Domestic Faunal Assemblages from the Classic Period Valley.pdf

8/13/2019 Domestic Faunal Assemblages from the Classic Period Valley.pdf

1/17

Journal of Archaeological Science (2002) 29, 233249doi:10.1006/jasc.2002.0683, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

Domestic Faunal Assemblages from the Classic Period Valleyof Oaxaca, Mexico: A Perspective on the Subsistence and

Craft Economies

William D. Middleton, Gary M. Feinman and Linda M. Nicholas

Department of Anthropology, The Field Museum, 1400 South Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL 60605-2496, U.S.A.

(Received 12 October 2000, revised manuscript accepted 27 February 2001 )

During the Classic period (200800), urban Monte Alban in the Valley of Oaxaca was one of the most monumentalcities in Mesoamerica. Yet relatively little is known about the Classic-period economy that sustained this prehispaniccentre. In this paper, we compare the faunal assemblages at two outlying Classic-period sites located in the centralvalleys of OaxacaEjutla and El Palmillo. This analytical comparison provides a new empirical perspective on twoimportant aspects of the ancient Oaxacan economy, subsistence strategies and household craft manufacture. AlthoughEjutla and El Palmillo have rather distinct environmental settings, the faunal component of the diet at the sites is foundto be similar with some subtle differences. More marked distinctions between the sites are noted in the use of bone asa raw material for tools and ornaments. When the findings from the faunal comparison are situated within the contextof other domestic remains from Classic-period Ejutla and El Palmillo, intraregional variation in household strategies ofproduction and exchange is evidenced, providing a preliminary vantage on the complex economy that underlay thisprehispanic polity. 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

During the Classic period (200800), one ofthe foremost polities in Mesoamerica wascentred at urban Monte Alban (Palerm &

Wolf, 1957;Caso, Bernal & Acosta, 1967)in the Valleyof Oaxaca. Through archaeological (systematic surveyand excavation) as well as epigraphic analyses(Flannery & Marcus, 1983; Kowalewski et al., 1989),archaeologists are beginning to understand the settle-ment history and political organization of this ancientstate, with a focus on the urban capital (Blanton,1978). Yet much less is known about the workings ofthe Classic-period economy in this region.

Key questions concern the nature of the articulationsbetween individual households within communitiesand between those communities and their neighbours,

specifically in terms of household strategies of produc-tion (labour and/or goods) and consumption (craftgoods and subsistence). To address these economicissues requires an understanding of the kinds of goodsthat were produced in Classic-period Oaxacan house-holds, what goods were made in some households (andat some sites) but not others, and what kinds of itemswould have been exchanged or imported.

For Classic-period Oaxaca, a number of studies havebegun to outline the relations between the productionand consumption of a variety of craft goods at thehousehold level (Feinman & Nicholas, 1993a, 1994,1995, 2000a; Feinman et al., 1993; Middleton, 1998).

Yet our knowledge of household subsistence strategiesduring this period remains limited. In the neighbouringMaya region, vigorous debate over the nature ofClassic-period Maya agriculture has spurred numerousstudies of subsistence practices (e.g., White, 1999). Incontrast, analysis of food remains has been somewhatunder-emphasized for the Classic period in theMesoamerican highlands (including Oaxaca) wheremaize agriculture (the combination of maize, beans,and squash) is often assumed to have been themainstay of the diet (cf. Starbuck 1987; Crawford1992).

Although meat may represent only a small portionof the ancient Mesoamerican subsistence base, theanalysis of faunal assemblages can highlight importantdifferences or similarities in subsistence strategies(Pollock & Ray, 1957; Flannery, 1967; Wing, 1975,

1978, 1981; Olsen, 1978; Coe & Diehl, 1980; Wing &Steadman, 1980; Hamblin, 1984; Carr, 1985, 1986;Pohl, 1985a, b, 1994; Grove, 1987; Starbuck, 1987;Hudson et al., 1989). Yet, in general, faunal studieshave not been heavily utilized to examine the complex,food-producing societies of the Mesoamerican Classicperiod (Clutton-Brock & Hammond, 1994). Forexample, faunal studies focused on ancient Oaxacaprimarily have been concentrated on the earlierArchaic (80002000) and Formative (2000 200) periods (Drennan, 1976; Whalen, 1981;Flannery & Wheeler, 1986; Marcus & Flannery,1996).

23303054403/02/$-see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.


2/17

Faunal analyses also have the potential to informour perspectives on craft economy (e.g., Janusek,1999). In ancient Mesoamerica for example, bone oftenprovided an important raw material from which toolsand ornaments were made (e.g., Caso, 1965). Yetancient Mesoamerican bone artifacts often aredescribed apart from dietary faunal assemblages, andfew attempts have been made to understand the pro-duction of bone artifacts as part of a continuum ofutilization for animal products that includes bothsubsistence and nonsubsistence uses.

In this paper, we examine the faunal assemblagesat two Classic period sites in the central valleys ofOaxaca: El Palmillo and Ejutla (Figure 1). By compar-ing both the subsistence patterns and the use of skeletal

materials in craft production at these sites, we broadenthe analytical window for assessing household andcommunity variation in economic activities. Neverthe-less, this faunal study clearly is not sufficient to answerthe full suite of economic questions about Classicperiod Oaxaca previously raised. To do so wouldrequire both more excavations and a wider range ofartifactual analyses.

Yet the inclusion of dietary bone and bone artifactsin a single study does provide an informative avenue ofresearch. Significantly, this analysis of a single artifactclass (bone remains) indicates overarching similaritiesbetween the two investigated sites in one economic

sphere (subsistence) while pointing to rather differentpatterns of use in another (domestic craft production).

In the next section, we begin by providing thegeographic context and history of research for thetwo sites. We then discuss the nature of the faunalassemblages and the basic methodologies we employedto study them. Subsequently, we examine and comparethese assemblages with an eye toward subsistence andthen domestic craft production. To further inform ourstudy, we situate the results of the faunal investigationwithin broader findings that compare/contrast theother artifactual assemblages from Ejutla and ElPalmillo. By so doing, we outline intraregional simi-larities and differences in household subsistence andproduction strategies, which provide an important

building block for understanding the Classic-periodeconomy in the Valley of Oaxaca.

El Palmillo and Ejutla

Ejutla and El Palmillo are large, contemporaneous,prehispanic settlements located at the margins ofthe Valley of Oaxaca (Figure 1). Both sites werefirst settled as small communities during the laterFormative period (c. 300200 ). Subsequently, theyeach expanded during the Classic period (c. 200800) and became major centres in their respective

Chiapas

Ejutla

N

0 200

km

Oaxaca

Veracruz

Yucatan

Puebla

Guerrero

El Palmillo

Tlacolula

MonteAlbn

'

Figure 1. The Valley of Oaxaca showing places mentioned in the text.

234 W. D. Middleton et al.


3/17

regions, with populations that are estimated to

have been in the thousands (Kowalewskiet al., 1989;Feinman & Nicholas, 1990, 1992, 1998). Recentinvestigations at both sites have yielded evidence forspecialized craft production that was situated indomestic settings (Feinman & Nicholas, 1996,2000a, b; Feinman et al., 2000a, b). Beyond thesegeneral characteristics, however, there are importantdifferences between the sites, including their physicalsettings and the nature of their craft economies.

The Ejutla site is situated on the alluvial floor of theEjutla Valley at the southern end of the Valley ofOaxaca (Figure 2). The ancient occupation largely iscovered by the modern district head town of Ejutla deCrespo. Although the site is more than 100 km fromthe Pacific Coast, anomalous quantities of marine shelldebris were noted on the ground surface at Ejutladuring the 19841985 Ejutla Valley Settlement PatternProject (Feinman & Nicholas, 1990, 1992). Throughsubsequent excavations in 19901993, marine shellornament production was documented at the site andsituated in a domestic context (Feinman & Nicholas,1993a, 1994, 1995, 2000a; Feinman et al., 1993;Middleton, 1998).

The excavated portion of the site, situated on theeastern edge of both the ancient and modern settle-ment, consists of a single Classic-period residentialcomplex (Figure 3). In addition to the house, several

ceramic pit kilns, a number of midden areas, twoburials, and a multi-interment tomb below the floorof the structure were excavated. The nature of theceramics and other materials recovered during theexcavations indicate that the house inhabitants werenot elite.

During the excavations we determined that, inaddition to shell ornaments, household members pro-duced a variety of ceramic forms, including comales(tortilla griddles), sahumadores (incense burners),and figurines. They also crafted lesser quantities oflapidary objects and chipped-stone tools, mostspecifically chert microdrills for perforating the shell

ornaments. Although the production and exchange ofshell ornaments, ceramics, and possibly lapidaryitems were major economic activities of the house-hold (Feinman & Nicholas, 1993b, 1995; Balkanskyet al., 1997; Feinman & Balkansky, 1997; Middleton,

1998), chipped-stone tools appear to have beencrafted for use in the production of marine shellornaments and not for exchange (Feinman &Nicholas, 1993b, 1995; Middleton, 1998). Based onthe quantity of spindle whorls recovered during theinvestigations, textile production (probably cotton,based on the size of the spindle whorls; see Parsons,1972) also may have been enacted by the excavatedhousehold.

In contrast, El Palmillo is a large terraced site (over1400 terraces) situated on the top and sides of a highrocky hill at the outskirts of the modern town ofSantiago Matatlan, in the extreme eastern end of theTlacolula arm of the Valley of Oaxaca (Figure 4). The

site was originally recorded in 1980 during the Valleyof Oaxaca Settlement Pattern Project (Kowalewskiet al., 1989) and was later more intensively surveyed,surface collected, and mapped (Feinman & Nicholas,1998). Excavations at the site were initiated in 1999and 2000 (Feinmanet al., 2000a, b).

The excavated portion of the site, on the lower slopeof the hill at the western edge of the settlement, consistsof four complete terraces and parts of several others(Figure 5). The excavated area includes severaldomestic structures, more than 24 burials (includingone small domestic tomb), outside work areas, a smallceramic pit kiln, and two large ovens for cookingmaguey (Agave sp.), a succulent plant with a longhistory of use in the region (Horcasitas & George,1955; Flannery, 1986). In contrast to the excavatedarea at Ejutla, the excavated terraces at El Palmillospan a longer period of occupation (although alsopertaining to the Classic period) and comprise a largernumber of architectural units.

The range of economic specializations at El Palmillodiffered from those at Ejutla. We have found littlemarine shell at El Palmillo, and many of the pieceswe did see were broken or complete ornaments (asopposed to manufacturing debris). The most evidenteconomic activity at El Palmillo was the production ofa range of stone tools from readily available local chert

sources. Given the high volume of production debrisrelative to finished tools, we believe that at least someof the stone tools were produced for exchange. Onecommon variety of chipped stone tool at El Palmillowas a kind of large scraper, raspadores, for processingmaguey (Hester & Heizer, 1976;Robles Garca, 1994).Wild agave is one of the xerophytic plants that areabundant on site today, possibly a relict communityfrom the sites prehispanic occupation. Based on thelarge size of spindle whorls at the site (see Parsons,1972), it appears that maguey also was used in theproduction of fibre and textiles, some possibly forexchange.

Figure 2. The Ejutla Valley. The Ejutla archaeological site is locatedbeneath the modern town in the center of the photograph.

Domestic Faunal Assemblages from the Classic Period Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico 235


4/17

With only one small pit kiln and many fewerkilnwasters and other manufacturing evidence, ceramicproduction at El Palmillo appears to have been enacted

at a smaller scale than at Ejuta and was focusedon utilitarian forms. As with Ejutla, location of theexcavated terraces near the base of the slope and the

40 E22 E

2 S

24 N

22 N

20 N

18 N

16 N

14 N

12 N

10 N

8 N

6 N

4 N

2 N

0 N

38 E36 E34 E32 E30 E28 E26 E24 E

Limits of excavation

0 2 4 m

Ceramic firing areas

Modern drain pipe

Colonial pit

Modern pit

Dense concentrations of shell

Figure 3. The excavated area at Ejutla.



5/17

materials recovered indicate the households were

nonelite.Another key difference between the sites is theirenvironmental settings. The Ejutla site, situated on thevalley floor and next to the Ro Ejutla, is surroundedby high-quality agricultural land on which sufficientquantities of maize could be grown (Feinman &Nicholas, 1990). El Palmillo, on the other hand, islocated in the rocky foothills of the mountainsdemarcating the eastern end of the Tlacolula arm ofthe Valley of Oaxac. It is positioned in one of the driestparts of the region. There is little arable land nearbyand rainfall is unreliable. Therefore, maize agricultureat El Palmillo would have been a much riskierenterprise than at Ejutla. The large population at El

Palmillo most likely would have been at risk offood shortages in most years if its inhabitants reliedprimarily on maize agriculture(Nicholas, 1989). Basedon our recent findings, especially the maguey ovensand the specialized tools for processing maguey, wesuspect that maguey and other xerophytic plantsplayed an important role in subsistence at the site(maguey cultivation provides the mainstay of thepresent-day economy of the region [Sanchez Lopez,1989]).

The Faunal Assemblages and Their Analysis

Our comparison of faunal assemblages is based onmaterials recovered at Ejutla during the 19901993field seasons and at El Palmillo during the 19992000field seasons. We employed similar excavationstrategies and unearthed comparable volumes ofsediment at both sites (123 m3 at Ejutla and 152 m3 atEl Palmillo, excluding colluvial or alluvial fill).Contexts were designated on the basis of the stratigra-phy and features encountered (e.g., Harris, 1989). Allundisturbed deposits at each site were screened with

1

4or

1

8 mesh, depending on the context of the excavatedlevels. Recovery rates of faunal materials at each site,therefore, are comparable.

A reference collection was used for the identificationof significant taxa. This collection was assembled to aidthe identification of the most common food animalslisted in the literature of highland Mesoamerica. Thereference collection did not, however, include small

rodents, reptiles, fish, or birds (other than turkey,Meleagris gallopavo); these taxa were identified only tothe level of class, order, or family. As they constituteonly a small percentage of either assemblage and manyare unlikely to have been significant food resources(particularly the small rodents, reptiles, and birds), theimpact of this analytical tack is suspected to have beenminimal.

Both assemblages were highly fragmented, mostlikely as the combined consequence of butchering,trampling, dog gnawing, and the production of boneartifacts (Table 1). As a result, many bone fragmentswere unidentifiable or identifiable with a low degree ofspecificity. All bone fragments were identified to the

most specific taxonomic level possible (Table 2). Thoseelements that could not be identified at least to the levelof class were counted, but are excluded from thisanalysis. Much of each assemblage was identifiableonly as large, medium, or small mammal. For thoseelements that could be identified at least to the level ofgenus, we recorded the skeletal element represented,specific portion, and side of the body. Any modifica-tions to the specimens (such as burning, cut marks, anddog or rodent chew marks) also were noted, regardlessof the level of specificity to which the piece could beidentified. Bone tools, ornaments, and specimens withmore extensive modification than would be expected asa result of butchery were identified as artifacts (tools,ornaments, and worked bone) and treated separatelyfrom the rest of the assemblage.

In addition to the fragmentary animal remainsfound in the midden at Ejutla and scattered through-out the other contexts at both sites, several sets ofremains were recovered that clearly were not food orcraft production debris. The complete remains of asingle dog were recovered from the tomb at Ejutla, anddeliberate burials of a pair of egrets and a singleturkey, as well as a single dog mandible included in ahuman burial, were recovered at El Palmillo. Theceremonial treatments of animal remains help make anevident distinction between food and craft remains on

the one hand and ritual uses of fauna on the other; theyalso indicate that the inhabitants of these two sitesparticipated in the wider Mesoamerican cultural spherein which animals served ritual as well as subsistencepurposes (e.g., Merwin & Vaillant, 1932; Pohl &Feldman, 1982; Hamblin, 1984; Carr, 1985; Pohl,1985b, 1994; Grove, 1987; Valadez Azua et al .,1999). These rather distinctive ceremonial treatmentsconstitute a very small proportion of the faunalassemblages at both sites and are excluded from ouranalyses.

The assemblages at Ejutla and El Palmillo representtwo rather different sets of formation and taphonomic

Figure 4. The site of El Palmillo. The majority of the Classic-periodpopulation lived on the heavily terraced hillside.



6/17

2 N

22 E

34 N

T.1162

2 E

4 N

6 N

8 N

10 N

12 N

14 N

16 N

18 N

20 N

22 N

24 N

26 N

28 N

30 N

32 N

20 E18 E16 E14 E12 E10 E8 E6 E4 E

T.1147

Patio

Ret

enti

on

wa

ll

0 N, 0 E

Limits of excavation

0 2 4 m

T.1161Burial Offering

Drain

T.1148

Lowest retentionwall of T.1127

Pla

ste

r

Pla

ster

Access

Patio

T.1163Stair

s

Pla

sterR

etention

wall

Stair

s

Figure 5. The excavated terraces at El Palmillo.



7/17

processes. The span of occupation on the excavatedterraces at El Palmillo covers at least several hundredyears and the remains of domestic architecture areabundant; there are two separate residential com-plexes, several single structures, and a large numberof features. The area we excavated in Ejutla, on theother hand, has a comparatively short span of occu-pation (c. 100 years), a single residential structure, andrelatively few features. As a result, there are morediscrete archaeological contexts at El Palmillo than atEjutla.

Ejutla, however, has an extensive midden in whichboth craft production debris and domestic waste were

deposited, while there were no true middens at ElPalmillo (several trash accumulations were excavatedat the base of terrace walls, but these were not delib-erate midden deposits). These depositional distinctionslikely could help account for the substantial difference

in the overall size of the two assemblages. El Palmillosfaunal assemblage is considerably smaller thanEjutlas, despite the former sites longer period ofoccupation and larger number of separate residentialunits.

Given the differences between the formation andtaphonomic processes that created the two assem-blages, comparisons must be undertaken with caution.To help overcome issues of comparability, we employseveral indices to characterize the assemblages. Inaddition to the number of identified specimens (NISP),we calculated the minimum number of individuals(MNI) and the percent minimum anatomical units(MAU) for each taxon at each site.

MNI figures were calculated following the methoddescribed byWhite (1953);the most abundant skeletalelement for each taxon represents the minimumnumber of individuals from which the remains of thetaxon could have derived. Piece by piece comparisonswere not made between potentially redundant elementsto increase their number on the basis of differences inage or size (e.g., Flannery, 1967). MNI figures wereaggregated by archaeological context (the same unitsused in the analysis of other artifact classes). As aresult, MNI estimates are somewhat higher for the ElPalmillo assemblage than for the Ejutla assemblage,despite the latters larger size. Given the longeroccupation and multiple residential units at ElPalmillo, the higher MNI estimates are not surprisingor unreasonable.

Percent MAU estimates were calculated for eachtaxon as the ratio of the MNI estimate for eachanatomical unit (cranial, axial, forelimb, and hindlimb)to the MNI estimate for the most abundant anatomicalunit. Thus the percent MAU estimates are used here toprovide an indication of the completeness of skeletalrepresentation for each taxon. Estimates were calucu-lated only for the securely identified taxa and with theassemblages aggregated as a whole (due to the lowoccurrence of identified specimens in many of thesmaller contexts).

Although multiple indices give us several means bywhich the two assemblages can be compared, eachof these indices has limitations. NISP figures arebiased towards larger taxa that have more identifiableelements (and hence more redundant elements) andagainst smaller taxa whose elements are more subjectto attrition and may be recovered at lower rates. MNIestimates are influenced by aggregation units, andpercent MAU estimates are influenced by both cul-tural (butchery, transport) and natural (element attri-tion) processes (Grayson, 1984; Klein & Cruz-Uribe,1984; Reitz & Wing, 1999). Given these potentialmeasurement discrepancies, we use the indexes in

Table 1. Total bone counts and weights for the analysed assemblages atEjutla and El Palmillo

El Palmillo Ejutla

Total count* 4083 7712

Total mass (g) 31151 36953Avg. mass 076 048

*Excludes bone from colluvial/alluvial fill and burials, but includesall other bone.

Table 2. Taxa identified at El Palmillo and Ejutla

Class MammaliaUnidentified large mammal (most likely human or deer)Unidentified medium mammal (most likely dog or jackrabbit)Unidentified small mammal (most likely cottontail rabbit or squirrel)Order Marsupialis

Opossum (Didelphis marsupialis)Order Leopridae

Cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus)Jackrabbit (Lepus callotis)

Order RodentiaSmall rodents (almost exclusively Family Cricetidae)Medium rodents (other unidentified rodents)Gray squirrel (Sciurus poliopus)

Order CarnivoraDog (Canis familiaris)Coyote (Canis latrans; represented by a single atlas, only at Ejutla)Gray fox (Urocyon cineroargentus; represented by a single man-

dible, only at Ejutla)Order Artiodactyla

Deer (Odocoileus virginianus)Peccary (Dicotyles tajacu; represented by two mandible fragments,only at El Palmillo)Class Reptilia

Order SquamataLizard (small individuals)Snake (at least two species represented)

Order TestudinesTurtle (represented only by carapace fragments at both sites; these

fragments are, for the most part very small, and their numbers mayoverstate the actual occurrence of turtle at both sites).Class AvesOrder Neognathae

Unidentified large bird (most likely turkey)Other unidentified bird (mostly small)Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo)

Class OsteichthyesUnidentified fish (represented by very few elements, only at Ejutla)



8/17

combination to provide the strongest base for discuss-ing and comparing the two assemblages.

To understand household and regional economicsimilarities and differences, such comparisons ofarchaeological contexts/assemblages that are notstrictly equivalent are essential. In this spirit we under-take the following analysis with these caveats.Although of different sizes, we treat each assemblage asa random sample of the fauna exploited by nonelitehouseholds at each site. We have not excavated in elitecontexts in either site and cannot address status differ-entiation in diet. Given the differences between the sitesin formation and taphonomy, it cannot be stated that aparticular taxon at one site occurs with greater abso-lute frequency than that, or any other, taxon at theother site. Rather, our analysis must focus on identify-ing the general patterns of faunal exploitation at eachsite, and the comparison of these patterns. In otherwords, we can identify which taxa were more or less

intensively exploited at each site, irrespective of theircomparable food value in relation to the other site. Wecan however point to similarities or differences inemphasis on specific taxa. In such comparisons, MNIestimates offer one important advantage over NISPfigures; they are less subject to the effects of the numberof identifiable elements per taxon and element attritionand under representation (more likely factors in the ElPalmillo assemblage). Although some specialists mayfind this approach less satisfactory than per capitaestimates of meat consumption, our comparisons laythe foundation for understanding variation in the roleof animals in the diets at the two sites.

Subsistence

In terms of overall composition, the faunal assem-blages at Ejutla and El Palmillo are very similar. Fewtaxa appear at only one site, and with the exception ofsquirrel, these varieties that are found at only oneof the sites are extremely minor components of theassemblage in which they occur (Table 3). Althoughthere is a substantial size difference between the twoassemblages and locational variation between the sites,the proportionate composition of each assemblage byspecies is surprisingly similar, with the most securelyidentified taxadog, deer, cottontail, and jackrabbitoccurring in the same rank order. Although the extentof this similarity was unexpected, these taxa did serveas key sources of meat across much of later prehispanichighland Mesoamerica (e.g.,Flannery, 1967;Starbuck,1987;Crawford, 1992).

In the remaining discussions we base most of our

comparisons between Ejutla and El Palmillo on themost securely identified taxa for which all indices(NISP, MNI, and percent MAU) can be calculated andwhich occur with sufficient frequency to permit mean-ingful analysis (Table 4). When we focus on these mostprecisely defined specimens, the four most abundanttaxadog, deer, cottontail, and jackrabbitconstitute94% of the assemblage at both sites and appear insimilar proportions(Figure 6).

If we examine the faunal comparison in more detail,the MNI estimates generally are found to mirror theNISP figures(Table 4). Though as might be expected,the two largest taxa (deer and dog) at both sites are

Table 3. Faunal assemblages at El Palmillo and Ejutla

Taxon

El Palmillo Ejutla

NISP % NISP NISP % NISP

Artifact 84 282% 58 108%Bird-large 238 798% 78 145%Bird-other 36 121% 0 000%Cottontail rabbit 39 131% 193 358%Coyote 0 000% 1 002%Deer 63 211% 259 480%Dog 143 479% 504 934%Fish 0 000% 6 011%Fox 0 000% 1 002%Jackrabbit 32 107% 85 158%Opossum 3 010% 13 024%Peccary 2 007% 0 000%Reptile 52 174% 50 093%Rodent-medium 7 023% 2 004%Rodent-small 52 174% 42 078%Snake 4 013% 26 048%Squirrel 0 000% 43 080%

Turkey 14 047% 5 009%Turtle 45 151% 228 423%Unidentified large mammal 1019 3416% 1661 3079%Unidentified medium mammal 993 3329% 1600 2966%Unidentified small mammal 157 526% 540 1001%

Total 2983 5395



9/17

somewhat overrepresented in NISP figures with respectto MNI estimates, and the smaller taxa are somewhatunderrepresented. Based on either NISP counts orMNI estimates it appears that the inhabitants of

both sites were following similar faunal exploitationstrategies, with the greatest emphasis placed on dogs,followed by lagomorphs and deer.

Given the ecological differences between the settingsof the two sites, more substantial differences betweenthe assemblages, such as a greater emphasis on deer atEl Palmillo, might have been expected. That site ismore proximate than Ejutla to the preferred upland

habitat of deer. Yet dogs are the most abundanttaxon at both sites. These animals are thought tohave primarily been fed plant foods (Wing, 1978;Clutton-Brock & Hammond, 1994; Coe, 1994;

Schwartz, 1997), although the chew marks on many ofthe specimens from both Ejutla and El Palmillo indi-cate that they also scavenged. The raising of dogstherefore represents a viable means of producing ahigh-quality food resource that could have provided animportant contribution to the diet.

Although the overall similarities between the twoassemblages appear meaningful, there also are subtle,yet important, differences. For example, a slightlygreater emphasis on the smaller mammals (cottontail,jackrabbit, opossum, and squirrel) is evident at Ejutla,while the two domesticates together (dog and turkey)are more prevalent at El Palmillo. These patterns arestrengthened by inclusion of less securely identifiedtaxa (Table 3). Unidentified small mammals, mostlikely squirrel or cottontail rabbit, are a larger com-ponent of the Ejutla assemblage, while unidentifiedlarge birds, most likely turkey, are more prevalent atEl Palmillo than Ejutla.

Based on the percent MAU estimates, all anatomicalunits are present for most taxa(Table 5). Yet while notaxon has perfectly uniform representation of all bodyparts, dog is grossly overrepresented by cranial units atEjutla. This overrepresentation is due entirely to looseteeth; particularly loose canines. Forty-two percent(213 of 504) of all specimens identified as dog at Ejutlaare loose teeth (excluding teeth that were in place or

could be refit into an empty socket). The loose teethinclude far more canines than would be expected in anatural assemblage. If the assemblage mirrored thenatural occurrence of dogs teeth, 95% of all looseteeth should be canines; instead, 338% of all looseteeth are canines.

Importantly, no other subsistence taxon, at eithersite, shows such a pattern. Clearly, something unusualwas happening with dog remains at Ejutla. A similarpattern of overrepresentation of unarticulated humanteeth also was noted at Ejutla, but not El Palmillo.Although much of the loose human bone found inmiddens and other deposits appears to be the result of

Table 4. MNI-NISP comparison of major taxa at El Palmillo and Ejutla

Taxon

El Palmillo Ejutla

NISP % NISP MNI % Individuals NISP % NISP MNI % Individuals

Cottontail 39 1327% 25 2000% 193 1751% 20 2128%Deer 63 2143% 25 2000% 259 2350% 15 1596%Dog 143 4864% 43 3440% 504 4574% 29 3085%Jackrabbit 32 1088% 17 1360% 85 771% 15 1596%Opossum 3 102% 3 240% 13 118% 3 319%Squirrel 0 000% 0 000% 43 390% 7 745%Turkey 14 476% 12 960% 5 045% 5 532%

Total 294 125 1102 94

0.00

35.00

Taxon

(b)

Assemblage(%

)

30.00

25.0020.00

15.00

10.00

5.00

Deer

Dog

Jackrabb

it

Opo

ssum

Rabb

it

Squirr

el

Turk

ey

0.00

50.00

Taxon

(a)

Assemblag

e(%)

30.0025.00

20.00

15.00

10.00

5.00

Deer

Dog

Jackrabb

it

Opo

ssum

Rabb

it

Squirr

el

Turk

ey

35.00

40.00

45.00 Ejutla

El Palmillo

Figure 6. Comparison of NISP (a) and MNI (b) percentages in theEjutla and El Palmillo faunal assemblages.



10/17

periodic tomb cleaning (Middletonet al., 1998), 39% ofthe nonburial human bone fragments at Ejutla areteeth.

It seems likely that the high number of dog teethassociated with the Ejutla household does not reflectsubsistence activities alone but is the result of otheruses of dog remains. Thus we recalculated NISP andMNI figures excluding loose teeth (Table 6). Theabundance of dog at Ejutla decreases in these newfigures. Therefore, our earlier NISP and MNI figures(Table 4)may somewhat overrepresent dog as a foodresource in the excavated household at Ejutla, yet dogclearly remains one of the most important taxa at thesite. This slight shift in emphasis does, however,strengthen the subtle differences noted above in sub-sistence strategies at the two sitesgreater reliance onsmall mammals at Ejutla versus domesticated animals

at El Palmillo. Given the more marginal uplandsetting of El Palmillo in the dry eastern arm of thevalley, domesticated animals may have assumed amore important role than at Ejutla, where smallmammals, particularly lagomorphs, could have beensnared in and around agricultural fields in conjunctionwith other agricultural duties.

Nonsubsistence Uses of Bone

The prevalence of dog teeth in nonritual contexts atEjutla raises the issue of why did we find so many loose

teeth in and around the excavated residential structureand what were they used for? There are a number ofpossible explanations for the abundance of loose dogteeth at Ejutla. One possibility is that teeth, as a highlydurable and most often preserved skeletal part (Olsen,1971), may be the only element remaining afterweather, traffic, and scavengers have destroyed mostother skeletal units or reduced them to unidentifiablefragments. However, no other taxon is overrepresentedby loose teeth in our excavations. Another possibleexplanation is that dog teeth are sufficiently largeenough to be preferentially recovered by screening.However, if this were the case, deer teeth, larger still,also should be preferentially recovered. Yet deer teethare underrepresented relative to other elements, andjackrabbits, with smaller teeth, are evenly representedat Ejutla.

A third interpretation is that dog teeth were prefer-entially collected and curated at the site. A majoreconomic activity at Ejutla was the production ofmarine shell ornaments, including beads and pendants.In various areas of Mesoamerica, necklaces that strungtogether shell and bone beads with animal and humanteeth have been found (Merwin & Vaillant, 1932;Thompson, 1939; Kidder et al., 1946; Kidder, 1947;Pollock & Ray, 1957;Pollocket al., 1962;Willey, 1972;Drennan, 1976;Suarez, 1977,1981;Pohl & Feldman,1982; Hamblin, 1984; Kolb, 1987; Garber, 1989;Howell & Evans-Copeland, 1989; Hansen, 1990).Tooth-shaped ornaments carved from a variety of

Table 5. Percent MAU at El Palmillo and Ejutla

Unit Cottontail Deer Dog Jackrabbit Opossum Squirrel Turkey

Ejutla Cranial 50 100 100 (100) 100 50 25 0Axial 33 66 15 (60) 33 50 50 0

Forelimb 50 100 20 (80) 100 100 50 50Hindlimb 100 100 20 (80) 66 0 100 100

El Palmillo Cranial 25 50 100 33 100 N/A 0Axial 50 100 50 100 0 N/A 0Forelimb 25 100 75 66 0 N/A 66Hindlimb 100 100 75 100 0 N/A 100

Parentheses indicate %MAU estimate excluding loose teeth-all other estimates unchanged by exclusion of loose teeth.

Table 6. MNI-NISP comparison of major taxa (excluding loose teeth) at El Palmillo and Ejutla

Taxon

El Palmillo Ejutla

NISP % NISP MNI % Individuals NISP % NISP MNI % Individuals

Cottontail 33 1331% 25 2000% 145 1833% 20 2469%Deer 60 2419% 25 2000% 226 2857% 15 1852%Dog 106 4274% 43 3440% 291 3679% 16 1975%Jackrabbit 32 1290% 17 1360% 69 872% 15 1852%Opossum 3 121% 3 240% 12 152% 3 370%Squirrel 0 000% 0 000% 43 544% 7 864%Turkey 14 565% 12 960% 5 063% 5 617%

Total 248 125 791 81



11/17

materials, particularly shell, also have been reported(Siliceo Pauer, 1925; Merwin & Vaillant, 1932; Coe,1959). Clearly, teeth were used for ornamentation, andthe decorative use of teeth and shells frequently wereassociated in ancient Mesoamerica. Finally, we didrecover a single, drilled dog incisor during the Ejutla

excavations (Figure 7). A similar pattern for dog teeth,including the preponderance of canines, also has beennoted at the Maya site of Cozumel (Yucatan), whereHamblin (1984)has proposed that the dog canines mayhave been employed in ornament manufacture (see alsoPohl & Feldman, 1982,for Polbilche cave in the Mayaregion).

Although only one of the loose teeth at Ejutla wasfinished into an ornament, this low ratio of finishedornaments to raw or unfinished material is similar tothe recovery rate for complete versus in-process marineshell artifacts at the site (Feinman & Nicholas, 1993b,1995, 2000a). Such ratios are not unexpected for aproduction context. The disproportionate abundance

of loose dog teeth therefore would seem to reflect theacquisition and/or curation of raw material for orna-ment production. Undoubtedly, the loose dog teeth didoriginate as food waste somewhere (possibly at nearbyresidences), but the fact that they were accumulated inexcess of other skeletal elements at the excavatedhousehold indicates that more than simple subsistenceand discard behaviours were involved.

Bone artifacts and production

A small subset of bone remains at both sites wasclassified as artifacts. Given the anomalous abundance

of dog teeth at Ejutla and the evidence for craftactivities at both sites, we examined the faunal assem-blages for indications of bone artifact production. Todistinguish between natural and cultural modificationsto bone is by no means easy (Binford, 1981;Stanford

et al., 1981;Johnson, 1985;Schrenk & Maguire, 1988;Shipman, 1988). It is even more difficult to separatemodifications to bone that result from food processingfrom those that result from the manufacture ofbone artifacts (Johnson, 1985;Shipman & Rose, 1988;Johnson et al., 2000). As a consequence, we relied onmultiple lines of evidence to identify bone artifactproduction, including the artifacts themselves andthe overall occurrence of skeletal elements in theassemblage. As discussed above for dog teeth, a dis-proportionate occurrence of specific skeletal elements(or portions thereof) can indicate the curation of rawmaterials or the presence of production waste (e.g.,Janusek, 1999).

Bone artifacts were classified as tools, ornaments, orworked bone. For the most part, the categories of bonetools that we employed followed those that have beenwidely used by other researchers (Hodge, 1920;Thompson, 1939; Kidder et al., 1946; Kidder, 1947;Coe, 1959;MacNeish et al., 1967;Willey, 1972;Beach& Causey, 1984; Howell & Evans-Copeland, 1989;Hansen, 1990). Nevertheless, the specific artifactcategories ultimately employed were fine-tuned onthe basis of the tools that were recovered in theassemblages at Ejutla and El Palmillo (Table 7).

In this regard, one category of bone tool, battens,requires particular mention. We classified tools asbattens on the basis of two characteristics. First, theyare similar in shape to battens used by present-dayweavers working with a back-strap loom. Althoughsome of the battens have a knifelike shape, their edgesare uniformly smooth and rounded rather than sharp.Second, preliminary use-wear studies with low-power,incident light microscopy reveal that, although thereare deep longitudinal striations (presumably from theinitial shaping of the tool), these had been partiallyobliterated by a very fine polish along the edge, tip, anddistal shaft, but not in the area of the proximal shaft.This pattern could be the result of repeated, fineabrasion along these areas, which would be consistentwith the tools use as a batten. Similar artifacts

also have been identified as battens elsewhere inhighland Mexico(MacNeish et al., 1967;McCafferty &McCafferty, 1994).

Even though bone artifacts constitute a very smallfraction of the overall bone remains at both sites, thedifferences between the artifact assemblages are strik-ing (Table 8). The majority of bone artifacts at Ejutlaare fragments of worked bone, of which 20 are small,polished plaques (Figure 8). Many of these polishedbone rectangles are darkened, possibly by deliberateburning or heating. Many also are broken on one ormore edges and thus may be production failures.Interestingly, plaques also are one of the most common

Figure 7. Drilled dog incisor recovered at Ejutla.



12/17

shell artifacts at Ejutla and are thought to have beenused in larger mosaic pieces (Figure 9;Noguera, 1971;Feinman & Nicholas, 1993b). The bone plaques may

have been used in a similar fashion. The remainder ofthe worked and modified bone appears to be wastefrom the production of bone artifacts.

Bone ornaments are rare at Ejutla. Most are pen-dants, all but one of which are broken across theperforation and may be production failures (due toperforation error). The exception is the drilled dogincisor mentioned above. As with the curated dogteeth, the pendants may have been intended for use innecklaces or other ornamental objects in tandem withshell beads.

Several classes of bone tools at Ejutla (battens,needles, and perforators) appear to have been used intextile manufacture (Table 8;Figure 10). Based on thesmall size of the ceramic spindle whorls at Ejutla (e.g.,Parsons, 1972), it is likely that these tools were used forcotton textiles. But based on the low incidence of all of

Table 7. Categories of bone tools recovered at El Palmillo and Ejutla

Tool Description Specifications

Awl Pointed tool with straight edges and a broad tip. Made froma large animal long bone, often a deer metapodial.

Mid-shaft width


13/17

these likely textile-associated artifacts, this activitydoes not appear to have been a specialized economicfocus of the Ejutla household and seems to have been

largely for immediate use.Bone artifacts, especially tools, are more abundant

at El Palmillo than at Ejutla (Table 8). Bone toolsdominate the El Palmillo bone artifact assemblage(almost 75% compared to 25% for Ejutla). Most of thetools (awls, perforator/needles, battens, and spindlewhorls) are related to textile or fibre production(Figure 11). These findings are noteworthy in thecontext of other indications that maguey fibre produc-tion was a major economic activity at El Palmillo. Thelatter include large stone scrapers that have beenproposed as maguey-processing tools (Hester &Heizer, 1972; Robles Garca, 1994) and large spindle

whorls that have been identified for spinning maguey

fibre rather than cotton (see Parsons, 1972); both

classes of artifacts are relatively common at the site(Feinmanet al. 2000a, b).

In contrast, worked bone constitutes less than 25%of the El Palmillo bone artifact assemblage (comparedto almost two-thirds for Ejutla). The worked bone atEl Palmillo includes only two pieces that resemble theplaques from Ejutla and two pieces that are likelybatten production failures. The remainder of theworked and modified bone appears mostly to be smallwaste fragments from the production of the bone tools.

As at Ejutla, there were few bone ornaments at ElPalmillo (1 ring, 2 pendants, and 2 beads). But incontrast to Ejutla, all but the ring are complete, rather

than apparent production failures. Bone ornament

Figure 9. Shell plaques from Ejutla, which were likely intended formosaic inlay.

Figure 10. Bone tools from Ejutla include awls, battens, needles, and perforators.

Figure 11. Bone tools from El Palmillo include awls, battens, billets,needles, perforators, and spindle whorls.



14/17

production, if it took place at all, was a minor activityin the excavated area at El Palmillo.

In sum, the use of bone remains in the production ofornaments and tools at both El Palmillo and Ejutlawas markedly different. The focus on bone artifact

production at Ejutla appears to have been onornaments that complemented marine shell craftwork.In contrast, the use of bone artifacts at El Palmillofocused on tools. Although the majority of bone toolsat both sites appear to be related to textile production(cotton at Ejutla and maguey cloth at El Palmillo),tools are much more abundant at El Palmillo, in bothabsolute and relative terms. The abundance of thesetools, together with other indicators of textile produc-tion, provide some indications that cloth manufactureoccurred at a somewhat higher intensity at El Palmilloand was more likely geared for exchange rather thanimmediate use.

Discussion and Conclusions

Through our analysis of the bone assemblages at Ejutlaand El Palmillo, we have endeavored to affirm theimportance of faunal analysis for the study of complex,food-producing societies. To date, in Mesoamericanarchaeology, published analyses of later prehispanicfaunal assemblages are rather scarce althoughnotable exceptions certainly exist (e.g.,Flannery, 1967;Hamblin, 1984; Starbuck, 1987). Given the wealth ofcompelling research issues, the traditionally acknowl-edged importance of maize agriculture from theFormative period onward, and the limited rangeof domesticated animals that were kept by ancientMesoamericans, it may sometimes seem as if faunalanalysis is not central to the study of Classic-periodsocieties. This investigation focused on Ejutla and ElPalmillo endeavous to illustrate that not only canfaunal analysis provide useful insights into subsistencestrategies, but also that the examination of boneartifacts and tools within a production framework canilluminate diverse strategies of economic specialization.In conjunction, these findings are clearly pivotal toan understanding of Classic-period Mesoamericaneconomy and society.

In regard to subsistence, the composition of the

faunal assemblages at the two sites is remarkablysimilar. Dog, deer, and lagomorphs constitute the bulkof the securely identified taxa at both sites, a generalpattern they share with other locations in highlandMesoamerica. Similar strategies of faunal exploitationare apparent, although subtle differences also werefound. Dog was an abundant taxa at both sites. Yetdomesticated taxa (dog and turkey collectively) appearto have been slightly more important food resources atEl Palmillo. Given the more precarious setting of thesite in the dry eastern arm of the valley, an emphasis onreliable domesticated animals may have been moreimportant than at Ejutla, where small game may have

been more easily snared in nearby fields in conjunctionwith agricultural tasks. A relatively greater reliance onthe husbandry of domestic animals at El Palmillo mayreflect an attempt to manage food production in theface of a drier, more agriculturally marginal setting. If

the faunal remains from these two Valley of Oaxacasites were just considered from the perspective ofsubsistence, one might see little basis for site-to-sitedifferentiation and scant basis for intraregionaleconomic interdependence.

Of course, the apparent broad parallels in meatprocurement between the two valley sites do notnecessarily reflect subsistence strategies as a whole. Ouraforementioned archaeological findings highlight therole of xerophytic plants (especially maguey) at ElPalmillo. These findings, along with diachronicanalyses of human-land relations (Nicholas, 1989) andpost-contact ethnohistoric accounts pertinent to thedry eastern arm of the Valley of Oaxaca (Horcasitas &

George, 1955), lead us to propose that maize may haveplayed a more central role in the diet at Ejutla than itdid at El Palmillo.

At the same time, a significant difference wasobserved between the Ejutla and El Palmillo faunalassemblages in the use of skeletal materials for non-subsistence activities. At Ejutla, bone remains,especially dog teeth, were employed in specializedornament manufacture. In contrast at El Palmillo,bone remains were made into tools that then served inthe specialized production of maguey textiles. As aresult, a more inclusive consideration of faunal remainsthat examines this artifact class both as a food resourceand as a raw material in craft activities helps highlightkey economic differences between the households atthese two Classic-period sites in the Valley of Oaxaca.

These marked differences in domestic activities indi-cate that not only the were the investigated householdsat both sites not engaged in precisely the same subsist-ence pursuits, but that they produced for the largerregional economy in distinct ways. We do not under-stand all the mechanisms through which the exchangebetween households and communities was enacted.Nonetheless, these findings provide an importantempirical building block that documents diversity inhousehold economic strategies and so a significantdegree of intraregional interdependency that appears

to have characterized the Classic-period economy inthe Valley of Oaxaca.

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the National ScienceFoundation support given to the second author for theexcavations at Ejutla (BNS 8919164, BNS 9105780,SBR9304258) and El Palmillo (SBR9805288). Wealso appreciate the valuable support received from theNational Geographic Society, the H. John HeinzCharitable Trust, the Vilas Foundation and the



15/17

Graduate School of the University of Wisconsin, ArvinB. Weinstein, and The Field Museum. This studywould not have been possible without the dedicatedassistance of our field and laboratory crews, to whomwe are grateful. Finally, we profoundly thank the

Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia ofMexico, the Centro Regional of Oaxaca, and the localauthorities of Ejutla de Crespo and Santiago Matatlanfor permission to implement these field studies andtheir essential assistance at various stages of theresearch. Richard Klein and two anonymous reviewersprovided valuable commentary for which we thankthem, although any shortcomings of this analysisremain the responsibility of the authors.

References

Balkansky, A. K., Feinman, G. M. & Nicholas, L. M. (1997).Pottery kilns of ancient Ejutla, Oaxaca, Mexico. Journal of Field

Archaeology 24, 139160.Beach, M. A. & Causey, C. S. (1984). Bone artifacts from Arroyo

Hondo Pueblo. In (R. W. Lang & A. H. Harris, Eds) The FaunalRemains from Arroyo Hondo Pueblo, New Mexico. Santa Fe:School of American Research Press, pp. 187225.

Binford, L. R. (1981). Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. NewYork: Academic Press.

Blanton, R. E. (1978). Monte Alban: Settlement Patterns at theAncient Zapotec Capital. New York: Academic Press.

Carr, H. S. (1985). Subsistence and ceremony: faunal utilization in alate Preclassic community at Cerros, Belize. In (M. Pohl, Ed.)Prehistoric Lowland Maya Environment and Subsistence Economy.Cambridge: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology,pp. 115132.

Carr, H. S. (1986). Preliminary results of analysis of fauna. In (R. A.Robertson & D. A. Freidel, Eds) Archaeology at Cerros Belize,

Central America, Volume I, An Interim Report. Dallas: SouthernMethodist University Press, pp. 127146.

Caso, A. (1965). Mixtec writing and calendar. In (G. R. Willey, Ed.)Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 3: Archaeology ofSouthern Mesoamerica, Part 2. Austin: University of Texas Press,pp. 948961.

Caso, A., Bernal, I. & Acosta, J. (1967). La Ceramica de MonteAlban. Memorias 13. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional deAntropologa e Historia.

Clutton-Brock, J. & Hammond, N. (1994). Hot-dogs: comestiblecanids in Preclassic Maya culture at Cuello, Belize. Journal ofArchaeological Science21, 819826.

Coe, M. D. & Diehl, R. A. (1980). In the Land of the Olmec: TheArchaeology of San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan, Vol I. Austin: Universityof Texas Press.

Coe, S. D. (1994). Americas First Cuisines. Austin: University ofTexas Press.

Coe, W. R. (1959). Piedras Negras Archaeology: Artifacts, Caches,and Burials. Philadelphia: The University Museum.

Crawford, J. (1992). Animal Resource Exploitation at Cerro de lasMinas. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology,University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana.

Drennan, R. D. (1976). Fabrica San Jose and Middle FormativeSociety in the Valley of Oaxaca. Museum of AnthropologyMemoirs 8. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Feinman, G. M. & Balkansky, A. K. (1997). Ceramic firing inancient and modern Oaxaca. In (P. Rice, Ed.) Prehistory andHistory of Ceramic Kilns. Westerville, OH: American CeramicSociety, pp. 129147.

Feinman, G. M. & Nicholas, L. M. (1990). At the margins of theMonte Alban state: settlement patterns in the Ejutla Valley,Oaxaca, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 1, 216246.

Feinman, G. M. & Nicholas, L. M. (1992). Prehispanic interregionalinteraction in southern Mexico: the Valley of Oaxaca and theEjutla Valley. In (E. Schortman & P. Urban, Eds) Resources,Power, and Interregional Interaction. New York: Plenum Press,pp. 75116.

Feinman, G. M. & Nicholas, L. M. (1993 a). La manufactura deornamentos de concha en Ejutla. Final field report of the 1992

season prepared for the Instituto Nacional de Antropologa eHistoria, Mexico.

Feinman, G. M. & Nicholas, L. M. (1993b). Shell ornament produc-tion in Ejutla: implications for highland-coastal interaction inancient Oaxaca. Ancient Mesoamerica 4, 103119.

Feinman, G. M. & Nicholas, L. M. (1994). El proyecto Industrialesartesanales e intercambio prehispanico en Ejutla, Oaxaca, Mexico:el contexto residencial. Final field report of the 1993 seasonprepared for the Instituto Nacional de Antropolog a e Historia,Mexico.

Feinman, G. M. & Nicholas, L. M. (1995). Household craftspecialization and shell ornament manufacture in Ejutla, Mexico.Expedition 37, 1425.

Feinman, G. M. & Nicholas, L. M. (1996). Especializacion artesanalen Ejutla prehispanico. Cuadernos 3(10), 3756.

Feinman, G. M. & Nicholas, L. M. (1998). El mapeo y estudio

intensivo de la superficie de El Palmillo (Matatlan, Oaxaca,Mexico). Final field report of the 1997 season prepared for theInstituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, Mexico.

Feinman, G. M. & Nicholas, L. M. (2000a). High-intensityhousehold-scale production in ancient Mesoamerica: a perspectivefrom Ejutla, Oaxaca. In (G. M. Feinman & L. Manzanilla, Eds)Cultural Evolution, Contemporary Viewpoints. New York: KluwerAcademic/Plenum Publishers, pp. 119142.

Feinman, G. M. & Nicholas, L. M. (2000b). Intensive survey ofhilltop terrace sites in Oaxaca, Mexico. Antiquity 74(283), 2122.

Feinman, G. M., Nicholas, L. M. & Middleton, W. D. (1993). Craftactivities at the prehispanic Ejutla site, Oaxaca, Mexico. Mexicon15,3341.

Feinman, G. M., Nicholas, L. M. & Middleton, W. D. (2000a).El Palmillo: una perspectiva domestica sobre la transicionClasica-Posclasica en el Valle de Oaxaca. Final field report of the

1999 season prepared for the Instituto Nacional de Antropologa eHistoria, Mexico.

Feinman, G. M., Nicholas, L. M. & Middleton, W. D. (2000b).El Palmillo: una perspectiva domestica sobre la transicionClasica-Posclasica en el Valle de Oaxaca. Final field report of the2000 season prepared for the Instituto Nacional de Antropologa eHistoria, Mexico.

Flannery, K. V. (1967). Vertebrate fauna and hunting patterns. In(D. S. Byers, Ed.) The Prehistory of the Tehuacan Valley, VolumeOne: Environment and Subsistence. Austin: University of TexasPress, pp. 132177.

Flannery, K. V. (1986). Ecosystem models and information flow inthe Tehuacan-Oaxaca region. In (K. V. Flannery, Ed.) GuilaNaquitz: Archaic Foraging and Early Agriculture in Oaxaca,Mexico. New York: Academic Press, pp. 1928.

Flannery, K. V. & Marcus, J. (Eds) (1983). The Cloud People:

Divergent Evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations.New York: Academic Press.

Flannery, K. V. & Wheeler, J. C. (1986). Animal food remains frompreceramic Guila Naquitz. In (K. V. Flannery, Ed.)Guila Naquitz:Archaic Foraging and Early Agriculture in Oaxaca, Mexico.New York: Academic Press, pp. 285295.

Garber, J. F. (1989).Archaeology at Cerros Belize, Central America:Volume II The Artifacts. Dallas: Southern Methodist UniversityPress.

Grayson, D. K. (1984). Quantitative Zooarchaeology. New York:Academic Press.

Grove, D. C. (1987). Faunal analysis. In (D. C. Grove, Ed.)AncientChalcatzingo. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 547549.

Hamblin, N. L. (1984). Animal Use by the Cozumel Maya. Tucson:University of Arizona Press.



16/17

Hansen, R. D. (1990).Excavations in the Tigre Complex, El Mirador,Peten, Guatemala, El Mirador Series, Part 3. Provo, UT: Papers ofthe New World Archaeological Foundation 62.

Harris, E. (1989). Principals of Archaeological Stratigraphy.New York: Academic Press.

Hester, T. R. & Heizer, R. F. (1972). Problems in the functionalinterpretation of artifacts: scraper planes from Mitla and Yagul,

Oaxaca. University of California Research Facility 14, 107123.Hodge, F. W. (1920). Hawiku bone work. Indian Notes and

Monographs 3, 67151.Horcasitas, F. & George, R. (1955). The relacion de Tlacolula y

Mitla. Mesoamerican Notes 4, 1324.Howell, W. K. & Evans Copeland, D. R. (1989). Excavations at El

Mirador, Peten, Guatemala: The Danta and Monos Complexes, ElMirador Series, Part 2. Provo, UT: Papers of the New WorldArchaeological Foundation 62.

Hudson, J., Walker, P. L. & Voorhies, B. (1989). Changing patternsof faunal exploitation. In (B. Voorhies, Ed.) Ancient Trade andTribute: Economies of the Soconusco Region of Mesoamerica. SaltLake City: University of Utah Press, pp. 133153.

Janusek, J. W. (1999). Craft and local power: embedded specializ-ation in Tiwanaku cities. Latin American Antiquity 10, 107131.

Johnson, E. (1985). Current developments in bone technology. In

(M. B. Schiff

er, Ed.) Advances in Archaeological Method andTheory 8, pp. 157235.Johnson, E., Politis, G. & Gutierrez, M. (2000). Early Holocene bone

technology at the La Olla 1 site, Atlantic coast of the ArgentinePampas. Journal of Archaeological Science 27, 463477.

Kidder, A. V. (1947). The Artifacts of Uaxactun, Guatemala.Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington.

Kidder, A. V., Jennings, J. D. & Shook, E. M. (1946).Excavations atKaminaljuyu, Guatemala. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institutionof Washington.

Klein, R. G. & Cruz-Uribe, K. (1984).The Analysis of Animal Bonesfrom Archaeological Sites. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kolb, C. C. (1987). Marine Shell Trade and Classic Teotihuacan,Mexico. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports InternationalSeries 364.

Kowalewski, S. A., Feinman, G. M., Blanton, R. E., Finsten, L. &Nicholas, L. M. (1989). Monte Albans Hinterland, Part II: The

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in Tlacolula, Etla, and Ocotlan, theValley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Museum of Anthropology Memoirs 23.Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

MacNeish, R. S., Nelken-Terner, A. & Weitlaner de Johnson, I.(1967). The Prehistory of the Tehuacan Valley, Volume Two: TheNon-Ceramic Artifacts. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Marcus, J. & Flannery, K. V. (1996). Zapotec Civilization: HowUrban Society Evolved in Mexicos Oaxaca Valley. New York:Thames and Hudson.

McCafferty, S. D. & Mcafferty, G. G. (1994). Engendering tomb 7 atMonte Alban: respinning and old yarn. Current Anthropology 35,143166.

Merwin, R. E. & Vaillant, G. C. (1932). The Ruins of Holmul,Guatemala. Cambridge: Peabody Museum of Archaeology andEthnology Memoirs 3(2).

Middleton, W. D. (1998). Craft Specialization at Ejutla, Oaxaca,

Mexico: An Archaeometric Study of the Organization ofHousehold Craft Production. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Middleton, W. D., Feinman, G. M. & Molina Villegas, G. (1998).Tomb use and reuse in Oaxaca, Mexico. Ancient Mesoamerica 9,297307.

Nicholas, L. M. (1989). Land use in prehispanic Oaxaca. In (S. A.Kowalewski, G. M. Feinman, R. E. Blanton, L. Finsten & L. M.Nicholas, Eds) Monte Albans Hinterland, Part II: PrehispanicSettlement Patterns in Tlacolula, Etla, and Ocotolan, The Valley ofOaxaca, Mexico. Museum of Anthropology Memoirs 23. AnnArbor: University of Michigan, pp. 449505.

Noguera, E. (1971). Minor arts in the central valleys. In (G. F.Ekholm & I. Bernal, Eds) The Handbook of Middle AmericanIndians, Vol. 10: Archaeology of Northern Mesoamerica, Part 1.Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 258269.

Olsen, S. J. (1971). Zooarchaeology. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Olsen, S. J. (1978). Vertebrate faunal remains. In (G. R. Willey, Ed.)

Excavations At Seibal Department of Peten, Guatemala, No. 1Artifacts. Cambridge: Peabody Museum of Archeology andEthnology Memoirs 14, pp. 172176.

Palerm, A. & Wolf, E. R. (1957). Ecological potential and culturaldevelopment in Mesoamerica. Pan American Union Social Science

Monograph 3, 137.Parsons, M. H. (1972). Spindle whorls from the Teotihuacan Valley,

Mexico. In (M. W. Spence, J. R. Parsons & M. H. Parsons, Eds)Miscellaneous Studies in Mexican Prehistory. Museum of Anthropology Anthropological Papers 45. Ann Arbor: Universityof Michigan, pp. 4579.

Pohl, M. (1985a). Osteological evidence for subsistence and status.In (M. Pohl, Ed.) Prehistoric Lowland Maya Environmentand Subsistence Economy. Cambridge: Peabody Museum ofArchaeology and Ethnology, pp. 108113.

Pohl, M. (1985b). The privileges of Maya elites: prehistoricvertebrate fauna from Seibal. In (M. Pohl, Ed.) PrehistoricLowland Maya Environment and Subsistence Economy. Cambridge:Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, pp. 133145.

Pohl, M. (1994). Late Classic Maya fauna from settlement in theCopan valley, Honduras: Assertion of social status through

animal consumption. In (G. R. Willey, R. M. Leventhal, A. R.Demarest & W. L. Fash, Eds) Ceramics and Artifacts fromExcavations in the Copan Residential Zone. Cambridge: Papersof the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 80,pp. 459476.

Pohl, M. & Feldman, L. H. (1982). The Traditional role of womenand animals in lowland Maya economy. In (K. V. Flannery, Ed.)Maya Subsistence: Studies in Memory of Dennis E. Puleston. NewYork: Academic Press, pp. 295311.

Pollock, H. E. D. & Ray, C. E. (1957). Notes on vertebrate remainsfrom Mayapan. Department of Archaeology Current Reports 41.Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington.

Pollock, H. E. D., Roys, R. L., Proskouriacoff, T. & Smith, A. L.(1962). Mayapan, Yucatan, Mexico. Washington, D.C.: CarnegieInstitution of Washington.

Reitz, E. J. & Wing, E. S. (1999). Zooarchaeology. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Robles Garcia, N. M. (1994). Las canteras de Mitla, Oaxaca:tecnologa para la arquitectura monumental. Nashville: VanderbiltUniversity Publications in Anthropology47.

Sanchez Lopez, A. (1989). Oaxaca tierra de maguey y mezcal.Oaxaca, Mexico: Instituto Tecnologico de Oaxaca.

Schrenk, F. & Maguire, J. M. (1988). Actualistic SEM studies onthe Makapansgat Limeworks Grey Breccia bone assemblage,Transvaal, South Africa. In (S. L. Olsen, Ed.) Scanning ElectronMicroscopy in Archaeology. Oxford: British ArchaeologicalReports International Series 452, pp. 287301.

Schwartz, M. (1997). A History of Dogs in the Early Americas.New Haven: Yale University Press.

Shipman, P. (1988). Actualistic studies of animal resources andhominid activities. In (S. L. Olsen, Ed.) Scanning ElectronMicroscopy in Archaeology. Oxford: British ArchaeologicalReports International Series 452, pp. 261285.

Shipman, P. & Rose, J. J. (1988). Bone tools: an experimentalapproach. In (S. L. Olsen, Ed.) Scanning Electron Microscopyin Archaeology. Oxford: British Archaeological ReportsInternational Series 452, pp. 303335.

Siliceo Pauer, P. (1925). Representaciones prehispanicas de dienteshumanos hechas en concha. Anales del Museo Nacional de Mexico,Epoca 5, tomo 1, 220222.

Stanford, D., Bonnichsen, R. & Morlan, R. E. (1981). The Ginsbergexperiment: modern and prehistoric evidence of a bone-flakingtechnology. Science 212, 438440.

Starbuck, D. R. (1987). Faunal evidence for the Teotihuacan sub-sistence base. In (E. Mclung de Tapia & E. C. Rattray, Eds)Teotihuacan: nuevos datos, nuevas sntesis, nuevos problemas.Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, pp. 7590.

Suarez, L. (1977). Tipologa de los objetos prehispanicos de concha.Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia.



17/17

Suarez, L. (1981). Tecnicas prehispanicas en los objetos de concha.Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia.

Thompson, J. E. (1939). Excavations at San Jose, British Honduras.Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington.

Valadez Azua, R., Paredes Gudino, B. & Rodrgez Galicia, B.(1999). Entierros de perros descubiertos en la antigua ciudad deTula. Latin American Antiquity 10, 180200.

Whalen, M. E. (1981). Excavations at Santo Domingo Tomaltepec:Evolution of a Formative Community in the Valley of Oaxaca,Mexico. Museum of Anthropology Memoirs 12. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan.

White, C. D. (1999). Ancient Maya Diet. In (C. D. White, Ed.)Reconstructing Ancient Maya Diet. Salt Lake City: University ofUtah Press, pp. ixxxvii.

White, T. E. (1953). A method of calculating the dietary percentagesof various food animals utilized by aboriginal peoples. AmericanAntiquity18, 396398.

Willey, G. R. (1972). The Artifacts of Altar de Sacrificios.Cambridge, MA: The Peabody Museum.

Wing, E. S. (1975). Animal remains from Lubaantun. In (N.Hammond, Ed.) Lubaantun: A Classic Maya Realm. Cambridge:Peabody Museum Monographs2, pp. 279383.

Wing, E. S. (1978). Use of dogs for food: an adaptation to the coastalenvironment. In (B. L. Stark & B. Voorhies, Eds) Prehistoric

Coastal Adaptations. New York: Academic Press, pp. 2941.Wing, E. S. (1981). A comparison of Olmec and Maya Foodways. In

(E. P. Benson, Ed.) The Olmec and Their Neighbors: Essays inMemory of Matthew W. Stirling. Washington, D.C.: DumbartonOaks Research Library and Collection, pp. 2128.

Wing, E. S. & Steadman, D. (1980). Vertebrate faunal remainsfrom Dzibilchaltun. In (E. W. Andrews IV & E. W. Andrews V,Eds) Excavations at Dzibilchaltun, Yucatan, Mexico. MiddleAmerican Research Institute Publication 48. New Orleans: TulaneUniversity, pp. 326331.


Documents

Domestic Faunal Assemblages from the Classic Period Valley.pdf