University of Florida Thesis Or Dissertation Formatting

ANIMALS, FOOD, AND SOCIAL LIFE AMONG THE PRE-COLUMBIAN TAINO OF EN BAS SALINE, HISPANIOLA

MICHELLE J. LEFEBVRE

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

2015

To Neill and Lydia Jane

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are many people who have knowingly and unknowing contributed to the completion of this dissertation that it almost seems unfair that I am the sole author. I offer my heart felt gratitude to them all. Among those I thank by name here, I must begin with my graduate advising committee. Susan deFrance, William Keegan, Kitty Emery,

Kathleen Deagan, and David Steadman have all graciously invested time, encouragement, knowledge, and resources into my graduate career and studies. This dissertation would not be possible without their excellent mentorship and support. I thank deFrance, Keegan, Emery, and Deagan for providing funding during my graduate career. Also, deFrance provided several opportunities to expand my breadth of research experience for which I am extremely appreciative.

Also critical to the successful completion of this dissertation are Elizabeth Wing and Nicole Cannarrozzi. Both scholars graciously and with much encouragement have allowed me to spend the last four years manipulating and analyzing their previous work on the En Bas Saline faunal assemblage. Under the direction of Elizabeth Wing, laboratory assistants Karla Bosworth, Erika Simons, and Laura Kozuch analyzed many of the faunal samples used in this study, and I am grateful for the opportunity to work with the data.

I thank the many collection managers at the Florida Museum of Natural History that have assisted me with access to comparative materials. Also, this dissertation benefited from funding provided through the University of Florida’s Department of

Anthropology’s Charles H. Fairbanks Award. I thank Karen Jones, Juanita Bagnall,

Patricia King, and Pamela Freeman from the Department of Anthropology office for their clerical support as well as consistent good nature and willingness to answer questions.

Finally, the editors and editorial staff at UF were wonderful to work with and I appreciate their time and expertise. Debra Wells created many of the figures included in Chapter 3.

In addition to my “academic circle”, several friendships have sustained me and supported me throughout this dissertation research. I appreciate all the people I have had the pleasure of sharing space and time with in the Environmental Archaeology

Laboratory at the Florida Museum of Natural History. I have, and continue to, learn from such interactions, debates, and discussions. In particular, I thank Meg Blessing and

Nicole Cannarrozzi for so much and then some.

Several people beyond the University of Florida have also helped me along the way with both their friendship and collegial encouragement. Tanya Peres, Christina

Giovas, Betsy Carlson, and Sharyn Jones are constant sources of inspiration to me both professionally and personally. Scott Fitzpatrick and the entire Carriacou team are, in my opinion, exemplary colleagues both in and out of the field.

I thank my family, especially my parents, for an unbelievable amount of love, acceptance, and most importantly acknowledgement of this accomplishment and what it means to me. Also, I thank them for the books and babysitting! My family-in-law, too, has been a constant source of support and encouragement. I could not ask for better and I am so glad they live at the beach. My aunt has also provided a consistent source of enthusiasm and care. This dissertation project has also benefitted from the near constant companionship of Kiko, my furry “faithful steed”.

Finally, I offer my deepest gratitude to my husband, Neill Wallis, for his support and near equal determination that I complete this project. My graduate career at the

University of Florida has given me not only advanced degrees, but it has also given me

him and our daughter, Lydia Jane. For those two reasons alone, the pursuit and completion of this dissertation will always be one of the best things I have ever done.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... 4

LIST OF TABLES ...... 11

LIST OF FIGURES ...... 13

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... 18

ABSTRACT ...... 20

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION TO STUDY ...... 22

The Zooarchaeology of Social Complexity ...... 23 Approaches to Social Inequality: Zooarchaeological Evidence for Social Status ...... 25 Text-aided ...... 26 Ethno-zooarchaeology ...... 31 Approach to the Zooarchaeology of Caribbean Social Complexity ...... 33 Study Expectations and Research Goals ...... 35 Organization of the Dissertation ...... 39

2 THE TAINO ...... 43

Structure of the Chapter ...... 43 The “Taíno” ...... 44 Sources of Information and Inspiration ...... 48 What We “Know”: Taíno Socio-Politics ...... 49 Social Organization, Kinship, Politics, and Power ...... 50 Competition, Social Status, and Village Sociality ...... 53 Summary of Taíno Socio-Politics ...... 56 What We “Know”: Animal Use and Significance among the Taíno ...... 57 Food-Based Exploitation and Use of Animals ...... 58 Vertebrate Animal Consumption ...... 59 Invertebrate Animal Consumption ...... 63 Non-Food Use and Significance of Animals ...... 64 Secondary non-food use and significance ...... 65 Primary non-food use and significance ...... 69 Symbolic significance ...... 70 Summary of Food and Non-Food Uses of Animals among the Taíno ...... 72 What we “Know”: Animals and Taíno Sociality ...... 73 Gender, Animal Exploitation, and Food ...... 74 The Sociality of Food Presentation and Consumption ...... 76

The Sociality of Bodily Adornment ...... 77 Summary of Animals and Taíno Sociality ...... 78

3 EN BAS SALINE: THE NATURAL SETTING, ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE, AND ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL SAMPLES ...... 81

En Bas Saline: The Geographic and Natural Setting ...... 81 Hispaniola ...... 82 Haiti and En Bas Saline ...... 85 Archaeology at En Bas Saline ...... 88 Zooarchaeological Research at En Bas Saline ...... 92 Methods of Excavation and Zooarchaeological Specimen Recovery ...... 97 The Zooarchaeological Samples ...... 100 A Collections-Based Study: Data Generation, Access, and Permission ...... 100 A Collections Based Study: Parameters and Considerations of Study ...... 101 Zooarchaeological Sample Selection ...... 103 Selected Samples and Provenience Descriptions ...... 105 Garden B samples ...... 105 Garden C samples ...... 106 Garden E samples ...... 109 Garden N samples ...... 112 Garden P samples ...... 114 Taphonomic Considerations ...... 116 The “Social” Contexts of En Bas Saline ...... 117 Chapter Summary ...... 118

4 METHODS OF ANALYSIS ...... 146

Multi-Analyst Datasets ...... 146 Zooarchaeological Methods of Analysis...... 148 Specimen Identification ...... 148 Number of Individual Specimens ...... 150 Weight (g) ...... 152 Minimum Number of Individuals ...... 152 Sample Diversity and Equitability ...... 153 Taxa Ubiquity ...... 154 Zooarchaeological Data Organization and Aggregation ...... 154 Methods of Intra-Site Analysis ...... 155 Sample Size, Taxonomic Identification and Integration ...... 156 Statistical Analysis ...... 158 Chi-square ...... 158 Cohen’s w ...... 159 Principle Component analysis ...... 160 Chapter Summary ...... 162

5 ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL RESULTS ...... 164

Zooarchaeological Results ...... 164 Assemblage Overview ...... 165 Garden B ...... 165 Sheet deposit: FS#s 7611, 7615 ...... 165 Big post, Feature 52: FS# 7889 ...... 166 Garden C ...... 167 Feast pit, Feature 10: FS# 6306 ...... 167 Feast pit, Feature 11: FS#s 6316, 6324 ...... 169 Feast pit, Feature 15: FS# 6751 ...... 171 Garden E ...... 173 Sheet deposit: FS#s 3751, 3752, 3792, 3817, 3821, 3834 ...... 173 Pit, Feature 49: FS# 7469 ...... 174 Big Post, Feature 14: FS# 6730 ...... 176 Trench Structure, Feature 16: FS# 6789 ...... 177 Garden N ...... 179 Sheet deposit: FS#s 7796, 7853, 7868, 7869 ...... 179 Pit, Feature 55: FS# 7798 ...... 180 Pit, Feature 60: FS# 7785, 7886 ...... 182 Garden P ...... 183 Sheet deposit: FS#s 7932, 7934, 7943, 7947 ...... 183 Big Post, Feature 62: FS# 7948, 7950, 7952, 7954, 7957 ...... 184 Taxonomic Diversity and Equitability ...... 185 Taxa Ubiquity ...... 187 Record of Heat Alteration ...... 188 Presence of Immature Vertebrate Taxa ...... 189 Taxa Body Portions ...... 190

6 RESULTS OF INTRA-SITE ANALYSIS ...... 254

Taxonomic Identification and Data Integration ...... 255 Taxonomic Abundance across Contexts...... 256 Chi-Square Analysis ...... 256 Cohen’s W summary ...... 257 Intra-site vertebrate taxa abundance ...... 257 Intra-site invertebrate taxa abundance ...... 263 Taxonomic Composition across Contexts ...... 270 Principle Component Analysis ...... 270 Less Abundant Taxa across Contexts ...... 273 Vertebrate Body Portions ...... 275 Fish body portions ...... 275 Mammal body portions ...... 277 Other vertebrate taxa ...... 278 Invertebrate taxa body portions ...... 279 Gastropod shell portions ...... 280 Bivalve shell portions ...... 280 Crab body portions ...... 281

7 DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS ...... 330

Patterns of Animal Exploitation across En Bas Saline ...... 331 The Social Contexts of Faunal Patterning at En Bas Saline ...... 333 Vertebrate Patterning across Social Contexts ...... 334 Hutia at En Bas Saline ...... 334 Rails, reptiles, and amphibians at En Bas Saline ...... 335 Fish and other marine animals at En Bas Saline ...... 337 Invertebrate Patterning across Social Contexts ...... 343 Crabs at En Bas Saline ...... 343 Bivalves at En Bas Saline ...... 344 Gastropods at En Bas Saline ...... 351 The Sociality of Animal Food Use at En Bas Saline ...... 353 The Social Relations of Animal Consumption ...... 357 A Comparative Perspective ...... 359 Pits, Post molds, and Feasts at En Bas Saline ...... 363 The sociality of Taíno feasting ...... 366 Feasting at En Bas Saline ...... 368 Space and Social Context at En Bas Saline: Methodological and Interpretive Implications for Household Zooarchaeology ...... 372 Summary: the Zooarchaeology of Social Complexity at En Bas Saline ...... 374

8 CONCLUSIONS AND WHAT WE “KNOW” ...... 381

LIST OF REFERENCES ...... 387

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 413

LIST OF TABLES

Table page

3-1 Zooarchaeological samples used in Wing's study, based on Table 1 in Wing .. 120

3-2 Zooarchaeological samples used in Cannarozzi's study, based on Table 1 in Cannarozzi (2003)...... 122

3-3 Description of soil zones at En Bas Saline based on Deagan (2003)...... 123

3-4 Criteria for zooarchaeological sample selection...... 124

3-5 Chronometric dates of faunal sample proveniences and site areas...... 125

3-6 Zooarchaeological samples for selected for analysis...... 126

3-7 Assigned "social" contexts and social status affiliations of En Bas Saline site space...... 128

4-1 Body portion designations...... 163

5-1 All taxa identified, including scientific and common names...... 192

5-2 The distribution of taxa across contexts in terms of presence and absence. .... 198

5-3 Garden B, Sheet Deposit: FS#s 7611, 7615 ...... 207

5-4 Garden B, Big Post, Feature 52: FS# 7889 ...... 208

5-5 Garden C, Feast Pit, Feature 10: FS# 6306...... 209

5-6 Garden C, Feast Pit, Feature 11: FS#s 6316, 6324...... 212

5-7 Garden C, Feast Pit, Feature 15: FS# 6751...... 215

5-8 Garden E Sheet Deposit: FS# 3751, 3752, 3792, 3817 3821, 3834...... 218

5-9 Garden E, Pit Feature 49: FS# 7469...... 220

5-10 Garden E, Big Post, Feature 14: FS# 6730...... 223

5-11 Garden E, Trench Structure, Feature 16: FS# 6789...... 225

5-12 Garden N Sheet Deposit: FS# 7796, 7853, 7868, 7869...... 228

5-13 Garden N, Pit, Feature 55: FS# 7798, 7799 ...... 230

5-14 Garden N, Pit, Feature 60 FS# 7885, 7886...... 232

5-15 Garden P, Sheet Deposit: FS# 7932, 7934, 7943, 7947...... 233

5-16 Garden P, Big Post, Feature 62: FS# 7948, 7950, 7952, 7954, 7957...... 234

5-17 The MNI based taxonomic diversity and equitability of features and sheet deposits...... 236

5-18 Ubiquity percentages of all taxonomic identifications across studied contexts. 237

5-19 Records of specimen heat alteration per site contexts...... 244

5-20 Taxa with unfused elements...... 252

6-1 Taxa and integrated taxonomic groups used in intra-site analysis and statistical comparisons...... 283

6-2 Taxa and integrated taxonomic groups not used in intra-site analysis and statistical comparisons...... 286

6-3 List of families included (NISP>10, n=49) and not included (NISP<10; n=36) in principal component analysis...... 288

6-4 Results of chi-square and Cohen's w tests...... 289

6-5 The NISP and relative frequencies of vertebrae identified as Actinopterygii within total fish NISP from each context...... 292

6-6 Component loadings for principal component analysis of En Bas Saline contexts...... 293

6-7 Eigenvalues for principal component analysis of En Bas Saline contexts...... 295

6-8 Taxa not considered abundant...... 296

7-1 Cross-cultural ethnographic examples of social status and identity related activities and behaviors associated with animal food use and consumption that may have occurred at En Bas Saline but are not zooarchaeologically recognizable...... 377

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

1-1 Map showing location of En Bas Saline in present day Haiti, located on the island of Hispaniola...... 42

2-1 Map of Caribbean islands, showing the conventional geographic realm of the Classic Taíno. Image based on Figure 3 in Rouse (1992:8)...... 80

3-1 Image showing location of En Bas Saline along the north coast of Haiti...... 129

3-2 Aerial photograph showing location of En Bas Saline...... 130

3-3 Black and white aerial photograph of the archaeological site of En Bas Saline with outline of archaeological village location and configuration...... 131

3-4 Site map of En Bas Saline showing location of Gardens, landscape features, and the locations of features and sheet deposits sampled in the study...... 132

3-5 Site map showing location of features and sheet deposits as demarcated by Deagan’s “assumed function” assignments...... 133

3-6 Feature 52 profile, based on original field rendering...... 134

3-7 Feature 11 profile including Feature 10, based on original field rendering...... 135

3-8 Photograph of Feature 11 profile...... 136

3-9 Feature 15 planviews, based on original field rendering...... 137

3-10 Photograph of base of Feature 15...... 138

3-11 Photograph of coffee melampus (Melampus coffeus) recovered from Feature 15...... 139

3-12 Garden E sheet deposit planview, based on original field rendering. I ...... 140

3-13 Feature 14 planview, based on original field rendering...... 141

3-14 Feature 16 profile, based on original field rendering...... 141

3-15 Photograph of Feature 49 profile...... 142

3-16 Feature 60 profile, based on original field rendering...... 142

3-17 Feature 55 profile, based on original field rendering...... 143

3-18 Feature 62 profile, based on original field rendering...... 144

3-19 Map of En Bas Saline illustrating spatial locations of presumed “social” contexts across the site...... 145

5-1 Histogram showing proportional distribution of body portions among vertebrate classes...... 253

5-2 Histogram showing proportional distribution of body or shell portions among invertebrate classes...... 253

6-1 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Capromyidae across contexts...... 297

6-2 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Rallidae across contexts...... 297

6-3 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Testudines across contexts...... 298

6-4 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Squamata across contexts...... 298

6-5 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Serpentes across contexts...... 299

6-6 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Anura across contexts...... 299

6-7 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Carcharhinidae across contexts. ... 300

6-8 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Albula vulpes across contexts...... 300

6-9 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Belonidae across contexts...... 301

6-10 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Holocentridae across contexts...... 301

6-11 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Centropomidae across contexts. ... 302

6-12 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Serranidae across contexts...... 302

6-13 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Carangidae across contexts...... 303

6-14 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Lutjanidae across contexts...... 303

6-15 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Haemulidae across contexts...... 304

6-16 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Sparidae across contexts...... 304

6-17 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Scaridae across contexts...... 305

6-18 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Labridae across contexts...... 305

6-19 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Mugil sp. across contexts...... 306

6-20 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Sphyraena sp. across contexts. .... 306

6-21 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Eleotridae across contexts...... 307

6-22 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Acanthurus sp. across contexts. ... 307

6-23 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Balistidae across contexts...... 308

6-24 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Diodontidae across contexts...... 308

6-25 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Decapoda across contexts...... 309

6-26 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Arcidae across contexts...... 309

6-27 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Mytilidae across contexts...... 310

6-28 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Isognomon alatus across contexts...... 310

6-29 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Crassostrea sp. across contexts. .. 311

6-30 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Ostrea sp. across contexts...... 311

6-31 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Codakia orbicularis across contexts...... 312

6-32 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Lucina pectinatus across contexts. 312

6-33 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Trachycardium sp. across contexts...... 313

6-34 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Mulinia cleryana across contexts. . 313

6-35 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Tellina sp. across contexts...... 314

6-36 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Donax denticulatus across contexts...... 314

6-37 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Iphigenia brasiliana across contexts...... 315

6-38 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Tagleus plebeius across contexts. 315

6-39 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Mytilopsis cf. leucophaeata across contexts...... 316

6-40 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Anomalocardia brasiliana across contexts...... 316

6-41 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Chione cancellata across contexts...... 317

6-42 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Protothaca granulata across contexts...... 317

6-43 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Neritina sp. across contexts...... 318

6-44 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Modulus modulus across contexts. 318

6-45 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Cerithiidae across contexts...... 319

6-46 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Strombidae across contexts...... 319

6-47 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Columbellidae across contexts...... 320

6-48 NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Melampus sp. across contexts...... 320

6-49 Biplot of PC1 and PC2 showing PC scores of each provenience and eigenvectors that represent the contribution of each taxa to total assemblage variation...... 321

6-50 Principal component plot of the En Bas Saline contexts...... 322

6-51 Serranidae body portions across contexts...... 323

6-52 Carangidae body portions across contexts...... 323

6-53 Lutjanidae body portions across contexts...... 324

6-54 Haemulidae body portions across contexts...... 324

6-55 Scaridae body portions across contexts...... 325

6-56 Regression analysis demonstrating the moderate correlation between identified fish cranial elements and abundance of unidentified fish elements classified as Actinopterygii...... 325

6-57 Capromyidae body portions across contexts. 326

6-58 Donax denticulatus valve portions across contexts...... 326

6-59 Crassostrea sp. valve portions across contexts...... 327

6-60 Codakia orbicularis valve portions across contexts...... 327

6-61 Chione cancellata valve portions across contexts...... 328

6-62 Anomalocardia brasiliana valve portions across contexts...... 328

6-63 Isognomon alatus valve portions across contexts...... 329

7-1 The results of the PCA with presumed social contexts assigned to features and sheet deposits...... 379

7-2 The principal component plots of the study features and sheet deposits with presumed social contexts assigned to site loci...... 380

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

A.D Anno Domini

Archaeogast Archaeogastropoda

B.C. Before Christ

B.P. Before present cf. Compares closely with cmbd Centimeters below datum df Degrees of freedom

E.S.W. Elizabeth S. Wing

Fea Feature

FLMNH Florida Museum of Natural History g Gram

GBSD Garden B sheet deposit

GESD Garden E sheet deposit

GNSD Garden N sheet deposit

GPSD Garden P sheet deposit m Meter n number

M.J.L. Michelle J. LeFebvre

MNI Minimum number of individuals

NISP Number of individual specimens

N.R.C. Nicole R. Cannarozzi p Probability value

PCA Principal component analysis

PC Principal component

sp. Species

TT Test trench w Cohen’s w

Wt. Weight

Z Zone

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

ANIMALS, FOOD, AND SOCIAL LIFE AMONG THE PRE-COLUMBIAN TAINO OF EN BAS SALINE, HISPANIOLA

Michelle J. LeFebvre

May 2015

Chair: Susan deFrance Major: Anthropology

This study presents a zooarchaeological investigation of past animal use and foodways among the pre-Columbian Taíno of En Bas Saline (A.D. 1250-1520). The archaeological site of En Bas Saline, located in present day Haiti on the island of

Hispaniola, represents the remains of a large late pre-Columbian chiefdom village.

Ethnohistoric records and previous archaeological investigations of the Taíno indicate that the use of animals, particularly as food, was imbued with social significance tied to differential social status among Taíno community members. However, little is known about how the use of animal based food was integrated within Taíno social structures of kinship, identity, social status and power as enacted through the activities of daily life.

Therefore, this study is designed to study and interpret the En Bas Saline zooarchaeological data and patterns of deposition as artifactual remnants of social life and interactions among village members. Zooarchaeological data from a variety of depositional contexts across the site, including feast pits, large post-holes, pits, and sheet deposits, are compared in order to assess intra-site variability in faunal patterns.

Contextualized and interpreted within ethnohistoric and archaeological descriptions of

Taíno social life and village activities, the zooarchaeological data suggest that the

consumption and use of animals as food was variable according to social contexts of consumption and interaction. Furthermore, the data suggest that access to and use of animals as food was likely fluid and negotiable across differential levels of Taíno social status and social hierarchy. This dissertation contributes to a growing body of socially oriented zooarchaeological literature by highlighting the potential of Caribbean faunal assemblages in the anthropological elucidation of past human lifeways.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO STUDY

This dissertation examines animal use in a complex pre-Columbian Caribbean community. As reviewed by deFrance (2009), zooarchaeological research is proving to be paramount to understanding how “complex” social structure is characterized archaeologically and how everyday foodways are embedded in and impacted by social relations (Gumerman 1997; Hastorf and Weismantel 2007; Russell 2012) (see also

Crabtree 1990; Cuéllar 2013; Landon 2005). This study contributes to the study of human social complexity and sociality through a zooarchaeological evaluation of the use of animals as food among the Taíno of En Bas Saline (AD 1250-post 1492), a late pre-Columbian chiefdom village located in present day Haiti (Figure 1-1). Specifically, this study focuses on pre-contact Taíno life at En Bas Saline. Within Caribbean archaeology, the Taíno of En Bas Saline and greater Hispaniola are significant in their categorization as a chiefly society, and therefore as a “socially complex” society (sensu deFrance 2009). The Taíno are also significant for their place in the European history of the New World and our perceptions of chiefdoms and social organization. The Taíno of

Hispaniola were among the first indigenous inhabitants to interface with Spanish explorers beginning in 1492. As a result, a rich body of ethnohistoric and historic literature is available, providing descriptive accounts of Taíno lifeways.

As used in this study, sociality refers to the ongoing process of creating “the social”, including how people engage with one another, create or maintain groups, and participate in activities or events. In the context of En Bas Saline, at which there were disparities in status, power and privileges among community members (Deagan 2004), this study asks how animal based food was used in various contexts as evidenced

through patterns of zooarchaeological deposition, and how animal-based food might have been related to the production of past events and activities in various social settings or contexts presumably structured by hierarchical social status.

Archaeological, ethnohistoric, and historic data are used to contextualize the zooarchaeological results and render suggestive interpretations. Ultimately, the study showcases variability in animal use among the socially stratified members of En Bas

Saline, highlighting the complexities of social life among the Taíno. The results also demonstrate methodological challenges in the zooarchaeological study of social status in Caribbean archaeology, agreeing with similar arguments made elsewhere (e.g.,

Crock and Carder 2011; deFrance 2010).

The remainder of this chapter presents the intellectual background and inspiration for the dissertation. First, zooarchaeological approaches to the study of social complexity are discussed and reviewed through pertinent case studies, providing an analytical framework for the zooarchaeology of social complexity at En Bas Saline.

Next, the expectations and goals of the dissertation are presented. Finally, the organization of the forthcoming chapters is outlined.

The Zooarchaeology of Social Complexity

Social complexity has long received archaeological attention. Over thousands of years of human history, social inequality has emerged as one of the predominant structuring forces in complex human societies (Price and Feinman 2010), although at varying scales of intensity (Ames 2007; Hayden 2014). On a broad scale, archaeological signatures of social inequality can be pursued through comparative studies of artifact production and use, landscape modification and/or use, architectural construction, and human burial practices (Kintigh et al. 2014). Such archaeological

research foci are born out of local, site-level scales of investigation that seek to identify continuity and variability in material correlates of wealth, power, and access, including: burial styles, grave goods, household construction and size, artifactual patterns of wealth, evidence for craft specialization, surplus aggregation and distribution, presence of exotic or rare artifacts and materials, public and/or monumental architecture, signatures of health or poor health, and public/communal locations of activities.

Archaeological patterns suggestive of social inequalities can be interpreted through various perspectives of economy, political economy, social organization, religion, and/or ritual (none of which are mutually exclusive). In addition to archaeological evidence, archaeologists commonly draw on ethnohistoric, ethnographic, and ethnoarchaeological sources of data for guidance recognizing and interpreting archaeological patterns.

Zooarchaeology has the unique role of being able to materially document how the human use of animals in the past fit into the emergence, maintenance, and expression of hierarchical social status (Crabtree 1990; Twiss 2012). Especially when integrated with broader categories and artifacts of study, the use of textual sources, and ethnoarchaeological data, zooarchaeology is an important component in the archaeology of social complexity. The majority of zooarchaeological studies of social inequality are conducted on archaeological cultures commonly categorized as socially differentiated a priori (i.e. ranked societies, chiefdoms, archaic states, urban) (Twiss

2012; Cuéllar 2013). As discussed below, this is not particularly surprising given the need for contextual testing and control, the reliance on spatial variability for comparison, and the inherent difficulties associated with identifying archaeological signatures of less sedentary groups (e.g., Kirch 2001).

Therefore, the remainder of this section highlights the ways in which zooarchaeological data are used in tandem with other archaeological materials and features to recognize or predict archaeological manifestations of social inequality.

Summarizing case studies, the discussion focuses on zooarchaeological approaches to social status, methods for modeling predictive hypotheses, and frameworks of interpretation.

Approaches to Social Inequality: Zooarchaeological Evidence for Social Status

Methodologically, zooarchaeological studies of animal use and products commonly rely on space as a primary point of reference for data comparisons, interpretations, and assertions (e.g., Atalay and Hastorf 2006; Brown 2001; Capriles et al. 2010; deFrance 2010; Emery 2012; Jones 2009; Kovacik 2000; Steppan 2012; Twiss et al. 2009; Van Derwarker et al. 2007; Wilson 1996). In general, zooarchaeological studies of social status depend on compositional patterning (Driver 2004 citing Ferring

1984) and a conjunctive approach (Crabtree 1990 referencing Taylor’s classic 1948 work). As described by Driver (2004: 244), compositional patterning studies “examine assemblages from spatially discrete locations or contexts that are thought to have been used by identifiable groups or individuals of a particular social status.” However, as

Driver continues, often such studies have a priori assumptions about the correlation between space and human social status. Driver’s point is valid, but it is important also to assess studies that use compositional patterning on individual bases and within their larger archaeological tradition of origin. Doing so helps to appreciate the approach/model presented and evaluate its efficacy through a comparative lens. In support of this assertion, the following cross cultural case studies can be broadly

grouped according to research approach: 1) text-aided and 2) ethno-zooarchaeological based.

Text-aided

Some zooarchaeological studies of social status are able to draw on historical and/or ethnohistoric accounts of space use as a foundation and almost “built-in” base for prediction and zooarchaeological data evaluation (e.g., Crader 1984). Such documents provide descriptions of site and feature layouts, histories of likely occupants, and timelines for cultural change. While written or illustrative documentation of past societies is a potentially important and fruitful source of inferential information, it is widely acknowledged that the use of such texts is not without complications. Therefore, zooarchaeologists are increasingly using faunal datasets to test the accuracy and validity of textual accounts of past foodways and social status (e.g., Kirch and O’Day

2003; Lightfoot et al. 1998). In regard to En Bas Saline, the following examples demonstrate the potential and strength of zooarchaeological data to evaluate ethnohistoric descriptions of Taíno social structure and use of animals.

In many zooarchaeological studies, the textual information has been corroborated by previous archaeological research and scrutiny. For example, Lev-Tov and McGeough (2007) use information from ancient texts and an abundance of architectural and artifactual evidence as the contextual basis for the study of feast composition and location at the Late Bronze Age site of Hazor, Israel. The faunal samples are from already investigated and accepted to be religiously significant contexts. Faunal data calculations include the number of individual specimens (NISP), minimum number of individuals (MNI), relative abundances of taxa, assemblage diversity, elemental side frequencies, butchery units, and mortality profiles (age and

assessed culling populations). The previous religious characterization of the location of the faunal deposits is the main criteria the authors use to organize the data and interpret ritually significant feasting at Hazor as tied to exclusively elite social status and participation.

Another example of text-aided work is Hastorf’s (2003) use of a Moche murals from the Andean site of Pañamarca. In this illustrative text, food and drink are implicated as core constituents of elite power and legitimization. Following the images presented in the mural, Hastorf concludes that archaeologists should predict finding large quantities of (once freshly) prepared food as indicative of “luxury” food offerings and consumption by elite and sacred leaders at temples. In a similar vein, Cooke (2004) uses artifactual images of animals, and the interpreted symbolic significances of such representations, to argue for the modeling and consideration of semiotic perspectives of zooarchaeological remains and symbolic representations within the Gran Coclé culture of Panama (see also Cooke and Jiménez 2010). Also using iconography as a reference, Matsumoto (2012) conducts a contextual study of faunal remains and associated ritual/exotic artifacts from an elite area of the Campanayug Rumi site in

Ayacucho, Peru, located in the Andean highlands. Matsumoto’s analysis concludes that the faunal remains were the result of ritual performances rather than elite domestic discard. Iconographic representations of ritual activities figured heavily into Matsumoto’s interpretation of the faunal remains and associated artifacts.

In a study of ancient Egyptian social status and corresponding food disparities,

Rossel (2004) uses patterns of differential animal deposition between hierarchically ranked deposits to test assumptions and textual descriptions about status-controlled

access to animals, food, food production, and consumption. Calculating NISP across site contexts and architectural variation, Rossel (2004) argues that the data from a

Middle Kingdom Egyptian settlement validate historical textual descriptions of social status and food.

Also, using historical texts as a test point of evaluation, Grant argues that the zooarchaeological record often reveals a more complicated picture of animal use via social status. Grant (2002) reviews results of zooarchaeological studies focused on correlations between animals and social status during the Iron Age in southern Britain.

For example, the identification of royally significant swans in common rubbish heaps demonstrate that the contents of an archaeological deposit are not always indicative of the original social context of the artifacts.

Kirch and O’Day’s (2003) work comparing archaeological faunal assemblages from elite households and non-elite households at proto-historic sites on Maui Island,

U.S.A., relies on the archaeological analysis of house layout and space use as determinate of elite versus non-elite site components and households. The authors calculate NISP and MNI, and use NISP to construct a concentration index as a way to mitigate potential impacts of differential sample size in inter-site comparisons. Kirch and

O’Day’s results both confirm ethnohistoric records and add previously unrecorded observations; one, gender differences in consumption existed (as reported ethnohistorically) and two, non-elite people consumed rats (not recorded ethnohistorically).

The above examples demonstrate the analytical utility of text-based information and the integration of zooarchaeological remains with other artifacts categories.

However, even with relative “control” over the interpretation of space across a site and different contexts, as well as supplementary artifactual information, the function and significance of faunal remains should not be taken for granted (Allentuck and Greenfield

2010; deFrance 2010, 2013; Jones 2009; Kansa et al. 2006; Van Neer and Ervynck

2004). Furthermore, (zoo)archaeologists must be conscious of the variable ways in which differential social status manifests archaeologically (Drennan et al. 2010). This is particularly the case when animals are both dietary staples and significant beyond subsistence needs – which I suspect maybe the case at En Bas Saline and other

Caribbean sites.

Emery’s (2004) investigation into the ritual characterization of faunal remains recovered from the Mayan archaeological site Cuevas de los Quetzales, in Guatemala, provides an example of how to model, predict, and test assumptions about faunal remains and social significance of use based on context. Emery explains that ancient texts, ethnohistoric and ethnographic information, and other artifactual evidence demonstrate the use of the cave system for Maya ritual deposits and offerings.

However, when it comes to classifying the faunal remains within the Cuevas de los

Quetzales as “ritual” and elite, it is not a clear-cut decision based on the cave context alone. Two confounding factors pertaining to the taxa present in the cave deposits are present: 1) several of the present taxa can be considered natural cave dwellers and 2) several taxa are known to have been common food sources. In both cases, the taxa were also important symbolically.

Therefore, Emery cautions that before moving forward with ritual characterization of the faunal remains and what such a characterization implies socially, a model of ritual

structure involving animals within a particular context is imperative. Emery discusses two broad scales of ritual behavior and activities; private or public exclusionary and private or public inclusionary (see also Lev-Tov and McGeough 2007). Emery

(2004:105) offers hypotheses of what different degrees of ritual will look like zooarchaeologically. She uses variables of faunal analysis including: 1) the identification of managed taxa and age profiles between the cave and a non-ritual comparative site,

2) elemental distribution and measures of animal completeness, and 3) frequencies of element side. Ultimately, Emery (2004:111) suggests that the cave remains are indicative of elite “public exclusionary rituals” related to elite power and control.

Similar to Emery (2004), Lauwerier (2004) argues that when studying the use of animals in ritual contexts the non-economic uses of animals should not readily be divorced from the economic uses based on context alone (see also Barber 2003; Emery

2012; McNiven 2013; Pigere et al. 2004). In his study of economic and non-economic animal use and deposition patterns at Roman period sites in the Netherlands, Lauwerier finds that non-economic uses of some animals in ritual contexts did not impact their economic use or role in other spheres of life. Determining this is not easy or always clear and is highly dependent on context and the nature of the faunal remains.

Furthermore, it can also be the case that the (non-economic) social gain outweighs economic loss or inefficiency, as has also recently been discussed by Jones (2011) and

Emery and Brown (2012).

While Lauwerier clearly explains that economic and non-economic functions overlap and are not mutually exclusive in significance, this work demonstrates the complexities of identifying the dual functions of animals based on archaeological context

and the consequences for interpretation (see also Twiss 2012). Lauwerier (2004:67) presents a useful model for creating a baseline understanding of context of deposition and significance of associated faunal constituents. The author admits that “non- economic” is a broad generalization of possible uses and that recognizing such uses archaeologically can be difficult to predict. Moreover, deciding what is non-economic versus economic depositional pattern is complex and highly debatable, and often overlaps. Therefore, like other scholars (e.g., deFrance 2010, 2013; Emery 2004; 2010),

Lauwerier (2004: 67) stress a need for defining what is meant by each designation per context and study based on the zooarchaeological “reality”.

Ethno-zooarchaeology

In addition to the above studies, zooarchaeological studies of animal use and corresponding social status have benefitted greatly from ethnoarchaeological research

(e.g., Albarella and Trentacoste 2011). The practice of “Ethno-zooarchaeology” is a growing and important approach to research in zooarchaeology. A great strength of ethnoarchaeological studies is their usefulness in formulating hypotheses and prediction about phenomena that may not be readily or obviously recognizable in the zooarchaeological record (see Brown and Emery 2008 and Emery 2011 for corroborating discussion). However, as O’Day (2002) points out, quite often the correlates of ethnoarchaeological research point out a myriad of cultural and environmental phenomena we cannot expect to identify zooarchaeologically, or otherwise (David and Kramer 2001). Yet such studies do highlight some of the material correlates of cultural systems and provide models and inspiration for more nuanced approaches to zooarchaeological data ( Jones 2009; O’Day 2002) (see also Albarella

2011 and contributions to Albarella and Trentacoste 2011).

Below are case studies of ethno-zooarchaeological studies situated in coastal areas and archaeological sites. The Polynesian based work is particularly helpful in encouraging thought about previously unconsidered data variables, such as living phenotypic characteristics of taxa (e.g., color, shape, and facial features). The study of

Pakistani fish butchery among urban fishing neighborhoods stimulates thoughts about what patterns in elemental distribution across En Bas Saline might indicate. Such as socially differentiated consumption? Processing locations or caches? Secondary non- food use?

The ethnoarchaeological and zooarchaeological studies by Kirch, Jones (also published under O’Day), and colleagues investigating ancient and contemporary

Hawaiian and Fijian foodways sheds light on issues concerning foodways and the creation and articulation of social status and gender roles among men, women, and children (e.g., Jones 2009, 2011; Kirch and O’Day 2003; O’Day 2004). For example,

Jones (2011) work suggests that zooarchaeologists question assumptions about correlations between fish size and hierarchically based preferences. She finds that fish size (i.e., largeness) is not necessarily the first factor, or a primary factor at all, in determining fish preference and consumption. Variables such as fish color, eye size, lip size, body shape, lip color, and quality of meat taste per body portion are the most prevalent factors in determining preference for and access to a fish catch.

Belcher’s (2011) study of fish butchery among coastal Pakistani villages highlights the potential to find correlations between butchery style, wealth, and social status. Belcher’s data suggest that zooarchaeologists working with fish remains cannot take for granted butchery patterns as being solely determined by fish anatomy. Rather,

zooarchaeologists working at coastal sites should consider problematizing signs of butchery and differential fish bone distribution as possible signatures of differential wealth, access, and social status.

Approach to the Zooarchaeology of Caribbean Social Complexity

The review of zooarchaeological approaches to social complexity, with particular focus on hierarchical social status, reveals several points of analytical and methodological similarity that are relevant to Caribbean zooarchaeology and this dissertation. First, all studies summarized rely on spatial, intra-site comparisons of zooarchaeological data across contexts. Zooarchaeological data is consistently situated within larger archaeological discussions and evidence of space use, and feature and artifact distribution. Intra-site or inter-site comparison are key to all interpretations of the articulation of social hierarchy and zooarchaeological data. Furthermore, there are corroborating inferences for the identification of social contexts across site areas.

Second, the studies rely on spatially defined units of deposition and/or activity

(i.e., houses, temples, markets, house lots, caves). Each spatial unit of study is contextualized in accordance with the overall site layout and distribution of other artifacts. Third, the studies use text-based or ethnoarchaeological-based points of evaluation as aids for hypothesis formation, testing, and data interpretation. Also, it is important to point out that the majority of the studies also address issues of recognizing material correlates of ritual (including sacred and secular).

In Caribbean archaeology, the use of pre-Columbian zooarchaeological datasets to formulate and test hypotheses of social complexity, such as differential social status, is lacking (deFrance 2010). Although, Oliver and Narganes Storde (2005) and Schaffer et al. (2012) assert independently that burial features may offer contextual support to

arguments for the ritual importance of animal burial goods. Also, the identification of guinea pig at archaeological sites has also been cited as possibly demonstrative of differential social status or as expressions of social identity (e.g., Curet and Pestle 2010; deFrance 2013; LeFebvre and deFrance 2014; Newsom and Wing 2004).

Caribbean zooarchaeological research has tended to focus on producing generalized patterns and trends in fauna exploitation across sites over time (deFrance

2013; Grouard 2003; e.g., Newsom and Wing 2004). Recent research suggests that there is considerable cultural, temporal, spatial, and environmental variation represented in zooarchaeological assemblages across sites and islands (e.g., Carder and Crock 2011; Grouard 2010, LeFebvre et al. 2006). As a result, emphasis on more contextual studies as well as spatially sensitive sampling strategies have begun to emerge in Caribbean zooarchaeology (e.g., Crock and Carder 2011; Curet and Pestle

2010; deFrance 2009, 2010; Keegan and Carlson 2008; LeFebvre and deFrance 2014).

The goal is to better understand and interpret the cultural constitution of zooarchaeological assemblages as indicators of variable cultural expression and human-environment relationships across space and time (e.g., Jones O’Day 2004;

Russell 2012). As exemplified in other world areas and archaeological traditions, in order to recognize zooarchaeological material correlates and patterning reflective of social complexity in the Caribbean archaeological record, (zoo)archaeologists need to emphasize horizontal and spatially sensitive faunal recovery, problematize and contextualize features and areas of faunal recovery, integrate faunal data and results with other artifact classes, and interpret faunal patterns within larger descriptions and understandings of culture history, social structure, and social practice.

In regard to this study, the availability of ethnohistoric texts provide a platform for hypothetical question formulation as well an interpretive back-drop for discussing the role of animal-based food within Taíno sociality. Also, the results of previous archaeological research at En Bas Saline have corroborated textual descriptions of

Taíno village layout as well as some suggestions regarding socially informed uses of space. Previous studies also provide data and interpretations of non-faunal artifacts trends across the site. Furthermore, spatially and contextually discrete faunal samples are available for analysis, offering the opportunity to conduct intra-site comparisons in faunal deposition.

Study Expectations and Research Goals

This evaluative analysis is predicated on three heuristic assumptions used to create a basic interpretive schema for discussing past spatial patterns. The first assumption is that the primary significance and value of the En Bas Saline faunal remains are as representative of past food items. The corollary assumptions are that the remains represent evidence of access to and consumption of animals. Needless to say, animals represented far more than food to the pre-Columbian Taíno, and non-food uses also resulted in archaeological material patterning. However, the zooarchaeological recognition of primary or secondary non-food use of animal remains is heavily dependent on both context and careful attention to artifact patterning, and even then may not be distinguishable. Similarly, the use of textual sources to elucidate past non- food use or significance of animals is not straightforward. Thus, for the purpose of this study, the En Bas Saline faunal assemblage is conceived as representative of animal- based food consumption, and/or events and activities involving animal consumption.

Possible non-food based values of some taxa is discussed as secondary to consumption.

Based on previous archaeological research at En Bas Saline as well as ethnohistoric records (Deagan 2004), the second assumption guiding this research is that spatially differentiated archaeological contexts excavated at En Bas Saline represent a variety of different events and/or activities; thus, the archaeological remains, including faunal materials, recovered from spatially differentiated contexts are representative of distinct events and/or activities. Yet it is important to note that careful attention to the detail of archaeological context is necessary to ensure that spatially differentiated deposits are reflective of primary depositional events, and even then archaeological detail might not reveal the true depositional and post-depositional history of an archaeological assemblage. Nonetheless, all archaeological spatial analyses are based on this assumption, and in the case of En Bas Saline are informed by long-term excavations and records of field observations, drawings, and photographs (e.g., Original

Field Notes, Florida Museum of Natural History). A final assumption is that different areas of the site may be correlated with different social contexts and possibly distinct social statuses and roles (Deagan 2004).

Relying on these assumptions, the guiding questions in this study are whether or not animal-based foods varied among people of different status, identity, and political power, and whether correlations between food patterns and various social conditions of personhood are well reflected in associations between animal material and spatial context of deposition. On the one hand, if animal-based foods varied among people of different status, identity, and social position, then discernable spatial patterns of

differential faunal patterning across contexts is expected; suggesting access to and consumption of animals was used as a mechanism or expression of social distinction among community members of En Bas Saline. In this case, clear spatial patterns of animal deposition where particular taxa are exclusive or near exclusive to particular contexts within site areas and features associated with particular people of social status

(e.g., chiefly mound) is expected zooarchaeologically.

On the other hand, if all people, regardless of status, identity, and social position, shared animal-based food, then non-spatially discernable, or similar, patterns of faunal remain deposition across contexts is expected; suggesting access to and consumption of animals was not used as a mechanism or expression of social differentiation among community members of En Bas Saline. Here, variable spatial patterns of animal deposition, where taxa overall are not exclusive to particular site areas or features, is expected zooarchaeologically.

To address these questions, I focus on two realms of intra-site patterning: variations in taxonomic abundance and in body portions. Space is the primary dimension of zooarchaeological analysis and intra-site data comparison. Citing previous archaeological research at En Bas Saline and syntheses of pre-Columbian Taíno life and sociality, spatially sensitive social contexts are ascribed to the village layout and features of En Bas Saline. Using relative frequencies of taxa abundance and trends in body portions present across contexts, the goal of the intra-site analysis is to establish whether or not different features or site areas within ascribed social settings produce significantly different patterns of food based animal remains. Statistical tests are used to determine whether the variability of taxonomic distribution is patterned or random, and if

patterned, the significance (or impressiveness) of the variation. These patterns are the basis for a contextual discussion of the articulation of Taíno animal use and consumption within the social structures of community life at En Bas Saline. Ultimately, this study provides baseline data for interpreting the place of animal-based food within the context of Taíno community events and/or activities, as well as the formulation of additional hypotheses for future research.

The following chapters demonstrate that the relationship between faunal remains, contexts of deposition, and site location at En Bas Saline is not straightforward or necessarily attributable to structures of social status hierarchy among the Taíno.

The patterning of faunal remains across En Bas Saline is highly variable in terms of taxa abundance and composition within and between activity areas and features across the site. The high variability of patterning, and the overlap in patterns between activity areas representing different social groups and events, is interpreted as indicating shared, not separated, norms of animal-food consumption. On this basis, I argue that while the community members of En Bas Saline shared relatively equal access to animals, the use and consumption of animal based food was reflective of different events and activities themselves. For example, spatial location, availability of animal resources, and participants together influenced the types and abundance of taxa present.

While other archaeological studies have shown status differentiation among the

Taíno was an integral component and outcome of social life and organization, I suggest that access to and the use and consumption of animals across En Bas Saline were not elements of daily life directly linked to overt demonstrations of status differences. Rather the patterns revealed in this spatial analysis allow me to posit a further hypothesis for

later testing: that animal food served as a medium of social unity and integration across social differentiation that emphasized Taíno kinship-based social relations between households and lineages across the village. Finally, it is important to emphasize that this study does not rule out possible activities and expressions of social status that involved the use and consumption of animals altogether, particularly those that do not preserve archaeologically. For example, the order in which animal based food was served, differences in meal portion and/or composition, or the temporality of animal consumption within and between events.

Organization of the Dissertation

Chapter 2 is a comprehensive discussion of current understandings, ideas, and interpretations of the Taíno of Hispaniola. This discussion draws heavily on syntheses of ethnohistoric, historic, and archaeological records of the Taíno. Explicit focus on elements of Taíno sociality, including social organization, kinship, and the role of animals, provides the contextual framework for the overall interpretation of the zooarchaeological data.

Chapter 3 provides a broad synthesis of archaeological research at En Bas

Saline as well as its natural setting. Kathleen Deagan’s research program at the site is reviewed, including the results of previous zooarchaeological studies. The excavation and faunal sampling strategies used at En Bas Saline are explained, as well as the criteria used for faunal sample selection in this study. Of the selected samples, the archaeological contexts and associated non-faunal materials are described.

Chapter 4 lays out the methods of zooarchaeological and intra-site analysis used in this study, as well as the approach to data organization. The number of individual specimens (NISP) is justified as the preferred count, while the minimum number of

individuals (MNI) is used for the calculation of sample diversity and equitability. The use of chi-square, Cohen’s w, and principal component analysis in identifying and assessing intra-site faunal patterning is described. This chapter also addresses some the challenges and biases related to the use of multi-analyst datasets inherent to this study.

The results of the zooarchaeological and intra-site analysis are reviewed in

Chapters 5 and 6. In Chapter 5, the presentation of zooarchaeological results focuses on context-specific summaries of faunal trends identified across samples. Based on the zooarchaeological results, Chapter 6 includes both textual and graphic descriptions of intra-site patterning between and among taxa across contexts and site space. The data are presented in terms of relative taxa abundance, and statistical correlations between taxa abundance and depositional context.

In Chapter 7, the study results are contextually interpreted in terms of Taíno sociality, linking the faunal data with ideas and interpretations of Taíno village layout, household relations, and hierarchical social status, identity, and power among community members. Comparisons are drawn from archaeological research at the

Tibes Ceremonial Center on Puerto Rico and the El Cabo site on the Dominican

Republic. Also, feasting is discussed in regard to the spatial faunal patterning at En Bas

Saline as well as the possible social functions of such events. Within Chapter 7, I explicitly link the faunal data to broader concepts of sociality. Specifically, I interpret the seemingly ubiquitous presence of the majority of taxa identified across the site and the variable nature of faunal patterning between and among social contexts as indicating that the use and consumption of animals may have served as a common point of sociality among hierarchically differentiated community members. The chapter closes by

highlighting the complexities and limits of zooarchaeological studies of sociality at En

Bas Saline.

Finally, Chapter 8 includes a summary of study conclusions, its contribution to

Taíno studies and Caribbean zooarchaeology, as well as directions for future studies.

Figure 1-1. Map showing location of En Bas Saline in present day Haiti, located on the island of Hispaniola.

CHAPTER 2 THE TAINO

This study focuses on the zooarchaeological study of the past inhabitants of En

Bas Saline, located in Hispaniola (Figure 1-1). The archaeological site, associated artifacts, and features are considered to be representative of the “Taíno”. The name

Taíno is used as an analytical point of reference for contextualizing, discussing, and interpreting the forthcoming presentation of zooarchaeological data and analysis results.

More than anything else, for the purposes of this dissertation, Taíno is an organizational label applied to the people living in Hispaniola and surrounding islands at the time of

Spanish contact as a way to organize and assess the use of relevant background information, arguments and comparative data. Therefore, this chapter provides the cultural context for the dissertation, drawing on previous and current understandings and interpretations of the past people referred to as Taíno in this region during pre-

Columbian history.

As stated in Chapter 1, the over-arching goal of this study is to question and contextually interpret the faunal remains from En Bas Saline as components and results of Taíno sociality. In order to do so, an understanding of how the Taíno organized themselves socio-politically and spatially is necessary, as is a comprehensive as possible an understanding of how animals were involved in Taíno life. The following sections present this information and form the interpretive basis for the dissertation.

Structure of the Chapter

The chapter begins with a general summary and discussion about the “Taíno” as both a concept and people referred to and described in ethnohistorical, historical, and archaeological literature. The following section delves into ideas and information

pertaining to what seems to be “known” about Taíno socio-politics on Hispaniola, including social organization, kinship, politics and power. Issues of competition, social status, and village sociality are discussed as well. Third, the chapter reviews and summarizes current understandings about the many roles of animals in Taíno life.

Vertebrate and invertebrate exploitation for food and non-food purposes is presented.

The place of animals as a constitutive element of Taíno sociality is also explored with particular attention to gender roles, the presentation and consumption of food, and bodily adornment. Finally, the chapter concludes with a brief summary and discussion about the potential(s) of zooarchaeological research in Taíno studies.

The “Taíno”

Based on artifact types and seriations, with an emphasis on pottery, pre-

Columbian migration into the Caribbean and pre-Columbian culture history is currently conceived of in three primary (albeit equally complex) episodes: Pre-Arawak (ca. 4000-

400 BC), Ceramic Age (ca. 500 BC-AD 1500) and the arrival of European colonizers

(post 1492) (see Keegan et al. 2013). For the purposes of this dissertation, the time period under study at En Bas Saline (ca. AD 1250-1530) is chronologically classified as the late Ceramic Age. The pre-Columbian pottery recovered at En Bas Saline is called

Carrier pottery. Within Irving Rouse’s (1992:Figure 14) chronological scheme of pre-

Columbian culture historical development in the Caribbean, Carrier pottery is a local pottery type that falls within the Chican Ostionoid subseries (ca. AD 1200-1500). This subseries has long been associated with the identification of the “Classic Taíno” chiefdoms (Keegan 2013; Rouse 1992:108).

In English, the word Taíno translates to “noble or good person” (Keegan and

Carlson 2008:148). Generally speaking, in Caribbean archaeology, history, and beyond,

the name “Taíno” is used to denote the West Indian people who were on the front lines of Spanish exploration and colonialism, beginning with the arrival of Christopher

Columbus in 1492. Archaeologically and historically, the Taíno have often been considered the pinnacle of pre-Colombian cultural development and complexity in the

Caribbean (Rouse 1992; cf. Keegan 2010). Following Rouse, the Taíno were a post AD

1200 “formative” culture encompassing the Greater Antilles (Rouse 1992:19).

Traditionally, the Taíno have been segregated into three geographically distinct groups of people with generalized cultural characteristics (Rouse 1992:5; Keegan 2013): the

“Classic Taíno” of Hispaniola, Puerto Rico, and eastern Cuba; the “Western Taíno” of

Jamaica, Cuba and The Bahamas; and the “Eastern Taíno” of the U.S. Virgin Islands and northern Lesser Antilles. Of the three groups, the “Classic Taíno” were believed to exhibit the height of cultural development – or as Rouse put it, they were “on the verge of civilization” (1992:19) (Figure 2-1).

As summarized and discussed by Keegan (2013), and addressed by many others (e.g., Curet 2014; Deagan 1988, 2008; Deagan and Cruxent 2002; Petersen at al. 2004; Rivera and Rodríguez 1991; Samson 2010; Wilson 1990), much of what we

“know” or assume about the Taíno is based on ethnohistoric accounts from the 15th and

16th centuries. In turn, traditional archaeological study of the Taíno has focused on homogenizing efforts to corroborate archaeological data with ethnohistoric records

(Keegan 2013); thus bolstering Rouse’s (1992) unilineal evolutionary scheme of

Caribbean culture chronology and development. As a result, it has almost seemed as though we know all there is to know about the Taíno (Keegan 2013:75).

Despite a history of intellectual homogenization of pre-Columbian Caribbean peoples and cultures (Rodríguez Ramos 2010:200-201), there are several characteristics that were likely shared among the groups of the Greater Antilles during late pre-Columbian history. Regardless of geographic and/or island location, the Taíno were engaged in wide ranging exchange and political networks (Mol 2013), and were embedded in far reaching, complex, chaotic (sensu Keegan 2004) or multi-faceted social structures, interactions, and dialogue (e.g., Callaghan 2011; Garcia-Casco et al.

2013; Giovas et al. 2012; Hofman et al 2007; Keegan 2004; Rodríguez Ramos 2011).

The Taíno were well versed in ecological knowledge and engaged with their environments in a myriad of ways (e.g., deFrance and Newsom 2005; Newsom and

Wing 2004; Pagán-Jiménez 2013). Ideologically, there is strong evidence suggesting shared elements of spiritual beliefs, practices, and motifs (e.g., Hayward et al. 2009,

2013; Keegan 2007, 2013; Oliver 2005, 2009).

However, social, economic, political, and ideological realms of life were enacted first and foremost at the local scale of life (e.g., Morsink 2012), such as camps, villages, and territories. Recent archaeological and ethnohistorical research focused on site or local-scale investigations have brought the study of archaeological variation to the fore in Caribbean archaeology. As a result, contemporary research has effectively demonstrated the actually heterogeneous nature of Taíno society and the many different sites, artifact assemblages and people subsumed under the name (e.g.,

Carlson 1999; Curet 2003, Deagan and Cruxent 2002, Oliver 2009; Keegan 2006,

2013).

For example, both archaeological and ethnohistoric records indicate that later pre-Columbian groups, such as the Taíno of Hispaniola, lived in a myriad of environmental settings and exploited many different habitats, including inland mountainous areas and valleys, rivers, estuaries, coastal edges, and salt flats (e.g.,

DuChemin 2013, Grouard 2003; LeFebvre et al. 2006, Keegan and Carlson 2008,

Morsink 2012). Subsistence economies were diverse and tied to environmental, political, and social settings (e.g., Carlson 1999; Carlson and Steadman 2009; deFrance

2013; Keegan et al. 2008; LeFebvre and deFrance 2014). Community structure varied in space, configuration, and density (e.g., Curet 2005; Samson 2010; Torres 2013;

Wilson 1990). Social structure and organization was likely a complicated confluence of both kinship and mythical relationships variably acted out within a given village (e.g.,

Ensor 2011, 2013; Keegan 2007; Keegan and Maclachlan 1989), and expressed within the realms of local histories and trajectories (Torres 2013). In regards to ideological and religious beliefs and practices, ancestor-based worship, myth building, three-pointer cemíes and hallucinogenic consumption were at the center of ritual life (e.g., Kaye

2010; Oliver 2009). However, the way such beliefs structured daily life across the large expanse of islands is yet to be determined (Keegan 2013).

Within larger trends in Caribbean archaeology overall (e.g., Bérard 2008; Hofman et al. 2008; Kippenberg 2006; Rodríguez Ramos 2010; Samson 2013), it is now widely recognized that in order to better understand the diverse groups referred to as the Taíno of late pre-Columbian history, and what we can learn from them, archaeologists must employ novel ways of approaching archaeological data. We must study variability and,

following Hofman (2013:205), “address what happened at the local or microscale of the settlement and community” (see also Keegan 2010, Morsink 2012, and Torres 2013).

Sources of Information and Inspiration

With genuine appreciation, the remainder of this chapter draws heavily on the textual works of many scholars who have painstakingly and thoroughly studied, scrutinized, and debated the merits of what is and what is not likely known about the

Taíno based on ethnohistoric, historic, and archaeological sources of information. In regards to the dissertation goals, the works of Sven Lovén (1935), Samuel Wilson

(1990) and William Keegan (2007) provide a foundation from which an understanding of who the pre-Columbian Taíno of Hispaniola were and how they lived is gleaned and zooarchaeologically interpreted.

Lovén, Wilson, and Keegan offer critical syntheses of the earliest ethnohistoric accounts of the Taíno and other West Indian groups authored by Spanish explorers and mainland European contemporaries (e.g., Chanca 1932; Columbus 1893; Columbus

1824; Las Casas 1951, 1966, 1967; Martyr D’Anghera 1970; Navarrete 1825-37;

Oviedo y Valdés 1959; Pané 1974). In addition to ethnohistorical sources, both Keegan and Wilson draw on archaeological and ethnographic knowledge and data as independent variables from which to appreciate and interpret the ethnohistorical information. Wilson (1990) and Keegan (2007)’s respective works are grounded in the production of narratives composed to better elucidate and understand the complex structure and practices of life among the Taíno of Hispaniola and surrounding areas prior to their decimation during the Spanish conquest. Additionally, as cited below, several archaeologists have also continued to contribute to our understanding and interpretation of pre-Columbian Taíno lifeways.

The following sections outline and summarize major points of interpretation about

Taíno social and political organization and uses/roles of animals. Emphasis is placed on the Taíno of Hispaniola for two reasons. One, En Bas Saline is located on Hispaniola and therefore the island is the geographic, culture historical, and archaeological focus of the dissertation. Two, Hispaniola and its inhabitants were the first to encounter intensive and sustained Spanish and European contact, and as a result are the primary subjects of early ethnohistoric records and information.

What We “Know”: Taíno Socio-Politics

As social creatures, people organize themselves and their culture in relation to each other and the world in which they live through social constructs and understandings. The social and political, or socio-political, realms and boundaries of human interaction and organization are inherently complex and mutually constitutive.

Within Taíno society, the many facets and activities of daily life (e.g., food production, festivals, village construction, travel, etc.) intersected with differential social status, lineage based access to resources, displays of power, and community cooperation.

The following sections aim to elucidate the heart of Taíno socio-political organizations and expressions as the foundations from which Taíno life, activities, and culture can be deduced. Drawing on reviews of ethnohistoric records and archaeological interpretation, the sections are divided into two separate but inherently related categories. First, the interplay of social organization, kinship, politics, and power is described. Second, the roles of competition, social status, and village sociality are discussed. The sections do not address which components of socio-politics begot which components, nor do the sections address the development of chiefdoms during pre-

Columbian history. Rather, the review and summaries illustrate the larger social contexts that guided and were guided by the practices of Taíno life.

Social Organization, Kinship, Politics, and Power

At the time of European contact, the island of Hispaniola was politically divided into five major chiefdom provinces; each under the direction and leadership of a principle chief, or cacique (Keegan 2013; Rouse 1992; Wilson 1990). Provinces were made up of affiliated groups of villages forming districts that were headed by local leaders (or sub-chiefs) (Wilson 1990). Individual villages were led by headmen (Keegan

1992; Wilson 1990). Caciques were the top and most influential leaders and directors of

Taíno life. The secondary leaders were ultimately subservient and loyal to the ruling province cacique. Village headmen, district sub-chiefs, and province caciques directly governed the villages in which they lived. The responsibilities of leaders included organizing the routines of daily village life, communicating with other villages and leaders, and serving as the host to village visitors (e.g., neighboring headmen).

The heads of villages, districts and the ruling cacique composed the elite members and lineages of Taíno society. Elite society members would also have included the relatives of leaders and competing lineages. In addition to the caciques and lesser chiefs/leaders, it is possible that there were chiefly assistants or “nobles”

(nitaíno) considered to hold elite social status as well (Wilson 1990:32-33). The remainder of Taíno society were considered by the writers of the ethnohistoric literature to be commoners, non-elite, or subservient status (naborias). It can be safely assumed that the elite-commoner dichotomy is a gross over simplification of Taíno social structure (Deagan 2004), and this is likely most relevant in regards to “commoners”.

Because the ethnohistoric accounts and records by and large focus on the

documentation of elite community members (Lovén 1935; Wilson 1990), archaeological research provides perhaps the most promising and fruitful body of evidence regarding commoner community members and social organization.

It is generally accepted that the Taíno were a matrilineal society (Wilson 1990).

Based on archaeological settlement patterns, site configurations, and ethnohistoric records, Keegan (1996, 2006) has suggested that the “classic” Taíno practiced and were organized according to matrilineal descent and inheritance, as well as exogamous marriage patterns. Wilson (1990:34) points out that based on ethnohistoric records alone it is not clear that kinship impacted social organization among elite and commoner lineages equally. However, because the Taíno were most likely matrilineal, Keegan and

Maclachlan (1989) and Keegan (2007) cite ethnohistorical and archaeological information and argue that residence patterns among the Taíno probably included matrilocality and avunculocality (Keegan 2007; Keegan and Maclachlan 1989).

Following Keegan, matrilocality was the dominant residence pattern among commoner members of a community, while the elite lineages of the caciques practiced avunculocal residence patterns (Ensor 2013; Keegan 2007). Moreover, ethnohistorical evidence indicates that province chiefs practiced polygyny (Ensor 2003; Lovén 1935; Wilson

1990).

It is important to keep in mind that kinship and descent patterns, as well as resultant residence patterns, were not fixed practices among the Taíno (Wilson 1990), nor do the interpretations of the Taíno on Hispaniola represent the lifeways and patterns of contemporaneous groups living on neighboring Greater Antillean islands (e.g., Puerto

Rico) (Curet 2002, 2003, 2005; Curet and Stringer 2010; Keegan 2013; Torres 2013).

However, what does seem to be clear, is that the Taíno of Hispaniola, including the community at En Bas Saline, were integrated into a large socio-political framework consisting of different levels of hierarchically structured social status, residence patterns and related power.

As recently discussed by Ensor (2013), kinship was an integral component in the social and political structure of the Taíno, especially regarding the manifestation, maintenance, inheritance, and use of hierarchical power. The “access to corporate resources was the primary good obtained through matrilineal inheritance” (Keegan

2007:97), and a basis for power. Therefore, matrilocal residence patterns among commoners allowed for the concentration of female community members and inherited resources, including access to agricultural fields, technology, and surrounding environments for animal exploitation (Ensor 2003).

However, for the elite members of society, access to corporate resources included more than the materials and means of domestic (or subsistence) economy.

The elite were concerned with maintaining access to positions of power, property, and ritual goods; for the cacique’s lineage, this meant keeping the position of province chief

(Keegan 2007). Therefore, at least among the caciques’ families, an avunculocal residence pattern would have been advantageous and necessary to concentrate elite males and subsume and secure “a female domestic economy [within] a predominant male political economy” (Keegan 2007:98). Polygyny among chiefs would have provided a large pool of martrilineally related and resource-rich heirs or successors to the position of chief (Ensor 2003). In essence, the Taíno chiefs were living among related lineages and households, not above or beyond.

Competition, Social Status, and Village Sociality

Drawing on ethnographic models, ethnohistorical documentation and records, and archaeological settlement and site configuration patterns, Ensor’s (2003) study of marriage alliance structure among the Taíno provides a holistic, anthropologically sophisticated, and archaeologically informed interpretation of Taíno sociality. Building off the work and suggestions of Keegan and others, Ensor argues that multiple lines of evidence support the idea that Taíno society and chiefdoms were structured according to unilineal, matrilineal descent and inheritance. Ensor’s analysis goes further, demonstrating that the Taíno most likely lived in extended households characterized by clan organization and Crow kinship rules and marriage alliance strategies.

The spatial layout of Taíno villages was structured by socio-political needs and practices (Ensor 2003). Villages consisted of dwelling structures and middens organized around open village centers (Wilson 1991:22). The centers were plaza-like areas used for ceremonial displays and communal activities, such as ball games and ritual dances that may have included animal-related paraphernalia (e.g., feathered costumes, shell tinklers and beads, and bone or shell derived musical instruments), and possibly feasts that would have included animal-based food.

Several lineage members shared living structures and thus likely shared food, including animal-based food (Lovén 1935:338; see also Wilson 1990). Ethnohistoric descriptions indicate that dwellings were circular in configuration, with possible chiefly residences or dwellings more rectangular in shape (Wilson 1990: 570; see also Lovén

1935:336-342). Chiefs lived among villagers, not above or outside of them (e.g., feudal castles of medieval Europe). The central placement of chiefly dwellings (Lovén

1935:338) (e.g., En Bas Saline), within or in prominent proximity to the plaza, likely

reinforced the notion that a chief (and the chiefly lineage) did hold a position of absolute power outside the flow and negotiations of descent and inheritance (Keegan 2007:69).

Likewise, all members of a community had visual and physical access to the village center and communal activities and events.

Clan organization among matrilineal communities with primarily matrilocal residence patterns would have enabled clan-based lineages living within a given village to exercise rights over access to resources. These “rights” would have been based on perceptions of social rank and power among commoner lineages as well as elite lineages. Following Ensor’s characterization of Taíno kinship and descent, “Lineage members are ranked by birth order from the lineage founders and lineages are ranked relative to one another by their leaders’ genealogical distance to the founding lineages

(either known or ideological ancestors) (Widmer 1994:131). However, the leaders from each lineage are related to one another, which also means that both lineage leaders and nonleaders are ranked by genealogical distance within and among lineages.”

(Ensor 2003:151). Therefore, power derived from social rank cross-cut lineages through descent (Ensor 2003), and Taíno chiefs were essentially living in glass houses among webs of relatives and kin-based relationships (Keegan 2007). Exogamous marriage strategies resulted in alliances and kinship links across various ranked lineages.

Among the Taíno, lineage rank and ruling power would have been maintained through successful access to resources and the production of food and goods predicated on labor mobilization, for example canoe and/or net fishing. Ideally, higher and lower ranked lineage members necessarily worked together to their mutual benefit

and success of the village, district, and province. It has been argued that this interpretation is supported by similar village and community structure among Taíno villages, including open communal spaces (e.g., plazas) surrounded by built structures including houses, mounds, and middens. In the case of En Bas Saline, a mound and structure are present within the plaza and interpreted as representative of a chiefly residence (Deagan 2004).

Following Ensor (2003) further, competition and marriage among and between lineages was at the heart of Taíno sociopolitical organization and therefore the routines of daily life, community events, and differential social status. In order to maintain a lineage and successful access to and use of resources, regardless of commoner or elite status designation, a lineage must continue to grow (i.e., reproduce) and create relationships of power and alliance. As an exogamous society, each Taíno individual, village, district, and province competed for outside marriage partners. Competitive events, including activities such as feasts and ostentation displays of resources possibly including animal foods, animal-based decorations, or animals themselves as captive pets, would have served to attract marriage partners across social ranks (Ensor 2003;

Wilson 1990). Such events were likely held in communal areas, or plazas, involved all members of the community, and benefitted the community at large. In addition, marriage provided a means for creating alliances between villages.

It is important to acknowledge the role of surplus in competition among the

Taíno. To date, there is no solid archaeological or ethnohistorical evidence suggesting that Taíno chiefdoms practiced tributary economies (e.g., large storage spaces/structures) (deFrance 2013; Lovén 1935). Given what we think we know about

Taíno social and political structure, a tributary economy does not seem likely or advantageous (cf. Moscoso 1986). Rather, surplus, such as food, was likely gathered on an as needed basis and in line with the goals of the event. Chiefs no doubt directed and in most instances initiated the gathering of surplus goods and food for large village wide events, but the involvement and work necessary to produce a large surplus was distributed across social status and rank. For example, as reported by Keegan

(2007:74), Ensor’s analysis of artifacts across different areas of En Bas Saline suggest that elite and commoners engaged in similar activities and the creation of goods. In regards to animal meat, ethnohistoric records indicate that food was not easily stored or saved prior to rotting in the tropical Caribbean climate (Wilson 1990; Keegan 2007).

Although smoking and salt were formidable means of short-term food preservation, the use of salt was predicated upon access to the mineral (Morsink 2012).

Summary of Taíno Socio-Politics

In summary, because the social status of individuals (within their given lineage rank) cross-cut lineages via descent, “resources and surplus [were] key to maintaining the system of rank” (Ensor 2003:151). Current archaeological interpretations suggest that elite and commoners benefited by demonstrating the ability to conduct socio- politically and ceremonially significant competition. The members of commoner lineages absolutely had competitive interests linked to but not necessarily dependent upon elite interests (Ensor 2003; Keegan 2007). Both commoner and elite lineages had the same needs regarding attracting marriage partners within their respective groups, increasing resource access, growing the clan, and working toward increased social rank. To be sure, the elite members of Taíno society, in particular the chiefs, could not pursue their sociopolitical interests at the expense of lesser ranked lineages and/or individuals. It

seems to be the case that elite members of a community, including the province chiefs, were in some ways “first among equals” (Keegan 2007:74) and that the distribution and enactment of power was far more fluid than rigidly structured (Wilson 1990).

What We “Know”: Animal Use and Significance among the Taíno

Animals were important components in Taíno society. Animal meat, bones, and skin provided sources of dietary sustenance and raw materials for manipulation.

Animals were key characters in Taíno myth and ideology. Interaction with animals, such as hunting and fishing, were daily occurrences shaping and shaped by socio-political phenomena. The deposition of animal remains also played a role in village configuration and landscape alteration.

The following sections present summaries of ethnohistorical, historical, and archaeological data and arguments regarding the multi-faceted role(s) of animals in

Taíno life. The sections are broadly categorized as food and non-food uses and significances of animals. Food refers to the human consumption (or eating) of animals, and non-food refers to the use, but not physical consumption, of animals or animal products. One sometimes follows the other. Many animals, animal parts, and animal byproducts cross-cut these categories (Newsom and Wing 2004), and in most instances it is not clear which category was primary or secondary in cultural significance, or possibly simultaneous as in the case of feasting. Nonetheless, the categories provide a means of information organization.

One more note before proceeding, the discussion of ethnohistoric and historic based descriptions of food and non-food use of animals by the Taíno draws heavily on synthetic reviews by Lovén (1935) and Keegan and Carlson (2008). Each reference is based on detailed textual and experiential compilations. In addition, the specific

archaeological examples referenced are based on geographical, temporal, and cultural historical relevance to the Taíno. Newsom and Wing’s (2004) synthesis of resource exploitation throughout Caribbean pre-Columbian history is also a major source of general information.

Food-Based Exploitation and Use of Animals

Animal use as food in subsistence reconstruction has been a dominate focus in

Caribbean zooarchaeology (e.g., Carder and Crock 2010; deFrance and Newsom 2005;

Keegan 1986, 1992; LeFebvre 2007; Newsom and Wing 2004; Steadman et al. 1984b;

Wing 1969, 2001a; Wing at al. 1968; Wing and Reitz 1982; Wing and Wing 1995). In regards to Taíno subsistence and food consumption, plant-based foods dominated

Taíno diet, with a heavy reliance on manioc, sweet potato, and possibly maize. Animal meat provided sources of protein, iron, and other necessary nutrients.

Vertebrate and invertebrate animal exploitation for subsistence purposes focused on both terrestrial and aquatic habitats and taxa. As expected on islands, including the large islands of the Greater Antilles, terrestrial animal populations are fewer in number and taxonomic diversity than marine taxa (MacArthur and Wilson 1967). Although the

Taíno lived within the limits of some terrestrial and marine environmental circumscription, they did exercise choice over the selection of animals in a given environment to exploit, prepare, and consume (Keegan and Carlson 2008; Newsom and

Wing 2004). The role of Taíno social and political structures, as outlined above, presumably had an effect on animal choice, however the cultural parameters of such structures on choice is not clear. For example, it is not well understood whether or not access to hunting, collecting, or fishing equipment was limited among community

members, if different households and/or lineages had different hunting or fishing rights, or if everyone had equal choice regarding equipment or rights.

Archaeological settlement patterns and zooarchaeological analysis suggest that the majority of a pre-Columbian community’s animal-based food was exploited from local, proximate habitats (deFrance and Newsom 2005; Siegel 2005). Marine habitats provided several ecologically diverse areas to exploit animals. These include inshore waters, coral reefs, offshore waters, mangroves, sandy beaches, muddy tidal substrates, and shoreline trees and plants. Likewise, terrestrial habitats available for exploitation included open savannah grasslands, mountainous foothills, tropical forests, and freshwater bodies. In addition, it was common for animal meat, other animal-based food, and secondary products to be moved across distances, such as from the Turks &

Caicos Island and The Bahamas to Hispaniola (Carlson 1999; Keegan 2007; Keegan and Carlson 2008; Morsink 2012), and from Hispaniola to Puerto Rico (Newsom and

Wing 2004:137). The human movement of animals, animal-based food, raw materials, and products also has implications for better understanding trade and interaction across the Greater Antilles as well as local-scale histories of human-environment relationships.

Vertebrate Animal Consumption

Fishes were the staple animal consumed during Caribbean pre-Columbian history. While freshwater fish were exploited from riverine settings (e.g., gobies

(Gobiidae), marine fish were by and large the dominant vertebrate animal exploited and consumed throughout pre-Columbian history. Fish constituted a “daily need” (Lovén

1935:421), therefore making fishing a predominate part of life. Among the Taíno of

Hispaniola, The Bahamas, and the Turks & Caicos Islands, grouper (Serranidae), snappers (Lutjanidae), grunts (Haemulidae), jacks (Carangidae), parrotfishes (Scaridae)

and bonefishes (Albulidae) were among the most commonly consumed fishes (Keegan and Carlson 2008; Lovén 1935; O’Day 2002; Wing 1969, 2001b; Wing and Wing 1995) and readily caught in coral reef and grass flat habitats directly offshore. Fish cooking techniques likely included smoking, stewing, roasting, boiling, and steaming (Keegan and Carlson 2008:36; Lovén 1935:438). Fish were common ingredients in pepper-pot stews (Keegan and Carlson 2008: Newsom and Wing 2004:202).

Fishes were caught using a variety of methods including nets, traps, hook and line, spear, arrow, poison, as well as through use of corrals (Carlson 1999; Keegan and

Carlson 2008; Lovén 1935; Newsom and Wing 2004; Wing and Reitz 1982). The Taíno were renowned for canoe construction, including both smaller-size and very large vessels (some described by Columbus as carrying upward of 100 people or more

(Keegan 2007; Lovén 1935:416; Wilson 1990). Smaller-sized canoes were used in fishing expeditions (Lovén 1935:420), facilitating inshore, reef, and pelagic fishing strategies.

Birds also were consumed. Various taxa including ducks (Anatidae), boobies

(Sula sp.), pigeons (Columba sp.), doves (Zenaida sp.), crows (Corvus sp.), and parrots

(Amazona sp.) appear to have been exploited for subsistence consumption (Newsom and Wing 2004; Wing 2001). In fact, by the time the Taíno were exploiting birds for food several bird taxa populations were already declining or decimated altogether due to previous anthropogenic impacts on population levels (Carlson 1999; Steadman 2006;

Newsom and Wing 2004). Marine, estuarine, and freshwater shorelines were readily targeted for bird capture (e.g., Newsom and Wing 2004:135). Snares were likely a common method of bird capture, as well as capture by hand (Lovén 1935:432,435),

particularly for the exploitation of ground nesting birds. Birds were reportedly boiled or roasted (Lovén 1935:435).

Reptiles, particularly iguanas (Iguanidae) and sea turtles (Cheloniidae), were preferred food items or ingredients in Taíno foodways (Carlson 1999; Newsom and

Wing 2004). As reviewed by Keegan and Carlson (2008:31-32), ethnohistoric sources document the use of iguana as a celebrated food choice among the Taíno chiefs of

Hispaniola – much to the distaste of the Spanish explorers. Iguana hunting focused on forested and scrub areas along coastlines as well as inland. Iguanas were reportedly kept in pens prior to consumption, and preparation included the removal of entrails and boiling or smoking the remaining carcass (Lovén 1935:438).

Carlson (1999) and Keegan and Carlson (2008) argue that sea turtle was also a preferred food-stuff and highly sought after among the Taínos and Lucayans of the

Bahama archipelago and the chiefdoms of Hispaniola. Sea turtle exploitation would have been both marine and terrestrial based. Sea turtle nesting grounds along sandy beaches as well as inshore marine habitats were the focus of sea turtle hunting.

Another type of turtle, freshwater pond turtles or sliders (Trachemys sp.), were available in freshwater habitats. However, the role of sliders in Taíno diet is yet to be demonstrated (Newsom and Wing 2004:137).

The Taíno also exploited terrestrial and marine mammals for food. Although faced with a depauperate selection of terrestrial mammals, the Taíno targeted hutia

(Capromyidae), spiny rats (Brotomys voratus), and shrews (Nesophontes sp.).

Zooarchaeological records indicate that the Puerto Rican hutia (Isolobodon portoricensis) was the preferred hutia over the Hispaniola hutia (Plagiodontia aedium),

other hutia taxa (Plagiodontia sp.), and land mammals in general (Wing 2001, 2012).

Wing (2012; Newsom and Wing 2004) suggests that pre-Columbian hutia consumption among the Greater Antillean islands was predicated on possible management of the rodent. Hutias, which are nocturnal, were easily hunted during the night in savannah areas. The Taíno used dogs to aid with hutia capture (Lovén 1935:434). Spanish explorers also observed corrals for hutias (Lovén 1935:437-438). Roasting of whole hutia, sans the skin, was a common cooking method, as well as inclusion in pepper-pot stews (Lovén 1935:435).

Guinea pig (Cavia porcellus), a South American import, appears to also have been a source of meat during later pre-Columbian history (LeFebvre and deFrance

2014). In the Greater Antilles, ethnohistoric and zooarchaeological evidence suggest the small rodent was considered a food item on the islands of Jamaica, Hispaniola and

Puerto Rico (Allgood 2000; LeFebvre and deFrance 2014; Quitmyer and Wing 2001;

Wing 2012). To date, guinea pig has not been identified at En Bas Saline.

In regards to sea mammals, manatee (Trichechus manatus) was exploited by the

Taíno of the Greater Antilles (Wing 2012). In a recent synthesis of pre-Columbian mammal exploitation, Wing (2012) explains that manatee remains are not usually found in abundance at any given site because the very large animals were likely butchered along beach shorelines, where the large bones were left after meat extraction. At this time, it is not archaeologically possible to assess whether or not manatee were regularly or intensively exploited for subsistence. Similarly, remains of the Caribbean monk seal

(Monachus tropicalis) are rare at pre-Columbian sites (Basire 2013; Newsom and Wing

2004). Basire (2013) concludes that Caribbean monk seals were not common despite

historical references and assumptions regarding abundance. Two Taíno associated sites, one on Puerto Rico and one on St. John are reported to have monk seal remains

(Adam 2004).

Invertebrate Animal Consumption

Along with vertebrate animals, the Taíno also exploited a multitude of invertebrate taxa. Shell middens are testament to the importance of invertebrate animals in Taíno life. The majority of invertebrate exploitation and meat consumption focused on marine mollusks, including bivalves and gastropods.

Terrestrial invertebrates have been identified zooarchaeologically at Taíno sites.

As discussed by Wing (1991; Newsom and Wing 2004:140,196), the archaeological presence of terrestrial snails may be incidental by-products of human activities, or reflect natural populations. Taxa, such as the small land snail Polydontes sp., have been documented at late Ceramic Age sites in Hispaniola, including En Bas Saline

(Wing 1991), as well as El Cabo and El Flaco. However, their role as a possible food item is not yet well understood or supported.

Crustaceans along sandy beaches and inshore waters also were exploited and targeted by the Taíno for consumption. Particularly abundant in early Ceramic Age sites and comparatively less so in later Ceramic Age sites (Newsom and Wing 2004; Wing

2001), land crabs (Gecarcinidae) were the primary terrestrial invertebrate exploited by the Taíno for consumption. Swimming crabs (Portunidae) also were consumed, as well as spiny lobster (Panulirus sp.) (e.g., Wing 1991). Roasting was a likely method for crab meat preparation (Keegan and Carlson 2008:59).

Bivalve collection required exploitation of mangrove and/or inshore sandy habitats, and relied primarily on hand collection (Lovén 1935:423). Arcs (Anadara sp.),

oysters (Crassostrea sp., Ostrea equestris), tiger lucine (e.g., Codakia orbicularis), venus clams (e.g., Chione cancellata), and donax (e.g., Donax denticulatus) were among the more popular bivalves exploited and consumed among the Taíno (Keegan and Carlson 2008; Newsom and Wing 2004; Wing 1991).

The Taíno collected both small (e.g., tessellated nerite [Nerita tessellata] and large (e.g., queen conch [Strombus gigas]) gastropods. The meat from various conch species (including Strombus gigas and Strombus alatus/pugilis) was sought after throughout Taíno associated sites and islands. As the largest shellfish exploited, conchs provided large portions of meat, and were easily dried for preservation (Keegan and

Carlson 2008). Conchs were likely collected by hand from inshore areas, including sandy sea grass flats. Smaller gastropods were collected along rocky beach outcrops and inshore habitats. The Taíno used boiling and stewing to extract the meat from small hard-to access shells (Keegan and Carlson 2008). Smaller gastropods commonly exploited for consumption included chestnut turbans (Turbo castanea), periwinkles

(Littorina sp.), ceriths (Cerithium sp.), and coffee melampus (Melampus coffeus)

(Keegan and Carlson 2008; Newsom and Wing 2004; Wing 1991).

Non-Food Use and Significance of Animals

In addition to providing a source of dietary protein and food, animals and/or animal parts are often valued for reasons in addition to or beyond food consumption

(Russell 2012; Reitz and Wing 2008; see also Aikas et al. 2009; Drescola 1994;

Helander-Revnall 2010; Hill 2011; Jordan 2003; Nadasdy 2007). While the vast majority of pre-Columbian zooarchaeological research in the Caribbean has focused on reconstructing subsistence patterns, there are examples of non-food use of animals and animal parts in the past. In addition, there are ethnohistoric and historic accounts, as

well as archaeological evidence regarding non-food uses of animals and animal parts.

Both historic and archaeological sources indicate that bone and shell remains of many common food taxa were used and/or valued for non-food purposes as well – or secondary non-food purposes. However, as described below there were also instances where an animal was valued or sought after for non-food purposes specifically – or primary non-food purposes.

Secondary non-food use and significance

An underlying assumption in many archaeological works is that animal remains represent food remains first and foremost, or if an animal was considered to be valuable as a food item and more (i.e., functionally or symbolically), then its primary value was as a food item. As will be exemplified below, the zooarchaeological recognition of primary or secondary non-food use of animal remains is heavily dependent on both context and artifact patterning (e.g., Serrand 2002) – and even then may not be distinguishable or recognizable. However, there is ample archaeological and textual ethnohistoric and historic evidence of non-food uses of animals by the Taíno. Such uses included the manufacture of bone and shell tools, implements, ornamental objects, musical instruments, and jewelry.

The modification of shell for non-food use is a common and well-documented archaeological phenomena worldwide (Claassen 1998:196). Shell tool production has been studied in the Caribbean through the recovery of complete or nearly complete tools or as stock piles for tool manufacture (e.g., Giovas 2013:69, 77,129; Grouard

2010; Fitzpatrick et al. 2009; Serrand 1999; Serrand and Bonnissent 2005). Shells were among the most readily available natural resources for the manufacture of fishing, hunting, and farming implements (e.g., Keegan and Carlson 2008).

O’Day and Keegan (2001) conducted a regional study of queen conch modification patterns across late Ceramic Age sites located in The Bahamas, the Turks

& Caicos Islands, Haiti and Jamaica. The authors interpreted the patterns as evidence of expedient shell tool manufacture. O’Day and Keegan (2001) also suggest studying large concentrations of hardy shell taxa, such as conchs, for data indicative of stock piling for future tool manufacture.

Another study focused on the identification of archaeological shell tools is a recent study by Keegan et al. (2014). The authors compare modified Lucinidae clam remains recovered from a late Ceramic Age site in Puerto Rico with clams shell net weights from waterlogged sites in southwest Florida. Based on the comparative study and empirical patterning of human manufactured holes, Keegan et al. conclude that the

Puerto Rican Lucinidae specimens were indeed used as shell net weights.

Among the Taíno, ethnohistoric sources describe intricately carved shell gorgets that may have hung as symbolic pieces of art, been placed in masks, or displayed on foreheads (Lovén 1935:479-48). Shells were also worn as items of personal adornment at festivals, receptions, and dances; including arm bands made with small snail shells that “tinkled against each other instead of bells” (Lovén 1935:481,492). Interestingly,

Deagan has interpreted a distinct deposit of tiny coffee melampus shells with the apexes conspicuously absent recovered from En Bas Saline as possible “tinklers”

(Newsom and Wing 2004:166; Kathleen Deagan, personal communication 2013).

Modified shells were also used to decorate Taíno wooden duhos (socially and ideologically significant chairs carved out of wood) (Olazagasti 1997:135).

In the Turks & Caicos, late Ceramic Age sites (e.g., The Governor’s Beach site) have produced abundant shell bead artifacts and debitage. Based on artifact quantity, it is likely that bead production, and perhaps specialization, was the primary site activity.

The beads were made out of queen conch and jewelbox shells (Chamidae) and were likely strung along cotton for ornamental use (Newsom and Wing 2004:211). Shell beads also were used to decorate the belts of Taíno leaders (Lovén 1935; Keegan and

Carlson:115), and may have served as communicative markers of alliances and relationships.

Like shell, the modification of bone for secondary non-food purposes was also likely prevalent among the Taino. Some hunting and fishing implements might have been partially constructed out of animal bone, including tips of fishing spears or harpoons, and hooks use with cotton line (Lovén 1935:424-427). Stingray spines showing evidence of use as spear points, most likely for fishing, have been recovered archaeologically (Keegan and Carlson 2008:22). At the Coralie site on Grand Turk

(Carlson 1999), Keegan and Carlson (2008:36) describe the use of a sea turtle carapace as a cooking implement. Also, Olazagasti (1997:134) states that bone was a medium for cemí religious sculptures.

Modified animal teeth are indicative of secondary non-food uses of particular animal parts. Perforated Caribbean Monk Seal teeth have been recovered from Taíno sites on St. John and St. Thomas (Hairr 2011:32-33). Perforated shark teeth have been recovered from Greater Antillean archaeological sites, and often are interpreted as ornaments; however, they also could have been attached to handles and used as tools

(Keegan and Carlson 2008:22-23; see also Kozuch 1993). Carlson (Keegan and

Carlson 2008:41) also recovered a perforated barracuda tooth from the Río Tanamá site in Puerto Rico.

Secondary non-food uses of birds included the use of bones and feathers. Lovén

(1935) cites historical descriptions of feather headdresses or ornamentation worn in

Jamaica. Based on such descriptions it does not seem that feathers were worn every day or by common members of society – rather they likely were reserved for leaders, warriors, or other selective community members. Keegan and Carlson (2008:42) describe how parrot feathers were widely distributed trade items (see also Keegan 2007 and Wilson 1990). Deagan (2004:619) reports a polished bird bone tube recovered from a post-contact burial feature at En Bas Saline. She suggests the implement may have been used to inhale hallucinogenic cohoba plant powder.

Animal skin provided another secondary non-food use of animals killed for consumption. Keegan and Carlson (2008:23) comment on a historical account of stingray skin being dried for use as a rough surface in the processing of specially produced manioc flour that was reserved for ritual purposes. Hutia skin and fur may have served a non-food purpose among the Taino as well. Lovén’s (1935:438) review of hutia post-mortem processing suggests that hutia were skinned prior to cooking.

Musical instruments were another category of secondary non-food use of animal parts among the Taíno. Lovén (1935:493) describes accounts of dances and festivals involving the use of rattles made out of snails, mussel shells, and bone. Lovén

(1935:495-497) also reports that it is possible the Taino used trumpets made of conch shell and possibly flutes made of bone (see also Keegan and Carlson 2008). The shell tinklers described above were possibly used in musical rattles as well.

Primary non-food use and significance

Although it is difficult to establish a non-food related primary use of an animal or animal part, the use of dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) among the Taíno may fit such a characterization. Among the Taíno, archaeological, ethnohistoric, and historical texts indicate that the importance of domestic dog was not primarily as a food source, but as a companion for hunting. Dog remains have been recovered from Hispaniola (Wing

2001, 2008), and citing Miller (1929), Wing (2008) describes the dogs historically observed among the Taíno as small and unable to bark (based on Columbus’ diario

October 28, 1492). Lovén’s (1935:432) description is similar and explains that dogs accompanied the Taíno on hutia hunts. Like dogs, it seems that the Taino also kept parrots and doing so was not based on consumption, but rather as pets, signs of social affluence, and/or as exchange items (Keegan and Carlson 2008:42; Lovén 1935:435).

An interesting point of speculation about primary non-food importance of animals involves remora eels (Muraenidae). Keegan and Carlson (2008:51) note historic descriptions of the use of the sucker on top of remora heads as a fishing implement to wrangle large fish, sharks, or sea turtles. Newsom and Wing (2004) comment on this possibility and point out that there is a lack of corroborating zooarchaeological evidence in the form of remora remains. This patterning, or lack thereof, might be expected if the remora were released immediately after fish or turtle capture. It is also important to note that overall, despite the obvious dietary importance of fish, very few bone or shell fishing implements have been identified throughout the Caribbean. As with remora bones, it is likely that the implements were disposed of off-site, lost during use, or broken beyond recognition.

Another interesting possible primary non-food use of a fish has to do with porcupine fish. Keegan and Carlson (2008:115) point out that this fish is represented iconographically on a pottery bowl recovered from Grand Turk. The authors speculate that this fish may have been significant through the use of its natural toxin to induce a heightened hallucinogenic state for communication with spirits.

Symbolic significance

A final category of non-food based animal use or significance among the Taíno was the symbolic importance of some animal taxa. Several animals were symbolically significant to the Taíno. The symbolic importance of a diversity of animals is well documented through archaeological rock art, including carved and painted images as well as sculpture (Hayward et al. 2009). Zoomorphic rock art images display representations of mammals, birds, reptiles, and fish (e.g., contributions to Hayward et al. 2009a). Also, zoomorphic representations of animals figured prominently in pottery formation and decoration, as well as in zemi and other ritually/ceremonially significant artifactual representations (Oliver 2009); including bird, turtle, and fish images on Taíno pottery vessels and wooden ritual paraphernalia (Carlson and Keegan

2008:90,116,123). As succinctly described by Keegan and Carlson (2008:88), “zemis are both spirits and objects that represent spirits” (see also Oliver (2005).

The anthropogenic movement of animals, such as guinea pig, freshwater turtles, parrots, and conch may have been symbolically important in relation to human interactions and extra-local relationships. It is also possible that guinea pigs signified ties to or interactions with mainland circum-Caribbean groups (LeFebvre and deFrance

2014). A similar suggestion has been made for the presence of pond turtle at the Spring

Bay site on Saba based the interpretation of the pond turtle being brought to the site by

people (Newsom and Wing 2004:137). In fact, it may be the case that all human translocated animals, such as mammals (Giovas et al. 2012) and birds (Steadman et al.

1984), may have had secondary non-food importance as signifiers of human interaction.

Keegan and Carlson (2008) review the likely symbolic importance of several types of animals. Lizards are believed to have been symbolically important in association with caves (the mythological place of origin of the Taíno; Lovén 1935:565).

Per Taíno mythology, caves were guarded by a reptile like figure that did not blink, and

Keegan and Carlson (2008:34) speculate that lizards could have represented this mythical figure. Keegan and Carlson also point out that petrographic representations of lizards have been identified outside of cave entrances (e.g., Hayward et al. 2009b;

Oliver and Narganes Storde 2005). Lovén (1935:572) recounts historical descriptions of the mythological importance of tortoises and turtles. Interestingly, sea turtle remains associated with a burial have been recovered from the Preacher’s Cave site in The

Bahamas (Schaffer et al. 2012).

Burial contexts provide perhaps the most compelling contextual evidence for the non-food related symbolic importance of animals. For example, in addition to the sea turtle bone present in a burial at the Preacher’s Cave site, another burial at the site is associated with the co-internment of a triton shell (Cymatium sp.). The cave burial contexts from the Juan Miguel cave site on Puerto Rico (Oliver and Narganes-Storde

2005) provide another example of contextual clues to the possible symbolic importance of burial associated fauna.

Last in this summary, but certainly not least, the importance of fish to the Taíno as symbols of life is perhaps the most materially pervasive zooarchaeological evidence

of non-food importance (Keegan and Carlson 2008:53). Yet, discussion of the symbolic importance of fish does not usually come up in zooarchaeological literature. The ubiquity of fish remains within middens and features is so widespread across the

Caribbean, including at Taíno and Taíno affiliated sites, that its corner stone status as a dietary staple is treated as the obvious and most important point of study. If patterns in fish remain elements and portions are addressed at all, it is frequently in reference to trying to understand food strategies. However, drawing on available evidence suggestive of the symbolic importance of fish to the Taíno and integrating this information into zooarchaeological research questions and approaches may prove fruitful in identifying potentially symbolic patterns of fish use. If this is possible, it may be the case that zooarchaeologists can begin to recognize and interpret the inter-play of non-food and food significance of particular fishes, and by extensions their associated habitats.

Summary of Food and Non-Food Uses of Animals among the Taíno

During the Late Ceramic Age, the Taíno and Taíno-affiliated groups of the

Greater Antilles and neighboring islands exploited a variety of taxa from both terrestrial and aquatic habitats. Subsistence-based animal exploitation and consumption was dominated by fish and mollusk taxa. Terrestrial animals also were consumed, with a preference for hutia and iguana lizards.

Animals also were apparently exploited for non-food-based needs or desires, including the manufacture of tools, musical instruments, and items of bodily adornment.

Animal parts and products were also used in the creation of ritual paraphernalia and were therefore integral to the performance of ritual activities. Symbolically, particular

animals were earthly, living representations and/or embodiments of mythical figures and

Taíno cosmology.

The assignment of primary versus secondary qualifiers to the assessment of animal or animal-part use and significance is admittedly arbitrary and not particularly useful beyond the need to organize information, data, and ideas. It is indeed the case that deciphering primary or secondary importance of an animal and its use is not often possible. The zooarchaeological recognition of primary or secondary non-food use of animal remains is heavily dependent on both context and careful attention to artifact patterning – and even then may not be distinguishable or recognizable. Similarly, the use of textual sources to elucidate past non-food use or significance of animals cannot be taken as straightforward. Perhaps in regards to the Taíno of late Caribbean pre-

Columbian history, what the above review demonstrates is that research focus needs to include investigations of the inter-play of so-called primary and secondary uses and importance of animals in order to better inform and more realistically interpret the likely nuances of past human-animal interactions and cultural sociality.

What we “Know”: Animals and Taíno Sociality

The consumption of food, including both plant and animal fare, and the use of animal-based products and goods was heavily integrated within the structure and enactment of Taíno sociality and life. Much of what is known about this topic among the

Taíno of Hispaniola is garnered from ethnohistoric sources. Archaeological evidence, including zooarchaeological data, from the Greater Antillean Taíno realm also contribute to suggestions and interpretations of past animal use and practices during the Late

Ceramic Age.

Gender, Animal Exploitation, and Food

Gender roles are among the most pervasive expressions and outcomes of human sociality and the processes shaping human practice. Therefore, in regards to this dissertation, it is important to summarize what is believed in regards to gender- based roles in the exploitation of animals and the production of food among the Taíno.

Wilson’s (1990) review of ethnohistorical records indicates that the role of women was not a heavy focus of the Spanish chroniclers, save for discussion of a female chief named Anacaona. Despite a lack of explicit ethnohistoric attention to women, particularly common women, Wilson’s (1990) synthesis allows for a few broad-scale observations regarding the role of women (and men) within Taíno society on Hispaniola.

Like male caciques, women of elite lineages were able to hold and wield political power; including access to and perhaps control over the production of important ritual items (Wilson 1991:33,130,131,141). Women also participated in ceremonially significant events including competitive ball games as well as areytos and cemí feasts

(Wilson 1990: 23, 88). Finally, women and men participated in the welcoming and hosting of guests, including Spanish explorers (Wilson 1990:48,57,58,120).

In an exploration and discussion of gender roles among the Taíno, Deagan

(2004:501) demonstrates that overall “There are few documented social or economic functions that can be attributed exclusively to the domain of either men or women.”

Ethnohistoric sources indicate that both men and women participated in the procurement and production of food. Women and men both worked in crop cultivation; men cleared, prepared, and maintained fields and women focused on tending the crops and supplying water (Lovén 1935:533). Men and women also partook in fishing

(Deagan 2004).

Nonetheless, gender-based divisions of labor in the realm of animal exploitation and food production among the Taíno have been suggested and gleaned from ethnohistoric records. For example, in order to hunt, fish, gather, or capture animals the necessary equipment and technology must be crafted. In addition to facilitating exchange and communication, canoes were integral to offshore fishing and the movement of animals and/or animal products throughout the islands. Canoes were dugout of single tree trunks (Keegan and Carlson 2008:13, 84). While there are not direct sources describing whether or not canoe manufacture was a female or male specific task, ethnohistoric descriptions suggest men were the primary (if not sole) operators of canoes – the oarsmen (Lovén 1935:416). It is not known whether or not women, men, or both crafted fishing implements such as hooks, spears, net gauges, net weights, or traps. However, given that Taíno women were reported to be the weavers of textiles and other cotton goods, it is likely that women crafted the nets used in fishing and in hunting (Lovén 1935:535; Keegan 2007:61).

Keegan (2007:61) has described the collection of mollusks as the primary domain of Taíno women and children. Lovén (1935:533) reports that young boys were charged with keeping birds away from fields and crops. As pointed out by Deagan

(2004), it often is assumed that within Taíno society, women were responsible for food preparation and domestic production. Women were apparently responsible for preparing cassava bread (Lovén 1935:535), and this responsibility undoubtedly carried over to other food-stuffs and dishes. Similarly, the hunting of terrestrial animals is attributed to men (Deagan 2004).

In summary, it seems that both women and men shared in the tasks of subsistence economy, including animal procurement and food production. It is also arguably apparent that the particulars of such tasks (e.g., field and crop tending, fishing and shellfish gathering) may have been generally, but not exclusively, divided between men and women. It does not seem possible or productive to assign qualities of “more work” or “less work” to women and men’s respective (but collaborative) involvement in food production. Rather, the entire corpus of actions involved with food production, including animal-based foods, among the Taíno as a component of socio-political organization and social structuring (including kinship) is in need of more research.

The Sociality of Food Presentation and Consumption

Per the observations of Spanish explorers, the Taíno ate four meals a day; including breakfast, lunch, dinner, and a nighttime meal (Lovén 1935:440). In addition, special or out of the ordinary presentations and consumption of food were prominent components of communal events, feasts, hosting of visitors, displays of power, and status and social organization. Food, including animals-based foods, were imbued with meaning through various social contexts of consumption.

Among Taíno caciques, the tasting and eating of food was an outward display of leadership and caring for community members. Ethnohistoric records also indicate that lesser, local village chiefs were observed to eat from the same dishes and meals as commoners (Lovén 1935:504). A Taíno chief readily tasted and consumed food prior to its distribution to others (i.e. at a banquet) as an act of intercession between the Taíno realm (i.e., present physical life and people) and the non-Taíno realm (Wilson 1990:35).

As described by Wilson (1990:34-35), the non-Taíno realm consisted of foreign events or people (e.g., hurricanes or Spanish explorers), as well as caciques’ cemí spirit guides

or helpers. In the events of meeting and communing with Spanish explorers or a personal cemí, a cacique would partake of the food prior to its distribution to others

(Wilson 1990:35). This practice of intercession and communication of chiefly intent and place in life suggests that food among the Taíno was a source of biological and social sustenance that was inextricably linked through presentation and consumption.

As was the case when hosting a neighboring cacique, Taíno chiefs organized particular displays of hospitality when hosting the Spanish. Key to chiefly demonstrations and communication of status and power was the presentation of food to the Spanish (e.g., Wilson 1990:57,75,129). Among the Taíno were special events consisting of particular ritual songs and dances called areytos (Lovén 1935:519). At an areyto, during a visit with the cacique of Xaraguá, Bartolomé Colon (Christopher

Columbus’ brother) was reportedly presented with a “banquet of baked cassava and boiled hutias, together with a quantity of salt and fresh-water fish” (Lovén 1935:521). As noted in Wilson (1990:65), the “ritual order of chiefly greeting” was food first and the exchange of gifts second.

Significantly, food preparation and presentation among the Taíno was not for human consumption only. Food offerings were central to festivals and ceremonies honoring cemís (e.g., Keegan and Carlson 2008:88). Food offerings were made to cemís as steps in the communicative process with and veneration of spirits.

The Sociality of Bodily Adornment

The integration of animal parts into clothing and items of adornment was enmeshed in social perceptions of appropriateness and actions of performance. The use or inclusion of animal parts contributed to the significance and execution of the activity and/or event, while at the same time gaining their significance through the

context and meaning of use. For example, at events including dancing and performances, such as areytos, the Taíno participants wore arm bands made of small gastropod shell tinklers. The sound of the tinkling shells was a sensory point of performance and experience at areytos.

Similarly, belts representative of social status and associated power were worn by Taíno caciques and elite community members. The belts were woven of cotton and intricately laced with tiny shell beads (Keegan and Carlson 2008:68). As described by

Wilson (1990:66,71), such belts were objects of very high social esteem among the

Taíno, and considered formidable gifts in the exchange of goods between Taíno chiefs and the leaders among the Spanish explorers.

Parrots were likely selectively sought after for their feathers (Newsom and Wing

2004:142). Brightly colored parrot feathers were used in crowns (Keegan and Carlson

2008:88) and capes (Wilson 1990:71), as well as in decorative plums worn around the neck (Wilson 1991:88). As described earlier, parrot feathers were widely traded items in the Taíno realm (Keegan and Carlson 2008:101). Like the shell tinklers, the possession and use of parrot feathers, particularly in festival and dance settings, was significant through the mutual constitution of the social context and use of the feathers. Like the cotton and shell-woven belts, the use of parrot feathers among caciques and elite members of Taíno society was linked to bodily displays and reinforcement of status and socio-political organization.

Summary of Animals and Taíno Sociality

Animals played a role in virtually all facets of Taíno life, cross-cutting and integrating biological and cultural sustenance. The Taíno used food presentation and consumption as a means of communication, competition, and empowerment. Animal

parts and products were used to enhance sensory experiences, such as sound and sight at particular events. Bodily displays of feathers and shells also served as communicative markers of social processes and organization. The importance of animals, as food and sources of bodily adornment, were mutually constitutive of Taíno sociality, including socio-political organization and kinship.

In conclusion, the above review and summaries of what we know, or think we know, about Taíno sociality in regards to socio-political organization, animal exploitation, and the use of animals and animal parts provides a complex, and intellectually stimulating, foundation from which to consider what we do not know about the Taíno. Ultimately, this dissertation research is designed to contribute to these topics and questions as they relate to the Taíno of Hispaniola, and En Bas Saline more specifically.

Figure 2-1. Map of Caribbean islands, showing the conventional geographic realm of the Classic Taíno. Image based on Figure 3 in Rouse (1992:8).

CHAPTER 3 EN BAS SALINE: THE NATURAL SETTING, ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE, AND ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL SAMPLES

This chapter discusses the site of En Bas Saline and the zooarchaeological materials selected for analysis. The first half of the chapter focuses on the site as a whole, providing the environmental and archaeological context of the dissertation. To begin, the natural setting of Hispaniola in general is summarized, followed by more detailed descriptions of Haiti with particular focus on northern Haiti and the location of

En Bas Saline. Second, the history of archaeological research at En Bas Saline is reviewed; presenting analyses, results, and current interpretations. Particular attention is given to the history of zooarchaeological research of the En Bas Saline faunal assemblage, including results and interpretations. Third, the methods of excavation and the organization of field data and artifacts are outlined.

The second half of the chapter presents the zooarchaeological materials selected for use in this dissertation. The collections-based nature of the dissertation and the faunal samples and data are discussed, and the process of faunal sample selection is explained within the overall archaeological context and history of study at En Bas

Saline. The faunal sample proveniences are described; highlighting site location, functional interpretations, and associated artifacts and materials. Finally, assumptions as to possible articulations between site space (i.e., feature location) and presumed social contexts are outlined.

En Bas Saline: The Geographic and Natural Setting

The archaeological site of En Bas Saline is named after the small contemporary fishing village presently occupying the site in northern Haiti. Haiti is located in the western third of the island of Hispaniola, and the Dominican Republic claims the

remainder of the landmass. The colonial, post-colonial, and modern history of Haiti is characterized by extreme social upheaval and unrest, natural disasters, environmental degradation and destruction, as well as poverty and poor governmental infrastructure.

As a result, much of Haiti’s natural settings, habitats, and fauna have been adversely affected. Comparatively speaking, the natural setting of the Dominican Republic has fared better over the hundreds of years since colonial contact (Bayard 2007; Bolay

1997; Fernández 2007). Therefore, descriptions of Haiti’s past and contemporary natural setting are augmented by descriptions and characterizations of Hispaniola’s natural setting that are largely based on the Dominican Republic (e.g., Bolay 1997;

Fernández 2007).

While global climatic variability has been documented for the Holocene

(Mayewski et al. 2004), sea level and climate change in the circum-Caribbean region has been relatively stable since the onset of the Holocene ca. 10,000 years ago (Curtis et al. 2001). More geographically focused paleo-environmental studies help refine understandings of the interplay of environmental and anthropogenic based environmental change during the Holocene in the Caribbean (e.g., Higuera-Gundy et al.

1991). Such studies allow for comparatively accurate reconstructions and interpretations of past environmental conditions and circumstances of pre-Columbian human occupation. This has been particularly important in the documentation of significant environmental and human wrought impacts on the fauna of the Caribbean, including Hispaniola (e.g., Borroto-Páez et al. 2012; Steadman and Takano 2013).

Hispaniola

At approximately 77,914 km² (Mejía and García 2007), Hispaniola is the second largest island in the Caribbean and is located in the Greater Antilles between 68°20ʹ and

72°01ʹ (Bolay 1997:44). Hispaniola lies at a complex intersection of major oceanic mountain ranges as well as at the tectonic boundary of the North American and

Caribbean plates (Bolay 1997:55; Hedges 2001). As a result, the island is composed of variable volcanic and limestone geological formations and sediments (Bolay 1997).

Topographically, Hispaniola is characterized by several large mountain ranges. As described by Latta and Rimmer (2007:3), mountainous areas are home to moist cloud forests and broadleaf forests, while lower areas include dry forests and thorn scrub habitats (see also Baroni and Cantrell 2007). Interspersed between mountains and foothills are inland valleys and plains, rivers, lakes, and coastal plains. The flow of freshwater sources and Hispaniola’s hydrologic composition overall is directly tied to mountain formations (Bolay 1997). In addition, numerous coastal environments are found along the island’s extensive shorelines, including estuaries, mangroves, rocky outcrops, and sandy beaches.

The climate of Hispaniola is highly variable throughout the year and the many environments and habitats found across the island. Although the average temperature in Hispaniola hovers around 25°C, it varies greatly depending on topographic peaks and valleys (Bolay 1997). The island also experiences rainy seasons around May and

October, however the amount of rainfall a given area of the island receives is highly dependent on topography (e.g., mountain rain-shadow effects), geographic orientation, and the effects of trade winds (Bolay 1997). Trade winds blow throughout the year and originate out of the east from the Atlantic Ocean. Taken together, mountains and trade winds are two of the dominant natural features impacting rainfall patterns and temperatures on the island.

The trade wind patterns and mountain ranges contribute to differential rainfall patterns and rai- shadow phenomena, which in turn contribute to high variability in the amount of rain runoff flowing from the mountains, through lowland areas and plains, to the coasts. As a result, Hispaniola is characterized by highly diverse environmental habitats, niche development, and endemism (Fernández 2007; Hedges 2001). In regards to the flora of Hispaniola, a “wide variety of ecosystems with very peculiar characteristics” (Mejía and García 2007:30) are home to very diverse terrestrial flora; including at least 181 families of plants with approximately 6,000 vascular plant species, of which 45% are endemic (Mejía and García 2007:31).

In addition to being a hotspot of flora biodiversity in the Caribbean, Hispaniola is also a major location for the documentation of terrestrial animal biodiversity and endemism. As summarized by Latta and Rimmer (2007), there are over 300 bird species, and 31 are endemic to the island. Dominated by rodents, in the Greater Antilles there are five orders of terrestrial mammals documented, two of which are still extant

(Goodgall 2012). Only two native terrestrial mammals are present in Hispaniola today, the Hispaniola hutia (Plagiodontia aedium) and the solenodon (Solenodon paradoxus), and both are endemic (Woods and Ottenwalder 2007). At least 217 species of amphibians and reptiles are currently recognized, with 209 unique to Hispaniola

(Hedges 2007).

The terrestrial freshwater sources and the marine waters surrounding Hispaniola contain a diversity of fauna as well. The documentation of marine mammals includes thirteen species of whales and dolphins, as well as manatees and the now extinct

Caribbean Monk Seal (Woods and Ottenwalder 2007). Currently there are

approximately 501 species of marine fish and 41 species of freshwater fish reported for the country of Haiti, and 489 marine fish species and 54 freshwater species for the

Dominican Republic.

Haiti and En Bas Saline

Haiti is approximately 27,750 km² in area (Bolay 1997:43), with approximately

1,800 km of coastline (Sergile and Woods 2001). Five main mountain ranges or chains are present in Haiti: the Massif de Nord, Chaîne des Matheux, Montagnes du Trou d’eau, Massif de la Selle, and Massif de la Hotte (Sergile and Woods 2001). The majority of Haiti’s northern coast, including the location of En Bas Saline, is located in the physiographic-geologic-morphotectonic zone called Massif du Nor-Cordillera Central

(Bolay 1997:57). Extending from the north coast of Haiti in a southeast direction into the

Dominican Republic, this zone is characterized by volcanic, metamorphic, and plutonic rocks associated with the geologic development and topography of the Massif du Nord mountain range in Haiti and the Cordillera Central mountain range in the Dominican

Republic. Numerous rivers and streams, originating from the mountains, and flood plains dot the Haitian landscape, the largest is the River Artibonite.

The climate of Haiti is generally split between moist tropical conditions and dry arid environments. As described by Sergile and Woods (2001), due to its location west of the large mountain ranges in the Dominican Republic, the majority of Haiti is blocked from the influences of the northeastern trade winds, including rainfall. As a result, much of the country, particularly inland areas, are dry and arid in comparison to coastal locations. The southwestern peninsula of Haiti receives the most rainfall per year, followed by the northern coast (Sergile and Woods 2001). Northern Haiti experiences a

rainy season in the spring and fall, with maximum rainfall levels during the spring

(Butterman 1997:54).

There are several lowland plains interspersed among the mountains of Haiti, the three largest are the Plaine du Nord, the Artbonite Plain, and the Cul-de-Sac (McClellan

2006). The Plaine du Nord (1,000 mi² in area) is the largest of the plains and is bordered by the Massif du Nor to the south and the Atlantic Ocean to the north. The location of En Bas Saline is within the Plaine du Nord. Described by McClellan (2006), in the lowlands along the coast and inland, a combination of deep, thick forests and more open arable lands were characteristic of Haiti prior to the rise of large scale plantation production and coffee cultivation in the first half of the 18th century (McClellan

2006).

Summarized by Sergile and Woods (2001:549), the floral and faunal biodiversity of Haiti is among the highest in the Caribbean islands (e.g., Hedges and Woods 1993).

As is the case with Hispaniola overall, the biodiversity of Haiti is shaped by a diversity of environmental habitats and niches. There are at least 5,000 vascular plants recorded and approximately 37% are endemic. More than 2,000 animal species have been recorded with high rates of endemism.

The site of En Bas Saline is located approximately 1 km inland from the modern town Bord de Mer de Limonade on the north coast of Haiti (Deagan 1989, 2004)

(Figures 3-1 and 3-2). Presently, the Grande Rivière du Nord, a large river in northern

Haiti, runs west of En Bas Saline. However, prior to several post-contact and modern alterations to the river and surrounding landscape, it appears that a tributary of the river

once connected En Bas Saline to the Atlantic coast at the location of the modern day town Bor de Mer de Limonade (Deagan 2003 citing Ménanteau and Vanney 1997).

Geographically, the late pre-Columbian inhabitants of En Bas Saline had ample access to locally available marine, riverine, mangrove, and terrestrial resources. The location of the site within a large plain would have helped to facilitate access to savannah grass and shrub habitats, as well as forested areas. Mountain foothills would also have provided a diversity of habitats for the exploitation of plants and animals.

Terrestrial fauna available for exploitation would have included rodents, such as hutias, as well as a diversity of lizards and snakes. Bird taxa available would have included both land and water fowl. Riverine, mangrove, and marine fishes, mollusk, and crustaceans would have been available within close proximity to the village.

In summary, the near-coastal setting of En Bas Saline along Haiti’s northern coast provided a moister climate than settlements and villages further inland. En Bas

Saline likely benefitted from oceanic breezes and rainfall. Also, its coastal plain location along/near the Grande Rivière du Nord accommodated terrestrial based resource exploitation and production (i.e., hunting and farming), water-based transportation, as well as ready access to marine coastal areas, animals, resources, and neighboring settlements.

Based on the geographic location and proximity to a diversity of habitats and associated fauna, it would be reasonable to assume that the pre-Columbian inhabitants of En Bas Saline had access to a wide range of taxa. In general, high taxonomic diversity would be expected across faunal samples. More specifically, schooling fish species may be anticipated in abundance, as well as a diversity of reptiles. Rodents,

particularly endemic taxa, would be the expected mammals. However, environmental fluctuations related to weather conditions, including storms, storm surge, and wind patterns, would have potentially affected local ecological conditions and animal communities, and by extension Taíno procurement strategies and animal-based food availability.

Archaeology at En Bas Saline

The archaeological site of En Bas Saline is arguably the most extensively excavated late pre-Columbian site in the Caribbean. Building upon the archaeological interests of Samuel Eliot Morison and Dr. William Hodges, Kathleen Deagan (University of Florida) began a long term archaeological research program at En Bas Saline in the mid-1980s (Deagan 1989). Since 1984, Deagan has led multiple intensive surveys and excavations at En Bas Saline, including field seasons in 1984, 1985, 1988, and most recently during 2003. The primary goal of Deagan’s work has been to investigate whether or not En Bas Saline is the site of the Spanish fort La Navidad, the famed and historically elusive site of Christopher Columbus’ first settlement in 1492. Deagan’s work at En Bas Saline has demonstrated the presence of a large pre-Columbian village. The village is in the approximate location of historical descriptions of the shipwreck location of Columbus’s ship the Santa María, as well as the village and likely residence of

Guacanagarí, the Taíno chief who helped Columbus and his crew.

As described by Deagan (1989, 2003, 2004; see also Williams 1984), aerial, photographic, ground and remote sensing surveys, and excavations at En Bas Saline have revealed a large, oval shaped pre-Columbian village (Figures 3-3 and 3-4). The site is largely defined by a raised, curved earthen ridge approximately 20-22 m long and

.5 to 1.0 m in height. With an opening in the southwestern portion of the site, the

earthen ridge is not continuous around the village (Deagan 2004). Opposite the raised earthwork, is an almost subterranean “mirror image” that is a curved artifact-rich sheet midden (Deagan 2004:606). The area inside the ridge and midden is characterized as flat and open (e.g., plaza-like). There are also three mounded areas across the site.

Archaeological excavations have uncovered numerous areas indicative of village life including sheet deposits and several features which include structural post holes, wall trenches, burials, and pits (Deagan 2004). Zooarchaeological samples have been recovered from all of the excavated areas and features.

Through the discovery of European introduced fauna and artifacts, both pre-

Columbian and post-contact areas have been documented. As a result, Deagan and colleagues have had the opportunity to study sequential pre- and post-contact contexts and artifact trends through time across the site. Radiocarbon and thermoluminescence dates suggest that En Bas Saline was occupied from AD 1250 to 1520, lending further credence to En Bas Saline possibly being Guacanagari’s village and the site of La

Navidad (Deagan 2003, 2004).

Excavations at all three mounds revealed associated structures. Of the three mounds present, Deagan (2004) interprets the eastern most mound and associated features as the likely location of a chiefly residence, or at least an area of elite occupation. Evidence of substantial post holes and pits associated with two large, superimposed structures on the eastern most mound have been documented.

Subsurface investigations at the middle mound revealed postmolds possibly signifying a comparatively smaller Taíno structure (Deagan 2003). The western-most mound revealed several postmolds indicative of a past Taíno structure (Deagan 2003).

The results of Deagan’s work and that of collaborating colleagues and students have focused on 1) finding evidence of Columbus’s 1492 voyage, namely the indigenous village site where Columbus unloaded goods and supplies from the shipwrecked Santa Maria; 2) locating archaeological signatures of the men, and their goods, whom Columbus charged to stay and reside at La Navidad; and 3) understanding how the arrival of the Spanish explorers impacted local lifeways at the village. Such foci have required synchronic and “fine-grained excavation strategies”

(Deagan 2004:606) aimed at isolating pre- and post-contact contexts across the site with careful attention to both temporal and spatial differentiation. The research design has allowed for detailed analyses capable of identifying and assessing local-scale patterns of site use and artifact deposition – ultimately leading to more socially nuanced interpretations (e.g., Deagan 2004).

Two examples of such research are Cusick’s (1989) thesis on pre- and post- contact pottery production and Deagan’s (2004) assessment of pre- and post-contact labor, gender, and social status (i.e., elite and non-elite). Both Deagan’s and Cusick’s work demonstrate the complexities of social change in the face of colonization and how such complexities are often most apparent in subtle data patterns – to be discovered and explained through fine-grained, local-scale (i.e., intra-site) analyses. Indeed, Taíno culture did not immediately disintegrate and cease to exist upon Spanish colonization.

Based on pottery analysis, Cusick (1989) argues that while there is a trend toward simplification of pottery production (such as a decline in burnished vessels post-contact) and possible shifts in cooking techniques upon Spanish arrival, overall Taíno pottery

production and by extension associated social organization and cooking patterns persisted at En Bas Saline after Spanish arrival.

Deagan (2004) integrates site structure, features, pottery, lithic, faunal, and botanical data to identify patterns of elite and non-elite spaces across the site. She uses the data to discuss how social organization, including social status and division of labor, did or did not change in the face of Spanish colonization. Deagan’s (2004) synthesis finds that the elite community leaders at En Bas Saline were able to continue exacting their influence and direction, including maintenance of hierarchical social status. In terms of “everyday” activities, those historically attributed to men were likely more impacted than those attributed to women (due to encomienda work structures imposed by the Spanish, supported by Taíno leaders, and enabled by male labor). Moreover, it appears that at En Bas Saline the integration of Spanish goods was not immediate.

Research regarding the exploitation, cultivation, and use of plants at En Bas

Saline has been led by Dr. Lee Newsom (e.g., Newsom 1993, Newsom and Deagan

1994, Newsom and Pearsall 2003, Newsom and Wing 2004). Newsom’s work has shed much light on the myriad of plants and woods essential to life at En Bas Saline, including materials for shelter construction, fuel, medicines, ritual practice, ceremony and food. It is clear that late pre-Columbian people were highly adept in their knowledge of plant biology, ecology, and management. The people at En Bas Saline relied on mangrove wood taxa for fuel, a smart choice as pointed out by Newsom, given that such taxa grow and regenerate quickly (Newsom 1993; Newsom and Wing 2004:160).

The presence of evening primrose may have been used for medicinal and/or psychoactive ritual purposes (Newsom and Wing 2004:156). Manioc and maize

cultivation provided dietary staples at En Bas Saline, and may have been supplemented by sweet potatoes (Newsom and Deagan 1994; Newsom and Wing 2004:154). Drawing on intra-site comparisons, Newsom also finds that maize, pepper, and evening primrose may have had social significance in relation to elite access and consumption (Newsom and Wing 2004:155). Overall, Newsom suggests that the composition of the plant assemblage indicates a heavy reliance on domestic plant foods at En Bas Saline, a characteristic attributed to late pre-Columbian subsistence in the Greater Antilles based on historic documents/sources (Newsom and Wing 2004:159).

Zooarchaeological Research at En Bas Saline

The goals of previous zooarchaeological research on the En Bas Saline faunal assemblage were the identification of pre- and post-contact patterns of vertebrate and invertebrate animal exploitation at En Bas Saline and the description of animal protein in

Taíno diet. Dr. Elizabeth Wing and her team of laboratory assistants analyzed a sample of 65,850 individual faunal specimens excavated during the 1980’s field seasons (Wing

1991). Wing’s analysis produced 153 different taxa identifications across 42 field samples recovered from Gardens B, C, and E (Wing 1991:1) (Table 3-1) (see also

Figure 3-4). In her study, Wing combined zooarchaeological data according to shared feature contexts, except for samples from Feature 4 (a post-contact burial feature) which remained separate. Sheet midden data were combined across site areas based on time period (e.g., pre-Columbian and post-contact) (Wing 1991:2).

According to Wing (1991), marine mollusks dominate the analyzed samples in her study, with bivalves comprising the majority of identifications. Surf clam (Mulina cleryana) is not common throughout the samples, but when present is abundant (Wing

1991). Wing (1991) also states that coffee melampus are significant because they are

abundant and that conch are important due to the utility of the shell. Fish are the majority vertebrate class represented and suggest that coral reef carnivores, omnivores, and herbivores were the preferred meat fare. Groupers and parrotfishes are the most abundant fish families. One marine mammal is identified, a manatee.

Terrestrial fauna identifications in Wing’s samples include two Capromyid rodents, the Puerto Rican hutia (Isolobodon portoricensis) and the Hispaniola hutia

(Plagiodontia aedium). Other land animals include spiny rat (Brotomys voratus), an insectivore (Nesophontes hypomicrus), domestic dog, domestic cat (Felis catus), domestic pig (Sus scrofa), and European rat (Rattus rattus). The later three fauna were from post-contact contexts. Birds are documented at En Bas Saline as well but do not contribute greatly to the assemblage or overall subsistence reconstruction. Reptiles are represented by sea turtle, although not in great quantity, a few pond turtles, and occurrences of lizards and snakes. Wing (1991) concludes that reptiles were not key or emphasized components of the animal diet at En Bas Saline.

In summary, Wing (1991:4) interprets that while the En Bas Saline faunal assemblage is diverse in taxonomic composition, animal exploitation was actually focused on key “target species” – namely mollusks, and coral reef fish. However, Wing emphasizes that while mollusk remains were the most abundant taxa, the fishes identified were just as important or more so in terms of meat contribution to diet.

Importantly, Wing finds that targeted species were identified across proveniences and site areas, but were variable in terms of abundance. Wing discusses taxa abundance variability at the level of taxonomic identification and in terms of environmental and ecological conditions, and fluctuations in animal availability. Overall, the results of the

faunal analysis are considered together and in regard to likely methods of capture and habitat exploitation. Wing (1991) also explains that comparisons between pre- and post- contact proveniences reveal that overall the protein component of subsistence at En

Bas Saline remained consistent through contact, and therefore Wing concludes that the

European explorers depended on the local people for food and dietary sustenance.

In addition to Wing’s work, Nicole Cannarozzi’s (2003) zooarchaeological analysis focused on faunal samples recovered during the 2003 excavations in order to assess pre-Contact animal exploitation patterns categorized a priori as elite and non- elite. Her analysis included 8,594 specimens recovered from 33 field samples across

Gardens P, N, B, and E (Cannarozzi 2003:5) (Table 3-2) (see also Figure 3-4). The zooarchaeological data was analyzed according to feature, site area, or sheet midden context. As explained by Cannarozzi, time constraints on analysis precluded the study of both vertebrate and invertebrate specimens in many Garden E samples, with only three samples from Garden E including both vertebrate and invertebrate analysis. With specific contextual integrity intact, the results of analysis from features and sheet middens were subsumed according to elite and non-elite defined assemblages based on Garden location. Features and sheet midden from the same garden area were compared to and discussed in relation to those from other garden areas.

Regarding overall taxonomic composition, Cannarozzi’s results are similar to

Wing’s work – in her assemblages, marine mollusks are the dominant animal followed by fishes. The vertebrate fauna is dominated by coral reef dwelling fishes. Cannarozzi finds that grunts and parrotfishes are the dominant fish taxa in non-elite contexts.

Terrestrial animals are less abundant than marine taxa and include Puerto Rican hutia

and a few freshwater turtles. Elite contexts yielded a greater amount of terrestrial fauna, as well as larger-sized fish than non-elite contexts. Birds are noticeably more abundant among elite samples. Overall, taxa in elite and non-elite contexts were exploited from the same environments. In conclusion, Cannarozzi reports that between elite and non- elite samples there are differences in the abundance, and therefore preference, of taxa identified. Cannarozzi also finds that among non-elite samples the taxa identified are similar across the site, but are variable in abundance per provenience.

Finally, key to this dissertation research is Deagan’s (2004) synthesis of all previous zooarchaeological analyses to date. In her analysis, Deagan compares patterns in animal taxa across the site according to her interpretation of elite and non- elite proveniences and through time following pre- and post-contact temporal designations. Overall, even after European contact, Deagan finds that elite contexts demonstrate high taxonomic diversity of animals with low equitability, suggesting access to many sources of meat with consumption focused on particular taxa. On the other hand, non-elite contexts show less diversity and more equitability, suggesting less choice over sources of meat.

Deagan (2004) argues that the prevalence of terrestrial mammals in elite contexts suggests possible control over access by elite members of the community.

Regardless of accessibility, terrestrial mammals decrease in number across contexts after European arrival. Deagan’s analysis of the faunal data also finds that in post- contact contexts there is an increase in turtle and lizard exploitation. Deagan suggests that changes in terrestrial animal exploitation may be tied to changes in the structuring of male labor post-contact. Elite preference for and the ability to target parrotfishes,

grouper, snappers, and other carnivorous coral reef fishes does not change in the face of contact. In the analysis of non-elite samples, Deagan shows that non-elite members of the community consumed primarily butterfly fish, grunts, and parrotfish. Interestingly,

Deagan notes that butterfly fish are not found in elite contexts and suggests that this particular fish was a by-product of fishing techniques targeting more desirable fish for elite consumption. As pointed out by Wing (1991), and contextualized by Deagan

(2004), the arrival of Columbus and his crew did not cause immediate changes to animal foodways at En Bas Saline.

In summary, the previous zooarchaeological studies and syntheses by Wing,

Cannarozzi, and Deagan provide an analytical baseline for this dissertation. First, both

Wing and Cannarozzi show that mollusks and coral reef fish were the most abundantly procured animals at En Bas Saline, and that overall taxa abundance was variable between and among taxa. Second, both Wing and Cannarozzi suggest that environmental conditions and natural patterns of animal availability and general biology

(e.g. animal size and habitat preference) influenced variability in taxa abundance. Third,

Cannarozzi and Wing assert that faunal patterning can be generalized according to pre- assumed social contexts of elite and non-elite site space. As discussed below and in forthcoming chapters, in this new study of the En Bas Saline faunal assemblage and datasets, variability in taxonomic abundance is approached based on the maintenance of spatial and contextual integrity, and intra-site comparisons between and among contexts within and across site areas (i.e., Gardens). Also, assumptions of social context are critically used in light of understandings and ideas of pre-contact pre-

Columbian Taíno sociality. Adding to the environmentally and economically focused

works of Wing and Cannarozzi, as well as the socially oriented synthesis of Deagan, this study presents a complementary perspective and interpretation of faunal patterning, contributing to a more holistic understanding of social complexity among the Taíno of

En Bas Saline.

Methods of Excavation and Zooarchaeological Specimen Recovery

As explained by Deagan (2003), excavations at En Bas Saline were based on a

Cartesian grid system. Site locations were demarcated by “Gardens” that corresponded with existing village garden plots during field work. Within each village plot, excavation units were tied into a central datum point and named according to the location coordinates of the southwest corner.

Excavations proceeded according to either 5 cm or 10 cm arbitrary levels within a natural soil strata. Three soil zones were identified across En Bas Saline, each indicative of the stratigraphic history of the site (Deagan 2003) (Table 3-3). Zone 2 represents the approximately 300 year history of the Taíno village at En Bas Saline. As described by Deagan (2003:4), Zone 2 “is demarcated by the presence of features and intrusions, that appear to cluster at two levels: 1) directly beneath the plow zone, intruding into the top of Zone 2, and 2) close to the base of Zone 2, intruding into the underlying soil.” Overall, there is no further stratification in Zone 2 to allow for diachronic analysis. Zone 3 appears to represent the “pre-occupation or initial occupation ground surface” (Deagan 2003:5).

The excavation strategy at En Bas Saline treated each archaeological context as a discrete spatial unit of analysis. The recording of site location information included year of excavation, garden plot, north and east coordinates, and unit or trench number.

Specific provenience information included soil zone, record of feature or area, level of

excavation, and horizon. Horizon designations refer to temporally sensitive stages evident in the soil stratigraphy. Horizon A, is a plow zone approximately 20-25cm deep extended over the entire site. For the purposes of this dissertation, three horizons are important. Horizon B1 represents the post-contact historic occupation of En Bas Saline.

Horizons B2 and B3 represent the pre-contact or pre-Columbian Taíno occupation of the site. Horizon B2 is present within soil Zone 2, and Horizon B3 is associated with cultural intrusions into soil Zone 3.

Excavated matrix was screened through 1/4-inch screen for the recovery of artifacts, including faunal remains. Sub-samples were processed through flotation or

1/16-inch screen for the recovery of smaller constituents. In regard to the recovery of faunal materials, Cannarozzi’s (2003) study of two 2-liter bulk samples from Feature 62

(reported as Area 1 at the time of Cannarozzi’s report) in Garden P, processed through

1/16-inch screen mesh (or fine screen), did not find a significant increase in taxa recovery or diversity in comparison to ¼-inch processed materials. Only two additional vertebrate taxa not included in the ¼-inch samples were identified in the bulk samples, half beaks (Hemiramphidae) with 9 NISP and 3 MNI, and silver perch (Bairdiella sp.) with 1 NISP and 1 MNI. Two invertebrate land snail families not recovered in ¼-inch samples were identified in the bulk samples as well, awlsnails (Pupillidae) with 93 NISP and 64 MNI, and Sublinidae (no common name) with 73 NISP and 55 MNI.

At the time of excavation, all recovered archaeological materials were recorded and bagged by field provenience and assigned a field specimen number (FS#). The site location and provenience information for all collected archaeological materials was later entered into a comprehensive database including an additional category of “assumed

functions” for excavated areas. The assignment of assumed functions provided a contextual category of data and information organization related to past human activities at the site. Categories of assumed function relevant to this study include: sheet deposits

(i.e., sheet midden), and features labelled big post, pit, and feast pit. Per stratigraphic observations made in the field during excavation, sheet deposits are representative of gradual accumulation processes, while features represent punctuated events. With the use of the En Bas Saline database, it is possible to maintain the integrity of the depositional history of all archaeological remains, including the faunal samples, as observed in the field.

Deagan’s excavations and sampling strategies at En Bas Saline were designed to produce as comprehensive a picture as possible about past life at En Bas Saline, and as a result the recovery of zooarchaeological materials focused not only on collecting temporally sensitive faunal samples, but spatially discrete faunal samples as well.

Deagan collected all ¼-inch recovered faunal remains from all excavated sediments.

The spatially oriented excavation strategy employed by Deagan at En Bas Saline provides an ideal foundation for the zooarchaeological study of intra-site patterns relating to past activities involving the use and role of animals; such as feasting, food preparation, and perhaps most accessibly patterns of deposition (e.g., Atalay and

Hastorf 2006; Lightfoot et al. 1998).

Additionally, at this point it is worth noting that when collecting faunal remains it is important to remember that what is recovered is only a sample and will not contain every species ever present or exploited during site occupation (Grayson 1984:116). The composition of the sample is a “cultural product” and not a direct reflection of all taxa

available for exploitation (Emery and Thornton 2012:206). Ideally, the sample should be large enough to show the composition or character of the population or area being studied (Grayson 1984:117; Newsom and Wing 2004:7), or suitable to addressing the guiding research question (Lyman 1994, 2012). Several zooarchaeologists have discussed or argued for the refinement of recovery techniques, emphasizing the need to screen fauna samples through finer screen mesh than ¼-inch, with a push for 1/8-inch or even 1/16-inch for the adequate recovery of zooarchaeological materials (Emery

2004; Gordon 1993; James 1997; Lyman 2012; Newsom and Wing 2004:7; Palmiotto

2011; Quitmyer 2003, 2004; Shaffer and Sanchez 1994; Wake 2004; Wing and Brown

1979:7; Zohar and Belmaker 2005). However, Grayson (1984:117) cautions that the ambiguity of adequate sample size, recovery techniques, and the effects of taphonomy may mislead zooarchaeologists to dismiss “small” assemblages as insufficient in favor of “presumably sufficient” larger samples.

The Zooarchaeological Samples

A Collections-Based Study: Data Generation, Access, and Permission

This dissertation is a collections-based study utilizing primary and secondary data from previous zooarchaeological analyses as well as generating new primary and secondary data from unanalyzed curated faunal collections. The zooarchaeological materials included in this dissertation are vertebrate and invertebrate faunal remains excavated from En Bas Saline during the 1984, 1985, 1988, and 2003 field seasons.

The faunal materials are currently curated at the Florida Museum of Natural History in the Environmental Archaeology and Historical Archaeology Laboratories. The previously recorded zooarchaeological identifications and data are archived in the Environmental

Archaeology Laboratory.

100

The majority of previous zooarchaeological identifications and analysis used in this study was conducted or supervised by Dr. Elizabeth Wing (FLMNH Curator

Emeritus) or conducted by Nicole Cannarozzi (Department of Anthropology, University of Florida). The proposed analysis and use of previous data records has been approved by Dr. Kitty Emery (Associate Curator of Environmental Archaeology) as well as Dr.

Deagan (Distinguished Curator of Historical Archaeology Emeritus), and has the support of Dr. Wing and Mrs. Cannarozzi.

A Collections Based Study: Parameters and Considerations of Study

The research questions posed in this dissertation were formulated long after

Deagan’s field work at En Bas Saline. As is the case for all archaeological research, and in particular museum or collections based studies, the questions asked of the materials must account for biases and parameters introduced during past excavation that necessarily shaped the resulting archaeological assemblage. The questions guiding this study were developed for the site of En Bas Saline and the faunal assemblage specifically; with full consideration of the excavation strategy and screening method

(e.g., Atici et al. 2013).

The major points of consideration taken into account when assessing the use of the En Bas Saline data and collections for this dissertation were both logistical and methodological. First, the reality is that at the present time and the foreseeable future, there are no plans for additional excavations or faunal sampling at En Bas Saline.

Simply put, the samples that are available are the only samples available. Second, all faunal materials from all proveniences, including those selected for use in this dissertation, are yet to be analyzed in entirety. Therefore, the faunal assemblage was

101

sub-sampled based on Deagan’s methodological focus on spatial units of analysis, aiming for sample representation from as many site areas and contexts as possible.

This sub-sampling strategy allows for the use of spatially discrete contexts as the units of comparison for the faunal data – this is the methodological key to studying intra- site patterning. The description of the archaeological proveniences and the nature of the faunal samples analyzed and compared across the site is transparent and as detailed as possible. Furthermore, there is no analytical combination of faunal data across contexts of sample recovery (e.g., pit features, post hole features, and sheet midden).

The combining of samples is based on shared contexts of deposition within each garden. Potential biases related to differential sample sizes are mitigated by approaching the sizes of specific contexts as variables of intra-site patterning. Following

Lyman (2003), doing so will eliminate the effects of “space averaging” often introduced through analytical lumping of results and assessments of sample size adequacy.

Finally, in regards to the screening method used at En Bas Saline and the composition of the zooarchaeological samples recovered, I reference Lyman’s

(2012:1860) recent conclusion “that not only is the appropriateness of a particular screen mesh size dependent on the particular deposit being sampled and the materials that deposit contains, but it should be dependent on the research question asked of that deposit and its materials.” At En Bas Saline, Deagan’s screening strategy was appropriate for the questions driving her research (as reviewed above), and are for the purposes of this dissertation as well. Deagan consistently used ¼-inch screen and as a result all faunal samples used in this study are comparably consistent in regards to artifact recovery.

102

Furthermore, as described by Deagan, the screening strategy used as En Bas

Saline was also a matter logistics and resource availability. At the time of excavation there was not water available for pumping or bucket transport within several kilometers of the site. Also, the clayey constitution of the soils did not lend itself to easy or fluid screening, often resulting in small, hard, little balls of clay. The pressure necessary to have pushed the clay balls through smaller than ¼-inch screen mesh would have been highly destructive to the archaeological artifacts (Kathleen Deagan, personal communication).

The goal of the proposed study is not environmental reconstruction, not to provide a comprehensive understanding of animal exploitation at En Bas Saline nor is it to assess how animal exploitation changed over time or how exploitation may have impacted local faunal populations and habitats – in each question (all of which are among the more prominent questions asked of faunal samples in Caribbean archaeology), fine screening would be preferred and likely necessary. However, the main question of how zooarchaeological patterns of animal remains may or may not differ across En Bas Saline according to context is answerable with the existing faunal data and sub-sampling strategy. The results only speak to the taxa presently recovered and identified.

Zooarchaeological Sample Selection

The zooarchaeological data referenced in this dissertation, including both archived and newly generated observations and values, are based on faunal samples from selected site areas and proveniences across En Bas Saline (Figure 3.4). The criteria for sample selection are listed in Table 3-4. Samples were selected for temporal consistency prior to Spanish contact (Table 3-5), spatial coverage across the site, and

103

contextual variation. The samples selected for inclusion in this study are listed in Table

3-6. In all 34 selected samples of both the vertebrate and invertebrate materials are included.

Following Deagan’s “assumed function” assignments, fauna from events including three feast pit features, four large posts, one trench-like feature, and two pits are included in the study, as well as materials from four sheet deposit areas (i.e., midden) (Figure 3-5). The samples from Gardens C and E are from sheet deposits and features associated with the center of the plaza-like area. Samples from Gardens B, N, and P are from periphery or boundary areas of the open plaza-like area and the subterranean sheet deposit.

Because Deagan’s research agenda at En Bas Saline aimed toward the identification of a Spanish settlement, the majority of past excavations were focused on the center of the site, primarily in Garden E. Such focus was guided by ethnohistorical accounts and descriptions of La Navidad, especially the use of a chiefly structure or residence by the Spanish believed to be located in the center of the village. As a result, more faunal samples from the center of the site have been studied in previous zooarchaeological work.

In order to compensate for this source of spatial bias, in this study faunal samples from boundary or periphery areas are included with a particular emphasis on samples from Gardens P and N. As described below, excavations from Garden P produced a large amount of faunal materials, and several samples are included in this analysis. Also, because this dissertation addresses intra-site variability, site areas

104

producing few or small amounts of faunal material are included and significant as well

(e.g., Garden B).

Selected Samples and Provenience Descriptions

The proveniences and contexts of the faunal samples selected for use in this dissertation are described below. The information is organized according to Garden boundary followed by FS#(s). All provenience, soil, feature, and context descriptions are based on Deagan’s 2003 field report and original field notes and excavation record forms on file in the Historical Archaeology Laboratory at the Florida Museum of Natural

History. The summary of non-faunal artifacts and materials included in the selected sample proveniences and associated with the faunal remains are based on original analysis forms and digital database, both of which are all on file in the Historical

Archaeology Laboratory at the Florida Museum of Natural History.

Garden B samples

Three faunal samples are from Garden B. Excavations in Garden B were located next to the plaza area on the southern side of the earthen ridge running along the northern boundary of the site. The remains of a “circular or oval structure of Taíno origin, measuring approximately eight meters in diameter” (Deagan 2003:5) was discovered. Archaeological evidence of this structure included a “shallow wall trench, two large postmolds containing charcoal, and six smaller posts following the structure walls” (Deagan 2004:5).

FS# 7611, 7615, 7889. FS#’s 7611 and 7615 are from sheet midden among the several post features discovered in the Garden B excavations. The samples are from

Zone 2 characterized as medium grey brown sandy loam. FS#’s 7611 and 7615

105

produced very low artifact and material densities and diversity; with only bone, shell, and charcoal recorded.

FS# 7889 was excavated from within Feature 52 (Figure 3-6). Feature 52 was a large circular feature with evidence of a burn. Feature 52 represents one of the two large postmolds excavated, the other designated as Feature 50. Feature 52 is described in field notes as “definitely being outside of Feature 50, so maybe a second, much larger building is represented [by] this post” (Original Field Notes, Historical

Archaeology, Florida Museum of Natural History). Feature 52 began in Zone 2 and intruded into Zone 3, finally ending in sterile dark brown dense clay; extending from approximately 48-113 cmbd. Around 73 cmbd, the feature contained grey colored clay that exhibited signs of thermal alteration. FS# 7889 was recovered right above the thermal layer between 63-73 cmbd.

Ultimately, Feature 52 was described as “probably a post first then filled with trash, after post burning or removal, because it does not have enough garbage in it

(relative to its large size) to be a strictly trash pit” (Original Field Notes, Historical

Archaeology, FLMNH). Associated artifacts and materials from FS# 7889 include

Carrier or Carrier plain pottery (n=15) and charcoal.

Garden C samples

Five faunal samples from Garden C are included in the study. The samples are from three features located north of the eastern-most mound and south of the earthen ridge. In this dissertation, the eastern-most mound is referred to as Mound 1. The features are situated in the open plaza area and are not directly associated with Mound

1. The features were encountered in Zone 2, beneath approximately 20 cm of midden deposit.

106

During excavation, the features were designated Feature 10, 11, and 15 respectively. Feature 10 was initially interpreted as a trash heap thrown on top of

Feature 11. Feature 11 was initially interpreted as fill associated with a cooking hearth.

Feature 11 had “a complex stratigraphy, including lenses of ash and clay, as well as features containing cultural materials” (Cusick 1989:8). Feature 15 was also initially thought to be a cooking hearth and described as stratigraphically complex as well, containing heterogeneous soil colors and textures.

Post field-work research revealed that Features 11 and 15 were contemporaneous based on pottery cross-mends across the features, and that both features represent single deposition events (Cusick 1989; Deagan 2004). “The pits were rectangular and straight sided, measuring approximately one by two meters, and extending to a depth of more than 1.5 meters” (Deagan 2004:608). Deagan (2004) interprets the features and the associated archaeological artifacts and materials as the results of feasting.

FS# 6306. FS# 6306 was recovered from Feature 10 (Figure 3-7). Feature 10 was interpreted as “a trash deposit over a hearth” where “the fill of the feature bottoms out into concentrated ash (grey) [that] extends under the entire feature” (Original Field

Notes, Historical Archaeology, FLMNH). Extending from 1.95 mbd to approximately

2.05 mbd, Feature 10 consisted of shallow, densely packed shell, bone, and artifacts.

Associated artifacts from FS# 6306 are Carrier or Carrier plain pottery fragments

(n=449), containing five shallow bowl, four carinated bowls, and 20 water bottle fragments, one jar sherd, and three adornos (one of which is zoomorphic). Carrier white slipped water bottle fragments (n=62), 30 griddle fragments, as well as three Meillac

107

pottery fragments are recorded. Additional associated artifacts and materials include basalt, chert debitage, clay, coral, limestone and rock.

FS#’s 6316, 6324. FS#’s 6316 and 6324 are from Feature 11, directly beneath

Feature 10 (Figure 3-7 and 3-8). Beginning with an overlying ashy layer, Feature 11 was an ashy matrix with shell concentrations that extended to 2.90 mbd. The feature was characterized by large amounts of artifacts and bone. FS# 6316 was recovered from within the ashy matrix. Associated artifacts and materials include Carrier or Carrier plain pottery fragments (n=222) with four shallow bowl, eight water bottle, and 11 griddle fragments and one jar and carinated bowl fragment. Carrier white slipped pottery consisted of 18 water bottle fragments. In addition, one coral metate fragment, basalt, coral, limestone, sandstone, quartz, clay, and rock were recorded.

FS# 6324 was recovered from the base of the feature where the ashy matrix extended into subsoil. There is a lower density of associated artifacts and materials; including Carrier or Carrier plain pottery fragments (n=58) with two carinated bowl fragments, two jar fragments, and one bowl fragment. Carrier white slipped water bottle fragments (n=5) were also recovered along with one griddle fragment and one piece of

Meillac pottery. Clay, coral and sandstone also were collected.

FS#’s 6751, 6752. The following FS#’s are from Feature 15 (Figure 3-9 and 3-

10). Feature 15 was composed of variable soil colors and textures. FS# 6751 was from a “gold colored circle or postmold in the center [of Feature 15]” (Original Field Notes,

Historical Archaeology, FLMNH), that emerged at approximately 2.23 mbd. The circular area was observed to be surrounded by a circle of coffee melampus (Melampus coffeus) shells about two cm in depth (from 2.23 mbd to 2.25 mbd) (Figure 3-11). By

108

2.34 mbd the snail shells were no longer present, and West Indian top snail (Cittarium pica) shells became more prominent and are accompanied by half of a Carrier pottery bowl in situ. Associated artifacts and materials are Carrier or Carrier plain pottery fragments (n=195) including two shallow bowl and 25 jar fragments. Carrier white slipped pottery includes one fragment and 32 water bottle fragments. Eight griddle sherds were recovered, and materials including basalt, clay, coal, limestone and sandstone.

FS#’s 6752, was excavated from the lower portions of Feature 15. At 2.34 mbd, the feature was observed to markedly dip deeper in the center. The soil was transitioning into a tan clayey texture. FS# 6752 was recovered from this deeper center of the feature and included Carrier or Carrier plain pottery fragments (n=34), 27 of which were jar fragments. Carrier white slipped water bottle fragments (n=71) and six griddle sherds were recovered. Also, six granite griddle fragments were collected. Clay, coral, limestone and quartz materials also were recovered.

Garden E samples

Nine faunal samples are from Garden E. Excavations in Garden E have focused on the eastern-most mound at En Bas Saline. Mound 1 “has a complex stratigraphy, including lenses of ash and clay, as well as features containing cultural material, continuing to a depth of two meters” (Cusick 1989:8). Historic era European artifacts and features yielding post-contact radiocarbon dates suggest this mound was occupied and/or used by both the Taíno and Spanish explorers. It appears that two structures once stood on the mound; one dating to ca. AD 1300 and the other to ca. AD 1492-

1500 (Deagan 2003).

109

In regards to evidence of the pre-Columbian Taíno occupation and use of the site area and mound, excavations have revealed “a very large Taíno building at the apex of the mound” (Deagan 2003:6). “This building was approximately 15 meters in diameter, supported by massive wooden posts that burned intensively during the very early post- contact period” (Deagan 2003:6). The Zone 2 and 3 deposits in the area are characterized by dense concentrations of artifacts and cultural materials. In addition, there are several post-hole features and trenches on the north side of the mound, however further research is necessary before interpreting the significance of these features (Deagan 2003:6).

FS#’s 3751, 3752, 3792, 3817, 3821, 3834. The following samples are all from sheet deposit contexts in Garden E and associated with Mound 1. FS# 3751 was retrieved from sheet midden deposit among a parallel configuration of probable post molds (Figure 3-12). Associated artifacts and materials include a small amount of

Carrier or Carrier plain pottery (n=4), one Carrier white slipped water bottle fragment, and some limestone and rock fragments.

FS#’s 3792, 3817, 3821, and 3834 were all recovered from sheet midden deposits containing probable post molds and post holes as well. FS# 3792 associated artifacts and materials include Carrier or Carrier plain pottery (n=7), two Carrier white slipped water bottle fragments, one incised pottery bat adorno, and limestone and rock fragments. Excavation eventually revealed that the sample was deposited over several post holes and a small pit with a small post mold exposed at the bottom.

Similarly, FS#’s 3817 and 3821 are sheet midden deposits excavated from among several post molds and/or post holes all present in the same test unit. Artifacts

110

and materials from FS#’s 3817 and 3821 consist of Carrier or Carrier plain pottery

(n=45) including one shallow bowl and one bowl fragment, some Carrier white slipped fragments (n=4), Carrier white slipped water bottle fragments (n=4), and coral, limestone, sandstone, and rock. FS# 3834 is from a sheet deposit among post molds too, but the field notes indicate that associated artifacts are less plentiful compared to the contexts of recovery for FS#’s 3817 and 3821. Within FS# 3834, the associated artifact and material patterning remains consistent for the site area with Carrier or

Carrier plain pottery (n=13), one Carrier white slipped pottery fragment and miscellaneous rock.

FS# 3752 is also from the Mound 1 associated sheet midden. However, this sample is not associated with any securely defined features. Associated artifacts and materials are dominated by Carrier or Carrier plain pottery (n=29) including one shallow bowl fragment, one Carrier white slipped sherd, one griddle fragment, as well as limestone and rock.

FS#’s 6730, 6789, 7469. The following FS#’s represent samples recovered from features associated with Mound 1. FS# 6730 was recovered from Feature 14, an area of lighter brown, clayey soil with ash and shell extending from 1.30 mbd to 1.39 mbd.

Feature 14 was in direct association with a “big post” used to support the large structure that once sat on top of the mound (Figure 3-13). Artifact and material types recovered in

FS# 6730 are dominated by Carrier or Carrier plain pottery (n=82), with three Carrier white slipped water bottle fragments, 3 griddle fragments, and one zoomorphic adorno.

In addition, a few pieces of quartz and chert debitage, as well as coral, limestone, sandstone, basalt and rock fragments were collected.

111

FS# 6789 was excavated from within Feature 16 in direct association with a wide, trench like feature (Figure 3-14). The soil was a mottled dark brown color with many clam shells present, extending from 1.97 mbd to 2.22 mbd. Parts of the overall trench contained large amounts of bivalve shell. The feature has been interpreted as

“structural debris” related to the construction of the trench. Associated artifacts and materials are Carrier or Carrier plain pottery fragments (n=125) including one jar fragment, 2 shallow bowl fragments, and one carinated bowl fragment. Carrier white slipped water bottle fragments (n=26), six griddle pieces, and fragments of basalt, clay, coral, sandstone, limestone and rock were also recorded.

FS# 7469 was from Feature 49, a “big post” composed of layers of “fill” made up of ash, shells, charcoal, daub, and bone, with a “circle of small conch shells” near the base of the feature (Original Field Notes, Historical Archaeology, FLMNH) (Figure 3-15).

The feature extended from approximately 1.65 mbd to 3.17 mbd. Parallel to the big post were seven post molds. The soil was described as medium grey brown in color, with areas of darker or lighter soil interspersed. The soil configuration was interpreted at the time of field work as indicative of fill materials. FS# 7469 was excavated from the “fill.”

Associated artifacts and materials are Carrier or Carrier plain pottery fragments (n=154) consisting of 14 jar fragments and one shallow bowl fragment, and Carrier white slipped water bottle fragments (n=25). Daub, chert debitage, coral, clay, limestone, and rock fragments also were recovered.

Garden N samples

Eight samples are from Garden N. Excavations in Garden N focused on the western-most mound in the plaza area of En Bas Saline. As described by Deagan

(2003:5), “this area contained some of the densest cultural deposits excavated at the

112

site. This was particularly pronounced at the mound’s highest elevation.” In addition to the density of artifacts, postmolds and large pits were uncovered originating in Zone 2.

Descriptions of Zone 2 suggest it was composed of both dark brown loamy clay and greyish brown compact loam with clay (Original Field Notes, Historical Archaeology.

FLMNH). Two pit features were encountered within approximately one meter of each other, Features 60 and 55.

FS#’s 7796, 7853, 7868, 7869. FS#’s 7796, 7853, 7868, and 7869 are from Zone

2 sheet midden deposits associated with the mound. FS# 7796 was recovered from greyish brown compact loam clay between 30-35 cmbd. The sample was among possible postmold features. Associated artifacts and materials are Carrier white slipped pottery (n=3), daub, coral, rock, and a drill made of human tooth.

FS#’s 7853, 7868, and 7869 were excavated from dark brown loamy clay within very dense midden near the mound. Associated artifacts and materials from FS#’s 7853 and 7869 included Carrier or Carrier plain pottery (n=49) and Carrier white slipped pottery (n=9), as well as coral, daub, and rock. FS# 7868 was from the top of the mound proper and described as having a “high artifact count” (Original Field Notes, Historical

Archaeology, FLMNH). From FS# 7868, associated artifacts and materials are Carrier or Carrier plain pottery (n=55), Carrier white slipped water bottle fragments (n=17), one griddle fragment, as well as stone debitage and rock.

FS#’s 7885, 7886, 7798, 7799. The following FS#’s are from Features 55 and

60, representing pits. Feature 60 was a pit containing faunal and artifact remains extending 25-53 cmbd through Zone 2 into Zone 3, and surrounded by four possible postmolds (Figure 3-16). At the base of the feature, a small dark circle was apparent in

113

the NW of the feature, possibly representing a past post (Original Field Notes, Historical

Archaeology, FLMNH). The samples from FS#’s 7885 and 7886 were recovered consecutively within Feature 60, from 35-40 and 40-45 cmbd respectively. The soil was characterized as black/dark brown/brown friable loamy clay and dark brownish yellow coarse sand. Associated artifacts and materials from FS#’s 7885 and 7886 include

Carrier or Carrier plain pottery (n=17), Carrier white slipped pottery (n=5), coral, and daub.

FS#’s 7798 and 7799 are consecutive samples from Feature 55, extending from

45-55 and 55-65 cmbd (Figure 3-17). Feature 55 is a pit described as rich in artifacts within an artifact rich matrix. The feature began in Zone 2 and extended to Zone 3, from yellow brown loamy clay to light grey brown coarse sand. During excavation, an intrusion was evident on the east side of the feature. Feature 55 was described as a

“large pit likely for [a] post, or large trash pit, intruded by a secondary pit possibly to repair or remove post” (Original Field Notes, Historical Archaeology, FLMNH). Also, a corresponding feature was uncovered one meter south of Feature 55. Associated artifacts and materials include Carrier or Carrier plain pottery (n=29) with 2 water bottle fragments, one Carrier white slipped fragment, one griddle fragment, coral, daub, rock and fulgurite.

Garden P samples

Excavation in Garden P focused on the western portion of the site with the aim of investigating the subsurface midden area. The midden was found to be approximately

40 cm deep over sterile subsoil, “containing moderate amounts of cultural and dietary remains “(Deagan 2003:6). At the base of the midden, protruding in to the subsoil, several post features were uncovered. One large pit/post feature, designated Feature

114

62, was found to be surrounded by “several smaller postmolds arranged in a roughly oval area about 3 meters in diameter” (Deagan 2003:6).

FS#’s 7932, 7934, 7943, 7947. The following FS#’s are from the Zone 2 sheet midden deposits associated with Feature 62. The soil was recorded as dark grey-brown and clayey (Original Field Notes, Historical Archaeology, FLMNH). FS# 7943 was recovered from 20-30 cmbd. Associated artifacts include two griddle fragments. FS#

7932 was recovered from 20-35 cmbd, containing Carrier or Carrier plain pottery fragments (n=124), charcoal, and rock. FS# 7934 was excavated from 35-40 cmbd.

Associated artifacts and materials are Carrier or Carrier plain (n=29) pottery fragments, four Carrier white slipped fragments, daub, and rock. FS# 7947 was recovered from 40-

50 cmbd.

FS#s 7948, 7950, 7952, 7954, 7957. The following FS#’s are all from Feature 62, a very large “pit” (Figure 3-18). The feature was “roughly circular, ca. 90-1.0 m in diameter” the feature soil was characterized as “very dark grey-brown clayey humic soil with very heavy concentration of artifacts, shell, animal bone, [and] charcoal” (Original

Field Notes, Historical Archaeology, FLMNH). The soil within the feature did not contain any intrusions or stratigraphic complexity similar to that observed with Features 11 and

15.

The feature extended from 43 cmbd in Zone 2 to 1.11 mbd in Zone 3 through to sterile soil. At the base of Feature 63, a smaller pale grey circular soil stain extended bellow the “pit”. Overall, the feature was described as maybe being “a post overlaid by a trash pit, or a very large (ca. 1 m) diameter support post or hole for support post”

(Original Field Notes, Historical Archaeology, FLMNH).

115

The associated artifacts and materials for the FS#’s from Feature 62 are considered together due to the homogenous nature of the provenience stratigraphy of the feature, and lack of in-field observations suggesting different components of feature construction. FS#’s 7948, 7950, 7952, 7954, and 7957 contain mostly Carrier or Carrier plain pottery (n=198) with one water bottle and one carinated bowl fragment. Carrier white slipped pottery (n=14), griddle fragments (n=5), as well as rock, daub, coral and stone debitage were recovered. One stone tool and one coral tool also were collected.

Taphonomic Considerations

Per discussions with Kathy Deagan and the review of original field notes and records, the level of taphonomic disturbance across the En Bas Saline site can be considered relatively consistent. The stratigraphic consistency and contextual integrity across the site is remarkable given the history of human occupation at En Bas Saline

(Kathleen Deagan, personal communication). Contemporary farming practices have impacted the upper layers of soil at En Bas Saline, these were designated as part of

Horizon B1. As described in Chapter 3, the faunal materials used here are all from

Horizon B2 or B3.

In regards to site formation processes, the sheet deposit materials were likely deposited over time in more open air contexts than the feature materials. These materials were more likely impacted by processes of weathering, including movement through rain-wash or local pooling of rainwater, or secondary disturbance from scavenging animals and human foot traffic. Regardless, the sheet deposit soil zones are rather consistent in texture and coloring across the site. The features selected in this study all appear to represent single discrete depositional events. The perimeters of the

116

features used in this study were discovered intact without any noticeable post- depositional disturbances that may have impacted contextual integrity.

The “Social” Contexts of En Bas Saline

Finally, based on Deagan’s (2004) interpretations of site layout and social uses of space at En Bas Saline, as well as corroborating arguments from other scholars (e.g.,

Keegan 2007; Wilson 1990), I suggest the features and sheet deposits included in this study can be problematized as one of four presumed social contexts based on site location (Table 3-7 and Figure 3-19). One, the Garden E features (49, 14, and 16) and associated sheet deposits, are all associated with a structure on Mound 1, the likely location of a chiefly residence or household (Deagan 2004); thus they are in an elite or high social status context. Two, the Garden C features (10, 11, and 15), are located within the plaza area of the site, and therefore associated with a communally accessible space. Three, the Garden N features (55 and 60) and associated sheet deposits, are all associated with a structure on the slope of the western-most mound at the site. This area is north of the subterranean sheet midden along the western perimeter of the site.

The social context of this site area is a bit ambiguous based on its location away from the site center and the inclusion of a structure associated with, but not on top of, a mound. Therefore the social context is questionably designated as higher, but not necessarily chiefly, status (or HBNC). Four, the Garden P feature (62) and sheet deposit are all associated with a roughly oval structure as well as the subterranean sheet midden along the southwestern boundary of the site. The social context of this site area is also a bit ambiguous, but based on its peripheral location, oval shaped structure, and midden proximity, it is considered to be of a lower status social context.

Similarly, the Garden B feature (52) and sheet deposit are associated with an oval-

117

shaped structure located along the northern periphery of the site next to the plaza area.

Although in close proximity to the plaza, the structure is not associated with a mound, and the area is questionably considered to be of a lower status social context as well.

Chapter Summary

The archaeological site of En Bas Saline, Hispaniola, is situated in an environmentally diverse natural setting. The site’s location in northern Haiti, just south of the Atlantic coast within the Plaine du Nord, and the tropical climate of the region was an ideal location for horticultural production and marine and riverine exploitation. As documented by Deagan and colleagues, the Taíno of En Bas Saline were able to access and choose from many different vertebrate and invertebrate taxa, as well as plant and tree varieties.

Archaeological investigations have revealed that the village at En Bas Saline was roughly circular, bounded by a culturally constructed earthen ridge and subterranean midden. An open plaza area, dotted by three mounds, has been tested archaeologically, exposing several features indicative of past structures and/or events. Both pre-

Columbian and early historic-era contexts have been discovered at En Bas Saline which, when combined with documentary and historic evidence suggests to Deagan that the village at En Bas Saline was possibly the site of La Navidad.

Deagan’s research strategy at En Bas Saline was and continues to be methodologically focused on household, or local, scales of excavation, sampling, and analysis. The spatial breadth of investigation has included both features and surrounding sheet deposits, conceptualized as single events and longer-term processes of deposition. Based on Deagan’s methodological strategy and interpretations, the

118

selection of faunal samples in this dissertation focuses on spatial and contextual diversity across the site for the purpose of studying intra-site patterning.

Contextually, the faunal samples used in this zooarchaeological study are from sheet midden deposits and features, including large posts and pits, as well as smaller posts and pits. All faunal materials are from pre-Columbian contexts. In addition, associated non-faunal artifacts and materials are summarized per sample. Analytically, the faunal identifications and data are derived from previous analysis of En Bas Saline faunal samples and newly generated results from analysis original to this dissertation specifically.

In conclusion, 34 faunal samples comprise this study. This chapter provides the background for the following presentation of both the methods of analysis and the zooarchaeological results, as well as the discussion of intra-site patterning and social contexts. The zooarchaeological data and patterns are products of En Bas Saline’s natural setting, the history of archaeological research, and the parameters of faunal sample selection.

119

Table 3-1. Zooarchaeological samples used in Wing's study, based on Table 1 in Wing (1991). F=Feature, L=Level, Z=zone. FS Garden North East Provenience 3745 E 964.5 1023 Area 1 3751 E 964.5 1015 Z2L1 3752 E 964.5 1015 Z2L1 3754 E 964.5 1023 Z2L2 3766 E 964.5 1009 Z1L4 3772 E 942 1019 Z2L1 3792 E 946 1017 Z2L2 3797 E 942 1017 Z1L3 3817 E 944 1017 Z1L3 3821 E 944 1017 Z2L4 3834 E 942 1019 Z2L3 3858 E 942 1017 F4L5 3860 E 942 1017 F6L4 3862 E 942 1017 F4L6 3864 E 942 1017 F4L7 3866 E 942 1017 F4L8 3881 E 942 1017 F4L9 3883 E 942 1017 F4L10 3885 E 942 1017 F4L11 3886 E 942 1017 F4L12 6302 C 1000 977 Z2L1 6305 C 1000 977 Z2L1 6306 C 1000 977 F10 6316 C 1000 977 F11 6324 C 1000 977 F11 6340 C 1000 977 post mold 6730 E 943.5 1000 F14 6750 C 1001.5 978 F15 6751 C 1001.5 978 F15 6752 C 1001.5 978 F15 6773 C 1001.5 978 F15 6789 E 943.5 1000 F16 7010 E 941.5 1000 F25 7017 E 941.5 1000 F25L1 7047 E 941.5 1003 F25L2 7469 E 941.5 1009 F49L3 7198 B 1101 970 F31L2 7199 B 1101 970 F31L1 7213 B 1101 970 F31L3

120

Table 3-1. Continued FS Garden North East Provenience 7214 B 1101 970 F33L4 7215 B 1101 970 F33L3 7332 B 1101 970 F31L4

121

Table 3-2. Zooarchaeological samples used in Cannarozzi's study, based on Table 1 in Cannarozzi (2003). F=Feature, L=Level, Z=zone. FS Garden North East Provenience 7948 P 950 1003 Area 1 L2-6 7950 P 842 840 Area 1 L2-6 7952 P 942 840 Area 1 L2-6 7954 P 942 840 Area 1 L2-6 7957 P 942 840 Area 1 L2-6 7959 P 942 840 Area 1 L2-6 7938 P 943 840 Area 1 L3,L6 7630 B 1080 983 F50, F52, L1,L3 7889 B 1080 979 F50, F52, L1,L3 7611 E 1080 986 Z2L2,L3 7615 E 1080 983 Z2L2,L3 7621 E 1080 986 Z2L2,L3 7627 E 1080 983 Z3L1, L2 7632 E 1080 986 Z3L1, L2 7647 E 1080 976 Z3L1, L2 7791 E 980 852 Z2L2, L4 7796 E 980 855 Z2L2, L4 7853 E 981 857 Z2L2, L4 7868 E 984 857 Z2L2, L4 7869 C 981 857 Z2L2, L4 7798 C 980 852 F55L2,L3 7799 C 980 852 F55L2,L3 7885 C 982 852 F60L2, L3 7886 C 982 852 F60L2, L3 7705 C 946 1011 F61L2, L4 7713 E 946 1011 F61L2, L4 7721 C 946.0 1011 F61L2, L4 7725 C 946.0 1011 F61L2, L4 7726 C 946.0 1011 F61L2, L4 7727 C 946.0 1011 F61L2, L4 7924 E 946 1011 F61L2, L4 7929 E 943 840 F61L2, L4

122

Table 3-3. Description of soil zones at En Bas Saline based on Deagan (2003). Zone Texture Color Description plow zone with a mixture of both modern and archaeological materials; archaeological clayey loam and materials likely representative of 1 humus grey-brown the latest Taíno occupation

large amounts of pre-Columbian cultural remains, including grey-brown to vertebrate and invertebrate 2 sandy-loam brown materials

tan or pale grey- brown; mottled with dark sand and a transitional soil zone between humic staining Zone 2 and sterile sub-soil; few 3 hard sandy clay from Zone 2 cultural remains present

123

Table 3-4. Criteria for zooarchaeological sample selection. Variable 1: Time Sample Population: B2, B3 Horizons Description: pre-Columbian

Variable 2: Space Sample Population: Garden B Description: Northern boundary, northeast ridge Sample Population: Garden C Description: center of site, plaza Sample Population: Garden E Description: center of site, mound Sample Population: Garden N Description: western boundary, midden Sample Population: Garden P Description: western boundary, midden

Variable 3: Context Sample Population: Garden B Description: sheet deposit, big post Sample Population: Garden C Description: feast pits Sample Population: Garden E Description: sheet deposit, big post, trench-like feature Sample Population: Garden N Description: sheet deposit, pit Sample Population: Garden P Description: sheet deposit, big post

124

Table 3-5. Chronometric dates of faunal sample proveniences and site areas. Conventional Field Radiocarbon Sample ID Provenience Context Description Material Age Cal. AD Yrs. ± 2φ 13C/12C 1280 Beta Feature 11, Garden C; Charred (1320,1340,1390) 18172 FS# 6316 Level 5 Feast Pit material 600 ± 70 BP 1440 -25

Beta Feature 11, Garden C; Charred 1330 (1340, 233344 FS# 6318 Level 6 Feast Pit material 510 ± 40 BP 1400) 1450 -12 Beta Feature 15, Garden C; Charred 232544 FS# 6751 Level 3 Feast Pit material 940 ± 50 BP 1320-1470 -4 Beta Feature 52, Garden B; 394018 FS# 7889 Level 3 Big Post Shell 1000 ± 30 BP 1310-1420 1.7 Beta Feature 55, 1050 ± 60 186950 FS# 7798 Level 2 Garden N, Pit Shell BP 1250-1430 -2.9 Beta Feature 60, Garden N; 394017 FS# 7885 Level 2 Pit Shell 1040 ± 30 BP 1295-1400 1.9 Beta Feature 62, Garden P, Charred 1320-1340, 1390- 186018 FS# 7957 Level 6 Big Post material 480 ± 60 BP 1500 -23.2

125

Table 3-6. Zooarchaeological samples for selected for analysis. The chronology of all proveniences fall between AD 1280-1500. Original Site FS Garden North East Unit Provenience Horizon Assumed Function Analyst EBS03 7611 B 1080 986 TT2 Z2L2 B2 SHEET DEPOSIT N.R.C. EBS03 7615 B 1080 983 TT2 Z2L2 B2 SHEET DEPOSIT N.R.C. EBS03 7889 B 1080 976 TT2 F52L3 B2 BIG POST N.R.C. EBS85 6306 C 1000 977 36 F10 B3 FEAST PIT E.S.W. EBS85 6316 C 1000 977 36 F11L5 B3 FEAST PIT E.S.W. EBS85 6324 C 1000 977 36 F11L8 B3 FEAST PIT E.S.W. EBS85 6751 C 1000 978 38 F15L3 B3 FEAST PIT E.S.W. EBS85 6752 C 1000 978 38 F15L4 B3 FEAST PIT E.S.W. EBS84 3751 E 964.5 1019 2 Z2L1 B3 SHEET DEPOSIT E.S.W. EBS84 3752 E 964.5 1015 3 Z2L1 B3 SHEET DEPOSIT E.S.W. EBS84 3792 E 946 1017 5 Z2L2 B2 SHEET DEPOSIT E.S.W. EBS84 3817 E 944 1017 7 Z2L2 B2 SHEET DEPOSIT E.S.W. EBS84 3821 E 944 1017 7 Z2L4 B3 SHEET DEPOSIT E.S.W. EBS84 3834 E 942 1019 6 Z2L3 B3 SHEET DEPOSIT E.S.W. EBS85 6730 E 943.5 1000 55 F14L1 B2 BIG POST E.S.W. STRUCTURAL E.S.W. EBS85 6789 E 943.5 1000 55 F16L3 B2 DEBRIS EBS88 7469 E 941.5 1009 68 F49L3 B2 BIG POST E.S.W. EBS03 7796 N 980 855 - Z2L2 B2 SHEET DEPOSIT N.R.C. EBS03 7798 N 980 852 - F55L2 B3 PIT N.R.C. EBS03 7799 N 980 852 - F55L3 B3 PIT N.R.C. EBS03 7853 N 981 857 - Z2L3 B3 SHEET DEPOSIT N.R.C. EBS03 7868 N 984 857 - Z2L3 B3 SHEET DEPOSIT N.R.C. EBS03 7869 N 981 857 - Z2L4 B3 SHEET DEPOSIT N.R.C. EBS03 7885 N 982 852 - F60L2 B2 PIT N.R.C. EBS03 7886 N 982 852 - F60L3 B2 PIT N.R.C. EBS03 7932 P 943 840 - Z2L1 B2 SHEET DEPOSIT M.J.L.

126

Table 3-6. Continued Original Site FS Garden North East Unit Provenience Horizon Assumed Function Analyst EBS03 7934 P 943 840 - L3 B2 SHEET DEPOSIT M.J.L. EBS03 7943 P 942 840 - L3 B2 SHEET DEPOSIT M.J.L. EBS03 7947 P 942 840 - L5 B2 SHEET DEPOSIT M.J.L. EBS03 7948 P 942 840 - A1L2 B2 BIG POST N.R.C. EBS03 7950 P 942 840 - A1L3 B2 BIG POST N.R.C. EBS03 7952 P 942 840 - A1L4 B2 BIG POST N.R.C. EBS03 7954 P 942 840 - A1L5 B2 BIG POST M.J.L. EBS03 7957 P 942 840 - A1L7 B2 BIG POST M.J.L.

127

Table 3-7. Assigned "social" contexts and social status affiliations of En Bas Saline site space. Presumed "Social" Context and Garden Archaeological Context Social Status Affiliations Features 49, 16, 14; Garden E E Sheet Deposit Elite, possibly chiefly status

C Features 10, 11, 15 Communal, multiple social statuses

Possibly high (i.e., elite) social Features 55, 60; Garden N Sheet context, but not necessarily chiefly N Deposit status (HBNC)

Feature 62; Garden P Sheet P Deposit Non-elite, lower social status

Feature 52; Garden B Sheet B Deposit Non-elite, lower social status

128

Figure 3-1. Image showing location of En Bas Saline along the north coast of Haiti. Image courtesy of Kathleen Deagan.

129

Figure 3-2. Aerial photograph showing location of En Bas Saline. Photo courtesy of Kathleen Deagan.

130

Figure 3-3. Black and white aerial photograph of the archaeological site of En Bas Saline with outline of archaeological village location and configuration. Refer to figure 3-4 for interpretation. Photo courtesy of Kathleen Deagan.

131

Figure 3-4. Site map of En Bas Saline showing location of Gardens, landscape features, and the locations of features and sheet deposits sampled in the study. Fea.= Feature; GBSD = Garden B Sheet Deposit; GESD = Garden E Sheet Deposit; GNSD = Garden N Sheet Deposit; GPSD = Garden P Sheet Deposit. Note the location of Mound 1 as the circular raised earth feature located in Garden E and including Features 14, 16, and 49.

132

Figure 3-5. Site map showing location of features and sheet deposits as demarcated by Deagan’s “assumed function” assignments. The green crosses indicate big post features, the pink diamonds indicate feast pit features, the blue triangles indicate pit features, the orange oval indicates a trench-like feature, and the yellow stars indicate sheet deposit areas.

133

Figure 3-6. Feature 52 profile, based on original field rendering. Image by Debra Wells.

134

Figure 3-7. Feature 11 profile including Feature 10, based on original field rendering. Image by Debra Wells.

135

Figure 3-8. Photograph of Feature 11 profile. Photo courtesy of Kathleen Deagan.

136

Figure 3-9. Feature 15 planviews, based on original field rendering. Image by Debra Wells.

137

Figure 3-10. Photograph of base of Feature 15. Photo courtesy of Kathleen Deagan.

138

Figure 3-11. Photograph of coffee melampus (Melampus coffeus) recovered from Feature 15. Photo courtesy of Kathleen Deagan.

139

Figure 3-12. Garden E sheet deposit planview, based on original field rendering. Image by Debra Wells.

140

Figure 3-13. Feature 14 planview, based on original field rendering. Image by Debra Wells.

Figure 3-14. Feature 16 profile, based on original field rendering. Image by Debra Wells.

141

Figure 3-15. Photograph of Feature 49 profile. Photo courtesy of Kathleen Deagan.

Figure 3-16. Feature 60 profile, based on original field rendering. Image by Debra Wells.

142

Figure 3-17. Feature 55 profile, based on original field rendering. Image by Debra Wells.

143

Figure 3-18. Feature 62 profile, based on original field rendering. Image by Debra Wells.

144

Figure 3-19. Map of En Bas Saline illustrating spatial locations of presumed “social” contexts across the site. The green circle indicates possibly elite and/or chiefly associated contexts, the pink circle indicates possibly communal associated contexts, the blue circle indicates possibly high, but not necessarily chiefly, associated contexts, and the orange circles indicate possibly non-elite or lower status associated contexts.

145

CHAPTER 4 METHODS OF ANALYSIS

This chapter discusses the methods and units of analysis used to generate the zooarchaeological results presented in Chapter 5 and the results of intra-site analysis in

Chapter 6. In the first sections, the methods of faunal specimen identification and zooarchaeological data calculation are presented, followed by the strategy of zooarchaeological data organization and aggregation. The challenges included in the use of multi-analyst datasets are discussed in regards to specimen identification, methods of quantification, and the organization of data.

The remaining portions of the chapter address the methods of data analysis and manipulation used to study intra-site patterning in faunal deposition across En Bas

Saline. The approach to statistical testing is reviewed. The challenges to the intra-site analysis posed by the use of a multi-analyst derived dataset are discussed in regards to levels of taxonomic identification and the creation of statistically testable datasets.

Multi-Analyst Datasets

As described in Chapter 3, this study is a collections-based project founded on the integration of zooarchaeological samples and datasets collected and generated over more than 20 years of research. The data presented in Chapter 5 is based on identifications and data from previous studies as well as more recent specimen identifications, primary analysis, and secondary analysis original to this dissertation.

There is thus a potential for analytical bias due to the use of data generated by multiple analysts over several decades, versus one consistent analyst.

As similarly argued by Gobalet (2001) and Wolverton (2013), faunal analyst biases, such as education level, experience, and access to a satisfactory comparative

146

skeletal collection, impact the quality of data observations and analysis. However, in regards to the En Bas Saline faunal assemblage, a high level of continuity in methods of analysis has been maintained between Wing, Cannarozzi, and myself. There are three sources of qualitative continuity between the new and previous identifications and analysis. One, all faunal specimens included in this research have been identified using comparative skeletal collections at FLMNH, including collections in Environmental

Archaeology, Mammalogy, and Ornithology. Two, analysis has been consistently performed, supervised, and/or mentored by one of two zooarchaeologists, Elizabeth

Wing or Susan deFrance (Department of Anthropology, University of Florida). And three, both Cannarozzi’s analysis and my analysis have necessarily benefitted from guidance provided by the list of taxonomic identifications generated by Wing’s work.

Consideration of the common FLMNH lineage of zooarchaeologists that have analyzed and studied the En Bas Saline fauna is not in and of itself a fail-safe measure against biases inherent to the work of individual analysts. Yet, I do think that access to the same resources and lineage of technical training have helped to mitigate or at the very least reduce some bias regarding specimen identification. Moreover, continued communication among the primary analysts, including Wing, Cannarozzi and myself has been instrumental in diminishing some of the negative impacts possibly affecting quality control as recently discussed by Wolverton (2013).

Despite the qualitative argument for decreasing the effects of multi-analyst bias, and the fact that all zooarchaeological data used in this study is based on standard zooarchaeological calculations and units of analysis (e.g., Grayson 1984; Reitz and

Wing 2008), discrepancies in data calculation and recording do exist. Therefore, in the

147

sections below each method and unit of analysis is outlined, the strategies of data organization and integration are explained, and the justification for combining and collapsing data are presented in an effort to contribute to more transparency in the evaluation of zooarchaeological quality control and quality assessment (Wolverton

2013). Moreover, all original multi-analyst generated data used in the study is on file with the Environmental Archaeology Program of the Florida Museum of Natural History.

Zooarchaeological Methods of Analysis

The methods and units of faunal specimen analysis and standard zooarchaeological calculation used in this study are described here. These include specimen identification, the number of individual specimens (NISP), weight, the minimum number of individuals (MNI), and diversity and equitability indices. Some of the challenges of data integration inherent to this study due to the multi-analyst nature of the generated data are highlighted. The steps taken to quantitatively mitigate the effects of multi-analyst biases are discussed in regards to each facet of zooarchaeological analysis.

Specimen Identification

All vertebrate and invertebrate specimen identifications were made in the

Environmental Archaeology Laboratory at FLMNH. The Environmental Archaeology

Laboratory houses the most extensive circum-Caribbean skeletal comparative collection available in the United States with over 11,000 modern specimens and associated biological data. Comparative skeletal and shell specimens from other collections at

FLMNH were used as well during analysis, including specimens from Mammalogy,

Ornithology, and Malacology. The taxonomic nomenclature used in this study is guided by the Integrated Taxonomic Information System available at http://www.itis.gov. Abbott

148

and Dance (2000) provided supplementary information and nomenclature guidance for bivalve and gastropod taxa.

Based on specimen morphology, anatomical landmarks, and other descriptive qualities, each En Bas Saline faunal specimen was individually analyzed for identification to the lowest taxonomic category possible. When a specimen could be identified to the level of genus, but not beyond, “sp.” was used to indicate that the specimen may belong to one of several species within a genus. The use of “cf.” denotes a likely, but not definitive, taxonomic identification based on high comparability between a zooarchaeological specimen and comparative specimen.

Specimen element, portion, and side was assigned in conjunction with taxonomic identification. Markers or qualities indicative of fauna age were also noted, such as the state of epiphyseal fusion or lack of fusion. When a specimen could not be identified as a particular element within the identified taxa represented, specimen elemental identification was limited to “fragment.”

In an effort to study patterns in elemental distribution of taxa across contexts, specimen elements identifiable beyond “fragment,” were grouped according to anatomical portion (Table 4-1). Vertebrate elements were grouped as either cranial or post-cranial. Among invertebrate elements, crustacean specimens were grouped as claw or body portions, bivalves as right or left valves, and gastropods as whole/nearly whole specimens or identifiable fragmented shell portions.

Also during taxonomic identification, any evidence of human or natural modifications to the specimens was noted. However, the recording of human or natural taphonomic modifications to vertebrate and invertebrate specimens in previous

149

analyses was largely limited to noting the presence or absence of burning. Notation as to the degree, or intensity, of burning through color was not consistently recorded.

Moreover, specimen erosion or modifications indicative of tool manufacture or use were not consistently recorded in previous analyses either. Therefore, the presence or absence of burning as noted in the new and previous analyses is the only measure of modification used in this study.

Number of Individual Specimens

The number of individual specimens is the preferred data count for quantifying sample composition, taxonomic abundance, and element and body proportion. It is also the unit used in intra-site comparisons. The approach to the calculation of NISP is consistent among all datasets, where the NISP was counted for each individual identifiable vertebrate or invertebrate element (e.g., femur, maxilla, umbo, apex, hinge, etc.). Also, all cross-mending bone or shell fragments were counted as representing 1 individual specimen (e.g., Reitz and Wing 2008:168).

However, there are discrepancies across datasets in the quantification of NISP among specimens identified as fragments. In some samples, fragment specimens are counted and included in overall taxa and sample NISP. In other samples, specimens identified as fragments are only quantified by weight, and do not contribute to taxa or sample NISP. Therefore, only NISP values for elemental identifications beyond fragment are included in NISP calculations, data analysis, and sample descriptions.

Although the calculation of NISP can be considered a simple count of individual specimens, the calculation does require some explanation as it can be problematic regarding accuracy in the measurement of taxa abundance (Cannon 2013; Lyman

1994; Reitz and Wing 2008:168). Due to potential taphonomic impacts on rates of

150

fragmentation within a zooarchaeological assemblage, the calculation of NISP can be problematical in the recognition of differential preservation and the identifiability of elements between and among species (Grayson 1984:20-21). Such difficulties can impact comparative calculations of taxa relative frequency, where some taxa may be falsely over or under represented in terms of bone or shell fragments.

Despite these analytical issues, NISP is the preferred unit of analysis for three reasons. First, NISP allows for relative frequency percentages and statistical analysis of specific categories of data; such as element portion, side, and age among and between spatially differentiated taxa (Reitz and Wing 2008:213, 216, 217). Accordingly, in this study, each faunal specimen is approached as an artifact in and of itself, rather than representative of a whole animal (e.g., MNI), allowing for the comparison of taxa body portions across different archaeological contexts. Second, because this study is based on samples from multiple features and site areas, and because the stratigraphic integrity of the archaeological record can be considered commensurate across the site,

NISP provides a strong unit of comparison without making assumptions about the larger taxonomic makeup within and between features or site areas sampled (e.g., Emery

2010:36-37). This makes NISP especially useful in comparisons of taxa relative frequencies between different sized contexts and faunal samples. Finally, following

Driver’s (1993:88) discussion regarding the suitability of NISP for the calculation of relative frequencies, NISP offers a comparatively less bias assessment of taxa abundance across fragmented faunal specimens than MNI. For example, 100 hundred individual parrotfish specimens may produce two MNI, and two individual pufferfish specimens may produce two MNI. At this point in the analysis of the En Bas Saline

151

faunal assemblage, it would problematic to attribute similar rates of relative abundance to the two fish taxa using MNI. Moreover, it is not yet clear how meat may have been shared across site contexts, impacting the distribution of individual animals and their bone or shell remains (e.g., Emery 2010).

Weight (g)

The weight of all faunal specimens is recorded in grams. The recording of weight was inconsistent between previously and recently analyzed samples. While all weight was calculated in grams (g), some samples were weighed to the tenth of a gram and others to the hundredth of a gram. Discrepancies in weight resolution were mitigated by the conversion of previous weights to the tenth of a gram. Weight is not used as a unit of comparison in this study.

Minimum Number of Individuals

MNI is the preferred count for comparing relative abundances of taxa when quantifying sample diversity and equitability (see below). The calculation of MNI is based on vertebrate and invertebrate specimen morphology, side, age, modification, and number (Giovas 2009; Reitz and Wing 2008:206). These variables are used in conjunction with known animal anatomy to discern the minimum number of individual animals possibly represented by skeletal remains. The MNI count is only calculated for the lowest taxonomic identification of a given animal within a sample.

All zooarchaeological analysis of En Bas Saline faunal samples followed the protocol for the calculation of MNI outlined above. MNI was calculated within sample proveniences. The integrity of sample MNI was maintained between previously and recently analyzed samples. In other words, MNI was not recalculated for previously recorded values. Following methods used by Wing (1991) in her previous study of En

152

Bas Saline fauna, MNI was not combined across proveniences. As Wing (1991) discusses, the potential bias of counting the same individual more than once, due to post-depositional movement, is in part alleviated across the En Bas Saline samples due to the overall small specimen size characteristic of the samples. The lack of evidence for significant post-depositional disturbance recorded in original field notes, especially among features, bolsters Wing’s reasoning.

Also, based on Deagan’s horizontal excavation and faunal sampling strategy,

Wing’s (1991) “maximum distinction” approach is also appropriate given that the selected samples are from spatially defined contexts recognized as representing either discrete, archaeologically defined and bound depositional events (i.e., features) or spatially differentiate gradual accumulations of materials (i.e., sheet deposits) (Reitz and

Wing 2008:208-209). While the maximum distinction approach does yield larger estimates of individual animal representation within the samples (versus minimum distinction approaches), this is not a significant issue given that the faunal samples are not combined across contexts. Furthermore, future analysis of entire context faunal assemblages will provide an opportunity to render more detailed and complete MNI calculations within and between proveniences across features and the site overall.

Sample Diversity and Equitability

Measurements of sample diversity and equitability indices are used to provide a general summary perspective of sample composition within and between sheet deposit and feature contexts across En Bas Saline. The diversity of a sample refers to the taxonomic richness of a sample based on the number of taxa present. In other words, diversity measures the distribution of abundance across taxa in a given sample (Reitz

153

and Wing 2008: 111). Equitability measurements assess the evenness of taxa distribution within a sample.

The taxonomic diversity of samples was calculated through the Shannon-Weaver function; where H' = diversity index, Pi = the relative abundance of the i th taxon within the sample, and s = the number of taxonomic categories (Reitz and Wing 2008:111):

The equitability of samples was calculated using the following equation; where V'

= the Shannon-Weaver function and s = the number of species (Reitz and Wing

2008:112):

Taxa Ubiquity

Taxa presence or absence across En Bas Saline was measured in terms of ubiquity. As described by VanDerwarker (2010:66), “This type of analysis is essentially a presence/absence analysis that measures the frequency of occurrence (as opposed to abundance), through measuring the number of samples in which a taxon was identified.” In this study, the contexts include all feature and sheet midden contexts.

Ubiquity is calculated by quantifying the percent of loci (i.e., archaeological contexts) within which taxa are present.

Zooarchaeological Data Organization and Aggregation

All faunal specimens were analyzed according to sample provenience and were not analytically combined across proveniences prior to data calculations (e.g., NISP,

MNI). After the initial analysis and calculations, the zooarchaeological data was

154

organized according to context based on feature (e.g., Feature 10) or site area sheet deposit designations (e.g., Garden B sheet deposit). From there data was aggregated across sample proveniences within specific contexts. The faunal data from discrete depositional events, or features, were not combined outside of shared feature boundaries. Likewise, sheet midden faunal materials were not combined outside of shared site areas, or Garden designations.

The organizational strategy behind the aggregation of the data was based on the research goals of the study. The combination of faunal data across sample proveniences while maintaining contextual integrity provides a basis from which to compare intra-site variability or similarity in faunal distribution without the risk of falsely over or under emphasizing taxa abundance per particular proveniences within a common feature or site area. For example, until the faunal materials from entire features are analyzed, an abundance of taxa in one sample from a feature not present in another sample from the same feature cannot be validated as significant outside the complete analysis of the entire feature faunal assemblage. Moreover, the structure of faunal remain deposition within features cannot be discussed without complete feature analyses. Therefore the aggregation of sample data from within shared contexts provides a basis for archaeologically contextualized comparison of trends in faunal deposition across En Bas Saline without privileging individual sample size and associated taxa abundance.

Methods of Intra-Site Analysis

The approaches to identifying and studying intra-site patterning in faunal deposition across En Bas Saline are described here, including the analytical combination of taxonomic identifications for statistical analysis. Focus is on taxonomic

155

abundance and body portion representation in terms of NISP and relative frequencies.

The challenges of using multi-analyst derived datasets in the study of intra-site patterning across samples and contexts are discussed, as well as the analytical methods used to counter such challenges.

Sample Size, Taxonomic Identification and Integration

Drawing on the zooarchaeological methods of analysis (and results presented in

Chapter 5), the approach to the organization of datasets for intra-site comparisons was a two-step processes. First, based on proportional relationships (i.e., relative frequencies) of taxa within classes, the most abundantly represented taxa in terms of

NISP were identified in each context. Relatively high raw NISP values of a taxa across all or a majority of contexts was not the sole basis for selecting the most abundant taxa.

Because the goal of intra-site analysis is obviously comparative, taxa presence or absence was an equally important variable of consideration because it indicates where a taxa is not abundantly represented in terms of relative frequency in all or most contexts, but rather in a more concentrated pattern between particular contexts.

Therefore, the taxonomic ubiquity data was used as a measure of presence or absence and provided an additional line of evidence for the identification of the most abundant taxa without privileging NISP abundance. Among the most abundant taxa and integrated taxonomic groups, ubiquity values of 36% (or 5 contextual loci) or greater were considered more abundant than those with smaller values.

Second, because variation in taxonomic identification among datasets generated by different analysts was a factor in assessing the most abundant taxa within contexts, identifications were integrated within the most encompassing and taxonomically refined group when possible and appropriate. This integration strategy admittedly does mask

156

some real lower level taxonomic variation (i.e., species) present in the samples.

However, it also effectively diminishes some of the taxonomic variation due to differential confidence among analysts in the recognition and identification of specimens. Yet perhaps the most significant benefit to this method of taxonomic integration is that it helps create datasets large enough to make statistical evaluations of faunal patterning across the site.

In particular, among the vertebrate taxa present in the En Bas Saline faunal assemblage, the taxonomic identification of ray-finned fishes (Actinopterygii) is perhaps the most susceptible to multi-analyst bias. This is due to the high taxonomic diversity of tropical fish populations, the corresponding high diversity of fish found in Caribbean zooarchaeological assemblages, and the similarities in skeletal morphology within some tropical fish families, genera, and species. Therefore, collapsing fish identifications to the family level is acceptable and empirically sound in regards to generating relative frequencies between taxa without over or under-emphasizing taxonomic variation that may be the result of multi-analyst bias in level of specimen identification.

Similar to ray-finned fishes, there is an appreciable amount of taxonomic diversity among tropical shellfish populations. Morphologically, there can be a high degree of overlap in similarity between bivalve and gastropod genera and species within a given family; making many taxa difficult to distinguish or identify without the preservation of the colors or patterns of the outer most shell layer. Taxonomic identification can also be problematic among sub-adult bivalve and gastropod individuals within a family.

Therefore, when necessary, collapsing bivalve and gastropod identifications is justified in regards to generating relative frequencies between shellfish taxa without over or

157

under-emphasizing taxonomic variation that may be the result of multi-analyst bias in level of specimen identification.

Finally, barnacle specimens are not included in intra-site data manipulation and study. It is not currently possible to determine whether or not the presence of barnacles within the faunal assemblage is a result of the exploitation of host animals that barnacles are commonly attached to (e.g., oysters), or the purposeful exploitation and use of the crustacean. The most parsimonious assumption is that barnacle remains are most likely incidental inclusions across contexts.

Statistical Analysis

The statistical analysis of data correlations across space are the basis for the identification and comparison of contextual patterns in faunal deposition at En Bas

Saline. In this study I use chi-square and Cohen’s w to evaluate whether non-random patterning exists in the distribution of zooarchaeological samples across space at En

Bas Saline. I then use Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to evaluate the correlations between space, taxonomic abundance, and overall faunal composition.

Chi-square

Using Pass 11 statistical software, chi-square tests were conducted to determine whether or not variability or differences in faunal taxonomic abundance distribution across site contexts is random or patterned (i.e., non-random). More precisely the chi- square test was used as a test of independence to assess whether paired observations

-- in this case taxa abundance and archaeological context -- are independent of each other. In the test, observed data are compared to expected values calculated according to the assumption that variables are independent (i.e., taxa abundance and archaeological context are not correlated and exhibit a random pattern). In order to

158

conduct chi-square tests, sample sizes of taxa across contexts had to meet a minimum expected value of 5 (McDonald 2014:86-89; Preacher 2001). The larger the differences between observed and expected values, the larger the chi-square value and the higher the likelihood that variables are dependent and that the null hypothesis (no correlation) can be rejected. From the chi-square value and the degrees of freedom (df), a probability (p-value) is calculated.

Cohen’s w

Cohen’s w is a common effect size measure used to evaluate chi-square results

(Cohen 1992; Wolverton et al. 2014). Effect size is described as an indicator of the impressiveness, magnitude, strength of the relationship, or practical significance of a statistical association (Burt and Barber 1996; Ellis 2010; Kirk 1996; Wolverton et al.

2014). It is an indicator of the “degree to which the null hypothesis is believed to be false” (Cohen 1992:152). As explained by Burt and Barber (1996:398), “The level of

[statistical] significance [alone] is not a good indicator of strength since it depends on the size of the sample.” Furthermore, as recently discussed by Wolverton et al. (2014), inferential statistical tests, such as chi-square, rely on assumptions of random sampling that are problematical in archaeological and zooarchaeological studies.

“In archaeology, the p-value of statistical results has no clear meaning; the archaeologist must assume that samples under study were influenced randomly by the vagaries of time, such as differential preservation and the effects of site formation processes on spatial distributions of remains and artefacts” (Wolverton et al. 2014).

Clearly, such assumptions are erroneous, and I agree with Wolverton et al.’s (2014) assertion that independent analysis of effect size is important “because of the latter’s

[i.e., statistical significance] fundamental link to random sampling.”

159

Using Cohen’s w test, the effect size of the chi-square results in this study were evaluated in terms of scale, where .1 is a small effect, .3 is a medium effect, and .5 is a large effect (Cohen 1992). In this study, effect size of the chi-square results indicate the impressiveness of the deviation of taxonomic abundance patterning from random. A large effect size suggests a strong or impressive relationship reflected in chi-square values of random or non-random patterning, and gives strength to the interpretive impressiveness of such values. Overall, Cohen’s w results were used to assess the chi- square values and to provide perspective regarding their practical significance in the interpretation of differential taxa abundance across En Bas Saline.

Principle Component analysis

Principle component analysis is a multivariate statistical technique designed to decrease the dimensionality of complex data sets. PCA involves transforming the data using eigenvector methods in order to determine the direction and magnitude of maximum variance in hyperspace defined by linear combinations of the original variables (Glascock 1992:17). The resulting transformation provides a new basis for describing the entire distribution without sacrificing much information (Glascock

1992:18). PCA is particularly useful in visualizing similarities and differences among samples by enabling simultaneous Q-mode and R-mode analyses, the former concerned with variables (e.g., taxa) and the latter dealing with objects (e.g., proveniences). These disparate categories can be simultaneously displayed on the same set of principal component axes (Neff 1994).

Each principal component (PC) determines the direction and the magnitude of maximum variance in the data (Glascock 1992:17; e.g., Wallis 2010). The first PC is oriented in the direction of maximum variance, while the second PC lies in the direction

160

of remaining variance oriented perpendicular to the first PC. The remaining PCs are in the direction of remaining maximum variance. In this study, PCA is used to identify and graphically illustrate the taxa that contribute the most to sample variance (e.g.,

VanDerwarker et al. 2007); thus, helping to identify relationships between faunal composition across the site and possible reasons for the overall patterning.

More specifically, in this study PCA was used to evaluate and compare the overall faunal associations and composition of contexts across the site. It is an analysis of the correlation between taxonomic abundances within the entire faunal assemblage. I used taxonomic abundance within families as the specific variable. Using these correlations and the multiple dimensions of variability, it is possible to assess as a whole the similarities and differences between contexts in terms of their total faunal compositions. It is also possible to gain an understanding of how different taxa contribute to variation across contexts. Furthermore, PCA is complementary to the chi- square test in that it allows for the inclusion of some taxa otherwise too small in sample size (i.e., taxonomic abundance) or expected value for chi-square testing and effect size analysis.

However, some taxonomic integration was still necessary for PCA and meaningful interpretation. Family level integration is the most taxonomically refined grouping that reflects the overall taxonomic diversity of the En Bas Saline faunal assemblage. Also, only families including 10 or more NISP were included in the analysis

(n=49), thus avoiding the clutter of very small taxa sample sizes with negligible effects on variance. Finally, data from Feature 52 was excluded due to the very small sample size. PCA analysis was conducted using MURRAP software.

161

Chapter Summary

The methods and units of analysis, as well as the approaches to data organization and integration, used in this study were ultimately selected in order to identify possible patterns of intra-site variability in faunal remain deposition at En Bas

Saline: including number of individual specimens, ubiquity, chi-square test, Cohen’s w, and PCA. Methodological challenges stemming from the use of multi-analyst generated datasets are present in this study. The integration of data created by different analysts over a span of more than 20 years does introduce points of possible bias and analytical weakness. However, full disclosure of these points as well as efforts to reduce their impact on the current study demonstrate that the research questions pursued and methods of analysis are appropriate to the available data.

As a final note, from a methodological perspective, this dissertation presents several possible points of inquiry regarding zooarchaeological methods of analysis.

Several scholars have addressed many of the issues and challenges built into this study

(e.g., Cannon 2001, 2013; Driver 2011; Giovas 2009; Grayson 1984; Lyman and Van

Pool 2009; Wolverton 2013). As zooarchaeological research of the En Bas Saline faunal assemblage continues, it will be possible to test and contribute to larger discussions of zooarchaeological methods, and approaches to data quantification and integration.

162

Table 4-1. Body portion designations. Taxa Body Portion Element Inclusion Mammal, Birds, Reptiles, Amphibians, Fish cranial all cranial elements and atlas

all post-cranial elements post-cranial starting with the axis

Taxa Body Portion Element Inclusion

all identifiable claw and digital Decapoda claw elements

identifiable non-claw, body body portions

Taxa Body Portion Element Inclusion

all valve elements identified Bivalves right valve as being from the right

all valve elements identified left valve as being from the left

Taxa Body Portion Element Inclusion

whole/nearly a complete or nearly whole Gastropods whole specimen (>90% complete) specimen

identifiable fragmented shell element (e.g., body whorl, lip, fragment aperture, spire, apex)

163

CHAPTER 5 ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL RESULTS

The zooarchaeological results are organized across five sections. First, a summary of the overall taxa present in the En Bas Saline assemblage is offered, followed by the presentation of zooarchaeological data. The data are discussed according to archaeological context within each Garden. Second, the taxonomic diversity and equitability of each feature and sheet deposit is described, followed by taxa ubiquity. Fourth and fifth, records of heat altered specimens are presented as well as occurrences of anatomically immature specimens. Finally, trends in body or shell portions characteristic of the dominate taxa in the En Bas Saline assemblage are discussed.

Zooarchaeological Results

The focus here is on the overall zooarchaeological description and characterization of the features and sheet deposit areas, with emphasis on the most abundant taxa. The data discussed includes hard NISP values, MNI counts, and relative frequencies. Tables 5-2 – 5-15 present the data as proportions of total taxa in each spatial context.

The in-text description of the results centers on taxa identified beyond class and is based on proportions of taxa within vertebrate and invertebrate categories. The proportions are expressed as percentages and the value is rounded to the nearest whole percent. Vertebrate and invertebrate categories are used as points of data organization in order to provide more analytical resolution when conceptualizing and describing the zooarchaeological constitution of each feature or sheet deposit area.

164

Assemblage Overview

Taken together, the entire En Bas Saline faunal assemblage utilized in this study includes 31,607 NISP, 44,171.2 g of material, and 15,432 MNI. Across all analysts, a total of 248 taxonomic identifications are present among the samples (Table 5-1). Table

5-2 shows the distribution of the taxa across contexts in terms of presence and absence. Taxonomic categories beyond subphylum include 11 mammals, five birds, 16 reptiles, three amphibians, four cartilaginous fish, 96 ray-finned fishes, eight crustaceans (crabs and barnacles), 47 bivalves, and 54 gastropods. The vast majority of the assemblage is composed of invertebrate taxa, with 79% of the total NISP. Of the invertebrate taxa, bivalves are the most abundant (72% NISP), followed by gastropods

(3% NISP) and crustaceans (3% NISP). Vertebrate taxa make up the remaining 21% of the assemblage NISP. Fish are the most abundant vertebrate class, with 18% of the assemblage NISP. Mammals and reptiles are the next most abundant, each with 1% of the NISP. Birds and amphibians each contribute less than one percent to the total NISP.

Garden B

Sheet deposit: FS#s 7611, 7615

A total of 15 taxa are present in the Garden B sheet deposit samples (Table 5-

3). Eleven taxa are identified beyond the level class and include one mammal, two reptiles, one shark, four fish, and two gastropods. The total sheet deposit NISP and MNI are 67 and 18. Invertebrate taxa contribute 52% (n=37) of the total NISP and vertebrate taxa 45% (n=30). Conversely, vertebrate taxa dominate the total MNI with 67% (n=12) and invertebrate taxa with 33% (n=6).

The vertebrate assemblage consists of nine taxa identified beyond Class. While the vast majority of vertebrate NISP is dominated by specimens identified as general

165

fish (30% of vertebrate NISP), fish identified beyond class are the most abundant vertebrate taxa in the Garden B sheet deposit samples. Parrotfish (Sparisoma sp.) and stoplight parrotfish (Sparisoma viride) are the dominant fish in the sheet deposit samples with 13% and 7% of vertebrate NISP. Parrotfish are the most abundant taxa in terms of MNI with 25% of vertebrate MNI.

Mammals and reptiles are both present in the samples, making up the remainder of vertebrate taxa and comprising 3% and 5% of the total NISP respectively. The Puerto

Rican hutia (Isolobodon portoricensis) is the sole mammal present. Reptiles include turtles (Testudines) and one Hispaniola boa (Epicrates striatus), each contributing 17% and 8% to the vertebrate MNI.

The invertebrate remains identifiable beyond Class are exclusively marine gastropods. Shell specimens from four taxonomic levels of conch shell identification are present, conchs (Strombus sp.) with 27% of the invertebrate NISP, likely Florida fighting conch (Strombus cf. alatus) with 3% NISP, and possibly either Florida or West Indian fighting conch (Strombus cf. alatus/pugilis) with 5% NISP. Conchs have the highest MNI with 67% of invertebrate MNI.

Big post, Feature 52: FS# 7889

The sample from Feature 52 is comparatively much smaller in faunal remain abundance than samples from other site features and areas with 9 NISP and 5 MNI.

Vertebrates contribute 5 NISP and 1 MNI. Invertebrates contribute 4 NISP and 4 MNI.

Four taxa are present in the Feature 52 (Table 5-4). A single fish genus is the only taxa identified beyond class. One wrasse (Halichoeres sp.) is the sole vertebrate in the sample. Invertebrates include marine gastropods and bivalves. The gastropod specimens represent the majority of individual animals in the sample.

166

Garden C

Feast pit, Feature 10: FS# 6306

The sample from feature 10 contains 87 taxonomic identifications, 80 of which are beyond the level of class, including: two mammals, one bird, three reptiles, one frog, one shark, 29 fish, two crustaceans, 26 bivalves, and 15 gastropods (Table 5-5). In all,

2,210 NISP and 781 MNI are present. Vertebrate taxa are in the minority of animals identified with 25% (n=557) of the sample NISP and 7% (n=56) of the MNI, while invertebrate taxa dominate the sample with 75% (n=1,653) of the NISP and 93%

(n=725) of the MNI.

Among the 42 vertebrate taxonomic identifications in Feature 10, 37 are identified beyond class. The large majority of vertebrate taxonomic identifications are general fish (31% of vertebrate NISP). However, fish identified beyond Actinopterygii still dominate the vertebrate assemblage. The three most abundant fish taxa are parrotfish with 11%, grunts (Haemulon sp.) with 9%, and jack fish (Caranx sp.) with 4% of the vertebrate NISP. Snapper (Lutjanus sp.) and grouper (Epinephelus sp.) are next in abundance per NISP.

According to MNI, no single fish taxa is represented by more than three individuals. Snappers, grunts, wrasses, and parrotfishes each contribute a minimum of three individuals to the sample, or approximately 21% of vertebrate MNI. Moray eels

(Muraenidae), groupers, bar jacks, jacks, drums, and barracudas each contribute a minimum of two individuals, or approximately 21% of vertebrate MNI.

Mammals contribute the second most abundant vertebrate animal class in

Feature 10. Two taxa identified beyond class are present, the Puerto Rican hutia and the Hispaniola edible rat (Brotomys voratus) with 7% and 1% of vertebrate NISP and

167

11% and 2% of MNI. The Puerto Rican hutia includes a minimum of three juvenile and three adult individuals.

Reptiles and amphibians in Feature 10 include sliders (Trachemys sp.) (3% vertebrate NISP), Hispaniola galliwasp lizards (Celestus sp.) (1% vertebrate NISP), a ground iguana (Cyclura sp.) (1% vertebrate NISP), and frogs (Anura) (4% vertebrate

NISP). Sliders and Hispaniola galliwasp lizards each contribute two MNI, and the ground iguana one.

Birds are the least abundant vertebrate animal present in the Feature 10 sample with 2% of the vertebrate NISP. One family is identified, Rallidae (rails) representing one MNI.

Forty-five invertebrate taxa are present in Feature 10, including two crustaceans, bivalves, and gastropods. Overall, bivalves are the most abundant invertebrate class with 26 bivalve taxa. Invertebrate NISP and MNI are dominated by: toothed donax

(Donax denticulatus) with 15% NISP and 11% MNI, Eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) with 12% NISP and 14% MNI, American tiger lucina (Codakia orbicularis) with

10% NISP and 12% MNI, cross-bared venus (Chione cancellata) with 10% NISP and

11% MNI, and the West Indian pointed venus (Anomalocardia brasiliana) with 8% NISP and 9% MNI.

After bivalves, gastropods compose the remainder of invertebrate taxa from the

Feature 10 sample. The most abundant gastropod specimens identified per invertebrate

NISP include melampus shells (Melampus sp.) with 5% NISP, conchs (Strombus sp.) with 3% NISP, Queen conch (Strombus gigas) with 1% NISP, and the virgin nerite

168

(Neritina virginea) with 1% NISP. One of the unclassified conch specimens is juvenile, as are three queen conch individuals.

Counting MNI, three taxa make up the bulk of gastropod MNI. A minimum of 77 melampus shells are present, or 11% of invertebrate MNI. In a distant second, virgin nerites contribute 2% MNI. Finally, the Florida fighting conch (Strombus alatus) contributes 1% of the invertebrate MNI.

Crustaceans present include crabs (Decapoda) with <1% of the invertebrate

NISP and barnacles with 2% of the NISP.

Feast pit, Feature 11: FS#s 6316, 6324

The two samples from Feature 11 are composed of 96 taxonomic identifications, with 87 taxa identified beyond the level of class, including: four mammals, three birds, six reptiles, one frog, 37 fishes, six crustaceans, 24 bivalves, and six gastropods (Table

5-6). In all, 3,988 NISP and 800 MNI are present. Vertebrate taxa contribute 26%

(n=1,038) NISP and 7% (n=57) MNI of the total Feature 11 NISP and MNI, and invertebrates contribute 74% (n=2,950) NISP and 93% (743 MNI).

The vertebrate component of the Feature 11 samples include 56 taxa, 51 of which are identified beyond class. While the vast majority of vertebrate NISP is dominated by specimens identified as general fish (38% of vertebrate NISP), fishes identified beyond class are the most abundant vertebrate taxa in the Feature 11 sample.

The dominate fish taxa per vertebrate NISP are jack fish with 6% NISP, parrotfish with

5% NSIP, and grunts with 2% NISP.

According to MNI, grunts are the only fish taxa represented by more than 2 MNI, with 3 MNI or 5% of vertebrate MNI. Bonefish (Albula vulpes), bar jacks, snappers, parrotfishes, barracudas, triggerfish (Balistes sp.), and boxfish (Lactophyrs sp.) each

169

contribute a minimum of two individuals to the samples, or collectively 25% of the MNI.

The remainder of fish MNI is composed of single individuals among 20 taxa.

Reptiles contribute the second most abundant vertebrate animal Class in the

Feature 11 samples. Identified beyond class, reptiles include sliders (Trachemys sp.) with 2% of vertebrate NISP, turtles with 4% NISP, Hispaniola galliwasp lizards with 4%

NISP, a likely racer (cf. Alsophis sp.) with <1% NISP, a West Indian boa with <1%

NISP, and boa snakes (Boidae) with 1% NISP. Sliders contribute two MNI, Hispaniola galliwasp lizards three MNI, followed by turtles, the likely racer and West Indian boa with one MNI each.

Mammal taxa identified beyond class include four taxa: the Hispaniola edible rat

(<1% NISP, 2% MNI), the Puerto Rican hutia (2% NISP, 5% MNI), Capromyid rodent

(Capromyidae) (2% NISP, 5% MNI), and general rodent (Rodentia) (3% NISP). Juvenile specimens include one Puerto Rican hutia, two Capromyid rodents, and one general rodent.

Three bird taxa beyond class are present, all identified to the Rallidae family: purple gallinule (Porphyrio martinicus), rails, and likely rails (cf. Rallidae) each contributing less than <1% of vertebrate NISP. Each rail taxa includes one MNI.

Amphibians, represented by a frog are the least abundant vertebrate animal present in the Feature 11 samples. The frog contributes <1% of vertebrate NISP and one MNI.

Sixty four invertebrate taxa are present in Feature 11, including various crabs and crustaceans, bivalves, and gastropods. Bivalves are the most abundant invertebrate class in Feature 11 followed by Gastropods.

170

Invertebrate NISP and MNI are dominated by bivalve taxa; including, American tiger lucina with 21% NISP and 19% MNI, cross-barred venus with 17% NISP and 17%

MNI, West Indian pointed venus with 10% NISP and 12% MNI, beaded venus

(Protothaca granulate) with 5% NISP and 8% MNI, donax with 4% NISP and 6% MNI, and oysters (Ostreidae) with 8% NISP.

The gastropods are by and large dominated by melampus shells with 18% of the invertebrate NISP. Conch and likely Florida fighting conch, buttonsnail (Modulus modulus), apple murex (Chicoreus pomum), and snowy white dwarf (Olivella nivea) are also present, but in much smaller quantities. Per MNI, melampus shells are the most abundant with 17% of the invertebrate MNI.

Identified crabs include swimming crabs (Portunidae) with 1% invertebrate NISP as well as land crabs (Gecarcinidae) with <1% NISP. Likely black or purple land crab

(Gecarcinidae cf. Gecarcinus sp.) contributes 1% of invertebrate NISP and 2% of the

MNI. Barnacles comprise less than 1% of invertebrate NISP and MNI.

Feast pit, Feature 15: FS# 6751

The sample from Feature 15 contains 124 taxa identifications, with 115 taxa identified beyond class. In all there are five mammals, one bird, one frog, eight reptiles, two sharks, 42 fishes, two crustaceans, 26 bivalves, and 25 gastropods present in

Feature 15 (Table 5-7). The total feature NISP is 14,121 and 10,539 MNI. Vertebrate taxa contribute 11% (n=1,599) of the sample NISP and 1% (n=126) of the MNI, and invertebrate taxa 89% (n=12,522) of the sample NISP and 99% (n=10,413) of the MNI.

The vertebrate taxa include 64 animals, 60 of which are identified beyond class.

The large majority of vertebrate taxonomic identifications are general fish (43% of vertebrate NISP). However, fish identified beyond Actinopterygii still dominate the

171

vertebrate assemblage. The dominant fish taxa include parrotfish with 15% of vertebrate

NISP, grunts with 8% NISP, jack fish with 5% NISP, grouper with 5% NISP, and snapper with 3% NISP

Based on MNI, parrotfish and grunts are the only two taxa with at least 10 MNI.

Parrotfish are the dominate taxa with 24 MNI, then grunts with 10 MNI, followed by groupers with 9 and snappers with 8. The remaining fish taxa have between 1 and 5

MNI.

After fish, mammals make up the second most abundant vertebrate class in

Feature 15. The majority of mammal specimens are identified as Capromyid rodents with 2% of vertebrate NISP and also include the Puerto Rican hutia (1 % NISP) and one likely Hispaniola hutia (Plagiodontia cf. aedium) specimen. One Hispaniola edible rat specimen is also present. The Puerto Rican hutia is the most abundant mammal in terms of MNI with 20 individuals represented.

Reptilian taxa in Feature 15 are dominated by sliders (2% vertebrate NISP), , followed by Hispaniola galliwasp (1% vertebrate NISP). Additional reptiles present include ground iguana, Hispaniola boa, and likely sliders, each contributing less than one percent to the sample vertebrate NISP. Per MNI, sliders include two individuals,

Hispaniola galliwasp three MNI, ground iguana one MNI, Hispaniola boa one MNI, and likely sliders two MNI.

Cartilaginous fishes are composed of one Atlantic sharp nose shark

(Rhizopriodon terraenova) specimen and a mackerel shark (Lamniformes). Each taxa contributes less than one percent to the vertebrate NISP.

172

The majority of bird remains in the feature are not identified beyond class. One rail specimen is the only bird taxa identified beyond class, representing 1 individual.

The least abundant vertebrate taxa present is frog, with one specimen.

The invertebrate taxa in Feature 15 are composed of 60 taxa. Gastropods are the dominate invertebrate class in the feature. Of the Twenty-five gastropods identified beyond class, melampus shells (9,509 NISP, MNI=9,509), are the most abundant taxa present, with 76% of invertebrate NISP and 91% of the MNI. In contrast, the second most abundant gastropod taxa, conchs, contribute 1% to the invertebrate NISP.

A total of 26 bivalve taxa are identified beyond class. The dominate bivalve taxa are: thick lucine (Lucina pectinata) with 2% invertebrate NISP and <1% MNI, cross- bared venus with 2% NISP and 1% MNI, donax with 2% NISP and 1% MNI, eastern oyster with 2% NISP and 1% MNI, West Indian pointed venus with 2% NISP and <1%

MNI, and the beaded venus with 2% NISP and <1% MNI.

General crustacean is present with <1% invertebrate NISP and one MNI.

Barnacles contribute 2% to the invertebrate NISP and 1% to the MNI.

Garden E

Sheet deposit: FS#s 3751, 3752, 3792, 3817, 3821, 3834

The Garden E sheet deposit samples contain a total of 57 taxa. Fifty taxa are identified beyond class and include one mammal, one lizard, one shark, 13 fishes, two crustaceans, 14 bivalves, and four gastropods (Table 5-8). Total Garden E sheet deposit NISP is 266 with 57 MNI. The vertebrate taxa dominate Garden E sheet deposit samples with 54% (n=143) of the NISP and invertebrate taxa contribute 46% (n=123) of the NISP. Conversely, invertebrate taxa are more abundant in terms of MNI with 63%

(n=36) versus vertebrate MNI with 37% (n=21) of the total Garden E sheet midden MNI.

173

Sixteen vertebrate taxa are identifiable beyond class. The large majority of vertebrate taxonomic identifications are general fish (47% of vertebrate NISP).

Excluding fish specimens not identifiable beyond class, fishes are the most abundant vertebrate taxa within the samples. Grunts are the most numerously represented fish with 5% of vertebrate NISP and 14% of vertebrate MNI, followed by snappers with 2% of vertebrate NISP and 10% of the MNI.

The remaining vertebrate taxa identified include mammals, represented by

Capromyid rodent remains (with 2% vertebrate NISP and one MNI), Ground lizards

(Teiidae) (with 1% NISP and one MNI), and one gray shark (Carcharhinus sp.) specimen representing one MNI.

The invertebrate component of the Garden E sheet deposit is dominated by bivalves with 14 taxa identified beyond class. Donax are the dominate bivalve taxa with

14% of the invertebrate NISP and 25% of invertebrate MNI. The Eastern oyster is the next most abundant with 6% NISP and 11% MNI. Gastropods are represented by four taxa identified beyond class. Strombidae are the dominate marine gastropod with 5% of invertebrate NISP and 14% of the MNI.

Crabs contribute 2% to the invertebrate NISP and 3% to the MNI. Barnacles include 1% of the invertebrate NISP and 3% of the MNI.

Pit, Feature 49: FS# 7469

The Feature 49 sample is composed of 90 taxa, 81 of which are identified beyond class. Taxa include two mammals, one bird, four reptiles, one frog, one shark,

33 fish, three crabs, 21 bivalves, and 14 gastropods (Table 5-9). The total feature NISP is 4,749 with 1,179 MNI. Vertebrate taxa compose 32% (n=1,502) of the total feature

174

NISP and 8% (n=92) of the total feature MNI. Invertebrate taxa contribute 68%

(n=3,247) to the feature NISP and 92% (n=1,087) to the feature MNI.

Vertebrates are composed of 42 taxa identified beyond class. The large majority of vertebrate taxonomic identifications are general fish (72% of vertebrate NISP).

However, fishes identified beyond Actinopterygii dominate the vertebrate assemblage.

The dominate fish are parrotfish with 5% of the vertebrate NISP, snappers with 3%

NISP, and grunts with 2% NISP. Per MNI, the dominate fish are parrotfish with 14% of the vertebrate MNI, snappers, grunts, as well as jack fish all with 6%, and groupers with

5% of the MNI.

Reptiles are the second most abundant class of vertebrates represented in the

Feature 49 sample. Sliders are the dominant taxa with 1% of vertebrate NISP and 1

MNI. Sea turtle (Chelonidae) and snakes (Serpentes) are present, each contributing

<1% to the vertebrate NISP and one individual.

Mammals include two taxa, likely Puerto Rican hutia (<1% NISP, one MNI) and manatee (<1% NISP, one MNI). Birds are composed of rail specimens (<1% NISP, one

MNI) and one gray shark is present (<1% NISP, one MNI). One frog specimen is present as well (<1% NISP, one MNI).

The invertebrate taxa from Feature 49 include 39 identifications beyond class.

Bivalves are the most abundant invertebrate class in the feature. The most abundant bivalve taxa is the Eastern oyster with 23% of invertebrate NISP and 35% invertebrate

MNI. A distant second and third include the flat tree oyster with 6% invertebrate NISP and 2% MNI followed by donax with 5% NISP and 7% MNI.

175

Specimens identified as likely coffee melampus (Melampus cf. coffeus) are the dominate gastropod present in the Feature 49 sample with 10% of invertebrate NISP and 28% of the MNI. Likely coffee melampus are by and large the most abundant gastropod taxa present.

Identified crabs include swimming crabs with 2% of invertebrate NISP and 1% of the MNI, land crabs with 1% NISP and <1% MNI, and blue land crabs (Cardisoma sp.) with <1% NISP and MNI. Barnacles contribute 4% of the invertebrate NISP, however barnacle MNI was not recorded for this sample.

Big Post, Feature 14: FS# 6730

The Feature 14 sample is composed of 46 taxa, 41 of which are identified beyond class. Taxa include three mammals, one reptile, one frog, 18 fishes, two crustaceans, 14 bivalves, and five gastropods (Table 5-10). The total feature NISP is

307 with 80 MNI. Vertebrate taxa compose 64% (n=198) of the total feature NISP and

23% (n=18) of the total feature MNI. Invertebrate taxa contribute 36% (n=109) to the feature NISP and 77% (n=62) to the feature MNI.

Vertebrates are composed of 22 taxa identified beyond class. The large majority of vertebrate taxonomic identifications are general fish (72% of vertebrate NISP).

However, fish identified beyond Actinopterygii still dominate the vertebrate assemblage.

The dominant fish are parrotfishes with 7% of the vertebrate NISP, followed by groupers with 4%. Per MNI, the dominant fish are parrotfishes and grunts each contributing 11% of the vertebrate MNI.

Mammals are the second most abundant vertebrate class from the Feature 14 sample. Mammals include one Puerto Rican hutia specimen, representing the only

176

identified mammalian individual. General hutia and rodent remains are also present and contribute 2% of the vertebrate NISP.

One reptile, a boa (Boidae) is represented by one specimen contributing one individual to the vertebrate MNI and <1% of the total vertebrate NISP and MNI.

The invertebrate taxa from Feature 14 include 18 identifications beyond class.

Bivalves are the most abundant invertebrate class in feature 14. The most abundant bivalve taxa include tiger lucine (15% invertebrate NISP), likely blood ark (Anadara cf. ovalis) (13% invertebrate NISP), donax (13% invertebrate NISP), and the pointed venus

(12% invertebrate NISP). Invertebrate MNI is dominated by tiger lucine with 9% invertebrate MNI, followed by likely arks, likely blood ark, pointed venus, and donax, each with 11% of the MNI.

Conchs are the dominant gastropod with 4% of the invertebrate NISP. Three gastropods each contribute two percent of the total invertebrate MNI; including, the checkered nerite (Nerita tessellata), likely Florida fighting conch, and melampus.

One crab and one barnacle specimen are present in the Feature 14 sample, each contributing 1% to the total invertebrate NISP and 1% to the MNI.

Trench Structure, Feature 16: FS# 6789

The Feature 16 sample is composed of 79 taxa, 72 of which are identified beyond class. Taxa include three mammals, one bird, one frog, 5 reptiles, one shark, 29 fishes, two crustaceans, 22 bivalves, and 12 gastropods (Table 5-11). The total feature

NISP is 2,520 with 1,089 MNI. Vertebrate taxa compose 18% (n=462) of the total feature NISP and 4% (n=42) of the total feature MNI. Invertebrate taxa contribute 82%

(n=2,058) to the feature NISP and 96% (n=1,047) to the feature MNI.

177

Vertebrates are composed of 38 taxa identified beyond class. The large majority of vertebrate taxonomic identifications are general fish (65% of vertebrate NISP).

Among taxonomic identifications beyond class, fish dominate the vertebrate assemblage. The dominant fish are parrotfish and snappers each with 3% of the vertebrate NISP, followed by snappers, groupers, parrotfish family, and grunts each with

2%. Per MNI, the dominant fish are parrotfish and snapper each contributing 7% of the vertebrate MNI. The remainder of fish taxa MNI is composed of one or two individuals per taxonomic identification.

Mammals are the second most abundant vertebrate class from the Feature 16 sample. Puerto Rican hutia is the only mammal identified beyond Family with 2% of the vertebrate NISP and two individuals, or 8% of the vertebrate MNI. General hutia and rodent remains are also present and contribute 1% of the vertebrate NISP.

Reptiles present in the Feature 16 sample include: general turtles (1% of vertebrate NISP), and Hispaniola boa, loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta), Hispaniola galliwasp lizard, and ground lizard, all of which contribute <1% of the vertebrate NISP.

Each reptile contributes one MNI.

Bird, frog, and requiem shark are each represented by one specimen and contributes one MNI each.

The invertebrate taxa from Feature 16 include 34 identifications beyond class.

Bivalves are the most abundant invertebrate class in Feature 16. The most abundant bivalve taxa is likely the Clery surfclam (Mulinia cf. cleryana) with 61% of the invertebrate NISP. Donax are a distant second in abundance with 9% of the invertebrate NISP. The remainder of bivalve taxa is composed of likely blood ark and

178

Eastern oyster. Clery surfclam is the most abundant in terms of MNI as well, with 63% of the invertebrate MNI, followed by donax with 7%.

Melampus are the dominant gastropod with 8% of the invertebrate NISP. Virgin nerites are the second most abundant gastropod with 1% of the invertebrate NISP.

Melampus contributes 10% to invertebrate MNI.

Crab and barnacle specimens are present in the Feature 16 sample. Crab contributes <1% of invertebrate NISP and MNI. Barnacles contribute 1% of the NISP and 1% to the MNI.

Garden N

Sheet deposit: FS#s 7796, 7853, 7868, 7869

The Garden N sheet deposit samples contain a total of 41 taxa. Thirty six are identified beyond class and include one mammal, one turtle, one shark, seven fish, two crabs, 17 bivalves, and seven marine gastropods (Table 5-12). Total Garden N sheet deposit NISP is 546 with 138 MNI. The invertebrate taxa dominate Garden N sheet deposit samples with 89% (n=487) of the NISP and 93% (n=128) of the MNI. Vertebrate taxa contribute 11% (n=59) of the total sheet deposit NISP and 7% (n=10) of the MNI.

The vertebrate assemblage contains 9 taxa identified beyond class. Vertebrata and general fish are the most abundant taxonomic categories in terms of NISP with a combined 71% of the vertebrate NISP. Excluding the two categories, fishes identified beyond class are the most abundant vertebrate taxa with 20% of the vertebrate NISP and 80% of the MNI. Barracuda (Sphyraena sp.) is the most dominant taxa with 8% of the vertebrate NISP. All fish taxa present contribute one MNI each, expect for jack fish which includes 2 MNI.

179

The remaining vertebrate taxa identified are Mammals, represented by Puerto

Rican hutia (with 7% vertebrate NISP and one MNI), and one slider specimen representing one MNI.

The invertebrate component of the Garden N sheet deposit includes 27 taxa identified beyond class. The samples are dominated by bivalves. Eastern oyster is the most abundant bivalve with 28% of the invertebrate NISP, followed by tiger lucine with

13% NISP, and donax 11% NISP. In terms of MNI, eastern oyster includes 24% of the invertebrate MNI, followed by donax with 20% and blood ark with 9%.

Conchs dominate gastropod NISP and contribute 5% to the invertebrate NISP and 3% to the invertebrate MNI in the Garden N sheet deposit.

Crabs identified beyond order present in the Garden N sheet deposit samples are land crabs and swimming crabs. Each taxa contributes less than one percent to the invertebrate NISP, while land crabs include 1% and swimming crabs include 2% of the invertebrate MNI respectively.

Pit, Feature 55: FS# 7798

Feature 55 is composed of 45 taxa, 41 of which are identified beyond class. Taxa include one bird, one reptile, five reptiles, 11 fish, four crustaceans, 17 bivalves, and six marine gastropods (Table 5-13). The total feature NISP is 432 with 134 MNI.

Invertebrate taxa dominate with 89% (n=384) of the feature NISP and 88% (n=118) of the feature MNI. Vertebrate taxa compose 11% (n=48) of the total feature NISP and

12% (n=16) of the total feature MNI.

Vertebrates are composed of 13 taxa identified beyond class. The large majority of vertebrate taxonomic identifications are general fish (54% of vertebrate NISP).

Porcupine fish (Diodon hystrix) are the most abundant fish per NISP with 8% of the

180

vertebrate NISP. Jackfish, lane snapper (Lutjanus synagris), barracuda, and sleeper each contribute 2% of vertebrate NISP. Per MNI, jackfish, lane snapper, sleeper and porcupine fish are the majority of fish taxa, each with 13% of the vertebrate MNI.

Reptile is the second most abundant vertebrate class from the feature, and is composed of one slider individual comprising 4% of the vertebrate NISP, and 8% of the vertebrate MNI. General hutia and rodent remains also are present and contribute 1% of the vertebrate NISP. Bird is the least abundant vertebrate taxa with one rail specimen, representing one individual present.

The invertebrate taxa from Feature 55 include 28 identifications beyond class.

Bivalves are the most abundant invertebrate class in Feature 55. The most abundant bivalve taxa is likely the eastern oyster with 38% of the invertebrate NISP. Clery surfclam is the next abundant bivalve with 9% of invertebrate NISP, followed by tiger lucine with 6% and the flat-tree oyster also with 6%.The bivalve MNI is dominated by oyster with 25% of invertebrate MNI, Clery surfclam with 16%, and donax with 11%.

Crab and barnacle specimens are the next most abundant invertebrate animals in Feature 55. Swimming crabs include 5% of the invertebrate NISP and 7% of the MNI.

Land crabs contribute 2% of the NISP and one individual, followed by blue crabs with

1% NISP and two individuals. Crab contributes <1% of invertebrate NISP and MNI.

Barnacles contribute 1% of the NISP and one individual.

Marine gastropods are the least abundant invertebrate taxa in the feature.

Conchs are the dominate gastropod with 4% of the invertebrate NISP and 3% of the

MNI. The remaining marine gastropod taxa identified beyond class consist of one individual specimen each.

181

Pit, Feature 60: FS# 7785, 7886

The Feature 60 samples are composed of 33 taxa, 29 of which are identified beyond class. Taxa include one reptile, five reptiles, seven fish, five crustaceans, 12 bivalves, and four marine gastropods (Table 5-14). The total feature NISP is 239 with 99

MNI. Invertebrate taxa dominate with 89% (n=213) of the feature NISP and 91% (n=90) of the feature MNI. Vertebrate taxa compose 11% (n=26) of the total feature NISP and

9% (n=9) of the total feature MNI.

Vertebrates are composed of 8 taxa identified beyond class. The large majority of vertebrate taxonomic identifications are general fish (69% of vertebrate NISP). All fish taxa identified beyond class contribute one specimen each to the vertebrate NISP and one individual to the vertebrate MNI. Together the fishes constitute 27% of the vertebrate NISP and 89% of the MNI. Reptile taxa in the feature includes one turtle specimen, representing one individual.

The invertebrate taxa from Feature 60 include 21 identifications beyond class.

Bivalves are the most abundant invertebrate class in Feature 60. The most abundant bivalve taxa is the eastern oyster with 37% of the invertebrate NISP. Clery surfclam is next with 19% of invertebrate NISP. The bivalve MNI is dominated by oyster and Clery surfclam as well with 30% and 23% of invertebrate MNI respectively.

Among gastropods, queen conch dominates with 4% of the invertebrate NISP. All gastropods identified beyond class contribute one minimum individual, or 1% of invertebrate MNI each.

Crab and barnacle specimens are present in Feature 60. Crabs include swimming crabs with include 3% of the invertebrate NISP and 2% of the MNI, followed by blue crabs with 2% NISP and 2% MNI. Land crabs consist of one specimen

182

representing one individual. Barnacles contribute 2% of invertebrate NISP and 3% of

MNI.

Garden P

Sheet deposit: FS#s 7932, 7934, 7943, 7947

The Garden P sheet deposit samples contain a total of 38 taxa. Thirty-one taxa are identified beyond class and include one mammal, one reptile, 14 fish, 11 bivalves, and three marine gastropods (Table 5-15). Total Garden P sheet deposit NISP is 277 with 60 MNI. The invertebrate taxa dominate Garden P sheet deposit samples with 69%

(n=192) of the NISP and 66% (n=39) of the MNI. Vertebrate taxa include 31% (n=85) of the sheet deposit NISP and 34% (n=20) of the MNI.

Sixteen vertebrate taxa are identifiable beyond class. Fishes are the most abundant vertebrate taxa, excluding fish specimens not identifiable beyond class (58% of vertebrate NISP). According to NISP counts, porcupine fish is the most abundant with

11% of vertebrate NISP, followed by grunts and parrotfish with 6% and 5% NISP respectively. Per MNI, the most abundant fish are grunts (15% vertebrate MNI), groupers (10% vertebrate NISP), and parrotfish (10% NISP).

Mammals are the next most abundant vertebrate taxa present in the Garden P sheet deposit samples. Rodentia is the only one taxa identified beyond class, and is comprised of one specimen (1% vertebrate NISP), representing one individual (5%

MNI). The remaining vertebrate taxa identified is a pond turtle (Emydidae) (1% of vertebrate NISP), representing one individual (5% of vertebrate MNI).

The invertebrate component of the Garden P sheet deposit contains 15 taxa identified beyond class. Bivalves dominate invertebrate abundance; including, eastern oyster with 48% invertebrate NISP, followed by tiger lucine with 10% NISP. Eastern

183

oyster contributes the most invertebrate individuals with 33% of Garden P sheet deposit

MNI. Tiger lucine and donax are the next numerous in terms of invertebrate MNI, each contributing 13%.

All gastropod identifications beyond class are categorized as either likely queen conch, likely West Indian fighting conch, or conchs. Likely queen conch contributes 4% of invertebrate NISP, followed by likely West Indian fighting conch and conchs each with

2% NISP. Both likely queen conch and likely West Indian fighting conch include 8% of the invertebrate MNI. Conchs include 3% of the invertebrate MNI.

Big Post, Feature 62: FS# 7948, 7950, 7952, 7954, 7957

The Feature 62 samples are composed of 69 taxa, 63 of which are identified beyond class. Taxa include two mammals, one bird, two reptiles, one shark, 28 fishes, four crustaceans, 16 bivalves, and nine marine gastropods (Table 5-16). The total feature NISP is 1,876 with 453 MNI. Invertebrate taxa compose 59% (n=1,100) of the total feature NISP and 82% (n=373) of the total feature MNI. Vertebrate taxa contribute

41% (n=776) to the feature NISP and 18% (n=80) to the feature MNI.

Vertebrates are composed of 34 taxa identified beyond class. The large majority of vertebrate taxonomic identifications are general fish (45% of vertebrate NISP).

However, fish identified beyond Actinopterygii still dominate the vertebrate assemblage.

The dominate fish taxa are grunts and the grunt Family (Haemulidae), with 21% and

14% of the vertebrate NISP. Grunts also contribute the most to vertebrate MNI with

26%.

Mammals are the second most abundant vertebrate class from Feature 62.

Mammals include Puerto Rican hutia with 2% vertebrate NISP and 5% of the MNI. One

184

general rodent specimen, that is not Puerto Rican hutia, is also present and represents one individual.

Birds are present in the feature samples, represented by general bird (Aves) and one taxa identified beyond class, perching birds (Passeriformes). Birds and perching birds each contribute less than one percent to the vertebrate NISP and 1% and 3% to the MNI, respectively.

Two reptilian taxa are present, both are representative of boas. Hispaniola boa and the boa family (Boidae) each contribute less than one percent to the vertebrate

NISP, and 3% and 1% to the MNI.

The invertebrate taxa from Feature 62 include 29 identifications beyond class.

Bivalves are the most abundant invertebrate class. The most abundant bivalve taxa include eastern oyster with 50% of invertebrate NISP and tiger lucine with 19% NISP.

Invertebrate MNI is dominated by eastern oyster with 50% MNI, tiger lucine with 9%, and blood ark with 8%.

West Indian fighting conch is the most abundant gastropod in the Feature 62 samples with 1% of the invertebrate NISP, followed by conchs and coffee melampus each with less than one percent of the invertebrate NISP. West Indian fighting conch include 3% of invertebrate MNI and coffee melampus 2%.

Of the crabs identified, land crabs and swimming crabs each contribute less than one percent to the invertebrate NISP, and 1% and <1% to the invertebrate MNI.

Barnacles include 1% of the invertebrate NISP and 2% of the MNI.

Taxonomic Diversity and Equitability

The taxonomic diversity and equitability values are presented in Table 5-17. The most taxonomically diverse and equitable sample is from Feature 14 in Garden E.

185

Feature 10 in Garden C is the second most diverse and equitable sample. Both features

14 and 10 have diversity values that exceed 3.0 and equitability values close to one.

The third most diverse is Feature 55 in Garden N with a value of 2.980 and correspondingly high equitability.

The samples from Features 11 in Garden C, 60 in Garden N, and 63 in Garden P all have diversity values of at least 2.6. Feature 60 is the most equitable among the three, while Features 11 and 63 are nearly the same. Feature 49 in Garden C is also comparable in terms of diversity, but less equitable in terms of taxa distribution.

The three least diverse and equitable samples are Feature 16 in Garden E,

Feature 52 in Garden B, and Feature 15 in Garden C. The Feature 16 sample is only moderately diverse with relatively low taxa evenness due to an abundance of Clery surfclam. The Feature 52 sample is characterized by low taxonomic diversity with a value less than one, but with high equitability among the very few taxa. This is the result of the very small sample size of Feature 52, and therefore is not comparatively significant in regards to the other context diversity and equitability indices.

The diversity index for the Feature 15 samples is well below 1 at 0.643, with extremely low equitability. Although the sample is from a large, artifact dense feature, with several taxa present, the diversity and equitability indices are skewed to lower values due to the high number of melampus individuals in the sample. Melampus account for 90% of all MNI in the Feature 15 sample. The diversity and equitability values reflect the overall dominance of the melampus in the make-up of the sample.

Comparatively, all of the sheet deposit samples are taxonomically diverse and equitable. The most diverse and equitable sheet deposit samples are from Garden E.

186

Regardless of sample size or site area, it appears that sheet midden deposits are more similar in terms of diversity and equitability as a whole compared to features.

Taxa Ubiquity

Table 5-18 lists taxa ubiquity among all taxonomic identifications included in this study. In terms of overall numbers of taxa, the average frequency of occurrence among taxonomic identifications across contexts is 23% with a standard deviation of 22%, and the median percentage is 22. Six taxonomic identifications beyond class are the most abundant in terms of ubiquity, occurring across 12 contexts with ubiquity values of 86%.

The taxa include grunts (Haemulon sp.), tiger lucine, donax, Carib pointed-venus, cross- barred venus, and conch (Strombus sp.). The second most ubiquitous are groupers

(Epinephelus sp.), parrotfishes (Sparisoma sp.), and flat-tree oyster occurring in 11 contexts, each with 79% ubiquity. Barracuda (Sphyraena sp.) and barnacles are the third most ubiquitous occurring in 10 contexts with 71% ubiquity each.

Bivalves make up the majority of the most ubiquitous taxonomic identifications

(see above). Conch specimens identified as Strombus sp. are the most ubiquitous gastropod, and the only gastropod taxa identified in more than 50% of the studied contexts. Grunts, identified to the Haemulon genus, are the most ubiquitous vertebrate taxa, followed by the Epinephelus sp. grouper and Sparisoma sp. parrotfish genera.

In contrast to the most ubiquitous taxonomic identifications, the majority (53%, n=112 taxa) of taxa identified beyond class are present in only one of the 14 contexts studied, and all share the lowest ubiquity value of 7%. Excluding the most ubiquitous and least ubiquitous taxa, the remaining taxa occur across 14-64% of contexts. Of the taxa exhibiting 50% or less ubiquity, 115 are vertebrate taxa and 90 are invertebrate taxa. However, overall, there is great overlap among taxonomically related

187

identifications (i.e., species, genera, and families) across the spectrum of ubiquity in the study assemblage. This will be addressed further in Chapter 6 in regard to data organization for intra-site analysis.

Record of Heat Alteration

The overwhelming majority of faunal specimens included in this study do not exhibit signs of past heat treatment. A total of 617 NISP (2%) of the entire En Bas

Saline faunal assemblage appears to be heat-altered. Specimens with evidence of heat alteration are present in Features 10, 11, 15, 16, and 14, as well as Gardens B, N, and

P sheet deposits (Table 5-19). In all contexts, save for Feature 11, the heat-altered specimens constitute well below 10% of the context NISP totals.

More specifically, the heat-altered specimens from Features 10, 16, 14, and

Garden N sheet deposit constitute one or less than one percent of the entire NISP from each context. Within Features 10, 16, and 14, the heat-altered specimens do not compose the majority of any taxa NISP. The Garden B sheet deposit heat-altered specimens include a total of four NISP, or 6% of the context NISP, all identified as general fish or vertebrate. The Garden P sheet deposit NISP includes nine heat altered specimens, the majority of which are shell, and comprise 3% of the sheet deposit NISP.

In Garden P sheet deposit samples, conch shell make up five of the seven total heat- altered specimens.

Ten percent of Feature 11 NISP is made up of heat-altered specimens. Heat- treated specimens are recorded from all classes present in the feature sample. Heat- altered specimens do not compose the majority of taxa NISP. Bivalves compose 50% of the heat-altered elements. The comparatively higher presences of heat-altered specimens in the Feature 11 samples versus the other features and sheet deposits is

188

not particularly surprising given the overall ashy character of the Feature 11 matrix. It is possible that the fill used in Feature 11 included soil and artifacts from activities reflecting the use of fire. However, regardless of matrix texture, the majority of analyzed faunal specimens from Feature 11 were not heat altered.

No specimens from the Garden E sheet deposit, and Features 49, 60, 55, or 63 showed evidence of heat alteration.

Presence of Immature Vertebrate Taxa

Although uncommon in the En Bas Saline faunal samples overall, anatomically immature, or unfused, specimens are present in four contexts; Features 10, 11, 15, 49, and 63 (Table 5-20). Unfused elements are not identified from any sheet deposit samples regardless of Garden area. All 31 observed unfused elements are from rodent taxa exclusively. The dominant taxonomic identification in terms of unfused elements is the Puerto Rican hutia (n=17), followed by likely Puerto Rican hutia (n=4), Capromyidae family (n=5), and general rodent (1). Among the total Puerto Rican hutia specimens identified across the samples (n=110), unfused elements comprise 15% of the NISP.

It is not surprising that mammalian taxa are the sole vertebrates with anatomically immature elements identified throughout the En Bas Saline faunal assemblage. Nor is it surprising that post-cranial longbone elements are the only elements identified as anatomically immature. Within the En Bas Saline assemblage, age among mammal bones is easier to judge than taxa from other classes, such as reptiles and fishes, due to the presence or absence of fused or unfused epiphyses present on longbones.

Within Feature 10, the 13 unfused Puerto Rican hutia longbones make up 33% of the taxa NISP. Similarly, the four unfused likely Puerto Rican hutia longbones in Feature

189

49 comprise 31% of the taxa NISP. In Feature 63, the unfused Puerto Rican hutia elements contribute 23% to the taxa NISP. The three unfused elements in Feature 15 are identified as representing Capromyid rodents, or one of several possible hutia species. These elements make up 11% of the family NISP. Two of the unfused elements, the humeri, are also heat-altered and represent the only unfused, heat- altered specimens in the En Bas Saline samples included in this study. Finally, the unfused elements from Feature 11 are the most diverse in terms of taxonomic identification. The elements are identified as Puerto Rican hutia, Capromyid family, and general rodent, each contributing 5%, 11%, and 4% to the respective taxa NISP.

Taxa Body Portions

In sum, a total of 2,882 identifiable vertebrate taxa elements are present in the

En Bas Saline assemblage. Figure 5-1 shows the trends in vertebrate body portions across classes. Overall, the majority of mammal elements are from post-cranial body portions. Bird, amphibian, and shark elements are exclusively post-cranial.

Approximately 10% of reptilian elements are cranial, and approximately 30% of mammal elements are as well. Fishes are the only vertebrate class dominated by cranial elements, with approximately 60% of identifiable element NISP.

A total of 18,336 identifiable invertebrate taxa elements are present in the En Bas

Saline assemblage. Figure 5-2 shows the proportions of shell portions across crustaceans (e.g., crabs), bivalves, and gastropods. Crustaceans and crabs are almost completely composed of claw elements, except for one identified body specimen.

Bivalve shell portions identifiable as either right or left valves are present in nearly equal proportions of 50%. Approximately a quarter of marine gastropods are composed of elemental fragments and the remaining consist of whole or nearly whole specimens.

190

The majority of identifiable marine gastropod element fragments are from the

Strombidae family. The propensity of conch shells to include fragmented specimens is likely due to the fact that pre-Columbian people throughout the Caribbean, including the

Taíno of Hispaniola, used conch shells for the manufacturing of tools and other implements (O’Day and Keegan 2001).

191

Table 5-1. All taxa identified, including scientific and common names. Family Taxa Common Name Echimyidae Brotomys voratus Hispaniola edible rat Isolobodon portoricensis Puerto Rican hutia cf. Isolobodon portoricensis likely Puerto Rican hutia Plagiodontia cf. aedium likely Hispaniola hutia Capromyidae Capromyidae Capromyid rodent family Rodentia rodent Large Mammalia large mammal Large Mammalia cf. large mammal, likely Trichechidae Trichechus manatus manatee Small Mammalia small mammal Mammalia general mammal Mammalia cf. Rodentia likely rodent Porphyrio martinicus purple gallinule Rallidae rails Rallidae cf. Rallidae likely rail Passeriformes perching birds Aves bird Trachemys sp. slider Emydidae Emydidae pond turtles Caretta caretta loggerhead sea turtle Cheloniidae Cheloniidae sea turtle Testudines turtle Iguanidae Cyclura sp. ground iguana Polycrotidae cf. Anolis sp. likely anole Anguidae Anguidae Anguid lizard family Ameiva sp. racer lizard Celestus sp. Hispaniola galliwasp Teiidae Teiidae Teiidae family Epicrates striatus Hispaniola boa Boidae Boidae boa or boa family cf. Alsophis sp. likely West Indian racer Serpentes Serpentes snake Reptilia reptile Ranidae Rana sp. frog Bufonidae Anura cf. Bufonidae likely toad Anura frogs/toads Carcharhinus sp. gray shark Rhizoprionodon Carcharhinidae terraenovae Atlantic sharpnose shark Carcharhinidae Carcharhinidae requiem sharks Lamniformes mackerel sharks Elopidae Elops saurus lady fish Albulidae Albula vulpes bonefish Anguilliformes eels

192

Table 5-1. Continued Family Taxa Common Name Gymnothorax sp. common moray cf. Gymmothorax sp. likely common moray Muraenidae Muraenidae moray eel family Clupeidae Clupeidae herring family Hemiramphus sp. halfbeak Hemiramphidae halfbeak family Hemiramphidae cf. Hemiramphidae likely halfbeak family Strongylura sp. needlefish cf. Tylosurus sp. needlefish Belonidae needlefish family Belonidae cf. Strongylura Belonidae sp. likely common needlefish Holocentrus sp. squirrelfish Holocentridae cf. Holocentrus sp. likely squirrelfish species Holocentridae Holocentridae squirrelfish family Scorpaenidae Scorpaenidae goblinfish family Centropomus parallelus fat snook Centropomus pectinatus tarpon snook Centropomus undecimalis common snook Centropomus sp. snook Centropomidae Centropomidae snook family Cephalopholis fulva coney Epinephalus adscensionis rock hind Epinephelus sp. grouper Mycteroperca sp. grouper Serranidae Serranidae grouper family Caranx hippos crevalle jack Caranx latus horse-eye jack Caranx sp. jackfish cf. Caranx sp. likely jackfish Carangoides ruber bar jack Carangoides cf. ruber likely bar jack Chloroscombus chrysurus Atlantic bumper Carangidae jackfish family Carangidae cf. Carangidae likely jackfish family Lutjanus synagris lane snapper Lutjanus sp. snapper cf. Lutjanus sp. likely snapper Ocyurus chrysurus yellowtail snapper Lutjanidae snapper family Lutjanidae cf. Lutjanidae Diapterus sp. longspine mojarras cf. Diapterus sp. likely longspine mojarras

193

Table 5-1. Continued Family Taxa Common Name cf. Gerres sp. likely yellowfin mojarras Gerreidae Gerreidae mojarras family Haemulon sciurus blue stripped grunt Haemulon cf. sciurus likely blue stripped grunt cf. Haemulon plumieri likely white grunt Haemulon sp. grunt Haemulidae grunt family Haemulidae cf. Haemulon sp. likely grunt species Haemulidae cf. Haemulidae likely grunt family Calamus sp. porgy Sparidae cf. Archosargus sp. likely sheepshead species Sparidae Sparidae parrotfish family Bairdiella sp. croaker Micropogonias sp. croaker Sciaenidae croaker family Sciaenidae cf. Sciaenidae likely croaker family Mullidae Mulliodichthys martinicus yellow goatfish Ephippidae Chaetodipterus faber Atlantic spadefish Pomacanthidae Pomacanthus sp. angelfish Bodianus sp. hogfish Halichoeres sp. wrass Lachnolaimus sp. hogfish Labridae cf. Lachnolaimus maximus likely hogfish Scarus sp. parrotfish Sparisoma chrysopterum redtail parrotfish Sparisoma rubripinne redfin parrotfish Sparisoma cf. rubripinne likely redfin parrotfish Sparisoma viride stoplight parrotfish Sparisoma cf. viride likely stoplight parrotfish Sparisoma sp. parrotfish Scaridae Scaridae parrotfish family Mugilidae Mugil sp. mullet Sphyraena barracuda great barracuda Sphyraena sp. barracuda Sphyraenidae cf. Sphyraena sp. likely barracuda Eleotris sp. spinycheek sleeper Gobiomorus dormitor bigmouth sleeper Eleotridae Eleotridae sleeper family Gobiidae Gobionellus sp. darter gobie Acanthuridae Acanthurus sp. surgeonfish Balistidae Balistes sp. triggerfish Balistidae Balistidae cf. Balistes sp. likely triggerfish

194

Table 5-1. Continued Family Taxa Common Name Balistidae Balistidae triggerfish family Lactophrys sp. trunkfish Ostracidae cf. Lactophrys sp. likely trunkfish Tetraodontidae Sphoeroides sp. puffer Diodon hystrix porcupine fish Diodon sp. porcupine fishes Diodontidae Diodontidae porcupine fish family Actinopterygii general fish Vertebrata vertebrate Portunidae Portunidae swimming crab Cardisoma sp. blue land crab Gecarcinidae cf. Gecarcinus likely black or purple land sp. crab Gecarcinidae land crab Gecarcinidae cf. Gecarcinidae likely land crab Brachyura true crabs Decapoda crabs Balanidae Balanus sp. barnacle Anadara chemnitzii triangular ark Anadara ovalis blood ark Anadara cf. ovalis likely blood ark Anadara transversa transverse ark Anadara sp. ark Arca zebra turkey wing Arcidae ark family Arcidae cf. Arcidae likely ark family Brachidontes exustus scorched mussel Brachidontes sp. mussel Mytilidae Mytillidae sea mussel family Isognomonidae Isognomon alatus flat tree-oyster Pteriidae Pteria colymbus Atlantic wing-oyster Anomiidae Anomia simplex common jingle Crassostrea virginica Eastern oyster Crassostrea sp. oyster Ostrea stentina crested oyster Ostrea sp. oyster Ostreidae Ostreidae oyster family Anodontia alba buttercup lucine Codakia orbicularis tiger lucine Lucinidae Lucina pectinata thick lucine Trachycardium Florida pricklycockle or egmontianum/ muricatium yellow pricklycockle Cardiidae Trachycardium sp. pricklycockle Mulinia cleryana clery surfclam

195

Table 5-1. Continued Family Taxa Common Name Mactridae Mulinia cf. cleryana likely clery surfclam Solenidae Solen obliquus oblique jackknife clam Tellina fausta favored tellin cf. Tellina fausta likely favored tellin Tellinidae Tellina sp. tellin Donax denticulatus donax Donacidae Iphigenia brasiliana giant coquina Solecurtidae Tagleus plebeius stout tagleus Dreissenidae Mytilopsis cf. leucophaeata likely dark falsemussel Anomalocardia brasiliana Carib pointed-venus Chione cancellata cross-bared venus Chione sp. venus Globivenus sp. venus cf. Globivenus sp. likely venus Lirophora latilirata imperial venus Mytilopsis sp. falsemussel Periglypta listeri princess venus Pitar sp. pitar Protothaca granulata beaded venus Veneridae Veneridae Venerid family Corbulidae Corbula sp. corbula Pholadidae cf. Pholadidae piddock family Bivalvia Cittarium pica West Indian topsnail Trochidae Tegula fasciata silky tegula Turbo castanea chestnut turban Turbo sp. turban Turbinidae Turbinidae turban family Nerita tessellata checkered nerite Neritina clenchi no common name Neritina virginea virgin nerite Neritina cf. virginea likely virgin nerite Neritidae Neritina sp. nerite Littorina angulifera mangrove periwinkle Littorina irrorata marsh periwinkle Littorinidae Littorina nebulosa cloudy periwinkle Planaxidae Planaxis nucleus black planaxis Modulidae Modulus modulus buttonsnail Cerithium eburneum ivory cerith Cerithium litteratum stocky cerith Cerithium lutosum variable cerith Cerithiidae Cerithiidae cerith family Strombus alatus Florida fighting conch Strombus cf. alatus likely Florida fighting conch

196

Table 5-1. Continued Family Taxa Common Name likely Florida fighting conch or West Indian fighting Strombus cf. alatus/pugilis conch cf. Strombus alatus likely Florida fighting conch Strombus gigas queen conch Strombus cf. gigas likely queen conch Strombus pugilis West Indian fighting conch likely West Indian fighting Strombus cf. pugilis conch Strombus raninus hawkwing conch Strombidae Strombus sp. conch Naticidae Naticarius cf. canrena colorful moonsnail Charonia variegata Atlantic trumpet triton Cymatiidae Cymatium nicobaricum goldmouth triton Chicoreus pomum apple murex Stramonita rustica rustic rocksnail Muricidae Urosalpinx perrugata Gulf oyster drill Columbella mercatoria West Indian dovesnail Columbella rusticoides rusty dovesnail Columbellidae Columbellidae dovesnail family Nassariidae Nassarius vibex nassa Fasciolariidae Fasciolaria lilium banded tulip Olividae Olivella nivea snowy dwarf olive Conidae Conus cf. jaspieus likely jasper cone Bullidae Bulla striata striate bubble Haminoeidae Haminoea sp. glassy-bubble Archeogastropoda sea snails Gastropoda (marine) marine gastropod Melampus coffeus coffee melampus Melampus cf. coffeus likely coffee melampus Ellobiidae Melampus sp. melampus Camaenidae Polydontes sp. no common name Annulariidae Haitipoma sp. Haitipoma Pleurodontidae Pleurodonte sp. no common name Gastropoda gastropod Mollusca mollusk

197

Table 5-2. The distribution of taxa across contexts in terms of presence and absence. Garden B Garden E Garden N Garden P Sheet Fea. Fea. Fea. Fea. Sheet Fea. Fea. Fea. Sheet Fea. Sheet Fea. Taxa Deposit 52 10 11 15 Deposit 49 14 16 Deposit Fea.55 60 Deposit 62 Brotomys voratus X X X Isolobodon portoricensis X X X X X X X X cf. Isolobodon portoricensis X Plagiodontia cf. aedium X Capromyidae X X X X X Rodentia X X X X X Large Mammalia X Large Mammalia cf. Trichechus manatus X Small Mammalia X X X Mammalia X X X Mammalia cf. Rodentia X Porphyrio martinicus X Rallidae X X X X X cf. Rallidae X Passeriformes X Aves X X X X X Trachemys sp. X X X X X X Emydidae X Caretta caretta X Cheloniidae X Testudines X X X X X Cyclura sp. X X X cf. Anolis sp. X Anguidae X Ameiva sp. X Celestus sp. X X X X Teiidae X Epicrates striatus X X X X X X Boidae X X X cf. Alsophis sp. X X Serpentes X Reptilia X X Rana sp. X X

198

Table 5-2. Continued Garden B Garden E Garden N Garden P Sheet Fea. Fea. Fea. Fea. Sheet Fea. Fea. Fea. Sheet Fea. Sheet Fea. Taxa Deposit 52 10 11 15 Deposit 49 14 16 Deposit Fea.55 60 Deposit 62 Anura cf. Bufonidae X Anura X X Carcharhinus sp. X X X X Rhizoprionodon terraenovae X Carcharhinidae X X Lamniformes X Elops saurus X Albula vulpes X X X X X Anguilliformes X Gymnothorax funebris X Gymnothorax sp. X X X cf. Gymmothorax sp. X Muraenidae X Clupeidae X Hemiramphus sp. X Hemiramphidae X X cf. Hemiramphidae X Strongylura sp. X X cf. Tylosurus sp. X Belonidae X X Belonidae cf. Strongylura sp. X Holocentrus sp. X X X X X X X X Holocentridae cf. Holocentrus sp. X Holocentridae X X X X Scorpaenidae X Centropomus parallelus X Centropomus pectinatus X Centropomus undecimalis X Centropomus sp. X X X X X X X Centropomidae X X

199

Table 5-2. Continued Garden B Garden E Garden N Garden P Sheet Fea. Fea. Fea. Fea. Sheet Fea. Fea. Fea. Sheet Fea. Sheet Fea. Taxa Deposit 52 10 11 15 Deposit 49 14 16 Deposit Fea.55 60 Deposit 62 Cephalopholis fulva X Epinephelus adscensionis X Epinephelus sp. X X X X X X X X X X X Mycteroperca sp. X Serranidae X X X X X X X X X Caranx hippos X Caranx latus X X Caranx sp. X X X X X X X cf. Caranx sp. X Carangoides ruber X X X X cf. Carangoides ruber X X Chloroscombus chrysurus X Carangidae X X X X X X X cf. Carangidae X Lutjanus synagris X Lutjanus sp. X X X X X X X cf. Lutjanus sp. X Ocyurus chrysurus X Lutjanidae X X X X cf. Lutjanidae X X X Diapterus sp. X cf. Diapterus sp. X cf. Gerres sp. X Gerreidae X X Haemulon sciurus X Haemulon cf. sciurus X cf. Haemulon plumieri X Haemulon sp. X X X X X X X X X X X X Haemulidae cf. Haemulon sp. X Haemulidae X X X X X

200

Table 5-2. Continued Garden B Garden E Garden N Garden P Sheet Fea. Fea. Fea. Fea. Sheet Fea. Fea. Fea. Sheet Fea. Sheet Fea. Taxa Deposit 52 10 11 15 Deposit 49 14 16 Deposit Fea.55 60 Deposit 62 cf. Haemulidae X Calamus sp. X X X X X X Sparidae cf. Archosargus sp. X Sparidae X Bairdiella sp. X X Micropogonias sp. X X Sciaenidae X cf. Sciaenidae X Mulliodichthys martinicus X Chaetodipterus faber X Pomacanthus sp. X X Bodianus sp. X Halichoeres sp. X X X X X X X Lachnolaimus sp. X X cf. Lachnolaimus maximus X Scarus sp. X X X X X X X Sparisoma chrysopterum X X Sparisoma rubripinne X Sparisoma cf. rubripinne X Sparisoma viride X X X X X X Sparisoma cf. viride X X Sparisoma sp. X X X X X X X X X X X Scaridae X X X X X X X Mugil sp. X X X X X Sphyraena barracuda X Sphyraena sp. X X X X X X X X X X cf. Sphyraena sp. X Eleotris sp. X Gobiomorus dormitor X X X X

201

Table 5-2. Continued Garden B Garden E Garden N Garden P Sheet Fea. Fea. Fea. Fea. Sheet Fea. Fea. Fea. Sheet Fea. Sheet Fea. Taxa Deposit 52 10 11 15 Deposit 49 14 16 Deposit Fea.55 60 Deposit 62 Eleotridae X Gobionellus sp. X X Acanthurus sp. X X X X X X X X Balistes sp. X X X X X X X Balistidae cf. Balistes sp. X Balistidae X Lactophrys sp. X X X cf. Lactophrys sp. X Sphoeroides sp. X X X X Diodon hystrix X X Diodon sp. X X X X X X X Diodontidae X Actinopterygii X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Vertebrata X X X X X X X X X X X X Portunidae X X X X X Cardisoma sp. X X X Gecarcinidae cf. Gecarcinus sp. X Gecarcinidae X X X X X X cf. Gecarcinidae X Brachyura X X X X X Decapoda X X X X X X X Balanus sp. X X X X X X X X X X Anadara chemnitzii X X X X Anadara ovalis X X X X Anadara cf. ovalis X X X X X X X X Anadara transversa X X X X X Anadara sp. X X X X Arca zebra X Arcidae X X X X X X cf. Arcidae X Brachidontes exustus X X X X X X X X X Brachidontes sp. X X Mytillidae X X X X X X

202

Table 5-2. Continued Garden B Garden E Garden N Garden P Sheet Fea. Fea. Fea. Fea. Sheet Fea. Fea. Fea. Sheet Fea. Sheet Fea. Taxa Deposit 52 10 11 15 Deposit 49 14 16 Deposit Fea.55 60 Deposit 62 Isognomon alatus X X X X X X X X X X X Pteria colymbus X Anomia simplex X Crassostrea virginica X X X X X X X Crassostrea sp. X X X X X Ostrea stentina X X X X X X X Ostrea sp. X Ostreidae X X X X X X X Anodontia alba X X Codakia orbicularis X X X X X X X X X X X X Lucina pectinata X X X X X X X X X Trachycardium egmontianum/ muricatium X Trachycardium sp. X X X X X Mulinia cleryana X X X X X X Mulinia cf. cleryana X X X X Solen obliquus X Tellina fausta X X X X X X cf. Tellina fausta X Tellina sp. X Donax denticulatus X X X X X X X X X X X X Iphigenia brasiliana X X X X X X X X X Tagleus plebeius X X X X X X X X X Mytilopsis cf. leucophaeata X X X X X Mytilopsis sp. X Anomalocardia brasiliana X X X X X X X X X X X X Chione cancellata X X X X X X X X X X X X Chione sp. X Globivenus sp. X X

203

Table 5-2. Continued Garden B Garden E Garden N Garden P Sheet Fea. Fea. Fea. Fea. Sheet Fea. Fea. Fea. Sheet Fea. Sheet Fea. Taxa Deposit 52 10 11 15 Deposit 49 14 16 Deposit Fea.55 60 Deposit 62 cf. Globivenus sp. X Lirophora latilirata X Periglypta listeri X X Pitar sp. X Protothaca granulata X X X X X X X X Veneridae X Corbula sp. X cf. Pholadidae X Bivalvia X X X X X X X X X X Cittarium pica X Tegula fasciata X Turbo castanea X X X Turbo sp. X Turbinidae X Nerita tessellata X X X Neritina clenchi X Neritina virginea X X X X X X X Neritina cf. virginea X Neritina sp. X Littorina angulifera X X Littorina irrorata X Littorina nebulosa X Planaxis nucleus X Modulus modulus X X X X X X Cerithium eburneum X X X X X X Cerithium litteratum X X Cerithium lutosum X Cerithiidae X Strombus alatus X X X X X X Strombus cf. alatus X X X X X X

204

Table 5-2. Continued Garden B Garden E Garden N Garden P Sheet Fea. Fea. Fea. Fea. Sheet Fea. Fea. Fea. Sheet Fea. Sheet Fea. Taxa Deposit 52 10 11 15 Deposit 49 14 16 Deposit Fea.55 60 Deposit 62 Strombus cf. alatus/pugilis X cf. Strombus alatus X X Strombus gigas X X X X X Strombus cf. gigas X Strombus pugilis X X X Strombus cf. pugilis X Strombus raninus X Strombus sp. X X X X X X X X X X X X Naticarius cf. canrena X Charonia variegata X X Cymatium nicobaricum X Chicoreus pomum X X X X Stramonita rustica X Urosalpinx perrugata X Columbella mercatoria X X X X Columbella rusticoides X Columbellidae X Nassarius vibex X Fasciolaria lilium X Olivella nivea X Conus cf. jaspieus X Bulla striata X Haminoea sp. X Archeogast. X

205

Table 5-2. Continued Garden B Garden E Garden N Garden P Sheet Fea. Fea. Fea. Fea. Sheet Fea. Fea. Fea. Sheet Fea. Sheet Fea. Taxa Deposit 52 10 11 15 Deposit 49 14 16 Deposit Fea.55 60 Deposit 62 Gastropoda (marine) X X X X Melampus coffeus X X Melampus cf. coffeus X Melampus sp. X X X X X X X Polydontes sp. X X Haitipoma sp. X Pleurodonte sp. X X Gastropoda X X X X X X X X X X X X Mollusca X X X X X X X X X X X X

206

Table 5-3. Garden B, Sheet Deposit: FS#s 7611, 7615 Taxon NISP % WT.(g) % MNI % Isolobodon portoricensis 2 3.0 0.6 0.4 1 5.6 Testudines 2 3.0 1.1 0.7 2 11.1 Epicrates striatus 1 1.5 0.5 0.3 1 5.6 Carcharhinus sp. 1 1.5 0.6 0.4 1 5.6 Holocentrus sp. 1 1.5 0.1 0.0 1 5.6 Epinephelus sp. 1 1.5 0.3 0.2 1 5.6 Sparisoma viride 2 3.0 0.8 0.5 1 5.6 Sparisoma sp. 4 6.0 2.2 1.5 3 16.7 Acanthurus sp. 1 1.5 0.1 0.1 1 5.6 Actinopterygii 9 13.4 1.6 1.0 - - Vertebrata 6 9.0 0.3 0.2 - - Total Vertebrata 30 44.8 8.1 5.3 12 66.7

Strombus cf. alatus 1 1.5 49.3 32.2 1 5.6 Strombus cf. alatus/pugilis 2 3.0 68.1 44.5 2 11.1 Strombus sp. 10 14.9 69.0 45.1 4 22.2 Gastropoda 16 23.9 4.6 3.0 - - Mollusca 9 13.4 3.3 2.1 - - Total Invertebrata 37 55.2 145.0 94.7 6 33.3

Total Taxa 67 100.0 153.1 100.0 18 100.0

207

Table 5-4. Garden B, Big Post, Feature 52: FS# 7889 Taxon NISP % WT.(g) % MNI % Halichoeres sp. 1 11.1 1.7 24.1 1 20.0 Actinopterygii 4 44.4 1.1 15.7 - - Total Vertebrata 5 55.6 2.8 39.8 1 20.0

Bivalvia 1 11.1 0.4 5.3 1 20.0 Gastropoda (marine) 3 33.3 3.9 54.8 3 60.0 Total Invertebrata 4 44.4 4.3 60.2 4 80.0

Total Taxa 9 100.0 7.1 100.0 5 100.0

208

Table 5-5. Garden C, Feast Pit, Feature 10: FS# 6306. Taxon NISP % WT.(g) % MNI % Brotomys voratus 5 0.2 0.7 0.0 1 0.1 Isolobodon portoricensis 40 1.8 15.1 0.2 6 0.8 Mammalia 24 1.1 4.2 0.1 - - Rallidae 3 0.1 0.2 0.0 1 0.1 Aves 6 0.3 2.0 0.0 - - Trachemys sp. 19 0.9 16.5 0.2 2 0.3 Celestus sp. 4 0.2 1.4 0.0 2 0.3 Cyclura sp. 4 0.2 3.3 0.0 1 0.1 Reptilia 3 0.1 0.6 0.0 - - Anura 21 1.0 1.8 0.0 1 0.1 Carcharhinidae 3 0.1 2.1 0.0 1 0.1 Albula vulpes 1 0.0 0.1 0.0 1 0.1 Muraenidae 3 0.1 0.9 0.0 2 0.3 Hemiramphidae 2 0.1 0.1 0.0 1 0.1 Holocentrus sp. 5 0.2 0.5 0.0 1 0.1 Centropomus parallelus 1 0.0 0.1 0.0 1 0.1 Centropomus pectinatus 1 0.0 0.7 0.0 1 0.1 Centropomus sp. 1 0.0 0.2 0.0 - - Epinephelus sp. 17 0.8 2.9 0.0 2 0.3 Serranidae 11 0.5 3.0 0.0 - - Carangoides ruber 3 0.1 0.4 0.0 2 0.3 Caranx sp. 25 1.1 4.4 0.1 2 0.3 Lutjanus sp. 18 0.8 4.0 0.1 3 0.4 Gerreidae 2 0.1 0.4 0.0 1 0.1 Haemulon cf. sciurus 6 0.3 0.8 0.0 1 0.1 Haemulon sp. 48 2.2 6.0 0.1 3 0.4 Calamus sp. 1 0.0 0.7 0.0 1 0.1 Micropogonias sp. 2 0.1 0.5 0.0 2 0.3 Chaetodipterus faber 1 0.0 0.2 0.0 1 0.1 Halichoeres sp. 3 0.1 1.7 0.0 3 0.4 Lachnolaimus sp. 1 0.0 3.3 0.0 1 0.1 Scarus sp. 1 0.0 0.9 0.0 1 0.1 Sparisoma viride 1 0.0 0.7 0.0 1 0.1 Sparisoma sp. 62 2.8 18.5 0.3 3 0.4 Mugil sp. 4 0.2 0.6 0.0 1 0.1 Sphyraena sp. 3 0.1 1.1 0.0 2 0.3 Acanthurus sp. 8 0.4 1.1 0.0 1 0.1 Balistes sp. 12 0.5 4.1 0.1 1 0.1 Lactophrys sp. 2 0.1 1.4 0.0 1 0.1 Diodon sp. 7 0.3 5.9 0.1 1 0.1

209

Table 5-5. Continued Taxon NISP % WT.(g) % MNI % Actinopterygii 173 7.8 44.6 0.6 - - Vertebrata - - 20.8 0.3 - - Total Vertebrata 557 25.2 178.5 2.5 56 7.2

Decapoda 1 0.0 1.0 0.0 1 0.1 Balanus sp. 36 1.6 11.2 0.2 - - Anadara chemnitzii 2 0.1 12.1 0.2 2 0.3 Anadara transversa 4 0.2 42.5 0.6 4 0.5 Anadara cf. ovalis 43 1.9 153.8 2.2 20 2.6 Arcidae 23 1.0 24.5 0.3 - - Brachiodontes exustus 7 0.3 6.4 0.1 4 0.5 Mytilidae - - 8.5 0.1 - - Isognomon alatus 32 1.4 106.4 1.5 18 2.3 Anomia simplex 1 0.0 0.9 0.0 1 0.1 Crassostrea virginica 199 9.0 1018.5 14.4 100 12.8 Ostrea stentina 66 3.0 171.9 2.4 33 4.2 Ostreidae - - 751.3 10.6 - - Codakia orbicularis 164 7.4 1724.7 24.4 86 11.0 Lucina pectinata 66 3.0 338.8 4.8 35 4.5 Trachycardium sp. 10 0.5 15.7 0.2 3 0.4 Mulinia cf. cleryana 13 0.6 10.5 0.1 5 0.6 Tellina fausta 53 2.4 89.1 1.3 3 0.4 Tellina sp. 1 0.0 0.2 0.0 1 0.1 Donax denticulatus 252 11.4 275.2 3.9 78 10.0 Iphigenia brasiliana 20 0.9 54.0 0.8 7 0.9 Tagleus plebeius 16 0.7 6.2 0.1 6 0.8 Mytilopsis cf. leucopheta 82 3.7 21.7 0.3 36 4.6 Anomalocardia brasiliana 124 5.6 202.4 2.9 63 8.1 Chione cancellata 163 7.4 599.9 8.5 82 10.5 Periglypta listeri 1 0.0 1.0 0.0 1 0.1 Protothaca granulata 54 2.4 59.0 0.8 16 2.0 Veneridae 1 0.0 0.9 0.0 - - Bivalvia - - 219.6 3.1 - - Turbo castanea 2 0.1 3.8 0.1 2 0.3 Neritina virginea 17 0.8 10.8 0.2 15 1.9 Littorina angulifera 1 0.0 0.1 0.0 1 0.1 Modulus modulus 2 0.1 1.4 0.0 2 0.3 Cerithium eburneum 3 0.1 1.3 0.0 3 0.4 Strombus alatus 9 0.4 270.4 3.8 9 1.2 Strombus gigas 24 1.1 338.8 4.8 3 0.4 Strombus sp.* 49 2.2 259.9 3.7 - - Naticarius cf. canrena 1 0.0 3.9 0.1 1 0.1

210

Table 5-5. Continued Taxon NISP % WT.(g) % MNI % Cymatium nicobaricum 3 0.1 1.6 0.0 1 0.1 Urosalpinx perrugata 1 0.0 1.0 0.0 1 0.1 Columbella mercatoria 1 0.0 0.4 0.0 1 0.1 Fasciolaria lilium 3 0.1 25.3 0.4 3 0.4 Gastropoda (marine) 25 1.1 17.0 0.2 - - Melampus sp. 77 3.5 35.3 0.5 77 9.9 Haitipoma sp. 1 0.0 1.1 0.0 1 0.1 Total Invertebrata 1653 74.8 6900.0 97.5 725 92.8

Total Taxa 2210 100.0 7078.5 100.0 781 100.0

211

Table 5-6. Garden C, Feast Pit, Feature 11: FS#s 6316, 6324. Taxon NISP % WT.(g) % MNI % Brotomys voratus 1 0.0 0.6 0.0 1 0.1 Isolobodon portoricensis 20 0.5 13.1 0.2 3 0.4 Capromyidae 18 0.5 9.8 0.2 3 0.4 Rodentia 27 0.7 5.6 0.1 - - Mammalia, small 2 0.1 0.3 0.0 - - Porphyrio martinicus 2 0.1 0.5 0.0 1 0.1 Rallidae 3 0.1 0.2 0.0 1 0.1 cf. Rallidae 4 0.1 0.8 0.0 - - Aves 6 0.2 1.6 0.0 - - Trachemys sp. 22 0.6 20.8 0.4 2 0.3 Testudines 40 1.0 13.3 0.2 1 0.1 Celestus sp. 4 0.1 1.5 0.0 3 0.4 Epicrates striatus 1 0.0 0.1 0.0 1 0.1 Boidae 11 0.3 2.2 0.0 - - cf. Alsophis sp. 3 0.1 0.4 0.0 1 0.1 Reptilia 1 0.0 0.1 0.0 - - Rana sp. 1 0.0 0.1 0.0 1 0.1 Albula vulpes 2 0.1 1.3 0.0 2 0.3 Gymnothorax sp. 2 0.1 0.4 0.0 1 0.1 Strongylura sp. 5 0.1 0.3 0.0 1 0.1 Holocentrus sp. 1 0.0 0.2 0.0 1 0.1 Holocentridae 4 0.1 0.5 0.0 - - Centropomus sp. 11 0.3 2.8 0.0 2 0.3 Cephalopholis fulva 1 0.0 0.1 0.0 1 0.1 Epinephelus sp. 7 0.2 1.5 0.0 1 0.1 Serranidae 13 0.3 1.6 0.0 - - Caranx latus 2 0.1 1.0 0.0 1 0.1 Carangoides ruber 3 0.1 0.7 0.0 2 0.3 cf. Carangoides ruber 1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Caranx sp. 60 1.5 11.2 0.2 1 0.1 Chloroscombus chrysurus 1 0.0 0.1 0.0 1 0.1 Carangidae 14 0.4 1.9 0.0 - - Lutjanus sp. 15 0.4 2.3 0.0 2 0.3 Lutjanidae 11 0.3 1.9 0.0 - - cf. Lutjanidae 2 0.1 0.4 0.0 1 0.1 Diapterus sp. 1 0.0 0.3 0.0 1 0.1 Haemulon sp. 24 0.6 3.1 0.1 3 0.4 Haemulidae 1 0.0 0.9 0.0 - - Calamus sp. 6 0.2 1.0 0.0 1 0.1 Sparidae 1 0.0 0.1 0.0 - - Lachnolaimus sp. 1 0.0 0.2 0.0 1 0.1 Halichoeres sp. 1 0.0 0.5 0.0 1 0.1 Scarus sp. 3 0.1 1.6 0.0 1 0.1 Sparisoma cf. rubripinne 1 0.0 0.1 0.0 1 0.1

212

Table 5-6. Continued Taxon NISP % WT.(g) % MNI % Sparisoma viride 1 0.0 1.2 0.0 1 0.1 Sparisoma sp. 50 1.3 7.0 0.1 2 0.3 Scaridae 1 0.0 0.5 0.0 - - Mugil sp. 3 0.1 0.4 0.0 2 0.3 Sphyraena sp. 7 0.2 0.7 0.0 1 0.1 Gobiomorus dormitor 1 0.0 0.2 0.0 1 0.1 Acanthurus sp. 9 0.2 1.4 0.0 1 0.1 Balistes sp. 7 0.2 2.5 0.0 2 0.3 Lactophrys sp. 6 0.2 0.6 0.0 2 0.3 Diodon sp. 2 0.1 0.6 0.0 1 0.1 Actinopterygii 391 9.8 42.7 0.7 - - Vertebrata 200 5.0 11.0 0.2 - - Total Vertebrata 1038 26.0 175.9 3.1 57 7.1

Portunidae 17 0.4 6.3 0.1 5 0.6 Gecarcinidae cf. Gecarcinus sp. 39 1.0 46.2 0.8 14 1.8 Gecarcinidae 10 0.3 7.5 0.1 5 0.6 cf. Gecarcinidae 1 0.0 0.8 0.0 - - Decapoda 209 5.2 37.5 0.7 - - Balanus sp. 8 0.2 2.4 0.0 2 0.3 Anadara cf. ovalis 7 0.2 28.3 0.5 6 0.7 Anadara transversa 12 0.3 127.9 2.2 7 0.9 Arca zebra 1 0.0 5.0 0.1 1 0.1 Arcidae 16 0.4 12.3 0.2 - - Brachidontes exustus 21 0.5 17.6 0.3 12 1.5 Mytilidae 45 1.1 8.9 0.2 - - Isognomon alatus 35 0.9 48.4 0.8 19 2.4 Crassostrea virginica 51 1.3 206.5 3.6 31 3.9 Ostrea stentina 1 0.0 3.6 0.1 1 0.1 Ostreidae 112 2.8 151.3 2.6 - - Codakia orbicularis 609 15.3 1310.8 22.9 139 17.4 Lucina pectinata 72 1.8 135.0 2.4 21 2.6 Trachycardium egmontianum/ muricatium 7 0.2 6.8 0.1 - - Trachycardium sp. 1 0.0 0.3 0.0 1 0.1 Mulinia cf. cleryana 3 0.1 3.8 0.1 2 0.3 Tellina fausta 16 0.4 30.1 0.5 4 0.5 Donax denticulata 114 2.9 97.6 1.7 43 5.4 Tagleus plebeius 16 0.4 6.6 0.1 6 0.8 Mytilopsis cf. leucopheta 2 0.1 0.2 0.0 2 0.3 Anomalocardia brasiliana 284 7.1 292.1 5.1 88 11.0 Chione cancellata 511 12.8 882.0 15.4 127 15.9 Pitar sp. 1 0.0 3.6 0.1 1 0.1

213

Table 5-6. Continued Taxon NISP % WT.(g) % MNI % Protothaca granulata 152 3.8 145.4 2.5 57 7.1 Bivalvia - - 1345.3 23.5 - - Modulus modulus 6 0.2 1.6 0.0 6 0.8 Strombus cf. alatus 5 0.1 36.3 0.6 2 0.3 Strombus sp. 16 0.4 36.7 0.6 1 0.1 Chicoreus pomum 11 0.3 92.2 1.6 6 0.8 Olivella nivea 2 0.1 1.0 0.0 2 0.3 Gastropoda (marine) 1 0.0 0.5 0.0 - - Melampus sp. 520 13.0 75.8 1.3 132 16.5 Gastropoda 16 0.4 9.9 0.2 - - Mollusca - - 326.8 5.7 - - Total Invertebrata 2950 74.0 5550.7 96.9 743 92.8

Total Taxa 3988 100.0 5726.5 100.0 800 100.0

214

Table 5-7. Garden C, Feast Pit, Feature 15: FS# 6751. Taxon Count % WT.(g) % MNI % Brotomys voratus 1 0.0 0.5 0.0 1 0.0 Isolobodon portoricensis 20 0.1 11.0 0.1 5 0.0 Plagiodontia cf. aedium 1 0.0 2.5 0.0 1 0.0 Capromyidae 28 0.2 8.7 0.1 - - Rodentia 9 0.1 1.2 0.0 - - Mammalia, Small 14 0.1 1.6 0.0 - - Mammalia, Large 1 0.0 1.6 0.0 1 0.0 Rallidae 1 0.0 0.1 0.0 1 0.0 Aves 16 0.1 4.9 0.0 2 0.0 Trachemys sp. 27 0.2 20.2 0.2 2 0.0 Testudines 4 0.0 0.7 0.0 - - Cyclura sp. 1 0.0 0.1 0.0 1 0.0 cf. Anolis sp. 1 0.0 0.2 0.0 1 0.0 Ameiva sp. 1 0.0 0.1 0.0 1 0.0 Celestus sp. 12 0.1 1.9 0.0 3 0.0 Epicrates striatus 1 0.0 0.5 0.0 1 0.0 Serpentes cf. Alsophis sp. 4 0.0 0.5 0.0 2 0.0 Anura 2 0.0 0.2 0.0 1 0.0 Rhizoprionodon terraenovae 1 0.0 0.2 0.0 1 0.0 Lamniformes 3 0.0 0.4 0.0 1 0.0 Albula vulpes 5 0.0 1.6 0.0 2 0.0 cf. Gymmothorax sp. 1 0.0 0.1 0.0 1 0.0 Hemiramphidae 7 0.0 0.2 0.0 4 0.0 Strongylura sp. 1 0.0 0.1 0.0 1 0.0 Holocentrus sp. 9 0.1 0.9 0.0 3 0.0 Centropomus sp. 5 0.0 1.5 0.0 2 0.0 Epinephelus sp. 82 0.6 14.6 0.1 9 0.1 Serranidae 18 0.1 1.8 0.0 - - Caranx latus 1 0.0 0.4 0.0 1 0.0 Caranx sp. 86 0.6 17.0 0.1 5 0.0 cf. Caranx sp. 2 0.0 0.2 0.0 - - Lutjanus sp. 57 0.4 9.1 0.1 8 0.1 Ocyurus chrysurus 5 0.0 0.5 0.0 1 0.0 Lutjanidae 5 0.0 0.5 0.0 - - cf. Lutjanidae 1 0.0 0.3 0.0 - - cf. Diapterus sp. 1 0.0 0.2 0.0 1 0.0 cf. Gerres sp. 1 0.0 0.1 0.0 1 0.0 Haemulon sciurus 1 0.0 0.4 0.0 1 0.0 Haemulon sp. 134 0.9 12.4 0.1 10 0.1 cf. Haemulon plumieri 1 0.0 0.5 0.0 1 0.0 Haemulidae 1 0.0 0.1 0.0 Calamus sp. 4 0.0 0.4 0.0 2 0.0

215

Table 5-7. Continued Taxon Count % WT.(g) % MNI % Sparidae cf. Archosargus sp. 1 0.0 0.1 0.0 1 0.0 Bairdiella sp. 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 cf. Sciaenidae 1 0.0 0.1 0.0 Halichoeres sp. 10 0.1 1.1 0.0 4 0.0 cf. Lachnolaimus maximus 1 0.0 0.1 0.0 1 0.0 Scarus sp. 5 0.0 0.2 0.0 1 0.0 Sparisoma cf. viride 1 0.0 0.6 0.0 1 0.0 Sparisoma sp. 235 1.7 43.3 0.4 24 0.2 Scaridae 1 0.0 0.1 0.0 - - Mugil sp. 19 0.1 1.7 0.0 2 0.0 Sphyraena barracuda 6 0.0 7.4 0.1 1 0.0 Sphyraena sp. 8 0.1 1.6 0.0 2 0.0 Gobiomorus dormitator 2 0.0 0.4 0.0 1 0.0 Gobionellus sp. 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 Acanthurus sp. 12 0.1 1.5 0.0 1 0.0 Balistes sp. 6 0.0 1.2 0.0 3 0.0 Lactophrys sp. 8 0.1 0.8 0.0 2 0.0 cf. Lactophrys sp. 1 0.0 0.2 0.0 - - Spheroides sp. 1 0.0 0.2 0.0 1 0.0 Diodon sp. 21 0.1 3.4 0.0 2 0.0 Actinopterygii 682 4.8 87.3 0.8 - - Vertebrata - - 6.7 0.1 - - Total Vertebrata 1599 11.3 277.6 2.4 127 1.2

Decapoda 14 0.1 42.6 0.4 1 0.0 Balanus sp. 191 1.4 41.3 0.4 59 0.6 Anadara cf. ovalis 20 0.1 75.8 0.7 11 0.1 Anadara transversa 7 0.0 28.2 0.2 3 0.0 Arcidae 42 0.3 44.6 0.4 - - Brachidontes exustus 57 0.4 56.1 0.5 30 0.3 Mytilidae - - 36.7 0.3 - - Isognomon alatus 143 1.0 249.6 2.2 32 0.3 Pteria colymbus 3 0.0 6.9 0.1 3 0.0 Crassostrea virginica 253 1.8 1032.4 9.1 133 1.3 Ostrea stentina 64 0.5 177.0 1.6 26 0.2 Ostreidae 703.9 6.2 Anodontia alba 2 0.0 3.9 0.0 1 0.0 Codakia orbicularis 209 1.5 1902.2 16.7 72 0.7 Lucina pectinatus 302 2.1 361.2 3.2 34 0.3 Trachycardium sp. 32 0.2 18.0 0.2 1 0.0 Mulinia cf. cleryana 16 0.1 16.4 0.1 7 0.1 Tellina fausta 36 0.3 74.8 0.7 2 0.0 Donax denticulata 282 2.0 339.6 3.0 122 1.2

216

Table 5-7. Continued Taxon Count % WT.(g) % MNI % Iphigenia brasiliana 11 0.1 30.6 0.3 5 0.0 Tagleus plebeius 27 0.2 6.8 0.1 4 0.0 Mytilopsis cf. leucophaeata 78 0.6 13.9 0.1 36 0.3 Anomalocardia brasiliana 220 1.6 133.0 1.2 43 0.4 Chione cancellata 293 2.1 702.7 6.2 105 1.0 Globivenus sp. 1 0.0 2.3 0.0 1 0.0 Lirophora latilirata 1 0.0 6.1 0.1 1 0.0 Periglypta listeri 2 0.0 4.3 0.0 1 0.0 Protothaca granulata 220 1.6 186.7 1.6 55 0.5 Bivalvia - - 285.1 2.5 - - Tegula fasciata 1 0.0 2.0 0.0 1 0.0 Turbo castanea 3 0.0 10.1 0.1 3 0.0 Turbinidae 1 0.0 0.7 0.0 - - Neritina virginea 36 0.3 16.8 0.1 26 0.2 Neritina sp. 1 0.0 0.5 0.0 1 0.0 Littorina angulifera 2 0.0 1.1 0.0 2 0.0 Littorina irrorata 1 0.0 0.3 0.0 1 0.0 Planaxis nucleus 1 0.0 0.2 0.0 1 0.0 Modulus modulus 18 0.1 4.5 0.0 18 0.2 Cerithium litteratum 29 0.2 12.2 0.1 27 0.3 Cerithium lutosum 5 0.0 0.8 0.0 5 0.0 Strombus alatus 26 0.2 513.8 4.5 11 0.1 Strombus cf. alatus 87 0.6 377.8 3.3 - - Strombus gigas 25 0.2 736.4 6.5 5 0.0 Strombus raninus 3 0.0 164.3 1.4 2 0.0 Strombus sp. 180 1.3 192.9 1.7 - - cf. Strombus alatus 7 0.0 111.5 1.0 - - Charonia variegata 1 0.0 3.6 0.0 - - Chicoreus pomum 7 0.0 55.8 0.5 1 0.0 Stramonita rustica 1 0.0 5.9 0.1 1 0.0 Columbella mercatoria 3 0.0 0.8 0.0 3 0.0 Columbellidae 1 0.0 0.1 0.0 - - Nassarius vibex 1 0.0 0.5 0.0 1 0.0 Conus cf. jaspieus 1 0.0 1.0 0.0 1 0.0 Bulla striata 3 0.0 1.5 0.0 2 0.0 Haminoea sp. 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 Gastropoda (marine) 38 0.3 4.9 0.0 - - Melampus sp. 9509 67.3 1962.1 17.2 9509 90.2 Polydontes sp. 3 0.0 23.5 0.2 1 0.0 Gastropoda 1 0.0 10.7 0.1 1 0.0 Mollusca - - 329.3 2.9 - - Total Invertebrata 12522 88.7 11128.1 97.6 10412 98.8

Total Taxa 14121 100.0 11405.7 100.0 10539 100.0

217

Table 5-8. Garden E Sheet Deposit: FS# 3751, 3752, 3792, 3817 3821, 3834. Taxon Count % WT.(g) % MNI % Capromyidae 3 1.1 0.3 0.1 1 1.8 Mammalia 1 0.4 0.7 0.2 - - Teiidae 2 0.8 0.1 0.0 1 1.8 Carcharhinus sp. 1 0.4 0.7 0.2 1 1.8 Holocentridae 1 0.4 0.1 0.0 1 1.8 Epinephelus sp. 2 0.8 0.2 0.1 1 1.8 Serranidae 4 1.5 4.5 1.4 2 3.5 Caranx sp. 1 0.4 0.2 0.1 1 1.8 Carangidae 1 0.4 0.2 0.1 1 1.8 Lutjanus sp. 4 1.5 0.6 0.2 3 5.3 Haemulon sp. 9 3.4 0.9 0.3 3 5.3 Haemulidae 2 0.8 0.1 0.0 1 1.8 Calamus sp. 1 0.4 0.1 0.0 1 1.8 Sparisoma sp. 4 1.5 0.7 0.2 2 3.5 Scaridae 1 0.4 0.0 0.0 1 1.8 Diodon sp. 3 1.1 0.3 0.1 1 1.8 Diodontidae 1 0.4 0.1 0.0 - - Actinopterygii 86 32.3 10.3 3.3 - - Vertebrata 16 6.0 0.8 0.2 - - Total Vertebrata 143 53.8 20.9 6.6 21 36.8

Decapoda 3 1.1 2.3 0.7 1 1.8 Balanus sp. 2 0.8 0.4 0.1 1 1.8 Anadara sp. 6 2.3 5.3 1.7 - - Anadara cf. ovalis 1 0.4 3.7 1.2 1 1.8 Arcidae 1 0.4 1.3 0.4 1 1.8 Brachidontes exustus 1 0.4 2.5 0.8 1 1.8 Crassostrea virginica 7 2.6 16.6 5.3 4 7.0 Ostreidae 6 2.3 13.4 4.3 - - Codakia orbicularis 1 0.4 1.3 0.4 1 1.8 cf. Tellina fausta 1 0.4 1.3 0.4 1 1.8 Donax denticulata 17 6.4 20.5 6.5 9 15.8 Anomalocardia brasiliana 1 0.4 1.7 0.5 1 1.8 Chione cancellata 2 0.8 4.8 1.5 2 3.5 Chione sp. 6 2.3 1.7 0.5 1 1.8 Globivenus sp. 4 1.5 3.4 1.1 2 3.5 Protothaca granulata 1 0.4 2.5 0.8 1 1.8 Bivalvia 45 16.9 24.2 7.7 - - Neritina virginea 1 0.4 0.2 0.1 1 1.8 Strombus sp. 6 2.3 40.8 13.0 5 8.8 Strombus alatus 2 0.8 138.1 43.9 2 3.5 Melampus sp. 2 0.8 0.2 0.1 1 1.8

218

Table 5-8. Continued Taxon Count % WT.(g) % MNI % Gastropoda 3 1.1 0.5 0.1 - - Mollusca 4 1.5 7.2 2.3 - - Total Invertebrata 123 46.2 293.7 93.4 36 63.2

Total Taxa 266 100.0 314.6 100.0 57 100.0

219

Table 5-9. Garden E, Pit Feature 49: FS# 7469. Taxon Count % WT.(g) % MNI % cf. Isolobodon portoricensis 13 0.3 2.8 0.0 1 0.1 Large Mammalia cf. Trichechus manatus 1 0.0 1.5 0.0 1 0.1 Rallidae 2 0.0 0.3 0.0 1 0.1 Trachemys sp. 11 0.2 11.6 0.1 1 0.1 Cheloniidae 2 0.0 0.9 0.0 1 0.1 Epicrates striatus 1 0.0 0.2 0.0 1 0.1 Serpentes 5 0.1 1.3 0.0 1 0.1 Anura cf. Bufonidae 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.1 Carcharhinus sp. 2 0.0 0.2 0.0 1 0.1 Anguilliformes 2 0.0 0.2 0.0 1 0.1 Clupeidae 3 0.1 0.0 0.0 1 0.1 Hemiramphus sp. 3 0.1 0.0 0.0 1 0.1 Belonidae cf. Strongylura sp. 1 0.0 0.1 0.0 1 0.1 Belonidae 5 0.1 0.6 0.0 1 0.1 Holocentrus sp. 2 0.0 0.3 0.0 1 0.1 Scorpaenidae 2 0.0 0.3 0.0 2 0.2 Epinephelus adscensionis 1 0.0 2.6 0.0 1 0.1 Epinephelus sp. 12 0.3 1.9 0.0 5 0.4 Caranx sp. 19 0.4 3.2 0.0 6 0.5 Carangidae 4 0.1 0.9 0.0 Lutjanus sp. 44 0.9 5.7 0.1 6 0.5 Haemulon sp. 32 0.7 2.3 0.0 6 0.5 Bairdiella sp. 4 0.1 0.4 0.0 3 0.3 Micropogonias sp. 3 0.1 0.4 0.0 2 0.2 Mulliodichthys martinicus 2 0.0 0.3 0.0 1 0.1 Bodianus sp. 1 0.0 0.1 0.0 1 0.1 Halichoeres sp. 4 0.1 0.1 0.0 2 0.2 Scarus sp. 6 0.1 1.0 0.0 3 0.3 Sparisoma viride 5 0.1 9.9 0.1 2 0.2 Sparisoma rubripinne 2 0.0 1.0 0.0 2 0.2 Sparisoma sp. 72 1.5 8.7 0.1 13 1.1 Scaridae 18 0.4 0.9 0.0 - - Mugil sp. 9 0.2 0.3 0.0 2 0.2 Sphyraena sp. 8 0.2 0.5 0.0 1 0.1 Gobiomorus dormitor 16 0.3 2.2 0.0 3 0.3 Eleotridae 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.2 Acanthurus sp. 15 0.3 1.4 0.0 7 0.6 Balistidae cf. Balistes sp. 14 0.3 2.1 0.0 4 0.3

220

Table 5-9. Continued Taxon Count % WT.(g) % MNI % Lactophrys sp. 10 0.2 0.3 0.0 1 0.1 Sphoeroides sp. 1 0.0 0.1 0.0 1 0.1 Diodon sp. 9 0.2 0.7 0.0 1 0.1 Actinopterygii 1081 22.8 108.7 1.4 - - Vertebrata 52 1.1 5.5 0.1 - - Total Vertebrata 1502 31.6 181.4 2.3 92 7.8

Portunidae 55 1.2 13.8 0.2 13 1.1 Cardisoma sp. 6 0.1 7.2 0.1 2 0.2 Gecarcinidae 21 0.4 4.0 0.1 2 0.2 Brachyura 73 1.5 2.6 0.0 - - Decapoda 1 0.0 0.2 0.0 1 0.1 Balanus sp. 114 2.4 36.7 0.5 - - Anadara chemnitzii 1 0.0 5.2 0.1 1 0.1 Anadara cf. ovalis 88 1.9 428.7 5.5 42 3.6 Brachidontes sp. 104 2.2 39.0 0.5 22 1.9 Isognomon alatus 211 4.4 237.2 3.1 29 2.5 Crassostrea virginica 754 15.9 4552.5 58.8 380 32.2 Ostrea stentina 48 1.0 85.8 1.1 24 2.0 Anodontia alba 1 0.0 2.1 0.0 1 0.1 Codakia orbicularis 95 2.0 219.4 2.8 14 1.2 Lucina pectinata 16 0.3 44.8 0.6 4 0.3 Trachycardium sp. 1 0.0 10.2 0.1 1 0.1 Mulinia cleryana 86 1.8 143.0 1.8 43 3.6 Solen obliquus 3 0.1 6.8 0.1 2 0.2 Tellina fausta 3 0.1 23.9 0.3 2 0.2 Donax denticulata 177 3.7 237.9 3.1 78 6.6 Iphiginia brasiliana 4 0.1 5.3 0.1 3 0.3 Tagleus plebeius 54 1.1 43.8 0.6 33 2.8 Anomalocardia brasiliana 16 0.3 20.2 0.3 6 0.5 Chione cancellata 28 0.6 57.4 0.7 7 0.6 Protothaca granulata 3 0.1 8.6 0.1 3 0.3 Corbula sp. 1 0.0 0.1 0.0 1 0.1 cf. Pholadidae 2 0.0 2.2 0.0 1 0.1 Bivalvia 718 15.1 223.7 2.9 - - Cittarium pica 1 0.0 3.6 0.0 1 0.1 Turbo castanea 2 0.0 1.1 0.0 1 0.1 Nerita tessellata 8 0.2 11.7 0.2 8 0.7 Neritina clenchi 1 0.0 2.9 0.0 1 0.1 Neritina virginea 5 0.1 3.1 0.0 5 0.4 Neritina cf. virginea 1 0.0 0.4 0.0 1 0.1 Modulus modulus 11 0.2 4.2 0.1 11 0.9 Cerithium eburneum 11 0.2 4.8 0.1 11 0.9

221

Table 5-9. Continued Taxon Count % WT.(g) % MNI % Cerithium litteratum 5 0.1 1.8 0.0 5 0.4 Strombus alatus 37 0.8 555.8 7.2 14 1.2 Strombus gigas 2 0.0 323.9 4.2 2 0.2 Charonia variegata 3 0.1 13.6 0.2 2 0.2 Columbella rusticoides 2 0.0 0.6 0.0 2 0.2 Archeogastropoda 6 0.1 0.0 0.0 6 0.5 Melampus cf. coffeus 334 7.0 74.9 1.0 301 25.5 Gastropoda 68 1.4 75.4 1.0 1 0.1 Mollusca 66 1.4 17.1 0.2 - - Total Invertebrata 3247 68.4 7557.3 97.7 1087 92.2

Total Taxa 4749 100.0 7738.7 100.0 1179 100.0

222

Table 5-10. Garden E, Big Post, Feature 14: FS# 6730. Taxon Count % WT.(g) % MNI % Isolobodon portoricensis 1 0.3 0.5 0.1 1 1.3 Capromyidae 2 0.7 1.4 0.3 - - Rodentia 1 0.3 0.1 0.0 - - Boidae 1 0.3 0.1 0.0 1 1.3 Gymnothorax sp. 2 0.7 0.1 0.0 1 1.3 Centropomus sp. 1 0.3 0.3 0.1 1 1.3 Epinephelus sp. 7 2.3 1.2 0.3 1 1.3 Serranidae 3 1.0 2.8 0.6 - - cf. Carangoides ruber 1 0.3 0.2 0.0 1 1.3 Carangidae 1 0.3 0.1 0.0 - - cf. Lutjanidae 3 1.0 0.5 0.1 2 2.5 Haemulon sp. 4 1.3 0.4 0.1 1 1.3 cf. Haemulidae 1 0.3 0.2 0.0 - - Calamus sp. 2 0.7 0.9 0.2 1 1.3 Sciaenidae 1 0.3 0.4 0.1 1 1.3 Sparisoma sp. 13 4.2 2.0 0.4 2 2.5 Scaridae 4 1.3 0.3 0.1 - - Gobiomorus dormitor 1 0.3 0.3 0.1 1 1.3 Acanthurus sp. 3 1.0 0.4 0.1 1 1.3 Balistes sp. 1 0.3 0.7 0.1 1 1.3 Spheroides sp. 1 0.3 0.2 0.0 1 1.3 Diodon sp. 1 0.3 0.2 0.0 1 1.3 Actinopterygii 143 46.6 17.0 3.6 - - Vertebrata - - 2.1 0.4 - - Total Vertebrata 198 64.5 32.4 6.8 18 22.5

Decapoda 1 0.3 0.5 0.1 1 1.3 Balanus sp. 1 0.3 0.2 0.0 1 1.3 Anadara cf. ovalis 14 4.6 64.0 13.5 7 8.8 cf. Arcidae 7 2.3 7.2 1.5 7 8.8 Isognomon alatus 1 0.3 1.3 0.3 1 1.3 Crassostrea virginica 7 2.3 30.6 6.5 6 7.5 Ostrea stentina 1 0.3 0.7 0.1 1 1.3 Codakia orbicularis 16 5.2 61.0 12.9 10 12.5 Lucina pectinata 9 2.9 7.5 1.6 4 5.0 Mulinia cf. cleryana 1 0.3 0.9 0.2 1 1.3 Donax denticulata 14 4.6 21.2 4.5 7 8.8 Iphigenia brasiliana 4 1.3 23.7 5.0 3 3.8 Mytilopsis cf. leucopheta 1 0.3 0.0 0.0 1 1.3 Anomalocardia brasiliana 13 4.2 10.7 2.3 7 8.8 Chione cancellata 5 1.6 7.4 1.6 2 2.5

223

Table 5-10. Continued Taxon Count % WT.(g) % MNI % Bivalvia 0.0 96.4 20.3 - - Nerita tessellata 1 0.3 1.5 0.3 1 1.3 Strombus cf. alatus 1 0.3 21.2 4.5 1 1.3 Strombus sp. 5 1.6 41.5 8.7 0.0 Melampus sp. 3 1.0 0.6 0.1 1 1.3 Gastropoda 4 1.3 1.2 0.3 0.0 Mollusca 0.0 42.6 9.0 0.0 Total Invertebrata 109 35.5 441.9 93.2 62 77.5

Total Taxa 307 100.0 474.3 100.0 80 100.0

224

Table 5-11. Garden E, Trench Structure, Feature 16: FS# 6789. Taxon Count % WT.(g) % MNI % Isolobodon portoricensis 10 0.4 2.1 0.0 2 0.2 Capromyidae 1 0.0 0.7 0.0 - - Rodentia 5 0.2 1.1 0.0 - - Aves 5 0.2 0.5 0.0 1 0.1 Caretta caretta 1 0.0 23.4 0.5 1 0.1 Testudines 4 0.2 0.7 0.0 - - Cyclura sp. 1 0.0 0.3 0.0 1 0.1 Celestus sp. 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.1 Epicrates striatus 2 0.1 0.3 0.0 1 0.1 Rana sp. 1 0.0 0.1 0.0 1 0.1 Carcharhinidae 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.1 Albula vulpes 2 0.1 0.4 0.0 1 0.1 Gymnothorax sp. 2 0.1 0.3 0.0 1 0.1 cf. Hemiramphidae 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.1 Holocentrus sp. 6 0.2 0.8 0.0 1 0.1 Holocentridae 2 0.1 0.1 0.0 - - Centropomus sp. 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.1 Epinephelus sp. 12 0.5 3.8 0.1 2 0.2 Serranidae 9 0.4 1.3 0.0 - - Carangoides ruber 1 0.0 0.4 0.0 1 0.1 Caranx sp. 8 0.3 1.0 0.0 2 0.2 cf. Carangidae 4 0.2 0.5 0.0 - - Lutjanus sp. 15 0.6 1.9 0.0 3 0.3 cf. Lutjanidae 4 0.2 0.6 0.0 2 0.2 Gerreidae 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.1 Haemulon sp. 10 0.4 0.7 0.0 2 0.2 Haemulidae 2 0.1 0.2 0.0 - - Calamus sp. 1 0.0 0.6 0.0 1 0.1 Pomacanthus sp. 1 0.0 0.1 0.0 1 0.1 Scarus sp. 1 0.0 0.2 0.0 1 0.1 Sparisoma cf. viride 1 0.0 0.3 0.0 1 0.1 Sparisoma sp. 16 0.6 3.9 0.1 3 0.3 Scaridae 11 0.4 0.5 0.0 - - Sphyraena sp. 2 0.1 0.2 0.0 1 0.1 cf. Sphyraena sp. 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.1 Gobionellus sp. 3 0.1 0.0 0.0 1 0.1 Acanthurus sp. 6 0.2 0.6 0.0 2 0.2 Balistes sp. 3 0.1 1.0 0.0 2 0.2 Diodon sp. 4 0.2 0.3 0.0 1 0.1 Actinopterygii 300 11.9 18.6 0.4 - - Vertebrata 11.6 0.2 - - Total Vertebrata 462 18.3 79.2 1.7 42 3.9

225

Table 5-11. Continued Taxon Count % WT.(g) % MNI % Decapoda 4 0.2 2.4 0.1 1 0.1 Balanus sp. 32 1.3 13.1 0.3 9 0.8 Anadara cf. ovalis 77 3.1 233.7 5.0 46 4.2 Anadara chemnitizii 2 0.1 8.3 0.2 2 0.2 Arcidae - 27.5 0.6 - - Brachiodontes exustus 1 0.0 0.2 0.0 1 0.1 Mytilidae 19 0.8 4.6 0.1 - - Isognomon alatus 28 1.1 53.6 1.1 5 0.5 Crassostrea virginica 98 3.9 428.9 9.2 48 4.4 Ostrea stentina 4 0.2 4.7 0.1 4 0.4 Ostreidae - 232.7 5.0 - - Codakia orbicularis 28 1.1 176.3 3.8 17 1.6 cf. Globivenus sp. 1 0.0 1.1 0.0 - - Lucina pectinata 18 0.7 32.7 0.7 4 0.4 Trachycardium sp. 2 0.1 0.4 0.0 1 0.1 Mulinia cf. cleryana 1249 49.6 1772.6 37.9 664 61.0 Donax denticulata 192 7.6 312.2 6.7 71 6.5 Iphigenia brasiliana 13 0.5 24.7 0.5 7 0.6 Tagleus plebeius 12 0.5 8.8 0.2 1 0.1 Mytilopsis cf. leucopheta 1 0.0 0.1 0.0 1 0.1 Anomalocardia brasiliana 23 0.9 18.9 0.4 9 0.8 Chione cancellata 17 0.7 29.5 0.6 5 0.5 Protothaca granulata 9 0.4 17.0 0.4 5 0.5 Bivalvia - - 359.6 7.7 - - Neritina virginea 22 0.9 16.2 0.3 22 2.0 Littorina nebulosa 2 0.1 1.3 0.0 2 0.2 Modulus modulus 1 0.0 0.4 0.0 1 0.1 Cerithium eburneum 5 0.2 4.0 0.1 5 0.5 Strombus alatus 6 0.2 267.0 5.7 6 0.6 Strombus cf. alatus 5 0.2 113.4 2.4 - - Strombus gigas 1 0.0 65.2 1.4 1 0.1 Strombus sp. 12 0.5 86.1 1.8 Chicoreus pomum 3 0.1 40.4 0.9 3 0.3 Columbella murcatoria 2 0.1 0.7 0.0 2 0.2 Melampus sp. 168 6.7 54.2 1.2 103 9.5 Polydontes sp. 1 0.0 3.5 0.1 1 0.1 Gastropoda - - 38.8 0.8 - -

226

Table 5-11. Continued Taxon Count % WT.(g) % MNI % Mollusca - - 147.0 3.1 - - Total Invertebrata 2058 81.7 4601.7 98.3 1047 96.1

Total Taxa 2520 100.0 4680.8 100.0 1089 100.0

227

Table 5-12. Garden N Sheet Deposit: FS# 7796, 7853, 7868, 7869. Taxon Count % WT.(g) % MNI % Isolobodon portoricensis 4 0.7 0.6 0.1 1 0.7 Trachemys sp. 1 0.2 1.6 0.2 1 0.7 Epinephelus sp. 1 0.2 0.1 0.0 1 0.7 Carangidae 1 0.2 0.1 0.0 1 0.7 Haemulon sp. 2 0.4 0.4 0.0 2 1.4 Sparisoma chrysopterum 1 0.2 0.1 0.0 1 0.7 Sparisoma viride 1 0.2 0.3 0.0 1 0.7 Mugil sp. 1 0.2 0.1 0.0 1 0.7 Sphyraena sp. 5 0.9 0.5 0.1 1 0.7 Actinopterygii 18 3.3 3.6 0.4 - - Vertebrata 24 4.4 1.3 0.1 - - Total Vertebrata 59 10.8 8.8 0.9 10 7.2

Portunidae 2 0.4 0.2 0.0 2 1.4 Gecarcinidae 1 0.2 0.1 0.0 1 0.7 Brachyura 3 0.5 0.1 0.0 - Anadara ovalis 23 4.2 99.8 10.0 12 8.7 Anadara sp. 1 0.2 0.6 0.1 1 0.7 Brachidontes exustus 2 0.4 2.2 0.2 1 0.7 Mytilidae 33 6.0 5.7 0.6 4 2.9 Isognomon alatus 26 4.8 19.1 1.9 7 5.1 Crassostrea sp. 138 25.3 279.8 28.1 31 22.5 Ostrea sp. 2 0.4 1.1 0.1 1 0.7 Codakia orbicularis 63 11.5 80.1 8.0 4 2.9 Lucina pectinata 11 2.0 44.9 4.5 4 2.9 Mulinia cleryana 11 2.0 17.0 1.7 5 3.6 Tellina fausta 1 0.2 2.0 0.2 1 0.7 Donax denticulatus 56 10.3 102.1 10.3 25 18.1 Iphigenia brasiliana 3 0.5 5.3 0.5 1 0.7 Tagleus plebeius 4 0.7 1.8 0.2 2 1.4 Anomalocardia brasiliana 7 1.3 7.5 0.8 4 2.9 Chione cancellata 16 2.9 25.2 2.5 6 4.3 Protothaca granulata 5 0.9 7.2 0.7 3 2.2 Nerita tessellata 1 0.2 0.8 0.1 1 0.7 Strombus pugilis 1 0.2 39.0 3.9 1 0.7 Strombus cf. alatus 2 0.4 76.1 7.7 2 1.4 cf. Strombus alatus 1 0.2 28.3 2.8 1 0.7 Strombus sp. 26 4.8 85.2 8.6 4 2.9 Chicoreus pomum 4 0.7 31.3 3.1 2 1.4 Melampus coffeus 1 0.2 0.4 0.0 1 0.7 Pleurodontia sp. 1 0.2 3.3 0.3 1 0.7

228

Table 5-12. Continued Taxon Count % WT.(g) % MNI % Gastropoda 1 0.2 1.5 0.2 - Mollusca 41 7.5 18.6 1.9 - Total Invertebrata 487 89.2 986.3 99.1 128 91.3

Total Taxa 546 100.0 995.2 100.0 138 98.6

229

Table 5-13. Garden N, Pit, Feature 55: FS# 7798, 7799 Taxon Count % WT.(g) % MNI % Rallidae 1 0.2 0.2 0.0 1 0.7 Trachemys sp. 2 0.5 5.0 0.7 1 0.7 Albula vulpes 1 0.2 0.2 0.0 1 0.7 Mycteroperca sp. 1 0.2 0.1 0.0 1 0.7 Serranidae 1 0.2 0.1 0.0 1 0.7 Carangidae 2 0.5 0.4 0.1 2 1.5 Lutjanus synagris 2 0.5 0.3 0.0 2 1.5 Haemulon sp. 1 0.2 0.1 0.0 1 0.7 Sparisoma chrysopterum 1 0.2 0.1 0.0 1 0.7 Sparisoma sp. 1 0.2 0.0 0.0 - - Sphyraena sp. 2 0.5 0.2 0.0 1 0.7 Eleotris sp. 2 0.5 0.3 0.0 2 1.5 Diodon hystrix 4 0.9 0.5 0.1 2 1.5 Actinopterygii 26 6.0 2.6 0.4 - - Vertebrata 1 0.2 0.1 0.0 - - Total Vertebrata 48 11.1 10.0 1.4 16 11.9

Portunidae 20 4.6 6.6 0.9 8 6.0 Cardisoma sp. 4 0.9 3.7 0.5 2 1.5 Gecarcinidae 8 1.9 3.6 0.5 1 0.7 Brachyura 2 0.5 0.3 0.0 - - Balanus sp. 3 0.7 1.9 0.3 1 0.7 Anadara chemnitzii 1 0.2 5.0 0.7 1 0.7 Anadara ovalis 6 1.4 22.9 3.1 4 3.0 Anadara transversa 1 0.2 11.4 1.6 1 0.7 Anadara sp. 1 0.2 0.7 0.1 1 0.7 Brachidontes exustus 19 4.4 11.1 1.5 7 5.2 Mytillidae 4 0.9 0.3 0.0 - - Isognomon alatus 22 5.1 46.4 6.4 5 3.7 Crassostrea sp. 145 33.6 328.1 45.1 29 21.6 Codakia orbicularis 24 5.6 60.0 8.3 2 1.5 Lucina pectinata 9 2.1 17.2 2.4 3 2.2 Mulinia cleryana 34 7.9 57.3 7.9 19 14.2 Donax denticulatus 18 4.2 40.9 5.6 11 8.2 Iphigenia brasiliana 3 0.7 4.3 0.6 1 0.7 Tagleus plebeius 5 1.2 2.3 0.3 2 1.5 Anomalocardia brasiliana 6 1.4 6.9 0.9 3 2.2 Chione cancellata 4 0.9 15.4 2.1 4 3.0 Protothaca granulata 9 2.1 12.8 1.8 5 3.7 Neritina virginea 1 0.2 0.7 0.1 1 0.7 Modulus modulus 1 0.2 0.4 0.1 1 0.7 Cerithium eburneum 1 0.2 0.9 0.1 1 0.7 Strombus sp. 15 3.5 48.3 6.6 3 2.2 Chicoreus pomum 1 0.2 1.3 0.2 1 0.7

230

Table 5-13. Continued Taxon Count % WT.(g) % MNI % Melampus sp. 1 0.2 0.5 0.1 1 0.7 Gastropoda 1 0.2 0.9 0.1 - - Mollusca 15 3.5 5.7 0.8 - Total Invertebrata 384 88.9 717.5 98.6 118 88.1

Total Taxa 432 100.0 727.5 100.0 134 100.0

231

Table 5-14. Garden N, Pit, Feature 60 FS# 7885, 7886. Taxon Count % WT.(g) % MNI % Testudines 1 0.4 0.1 0.0 1 1.0 Centropomus sp. 1 0.4 1.3 0.3 1 1.0 Centropomidae 1 0.4 0.1 0.0 1 1.0 Serranidae 1 0.4 0.1 0.0 1 1.0 Caranx hippos 1 0.4 0.1 0.0 1 1.0 Lutjanidae 1 0.4 0.2 0.0 1 1.0 Haemulon sp. 1 0.4 0.1 0.0 1 1.0 Sphyraena sp. 1 0.4 0.6 0.1 1 1.0 Actinopterygii 18 7.5 6.9 1.3 1 1.0 Total Vertebrata 26 10.9 9.6 1.8 9 9.1

Portunidae 7 2.9 1.7 0.3 2 2.0 Cardisoma sp. 5 2.1 2.3 0.4 2 2.0 Gecarcinidae 1 0.4 0.5 0.1 1 1.0 Brachyura 1 0.4 0.5 0.1 - - Balanus sp. 4 1.7 2.9 0.6 3 3.0 Anadara ovalis 3 1.3 7.0 1.3 2 2.0 Brachidontes exustus 7 2.9 4.5 0.9 4 4.0 Isognomon alatus 8 3.3 8.8 1.7 3 3.0 Crassostrea sp. 78 32.6 207.2 39.7 27 27.3 Codakia orbicularis 15 6.3 28.6 5.5 2 2.0 Lucina pectinata 1 0.4 2.7 0.5 1 1.0 Mulinia cleryana 41 17.2 76.6 14.7 21 21.2 Donax denticulata 10 4.2 31.0 5.9 8 8.1 Iphigenia brasiliana 3 1.3 9.6 1.8 2 2.0 Tagleus plebeius 4 1.7 2.1 0.4 3 3.0 Anomalocardia brasiliana 1 0.4 2.0 0.4 1 1.0 Chione cancellata 3 1.3 10.3 2.0 3 3.0 Cerithium eburneum 1 0.4 0.5 0.1 1 1.0 Strombus gigas 9 3.8 61.1 11.7 1 1.0 Strombus pugilis 1 0.4 30.9 5.9 1 1.0 Strombus sp. 3 1.3 11.4 2.2 1 1.0 Pleurodonte sp. 1 0.4 2.0 0.4 1 1.0 Gastropoda 1 0.4 3.3 0.6 - - Mollusca 5 2.1 5.1 1.0 - - Total Invertebrata 213 89.1 512.6 98.2 90 90.9

Total Taxa 239 100.0 522.2 100.0 99 100.0

232

Table 5-15. Garden P, Sheet Deposit: FS# 7932, 7934, 7943, 7947. Taxon Count % WT.(g) % MNI % Mammalia cf. Rodentia 1 0.4 0.3 0.1 1 1.7 Small Mammalia 1 0.4 0.3 0.1 1 1.7 Mammalia 1 0.4 0.4 0.1 - - Emydidae 1 0.4 0.8 0.3 1 1.7 cf. Tylosurus sp. 1 0.4 0.1 0.0 1 1.7 Holocentridae cf. Holocentrus sp. 1 0.4 0.1 0.0 1 1.7 Epinephelus sp. 2 0.7 0.6 0.2 2 3.3 Serranidae 2 0.7 0.2 0.1 1 1.7 cf. Lutjanus sp. 1 0.4 0.1 0.0 1 1.7 Haemulon sp. 5 1.8 0.3 0.1 3 5.0 Halichoeres sp. 1 0.4 0.2 0.1 1 1.7 Scarus sp. 1 0.4 0.2 0.1 1 1.7 Sparisoma sp. 4 1.4 1.4 0.5 2 3.3 Sphyraena sp. 1 0.4 1.0 0.3 1 1.7 Balistes sp. 1 0.4 0.7 0.2 1 1.7 Balistidae 1 0.4 0.1 0.0 1 1.7 Diodon sp. 9 3.2 1.0 0.3 1 1.7 Actinopterygii 49 17.7 4.1 1.4 - - Vertebrata 2 0.7 0.2 0.1 - - Total Vertebrata 85 30.7 11.8 4.0 20 33.3

Anadara cf. ovalis 3 1.1 11.0 3.7 2 3.3 Anadara sp. 2 0.7 2.4 0.8 1 1.7 Arcidae 2 0.7 1.0 0.3 1 1.7 Isognomon alatus 8 2.9 10.1 3.4 2 3.3 Crassostrea sp. 93 33.6 57.7 19.5 13 21.7 Ostreidae 3 1.1 0.3 0.1 1 1.7 Codakia orbicularis 19 6.9 23.1 7.8 5 8.3 Donax denticulatus 8 2.9 5.4 1.8 5 8.3 Iphigenia brasiliana 2 0.7 2.5 0.8 1 1.7 Anomalocardia brasiliana 2 0.7 0.6 0.2 1 1.7 Chione cancellata 1 0.4 1.8 0.6 1 1.7 Bivalvia 12 4.3 6.2 2.1 Strombus cf. gigas 7 2.5 48.0 16.2 3 5.0 Strombus sp. cf. pugilis 4 1.4 83.1 28.1 3 5.0 Strombus sp. 4 1.4 13.0 4.4 1 1.7 Gastropoda 5 1.8 4.9 1.7 - - Mollusca 17 6.1 13.3 4.5 - - Total Invertebrata 192 69.3 284.4 96.0 40 66.7

Total Taxa 277 100.0 296.2 100.0 60 100.0

233

Table 5-16. Garden P, Big Post, Feature 62: FS# 7948, 7950, 7952, 7954, 7957. Taxon Count % WT.(g) % MNI % Isolobodon portoricensis 13 0.7 5 0.1 4 0.9 Rodentia 1 0.1 0.13 0.0 1 0.2 Passeriformes 3 0.2 0.23 0.0 2 0.4 Aves 3 0.2 0.65 0.0 1 0.2 Anguidae 4 0.2 0.59 0.0 2 0.4 Epicrates striatus 2 0.1 0.25 0.0 2 0.4 Boidae 1 0.1 0.12 0.0 1 0.2 Carcharhinus sp. 1 0.1 0.35 0.0 1 0.2 Elops saurus 1 0.1 0.11 0.0 1 0.2 Gymnothorax funebris 1 0.1 1.17 0.0 1 0.2 Belonidae 1 0.1 0.05 0.0 1 0.2 Holocentrus sp. 1 0.1 0.16 0.0 1 0.2 Centropomus undecimalis 3 0.2 9.4 0.2 2 0.4 Centropomus sp. 1 0.1 0.68 0.0 1 0.2 Centropomidae 9 0.5 1.01 0.0 - - Epinephelus sp. 17 0.9 7.16 0.2 6 1.3 Caranx sp. 1 0.1 0.66 0.0 1 0.2 Carangoides ruber 1 0.1 0.07 0.0 1 0.2 Carangidae 8 0.4 0.63 0.0 2 0.4 Lutjanus sp. 6 0.3 0.49 0.0 2 0.4 Haemulon sp. 160 8.5 17.65 0.4 21 4.6 Haemulidae cf. Haemulon sp. 1 0.1 0.15 0.0 - - Haemulidae 110 5.9 10.35 0.3 - 0.0 Pomacanthus sp. 3 0.2 0.67 0.0 1 0.2 Halichoeres sp. 2 0.1 0.17 0.0 1 0.2 Scarus sp. 1 0.1 0.72 0.0 1 0.2 Sparisoma viride 4 0.2 1.41 0.0 2 0.4 Sparisoma sp. 7 0.4 1.37 0.0 5 1.1 Scaridae 2 0.1 0.01 0.0 - - Sphyraena sp. 4 0.2 3.49 0.1 2 0.4 Acanthurus sp. 11 0.6 1.21 0.0 6 1.3 Balistes sp. 8 0.4 2.54 0.1 4 0.9 Spheroides sp. 1 0.1 0.16 0.0 1 0.2 Diodon hystrix 6 0.3 1.06 0.0 3 0.7 Actinopterygii 354 18.9 63.2 1.6 - - Vertebrata 24 1.3 1.77 0.0 - - Total Vertebrata 776 41.4 134.84 3.3 80 17.7

Portunidae 2 0.1 0.4 0.0 2 0.4 Gecarcinidae 4 0.2 1.82 0.0 1 0.2

234

Table 5-16. Continued Taxon Count % WT.(g) % MNI % Brachyura 2 0.1 0.17 0.0 - - Balanus sp. 13 0.7 10.11 0.2 6 1.3 Anadara ovalis 56 3.0 177.83 4.4 29 6.4 Anadara sp. 1 0.1 4.49 0.1 1 0.2 Brachidontes exustus 32 1.7 18.36 0.5 10 2.2 Brachidontes sp. 1 0.1 0.63 0.0 1 0.2 Isognomon alatus 73 3.9 132.44 3.3 25 5.5 Crassostrea sp. 550 29.3 2153.1 53.2 187 41.3 Ostrea stentina 3 0.2 6.86 0.2 3 0.7 Ostreidae 4 0.2 0.43 0.0 2 0.4 Codakia orbicularis 204 10.9 486.35 12.0 35 7.7 Mulinia cleryana 1 0.1 4.06 0.1 1 0.2 Tellina fausta 16 0.9 55.49 1.4 3 0.7 Donax denticulatus 27 1.4 45.55 1.1 15 3.3 Tagleus plebeius 2 0.1 1.25 0.0 2 0.4 Mytilopsis sp. 8 0.4 3.38 0.1 6 1.3 Anomalocardia brasiliana 36 1.9 46.74 1.2 16 3.5 Chione cancellata 2 0.1 5 0.1 2 0.4 Bivalvia 2 0.1 7.75 0.2 - - Turbo sp. 1 0.1 0.99 0.0 1 0.2 Neritina virginea 2 0.1 2.57 0.1 2 0.4 Cerithium eburneum 1 0.1 0.7 0.0 1 0.2 Cerithiidae 1 0.1 0.43 0.0 1 0.2 Strombus alatus 1 0.1 43.54 1.1 1 0.2 Strombus pugilis 12 0.6 660.96 16.3 13 2.9 Strombus sp. 6 0.3 21.37 0.5 Columbella mercatoria 1 0.1 0.28 0.0 1 0.2 Melampus coffeus 6 0.3 2 0.0 6 1.3 Gastropoda 7 0.4 7.57 0.2 - - Mollusca 23 1.2 13.37 0.3 - - Total Invertebrata 1100 58.6 3916 96.7 373 82.3

Total Taxa 1876 100.0 4050.8 100.0 453 100.0

235

Table 5-17. The MNI based taxonomic diversity and equitability of features and sheet deposits. Garden Context Diversity (H') Equitability (V') B Feature 52 0.950 0.865 C Feature 10 3.043 0.712 Feature 11 2.678 0.652 Feature 15 0.643 0.141 E Feature 49 2.532 0.578 Feature 14 3.116 0.884 Feature 16 1.755 0.429 N Feature 55 2.980 0.819 Feature 60 2.623 0.771 P Feature 62 2.613 0.646

B Sheet deposit 2.406 0.968 E Sheet deposit 3.220 0.921 N Sheet deposit 2.847 0.794 P Sheet deposit 2.978 0.884

236

Table 5-18. Ubiquity percentages of all taxonomic identifications across studied contexts. Taxa Number of Loci Ubiquity (%) Actinopterygii 14 100 Haemulon sp. 12 86 Vertebrata 12 86 Codakia orbicularis 12 86 Donax denticulatus 12 86 Anomalocardia brasiliana 12 86 Chione cancellata 12 86 Strombus sp. 12 86 Gastropoda 12 86 Mollusca 12 86 Epinephelus sp. 11 79 Sparisoma sp. 11 79 Isognomon alatus 11 79 Sphyraena sp. 10 71 Balanus sp. 10 71 Bivalvia 10 71 Serranidae 9 64 Brachidontes exustus 9 64 Lucina pectinata 9 64 Iphigenia brasiliana 9 64 Tagleus plebeius 9 64 Holocentrus sp. 8 57 Acanthurus sp. 8 57 Anadara cf. ovalis 8 57 Protothaca granulata 8 57 Isolobodon portoricensis 8 50 Centropomus sp. 7 50 Caranx sp. 7 50 Carangidae 7 50 Lutjanus sp. 7 50 Halichoeres sp. 7 50 Scarus sp. 7 50 Scaridae 7 50 Balistes sp. 7 50 Diodon sp. 7 50 Decapoda 7 50

237

Table 5-18. Continued Taxa Number of Loci Ubiquity (%) Crassostrea virginica 7 50 Ostrea stentina 7 50 Ostreidae 7 50 Neritina virginea 7 50 Melampus sp. 7 50 Trachemys sp. 6 43 Epicrates striatus 6 43 Calamus sp. 6 43 Sparisoma viride 6 43 Gecarcinidae 6 43 Arcidae 6 43 Mytillidae 6 43 Mulinia cleryana 6 43 Tellina fausta 6 43 Modulus modulus 6 43 Cerithium eburneum 6 43 Strombus alatus 6 43 Strombus cf. alatus 6 43 Capromyidae 5 36 Rodentia 5 36 Rallidae 5 36 Aves 5 36 Testudines 5 36 Albula vulpes 5 36 Haemulidae 5 36 Mugil sp. 5 36 Portunidae 5 36 Brachyura 5 36 Anadara transversa 5 36 Crassostrea sp. 5 36 Trachycardium sp. 5 36 Mytilopsis cf. leucophaeata 5 36 Strombus gigas 5 36 Celestus sp. 4 29 Carcharhinus sp. 4 29 Holocentridae 4 29 Carangoides ruber 4 29

238

Table 5-18. Continued Taxa Number of Loci Ubiquity (%) Lutjanidae 4 29 Gobiomorus dormitor 4 29 Sphoeroides sp. 4 29 Anadara chemnitzii 4 29 Anadara ovalis 4 29 Anadara sp. 4 29 Mulinia cf. cleryana 4 29 Chicoreus pomum 4 29 Columbella mercatoria 4 29 Gastropoda (marine) 4 29 Brotomys voratus 3 21 Small Mammalia 3 21 Mammalia 3 21 Cyclura sp. 3 21 Boidae 3 21 Gymnothorax sp. 3 21 cf. Lutjanidae 3 21 Lactophrys sp. 3 21 Cardisoma sp. 3 21 Turbo castanea 3 21 Nerita tessellata 3 21 Strombus pugilis 3 21 cf. Alsophis sp. 2 14 Reptilia 2 14 Rana sp. 2 14 Anura 2 14 Carcharhinidae 2 14 Hemiramphidae 2 14 Strongylura sp. 2 14 Belonidae 2 14 Centropomidae 2 14 Caranx latus 2 14 cf. Carangoides ruber 2 14 Gerreidae 2 14 Bairdiella sp. 2 14 Micropogonias sp. 2 14 Pomacanthus sp. 2 14 Lachnolaimus sp. 2 14

239

Table 5-18. Continued Taxa Number of Loci Ubiquity (%) Sparisoma chrysopterum 2 14 Sparisoma cf. viride 2 14 Gobionellus sp. 2 14 Diodon hystrix 2 14 Brachidontes sp. 2 14 Anodontia alba 2 14 Globivenus sp. 2 14 Periglypta listeri 2 14 Littorina angulifera 2 14 Cerithium litteratum 2 14 cf. Strombus alatus 2 14 Charonia variegata 2 14 Polydontes sp. 2 14 Pleurodonte sp. 2 14 cf. Isolobodon portoricensis 1 7 Plagiodontia cf. aedium 1 7 Large Mammalia 1 7 Large Mammalia cf. Trichechus manatus 1 7 Mammalia cf. Rodentia 1 7 Porphyrio martinicus 1 7 cf. Rallidae 1 7 Passeriformes 1 7 Emydidae 1 7 Caretta caretta 1 7 Cheloniidae 1 7 cf. Anolis sp. 1 7 Anguidae 1 7 Ameiva sp. 1 7 Teiidae 1 7 Serpentes 1 7 Anura cf. Bufonidae 1 7 Rhizoprionodon terraenovae 1 7 Lamniformes 1 7 Elops saurus 1 7 Anguilliformes 1 7 Gymnothorax funebris 1 7

240

Table 5-18. Continued Taxa Number of Loci Ubiquity (%) cf. Gymmothorax sp. 1 7 Muraenidae 1 7 Clupeidae 1 7 Hemiramphus sp. 1 7 cf. Hemiramphidae 1 7 cf. Tylosurus sp. 1 7 Belonidae cf. Strongylura sp. 1 7 Holocentridae cf. Holocentrus sp. 1 7 Scorpaenidae 1 7 Centropomus parallelus 1 7 Centropomus pectinatus 1 7 Centropomus undecimalis 1 7 Cephalopholis fulva 1 7 Epinephelus adscensionis 1 7 Mycteroperca sp. 1 7 Caranx hippos 1 7 cf. Caranx sp. 1 7 Chloroscombus chrysurus 1 7 cf. Carangidae 1 7 Lutjanus synagris 1 7 cf. Lutjanus sp. 1 7 Ocyurus chrysurus 1 7 Diapterus sp. 1 7 cf. Diapterus sp. 1 7 cf. Gerres sp. 1 7 Haemulon sciurus 1 7 Haemulon cf. sciurus 1 7 cf. Haemulon plumieri 1 7 Haemulidae cf. Haemulon sp. 1 7 cf. Haemulidae 1 7 Sparidae cf. Archosargus sp. 1 7 Sparidae 1 7 Sciaenidae 1 7 cf. Sciaenidae 1 7 Mulliodichthys martinicus 1 7 Chaetodipterus faber 1 7 Bodianus sp. 1 7 cf. Lachnolaimus maximus 1 7

241

Table 5-18. Continued Taxa Number of Loci Ubiquity (%) Sparisoma rubripinne 1 7 Sparisoma cf. rubripinne 1 7 Sphyraena barracuda 1 7 cf. Sphyraena sp. 1 7 Eleotris sp. 1 7 Eleotridae 1 7 Balistidae cf. Balistes sp. 1 7 Balistidae 1 7 cf. Lactophrys sp. 1 7 Diodontidae 1 7 Gecarcinidae cf. Gecarcinus sp. 1 7 cf. Gecarcinidae 1 7 Arca zebra 1 7 cf. Arcidae 1 7 Pteria colymbus 1 7 Anomia simplex 1 7 Ostrea sp. 1 7 Trachycardium egmontianum/ muricatium 1 7 Solen obliquus 1 7 cf. Tellina fausta 1 7 Tellina sp. 1 7 Mytilopsis sp. 1 7 Chione sp. 1 7 cf. Globivenus sp. 1 7 Lirophora latilirata 1 7 Pitar sp. 1 7 Veneridae 1 7 Corbula sp. 1 7 cf. Pholadidae 1 7 Cittarium pica 1 7 Tegula fasciata 1 7 Turbo sp. 1 7 Turbinidae 1 7 Neritina clenchi 1 7 Neritina cf. virginea 1 7 Neritina sp. 1 7 Littorina irrorata 1 7 Littorina nebulosa 1 7

242

Table 5-18. Continued Taxa Number of Loci Ubiquity (%) Planaxis nucleus 1 7 Cerithium lutosum 1 7 Cerithiidae 1 7 Strombus cf. alatus/pugilis 1 7 Strombus cf. gigas 1 7 Strombus cf. pugilis 1 7 Strombus raninus 1 7 Naticarius cf. canrena 1 7 Cymatium nicobaricum 1 7 Stramonita rustica 1 7 Urosalpinx perrugata 1 7 Columbella rusticoides 1 7 Columbellidae 1 7 Nassarius vibex 1 7 Fasciolaria lilium 1 7 Olivella nivea 1 7 Conus cf. jaspieus 1 7 Bulla striata 1 7 Haminoea sp. 1 7 Archeogastropoda 1 7 Melampus coffeus 1 7 Melampus cf. coffeus 1 7 Haitipoma sp. 1 7

243

Table 5-19. Records of specimen heat alteration per site contexts. Context Taxa Element Portion Side # Burned NISP Garden B Sheet Deposit Vertebrata fragments fragments - 3 5 Actinopterygii vertebrae fragments - 1 2 Total 4

Taxa Element Portion Side # Burned NISP Feature 10 Isolobodon portoricensis tibia distal R 1 2 Trachemys sp. plastron entoplastra - 1 2 misc. plastron Trachemys sp. fragments fragments - 2 9 Trachemys sp. carapace costal - 2 3 Mugil sp. operculum fragment L 1 1 Balistes sp. 1st dorsal spine - - 1 1 Isognomon alatus valves - R 1 14 Total 9

Taxa Element Portion Side # Burned NISP Feature 11 Isolobodon portoricensis humerus - L 1 1 Isolobodon portoricensis humerus distal L 1 1 Isolobodon portoricensis ischium fragment L 1 1 Isolobodon portoricensis maxilla fragment L 1 1 Isolobodon portoricensis tibia distal R 1 1 Isolobodon portoricensis tibia distal L 1 1 proximal Capromyidae femur fragment L 1 1 Rodentia maxilla fragments 4 6 Rodentia vertebra fragment 1 1 Rodentia tibia distal shaft R 1 1 proximal cf. Rallidae humerus fragment L 1 1 Aves humerus shafts L 1 2 Aves humerus shaft 1 1

244

Table 5-19. Continued Context Taxa Element Portion Side # Burned NISP Trachemys sp. pygal fragment 1 1 Trachemys sp. marginal - R 1 1 Trachemys sp. costals - 9 9 Trachemys sp. scapula fragment L 1 1 Testudines costals - 3 3 Testudines fragments fragments 15 35 Boidae vertebrae - 2 11 Albula vulpes parasphenoid fragment 1 1 Gymnothorax sp. premaxilla fragment 1 1 caudal Centropomus sp. vertebrae - 3 3 Centropomus sp. caudal vertebra - 1 1 caudal Caranx sp. vertebrae - 1 3 cervical Caranx sp. vertebrae - 3 3 Carangidae spine fragment 1 1 Lutjanus sp. vomer - 1 1 Lutjanidae articular - R 1 1 Haemulon sp. basioccipital fragment 1 1 Scarus sp. hyomandibular fragment R 1 1 caudal Sparisoma sp. vertebrae - 1 15 caudal Scaridae vertebrae - 1 4 caudal Sphyraena sp. vertebrae - 1 7 Gobiomorus dormitor dentary - R 1 1 Balistes sp. maxilla - L 1 1 Actinopterygii maxilla fragments L 1 2 Actinopterygii dentary R 1 1

245

Table 5-19. Continued Context Taxa Element Portion Side # Burned NISP Actinopterygii pneumatic spine 1 1 misc. skull Actinopterygii fragments fragments 4 21 caudal Actinopterygii vertebrae - 7 63 caudal Actinopterygii vertebrae 1 fragment 2 9 Actinopterygii spine - 1 1 Vertebrata fragments fragments 33 168 Portunidae dactyl digit fragments R 2 5 Portunidae dactyl digits - L 2 3 Portunidae fixed digits - 1 3 Gecarcinidae cf. Gecarcinus sp. dactyl digits - R 3 6 Gecarcinidae cf. Gecarcinus sp. fixed digits - R 1 4 Gecarcinidae cf. Gecarcinus sp. dactyl digits - L 1 14 Gecarcinidae dactyl digits - L 1 4 Gecarcinidae dactyl digits - R 2 5 Decapoda digit fragments 3 25 Decapoda shell fragments 21 172 Decapoda dactyl digits - R 1 4 Decapoda fixed digits - L 1 3 Decapoda dactyl digits - L 2 4 Anadara cf. ovalis valve - L 1 1 Anadara transversa valve - R 1 2 Anadara transversa valve - L 1 1 Arcidae shell fragments 7 7 Mytilopsis cf. leucopheta valve - R 1 1 Mytilidae shell fragments 6 6

246

Table 5-19. Continued Context Taxa Element Portion Side # Burned NISP Crassostrea virginica valves - L 1 4 Crassostrea virginica valves - R 7 10 Codakia orbicularis hinge fragments R 8 16 Codakia orbicularis hinge fragments L 6 16 Lucina pectinata shell fragments 6 10 Anomalocardia brasiliana valves - R 3 8 Anomalocardia brasiliana shell fragments 2 11 Protothaca granulata hinge fragments R 4 18 Protothaca granulata valves - L 1 18 Protothaca granulata hinge fragments L 1 11 Protothaca granulata shell fragments 4 46 Protothaca granulata valves - R 3 14 Protothaca granulata shell fragments 6 15 Chione cancellata valve fragments R 5 15 Chione cancellata valves - L 2 82 Chione cancellata valve fragments L 10 12 Chione cancellata shell fragments 74 239 Chione cancellata valves - R 2 17 Chione cancellata hinge fragments R 1 6 Chione cancellata valves - 2 17 Chione cancellata hinge fragments L 3 4 Donax denticulata valves - R 4 30 Donax denticulata valve fragments R 4 5 Donax denticulata valves - L 2 31 Donax denticulata valve fragments L 4 4 Donax denticulata shell fragments 12 32 Tagleus plebeius valve - R 1 1 Strombus sp. spire fragments 1 2 Melampus sp. shells - 32 110

247

Table 5-19. Continued Context Taxa Element Portion Side # Burned NISP Melampus sp. shells - 3 5 Balanus sp. shell fragments 1 7 Total 391

Taxa Element Portion Side # Burned NISP Feature 15 Isolobodon portoricensis astragalus - 1 1 Isolobodon portoricensis auditory bulla - L 1 1 Capromyidae cranium fragments - 1 2 Capromyidae femur head - 1 1 proximal Capromyidae humerus epiphysis - 1 1 proximal Capromyidae humerus epiphysis - 1 1 distal femur distal Capromyidae epiphysis epiphysis - 1 2 Rodentia ribs - - 1 3 Rodentia vertebra - - 1 2 Aves tibiotarsal distal - 1 1 Aves shaft fragments - 1 4 Trachemys sp. carapace neural - 1 1 costal Trachemys sp. carapace fragments - 4 10 carapace/plastr Trachemys sp. on fragments - 4 11 carapace/plastr Testudines on fragments - 2 3 Testudines plastron fragment - 1 1 Centropomus sp. dentary - R 1 1 Epinephelus sp. premaxilla - R 1 5 Epinephelus sp. premaxilla - L 1 2

248

Table 5-19. Continued Context Taxa Element Portion Side # Burned NISP cervical Caranx sp. vertebrae - - 1 2 cervical Lutjanus sp. vertebrae - - 5 5 caudal Sparisoma sp. vertebrae - - 1 69 Actinopterygii frontal - L 1 4 proximal Actinopterygii maxilla fragments R 1 2 cervical Actinopterygii vertebrae - - 1 8 thoracic Actinopterygii vertebrae - - 1 11 caudal Actinopterygii vertebrae - - 5 136 Actinopterygii vertebrae fragments - 4 35 Actinopterygii spines - - 1 17 vertebra Actinopterygii fragments fragments - 2 7 Arcidae fragments fragments - 5 17 Arcidae fragments fragments - 4 25 Anadara transversa valve fragments R 1 3 Isognomon alatus valve - R 1 13 Isognomon alatus valve - L 2 17 Codakia orbicularis hinge fragments fragments R 1 29 Codakia orbicularis hinge fragments fragments L 7 32 Codakia orbicularis hinge fragments R 1 13 Lucina pectinatus valve fragments R 1 13 Lucina pectinatus valve fragments L 1 10 Trachycardium sp. shell fragments - 4 26

249

Table 5-19. Continued Context Taxa Element Portion Side # Burned NISP Anomalocardia brasiliana valve - R 6 25 Anomalocardia brasiliana valve - L 3 29 Anomalocardia brasiliana valve fragments fragments L 2 4 Anomalocardia brasiliana shell fragments - 55 127 Anomalocardia brasiliana valve - R 1 13 Anomalocardia brasiliana hinge fragment L 1 1 Anomalocardia brasiliana shell fragments - 3 9 Chione cancellata valve - R 4 56 Chione cancellata valve - L 1 56 Chione cancellata shell fragments - 11 87 Protothaca granulata valve - L 1 33 Protothaca granulata shell fragments 19 107 Mulinia cf. cleryana valve fragment R 1 1 Strombus cf. alatus columella - - 1 6 Strombus sp. columella fragments - 2 4 Strombus sp. shell fragments - 4 126 Phyllonotus pomum shell fragments - 1 6 Total 193

Taxa Element Portion Side # Burned NISP Feature 16 Testudines plastron fragments - 1 2 caudal Actinopterygii vertebrae - - 1 53 Vertebrata fragments fragments 2

250

Table 5-19. Continued Context Taxa Element Portion Side # Burned NISP Strombus cf. alatus shell - - 1 5 Total 5

Taxa Element Portion Side # Burned NISP Feature 14 Actinopterygii vertebra fragments - 2 14 Total 2

Taxa Element Portion Side # Burned NISP Garden N Sheet Deposit Sparisoma viride premaxilla - R 1 1 Gecarcinidae dactyl fragment - 1 1 Anadara ovalis fragments fragments 2 2 Total 4

Taxa Element Portion Side # Burned NISP Garden P Sheet Deposit Haemulon sp. cervical vertebra c/nc 1 1 Vertebrata uid fragment fragment - 1 1 Arcidae shell fragments - 2 2 Strombus cf. gigas cf. columella fragment - 1 1 Strombus cf. gigas body whorls fragment - 1 1 Strombus cf. gigas columella fragment - 1 1 w/worn Strombus cf. gigas body whorl/spire spike - 1 1 Strombus cf. gigas spire worn spikes - 1 2 Total 9

251

Table 5-20. Taxa with unfused elements. Taxa Unfused Element Side NISP Feature 10 Isolobodon portoricensis radius R 3 Isolobodon portoricensis radius L 2 Isolobodon portoricensis ulna L 3 Isolobodon portoricensis ulna R 1 Isolobodon portoricensis femur R 2 Isolobodon portoricensis femur L 1 Isolobodon portoricensis femur R 1 Total 13

Taxa Unfused Element Side NISP Feature 11 Isolobodon portoricensis femur R 1 Capromyidae femur L 1 Capromyidae femur L 1 Rodentia caudal vertebra 1 Total 4

Taxa Unfused Element Side NISP Feature 15 Capromyidae humerus - 1 Capromyidae humerus - 1 Capromyidae femur - 1 Total 3

Taxa Unfused Element Side NISP Feature 49 cf. Isolobodon portoricensis proximal femur R 1 cf. Isolobodon portoricensis radius L 1 cf. Isolobodon portoricensis tibia R 1 cf. Isolobodon portoricensis distal tibia L 1 Total 4

Taxa Unfused Element Side NISP Feature 63 Isolobodon portoricensis radius L 1 Isolobodon portoricensis radius R 1 Isolobodon portoricensis radius R 1 Total 3

252

100% 90% 80% 856 70% 164 60% 182 50% 49 27 13 40% 30% 1495 20% 78 10% 18 0%

Cranial NISP Post-Cranial NISP

Figure 5-1. Histogram showing proportional distribution of body portions among vertebrate classes.

100% 1 90% 2518 80% 3918 70%

60%

50% 225 40% 7787 30% 3887 20%

10%

0% Decapoda Bivalvia Gastropods (marine)

Figure 5-2. Histogram showing proportional distribution of body or shell portions among invertebrate classes. Within Decapoda, the purple value represents claw elements. Within Bivalvia, the green value represents right valves. Within Gastropoda, the blue value represented whole or nearly whole specimens.

253

CHAPTER 6 RESULTS OF INTRA-SITE ANALYSIS

This chapter includes the results of the intra-site analysis of taxa abundance, context composition, and taxa body or shell portions. The first section presents the results of the integration of taxonomic identification and data for the purpose of comparative and statistical testing across contexts. Next, the non-random or random nature of the distribution of taxa abundance across contexts is presented, including both statistically significant and non-statistically significant findings. Third, the results of the principle components analysis are discussed in relation to variability in faunal composition across contexts, the contribution of particular taxa to differential faunal composition, as well as associative relationships between some taxa. Finally, the results of elemental body and shell portion distribution across contexts are discussed. This discussion focuses on the current analytical and methodological challenges of studying animal portion representation in the En Bas Saline faunal assemblage, and presents ideas for future study.

The results show that there are statistically significant correlations between the abundance of some taxa and contexts of deposition. The intra-site analysis also demonstrates how the overall faunal composition of contexts compare in terms of similarity and difference, revealing that the distribution of fauna is variable within and between site areas. Ultimately the intra-site analysis indicates that the distribution of the majority of fauna identified is significantly non-random and variable within and between site areas, including variability between all features, all sheet deposits, as well as associated features and sheet deposits (e.g., features and sheet deposits recovered from within the same Garden).

254

Taxonomic Identification and Data Integration

As stated in Chapter 4, the most abundant vertebrate and invertebrate taxa from each feature or sheet deposit area were selected based on the proportion of taxa within class as well as patterns of presence and absence across contexts measured as ubiquity. Table 6-1 lists the taxa and integrated taxonomic groups, and their ubiquity percentages, selected for statistical assessment. The list includes the most abundant fauna present across En Bas Saline in terms of NISP abundance and ubiquity. Table 6-

2 lists the taxa and integrated taxonomic groups not selected due to small abundance and ubiquity values less than 36%. In this chapter, the scientific names of the integrated taxa are used instead of common names in order to avoid confusion due to possible overlaps between common names and integrated taxonomic categories.

The most abundant vertebrate animals present in the En Bas Saline faunal assemblage include three taxa and 21 integrated taxonomic groups (e.g., families, orders) across six classes. Mammals, birds, amphibians and sharks include one integrated taxonomic group each; Capromyidae, Rallidae, Anura, and Carcharhinidae.

Reptilian taxa are integrated within Testudines, Squamata, or Serpentes. The most abundantly represented fish taxa in the En Bas Saline assemblage include 14 integrated families as well as three non-integrated taxa; Albula vulpes, Belonidae,

Holocentridae, Centropomidae, Serranidae, Carangidae, Lutjanidae, Haemulidae,

Sparidae, Scaridae, Labridae, Mugil sp., Sphyraena sp., Eleotridae, Acanthurus sp.,

Balistidae, and Diodontidae.

The most abundant invertebrate taxa include 12 taxa and 12 integrated taxonomic groups across crabs, bivalves, and marine gastropods. Crabs include one taxonomic group, Decapoda. Bivalves include seventeen taxonomic groups; Arcidae,

255

Mytilidae, Isognomon alatus, Crassostrea sp., Ostrea sp., Codakia orbicularis, Lucina pectinatus, Trachycardium sp., Mulinia cleryana, Tellina sp., Donax denticulatus,

Iphigenia brasiliana, Tagleus plebeius, Mytilopsis cf. leucophaeata, Anomalocardia brasiliana, Chione cancellata, and Protothaca granulata. Marine gastropods include

Neritina virginea, Modulus modulus, Cerithiidae, Strombidae, Columbellidae, and

Melampus sp.

Also, as explained in Chapter 4, for PCA taxa were integrated at the taxonomic level of family, and families with less than 10 NISP were not included in PCA. Table 6-3 lists the taxa included in PCA, and the taxa excluded from the analysis.

Taxonomic Abundance across Contexts

Chi-Square Analysis

Table 6-4 shows the results of chi-square tests for taxa abundance across the site. The taxonomic and integrated taxonomic groups that meet the minimum expected value of 5 for chi-square testing in some contexts are: Capromyidae, Testudines,

Serranidae, Carangidae, Lutjanidae, Haemulidae, Scaridae, Acanthurus sp., Decapoda,

Arcidae, Mytilidae, Isognomon alatus, Crassostrea sp., Ostrea sp., Codakia orbicularis,

Lucina pectinatus, Trachycardium sp., Mulinia cleryana, Tellina sp., Donax denticulata,

Iphigenia brasiliana, Tagleus plebeius, Mytilopsis cf. leucophaeata, Anomalocardia brasiliana, Chione cancellata, Protothaca granulata, Neritina virginea, Cerithiidae,

Strombidae, and Melampus sp. The results indicate that there is statistically significant variation in the deposition of some taxa across some contexts; in other words, the taxonomic abundance of some taxa across some contexts is not due to random chance.

256

A non-random correlation between taxa abundance and context could not be calculated for the following taxa: Rallidae, Squamata, Serpentes, Anura,

Carcharhinidae, Albula vulpes, Holocentridae, Centropomidae, Labridae, Mugil sp.,

Sphyraena sp., Balistidae, Lactophrys sp., Diodontidae, Turbinidae, Littorina sp., or

Modulus modulus. These taxa groups were either too small in sample size to meet the minimum expected values for the chi-square test, contained only one testable context, or the samples that did meet the minimum expected value proved to be randomly distributed across contexts.

Cohen’s W summary

Also listed in Table 6-3, the results of the Cohen’s w test, or effect size, is an indicator of the impressiveness of the correlation between taxa abundance and deposition across contexts. The correlation between taxa abundance and distribution across contexts is large among two taxa, Mulinia cleryana and Melampus sp. Three taxa, Haemulidae, Codakia orbicularis, and Chione cancellata have effect values of at least .2. However, the majority of the statistical correlations between taxa abundance and distribution include effect values at or below .1. For the taxa with effect values at or below .2, the impressiveness of the statistical correlation between differences in taxa abundance across contexts is small; suggesting the need for additional analysis in order to see if the current correlations continue to bear out with increased sample sizes.

Intra-site vertebrate taxa abundance

The distribution of Capromyidae (NISP=176) abundance is non-random across six contexts (p<0.0001) (Figure 6-1). Among the six contexts, Features 10 and 11 have the highest relative frequencies of Capromyidae, followed by Features 62, 15, 49, and

16. However, the effect size is very small (w=.06) indicating that the patterning is not

257

practically significant. The remaining contexts have expected values below 5 and are, therefore, too small for the chi-square test.

Although the distribution of Rallidae (NISP=16) cannot not be tested for significance of distribution using chi-square, Rallidae birds are concentrated in Feature

11, with some also present in Features 10, 15, 49 and 55 (Figure 6-2). In each context,

Rallidae contributes less than one percent of the total taxa NISP.

The distribution of Testudines (NISP=135) abundance is non-random across six contexts (p<0.0001) (Figure 6-3). Although not highlighted in Figure 6-3, the lack of

Testudines in Feature 62 is non-random. Among the six contexts, Features 11 has the highest relative abundance, 10, and 15 have the highest relative frequencies of

Testudines, followed by Features 10, 15, 49 and 16. However, the effect size is very small (w=.07) indicating that the patterning is not practically significant. The remaining contexts have expected values below 5 and are, therefore, too small for the chi-square test.

The distribution of Squamata (NISP=33) cannot be tested for significance of distribution using chi-square (Figure 6-4). Lizards are present in Features 15, 10, 11,

49, and 16. Where present, lizards contribute less than one percent to the context NISP.

Serpentes (NISP=31) distribution also cannot be tested for significance of distribution using chi-square (Figure 6-5). Snake remains are most abundant in Feature

11, with additional specimens in Features 49, 15, 10, 62, 16, and 14. Where present,

Serpentes contributes less than one percent of context NISP.

258

Although the distribution of Anura (NISP=26) cannot be tested for significance of distribution using chi-square, the order is most common in Feature 10 with other specimens present in Features 11, 15, 49, and 16 (Figure 6-6).

The distribution of Carcharhinidae taxa (NISP=10) cannot be tested for significance of distribution using chi-square (Figure 6-7). In the Garden B sheet deposit,

Carcharhinidae contributes close to 2% of the total NISP. This is a reflection of the comparatively small sample size from the Garden B sheet deposit.

The distribution of Albula vulpes (n=11) abundance too cannot be tested for significance of distribution using chi-square (Figure 6-8). Albula vulpes is present in

Features 10, 11, 15, 16, and 55. In all contexts, the taxa contributes well below one percent of the total NISP.

Belonidae (NISP=14) cannot be tested for significance of distribution using chi- square (Figure 6-9). Belonidae is present in Features 11, 15, 49, 62, and the Garden P sheet deposit. Where present, the taxa contributes less than one percent to the context

NISP.

Holocentridae (NISP=33) abundance cannot be tested for significance of distribution using chi-square (Figure 6-10). Holocentridae is represented in Features 10,

11, 15, 49, 16,14, and 62, as well as Gardens B, E, and N sheet deposits. The higher relative abundance of the taxa in the Garden B sheet deposit is a reflection of the overall small sample size from the context.

The distribution of Centropomidae (NISP=36) abundance cannot be tested for significance of distribution using chi-square (Figure 6-11). Centropomidae is present in

259

Features 10, 11, 15, 14, 16, and 62, as well as Garden N sheet deposit. The taxa is most abundant in Feature 62.

The distribution of Serranidae (NISP=225) abundance is non-random across six contexts (p<0.00006) (Figure 6-12). Among the six contexts, Features 10 and 63 have the highest relative frequencies of Serranidae, followed by Features 15, 11, 16 and 49.

However, the effect size is very small (w=.03) indicating that the patterning is not practically significant. The remaining contexts have expected values below 5 and are, therefore, too small for the chi-square test.

The distribution of Lutjanidae (NISP=194) abundance is non-random across six contexts (p<0.004) (Figure 6-13). Among the six contexts, Features 49, 16, and 10 have the highest relative frequencies of Lutjanidae, followed by 11, 15, and 62. However, the effect size is very small (w=.02) indicating that the patterning is not practically significant. The remaining contexts have expected values below 5 and are, therefore, too small for the chi-square test.

The distribution of Carangidae (NISP=251) abundance is non-random across six contexts (p<0.0001) (Figure 6-14). Among the six contexts, Features 11 and 10 have the highest relative frequencies of Carangidae, followed by Features 15, 63, 49, and 16.

However, the effect size is very small (w=.06) indicating that the patterning is not practically significant. The remaining contexts have expected values below 5 and are, therefore, too small for the chi-square test.

The distribution of Haemulidae (NISP=556) abundance is non-random across nine contexts (p<0.0001) (Figure 6-15). Among the nine contexts, Feature 62 is by far the richest context in terms of Haemulidae relative frequency. The remaining contexts

260

with high relative frequencies of Haemulidae distribution are Features 10 and 14, followed by Feature 15, 49, 11, 16, 55, and Garden N sheet deposit. Although the effect size is small (w=.2), it is noticeably higher than all other vertebrate taxa distribution effect sizes. This suggests that the non-random distribution of Haemulidae fishes is more impressive in terms of practical significance than the other vertebrate taxa. The remaining contexts have expected values below 5 and are, therefore, too small for the chi-square test.

The distribution of Sparidae (NISP=17) abundance cannot be tested for significance of distribution using chi-square (Figure 6-16). Sparidae is present in

Features 10, 11, 15, 14, 16, and the Garden E sheet deposit. Where present, the taxa contributes less than one percent to the context NISP.

The distribution of Scaridae (NISP=546) abundance is non-random across nine contexts (p<0.0001) (Figure 6-17). Among the nine contexts, Features 14 and 10 have the highest relative frequencies of Scaridae, followed by Features 49, 15, 11, 16, and

62. Garden N sheet deposit and Feature 55 have the lowest relative frequencies of

Scaridae. However, the effect size is very small (w=.05) indicating that the patterning is not practically significant. The remaining contexts have expected values below 5 and are, therefore, too small for the chi-square test.

Labridae (NISP=26) abundance cannot be tested for significance of distribution using chi-square (Figure 6-18). Labridae is represented in Features 52, 10, 11, 15, 49, and 62, as well as Garden P sheet deposit. The higher relative frequency of the taxa in

Feature 52 is a reflection of the overall small sample size from the context.

261

The distribution of Mugil sp. (NISP=36) abundance also cannot be tested for significance of distribution using chi-square (Figure 6-19). The taxa is present in

Features 15, 40, 10, 11, and Garden N sheet deposit. Where present, Mugil sp. contributes less than one percent to the context NISP.

Sphyraena sp. (NISP=48) abundance cannot be tested for significance of distribution using chi-square (Figure 6-20). The taxa is present in Features 10, 11, 15,

49, 15, 55, 60, and Gardens N and P sheet deposits. Where present, Sphyraena sp. contributes less than one percent to the context NISP.

The distribution of Eleotridae (NISP=25) abundance cannot be tested for significance of distribution using chi-square (Figure 6-21). The taxa is represented in

Features 11, 15, 49, 14, and 55. Where present, Eleotridae contributes less than one percent to the context NISP.

Present in eight contexts, the distribution of Acanthurus sp. (NISP=65) abundance is non-random across nine contexts (p<0.003) (Figure 6-22). Within the four contexts, the relative frequency of Acanthurus sp. composes between .1 and .3% of total context NISP. However, the effect size is very small (w=.02) indicating that the patterning is not practically significant. The remaining contexts have expected values below 5 and are therefore too small for the chi-square test.

The distribution of Balistidae (NISP=53) abundance cannot be tested for significance of distribution using chi-square is (Figure 6-23). The taxa is most relatively frequent in the Garden B sheet deposit, followed by Features 10, 62, 49, 14, 11, 16 and

15. Where present, Balistidae contributes less than one percent to the context NISP.

262

Also, the distribution of Diodontidae (NISP=67) abundance cannot be tested for significance of distribution using chi-square (Figure 6-24). Diodontidae is most relatively frequent in Garden P and E sheet deposits. The taxa is also present in Features 10, 11,

15, 49, 16, 14, 55, and 62.

Intra-site invertebrate taxa abundance

The distribution of Decapoda (NISP=226) abundance is non-random across six contexts (p<.0001) (Figure 6-25). Among the six contexts, Features 11 and 49 are equal in highest relative frequency of Decapoda, followed by 62, 16, 15, and 10. However, the effect size is very small (w=.09) indicating that the patterning is not practically significant. The remaining contexts have expected values below 5 and are, therefore, too small for the chi-square test.

The distribution of Arcidae (NISP=474) abundance is non-random across eight contexts (p<.0001) (Figure 6-26). Among the eight contexts, Feature 14 has the highest relative frequency of Arcidae, followed by Garden N sheet deposit. Features 10, 16, 62, and Garden E sheet deposit are nearly equal in Arcidae relative frequency. Garden P sheet deposit, and Features 55, 49, 60, 11, and 15 have the lowest relative frequency.

However, the effect size is small (w=.1) indicating that the patterning is not practically significant. The remaining contexts have expected values below 5 and are, therefore, too small for the chi-square test.

The distribution of Mytilidae (NISP=353) abundance is non-random across seven contexts (p<.000) (Figure 6-27). Among the seven contexts, the Garden N sheet deposit has the highest relative frequency of Mytilidae; followed by Features 49, 62, 11, 16, 15, and 10. However, the effect size is very small (w=.09) indicating that the patterning is

263

not practically significant. The remaining contexts have expected values below 5 and are, therefore, too small for the chi-square test.

The distribution of Isognomon alatus (NISP=587) abundance is non-random across 11 contexts (p<.0001) (Figure 6-28). Among the 11 contexts, Feature 55 and

Garden N sheet deposit have the highest relative frequencies of Isognomon alatus.

Features 49 and 62 have the next highest Isognomon alatus relative frequencies, followed by Feature 60 and Garden P sheet deposit. Features 10, 16, 15, 11, and 14 have the lowest relative frequencies. However, the effect size is small (w=.1) indicating that the patterning is not practically significant. The remaining contexts have expected values below 5 and are, therefore, too small for the chi-square test.

The distribution of Crassostrea sp. (NISP=2,373) abundance is non-random across 13 contexts (p<.000) (Figure 6-29). Although not highlighted in Figure 6-27, the lack of Crassostrea sp. in the Garden B sheet deposit is non-random. Among the 13 contexts, the Garden P sheet deposit and Feature 55 have the highest relative frequencies of Crassostrea sp., followed closely by Features 60 and 62. The Garden N sheet deposit and Features 49 and 10 are the next highest in relative frequency, with

Features 16, 14, Garden E sheet deposit, and Features 15 and 11 comprising the lowest relative frequencies. The effect size is medium (w=.4) indicating that the patterning is moderately impressive. The remaining contexts have expected values below 5 and are, therefore, too small for the chi-square test.

The distribution Ostrea sp. (NISP=141) abundance is non-random across six contexts (p<.000) (Figure 6-30). Although not highlighted in Figure 6-28, the lack of

Ostrea sp. in Feature 49 is non-random. Among the six contexts, Feature 10 has the

264

highest relative frequency of the taxa, followed by Features 15, 16, 62, and 11.

The distribution of Codakia orbicularis (NISP=1,447) abundance is non-random across 12 contexts (p<.0001) (Figure 6-31). Among the 12 contexts, Feature 11,

Garden N sheet deposit, and Feature 63 have the highest relative frequencies of

Codakia orbicularis. Feature 10, Garden P sheet deposit, and Features 60, 55, and 14 have the next highest relative frequencies. Features 49, 16, and the Garden E sheet deposit have the lowest Codakia orbicularis relative frequencies. However, the effect size is relatively small (w=.2). The remaining contexts have expected values below 5 and are, therefore, too small for the chi-square test.

The distribution of Lucina pectinatus (NISP=488) is non-random across eight contexts (p<.000) (Figure 6-32). Although not highlighted in Figure 6-30, the lack of

Lucina pectinatus in Features 49 and 62 is non-random. Among the eight contexts,

Feature 10 has the highest relative frequency of the taxa, followed by Features 15, 55,

Garden N sheet deposit, and Feature 11. Feature 16 has the lowest relative frequency of the taxa. However, the effect size is very small (w=.08) indicating that the patterning is not practically significant. The remaining contexts have expected values below 5 and are, therefore, too small for the chi-square test.

The distribution of Trachycardium sp. (NISP=53) is non-random across three contexts (p<.0142) (Figure 6-33). Of the three contexts, Features 15 and 11 have the highest relative frequencies of the taxa, followed by Feature 40. However, the effect

265

size is very small (w=.02) indicating that the patterning is not practically significant. The remaining contexts have expected values below 5 and are, therefore, too small for the chi-square test.

The distribution of Mulinia cleryana (NISP=1,455) abundance is non-random across 12 contexts (p<.0000) (Figure 6-34). Although not highlighted in Figure 6-32, the lack of Mulinia cleryana in Gardens E and P sheet deposits is non-random. Among the

12 contexts, Feature 16 has by the highest relative frequency of Mulinia cleryana, with

Features 60 and 55 including the second and third highest relative frequencies. Garden

N and Features 49, 14, 15, and 11 have the lowest Mulinia cleryana relative frequencies. The effect size is large (w=.6) indicating that the patterning is impressive and practically significant. The remaining contexts have expected values below 5 and are, therefore, too small for the chi-square test.

The distribution of Tellina sp. (NISP=127) abundance is non-random across six contexts (p<.0000) (Figure 6-35). Although not highlighted in Figure 6-33, the lack of the taxa in Feature 16 is non-random. Among the six contexts, Feature 10 and 16 have the highest relative frequencies of Tellina sp., followed by Features 11, 15, and 49.

However, the effect size is very small (w=.09) indicating that the patterning is not practically significant. The remaining contexts have expected values below 5 and are, therefore, too small for the chi-square test.

The distribution of Donax denticulatus (NISP=1,167) abundance is non-random across 12 contexts (p<.0000) (Figure 6-36). Among the 12 contexts, Feature 10 and the

Garden N sheet deposit have the highest relative frequencies of Donax denticulatus, followed by Feature 16 and the Garden E sheet deposit. Features 14, 60, 55, and 49

266

hover around equal relative frequency, while Garden P sheet deposit and Features 11,

15, and 62 have the lowest relative frequencies. However, the effect size is small (w=.1) indicating that the patterning is not practically significant. The remaining contexts have expected values below 5 and are, therefore, too small for the chi-square test.

The distribution of Iphigenia brasiliana (NISP=51) is non-random across three contexts (p<.0000) (Figure 6-37). Although not highlighted in Figure 6-35, the lack of the taxa in Feature 15 is non-random. Iphigenia brasiliana is present in Features 11 and 49.

However, the effect size is very small (w=.04) indicating that the patterning is not practically significant. The remaining contexts have expected values below 5 and are, therefore, too small for the chi-square test.

The distribution of Tagleus plebeius (NISP=140) abundance is non-random across six contexts (p<.0000) (Figure 6-38). Among the six contexts, Feature 49 has the highest relative frequency of the taxa, followed by Features 10, 11, 15, and 62.

However, the effect size is very small (w=.05) indicating that the patterning is not practically significant. The remaining contexts have expected values below 5 and are, therefore, too small for the chi-square test.

The distribution of Mytilopsis cf. leucophaeata (NISP=172) is statistically significant across six contexts (p<.0000) (Figure 6-39). Although not highlighted in

Figure 6-37, the lack of the taxa in Feature 49 is non-random. Among the six contexts,

Feature 10 has the highest relative frequency of the taxa, followed by Features 15, 62,

11, and 16. However, the effect size is small (w=.1) indicating that the patterning is not practically significant. The remaining contexts have expected values below 5 and are, therefore, too small for the chi-square test.

267

The distribution of Anomalocardia brasiliana (NISP=733) abundance is non- random across 12 contexts (p<.0001) (Figure 6-40). Among the 12 contexts, Features

11, 10 and 14 have the highest relative frequencies of Anomalocardia brasiliana.

Features 62, 15, 55 and Garden N sheet deposit have the next highest relative frequencies, followed by Feature 16, Garden P sheet deposit, Garden E sheet deposit, and Features 60 and 49. However, the effect size is small (w=.1) indicating that the patterning is not practically significant. The remaining contexts have expected values below 5 and are, therefore, too small for the chi-square test.

The distribution of Chione cancellata (NISP=1,045) abundance is non-random across 12 contexts (P<0001) (Figure 6-41). Among the 12 contexts, Feature 11 has the highest relative frequency of Chione cancellata, with Feature 10 second in relative frequency. Garden N sheet deposit has the third highest relative frequency, followed by

Features 15, 14, 60, 55, Garden E sheet deposit, Features 16, 49, Garden P sheet deposit and Feature 62. However, the effect size is relatively small (w=.2). The remaining contexts have expected values below 5 and are, therefore, too small for the chi-square test.

The distribution of Protothaca granulata (NISP=399) abundance is non-random across eight contexts (p<.0000) (Figure 6-42). Although not highlighted in Figure 6-40, the lack of Protothaca granulata in Features 10 and 62 is non-random. Among the eight contexts, Feature 11 has the highest relative frequency of the taxa, followed by

Features 55, 15, Garden N sheet deposit, and Feature 16. Feature 49 has the lowest relative frequency. However, the effect size is small (w=.1) indicating that the patterning

268

is not practically significant. The remaining contexts have expected values below 5 and are, therefore, too small for the chi-square test.

The distribution of Neritina virginea (NISP=85) abundance is non-random across six contexts (p<.0001) (Figure 6-43). Although not highlighted in Figure 6-42, the lack of

Neritina virginea in Features 11 and 62 is non-random. Among the six contexts, the taxa is most relatively frequent in Features 16 and 10, followed by Features 15 and 49.

However, the effect size is very small (w=.5 indicating that the patterning is not practically significant. The remaining contexts have expected values below 5 and are, therefore, too small for the chi-square test.

Also, Modulus modulus (NISP=39) cannot be tested for significance of distribution using chi-square (Figure 6-44). The taxa is present in Features 10, 11, 15,

49, 16, and 55. Where present, Modulus modulus contributes less than one percent of the total context NISP.

The distribution of Cerithiidae (NISP=57) is non-random across three contexts

(p<.0017) (Figure 6-45). Although not highlighted in Figure 6-45, the lack of Cerithiidae in Feature 11 is non-random. Cerithiidae is present in Features 40 and 15. However, the effect size is very small (w=.02) indicating that the patterning is not practically significant. The remaining contexts have expected values below 5 and are, therefore, too small for the chi-square test.

The distribution of Strombidae (NISP=613) abundance is non-random across 11 contexts (p<.0001) (Figure 6-46). Among the eleven contexts, Gardens P and N sheet deposits have the highest Strombidae relative frequencies with near equal values.

Second in Strombidae relative frequencies are Features 10 and 55 with near equal

269

values, followed by Garden E sheet deposit and Features 15 and 14. Features 63, 16,

49, and 11 have the lowest relative frequencies of Strombidae. However, the effect size is very small (w=.08) indicating that the patterning is not practically significant. The remaining contexts have expected values below 5 and are, therefore, too small for the chi-square test.

Columbellidae (NISP=10) cannot be tested for significance of distribution using chi-square (Figure 6-47). The taxa is present in Features 10, 15, 49, 16, and 62. Where present, Columbellidae contributes less than one percent of the total context NISP.

The distribution of Melampus sp. (NISP=10,621) abundance is non-random across 13 contexts (p<.0001) (Figure 6-48). Although not highlighted in Figure 6.18, the lack of Melampus sp. in Gardens B and P sheet deposits and Feature 60 is non- random. Melampus sp. relative frequency is concentrated in Feature 15. Features 11,

49, 16, 10, 14, and Garden E sheet deposit have very distant relative frequencies of

Melampus sp. Melampus sp. relative frequency is the lowest in Garden N sheet deposit and Features 55 and 63. The effect size is large (w=.6) indicating that the patterning is impressive and practically significant. The remaining contexts have expected values below 5 and are, therefore, too small for the chi-square test.

Taxonomic Composition across Contexts

Principle Component Analysis

Figure 6-49 illustrates the results of the PCA. Plotted principal components 1 and

2 explain 47 percent of the variance in the data. Table 6-6 shows the component loadings for the PCA, and Table 6-7 shows the Eigenvalue for each principal component. The length of the arrows in the biplot show the relative contribution of each variable (taxonomic abundance) to variation in the total assemblage. The direction of

270

the arrows reflect the degree to which each taxa contributes to principal component 1

(PC1) and principal component 2 (PC2), or both. Nearly horizontal arrows such as those of Ellobiidae or Diodontidae indicate that these taxa contribute primarily to PC1. Mostly vertical arrows such as that of Veneridae or Mactridae demonstrate that these taxa contribute primarily to the variation defined by PC2. Arrows on a diagonal contribute more equally to both PC1 and PC2.

The eigenvector arrows also show the correlation of variables. Roughly orthogonal relationships between arrows indicate that there is no correlation (e.g.,

Ellobiidae and Mactridae). Parallel arrows indicate a direct positive correlation so that as one increases so does the other (e.g., Veneridae and Carangidae). Arrows oriented in opposite directions demonstrate an inverse relationship between taxa, so that as one increases, the other decreases (e.g., Ellobiidae and Diodontidae).

The proveniences are scored based on their total assemblage compositions in relation to the PC transformation matrix. Therefore, when eigenvector arrows (taxa) point toward a plotted provenience, the provenience contains those taxa in relative abundance. Arrows pointing away from a plotted provenience represent taxa that are deficient in those proveniences.

The following discussion describes the relationships between loci across En Bas

Saline based on overall faunal composition and taxonomic abundance as shown by the

PCA. Along with Figure 6-49, Figure 6-50 shows the principal component plot of the En

Bas Saline contexts used in this study. As a reminder, the taxa included and excluded in the PCA are listed in Table 6-3. Contexts plotted near one another in hyperspace share similar total assemblage compositions. Gardens B and E sheet deposits and Feature 14

271

are similar and defined by relative abundance of Haemulidae, Serranidae, Scaridae,

Capromyidae, Boidae, and Carcharhinidae, and a comparative lack of Mactridae and

Portunidae. Features 10, 62, and 11 cluster together and share some similarities with the previous proveniences, but differ in greater proportions of Veneridae, Carangidae,

Cardiidae, and Rallidae, and smaller amounts of Scaridae and Serranidae.

Features 55 and 60 are extremely similar: characterized by abundance of

Mactridae. Garden N sheet deposit and Feature 49 might be considered part of this

“group” (with Feature 55 and Feature 60), with relatively high proportions of Mactridae that are nearly equal in frequency between the two contexts. However, Feature 49 has more Ellobidae and Portunidae, while the Garden N sheet deposit has higher relative amounts of Capromyidae, Sphyraenidae and Isognomonidae.

Garden P sheet deposit is characterized by relatively less grunts and parrotfishes, and relatively more oysters and conchs than the Garden E sheet deposit. It also has less grunts than Feature 62 (also in Garden P). In relation to the Garden N sheet deposit, Garden P sheet deposit has relatively less oyster and donax, and relatively more grunts, parrotfish, and conchs.

Feature 16 actually has a much higher relative frequency of Mactridae compared to Features 55 and 60, but contains more Ellobidae as well. There is also relatively more Scaridae within Feature 16, as well as more reptiles.

Finally, Feature 15 is clearly an outlier and differs from any other provenience. It is defined by the overwhelming abundance of Ellobiidae.

Overall, the melampus and Clery surfclam are the taxa most notable in their contribution to variation between contexts. The PCA results correspond with the non-

272

random patterning and large effect sizes of melampus and Clery surfclam indicated in the chi-square and Cohen’s w results. The other taxa included in the PCA do not contribute as noticeably due to less abundance. This in turn indicates that the overall smaller sample sizes of the remaining taxa preclude having a strong effect on variance.

The PC plots of taxa and contexts allows us to visualize how taxa abundance and composition play out together in terms of overall similarity of difference across the site.

In Chapter 7, the PCA data presented and summarized here is used to assess assumptions about the relationship between space, social contexts, and animal use at

En Bas Saline. Similarities and differences between Garden areas, deposit types, and presumed social contexts are evaluated in regard to intra-site patterning.

Less Abundant Taxa across Contexts

The 29 families and included taxa listed in Table 6-8 were not considered abundant in terms of absolute NISP (<10 NISP), relative abundance, or ubiquity

(<36%). Due to overall very small sample sizes and occurrences, these taxa were not explicitly discussed in terms of intra-site comparisons, chi-square testing, or PCA.

Although the listed taxa are not abundant, they are almost exclusively identified in

Garden C (Features 10, 11, 15) and/or Garden E features (Features 49, 16, 14). In addition to Garden C and/or E features, Elopidae, Pomacanthidae, and Turbinidae taxa are also identified in Feature 62 located in Garden P. Pleurodontidae taxa are only identified in Garden N contexts.

The presence of these seemingly rare taxa are mainly concentrated within

Gardens C and E features, suggesting similarities in faunal deposition among the garden areas. However, the importance of these taxa to the analysis of contextual similarity or difference across the site as a whole is not clear. Before asserting

273

interpretational significance to the patterning, it is important to note that the sample sizes from the Features located in Gardens C, E, and P are the largest included in this study, and the NISP of these taxa are the smallest. Therefore, the most parsimonious explanation for considering the identification and presence of these taxa within these features, and their value in terms of intra-site comparisons, is one of sample size.

Future analysis focused on larger sample sizes across the site, particularly among samples from contexts in Gardens B and N, will help to inform about less abundant, and possibly rare, taxa and their roles in interpreting spatial patterning of faunal deposition at En Bas Saline.

Body or Shell Portions across Contexts

Intra-site patterning of both body or shell portions, as well as specimen fragmentation, can be reflective of pre- and post-depositional cultural or natural taphonomic processes. This point is important because the archaeological study of taxa body or shell portions is a comparative analysis based on the proportional relationship between identifiable elements and fragments among a taxa present within a sample or assemblage. Also, bone and shell morphology or physical characteristics are related to how elements may or may not preserve in the archaeological record. Finally, approaches to specimen identification and analysis can impact the study of animal body portion representation and abundance as well.

In this study, the intra-site comparison of body or shell portions among the most abundant taxa across contexts was not successful. During efforts to organize and quantify possible patterns in elemental abundance and distributions, several challenges and issues became apparent; in particular, multi-analyst derived inconsistencies in

274

specimen identification and quantification. Therefore, the following sections presents the results of the body and shell elemental analysis as a process of study, rather than quantified comparative intra-site datasets.

Vertebrate Body Portions

Patterns in vertebrate taxa body portions across contexts cannot be reliably analyzed or quantified at this point in time, particularly among fish specimens.

Capromyidae remains may be the exception to this finding, presenting the best opportunity for intra-site body portion comparisons. Overall, more analysis and specific attention to the practice and parameters of zooarchaeological analysis used in the study of the En Bas Saline assemblage is needed.

Fish body portions

Fish are the most abundantly represented vertebrate class in the En Bas Saline faunal assemblage. However, the intra-site analysis of bony fish cranial and post-cranial body portions across contexts is stymied by multiple points of challenge related to multi- analyst biases in specimen identifications and data quantification. First, because elements and unidentifiable element fragments were not consistently quantified by NISP across samples, it is not currently possible to produce a proportional understanding of cranial versus post-cranial element identifications among specimens only identified to class (Actinopterygii). This in turn means that it is not currently possible to gain an understanding of the proportional relationship between cranial and post-cranial elements identified beyond class and those as Actinopterygii within a sample.

This proportional understanding is essential in order to compare body portion frequencies among and between taxa in different contexts and recovered from different size samples. This understanding is also necessary to assess different activities or

275

processes that may have caused differential rates of fragmentation among fish specimens; including pre- and post-depositional taphonomic processes, and human or natural specimen modifications. Finally, this data can also bolster or add to interpretations of site formation processes at En Bas Saline.

A second multi-analyst issue involves variation in the identification of fish vertebrae. For example, within Feature 49 it initially appears that Serranidae,

Carangidae, Lutjanidae, Haemulidae, and Scaridae specimens are represented exclusively by cranial elements (Figures 6-51 – 6-55). However, as illustrated in Figure

6-56, regression analysis of the link between the ratio of post-cranial to cranial elements among taxa identified beyond class in relation to vertebrae identified as Actinopterygii within contexts shows that as cranial element identification increases, so too does the number of vertebrae identified as Actinopterygii. The Pearson’s r (correlation coefficient) is -0.4557, suggesting the correlation is not trivial, but rather moderate and noticeable.

This link is especially evident within Feature 49, where 77% of all fish specimens

(regardless of level of taxonomic identification) are identified as Actinopterygii vertebrae

(Table 6-5). This trend suggests that there is possibly quite a bit of variation in the taxonomic identification of fish vertebrae beyond class between samples and analysts; reflecting differing levels of confidence between analysts. Yet, it is important to also point out that the vertebral morphology and skeletal characteristic of many tropical fish overlap and can be difficult to distinguish between zooarchaeological specimens. This is especially the circumstance with posterior vertebrae (e.g., caudal vertebrae). This point is further confounded by age or size related skeletal similarities between and among some taxa as fishes grow. Moreover, while some fish taxa have distinctive vertebrate

276

morphology or characteristics, cranial elements are often more easily identified than post-cranial elements, such as vertebrae.

Therefore, in the case of Feature 49, it is entirely possible that the fish vertebrae identified as Actinopterygii cannot be identified beyond class, thereby falsely masking the presence of post-cranial body parts among the dominant fish present in the sample.

Alternatively, it is also possible that post-cranial elements of Serranidae, Carangidae,

Lutjanidae, Haemulidae, and Scaridae taxa are truly not present in the feature, and that only the bodies of other fish taxa are present. Clearly, further analysis of the Feature 49 fish assemblage is warranted.

When it comes to the study of fish body portions within the En Bas Saline faunal assemblage, a critical and empirically structured study of fish specimens across contexts is necessary. It would be helpful to focus on developing parameters for the quantification of unidentifiable fish fragments not identifiable beyond class. It is also important to address criteria for the identification of fish elements beyond class between taxa (e.g., Giovas 2013). Finally, it may prove worthwhile to conduct experiments aimed at identifying correlations and averages between whole and specimen fragment weights

(e.g., VanDerwarker et al. 2007). If possible, this might be useful in reconciling datasets produced by different analysts at En Bas Saline, as well as beyond.

Mammal body portions

The study of intra-site patterning in Capromyidae body portions can be considered a relative success. Because all Capromyidae specimens are identified elements quantified by NISP, it is possible to study the proportional relationship between cranial and post-cranial specimens within contexts and then compare the relative abundances of body portions across contexts (Figure 6-57). A total of 176

277

Capromyidae elements are present across 8 contexts. Thirty-two percent (NISP=57) of the elements are cranial and 68% (NISP=119) are post-cranial.

Based on the calculation of expected values, Features 10, 11, and 15, are eligible for chi-square tests assessing the correlation between body portion and depositional distribution. Among the three contexts, there is not a statistical relationship between Capromyidae body portion and patterns of deposition (p=.780168; w=.06). This result is due to the fact that hutia body portions between Features 10, 11, and 15 are very similar. The results also indicate that the element proportions in Feature 16 as well as Gardens E and N sheet deposits may be due to sample size. Clearly, increased samples sizes and additional analysis will help to clarify patterns in hutia body portion distribution across contexts. Such analysis may produce evidence of differential butchery practices across the site, as well as suggestions regarding possible

Capromyidae meat sharing practices across the site and among people.

Other vertebrate taxa

Finally, among the integrated taxa of Rallidae, Testudines, Serpentes, Anura, and Carcharhinidae, all identifiable elements are post-cranial. This pattern is not particularly surprising, and precludes comparison of body portion across contexts.

However, it is worth discussing the prevalence of post-cranial elements among these taxa and what the pattern may be in terms of preservation and/or animal use.

The representation of shark exclusively through vertebrae is in large part due to the cartilaginous nature of shark structural anatomy. However, in addition to vertebrae, shark teeth usually preserve well in archaeological or paleontological contexts. The lack of shark teeth among the studied samples may be due to sampling bias or size, and additional analysis may produce shark teeth specimens. The lack of shark teeth may

278

also be a reflection of butchery patterns. It is possible that sharks were primarily butchered off-site, where the heads were discarded whole, or perhaps teeth were extracted for non-food related purposes and were not deposited in the contexts studied.

The lack of cranial elements among Rallidae, Testudines, Serpentes and Anura specimens may be a factor of preservation bias and post-depositional changes. The cranial bones of birds, turtles, snakes and amphibians (e.g., frogs and toads) tend to be less dense and more fragile than post cranial elements (e.g., long bones, carapace, plastron). It is possible, that if present in the samples analyzed, the cranial elements of these animals were fragmented beyond recognition. Alternatively, the heads may have been discarded elsewhere prior to meal preparation, consumption, and/or inclusion in the archaeological deposits. In regards to turtle shell, it is possible that turtle shell specimens at En Bas Saline are representative of both turtle meat consumption and secondary uses of turtle shells; including as serving dishes or rattles.

Invertebrate taxa body portions

The most abundant invertebrate taxa, particularly bivalves and gastropods, cannot currently be studied for intra-site correlations between body portions and depositional distribution. Similar to the challenges of studying intra-site trends in fish body portion representation, the current lack of resolution regarding the NISP abundance of identified fragments among bivalve and gastropod taxa across faunal samples hinders an empirically meaningful study of taxa shell portions across different sized samples. In other words, until all identified fragments from mollusk taxa have been consistently quantified beyond weight and in terms of NISP, it is not possible to ascertain the proportional relationship between fragments and identifiable elements within taxa per

279

context. This understanding of body portion frequencies in comparison to fragments is necessary to empirically contextualize possible patterns of shell element distribution.

Gastropod shell portions

The relative frequency of gastropod fragmentation across contexts is not consistently quantified by NISP or weight. Also, as mentioned in Chapter 5, identified gastropod elements or whole shells have not been systematically studied for evidence of use wear or human-wrought modifications, including butchery patterns (i.e., kill holes) or tool manufacture. Currently, without the data necessary to generate proportional relationships between fragmented and identifiable gastropod elements among taxa within and between contexts, originating from different size samples, as well as the data needed to assess evidence of human modifications to gastropod shells, it is not possible to deduce correlations between gastropod body portions across the contexts.

This also hinders the ability to discuss possible patterns of gastropod use that are related to food production and consumption as well as uses beyond food-related activities (i.e. tools, objects of personal adornment).

Bivalve shell portions

The study of bivalve shell portions, as categorized by valve side, is also hampered by currently inadequate datasets. Again, the main issue is one of multi- analyst bias evident in the differential quantification of bivalve fragments using NISP and weight across identified taxa. For example, where present, it appears that Donax denticulatus, Crassostrea sp., Codakia orbicularis, Chione cancellata, Anomalocardia brasiliana, and Isognomon alatus are represented in relatively equal valve portions within and between contexts (Figures 6-58 – 6-63). This patterning suggests that these particular taxa were transported to the site whole. However, without a proportional

280

understanding of how right and left valve elements compare to non-elementally identified fragments in terms of NISP, it is not possible to assess whether or not valve relative frequencies are the result of animal transport and use strategies, differential rates of preservations between contexts, sample size biases, and/or site formation processes. Likewise, it is also not currently possible to discuss modifications to bivalve specimens resulting from tool use (i.e., scrappers, net weights).

When it comes to the study of invertebrate elements and shell portions within the

En Bas Saline faunal assemblage, a similar strategy suggested for fish body portion study would be beneficial. Critical attention to the quantification of shell fragments is needed, including parameters of fragment quantification by NISP or weight. For example, it may prove methodologically helpful to separate invertebrate fragments

(regardless of level of taxonomic identification) through nested-screens, and from there set an analytical standard between specimen size and method of quantification; where fragments of particular sizes are consistently quantified by counted or weight across samples and contexts. It also may be useful to address criteria for the identification of human modifications to shell specimens (e.g., Keegan and Carlson 2008; Keegan et al.

2014; Serrand 2002), providing a comparative template for intra- and inter-site analyses of bivalve shell use.

Crab body portions

Finally, the overwhelming presence of crab claw elements in comparison to body fragments across contexts may also not be a straightforward pattern. Fragments identified as Decapoda were not consistently quantified by NISP or weight within different sized samples from different contexts. Furthermore, crab claw elements are compositionally denser than many body elements, and are therefore more likely to

281

preserve intact. Attention to crab body portion representation will benefit future studies regarding the past consumption of crabs as well as issues of taphonomy possibly impacting the recovery and zooarchaeological identification of crabs in the En Bas

Saline faunal assemblage.

282

Table 6-1. Taxa and integrated taxonomic groups used in intra-site analysis and statistical comparisons. Taxa or Integrated Class Taxonomic Group Included Taxa Ubiquity (%) Isolobodon portoricensis, cf. Isolobodon portoricensis, Mammalia Capromyidae Plagiodontia cf. aedium 71 Aves Rallidae Rallidae, cf. Rallidae 36 Emydidae, Caretta caretta, Reptilia Testudines Cheloniidae, Testudines 71 Cyclura sp. cf. Anolis sp., Anguidae, Ameiva sp., Celestus Squamata sp., Teiidae 43 Epicrates striatus, Boidae, cf. Serpentes Alsophis sp., Serpentes 50 Rana sp., Anura cf. Bufonidae, Amphibia Anura Anura 36

Carcharhinus sp., Rhizoprionodon Chondrichthyes Carcharhinidae terraenovae, Carcharhinidae, 50 Actinopterygii Albula vulpes 36 Strongylura sp., cf. Tylosurus sp., Belonidae, Belonidae cf. Belonidae Strongylura sp. 36 Holocentrus sp., Holocentridae cf. Holocentridae Holocentrus sp., Holocentridae 64

Centropomus parallelus, Centropomus pectinatus, Centropomus undecimalis, Centropomidae Centropomus sp., Centropomidae 50

Cephalopholis fulva, Epinephalus adscensionis, Epinephelus sp., Serranidae Mycteroperca sp., Serranidae 93

Caranx hippos, Caranx latus, Caranx sp., Carangoides cf. ruber, Chloroscombus chrysurus, Carangidae Carangidae, cf. Carangidae 79

Lutjanus synagris, Lutjanus sp., cf. Lutjanus sp., Ocyurus chrysurus, Lutjanidae Lutjanidae, cf. Lutjanidae 79

283

Table 6-1. Continued Taxa or Integrated Class Taxonomic Group Included Taxa Ubiquity (%) Calamus sp., Sparidae cf. Sparidae Archosargus sp., Sparidae 43 Haemulon sciurus, Haemulon cf. sciurus, cf. Haemulon plumieri, Haemulon sp., Haemulidae, Haemulidae cf. Haemulon sp., cf. Haemulidae Haemulidae 86

Scarus sp., Sparisoma chrysopterum, Sparisoma rubripinne, Sparisoma cf. rubripinne, Sparisoma viride, Sparisoma cf. viride, Sparisoma Scaridae sp., Scaridae 86 Bodianus sp., Halichoeres sp., Lachnolaimus sp., cf. Labridae Lachnolaimus sp. 50 Mugil sp. 36

Sphyraena barracuda, Sphyraena Sphyraena sp. sp., cf. Sphyraena sp. 71 Eleotris sp.,Gobiomorus dormitor, Eleotridae Eleotridae 36 Acanthurus sp. 57 Balistes sp., Balistidae cf. Balistes Balistidae sp., Balistidae 57 Diodon hystrix, Diodon sp., Diodontidae Diodontidae 71

Portunidae, Cardisoma sp., Gecarcinidae cf. Gecarcinus sp., Gecarcinidae, cf. Gecarcinidae, Malacostraca Decapoda Brachyura, Decapoda 79

Anadara chemnitzii, Anadara ovalis, Anadara cf. ovalis, Anadara transversa, Anadara sp., Arca Bivalvia Arcidae zebra, Arcidae, cf. Arcidae 86 Brachidontes exustus, Mytilidae Brachidontes sp., Mytilidae 71 Isognomon alatus 79

284

Table 6-1. Continued Taxa or Integrated Class Taxonomic Group Included Taxa Ubiquity (%) Crassostrea virginica, Crassostrea Crassostrea sp. sp. 86 Ostrea sp. Ostrea stentina, Ostrea sp. 57 Codakia orbicularis 86 Lucina pectinatus 64 Trachycardium egmontianum/muricatium, Trachycardium sp. Trachycardium sp. 36 Mulinia cleryana, Mulinia cf. Mulinia cleryana cleryana 71 Tellina fausta, cf. Tellina fausta, Tellina sp. Tellina sp. 50 Donax denticulatus 86 Iphigenia brasiliana 64 Tagleus plebeius 64 Mytilopsis cf. leucophaeata 43 Anomalocardia brasiliana 86 Chione cancellata 86 Protothaca granulata 57 Gastropoda Neritina virginea 50 Modulus modulus 43 Cerithium eburneum, Cerithium litteratum, Cerithium lutosum, Cerithiidae Cerithiidae 50

Strombus alatus, Strombus cf. alatus, Strombus cf. alatus/pugilis, cf. Strombus alatus, Strombus gigas, Strombus pugilis, Strombus cf. pugilis, Strombus raninus, Strombidae Strombus sp., Strombidae 93 Columbella mercatoria, Columbella rusticoides, Columbellidae Columbellidae 36 Melampus coffeus, Melampus cf. Melampus sp. coffeus, Melampus sp. 71

285

Table 6-2. Taxa and integrated taxonomic groups not used in intra-site analysis and statistical comparisons. Taxa or Integrated Class Taxonomic Group Included Taxa Ubiquity (%) Mammalia Brotomys voratus 21 Actinopterygii Elops saurus 7 Gymnothorax funebris, Gymnothorax sp., cf. Gymmothorax Muraenidae sp., Muraenidae 7 Clupeidae 7 Hemiramphus sp., Hemiramphidae, Hemiramphidae cf. Hemiramphidae 29 Scorpaenidae 7 Diapterus sp., cf. Diapterus sp., cf. Gerreidae Gerres sp., Gerreidae 29

Bairdiella sp., Micropogonias sp., Sciaenidae Sciaenidae, cf. Sciaenidae 29

Mulliodichthys martinicus 7 Chaetodipterus faber 7 Pomacanthus sp. 14 Gobionellus sp. 14 Lactophyrs sp. 29 Sphoeroides sp. 29 Pteria colymbus 7 Anomia simplex 7 Ostreidae 50 Anodontia alba 7 Solen obliquus 7 Chione sp. 7 Globivenus sp. 14 cf. Globivenus sp. 7 Lirophora latilirata 7 Mytilopsis sp. 7 Periglypta listeri 14 Pitar sp. 7 Veneridae 7 Corbula sp. 7 cf. Pholadidae 7 Cittarium pica 7 Tegula fasciata 7 Turbo castanea, Turbo sp., Turbinidae Turbinidae 29

286

Table 6-2. Continued Taxa or Integrated Class Taxonomic Group Included Taxa Ubiquity (%) Nerita tessellata, Neritina clenchi, Bivalvia Neritidae Neritina sp. 29 Littorina angulifera, Littorina irrorata, Littorina sp. Littorina nebulosa 21 Planaxis nucleus 7 Naticarius cf. canrena 7 Charonia variegata, Cymatium Cymatiidae nicobaricum 21 Chicoreus pomum 29 Stramonita rustica, Urosalpinx Muricidae perrugata 14 Nassarius vibex 7 Fasciolaria lilium 7 Olivella nivea 7 Conus cf. jaspieus 7 Bulla striata 7 Haminoea sp. 7 Gastropoda Polydontes sp. 14 Haitipoma sp. 7 Pleurodonte sp. 14

287

Table 6-3. List of families included (NISP>10, n=49) and not included (NISP<10; n=36) in principal component analysis. Taxa Included Taxa Included (continued) Taxa Not Included Capromyidae Donacidae Echimyidae Rallidae Solecurtidae Cheloniidae Emydidae Dreissenidae Iguanidae Teiidae Veneridae Polycrotidae Boidae Neritidae Anguidae Carcharhinidae Littorinidae Colubridae Albulidae Modulidae Ranidae Muraenidae Cerithiidae Bufonidae Hemiramphidae Strombidae Elopidae Belonidae Cymatiidae Clupeidae Holocentridae Muricidae Scorpaenidae Centropomidae Columbellidae Gerreidae Serranidae Ellobiidae Sciaenidae Carangidae Mullidae Lutjanidae Ephippidae Haemulidae Pomacanthidae Sparidae Gobiidae Labridae Tetraodontidae Scaridae Pteriidae Mugilidae Anomiidae Sphyraenidae Solenidae Eleotridae Corbulidae Acanthuridae Pholadidae Balistidae Trochidae Ostracidae Turbinidae Diodontidae Planaxidae Portunidae Naticidae Gecarcinidae Nassariidae Arcidae Fasciolariidae Mytilidae Olividae Isognomonidae Conidae Ostreidae Bullidae Lucinidae Haminoeidae Cardiidae Camaenidae Mactridae Annulariidae Tellinidae Pleurodontidae

288

Table 6-4. Results of chi-square and Cohen's w tests. Taxa Context Chi-square Degrees of Probability Cohen's w Value Freedom Capromyidae F10, F11, F15, F49, F16, F63 93.28 5 0.00000001 0.057279

Testudines F10, F11, F15, F49, F16, F63 155.672 5 1E-11 0.072706

Serranidae F10, F11, F15, F49, F16, F63 26.84 5 0.000061 0.0302

Carangidae F10, F11, F15, F49, F16, F63 93.74 5 1E-11 0.056

Lutjanidae F10, F11, F15, F49, F16, F63 16.91 5 0.0047 0.023966

Haemulidae F10, F11, F15, F49, F16, F14, 1907.39 8 1E-13 0.249121 GNSD, F55, F63

Scaridae F10, F11, F15, F49, F16, F14, 82.21 8 0.00000001 0.0517 GNSD, F55, F63

Acanthurus sp. F11, F15, F49, F16 13.74 3 0.003286 0.023273

Decapoda F10, F11, F15, F49, F16, F63 264.32 5 0.00000001 0.0947

Arcidae F10, F11, F15, F49, F16, GNSD, 278.54 7 1E-10 0.0957 F55, F63

Mytilidae F10, F11, F15, F49, F16, GNSD, 296.47 6 0.00000000 0.09948 F62

289

Table 6-4. Continued Taxa Context Chi-square Degrees of Probability Cohen's w Value Freedom Isognomon alatus F10, F11, F15, GESD, F49, F16, 365.16 11 0.000000001 0.1076 F14, GNSD, F60, F55, GPSD, F63

Crassostrea sp. GBSD, F10, F11, F15, GESD, 3888 12 1E-10 0.350862 F49, F16, F14, GNSD, F60, F55, GPSD, F63

Ostrea sp. F10, F11, F15, F49, F16, F62 348.59 5 0.000000 0.108799

Codakia orbicularis F10, F11, F15, GESD, F49, F16, 1776.92 11 0.00000001 0.237 F14, GNSD, F60, F55, GPSD, F63

Lucina pectinatus F10, F11, F15, F49, F16, GNSD, 178.37 7 0.000000 0.076564 F55, F62

Trachycardium sp. F11, F15, F49 8.51 2 0.014207 0.019292

Mulinia cleryana F10, F11, F15, GESD, F49, F16, 12775.5 11 0.000000001 0.6395 F14, GNSD, F60, F55, GPSD, F63

Tellina sp. F10, F11, F15, F49, F16, F62 256.27 5 0.000000 0.093286

Donax denticulata F10, F11, F15, GESD, F49, F16, 701.04 11 1E-10 0.149144 F14, GNSD, F60, F55, GPSD, F63

290

Table 6-4. Continued Taxa Context Chi-square Degrees of Probability Cohen's w Value Freedom Iphigenia brasiliana F11, F15, F49 36.37 2 0.000000 0.039884

Tagleus plebeius F10, F11, F15, F49, F16, F62 83.29 5 0.000000 0.05318

Mytilopsis cf. F10, F11, F15, F49, F16, F62 435.82 5 0.000000 0.121652 leucophaeata

Anomalocardia F10, F11, F15, GESD, F49, F16, 671.23 11 0.000000001 0.1459 brasiliana F14, GNSD, F60, F55, GPSD, F63

Chione cancellata F10, F11, F15, GESD, F49, F16, 1553.59 11 0.000000001 0.222 F14, GNSD, F60, F55, GPSD, F63

Protothaca granulata F10, F11, F15, F49, F16, GNSD, 331.39 7 0.000000 0.104362 F55, F62

Neritina virginea F10, F11, F15, F49, F16, F63 54.15 5 0.000000001 0.0458

Cerithiidae F11, F15, F49 12.67 2 0.001776 0.023539

Strombidae F10, F11, F15, GESD, F49, F16, 208.37 10 0.000000001 0.081622 F14, GNSD, F55, GPSD, F63

Melampus sp. GBSD, F10, F11, F15, GESD, 12789.3 12 0.000000001 0.641613 F49, F16, F14, GNSD, F60, F55, GPSD, F63

291

Table 6-5. The NISP and relative frequencies of vertebrae identified as Actinopterygii within total fish NISP from each context. Identified % of total Class Total Class (all Actinopterygii (Actinopterygii) fish taxa Context vertebrae NISP NISP identified) NISP Garden B Sheet Deposit 7 38.9 18 Feature 52 4 80.0 5 Feature 10 75 17.6 425 Feature 11 94 14.0 672 Feature 15 275 19.0 1451 Garden E Sheet Deposit 24 20.0 120 Feature 49 1081 76.6 1412 Feature 14 52 26.9 193 Feature 16 90 20.9 430 Garden N Sheet Deposit 13 43.3 30 Feature 55 6 13.6 44 Feature 60 5 20.0 25 Garden P Sheet Deposit 10 12.7 79 Feature 62 82 11.3 728 Totals 1818 32.3 5632

292

Table 6-6. Component loadings for principal component analysis of En Bas Saline contexts. Bolded values indicate strong contribution to variance across contexts. Principal components 1 through 8 account for approximately 90% of variance. Total taxa groups included is 49. Variable PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 PC5 PC6 PC7 PC8 Capromyidae -0.1635 -0.1363 -0.1071 0.006 0.15349 -0.0571 0.07005 0.00196 Rallidae -0.152 0.02471 0.03256 0.27048 -0.1026 -0.1151 0.12825 0.10582 Emydidae -0.0361 -0.0326 -0.0382 0.10452 -0.0682 -0.0028 0.15083 -0.0511 Teiidae -0.1164 -0.097 0.00542 -0.1393 0.01753 0.20921 0.01378 0.31406 Boidae -0.3076 -0.1728 -0.0862 0.2255 0.15433 -0.2973 -0.0905 -0.1544 Carcharhinidae -0.3325 -0.1324 -0.1722 0.03412 0.25319 -0.067 -0.1122 0.09204 Albulidae -0.0649 0.08373 0.0273 0.02111 -0.0248 -0.0355 -0.0012 0.06172 Muraenidae -0.209 -0.0425 -0.058 0.14274 -0.292 0.02316 0.11457 -0.0783 Hemiramphidae -0.027 -0.0107 0.02377 0.02645 -0.005 0.07941 0.06391 -0.0257 Belonidae -0.1697 0.06186 -0.0002 0.17159 -0.144 0.08132 -0.0426 -0.124 Holocentridae -0.2014 -0.0333 -0.2568 -0.0879 0.21792 -0.1826 -0.0803 0.04414 Centropomidae -0.1677 -0.0633 0.18646 0.14614 -0.0018 0.10844 -0.0177 -0.119 Serranidae -0.1048 -0.2336 -0.2141 -0.1231 -0.1216 0.0931 -0.0778 -0.0735 Carangidae 0.00392 -0.1533 -0.1015 0.13293 -0.079 0.12756 0.03843 0.07243 Lutjanidae -0.0561 -0.0583 -0.1147 0.00304 -0.1234 0.15989 -0.0869 0.23801 Haemulidae -0.0744 -0.3102 0.11583 -0.2642 -0.2394 0.05077 -0.1513 -0.0231 Sparidae -0.1853 -0.1151 0.01909 0.05735 -0.0875 0.22956 -0.2093 0.25264 Labridae -0.1388 0.10388 -0.0734 -0.1385 -0.0377 -0.0411 0.0076 -0.0247 Scaridae -0.0957 -0.1915 -0.2834 0.01106 0.0948 0.22707 -0.0854 -0.3019 Mugilidae -0.0249 0.03969 0.00476 -0.0541 -0.0471 0.06721 0.00928 -0.064 Sphyraenidae -0.1506 0.15745 0.1055 0.01608 0.19249 0.07547 0.01474 -0.0109 Eleotridae -0.2122 0.12585 0.01596 -0.0057 -0.264 0.15435 0.05562 -0.1346 Acanthuridae -0.2126 -0.0729 -0.0268 0.0187 0.04815 -0.0204 -0.1112 -0.2187 Balistidae -0.1694 -0.0326 0.07696 0.02894 -0.1424 0.10081 0.11549 -0.184 Ostracidae -0.0433 0.03963 0.01724 0.09296 -0.0556 0.09412 -0.1132 -0.0302 Diodontidae -0.2071 0.02307 -0.0026 -0.3613 -0.0469 0.18619 0.03582 0.09265

293

Table 6-6. Continued Variable PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 PC5 PC6 PC7 PC8 Portunidae -0.035 0.20269 -0.1479 0.03401 0.12027 0.22522 0.23078 0.04268 Gecarcinidae 0.01056 0.05645 -0.1282 0.16111 0.09094 0.15933 0.09966 -0.0376 Arcidae -0.1637 -0.0499 -0.0218 -0.0779 -0.2836 -0.0003 -0.0472 0.04614 Mytilidae -0.1641 0.05538 0.37838 0.12976 0.30054 0.29087 -0.0277 0.13108 Isognomonidae -0.0793 0.13864 0.17206 -0.0909 0.05939 0.09216 -0.0521 -0.0554 Ostreidae -0.1672 0.12999 0.21489 -0.079 0.037 0.07545 0.07483 -0.1781 Lucinidae -0.0269 -0.0846 0.19515 0.23207 0.06061 -0.1087 0.16968 -0.2292 Cardiidae 0.0191 -0.1111 0.00351 -0.004 0.08509 -0.1322 0.28047 0.0801 Mactridae -0.1704 0.62261 -0.3245 -0.0635 -0.1296 -0.131 0.03248 -0.0029 Tellinidae -0.0418 -0.1371 -0.0414 -0.0379 -0.1049 -0.1755 0.31627 -0.0019 Donacidae -0.0995 0.03491 -0.1284 -0.0276 -0.1055 0.01257 0.12764 0.18761 Solecurtidae -0.0897 0.12021 -0.0723 0.26081 0.07578 0.18087 0.0975 0.11135 Dreissenidae -0.0435 -0.1322 0.07774 -0.2475 0.03048 0.16734 0.56641 -0.1574 Veneridae 0.00533 -0.2141 -0.06 0.18032 0.02858 -0.052 0.22025 0.43163 Neritidae -0.0189 0.00323 -0.2089 0.03889 -0.1209 0.07103 0.07101 0.04797 Littorinidae 0.00019 0.02105 -0.0135 0.00601 -0.0238 -0.0269 -0.0605 0.00015 Modulidae -0.0329 0.00842 0.09205 0.05587 0.08122 0.21774 -0.0211 0.01994 Cerithiidae -0.0177 0.08102 -0.0233 0.0545 0.0468 0.15395 -0.0722 -0.0097 Strombidae -0.1911 -0.0219 -0.098 -0.2735 0.38199 -0.0511 0.05799 -0.0577 Cymatiidae -0.1226 -0.0182 0.01233 0.30799 -0.1256 -0.0452 0.05195 0.03391 Muricidae -0.0899 0.09365 0.12016 0.02332 0.03606 -0.0823 -0.1844 0.17209 Columbellidae -0.07 -0.0436 0.1554 0.00908 -0.1288 -0.1179 -0.1857 -0.1137 Ellobiidae 0.32757 -0.0811 -0.3479 0.17693 0.10514 0.3492 -0.0986 -0.2268

294

Table 6-7. Eigenvalues for principal component analysis of En Bas Saline contexts. Component Eigenvalues % Variance Explained 1 2.235461877 30.05409568 2 1.293917264 17.39573985 3 1.060631403 14.25938773 4 0.618684274 8.317742548 5 0.501932294 6.748100407 6 0.45761173 6.15224391 7 0.310136335 4.169548672 8 0.283090221 3.805934097

295

Table 6-8. Taxa not considered abundant. Family Taxa included Contexts Present Echimyidae Brotomys voratus Features 10, 11, 15 Elopidae Elops saurus Feature 62 Clupeidae Clupeidae Feature 49 Scorpaenidae Scorpaenidae Feature 49 Diapterus sp., cf. Diapterus sp., cf. Gerreidae Gerres sp., Gerreidae Features 10, 15, 16 Bairdiella sp., Micropogonias sp., Features 10, 11, 15, Sciaenidae Sciaenidae, cf. Sciaenidae 49, 14 Mullidae Mulliodichthys martinicus Feature 49 Ephippidae Chaetodipterus faber Feature 10 Pomacanthidae Pomacanthus sp. Features 16, 62 Gobiidae Gobionellus sp. Features 15, 16 Tetraodontidae Lactophyrs sp., Sphoeroides sp. Features 10, 11, 15, 49 Pteriidae Pteria colymbus Feature 15 Anomiidae Anomia simplex Feature 10 Solenidae Solen obliquus Feature. 49 Corbulidae Corbula sp. Feature 49 Pholadidae cf. Pholadidae Feature 49 Trochidae Cittarium pica Feature 49 Turbo castanea, Turbo sp., Turbinidae Turbinidae Feature 10, 15, 49, 62 Planaxidae Planaxis nucleus Feature 15 Naticidae Naticarius cf. canrena Feature 10 Nassariidae Nassarius vibex Feature 15 Fasciolariidae Fasciolaria lilium Feature 10 Olividae Olivella nivea Feature 11 Conidae Conus cf. jaspieus Feature 15 Bullidae Bulla striata Feature 15 Haminoeidae Haminoea sp. Feature 15 Camaenidae Polydontes sp. Features 15, 16 Annulariidae Haitipoma sp. Feature10 Feature 60 and Garden Pleurodontidae Pleurodonte sp. N Sheet Deposit

296

Feature 62 0.7 Garden P Sheet Deposit 0.0 Feature 55 0.0 Feature 60 0.0 Garden N Sheet Deposit 0.7 Feature 14 1.0 Feature 16 0.4 Feature 49 0.3 Garden E Sheet Deposit 1.1 Feature 15 0.3 Feature 11 1.0 Feature 10 1.8 Feature 52 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Figure 6-1. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Capromyidae across contexts. The pink bars indicate sample size is large enough to show statistically significant correlations between taxa abundance and distribution.

Feature 62 0, 0.0 Garden P Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 55 1, 0.2 Feature 60 0, 0.0 Garden N Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 14 0, 0.0 Feature 16 0, 0.0 Feature 49 2, 0.0 Garden E Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 15 1, 0.0 Feature 11 9, 0.2 Feature 10 3, 0.1 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3

Figure 6-2. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Rallidae across contexts.

297

Feature 62 0, 0.0 Garden P Sheet Deposit 1, 0.4 Feature 55 2, 0.5 Feature 60 1, 0.4 Garden N Sheet Deposit 1, 0.2 Feature 14 0, 0.0 Feature 16 5, 0.2 Feature 49 11, 0.2 Garden E Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 15 31, 0.2 Feature 11 62, 1.6 Feature 10 19, 0.9 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 2, 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Figure 6-3. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Testudines across contexts. The pink bars indicate sample size is large enough to show statistically significant correlations between taxa abundance and distribution.

Feature 62 0, 0.0 Garden P Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 55 0, 0.0 Feature 60 0, 0.0 Garden N Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 14 0, 0.0 Feature 16 2, 0.1 Feature 49 2, 0.0 Garden E Sheet Deposit 2, 0.8 Feature 15 15, 0.1 Feature 11 4, 0.1 Feature 10 8, 0.4 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 %

Figure 6-4. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Squamata across contexts.

298

Feature 62 3, 0.2 Garden P Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 55 0, 0.0 Feature 60 0, 0.0 Garden N Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 14 1, 0.3 Feature 16 2, 0.1 Feature 49 6, 0.1 Garden E Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 15 4, 0.0 Feature 11 12, 0.3 Feature 10 3, 0.1 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 %

Figure 6-5. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Serpentes across contexts.

Feature 62 0, 0.0 Garden P Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 55 0, 0.0 Feature 60 0, 0.0 Garden N Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 14 0, 0.0 Feature 16 1, 0.0 Feature 49 1, 0.0 Garden E Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 15 2, 0.0 Feature 11 1, 0.0 Feature 10 21, 1.0 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 %

Figure 6-6. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Anura across contexts.

299

Feature 62 1, 0.1 Garden P Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 55 0, 0.0 Feature 60 0, 0.0 Garden N Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 14 0, 0.0 Feature 16 1, 0.0 Feature 49 2, 0.0 Garden E Sheet Deposit 1, 0.4 Feature 15 1, 0.0 Feature 11 0, 0.0 Feature 10 3, 0.1 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 1, 1.5 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 %

Figure 6-7. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Carcharhinidae across contexts.

Feature 62 0, 0.0 Garden P Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 55 1, 0.2 Feature 60 0, 0.0 Garden N Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 14 0, 0.0 Feature 16 2, 0.1 Feature 49 0, 0.0 Garden E Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 15 5, 0.0 Feature 11 2, 0.1 Feature 10 1, 0.0 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 %

Figure 6-8. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Albula vulpes across contexts.

300

Figure 6-9. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Belonidae across contexts.

Feature 62 1, 0.1 Garden P Sheet Deposit 1, 0.4 Feature 55 0, 0.0 Feature 60 0, 0.0 Garden N Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 14 1, 0.3 Feature 16 8, 0.3 Feature 49 2, 0.0 Garden E Sheet Deposit 1, 0.4 Feature 15 9, 0.1 Feature 11 5, 0.1 Feature 10 5, 0.2 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 1, 1.5 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

Figure 6-10. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Holocentridae across contexts.

301

Feature 62 13, 0.7 Garden P Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 55 0, 0.0 Feature 60 0, 0.0 Garden N Sheet Deposit 2, 0.4 Feature 14 1, 0.3 Feature 16 1, 0.0 Feature 49 0, 0.0 Garden E Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 15 5, 0.0 Feature 11 11, 0.3 Feature 10 3, 0.1 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 %

Figure 6-11. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Centropomidae across contexts.

Feature 62 17, 0.9 Garden P Sheet Deposit 4, 1.4 Feature 55 2, 0.5 Feature 60 1, 0.4 Garden N Sheet Deposit 1, 0.2 Feature 14 10, 3.3 Feature 16 21, 0.8 Feature 49 13, 0.3 Garden E Sheet Deposit 6, 2.3 Feature 15 100, 0.7 Feature 11 21, 0.5 Feature 10 28, 1.3 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 1, 1.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 %

Figure 6-12. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Serranidae across contexts. The pink bars indicate sample size is large enough to show statistically significant correlations between taxa abundance and distribution.

302

Feature 62 6, 0.3 Garden P Sheet Deposit 1, 0.4 Feature 55 2, 0.5 Feature 60 1, 0.4 Garden N Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 14 3, 1.0 Feature 16 19, 0.8 Feature 49 44, 0.9 Garden E Sheet Deposit 4, 1.5 Feature 15 68, 0.5 Feature 11 28, 0.7 Feature 10 18, 0.8 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 %

Figure 6-13. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Carangidae across contexts. The pink bars indicate sample size is large enough to show statistically significant correlations between taxa abundance and distribution.

Feature 62 10, 0.5 Garden P Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 55 2, 0.5 Feature 60 1, 0.4 Garden N Sheet Deposit 1, 0.2 Feature 14 1, 0.3 Feature 16 13, 0.5 Feature 49 23, 0.5 Garden E Sheet Deposit 2, 0.8 Feature 15 89, 0.6 Feature 11 81, 2.0 Feature 10 28, 1.3 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 %

Figure 6-14. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Lutjanidae across contexts. The pink bars indicate sample size is large enough to show statistically significant correlations between taxa abundance and distribution.

303

Feature 62 271, 14.4 Garden P Sheet Deposit 5, 1.8 Feature 55 1, 0.2 Feature 60 1, 0.4 Garden N Sheet Deposit 2, 0.4 Feature 14 5, 1.6 Feature 16 12, 0.5 Feature 49 32, 0.7 Garden E Sheet Deposit 11, 4.1 Feature 15 137, 1.0 Feature 11 25, 0.6 Feature 10 54, 2.4 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 %

Figure 6-15. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Haemulidae across contexts. The pink bars indicate sample size is large enough to show statistically significant correlations between taxa abundance and distribution.

Feature 62 0, 0.0 Garden P Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 55 0, 0.0 Feature 60 0, 0.0 Garden N Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 14 1, 0.3 Feature 16 2, 0.1 Feature 49 0, 0.0 Garden E Sheet Deposit 1, 0.4 Feature 15 5, 0.0 Feature 11 7, 0.2 Feature 10 1, 0.0 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 %

Figure 6-16. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Sparidae across contexts.

304

Feature 62 14, 0.7 Garden P Sheet Deposit 5, 1.8 Feature 55 2, 0.5 Feature 60 0, 0.0 Garden N Sheet Deposit 2, 0.4 Feature 14 18, 5.9 Feature 16 29, 1.2 Feature 49 103, 2.2 Garden E Sheet Deposit 5, 1.9 Feature 15 242, 1.7 Feature 11 56, 1.4 Feature 10 64, 2.9 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 9.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 %

Figure 6-17. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Scaridae across contexts. The pink bars indicate sample size is large enough to show statistically significant correlations between taxa abundance and distribution.

Feature 62 2, 0.1 Garden P Sheet Deposit 1, 0.4 Feature 55 0, 0.0 Feature 60 0, 0.0 Garden N Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 14 0, 0.0 Feature 16 0, 0.0 Feature 49 5, 0.1 Garden E Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 15 11, 0.1 Feature 11 2, 0.1 Feature 10 4, 0.2 Feature 52 1, 11.1 Garden B Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 %

Figure 6-18. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Labridae across contexts.

305

Feature 62 0, 0.0 Garden P Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 55 0, 0.0 Feature 60 0, 0.0 Garden N Sheet Deposit 1, 0.2 Feature 14 0, 0.0 Feature 16 0, 0.0 Feature 49 9, 0.2 Garden E Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 15 19, 0.1 Feature 11 3, 0.1 Feature 10 4, 0.2 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 %

Figure 6-19. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Mugil sp. across contexts.

Feature 62 4, 0.2 Garden P Sheet Deposit 1, 0.4 Feature 55 2, 0.5 Feature 60 1, 0.4 Garden N Sheet Deposit 5, 0.9 Feature 14 0, 0.0 Feature 16 3, 0.1 Feature 49 8, 0.2 Garden E Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 15 14, 0.1 Feature 11 7, 0.2 Feature 10 3, 0.1 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 %

Figure 6-20. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Sphyraena sp. across contexts.

306

Feature 62 0, 0.0 Garden P Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 55 2, 0.5 Feature 60 0, 0.0 Garden N Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 14 2, 0.7 Feature 16 0, 0.0 Feature 49 18, 0.4 Garden E Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 15 2, 0.0 Feature 11 1, 0.0 Feature 10 0, 0.0 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 %

Figure 6-21. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Eleotridae across contexts.

Feature 62 11, 0.6 Garden P Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 55 0, 0.0 Feature 60 0, 0.0 Garden N Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 14 3, 1.0 Feature 16 6, 0.2 Feature 49 15, 0.3 Garden E Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 15 12, 0.1 Feature 11 9, 0.2 Feature 10 8, 0.4 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 1, 1.5 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 %

Figure 6-22. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Acanthurus sp. across contexts. The pink bars indicate sample size is large enough to show statistically significant correlations between taxa abundance and distribution.

307

Feature 62 8, 0.4 Garden P Sheet Deposit 2, 0.7 Feature 55 0, 0.0 Feature 60 0, 0.0 Garden N Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 14 1, 0.3 Feature 16 3, 0.1 Feature 49 14, 0.3 Garden E Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 15 6, 0.0 Feature 11 7, 0.2 Feature 10 12, 0.5 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 %

Figure 6-23. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Balistidae across contexts.

Feature 62 6, 0.3 Garden P Sheet Deposit 9, 3.2 Feature 55 4, 0.9 Feature 60 0, 0.0 Garden N Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 14 1, 0.3 Feature 16 4, 0.2 Feature 49 9, 0.2 Garden E Sheet Deposit 4, 1.5 Feature 15 21, 0.1 Feature 11 2, 0.1 Feature 10 7, 0.3 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 %

Figure 6-24. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Diodontidae across contexts.

308

Feature 62 6, 0.3 Garden P Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 55 32, 7.4 Feature 60 13, 5.4 Garden N Sheet Deposit 3, 0.5 Feature 14 1, 0.3 Feature 16 4, 0.2 Feature 49 82, 1.7 Garden E Sheet Deposit 3, 1.1 Feature 15 14, 0.1 Feature 11 67, 1.7 Feature 10 1, 0.0 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 %

Figure 6-25. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Decapoda across contexts. The pink bars indicate sample size is large enough to show statistically significant correlations between taxa abundance and distribution.

Feature 62 57, 3.0 Garden P Sheet Deposit 7, 2.5 Feature 55 9, 2.1 Feature 60 3, 1.3 Garden N Sheet Deposit 24, 4.4 Feature 14 21, 6.8 Feature 16 79, 3.2 Feature 49 89, 1.9 Garden E Sheet Deposit 8, 3.0 Feature 15 69, 0.5 Feature 11 36, 0.9 Feature 10 72, 3.3 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 %

Figure 6-26. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Arcidae across contexts. The pink bars indicate sample size is large enough to show statistically significant correlations between taxa abundance and distribution.

309

Feature 62 33, 1.8 Garden P Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 55 23, 5.3 Feature 60 7, 2.9 Garden N Sheet Deposit 35, 6.4 Feature 14 0, 0.0 Feature 16 20, 0.8 Feature 49 104, 2.2 Garden E Sheet Deposit 1, 0.4 Feature 15 57, 0.4 Feature 11 66, 1.7 Feature 10 7, 0.3 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 %

Figure 6-27. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Mytilidae across contexts. The pink bars indicate sample size is large enough to show statistically significant correlations between taxa abundance and distribution.

Feature 62 73, 3.9 Garden P Sheet Deposit 8, 2.9 Feature 55 22, 5.1 Feature 60 8, 3.3 Garden N Sheet Deposit 26, 4.8 Feature 14 1, 0.3 Feature 16 28, 1.1 Feature 49 211, 4.4 Garden E Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 15 143, 1.0 Feature 11 35, 0.9 Feature 10 32, 1.4 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 %

Figure 6-28. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Isognomon alatus across contexts. The pink bars indicate sample size is large enough to show statistically significant correlations between taxa abundance and distribution.

310

Feature 62 550, 29.3 Garden P Sheet Deposit 93, 33.6 Feature 55 145, 33.6 Feature 60 78, 32.6 Garden N Sheet Deposit 138, 25.3 Feature 14 7, 2.3 Feature 16 98, 3.9 Feature 49 754, 15.9 Garden E Sheet Deposit 7, 2.6 Feature 15 253, 1.8 Feature 11 51, 1.3 Feature 10 199, 9.0 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 %

Figure 6-29. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Crassostrea sp. across contexts. The pink bars indicate sample size is large enough to show statistically significant correlations between taxa abundance and distribution.

Feature 62 3, 0.2 Garden P Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 55 0, 0.0 Feature 60 0, 0.0 Garden N Sheet Deposit 2, 0.4 Feature 14 1, 0.3 Feature 16 4, 0.2 Feature 49 0, 0.0 Garden E Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 15 64, 0.5 Feature 11 1, 0.0 Feature 10 66, 3.0 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 %

Figure 6-30. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Ostrea sp. across contexts. The pink bars indicate sample size is large enough to show statistically significant correlations between taxa abundance and distribution.

311

Feature 62 204, 10.9 Garden P Sheet Deposit 19, 6.9 Feature 55 24, 5.6 Feature 60 15, 6.3 Garden N Sheet Deposit 63, 11.5 Feature 14 16, 5.2 Feature 16 28, 1.1 Feature 49 95, 2.0 Garden E Sheet Deposit 1, 0.4 Feature 15 209, 1.5 Feature 11 609, 15.3 Feature 10 164, 7.4 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 % Figure 6-31. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Codakia orbicularis across contexts. The pink bars indicate sample size is large enough to show statistically significant correlations between taxa abundance and distribution.

Feature 62 0, 0.0 Garden P Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 55 9, 2.1 Feature 60 1, 0.4 Garden N Sheet Deposit 11, 2.0 Feature 14 9, 2.9 Feature 16 18, 0.7 Feature 49 0, 0.0 Garden E Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 15 302, 2.1 Feature 11 72, 1.8 Feature 10 66, 3.0 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 %

Figure 6-32. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Lucina pectinatus across contexts. The pink bars indicate sample size is large enough to show statistically significant correlations between taxa abundance and distribution.

312

Feature 62 0, 0.0 Garden P Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 55 0, 0.0 Feature 60 0, 0.0 Garden N Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 14 0, 0.0 Feature 16 2, 0.1 Feature 49 1, 0.0 Garden E Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 15 32, 0.2 Feature 11 8, 0.2 Feature 10 10, 0.5 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 %

Figure 6-33. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Trachycardium sp. across contexts. The pink bars indicate sample size is large enough to show statistically significant correlations between taxa abundance and distribution.

Feature 62 1, 0.1 Garden P Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 55 34, 7.9 Feature 60 41, 17.2 Garden N Sheet Deposit 11, 2.0 Feature 14 1, 0.3 Feature 16 1249, 49.9 Feature 49 86, 1.8 Garden E Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 15 16, 0.1 Feature 11 3, 0.1 Feature 10 13, 0.6 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 %

Figure 6-34. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Mulinia cleryana across contexts. The pink bars indicate sample size is large enough to show statistically significant correlations between taxa abundance and distribution.

313

Feature 62 16, 0.9 Garden P Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 55 0, 0.0 Feature 60 0, 0.0 Garden N Sheet Deposit 1, 0.2 Feature 14 0, 0.0 Feature 16 0, 0.0 Feature 49 3, 0.1 Garden E Sheet Deposit 1, 0.4 Feature 15 36, 0.3 Feature 11 16, 0.4 Feature 10 54, 2.4 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 %

Figure 6-35. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Tellina sp. across contexts. The pink bars indicate sample size is large enough to show statistically significant correlations between taxa abundance and distribution.

Feature 62 27, 1.44 Garden P Sheet Deposit 8, 2.89 Feature 55 18, 4.17 Feature 60 10, 4.18 Garden N Sheet Deposit 56, 10.26 Feature 14 14, 4.56 Feature 16 192, 7.67 Feature 49 177, 3.73 Garden E Sheet Deposit 17, 6.39 Feature 15 282, 2.00 Feature 11 114, 2.86 Feature 10 252, 11.40 Feature 52 0, 0.00 Garden B Sheet Deposit 0, 0.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 %

Figure 6-36. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Donax denticulatus across contexts. The pink bars indicate sample size is large enough to show statistically significant correlations between taxa abundance and distribution.

314

Feature 62 2, 0.1 Garden P Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 55 3, 0.7 Feature 60 3, 1.3 Garden N Sheet Deposit 3, 0.5 Feature 14 4, 1.3 Feature 16 1, 0.0 Feature 49 4, 0.1 Garden E Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 15 0, 0.0 Feature 11 11, 0.3 Feature 10 20, 0.9 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 %

Figure 6-37. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Iphigenia brasiliana across contexts. The pink bars indicate sample size is large enough to show statistically significant correlations between taxa abundance and distribution.

Feature 62 2, 0.1 Garden P Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 55 5, 1.2 Feature 60 4, 1.7 Garden N Sheet Deposit 4, 0.7 Feature 14 0, 0.0 Feature 16 12, 0.5 Feature 49 54, 1.1 Garden E Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 15 27, 0.2 Feature 11 16, 0.4 Feature 10 16, 0.7 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 %

Figure 6-38. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Tagleus plebeius across contexts. The pink bars indicate sample size is large enough to show statistically significant correlations between taxa abundance and distribution.

315

Feature 62 8, 0.4 Garden P Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 55 0, 0.0 Feature 60 0, 0.0 Garden N Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 14 1, 0.3 Feature 16 1, 0.0 Feature 49 0, 0.0 Garden E Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 15 78, 0.6 Feature 11 2, 0.1 Feature 10 82, 3.7 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 %

Figure 6-39. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Mytilopsis cf. leucophaeata across contexts. The pink bars indicate sample size is large enough to show statistically significant correlations between taxa abundance and distribution.

Feature 62 36, 1.9 Garden P Sheet Deposit 2, 0.7 Feature 55 6, 1.4 Feature 60 1, 0.4 Garden N Sheet Deposit 7, 1.3 Feature 14 13, 4.2 Feature 16 23, 0.9 Feature 49 16, 0.3 Garden E Sheet Deposit 1, 0.4 Feature 15 220, 1.6 Feature 11 284, 7.1 Feature 10 124, 5.6 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 %

Figure 6-40. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Anomalocardia brasiliana across contexts. The pink bars indicate sample size is large enough to show statistically significant correlations between taxa abundance and distribution.

316

Feature 62 2, 0.1 Garden P Sheet Deposit 1, 0.4 Feature 55 4, 0.9 Feature 60 3, 1.3 Garden N Sheet Deposit 16, 2.9 Feature 14 5, 1.6 Feature 16 17, 0.7 Feature 49 28, 0.6 Garden E Sheet Deposit 2, 0.8 Feature 15 293, 2.1 Feature 11 511, 12.8 Feature 10 163, 7.4 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 %

Figure 6-41. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Chione cancellata across contexts. The pink bars indicate sample size is large enough to show statistically significant correlations between taxa abundance and distribution.

Feature 62 0, 0.0 Garden P Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 55 9, 2.1 Feature 60 0, 0.0 Garden N Sheet Deposit 5, 0.9 Feature 14 0, 0.0 Feature 16 9, 0.4 Feature 49 3, 0.1 Garden E Sheet Deposit 1, 0.4 Feature 15 220, 1.6 Feature 11 152, 3.8 Feature 10 0, 0.0 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 %

Figure 6-42. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Protothaca granulata across contexts. The pink bars indicate sample size is large enough to show statistically significant correlations between taxa abundance and distribution.

317

Feature 62 0, 0.0 Garden P Sheet Deposit 2, 0.7 Feature 55 1, 0.2 Feature 60 0, 0.0 Garden N Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 14 1, 0.3 Feature 16 22, 0.9 Feature 49 5, 0.1 Garden E Sheet Deposit 1, 0.4 Feature 15 36, 0.3 Feature 11 0, 0.0 Feature 10 17, 0.8 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 %

Figure 6-43. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Neritina sp. across contexts. The pink bars indicate sample size is large enough to show statistically significant correlations between taxa abundance and distribution.

Feature 62 0, 0.0 Garden P Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 55 1, 0.2 Feature 60 0, 0.0 Garden N Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 14 0, 0.0 Feature 16 1, 0.0 Feature 49 11, 0.2 Garden E Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 15 18, 0.1 Feature 11 6, 0.2 Feature 10 2, 0.1 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 %

Figure 6-44. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Modulus modulus across contexts.

318

Feature 62 2, 0.1 Garden P Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 55 1, 0.2 Feature 60 1, 0.4 Garden N Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 14 0, 0.0 Feature 16 5, 0.2 Feature 49 16, 0.3 Garden E Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 15 29, 0.2 Feature 11 0, 0.0 Feature 10 3, 0.1 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 %

Figure 6-45. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Cerithiidae across contexts. The pink bars indicate sample size is large enough to show statistically significant correlations between taxa abundance and distribution.

Feature 62 19, 1.0 Garden P Sheet Deposit 15, 5.4 Feature 55 15, 3.5 Feature 60 13, 5.4 Garden N Sheet Deposit 30, 5.5 Feature 14 6, 2.0 Feature 16 24, 1.0 Feature 49 39, 0.8 Garden E Sheet Deposit 8, 3.0 Feature 15 328, 2.3 Feature 11 21, 0.5 Feature 10 82, 3.7 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 13, 19.4 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 %

Figure 6-46. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Strombidae across contexts. The pink bars indicate sample size is large enough to show statistically significant correlations between taxa abundance and distribution.

319

Feature 62 1, 0.1 Garden P Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 55 0, 0.0 Feature 60 0, 0.0 Garden N Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 14 0, 0.0 Feature 16 2, 0.1 Feature 49 2, 0.0 Garden E Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 15 4, 0.0 Feature 11 0, 0.0 Feature 10 1, 0.0 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 %

Figure 6-47. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Columbellidae across contexts.

Feature 63 6, 0.3 Garden P Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 Feature 55 1, 0.2 Feature 60 0, 0.0 Garden N Sheet Deposit 1, 0.2 Feature 14 3, 1.0 Feature 16 168, 6.7 Feature 49 334, 7.0 Garden E Sheet Deposit 2, 0.8 Feature 15 9509, 67.3 Feature 11 520, 13.0 Feature 10 77, 3.5 Feature 52 0, 0.0 Garden B Sheet Deposit 0, 0.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 %

Figure 6-48. NISP and relative abundance (% NISP) of Melampus sp. across contexts. The pink bars indicate sample size is large enough to show statistically significant correlations between taxa abundance and distribution.

320

Figure 6-49. Biplot of PC1 and PC2 showing PC scores of each provenience and eigenvectors that represent the contribution of each taxa to total assemblage variation. GBSD=Garden B Sheet Deposit, GESD=Garden E Sheet Deposit, GNSD=Garden N Sheet Deposit, GPSD=Garden P Sheet Deposit, Fea=Feature.

321

Figure 6-50. Principal component plot of the En Bas Saline contexts.

322

100% 13 2 90% 4 7 2 80% 1 5 70% 60% 50% 13 1 1 1 4 25 87 15 40% 17 14 4 Post-Cranial NISP 30% 1 5 20% Cranial NISP 10% 0%

Figure 6-51. Serranidae body portions across contexts.

100%

90%

80% 1 70% 8 60 61 60% 23 8 50% 2 23 1 1 2

40% Post-Cranial NISP 30% Cranial NISP 1 20% 5 29 20 10% 5 2 0%

Figure 6-52. Carangidae body portions across contexts.

323

100% 1 90% 4 1 4 9 80% 70% 36 2 60% 50% 44 1 2 1 5 40% 14 3 15 19 30% Post-Cranial 20% 32 1 Cranial NISP 10% 0%

Figure 6-53. Lutjanidae body portions across contexts.

100% 1 90% 1 8 45 80% 20 110 70% 6 3 60% 50% 32 2 1 1 11 40% 4 17 92 Post-Cranial NISP 30% 34 161 20% 5 2 Cranial NISP 10% 0%

Figure 6-54. Haemulidae body portions across contexts.

324

100% 90% 6 75 80% 22 7 32 70% 3 60% 50% 6 103 2 2 5 14 40% 23 167 Post-Cranial NISP 30% 34 11 32 Cranial NISP 20% 2 10% 0%

Figure 6-55. Scaridae body portions across contexts.

Figure 6-56. Regression analysis demonstrating the moderate correlation between identified fish cranial elements and abundance of unidentified fish elements classified as Actinopterygii. The Pearson’s r (correlation coefficient) is - 0.4557.

325

100% 90% 2 80% 1 70% 7 27 2 9 60% 28 36 50% 3 4 40% 9 30% 1 Post-Cranial NISP 20% 6 13 1 4 Cranial NISP 10% 10 13 0%

Figure 6-57. Capromyidae body portions across contexts. The starred contexts indicate statistically significant correlations between taxa body portion and distribution.

100% 90% 80% 7 72 134 64 57 7 7 3 70% 43 25 8 60% 3 50% 40% 30% 14 78 148 78 71 7 8 3 Left Valve 20% 39 19 4 Right Valve 10% 1 0%

Figure 6-58. Donax denticulatus valve portions across contexts.

326

100% 90% 1 80% 17 100 113 374 25 184 70% 48 4 25 24 10 60% 50% 40% 6 31 30% Left Valves 99 131 380 29 177 20% 35 3 21 15 7 Right Valves 10% 0%

Figure 6-59. Crassostrea sp. valve portions across contexts.

100% 0 0 1 90% 80% 2 23 78 170 109 3 70% 17 14 60% 50% 1 1 2 10 40% 30% 3 34 Left Valves 86 154 100 3 20% 11 6 Right Valves 10% 0% 0

Figure 6-60. Codakia orbicularis valve portions across contexts.

327

100% 0 0 0 90% 2 1 80% 1 81 120 103 5 70% 7 60% 50% 2 1 1 40% 6 3 30% 2 82 135 103 5 Left Valves 20% 6 Right Valves 10% 0%

Figure 6-61. Chione cancellata valve portions across contexts.

100% 0 0 0 90% 80% 4 8 63 90 43 6 70% 4 60% 50% 1 4 1 40% 16 30% 7 Left Valves 61 102 41 6 20% 2 Right Valves 10% 0%

Figure 6-62. Anomalocardia brasiliana valve portions across contexts.

328

100% 90% 80% 27 28 2 4 70% 18 9 21 20 60% 3 50% 1 40% 30% 31 29 2 4 Left Valves 20% 14 7 14 8 Right Valves 10% 1 0% 0

Figure 6-63. Isognomon alatus valve portions across contexts.

329

CHAPTER 7 DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

This chapter is organized according to four topics of discussion: patterns of animal exploitation, social contexts of faunal patterning, the sociality of animal food use, and household zooarchaeology at En Bas Saline. My approach to this discussion and interpretation is multi-layered. In regards to patterns of animal exploitation, the results are summarized in terms of the faunal patterning. This provides a baseline interpretation of the zooarchaeological data. Second, the data and intra-site patterns are situated according to social contexts of deposition, and are discussed in terms of vertebrate and invertebrate fauna.

Discussion about the sociality of animal food use at En Bas Saline builds upon the previous sections, with further contextualization of the data. First, the articulation between the faunal patterns and social relations of animal consumption at En Bas

Saline are interpreted in light of the ethnohistorical descriptions and archaeological syntheses of Taino sociality presented in Chapter 2. Second, the En Bas Saline faunal patterns are considered through a comparative perspective drawing on zooarchaeological research from the Tibes archaeological site in Puerto Rico. Third, the

(zoo)archaeological recognition and description of feasting at En Bas Saline is problematized and discussed in relation to the overall lack of pre-Columbian feasting documented archaeologically in the Caribbean.

Finally, the results of analysis and the utility of assumed social contexts are considered within pre-Columbian household archaeology in the Caribbean.

Methodological and interpretive implications are discussed in relation to Alice Samson’s work at El Cabo, Dominican Republic. This point of discussion provides a platform for

330

assessing the social contexts used in this study, with a critical eye for how household zooarchaeology at En Bas Saline can be improved.

In this chapter, I argue that animal consumption and use at En Bas Saline was correlated with events or activities across space, although the social function of events is not clear based on faunal patterning alone. I will suggest, based on zooarchaeological evidence, that the qualities, purposes, and needs of particular events and/or activities were determining factors influencing the suite and proportions of animals consumed or used, perhaps including the social status and lineage relations of participants. As discussed by Wing (1991) and Cannarozzi (2003), it is also reasonable to posit that environmental fluctuations or circumstances of animal exploitation and resource availability influenced the composition and abundance of animals used or consumed across contexts; however, this study does not directly address such questions. In sum, I will propose and explore several questions regarding the results of the intra-site analysis in relation to the social contexts of space across En Bas Saline, and ultimately

Taíno sociality. Finally, in this chapter I assert that animal food, and its use in a variety of household consumption-related events as well as a likely communal feast, was implicated in the structuring of community identity and engagement integral to Taíno village life, social organization, and sustainability.

Patterns of Animal Exploitation across En Bas Saline

The suite of animals present in the En Bas Saline faunal assemblage suggest that these individuals were most probably exploited from locally accessible habitats. The dominance of marine fish and mollusks in this dataset indicates that animal exploitation centered on marine habitats, with particular focus on coastal estuarine settings, intertidal zones, inshore waters, and coral reefs (also suggested by Wing (1991)).

331

Several of the marine taxa identified at En Bas Saline frequent multiple habitats throughout a day, depending on activity and feeding habits. Moreover, some fishes present, such as gobies and sleepers, occupy fresh, brackish, and marine habitats. The strategies of vertebrate and invertebrate marine animal capture were likely diverse in terms of available technology, including the use of nets, traps, hook and line, as well as hand-gathering, free-diving, and canoe-aided (also suggested by Wing (1991) and

Cannrozzi (2003)). Freshwater and brackish habitats were exploited as well, as evidenced by pond turtle, goby, sleeper, and rail remains. Terrestrial habitats, such as mesic forests, shrub lands, and savannah landscapes provided access to hutias, rats, lizards, and snakes.

With the exceptions of Features 52, 15, and 16, the diversity of taxa exploited is comparatively high across contexts. Within the diversity measure, it is important to point out that equitability, one facet of diversity, is variable across contexts. Echoing the variability in taxa equitability across contexts, the intra-site comparison of animal remain deposition across En Bas Saline reveals variable patterning in statistically significant non-random distributions for most taxa among contexts. In addition, the PC analysis reveals considerable variation in overall faunal composition between contexts across the site.

Before proceeding, it is important to re-emphasize that this study is based on the analysis of samples from different feature and sheet deposit faunal assemblages. As described in Chapter 5, the features from Gardens C and E are overall larger in size than those from Gardens B, N, and P. Accordingly, the sample sizes from Gardens B,

N, and P are smaller than those from Gardens C and E. In order to be able to compare

332

and discuss results from different sample sizes across contexts, the units of comparison are relative frequencies of taxa abundance. Future analysis of entire feature and sheet deposit assemblages will be instrumental in assessing the correlation between feature size and total faunal composition across the site as well as how sampling may have affected the results and interpretation rendered in this study.

The Social Contexts of Faunal Patterning at En Bas Saline

As discussed in Chapter 1, spatially sensitive and contextually nuanced understandings of zooarchaeological samples provide ideal and methodical parameters for zooarchaeological studies of complexity, including the role of animal-based food and resources in the manifestation and maintenance of social hierarchy. However, in heeding Driver’s (2004:244) warning about equating space with social status a priori, assumptions about the spatiality of social contexts across En Bas Saline are perhaps most useful as analytical, versus explanative, guides for exploring and discussing intra- site variability in fauna deposition across the site. In this sense, presumed qualities of social contexts, such as associated differences in human social status, become a point of inquiry.

For the following discussion I have compiled the archaeological contexts included in this study within the four presumed social contexts of space presented in Chapter 3

(see Table 3-7 and Figure 3-19). Figures 7-1 and 7-2 show how the presumed social contexts playout in terms of overall faunal composition across archaeological contexts according to the PCA results. Using the four categories of social contexts as a descriptive background, three broad points of faunal variation standout across the social contexts of En Bas Saline:

1) Variability in feature composition within and between social contexts.

333

2) Variability among sheet deposit composition across social contexts. 3) Variation among features and sheet deposits with shared social contexts.

Founded on the results presented in Chapters 5 and 6, the remainder of this section explores these three points of variation through discussion of the most abundant taxa groups and overall faunal composition across social contexts. The discussion is grouped by vertebrate and invertebrate taxa.

Vertebrate Patterning across Social Contexts

Hutia at En Bas Saline

Although the edible Hispaniola rat was also consumed at En Bas Saline, hutias were the most commonly consumed mammal. Hutia remains are relatively widespread in terms of presence across all social contexts, including remains in 10 of the 14 contexts, or 71% ubiquity. They are present within Gardens B, E, and N sheet deposits, and are thus found in lower status, elite, and HBNC household midden contexts. Hutia are also present among big post Features 49 and 62, and structural trench Feature 16.

Hutia are most relatively abundant in Feature 10, a communal social context.

Overall, the correlation of hutia abundance across some elite, lower status and communal social contexts is significantly non-random, including Features 49, 62, 16, 10,

11, and 15. The relative abundance of hutia in Gardens B and E sheet deposits, as compared to Gardens N and P sheet deposits, contribute to the overall compositional similarity of the two sheet deposit areas regardless of social context affiliation. This patterning suggests that access to, use and consumption of hutia crossed archaeological contexts, and presumably social contexts and social status. It can also be suggested that elite households may have made use of hutia more frequently based on its non-random correlation with two elite household contexts versus one lower social

334

status household context. Furthermore, it can be argued that cross-social context and social status access to and use of hutia is not surprising given that hutias were a widely targeted terrestrial food source across sites throughout the Greater Antilles, and that the rodent may have been managed in some places (Wing 2001, 2012).

In regard to hutia body portion representation across contexts, only Features 10,

11, and 15 of the communal plaza areas were eligible for chi-square testing, and yielded statistically significant correlations between the non-random dominance of post-cranial elements. The preponderance of post-cranial hutia elements in the features is not clear but may indicate preferred portions of hutia meat consumption, differential processing and deposition of hutia body portions at communal events, or post-depositional taphonomic processes affecting rates of cranial versus post-cranial element preservation. Among the remaining contexts with hutia present, body portion sample size was too small for chi-square testing, and therefore, random processes of hutia element distribution cannot be ruled out.

Rails, reptiles, and amphibians at En Bas Saline

Rail, lizard, snake, and amphibian abundance is not significantly correlated with context of deposition. However, this patterning does not mean that the presence or absences of these taxa across contexts is void of all interpretive significance. Rails are exclusively present in features. The bird is most common within the communally situated Features 10, 11, and 15. It is also present in elite Feature 49 and HBNC

Feature 55. In fact, the relative abundance of rails is equal between Features 49 and 55

(although only one specimen is present in Feature 55).

The lack of rail specimens may be a taphonomic issue related to the fragile nature of bird bones, although its preservation in some features and not others suggests

335

additional factors may be at play in its distribution. The distribution pattern of rails brings up several possible questions; including whether or not access to the bird may have been tied to shared lineage affiliation between the households and/or if people affiliated with particular households provided rails to others. Or, is the overall dearth of rails identified across the site a product of a diminished rail population (Steadman 2006;

Newsom and Wing 2004), and as a result its use was largely restricted to communal events? Regardless, as the datasets stand today, rails contribute very little to faunal differentiation between contexts.

Taxa abundance among lizards, snakes, and amphibians do not produce significant correlations between contexts of deposition. However, it is worth noting that both lizards and frogs/toads are present only within elite or communal social contexts.

Does this patterning of lizard deposition support ethnohistoric records of lizards being a celebrated food item among chiefs on Hispaniola (Keegan 2007)? Also, might the presence of frogs/toads have significance beyond a commensal inclusion within elite and communal features (e.g., Wing 1991)?

Similarly, snakes are concentrated within three elite and three communal contexts, while also present in Feature 62. Interestingly, among the elite features, boas are more abundant in Feature 14, contributing to Feature 14’s overall compositional differentiation from Features 49 and 16. Questions regarding the distribution of snakes, and particularly boas include: was household consumption of snakes more common among elite social contexts and events, but also available to lower social status households? Was snake consumption among lower status community members a marker of a special occasion or inclusion in an event? Or, like rails, might its cross-

336

social contexts signal lineage relations between socially differentiated households? As of now, the sample sizes of lizards, snakes, and amphibians are too small to render stronger suggestions.

Turtles are the only animal in this group of poorly represented taxa to demonstrate statistically significant correlations between abundance and some contexts of deposition. The presence of turtles in 10 of 14 contexts, or 71% ubiquity, across all social contexts has similar implications to the abundance and distribution of hutia, suggesting that access to turtles cross-cut archaeological contexts. In regard to social contexts and differential social status, although present in lower status social contexts, turtle distributions are significant among elite and communal features. It is not present in the Garden E sheet deposit. Turtle abundance is concentrated in Features 10, 11, and

15, and is less prevalent in Feature 15 overall.

Fish and other marine animals at En Bas Saline

Fishes are the most common vertebrate taxa in the En Bas Saline faunal assemblage. The most abundant fishes in terms of relative frequency and spatial breadth of deposition are groupers, jacks, snappers, grunts, and parrotfishes. Except for the Feature 52 and sheet deposit samples from Garden B, the fishes within these five families compose the dominant vertebrate taxa across social contexts, including both features and sheet deposits. The wide distribution of these taxa across social contexts suggests that access to these taxa was not directly predicated on the social status of community members. On the other hand, across contexts and the taxa, there are statistically significant variable correlations between abundance and deposition. This suggests that the use and abundance of these fish taxa at particular events across social contexts was not random, and was linked to the occasion of the event, the

337

location of the event, and/or the participants. The variable patterning suggests that community members across social contexts may have been able to exercise different degrees of preference and/or control in the inclusion and abundance of these fishes at particular events. Moreover, the presence of these fishes in both higher and lower social status affiliated sheet deposits also suggests the general, event non-specific, or everyday use of the taxa across the community, demonstrating relatively fluid access to and/or environmental availability of the fish across community members.

The relative frequencies of the five grouped taxa are all significantly correlated with deposition among the communal space Features 10, 11, and 15. The data strongly suggest preferential inclusion of these taxa in communal consumption-related events.

Given the contextually broad distribution and therefore access to the fish across the site, it is reasonable to argue that the contributive origin of these fish taxa to communal events may have cross-cut social contexts and statuses.

Groupers are present across all social contexts. However, the distribution is only demonstrated to be significant among the three communal contexts, 2 elite contexts

(Features 49 and 16), as well as one lower status social context, Feature 62. Groupers are most significantly abundant in Features 10 and 62. This patterning suggests that there was a similar preferential use of groupers among a publically situated communal event and a household based non-elite event. In addition, it is worth noting that although not statistically significant, groupers are actually most relatively abundant in Feature 14.

This predominance of grouper in Feature 14 is one of the compositional elements that makes the feature more similar to the Garden E sheet deposit as well as Features 10 and 62.

338

Jacks are present across all social contexts, except for Garden B and the Garden

N sheet deposit. Statistically correlated jack fish abundance and depositional context is significant among the same features and social contexts as grouper. However, the relative abundance of jacks in Feature 62 is noticeably less than in the communal and elite features. Does this suggest that while access to jacks was contextually widespread, its use was preferentially concentrated among elite household and communal events? Although not statistically significant, jacks are most prevalent in

Garden E sheet deposit and Feature 14, contributing to the overall similarity of the contexts, and differentiation from spatially associate Features 49 and 16.

Snappers occur in all social contexts, except for Garden B and the Garden P sheet deposit. The correlations between abundance and deposition are significant only among Features 10, 11, 15, 49, 16, and 62. The relative frequency of snappers is equal across the elite and non-elite household contexts. The household contexts are all less abundant in snappers than the communal contexts. It is possible that both elite and non- elite uses of snappers reflect event-based preferential use of the fishes not necessarily influenced by factors of social status.

Grunts are present across all contexts and social contexts, except for Garden B.

Its widespread distribution suggests accessibility across social spaces, and is supported by the significant correlations of abundance and deposition across 10 of the 12 contexts in which the fish occur. Overall, the relative abundances of grunts in Features 10, 62,

14, and the Garden E sheet deposit contribute to the degree of compositional similarity between the contexts.

339

Grunts are far and away the most abundant fish in Feature 62.The prevalence of grunt usage and inclusion in Feature 62 presents several questions. At this particular non-elite event, did the associated household exact preferential control over grunt fishes

(possibly to the exclusion of other community members or events)? Were the small quantities of grunts found in other contexts distributed from this household or event?

Were grunts a prescribed necessity or component specific to the event represented in

Feature 62? Is the quantity of grunts a product of intentional stockpiling (were they salted)? Is the quantity of grunts a product of environmental circumstance and fish availability on a given day or week of fishing? Or is the quantity of grunts a product of many contributions made by community members spanning social statues and identity?

These questions are not mutually exclusive, and several may be implicated in Feature

62.

Parrotfishes are present across much of En Bas Saline. Its abundance is significantly correlated with context of deposition across nine contexts spanning communal, elite, HBNC, and lower status social contexts. The use of parrotfishes appears to be most common among the elite household features, followed by the communal features. The high relative frequency of parrotfishes in the Garden B sheet deposit is probably linked to the overall small sample size of the context; however compositionally speaking, the prevalence of parrotfishes common between Feature14 and the Garden B sheet deposit contributes to the overall similarity of the contexts. Like jacks, was the concentrated use of parrotfishes among an elite household and communal events an outcome of preference and/or control?

340

In addition to the five fish groups above, surgeonfish is the only other fish taxa to exhibit a significant correlation between abundance and context of deposition. Excluding its high relative frequency in the Garden B sheet deposit as a result of sample size, surgeon fish are found in the three communal contexts, the three elite household contexts, and one lower status household context (Feature 62). However, surgeonfish abundance and context of deposition is significant only among Features 11, 15, 49, and

16. Regardless of statistical significances, surgeonfish does have a high relative frequency in Features 14 and 62, contributing to more compositional similarity between the two contexts, than between Features 14, 49 and 16.

Sharks, bonefish, squirrelfishes, snooks, wrasses, mullets, barracudas, triggerfishes, boxfishes, and pufferfishes are all not statistically significant (or random) in terms of correlations between taxa abundance and context of deposition. However, this does not mean that the occurrences of these taxa is not without interpretive merit. The currently random patterning is useful in considering possible points of study for future research.

As discussed in Chapter 6, the lack of shark remains may be a result of the cartilaginous nature of shark skeletal anatomy, off-site butchery practices, and/or variable uses and associated depositional practices. While the pattern remains to be tested with further analysis, the few shark remains present in the En Bas Saline assemblage are concentrated within communal and elite social contexts. Mullet and boxfish are similarly concentrated in communal and elite social contexts. Wrasses occur in very small relative frequencies when present across communal, elite, HBNC, and non-elite status social contexts.

341

The patterning of barracuda, triggerfish and pufferfish may provide preliminary data from which to consider how potential dangers affiliated with the taxa may correlate with context of deposition. For example, barracuda is present across all social contexts, with patterning suggesting more common usage among HBNC or non-elite status social contexts than elite and communal contexts. It is possible that non-elite community members exercised preference in the selection of barracuda from taxonomically diverse fish catches. However, because large adult barracuda are usually solitary fish, it is also possible that fishers from lower social status households used hook and line from canoes to preferentially target the barracuda more than elite, chiefly affiliated fishers.

The use of canoes to offshore fish can be considered an inherently more dangerous proposition than beach based fishing. This suggestion requires the calculation of barracuda size represented across contexts.

Triggerfish and pufferfish may also represent examples of possible threat or danger management. The consumption of triggerfish and pufferfish are known to induce possible states of intemperance. As reported on fishbase.org, triggerfish are good to eat, but consumption of the liver is known to cause intoxication (www.fishbase.org accessed 10/15/2014). Similarly, the consumption of pufferfish can cause hallucinogenic-like states (Keegan and Carlson 2008). The possible intoxicating and hallucinogenic effects of triggerfish or pufferfish consumption may have been an appreciated feature of these fish, influencing access and use across social contexts. As of now, the patterning of trigger and puffer fish remains suggests the fishes were accessible across communal, elite and non-elite status social contexts.

342

In summary, the most abundant and significant fish taxa in terms of comparative depositional patterning are groupers, jacks, snappers, grunts, and parrotfishes. These fish are present across social contexts, suggesting relatively fluid access among community members. Within this pattern of access, it does appear that the use and inclusion of each taxa was variably influenced by the event represented in the contexts of deposition. Furthermore, there is considerable variability between and among events and sheet deposits across social contexts. The less relatively frequent fish taxa, seemingly random in terms of distribution, provide hints or suggestions for future study.

Finally, manatee and sea turtles are scarce within the En Bas Saline assemblage, and occur in only two elite household features, Features 49 and 16. In general, manatee is not common among Greater Antillean sites. In contrast, ample sea turtle remains across the Greater Antilles have been interpreted as preferred food fare among the Taíno of Hispaniola and the Lucayans of The Bahamas (Carlson 1999;

Keegan and Carlson 2008). The dearth of each animal at En Bas Saline may be a consequence of off-site butchery practices (e.g., Wing 2012), yet to be discovered patterns of sea turtle remain deposition, or a lack of community preference. Future focus on the occurrence of these taxa within and between social contexts will hopefully elucidate some of these suggestions.

Invertebrate Patterning across Social Contexts

Crabs at En Bas Saline

The general relative frequency of crabs across social contexts suggests that the crustaceans are more common among lower status social contexts. However, with respect to significant patterning among crab abundance and context of deposition, its occurrence and abundance is nonrandom between all communal features, elite

343

Features 49 and 16, as well as non-elite Feature 62. This pattern suggests that access to and use of crabs at particular events might have been favored across social contexts.

Bivalves at En Bas Saline

The most abundantly represented invertebrate animals are bivalves. In terms of widespread relative frequencies and significant correlations with contexts of deposition, seven bivalve taxa are dominate across archaeological and social contexts. The most abundant bivalve taxa include: arks, flat-tree oyster, eastern oyster, tiger lucine, donax,

Carib pointed-venus, and cross-barred venus. Except for Garden B contexts, these taxa are present in both features and sheet deposits spanning communal, elite, HBNC, and non-elite status social contexts. Like fish, the extensive distribution of these taxa across social contexts suggests that access to the mollusks was not predicated solely on the social status of community members.

On the other hand, across contexts and the taxa, there are statistically significant correlations between abundance and deposition. This suggests that the use of these bivalve taxa at particular events across social contexts was not random, and may have been linked to the events themselves, the location of the event, as well as the participants. Another point of consideration is whether or not the patterns also reflect differential use of shell parts after consumption of the animal across households and social contexts. Non-random variable patterning may suggest that community members across social contexts were able to exercise some preference in the inclusion and abundance of these bivalve taxa at particular events. Moreover, the presence of these bivalves in both higher and lower social status affiliated sheet deposits suggests the general, event non-specific, or everyday use of the taxa across the community.

344

The relative frequencies of the seven bivalve taxa are all significantly correlated with deposition among communal Features 10, 11, and 15. Again, similar to fish, the data strongly suggest preferential inclusion of these taxa in communal consumption- related events. Given the contextually broad distribution and therefore access to the bivalves across the site, it is reasonable to argue that the contributive origin of these taxa may have cross-cut social contexts and statuses.

Within all contexts that contain arks, the correlation between abundance and context of deposition is statistically significant. Although arks are present across social contexts, they are collectively less abundant in communal features and more abundant in household contexts. Elite household and sheet deposit contexts are more abundant in arks overall in comparison to HBNC and lower status contexts. However, there is overlap across particular household social contexts and communal contexts, for example the relative frequency of arks between Features 62, 16, 10 and Garden E sheet deposit are all within a third of a percentage. The correlations between differential depositions of arks across the site suggests widespread but variable use of the bivalve within and between social contexts.

Within all contexts that contain flat tree-oyster, the correlation between abundance and context of deposition is statistically significant. In addition to Garden B, flat tree oyster is also not present within the Garden E sheet deposit context. Its occurrence in the remaining contexts across the site suggests that access to the bivalve was relatively widespread. The communal features, as well as elite associated features

14 and 16, share the lowest relative frequencies of the oyster. Overall, flat-tree oyster abundance is most common with lower social status contexts across Gardens N and P.

345

Yet, the relative frequency of the bivalve in elite Feature 49 is comparable to the relative frequency in the Garden N sheet deposit as well as Feature 55. Interestingly, the bivalve is not present in the elite sheet deposit, but is across lower status sheet deposits. This variable patterning across and within social contexts suggests that flat- tree oyster use was more common in household settings than communal, but that across presumably socially differentiated households its use was variable. It also suggests that general activities involving processing and use of flat-tree oyster was more common among lower status social contexts. It is possible that flat-tree oysters were a ubiquitous household resource across social contexts.

Within all contexts that contain eastern oyster as well as the Garden B sheet deposit, the correlation between abundance and context of deposition is statistically significant. Eastern oyster is present across social contexts. However, eastern oyster remains are particularly more concentrated among lower social status contexts than elite or communal social contexts. Even Feature 49, which has the highest relative frequency of the oyster among elite contexts, is noticeably low compared to the lower status contexts. This correlation presents many questions. First, do the oyster remains represent more common, abundant, or preferred consumption of eastern oyster among lower social status community members? Or, do the remains suggest that eastern oyster processing, not necessarily tied to eastern oyster consumption, was performed by lower social status community members? Did elite community members commandeer eastern oyster meat for status differentiated consumption? Or did elite community members not prefer eastern oyster meat in general?

346

Within all contexts that contain tiger lucine, the correlation between abundance and context of deposition is statistically significant. The correlation between tiger lucine abundance and context of deposition is variable. Overall, the bivalve is most concentrated in communal and lower social status contexts. It is most consistently distributed among Garden N and P contexts, including the sheet deposits and features.

The most abundant occurrences of tiger lucine are shared between communal Feature

11, HBNC Garden N sheet deposit, and lower status Feature 62. The comparable high frequencies of tiger lucine in Features 11 and 62, contribute to their overall similar faunal compositions, in comparison to the much lower amount of the bivalve in Feature

15. The questions posed for eastern oyster also apply to tiger lucine. An additional point of inquiry, is the potential contributive relationship between lower-status access and use of tiger lucine and its abundance in Feature 11.

Within all contexts that contain donax, the correlation between abundance and context of deposition is statistically significant. The abundance of donax abundance is highly variable within and between social contexts. It is most abundant in Features 10 and Garden N sheet deposit, and least abundant in Feature 62. Its abundance between

HBNC household features 55 and 60 is commensurate with elite household Features 14 and 49; while the abundances between elite Feature 16 and socially associated Garden

E sheet deposit are similar. This patterning suggests that access to Donax was fluid across social contexts and that its use was variable in accordance with particular events and activities.

Within all contexts that contain Carib-pointed venus clams, the correlation between abundance and context of deposition is statistically significant. The Carib-

347

pointed venus is most abundantly represented in communal Features 10 and 11, followed by elite Feature 14. Its distribution among the remaining contexts is variable within and between social contexts. Like donax, this patterning suggests that access to

Donax was fluid across social contexts and that its use was variable in accordance with particular events. It is also worth questioning whether or not there is contributive significance to the highest rates of frequency being shared between an elite context and communal contexts. The correspondingly high frequencies of the venus clam between

Features, 14, 10, 11, and to a lesser extent Feature 62, contribute to the overall compositional similarity between the contexts.

Within all contexts that contain cross-barred venus clams, the correlation between abundance and context of deposition is statistically significant. Cross-barred venus is present across social contexts, but with absolute concentration in communal

Features 10 and 11. This suggests that while access to the bivalve was widespread across the site, its use seems to have been preferred within communal consumption- related events. The comparable amount of cross-barred venus between the elite contexts in Garden E and HBNC contexts in Garden N, may be suggestive of equal usage between the two social contexts; with appreciably less usage among the lower status social contexts of Garden P. The concentration of cross-barred venus in Feature

11 also brings up questions similar to the occurrence of grunts in Feature 62. It is possible that cross-barred venus might have been stockpiled for the communal event represented in Feature11. It is also possible that a large population of this particular clam was available for exploitation at the time of the communal event.

348

In addition to the seven most abundant and spatially consistent bivalve taxa, other bivalve taxa less consistently present across the site are significant as well in exploring the intra-site patterning of fauna across social contexts. Sea mussel patterning suggests that access to the bivalve was relatively fluid and its use highly variable across social contexts and social status. Beaded venus was available across communal, elite, and HBNC social contexts, but used in greater concentrations among communal and HBNC contexts. Thick lucine distribution is also concentrated in HBNC and communal contexts. Giant coquina is widespread across contexts, but its abundance can only be significantly correlated with its deposition in elite Feature 49 and communal Feature 11. Across communal features 10, 11, 15, elite Feature 49, and lower status Feature 62, tellin and stout tagleus bivalve abundance is significantly correlated with context of deposition. In the case of both taxa, their distribution is more concentrated among the communal and elite contexts, followed by Feature 62. Crested oyster and falsemussel follow a similar pattern, but differ with the inclusion of Feature

16 instead of Feature 49. Pricklycockles are exclusively present in communal and elite social contexts.

Among all the bivalves present, Clery surfclam is unique in the effects of its statistically significant correlation between abundance and context of deposition. The distribution of the bivalve contributes to significant differentiation among contexts, and has a high impact on correlations among overall faunal compositions and relatedness.

Clery surfclam composes approximately 50% of all taxa abundance within elite household feature 16. Coming in at distant second and third places, Features 55 and 66 contain significant amounts of Clery surfclam. Comparatively scant amounts of the

349

bivalve are present in other social contexts. The abundance of Clery surfclam in elite

Feature 16 is what differentiates it from other contexts within its social context, and contributes to its overall compositional similarity with Features 55 and 60 from the presumably HBNC social context. Moreover, like grunts included in Feature 62, the sheer abundance of Clery surfclam within Feature 16 brings up questions of possible stockpiling and lineage affiliations and/or relations. Also, the environmental availability of Clery surfclam may have been particularly favorable at the time(s) of the events represented in Features 16, 55, and 60.

Bivalve summary. In summary, the most abundant and significant bivalve taxa in terms of comparative depositional patterning and consistency in distribution across social contexts, are arks, flat-tree oyster, eastern oyster, tiger lucine, donax, Carib pointed-venus, and cross-barred venus. The seemingly widespread access to these bivalves across social contexts suggests that their use across sheet deposits and features was likely a mixture of ubiquitous usage and/or event specific inclusion. It is also important to consider possible environmental factors contributing to the site wide access and use of this group of bivalves. Within tropical environments, many shellfish taxa are available year round, or multiple times a year due to several reproduction cycles within a year (e.g., Carib-pointed venus [Mouez et al. 1999]), donax [Wade

1968], tiger lucine [Alatolo et al. 1984], arks [Freites et al. 2010], and eastern oyster

[Aldana Aranda et al. 2014]). The abundance of several of the most prevalent bivalves across social contexts may be more related to availability corresponding with natural ebbs and flows in bivalve life cycles and reproductive cycles than socially mediated preferences. Additional detailed research focused on the deducing possible points of

350

articulation between the natural life cycles of taxa, seasonal or environmental variability, and distribution of the taxa across En Bas Saline will be most beneficial to the zooarchaeology of En Bas Saline.

It is also necessary to keep in mind that use wear patterns among bivalve shells has not been studied at present, and bivalve shell fragments have not been consistently quantified. Future attention to both of these points will help to assess the nature of bivalve processing, meat consumption and shell use across the site and in relation to social contexts and Taíno political economy.

Gastropods at En Bas Saline

Of the most abundantly identified gastropods within the En Bas Saline assemblage, only three exhibit statistically significant correlations between abundance and context of deposition; including ceriths, conchs, and melampus. Ceriths and conchs are marine gastropods and melampus are terrestrial gastropods. Present in relatively small amounts across social contexts, cerith abundance and deposition is only significant among communal Feature 15 and elite Feature 49. The distribution of conch abundance on the other hand is significant across contexts, except for Features 52 and

60. Access to conch was widespread across social contexts; however, usage was slightly more prevalent among lower social status contexts. Does this pattern suggest that conch meat extraction and shell manipulation was more prevalent among lower- status individuals? The relationship between conch abundance, context of deposition, and consumption of conch meat is not clear. Like several bivalve species, future analysis of conch shell use wear and modification, as well as consistent quantification of fragments, will help elucidate the consumption and use of conch meat and shells across

351

the site – possibly contributing to studies of labor organization and political economy among the Taíno.

Similar to Clery surfclam among bivalve taxa, melampus is unique in the effects of its distribution across En Bas Saline. First, melampus is only present in communal and elite social contexts. Among these contexts, it is absolutely concentrated in Feature

15. Melampus makes up approximately 67% of all taxa abundance within the feature.

The melampus concentration in Feature 15 is what makes it an outlier in terms of overall faunal composition between features and sheet deposits across social contexts.

Further, like Features 62 and 16, the quantity of melampus within Feature 15 necessitates consideration of possible stockpiling activities and contributive origins.

Furthermore, detailed study of the melampus specimens (e.g., specimen taphonomy) may shed light on their use, great abundance, and ultimately inclusion within Feature

11.

Additional marine gastropods are also present across social contexts. However the overall small numbers and corresponding samples sizes makes discussion of their patterning highly speculative. Turbo shells, buttonsnail, and apple murex are present in communal, high, and lower status social contexts. Periwinkle is only identified among two communal contexts and one elite context. Future analysis of presumably less prominent gastropod taxa will help elucidate the nature of their presence within and between contexts.

Summary notes. The patterns involving the Garden B sheet deposit and Feature

52 need to be considered with caution. Due to the comparatively small sample sizes from each context, the trends in taxa presence and abundance should be used as

352

suggestive in the formulation of future zooarchaeological research with the En Bas

Saline assemblage. This is particularly relevant when considering the overall compositional similarities between the Garden B sheet deposit, the Garden E sheet deposit, and Feature 14 reflected in the PC analysis.

The Sociality of Animal Food Use at En Bas Saline

The questions guiding this research were posited with the goal of elucidating the possible use of animal food consumption as a mechanism or expression of differential social status among community members at En Bas Saline. The results show that there are statistically significant variable correlations in the patterning of taxa abundance and context of deposition among and between archaeological deposits across and within assumed social contexts, although most have small practical significance. Also, the most abundant taxa and integrated taxonomic groups identified in this study, and used in the intra-site analysis (including chi-square tests), occur frequently across multiple archaeological contexts.

As shown in the PCA, and illustrated in Figures 7-1 and 7-2, the overall faunal composition of event features and general sheet deposits is variable across archaeological contexts and does not demonstrate consistent correlations with presumed spatial boundaries of assumed social contexts; rather, there is more compositional similarity between some elite and lower social status household contexts, as well as similarities between lower and higher social status contexts and communal contexts. Indeed, there is patterning suggestive of similarities between social contexts that seem to cross-cut archaeological contexts. For example, as described in the previous section, there appear to be some correlations of greater taxonomic abundance among some taxa found in elite and communal social contexts in comparison to non-

353

elite contexts, including hutia, rails, lizards, turtles, snappers, parrotfish, and Carib pointed-venus. Yet, many taxa abundantly represented in features and sheet deposits among elite and communal contexts are also abundant in the presumably non-elite

Garden P feature (Feature 62). Also, there appear to be some correlations of greater taxonomic abundance among some taxa found in non-elite and communal social contexts in comparison to elite contexts, including tiger lucine and donax, as well as greater taxonomic abundance among cross-barred venus between elite and non-elite contexts compared to communal contexts.

Assuming that differential social contexts were associated with socially differentiated community members, the non-random variability characteristic of animal deposition across the site suggests that there was appreciable variability among consumption events and activities within and between households of different social statuses. The qualities of events themselves, including site location, purpose of event, size of event and participants, coupled with environmental conditions and parameters of fauna availability, were most likely the primary determinants in animal use and faunal composition across contexts. Using deposition of faunal refuse, there do not appear to have been strict or stringent rules regarding social status related access and preferential use of taxa in general. This is not to say that there was not differential access and preferential use of taxa among socially differentiated community members or households and events, but that recognizing such differentiation through spatial deposition of zooarchaeological refuse is not clear cut or overtly obvious based on the social contextualization of site space.

354

The findings of this study further suggest that the “social” contexts, based on non-faunal archaeological characteristics and qualities, used to categorize and problematize the archaeological contexts and faunal materials in terms of Taíno sociality, be treated with flexibility. It is particularly important to not conflate archaeological and social context designations as analytical givens or constants across space (or time). Finally, the data presented in this study also suggest the need to explicitly problematize and test the suggested social categorizations and assumed functions of archaeological contexts across En Bas Saline in future studies. This will aid in modeling archaeological patterns reflective of Taíno sociality and create a comparative reference for inter-site research.

In regards to the study goals, each set of expectations are in part supported by the research findings. Based on patterns of taxa presence across contexts, the zooarchaeological results support the expectation that all people, regardless of status, identity, and social position, shared animal-based food, where access to the most prevalent and abundant fauna identified in the En Bas Saline assemblage cross-cut social contexts and people. This suggests more dietary similarity than differentiation among all community members across households.

Despite these similarities, the statistically significant variability between the abundance of taxa and contexts of deposition suggest that broadly accessible fauna was differentially used and consumed across spatially distinct events and activity areas across social contexts. This finding lends support to the alternative expectation as well, but not to the full exclusion of the first. Although similar suites of animals are present among different contexts, the variable patterning in the use of fauna indicates that

355

multiple factors influenced the use and consumption of animals, and the social status of event sponsors and/or participants cannot be ruled out as a contributing factor.

In light of this, it is important to keep in mind the ways in which the social implications of human animal food choices and behaviors may not manifest in archaeologically or zooarchaeologically recognizable patterns at En Bas Saline (e.g.,

Jones 2011; Russell 2012). Drawing on a cross-cultural group of ethnographic studies among chiefdom and “complex” hunter-gatherers, Table 7.1 provides a list of examples describing how several food-based activities, in addition to the eating of food, involve behaviors inextricably linked to expressions and maintenance of social status, identity and power. These descriptions provide an inspirational backdrop for the consideration of the possible ways in which activities and behaviors associated with animal food use and consumption at En Bas Saline might have been a cause and/or consequence of

Taíno social structure and practice, but are not indicated in the patterning of material culture; including the seating arrangements of meal participants, the preferential consumption of particular body parts or organs, or competitive orations.

Thus, the question as to whether or not animal based food consumption was a mechanism or expression of differential social status among the Taino of En Bas Saline and whether it is represented spatially in faunal refuse is in many respects still unanswered. This is a reflection of the complexities of Taino sociality and the challenges inherent to the (zoo)archaeological study and documentation of past social complexity. The discussion of the intra-site zooarchaeological analysis and results in accordance with presumed social contexts of site space and activities is helpful in identifying the variable nature of animal food consumption and use across social

356

statuses. However, this discussion alone precludes an interpretation as to why such non-random variability was present at En Bas Saline when we know community members were socially differentiated based on social status, identity, and power.

We “know” that food, including animal-based food, played a central role in Taino life; with economic, socio-political, and religious significances attached to consumption

(Lovén 1935; Keegan and Carlson 2008; Wilson 1990). Animal based non-food products were also important, providing tools, musical instruments, and objects of personal adornment utilized in both mundane and extraordinary activities of life.

Therefore, following the examples cited in Chapter 1, the ethnohistoric and archaeological syntheses of Taíno sociality reviewed in Chapter 2 provide a contextual framework from which to further discuss and interpret the intra-site patterning among fauna across En Bas Saline as well as the categories of social contexts assigned to site features and areas.

The Social Relations of Animal Consumption

The roles of Taino social organization, residence patterns, and kinship in relations of power suggest that within a chiefly village, like En Bas Saline, Taino chiefs lived among genealogically related lineages spanning both higher and lower status households across site areas. The success of a chief and his lineage was intimately enmeshed with the overall success of his community; including the ability to attract advantageous marriage partners for all members of the community regardless of social status. In other words the power and status of high ranking community members was not absolute or beyond social relations that cross cut social statuses (Ensor 2003); thus, chiefs and higher status people and lineages had to remain accessible and integrated within everyday community life.

357

Therefore, I argue that the zooarchaeological patterning across En Bas Saline suggests that overtly differential access to or high levels of demand on particular animal resources solely predicated on hierarchical social status (e.g., the proto-historic chiefs of Hawaii [Kirch 2001]), would not have been politically or socially beneficial to a chief, or other high status individuals within a community. Nor would it have been beneficial to non-elite community members, who’s ability to attract marriage partners and strengthen their lineages was linked to resource access, a successful subsistence economy, and the ability to contribute to large communal events.

Contrary to ethnohistoric accounts (as cited by Deagan 2004, Keegan 2007, and

Wilson 1990), it makes sense that at En Bas Saline there is not clear or unequivocal evidence of non-elite to elite tributary offerings or resource stockpiling. Nor is there evidence of animal resource redistribution implicated in restricted or controlled access exclusive to elites or chiefs. The success of presumably elite sponsored communal events (such as those represented in Features 10, 11, and 15) was linked to the ability of community members across social status to contribute goods from their lineage- linked resources and daily subsistence strategies (e.g., animals, pots, water jugs, etc.).

This ability was a manifestation of daily life and routines in regards to animal exploitation and consumption; where access to and consumption of animals appears to have been more open, fluid, and variable, rather than restricted across community members and social contexts. Thus, the overlap between the most abundant taxa present across different household contexts and those present in communal features.

Although, it was not to a chief’s advantage to completely distinguish himself from the rhythms of daily village life, this does not mean that chiefs, family members, and

358

associate elite community members did not have or did not exercise preferences linked to or demonstrative of social status. Indeed archaeological evidence reveals overt material manifestations of social power differentiation among the community members at En Bas Saline. The large rectangular residence documented on Mound 1, the central village location of Mound 1, and its close proximity to the plaza area conform to archaeological and ethnohistoric descriptions and interpretations of how Taino socio- political complexity structured village layouts and social contexts of space. Also, the predominance of serving or special use ceramic vessels among features within elite social contexts was a likely material manifestation and expression of social differentiation (Deagan 2004). In addition, as discussed above, there are several potential taxa that upon further analysis may prove to be exclusive to or significantly correlated with elite social contexts (e.g., hutia, lizards, jacks, parrotfish) or lower status social contexts (e.g., grunts, barracuda, eastern oyster, sea mussels), or communal social contexts (e.g., melampus).

A Comparative Perspective

Currently there are not zooarchaeological datasets or studies available within

Caribbean archaeological literature that permit a comparative discussion regarding intra-site patterns in Taíno animal consumption and use beyond En Bas Saline.

However, a review of deFrance’s (2010) study of animal use at the Tibes Ceremonial

Center in Puerto Rico provides an opportunity for considering the results of this study and current interpretation within a geographically and culturally broader scope of animal consumption and social life among Ostionoid groups of the Greater Antilles during the late Ceramic Age.

359

The Tibes Ceremonial Center is located in south-west Puerto Rico near the

Portugués River. The site was occupied from approximately AD 300-400 to AD 1000-

1200. During this time, the pattern of occupation changed from a small village to a large spatially differentiated ceremonial center. As a ceremonial center, the site layout at

Tibes consisted of plazas, ballcourts, burials, and multiple structures (Curet 2010).

Archaeological research at Tibes has been concentrated on explaining changes in social organization and the development of hierarchical communities (Curet and Stinger

2010). Results indicate that as the site grew from a village into the ceremonial center, so too did social complexity; including hierarchical divisions of power, identity and social rank.

deFrance’s work (Curet et al. 2006, deFrance et al. 2010) at Tibes has focused on both temporal and spatial patterns of animal exploitation at the site. Ultimately, deFrance finds that animal exploitation at Tibes was diverse, including marine, riverine, and terrestrial vertebrate and invertebrate fauna. With the exception of the introduction of guinea pig (Cavia porcellus) during the latest phases of site occupation, animal exploitation and consumption was consistent through time and the development of increased social complexity (deFrance et al. 2010). Citing relative similarity in taxnomic diversity and richness across spatially distinct faunal samples, deFrance (2010) argues that as social complexity increased, including the emergence of hierarchical rank among community members, access to and consumption of animals remained similar among community members.

deFrance concludes that higher ranked community members at Tibes did not use food animals as a means of social differentiation. She explains that the intra-site

360

patterning of faunal remains at Tibes “indicate that the nature of political inequality during the earliest period of ranking was fragile, and therefore, group and social unity was promoted with dietary and possibly symbolic similarities in animal use” (deFrance

2010:87). Thus, the relatively equitable consumption of animals was a mechanism of social and community solidarity through time at Tibes. In addition, deFrance’s argument may have application beyond Tibes at other Puerto Rican sites where isotopic profiles among human remains suggest equal diets among presumably socially differentiated community members (Pestle 2013).

There are definitely differences between En Bas Saline and Tibes. At Tibes there are not defined features suggestive of discrete animal use and consumption events, such as the pits and post-molds at En Bas Saline; the faunal samples from Tibes are recovered from spatially differentiated general refuse middens. The final occupation of

Tibes coincides with the approximate start of En Bas Saline. Finally, Tibes was a ceremonial center, and En Bas Saline a chiefly village. At En Bas Saline there is a house structure on a mound clearly differentiating the structure from others not centered on mounds, at Tibes there are no such structures present. Yet, despite the temporal gap between Tibes and En Bas Saline, as well as the cultural differences between

Puerto Rican groups and the Taíno of Hispaniola, the interpretation of faunal consumption and use among ranked members of Tibes lends credence to the zooarchaeological findings at En Bas Saline. In each case, the existence of social hierarchy and ranked identities did not produce rigid parameters of animal access or consumption. At En Bas Saline this manifested in non-random variability, including similarities and differences, in the use and consumption of a diversity of animals among

361

and between socially differentiated site contexts and people. At Tibes this manifested in minimal faunal differences between midden assemblages across the site.

Finally, comparison with deFrance’s study offers a possible historical perspective from which to consider the role of animal consumption and use in Taíno sociality. If relatively equal access to animal food was born out of promoting social solidarity during the small village phase of Tibes, then it stands to reason that the apparent maintenance of relatively equal animal consumption within the Tibes community during the later socially stratified phase of occupation remained an effective mechanism of social unity and solidarity (or at the very least did not contribute to the abandonment of Tibes).

Therefore, I argue that the overall variability in the social parameters of food use at En

Bas Saline and its articulation with Taíno social organization and relations of power may suggest that the patterns of animal access and consumption at En Bas Saline originated during the rise of the classic Taíno, and from a possible need to emphasize lineage and community connectedness within and between growing villages and inter-village negotiations of leadership. From there, I think it is possible that animal food may have become a daily reference point of community identity and engagement, both of which would have been central to village sustainability within the greater Taíno network on

Hispaniola.

Obviously these arguments require additional study of the En Bas Saline assemblage and further problematization of the patterns of exploitation as well as contexts of deposition. In particular, comparisons with other contemporaneous Taino faunal assemblages and sites are needed in order to meaningfully pursue study of these ideas. Temporally differentiated faunal assemblages will also be critical to

362

formulating a historical understanding of Taíno animal use and consumption across space and phases of social complexity during the late Ceramic Age.

Pits, Post molds, and Feasts at En Bas Saline

Feasts and feasting are among the most socially conspicuous events and acts humans perform with food. Ethnohistorical and historical sources indicate that the Taíno held feasts for a variety of reasons and occasions (Deagan 2004; Keegan 2007; Wilson

1990). Therefore, it is important to consider this aspect of food consumption when interpreting the En Bas Saline faunal assemblage. Yet, within Caribbean archaeology, there is a dearth of archaeological documentation of past feast events or feasting behaviors. Discussion of the intra-site faunal patterning at En Bas Saline in terms of the assumed feature functions designated by Deagan can contribute to the apparent lack of archaeological evidence of pre-Columbian feasting in the Caribbean – or at least its archaeological recognition – and shed light on what was most likely another social facet of life at En Bas Saline involving animal-based food. As listed in Table 3-4, the assumed functions of the features included in this study are feast pits (Features 10, 11, and 15), big posts (Features 49, 14, and 62), a trench-like structure (Feature 16), and pits

(Features 55 and 60) associated with households and much smaller than those designated as feast pits.

The archaeological recognition of feasting, representing out of the ordinary events of food consumption, is a highly debated topic in archaeology (Bray 2003; Dietler

2003; Hayden 2001; Twiss 2008). In Caribbean pre-Columbian history, particularly among the comparatively complex societies of the Late Ceramic Age, feasting was no doubt a part of social interactions within and between communities; however its archaeological documentation is sorely lacking (Crock and Carder 2011). This may be

363

due to issues of preservation and the ephemeral nature of some feasting foods and associated goods. Excavation and sampling strategies as well as approaches to data organization and analysis can also preclude the recognition and analysis of possible feasting events. Possible differences in feasting practices between and among island groups may also prohibit ready recognition of feasting signatures (see Kirch 2001 for a similar argument regarding variability in prehistoric feasting among Polynesian islands).

As discussed by Twiss (2008), archaeological evidence of feasting is most commonly identified citing extraordinarily large quantities of food, emphasis on particular foods, inclusion of exotic or luxury foods, elaborate or exceptional material goods, size of associated features, the location of events, as well as the timing or occasion. However, as Twiss (2007, 2012:364) also points out, “feasts are closely related to everyday meals in form as well as in meaning but are also consciously distinguished from those meals”. Perhaps the most critical aspect to archaeological documentation of past feasting at a site is the ability to compare between contexts demonstrated to be qualitatively different in context, such as a midden representing palimpsests of undifferentiated deposition versus definable features determined to be single depositional events or composed of differentiated depositional events (deFrance

2009, 2010; Rosenwig 2007; e.g., Pauketat et al. 2002).

Regardless of the archaeologically real and/or analytically manifested difficulties in the identification of pre-Columbian feasting in the Caribbean, the features across En

Bas Saline provide one of the finest archaeological and zooarchaeological opportunities to discuss Taíno feasting. First, all features appear to represent single depositional events. As reviewed in Chapter 3, Features 11 and 15 are interpreted as having been

364

deposited at the same time based on cross-mending pottery fragments across the features. Second, features are spatially differentiated between the open plaza area

(Features 10, 11, and 15), Mound 1 (Features 49, 14, and 16), the western-most mound

(Features 55 and 60), the extensive subterranean midden (Feature 62), and the northern site boundary adjacent to the plaza area. Third, there are differences in feature shapes and sizes; Features 10, 11, and 15 are essentially large rectangles with straight edges, Features 49, 14, and 52 are circular with large diameters and evidence of postmolds at the base, and Features 55 and 60 are smaller circular pits. Feature16 is an elongated trench-like shape. And fourth, the majority of the features can be grossly grouped based on proximity and association with past structures, where Features 10,

11, and 15 are not associated with past structures and the remaining features are.

The qualities of the faunal remain samples from several of the En Bas Saline samples also support considerations of feasting at the site. Features 10, 11, 15, 16, and

62 contain large quantities of faunal remains, with overall high taxonomic diversity as well as concentrations of particular taxa; including the melampus in Feature 15, tiger lucine in Feature 11, donax in Feature 10, Clery surfclam in Feature 16, and grunts in

Feature 62. Features 55 and 60 are comparatively smaller in terms of NISP, but also contain concentrated quantities of taxa, including eastern oyster and Clery surf clam in

Feature 60 and eastern oyster in Feature 55. The faunal samples from the features are uniformly larger and more abundant in terms of total NISP compared to sheet deposit faunal samples. Finally, Deagan has found that the artifact assemblages associated with features are typologically and materially more diverse than those from sheet deposits.

365

The features at En Bas Saline meet several of the criteria commonly used to recognize past feasting events archaeologically (Dietler 2001; Twiss 2008). Does this mean that each feature in this study represents past feasting events? Maybe, but additional scrutiny is warranted in order to better or more meaningfully discuss the use of animal-based food in possible feasting events at En Bas Saline, the possible function of feasts, and how such events contributed to Taíno sociality. Ethnohistoric, historic, anthropological, and archaeological interpretations of feasting among the Taíno provide a contextually rich basis for suggestive interpretations about feasting at En Bas Saline.

The sociality of Taíno feasting

Ethnohistoric and historic records show that feast events were communal manifestations of Taíno sociality and integral to the structuring of village and inter- village life (Keegan 2007; Wilson 1990). As described by Dietler (2001:103), “Feasting is by no means the only arena of political action, but it is frequently an extremely important, if not crucial one.” Among the Taíno, feasting likely took place at both large and small scales of social involvement across lineages and social status (i.e., household scale versus communal scale). As is common cross-culturally and through time (Dietler and Hayden 2001), communal feasts were held at pivotal social moments, including weddings, during areytos, and in honor of or during cemí festivals (Lovén

1935).

Communal-sponsored feasting was at the heart of Taíno socio-political organization and outward expressions of power, lineage identity, and community

(Keegan 2007). All participants were implicated in the physical and social success of a feast event, particularly when functionally connected to attracting marriage partners, forming alliances across lineages, and maintaining power and status hierarchy (Ensor

366

2003). Keegan (2007) and Ensor (2003) have suggested that feasts were supported not through surplus storage under the redistributive control of chiefs, but rather through event-specific amassings of subsistence resources and food contributed by all members of the community regardless of social status. As Ensor (2003:148-149; see also Keegan

2007:111) explains, “Leaders in non-class societies do not appropriate for power, they reciprocate for power. Power, prestige, labor and resources are given by commoners having their own ambitions.” In this case, the procurement, preparation, and presentation of food (animal and non-animal based) at Taíno feasts represented the functioning of Taíno society overall with acknowledgement of how all lineages composed of individuals were inter-connected.

In this sense, Taíno sociality was literally wrapped up in feasts, demonstrating perhaps one of the most pervasive roles of food in Taíno society. Because of Taíno socio-political organization and the paramount role of kinship, food and social reproduction were both fluid and subject to yearly and even generational shifts in lineage power. Food-related resources, such as land and access to marine environments, as well as social alliances, could ostensibly be “gathered” through lineage relationships, but in each instance of “gathering,” power was not an omnipresent phenomena. In other words, power, just like natural resources and food, was never available in surplus. Both were always in negotiation and sought through events of ostentatious display, such as feasts.

According to this interpretation, based on authors such as Keegan and Ensor, the act of contributing to a feast was a demonstration of lineage member’s access to particular resources and, therefore, place within a given community and Taíno society

367

overall. As a result, just as commoners and elites contributed to a feast, lesser chiefs ate with their villagers, caciques lived in the center of his (or her) constituents, and caciques tasted food in the service of all community members (Keegan 2007; Wilson

1990). Thus, it is reasonable to assert that that at communal events, feasting (the actual consumption of the food) may have involved all community members across social statuses.

Feasting at En Bas Saline

Taking inspiration from the above discussion and Deagan’s previous designations, the most parsimonious approach to the description of feasting at En Bas

Saline gives primacy to site locations indicative of communal feasting events, such as

Features 10, 11, and 15. Features 10 and 11 were first interpreted to be contiguous, however based on stratigraphy and original field note descriptions the creation of each feature appears to be distinct. Feature 11 is distinct from Feature 10 based on its ashy grey matrix. Both features contain comparable amounts and types of non-faunal artifacts. Feature 15 is next to Features 10 and 11. The pottery types and vessel forms represented in all three features include relatively larger amounts of serving vessels and water bottles compared to the structure associated features.

The plaza site location of Features 10, 11, and 15, in conjunction with their faunal patterns and associated artifacts are strongly suggestive of a large, communal, pre-

Columbian feasting event at En Bas Saline. The size and precision of shape of the feast features is demonstrative of the planning and work put into the preparation of the space.

The plaza location and lack of post molds near the features indicate that the event was one of public performance (e.g., Inomata 2006), and open for communal participation and observance. The plaza was a space that could accommodate many people. Citing

368

ethnographic observations and personal experiences, Hayden (2014: 245-246) argues that events among chiefdom plaza settings are most commonly associated with very large feast events often predicated on intercommunity interactions. Intercommunity events usually involve displays of competition and very large quantities of goods and food. Also, acts of gifting to and/or from non-local participants is often included.

Therefore, the diversity of faunal remains within Features 10, 11, and 15 are presumably representative of all villagers and possible visitors present at the event, and their collective effort to prepare for and participate in the feast. The large concentrations of melampus in Feature 15 may be event-specific stockpiling of a resource either by a particular individual, household, lineage or across households and lineages.

Alternatively, the melampus may represent a “gift” from non-local participants. The same can be suggested for the quantities of tiger lucine and donax in Features 10 and

11.

However, it is important to acknowledge that at this point, based on faunal deposition in Features 10, 11, and 15 alone, it is not yet possible to fully realize the functional nature, or commensal politics, of communal feasting at En Bas Saline.

Because it appears that all feasting remains, including animal and pottery refuse, were deposited together within the features, it is not clear if there were difference in cuisine- based consumption among participants (e.g., diacritical feasting [Dietler 2001:85]), if particular food stuffs were distributed among particular groups of participants (e.g., patron-role feasting [Dietler 2001:83]), or if the accumulation and consumption of food was performed as a reflection of hospitable (but also competitive) negotiations among participants (e.g., empowering feasting [Dietler 2001:76]). That said, multiple types of

369

commensal politics are often wrapped up and performed within single feasting events, and should not be considered mutually exclusive (Bray 2003; Dietler 2001). Finer grained interpretations of the social, including the political, economic, and ideological meanings of Taíno feasting at En Bas Saline await further analysis of faunal samples from Features 10, 11, and 15, as well as opportunities for inter-site comparisons.

So, if Features 10, 11, and 15 are the remains of a feast event, do presumably domestic household locations preclude the archaeological identification of feasting within a Taíno site? In all likelihood probably not. After all, large quantities of taxa are present in the household features, particularly the big post mold features, as well as overwhelmingly large amounts of particular taxa in some contexts. As argued by Dietler

(2001:93), “the ‘festive landscape’ in any given society will most likely be a palimpsest of several different modes of commensal politics operating in different contexts.”

In comparison to Features 10, 11, and 15, it is possible that the events represented in Features 49, 14, and 62 represent local, village level, and/or household feast events (e.g. Hayden 2014; Hendon 2003). This would have implications for interpreting the size differences between the events represented in elite versus lower social status areas; where the larger chiefly household could accommodate larger local events, and non-chiefly households could accommodate smaller scale events. In this case, the differential quantities of common animal remains between the features would be a reflection of event scale and possibly sponsor, and not necessarily participants.

However, there is very little corroborating ethnohistoric and historic records of presumably household specific, smaller scale, or private (i.e. exclusionary) feasting events. The complete analysis of features across site locations as well as inter-site

370

comparative data will be key in further characterizing feasting in seemingly more private and restrictive site locations.

For now, several intriguing questions are available for future consideration. One, what is the significance of the compositional similarities between Feature 62 and the plaza feast features? What is to be made of the overlap between some patterns of taxonomic abundance and deposition among Features 62, 49 and the feast features? Is there an occasion-based relationship that can be deduced from the post molds present in Features 49, 14, and 62? Is there a consequential connection to faunal patterns between the large post mold features? Feature 16 is rather anomalous in its functional representation as a structure-related trench. Is there significance to the amount of surfclam present in the feature and its structural function? In regard to Features 55 and

60, does feature size really matter in the recognition of feasting features? Finally, are the concentrated amounts of particular taxa in some features archaeological traces of elusive tributary events in Caribbean pre-Columbian history?

Regardless of what continued zooarchaeological research at En Bas Saline reveals about feasting among the Taíno, there are already some take-away points for the zooarchaeological study of feasting at other sites throughout the Caribbean. These points are not novel or particular to the Caribbean, although the En Bas Saline faunal assemblage does provide a local point of reference for (zoo)archaeologists grappling with the identification and study of archaeological signatures of feasting throughout the island region. One, both feature and non-feature (i.e., midden) archaeological contexts of deposition are necessary to provide an intra-site points of comparison. Two, extensive faunal sampling from feature and comparative archaeological contexts is

371

critical to amassing an appropriate comparative dataset. Three, trends in faunal and non-faunal artifact patterns should be considered in tandem. Four, chronometric analysis is important to identify temporally meaningful relationships between possible trends in feasting within and between features across sites. Five, multiple possible characteristics of feasting need to be weighed against each other, described, and contextualized in relation to broader discussions of the archaeology of feasts and feasting behaviors.

Space and Social Context at En Bas Saline: Methodological and Interpretive Implications for Household Zooarchaeology

Finally, situating the results of this study within the framework of Caribbean household archaeology is helpful in assessing the relationship(s) between space and social contexts at En Bas Saline, and how this relationship is studied zooarchaeologically. Samson’s (2010, 2013) recent work is perhaps the most comprehensive investigation and critical treatment of household archaeology in the

Caribbean. In her study of 30 household structures at the Taíno site of El Cabo (AD

800-1504), located in the Dominican Republic, Samson finds that the archaeological evaluation of social dynamics within and between households is complex and variable.

House structures themselves played integral parts in shaping social dynamics, as evidenced by cyclical activities and rituals performed to renew houses and households

(Samson 2010).

As described by Samson (2010: 267), “The house was not merely a dwelling structure, it embodied the concerns and values associated with cultural transmission and social reproduction of the whole community.” This communal focus and relevance of single households among socially differentiated village members is exemplary of how

372

we think kinship functioned as an inextricable component of Taíno sociality, including the structuring of social hierarchy, power, and residence patterns. Accordingly, drawing on ethnohistoric evidence and comparative studies from South America, Samson’s work finds that single houses were integrated within collectively larger households, such that a village was composed of several large households connected through kinship ties and relationships. However, it is not clear how kinship relations were necessarily defined within and between households (Samson 2010:304), and therefore across social statuses cross-cut by lineage affiliations.

In regard to the households represented at En Bas Saline and the intra-site faunal patterning, Samson’s work at El Cabo bolsters the relevance of Driver’s (2004) caution in a priori assumptions about the correlation between space and human social status in zooarchaeological studies (see also Emery 2004). The assignment of assumed social contexts in this study served as a contextual backdrop for the comparison and discussion of the zooarchaeological data (e.g., communal plaza, chiefly household, high but not necessarily chiefly, lower non-chiefly social status). The results suggest that the use of assumed social contexts is useful in zooarchaeological research at En Bas

Saline on a gross level of hypothesis formulation and data comparison, where site areas appear particularly demonstrative of different activities and purposes, including the likely communal nature of the plaza features from Garden E and the likely chiefly residence on Mound 1.

However, beyond an overall appreciation of site layout and function, the social contexts assigned in this study cannot be considered directly commensurate with the past flow of people, animals, or goods across the site. Rather, the assigned social

373

contexts are most useful as organizational categories from which to challenge historical and archaeological assumptions about correlations between social status, identity, the use of space, and patterns of faunal deposition. For example, the zooarchaeological results do not necessarily help define the social contexts of the features and sheet deposits located in Gardens B, N, and P. The assignment of Features 55, 66 and the

Garden N sheet deposit as high but not necessarily chiefly, and Feature 62 and the

Garden P sheet deposit as likely lower status social contexts is no more accurate than it was before the study. Therefore, borrowing from Samson again, the intra-site faunal patterning among household contexts at En Bas Saline suggest that the social contexts of zooarchaeological deposition at the household level may best be studied as the remains of what “kinship groups did as closely bonded affinitive groups...” (Samson

2010: 304) within and between households across space.

At En Bas Saline, much remains to be discovered about pre-Columbian relationships between space and the social contexts of Taíno life. Situating future zooarchaeological studies within the larger paradigm of Caribbean household archaeology as well as micro-scale spatial studies (e.g., Curet 2005; Curet and Oliver

1998; Keegan 2007; Morsink 2012, 2013), may prove fruitful in regard to how zooarchaeological remains should be problematized and organized analytically. This will affect the underlying assumptions guiding future studies, hypothesis formulation, as well as interpretive frameworks and the potential for increased intra- and inter-island site comparisons.

Summary: the Zooarchaeology of Social Complexity at En Bas Saline

Overall, at En Bas Saline, a common suite of animals was accessible and included in both feature and sheet deposit contexts. The variable depositional patterns

374

of faunal refuse do not reflect clear rules or indicators of social status-related restricted use or consumption of animals. Rather, across spatially distinct events, a host of social requirements and possibly environmental constraints were likely the key determinants of animal use and consumption. As a result, it is difficult to parse out possible social status-linked animal consumption at En Bas Saline based on the social contexts and assumed affiliated social status of site features and sheet deposit areas alone.

Therefore, this study takes analytical and methodological inspiration from comparative zooarchaeological studies of social status (see Chapter 1) in order to offer socially nuanced discussions and interpretations of the intra-site faunal pattering and its relevance to better understanding Taíno sociality. Drawing on previous archaeological research and interpretations from En Bas Saline, as well as ethnohistoric, historic and archaeological descriptions and syntheses of the Taíno of greater Hispaniola, I interpret the social significance of the zooarchaeological data as reflective of greater Taíno social organization, lineage relations, and expressions of power. I also suggest that animal access and food was a part of creating and maintaining a common village identity among socially differentiated members that was ultimately embedded within broader inter-village social relationships.

There are several features across En Bas Saline that may be representative of several types or functions of feasting. The Garden E features (10, 11, and 15) are perhaps the most likely to contain the remnants of archaeologically identifiable feast events and consumption. Based on the plaza location of the features, I suggest the size, shape, contents, and quantity of faunal remains are probably indicative of communal feasting. However, it is not yet possible to suggest the nature of the commensal politics

375

informing and structuring the event and depositional pattern represented in the Garden

E features.

The explicit use of a household archaeology perspective, or approach to research orientation, holds much potential for the zooarchaeology of social complexity at En Bas Saline, especially regarding social status. The relationship between the analytical utility and interpretive value of social context categories (and assumed social correlates) in the elucidation of faunal patterning across households at En Bas Saline is not straightforward. This conclusion is commensurate with findings among the village of

El Cabo in the Dominican Republic; where Samson (2013:369) argues “It therefore remains to be investigated per site and region, what kind of social entity claims membership of a house, the relations between them, and whether single structures distinguish themselves from each other or act communally in clusters as whole settlements.”

Lastly, the suggestive interpretations of the zooarchaeological and intra-site data offered in this chapter have produced far more questions than answers regarding the zooarchaeology of social status at En Bas Saline. Several questions have great potential for continuing studies of the faunal assemblage, while others reveal the possible limits of zooarchaeological data. Taken together, the study results and generation of additional questions reveal that Taíno diet, including variable animal food use and consumption, was enmeshed within the organization of social hierarchy, space use, and event production. The challenge remains to continue to try and materially identify the complex interplay of multiple social factors influencing animal-based food consumption at En Bas Saline.

376

Table 7-1. Cross-cultural ethnographic examples of social status and identity related activities and behaviors associated with animal food use and consumption that may have occurred at En Bas Saline but are not zooarchaeologically recognizable. Group Activity Behavior Wamiran of Papau New Guinea Village-wide feast marking end of a -specific parameters of bundling feast (Kahn 1986) village dance food contributions among participants

-secretive storehouses so as to project social equality in the face of harvest Massim of Goodenough Island, Harvesting of crops across abundance induced inequality between New Guinea (Young 1971) household gardens households

-distribution that deviates from Household distribution of hunted pig consanguinal kinship membership

Kalymnians of Kalymnos, -knowledge of how to prepare a particular Greece (Sutton 2001) Household display of heritage meal or dish, and it subsequent serving

-male hunters contribute preserved (frozen) animal body parts for consumption among hunters only; Khanyy of Siberia (Jordan 2003) Male exclusive elk-festival leftovers brought to women and children

-gender based taboos; women forbidden Native Hawaiian fishers, Hawaii from preparing and consuming certain (Titcomb 1952) Fish resource management fishes during the year

-chiefly, priestly, and age based restrictive Kapinga of Kapingamarangi control over canoe availability and fish Atoll, Polynesia (Lieber 1994) Offshore fishing procurement strategies

Lauan villagers of Nayau, Fiji Resource trading within and -trading of fish based on shifting (Jones 2009) between household members preferences across households

377

Table 7.1. Continued Group Activity Behavior

Serving of meals -men served before women and children

-household men, and men of overall Consumption of fish higher social rank, consume fish heads

-chief and higher status members are differentiated based on language structure and choice of words, body language, Pohnpeians of Pohnpei, Communal food consumption order of seating, and sequence of food Micronesia (Keating 2000) events, including feasts service

Daily interactions and distribution of -evaluation of status based on body size food and apparent state of health

378

Figure 7-1. The results of the PCA with presumed social contexts assigned to features and sheet deposits. The green circles indicate possibly communal associated contexts, the blue circles indicates possibly high, but not necessarily chiefly, associated contexts, and the orange circles indicate possibly non-elite or lower status associated contexts.

379

Figure 7-2. The principal component plots of the study features and sheet deposits with presumed social contexts assigned to site loci. The green circles indicate possibly communal associated contexts, the blue circles indicates possibly high, but not necessarily chiefly, associated contexts, and the orange circles indicate possibly non-elite or lower status associated contexts.

380

CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSIONS AND WHAT WE “KNOW”

As defined in Chapter 1, the use of the term sociality in this study denotes the ongoing process of creating the variable social milieus and structures of human life; including hierarchical social status and organization. The results of this study, as well as the discussion and interpretation of their possible significance suggest that animal use and consumption at En Bas Saline was variable across events, activity areas, and socially differentiated people. Diet and animal access among people of different social status, identity, and power seems to have been relatively open, with the needs or qualities of particular consumption related events driving differential faunal compositions across site features and sheet deposits. Although not explicitly addressed in this study, environmental conditions also likely impacted patterns of faunal composition. The intra- site faunal patterning appears to be implicated in the creation and maintenance of a communally derived village identity among socially complex relationships within and between household members spanning hierarchically organized social statuses.

Ultimately, however, the findings of this study beg the questions: what more might we now “know” about the sociality of the past people referred to as Taíno, what are the implications of this study in regard to Caribbean (zoo)archaeology, and what lies ahead for future studies?

In this dissertation, I situated the results of analysis within a contextual framework of interpretation. Using ethnohistoric, historic, and archaeological textual sources of information, I created a backdrop through which to posit relationships between spatial social contexts and patterns of faunal deposition. Doing so not only provided the opportunity to consider the interplay of Taíno diet and differential social

381

status, but it also highlighted a host of additional issues ostensibly implicated in the role of animals within practices of Taíno sociality.

The Taíno were indeed a “complex” chiefdom society, with reaches across

Hispaniola, the broader Greater Antilles, as well as portions of the Lesser Antilles. Much of what we “know” about the pre-Columbian lives of the Taíno is deduced from written accounts of early European explorers and colonizers (Keegan 2007; Wilson 1990), often creating a false sense that we already know all there is to know about the Taíno

(see Chapter 1). Textual descriptions of Taíno lifeways provide perspectives emphasizing social relations of power and control, namely chiefly power and control over people and resources. There is not much information about the non-chiefly people nor how people of different social statuses actually interacted through the activities and practices structuring daily Taíno life.

As such, archaeological explorations of pre-Columbian Taíno lifeways are critical to producing holistic and nuanced understandings of life among both “chiefly” and “non- chiefly” members of Taíno society. Zooarchaeology is particularly well positioned to investigate one of the many possible, and probable, points of social intersection between people of different social status, identity and power among the Taíno: food.

Food is a necessity of life, indispensable to both biological and cultural survival. The role of food in human sociality, as both constitution and consequence of social interactions and understandings is well documented, and an abundance of anthropological, archaeological, historical, and philosophical literature demonstrates the complex and variable nature of human food choices and practices of consumption through time and across cultures (e.g., Barber 2003; Bell 1931; Bolton and Obst 1972;

382

Brown and Emery 2008; Curtin 1992; Douglas 1982; Douglas and Gross 1981; Emery and Brown 2012; Evans 2003; Ferdon 1993; Grant 2002; Gudeman 2001; Hamilton

1908; Jordan 2003; Milner and Miracle 2002; Russell and Bogaard 2010; Sutton 2001;

Titcomb 1972). Therefore, by approaching the En Bas Saline faunal remains as primarily representative of animal-based food created through and used within social contexts of animal access, use and consumption, this study has helped to clarify and challenge some of what we think we know about the Taíno.

Most notably, this study bolsters previous archaeological research concerned with characterizing Taíno kinship and lineage relations in reference to negotiations of power and social organization (e.g., Ensor 2003). Specifically, my research shows that the use of animal based foods was variable across social contexts and people, suggesting a far more fluid system or approach to diet, subsistence economy, possibly political economy, and the social relations of consumption than described in ethnohistorical and historical texts. Moreover, this study suggests that the creation and maintenance of a communal or shared sense of “Taínoness” (sensu Rodríguez Ramos

2010, see also Curet 2014) was likely a central component of village, lineage, and household success, and was possibly predicated on relatively flexible parameters of animal access, use and consumption for a variety of events (e.g., communal feast, and/or household events). In this sense, animal-based food would have provided a point of common engagement across people of different social status and/or associated with different site spaces, events, and activities. These suggestions, or additions to what we believe we know, have implications for how we think about expressions of identity, the organization of labor, village layouts, and inter-village relationships among the Taíno.

383

In addition to contributing to what we “know”, this study has also highlighted several gaps in our knowledge of pre-Columbian life among the Taíno. Namely, as demonstrated and argued in ethnographic and ethnozoological literature, there are many possible ways in which food, including animal-based food, may have been used in expressing and maintaining differentiated social status within Taíno society that did not produce so-far identifiable zooarchaeological correlates. In many instances, zooarchaeological data does not reveal patterns indicative of expressions of social status, identity and power (e.g., Jones 2009). For example, it is not very likely that there will ever be material traces or faunal patterns reflecting a Taíno village leader or chief tasting food prior to its consumption by others as described in ethnohistoric texts (e.g.,

Wilson 1990).

Furthermore, exploring what we do not “know” has implications for archaeological research design, the formulation of hypotheses, the problematization of zooarchaeological datasets, as well as how interpretations are rendered in Taíno studies. For example, in order to identify and study possible zooarchaeological patterns indicative of Taíno political economy at En Bas Saline, faunal remains and patterns of deposition need to be studied as potential artifacts of non-consumption activities or behaviors (i.e., tool manufacture and use) – sorting out patterns of primary and/or secondary significance of animal remains across the site.

More broadly, referring back to deFrance’s (2010) observation that in Caribbean archaeology zooarchaeological datasets are not commonly studied in regard to questions of social complexity, the goals of this dissertation join a growing body of

Caribbean zooarchaeological literature striving to do just that (e.g., Deagan 2004; Curet

384

and Pestle 2010; deFrance 2010; Crock and Carder 2011). This dissertation, as well as other zooarchaeological studies, demonstrate that spatially and contextually diverse faunal sampling, the consideration of non-faunal artifacts, and the integration of zooarchaeological data within more encompassing questions of past lifeways are all important to furthering the potential of zooarchaeological data and its contribution to elucidating the complexities of pre-Columbian lifeways and sociality.

Methodologically, this study has offered perspectives regarding collections-based research in Caribbean zooarchaeology as well as an approach to intra-site analysis.

First, it clearly demonstrates the great potential of continued use and study of previously generated zooarchaeological datasets within Caribbean archaeology. As has been discussed in other world areas and traditions of zooarchaeology, archival and collections research provides opportunities to ask new questions, test historical and recent assumptions, revisit older ideas in light of new ones, as well as utilize additional analytical approaches and methods of analysis (e.g., Atici et al. 2014; Crabtree 2004).

Second, the integration of standard zooarchaeological approaches and statistical analyses used in this study generated different perspectives of faunal access, use and consumption at En Bas Saline than previously reported. Thus it contributed to a more robust and diverse body of zooarchaeological data from which to conduct additional studies.

Finally, this dissertation has presented a bevy of possible questions and issues for future research with the En Bas Saline faunal assemblage, supporting the growing body of diverse archaeological literature demonstrating the paramount role of zooarchaeological research in the archaeology of “complexity” (e.g., deFrance 2009;

385

Gumerman 1997; Russell 2012). More specifically, at En Bas Saline it is now important to address the possible causes, consequences, and functions of animal use and consumption that produced such seemingly variable patterns of faunal refuse deposition across the site, and presumably people. If animal-based food, and an apparent lack of overt difference in diet among people, can be implicated in the social creation of a sense of “Taínoness”, then what does the spatial variability in faunal patterning suggest in terms of how “Taínoness” might have been perceived and negotiated over time, across households, and at particular events? Methodologically this will require the analysis of additional samples across contexts and site proveniences, the standardization of data quantification and recording of results, as well as detailed attention to the identification of taphonomic markers indicating both natural and cultural faunal specimen modifications. Ultimately, what is needed for a more holistic evaluation of the ideas and interpretations put forth in this study is inter-site comparisons with other

Taíno identified or associated sites on Hispaniola and as well as other islands.

386

LIST OF REFERENCES

Adam, Peter J. 2004 Monachus Tropicalis. Mammalia Species 747:1-9.

Aikas, T., A.K. Puputti, M. Nunez, J. Aspi and J. Okkonen 2009 Sacred and Profane Livelihood: Animal Bones from Siedi Sites in Northern Finland. Norwegian Archaeological Review 42(2):109-122.

Alatalo, Philip, Carl Berg Jr. and Charles D'Asano 1984 Reproduction and Development in the Lucinid Clam Codakia-Orbicularis (Linne 1758). Bulletin of Marine Science 34(3):424-434.

Albarella, Umberto and Angela Trentacoste (editors) 2011 EthnoZooacheaology: The Present and Past of Human-Animal Relationships. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Albarella, Umbeto 2011 Ethnozooarchaeology and the Power of Analogy. In EthnoZooarchaeology: The Present and Past of Human-Animal Relationships, edited by U. Albarella and A. Trentacoste, pp. 1-3. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Aldana Aranda, Dalila, M. Enriquez Diaz, Fabiola Lango Reynoso, Thierry Brule, Jorge Montero and Erick Baquerio Cardenas 2014 Reproductive Strategies of the Eastern Oyster Crassostrea virginica (Gmelin 1791) in Tropical Lagoons of the Mexican Gulf of Mexico. Journal of Shellfish Research 33(1):145.

Allentuck, Adam and Haskel J. Greenfield 2010 The Organization of Animal Production in an Early Urban Center: The Zooarchaeological Evidence from Early Bronze Age Titrus Hӧyük, Southeastern Turkey. In Anthropological Approaches to Zooarchaeology: Colonialisim, Complexity and Animal Transformations, edited by D. V. Campana, P. J. Crabtree, S. D. deFrance, J. Lev-Tov and A. M. Choyke, pp. 12-29. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Allgood, Jessica 2000 Title., Faunal Analysis of the Green Castle Estate Assemblage (STM25), St. Mary Parish. Unpublished Report.

Ames, Kenneth M. 2007 The Archaeology of Rank. In Handbook of Archaeological Theories, edited by R. A. Bentley, H. D. G. Maschner and C. Chippindale, pp. 487-513. AltaMira, Lanham, MD.

Atalay, Sonya and Christine A. Hastorf 2006 Food, Meals, and Daily Activities: Food habitus at Neolithic Ҫatalhӧyük. American Antiquity 71(2):283-319.

387

Atici, Levent, Sarah Whitcher Kansa, Justin Lev-Tov and Eric C. Kansa 2013 Other People's Data: A Demonstration of the Imperative of Publishing Primary Data. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 20:663-681.

Baisre, Julio A. 2013 Shifting Baselines and The Extinction of the Caribbean Monk Seal. Conservation Biology 27(5):927-935.

Barber, Ian 2003 Sea, Land, and Fish: Spatial Relationships and the Archaeology of South Island Maori fishing. World Archaeology 35(3):434-448.

Baroni, Timothy J. and Sharon A. Cantrell 2007 The macrofungi of Hispaniola: Elusive, beautiful, and awaiting discovery. In Hispaniola: A Photographic Journey through Island Biodiversity, edited by E. Fernández, pp. 34-47. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Bayard, Philippe 2007 Introduction. In Hispaniola: A Photographic Journey Through Island Biodiversity, edited by E. Fernández, pp. XII-XV. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Belcher, William R. 2011 An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Marine Coastal Fish Butchery in Pakistan. In EthnoZooarchaeology: The Present and Past of Human-Animal Relationships, edited by U. Albarella and A. Trentacoste, pp. 93-104. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Bell, F.L.S. 1931 The Place of Food in the Social Life of Central Polynesia. Oceania 2(11):117- 135.

Berard, B. 2008 Lithic technology: A Way to More Complex Diversity in Caribbean Archaeology. In Crossing the Borders: New Methods and Techniques in the Study of Archaeological Materials from the Caribbean, edited by C. L. Hofman, M. L. P. Hoogland and A. van Gijn, pp. 90-100. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Bolay, Eberhard 1997 The Dominican Republic: A Country between Rain Forest and Desert. Margraf Verlag, Weikersheim, Germany.

Bolton, J.M. and D. Obst 1972 Food Ttaboos among the Orang Asli in West Malaysia: A Potential Nutritional Hazard. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 25:789-799.

388

Borroto-Páez, R. and C.A. Woods 2012 Status and Impact of Introduced Mammals of the West Indies. In Terrestrial Mammals of the West Indies Contributions, edited by R. Borroto-Páez, C. A. Woods and F. E. Sergile, pp. 241-257. Wacahoota Press, Micanopy.

Borroto-Páez, Rafael, Carlos A. Mancina, Charles A. Woods and C. William Kilpatrick 2012 Updated checklist of Endemic Terrestrial Mammals of the West Indies. In Terrestrial Mammals of the West Indies Contributions, edited by R. Borroto-Páez, C. A. Woods and F. E. Sergile, pp. 389-415. Wacahoota Press, Micanopy.

Bray, Tamara L. (editor) 2003 The Archaeology and Politics of Food and Feasting in Early States and Empires. Kluwer/Plenum, New York.

Brown, Linda A. 2001 Feasting on the Periphery: The Production of Ritual Feasting and Village Festivals at the Cerén site, El Salvador. In Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, edited by M. Dietler and B. Hayden, pp. 368-390. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

Brown, Linda A. and Kitty F. Emery 2008 Negotiations with the Animate Forest: Hunting Shrines in the Guatemalan Highlands. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 15:300-337.

Butterman, Heidi C. 1997 Rainfall Variability in Haiti and Its Relation to Global and Regional-Scale Climate Indices, Ph.D. dissertation, Teacher College, Columbia University.

Callaghan, Richard T. 2011 Patterns of Contact Between the Islands of the Caribbean and the Surrounding Mainland as a Navigation Problem. In Islands at the Crossroads: Migration, Seafaring, and Interaction in the Caribbean, edited by L. A. Curet and M. W. Hauser, pp. 59-72. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Cannarozzi, Nicole R. 2003 Analysis of Zooarchaeological, Non-Elite Fauna of Pre-Columbian En Bas Saline, Haiti (EBS03). Report on file Historical Archaeology, Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville.

Cannon, M.D. 2013 NISP, Bone Fragmentation, and the Measurement of Taxonomic Abundance. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 20:397-419.

Cannon, Michael J. 2001 Archaeofaunal Relative Abundances, Sample Size, and Statistical Methods. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:185-195.

389

Capriles, Jose M. , Alejandra I. Domic and Sonia Alconini 2010 Continuity and Change in Faunal Consumption Patterns at the Pre-Inka and Inka Site of Yoroma, Bolivia. In Anthropological Approaches to Zooarchaeology: Colonialism, Complexity and Animal Transformations edited, by D. V. Campana, P. J. Crabtree, S. D. deFrance, J. Lev-Tov and A. M. Choyke, pp. 105-112. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Carlson, Lisbeth A. 1999 Aftermath of a Feast: Human Colonization of the Southern Bahamian Archipelago and Its Effects on the Indigenous Fauna. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Carlson, Lisbeth A. and David W. Steadman 2009 Examining Temporal Differences in Faunal Exploitation at Two Ceramic Age Sites in Puerto Rico. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 4(2):207-222.

Chanca, Diego A. 1932 Letter to the City of Sevilla. Hakluyt, London.

Claassen, Cheryl P. 1998 Shells. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Cohen, Jacob 1992 Statistical Power Analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science 1(3):98- 101.

Columbus, Christopher 1893 Journal of the First Voyage of Columbus. In The Journal of Christopher Columbus (during His First Voyage, 1492-1493), and Documents Relating to the Voyages of John Cabot and Gaspar Corte Real, pp. 15-196. Translated by C. R. Markham. Hakluyt Society, London.

Columbus, Don Ferdinand 1824 History of Discovery of America, by Christopher Columbus, Written by His Son Don Ferdinand Columbus. In A General History and Collection of Voyages and Travels, edited by R. Kerr, pp. 1-339. vol. 3. William Blackwood, Edinburgh.

Cooke, Richard 2004 Observations on the Religious Content of the Animal Imagery of the 'Gran Coclé' Semiotic Tradition of pre-Columbian Panama. In Behavior Behind the Bones: The Zooarchaeology of Ritual, Religion, Status and Identity, edited by S. J. O'Day, W. Van Neer and A. Ercynck, pp. 114-127. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

390

Cooke, Richard and Maximo Jiménez 2010 Animal-Derived Artefacts at Two Pre-Columbian Sites in the Ancient Savannas of Central Panama. An Update on their Relevance to Studies of Social Hierarchy and Cultural Attitudes Towards Animals. In Anthropological Approaches to Zooarchaeology: Colonialism, Complexity and Animal Transformations, edited by D. V. Campana, P. J. Crabtree, S. D. deFrance, J. Lev-Tov and A. M. Choyke, pp. 30- 55. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Crabtree, Pam J. 1990 Zooarchaeology and Complex Societies: Some Uses of Faunal Analysis for the Study of Trade, Social Status, and Ethnicity. In Archaeological Method and Theory, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 155-205. vol. 2. University of Arizona Press, Tuscon.

2004 Ritual feating in the Irish Iron Age: Re-Examing the Fauna from Dun Ailinne in Light of Contemporary Archaeological Theory. In Behavior Behind the Bones: The Zooarchaeology of Ritual, Religion, Status and Identity, edited by S. J. O'Day, W. Van Neer and A. Ervynck, pp. 62-65. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Crader, D. 1984 The Zooarchaeology of the Storehouse and the Dry Well at Monticello. American Antiquity 49(3):542-558.

Crock, J.G. and N. Carder 2011 Diet and rank in Caribbean maritime society. Latin American Antiquity 22(4):573-594.

Cuéllar, A.M. 2013 The Archaeology of Food and Social Inequality of the Andes. Journal of Archaeological Research 21:123-174.

Curet, L. Antonio 2002 The Chief is Dead, Long Live...Who? Descent and Succession in the Protohistoric Chiefdoms of the Greater Antilles. Ethnohistory 49:259-280.

2005 Caribbean Paleodemography: Population, Culture History, and Sociopolitical Processes in Ancient Puerto Rico. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

2014 The Taíno: Phenomena, Concepts, and Terms. Ethnohistory 61(3):467-495.

Curet, L. Antonio 2003 Issues on the Diversity and Emergence of Middle-Range Societies of the Ancient Caribbean: A Critique. Journal of Archaeological Research 11(1):1-42.

Curet, L. Antonio and Jose R. Oliver 1998 Mortuary Practices, Social Development, and Ideology in Precolumbian Puerto Rico. Latin American Antiquity 9:217-239.

391

Curet, L. Antonio and William J. Pestle 2010 Identifying High-Status Foods in the Archaeological Record. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 29:413-431.

Curtin, D.W. 1992 Food/Body/Person. In Cooking, Eating, Thinking: Transformative Philosophies of Food, edited by D. W. Curtin and L. M. Heldke, pp. 3-22. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

Curtis, J.H., M. Brenner and D.A. Hodell 2001 Climate Change in the Circum-Caribbean (late Pleistocene to Present) and Implications for Regional Biogeography. In Biogeography of the West Indies: Pattern and Perspectives edited, by C. A. Woods and F. E. Sergile, pp. 35-53. 2nd Edition ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton.

Cusick, James G. 1989 Change in Pottery as a Reflection of Social Change: A Study of Taino Pottery Before and After Contact at the Site of En Bas Saline, Haiti. MA Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

David, Nicholas and Carol Kramer 2001 Ethnoarchaeology in Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Deagan, K. 1988 The Archaeology of the Spanish Contact Period in the Caribbean. Journal of World Prehistory 2(2):187-233.

2003 Preliminary Report on 2003 Field Excavations at En Bas Saline, Haiti. Department of Anthropology, Florida Museum of Natural History.

2008 Environmental Archaeology and Historical Archaeology. In Case Studies in Environmental Archaeology, Second Edition, edited by E. Reitz, C. M. Scarry and S. J. Scudder, pp. 21-42. Springer, New York.

Deagan, K. and J.M. Cruxent 2002 Columbus’s Outpost Among the Taínos: Spain and America at La Isabela, 1493-1498. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Deagan, K.A. 1989 The search for La Navidad, Columbus’s 1492 Settlement. In First Encounters: Spanish Exploration in the Caribbean and United States, 1492-1570 edited, by J. T. Milanich and S. Milbrath, pp. 41-54. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Deagan, Kathleen 2004 Reconsidering Taino Social Dynamics After Spanish Conquest: Gender and Class in Culture Contact Studies. American Antiquity 69(4):597-626.

392

deFrance, Susan D. 2009 Zooarchaeology in Complex Societies: Political Economy, Status, and Ideology. Journal of Archaeological Research 17(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 D. V. Campana, P. J. Crabtree, S. D. deFrance, J. Lev-Tov and A. M. Choyke, pp. 76- 89. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

2013 Zooarchaeology in the Caribbean: Current Research and Future Prospects. In The Oxford Handbook of Caribbean Archaeology, edited by W. F. Keegan, C. L. Hofman and R. Rodríguez Ramos, pp. 378-390. Oxford University Press, Oxford. deFrance, Susan D. and Lee A. Newsom 2005 The Status of Paleoethnobiological Research on Puerto Rico and Adjacent Islands. In Ancient Borinquen: The prehistory of Puerto Rico, edited by P. Siegel, pp. 122-184. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Dietler, Michael 2001 Theorizing the Feast: Rituals of Consumption, Commensal Politics, and Power in African Contexts. In Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, edited by M. D. a. B. Hayden, pp. 65-114. Smithsonian, Washington, D.C.

2003 Clearing the Table: Some Concluding Reflections on Commensal Politics and Imperial States. In The Archaeology and Politics of Food and Feasting in Early States and Empires, edited by T. L. Bray, pp. 271-282. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.

Dietler, Michael and Brian Hayden 2001 Digesting the Feast–Good to Eat, Good to Drink, Good to Think: An Introduction. In Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, edited by M. Dietler and B. Hayden, pp. 1-22. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Douglas, M. 1982 In the Active Voice. Routledge, London.

Douglas, M. and J. Gross 1981 Food and Culture: Measuring the Intricacy of Rule Systems. Social Science Information 20:1-35.

393

Drennan, R.D., C.E. Perterson and J.R. Fox 2010 Degrees and Kinds of Inequality. In Pathways to Power: Archaeological Perspectives on Inequality, Dominance, and Explanation, edited by T. D. Price and G. M. Feinman, pp. 45-76. Springer, New York.

Drescola, Pierre 1994 In the Society of Nature: A Native Ecology in Amazonia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Driver, Jonathan C. 1993 Zooarchaeology in British Columbia. BC Studies 99:77-105.

2004 Food, Status and Formation Processes: A Case Study from Medieval England. In Behavior Behind the Bones: The Zooarchaeology of Ritual, Religion, Status and Identity, edited by S. J. O'Day, W. Van Neer and A. Ervynk, pp. 244-251. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Driver, Jonathan C. 2011 Identification, Classification, and Zooarchaeology. Reprinted in Ethnobiology Letters 2:19-39.

DuChemin, Geoffrey R. 2013 Animal Use and Community in Pre-Columbian Puerto Rico: Zooarchaeology of the Río Portugués. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Emery, K.F. and L.A. Brown 2012 Maya Hunting Sustainability: Perspectives from Past and Present. In The Ethics of Anthropology and Amerindian Research: Reporting on Environmental Degradation and Warfare, edited by R. J. Chacon and R. G. Mendoza, pp. 79-116. Springer, New York.

Emery, K.F. and E.K. Thornton 2012 Using Animal Remains to Reconstruct Ancient Landscapes and Climate in the Central and Southern Maya lowlands. In Proceedings of the General Session of the 11th International Council for Archaeozoology Conference (Paris, 23-28 August 2010), edited by C. Lefèvre, pp. 203-225. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Emery, Kitty F. 2004a Animals from the Maya Underworld: Reconstructing Elite Maya Ritual at the Cuevas de los Quetzales, Guatemala. In Behavior Behind the Bones: The Zooarchaeology of Ritual, Religion, Status and Identity, edited by S. J. O'Day, W. Van Neer and A. Ercynck, pp. 101-113. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

2004b Maya Zooarchaeology: New Directions in Method and Theory. Costen Institute, Los Angeles.

394

2010 Dietary, Environmental, and Societal Implications of Ancient Maya Animal Use In The Petexbatum: A Zooarchaeological Perspective on the Collapse. Vanderbilt Institute of Mesoamerican Archaeology 5. Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville.

2011 Medicinal Use of Animal Products by the Maya of Guatemala: Implications for Zooarchaeology. Paper presented at the Society of Ethnobiology 2011 Annual Meetings.

2012 The Motul de San José Animals in an Economic Perspective. In Motul de San José: Politics, History, and Economy in a Maya Polity, edited by A. E. Foias and K. F. Emery, pp. 291-235. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Ensor, Bradley E. 2013 Kinship and Social Organization in the Pre-Hispanic Caribbean. In The Oxford Handbook of Caribbean Archaeology, edited by W. F. Keegan, C. L. Hofman and R. Rodríguez. Ramos, pp. 84-96. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

2011 Kinship Ttheory in Archaeology: From Critiques to the Study of Transformations. American Antiquity 76(2):203-227.

Evans, John .G. 2003 Environmental Archaeology and the Social Order. Routledge, London.

Ferdon, E.N. 1993 Early Observations of Marquesan Culture, 1595-1913. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Fernández, Eladio 2007 Photographer's Notes. In Hispaniola: A Photographic Journey through Island Biodiversity, edited by E. Fernández, pp. XVI-XX. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Ferring, C.R. 1984 Intrasite Spatial Patterning: Its Role in Settlement-Subsistene Systems Analysis. In Intrasite Spatial Analysis in Archaeology, edited by H. J. Hietala, pp. 116-126. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Fitzpatrick, Scott M., Michiel Kappers, Quetta P. Kaye, Christina M. Giovas, Michelle J. LeFebvre, Mary Hill Harris, Scott Burnett, Jason Pavia, Kathleen Marsaglia and Jessica Feathers 2009 Pre-Columbian Settlement of Carriacou, West Indies. Journal of Field Archaeology 34:247-266.

395

Freites, Luis, Lerimar Montero, Dwight Arrieche, Jose M.F. Babbaro Jr., P.E. Saucedo and C. Cordovas 2010 Influence of Environmental Factors on the Reproductive Cycle of the Eared Ark Anadara notabilis (Roding, 1798) in Northeastern Venezuela. Journal of Shellfish Research 29(1):69-75.

Garcia-Casco, Antonio, Sebastiaan Knippenberg, Reniel Rodríquez Ramos, George E. Harlow, Corinne L. Hofman, Jose Carlos Pomo and Idael F. Blanco-Quintero 2013 Pre-Columbian Jadeitite Artifacts from the Golden Rock site, St. Eustatius, Lesser Antilles, With Special Reference to Jadeitite Artifacts from Elliot’s, Antigua: Implications for Potential Source Regions and Long-Distance Exchange Networks in the Greater Caribbean. Journal of Archaeological Science 40(8):3153-3169.

Giovas, Christina M. 2009 The Shell Game: Analytic Problems in Archaeological Mollusc Quantification. Journal of Archaeological Science 36:1557-1564.

Giovas, Christina M. 2013 Associated Variability in Changing Human Faunal Exploitation in the West Indies: A Paired Site Comparison of Sabazan and Grand Bay, Carriacou, Grenada. PhD. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle.

Giovas, Christina M., Michelle J. LeFebvre and Scott M. Fitzpatrick 2012 New Records for Prehistoric Introduction of Neotropical Mammals to the West Indies: Evidence from Carriacou, Lesser Antilles. Journal of Biogeography 39(3):476- 487.

Glascock, Michael D. 1992 Characterization of Archaeological Ceramics at MURR by Neutron Activation Analysis and Multivariate Statistics. In Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology, edited by H. Neff, pp. 11-26. Prehistory Press, Madison, WI.

Gobalet, Kenneth W. 2001 A Critique of Faunal Analysis: Inconsistency Among Experts in Blind Tests. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:377-386.

Gordon, E.A. 1993 Screen Size and Differential Faunal Recovery: A Hawaiian example. Journal of Field Archaeology 20(4):453-460.

Grant, Annie 2002 Food, Status and Social Hierarchy. In Consuming Passions and Patterns of Consumption, edited by P. Miracle and N. Milner, pp. 17-23. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge.

396

Grayson, Donald K. 1984 Quantitative Zooarchaeology: Topics in the Analysis of Archaeological Faunas. Academic Press, New York.

Grouard, Sandrine 2003 Pre-Columbian Fishing Strategies in Guadeloupe Archipelago (FWI). In Presence of the Archaeoichthyology in México, edited by A. F. Guzmán, O. J. Polaco and F. J. Aguilar, pp. 53-64.

2010 Caribbean Archaeozoology. In Current Advances in Latin-American Archaeozoology, edited by G. Mengoni Goñalons, J. Arroyo-Cabrales, O. J. Polaco and F. J. Aguilar, pp. 133-150. International Council for Archaeozoology, Buenos Aires.

Gudeman, S. 2001 The Anthropology of Economy. Blackwell Publishing, Malden.

Gumerman, George 1997 Food and Complex Societies. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 4(2):105-139.

Hairr, J. 2011 Caribbean Monk Seals: Lost Seals of the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. Coachwhip Publications, Landisville, Pennsylvania.

Hamilton, A. 1908 Fishing and Sea-Foods of the Ancient Maori. Bulletin No. 2 of the Dominion Museum.

Hastorf, C.A. and M. Weismantel 2007 Food: Where Opposites Meet. In The Archaeology of Food and Identity, edited by K. C. Twiss, pp. 308-331. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Hastorf, Christine A. 2003 Andean Luxury Foods: Special Food for the Ancestors, Deities and the Elite. Antiquity 77:545-554.

Hayden, Brian 2001 Fabulous Feasts: A Prolegomenon to the Importance of Feasting. In Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, edited by B. Hayden and M. Dietler, pp. 23-64. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

2014 The Power of Feasts: From Prehistory to the Present. Cambridge University Press, New York.

397

Hayward, M.H., L.G. Atkinson and M.A. Cinquino (editors) 2009 Rock Art of the Caribbean. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Hayward, Michelle H., Lesley-Gail Atkinson and Michael Cinquino, A. 2013 Rock art of the Caribbean. In The Oxford Handbook of Caribbean Archaeology Edited, by W. F. Keegan, C. L. Hofman and R. Rodríguez Ramos, pp. 486-503. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Hedges, Blair 2001 Biogeography of the West Indies: An Overview. In Biogeography of the West Indies: Patterns and Perspectives, edited by C. A. Woods and F. E. Sergile, pp. 15- 34. CRC Press, Boca Raton.

Hedges, Blair and Charles A. Woods 1993 Caribbean Hotspot. Nature 364:375.

Helander-Revnall, E. 2010 Animisim, Personhood, and the Nature of Reality: Sami Perspectives. Polar Record 46(236):44-56.

Hendon, J.A. 2003 Feasting at Home: Community and House Solidarity among the Maya of Southeastern Mesoamerica. In The Archaeology of Politics of Food and Feasting in Early States and Empires, edited by T. L. Bray, pp. 203-233. Kluwer Academic, New York.

Higuera-Gundy, Antonia, Mark Brenner, David A. Hodell, Jason H. Curtis, Barbara W. Leyden and Michael W. Binford 1999 A 10,300 14C Yr Record of Climate and Vegetation Change from Haiti. Quaternary Research 52:159-170.

Hill, Erica 2011 Animals as Agents: Hunting Ritual and Relational Ontologies in Prehistoric Alaska and Chukotka. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 21(3):407-426.

Hofman, C. L., A. Bright, A. Boomert and S. Knippenberg 2007 Island rhythms. The Web of Social Relationships and Interaction Networks in the Pre‐Columbian Lesser Antilles. Latin American Antiquity 18(3):243‐268.

Hofman, Corinne L. 2013 The Post-Saladoid in the Lesser Antilles. In The Oxford Handbook of Caribbean Archaeology, edited by W. F. Keegan, C. L. Hofman and R. Rodríguez Ramos, pp. 205-220. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

398

Hofman, Corinne L., Alaistair J. Bright, William F. Keegan and Menno L.P. Hoogland 2008 Attractive Ideas, Desirable Goods: Examining the Late Ceramic Age Relationships between Greater and Lesser Antillean Societies. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 3(1):17-34.

James, S.R. 1997 Methodological Issues Concerning Screen Size Recovery Rates and Their Effects on Archaeofaunal Interpretations. Journal of Archaeological Science 24:385- 397.

Jones O'Day, Sharyn 2002 Late Prehistoric Lucayan Occupation and Subsistence on Middle Caicos Island, Northern West Indies. Caribbean Journal of Science 38(1-2):1-10.

Jones, Sharyn 2009 Food and Gender in Fiji: Ethnoarchaeological Explorations. Lexington Books, Plymouth, UK.

2011 Contemporary Subsistence and Foodways in the Lau Islands of Fiji: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Non-Optimal Foraging and Irrational Economics. In EthnoZooarchaeology: The Present and Past of Human-Animal Relationships, edited by U. Albarella and A. Trentacoste, pp. 73-81. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Jordan, Peter 2003 Material Culture and Sacred Landscape: The anthropology of the Siberian Khanty. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, Md.

Kansa, Eric, C., Sarah Whitcher Kansa and Thomas Levy 2006 Eat like an Egyptian? - A Contextual Approach to an Early Bronze I "Egyptian Colony" in the Southern Levant. In Intergrating Zooarchaeology, edited by M. Maltby, pp. 76-91. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Kaye, Quetta P. 2010 Ritual Drug Use, Material Culture and the Social Context of Power among the Indigenous Peoples of the Caribbean Using Ethnographic, Ethnohistoric and Archaeological Data. Ph.D. dissertation, University College London, London.

Keegan, William F. 1992 The People Who Discovered Columbus: The Prehistory of The Bahamas. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

2006a Archaic Influences in the Origins and Development of Taino Societies. Caribbean Journal of Science 42:1-10.

2006b All in the Family: Descent and Succession in the Protohistoric Chiefdoms of the Greater Antilles – A Comment on Curet. Ethnohistory 53(2):383-392.

399

Keegan, W.F., S.M. Fitzpatrick, K. Sullivan Sealy, M.J. LeFebvre and P.T. Sinelli 2008 The Role of Small Islands in Marine Subsistence Strategies: Case Studies from the Caribbean. Human Ecology 36:635-654.

1996 West Indian Archaeology 2: After Columbus. Journal of Archaeological Research 2:265-294.

2004 Islands of Chaos. In Late Ceramic Age Societies in the Eastern Caribbean edited by A. Delpuech and C. L. Hofman, pp. 33-44. Archaeopress, Oxford.

2007 Taino Indian Myth and Practice: The Arrival of the Stranger King. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

2010 Demographic Imperatives for Island Colonists. In The Global Origins and Development of Seafaring, edited by A. Anderson, J. H. Barrett and K. V. Boyle, pp. 171-178. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge.

2013 The “Classic” Taíno. In The Oxford Handbook of Caribbean Archaeology, edited by W. F. Keegan, C. L. Hofman and R. Rodríguez Ramos, pp. 70-83. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Keegan, William F. and Lisbeth A. Carlson 2008 Talking Taíno: Caribbean Natural History from a Native Perspective. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Keegan, William F., Corrine L. Hofman and Reniel Rodríguez Ramos 2013 Introduction. In The Oxford Handbook of Caribbean Archaeology, edited by W. F. Keegan, C. L. Hofman and R. Rodríguez Ramos, pp. 1-18. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Keegan, William F. and Morgan D. Maclachlan 1989 The Evolution of Avunculocal Chiefdoms: A Reconstruction of Taino Kinship and Politics. American Anthropologist 91(3):613-630.

Kintigh, Keith W., Jeffrey H. Altschul, Mary C. Beaudry, Robert D. Drennan, Ann P. Kinzig, Timothy A. Kohler, W. Fredrick Limp, Herbert D.G Maschner, William K. Michener, Timothy R. Pauketat, Peter Peregrine, Jeremy A. Sabloff, Tony J. Wilkinson, Henry T. Wright and Melinda A. Zeder 2014 Grand Challenges for Archaeology. American Antiquity 79(1):5-24.

Kippenberg, Sebastiaan 2006 Stone Artifact Production and Exchange among the Northern Lesser Antilles. Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden University, Leiden.

400

Kirch, Patrick 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. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC.

Kirch, Patrick V. and Sharyn J. O'Day 2003 New Archaeological Insights into Food and Status: A case from pre-contact Hawaii. World Archaeology 34(3):484-497.

Kovacik, J.P. 2000 A Faunal Perspective on the Spatial Structuring of Anasazi Everyday Life in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, U.S.A. . In Animal Bones, Human Societies, edited by P. Rowley-Conwy, pp. 133-141. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Kozuch, Laura 1993 Sharks and Shark Products in Prehistoric South Florida. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Landon, David 2005 Zooarchaeology and Historical Archaeology: Progress and Prospects. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12:1-36.

Las Casas, Fray Bartolome de 1951 Historia de Las Indias. 3 vols. Fondo de Cultura Económica, Mexico City.

1966 Brevísima Relación de las Destrucción de Las Indias. Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires.

1967 Apologetica Historia Sumaria. 3 vols. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas, Mexico City.

Latta, Steven C. and Christopher C. Rimmer 2007 Biodiversity of birds in Hispaniola. In Hispaniola: A Photographic Journey through Island Biodiversity, edited by E. Fernández, pp. 2-7.

Lauwerier, Roel C.G.M. 2004 The Economic and Non-Economic Animal: Roman Depositions and Offerings. In Behavior Behind the Bones: The Zooarchaeology of Ritual, Religion, Status and Identity, edited by S. J. O'Day, W. Van Neer and A. Ercynck, pp. 66-72. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

LeFebvre, M.J. 2007 Zooarchaeological Analysis of Prehistoric Vertebrate Exploitation at the Grand Bay Site, Carriacou, West Indies. Coral Reefs 26(4):931-944.

401

LeFebvre, Michelle J. and Susan D. DeFrance 2014 Guinea Pigs in the Pre-Columbian West Indies. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 9(1):16-44.

Lev-Tov, Justin and Kevin McGeough 2007 Examining Feasting in Late Bronze Age Syro-Palestine Through Ancient Texts and Bones. In The Archaeology of Food and Identity, edited by K. C. Twiss, pp. 85- 111. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Lightfoot, K.G., A. Martinez and A.M. Schiff 1998a Daily Practice and Material Culture in Pluralistic Social Settings: An Archaeological Study of Culture Change and Persistence from Fort Ross, California. American Antiquity 63(2):199-222.

Lovén, Sven 2010 [1875] Origins of the Tainan Culture, West Indies. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Lyman, R. Lee 1994a Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

2012 The Influence of Screen Mesh Size, and Size and Shape of Rodent Teeth on Recovery. Journal of Archaeological Science 39:1854-1861.

Lyman, R. Lee 1994b Quantitative Units and Terminology in Zooarchaeology. American Antiquity 59(1):36-71.

Lyman, R.L. and T.L. VanPool 2009 Metric Data in Archaeology: A Study of Intra-Analyst and Inter-Analyst Variation. American Antiquity 74(3):485-504.

MacArthur, Robert H. and Edward O. Wilson 1967 The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Martyr D'Anghera, Peter 1970 De Orbe Novo: The Eight Decades of Peter Martyr D'Anghera. Translated by F. A. MacNutt. Burt Franklin, New York.

Matsumoto, Yuichi 2012 Recognizing Ritual: the Case of Campanayuq Rumi. Antiquity 86:746-759.

402

Mayewski, Paul A., Eelco E. Rohling, J. Curt Stager, Wibjörn Karlén, Kirk A. Maasch, L. David Meeker, Eric A. Meyerson, Francoise Gasse, Shirley van Kreveld, Karin Holmgren, Julia Lee-Thorp, Gunhild Rosqvist, Frank Rack, Michael Staubwasser, Ralph R. Schneider and Eric J. Steig 2004 Holocene climate variability. Quaternary Research 62:243-255.

McClellan II, James E. 2006 Gardens and Forests in Colonial Saint Domingue. In Island, Forests and Gardens in the Caribbean, edited by R. S. Anderson, R. Grove and K. Hiebert, pp. 65-86. Macmillan-Caribbean, Oxford.

McDonald, John H. 2014 Handbook of Biological Statistics. 3rd ed. Sparky House Publishing, Baltimore, Maryland.

McNiven, Ian J. 2013 Ritualized Midden Practices. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 20:552-587.

Mejía, Milciades and Ricardo Garcia 2007 The Flora and Vegetation of Hispaniola. In Hispaniola: A Photographic Journey through Island Biodiversity, edited by E. Fernández, pp. 30-33. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Ménanteau, L. and J.R. Vanney 1997 Atlas Cotier du Nord-Est d=Haiti. Environnement et Patrimoine Culturel de la Région de Fort-Liberté: Editorial Project Route 2004. Ministere de la Culture/PNUD, Port au Prince and Nantes, France.

Miller, George S., Jr. 1929 Mammals Eaten by Indians, Owls, and Spaniards in the Coastal Region of the Dominican Republic. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 82(5):1-16.

Milner, N. and P. Miracle 2002 Consuming Passions and Patterns of Consumption. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge.

Mol, Angus A. A. 2013 Studying Pre-Columbian Interaction Networks: Mobility and Exchange. In The Oxford Handbook of Caribbean Archaeology, edited by W. F. Keegan, C. L. Hofman and R. Rodríguez Ramos, pp. 329-346. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Morsink, Joost 2012 The Power of Salt: A Holistic Approach to Salt in the Prehistoric Circum- Caribbean Region. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville.

403

Moscoso, F. 1986 Tribu y Clase en el Caribe Antiguo. Universidad Central del Este, Dominican Republic.

Mouëza, M., O. Gros and L. Frenkiel 1999 Embryonic, Larval, and Post Larval Developments of the Tropical Surfclam, Anomalocardia brasiliana (Bivalvia, Verneridae). Journal of Molluscan Studies 65:73- 88.

Nadasdy, Paul 2007 The Gift in the Animal: The Ontology of Human and Human-Animal Sociality. American Ethnologist 43(1):25-43.

Navarrete, Martin Fernandez, ed. 1825-37 Colleción de los Visgaes y Descubrimientos que Hicieron por Mar Los Espanoles Desde Fines del Diglo XV. Five vols., Madrid.

Neff, Hector 1994 RQ-Mode Principal Components Analysis of Ceramic Compositional Data. Archaeometry 36:115-130.

Newsom, Lee A. 1993 Plants and People: Cultural, Biological, and Ecological Responses to Wood Exploitation. In Foraging and Farming in the Eastern Woodlands edited by C. M. Scarry, pp. 115-137. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Newsom, Lee A. and Deborah Pearsall 2003 Temporal and Spatial Trends Indicated by a Survey of Archaic- and Ceramic- Age Archaeobotanical Data from the Caribbean Islands. In People and Plants in Ancient Eastern North American, edited by P. Minnis, pp. 347-412. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Newsom, Lee A. and Elizabeth S. Wing 2004 On Land and Sea: Native American Uses of Biological Resources in the West Indies. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Newsom, Lee A. and Kathleen A. Deagan 1994 Zea Mays in the West Indies: The Archaeological and Early Historic Record. In Corn and Culture in the Prehistoric New World, edited by S. Johannessen and C. A. Hastorf, pp. 203-217. Westview Press, Boulder.

O'Day, Sharyn J. 2002 Excavations at the Kipapa Rockshelter, Kahikinui, Maui, Hawaii. Asian Perspectives 40(20):279-304.

404

2004 Past and Present Perspectives on Secular Ritual: Food and the Fsherwomen of the Lau islands, Fiji. In Behavior Behind the Bones: The Zooarchaeology of Ritual, Religion, Status and Identity, edited by S. J. O'Day, W. Van Neer and A. Ervynck, pp. 153-161. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

O'Day, SharynJ. and William F. Keegan 2001 Expedient Shell Tools from the Northern West Indies. Latin American Antiquity 12(3):247-290.

Olazagasti, Ignacio 1997 The Material Culture of the Taino Indians. In The Indigenous People of the Caribbean, edited by S. M. Wilson, pp. 131-139. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Oliver, Jose R. 2005 The Proto-Taíno Monumental Cemís of Caguana: A Political-Religious Manifesto. In Ancient Borinquen: The prehistory of Puerto Rico, edited by P. Siegel, pp. 230-284. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

2009 Caciques and Cemí Idols: The Web Spun by Taíno Rulers Between Hispaniola and Puerto Rico. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Oliver, Jose.R. and Yvonne Narganes Storde 2005 The Zooarchaeological Remains from Juan Miguel Cave and Finca de Dona Rosa, Barri Caguana, Puerto Rico. In Proceedings of the International Congress of Caribbean Archaeology, edited by M. G. Tavares and M. Garcia Arevalo, pp. 228- 242. International Association for Caribbean Archaeology.

Oviedo y Valdes, Gonzalo Fernandez 1959 Historia General y Natural de Las Indias. 5 vols. Biblioteca de Autores Espanoles, vols. 117-21. Graficas Orbes, Madrid.

Pagán-Jiménez, Jamie R. 2013 Human-Plant Dynamics in the Precolonial Antilles: A Synthetic Update. In The Oxford Handbook of Caribbean Archaeology, edited by W. F. Keegan, C. L. Hofman and R. Rodríguez Ramos, pp. 391-406. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Palmiotto, A. 2011 A Zooarchaeological Synthesis of South Carolina’s Prehistoric Coastal Sites. Southeastern Archaeology 30(1):166-175.

Pane, Ramon 1974 Relacion Acerca de Las Antiguedades de Los Indios. Universidad de Mexico, Mexico City.

405

Pauketat, Timothy R. , Lucretia S. Kelly, Gayle J. Fritz, Neal H. Lopinot, Scott Elias and Eve Hargrave 2002 The Residues of Feasting and Public Ritual at Early Cahokia. American Antiquity 67(2):257-279.

Pestle, W.J., A. Simonetti and L.A. Curet 2013 87Sr/86Sr variability in Puerto Rico: Geological Complexity and the Study of Paleomobility. Journal of Archaeological Science 40:2561-2569.

Petersen, J.B., C.L. Hofman and L.A. Curet 2004 Time and Culture: Chronology and Taxonomy in the Eastern Caribbean and the Guianas. In Late Ceramic Age Societies in the Eastern Caribbean, edited by A. Delpuech and C. L. Hofman, pp. 17-31. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Pigiere, Fabienne, Ides Boone, Mircea Udresca, Wim Van Neer and Sofie Vanpoucke 2004 Status as Reflected in Food Refuse of Late Medieval Noble and Urban Households at Namur (Belgium). In Behavior Behind the Bones: The Zooarchaeology of Ritual, Religion, Status, and Identity, edited by S. Jones O'Day, W. Van Neer and A. Ervynck, pp. 233-243. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Preacher, Kristopher J. 2014 Calculations for Chi-Square Test: An Interactive Calculation Tool for Chi-Square Tests of Goodness of Fit and Independence, http://quatpsy.org.

Price, T.D. and G.M. Feinman 2010 Social Inequality and the Evolution of Human Social Organization. In Pathways to Power: Archaeological Perspectives on Inequality, edited by T. D. Price and G. M. Feinman, pp. 1-14. New York, Springer.

Pruna Goodgall, Pedro M. 2012 A Historical Survey of Reserach on Land Mammals in the Greater Antilles. In Terrestrial Mammals of the West Indies: Contributions, edited by R. Borroto-Páez, C. A. Woods and F. E. Sergile, pp. 3-10. The Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville.

Quitmyer, I. R. 2003 Zooarchaeology of Cinnamon Bay, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands: Pre-Columbian Overexploitation of Animal Resources. Bulletin of the Florida Museum of Natural History 44(1):131-158.

Quitmyer, I.R. 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.

406

Quitmyer, Irvy R. and Elizabeth S. Wing 2001 The Lujan Site: A Record of Native American Animal Use and Vieques Island, Puerto Rico. Report on file, Environmental Archaeology, Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville.

Reitz, Elizabeth J. and Elizabeth S. Wing 2008 Zooarchaeology. 2nd Edition ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Rivera, Virgina and Miguel Rodríguez 1991 The Playa Blanca 5 site: A Late Prehistoric Ceramic Site in Eastern Puerto Rico (A Preliminary Report). In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Congress for Archaeology, edited by E. N. Ayubi and J. B. Haviser, pp. 541-558. Reports of the Archaeological-Anthropological Institute of the Netherlands Antilles, No. 9, Curacao.

Rodríguez Ramos, Reniel 2010 Rethinking Puerto Rican Precolonial History. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

2011 Close Encounters of the Caribbean Kind. In Islands at the crossroads: Migration, Seafaring, and Interaction in the Caribbean, edited by L. A. Curet and M. W. Hauser, pp. 164-192. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Rosenswig, Robert M. 2007 Beyond Identifying Elites: Feasting as a Means to Understand Early Middle Formative Society on the Pacific Coast of Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26:1-27.

Rossel, Stine 2004 Food for the Dead, the Priest, and the Mayor: Looking for Status and Identity in the Middle Kingdom Settlement of South Abydos, Egypt. In Behavior Behind the Bones: The Zooarchaeology of Ritual, Religion, Status, and Identity, edited by S. Jones O'Day, W. Van Neer and A. Ervynck, pp. 198-202. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Rouse, Irving 1992 The Tainos: Rise and Decline of the People Who Greeted Columbus. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Russell, Nerissa 2012 Social Zooarchaeology: Humans and Animals in Prehistory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Russell, Nerissa and A. Bogaard 2010 Subsistence at Ҫatalhӧyük. In Agency and Identities in the Ancient Near East: New Paths Forward, edited by J. C. Ross and S. R. Steadman, pp. 63-79. Equinox Publishing, Sheffield.

407

Samson, Alice V.M. 2010 Renewing the House: Trajectories of Social Life in the Yucayeque (community) of El Cabo, Higüey, Dominican Republic, AD 800-1504. Sidestone Press, Leiden.

2013 Household Archaeology in the Pre-Columbian Caribbean. In The Oxford Handbook of Caribbean Archaeology, edited by W. F. Keegan, C. L. Hofman and R. Rodríguez Ramos, pp. 363-377. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Schaffer, B.S. and J.L.L. Sanchez 1994 Comparison of 1/8”- and ¼”- Mesh Recovery of Controlled Samples of Small-to- Medium-Sized Mammals. American Antiquity 59(3):525-530.

Schaffer, W.C., R.S. Carr, J.S. Day and M.P. Pateman 2012 Lucayan-Taino Burials from Preacher's Cave, Eleuthera, Bahamas. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 22:45-69.

Sergile, Florence E. and Charles A. Woods 2001 Status of Conservation in Haiti: A 10-Year Retrospective. In Biogeography of the West Indies: Patterns and Perspectives, edited by C. A. Woods and F. E. Sergile, pp. 547-560. CRC Press, Boca Raton.

Serrand, Nathalie 1999 Strombus gigas: Parts and Their Utilization for Artefacts Manufacture: A Case Study from the Tanki Flip Site, Aruba. In Proceedings of the XVI International Congress for Caribbean Archaeology, edited by R. Gerard, pp. 229-240, Basse- Terre, Guadeloupe.

2002 Exploitation des Iinvertébrés Marins et Terrestres par Les Populations Saladoïdes et Post-Saladoïdes du Nord des Petites Antilles (~500 B.C.-12 A.D.),Ph. D. dissertation, Universite Paris I - Pantheon Sorbonne, Paris.

Serrand, Nathalie and Dominique Bonnissent 2005 Pre-Colombian Preceramic Shellfish Consumption and Shell Tool Production: Shell Remains from Orient Bay, Saint-Martin, Northern Lesser Antilles. In Archaeomalacology: Molluscs in Former Environments of Human Behavior, edited by D. E. Bar-Yosef Mayer, pp. 29-39. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Siegel, Peter E. 2005 Multiple Visions of an Island's Past and Some Thoughts for Future Directions in Puerto Rican Prehistory. In Ancient Borinquen: Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Native Puerto Rico, edited by P. E. Siegel, pp. 353-364. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Steadman, D.W. and O.M. Takano 2013 A Late-Holocene Bird Community from Hispaniola: Refining the Chronology of Vertebrate Extinction in the West Indies. The Holocene 23(7):936-944.

408

Steadman, David W. and Sharyn Jones 2006 Long-Term Trends in Prehistoric Fishing and Hunting on Tobago, West Indies. Latin American Antiquity 17(3):316-334.

Steadman, David W., David R. Watters, Elizabeth J. Reitz and Gregory K. Pregill 1984 Vertebrates from Archaeological Sites on Montserrat. West Indies Annals of Carnegie Museum 53:1-29.

Steppan, Karlheinz 2012 Distinct from the Everyday and Beyond Counting Calories: Animal Bones from “Ritual Spaces” in Late Neolithic Settlements at Lake Constance and in Upper Suebia. In The Ritual Killing and Burial of Animals: European Perspectives, edited by A. Pluskowski, pp. 100-114. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Sutton, D.E. 2001 Remembrance of Repasts: An Anthropology of Food and Memory. Berg, Oxford.

Taylor, Walter W. 1948 A Study of Archaeology. Reprint. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.

Titcomb, M. 1972 Native Use of Fish in Hawaii. The University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu.

Torres, Joshua M. 2013 Rethinking chiefdoms in the Caribbean. In The Oxford Handbook of Caribbean Archaeology, edited by W. F. Keegan, C. L. Hofman and R. Rodríguez Ramos, pp. 347-362. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Twiss, Katheryn .C. 2007 The Archaeology of Food and Identity. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 34. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

2008 Transformations in an Early Agricultural Society: Feasting in the Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27:418-442.

2012 The Archaeology of Food and Social Status. Journal of Archaeological Research 20:357-395.

Twiss, Katheryn C., Amy Bogaard, M. Charles, J. Henecke, N. Russell, L. Martin and G Jones 2009 Plants and Animals Together: Interpreting Organic Remains from Building 52 at Ҫatalhӧyük. Current Anthropology 50(6):885-895.

409

Van Neer, Wim and Anton Ercynck 2004 Remains of Traded Fish in Archaeological Sites: Indicators of Status, or Bulk food? In Behavior Behind the Bones: The Archaeology of Ritual, Religion, Status and Identity, edited by S. J. O'Day, W. Van Neer and A. Ercynck, pp. 203-214. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

VanDerwarker, Amber M. 2010 Simple Measures for Integrating Plant and Animal Remains. In Integrating Zooarchaeology and Paleoethnobotany: A Consideration of Issues, Methods, and Cases, edited by A. M. VanDerwarker and T. M. Peres, pp. 65-74. Springer, New York.

VanDerwarker, Amber M., C.Margaret Scarry and James M. Eastman 2007 Menus for Families and Feasts: Household and Community Consumption of Plants at Upper Saratown, North Carolina. In The Archaeology of Food and Identity Edited, by K. C. Twiss, pp. 16-49. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Wade, B.A. 1968 Studies on the Biology of the West Indian Beach Clam, Donax denticulatus Linne. 2. Life-History. Bulletin of Marine Science 18(4):876-901.

Wake, Thomas A. 2004 On the Paramount Importance of Adequate Comparative Collections and Recovery Techniques in the Identification and Interpretation of Vertebrate Archaeofaunas: A Reply to Vale and Garret (2002). Archaeofauna 13:173-182.

Wallis, Neill J. 2011 The Swift Creek Gift: Vessel Exchange on the Atlantic Coast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Widmer, Randolph J. 1994 The Structure of Southeastern Chiefdoms. In The Forgotten Centuries: Indians and Europeans in the American South, 1521-1704, edited by C. Hudson and C. C. Tesser, pp. 125-155. The University of Georgia Press, Athens and London.

Williams, Maurice W. 1984 Preliminary Report on the 1983 Field Season at En Bas Saline, Haiti. On file, Historical Archaeology, Florida Museum of Natural History.

Wilson, Bob 1996 Spatial Patterning among Animal Bones in Settlement Archaeology: An English Regional Exploration. BAR British Series 251. Tempvs Reparatvm, Oxford.

410

Wilson, Samuel M. 1990 Hispaniola: Caribbean Chiefdoms in the Age of Columbus. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Wing, Elizabeth S. 2008 Pets and Camp Followers in the West Indies. In Case Studies in Environmental Archaeology, edited by E. Reitz, C. M. Scarry and S. J. Scudder, pp. 405-425. Second ed. Springer, New York.

2012 Zooarchaeology of West Indian Land Mammals. In Terrestrial Mammals of the West Indies: Contributions, edited by R. Borroto-Páez, C. A. Woods and F. E. Sergile, pp. 341-356. Wacahoota Press, Micanopy.

Wing, Elizabeth S. 1969 Vertebrate Remains Excavated from San Salvador Island, Bahamas. Caribbean Journal of Science 9(1-2):25-29.

1991 Fauna and Food at En Bas Saline. Caribbean Archaeology, Florida Museum of Natural History.

2001a Native American Use of Animals in the Caribbean. In Biogeography of the West Indies: Pattern and Perspectives,í edited by C. A. Woods and F. E. Sergile, pp. 481-518. CRC Press, Boca Raton.

2001b The Sustainability of Resources Used by Native Americans on Four Caribbean Islands. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 11:112-126.

Wing, Elizabeth S. and Antoinette Brown 1979 Paleonutrition: Method and Theory in Prehistoric Foodways. Academic Press, New York.

Wing, Elizabeth S. and Elizabeth J. Reitz 1982 Prehistoric Fishing Communities of the Caribbean. Journal of New World Archaeology 5(2):13-32.

Wing, Elizabeth S. and Steven R. Wing 1995 Prehistoric Ceramic Age Adaption to Varying Diversity of Animal Resources Along the West Indian Archipelago. Journal of Ethnobiology 15(1):119-148.

Wing, Elizabeth S., JR. Hoffman, Charles, A. and Clayton E. Ray 1968 Vertebrate Remains from Indian Sites on Antigua, West Indies. Caribbean Journal of Science 8(3-4):123-139.

Wolverton, S., J. Dombrosky and R.L. Lyman 2014 Practical Significance: Ordinal Scale Data and Effect Size in Zooarchaeology. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 24(5).

411

Wolverton, Steven 2013 Data Quality in Zooarchaeological Faunal Identification. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 20:381-396.

Woods, Charles A. and Jose A. Ottenwalder 2007 The mammals of Hispaniola: Paleobiology, Biodiversity, and Conservation. In Hispaniola: A Photographic Journal through Island Biodiversity, edited by E. Fernández, pp. 8-17. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Zohar, Irit and Miriam Belmaker 2005 Size Does Matter: Methodological Comments on Sieve Size and Species Richness in Fishbone Assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:635-641.

412

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Michelle LeFebvre earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in anthropology from the

University of Kentucky, Lexington. As a graduate student in the Department of

Anthropology at the University of Florida she received a master’s degree in 2005. Her master’s research and associate field work on Carriacou, Lesser Antilles, was funded in part through the 2005 Society for American Archaeology Dienje Kenyon Fellowship and the A. Curtis Wilgus Fellowship from the University of Florida Center for Latin American

Studies. Michelle was the recipient of the University of Florida Ruegamer Fellowship for

Anthropology from 2006-2007.

After meeting with Kathy Deagan in Pensacola, Florida in 2009, Michelle began her dissertation research with the En Bas Saline faunal assemblage in 2010. The same year she was the recipient of the Ripley P. Bullen Award (Florida Museum of Natural

History), and from 2011-2012 she was awarded the Lockwood Scholarship Fellowship

(Florida Museum of Natural History). At the conclusion of her graduate career at the

University of Florida, she was awarded the Charles H. Fairbanks Award from the

Department of Anthropology.

413