4-5, 4-6). The recovered material was thoroughly dried and then sorted and packaged for shipment to the

University of Florida for analysis.

Figure 4-3. Members of the TASP team excavating and collecting a column sample. Photo Courtesy of the author

Figure 4-4. Reinforced plastic bags containing 25 liter samples from one column sample Photo Courtesy of the author

Figure 4-5. Author processing column sample through 1/16th-inch mesh screens with water at low pressure. Photo Courtesy of the author

Figure 4-6. Large fraction material from water screening of Column Sample 1. Photo Courtesy of the author

Descriptions of column samples

The map provided in Figure 4-7 indicates the location of Column Sample 1. The midden from which the sample was taken is located approximately 150 meters from the site’s one small batey. The deposit is also separated from the batey by a large natural channel that drains water from higher elevations into the Portugués River. The relic drainage is dry at most times and passable, but acts as a natural barrier or boundary.

Calibrated radiocarbon dates from the base of the excavated sampling unit indicate that the midden began to accumulate between 1400 and 1430 CE (Table 4-4) . This is the latest date provided by any of the column samples and their associated middens. The midden sampled by Column Sample 1 is also the only one that dates to the Jácana 4 time period, after the reoccupation of La Jácanas only two and a half kilometers upstream. Column Sample1 is located 10cm west of a judgmentally placed shovel test

on a midden in the northeast portion of the site, across a relic drainage (Figure 4-7).

Looting of the midden was evident approximately 3 meters to the west of the column sample by the presence of shallow pits. The northwest corner was the highest point and the deposit was thickest on the north half of unit. Two 10 cm levels were removed and bagged to be water screened through fine gauged mesh screens. Both levels were composed of dark brown humic soils. Shell, bone, and ceramics were observed during excavation. The bottom of level 2 was sterile yellow brown loamy clay overlying bedrock. Each level was divided in half and placed in large plastic bags (2 per level) for transport.

Calibrated radiocarbon dates from the bottom of Column Sample 2 indicate that another midden at La Minerál pre-dates Column Sample 1 by as much as two centuries

(1155-1211 CE). These dates place the midden deposit to the middle to late part of the

Jácana 3 temporal component at La Jácanas. This means that as the midden began to accumulate, La Jácanas had not yet been permanently reoccupied. The midden deposit is located at the edge of a bluff and approximately 50 m southwest of the site’s small batey (see Figure 4-7). It is closer to the batey than Column Sample 1, and is located on the same side of the relic drainage. Column Sample 2 is separated from the batey by a relatively level expanse. All TASP shovel test units excavated in the area between the midden and the batey were positive for cultural material, but the deposits were not as dense as middens. Column sample 2 was located 30 cm northeast of judgmentally- placed shovel test on a midden to the west of the batey, and on the east bank of river

(Figure 4-7). Three 10 cm levels were excavated. Levels 1 through 3 contained dark brown humic soils. Shell, small bones, and prehistoric ceramics were observed during

excavation. A fourth level was excavated 6 cm until bedrock was reached at 36 cm below surface. Material from each of the levels was placed in plastic bags for transport for water screening.

Figure 4-7. Site map of La Minerál indicating the locations of Column Sample 1 and Column Sample 2. Map created by Joshua Torres

This midden that provided Column Sample 3 is in direct contact with the western wall of the site’s batey (see map in Figure 5-7). Column Sample 3 was excavated from a midden deposit at Los Gongolones. This midden is in direct contact with the western wall of the site’s batey (see map in Figure 4-8). Column sample 3 was taken from a midden deposit approximately 2 m west of the western wall of the batey and 2 m north

of a delinieated shovel test (Figure 5-7). Three 10 cm levels and one 5 cm level were excavated with sterile soil reached at 35 cm. The sample contained high concentration of shell with rock and brown loamy clay. Looter pits along the wall of batey and ~5 m north of sample did not seem to impact the deposit. Sterile clay was light brown loam with reddish clayey inclusions. Pottery was observed throughout the excavation. Each of the levels was collected in plastic bags for water screening through fine mesh screens.

Column Sample 4 was taken from a midden located on the southwest corner of the batey at Los Gongolones (see Figure 4-8). The midden is in direct contact with the batey wall and also likely resulted from activities performed at the batey. The earliest absolute date from any column sample was obtained from material recovered from the bottom of Column Sample 3. Calibrated radiocarbon dates put the bottom of the midden at 1050-1125 CE, within the early to middle portion of the Jácana 3 component at La

Jácanas. The midden was completely undisturbed and nearly undetectable until subsurface testing uncovered the dense deposit. Column sample 4 was was taken

30cm northwest of a delineated shovel test on an intact and undisturbed midden southwest of batey (Figure 5-7). The soil throughout the column sample was brown loam that contained high concentrations of shell with bone, crab, and ceramics. Three

10cm levels were taken with sterile light brown clay with pale yellow concretions reached at bottom of third level. Each of the three levels was collected in plastic bags for water screening through fine-mesh screens.

Column Sample 5 was taken from a midden deposit that was opposite Column

Sample 4 on the northeast wall of the batey. This midden deposit was also in direct

contact with the batey walls indicating activities associated with the batey. Calibrated radiocarbon dates from material taken from the bottom of the column sample place the earliest deposition between 1230 and 1280 CE. Column Sample 5 was taken from a midden deposit on the east side of the batey (Figure 5-7). The column sample was excavated on the side of the midden farthest from the batey as it began to slope downhill. The soil was a bit more organic and darker in color, although the density of the midden did not appear less dense than elsewhere at the site. The location of sample was determined by the judgmental shovel test dug during the 2007 reconnaissance survey. The sample was taken from approximately 2 m north of the judgmental unit.

The dark brown humic soils contained observable shell and ceramics. Three 10 cm levels were excavated with steril light brown compact loam reached at 25 cm below surface on the north half of the sample and 30cm on the southern half. All material removed was placed in bags for screening through fine mesh screens.

Figure 4-8. Site map of Los GongolonesAnalytical indicating Methods the locations of Column Sample 3, Column Sample 4, and Column Sample 5. Map created by Joshua Torres

Careful examination of recovered zooarchaeological material provides information that allows the interpretation of both the local environmental and cultural past. Each skeletal or shell specimen must be studied in an attempt to identify the element, the species to which it belongs, and any pertinent information about the individual animal.

Zooarchaeological remains can also be examined to identify both human and natural processes that affected the element; including tool use, deposition, or taphonomic variables.

Identification of Bone and Shell

Vertebrate and invertebrate faunal remains were transported to the University of

Florida for analysis. Taxonomic identifications of the vertebrate material were made using the comparative collections of the Florida Museum of Natural History’s

Environmental Archaeology Laboratory. A few mollusk specimens were identified with the help of the collections of the Malacology Laboratory and the Florida Museum of

Natural History.

Vertebrate Identification

Vertebrate skeletal material was analyzed by provenience, usually indicated field specimen numbers. Material from each provenience was first sorted according to taxonomic class. Sometimes the determination of class was not possible due to damage, erosion, or fragmentary nature of an element. In these cases, it is sometimes possible to rule out certain classes. This results in the classification of some elements to the taxonomic superclass Tetrapoda. Tetrapods are comprised of the evolutionary descendants of the first four limbed animals to walk on dry land and include amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. When even this was not possible, the skeletal material was considered unidentified or unidentifiable (UID) vertebrata. This first sorting is preliminary and facilitates the closer examination of the material.

Sorted vertebrate material was identified with the use of the comparative collection at the Florida Museum of Natural History. Each skeletal element was carefully identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible. Multiple identifying characteristics of specific skeletal elements must match identically to the elements in the comparative collection in order to consider a positive identification. When this is not possible, the element is identified to the next highest taxon. The diversity of fish species, especially reef fishes,

makes the identification of fish below the level of genus difficult in some cases.

Differentiation of species and subspecies of Caribbean reef fish sometimes are based on coloration or habitat. These differences are often absent at the minute skeletal level.

Identified vertebrate skeletal elements were described based on condition, natural and cultural modifications, burning or other evidence of heating, epiphyseal fusion, sex of the animal, and weight. Cultural modifications include butchering, scraping, or reduction for tool use. Burning was indicated by charring or dark discoloration of an element, while other indications of heating include a grey or calcined (white and brittle) bone. Epiphyseal fusion is indicative of age in mammals. Mammalian bone growth occurs in cartilaginous plates between the metaphysis and epiphysis of most long bones that ossify at maturity. Unfused epiphyses occur in immature mammals. Sex can be determined in birds in cases where medullary is present in long bones. These formations of calcium carbonate occur within the bones occur in egg-laying females.

Skeletal elements were counted to determine the number of identified specimens

(NISP). The minimum number of individuals (MNI) was determined for each identified taxon. Sided skeletal elements are particularly useful in the determination of MNI. For fish, MNI was based primarily on sided dentaries or premaxillae since these elements are typically the most distinctive elements between genera and species. In some cases the atlas was used. Mammalian MNI was most often determined with auditory bulla or sided portions of mandibles and maxillae. The teeth and alveoli were distinctive between the most common mammal species in the study: the hutia (Isolobodon portoricensis) and guinea pig (Cavia porcellus). Occasionally, sided elements of the appendicular skeleton were used to determine mammalian MNI.

100

Invertebrate Identification

Invertebrate remains were identified at the zooarchaeology lab of the anthropology department at the University of Florida. Taxonomic identifications were made using shell identification references (Abbot and Morris 1995; Warmke and Abbott 1961) as well as comparative specimens housed in the Environmental Archaeology, and

Malacology Laboratories at the Florida Museum of Natural History. Like the vertebrate remains, invertebrate material was analyzed by provenience based on field specimens.

Therefore, bags were analytically combined when necessary to analyze all material from the same contexts together. Invertebrate material was first sorted by determination of bivalve or gastropod. A second sort for each category was then performed, usually to the taxonomic level of family. The most common bivalve categories included, but were not limited to: arks, clams, tellins, lucines, and oysters.

Gastropods were most commonly sorted into: conchs, turrentsnails, topsnails, nerites, and murexes. The condition of invertebrate elements was recorded, along with natural and cultural modifications, burning or other evidence of heating, and weight. Typical cultural modification to shell remains included evidence of use as a tool. Use-wear, common on large bivalves, was described and photographed. Coral was also present in the sample. It was counted and weighed, and also examined for use-wear.

All elements were counted to determine the number of individual specimens

(NISP). Minimum number of individuals (MNI) was determined for all identified invertebrate taxa. MNI of bivalve taxa was determined based on valve portions that contained intact hinges—upon which side could be determined. Individual size was also considered, especially when the number of elements of a taxon was small within a particular sample. The MNI of gastropod remains was determined based on either intact

101

siphons or apices. Size was less useful with gastropod remains due to the tapered nature of the apex of some taxa. In some contexts, a large number of intact lips belonging to the species Strombus pugilis, or the West Indian fighting conch, were recovered. These elements, when intact enough to indicate species, were useful in determining MNI of the species in these contexts, which often did not contain other shell elements.

Determining Meat Weight Contributions of Certain Taxa

The weight of bone and shell can be used to determine estimates of minimum meat weight contribution for certain taxa. These estimates contribute another level of analytical comparison concerning subsistence. Edible meat weigh estimates are based on an allometric regression formula that accounts for how an animal’s body size determines the proportional relationship between skeletal (or shell) and non-skeletal mass:

Y = aXb

In this formula, X is the weight of archaeological bone or shell, Y is the weight of edible meat, b is an allometric constant that defines the slope of the line, and a is the Y intercept of the line. Edible meat weight estimates are calculated using linear regression analysis to establish values for Log a and b from modern specimens of known weight. Values used in this analysis are presented in 4-3. Invertebrate estimates of minimum meat weight are from calculations of the mass of small tissue and do not include the shell. Values of minimum meat weight for vertebrates are from estimates of muscle tissue mass.

102

Table 4-1. Allometric Regression Values used to Determine Edible Meat Weight Estimates Taxon Log a b Source Mammalia 1.41 0.81 Quitmyer 1985 Aves 1.24 0.84 Quitmyer 1985 Serpentes/Lacertilia 1.06 0.94 Quitmyer 1985 Testudines 1.65 0.53 Quitmyer 1985 Chondrichthyes 0.94 1.38 Quitmyer 1985 Osteichthyes 1.34 0.9 Hale and Walker 1986 Strombidae -0.68 0.88 Hale et al. 1987 Gastropoda -0.16 0.92 Hale et al. 1987 Bivalvia 0.02 0.68 Hale et al. 1987

Calculating Diversity and Equitability of Certain Samples

The calculation of species richness and evenness of certain faunal assemblages allows for the comparison of different samples. This provides a method of determining the affect of sample size on the representation of taxa from specific contexts by relating the quantity of faunal material with the number of identified taxa. Diversity indicates the richness of a sample based on the number of species present. Equitability is a measure of evenness in the distribution of taxa in a sample, and can indicate the presence of over-represented animals (Hill 1973).

Diversity is calculated by using the Shannon-Weaver index represented by the following equation:

In this formula, H’=the diversity index, pi=the relative abundance of each taxon in the sample, and s=the number of taxanomic categories represented in the sample.

Once diversity is calculated, the H’ value can then be used to be determined by applying it to this formula:

103

In this formula, V’=the equitability value and S=the number of taxa in the sample.

Equitability values range between zero and one, where one represents complete evenness in the sample, i.e., the same number of each taxon (see Reitz and Wing

1999:102-106 for zooarchaeological application).

Radiocarbon Dating

Shell remains from four midden contexts were sent to the Center for Applied

Isotope Studies at the University of Georgia. Shell specimens were taken from the base level of Column Samples 1 and 2 at La Minerál and Column Samples 4 and 5 at Los

Gongolones. The samples were subjected to 14C radiocarbon analyses and stable isotope ratio δ13C. Isotopic ratios were measured using accelerator mass spectrometry to produce an uncalibrated radiometric date in years before present (BP). These dates were then calibrated using the most recent calibration curve for samples from marine environments, marine09 (Reimer et al. 2009). Dates and samples are presented in

Table 4-2.

Table 4-2. Radiocarbon dates from selected column samples at La Minerál and Los Gongolones. Dates from column samples 2 and 4 were originally presented in Torres (2012) Marine09 Calibrated Uncalibrated 14C Calibrated Date Range CAIS Site Context years BP years BP CE Reference # Column La Minerál Sample 1 950 ± 25 535 ± 15 1400-1430 6279 (2011) Column La Minerál Sample 2 1240 ± 25 767 ± 28 1155-1211 6279 (2010) Los Column Gongolones Sample 4 1310 ± 25 862 ± 38 1050-1126 6280 (2010) Los Column Gongolones Sample 5 1160 ± 25 695 ±25 1230-1280 6280 (2011)

104

CHAPTER 5 FAUNAL ANALYSIS

Reported in this chapter are the results of the faunal analysis from La Jácanas, La

Minerál, and Los Gongolones. Data produced from these analyses are reported with regard to the contextual study being made. They are arranged to facilitate the investigation of the research questions. This study aims to investigate patterns of animal use during a time of dynamic social and political interaction and unification. Ceremonial activities and intercommunity networks played a role in the acquisition and use of animal resources. These data presented for the purposes of contextual comparison between sites in the region and during different time periods.

La Jácanas

The identified taxa are presented in Table 5-2 and include common names as well as their associated habitats. Tables 5-3 and 5-4 list all taxa from undisturbed prehistoric contexts and their NISP, MNI, weight, and estimated meat weight contributions. The NISP of all undisturbed contexts is 11,135 with an MNI of 2535. A total of 75 invertebrate taxa including 43 bivalves and 32 gastropods were identified. Of the 43 vertebrate taxa identified, four are mammals, six are birds, six are reptiles and 25 were bony fish and two are cartilaginous fish. Non-edible coral and terrestrial gastropods were analyzed along with the other faunal material, but were not included in the comparative analyses. Invertebrate and vertebrate results are presented and compared separately to avoid bias due to differential preservation of shell and bone.

105

Table 5-1. Analyzed prehistoric contexts from La Jácanas with temporal and spatial components Temporal Spatial Unit Feature Trench/Scrape Stratum Component Component 107 Midden Mound n/a Jacanas 2/4 Batey 126 19 n/a Jacanas 2/4 Batey 127 19 n/a Jacanas 2/4 Batey 138 7 n/a Jacanas 2/4 Non-Batey 138 217 7 n/a Jacanas 4 Non-Batey 138 218 7 n/a Jacanas 4 Non-Batey 145 19 B,C Jacanas 2/4 Batey 145 19 E Jacanas 2 Batey 146 19 A Jacanas 4 Batey 146 19 B,C Jacanas 2/4 Batey 146 19 D,E Jacanas 2 Batey 146 115 19 B Jacanas 2/4 Batey 147 19 B,C Jacanas 2/4 Batey 147 19 D,E Jacanas 2 Batey 148 19 B,C Jacanas 2/4 Batey 148 19 D,E Jacanas 2 Batey 149 19 B,C Jacanas 2/4 Batey 149 19 D,E Jacanas 2 Batey 149 112 19 n/a Jacanas 4 Batey 150 19 B,C Jacanas 2/4 Batey 150 19 B,C Jacanas 2 Batey 150 108 19 n/a Jacanas 4 Batey 151 19 A, B,C Jacanas 2/4 Batey 151 19 D,E Jacanas 2 Batey 151 280 19 n/a Jacanas 2 Batey 151 179 19 n/a Jacanas 2 Batey 153 N. Batey n/a Jacanas 4 Batey 126, 127 101 19 n/a Jacanas 2/4 Batey 145, 147 116 19 n/a Jacanas 2/4 Batey 148, 149 111 19 n/a Jacanas 2 Batey General Scrape F FX-F Collection Jacanas 2 Non-Batey Scrape F 491 FX-F n/a Jacanas 2 Non-Batey

106

Table 5-2. All Identified taxa from La Jácanas, common names, and associated habitats

Reef

Local/

Beach

Pelagic

Inshore

Riverine

Shallow/

Shorline/

/ Brackish

Mangrove TAXON COMMON NAME Terrestrial Cavia porcellus Guinea Pig Isolobodon portoricensis Hutia X Rodentia Rodents X Trichechus manatus Manatee X X X Mammalia Mammals

Ardeidae Herons X Anas discors Blue-Winged teal X Columbidae Pigeons and doves X Perching birds or song Passerformes birds X Fulica sp. Coots X Rallidae Rails X X X Aves Birds

Cyclura sp. Iguana X Iguanidae Iguanid Lizards X Lacertilia Lizards X Emydidae Emydid turtle (fresh water) X Cheloniidae Sea Turtles X X Testudines Turtle Colubridae Colubrid snakes X Reptilia Reptiles

Elops saurus Lady fish X Anguilla rostrata American eel X X Clupeidae Herrings, shads, sardines X Exocoetidae Flying fish X X Centropomus spp. Snook X Epinephelus itijara Goliath grouper X Epinephelus spp. Grouper X Mycteroperca spp. Grouper X Centropristis spp. Black sea bass X Serranidae Sea basses X Caranx crysos Blue runner X Caranx spp. Jack X Carangidae Jacks X Lutjanus spp. Snappers X Lutjanidae Snappers X Haemulon spp. Grunt X

107

Table 5-2. Continued

Reef

Local/

Beach

Pelagic

Inshore

Riverine

Shallow/

Brackish

Shorline/

Terrestrial TAXON COMMON NAME Mangrove/ Calamus spp. Porgy X Mugil sp. Mullet X X Lachnolaimus spp. Hog fishes X Scarus spp. Parrotfish X Sparisoma spp. Parrotfish X Scaridae Parrotfishes X Gobiomorus dormitor Bigmouth sleeper X X Eleotridae Sleepers X X Sphyraena sp. Barracuda X Thunnus spp. Tuna X Balistidae Trigger fish X Diodon spp. Blowfish X Diodontidae Porcupinefish Osteichthyes Bony fish

Lamniformes Mackerel sharks X X Rajiformes Rays X X

Decapoda Crabs, crustaceans X X

Anadara brasiliana Incingrous ark X Anadara chemnitzi Chemnitz's ark X Anadara floridana Cut-Ribbed ark X Anadara notabilis Eared ark X Anadara ovalis Blood ark X Anadara spp. Ark X Arca imbricata Mossy ark X X Arca zebra Turkey wing ark X X Arca spp. Ark X Barbatia cancellaria Red-brown ark X Barbatia candida White-beard ark X Arcidae Arks X Pectinidae Scallops X X Pliculata gibbosa Atlantic kittenpaw X Isognomon alatus Flat Tree oyster X

108

Table 5-2. Continued

Reef

Local/

Beach

Pelagic

Inshore

Riverine

Shallow/

Brackish

Shorline/

Terrestrial TAXON COMMON NAME Mangrove/ Crassostrea rhizophorae Caribbean oyster X Crassostrea sp. Oyster X Ostreidae Oysters X Codakia costata Costate lucine X Codakia orbicularis Tiger lucine X Codakia orbiculata Dwarf Tiger lucine X Lucina pectinata Thick lucine X Lucina pectinatus Jamaica lucine X Phacoides pectinatus Thick lucine X Lucinidae Lucines X Pseudochama radians Atlantic jewelbox X Chama macerophylla Leafy jewelbox X Chama spp. Jewelbox X Chamidae Jewelboxes X Trachycardium isocardia Even pricklycockle X Trachycardium muricatum Yellow pricklycockle X Americardia media Atlantic strawberry cockle X Cardiidae Cockles X Solen obliquus Oblique jackknife X Solenidae Razor clams X Tellina fausta Favored tellin X Tellina magna Great tellin X Tellina spp. Tellin X Tellinidae Tellins X Donax denticulatus Coquina X Mytilopsis dominguensis False mussel X Anomalocardia brasiliana West Indian pointed venus X X Chione cancellata Cross-barred venus X Chione granulata Beaded venus X Chione intapurpurea Lady-in-waiting venus X Rupellaria typica Atlantic rupellaria X Bivalvia Bivalves

Astraea caelata Carved starsnail X X Astraea spp. Starsnails X X Cittarium pica West Indian topsnail X X

109

Table 5-2. Continued

Reef

Local/

Beach

Pelagic

Inshore

Riverine

Shallow/

Brackish

Shorline/

Terrestrial TAXON COMMON NAME Mangrove/ Trochidae Topsnails X X Turbinidae Turban X X Nerita spp. Nerite X X X Neritidae Nerites X X X Neritina clenchi Clench’s nerite X X X Neritina spp. Nerite X X X Neritina virginea Virgin nerite X X X Turritella variegate Variegate turretsnail X Turitella sp. Turretsnails X Nodilittorina tuberculata Prickly winkle X X X Capulidae Capsnails X X X Crepidula aculeata Spiny slippersnail X X X Echininus nodulosus False prickly-winkle X X X Fasciolaria tulipa True tulip X X X Littorinidae Periwinkle X X X Modulus modulus Buttonsnail X X Cerithiidae Ceriths/hornsnails X X Strombus costatus Milk conch X X Strombus gigas Queen conch X X Strombus pugilis West Indian fighting conch X X Strombus spp. Conch X X Strombidae Conchs X X Cassidae Helmets X X Cassis sp. Helmet X X Murex brevifrons West Indian murex X X Murex pomum Apple murex X X Murex sp. Murex X X Muricidae Murexes X X Vasum muricatum Caribbean vase X X Olividae Olives X

Vermetidae Worm snails X

Faviidae (Brain Coral) Brain coral X

Anthozoa Coral X

110

Table 5-3. Invertebrates identified from all prehistoric contexts in measured and relative quantities Meat Weight Weight % Meat TAXON NISP MNI %MNI (g) %Weight (g) Weight Americardia media 1 1 0.04 1.3 0.01 1.3 0.04 Anadara brasiliana 1 1 0.04 10.4 0.06 5.1 0.17 Anadara chemnitii 2 2 0.09 3.1 0.02 2.3 0.08 Anadara floridana 2 2 0.09 20.0 0.11 8.0 0.27 Anadara leinosa floridana 8 7 0.30 64.6 0.37 17.8 0.60 Anadara notibilis 51 31 1.33 298.7 1.70 50.5 1.70 Anadara ovalis 27 31 1.33 57.8 0.33 16.5 0.56 Anadara spp. 48 11 0.47 64.0 0.37 17.7 0.60 Anomalocardia brasiliana 1526 571 24.58 956.9 5.46 111.4 3.76 Arca imbricata 19 12 0.52 22.3 0.13 8.6 0.29 Arca spp. 13 3 0.13 6.2 0.04 3.6 0.12 Arca zebra 1499 557 23.98 2920.10 16.67 237.9 8.03 Arcidae 716 2 0.09 410.0 2.34 62.6 2.11 Astraea spp. 2 2 0.09 3.0 0.02 2.2 0.07 Barbatia cancellaria 1 1 0.04 3.9 0.02 2.6 0.09 Barbatia candida 2 2 0.09 2.8 0.02 2.1 0.07 Cardiidae 1 1 0.04 0.4 0.00 0.6 0.02 Chama macerophylla 7 7 0.30 101.6 0.58 24.2 0.82 Chama spp. 6 6 0.26 2.8 0.02 2.1 0.07 Chamidae 45 16 0.69 46.0 0.26 14.2 0.48 Chione cancellata 11 9 0.39 13.2 0.08 6.1 0.20 Chione intapurpurea 1 1 0.04 4.2 0.02 2.8 0.09 Codakia costata 1 1 0.04 1.9 0.01 1.6 0.05 Codakia orbicularis 324 76 3.27 419.0 2.39 63.5 2.14 Crassostrea rhizophorae 112 34 1.46 176.3 1.01 35.3 1.19 Crepidula aculeata 1 1 0.04 0.3 0.00 0.5 0.02 Donax denticulatus 1 1 0.04 0.1 0.00 0.2 0.01 Isognomon alatus 1 1 0.04 0.7 0.00 0.8 0.03 Lucina pectinata 23 11 0.47 45.2 0.26 14.0 0.47 Lucinidae 71 4 0.17 47.3 0.27 14.4 0.49 Mytilopsis dominguensis 2 2 0.09 0.1 0.00 0.2 0.01 Ostreidae 21 5 0.22 8.6 0.05 4.5 0.15 Phacoides pectinatus 31 19 0.82 100.8 0.58 24.1 0.81 Pliculata gibbosa 3 2 0.09 1.0 0.01 1.0 0.04

111

Table 5-3. Continued Meat Weight Weight % Meat TAXON NISP MNI %MNI (g) %Weight (g) Weight Pseudochama radians 1 1 0.04 2.2 0.01 1.8 0.06 Rupellaria typica 3 1 0.04 0.3 0.00 0.5 0.02 Solen obliquus 24 5 0.22 9.5 0.05 4.8 0.16 Solenidae 9 6 0.26 5.3 0.03 3.3 0.11 Tellina fausta 105 38 1.64 504.10 2.88 72.1 2.43 Tellina magna 6 2 0.09 19.1 0.11 7.8 0.26 Tellina spp. 35 1 0.04 47.1 0.27 14.4 0.48 Tellinidae 176 19 0.82 202.90 1.16 38.8 1.31 Trachycardium isocardia 3 1 0.04 2.8 0.02 2.1 0.07 Bivalvia UID 912 3 0.13 286.9 1.64 49.1 1.66 Total Bivalvia 5882 1511 65.05 6917.0 39.48 1338.5 45.14

Astraea caelata 21 16 0.69 131.4 0.75 61.5 2.08 Astraea spp. 17 11 0.47 24.1 0.14 12.9 0.44 Capulidae 1 1 0.04 1.1 0.01 0.8 0.03 Cassidae 1 1 0.04 30.4 0.17 16.0 0.54 Cassis spp. 3 2 0.09 40.1 0.23 20.6 0.70 Cerithiidae 1 1 0.04 0.2 0.00 0.2 0.01 Chama macerophylla 1 1 0.04 8.4 0.05 4.9 0.17 Chamidae 15 1 0.04 8.4 0.05 4.9 0.17 Cittarium pica 48 10 0.43 128.1 0.73 59.1 1.99 Echininus nodulosus 2 2 0.09 1.7 0.01 1.1 0.04 Littorinidae 1 1 0.04 1.1 0.01 0.8 0.03 Modulus modulus 1 1 0.04 0.7 0.00 0.5 0.02 Murex brevifrons 1 1 0.04 38.6 0.22 19.9 0.67 Murex pomum 1 1 0.04 23.3 0.13 12.5 0.42 Murex spp. 19 13 0.56 110.1 0.63 52.3 1.76 Muricinae 39 23 0.99 340.1 1.94 147.6 4.98 Nerita sp. 1 1 0.04 0.1 0.00 0.1 0.00 Neritidae 3 3 0.13 1.3 0.01 0.9 0.03 Neritina clenchi 2 2 0.09 2.1 0.01 1.4 0.05 Neritina spp. 17 13 0.56 4.4 0.03 2.7 0.09 Neritina virginea 15 12 0.52 13.4 0.08 7.5 0.25 Nodilittorina tuberculata 1 1 0.04 0.5 0.00 0.4 0.01 Strombidae 238 51 2.20 984.8 5.62 90.0 3.03 Strombus costatus 6 4 0.17 252.0 1.44 27.1 0.91 Strombus gigas 13 6 0.26 89.2 0.51 10.9 0.37

112

Table 5-3. Continued Meat Weight Weight % Meat TAXON NISP MNI %MNI (g) %Weight (g) Weight Strombus pugilis 224 171 7.36 4820.60 27.52 364.0 12.28 Strombus spp. 555 196 8.44 2218.2 12.66 183.9 6.20 Trochidae 1 1 0.04 2.0 0.01 1.3 0.04 Turbininae 4 3 0.13 5.2 0.03 3.2 0.11 Turritella variegata 474 225 9.69 549.7 3.14 229.6 7.74 Vasum muricatum 3 2 0.09 69.2 0.39 34.1 1.15 Vermetidae 16 1 0.04 0.4 0.00 0.3 0.01 Gastropoda UID 297 35 1.51 319.0 1.82 139.2 4.69 Total Gastropoda 2014 812 34.95 10197.7 58.21 1626.4 54.86

Mollusca UID 874 404.5 2.31

Total INVERTEBRATA 8770 2323 100.00 17519.2 100.00 2964.9 100.00

113

Table 5-4. Vertebrates identified from all prehistoric contexts, with measured and relative quantities Weight Meat %Meat TAXON NISP MNI %MNI (g) %Weight Weight Weight Cavia porcellus 21 10 4.72 7.42 1.28 130.3 1.70 Isolobodon portoricensis 354 46 21.70 113.49 19.56 1187.2 15.51 Rodentia 35 4.85 0.84 92.4 1.21 Nesophontes edithae 1 1 0.47 0.28 0.05 9.2 0.12 Mammalia UID 357 3 1.42 104.32 17.98 1108.9 14.48 Total Mammalia 768 60 28.30 230.36 39.71 3024.6 39.51 0.00 Anas cf. discors 1 1 0.47 0.66 0.11 12.3 0.16 Ardeidae 4 3 1.42 3.55 0.61 50.4 0.66 Columbidae 1 2 0.94 0.53 0.09 10.2 0.13 Fulica spp. 1 1 0.47 0.27 0.05 5.8 0.08 Rallidae 5 1 0.47 0.96 0.17 16.8 0.22 Passeriformes 3 3 1.42 0.18 0.03 4.1 0.05 Aves 39 12 5.66 8.82 1.52 108.2 1.41 Total Aves 54 22 10.38 14.97 2.58 213.5 2.79

Colubridae 15 6 2.83 1.77 0.31 19.6 0.26 Cyclura sp. 17 6 2.83 3.29 0.57 35.2 0.46 Lacertilia 5 0.80 0.14 9.3 0.12 Emydidae 11 6 2.83 12.87 2.22 173.0 2.26 Cheloniidae 16 4 1.89 38.58 6.65 309.6 4.04 Testudines 120 5 2.36 46.94 8.09 343.5 4.49 Reptilia UID 1 0.05 0.01 0.7 0.01 Total Reptilia 185 27 12.74 104.30 17.98 1252.4 16.36

Tetrapoda UID 184 17.62 3.04

Anguilla rostrata 2 2 0.94 0.11 0.02 3.0 0.04 Gobiomorus dormitor 10 4 1.89 1.67 0.29 34.7 0.45 Balistidae 2 1 0.47 1.26 0.22 26.9 0.35 Calamus spp. 3 3 1.42 1.29 0.22 27.5 0.36 Caranx crysos 1 1 0.47 0.33 0.06 8.1 0.11 Caranx spp. 2 2 0.94 0.97 0.17 21.3 0.28 Carangidae 6 3 1.42 2.85 0.49 56.2 0.73 Centropomus spp. 18 3 1.42 3.96 0.68 75.5 0.99 Diodon spp. 6 4 1.89 25.70 4.43 406.4 5.31 Diodontidae 30 8 3.77 4.49 0.77 84.5 1.10 Centropristis spp. 3 2 0.94 1.61 0.28 33.6 0.44 Mycteroperca spp. 2 2 0.94 1.15 0.20 24.8 0.32

114

Table 5-4. Continued Weight Meat %Meat TAXON NISP MNI %MNI (g) %Weight Weight Weight Epinephelus spp. 22 8 3.77 15.83 2.73 262.7 3.43 Serranidae 12 4 1.89 13.72 2.37 231.0 3.02 Haemulidae 3 2 0.94 0.46 0.08 10.9 0.14 Haemulon spp. 6 5 2.36 1.21 0.21 26.0 0.34 Lachnolaimus spp. 3 2 0.94 1.43 0.25 30.2 0.39 Lutjanidae 17 6 2.83 12.04 2.08 205.4 2.68 Lutjanus spp. 14 5 2.36 8.87 1.53 156.0 2.04 Scaridae 32 3 1.42 5.96 1.03 109.1 1.42 Scarus spp. 3 3 1.42 9.18 1.58 160.9 2.10 Sparisoma spp. 47 19 8.96 17.20 2.96 283.1 3.70 Sphyraena sp. 4 2 0.94 0.85 0.15 18.9 0.25 Elops saurus 1 1 0.47 0.07 0.01 2.0 0.03 Thunnus spp. 2 1 0.47 0.20 0.03 5.1 0.07 Osteichthyes UID 250 38.86 6.70 589.6 7.70 Total Osteichthyes 501 95 44.81 171.27 29.52 3135.7 40.96

Lamniformes 8 6 2.83 2.06 0.36 23.6 0.31 Rajiformes 2 2 0.94 1.12 0.19 10.2 0.13 Total Chondrichthyes 10 8 3.77 3.18 0.55 29.8 0.39

Vertebrata UID 663 38.42 6.62

TOTAL VERTEBRATA 2365 212 100.00 580.12 100.00 7656.0 100.00

The contextual analysis is based on spatial and temporal contexts. The spatial context is defined by proximity to, and direct association with, the site’s batey. The temporal context is determined according to the temporal component, as determined by radiocarbon dating (see Espenshade 2011). Table 5-1 shows the excavated contexts from which I analyze faunal remains, and indicates their temporal and spatial components.

The data used for the temporal comparisons are from batey contexts. Material from only one spatial context is compared across time in order to isolate variables. The batey-associated contexts contained the largest samples and therefore were chosen for

115

the temporal study. Identified taxa, along with their NISP, MNI, weight, and estimated meat weight from each temporal component (Jácana 2, Jácana 2/4, and Jácana 4) are presented in Tables 5-5, 5-6, and 5-7 for invertebrates, and Tables 5-8, 5-9, and 5-10 for vertebrates.

116

Table 5-5. Invertebrates from Batey-Associated Jácana 2 Contexts at La Jácanas Meat Weight Weight %Meat TAXON NISP MNI %MNI (g) %Weight (g) Weight Americardia media 1 1 0.22 1.3 0.04 1.3 0.20 Anadara chemnitii 2 2 0.45 3.1 0.09 2.3 0.36 Anadara floridana 1 1 0.22 5.2 0.15 3.2 0.52 Anadara leinosa floridana 2 2 0.45 5.5 0.16 3.3 0.54 Anadara notibilis 10 8 1.78 70.3 2.09 18.9 3.04 Anadara ovalis 12 8 1.78 16.7 0.50 7.1 1.14 Anadara spp. 16 3 0.67 17.3 0.51 7.3 1.17 Anomalocardia brasiliana 102 52 11.58 54.9 1.63 16.0 2.57 Arca imbricata 8 4 0.89 6.4 0.19 3.7 0.60 Arca zebra 329 132 29.40 641.6 19.09 84.9 13.65 Arcidae 242 148.1 4.41 31.3 5.04 Barbatia candida 1 1 0.22 1.9 0.06 1.6 0.26 Cardiidae 1 1 0.22 0.4 0.01 0.6 0.09 Chama macerophylla 2 2 0.45 42.5 1.26 13.4 2.15 Chamidae 2 2 0.45 4.6 0.14 3.0 0.48 Chamidae 1 1 0.22 0.9 0.03 1.0 0.16 Chione cancellata 4 3 0.67 3.6 0.11 2.5 0.40 Codakia orbicularis 77 16 3.56 78.8 2.34 20.4 3.28 Crassostrea rhizophorae 25 12 2.67 51.1 1.52 15.2 2.44 Lucina pectinatus 1 1 0.22 0.8 0.02 0.9 0.14 Lucinidae 19 1 0.22 16.5 0.49 7.0 1.13 Phacoides pectinatus 10 5 1.11 23.9 0.71 9.1 1.46 Solenidae 3 1 0.22 0.4 0.01 0.6 0.09 Tellina fausta 33 10 2.23 80.8 2.40 20.8 3.34 Tellinidae 60 4 0.89 80.2 2.39 20.6 3.32 Trachycardium isocardia 3 1 0.22 2.8 0.08 2.1 0.34 Bivalvia UID 135 82.7 2.46 21.1 3.39 Total Bivalvia 1102 274 61.02 1442.3 42.91 319.0 51.30

Astraea caelata 2 1 0.22 10.3 0.31 5.9 0.95 Astraea spp. 8 4 0.89 9.6 0.29 5.5 0.89 Astrea caelata 6 1 0.22 6.3 0.19 3.8 0.60 Astrea spp. 1 1 0.22 0.3 0.01 0.2 0.04

117

Table 5-5. Continued Meat Weight Weight %Meat TAXON NISP MNI %MNI (g) %Weight (g) Weight Cittarium pica 3 2 0.45 8.5 0.25 5.0 0.80 Littorinidae 1 1 0.22 1.1 0.03 0.8 0.12 Murex spp. 6 3 0.67 14.6 0.43 8.2 1.31 Muricidae 3 2 0.45 12.0 0.36 6.8 1.09 Neritidae 1 1 0.22 0.3 0.01 0.2 0.04 Neritina sp. 1 1 0.22 0.4 0.01 0.3 0.05 Neritina virginea 3 3 0.67 1.0 0.03 0.7 0.11 Nodilittorina tuberculata 1 1 0.22 0.5 0.01 0.4 0.06 Strombidae 74 4 0.89 239.70 7.13 25.9 4.17 Strombus costatus 1 1 0.22 38.4 1.14 5.2 0.83 Strombus gigas 6 2 0.45 32.1 0.96 4.4 0.71 Strombus pugilis 33 26 5.79 780.1 23.21 73.3 11.79 Strombus spp. 111 29 6.46 456.5 13.58 45.7 7.36 Turbinidae 1 1 0.22 0.6 0.02 0.4 0.07 Turritella variegata 163 69 15.37 191.0 5.68 86.8 13.96 Gastropoda UID 41 22 4.90 45.7 1.36 23.3 3.75 Total Gastropoda 466 175 38.98 1849.0 55.01 302.8 48.70

Mollusca UID 242 69.9 2.08

TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 1810 449 100.00 3361.2 100.00 621.8 100.00

118

Table 5-6. Invertebrates from Batey-Associated Jácana 2/4 Contexts at La Jácanas Meat Weight Weight %Meat TAXON NISP MNI %MNI (g) %Weight (g) Weight Anadara leinosa floridana 6 5 0.37 59.1 0.50 16.8 0.96 Anadara notibilis 37 20 1.48 210.3 1.79 39.8 2.28 Anadara ovalis 11 19 1.41 28.2 0.24 10.1 0.58 Anadara spp. 20 4 0.30 22.5 0.19 8.7 0.50 Anomalocardia brasiliana 763 309 22.86 528.2 4.50 74.4 4.27 Arca imbricata 6 4 0.30 8.6 0.07 4.5 0.26 Arca zebra 907 297 21.97 1673.2 14.26 162.9 9.35 Arca spp. 10 2 0.15 3.4 0.03 2.4 0.14 Arcidae 385 1 0.07 200.2 1.71 38.5 2.21 Barbatia cancellaria 1 1 0.07 3.9 0.03 2.6 0.15 Barbatia candida 1 1 0.07 0.9 0.01 1.0 0.06 Chama macerophylla 5 5 0.37 59.1 0.50 16.8 0.96 Chama spp. 6 6 0.44 2.8 0.02 2.1 0.12 Chamidae 37 10 0.74 27.3 0.23 9.9 0.57 Chione cancellata 2 2 0.15 3.6 0.03 2.5 0.14 Chione intapurpurea 1 1 0.07 4.2 0.04 2.8 0.16 Codakia orbicularis 159 38 2.81 189.6 1.62 37.1 2.13 Crassostrea rhizophorae 53 13 0.96 88.4 0.75 22.1 1.27 Donax denticulatus 1 1 0.07 0.1 0.00 0.2 0.01 Lucinidae 27 3 0.22 20.8 0.18 8.2 0.47 Ostreidae 21 5 0.37 8.6 0.07 4.5 0.26 Phacoides pectinatus 17 11 0.81 58.4 0.50 16.6 0.96 Plicatula gibbosa 1 1 0.07 0.8 0.01 0.9 0.05 Solen obliquus 21 4 0.30 8.4 0.07 4.5 0.26 Solenidae 5 4 0.30 4.6 0.04 3.0 0.17 Tellina fausta 46 17 1.26 312.6 2.66 52.1 2.99 Tellina magna 6 2 0.15 19.1 0.16 7.8 0.45 Tellina spp. 35 1 0.07 47.1 0.40 14.4 0.83 Tellinidae 77 13 0.96 72.8 0.62 19.3 1.11 Bivalvia UID 655 3 0.22 177.8 1.52 35.5 2.04 Total Bivalvia 3322 803 59.39 3844.6 32.76 621.9 35.70

Astraea caelata 11 12 0.89 59.0 0.50 29.5 1.69 Astraea spp. 8 6 0.44 14.2 0.12 7.9 0.46 Capulidae 1 1 0.07 1.1 0.01 0.8 0.04

119

Table 5-6. Continued Meat Weight Weight %Meat TAXON NISP MNI %MNI (g) %Weight (g) Weight Cassidae 1 1 0.07 30.4 0.26 16.0 0.92 Cassis spp. 3 2 0.15 40.1 0.34 20.6 1.19 Chama macerophylla 1 1 0.07 8.4 0.07 4.9 0.28 Chamidae 15 1 0.07 8.4 0.07 4.9 0.28 Cittarium pica 17 7 0.52 97.4 0.83 46.7 2.68 Murex brevifrons 1 1 0.07 38.6 0.33 19.9 1.14 Murex pomum 1 1 0.07 23.3 0.20 12.5 0.72 Murex spp. 11 8 0.59 80.9 0.69 39.4 2.26 Muricinae 28 16 1.18 261.1 2.22 115.7 6.64 Nerita sp. 1 1 0.07 0.1 0.00 0.1 0.00 Neritidae 2 2 0.15 1.0 0.01 0.7 0.04 Neritina spp. 14 10 0.74 2.4 0.02 1.5 0.09 Neritina virginea 7 4 0.30 0.6 0.01 0.4 0.02 Strombus costatus 5 3 0.22 213.6 1.82 23.4 1.35 Strombus gigas 6 3 0.22 52.2 0.44 6.8 0.39 Strombus pugilis 176 133 9.84 3841.5 32.73 298.1 17.11 Strombus spp. 375 146 10.80 1522.2 12.97 132.0 7.58 Strombidae 154 44 3.25 720.6 6.14 68.4 3.92 Trochidae 1 1 0.07 2.0 0.02 1.3 0.08 Turbinidae 1 1.1 0.01 0.8 0.04 Turritella variegata 284 134 9.91 321.9 2.74 140.3 8.05 Vasum muricatum 3 2 0.15 69.2 0.59 34.1 1.96 Vermetidae 16 0.4 0.00 0.3 0.02 Gastropoda UID 198 9 0.67 205.7 1.75 92.9 5.33 Total Gastropoda 1341 549 40.61 7617.4 64.91 1120.1 64.30

Mollusca UID 579 273.8 2.33

TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 5242 1352 100.00 11735.8 100.00 1742.0 100.00

120

Table 5-7. Invertebrates from Batey-Associated Jácana 4 Contexts at La Jácanas Meat Weight %Meat TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight(g) %Weight (g) Weight Anadara floridana 1 1 0.25 14.8 0.84 6.5 1.78 Anadara notabilis 4 3 0.76 18.1 1.03 7.5 2.04 Anadara ovalis 3 3 0.76 8.8 0.50 4.6 1.25 Anomalocardia brasiliana 559 173 43.91 331.6 18.79 54.2 14.75 Arca imbricata 5 4 1.02 7.3 0.41 4.0 1.10 Arca zebra 183 95 24.11 468.50 26.54 68.6 18.66 Arcidae 83 43.1 2.44 13.5 3.68 Chamidae 5 3 0.76 13.2 0.75 6.1 1.65 Chione cancellata 4 3 0.76 5.4 0.31 3.3 0.90 Codakia costata 1 1 0.25 1.9 0.11 1.6 0.44 Codakia orbicularis 84 18 4.57 142.2 8.06 30.5 8.29 Crassostrea rhizophorae 7 4 1.02 7.8 0.44 4.2 1.15 Crepidula aculeata 1 1 0.25 0.3 0.02 0.5 0.13 Isognomon alatus 1 1 0.25 0.7 0.04 0.8 0.22 Lucina pectinatus 14 6 1.52 19.4 1.10 7.9 2.14 Lucinidae 24 8.7 0.49 4.6 1.24 Mytilopsis dominguensis 2 2 0.51 0.1 0.01 0.2 0.06 Phacoides pectinatus 2 2 0.51 13.7 0.78 6.2 1.69 Pliculata gibbosa 2 1 0.25 0.2 0.01 0.4 0.10 Pseudochama radians 1 1 0.25 2.2 0.12 1.8 0.49 Rupellaria typica 3 1 0.25 0.3 0.02 0.5 0.13 Solen obliquus 3 1 0.25 1.1 0.06 1.1 0.30 Solenidae 1 1 0.25 0.3 0.02 0.5 0.13 Tellina fausta 26 11 2.79 110.70 6.27 25.7 6.99 Tellinidae 39 2 0.51 49.90 2.83 15.0 4.07 Bivalvia UID 60 14.0 0.79 6.3 1.71 Total Bivalvia 1118 338 85.79 1284.3 72.76 282.0 76.73

Astrea caelata 1 1 0.25 2.1 0.12 1.4 0.37 Cerithiidae 1 1 0.25 0.2 0.01 0.2 0.04 Echininous nodulosus 1 1 0.25 0.8 0.05 0.6 0.15 Murex sp. 1 1 0.25 4.3 0.24 2.6 0.72 Muricidae 7 4 1.02 21.20 1.20 11.5 3.13

121

Table 5-7. Continued Meat Weight %Meat TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight(g) %Weight (g) Weight Neritina clenchi 2 2 0.51 2.1 0.12 1.4 0.37 Neritina virginea 4 4 1.02 11.4 0.65 6.5 1.77 Neritina spp. 2 2 0.51 1.6 0.09 1.1 0.29 Strombidae 10 3 0.76 24.5 1.39 3.5 0.95 Strombus gigas 1 1 0.25 4.9 0.28 0.8 0.23 Strombus pugilis 13 10 2.54 195.60 11.08 21.7 5.90 Strombus spp. 45 12 3.05 138.2 7.83 16.0 4.35 Turritella variegata 14 10 2.54 16.7 0.95 9.2 2.51 Gastropoda UID 27 4 1.02 16.5 0.93 9.1 2.48 Total Gastropoda 129 56 14.21 440.1 24.94 85.5 23.27

Mollusca UID 5 40.7 2.31

TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 1252 394 100.00 1765.1 100.00 367.5 100.00

122

Table 5-8. Vertebrates from Batey-Associated Jácana 2 Contexts La Jácanas Meat Weight Weight %Meat TAXON NISP MNI %MNI (g) %Weight (g) Weight Cavia porcellus 4 2 9.09 1.45 2.58 34.7 3.56 Isolobodon portoricensis 40 7 31.82 18.12 32.20 268.6 27.57 Rodentia 5 0.64 1.14 17.9 1.84 Nesophontes edithae 1 1 4.55 0.28 0.50 9.2 0.94 Mammalia UID 23 10.70 19.01 175.3 17.99 Total Mammalia 72 9 40.91 30.91 54.92 496.5 50.96

Anas cf. discors 1 1 4.55 0.66 1.17 12.3 1.26 Aves 7 2 9.09 0.57 1.01 10.8 1.11 Total Aves 8 3 13.64 1.23 2.19 23.1 2.37

Colubridae 1 1 4.55 0.10 0.18 1.3 0.14 Testudines 8 1 4.55 2.56 4.55 73.5 7.55 Total Reptilia 9 2 9.09 2.66 4.73 74.8 7.68

Calamus sp. 1 1 4.55 0.10 0.18 2.8 0.28 Diodon sp. 1 1 4.55 4.14 7.36 78.6 8.07 Diodontidae 2 1 4.55 0.31 0.55 7.6 0.78 Carangidae 1 1 4.55 0.54 0.96 12.6 1.29 Epinephelus sp. 1 1 4.55 0.18 0.32 4.7 0.48 Mycteroperca sp. 1 1 4.55 0.32 0.57 7.8 0.81 Serranidae 5 1 4.55 4.80 8.53 89.8 9.21 Scaridae 3 0.46 0.82 10.9 1.12 Sparisoma spp. 6 1 4.55 2.53 4.50 50.4 5.18 Osteichthyes UID 44 6.11 10.86 111.5 11.45 Total Osteichthyes 65 8 36.36 19.49 34.63 376.7 38.66

Lamniformes 2 0.48 0.85 3.2 0.32

Vertebrata UID 47 1.51 2.68

TOTAL 100.0 VERTEBRATA 203 22 0 56.28 100.00 974.3 100.00

123

Table 5-9. Vertebrates from Batey-Associated Jácana 2/4 Contexts at La Jácanas Meat Weight Weight % Meat TAXON NISP MNI %MNI (g) %Weight (g) Weight Cavia porcellus 16 7 5.11 5.14 1.30 96.8 2.10 Isolobodon portoricensis 246 25 18.25 74.26 18.80 842.0 18.28 Rodentia 24 3.98 1.01 78.7 1.71 Nesophontes edithae 1 1 0.73 0.28 0.07 9.2 0.20 Mammalia UID 270 3 2.19 80.71 20.43 900.8 19.56 Total Mammalia 557 36 26.28 164.37 41.60 1927.4 41.85

Ardeidae 1 1 0.73 0.80 0.20 14.4 0.31 Columbidae 1 2 1.46 0.53 0.13 10.2 0.22 Fulica sp. 1 0.00 0.27 0.07 5.8 0.13 Rallidae 5 1 0.73 0.96 0.24 16.8 0.36 Passeriformes 3 3 2.19 0.18 0.05 4.1 0.09 Aves 21 4 2.92 3.55 0.90 50.4 1.09 Total Aves 32 11 8.03 6.29 1.59 101.7 2.21

Cyclura sp. 8 4 2.92 1.11 0.28 12.7 0.27 Lacertilia 2 0.28 0.07 3.5 0.08 Colubridae 12 5 3.65 1.50 0.38 16.8 0.36 Emydidae 8 4 2.92 7.81 1.98 79.3 1.72 Cheloniidae 4 3 2.19 25.04 6.34 246.2 5.35 Testudines 64 4 2.92 34.08 8.63 289.9 6.29 Reptilia UID 1 0.05 0.01 0.7 0.01 Total Reptilia 99 20 14.60 69.87 17.68 649.0 14.09

Tetrapoda UID 141 13.56 3.43

Anguilla rostrata 2 2 1.46 0.11 0.03 3.0 0.07 Gobiomorus dormitor 8 3 2.19 1.20 0.30 25.8 0.56 Balistidae 2 1 0.73 1.26 0.32 26.9 0.58 Calamus spp. 2 2 1.46 1.19 0.30 25.6 0.56 Caranx crysos 1 1 0.73 0.33 0.08 8.1 0.18 Caranx spp. 2 2 1.46 0.97 0.25 21.3 0.46 Carangidae 3 1 0.73 1.27 0.32 27.1 0.59 Centropomus spp. 15 2 1.46 2.84 0.72 56.0 1.22 Diodonspp. 2 2 1.46 17.02 4.31 280.5 6.09 Diodontidae 14 5 3.65 1.69 0.43 35.1 0.76 Epinephelus spp. 14 5 3.65 12.78 3.23 216.7 4.71 Mycteroperca sp. 1 1 0.73 0.83 0.21 18.5 0.40 Serranidae 4 0.47 0.12 11.1 0.24

124

Table 5-9. Continued Meat Weight Weight % Meat TAXON NISP MNI %MNI (g) %Weight (g) Weight Haemulon spp. 5 4 2.92 1.08 0.27 23.4 0.51 Haemulidae 3 2 1.46 0.46 0.12 10.9 0.24 Lutjanus spp. 14 5 3.65 8.87 2.25 156.0 3.39 Lutjanidae 11 4 2.92 9.18 2.32 160.9 3.49 Lachnolaimus spp. 3 2 1.46 1.43 0.36 30.2 0.66 Scarus spp. 3 3 2.19 9.18 2.32 160.9 3.49 Sparisoma spp. 32 14 10.22 10.02 2.54 174.1 3.78 Scaridae 20 2.85 0.72 56.2 1.22 Sphyraena spp. 4 2 1.46 0.85 0.22 18.9 0.41 Osteichthyes UID 117 22.06 5.58 354.2 7.69 Total Osteichthyes 282 63 45.99 107.94 27.32 1901.2 41.28

Lamniformes 6 5 3.65 1.58 0.40 16.4 0.36 Rajiformes 2 2 1.46 1.12 0.28 10.2 0.22 Total Chondrichthyes 8 7 5.11 2.70 0.68 26.6 0.58

Vertebrata UID 450 30.37 7.69

TOTAL 100.0 VERTEBRATA 1569 137 0 395.10 100.00 4605.9 100.00

125

Table 5-10. Vertebrates from Batey-Associated Jácana 4 Contexts La Jácanas Weight Meat %Meat TAXON NISP MNI %MNI (g) %Weight Weight (g) Weight Cavia porcellus 1 1 4.76 0.83 1.49 22.1 2.18 Isolobodon portoricensis 26 6 28.57 9.30 16.72 156.5 15.47 Rodentia 6 0.23 0.41 7.8 0.77 Mammalia UID 51 10.65 19.15 174.6 17.26 Total Mammalia 84 7 33.33 21.01 37.77 361.0 35.68

Aves 1 1 4.76 0.11 0.20 2.7 0.27

Colubridae 1 0.11 0.20 1.4 0.14 Emydidae 3 2 9.52 5.06 9.10 105.5 10.43 Testudines 23 5.20 9.35 107.0 10.58 Total Reptilia 27 2 9.52 10.37 18.64 214.0 21.15

Tetrapoda UID 28 2.15 3.87

Gobiomorus dormitor 2 1 4.76 0.47 0.85 11.1 1.10 Diodon spp. 3 1 4.76 4.54 8.16 85.4 8.44 Diodontidae 3 1 4.76 0.63 1.13 14.4 1.43 Carangidae 1 0.28 0.50 7.0 0.69 Centropristis spp. 3 2 9.52 1.61 2.89 33.6 3.32 Serranidae 2 2 9.52 6.97 12.53 125.6 12.41 Lutjanidae 2 1 4.76 0.52 0.93 12.1 1.20 Haemulon sp. 1 1 4.76 0.13 0.23 3.5 0.34 Sparisoma spp. 5 3 14.29 2.56 4.60 51.0 5.04 Osteichthyes UID 33 5.00 8.99 93.1 9.20 Total Osteichthyes 55 12 57.14 22.71 40.83 436.8 43.17

Vertebrata UID 36 1.53 2.75

TOTAL VERTEBRATA 231 21 100.00 55.62 100.00 1011.8 100.00

Faunal material from batey and non-batey contexts are presented in Tables 5-11 and 5-12 for invertebrates and Tables 5-13 and 5-14 for vertebrates. In general, the most diverse contexts were ones associated with the batey and from the mixed (Jácana

126

2/4) temporal component. Because the vast majority of the site’s faunal material was recovered from these contexts, the increased species richness observed is likely due to sample size. Mixed components are therefore not included in the temporal comparative analyses. Similarly, batey contexts exhibit higher diversity than the non-batey contexts, possibly reflecting sample size and/or greater human selection.

127

Table 5-11. Invertebrates from All Batey-Associated Contexts La Jácanas Weight Meat %Meat TAXON NISP MNI %MNI (g) %Weight Weight (g) Weight Americardia media 1 1 0.05 1.3 0.01 1.3 0.05 Anadara chemnitii 2 2 0.09 3.1 0.02 2.3 0.08 Anadara floridana 2 2 0.09 20.0 0.12 8.0 0.29 Anadara leinosa floridana 8 7 0.32 64.6 0.38 17.8 0.65 Anadara notibilis 51 31 1.41 298.7 1.77 50.5 1.85 Anadara ovalis 26 30 1.37 53.7 0.32 15.7 0.58 Anadara spp. 36 7 0.32 39.8 0.24 12.8 0.47 Anomalocardia brasiliana 1424 534 24.33 914.7 5.42 108.1 3.96 Arca imbricata 19 12 0.55 22.3 0.13 8.6 0.32 Arca spp. 10 2 0.09 3.4 0.02 2.4 0.09 2783.3 Arca zebra 1419 524 23.87 0 16.51 230.3 8.43 Arcidae 710 1 0.05 391.4 2.32 60.7 2.22 Barbatia cancellaria 1 1 0.05 3.9 0.02 2.6 0.10 Barbatia candida 2 2 0.09 2.8 0.02 2.1 0.08 Bivalvia UID 850 3 0.14 274.5 1.63 47.7 1.75 Cardiidae 1 1 0.05 0.4 0.00 0.6 0.02 Chama macerophylla 7 7 0.32 101.6 0.60 24.2 0.89 Chama spp. 6 6 0.27 2.8 0.02 2.1 0.08 Chamidae 45 16 0.73 46.0 0.27 14.2 0.52 Chione cancellata 10 8 0.36 12.6 0.07 5.9 0.21 Chione intapurpurea 1 1 0.05 4.2 0.02 2.8 0.10 Codakia costata 1 1 0.05 1.9 0.01 1.6 0.06 Codakia orbicularis 320 72 3.28 410.6 2.44 62.7 2.29 Crassostrea rhizophorae 85 29 1.32 147.3 0.87 31.2 1.14 Crepidula aculeata 1 1 0.05 0.3 0.00 0.5 0.02 Donax denticulatus 1 1 0.05 0.1 0.00 0.2 0.01 Isognomon alatus 1 1 0.05 0.7 0.00 0.8 0.03 Lucina pectinatus 15 7 0.32 20.2 0.12 8.1 0.30 Lucinidae 70 4 0.18 46.0 0.27 14.1 0.52 Mytilopsis dominguensis 2 2 0.09 0.1 0.00 0.2 0.01 Ostreidae 21 5 0.23 8.6 0.05 4.5 0.17

128

Table 5-11. Continued Weight Meat %Meat TAXON NISP MNI %MNI (g) %Weight Weight (g) Weight Phacoides pectinatus 29 18 0.82 96.0 0.57 23.3 0.85 Pliculata gibbosa 3 2 0.09 1.0 0.01 1.0 0.04 Pseudochama radians 1 1 0.05 2.2 0.01 1.8 0.07 Rupellaria typica 3 1 0.05 0.3 0.00 0.5 0.02 Solen obliquus 24 5 0.23 9.5 0.06 4.8 0.18 Solenidae 9 6 0.27 5.3 0.03 3.3 0.12 Tellina fausta 105 38 1.73 504.10 2.99 72.1 2.64 Tellina magna 6 2 0.09 19.1 0.11 7.8 0.28 Tellina spp. 35 1 0.05 47.1 0.28 14.4 0.53 Tellinidae 176 19 0.87 202.90 1.20 38.8 1.42 Trachycardium isocardia 3 1 0.05 2.8 0.02 2.1 0.08 Bivalvia UID 850 3 0.14 274.5 1.63 47.7 1.75 141 Total Bivalvia 5542 5 64.46 6571.2 38.97 1222.9 44.77

Astraea caelata 20 15 0.68 77.7 0.46 37.9 1.39 Astraea spp. 17 11 0.50 24.1 0.14 12.9 0.47 Capulidae 1 1 0.05 1.1 0.01 0.8 0.03 Cassidae 1 1 0.05 30.4 0.18 16.0 0.59 Cassis spp. 3 2 0.09 40.1 0.24 20.6 0.76 Cerithiidae 1 1 0.05 0.2 0.00 0.2 0.01 Chama macerophylla 1 1 0.05 8.4 0.05 4.9 0.18 Chamidae 15 1 0.05 8.4 0.05 4.9 0.18 Cittarium pica 20 9 0.41 105.9 0.63 50.4 1.85 Echininous nodulosus 1 1 0.05 0.8 0.00 0.6 0.02 Littorinidae 1 1 0.05 1.1 0.01 0.8 0.03 Murex brevifrons 1 1 0.05 38.6 0.23 19.9 0.73 Murex pomum 1 1 0.05 23.3 0.14 12.5 0.46 Murex spp. 18 12 0.55 99.8 0.59 47.8 1.75 Muricinae 38 22 1.00 294.3 1.75 129.2 4.73 Nerita sp. 1 1 0.05 0.1 0.00 0.1 0.00 Neritidae 3 3 0.14 1.3 0.01 0.9 0.03 Neritina clenchi 2 2 0.09 2.1 0.01 1.4 0.05 Neritina spp. 17 13 0.59 4.4 0.03 2.7 0.10 Neritina virginea 14 11 0.50 13.0 0.08 7.3 0.27 Nodilittorina tuberculata 1 1 0.05 0.5 0.00 0.4 0.01

129

Table 5-11. Continued Weight Meat %Meat TAXON NISP MNI %MNI (g) %Weight Weight (g) Weight Strombus costatus 6 4 0.18 252.0 1.49 27.1 0.99 Strombus gigas 13 6 0.27 89.2 0.53 10.9 0.40 4817.2 Strombus pugilis 222 169 7.70 0 28.57 363.8 13.32 Strombus spp. 531 187 8.52 2116.9 12.55 176.4 6.46 Strombidae 238 51 2.32 984.8 5.84 90.0 3.29 Trochidae 1 1 0.05 2.0 0.01 1.3 0.05 Turbinidae 2 1 0.05 1.7 0.01 1.1 0.04 Turritella variegata 461 213 9.70 529.6 3.14 221.8 8.12 Vasum muricatum 3 2 0.09 69.2 0.41 34.1 1.25 Vermetidae 16 1 0.05 0.4 0.00 0.3 0.01 Gastropoda UID 266 35 1.59 267.9 1.59 118.5 4.34 Total Gastropoda 1936 780 35.54 9906.5 58.75 1508.4 55.23

Mollusca UID 826 384.4 2.28

TOTAL 219 100.0 16862. INVERTEBRATA 8304 5 0 1 100.00 2731.3 100.00

130

Table 5-12. Vertebrates from All Batey-Associated Contexts La Jácanas Meat Weight Weight %Meat TAXON NISP MNI %MNI (g) %Weight (g) Weight Cavia porcellus 21 10 5.43 7.42 1.45 130.3 1.98 Isolobodon portoricensis 312 38 20.65 101.68 19.91 1086.1 16.47 Mammalia UID 344 3 1.63 102.06 19.98 1089.4 16.52 Nesophontes edithae 1 1 0.54 0.28 0.05 9.2 0.14 Rodentia 35 4.85 0.95 92.4 1.40 Total Mammalia 713 52 28.26 216.29 42.35 2784.9 42.23

Anas cf. discors 1 1 0.54 0.66 0.13 12.3 0.19 Ardeidae 1 1 0.54 0.80 0.16 14.4 0.22 Columbidae 1 2 1.09 0.53 0.10 10.2 0.15 Fulica sp. 1 1 0.54 0.27 0.05 5.8 0.09 Passeriformes 3 3 1.63 0.18 0.04 4.1 0.06 Rallidae 5 1 0.54 0.96 0.19 16.8 0.25 Aves 31 9 4.89 5.69 1.11 74.9 1.14 Total Aves 43 17 9.24 9.09 1.78 127.5 1.93

Colubridae 14 6 3.26 1.71 0.33 19.0 0.29 Cyclura sp. 8 4 2.17 1.11 0.22 12.7 0.19 Lacertilia 2 0.28 0.05 3.5 0.05 Emydidae 11 6 3.26 12.87 2.52 173.0 2.62 Cheloniidae 4 3 1.63 25.04 4.90 246.2 3.73 Testudines 95 5 2.72 41.84 8.19 323.2 4.90 Reptilia UID 1 0.05 0.01 0.7 0.01 Total Reptilia 135 24 13.04 82.90 16.23 937.8 14.22

Tetrapoda UID 169 15.71 3.08

Anguilla rostrata 2 2 1.09 0.11 0.02 3.0 0.05 Balistidae 2 1 0.54 1.26 0.25 26.9 0.41 Calamus spp. 3 3 1.63 1.29 0.25 27.5 0.42 Carangidae 5 2 1.09 2.09 0.41 42.5 0.64 Caranx crysos 1 1 0.54 0.33 0.06 8.1 0.12 Caranx spp. 2 2 1.09 0.97 0.19 21.3 0.32 Centropomus spp. 15 2 1.09 2.84 0.56 56.0 0.85 Centropristis spp. 3 2 1.09 1.61 0.32 33.6 0.51 Diodon spp. 6 4 2.17 25.70 5.03 406.4 6.16 Diodontidae 19 7 3.80 2.63 0.51 52.2 0.79 Epinephelus spp. 15 6 3.26 12.96 2.54 219.5 3.33

131

Table 5-12. Continued Meat Weight Weight %Meat TAXON NISP MNI %MNI (g) %Weight (g) Weight Gobiomorus dormitor 10 4 2.17 1.67 0.33 34.7 0.53 Haemulidae 3 2 1.09 0.46 0.09 10.9 0.16 Haemulon spp. 6 5 2.72 1.21 0.24 26.0 0.39 Lachnolaimus spp. 3 2 1.09 1.43 0.28 30.2 0.46 Lutjanidae 13 5 2.72 9.70 1.90 169.1 2.56 Lutjanus spp. 14 5 2.72 8.87 1.74 156.0 2.37 Mycteroperca spp. 2 2 1.09 1.15 0.23 24.8 0.38 Scaridae 23 3.31 0.65 64.2 0.97 Scarus spp. 3 3 1.63 9.18 1.80 160.9 2.44 Serranidae 11 3 1.63 12.24 2.40 208.5 3.16 Sparisoma spp. 43 18 9.78 15.11 2.96 252.0 3.82 Sphyraena sp. 4 2 1.09 0.85 0.17 18.9 0.29 Osteichthyes UID 194 33.17 6.49 511.3 7.75 Total Osteichthyes 402 83 45.11 150.14 29.40 2714.7 41.16

Lamniformes 8 6 3.26 2.06 0.40 23.6 0.36 Rajiformes 2 2 1.09 1.12 0.22 10.2 0.15 Total Chondrichthyes 10 8 4.35 3.18 0.62 29.8 0.45

Vertebrata UID 533 33.41 6.54

TOTAL VERTEBRATA 2005 184 100.00 510.72 100.00 6594.7 100.00

132

Table 5-13. Invertebrates from All Non-Batey Contexts La Jácanas Meat Weight Weight % Meat TAXON NISP MNI %MNI (g) %Weight (g) Weight Anadara brasiliana 1 1 0.74 10.4 1.35 5.1 2.20 Anadara ovalis 1 1 0.74 4.1 0.53 2.7 1.17 Anadara spp. 12 4 2.94 24.2 3.14 9.1 3.91 Anomalocardia brasiliana 102 37 27.21 42.2 5.47 13.3 5.71 Arca spp. 3 1 0.74 2.8 0.36 2.1 0.90 Arca zebra 80 33 24.26 136.8 17.75 29.7 12.71 Arcidae 6 1 0.74 18.6 2.41 7.6 3.27 Astraea spp. 2 2 1.47 3.0 0.39 2.2 0.95 Chione cancellata 1 1 0.74 0.6 0.08 0.7 0.32 Codakia orbicularis 4 4 2.94 8.4 1.09 4.5 1.91 Crassostrea rhizophorae 27 5 3.68 29.0 3.76 10.3 4.43 Lucina pectinata 8 4 2.94 25.0 3.24 9.3 4.00 Lucinidae 1 1.3 0.17 1.3 0.54 Phacoides pectinatus 2 1 0.74 4.8 0.62 3.0 1.30 Bivalvia UID 62 12.4 1.61 5.8 2.48 Total Bivalvia 402 96 70.59 358.2 46.47 115.6 49.49

Astraea caelata 1 1 0.74 53.7 6.97 27.0 11.56 Cittarium pica 28 1 0.74 22.2 2.88 8.6 3.69 Echininus nodulosus 1 1 0.74 0.9 0.12 0.6 0.27 Modulus modulus 1 1 0.74 0.7 0.09 0.5 0.21 Murex sp. 1 1 0.74 10.3 1.34 5.9 2.53 Muricidae 1 1 0.74 45.8 5.94 23.3 9.99 Neritina virginea 1 1 0.74 0.4 0.05 0.3 0.13 Strombus pugilis 2 2 1.47 3.4 0.44 0.6 0.26 Strombus spp. 24 9 6.62 101.3 13.14 12.2 5.21 Turbininae 2 2 1.47 3.5 0.45 2.2 0.94 Turritella variegata 13 12 8.82 20.1 2.61 10.9 4.68 Gastropoda UID 31 51.1 6.63 25.8 11.05 Total Gastropoda 102 40 29.41 392.5 50.92 118.0 50.51

Mollusca UID 48 20.1 2.61

TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 583 136 100.00 770.8 100.00 233.6 100.00

133

Table 5-14. Vertebrates from All Non-Batey Contexts at La Jácanas Weight Meat Weight %Meat TAXON NISP MNI %MNI (g) %Weight (g) Weight Isolobodon portoricensis 42 8 25.00 11.81 17.02 189.9 17.89 Mammalia UID 13 2.26 3.26 49.8 4.69 Total Mammalia 55 8 25.00 14.07 20.27 239.7 22.59

Ardeidae 3 2 6.25 2.75 3.96 40.6 3.83 Aves 8 3 9.38 3.13 4.51 45.3 4.27 Total Aves 11 5 15.63 5.88 8.47 86.0 8.10

Cyclura sp. 9 2 6.25 2.18 3.14 23.9 2.25 Lacertilia 3 0.52 0.75 6.2 0.59 Colubridae 1 1 3.13 0.06 0.09 0.8 0.08 Cheloniidae 12 4 12.50 13.54 19.51 177.7 16.75 Testudines 25 5.10 7.35 105.9 9.98 Total Reptilia 50 7 21.88 21.40 30.84 314.6 29.64

Tetrapoda UID 15 1.91 2.75

Centropomus spp. 3 1 3.13 1.12 1.61 24.2 2.28 Diodontidae 11 1 3.13 1.86 2.68 38.2 3.60 Elops saurus 1 1 3.13 0.07 0.10 2.0 0.19 Epinephelus spp. 7 2 6.25 2.87 4.14 56.5 5.32 Serranidae 1 1 3.13 1.48 2.13 31.1 2.93 Carangidae 1 1 3.13 0.76 1.10 17.1 1.61 Lutjanidae 4 1 3.13 2.34 3.37 47.0 4.43 Sparisoma spp. 4 1 3.13 2.09 3.01 42.5 4.00 Scaridae 9 3 9.38 2.65 3.82 52.6 4.96 Thunnus spp. 2 1 3.13 0.20 0.29 5.1 0.48 Osteichthyes UID 56 5.69 8.20 104.6 9.86 Total Osteichthyes 99 12 37.50 21.13 30.45 421.0 39.67

Vertebrata UID 130 5.01 7.22

TOTAL VERTEBRATA 360 32 100.00 69.40 100.00 1061.3 100.00

134

Identified Invertebrate Taxa

The invertebrate assemblage from La Jácanas consisted of 8770 specimens with an MNI of 2323 from 75 taxa (Table 5-4). Gastropods comprise 2014 specimens with an MNI of 812 from 32 taxa. Bivalves comprise 5882 specimens with an MNI of 1511 from 43 taxa.

The most common invertebrates are the bivalves, the West Indian pointed venus

(Anomalocardia brasiliana) and the turkey wing arc (Arca zebra), both bivalves. These two species comprise almost 50% (MNI) of the invertebrate assemblage. The turkey wing ark prefers a rocky shallow-water habitat while the West Indian pointed venus lives partially buried in muddy or sandy bottoms and is common in mangroves (Monti et al.

1990, Warmke and Abbot 1961:187).

The most common gastropods were conchs (Strombus spp.) including the West

Indian fighting conch (Strombus pugilis), the milk conch (Strombus costatus) and the queen conch (Strombus gigas). Together, conchs are about 16% of total invertebrate

MNI. Conchs are most common on grassy sea beds in shallow, near-shore waters

(Warmke and Abbot 1961:88). Another common gastropod is the variegate turret snail

(Turritella variegata), comprising about 10% of the total MNI. These small snails inhabit moderately shallow bays (Abbott and Morris 1995:156).

At least 723 mollusk specimens exhibit signs of burning. Evidence of burning or heating are not always easy to detect since shell is often stained by soil during deposition. Of the 723 burned specimens, only 42 (5%) were from non-batey contexts.

Some of the larger bivalves, such as the tiger lucine (Codakia orbicularis) and

Faust’s tellin (Telina fausta), show signs of use-wear on the ventral margins of larger valves. This characteristic use pattern is characterized by areas of flaking in the

135

direction of the exterior surface. At least 21 specimens exhibit this pattern. All are from

Trench 19 in the midden mound near adjacent to the batey. Similarly, 3 coral

(Anthozoa) fragments have worn or flattened surfaces, indicating they may have been used as abrading tools. One coral fragment has a groove worn into the surface. Worn coral fragments are also from Trench 19.

Some larger gastropods, such as conchs (Strombidae), and murexes (Muricidae) show possible cuts, smoothing, or drilling—but this was extremely rare. It is difficult to determine whether these were anthropogenic modifications. Only six specimens indicated these modifications, and they were only designated as such when natural processes such as erosion, boring sponge damage, and damage inflicted during excavation could be ruled out.

Identified Vertebrate Taxa

The vertebrate assemblage consisted of 2365 specimens with an MNI of 212 from 43 taxa. Mammals comprise 768 specimens with an MNI of 60 from four taxa.

Birds comprise 54 specimens with an MNI of 22 from six taxa. Reptiles comprise 185 specimens with an MNI of 27 from 6 taxa. Bony fish comprise 501 specimens with an

MNI of 95 from 25 taxa. Cartilaginous fish comprise 10 specimens with an MNI of eight from two taxa.

Table 5-2 includes the vertebrate taxa identified from all analyzed contexts, along with their preferred habitats. The most common mammal identified from undisturbed prehistoric contexts was the West Indian hutia (Isolobodon portoricensis). The West

Indian hutia is a small rabbit-sized tropical rodent that is now extinct. It is endemic to the island of Hispaniola and is thought to have been transported to Puerto Rico by humans

(Morgan and Woods 1986; Newsom and Wing 2004; Woods 1989). As opportunistic

136

feeders, they would have easily adapted to the natural and man-made habitats around

La Jácanas. Hutia (NISP=354) were common throughout the site and in all time periods with a total MNI of 46 individuals. Also present was the guinea pig (Cavia porcellus)

(NISP=21). Guinea pigs are a domesticate endemic to the Central Andes in South

America (LeFebvre and deFrance in press; Newsom and Wing 2004,). They most certainly were transported to the site by people. Guinea pig remains were recovered from both Jácana 2 (NISP=4, MNI=2) and Jácana 4 (NISP=1) contexts with the majority

(NISP=16, MNI=7) recovered from mixed (Jácana 2/4) contexts. All guinea pig remains were recovered from batey-associated contexts. Specimens identified as Rodentia are most likely either hutia or guinea pig.

Other mammals of note are represented by few remains. They include the Puerto

Rican shrew (Nesophontes edithae), a small extinct insectivore. It is represented in the faunal assemblage by only one specimen, a nearly complete mandible with distinct teeth. It was recovered from the Midden Mound trench in a deep deposit dated to the

Jácana 2 temporal component. Manataee (Trichechus manatus) was also identified from one fragment of rib. The manatee rib was recovered from Scrape F, a backhoe excavation which is a non-batey context; however, it is unfortunately from a mixed, general collection and has no other contextual information. The majority of specimens identified as Mammalia were small to medium in size and likely represent large hutia, or another medium-sized mammal that was not positively identified in the assemblage, such as dog. Large mammal remains were somewhat rare. The only large mammal remains were from historic-period domesticates. Large mammal remains from undisturbed prehistoric contexts could be sea mammals, including manatee—or

137

possibly a Pinniped or Cetacean. However, large unidentifiable mammal remains in association with human remains were not included in the analytical data.

Birds include six taxa including one species of duck, probably a blue-winged teal

(Anas cf. discors), members of the heron family (Ardeidae), rails (Rallidae) including a coot (Fulica sp.), pigeons or doves (Columba spp.), as well as small songbirds

(Passeriformes). The blue-winged teal, coot, and herons would have utilized the shore and mangrove habitats near the coast. Pigeons, doves, and song birds would have been found in local upland forest habitats near La Jácanas. Rails can be found in either upland forests or in water environments, depending upon the species (Raffaele 1989).

The blue-winged teal was identified from a single element in Trench 19 associated with the Jácana 2 time period. The heron remains were all identified from the same skeletal element, the tibiotarsus and consisted primarily of the long shaft. A total of 4 specimens were identified, three of which were from the non-batey contexts of Trench 7

(n=2) and Trench 12 (n=1). The doves/pigeons, rails, and coot were identified from specimens recovered from mixed temporal contexts in Trench 19. Songbirds remains are associated with both batey and non-batey contexts.

Reptiles are relatively rare and consist of lizards, including an endemic iquana

(Cyclura sp.), non-poisonous snakes (Colubridae), and turtles (Testudines) including sea turtles (Cheloniidae) and fresh water Emydid turtles (Emydidae). All reptiles would have been common in the habitats of the environment around La Jácanas with the exception of sea turtles, which could be captured on or near shore. Sea turtles are more common in non-batey contexts.

138

Fish remains were common and diverse. Cartilaginous fishes, including shark

(Lamniformes) and ray (Rajiformes) were present in the assemblage but were rare. At least 6 sharks and 2 rays are represented. All were recovered from contexts associated with the batey. At least 2 of the sharks were recovered from the Jácana 2 component.

No cartilaginous fishes were recovered from contexts identified as purely Jácana 4.

A total of 25 bony fish taxa (MNI=95) were identified from 501 specimens. The most common bony fish were reef fishes, including parrotfish (Scaridae, Scarus spp.,

Sparisoma spp.), groupers (Epinephelus spp., Mycteroperca spp.), snappers

(Lutjanidae), and pufferfish/porcupine fish (Diodontidae, Diodon spp.). Inshore species include ladyfish (Elops saurus), snook (Centropomus spp.), porgy (Calamus spp.) and shad/herring (Clupeidae). The Portugues River was also a source of fish. Both big mouth sleepers (Gobiomorus dormitor), and the fresh water eel (Anguilla rostrata) are present. Fish that utilize pelagic, deep water habitats are rare and include tuna

(Thunnus spp.) and barracuda (Sphyraena sp.). Barracuda may not be truly pelagic species and are often observed in inshore and reef environments as well (Nelson

1984:431). Marine fishes are common in all contexts; however, riverine species were not identified from the Jácana 2 component.

Modifications to bone were not common. At least 132 specimens showed signs of burning. Burned bone was present is all contexts. There were 43 specimens that exhibited cuts or other signs of butchery from all contexts. The manatee rib from

Scrape F had cuts on the lateral aspect of the rib head. In association with the manatee rib were 3 other fragments of large unidentified mammal bone that appeared to be cut and polished.

139

TASP Fauna

Two sites, La Minerál (La Mineral) and Los Gongolones (Los Gongolones) were located during the survey of the Portugues River drainage north of the Ceremonial Site of Tibes. Both sites, just a half kilometer apart, contain bateys and midden deposits.

Midden deposits at both sites were sub-surface tested with 50x50cm shovel tests and five hand excavated column samples (see Chapter 4). Results of the faunal analysis of each column sample is presented individually by site. Midden deposits at La Minerál and Los Gongolones were shallow and uniform in composition. Results of the faunal analysis for each column sample are presented with all levels combines. Each column sample will be treated as a single analytical context.

La Minerál Invertebrates

Two column samples were excavated at site La Minerál, also known as La

Mineral. The identified taxa are presented in Table 5-15 and include common names as well as their associated habitats.

140

Table 5-15. All Identified invertebrate taxa from Los Gongolones, common names, and associated habitats

Reef

Beach

Pelagic

Inshore

Shallow/

Shorline/ TAXON COMMON NAME Local/ Terrestrial Riverine Mangrove / Brackish Anadara floridana Cut-Ribbed ark X Anadara notabilis Eared ark X Anadara ovalis Blood ark X Anadara spp. Ark X Arca zebra Turkey wing ark X X Arca spp. Ark X Barbatia cancellaria Red-brown ark X Arcidae Arks X Picatula giblosa Atlantic kittenpaw X Lyropecten nodosus Lions paw scallop X X Crassostrea rhizophorae Caribbean oyster X Codakia orbicularis Tiger lucine X Lucina pectinata Thick lucine X Phacoides pectinatus Thick lucine X Lucinidae Lucines X Pseudochama radians Atlantic jewelbox X Chama macerophyla Leafy jewelbox X Chamidae Jewelboxes X Solen obliquus Oblique Jackknife X Solenidae Razor clams X Tellina fausta Favored tellin X Tellina spp. Tellin X Tellinidae Tellins X Anomalocardia West Indian pointed brasiliana venus X Chione cancellata Cross-barred venus X Bivalvia Bivalves

Astraea spp. Starsnails X X Neritina spp. Nerite X X X Neritidae Nerites X X X Neritina virginea Virgin nerite X X X Turritella variegata Variegate turretsnail X X Nodilittorina tuberculata Prickly winkle X X X Cerithium spp. Ceriths/Hornsnails X X

141

Table 5-15. Continued

Reef

Beach

Pelagic

Inshore

Shallow/

Shorline/

TAXON COMMON NAME Local/ Terrestrial Riverine Mangrove/ Brackish Strombus costatus Milk conch X X West Indian fighting Strombus pugilis conch X X Strombus spp. Conch X X Strombidae Conchs X X Murex brevifrons West Indian murex X X Murex spp. Murex X X Muricidae Murexes X X Gastropoda UID

Anthozoa (coral) Coral X

Table 5-16 lists all taxa from both column samples along with their NISP, MNI, weight, and estimated meat weight contributions. The NISP of both column samples is 1838 with an MNI of 444. A total of 39 invertebrate taxa including 27 bivalves and 12 gastropods were identified. Non-edible coral were analyzed, particularly to investigate the presence of usewear as evidence of tool use.

142

Table 5-16. Invertebrates identified from all column samples at La Minerál in measured and relative quantities Meat Weight Weight % Meat TAXON NISP MNI %MNI (g) %Weight (g) Weight Anadara floridana 3 2 0.45 4.5 0.16 3.6 0.65 Anadara notabilis 9 8 1.80 27.6 0.97 12.4 2.24 Anadara ovalis 4 4 0.90 4.3 0.15 3.5 0.63 Anadara spp. 4 4.0 0.14 2.7 0.48 Anomalocardia brasiliana 412 177 39.86 273.5 9.62 54.0 9.73 Arca spp. 5 9.8 0.34 4.9 0.89 Arca zebra 260 90 20.27 454.2 15.98 79.3 14.28 Arcidae 108 71.9 2.53 22.3 4.02 Astraea sp. 1 1 0.23 2.5 0.09 1.6 0.29 Barbatia cancellaria 2 2 0.45 2.6 0.09 2.0 0.36 Cerithium spp. 2 2 0.45 1.3 0.05 0.9 0.16 Chama macerophyla 4 4 0.90 5.7 0.20 3.4 0.62 Chamidae 9 6.9 0.24 3.9 0.70 Chione cancellata 4 2 0.45 2.8 0.10 2.6 0.47 Codakia orbicularis 66 11 2.48 83.9 2.95 26.5 4.77 Crassostrea rhizophorae 72 11 2.48 77.4 2.72 23.3 4.20 Lucina pectinata 31 8 1.80 48.2 1.70 18.2 3.28 Lucinidae 26 30.7 1.08 12.8 2.30 Lyropecten nodosus 1 1 0.23 2.8 0.10 2.1 0.38 Phacoides pectinatus 4 1 0.23 13.8 0.49 6.2 1.12 Picatula giblosa 3 3 0.68 1.7 0.06 1.5 0.27 Pseudochama sp. 2 1 0.23 1.4 0.05 1.3 0.24 Solen obliquus 11 7 1.58 11.1 0.39 6.6 1.19 Solenidae 7 2.4 0.08 1.9 0.34 Tellina fausta 30 13 2.93 131.0 4.61 31.9 5.75 Tellina spp. 6 2 0.45 7.2 0.25 4.0 0.72 Tellinidae 100 124.5 4.38 33.2 5.98 Bivalvia UID 156 65.2 2.29 21.4 3.85 Total Bivalvia 1342 350 78.83 1472.9 51.83 388.1 69.91

Murex brevifrons 2 2 0.45 9.7 0.34 5.6 1.01 Murex sp. 1 14.3 0.50 8.0 1.44 Muricidae 2 1.3 0.05 0.9 0.17

143

Table 5-16. Continued Meat Weight Weight % Meat TAXON NISP MNI %MNI (g) %Weight (g) Weight Neritidae 10 7 1.58 5.1 0.18 3.2 0.58 Neritina spp. 10 10 2.25 5.5 0.19 3.3 0.60 Neritina virginea 1 1 0.23 0.3 0.01 0.2 0.04 Nodilittorina tuberculata 1 1 0.23 0.2 0.01 0.2 0.03 Strombidae 64 100.9 3.55 13.1 2.36 Strombus costatus 1 1 0.23 4.1 0.14 0.7 0.13 Strombus pugilis 51 38 8.56 852.2 29.99 83.2 14.98 Strombus spp. 141 21 4.73 280.7 9.88 29.8 5.37 Turritella variegata 19 13 2.93 21.9 0.77 12.5 2.24 Gastropoda UID 26 11.2 0.39 6.4 1.15 Total Gastropoda 329 94 21.17 1307.4 46.01 167.1 30.09

Molusca UID 167 61.5 2.16

TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 1838 444 100.00 2841.8 100.00 555.2 100.00

Column Sample 1

Table 5-17 presents the results of the analysis of invertebrate remains from

Column Sample 1 at La Minerál. Column sample 1 contained 1108 individual specimens with a total MNI of 331. There were a total of 20 bivalve taxa and 11 gastropod taxa identified in the sample. The most common taxon was the West Indian pointed venus

(Anomalocardia brasiliana), a small (20-25mm) clam that can be found buried beneath muddy or sandy bottom, inshore habitats and mangroves (Monti et al. 1990, Warmke and Abbot 1961:187). The West Indian pointed venus comprised 48% of the total column sample MNI. Also common were arks (Arcidae) at 23% of the sample MNI. The column sample contained five identified ark taxa, including the turkey wing ark (Arca zebra), the cut-ribbed ark (Anadara floridana), the eared ark (Anadara notabilis), the

144

blood ark (Anadara ovalis), and the red-brown ark (Barbatia cancellaria). Arks prefer shallow, rocky habitats including reef habitats (Warmke and Abbot 1961:157-158).

The most common gastropod taxa identidied from Column Sample 1 were conchs

(Strombidae), including the West Indian fighting conch (Strombus pugilis). Conchs represent 15% of the total MNI. They can be found primarily in grassy sea beds in relatively shallow inshore habitats (Warmke and Abbot 1961:88). The second most common gastropod were nerites (Neritidae), including the virgin nerite (Neritina virginea), making up 2% of the sample MNI. Nerites are usually found attached to vegetation, either in shallow grass beds or brackish mangrove habitats (Abbot and

Morris 1995:143).

Some modifications were observed to shell specimens. Primarily, some larger bivalve shells appear to have flaked and abraded ventral edges. This use-wear occurred on six tellin (Tellinidae) specimens and two lucine (Lucinidae) specimens. In addition to use-wear, 28 shell specimens exhibited signs of burning or heating.

145

Table 5-17. Invertebrates identified from Column Sample 1 at La Minerál in measured and relative quantities Meat Weight TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight (g) %Weight (g) Anadara floridana 1 1 0.30 1.6 0.08 1.4 Anadara notabilis 3 3 0.91 15.9 0.77 6.9 Anadara ovalis 1 1 0.30 1.5 0.07 1.4 Anomalocardia brasiliana 357 159 48.04 247.4 11.94 44.4 Arca zebra 159 75 22.66 377.1 18.19 59.2 Arca spp. 5 9.8 0.47 4.9 Arcidae 79 61.9 2.99 17.3 Barbatia cancellaria 2 2 0.60 2.6 0.13 2.0 Chama macerophyla 4 4 1.21 5.7 0.27 3.4 Chamidae 9 6.9 0.33 3.9 Chione cancellata 1 1.2 0.06 1.2 Codakia orbicularis 32 6 1.81 49.7 2.40 14.9 Crassostrea rhizophorae 8 3 0.91 9.6 0.46 4.9 Lucina pectinata 17 6 1.81 25.3 1.22 9.4 Lucinidae 17 24.8 1.20 9.3 Lyropecten nodosus 1 1 0.30 2.8 0.14 2.1 Picatula giblosa 3 3 0.91 1.7 0.08 1.5 Solen obliquus 3 2 0.60 7.8 0.38 4.2 Tellina fausta 2 2 0.60 8.0 0.39 4.3 Tellinidae 18 24.2 1.17 9.1 Bivalvia UID 25 12.7 0.61 5.9 Total Bivalvia 747 268 80.97 898.2 43.33 211.7

Cerithium spp. 2 2 0.60 1.3 0.06 0.9 Murex brevifrons 2 2 0.60 9.7 0.47 5.6 Murex sp. 1 0.00 14.3 0.69 8.0 Muricidae 1 0.00 0.6 0.03 0.4 Neritidae 5 5 1.51 0.6 0.03 0.4 Neritina virginea 1 1 0.30 0.3 0.01 0.2 Nodilittorina tuberculata 1 1 0.30 0.2 0.01 0.2 Strombidae 42 0.00 66.7 3.22 8.4 Strombus pugilis 28 28 8.46 745.5 35.97 70.4 Strombus spp. 141 21 6.34 280.7 13.54 29.8 Turitella variegata 4 3 0.91 7.4 0.36 4.4 Total Gastropoda 228 63 19.03 1127.3 54.39 128.7

146

Table 5-17. Continued Meat Weight TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight (g) %Weight (g) Molusca UID 133 47.3 2.28

TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 1108 331 100.00 2072.8 100.00 340.4

Column Sample 2

Table 5-18 presents the results of the analysis of invertebrate remains from

Column Sample 2 at La Minerál. Despite its depth and the amount of soil matrix processed, Column Sample 2 was not as dense or species-rich. It contained 730 individual specimens with a total MNI of 113. There were a total of 19 bivalve taxa and eight gastropod taxa identified in the sample. The most common taxon was the ark

(Arcidae), including specimens identified as the turkey wing ark (Arca zebra), the cut- ribbed ark (Anadara floridana), the eared ark (Anadara notabilis), and the blood ark

(Anadara ovalis). Arks comprised 20% of the total MNI for Column Sample 2. The West

Indian pointed venus (Anomalocardia brasiliana) made up 16% of the total column sample MNI. Also common were tellins (Tellinidae), at 12% of the sample MNI and includes specimens identified as the favored tellin (Tellina fausta). The tellins’ habitat is shallow sandy-bottom sea beds and intertidal zones (Abbot and Morris 1995:79-85).

Another common bivalve taxon was the Caribbean oyster (Crassostrea rhizophoiae), representing 7% of the total MNI. The Caribbean oyster inhabits shallow, rocky habitats including coral reefs (Abbot and Morris 1995:37).

The most common gastropod taxa identidied from Column Sample 2 were conchs

(Strombidae), including the West Indian fighting conch (Strombus pugilis) and the milk conch (Strombus costatus). Conchs represented 10% of the total MNI. The variegate

147

turret snail (Turritella variegata) makes up 9 % of the MNI of Column Sample 2. They can be found primarily in shallow bays (Warmke and Abbot 1961:63). Nerites (Neritina spp.) were also represted in the column sample with 9% of the MNI.

Modifications to shell specimens were also observed in Column Sample 2. Ventral use-wear on large bivalves occurred on six tellin specimens and 1 lucine (Lucinidae) specimens. Indications of burning or heating were evident on eight shell specimens in the sample.

Table 5-18. Invertebrates identified from Column Sample 2 at La Minerál in measured and relative quantities Meat Weight % Meat TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight (g) %Weight (g) Weight Anadara floridana 2 1 0.88 2.9 0.38 2.2 1.01 Anadara notabilis 6 5 4.42 11.7 1.52 5.6 2.60 Anadara ovalis 3 3 2.65 2.8 0.36 2.1 0.98 Anadara spp. 4 0.00 4.0 0.52 2.7 1.25 Anomalocardia brasiliana 55 18 15.93 26.1 3.39 9.6 4.48 Arca zebra 101 15 13.27 77.1 10.03 20.1 9.36 Arcidae 29 0.00 10.0 1.30 5.0 2.33 Chione cancellata 3 2 1.77 1.6 0.21 1.4 0.67 Codakia orbicularis 34 5 4.42 34.2 4.45 11.6 5.39 Crassostrea rhizophorae 64 8 7.08 67.8 8.82 18.4 8.58 Lucina pectinata 14 2 1.77 22.9 2.98 8.8 4.10 Lucinidae 9 0.00 5.9 0.77 3.5 1.63 Phacoides pectinatus 4 1 0.88 13.8 1.79 6.2 2.91 Pseudochama sp. 2 1 0.88 1.4 0.18 1.3 0.61 Solen obliquus 8 5 4.42 3.3 0.43 2.4 1.10 Solenidae 7 0.00 2.4 0.31 1.9 0.88 Tellina fausta 28 11 9.73 123.0 15.99 27.6 12.86 Tellina spp. 6 2 1.77 7.2 0.94 4.0 1.87 Tellinidae 82 0.00 100.3 13.04 24.0 11.20 Bivalvia UID 131 0.00 52.5 6.83 15.5 7.21 Total Bivalvia 592 79 69.91 570.9 74.24 173.9 81.00 0.00 0.00

148

Table 5-18. Continued Meat Weight % Meat TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight (g) %Weight (g) Weight Astraea sp. 1 1 0.88 2.5 0.33 1.6 0.75 Muricidae 1 0.00 0.7 0.09 0.5 0.23 Neritidae 5 2 1.77 4.5 0.59 2.8 1.29 Neritina spp. 10 10 8.85 5.5 0.72 3.3 1.55 Strombidae 22 0.00 34.2 4.45 4.7 2.18 Strombus costatus 1 1 0.88 4.1 0.53 0.7 0.34 Strombus pugilis 23 10 8.85 106.7 13.88 12.7 5.93 Turritella variegata 15 10 8.85 14.5 1.89 8.1 3.77 Gastropoda UID 26 0.00 11.2 1.46 6.4 2.97 Total Gastropoda 104 34 30.09 183.9 23.91 40.8 19.00

Molusca UID 34 14.2 1.85

TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 730 113 100.00 769.0 100.00 214.7 100.00

Los Gongolones Invertebrates

Three column samples were excavated at site Los Gongolones, also known as

Los Gongolones. The identified taxa are presented in Table 5-19 and include common names as well as their associated habitats.

149

Table 5-19. All Identified invertebrate taxa from Los Gongolones, common names, and associated habitats

Reef

Local/

Beach

Pelagic

Inshore

Riverine

Shallow/

Brackish

Shorline/

Terrestrial TAXON COMMON NAME Mangrove/ Anadara brasiliana Incingrous ark X Anadara notabilis Eared ark X Anadara ovalis Blood ark X Anadara spp. Ark X Arca imbricata Mossy ark X X Arca zebra Turkey wing ark X X Arca spp. Ark X Arcidae Arks X Agropectin gibbous Calico scallop X Lyropecten nodosus Lion's-paw scallop X X Pectinidae Scallops X X Pliculata gibbosa Atlantic kittenpaw X Crassostrea rhizophorae Caribbean oyster X Codakia orbicularis Tiger lucine X Codakia orbiculata Dwarf tiger lucine X Lucina pectinata Thick lucine X Phacoides pectinatus Thick lucine X Lucinidae Lucines X Pseudochama radians Atlantic jewelbox X Chama macerophylla Leafy jewelbox X Chamidae Jewelboxes X Trachycardium sp. Pricklycockle X Solen obliquus Oblique Jackknife X Solenidae Razor clams X Tellina fausta Favored tellin X Tellina lineata Rose Petal Tellin X Tellina spp. Tellin X Tellinidae Tellins X Donax denticulatus Coquina X Mytilopsis spp. Mussel X X Anomalocardia West Indian pointed brasiliana venus X Chione cancellata Cross-barred venus X Bivalvia Bivalves

150

Table 5-19. Continued

Reef

Local/

Beach

Pelagic

Inshore

Riverine

Shallow/

Shorline/

/ Brackish

Mangrove TAXON COMMON NAME Terrestrial Astraea spp. Starsnails X X Cittarium pica West Indian topsnail X X Turbo castenea Chestnut turban Turbinidae Turban X X Nerita spp. Nerite X X X Neritidae Nerites X X X Neritina spp. Nerite X X X Neritina virginea Virgin nerite X X X Turritella variegate Variegate turretsnail X Nodilittorina tuberculata Prickly winkle X X X Fasciolaria tulipa True tulip X X X Fasciolaria sp. Tulip/spindleshell Littorinidae Periwinkle X X X Cerithium atratum Dark cerith X X Cerithium muscarum Flyspeck cerith X X Cerithiidae Ceriths/Hornsnails X X Strombus gigas Queen conch X X West Indian fighting Strombus pugilis conch X X Strombus spp. Conch X X Strombidae Conchs X X Cassis sp. Helmet X X Murex brevifrons West Indian murex X X Murex pomum Apple murex X X Murex spp. Murex X X Muricidae Murexes X X X X X Decapoda Land crabs Anthozoa Coral X

Table 5-20 lists all taxa from all three column samples along with their NISP, MNI, weight, and estimated meat weight contributions. The NISP of both column samples is

5001 with an MNI of 1010. A total of 53 invertebrate taxa including 31 bivalves, 21

151

gastropods and 1 crustacean were identified. Non-edible coral fragments were analyzed, particularly to investigate the presence of usewear as evidence of tool use.

152

Table 5-20. Invertebrates identified from the three column samples at Los Gongolones in measured and relative quantities Meat Weight Weight % Meat TAXON NISP MNI %MNI (g) %Weight (g) Weight Agropectin gibbous 1 1 0.10 4.1 0.05 2.7 0.19 Anadara brasiliana 5 4 0.40 16.0 0.21 9.5 0.65 Anadara notabilis 18 12 1.19 101.5 1.31 32.6 2.23 Anadara ovalis 6 5 0.50 4.7 0.06 3.7 0.25 Anadara spp. 7 8.1 0.10 5.1 0.35 Anomalocardia brasiliana 596 222 21.98 401.3 5.19 84.8 5.80 Arca imbricata 32 21 2.08 33.6 0.43 15.5 1.06 Arca spp. 290 172.4 2.23 34.7 2.38 Arca zebra 869 324 32.08 1831.9 23.68 238.4 16.32 Arcidae 255 173.6 2.24 43.0 2.94 Chama macerophyla 6 2 0.20 16.3 0.21 8.4 0.58 Chamidae 21 7 0.69 22.8 0.29 11.5 0.79 Chione cancellata 7 3 0.30 7.1 0.09 4.7 0.32 Codakia orbicularis 433 51 5.05 405.4 5.24 79.0 5.41 Crassostrea rhizophorae 105 24 2.38 108.8 1.41 35.9 2.45 Donax denticulatus 9 7 0.69 5.9 0.08 3.5 0.24 Lucina pectinata 391 87 8.61 766.4 9.91 120.8 8.26 Lucinidae 104 75.9 0.98 22.3 1.52 Lyropecten nodosus 1 1 0.10 1.3 0.02 1.3 0.09 Mytilopsis spp. 7 6 0.59 4.8 0.06 3.5 0.24 Phacoides pectinatus 3 1 0.10 21.1 0.27 8.3 0.57 Plicatula gibbosa 10 7 0.69 6.2 0.08 5.1 0.35 Pseudochama radians 8 7 0.69 10.0 0.13 6.0 0.41 Solen obliquous 1 1 0.10 1.3 0.02 1.3 0.09 Solen sp. 2 2 0.20 0.9 0.01 1.0 0.07 Solenidae 6 1 0.10 1.4 0.02 1.6 0.11 Tellina fausta 227 48 4.75 652.8 8.44 118.8 8.13 Tellina lineata 1 1 0.10 2.7 0.03 2.1 0.14 Tellina spp. 26 29.4 0.38 10.4 0.71 Tellinidae 121 136.4 1.76 41.5 2.84 Trachycardium sp. 1 1 0.10 0.4 0.01 0.6 0.04 Bivalvia UID 670 542.4 7.01 105.6 7.23 Total Bivalvia 4239 846 83.76 5566.9 71.95 1063.0 72.74

153

Table 5-20. Continued Meat Weight Weight % Meat TAXON NISP MNI %MNI (g) %Weight (g) Weight Cassis sp. 3 1 0.10 36.9 0.48 19.1 1.31 Cerithium atratum 1 1 0.10 0.2 0.00 0.2 0.01 Cerithium muscarum 2 2 0.20 0.4 0.01 0.3 0.02 Cittarium pica 13 1 0.10 9.8 0.13 5.6 0.39 Fasciolaria sp. 3 2 0.20 7.8 0.10 4.6 0.31 Fasciolaria tulipa 2 2 0.20 5.4 0.07 3.3 0.22 Littorinidae 1 1 0.10 1.1 0.01 0.8 0.05 Murex pomum 6 4 0.40 34.9 0.45 18.8 1.29 Murex spp. 8 2 0.20 29.6 0.38 15.6 1.07 Muricidae 13 1 0.10 23.7 0.31 13.7 0.94 Neritidae 12 8 0.79 3.9 0.05 2.6 0.17 Neritina spp. 5 5 0.50 2.3 0.03 1.5 0.10 Neritina virginea 8 7 0.69 3.1 0.04 2.0 0.14 Nodilittorina tuberculata 5 5 0.50 3.1 0.04 2.0 0.14 Strombidae 59 97.4 1.26 12.7 0.87 Strombus gigas 2 2 0.20 94.6 1.22 11.4 0.78 Strombus pugilis 57 38 3.76 1079.8 13.96 108.5 7.43 Strombus spp. 150 8 0.79 379.2 4.90 42.5 2.91 Turbinidae 6 6 0.59 3.4 0.04 2.2 0.15 Turbo castenea 1 1 0.10 0.4 0.01 0.3 0.02 Turitella variegata 114 65 6.44 151.6 1.96 74.2 5.08 Gastropoda UID 209 114.3 1.48 56.3 3.85 Total Gastropoda

Molusca UID 42 78.5 1.01

Decapoda 40 2 0.20 9.1 0.12

TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 5001 1010 100.00 7737.4 100.00 1461.3 100.00

Column Sample 3

Table 5-21 presents the results of the analysis of invertebrate remains from

Column Sample 3 at Los Gongolones. The sample contained 1792 individual specimens with a total MNI of 430. There were a total of 25 bivalve taxa and 14 gastropod taxa identified in the sample. The most common taxon was the Ark (Arcidae), including species identified as the turkey wing ark (Arca zebra), the cut-ribbed ark

154

(Anadara floridana), the eared ark (Anadara notabilis), the incongruous ark (Anadara brasiliana), the mossy ark (Arca imbricate), and the blood ark (Anadara ovalis). Arks comprised 42% of the total MNI for Column Sample 3. The West Indian pointed venus

(Anomalocardia brasiliana) was also common and made up 16% of the total column sample MNI.

The most common gastropod taxon identified in Column Sample 3 was the variegate turret snail (Turritella variegata). It makes up 11 % of column sample’s MNI.

Conchs (Strombidae), including the West Indian fighting conch (Strombus pugilis) were the second most common taxa in the sample. Conchs represented 8% of the total MNI.

Modifications to shell specimens were also observed in Column Sample 3, especially ventral use-wear on large bivalves. Such modifications were evident on 19 tellin (Tellinidae) specimens and two lucine (Lucinidae) specimens. One large tellin valve exhibited signs of abradement near the umbo, and an intact West Indian fighting conch (Strombus pugilis) had use-wear on the distal aspect of the siphon, indicating likely tool use. Burning was relatively common in Column Sample 3 with 43 specimens indicating signs of burning or heating.

155

Table 5-21. Invertebrates identified from Column Sample 3 at Los Gongolones in measured and relative quantities Meat % Weight Weight Meat TAXON NISP MNI %MNI (g) %Weight (g) Weight Agropectin gibbous 1 1 0.23 4.1 0.13 2.7 0.47 Anadara brasiliana 1 1 0.23 3.7 0.12 2.5 0.44 Anadara notabilis 10 6 1.40 61.1 1.93 17.2 2.95 Anadara ovalis 4 3 0.70 3.0 0.09 2.2 0.38 Anadara spp. 5 6.9 0.22 3.9 0.67 Anomalocardia brasiliana 166 67 15.58 123.3 3.90 27.7 4.75 Arca imbricate 20 12 2.79 21.7 0.69 8.5 1.46 Arca spp. 290 172.4 5.46 34.7 5.97 Arca zebra 379 159 36.98 867.4 27.45 104.2 17.91 Arcidae 3 3.2 0.10 2.3 0.40 Chama macerophyla 2 1 0.23 12.6 0.40 5.9 1.01 Chamidae 11 2 0.47 4.1 0.13 2.7 0.47 Codakia orbicularis 109 16 3.72 39.9 1.26 12.8 2.21 Crassostrea rhizophorae 59 13 3.02 46.5 1.47 14.3 2.45 Lucina pectinata 38 14 3.26 88.5 2.80 22.1 3.79 Lyropecten nodosus 1 1 0.23 1.3 0.04 1.3 0.22 Phacoides pectinatus 3 1 0.23 21.1 0.67 8.3 1.43 Picatula giblosa 4 3 0.70 1.9 0.06 1.6 0.28 Pseudochama radians 2 2 0.47 0.6 0.02 0.7 0.13 Solen spp. 2 2 0.47 0.9 0.03 1.0 0.17 Tellina fausta 88 13 3.02 155.9 4.93 32.4 5.58 Tellina lineate 1 1 0.23 2.7 0.09 2.1 0.35 Tellina spp. 26 29.4 0.93 10.4 1.79 Tellinidae 25 30.5 0.97 10.7 1.84 Trachycardiim spp. 1 1 0.23 0.4 0.01 0.6 0.10 Bivalvia UID 191 123.9 3.92 27.8 4.77 Total Bivalvia 1442 319 74.19 1827.0 57.83 360.6 61.98 0.00 Cassis spp. 3 1 0.23 36.9 1.17 19.1 3.29 Cerithium muscarum 1 1 0.23 0.1 0.00 0.1 0.01 Fasciolaria tulipa 2 2 0.47 5.4 0.17 3.3 0.56 Murex pomum 5 3 0.70 29.8 0.94 15.7 2.70 Muricidae 9 1 0.23 13.1 0.41 7.4 1.27

156

Table 5-21. Continued Meat % Weight Weight Meat TAXON NISP MNI %MNI (g) %Weight (g) Weight Mytilopsis sp. 4 3 0.70 3.3 0.10 2.1 0.36 Neritidae 8 4 0.93 2.4 0.08 1.5 0.27 Neritina spp. 5 5 1.16 2.3 0.07 1.5 0.26 Nodilittorina tuberculata 3 3 0.70 0.7 0.02 0.5 0.09 Strombidae 34 62.6 1.98 8.0 1.37 Strombus pugilis 31 27 6.28 712.8 22.56 67.7 11.64 Strombus spp. 96 7 1.63 280.0 8.86 29.8 5.11 Turbinidae 5 5 1.16 3.0 0.09 1.9 0.33 Turritella variegata 84 49 11.40 119.2 3.77 56.3 9.67 Gastropoda UID 25 0.00 11.3 0.36 6.4 1.11 Total Gastropoda 315 111 25.81 1282.9 40.60 221.2 38.02

Molusca UID 35 49.6 1.57

TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 1792 430 100.00 3159.5 100.00 581.8 100.00

Column Sample 4

Table 5-22 presents the results of the analysis of invertebrate remains from

Column Sample 4 at Los Gongolones. The sample contained 2177 individual specimens with a total MNI of 432. There were a total of 23 bivalve taxa and 11 gastropod taxa identified in the sample. This was the only context within which land crabs (Gecarcinidae) were recovered. The most common taxon was the Ark (Arcidae), including species identified as the turkey wing ark (Arca zebra), the cut-ribbed ark

(Anadara floridana), the incongruous ark (Anadara brasiliana), the eared ark (Anadara notabilis), the mossy ark (Arca imbricate) and the blood ark (Anadara ovalis). Arks made up 33% of the total MNI for Column Sample 3. The West Indian pointed venus

(Anomalocardia brasiliana) comprised 16% of the total column sample’s MNI. Tellins

(Tellinidae) represented 15% of the sample MNI and included the favored tellin (Tellina fausta) and the rose petal tellin (Tellina lineate).

157

Gastropods made up only 5% of the MNI of Column Sample 4. The most common identified gastropod taxa were the conchs (Strombidae), including the West Indian fighting conch (Strombus pugilis) and the queen conch (Strombus gigas). Conchs accounted for just over 1% of the total MNI of the sample. The variegate turret snail

(Turritella variegate) and nerites, including the virgin nerite (Neritina virginea) were also present, each of these taxa represent only 1% of the total MNI for the column sample.

Column sample 4 contained two species of ceriths, the dark cerith (Cerithium atratum), and the flyspeck cerith (Cerithium muscarum). Ceriths are small snails with a pointed apex that are common in the sand and mud near in shallow brackish water (Abbot and

Morris 1995:165). Also present was the West Indian topsnail (Cittarium pica) and the tulip or spindleshell snail (Fasciolaria sp.). Topsnails are found in shallow rocky habitats, usually attached to rocks or reefs (Warmke and Abbott 1961:43), while tulips prefer shallow grassy seabeds (Leal 2002:118).

Modifications to shell specimens were observed in Column Sample 4. Ventral use-wear on large bivalves was evident on 15 lucine (Lucinidae) specimens and 12 tellin specimens. One large coral fragment exhibited signs of abradement along one edge. Burning was present in Column Sample 4 with 23 specimens indicating signs of burning or heating.

158

Table 5-22. Invertebrates identified from Column Sample 4 at Los Gongolones in measured and relative quantities Meat Weight Weight % Meat TAXON NISP MNI %MNI (g) %Weight (g) Weight Anadara brasiliana 2 1 0.23 3.1 0.09 2.3 0.37 Anadara notabilis 6 4 0.93 32.8 0.97 11.2 1.86 Anadara ovalis 2 2 0.46 1.7 0.05 1.5 0.25 Anadara spp. 2 1.2 0.04 1.2 0.20 Anomalocardia brasiliana 322 127 29.40 226.6 6.67 41.8 6.93 Arca imbricata 6 4 0.93 5.3 0.16 3.3 0.54 Arca zebra 326 131 30.32 761.7 22.44 95.4 15.81 Arcidae 174 141.3 4.16 30.3 5.03 Chama macerophyla 4 1 0.23 3.7 0.11 2.5 0.42 Chamidae 5 1.9 0.06 1.6 0.27 Chione cancellata 5 2 0.46 6.0 0.18 3.5 0.59 Codakia orbicularis 282 29 6.71 327.7 9.65 53.8 8.91 Crassostrea rhizophorae 13 4 0.93 24.8 0.73 9.3 1.54 Donax denticulatus 9 7 1.62 5.9 0.17 3.5 0.58 Lucina pectinata 318 66 15.28 627.4 18.48 83.6 13.86 Lucinidae 83 70.2 2.07 18.9 3.12 Mytilopsis spp. 3 3 0.69 1.5 0.04 1.4 0.23 Picatula giblosa 3 2 0.46 2.0 0.06 1.7 0.28 Pseudochama radians 5 4 0.93 9.0 0.27 4.7 0.77 Solenidae 4 1.1 0.03 1.1 0.19 Tellina fausta 76 23 5.32 374.4 11.03 58.9 9.75 Tellinidae 48 70.0 2.06 18.8 3.12 Bivalvia UID 234 291.5 8.59 49.7 8.23 Total Bivalvia 1932 410 94.91 2990.8 88.09 500.0 82.85

Cerithium atratum 1 1 0.23 0.2 0.01 0.2 0.03 Cerithium muscarum 1 1 0.23 0.3 0.01 0.2 0.04 Cittarium pica 13 1 0.23 9.8 0.29 5.6 0.94 Fasciolaria sp. 3 2 0.46 7.8 0.23 4.6 0.76 Muricidae 3 1 0.23 9.0 0.27 5.2 0.87 Neritina virginea 6 5 1.16 2.5 0.07 1.6 0.27 Strombus gigas 2 2 0.46 94.6 2.79 11.4 1.90 Strombus pugilis 11 4 0.93 130.2 3.83 15.2 2.51 Strombus spp. 12 21.3 0.63 3.1 0.51 Turbo castenea 1 1 0.23 0.4 0.01 0.3 0.05 Turitella variegata 11 5 1.16 15.5 0.46 8.6 1.43 Gastropoda UID 174 99.1 2.92 47.5 7.87

159

Table 5-22. Continued Meat Weight Weight % Meat TAXON NISP MNI %MNI (g) %Weight (g) Weight Molusca UID 7 13.6 0.40 Total Gastropoda 238 22 5.09 390.7 11.51 103.5 17.15

Decapoda 40 2 0.46 9.1 0.27

TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 2177 432 100.00 3395.1 100.00 603.5 100.00

Column Sample 5

Table 5-23 shows the results of the analysis of invertebrate remains from Column

Sample 5 at Los Gongolones. The sample contained 992 individual specimens with a total MNI of 146. There were a total of 18 bivalve taxa and 11 gastropod taxa identified in the sample. Like the other two column samples at Los Gongolones, the most common taxon was the Ark (Arcidae). The ark species identified in Column Sample 3 are the turkey wing ark (Arca zebra), the incongruous ark (Anadara brasiliana), and the mossy ark (Arca imbricata). Arks make up 29% of the total MNI for Column Sample 3.

The West Indian pointed venus (Anomalocardia brasiliana) represented16% of the total column sample MNI. Tellins (Tellinidae) represented 8% of the sample MNI and included the favored tellin (Tellina fausta).

The most common gastropod taxon identified in Column Sample 5 was the variegate turret snail (Turretella variegata). The turret snail made up over 8% of the column sample’s MNI. Conchs including the West Indian fighting conch (Strombus pugilis) were 5% of the MNI. Nerites (Neritidae), including the virgin nerite (Neritina virginea) was also present, representing 4% of the total MNI for the column sample.

160

Modifications to shell specimens were observed in Column Sample 5. Ventral use-wear on large bivalves was evident on 12 tellin specimens and on 9 lucine

(Lucinidae) specimens. One conch fragment, a lip, exhibited signs of abradement and smoothing along distal edge. Burning was present in Column Sample 5 with 8 specimens indicating signs of burning or heating.

161

Table 5-23. Invertebrates identified from Column Sample 5 at Los Gongolones in measured and relative quantities Meat Weight Weight % Meat TAXON NISP MNI %MNI (g) %Weight (g) Weight Anadara brasiliana 2 2 1.37 9.2 0.78 4.7 1.72 Anadara notabilis 2 2 1.37 7.6 0.65 4.2 1.51 Anomalocardia brasiliana 108 28 19.18 51.4 4.38 15.3 5.53 Arca imbricata 6 5 3.42 6.6 0.56 3.8 1.37 Arca zebra 164 34 23.29 202.8 17.28 38.8 14.06 Arcidae 78 29.1 2.48 10.4 3.75 Chamidae 5 5 3.42 16.8 1.43 7.1 2.58 Chione cancellata 2 1 0.68 1.1 0.09 1.1 0.40 Codakia orbicularis 42 6 4.11 37.8 3.22 12.4 4.49 Crassostrea rhizophorae 33 7 4.79 37.5 3.20 12.3 4.46 Lucina pectinata 35 7 4.79 50.5 4.30 15.1 5.46 Lucinidae 21 5.7 0.49 3.4 1.24 Plicatula gibbosa 3 2 1.37 2.3 0.20 1.8 0.67 Pseudochama radians 1 1 0.68 0.4 0.03 0.6 0.20 Solen obliquous 1 1 0.68 1.3 0.11 1.3 0.45 Solenidae 2 1 0.68 0.3 0.03 0.5 0.17 Tellina fausta 63 12 8.22 122.5 10.44 27.5 9.98 Tellinidae 48 35.9 3.06 12.0 4.33 Bivalvia UID 245 127.0 10.82 28.2 10.23 Total Bivalvia 861 114 78.08 745.8 63.54 200.4 72.61

Littorinidae 1 1 0.68 1.1 0.09 0.8 0.27 Murex pomum 1 1 0.68 5.1 0.43 3.1 1.12 Murex spp. 8 2 1.37 29.6 2.52 15.6 5.66 Muricidae 1 1.6 0.14 1.1 0.39 Neritidae 4 4 2.74 1.5 0.13 1.0 0.36 Neritina virginea 2 2 1.37 0.6 0.05 0.4 0.16 Nodilittorina tuberculata 2 2 1.37 2.4 0.20 1.5 0.56 Strombidae 25 34.8 2.96 4.7 1.72 Strombus pugilis 15 7 4.79 236.8 20.18 25.7 9.30 Strombus spp. 42 1 0.68 77.9 6.64 9.7 3.50 Turbinidae 1 1 0.68 0.4 0.03 0.3 0.11 Turitella variegata 19 11 7.53 16.9 1.44 9.3 3.38

162

Table 5-23. Continued Meat Weight Weight % Meat TAXON NISP MNI %MNI (g) %Weight (g) Weight Gastropoda UID 10 3.9 0.33 2.4 0.88 Total Gastropoda 131 32 21.92 412.6 35.15 75.6 27.39

Mollusca UID 15.3 1.30

TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 992 146 100.00 1173.7 100.00 276.0 100.00

TASP Vertebrates

Vertebrate remains were relatively uncommon in the column sample. Because they were recovered in such low numbers they were not considered for comparative analysis. However, the presence of certain taxa indicate the habitats from which people were obtaining animals. Table 5-24 presents the vertebrate taxa recovered from the column samples along with their respective habitats. The column sample from which each identified taxon recovered is indicated in Table 5-25.

163

Table 5-24. All vertebrate taxa identified from column samples with associated habitats

Reef

Local/

Beach

Pelagic

Inshore

Riverine

Shallow/

Brackish

Shorline/

Terrestrial TAXON COMMON NAME Mangrove/ Isolobodon portoricensis Hutia X Rodentia Rodents X Mammalia Mammals

Aves Birds

Cyclura sp. Iguana X Emydid turtle (fresh Emydidae water) X Cheloniidae Sea turtles X X Testudines Turtle

Elops saurus Lady fish X Centropomus spp. Snook X Epinephelus spp. Grouper X Serranidae Sea basses X Carangidae Jacks X Lutjanidae Snappers X Sparisoma spp. Parrotfish X Scaridae Parrotfishes X Gobiomorus dormitor Bigmouth sleeper X X Thunnus spp. Tuna X Diodontidae Porcupinefish Osteichthyes Bony fish

164

Table 5-25. Identified vertebrate taxa with associated column samples TAXON COMMON NAME CS 1 CS 2 CS 3 CS 4 CS 5 Isolobodon portoricensis Hutia X X X X Rodentia Rodents X X X Mammalia Mammals X X X X

Aves Birds X

Cyclura sp. Iguana X X Emydidae Emydid turtle X Cheloniidae Sea Turtles X Testudines Turtle X X X

Elops saurus Lady Fish X Centropomus spp. Snook X Epinephelus spp. Grouper Serranidae Sea Basses X Carangidae Jacks X Lutjanidae Snappers X Sparisoma spp. Parrotfish X Scaridae Parrotfishes X Gobiomorus dormitor Bigmouth Sleeper X X Thunnus spp. Tuna X Diodontidae Porcupinefish X Osteichthyes Bony Fish X X X X X

Summary of Results

In this chapter I presented the results of the zooarchaeological analysis of excavated material from sites La Jácanas, La Minerál, and Los Gongolones. The results were presented in tables arranged according to specific spatial and temporal contexts for comparative purposes. These results catalog the animals that were available in south central Puerto Rico and which were most commonly used by the inhabitants of pre-Columbian settlements in the region. Midden deposits from these sites contain larger quantities of invertebrate remains, primarily bivalve and gastropod marine mollusks indicating that marine habitats were important for food procurement.

165

Vertebrate remains also indicate that a wide variety of habitats were exploited by people in the living in the foothill region, both local and marine. Local terrestrial habitats provided mammals and reptiles, and the Portugués River provided freshwater fish species. Middens at the smaller sites of La Minerál and Los Gongolones contained only small quantities of vertebrate remains; however volumetric column sampling provided abundant and diverse assemblages of invertebrate remains adequate for interpretation.

The following chapters will discuss the implications of these results.

166

CHAPTER 6 COMPARATIVE INTERPRETATION OF ANIMAL ACQUISITION AND CONSUMPTION

This chapter presents the comparative contextual interpretations of the results of this zooarchaeological analysis. Interpretations in this chapter relate to human behavior that are directly associated with human interaction with animals, such as acquisition and consumption. Cultural interpretations that deal with community interactions and social phenomena are made in Chapter 7.

The use of animals at La Jácanas during the early (Jácana 2) time period is compared with later patterns (Jácana 4) in order to discern change over time. One goal of the study is to determine whether animal use was affected by social and political influences as they gradually intensified after 600 CE. If my hypothesis that animal use becomes more congruent through time is correct, then early patterns of animal use at

La Jácanas should be distinct from later patterns.

The relationship of animals with ceremonialism is also explored in this dissertation.

The contextual comparisons of animal remains from ceremonial contexts with non- ceremonial contexts at La Jácanas are made to test whether ceremonial activities dictated the use of animals. I hypothesized that only certain large, rare, or exotic animals would be found in associated with ceremonial contexts.

Then, column sample results are presented in order to compare animal use at specific locations and time periods at La Minerál and Los Gongolones. Since these two sites were occupied during the apparent abandonment of La Jácanas, and each has distinct date ranges, change through time can be observed. Comparisons are also made between the sites to test for the visibility of differences due to ceremonialism.

Midden deposits at Los Gongolones and La Jácanas are in direct contact with the site’s

167

batey, while middens at La Mineral are not associated with ceremonial space. Finally, the compositions of faunal assemblages from each context are used to interpret patterns of habitat exploitation.

Patterns of Animal Use through Time at La Jácanas

Animal remains are contextualized with the Jácana temporal components defined at La Jácanas (Espenshade 2011) in order to compare how people consumed and used animals early in the regional formative period (Jácana 2) as well as from the last few centuries before the arrival of Europeans. The abandonment of La Jácanas during

Jácana 3 (ca. 900-1300 CE) acts as a temporal marker, before and after which human behavior is compared. The earlier Jácana 1 and 2 components saw an expansion of the site, with three to five houses and thick associated middens. Human burials from

Jácana 2 were located below these midden deposits and a small batey was present

(Espenshade 2012; Kaplan 2011). Material culture associated with Jácana 1 and 2 include Cuevas, the eastern Monseratte style and the western Pure Ostiones style

(Espenshade et al. 2011; Foss et al. 2011). The Jácana 4 component (1300-1500 CE) began with the reoccupation of the site, where the batey was expanded to the 40 X 50 meter size and the large midden mound that converges with the batey’s north wall was constructed or accumulated (Espenshade et al. 2011). Jácana 4 also saw the creation of iconography as demonstrated by the petroglyphs that dominate the north wall of the batey (Loubser et al. 2011). Two houses were identified each having less-dense domestic midden deposits associated with them than those from the earlier components

(Espenshade 2011; Kaplan 2011). Capá and Boca Chica pottery, associated with western Puerto Rico, and the eastern Esperanza style pottery are common during

Jácana 4 (Espenshade et al. 2011).

168

The associated non-faunal cultural material and features indicate patterns indicative of trends seen elsewhere on the island. Changes in house size and burial strategies follow general trends toward smaller houses and central burials (Curet 1992).

Pottery types are indicative of early Ostionoid styles during Jácana 2 and Chican styles during Jácana 4. This indicates the level of social development at the site. Chican pottery is associated with the complex Taino polities that were established at the time of

European contact. The expansion of the batey and production of ceremonial and elite iconography during this time also suggests that late in the occupation of La Jácanas, regional political and social influence was consolidated. With this contextualization of the site, the comparison of Jácana 2 and Jácana 4 fauna can be applied to research questions regarding social and political unification through time.

Comparison of Vertebrate Use

A comparison of the class distribution in meat weight of vertebrate remains from the Jácana 2 and Jácana 4 temporal components is presented in Figure 6-1. It includes only the contexts designated as purely Jácana 2 or 4 and excludes mixed contexts.

The figure indicates that the contribution of fish to the overall diet does not appear to change over time, contributing around 40% of meat weight during both time periods.

However, the use of mammals decreases from 51% of diet contribution to 36%. At the same time, reptile use increases from around 8% to 21%. Bird use also decreases during Jácana 4.

169

Figure 6-1. A comparison of minimum meat weight contributions of identified vertebrate classes from the Jácana 2 and Jácana 4 temporal components at La Jácanas

Ceramic data and radiocarbon dating indicates that the earliest occupation of the site occurred around 400 CE (Jácana 1) and expanded around 650 CE (Jácana 2), around the beginning of formative social and political unification. The Jácana 4 temporal component is characterized by the construction of the midden mound as well as the large batey (Espenshade 2011; Espenshade et al. 2009). This increase in ceremonial space suggests that the people who repopulated the area on a permanent basis following the extended period of abandonment (Jácana 3) may have been subject to a higher degree of regional political influence.

While fish use changed little over time, mammal use declined sharply during

Jácana 4. The non-native hutia (Isolobodon portoricensis) could have experienced a decrease in population during the later period due to over hunting. Or perhaps the hutia population required tending and was not properly maintained. Another mammal, the

West Indian shrew (Nesophontes edithae) was present only in the early context. The small insectivore was likely captured in the same manner as hutia. Although it is now

170

extinct, it did not become so until after European contact (Morgan and Woods 1986), probably due to the introduction of European rats. The West Indian shrew may not have been food. Its presence in the faunal assemblage may be due to commensalism.

Guinea pig (Cavia porcellus) was identified from both time periods. In general, guinea pigs are rare in Puerto Rico, but more common there than on other islands

(LeFebvre and deFrance in press). They are typically recovered from contexts from later time periods. There are no specimens from contexts that date prior to 500 CE

(Newsom and Wing 2004; LeFebvre and deFrance in press). The guinea pig recovered from Jácana 2 dates to an earlier time than specimens from the nearby Tibes site

(deFrance et al. 2010), but are still associated with the early Ostionoid (Rouse’s (1992)

Period IIIa).

The other significant trend that occurs in the vertebrate assemblage over time is the increased use in reptiles over time. The contribution of reptiles to the vertebrate assemblage almost triples from around 8% meat weight contribution to more than 21% from Jácana 2 to Jácana 4 time periods. Specifically, there is an increase in the number of turtle remains in the later component. Sea turtles (Chelonidae) increase in the later period (Jácana 2: NISP=4, Jácana 4: NISP=12). The increased use of turtle might reflect the decline in hutia during the later time period as people increasingly exploited their local habitat. Change in sea turtle use may indicate a change in technology that facilitated its capture.

Comparison of Invertebrate Use

A comparison of the relative abundances of marine mollusk remains during the

Jácana 2 and Jácana 4 occupations (Figure 6-2) indicates that the use of bivalves and gastropods were more equivalent during the earlier component. A comparison of the

171

MNI and meat weight contributions through time shows that the use of gastropods became less prevalent during Jácana 4. Values of estimated meat weight contribution shows that the mollusk food contribution of gastropods drops from almost 50% during

Jácana 2, to less than 25% during Jácana 4. A total of 19 gastropod taxa were identified from the Jácana 2 material, while only 13 taxa were identified from the Jácana

4 material. Gastropod data from Tables 5-5 and 5-7 indicate a greater importance of conchs (Strombus spp.) as well as variegate turret snail (Turritella variegata).

Figure 6-2. A comparison of bivalve and gastropod distribution by %MNI and %Meat Weight in Jácana 2 and Jácana 4 temporal components at La Jácanas

The comparison of distribution of invertebrate taxa identified from Jácana 2 and

Jácana 4 shows some interesting trends. Gastropods seem to decline in importance during the later component. There could be several explanations for such a trend. The gastropod taxa with the most dramatic decline were conchs (family Strombidae). These large mollusks could be cumbersome to transport the long distance from the shore to the site. If this were the case, it is logical that the meat could be removed at the

172

collecting ground and the shell left behind. Conchs would be greatly underrepresented in the assemblage if this were the case. Like most of the other mollusks exploited by the inhabitants of La Jácanas, conchs inhabit shallow water. Their size make them more visible in the water than smaller species. It is plausible that the reduction in number of conchs during the later phases at La Jácanas reflect a reduced animal population due to overexploitation of the species, such as has been identified elsewhere (Keegan et al.

2003).

The decrease in gastropods is compensated by a dramatic increase in the use of one particular bivalve species: the West Indian pointed venus (Anomalocardia brasiliana). This small clam increased from around 12% of the MNI during Jácana 2 to about 44% during Jácana 4. Reasons for this trend may reflect environmental fluctuations, or perhaps gathering practices or new technology. The West Indian pointed venus inhabits the same shallow-water habitats as conchs and other gastropods that decline during the Jácana 4 component. Consistency in habitat exploition by the inhabitants of La Jácanas and a decline in the numbers of the more visible gastropods may account for the increase in these small bivalves. A single West

Indian pointed venus supplies only a small amount of meat. Many individuals would have to be transported to the site for consumption. Due to its small size, it may have been prepared by combining it with other foods, or prepared by boiling in stews.

The second most common mollusk species was the turkey wing ark (Arca zebra).

It was identified in relatively equal abundances during both time periods. This may reflect the habitats that were being exploited as turkey wing arks are commonly found attached to rocks and associated with reefs. This is consistent with the comparison of

173

vertebrate class contribution during Jácana 2 and Jácana 4. The majority of fish identified species are associated with rich reef habitats. The contribution of fish remains consistently near 40% in both contexts. The persistent use of reef habitats is clear in the faunal data.

Patterns of Animal Use in Ceremonial and Non-Ceremonial Contexts

at La Jácanas

In order to explore the affect of ceremonialism on the faunal assemblages at La

Jácanas, zooarchaeological material is compared in contexts that are in association with the batey with those that are not. A batey was present at La Jácanas throughout its occupations. During the Jácana 4 temporal component, the batey and associated midden mound was expanded (Foss et al. 2011). These largeelements of local landscape are visibly set-apart from the rest of the site and are commonly recognized as areas of social importance that indicate activities of ritual and ideological significance

(Alegria 1983; Seigel 1996, 1999). In the Caribbean, faunal assemblages from these contexts are expected to contain taxa and individual specimens that are more difficult to obtain, such as exotic or non-endemic species, domesticates, rare species, or large fish

(Deagan 2004; deFrance 2009). Batey-associated contexts are defined as midden deposits in direct contact with batey walls. Excavation of Trench 19, which cut into the midden mound, provided the batey-associated material for this comparison. The midden mound is adjacent to and abutting the south wall of the batey (see Figure 6-3).

Non-batey contexts include excavated areas that are not in direct association (contact) with the batey. At La Jácanas, excavations in the feature exposure area FX-F and

174

Trench 7, which were later found to be parts of the same midden deposit (Foss et al.

2011: 106), provide the non-batey faunal material for this comparison.

FX-F

Midden Mound Trench 19

Figure 6-3. A map of PO-29 indicating the locations of the Midden Mound (Trench 19) Comparisonand of FX Vertebrate-F. These twoUse loci provide faunal material for the spatial comparative analysis at the site. Adapted from Espenshade, Christopher. 2009. End of Field FigureProgress 6-4 provides Report aof graph Phase presenting III Investigations a comparison and Recordation of the vertebrate and Interpretation data. of Petroglyphs at Site PO-29, Municipio Ponce, Puerto Rico (Figure 9, Page Relative meat28) Newweight South contribution Associates of each Inc. Technicalclass of vert Reportebrate 1724. is shown. As with the

175

temporal comparison, the contribution of fish in each context is similarly around 40%.

However, the contribution of mammals in batey-associated contexts (43%) is almost double that of non-batey contexts (22%). Conversely, the use of reptiles is more than twice as common in non-batey contexts (30%) as it is in batey-associated contexts

(14%).

Figure 6-4. A comparison of minimum meat weight contributions of identified vertebrate classes from batey-associated and non-batey spatial contexts at La Jácanas

Vertebrate remains show distinct differences in the two assemblages. Mammal use is more common in batey-associated contexts. Figure 6-4 shows that mammals contribute less than half of the proportionate vertebrate meat weight in non-batey contexts as they do in batey associated contexts. The two most common mammal species are hutia and guinea pig. Neither species are endemic to the island; however hutia are common in all contexts. Human-animal relationships with hutia and guinea pig were quite disparate. Hutia may have been transported to the island and released into the wild. Hutia were typical island rodents and had no natural predators, were social,

176

and were opportunistic feeders (Morgan and Woods 1986; Woods 1989). Therefore, they would have been easily hunted or captured as they scavenged near human settlements or in cultivated fields. Their populations could have been maintained either by human interference in breeding, or by periodically transporting and releasing more.

Guinea pigs are a true domesticate and rare in the Caribbean, suggesting more restricted access (Newsom and Wing 2004:73). Guinea pigs may have been exotic trade goods or imported as food. In parts of South America outside of the central Andes, such as found in Ecuador, guinea pigs appear as domesticates in the archaeological record immediately prior to, or in association with, evidence of extensive trade networks

(Stahl and Norton 1987). These areas include the northern Andes and the Caribbean coast of South America. Such trade networks may have eventually extended into the

Caribbean, possibly directly to the Greater Antilles from the north coast of South

America (Newsom and Wing 2004; Rodriguez-Ramos 2007). This is corroborated by recent recovery of guinea pig from archaeological sites on Carriocou and St. Lucia in the Lesser Antilles that date to contexts that are late in prehistory (LeFebvre and deFrance in press). Guinea pigs are only found in batey contexts, supporting the hypothesis that exotic species would be more common in assemblages associated with ceremonial activities.

The contribution of fish to the overall vertebrate assemblage does not differ significantly between the two contexts and consist primarily of taxa that are associated with reef habitats. Pelagic fish represented by tuna (Thunna sp.), barracuda

(Sphyraena sp.), and shark (Lamniformes) were only recovered from the batey

177

contexts. These results support the hypothesis that large fish, or fish that are rare in archaeological contexts would be more common in ceremonial assemblages.

Diversity and equitability were calculated for vertebrate taxa represented in the sample (Table 6-1). As expected based on sample size, the diversity of the batey contexts are higher than the non-batey contexts. However, equitability values for the vertebrate taxa in each context are similar. In batey contexts V1=0.8433 and in non- batey contexts the V1=0.8998. These values are high and indicate that the representation of taxa in the sample is even, and no single taxon is over-represented.

Table 6-1. Diversity and equitability calculations for vertebrate taxa in batey and non- batey contexts Context Diversity Index (H1) Equitability Value (V1) Batey (Ceremonial) 3.21 0.8443 Non-Batey (Non-Ceremonial) 2.44 0.8998

Comparison of Invertebrate Use

The comparison of invertebrates in batey-associated contexts with non-batey contexts (Figure 6-5), demonstrates disparate results when MNI and Meat Weight is considered. The MNI indicates that bivalves were more common in both batey and non- batey contexts. Conversely, the meat weight contribution values show that use of gastropods was more common in both contexts. Mollusks from batey associated contexts were 70% bivalves by MNI. However, estimated meat weight indicate that the contribution of gastropods and bivalves were more equal, with gastropods (55%) contributing slightly more than bivalves. When comparing the two contexts, gastropod use was more prevalent at the batey than elsewhere on the site. Non-batey contexts yielded 10 identified gastropod taxa, while 30 taxa were identified from the material from near the batey. Additionally, an examination of the data in Table 5-11 indicates the

178

presence of some less-common gastropod species in the batey contexts including the

Caribbean vase (Vasum muricatum), milk conch (Strombus costatus), and the helmet

(Cassis sp.).

Figure 6-5. A comparison of bivalve and gastropod distribution by %MNI and %Meat Weight in batey-associated and non-batey spatial contexts at La Jácanas

Overall, the data indicate that that mollusk use is similar in each area. Gastropod and bivalve use does not differ significantly between the two contexts. The calculation of estimated meat weight corrects for the fact that some of the gastropod taxa are underrepresented in the total MNI. The fragmentary nature of the bivalve remains makes it difficult to identify anatomical features necessary for the calculation of MNI.

The result is that relatively equal amounts of gastropods and bivalves are used in both contexts. The presence of the Caribbean vase (Vasum mericatum), and the milk conch

(Strombus costatus) may also indicate that some of the mollusks may have been differentially distributed, although the disparity could be due to sample size.

Diversity and equitability was also calculated for invertebrate taxa represented in the sample (Table 6-2). As with the vertebrate samples, batey contexts are more

179

diverse as a result of sample size. Equitability values for the invertebrate taxa in each context differ slightly. In batey contexts V1=0.5948 and in non-batey contexts the

V1=0.7127. These equitability values are lower than those of vertebrate taxa indicating that the representation of taxa in the sample is less even. This means that one or more taxa are represented more frequently in the invertebrate samples. Invertebrates are less even in batey contexts. The representation of arks (Arcidae) and the West Indian pointed venus in both contexts (combined 48.56% MNI) may account for species unevenness among the samples.

Table 6-2. Diversity and equitability calculations for invertebrate taxa in batey and non- batey contexts Context Diversity Index (H1) Equitability Value (V1) Batey (Ceremonial) 2.56 0.5984 Non-Batey (Non-Ceremonial) 2.29 0.7127

Patterns of Animal Use at La Minerál and Los Gongolones

The results of the analysis of archaeological invertebrate remains are arranged in order to compare the relative abundances of bivalves and gastropods between individual contexts. For this comparative study, each column sample is treated as a distinct archaeological context, with material from all levels analytically combined (see

Chapter 5 for explanation). The excavated material from each midden deposit is the result of an event, or series of events, that can indicate how animals were used in the past. Radiocarbon dates from the column samples put the habitation of these two smaller sites between 1050 CE and 1430 CE (see Table 4-2). These dates fall primarily into Rouse’s (1992) Period IIIb (Middle Ostionoid) and the Jácana 3 temporal component, during which La Jácanas was abandoned (Espenshade 2011; Foss et al.

180

2011). Upon the reoccupation of La Jácanas (Jácana 4), activities associated with increased regional social and political influence, such as construction the large mound and batey with its associated iconography, began at the site. With specific contexts provided by the column samples with absolute radiocarbon dates, patterns of animal use can be observed and compared through time in order to answer questions regarding the unification of regional influences.

Ceremonial contexts are also present at La Minerál and Los Gongolones, defined by the presence of a batey at each site. The maps provided in Figures 5-6 and 5-7, show the locations of each of the column samples at their respective in relation to each site’s batey. The column samples excavated at La Minerál are situated at 50 m and 150 m distance from the batey. The batey at La Minerál did not appear to have an associated midden. Looting near the batey may have prevented the detection of a midden and irreparably damaged the deposit. At Los Gongolones, column samples were taken from middens that were in direct contact with the batey walls. Unlike La

Minerál, the only midden deposits identified at Los Gongolones were abutting the batey walls. No deposits were discovered at any distance from the batey. The midden contexts at these two sites provide faunal assemblages that can be applied to the research question regarding the affect of ceremonial activities on patterns of animal use.

Site Comparison

Consumption and use of invertebrates at La Minerál is compared with that at Los

Gongolones, in order to detect differences in animal food use at each site, as well as possible differences in batey-associated and non-batey contexts. Figure 6-5 shows the comparison of percent MNI and percent meat weight for the total analyses at each site.

181

These data indicate that the distribution of bivalves and gastropods are very similar at both sites when total values are observed. Bivalves are more abundant at both sites, accounting for about 80% of the total MNI and about 70% of the total estimated meat weight. The differences in the ratios are due to the relationship of animal mass to the mass of edible meat it provides.

Figure 6-6. A comparison of the relative abundances of bivalves and gastropods at La Minerál (PO-42) and Los Gongolones (PO-43) These same ratios of bivalves and gastropods are compared within each site by specific contexts, defined by individual column samples (see Figure 6-6). The comparison of Column Sample1 and Column Sample 2 at La Minerál also shows that bivalves out-number gastropods by similar ratios as are found in the inter-site comparison. The graph also indicates that meat weight estimates for Column Sample 2 are skewed toward bivalves. This reflects the fragmentary nature of bivalve specimens, especially arks (Arcidae). The condition of the remains made it difficult to identify anatomical features on which to base the determination of MNI. The overall relative abundance of bivalves was comparable to Column Sample 1.

182

Figure 6-7. A comparison of the relative abundances of bivalves and gastropods at from Column Sample 1 and Column Sample 2 at La Minerál The same intra-site comparison is made between the three column samples excavated at Los Gongolones (see Figure 6-7). Bivalves outnumber gastropods in all three contexts. However, the three are not completely similar. Column sample 5 appears to have a similar bivalve-gastropod ratio as column samples 1 and 2. Column sample 3, however appears to have a narrower ratio with a ratio of about 60%-40%.

Column sample 4 is unique with only 5% MNI (17% estimated meat weight) of the sample composed of gastropods.

183

Figure 6-8. A comparison of the relative abundances of bivalves and gastropods at from Column Sample 1 and Column Sample 2 at La Minerál. Comparative Interpretations of Column Samples

The accumulation of midden material and the resulting features on the landscape resulted from specific events, or series of events, that occurred at a specific location and time in the past. The measured sampling of these middens results in the recovery of materials that represent these events. The interpretation of the archaeological remains from column samples depends upon the proper contextualization of the samples. This section discusses the results of the faunal analysis of each column sample individually with deference to context.

The ratio of bivalve and gastropod use represented by the Column Sample 1 is similar to both the Jácana 4 component at La Jácanas as well as the non-batey contexts. The ratios are less equal and bivalves represent about 70% of the samples

MNI. The small clam, the West Indian Pointed Venus (Anomalocardia brasiliana) represents nearly half (48%) of the sample’s MNI. This is consistent with the increase in

184

the use of this species in the Jácana 4 component at La Jácanas. The use of gastropods were also similar to the later temporal components at La Jácanas, where their use became less equal when compared to time periods prior to site abandonment.

The West Indian pointed venus inhabits the same shallow marine habitats as the most common gastropods (Strombids). The people of La Minerál and La Jácanas may responded to a drop in the population of large gastropods due to environmental causes or perhaps their overexploitation by increasing their exploitation of the more plentiful clams. Whether caused by naturalistic phenomena, or by human action, a drop in the population of Strombids and other large gastropods could have necessitated their replacement in the diet of the inhabitants of the region. This may be what is visible in the faunal record as large gastropods diminish over time while the small clams increase.

The ratio of invertebrate classes identified from Column Sample 2 is similar to that in Column Sample 1. While the midden is closer to the batey than the midden associated with Column sample 1, it is still located a substantial distance from the batey. The sample appears more similar to non-batey-associated contexts at La

Jácanas, with even larger margins between gastropods and bivalves. Column Sample 2 dates to the time period near the end of the Jácana 3 component at La Jácanas. The later deposition events at the midden could have occurred as La Jácanas was being reoccupied. The similarities between the Column Sample 2 material with Column

Sample 1 and the Jácana 4 contexts at La Jácanas could be explained by its place during the transition between Jácana 3 and Jácana 4. The composition of taxa contained in the midden at Column Sample 2 may reflect its earlier date, however.

Particularly, the increase in use of the West Indian pointed venus, seen in Column

185

Sample 1 and the Jácana 4 contexts at La Jácanas, is not seen in the material from

Column Sample 2. The larger arks (Arcidae) are most common in the sample, indicating the importance of the exploitation reef habitats. Interestingly, the reduction in the use of Strombid gastropods (conchs) that is seen in the later temporal component at

La Jácanas and Column Sample 1 is also seen in Column Sample 2. The increase in the importance of the West Indian pointed venus is not. This may also reflect the context of Column Sample 2 with a period of transition.

Column Sample 3 was excavated from a midden deposit at Los Gongolones. The activities that produced the midden deposit would likely have occurred at the batey, perhaps indicating that they had elevated social or religious importance. No material from Column Sample 3 was subjected to radiocarbon dating. Pottery recovered from the column sample is primarily identified as Ostionoid UID with a few positive identifications of Pure Ostiones pottery (Torres 2012: 529-557). While not as reliable as radiocarbon dating, this may indicate that this particular midden dates as early as

Rouse’s (1992) period IIIa (600-900 CE). These relative dates, along with radiocarbon dates from the other column samples at the site suggest that the midden associated with Column Sample 3 may be from early in the Jácana 3 component at La Jácanas

(beginning around 900 CE).

Despite the possible early date, the faunal composition of Column Sample 3 does not resemble the early components at La Jácanas, where both MNI and meat weight indicate equal use of bivalves and gastropods. Similarly, its location in direct association with the batey, did not seem to affect the invertebrate class ratios. The comparison of meat weight contribution does show that there was a more balanced use

186

of bivalves and gastropods than from contexts at La Minerál. Like earlier components, the most common invertebrates in the sample were the arks (Arcidae), rather than the

West Indian pointed venus (Anomalocaria brasiliana) in Jácana 4 contexts (including

Column Sample 1). Conchs (Strombidae) were not the most common gastropod taxa in

Column Sample 3, rather the variegate turret snail (Turitella variegata) was most common. The presence of conch shells in the midden may indicate both environmental factors, such as the reduction in populations of the animals, or behavioral factors, such as the removal of the animals from their cumbersome shells before transporting them back to the site. Turret snail shells are small (usually less than 6 cm) and would be much easier to carry in the shell.

The midden deposit from which Column Sample 4 was excavated was unique in two ways. First, it was the only column sample that contained the remains of land crabs

(Gecarcinidae). Second, the invertebrate class ratio showed a very large descrepency between the use of bivalves and gastropods. Like other Jácana 3 contexts, arks

(Arcidae) were the most common bivalve. However, gastropods only represented five percent of the total sample MNI. Conchs were the most common of the gastropods present, but only comprised about one percent of the sample MNI. Meat weight ratios are less disparate, but still show a significantly wider margin between invertebrate classes than any other context.

The midden deposit from which Column Sample 5 was excavated was also in direct contact with the batey walls indicating (ceremonial) activities associated with the batey. Radiocarbon dates (cal. 1230-1280 CE) indicate the midden deposit began to accumulate towards the end of the Jácana 3 component at La Jácanas, during which La

187

Jácanas was not in use. The ratio of bivalve use to gastropods from Column Sample 5 was similar to Column Samples 1 and 2 at La Minerál as well as later components at La

Jácanas. The composition of the deposit was not similar to batey-associated contexts at La Jácanas, where the uses of the two invertebrate classes were equal. Bivalve use was the most common and arks (Arcidae) comprised the largest portion of the sample’s taxa. Also, Column Sample 5 was similar to the other samples at the site where conchs

(Strombidae) were less common. Turret snail (Turritella variegata) was the most common gastropod by MNI. The reduced presence of conch shells in the midden may indicate both environmental factors, such as the reduction in populations of the animals, or behavioral factors, such as the removal of the animals from their shells before transporting them back to the site.

Evidence of Habitat Use

In this section I discuss the various habitats utilized by the inhabitants of La

Jácanas, La Minerál, and Los Gongolones, for the acquisition of animal resources.

Habitat use is related to technology, transport, and perhaps cooperation and negotiation. Therefore, it must be considered when answering research questions pertaining to community interaction. Animals represented in the faunal assemblages from the three sites are presented with reference to their natural habitats and implications related human behavior, such as hunting, fishing and perhaps animal tending are discussed.

Represented Animals and Their Habitats

The analysis of animal remains from La Jácanas, La Minerál, and Los Gongolones suggest that the inhabitants of the sites enjoyed a diversity of animal resources from a variety of habitats (see Tables 5-1, 5-15, and 5-19). The local upland forest and riverine

188

habitats supplied terrestrial fauna. The West Indian hutia (Isolobodon portoricensis) was the most common mammal at La Jácanas and present at both La Minerál and Los

Gongolones. The local habitat provided lizards including iquana (Cyclura sp.) identified at all three sites. Snakes (Colubridae) were identified at La Jácanas are native to the upland river valleys as are some birds (Aves)—present at La Jácanas and La Minerál.

Results from the faunal analysis also indicate that the Portugués River provided aquatic food resources. Fresh water eels (Anguilla rostrata) identified at La Jácanas, and the big mouth sleeper (Gobiomorus dormitor), found in all three sites, are riverine species. All three sites contained Emydid turtles (Emydidae), which are freshwater species that associated with the river and other freshwater habitats. The use of mangrove habitats is indicated by the presence of wading birds (Anas discors,

Ardeidae) at La Jácanas. All three sites contain mollusks that are common in mangroves, including nerites (Neritidae) and the West Indian pointed venus

(Anomalocardia brasiliana), the latter of which is very common—especially in later contexts. Mangroves occur in areas near the mouth of the Portugués River (Kendall et al. 2001).

The presence of a significant number of marine animal species at the studies archaeological sites indicates that it was necessary for inhabitants to utilize non-local habitats in order to obtain a large portion of their protein. The majority of animals represented in the faunal assemblages, both by MNI and meat weight, come from marine or brackish water habitats. Shallow, inshore habitats and coral reefs were the most commonly exploited habitats based on both vertebrate and invertebrate species.

The most common mollusk species, the West Indian pointed venus (Anomalocardia

189

brasiliana), and the turkey wing ark (Arca zebra), are shallow water species that could have been collected without the use of watercraft. The turkey wing ark often attaches to rocks and is therefore common around reefs as well (Warmke and Abbot 1961).

Pelagic species are rare. The true pelagic fish, present at La Jácanas and La Minerál, is

Tuna (Thunnus sp.). Other species labeled as pelagic, such as the barracuda

(Sphyraena sp.), sharks (Lamniformes), rays (Rajiformes), and flying fish (Exocoetidae), are also common in shallower inshore and reef habitats.

Table 6-3. The relationship between distance form the coast and the percentage of marine fauna identified from each site, with statistical data from a simple regression analysis Site Distance from coast Percentage of marine fauna La Minerál 11.58 99.6 Los Gongolones 12.22 98.5 La Jácanas 14.5 96.5

r = -0.989 t statistic = 6.73 Slope <>0, p = .093

Settlements that are situated at a greater distance from shore should require more effort to obtain marine resources. Table 6-3 presents the relationship between the distance from shore of each site with the corresponding percentage of marine fauna identified in at each site. A simple regression analysis of these data indicate a strong linear correlation (r = -0.989). The statistical analysis of the data results in a p value of

0.09. This low statistical confidence is primarily due to the small number of sites included in the test. Despite the strong correlation, it is evident from the data that thise three inland sites relied heavily on marine resources. Between 96% and 99% of the total MNI of each site was provided by marine vertebrates and invertebrates. The

190

interpretation of this aspect of human behavior should not focus on distance as a factor in habitat exploitation.

Interpretation of Human Behavior

The most common terrestrial animal exploited by the inhabitants of La Jácanas, La

Mineral and Los Gongolones, the West Indian Hutia (Isolobodon portoricensis), may indicate human strategies specific to their use. Most evidence suggests that they were transported to Puerto Rico from Hispaniola and their populations were maintained, perhaps through tending (Newsom and Wing 2004:135). They may also have been released on the island to be hunted as they were attracted to human settlements. As tropical rodents, hutias were opportunistic feeders and would have enjoyed the added food sources provided by their human neighbors. It is probable that they would have thrived without human interference on the island, as there was little competition for food, and no predators other than humans.

The exploitation of marine species requires specialized technology. Fish and sea turtles may have required nets, traps, harpoons, hooks or lines to acquire. Significantly, the use of watercraft may have been necessary to access certain fishing grounds. Reef habitats were the source of the most heavily exploited fish species. Today, there are

3extensive reef habitats with 1-2 kilometers from the confluence of the Portugués River and the Caribbean Sea (Kendall et al. 2001). The exploitation of pelagic fish, found in deeper waters far from shore, would not have been possible without the use of boats

(Keegan 1986, Wing and Wing 1999, Wing 2001).

191

CHAPTER 7 ANIMAL USE IN SOUTH-CENTRAL PUERTO RICO

In this chapter, I discuss the implications of the comparative study are discussed.

Both the temporal and spatial components of the study are presented with expanded interpretations that consider animal use in multiple contexts. The activities at La

Jácanas, La Minerál, and Los Gongolones were affected by the regional socio-politics and economics. One goal of this study was to determine whether growing regional influences affected patterns of animal use through time. Chapter 6 discussed the indication of increasing congruency in patterns of animal use between the three sites from the results of the faunal analysis. This chapter expands the discussion within the socio-historical context of the region, specifically accounting for the ways in which the use and consumption of animals makes visible the local reaction to regional social processes. The discussion of ceremonialism at the three sites is also expanded. As hypothesized, there are some differences between the faunal assemblages from contexts directly associated with ceremonial space (bateys), and those contexts away from bateys. In this chapter, the use of bateys at all three sites is discussed within the context of both autonomous local communities, and of regional, inter-site, social interactions.

The symbolic significance of animals is considered in discussions of animal use.

Their use as food adds to there symbolic importance, as food and foodways are embedded in culture. The animals present at these archaeological sites suggest the human behaviors that are involved in their acquisition. Local and regional social factors affected the relationship of people and animals. This chapter’s discussions account for hunting and collecting activities, trade and possible inter-community cooperation, and

192

distribution. Human interaction with the natural environment, both local and distant, is discussed. The role of animals as food is especially significant, as food holds not only nutritional importance, but is also symbolically important as a key factor in social, political, and ceremonial activities.

Trends in Animal Use

Human behavioral processes are discernible from patterns of animal use from pre- contact archaeological sites in south-central Puerto Rico. La Jácanas, La Minerál, and

Los Gongolones, were occupied during a time period that saw the formation of a more centralized and organized political structure (Curet 1992b; Siegel 1992, 1996).

Research in the Caribbean in recent decades has focused on this time period (after around 600 CE), as a time of political organization and consolidation (e.g., Curet 1992;

Siegel 1992, 1999; Torres 2008, 2010, 2012). Initially, this consolidation of political power and increase in social complexity was understood within the general evolutionary models, where charismatic chiefs (caçiques) arose by manipulating the economy (i.e. political economy) through food production and ceremony; and in so doing, accumulated symbolic capital in the form of prestige (i.e. Service 1961). The ultimate result of this process was an individual (or individuals) able to organize more economic production, and the labor it required, through the maintenance and control of an ideology (Curet 1996; Oliver 1998; Siegel 1996, 1999). Such control of the political economy by emerging elites is thought to have eventually led to the centralization of political control (Curet 1996; Oliver 2009). Regional conflicts between groups could have been parleyed by local elites through the organization of competitive ceremonial events, such as feasting or team games, where economic and symbolic capital is exchanged, gifted, or reciprocated (Siege 2006, 2010; also see Torres 2012).

193

Around 600 CE, south central Puerto Rico, and other areas of the Caribbean, appear to have experienced an emerging social regional social influence (Siegel 1996).

The evidence for this change is demonstrated in the archaeological record by an increase of ceremonial material culture and the expansion of settlements into large villages with bateys, replacing communal villages containing central plazas (Curet 1996;

Siegel 1996). The increasing emphasis on ritual has been interpreted as symbolic of the authority of the elite, thereby reducing the importance of lineage and putting social significance on status (Siegel 1999). This gradual change can be seen in burial strategies, indicating that, initially, ancestor worship of earlier Saladoid peoples was maintained until after 1200 CE, when people began interring the dead beneath domestic structures rather than in central areas (Oliver 2009; Seigel 1996, 1999).

The most recent research in south central Puerto Rico, continues to expand on the nature of the formative social processes that took place there after 600 CE. Torres

(2012) suggests that within the region, people reacted to the organization and consolidation of regional socio-political influence by dispersing throughout the region into smaller settlements. By doing so, groups were able to develop and maintain local identities through the establishment communities. In south central Puerto Rico, bateys appear not only at larger sites during this time, but also at smaller sites. The archaeological sites of La Minerál and Los Gongolones, as well as La Jácanas during the Jácana 2 component (650-900 CE), were all small settlements that contained bateys (Espenshade et al. 2011; Torres 2012). Torres (2012) mapped the settlements in the area using GIS, indicating that settlement dispersion resulted in small sites in close proximity to one another, and often clustered around larger sites from the earlier

194

period. In the region of this study, that site appears to be Tibes. The discovery of bateys at these smaller settlements suggests that ritual or ceremonial activities could have served to reduce conflict and maintain social networks (Torres 2012). At the same time, local control of ceremonial activities likely helped maintain community identities though community-based ritual. Eventually, these smaller communities disbanded and the groups consolidated into larger settlements that were more distant from their neighboring settlements (Torres 2012). It is within this conceptual framework that I interpret the results of the faunal analysis at La Jácanas, La Minerál, and Los

Gongolones.

A general chronology of the three archaeological sites studied in this dissertation is given in Figure 7-1. During the Jácana 2 period (650-900 CE), La Jácanas existed as a small village with a small batey and multiple structures (Foss et al. 2011; Kaplan

2011), likely similar to La Minerál and Los Gongolones. When the site was abandoned around 900 CE, there is no direct evidence where the inhabitants of the site went.

However, La Minerál and Los Gongolones, which are only a few kilometers to the south, and situated on the same river, are possible areas of their relocation. This is supported by the radiocarbon dates from the two small sites (see Table 4-4), which place their occupation after the abandonment of La Jácanas. An explanation for the abandonment of La Jácanas is currently unknown (Espenshade et al. 2011). Following Torres’ (2012) model of settlement dispersal, the early inhabitants of the site may have relocated a short distance away as a reaction to growing hegemonic social structures. It is important to consider, however, that settlement patterns of smaller sites were dynamic.

Since La Jácanas already existed as a small batey site during the Jácana 2 period, its

195

abandonment could have been a result of social networks that became “increasingly interconnected and complex, the buffering of settlements, and the spread of settlements inland to topographically restricted/secluded areas [that] would have resulted in increasing insulation of some settlements from others,” (Torres 2012:293 emphasis in original). The survival of dispersed settlements depended upon some level of interaction and cooperation with other local settlements. Community settlements that dispersed to more isolated areas would have limited access to other populations. This would have made it difficult to maintain the inter-community relationships that were necessary to avoid conflict, for access to non-local resources, to insure against economic hardship, or for other cooperative endeavors (such as hunting, fishing, ceremony or marriage).

Torres (2012:294) suggests that such sites relocated to locales that were closer to other small settlements. The early phase of La Jácanas may have been a dispersed community, whose population moved south due to restrictive isolation, resulting in the settlement of La Minéral and Los Gongolones.

196

Figure 7-1. Chronology of La Jácanas, La Minerál, and Los Gongolones based on radiocarbon date ranges at each site. Date ranges from column samples are used to determine dates of occupation at Los Gongolones and La Minerál.

To test for change through time it was necessary to determin a chronology of activities at all three sites. Multiple middens were tested at the two smaller sites. One specimen from each midden was tested to obtain a radiocarbon date. The resulting dates were calibrated and indicate that La Minéral and Los Gongolones were settled shortly after La Jácanas was abandoned, and remained occupied at least until La

Jácanas’ reoccupation. Specifically, radiocarbon dating of the middens at both La

Minerál and Los Gongolones indicate that Los Gongolones may have been occupied about a century earlier than La Minerál, and that La Minerál was occupied after the reoccupation of La Jácanas during the Jácana 4 period. I hypothesized that the general trends in animal use over time, as evidenced by changes in the presence and frequency of certain animal taxa between the archaeological sites, would be similar, or become similar as a reflection of the more unifying social forces associated with increasing regional socio-political influence. The initial reaction to the emergence of a unifying

197

social structure was the dispersal of populations away from larger sites to small community settlements. Dispersal likely served to maintain autonomy among smaller social groups (possibly kin groups) (Torres 2012). The first community to settle in the region of study was La Jácanas during its early temporal phases (Jácanas 1 and 2).

This settlement, as well as others in the region, may have dispersed from Tibes, which, before 600 CE, was an established Saladoid village (Curet 2003; Curet and Stringer

2010). During the Jácanas 3 period, the people at La Jácanas may have moved south, decreasing their distance from Tibes, and perhaps to a location in more proximity to other small communities. The faunal analysis indicates that in the earliest temporal contexts at Los Gongolones and at La Jácanas, ratios of common taxa are unique.

However, in later temporal contexts results indicate congruity in these ratios. The increase in regional congruency in animal use between the sites suggests that, while after their initial dispersal community settlements were able to maintain individual consumptive behaviors, the regional influence continued to strengthen and eventually resulted in the similar animal use patterns across the region. In the following sections, I suggest possible causal social factors involved at both the local and regional level that may have influenced the analytical results.

Interpretation of Invertebrate Use

Marine mollusks were likely a substantial portion of the diet at La Jácanas, La

Minerál and Los Gongolones. Taphonomic processes make it difficult to establish an accurate determination of relative vertebrate and mollusk use. There are also very few vertebrates in the column samples from Los Gongolones and La Minerál. The percentage that mollusks comprise in the overall (protein) diet is unknown. However, the determination of MNI and meat weight allows for the comparison ratios within each

198

phylum. The ratio of bivalves and gastropods, and other common mollusk taxa, in an archaeological context may elucidate information regarding the availability of animals in the natural environment, symbolic importance of certain animals and foods, preference for particular animal foods, or their non-nutritive value.

When considering the anthropological significance of these classes of shellfish and their presence in the archaeological record, the simplest explanation is one of availability. Optimal foraging theory and prey choice models (see Winterhalder 1981;

Winterhalder et al. 1999), would take into account availability, ease of capture, and size

(amount of edible meat provided). Both bivalves and gastropods were available at the coast. Capturing the animals is typically as easy as picking them up. They do not run or swim. As a taxonomic phylum, mollusks vary in size. However, as an overall group

(class), marine gastropods provide more meat per overall animal mass than marine bivalves. This is especially true for the family Strombidae (conchs) as indicated by the comparison of their allometric values for the calculation of meat weight (see Hale et al.

1987). Strombids have larger and heavier shells than many of the other the most common bivalve species. As univalve snails, it is not necessary to “shuck” gastropods to remove the meat from the shell. Meat is removed by breaking or puncturing the shell where the muscle attaches to the shell’s interior and extracting the animal. The processing of the animals at the location of their collection may have been likely and could have added to preference, since more meat could be gathered and transported. If this was the case, marine gastropods would be underrepresented in the archaeological record, since no shells would be deposited in the sites’ middens. The availability and ease of capture (collection) could have increased the exploitation of bivalves as well.

199

The vast majority of bivalves common in the sites’ middens were common to shallow, near-shore habitats (see Table 5-2). They could easily have been collected along the beach and in tidal pools, by individuals of any age. Therefore, without the influence of any cultural influences, or disruption of the natural environment, the use of bivalves and gastropods should be similar to what could be determined by their natural availability.

Each are available, easily gathered, and can provide ample food.

The comparison of marine bivalve use and gastropod use at La Jácanas during the Jácana 2 component indicates that each class of mollusks contributed equally to the diet of the inhabitants of the site, especially when meat weight is considered (see Figure

6-2). The analysis of column samples at La Minerál and Los Gongolones and Jácana 4 contexts at La Jácanas indicates that the ratio bivalves and gastropod change to approximately 70% bivalves and 30% gastropods. These results support the hypothesis that animal use at sites in south central Puerto Rico will become more similar over time. The previous chapter suggested naturalistic processes, such as gastropod population fluctuations (perhaps caused by overexploitation) that could have influenced changes in these ratios. Then following sections suggest possible sociocultural elements, at the local and regional level, that may have influenced how invertebrates were used.

Regional control of invertebrate use

Settlements in south central Puerto Rico were subject to gradual increasing social and political influence at the regional level after 600 CE that initially triggered settlement dispersal before eventual population consolidation by 1200 CE. Sometime during the last few centuries of this time period, emerging high-status individuals, or groups of individuals, presumably gained political power, increasing their control of how both plant

200

and animal food was produced, used, and distributed. This kind of economic control allowed the most powerful individuals to increase actual wealth (capital) and symbolic wealth in the form of status or influence (Brumfiel and Earl 1987; Earl 1987). By the

Jácanas 4 time period, and the full-time re-settlement of La Jácanas, at least some level of social and political power had been established. The expansion of ceremonial space

(Espenshade et al. 2011) and “elite” iconography (Loubser 2010) at the site directly indicates the presence or influence of high-status individuals. Eventually, control of animal foods, especially from animals that required organized hunting, fishing, or trade, would symbolically represent the importance of the socio-political system where elites organized and provided the animals for consumption (deFrance 2009:108).

While, after 600 CE, socio-political influence gradually increased, the establishment of smaller sites slowed regional influence, appearing to maintain some level of community autonomy for a few centuries. However, the results of this study indicate that regional influence increased through time. Explicit evidence for high-status or elite control of animal use is less obvious. Zooarchaeological evidence for elite control of animal use and distribution is typically seen by the presence of rare or imported animals, meatier cuts of meat, or larger fattier fish (see deFrance 2009).

These types of patterns are easier to see in vertebrate remains (and will be discussed later in this chapter); however, detection of distributive patterns in specific shellfish types is difficult. The spatial contextual results from La Jácanas, where data were isolated by direct association with the batey, demonstrate that gastropods were slightly more common in ceremonial contexts, which are presumed to be under elite control in

201

the latest pre-Columbian period (see Figure 6-5). Presence of rare gastropod species in batey contexts may also indicate control of the distribution of those species.

The most significant results pertain to the increasing congruency of invertebrate use through time. The decrease in the use of gastropods in later temporal contexts may be the result of regional influence on the use and distribution of gastropods, if they were in fact animals of more symbolic importance. The latest context at La Minéral (Column

Sample 1), that is contemporaneous with the Jácana 4 occupation, contains similar invertebrate composition to samples from La Jácanas, specifically the increased importance of the small clam, Anomalocardia brasiliana. A regional trend is also apparent in later contexts at all three sites, wherein the ratio of bivalves and gastropods settles at 70/30 across the study area.

Local control of invertebrate use

Patterns in the use of marine mollusks at these sites also indicate instances that can be interpreted as examples of local control. All three sites are interpreted as settlements that arose due to the dispersal of people from earlier larger settlements into a network of smaller communities (Torres 2012). In order to understand activities that that occur, a more detailed look at the analytical results is necessary. Animal remains from each specific context are interpreted as a record of site-specific activities that are influenced by community identity—meaning that social influence was local. The ways in which people used animals at the site was determined from within the community. While overall trends may be discernible and fit into predictive models, it is important to consider the more detailed aspects of food and its cultural significance to the people who consume it. In order to understand animal use and consumption within communities, I follow interpretive trends that consider individual localities and

202

communities as the unit of interpretation (Canuto and Yeager 2000; Hegmon 2002;

Pauketat 2008; Varien and Potter 2008).

During the Jácana 2 time period, La Jácanas existed as a small settlement with a small batey (Espenshade et al. 2011). It would have looked similar to La Minerál and

Los Gongolones in size and arrangement, but existed earlier. The use of marine mollusks at the site during its early occupancy was different than at later times. The relative use of bivalve and gastropod species was even, with no apparent preference for either class. The assemblage was more diverse as well, with a greater number of taxa

(n=46) than seen in later contexts (n=37). These patterns of animal use may represent a higher level of local control, before regional influence could affect the ways in which animal foods were used and distributed. It may also indicate that La Jácanas was more egalitarian during the Jácana 2 period, perhaps maintaining the social organization that existed at the site in the previous two centuries.

After the abandonment of La Jácanas, the two smaller settlements to the south arose. Radiocarbon and ceramic data indicate that the earlier of the two sites was Los

Gongolones (ca. 1050-1126 CE). Testing the midden deposits that lie along the walls of the batey revealed variability in patterns of animal use within the site, and that the midden deposits are distinct from each other. Absolute dates were determined for two deposits, the earlier of which places the deposit early in the Jácana 3 period of La

Jácanas’s abandonment. A linear progression from Jácana 2 to Jácana 4 would be expected in the patterns of animal use if predictive models concerning regional increases of social influence were applied. However, the results of the column sample

203

analyses indicate that, at least early after the abandonment of La Jácanas, local control of animal resource use continued.

Column Sample 4, at Los Gongolones, is the earliest context at either of the two smaller sites for which radiocarbon dates were obtained. A median calibrated radiocarbon date from the bottom of the column sample indicates that the midden began to accumulate around 1088 CE. The relative use of marine bivalve and gastropods recovered from Column Sample 4 do not seem to follow the expected gradual trend toward the eventual 70/30 ratio seen in later contexts. Rather, the earliest context following the abandonment of La Jácanas shows an abrupt decline in the use of gastropods. Gastropods comprise only five percent of the overall MNI of the column sample. The column sample also contained land crab (Gecarcinidae) remains. No other column sample contained land crab, and it was rare at La Jácanas.

These patterns of animal use should interpreted in order to understand the past events that resulted in the accumulation of the midden deposit, and how they relate to local or community cultural contexts. The scarcity of gastropods in may indicate limited access to certain coastal areas where they are collected. However, the bivalves at the site are common in the same habitats. Another interpretation is that control of these marine resources did not belong to the inhabitants of these inland sites. Access to certain animals may have required trade rather than access to coasts. Alternately, If the dispersal of populations into smaller settlements was a reaction to regional influence or control, then the establishment of local manners of behavior would be expected. The scarcity of gastropods in the early deposit at Los Gongolones may be an example of local preference or tradition. Rather than be subject regional influences, the inhabitants

204

of Los Gongolones may have established their own personal attitude towards certain species. Land crabs could have been used instead of gastropods as a way of asserting community autonomy. The other column samples at Los Gongolones, Column Sample

3 and Column Sample 5, are also peculiar in that they contain larger proportions of smaller gastropods, namely the variegate turretsnail (Turitella variegata). Conchs are more common at La Minerál and La Jácanas, which may indicate access to coastal collecting grounds or control of resources by coastal communities. However, these results may indicate a community preference for smaller shellfish.

Another trend in the use of marine shellfish that needs to be addressed is the increased use of one particular species of bivalve. The West Indian pointed venus

(Anomalocardia brasiliana) is a small clam, measuring only 2-3 cm in diameter, that becomes important in later temporal contexts. The comparison of shellfish use between

Jácana 2 and Jácana 4 temporal components indicates an increase in the use of this species from 12% of the sample MNI to 44% in the later component. The midden at La

Minerál that provided Column Sample 1 also appears to have a similar composition of

West Indian pointed venus. The analysis of the column sample revealed that 48% of the identified invertebrate taxa were this species. The Jácana 2 samples and all other column samples contain between 12% and 30% pointed venus.

An interpretation of this phenomenon considering local control of food distribution sees this behavior as an indication of food choice, or the optimization of specific foodways. Small shellfish, are easily transported to the site from the collecting grounds, but also are easily prepared by boiling in the shell, without the need for processing.

They were likely prepared with other foods, imparting a particular flavor that reflects

205

personal taste. After 1200 CE, the population of settlements in the region continued to increase and consolidate back into larger, more organized settlements (Rouse 1992; see also Torres 2012 for local trends). This was also the around the time in which Tibes fell into disuse (Curet 2010), perhaps requiring the integration of displaced people. It is likely that strategies for providing protein to a large population were necessary. The collection of abundant and portable animals that were easy to prepare could account for the increase in use of these small clams.

Interpretation of Vertebrate Use

The zooarchaeological analysis of faunal material from La Jácanas provided information regarding the use of vertebrate animals that show specific patterns of change through time and across the landscape. There were substantially fewer vertebrate remains recovered from La Minerál and Los Gongolones. This prevents extending the quantitative analysis of vertebrate use to inter-site trends. However, the presence of certain vertebrates in specific contexts can permit careful suggestive interpretation. Vertebrate remains are also tied to more explicit examples of animal symbolism that support the assumptions concerning the importance of animals at a site that extend beyond diet and nutrition. Vertebrate data are also important to contextual interpretations that aim to discern animal use in ceremonial, ritual, or high status activities. A major goal of this study is to determine if ceremonial activities are discernible from the faunal record when associations of faunal remains with ceremonial space are considered. I hypothesized that that social differentiation would be evident by the presence of rare, exotic, or high-value animal species in high-status/ceremonial contexts; and that certain large fish or other animals, or exotic or rare species, would be recovered in higher frequencies from contexts in proximity to, or in association with,

206

bateys or mounds. The results support this hypothesis when associations with bateys are considered. Rare and exotic species, such as guinea pig and pelagic fish, were found only in ceremonial contexts. The results of the vertebrate analyses are discussed and expanded in following section.

Animal symbolism

During the Jácana 4 period at La Jácanas, animals are presumed to have been symbolically integral to the more formalized social practices that were taking place on or around the large batey. The stones that made up the walls of the batey contained petroglyphs that include, in their depictions, several zoomorphic forms, including frogs and owls (Louber 2010). The animals represented in these petroglyphs were not among the animal identified during the zooarchaeological analysis. However, the presence of animal iconography is significant in that it forms a basis of support for the idea that animals were understood as more than just food. The symbolic importance of the frog is solidified in the form of the Frog Lady, or Frog Goddess, included in petroglyphs at La Jácanas (Espenshade et al. 2009; Loubser 2010; Loubser et al. 2011) and elsewhere on Puerto Rico (Roe 2005) . Depictions of the frog form in iconography is most often associated with that of the cacique or chief, where the cacique is illustrated as having descended from the Frog Lady, the primordial ancestor (Oliver

2005: 270). The frog-like petroglyphs carved into the stones of the north wall of the batey appear to have both human and frog elements. Human elements of the figures possess ear spools and navel ornaments, as well as head dresses, and are similar to depictions of the cacique at Caguana (Oliver 2005:270). The symbolic dualism between ancestor (frog) and cacique is also extended to an apparent dualism of life and death.

Petroglyph figures tend to be characterized as a mixture of skeletal and fleshy

207

elements. Johannes Loubser (2010) suggests that these are depictions of a deceased chief that still plays an important role at La Jácanas.

The other animal motif found in the pertroglyphs of La Jácanas is that of the owl.

The owl appears to be represented in figures located on the north wall and west wall of the batey (Loubser 2010; Loubser et al. 2011). These depictions are associated with figures of an individual that appears to be an elite female, possibly a cacique, indicated by the presence of large ear spools and a head dress (Loubser 2010:331). Another possible owl face appears on the west wall of the batey, and is directly associated with a figure possessing ear spools (Loubser 2010:335). The sites of Maisabel, on the north coast, and El Bronce, on the Bucaná River near the south coast, both contain petroglyphs of marine animals including different types of fish, shark, and sea turtle

(Roe 2005: 327-328) and may be representative of animals important to the diet of the inhabitants of the sites. However, at La Jácanas, depictions of animals are directly associated with elite individuals and ideology involving life and death. Neither frogs nor owls were identified in the zooarchaeological analysis. Still, it is obvious that the inhabitants of La Jácanas and other sites acknowledged the important role the animals played in their lives, and incorporated them into their myths, rituals, and ideology.

Significance of resource habitat exploitation

Vertebrate analysis allows for the expansion of the discussion of habitat exploitation for animal resources. The invertebrate discussion is limited to species provided by marine habitats only. However, vertebrates recovered from La Jácanas, La

Minerál, and Los Gongolones indicate the exploitation of animal resources from the local terrestrial and riverine habitats as well. The evidence of habitat exploitation based on the presence of particular species is discussed in Chapter 6. In this section, I

208

expand on habitat exploitation and what it reveals about food choice, the relationships that may exist between communities, and the control of use and distribution of certain animals.

All three sites are located in the uplands of the foothills of Puerto Rico’s Cordillerra

Central mountain range. The most widely used terrestrial animal resource at all three sites was the hutia (Isolobodon portoricensis). Hutia are small, rabbit-sized rodents that are common at other sites in south central Puerto Rico including El Bronce (Reitz 1985) and Tibes (deFrance et al. 2010). While it has been suggested that hutia may be associated with high-status activities (Curet et al. 2006), the archaeological record, including results from this study, indicate that hutia are ubiquitous in all contexts in the region. This fact suggests that, though now extinct, hutia were once so plentiful and available that they were beyond any political or economic control or regulation. The impact of human habitation on the environment would have changed the landscape in a way that allowed for hutia, as well as certain birds and reptiles, to opportunistically feed on cultivated crops or other plant species that replaced the cleared forest. Hutia, were likely hunted from horticultural gardens and from areas near habitations, as is seen elsewhere in the neotropics with small mammals (see Linares 1976). The need for organized hunting excursions or highly coordinated activities would not have existed, thereby allowing for animal food production to be controlled locally, or even by single households (Linares 1976; Naughton-Treves 2002). These hunting activities may have also developed into baiting or even tending of hutia in order to maintain their presence and availability.

209

The Portugués River has several microhabitats that provide several types of resources, not all of which would be visible in the archaeological record. For example, fresh water crustaceans thrive in the Portugués River and are commonly captured by locals who live near the river at present times. The natural rocky terrain around and within the river create deep pools and constricted shoals that provide habitats for fresh water gobies (Gobiomorus sp.), mullet (Mugilidae) and fresh water eels (Anguilla rostrata). Fresh water turtle (Emydidae) was identified at La Jácanas and Los

Gongolones. Duck (Anas discors) and rails (Rallidae) were also recovered from La

Jácanas. These aquatic birds utilize the riverine habitat. Like the local terrestrial fauna, the riverine fauna would be under local control, and not necessarily subject to regulation or influence of distant regional political control. All three sites are situated with direct access to river habitats and could easily have been exploited by the site’s inhabitants without need for organized activities.

Approximately 40% of the biomass of all contexts consists of marine fish (see

Figures 6-1 and 6-4). This is also what is observed at Tibes, where marine taxa are common (deFrance et al. 2010). As previously discussed, the majority of shellfish taxa could be collected from shallow, near shore habitats. However, most of the marine fish are associated with reef habitats. Within two kilometers of the mouth of the Portugués

River, there are a wide variety of habitats, including reef and deep-water habitats

(Kendal et al. 2001). The easiest route to these areas would be to travel on or along the river, as the terrain is relatively level compared to more direct routes. However, from La

Jácanas, the journey would have been 15 km, suggesting that an excursion to the coast followed by a return trip would likely take an entire day. The acquisition of marine

210

resources would have required some level of organization. If this were the case, there should also be indication of marine resources as having greater importance. While possible patterns concerning some form of regional influence emerge from the comparison of bivalves and gastropods, there does not seem to be any such trend or pattern concerning vertebrate acquisition and distribution.

Regional vs. local control of vertebrate use

The influence of regional sociopolitical influence on the vertebrate animal use at

La Jácanas, where a sufficient comparative sample of vertebrate remains was recovered, may be interpreted from the results of both the temporal and spatial contextual studies. Change in patterns of vertebrate use over time suggests a possible change in access to, or the importance of, mammals at the site. The Jácana 2 component saw more than half of its vertebrate biomass represented by mammals

(mostly hutia). The people who reoccupied the site around 1300 CE, after the period of abandonment, utilized fewer mammals. The proportion of mammals dropped to just over a third of the total biomass of vertebrates used. The people who occupied the site during the Jácana 4 period were subject to more powerful regional leadership. The

Jácana 4 temporal component occurred after the disbanding of many of the smaller community sites that dispersed throughout south-central Puerto Rico after 600 CE, and the emergence of large sites that were more spread out across the landscape (Torres

2012). La Jácanas existed as both a small dispersed community, likely in a cluster of sites around Tibes, and a larger re-established site in the later time period. The dispersed sites were able to assert their own preferences concerning animal use, especially concerning animals that were readily available from the local environment.

During Jácana 2, small community that existed at La Jácanas was able to exploit the

211

local habitat. More than half (51%) of the vertebrate biomass identified during Jácana 2 was comprised of mammal. Journeys to the coast for the acquisition of marine resources were likely organized between the smaller communities, as part of cooperative endeavors, bolstered by ceremonial activities at bateys in each site.

The reduction of mammals in Jácana 4 is concomitant with an increase in the use of reptiles, primarily marine turtle. This trend also suggests an increase in organized resource acquisition, as more structured social organization was involved in access to the coast. The increase in sea turtle may also indicate the development of new technology and a resulting optimal foraging strategy. Advances in technology pertaining to the acquisition of a particular type of animal increases its ease of capture, thereby increasing the rank or importance of that animal (see Lupo and Schmitt 2005). If this were the case, both the prey and the technology of its capture may have been controlled by the ruling elite, thereby increasing its presence in the archaeological record within contexts where access to animal food may be limited.

The spatial comparative study directly concerns the questions regarding the visibility of ceremonialism from patterns of animal use. Material from batey-associated contexts, midden deposits that are in direct contact with bateys, contain two examples of animals indicative of high-status activities. Guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus) are not common, but recovered in both the Jácana 2 (n=4, MNI=2) and Jácana 4 (n=1, MNI=1) temporal contexts, as well as mixed temporal contexts (n=16, MNI =7) at La Jácanas.

All examples of guinea pig are from contexts associated with the batey which suggests their association with ceremonialism. Guinea pigs are non-local species, native to the central Andes in South America, and a domesticate that would be unable to survive

212

outside of captivity. LeFebvre and deFrance (in press) suggest that guinea pigs are often found in relatively small numbers. Yet despite their rarity and exotic nature, they are rarely recovered from definitively ceremonial contexts. Although common in ceremonial and mortuary archaeological contexts in South America, their presence at sites in Puerto Rico have yet to indicate special treatment—and likely are evidence of trade and interaction between populations as people moved across the landscape. This study may strengthen the argument that guinea pig held ceremonial importance on

Puerto Rico. The other uncommon species, sharks and rays (Lamniformes,

Rajiformes), also considered high-status taxa, were also recovered exclusively from batey-associated contexts.3

Vertebrate use at La Minerál and Los Gongolones is not very visible in the archaeological record as vertebrate remains were not common in any of the column samples. However, a few observations are worth mentioning. Hutia is present in all column samples, indicating utilization of local resources. Column Sample 4, the earliest context after the abandonment of La Jácanas, is the only column sample to have no identifiable marine fauna (see Table 5-25). Only two small unidentifiable fragments of bony fish were recovered from the column sample. Results from earlier temporal components may indicate local influence on animal use, but it is difficult to determine with such small numbers. The most significant aspect of the vertebrate remains from La

Jácanas and Los Gongolones, is their scarcity. The next section explores possible explanations for this phenomenon.

3 The majority of excavation units at La Jácanas were associated with areas near the batey. Sampling bias may have diminished the richness of non-batey sample. Calculations of diversity and equitability also indicate this (see Chapter 6).

213

Why No Bones?

The lack of vertebrate remains from the column samples at La Minerál and Los

Gongolones is a phenomenon that has several possible explanations. Despite the large amount of soil contained in the five column samples, a total of only 317 vertebrate specimens were recovered from their matrix. The loss of small bone during excavation and processing should also be considered. Small bone can fall through large screen or be damaged or destroyed during excavation. This scenario is also unlikely. The procedure for collecting the column samples emphasized care. The column samples were excavated by hand, in order to prevent damage of cultural material. All matrix was collected and transported en mass to be processed slowly through fine screen with the aid of water under low pressure. One of the reasons I devised the strategy of taking column samples during archeological survey was to obtain an undamaged representative sample by preventing the damage often caused by shovel excavation.

Another possible explanation for the lack of bone in the soil could be that it is a result of preservation bias. Shell and teeth are among the most well preserved specimens, while delicate bones, common in fish, can be lost to decomposition (Reitz and Wing 1999). However, this is likely not the case for two reasons: first, the soil in the region is well drained (Espenshade et al. 2011), which is an important factor in bone preservation (Reitz and Wing 1999:112). Secondly, the middens at La Minerál and Los

Gongolones contained dense deposits of marine shell. Shell-containing soils tend to have slightly higher pH due to the carbonate composition of mollusks. This prevents the dissolving affect that acidic soils can have on bone (Scarry 1993). The scarcity of animal bone in midden deposits at La Minerál and La Minerál could likely be the result of cultural phenomenon occurring at these particular sites.

214

The Tibes connection

Prey choice models suggest that animals that are most easily killed or captured are the least likely to be shared (Lupo 2006; Marshall 1991). The level of sharing depends on how much cooperation was involved in the acquisition of the animal food.

Food sharing can take place at multiple levels: between individuals, between households, or between communities. The animals that require the most cooperation between communities in south central Puerto Rico would have been marine fish.

Fishing requires a journey to the coast, water craft, and technologies such as hook and line, traps, spears, or nets. A successful catch required labor to transport the food back upstream to the inland settlements. If these animals were not being shared at the local sites, then they must have been shared and consumed elsewhere. I suggest that the

(ceremonial) site of Tibes served as a neutral location at which successful food acquisition could be celebrated—and social ties maintained. La Minerál and Los

Gongolones lie only a short distance from Tibes, which would have been along the return route from the coast. Marine vertebrate remains are common at Tibes (deFrance et al. 2010) and there has been little evidence of permanent occupation (i.e. domestic structures, houses) between 600 and 1200 CE (Curet 2005; see also Curet and Torres

2010:270-276). The use of Tibes as a ceremonial site for the purpose of communal consumption has been hypothesized (Curet 2005) and supported by zooarchaeological research, wherein the distribution of animal food appears egalitarian throughout the site

(deFrance 2010; deFrance et al. 2010). The analysis at two nearby community settlements seems to support these propositions.

Ongoing excavations at Tibes may provide additional evidence for or against this hypothesis. For instance, the identification of permanent habitation structures or

215

definitive evidence of large-scale feasting would indicate that the site was used by its own inhabitants rather than the residents of exterior settlements. Alternately, expanded excavation of La Minerál and Los Gongolones may locate other middens or locations at the sites in which vertebrate remains were deposited. Shellfish was collected at the coast, but did not require the use of water craft or specialized equipment. This means that it may also could have required little or no inter-community cooperation. It therefore would have been less likely to be shared. The transport of shellfish back to home sites would have been less labor intensive as well. Mammal remains were recovered from every column sample; but in very small quantities. This could mean that hutia were consumed in smaller numbers at the site. However, it could also imply that, although hutia required no cooperative hunting activities, its relative quantity of meat to body weight made it an important food source that would gain favor with neighbors if shared at communal events.

The utilization of Tibes for ceremonial food sharing may also provide a possible explanation for the abandonment of La Jácanas. Settlement patterns of small sites were dynamic. Settlements arose, and groups dispersed from larger, and earlier,

Saladoid sites. These settlements moved through time, increasing and decreasing their distance to other sites as they negotiated increasingly complex relationships with neighboring sites (Torres 2012:298). As a small community settlement, La Jácanas was settled early after 600 CE—the Jácana 2 temporal component began around 650

CE. At this time, people permanently settled what was likely a small hamlet during the earlier Jácana 1 period (Espenshade et al. 2011; Torres 2012). The settlements lasted a few centuries, before relocating further south nearer to Tibes. The social connections

216

that existed between sites in the area may have centered on communal activities at

Tibes. The distance from Tibes, and the establishment of sites between La Jácanas and

Tibes may have disrupted social networks. As a result, the inhabitants of La Jácanas during the earlier period relocated to a more strategic location.

These possible scenerios should also be understood within the context of increasing regional socio-political influence. Initially the isolation of the early La Jácanas settlement could have provided the seclusion necessary to establish and maintain local, community-level organization and identity. However, the inhabitants of community settlements had to negotiate a balance between autonomy and cooperative relationships with other small settlements in the area. Collaboration with other groups was important where resources, technology, and labor maximized success in food acquisition and social interaction.

Chapter Summary

In this chapter, I present comparative interpretations that are expanded to account for local and regional contexts. In order to explain trends in animal use, a chronology was established in the region based on radiocarbon dates to better understand when settlements arose, were occupied, and abandoned. These settlements existed during a time of when regional influence was gradually increasing. One reaction to this was the dispersal of settlements after 600 CE. The three sites studied in this dissertation existed as small community settlements early in their occupational history.

Patterns of invertebrate use through time were discussed in order to explore whether the gradually increasing regional influence affected the ways in which people used animals. It was expected that the faunal assemblages, specifically the composition and ratios of animal taxa, identified from La Jácanas, La Minerál, and Los Gongolones

217

would be more similar in later temporal contexts as a unifying social ideology developed and regional norms were established. This hypothesis was supported by the data and presented in Chapter 6. In this chapter expand on the interpretations of the results by considering specific temporal and spatial contexts within the realms of local

(community) and regional influence.

The overall trend is one of increasing congruency between the sites over time, which supports the hypothesis that patterns of animal use (via ratios of gastropods and bivalves) will become similar across the landscape and through time. A specific analysis of individual contexts suggests that in earlier time periods, the use of animals was more autonomous at individual sites and did not conform to regional norms. Column Sample

4 at Los Gongolones, the earliest of the column samples, produced very few (5%) gastropods when compared to other invertebrates in the sample. This phenomenon is interpreted as a possible result of limited access to coastal collecting grounds, or control of some species by coastal communities. I also offer a cultural interpretation that these patterns in animal use may be indicative of the assertion local preferences, perhaps in response to the same regional phenomena that initiated the dispersal of settlements in the area. The inhabitance of Los Gongolones may have replaced the use of gastropods with land crab, establishing local preference and autonomy in animal use. Conch use was reduced site-wide at La Minerál in favor of smaller gastropod species, perhaps also signifying community preferences.

In later contexts, there is a dramatic increase in the use of West Indian pointed venus clams. Column Sample 1 at La Minerál is coeval with the reoccupation of La

Jácanas during Jácana 4 time period. This is another line of evidence that supports the

218

hypothesis that there will be increased congruency through time and across sites. This phenomenon is interpreted as a reaction to an increase in population as dispersed settlements moved back to larger, more isolated sites after 1200 CE. Larger populations would have been more integrated, further increasing regional influence. The plentiful clam would have fed larger populations as well, and new technology could have optimized their acquisition.

The symbolic importance of animals through zoomorphic iconography at La

Jácanas is discussed as indicative of the attitudes people held regarding animals.

Patterns in vertebrate use is applicable to spatial contextual comparisons where the presence of domesticated guinea pig and large and pelagic fishes exclusively in deposits that were in contact with bateys, supports the hypothesis that ceremonialism will be visible in the faunal record. However, issues concerning sample size might indicate that further investigations are needed to strengthen the finding.

The examination of vertebrate use through time at La Jácanas shows a decrease in the use of mammals along with an increase in marine turtles. The increase in sea turtle could also be due to the development of a new technology that increased the ease of capture of turtles and the optimization of resource use. This would result in an increase in the importance of these animals and their rate of exploitation. Explanations for the lack of vertebrate remains at La Mineral and Los Gongolones are discussed and possible causes are explored. Careful excavation and processing through fine screen would have prevented loss. Taphonomic processes are also considered. However, high soil pH, caused by the shell, and low moisture would likely have aided in the

219

preservation of bone in the deposits—if bone was present. It is therefore possible that cultural phenomena could account for the lack of vertebrates at the sites.

Since taphonomy and sampling bias are not satisfactory explanations, I interpret the scarcity of vertebrate remains in the column samples as a possible result of inter- community interaction and ceremonialism. I suggest that the need for cooperative efforts among the small community settlements would be necessary for fishing expedition to the coast, resulting in events wherein the spoils of a successful catch are shared among the groups. These events, which, in part, served to maintain healthy relations between local communities, may have been held at Tibes, rather than at the individual community settlements. The need to participate in such events may also explain why the early occupation of La Jácanas disbanded, perhaps moving south.

220

CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The purpose of this dissertation was to investigate patterns in human use of animal resources in south central Puerto Rico in the 900 years prior to European contact, and the role of community in those processes. Faunal analyses of archaeological materials from three sites in south-central Puerto Rico were used to answer questions regarding changes in human behavior through time, and differentiation across the landscape. Social and political influence in the region was gradually increasing during this time periods, initially causing populations to disperse into small communities. These small communities were able to assert autonomy in social behavior, including behaviors that involved the acquisition and use of animal resources, before eventually re-integrating into large polities. Ceremonialism played a role in the lives and interactions of the residents of these sites. Bateys, stone-lined plazas, are present at each of the sites studied, which allowed for the identification of ceremonial space. The role of animals in ceremonial activities was explored and their affect on the faunal assemblage was tested by comparing the composition of animal remains in ceremonial contexts with that of non-ceremonial areas. Such activities were also likely involved in the interactions between small communities during the formative period. The nature of social connections between community settlements in south- central Puerto Rico was investigated by contextual comparison of animal use patterns.

In this chapter, I provide an overview of the study including research questions, results of the analysis, and how those results were interpreted. Finally, I discuss the significance of the study and provide suggestions for future research in Puerto Rico, the

Caribbean, and beyond.

221

Summary of the Study: This dissertation pursued three research questions pertaining to the use of animals as sources of protein as well as possible use in ceremony. Patterns of animal use were compared over time and across the landscape at three archaeological sites in south-central Puerto Rico. These three sites are situated along the Portugués River north of the modern city of Ponce. They are La Jácanas (PO-

29), La Minerál (PO-42), and Los Gongolones (PO-43). These three sites were part of a system of complexly interconnected community settlements that dispersed throughout the region shortly after 600 CE. At this time in south-central Puerto Rico, groups in the region, and elsewhere on the island, began to experience the consolidation of social and political influence. The dispersal of small communities in the region is thought to be a reaction to this phenomenon (Torres 2012). Over time, gradual intensification of regional political structure affected ordinary people, subjecting them to unifying ideologies and eventually changing behavioral patterns. By around 1200 CE, small sites were abandoned and large complex polities arose, as documented by the

Europeans who encountered them a few centuries later. La Jácanas, La Minerál, and

Los Gongolones, were occupied at different stages throughout this dynamic time period, allowing for the observation of patterns in animal use through time. The first area of inquiry explored whether animal use changed over time as a result of increasing regional social and political influence. I hypothesized that general trends in animal use, i.e. changes in the presence and frequency of certain animal taxa, between archaeological sites in the region, will be similar, or become similar, over time.

Congruencies in animal use reflect an integrated cultural ideology where shared influences affected how people used and consumed animals. I made this hypothesis

222

with the expectation that visible patterns of animal use, including taxa that are continuously the most common, animals that are identified in certain consistent ratios, or indications of consistent exploitation of specific habitats.

The second research question considered the presence of defined ceremonial space at La Jácanas, La Minerál, and Los Gongolones. Stone-lined plazas, called bateys, exist at each site. Bateys are typically flat cleared areas that hold symbolic meaning on the landscape (Alegria 1983; Siegel 1999). Bateys often overlie burials that predate the batey itself, which reinforces their role as sacred spaces for the veneration of ancestors and the celebration of kinship (Keegan 2009). They also often contain iconographic symbols that represent elite leadership, ritual, and ceremony (Loubser

2010; Roe 2005). At two of the investigated sites, midden deposits were in direct contact with the walls of the bateys. My research question was: Did ceremonialism affect the patterns of animal use and distribution in south-central Puerto Rico? I hypothesized that animals of special importance would be more common, or exclusive to ceremonial contexts. In the Caribbean, such significant animals may include large fish, sea mammals, large sea turtles, or rare/exotic species (deFrance 2009). I made this hypothesis with the expectation of finding a higher quantity of these types of animals from midden deposits that were or in direct with bateys.

Finally, I explored the ways in which community identity and interaction affected the faunal assemblage at La Jácanas, La Minerál, and Los Gongolones. Recent research in south-central Puerto Rico is challenging the established evolutionary models explaining the development of social “complexity” on the island. The region experienced an explosion of smaller community settlements after 600 CE that dispersed

223

from, and clustered around, larger sites that existed during the earlier Saladoid time period (Torres 2012). This particular phenomenon is understood as a reaction to the centralization of regional political influence wherein local community settlements reacted by relocating and maintaining a certain level of autonomy and establishing and maintain cooperative networks (Torres 2012). Over time, some of these small community settlements were abandoned and relocated as they navigated relationships with neighboring communities and competed for resources. The sites studied in this dissertation were all located in the foothills and at least 10 km from the coast. The presence of marine resources at these sites suggests the inhabitants of these communities may have coordinated with neighboring settlements and negotiated with people living at coastal sites for access to marine collecting and fishing grounds. The third area of inquiry investigates the affect of community interactions on the faunal assemblage. I hypothesized that faunal assemblages would contain the remains of animals from all surrounding habitats, including marine habitats. These assemblages would also be similar in composition if equal sharing of food animals and/or egalitarian feasts were held. I made this hypothesis with the expectation that evidence of the exploitation of all habitats would be evident via the composition of the faunal assemblages. If some types of habitats are absent from certain contexts, then perhaps people living at the site had limited access to certain areas for the acquisition of animal resources. Cultural explanations, such as local preference or prescribed ceremonial activities could also be considered. Bateys that are present at small sites in the south central region suggest that local control of ceremony may have helped maintain inter- community relationships.

224

The zooarchaeological analysis facilitated the testing of my hypotheses. The comparison of animal use patterns at La Jácanas, La Minerál, and Los Gongolones supported my hypothesis that patterns of animal use would increase in congruency over time. Results indicate that the most unique patterns of animal use are from the earliest contexts. Radiocarbon dates from each site indicate that the earliest contexts occured at La Jácanas, during the Jácana 1 and Jácana 2 temporal component (Espenshade et al. 2011). During this time, the site was similar to La Minerál and Los Gongolones, in that it was a small permanent settlement containing a small batey (Espenshade

2012).The midden deposit that provided Column Sample 4 at Los Gongolones was dated to as early as 1050 CE. The comparison of relative abundances of bivalves and gastropods indicate that the mollusk classes were used equally in early contexts at La

Jácanas, while Column Sample 4 at Los Gongolones contains very little (5% MNI) gastropods.

The apparent abandonment of La Jácana around 900 CE supports Torres’ (2012) model suggesting that early settlement patterns of dispersed communities were dynamic. Some settlements were abandoned and relocated closer to other communities if they became too isolated. Later contexts, La Jácanas after it was re-occupied around

1300 CE (Jácana 4) and Column Sample 1 at La Minerál, which dates to 1400-1430

CE, have similar bivalve-gastropod ratios (~70/30). These contexts also have similar taxonomic composition. Notably, they contain relatively large quantities of the West

Indian pointed venus (Anomalocardia brasiliana). These small clams comprise 44% of the total invertebrate MNI from late contexts at La Jácanas and 48% of the invertebrate

MNI from Column Sample 1.

225

At La Jácanas, there is a general decrease in relative abundance of mammals at the site. A concomitant increase in reptiles is observed as well is attributed to the use of marine turtles (Chelonidae) in later contexts. This phenomenon could reflect a change in the availability of mammals in the local environment during the later time periods.

Overexploitation of mammals may also have reduced their local availability as human populations grew and the site expanded.

The results of the contextual analysis of ceremonial and non-ceremonial contexts also supported my hypothesis that animal use patterns would reveal that certain animals were more common in ceremonial contexts. In this case, vertebrate data from

La Jácanas was most useful. Guinea pig (Cavia porcellus), an exotic domesticated rodent was only identified in ceremonial contexts. Additionally, ceremonial contexts were the only areas at La Jácanas to contain pelagic fishes.

The interaction of community settlements did not affect the faunal assemblages from the sites in the way it was expected. Column Samples at La Minerál and Los

Gongolones provided very few vertebrate remains. While I hypothesized compositional uniformity and evidence of the exploitation of all available habitats, the results indicate that five midden deposits from two sites that were occupied over the course of as many as four centuries contain very few bones and are comprised primarily of shell.

Taphonomic causes were considered as an explanation for this phenomenon. However, soil drainage and pH would indicate good conditions for preservation. Careful excavation and processing of the column samples were designed to prevent loss.

Therefore, cultural explanations were also considered. The lack of marine resources may indicate limited access to reef or deep-water fishing grounds, although thick shell

226

deposits indicate access to the coast. Local vertebrate fauna is also nearly absent from the column samples. Strategies in the disposal of refuse may be another explanation. I also offered an interpretation that accounts for the dynamic relationships that existed between dispersed communities, wherein neighboring groups maintained relationships for the purpose of cooperative endeavors. Cooperative hunting and fishing expeditions would have facilitated negotiation with coastal communities as well as maximized the acquisition of animal resources. Ceremonial activities involved with these cooperative events may have involved food sharing or feasting at a neutral location. The Tibes

(ceremonial site) may have provided such a location.

I also developed a technique for the recovery of adequate samples of faunal material from midden deposits while minimizing the destructive nature of archaeological excavation. Five stand-alone column samples were excavated from midden deposits located during shovel testing as part of archaeological survey. These column samples provided ample material from two smaller sites.

Significance of the Study and Implications for Future Research

This dissertation presents the first ever zooarchaeological study of multiple contemporaneous sites in a single river drainage on Puerto Rico. The identification of specific temporal contexts spread between three archaeological sites allowed for the development of a research strategy that explored human behavior at both a regional and local level. The development of human social organization is often regarded as an inevitable and fluid progression toward social complexity and inequality. This zooarchaeological study follows new approaches to the study of Puerto Rican prehistory that examine cultural remains in local contexts to reveal the multifaceted processes of

227

social interactions between individuals and groups through time and across the landscape (e.g.,Rodreiguez Ramos 2010; Torres 2012). Human behavior pertaining to the animal use for food and ceremony, varied between different temporal and spatial contexts based on local autonomy as well as regional social and political influence.

These behavioral patterns are interpreted as phenomena that are specific to community identity and interaction.

Zooarchaeologist often attempt to track changes in the compositions of faunal assemblages through time. Often, such investigations are specific to a single archaeological site, or even a single excavation unit. While these studies are able to reveal significant patterns, it can be difficult to understand these patterns as part of local cultural phenomena. In Puerto Rico, results of faunal analyses are often contextualized into temporal schemes based on Rousean pottery types (i.e. Saladoid, Osteonan,

Chican, etc.). Data from such studies may be limited in what they can elucidate about human culture, and instead may not do more than reflect the natural environment.

Regional contextual studies, such as this, allows for the identification of trends in human behavior that are specific to smaller regions without conforming to overarching evolutionary models.

Research should continue in south-central Puerto Rico to expand on the current understanding of community settlement and interaction. Very little of La Minerál and

Los Gongolones was excavated. While the methodology I developed for the project maximized the recovery of faunal remains while identifying districts contexts, more contexts remain uncovered that may resolve unanswered questions, such as why bones are absent from the middens. Perhaps future research will locate more domestic areas

228

to expand on the spatial comparison with ceremonial spaces. There is also a hope for the discovery of more sites that may connect La Minerál with La Jácanas. If it ever becomes possible to continue work at La Jácanas, a focus should be placed on the identification of non-ceremonial spaces such as domestic areas and family residences.

More generally, I hope that zooarchaeological research in Puerto Rico, the

Caribbean, and beyond continue to follow research strategies that goes beyond interpretations that merely involve naturalistic explanations. Zooarchaeologists deal with aspects of the human condition that hold deep symbolic meaning. Food is embedded in group and individual identities and is commonly involved in important cultural practices, ideologies, and ceremony.

Zooarchaeological research everywhere should also approach questions that deal with specific contextual issues that pertain to specific questions regarding individuals, groups, and communities whenever possible. This kind of interpretive focus can then be expanded to issues concerning intercommunity and regional dynamics, much like what has been done in this dissertation.

229

APPENDIX A LA JÁCANAS INVERTEBRATES BY EXCAVATION UNIT AND FEATURE

Table A-1. Invertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 126 (Jácanas 2/4) TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight (g) %Weight Anadara notabilis 1 1 2.3 1.8 0.4 Anomalocardia brasiliana 11 7 15.9 4.4 0.9 Arca sp. 10 2 4.5 3.4 0.7 Arca zebra 9 3 6.8 10.6 2.2 Chione intapurpurea 1 1 2.3 4.2 0.9 Codakia orbicularis 4 2 4.5 9.0 1.9 Crassostrea rhizophorae 1 1 2.3 2.5 0.5 Solen obliquus 4 1 2.3 1.2 0.2 Bivalvia UID 4 1.0 0.2 Total Bivalvia 45 18 40.9 38.1 7.9

Astraea caelata 1 1 2.3 6.0 1.2 Cassis sp. 2 1 2.3 26.9 5.6 Strombus gigas 1 1 2.3 5.1 1.1 Strombus pugilis 14 12 27.3 262.6 54.4 Strombus spp. 21 8 18.2 71.5 14.8 Turritella variegata 3 3 6.8 2.7 0.6 Gastropoda UID 7 8.5 1.8 Total Gastropoda 49 26 59.1 383.3 79.5

Mollusca UID 40 12.1 2.5 Total MOLLUSCA 134 44 100.0 433.5 89.9

Anthozoa (Coral) 2 n\a 12.8 2.7 Faviidae (Brain Coral) 1 n\a 36.0 7.5

TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 137 44 100.0 482.3 100.0

230

Table A-2. Invertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 127 (Jacanas 2/4) TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight (g) %Weight Anadara ovalis 1 1 2.8 0.8 0.2 Anomalocardia brasiliana 3 3 8.3 2.1 0.6 Arca zebra 14 4 11.1 23.7 7.2 Arcidae 5 0.0 1.9 0.6 Chama sp. 1 1 2.8 1.0 0.3 Codakia orbicularis 11 5 13.9 7.7 2.4 Crassostrea rhizophorae 2 1 2.8 9.1 2.8 Lucinidae 1 1 2.8 1.0 0.3 Tellina magna 6 2 5.6 19.1 5.8 Tellina sp. 1 1 2.8 2.4 0.7 Bivalvia UID 44 14.1 4.3 Total Bivalvia 89 19 52.8 82.9 25.3

Muricinae 5 1 2.8 17.1 5.2 Strombus pugilis 5 4 11.1 83.1 25.4 Strombus sp. 29 9 25.0 85.8 26.2 Turritella variegata 10 3 8.3 5.1 1.6 Gastropoda UID 14 0.0 6.7 2.0 Total Gastropoda 63 17 47.2 197.8 60.4

Mollusca UID 23 3.2 1.0 Total MOLLUSCA 175 36 100.0 283.9 86.7

Faviidae (Brain Coral) 3 n/a 5.9 1.8 Anthozoa (Coral) 2 n/a 37.7 11.5 Total Coral 5 n/a 43.6 13.3

TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 180 36 100.0 327.5 100.0

231

Table A-3. Invertebrates from Feature 101, Trench 19 Units 126 and 127 (Jácanas 2/4) TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight (g) %Weight Anadara notabilis 3 1 0.7 3.4 0.6 Anadara sp. 1 1 0.7 1.6 0.3 Anomalocardia brasiliana 3 3 2.1 0.6 0.1 Arca zebra 62 30 20.8 128.1 21.1 Arcidae 169 1 0.7 32.5 5.3 Chama sp. 5 5 3.5 1.8 0.3 Chamidae 10 6 4.2 8.8 1.4 Codakia orbicularis 46 9 6.3 22.2 3.6 Donax denticulatus 1 1 0.7 0.1 0.0 Ostreidae 21 5 3.5 8.6 1.4 Phacoides pectinatus 1 1 0.7 9.0 1.5 Tellina fausta 4 3 2.1 33.6 5.5 Tellinidae 16 3 2.1 15.1 2.5 Bivalvia UID 17 3 2.1 11.9 2.0 Total Bivalvia 355 70 48.6 272.3 44.7 0.0 0.0 Astraea caelata 5 3 2.1 4.7 0.8 Astrea sp. 4 2 1.4 2.0 0.3 Capulidae 1 1 0.7 1.1 0.2 Murex sp. 1 1 0.7 1.3 0.2 Muricidae 5 5 3.5 17.0 2.8 Neritina sp. 12 8 5.6 1.4 0.2 Neritina virginea 7 4 2.8 0.6 0.1 Strombus sp. 17 8 5.6 70.0 11.5 Strombus pugilis 3 3 2.1 100.4 16.5 Turitella variegata 55 32 22.2 36.7 6.0 Vermetidae 16 0.0 0.4 0.1 Gastropoda UID 29 5 3.5 4.9 0.8 Total Gastropoda 155 72 50.0 240.5 39.5 0.0 0.0 Mollusca UID 0.0 82.7 13.6 Total MOLLUSCA 510 142 98.6 595.5 97.9 Decapoda 2 2 1.4 0.2 0.0 Anthozoa (coral) 4 0.0 12.8 2.1 0.0 0.0 TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 516 144 100.0 608.5 100.0

232

Table A-4. Invertebrates from Midden Mound Unit 107 (Jácanas 2/4) TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight (g) %Weight Anomalocardia brasiliana 14 2 7.4 7.5 3.0 Arca zebra 11 7 25.9 28.4 11.4 Arcidae 1 0.4 0.2 Codakia obicularis 3 1 3.7 1.3 0.5 Crassostrea rhizophorae 2 1 3.7 3.5 1.4 Bivalvia UID 3.8 1.5 Total Bivalvia 31 11 40.7 44.9 18.1

Astraea sp. 2 2 7.4 2.4 1.0 Strombus pugilis 1 1 3.7 29.5 11.9 Strombus sp. 10 9 33.3 67.2 27.1 Turitella variegata 5 2 7.4 2.1 0.8 Gastropoda UID 9 2 7.4 34.9 14.1 Total Gastropoda 27 16 59.3 136.1 54.9

Mollusca UID 22.0 8.9 Total MOLLUSCA 58 27 100.0 203.0 81.8

Anthozoa (coral) 1 45.1 18.2

TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 59 27 100.0 248.1 100.0

233

Table A-5. Invertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 151, Strata A, B, and C (Jácanas 2/4) TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight (g) %Weight Anomalocardia brasiliana 1 1 4.2 0.7 0.3 Arca zebra 3 2 8.3 3.3 1.3 Arcidae 9.5 3.8 Bivalvia UID 21 9.2 3.7 Total Bivalvia 25 3 12.5 22.7 9.1

Astraea sp. 1 1 4.2 0.9 0.4 Cittarium pica 1 1 4.2 60.0 24.1 Strombus sp. 10 8 33.3 60.4 24.3 Turitella sp. 68 9 37.5 61.2 24.6 Gastropoda UID 6 2 8.3 7.8 3.1 Total Gastropoda 86 21 87.5 190.1 76.4

Mollusca UID 4 12.8 5.1 Total MOLLUSCA 179 24 100.0 212.8 85.5

Anthozoa (coral) 8 36.0 14.5

TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 187 24 100.0 248.8 100.0

Table A-6. Invertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 151, Strata D and E (Jácanas 2) TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight (g) %Weight Anomalocardia brasiliana 5 3 30.0 2.7 8.5 Arca zebra 4 3 30.0 8.0 25.2 Arcidae 2 0.6 1.9 Codakia obicularis 2 1 10.0 5.3 16.7 Bivalvia UID 4 0.4 1.3 Total Bivalvia 17 7 70.0 17.0 53.6

Astraea sp. 2 1 10.0 1.0 3.2 Strombus sp. 4 1 10.0 8.3 26.2 Turitella variegata 1 1 10.0 1.8 5.7 Gastropoda UID 2 0.4 1.3 Total Gastropoda 9 3 30.0 11.5 36.3

Mollusca UID 19 3.1 9.8 Total MOLLUSCA 45 10 100.0 31.6 99.7

Anthozoa 1 0.1 0.3

TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 46 10 100.0 31.7 100.0

234

Table A-7. Invertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 151, Feature 280 (Jácanas 2) TAXON NISP MNI Weight (g) Anomalocardia brasiliana 2 1 1.4 Arca zebra 3 1 4.4 Codakia obicularis 1 1 1.1 Bivalvia UID 5 1.1 Total Bivalvia 11 3 8.0

Astrea sp. 1 1 0.3 Turitella variegata 3 1 0.7 Gastropoda UID 2 0.7 Total Gastropoda 6 2 1.7

Mollusca UID 0.7

TOTALS 17 5 10.4

Table A-8. Invertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 151, Feature 279 (Jácanas 2) TAXON NISP MNI Weight (g) Anomalocardia brasiliana 5 5 4.8 Arca zebra 1 2.9 Arcidae 4 2.1 Crassostrea rhizophorae 2 1 0.6 Bivalvia UID 0.4 Total Bivalvia 12 6 10.8

Neritina sp. 1 1 0.4 Neritina virginea 3 3 1.0 Total Gastropoda 4 4 1.4

Mollusca UID 1.5

TOTALS 32 20 25.9

235

Table A-9. Invertebrate Faunal Remains from Trench 19 Unit 145, Strata B and C (Jácanas 2/4) TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight (g) %Weight Anadara sp. 3 1 2.2 1.3 0.2 Arca zebra 14 4 8.7 22.6 3.2 Codakia orbicularis 1 1 2.2 1.1 0.2 Crassostrea rhizophorae 1 1 2.2 2.5 0.4 Phacoides pectinatus 2 1 2.2 5.6 0.8 Tellinidae 1 1 2.2 3.8 0.5 Bivalvia UID 20 4.4 0.6 Total Bivalvia 42 9 17.4 41.3 5.9

Murex sp. 2 1 2.2 2.4 0.3 Strombidae 13 5 10.9 37.4 5.3 Strombus pugilis 9 9 19.6 254.3 36.1 Strombus sp. 9 5 10.9 28.9 4.1 Strombus spp. 26 13 28.3 123.3 17.5 Trochidae 1 1 2.2 2.0 0.3 Turritella variegata 5 4 8.7 4.5 0.6 Gastropoda UID 18 51.0 7.2 Total Gastropoda 83 38 82.6 503.8 71.6

Mollusca UID 29 8.0 1.1 Total MOLLUSCA 154 47 100.0 553.1 78.6

Faviidae (Brain Coral) 2 n/a 42.3 6.0 Anthozoa (Coral) 6 n/a 108.6 15.4 Total Coral 8 n/a 150.9 21.4

TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 162 47 100.0 704.0 100.0

236

Table A-10. Invertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 145, Stratum E (Jácanas 2) TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight (g) %Weight Anadara ovalis 2 1 7.1 2.3 1.5 Arca zebra 9 3 21.4 11.5 7.4 Lucinidae 2 0.0 3.4 2.2 Tellina fausta 1 1 7.1 3.9 2.5 Tellinidae 2 0.0 1.6 1.0 Bivalvia UID 6 0.0 1.1 0.7 Total Bivalvia 22 5 35.7 23.8 15.3

Murex sp. 1 1 7.1 6.4 4.1 Strombus pugilis 2 2 14.3 62.0 39.8 Strombus sp. 12 4 28.6 58.3 37.4 Turritella variegata 2 2 14.3 1.1 0.7 Gastropoda UID 5 0.0 0.8 0.5 Total Gastropoda 22 9 64.3 128.6 82.6

Mollusca UID 29 0.0 2.3 1.5 Total MOLLUSCA 73 14 100.0 154.7 99.4

Anthozoa (Coral) 2 0.0 1.0 0.6

TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 75 14 100.0 155.7 100.0

Table A-11. Invertebrates from Trench 19 Units 145 and 147, Feature 116 (Jácanas 2/4) TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight (g) %Weight Anadara spp. 4 1 10 6.3 5.8 Arca zebra 2 1 10 0.8 0.7 Bivalvia UID 1 0.4 0.4 Total Bivalvia 7 2 20 7.5 6.9

Cittarium pica 6 1 10 4.9 4.5 Strombus pugilis 1 1 10 24.4 22.4 Strombus sp. 8 6 60 59.8 54.9 Gastropoda UID 3 1.7 1.6 Total Gastropoda 18 8 80 90.8 83.3

Mollusca UID 29 2.0 1.8 Total MOLLUSCA 54 100

Anthozoa (Coral) 11 8.7 8.0

TOTALS INVERTEBRATA 65 10 100 109.0 100.0

237

Table A-12. Invertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 146, Stratum A (Jácanas 4) TAXON NISP MNI Weight (g) Bivalvia UID 1 0.1

Strombus sp. 1 1.4

Mollusca UID 1 0.1

TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 3 1.6

Table A-13. Invertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 146, Strata B and C (Jácanas 2/4) TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight (g) %Weight Anadara leinosa floridana 2 2 3.6 11.3 1.3 Anadara notabilis 4 3 5.4 27.9 3.3 Anadara sp. 3 3.8 0.4 Anomalocardia brasiliana 3 2 3.6 1.4 0.2 Arca zebra 38 3 5.4 74.4 8.7 Chamidae 1 0.7 0.1 Chione cancellata 1 1 1.8 1.5 0.2 Codakia orbicularis 2 1 1.8 2.3 0.3 Crassostrea rhizophorae 2 1 1.8 2.1 0.2 Bivalvia UID 94 23.8 2.8 Total Bivalvia 150 13 23.2 149.2 17.5

Astraea caelata 2 5 8.9 23.6 2.8 Cassidae 1 1 1.8 30.4 3.6 Murex pomum 1 1 1.8 23.3 2.7 Murex sp. 4 2 3.6 43.0 5.0 Neritidae 1 1 1.8 0.4 0.0 Strombus gigas 3 2 3.6 34.1 4.0 Strombus pugilis 12 10 17.9 364.0 42.6 Strombus sp. 24 12 21.4 107.2 12.6 Turritella variegata 14 9 16.1 22.6 2.6 Gastropoda UID 51 17.2 2.0 Total Gastropoda 113 43 76.8 665.8 78.0

Mollusca UID 50 8.1 0.9 Total MOLLUSCA 313 56 100.0 823.1 96.4

Anthozoa (Coral) 11 30.4 3.6

TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 324 56 100.0 853.5 100.0

238

Table A-14. Invertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 146, Strata D and E (Jácanas 2) TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight (g) %Weight Anadara notabilis 1 1 5.3 16.0 16.1 Anomalocardia brasiliana 4 2 10.5 2.4 2.4 Arca zebra 18 6 31.6 46.6 46.9 Crassostrea rhizophorae 1 1 5.3 2.2 2.2 Tellinidae 1 1 5.3 1.7 1.7 Bivalvia UID 7 0.0 7.7 7.8 Total Bivalvia 32 11 57.9 76.6 77.1

Nodilittorina tuberculata 1 1 5.3 0.5 0.5 Strombus gigas 4 1 5.3 9.4 9.5 Turritella variegata 6 6 31.6 12.8 12.9 Total Gastropoda 11 8 42.1 22.7 22.9

TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 43 19 100.0 99.3 100.0

239

Table A-15. Invertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 146, Feature 115 (Jácanas 2/4) TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight (g) %Weight Anadara sp. 4 1 0.6 5.5 0.5 Anomalocardia brasiliana 205 71 40.8 144.7 13.4 Arca zebra 404 76 43.7 461.3 42.6 Chamidae 3 1 0.6 1.3 0.1 Codakia orbicularis 7 1 0.6 5.5 0.5 Crassostrea rhizophorae 9 1 0.6 6.8 0.6 Solen obliquus 4 2 1.1 3.1 0.3 Tellinidae 6 1 0.6 7.1 0.7 Bivalvia UID 285 0.0 26.2 2.4 Total Bivalvia 927 154 88.5 661.5 61.1

Cittarium pica 2 1 0.6 2.4 0.2 Murex brevifrons 1 1 0.6 38.6 3.6 Nerita sp. 1 1 0.6 0.1 0.0 Strombus pugilis 13 6 3.4 205.1 18.9 Strombus sp. 12 7 4.0 83.1 7.7 Turritella variegata 7 4 2.3 5.1 0.5 Gastropoda UID 12 0.0 6.6 0.6 Total Gastropoda 48 20 11.5 341.0 31.5

Mollusca UID 281 0.0 18.1 1.7 Total MOLLUSCA 1256 174 100.0 1020.6 94.3

Anthozoa (Coral) 18 62.0 5.7

TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 1274 174 100.0 1082.6 100.0

240

Table A-16. Invertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 147, Strata B and C (Jácanas 2/4) TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight (g) %Weight Anadara notibilis 1 1 1.9 7.1 0.7 Anomalocardia brasiliana 3 3 5.7 1.5 0.1 Arca zebra 7 5 9.4 17.5 1.7 Arcidae 12 10.9 1.1 Chama macerophylla 3 2 3.8 14.0 1.4 Codakia obicularis 4 1 1.9 4.0 0.4 Lucinidae 2 1 1.9 4.0 0.4 Phacoides pectinatus 1 1 1.9 2.3 0.2 Bivalvia UID 8 15.9 1.5 Total Bivalvia 41 14 26.4 77.2 7.5

Astrea sp. 1 1 1.9 8.9 0.9 Strombidae 59 24 45.3 273.5 26.5 Strombus costatus 2 1 1.9 83.1 8.1 Strombus pugilis 12 11 20.8 333.7 32.4 Strombus sp. 2 7.6 0.7 Turitella variegata 2 2 3.8 6.8 0.7 Gastropoda UID 9 9.5 0.9 Total Gastropoda 87 39 73.6 723.1 70.2

Mollusca UID 28.2 2.7 Total MOLLUSCA 128 53 100.0 828.5 80.4

Anthozoa 19 202.2 19.6

TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 147 53 100.0 1030.7 100.0

241

Table A-17. Invertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 147, Strata D and E (Jácanas 2) TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight (g) %Weight Anadara floridana 1 1 2.8 5.2 1.1 Anadara ovalis 1 1 2.8 1.7 0.3 Anomalocardia brasiliana 4 3 8.3 2.2 0.4 Arca zebra 20 8 22.2 33.9 6.9 Arcidae 32 0.0 15.9 3.2 Chamidae 1 1 2.8 2.3 0.5 Chione cancellata 1 1 2.8 0.7 0.1 Codakia obicularis 12 3 8.3 15.1 3.1 Crassostrea rhizophorae 2 2 5.6 6.2 1.3 Lucina pectinatus 1 1 2.8 0.8 0.2 Tellinidae 7 1 2.8 22.8 4.6 Bivalvia UID 9 0.0 5.7 1.2 Total Bivalvia 94 22 61.1 182.3 37.0

Astrea caelata 6 1 2.8 6.3 1.3 Strombidae 23 0.0 68.5 13.9 Strombus pugilis 9 7 19.4 191.2 38.8 Strombus sp. 1 0.0 12.0 2.4 Turitella variegata 15 6 16.7 6.8 1.4 Gastropoda UID 7 0.0 13.9 2.8 Total Gastropoda 61 14 38.9 298.7 60.6

Mollusca UID 0.0 11.8 2.4 Total MOLLUSCA 155 36 100.0 481.0 97.6

Anthozoa (coral) 3 0.0 69.8 14.2

TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 155 36 100.0 492.8 100.0

242

Table A-18. Invertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 148, Strata B and C (Jácanas 2/4) TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight (g) %Weight Anadara floridana 1 1 0.6 16.5 0.6 Anadara notibilis 9 6 3.4 93.7 3.6 Anadara ovalis 6 14 7.8 17.9 0.7 Anomalocardia brasiliana 66 23 12.8 40.4 1.5 Arca imbricata 4 2 1.1 3.8 0.1 Arca zebra 50 22 12.3 148.9 5.7 Arcidae 1 0.0 42.8 1.6 Barbatia cancellaria 1 1 0.6 3.9 0.1 Chama macerophylla 1 2 1.1 36.7 1.4 Codakia obicularis 25 6 3.4 38.3 1.5 Crassostrea rhizophorae 16 2 1.1 28.1 1.1 Phacoides pectinatus 5 3 1.7 20.9 0.8 Solenidae 2 1 0.6 1.3 0.0 Tellina fausta 9 4 2.2 110.9 4.2 Tellina sp. 34 0.0 44.7 1.7 Bivalvia UID 0.0 21.8 0.8 Total Bivalvia 230 87 48.6 670.6 25.6

Astraea caelata 1 1 0.6 7.5 0.3 Cittarium pica 2 1 0.6 9.0 0.3 Muricidae 10 6 3.4 95.8 3.7 Neritina sp. 1 1 0.6 0.4 0.0 Stombus costatus 3 2 1.1 130.5 5.0 Strombidae 73 14 7.8 324.3 12.4 Strombus pugilis 35 33 18.4 1030.1 39.4 Strombus sp. 6 1 0.6 14.7 0.6 Turitella variegata 51 33 18.4 86.8 3.3 Gastropoda UID 18 0.0 16.2 0.6 Total Gastropoda 200 92 51.4 1715.3 65.6

Mollusca UID 0.0 31.2 1.2 Total MOLLUSCA 430 179 100.0 2417.1 92.4

Anthozoa (Coral) 18 0.0 198.7 7.6

TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 448 179 100.0 2615.8 100.0

243

Table A-19. Invertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 148, Strata D and E (Jácanas 2) TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight(g) %Weight Americardia media 1 1 1.3 1.3 0.2 Anadara notibilis 2 2 2.7 7.4 1.1 Anadara ovalis 3 3 4.0 4.7 0.7 Anomalocardia brasiliana 7 5 6.7 4.2 0.6 Arca imbricata 7 3 4.0 5.8 0.9 Arca zebra 76 24 32.0 204.1 31.6 Arcidae 27 0.0 32.3 5.0 Codakia obicularis 33 4 5.3 28.4 4.4 Crassostrea rhizophorae 5 2 2.7 25.1 3.9 Lucinidae 4 1 1.3 4.2 0.6 Phacoides pectinatus 2 2 2.7 10.3 1.6 Solenidae 3 1 1.3 0.4 0.1 Tellina fausta 25 5 6.7 60.7 9.4 Bivalvia UID 4 0.0 16.4 2.5 Total Bivalvia 199 53 70.7 405.3 62.7

Astraea caelata 1 1 1.3 8.1 1.3 Astraea sp. 1 1 1.3 0.3 0.0 Muricidae 3 2 2.7 12.0 1.9 Strombidae 20 2 2.7 63.2 9.8 Strombus pugilis 4 2 2.7 74.1 11.5 Turitella variegata 24 14 18.7 42.5 6.6 Gastropoda UID 7 0.0 8.1 1.3 Total Gastropoda 60 22 29.3 208.3 32.2

Mollusca UID 6 0.0 6.7 1.0 Total MOLLUSCA 265 75 100.0 620.3 96.0

Anthozoa (Coral) 12 0.0 25.9 4.0

TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 277 75 100.0 646.2 100.0

244

Table A-20. Invertebrates from Feature 111, Trench 19 Units 148 and 149 (Jácana 2) TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight(g) %Weight Anadara notabilis 1 1 2.3 11.2 1.7 Anomalocardia brasiliana 16 5 11.4 4.9 0.8 Arca zebra 17 8 18.2 30.50 4.7 Arcidae 42 1 2.3 22.40 3.4 Astraea sp. 1 1 2.3 5.90 0.9 Barbatia candida 1 1 2.3 1.9 0.3 Cardiidae 1 1 2.3 0.4 0.1 Chama macerohylla 1 1 2.3 28.3 4.3 Codakia obicularis 10 1 2.3 4.0 0.6 Crassostrea rhizophorae 3 1 2.3 2.2 0.3 Phacoides pectinatus 2 1 2.3 4.6 0.7 Tellinidae 1 1.3 0.2 Bivalvia UID 8 18.2 2.8 Total Bivalvia 104 22 50.0 135.8 20.8

Cittarium pica 2 1 2.3 3.5 0.5 Littorinidae 1 1 2.3 1.1 0.2 Strombidae 31 2 4.5 108.00 16.5 Strombus pugilis 5 5 11.4 166.8 25.5 Strombus sp. 18 6 13.6 134.8 20.6 Turritella variegata 32 7 15.9 17.9 2.7 Gastropoda UID 6 22 50.0 0.9 0.1 Total Gastropoda 95 433.0 66.3

Mollusca UID 17 17.2 2.6 Total MOLLLUSCA 216 44 100.0 586.0 89.7

Anthozoa (Coral) 28 67.3 10.3

TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 244 44 100.0 653.3 100.0

245

Table A-21. Invertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 149, Strata B and C (Jácanas 2/4) TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight(g) %Weight Anadara notabilis 7 3 1.5 31.7 1.4 Anadara ovalis 2 2 1.0 5.1 0.2 Anomalocardia brasiliana 110 39 18.9 85.7 3.8 Arca zebra 115 49 23.8 302.6 13.5 Arcidae 118 0.0 58.0 2.6 Chamidae 8 2 1.0 8.1 0.4 Chione cancellata 1 1 0.5 2.1 0.1 Codakia obicularis 30 2 1.0 43.3 1.9 Crassostrea rhizophorae 11 4 1.9 18.5 0.8 Lucinidae 1 1 0.5 2.2 0.1 Phacoides pectinatus 8 5 2.4 20.6 0.9 Solenidae 3 3 1.5 3.3 0.1 Tellina fausta 13 4 1.9 71.4 3.2 Tellinidae 8 7 3.4 11.0 0.5 Bivalvia UID 10 0.0 12.2 0.5 Total Bivalvia 445 122 59.2 675.8 30.2

Astrea caelata 1 1 0.5 9.9 0.4 Cittarium pica 1 1 0.5 9.1 0.4 Muricidae 8 4 1.9 131.2 5.9 Neritina sp. 1 1 0.5 0.6 0.0 Strombidae 9 1 0.5 85.4 3.8 Strombus pugilis 39 17 8.3 544.0 24.3 Strombus sp. 102 40 19.4 457.8 20.5 Turitella variegata 38 19 9.2 49.1 2.2 Gastropoda UID 2 0.0 21.0 0.9 Total Gastropoda 201 84 40.8 1308.1 58.5

Mollusca UID 0.0 32.6 1.5 Total MOLLUSCA 646 206 100.0 2016.5 90.2

Anthozoa 23 0.0 218.1 9.8

TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 669 206 100.0 2234.6 100.0

Table A-22. Invertebrates from Feature 112, Trench 19 Units 149 and 150 (Jácana 4) TAXON NISP MNI Weight(g) Arcidae 3 1.0 Anomalocardia brasiliana 2 1 0.2 Mollusca UID 4 0.2 TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 9 1 1.4

246

Table A-23. Invertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 150, Strata B and C (Jácanas 2/4) TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight(g) %Weight Anadara leinosa floridana 3 2 0.6 31.3 1.3 Anadara notabilis 12 5 1.4 44.7 1.8 Anadara ovalis 2 2 0.6 4.4 0.2 Anadara sp. 5 4.0 0.2 Anomalocardia brasiliana 344 155 44.0 239.2 9.9 Arca imbricata 2 2 0.6 4.8 0.2 Arca zebra 178 91 25.9 451.0 18.7 Arcidae 79 44.2 1.8 Barbatia candida 1 1 0.3 0.9 0.0 Codakia orbiculata 26 9 2.6 54.9 2.3 Crassostrea rhizophorae 9 1 0.3 15.3 0.6 Lucinidae 23 13.6 0.6 Chama macerophylla 1 1 0.3 8.4 0.3 Chamidae 15 1 0.3 8.4 0.3 Plicatula gibbosa 1 1 0.3 0.8 0.0 Solen obliquus 13 1 0.3 4.1 0.2 Tellina fausta 20 6 1.7 96.7 4.0 Tellinidae 46 1 0.3 35.8 1.5 Bivalvia UID 151 33.1 1.4 Total Bivalvia 931 279 79.3 1095.6 45.3

Astraea caelata 1 1 0.3 7.3 0.3 Cassis sp. 1 1 0.3 13.2 0.5 Chama macerophylla 1 1 0.3 8.4 0.3 Chamidae 15 1 0.3 8.4 0.3 Cittarium pica 5 2 0.6 12.0 0.5 Murex sp. 4 4 1.1 34.2 1.4 Neritidae 1 1 0.3 0.6 0.0 Strombus gigas 2 13.0 0.5 Strombus pugilis 32 26 7.4 610.3 25.2 Strombus sp. 99 20 5.7 284.9 11.8 Turbinidae 1 1.1 0.0 Turritella variegata 26 14 4.0 39.2 1.6 Vasum muricatum 3 2 0.6 69.2 2.9 Gastropoda UID 20 19.7 0.8 Total Gastropoda 211 73 20.7 1121.5 46.4

Mollusca UID 123 12.8 0.5 Total MOLLUSCA 1265 352 100.0 2229.9 92.2

Faviidae (Brain Coral) 3 18.8 0.8 Anthozoa (Coral) 35 169.0 7.0

TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 1303 352 100.0 2417.7 100.0

247

Table A-24. Invertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 150, Strata D and E (Jácanas 2) TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight(g) %Weight Anadara chemnitii 1 1 0.7 1.5 0.1 Anadara leinosa floridana 1 1 0.7 1.3 0.1 Anadara notabilis 3 1 0.7 9.3 0.9 Anadara ovalis 6 3 2.0 6.8 0.7 Anadara sp. 13 3 2.0 11.5 1.1 Anomalocardia brasiliana 41 20 13.6 23.5 2.3 Arca imbricata 1 1 0.7 0.6 0.1 Arca zebra 115 56 38.1 218.9 21.6 Arcidae 122 0.0 63.0 6.2 Chamidae 1 1 0.7 0.9 0.1 Chione cancelata 2 1 0.7 1.7 0.2 Codakia orbicularis 12 4 2.7 18.0 1.8 Crassostrea rhizophorae 5 3 2.0 6.2 0.6 Lucinidae 13 8.9 0.9 Phacoides pectinatus 6 2 1.4 9.0 0.9 Tellina fausta 5 2 1.4 9.3 0.9 Tellinidae 22 24.2 2.4 Trachycardium isocardia 3 1 0.7 2.8 0.3 Bivalvia UID 10 14.4 1.4 Total Bivalvia 382 100 68.0 431.8 42.6

Cittarium pica 1 1 0.7 5.0 0.5 Murex sp. 3 2 1.4 2.6 0.3 Neritidae 1 1 0.7 0.3 0.0 Strombus costatus 1 1 0.7 38.4 3.8 Strombus gigas 1 1 0.7 12.9 1.3 Strombus pugilis 9 7 4.8 201.8 19.9 Strombus sp. 56 10 6.8 182.5 18.0 Turbinidae 1 1 0.7 0.6 0.1 Turritella variegata 52 24 16.3 68.2 6.7 Gastropoda UID 5 19.1 1.9 Total Gastropoda 130 48 32.7 531.4 52.5

Mollusca UID 148 14.3 1.4 Total MOLLUSCA 660 148 100.7 977.5 96.5

Faviidae (Brain Coral) 2 10.8 1.1 Anthozoa (Coral) 8 24.5 2.4

TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 670 147 100.0 1012.8 100.0

248

Table A-25. Invertebrates from Feature 108, Trench 19 Unit 150 (Jácanas 4) TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight(g) %Weight Anadara notabilis 2 1 0.6 5.3 0.6 Anadara ovalis 1 1 0.6 2.0 0.2 Anomalocardia brasiliana 230 72 45.0 98.60 11.8 Arca imbricata 2 2 1.3 1.4 0.2 Arca zebra 93 46 28.8 188.40 22.6 Arcidae 59 22.70 2.7 Chamidae 1 0.3 0.0 Codakia orbicularis 6 3 1.9 5.5 0.7 Crassostrea rhizophorae 4 1 2.6 0.3 Lucinidae 24 8.7 1.0 Phacoides pectinatus 2 2 1.3 13.7 1.6 Pliculata gibbosa 2 1 0.6 0.2 0.0 Pseudochama radians 1 1 0.6 2.2 0.3 Solen obliquus 3 1 0.6 1.1 0.1 Tellina fausta 2 2 1.3 6.00 0.7 Tellinidae 31 29.80 3.6 Bivalvia UID 46 7.2 0.9 Total Bivalvia 510 133 83.1 396.5 47.6

Echininous nodulosus 1 1 0.6 0.8 0.1 Murex sp. 1 1 0.6 4.3 0.5 Muricidae 2 1 0.6 1.50 0.2 Strombidae 3 4.80 0.6 Strombus gigas 1 1 0.6 4.9 0.6 Strombus pugilis 13 10 6.3 195.60 23.5 Strombus sp. 44 12 7.5 138.2 16.6 Turritella variegata 4 1 0.6 2.0 0.2 Gastropoda UID 21 1 0.6 6.5 0.8 Total Gastropoda 89 27 16.9 357.8 42.9

Mollusca UID 31.3 3.8 Total MOLLUSCA 599 160 100.0 785.6 94.3

Faviidae (Brain Coral) 1 0.0 2.4 0.3 Anthozoa (Coral) 13 0.0 45.1 5.4

TOTAL VERTEBRATA 613 160 100.0 833.1 100.0

249

Table A-26. Invertebrates from N. Batey Trench Unit 153 Levels 1 and 2 (Jácanas 4/5) TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight(g) %Weight Anadara floridana 1 1 0.8 14.8 2.7 Anadara notabilis 2 2 1.6 12.8 2.4 Anadara ovalis 1 1 0.8 6.2 1.1 Anomalocardia brasiliana 116 54 43.9 73.6 13.6 Arca zebra 47 26 21.1 142.6 26.4 Arcidae 5 3.1 0.6 Chamidae 2 2 1.6 12.0 2.2 Chione cancellata 4 3 2.4 5.4 1.0 Codakia costata 1 1 0.8 1.9 0.4 Codakia obicularis 36 9 7.3 77.3 14.3 Lucina pectinatus 11 4 3.3 10.9 2.0 Rupellaria typica 3 1 0.8 0.3 0.1 Tellina fausta 19 7 5.7 84.0 15.5 Bivalvia UID 3 3.4 0.6 Total Bivalvia 251 111 90.2 448.3 82.9

Astrea caelata 1 1 0.8 2.1 0.4 Muricidae 4 2 1.6 8.3 1.5 Neritina sp. 1 1 0.8 1.3 0.2 Neritina virginea 2 2 1.6 10.2 1.9 Strombidae 3 2 1.6 16.6 3.1 Turitella variegata 3 3 2.4 5.6 1.0 Gastropoda UID 4 1 0.8 8.5 1.6 Total Gastropoda 18 12 9.8 52.6 9.7

Mollusca UID 1 5.6 1.0 Total MOLLUSCA 270 123 100.0 506.5 93.7

Anthozoa (Coral) 1 34.2 6.3

TOTAL VERTEBRATA 271 123 100.0 540.7 100.0

250

Table A-27. Invertebrates from N. Batey Trench Unit 153, Levels 3-6 (Jácanas 4) TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight(g) %Weight Anadara ovalis 1 1 0.9 0.6 0.1 Anomalocardia brasiliana 211 46 43.4 159.2 31.8 Arca imbricata 3 2 1.9 5.9 1.2 Arca zebra 43 23 21.7 137.5 27.4 Arcidae 16 0.0 16.3 3.3 Chamidae 2 1 0.9 0.9 0.2 Codakia obicularis 21 3 2.8 29.7 5.9 Crassostrea rhizophorae 3 3 2.8 5.2 1.0 Crepidula aculeata 1 1 0.9 0.3 0.1 Isognomon alatus 1 1 0.9 0.7 0.1 Lucina pectinatus 3 2 1.9 8.5 1.7 Mytilopsis dominguensis 2 2 1.9 0.1 0.0 Solenidae 1 1 0.9 0.3 0.1 Tellina fausta 5 2 1.9 20.7 4.1 Tellinidae 8 2 1.9 20.1 4.0 Bivalvia UID 10 0.0 3.4 0.7 Total Bivalvia 331 90 84.9 409.4 81.7

Cerithiidae 1 1 0.9 0.2 0.0 Muricidae 1 1 0.9 11.4 2.3 Neritina clenchi 2 2 1.9 2.1 0.4 Neritina sp. 1 1 0.9 0.3 0.1 Neritina virginea 2 2 1.9 1.2 0.2 Strombidae 4 1 0.9 3.1 0.6 Turitella variegata 7 6 5.7 9.1 1.8 Gastropoda UID 2 2 1.9 1.5 0.3 Total Gastropoda 20 16 15.1 28.9 5.8

Mollusca UID 0.0 9.2 1.8 Total MOLLUSCA 351 106 100.0 447.5 89.3

Anthozoa (Coral) 5 0.0 53.6 10.7

TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 356 106 100.0 501.1 100.0

251

Table A-28. Invertebrates from Trench 7 Unit 138 (Jácanas 2/4) TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight (g) %Weight Anadara sp. 5 3 5.0 14.2 6.7 Anomalocardia brasiliana 74 18 30.0 24.1 11.3 Arca zebra 56 20 33.3 50.0 23.4 Arcidae 1 1 1.7 0.6 0.3 Astraea sp. 2 2 3.3 3.0 1.4 Cittarium pica 28 1 1.7 22.2 10.4 Codakia orbicularis 2 2 3.3 6.2 2.9 Crassostrea rhizophorae 4 4.5 2.1 Phacoides pectinatus 2 1 1.7 4.8 2.3 Bivalvia UID 61 5.7 2.7 Total Bivalvia 235 48 80.0 135.3 63.4

Echininus nodulosus 1 1 1.7 0.9 0.4 Modulus modulus 1 1 1.7 0.7 0.3 Murex sp. 1 1 1.7 10.3 4.8 Strombus pugilis 2 2 3.3 3.4 1.6 Strombus sp. 9 3 34.8 16.3 Turritella variegata 5 4 6.7 5.4 2.5 Gastropoda UID 11 4.4 2.1 Total Gastropoda 30 12 20.0 59.9 28.1

Mollusca UID 48 11.6 5.4 Total MOLLUSCA 313 60 100.0 206.8 97.0

Anthozoa (Coral) 4 6.5 3.0

TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 317 60 100.0 213.3 100.0

252

Table A-29. Invertebrates from Trench 7 Unit 138, Feature 217 (Jácanas 4) TAXON NISP MNI Weight (g) Arca zebra 1 1.2 Anomalocardia brasiliana 1 0.3 Strombus sp. 4 2 12.4 TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 6 2 13.9

Table A-30. Invertebrates from Trench 7 Unit 138, Feature 218 (Jácanas 4) TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight (g) % Weight Anadara sp. 4 1 5.3 4.5 18.6 Anomalocardia brasiliana 21 15 78.9 12.9 53.3 Arca sp. 1 0.6 2.5 Arca zebra 2 2 10.5 3.2 13.2 Total Bivalvia 28 18 94.7 21.2 87.6 0.0 Turbininae 1 1 5.3 0.6 2.5 Gastropoda UID 2 0.1 0.4 Total Gastropoda 3 1 5.3 0.7 2.9 0.0 Mollusca UID 2.3 9.5 0.0 TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 31 19 100.0 24.2 100.0

Table A-31. Invertebrates from Scrape F, General Collection TAXON NISP MNI Weight (g) Crassostrea rhizophorae 7 1 2.9 Strombus sp. 1 1 2.4 Gastropoda UID 11+ 15.0 TOTALS 19 2 20.3

253

Table A-32. Invertebrates from Scrape F, Grab Collection (FX-F Jácanas 2) TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight (g) %Weight Anadara brasiliana 1 1 3.8 10.4 3.7 Anadara ovalis 1 1 3.8 4.1 1.5 Anadara sp. 3 5.5 2.0 Anomalocardia brasiliana 4 2 7.7 3.7 1.3 Arca sp. 2 1 3.8 2.2 0.8 Arca zebra 13 6 23.1 62.4 22.2 Codakia obicularis 1 1 3.8 1.6 0.6 Crassostrea rhizophorae 6 2 7.7 14.9 5.3 Lucina pectinata 8 4 15.4 25.0 8.9 Bivalvia UID 1 6.7 2.4 Total Bivalvia 40 18 69.2 136.5 48.6

Muricidae 1 1 3.8 45.8 16.3 Strombus sp. 10 3 11.5 51.7 18.4 Turbininae 1 1 3.8 2.9 1.0 Turitella variegata 3 3 11.5 6.5 2.3 Gastropoda UID 7 31.6 11.3 Total Gastropoda 22 8 30.8 138.5 49.3

Mollusca UID 5.8 2.1

Total INVERTEBRATA 62 26 100.0 280.8 100.0

254

Table A-33. Invertebrates from Scrape F, Feature 491 (FX-F Jácanas 2) TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight (g) %Weight Anomalocardia brasiliana 2 2 13.3 1.2 1.1 Arca zebra 8 5 33.3 20.0 18.8 Arcidae 5 18.0 16.9 Chione cancellata 1 1 6.7 0.6 0.6 Codakia obicularis 1 1 6.7 0.6 0.6 Crassostrea rhizophorae 3 1 6.7 3.8 3.6 Lucinidae 1 1 6.7 1.3 1.2 Total Bivalvia 21 11 73.3 45.5 42.7

Astraea caelata 1 1 6.7 53.7 50.4 Neritina virginea 1 1 6.7 0.4 0.4 Turitella variegata 2 2 13.3 2.0 1.9 Total Gastropoda 4 4 26.7 56.1 52.7

Mollusca UID 2.7 2.5 Total MOLLUSCA 25 15 100.0 104.3 97.9

Anthozoa (coral) 2 2.2 2.1

TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 27 15 100.0 106.5 100.0

255

APPENDIX B LA JÁCANAS VERTEBRATES BY EXCAVATION UNIT AND FEATURE

Table B-1. Vertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 126 (Jácanas 2/4) TAXON NISP MNI Weight (g) Isolobodon portoricensis 30 1 3.72 Mammalia (large) 1 1 1.01 Total Mammalia 31 2 4.73

Aves 2 1 0.68

Tetrapoda UID 19 0.20

TOTAL VERTEBRATA 52 3 5.61

Table B-2. Vertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 127 (Jácanas 2/4) TAXON NISP MNI Weight (g) Isolobodon portoricensis 12 2 5.55 Rodentia 1 0.11 Mammalia (large) 1 1 1.30 Mammalia (small) 14 1 1.16 Total Mammalia 28 4 8.12

Lutjanidae 3 1 0.55 Scaridae 3 0.26 Sparisoma sp. 3 1 0.59 Osteichthyes UID 2 0.20 Total Osteichthyes 11 2 1.60

Vertebrata UID 4 0.04

TOTAL VERTEBRATA 43 6 9.76

256

Table B-3. Vertebrates from Feature 101, Trench 19 Units 126 and 127 (Jácanas 2/4) TAXON NISP MNI Weight (g) Isolobodon portoricensis 1 1 3.00 Mammalia UID 1 0.23 Total Mammalia 2 1 3.23

Sparisoma sp. 1 1 0.10 Osteichthyes UID 1 0.02 Total Osteichthyes 2 1 0.12

TOTAL VERTEBRATA 4 2 3.35

257

Table B-4. Vertebrates from Midden Mound Unit 107 (Jácanas 2/4) TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight (g) %Weight Isolobodon portoricensis 32 3 23.1 10.95 21.9 Rodentia 5 0.31 0.6 Nesophontes edithae 1 1 7.7 0.28 0.6 Mammalia (large) 1 1.71 3.4 mammalia (small) 7 1.34 2.7 Mammalia (small-med) 5 1.75 3.5 Total Mammalia 51 4 30.8 16.34 32.7

Ardeidae 1 1 7.7 0.80 1.6 Aves 3 0.68 1.4 Total Aves 4 1 7.7 1.48 3.0

Chelonidae 1 1 7.7 8.02 16.1 Colubridae 3 1 7.7 0.67 1.3 Cyclura sp. 1 1 7.7 0.12 0.2 Total Reptilia 5 3 23.1 8.81 17.7

Balistidae 2 1 7.7 1.26 2.5 Centropomus sp. 2 0.17 0.3 Diodon sp. 1 1 7.7 6.52 13.1 Diodontidae 4 0.59 1.2 Epinephelus sp. 3 1 7.7 2.19 4.4 Haemulidae 1 0.13 0.3 Haemulon sp. 1 0.24 0.5 Testudines 5 3.65 7.3 Tetrapoda UID 19 1.13 2.3 Haemulon sp. 2 1 7.7 0.32 0.6 Scaridae 1 0.32 0.6 Scarus sp. 1 1 7.7 3.39 6.8 Serranidae 1 0.13 0.3 Osteichthyes UID 6 1.03 2.1 Total Osteichthyes 49 5 38.5 21.07 42.2

Vertebrata UID 15 2.21 4.4

TOTAL VERTEBRATA 124 13 100.0 49.91 100.0

258

Table B-5. Vertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 151, Strata A, B, and C (Jácanas 2/4) TAXON NISP MNI Weight (g) Isolobodon portoricensis 4 1 1.55 Rodentia 1 0.22 Mammalia (large) 2 1.18 Mammalia (med/large) 5 4.68 Mammalia (small) 1 0.22 Total Mammalia 13 1 7.85

Chelonidae 1 1 1.94 Testudines 2 2.74 Total Reptilia 3 1 4.68

Lutjanidae 1 0.07 Sparisoma sp. 2 2 1.22 Osteichthyes UID 1 0.85 Total Osteichthyes 4 2 2.14

Vertebrata UID 9 3.30

TOTAL VERTEBRATA 29 4 17.97

Table B-6. Vertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 145, Stratum A (Jácanas 4) TAXON NISP MNI Weight (g) Isolobodon portoricensis 4 2 0.65 Mammalia (large) 5 2.60 Total Mammalia 9 2 3.25

Aves 1 1 0.11

Centropristis sp. 1 1 0.56 Diodontidae 1 1 0.18 Sparisoma sp. 1 1 0.13 Osteichthyes UID 5 0.46 Total Osteichthyes 8 3 1.33

TOTAL VERTEBRATA 18 6 4.69

259

Table B-7. Vertebrate Faunal Remains from Trench 19 Unit 145, Strata B and C (Jácanas 2/4) TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight (g) %Weight Cavia porcellus 2 1 8.3% 0.29 0.7% Isolobodon portoricensis 20 3 25.0% 6.74 15.7% Rodentia 3 0.0% 0.73 1.7% Mammalia (large) 8 0.0% 11.17 26.0% Mammalia (med/large) 1 0.0% 0.94 2.2% Mammalia (small) 10 0.0% 1.31 3.0% Total Mammalia 44 4 33.3% 21.18 49.3%

Fulica sp. 1 0.0% 0.27 0.6% Aves 2 0.0% 0.24 0.6% Total Aves 3 0.0% 0.51 1.2%

Colubridae 2 1 8.3% 0.15 0.3% Testudines 10 1 8.3% 3.41 7.9% Total Reptilia 12 2 16.7% 3.56 8.3%

Tetrapoda UID 14 0.0% 1.35 3.1%

Carangidae 1 0.0% 0.91 2.1% Centropomus sp. 3 0.0% 0.41 1.0% Epinephelus sp. 1 0.0% 2.49 5.8% Haemulidae 2 2 16.7% 0.33 0.8% Lutjanidae 1 0.0% 0.68 1.6% Scarus sp. 2 2 16.7% 5.79 13.5% Sparisoma sp. 5 1 8.3% 0.91 2.1% Osteichthyes UID 19 0.0% 2.43 5.7% Total Osteichthyes 34 5 41.7% 13.95 32.4%

Lamniformes 1 0.0% 0.26 0.6% Rajiformes 1 1 8.3% 0.35 0.8% Total Chondrichthyes 2 1 8.3% 0.61 1.4%

Vertebrata UID 35 0.0% 1.83 4.3%

TOTAL VERTEBRATA 144 12 100.0% 42.99 100.0%

260

Table B-8. Vertebrates from Trench 19 Units 145 and 147, Feature 116 (Jácanas 2/4) TAXON NISP MNI Weight (g) Aves 1 1 0.15

Testudines 3 1 0.96

Diodontidae 1 1 0.18 Lutjanus sp. 4 1 1.97 Sparisoma sp. 1 1 0.70 Osteichthyes UID 1 0.08 Total Osteichthyes 7 3 2.93

Lamniformes 1 1 0.24

Vertebrata UID 11 0.44

TOTAL VERTEBRATA 23 6 4.72

261

Table B-9. Vertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 146, Strata B and C (Jácanas 2/4) TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight (g) %Weight Cavia porcellus 1 1 10.0 0.11 0.3 Isolobodon portoricensis 12 2 20.0 4.88 13.0 Rodentia 3 0.39 1.0 Mammalia 5 3.31 14.3 Total Mammalia 21 3 30.0 8.69 23.1

Aves 2 1 10.0 0.60 1.6 0.0 Chelonidae 2 1 10.0 15.08 40.0 Testudines 13 2.30 6.1 Reptilia 1 0.05 0.1 Total Reptilia 16 1 10.0 17.43 46.3

Tetrapoda UID 7 2.42 6.4

Caranx crysos 1 1 10.0 0.33 0.9 Diodontidae 1 1 10.0 0.11 0.3 Gobiomorus dormitor 3 1 10.0 0.75 2.0 Haemulon sp. 1 1 10.0 0.44 1.2 Lutjanidae 2 1 10.0 0.49 1.3 Scaridae 2 1.0 0.20 0.5 Sparisoma sp. 2 1 10.0 0.61 1.6 Osteichthyes UID 17 1.0 2.82 7.5 Total Osteichthyes 29 6 60.0 5.75 15.3

Vertebrata UID 24 1.0 2.78 7.4

TOTAL VERTEBRATA 99 10 100.0 37.67 100.0

262

Table B-10. Vertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 146, Strata D and E (Jácanas 2) TAXON NISP MNI Weight (g) Isolobodon portoricensis 1 1 1.21 Rodentia 3 0.35 Total Mammalia 4 1 1.56

Osteichthyes UID 3 0.56

TOTAL VERTEBRATA 7 1 2.12

Table B-11. Vertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 146, Feature 115 (Jácanas 2/4) TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight (g) %Weight Cavia porcellus 2 1 12.5 0.32 1.4 Isolobodon portoricensis 7 1 12.5 2.35 10.5 Rodentia 6 0.84 3.7 Mammalia (large) 1 0.68 3.0 Total Mammalia 16 2 25.0 4.19 18.7

Colubridae 1 1 12.5 0.07 0.3 Testudines 2 1 12.5 2.78 12.4 Total Reptilia 3 2 25.0 2.85 12.7

Epinephelus sp. 1 1 12.5 0.20 0.9 Lutjanidae 4 2 25.0 7.39 32.9 Serranidae 1 0.17 0.8 Sparisoma sp. 2 1 12.5 1.11 4.9 Osteichthyes UID 8 3.59 16.0 Total Osteichthyes 17 4 50.0 12.91 57.6

Lamniformes 1 0.45 2.0

Vertebrata UID 21 2.48 11.1

TOTAL VERTEBRATA 57 8 100.0 22.43 100.0

263

Table B-12. Vertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 147, Strata B and C (Jácanas 2/4) TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight (g) %Weight Cavia porcellus 6 2 10.5 1.97 4.5 Isolobodon portoricensis 18 2 10.5 6.41 14.7 Rodentia 1 0.52 1.2 Mammalia (large) 8 3.62 8.3 Mammalia (med/large) 4 2.42 5.5 Mammalia (small/med) 15 6.54 28.8 Total Mammalia 34 2 10.5 13.47 30.9

Aves 4 1 5.3 0.31 0.7 0.0 Colubridae 1 1 5.3 0.05 0.1 Cyclura sp. 2 1 5.3 0.21 0.5 Emydidae 2 1 5.3 1.88 4.3 Testudines 2 1 5.3 1.73 4.0 Total Reptila 11 5 26.3 4.18 9.6

Tetrapoda UID 57 5.34 12.2 0.0 Anguilla rostrata 1 1 5.3 0.01 0.0 Calamus sp. 1 1 5.3 0.83 1.9 Caranx sp. 1 1 5.3 0.28 0.6 Diodontidae 3 1 5.3 0.19 0.4 Epinephelus sp. 2 1 5.3 4.20 9.6 Haemulon sp. 1 1 5.3 0.08 0.2 Lutjanus sp. 1 1 5.3 1.80 4.1 Scaridae 4 0.65 1.5 Serranidae 1 0.09 0.2 Sparisoma sp. 8 2 10.5 2.23 5.1 Sphyraena sp. 1 1 5.3 0.25 0.6 Osteichthyes UID 26 2.48 5.7 Total Osteichthyes 50 10 52.6 13.09 30.0

Lamniformes 2 1 5.3 0.41 0.9 Rajiformes 1 1 5.3 0.77 1.8 Total Chondrichthyes 3 2 10.5 1.18 2.7

Vertebrata UID 141 6.37 14.6

TOTAL VERTEBRATA 296 19 100.0 43.63 100.0

264

Table B-13. Vertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 147, Strata D and E (Jácanas 2) TAXON NISP MNI Weight (g) Isolobodon portoricensis 2 1 0.49 Mammalia (small/med) 1 0.33 Mammalia (med/large) 1 0.92 Total Mammalia 4 1 1.74

Vertebrata UID 2 0.21

TOTAL VERTEBRATA 6 1 1.95

Table B-14. Vertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 148, Strata B and C (Jácanas 2/4) TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight (g) %Weight Isolobodon portoricensis 16 2 22.2 7.75 21.2 Mammalia (large) 4 6.90 18.8 Mammalia (small) 11 1.95 5.3 Total Mammalia 31 2 22.2 16.60 45.3

Passeriformes 1 1 11.1 0.06 0.2 Rallidae 5 1 11.1 0.96 2.6 Aves 1 0.46 1.3 Total Aves 7 2 22.2 1.48 4.0

Cyclura sp. 3 1 11.1 0.56 1.5 Emydidae 1 1 11.1 0.71 1.9 Testudines 3 0.41 1.1 Total Reptilia 7 2 22.2 1.68 4.6

Tetrapoda UID 6 1.06 2.9

Centropomus sp. 7 0.14 0.4 Diodontidae 1 1 11.1 0.13 0.4 Epinephelus sp. 2 1 11.1 2.75 7.5 Scaridae 1 0.11 0.3 Sparisoma sp. 1 1 11.1 0.42 1.1 Osteichthyes UID 36 8.56 23.4 Total Osteichthyes 48 3 33.3 12.11 33.1

Vertebrata UID 53 3.69 10.1

TOTAL VERTEBRATA 152 9 100.0 36.62 100.0

265

Table B-15. Vertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 148, Strata D and E (Jácanas 2) TAXON NISP MNI Weight (g) Mammalia (large) 1 3.40

Anas cf. discors 1 1 0.66

Osteichthyes UID 1 0.06

TOTAL VERTEBRATA 3 1 4.12

Table B-16. Vertebrates from Feature 111, Units 148 and 149 (Jácana 2) TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight (g) %Weight Isolobodon portoricensis 13 3 37.5 6.31 27.5 Rodentia 2 0.29 1.3 Mammalia (large) 4 3.91 17.0 Mammalia (small) 5 0.50 2.2 Total Mammalia 24 3 37.5 11.01 47.9

Aves 3 1 12.5 0.11 0.5

Testudines 8 1 12.5 2.56 11.1 0.0 Diodontidae 2 1 12.5 0.31 1.3 Epinephelus sp. 1 1 12.5 0.18 0.8 Scaridae 3 0.46 2.0 Serranidae 3 0.63 2.7 Sparisoma sp. 6 1 12.5 2.53 11.0 Osteichthyes UID 24 3.61 15.7 Total Osteichthyes 50 5 62.5 10.39 45.2

Lamniformes 2 0.0 0.48 2.1

Vertebrata UID 23 0.0 1.10 4.8

TOTAL VERTEBRATA 99 8 100.0 22.98 100.0

266

Table B-17. Vertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 149, Strata B and C (Jácanas 2/4) TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight(g) %Weight Cavia porcellus 1 1 4.5 1.02 1.5 Isolobodon portoricensis 66 4 18.2 13.37 19.6 Rodentia 1 0.03 0.0 Mammalia (large) 3 3.11 4.6 Mammalia (med/large) 27 5.46 8.0 Mammalia (small) 93 5.63 8.2 Total Mammalia 191 5 22.7 28.62 41.9

Columbidae 1 2 9.1 0.53 0.8 Passeriformes 1 1 4.5 0.05 0.1 Aves 3 0.28 0.4 Total Aves 5 3 13.6 0.86 1.3

Cyclura sp. 2 1 4.5 0.22 0.3 Lacertilia 2 0.28 0.4 Emydidae 3 1 4.5 1.19 1.7 Testudines 9 11.51 16.9 Total Reptila 16 2 9.1 13.20 19.3

Tetrapoda UID 6 0.66 1.0

Calamus sp. 1 1 4.5 0.36 0.5 Centropomus sp. 2 1 4.5 1.50 2.2 Diodontidae 2 1 4.5 0.33 0.5 Epinephelus sp. 5 1 4.5 0.95 1.4 Serranidae 1 0.08 0.1 Gobiomorus dormitor 4 1 4.5 0.38 0.6 Lachnolaimus sp. 3 2 9.1 1.43 2.1 Lutjanus sp. 4 2 9.1 3.73 5.5 Scaridae 6 0.95 1.4 Sparisoma sp. 4 2 9.1 1.12 1.6 Osteichthyes 103 11.03 16.2 Total Osteichthyes 135 11 50.0 21.86 32.0

Lamniformes 1 1 4.5 0.22 0.3

Vertebrata UID 86 3.86 5.7

TOTAL VERTEBRATA 439 22 100.0 68.26 100.0

267

Table B-18. Vertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 149, Strata D and E (Jácanas 2) TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight (g) %Weight Cavia porcellus 1 1 16.7 0.56 3.9 Isolobodon portoricensis 13 1 16.7 6.69 46.3 Mammalia (small) 6 0.0 1.07 7.4 Total Mammalia 20 2 33.3 8.32 57.6

Aves 2 1 16.7 0.19 1.3 0.0 0.0 Calamus sp. 1 1 16.7 0.10 0.7 Carangidae 1 1 16.7 0.54 3.7 Serranidae 2 1 16.7 4.17 28.9 Osteichthyes UID 12 0.0 1.12 7.8 Total Osteichthyes 16 3 50.0 5.93 41.1

TOTAL VERTEBRATA 38 6 100.0 14.44 100.0

Table B-19. Vertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 150, Stratum A (Jácanas 4) TAXON NISP MNI Weight (g) Isolobodon portoricensis 9 1 0.17 Rodentia 5 0.14 Mammalia (large) 3 2.84 Total Mammalia 17 1 3.15

Vertebrata UID 13 0.22

TOTAL VERTEBRATA 30 1 3.37

268

Table B-20. Vertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 150, Strata B and C (Jácanas 2/4) TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight(g) %Weight Cavia porcellus 4 1 5.9 1.43 2.4 Isolobodon portoricensis 28 3 17.6 7.99 13.4 Rodentia 3 0.83 1.4 Mammalia (large) 2 4.18 7.0 Mammalia (med/large) 13 4.93 8.3 Mammalia (small) 27 3.98 6.7 Total Mammalia 77 4 23.5 23.34 39.1

Passeriformes 1 1 5.9 0.07 0.1 Aves 3 0.15 0.3 Total Aves 4 1 5.9 0.22 0.4

Colubridae 5 1 5.9 0.56 0.9 Emydidae 2 1 5.9 4.03 6.8 Testudines 15 4.59 7.7 Total Reptilia 22 2 11.8 9.18 15.4

Tetrapoda UID 13 1.40 2.3

Anguilla rostrata 1 1 5.9 0.10 0.2 Carangidae 2 1 5.9 0.36 0.6 Caranx sp. 1 1 5.9 0.69 1.2 Centropomus sp. 1 1 5.9 0.62 1.0 Diodonsp. 1 1 5.9 10.50 17.6 Diodontidae 2 0.16 0.3 Gobiomorus dormitor 1 1 5.9 0.07 0.1 Lutjanus sp. 5 1 5.9 1.37 2.3 Mycteroperca sp. 1 1 5.9 0.83 1.4 Scaridae 3 0.36 0.6 Sparisoma sp. 3 1 5.9 1.01 1.7 Sphyraena sp. 3 1 5.9 0.60 1.0 Osteichthyes 75 5.49 9.2 Total Osteichthyes 99 10 58.8 22.16 37.1

Vertebrata UID 51 3.37 5.6

TOTAL VERTEBRATA 266 17 100.0 59.67 100.0

269

Table B-21. Vertebrates from Trench 19 Unit 150, Strata D and E (Jácanas 2) TAXON NISP MNI Weight (g) Cavia porcellus 3 1 0.89 Isolobodon portoricensis 11 1 3.42 Mammalia (small) 5 0.57 Total Mammalia 19 2 4.88

Aves 2 0.27

Colubridae 1 1 0.10

Diodon sp. 1 1 4.14 Mycteroperca sp. 1 1 0.32 Osteichthyes UID 4 0.76 Total Osteichthyes 6 2 5.22

Vertebrata UID 22 0.20

TOTAL VERTEBRATA 50 5 10.67

270

Table B-22. Vertebrates from Feature 108, Trench 19 Unit 150 (Jácanas 4) TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight (g) %Weight Cavia porcellus 1 1 11.1 0.83 2.6 Isolobodon portoricensis 8 1 11.1 3.39 10.7 Mammalia (large) 1 0.77 2.4 Mammalia (small) 35 2.86 9.1 Total Mammalia 45 2 22.2 7.85 24.9

Colubridae 1 0.11 0.3 Emydidae 2 1 11.1 3.35 10.6 Testudines 22 5.17 16.4 Total Reptilia 25 1 11.1 8.63 27.4

Tetrapoda UID 28 2.15 6.8 0.0 Carangidae 1 0.28 0.9 Diodon sp. 3 1 11.1 4.54 14.4 Diodontidae 2 0.45 1.4 Haemulon sp. 1 1 11.1 0.13 0.4 Lutjanidae 2 1 11.1 0.52 1.6 Serranidae 1 1 11.1 0.68 2.2 Sparisoma sp. 4 2 22.2 2.43 7.7 Osteichthyes UID 18 2.80 8.9 Total Osteichthyes 32 6 66.7 11.83 37.5

Vertebrata UID 21 1.09 3.5

TOTAL VERTEBRATA 151 9 100.0 31.55 100.0

Table B-23. Vertebrates from N. Batey Trench Unit 153 Levels 1 and 2 (Jácanas 4/5) TAXON NISP MNI Weight (g) Isolobodon portoricensis 1 1 0.51 Rodentia 1 0.09 Mammalia (small) 4 0.72 Total Mammalia 6 1 1.32

Serranidae 1 1 6.29 Osteichthyes UID 6 0.80 Total Osteichthyes 7 1 7.09

Vertebrata UID 2 0.22

TOTAL VERTEBRATA 15 2 8.63

271

Table B-24. Vertebrates from N. Batey Trench Unit 153, Levels 3-6 (Jácanas 4) TAXON NISP MNI Weight (g) Isolobodon portoricensis 4 1 4.58 Mammalia (small) 3 0.86 Total Mammalia 7 1 5.44

Emydidae 1 1 1.71 Testudines 1 0.03 Total Reptilia 2 1 1.74

Centropomus sp. 2 1 1.05 Gobiomorus dormitor 2 1 0.47 Osteichthyes UID 4 0.94 Total Osteichthyes 8 2 2.46

TOTAL VERTEBRATA 17 4 9.64

272

Table B-25. Vertebrates from Trench 7 Unit 138 (Jácanas 2/4) TAXON NISP MNI %MNI Weight (g) %Weight Isolobodon portoricensis 32 3 27.3 8.52 24.9 Mammalia (large) 1 0.0 0.61 1.8 Mammalia (small) 11 0.0 1.54 4.5 Total Mammalia 44 3 27.3 10.67 31.2 0.0 0.0 Ardeidae 2 1 9.1 1.78 5.2 Aves 1 0.0 0.06 0.2 Total Aves 3 1 9.1 1.84 5.4 0.0 0.0 Cyclura sp. 7 1 9.1 1.83 5.3 Lacertilia 3 0.0 0.52 1.5 Colubridae 1 0.0 0.06 0.2 Chelonidae 3 0.0 1.94 5.7 Testudines 3 0.0 1.68 4.9 Total Reptilia 17 1 9.1 6.03 17.6 0.0 0.0 Vertebrata UID 28 0.0 2.35 6.9 Tetrapoda UID 10 0.0 1.51 4.4 0.0 0.0 Carangidae 1 1 9.1 0.76 2.2 Centropomus sp. 2 1 9.1 0.80 2.3 Diodontidae 8 1 9.1 1.43 4.2 Lutjanidae 1 0.0 1.21 3.5 Scaridae 4 1 9.1 0.49 1.4 Serranidae 1 1 9.1 1.48 4.3 Sparisoma sp. 4 1 9.1 2.09 6.1 Osteichthyes UID 28 0.0 3.59 10.5 Total Osteichthyes 49 6 54.5 11.85 34.6 0.0 0.0 TOTAL VERTEBRATA 151 11 100.0 34.25 100.0

Table B-26. Vertebrates from Trench 7 Unit 138, Feature 217 (Jácanas 4) TAXON NISP MNI Weight (g) Isolobodon portoricensis 2 1 2.32

Tetrapoda UID 3 0.32

Scaridae 1 1 0.07

TOTAL VERTEBRATA 6 1 2.71

273

Table B-27. Vertebrates from Trench 7 Unit 138, Feature 218 (Jácanas 4) TAXON NISP MNI Weight (g) Isolobodon portoricensis 1 1 0.19

Osteichthyes UID 1 0.07

TOTAL VERTEBRATA 2 1 0.26

Table B-28. Vertebrates from Trench 12 Unit 142 (Jácanas 2/4) TAXON NISP MNI Weight (g) Isolobodon portoricensis 2 1 0.09

Aves 2 1 0.12

Chelonidae 9 1 11.60 Testudines 22 3.42 Cyclura sp. 2 1 0.35 Total Reptilia 33 2 15.37

Diodontidae 3 0.43 Elops saurus 1 0.07 Epinephelus sp. 4 1 2.48 Lutjanidae 3 1 1.13 Thunnus sp. 2 1 0.20 Osteichthyes UID 23 1.58 Total Osteichthyes 36 3 5.89

Vertebrata UID 70 1.79

TOTAL VERTEBRATA 143 5 23.26

274

Table B-29. Vertebrates from Trench 12 Unit 144 (Jácanas 2) TAXON NISP MNI Weight (g) Isolobodon portoricensis 5 2 0.69 Mammalia (small) 1 0.11 Total Mammalia 6 2 0.80

Ardeidae 1 1 0.97 Aves 2 0.20 Total Aves 3 1 1.17

Tetrapoda UID 2 0.08

Centropomus sp. 1 0.32 Epinephelus sp. 3 1 0.39 Osteichthyes UID 4 0.45 Total Osteichthyes 8 1 1.16

Vertebrata UID 32 0.87

TOTAL VERTEBRATA 51 4 4.08

275

APPENDIX C COLUMN SAMPLE VERTEBRATE IDENTIFICATIONS

Table C-1. Vertebrate totals from Column Sample 1 at La Minerál Taxon NISP MNI Weight (g) Isolodon portoricensis 2 1 0.05

Aves 2 1 0.08

Chelonidae 9 1 11.56 Testudines 7 2.38 Cyclura sp. 1 1 0.09 Total Reptilia 17 2 14.03

Thunnus spp. 2 0.18 Epinephelus spp. 1 1 1.67 Lutjanidae 2 1 0.60 Diodontidae 3 1 0.41 Elops saurus 1 1 0.05 Osteichthyes UID 23 1.50 Total Osteichthyes 32 4 4.41

Vertebrata UID 67 1.64

TOTAL VERTEBRATA 120 8 20.21

276

Table C-2. Vertebrate totals from Column Sample 2 at La Minerál Taxon NISP MNI Weight (g) Isolodon portoricensis 3 1 1.35 Mammalia (small) 5 0.97 Total Mammalia 8 1 2.32

Chelonidae 1 1 1.92 Testudines 2 3.34 Total Reptila 3 1 5.26

Sparisoma spp. 1 1 0.16 Osteichthyes UID 1 0.83 Total Osteichthyes 2 1 0.99

Vertebrata UID 4 1.86

TOTAL VERTEBRATA 17 3 10.43

Table C-3. Vertebrate totals from Column Sample 3 at Los Gongolones Taxon NISP MNI Weight (g) Isolodon portoricensis 3 1 1.36 Rodentia 1 0.07 Mammalia (small) 6 1.20 Total Mammalia 10 1 2.63

Emydidae 1 1 0.52 Total Reptilia 1 1 0.52

Centropomus spp. 1 1 0.11 Serranidae 1 1 0.52 Gobiomorus dormitor 1 1 0.11 Osteichthyes UID 11 1.74 Total Osteichthyes 14 3 2.48

Vertebrata UID 2 0.20

TOTAL VERTEBRATA 27 5 5.83

277

Table C-4. Vertebrate totals from Column Sample 4 at Los Gongolones Taxon NISP MNI Weight (g) Isolodon portoricensis 5 1 2.07 Mammalia (large) 1 1 1.09 Mammalia (small) 7 1.38 Rodentia 2 0.15 Total Mammalia 15 2 4.69

Tetrapoda UID 11 1.07

Osteichthyes UID 2 0.93

Vertebrata UID 24 0.16

TOTAL VERTEBRATA 52 2 6.85

Table C-5. Vertebrate totals from Column Sample 5 at Los Gongolones Taxon NISP MNI Weight (g) Rodentia 1 1 0.12 Mammalia (small) 4 0.40 Total Mammalia 5 1 0.52

Testudines 4 1 0.27

Carangidae 4 0.13 Scaridae 1 1 0.23 Gobiomorus dormitor 1 1 0.02 Osteichthyes UID 32 0.58 Total Osteichthyes 38 2 0.96

Vertebrata UID 54 0.96

TOTAL VERTEBRATA 101 4 2.71

278

LIST OF REFERENCES

Abbott, R. Tucker and P. A. Morris Abbot 1995 Shells of the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts and the West Indies. Peterson Field Guides. Houghton Mifflin Company, NY.

Alegria, R. E. 1965 On Puerto Rican Archaeology. American Antiquity 31(2):246-249.

1980 Ethografia Taina y los Conquistadores. Proceedings of the 8th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology. St. Kitts: 82-86.

1983 Ball Courts and Ceremonial Plazas in the West Indies. New Haven, Department of Anthropology Yale University.

Alegría, R. E., H. B. Nicholson, and G. R. Willey 1955 The Archaic Tradition in Puerto Rico. American Antiquity 21(2):113-121.

Allaire, L. 1980 On the Historicity of Carib Migrations in the Lesser Antilles. American Antiquity 45(2):238-245.

Alvard, M. S. 1995 Intraspecific Prey Choice by Amazonian Hunters. Current Anthropology 36:789-818.

2002 Evolutionary Theory, Conservation, and Human Environmental Impact. in Wilderness and Political Ecology: Aboriginal Influences and the Original State of Nature, edited by C. E. Kay and R. T. Simmons, pp 28-43. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Alvarez, A. R. 1993 A Classification Scheme for Petroglyphs for Puerto Rico. Proceedings of the 14th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology. Barbados.

Ambrose, S. H., J. F. Buikstra, and H. W. Krueger 2003 Status and Gender Differences in Diet at Mound 72, Cahokia, Revealed by Isotopic Analysis of Bone. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22:217-226.

Amorosi, T. and J. Woollett 1996 Regional Zooarchaeology and Global Change: Problems and Potentials. World Archaeology 28(1):126-157.

279

Anderson, D. G. 1996 Fluctuations Between Simple and Complex Chiefdoms: Cycling in the Late Prehistoric Southeast. In Political Structure and Change in the Prehistoric Southeastern United States, edited by John F. Scarry, pp. 231-252. University Presses of Florida.

1996 Chiefly Cycling and Large-Scale Abandonments as Viewed from the Savannah River Basin. In Political Structure and Change in the PrehistoricSoutheastern United States, edited by John F. Scarry, pp. 150-191. University Press of Florida: Gaineville

Andrus, C., D. E. Crowe, D. H. Sandweiss,. E. J. Reitz, C. S. Romanek,., and K. A. Maasch 1997 Otolith Sigma-18 Oxygen Record of Mid-Holocene Sea Surface Temperatures in Peru. Science. 295:1508-1511.

Anschuetz, K .F. Wilshusen, R, H., and Scheick, C. L. 2001 An Archaeology of Landscapes: Perspectives and Directions. In Journal of Archaeological Research 9(2):157-211.

Appaduai, A. 1981 Gastro-Poitics in Hindu South Asia. American Ethnologist 8(3):494-511

Arhem, K. 1998 Powers of Place, Landscape, Territory, and Local Belonging in Northwest Amazonia. In Locality and Belonging, edited by Nadia Lovell, pp. 78-102. Routledge, New York.

Ashley, B. J., Hollows, S. Johnes and B. Taylor 2004 Food and Cultural Studies. Routledge, London.

Ashmore, W. and J. Sabloff 2002 Spatial Order in Maya Civic Plans. Latin American Antiquity 13:202-217.

Atalay, S. and C. Hastorf 2006 Food, Meals, and Daily Activities: Food Habitus at Neolithic Catalhoyuk. American Antiquity 71(2):283-319.

Ayes Suárez, C. M. 1989 Excavaciones arqueológicas en Angostura, Barrio Florida Afuera, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico. Ecos de Plazuela 1(3):9-11

Beck, R. A., Jr. 2003 Consolidation and Hierarchy: Chiefdom Variability in the Mississippian Southeast. American Antiquity, 68(4):641-661.

280

Bell, D. and G. Valentine 1997 Consuming Geofraphies: We Are Where We Eat. Routledge, London.

Belovsky, G. 1988 An Optimal Foraging-based Model of Hunter-Gatherer Population Dynamics. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 7:329-372.

Bennett, J. W. 1975 Ecosystem Analogies in Cultural Ecology. In Population, Ecology and Social Evolution, edited by Steven Polgar, pp. 273-303.Mouton, The Hague.

Biersack, A. 1999 Introduction: From the “New Ecology” to the New Ecologies. American Anthropologist 101:5-18.

Blanton, R. E. 1980 Cultural Ecology Reconsidered American Antiquity 45:145-151.

Blitz, J. H. 1993 Big Pots for Big Shots: Feasting and Storage in a Mississippian Community. American Antiquity 58(1):80-96.

Bonnin, G. M., D. Martin, B. Lin, M. Yekta, and D. Riley 2006 Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. NOAA Atlas 14:Precipitation Frequency Atlas of the United States. 3(4):1-56. U.S. Departement of Commerse, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service. Silver Springs, Maryland.

Bray, T. L. 2003 The Commensal Politics of Early States and Empires. In The Archaeology and Politics of Food and Feasting in Early States and Empires, editied by T.L. Bray, pp. 1-13. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.

Brewer, D. J. 1992 Zooarchaeology: Method, Theory, and Goals. Archaeological Method and Theory. 4:195-244.

Broughton, J. M., and J. O’Connell 1999 On Evolutionary Ecology, Selectionist Archaeology, and Behavioral Archaeology. American Antiquity 64:153-165.

Budinoff, L. 1991 Osteological Analysis of Human Burials Recovered from Maisabel: An Early Ceramic Site, P. R. Proceedings of the 12th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology. French Guiana.

281

Bullen, R.P. 1973 Petroglyphs of the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. Proceedings of the 4th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology. St. Lucia: 147-152.

Burger,O., M. J. Hammilton and R. Walker 2005 The Prey as Patch Model: Optimal Handling of resources with Diminishing returns, Journal of Archaeological Science 32:1147–1158.

Butler, V. L. 2001 Changing Fish Use on Mangaia, Southern Cook Islands: Resource Depression and the prey choice model. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 11(1): 88-100.

Butler, V. L., and S. K. Campbell. 2004. Resource Intensification and Resource Depression in the Pacific Northwest of North America: a Zooarchaeological Review. Journal of World Prehistory 18(4):327–405.

Butler, V. L. and Delacorte, M. G. 2004 Doing Zooarchaeology as if it Mattered: Use of Faunal Data to Address Current Issues in Fish Conservation Biology in Owens Valley, California. Zooarchaeology and Conservation Biology. Edited by. R. L. Lyman and K. P. Cannon. pp25-44,University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Byrd, J. E. 1997 The Analysis of Diversity in Archaeological Faunal Assemblages: Complexity and Subsistence Strategies in the Southeast during the Middle Woodland Period. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16:49-72.

Callaghan, R. T. 2003 Comments on the Mainland Origins of the Preceramic Cultures of the Greater Antilles. Latin American Antiquity 14:323-338.

Cannon, M. D. 2001 Archaeofaunal relative Abundance, Sample size, and Statistical Methods. Journal of Archaeological Science 28(2): 185-195.

2003 A Model of Central Place Forager Prey Choice and an Application to Faunal Remains from the Mimbres Valley, New Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22(1):1-25. Carlson, L. A. 1999 First Contact: The Coralie Site, Grand Turk, Turks and Caicos Islands. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

282

Carneiro, R. L. 1981 The Chiefdom: Precursor to the State. In The Transition to Statehood in the New World, edited by, G. D. Jones and R. R. Kautz, pp. 37-75. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

1998 What Happened at the Flashpoint? Conjectures on Chiefdom Formation at the Very Moment of Conception. In Chiefdoms and Chieftaincy in the Americas, (ed. E. Redmond), pp. 18-42. University Press of Florida Press, Gainesville

Cashion Lugo, M. A. 1991 Stress Indicators in an Aboriginal Population Sample from Playablanca 5 Site, Puerto Rico. Proceedings of the 13th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology. 832-839. Curacao.

Caunto, M. A and J. Yaegar 2000 The Arcaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective. Routledge, London. Cavallo, J. A. 1994 Archaeological Applications of Animal Behavior and Ecology. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 10: 67-72.

Chanlatte Baik, L. A. 1976 Investigaciones Arqueologicas en Guayanillia. Museo del Hombre Dominicano Fundación García-Arévalo, Inc., Santo Domingo.

1990 Cultura Ostionodie: Un Desarrollo Algroalfaero Antillano. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress for Caribbean Archaeology, edited by Pantel Tekakis, Agamemnon Gus, Iraida Vargas Arenas and Mario Sanoja Obediente, pp 312-327. La Fundacion Arqueologica, Anthrologica e Historica de Puerto Rico, San Juan

Chanltatte, L. A. and Y. Narganes 1980 La Hueca, Vieques: Nuevo Complejo Cultural Agroalfarero en la Arqueología Antillana. Proceedings of the 8th International Congress for Caribbean Archaeology, 501-523.

Clark, J. J, J. Walker, and R. Rodriquez Ramos 2003 Depositional and History and Evolution of the Paso del Indio Site, Vega Baja, Puerto Rico. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 18:625-648.

Colley, S. M. 1990 Analysis and Interpretation of Archaeological Fish Remains. Archaeological Method and Theory. 2: 207-253. Cordova, K. A. 1995 Aspectos Demograficos de los Cacicazgos Tainos. Proceedings of the 15th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology. Puerto Rico: 311-335.

283

Crumley, C. L. 1994 Historical Ecology: A Mulitdimensional Ecological Orientation. In Historical Ecology: Cultural Knowledge and Changing Landscapes, edited by C.L. Crumley, pp. 1-16. SAR Press, Santa Fe

Cruz-Uribe, K. 1988 The Use and Meaning of Species Diversity and Richness in Archaeological Faunas. Journal of Archaeological Science 15:179-196.

Curet, L. A. 1991 El Cacicazgo en El Registro Arquelogico: Modeles y Variables Arqueologicas. Proceedings of the 13th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology. 436. Curacao.

1992a The Development of Chiefdoms in the Greater Antilles: A Regional Study of the Valley of Maunabo, Puerto Rico. PHD diss. United States -- Arizona, Arizona State University.

1992b House Structure and Cultural Change in the Caribbean: Three Case Studies from Puerto Rico. Latin American Antiquity 3(2):160-174.

1993 Prehistoric Demographic Changes in the Valley of Maunabo, Puerto Rico Preliminary Report. Proceedings of the 14th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology. Barbados.

1996 Ideology, Chiefly Power, and Material Culture: An Example from the Greater Antilles. Latin American Antiquity 7(2):114-131.

1997 Technological Changes in Prehistoric Ceramics from Eastern Puerto Rico: An Exploratory Study Journal of Archaeological Science 24:497-504.

1998 New Formulae for Estimating Prehistoric Populations for Lowland South America and the Caribbean. Antiquity 72:359-375.

2003 Issues on the Diversity and Emergence of Middle-Range Societies off the Ancient Caribbean: A Critique. Journal of Archaeology Research 11(1):1-42.

2004 Tibes: Un Centro Indígena Temprano del Centro-Sur de Puerto Rico. El Caribe Arqueológico 8:55-63.

2005 Caribbean Paleodemography: Population, Culture History, and Sociopolitical Processes in Ancient Puerto Rico. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa

2008 The Taino Concept From a Sociopolitical Perspective. Paper presented at 73rd Annual Meeting of the Socitety for American Archaeology, Vancuover.

284

2010 The Archaeological Project of the Ceremonial Center of Tibes. In Tibes: People, Power, and Ritual at the Center of the Cosmos, edited by Antonio Curet and Lisa M Stringer, pp. 38-59. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Curet, L. A. and L. A. R. Gracia 1999 Informe Preliminar del projecto archeologico de Tibes, Puerto Rico. Proceedings of the 16th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology. Guadeloupe: 15-21.

Curet, L. A., L. Newsom, and S. deFrance 2006 Prehispanic Social and Cultural Changes at Tibes, Puerto Rico. Journal of Field Archaeology 31:23-39.

Curet, L. A. and L. M. Stringer (editors) 2010 At the Center of the Cosmos: People, Power, and Sacred Place at the Ceremonial Center of Tibes, Puerto Rico. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Curey, L. A. and J. M. Torres 2010 Plazas, Bateys, and Ceremonial Centers: The Social and Cultural Context of Tibes in the Ancient history of Puerto Rico. In At the Center of the Cosmos: People, Power, and Sacred Place at the Ceremonial Center of Tibes, Puerto Rico, edited by L.A. Curet and L.M. Stringer, pp. 261-286. University Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabamba.

Curet, L. A., L. Newsom, and P. Welch 2001 Space and Time in the Civic-Ceremonial Center of Tibes, Ponce, Puerto Rico. Proceedings of the 19th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology. 113. Aruba.

Curet, L. A., J. Torres, and M. Rodriguez 2004 Political and Social History of Eastern Puerto Rico: The Ceramic Age. Late Ceramic Age Socities in the Eastern Caribbean. edited by A. Delpuech and C. Hofman, pp. 59-85, Archaeopress, Oxford.

Curet, L. A. and J. R. Oliver 1998 Mortuary Practices, Social Development, and Ideology in Precolumbian Puerto Rico. Latin American Antiquity 9(3):217-239.

Curet, L. A., L. A. Newsom, and Susan D. deFrance 2006 Cultural Continuity and Dicontinuity in the Social History of Ancient Puerto Rico: The Case of the Ceremonial Center of Tibes. Journal of Field Archaeology 31(1):23-39.

285

Dandoy, J. R. 1998 The E3 Formula for the Presence and Absence of Fauna in Archaeological sites. North American Archaeologist 19(2):107-116.

Davis, D. D. 1988 Coastal Biogeography and Human Subsistence: examples from the West Indies. Archaeology of Eastern North America 16:177-185.

Deagan, K. 2004 Reconsidering Taino Social Dynamics after Spanish Conquest: Gender and Class in Culture Contact Studies. American Antiquity 69(4):597-626. de France, S. D. 1989 Saladoid and Ostionoid Subsistence Adaptations: Zooarchaeological Data from a Coastal Occupation on Puerto Rico. In Early Ceramic Population Lifeways and Adaptive Strategies in the Caribbean, edited by Peter E. Siegel, pp. 57-78. BAR International Series, #506, Oxford.

2003 Diet and Provisioning in the High Andes: A Spanish Colonial Settlement on the Outskirts of Potosí, Bolivia. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 7(2):99-125.

2006 The Sixth Toe: The Modern Culinary Role of the Guinea Pig in Southern Peru. Food and Foodways 14(1):3-34.

2009 Zooarchaeology in Complex Society: Political Economy, Status, and Ideology, Journal of Archaeological Research. 17(2):105-168.

2010 Chiefly Fare or Who’s Feeding the Cacique? Equality in Animal Use at the Tibes Ceremonial Center, Puerto Rico. In Anthropological Approaches to Zooarchaeology: Colonialism, Complexity and Animal Transformations, edited by Doug Campana, Pam Crabtree, Susan D. deFrance, Justin Lev-Tov, and Alice Choyke, pp. 76-89. Oxbow Press. Oxford deFrance, S. D. and M.LeFebvre 2009 New Records of Guinea Pig Remains from the Lesser Antilles. Poster presented at the 74th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Atlanta. deFrance, S. and L.A. Newsom 2005 The Status of Paleoethnobiological Research on Puerto Rico and Adjacent Islands. Ancient Borinquen: Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Native Puerto Rico, edited by P.E. Siegel, pp122-184, Tuscaloosa, University of Alabama Press.

286

deFrance, S., C. J. Schmid, M. J. LeFebvre, and G. DuChemin 2010 Animal Use at the Tibes Ceremonial Center. In Tibes: People, Power, and Ritual at the Center of the Cosmos. Edited by Antonio Curet and Lisa M Stringer, pp. 115-151 University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

DePratter, C. B. 1991 Late Prehistoric and Early Historic Chiefdoms in the Southeastern United States. Garland Press, New York.

Dewar, R. E. 1984 Environmental Productivity, Population Regulation, and Carrying Capacity. American Anthropologist 86: 601-614.

Dietler, M. 1996 Feasts and Commensal Politics in the Political Economy: Food, Power, and Status in Prehistoric Europe. In Food and the Status Quest: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, edited by Wiessner, P. and Schiefenhövel, pp 87-125. Berghahn Books, Oxford.

Dietler M. and B. Hayden (editors) 2001 Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Prespectivves on Food, Politics, and Power. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Dillehay T., Kolata A.L., Pino, Q.M. 2004 Pre-industrial Human and Environment Interactions in Northern Peru during the Late Holocene. The Holocene14(2):272-281

Doshi, S. L. 1995 Food and Nutrition in Culture. In Anthropology of Food and Nutrition, edited by S.L. Doshi, pp.11-50. Rawat Publications

Dunnell R. C. 1986 Methodological Issues in Americanist Artifact Classification. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory. 9:149-209.

Driver, J. C. 1997 Zooarchaeology and ocial Organization in Non-tate Societies. Anthropozoologica 25: 79-84.

Earle, T. 1987 Chiefdoms in Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Perspective. Annual Review of Anthropology 16:279-308.

1997 How Chiefs Come to Power. Stanford University Press, Stanford

287

Emery, K. 2003 The Noble Beast: Status and Differential Access to Animals in the Maya World. World Archaeology, 34(3):498-515.

Erlandson, J. M. and Moss, M. L. 2001 Shellfish Feeders, Carrion Eaters, and the Archaeology of Aquatic Adaptations. American Antiquity 6:413-432.

Espenshade, C. T. 1997 Patterns of Faunal Exploitation at Cahokia. In Cahokia: Domination and Ideology in the Mississippian World, edited by T. Pauketat. and T. Emerson, pp. 69-88..University of Nebraska Press; Lincoln.

2000 Reconstructing Household Vessel Assembleges and Site Duration at an Early Ostionoid Site from South-Central Puerto Rico. Journal of Caribbean Archaeology. 1:1-20.

2009 End of Field Progress Report of Phase III Investigations and Recordation and Interpretation of Petroglyphs at Site PO-29, Municipio Ponce, Puerto Rico. New South Associates Inc. Technical Report 1724.

2011 The Cultural Landscape of Jácana: Archaeological Investigations of Site PO- 29, Municipio de Ponce, Puerto Rico: Volume I.New South Associates, StoneMountain, Georgia. Submitted to the Jacksonville District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville

2012 Late Pottery of the Jacana Site (PO-29), South Central Puerto Rico. Caribbean Connections. 11:10-29.

Espenshade, C. T., J. H. N. Loubser, and S. Young 2009 End of Field Progress Report of Phase III Investigations and Recordatiion Interpretation of Petroglyphs at Site PO-29, Municipio Ponce, Puerto Rico. Submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, Jacksonville

Espenshade, C. T., E. A. Reber, and P. Huie 2011 Part 6: The Pottery of Jácana. Cultural Landscape of Jácana: Archaeological Investigations of Site PO-29, Municipio de Ponce, Puerto Rico: Volume I. New South Associates, Stone Mountain, Georgia.Submitted to the Jacksonville District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville

Evans, J. G. 2003 Environmental Archaeology and the Social Order.Routledge Press, London.

288

Ewel, J. and J. L. Whitmore 1973 The Ecological Life Zones of Puerto Rico and the U.S.Virgin Islands. U.S. Forest Service Research Paper ITF-18. U.S. Forest Service, Río Piedras, Puerto Rico.

Fewkes, J. W. 1907 The Aboriginies of Puerto Rico and Neighboring Islands. Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology for 1903-1904. Washington D.C., Smithsonian Institution.

Fontanez, R. and V. Rivera 1991 Restos Faunisticos de Punta Candelero,Puerto Rico: Informe Preliminar (Read by M.Rodrigues). Proceedings of the 13th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology. Curacao 1989: 251-263: 547.

Frassetto, M. F. 1960 A Preliminary Report on Petroglyphs in Puerto Rico. American Antiquity 25(3): 381-391.

Geertz, C. 1963 The Ecological Approach in Anthropology, In Agricultural Involution: the Process of Ecological Change in Indonesia, edited by Clifford Geertz, pp. 1-11 University of California Press, Los Angeles.

Gifford-Gonzalez, D. 1991 Bones are Not Enough: Analogues, Knowledge, and Interpretive Strategies in Zooarchaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10(3): 215-254.

Goodwin, R. C. and J. B. Walker 1974 Salvage Archaeology Excavation at Villa Taina, Puerto Rico. Proceedings of the 5th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology. Antigua 1973:1-10.

Grayson, D. K. 2001 The Archaeological Record of Human Impacts on Animal Populations. Journal of World Prehistory 15:1-68.

Grayson, D. K. 1981 The Effects of Sample Size on Some Derived Measures in Vertebrate Faunal Analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 8(1):77-88.

1984 Quantitative Zooarchaeology: Topics in the Analysis of Archaeological Faunas. Orlando: Academic Press.

Grossman, L. 1977 Man-environment Relationships in Anthropology and Geography. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 67:126-144.

289

Guenard, J. L. M. 1949 A Shell Collar from Puerto Rico. American Antiquity 15(2):160-161.

Gunn, J. D. 1994 Global Climate and Regional Biocultural Diversity. In Historical Ecology: Cultural Knowledge and Changing Landscapes, edited by C.L. Crumley, pp.67- 97. SAR Press, Santa Fe.

Guiterrez, M. and J. Rodriguez 2009 The Use of the Style Category in Puarto Rico: Moving Towards a Reevaluation of the Concept. Bulletin of the Peabody Museum of Natural History 50(1):119-145.

Hale, H. S., and K. Walker 1986 Allometric Regression of Osteichthyes Sample. Manuscript on file, Environmental Archaeology Laboratory, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Hale, H. S., I. Quitmyer, and S. Scudder 1987 Methods for Estimating Edible Meat Weights for Faunal Remains from Sites in the Southeastern United States. Manuscript on file, Environmental Archaeology Laboratory, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville

Hardesty, D. L. and Fowler, D. D. 2001 Archaeology and Environmental Changes. In New Directions in Anthropology and Environment, edited by C. Crumly, E, van Deventer, and J.J. Fletcher, pp 72- 89. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek.

Harris, M. 1985 Good to Eat: Riddles of Food and Culture. Simon and Schuster, New York.

Hassan, F. A. 1981 Demography in Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Hegmon, M. 2002 Concepts of Community in Archaeological Research. In Seeking the Center Place, edited by M.D. Varien and R.H. Wilshusen, pp. 263-279. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Helms, M. 1992 Political Lords and Political Ideology in Southeastern Chiefdoms: Comments and Observations. In Lords of the Southeast, edited by A. W. Barker and T. R. Pauketat, pp.191–192. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 3. Washington, D.C.

290

Henige, D. 1978 On the Contact Population of Hispaniola: History as Higher Mathematics. Hispanic American Historical Review 58:217-234.

Hockett, B. S. 1998 Sociopolitical Meaning of Faunal Remains from Baker Village, American Antiquity 63(2):289-302.

Hodder, I. 1987 The Archaeology of Contextual Meanings Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hodgetts, L. and F. Rahemtulla 2001 Land and Sea: Use of Terrestrial Mammal Bones in Coastal Hunter-Gatherer Communities. Antiquity 75(287): 56-62.

Hofman, C. and M. Hoogland 2004 Social Dynamics and Change in the Northern Lesser Antilles. Late Ceramic Age Socities in the Eastern Caribbean, edited by A. Delpuech and C. Hofman, pp. 47-68., Archaeopress, Oxford.

Hohmann, G. and B. Fruth 1996 Food Sharing and Status in Unprovisioned Bonobos. In Food and the Status Quest: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, edited by P. Wiessner and W. Schiefenhovel, pp. 47-68. Berghahn: Providence.

Holling, C. S. 1998 Two Cultures of Ecology. Conservation Ecology 2:4.

Ingerson, A. E. 1994 Tracking and Testing the Nature/Culture Dichotomy in Practice. Historical Ecology: Cultural Knowledge and Changing Landscapes, edited by C. L. Crumley, pp. 43-66. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Isabell, W. H. 2000 What We Should Be Studying: The “Imagined Community” and the Natural Community. In The Archaeology of Communities, edited by M. A. Canuto and J. Yaeger, pp. 243-266. Routledge, London.

Jackson, H. E. 1989 Trouble with Transformations: Effects of Sample Size and Sample Composition on Meat Weight Estimates Based on Skeletal Mass Allometry. Journal of Archaeological Science 16(6):601-610.

291

Jackson, H. E., and Scott, S. L. 1995 Mississippian Homestead and Village Subsistence Organization: Contrasts in Large-Mammal Remains from Two Sites in the Tombigbee Valley. In Mississippian Communities and Households, edited by Rogers, D.J. and Smith B.D, pp 181-200. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, Tuskaloosa.

1995 The Faunal Record of the Southeastern Elite: The Implications of Economy, Social Relations, and Ideology. Southeastern Archaeology 14:103-119.

2003 Patterns of Elite Faunal Utilization at Moundville, Alabama. American Antiquity 68(3):552-572.

James, S. R. 1994 Quantitative Units and Terminology in Zooarchaeology. American Antiquity 59:36-71.

1997 Methodological Issues Concerning Screen Size Recovery Rates and their Effects on Archaeofaunal Interpretations. Journal of Archaeological Science 24:385-397.

Jones O’Day, S. 2004 Past and Present Perspectives on Secular Ritual: Food and the Fisherwomen of the Lau Islands, Fiji. In Behavior Behind Bones: The Zooarchaeology Ritual, Religion, Status, and Identity, edited by S. Jones O’Day, W. Van Neer, and A. Ervynck, pp.153-161. Oxbow Books: Oxford.

Joyce, R. and C. Claassen 1997 Women in the Ancient Americas: Archaeologists, gender, and the making of prehistory, in C. Claassen and R. Joyce (eds) Women in Prehistory: North America and Mesoamerica, pp. 1-4. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press

Kaplan, J. 2011 Part 4: The Houses of Jácana. The Cultural Landscape of Jácana: Archaeological Investigations of Site PO-29, Municipio de Ponce, Puerto Rico: Volume I. New South Associates, Stone Mountain, Georgia.Submitted to the Jacksonville District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville

Kay, C. E 2002 Are Ecosystems Structures from the Top-Down or Bottom-Up?: A New Look at an Old Debate. Wilderness and Political Ecology: Aboriginal Influences and the Original State of Nature, edited by C. E. Kay and R. T. Simmons, pp. 215- 237.University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

292

2002 Afterword: False Gods, Ecological Myths, and Biological Reality. Wilderness and Political Ecology: Aboriginal Influences and the Original State of Nature. edited by. C.E. Kay and R.T. Simmons, pp. 28-262. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Kay, C. E. and Simmons, R. T. (Editors) 2002 Wilderness and Political Ecology: Aboriginal Influences and the Original State of Nature. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City

Keefer, D. K., M. E. Moseley, and S. D. deFrance, 2003. A 38000-Year Record of Floods and Debris Flows in the Ilo Region of Southern Peru and its Relation to El Nin˜o Events and Great Earthquakes. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 194:41–77.

Keegan, W. F. 1986 The Optimal Foraging Analysis of Horticultural Production. American Anthropologist 88:92-107.

1994 West Indian Archaeology. 1. Overview and Foragers. Journal of Archaeological Research 2:255-284.

1995 Modeling Dispersal in the prehistoric West Indies. World Archaeology 26: 400- 420.

1996 West Indian Archaeology. 2. After Columbus. Journal of Archaeological Research 4:265-294.

2000 West Indian Archaeology. 3. Ceramic Age. Journal of Archaeological Research, 8:135-167.

2004 All in the Family – Descent and Succession in the Protohistoric Chiefdoms of the Greater Antilles: A Comment on Curet. Ethnohistory 53(2):383-392.

2004 Islands of Chaos. In The Late Ceramic Age in the Eastern Caribbean edited by C. L. Hofman and A. Delpuech, pp. 33-44. BAR International Series, Oxford.

2009 Central Plaza Burials in Saladoid Puerto Rico: An Alternative Perspective. Latin American Antiquity 20(2):375-385.

Keegan, W. F., Maclachlan, M. D. and Byrne, B. 1998 Social Foundations of the Taino Caciques. In Chiefdoms and Chieftaincy in the Americas, edited by E. Redmond, pp. 217-244. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

293

Keegan, W. F., R. W. Portell, and J. Slapcinsky 2003 Changes in Invertebrate Taxa at Two Pre-Columbian Sites in Southwestern Jamaica, AD 800-1500. Journal of Archaeological Science 3012:1607-1617.

Kelly, L. 2001 A case of ritual feasting at the Cahokia Site. In Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, edited by M. Dietler and B. Hayden, pp. 334–367. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Kelly, R. L. 1992 The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Kendall, M. S., M. E. Monaco, K. R. Buja, J. D. Chreistensen, C. R. Kruer, M. Finkbeiner, and R. A. Warner. 2001 (CD-ROM) Benthic Habitats of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD.

Kirch, P. V. 2001 Polynesian Feasting in Ethnohistoric, Ethnographic, and Archaeological Contexts: A Comparison of Three Societies. In Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, edited by M. Dietler and B. Hayden, pp. 168-184. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Kirch, P. V., and Jones O'Day, S. 2003 New Archaeological Insights Into Food and Status: A Case Study from Pre- Contact Hawaii. World Archaeology 34: 484-497.

Knapp, A. B. and W. Ashmore. 1999. Archaeological Landscapes: Constructed, Conceptualized, Ideational. In Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives, edited by W. Ashmore and A.B. Knapp, pp. 1-30. Blackwell Publishers:Malden.

2003 The Archaeology of Community on Bronze Age Cyprus: Politiko “Phorades” in Context. American Journal of Archaeology 107(4):559-580

Krause, R. A. 1989 Coffee, Sugar and Baked Clay: From Prehistory to History in Puerto Rico’s Cerrillos River Valley. OSM Archaeological Consultants, Moundville, Alabama. Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville.

LeFebvre, M. and S. de France In Press. Guinea Pigs in the Pre-Columbian West Indies. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology.

294

LeCount L. J. 2001 Like Water for Chocolate: Feasting and Political Ritual among the Late Classic Maya at Xunantunich, Belize. American Anthropologist 103:935-953.

Leonard, R. D. and G. T. Jones (editors) 1989 Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Levi-Strauss, C. 1997 The Culinary Triangle. In Food and Culture: a Reader, edited by C. Counihan and P.V. Esterik, pp. 28-35. Routledge: New York.

Lev-Tov, J., and McGeough, K. 2007 Examining Feasting in Late Bronze Age Syro-Palestine through Ancient Texts and Bones. In The Archaeology of Food and Identity, edited by K.D. Twiss, Occasional Papers 34 pp. 85-111, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.

Linares, O. F. 1976 “Garden Hunting” in the American Tropics. Human Ecology 4(4):331-349.

Lomolino, M. V. 2000 A Call For a New Paradigm of Island Biogeography. Global Ecology & Biogeography 9:1-6.

Loubser, J. H. 2009 Track Rock Gap in its Archaeological and Ethno-Historical Setting. Rock Art Research: The Journal of the Australian Rock Art Research Association (AURA), 26(1):25-49.

Luer, G. M. 2007 Mound Building and Subsistence during the Late Weeden Island Period (ca. A.D. 700-1000) at Big Mound Key (8CH10), Florida. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Lundberg, E. R. 1985 Settlement Pattern Analysis for South Central Puerto Rico. Archaeological Data Recovery at El Bronce, Puerto Rico-Final Report, Phase II. L. S. Robinson, Archaeological Services, Inc.:1-23.

1991 Interrelationships among Preceramic Complexes of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Proceedings of the 13th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology. 73-85 Curacao.

295

Lupo, K. D. and Schmitt, D. N. 2005 Small Prey Technology and Zooarchaeological Measures of Taxonomic Diversity and Abundance: Ethnoarchaeological Evidence from Central African Forest Foragers. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 24: 335–53.

Lyman, R. L. 1994 Quantitative Units and Terminology in Zooarchaeology. American Antiquity 59(1):36-71.

1996 Applied Zooarchaeology: The Relevance of Faunal Analysis to Wildlife Management. World Archaeology 28(1): 110-125.

2002 Taphonomic Agents and Taphonomic Signatures. American Antiquity 67(2):361-366.

MacArthur, R. H. and Wilson, E. O. 1967 The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Maíz, E. 1996. La Fauna Orintológica de La Familia Columbiadae En El Sitio Arqueológicco Hernández Colon de Puerto Rico. Ponecial de Primer Seminario de Arqeologíca del Caribe, edited by M. Veloz Maggiolo and A. Caba Fuentes, pp.90-99 Museo de Arqueológico Regional Altos de Chavón

Marciniak, A. 1999 Faunal Materials and Interpretive Archaeology: Epistemology Reconsidered. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 6(4):293-320.

Marean, C. W., Abe, Y. Yoshiko Abe, P. J. Nilssen and E. C. Stone 2001 Estimating the Minimum Number of Skeletal Elements (MNE) in Zooarchaeology: A Review and a New Image-Analysis GIS Approach. American Antiquity 66(2):333-348.

Marshall, F. 1993 Food Sharing And The Faunal Record. In. From Bones to Behavior: Ethnoarchaeological and Experimental Contributions to the Interpretation of Faunal Remains, edtited by J. Hudson, pp. 228-246. Occasional Paper of the Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale

Marshall, F. and Pilgram, T. 1993 NISP vs. MNI in Quantification of Body-Part Representation. American Antiquity 58:261-269.

296

McIntosh, R. J., Tainter, J. A., and S. K. McIntosh 2000 Climate, History, and Human Action, In The Way the Wind Blows: Climate, History, and Human Action, edited by McIntosh, R.J., Tainter, J.A., and S.K. McIntosh, pp.1-44. Columbia University Press, NewYork.

Melendez, J.R. 2001 Pictografias de la Cueva el Seto, Puerto Rico. Proceedings of the 18th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology. 240-252. Grenada

Meltzer, D. J., Stratton, S.K., Robert D. Leonard, and Susan K. Stratton 1992 Relationship Between Sample Size and Diversity in Archaeological Assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science 19(4):375-387.

Messer, E. 1984 Anthropological Perspectives on Diet. Annual Review of Anthropology 13: 205-249.

Mintz, S. W. 1985 Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History. Viking Penguin, New York

Mintz, S. W. and Du Bois, C. M. 2002 The Anthropology of Food and Eating. Annual Review of Anthopology 31:99- 119.

Monti, D., L. Frenkeil, and M. Moueza 1990 Demography and Growth of Anomalocardia brasiliana in a Mangrove, in Guadeloupe (French West Indies). Journal of Molluscan Studies 57(2):249-257.

Moreno-García, M., C. Orton, and J. Rackham 1996 New Statistical Tool for Comparing Animal Bone Assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science 23(3):437-453.

Morgan, G. S., and C. A. Woods 1986 Extinction and the Zoogeography of the West Indian Land Mammals. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 28:167-203.

Moseley, M. E. 1975 Maritime Foundations of Andean Civilization. Cummings Publishing Company: Menlo Park.

Moss, M. L. and Erlandson, J. M. 2002 Animal Agency And Coastal Archaeology. American Antiquity 67(2):367-369.

297

Mullen, M. 1974 A First Course in Probability and Statistics. Addison-Wesley: Reading, Massachusetts.

Narganes, Y. 1991 Secuencia Cronológica de Dos Sitios Arqueológicos de Puerto Rico (Sorcé, Vieques y Tecla, Guayanilla). Proceedings of the 14th International Congress for Caribbean Archaeology 628-646.

Nass, J. P. and Yerkes, R. W. 1995 Social Differentiation in Mississippian and Fort Ancient Societies. In., editors, Mississippian Communities and Households, edited by Rogers, D.J. and B.D. Smith, pp. 58-82.University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Naughton-Treves, L. 2002 Wild Animals in the Garden: Conserving Wildlife in Amazonian Agroecosystems. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 92(3): 488-506.

Nelson, J. S. 1984 Fishes of the World. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

2006 Caribbean Maize: First Farmers to Columbus. In Histories of Maize. Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Prehistory, Linguistics, Biogeography, Domestication, and Evolution of Maize, edited by J. Staller, R. Tykot and B. Benz, pp. 325-335. Academic Press, San Diego.

Newsom, L. A. and E. S. Wing 2004 On Land and Sea: Native American Uses of Biological Resources in the West Indies. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Newsom, L. and L. A. Curet 2001 Biodiversity and Natural Capital: Understanding the Ecological Economics of Tibes, Puerto Rico. Proceedings of the 19th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology. Aruba: 52.

Nichol, R. K. and Wild, C. J. 1984 "Numbers of Individuals" in faunal analysis: The decay of fish bone in archaeological sites. Journal of Archaeological Science 11:35-51.

O'Connor, T. P. 1996 A Critical Overview of Archaeological Animal Bone Studies. World Archaeology 28(1): 5-19.

2000 The archaeology of animal bones. Stroud, Sutton.

298

Olazagasti, I. 1997 The Material Culture of the Taíno Indians. In The Indigenous People of the Caribbean, edited by S.M. Wilson, pp. 131-139. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Oliver, J. R. 1999 Excavation and Results of Juan Miguel Burial Cave Site, Barrio Caguana, Puerto Rico. Proceedings of the 18th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology. 485, Grenada.

1992 Caguana Ceremonial Center Xth International Symposium of the Latin American Literatures Association. Caguana Ceremonial Center, Utuado, Puerto Rico.

1997 The Taino Cosmos. The Indigenous People of the Caribbean. S. M. Wilson, University Press of Florida ,Gainesville.

1998 El Centro Ceremonial de Caguana, Puerto Rico. Archaeopress, Oxford.

2005 The Proto-Taino Monumental Cemis of Caguana: A Political Religious”Manifesto.” In Ancient Borinquén: Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Native Puerto Rico, edited by Peter E. Siegel, pp. 230-284. University of Alabama Press. Tuscaloosa.

2009 Caciques and Cemi Idols. The Web Spun by Taino Rulers Between Hisponiola and Puerto Rico. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Oliver, J. R. and Narganas-Storde, N. Y. 2005 The Zooarchaeological Remains from Juan Miguel Cave and Finca de Doña Rosa, Barrio Caguana, Puerto Rico. Proceedings of the International Congress of Caribbean Archaeology series, edited by M. G. Tavares and M. Garcia Arevalo, 228- 242.

Olsen, S. J. 1971 Zooarchaeology: Animal Bones in Archaeology and their Interpretation. Addison-Wesley, Reading.

Oviedo y Valdez, G. F. 1975 The Conquest and Settlement of the Island of Boriquen or Puerto Rico. The Cardavon Press, Inc., Avon, Connecticut.

299

Pagan, Jimenez, J. R, M. A. Rodriquez Lopez, L. A. Chanlatte Baik and Y. Narganes Storde 2005 La Temprana Introduccion y Uso De Algunas Plantas Domesticas, Sivestres y Cultivos En Las Antillas Precolombinas. Una Primera Revaloracion Desde La Prespectiva Del ‘Arcaico’ De Vieques Y Puerto Rico. Dialogo Antropologico 3(10):7-33

Pauketat, T. R. 2000 Politicization and Community in the Pre-Columbian Mississippi Valley, in The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective, edited by M.A. Canuto and J. Yaeger, pp. 16–43. Routledge, London.

2007 Chiefdoms and Other Archaeological Delusions. Altamira Press, Lanham.

Pauketat, P., Kelly, L. S., Fritz, G. J., Lopinot, N. H., Elias, S., Hargrave, E. 2002 The Residues of Feasting and Public Ritual at Early Cahokia. American Antiquity 67(2):257-279

Pauketat, T. R., and S. M. Alt 2005 Agency in a Postmold? Physicality and the Archaeology of Culture-Making. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 12(3):213-237.

Pavao-Zuckerman, B. 2000 Vertebrate Subsistence in the Mississippian-Historic Transition. Southeastern Archaeology 19(2):135-144.

Pestle, W. 2010 Diet and Society in Prehistoric Puerto Rico, An Isotopic Approach. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Universtity of Illinois, Chicago.

Pickett, S. T. A. and J. Kolasa 1994 Ecological Understanding: The Nature of Theory and the Theory of Nature, Academic Press, New York.

Pico, R. 1974 The Geography of Puerto Rico. Aldine, Chicago

Quinn, G. P. and M. J. Keough 2002 Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Quitmyer, I. R. 1985 Zooarchaeological Methods for the Analysis of Shell Middens at Kings Bay. In Aboriginal Subsistence and the Settlement Archaeology of the Kings Bay Locality, edited by W.H. Adams, pp. 33-48. Report of Investigations, Vol. 2. Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

300

1998 Zoological indicators of habitat exploitation and seasonality from the Shell Ridge midden, Palmer Site (8SO2), Osprey, Florida. Florida Anthropologist 51(4): 193-205. 2003 Zooarchaeology of Cinnamon Bay, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands: Pre- Columbian Overexploitation of Animal Resources. Zooarchaeology: Papers to Honor Elizabeth S. Wing. Bulletin of the Florida Museum of Natural History 44:131-158.

2004 What Kind of Data are in the Back Dirt? An Experiment on the Influence of Screen Size on Optimal Data Recovery. Archaeofauna 13:109-129.

Raffaele, H. 1989 A Guide to the Birds of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Reimer, P. J., M. G. L Baillie, E. Bard, A. Bayliss, J. W. Beck, P. G. Blackwell, C. Bronk Ramsey, C. E. Buck, G. S. Burr, R. L. Edwards, M. Friedrich, P. M. Grootes, T. P. Guilderson, I. Hajdas, T. J. Heaton, A. G. Hogg, K. A. Hughen, K. F. Kaiser, B. Kromer, F. G. McCormac, S. W. Manning, R. W.Reimer, D. A. Richards, J. R. Southon, S.Talamo, C. S. M.Turney, J. van der Plicht, C. E. Weyhenmeyer 2010 Radiometric Dating IntCal09 and Marine09 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves, 0-05,000 Years cal BP. Radiocarbon: 1111-1150.

Reitz, E. J. 1985 Vertebrate Fauna from El Bronce Archaeological Site, Puerto Rico. In Archaeological Data Recovery at El Bronce, Puerto Rico, Final Report Phase II, edited by L. R. Robinston, E.R. Lundberg and J. Walker. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District.

1986 Urban/Rural Contrasts in Vertebrate Fauna from the Southern Atlantic. Historical Archaeology 20(2):47–58.

2004 Fishing Down the Food Web: A Case Study form St. Augustine, Florida, USA. American Antiquity 69(1): 63-83.

Reitz, E. J., Newsom, L. A., and Scudder, S. J. (eds) 1996 Issues in Environmental Archaeology. In Case Studies in Environmental Archaeology, pp 3-16. New York: Plenum Press.

Reitz, E. J. and Wing, E. S. 1999 Zooarchaeology. Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press.

Reitz, E. J., Quitmyer, I. R., Hale, H. S., Scudder, S. J., and Wing, E. S. 1987 Application of Allometry to Zooarchaeology. American Antiquity 52(2): 304- 317.

301

Righter, E., K. Wild and E. R. Lundberg. 2004 Late Ceramic Age Developments in the Virgin Archipelago: The Puerto Rican Connection. In Late Ceramic Age Societies in the Eastern Caribbean, edited by A. Delpuech and C. Hofman,pp,101-118. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Ringrose, T. J. 1993. Bone Counts and Statistics: A Critique. Journal of Archaeological Science 20(2): 121-157.

Rivera Fontán, J. and J. R. Oliver 2003 Imapctos Y Patrones De Occupatión Histórica Jibra Sobre Componentes Taíanos: El Sitio "Vega De Nelo Vargas" (UTU-27) Caguana, Municipio De Utuado, Puerto Rico. Twentieth International Congress for Caribbean Archaeology, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, Museo del Hombre Dominicano.

Rivera, V. and M. Rodríguez López 1991 The Playa Blanca 5 Site: A Late Prehistoric Ceramic site in eastern Puerto Rico: Prelimin. Proceedings of the 13th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology. 541-552. Curacao.

Robinson, L. S., Emily R. Lundberg, and J. B. Walker 1985 Archaeological Data Recover at El Bronce, Puerto Rico, Final Report. Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, Jacksonville, FL.

Rodríguez L. M. 1997 Religious Beliefs of the Saladoid People. The Indigenous People of the Caribbean, edited by S. M. Wilson, pp. 80-88. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

Rodriguez Melendez, Y. N. 2007 Social Life of Bateyes: Archaeology, Preservation and Heritage in Puerto Rico. Ph.D. Dissertation, Anthropology Department, Cornell University.

Rodrigues-Miranda, M. 1997 La Ceramica Temprana en Puerto Rico. Proceedings of the 17th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology. Bahamas.

Rodríguez-Ramos, R. 2005 The Crab-Shell Dichotomy Revisited: The Lithics Speak Out. In Ancient Borinquen: Archaeology and Ethnohistory in Native Puerto Rico, edited by P. E. Siegel, pp. 1-54. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

302

2007 Puerto Rican Precolonial History Etched in Stone. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville

2010 Rethinking Puerto Rican Precolonial History. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Rodriguez Ramos, R., E.Babilonia, L. A. Curet, and J. Ulloa 2008 The Pre-Arawak Pottery Horizon in the Antillies: A New Approximations. Latin America Antiquity 19:47-63

Rodríguez Ramos, R. and, J. M. Torres 2010 Rethinking Time in Caribbean Archaeology. In Island Shores, Distant Pasts: Archaeological and Biological Approaches to the Pre-Columbian Settlement of the Caribbean, edited by. D. Fitzpatrick and A. H. Ross, pp. 164-189. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Roe, P. G. 1989 A Grammatical Analysis of Cedrosan Saladoid Vessel Form Categories and Surface Decoration: Aesthetic and Technical Styles in Early Antillean Ceramics, in Early Ceramic Population Lifeways and Adaptive Strategies in the Caribbean, edited by Peter E. Siegel, pp. 267–382. British Archaeological Reports International Series 506, Oxford.

1995 The Archaeological Analysis of Domestic Organization. In Mississippian Communities and Households , edited by D.J. Rogers, and B.D. Smith, pp. 7-31. University of Alabama Press,Tuscaloosa.

2005 Rivers of Stone, Rivers within Stone: Rock Art in Ancient Puerto Rico. In Ancient Borinquen: Archaeology and Ethnohistory in Native Puerto Rico, edited by Peter E. Siegel, pp. 285-336. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. . Rogers, A. R. 2000 Analysis of Bone Counts by Maximum Likelihood. Journal of Archaeological Science 27(2):111-125.

2000 On Equifinality in Faunal Analysis. American Antiquity 65:709-723.

Ross, E. B. 1978 Food Taboos, Diet and Hunting Strategy: The Adaptation to Animals in Amazon Cultural Ecology. Current Anthropology 19:1-16.

Rouse, I. 1939 Prehistory in Haiti: A Study in Method. Yale University Publications in Anthropology, No.21.

303

1952 Scientific Survey of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Academy of Sciences, New York.

1960 The Classification of Artifacts in Archaeology. American Antiquity 25:313-323.

1964 Prehistory of the West Indies. Science 144(3618):499-513.

1982 Ceramic and Religious Development in the Greater Antillies. Journal of New World Archaeology 5(2):45-55.

1986 Migrations in Prehistory: Inferring Population Movement from Cultural Remains. Yale University Press, New Haven and London.

1989 Peopling and Repeopling of the West Indies. In Biogeography of the West Indies: Past, Present, and Future, edited by Charles A. Woods, pp.119-136 Sandhill Crane Press, Gainesville.

1990 Social, Linguistic, and Stylistic Plurality in the West Indies. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress for Caribbean Archaeology, edited by Pantel Tekakis, Agememnon Gus, Iraida Vargas Arenas, and Mario Sanoja Obediente, pp.56-64. La Fundacion Arqueologica, Antropologica e Historica de Puerto Rico, San Juan.

1992 The Tainos: Rise and Decline of the People who Greeted Columbus. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Rouse, I. and J. W. Cruxent 1963 Venezuelan Archaeology. Caribbean Series, No. 6. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Rowley-Conwy, P. 2000 Animal bones, human societies.Oxbow Books,Oakville, Connecticut.

Saitta, D. J. 1997 Power, Labor, and the Dynamics of Change in the Chacoan Political Economy. American Antiquity 62:7-26.

Scarry, J. F. 1995 Apalachee Homesteads: The Basal Social and Economic Units of a Mississippian Chiefdom. In, Mississippian Communities and Households, edited by D.J. Rogers. And B.D. Smith, pp. 201-223. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

304

Schmitt, D. N. and K. D. Lupo 2008 Do faunal remains reflect socioeconomic status? AnEethnoarchaeological Study among Central African farmers in the Northern Congo Basin Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27(3):315-325.

Service, E. R. 1962 Primitive Social Organization: An Evolutionary Perspective. Random House, New York.

Shaffer, B. S. 1992 Quarter-inch screening: Understanding Biases in Recovery of Vertebrate Faunal Remains. American Antiquity 57(1):129-136.

Shaffer, B. S. and J. Sanchez 1994 Comparison of 1/8"- and 1/4"-mesh Recovery Of Controlled Samples of Small- to-Medium-Sized Mammals. American Antiquity 59(3):525-530.

Siegel, P. E. 1991a Migration Research in Saladoid Archaeology: A Review. The Florida Anthropologist 14(1):79-91.

1991b Political Evolution in the Caribbean. Proceedings of the 13th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology 109-115. Curacao.

1992 Ideology, power, and social complexity in prehistoric Puerto Rico. PhD Dissertation. New York, State University of New York at Binghamton.

1996 Ideology and Culture Change in Prehistoric Puerto Rico: A View from the Community. Journal of Field Archaeology 23(3):313-333.

1999 Contested Places and Places of Contest: The Evolution of Social Power and Ceremonial Space in Prehistoric Puerto Rico. Latin American Antiquity 10(3): 209-238.

2001 Post-Saladoid Coastal Occupations on Prehistoric Puerto Rico: A View from the East. Proceedings of the 19th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology. Aruba: 170-177.

2004 What Happened After AD 600 On Puerto Rico? Corporate Groups, Population Restructuring, and Post-Saladoid Changes. Late Ceramic Age Societies in the Eastern Caribbean. edited by A. Delpuech and C. Hofman, BAR 1273. Archaeopress, Oxford.

305

2005 Multiple Visions of and Island’s Past and Some Thought for Future Directions in Puerto Rican Prehistory. In Ancient Borinquen: Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Native Puerto Rico, edited by P.E. Siegel, pp. 337-364. University of Alabama Press, Tuskaloosa.

2006 Competitive Polities and Territorial Expansion in the Caribbean. 71st Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology. San Juan, Puerto Rico.

2010 Continuity and Change inThe Evolution of Religion and Political Organization On pre-Columbian Puerto Rico. Journal and Anthropology Archaeology 29(3):302-326

Siegel, P. E., J.G. Jones, D. Pearsall, D. Wagner 2001 Pollen, Phytoliths, and Soils Evidence for Settlement, Agriculture, Paleoenvironments at Maisabel. Proceedings of the 18th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology. 281-290 Grenada.

Siegel, P. E., J. G. Jones, D. Pearsall and D. Wagner 2005 Environmental and Cultural Correlates in the West indies: A View From Puerto Rico. Ancient Borinquen: Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Native Puerto Rico. edited by P. E. Siegel, pp. 88-121. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa: 88- 121.

Siegel, P. E. and P. G. Roe 1991 Maisabel Archaeological Project: A Long Term Multi-Disciplinary Investigation, Puerto Rico. Proceedings of the 12th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology. 400-417 French Guiana.

Simek, J. F. 1989 Structure and Diversity in Intrasite Spatial Analysis, in Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology, edited byR. D. Leonard and G. T. Jones. Pp. 59-68. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Simonetti, J. A. and L. E. Cornejo 1991 Archaeological evidence of rodent consumption in central Chile. Latin American Antiquity 2(1):92-96.

Simoons, F. J. 1994 Eat Not This Flesh: Food Avoidances from Prehistory to the Present, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.

Smith, E. A. 1983 Anthropological Applications of Optimal Foraging Theory: A Critical Review. Current Anthropology 24(5):625-651.

306

Smyntyna, O. V. 2003 The Environmental Approach to Prehistoric Studies: Concepts and Theories. History and Theory 42(4):44-59.

Sobolik, K. D. 1994 Paleonutrition: the Diet and Health of Prehistoric Americans. Center for Archaeological Investigations Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Stahl, P. W. 1982 On Small Mammal Remains in Archaeological Context. American Antiquity 47(4): 822-829.

2008 The contributions of zooarchaeology to historical ecology in the neotropics. Quaternary International 180(1):5-16.

Stahl, P. W. and P. Norton 1987 Precolumbian Animal Domesticates from Solango, Peru. American Antiquity 52(2): 382-391.

Stahl, P.W. and Oyuela-Caycedo, A. 2007 Early Prehistoric Sedentism and Seasonal Animal Exploitation in the Caribbean lowlands of Colombia. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26: 329–349.

Steward, J. H. 1929 Diffusion and Independent Invention: A Critique of Logic American Anthropologist 31:491-495.

1955 Theory of Culture Change. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Stinson, S. 1992 Nutritional Anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:143-170.

Stokes, A. V. 2005 Ceramic-Age Dietary Patterns in Puerto Rico: Stable Isotopes and Island Biogeography. In Ancient Borinquen: Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Native Puerto Rico. edited by P. E. Siegel, pp. 185-201. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Storde, Y. N. 1985 Restos Faunisticos Vertebrados de Sorce, Vieques, Puerto Rico. Proceedings of the 10th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology. 1983: 251-264. Martinique.

307

Tangri, D. and G. Wyncoll 1989 Of Mice And Men: Is the Presence of Commensal Animals in Archaeological Sites a Positive Correlate of Sedentism? Paléorient 15(2):85-94.

Thomas, R. M. 2007 Food and the Maintenance of Social Boundaries in Medieval England. In Archaeology of Food and Identity, edited by K.C. Twiss, pp.130-151. Vol. Occasional Paper No. 34. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale

Tipper, J. C. 1979 Rarefaction and Rarefiction - The Use and Abuse of a Method in Paleoecology. Paleobiology 5(4):423-434.

Torres, J. M. 2001 Settlement Patterns and Political Geography of the Saladoid and Ostionoid Peoples of South-Central Puerto Rico. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado, Denver.

2005 Deconstructing the Polity: Communities and Social Landscapes of the Ceramic-Age Peoples of South Central Puerto Rico. in Ancient Borinquen: Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Native Puerto Rico. edited by P. E. Siegel, pp 202-229. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

2010 Tibes and the Social Landscape: Integration, Interaction and, the Community. In Tibes: El Centro Ceremonial Indigena, edited by L. Antonio Curet, pp 231-260. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

2012 The Social Construction of Community, Polity, and Place In Ancient Puerto Rico (AD 600–AD 1200) Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropolgy, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Torres, J. M. and R. Rodriguez-Ramos 2008 The Caribbean: A Continent Divided by Water. In Archaeology and Geoinformatics: Case Studies from the Caribbean, edited by Basil Reid, 32-55. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Trigger, B. G. 1989 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Turner, V. 1969 The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Aldine Transaction, Chicago.

Twiss, K. 2007 Introduction. In The Archaeology of Food and Identity, edited by K.C.Twiss, pp. 1-9, Occasional Papers 34, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale

308

Ugan, A. and J. Bright 2001 Measuring foraging efficiency with archaeological faunas: the relationship between relative abundance indices and foraging returns. Journal of Archaeological Science 28(12): 1309-1321.

Van der Leeuw, M. 2000 Land Degradation as a Socionatural Process. In The Way the Wind Blows: Climate, History, and Human Action, edited by R.J. McIntosh, pp. 357-383. Columbia University Press, New York.

Van der veen, M. 2003 When is Food a Luxury? World Archaeology 34(3):405-427.

Vega, J. E. 1990 The Archaeology of Coastal Change, Puerto Rico. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Veloz Maggiolo, M. 1975 Cayo Cofresí: Un sitio precereámico de Puerto Rico. Ediciones de Taller, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.

1991 Panorama Histórico del Caribe Precolombino. Banco Central de la Dominicana, Santo Domingo.

Von den Driesch, A. 1976 A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Peabody Museum Bulletin 1. Harvard: Cambridge Massachusetts.

Walker, J. B. 1993 Stone Collars, Elbow Stones and Three-Pointers, and the Nature of Taino Ritual and Myth. Ph.D. dissertaion, Washington State University, Pullman.

2005 The Paso del Indio Site, Vega Baja, Puerto Rico: a Progress Report. In Ancient Borinquen: Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Native Puerto Rico, edited by Peter E. Seigel pp122-184. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Wandsnider, L. 1997 The Roasted and The Boiled: Food Composition and Heat Treatment With Special Emphasis On Pit-Hearth Cooking. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16(1):1-48.

309

Warmke, G. L. and R. Tucker Abbott 1961 Caribbean Seashells: A Guide to the Marine Mollusks of Puerto Rico and Other West Indian Islands, Bermuda and the Lower Florida Keys. Livingston Publishing, Narberth.

Watters, D. R. 1997 Maritime Trade in the Prehistoric Eastern Caribbean. In The Indigenous People of the Caribbean, edited by. S.M. Wilson, pp. 88-99. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

1998 Maritime Adaptive Strategies in the Caribbean Archipelago. Journal of American Archaeology, 15:7-31.

Weaver, G. G. and P. H. Garrow 1992 Phase II Archaeological Data Recovery at PO-38, El Parking Site, Barrio Maraguez, Ponce, Puerto Rico. Garrow and Associates, Memphis.

Weismantel, M. J. 1998 Food, Gender, and Poverty in the Ecuadorian Andes. 2nd ed. Waveland Press, Prospect Heights.

Welch, P. D., and C. Margaret Scarry. 1995 Status-related Variation in Foodways in the Moundville Chiefdom. American Antiquity 60:397-419.

Whiten, A., J. Goodall, W. C. McGrew, T. Nishida, V. Reynorls, Y. Sugiyama, C. E. G. Tutin, R. W. Wrangham and C. Boesch 1999 Cultures in Chimpanzees Nature 399:682-285.

Whittaker, R. J. 1998 Island Biogeography: Ecology Evolution and Conservation. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Wilk, R R. 1999 Real Belizean Food: Building Local Identity in the Transnational Caribbean. American Anthropologist 101(2):244-255.

Williams, M. 1995 Chiefly Compounds. In, Mississippian Communities and Households, edited by Rogers, D.J. and Smith B.D., pp. 124-134. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

1999 Islands Out of Time: Toward a Critique of Island Archaeology. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 12:216-260.

310

Williamson, I. and Sabath, M. D. 1982 Island Population, Land Area and Climate: A Case Study of the Marshall Islands. Human Ecology 10(1):71-84.

Wilson, S. M. 1990 Hispaniola: The Chiefdoms of the Caribbean in the Early Years of European Contact. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

2007 The Archaeology of the Caribbean. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Wing, E. S. 1989. Human Exploitation of Animal Resources in The Caribbean, in Biogeography of The West Indies: Past, Present, and Future, edited by E. C. Woods, pp.137- 152. Sandhill Crane Press, Gainesville.

1999 Land Crab Remains in Caribbean Sites. Proceedings of the 16th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology. 360. Guadeloupe.

2001 The Sustainability of Resources Used by Native Americans on Four Caribbean Islands. International. Journal of Osteoarchaeology 11:112–126.

Winterhalder, B., and C. Goland 1993 On population, Foraging Efficiency and Plant Domestication. In Current Anthropology 34:710-715.

Woods, C. 1989 Biogeography of West Indian Rodents. In Biogeography of the West Indies, edited by Charles A. Woods, pp. 749-798. Gainesville: Sand Hill Crane Press.

Wylie, A. 1991Gender Theory and the Archaeological Record, in Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, edited by Margaret W. Conkey and Joan M. Gero, pp. 31-54 Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Wylie, G. R. and P. Phillips 1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Yaeger, J. and M. A. Canuto 2000 Introducing an archaeology of communities, in The Archaeology of Communities: a New World Perspective, edited by: Marcello A. Canuto and Jason Yaeger, pp. 1-15. Routledge, London and New York.

311

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Geoffrey DuChemin was born in Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1977. He relocated to

Orange Park, Florida in 1993 and graduated high school there in 1995. He received his

BA in anthropology in 2002 and entered the Anthropology program at the University of

Florida in fall of 2003. He completed zooarchaeological research in the Turks and

Caicos Islands and received his MA in 2005. He received his Ph.D. in anthropology from the University of Florida in December of 2013. While working on his doctoral research, Geoff has taught in the laboratory and classroom for the anthropology and biology departments at UF. He has also conducted fieldwork and laboratory faunal analyses for various projects in Puerto Rico and Florida. Geoff is interested in the archaeology of subsistence, diet, food procurement, the symbolic and ceremonial use of animals, domestication and early human maintenance of animal populations, and the environmental/ecological impact of human-animal relationships. He currently resides in

Middleburg, Florida, with his wife, Michelle, and daughters, Emma and Bella.

312