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

com on

Domestic Faunal Assemblages from the Classic Period Valley of 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 Alba n in the Valley of Oaxaca was one of the most monumental cities in Mesoamerica. Yet relatively little is known about the Classic-period economy that sustained this prehispanic centre. In this paper, we compare the faunal assemblages at two outlying Classic-period sites located in the central valleys of OaxacaEjutla and El Palmillo. This analytical comparison provides a new empirical perspective on two important aspects of the ancient Oaxacan economy, subsistence strategies and household craft manufacture. Although Ejutla and El Palmillo have rather distinct environmental settings, the faunal component of the diet at the sites is found to be similar with some subtle dierences. More marked distinctions between the sites are noted in the use of bone as a raw material for tools and ornaments. When the ndings from the faunal comparison are situated within the context of other domestic remains from Classic-period Ejutla and El Palmillo, intraregional variation in household strategies of production and exchange is evidenced, providing a preliminary vantage on the complex economy that underlay this prehispanic polity.  2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction
uring the Classic period ( 200800), one of the foremost polities in Mesoamerica was centred at urban Monte Alba n (Palerm & Wolf, 1957; Caso, Bernal & Acosta, 1967) in the Valley of Oaxaca. Through archaeological (systematic survey and excavation) as well as epigraphic analyses (Flannery & Marcus, 1983; Kowalewski et al., 1989), archaeologists are beginning to understand the settlement history and political organization of this ancient state, with a focus on the urban capital (Blanton, 1978). Yet much less is known about the workings of the Classic-period economy in this region. Key questions concern the nature of the articulations between individual households within communities and between those communities and their neighbours, specically in terms of household strategies of production (labour and/or goods) and consumption (craft goods and subsistence). To address these economic issues requires an understanding of the kinds of goods that were produced in Classic-period Oaxacan households, what goods were made in some households (and at some sites) but not others, and what kinds of items would have been exchanged or imported. For Classic-period Oaxaca, a number of studies have begun to outline the relations between the production and consumption of a variety of craft goods at the household level (Feinman & Nicholas, 1993a, 1994, 1995, 2000a; Feinman et al., 1993; Middleton, 1998).

Yet our knowledge of household subsistence strategies during this period remains limited. In the neighbouring Maya region, vigorous debate over the nature of Classic-period Maya agriculture has spurred numerous studies of subsistence practices (e.g., White, 1999). In contrast, analysis of food remains has been somewhat under-emphasized for the Classic period in the Mesoamerican highlands (including Oaxaca) where maize agriculture (the combination of maize, beans, and squash) is often assumed to have been the mainstay of the diet (cf. Starbuck 1987; Crawford 1992). Although meat may represent only a small portion of the ancient Mesoamerican subsistence base, the analysis of faunal assemblages can highlight important dierences 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 studies have not been heavily utilized to examine the complex, food-producing societies of the Mesoamerican Classic period (Clutton-Brock & Hammond, 1994). For example, faunal studies focused on ancient Oaxaca primarily have been concentrated on the earlier Archaic (80002000 ) and Formative (2000 200) periods (Drennan, 1976; Whalen, 1981; Flannery & Wheeler, 1986; Marcus & Flannery, 1996).
233
 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

03054403/02/$-see front matter

234

W. D. Middleton et al.

Monte Albn Tlacolula

El Palmillo
Yucatan
'

Puebla

N
0 km 200

Veracruz Guerrero Oaxaca Chiapas

Ejutla

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

Faunal analyses also have the potential to inform our perspectives on craft economy (e.g., Janusek, 1999). In ancient Mesoamerica for example, bone often provided an important raw material from which tools and ornaments were made (e.g., Caso, 1965). Yet ancient Mesoamerican bone artifacts often are described apart from dietary faunal assemblages, and few attempts have been made to understand the production of bone artifacts as part of a continuum of utilization for animal products that includes both subsistence and nonsubsistence uses. In this paper, we examine the faunal assemblages at two Classic period sites in the central valleys of Oaxaca: El Palmillo and Ejutla (Figure 1). By comparing both the subsistence patterns and the use of skeletal materials in craft production at these sites, we broaden the analytical window for assessing household and community variation in economic activities. Nevertheless, this faunal study clearly is not sucient to answer the full suite of economic questions about Classic period Oaxaca previously raised. To do so would require both more excavations and a wider range of artifactual analyses. Yet the inclusion of dietary bone and bone artifacts in a single study does provide an informative avenue of research. Signicantly, this analysis of a single artifact class (bone remains) indicates overarching similarities between the two investigated sites in one economic

sphere (subsistence) while pointing to rather dierent patterns of use in another (domestic craft production). In the next section, we begin by providing the geographic context and history of research for the two sites. We then discuss the nature of the faunal assemblages and the basic methodologies we employed to study them. Subsequently, we examine and compare these assemblages with an eye toward subsistence and then domestic craft production. To further inform our study, we situate the results of the faunal investigation within broader ndings that compare/contrast the other artifactual assemblages from Ejutla and El Palmillo. By so doing, we outline intraregional similarities and dierences in household subsistence and production strategies, which provide an important building block for understanding the Classic-period economy in the Valley of Oaxaca.

El Palmillo and Ejutla

Ejutla and El Palmillo are large, contemporaneous, prehispanic settlements located at the margins of the Valley of Oaxaca (Figure 1). Both sites were rst settled as small communities during the later Formative period (c. 300200 ). Subsequently, they each expanded during the Classic period (c. 200 800) and became major centres in their respective

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

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

regions, with populations that are estimated to have been in the thousands (Kowalewski et al., 1989; Feinman & Nicholas, 1990, 1992, 1998). Recent investigations at both sites have yielded evidence for specialized craft production that was situated in domestic settings (Feinman & Nicholas, 1996, 2000a, b; Feinman et al., 2000a, b). Beyond these general characteristics, however, there are important dierences between the sites, including their physical settings and the nature of their craft economies. The Ejutla site is situated on the alluvial oor of the Ejutla Valley at the southern end of the Valley of Oaxaca (Figure 2). The ancient occupation largely is covered by the modern district head town of Ejutla de Crespo. Although the site is more than 100 km from the Pacic Coast, anomalous quantities of marine shell debris were noted on the ground surface at Ejutla during the 19841985 Ejutla Valley Settlement Pattern Project (Feinman & Nicholas, 1990, 1992). Through subsequent excavations in 19901993, marine shell ornament production was documented at the site and situated in a domestic context (Feinman & Nicholas, 1993a, 1994, 1995, 2000a; Feinman et al., 1993; Middleton, 1998). The excavated portion of the site, situated on the eastern edge of both the ancient and modern settlement, consists of a single Classic-period residential complex (Figure 3). In addition to the house, several ceramic pit kilns, a number of midden areas, two burials, and a multi-interment tomb below the oor of the structure were excavated. The nature of the ceramics and other materials recovered during the excavations indicate that the house inhabitants were not elite. During the excavations we determined that, in addition to shell ornaments, household members produced a variety of ceramic forms, including comales (tortilla griddles), sahumadores (incense burners), and gurines. They also crafted lesser quantities of lapidary objects and chipped-stone tools, most specically chert microdrills for perforating the shell

ornaments. Although the production and exchange of shell ornaments, ceramics, and possibly lapidary items were major economic activities of the household (Feinman & Nicholas, 1993b, 1995; Balkansky et al., 1997; Feinman & Balkansky, 1997; Middleton, 1998), chipped-stone tools appear to have been crafted for use in the production of marine shell ornaments and not for exchange (Feinman & Nicholas, 1993b, 1995; Middleton, 1998). Based on the quantity of spindle whorls recovered during the investigations, textile production (probably cotton, based on the size of the spindle whorls; see Parsons, 1972) also may have been enacted by the excavated household. In contrast, El Palmillo is a large terraced site (over 1400 terraces) situated on the top and sides of a high rocky hill at the outskirts of the modern town of Santiago Matatla n, in the extreme eastern end of the Tlacolula arm of the Valley of Oaxaca (Figure 4). The site was originally recorded in 1980 during the Valley of Oaxaca Settlement Pattern Project (Kowalewski et al., 1989) and was later more intensively surveyed, surface collected, and mapped (Feinman & Nicholas, 1998). Excavations at the site were initiated in 1999 and 2000 (Feinman et al., 2000a, b). The excavated portion of the site, on the lower slope of the hill at the western edge of the settlement, consists of four complete terraces and parts of several others (Figure 5). The excavated area includes several domestic structures, more than 24 burials (including one small domestic tomb), outside work areas, a small ceramic pit kiln, and two large ovens for cooking maguey (Agave sp.), a succulent plant with a long history of use in the region (Horcasitas & George, 1955; Flannery, 1986). In contrast to the excavated area at Ejutla, the excavated terraces at El Palmillo span a longer period of occupation (although also pertaining to the Classic period) and comprise a larger number of architectural units. The range of economic specializations at El Palmillo diered from those at Ejutla. We have found little marine shell at El Palmillo, and many of the pieces we did see were broken or complete ornaments (as opposed to manufacturing debris). The most evident economic activity at El Palmillo was the production of a range of stone tools from readily available local chert sources. Given the high volume of production debris relative to nished tools, we believe that at least some of the stone tools were produced for exchange. One common variety of chipped stone tool at El Palmillo was a kind of large scraper, raspadores, for processing maguey (Hester & Heizer, 1976; Robles Garc a, 1994). Wild agave is one of the xerophytic plants that are abundant on site today, possibly a relict community from the sites prehispanic occupation. Based on the large size of spindle whorls at the site (see Parsons, 1972), it appears that maguey also was used in the production of bre and textiles, some possibly for exchange.

236

W. D. Middleton et al.

24 N

22 N

20 N

18 N

16 N

14 N

12 N

Modern pit Colonial pit Modern drain pipe Dense concentrations of shell Ceramic firing areas 8N 10 N

4m

6N

Limits of excavation 4N

2N

0N

2S 22 E 24 E 26 E 28 E 30 E 32 E 34 E 36 E 38 E 40 E

Figure 3. The excavated area at Ejutla.

With only one small pit kiln and many fewer kilnwasters and other manufacturing evidence, ceramic production at El Palmillo appears to have been enacted

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

Domestic Faunal Assemblages from the Classic Period Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico 237

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

materials recovered indicate the households were nonelite. Another key dierence between the sites is their environmental settings. The Ejutla site, situated on the valley oor and next to the R o Ejutla, is surrounded by high-quality agricultural land on which sucient quantities of maize could be grown (Feinman & Nicholas, 1990). El Palmillo, on the other hand, is located in the rocky foothills of the mountains demarcating the eastern end of the Tlacolula arm of the Valley of Oaxac. It is positioned in one of the driest parts of the region. There is little arable land nearby and rainfall is unreliable. Therefore, maize agriculture at El Palmillo would have been a much riskier enterprise than at Ejutla. The large population at El Palmillo most likely would have been at risk of food shortages in most years if its inhabitants relied primarily on maize agriculture (Nicholas, 1989). Based on our recent ndings, especially the maguey ovens and the specialized tools for processing maguey, we suspect that maguey and other xerophytic plants played an important role in subsistence at the site (maguey cultivation provides the mainstay of the present-day economy of the region [Sa nchez Lo pez, 1989]).

The Faunal Assemblages and Their Analysis

Our comparison of faunal assemblages is based on materials recovered at Ejutla during the 19901993 eld seasons and at El Palmillo during the 19992000 eld seasons. We employed similar excavation strategies and unearthed comparable volumes of sediment at both sites (123 m3 at Ejutla and 152 m3 at El Palmillo, excluding colluvial or alluvial ll). Contexts were designated on the basis of the stratigraphy and features encountered (e.g., Harris, 1989). All 1
undisturbed deposits at each site were screened with 4 1 or 8
mesh, depending on the context of the excavated levels. Recovery rates of faunal materials at each site, therefore, are comparable.

A reference collection was used for the identication of signicant taxa. This collection was assembled to aid the identication of the most common food animals listed in the literature of highland Mesoamerica. The reference collection did not, however, include small rodents, reptiles, sh, or birds (other than turkey, Meleagris gallopavo); these taxa were identied only to the level of class, order, or family. As they constitute only a small percentage of either assemblage and many are unlikely to have been signicant food resources (particularly the small rodents, reptiles, and birds), the impact of this analytical tack is suspected to have been minimal. Both assemblages were highly fragmented, most likely as the combined consequence of butchering, trampling, dog gnawing, and the production of bone artifacts (Table 1). As a result, many bone fragments were unidentiable or identiable with a low degree of specicity. All bone fragments were identied to the most specic taxonomic level possible (Table 2). Those elements that could not be identied at least to the level of class were counted, but are excluded from this analysis. Much of each assemblage was identiable only as large, medium, or small mammal. For those elements that could be identied at least to the level of genus, we recorded the skeletal element represented, specic portion, and side of the body. Any modications to the specimens (such as burning, cut marks, and dog or rodent chew marks) also were noted, regardless of the level of specicity to which the piece could be identied. Bone tools, ornaments, and specimens with more extensive modication than would be expected as a result of butchery were identied as artifacts (tools, ornaments, and worked bone) and treated separately from the rest of the assemblage. In addition to the fragmentary animal remains found in the midden at Ejutla and scattered throughout the other contexts at both sites, several sets of remains were recovered that clearly were not food or craft production debris. The complete remains of a single dog were recovered from the tomb at Ejutla, and deliberate burials of a pair of egrets and a single turkey, as well as a single dog mandible included in a human burial, were recovered at El Palmillo. The ceremonial treatments of animal remains help make an evident distinction between food and craft remains on the one hand and ritual uses of fauna on the other; they also indicate that the inhabitants of these two sites participated in the wider Mesoamerican cultural sphere in which animals served ritual as well as subsistence purposes (e.g., Merwin & Vaillant, 1932; Pohl & Feldman, 1982; Hamblin, 1984; Carr, 1985; Pohl, 1985b, 1994; Grove, 1987; Valadez Azu a et al., 1999). These rather distinctive ceremonial treatments constitute a very small proportion of the faunal assemblages at both sites and are excluded from our analyses. The assemblages at Ejutla and El Palmillo represent two rather dierent sets of formation and taphonomic

238

W. D. Middleton et al.
2E 4E 6E 8E 10 E 12 E 14 E 16 E 18 E 20 E 22 E

34 N

32 N
nw all

30 N

Re

ten tio

28 N
Sta

T.1163 26 N
Patio

24 N

22 N

20 N

18 N
Access

16 N

14 N

12 N
te r

irs

Pl

as

ter

T.1147 8N T.1162 6N
wall
Drain Patio

Re te n

T.1148
St air s

2N

0 N, 0 E

T.1161 0 2 4m Limits of excavation

Burial

Offering

Lowest retention wall of T.1127

Figure 5. The excavated terraces at El Palmillo.

Pla ste r

4N

tion

Pl

10 N

as

Domestic Faunal Assemblages from the Classic Period Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico 239
Table 1. Total bone counts and weights for the analysed assemblages at Ejutla and El Palmillo El Palmillo Total count* Total mass (g) Avg. mass 4083 31151 076 Ejutla 7712 36953 048

*Excludes bone from colluvial/alluvial ll and burials, but includes all other bone.

Table 2. Taxa identied at El Palmillo and Ejutla Class Mammalia Unidentied large mammal (most likely human or deer) Unidentied medium mammal (most likely dog or jackrabbit) Unidentied small mammal (most likely cottontail rabbit or squirrel) Order Marsupialis Opossum (Didelphis marsupialis) Order Leopridae Cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus oridanus) Jackrabbit (Lepus callotis) Order Rodentia Small rodents (almost exclusively Family Cricetidae) Medium rodents (other unidentied rodents) Gray squirrel (Sciurus poliopus) Order Carnivora Dog (Canis familiaris) Coyote (Canis latrans; represented by a single atlas, only at Ejutla) Gray fox (Urocyon cineroargentus; represented by a single mandible, only at Ejutla) Order Artiodactyla Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) Peccary (Dicotyles tajacu; represented by two mandible fragments, only at El Palmillo) Class Reptilia Order Squamata Lizard (small individuals) Snake (at least two species represented) Order Testudines Turtle (represented only by carapace fragments at both sites; these fragments are, for the most part very small, and their numbers may overstate the actual occurrence of turtle at both sites). Class Aves Order Neognathae Unidentied large bird (most likely turkey) Other unidentied bird (mostly small) Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) Class Osteichthyes Unidentied sh (represented by very few elements, only at Ejutla)

processes. The span of occupation on the excavated terraces at El Palmillo covers at least several hundred years and the remains of domestic architecture are abundant; there are two separate residential complexes, several single structures, and a large number of features. The area we excavated in Ejutla, on the other hand, has a comparatively short span of occupation (c. 100 years), a single residential structure, and relatively few features. As a result, there are more discrete archaeological contexts at El Palmillo than at Ejutla. Ejutla, however, has an extensive midden in which both craft production debris and domestic waste were

deposited, while there were no true middens at El Palmillo (several trash accumulations were excavated at the base of terrace walls, but these were not deliberate midden deposits). These depositional distinctions likely could help account for the substantial dierence in the overall size of the two assemblages. El Palmillos faunal assemblage is considerably smaller than Ejutlas, despite the former sites longer period of occupation and larger number of separate residential units. Given the dierences between the formation and taphonomic processes that created the two assemblages, comparisons must be undertaken with caution. To help overcome issues of comparability, we employ several indices to characterize the assemblages. In addition to the number of identied specimens (NISP), we calculated the minimum number of individuals (MNI) and the percent minimum anatomical units (MAU) for each taxon at each site. MNI gures were calculated following the method described by White (1953); the most abundant skeletal element for each taxon represents the minimum number of individuals from which the remains of the taxon could have derived. Piece by piece comparisons were not made between potentially redundant elements to increase their number on the basis of dierences in age or size (e.g., Flannery, 1967). MNI gures were aggregated by archaeological context (the same units used in the analysis of other artifact classes). As a result, MNI estimates are somewhat higher for the El Palmillo assemblage than for the Ejutla assemblage, despite the latters larger size. Given the longer occupation and multiple residential units at El Palmillo, the higher MNI estimates are not surprising or unreasonable. Percent MAU estimates were calculated for each taxon as the ratio of the MNI estimate for each anatomical unit (cranial, axial, forelimb, and hindlimb) to the MNI estimate for the most abundant anatomical unit. Thus the percent MAU estimates are used here to provide an indication of the completeness of skeletal representation for each taxon. Estimates were caluculated only for the securely identied taxa and with the assemblages aggregated as a whole (due to the low occurrence of identied specimens in many of the smaller contexts). Although multiple indices give us several means by which the two assemblages can be compared, each of these indices has limitations. NISP gures are biased towards larger taxa that have more identiable elements (and hence more redundant elements) and against smaller taxa whose elements are more subject to attrition and may be recovered at lower rates. MNI estimates are inuenced by aggregation units, and percent MAU estimates are inuenced by both cultural (butchery, transport) and natural (element attrition) processes (Grayson, 1984; Klein & Cruz-Uribe, 1984; Reitz & Wing, 1999). Given these potential measurement discrepancies, we use the indexes in

240

W. D. Middleton et al.
Table 3. Faunal assemblages at El Palmillo and Ejutla El Palmillo Taxon Artifact Bird-large Bird-other Cottontail rabbit Coyote Deer Dog Fish Fox Jackrabbit Opossum Peccary Reptile Rodent-medium Rodent-small Snake Squirrel Turkey Turtle Unidentied large mammal Unidentied medium mammal Unidentied small mammal Total NISP 84 238 36 39 0 63 143 0 0 32 3 2 52 7 52 4 0 14 45 1019 993 157 2983 % NISP 282% 798% 121% 131% 000% 211% 479% 000% 000% 107% 010% 007% 174% 023% 174% 013% 000% 047% 151% 3416% 3329% 526% NISP 58 78 0 193 1 259 504 6 1 85 13 0 50 2 42 26 43 5 228 1661 1600 540 5395 Ejutla % NISP 108% 145% 000% 358% 002% 480% 934% 011% 002% 158% 024% 000% 093% 004% 078% 048% 080% 009% 423% 3079% 2966% 1001%

combination to provide the strongest base for discussing and comparing the two assemblages. To understand household and regional economic similarities and dierences, such comparisons of archaeological contexts/assemblages that are not strictly equivalent are essential. In this spirit we undertake the following analysis with these caveats. Although of dierent sizes, we treat each assemblage as a random sample of the fauna exploited by nonelite households at each site. We have not excavated in elite contexts in either site and cannot address status dierentiation in diet. Given the dierences between the sites in formation and taphonomy, it cannot be stated that a particular taxon at one site occurs with greater absolute frequency than that, or any other, taxon at the other site. Rather, our analysis must focus on identifying the general patterns of faunal exploitation at each site, and the comparison of these patterns. In other words, we can identify which taxa were more or less intensively exploited at each site, irrespective of their comparable food value in relation to the other site. We can however point to similarities or dierences in emphasis on specic taxa. In such comparisons, MNI estimates oer one important advantage over NISP gures; they are less subject to the eects of the number of identiable elements per taxon and element attrition and under representation (more likely factors in the El Palmillo assemblage). Although some specialists may nd this approach less satisfactory than per capita estimates of meat consumption, our comparisons lay the foundation for understanding variation in the role of animals in the diets at the two sites.

Subsistence
In terms of overall composition, the faunal assemblages at Ejutla and El Palmillo are very similar. Few taxa appear at only one site, and with the exception of squirrel, these varieties that are found at only one of the sites are extremely minor components of the assemblage in which they occur (Table 3). Although there is a substantial size dierence between the two assemblages and locational variation between the sites, the proportionate composition of each assemblage by species is surprisingly similar, with the most securely identied taxadog, deer, cottontail, and jackrabbit occurring in the same rank order. Although the extent of this similarity was unexpected, these taxa did serve as key sources of meat across much of later prehispanic highland 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 the most securely identied taxa for which all indices (NISP, MNI, and percent MAU) can be calculated and which occur with sucient frequency to permit meaningful analysis (Table 4). When we focus on these most precisely dened specimens, the four most abundant taxadog, deer, cottontail, and jackrabbitconstitute 94% of the assemblage at both sites and appear in similar proportions (Figure 6). If we examine the faunal comparison in more detail, the MNI estimates generally are found to mirror the NISP gures (Table 4). Though as might be expected, the two largest taxa (deer and dog) at both sites are

Domestic Faunal Assemblages from the Classic Period Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico 241
Table 4. MNI-NISP comparison of major taxa at El Palmillo and Ejutla El Palmillo Taxon Cottontail Deer Dog Jackrabbit Opossum Squirrel Turkey Total NISP 39 63 143 32 3 0 14 294 % NISP 1327% 2143% 4864% 1088% 102% 000% 476% MNI 25 25 43 17 3 0 12 125 % Individuals 2000% 2000% 3440% 1360% 240% 000% 960% NISP 193 259 504 85 13 43 5 1102 % NISP 1751% 2350% 4574% 771% 118% 390% 045% Ejutla MNI 20 15 29 15 3 7 5 94 % Individuals 2128% 1596% 3085% 1596% 319% 745% 532%

somewhat overrepresented in NISP gures with respect to MNI estimates, and the smaller taxa are somewhat underrepresented. Based on either NISP counts or MNI estimates it appears that the inhabitants of both sites were following similar faunal exploitation strategies, with the greatest emphasis placed on dogs, followed by lagomorphs and deer. Given the ecological dierences between the settings of the two sites, more substantial dierences between the assemblages, such as a greater emphasis on deer at El Palmillo, might have been expected. That site is more proximate than Ejutla to the preferred upland
50.00 45.00 40.00 35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00

(a)

Ejutla El Palmillo

Taxon 35.00 30.00 Assemblage (%) 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 (b)

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

habitat of deer. Yet dogs are the most abundant taxon at both sites. These animals are thought to have primarily been fed plant foods (Wing, 1978; Clutton-Brock & Hammond, 1994; Coe, 1994; Schwartz, 1997), although the chew marks on many of the specimens from both Ejutla and El Palmillo indicate that they also scavenged. The raising of dogs therefore represents a viable means of producing a high-quality food resource that could have provided an important contribution to the diet. Although the overall similarities between the two assemblages appear meaningful, there also are subtle, yet important, dierences. For example, a slightly greater 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 are strengthened by inclusion of less securely identied taxa (Table 3). Unidentied small mammals, most likely squirrel or cottontail rabbit, are a larger component of the Ejutla assemblage, while unidentied large birds, most likely turkey, are more prevalent at El Palmillo than Ejutla. Based on the percent MAU estimates, all anatomical units are present for most taxa (Table 5). Yet while no taxon has perfectly uniform representation of all body parts, dog is grossly overrepresented by cranial units at Ejutla. This overrepresentation is due entirely to loose teeth; particularly loose canines. Forty-two percent (213 of 504) of all specimens identied as dog at Ejutla are loose teeth (excluding teeth that were in place or could be ret into an empty socket). The loose teeth include far more canines than would be expected in a natural assemblage. If the assemblage mirrored the natural occurrence of dogs teeth, 95% of all loose teeth should be canines; instead, 338% of all loose teeth are canines. Importantly, no other subsistence taxon, at either site, shows such a pattern. Clearly, something unusual was happening with dog remains at Ejutla. A similar pattern of overrepresentation of unarticulated human teeth also was noted at Ejutla, but not El Palmillo. Although much of the loose human bone found in middens and other deposits appears to be the result of

Assemblage (%)

bi t

rr el ui Sq el ui rr Sq

um

bi t

ee

og

ab

ss

ab

Ja ck r

po

um

Tu Tu rk e y

og

bi

ee

ab

Ja ck r

ss

O po

ab

bi

rk e

242

W. D. Middleton et al.

Table 5. Percent MAU at El Palmillo and Ejutla Unit Ejutla Cranial Axial Forelimb Hindlimb Cranial Axial Forelimb Hindlimb Cottontail 50 33 50 100 25 50 25 100 Deer 100 66 100 100 50 100 100 100 Dog 100 (100) 15 (60) 20 (80) 20 (80) 100 50 75 75 Jackrabbit 100 33 100 66 33 100 66 100 Opossum 50 50 100 0 100 0 0 0 Squirrel 25 50 50 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A Turkey 0 0 50 100 0 0 66 100

El Palmillo

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 El Palmillo Taxon Cottontail Deer Dog Jackrabbit Opossum Squirrel Turkey Total NISP 33 60 106 32 3 0 14 248 % NISP 1331% 2419% 4274% 1290% 121% 000% 565% MNI 25 25 43 17 3 0 12 125 % Individuals 2000% 2000% 3440% 1360% 240% 000% 960% NISP 145 226 291 69 12 43 5 791 % NISP 1833% 2857% 3679% 872% 152% 544% 063% Ejutla MNI 20 15 16 15 3 7 5 81 % Individuals 2469% 1852% 1975% 1852% 370% 864% 617%

periodic tomb cleaning (Middleton et al., 1998), 39% of the nonburial human bone fragments at Ejutla are teeth. It seems likely that the high number of dog teeth associated with the Ejutla household does not reect subsistence activities alone but is the result of other uses of dog remains. Thus we recalculated NISP and MNI gures excluding loose teeth (Table 6). The abundance of dog at Ejutla decreases in these new gures. Therefore, our earlier NISP and MNI gures (Table 4) may somewhat overrepresent dog as a food resource in the excavated household at Ejutla, yet dog clearly remains one of the most important taxa at the site. This slight shift in emphasis does, however, strengthen the subtle dierences noted above in subsistence strategies at the two sitesgreater reliance on small mammals at Ejutla versus domesticated animals at El Palmillo. Given the more marginal upland setting of El Palmillo in the dry eastern arm of the valley, domesticated animals may have assumed a more important role than at Ejutla, where small mammals, particularly lagomorphs, could have been snared in and around agricultural elds in conjunction with other agricultural duties.

Nonsubsistence Uses of Bone

The prevalence of dog teeth in nonritual contexts at Ejutla raises the issue of why did we nd so many loose

teeth in and around the excavated residential structure and what were they used for? There are a number of possible explanations for the abundance of loose dog teeth at Ejutla. One possibility is that teeth, as a highly durable and most often preserved skeletal part (Olsen, 1971), may be the only element remaining after weather, trac, and scavengers have destroyed most other skeletal units or reduced them to unidentiable fragments. However, no other taxon is overrepresented by loose teeth in our excavations. Another possible explanation is that dog teeth are suciently large enough to be preferentially recovered by screening. However, if this were the case, deer teeth, larger still, also should be preferentially recovered. Yet deer teeth are underrepresented relative to other elements, and jackrabbits, with smaller teeth, are evenly represented at Ejutla. A third interpretation is that dog teeth were preferentially collected and curated at the site. A major economic activity at Ejutla was the production of marine shell ornaments, including beads and pendants. In various areas of Mesoamerica, necklaces that strung together shell and bone beads with animal and human teeth have been found (Merwin & Vaillant, 1932; Thompson, 1939; Kidder et al., 1946; Kidder, 1947; Pollock & Ray, 1957; Pollock et al., 1962; Willey, 1972; Drennan, 1976; Sua rez, 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

Domestic Faunal Assemblages from the Classic Period Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico 243

Figure 7. Drilled dog incisor recovered at Ejutla.

materials, particularly shell, also have been reported (Siliceo Pauer, 1925; Merwin & Vaillant, 1932; Coe, 1959). Clearly, teeth were used for ornamentation, and the decorative use of teeth and shells frequently were associated in ancient Mesoamerica. Finally, we did recover a single, drilled dog incisor during the Ejutla excavations (Figure 7). A similar pattern for dog teeth, including the preponderance of canines, also has been noted at the Maya site of Cozumel (Yucata n), where Hamblin (1984) has proposed that the dog canines may have been employed in ornament manufacture (see also Pohl & Feldman, 1982, for Polbilche cave in the Maya region). Although only one of the loose teeth at Ejutla was nished into an ornament, this low ratio of nished ornaments to raw or unnished material is similar to the recovery rate for complete versus in-process marine shell artifacts at the site (Feinman & Nicholas, 1993b, 1995, 2000a). Such ratios are not unexpected for a production context. The disproportionate abundance of loose dog teeth therefore would seem to reect the acquisition and/or curation of raw material for ornament production. Undoubtedly, the loose dog teeth did originate as food waste somewhere (possibly at nearby residences), but the fact that they were accumulated in excess of other skeletal elements at the excavated household indicates that more than simple subsistence and discard behaviours were involved. Bone artifacts and production A small subset of bone remains at both sites was classied as artifacts. Given the anomalous abundance

of dog teeth at Ejutla and the evidence for craft activities at both sites, we examined the faunal assemblages for indications of bone artifact production. To distinguish between natural and cultural modications to bone is by no means easy (Binford, 1981; Stanford et al., 1981; Johnson, 1985; Schrenk & Maguire, 1988; Shipman, 1988). It is even more dicult to separate modications to bone that result from food processing from those that result from the manufacture of bone artifacts (Johnson, 1985; Shipman & Rose, 1988; Johnson et al., 2000). As a consequence, we relied on multiple lines of evidence to identify bone artifact production, including the artifacts themselves and the overall occurrence of skeletal elements in the assemblage. As discussed above for dog teeth, a disproportionate occurrence of specic skeletal elements (or portions thereof) can indicate the curation of raw materials or the presence of production waste (e.g., Janusek, 1999). Bone artifacts were classied as tools, ornaments, or worked bone. For the most part, the categories of bone tools that we employed followed those that have been widely 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 specic artifact categories ultimately employed were ne-tuned on the basis of the tools that were recovered in the assemblages at Ejutla and El Palmillo (Table 7). In this regard, one category of bone tool, battens, requires particular mention. We classied tools as battens on the basis of two characteristics. First, they are similar in shape to battens used by present-day weavers working with a back-strap loom. Although some of the battens have a knifelike shape, their edges are uniformly smooth and rounded rather than sharp. Second, preliminary use-wear studies with low-power, incident light microscopy reveal that, although there are deep longitudinal striations (presumably from the initial shaping of the tool), these had been partially obliterated by a very ne polish along the edge, tip, and distal shaft, but not in the area of the proximal shaft. This pattern could be the result of repeated, ne abrasion along these areas, which would be consistent with the tools use as a batten. Similar artifacts also have been identied as battens elsewhere in highland Mexico (MacNeish et al., 1967; McCaerty & McCaerty, 1994). Even though bone artifacts constitute a very small fraction of the overall bone remains at both sites, the dierences between the artifact assemblages are striking (Table 8). The majority of bone artifacts at Ejutla are fragments of worked bone, of which 20 are small, polished plaques (Figure 8). Many of these polished bone rectangles are darkened, possibly by deliberate burning or heating. Many also are broken on one or more edges and thus may be production failures. Interestingly, plaques also are one of the most common

244

W. D. Middleton et al.

Table 7. Categories of bone tools recovered at El Palmillo and Ejutla Tool Awl Batten Billet Perforator/needle Spindle whorl Description Pointed tool with straight edges and a broad tip. Made from a large animal long bone, often a deer metapodial. Long tool with a thin, wide blade. Often has one curved edge. Edges are always smooth rather than sharpened. Often appears knifelike. Deer antler tine with denite wear visible at tip. May be grooved around proximal end. Long, pointed tool with a narrow, straight shaft. Often broken and without either proximal or distal tips. If an eye is present, needle. Perforated, at disc Specications Mid-shaft width <2 mid-shaft thickness; maximum mid-shaft width <16 mm Mid-shaft width d2 mid-shaft thickness; minimum mid-shaft width >8 mm

Mid-shaft thickness cmid-shaft width c2 mid-shaft thickness; maximum mid-shaft width <8 mm

Table 8. Bone artifacts at El Palmillo and Ejutla Tool type Awl Batten Billet Chisel Perforator/needle Spindle whorl Ornament Worked Total El Palmillo 13 14 5 2 19 4 5 16 78 Ejutla 6 2 1 0 7 0 6 39 61

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

have been used in a similar fashion. The remainder of the worked and modied bone appears to be waste from the production of bone artifacts. Bone ornaments are rare at Ejutla. Most are pendants, all but one of which are broken across the perforation and may be production failures (due to perforation error). The exception is the drilled dog incisor mentioned above. As with the curated dog teeth, the pendants may have been intended for use in necklaces or other ornamental objects in tandem with shell beads. Several classes of bone tools at Ejutla (battens, needles, and perforators) appear to have been used in textile manufacture (Table 8; Figure 10). Based on the small size of the ceramic spindle whorls at Ejutla (e.g., Parsons, 1972), it is likely that these tools were used for cotton textiles. But based on the low incidence of all of

Figure 8. Bone plaques from Ejutla, most of which are highly polished and darkened.

Domestic Faunal Assemblages from the Classic Period Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico 245

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

these likely textile-associated artifacts, this activity does not appear to have been a specialized economic focus 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 tools dominate the El Palmillo bone artifact assemblage (almost 75% compared to 25% for Ejutla). Most of the tools (awls, perforator/needles, battens, and spindle whorls) are related to textile or bre production (Figure 11). These ndings are noteworthy in the context of other indications that maguey bre production was a major economic activity at El Palmillo. The latter include large stone scrapers that have been proposed as maguey-processing tools (Hester & Heizer, 1972; Robles Garc a, 1994) and large spindle whorls that have been identied for spinning maguey

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

bre rather than cotton (see Parsons, 1972); both classes of artifacts are relatively common at the site (Feinman et al. 2000a, b). In contrast, worked bone constitutes less than 25% of the El Palmillo bone artifact assemblage (compared to almost two-thirds for Ejutla). The worked bone at El Palmillo includes only two pieces that resemble the plaques from Ejutla and two pieces that are likely batten production failures. The remainder of the worked and modied bone appears mostly to be small waste fragments from the production of the bone tools. As at Ejutla, there were few bone ornaments at El Palmillo (1 ring, 2 pendants, and 2 beads). But in contrast to Ejutla, all but the ring are complete, rather than apparent production failures. Bone ornament

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

246

W. D. Middleton et al.

production, if it took place at all, was a minor activity in the excavated area at El Palmillo. In sum, the use of bone remains in the production of ornaments and tools at both El Palmillo and Ejutla was markedly dierent. The focus on bone artifact production at Ejutla appears to have been on ornaments that complemented marine shell craftwork. In contrast, the use of bone artifacts at El Palmillo focused on tools. Although the majority of bone tools at 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 both absolute and relative terms. The abundance of these tools, together with other indicators of textile production, provide some indications that cloth manufacture occurred at a somewhat higher intensity at El Palmillo and was more likely geared for exchange rather than immediate use.

Discussion and Conclusions

Through our analysis of the bone assemblages at Ejutla and El Palmillo, we have endeavored to arm the importance of faunal analysis for the study of complex, food-producing societies. To date, in Mesoamerican archaeology, published analyses of later prehispanic faunal assemblages are rather scarce although notable exceptions certainly exist (e.g., Flannery, 1967; Hamblin, 1984; Starbuck, 1987). Given the wealth of compelling research issues, the traditionally acknowledged importance of maize agriculture from the Formative period onward, and the limited range of domesticated animals that were kept by ancient Mesoamericans, it may sometimes seem as if faunal analysis is not central to the study of Classic-period societies. This investigation focused on Ejutla and El Palmillo endeavous to illustrate that not only can faunal analysis provide useful insights into subsistence strategies, but also that the examination of bone artifacts and tools within a production framework can illuminate diverse strategies of economic specialization. In conjunction, these ndings are clearly pivotal to an understanding of Classic-period Mesoamerican economy and society. In regard to subsistence, the composition of the faunal assemblages at the two sites is remarkably similar. Dog, deer, and lagomorphs constitute the bulk of the securely identied taxa at both sites, a general pattern they share with other locations in highland Mesoamerica. Similar strategies of faunal exploitation are apparent, although subtle dierences also were found. Dog was an abundant taxa at both sites. Yet domesticated taxa (dog and turkey collectively) appear to have been slightly more important food resources at El Palmillo. Given the more precarious setting of the site in the dry eastern arm of the valley, an emphasis on reliable domesticated animals may have been more important than at Ejutla, where small game may have

been more easily snared in nearby elds in conjunction with agricultural tasks. A relatively greater reliance on the husbandry of domestic animals at El Palmillo may reect an attempt to manage food production in the face of a drier, more agriculturally marginal setting. If the faunal remains from these two Valley of Oaxaca sites were just considered from the perspective of subsistence, one might see little basis for site-to-site dierentiation and scant basis for intraregional economic interdependence. Of course, the apparent broad parallels in meat procurement between the two valley sites do not necessarily reect subsistence strategies as a whole. Our aforementioned archaeological ndings highlight the role of xerophytic plants (especially maguey) at El Palmillo. These ndings, along with diachronic analyses of human-land relations (Nicholas, 1989) and post-contact ethnohistoric accounts pertinent to the dry eastern arm of the Valley of Oaxaca (Horcasitas & George, 1955), lead us to propose that maize may have played a more central role in the diet at Ejutla than it did at El Palmillo. At the same time, a signicant dierence was observed between the Ejutla and El Palmillo faunal assemblages in the use of skeletal materials for nonsubsistence activities. At Ejutla, bone remains, especially dog teeth, were employed in specialized ornament manufacture. In contrast at El Palmillo, bone remains were made into tools that then served in the specialized production of maguey textiles. As a result, a more inclusive consideration of faunal remains that examines this artifact class both as a food resource and as a raw material in craft activities helps highlight key economic dierences between the households at these two Classic-period sites in the Valley of Oaxaca. These marked dierences in domestic activities indicate that not only the were the investigated households at both sites not engaged in precisely the same subsistence pursuits, but that they produced for the larger regional economy in distinct ways. We do not understand all the mechanisms through which the exchange between households and communities was enacted. Nonetheless, these ndings provide an important empirical building block that documents diversity in household economic strategies and so a signicant degree of intraregional interdependency that appears to have characterized the Classic-period economy in the Valley of Oaxaca.

Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the National Science Foundation support given to the second author for the excavations at Ejutla (BNS 8919164, BNS 9105780, SBR9304258) and El Palmillo (SBR9805288). We also appreciate the valuable support received from the National Geographic Society, the H. John Heinz Charitable Trust, the Vilas Foundation and the

Domestic Faunal Assemblages from the Classic Period Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico 247

Graduate School of the University of Wisconsin, Arvin B. Weinstein, and The Field Museum. This study would not have been possible without the dedicated assistance of our eld and laboratory crews, to whom we are grateful. Finally, we profoundly thank the Instituto Nacional de Antropolog a e Historia of Mexico, the Centro Regional of Oaxaca, and the local authorities of Ejutla de Crespo and Santiago Matatla n for permission to implement these eld studies and their essential assistance at various stages of the research. Richard Klein and two anonymous reviewers provided valuable commentary for which we thank them, although any shortcomings of this analysis remain 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 Faunal Remains 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. New York: Academic Press. Blanton, R. E. (1978). Monte Alba n: Settlement Patterns at the Ancient Zapotec Capital. New York: Academic Press. Carr, H. S. (1985). Subsistence and ceremony: faunal utilization in a late 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: Southern Methodist University Press, pp. 127146. Caso, A. (1965). Mixtec writing and calendar. In (G. R. Willey, Ed.) Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 3: Archaeology of Southern Mesoamerica, Part 2. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 948961. Caso, A., Bernal, I. & Acosta, J. (1967). La Cera mica de Monte Alba n. Memorias 13. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropolog a e Historia. Clutton-Brock, J. & Hammond, N. (1994). Hot-dogs: comestible canids in Preclassic Maya culture at Cuello, Belize. Journal of Archaeological Science 21, 819826. Coe, M. D. & Diehl, R. A. (1980). In the Land of the Olmec: The Archaeology of San Lorenzo Tenochtitla n, Vol I. Austin: University of Texas Press. Coe, S. D. (1994). Americas First Cuisines. Austin: University of Texas 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 las Minas. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana. Drennan, R. D. (1976). Fa brica San Jose and Middle Formative Society in the Valley of Oaxaca. Museum of Anthropology Memoirs 8. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Feinman, G. M. & Balkansky, A. K. (1997). Ceramic ring in ancient and modern Oaxaca. In (P. Rice, Ed.) Prehistory and History of Ceramic Kilns. Westerville, OH: American Ceramic Society, pp. 129147. Feinman, G. M. & Nicholas, L. M. (1990). At the margins of the Monte Alba n state: settlement patterns in the Ejutla Valley, Oaxaca, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 1, 216246.

Feinman, G. M. & Nicholas, L. M. (1992). Prehispanic interregional interaction in southern Mexico: the Valley of Oaxaca and the Ejutla Valley. In (E. Schortman & P. Urban, Eds) Resources, Power, and Interregional Interaction. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 75116. Feinman, G. M. & Nicholas, L. M. (1993a). La manufactura de ornamentos de concha en Ejutla. Final eld report of the 1992 season prepared for the Instituto Nacional de Antropolog a e Historia, Mexico. Feinman, G. M. & Nicholas, L. M. (1993b). Shell ornament production in Ejutla: implications for highland-coastal interaction in ancient Oaxaca. Ancient Mesoamerica 4, 103119. Feinman, G. M. & Nicholas, L. M. (1994). El proyecto Industriales artesanales e intercambio prehispa nico en Ejutla, Oaxaca, Mexico: el contexto residencial. Final eld report of the 1993 season prepared for the Instituto Nacional de Antropolog a e Historia, Mexico. Feinman, G. M. & Nicholas, L. M. (1995). Household craft specialization and shell ornament manufacture in Ejutla, Mexico. Expedition 37, 1425. Feinman, G. M. & Nicholas, L. M. (1996). Especializacio n artesanal en Ejutla prehispa nico. Cuadernos 3(10), 3756. Feinman, G. M. & Nicholas, L. M. (1998). El mapeo y estudio intensivo de la supercie de El Palmillo (Matatla n, Oaxaca, Me xico). Final eld report of the 1997 season prepared for the Instituto Nacional de Antropolog a e Historia, Mexico. Feinman, G. M. & Nicholas, L. M. (2000a). High-intensity household-scale production in ancient Mesoamerica: a perspective from Ejutla, Oaxaca. In (G. M. Feinman & L. Manzanilla, Eds) Cultural Evolution, Contemporary Viewpoints. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, pp. 119142. Feinman, G. M. & Nicholas, L. M. (2000b). Intensive survey of hilltop terrace sites in Oaxaca, Mexico. Antiquity 74(283), 2122. Feinman, G. M., Nicholas, L. M. & Middleton, W. D. (1993). Craft activities at the prehispanic Ejutla site, Oaxaca, Mexico. Mexicon 15, 3341. Feinman, G. M., Nicholas, L. M. & Middleton, W. D. (2000a). El Palmillo: una perspectiva dome stica sobre la transicio n Cla sica-Poscla sica en el Valle de Oaxaca. Final eld report of the 1999 season prepared for the Instituto Nacional de Antropolog a e Historia, Mexico. Feinman, G. M., Nicholas, L. M. & Middleton, W. D. (2000b). El Palmillo: una perspectiva dome stica sobre la transicio n Cla sica-Poscla sica en el Valle de Oaxaca. Final eld report of the 2000 season prepared for the Instituto Nacional de Antropolog a e Historia, Mexico. Flannery, K. V. (1967). Vertebrate fauna and hunting patterns. In (D. S. Byers, Ed.) The Prehistory of the Tehuacan Valley, Volume One: Environment and Subsistence. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 132177. Flannery, K. V. (1986). Ecosystem models and information ow in the Tehuaca n-Oaxaca region. In (K. V. Flannery, Ed.) Guila Naquitz: 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 from preceramic 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 University Press. Grayson, D. K. (1984). Quantitative Zooarchaeology. New York: Academic Press. Grove, D. C. (1987). Faunal analysis. In (D. C. Grove, Ed.) Ancient Chalcatzingo. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 547549. Hamblin, N. L. (1984). Animal Use by the Cozumel Maya. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

248

W. D. Middleton et al.
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 Pete n, Guatemala, No. 1 Artifacts. Cambridge: Peabody Museum of Archeology and Ethnology Memoirs 14, pp. 172176. Palerm, A. & Wolf, E. R. (1957). Ecological potential and cultural development in Mesoamerica. Pan American Union Social Science Monograph 3, 137. Parsons, M. H. (1972). Spindle whorls from the Teotihuaca n 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: University of Michigan, pp. 4579. Pohl, M. (1985a). Osteological evidence for subsistence and status. In (M. Pohl, Ed.) Prehistoric Lowland Maya Environment and Subsistence Economy. Cambridge: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, pp. 108113. Pohl, M. (1985b). The privileges of Maya elites: prehistoric vertebrate fauna from Seibal. In (M. Pohl, Ed.) Prehistoric Lowland Maya Environment and Subsistence Economy. Cambridge: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, pp. 133145. Pohl, M. (1994). Late Classic Maya fauna from settlement in the Copan 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 from Excavations in the Copan Residential Zone. Cambridge: Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 80, pp. 459476. Pohl, M. & Feldman, L. H. (1982). The Traditional role of women and animals in lowland Maya economy. In (K. V. Flannery, Ed.) Maya Subsistence: Studies in Memory of Dennis E. Puleston. New York: Academic Press, pp. 295311. Pollock, H. E. D. & Ray, C. E. (1957). Notes on vertebrate remains from Mayapan. Department of Archaeology Current Reports 41. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington. Pollock, H. E. D., Roys, R. L., Proskouriaco, T. & Smith, A. L. (1962). Mayapan, Yucatan, Mexico. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington. Reitz, E. J. & Wing, E. S. (1999). Zooarchaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Robles Garcia, N. M. (1994). Las canteras de Mitla, Oaxaca: tecnolog a para la arquitectura monumental. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Publications in Anthropology 47. Sa nchez Lo pez, A. (1989). Oaxaca tierra de maguey y mezcal. Oaxaca, Mexico: Instituto Tecnolo gico de Oaxaca. Schrenk, F. & Maguire, J. M. (1988). Actualistic SEM studies on the Makapansgat Limeworks Grey Breccia bone assemblage, Transvaal, South Africa. In (S. L. Olsen, Ed.) Scanning Electron Microscopy in Archaeology. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports 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 and hominid activities. In (S. L. Olsen, Ed.) Scanning Electron Microscopy in Archaeology. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 452, pp. 261285. Shipman, P. & Rose, J. J. (1988). Bone tools: an experimental approach. In (S. L. Olsen, Ed.) Scanning Electron Microscopy in Archaeology. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 452, pp. 303335. Siliceo Pauer, P. (1925). Representaciones prehispa nicas de dientes humanos hechas en concha. Anales del Museo Nacional de Me xico, Epoca 5, tomo 1, 220222. Stanford, D., Bonnichsen, R. & Morlan, R. E. (1981). The Ginsberg experiment: modern and prehistoric evidence of a bone-aking technology. Science 212, 438440. Starbuck, D. R. (1987). Faunal evidence for the Teotihuacan subsistence base. In (E. Mclung de Tapia & E. C. Rattray, Eds) Teotihuacan: nuevos datos, nuevas s ntesis, nuevos problemas. Me xico: Universidad Nacional Auto noma de Me xico, pp. 7590. Sua rez, L. (1977). Tipolog a de los objetos prehispa nicos de concha. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropolog a e Historia.

Hansen, R. D. (1990). Excavations in the Tigre Complex, El Mirador, Pete n, Guatemala, El Mirador Series, Part 3. Provo, UT: Papers of the 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 functional interpretation 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 relacio n de Tlacolula y Mitla. Mesoamerican Notes 4, 1324. Howell, W. K. & Evans Copeland, D. R. (1989). Excavations at El Mirador, Pete n, Guatemala: The Danta and Monos Complexes, El Mirador Series, Part 2. Provo, UT: Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation 62. Hudson, J., Walker, P. L. & Voorhies, B. (1989). Changing patterns of faunal exploitation. In (B. Voorhies, Ed.) Ancient Trade and Tribute: Economies of the Soconusco Region of Mesoamerica. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, pp. 133153. Janusek, J. W. (1999). Craft and local power: embedded specialization in Tiwanaku cities. Latin American Antiquity 10, 107131. Johnson, E. (1985). Current developments in bone technology. In (M. B. Schier, Ed.) Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 8, pp. 157235. Johnson, E., Politis, G. & Gutierrez, M. (2000). Early Holocene bone technology at the La Olla 1 site, Atlantic coast of the Argentine Pampas. 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 at Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington. Klein, R. G. & Cruz-Uribe, K. (1984). The Analysis of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kolb, C. C. (1987). Marine Shell Trade and Classic Teotihuacan, Mexico. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 364. Kowalewski, S. A., Feinman, G. M., Blanton, R. E., Finsten, L. & Nicholas, L. M. (1989). Monte Alba ns Hinterland, Part II: The Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in Tlacolula, Etla, and Ocotla n, the Valley 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: The Non-Ceramic Artifacts. Austin: University of Texas Press. Marcus, J. & Flannery, K. V. (1996). Zapotec Civilization: How Urban Society Evolved in Mexicos Oaxaca Valley. New York: Thames and Hudson. McCaerty, S. D. & Mcaerty, G. G. (1994). Engendering tomb 7 at Monte Alba n: 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 and Ethnology Memoirs 3(2). Middleton, W. D. (1998). Craft Specialization at Ejutla, Oaxaca, Mexico: An Archaeometric Study of the Organization of Household Craft Production. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, 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: Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in Tlacolula, Etla, and Ocotolan, The Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Museum of Anthropology Memoirs 23. Ann Arbor: 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 American Indians, Vol. 10: Archaeology of Northern Mesoamerica, Part 1. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 258269.

Domestic Faunal Assemblages from the Classic Period Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico 249
Sua rez, L. (1981). Te cnicas prehispa nicas en los objetos de concha. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropolog a e Historia. Thompson, J. E. (1939). Excavations at San Jose, British Honduras. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington. Valadez Azu a, R., Paredes Gudin o, B. & Rodr gez Galicia, B. (1999). Entierros de perros descubiertos en la antigua ciudad de Tula. 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 of Utah Press, pp. ixxxvii. White, T. E. (1953). A method of calculating the dietary percentages of various food animals utilized by aboriginal peoples. American Antiquity 18, 396398. Willey, G. R. (1972). The Artifacts of Altar de Sacricios. 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 Monographs 2, pp. 279383. Wing, E. S. (1978). Use of dogs for food: an adaptation to the coastal environment. 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 in Memory of Matthew W. Stirling. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, pp. 2128. Wing, E. S. & Steadman, D. (1980). Vertebrate faunal remains from Dzibilchaltun. In (E. W. Andrews IV & E. W. Andrews V, Eds) Excavations at Dzibilchaltun, Yucatan, Mexico. Middle American Research Institute Publication 48. New Orleans: Tulane University, pp. 326331.