Fauna from the Lagartero Basurero, Chiapas, Mexico Kristin L

Home , Brush mouse, Fulvous harvest mouse, Lesser roadrunner, Mexican deer mouse, Orthogeomys, Sinaloan mastiff bat

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2005 Identifying Social Drama in the Maya Region; Fauna from the Lagartero Basurero, Chiapas, Mexico Kristin L. Koželsky

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

IDENTIFYING SOCIAL DRAMA IN THE MAYA REGION; FAUNA FROM THE LAGARTERO BASURERO, CHIAPAS, MEXICO

KRISTIN L. KOŽELSKY

A Thesis submitted to the Department of Anthropology In partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Masters of Arts

Degree Awarded: Spring Semester, 2005

The members of the Committee approve the thesis of Kristin Koželsky defended on March 16, 2005.

______Mary E. D. Pohl Professor Directing Thesis

______Rochelle Marrinan Committee Member

______William A. Parkinson Committee Member

______Kitty Emery Committee Member

Approved:

______Dean Falk, Chair, Department of Anthropology

The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to offer gratitude to Dr. Mary Pohl, who made this thesis possible and provided thoughtful critique and support throughout this research and my studies at Florida State University. I would also like to extend special thanks to Dr. Rochelle Marrinan and Dr. William Parkinson whose critique and intellectual rigor have shaped my approach to archaeology. I would like to acknowledge Dr. Kitty Emery of the Florida Museum of Natural History, whose work has been influential for me; I appreciate her willingness to be a part of this thesis and the opportunity she has given me to work with the zooarchaeological collections at the Museum. Dr. Kathryn Josserand has generously devoted endless hours to private Spanish instruction with me and provided me with a basic skill required for research in this region. Conversations with Dr. Joseph Hellweg and my colleague Daniel Sosna have substantially shaped this thesis; I am grateful for their perspectives, encouragement, and passions for anthropology. I owe deep gratitude to my fellow graduate students, friends, and family for their continued support, especially to Dr. Mara Koželsky, a fountain of advice and inspiration to her younger sister.

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...... vi LIST OF FIGURES ...... v ABSTRACT ...... x

1 PROBLEM ORIENTATION ...... 1

Fauna from Lagartero ...... 2 Deposit Interpretation ...... 2 Summary ...... 6

2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SETTING ...... 7

Western Maya Region ...... 7 Lagartero ...... 10 Comparative Assemblages ...... 18 Summary ...... 25

3 METHODOLOGY...... 27

Identification of the Lagartero Fauna ...... 27 Comparative Assemblages ...... 31 Feasting ...... 31 Social Drama ...... 32 Summary ...... 34

4 DATA PRESENTATION ...... 35

Lagartero Fauna ...... 35 Comparative Assemblages ...... 69 Feasting ...... 76 Summary ...... 77

5 INTERPRETATION ...... 79

Lagartero Assemblage ...... 79 Social Drama ...... 85 Summary ...... 91

6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 93

APPENDIX A Supplemental Ecological Information ...... 97

APPENDIX B. Lagartero Species Sheet ...... 107

APPENDIX C. Lagartero Fauna ...... 109

REFERENCES ...... 142

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 153

v LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1: Chronology in the Maya Region ...... 8

Table 2-2: A Summary of Samples Included in this Study ...... 19

Table 4-1: Distribution by Class ...... 35

Table 4-2: Vertical Distribution of Modified Elements ...... 37

Summary of Identifiable Remains from the Lagartero Basurero Table 4-3: Ranked by NISP ...... 40

Table 4-4: Summary of Mammal Remains ...... 42

Table 4-5: Vertical Distribution of Canid Fragments ...... 43

Table 4-6: Vertical Distribution of Cervid Fragments ...... 47

Table 4-7: Cervid Age Range from Dentition ...... 48

Table 4-8: Vertical Distribution of Rabbit Fragments ...... 52

Table 4-9: Summary of all Avian Remains ...... 52

Table 4-10: Summary of all Reptile Remains ...... 62

Table 4-11: Amphibian Remains ...... 62

Table 4-12: Summary of MNI of Lagartero and the Composite Assemblages . . . 70

Table 4-13: Primary Taxa for Comparative Assemblages and Lagartero . . . . . 71

Table 4-14: Comparative Calculations ...... 71

vi LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1: Map of the Maya Region ...... 9

Figure 2-2: Mound at Lagartero ...... 10

Figure 2-3: Lake in Lagartero Tributary System ...... 11

Figure 2-4: Lagartero Site Plan ...... 11

Figure 2-5: Limonal Group with Basurero Indicated by Black Arrow ...... 12

Figure 2-6: Excavation Units of the Basurero ...... 13

Figure 2-7: Cacao Vessel from Lagartero ...... 14

Figure 2-8: Section of Polychrome Vessel from Lagartero with Chuen-like Pseudo- glyph Around Rim ...... 14

Figure 2-9: A Comparison of the Chuen Glyph and the Pseudoglyph from Lagartero ...... 15

Figure 2-10: Reconstruction of Plate from Lagartero ...... 15

Figure 2-11: Reconstruction of Polychrome Vessel with Dog Effigy Head from Lagartero ...... 16

Figure 2-12: Elite Female Figures from Lagartero Portrayed in Elaborate Textiles . . 16

Figure 4-1: Vertical Distribution of Fragments ...... 36

Figure 4-2: Horizontal Distribution of Fragments ...... 36

Figure 4-3: Modified Elements ...... 38

Figure 4-4: NISP and MNI of Diagnostic Specimens ...... 41

Figure 4-5: NISP, Mass, and Biomass Calculations ...... 41

Figure 4-6: Horizontal Distribution of Canid Fragments ...... 43

vii Figure 4-7: Distribution of Canid Fragments ...... 44

Figure 4-8: Distribution of Canid Elements by Side ...... 45

Figure 4-9: Dog Figurine from the Lagartero Basurero ...... 46

Figure 4-10: Late Classic Figurine from Altar de Sacraficios of a Woman Holding a Cup and a Dog ...... 46

Figure 4-11: Horizontal Distribution of Cervid Elements ...... 47

Figure 4-12: Distribution of Cervid Elements ...... 48

Figure 4-13: Distribution of Cervid Elements by Side ...... 49

Figure 4-14: Deer and Woman on Polychrome Bowl ...... 50

Figure 4-15: Deer on Vessel from Actun Balam ...... 50

Figure 4-16: Horizontal Distribution of Rabbit Fragments ...... 52

Figure 4-17: Moon Goddess with Rabbit ...... 53

Figure 4-18 The Rabbit as a Scribe ...... 53

Figure 4-19: Jaguar, Composite Animal, and Monkey with Deer Elements Journeying Through the Underworld with Drinking Vessel ...... 54

Figure 4-20: A Procession of Dancing Animals: Armadillo, Rabbit, Deer, Jaguar, Puma (?), Paca (?), and Opossum or Coatimundi ...... 55

Figure 4-21: Bird and Coatimundi Pendants from Lagartero ...... 56

Figure 4-22: Bird on Polychrome Vessel ...... 61

Figure 4-23: A Snake Coiled Around a Deer ...... 63

Figure 4-24: Maize God Emerging from Turtle as Earth ...... 64

Figure 4-25: Pacal's Sarcophagus Lid Picturing Pacal with Turtle Pendant ...... 65

viii Figure 4-26: Stone Turtle Found on Altar or Bench in Structure 5 at Caye Coco . . . 66

Figure 4-27: Toad (Bufo marinus) Portrayed on Vessel ...... 67

ix ABSTRACT

The primary goals of this study were to present a complete analysis of the faunal material recovered from an unusual deposit at Lagartero in Chiapas, Mexico, and to introduce an alternative approach to the interpretation of ambiguous archaeological deposits by applying Turner’s (1986) concept of social drama integrated with Wiessner’s (2001) ethnoarchaeological study of Enga feasting to material recovered archaeologically. This study also presents eight contemporaneous faunal assemblages, providing a picture of faunal usage during the Late and Terminal Classic Periods. Despite the fact that many details of the event that led to the creation of the basurero remain unclear, some general hypotheses can be made. It is plausible that the unique deposit was the result of a single or brief series of public events that took place during the Terminal Classic period, included feasting, emphasized an unusual combination of animals (dog, deer, and rabbit), was possibly related to the role of women or the Moon Goddess, and might have functioned to assert or reaffirm the status of Lagartero at the regional level.

x CHAPTER 1 PROBLEM ORIENTATION

The Late and Terminal Classic Maya site of Lagartero in Chiapas, Mexico, is located at a crossroads between the Highland and Lowland Maya regions, Central Mexico, and the Pacific coast. Lagartero appears to have been a significant ceremonial center and locus of high-quality cotton textile production that enjoyed trade relations within the region. The site is oriented towards water; it is situated on a series of islands and peninsulas in the Grijalva river basin in the southwest Maya region (Ekholm 1979: 185). Excavations led by Susanna Ekholm (1990, 1985, 1984, 1979, 1976; Gurr-Matheny 1990, 1988) and more recently Sonia Rivero Torres (1997) have focused on the ceremonial center where an unusual basurero (lit. ‘refuse dump’) was found (Ekholm 1990, 1985, 1984, 1979, 1976). This study presents an analysis of the faunal material from the basurero and investigates the hypothesis that the basurero was formed as the result of a large-scale feasting event or series of events. Activities associated with this event may have been focused on women and Ixchel, Maya goddess of the moon, fertility, childbirth, and weaving. This thesis also presents an interpretation of the deposit based on Turner’s (1986) concept of social drama, a public event that allows social roles and relationships to be negotiated and reveals the embedded values of the group through symbols and actions. The Lagartero basurero was a very large Terminal Classic period deposit located adjacent to the largest mound in the ceremonial center of the site and included a variety of artifacts, such as plain and polychrome ceramics, figurines, ceramic pendants, faunal and human bone, shell ornaments, musical instruments, weaving implements, and stone tools. The majority of artifacts appear to have been locally made in a unique Lagartero style that reflects the crossroads nature of the site. The basurero is anomalous; there are no records of other deposits of this size and composition at other sites in the Maya world. Although Ekholm (1990) compares this deposit with a number of deposits, the Lagartero basurero does not

1 resemble these deposits closely. The ceremonial nature of the basurero, including its orientation to the female principle, was elucidated through a comparison with seven contemporaneous faunal samples from site center, palace, immediate outskirts residential, immediate outskirts workshop, cave, and cenote contexts. The analyses show that the Lagartero faunal assemblage most closely resembles the Chichen Itzá cenote assemblage. In addition, the high proportion of consumable animals with special significance in Maya ideology and ceramics present in the deposit indicate that feasting took place. To interpret the anomalous basurero, this study also presents a model of the archaeological representation of social drama (Turner 1986; Wiessner 2001) and tests the Lagartero basurero against it. The deposit reflects the aspects of social drama outlined in this study and might have been the result of public action that emphasized dogs, women, weaving, or the Moon Goddess and could have functioned to address the identity of Lagartero at the regional level. Fauna from Lagartero The Lagartero basurero yielded approximately four thousand fragments of faunal material including a variety of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians. The assemblage was highly diverse, contained animals of all ages, and showed some evidence of feasting, such as burned areas and cutmarks on bones (Ekholm 1976, 1984). Canids (dogs and their immediate relatives), deer, and rabbits comprised the focus animals, an unusual combination for the Maya region. Canid representation was exceptionally high; nearly half of the identifiable fragments (683 of 1394). A variety of secondary animals was also included, such as peccary, fish, felid, and amphibians, that resulted in high taxonomic richness. This strong preference for canids is rare but has been noted at Preclassic Cuello (Clutton- Brock and Hammond 1994), Late Classic Actun Polbilche (Pendergast 1974), and in the probable Terminal Classic – Early Postclassic deposit in the Cenote at Chichen Itzá (M. Hopkins 1992). It is unclear why canids were favored at Lagartero, but hypotheses include social or environmental pressures that encouraged people to use more sustainable taxa

2 (Emery 2003a) or that the event focused on dogs or other elements of cosmology associated with dogs (e.g., women in the Muluc year ceremony in Landa 1978 [1566]; White et al. 2001; 2004). Deposit Interpretation The Lagartero assemblage was compared with other Late to Terminal Classic period faunal assemblages of known context in order to determine the character and significance of the deposit. The comparative samples were selected either because they are from the western Maya region, as is Lagartero, or because they represent different kinds of cultural contexts. The comparative samples include Aguateca (site center), Seibal (site center), Piedras Negras (palace and immediate outskirts residential), Dos Pilas (immediate outskirts workshop), Cueva del Duende (cave), Cueva de Río de Murcielago (cave), and Chichen Itzá (cenote). The Lagartero assemblage is most similar to the sample from the cenote context, which suggests that the basurero can be considered a special context. Nevertheless, the Lagartero assemblage is truly unique. Since this deposit is highly anomalous, it is tempting to classify the Lagartero basurero as the result of “ritual” activities (i.e., actions that incorporate spiritual beliefs or belong to the superstructure, as opposed to domestic or secular activities that are functional or belong to the structure [sensu Harris 1971]). Before arguing that this deposit is the result of ritual or ceremonial behavior, however, it must be established that it was not a midden or the result of plaza cleaning. Although the basurero shares some characteristics with these types of deposits, the size, composition, and rapid deposition suggest that it was the result of a single or brief series of public ceremonial events. A survey of contemporary literature that discusses ritual and public action in the Maya region focuses on the major forms of rituals and their functions (e.g., Emery 2002; LeCount 2001). These authors refer to the differences in between public and private rituals as well as inclusionary and exclusionary rituals. As expressed above, the size and composition of the Lagartero basurero suggest that it was the result of public, inclusionary, ritual actions.

3 Rappaport (1999; 1979; 1976) defines ritual as a performance of specific actions that express a construction of meaning and simultaneously create and reproduce that construction. Consequently, the ritual itself is simultaneously performed and created. This definition and the ideas presented by Emery (2002), LeCount (2001) and others compliment Turner’s (1986: 90-94) discussion of social drama. He defines social drama as a public, inclusionary event that employs various forms of communication (“cultural media”), blended into a single event separated from quotidian life that conveys a specific message. During its performance, symbols and actions communicate a message, reflect essential values of society, and reveal the embedded aspects of reality. Individuals understand the expectations associated with their status and the status of others through participation in social drama (Turner 1986: 81) and enact certain behaviors that align themselves with a particular status. Only by ‘performing’ social roles do the scripts (i.e., expected or prescribed behavior) become reality (Butler 1990: 277). There is also room for individual manipulation within social drama that allows rules to be bent and changes to occur in some social conventions, which result in the modification of the scripts that determine social roles (Turner 1986: 44). In order to address the archaeological correlates of social drama, this thesis incorporates an ethnoarchaeological study by Polly Wiessner (2001). Ekholm (1990: 456-460) suggested that the Lagartero basurero deposit may have been the result of a New Year event similar to the Aztec New Fire Ceremony, the year renewal

events described by Bishop Landa during the 16th century, or New Year celebrations held by the modern Tzotzil Maya (Ekholm 1990: 456-460). Although similar in some aspects, these deposits are indeed different from the Lagartero basurero. She also compares the deposit to assemblages at Chipoc and Ojo de Agua, which are fairly large and contain a variety of artifacts. Like Lagartero, however, their origins are unclear (Ekholm 1990: 456-460). Like many inclusionary ritual events in the Maya region (Emery 2002; LeCount 2001), the deposit appears to be partially the result of feasting. According to a model of feasting developed by LeCount (2001) based on the Late Classic site of Xunantunich, feasting deposits

4 can be recognized by the presence of plates and cacao vessels, ceramic forms that were prevalent in the Lagartero basurero. The high number of edible animals with special significance in Maya ideology is another indicator that large-scale consumption was a part of the event or series of events that led to the deposit. To model the archaeological representation of the kind of large-scale social action that could have resulted in a deposit like the basurero, this study turns to Turner’s (1986) concept of social drama and integrates Wiessner’s (2001) ethnoarchaeological study of Enga feasting in Papua New Guinea. If the deposit reflects the archaeological correlates of social drama outlined in this study, then it was probably the result of large-scale social action, and details about its origins and significance can be addressed. Although Wiessner's (2001) study of public feasting events focuses on the Enga groups of Papua New Guinea, it is applied to the Lagartero basurero because it explicitly outlines the archaeological correlates of a feasting event, a form of social drama. She identifies six aspects of feasting activities and describes how they might appear in the archaeological record: the aggregation of a large number of people, sharing or redistribution of goods, commemorating a specific occasion, public display, an abundance of available resources, and an increase in demand to procure that abundance (Wiessner 2001: 116-117). To further separate the archaeological representation of a social drama from other types of deposits, such as middens, I developed four additional archaeological expectations: a deposit in a public location, evidence of intentional deposition, the presence of artifacts or animals that were emphasized during the event, and the presence of a number of artifacts that are complete or can be reconstructed. The Lagartero basurero meets the criteria outlined for social drama and appears to be the result of a singular or brief series of feasting events that included a focus on dogs, females, or cotton production at Lagartero and functioned to assert the identity of Lagartero at a regional level.

5 Summary The objectives of this thesis are to describe the Lagartero faunal data, to place the deposit within an appropriate contextual framework, to model the archaeological representation of social drama by building on aspects of public feasting and their archaeological correlates described by Wiessner (2001), to test the Lagartero basurero against this model, and to hypothesize about the origins and significance of the deposit. If the deposit was the result of social drama, evaluation of the animals and items it contained can provide information about how the people involved in the creation of the Lagartero deposit chose to convey their identity through public action. Based on the findings presented in this thesis, the basurero at Lagartero appears to be the result of a social drama, a form of public event that reveals identity and deep-seated values in society (Turner 1986). The Lagartero faunal assemblage is a diverse sample showing wide variation in faunal representation with a focus on canids, deer, and rabbits, a pattern rarely seen in this region and period. Since some of the faunal material was burned or has cutmarks, and serving vessels comprised the majority of ceramics (Ekholm 1976, 1984), feasting was probably included in the event or series of events that led to the creation of the deposit. The focus animals, artifacts such as weaving implements and female figurines dressed in elaborate textiles, and the location of the deposit in the easternmost plaza on easternmost island of the site (traditionally the female direction in Maya belief) point to an affiliation with females and the Moon Goddess, Ixchel, who was the goddess of women, weaving, and water. The social drama might have been related to the role of women as weavers or in honor of Ixchel as a patron deity of the site (e.g., Pohl and Feldman 1982: 304-306; Pohl 1976: 135, 150; Personal Communication 2005), and also may have functioned to assert or affirm the identity and position of Lagartero at the regional level.

6 CHAPTER 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SETTING

This study focuses on fauna recovered from the Maya site of Lagartero, located in the Grijalva region on the border between Chiapas, Mexico and Guatemala, and other compares it to assemblages from sites occupied during the Late and Terminal Classic periods. Comparative assemblage data analyzed and published by other authors are from Aguateca, Seibal, Piedras Negras, Dos Pilas, Cueva del Duende, Cueva de Río Murcielago, Actun Polbilche, and Chichen Itzá in the adjacent Petén region of Guatemala, Belize, and the states of Tabasco and Yucatán, Mexico. These comparative assemblages were selected based on site location, the context of the assemblages, and availability of published data. Western Maya Region The majority of research on the ancient Maya has focused on the Maya lowlands of eastern Mexico, Belize, and Guatemala, which flourished during the Classic period (250-800 CE). In this thesis, the 'western Maya region' refers to the central and western portion of Guatemala, Chiapas and Tabasco, Mexico. The eastern region therefore encompasses Belize, the Yucatan Peninsula, and northeast Guatemala. During the Terminal Classic period (800- 1000 CE), population and settlement focus shifted away from the lowland areas toward the northern Yucatan region and westward toward Chiapas and the highland regions of Guatemala (Martin and Grube 2000: 8-9). Although many archaeological investigations have focused on the western Maya region, three are of particular interest for this study because they included zooarchaeological analyses of large and contextually well defined assemblages. The New World Archaeological Foundation of Brigham Young University conducted much of the early archaeological investigation of the southwestern Maya region beginning in 1952. This effort primarily focused on identifying Preclassic sites within the Grijalva river systems of southern Mexico and eastern Guatemala, and documented the locations of many other sites in the area

7 (Ekholm 1976: 353). Table 2-1: Chronology in the Maya Region (Adapted from Sharer 1994: 46-47) The Vanderbilt University Petexbatun 1375 CE – 1519 CE Late Postclassic Regional Archaeological Project directed by (Spanish Contact) Arthur Demarest and Juan Antonio Valdes has 900 CE – 1375 CE Early Postclassic

focused on the Petexbatun region of northern 800 CE – 1000 CE Terminal Classic Guatemala since 1989. The project is oriented 550 CE – 800 CE Late Classic towards an understanding of “cultural and 250 CE – 550 CE Early Classic environmental patterns of the ‘collapse’ period” (Emery 1997: 3). Faunal material recovered from 100 CE – 250 CE Protoclassic

these projects are featured in this study, but a ~2000 BCE – 100 CE Preclassic number of other projects and independent researchers have also organized excavations in the western Maya region. Ecology of the Region The western Maya region ranges from the low-lying swampy Petén region, to the cloud forests of the Alta Verapaz of Guatemala, and extends into the Cuchumatanes Mountains and associated river system of Chiapas, Mexico. This relatively small area includes a number of ecological zones. The two subregions of interest in this study are the Grijalvan and western Petén areas. The Grijalvan ecological region of eastern Mexico and western Guatemala encompasses the upper tributaries of the Río Grijalva including the Río Lagartero, Río Selegua, and Río Cuilco and acts as a corridor linking the Pacific coastal zone to the interior valleys and highlands of the Cuchumatanes into Guatemala (Campbell 2001; 1998). According to the Holdridge Life Zones, it is categorized as a Subtropical Dry Forest region (Land 1970: 6-7). The Petén region extends from Guatemala into Belize and eastern Mexico and encompasses the Petexbatun region. The Southern Petén region receives more rainfall than the Northern Petén, and is recognized for its taxonomic richness. Tropical Moist Forest is the predominant ecological zone in the southern Petén region (Land 1970: 6-9).

8 Although these areas comprise different ecological zones, they are relatively close to each other and are comparable for the purposes of this study. Animals are able move into and between ecological zones even though they are generally associated with a particular habitat (Emery 1997:149). Appendix A includes a list of animals currently associated with the Grijalvan area, as well as a map indicating the different ecological zones of Guatemala.

9 Lagartero Approximately 600 m (about 1970 ft) above sea level, Lagartero is situated at the Chiapas-Guatemala border (Figure 2-1). The main area of the site is spread over islands and peninsulas formed by a swampy system of small rivers and tributaries leading to the Río Lagartero and ultimately to the Río Grijalva. Agricultural fields related to the site may have been identified to the north (Ekholm 1990: 455; 1976: 147; Ekholm and Martinez 1983: 260). Based on artifact stylistic variability, the site ranges in date from the Classic to the Early Postclassic Periods, with peak occupation during the Late and Terminal Classic Periods (Ekholm 1976, 1979; Gurr-Matheny 1988, 1990). The New World Archaeological Foundation of Brigham Young University initially documented Lagartero in 1973, and Susanna Ekholm surveyed the site in 1975. In the following field season, Ekholm returned with Deanne Gurr-Matheny, then a doctoral

10 student at the University of Utah, to conduct more intensive excavations (Ekholm 1990, 1976). Later in the decade, Deanne Gurr- Matheny and Ray Matheny tested canals and residential areas located to the north of the main area of the site (Gurr-Matheny 1988). Sonia Rivero Torres of the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia recently resumed research at Lagartero, focusing on the Limonal and El Cangrejo islands (Figure 2-4 [Rivero Torres 1997]).

11 Ekholm’s 1975 survey encountered two major features: a series of burials in the Northwest Plaza and a large dump (basurero) located to the south of Mound 7A of the Limonal group (Figure 2-5). This mound is located in an architectural group situated near the eastern extreme of the site and has been interpreted as ceremonial in nature based on architectural features (Ekholm 1976: 147-149). In 1976, excavation in the Northwest Plaza recovered over 50 burials (Gurr-Matheny 1988; 1990), while expansion of the test pits in the basurero concluded with full excavation of the feature. The artifacts recovered from the basurero indicate a Terminal Classic date (Ekholm 1990: 455) and show a unique blend of Highland and Lowland Maya characteristics as well as other regional influence (e.g., Ekholm

12 1976, 1979, 1984, 1985, 1990). Unfortunately, limited data is available for this site, which restricts the extent of conclusions that can be drawn about the deposit and site as a whole. The Basurero The faunal material discussed here was obtained from the basurero. This deposit was located to the south of Mound 7A of the Limonal Plaza. The dump filled a large limestone pit and was about 24 m long east-west, 10 m wide north-south, and just over 2.5 m in depth in the deepest areas. It is unclear if the pit was a quarry site or was intentionally dug for the deposit. Excavation units were generally 2 x 2 m. The deposit was excavated in 20 centimeter arbitrary levels due to a lack of obvious stratigraphy and was screened through ¼ in mesh (Ekholm 1976: 149; Gurr-Matheny, Personal Communication 2003). About fourteen percent (572 fragments) of the Lagartero faunal sample was recovered from backfill. This provenience loss implies that during excavation a significant amount of material was overlooked and that more material is likely to be missing. I have been unable to determine why some material was recovered from the backfill. Nevertheless, due to the inferred short period of deposition and homogeneous nature of the deposit, the inclusion of materials recovered from backfill should not be a problem for this study. This deposit included approximately 500,000 sherds. About 10,000 of them were from

13 polychrome ceramic vessels. This figure equates to an average density of at least 2,000 sherds per cubic meter. The ceramic assemblage is homogenous in style, and neutron activation suggests that the vessels were locally made. Most of the plain ceramics were large tall-neck jars with loop handles and an unpolished slip. There were also a number of plates with flaring sides, cylindrical drinking vessels used for cacao (Figure 2-7, see also the vessels in Figures 4-18 and 4-19), basins, small jars with effigy animal heads protruding from the neck of the vessel, and rounded vessels with incurving orange-slipped rims. The polychrome ceramics were found in very good condition and generally resemble the Late Classic period Tepeu I and II styles of the Lowland Maya region, but they differ from the mainstream Maya tradition in a number of ways. The Lagartero ceramics show a mix of influence from surrounding areas, particularly the Highland Maya region. They also seem to have been produced by artisans with a lower level of decorative skill and display some unique stylistic characteristics including a band of rectangles around the rim, pseudoglyphs contained within a band at the top of the vessel as illustrated in Figure 2-8 (Ekholm 1976: 151- 157). About 90 percent of the polychrome ceramics with glyph-like decorations have a pseudoglyph reminiscent of the Chuen glyph, the eleventh day in the sacred calendar (Figure 2-9 [Ekholm 1990:457; Gunter, Personal

14 Communication 2004; Josserand, Personal Communication 2004]). Maya hieroglyphic writing, which was restricted to the higher strata of society, ceased to be produced by the end of the Classic period and the ability to create and read it was lost. In later periods, glyphs are visible on ceramics or other objects, but they are not drawn in the proper form, have proper syntax, or have a clear meaning (Gunter, Personal Communication 2004; Josserand, Personal Communication 2004). This pseudoglyph could have been an attempt to represent the primary standard sequence (a sequence of glyphs on serving vessels that described the vessel, its contents, and status owner [LeCount 2000: 945]), a calendric date, family name, or it could have been arbitrarily selected to represent the event or series of events that created the deposit (Gunter, Personal Communication 2004; Josserand, Personal Communication 2004). Unfortunately, it is beyond the ability of archaeology to determine the reason that this symbol was selected. Over 500 plates were identified in the field during the 1976 season. They tend to have flaring walls and flat bases. The decorations, painted in red and black on an orange background, include geometric designs as well as seated figures and floral motifs (Figure 2- 10). There were over 450 vases identified in the field as well, which were either cylindrical, barrel, or pear shaped. These vessels had either an orange or cream background and were decorated with bands of pseudoglyphs and two seated male dignitaries divided by columns of glyphs (Ekholm 1976: 151-157).

15 The dignitaries are seated in front of a rectangle that resembles the writing surface of scribes (Figures 2-8 and 4-18: The Rabbit as a Scribe), but the presence of pseudoglyphs and skill level of the artists suggests that the inhabitants of Lagartero did not have the ability to read or write Mayan hieroglyphs and were not trained in the Lowland Maya ceramic tradition. A number of large polychrome jars (or ollas) were also found in the basurero; over 150 were identified during the field season of 1976. The presence of large vessels suggests large- scale food preparation. There were also over 50 miniature ollas, five or six drums, and a few rare forms as well, including polychrome vessels with animal effigy heads (Figure 2-11 [Ekholm 1976: 151-157]). Some vessels present in the assemblage seem to be related to a style that developed later in Central America, while others reflect central Mexican decoration and influences from other areas (Ekholm 1984: 372-376). The deposit included about 500 anthropomorphic and zoomorphic mold-made figurines; primarily elite females in elaborate clothing decorated with the Chuen pseudoglyph (Figure 2-12) and about 100 dog figurines as well as figurine molds. The figurines were

16 probably also locally made, the complex displays a variety of characteristics from the highland and lowland Maya region and some central Mexican motifs. Unlike the ceramic vessels, the Lagartero figurines are very elaborate and finely made. Additionally, the elaborate dress of many figurines implies that cotton and textile production probably occurred at Lagartero, a fact that compliments the historical documentation of cotton production in the region (Ekholm 1979: 174, 185). The Lagartero figurine and pendant complex has also been noted at Zaculeu, located approximately 70 km (45 mi) southeast of Lagartero (Ekholm 1979: 185) indicating the regional importance of Lagartero. In addition to the ceramics and figurines, many other types of artifacts were included in the deposit, such as ceramic pendants and whistles depicting human heads, monsters, birds, and other animals, shell, bone, musical instruments, incense burners, beads, pendants, earflares, and ornaments of shell and stone, lithic tools, spindle whorls, bone needles or awls, and obsidian (Ekholm 1976, 1990). Human remains were also recovered from the basurero; those encountered in the faunal material imply that all parts of the body and individuals of different ages were included. With the exception of two fragments that showed evidence of canid gnawing, the human specimens were unmodified. Although a few fragments were noted in the Lagartero assemblage, shell was collected separately and will not be discussed here. Due to the site’s location at a crossroads linking regions to the east, north, and west, the artifacts recovered from this deposit demonstrate both Mexica (the Aztecs and other similar cultures that flourished during the Postclassic period in central Mexico) and Central American influence. The affinities to Central American ceramic styles primarily refer to groups that occupied areas in the modern countries of Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica (Ekholm 1984: 375). Ekholm (1976, 1979, 1984, 1985) reports that this blending of regional signatures is particularly evident in the ceramics, figurines, and pendants recovered from the basurero. The deposit was highly homogeneous and did not show stratigraphic variation, leading

17 Ekholm to believe that this deposit was made rapidly, perhaps over a period of days or months (Ekholm 1990; 1976). Comparative Assemblages The Lagartero sample is compared with eight other faunal assemblages to understand how animals are distributed in different contexts and characterize the Lagartero assemblage. The comparative data in this study include eight samples from Piedras Negras, Seibal, Aguateca, Dos Pilas, Cueva del Duende, and Cueva de Río Murcielago in the western Maya region, as well as the samples from Actun Polbilche in Central Belize and the Cenote of Sacrifice at Chichen Itzá in the Northern Maya Lowlands. The faunal assemblages from Piedras Negras, Seibal, Aguateca, Dos Pilas, Actun Polbilche and Chichen Itzá are contemporaneous with the Lagartero assemblage, and the samples from Cueva del Duende and Cueva de Río Murcielago reflect continuous use through time. With the exception of the samples from Chichen Itzá and Actun Polbilche these samples originate from sites relatively close to Lagartero (about 575 km or 250 mi away). These samples were selected for comparative purposes because they were published in suitable detail and were found in areas of archaeological sites (contexts) that imply differences faunal usage. One sample was recovered from a palace, two were from the site center, one was from a residential area in the immediate outskirts of the center, one was from a workshop area in the immediate outskirts, two were from caves, and one was from a cenote (Table 2-2). About half of the samples included in this study were recovered with ¼ in mesh, but the Seibal, Cueva del Duende, Cueva de Río Murcielago, and Chichen Itzá assemblages were excavated without screens. Despite this discrepancy, the samples seem to be comparable. The cave samples include a number of individuals from intrusive taxa, but the remaining assemblages do not show substantial variation in the presence of small taxa. This lack of variation may partially be due to the poor preservation in the Maya region that precludes the excavation of small taxa despite rigorous recovery methods (Emery 2003b: 10).

18 Table 2-2: A Summary of Samples Included in this Study

Site Chronology Region Context Source/Analyst Expected Fauna

Late Classic, Petexbatun, High quality foods (e.g., Aguateca Late Facet Late Pasión Basin, Site Center Emery 1997 deer), other accessible Classic Guatemala valued foods (e.g., turtles)

Petexbatun, High quality foods (e.g., Seibal Late Classic Pasión Basin, Site Center Pohl 1976 deer), other accessible Guatemala valued foods (e.g., turtles)

Usumacinta High quality foods (e.g., Late, Terminal Piedras Negras Drainage, Palace Emery 2004 deer), special taxa (e.g., Classic Guatemala stingrays, felids)

Some high quality foods Usumacinta Immediate Late, Terminal (e.g., deer), other Piedras Negras Drainage, Outskirts Emery 2004 Classic accessible valued foods Guatemala Residential (e.g., turtles) High quality foods (e.g., Petexbatun, Immediate deer), other accessible, Terminal Dos Pilas Pasión Basin, Outskirts Emery 1997 valued foods (e.g., turtles), Classic Guatemala Workshop animals modified for usage (e.g., deer)

Petexbatun, Brady et al. 1991 Special or sacrifice taxa Cueva Continuous Pasión Basin, Cave (Analyzed by (e.g., deer, felids, del Duende Guatemala Emery) stingrays, dogs)

Petexbatun, Brady et al. 1991 Special or sacrifice taxa Cueva de Continuous Pasión Basin, Cave (Analyzed by (e.g., deer, felids, Río Murcielago Guatemala Emery) stingrays, dogs)

Terminal Pendergast 1974 Special or sacrifice taxa Sibun River, Actun Polbilche Classic, Early Cave (Analyzed by (e.g., deer, felids, Central Belize Postclassic Luther) stingrays, dogs)

Late Classic Yucatán Special or sacrifice taxa Chichen Itzá through Peninsula, Cenote M. R. Hopkins 1992 (e.g., deer, felids, Spanish Mexico stingrays, dogs)

High quality food remains Late and Río Grijalva, (e.g., deer), other Lagartero Terminal Chiapas/ Site Center Koželsky accessible, valued foods Classic Guatemala (e.g., turtles)

19 These samples were excavated from sites that exist in slightly different ecological zones, which may result in differential representation of taxa due to local availability. Nevertheless, the regions are near enough to each other to allow comparison because the majority of animals are available for human selection in all areas. Due to the limited number of appropriate samples, this difference must be considered negligible. Contexts The eight comparative samples were recovered from the following contexts: palace, site center, immediate outskirts residential, immediate outskirts workshop, cave, or cenote. These contexts are defined by their location within an archaeological site and are expected to reflect variations in usage, cosmological significance and social strata (Ashmore and Sabloff 2002; Tate 1992: 27; Brady et al. 1991). This classification of context is not intended to be wholly indicative of a strict concentric model of site organization (Chase and Chase 1992; D. Chase 1992; M. E. Smith 2003). The excavators defined the contexts of the samples included in this study based on location and associated architecture or artifacts (i.e., elite, non-elite, royalty, etc., see Emery 2004 and 2003c for a more detailed discussion of faunal use and rank). Site Center. The site center is generally marked by large structures and is described as “the loc[us] of politico-administrative and ritual activities” (de Montmollin 1988: 356). The ruling and non-ruling elite probably occupied this area (de Montmollin 1988; Chase and Chase 1992), and it may have been surrounded by walls in later periods. The assemblages from this context are from non-palatial structures. They should contain some restricted taxa (e.g., felids) and high quality food remains (e.g., deer), but some taxa readily available to all members of society and valued as a food source (e.g., turtles) should be present as well. Palaces. Palaces were administrative centers and the residences of the Ahaw or king, who was simultaneously a political and spiritual leader (Webster 2001; Christie 2003:1; Freidel and Schele 1988). They are located in the site center, but because of their documented association with the Ahaw or ruling families they are being treated separately

20 here. Archaeological deposits associated with the palace context are expected to reflect the role of this figure in society. These assemblages may contain high quality food remains (e.g., deer) and ceremonial remains, such as stingray spines, but food remains from servants or lower-status individuals might be present in these deposits as well (Emery 2004). Immediate Outskirts Residential. This area is located outside of the elite or ceremonial center of the site and may marked by smaller structures whose occupants might have supported the center and were presumably a part of a lower social strata (de Montmollin 1995, 1988; but see Chase and Chase 1992). It is expected that the fauna recovered from this area was available to all members of society. Both high-quality food remains (e.g., deer) and easily accessible food animals (e.g., turtles) should be present, and a wider variety of taxa might be found in this context as well. Immediate Outskirts Workshop. Like the residential area, the outskirts workshop area was located outside of the elite or ceremonial center of the site, and it probably produced goods for the site center. Consequently, the workshop faunal assemblage should resemble the site center assemblage and contain animals whose bones are frequently modified for human usage (e.g., deer metapodials). Special Contexts: Cave and Cenote. In general, caves and cenotes were viewed as sacred areas because they could act as passages to the Underworld and were the sites of a number of ceremonies (Brady et al. 1991; Miller and Taube 1993; Christenson 2001: 88; Halperin 2002; Chase Coggins 1992; Pohl 1981; 1983: 70; Landa 1978 [1556]). Consequently, remains of animals that do not naturally occur in caves or cenotes were probably deposited by humans may have been common offerings, are associated with ceremonial or special contexts, or animals that played a role part in Maya cosmology (e.g., deer, felids, dogs, stingrays). It is likely, however, that they were also areas of refuse disposal or naturally trapped some animals. The Comparative Sites Aguateca. Excavation at Aguateca has been occurring since 1990 under the direction of

21 Takeshi Inomata (University of Arizona), first through the Vanderbilt University Petexbatun Archaeological Project and since 1995 as part of the Aguateca Archaeological Project. This site, occupied from the Preclassic to the Late Facet of the Late Classic period, is among the largest in the Pasión Basin and shared an alliance with Dos Pilas during the Late Classic period. The site was among the significant in the region, and was allied with Dos Pilas during the Late Classic period. During its latest occupation, a number of defensive walls protected Aguateca, which is located on an escarpment and next to a limestone crevasse (Inomata 1995; Inomata and Triadan 2003: 158; Emery 1997: 82, 99-100). The faunal sample included in this study was excavated with ¼ in screen, primarily from rapidly abandoned elite residences in the site center dated to the Late Classic and Late Facet Late Classic periods (Emery 1997: 82, 99-100). Seibal. Gordon R. Willey and A. Ledyard Smith began fieldwork at Seibal in 1959 (Willey 1975; 1978), and subsequent excavation was carried out by Tourtellot (1988) and others. This site shows a long history of occupation ranging from the Middle Preclassic through the Terminal Classic period. Although Seibal was not as large as some civic- ceremonial Maya sites, it provided a picture of Petén elite culture (Pohl 1976: 60-64). Faunal remains were recovered from both site center and surrounding areas (Pohl 1976: 62). The sample utilized in this study originated from an undisturbed Late Classic residential midden in the ceremonial center of the site. The sample was not screened, but excavation was more intensive in this feature. This residential group (D-26) included a shrine, probably for the group’s ancestors, a residential structure, an adjoining kitchen with a three-stone hearth and the undisturbed midden (Pohl 1976: 62). Piedras Negras. This major site on the Río Usumacinta has a long history of excavation beginning with the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania in 1931. Research at Piedras Negras continued from 1997 until 2002 under the direction of Stephen Houston and Hector Escobedo of the Brigham Young University and the Universidad del Valle. The site was built on natural rises in the geography to enhance its grand appearance. Although Piedras Negras

22 is noted for its Classic period occupation, it was also inhabited during the Early, Late, and Terminal Classic Periods and has a fairly complete record of rulers due to the large number of well-preserved stelae found at the site. Piedras Negras does not seem to have been particularly militaristic; there have been very few records of military action found at the site (Emery 2004; Martin and Grube 2000: 148; Weaver 1993: 318-320). The faunal materials utilized here were excavated with ¼ in screen with some materials recovered from flotation samples from Late and Terminal Classic period palace and immediate outskirts assemblages (Emery 2004: 3, 8). Dos Pilas. The powerful Late Classic site of Dos Pilas with a lingering occupation in the Terminal Classic Period was the first to be investigated by the Vanderbilt University Petexbatun Regional Archaeological Project. Joel Palka directed excavations from 1989 to 1994. Dos Pilas was a capital of the Petexbatun region and maintained a population of two to four thousand people in and immediately around the site during the peak of its occupation. The site was established by a lesser member of the Tikal nobility in the seventh century and shows evidence of rapid construction. Its rulers report the capture of Seibal in the mid- eighth century but there is no physical evidence for this defeat (Emery, Personal Communication 2004), and the center was attacked and defeated almost immediately afterwards (Demarest et. al. 2003: 120-122; Palka 1997; Emery 1997: 102-104). The large size of the site facilitated sampling strategies targeted at multiple residential zones associated with different status groups and periods. The sample selected for comparison was recovered with ¼ in screen from a large midden associated with a residential complex on the immediate outskirts of the site’s main plaza, outside the walls of the Main Plaza that might have functioned as a workshop during the Terminal Classic period (Emery 1997: 82, 102-104). The faunal assemblage from the workshop is anomalous in representation because it is dominated almost exclusively with the remains of large mammal long bones modified during the manufacture of massive quantities of bone perforators. However, it is one of the few faunal assemblages with data available for study from a

23 surrounding area. Cueva del Duende and Cueva Río Murcielago. Caves were sacred to the Maya (Brady et al. 1991: 738; Miller and Taube 1993; Christenson 2001: 88), and the cave systems associated with Dos Pilas were no exception. These caves (Cueva del Duende and Cueva de Río Murcielago) were utilized throughout the site’s occupation (Brady et al. 1991: 746). Viewed as openings to the Underworld, royal accessions or other ceremonies frequently took place in caves (Brady et al. 1991: 738; Pohl 1983; 1981), implying that archaeological materials recovered from caves were highly ideologically valuable. Despite the temporal ambiguity present in all caves, they are included in this study because of their significance in Maya cosmology. The samples from these sites were not screened but display relatively high taxonomic richness, including a high number of small animals that occupy caves, suggesting that the lack of screening did not preclude recovery acceptable for this study. The samples do contain some taxa that do not inhabit caves that were probably deposited by humans (Brady et al. 1991: 722, 725). Actun Polbilche. This cave site is located on the south bank of the Sibun River in central Belize and was excavated in 1971. The cave was largely undisturbed before excavation, and material was passed through ¼ in screen and was also floated. It is believed that the complete archaeological and faunal assemblages were excavated. It is clear that some of the faunal material is intrusive, particularly rodent and bat remains (Pendergast 1974: 83). The artifacts that were present in the cave appear to have been deposited as offerings over a relatively short period and include a wooden spear and small wooden box. The vessels generally reflect Terminal Classic and Early Postclassic styles but do not closely resemble ceramics from other sites in the region (Pendergast 1974). Chichen Itzá. This famous site is located in the Yucatán Peninsula of Mexico and has been the focus of research for over a century. Chichen Itzá has a number of unique stylistic and architectural characteristics and traditionally has been linked with the Toltecs, a group from what is today the state of Hidalgo, Mexico. Peak occupation of the site occurred

24 between 866 and 1200 C.E. In addition to the temples and other structures that are present throughout the site, two cenotes are associated with Chichen Itzá. One cenote was probably used for drinking water, and the other, jade in color, is referred to as the “Cenote of Sacrifice” or “Sacred Well.” Landa (1978 [1556]) noted that humans and a variety of other objects were thrown into the “Cenote of Sacrifice” during ceremonies (Weaver 1983: 364- 375; Chase Coggins 1992). Dredging in the Cenote of Sacrifice, conducted by Edward Herbert Thomas, began around 1900 and continued for over 20 years. Although dredging usually occurred in one area at a time, excavations were not particularly systematic and the matrix was not screened. The Carnegie Institute of Washington, D.C. conducted excavations of the site directed by Sylvanus Morely between 1924 and 1944, and more recently, INAH (Instituto Nacional Antropoologia e Historia) has continued excavations at the site. Summary This study examines faunal assemblages from the Maya region with focus on the fauna from a large Terminal Classic period deposit at Lagartero, Mexico. This deposit, excavated in 1976 by Susanna Ekholm, was 24 m long, 10 m wide, up to 2.5 m deep, and contained a wide variety of artifacts including both polychrome and monochrome ceramic vessels, figurines, and pendants, bone, shell, stone tools, ornaments, musical instruments, weaving tools, and human remains. Since the site is located at a crossroads region among central Mexico, the Maya Highlands and Lowlands, and Pacific Coast, many artifacts show a mixture of regional influences. Due to the lack of visible natural stratigraphy, Ekholm (1976: 149) suggested that the deposit may have been the result of a single event or short series of similar events. The Lagartero fauna is compared with faunal assemblages from eight assemblages: Aguateca, Seibal, Piedras Negras, Dos Pilas, Cueva del Duende, and Cueva de Río Murcielago from the western Maya region, Actun Polbilche from central Belize, and Chichen Itzá from the Yucatán Peninsula. The samples are from specific contexts, are generally contemporaneous with the Lagartero basurero, and the faunal data are available for use. Although they are located in slightly different ecological zones, the majority of animals were

25 ate every site. This study is an initial attempt to view the Lagartero faunal material within a larger frame of reference by presenting in conjunction with several faunal assemblages from the Late and Terminal Classic periods.

26 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY

The analysis and interpretation of the Lagartero fauna included three major stages of research: identification of the assemblage, comparison with contemporaneous assemblages, and building a framework for the interpretation of the deposit. The fauna recovered from the Lagartero deposit was analyzed according to standard methods of zooarchaeological research (Reitz and Wing 1999) and compared to other assemblages from a number of known archaeological contexts to identify the context of Lagartero faunal sample. Based on the outcome of the comparative analysis and review of the deposit as a whole, it was clear that the basurero and the faunal material contained within it were not the result of day-to-day activities. A test for social drama was developed and applied to the Lagartero basurero to interpret the deposit. In order to determine the nature of the social drama, the deposit was measured against a model of feasting behavior and the significance of the fauna and material artifacts was investigated. The outcome of these analyses imply that the deposit seems to be the result of a unique social drama event or brief series of events that incorporated feasting, dogs, women, and cotton textile production, and could have functioned to affirm the status of Lagartero at the regional level. Identification of the Lagartero Fauna The complete Lagartero faunal sample, a total of 3999 specimens, was analyzed by the author between 2002 and 2004. Since the material was already grouped by unit and level of excavation, analysis proceeded accordingly. The primary source for identification was the zooarchaeological collection maintained by the department of Anthropology at Florida State University. Secondary sources included the comparative collections of the Florida Museum of Natural History at the University of Florida in Gainesville and published atlases such as Avian Osteology (Gilbert, Martin, and Savage 1981), Mammalian Osteology (Gilbert 1990), An Osteology of Some Maya Mammals (Olsen 1982), and Birds of Guatemala (Land 1970).

27 Identification was fairly general due to the limitations of the Florida State comparative collection and the experience of the researcher; mammal and bird fragments were generally identified more narrowly than other classes. Osteological similarity among canid species was particularly problematic; Canis familiaris (domestic dog) and Urocyon cinereoargenteus (gray fox) specimens were identified to family (Canidae) only. Unidentified mammal fragments were usually classified as large, medium, or small based on the deduced size, thickness, and robusticity of the elements. Large mammals include Tapirus, Odocoileus, Panthera, Tayassu, and Mazama; medium mammals include canid species, Procyonidae, Dasyprocta, and large Didelphidae; and examples of small mammals include Sciuridae, Heteromyidae, small Didelphidae species, and Sylvilagus. Human remains and some taxa collected separately during excavation appear in the Lagartero sample in low numbers, such as decapods (crabs, lobsters, and their relatives) and mollusks, are not included in the analysis. The shell, decapod, and human remains are believed to be currently located in Mexico with the other material excavated from the deposit. Data were collected for each specimen and recorded on species sheets with fields for provenience information, analyst, taxon (based on the Integrated Taxonomic Information System database: www.itis.usda.gov), element, portion of element, number, side, age, modification, mass, biomass, minimum number of individuals (MNI), totals, and additional notes. Dentition and epiphyseal fusion were the age indicators, generally noted as juvenile or adult. More exact age estimates based on cervid dentition were also noted. One sheet represents one taxon within a given numbered bag, and each bag of material represents one 20 cm arbitrary level from an excavation unit, generally 2 x 2 m. The data from the sheets were then entered into Excel for further analysis. An example of the species sheet is included as Appendix B, and the complete analysis is presented in Appendix C. Addressing Biases in the Sample Extensive research has been conducted on sampling bias and potential loss during

28 excavation (e.g., Payne 1975; Stahl 1996, 1982; Reitz and Wing 1999; Quitmyer 2003: 19-22). Without proper recovery techniques, substantial amounts of faunal material are lost, strongly impacting the recovered sample and its interpretation. Currently acceptable excavation techniques include the use of fine screen (1/16 in or 6 mm) and flotation. Unfortunately, the samples in this study were procured before these standards were in place or did not have sufficient resources for rigorous recovery. Quitmyer’s (2003) study of 10 assemblages in the southeastern United States and Caribbean demonstrates that the recovery of faunal remains dramatically increases with 1/16 in screen. Bird, reptile, amphibian, and mammal remains increased about 45 percent when 1/16 in screen was used instead of ¼ in. Recovery of fish remains increased approximately 210 percent (Quitmyer 2003: 19-22). Stahl (1982) discusses the effect of potential loss on interpretation and points out that small mammals are ubiquitous and have a relatively high ratio of meat weight to body weight. He suggests that most small mammal remains are lost without proper screening and that their dietary significance is overlooked as a result. Payne (1975) also addresses the effect of sampling bias on the interpretation of past behavior. For example, his experiments with 3 mm mesh (between 1/8 in and 1/16 in) refuted widely accepted hypotheses about differential butchering methods and meat transport when roughly equal numbers of podial elements for each taxon were recovered from the same locations. Additionally, Emery (2003b: 8, 10) addresses sampling bias and its effect on measures of species richness and diversity. The comparative samples were not recovered with identical techniques but since preservation tends to be so poor in the Maya region, the difference between taxa represented in one sixteenth inch screen and one quarter in screen is fairly small (Emery 2003b: 10). Clearly, optimal recovery is critical to the formation of a solid interpretation of past relationships between humans and animals. Instead of participating in the procurement of unbiased samples, many zooarchaeologists are only charged with their analysis after excavation is completed. Usable information relevant to studies of site formation and social

29 processes can be obtained from samples with considerable potential loss by applying appropriate analytical methods. These may include variations in calculation methods, comparison with similarly recovered samples, and intensive investigation of represented taxa. Calculation Methods NISP (Number of Identified Specimens) is the most basic calculation technique, simply yielding the number of fragments that have been identified. Researchers may or may not include highly generalized categories such as ‘large mammal’ or the special zooarchaeological category ‘vertebrate’ in calculation (see Table 4-1 for a comparison of these two variations for the Lagartero deposit). Payne (1975) states that calculating the NISP of diagnostic elements (i.e., excluding generalized categories) is sufficient for relatively unbiased samples, although MNI (Minimum Number of Individuals) of identified taxa is the most appropriate way to compare different taxa in highly biased samples. It has been argued that MNI may distort the data in small samples, and that these two measures target slightly different kinds of information (Reitz and Wing 1999: 202). Other suggestions, such as Binford’s MNE (Minimum Number of Elements) and MAU (Minimal Animal Units), produce useful data but rarely appear in zooarchaeological reports, making inter-site comparison difficult. Measures of fragment mass, biomass (a logarithmic calculation of potential meat weight), and ecological variables such as richness, diversity and equitability provide further insight into the relative exploitation of different taxa. Taxonomic richness simply describes the number of species present, although the Shannon-Weiner diversity index describes how individuals are distributed in each taxon. This measure addresses heterogeneity - the uncertainty or inability to predict the taxa of the next specimen – and is a logarithmic measurement based on the number of individuals present in each taxon with respect to the total number of individuals. Equitability incorporates the actual and maximum diversity measures of the sample and describes the evenness of distribution (Krebs 1978: 449-458). In

30 order to avoid overlap in these calculations, general categories were divided into more specific taxonomic groups based on the actual representation in each assemblage (e.g., Emery 1997: 256). Comparative Assemblages The comparative assemblages are presented to illustrate variation in animal distribution and use in different areas of archaeological sites in order to characterize the Lagartero assemblage. These eight assemblages come from the following archaeological contexts: palace, site center, immediate outskirts residential, immediate outskirts workshop, cave, or cenote and were excavated from Aguateca, Seibal, Piedras Negras, Dos Pilas, Cueva del Duende, Cueva de Río Murcielago, Actun Polbilche, and Chichen Itzá. Like the Lagartero assemblage, the MNI, taxonomic richness, Shannon-Weiner diversity indices, and equitability measures were calculated for each of these samples. The same taxa omitted from the Lagartero faunal assemblage - gastropods, decapods, and humans - were omitted from these calculations. These data were collected from various sources (Pendergast 1974; Pohl 1976; Brady et al. 1991; M. Hopkins 1992; Emery 1997; 2004) and were manipulated in Excel. Variations in excavation and analytical methods (preservation, screen size, depth of identification, analytical bias, etc.) may present difficulties in comparison. The samples will be discussed despite these problems due to the lack data available for comparative analysis, and the comparisons will remain fairly general. By evaluating the Lagartero assemblage in the framework of these assemblages, any anomalous patterns of faunal usage or tendency towards particular contexts may become evident. Feasting The large number of faunal remains and some of the artifacts present in the deposit suggest that feasting was part of the event or series of events that led to the creation of the basurero. Studies of feasting from Mesoamerica tend to focus on the artifactual remains. The presence of serving vessels, particularly plates and cacao vessels (Figures 2-7, 4-18, and 4-19) are primary indicators of feasting (LeCount 2001). These vessels, as well as the food and

31 drinks they contained (tamales and cacao), might have been restricted for use by elites in feasting events. Other artifacts, such as figurines, are also indicators of special contexts and have been found in high numbers in feasting deposits since Olmec times (e.g., Tway 2003: 134). Fauna associated with a feasting context should primarily consist of animals that were considered ‘good to eat’ and that were imbued with special meaning. White-tailed deer are a primary food species that had a number of special associations in Maya ideology and were common in sacrificial events (Landa 1978[1556]). Dog were often offered in sacrifices for calendric events or for certain deities (e.g., Landa 1978 [1556]; Hamblin 1984) and were a major food source by Preclassic times (Clutton-Brock and Hammond 1994). LeCount (2001:935) refers to two types of feasts: inclusionary, or public feasts, and exclusionary, or private elite feasts. The size of this deposit as well as the composition suggests that a large number of people were involved in its creation. To test this hypothesis, I turn to a discussion of social drama. Social Drama The concept of social drama is incorporated into this study to present an alternate approach to the conceptualization of archaeological deposits, particularly ambiguous deposits such as the Lagartero basurero. After initially thinking about archaeological deposits in terms of social drama, it was clear that other researchers also had been conceptualizing public events as large-scale displays of status and identity (e.g., Wiessner 2001; Masson 1999; Fox 1996; Shaw 1991), but they did not incorporate Butler’s (1990) concept of performativity and Turner’s (1986) social drama. This thesis draws that link by including Wiessner’s (2001: 116-117) six aspects of feasting (the first six aspects listed below; letters A-F) and incorporating four additional expectations of the archaeological remains of social drama that I developed. If the Lagartero assemblage demonstrates close adherence to these aspects, I hypothesize that it was the result of social drama.

32 A) The aggregation of a large number of people. If the event is indeed a public affair, then a significant portion of the population should be in attendance, and their presence would be visible archaeologically through notably large assemblages or a variety of artifact types. B) Goods are shared or redistributed. The presence of consumable goods creates incentive for visitors to addend and ma lead to obligatory ties between individuals (e.g., Mauss 1967 [1924]). Sharing takes place at the site of the event and will be visible at that location, while redistributed goods are carried away and may be found in other areas of the site or region C) The event marks or commemorates a specific occasion. The event needs a reason to be held, which can be reconstructed based on the remains left at the site of the event. D) Some form of public display is incorporated. This display can take all forms ranging from theatrical performance to the presence of elaborate materials that advertise social status. E) An abundance of available resources. Substantial amounts of resources are required to sponsor an event, which may be represented by an increase in the frequency of particular resources. The degree of abundance may not be directly visible in the archaeological record, however, due to rates of consumption and different forms of sharing and distribution. F) Demand increases to procure that abundance. Change in land use patterns or available resources may indicate an increase on demand, and compensation in other aspects may indicate the sponsor’s attempt to secure the abundance. G) The event occurs in a public location. If indeed the social drama is a public event, it should take place in a public area, such as a plaza or in association with a public building. H) Intentionality. A concentrated deposit surrounded by relatively sterile soil indicates intentional deposition, as opposed to refuse discarded in a general area that is easily dispersed. I) Artifacts should be complete or can be reconstructed. Again, to distinguish events of social drama from a general refuse context, artifacts should be complete and should not show

33 extensive chipping, usewear, and breakage or show evidence of repair. J) Some items or taxa are emphasized. The items or taxa emphasized in the event convey basic information about the identity of the group or purpose of the event. The Lagartero deposit was measured against all ten criteria to determine if it was the result of social drama. Since the faunal material is directly available, it plays a central role in the evaluation of the basurero. The remaining information, such as deposit size, location, and general composition is obtained from published sources (Ekholm 1976, 1979, 1984, 1985, 1990; Ekholm and Martinez 1983). Summary The faunal material from the Lagartero basurero was identified and the data subsequently entered into Excel and manipulated to achieve NISP, MNI, biomass, heterogeneity and other measurements. The Lagartero faunal assemblage was compared to several assemblages to assess the context the assemblage and discuss trends in faunal usage. To understand the deposit more fully, this study delineates ten archaeological correlates of Turner's (1986) concept of social drama by incorporating the six aspects of feasting visible archaeologically defined by Wiessner (2001) and four additional aspects that I defined. The Lagartero basurero was then measured against these ten criteria to determine if it was indeed created as the result of social drama and subsequently compared to a model of feasting in the Maya region. These stages of analyses form the basis of the interpretations presented in the following chapters.

34 CHAPTER FOUR DATA PRESENTION

The Lagartero basurero is a taxonomically rich assemblage dominated by mammals and non-diagnostic material that shows evidence of feasting and social drama. Canids were the favored taxon, and white-tailed deer, brocket deer, and rabbits were among the other preferred taxa. The Lagartero assemblage falls within the range of variability present in the comparative assemblages in terms of MNI and equitability measures, but it is highly divergent in terms of taxonomic richness and Shannon's diversity index. Lagartero Fauna Analysis of the Lagartero fauna yielded 3999 fragments in 51 taxonomic groups. About 65 percent (2604 fragments) of this material was assigned to general categories such as ‘Medium Mammal’ and ‘Vertebrate’. Table 4-1 illustrates the composition of the complete assemblage by Class. Exclusion of general taxonomic categories results in a total of 1395 specimens and a minimum of 116 individuals in 42 taxa. Since gastropods (1 fragment) and decapods (21 fragments) were collected separately, they are not discussed in this study. The human remains (7 fragments) are described but are not considered part of the faunal assemblage and are not included in any of the following calculations. The faunal material was not distributed evenly in the deposit. In general, the majority of specimens were recovered between 40 and 80 cmbs

(centimeters below the surface), as illustrated in Table 4-1: Distribution by Class

Figure 4-1. The amount of faunal material present in Class NISP % NISP the deposit seems to decrease dramatically as depth Mammalia 3589 90.40 Aves 85 2.14 increases with the exception of the material recovered Reptilia 164 4.13 between 120 and 140cmbs. About 14 percent (572 Amphibia 14 0.35 Osteichthyes 10 0.25 fragments) were recovered from the backfill of 15 Vertebrata 108 2.72 units and cannot be assigned an exact provenience. TOTALS 3970 100

35 350 300 250 200 150 Fragments 100 50 0

l 0-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80-100 100-120 120-140 140-160 160-180 180-200 200-220 220-240 Backfil Depth (cm below surface) Figure 4-1: Vertical Distribution of Fragments

The horizontal distribution was also variable, Unit 16A located to the southeast of the center of the deposit yielded nearly 800 fragments. Unit 16, adjacent to 16A, yielded 410 fragments, and the third most productive unit was 19G in the northeast portion of the deposit (Figure 4-2). The average density of fragments was calculated based on the lowest level that yielded faunal material for each unit. This resulted in an average density of 19 fragments per cubic meter. The density of fragments increases to about 28 fragments per cubic meter between 40 and 80 cmbs.

36 Modification There are 885 clear instances of modification in the sample, which includes evidence of erosion, burning, rodent gnawing, canid gnawing, cutmarks, and worked or worn areas (Table 4-2, Figure 4-3 for examples). Eroded fragments tend to be smoothed but not polished, have less ragged edges, and may lack all or part of the cortex of the bone. Fifty eroded bones were noted in the Lagartero sample. Variation in bone color is evidence of burning or heat exposure. In Mesoamerica, skeletal material acquires a golden-orange tint from the earth over time. Bones that exhibit a medium-brown to black color were scored as burned or exposed to high heat. Calcined bone, chemically altered from exposure to extremely high temperatures, is grayish-white in color and was also noted. A total of 245 (6 percent) instances of burning were recorded, six of which were calcined. Rodent gnawing can generally be identified by several small, slightly concave marks in a row, usually along a crest, protrusion, or edge of a bone. These marks usually occur in the same direction but are not perfectly parallel or regular. Thirty examples of rodent gnawing were identified in the Lagartero deposit.

Table 4-2: Vertical Distribution of Modified Elements

Level NISP Burn Rodent Canid Cut Worked Eroded 0-20 134 5 1 16 0 2 1 20-40 384 22 8 34 10 9 11 40-60 819 38 6 96 12 10 9 60-80 833 32 4 108 12 8 15 80-100 530 46 4 67 5 7 2 100-120 240 13 2 33 2 5 1 120-140 273 16 0 28 1 0 4 140-160 77 2 0 3 2 2 0 160-180 52 0 0 5 0 2 4 180-200 17 0 1 2 0 0 0 200-220 13 2 0 1 0 0 0 220-240 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Backfill 626 69 4 88 6 6 3 Totals 3999 245 30 481 50 51 50

37 Several small indentations (reminiscent of a chewed pencil) or punctures only a few millimeters in diameter that may break or warp the surrounding bone are primary indicators of canid or carnivore gnawing. Canid gnawing tends to occur on or near the epiphyses of long bones but has also been noted on large mammal tarsals such as deer calcanei. A total of 481 fragments showed clear evidence of canid or carnivore gnawing, with 379 of them occurring on unidentified mammal fragments. The high number of unidentifiable fragments partially may be a result of this destructive action. Cutmarks can be distinguished from carnivore canine scrapes by the size and shape of the incision. Cutmarks resulting from tools are generally V-shaped and may run narrow and deep, and canine marks tend to be U-shaped and may be slightly wider. Fifty fragments with cutmarks were identified in the deposit. Other human modifications present in the Lagartero basurero include shaping bone to create tools, such as needles or awls, and smooth, polished areas that result from usewear and handling. There were 51 worked or worn fragments in the basurero, six of which are extensively worked longbone fragments that may

38 be large needles, weaving implements, or awls that appear to have been used. Burning, cutmarks, and worked areas tend to occur on large mammal fragments, particularly on cervid elements when identifiable, and occasionally on canid elements. Some fragments show multiple forms of modification. An intriguing example primarily occurring on burned segments of unidentified medium and large mammal long bones are series of innumerable short, fine, and regular incisions perpendicular to the length of the element (Figure 4-3). The scrapes are too fine and regular to be the result of rodent gnawing and must have been created by humans, but individual incision of each mark would be highly labor-intensive and time consuming. The purpose or function of this modification is unknown but occurs about 15 times throughout this deposit. With the exception of rodent gnawing, modified elements seem to be distributed randomly throughout the deposit. Burned fragments occur at virtually every level and in the majority of units. Fragments chewed by canids follow the general trend of distribution; most occur between 40 and 80 centimeters below the surface east and west of the center. Rodent gnaw marks, however, occur primarily between 20 and 60 centimeters below the surface. This distribution of modification suggests that modifications generally took place before the material was placed in the deposit, or that the material accumulated at a rapid pace, allowing time for canids to modify the bones before the deposit was complete and later gnawed by rodents. Composition of the Assemblage As illustrated in Table 4-1, the mammals comprised 90.4 percent (3589 fragments) of the assemblage, the reptiles comprised 4.1 percent (164 fragments), birds 2.1 percent (85 fragments), amphibians 0.4 percent (14 fragments), bony fish 0.3 percent (10 fragments), and unidentified vertebrates 2.7 percent (108 fragments). Despite the high number of fragments, the MNI is fairly low, which is probably related to the high skeletal completeness present in many taxa. Table 4-3 provides a summary of animals identified from the Lagartero basurero.

39 Table 4-3: Summary of Identifiable Remains from the Lagartero Basurero Ranked by NISP

TAXA NISP % NISP Mass % Mass Biomass % Biom MNI % MNI Canidae 683 48.96 1457.05 42.45 32842.81 44.01 28 24.14 Odocoileus virginianus 143 10.25 1032.50 30.08 21337.15 28.59 11 9.48 Aves Unid 66 4.73 44.35 1.29 852.80 1.14 4 3.45 Testudines Unid 53 3.80 67.95 1.98 1700.10 2.28 1 0.86 Sylvilagus floridanus 51 3.66 46.85 1.37 1216.73 1.63 7 6.03 Cervidae 48 3.44 174.90 5.10 3817.34 5.12 0 0.00 Mazama americana 36 2.58 159.80 4.66 3406.88 4.57 5 4.31 Iguania 34 2.44 25.70 0.75 366.46 0.49 4 3.45 Artiodactyla 27 1.94 59.40 1.73 1306.00 1.75 0 0.00 Reptilia Unid 27 1.94 10.65 0.31 146.33 0.20 5 4.31 Dasypus sp. 24 1.72 3.50 0.10 94.26 0.13 1 0.86 Didelphidae 21 1.51 42.30 1.23 1015.12 1.36 4 3.45 Decapoda 21 1.51 14.70 0.43 387.26 0.52 3 2.59 Serpentes 21 1.51 11.60 0.34 163.88 0.22 2 1.72 Tayassu sp. 17 1.22 74.00 2.16 1531.36 2.05 3 2.59 Rodentia Unid 15 1.08 4.65 0.14 104.88 0.14 4 3.45 Anura Unid 14 1.00 3.45 0.10 47.05 0.06 3 2.59 Emydidae 13 0.93 31.40 0.91 672.79 0.90 1 0.86 Osteichthyes 10 0.72 3.40 0.10 113.94 0.15 2 1.72 Homo sapiens 7 0.50 56.80 1.66 1165.93 1.56 2 1.72 Procyonidae 6 0.43 14.70 0.43 336.26 0.45 1 0.86 Viperidae 6 0.43 4.00 0.12 55.38 0.07 1 0.86 Ciconiidae 5 0.36 8.30 0.24 158.61 0.21 2 1.72 Tapirus bairdii 4 0.29 27.10 0.79 586.69 0.79 1 0.86 Starotypus triporcatus 4 0.29 14.30 0.42 248.51 0.33 1 0.86 Kinosternidae 4 0.29 4.45 0.13 122.84 0.16 1 0.86 Corvidae 4 0.29 1.20 0.03 27.13 0.04 1 0.86 Mustelidae 3 0.22 8.45 0.25 189.88 0.25 1 0.86 Nausa narica 3 0.22 5.80 0.17 140.21 0.19 1 0.86 Dasyprocta punctata 3 0.22 2.40 0.07 64.17 0.09 1 0.86 Sciuridae 3 0.22 2.10 0.06 56.04 0.08 1 0.86 Cassidix mexicanus 3 0.22 0.75 0.02 16.92 0.02 1 0.86 Geomyidae 2 0.14 2.10 0.06 54.92 0.07 2 1.72 Myrmecophagidae 2 0.14 1.20 0.03 33.22 0.04 1 0.86 Porzana flaviventer 2 0.14 0.90 0.03 19.65 0.03 1 0.86 Rallidae 2 0.14 0.90 0.03 19.65 0.03 1 0.86 Felidae 1 0.07 5.00 0.15 111.96 0.15 1 0.86 Agouti paca 1 0.07 1.40 0.04 35.61 0.05 1 0.86 Ardeidae 1 0.07 0.90 0.03 18.55 0.02 1 0.86 Gastropoda 1 0.07 0.50 0.01 19.88 0.03 1 0.86 Threskornithidae 1 0.07 0.30 0.01 6.83 0.01 1 0.86 Laridae/Sternidae 1 0.07 0.10 0.00 2.51 0.00 1 0.86 Melancerpes erythrocephalus 1 0.07 0.10 0.00 2.51 0.00 1 0.86 Phasianidae 1 0.07 0.10 0.00 2.51 0.00 1 0.86 TOTALS 1395 100 3432 100.0002 74619.529 100 116 100

40 60 50 % MNI 40 % NISP 30 20 10 0 Percent of Sample e e a s s s a e a . a s s a i e e a a e e u la r a i p r e e n i a a ili v t s a c d d id t n g ty h d n u y d ie a d id i A i a t i e u n h i P ir li l n v p d il c r h s t n p / a e a r u a a p d s A h a i te e t lv d n l o a o s t b s F C Re s e ic y u s C e y io e R y c o o u S t X id a te o u T r T s r m g ir M A D P o A p O H a Figure 4-4: NISP and MNI of Diagnostic Specimens T Figure 4-4 illustrates these variations in calculations by comparing MNI and NISP for the top twenty taxa in percentage format and the relative percentages of taxa calculated as NISP, mass, and biomass are presented in Figure 4-5 to illustrate the effects of different calculation methods. The majority of fragments consist of long bones shafts and cranial material of large, medium, small, and unidentified mammals. It is probable that many of the medium mammal remains are canid elements and that the large mammal remains are deer because these taxa are frequent in the sample and many of the unidentified fragments are from mammals that

Table 4-4: Summary of Mammal Remains Taxa NISP % NISP Mass % Mass Biomass % Biom Burn % Burn R Gnaw % Gnaw C Gnaw % Gnaw Cut % Cut Worked % Work Opossum 21 0.6 42.3 0.7 765.1 0.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 0.6 1 2.1 0 0.0 Human 7 0.5 56.8 1.7 1165.9 1.6 0 0 0 0 2 0.4 0 0 0 0 Xenarthra 26 0.7 2.7 0.0 64.3 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Agouti/Paca 4 0.1 3.8 0.1 87.5 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Rodent 17 0.5 6.8 0.1 146.7 0.2 1 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Rabbit 51 1.4 46.9 0.7 838.8 1.0 3 1.3 2 7.7 4 0.9 1 2.1 1 2.2 Canid 683 19.0 1457.1 23.2 18498.1 22.3 20 8.6 3 11.5 22 4.7 5 10.6 0 0.0 Procyonid 9 0.3 20.5 0.3 398.6 0.5 1 0.4 0 0.0 2 0.4 1 2.1 1 2.2 Mustelid 3 0.1 8.5 0.1 179.5 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Cat 1 0.0 5.0 0.1 112.0 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Tapir 4 0.1 27.1 0.4 512.5 0.6 0 0.0 1 3.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Peccary 17 0.5 74.0 1.2 1265.6 1.5 1 0.4 0 0.0 3 0.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 White-tailed 143 4.0 1032.5 16.5 13567.5 16.3 13 5.6 6 23.1 30 6.4 10 21.3 0 0.0 Brocket 36 1.0 159.8 2.5 2530.6 3.0 5 2.2 1 3.8 6 1.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 Unid Deer 48 1.3 147.9 2.4 2360.3 2.8 4 1.7 3 11.5 12 2.6 1 2.1 2 4.3 Artiodactyl 27 0.8 50.4 0.8 895.8 1.1 1 0.4 2 7.7 5 1.1 1 2.1 1 2.2 Mammal unid 100 2.8 49.0 0.8 873.3 1.1 4 1.7 0 0.0 4 0.9 1 2.1 0 0.0 Mammal lg 699 19.5 1954.0 31.1 24089.7 29.0 68 29.3 4 15.4 137 29.3 10 21.3 18 39.1 Mammal med 1363 38.0 1079.0 17.2 14116.2 17.0 98 42.2 4 15.4 210 44.9 14 29.8 20 43.5 Mammal sm 334 9.3 109.0 1.7 1793.4 2.2 13 5.6 0 0.0 28 6.0 2 4.3 3 6.5 TOTAL 3586 100 6276.1 100 83096 100 232 100 26 100 468 100 47 100 46 100

42 appear to be the same size and robusticity. Nearly 20 percent (137 fragments) of the large mammal specimens and about 30 percent (210 fragments) of the medium mammal specimens show evidence of carnivore gnawing. This destructive activity in conjunction with evidence for cut, worked, and burned bone may account for the high number of unidentified mammalian fragments. Primary Mammals Table 4-5: Vertical Canids. Canids comprise the highest proportion of identified Distribution of Canid Fragments mammalian remains with a total of 683 fragments; nearly half of the Level # identifiable material. Dogs were present in nearly every unit and level; 0-20 17 20-40 61 their distribution reflected the general distribution of faunal material in 40-60 57 the deposit (see Figure 4-6 and Table 4-4). 60-80 140 80-100 72 At least 28 individuals are present based on the presence of left first 100-120 26 mandibular molars, size, and age. Epiphyseal union, teeth, and bone 120-140 126 140-160 29 formation suggest that adult individuals were primarily included in the 160-180 2 deposit; only two juvenile individuals were identified. There is some 180-200 4 200-220 1 evidence of modification on the canid elements that primarily consists 220-240 0 Backfill 64 of burning (20 fragments or 2.9 percent) and carnivore gnawing (22 TOTAL 599

43 100

93 80 75 60 58 40

31 20 27 Number of Fragments Number 8 5 6 13 17 0

es us us a la ls ur ia te ls ibl er di Uln pu dia m ib ina dia nd um Ra Sca Po Fe T om Po Ma H ior nn ior ter I ter An Pos Figure 4-7: Distribution of Canid Fragments elements or 3.2 percent). Burning generally occurs only on the anterior portion of the body (mandible, atlas, axis, scapula, humerus, radius, ulna, and metacarpals) and cuts or scrapes have been noted on five mandible fragments with the cuts located near the gonial angle or proximal portion. Two of these cut mandible fragments appear to have been burned, one of them appears to have been cut or scraped after burning. Although the reason for the distribution of the burned areas is ambiguous, the cutmarks on the mandible may suggest decapitation or skinning. Unfortunately, the sample is too small to determine whether these patterns of anterior modification are reliable or coincidence. Mandibles, mandible fragments, and teeth make up a large portion of the canid sample, perhaps due in part to the high rate of preservation of these robust elements (Pohl 1976: 71). Other possibilities include a preference for these elements, selective use of longbones, the destruction of long bones through canid gnawing or other post-depositional processes (many of the medium mammal fragments could be canid long bone diaphyses), or the fact that mandibles, podials, and long bone epiphyses are more diagnostic than diaphysis fragments;. With the exception of podials, more anterior appendage elements were identified than posterior appendage elements (Figure 4-7). This pattern does not seem to represent a higher number of feet in the deposit than appendages.

44 Since the number of podial fragments generally corresponds to the number of appendage fragments element selection was probably minimal. Four primary metacarpals were the only podial elements identified from the anterior portion of the body creating a 1:1 ratio to the other anterior appendage elements (scapula, humerus, radius, and ulna). The total number of anterior appendage fragments (71) is greater than the number of metacarpal fragments (58). The four primary metatarsals, calcaneus, and talus create a ratio of 3:1 when compared to posterior appendage elements (innominate, femur, tibia, and fibulae, which were not identified in this sample). There were 73 posterior podial fragments and 26 posterior appendage fragments, reflecting the 3:1 ratio almost perfectly (2.81:1). These measures suggest that complete appendages might have been present originally. Similarly, a strong argument cannot be made for side preference; (Figure 4-8) illustrates that the distribution of side is more even for elements present in higher numbers and that the total number of right and left elements is nearly equal. Additionally, the differential presence of right and left appendages is not statistically significant enough (χ2 = 0.14 , p = 0.71) to warrant a discussion of side preference.

100%

4 80% 8 33 51 17 59 67 34 3 5 18 4 60%

40% 9 9 42 4242 14 48 66 20% 24 2 3 9 2 Number of Fragments of Number

es a us s a ls te r ia ls e al ibl ul er diu ln dia ina mu ib ia ag di d cap m Ra U o m Fe T od nd Po an S Hu r P no r P pe tal M rio In rio Ap To nte ste tal A Po To Right Figure 4-8: Distribution of Canid Fragments by Side Left

45 The presence of a high number of individuals and the skeletal completeness evident in this assemblage indicates the significance of dogs in the event or series of events that resulted in the Lagartero basurero. Documented as early as the Preclassic period, dogs are common in dietary and other Maya assemblages and their use as a managed food item or sacrifice animal dates even earlier throughout the Americas (Clutton-Brock and Hammond 1994, Pohl 1983: 70-71; Schwartz 1997). They have been associated with New Year ceremonies, and puppies in particular were used in the celebration of the Muluc year during the Early Historic period (Pohl 1983: 70; Landa 1973 [1556]: 64-65). It has also been suggested that dogs guided people over bodies of water in the Underworld. In day-to-day life, however, the dog was viewed as a food source and possibly household protector; the Maya kept domestic dogs, fed them maize, and exploited them in a number of other ways (White et al. 2004, 2001; Clutton-Brock and Hammond 1994; Miller and Taube 1993: 80; Pohl 1983: 70-71; Landa 1978 [1566]). Cervids. The cervids (deer) are the second most frequent taxonomic group representing about 16 percent of the NISP (227 fragments). This group, comprised of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), brocket deer (Mazama americana), and fragments that could not confidently be assigned to either species, was clearly significant in the event that led to this

46 deposit; a fawn inside an inverted vase was found at the bottom of the pit and was probably the first item placed in the deposit (Ekholm 1990: 455). Deer fragments were found throughout the deposit in accordance with the distribution of the corpus of faunal material. Cervid remains were recovered from all levels (Table 4-6) and in most units of the deposit (Figure 4-11). Individuals of a variety of ages were present in the deposit. Dental Table 4-6: Vertical patterns of cervids have been well-documented allowing more detailed Distribution of Cervid age analysis to occur for this taxonomic group (e.g., Ramesy and Shult Fragments Level # 1990). The youngest individual was scored at approximately four 0-20 11 20-40 26 months of age and the oldest at five and a half years old (Table 4-7). 40-60 48 One mandibular molar was simply scored as 'elderly.' There were 60-80 43 80-100 31 fully fused, unfused, and porous postcranial elements in the deposit, 100-120 17 generally complementing the dental age analysis. It appears that the 120-140 15 140-160 2 inhabitants of Lagartero were not targeting deer of a specific age. 160-180 5 Cervid elements show a fairly even pattern of distribution (Figures 180-200 4 200-220 1 4-12 and 4-13); the variation in right and left and posterior and 220-240 1 anterior elements is minimal and is probably the result of small sample Backfill 23 TOTAL 227

47 size. Lateral distribution is fairly even in well-represented elements and in the total number of diagnostic specimens; the variation in side Table 4-7: Cervid Age representation is not significant (χ2 = 0.4, p = 0.53). As with the Range from Dentition Age MNI canids, mandibles and podials are well-represented. More cervid 3-4 Mo. 1 posterior podial elements were identified than anterior podial 4-6 Mo. 3 1 Yr 1 elements, possibly because some tarsals highly diagnostic, preserve 2.5 Yr 1 well, and are easily identified such as the astragalus, calcaneus, and 3 Yr 2 4 Yr 2 centroquartal (or cubonavicular). Selective utilization as food, 5 Yr 1 5.5 Yr 1 offerings, or tools or destruction from canid gnawing are other possibilities that might account for this pattern of element distribution. Metacarpals were generally the only podial elements identified from the anterior portion of the body creating a 1:4 ratio to the other anterior appendage elements (scapula, humerus, radius, and ulna). The total number of podial fragments (4) is less than the number of anterior appendage fragments (18) as expected. The metatarsal, calcaneus, astragalus, and centroquartal create a ratio of 1:1 when compared to posterior appendage elements (innominate, femur, tibia, and fibulae, which were not identified in this sample). There were 27 posterior podial fragments and 26 posterior appendage fragments, reflecting the 1:1

45 48 44 40

25 27 25 20

Number of Fragments of Number 10 10 4 9 4 9 5 2 3 7 0

e a s s a l r l l bl ul ru iu ln ia ate u bia ia ge ia di ap e ad U od in em Ti od da od an Sc um R r P m F P en l P M H io no ior pp ta ter In ter l A To n os ta A P To

Figure 4-12: Distribution of Cervid Fragments

48 100% 0

3 80% 4 2 13 17 15 17 227

60% 6 2

40% 6 5 Number of Fragments of Number 2 11 15 12 20% 113

1 0%

le la us us na ial te ur ia ial ge ial ib pu er di Ul od na m ib d da d nd ca m Ra P i Fe T Po en Po a S Hu or om or p al M eri nn ri Ap ot nt I ste al T A Po ot T Rgiht Figure 4-13: Distribution of Cervid Fragments by Side Left ratio almost perfectly. These measures suggest that complete appendages might have been present originally in the deposit. Ninety-five instances of modification were recorded for cervid fragments, the majority of which were canid gnaw marks. Cutmarks tend to occur on the lower rear limb in the ankle area, but other forms of modification do not seem to correspond strongly to a particular area of the body. This pattern of cutmarks might suggest that butchering took place at the location of the deposit, which is supported by the element distribution. Smoothed or worked elements consisted of one antler tine and one metatarsal shaft. It is likely that many elements were broken up as a result of taphonomic processes and have been categorized as unidentified large mammal. Deer were highly valued in Maya ideology and fulfilled a number of different roles. As a dietary species, meatier portions of the body (such as thighs) were more prominent in elite settlement areas (e.g., Emery 2003c; Masson 1999: 206). Deer were associated also with caves and played a central role in year renewal events (Pohl 1983: 62). Ethnohistorical evidence states that white-tailed deer were traditionally tamed and kept by Maya women and have been associated with women in iconographic contexts, as visible in Figure 4-14 (Landa 1978

50 [1566]; Pohl and Feldman 1982). A Late Classic period vessel from Actun Balam depicting a woman riding a deer during a ceremonial stag hung also displays this link between females and deer (Figure 4-15). In addition, the glyphs on the vessel refer to rain and the dwarf pictured behind the woman appears to be holding a skein of cotton, which are associated with the moon goddess and women. Young deer were also significant to the Maya and occasionally appear in special contexts, such as the high number of subadult individuals included in the Late Preclassic caches of deer teeth and skulls found at Cuello (Wing and Scudder 1991: 85-86). This is true at Lagartero where a fawn was found in an overturned vase at the bottom of the Lagartero basurero. Little published information exists on the role of brocket deer in Maya ideology. It is possible that they are not distinguishable from white-tailed deer in iconography, but it is clear that white-tailed deer are more prevalent than brocket deer in the archaeological record. Additionally, there are no records indicating that brocket deer were kept by the Maya. Isotopic Data. The isotopic analysis by White et al. (2004) revealed some informative results for a number of dogs and white-tailed deer from the Lagartero basurero. Based on the

δ 13C found in the specimens selected for study (six dogs and eight deer), the authors concluded that the diet of some animals was exceptionally rich in C4 plants (i.e., maize and other tropical grasses), suggesting that they must have been fed by humans. The dogs of Lagartero showed wide variation in the amount of δ 13C present in the collagen samples ranging from no C4 plant consumption to complete C4 plant consumption. Three individuals were probably scavenging, and three were probably intentionally fed restricted diets. Two of these individuals were fed primarily maize, and one appears to have consumed almost no maize. In order to restrict the diets of dogs - natural scavengers - the animals must have been restrained or trained in some way (White et al. 2004). Six of the

eight the deer at Lagartero all had low δ 13C values, implying that their maize consumption

51 was limited. One of the remaining individuals was either fed maize Table 4-8: Vertical for a short time or had consistently grazed at a maize field. The other Distribution of Rabbit Fragments individual was probably kept and regularly fed maize (White et al. Level # 2004). 0-20 2 20-40 2 δ 13 The authors suggest that those animals with high C values 40-60 15 were intentionally fed by humans and were restrained in some way. 60-80 5 80-100 6 These animals might have been kept for use in ritual feasts or the re- 100-120 1 creation of mythological events (White et al. 2004). 120-140 2 140-160 0 Leporidae. The eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) is the 160-180 0 only rabbit in this taxonomic category. They were fifth in diagnostic 180-200 0 200-220 0 NISP represented by 51 fragments (3.7 percent) and third in MNI 220-240 0 with at least seven individuals represented (5.6 percent of the Backfill 18 TOTAL 51 Lagartero MNI). Four adult individuals were identified by the right tibia and three subadult or juvenile individuals were identified by the left femur. Unlike canids and cervids, rabbits seem to be unevenly distributed in the deposit. All rabbit fragments were found above 140cmbs, with the majority of material between 40 and 60cmbs (excluding the material from backfill). Most of the rabbit remains were recovered from the eastern area of the basurero; the cardinal direction associated with females in Maya

52 cosmology. In addition, Sylvilagus was the only taxon that exhibited preference for areas of the body; the majority of elements were from the hindquarters. Two elements showed evidence of burning - one calcaneus and one distal femur; two elements (proximal humerus and partial innominate showed evidence of rodent gnawing; cuts were noted on one element (subadult left proximal femur), and one element (left calcaneus) appears to have been worn down. Representations of rabbits are rare in iconography, but they tend to occur in association with the moon goddess (Miller and Taube 1993: 142, Figure 4-17). There is at least one example of a rabbit portrayed as a scribe on a Late Classic polychrome vessel (Figure 4-18). Pohl (1976: 169) argues that the rabbit may

53 have symbolized intelligence, so it is not surprising that it would be depicted in association with the literate elite. Secondary Mammals Felidae. A single felid femur was identified in the Lagartero faunal assemblage. It was broken into two pieces that could be mended to form a single element. The cat was medium-small, but it is unclear if the element belongs to an ocelot, margay, or jaguarundi due to overlap in size. The femur, recovered from the north eastern portion of the deposit between 60 and 80cmbs, was slightly eroded but did not show any other modification. Cats were highly valued by the Maya and are frequently included in caches and burials, but jaguars were the most ideologically powerful species of the family; they were closely associated with the elite, warfare, royal lineages, and have been called upon to portray Underworld deities (Emery 2003c: 499, 502; Saunders 1994: 105; Miller and Taube 1993: 102- 3). They also may have been associated with caves and the nighttime travels of the sun below the earth (Pohl 1983: 71; Christenson 2001: 88). Iconographically, they are frequently portrayed in conjunction with deer, occasionally preying on them (Pohl 1983: 71). The presence of jaguar skins and elements has been interpreted as indications of members of high social strata (Miller and Taube 1993: 102; Pohl 1983: 71; 1976: 178).

Dideplphidae. Twenty-one opossum fragments were identified in the deposit representing the remains of at least 4 individuals based on the presence of left mandibles. Due to the osteological similarity of several species of opossums that overlap in size in this region, the specimens from the Lagartero sample were identified to the family level only. With the exception of one juvenile fragment, all specimens for which age data were recorded were adult. Four instances of modification were noted on didelphid specimens; an ulna, cranial fragment, and mandible fragment each showed instances of canid gnawing, and one mandible may have been cut. Nearly half of the specimens were recovered between 20 and 60cmbs, but there are no apparent trends in horizontal distribution. The role of opossums is unclear, but they have been associated with the Uayeb days (Pohl 1983: 79) and the outgoing year in the New Year section of the Dresden codex (Miller and Taube 1993: 128). In other contexts, the opossum is associated with old age (Miller and Taube 1993: 128). Despite its presence in cave assemblages, this taxon does not regularly appear in high numbers in archaeological assemblages and rarely shows evidence of human modification (i.e., cutmarks or worn areas). Procyonidae. The procyonid family is comprised of raccoons and their relatives. Nine fragments and a minimum of two individuals were noted in the Lagartero faunal assemblage. Three of the fragments were identified as Nausa narica, or coatimundi. Two elements were burned (Nausa mandible and humerus), two gnawed by canids (humerus and innominate),

55 and one element – a right mandible fragment - was scraped, eroded, and worked or worn. The majority of procyonid fragments occurred between 40-60cmbs and between 100-120 cmbs and in the northeastern portion of the deposit. Little data exist detailing the role of the procyonids (raccoons and their relatives – coatimundis, kinkajous, and ringtails) in Maya cosmology. Coatis may have been related to fertility and possibly utilized as a food source for women (Pohl 1976: 135, 150). Although the majority of zoomorphic fragments from the Lagartero basurero depicted dogs, some also portrayed coatimundis and other animals (Figure 4-21). Tapir. Four tapir remains were identified in the Lagartero faunal assemblage. All four fragments were podial elements, and one phalanx has rodent gnaw marks on it. The material was recovered from Units 16R, 16M and 16A (in a vertical line north to south) between 80 and 140cmbs. The role of tapir in Maya ideology is unclear. Perhaps the lack of tapir remains in many assemblages indicates that this species was not valued at all or that it was so highly valued that it was tabooed as a food source. The use of tapir at the Postclassic site of Laguna de On in northern Belize indicates that they may have been included in feasting or redistributive rituals, and tapir has been identified in ceremonial areas of the site (Masson 2000: 117, 119; 1999; Koželsky 2001). It is also possible that tapir was rare in the western Maya region due to environmental constraints. Xenarthra. Armadillos and tamanduas were found in the Lagartero basurero. Twenty- four armadillo scutes and two fragments of a left tamandua mandible were identified. None of these fragments showed evidence of modification. The majority of armadillo scutes were found between 40 and 80cmbs in the southeast corner of the deposit, and the two mandible fragments were found in adjacent units but at dramatically different depths. The remaining fragments do not show an identifiable pattern of distribution. The tamandua fragments were

56 recovered from Units 16A and 16M between 40-60cmbs and 100-120cmbs. The armadillo may be associated with fertility and is sometimes present in Classic period iconography as part of a procession (Pohl 1983: 79; 1976: 135, Figure 4-20). This animal was probably eaten in some areas of the Maya region (Emery 2003a: 4; Personal Communication 2005, but see Pohl 1976: 135). The tamandua, however, is very rare in archaeological assemblages and rarely appears in iconography. The presence of this taxa in the Lagartero assemblage signifies that this is indeed a unique faunal assemblage. Mustelidae. The mustelids - skunks, tayras, muskrats, and their relatives - were represented by three fragments. Part of a skunk (subfamily Mephitinae) cranium and mandible were recovered from different levels of Unit 16A near the center of the deposit, and a mustelid canine was identified in the faunal material collected from Unit 19C in the eastern half of the deposit. None of these specimens showed evidence of modification. Mustelids rarely occur in iconography and little is known about their role in cosmology. Rodentia. Several types of rodents were recovered from the deposit; agouti, paca, squirrels, pocket gophers and other small species. Three agouti fragments were recovered including a talus, incisor, and humerus without modification, and one paca fragment was identified, a right ulna fragment without modification. These four elements were recovered from different areas and depths of the deposit. The paca is favored as small game by contemporary Maya and was probably also eaten in ancient times (Pohl 1976: 142). The significance of this animal is ambiguous, but it has been found in elite contexts and occasionally occupies sacred areas such as caves and cenotes (M. Hopkins 1992: 375). Squirrel (Sciuridae) fragments were found in adjacent units and levels; a femur, scapula, and chewed humerus were found between 60 and 120cmbs in the western portion of the deposit. Two right pocket gopher (Orthogeomys sp.) mandible fragments were recovered in the Lagartero faunal sample from different areas of the deposit; one was found in the eastern portion between 60 and 80cmbs, and one from backfill of a western unit. These two fragments represent two individuals and do not show any evidence of modification.

57 A complete spiny pocket mouse (Liomys sp.) femur was identified from the backfill of Unit 16. It was broken into two pieces but could be mended. No modification was visible on this element. A complete right femur of a subadult rice rat was recovered between 60 and 80cmbs from a unit in the northeastern portion of the deposit. It did not show any evidence of modification. Thirteen fragments of unidentified small, medium, and large rodent were also recovered representing all areas of the body, suggesting that they were commensal animals naturally integrated into the assemblage. The fragments were distributed throughout the deposit, and one fragment - a metatarsal - was burned. Human Remains. Although human remains were collected separately, seven fragments were identified in the Lagartero faunal assemblage. The elements seem to represent several areas of the body and include a maxillary premolar with minimal wear, the gonial angle of a large mandible, an arthritic vertebral body as well as processes from a cervical and a lumbar vertebra, a nearly complete clavicle, and the distal portion of a large humerus. All elements that could be sided (four) were from the left side of the body. Only the clavicle and lateral process of a cervical vertebra were modified by canid gnawing. This collection of elements, distributed throughout the deposit, suggests that there may have been individuals of various ages present in this deposit. The premolar was found in Unit 19T in the southeast corner of the deposit between 40 and 60cmbs, the vertebral processes were recovered from Unit 19Y just east of the center of the deposit between 160 and 180cmbs, the vertebral body was found in Unit 19Z located south of the center between 120 and 140cmbs, the mandible fragment from Unit 16K in the southwest portion of the deposit, next to Unit 19Z between 160 and 180cmbs, the clavicle from Unit 16 in the southwest area of the deposit kitty-corner to Unit 16K between 140-160cmbs, and the humerus fragment was found in Unit 16M north of Unit 16 between 80 and 100cmbs (refer to Figure 4-2 for a map of the units). In addition to the individuals found in this deposit, over 50 burials - several of which were contemporaneous the basurero - were found in the northwest plaza of Lagartero. The fact that humans were included in this deposit may point to the unique nature of the event

58 that created the deposit supporting the idea that it might have been the result of social drama. On the other hand, human remains were also found in the Dos Pilas workshop assemblage included in this study and have been found in other special context assemblages since Olmec times (Pohl, Personal Communication 2005). Aves Birds comprised two percent of the total NISP (85 fragments) and included elements from a number of species (Table 4-9). Nineteen of these fragments were identified to family or more specific levels, but each taxonomic group is represented by only one or two elements. These diagnostic fragments act as a testament to the material that may have been lost as a result of taphonomic processes or during excavation. Fortunately, the relatively high number of taxonomic groupings within this class (nine) is reflected in the MNI. The following taxa were recovered from the deposit: Melancerpes erythrocephalus, Porzana flaviventer, Cassidix mexicanus, Cyanolyca sp., Ciconiidae (1 burned fragment, 1 cut fragment), Sterninae, Corvidae, Threskornithidae, Ardeidae, Phasianidae, and Icteridae (see Table 4-9). Bird fragments were found throughout the deposit. In some cases, fragments from one taxonomic group were found in the same vicinity. For example, the corvid fragments were found at different depths in the southwest portion of the deposit. In many cases the taxa are represented only by a single element. Birds are significant in Maya cosmology although particular birds were valued for different reasons. They have been associated with the world tree, frequently portrayed on the top branches (e.g., Miller and Taube 1993: 49) and may have been viewed as mediators between the heavenly realms and earth (Koželsky 2002). For example, the ‘celestial bird’ or ‘principal bird deity’, probably based on a vulture or macaw, might have been associated with rulers and is thought to have represented the heavens and symbolize power (Miller and Taube 1993: 57-58, 137-138; Gallenkamp 1985: 49). The principal bird deity might be related to Vucub Caquix, a mythical bird that is proclaimed to be the sun and the moon

Table 4-9: Summary of all Avian Remains Taxa NISP % NISP Mass % Mass Biomass % Biom Burn % Burn R Gnaw % Gnaw C Gnaw % Gnaw Cut % Cut Worked % Work Sternidae 1 1.2 0.1 0.2 2.5 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 Corvidae 4 4.7 1.2 2.1 24.1 2.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 Ciconiidae 5 5.9 8.3 14.6 140.1 16.0 1 100 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 Porzana 2 2.4 0.9 1.6 18.6 2.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 Cassidix 3 3.5 0.8 1.3 15.7 1.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 Threskornithidae 1 1.2 0.3 0.5 6.8 0.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 Ardeidae 1 1.2 0.9 1.6 18.6 2.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 Melancerpes 1 1.2 0.1 0.2 2.5 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 Phasianidae 1 1.2 0.1 0.2 2.5 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 Aves unid 66 77.6 44.4 77.8 643.7 73.6 0 0 2 100 0 0 o 0 0 0 TOTALS 85 100 57 100 875.0 100 1 100 2 100 0 0 1 100 0 0

60 (Miller and Taube 1993: 57,182). Furthermore, when burned sacrifices or offerings were made, the bird deity Kinich Kakmo or ‘Sun-faced Fire Macaw’ was believed to have descended from the heavenly realm to consume them (Miller and Taube 1993: 132; Pohl 1983: 82). Small birds have been identified in various deposits and might have been valued for their small size, but their purpose is unclear (Pohl 1983: 101). Additionally, birds such as parrots, quetzals, and motmots were valued for their colorful plumage frequently used in decoration (e.g., Miller and Taube 1993: 132). Reptilia and Amphibia There were 178 fragments (4.5 percent of the diagnostic NISP) from the Lagartero sample identified as reptile or amphibian; 164 reptile fragments and 14 amphibian fragments (Tables 4-10 and 4-11). The reptile taxa included iguanids, snakes, a number of turtles, Autarchoglossa/Iguania and unidentified reptile fragments. The distribution of reptile remains seems to follow the general trend of the deposit with the majority of material occurring between 60 and 80 cmbs in several units. Iguanids. Thirty iguanid fragments were identified in the Lagartero faunal assemblage. Many of these fragments probably belong to Ctenosaura similis, the black iguana, but without sufficient comparative material, a definitive identification could not be reached. At least three individuals are present in the deposit based on the presence and epiphyseal union of distal humeri. Two elements were chewed by canids, one gnawed by a rodent, a partial vertebrae appears to have been cut, and a right innominate shows evidence of wear. Iguanas are common in the Maya region but generally comprise a very small portion of archaeological assemblages. They are thought to have been food sources and have medicinal value in ancient times, The white meat of Ctenosaura, particularly the tail, is currently a

Table 4-10: Summary of All Reptile Remains Taxa NISP % NISP Mass % Mass Biomass % Biom Burn % Burn R Gnaw % Gnaw C Gnaw % Gnaw Cut % Cut Worked % Work Iguanidae 30 18.3 24.6 13.9 349.9 18.9 0 0 1 50 2 40 1 50 1 50 Squamata 6 3.7 1.2 0.7 17.0 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Emydidae 13 7.9 31.4 17.7 318.4 17.2 1 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 50 Kinosternidae 8 4.9 18.8 10.6 225.4 12.2 0 0 0 0 1 20 0 0 0 0 Testudines 53 32.3 75.0 42.3 570.3 30.8 2 50 0 0 1 20 1 50 0 0 Viperidae 6 3.7 4.0 2.3 56.0 3.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Serpentes 21 12.8 11.6 6.5 164.1 8.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reptilia unid 27 16.5 10.7 6.0 150.5 8.1 1 25 1 50 1 20 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 164 100 177.1 100 1851.6 100.0 4 100 2 100 5 100 2 100 2 100

Table 4-11: Amphibian Remains Taxa NISP % NISP Mass % Mass Biomass % Biom Ranidae 5 35.7 1.4 40.6 19.4 40.7 Bufonidae 3 21.4 1.0 27.5 13.1 27.5 Anura 6 42.9 1.1 31.9 15.2 31.9 TOTALS 14 100 3.5 100 47.6961 100

62 valued food item for the people of southern Guatemala and Central America; perhaps the ancient Maya also held this view (Hamblin 1984: 68). They appear in Postclassic codices in sacrifice contexts and were probably used on certain dates when other animals were tabooed (Emery 1997: 132; Hamblin 1984: 72). Iguanas tend to comprise a very small portion of archaeological assemblages and rarely make up a significant portion of the MNI, suggesting that their frequency in the Lagartero basurero is somewhat unexpected. Snakes. Several snake vertebrae were recovered from the deposit, mostly between 60 and 80cmbs from Unit 19X. This unit yielded 18 small vertebrae and one vertebrae approximately twice as large. Six vertebrae from venomous snakes were also identified, noted by the elongated ventral process. These vertebrae were found in three adjacent units at different depths and from backfill. None of the snake remains were modified. Snakes, particularly venomous species, appear frequently in various forms in iconography and have been associated with blood sacrifice (Pohl 1983: 78), transformation, the Underworld, water and the sky (Miller and Taube 1993: 15, 149-151) and were probably viewed as mediators between the Underworld and the human realm (Koželsky 2002). Serpents are frequently depicted with a figure emerging from their mouths, which may signify a transformation or transition for the individual depicted (death, ascension to power, etc.). Their mouths have also been portrayed as cave entrances, envisioned as gateways to the Underworld (Christenson 2001: 88). In illustrations of processions in the Underworld, some figures are shown with scarves or serpents around their necks (Figure 4-23) to indicate that the figure is traveling through the Underworld (Quirarte 1979: 143).

63 Turtle. There were 74 fragments of turtle remains identified in the Lagartero assemblage. Due to my inexperience, turtle remains were generally identified to the family level only, except in the case of Staurotypus - a turtle with a very distinctive shell. The majority of fragments were from the carapace or plastron, only two of the 74 turtle fragments did not belong to the shell. A number of instances of modification were noted on the turtle specimens; ten carapace fragments were burned - one was calcined, 2 fragments were chewed by canids, one marginal carapace fragment appears to have been cut and eroded, and one fragment was utilized. Most turtle fragments were recovered between 20 and 60cmbs, slightly above the majority of the material in the deposit.

In iconography, turtles are associated with water, the earth, abundance, agricultural fertility, and immortality. These associations are made clear in Figure 4-24. This Classic period image illustrates the Maize God emerging from the earth, pictured as a turtle; the

65 head and forelimb is on the left side of the plate. The god is attended by two individuals, one of which is offering water, emphasizing the associations of turtles with water and agricultural fertility. In addition, turtle shells were used as drums, possibly to replicate the sound of thunder in a rainstorm (Pohl 1983: 82). The association of turtles with immortality, ancestor worship, and the calendar is also clear. The sarcophagus lid of Pacal, the famous ruler of Palenque, is an example of the turtle's connection to immortality and ancestor worship (Figure 4-25). The lid portrays him descending into the underworld with a turtle pendant suspended from his neck (Clark 2004). Other evidence of the association between ancestor worship and the calendar has been found at Postclassic Mayapan, Yucatan and Caye Coco, Belize (Figure 4-26) where stone turtles were recovered, in some cases on an altar or bench of a shrine room (Miller and Taube 1993: 174-5; Pohl 1983: 82; Masson, Personal Communication 1999). Other Reptiles. Six fragments were identified as Autarchoglossa/Iguania because it was clear that they were not turtle or snake, but they could not be identified more narrowly. These fragments were recovered from the backfill of Units 16 and 16D, are very small, and one long bone fragment may have been burned. Amphibians. The identified amphibian remains consist of 14 fragments of elements from frogs and toads. Since the material was very fragmentary and the comparative collection small, the identifications were general. Large elements were scored as Bufo marinus (marine toad) because it is the only large anuran to occupy the Lagartero region. The fragments were recovered from all levels but primarily were found in the eastern portion of the deposit. Frequently, a number of fragments were found in the same level and unit, which may imply that a number of elements were lost in excavation.

66 Frogs and toads played several roles in Maya ideology; they have been associated with females, fertility, and fetuses, and were included in burials (Pohl 1983: 86). They appear in association with the rainy season, agricultural fertility and agricultural deities, and their portrayal has overlapped with jaguars (Dobkin de Rios 1974: 149; Miller and Taube 1993: 168). It is unclear if the psychotropic substance produced by the toad Bufo marinus was utilized by the Maya in ancient times, but the glands that secrete this substance are readily identifiable in iconography as illustrated in Figure 4-27 (Miller and Taube 1993: 168; Dobkin de Rios 1974: 150). Osteichthyes Ten bony fish fragments were recovered from the Lagartero deposit. One of these was identified as Ictalurus, but the remaining specimens were too fragmentary to identify. The whole body of the fish seems to have been used, identified elements include skull parts, vertebrae, and pectoral and dorsal spines. The elements were not modified, and they were distributed in two groups, one between 60 and 80cmbs or from the backfill of Units 19 and 19A southeast of the center of the deposit, and one group between 80 and 140cmbs and the backfill from Units 16A and 16D southwest of the center. It is difficult to say whether the inhabitants chose to avoid fish or if this low number is the result of Taphonomy or sampling bias. It would be interesting to see how the numbers of fish remains would change with different recovery techniques. Fish are rare in general refuse, perhaps because they were not included in the Maya diet or because of poor preservation (Pohl 1983:75, 101; 1976: 112). They may have been used as offerings in New Year ceremonies similar to the one illustrated in the Dresden codex. It has

67 also been suggested that catfish spines may have substituted for stingray spines in bloodletting ceremonies (Emery 2004: 7). Summary The faunal assemblage recovered from the Lagartero basurero, comprised of nearly 4,000 specimens, was distributed unevenly in the deposit; material was concentrated in two areas east and west of center and between 40 and 80 cmbs. Modified elements suggest that the material was deposited rapidly, and the presence of a number of canid gnaw marks may partially account for the high number of unidentifiable fragments present in the assemblage. The entire body of animals appears to have been present in the assemblage, which is particularly evident with canid and cervid remains. Rabbit was the only taxon that showed evidence of element selection. Considering their small size, however, it is not surprising that the meaty portion of the animal is present in higher numbers. The sample was dominated by mammals, which comprised about 90 percent of the total assemblage. Many of the mammal remains were simply identified as small, medium, large, or unidentified mammal. Dogs comprised the highest proportion of diagnostic mammalian remains, followed by deer and rabbits. These three animals are the primary taxa encountered in this assemblage. Secondary taxa include a variety of other mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish. In addition, the deposit had high taxonomic richness and diversity ratings. The three focus animals are food taxa and share an association with women in iconography, which may provide clues about the event that led to the deposit. The inclusion of a variety of other animals could relate to an attempt to include all types of animals (e.g., N. Hopkins 1980) or all animals acceptable to consume. Comparative analysis should indicate if this pattern is representative of a particular context or if it is unique to the Lagartero assemblage.

68 Comparative Assemblages The comparative assemblages included in this study originate from eight sites in the Maya region. Each sample can be placed within a specific context; site center, palace, immediate outskirts residential, immediate outskirts workshop, or the special contexts of cave or cenote. Lagartero is compared to each sample presented below in order to note similarities and differences in animal selection and use within these contexts and to assign it to the most appropriate context. As previously stated, humans and the invertebrates were collected separately from the Lagartero basurero and were not included in this study. Consequently, humans and the invertebrates have also been excluded from the descriptions of the assemblages below. Table 4-12 presents a summary of MNI from these assemblages; the bold numbers represent the primary taxa for each assemblage, the dark cells indicate the favored taxa for the majority of the assemblages, and the lighter shaded cells represent the favored taxa at Lagartero. Table 4-13 illustrates the outcome of the comparative analysis (to review these ecological measurements refer to pages 26 and 27). The number in parentheses next to the Cuevas calculations represents a recalculation omitting the primary intrusive taxa, and the Chichen Itzá calculation is based on the mammals alone. Aguateca Site Center The three focus taxa of this sample are turtles, deer, and felids. Turtles comprise 25 percent of the Aguateca sample with 28 individuals represented. Felids (21 individuals) and white-tailed deer (19 individuals) are also frequent. Since this sample is from elite structures in the site center, it is not surprising that some of the most valued taxa in Maya ideology comprise the bulk of the sample. The Aguateca site center assemblage is comprised of 14 taxa with a total MNI of 114 site center assemblages and unlike the Lagartero sample. White-tailed deer comprise nearly half of the assemblage (107 individuals, approximately 45 percent), and turtles, primarily unidentified turtles and Dermatemys, comprise over 30 percent of the assemblage (77 individuals). Other taxa present in the sample are represented in low numbers and include

69 Table 4-12: Summary of MNI of Lagartero and the Comparative Assemblages* Taxa Lagartero Aguateca Seibal PN Pal PN Outskrt Dos Pilas C Duende C Rio M A Polbilche C I Cenote Ray 0 6 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 NA Bony Fish 2 2 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 NA Amphibian 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 NA Crocodilian 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 NA Snake 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 NA Iguana-like Reptiles 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 NA Turtles 4 28 3 77 15 9 1 3 0 NA Birds 11 2 0 9 1 1 0 0 0 NA Opossum 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 Shrew 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 Bats 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 4 16 5 Spider Monkey 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Armadillo 1 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 Tamandua/Anteater 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Squirrel 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Gopher 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 Pocket Mouse 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 Paca (Agouti paca) 1 4 0 12 0 2 1 0 2 1 Agouti (Dasyprocta) 1 3 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 Rodent 4 0 0 0 0 1 2 18 315 8 Rabbit 7 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 2 2 Canid 28 11 1 9 2 4 1 0 124 5 Mustelid 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Procyonid 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Felid 1 21 4 2 0 28 1 0 2 1 Tapir 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Peccary 3 5 1 3 0 9 0 2 0 1 Deer 16 28 5 111 7 70 3 6 2 8 TOTAL MNI 106 114 15 240 26 129 43 38 471 40 * Some adjustments were made from the original data when consolidating taxa, working from relative percentages, or estimating MNI

70 Table 4-13: Primary Taxa for Comparative Assemblages and Lagartero

Assemblage Taxa %

Turtle 24.6 Aguateca Deer 24.6 Felid 18.4 Deer 33.3 Table 4-14: Comparative Calculations Seibal Felid 26.7 Assemblage MNI Tax Rich Shan Div Max Div S Equit Turtle 20.0 Lagartero 110 36 2.98 3.58 0.84 Deer 46.3 PN Palace Aguateca Site Center 114 14 2.20 2.64 0.83 Turtle 32.1 Piedras Negras Palace 241 18 1.64 2.89 0.57 Turtle 57.7 P N Outskirts Piedras Negras Periphery 26 5 1.12 1.61 0.69 Deer 26.9 Seibal Site Center 15 7 1.75 1.95 0.90 Deer 54.3 Dos Pilas Dos Pilas Periphery 132 14 1.59 2.64 0.6 Felid 21.7 Cueva de El Duende 43 (21) 19 (18) 2.07 (2.82) 2.94 (2.89) 0.7(0.98) Cueva Del Bat 60.5 Cueva de Río Murcielago 39 (23) 15 (14) 2.16 (2.51) 2.71 (2.64) 0.8 (0.95) Duende Deer 7.0 Actun Polbilche 471 (156) 11 (10) 0.92 (0.86) 2.40 (2.30) 0.38 (0.37) Cueva de Rio Rodent 47.4 Chichen Itza 40 15 2.35 2.71 0.87 Murcielago Deer 15.8 Act Polbilche Dog 26.3 Chichen Itza Deer 20.0 Cenote Dog 12.5 Dog 26.4 Lagartero Deer 13.1 Rabbit 6.6

71 bony fish, birds, Bufo marinus, felids, peccary, rabbits, and a variety of large and small rodents (Emery 1997: 268, 269). Although the MNI of the Aguateca sample is higher than the Lagartero sample, the taxonomic richness is much lower than the richness for the Lagartero assemblage. Shannon's diversity rating (2.20) and Shannon's equitability index (0.83) are moderate. The equitability index is nearly equal to the equitability index of Lagartero (0.84). Seibal Site Center Like the Aguateca sample, the focus animals are deer, felids, and turtles. Again, this pattern is different from the Lagartero sample. The Seibal sample is the smallest sample presented in this study. It has the lowest MNI of all assemblages, but it has the highest equitability rating. This faunal sample from a residential midden from the site center of Seibal consists of at least 15 individuals in seven taxonomic groups. Shannon's diversity rating is moderate (1.95) but the equitability rating is high (0.90), demonstrating that there was little taxonomic preference. The sample consists of deer (five individuals), felids (four individuals), turtles (three), canid, rabbit, and peccary (one individual each). The evenness of distribution may be related to sample size (Reitz and Wing 1999: 107, 122) and the fact that the sample was recovered without screens. Piedras Negras Palace The assemblage is comprised of 241 individuals in 18 taxonomic categories (Emery 2004). The focus animals for this assemblage are deer and turtles, which is similar to the two site center assemblages. The Piedras Negras palace assemblage has the highest MNI, a moderate diversity rating (1.64), and the equitability index (0.57) is the lowest presented in this study. This implies that the majority of faunal material exists in a small number of taxa and indicates a strong preference for a few taxa, deer and turtles.

72 Piedras Negras Immediate Outskirts Residential The Piedras Negras immediate outskirts residential is comprised of only 26 individuals in five taxa (Emery 2004). The faunal assemblage originally contained a high proportion of invertebrates that were not included in this study that may account for the small number of taxa described here. Turtles comprise the majority of vertebrate individuals (15) and make up over 57 percent of the vertebrate taxa. The sample also includes catfish, bird, dog, and white-tailed deer. This sample has the lowest taxonomic richness (26) and Shannon’s diversity index (1.12) of all assemblages in this study and has a low equitability rating (0.69), suggesting that there was strong selection for a small number of taxa; turtle and deer. Turtle, the primary taxon, is not a focus animal in the Lagartero assemblage but tends to be frequent in the other assemblages. Dos Pilas Immediate Outskirts Workshop The immediate outskirts workshop sample from Dos Pilas was recovered from a workshop area and is made up of 132 individuals from 14 taxa (Emery 1997: 266-267). The focus animals of this sample are deer and felids, which is reminiscent of the Aguateca and Seibal samples and unlike the Lagartero sample. There are at least 68 white-tailed deer individuals represented in the deposit, comprising over half of the sample. Felids are also well-represented in the assemblage and comprise about 22 percent of the sample (28 individuals). Other taxa include peccary, turtles, dogs, snake, turkey, crocodile, armadillo, brocket deer, and a variety of large and small rodents (Pendergast 1974). Shannon's diversity moderate (1.59), but Shannon's equitability is low (0.60). These measurements indicate that although a variety of taxa were included, heavy selection took place on a small number of taxa, which in this case were deer and felids. Since this assemblage was found in a workshop area that probably provided goods to individuals of high social strata, it is not surprising that the assemblage mirrors site center and palace deposits.

73 Cueva del Duende This cave near Dos Pilas demonstrates a greater variety in animal selection and high heterogeneity, especially evident when obviously intrusive taxa are omitted. In Cueva del Duende, 43 individuals from 19 taxa were identified (Brady et al. 1991). Twenty-two individuals were identified as Artibeus jamaicenses (fruit bat), and the rest of the taxa present are represented by three or fewer individuals in taxa such as spider monkey (Ateles geoffroyi), dog, bony fish, felid, deer, turtle, and rodents of varying sizes. Since these bats regularly roost in caves, it is likely that they were naturally assimilated into the assemblage. Including these bats in this sample, the diversity rating is moderate (2.07) and the equitability rating is relatively low (0.70). Excluding Artibeus, at least 21 individuals are present, Shannon's diversity rating increases significantly (2.82), and the equitability rating reaches nearly complete evenness (0.98), which implies a nearly complete lack of taxonomic selection. Cueva de Río Murcielago Similarly, the Cueva de Río Murcielago sample is comprised of 39 individuals in 15 taxa, and it is dominated by an intrusive taxon. The mouse Liomys sp. is common in cave samples and is frequent in the Cueva de Río Murcielago assemblage (Brady et al. 1991). If this intrusive taxon is included in the calculations, Shannon's diversity (2.16) and equitability ratings (0.80) are moderate. If the primary intrusive taxon is omitted, 23 individuals are present, Shannon's diversity increases (2.51), and the equitability rating approaches complete evenness (0.95). Other taxa present in the deposit include white-tailed deer, turtles, peccary, bats, fish, frogs, brocket deer and a number of rodents. The assemblage from Cueva de Río Murcielago appears to have a relatively high quantity of deer following the trend noted throughout the comparative assemblages. Exclusion of the primary intrusive taxa from these assemblages results in a dramatic increase in diversity, approaching the diversity of the Lagartero assemblage, and surpassing the Lagartero assemblage in equitability.

74 Actun Polbilche The faunal assemblage from Actun Polbilche has a low taxonomic richness (11) and is dominated by rodent and canid remains. Like the other cave assemblages, the biodiversity calculations were repeated without the primary intrusive taxon, rodents. The diversity (0.92 or 0.86 in the second calculation) and equitability (0.38, or 0.37 in the second calculation) ratings are exceptionally low, indicating very heavy selection. Like the Lagartero sample, dogs are the most frequent taxon. The dogs at Actun Polbilche appear to be represented by lose teeth or relatively complete individuals that might have been buried intentionally, however, and do not reflect the same pattern of use. Another point that indicates the uniqueness of this assemblage is the fact that no white- tailed deer are present. The two cervid individuals identified at Actun Polbilche are both brocket deer. Chichen Itzá Although the MNI data are only available for mammals, some general patterns can be noted. The diversity (2.35) and equitability (0.87) ratings are still high. The NISP of the other classes suggests that the MNI of the complete sample is significantly higher, but based on the currently available it is impossible to approximate the total MNI. Like the Lagartero assemblage, the equitability rating indicates that MNI is distributed fairly evenly among the taxa. In addition, the Lagartero canids seem to resemble the canid material recovered from the Cenote of Chichen Itzá most closely. In both cases, a variety of ages was recovered, but adults heavily dominate the assemblage. Selection for certain portions of the body is not evident in either assemblage, perhaps implying that the entire animal was originally included in the deposit. Observations These samples show a variety of patterns in animal selection. Although these measurements can be difficult to assess because they do not take sample size into account and are highly variable, some general trends are visible that separate fauna recovered from

75 different contexts. The palace sample is large and demonstrates strong selection for deer and turtle. Assemblages from the site center are smaller and have a lower taxonomic richness, but they are not the result of same degree of selection as the palace assemblage. In addition to deer and turtles, felids are included in the primary taxa from the site center assemblages. The outskirts assemblages are comparable to the site center assemblages in terms of taxonomic richness, but these samples are not as diverse as the other assemblages presented here and had two focus animals each. Turtle and deer are the primary animals in the Piedras Negras assemblage, which is a reasonable pattern because turtles and deer were valued foods and relatively easy to obtain. Deer and felids are the focus taxa from the workshop at Dos Pilas. Since this workshop probably functioned to serve the elites living in the site center (Emery 1997: 82, 102-104), it is not surprising that animals valued by the elites dominate the assemblage. In addition, the bones of felids and deer were modified into tools (e.g., Pohl 1976: 161; Reitz and Wing 1999: 158). The special context assemblages, those from caves or the cenote, show more variation. With the exception of Actun Polbilche, the cave and cenote samples are small, highly diverse, and do not appear to have a focus animal or group of animals. The assemblage from Actun Polbilche and Chichen Itzá both focus on dogs, which is relevant for this study of Lagartero despite the differences in their proveniences. Although the Lagartero sample shares the most characteristics with the cenote assemblage, it appears unique. For instance, it is expected that a higher sample size would result in increased diversity and equitability ratings (Reitz and Wing 1999: 107,122), but the Lagartero sample had a significantly higher taxonomic richness than the other assemblages despite a moderate MNI. The Lagartero sample also had a unique combination of focus animals; instead of a selecting for deer, felids, or turtles, the primary taxa were canids, deer, and rabbits.

76 Feasting Some characteristics of the basurero may resemble middens or appear to be the result of plaza cleaning because it was located at the base of a structure and contains a variety of material (Ekholm 1976), but a number of features suggest it was the result of a large-scale feasting event. Since the Lagartero faunal assemblage most closely resembles the Chichen Itzá cenote faunal assemblage and shares some similarities with the cave assemblages, it is clear that it originated from a special context. The assemblage is different from workshop and residential refuse and does not reflect a standard midden assemblage. In addition to the resemblance that the faunal assemblage from Lagartero shows to the other samples from special contexts, it consists of burned and cut fragments of food or sacrifice taxa, particularly dog and deer. These animals were used regularly in feasting, sacrifices, or other special events (Brown 2001: 377; Emery 2003a: 5; M. Hopkins 1992: 375; Hamblin 1984; Pohl 1976: 152, 214-21; 1983: 70-71). The variety of taxa may have been included as a sampling of everything “good to eat” or a wider resource base. Other materials present in the deposit suggest that feasting took place. The Lagartero deposit contains a high number of vessels of the types that LeCount (2001) argues are indicative of feasting (plates and cacao vessels), and a number of vessels used for food preparation were found as well. In addition, several hundred figurines were present in the deposit, reflecting a pattern that can be traced back to Olmec feasting events (Tway 2003: 134). The location of the deposit in the ceremonial center near a plaza, perhaps where the event or series of events occurred also suggests that an inclusionary feasting event took place (e.g., Brown 2001: 370). Together, these facts suggest that the event or series of events that created the Lagartero basurero included feasting. Midden deposits tend to contain used artifacts, accumulate slowly over time, and are expected to reflect the status of the individuals that lived in the structure association with it. The Lagartero deposit contained used and unused artifacts, but none of the vessels showed evidence of mending (Ekholm 1976: 151). Based on the distribution of elements gnawed by

77 rodents and the presence of vessel fragments that could be joined from different levels, the basurero appears to have accumulated rapidly. In addition, it was a very large, dense deposit that contained artifacts associated with different social strata (e.g., spindle whorls and cacao vessels) and consequently appears to be the result of large-scale public actions and not the refuse of a single household. If the basurero was the result of plaza cleaning, it should contain materials associated with the plaza, the materials should show evidence of extended exposure to the elements, and probably would not have a high faunal content because the bones would have been carried off by animals if left unburied. In contrast, the deposit contained some vessels and artifacts that were in very good condition (Ekholm 1976: 151) and element modification suggests that material was exposed only briefly. The presence of vessels fragments from different levels and units that could be reconstructed and fairly complete bodies of animals lends support to this point. Viewed in conjunction with the unprecedented size and density of this deposit, it is unlikely that it was the result of plaza cleaning. Plazas generally were kept clean, and materials used in rituals were buried immediately after use. In addition, if the deposit was the result of cleaning or disposal of all material goods it should resemble the size and composition of Central Mexican New Fire Ceremony deposits, but the Lagartero deposit is much larger and contains animals, which are not present in New Fire deposits (Elson and Smith 2001). Summary The Lagartero faunal sample consisted of nearly 4000 fragments. The material was distributed unevenly in the deposit; horizontally it was concentrated in a few units just east and west of the center of the deposit, and vertically the bulk of material was excavated from between 40 and 80 centimeters below the surface. Although several classes of vertebrates were present in the deposit, approximately 90 percent of the fragments were mammalian. About one third of the total number of fragments could be identified to a specific taxon, roughly half of which were identified as canid. Deer and rabbits were also favored taxa, but

78 the deposit was highly diverse and included specimens from at least 36 taxa. Animals of all ages were included in this deposit, and rabbits were the only taxon that exhibited element preference. There was a great deal of variation noted among the comparative assemblages. Some of the assemblages show strong selective force resulting in a high number of a few limited taxa, and others contain a variable number of individuals in several taxa. Except for the fauna from Actun Polbilche and the cenote at Chichen Itzá, the focus animals of the comparative assemblages were deer, felids, and turtles. The assemblages from similar contexts parallel each other with respect to equitability, but other measurements were variable. The Lagartero assemblage resembled the equitability rating of the site center assemblages, but it was most similar to the assemblages from special contexts, especially the Chichen Itzá assemblage. The hypothesis that the Lagartero basurero is a special context is supported by its identification as the result of feasting. The deposit contained animals and artifacts that are expected to be used in feasting events, such as meaty animals and serving vessels.

79 CHAPTER 5 INTERPRETATION

The Lagartero basurero represents a case of social drama observable in the archaeological record, even though some aspects of its origins and significance remain unclear. The faunal material appears to reflect a feasting event that incorporated dogs, deer, rabbit, and a number of locally available taxa. The animals might have been roasted whole and shared within the community. Since there are a number of links to women and cotton textile production present in the deposit, it is possible that the event or series of events was viewed locally as a public occasion that related to the role of women or the moon goddess. At the regional level, the event could have functioned to assert the identity of Lagartero as a crossroads settlement or textile production center. It is unclear what the feast was marking due to the variety of artifacts and other remains present in the deposit. Lagartero Assemblage Human Use and Deposition The fauna was distributed unevenly in the Lagartero basurero. The majority of material was located between 40 and 80 cmbs and in a few units east and west of the center of the deposit. Since no information is available about the density or distribution of other artifacts in the deposit, it is impossible to determine if the pattern of faunal distribution reflects the deposit as a whole or the faunal material alone. The composition of the faunal assemblage shows little variation among the different levels. This homogeneity could shed light on the formation of the deposit. Ekholm has argued that the rate of deposition was very rapid and analysis of the faunal materials supports this hypothesis. Further details regarding the rate of deposition have been difficult to assess, but some instances of modification may provide clues to the manner of deposition. For example, 12 percent of the fragments recovered from the basurero showed evidence of canid or carnivore gnawing. These fragments were scattered throughout the

80 deposit. If the deposit were the result of a single event, this form of modification suggests that the material was exposed before being placed in the deposit. Another possibility is that it was laid down gradually, during which the dogs were gnawing on the exposed bones. Likewise, burned material was present throughout the deposit, implying that the elements were burned and then thrown into the basurero. In contrast, the majority of rodent gnaw marks occur between 20 and 60 cmbs, suggesting that the material was already in the deposit before rodents modified it. The distribution of faunal material and ceramics (Ekholm 1976: 157) suggests that complete animals and artifacts were placed in the deposit at once. Due to the conflicting nature of these data, details regarding the rate and form of deposition remain ambiguous. It appears that the material was briefly exposed before deposition or that the deposit accumulated over a very short period. It is possible that microstratigraphic variation was present in the deposit that was overlooked during excavation, which could have provided further data regarding the rate and processes of deposition. Environmental Implications The fauna recovered from the Lagartero basurero shows that the Lagartero Maya included a wide range of animals in the event or events that led to the deposit. The majority of the fauna represented in the Lagartero assemblage was locally available, but several additional environmental zones were exploited including a variety of forested, open, and brush environments. The two most frequent taxa in the assemblage, dogs and deer, were associated with human habitation areas. Isotopic analysis demonstrates that Lagartero canids and some deer were consuming high amounts of maize, implying that they were living in and around human habitation areas (White et al. 2004). Several other taxa are generally associated with human habitation and cultivation areas, such as rodents, armadillos, opossums, spotted skunks, raccoons (family Procyonidae - Proyon lotor), eastern cottontail rabbits, lack vultures (family Ciconiidae - Coragyps atratus), bobwhite quails (family Phasianidae -

81 Colinus virginianus,), snakes, and lizards. Several taxa associated with riverine and swamp environments in the vicinity of the site also appear in this deposit including frogs and toads – possibly Bufo marinus, turtles, decapods (presumably the freshwater species), heron, ibis, the yellow-breasted crake, water opossum, paca, tapir, gastropods, and bony fish. Other taxa from the deposit indicate the use of open areas, brush, forest edge, open woodland, oak, pine, and second growth forest (Appendix A provides a list of animals that currently inhabit the region and their ecological associations). The inclusion of sustainable animals, such as dogs, and a wide resource base may have been the result of ecological pressure (e.g., Emery 2003a). During the Late and Terminal Classic periods, deforestation was becoming prevalent in the Petén area, causing sustainable animals to be selected more frequently (Emery 2003a; Pohl 1976: 127-129). Pohl (1976: 128) argued that selective pressure could be identified by the ages of individuals present in the deposit; if a high proportion of juvenile individuals are present in the assemblage (greater than 50 percent), then selective pressure is high, and fewer individuals were reaching maturity. Since deer are a favored food source in the Maya region (Pohl 1976: 152; M. Hopkins 1992: 379; Emery 1997: 125), this test for selective pressure was applied to the white-tailed deer from Lagartero. Based on dentition, three of the nine MNI – 33 percent - were less than two years of age (at two years deer exhibit complete adult dentition). It is not clear in the reports whether the fawn found inside a vase at the bottom of the deposit was included in the Lagartero faunal sample, but one individual probably selected for ceremonial purposes should not significantly affect the measure. Although sustainable animals are well represented and the assemblage shows high diversity, a strong argument cannot be made for selective pressure on deer populations. Therefore, ecological instability was not a problem for Lagartero during the Late Classic period, suggesting that the animals were selected for other reasons.

82 Faunal Assessment The Lagartero faunal assemblage was highly diverse, and 41 taxa were identified in the deposit. Taxa such as unidentified small, medium, and large mammals dominated the assemblage but were omitted from the analysis because they were too general to be useful. Approximately half of the diagnostic material constituted canid remains. This high proportion of canid material and grouping of primary is undocumented for this period and region, and few other sites in the whole of the Maya region have yielded such a high proportion of canid remains. Deer and rabbit were also prevalent, but the remaining taxa were generally represented by a small number of fragments. Comparative Analysis. Samples from a number of different sites and contexts were included in this study to provide a comparative base for interpretation. Although some variation exists among these assemblages, the Lagartero sample differs from the comparative samples in a number of ways and appears to be unique. With the exception of samples from special contexts, the comparative assemblages tend to focus on deer, turtles, and felids, but the primary taxa in the Lagartero sample are canids, deer, and rabbits. The MNI of Lagartero assemblage is not exceptional. It falls within the range of the comparative samples. Although the Lagartero MNI is close to the median MNI of the assemblages included in this study, it has the highest taxonomic richness and diversity ratings and the second highest equitability rating. The diversity and equitability ratings show that some assemblages were the result of heavy selection, especially the Actun Polbilche, Piedras Negras Palace, the Piedras Negras outskirts, and the Dos Pilas outskirts assemblages, and others had a more even representation of taxa similar to the Lagartero sample, such as the Aguateca, Seibal, and the cave assemblages. This evenness of distribution points to a wide resource base. The Lagartero sample differs from the comparative samples in terms of favored taxa, taxonomic richness, and diversity. There are several possibilities to explain the pattern of animal use visible in the Lagartero assemblage.

83 Accounting for the Pattern of Distribution The distribution of fauna in the Lagartero assemblages indicates that although the sponsors were able to acquire a variety of taxa, they chose to procure a range of different animals, including some easily accessible taxa, such as dogs. There are several reasons that this pattern might emerge. 1) The Actions that created the deposit can be likened to those that occur in caves or at cenotes. The cave assemblages and fauna from the Chichen Itzá cenote were also fairly rich, equitable, and diverse. These deposits seem to include animals of all types: walkers, swimmers, crawlers, and fliers in keeping with traditional ideas of representing the universe (sensu N. Hopkins 1980:17). It is possible that the event or series of events that created the Lagartero basurero was similar to those events that occurred in caves or at cenotes and included a variety of animals that were not used in day-to-day consumption or that the feast included a sampling of every type of animal that is acceptable to eat. 2) The sponsors were forced to procure a wider variety of animals, acquire easily accessible animals, and utilize all parts of the body. As demonstrated earlier, younger deer were not being over-selected, suggesting that the environmental pressure was not particularly high (e.g., Pohl 1976: 128). Since ecological pressure was not a factor and the sponsors were able to procure a variety of valuable artifacts including polychrome ceramics, large numbers of figurines, and shell ornaments, an inability to procure sufficient resources may not be the primary reason for the distribution of animals visible in the deposit. In addition, turtles were probably an abundant resource in and around the site, but they comprised a relatively small proportion of the Lagartero assemblage, suggesting that the inhabitants did not need to procure all possible resources. 3) The event marked an attempt to alter or reinforce the ideological value of dogs. Social drama is an opportunity to manipulate symbols, to increase or decrease the ideological value of certain items or fauna (Turner 1986; Wiessner 2001). Perhaps the people of Lagartero were attempting to increase the relative ideological value of dogs by emphasizing them in the

84 event that created the deposit. Wiessner’s (2001) study pointed out that as it became more difficult for individuals to contribute the proper number of pigs for feasting among the Enga, one group began to include pearl shells in their festivities. This increased the value and demand of pearl shell in the society and reduced the pressure on providing pigs (Wiessner 2001: 138). Consequently, if similar pressures on less-sustainable taxa were affecting the selection of animals, the people of Lagartero may have been emphasizing dogs as a way to increase the value of a more sustainable resource to relieve the pressure from other animals. Since ecological pressure does not seem to have been particularly intense, the demand on other animals was probably low, and a need to increase the value of dogs did not exist. Consequently, the event might have served to reinforce the value of dogs or to emphasize their ideological significance. 4) Multiple status groups participated in the creation of the deposit. It is unlikely that elites alone, who are estimated to have comprised approximately five percent of the total population (Chase and Chase 1992: 7), could have created deposit of this size in a short period. Although fine polychrome ceramics, pendants, shell ornaments, and figurines depicting elite individuals were present, the majority of ceramics were plain or slipped and few of the exotic goods that are generally indicative of high social strata (Chase and Chase 1992) were included. This pattern mirrors the distribution of fauna, which included some valuable taxa but was dominated by local taxa. Consequently, it is possible that each status group might have contributed the fauna and objects within their abilities to obtain, or sponsors from higher social strata chose to include fauna of lower value for the members of lower social strata to consume. The participation of multiple status groups might also be evident in the high degree of skeletal completeness visible in the deposit. Individuals of high social strata probably consumed the choice cuts of meat and distributed the remaining cuts among the individuals of lower social strata. All of the remains could have been placed in the deposit together after consumption. The event responsible for this deposit has been identified as social drama as argued

85 below. If this identification is correct, then public performance is a critical aspect. As individuals perform their social roles, they negotiate their relationship to others in society (Butler 1990), and social drama (sensu Turner 1986) is intended to be a community-wide event. In essence, there is no point in performing in a public setting without an audience. 5) Differences in preservation and excavation techniques allowed the assemblage to appear more distinctive than it actually is. Although the comparative assemblages presented in this study were included partially because they were procured with similar techniques, it is possible that the sampling bias and differences in preservation between sites was strong enough to distort the samples. Similarly, preservation tends to be better in caves and cenotes due to the lack of erosive processes and stable environment. Undoubtedly, these factors played a role in the composition of the faunal samples. The Lagartero faunal assemblage seems distinctive because it shows strong selection for canids, and despite a comparable MNI, the taxonomic richness is nearly twice that of other assemblages procured in similar ways. The composition of the Lagartero faunal assemblage is probably the result of all of these factors, but it is difficult to say which factor played the strongest role, particularly without information regarding the other material present in the deposit. Although the faunal assemblage is unique, it reflects special context animal use patterns. The faunal material, ceramics, figurines, and other artifacts seem to emphasize dogs and females and suggest that a special feasting event took place that included a large number of people. Social Drama Ekholm (1976) hypothesized that the basurero was a ritual artifact dump. Analysis of the faunal material and ceramics (Ekholm 1976, 1984) suggests that a feasting event took place before the material was placed in the deposit. Other details about the behavior responsible for the deposit remain ambiguous due to the limited data. The ten aspects of social drama outlined in Chapter Three were developed as an attempt to identify social drama in the archaeological record; each will be discussed individually in this section.

86 A) The aggregation of a large number of people. The large size, homogeneity, and high artifact density of the Lagartero basurero viewed in conjunction with the probable short period of deposition clearly indicate that a large group of people were involved in its creation. B) Goods are redistributed or shared. The numbers of artifacts and skeletal completeness of animals indicate that the deposit was the result of a gathering of a large number of people who utilized and shared fauna in the area of the deposit. This is opposed to a redistributive event that would disperse items or parts of animals throughout the site or region, which might be visible as choice cuts of meat found in elite zones and less valued cuts in other areas. C) The event marks or commemorates a specific occasion. The size and rapid deposition of the basurero suggest that this deposit was created for a specific reason. Based on the available information, it is impossible to say what event or series of events the deposit was marking, but there are several ties to women, textile production, and the moon goddess present in the deposit. Other possibilitiess for large scale ceremonial behavior might be related to calendric, rulership, or other public events, such as a period-ending, royal accession, or ballgame (e.g. Landa 1978 [1566]; Pohl 1981; Fox 1996; Clancy 1999). D) Some form of public display is incorporated. There is no doubt that the creation of this enormous deposit was a spectacle in and of itself. The presence of musical instruments and figurines in elaborate costume suggests that a degree of theatricality was involved. It is clear that a substantial number of people took part in the event, and the sheer number and variety of artifacts is impressive; it must have been a remarkable event to witness. E) An abundance of resources is available. Based on the distribution of fauna, canids were the primary taxa procured for the event or events that created the basurero. Dogs were probably the most readily available animal because they lived in and around human habitation areas and were fed maize, possibly to prepare the animals for sacrifice, which has been documented in this region and other parts of the Americas (Emery 2003a; White et al.

87 2004; Clutton-Brock and Hammond 1994; Schwartz 1997; Tooker 1965; Blau 1964). F) The effects of procuring that abundance. In order to procure a large number of individuals from a single taxon, the sponsors might have had to reduce the number of individuals from other, more valuable taxa such as deer. This economic strain could account for the emphasis on readily available species and high diversity present in the assemblage (e.g., Emery 2003a). The wide age range of deer in the deposit may indicate that the harvest was larger than usual; the demand may have caused hunters to obtain any animal readily available regardless of age. G) The deposit is located in a public location. The Lagartero basurero was deposited in the ceremonial center of the site next to the highest mound in the northeast plaza. This mound might have been a palace or temple structure (Ekholm 1976: 147-149). H) A concentrated assemblage indicating intentional placement. The Lagartero basurero filled a limestone pit adjacent to Mound 7A (Ekholm 1979: 149). Since this deposit was placed in a limestone pit and was exceptionally dense, it is unlikely that it was the result of general trash disposal, which might produce a feature similar to a sheet midden or have a good amount of soil mixed in. Whether the peripheral excavation units accurately reflect the edge of the limestone pit is unknown. The alignment of the eastern units off of the north axis suggests that excavation followed the direction of the pit, and possible transect units might have been placed to define its edge. The feature was excavated completely (Ekholm 1976), and the concentration of material seems to drop rapidly along the borders. In addition, the homogeneous nature of the assemblage, distribution of fragments that were modified by rodents, and the distribution of elements of animals from a single taxa support Ekholm's (1976, 1990) hypothesis that the deposit was formed rapidly. Considering these observations in concert with Ekholm’s description of the deposit, it is highly probable that this deposit was originally fully contained within the limestone pit. I) Artifacts are complete or can be reconstructed. Ceramic vessels have been reconstructed from fragments found in different levels and units of the deposit Ekholm

88 (1976: 157), suggesting that whole artifacts were deposited. In addition, the zooarchaeological analyses presented here show that the diagnostic faunal material generally represents all areas of the body in fairly even proportions suggesting that complete bodies or all of the remains of butchered or divided animals were placed into the basurero (e.g., dogs, deer, and other taxa, only rabbit was not represented in full skeletal completeness) J) Certain taxa or items are emphasized that may reveal information about the actions leading to the deposit. The actors responsible for this deposit showed a preference for canids, but they also included a significant amount of deer and other taxa. The dog figurines demonstrate the central role of canids in this deposit, but the presence of a variety of other animals suggests that the people that created the deposit intentionally incorporated a wide range of taxa. Additionally, the three focus animals, female figurines, weaving implements, and other characteristics of the deposit point to an emphasis on females or the moon goddess, Ixchel. Discussion. When measured against the ten criteria developed for social drama, the basurero met all of them. The fact that the deposit reflects these aspects of social drama implies that it is the result of large scale public activity that resulted in intentional deposition of selected materials in a public location. Whether the event was singular or repeated over a short period of time is still unclear, but the size of the deposit alone suggests that it was probably the result of a single or repeated series of events that utilized a wide variety of artifactual and faunal materials possibly relating to females and the moon goddess. There are several possible reasons for the actions that created this deposit. Ekholm (1990) suggested that the deposit was the result of an event similar to the New Fire Ceremony that took place in Central Mexico or other year renewal event. She has also compared it to deposits of unknown origin similar in composition to the Lagartero basurero from the nearby sites of Ojo de Agua and Chipoc that may be the result of period-ending rituals (Ekholm 1990: 456). The combined volume of these assemblages is only about 13.5 percent of Lagartero deposits, however, and their origins are also unclear.

89 Ekholm (1990:456-460) draws parallels between Central Mexican New Fire ceremony deposits (sensu Vaillant, described in Elson and Smith 2001) that took place every 52 years to mark the alignment of the ritual and solar calendars, contemporary New Year celebrations among the Tzotzil and Lacandon Maya, and the Lagartero basurero (Ekholm 1990: 456-460). She also notes, however, that the deposits associated with modern New Year ceremonies only contain pebbles and sherds (Ekholm 1990: 457). Recent research suggests that New Fire deposits (sensu Vaillant) contained a variety of broken household goods, such as ceramics and spinning tools but did not contain faunal material, human remains, or a high number of figurines and were generally smaller in size (Elson and Smith 2001). Ekholm (1990: 460) also argued that the basurero might have been the result of a celebration of a new Muluc year following the survival of the five unlucky Uayeb days. Each year of the Maya solar calendar began on one of four days in the ritual calendar (i.e., Kan, Muluc, Ix, or Cauac), was named for that day, and prescribed activities took place to celebrate the year. Bishop Landa’s (1978 [1566]: 64-65) description of these celebrations during the sixteenth century, several hundred years after the Lagartero basurero was created, includes offerings of turkeys, squirrels, a puppy, clay dogs, bread shaped like deer hearts and women dancing while holding spotted dogs (Figure 4-10). Domesticated turkeys were characteristic of the Postclassic Maya and unavailable for Terminal Classic period ceremonies, but large birds such as vultures and herons were present in the basurero along with squirrels, at least two juvenile canids, and clay dogs. The Lagartero deposit also contained several other types of animals including a large number of adult canids, human remains, and a myriad of figurines and other artifacts. Although Landa’s (1978 [1566]) description of a New Muluc Year ceremony might provide clues to the link between females and dogs, the diverse composition of the basurero implies that the event might not been a Muluc year celebration. Some aspects of this ceremony are present in the deposit but not enough to argue a strong correlation. It is possible to draw links between a number of ceremonies that Landa describes and the

90 Lagartero deposit because of its high diversity; many combinations of items and fauna described in Landa’s Relaciones (1978 [1566]) probably appear in the deposit. The Lagartero deposit as a whole, however, does not seem to reflect any of the ceremonies he described. Human remains and a wide range of other material present create an obstacle to a single, clear interpretation. Unfortunately, details regarding the origins of the deposit will probably remain unknown because there is no published information describing an event or deposit of this kind. Although it is difficult to link this deposit to a single focus or type of event, one prominent aspect is the association with women and the moon goddess, Ixchel. The focus animals, dog, deer, and rabbit are all related to women or the moon goddess (e.g., Pohl and Feldman 1982; Pohl 1983). Hamblin (1984) states that dogs were the preferred sacrifice animal for Ixchel, and Landa’s description of the Muluc year ceremony emphasizes the connection between women and dogs. In addition, deer and rabbits are portrayed with women or the moon goddess in Maya iconography, occasionally in sexually charged scenes that may relate to the association of Ixchel with fertility and childbirth. Coatimundis are also associated with women (Pohl 1976: 135, 150) and were identified in the Lagartero faunal assemblage. Other aspects of the Lagartero basurero also lend support to a connection with women and the moon goddess. The location of the cotton-producing site of Lagartero in a watery environment, the location of the deposit at the eastern extreme of the site, the presence of a high number of weaving implements in the deposit, and a high number of female figurines dressed in elaborate textiles can also be linked to Ixchel, suggesting that this goddess might have been significant for the people of Lagartero. The location of Lagartero and the style of the artifacts recovered from the site suggests that it acted as a crossroads for interaction among groups (Ekholm 1979). Some polychrome ceramics and figurines made in the Lagartero style, which shows a blending of regional characteristics have been found at other sites in the Grijalva region and Guatemala, but Lagartero clearly has the highest proportion of artifacts in this style (Ekholm 1976: 158). The inhabitants of Lagartero might have incorporated these locally produced goods into a large,

91 public event in order to express their autonomy and position within the Maya world to neighboring polities through the performance of social drama. Social drama is not a conscious attempt at ‘self-knowledge’, but its performance reveals an accepted set of symbols, embedded values, and the identity of the group to its members (Turner 1986: 42). Consequently, this social drama that incorporates feasting, emphasized dogs, and demonstrates several connections to women and Ixchel, might have functioned at the community level to reaffirm relationships between different sections of the population and to solidify the identity of the community as a whole. The feasting event leading to the creation of the basurero could have served to reflect and affirm the position of Lagartero in the Grijalva region. Although some aspects of the deposit remain ambiguous, it is possible to say that the event or events that led to the creation of the deposit were very large and strongly significant to the inhabitants of Lagartero. Regardless of the type of event that led to this deposit, the inhabitants of Lagartero used this social drama to assert their identity and regional significance. Summary This Terminal Classic period deposit was probably the result of a single or brief series of public feasting events that emphasized dog, deer, rabbit, and a sampling of all types of animals (e.g., N. Hopkins 1980) or animals acceptable to eat and might have been associated with women or the Moon Goddess, Ixchel. At the regional level, it possibly served to assert or reaffirm the status of Lagartero. The distribution of elements from any given taxon and the rodent and canid gnaw marks on the material included in the deposit suggest that the remains could have been exposed before deposition or deposited over the course of a few days. Cutmarks, burned areas, skeletal completeness, and the presence of serving vessels (Ekholm 1976, 1984) suggest that the animals included in the deposit were roasted whole and shared. Most animals recovered from this deposit were locally available, although a variety of

92 other environments were exploited as well. The three focus animals all share an association with women or the Moon Goddess, Ixchel, which is also reflected in the artifactual remains and orientation of the site, which was a center of textile production and was located in a watery environment. These facts suggest that the some aspect of the event that led to the deposit was related to the role of women or in honor of Ixchel. The event or events that resulted in the basurero have been identified as a social drama and probably functioned to negotiate the identity of Lagartero identity at the community and regional levels. Since Lagartero was located at a crossroads area and materials from this site tend to display a unique blend of artifact styles from surrounding cultural groups, this event might have functioned to assert and reinforce the identity of the community as a whole in a region of multiple cultural influences.

93 CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The primary goals of this study were to present a complete analysis of the faunal material recovered from an unusual deposit at Lagartero and to introduce an alternative approach to the interpretation of ambiguous archaeological deposits. The study also presents eight contemporaneous faunal assemblages, providing a picture of faunal usage during the Late and Terminal Classic Periods. This study attempts to apply Turner’s (1986) concept of social drama integrated with Wiessner’s (2001) ethnoarchaeological study of Enga feasting to the interpretation of the deposit. Despite the fact that many details of the event that led to the creation of the basurero remain unclear, some general hypotheses can be made. It is plausible that the unique deposit was the result of a single or brief series of public events that took place during the Terminal Classic period, included feasting, emphasized an unusual combination of animals (dog, deer, and rabbit), was possibly related to the role of women or the Moon Goddess, and might have functioned to assert or reaffirm the status of Lagartero at the regional level. The Lagartero faunal material was procured from a large deposit (or basurero) adjacent to the largest structure in the ceremonial center of the site. In addition to faunal material, the assemblage contained human remains and a variety of artifacts including polychrome ceramics, unslipped ceramics, anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines, obsidian blades, weaving implements, shell ornaments, and several other types of artifacts. In order to determine the nature of the Lagartero assemblage it was analyzed fully and compared to eight other assemblages of known context from the Maya region. Since the deposit is anomalous, it was compared to models of feasting and social drama to aid in interpretation. Like the basurero itself, the faunal assemblage seems to be unique. The Lagartero sample was compared with eight contemporaneous samples and is distinctive in several respects. Canids, deer, and rabbits were the most prominent taxa in the Lagartero

94 assemblage, but deer, felids and turtles were the focus animals in the majority of the comparative assemblages. In addition, the taxonomic richness and Shannon’s diversity index of the Lagartero sample were significantly higher than that of the comparative assemblages despite a comparable MNI and similar recovery techniques. The Lagartero faunal assemblage shares the most characteristics with the assemblage from the Cenote of Sacrifice at Chichen Itzá, indicating its special significance. Both of these assemblages have a high taxonomic diversity and equitability rating and contain a high proportion of canid remains. Although a wide range of animals were included in the Lagartero basurero, the majority were locally available and few were exploited from other ecological zones. Canid remains dominate the identifiable material, which might suggest a reliance on sustainable animal resources due to the over-exploitation of less sustainable taxa (e.g., Emery 2003a), but a test of selective pressure on deer (Pohl 1976: 128), a favorite food animal of the Maya, did not indicate that the deer population was at risk. Consequently, canids might have been selected for their ideological significance or because the event itself followed a prescribed set of behaviors that dictated the use of dogs (e.g., dogs as the preferred sacrifice animal for Ixchel). The two other focus animals, deer and rabbit, might have also been incorporated for their ideological significance. All three of the focus animals can be associated with women based on iconographic and ethnohistoric data. In addition, the majority of figurines from the deposit represented females dressed in elaborate textiles, weaving implements were included in the deposit, the location of the deposit in the east, and the site is located in a watery environment, suggesting that some aspect of the event or series of events leading to the deposit was related to women or the Moon Goddess, Ixchel. Based on the rodent and canid gnaw marks present on some bones found in the basurero and the clustering of fragments from a single taxon, it is likely that the material was either briefly exposed before deposition or was deposited over a number of days. Other modifications, such as cutmarks and burned areas, and skeletal completeness suggest that the

95 animals included in the deposit were eaten. This hypothesis is supported by fact that the primary taxa present in the deposit were recognized food species and a the large number of serving vessels indicative of feasting events, such as plates and cacao vessels (e.g., LeCount 2001), were found in the deposit as well (Ekholm 1976, 1984). The feasting event or events were most likely public and attended by individuals from all parts of the community. The variety of animals present in the deposit and their high degree of skeletal completeness suggests that all qualities of meat were contributed and shared among different status groups. This pattern is reflected in the variety of artifacts included in the deposit; some materials were probably restricted for elite use (e.g., elaborate polychrome ceramics, shell ornaments, etc.), while others were tend to be associated with lower social strata (e.g., lithic tools). As a social drama, a public performative act that simultaneously reveals and reinforces the identity and values of the group, this public event probably served to negotiate identity within and between different status groups in the community and people in the region. Although Lagartero was located at a crossroads area, the deposit contained a high number of locally made ceramics, pendants, and other artifacts that display a blend of characteristics from different regions into a unique Lagartero style. This event might have functioned to assert and reinforce the identity of the community as a whole in a region of multiple cultural influences.

APPENDIX A

SUPPLEMENTAL ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION

98 Mammals ORDER FAMILY GENUS SPECIES COMMON NAME H-B SIZE Didelphimorphia Didelphidae Caluromys derbianus Woolly Opossum 247-321 Didelphimorphia Didelphidae Chironectes minimus Water Opossum 221-400 Didelphimorphia Didelphidae Didelphis marsupialis Common Opossum 263-430 Didelphimorphia Didelphidae Didelphis virginiana Virginia Opossum 347-541 Didelphimorphia Didelphidae Marmosa mexicana Mexican Mouse Opossum 95-202 Didelphimorphia Didelphidae Philander opossum Gray Four-eyed Opossum 253-315 Xenarthra Myrmecophagidae Cyclopes didactylus Silky Anteater 123-215 Xenarthra Myrmecophagidae Tamandua mexicana Northern Tamandua 520-770 Xenarthra Dasypodidae Cabassous centralis Northern Naked-tailed Armadillo 300-400 Xenarthra Dasypodidae Dasypus novemcinc t us Nine-banded Armadillo 384-573 Insectivora Soricidae Cryptotis merriami Merriam's Small-Eared Shrew 65-76 Insectivora Soricidae Cryptotis parva Least Shrew 55-78 Insectivora Soricidae Cryptotis goldmani Goldman's Small-Eared Shrew 69-85 Insectivora Soricidae Cryptotis goodwini Goodwin's Small-Eared Shrew 75-94 Chiroptera Emballonuridae Rhynchonycteris naso Proboscis Bat 36-48 Chiroptera Emballonuridae Saccopteryx bilineata Greater White-lined Bat 47-56 Chiroptera Emballonuridae Centronyctes maximillani Shaggy Bat 49-59 Chiroptera Emballonuridae Peropteryx kappleri Greater Dog-like Bat 63-75 Chiroptera Emballonuridae Peropteryx macrotis Lesser Dog-like Bat 42-53 Chiroptera Emballonuridae Balantiopteryx io Least Sac-winged Bat 38-44 Chiroptera Emballonuridae Balantiopteryx plicata Gray Sac-Winged Bat 47-53 Chiroptera Emballonuridae Diclidurus albus Northern Ghost Bat 68-82 Chiroptera Noctilionidae Noctilio leporinus Greater Fishing Bat 76-107 Chiroptera Noctilionidae Noctilio albiventris Lesser Fishing Bat 61-91 Chiroptera Mormoopidae Mormoops megalophylla Ghost-faced Bat 57-70 Chiroptera Mormoopidae Pteronotus pamellii Common Mustached Bat 58-70 Chiroptera Mormoopidae Pteronotus personatus Lesser Mustached Bat 43-55 Chiroptera Mormoopidae Pteronotus davyi Davy's Naked-Backed Bat 42-55 Chiroptera Mormoopidae Pteronotus gymnono ust Big Naked-Backed Bat 55-69 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Micronecteris microtis Common Big-eared Bat 35-51 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Micronecteris schimidtorum Schmidt's Big-eared Bat 47-54 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Micronycteris brachyotis Orange-throated Bat 48-62 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Micronectris sylvestris Tricolored Bat 55-70 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Macrotus waterhousii Waterhouse's Bat 54-67 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Lonchorhina aurita Common Sword-nosed Bat 53-69 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Macrophyllum macrophyllum Long-legged Bat 41-53 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Tonatia saurophilia Stripe-headed/Round-Eared Bat 74-88 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Tonatia brasiliense Pygmy Round-Eared Bat 42-61 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Tonatia evotis Davis' Round-Eared Bat 49-70 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Mimon bennettii Golden Bat 61-75 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Mimon crenulaturn Striped Hairy-nosed Bat 55-69 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Phyllostomus discolor Pale Spear-nosed Bat 66-97 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Phyllostomus stenops Pale-faced Bat 87-115 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Trachops cirrhosus Fringe-lipped Bat 65-88 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Chrotopterus auritus Woolly False Vampire Bat 93-113 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Glossophaga soricina Common Long-tongued Bat 59-45 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Glossophaga leachii Gray's Long-Tongued Bat 47-60 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Glossophaga commissarisi Brown Long-Tongued Bat 42-61 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Glossophaga morenoi Western Long-Tongued Bat 52-58

99 Mammals ORDER FAMILY GENUS SPECIES COMMON NAME H-B SIZE Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Anoura geoffroyi Geoffroy's Hairy-Legged Bat 58-73 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Hylonycteris underwoodi Underwood's Long-tongued 48-60 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Choeroniscus godmani Godman's Whiskered Bat 47-58 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Choeroniscus mexicana Mexican Hog-Nosed Bat 68-93 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Leptonycteris nivalis Mexican Long-Nosed Bat 77 - 93 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Carollia subrufa Gray Shot-Tailed Bat 49 - 61 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Carollia brevicauda Silky Short-tailed Bat 53-70 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Carollia perspicillata Seba's Short-tailed Bat 48 - 70 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Sturnira lilium Little Yellow-shouldered Bat 54-65 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Sturnira ludovici Highland Yellow-Shouldered Bat 66-70 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Artibeus lituratus Great Fruit-eating Bat 87-101 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Artibeus intermedius Intermediate Fruit-eating Bat 80-93 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Artibeus jamicensis Jamaican Fruit-eating Bat 70-85 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Artibeus aztecus Aztec Fruit-Eating Bat 59-75 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Artibeus toltecus Toltec Fruit-eating Bat 59-65 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Artibeus phaeo ist Pygmy Fruit-eating Bat 47-59 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Artibeus watsoni Watson's Fruit-eating Bat 50-58 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Enchisthenes hartii Velvety Fruit-Eating Bat 55-68 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Uroderma bilobatum Common Tent-making Bat 59-69 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Platyrrhinus helleri Heller's Broad-nosed Bat 55-65 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Vampyrodes caraccioli Great Stripe-faced Bat 77-89 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Chiroderma villosum Hairy Big-Eyed Bat 62-79 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Chiroderma salvini Salvin's Big-Eyed Bat 70-87 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Vampyressa pusilia Little Yellow-eared Bat 43-52 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Centurio senex Wrinkle-Faced Bat 54-68 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Desmodus rotundus Common Vampire Bat 68-93 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Diaemus youngi White-Winged Vampire Bat 77-115 Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Diphylla ecaudata Hairy-legged Vampire Bat 69-82 Chiroptera Natalidae Natalus stramineus Mexican Funnel-eared Bat 38-46 Chiroptera Thyropteridae Thyroptera tricolor Spix's Disc-winged Bat 37-46 Chiroptera Vespertilionidae Myotis californicus California Mayotis 38-53 Chiroptera Vespertilionidae Myotis fortidens Cinnamon Myotis 47-63 Chiroptera Vespertilionidae Myotis velifer Cave Myotis 41-65 Chiroptera Vespertilionidae Myotis nigricans Black Myotis 39-52 Chiroptera Vespertilionidae Myotis elegans Elegant Myotis 39-49 Chiroptera Vespertilionidae Myotis albescens Silver-Haired Myotis 48-62 Chiroptera Vespertilionidae Myotis keaysi Hairy-legged Myotis 41-53 Chiroptera Vespertilionidae Pipistrellus subflavus Eastern Pipistrelle 40-55 Chiroptera Vespertilionidae Eptesicus fuscus Big Brown Bat 63-75 Chiroptera Vespertilionidae Eptesicus furinalis Argentine Brown Bat 48-64 Chiroptera Vespertilionidae Rhogeessa tumida Central American Yellow Bat 37-50 Chiroptera Vespertilionidae Bauerus dubiaquercus Van Gelder's Bat 55-78 Chiroptera Vespertilionidae Lasiurus borealis Western Red Bat 49-65 Chiroptera Vespertilionidae Lasiurus cinereus Hoary Bat 71-90 Chiroptera Vespertilionidae Lasiurus intermedius Northern Yellow Bat 60-89 Chiroptera Vespertilionidae Lasiurus ega Southern Yellow Bat 62-75 Chiroptera Molossidae Molossops greenhalli Greenhall's Dog-Faced Bat 55-76 Chiroptera Molossidae Tadarida brasiliensis Brazilian Free-Tailed Bat 52-62 Chiroptera Molossidae Nyctinomops laticaudatus Broad-Eared Bat 50-64

100 Mammals ORDER FAMILY GENUS SPECIES COMMON NAME H-B SIZE Chiroptera Molossidae Eumops auripendulus Black Bonneted Bat 75-92 Chiroptera Molossidae Eumops underwoodi Underwood's Bonneted Bat 85-112 Chiroptera Molossidae Eumops Glaucinus Wagner's Bonneted Bat 75-95 Chiroptera Molossidae Eumops Hansae Sanbon's Bonneted Bat 61-75 Chiroptera Molossidae Molossus Rufus Black Mastiff Bat 71-98 Chiroptera Molossidae Molossus Sinaloae Sinaloan Mastiff Bat 69-85 Chiroptera Molossidae Molossus Molossus Lesser Mastiff Bat 59-65 Primates Cebidae Alouatta Palliate Mantled Howler 380-580 Primates Cebidae Alouatta Pigra Black Howler-Monkey 415-640 Primates Cebidae Ateles geoffroyi Spider-Monkey 335-582 Carnivora Canidae Canis familiaris Domestic Dog Variable Carnivora Canidae Canis latrans Coyote 750-1150 Carnivora Canidae Urocyon cinereoa r genteus Gray Fox 481-718 Carnivora Felidae Leopardus pardalis Ocelot 640-838 Carnivora Felidae Leopardus wiedii Margay 490-737 Carnivora Felidae Herpailurus yagouaroundi Jaguaroundi 525-940 Carnivora Felidae Puma concolor Puma 860-1219 Carnivora Felidae Panthera onca Jaguar 1100-1600 Carnivora Mustelidae Mustela frenata Long-tailed Weasel 230-325 Carnivora Mustelidae Eira barbara Tayra 601-705 Carnivora Mustelidae Mephistis macroura Hooded Skunk 195-295 Carnivora Mustelidae Conepatus mesoleucus Common Hog-nosed Skunk 340-440 Carnivora Mustelidae Conepatus semistriatus Striped Hog-Nosed Skunk 340-500 Carnivora Mustelidae Spilogale putroius Spotted Skunk 210-305 Carnivora Mustelidae Lontra longicaudis Neotropical River Otter 564-800 Carnivora Procyonidae Bassariscus sumichrasti Ringtail, Cacomistle 380-470 Carnivora Procyonidae Procyon lotor Raccoon 392-620 Carnivora Procyonidae Nasua narica Coatimundi 439-680 Carnivora Procyonidae Potos flavus Kinkajou 430-740 Perssiodactyla Tapiridae Tapirus bairdii Baird's Tapir 1900-2200 Artiodactyla Tayassuidae Tayassu tajacu Collared Peccary 800-1000 Artiodactyla Tayassuidae Tayassu pecari White-lipped Peccary 900-1300 Artiodactyla Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed Deer 900-1500 Artiodactyla Cervidae Mazama americana Red Brocket 900-1200 Rodentia Sciuridae Sciurus areogaster Mexican Gray Squirrel 232-310 Rodentia Sciuridae Sciurus yucatanensis Yucatan Squirrel 200-322 Rodentia Sciuridae Sciurus variegatoides Variegates Squirrel 240-300 Rodentia Sciuridae Sciurus deppei Deppe's Squirrel 181-225 Rodentia Sciuridae Glaucomys volans Southern Flying Squirrel 117-135 Rodentia Geomyidae Orthogeomys grandis Large Pocket Gopher 225-285 Rodentia Geomyidae Orthogeomys hispidus Hispid Pocket Gopher 180-266 Rodentia Heteromyidae Liomys pictus Painted Spiny Pocket Mouse 103-128 Rodentia Heteromyidae Liomys salvini Salvin's Spiny Pocket Mouse 103-140 Rodentia Heteromyidae Heteromys desmarestianus Forest Spiny Pocket Mouse 123-148 Rodentia Heteromyidae Heteromys goldmani Goldman's Spiny Pocket Mouse 132-160 Rodentia Muridae Oryzomys couesi Coues' Rice Rat 98-142 Rodentia Muridae Oryzomys rostratus Rusty Rice Rat 92-119 Rodentia Muridae Oryzomys alfaroi Alfaro's Rice Rat 86-118 Rodentia Muridae Oligoryzomys fulvescens Northern Pygmy Rice Rat 62-99

101 Mammals ORDER FAMILY GENUS SPECIES COMMON NAME H-B SIZE Rodentia Muridae Sigmodon hispidus Hispid Cotton Rat 112-180 Rodentia Muridae Rheomys thomasi Thomas' Water Mouse 94-136 Rodentia Muridae Tylomys nudicaudus Northern Climbing Rat 188-260 Rodentia Muridae Ototylomys phyllotis Big-eared Climbing Rat 124-164 Rodentia Muridae Baiomys musculus Southern Pygmy Mouse 65-80 Rodentia Muridae Scotinomys teguina Alsont's Singing Mouse 66-86 Rodentia Muridae Reithrodontomys sumichrasti Sumichrast's Harvest Mouse 64-93 Rodentia Muridae Reithrodontomys fulvescens Fulvous Harvest Mouse 57-82 Rodentia Muridae Reithrodontomys mexicanus Mexican Harvest Mouse 69-100 Rodentia Muridae Peromyscus melanophrys Plateau Mouse 106-123 Rodentia Muridae Peromyscus aztecus Aztec Mouse 109 - 126 Rodentia Muridae Peromyscus levipes Southern Brush Mouse 93-108 Rodentia Muridae Peromyscus mexicanus Mexican Deer Mouse 108-137 Rodentia Muridae Mus musculus House Mouse 66-91 Rodentia Muridae Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat 186-240 Rodentia Muridae Rattus rattus Roof Rat 158-196 Rodentia Erethizontidae Coendou mexicanus Mexican Porcupine 320-457 Rodentia Agoutidae Agouti paca Paca 500-774 Rodentia Dasyproctidae Dasyprocta punctata Central American Agouti 450-570 Lagamorpha Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern Cottontail 337-423

102

Birds OREDER FAMILY GENUS SPECIES COMMON NAME STATUS LENGTH WING Ciconiiformes Accipitridae Buteo jamaicensis Red-Tailed Hawk resident 46-60 NA Coraciiformes Alcedinidae Chloroceryle americana Green Kingfisher resident 19-20 79-86 Apodiformes Apodidae Streptoprocne zonaris White-Collared Swift resident 20 194-215 Passeriformes Bombycillidae Bombycilla cedrorum Cedar Waxwing transient, visitor 14-17 91-99 Strigiformes Caprimulgidae Chordeles acutipennis Lesser Nighthawk resident 18-23 168-208 Ciconiiformes Charadriidae Charadrius vociferus Killdeer resident, visitor 20-25 147-170 Ciconiiformes Ciconiidae Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture resident 71-76 458-546 Ciconiiformes Ciconiidae Coragyps atratus Black Vulture resident 56-66 NA Passeriformes Cinclidae Clinclus mexicanus American Dipper resident 16-19 82-92 Columbiformes Columbidae Columba fasciata Band-Tailed Pigeon resident 33-38 193-221 Columbiformes Columbidae Zenaida asiatica White-Winged Dove resident 23-28 142-172 Passeriformes Corvidae Calocitta formo s a Magpie Jay resident 59-66 180-208 Passeriformes Corvidae Corvus corax Common Raven resident 59-69 386-460 Passeriformes Corvidae Cyanolyca cucullata Azure-Hooded Jay resident 28-31 125-139 Passeriformes Corvidae Cyanolyca pumilo Black-Throated Jay resident 24-25 109-119 Passeriformes Cotingidae Platypsaris aglaiae Rose-Throated Becard resident 15-16 83-95 Craciformes Cracidae Penelopina nigra Black Penelopina, Black resident 54-64 233-266 Cuculiformes Cuculidae Geococcyx velos Lesser Roadrunner resident 44-51 136-162 Passeriformes Vireonidae Cyclarhis gujanensis Rufous-Browed resident 15-16 72-81 Passeriformes Furnariidae Lepidocolaptes affinis Spot-Crowned resident 19-20 100-116 Passeriformes Furnariidae Xiphorhynchus erythopygius Spotted Woodpecker resident 20-21 108-125 Ciconiiformes Falconidae Falco sparverius American Kestrel, Sparrow resident 25-28 171-204 Passeriformes Formicariidae Thamnophilus doliatus Barred Antshrike resident 15 65-79 Passeriformes Fringillidae Aimophila rufescens Rusty Sparrow resident 17-19 70-77 Passeriformes Fringillidae Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper Sparrow res, trans, visit 11-13 57-66 Passeriformes Fringillidae Guiraca caerulea Blue Grosbeak resident 14-18 77-97 Passeriformes Fringillidae Melospiza linco l nii Lincoln's Sparrow visitor 12-15 54-67 Passeriformes Fringillidae Passerina cyanea Indigo Bunting transient, visitor 11-13 63-71 Passeriformes Fringillidae Spinus notatus Black-Headed Siskin resident 10-12 61-68 Passeriformes Fringillidae Sporophila torqueola White-Collared Seedeater resident 9-11 48-55 Passeriformes Fringillidae Zonotrichia capensis Rufous-Collard Sparrow resident 13-15 60-72 Passeriformes Hirundindae Notiochelidon pileata Black-Capped Swallow resident 12 94-96 Passeriformes Hirundindae Stelgidopteryx ruficollis Rough-Winged Swallow resident 11-14 99-118 Passeriformes Hirundindae Tachycineta thalassina Violet-Green Swallow transient, visitor 11-13 106-120 Passeriformes Icteridae Cassidix mexicanus Great-Tailed Grackle resident 28-46 142-199 Passeriformes Icteridae Icterus chyrsater Yellow-Backed Oriole resident 22-23 NA Passeriformes Icteridae Icterus galbula Baltimore Oriole transient, visitor 16-19 85-102 Passeriformes Icteridae Icterus spurius Orchard Oriole transient, visitor 15-17.5 69-83 Passeriformes Icteridae Icterus wagleri Black-Vented Oriole resident 19-23 96-114 Passeriformes Icteridae Sturnella magna Eastern Meadowlark resident 17-24 90-121 Passeriformes Icteridae Tanagavius aeneus Bronzed/Red-Eyed Cowbird resident 16-22 97-120 Passeriformes Mimidae Melanotis hypoleucus Blue-and-White resident 24-27 114 Coraciiformes Momotidae Aspatha gularis Blue-Throated Motmot resident 25-28 101-103 Passeriformes Parulidae Basileuterus belli Golden-Browed Warbler resident 11-13 54-65 Passeriformes Parulidae Basileuterus rufifrons Rufous-Capped Warbler resident 11-13 48-63 Passeriformes Parulidae Dendroica coronata Myrtle Warbler transient, visitor 12-14 67-78 Passeriformes Parulidae Dendroica fusca Blackburnian Warbler transient 11-12 63-70 Passeriformes Parulidae Dendroica occidentalis Hermit Warbler transient, visitor 11-12 62-69 Passeriformes Parulidae Dendroica townsendi Townsend's Warbler transient, visitor 11-13 63-69

103 Birds OREDER FAMILY GENUS SPECIES COMMON NAME STATUS LENGTH WING Passeriformes Parulidae Dendroica virens Black-Throated Green transient, visitor 10-12 58-64 Passeriformes Parulidae Icteria virens Yellow-Breasted Chat transient, visitor 15-17 51-57 Passeriformes Parulidae Mniotilta varia Black-and-White Warbler transient, visitor 11-12 65-71 Passeriformes Parulidae Myioborus pictus Painted Redstart resident 12-13 66-71 Passeriformes Parulidae Oporonis formo uss Kentucky Warbler transient, visitor 12-13 63-75 Passeriformes Parulidae Oporonis tolmiei MacGillivray's Warbler transient, visitor 12-14 NA Passeriformes Parulidae Seiurus aurocapillus Ovenbird transient, visitor 12-14 70-79 Passeriformes Parulidae Seiurus noveboracensis Northern Waterthrush transient, visitor 12-15 68-81 Passeriformes Parulidae Vermivora peregrina Tennessee Warbler transient, visitor 10-12 58-68 Passeriformes Parulidae Vermivora ruficapilla Nashville Warbler visitor 10-12 55-61 Passeriformes Parulidae Wilsonia canadensis Canada Warbler transient 12-13 60-67 Passeriformes Parulidae Wilsonia pusilla Wilson's Warbler transient, visitor 10-12 50-60 Galliformes Phasianidae Colinus virginianus Common Bobwhite resident 20-25 93-108 Galliformes Phasianidae Dactylortyx thoracicus Singing Quail resident 20-23 123-133 Piciformes Picidae Colaptes cafer Red-Shafted Flicker resident 28-33 151-163 Piciformes Picidae Dendrocopos villosus Hairy Woodpecker resident 18-23 99-112 Piciformes Picidae Melanerpes formicivorus Acorn Woodpecker resident 20 130-151 Piciformes Picidae Piculus rubiginosus Golden-Olive Woodpecker resident 20-23 116-134 Piciformes Picidae Sphyrapicus varius Yellow-Bellied Sapsucker transient, visitor 19-20 120-130 Psittaciformes Psittacidae Aratinga holochlora Green Parakeet resident 25-31 160-186 Passeriformes Ptilogonatidae Pt ilogonys cinereus Gray Silky-Flycatcher resident 19-21 85-97 Gruiformes Rallidae Porzana flaviventer Yellow-Breasted Crake unknown 12-13 62-66 Piciformes Ramphastidae Aulacorhynchus prasinus Emrald Toucanet resident 31-36 117-126 Strigiformes Strigidae Aegolius ridgwayi Unspotted Saw-Whet Owl resident 18-19 133-146 Strigiformes Strigidae Speotyto cunicularia Burrowing Owl transient, visitor 23 162-181 Passeriformes Sylviidae Polioptila caerulea Blue-Gray Gnatcatcher transient, visitor 10-11 42-55 Passeriformes Thraupidae Euphonia elegantissima Blue-Hooded Euponia resident 10-12 61-71 Passeriformes Thraupidae Piranga flava Hepatic Tanager resident 17-20 98-105 Passeriformes Thraupidae Piranga rubra Summer Tanager transient, visitor 16-18 89-100 Trochilidae Trochilidae Amazilia cyanocephala Red-Bellied Azurecrown resident 10 53-63 Trochilidae Trochilidae Archilochus colubris Ruby-Throated transient, visitor 8 37-46 Trochilidae Trochilidae Atthis ellioti Wine-Throated resident 7 34-38 Trochilidae Trochilidae Colibri thalassinus Green Violet-Ear resident 11 60-70 Trochilidae Trochilidae Eugenes fulgens Magnificent Hummingbird resident 11-13 66-76 Trochilidae Trochilidae Lampornis amethystinus Amethyst-Throated resident 11 63-67 Trochilidae Trochilidae Lamprolaima rhami Garnet-Throated resident 11 64-81 Trochilidae Trochilidae Selasphorus platycercus Broad-Tailed Hummingbird resident 9 45-52 Trochilidae Trochilidae Tilmatura dupontii Sparkling-Tailed resident 6/9 33-36 Passeriformes Troglodytidae Campylorhynchus zonatus Band-Backed Wren resident 18-19 75-89 Passeriformes Troglodytidae Henicorhina leucophrys Gray-Breasted Wood-Wren resident 10 56-57 Passeriformes Troglodytidae Salpinctes obsoletus Rock Wren resident 13-14 64-72 Passeriformes Troglodytidae Troglodytes musculus Southern House-Wren resident 11-13 47-54 Trogonidae Trogonidae Trogon mexicanus Mountain Trogon resident 28-31 136-158 Passeriformes Turdidae Catharus mexicanus Black-Headed Nightingale- resident 15 82-95 Passeriformes Turdidae Sialia sialis Eastern Bluebird resident 15-17 99-111 Passeriformes Turdidae Turdus grayi Clay-Colored Robin resident 23 110-133 Passeriformes Turdidae Turdus infuscatus Black Robin resident 22-23 122-133 Passeriformes Tyrannidae Contopus pertinax Greater Pewee resident 18-19 95-114 Passeriformes Tyrannidae Empidonax flavescens Yellowish Flycatcher resident 11-13 58-72 Passeriformes Tyrannidae Empidonax flaviventris Yellow-Bellied Flycatcher transient, visitor 13-14 62-70

104 Birds OREDER FAMILY GENUS SPECIES COMMON NAME STATUS LENGTH WING Passeriformes Tyrannidae Empidonax minimus Least Flycatcher transient, visitor 11-12 59-67 Passeriformes Tyrannidae Mitrephones phaeocercus Tufted Flycatcher resident 13 66-73 Passeriformes Tyrannidae Myiarchus cinearscens Ash-Throated Flycatcher transient, visitor 19-20 92-104 Passeriformes Tyrannidae Myiarchus nuttingi Nutting's Flycatcher resident 18 83-93 Passeriformes Tyrannidae Sayrnis nigricans Black Phoebe resident 16 81-96 Passeriformes Tyrannidae Tyranniscus vilissimus Paltry Tyrannulet resident 11 52-50 Passeriformes Tyrannidae Tyrannus melancholicus Tropical Kingbird resident 20-22 104-125 Passeriformes Vireonidae Vireo gilvus Warbling Vireo transient, visitor 11-13 62-73 Passeriformes Vireonidae Vireo solitarius Solitairy Vireo resident 12-13 72-77

Amphibians ORDER FAMILY GENUS SPECIES COMMON NAME Anura Bufonidae Bufo coccifer toads Anura Bufonidae Bufo marinus toads Anura Bufonidae Bufo marmoreus toads Anura Bufonidae Bufo valicep s toads Anura Bufonidae Bufo wilsoni toads Anura Centrolenidae Hyalinobatrachium fleischmanni frog Anura Hylidae Duellmanohyla scmidtorum tree frog Anura Hylidae Hyla robertmertensi tree frog Anura Hylidae Phrynohyas venulosa tree frog Anura Hylidae Plectrohyla matudai tree frog Anura Hylidae Scinax staufferi tree frog Anura Hylidae Smilisca baudinii tree frog Anura Leptodactylidae Eleutherodactylus rugulosus neotropical frog Anura Leptodactylidae Eleutherodactylus pipilans neotropical frog Anura Leptodactylidae Leptodactylus labialis neotropical frog Anura Leptodactylidae Leptodactylus melanonotus neotropical frog Anura Leptodactylidae Physalaemus pustulosus neotropical frog Anura Microhylidae Gastrophryne usta frog Anura Ranidae Rana forreri frog Anura Ranidae Rana vaillant frog Anura Rhinophrynidae Rhynophrynus dorsalis burrowing toad Caudata Plethodontidae Bolitoglossa occidentalis Southern banana salamander Caudata Plethodontidae Bolitoglossa stuarti Stuart's lungless salamander Gymnophiona Caeciliidae Dermophis mexicannus Caecilian

105 Reptiles ORDER SUBORDER FAMILY GENUS SPECIES COMMON NAME Squamata Serpentes Viperidae Agkistrodon bilineatus pitvipers and rattlesnakes Squamata Serpentes Viperidae Atropoides nummifer pitvipers and rattlesnakes Squamata Serpentes Viperidae Bothriechis schlegelii pitvipers and rattlesnakes Squamata Serpentes Viperidae Bothrops asper pitvipers and rattlesnakes Squamata Serpentes Viperidae Crotalus durissus pitvipers and rattlesnakes Squamata Serpentes Viperidae Porthidium nasutum pitvipers and rattlesnakes Squamata Autarchoglossa Anguidae Diploglossus rozellae alligator lizards Squamata Autarchoglossa Helodermatidae Heloderma horridum Mexican Beaded Lizard Squamata Autarchoglossa Scincidae Mabuya unimarginata skinks Squamata Autarchoglossa Scincidae Sphenomorhpus assatum skinks Squamata Autarchoglossa Teiidae Ameiva chaitzami racerunner/whiptail Squamata Autarchoglossa Teiidae Cnemidophorus deppii racerunner/whiptail Squamata Iguania Corytophanidae Basilicus vittatus Brown/Striped Basilisk Squamata Iguania Iguanidae Ctenosaura similis Black iguana Squamata Iguania Phrynosomatidae Phrynosoma asio horned lizard Squamata Iguania Phrynosomatidae Sceloporus carinatus Spiny lizard Squamata Iguania Phrynosomatidae Sceloporus internasalis Spiny lizard Squamata Iguania Phrynosomatidae Sceloporus melanorhinus Spiny lizard Squamata Iguania Phrynosomatidae Sceloporus serrifer Blue Spiny lizard Squamata Iguania Phrynosomatidae Sceloporus variabilis Rose-Bellied lizard Squamata Iguania Polychrotidae Norops pentaprion Anole Squamata Serpentes Boidae Boa constrictor Boas Squamata Serpentes Colubridae Coniophanes piceivittis typical snakes Squamata Serpentes Colubridae Conophis lineatus typical snakes Squamata Serpentes Colubridae Drymarchon corais typical snakes Squamata Serpentes Colubridae Drymobius margaritif erus typical snakes Squamata Serpentes Colubridae Lampropeltis triangulum milk snake Squamata Serpentes Colubridae Leptodeira septentrionalis typical snakes Squamata Serpentes Colubridae Masticophis men t ovarius coachwhip/racer Squamata Serpentes Colubridae Oxybelis aeneus brown vine snake Squamata Serpentes Colubridae Tantilla canula typical snakes Squamata Serpentes Colubridae Tantilla lintoni typical snakes Squamata Serpentes Colubridae Tantilla rubra typical snakes Squamata Serpentes Colubridae Trimorphodon biscutatus typical snakes Squamata Serpentes Colubridae Urotheca elapoides typical snakes Squamata Serpentes Elapidae Micrurus browni coral snake Squamata Serpentes Typhlopidae Ramphotyphlops braminus blind snakes Squamata Serpentes Typhlopidae Typhlops microstomus blind snakes

106

APPENDIX B

SPECIES SHEET

107 Lagartero Species Sheet

# ______Unit ______Depth ______Initials _____

Taxa______

Element Portion Side Number Age Mass Sex Modification Notes, etc

Total Number Total Mass Biomass MNI/Element Heat Altered Modified Other

108

APPENDIX C

LAGARTERO FAUNA

109 Bag # Unit Depth Class Family Taxa Element Portion Side Age # Mass Biomass Burn Rdnt Canid Cut Work Erod Notes 120 16 Backfill Aves Laridae Sterninae coracoid mostly complete R 1 0.10 2.512 120 16 Backfill Mammalia Artiodactyla Artiodactyla calcaneus partial R 1 7.00 151.561 120 16 Backfill Mammalia Artiodactyla Artiodactyla phalanx complete A 1 1.80 44.642 1 120 16 Backfill Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae metapodial distal J 1 1.50 37.886 120 16 Backfill Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus mandible ascending ramus R 4yrs 1 15.00 300.942 w/Mv3 120 16 Backfill Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus mandible body L 2.5yrs 1 6.70 145.703 w/Mv1,2 120 16 Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae 2nd metacarpal complete R 1 0.60 16.609 120 16 Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae 4th metatarsal complete R A 1 1.20 30.993 120 16 Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae crania maxilla R A 1 2.10 51.286 w/M^2,3 120 16 Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae humerus distal L A 1 5.00 111.963 120 16 Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae M^1 complete L A 1 0.50 14.095 120 16 Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae M^1 complete R E 1 0.90 23.923 120 16 Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae metapodial distal A 1 0.50 14.095 120 16 Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae Mv2 partial R A 1 0.70 19.080 120 16 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania fragment 6 5.40 119.993 120 16 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone fragment 5 9.10 191.928 120 16 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg rib fragment 1 1.50 37.886 120 16 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania fragment 1 0.20 6.179 120 16 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med humerus diaphysis L 1 3.30 77.030 120 16 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone fragment 15 1.10 28.658 2 120 16 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med mandible fragment 8 8.00 170.915 3 120 16 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib mostly complete 1 0.40 11.531 120 16 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med scapula glenoid fossa A 1 1.40 35.605 1 120 16 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med tibia distal R A 1 0.70 19.080 1 cf: canidae 120 16 Backfill Reptilia Testudines Testudines carapace fragment 3 3.20 68.937 1 1 calcinied 120 16 Backfill Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata unid fragment 8 5.50 121.991 121 16 Backfill Amphibia Bufonidae Bufonidae vertebra mostly complete 1 0.05 0.670 121 16 Backfill Aves Aves Aves long bone diaph 1 0.40 8.869 121 16 Backfill Gastropoda Littorinidae Littorinidae? spire fragment 1 0.50 19.875 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Cervidae Mazama americana femur distal trochanter/condyle R A 1 2.90 68.574 1 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Cervidae Mazama americana phalanx partial A 2 1.50 37.886 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Cervidae Mazama americana PMv2 fragment R 4 mo 1 0.10 3.311 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus mandible condyle L A? 1 3.00 70.698 3 fit together 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Tayassuidae Tayassu sp humerus proximal epiph R J 1 0.80 21.517 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Tayassuidae Tayassu sp mandible condyle L A 1 2.60 62.155 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae 5th metatarsal proximal L 1 0.80 21.517 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine complete/frag 2 1.70 42.404 1 complete, 1 in 2 pcs 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae crania foramen magnum 1 2.70 64.302 in 2 pcs 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae femur distal J? 1 0.60 16.609 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae humerus distal R 1 4.00 91.591 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae M^1 complete R A 1 1.00 26.303 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae M^1 complete L A 1 1.00 26.303 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae M^2 complete L 1 0.20 6.179 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible condyle R 1 2.80 66.442 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae maxilla fragment R 1 1.50 37.886 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae Mv1 complete R A 1 1.70 42.404 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae radius proximal R A 1 2.20 53.479 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae tibia distal L J 1 0.60 16.609 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae tooth fragment 1 0.05 1.774 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Procyonidae Procyonidae vertebra mostly complete A 1 0.50 14.095 (cervical/thoracic?) 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus calcaneus complete R A 1 0.70 19.080 1 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus femur proximal R A 1 0.90 23.923 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus humerus proximal L J 1 0.40 11.531 1 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus innominate ischium R A 1 0.90 23.923 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus scapula fragment R 1 0.40 11.531 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 9 16.80 333.256 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg rib fragment 1 0.80 21.517 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg ulna? proximal L A 1 3.00 70.698 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg unid fragment 1 1.10 28.658 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med innominate acetabulum R 1 0.70 19.080 cf:canidae 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaph 27 15.90 317.145 3 7 2 1of burned w/cutmarks, 2 eroded, 1 cut

110 Bag # Unit Depth Class Family Taxa Element Portion Side Age # Mass Biomass Burn Rdnt Canid Cut Work Erod Notes 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med phalanx mostly complete 3 1.10 28.658 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib fragment 2 0.90 23.923 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med scapula glenoid fossa R J 1 1.00 26.303 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med temporal zygomatic/mandibular articulation L 1 0.70 19.080 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med unid fragment 6 3.70 85.385 1 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med vertebra lateral articular facets 1 0.30 8.900 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone diaphysis 15 2.60 62.155 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm rib fragment 10 3.10 72.816 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia Mammalia crania basilar frag 2 2.10 51.286 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia Mammalia crania cranial vault 18 8.70 184.318 1 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Dasyproctidae Dasyprocta punctata talus complete L 1 1.20 30.993 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Geomyidae Geomys sp mandible mostly complete R A 1 1.20 30.993 w/incisor 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Heteromyidae Liomys sp femur complete L? A 1 0.05 1.774 2 fit together 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Rodentia Rodentia long bone diaphysis 2 0.30 8.900 121 16 Backfill Mammalia Dasypodidae Dasypus novemcinctus scute complete 1 0.20 6.179 121 16 Backfill Reptilia Iguania Iguania unid fragment 3 1.10 15.199 121 16 Backfill Reptilia Iguania Iguania vertebra fragment 1 0.05 0.670 121 16 Backfill Reptilia Testudines Testudines carapace fragment 5 4.8 90.455 121 16 Backfill Reptilia Testudines Testudines coracoid complete L A 1 1.0 31.623 121 16 Backfill Reptilia Testudines Testudines plastron fragment 1 1.2 35.732 121 16 Backfill Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata long bone? diaphysis 1 0.3 8.900 121 16 Backfill Vertebrata fauna? unid fragment 1 0.4 0.000 130 16 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm zygomatic mandiular articulation? L 1 0.50 14.095 130 16 Backfill Reptilia Testudines Testudines plastron fragment 2 3.20 68.937 130 16 Backfill Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata unid frag J 1 0.60 12.827 131 16A Backfill Amphibia Anura Anura lg femur mostly complete 1 0.20 2.717 131 16A Backfill Aves Aves Aves long bone fragment 2 0.50 10.866 131 16A Backfill Decapoda Decapoda Decapoda claw fragment 2 1.20 35.732 131 16A Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine partial 2 1.90 46.868 131 16A Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 2.60 62.155 131 16A Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania fragment 1 0.20 6.179 131 16A Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 3 0.80 21.517 131 16A Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib fragment 2 0.30 8.900 131 16A Backfill Osteichthyes Osteichthyes osteicthyes crania? fragment 1 0.50 16.833 131 16A Backfill Reptilia Testudines Testudines carapace fragment 1 0.05 4.249 131 16A Backfill Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata long bone diaphysis 1 0.20 6.179 1 UTILIZED 131 16A Backfill Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata long bone diaphysis 2 0.20 6.179 131 16A Backfill Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata long bone mostly complete 1 0.20 6.179 131 16A Backfill Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata unid unid 1 0.20 6.179 148 16D Backfill Aves Aves Aves coracoid fragment L 1 0.20 4.720 148 16D Backfill Aves Aves Aves crania fragment 1 0.40 8.869 148 16D Backfill Aves Aves Aves long bone diaphysis 2 0.60 12.827 148 16D Backfill Decapoda Decapoda Decapoda claw distal 1 0.60 22.457 148 16D Backfill Mammalia Artiodactyla Artiodactyla carpal complete R A 1 1.40 35.605 148 16D Backfill Mammalia Artiodactyla Artiodactyla phalanx complete 1 2.90 68.574 1 cf: odocoileus 148 16D Backfill Mammalia Cervidae Mazama americana MV1,2 mostly complete R ~1? 1 1.20 30.993 148 16D Backfill Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus metapodial distal A 1 1.30 33.308 1 148 16D Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae 2nd metatarsal proximal R 1 0.50 14.095 1 148 16D Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae 5th metatarsal mostly complete L 1 0.80 21.517 148 16D Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae crania saggital crest 1 1.30 33.308 148 16D Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae M? fragment 1 0.20 6.179 in 2 pcs 148 16D Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae M^2 complete R A 1 3.50 81.220 148 16D Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae Mv1 partial R 1 0.60 16.609 148 16D Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae scapula glenoid fossa R 1 1.00 26.303 1 148 16D Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae ulna prox L A 1 1.10 28.658 148 16D Backfill Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus calcaneus mostly complete L 1 0.40 11.531 1 worn 148 16D Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania fragment 7 10.10 210.809 1 148 16D Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 15 10.10 210.809 4 5 1 1 worked 148 16D Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med caudal vertebra complete 1 0.20 6.179 148 16D Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med femur distal 1 1.90 46.868 1 148 16D Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 17 9.20 193.825 3 6

111 Bag # Unit Depth Class Family Taxa Element Portion Side Age # Mass Biomass Burn Rdnt Canid Cut Work Erod Notes 148 16D Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib fragment 1 0.30 8.900 1 148 16D Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med unid fragment 2 0.90 23.923 148 16D Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med vertebra process 1 0.20 6.179 148 16D Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone diaphysis 4 0.40 11.531 148 16D Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm scapula glenoid fossa 1 0.60 16.609 148 16D Backfill Reptilia Squamata Squamata long bone diaph J 1 0.20 2.717 1? 148 16D Backfill Reptilia Squamata Squamata vertebra mostly complete 1 0.60 8.240 148 16D Backfill Reptilia Iguanidae Iguanidae caudal vertebra complete 1 0.20 2.717 148 16D Backfill Reptilia Iguanidae Iguanidae humerus prox L J 1 0.70 9.628 1 148 16D Backfill Reptilia Kinosternidae Kinosternidae carapace 1,2 R R 1 2.60 59.984 2 glued 148 16D Backfill Reptilia Testudines Testudines vertebra mostly complete 1 0.20 10.757 148 16D Backfill Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata unid fragment 3 1.50 37.886 1 1 burn & worn 163 16G Backfill Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata crania fragment 1 0.80 21.517 mam or reptile? 167 16K Backfill Aves Corvidae Corvidae humerus distal L 1 0.20 4.720 167 16K Backfill Aves Corvidae Corvidae tibiotarsus distal R 1 0.20 4.720 167 16K Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae 5th metatarsal proximal R 1 0.50 14.095 167 16K Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine mostly complete A 1 0.80 21.517 1 167 16K Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae M^1 mostly complete L A 1 0.70 19.080 167 16K Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae metapodial distal 2 0.80 21.517 167 16K Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae Mv1 complete L A 1 1.40 35.605 167 16K Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae pm^2 complete R? J 1 0.05 1.774 167 16K Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae tooth (PM, I?) fragment 1 0.10 3.311 167 16K Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae ulna proximal R 1 2.40 57.835 small 167 16K Backfill Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus femur distal L A 1 0.80 21.517 1 167 16K Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med phalanx complete 4 1.50 37.886 cf: canis 167 16K Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm femur distal J 1 0.50 14.095 181 16M Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 1 1.30 33.308 219 19 Backfill Decapoda Decapoda Decapoda claw fragment 1 0.10 6.761 219 19 Backfill Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae mandible condyle L J/I 1 0.50 14.095 219 19 Backfill Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae metapodial prox A 1 2.40 57.835 1 219 19 Backfill Mammalia Cervidae Mazama americana metapodial distal 2 3.00 70.698 2 calcinied 219 19 Backfill Mammalia Cervidae Mazama americana mv1 crown L 4mo 1 0.50 14.095 219 19 Backfill Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus crania auditory meatus L 1 5.30 117.991 219 19 Backfill Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus phalanx complete 1 3.50 81.220 1 1 1 cut 219 19 Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine complete 2 2.40 57.835 219 19 Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible condyle L J 1 0.70 19.080 1 219 19 Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae talus complete L 2 2.10 51.286 219 19 Backfill Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus 4th metatarsal complete L A 1 0.20 6.179 219 19 Backfill Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus calcaneus complete R A 1 0.40 11.531 219 19 Backfill Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus mandible fragment R A 1 0.80 21.517 219 19 Backfill Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus scapula glenoid fossa L A 1 0.30 8.900 219 19 Backfill Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus tibia distal L A 1 0.90 23.923 219 19 Backfill Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus ulna proximal R A 2 1.00 26.303 2 219 19 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg ? Podial mostly complete 1 2.40 57.835 1 1 eroded 219 19 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania fragment 3 4.80 107.924 1 1 1 calcinied 219 19 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 20 37.70 689.775 7 15 5 eroded 219 19 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med caudal vertebra mostly complete 1 0.10 3.311 219 19 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med cervical vert dorsal fragment J 1 0.20 6.179 1 219 19 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania saggital crest 1 0.90 23.923 219 19 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania fragment 3 1.00 26.303 219 19 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med innominate acetabulum 1 1.40 35.605 1 219 19 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med innominate illium J/SA? 1 0.40 11.531 1 219 19 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 49 34.70 640.172 10 16 1 1 1 awl, 1 cut - triangular 219 19 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone epiphysis 4 4.90 109.945 2 2 219 19 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med mandible fragment 1 0.80 21.517 1 219 19 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med phalanx complete 7 2.10 51.286 1 219 19 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib fragment 3 0.90 23.923 219 19 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med unid fragment 2 0.80 21.517 219 19 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med vertebra articular facet 1 0.20 6.179 219 19 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm ?innominate illiac crest L 1 0.30 8.900 219 19 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone fragment 5 0.50 14.095 1 2

112 Bag # Unit Depth Class Family Taxa Element Portion Side Age # Mass Biomass Burn Rdnt Canid Cut Work Erod Notes 219 19 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm rib fragment 5 1.40 35.605 1 219 19 Backfill Mammalia Rodentia Rodentia lrg crania palate 1 0.80 21.517 219 19 Backfill Osteichthyes Osteichthyes osteicthyes articular? partial 1 0.10 4.571 219 19 Backfill Osteichthyes Osteichthyes osteicthyes dentary partial R 1 0.30 11.129 2 fit together 219 19 Backfill Osteichthyes Osteichthyes osteicthyes vertebra complete 1 0.50 16.833 219 19 Backfill Reptilia Serpentes Serpentes vertebra partial 1 0.20 2.717 219 19 Backfill Reptilia Testudines Testudines sm plastron fragment 1 0.55 21.186 219 19 Backfill Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata unid fragment 3 1.20 30.993 2 fit together 225 19A Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae Mv2 fragment L A 1 1.40 35.605 2 fit together 235 19A,E Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible condyle L 1 0.60 16.609 235 19A,E Backfill Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus tibia proximal R A 1 0.70 19.080 235 19A,E Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 2 3.50 81.220 235 19A,E Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 3 1.30 33.308 235 19A,E Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med phalanx complete 1 0.30 8.900 235 19A,E Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone diaphysis 1 0.30 8.900 235 19A,E Backfill Mammalia Rodentia Rodentia 3rd metatarsal proximal R 1 0.20 6.179 235 19A,E Backfill Reptilia Viparidae Viparidae vertebra mostly complete 2 1.40 19.391 239 19B,C Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae 2nd metatarsal mostly complete R A 1 1.00 26.303 239 19B,C Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine fragment A 1 0.20 6.179 239 19B,C Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae M fragment A 1 0.40 11.531 239 19B,C Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae Mv1 mostly complete R A 1 0.20 6.179 cf: Urocyon 239 19B,C Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med phalanx complete 2 0.50 14.095 240 19C Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae ulna radial notch R 1 2.50 59.999 247 19D Backfill Aves Picidae Melancerpes erythrocephalus humerus complete L A 1 0.10 2.512 check range 247 19D Backfill Decapoda Decapoda Decapoda claw fragment 1 1.10 33.708 large! 247 19D Backfill Mammalia Artiodactyla Artiodactyla caudal vertebra partial 1 0.10 3.311 247 19D Backfill Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus mandible condyle R 1 2.00 49.083 1 247 19D Backfill Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus mandible partial L A 1 5.70 125.976 247 19D Backfill Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus Mv1 partial R A 1 0.90 23.923 247 19D Backfill Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus Mv3 partial R E 1 1.10 28.658 247 19D Backfill Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus tibia distal R J 1 2.80 66.442 1 cut 247 19D Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae 3rd metatarsal complete L 1 0.80 21.517 247 19D Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine mostly complete A 1 1.10 28.658 247 19D Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae M fragment 1 0.30 8.900 247 19D Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae PM^4 mostly complete R A 1 0.60 16.609 247 19D Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible body L A 1 3.10 72.816 247 19D Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible body R A 1 4.50 101.834 247 19D Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae Mv1 partial L A 1 0.80 21.517 247 19D Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae Mv2 complete R A 1 0.30 8.900 cf: Urocyon 247 19D Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae scapula glenoid fossa L 1 0.40 11.531 cf: Urocyon 247 19D Backfill Mammalia Canidae Canidae talus complete R 1 1.50 37.886 247 19D Backfill Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus femur proximal L SA 1 0.60 16.609 1 247 19D Backfill Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus femur distal L SA 1 0.70 19.080 1 247 19D Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 6 5.90 129.947 1 1 247 19D Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone epiphysis 2 3.90 89.528 1 247 19D Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg rib fragment 2 1.20 30.993 247 19D Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 24 15.20 304.550 1 7 247 19D Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med lumbar vert lateral process 1 0.40 11.531 247 19D Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med phalanx complete 5 1.30 33.308 1 247 19D Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med radius diaphysis 1 1.00 26.303 247 19D Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib proximal R 1 1.00 26.303 247 19D Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med tooth fragment 1 0.10 3.311 247 19D Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med unid fragment 2 0.80 21.517 247 19D Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med vertebra fragment 2 0.40 11.531 247 19D Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm crania fragment 1 0.10 3.311 247 19D Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm humerus diaphysis 1 0.10 3.311 247 19D Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone diaphysis 8 2.60 62.155 1 3 247 19D Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm scapula glenoid fossa 1 0.20 6.179 247 19D Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm vertebra dorsal frag 1 0.05 1.774 247 19D Backfill Mammalia Mammalia Mammalia crania fragment 8 4.50 101.834 247 19D Backfill Mammalia Mammalia Mammalia unid fragment 3 1.30 33.308 1 2

113 Bag # Unit Depth Class Family Taxa Element Portion Side Age # Mass Biomass Burn Rdnt Canid Cut Work Erod Notes 247 19D Backfill Mammalia Rodentia Rodentia lrg calcaneus complete L 1 0.50 14.095 cf: dasyprocta 247 19D Backfill Reptilia Iguanidae Iguanidae vertebra partial 1 0.10 1.349 1 poss. cuts 247 19D Backfill Reptilia Testudines Testudines carapace fragment 1 0.40 17.115 247 19D Backfill Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata unid fragment 8 4.10 93.650 1 3 1 fauna 269 19H Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone epiphysis 1 3.90 89.528 274 19I Backfill Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus tibia proximal R A 1 0.50 14.095 274 19I Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 2 1.70 42.404 1 1 worn 274 19I Backfill Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata unid fragment 1 0.40 11.531 317 19T Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 1.10 28.658 1 slightly eroded 317 19T Backfill Reptilia Reptilia Reptilia long bone proximal A 1 0.20 2.717 1 femur or humerus 317 19T Backfill Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata unid fragment 1 0.10 3.311 399 16 Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 1.70 42.404 1 403 19T Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 8.60 182.410 1 very dense and straight 169/176 16K Backfill Aves Aves Aves lg tibiotarsus distal diaph 1 1.60 31.315 169/176 16K Backfill Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae metacarpal proximal R A 1 3.60 83.305 1 169/176 16K Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania fragment 1 5.20 115.985 1 169/176 16K Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 0.60 16.609 169/176 16K Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone articular facet 1 3.00 70.698 1 eroded 169/176 16K Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania fragment 3 0.70 19.080 169/176 16K Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 8 10.50 218.308 1 4 169/176 16K Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone epiph 2 4.10 93.650 169/176 16K Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone diaphysis 2 0.70 19.080 169/176 16K Backfill Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm rib articular facet R 1 0.20 6.179 122 16 0-20 Aves Aves Aves long bone diaphysis 1 0.20 4.720 122 16 0-20 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus M fragment R A 1 0.60 16.609 122 16 0-20 Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine fragment A 1 0.40 11.531 122 16 0-20 Mammalia Canidae Canidae M^2 crown R A 1 0.40 11.531 122 16 0-20 Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus vertebra mostly complete J 1 0.80 21.517 122 16 0-20 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania fragment 1 5.10 113.976 122 16 0-20 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania cranial vault 1 0.30 8.900 122 16 0-20 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone fragment 16 4.30 97.751 122 16 0-20 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med mandible fragment 1 1.00 26.303 122 16 0-20 Mammalia Mammalia Mammalia unid fragment 2 0.40 11.531 122 16 0-20 Reptilia Reptilia Reptilia caudal vertebra mostly complete 1 0.20 2.717 122 16 0-20 Reptilia Reptilia Reptilia humerus/femur proximal A? 1 1.00 13.804 1 122 16 0-20 Reptilia Iguanidae Iguanidae vertebra mostly complete 1 0.60 8.240 122 16 0-20 Reptilia Viparidae Viparidae vertebra mostly complete 2 1.10 15.199 132 16A 0-20 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 1 4.90 109.945 1 132 16A 0-20 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med radius? diaphysis R? 1 2.60 62.155 1 in 2 pcs 132 16A 0-20 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib fragment 1 0.20 6.179 149 16D 0-20 Mammalia Canidae Canidae crania auditory bulla R 1 1.00 26.303 164 16G 0-20 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus femur distal medial condyle R A 1 0.00 0.007 1 182 16M 0-20 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus metapodial distal 1 1.50 37.886 182 16M 0-20 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 2 2.80 66.442 182 16M 0-20 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 1 1.40 35.605 radius? 194 16Q 0-20 Mammalia Canidae Canidae tibia distal L A 1 5.10 113.976 196 16R 0-20 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus phalanx complete A 1 5.30 117.991 196 16R 0-20 Reptilia Testudines Testudines plastron fragment 1 4.90 91.713 211 16T 0-20 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus cuneiform complete R A 1 1.50 37.886 1 eroded 211 16T 0-20 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus phalanx complete A 1 3.90 89.528 1 220 19 0-20 Amphibia Ranidae Rana sp tibio-fibula diaphysis L? 1 0.20 2.717 cf catesbiana 220 19 0-20 Decapoda Decapoda Decapoda claw distal 1 1.10 33.708 220 19 0-20 Mammalia Artiodactyla Artiodactyla centroquartal complete R 1 5.60 123.985 1 220 19 0-20 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus M^1 mostly complete R 3yrs 1 2.50 59.999 220 19 0-20 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus phalanx complete A 1 4.30 97.751 220 19 0-20 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus rib mostly complete L A 1 6.30 137.850 1 220 19 0-20 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus thoracic vert mostly complete SA 1 24.80 473.158 1 in 2 pcs 220 19 0-20 Mammalia Tayassuidae Tayassu sp innominate illium L J 1 1.30 33.308 unfused mostly c 220 19 0-20 Mammalia Tayassuidae Tayassu sp innominate acetabulum L A 1 2.80 66.442 1 220 19 0-20 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 4th metatarsal proximal L 1 0.80 21.517 220 19 0-20 Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine mostly complete 3 2.50 59.999 canidae separated into 2 bags

114 Bag # Unit Depth Class Family Taxa Element Portion Side Age # Mass Biomass Burn Rdnt Canid Cut Work Erod Notes 220 19 0-20 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible partial R J 1 10.50 218.308 w/pmv2? 220 19 0-20 Mammalia Canidae Canidae metapodial distal 1 0.70 19.080 220 19 0-20 Mammalia Canidae Canidae tibia diaphysis R 1 5.20 115.985 220 19 0-20 Mammalia Canidae Canidae ulna proximal L 1 3.10 72.816 220 19 0-20 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 5 18.50 363.458 1 3 220 19 0-20 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg rib fragment 1 0.20 6.179 220 19 0-20 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania fragment 1 0.40 11.531 220 19 0-20 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 16 16.00 318.939 1 4 220 19 0-20 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib fragment 7 3.70 85.385 1 236 19B 0-20 Aves Aves Aves lg femur mostly complete R A 1 5.00 88.321 236 19B 0-20 Aves Aves Aves lg tarsometatarsus distal R A 1 2.10 40.107 236 19B 0-20 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 2.50 59.999 236 19B 0-20 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 2 2.30 55.662 275 19I 0-20 Mammalia Artiodactyla Artiodactyla distal phalanx complete 1 1.40 35.605 narrow 275 19I 0-20 Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae metatarsal diaphysis 1 2.10 51.286 1 poss. smoothed 275 19I 0-20 Mammalia Canidae Canidae cervical vert body A/E? 1 1.80 44.642 poss. older indiv - porous bone 275 19I 0-20 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg unid fragment 1 1.20 30.993 1 smoothed/worn edge 280 19J 0-20 Aves Aves Aves long bone diaphysis 1 0.50 10.866 280 19J 0-20 Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus radius mostly complete L A 1 0.70 19.080 280 19J 0-20 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 2 2.20 53.479 280 19J 0-20 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone diaphysis 1 0.70 19.080 280 19J 0-20 Reptilia Reptilia Reptilia long bone diaphysis 1 0.40 5.471 280 19J 0-20 Reptilia Testudines Testudines plastron fragment 1 0.70 24.901 293 19M 0-20 Mammalia Canidae Canidae Iv3 complete L A 1 0.10 3.311 293 19M 0-20 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania auditory bulla R 1 6.40 139.818 not deer 293 19M 0-20 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 3.30 77.030 1 293 19M 0-20 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 3 3.70 85.385 293 19M 0-20 Reptilia Testudines Testudines carapace fragment 1 1.60 43.327 298 19N 0-20 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 3.60 83.305 298 19N 0-20 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 3 4.10 93.650 1 318 19T 0-20 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 2 3.50 81.220 1 330 19U 0-20 Mammalia Canidae Canidae ulna proximal R A 1 3.90 89.528 340 19X 0-20 Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine mostly complete 1 1.10 28.658 340 19X 0-20 Mammalia Canidae Canidae PM fragment 1 0.20 6.179 340 19X 0-20 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 2 2.10 51.286 1 340 19X 0-20 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med canine fragment 1 0.10 3.311 340 19X 0-20 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphsis J 1 0.50 14.095 very young 340 19X 0-20 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 1 0.05 1.774 340 19X 0-20 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med phalanx complete 1 0.40 11.531 347 19Z 0-20 Reptilia Emydidae Emydidae plastron fragment 1 0.70 24.901 368 19EE 0-20 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 2 1.60 40.152 1 368 19EE 0-20 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone diaphysis 1 0.20 6.179 123 16 20-40 Mammalia Cervidae Mazama americana phalanx complete E? 1 1.00 26.303 porus and misshapen 123 16 20-40 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus ulna proximal L A 1 5.20 115.985 123 16 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine complete 1 2.00 49.083 123 16 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae crania zygomatic/mandibular articulation L 1 1.00 26.303 123 16 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone fragment 8 21.70 419.579 123 16 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone fragments/shatter 6 2.70 64.302 1 in 2 pcs 123 16 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med phalanx mostly complete 2 0.70 19.080 133 16A 20-40 Mammalia Cervidae Mazama americana mandible fragment R 1 1.60 40.152 unsure 133 16A 20-40 Mammalia Cervidae Mazama americana radius distal L A 1 3.30 77.030 133 16A 20-40 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus astragulus complete R A 1 8.50 180.500 1 133 16A 20-40 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus astragulus complete L A 1 9.70 203.280 1 1 poss. cutmarks 133 16A 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine complete/frag A 2 1.20 30.993 133 16A 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae crania maxilla R A 1 1.60 40.152 1 in 2 pcs 133 16A 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae PM^4 complete R A 1 1.00 26.303 133 16A 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae M^1 mostly complete R A 1 0.80 21.517 133 16A 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible body R A 1 1.70 42.404 large 133 16A 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae radius proximal R A 1 4.80 107.924 133 16A 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae rib dorsal atricular epiph R A 1 0.50 14.095 cf: Urocyon 133 16A 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 2 6.70 145.703 1

115 Bag # Unit Depth Class Family Taxa Element Portion Side Age # Mass Biomass Burn Rdnt Canid Cut Work Erod Notes 133 16A 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 3 2.00 49.083 1 133 16A 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med unid fragment 1 0.60 16.609 1 133 16A 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm rib fragment 2 0.50 14.095 1 133 16A 20-40 Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata unid fragment 1 1.60 40.152 144 16C 20-40 Aves Rallidae Porzana flaviventer tibiotarsus diaphysis L 1 0.60 12.827 144 16C 20-40 Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae intermediate phalanx complete R A 1 2.90 68.574 144 16C 20-40 Mammalia Cervidae Mazama americana centroquartal complete R A 1 5.50 121.991 144 16C 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 2nd metatarsal proximal L 1 0.70 19.080 144 16C 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 5th metatarsal proximal R 1 0.50 14.095 144 16C 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae metapodial distal 1 0.50 14.095 144 16C 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 7 10.10 210.809 3 144 16C 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg vertebra articular facet 1 1.10 28.658 1 eroded 144 16C 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania fragment 1 1.10 28.658 144 16C 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med flat bone fragment 2 0.80 21.517 144 16C 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 7 4.80 107.924 1 144 16C 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med maxilla fragment 1 0.70 19.080 cf: canis 144 16C 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib fragment L 1 0.40 11.531 144 16C 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm innominate illiac crest 1 0.40 11.531 144 16C 20-40 Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata unid complete J 1 0.20 6.179 cf: tayassu - cervical 150 16D 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae calcaneus complete L 1 2.10 51.286 150 16D 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine complete A 1 0.70 19.080 150 16D 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae Iv3? complete R A 1 0.20 6.179 150 16D 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 2 3.20 74.926 150 16D 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 5 2.70 64.302 150 16D 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib proximal 2 0.50 14.095 150 16D 20-40 Reptilia Testudines Testudines carapace fragment 1 0.60 22.457 165 16I 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine complete A 1 1.20 30.993 169 16K 20-40 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus tibia proximal diaph R 1 7.90 168.991 was in wrong bag 169 16K 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible fragment L A 1 3.50 81.220 169 16K 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae thoracic vert fragment J 1 2.20 53.479 169 16K 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 2 2.90 68.574 1 was in wrong bag 169 16K 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 1 2.10 51.286 was in wrong bag 183 16M 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 2nd metacarpal complete R 1 0.90 23.923 cf: Urocyon 183 16M 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 3rd metacarpal proximal R 1 0.50 14.095 cf: Urocyon 183 16M 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible fragment L A 1 1.70 42.404 cf: Urocyon 183 16M 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible fragment R A 1 5.60 123.985 cf: c. familiaris 183 16M 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae radius complete R A 1 3.30 77.030 cf: Urocyon 183 16M 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae ulna proximal L A 1 2.20 53.479 1 cf: Urocyon 183 16M 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae ulna mostly complete R A 1 4.30 97.751 cf: Urocyon 183 16M 20-40 Mammalia Didelphidae Didelphidae mandible mostly complete L A 1 3.00 70.698 w/PM1. PM2, M4 183 16m 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 1 1.70 42.404 183 16M 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm scapula fragment 1 0.40 11.531 1 195 16Q 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine complete A 1 1.30 33.308 204 16S 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania fragment 1 0.80 21.517 204 16S 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 1 0.90 23.923 221 19 20-40 Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae ulna proximal R A 1 3.00 70.698 221 19 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine complete 2 1.20 30.993 root of Mv1, PMv2,3 221 19 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible fragment R A 2 4.70 105.898 221 19 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae Mv1 complete R A 2 3.40 79.128 221 19 20-40 Mammalia Didelphidae Didelphidae crania maxilla R 1 0.60 16.609 221 19 20-40 Mammalia Didelphidae Didelphidae mandible fragment L 1 2.20 53.479 221 19 20-40 Mammalia Didelphidae Didelphidae scapula mostly complete L 1 1.60 40.152 lighter in color 221 19 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 5.40 119.993 ulna? 221 19 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg rib fragment 1 0.70 19.080 221 19 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 4 2.40 57.835 221 19 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med ulna diaphysis 1 1.30 33.308 1 cut? 221 19 20-40 Mammalia Dasypodidae Dasypus novemcinctus scute complete R 1 1.20 30.993 221 19 20-40 Reptilia Emydidae Emydidae carapace fragment 1 2.30 55.253 227 19A 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae tibia distal L A 1 4.30 97.751 249 19D 20-40 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus calcaneus mostly complete R A 1 16.60 329.684 1 249 19D 20-40 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus tibia distal L A 1 25.00 476.591 1 cuts

116 Bag # Unit Depth Class Family Taxa Element Portion Side Age # Mass Biomass Burn Rdnt Canid Cut Work Erod Notes 249 19D 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 4th metacarpal complete R 1 1.00 26.303 249 19D 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible partial L A 2 20.10 391.630 1 w/PMv4, Mv1, 1 w/PMv4, Mv1,2 249 19D 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible fragment R A 1 2.70 64.302 w/PMv4, poss. cut 249 19D 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible ascend ram L 1 1.70 42.404 249 19D 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae Mv1 complete L A 1 1.30 33.308 249 19D 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae PM root 1 0.10 3.311 249 19D 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae thoracic vert body 1 5.50 121.991 249 19D 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg innominate ischial tuberosity 4 8.00 170.915 2 249 19D 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 5 10.40 216.436 1 1 1 1 1 eroded, 1 smoothed 249 19D 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg patella complete 1 1.80 44.642 1 eroded 249 19D 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg rib fragment 1 0.90 23.923 249 19D 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med innominate ischial tuberosity L 1 1.30 33.308 249 19D 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 11 10.30 214.562 249 19D 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med phalanx complete 1 0.30 8.900 pulled for confirm 249 19D 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib diaphysis 1 0.60 16.609 249 19D 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med talus mostly complete R 1 0.90 23.923 249 19D 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med thoracic vert fragment 1 0.50 14.095 1 eroded 249 19D 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med vertebra fragment 2 1.50 37.886 249 19D 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone diaphysis 2 1.70 42.404 249 19D 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm rib fragment 1 0.30 8.900 249 19D 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia Mammalia crania fragment 1 0.30 8.900 249 19D 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia Mammalia long bone diaphysis 1 0.40 11.531 1 poss. cut 249 19D 20-40 Mammalia Agoutidae Agouti paca ulna prox R 1 1.40 35.605 unsure 249 19D 20-40 Reptilia Reptilia Reptile sm long bone mostly complete J? 1 0.10 1.349 249 19D 20-40 Reptilia Iguanidae Iguanidae tibia prox R SA 1 0.70 9.628 249 19D 20-40 Reptilia Testudines Testudines plastron fragment 1 2.30 55.253 249 19D 20-40 Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata long bone diaphysis 1 0.20 6.179 249 19D 20-40 Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata unid fragment 1 0.30 8.900 255 19F 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia Mammalia innominate illium 1 0.90 23.923 256 19F 20-40 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus humerus distal L A 1 24.40 466.284 256 19F 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae ulna proximal R A 1 1.50 37.886 1 256 19F 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 7.50 161.271 256 19F 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 1 1.10 28.658 256 19F 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med phalanx complete 1 0.30 8.900 256 19F 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone diaphysis 1 0.60 16.609 256 19F 20-40 Reptilia Reptilia Reptile med long bone diaphysis 1 0.50 6.854 263 19G 20-40 Mammalia Artiodactyla Artiodactyla metapodial distal 1 0.80 21.517 263 19G 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine complete 3 3.00 70.698 1 263 19G 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 9 12.50 255.399 4 2 1 worn edges, 1 poss juv 263 19G 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 8 11.80 242.490 5 1 1 cut 263 19G 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med mandible fragment 1 0.60 16.609 1 263 19G 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med tibia proximal R 1 3.10 72.816 1 1 poss. cut 263 19G 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone diaphysis 2 0.70 19.080 1 2 same burn poss. cut, 1 other cut 263 19G 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia Mammalia flat bone fragment 2 2.40 57.835 276 19I 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible body L A 1 3.90 89.528 1 276 19I 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med phalanx complete 1 0.50 14.095 287 19K 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med phalanx complete 1 0.50 14.095 290 19L 20-40 Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae metapodial proximal diaph A 1 17.70 349.282 1 large - large rodent gnaw 290 19L 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 4 7.60 163.205 1 1 worn - awl? 290 19L 20-40 Mammalia Rodentia Rodentia innominate acetabulum R 1 0.30 8.900 294 19M 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania fragment 1 2.40 57.835 1 294 19M 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 3.90 89.528 1 eroded 294 19M 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 1 1.00 26.303 ant tib? Rad? 294 19M 20-40 Reptilia Testudines Testudines carapace fragment 3 6.90 115.353 1 1 1 eroded 299 19N 20-40 Aves Aves Aves lg long bone diaphysis 1 0.30 6.826 299 19N 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine mostly complete 2 2.00 49.083 299 19N 20-40 Mammalia Didelphidae Didelphidae mandible body R A 1 3.20 74.926 299 19N 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 4 9.20 193.825 1 2 2 eroded 299 19N 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg rib fragment 2 1.00 26.303 cf: artiodactyla 299 19N 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg unid body frag 1 3.20 74.926 1 299 19N 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania fragment 1 0.60 16.609

117 Bag # Unit Depth Class Family Taxa Element Portion Side Age # Mass Biomass Burn Rdnt Canid Cut Work Erod Notes 299 19N 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 2 3.40 79.128 299 19N 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm rib prox artic 1 0.05 1.774 299 19N 20-40 Reptilia Reptilia Reptilia unid - innom? partial 1 0.70 9.628 lrg 299 19N 20-40 Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata crania? fragment 1 0.30 8.900 299 19N 20-40 Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata unid fragment 3 0.50 14.095 304 19P 20-40 Aves Threskornithidae Threskornithidae ulna complete R A 1 0.30 6.826 ibis fam but too short 304 19P 20-40 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus PM^2 complete R 2.5yrs 1 1.30 33.308 304 19P 20-40 Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus 4th metatarsal complete L 1 0.30 8.900 304 19P 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 3 5.50 121.991 304 19P 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 3 3.40 79.128 2 1 1 awl 304 19P 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis epiph 3 3.00 70.698 2 2 1 1 eroded w/worked?, 1 worked 304 19P 20-40 Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata long bone diaphysis epiph 3 0.40 11.531 1 1 smoothed 304 19P 20-40 Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata unid fragment 1 0.20 6.179 309 19R 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 2nd metacarpal complete R 1 1.10 28.658 309 19R 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 5th metacarpal complete L 1 1.20 30.993 309 19R 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine complete 1 0.80 21.517 312 19S 20-40 Reptilia Testudines Testudines carapace marginal 1 0.60 22.457 1 1 eroded - very square, cut? 319 19T 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 3rd metatarsal partial L 1 0.80 21.517 319 19T 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae PM^4 mostly complete R A 1 1.00 26.303 319 19T 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 4 14.10 284.641 2 1 1 eroded 331 19V 20-40 Mammalia Cervidae Mazama americana astragulus complete L 1 7.60 163.205 1 331 19V 20-40 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus radius distal L J 1 2.80 66.442 331 19V 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae radius diaphysis L 1 2.90 68.574 331 19V 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 3 3.20 74.926 331 19V 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med atlas fragment L 1 0.80 21.517 stained 331 19V 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaph 1 0.80 21.517 331 19V 20-40 Mammalia Rodentia Rodentia mandible gonial angle R 1 0.30 8.900 331 19V 20-40 Reptilia Reptilia Reptilia unid fragment J? 1 0.20 2.717 331 19V 20-40 Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata crania fragment 2 4.30 97.751 cf: crocodylidae 341 19X 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine complete 1 1.10 28.658 341 19X 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae PM^4 complete R A 1 1.20 30.993 348 19Z 20-40 Aves Aves Aves long bone diaphysis 2 1.50 29.529 348 19Z 20-40 Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae distal phalanx complete 1 1.40 35.605 348 19Z 20-40 Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae phalanx complete 1 2.50 59.999 348 19Z 20-40 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus metapodial distal 1 1.30 33.308 348 19Z 20-40 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus rib dorsal atricular epiph L A 1 0.50 14.095 348 19Z 20-40 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus thoracic vert body J 1 4.20 95.703 1 in 2 pcs 348 19Z 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae crania maxilla frag L A 1 5.30 117.991 w/PM^4, M^1 - large 348 19Z 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible body R A 1 6.30 137.850 w/Mv1 - large 348 19Z 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible gonial angle R A 1 1.80 44.642 w/Mv3 348 19Z 20-40 Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus femur proximal L SA 1 0.80 21.517 1 cuts 348 19Z 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 5 14.80 297.328 348 19Z 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania zygomatic L 1 0.30 8.900 eye orbit 348 19Z 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaph 10 9.90 207.048 348 19Z 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib fragment 1 1.10 28.658 348 19Z 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone diaphysis 10 7.00 151.561 348 19Z 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia Mammalia unid fragment 4 1.30 33.308 348 19Z 20-40 Mammalia Dasyproctidae Dasyprocta punctata incisor mostly complete 1 0.70 19.080 348 19Z 20-40 Mammalia Rodentia Rodentia mandible complete R A 1 0.10 3.311 Cricetidae? 357 19AA 20-40 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus metatarsal diaphysis 1 3.90 89.528 357 19AA 20-40 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus phalanx complete 3 13.70 277.363 2 357 19AA 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania fragment 2 6.50 141.782 1 357 19AA 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg innominate ischium R 1 4.90 109.945 1 cf: tayassu 357 19AA 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 3 6.20 135.879 357 19AA 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone epiph SA 5 9.20 193.825 357 19AA 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg rib bod 1 1.50 37.886 357 19AA 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg unid fragment 1 3.10 72.816 357 19AA 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 9 5.50 121.991 1 4 357 19AA 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone diaphysis 1 0.30 8.900 357 19AA 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia Mammalia unid fragment 3 1.20 30.993 357 19AA 20-40 Mammalia Rodentia Rodentia md/lrg lower incisor partial R A 1 0.40 11.531

118 Bag # Unit Depth Class Family Taxa Element Portion Side Age # Mass Biomass Burn Rdnt Canid Cut Work Erod Notes 357 19AA 20-40 Reptilia Reptilia Reptilia unid fragment 1 0.50 6.854 357 19AA 20-40 Reptilia Testudines Testudines sm carapace fragment 3 0.90 29.467 357 19AA 20-40 Reptilia Testudines Testudines sm carapace P2 L 1 0.50 19.875 357 19AA 20-40 Reptilia Testudines Testudines sm carapace marginal 1 1.20 35.732 357 19AA 20-40 Reptilia Testudines Testudines sm plastron hypoplast 1 L 1 0.80 27.231 357 19AA 20-40 Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata long bone diaphysis 1 0.30 8.900 cf: reptilia 363 19CC 20-40 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible condyle L A 1 2.10 51.286 376 O3 20-40 Mammalia Artiodactyla Artiodactyla phalanx mostly complete 1 1.80 44.642 1 376 O3 20-40 Mammalia Tayassuidae Tayassu sp tibia distal L A 1 9.10 191.928 1 376 O3 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg caudal vertebra mostly complete 1 2.90 68.574 1 376 O3 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 7 13.70 277.363 4 1 376 O3 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia Mammalia crania fragment 1 0.20 6.179 376 O3 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia Mammalia unid fragment 1 0.40 11.531 1? 376 O3 20-40 Reptilia Kinosternidae Starotypus carapace fragment 1 1.00 31.623 395 19I 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 3.00 70.698 410 19H 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 1 2.20 53.479 1 1 cutmarks? 411 19H 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone diaphysis 1 0.50 14.095 420 19X 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 3.50 81.220 421 19CC 20-40 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania fragment 1 2.20 53.479 124 16 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 5th metatarsal complete L A 1 1.10 28.658 124 16 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania fragment 1 5.40 119.993 124 16 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone fragment 3 4.40 99.795 124 16 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg prox tibia? fragment 1 3.10 72.816 1 124 16 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 6 7.60 163.205 1 2 124 16 40-60 Reptilia Emydidae Emydidae hypoplastron fragment R 1 2.00 50.314 124 16 40-60 Reptilia Kinosternidae Kinosternidae carapace 6R R 1 1.10 33.708 134 16A 40-60 Amphibia Anura Anura humerus distal R A 1 0.05 0.670 134 16A 40-60 Aves Aves Aves long bone fragment 2 0.50 10.866 134 16A 40-60 Aves Aves Aves lg ulna distal R A 4 0.90 18.551 fit together 134 16A 40-60 Aves Aves Aves med ulna prox, mostly comp R A 1 1.40 27.732 134 16A 40-60 Aves Corvidae Corvidae ulna complete L A 1 0.30 6.826 cf: pica or cory 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Artiodactyla Artiodactyla phalanx mostly complete J 1 1.10 28.658 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae metatarsal proximal R 1 3.80 87.459 1 cut or rodent 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae rib fragment R 2 4.00 91.591 1 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae ulna diaphysis 1 1.70 42.404 1 1 cut or rodent 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus calcaneus mostly complete R 2 13.20 268.236 2 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus centroquartal complete L 1 5.90 129.947 1 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus phalanx complete 1 3.50 81.220 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus tibia prox L A 1 41.60 753.675 1 poss w/1805 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus tibia distal L A 1 20.20 393.384 1 poss w/1804, cutmarks 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 2nd metacarpal complete R 1 1.10 28.658 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 2nd metatarsal mostly complete L 1 0.70 19.080 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 3rd metatarsal proximal R 2 1.30 33.308 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 4th metatarsal distal R 1 0.60 16.609 unsure 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 4th metatarsal complete L 1 0.80 21.517 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 5th metacarpal distal L 1 0.40 11.531 unsure 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 5th metatarsal complete L 1 1.30 33.308 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae axis fragment A 1 2.10 51.286 1 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine fragment A 6 2.40 57.835 2 in 2 pcs 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine complete A 5 5.80 127.963 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae humerus distal L 1 1.50 37.886 1 cf: Urocyon 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae Iv? complete L A 1 0.10 3.311 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae M fragment R 3 0.60 16.609 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae M^2 complete L A 1 0.30 8.900 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible fragment L A 2 3.60 83.305 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible mostly complete L A 1 11.70 240.640 w/Mv1, PMv4 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible fragment R A 4 10.90 225.779 1 w/Mv2 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible prox process and condyle L E 1 0.70 19.080 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae metapodial distal A 1 1.00 26.303 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae Mv1 fragment R A 1 0.50 14.095 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae Mv1 fragment L A 1 0.60 16.609

119 Bag # Unit Depth Class Family Taxa Element Portion Side Age # Mass Biomass Burn Rdnt Canid Cut Work Erod Notes 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae Mv1 complete L A 1 1.90 46.868 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae Mv1 mostly complete L A 1 1.70 42.404 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae Mv2 complete R A 2 0.50 14.095 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae PM^2 complete L A 1 0.30 8.900 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae PMv2? complete R? A 1 0.20 6.179 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae PMv4 complete R A 1 0.30 8.900 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae radius diaphysis R 1 1.30 33.308 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae radius diaphysis L 1 4.40 99.795 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae radius proximal L A 1 0.90 23.923 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae tibia mostly complete L A 1 5.00 111.963 in 2 pcs 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae tooth root 1 0.20 6.179 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae ulna proximal R A 3 10.40 216.436 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Procyonidae Nausa narica mandible condyle R 1 0.80 21.517 1? 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Procyonidae Nausa narica ulna radial notch L 1 1.30 33.308 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus 5th metatarsal proximal L 1 0.20 6.179 needs confirm 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone epiphysis 2 9.90 207.048 cf tapir 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 21 49.00 873.326 1 1 1 calcinied 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg rib fragment 3 1.90 46.868 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg spongy bone fragment 7 3.10 72.816 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg thoracic vert transverse processes 3 3.10 72.816 1 1 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania fm condyle L 1 0.60 16.609 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania fragment 5 5.60 123.985 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med humerus diaphysis L 1 2.10 51.286 1 cf canidae 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone fragment 68 47.30 846.009 7 17 3 cut 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med mandible fragment L 1 0.70 19.080 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med mandible fragment 1 0.40 11.531 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med mandible ascend ram R 1 1.10 28.658 canidae or didelphidae 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med metapodial distal 1 0.20 6.179 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med phalanx mostly complete 5 1.20 30.993 2 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med radius? diaphysis 1 1.70 42.404 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib fragment 11 3.70 85.385 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med ulna prox process L 2 1.00 26.303 cf canidae 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med ulna prox process R 1 1.70 42.404 cf canidae 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med ulna diaphysis L 1 1.80 44.642 cf canidae 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med unid fragment 7 1.80 44.642 some mand fragments? 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone fragment 13 1.20 30.993 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm rib fragment 11 1.90 46.868 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm unid fragment 5 1.10 28.658 134 16A 40-60 Mammalia Myrmecophagidae myrmecophagidae? mandible fragment L 1 0.60 16.609 134 16A 40-60 Reptilia Reptilia Reptilia humerus proximal 1 0.10 1.349 134 16A 40-60 Reptilia Reptilia Reptilia long bone diaphysis 2 0.80 11.018 134 16A 40-60 Reptilia Reptilia Reptilia phalanx complete 1 0.10 1.349 134 16A 40-60 Reptilia Iguanidae Ctenosaura caudal vertebra mostly complete 2 0.50 6.854 134 16A 40-60 Reptilia Iguanidae Ctenosaura mandible fragment 1 0.20 2.717 134 16A 40-60 Reptilia Iguanidae Ctenosaura premax complete 1 0.50 6.854 134 16A 40-60 Reptilia Testudines Testudines plastron fragment 1 1.80 46.885 cf: staurotypus 145 16C 40-60 Reptilia Iguanidae Iguanidae vertebra mostly complete 1 0.70 9.628 145 16C 40-60 Reptilia Iguanidae Iguanidae vertebra mostly complete 1 0.70 9.628 151 16D 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible mostly complete L A 1 13.70 277.363 w/Mv1, Mv2, PMv4 151 16D 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae metapodial distal diaph 1 0.80 21.517 151 16D 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae thoracic vert mostly complete J 1 1.20 30.993 151 16D 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med tooth fragment 1 0.10 3.311 pm/m? 154 19A 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 5th metatarsal complete L 1 1.00 26.303 154 19A 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae atlas complete A 1 4.50 101.834 154 19A 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae axis complete A 1 4.50 101.834 154 19A 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible fragment R 1 6.05 132.917 154 19A 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible complete L A 1 20.40 396.887 w/ I2,I3, C, PM2, PM3, PM4, M1, M2 154 19A 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible fragment L 1 6.05 132.917 160 16E 40-60 Aves Aves Aves lg long bone diaphysis 1 1.10 22.267 160 16E 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae antler partial 1 4.80 107.924 1 1 1 polished 161 16C 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 1 0.90 23.923 1

120 Bag # Unit Depth Class Family Taxa Element Portion Side Age # Mass Biomass Burn Rdnt Canid Cut Work Erod Notes 162 16F 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania fragment 1 2.60 62.155 170 16K 40-60 Aves Aves Aves sm humerus mostly complete L A 1 0.30 6.826 170 16K 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 2nd metacarpal complete R 1 1.30 33.308 170 16K 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 3rd metacarpal mostly complete L 1 0.70 19.080 170 16K 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible mostly complete L A 1 12.10 248.031 1 170 16K 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae radius distal L A 1 1.90 46.868 1 170 16K 40-60 Mammalia Procyonidae procyonidae innominate illium 1 2.90 64.537 1 170 16K 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania zygomatic L 1 1.80 44.642 178 16L 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Mazama americana calcaneus mostly complete L A 1 13.60 275.540 178 16L 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Mazama americana innominate mostly complete R A 1 41.10 745.517 1 in 2 pcs 178 16L 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg rib fragment 3 3.60 83.305 in 6 pcs 184 16M 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Mazama americana phalanx distal J? 1 1.20 30.993 1 1 184 19M 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae axis mostly complete 1 3.10 72.816 184 16M 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible fragment R A 1 3.00 70.698 184 16M 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 6 14.20 286.457 2 4 184 16M 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg radius? diaph 1 23.30 447.322 1 184 16M 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg tibia diaphysis R 1 13.00 264.575 1 poss cuts 184 16M 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg unid fragment 9 9.40 197.613 frags related - not sure what it is though 184 16M 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 8 4.40 99.795 2 3 184 16M 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med mandible fragment 4 3.30 77.030 1 184 16M 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib fragment 1 0.30 8.900 197 19R 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 0.50 14.095 scratches - cuts, gnaw, etc? 197 16R 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg unid fragment SA? 1 4.50 101.834 1 205 16S 40-60 Mammalia Didelphidae Didelphidae mandible mostly complete R A 1 3.80 87.459 w/teeth (glued by someone else) 222 19 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus tibia distal R A 1 7.10 153.509 222 19 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 8.90 188.127 222 19 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 1 2.60 62.155 228 18N 40-60 Aves Aves Aves long bone diaphysis 1 0.30 6.826 228 18N 40-60 Mammalia Artiodactyla Artiodactyla rib fragment 1 3.00 70.698 1 2 fit together 228 18N 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Mazama americana astragulus complete R A 1 4.40 99.795 228 18N 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Mazama americana radius proximal R A 1 3.00 70.698 1 228 18N 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus astragulus complete R A 1 9.50 199.504 1 228 18N 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus phalanx complete 1 2.20 53.479 228 18N 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae axis mostly complete A 1 3.40 79.128 228 18N 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine complete A 1 1.00 26.303 228 18N 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae humerus distal diaph L A 1 3.30 77.030 228 18N 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae PM^4 complete R A 1 1.10 28.658 228 18N 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible proximal L A 1 1.60 40.152 228 18N 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae radius diaphysis R 1 2.00 49.083 228 18N 40-60 Mammalia Didelphidae Didelphidae caudal vertebra complete J 1 0.50 14.095 228 18N 40-60 Mammalia Didelphidae Didelphidae mandible fragment L A 1 2.10 51.286 228 18N 40-60 Mammalia Didelphidae Didelphidae mandible fragment R 1 1.10 28.658 1 228 18N 40-60 Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus innominate mostly complete L A 1 1.60 40.152 1 228 18N 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg cervical vert dorsal articular fossa 1 1.10 28.658 228 18N 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg humerus diaphysis L A 1 15.80 315.349 1 dist poss. utilized, odoco or larger 228 18N 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 5 15.40 308.155 3 228 18N 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 9 8.30 176.673 3 1 1 worked 228 18N 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm ulna diaphysis L 1 0.60 16.609 cf: dasypus 228 18N 40-60 Reptilia Iguanidae Ctenosaura innominate mostly complete R A 1 1.60 22.190 1 poss worn 228 18N 40-60 Reptilia Emydidae Emydidae carapace fragment 3 8.30 130.552 228 18N 40-60 Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata unid fragment 3 2.70 64.302 2 238 19B 40-60 Reptilia Emydidae Emydidae plastron fragment 3R 1 3.80 77.349 238 19B 40-60 Reptilia Emydidae Emydidae plastron fragment 9L 1 2.30 55.253 242 19C 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 4th metacarpal proximal L 1 0.70 19.080 242 19C 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 5th metacarpal proximal R 1 0.60 16.609 242 19C 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine fragment 1 0.20 6.179 242 19C 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae I^3 complete L A 1 0.50 14.095 242 19C 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae metapodial distal diaph 1 0.40 11.531 242 19C 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae Mv1 complete L A 1 0.20 6.179 242 19C 40-60 Mammalia Mustelidae mustelidae canine mostly complete 1 0.05 1.774 242 19C 40-60 Reptilia Kinosternidae Kinosternidae carapace 5R R 1 0.05 4.249

121 Bag # Unit Depth Class Family Taxa Element Portion Side Age # Mass Biomass Burn Rdnt Canid Cut Work Erod Notes 250 19D 40-60 Mammalia Artiodactyla Artiodactyla metapodial distal condyle 1 0.80 21.517 1 1 worked/cut/modified 250 19D 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus phalanx complete 1 2.30 55.662 257 19F 40-60 Amphibia Anura Anura innominate illium R 1 0.40 5.471 257 19F 40-60 Mammalia Artiodactyla Artiodactyla distal phalanx proximal J/E? 1 0.90 23.923 porous bone 257 19F 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Mazama americana thoracic vert fragment A 1 2.20 53.479 in 2 pcs 257 19F 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus atlas mostly complete 1 11.20 231.364 257 19F 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus axis proximal 1 7.20 155.453 1 257 19F 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus innominate acetabulum L A 1 7.20 155.453 1 1 poss. cut 257 19F 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus M^2 partial L 3-4yrs 1 2.40 57.835 257 19F 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus phalanx complete 1 4.70 105.898 1 poss. cut 257 19F 40-60 Mammalia Tayassuidae Tayassu sp carpals/tarsals complete 1 2.60 62.155 257 19F 40-60 Mammalia Tayassuidae Tayassu sp tibia distal L 1 10.90 225.779 1 257 19F 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 5th metacarpal proximal R A 1 0.40 11.531 257 19F 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae axis mostly complete SA 1 3.20 74.926 257 19F 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine complete 1 1.40 35.605 257 19F 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae crania dentary R A 1 0.80 21.517 257 19F 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae radius diaphysis R A 1 4.40 99.795 257 19F 40-60 Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus femur proximal R A 1 1.50 37.886 257 19F 40-60 Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus tibia proximal L A 1 1.60 40.152 257 19F 40-60 Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus tibia diaphysis L 1 0.80 21.517 257 19F 40-60 Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus tibia distal L A 1 1.40 35.605 257 19F 40-60 Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus tibia diaphysis R 1 1.30 33.308 257 19F 40-60 Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus tibia distal R A 1 0.40 11.531 257 19F 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania fragment 2 4.10 93.650 257 19F 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 7 11.40 235.079 3 257 19F 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg podial complete 1 2.60 62.155 257 19F 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg tooth fragment 1 0.20 6.179 257 19F 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg unid fragment 1 1.40 35.605 rib? 257 19F 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg vertebra process 1 0.50 14.095 257 19F 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania fragment 10 3.40 79.128 257 19F 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania maxilla 4 1.70 42.404 257 19F 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 7 12.80 260.909 2 257 19F 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med radius diaphysis 1 0.70 19.080 cf: urocyon 257 19F 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib proximal L 1 0.30 8.900 257 19F 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med thoracic vert partial SA 1 2.50 59.999 1 cf: canidae 257 19F 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med tibia proximal R J/SA 1 1.00 26.303 257 19F 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med tibia diaphysis R 1 1.70 42.404 larger 257 19F 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone diaphysis 15 5.50 121.991 3 257 19F 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm rib fragment 1 0.05 1.774 257 19F 40-60 Reptilia Reptilia Reptilia femur proximal SA? 1 0.30 4.092 257 19F 40-60 Reptilia Reptilia Reptilia femur distal 1 0.70 9.628 cf: testudines 257 19F 40-60 Reptilia Iguanidae Ctenosaura innominate illium L A 1 1.00 13.804 1 257 19F 40-60 Reptilia Iguanidae Iguanidae humerus proximal L A 1 0.70 9.628 257 19F 40-60 Reptilia Testudines Testudines carapace fragment 1 0.70 24.901 257 19F 40-60 Reptilia Testudines Testudines lg carapace fragment 2 6.90 115.353 257 19F 40-60 Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata unid fragment 1 0.80 21.517 1 fauna? 264 19G 40-60 Amphibia Bufonidae Bufonidae lg humerus distal L A 1 0.40 5.471 264 19G 40-60 Aves Ardeidae Ardea sp carpometacarpus proximal L A 1 0.90 18.551 264 19G 40-60 Mammalia Artiodactyla Artiodactyla phalanx mostly complete 2 4.50 101.834 264 19G 40-60 Mammalia Artiodactyla Artiodactyla distal phalanx complete E? 1 0.90 23.923 264 19G 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae atlas fossa 1 2.40 57.835 264 19G 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 4th metatarsal complete R 1 1.30 33.308 264 19G 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 4th metatarsal proximal L 1 0.40 11.531 264 19G 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae atlas partial 2 2.30 55.662 prob same indiv 264 19G 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae humerus distal L A 1 1.10 28.658 cf: Urocyon 264 19G 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae tibia proximal R A 1 2.20 53.479 cf: Urocyon 264 19G 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae tibia distal R A 1 1.80 44.642 sm dog? 264 19G 40-60 Mammalia Didelphidae didelphidae caudal vertebra mostly complete 1 0.30 8.900 poss. cuts 264 19G 40-60 Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus humerus distal L A 1 0.80 21.517 264 19G 40-60 Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus innominate mostly complete L A 1 1.40 35.605 poss. same indiv 264 19G 40-60 Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus innominate partial R 1 0.90 23.923 poss. same indiv

122 Bag # Unit Depth Class Family Taxa Element Portion Side Age # Mass Biomass Burn Rdnt Canid Cut Work Erod Notes 264 19G 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania fragment 2 3.80 87.459 264 19G 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg innominate fragment 1 4.20 95.703 1 1 straight breaks - cut? 264 19G 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 13 28.20 531.159 2 1 1 1 smoothed by water 264 19G 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg mandible ascend ram R 1 4.20 95.703 264 19G 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg unid fragment 1 1.40 35.605 264 19G 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med caudal vertebra complete 1 0.30 8.900 264 19G 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 17 14.70 295.519 1 264 19G 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med M partial 1 0.50 14.095 264 19G 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med M root 1 0.10 3.311 264 19G 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med metapodial mostly complete 1 1.00 26.303 cf: canidae 264 19G 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib fragment 3 1.40 35.605 264 19G 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med tibia diaphysis L 1 5.90 129.947 264 19G 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone diaphysis 15 6.20 135.879 1 264 19G 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm rib diaphysis 1 0.05 1.774 264 19G 40-60 Reptilia Iguanidae Ctenosaura shoulder girdle acetabulum R 1 0.50 6.854 264 19G 40-60 Reptilia Iguanidae Ctenosaura occipital mostly complete 1 0.50 6.854 264 19G 40-60 Reptilia Iguanidae Iguanidae mandible partial R 1 0.60 8.240 264 19G 40-60 Reptilia Testudines Testudines carapace fragment 1 0.70 24.901 264 19G 40-60 Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata unid fragment 3 0.60 16.609 1 270 19H 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus mandible partial R 1 9.00 190.028 270 19H 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus Mv4 complete R 5 yrs 1 2.40 57.835 270 19H 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus PMv2 complete R 5.5 yrs 1 0.90 23.923 270 19H 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus PMv3 complete R 5.5 yrs 1 0.90 23.923 270 19H 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine mostly complete 1 1.00 26.303 270 19H 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania fragment 1 5.60 123.985 270 19H 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 1.80 44.642 270 19H 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg mandible fragment 2 0.90 23.923 270 19H 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania fragment 4 1.40 35.605 270 19H 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 2 2.20 53.479 270 19H 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone diaphysis 5 1.20 30.993 277 19I 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae auditory meatus mostly complete L 1 1.80 44.642 cf: odocoileus 277 19I 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus humerus distal L A 1 7.70 165.136 1 277 19I 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus rib proximal R 1 0.80 21.517 277 19I 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 2nd metacarpal mostly complete R 1 0.70 19.080 277 19I 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 4th metacarpal proximal L 1 0.60 16.609 277 19I 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible partial L A 1 4.80 107.924 277 19I 40-60 Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus tibia proximal L A 1 1.40 35.605 277 19I 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 2.30 55.662 poss. metapodial 277 19I 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania fragment 1 0.50 14.095 277 19I 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 2 6.80 147.658 1 277 19I 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone diaphysis 4 2.50 59.999 282 19J 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae ulna proximal L A 1 2.40 57.835 282 19J 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania fragment 1 2.00 49.083 282 19J 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 7 18.50 363.458 1 smoothed - water or human? 282 19J 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania saggital crest 1 0.80 21.517 282 19J 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 13 19.50 381.093 3 3 dog chew+1 => worn 282 19J 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med ulna diaphysis R 2 2.20 53.479 282 19J 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone diaphysis 3 3.00 70.698 1 poss. tibia 282 19J 40-60 Reptilia Testudines Testudines plastron fragment 1 1.00 31.623 288 19K 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae talus complete L 1 1.60 40.152 291 19L 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus radius distal L A 1 9.40 197.613 1 291 19L 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 1 4.60 103.868 1 295 19M 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Mazama americana radius proximal R A 1 9.90 207.048 295 19M 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 2 15.40 308.155 1 1 eroded 295 19M 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 3 8.20 174.756 1 2 2 1 worn and cut, 1 burn and cut, 1 worn 300 19N 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus metatarsal proximal R A 1 5.70 125.976 1 300 19N 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 4th metacarpal complete R E 1 1.20 30.993 porous bone 300 19N 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 5th metacarpal complete R E 1 1.40 35.605 porous bone 300 19N 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae crania maxilla frag R A 1 2.20 53.479 w/M^1,2frag 300 19N 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae crania maxilla frag 1 0.40 11.531 300 19N 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae crania dentary frag R 1 0.40 11.531 fits 1396

123 Bag # Unit Depth Class Family Taxa Element Portion Side Age # Mass Biomass Burn Rdnt Canid Cut Work Erod Notes 300 19N 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae crania dentary frag L 1 0.40 11.531 fits 1395 300 19N 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae PM^4 complete R A 1 1.30 33.308 300 19N 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae PM^4 complete L A 1 1.30 33.308 300 19N 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae M^1 complete R A/E? 1 1.00 26.303 300 19N 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae metapodial distal 1 0.80 21.517 300 19N 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae Mv1 complete L A 1 1.30 33.308 300 19N 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae ulna partial R 1 3.50 81.220 310 19R 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 3rd metatarsal proximal L A 1 0.90 23.923 310 19R 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine complete 1 0.80 21.517 310 19R 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible mostly complete R A 1 5.00 111.963 310 19R 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae Mv1 complete R A 2 3.10 72.816 313 19S 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae atlas partial L 1 1.70 42.404 1 313 19S 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae axis partial A 1 3.00 70.698 1 313 19S 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaph 2 5.30 117.991 313 19S 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaph 1 1.70 42.404 313 19S 40-60 Vertebrata Vertebrata fauna? unid fragment 1 1.60 40.152 1 1 1 eroded 320 19T 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 4th metacarpal partial L 1 0.60 16.609 320 19T 40-60 Mammalia Hominidae Homo sapiens PM^1 crown L? A 1 0.20 6.179 327 19O 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Mazama americana 3rd phalanx complete J/E? 1 0.90 23.923 332 19V 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 2nd metacarpal complete L 1 1.10 28.658 332 19V 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 3rd metacarpal proximal R 1 0.40 11.531 332 19V 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 4th metacarpal mostly complete R 1 0.80 21.517 332 19V 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae atlas occipital fossa R 1 1.10 28.658 332 19V 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine mostly complete 1 1.10 28.658 something weird - broken tip 332 19V 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae humerus distal L A 1 5.00 111.963 1 332 19V 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible body ant f R A 1 2.00 49.083 332 19V 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible body frag R A 1 2.10 51.286 w/Mv2 332 19V 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae Mv1 complete R A 1 1.80 44.642 332 19V 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae Mv3 complete R A 1 0.05 1.774 CHECK 332 19V 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae PM fragment 1 0.10 3.311 332 19V 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae PMv2 complete R A 1 0.20 6.179 332 19V 40-60 Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus femur complete R J 1 2.90 68.574 332 19V 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg cervical vert lateral facet 2 3.70 85.385 332 19V 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 7 13.50 273.716 1 332 19V 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone epiphysis 1 1.70 42.404 1 eroded 332 19V 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg rib fragment R? 1 0.90 23.923 332 19V 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med caudal vertebra complete 1 0.30 8.900 332 19V 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med humerus distal R 1 1.80 44.642 332 19V 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 10 5.50 121.991 1 332 19V 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med mandible body frag 2 2.60 62.155 cf: canidae 332 19V 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib fragment 3 1.60 40.152 332 19V 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone diaphysis 1 0.10 3.311 332 19V 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm rib fragment 4 1.10 28.658 332 19V 40-60 Reptilia Reptilia Reptilia innominate illium L 1 0.40 5.471 332 19V 40-60 Reptilia Testudines Testudines plastron fragment 1 0.60 22.457 1 334 19W 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 3.10 72.816 342 19X 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae femur proximal L A 1 0.90 23.923 cf: Urocyon 342 19X 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae femur proximal R A 1 1.20 30.993 342 19X 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae M^1 complete L A 1 0.80 21.517 342 19X 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible partial L A 1 3.80 87.459 342 19X 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania fragment 1 1.00 26.303 342 19X 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 7 32.30 600.181 1 342 19X 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 3 5.30 117.991 342 19X 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med radius proximal 1 1.00 26.303 342 19X 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone diaphysis 1 0.40 11.531 342 19X 40-60 Mammalia Dasypodidae Dasypus novemcinctus scute fragment 13 1.20 30.993 349 19Z 40-60 Aves Aves Aves long bone diaph 3 8.05 136.230 349 19Z 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Mazama americana 3rd phalanx complete 1 0.70 19.080 349 19Z 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Mazama americana metapodial diaphysis A 1 6.30 137.850 1 349 19Z 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae metapodial distal 1 0.60 16.609 1 349 19Z 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae thoracic vert complete E 1 2.10 51.286 some lipping?

124 Bag # Unit Depth Class Family Taxa Element Portion Side Age # Mass Biomass Burn Rdnt Canid Cut Work Erod Notes 349 19Z 40-60 Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus innominate acetabulum L 1 1.00 26.303 349 19Z 40-60 Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus tibia mostly complete R A 1 2.90 68.574 in 2 pcs 349 19Z 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 4 7.00 151.561 1 1 1 1 erododed, 1 smoothed/'worn 349 19Z 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone fragment 6 6.70 145.703 349 19Z 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib fragment 1R 2 1.50 37.886 349 19Z 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone fragment 1 0.20 6.179 1 eroded? 349 19Z 40-60 Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata unid fragment 2 1.70 42.404 2 eroded 358 19AA 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae antler fragment 1 2.70 64.302 1 sm unsure 358 19AA 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae centroquartal complete L A 1 4.40 99.795 358 19AA 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae innominate acetabulum R 1 4.50 101.834 1 358 19AA 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae innominate acetabulum R 1 2.00 49.083 1 358 19AA 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae phalanx complete 1 2.60 62.155 358 19AA 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae rib proximal epiph L 1 1.80 44.642 1 358 19AA 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae scapula prox L A 1 9.90 207.048 358 19AA 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible mostly complete R A 1 9.40 197.613 w/pmv4,pmv2 roots, mv1,2, no space for pmv3 358 19AA 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania fragment 2 2.00 49.083 358 19AA 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 9 32.60 605.196 1 2 1 1 worked 358 19AA 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone epiph 1 2.10 51.286 pos smoothed/eroded 358 19AA 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 14 10.50 218.308 5 358 19AA 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib diaphysis 2 0.70 19.080 358 19AA 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med tibia diaphysis 1 3.50 81.220 358 19AA 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med unid fragment 1 1.30 33.308 358 19AA 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm rib mostly complete 1 0.30 8.900 358 19AA 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia Mammalia unid fragment 3 1.30 33.308 1 1 eroded 364 19CC 40-60 Reptilia Emydidae Emydidae carapace fragment 1 3.50 73.202 1 utilized/eroded 369 19EE 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 2 1.30 33.308 1 completely carbonized 377 O3 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine cap J? 1 0.30 8.900 377 O3 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible mostly complete R J? 1 6.40 139.818 377 O3 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae ulna partial L A 1 5.20 115.985 394 19 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 1 4.20 95.703 1 1 cuts/scrapes, in 2 pcs 397 16D 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 3.40 79.128 401 19AA 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 1 2.20 53.479 405 19G 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 1 0.90 23.923 406 19AA 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 1 1.30 33.308 tibia? 408 19F 40-60 Mammalia Canidae Canidae radius proximal R A 1 0.80 21.517 cf: Urocyon 409 19D 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 6.10 133.905 cf: tapir, abnormal break 413 19F 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg unid fragment 1 2.80 66.442 1 414 19F 40-60 Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae proximal phalanx complete 1 0.30 8.900 1 415 16S 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg canine partial 1 1.20 30.993 1 1 1 1 burn and polished - poss cut, maybe not fauna 419 19G 40-60 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 1.50 37.886 1 cutmarks 125 16 60-80 Mammalia Cervidae Mazama americana phalanx complete 1 4.70 105.898 125 16 60-80 Mammalia Cervidae Mazama americana radius proximal L A 1 7.70 165.136 125 16 60-80 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus sternum distal 1 2.70 64.302 125 16 60-80 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus tibia distal L A 1 5.70 125.976 1 125 16 60-80 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus tibia proximal R J 1 8.70 184.318 1 125 16 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 2nd metacarpal complete R 1 0.90 23.923 125 16 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 3rd metatarsal proximal R 1 0.70 19.080 125 16 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible fragment 1 1.10 28.658 125 16 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae radius proximal L SA 1 3.30 77.030 125 16 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae radius distal R A 1 1.10 28.658 125 16 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae scapula proximal R 1 1.70 42.404 125 16 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae ulna proximal L 1 3.10 72.816 125 16 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania fragment 1 10.10 210.809 125 16 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone fragment 2 33.40 618.546 1 125 16 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg rib mostly complete 1 4.60 103.868 1 125 16 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg tibia distal R A 1 4.50 101.834 1 polished and cut 125 16 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med fibula distal? 1 0.40 11.531 125 16 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone fragment 8 7.30 157.395 1 1 125 16 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib mostly complete 4 2.20 53.479 1 1 in 2 pcs 125 16 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone fragment 16 7.30 157.395 2 125 16 60-80 Mammalia Sciuridae Sciuridae femur proximal R A 1 0.30 8.900

125 Bag # Unit Depth Class Family Taxa Element Portion Side Age # Mass Biomass Burn Rdnt Canid Cut Work Erod Notes 125 16 60-80 Reptilia Iguanidae Ctenosaura humerus distal R J 1 0.50 6.854 1 125 16 60-80 Reptilia Testudines Testudines carapace fragment 3 4.90 91.713 125 16 60-80 Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata Unid fragment 1 0.50 14.095 1 135 16A 60-80 Aves Phasaianidae Phasaianidae carpometacarpus complete R A 1 0.10 2.512 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae tooth fragment 1 0.40 11.531 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus 1st phalanx complete 1 5.20 115.985 articulates 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus 2nd phalanx complete 1 3.30 77.030 articulates 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus 3rd phalanx complete 1 1.40 35.605 articulates 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus calcaneus partial R 1 4.40 99.795 1 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus innominate mostly complete L A 1 17.30 342.170 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 3rd metatarsal complete L A 2 1.60 40.152 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 4th metatarsal complete R A 1 0.60 16.609 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 4th metatarsal distal L 1 0.60 16.609 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 5th metatarsal proximal L 1 0.90 23.923 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 5th metatarsal complete R A 1 1.40 35.605 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae axis complete A 2 8.70 184.318 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine complete A 1 0.80 21.517 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae cervical vert mostly complete J 1 2.40 57.835 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae humerus distal R A 1 4.70 105.898 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae humerus distal L A 1 4.80 107.924 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae I^2 complete L A 1 0.20 6.179 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae innominate acetabulum R A 1 3.00 70.698 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae innominate acetabulum L A 1 4.30 97.751 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible condyle R J 1 0.40 11.531 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible fragment L A 1 2.70 64.302 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible fragment R A 4 10.30 214.562 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae Mv2 complete R A 1 1.30 33.308 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae PMv3? fragment R A 1 0.20 6.179 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae radius proximal L A 1 0.20 6.179 really small but looks like adult c. fam 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae scapula glenoid fossa L 1 1.60 40.152 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae scapula glenoid fossa R 1 1.70 42.404 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae thoracic vert mostly complete J 1 0.80 21.517 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae tooth fragment A 1 0.10 3.311 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae ulna proximal R A 1 2.60 62.155 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania fragment 2 4.80 107.924 1 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 16 23.40 449.050 2 1 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania fragment 4 1.70 42.404 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 51 18.50 363.458 1 1 9 1 cut/scraped 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med mandible fragment 5 2.90 68.574 3 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med phalanx complete 4 0.90 23.923 1 1 cut 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib fragment 3 1.10 28.658 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med thoracic vert dorsal spine 1 0.50 14.095 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med vertebra fragment 1 0.20 6.179 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm rib fragment 1 0.05 1.774 135 16A 60-80 Mammalia Dasypodidae Dasypus novemcinctus scute mostly complete 1 0.10 3.311 135 16A 60-80 Reptilia Serpentes Serpentes vertebra mostly complete 1 0.10 1.349 non-venemous snake 135 16A 60-80 Reptilia Viparidae Viparidae vertebra mostly complete 2 1.50 20.790 135 16A 60-80 Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata phalanx complete 1 0.10 3.311 small 146 16C 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine complete J? 1 0.10 3.311 146 16C 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible fragment R 1 0.90 23.923 146 16C 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible fragment R 1 4.10 93.650 146 16C 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 4.60 103.868 152 16D 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae Mv1 fragment L A 1 0.80 21.517 152 16D 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania fragment 1 1.40 35.605 152 16D 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania fragment 1 0.80 21.517 1? 152 16D 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 1 2.10 51.286 1 UTILIZED - awl? Spiral fracture, worn point and edges 152 16D 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 7 9.50 199.504 152 16D 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone diaphysis 4 0.50 14.095 152 16D 60-80 Mammalia Dasyproctidae Dasyprocta punctata humerus distal L A 1 0.50 14.095 152 16D 60-80 Reptilia Testudines Testudines carapace fragment 1 1.40 39.619 171 16K 60-80 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus astragulus complete L A 1 8.20 174.756 1

126 Bag # Unit Depth Class Family Taxa Element Portion Side Age # Mass Biomass Burn Rdnt Canid Cut Work Erod Notes 171 16K 60-80 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus calcaneus complete L A 1 16.90 335.041 1 171 16K 60-80 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus phalanx complete A 1 3.50 81.220 1 171 16K 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible fragment R A 1 1.80 44.642 small, w/M2 171 16K 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae tibia distal L A 1 2.50 59.999 171 16K 60-80 Mammalia Didelphidae Didelphidae crania foramen magnum A 1 1.60 40.152 1 171 16K 60-80 Mammalia Didelphidae Didelphidae mandible fragment A 1 0.90 23.923 171 16K 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 4 19.80 386.366 1 3 2 abnormal breaks 171 16K 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone fragment 4 3.80 87.459 1 1 cutmarks? 171 16K 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med unid fragment 1 0.20 6.179 185 16M 60-80 Aves Aves Aves lg phalanx complete 4 1.40 27.732 185 16M 60-80 Aves Aves Aves lg sacrum fragment 1 0.50 10.866 185 16M 60-80 Aves Ciconiidae Ciconiidae coracoid partial R A 1 1.10 22.267 185 16M 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 2nd metacarpal complete R 1 0.70 19.080 smaller - another individual 185 16M 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 2nd metatarsal complete L 1 1.20 30.993 185 16M 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 3rd metacarpal complete R A 1 1.00 26.303 185 16M 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 3rd metatarsal complete L A 1 1.20 30.993 185 16M 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 4th metacarpal complete L 1 0.90 23.923 185 16M 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 4th metacarpal complete R A 1 0.90 23.923 185 16M 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 5th metatarsal complete R A 1 0.90 23.923 185 16M 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 5th metatarsal complete L 1 0.90 23.923 185 16M 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae calcaneus complete R A 1 1.80 44.642 185 16M 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae innominate acetabulum R A 1 3.80 87.459 185 16M 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae metapodial distal 1 0.20 6.179 185 16M 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae radius proximal R A 1 2.10 51.286 185 16M 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae radius distal R A 1 2.00 49.083 185 16M 60-80 Mammalia Tapiridae tapirus bairdii phalanx distal A 1 4.20 95.703 1 191 16N 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine root A 1 1.00 26.303 191 16N 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 2.80 66.442 198 16R 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae ulna proximal R A 1 2.00 49.083 1 in 2 pcs, poss. cut 198 16R 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 3 10.50 218.308 198 16R 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis A 5 10.60 220.179 1 198 16R 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone diaphysis 1 0.60 16.609 212 16T 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 1.60 40.152 212 16T 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med femur proximal diaph J 1 2.40 57.835 212 16T 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med lumbar vert mostly complete J 1 1.00 26.303 223 19 60-80 Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae metapodial distal 1 2.70 64.302 1 223 19 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible partial R A 1 6.90 149.611 1 1 cut/scraped after burning, w/part Mv2 223 19 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 2.10 51.286 223 19 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med humerus diaphysis L 1 4.70 105.898 1 223 19 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 7 5.00 111.963 3 1 2 2 smoothed by water 223 19 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med ulna diaphysis L 1 1.70 42.404 229 19A 60-80 Aves Icteridae Cassidix mexicanus humerus complete R A 1 0.50 10.866 229 19A 60-80 Decapoda Decapoda Decapoda claw fragment 1 0.30 14.115 229 19A 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 3 9.40 197.613 229 19A 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone epiphysis A 3 21.70 419.579 1 poss. dist femur - huge 229 19A 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania maxilla 1 1.00 26.303 229 19A 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 16 21.30 412.612 3 1 poss. flaked 229 19A 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib fragment 2 1.10 28.658 229 19A 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm canine complete 1 0.10 3.311 229 19A 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm humerus diaphysis L 1 0.40 11.531 229 19A 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone diaphysis 8 2.70 64.302 229 19A 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm tooth crown 1 0.05 1.774 229 19A 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm tooth root 1 0.05 1.774 229 19A 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia Mammalia long bone diaphysis 1 0.10 3.311 229 19A 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia Mammalia rib fragment 2 0.10 3.311 229 19A 60-80 Osteichthyes Osteichthyes osteicthyes dors spine proximal 1 0.10 4.571 229 19A 60-80 Osteichthyes Osteichthyes osteicthyes pect spine proximal L 1 0.05 2.607 229 19A 60-80 Osteichthyes Osteichthyes osteicthyes unid fragment 1 0.05 2.607 229 19A 60-80 Reptilia Iguanidae Iguanidae caudal vertebra complete A 1 0.10 1.349 251 19D 60-80 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus mandible fragment L A 1 2.00 49.083 1 251 19D 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae PM^4 partial R A 1 0.70 19.080

127 Bag # Unit Depth Class Family Taxa Element Portion Side Age # Mass Biomass Burn Rdnt Canid Cut Work Erod Notes 251 19D 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae M^1 mostly complete R A 1 0.60 16.609 251 19D 60-80 Reptilia Reptilia Reptilia vertebra mostly complete 1 0.40 5.471 poss. intrusion - doesn't look old 258 19F 60-80 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus calcaneus complete R A 1 11.30 233.223 258 19F 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 2nd metatarsal proximal L 1 0.90 23.923 258 19F 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae atlas complete 1 2.80 66.442 258 19F 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae calcaneus complete L 1 1.10 28.658 258 19F 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae crania temporo-zygomatic L 1 1.60 40.152 1 huge - cf: latrans or lupus? 258 19F 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania fragment 10 12.70 259.074 1 7 1 same burn poss. cut 258 19F 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 2 4.70 105.898 2 258 19F 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med femur proximal L J 1 0.90 23.923 258 19F 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med phalanx complete 1 0.30 8.900 258 19F 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med tibia diaphysis R 1 2.90 68.574 1 258 19F 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med zygomatic mostly complete R 1 0.30 8.900 258 19F 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone diaphysis 1 0.10 3.311 258 19F 60-80 Reptilia Reptilia Reptile (non-turtle) rib proximal 1 0.10 1.349 265 19G 60-80 Amphibia Anura Anura innominate illium L 1 0.20 2.717 265 19G 60-80 Amphibia Anura Anura radio-ulna mostly complete 1 0.10 1.349 missing 265 19G 60-80 Aves Aves Aves lg long bone diaphysis 10 3.00 55.486 265 19G 60-80 Aves Aves Aves lg long bone epiph 1 2.80 52.109 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus femur distal R 1 2.70 64.302 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus humerus distal R A 1 10.90 225.779 1 cut 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus humerus distal R 1 16.10 320.733 1 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus metapodial distal SA 1 1.80 44.642 cut 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 3rd metacarpal proximal L 1 0.40 11.531 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 3rd metatarsal proximal L 1 0.30 8.900 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 4th metacarpal mostly complete L 3 2.50 59.999 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 5th metacarpal complete L 1 1.00 26.303 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae calcaneus complete L 1 3.50 81.220 1 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine mostly complete 1 1.10 28.658 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae PM^4 complete R A 1 1.30 33.308 lines of attrition 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae PM^4 mostly complete R A 1 0.80 21.517 lines of attrition 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae M^1 complete R A 1 1.00 26.303 lines of attrition 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae M^1 complete L A 1 1.00 26.303 lines of attrition 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible dentary L A 1 1.10 28.658 w/Iv2,3 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible dentary R A 1 0.50 14.095 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible fragment R A 1 6.50 141.782 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae metapodial distal 3 1.10 28.658 1 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae Mv1 partial R A 1 0.70 19.080 lines of attrition 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae PM^2 complete R A 1 0.40 11.531 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae PM^2 complete L A 1 0.20 6.179 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae radius complete R A 1 6.00 131.928 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae radius diaphysis L A 1 1.70 42.404 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae scapula glenoid fossa R A 1 1.40 35.605 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae talus complete R 1 1.10 28.658 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae talus partial L 1 0.70 19.080 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae tibia mostly complete R A 1 6.40 139.818 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae ulna mostly complete L A 1 3.80 87.459 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania fragment 1 1.20 30.993 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 15 43.70 787.831 6 1 1 1 scraped, 1 eroded 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone epiph 1 1.70 42.404 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med atlas fragment 1 0.40 11.531 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med canine fragment 3 0.60 16.609 1 shattered in own bag 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania fragment 17 5.90 129.947 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med femur ball R A 1 0.80 21.517 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med humerus ball A 2 2.50 59.999 1 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 47 20.20 393.384 19 1 1 worn/utilized 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone epiphysis 2 1.20 30.993 1 1 juv? 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med mandible body frag 1 0.50 14.095 prox ulna? 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med phalanx complete 2 0.60 16.609 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med radius diaph 1 0.50 14.095 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib fragment 4 2.60 62.155

128 Bag # Unit Depth Class Family Taxa Element Portion Side Age # Mass Biomass Burn Rdnt Canid Cut Work Erod Notes 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med zygomatic partial R 1 0.35 10.225 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm innominate sup ant illac crest R? 1 0.20 6.179 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone epiphysis 4 0.90 23.923 1 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone diaphysis 28 5.80 127.963 8 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm phalanx mostly complete 1 0.05 1.774 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm rib fragment 6 1.10 28.658 3 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm unid fragment 1 0.40 11.531 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia Mammalia unid fragment 7 4.10 93.650 2 265 19G 60-80 Mammalia Muridae Oryzomys femur complete R SA 1 0.20 6.179 265 19G 60-80 Reptilia Reptilia Reptile (non-turtle) humerus diaphysis R SA? 1 0.40 5.471 265 19G 60-80 Reptilia Testudines Testudines carapace fragment 1 0.60 22.457 265 19G 60-80 Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata unid fragment 10 5.50 121.991 265 19G 60-80 Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata vertebra lateral process 1 0.10 3.311 cf: med mam cervical 271 19H 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible ascend ram R A 1 5.70 125.976 271 19H 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae Mv1 complete R A 1 1.20 30.993 271 19H 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania fragment 1 2.10 51.286 1 271 19H 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg rib fragment 5 5.40 119.993 271 19H 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania fragment 1 1.30 33.308 271 19H 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med humerus proximal diaph L J 1 1.40 35.605 271 19H 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib fragment 1 0.40 11.531 271 19H 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone diaphysis 2 2.20 53.479 271 19H 60-80 Reptilia Kinosternidae Starotypus plastron fragment 2 10.30 150.869 1 278 19I 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible mostly complete L A 1 10.00 208.930 some teeth glued in wrong places - not it! 278 19I 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae radius distal R A 1 2.60 62.155 278 19I 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 3.40 79.128 poss. heated 278 19I 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 3 6.90 149.611 1? 278 19I 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone diaphysis 2 0.60 16.609 1 1 same as burn - worn/smoothed 278 19I 60-80 Mammalia Geomyidae Geomyidae mandible body R 1 0.90 23.923 283 19J 60-80 Mammalia Artiodactyla Artiodactyla innominate fragment 1 3.20 74.926 1 283 19J 60-80 Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae distal phalanx complete 1 1.40 35.605 1 283 19J 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 5th metacarpal complete L 1 1.40 35.605 283 19J 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 5th metacarpal proximal R 1 0.90 23.923 283 19J 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 5th metatarsal complete R 1 1.10 28.658 283 19J 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae radius diaphysis R 1 3.30 77.030 283 19J 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 5 11.70 240.640 1 2 283 19J 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone fragment 4 5.90 129.947 3 283 19J 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med phalanx complete 1 0.40 11.531 283 19J 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib fragment 2 0.80 21.517 1 283 19J 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone diaphysis 2 1.40 35.605 283 19J 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm ulna diaphysis R 1 1.10 28.658 1 289 19K 60-80 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus sacrum dorsal spine 1 10.00 208.930 289 19K 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 2nd metacarpal complete R 1 1.10 28.658 289 19K 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 2nd metacarpal prox R 1 0.70 19.080 289 19K 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 2nd metatarsal complete L 1 1.10 28.658 289 19K 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 2nd metatarsal mostly complete L 1 1.00 26.303 289 19K 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 3rd metacarpal prox R 1 0.30 8.900 1 1 eroded 289 19K 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 4th metacarpal proximal L 1 0.60 16.609 1 1 eroded 289 19K 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 5th metacarpal complete R 1 1.10 28.658 1 289 19K 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine complete 1 1.00 26.303 289 19K 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae metapodial distal 4 2.10 51.286 2 2 eroded 289 19K 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae ulna proximal e R A 1 1.90 46.868 1 289 19K 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae ulna proximal e L A 1 0.40 11.531 289 19K 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med 2nd metatarsal mostly complete R 1 0.60 16.609 1 cf: procyonidae 289 19K 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med 3rd metatarsal complete L 1 0.50 14.095 289 19K 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med 4th metatarsal prox R 1 0.60 16.609 289 19K 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med femur ball A 1 1.40 35.605 289 19K 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med phalanx complete 2 0.70 19.080 1 1 1 eroded 321 19T 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae ulna mostly complete L A 1 5.70 125.976 328 19U 60-80 Mammalia Felidae Felidae femur mostly complete L A 1 5.00 111.963 1 in 2 pcs, slightly eroded, small 333 19V 60-80 Mammalia Artiodactyla Artiodactyla phalanx partial 1 1.50 37.886 1 1 eroded 333 19V 60-80 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus astragulus complete L 1 9.60 201.393

129 Bag # Unit Depth Class Family Taxa Element Portion Side Age # Mass Biomass Burn Rdnt Canid Cut Work Erod Notes 333 19V 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 3rd metatarsal complete R 1 0.90 23.923 stained, in 2 pcs 333 19V 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 4th metacarpal mostly complete R 1 0.70 19.080 333 19V 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae axis complete J 1 5.30 117.991 333 19V 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae crania maxilla frag L A 1 0.80 21.517 333 19V 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae humerus distal L A 1 7.60 163.205 porous? 333 19V 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae Mv1 complete R A 1 1.50 37.886 333 19V 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae Mv1 complete L A 1 1.50 37.886 333 19V 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae Mv1 partial R A 1 0.40 11.531 333 19V 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae Mv2 complete L A 1 0.20 6.179 333 19V 60-80 Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus mandible mostly complete L A 1 1.20 30.993 fit together, loose teeth 333 19V 60-80 Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus mandible partial R A 1 0.60 16.609 fit together, loose teeth 333 19V 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania fragment 2 5.00 111.963 1 1 eroded 333 19V 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 9 34.90 643.492 333 19V 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania fragment 4 2.70 64.302 cf: ungulate 333 19V 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 3 3.20 74.926 333 19V 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med mandible fragment 3 2.30 55.662 333 19V 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med podial diaphysis 1 0.60 16.609 333 19V 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med radius diaphysis R 1 2.10 51.286 333 19V 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib fragment 3 1.30 33.308 333 19V 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia Mammalia unid fragment 2 0.40 11.531 335 19W 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 3 14.60 293.709 2 2 2 fit together - broken, burned, worn, eroded in antiquity 335 19W 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 1 5.20 115.985 1 343 19X 60-80 Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae mandible fragment 5 3.90 89.528 343 19X 60-80 Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae metapodial proximal J 1 2.60 62.155 343 19X 60-80 Mammalia Cervidae Mazama americana phalanx complete 1 1.40 35.605 343 19X 60-80 Mammalia Cervidae Mazama americana tibia distal diaph L 1 2.50 59.999 343 19X 60-80 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus astragulus mostly complete R 1 6.50 141.782 343 19X 60-80 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus lumbar vert mostly complete SA/J 2 16.20 322.525 343 19X 60-80 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus phalanx complete 1 3.60 83.305 1 343 19X 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 2nd metacarpal complete R 1 0.80 21.517 343 19X 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae axis complete A 1 4.00 91.591 343 19X 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae humerus diaphysis L 1 5.20 115.985 343 19X 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible fragment L A 1 3.20 74.926 w/C. PMv2,3,4 343 19X 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible fragment R A 1 2.20 53.479 w/Mv1 343 19X 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae radius diaphysis R 1 2.80 66.442 343 19X 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae radius diaphysis L 1 2.20 53.479 343 19X 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae tibia proximal L 1 3.40 79.128 343 19X 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae ulna proximal R 1 2.60 62.155 343 19X 60-80 Mammalia Procyonidae procyonidae mandible gonial angle R 1 1.00 26.303 1 1 1 scraped, cut, worn, eroded 343 19X 60-80 Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus femur proximal L SA 1 0.60 16.609 343 19X 60-80 Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus humerus mostly complete L A 1 0.80 21.517 343 19X 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg cervical vert dorsal fragment 1 1.90 46.868 1 343 19X 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg femur patellar surface 1 2.40 57.835 343 19X 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 10 39.20 714.426 1 1 1 - worked/smoothed end, 1 smoothed/eroded? 343 19X 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg thoracic vert lateral process 1 1.80 44.642 343 19X 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 7 8.10 172.837 343 19X 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med phalanx complete 2 0.60 16.609 343 19X 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib fragment 1 0.90 23.923 343 19X 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm canine complete 1 0.20 6.179 1 polished? Shiny 343 19X 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone diaphysis 1 0.60 16.609 343 19X 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm rib fragment 3 0.90 23.923 343 19X 60-80 Mammalia Dasypodidae Dasypus novemcinctus scute fragment 7 0.60 16.609 343 19X 60-80 Reptilia Iguanidae Ctenosaura caudal vertebra complete 1 0.40 5.471 343 19X 60-80 Reptilia Serpentes Serpentes vertebra complete 19 11.30 159.812 18 same size, 1 lrg non-venemous 350 19Z 60-80 Aves Ciconiidae Ciconiidae ulna distal L 1 0.20 4.720 cute 350 19Z 60-80 Aves Icteridae Cassidix mexicanus tibiotarsus diaph 1 0.20 4.720 350 19Z 60-80 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus calcaneus mostly complete L A 1 15.70 313.552 1 cuts 350 19Z 60-80 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus femur lesser trochanter L A 1 1.80 44.642 350 19Z 60-80 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus metatarsal diaph 1 3.90 89.528 1 350 19Z 60-80 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus phalanx complete 1 2.90 68.574 1 350 19Z 60-80 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus radius proximal L A 1 10.90 225.779

130 Bag # Unit Depth Class Family Taxa Element Portion Side Age # Mass Biomass Burn Rdnt Canid Cut Work Erod Notes 350 19Z 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 5th metacarpal partial R 1 0.80 21.517 350 19Z 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible mostly complete R A/E? 1 6.80 147.658 1 1 poss. cut on gon angle 350 19Z 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae PM^3 partial R A 1 0.20 6.179 350 19Z 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 2.40 57.835 350 19Z 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg thoracic vert fragment 3 2.10 51.286 350 19Z 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania fragment 1 0.20 6.179 350 19Z 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 7 6.30 137.850 1 1 350 19Z 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med phalanx complete 1 0.20 6.179 350 19Z 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib fragment 2 1.10 28.658 359 19AA 60-80 Aves Aves Aves sm & lg long bone diaphysis 3 1.90 36.616 359 19AA 60-80 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus antler partial L 1 30.20 564.945 1 assuming all part of same, w/temporal frag 359 19AA 60-80 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus astragulus complete L 1 8.50 180.500 1 cutmarks 359 19AA 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae atlas mostly complete 1 3.20 74.926 359 19AA 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae innominate acetabulum R A 1 3.10 72.816 359 19AA 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible mostly complete R A 1 10.60 220.179 359 19AA 60-80 Mammalia Canidae Canidae tibia distal R SA 1 4.10 93.650 359 19AA 60-80 Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus 3rd metatarsal complete R 1 0.35 10.225 359 19AA 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 15 21.50 416.097 2 359 19AA 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 12 10.80 223.914 359 19AA 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib body frag 6 3.90 89.528 359 19AA 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone diaphysis 11 3.70 85.385 359 19AA 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm rib fragment 2 0.90 23.923 359 19AA 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia Mammalia unid fragment 9 1.60 40.152 359 19AA 60-80 Mammalia Rodentia Rodentia md humerus diaphysis R J? 1 0.30 8.900 359 19AA 60-80 Reptilia Reptilia Reptilia long bone diaphysis J 1 0.20 2.717 unfused 359 19AA 60-80 Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata long bone epiph 1 0.05 1.774 1? hum/fem head 359 19AA 60-80 Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata unid fragment 2 0.30 8.900 402 19Z 60-80 Aves Ciconiidae Ciconiidae ulna prox L A 1 2.50 47.003 1 cuts/scratches 418 19G 60-80 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaph 1 1.10 28.658 1 1 cut 126 16 80-100 Mammalia Artiodactyla Artiodactyla vertebra spinus process? A 1 1.20 30.993 126 16 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible fragment L 1 1.60 40.152 126 16 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible complete R A 1 14.10 284.641 w/M2 126 16 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible mostly complete R A 1 16.90 335.041 w/ PM1,2,3, M1,2 126 16 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae Mv1 fragment R A 1 0.30 8.900 2 fit together 126 16 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae tooth root 1 0.05 1.774 126 16 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae ulna proximal R A 1 5.50 121.991 126 16 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 2 5.00 111.963 126 16 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med femur proximal L J 1 1.00 26.303 cf: myrmecophagidae 126 16 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 5 6.50 141.782 126 16 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med mandible fragment 3 0.70 19.080 126 16 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med mandible partial R 1 0.90 23.923 cf: mustella 126 16 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med metapodial? fragment 1 0.10 3.311 126 16 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib fragment 1 0.40 11.531 136 16A 80-100 Decapoda Decapoda Decapoda claw fragment 5 4.10 81.389 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Cervidae Mazama americana scapula glenoid fossa L A 1 4.10 93.650 1 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus 3rd phalanx complete 1 2.10 51.286 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus femur proximal R J 1 2.90 68.574 robust 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus rib fragment R A 2 8.20 174.756 robust, 1 in 2 pcs 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus rib dorsal atricular epiph L A 3 17.90 352.832 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 2nd metacarpal complete R 1 1.30 33.308 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 2nd metatarsal complete L 1 1.40 35.605 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 2nd metatarsal prox frag R 2 1.20 30.993 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 2nd metatarsal distal R 1 0.30 8.900 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 3rd metacarpal prox L 1 0.50 14.095 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 3rd metatarsal complete L 2 2.90 68.574 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 3rd metatarsal distal R 2 0.90 23.923 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 4th metacarpal complete L 2 1.50 37.886 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 5th metacarpal ccmplete L 1 1.30 33.308 1 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 5th metacarpal ccmplete R 1 1.00 26.303 1 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 5th metatarsal complete L 1 1.00 26.303 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae atlas mostly complete A 1 4.30 97.751

131 Bag # Unit Depth Class Family Taxa Element Portion Side Age # Mass Biomass Burn Rdnt Canid Cut Work Erod Notes 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae calcaneus complete 1 1.90 46.868 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine complete 1 1.00 26.303 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae claw core complete 1 0.10 3.311 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae humerus distal R J 1 1.00 26.303 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae humerus distal diaph R 1 4.90 109.945 1 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae Iv? mostly complete 1 0.05 1.774 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae M fragment 1 0.70 19.080 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible condyle R J 1 1.00 26.303 cf: familiaris (as per KE) 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible fragment R A 1 9.40 197.613 w/PMv2,4, Mv1 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae ulna proximal L A 3 13.50 273.716 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae ulna proximal R A 2 4.20 95.703 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Mustelidae Mephitinae crania splanocrania A 1 6.70 145.703 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Didelphidae Didelphidae humerus diaphysis R 1 0.80 21.517 poss chewed/scraped 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus femur distal R A 1 3.20 74.926 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 25 50.50 897.351 3 1 1 1 1 cut, 1 worn 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg rib fragment 3 4.40 99.795 1? 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg thoracic vert transverse processes 4 10.10 210.809 1 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med caudal vertebra mostly complete 1 0.30 8.900 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med cervical vert partial J 1 4.50 101.834 cf: canidae 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania maxilla L 1 3.20 74.926 cf: canidae 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania partial R 1 3.60 83.305 cf: canidae 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania fragment 13 8.20 174.756 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med innominate acetabulum L 1 2.20 53.479 1 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 1 1.00 26.303 1 lots-o-cutmarks 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 2 1.70 42.404 2 awls? Worn points 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 16 10.20 212.687 3 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med phalanx complete 3 1.10 28.658 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med radius fragment 1 1.10 28.658 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib fragment 13 3.30 77.030 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med scapula partial L J 1 1.60 40.152 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med talus complete L 1 1.00 26.303 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med tibia diaphysis L 2 7.00 151.561 1 cf: canidae 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med tibia diaphysis R 2 13.00 264.575 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med unid fragment 9 2.50 59.999 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm flat bone fragment 2 0.40 11.531 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone fragment 5 2.60 62.155 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm rib fragment 25 7.40 159.334 3 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Rodentia Rodentia md/lrg I crown L? 1 0.50 14.095 136 16A 80-100 Mammalia Sciuridae Sciuridae scapula glenoid fossa R A 1 0.40 11.531 136 16A 80-100 Reptilia Iguanidae Iguanidae vertebra mostly complete 1 3.00 41.869 147 16C 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 2.20 53.479 smooth surface 147 16C 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 1 0.30 8.900 153 16D 80-100 Aves Aves Aves sm & lg long bone diaphysis 3 0.80 16.665 2 153 16D 80-100 Aves Corvidae Cyanolyca sp. humerus complete L 1 0.50 10.866 153 16D 80-100 Decapoda Decapoda Decapoda claw distal 3 1.80 46.885 153 16D 80-100 Mammalia Cervidae Mazama americana calcaneus distal R 1 4.80 107.924 1 153 16D 80-100 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus mandible condyle R 1 1.60 40.152 153 16D 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae calcaneus distal R 1 1.60 40.152 153 16D 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae cervical vert mostly complete J 2 6.50 141.782 153 16D 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible mostly complete R A 1 23.80 455.952 w/PMv2,3,4, Mv1,2, in 2 pcs 153 16D 80-100 Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus innominate mostly complete R A 1 1.50 37.886 153 16D 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania auditory bulla L 1 2.90 68.574 153 16D 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 9 27.90 526.070 2 1 4 1 1 1 burn also cut, 1 dog also rod 153 16D 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg unid fragment 1 3.40 79.128 1 arthritic long bone? Pathology! 153 16D 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 11 6.70 145.703 4 1 1 poss worked 153 16D 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib fragment 7 2.40 57.835 2 1 1 cut 153 16D 80-100 Mammalia Dasypodidae Dasypus novemcinctus scute complete 1 0.20 6.179 153 16D 80-100 Osteichthyes Osteichthyes osteicthyes clythrum fragment 1 0.20 8.014 153 16D 80-100 Reptilia Reptilia Reptilia long bone diaphysis 2 0.30 4.092 153 16D 80-100 Reptilia Iguanidae Iguanidae caudal vertebra mostly complete 1 0.10 1.349 153 16D 80-100 Reptilia Emydidae Emydidae carapace marginal frag 1 3.00 66.019 1 cf: scripta

132 Bag # Unit Depth Class Family Taxa Element Portion Side Age # Mass Biomass Burn Rdnt Canid Cut Work Erod Notes 172 16K 80-100 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus metapodial distal A 1 3.70 85.385 172 16K 80-100 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus phalanx mostly complete A 1 3.10 72.816 172 16K 80-100 Mammalia Tayassuidae Tayassu sp crania frontal frag R A 1 3.00 70.698 unsure 172 16K 80-100 Mammalia Tayassuidae Tayassu sp tibia proximal L A 1 5.10 113.976 1 172 16K 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible mostly complete L A 1 14.50 291.898 1 w/PM2, PM3, M1, M2 172 16K 80-100 Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus tibia proximal R A 1 1.20 30.993 172 16K 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania basilar frag 1 7.30 157.395 1 very robust - tapir? 172 16K 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 3 16.20 322.525 1 172 16K 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 3 5.10 113.976 186 16M 80-100 Aves Aves Aves long bone diaphysis 2 0.50 10.866 186 16M 80-100 Aves Aves Aves lg ulna distal L A 1 0.80 16.665 186 16M 80-100 Aves Aves Aves lg ulna distal L A 1 0.40 8.869 cf: ciconiiformes 186 16M 80-100 Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae distal phalanx complete L A 1 1.20 30.993 1 cf mazama 186 16M 80-100 Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae phalanx distal 1 0.50 14.095 186 16M 80-100 Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae sternum distal 1 1.20 30.993 cf mazama 186 16M 80-100 Mammalia Tayassuidae Tayassu sp crania temporal/artic fossa R 1 3.30 77.030 186 16M 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine complete A 1 1.00 26.303 186 16M 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae innominate acetabulum L A 1 3.50 81.220 1 186 16M 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae scapula glenoid fossa L A 1 0.80 21.517 186 16M 80-100 Mammalia Didelphidae Didelphidae mandible fragment R A 1 1.40 35.605 1 poss. cut 186 16M 80-100 Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus 4th metatarsal complete L 1 0.20 6.179 186 16M 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania fragment 3 3.10 72.816 1 186 16M 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 9 21.60 417.838 1 4 186 16M 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg ulna diaphysis L 1 2.10 51.286 1 186 16M 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania saggital crest 1 0.80 21.517 186 16M 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 16 10.30 214.562 1 5 186 16M 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med metapodial proximal 1 0.40 11.531 186 16M 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med phalanx complete 1 0.30 8.900 186 16M 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med unid fragment 2 0.50 14.095 186 16M 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm phalanx complete 1 0.10 3.311 1 186 16M 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm rib fragment 3 0.50 14.095 186 16M 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm tooth fragment 1 0.10 3.311 186 16M 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm unid fragment 2 0.20 6.179 186 16M 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia Mammalia uind fragment 3 1.80 44.642 186 16M 80-100 Mammalia Hominidae Homo sapiens humerus distal L A 1 23.40 449.050 large 186 16M 80-100 Reptilia Reptilia Reptilia plastron fragment 1 2.30 32.014 1 2 fit together 186 16M 80-100 Reptilia Kinosternidae Kinosternidae carapace fragment 1 0.70 24.901 186 16M 80-100 Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata uind fragment 10 2.10 51.286 1- fauna? 192 16N 80-100 Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae metatarsal diaphysis 1 3.60 83.305 1 192 16N 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 7.00 151.561 192 16N 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia Mammalia rib fragment 4 1.50 37.886 193 16P 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible complete L A 1 30.50 569.993 w/PM1, PM2, M1 193 16P 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania fragment 1 3.80 87.459 193 16P 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 4.90 109.945 199 16R 80-100 Aves Aves Aves long bone diaphysis 2 0.80 16.665 199 16R 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae tibia diaphysis L 1 3.60 83.305 199 16R 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania fragment 3 1.40 35.605 199 16R 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 3 3.50 81.220 2 199 16R 80-100 Mammalia Tapiridae tapirus bairdii phalanx complete A 1 6.40 139.818 199 16R 80-100 Reptilia Reptilia Reptilia humerus mostly complete R J 1 0.30 4.092 199 16R 80-100 Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata unid fragment 1 0.10 3.311 2 fit together 207 16S 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae ulna diaphysis L 1 2.60 62.155 215 16U 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania fragment 1 6.60 143.744 230 19A 80-100 Mammalia Artiodactyla Artiodactyla phalanx distal 1 0.60 16.609 1 230 19A 80-100 Mammalia Cervidae Mazama americana mandible condyle R 2 2.60 62.155 1 230 19A 80-100 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus M fragment 1 0.30 8.900 230 19A 80-100 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus mandible fragment L 1 8.60 182.410 Mv3 broken 230 19A 80-100 Mammalia Tayassuidae Tayassu sp 2-3rd metacarpal complete R A 1 3.90 89.528 230 19A 80-100 Mammalia Tayassuidae Tayassu sp 2nd metacarpal complete R A 1 5.10 230 19A 80-100 Mammalia Didelphidae Didelphidae caudal vertebra complete A 1 0.60 16.609 230 19A 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania fragment 1 3.70 85.385 1 1

133 Bag # Unit Depth Class Family Taxa Element Portion Side Age # Mass Biomass Burn Rdnt Canid Cut Work Erod Notes 230 19A 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg femur distal J 1 2.40 57.835 230 19A 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 5 8.80 186.223 2 1 230 19A 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone epiphysis 1 2.70 64.302 1 230 19A 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg rib fragment 2 2.90 68.574 1 230 19A 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg tooth root fragment 1 0.30 8.900 pathology 230 19A 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg ulna? diaphysis 1 3.90 89.528 230 19A 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania fragment 4 2.50 59.999 1 230 19A 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 15 17.20 340.389 5 4 1 1 of burn is also cut 230 19A 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone complete J 1 0.70 19.080 230 19A 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med radius distal L A 1 1.90 46.868 1 cf: urocyon 230 19A 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm canine mostly complete 1 0.30 8.900 1 230 19A 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia Mammalia unid fragment 3 3.00 70.698 266 19G 80-100 Mammalia Cervidae Mazama americana trapezoid-magnum complete R E? 1 1.70 42.404 porus and mishapen 266 19G 80-100 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus phalanx complete 1 3.10 72.816 266 19G 80-100 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus radius proximal L A 1 8.90 188.127 266 19G 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 5th metacarpal complete R 1 0.80 21.517 266 19G 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae I^3 complete L 1 0.40 11.531 266 19G 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae tibia distal R A 1 1.60 40.152 266 19G 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 3 7.10 153.509 266 19G 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 4 2.50 59.999 1 266 19G 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med phalanx complete 1 0.20 6.179 266 19G 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med radius diaphysis 1 0.90 23.923 272 19H 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine mostly complete 1 1.10 28.658 272 19H 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 3 5.00 111.963 2 284 19J 80-100 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus cervical vert articular facet 1 2.00 49.083 284 19J 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae radius proximal R A 1 1.30 33.308 1 prob same indiv 284 19J 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae radius distal R A 1 2.10 51.286 1 prob same indiv 284 19J 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 10.20 212.687 1 284 19J 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 1 1.40 35.605 1 284 19J 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone diaphysis 3 2.00 49.083 1 1 302 19N 80-100 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus mandible ascending ramus R A 1 2.00 49.083 302 19N 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 1.65 41.280 308 19Q 80-100 Mammalia Tayassuidae Tayassu sp phalanx complete 1 0.80 21.517 322 19T 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae crania fragment 1 0.60 16.609 322 19T 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae crania maxilla frag L A 1 6.40 139.818 w/PM^4, M^1,2 322 19T 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae crania temporal L 1 2.60 62.155 322 19T 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible complete L A 1 11.40 235.079 1 w/PMv3,4,Mv1 329 19U 80-100 Mammalia Artiodactyla Artiodactyla rib mostly complete R 1 4.60 7.902 329 19U 80-100 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus mandible body L A 1 8.00 170.915 1 fits 1474 329 19U 80-100 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus mandible ascend ram L 1 5.10 113.976 1 fits 1473 329 19U 80-100 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus mandible body R A 1 9.10 191.928 1 larger 329 19U 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae tibia distal L A 1 3.80 87.459 329 19U 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania fragment 3 5.20 115.985 1 329 19U 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 5 16.60 329.684 1 1 1 slightly eroded 329 19U 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg rib body 1 0.60 16.609 329 19U 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg thoracic vert lateral articular facet 1 2.20 53.479 1 329 19U 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg unid fragment 4 9.50 199.504 329 19U 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 7 14.90 299.135 6 329 19U 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib mostly complete 1 0.90 23.923 329 19U 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm rib body 1 0.40 11.531 329 19U 80-100 Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata unid fragment 3 5.70 125.976 1 large, cf: crocodylidae crania 338 19Y 80-100 Amphibia Ranidae Rana sp humerus complete R 1 0.50 6.854 in 2 pcs 338 19Y 80-100 Amphibia Ranidae Rana sp urostyle mostly complete 1 0.20 2.717 338 19Y 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae P^1 mostly complete R A 1 0.30 8.900 338 19Y 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania fragment 1 3.40 79.128 stained 338 19Y 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 4.20 95.703 338 19Y 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med 2nd metacarpal proximal L 1 0.10 3.311 338 19Y 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 2 3.90 89.528 1 1 338 19Y 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia Mammalia unid fragment 1 0.60 16.609 1 338 19Y 80-100 Reptilia Testudines Testudines carapace fragment 1 2.70 61.520 cf: pseudemys - CHECK 344 19X 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 4th metacarpal complete L 1 0.80 21.517 cf: Urocyon

134 Bag # Unit Depth Class Family Taxa Element Portion Side Age # Mass Biomass Burn Rdnt Canid Cut Work Erod Notes 344 19X 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 4th metatarsal complete L 1 1.00 26.303 cf: Urocyon 344 19X 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 4th metatarsal complete R 1 0.80 21.517 cf: Urocyon 344 19X 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible complete L A/E? 1 11.50 236.934 1 poss. cut at prox - lrg fox, prob ferral w/PMv1,2,4, Mv2 344 19X 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae Mv1 complete L A 1 1.80 44.642 344 19X 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae Mv1 complete R A 1 1.80 44.642 351 19Z 80-100 Mammalia Artiodactyla Artiodactyla distal phalanx complete 1 1.20 30.993 351 19Z 80-100 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus innominate acetabulum R A 1 16.30 324.316 3 fit together 351 19Z 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 2nd metatarsal mostly complete R 1 1.10 28.658 1 351 19Z 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible fragment L A 1 12.20 249.876 1 w/Mv1,2 351 19Z 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 3.50 81.220 1 351 19Z 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg rib body frag R? 1 2.30 55.662 1 351 19Z 80-100 Reptilia Emydidae Emydidae plastron (anal) mostly complete R 1 2.20 53.632 360 19AA 80-100 Aves Aves Aves long bone diaphysis 1 1.40 27.732 360 19AA 80-100 Aves Rallidae Porzana flaviventer humerus distal R 1 0.30 6.826 360 19AA 80-100 Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae Mv3 mostly complete L 3y 1 2.00 49.083 360 19AA 80-100 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus ulna proximal R A 1 4.60 103.868 360 19AA 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 2nd metacarpal complete R 1 0.80 21.517 short, robust 360 19AA 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae calcaneus mostly complete R 1 2.10 51.286 360 19AA 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible fragment L A 1 1.90 46.868 w/Mv1 360 19AA 80-100 Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus humerus mostly complete R A 1 0.90 23.923 360 19AA 80-100 Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus innominate mostly complete L A 1 1.80 44.642 1 360 19AA 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 3 9.20 193.825 1 1 1 burn - also smoothed, 1 other smoothed 360 19AA 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg unid fragment 1 1.20 30.993 360 19AA 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 5 5.20 115.985 3 360 19AA 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med mandible body frag 1 2.10 51.286 cf: canidae - PMs lost before death - area mostly healed 360 19AA 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib fragment 6 1.30 33.308 360 19AA 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med scapula? fragment 1 0.70 19.080 360 19AA 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med ulna complete R SA 1 1.80 44.642 1 360 19AA 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone mostly complete 1 1.40 35.605 360 19AA 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone diaphysis E 1 1.40 35.605 1 arthritic? Extra bone growth 360 19AA 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia Mammalia long bone epiph J 2 0.70 19.080 360 19AA 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia Mammalia unid fragment 1 0.20 6.179 360 19AA 80-100 Reptilia Reptilia Reptilia unid fragment 1 0.10 1.349 flat bone - shoulder/pelvic girdle 366 19CC 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae atlas mostly complete 1 3.70 85.385 366 19CC 80-100 Reptilia Emydidae Emydidae plastron fragment 1 2.40 56.851 379 O3 80-100 Mammalia Canidae Canidae crania foramen magnum & auditory bula L J? 1 7.10 153.509 in 2 pcs 416 16R 80-100 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 1 1.10 28.658 137 16A 100-120 Aves Aves Aves ?carpometacarpus ?distal 1 0.20 4.720 137 16A 100-120 Aves Aves Aves beak mostly complete 1 0.20 4.720 137 16A 100-120 Aves Aves Aves long bone diaphysis 1 0.10 2.512 137 16A 100-120 Aves Aves Aves unid fragment 3 0.30 6.826 137 16A 100-120 Aves Aves Aves lg/med quadrate mostly complete L 1 0.10 2.512 pulled for ID 137 16A 100-120 Decapoda Decapoda Decapoda claw fragment 4 3.00 66.019 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Artiodactyla Artiodactyla caudal vertebra partial J 1 0.20 6.179 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Artiodactyla Artiodactyla crania maxilla R 1 2.40 57.835 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus innominate acetabulum R A 1 4.90 109.945 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus innominate mostly complete R 1 44.90 807.275 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus phalanx complete 2 4.90 109.945 1 1 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus rib dorsal atricular epiph L A 1 6.60 143.744 robust 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 2nd metatarsal proximal R 1 1.90 46.868 1 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Canidae Canidae calcaneus complete L J 1 0.60 16.609 cf: Urocyon 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Canidae Canidae calcaneus complete L A 1 2.50 59.999 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine partial A 1 0.50 14.095 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible mostly complete L A 1 0.40 11.531 w/PMv2,3,4, Mv1,2, in 2 pcs 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Canidae Canidae PM^1 complete R A 1 0.40 11.531 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Canidae Canidae radius distal L A 1 2.20 53.479 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Canidae Canidae tibia distal L A 1 3.80 87.459 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Procyonidae Procyonidae innominate acetabulum R 1 1.40 35.605 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus ?cervical vertebra complete A 1 0.30 8.900 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania temporal 1 15.40 308.155 cf: tapir 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania fragment 1 3.80 87.459

135 Bag # Unit Depth Class Family Taxa Element Portion Side Age # Mass Biomass Burn Rdnt Canid Cut Work Erod Notes 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg humerus lesser troch R J 1 1.30 33.308 1 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaph 4 36.40 668.330 1 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg rib fragment 4 1.50 37.886 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg unid fragment 1 3.20 74.926 1 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med atlas lateral facet 1 1.70 42.404 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med caudal vertebra partial 1 0.20 6.179 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania braincase 1 0.60 16.609 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania basilar frag 1 0.80 21.517 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania temporo-zygomatic R 2 1.80 44.642 1 1 highly eroded 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med innominate illium 1 1.40 35.605 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaph 26 19.70 384.609 1 12 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med phalanx complete J? 1 0.30 8.900 1 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med radius complete L J 1 0.60 16.609 cf: tamandua 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med radius mostly complete L 1 3.40 79.128 1 cf: canidae 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib prox 3 2.20 53.479 2 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib diaph 13 5.70 125.976 1 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med tibia diaph L 1 6.90 149.611 1 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med tibia diaphysis R 1 3.00 70.698 1 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med unid fragment 4 1.00 26.303 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone diaphysis 6 1.00 26.303 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm rib fragment 5 1.00 26.303 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia Mammalia crania fragment 5 2.10 0.000 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia Mammalia unid fragment 5 3.80 87.021 137 16A 100-120 Mammalia Sciuridae Sciuridae humerus diaphysis L 1 1.40 35.605 1 large 137 16A 100-120 Osteichthyes Ictaluridae Ictalaurus operculum articular facet L 1 1.40 38.758 in 2 pcs 137 16A 100-120 Reptilia Iguanidae Ctenosaura innominate pubis R 1 0.30 4.092 137 16A 100-120 Reptilia Testudines Testudines carapace fragment 2 1.30 37.700 137 16A 100-120 Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata unid fragment 8 1.30 33.308 173 16K 100-120 Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae crania occip/nuchal L A 1 27.10 512.475 pulled for confirm 173 16K 100-120 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 5th metatarsal complete R A 1 1.20 30.993 173 16K 100-120 Mammalia Canidae Canidae axis complete A 1 5.50 121.991 1 173 16K 100-120 Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine complete A 1 1.10 28.658 173 16K 100-120 Mammalia Canidae Canidae PM^4? fragment R? A 1 0.30 8.900 173 16K 100-120 Mammalia Canidae Canidae Mv1 complete L A 1 1.70 42.404 173 16K 100-120 Mammalia Canidae Canidae PMv1? fragment R? A 1 0.30 8.900 173 16K 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med phalanx mostly complete 2 0.70 19.080 187 16M 100-120 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus phalanx complete R A 1 5.80 127.963 187 16M 100-120 Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine fragment 1 0.30 8.900 187 16M 100-120 Mammalia Didelphidae Didelphidae mandible body L A 1 3.60 83.305 w/Mv3 187 16M 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania fragment 1 2.30 55.662 1 187 16M 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 3 8.80 186.223 2 187 16M 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 1 0.60 16.609 1 187 16M 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib fragment 3 0.90 23.923 187 16M 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib mostly complete R 1 1.50 37.886 cf: felidae 187 16M 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med unid fragment 1 0.10 3.311 187 16M 100-120 Mammalia Tapiridae tapirus bairdii podial complete 1 9.30 195.720 187 16M 100-120 Mammalia Myrmecophagidae myrmecophagidae? mandible body L? 1 0.60 16.609 187 16M 100-120 Reptilia Iguanidae Ctenosaura dentary/maxilla fragment L 1 0.20 2.717 w/teeth 200 16R 100-120 Mammalia Cervidae Mazama americana lumbar vert body A 1 4.70 105.898 200 16R 100-120 Mammalia Procyonidae Nausa narica humerus distal R A 1 3.70 85.385 1 200 16R 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania fragment 2 7.90 168.991 cf: tapir 200 16R 100-120 Reptilia Testudines Testudines humerus mostly complete L? 1 1.80 46.885 208 16S 100-120 Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae antler distal 1 6.20 135.879 213 16T 100-120 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible mostly complete R A 1 16.90 335.041 w/PMv2,3,4 Mv1,2 224 19 100-120 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus mandible ascending ramus R 1 3.10 72.816 224 19 100-120 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 3rd metatarsal complete L A 1 1.40 35.605 224 19 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 2 3.80 87.459 224 19 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania fragment 2 0.90 23.923 224 19 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med flat bone fragment 1 0.70 19.080 cf: mazama innominate 224 19 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 10 12.60 257.237 1 1 modified - awl? 224 19 100-120 Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata flat bone fragment 1 0.50 14.095

136 Bag # Unit Depth Class Family Taxa Element Portion Side Age # Mass Biomass Burn Rdnt Canid Cut Work Erod Notes 231 19A 100-120 Aves Aves Aves long bone diaph 1 1.10 22.267 231 19A 100-120 Decapoda Decapoda Decapoda claw distal 1 1.20 35.732 231 19A 100-120 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus mandible fragment R 4yrs 1 17.10 338.607 w/PMv2, Mv1,2,3 231 19A 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania fragment 1 1.30 33.308 1 231 19A 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg flat bone fragment 1 1.20 30.993 231 19A 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone fragment 4 8.70 184.318 2 1 1 1 of burn utilized 231 19A 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 1 0.50 14.095 1 231 19A 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone diaphysis 2 1.20 30.993 1 260 19F 100-120 Aves Icteridae Cassidix mexicanus ulna proximal L 1 0.05 1.337 260 19F 100-120 Mammalia Cervidae Mazama americana phalanx complete 1 1.30 33.308 1 260 19F 100-120 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible condyle R A 1 1.00 26.303 260 19F 100-120 Mammalia Canidae Canidae Mv1 mostly complete L A 1 3.30 77.030 260 19F 100-120 Mammalia Canidae Canidae scapula glenoid fossa R A 1 0.90 23.923 1 260 19F 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 6 5.50 121.991 1 1 1 poss. polished/worn 260 19F 100-120 Reptilia Iguanidae Iguanidae caudal vertebra complete 1 0.05 0.670 267 19G 100-120 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus mandible mostly complete R A 1 27.40 517.578 267 19G 100-120 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus phalanx complete 1 4.60 103.868 267 19G 100-120 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible body R A 1 11.30 233.223 267 19G 100-120 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible ascend ram R 1 2.00 49.083 267 19G 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 2 3.30 77.030 1 chewed - poss. worn edge 267 19G 100-120 Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata unid fragment 1 0.10 3.311 273 19H 100-120 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible body R A 1 4.80 107.924 w/PMv4 279 19I 100-120 Mammalia Procyonidae procyonidae humerus partial L A 1 7.80 167.065 1 large 279 19I 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med radius diaphysis R 1 2.10 51.286 cf: procyonidae 285 19J 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 4.10 93.650 323 19T 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania fragment 1 1.20 30.993 323 19T 100-120 Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata long bone partial 1 0.60 16.609 345 19X 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 3.90 89.528 1 1 poss. cut/sawed 352 19Z 100-120 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus crania frontal + antler R A 1 32.40 601.853 1 352 19Z 100-120 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus mandible ascending ramus R A 1 5.20 115.985 352 19Z 100-120 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus rib proximal R A 1 4.00 91.591 352 19Z 100-120 Mammalia Canidae Canidae femur diaphysis L A 1 7.00 151.561 352 19Z 100-120 Mammalia Canidae Canidae humerus complete L A 1 4.00 91.591 cf: Urocyon 352 19Z 100-120 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible mostly complete R A 1 19.30 377.574 1 cuts w/PMv3,4, Mv1,2,3 352 19Z 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg unid fragment 2 2.60 62.155 352 19Z 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 3 2.80 66.442 352 19Z 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib fragment 3 1.40 35.605 361 19AA 100-120 Mammalia Didelphidae Didelphidae mandible mostly complete L 1 3.30 77.030 361 19AA 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 2 17.90 352.832 1 1 poss. smoothed edge 361 19AA 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med canine root fragment 1 0.30 8.900 396 19 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 5.20 115.985 1 398 16M 100-120 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 91.90 1538.098 1 1 poss. utilized 127 16 120-140 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus frontal partial L 1 5.40 119.993 1 w/pedestal, eroded 127 16 120-140 Mammalia Tayassuidae Tayassu sp humerus mostly complete L J 1 3.80 87.459 127 16 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine complete A 1 1.30 33.308 127 16 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae femur proximal epiph R J 1 0.80 21.517 prob same indiv 127 16 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae femur distal R J 1 1.70 42.404 prob same indiv 127 16 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae radius mostly complete R J 1 1.40 35.605 127 16 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med 3rd metatarsal proximal R 1 1.00 26.303 1 eroded 127 16 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med phalanx complete 1 0.40 11.531 138 16A 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 2nd metacarpal proximal L A 1 0.40 11.531 138 16A 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 2nd metacarpal complete R 1 0.80 21.517 138 16A 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 2nd metatarsal complete L 1 1.00 26.303 138 16A 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 2nd metatarsal complete R A 1 1.10 28.658 138 16A 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 3rd metatarsal mostly complete L A 1 1.10 28.658 138 16A 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 3rd metatarsal complete R A 1 2.00 49.083 138 16A 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 4th metacarpal fragment L 1 0.80 21.517 138 16A 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 4th metacarpal complete R A 2 2.60 62.155 138 16A 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 5th metacarpal complete L 1 0.90 23.923 138 16A 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 5th metatarsal mostly complete L 1 0.90 23.923 138 16A 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 5th metatarsal proximal R A 1 0.50 14.095

137 Bag # Unit Depth Class Family Taxa Element Portion Side Age # Mass Biomass Burn Rdnt Canid Cut Work Erod Notes 138 16A 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible fragment L A? 1 4.90 109.945 138 16A 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae metapodial fragment A 6 3.10 72.816 138 16A 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae talus complete R A 1 1.40 35.605 138 16A 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae thoracic vert mostly complete 1 0.90 23.923 cf: Urocyon 138 16A 120-140 Mammalia Mustelidae Mephitinae mandible mostly complete R A 1 1.70 42.404 138 16A 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg incisor complete 1 0.30 8.900 138 16A 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg rib proximal R A 1 1.30 33.308 138 16A 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med phalanx complete 5 1.90 46.868 138 16A 120-140 Mammalia Tapiridae tapirus bairdii carp/tars complete 1 7.20 155.453 138 16A 120-140 Osteichthyes Osteichthyes osteicthyes vertebra complete 1 0.20 8.014 138 16A 120-140 Reptilia Iguanidae Ctenosaura mandible fragment R 1 0.60 8.240 138 16A 120-140 Reptilia Iguanidae Ctenosaura mandible fragment L 2 0.30 4.092 155 16D 120-140 Decapoda Decapoda Decapoda claw fragment 1 0.20 10.757 155 16D 120-140 Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae rib proximal R 1 1.30 33.308 1 155 16D 120-140 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus distal phalanx complete R 1 1.80 44.642 1 1 155 16D 120-140 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus centroquartal partial L 1 3.70 85.385 1 155 16D 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible fragment R 1 9.00 190.028 packed w/matrix 155 16D 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible fragment L 1 9.40 197.613 cutmarks --> modern?, packed w/matrix 155 16D 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae thoracic vert mostly complete A 1 3.40 79.128 155 16D 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 6 25.10 478.307 1 1 155 16D 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania fragment 1 0.90 23.923 155 16D 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 1 0.90 23.923 155 16D 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib fragment 2 1.30 33.308 2 174 16K 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 3 9.40 197.613 174 16K 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med canine root 1 0.40 11.531 1 cf: canidae 174 16K 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania fragment 1 0.30 8.900 188 16M 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg tibia diaphysis R A 1 23.30 447.322 1 209 16S 120-140 Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae metapodial distal J 1 1.40 35.605 209 16S 120-140 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus metatarsal distal A 1 16.70 331.470 1 2 fit together 209 16S 120-140 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus thoracic vert mostly complete J 1 6.40 139.818 1 209 16S 120-140 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus vertebra spinus process 1 1.30 33.308 209 16S 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible proximal L 1 7.90 168.991 1 poss. cutmarks 209 16S 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae tibia complete R 1 8.70 184.318 209 16S 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae ulna proximal L 1 3.20 74.926 1 209 16S 120-140 Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus scapula glenoid fossa L A 1 0.40 11.531 209 16S 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania fragment 1 3.40 79.128 1 209 16S 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania maxilla 1 1.30 33.308 209 16S 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 8 32.60 605.196 3 209 16S 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg tibia distal J 1 8.20 174.756 1 cf tapir, in 4, cutmarks 209 16S 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 11 10.70 222.047 5 209 16S 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib fragment 3 1.90 46.868 2 209 16S 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med unid fragment 3 0.70 19.080 1 209 16S 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone diaphysis 1 0.20 6.179 209 16S 120-140 Reptilia Kinosternidae Starotypus carapace fragment 1 3.00 66.019 209 16S 120-140 Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata long bone epiphysis 1 2.00 49.083 large bird or reptile? 232 19A 120-140 Aves Ciconiidae Ciconiidae coracoid diaphysis R A 1 1.20 24.102 1 232 19A 120-140 Mammalia Cervidae Mazama americana radius distal R A 1 3.40 79.128 232 19A 120-140 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus crania auditory meatus L A 1 2.30 55.662 232 19A 120-140 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus phalanx distal 1 1.50 37.886 232 19A 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 5th metacarpal proximal L 1 0.90 23.923 1 232 19A 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible fragment L A 2 9.20 193.825 2 232 19A 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae radius diaphysis R 1 5.50 121.991 232 19A 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae tibia diaphysis R 1 4.60 103.868 232 19A 120-140 Mammalia Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus humerus proximal E A 1 0.50 14.095 232 19A 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania fragment 1 1.80 44.642 232 19A 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 3 5.90 129.947 1 232 19A 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg mandible ascend ram 1 1.30 33.308 232 19A 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 3 3.80 87.459 3 1 calcinied 232 19A 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm humerus diaphysis L J 1 0.30 8.900 232 19A 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone diaphysis 1 0.20 6.179 232 19A 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm rib fragment 1 0.40 11.531

138 Bag # Unit Depth Class Family Taxa Element Portion Side Age # Mass Biomass Burn Rdnt Canid Cut Work Erod Notes 232 19A 120-140 Mammalia Rodentia Rodentia 3rd metatarsal proximal R 1 0.20 6.179 1 232 19A 120-140 Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata sm long bone diaphysis 2 0.50 14.095 1 245 19C 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 0.60 16.609 245 19C 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone diaphysis 2 2.20 53.479 1 261 19F 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg tibia diaph 1 3.10 72.816 1 314 19S 120-140 Amphibia Anura Anura humerus mostly complete L 1 0.15 2.032 314 19S 120-140 Mammalia Tayassuidae Tayassu sp M^C partial R A 1 2.00 49.083 314 19S 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine mostly complete A 1 0.90 23.923 314 19S 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae cervical vert partial 1 8.40 178.588 1 1 HUGE 314 19S 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae crania fragment J 50 31.90 593.488 many frags - assuming canid 314 19S 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae Iv1 complete R A 1 0.10 3.311 314 19S 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae Iv2 complete R A 1 0.50 14.095 314 19S 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae PM^4 complete R A 1 1.30 33.308 314 19S 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae PM^4 complete L A 1 1.30 33.308 314 19S 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae M^1 complete R A 1 1.10 28.658 314 19S 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae M^1 complete L A 1 0.90 23.923 314 19S 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae M^2 complete R A 1 0.20 6.179 314 19S 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae M^2 complete L A 1 0.30 8.900 314 19S 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible mostly complete R A 1 11.00 227.643 314 19S 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae vertebra body J 14 20.60 400.387 314 19S 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae vertebra fragment 4 0.90 23.923 314 19S 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae vertebra articular facet J 7 0.60 16.609 314 19S 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaph 2 8.20 174.756 314 19S 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib body frag 22 5.90 129.947 314 19S 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib articular facet SA/J 8 1.75 43.525 314 19S 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia Mammalia tooth crown frag 1 0.10 3.311 1 314 19S 120-140 Reptilia Reptilia Reptilia rib mostly complete 1 0.05 0.670 314 19S 120-140 Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata unid fragment 1 0.05 1.774 small 324 19T 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 2 9.70 203.280 346 19X 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae 3rd metacarpal proximal R 1 0.70 19.080 353 19Z 120-140 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus crania zygomatic L 1 1.60 40.152 353 19Z 120-140 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus mandible body frag R 4-6mo 1 4.90 109.945 w/pmv2,m1,2 353 19Z 120-140 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus metacarpal proximal diaph 1 8.70 184.318 1 353 19Z 120-140 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus phalanx complete 1 4.40 99.795 1 353 19Z 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae crania maxilla frag R A 1 6.00 131.928 w/PM^4, Mv1,2 353 19Z 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible mostly complete L A 1 26.10 495.423 no spaces for PM^3,4 353 19Z 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania fragment 1 2.20 53.479 353 19Z 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 9.40 197.613 1 eroded 353 19Z 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania fragment 1 0.50 14.095 1 353 19Z 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 3 3.80 87.459 1 353 19Z 120-140 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib body frag 1 0.70 19.080 353 19Z 120-140 Mammalia Hominidae Homo sapiens vertebra body E 1 2.40 57.835 371 O1 120-140 Mammalia Canidae Canidae axis mostly complete J 1 6.60 143.744 large but unfused 128 16 140-160 Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae lumbar vert mostly complete J 1 8.20 174.756 128 16 140-160 Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine partial 2 0.60 16.609 128 16 140-160 Mammalia Canidae Canidae crania sphenoid 1 1.00 26.303 128 16 140-160 Mammalia Canidae Canidae crania palatine R 1 1.20 30.993 128 16 140-160 Mammalia Canidae Canidae crania saggital/nuchal crest 1 2.20 53.479 128 16 140-160 Mammalia Canidae Canidae crania frontal frag R 1 2.50 59.999 128 16 140-160 Mammalia Canidae Canidae crania foramen magnum 1 3.00 70.698 both sides in 2 pcs 128 16 140-160 Mammalia Canidae Canidae crania temporal glenoid fossa R 1 3.90 89.528 128 16 140-160 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible mostly complete L 1 7.50 161.271 128 16 140-160 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible mostly complete L J? 1 11.90 244.339 w/Mv2 128 16 140-160 Mammalia Canidae Canidae maxilla fragment R 1 7.70 165.136 w PM^4, M^1,2 128 16 140-160 Mammalia Canidae Canidae Mv1 partial 1 0.70 19.080 in 2 pcs 128 16 140-160 Mammalia Canidae Canidae PM^2 complete R A 2 0.50 14.095 128 16 140-160 Mammalia Canidae Canidae rib dorsal atricular epiph 1 0.30 8.900 128 16 140-160 Mammalia Canidae Canidae tooth fragment 1 0.20 6.179 128 16 140-160 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania temporo-zygomatic 1 8.80 186.223 1 128 16 140-160 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 2 5.30 117.991 cf: tapir 128 16 140-160 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg rib diaphysis 1 3.70 85.385 in 2 pcs, modern cut

139 Bag # Unit Depth Class Family Taxa Element Portion Side Age # Mass Biomass Burn Rdnt Canid Cut Work Erod Notes 128 16 140-160 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg vertebra partial 1 1.80 44.642 128 16 140-160 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania cranial vault 8 5.30 117.991 128 16 140-160 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 2 3.30 77.030 128 16 140-160 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med radius diaphysis R? 1 2.70 64.302 128 16 140-160 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med unid fragment 1 0.80 21.517 cf: tapir 128 16 140-160 Mammalia Hominidae Homo sapiens clavicle diaphysis L 1 9.70 203.280 1 139 16A 140-160 Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine complete 3 3.40 79.128 139 16A 140-160 Mammalia Canidae Canidae PM^4 fragment R A 1 0.10 3.311 139 16A 140-160 Mammalia Canidae Canidae M^2 complete R A 1 0.30 8.900 139 16A 140-160 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible fragment L J 1 1.70 42.404 139 16A 140-160 Mammalia Canidae Canidae maxilla fragment L A 1 2.70 64.302 139 16A 140-160 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med phalanx complete A 4 1.50 37.886 139 16A 140-160 Reptilia Reptilia Reptilia phalanx complete A 1 0.30 4.092 156 16D 140-160 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 1 0.80 21.517 1 1 1 UTILIZED - burned and cut/scraped repeatedly 189 16M 140-160 Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine partial A 1 0.90 23.923 189 16M 140-160 Mammalia Canidae Canidae cervical vert mostly complete A 1 4.00 91.591 189 16M 140-160 Mammalia Canidae Canidae lumbar vert partial A 1 2.60 62.155 189 16M 140-160 Mammalia Didelphidae Didelphidae ulna proximal R A 1 1.20 30.993 1 189 16M 140-160 Mammalia Rodentia Rodentia lrg tibia proximal R A 1 0.50 14.095 246 19C 140-160 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 4.00 91.591 1 254 19D 140-160 Amphibia Ranidae Ranidae lg scapula mostly complete 1 0.20 2.717 254 19D 140-160 Amphibia Ranidae Ranidae lg vertebra mostly complete 1 0.30 4.092 254 19D 140-160 Mammalia Artiodactyla Artiodactyla phalanx distal 1 2.20 53.479 254 19D 140-160 Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine mostly complete A 1 0.90 23.923 254 19D 140-160 Mammalia Canidae Canidae crania maxilla R A 1 2.80 66.442 254 19D 140-160 Mammalia Canidae Canidae PM^2 complete R A 1 0.20 6.179 254 19D 140-160 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 3 8.40 178.588 1 1 1 cut, pos worn 254 19D 140-160 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 5 5.80 127.963 254 19D 140-160 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med unid fragment 1 1.10 28.658 254 19D 140-160 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone diaphysis 1 0.20 6.179 254 19D 140-160 Reptilia Iguanidae Iguanidae caudal vertebra complete 1 0.10 1.349 254 19D 140-160 Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata unid fragment 1 0.10 3.311 315 19S 140-160 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 1.30 33.308 354 19Z 140-160 Aves Ciconiidae Ciconiidae femur complete L A 1 3.30 60.513 354 19Z 140-160 Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae mandible ascending ramus R 1 1.00 26.303 354 19Z 140-160 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 5.10 113.976 354 19Z 140-160 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 1 1.80 44.642 poss. cervid metapodial 129 16 160-180 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus maxilla proximal R A 1 10.50 218.308 w/M^1, M^2, M^3 129 16 160-180 Mammalia Tayassuidae Tayassu sp lumbar vert fragment A 1 9.60 201.393 129 16 160-180 Mammalia Tayassuidae Tayassu sp thoracic vert fragment A 1 7.30 157.395 129 16 160-180 Mammalia Didelphidae Didelphidae maxilla fragment R 1 1.40 35.605 129 16 160-180 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 7.10 153.509 129 16 160-180 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg vertebra fragment A? 1 4.80 107.924 129 16 160-180 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med flat bone fragment 2 1.40 35.605 129 16 160-180 Reptilia Testudines Testudines carapace fragment 1 2.00 50.314 129 16 160-180 Reptilia Testudines Testudines plastron fragment 1 7.20 118.690 157 16D 160-180 Mammalia Canidae Canidae canine complete 1 0.80 21.517 176 16K 160-180 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible mostly complete R A 1 10.10 210.809 w/PM4 176 16K 160-180 Mammalia Hominidae Homo sapiens mandible gonial angle L A 1 13.10 266.406 large/robust 190 16M 160-180 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus phalanx partial A 1 1.30 33.308 1 190 16M 160-180 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 1 0.80 21.517 217 16V 160-180 Amphibia Bufonidae Bufonidae lg femur mostly complete 1 0.50 6.854 217 16V 160-180 Mammalia Artiodactyla Artiodactyla cervical vert partial J 1 4.70 105.898 cf: Odocoileus 217 16V 160-180 Mammalia Procyonidae procyonidae innominate acetabulum L 1 1.10 28.658 217 16V 160-180 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania fragment 1 4.80 107.924 1 217 16V 160-180 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med crania fragment 4 1.20 30.993 1 217 16V 160-180 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med innominate acetabulum L 1 0.90 23.923 cf: canidae 217 16V 160-180 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone fragment 4 1.90 46.868 1 217 16V 160-180 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib fragment 1 0.30 8.900 217 16V 160-180 Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata unid fragment 1 0.80 21.517 fit together cf: med mam canine 316 19S 160-180 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus mandible complete R J 1 1.20 30.993

140 Bag # Unit Depth Class Family Taxa Element Portion Side Age # Mass Biomass Burn Rdnt Canid Cut Work Erod Notes 316 19S 160-180 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 2.20 53.479 1 eroded 316 19S 160-180 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg unid fragment 1 1.30 33.308 1 eroded 316 19S 160-180 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 1 1.20 30.993 1 smoothed/worn 316 19S 160-180 Mammalia Mammalia mammal sm long bone diaphysis 1 1.00 26.303 1 poss. smoothed 316 19S 160-180 Mammalia Mammalia Mammalia crania fragment 2 1.50 37.886 1 eroded 316 19S 160-180 Mammalia Mammalia Mammalia unid fragment 2 1.60 40.152 1 eroded 316 19S 160-180 Reptilia Emydidae Emydidae epiplastron complete R 1 0.90 29.467 small 316 19S 160-180 Reptilia Testudines Testudines plastron fragment 2 2.85 63.789 325 19T 160-180 Mammalia Artiodactyla Artiodactyla scapula neck L 1 3.60 83.305 325 19T 160-180 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis epiph 1 8.50 180.500 dark stained and encrusted 325 19T 160-180 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg metapodial proximal 1 2.50 59.999 dark stained and encrusted 339 19Y 160-180 Aves Aves Aves lg long bone diaphysis 1 2.20 41.841 packed w/dirt 339 19Y 160-180 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 4.80 107.924 339 19Y 160-180 Mammalia Hominidae Homo sapiens cervical vert lateral process 1 4.00 91.591 1 355 19Z 160-180 Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae rib body frag 1 0.50 14.095 small 355 19Z 160-180 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus metacarpal proximal L A 1 25.00 476.591 355 19Z 160-180 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 1 2.10 51.286 poss. cervid metapodial 399 19Y 160-180 Mammalia Hominidae Homo sapiens lumbar vert transverse process A 1 4.00 91.591 141 16A 180-200 Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae femur partial R A 1 17.20 340.389 1 141 16A 180-200 Mammalia Cervidae Cervidae innominate acetabulum L 1 8.20 174.756 141 16A 180-200 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus sacrum mostly complete A 1 17.40 343.949 141 16A 180-200 Mammalia Canidae Canidae mandible mostly complete R A 1 9.80 205.165 missing spaces for PM1,2,4 141 16A 180-200 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 4.70 105.898 158 16D 180-200 Mammalia Canidae Canidae innominate acetabulum R 1 1.60 40.152 158 16D 180-200 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 1.20 30.993 158 16D 180-200 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med rib diaphysis 2 1.10 28.658 202 16R 180-200 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 1 4.60 103.868 356 19Z 180-200 Mammalia Didelphidae Didelphidae mandible complete L A 1 6.40 139.818 356 19Z 180-200 Mammalia Didelphidae Didelphidae mandible mostly complete R A 1 2.70 64.302 little small, prob same indiv 373 O1 180-200 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus vertebra body frag J 1 6.00 131.928 unfused 373 O1 180-200 Mammalia Canidae Canidae crania maxilla frag L A 2 4.10 93.650 1 w/PM^4, 1 w/M^1,2 373 O1 180-200 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med tibia complete R J 1 3.90 89.528 unfused 407 O1 180-200 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 1 0.90 23.923 1 1 142 16A 200-220 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med long bone diaphysis 1 0.80 21.517 218 16V 200-220 Mammalia Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus mandible gonial angle R A 1 4.10 93.650 218 16V 200-220 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg crania fragment 1 3.20 74.926 218 16V 200-220 Mammalia Mammalia mammal med tibia diaphysis L 1 4.00 91.591 218 16V 200-220 Reptilia Testudines Testudines carapace fragment 2 2.90 64.537 poor condition 218 16V 200-220 Vertebrata Vertebrata Vertebrata unid fragment 3 1.60 40.152 1 spongy bone 374 O1 200-220 Mammalia Canidae Canidae ulna proximal epiph R A 1 9.10 191.928 374 O1 200-220 Reptilia Iguanidae Iguanidae humerus distal R SA 1 9.10 128.420 375 O1 200-220 Mammalia Mammalia mammal lg long bone diaphysis 2 18.70 366.993 1 1 1 burn - also poss. worn, 1 dog - may be beaten? 143 16A 220-240 Mammalia Cervidae Mazama americana innominate acetabulum R 1 9.40 197.613 see bag 141

141 REFERENCES

Ashmore, Wendy and Jeremy Sabloff 2002 Spatial Orders in Maya Civic Plans. In Latin American Antiquity 13(2): 201-216.

Blau, Harold 1964 The Iroquois White Dog Sacrifice: Its Evolution and Symbolism. In Ethnohistory 11(2): 97-119.

Brady, James E. et al. 1991 Capitulo 37: Proyecto Arqueologico Regional Cuevas Petexbatun. In Proyecto Arqueologico Regional Petexbatun: Informe Preliminar #3, Tercera Temporada 1991 Tomo II, edited by A. Demarest, T. Inomata, H. Escobedo and J. Palka. Reporte Preliminar entregado al Instituto de Antropologia e Historia de acuerdo al convenio de investigación. pp 652-747. Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia de Guatemala, Guatemala.

Brown, Linda A. 2001 Feasting on the Periphery: The Production of Village Festivals and Ritual Feasting at Ceren, El Salvador. In Feasts: Archaeologicl and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Power, Politics, edited by M. Dietler and B. Hayden. pp368-390. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C.

Butler, Judith 1990 Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory." Performing Feminisms: Feminist Critical Theory and Theatre, edited by S. Case. pp 270-282. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.

Campbell, Jonathan A. 2001 Reptiles and Amphibians of Guatemala. Electronic document, http://www.uta.edu/biology/campbell/guatemala, accessed 10/18/04. University of Texas at Arlington, Texas.

1998 Amphibians and Reptiles of Northern Guatemala, the Yucatán, and Belize. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.

Chase, Diane Z. 1992 Postclassic Maya Elites: Ethnohistory and Archaeology. In Mesoamerican Elites an Archaeological Assessment, edited by D. Z. Chase and A. F. Chase. pp118-134. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.

1415412 Chase, Diane Z. and Arlen F. Chase 1992 Mesoamerican Elites: Assumptions, Definition, and Models. In Mesoamerican Elites an Archaeological Assessment, edited by D. Z. Chase and A. F. Chase. pp3- 17. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.

Chase-Coggins, Clemency 1992 Dredging the Cenote. In Artifacts from the Cenote of Sacrifice, Chichen Itzá, Yucatan, edited by C. Chase-Coggins. pp9-31. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Christenson, Allen J. 2001 Art and Society in a Highland Maya Community; The Altarpiece of Santiago Atitlan. University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas.

Christie, Jessica Joyce 2003 Introduction. In Maya Palaces and Elite Residences: An Interdisciplinary Approach, edited by J. J. Christie. pp1-12. University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas.

Clancy, Flora Simmons 1999 Sculpture in the Ancient Maya Plaza; The Early Classic Period. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Clark, John E. 2004 Unmasking the History of Maya Civilization. Electronic Document, http://fhss.byu.edu/anthro/NWAF/downloads.html. New World Archaeological Foundation. Last Accessed March 2005.

Clutton-Brock, Juliet and Norman Hammond 1994 Hot Dogs: Comestible Canids in Preclassic Maya Culture at Cuello, Belize. Journal of Archaeological Science 21: 819-826.

Demarest, Arthur, Kim Morgan, Claudia Wolley, and Héctor Escobedo 2003 The Political Acquisition of Sacred Geography: The Mutciélagos Complex at Dos Pilas. In Maya Palaces and Elite Residences: An Interdisciplinary Approach, edited by J. J. Christie. pp120-153. University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas.

de Montmollin, Oliver 1995 Settlement and Politics in Three Classic Maya Polities. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 24. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.

15515143 1988 Tenam Rosario. A Political Microcosm. American Antiquity 53(2): 351-370.

Dobkin de Rios, Marlene 1974 The Influence of Psychotropic Flora and Fauna on Maya Religion, Current Anthropology 15(2): 147-164.

Ekholm, S. M. 1990 Una Ceremonia de Fin-de-Ciclo: El Gran Basurero Ceremonial de Lagartero, Chiapas. In La Época Clásica: Nuevos Hallazgos, Nuevas Ideas, edited by Méndez. pp455-467. Museo Nacional de Antropología, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City, Mexico.

1985 The Lagartero Ceramic ‘Pendants’. In Fourth Palenque Round Table, 1980, edited by M. G. Robertson and E. P. Benson. pp211-219. The Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute, San Francisco, California.

1984 Cerámica Maya Policroma Anómala de Lagartero, Chiapas. In Investigaciones Recientes en el Área Maya; XVII Mesa Redonda Tomo II. pp371-378. Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología Sn. Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico.

1979 The Lagartero Figurines. In Maya Archaeology and Ethnohistory, edited by N. Hammond and G. Willey. pp172-186. University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas.

1976 The Significance of an Extraordinary Maya Ceremonial Refuse Deposit at Lagartero, Chiapas. 42nd International Congress of Americanists (Paris 1976) Vol. 8. pp 147-159. International Congress of Americanists, Paris, France.

Ekholm, Susanna M. and Eduardo Martinez 1983 Lagartero: Una Situación Ecológica Única de los Mayas de la Cuenca Superior del Grijalva. In Antropologia e Historia de los Mixe-Zoques y Mayas, edited by F. Blom. pp255-270. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico.

Elson, Christina M. and Michael E. Smith 2001 Archaeological Deposits from the Aztec New Fire Ceremony. In Ancient Mesoamerica 12: 157-174.

Emery, Kitty F. 2004 Animal Use at Piedras Negras: Diet, Ritual, and Crafting in a Classic Maya Community. In The Land of the Turtle Lords: Urban Archaeology at the Classic Maya City of Piedras Negras, Guatemala, edited by S. Houston and H. Escobedo.

144 15615 2003a Animal Use and Measures of Sustainability at Late Classic Motul de San Jose. Paper presented at 2003 SAA Meetings, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

2003b In Search of the "Maya Diet": Is Regional Comparison Possible in the Maya Area. Paper presented at 2003 SAA Meetings, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

2003c The Noble Beast: Status and Differential Access to Animals in the Maya World. In World Archaeology 34(3): 498-515.

2002 Animals from the Maya Underworld: Reconstructing Elite Maya Ritual at the Cueva de los Quetzales, Guatemala. In Behavior Behind the Bones: The Zooarchaeology of Religion, Ritual, Status, and Identity, edited by S. Jones O’Day, W. Van Neer, and A. Ervynck. pp103-113. Oxbow Books, London.

1997 The Maya Collapse: A Zooarchaeological Investigation. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Cornell University.

Emmons, L. H. 1997 Neotropical Rainforest Mammals: A Field Guide (2nd Edition). University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.

Fox, John G. 1996 Playing with Power; Ballcourts and Political Ritual in Southern Mesoamerica. Current Anthropology 37(3): 483-509.

Freidel, David and Linda Schele 1988 Kingship in the Late Preclassic Maya Lowlands: The Instruments and Places of Ritual Power. American Anthropologist, New Series 90(3): 547-567.

Freidel, David, Linda Schele, and Joy Parker 1993 Maya Cosmos: Three Thousand Years on the Shaman’s Path. William Morrow and Company, New York, New York.

Gallenkamp, Charles 1985 The Ancient Maya. In Maya; Treasures of an Ancient Civilization, edited by C. Gallenkamp and R. E. Johnson. pp20-33. Harry N. Abrams, Inc., In Association with The Albuquerque Museum, New York, New York.

Gilbert, B. Miles 1990 Mammalian Osteology. Missouri Archaeological Society, Inc. Columbia, Missouri.

15715145 Gilbert, B. Miles, L. Martin, H. Savage 1981 Avian Osteology. Modern Printing Company, Laramie, Wyoming.

Gurr-Matheny, Deanne 1990 Summary of the Northwest Plaza Burials of Lagartero, Chiapas, Mexico. In Mesoamérica y Norte de México, siglo IX-XII, edited by F. Sodi Miranda, vol. 1 pp45-52. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico.

1988 Northwest Plaza Burials of Lagartero, Chiapas, Mexico. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Utah.

Halperin, Christina 2002 Caves, Ritual, and Power: Investigations at Actun Nak Beh, Cayo District, Belize. Thesis, Florida State University.

Hamblin, Nancy L. 1984 Animal Use by the Cozumel Maya. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.

Harris, Marvin 1971 Culture, Man, and Nature. Crowell Inc., New York, New York.

Hopkins, Mary R. 1992 Mammalian Remains. In Artifacts from the Cenote of Sacrifice; Chichén Itzá, Yucatán, edited by C. Chase Coggins. pp369-385. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Hopkins, Nicholas 1980 Chuj Animal Names and Their Classification. Journal of Mayan Linguistics 2(1): 13-39.

Inomata, Takeshi 1995 Archaeological Investigations at the Fortified Center of Aguateca, El Petén, Guatemala: Implications for the Study of the Classic Maya Collapse. PhD Dissertation, Vanderbilt University.

Inomata, Takeshi and Daniela Triadan 2003 Where did Elites Live? Identifying Elite Residences at Aguateca, Guatemala. In Maya Palaces and Elite Residences: An Interdisciplinary Approach, edited by J. J. Christie. pp 154-183. University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas.

146 15815 Kerr, Justin 2004 Maya Vase Database: An Archive of Rollout Photographs. Electronic Document. http://www.mayavase.com. In affiliation with the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies. Last accessed February 2005.

Koželsky, Kristin 2002 Serpents and Birds as Mediators in Maya Cosmology; A Structural Analysis. Unpublished Manuscript.

2001 Analysis of Faunal Remains Recovered from Some Excavations of Suboperation 5 at Laguna de On. Unpublished Manuscript.

Krebs, Charles J. 1978 Ecology: The Experimental Analysis of Distribution and Abundance, Second Edition. Harper and Row Publishers, New York, New York.

Land, Hugh C. 1970 Birds of Guatemala. International Committee for Bird Preservation; Pan- American Section. Livingston Publishing Company, Wynnewood, Pennsylvania.

Landa, Diego de 1978 Yucatan Before and After the Conquest, edited by W. Gates. A transcription of Relación de las cosas de Yucatán (1566). Dover Publications, Inc., New York, New York.

LeCount, Lisa J. 2001 Like Water for Chocolate: Feasting and Political Ritual among the Late Classic Maya at Xunantunich, Belize. American Anthropologist 103(4): 935-953.

Lee, Julian C. 2000 A Field Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of the Maya World: The Lowlands of Mexico, Northern Guatemala, and Belize. Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca, New York.

Martin, Simon and Nikolai Grube 2000 Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens: Deciphering the Dynasties of the Ancient Maya. Thames and Hudson Ltd., London, England.

Masson, Marilyn 2000 In the Realm of Nacha Kan: Postclassic Maya Archaeology at Laguna de On, Belize. University of Colorado Press, Boulder, Colorado.

159147 147 1999 Animal Resource Manipulation in Ritual and Domestic Contexts at Postclassic Maya Communities. World Archaeology: Food Technology in its Social Context 31(1): 93-120.

Mauss, Marcel 1967 [1925] The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies, trans by I. Cunnison, W. W. Norton, New York, New York.

Miller, Mary E. and Karl Taube 1993 An Illustrated Dictionary of the Gods and Symbols of Ancient Mexico and the Maya. Thames and Hudson Ltd, London, England.

Olsen, Stanley 1982 An Osteology of Some Maya Mammals. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Palka, Joel W. 1997 Reconstructing Classic Maya Socioeconomic Differentiation at the Collapse at Dos Pilas, Petén, Guatemala. Ancient Mesoamerica 8(2): 293-306.

Payne, Sebastian 1975 Partial Recovery and Sample Bias. In Archaeozoological Studies: Papers of the Archaeozoological Conference 1974, held at the Biologisch-Archaeologisch Instituut of the State University Groningen, edited by A. T. Clason. pp1-17 North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam.

Pendergast, David 1974 Excavations at Actun Polilche, Belize. Archaeology Monograph 1. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto.

1969 Prehistory of Actun Balam, British Honduras. Occassional Papers 16. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto.

Pohl, Mary D. 1983 Maya Ritual Faunas: Vertebrate Remains from Burials, Caches, Caves and Cenotes in the Maya Lowlands. Civilization. In The Ancient Americas: Essays in Honor of Gordon R. Willey, edited by R. M. Leventhal and A. L. Kolata. pp55-103. University of New Mexico Press and Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

148 148 1981 Ritual Continuity and Transformation in Mesoamerica: Reconstructing the Ancient Maya Cuch Ritual. American Antiquity 46(3): 513-29.

1976 Ethnozoology of the Maya: An Analysis of Fauna from Five Sites in Peten, Guatemala. PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University.

Pohl, Mary D. and Lawrence H. Feldman 1982 The Traditional Role of Women and Animals in Lowland Maya Economy. In Maya Subsistence; Studies in Memory of Dennis E. Puleston, edited by K. Flannery. Academic Press, New York, New York.

Quitmyer, Irvy 2003 What Kind of Data are in the Back Dirt? An Experiment on the Influence of Screen Size on Optimal Data Recovery Research. Presented at the 69th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, April 9-13, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Quirarte, Jacinto 1979 The Representation of Underworld Processions in Maya Vase Painting: An Iconographic Study. In Maya Archaeology and Ethnohistory, edited by N. Hammond, and G. Willey. pp116-148. University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas.

Rappaport, Roy A. 1999 Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

1979 The Obvious Aspects of Ritual. In Ecology, Meaning, and Religion, edited by R. A. Rappaport. pp. 173-222. North Atlantic Books, Berkeley.

1967 Pigs for the Ancestors. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

Ramsey, Charles and Milo J. Shult 1990 The Age of a Deer. In Deer Management in the South Texas Plains, edited by E. Davis, Federal Aid Report Series #27. pp21-28. Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept, Wildlife Division, Austin, Texas.

Reid, Fiona A. 1997 A Field Guide to the Mammals of Central America and Southeast Mexico. Oxford University Press, New York, New York.

149 16116 Reitz, Elizabeth and Elizabeth Wing 1999 Zooarchaeology. Cambridge Univeristy Press, Cambridge, England.

Rivero Torres, Sonia E. 1997 La Cerámica y Lítica de Lagartero, Chiapas, Procedente del Limonal, Unidad 1. In Homenaje al Profesor César A. Sáenz, edited by A. García Cook et al. pp201- 250 Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico.

Saunders, Nicholas J. 1994 Predators of Culture: Jaguar Symbolism and Mesoamerican Elites. In World Archaeology 26(1): 104-117.

Schwartz, Marion 1997 A History of Dogs in the Early Americas. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

Sharer, Robert J. 1994 The Ancient Maya; Fifth Edition. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.

Shaw, Leslie C. 1991 The Articulation of Social Inequality and Faunal Resource Use in the Preclassic Community of Colha, Northern Belize. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Smith, Michael E. 2003 Can we Read Cosmology in Ancient Maya City Plans? Comment on Ashmore and Sablofff. In Latin American Antiquity 14(2): 207-230.

Stahl, Peter.W. 1996 The Recovery and Interpretation of Microvertebrate Bone Assemblages from Archaeological Contexts. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 3(1): 31- 75.

1982 On Small Mammal Remains in Archaeological Context. American Antiquity 47(4): 822-829.

Tate, Carolyn E. 1992 Yaxchilan: The Design of a Maya Ceremonial City. University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas.

162 150 Tooker, Elizabeth 1965 The Iroquois White Dog Sacrifice. In Ethnohistory 12(2): 129-140.

Tourtellot, Gair 1988 Excavations at Seibal, Department of Petén, Guatemala. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum 14.3. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Turner, Victor 1986 The Anthropology of Performance. PAJ Publications, New York, New York.

Tway, Maria 2003 Gender, Context, and Figurine Use: Ceramic Images from the Formative Period San Andres Site, Tabasco, Mexico. Master’s Thesis. Department of Anthropology, Florida State University.

Weaver, Muriel Porter 1983 The Aztecs, Maya and Their Predecessors. Seminar Press, New York, New York.

Webster, David 2001 Spatial Dimensions of Maya Courtly Life. In Royal Courts of the Ancient Maya, Volume One: Theory, Comparison, and Synthesis, edited by T. Inomata and S. Houston. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.

White, Christine, Mary Pohl, Henry Schwarcz, and Fred J. Longstaffe 2004 Feast, Field and Forest: Deer and Dog Diets at Lagartero, Tikal and Cópan. In Mesoamerican Zooarchaeology: New Directions in Method and Theory, edited by K. Emery. pp141-157. UCLA Press, Los Angeles, California.

2001 Isotopic Evidence for Maya Patterns of Deer and Dog Use at Preclassic Colha. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:89-107.

Wiessner, Polly 2001 Of Feasting and Value: Enga Feasts in a Historical Perspective (Papua New Guinea). In Feasts: Archaeological and Ethonographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, edited by M. Dietler and B. Hayden. pp. 115-143. Smithsonian Series in Archaeological Inquiry, Smithsonian Intuition Press, Washington, D.C.

Willey, Gordon 1978 Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten, Guatemala. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum 14:1-3. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

151 16316 1975 The Artifacts of Altar de Sacrificios. Papers of the Peabody Museum Vol. 64:1. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Wing, Elizabeth and Sylvia Scudder 1991 The Exploitation of Animals. In Cuello: An Early Maya Community in Belize, edited by N. Hammond. pp84-97. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Unknown 2004 Integrated Taxonomic Information System. Electronic Document, http://www.itis.usda.gov. ITIS-North America. Last accessed March 2005.

Unknown 2001 Lagartero: Santuario de Salvaje Belleza. Electronic Document, http://www.terra.com.mx/Turismo/articulogr/100287/. Terra Networks. Last accessed February 2005.

Unknown N.D. El Chiapaneco.com. Electronic Document, http://www.elchiapaneco.com. Last accessed 2003.

16416152 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

EDUCATION Florida State University (Summa cum Laude) M. A. (2005) Anthropology – Archaeology concentration Certificate in Museum Studies (2005) State University of New York at Albany (Magna cum Laude) B.A. (2001) Honors Anthropology - Archaeology concentration • Honors Thesis: Evidence of Sacrifice in Aztec Burials B.A. (2001) Studio Art

AWARDS AND HONORS • Presidential Undergraduate Leadership Awards: Great Dane Award, SUNY Albany (May 2001) for exemplifying ideals of the University and excellence in leadership • SUNY Albany Institute of Mesoamerican Studies Undergraduate Research Essay Award (Spring 2000) for An Examination of Personal Names in the Codex de Santa Maria Asuncion and Place Names in the Codex Mendoza. • Golden Key National Honor Society (April 1999)

RELATED EXPERIENCE • Florida State University Anthropology Departmental Assistantship (Fall, Spring, and Summer 2002 — 2004) • Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Intern in Environmental Archaeology (July 2004 - January 2005) • American Association of Physical Anthropology Conference Volunteer (April 13-17, 2004) Tampa, Florida • Tallahassee Museum, Tallahassee, Florida, Volunteer (May 2003 – September 2004) • Timelines, Littleton, Massachusetts, Archaeological Assistant (September 2001 – December 2001) • Expedition to Pyrgos/Mavroraki (Summer2000) Maria Rosario Belgiourno; Project Director and Stuart Swiny; Director of the Albany Team • Belize Postclassic Project (Summer 1999) Marilyn A. Masson; Project Director • X-Ray Florescence Obsidian Analysis (1998)

PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS 2004 “Fauna From Lagartero: Sampling Bias and its Effects on Interpretation.” Presented at the 2004 Conference of the Society for American Archaeology, Montreal, March 31- April 4 2004 "The Bones of the Animals in Your Back Yard." Children’s Workshop at the Tallahassee Museum. 2004 “Vertebrates of Florida.” Workshop at the Tallahassee Museum

153153 2003 “A Preliminary Report of the Lagartero Faunal Material.” Presented November 13, 2003 to the Florida State University Anthropological Society 1999 Illustrations of Special Finds from the 1998 Season. In The Belize Postclassic Project 1998: Investigations at Progresso Lagoon and Laguna Seca, edited by M. A. Masson and R. Rosenswig. Institute for Mesoamerican Studies Occasional Publication No. 5. State University of New York at Albany 2000 A Report of Findings from J6 (chapter co-authored with William Best and Benjamin Sabatini) In Site Report of the 2000 Field Season at Pyrgos/Mavroraki, Cyprus edited by M. R. Belgiourno (unpublished manuscript, suggested volume title)

AFFILIATIONS • International Council of Archaeozoology • American Anthropological Society • Society for American Archaeology • Florida State University Anthropological Society • Vice President (2003-2004) • Secretary (2002-2003) • Archaeological Institute of America • American Museum of Natural History • World Wildlife Fund

166154 154