Capriles 2006 MA Thesis-Libre

WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
Department of Anthropology
A ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF FISH REMAINS FROM THE LAKE
TITICACA FORMATIVE PERIOD (ca. 1000 B.C. – A.D. 500) SITE OF
KALA UYUNI, BOLIVIA
by
Jose Mariano Capriles Flores
A thesis presented to the

Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
of Washington University in
partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the
degree of Master of Arts
May, 2006
Saint Louis, Missouri

Copyright by
Jose Mariano Capriles Flores
2006
ii
To my parents,
Carlos and Eliana
and to
Alejandra.
iii
CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES vi
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF APPENDIXES x
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1
Goals of the Taraco Archaeological Project 2
Goals of the Zooarchaeological Analysis of the Fish Remains 3
CHAPTER 2. STUDY AREA 7
The Lake Titicaca Basin 7
Aquatic Resources and Fish in Lake Titicaca 9
The Taraco Peninsula and Kala Uyuni 12
Archaeological Excavations in Kala Uyuni 14
Archaeological Evidence for Fish in Lake Titicaca 16
Zooarchaeological Analysis of Fish Remains from Lake Titicaca 19
CHAPTER 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS 22
Field Sampling 22
Samples Selection 22
Flotation Recovery Procedure 26
Laboratory Analysis 27
Analysis of Dataset 29
iv
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS 31
Quantification Issues 31
Identifiability 35
General Patterns 39
Changes Through Time 45
CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION 64
Diachronic and Contextual Interpretations 64
The Early Formative Period 64
The Middle Formative Period 68
The Late Formative Period 79
CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSIONS 84
Activities 84
Technology 86
Taphonomy 88
Paleoenvironment 90
Trade-Offs 91
Future Directions 93
REFERENCES CITED 96
APPENDIXES 107
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1. Satellite image of the South Central Andes showing the Lake Titicaca basin
and the Taraco Peninsula where the site Kala Uyuni is situated. Image’s URL:
http://titicaca.ucsb.edu/chamak_pacha/landscape/lake_space_imagery/images/modis_ann
otated.jpg 8
Figure 2.2. Typical specimen of Trichomycterus dispar caught in the Taraco Peninsula in
July 2004. 9
Figure 2.3. Unusually large specimen of Orestias agassii caught in the Taraco Peninsula
in July 2004. 11
Figure 2.4. Typical specimen of Orestias luteus caught in the Taraco Peninsula in July
2004. 11
Figure 2.5. Map of the Taraco Peninsula with the location of Kala Uyuni, Bolivia
(modified from Bandy et al. 2004). 14
Figure 2.6. Topographic map of Kala Uyuni with the location of the different excavation
areas (from Bandy et al. 2004). 15
Figure 4.1. Scatter plot of the flotation volume of each sample analyzed in this study and
their respective fish weight. 32
Figure 4.2. Scatter plot of the flotation NISP and MNI values and their correspondent
curvilinear relation. 33
Figure 4.3. Scatter plot showing the relationship between NISP and weight and their
correspondent predictability. 34
Figure 4.4. Relationship between indeterminate and determinate fish bones from the
analyzed flotation samples of Kala Uyuni (NISP=69,840, weight=467.71 g). 40
Figure 4.5. Frequencies of cranial and postcranial bones, and scales from the analyzed
flotation samples of Kala Uyuni (Cranial NISP=3004, weight=75.64 g; Postcranial
NISP=11,124, weight=110.1 g; Scales NISP=30,084, weight=171.43 g). 41
Figure 4.6. Relative frequencies of taxa represented in the samples analyzed identified
from cranial bones (Orestias NISP=2672, weight=71.55 g, MNI=227; Trichomycterus
NISP=332, weight=4.09 g, MNI=86). 42
Figure 4.7. Relative frequency of postcranial elements: rays, ribs, and vertebrae from the
Kala Uyuni site (rays NISP=749, weight=2.96 g; ribs NISP=4169, weight=29.63 g;
vertebrae NISP=6206 weight=77.43 g). 42
vi
Figure 4.8. Relative frequencies of scales sorted by morphology and size (NISP=30,084,
weight=171.43 g). 44
Figure 4.9. Relative frequencies of fish specimens modified and unmodified from Kala
Uyuni (NISP=69,840, weight=467.71 g). 44
Figure 4.10. Relative frequencies of fish specimens in the analyzed flotation samples
from Kala Uyuni (NISP=69,840, weight=467.71 g, MNI=313). 45
Figure 4.11. Frequencies of densities (grams/liters) for the flotation samples. 46
Figure 4.12. Frequencies of densities (grams/liters) for the 1/4” screen samples. 47
Figure 4.13. Box-plots of the densities of the flotation samples analyzed and their
differences through time. 48
Figure 4.14. Relative frequencies of Orestias and Trichomycterus, organized through

time and sample size (Orestias NISP=2672, MNI=227, weight=71.65 g; Trichomycterus
NISP=332, MNI=86, weight=4.09 g). 49
Figure 4.15. Relative proportions of Orestias and Trichomycterus cranial specimens and
change through time (1EF: NISP=513, weight=7.76 g, MNI=64; 2MF: NISP=2371
weight=64.69 g, MNI=222; 3LF: NISP=120, weight=3.19 g, MNI=27). 50
Figure 4.16. Frequency of Orestias cranial specimens by through time

(NISP=2672). 51
Figure 4.17. Frequency of Trichomycterus cranial specimens through time

(NISP=332). 52
Figure 4.18. Box-plots of MNI changes through time and by context, all of the 1EF
samples are middens. 53
Figure 4.19. Box plots of NISP change through time and by contexts. 55
Figure 4.20. Box-plot of the fish weight distribution per sample through time from the
flotation samples of Kala Uyuni. 56
Figure 4.21. Box-plots of Orestias and Trichomycterus MNI and their difference between
time and contexts. 57
Figure 4.22. Box-plots of Orestias and Trichomycterus NISP and their change through
time and between contexts. 59
vii
Figure 4.23. Box-plots of ranges of body weight estimations for the entire sediment
excavated using allometric regression of Osteichties (Reitz et al. 1987; Reiz and Wing
1999). 60
Figure 2.24. Box-plot graph comparing the densities of large mammals and fish
remains. 61
Figure 4.25. Box-plots representing the estimated standard length (ESLP) in mm of the
Orestias specimens using the operculum greatest height. Top, only flot samples (N=37).
Bottom, composite of both flotation and screen samples (N=75). 63
Figure 5.1. Skeletal representations for the Middle Chiripa phase. Left, total NISP by
skeletal element with their respective proportions of unmodified (UMO) and burned
(MOF) specimens. Right, detailed proportions of burned specimens. 67
Figure 5.2. Skeletal representation of fish bones remains from the Late Chiripa phase, AC
midden area. 70
Figure 5.3. NISP counts of skeletal elements of the Late Chiripa phase, AC pits. 73
Figure 5.4. Skeletal representation of fish bone the Late Chiripa phase, AQ domestic
midden. 76
Figure 5.5. Skeletal representations of fish remains from the Late Chiripa phase domestic
AQ midden area. Top, total NISP by skeletal element with their respective proportions of
unmodified (UMO) and burned (MOF) specimens. Bottom, detailed proportions of
burned specimens. 77
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1. Chronology of the study area with approximate lake levels (modified from
Bandy et al. 2004). Note abbreviations for regional periods and local phases used in other
tables of this sudy. 13
Table 3.1. Description of the provenience and cultural context of the Kala Uyuni flotation
samples analyzed in this study (for additional information see Bandy et al. 2004). 25
Table 4.1. Cranial bones and the urostyle (last caudal vertebra) identified in
archaezoological collection of fish remains from Kala Uyuni. 36
ix
LIST OF APPENDIXES
Appendix 1. General results of the fish bone analysis with weight and volume density
values for both flotation and 1/4" screen samples. 108
Appendix 2. General NISP results for the fish analysis of flot samples including Orestias
NISP (ONISP), Trichomycterus NISP (TNISP), total fish NISP (TFNISP), Orestias MNI
(OMNI), Trichomycterus MNI (TMNI), total fish MNI (TFMNI), scales NISP (SCALN),
ribs NISP (RIBN), vertebrae NISP (VERTN), radial NISP (RADN), determinates NISP
(DETN), indeterminates NISP (INDET), total NISP (TOTALN), and presence of
carbonates (CARB), presence of blood? stain on bone (BLO). Weight in grams. 109
Appendix 3. General weight results for the fish analysis including Orestias weight
(ORW), Trichomycterus weight (TRW), total fish weight (TFW), scales weight
(SCALW), vertebrae weight (VERTW), ribs weight (RIBW), radial weight (RADW),
determinates weight (DETW), indeterminate weight (INDETW), total weight (TOTW).
Weight in grams. 110
Appendix 4. Results for the fish analysis of screen samples: Orestias NISP (SONISP),
Trichomycterus NISP (STNISP), total fish cranial NISP (SFNISP), Orestias MNI
(SOMNI), Trichomycterus MNI (STMNI), total fish MNI (SFMNI), Orestias weight
(SOW), Trichomycterus weight (STW), total fish cranial weight (SFW), scales NISP
(SSCALN), scales weight (SSCALW), ribs NISP (SRIBN), ribs (SRIBW), vertebrae
NISP (SVERN), vertebrae weight (SVERW), indeterminate NISP (SINDN),
indeterminate weight (SINDW), total fish NISP (STFW), total fish weight (STFW), and
presence of carbonates (CARB). Weight in grams. 111
Appendix 5. Cranial skeletal representations including burning stages, siding and

additional observations: PBU=partially burned, BUR=burned, CAL=calcified, W=weight
in grams. 112
Appendix 6. Composite table of identified cranial bones organized by taxa with burning
stages and weights and MNI. UMO=unmodified, MOF=modification caused by fire,
PBU=partially burned, BUR=burned, CAL=calcified. Weight in grams. 126
Appendix 7. Fish vertebrae counts and burning stages in NISP and weight.
UMO=unmodified, MOF=modification caused by fire, PBU=partial burned,
BUR=burned, CAL=calcified, W=weight in grams. 128
Appendix 8. Fish rib counts and burning stages in NISP and weight. UMO=unmodified,
MOF=modification caused by fire, PBU=partial burned, BUR=burned, CAL=calcified,
W=weight in grams. 129
Appendix 9. Fish rays counts and burning stages in NISP and weight. UMO=unmodified,
MOF=modification caused by fire, PBU=partial burned, BUR=burned, CAL=calcified,
W=weight in grams. 130
x
Appendix 10. Indeterminate fish bone counts and burning stages in NISP and weight.
BUR=burned, CAL=calcified, W=weight in grams. 131
Appendix 11. Fish scale counts and weights by morphology, size, and burning stages.
BUR=burned, CAL=calcified, BEN=bent, FUS=fused, W=weight in grams. 132
Appendix 12. Fish scale burning stages by NISP and weight. UMO=unmodified (includes
BEN and FUS), MOF=modification caused by fire (does not include BEN and FUS),
PBU=partial burned, BUR=burned, CAL=calcified, BEN=bent, FUS=fused, W=weight
in grams. 136
Appendix 13. Fish scale counts by size ranges: larger than 10 mm (>10 mm), between 5
and 9.9 mm (>5 ), and smaller than 5 mm (<5) and surface morphology (plain and
rough). W=weight in grams. 137
Appendix 14. Fish scale counts, weight and their relative frequencies by surface
morphology (plain and rough). W=weight in grams. 138
Appendix 15. Screen cranial specimens with information on siding and burning from the
1/4" screen fractions. Weight in grams. 139
Appendix 16. Vertebrae recovered from the 1/4" screen fractions.

Appendix 17. Fish ribs recovered from the 1/4" screen fractions.
Appendix 18. Scales recovered from the 1/4" screen fractions. Weight in grams. 141
Appendix 19. Scale data from the 1/4" screen fractions. Weight in grams. 141
Appendix 20. Carbonates with fish incrustations recovered from the 1/4" screen fractions.
Appendix 21. Osteometric measurements from the fish specimens in mm. Measurements
codes after Morales and Rosenlund (1979). 141
Appendix 22. Osteometric measurements of the fish bones recovered in the 1/4" screen
fractions in mm. Measurement codes after Morales and Rosenlung (1979). 156
Appendix 23. Operculum osteometric measurements in mm and derived determination of

standard length (ESL) using both least squares (L) and power functions (P). Measurement
codes following Morales and Rosenlund (1979). 160
xi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A number of people have contributed directly and indirectly to the elaboration of
the present study and they deserved my thankfulness for their significant contributions. It
goes without saying that I owe them more than this simple work can represent. David L.
Browman enthusiastically encouraged me to develop this research and to transform it into
a thesis and I owe him my gratitude for guiding me through graduate and scholarly life in
Washington University. Fiona Marshall has provided me with encouragement and useful
suggestions from her vast and wonderful experience as a zooarchaeologist. The Faculty
of the Department of Anthropology at Washington University including Gayle Fritz, T.
R. Kidder, Michael Frachetti, John Kelly, Tab Rasmussen, Bret Gustafson, and Jennifer
Smith, have shared with me their valuable knowledge, time, and handy advice when I
needed it. The Department of Anthropology’s outstanding staff including Kathleen Cook,
Elaine Beffa, Ronda Sackett, and Michele Capio were of invaluable help at many times.
Katherine M. Moore has been and continues to be my mentor in Andean
zooarcheology, she has led this research and provided endless suggestions and comments
on several significant aspects. Christine Hastorf and Matthew Bandy co-directors of the
Taraco Archaeological Project welcomed me in the great TAP family warmly and offered
me countless useful suggestions. Juan Albarracin-Jordan, has improved my scholarly life
with thoughtful and priceless advice.
Alejandra I. Domic has contributed more than anyone to this investigation both
inside and outside of it; her hard work and creative spirit have brought a little life to this
research, I owe her more than what words can describe. Maria C. Bruno has been a great
friend and colleague; she has reviewed not only the manuscript but my thinking regarding
xii
the Formative Period in the Lake Titicaca Basin in more than one occasion. Jaime
Sarmiento, Soraya Barrera and the people of the Colección Boliviana de Fauna, Museo
Nacional de Historia Natural have helped this study by providing space in their labs as
well as improving my understanding of Lake Titicaca’s ecology and ichtyofauna.
Lucretia S. Kelly, has shared her vast experience on how to address fish
zooarchaeologically. Dante Angelo, always offered friendship and the most stimulating
thoughts. Eduardo Machicado with good humor, provided insightful and critic ideas.
Justin Adams read a previous version of this work and offered many helpful comments.
Rolando Ajata, Sonia Alconini, Karina Aranda, Patricia Ayala, Silvia Blanco,
Pablo Cahiza, Sergio Calla, Luis Callisaya, Javier Escalante, Soledad Fernández, Martín
Giesso, Daniel Gutierrez, Ruth Fontenla, Daniella Jofré, Carlos Lémuz, Pilar Lima,
Marcos Michel, Axel Nielsen, Eduardo Pareja, Adolfo Pérez, Maribel Pérez, Claudia
Rivera Casanovas, Álvaro Romero, Calogero Santoro, Matthias Strecker, Delfor Ulloa,
and other great Bolivian and South American archaeologists have framed my thoughts on
how to be a responsible Latin American scholar. Marc Bermann, Deborah Blom, Amanda
Cohen, Tom Dillehay, Robert Drennan, Randi Gladwell, Kirk Frye, Paul Goldstein,
Cynthia Herhahn, John Janusek, Catherine Julien, Elizabeth Klarich, Amanda Logan,
Arik Ohnstad, Jeffrey Parsons, John Rick, Andrew Roddick, Charles Stanish, Lee
Steadman, Emily Stobel, William T. Whitehead, and Patrick Ryan Williams, have shared
bibliography, friendship, and very interesting ideas about Andean archaeology.
My colleagues and friends in the Department of Anthropology of Washington
University including Catrina Adams, Lee Arco, Susana Bailey, Anna Blackburn, Laura
Cochrane, Libby Cowgill, Rachel Dunn, Tafline Crawford, Michael Glore, Angela
xiii
Gordon, Kate Grillo, Mercedes Gutierrez, Kevin Hanselka, Elizabeth Hildebrand,
Elizabeth Horton, Lisa Isenhart, Dawn Kaufmann, LeAndra Luecke, Blaine Maley,
Christina Pugh, Timothy Schilling, Rajnish Vandercone, Sarah Walshaw, Annie Way,
and Lior Weissbrod, have shared their invaluable friendship and exciting talks with me.
A great network of friends have enthusiastically accompanied me during these
last two years in the U.S. through cyberspace and I wish to thank them for their fond
conversations and support, they include: Marcelo Argote, Juan Manuel Aviles, Marita
Ballivian, Sergio Ballivian, Alejandro Barrientos, Maya Benavides, Cesar Castillo, Ariel
Conitzer, Nayra Corzón, Yoko Corzón, Joaquin Cuevas, Cristian Goytia, Alvaro
Landivar, Marcelo Mariaca, Paula Pacheco, Luis Peñaranda, Sergio Picolomini, Carlos
Revilla, Alejandro Rivas, Christian Rivera, Isaac Rivera, Fabian Rocha, Miguel Angel
Saavedra, Martin Schulze, Mariana Serrano, Xavier Pino, Alejo Torrico, Karol
Szwagrzak, Alejandro Ustarez, Daniela Vasquez, and Susana Villarroel.
My parents, Carlos Capriles and Eliana Flores have supported me and provided
me with indispensable affection and care even across great distances. My brother Gabriel
Capriles Flores and my sister Carmen Capriles Flores have motivated me with their
powerful and motivating energy.
Last but not least, the local communities of Coacollo, San Jose and Santa Rosa de
Taraco deserve my deepest thanks for welcoming the archaeological investigation of their
land and their history. Finally, I remain solely responsible for the contents and
shortcomings of the present work.
xiv
CHAPTER 1.
INTRODUCTION
“Fish are said to be owned by the Lake Spirit, who demands that they be well treated”.
(Tschopik 1946:59)
This thesis has the general goal of improving our current understanding of the role
that fish played in the lives of the people that settled on the shores of Lake Titicaca
during pre-Hispanic times. In particular, it provides a zooarchaeological assessment of
fish use in terms of differential exploitation, preparation, consumption, and discard at the
Formative Period (ca. 1500 B.C. – A.D. 500) site of Kala Uyuni, located on the southern
shore of Lake Titicaca.
This investigation is part of a broader, long-standing archaeological interest in the
economic, social, political, and religious conditions that preceded and enhanced the
development and independent formation of the Tiwanaku state ca. A.D. 500 (Albarracin-
Jordan 1999; Bandy 2001; Browman 1981; Janusek 2004; Kolata 1993; Stanish 2003).
This work is structured under the broader Taraco Archaeological Project (TAP),
which carried out archaeological research at the Kala Uyuni site during the summers of
2003 and 2005 (Bandy et al. 2004; Hastorf et al. 2005). I have participated in the TAP
both as a field excavator and a faunal analyst. This thesis presents an analysis of a select
sample of 31 flotation samples recovered in the 2003 excavations of the Kala Uyuni site
and interpretations of these data (Bandy et al. 2004). The results offer detailed
information about the fish remains preserved in these contexts and are useful for both
1
inter and intra-specific comparisons between assemblages grouped by cultural context,
chronology, and spatial distribution.
Goals of the Taraco Archaeological Project
The Taraco Archaeological Project (TAP) is a long-term research project focused
on the study of the early social and political organizations that developed on the Taraco
Peninsula of the southeastern shore of Lake Titicaca prior to the advent of the Tiwanaku
state. Since 1992, TAP has been excavating and investigating the Formative Period of the
peninsula (Hastorf 1999). Initially centered on the famous site of Chiripa (Bennett 1936;
Kidder 1956; Browman 1978), TAP has gathered important information about the site’s
architectural configuration, material culture repertoire, and subsistence economy for the
Early Formative (1500-800 B.C.) and Middle Formative (800-200 B.C.) periods (Hastorf
1999; Hastorf et al. 2001).
Continuing with this research, Matthew Bandy (2001) carried out a pedestrian
survey of the Taraco Peninsula, describing the settlement pattern and explaining its
changes through time in terms of evolutionary socio-political processes (Bandy 2001,
2004, 2005). Bandy (2001) proposed that during the Late Formative (200 B.C. – A.D.
500), a change is observed from the regular distribution of four independent settlements
to the growth of a single site, Kala Uyuni (T-232). This site grew to the point of possibly
becoming the sociopolitical center of the Peninsula and competing with the contemporary
neighboring centers of Lukurmata and Tiwanaku. The 2003 excavations in Kala Uyuni
were concerned with understanding the processes that produced its growth and change
2
from a decentralized and autonomous settlement to an increasingly hierarchical center of
a multi-community polity (Bandy et al. 2004).
Goals of the Zooarchaeological Analysis of the Fish Remains
The present study provides the results of a detailed study of a sample of
archaeological fish remains that can potentially provide information with which to
evaluate the existing models of cultural continuity and change at the Taraco Peninsula
during the Formative Period. The general goals of this project are to improve our present
understanding of the specific activities and processes associated with this exclusive but
important resource and to provide systematic information with which to test several
competing models of social change that explain the increasingly centralized political life
of the Lake Titicaca Basin’s people and the eventual formation of the Tiwanaku state ca.
A.D. 300-500 (e.g., Albarracin-Jordan 1992, 1996a, 1996b, 1999, 2003; Browman 1981,
1997; Janusek 2004; Kolata 1993, 1996, 2003; Moseley 2001; Stanish 2003).
The specific goal of this study is to retrieve detailed information about the
differential exploitation, preparation, consumption, and discard of fishes from the
excavated areas and deposits of Kala Uyuni in order to improve our understanding of
these activities and their variability during the Formative Period.
One of the main concerns addressed in this study is the relative contribution or
importance of fish remains in the diet of the inhabitants of the site and how it changed
through time. To address this important problem, the fish data were compared with the
information available from other taxa, particularly camelids and other large mammals
that might provided higher nutrition values including calories, protein, and animal fats.
3
A second major concern was to improve our understanding of the taxa exploited,
as well as determining how the fishing exploitation might have worked. Knowing which
species were preferentially exploited, consumed, and discarded provides insights in how
fishing was organized, when it occurred, how much time was spent of this activity, and
even where it was carried out. Differences across time in this information could
potentially suggest shifts in fishing practices, introduction of new technology, labor
specialization, as well as environmental change.
This takes us to the third question of this study which was aimed at assessing how
environmental change affected fishing practices carried out at the site. Paleolimnological
data (Abbott et al. 1997; Binford et al. 1997), suggests that there were at least three
periods in the time frame of this investigation when the levels of Lake Titicaca were
considerably lower than at its present level (Table 2.1). This should have produced major
changes in both the behavior of the fish and of the fisherfolk with their consequent
manifestation in the archaeological record.
Finally, a fourth problem that this investigation addresses is the issue of
taphonomy and the preservation of fish remains. Taphonomic information on fish
preservation for Lake Titicaca is completely lacking. The overall preservation of fish
remains seems to be relatively good, particularly when fine recovery methods such as
flotation are implemented. An important concern of this study was to evaluate the
potential of the information retrieved and lost, as well as to improve our understanding of
the contents of fish assemblages recovered archaeologically. Pre-depositional cultural
modifications such as fish processing (cooking, boiling, roasting, etc.) are assessed in
4
conjunction with post-depositional processes such as trampling, mechanical stress,
weathering, biochemical degradation, among others.
This study is rooted in previous fish zooarchaeological studies in the Andes and
around world where similar problems have been confronted (Casteel 1976; Colley 1990;
Falabella et al. 1994; Gifford-Gonzales et al. 1999; Marcus 1987; Marcus et al. 1999;
Reitz 2001, 2004a, 2004b; Sandweiss 1996; Wheeler and Jones 1989; Zohar and Cooke
1997). The limited available information of previous studies on fish remains carried out
in Lake Titicaca will be discussed and when possible compared with the results from this
investigation (e.g., Capriles 2003, 2006; Moore et al. 1999).
The lack of previous investigation focused specifically on fish remains has
required the development of exploratory methods designed to retrieve and evaluate
information that fish remains can contribute to archaeological interpretations from Kala
Uyuni and similar sites across the Lake Titicaca Basin. The results of this study are in
part oriented to describing the potential and limitations of data on fish in light of the
newly implemented method. Moreover, the fish study was specifically oriented to
provide information from different depositional contexts, excavated from different areas
and occupation phases searching for patterns and their behavioral correlates.
5
CHAPTER 2.
STUDY AREA
The Lake Titicaca Basin
The Lake Titicaca Basin is located in the South Central Andes, approximately at
15°50’ South Latitude and 69°25’ West Longitude (Figure 2.1). The lake itself currently
covers a surface area of 8560 km2, and with its surrounding basin it roughly exceeds
57,340 km2 (7:1 catchment/surface area ratio) (Binford and Kolata 1996). The Titicaca
basin is situated in a deep geological depression that separates the Andes in two mountain
ranges, known as the altiplano. Lake Titicaca has an elevation of approximately 3810 m
a.s.l. It has an antiquity of at least 3 million years, and is one of fewer than 20 lakes in
world considered that ancient (Dejoux and Iltis 1992). It has a complex history of water
level changes that is related to macroclimatic fluctuations as well as to mesoclimatic
variables (Abbott et al. 1997; Binford and Kolata 1996; Binford et al. 1997). Lake
Titicaca’s surface area and its closeness to the Andean cordillera allow it to receive more
precipitation than most of the Andean altiplano, averaging 800 mm per year (Roche et al.
1992). Although several large rivers flow into it, only one flows out of it, the
Desaguadero.
Lake Titicaca can be divided into two portions that meet in the Tiquina strait; the
northern or big lake (also called Chucuito) and the southern or small lake (also called
Wiñaymarca). The northern portion is larger (7130 km2) and deeper (mean depth 109 m)
and the southern portion is smaller (1430 km2) and much shallower (mean depth 7.4 m).
6
Taraco Peninsula Tiwanaku
Figure 2.1. Satellite image of the South Central Andes showing the Lake Titicaca Basin
and the Taraco Peninsula where the site Kala Uyuni is situated. Image’s URL:
http://titicaca.ucsb.edu/chamak_pacha/landscape/lake_space_imagery/images/modis_ann
otated.jpg
7
The fact that the southern portion is shallower may imply that it can support a
higher density of biomass than the larger portion, but it also means that it is more
vulnerable to climatic change and lake level fluctuations. In fact, during the last 4000
years its surface has oscillated considerably a number of times (Abbott et al. 1997;
Binford et al. 1997) (Table 2.1).
Aquatic Resources and Fish in Lake Titicaca
Lake Titicaca is one of the highest navigable lakes in the world and its whole
basin has a long and complex history of human occupation that started during the
Preceramic or Archaic period (8000-1500 B.C.) and continues today. The basin has been
the center of complex sociopolitical processes including the development of multi-
communal polities during the Formative Period and subsequently the independent
formation of the Tiwanaku state. Environmental as well as economic factors are
considered relevant (Bandy 2001; Janusek 2004; Hastorf 1999; Kolata 1993, 2003;
Stanish 2003). Scholars agree that control of the exploitation of agricultural, herding, and
aquatic resources was the key economic factor in the development of complex societies
in the basin. Recent studies have allowed a better understanding of the development of
agricultural intensification (e.g., Bandy 2001; Bruno and Whitehead 2003; Kolata 1996,
2003), and herding management (Browman 1981; Kent 1982; Webster 1993; Webster
and Janusek 2003).
Two aquatic resources are considered the most significant for ancient economies.
Totora (Scirpus totora also named Schoenoplectus totora) reeds were extremely
important and had multiple uses. Browman (1989:150-151) has argued that the totora
8
paleoethnobotanical remains found at Chiripa could have been brought to the site for
direct use as food, indirect use as a construction material for thatch roofs and balsas
manufacture, and incidentally, as a component of camelid dung, used for fuel (this also
implies that camelids browsed on totora). Interestingly Browman (1989:156) also found
fish scales inside a sample of burned dung, which would suggest that aquatic vegetation
was fed to domestic camelids at least since 1000 B.C. Along with totora, other aquatic
plants were also used by the inhabitants of the lake during prehispanic times (Browman
1989; Orlove 2002; Portugal 2002).
The other important aquatic resource was fish. Fish in the basin are relatively
small (rarely exceeding a standard length of 30 cm). Two genera and about 26 species of
native fish have been described for this region (Parenti 1984; Vaux et al. 1988). The
catfish genus Trichomycterus (Siluriformes, Trichomyteridae) is represented by two mud-
dwelling species: Trichomycterus rivulatus or suche and Trichomycterus dispar or mauri
(Tchernavin 1944b) (Figure 2.2). The former is usually distributed on the bottom of the
rivers that flow into the lake as well as the shoreline and littoral zones, whereas the latter
is distributed in more demersal zones of the lake.
Figure 2.2. Typical specimen of Trichomycterus dispar caught in the Taraco Peninsula in
July 2004. Photograph by William T. Whitehead.
9
The killifish Orestias (Cyprinodontiformes, Cyprinodontidae) is the most
abundant genus of the lake. Presently there is no real consensus on the number of
Orestias species and subspecies present in Lake Titicaca, but at least 24 are clearly
recognized (Lauzanne 1982, 1992; Parenti 1981, 1984; Osorio and Sarmiento 2002;
Sarmiento and Barrera 2003, 2004; Tchernavin 1944a; Vaux et al. 1988; Villwock 1986).
Parenti’s (1984) monograph on the Orestias genus is considered the most important
synthesis on the systematics of this group. A recent genetic study has however, seriously
questioned the phylogenies that it proposed. Consequently, more work is necessary to
understand the evolution of this genus (Lüssen et al. 2003). Moreover, two factors have
been neglected in the understanding of such evolutionary processes: (1) environmental
change and the highly dynamic nature of factors such as Lake Titicaca’s water level, and
(2) human impact through direct and continuous fish exploitation for over 4000 years.
The species of the genus Orestias exhibit high genetic diversity and ecological
specialization. Most species are highly specialized and adapted to specific micro-
ecosystems and zones of the lake and its tributaries, most of them are particularly small
and usually do not exceed 5 cm in standard length.
The species commonly cited as economically exploited are O. ispi, O. mulleri, O.
olivaceus, O. luteus, O. agassii, O. albus, O. pentlandii, and O. cuvieri. The species O.
agassii or carachi negro (Figure 2.3) and O. luteus or carachi amarillo (Figure 2.4) are
quoted as both the most common species in the lake and the most exploited (Sarmiento
and Barrera 2003, 2004; Castañón et al. 2002). All of the Orestias species are considered
endangered and O. cuvierii or umantu is considered formally extinct (Lauzanne 1992;
Sarmiento and Barrera 2003).
10
Figure 2.3. Unusually large specimen of Orestias agassii caught in the Taraco Peninsula
in July 2004. Photograph by William T. Whitehead.
Figure 2.4. Typical specimen of Orestias luteus caught in the Taraco Peninsula in July
2004. Photograph by William T. Whitehead.
Finally, the rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and the silverside (Odontesthes
bonariensis) were introduced in the 1940s and 1950s, respectively, and presently are part
of the lake’s ichthyofauna. Orlove (1986, 2002; Levieil and Orlove 1990; Orlove et al.
1992), based on an extensive census of Peruvian fishermen, has stated that currently
11
around 67% of the catch in Lake Titicaca is composed of Orestias, 4% of
Trichomycterus, and the rest (29%) of the introduced species silverside and trout.
Currently, the distribution of the silverside has spread quite effectively and many
fisheries are focused on its catch with the use of gillnets. Conversely, the trout has not
had good reproductive success and presently is rarely found in the lake, although some
populations are bred in cages (i.e., trout farms). The introduction of these two species has
had a considerable impact on the fishing practices and techniques used in Lake Titicaca,
as well as on the local populations of fishermen, although not to the point of rejecting
fishing and consumption of the native species (see Castañón et al. 2002; Horn 1984;
Orlove 1986, 2002; Orlove et al. 1992; Osorio and Sarmiento 2002; Portugal 2002; Ríos
and Rocha 2002; Sarmiento and Barrera 2003, 2004).
The Taraco Peninsula and Kala Uyuni
The Taraco Peninsula is located on southeastern shore of the southern portion of
the lake, following an east to west direction with the Tiwanaku valley to the southeast
and the lake surrounding it from the southwest, west, and north directions (Figure 2.5). Its
backbone is a moderately high range of hills (between 70 and 100 meters above the lake)
that cross-cuts it through its longitudinal axis. The hills are composed of red-orange
conglomerates and sandstones that belong to the Tertiary Taraco Formation. These are
surrounded by more recent Quaternary fluvio-lacustrine deposits, colluvial-fluvial
deposits, colluvial deposits, alluvial deposits, and some occasional patches of the slightly
earlier Kollu Kollu Formation composed of reddish sandstones with lenses of
conglomerates, tuffs and clays (Argollo et al. 1996).
12
The site of Kala Uyuni (T-232) is located in the southwest portion of the Taraco
Peninsula, flanking the Achachi Coacollu hill, the highest in the area (3920 m a.s.l.)
(Table 2.1, Figure 2.5). It is a large multi-component site that roughly covers 15 ha of
extension (Bandy 2001:101). The ceramic scatters of the different occupation phases are
segregated in different sectors. Along with the colluvial terraces where largest sectors of
the site are located, the hilltop of the Achachi Coacollu was also occupied. Minor Early
and Middle Chiripa phase occupations were identified, and during the Late Chiripa phase
at least two trapezoidal sunken courts were built on the hilltop, keeping the domestic
occupations in the lower colluvial terraces. By the Tiwanaku 1 phase, the residential
occupations increased considerably, configuring Kala Uyuni as the sociopolitical center
of the Peninsula (Bandy 2001). Interestingly, the courts of the hilltop were no longer in
use during this phase.
Table 2.1. Chronology of the study area with approximate lake levels (modified from
Bandy et al. 2004:Fig. 2). Note abbreviations for regional periods and local phases used
in other tables of this study.
Time Regional Period Local Phase Lake Level
A.D. 1825-2006 Republican Period Ingavi
A.D. 1550-1825 Colonial Period Colonial Pacajes
High
A.D. 1450-1550 Late Period Inka Pacajes
A.D. 1100-1450 Late Intermediate Period Early Pacajes
A.D. 900-1100 Tiwanaku 5 Low (-13-28 m)
Middle Period
A.D. 500-900 Tiwanaku 4
High
A.D. 300-500 Tiwanaku 3 (4T3)
Late Formative (1LF) Low (-16-18 m)
200 B.C. – A.D. 300 Tiwanaku 1 (3T1)
High
Low (-16-18 m)
800-200 B.C. Middle Formative (2MF) Late Chiripa (2LC)
High
1000-800 B.C. Middle Chiripa (1MC) Low (-11-14 m)
Early Formative (1EF)
1500-1000 B.C. Early Chiripa High
2000-1500 B.C. Terminal Archaic
Low (-20-30 m)
4000-2000 B.C. Late Archaic
13
Kala Uyuni
Figure 2.5. Map of the Taraco Peninsula with the location of Kala Uyuni, Bolivia
(modified from Bandy et al. 2004:Fig. 1).
Archaeological Excavations in Kala Uyuni
The 2003 excavations were focused on increasing our understanding of the
occupation of Kala Uyuni during the Middle Formative and Late Formative periods.
Three separate areas were tested: AQ, AC, and KU (Bandy et al. 2004) (Figure 2.6).
The AQ (Ayrampu Qontu) area consisted of a residential area dated to the Late
Chiripa phase with an initial Middle Chiripa occupation. The Late Chiripa phase,
however, includes dense and thick stratified concentrations of domestic refuse, and in
fact, the whole tested deposit seems to constitute a large domestic midden (Bruno 2004).
The AC (Achachi Coacollu) area corresponds to the hilltop where the two
identified courts were sampled (Cohen and Roddick 2004). The excavation strategy
14
emphasized the location of the four walls of each structure in order to define their size
and shape, as well as to determine the sequence of their construction, use, modification,
and abandonment. At least two different clay prepared floors (red and yellow in color)
were noted in each structure. A great deal of variation and modification was observed in
the wall construction, although following certain standards, such as the irregular
placement of white limestone boulders with cobbles between them (Cohen and Roddick
2004). A number of primary refuse pits were located in the outside of the court, often
containing very high densities of fish bone remains. In addition, a midden sector where
the refuse related to the activities of the courts were likely deposited, was located in the
southwest of the AC and excavated. The courts’ construction and use were associated
with Late Chiripa phase, but the midden contained some Middle Chiripa and Early
Chiripa phase ceramics.
AC
KU
AQ
Figure 2.6. Topographic map of Kala Uyuni with the location of the different excavation
areas (from Bandy et al. 2004:Fig. 3).
15
The KU (Kala Uyuni) excavation area was aimed at testing the Late Formative
period occupation of the site. Several middens, trash pits, and human burials associated
with this period were recorded and sampled as well as an impressive rectangular U-
shaped structure with thick stone cobble foundations (Bruno and Leighton 2004; Paz and
Fernández 2004). Unfortunately, the archaeologically-dense Tiwanaku 4 and Tiwanaku 5
occupations that overlay the Late Formative deposits impeded a broader sample of the
occupations of this period. In 2005, this area was excavated again, and as a result two
additional contemporary structures were identified as well as exterior activity areas
associated with them.
Archaeological Evidence for Fish in Lake Titicaca
Although archaeologists working in the Lake Titicaca Basin agree that fishes
were truly important in the subsistence economy of the populations that lived in this
region since the Preceramic or Archaic period (8000-1500 B.C.), very few studies have
explicitly focused on them. In this section, I give a cultural historical account of the little
information available about fish utilization in Lake Titicaca during prehispanic times.
Klink and Aldenderfer (1997), using the results of an inland survey of the Ilave
River (one of the main tributaries of Lake Titicaca), have argued that at least two
subsistence strategies were present during the Late Archaic Period (4000-2000 B.C.) in
this valley. One focused on hunting and gathering highland resources, and the other one
complemented these activities with the utilization of aquatic resources. Specific sites
oriented toward the exploitation of marshlands and access to the shores of the lake were
reported in this survey. Stanish and his colleagues (2003; see also Bauer and Stanish
16
2001; Stanish 2003) made a strong case for people traveling to the Island of the Sun using
balsas or other forms of aquatic transportation, possibly since the Late and Terminal
Archaic Periods (4000-1500 B.C.) but surely and continually since the Early Formative
Period (1500-800 B.C.). They do not directly address subsistence, however. There is no
mention of fish remains nor systematic zooarchaeological information from the few sites
excavated and dated to the preceramic period (e.g., Aldenderfer 2002; Stanish et al.
2003), however, detailed study of the fish might provide information about seasonality in
addition to subsistence strategies.
Recently, Cynthia Herhahn (2004) excavated the Early Formative period site of
Wiskachuni in the western shore of Lake Titicaca. Her faunal analysis included the
counting and weighting of fish specimens recovered using both 1/4” screens and 1/16”
mesh water-screening. Interestingly, her results showed that fish remains were quite low,
suggesting that the subsistence economy of the inhabitants of this site probably relied
more on large mammals such as camelids and deer than on fish. This implies that the
early sedentary occupants of the lake might have had a greater variability in their food
procurement strategies.
In contrast, Moore and colleagues (1999) discuss the evidence of faunal
utilization during the Early Formative period from the site of Chiripa at the southern
portion of the lake. They argue that subsistence during this time was highly diversified,
but fish were clearly the most important faunal resource. Their results reinforce the
importance given to fish by Kent (1982) and Browman (1989, 1998) for the same
chronological period, as well as for the remaining human occupation sequence that
includes the Middle Formative, Late Formative, and Tiwanaku periods. Kent (1982) has
17
suggested that fish remains adequately reflect their importance for the site inhabitants, as
well as their reliance on aquatic resources. Susan deFrance (1997) in a report on three
sites in the Copacabana Peninsula (between the two portions of the lake) dating to the
Late Formative period (200 B.C. – A.D. 400), agrees that fish are the most abundant
taxon. Lémuz (2001, 2002) in his excavations of three Formative and Tiwanaku period
sites on the Santiago de Huata Peninsula (in the northern portion of the lake) has reported
several fish species and suggests that fish were the predominant faunal resource utilized
in that area since the Middle Formative and throughout Tiwanaku. These studies also
agree that, although fish and camelids occur in continual high percentages; waterfowl,
edible rodents, and other taxa decline over time.
Browman (1989) and Moore (1999) recognized bone tools associated with the
manufacture of nets and fishing gear, particularly whole and fragmented net gauges.
Since these rectangular bone objects have been recognized as tools, they have been found
in numerous sites, most of them on the southern shore of Lake Titicaca.
Recent results have confirmed how the initial diversity suggested by Moore and
colleagues (1999; see also Webster 1993) decreases through time, with fish and domestic
camelids becoming the two most important taxa recovered in archaeological samples by
Tiwanaku times. For example, Stanton (1994, see also Isbell and Burkholder 2002),
working with faunal remains from the shoreline site of Iwawi, compared fish and other
taxa weight and counts from flotation samples and saw a strong continuity on the
dependence on fish from the Formative Period through the end of the Tiwanaku
occupation.
My study of the Iwawi faunal materials shows a similar pattern, a change from a
18
diversified diet to one more strictly focused on domestic camelids, with fish being
constantly conspicuous throughout the sequence (Capriles 2003, 2006). As Moore and
coauthors (1999) initially suggested, the importance of fish can only be understood with
the analysis of the heavy fractions of flotation samples.
Because both archaeological and zooarchaeological studies are still few and in the
process of been implemented, a complete lack of data surrounds the Late Intermediate
period (A.D. 1100-1470) and the Late Horizon characterized by the Inka occupation
(A.D. 1470-1532). Pareja (1992) however, in his description of the Tiwanaku and Inka
underwater offerings at the Island of the Sun, mentions remains of several taxa including
domestic camelids and fish. In addition, Wise (1993) in her excavations of a domestic
compound dated to the Inka period in the Lukurmata site identified huge quantities of fish
remains, leading her to believe that the identity of the occupants of the household were
probably fisherfolk.
Zooarchaeological Analysis of Fish Remains from Lake Titicaca
Even though very few studies have reported or analyzed fish remains from
archaeological sites in Lake Titicaca, the methods used have been diverse. The methods
used in recovery and analysis of fish remains are critical to understanding inferences
derived by researchers, and also in evaluating the extent to which comparisons between
data from different sites is feasible. I will describe the different types of analysis, from
the simplest to the more complex, quoting some examples.
Most of the archaeological literature and interpretative synthesis, such as the
works of Kolata (1993) and Stanish (2003), suggest that fish were very important during
19
Tiwanaku and other time periods, but do not mention any study or empirical data to
support this claim. Other types of reports such as Bermann’s household investigation
(1990, 1994) only include the identification and number of fish remains (as compared
with birds and camelids) from the 1/4” screened samples. Kent’s (1982)
zooarchaeological analysis uses only screen samples and, in the case of the fish, is
restricted to the count of operculums: thus, his values could be interpreted as a good
measure of MNI (minimum number of individuals) counts (by simply taking the counts
as they come or dividing them by two [see Reitz and Wing 1999 for other forms of
determining MNI values]), but it certainly complicates the comparison of his results with
other studies. Some works discuss the faunal remains from archaeological sites in Lake
Titicaca but restrict their results to the large mammals (specially camelids) or include
some other taxa, but specifically exclude fish (e.g., Webster 1993; Webster and Janusek
2003; Wing 1986).
Moore and colleagues (1999) make detailed descriptions of their fish bone data in
counts (NISP, or number of identified specimens) and weight values, group all fish taxa
(reporting the identification of the two native genera in their samples), compare them
with the identification of other taxa and calculate biomass estimations (Reitz et al. 1987).
Their results are interesting because they include comparisons between heavy fractions of
flotation samples and 1/4” screened samples.
Grouping all the fish remains within the general fish category for comparison
purposes is common in discussions of faunal remains (e.g., Capriles 2003; deFrance
1997; Lémuz 2001, 2002; Moore et al. 1999; Stanton 1994), and specially for estimating
reconstructions of the weight lost in the 1/4” screened samples (Capriles 2003, 2004;
20
Moore et al. 1999). Very few studies however, provide supporting data about different
species and taxa recorded.
Kent (1982, but see Horn 1984) was the first researcher to provide counts of
Orestias vs. other fish (possibly Trichomycterus), although he does not focus on them,
and only argues that their presence favors the expected intensive use of aquatic resources
in Lake Titicaca. The study of deFrance (1997) also differentiates between Orestias and
Trichomycterus, although the specific data she discusses have not yet been published.
Moore and her colleagues (1999) have so far published the detailed counts and weights of
their identified fish taxa only for the Early Formative Period, although they have
analyzed samples of numerous later dated contexts. Moreover, they report the presence of
the two genera, but do not present differentiated counts and weights for each.
Lémuz (2001, 2002) offered the first counts of different Orestias species. In his
faunal analysis, he classified the fish remains in three complexes: O. albus / O. luteus, O.
cuvieri, and O. cuvieri / O. agassii, in addition to the general categories of Orestias sp.
and Trichomycterus sp. His results are presented in NISP counts.
Based on the work of both Moore and colleagues (1999) and Lémuz (2001, 2002),
I have presented data of Orestias and Trichomycterus in NISP, MNI, and weight
(Capriles 2003, 2006). Working with biologists, I have also tried to further the
identification of Orestias using both morphological characters and morphometric
information based on modern reference collections and their application to archaeological
samples, although more work is still necessary. This thesis is, in part an advance in that
direction.
21
CHAPTER 3.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Field Sampling
The samples analyzed for this thesis were recovered and processed following the
standard collecting and flotation protocols implemented by the Taraco Archaeological
Project (Bandy et al. 2004; Hastorf et al. 2005; Bruno and Whitehead 2004). Flotation
samples were systematically taken from every locus (i.e., unit of provenience) excavated
and ideally from every depositional stratigraphic event encountered. The standard
procedure required that excavators take a 10 liter soil sample for each locus using a
trowel and a bucket, mapping, and recording its precise location in three-dimensional
coordinates. Each sample was recorded as a “bulk” when the 10 liters were collected
from a single location or as a “scatter” when they were gathered from a wider area
(Bruno and Whitehead 2004).
All the soil from especially rich contexts such as small pits and deposits were
collected for flotation and ranged from 1 liter to 20 liters. Important formal cultural
contexts such as floors, pits, and middens were additionally sampled with supplementary
10 liter bulk samples to provide larger intraspecific samples. In addition to the 10 liter
flotation sample, phytoliths, pollen, and loose soil samples were taken for other
specialized analyses.
22
Samples Selection
As discussed above, three areas were excavated at Kala Uyuni, all of them
representing different activity areas of the site. For the present study, 31 flotation samples
were selected and analyzed from these three areas. These samples are composed of 31
flotation heavy fractions and 16 corresponding and available 1/4” screen fractions.
Previous research has suggested that screen information is potentially incomplete and not
representative of the deposited fish faunal remains (Moore et al. 1999). This study
supports this conclusion and, therefore, the results I present unless otherwise noted,
correspond to the information from the flotation samples. The criteria for selection
included: (1) primary, undisturbed depositional contexts related with the discard of food
related remains, (2) events of discard of both domestic and ritual activities, (3)
representation of the three periods of occupation of the site and the three different areas
of the site, and (4) priority as defined by the excavators and other analysts of the project.
The distribution and contextual information of the selected samples is the
following:
From the AQ area, 7 loci were selected, all of which belong to a stratified midden
dating to the Late Chiripa phase. They should provide a useful and consistent sequence of
discard for the Middle Formative Period.
From the AC area, a total of 16 samples were analyzed, four of which date to the
Middle Chiripa phase and correspond to the lower levels of a “ritual” midden where the
secondary refuse of the activities held in the AC courts was most probably deposited
(Cohen and Roddick 2004). The remaining 12 samples from the AC area date to the Late
Chiripa phase. Five of them belong to the same “ritual” midden described above and are
23
composed of three midden samples and two trash pits identified inside the midden itself.
Four additional loci consisted of pits located outside of the lower court and are associated
with discrete deposits directly related to the use of the court itself possibly originating
from meals at the site or offerings. Of the remaining loci, one is a sample of the surface
of the courts and two correspond to fill deposited right above them.
From the KU area, only eight Late Formative contexts were selected, even though
earlier and later cultural contexts were excavated from this area as well. Three are
midden deposits, three are from pits, one is the outside surface of the structure excavated
in this area, and lastly, one corresponds to the fill excavated right above this occupation
surface. The specific loci, event numbers, and descriptive contextual information of the
analyzed samples are included in the Table 3.1. Note that the floated volume of soil for
each sample varies, but together have a mean of 8.94 liters. All of the samples selected
were bulk samples.
Note that the relative dates of the samples were derived from the ceramic analysis
of the contexts carried out by Lee Steadman (2004), the ceramic specialist of the TAP, as
well as stratigraphic information in the form of Harris Matrixes and a suite of 15
radiocarbon dates. Four of the loci analyzed in this study were radiocarbon dated and
confirm the information of the ceramic analysis.
24
Table 3.1. Description of the provenience and cultural context of the Kala Uyuni flotation samples analyzed in this study (for
additional information see Bandy et al. 2004).
Locus Slash Flot # North East Area Phase Context Event # Event Description
5015 1 13038 968 921 AC Late Chiripa Fill over floor A21 Fill over floor (lower court)
5063 1 13025 855 536 AQ Late Chiripa Midden C18 High density midden
5075 1 13055 857 539 AQ Late Chiripa Midden C8 Medium density midden
5080 1 13093 857 539 AQ Late Chiripa Midden C10 High density midden-primary
5086 1 13122 857 539 AQ Late Chiripa Midden C14 Midden with substantial amount of rock in matrix
5134 1 13118 1000 947 AC Late Chiripa Surface A126 Occupation zone, deposited during use-outside
5164 10 13220 890 651 KU Tiwanaku 1 Surface B22 Surface inside structure
5167 1 13223 890 651 KU Tiwanaku 1 Fill over floor B23 Fill between floors within structure
5178 1 13120 980.40 928.18 AC Late Chiripa Pit A26 Pit fill with fish bone (lower court)
5178 2 13123 980.40 928.18 AC Late Chiripa Pit A26 Pit fill with fish bone (lower court)
5180 1 13115 980.40 928.18 AC Late Chiripa Fill over floor A35 Fill over floor (lower court)
5192 2 13156 979 935 AC Late Chiripa Pit A29 Pit fill-fish and ash (lower court)
5193 1 13175 979 935 AC Late Chiripa Pit A29 Pit fill-fish and ash (lower court)
5228 1 13188 990 968 AC Late Chiripa Midden A102 Medium density midden-primary
5229 1 13163 990 968 AC Late Chiripa Pit A103 Pit fill-clay (midden sector)
5230 1 13159 990 968 AC Late Chiripa Pit A104 Pit fill-ash (midden sector)
5231 4 13171 990 968 AC Late Chiripa Midden A106 High density midden with ash-primary
5232 1 13172 990 968 AC Late Chiripa Midden A107 Midden with substantial amount of rock in matrix
5233 1 13166 990 968 AC Middle Chiripa Midden A108 Medium density midden-primary
5234 1 13167 990 968 AC Middle Chiripa Midden A108 Medium density midden-primary
5238 1 13200 979 957 AC Middle Chiripa Midden A111 High density midden with ash-secondary
5240 1 13204 979 957 AC Middle Chiripa Midden A112 Medium density midden with ash-primary
5270 1 13226 894 639 KU Tiwanaku 3 Pit B48 Pit fill-ash
5274 1 13232 894 639 KU Tiwanaku 1 Midden B39 Medium density midden
5300 1 13230 894 639 KU Tiwanaku 3 Pit B52 Pitt fill-ash
5305 1 13245 894 639 KU Tiwanaku 1 Midden B88 High density midden
5307 1 13249 894 639 KU Tiwanaku 3 Pit B48 Pit fill-ash
5317 6 13359 894 639 KU Tiwanaku 1 Midden B91 High density midden
25
Flotation Recovery Procedure
The analyzed samples were processed with a mechanized water flotation system,
a modified version of SMAP (“Shell Mound Archaeological Project”, sensu Watson
1976) (Bruno and Whitehead 2004). This particular machine consisted of a 55 gallon
drum used as water container coupled with a gasoline mechanic oil water pump. Water
was pumped into the machine from a local source of water and moved upward through a
submerged shower head. An inner barrel with a half-millimeter brass mesh bottom was
partially flooded inside the drum and over the shower head. Then, the soil was poured
inside the inner barrel.
Usually, the sediment was soaked prior to its submersion in water to facilitate the
process of flotation recovery by the disaggregation of clay. While the sediment was being
floated, charred plants remains floated up to the surface of the water and were recovered
in a fine fabric and using a tea strainer. A gravel siphon was used to recover finer remains
floating below the surface of water. In this way, light and heavy fractions were obtained.
The light fraction was composed of the material that floated, while the heavy fraction
consisted of the material obtained in inner bucket and contained animal bones, fishes
scales, lithics, and ceramic artifacts. The cloth with these remains then was left to dry
under the sun. In the present study, only the heavy fractions materials were analyzed, but
it should be noted that the light fractions also contain few fish remains, and particularly
small scales.
Once dry, the heavy fractions were sorted with the help of geological mesh
screens up to the 1 mm screen size (bagging the rest as residue) by a selected group of
trained local workers from the Coacollo Community and the supervision of TAP
26
archaeologists. The cultural materials were sorted in different classes including animal
bones. The animal bones from the heavy fractions were then exported to the USA with
permission of the Bolivian state under the supervision of the Katherine M. Moore (2004).
Katherine M. Moore and Teagan A. Schweitzer identified and sorted the fish remains
from the other faunal specimens. I received only the fish remains and analyzed them with
the help of Alejandra Domic (Asociación para la Biología de la Conservación – Bolivia),
the collaborative assistance of Jaime Sarmiento and Soraya Barrera of the Colección
Boliviana de Fauna at the Museo Nacional de Historia Natural in La Paz, and Lucretia S.
Kelly at the Department of Anthropology, Washington University in St. Louis. Note that
some samples still contained other non-fish faunal bones, which were counted, weighed
and separated from the fish remains.
Laboratory Analysis
The following procedure of analysis was developed specifically for analysis of the
Kala Uyuni fish remains. It is derived from the standard procedures for collecting
primary zooarchaeological data outlined in the available literature (Casteel 1976; Reitz
and Wing 1999; Wheeler and Jones 1989), as well as from previous experience with the
study of Lake Titicaca archaeological fish fauna (Capriles 2003, 2006; Moore et al.
1999).
Each heavy fraction sample was analyzed separately and independently from the
other samples. The analyses started by weighing each sample with an Ohaus Scout 200
200 gram scale with precision of 0.01 grams. Then, the sample was sorted into groups of
identifiable cranial bones, vertebrae, ribs, radials, scales, and unidentifiable bones. In
27
addition, each one of the resulting groups was further sorted according to the following
burning stages: unmodified (unburned), partially burned (brown or partially black),
burned (black), or calcified (gray, blue and white). Each of these categories was then
counted and weighed to the 0.01 gram. Additional modifications to the materials were
also searched for and recorded when observed. These include bent scales or other bones,
fused scales or other bones, carbonate incrustations, trampling, weathering, staining, as
well as any additional information related to preservation, taxonomy, or taphonomy. Bent
scales, defined as the inward folding of the otherwise flat surface of the scales, was
defined as a signature of boiling, based on preliminary experimental observations. This
signature should be tested in a future study, but for the present, it will be used as a proxy
for boiling.
The cranial bones were identified and grouped by genus (i.e., Orestias or
Trichomycterus) and skeletal element based on morphological characteristics and were
counted and weighed. All of the bones of each genus were weighed together but in cases
of large samples, each skeletal element group was weighed separately. The best preserved
bones were sided and measured using a Mitutoyo digital caliper with an accuracy of 0.02
mm in the specific features formulated by Morales and Rosenlund (1979). The scales
were sorted into fractions of rough and plain scales following taxonomical criteria. Each
of these fractions was then subdivided into size classes of less than 5 mm (<5 mm), from
5 mm to 9 mm (>5 mm), and 10 mm (>10 mm) as an estimate for the distribution of sizes
in the different samples. These were also counted and weighed.
As stated before, in addition to the 31 heavy fraction from flotation samples, 16
screen samples were analyzed following the same procedure. The screen samples
28
correspond to the loci of the excavated events and were recovered using a 1/4” mesh
(6.35 mm). A total of 15 samples did not include screen samples, either because the entire
locus was floated or because no fish bones were identified in the screen during their
excavation.
The comparative materials used in this study include samples of the Colección
Boliviana de Fauna in La Paz and a personal collection of fishes recovered from the
Coacollo fishermen and the fish market in La Paz. All of the analyzed fish samples are
stored in zip lock bags and will be returned to Bolivia for permanent storage in the
Coacollu local interpretative center and artifact repository.
Analysis of Dataset
The minimal units of primary data recording used in this study were the minimum
number of identified specimens (NISP) and weight (in grams). Taking into account that
only specimens that were sufficiently preserved to be identified were recorded, I consider
my NISPs to be very close to a true minimum number of elements (MNE) and
consequently, MNE were not recorded because they would produce redundant
information. As secondary data, minimum number of individuals (MNI) was calculated
based on the siding of the most frequent element of each taxa per sample.
All of the information retrieved from the zooarchaeological fish specimens was
tabulated in a Microsoft Office Excel 2003 file. From this, different worksheets with
different information were produced and used as the main dataset. Tables of relative
frequencies, descriptive statistics, and comparative graphics were produced using
Microsoft Office Excel 2003. In addition, box-plots and other descriptive graphics were
29
produced using SPSS 12.0. Biomass estimations were calculated based on Reitz et al.
(1987; Reitz and Wing 1999) allometric equations (Appendix 1). Finally, standard length
estimations of Orestias specimens were determined using the latero-distal length of the
operculum also called the operculum greatest height (sensu Morales and Rosenlund
1979:34-35) based on a recalculation of the transfer function previously determined from
an experimental modern collection (Capriles 2003). These values were recalculated using
SPSS arriving at a power function that has a higher prediction value than the least square
equation previously published (Leach et al. 1997).
30
CHAPTER 4.
RESULTS
Quantification Issues
Before any interpretation and use of the zooarchaeological data gathered during
the analysis can be carried out, the quantification issues associated with the nature and
characteristics of the faunal assemblage studied should be addressed (Grayson 1979,
1984; Lyman 1994; Marshall and Pilgram 1993). Two decisions were made in this study:
(1) for dataset manipulation, the information is presented by flotation sample, that is the
unit of provenience in which they were excavated, and (2) for analysis purposes I used
two units of aggregations: periods and contexts types.
By having the data sorted by unit of provenience (i.e., loci and flotation numbers),
subsequent aggregations can be made without the problem of having their original
contextual information lost. The Appendices included in this work provide this detailed
contextual information for all the variables recorded. In addition, comparability is
facilitated by the fact that most of the samples were equivalent in volume (mean 8.68
liters). This includes the clustering of the samples between eight and 10 liters (Figure 4.1)
and the presence of three small samples with less than three liters of volume. Density
values allow the standardization of the data, and it is clear that some samples have higher
quantities of fish bones than others independently of the volume of sediment excavated.
31
Period
80.00
1EF
2MF
3LF
60.00
Flot fish weight (g)
40.00
20.00
0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Flot volume (l)
Figure 4.1. Scatter plot of the flotation volume of each sample analyzed in this study and
their respective fish weight.
Periods are considered strong units of aggregation and they allow large scale
comparisons related to the specific goals of this study. Context type is also a strong unit
of aggregation and was only used inside the broader period category. Periods allow a
diachronic interpretation of the remains, but the context category, enhances the
synchronic and functional understanding of the site and its variability. Finally, the entire
dataset produced in this study is presented in the Appendixes in order to facilitate future
potential reinterpretations of the aggregation units as well as to allow the entire reanalysis
of the data and the interpretations presented in this study, if required.
As stated in the previous chapter, the units of analysis were the NISP, weight, and
secondarily the MNI. Regarding the effect of aggregation and the independence or not of
32
the NISP and MNI values (Marshall and Pilgram 1993), Figure 4.2, shows the
relationship between these two variables for all the loci analyzed. A slightly curvilinear
pattern is noted, possibly as a consequence of the large sample size. The MNI values
were estimated using the highest represented element of a given side and taxon in each
locus, and these were different between loci. In correspondence with their frequencies, in
most cases the operculum and pharyngeal bones were the most abundant elements of the
genus Orestias, and the interoperculum and urostyle for the genus Trichomycterus.
Period
1EF
2MF
3LF
10000
8000
Flot fish NISP
6000
4000
2000
0 10 20 30 40
Flot fish MNI
Figure 4.2. Scatter plot of the flotation NISP and MNI values and their correspondent
curvilinear relation.
33
A more linear relation is observed between the weight and the NISP, although the
most important factor that can potentially modify and bias the interdependence of these
variables is fragmentation and thereby also good preservation. As can be observed in
Figure 4.3, there were few cases where these effects are patent, but in those that do, NISP
seems to be the main biased variable and correspondingly, fragmentation the most
biasing agent. In addition, both of these graphs show the distribution of samples through
time periods, showing that the Middle Formative has the largest range and the Late
Formative the smallest one, mostly clustered in the lower end.
Period
1EF
2MF
3LF
10000
8000
Flot fish NISP
6000
4000
2000
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00

Figure 4.3. Scatter plot showing the relationship between NISP and weight and their
correspondent predictability.
34
Identifiability
The potential of identification or identifiability of the zooarchaeological
specimens must be addressed along with the quantification factors. Only two genera of
native fish are currently present in Lake Titicaca, and the zooarchaeological information
suggests that both of them were present in the past. One of them, Orestias includes at
least 20 species and the other, Trichomycterus at least two. Even though the species of
these two genera have distinct ecological habitat preferences, a number of them are
sympatric, and Orestias are overall consistently more abundant (both biologically and
ecologically) than Trichomycterus.
The fact that there are no real studies that address the osteology of these two
genera and their associated species presented a major methodological limiting factor. To
overcome this problem, the approach developed in this study included the identification
of bones utilizing the reference collection of the Colección Boliviana de Fauna in La Paz,
which included fish specimens collected specifically for this study, and attempting
idenfitications only to the genus level. Fortunately, Orestias and Trichomycterus belong
to different families and orders, and are consequently very different from each other;
making their ostelogical differentiation a straightforward process.
Intraspecific differentiation was, however, more complicated. Even though the
Orestias genus includes at least 20 different species, the potential for the osteological and
consequent archaeological identification of each of them has not been specifically
studied. In this study, only the diagnostic maxilla bones of the species O. pentlandii and
O. cuvieri were considered as cranial diagnostic bones for Orestias intraspecific
35
identification. Only O. pentlandii maxilla bones were actually identified in the analyzed
samples. In addition, this type of identification was considered a specific additional
observation and not taken into account in the broader quantification procedures.
Consequently, with the exception made above, none of the bones of the archaeological
collection were identified to the specific species taxonomic level. Table 4.1 includes the
bones that were used for the identification of each genus. Note that Orestias has more
bones potentially identifiable archaeologically than Trichomycterus and consequently, a
bias in their favor will be produced in most studies that address the zooarchaeology of
fishes in the Lake Titicaca Basin.
Table 4.1. Cranial bones and the urostyle (last caudal vertebra) identified in
archaezoological collection of fish remains from Kala Uyuni.
Orestias Trichomycterus
Articular (2) Articular (2)
Basioccipital (1) Basioccipital (1)
Ceratohyal (2) Ceratohyal (2)
Cleithrum (2) Dentary (2)
Dentary (2) Frontal (2)
Epihyal (2) Hyomandibular (2)
Frontal (2) Interoperculum (2)
Hyomandibular (2) Paraesphenoid (1)
Interoperculum (2) Premaxilla (2)
Maxilla (2) Preoperculum (2)
Operculum (2) Pterygoid (2)
Paraesphenoid (1) Quadrate (2)
Pharyngial lower (2) Suboperculum (2)
Pharyngial superior (2) Supraehtmoid (1)
Postemporal (2) Urohyal (1)
Premaxilla (2) Urostyle (1)
Preoperculum (2) Vomer (1)
Pterotic (2)
Quadrate (2)
Suboperculum (2) Orestias = 41 elements
Subscapular (2) Trichomycterus = 28 elements
Supraoccipital (2)
Urostyle (1)
36
Additionally, in the process of analysis, distinctive differences between some
Orestias elements were noted and recorded as observations that future studies could
potentially disaggregate and use for intraspecific identification (see Appendix 5). The
elements that showed the broadest variability were: articular, dentary, premaxilla,
maxilla, operculum, and lower pharyngeals.
As the results of this study suggest, Orestias are overwhelmingly more abundant
than Trichomycterus in almost every sample, perhaps reflecting a distribution similar to
the one observed in the present and/or that the people that procured and discarded these
remains preferred Orestias more than Trichomycterus most of the time. These are
complicated assumptions, especially considering that only two genera are represented in
the collection and consequently there is only one degree of freedom in the interpretation
of their abundance (Grayson 1984). In addition, this has impeded the implementation of
diversity indexes in the assessment of their diversity and relative abundance.
In correspondence with their greater biological diversity, the size range of
Orestias is broader than that of Trichomycterus. However, ethnographically and possibly
archaeologically, the sizes of the most common specimens consumed by people tend to
be very similar (ca. 100-200 mm standard length).
Cranial bones (including the urostyle [last caudal vertebra]) in addition to scales
(see below) were identified to the genus level. Vertebrae are bones potentially
identifiable to family and even genus level (Casteel 1976; Wheeler and Jones 1989) and
although, in general, it was noted that Orestias vertebrae were predominant in every
analyzed sample, one of the shortcomings of this study was not recording and using this
valuable information. Future studies should emphasize the differential morphology of
37
vertebrae of Orestias and Trichomycterus, as well as evaluate the potential of this
information for the solution of archaeological and paleoenvironmental problems.
Consequently, vertebrae, along with ribs, rays, and indeterminate fish bones were only
identified to the class level Osteichtyes (abbreviated Osteich).
All of the scales identified in this study belong to the Orestias genus since
Trichomycterus are Siluriformes and do not produce scales. Moreover, the presence of
rough scales was considered a reliable intra-genus taxonomic indicator and was used as a
proxy for the relative proportion of the species associated with the Orestias luteus group
(sensu Parenti 1984).
As a means to approximate intraspecific variation, osteometry was extensively
applied in this study. Scales were sorted into size classes (>10 mm, >5 mm, and <5 mm).
Most cranial bones and urostyle that were sufficiently preserved were also measured
using Morales and Rosenlund (1979) codes and features. Some statistical analyses were
employed to identify clusters that might correspond to species or groups of species.
Considering that this is a fish remains study, a note on otoliths is pertinent.
Otoliths (ear bones) are present in most fish species, and Orestias and Trichomycterus are
no exception. Both because the specimens of these genera are relatively small and
perhaps as an evolutionary adaptation to high altitude lake and riverine environments, the
otoliths of both of these genera are particularly small. I have been able to observe the
otoliths of Orestias and they can be described as heart-shaped with a size not greater than
1 mm of length. No otoliths were identified in the samples examined in this study.
Perhaps some were lost during the flotation procedure, but most probably they were not
appropriately sorted out from the residue of the heavy fractions considering that fish
38
remains were sorted only up to 1 mm. An inspection of the residue (smaller than 1 mm)
might eventually be productive for their identification and potentially useful information
could be extracted from them including specimen count, age, as well as derived
paleoenvironmental data (Andrus et al. 2002; Cleland 1976; Wheeler and Jones 1989).
In summary, variable methodological issues have been considered as important
aspects that can potentially influence the interpretation of the results generated in this
study. Care will be taken in the following descriptions to provide an accurate assessment
of their impact and to overcome some of their potential limitations. In addition, I will
address the issues and the potential bias introduced by the sample size in terms of density
in the section of changes through time (see below).
General Patterns
A total of 69,840 fish specimens with a weight of 467.71 grams from the 31
heavy fractions of flotation samples were analyzed in this study. From those, 44,212
specimens weighing 357.17 grams were identified to a specific taxon and skeletal part
(Figure 4.4, Appendixes 1-3). Although this is approximately 63.3% of the samples, it
comprises 76.37% of the weight due to the general fact that the larger bones are generally
easier to identify than the smaller ones. Overall, the most important limiting factors in the
identification analysis were the small size of the specimens and their fragmentation. In
addition, 917 fish specimens weighing 59.27 grams and comprising at least 175
individuals were identified in the 16 available 1/4” screen fractions (Appendix 4). As
several studies have pointed out (Moore et al. 1999; Wheeler and Jones 1989), and these
39
numbers show, the screen fractions clearly under-represent the fish remains of any given
locus and, unless otherwise explicitly noted, I will not deal with these remains here.
100
90
NISP
80 76.37
Weight
70
63.30
Frequency (%)
60
50
40 36.70
30
23.63
20
10
0
Determinate Indeterminate
Figure 4.4. Relationship between indeterminate and determinate fish bones from the
analyzed flotation samples of Kala Uyuni (NISP=69,840, weight=467.71 g).
By grouping the determinate bones and sorting them into three major categories,
cranial, postcranial, and scales, it is clear that the scales were the most frequent and
heavier element, followed by the postcranial elements, and finally the cranial elements
(Figure 4.5, Appendixes 2-3). Because the urostyle (last caudal vertebrae) could be
identified to the genus level and was potentially measurable, just as the cranial bones
were, it was included within the category of cranial bones for this analysis.
40
80
NISP
Weight 68.04
70
60
48.00
50
Frequency (%)
40
30.82
30 25.16
21.18
20
10 6.79
0
Cranial Postcranial Scales
Figure 4.5. Frequencies of cranial and postcranial bones, and scales from the analyzed
flotation samples of Kala Uyuni (Cranial NISP=3004, weight=75.64 g; Postcranial
NISP=11,124, weight=110.1 g; Scales NISP=30,084, weight=171.43 g).
The cranial elements were identified to genus level and in correspondence with
the distribution of fish fauna presently known for Lake Titicaca, the archaeological
cranial elements were limited to two genera: Orestias and Trichomycterus. A total of
3,004 specimens were recognized and identified to genus level, 2,672 were identified as
Orestias and 332 as Trichomycterus, reflecting an MNI of 227 and 86, respectively
(Figure 4.6, Appendixes 2-3). The genus Orestias was the most consumed and preferred
since it conforms more than the 80% of the total sample. Note that this does not include
the scales, which all correspond to the genus Orestias since Trichomycterus belongs to
the Order Siluriformes that have the skin instead of scales.
41
100 94.59
88.95
90
80 72.52
70
Frequency (%)
60
50
40
27.48
30
20 11.05
10 5.41
0
NISP Weight MNI
Orestias Thrichomycterus
Figure 4.6. Relative frequencies of taxa represented in the samples analyzed identified
from cranial bones (Orestias NISP=2672, weight=71.55 g, MNI=227; Trichomycterus
NISP=332, weight=4.09 g, MNI=86).
Postcranial bones were separated into ribs, vertebrae, and radials or rays, out of
which, vertebrae were the most frequent followed by ribs and rays (Figure 4.7,
Appendixes 7-9).
80
NISP 70.39
70 Weight
60 55.79
Frequency (%)
50
37.48
40
30 26.94
20
10 6.73
2.76
0
Rays Ribs Vertebrae
Figure 4.7. Relative frequency of postcranial elements: rays, ribs, and vertebrae from the
Kala Uyuni site (rays NISP=749, weight=2.96 g; ribs NISP=4169, weight=29.63 g;
vertebrae NISP=6206 weight=77.43 g).
42
Scales were sorted into two morphotypes based on the characteristics of their
surface structure: plain and rough. Rough scales are specifically found in the Orestias
luteus group and this characteristic allows us to differentiate them from other Orestias
species (sensu Parenti 1984). In addition, scales were sorted by their size in three
categories of 5 mm increments. The most common scales were the plain ones smaller and
larger than 5 mm, followed by the rough scales smaller and larger than 5 mm, and the
few specimens of plain scales larger than 10 mm. No rough scales larger than 10 mm
were identified (Figure 4.8, Appendix 11).
The genus Orestias includes several species; some of them are very small (less
than 10 mm of standard length), but the majority of the specimens in this analysis were
small to medium (50 to 200 mm). Species and specimens larger than 200 mm are rare
(e.g., O. pentlandii, O. cuvieri) and associated with deep water regimes usually in the
larger, northern portion of Lake Titicaca. Probably, the plain scales smaller than 5 mm
reported in this study come from all the types of Orestias species consumed in the past,
except for the very small ones.
Around 86% of the specimens were not modified by some form of exposure to
fire. This pattern is fairly consistent between NISP and weight figures and does not vary
(Figure 4.9, Appendixes 5-12).
43
80
71.09 NISP
70
Weight
60
47.40
Frequency (%)
50
40
31.37
30
20
13.96
10.8010.57
8.85
10
3.92
0.22 1.82
0
>10 mm >5 mm <5 mm >5 mm <5 mm
Plain Plain Plain Rough Rough
Figure 4.8. Relative frequencies of scales sorted by morphology and size (NISP=30,084,
weight=171.43 g).
100
90 86.97 86.36
NISP Weight
80
70
Frequency (%)
60
50
40
30
20 13.64
13.03
10
0
Unmodified Modified
Figure 4.9. Relative frequencies of fish specimens modified and unmodified from Kala
Uyuni (NISP=69,840, weight=467.71 g).
44
Changes Through Time
The chronological distribution of the specimens and samples throughout the
sequence is not equivalent. Figure 4.10 shows the relative proportions of specimens for
each period. The three units of analysis (NISP, weight, and MNI) show consistency in the
magnitude of the difference between samples of different periods, although they tend to
vary, particularly in the case of the samples of the Early Formative period. This might be
attributed to a combination of quantification, aggregation, and contextual factors which
will be discussed later in this thesis.
100
90 85.52
NISP
78.93
80
70.93 Weight
70
MNI
Frequency (%)
60
50
40
30
20.45
20 17.08
10.26 8.63
10 3.99 4.22
0
1EF 2MF 3LF
Figure 4.10. Relative frequencies of fish specimens in the analyzed flotation samples
from Kala Uyuni (NISP=69,840, weight=467.71 g, MNI=313).
It should be taken into consideration that even though selected samples with high
quantities of fish remains were intentionally selected for this study, the distribution of the
frequencies of densities (grams of fish remains per liter of soil) show an expected
distribution skewed to left (i.e., a gradient from several samples with smaller densities to
45
fewer samples with higher densities), with most of the samples having densities of less
than 2 grams per liter (Figure 4.11). A frequency diagram for the 1/4” screen samples
shows with even greater detail the configuration of the low density samples (the lowest
one been 0.0002 g/l and the highest one 0.049 g/l), and the fact that none of them is
greater than 0.05 g/l (Figure 4.12).
14
12
10
Frequency
2
Mean = 1.72198
Std. Dev. = 1.975703
N = 31
0
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00
Flot density Fish g/l
Figure 4.11. Frequencies of densities (grams/liters) for the flotation samples.
46
12
10
8
Frequency
Mean = 0.0101
Std. Dev. = 0.01294
N = 16
0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Screen density Fish g/l
Figure 4.12. Frequencies of densities (grams/liters) for the 1/4” screen samples.
From the information above, the following density categories of fish remains for
Kala Uyuni and possibly other Lake Titicaca sites can be suggested: very low: >0.01 g/l,
low 0.01-0.1 g/l, moderate 0.1-0.2 g/l, high 0.2-0.3, and very high > 0.3 g/l.
Using these categories the assemblage has the following distribution: the Early
Formative period composed of four samples has moderate to high densities, the Middle
Formative period, which includes 17 samples, has a slightly broader range including
samples of low to very high densities, and finally, the eight Late Formative period
samples have restrictively low to moderate densities (Figure 4.13, Appendix 1).
47
10
5231
8
Flot density Fish g/l
5178
6
2
5300
1EF 2MF 3LF

Period
Figure 4.13. Box-plots of the densities of the flotation samples analyzed and their
differences through time.
The distribution of Orestias and Trichomycterus between periods shows
heterogeneity with the highest values for both genera present in the Middle Formative
period samples (Figure 4.14). This is explained by the fact that this period has the highest
quantity of samples and specimens, but it also consistently shows the greatest
representation of identified Orestias and Trichomycterus in the Early Formative period in
comparison with the Late Formative period.
48
100 Orestias NISP
Trichomycterus NISP
90
81.25 Orestias MNI
80 Trichomycterus MNI
70.34
70
Orestias Weight
Trichomycterus Weight
Frequency (%)
60
50.16
50
40
30
20.77
20 14.98 15.02
9.41 8.59 7.35
10 5.43 4.27 3.63 3.93
2.10 0.85 0.37 1.28 0.29
0
1EF 2MF 3MF
Figure 4.14. Relative frequencies of Orestias and Trichomycterus, organized through

time and sample size (Orestias NISP=2672, MNI=227, weight=71.65 g; Trichomycterus
NISP=332, MNI=86, weight=4.09 g).
If only the relative frequencies are considered, the NISP shows a tendency
through time toward reduction in the number of Trichomycterus (and correspondingly
increase of the Orestias), whereas weight shows one of decrease followed by increase,
and the MNI of increase and eventual decrease (Figure 4.15). Considering that these
differences are not very large, we can interpret that the relative proportions of Orestias
and Trichomycterus does not tend to change. Contextual information provides more
insights into the specific location of concentrations of Orestias and Trichomycterus
specimens (see below).
49
Orestias Trichomycterus
100 95.01 93.10

89.12 90.83 91.75
87.72 85.19
90
80 73.44 70.72
70
Frequency (%)
60
50
40
26.56 29.28
30
20 12.28 14.81
10.88 9.17 8.25 4.99 6.90
10
0
1EF 2MF 3LF 1EF 2MF 3LF 1EF 2MF 3LF
NISP Weight MNI
Figure 4.15. Relative proportions of Orestias and Trichomycterus cranial specimens and
change through time (1EF: NISP=513, weight=7.76 g, MNI=64; 2MF: NISP=2371
weight=64.69 g, MNI=222; 3LF: NISP=120, weight=3.19 g, MNI=27).
In correspondence with the differences observed in the representation of genera
through time, the specific identified elements identified tend to be more numerous for the
Middle Formative period, followed by the Early Formative and finally the Late
Formative. These results are consistent both for Orestias (Figure 4.16) and
Trichomycterus (Figure 4.17).
50
Figure 4.16. Frequency of Orestias cranial specimens by through time (NISP=2672).
2MF
1EF
3LF
Period
Urostyle
Supraoccipital
Subscapular
Suboperculum
Quadrate
Pterotic
Preoperculum
Taxa: Orestias
Premaxila
Posttemporal
51
Pharyngeal upper
Pharyngeal lower slender
Element
Pharyngeal lower robust
Pharyngeal lower
Pharyngeal indeterminate
Parasphenoid
Operculum
Maxila
Interoperculum
Hyomandibular
Frontal
Epihyal
Dentary
Cleithrum
Ceratohyal
Basioccipital
Articular
100
0
500
300
200
400
Sum NISP
Taxa: Trichomycterus
Period
60
1EF
2MF
3LF
50
40
Sum NISP
30
20
10
0
Articular
Vomer
Ceratohyal
Quadrate
Suboperculum
Supraethmoid
Basioccipital
Pterygoid
Dentary
Frontal
Hyomandibular
Parasphenoid
Premaxila
Preoperculum
Urohyal
Urostyle
Interoperculum
Element
Figure 4.17. Frequency of Trichomycterus cranial specimens through time (NISP=332).
Following the changes through time at a more specific level, the minimum
number of individuals (MNI) shows a tendency of reduction across time. The highest
concentrations of individuals tend to be in the lower levels of the sequence; however,
there are some that push up the mean in the Middle Formative period, as well as an
outlier with a particularly high concentration of individuals. The highest numbers of
individuals during the Middle Formative period tend to be found in pits, although the
previously mentioned outlier comes from a midden context. Even though the fill samples
are not particularly dense, they do concentrate a high number of individuals, suggesting
that after disturbance, several individuals were still recognizable and that these contexts
can potentially provide interesting information.
52
The MNI for the Late Formative is low, with a range not greater than 10
individuals per sample. All of the midden samples belong to the Tiwanaku 1 phase and
tend to include more individuals than all of the pits which correspond to the Tiwanaku 3
phase (Figure 4.18).
In addition, diagnostic maxilla bones of the species Orestias pentlandii were
found in the loci 5231, 5234, 5065, and 5088, two Middle Chiripa and two Late Chiripa
respectively. All of them are midden contexts (Appendix 5).
40
5231
30
Flot fish MNI
20
10
1EF 2MF 3LF

Period
Period: 2MF Period: 3LF

40 8
30
6
Flot fish MNI
Flot fish MNI
5
20
10 3
0
1
Fill over floor Midden Midden Pit Surface

domestic Fill ove Midden Pit Surface
Context Context
Figure 4.18. Box-plots of MNI changes through time and by context, all of the 1EF
samples are middens.
53
The number of identified specimens (NISP) shows a similar trend to the one
identified for the MNI, however there is slightly more overlap between the Early
Formative and Middle Formative periods (Figure 4.19). An outlier is noticeable in the
Middle Formative and in general the range tends to be broader than the other two periods.
Once this distribution is broken up by contexts, it is interesting to note that even though
the middens have a particularly high range, they are not statistically different than the
pits. The fills and the surface have counts significantly lower than these cultural contexts.
For the Late Formative, the fills of the Tiwanaku 1 phase have a broader range and are
statistically different than the pits of the Tiwanaku 3 phase. The pits have similar
densities as the fill context, reinforcing the overall low frequency of identified specimens
contained in these contexts.
Overall the weight of the samples tends to be low with relatively small ranges.
There is no significant difference between the Early Formative and Middle Formative
periods (Figure 4.20), nor between the Tiwanaku 1 and Tiwanaku 3 phases. There is a
significant difference between these two broader groups, Early/Middle Formative versus
Late Formative (Tiwanaku 1 and 3). There are two outliers associated with the Middle
Formative that corresponds to the samples with the highest concentrations of pharyngeal
bones, by far the densest and heaviest bones of the analyzed species.
54
12000
5231
10000
8000
Flot fish NISP
6000
4000
2000
1EF 2MF 3LF

Period

12000
800
10000
8000 600
Flot fish NISP
Flot fish NISP
6000
400
4000
200
2000
0
0
Fill over floor Midden Midden Pit Surface

domestic Fill ove Midden Pit Surface
Context Context
Figure 4.19. Box plots of NISP change through time and by contexts.
55
80.00 5231
5178
60.00
40.00
20.00
5317
0.00
1EF 2MF 3LF

Period
Figure 4.20. Box-plot of the fish weight distribution per sample through time from the
flotation samples of Kala Uyuni.
The distribution of taxa in accordance with the general highest concentration of
both individuals and specimens in the lower levels follows a similar trend. The MNI
values of the Early Formative and the Middle Formative tend to have progressively both
more of Orestias and Trichomycterus than those of the Tiwanaku 1 and Tiwanaku 3
phases. Interestingly, in all of the phases except for the Late Chiripa phase, the
Trichomycterus individuals are considerably and statistically significantly lower than the
Orestias. The domestic contexts and the hilltop middens of the Late Chiripa phase
contribute most of the Trichomycterus specimens to the sample. Moreover, the overall
higher concentrations of Orestias were recorded in the Late Chiripa samples, showing
some of the heterogeneity of those deposits. In the case of the Late Formative phases, it is
interesting to note that several samples did not contain any Trichomycterus specimens at
all (Figure 4.21).
56
5178 OMNI
30
TMNI
5231
25
20
15
10
5317
1EF 2MF 3LF

Period
Period: 2MF
OMNI Period: 3LF
30
TMNI OMNI
7
TMNI
25
6
5
20
15
10
2
5 1
0
0
Fill ove Midden Pit Surface

Fill ove Midden Midden d Pit Surface
Context
Context
Figure 4.21. Box-plots of Orestias and Trichomycterus MNI and their difference between
time and contexts.
57
In general, NISP parallels the observations made using the MNI information
about the distribution of the taxa, showing a progressive decline in the overall number of
specimens in each period. However, it is useful to note the effectively smaller quantities
of Trichomycterus in comparison with the Orestias. In fact, in all cases, both between
periods as well as between contexts, there is a statistically significant difference between
the NISP of Orestias and Trichomycterus.
If only Orestias remains are taken into account, then the reduction in the number
of specimens still is prevalent, although, statistically significant only between the Middle
Formative and the Late Formative periods (Figure 4.22). Between the contexts of the
Late Chiripa phase, the proportions of Orestias in middens and pits are interestingly
similar. The same is true about the Tiwanaku 1 middens and the Tiwanaku 3 pits. In
addition, in both cases, there is a higher frequency of Trichomycterus in the middens and
very few specimens in the pits. These observations suggest the important difference of
the remains deposited in the different types of contexts.
58
ONISP
600
TNISP
5178
500
400
5231
300
200
100
5305
0
1EF 2MF 3LF

Period

ONISP ONISP
600 40
TNISP TNISP
5178
500
30
400
300 20
200
10
100
0 0
Fill ove Midden Midden d Pit Surface Fill ove Midden Pit Surface
Context Context
Figure 4.22. Box-plots of Orestias and Trichomycterus NISP and their change through
time and between contexts.
The range of estimated weight calculated for each period suggests a strong
decreasing pattern through time (Figure 4.23, Appendix 1). As discussed above, the
59
sampling procedure explains part of this relation, but it seems evident that the relative
contribution of fish in terms of weight decreases through time, and is particularly low in
the Late Formative samples. The statistically significant difference between the Early
Formative and the Middle Formative is also intriguing, and it can be explained by the fact
that the Early Formative flotation samples were taken from large midden contexts,
whereas several of the Middle Formative ones came from very specific midden strata and
small events such as pits.
5231
3000.00
Estimated body weight (g)
2000.00
5091
1000.00
5317
0.00
1EF 2MF 3LF
Period
Figure 4.23. Box-plots of ranges of body weight estimations for the entire sediment
excavated using allometric regression of Osteichtyes (Reitz et al. 1987; Reiz and Wing
1999).
60
The comparison of fish remains with other taxa, and particularly camelids has not
been dealt in this thesis and will be addressed in a more integrative assessment of the
fauna recovered from Kala Uyuni. Figure 4.24 compares the densities of large mammals
(mostly composed of camelids) and fish remains (Appendix 1). It is interesting to note
that during the Early Formative, both densities are fairly similar. During the Middle
Formative, the fish densities are higher, although some biases introduced by specific
contexts, particularly pits containing high quantities of fish remains, might be responsible
for the observed pattern. And during the Late Formative, both densities are similarly low.
More work is required to characterize the particular aspects related to the consumption of
camelids and other taxa (including waterfowl and other wild fauna) at Kala Uyuni.
Screen density
10.00 large mammal
bone g/l
Flot density fish g/l
5231
8.00
5178
6.00
4.00 5063
2.00
5300
0.00
1EF 2MF 3LF

Period
Figure 2.24. Box-plot graph comparing the densities of large mammals and fish remains.
61
Finally, the analysis of the sizes of the fishes recovered using well-preserved
operculum bones and a transfer function derived from an experimental modern collection,
allows us to track the changes in the relative size of the Orestias specimens and their
change through time (Figure 4.25, Appendix 23). The results using flotation specimens
only shows a significant increase in fish sizes between the Early Formative and the
Middle Formative periods and a relative continuity between the latter and the following
Late Formative period. When the screen samples are included to strengthen the samples,
the change between the Early Formative and the Middle Formative becomes less marked,
but the continuity between the Middle Formative and the Late Formative holds. The
outliers of the Early Formative and the Middle Formative suggest the consumption of
larger and smaller than average Orestias species, respectively. Sample sizes are uneven
between the three periods, however, the highest range is observed for the Early
Formative. This might potentially suggest a greater diversity of fish sizes consumed
during this period and a trend towards standardization through time.
62
200.00
180.00
160.00
ESLP (mm)
140.00
120.00
100.00
5065
80.00
5086
1EF 2MF 3LF

Period
200.00
5238
180.00
160.00
ESLP (mm)
140.00
120.00
5231
100.00
5086
80.00
5065
1EF 2MF 3LF

Period
Figure 4.25. Box-plots representing the estimated standard length (ESLP) in mm of the
Orestias specimens using the operculum greatest height. Top, only flot samples (N=37).
Bottom, composite of both flotation and screen samples (N=75).
63
CHAPTER 5.
DISCUSSION
Diachronic and Contextual Interpretations
In this chapter, I will discuss some of the specific patterns observed for each time
period, with the available data. Considering the exploratory nature of this study, I will
then suggest some possible interpretations about the nature of various patterns and trends
observed. In the future, I think many of them can be improved as well as tested using
additional contextual information, more samples, and specific inferential statistics.
The Early Formative Period
The fish remains dating to the Early Formative period, and specifically to the
Middle Chiripa phase, consisted of four loci. All of them belong to the stratified midden
of the hilltop AC area. It is interesting to note that no architecture dating to this phase was
uncovered from this area. The two trapezoidal sunken courts located during the 2003
excavations were apparently built during the following Late Chiripa phase. However,
judging by the high densities of fish remains and other evidence of human use, it appears
that ritual activities were carried out in this area before the construction of the buildings.
Presently, there is uncertainty if some type of architecture was associated with these
activities and perhaps destroyed with the construction of the Late Chiripa courts.
Considering the evidence of activities, it is also possible that during the Early Formative
period the hill itself was used as a sacred shrine; this would be in accordance with the
64
long-term tradition in the Andes of ritualizing and anthropomorphizing the landscape
(Erickson 2000).
It is worth mentioning that it is unlikely that this area was ever a domestic
location considering its placement on the top of the highest hill in the vicinity. This
location has extreme climatic factors such as strong wind currents, high solar radiation,
and colder temperatures, which might have made continual habitation impractical. The
information that fish remains provide is potentially useful for further understand some of
the (probably ritual) activities carried out in this area during the Middle Chiripa phase.
Initially, the four loci of the midden that correspond to the Middle Chiripa phase,
have particularly high densities of fish remains (2.14 g/l). This suggests high quantities of
fish remains were consumed and discarded at the site. The assemblage is particularly
robust, since the densities of NISP are equally high and several bones were sufficiently
well preserved to make osteometric measurements. Moreover, the screen samples from
these loci were equally dense, and in the case of Locus 5238, the highest screen MNI for
the entire sequence was recorded.
All of these loci have relatively good preservation. This is confirmed by the high
quantity of well-preserved bones identified and measured. I interpret this area as
containing secondary refuse from consumption activities subsequently undisturbed. This
would have created an adequate location for the preservation of fish remains. The good
preservation can be attributable to biochemical processes enhanced by rapid burial with
other organic and inorganic materials, and the formation of good conditions for cross-
linking of collagen fibers with the humic content of the soil (sensu Nicholson 1998).
Although possible disturbances were noted including some (around 5%) Early Chiripa
65
ceramics, the relatively good preservation of the remains, suggests that no major
disturbances affected the buried assemblage.
The most important taphonomic agents of disturbance seem to be gravity
enhanced by occasional alluvial and colluvial processes. Since fish remains are very
small, weight-light, and have overall very low structural densities, gravitational forces
would not cause major disturbance to their distribution in contrast with larger, heavier,
and denser artifacts (Lyman 1994; Rick 1977).
Regarding the distribution of skeletal parts, the information suggests that the
specimens were relatively complete when discarded. There are not great distinctions in
the proportions of skeletal elements, assuming that scales predominate in the assemblage,
followed by vertebrae, ribs, an important diversity of cranial bones, and rays.
Interestingly, indeterminate bones have a high proportion of burned and partially
burned specimens, possibly associated with in situ burning activities. From this pattern, it
might be speculated that some activities involved burning, although it is not clear if
cooking related activities took place near this location. The proportions of skeletal
representations, suggests that there was not a clear bias in the survival of any specific
group of skeletal elements. Moreover, the near absence of burned identified cranial
specimens suggests, that the firing might have occurred as a peri-burial process and
consequently, not caused by cooking processing activities (Figure 5.1).
66
Period: 1EF, Context: Midden, Area: AC Period: 1EF, Context: Midden, Area: AC
7,000
NISP 2,000
UMO PBU
6,000
MOF BUR
CAL
5,000 1,500
4,000
Sum
Sum
1,000
3,000
2,000
500
1,000
0 0
Cranial Rays Scales Cranial Ribs Vertebrae
Indeterminate Ribs Vertebrae Indeterminate Scales
Element Element
Figure 5.1. Skeletal representations for the Middle Chiripa phase. Left, total NISP by
skeletal element with their respective proportions of unmodified (UMO) and burned
(MOF) specimens. Right, detailed proportions of burned specimens.
In relation to species distribution, the cranial information suggests that one out of
10 individuals dated to this phase was Trichomycterus and the rest Orestias. NISP,
weight, and MNI are consistent with this proportion. Coincidentally, the ratio between
plain and rough scales clearly favors the former 9 to 1 as well. This suggests that while
the bulk of the fishes consumed were indeed Orestias, most of them were not related to
Orestias luteus group.
On the basis of this information we can attempt to reconstruct the type of capture
and catch as well as the technology involved in the fishing during this phase. It seems,
Orestias was the preferred catch, including some of the smaller species of this genera. It
is probable that the fishing was performed near the shore and the diversity of fishes
consumed was rather high using diverse types of net fishing. Both very large and very
67
small specimens are present, including a fair amount of Trichomycterus. Interestingly O.
luteus was not as popular as in later phases. There appears to have been diversity in
consumption and possibly in processing in this phase. Taking this information to its
extreme, it could support the hypothesis that informal ritual consumption activities took
place here, perhaps decentralized gatherings with less emphasis on specific prey and
cuisine preferences.
The Middle Formative Period
The Late Chiripa phase, which corresponds to the entire Middle Formative period,
is the best time frame represented in the analyzed sample and unlike other phases,
segregated spatial as well as diverse contextual information is available from the
excavated loci. Correspondingly, the fish information is broad and can potentially lead in
different interpretative directions, therefore, I will try to focus on some of the major
trends and patterns.
It is apparent that ritual activities amplified extensively in the AC area during the
Late Chiripa phase. The construction of the two trapezoidal courts is dated to this period,
as well as several events of reconstruction and maintenance that are still not well
understood. For example, two successive floors were located in several excavation units
inside both courts. Unfortunately, these specific temporal differentiations are still in the
process of being dated and a better comprehension and aggregation of specifically
contemporaneous features with shorter times frames is still not possible. Consequently,
the fish remains provide a glimpse on the activities carried out in this area during the
whole span of the Late Chiripa phase.
68
The contexts analyzed for this phase include three deposits from the midden area
where the Middle Chiripa phase levels were located as well as some special purpose pits.
In addition, two fill contexts and one surface were sampled.
As the in the case of the previous Middle Chiripa phase samples, the Late Chiripa
midden samples in the AC area are particularly dense in fish remains (3.45 g/l), although
there is a wide range between these three samples, the largest having a density of 8.74 g/l
and the smallest one 0.04 g/l. It seems clear that the midden continued in use during this
phase. Considering all the activities held in the courts, it is expected that the quantity and
heterogeneity of the refuse deposited in the midden would be correspondingly high. For
instance, even though the bulk of the midden dated to the Late Chiripa phase might have
been directly related with the consumption activities carried out in the hilltop area, there
is a possibility that the low density sample might correspond to an event of deposition of
materials and debris associated with the maintenance of the courts. More contextual
information is required, however, to improve our present understanding of the specific
activities carried out in the AC area and their specific timing.
While the proportion of nine Orestias to one Trichomycterus persists from the
previous phase, interestingly, around half of the Trichomycterus specimens found in the
AC area were located in midden contexts.
The skeletal representations includes a particularly high concentration of scales
followed by ribs, vertebrae, cranial bones (with the broadest diversity and number of
elements identified), and rays. It is worth noting that vertebrae are not particularly well
represented. These specimens have a relatively low percentage of modifications produced
by exposure to fire (Figure 5.2). This might be signaling that cooking activities took place
69
somewhere else, and that they might have not included roasting fishes, but perhaps
focused on boiling. This is supported by a high percentage of bent scales present in the
midden samples. It is unclear why is there such a high quantity of scales, but perhaps it
suggests that fish consumption occurred in situ.
Period: 2MF, Context: Midden, Area: AC

UMO
6,000
MOF
5,000
4,000
Sum
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
Cranial Rays Scales
Indeterminate Ribs Vertebrae
Element
Figure 5.2. Skeletal representations of fish bones remains from the Late Chiripa phase,
AC midden area.
Pits were also an important type of depositional context located in the excavation
of the AC area providing additional information on the discard activities and processes
that occurred in the site. A total of four pits comprising six loci were analyzed from the
Middle Formative Period entirely equivalent to the Late Chiripa phase. Two specifically
defined “fish pits” (depositional events A26 and A29) contained high densities of fish
bones and ash and were associated with the lower sunken courts. These were evidently
cross-cutting the outside surface of the lower or western court. It is unclear if these were
70
offerings made in or to this ritual space or if they were specific discrete deposition events
of consumption activities associated with the court. In addition, two pits were identified
inside the matrix of the AC midden. The contents of these pits were more heterogeneous
than the ones associated with the court, and consequently high densities of other debris
such as camelid bones, broken ceramics, and lithic artifacts were located in them, along
with fish remains.
In general, the result of the fish analysis supports the fact that fish pits in the
outside of the court were denser than the ones of the midden sector. In the latter case, the
midden is denser in fish remains than the pits that cut into it. These two pits are very
similar in their content and include very few identifiable cranial bones with a
predominance of scales and vertebrae.
The analysis of skeletal parts does not confirm whether the fish pits of the lower
court were specific fish offerings or not. Even though a high concentration of fish
remains was located in them, it was not possible from the available remains to reconstruct
any particular individual. This is however, a result of multiple factors including the
adverse conditions for the preservation of articulated remains, the flotation processing of
the samples, as well as the small size of the remains. In addition, the proportions of the
different skeletal parts, in particular the cranial bones, were very heterogeneous in all of
the fish pits. Modifications were also relatively low in the fish pits by comparison to the
middens. This information tends to support the interpretation that the fish pits of the court
were discrete depositions of consumption activities associated with the use of the court.
Certainly, the deposition of these remains in the outside surface of the courts probably
signals ritual offering behavior, however, fishes were probably not offered directly, but as
71
discarded byproducts. There is a possibility that the fish might have been buried as
processed meals. If that is the case, then the fishes were probably disarticulated with
some parts lost in the cooking process as well as during the deposition itself.
In addition, it is unlikely that the fish remains were deposited in previously
existing pits, such as storage bins, considering that the limits of the pits themselves were
specifically defined by the concentrations of the fish remains themselves, suggesting
rapid excavation and burial. The fish pits might then also be defined as fish caches.
Interestingly, the two samples that correspond to the fish pit defined as A29 are
very similar, reinforcing the fact that they belonged to the same event and therefore,
suggesting that they were associated with a unique discrete event of deposition. On the
contrary, the two flotation samples associated with the fish pit defined as A26, have very
different associated contents. Locus 5178/1 is one of the densest analyzed samples, with
very good preservation of fish remains and a large quantity of identifiable specimens. In
addition, out of the 564 specimens of cranial bones identified to the genera level from this
locus, only two were Trichomycterus, suggesting a very particular kind of content for this
pit. This locus had the best preserved fish remains, including nearly undamaged ribs and
vertebrae and a relatively low proportion of burned remains. In fact, this is the closest
possible representation of an offering of fishes in the entire Kala Uyuni site. This pattern
contrasts with locus 5178/2 (also attributed to the event A26), which has a considerably
lower density of fish remains, including several Trichomycterus specimens, several
differences in the proportions of skeletal parts, and an overall inferior quality of
preservation (Figure 5.3).
72
The strong differences between these two loci suggests that the fish pit A26 might
have been stratified and included materials from more than one event of deposition or
that two separate pits were located and mixed during the excavation process. Certainly,
there might be other possibilities that can account for this anomaly, but it suggests that it
might be useful to separate rather than to group the two loci that so far are grouped in this
same event.
Cranial
Scales
Ribs
8,000 Vertebrae
Rays
Indeterminate
6,000
Sum
4,000
2,000
0
5178/1 5178/2 5192/2 5193/1 5229/1 5230/1
Locus
Figure 5.3. NISP counts of skeletal elements of the Late Chiripa phase, AC pits.
The pits of the AC area are characterized as having overall good preservation of
fish remains. Several of them include an important quantity of specimens exposed to fire.
A difference between the fish pits associated with the courts and those of the midden was
noted. An interpretation of the fish pits from the courts as specific discrete events of ritual
deposition associated with consumption activities is favored. In contrast to the pits and
73
midden deposition, which were also associated with consumption activities, the fish pits
of the lower court also signal purposeful ritual offering, not of fishes themselves (with the
possible exception of the remains of locus 5178/1), but of processed (i.e., cooked) fish
meals, some of them, perhaps not even consumed.
In addition to the midden and pit contexts, two fill over floor events and one
surface sample were analyzed from the Late Chiripa AC area. These contexts have
comparatively fewer specimens of fish remains. Their relatively poor preservation
prohibits broader interpretations of their characteristics, although these remains confirm
that fish consumption occurred throughout the hilltop. The event A126 is the western
outside surface of the upper court. Considering the amount of fish remains and their
properties (fish remains density 0.35 g/l), it seems fair to assume that fish consumption
occurred in situ over this surface. In addition, a large percentage of the fish specimens
from this sample were burned, including several very fragmented ribs and indeterminate
specimens. In fact, there are more specimens burned from this context than from the three
loci of the contemporary midden. This might have to do with the activities carried out in
the upper court and its immediate surroundings or even a specific burning event, perhaps
at the time of the abandonment of the court. Additional sampling of the surfaces of the
courts in addition to micromorphological data will provide a more informed
understanding of the activities held inside and outside the courts.
The fill over floor events analyzed (A21 and A35) were associated with the
abandonment of the structure. Both of them belong to the southwestern court and are
probably contemporaneous, A21 was located near the center of the court and A35 was
associated with the wall fall of the northern wall. Even though these contexts are quite far
74
from each other, they share the same overall pattern. The density of both is 0.40 g/l. In
contrast with pits and middens, the fill and surface samples do not include an
overwhelmingly high number of scales. This might further suggest that postdepositional
taphonomic agents act strongly on the scales, perhaps due to their low density structure.
Based on the fish remains, the abandonment of the structure did not include important
burning events nor spectacular consumption ceremonies. The fills however suggests, that
throughout the use history of the AC area, a large volume of fish remains were deposited,
becoming another inclusion in the sediment and soil matrix of this archaeological site.
The analysis of fish remains dated to the Late Chiripa phase also includes a
domestic component, which corresponds to the AQ excavation area. Seven loci from the
stratified domestic midden of this sector were analyzed. The overall density for AQ is
moderate (1.45 g/l) although the lowest levels tend to be denser than the higher ones, as
well as in comparison with other contexts. Since all of the analyzed samples from this
area are midden samples, they were associated with quite extensive depositional events
that grouped together provide a strong indication of the nature of the domestic refuse
discarded during the Late Chiripa phase at Kala Uyuni.
The fish bones recovered from the AQ area are not extensively modified by fire.
Less then 10% of the total analyzed specimens had evidence of some type of burning.
Most of them were unidentified specimens, suggesting that the processing techniques did
not involve substantial exposure of the bones to fire (Figure 5.4). The skeletal
representation of the bones shows a clear predominance of scales in the remains
recovered from the AQ domestic area (Figure 5.5). This evidence supports the
75
interpretation of the area as a domestic midden. Moreover, the discarded remains reflect
more activities of fish processing and specifically fish scaling rather than consumption.
Perhaps boiling the fishes was more common than roasting them. Moreover, the
high frequency of burned undetermined specimens as well as the other identified ones
might have been produced through unintentional exposure to heat in hearths or during
occasional roasting events. The high frequency of domestic cooking pots discarded in the
analyzed loci (Steadman 2004) furthers reinforces the possibility of boiling as the most
important processing practice for fish.
Period: 2MF
Element
25000
Cranial
Indeterminate
Radials
Ribs
20000 Scales
Vertebrae
Sum NISP
15000
10000
5000
0
Fill over Midden Midden Pit Surface
floor domestic
Context
Figure 5.4. Skeletal representation of fish bone the Late Chiripa phase, AQ domestic
midden.
In addition, the AQ area is the location where some of the highest frequencies of
Trichomycterus specimens were found. In fact, for all the Late Chiripa phase, the highest
frequency of Trichomycterus bones is located in these loci. This information has great
76
significance, since it suggests that Trichomycterus was consumed in the domestic areas of
the site, perhaps in the same proportions as it was captured. On the other hand, it seems
that in the ritual and possibly more public space of the hilltop, the fish consumption was
more standardized and Orestias was preferred.
Period: 2MF, Context: Midden, Area: AQ

NISP
8,000
UMO
MOF
6,000
Sum
4,000
2,000
0
Cranial Rays Scales
Indeterminate Ribs Vertebrae
Element
Period: 2MF, Context: Midden, Area: AQ

PBU
500
BUR
CAL
400
300
Sum
200
100
0
Indeterminate Ribs Scales Vertebrae
Element
Figure 5.5. Skeletal representations of fish remains from the Late Chiripa phase domestic
AQ midden area. Top, total NISP by skeletal element with their respective proportions of
unmodified (UMO) and burned (MOF) specimens. Bottom, detailed proportions of
burned specimens.
77
Standardized Orestias consumption in the hilltop might be related to cuisine and
specific cooking preferences and purposely prepared meals for rituals and festive
consumption events on the ceremonial area as well as to increasing status differences.
Since few Trichomycterus were identified in the hilltop, it would not be warranted to
hypothesized that Trichomycterus consumption was not carried out in this area or even
forbidden. I favor an interpretation that this pattern is related to standardized
consumption. This would imply that a limited number of types of meals were consumed
and eventually discarded. Since Trichomycterus is not a particularly abundant fish, and if
middle to large scale consumption is required, then it would be logical to use the more
abundant and readily available fish, in this case Orestias. There are reasons to suspect a
differential symbolic meaning for Trichomycterus, particularly using ethnographic and
iconographic information, which suggests a ritual connection with this genus during the
Formative Period and greater relevance of Orestias during the following Tiwanaku
period (Capriles 2006). I do not intend to develop this information extensively, but it is
certainly a line of evidence that requires further research.
The large midden sector along with the fish pits and the characteristics of the fish
remains they contain, seem to be suggesting that middle to large, that is community scale
meals, were been consumed and discarded in the AC area. The possibility that these
meals were also processed in the hilltop area requires more evidence than the provided in
the present study, but even in the case of decentralized processing and cooking,
standardized meals seem to be prevalent.
78
The greatest ranges of sizes of fish remains is associated with the Late Chiripa
phase; this is certainly a product of a larger sample size of measurable bones from this
period. The average size tends to increase in comparison with the previous phase, but
there are also more outliers in the smallest sizes. These are probably signaling different
species, perhaps O. ispi.
The Late Formative Period
Eight samples dating to the Late Formative Period were analyzed. All of them
correspond to the KU excavation area, but they include a diverse set of archaeological
contexts. The nature and function of the structure excavated in this location as well as of
its surrounding area is not entirely clear. Consequently, the implications for the
interpretation of the fish remains analyzed from this area can vary. On one hand, the
excavators of the structure favor the possibility that it was a domestic house associated
with a domestic space (Paz and Fernandez 2004). On the other hand, the size and shape
of the structure in addition to its artifact contents (including a large volume of fine ware
and decorated serving bowls) as well as the presence burials in its vicinity, might indicate
that the KU area was used for spatial purposes, perhaps as part of a larger complex of
public buildings.
An initial observation is that fish in all of the KU contexts seem to be less
important than in the previous phases. Most of the samples contain very few fish remains
and the average density for the phase is low (0.41 g/l), with only one sample having a
density higher than 1 g/l (locus 5300/1).
79
Although a tendency towards the reduction of the number of Trichomycterus
between periods seems apparent, it is not very strong. Some Trichomycterus are present
in the Late Formative period samples, particularly in the midden contexts. What seems to
be more evident is the change in the size of the Orestias individuals, which on average
are statistically significantly larger than those of the Early Formative period and show a
considerably smaller range than those of the Middle Formative. This can be interpreted as
more effective fishing techniques emphasizing a particular size-class of fishes.
Pits tend to be denser than midden contexts, although midden samples have a
slightly broader diversity of skeletal elements identified and were consequently more
identifiable. These samples also include an important percentage of burned specimens.
The presence of bent and fused scales is more evident in this period, and could be
indicating boiling activities and processing of fish remains near the deposition contexts.
Once again, plain scales predominate in the assemblage (~80%) with fewer scales larger
than 5 mm, and none larger than 10 mm. This might indicate that even though the
average size of the Orestias specimens is larger, there is less diversity in the catch,
supporting the hypothesis of standardized exploitation processes (Capriles 2003, 2006).
The distribution of scales further suggests diversity in the depositional contexts. Midden
samples contain most of the scale remains, particularly those of the smaller size classes.
Pits were among the very few contexts where the quantity of indeterminate remains was
higher than the scales. The higher quantities of calcified specimens suggests high
temperatures of burning, perhaps impacting the identifiability of the remains. Most
calcified specimens were located in the midden contexts.
80
In general and throughout the sequence, the Trichomycterus specimens tend to be
unburned and unmodified, perhaps suggesting they were generally cooked rather than
roasted. It might also suggest that their bones are more prone to destruction during
exposure to fire. Differential discard patterns are a potential contributing factor as well.
The additional two contexts, a surface and a fill over floor are particularly low in
fish remains. It seems that the surface (B22) of the KU structure was kept particularly
clean with a very low density 0.05 g/l, and even though several fish specimens were
recovered from this context, the information provided is rather low. Most of the
specimens recovered from this context were indeterminate, suggesting a clean prepared
surface not highly disturbed. This evidence might support the idea that the structure was
not a house.
The event B23 is fill under the surface of the structure but over a second floor and
includes a moderate density of fish remains (0.21 g/l). Most of the fish specimens from
this sample were composed of scales and indeterminate bones. The nature of this
particular deposition is still not well understood, but erosion of the adobe of the structure
as well as sediment redeposited from other parts of the area might be included.
Interestingly, there is not a high percentage of burned specimens and very few of them
were identifiable, this suggests that the area was kept relatively clean and was not
particularly dense in fish remains.
Considering the diversity and volume of the fish remains excavated from the KU
area it can be said that this area did not include substantial consumption activities that
involved fishes. If the structure located in this area was indeed a house, it can be said that
its activities did not include a great deal of fish consumption, particularly in comparison
81
with those of previous phases. The particular contexts analyzed, however, could include
the remains of other activities and only provide limited evidence of fish consumption. On
the other hand, the observed patterns might be the result of drought periods recorded in
the paleolimnological study of Lake Titicaca (e.g., Abbott et al. 1997; Binford et al.
1997). If in fact, the lake dried at least once during the Late Formative period, it would
have had an important impact on the fishing and household economy of Kala Uyuni and
other sites, possibly including a lower or only intermittent consumption of fishes and
reliance on other means of production. Maria Bruno (personal communication 2006),
sees an increase in the diversity of plant taxa during this same time period, which could
have been related to a more extensive use of the agricultural landscape, and in particular
the use of the new fertile land opened with the retreat of the lake. Multidisciplinary
research and the integration of the information of the several specialists currently
working with materials of the site will further provide more information about this topic.
On the other hand, if the structure and its surrounding area had a special purpose,
possibly associated with the new sociopolitical activities that Kala Uyuni incorporated as
it grew to become the possible center of the multi-community polity of the entire Taraco
Peninsula, then a functional interpretation might be suggested. Consequently, the low
density of fish remains could be reflecting an area not dedicated to intensive processing,
serving, or consumption of fishes.
The Late Formative period contexts include additional chronological information
that differentiates the midden contexts as dating to the Tiwanaku 1 phase and the pits to
the Tiwanaku 3 phase. Considering that the chronology for this whole period is not well
understood, these could be contemporary, although with functional and contextual
82
differences related to the behavior of trash handling and deposition. Assuming that this
chronological separation is correct, then the decrease in consumption of fish remains
seems to have been even more prevalent. There is, however, a problem with the nature of
the sample and in order to warrant and confirm this interpretation, the analysis of midden
contexts specifically dated to the Tiwanaku 3 phase is required, as well as pit contexts
specifically dated to Tiwanaku 1 phase.
Finally, it can be argued that there is a decrease in the consumption and
deposition of fish remains during the Late Formative, and paleoenvironmental as well as
contextual differences might account for this pattern. Future studies should emphasize the
study of the new structures excavated in Kala Uyuni and dated to this period, as well as
from other contemporary sites, including Sonaji (T-271) and Kumi Kipa (T-272) (Hastorf
et al. 2005).
83
CHAPTER 6.
CONCLUSIONS
This study had the goal of improving our present understanding of fish use and its
change through time in the Lake Titicaca Basin and particularly at the site of Kala Uyuni
during the Formative Period. The analysis of the fish remains has provided detailed
information on the nature of the deposits discarded in Kala Uyuni. In this chapter, I will
summarize some of the interpretations derived from this information as well as provide
some suggestions and problems that future research should address.
Activities
The analyzed fish remains from the AC area of Kala Uyuni suggest that fish were
among the most important consumed resources during the public and possibly ritual
events held at this location. In fact, the high densities of fish remains from midden and
pits contexts during both the Early Formative and the Middle Formative suggest that
intensive consumption and even ritual feasting might have occurred in this area.
Contextual information and the volume of fish remains suggest medium scale, perhaps
community scale (sensu Bandy 2001), consumption. This implies that people from the
entire site and possibly neighboring ones, congregated in this location and shared meals.
The possibility that during these occasions some cooking activities might have occurred
in the hilltop area, cannot be ruled out for the moment.
In addition, during the Middle Formative, there seems to be a tendency of direct
secondary deposition events in the outside of at least one of the AC courts. Discrete pits,
84
apparently including the remains of particular consumption events, mostly composed of
fish remains, were dug in the outside of the lower courts, deposited, and immediately
buried, leaving them as a kind of cache. Furthermore, at least in one observed case, a
secondary interment composed almost entirely of fishes was deposited perhaps as an
offering, which evidences direct ritual behavior associated with fishes.
Moreover, discrete events of deposition suggest scheduled activities, perhaps
associated with ceremonies or events periodically held at the hilltop area and for which
food resources had to be gathered and processed specifically. It is unclear if fish
preparation occurred at the site.
The picture provided by the samples from the AQ area (the Middle Formative
domestic component) complements nicely the information from the hilltop AC area. The
fish remains of the middens suggest fish consumption was as intense in the domestic
space as it was in the AC hilltop. Higher proportions of burned remains confirm evidence
of cooking practices, perhaps including roasting events. Bent scales, proposed here as a
possible taphonomic signature of boiling, suggest this activity occurred in this area as
well. The high densities of scales suggest fish processing was another relevant activity for
the people that deposited their garbage in the AQ midden.
The patterns for the Late Formative are more complicated and harder to interpret.
There seems to be a reduction in the overall consumption and discarding of fish remains.
This might have to do with the specific contexts excavated by the TAP and the still
unclear function of the KU structure. Both midden and pit contents do not include
particularly high densities of fish remains, although the proportions of taxa represented
do not vary in great deal from the previous phases. There is, however, a reduction in the
85
number of scales, suggesting that processing and consumption of fish could have
occurred more intensively elsewhere in the site.
The greatest range of sizes is located in the Early Formative period and the lowest
in the Late Formative. This can be interpreted as a tendency towards standardization of
the fishes consumed, both in terms of species consumed and their relative sizes, perhaps
in association with the generation of specific cuisine preferences including particular
dishes as well as to related changes in the fishing practices and strategies. Perhaps a dish
similar to the present wallake, a soup of boiled entire individuals of carachi negro
(Orestias agassii), potatoes, and quinoa seeds might have its origin as early as the Middle
Formative period. Paleoethnobotanical analysis, larger samples, and future studies could
verify this proposition and provide a deeper understanding of specific cuisine practices
and their change through time in the Lake Titicaca Basin.
Technology
The information provided in this study provides an indirect assessment of the
fishing practices carried out by the people of Kala Uyuni. The greater abundance of fish
sizes associated with the Early Formative could suggest that people used more diverse
and flexible capturing procedures and techniques. The tendency towards standardization
in preparation of fishes should also have implications for the standardization of the
procurement techniques as well. Hypothetically, we can envisioned that fishing took
place near the shore using dragging and scoop nets, catching the greatest number of
fishes regardless of species or size. This technology might have changed through time
with more specialized means of catching specific species and size classes, for example
86
using larger dragging nets or employing trawling nets with the help of totora reed boats.
In fact, my own research indicates the intensification of fish exploitation during the
Tiwanaku 4 and Tiwanaku 5 phases was significant, suggesting very specialized and
efficient fishing strategies, including the possible use of gill-nets (Capriles 2003, 2006).
In addition, bone tools suggest net technology. In fact, the overall tendencies
observed in this study are paralleled by the independent evidence of the bone tools
associated with fishing (i.e., net gauges and shuttles), which also show a progressive
decline through time (Katherine Moore personal communication 2006).
There is still uncertainty if fishing specialization occurred during the Formative
Period. Even though fish were a clearly important resource, their procurement and
processing might have been handled at a household or family level. Just as today, fishing
might have been a complimentary resource to agriculture and herding. This does not
imply that more efficient technologies for procuring fish or intensifying agriculture did
not develop through time, which indeed occurred, but they were probably not motivated
or required by economic specialization.
Most of the fish were potentially located in the totora reeds near the lake shore
itself. However, it cannot be assumed that these reeds were always there, since in fact
they might have been dispersed and managed by human themselves, since sometime
between the Early Formative and Late Formative periods (Binford and Kolata 1996:41).
A greater and more detailed multidisciplinary study including the input of the analysis of
fish remains could potentially date this dispersal. The relative proportion of plain versus
rough scales suggests that O. luteus were increasingly more common throughout the
Formative period. Since totora is the preferred habitat of O. luteus, then their presence
87
might signal the dispersal of this reed. The study of fish remains from more domestic,
stratified components might provide more insights on this regard.
Taphonomy
The study of contexts not associated with the direct deposition of fish remains
suggest that consumption of fishes occurred intensively across Kala Uyuni. The AC area
definitely has the highest densities of fish remains, closely followed by the AQ area. This
information along with a preliminary revision of the fish counts and weights of other
flotation samples from the AC area suggests that the entire matrices of AC and AQ
contain fragments of fish remains. The KU area, on the other hand, in addition to having
the overall lowest fish densities, has more events that disturbed the Late Formative period
level, particularly several pits and features from a latter Tiwanaku 4 and Tiwanaku 5
phases at the site. Although the analyzed contexts were not disturbed by later
stratigraphic events, there is an inherent difficulty in improving the analyzed sample from
this area and analysis of samples from the 2005 excavations in this area are necessary.
Gravity, alluvial, colluvial, and wind forces possibly contributed to the
redeposition of fish remains from their localized areas of deposition (specifically the
midden sectors) to their wide dispersal throughout the site. However, I consider humans
were the most significant agent producing the extensive dispersion of fish bones. This
might imply fish consumption occurred not only inside the courts, domestic areas, and
their immediate surroundings, but also that the entire hilltop and occupation sector were a
drop and toss zone when it came to consuming and discarding fish. Certainly the well-
prepared clay floors of the courts and the KU structure have allowed the preservation of
88
very small fish bone remains, and their study might provide more information on their
intensity of use and perhaps some spatial differences among areas.
Cross-linking of collagen fibers with the organic contents of the soil and the
organic matter provided by other remains deposited in the fish rich middens and pits of
the AC and AQ areas favored overall bone preservation (sensu Nicholson 1998).
Nevertheless, the successive depositions that formed the middens themselves have caused
diverse degrees of fragmentation. Conversely, fragmentation was less pronounced in pit
contexts, and in addition, cross-linking of collagen fibers between fishes themselves
possibly occurred in these depositional events, and in particular the discrete deposition of
the fish pits in the outside of the AC lower court.
A number of AC specimens also contained evidences of carbonate salt
incrustations, sometimes attaching several fish bones together (Appendixes 3, 4, 17). This
pattern was particularly strong in loci with high densities, and was probably produced by
biochemical reactions of the bones with the natural calcium rich sedimentary deposits in
which they were embedded (Goodman 2004). Some specimens also contained evidences
of a red to pink stain, perhaps produced by partial burning (Appendix 2). None of the
examined fish specimens contained evidences of cut or gnaw marks. This aspect is
corroborated by ethnoarchaeological research that suggests cut-marks are extremely rare
if present at all in bones of fishes with sizes smaller than 30 cm of total length (Gifford-
Gonzales et al. 1999; Zohar and Cooke 1997).
The Late Formative samples are problematic by themselves, and the pattern of
fish remains from this area is clearly different from that of the earlier periods. Although
the function of the KU area is not yet well understood, the fish information might support
89
either one or the other or both a domestic or a special purpose function. I personally favor
the second possibility considering that the densities of fish remains in this whole location
are low, even in the midden samples.
Paleoenvironment
Fish remains and their contextual distribution could be a potentially good proxy
for paleoenvironmental change, specifically in regard to the lake level fluctuations. This
is particularly useful considering the paleolimnological reconstructions have focused on
the small, shallow lake that surrounds the Peninsula and would have been the closest
source of fish for people living here (Abbott et al. 1997; Binford et al. 1997). These
studies suggest there were at least three periods during our Formative Period sequence
when the lake levels were considerably lower than the present ones (see Table 2.1).
The first of these events roughly corresponds to the entire span of the Middle
Chiripa phase of the Early Formative period. Our samples suggest that fishes were caught
extensively during this period and consequently the fish data do not corroborate the
published lake core data. The second period when the lake was lower occurred in the
latter part of the Middle Formative period (see Table 2.1). Presently we do not have the
chronological information to differentiate the different contexts dated to the Middle
Formative period, and consequently, we do not have the temporal resolution to compare
the lake cores with the fish archaeological data. The third lake level drop event occurred
in the middle of the Late Formative period (Table 2.1). Once again, we do not have the
means to compare the fish information with the lake core reconstruction; however, for
90
this particular period we do see a decline in the density of fish remains possibly
attributable to climatic and environmental change.
In periods when the lake levels indeed dropped, the shore could have potentially
moved between 10 and 30 kilometers away from Kala Uyuni. Although this might seem
problematic, people in the past, as they do today in times of droughts, might have moved
inwards towards the lake following the new fertile areas for agriculture and animal
browsing (Maria Bruno personal communication 2006). Fishing on the other hand, might
have been more complicated, considering that the cost of transporting gear and procuring
fish would have also increased. In these cases, people could have taken advantage of
relict drowning-pools where fish concentrated, generating catastrophic mortality profiles.
A similar explanation could account for the lack of correspondence between the
results of the analysis of the Middle Chiripa phase fish remains and the lake cores
reconstruction. Although, I consider this possibility unlikely, considering the consistently
high densities of fish bones associated with this phase, future studies should address this
issue and other possibilities carefully. In the case of the lake level fluctuations associated
with the Middle Formative and Late Formative periods, specific stratified samples with
greater temporal resolution, including several radiocarbon dates, could ease the process
of comparing the lake cores and the zooarchaeological data.
Trade-Offs
Robert Kelly (1996), with an optimization economical principle in mind, has
suggested that when the exploitation of a particular resource such as fish is intensified,
trade-offs in other activities are produced. The information about the Early Formative
91
period of the Taraco Peninsula suggests a great deal of economic diversification
including agriculture, camelid herding, fishing, and even hunting of waterfowl and wild
mammals (Kent et al. 1999; Moore et al. 1999). The basin was a particularly
advantageous environment for all of these activities. However, by the Late Formative the
situation might have changed dramatically, particularly due to the increasing variability
in the water regime (Abbott et al. 1997), higher demography (Bandy 2001), and the
possible depletion of wild resources. The rise and integration of multi-community polities
(Bandy 2001, 2005) has been interpreted as a response to these complex factors in terms
sociopolitical organization. Increasing intensification in agriculture and potentially
camelid herding with a decreasing reliance on fishing might have been the corresponding
economical response.
Following this argument, the major change in the sequence is the reduction in the
density and quantity of fish remains in the deposits of the KU area of the Late Formative.
Although this might have to do with specific contextual information and even
paleoenviormental change, it does signal a strong drop in the consumption of fishes, and
consequently suggests that people might have dedicated themselves to other economic
tasks, including agricultural intensification, camelid herding, craft specialization, and
exchange. If indeed Kala Uyuni was the center of a multi-communal polity, then
numerous activities should have occurred in its different areas. On-going analyses of
these and other datasets should shed light on these propositions.
92
Future Directions
The results of this study will be integrated in the broader multidisciplinary scheme
of the Taraco Archaeological Project. The fish data will enhance the testing and
development of explanatory models that account for changes observed in the Formative
Period. There is a great necessity however, to continue with detailed studies of fish
remains from sites across the Lake Titicaca Basin. Their study requires the
implementation of recovery procedures that emphasize micro-artifacts, in particular,
water flotation. To attain comparability of results, a standard procedure of analysis should
also be implemented. This study has provided some basic guidelines on the kind of
information that can be gathered and their interpretative potential. Future studies should
improve the procedures of identification, including osteological morphological
observations that will allow us to practically and consistently differentiate the Orestias
species, and more diagnostic descriptions of both Orestias and Trichomycterus.
Recent molecular information has called attention to the significant genetic
differences that separate O. luteus from O. agassii, and the result that they do not
hybridize as other Orestias species do (Lüssen et al. 2003). Because these two species are
also the most common economically important taxa, then what follows is a more detailed
description of their osteology, emphasizing the differences that we now know are present.
In addition, one of the advantages of this study was the determination of the
interdependence of fish remains NISP counts and weight values. The comparison of these
two variables suggests that in most samples (and specially the larger ones) the count of
specimens can be estimated using weight values. Although this requires further testing in
broader and more diverse contexts, it seems that using weight values could speed up the
93
process of analysis. Fragmentation if noted would tend to produce more specimens with
less weight and correspondingly, good preservation should allow the presence of more
complete specimens that weighed less.
Future studies should also concentrate not only on the sites of the shore itself but
also the ones of the neighboring inland valleys. For example, networks of short and
middle range exchange could be followed with great precision using the fish evidence.
Tiwanaku is a case in point. Although people have recognized fish remains at this site,
there is not a single report that mentions the relative importance of this resource. Since
this site was a major locus of production, consumption, and redistribution (Albarracin-
Jordan 1999; Browman 1997; Janusek 2004), then we should expect that fish were an
important traded and interchanged good. I think fish remains were, in fact, very important
and their spatial variability within Tiwanaku significant.
Finally, as the information and knowledge about fish use and its variability
throughout space and time increases, it should be aimed at complementing other
ecological research to provide useful guidelines that permit the conservation and
sustainable use and management of the Lake Titicaca fishes (Castañón et al. 2002;
Dejoux and Iltis 1992; Hilborn et al. 2003; Orlove 2002; Sarmiento and Barrera 2003,
2004). It is my hope that from this small and limited study more research can be
implemented with broader perspectives in mind. It is important to build from specific and
empirically rigorous research the foundation of informed knowledge about humans and
their interaction with their environment. The long-term perspective that archaeology
provides is potentially useful to guide and implement policies geared to the preservation
of biodiversity and the improvement of the quality of life of the people that actively use
94
these resources (Hayashida 2005; Kent 1987; Lyman 2006; Lyman and Cannon 2004;
Lauwerier and Plug 2004; Orlove and Brush 1996; Reitz 2004b).
It cannot be overstated that the people of Lake Titicaca, just as today, were not
only herders and farmers but also fishermen/fisherfolk (Orlove 2002; Tschopik 1946).
Fishes were and are a very important component of the Lake Titicaca Basin ecosystem. I
began this thesis quoting Harry Tschopik’s (1946) classic ethnography of the Aymara
people of Lake Titicaca, who acknowledge their historical mutual interdependency with
the lake. Lake Titicaca’s spirit is recalled in their myths and cosmovision as the owner of
the fishes, who only demand from humans respect. It is hoped that this study has given
fishes of Lake Titicaca the proper treatment that they merit.
95
REFERENCES CITED
Abbott, Mark B., Michael W. Binford, Mark Brenner, and Kerry R. Kelts
1997 A 3500 14C yr High-Resolution Record of Water-Level Changes in Lake Titicaca,
Bolivia/Peru. Quaternary Research 47(2):169–180
Albarracin-Jordan, Juan
1992 Prehispanic and Early Colonial Settlement Patterns in the Lower Tiwanaku
Valley, Bolivia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Department of Anthropology,
Southern Methodist University, Dallas.
1996a Tiwanaku Settlement System: The Integration of Nested Hierarchies in the Lower
Tiwanaku Valley. Latin American Antiquity 7(3):183-210.
1996b Tiwanaku: Arqueología Regional y Dinámica Segmentaria. Plural Editores, La
Paz.
1999 The Archaeology of Tiwanaku: The myths, history, and science of an ancient
Andean civilization. Fundación Bartolomé de las Casas, La Paz.
2003 Tiwanaku: A Pre-Inka, Segmentary State in the Andes. In Tiwanaku and its
Hinterland: Archaeological and Paleoecological Investigations of an Andean
Civilization, Vol. 2, edited by Alan L. Kolata, pp. 95-111. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington, D.C.
Aldenderfer, Mark
2002 Informe Preliminar: Excavaciones Arqueológicas a Jiskairumoko de la cuenca
del Río Ilave Sub-Región de Puno Región "José Carlos Mariategui". Report
presented to the National Institute of Culture, Puno.
Andrus, C. Fred T., Douglas E. Crowe, Daniel H. Sandweiss, Elizabeth J. Reitz,

Christopher S. Romanek
2002 Otolith δ18O Record of Mid-Holocene Sea Surface Temperature in Peru. Science
295:1508-1511.
Argollo, Jaime, Leocadio Ticlla, Alan L. Kolata, and Oswaldo Rivera

1996 Geology, Geomorphology, and Soils of the Tiwanaku and Catari River Basins. In
Tiwanaku and its Hinterland: Archaeology and Peleoecology of Andean
Civilization, Vol. 1, edited by Alan L. Kolata, pp. 57-88. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington, D.C.
Bandy, Matthew Sebastian

2001 Population and History in the Ancient Titicaca Basin. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of California at Berkeley,
Berkeley.
2004 Fissioning, Scalar Stress, and Social Evolution in Early Village Societies.
American Anthropologist 106(2):322-333.
2005 New World Settlement Evidence for a Two-Stage Neolithic Demographic
Transition. Current Anthropology 46:S109–S115.
96
Bandy, Matthew, Christine Hastorf, Lee Steadman, Katherine Moore, Melissa Goodman,
William Whitehead, Jose Luis Paz, Amanda Cohen, Maria Bruno, Andrew Roddick, Kirk
Frye, Maria Soledad Fernandez, Jose Capriles, and Mary Leighton
2004 Taraco Archaeological Project: Report on 2003 Excavations at Kala Uyuni.
Report submitted to the Dirección Nacional de Arqueología de Bolivia, La Paz.
Bauer, Brian S. and Charles Stanish

2001 Ritual and Pilgrimage in the Ancient Andes. The Islands of the Sun and the Moon.
University of Texas Press, Austin.
Bennett, Wendell Clark

1936 Excavations in Bolivia. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of
Natural History 35(4):327-507.
Bermann, Marc
1990 Prehispanic Household and Empire at Lukurmata, Bolivia. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
1994 Lukurmata: Household Archaeology in Prehispanic Bolivia. University of
Princeton Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Binford, Michael W. and Alan L. Kolata

1996 The Natural and Human Setting. In Tiwanaku and its Hinterland: Archaeology
and Peleoecology of Andean Civilization, Vol. 1, edited by Alan L. Kolata, pp.
23-56. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Binford, Michael W., Alan L. Kolata, Mark Brenner, John W. Janusek, Matthew T.
Seddon, Mark Abbott, and Jason H. Curtis
1997 Climate Variation and the Rise and Fall of an Andean Civilization. Quaternary
Research 47(2):235-248.
Browman, David L.
1978 The Temple of Chiripa (Lake Titicaca, Bolivia). In El Hombre y La Cultura
Andina, III Congreso Peruano, edited by Ramiro Matos Mendieta, pp. 807–813.
Editora Lasontay, Lima.
1981 New light on Andean Tiwanaku. American Scientist 69(4)408-419.
1989 Chenopod Cultivation, Lacustrine Resources, and Fuel Use at Chiripa, Bolivia.
The Missouri Archaeologist 47:137-72.
1997 Political Institutional Factors Contributing to the Integration of the Tiwanaku
state. In Emergence and Change in Early Urban Societies, edited by Linda
Manzanilla, pp. 229-243. Plenum Press, New York.
1998 Lithic Provenience Analysis and Emerging Material Complexity at Formative
Period Chiripa, Bolivia. Andean Past 5:301-324.
Bruno, Maria
2004 Excavations in the AQ (Ayrampu Qontu) Sector. In Taraco Archaeological
97
Project: Report on 2003 Excavations at Kala Uyuni, pp. 18-20. Report submitted
to the Dirección Nacional de Arqueología de Bolivia, La Paz.
Bruno, Maria and Mary Leighton

2004 Additional Excavations in the KU Area N894/E639. In Taraco Archaeological
Bruno, Maria C. and William T. Whitehead

2004 Archaeobotany. In Taraco Archaeological Project: Report on 2003 Excavations
at Kala Uyuni, pp. 80-82. Report submitted to the Dirección Nacional de
Arqueología de Bolivia, La Paz.
Capriles Flores, José M.

2003 Entre el Valle y la Península: Variabilidad en la Utilización de Recursos
Faunísticos durante Tiwanaku (400-1100 d.C.) en el sitio Iwawi, Bolivia.
Unpublished Licenciatura thesis. Carrera de Arqueología, Universidad Mayor de
San Andrés, La Paz.
2006 State of the Fish: Characteristic of the Consumption and Exploitation of Fish
during Tiwanaku (A.D. 400-1100) at Iwawi Bolivia. In Advances in Titicaca
Basin Archaeology II, edited by Charles Stanish, Elizabeth Klarich, and Ilana
Johnson. Costen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA, Los Angeles. (Submitted,
presently in review).
Castañón Rivera, Víctor, Tomás Flores Marca, and Justino Limache Corani
2002 Manual Pesquero para el Repoblamiento del Lago Titicaca con Peces Nativos.
Prefectura del Departamento de La Paz, Servicio Departamental Agropecuario,
Unidad de Pesca y Acuicultura, La Paz.
Casteel, Richard W.
1976 Fish Remains in Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies. Academic Press,
New York.
Cleland, Charles E.
1982 The Inland Shore Fishery of the Northern Great Lakes: Its Development and
Importance in Prehistory. American Antiquity 47(4):761-784.
Cohen, Amanda and Andrew Roddick

2004 Excavations in the AC (Achachi Coa Kkollu) Sector. In Taraco Archaeological
Colley, Sarah M.
1990 The Analysis and Interpretation of Archaeological Fish Remains. In
Archaeological Method and Theory Vol. 2, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp.
207-253. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
98
deFrance, Susan
1997 Vertebrate Faunal Use at Yaya-Mama Religious Tradition Sites on the
Copacabana Peninsula, Bolivia. Paper presented at the 62nd Annual Meeting of
the Society for American Archaeology, Nashville, TN.
Dejoux Claude and André Iltis (Editors)

1992 Lake Titicaca: A Synthesis of Limnological Knowledge. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordrecht.
Erickson, Clark
2000 The Lake Titicaca Basin: A Precolombian Built Landscape. In Imperfect Balance:
Landscape Transformations in Precolombian Americas, edited by David Lentz,
pp. 311-356. University of Columbia Press, New York.
Falabella, Fernanda, M. Loreto Vargas, and Roberto Meléndez

1994 Differential Preservation and Recovery of Fish Remains in Central Chile. In Fish
Exploitation in the Past. Proocedings of the 7th Meeting of the ICAZ Fish Remains
Working Group, edited by W. Van Neer, pp. 25-35. Annales du Musée Royal de
l’Afrique Centrale, Sciences Zoologiques, No. 274, Tervuren.
Gifford-Gonzalez, Diane, Kathlyn M. Stewart, and Natalia Rybczynski

1999 Human Activities and Site Formation at Modern Lake Marging Foraging Camps
in Kenya. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 18:397-440.
Goodman Elgar, Melissa

2004 Microstratigraphy and Soil Analysis. In Taraco Archaeological Project: Report
on 2003 Excavations at Kala Uyuni, pp. 86-95. Report submitted to the Dirección
Nacional de Arqueología de Bolivia, La Paz.
Grayson, Donald K.
1979 On the Quantification of Vertebrate Archaeofaunas. In Advances in
Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 2., edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp.
199-237. Academic Press, New York.
1984 Quantitative Zooarchaeology. Topics in the Analysis of Archaeological Faunas.
Academic Press, Orlando.
Hayashida, Frances M.
2005 Archaeology, Ecological History, and Conservation. Annual Review of
Anthropology 34:43-65.
Hastorf, Christine A. (Editor)

1999 Early Settlement at Chiripa, Bolivia: Research of the Taraco Archaeological
Project. Contributions of the University of California Research Facility No. 57,
Berkeley.
99
Hastorf, Christine, Matthew Bandy, William Whitehead, and Lee Steadman
2001 El Período Formativo en Chiripa, Bolivia. Textos Antropológicos 13(1-2):17-91.
Hastorf, Christine, Matthew Bandy, William Whitehead, Lee Steadman, Katherine

Moore, José Luis Paz, Andrew Roddick, Maria Bruno, Soledad Fernández, Kathryn
Killackey, Amanda Logan, Delfor Ulloa, Luis Callisaya, Jose Capriles, Emily Stobel,
Mariana Raath, and Xander Antonites
2005 Proyecto Arqueológico Taraco: Informe de las Excavaciones de la Temporada
del 2004 en los Sitios de Kumi Kipa, Sonaji y Chiripa. Report submitted to the
Dirección Nacional de Arqueología de Bolivia, La Paz.
Herhahn, Cynthia Louise

2004 Moving to Live: A Pastoral Mobility Model from the South-Central Andes, Peru.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of
California, Santa Barbara.
Hillborn, Ray, Trevor A. Branch, Billy Ernst, Arni Magnusson, Carollina V. Minte-Vera,
Mark D. Scheuerell, and Juan L. Valero
2003 State of the World’s Fisheries. Annual Review of Environmental Resources
28:359-399.
Horn, Darwin David

1984 Marsh resource utilization and the ethnoarchaeology of the Uru-Muratos of
highland Bolivia. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. Department of
Anthropology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis.
Isbell, William H. and JoEllen Burkholder

2002 Iwawi and Tiwanaku. In Andean Archaeology I Variations in Sociopolitical
Organization, edited by William H. Isbell and Helaine Silverman, pp. 199-241.
Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, New York.
Janusek, John W.
2004 Identity and Power in the Ancient Andes: Tiwanaku Cities Through Time.
Routledge, New York.
Kent, Adam M., Tom Webber, and David W. Steadman

1999 Distribution, Relative Abundance, and Prehistory of Birds on the Taraco
Peninsula, Bolivian Altiplano. Ornitologia Neotropical 10:151-178.
Kent, Jonathan D.
1982 The Domestication and Exploitation of the South American Camelids.
Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. Department of Anthropology, Washington
University in St. Louis, St. Louis.
1987 Periodic Aridity and Prehispanic Titicaca Basin Settlement Basin. In Arid Land
Use Strategies and Risk Management in the Andes: An Anthropological
Perspective, edited by David L. Browman, pp. 297-314. Westview Press,
100
Boulder.
Kelly, Robert L.
1996 Foraging and Fishing. In Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherer and Fishing Strategies,
edited by Mark G. Plew, pp. 208-214. Boise State University Printing and
Graphics Services, Boise.
Kidder II, Alfred

1956 Digging in the Titicaca Basin. University Museum Bulletin, University of
Pennsylvania 20(3):16-29.
Klink, Cynthia and Mark Aldenderfer

1996 Archaic Period Settlement on the Altiplano: Comparison of Two Recent Surveys
in the Southern Lake Titicaca Basin. Paper presented at the 24th Annual Midwest
Conference on Andean and Amazonian Archaeology and Ethnohistory, Bolit, WI.
Kolata, Alan L.
1993 The Tiwanaku: Portrait of an Andean civilization. Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.
Kolata, Alan L. (Editor)

1996 Tiwanaku and its Hinterland: Archaeology and Peleoecology of Andean
Civilization, Vol. 1. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
2003 Tiwanaku and its Hinterland: Archaeology and Peleoecology of Andean
Civilization, Vol. 2. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Lauwerier, C. G. N. and Ina Plug (Editors)

2004 The Future from the Past: Archaeozoology in wildlife conservation and heritage
management. Oxbow Books, Oxford.
Lauzanne, Laurent
1982 Les Orestias (Pises, Cyprinodontidae) du Petit lac Titicaca. Rev. Hidrobiol. Trop.
15(1):39-70.
1992 The Native Species. The Orestias. In Lake Titicaca: A Synthesis of Limnological
Knowledge, edited by Claude Dejoux and André Iltis, pp. 405-419. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Lémuz Aguirre, Carlos

2001 Patrones de asentamiento arqueológicos en la Península de Santiago de Huata,
Bolivia. Unpublished Licenciatura thesis. Carrera de Arqueología, Universidad
Mayor de San Andrés, La Paz.
2002 Transformaciones en la economía prehispánica de la Península de Santiago de
Huata, Bolivia. In Contribución al Conocimiento del Sistema del Lago Titicaca,
edited by Carlos Aguirre B., Carmen Miranda L., and Yola Verhasselt, pp. 375-
396. Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia, Real Academia Belga de
Ciencias de Ultramar, La Paz.
101
Leach, Foss, Janet Davidson, Jim Samson, and Gretta Burnside
1997 The Estimation of Live Fish from Archaeological Cranial Bones of New Zealand
Labridae. Archaeofauna 6:41-58.
Levieil, Dominique P. and Benjamin Orlove

1990 Local Control of Aquatic Resources: Community and Ecology in Lake Titicaca,
Peru. American Anthropologist 92(2):362-382.
Lüssen, Arne, Thomas M. Falk, and Wolfgang Villwock

2003 Phylogenetic Patterns in Populations of Chilean Species of the Genus Orestias
(Teleostei: Cyprinodontidae): Results of Mitochondrial DNA Analysis. Molecular
Phylogenetics and Evolution 29(1):151-160.
Lyman, R. Lee
1994 Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
2006 Paleozoology in the Service of Conservation Biology. Evolutionary Anthropology
15:11-19.
Lyman, R. Lee and Kenneth P. Cannon (Editors)

2004 Zooarchaeology and Conservation Biology. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake
City.
Marcus, Joyce
1987 Prehistoric Fishermen in the Kingdom of Huarco. American Scientist 75:393-401.
Marcus, Joyce, Jeffrey D. Sommer, and Christopher P. Glew

1999 Fish and mammals in the economy of an ancient Peruvian kingdom. Proocedings
of the National Academy of Sciences 96:6564-6570.
Marshall, Fiona and Tom Pilgram

1993 NISP vs. MNI in the Quantification of Body Part Representation. American
Antiquity 58(2):261-269.
Moore, Katherine M.
1999 Chiripa Worked Bone and Bone Tools. In Early Settlement at Chiripa Bolivia:
Research of the Taraco Archaeological Project, edited by Christine A. Hastorf,
pp. 73-93. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research
Facility No. 57, Berkeley.
2004 Animal Remains from the 2003 Season. In Taraco Archaeological Project:
Report on 2003 Excavations at Kala Uyuni, pp. 83-85. Report submitted to the
Moore, Katherine M., David W. Steadman, and Susan deFrance

1999 Herds, Fish, and Fowl in the Domestic and Ritual Economy of Formative Chiripa.
In Early Settlement at Chiripa Bolivia: Research of the Taraco Archaeological
Project, edited by Christine A. Hastorf, pp. 105-116. Contributions of the
102
University of California Archaeological Research Facility No. 57, Berkeley.
Morales, Arturo and Knud Rosenlund

1979 Fish Bone Measurements. An Attempt to Standardize the Measuring of Fish Bones
from Archaeological Sites. Steenstrupia, Copenhagen.
Moseley, Michael E.
2001 The Inka and their Ancestors: the Archaeology of Peru. 2nd. Edition, Thames &
Hudson, London.
Nicholson, Rebecca A.
1998 Bone Degradation in a Compost Heap. Journal of Archaeological Science
25(5):393-403.
Orlove, Benjamin S.
1986 Barter and Cash Sale on Lake Titicaca: A Test of Competing Approaches.
Current Anthropology 27(2):85-106.
2002 Lines in the Water: Nature and Culture at Lake Titicaca. University of California
Press, Berkeley.
Orlove, Benjamin S. and Stephen B. Brush

1996 Anthropology and Conservation Biology. Annual Review of Anthropology
25:329-352.
Orlove, Benjamin S., Dominique P. Levieil, and Hugo P. Treviño

1992 Social and Economic Aspects of the Fisheries. In Lake Titicaca: A Synthesis of
Limnological Knowledge, edited by Claude Dejoux and André Iltis, pp. 500-504.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Osorio, Francisco and Jaime Sarmiento

2002 Informe preliminar de la reactualización de la información de ictiofauna del Lago
Titicaca. In Contribución al Conocimiento del Sistema del Lago Titicaca, edited
by Carlos Aguirre B., Carmen Miranda L., and Yola Verhasselt, pp. 305-319.
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia, Real Academia Belga de Ciencias de
Ultramar, La Paz.
Pareja Siñanis, Eduardo

1992 Descripción y conservación de piezas arqueológicas. In Exploraciones
arqueológicas subacuáticas en el lago Titicaca: informe científico, pp. 583-706.
La Palabra Producciones, La Paz.
Parenti, Lynne R.
1981 A Phylogenetic and Biogeographic Analysis of Cyprinodontiform Fishes
(Teleostei, Atherinomorpha). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural
History 168(4):335-557.
1984 A Taxonomic Revision of the Andean Killifish Genus Orestias
103
(Ciprinodontiformes, Cypronodontidae). Bulletin of the American Museum of
Natural History 178(2):107-214.
Parsons, Jeffrey R. and Luis Morret A.

2004 Recursos Acuáticos en la Subsistencia Azteca: Cazadores, Pescadores y
Recolectores. Arqueología Mexicana 12(68):38-43.
Paz, José Luis and María Soledad Fernández

2004 Excavaciones en el Sector KU (Kala Uyuni). In Taraco Archaeological Project:
Report on 2003 Excavations at Kala Uyuni, pp. 21-33. Report submitted to the
Portugal Loayza, Jimena

2002 Los urus: aprovechamiento y manejo de recursos acuáticos. Lidema, Konrad
Adenauer Stiffung, La Paz.
Reitz, Elizabeth J.
2001 Fishing in Peru Between 10000 and 3750 BP. International Journal of
Osteoarchaeology 11:163-171.
2004a “Fishing Down the Food Web”: A Case Study from St. Augustine, Florida, USA.
American Antiquity 69(1):63-83.
2004b The Use of Archaeofaunal Data in Fish Management. In The Future from the
Past: Archaeozoology in Wildlife Conservation and Heritage Management, edited
by Roel C. G. M. Lauwerier and Ina Plug, pp. 19-33. Oxbow Books, Oxford.
Reitz, Elizabeth J. and Elizabeth S. Wing

1999 Zooarchaeology. University of Cambridge Press, Cambridge.
Reitz, Elizabeth J., Irvy R. Quitmyer, H. Stephen Hale, Sylvia J. Scudder, and Elizabeth
S. Wing
1987 Application of Allometry to Zooachaeology. American Antiquity 52(2):304-317.
Rick, John W.
1977 Downslope Movement and Archaeological Intrasite Spatial Analysis. American
Antiquity 41(2):133-144.
Ríos, Boris and Omar Rocha O.

2003 Uso de Fauna y Flora Silvestre por los Uro Muratos y otros Pobladores Locales.
In Diagnóstico de Recursos Naturales y Culturales de los Lagos Poopó y Uru
Uru, Oruro, Bolivia, edited by Omar Rocha Olivo, pp. 95-110. Convención
Ramsar, WCS/Bolivia, La Paz.
Roche, Michel Alain, Jaques Bourges, José Cortes, and Roger Matos
1992 Climatology and Hydrology of the Lake Titicaca Basin. In Lake Titicaca. A
Sythesis of Limnological Knowledge, edited by C. Dejoux and A. Iltis, pp. 63-88.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Cordrecht.
104
Sarmiento, Jaime and Soraya Barrera
2003 Peces. In Fauna Amenazada de Bolivia ¿Animales sin futuro?, edited by Eliana
Flores B. and Carmen Miranda L., pp. 77-102. Ministerio de Desarrollo
Sostenible, La Paz.
2004 Fish. In Biodiversity: The richness of Bolivia. Knowledge and Conservation
Status, edited by Pierre L. Ibish and Gonzalo Merida, pp. 126-133. Ministerio de
Desarrollo Sostenible, FAN, Santa Cruz de la Sierra.
Solc, Vaclav
1969 Los Aymara de las Islas del Titicaca. Instituto Indigenista Interamericano,
Mexico, D.F.
Sandweiss, Daniel H.
1996 The Development of Fishing Specialization on the Andean Coast. In Prehistoric
Hunter-Gatherer and Fishing Strategies, edited by Mark G. Plew, pp. 41-63.
Boise State University Printing and Graphics Services, Boise.
Stanish, Charles
2003 Ancient Titicaca. The Evolution of Complex Society in Southern Peru and
Northern Bolivia. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Stanish, Charles, Richard L. Burger, Lisa M. Cipolla, Michael D. Glascock, and Esteban
Quelima
2002 Evidence for Early Long-Distance Obsidian Exchange and Watercraft Use from
Southern Lake Titicaca Basin of Bolivia and Peru. Latin American Antiquity
13(4):444-454.
Steadman, Lee
2004 Ceramic Analysis. In Taraco Archaeological Project: Report on 2003
Excavations at Kala Uyuni, pp. 60-79. Report submitted to the Dirección
Nacional de Arqueología de Bolivia, La Paz.
Stanton, Travis
1994 A Lakeshore Tiwanaku Faunal Analysis: Iwawi 1993. Unpublished B.A. Honors
Thesis in Anthropology. State University of New York at Binghamton, Vestal,
New York.
Tchernavin, V. V.
1944a A revision of the subfamily Orestiinae. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of
London 114(9):140-233.
1944b A revision of some Trichomycterinae based on material preserved in the British
Museum (Natural History). Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London
114(9):234-275.
Tschopik, Harry, Jr.
105
1946 The Aymara. In Handbook of South American Indians, edited by Julian H.
Steward, pp. 501-573. Smithsonian Institution, American Bureau of Ethnology,
New York.
Vaux, P., W. Wurtsbaugh, H. Treviño, L. Mariño, E. Bustamante, J. Torres, P. Richerson,

and R. Alfaro
1988 Ecology of the Pelagic Fishes of Lake Titicaca, Peru-Bolivia. Biotropica
20(3):220-229.
Villwock, Wolfgang
1986 Speciation and Adaptive Radiation in Andean Orestias Fishes. In High Altitude
Tropical Biogeography, edited by Francois Vuilleumier and Maximina
Monasterio, pp. 387-403. Oxford University Press, American Museum of Natural
History, New York.
Watson, Patty Jo
1976 In Pursuit of Prehistoric Subsistence: A Comparative Account of Some
Contemporary Flotation Techniques. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology
1:77-100.
Webster, Ann Demuth

1993 The Role of Camelids in the Emergence of Tiwanaku. Unpublished Doctoral
dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago, Chicago.
Webster, Ann Demuth and John Wayne Janusek

2003 Tiwanaku Camelids: Subsistence, Sacrifice, and Social Reproduction. In
Tiwanaku and its Hinterland: Archaeological and Paleoecological Investigations
of an Andean Civilization, Vol. 2, edited by Alan L. Kolata, pp. 343-462.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Wheeler, Alwyne and Andrew K. G. Jones

1989 Fishes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Wing, Elizabeth E.
1986 Domestication of Andean mammals. In High Altitude Tropical Biogeography,
edited by Francois Vuilleumier and Maximina Monasterio, pp. 246-264. Oxford
University Press, American Museum of Natural History, New York.
Wise, Karen
1993 Late Intermediate Period Architecture at Lukurmata. In Domestic Architecture,
Ethnicity, and Complimentarity in the South Central Andes, edited by Mark
Aldenderfer, pp. 103-113. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City.
Zohar, Irit and Richard Cooke

1997 The Impact of Salting and Drying on Fish Bones: Preliminary Observations on
Four Marine Species from Parita Bay, Panama. Archaefauna 6:59-66.
106
APPENDIXES
107
Appendix 1. General results of the fish bone analysis with weight and volume density values for both flotation (heavy fractions sorted up to the >1 mm fraction) and 1/4" (6.35 mm) screen samples.
Screen
Screen Screen Screen Screen Flot Total Total flot Flot Fish Flot Flot Flot
Screen Screen density Screen Screen Flot fish Flot Flot Estimated Flot fish
total fish Screen density density volu flot bone Flot fish density weight density density density
Flot # Locus / Event Area Phase Period Context volume density large fish density weight fish density fish body NISP/MN
weight weight fish MNI fish fish me bone density NISP fish reconstruc fish fish fish
(l) bone g/l mammal NISP fish g/l (g) MNI fish g/l weight (g) I ratio
bone (g) (g) NISP/l MNI/l (l) weight g/l NISP/l ted (g) MNI/l NISP/g g/NISP
bone g/l
13038 5015 1 A21 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor 613 696.1 1.136 1.13 0.1 1 1 0.000 0.002 0.002 10 15.3 1.53 851 3.95 9 85.10 0.40 246.09 289.08 0.90 215.44 0.005 94.56
13025 5063 1 C18 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden 62 231.9 3.740 3.70 0.67 5 2 0.011 0.081 0.032 10 174.4 17.44 4413 15.2 8 441.30 1.52 109.44 149.96 0.80 290.33 0.003 551.63
13035 5065 1 C18 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden 320 410.2 1.282 1.26 0.48 5 2 0.002 0.016 0.006 11 54.0 4.91 4046 27.11 18 367.82 2.46 815.76 763.15 1.64 149.24 0.007 224.78
13055 5075 1 C8 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden 227 353.8 1.559 1.53 4.7 n/a n/a 0.021 n/a n/a 9 16.5 1.83 1345 5.32 11 149.44 0.59 139.50 182.54 1.22 252.82 0.004 122.27
13093 5080 1 C10 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden 603 546.8 0.907 0.79 67 n/a n/a 0.111 n/a n/a 9 6.6 0.73 313 3 3 34.78 0.33 204.00 248.34 0.33 104.33 0.010 104.33
13122 5086 1 C14 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden 212 247.1 1.166 1.09 2.9 n/a n/a 0.014 n/a n/a 9 39.8 4.42 2661 16.99 9 295.67 1.89 417.20 443.32 1.00 156.62 0.006 295.67
13131 5088 1 C15 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden 510 452.7 0.888 0.71 8.64 186 25 0.017 0.365 0.049 10 n/a n/a 1694 12.74 7 169.40 1.27 662.48 644.75 0.70 132.97 0.008 242.00
13140 5091 1 C17 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden 584 666.5 1.141 1.13 3.61 72 12 0.006 0.123 0.021 9 n/a n/a 2937 18.81 16 326.33 2.09 1239.37 1070.87 1.78 156.14 0.006 183.56
13118 5134 1 A126 AC 2LC 2MF Surface 60 18.3 0.305 0.31 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 16.0 1.60 740 3.45 5 74.00 0.35 24.15 44.10 0.50 214.49 0.005 148.00
13220 5164 10 B22 KU 3T1 3LF Surface 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 2.8 0.40 66 0.38 1 9.43 0.05 0.38 1.53 0.14 173.68 0.006 66.00
13223 5167 1 B23 KU 3T1 3LF Fill over floor 210 35.1 0.167 0.16 0.1 1 1 0.000 0.005 0.005 9 6.3 0.70 235 1.91 3 26.11 0.21 46.48 74.94 0.33 123.04 0.008 78.33
13120 5178 1 A26 AC 2LC 2MF Pit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 86.0 8.60 8193 61.36 31 819.30 6.14 61.36 93.85 3.10 133.52 0.007 264.29
13123 5178 2 A26 AC 2LC 2MF Pit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 1.0 0.10 2142 16.42 10 214.20 1.64 16.42 32.26 1.00 130.45 0.008 214.20
13115 5180 1 A35 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor 540 164 0.304 0.29 1.1 n/a n/a 0.002 n/a n/a 9 9.1 1.01 495 3.6 3 55.00 0.40 219.60 263.61 0.33 137.50 0.007 165.00
13156 5192 2 A29 AC 2LC 2MF Pit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 n/a n/a 4930 34.39 19 493.00 3.44 34.39 58.72 1.90 143.36 0.007 259.47
13175 5193 1 A29 AC 2LC 2MF Pit 65 22.8 0.351 0.35 0.3 1 1 0.005 0.015 0.015 9 54.3 6.03 5017 40.79 19 557.44 4.53 335.38 371.48 2.11 123.00 0.008 264.05
13188 5228 1 A102 AC 2LC 2MF Midden 754 340.4 0.451 0.44 5.04 80 18 0.007 0.106 0.024 8 15.4 1.93 57 0.29 1 7.13 0.04 27.62 49.17 0.13 196.55 0.005 57.00
13163 5229 1 A103 AC 2LC 2MF Pit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 n/a n/a 746 5.26 4 248.67 1.75 5.26 12.83 1.33 141.83 0.007 186.50
13159 5230 1 A104 AC 2LC 2MF Pit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 n/a n/a 654 4.75 4 327.00 2.38 4.75 11.81 2.00 137.68 0.007 163.50
13171 5231 4 A106 AC 2LC 2MF Midden 560 1240 2.214 2.10 16.7 196 34 0.030 0.350 0.061 9 197.4 21.93 10465 78.64 36 1162.78 8.74 4971.80 3299.27 4.00 133.07 0.008 290.69
13172 5232 1 A107 AC 2LC 2MF Midden 70 59.7 0.853 0.83 1.03 13 4 0.015 0.186 0.057 9 21.9 2.43 1812 14.15 9 201.33 1.57 124.21 166.15 1.00 128.06 0.008 201.33
13166 5233 1 A108 AC 1MC 1EF Midden 460 557.9 1.213 1.20 1.13 18 5 0.002 0.039 0.011 10 n/a n/a 3242 17.75 12 324.20 1.78 834.25 777.13 1.20 182.65 0.005 270.17
13167 5234 1 A108 AC 1MC 1EF Midden 460 610.4 1.327 1.32 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 n/a n/a 1694 6.42 6 169.40 0.64 301.74 340.99 0.60 263.86 0.004 282.33
13200 5238 1 A111 AC 1MC 1EF Midden 380 2347.6 6.178 6.08 18.7 297 58 0.049 0.782 0.153 9 n/a n/a 6597 42.03 29 733.00 4.67 1816.63 1459.65 3.22 156.96 0.006 227.48
13204 5240 1 A112 AC 1MC 1EF Midden 555 293.1 0.528 0.53 0.85 12 3 0.002 0.022 0.005 10 37.2 3.72 2256 14.87 17 225.60 1.49 840.16 781.58 1.70 151.71 0.007 132.71
13226 5270 1 B48 KU 4T3 3LF Pit 20 19.1 0.955 0.48 0.1 1 1 0.005 0.050 0.050 9 n/a n/a 173 1.72 4 19.22 0.19 5.54 13.39 0.44 100.58 0.010 43.25
13232 5274 1 B39 KU 3T1 3LF Midden 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 61.1 6.11 464 3.04 2 46.40 0.30 3.04 8.23 0.20 152.63 0.007 232.00
13230 5300 1 B52 KU 4T3 3LF Pit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 n/a n/a 136 1.19 1 136.00 1.19 1.19 3.85 1.00 114.29 0.009 136.00
13245 5305 1 B88 KU 3T1 3LF Midden 30 24.1 0.803 0.80 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 n/a n/a 387 3.29 5 43.00 0.37 14.26 28.77 0.56 117.63 0.009 77.40
13249 5307 1 B48 KU 4T3 3LF Pit 42 8.3 0.198 0.14 0.32 4 2 0.008 0.095 0.048 10 n/a n/a 247 1.98 3 24.70 0.20 10.30 22.11 0.30 124.75 0.008 82.33
13359 5317 6 B91 KU 3T1 3LF Midden 386 269.3 0.698 0.69 1.5 25 6 0.004 0.065 0.016 9 62.8 6.98 832 6.91 8 92.44 0.77 303.27 342.39 0.89 120.41 0.008 104.00
Total 7723 9691.1 28.362 27.05 59.27 917 175 0.008 0.119 0.023 269 877.9 3.26 69840 467.71 313 259.62 1.74 13895.68 7585.34 1.16 149.32 0.007 223.13
Note: The slash number (/) in the third collumn refers to the flotation sample as it was numbered in the field since every sample was point-provinience and mapped during excavation. The
flotation number (#) of the first column was assigned during the flotation process itself.
Note: weight reconstruction = flot density * excavated volume + flot volume.
Note: Estimated fish body weight following Reitz et al. (1987; Reitz and Wing 1999) for the Class Osteichtyes.
Note: Screen samples for 5075, 5080, 5086, and 5180 had small quantities of fish remains that were not analyzed in this study. Weights provided by Katherine Moore (personal communication 2006).
Note: Value 0 in the Screen volume column refers to loci where only flotation samples were excavated.
108
Appendix 2. General NISP results for the fish analysis of flot samples including Orestias NISP (ONISP), Trichomycterus NISP (TNISP), total of identified NISP (TFNISP), Orestias MNI (OMNI),
Trichomycterus MNI (TMNI), total fish MNI (TFMNI), scales NISP (SCALN), ribs NISP (RIBN), vertebrae NISP (VERTN), rays NISP (RAYN), determinates NISP (DETN), indeterminates NISP (INDET),
total NISP (TOTALN),
Flot Locus Slash ONISP TNISP TFNISP OMNI TMNI TFMNI SCALN RIBN VERTN RAYN DETN INDET NISP UMO MOF PBU BUR CAL
13038 5015 1 29 8 37 5 4 9 345 65 29 32 508 343 851 706 145 90 55 0
13025 5063 1 65 32 97 4 4 8 1486 159 177 170 2089 2324 4413 4153 260 27 213 20
13035 5065 1 170 44 214 10 8 18 2001 137 346 45 2743 1303 4046 3845 201 76 118 7
13055 5075 1 37 16 53 6 5 11 390 65 107 56 671 674 1342 1156 186 4 152 30
13093 5080 1 9 5 14 2 1 3 75 42 60 3 194 119 313 261 52 0 50 2
13122 5086 1 96 23 119 5 4 9 714 99 385 54 1371 1290 2664 2374 290 41 215 34
13131 5088 1 58 9 67 5 2 7 556 11 329 5 968 726 1694 1591 103 3 99 1
13140 5091 1 182 32 214 10 6 16 1409 127 291 2 2043 894 2937 2842 95 40 50 5
13118 5134 1 6 4 10 3 2 5 246 141 61 28 486 254 740 413 327 3 268 56
13220 5164 10 1 0 1 1 0 1 32 3 11 2 49 17 66 63 3 0 3 0
13223 5167 1 14 0 14 3 0 3 89 18 35 1 157 78 235 217 18 3 13 2
13120 5178 1 562 2 564 30 1 31 2674 877 764 0 4879 3314 8193 8032 161 3 139 19
13123 5178 2 83 11 94 7 3 10 868 108 229 38 1337 805 2142 2043 99 0 50 49
13115 5180 1 15 1 16 2 1 3 227 8 62 4 317 178 495 484 11 0 11 0
13156 5192 2 127 11 138 13 6 19 2437 207 390 54 3226 1704 4930 4463 467 0 276 191
13175 5193 1 155 12 167 15 4 19 2498 512 550 35 3762 1255 5017 3504 1513 140 1122 251
13188 5228 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 19 6 6 3 35 22 57 50 7 0 7 0
13163 5229 1 45 0 45 4 0 4 371 11 92 1 520 226 746 94 652 8 604 40
13159 5230 1 36 2 38 3 1 4 187 22 114 0 361 293 654 160 494 105 387 2
13171 5231 4 366 33 399 28 8 36 4929 712 500 60 6600 3865 10465 10229 236 18 197 21
13172 5232 1 71 13 84 4 5 9 1155 37 171 20 1467 345 1812 1795 17 12 5 0
13166 5233 1 117 17 134 8 4 12 2051 160 190 23 2558 684 3242 3166 76 8 68 0
13167 5234 1 33 16 49 4 2 6 1193 13 63 21 1339 355 1694 1671 23 13 10 0
13200 5238 1 188 19 207 25 4 29 2056 283 766 18 3330 3267 6597 3674 2923 899 1926 98
13204 5240 1 112 11 123 10 7 17 1180 134 244 44 1725 531 2256 1957 299 11 246 42
13226 5270 1 10 1 11 3 1 4 55 7 10 10 93 80 173 139 34 0 34 0
13232 5274 1 7 0 7 2 0 2 159 33 48 16 263 201 464 456 8 2 6 0
73230 5300 1 6 0 6 1 0 1 46 11 17 0 80 56 136 129 7 0 7 0
13245 5305 1 13 7 20 3 2 5 258 2 46 0 326 61 387 369 18 4 10 4
13249 5307 1 24 0 24 3 0 3 87 6 29 0 146 101 247 141 106 0 79 27
13359 5317 6 34 3 37 7 1 8 291 153 84 4 569 263 832 566 266 47 87 132
Total 2672 332 3004 227 86 313 30084 4169 6206 749 44212 25628 69840 60743 9097 1557 6507 1033
109
Appendix 3. General weight results for the fish analysis of Orestias NISP (ORW), Trichomycterus NISP (TRW), cranial bones (TFW), scales (SCALW), vertebrae (VERTW), ribs (RIBW), rays
(RAYW), determinate specimens (DETW), indeterminate specimens (INDETW), total weight (TOTW), weight of unmodified specimens (UMOF), modified specimens (MOF), partially burned
(PBUW), burned (BURW), calcified (CALW), presence of carbonates (CARB), red coloration possibly related to burning (RED). Weight in grams.
Flot Locus Slash ORW TRW TFW SCALW VERTW RIBW RAYW DETW INDETW TOTW UMOW MOFW PBUW BURW CALW CARB RED
13038 5015 1 0.5 0.16 0.66 1.26 0.32 0.21 0.09 2.54 1.41 3.95 3.36 0.59 0.3 0.29 0
13025 5063 1 1.47 0.32 1.79 4.35 2.1 0.74 0.38 9.36 5.84 15.2 14.51 0.69 0.14 0.51 0.04
13035 5065 1 2.67 0.5 3.17 12.33 3.8 0.92 0.03 20.25 6.86 27.11 25.21 1.9 0.77 1.09 0.04
13055 5075 1 0.71 0.15 0.86 1.41 0.85 0.3 0.16 3.58 1.74 5.32 4.68 0.64 0.02 0.54 0.08
13093 5080 1 0.32 0.07 0.39 0.49 1.05 0.3 0.01 2.24 0.76 3 2.67 0.33 0 0.31 0.02
13122 5086 1 1.98 0.28 2.26 3.93 4.29 0.66 0.29 11.43 5.56 16.99 14.5 2.49 1.59 0.81 0.09 1
13131 5088 1 1.26 0.06 1.32 3.63 3.99 0.15 0.01 9.1 3.64 12.74 12.02 0.72 0.01 0.7 0.01
13140 5091 1 2.77 0.38 3.15 7.42 3.12 0.85 0.01 14.55 4.26 18.81 17.98 0.83 0.33 0.46 0.04
13118 5134 1 0.07 0.05 0.12 1.12 0.57 0.58 0.09 2.48 0.97 3.45 2.06 1.39 0.05 1.08 0.26
13220 5164 10 0.02 0 0.02 0.14 0.12 0.02 0.01 0.31 0.07 0.38 0.37 0.01 0 0.01 0
13223 5167 1 0.38 0 0.38 0.58 0.46 0.12 0.01 1.55 0.36 1.91 1.77 0.14 0.02 0.11 0.01
13120 5178 1 28.44 0.02 28.46 12.64 10.89 5.49 0 57.48 3.88 61.36 59.4 1.96 0.04 0.7 1.22 x
13123 5178 2 2.34 0.27 2.61 4.56 3.17 0.97 0.3 11.61 4.81 16.42 15.52 0.9 0 0.59 0.31 1
13115 5180 1 0.24 0.01 0.25 1.45 0.81 0.06 0.03 2.6 1 3.6 2.61 0.99 0.93 0.06 0
13156 5192 2 3.05 0.2 3.25 16.35 6.11 1.74 0.16 27.61 6.78 34.39 31.53 2.86 0 1.75 1.11
13175 5193 1 3.33 0.09 3.42 16.51 6.96 4.52 0.12 31.53 9.26 40.79 26.99 13.8 1.52 10.31 1.97 1 x
13188 5228 1 0.01 0 0.01 0.11 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.22 0.07 0.29 0.26 0.03 0 0.03 0
13163 5229 1 0.71 0 0.71 2.3 0.89 0.08 0.01 3.99 1.27 5.26 0.89 4.37 0.09 3.98 0.3
13159 5230 1 0.53 0.02 0.55 1.06 1.18 0.17 0 2.96 1.79 4.75 0.88 3.87 0.7 3.15 0.02
13171 5231 4 9.1 0.28 9.38 33.37 9.83 5.57 0.26 58.41 20.23 78.64 76.94 1.7 0.12 1.43 0.15 2 x
13172 5232 1 1.96 0.37 2.33 6.75 2.09 0.38 0.2 11.75 2.4 14.15 14 0.15 0.11 0.04 0 1
13166 5233 1 2.02 0.18 2.2 9.29 1.87 0.85 0.12 14.33 3.42 17.75 17.44 0.31 0.04 0.27 0
13167 5234 1 0.29 0.12 0.41 3.72 0.48 0.12 0.18 4.91 1.51 6.42 6.26 0.16 0.05 0.11 0 x
13200 5238 1 2.94 0.25 3.19 13.95 6.55 2.12 0.09 25.9 16.13 42.03 24.19 17.84 3.32 14.01 0.51
13204 5240 1 1.87 0.09 1.96 6.73 2.39 0.66 0.24 11.98 2.89 14.87 12.6 2.27 0.1 1.88 0.29
13226 5270 1 0.38 0.02 0.4 0.53 0.14 0.11 0.11 1.29 0.43 1.72 1.39 0.33 0 0.33 0
13232 5274 1 0.19 0 0.19 0.96 0.67 0.33 0.08 2.23 0.81 3.04 2.99 0.05 0.03 0.02 0
73230 5300 1 0.27 0 0.27 0.32 0.3 0.05 0 0.94 0.25 1.19 1.15 0.04 0 0.04 0
13245 5305 1 0.19 0.17 0.36 1.82 0.68 0.02 0 2.88 0.41 3.29 3.19 0.1 0.02 0.06 0.02
13249 5307 1 0.63 0 0.63 0.43 0.44 0.09 0 1.59 0.39 1.98 1.42 0.56 0 0.42 0.14
13359 5317 6 0.91 0.03 0.94 1.92 1.24 1.43 0.04 5.57 1.34 6.91 5.12 1.79 0.39 0.77 0.63
Total 71.55 4.09 75.64 171.43 77.43 29.63 3.04 357.17 110.54 467.71 403.9 63.81 10.69 45.86 7.26 6
110
Appendix 4. Results for the fish analysis of screen samples: Orestias NISP (SONISP), Trichomycterus NISP (STNISP), total fish cranial NISP (SFNISP), Orestias MNI (SOMNI), Trichomycterus MNI (STMNI),
total fish MNI (SFMNI), Orestias weight (SOW), Trichomycterus weight (STW), total fish cranial weight (SFW), scales NISP (SSCALN), scales weight (SSCALW), ribs NISP (SRIBN), ribs (SRIBW), vertebrae NISP
(SVERN), vertebrae weight (SVERW), indeterminate NISP (SINDN), indeterminate weight (SINDW), total fish NISP (STFW), total fish weight (STFW), and presence of carbonates (CARB). Weight in grams.
Locu SONISP STNISP SFNISP SOMNI STMNI SFMNI SOW STW SFW SSCALN SSCALW SRIBN SRIBW SVERN SVERW SINDN SINDW STFNISP STFW CARB
5015 1 0 1 1 0 1 0.1 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 1 0.1
5063 5 0 5 2 0 2 0.67 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 5 0.67
5065 4 0 4 2 0 2 0.46 0 0.46 0 0 1 0.02 5 0.48
5075 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n/a 4.7 4.7 0
5080 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n/a 67 67 0
5086 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n/a 2.9 2.9 0
5088 77 5 82 21 4 25 6.06 0.24 6.3 35 1.37 1 0.05 68 0.92 186 8.64
5091 43 1 44 11 1 12 2.43 0.03 2.46 15 0.2 12 0.5 72 3.61
5134 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5164 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5167 1 0 1 1 0 1 0.1 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 1 0.1
5178 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5178 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5180 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n/a 1.1 1.1 0
5192 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5193 1 0 1 1 0 1 0.3 0 0.3 0 0 0 0 1 0.3
5228 67 0 67 18 0 18 4.72 0 4.72 3 0.1 10 0.22 80 5.04
5229 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5230 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5231 114 1 115 33 1 34 10.35 0.31 10.66 46 2.42 2 0.04 4 0.08 29 3.5 196 16.7 13
5232 10 0 10 4 0 4 0.98 0 0.98 0 0 3 0.05 13 1.03
5233 15 0 15 5 0 5 0.96 0 0.96 3 0.09 1 0.08 18 1.13 1
5234 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5238 199 0 199 58 0 58 15.82 0 15.82 29 1.26 1 0.02 68 1.6 297 18.7
5240 11 0 11 3 0 3 0.47 0 0.47 1 0.08 0 0 12 0.85
5270 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.1 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 1 0.1
5274 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5305 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5307 3 0 3 2 0 2 0.3 0 0.3 0 0 1 0.02 4 0.32
5317 20 0 20 6 0 6 0.09 0 0.09 1 0.02 4 0.04 25 1.5
Total 571 7 578 169 6 175 43.91 0.58 44.49 133 5.54 4 0.11 4 0.08 197 6.95 917 59.27 14
Note: Loci 5075, 5080, 5086, and 5180, had small quantities of fish remains not analyzed in this study. Weights provided by Katherine Moore.
111
Appendix 5. Cranial skeletal representations including burning stages, siding and additional observations: PBU=partially burned, BUR=burned, CAL=calcified, W=weight in grams.
Flot Locus / Area Phase Period Context Taxa Element NISP PBU BUR CAL Weight PBUW BURW CALW Side Observations
13038 5015 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Orestias Articular 3 0.02 L:2, R:1
13038 5015 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Orestias Ceratohyal 6 0.09 L:3, R:3
13038 5015 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Orestias Dentary 2 0.07 R
13038 5015 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Orestias Epihyal 1 0.01
13038 5015 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Orestias Frontal 1 0.02
13038 5015 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Orestias Operculum 6 0.15 L:1, R:1
13038 5015 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Orestias Parasphenoid 2 0.01
13038 5015 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Orestias Pharyngeal lower slender 3 0.05 L:1, R:1 With teeth
13038 5015 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Orestias Premaxilla 2 0.04 L:1
13038 5015 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Orestias Quadrate 1 0.01 L
13038 5015 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Orestias Supraoccipital 2 0.03
13038 5015 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Trichomycterus Interoperculum 4 0.07 L
13038 5015 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Trichomycterus Premaxilla 2 0.04 R
13038 5015 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Trichomycterus Preoperculum 1 0.01 L
13038 5015 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Trichomycterus Suboperculum 1 0.04 L
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Articular 1
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Cleithrum 3
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Dentary 3
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Dentary 2 V
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Epihyal 5
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Frontal 1
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Hyomandibular 6
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Interoperculum 3
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Maxilla 2
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum 10 1 0.01 L:3, R:3 3 extremely small
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal indeterminate 3
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower robust 1
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower slender 5
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Preoperculum 1
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Quadrate 6
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Suboperculum 12
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Subscapular 1
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Articular 5
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Ceratohyal 1
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Pterygoid 3
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Frontal 2
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Interoperculum 8 L:4, R:4
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Parasphenoid 2
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Premaxilla 3 ?
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Quadrate 3 0.01 ?
112
Appendix 5. Continuation.
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Urostyle 3
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Vomer 1
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Urohyal 1
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Articular 11 0.07 L:2, R:9
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Basioccipital 1 0.03
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Ceratohyal 7 0.06 ?
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pterotic 4 0.25
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Cleithrum 10 0.18 L:2, R:2
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Dentary 8 0.05
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Epihyal 1 0.01
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Frontal 1 0.05
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Hyomandibular 7 1 0.21 0.03 L:4, R:3
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Interoperculum 1 0.01 R
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Maxilla 5 0.06
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum 19 1 0.24 0.02 L:10, R:4
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Parasphenoid 3 0.04
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower 40 0.9
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal upper 17 0.23
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Posttemporal 5 0.01
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Premaxilla 10 0.01
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Preoperculum 3 0.03
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Quadrate 10 0.07 L:4, R:5
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Suboperculum 5 0.13 L:1, R:1
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Urostyle 1 0.01
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias cf. pentlandii Maxilla 1 1 0.02 0.02 Maxila with teeth
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Articular 6 1 0.06 0.01 L:4, R:2
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Frontal 4 0.02 L:3, R:1
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Hyomandibular 6 0.06 L:4, R:2
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Interoperculum 10 0.12 L:5, R:2
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Parasphenoid 1 0.02
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Premaxilla 1 0.02 ?Different species?
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Quadrate 3 0.04 ?
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Supraethmoid 2 0.02
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Urostyle 8 1 0.1 0.01 1 trampled
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Vomer 1 0.01
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Urohyal 2 0.03
13055 5075 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Articular 2 L:1, R:1
13055 5075 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Ceratohyal 1
13055 5075 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Dentary 3 R:2
113
13055 5075 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum 4 L:3, R:1
13055 5075 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal indeterminate 6
13055 5075 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower robust 3 L:1, R:2
13055 5075 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Premaxilla 6 With teeth
13055 5075 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Supraethmoid 4
13093 5080 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Interoperculum 1 0.02
13093 5080 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower 1 0.14 R
13093 5080 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Urostyle 2
13093 5080 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Basioccipital 2
13093 5080 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Interoperculum 1
13122 5086 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Articular 3 L:1, R:2
13122 5086 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Basioccipital 3 1 with pathology
13122 5086 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Dentary 3 1 0.01 0.01 Robust
13122 5086 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Frontal 6
13122 5086 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum 18 L:5, R:3
13122 5086 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal indeterminate 10 2 0.01
114
13122 5086 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal upper 7
13122 5086 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Premaxilla 1
13122 5086 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Interoperculum 2
13122 5086 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Quadrate 4 0.02 Articular?
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Articular 2 0.01 R:1
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Basioccipital 2 0.14
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Cleithrum 5 0.18 L:1, R:1
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Dentary 2 0.02 L:2
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Epihyal 3 0.01
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Frontal 3 0.07 L:1
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Hyomandibular 3 0.03 L:1, R:2
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Maxilla 1 0.01
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum 3 0.01 L:1, R:2
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Parasphenoid 5 0.05
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower 9 0.33 L:5, R:4
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal upper 6 1 0.09 0.01 L:4, R:1
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Premaxilla 1 0.01 L
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Quadrate 4 1 0.04 0.01 L:1, R:3
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Suboperculum 7 0.24 L:3
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Urostyle 1 0.01
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias cf. pentlandii Maxilla 1 0.01 L Maxila with teeth
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Articular 3 0.01 L:1
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Frontal 2 0.01 L:1, R:1
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Interoperculum 2 0.01 L:1, R:1
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Suboperculum 1 0.01
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Supraethmoid 1 0.02
115
13140 5091 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Articular 4 0.02 L:1, R:3
13140 5091 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Basioccipital 4
13140 5091 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pterotic 3
13140 5091 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Dentary 3
13140 5091 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Frontal 3 1 0.01
13140 5091 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Interoperculum 9 0.08
13140 5091 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum 21 2 1 0.5 0.05 0.03 L:7, R:11
13140 5091 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Parasphenoid 2 1 0.01
13140 5091 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal indeterminate 29 1 0.01 1 porous
13140 5091 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal upper 12
13140 5091 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Posttemporal 3
13140 5091 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Premaxilla 2
13140 5091 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Quadrate 12 1 0.01
13140 5091 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Dentary 2 Porous
13140 5091 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Interoperculum 6 L:3, R:3
13140 5091 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Quadrate 2
13118 5134 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Articular 1
13118 5134 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum 4 3 0.05 0.02 L:1, R:3
13118 5134 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Parasphenoid 1
13118 5134 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Pterygoid 2 R
13220 5164 10 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Interoperculum 1 0.02
13223 5167 1 KU 3T1 3LF Fill over floor Orestias Ceratohyal 1 0.01
116
13223 5167 1 KU 3T1 3LF Fill over floor Orestias Pterotic 1 0.02
13223 5167 1 KU 3T1 3LF Fill over floor Orestias Cleithrum 2 0.04 L:1
13223 5167 1 KU 3T1 3LF Fill over floor Orestias Dentary 1 0.02 L V
13223 5167 1 KU 3T1 3LF Fill over floor Orestias Interoperculum 1 0.01
13223 5167 1 KU 3T1 3LF Fill over floor Orestias Maxilla 1 0.01
13223 5167 1 KU 3T1 3LF Fill over floor Orestias Operculum 3 0.22 L
13223 5167 1 KU 3T1 3LF Fill over floor Orestias Pharyngeal lower 1 0.01
13223 5167 1 KU 3T1 3LF Fill over floor Orestias Preoperculum 2 0.03
13223 5167 1 KU 3T1 3LF Fill over floor Orestias Preoperculum 1 0.01
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Articular 17 0.16 L:12, R:5
13123 5178 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Articular 1
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Basioccipital 8 0.18
13123 5178 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Basioccipital 2
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Ceratohyal 29 0.23
13123 5178 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Ceratohyal 1
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Cleithrum 65 1.69
13123 5178 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Cleithrum 6
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Dentary 12 0.16 L:5, R:7
13123 5178 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Dentary 4 V
13123 5178 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Dentary 1 Porous, false?
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Epihyal 4 0.01
13123 5178 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Epihyal 1
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Frontal 52 1.29
13123 5178 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Frontal 4
13123 5178 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Hyomandibular 1
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Hyomandibular 29 0.78 L:14, R:15
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Interoperculum 54 0.06 L:22, R:26
13123 5178 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Interoperculum 6
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Maxilla 13 0.18
13123 5178 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Maxilla 1
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Operculum 88 2 1 4.8 0.01 0.01 L:30, R:28
13123 5178 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Operculum 16 L:6, R:7
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Parasphenoid 16 0.28 4 medial, 3 distal, 6 whole
13123 5178 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Parasphenoid 1
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Pharyngeal indeterminate 2 0.03
13123 5178 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Pharyngeal indeterminate 4 2 porous
13123 5178 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Pharyngeal lower robust 6
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Pharyngeal lower robust 1 0.1
13123 5178 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Pharyngeal lower slender 4 L:1, R:3
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Pharyngeal lower slender 17 1 0.33 0.01
117
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Pharyngeal upper 5 1 0.06 0.01
13123 5178 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Pharyngeal upper 1
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Premaxilla 4 0.07 L:3, R:1 V
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Premaxilla 12 0.11 L:6, R:6 False?
13123 5178 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Premaxilla 5
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Preoperculum 20 0.37 L:7, R:12
13123 5178 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Preoperculum 2
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Quadrate 34 0.45
13123 5178 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Quadrate 2
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Suboperculum 70 16.95 L:18, R:25
13123 5178 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Suboperculum 14
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Urostyle 10 0.15
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Trichomycterus Articular 1 0.01
13123 5178 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Trichomycterus Articular 1
13123 5178 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Trichomycterus Basioccipital 2
13123 5178 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Trichomycterus Frontal 3
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Trichomycterus Interoperculum 1 0.01
13123 5178 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Trichomycterus Parasphenoid 3
13123 5178 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Trichomycterus Urostyle 2
13115 5180 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Orestias Articular 2
13115 5180 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Orestias Frontal 2
13115 5180 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Orestias Operculum 5 L:1, R:2
13115 5180 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Orestias Parasphenoid 2
13115 5180 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Orestias Pharyngeal lower 1
13115 5180 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Orestias Pharyngeal upper 1
13115 5180 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Orestias Preoperculum 1
13115 5180 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Orestias Suboperculum 1
13115 5180 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Trichomycterus Frontal 1
13156 5192 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Articular 4 0.03 L:1, R:3 2 weathered
13156 5192 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Cleithrum 21 0.4
13156 5192 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Dentary 2 0.01 L:1
13156 5192 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Hyomandibular 13 0.32 L:6, R:7
13156 5192 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Interoperculum 10 0.08
13156 5192 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Operculum 34 3 1.41 0.03 L:13, R:10 1 trampled
13156 5192 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Parasphenoid 2 0.02
13156 5192 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Pharyngeal lower 12 0.37 L:4, R:5 1 weathered
13156 5192 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Pharyngeal upper 5 0.04
13156 5192 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Posttemporal 3 0.01
118
13156 5192 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Preoperculum 4 0.09
13156 5192 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Quadrate 3 0.03 R:1
13156 5192 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Suboperculum 11 0.21 L:3, R:2
13156 5192 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Trichomycterus Ceratohyal 2 0.02
13156 5192 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Trichomycterus Suboperculum 3 0.07
13156 5192 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Trichomycterus Urostyle 6 0.11 2 weathered, 1 pathology
13175 5193 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Articular 8 1 0.04 0.01 L:5, R:3
13175 5193 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Ceratohyal 10 2 0.11 0.01
13175 5193 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Cleithrum 19 5 2 1 0.47 0.04 0.03 0.01
13175 5193 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Dentary 1 0.01 L V
13175 5193 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Epihyal 5 1 0.02 0.01
13175 5193 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Hyomandibular 12 4 0.22 0.02 L:6, R:5
13175 5193 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Operculum 25 1 7 2 1.18 0.01 0.05 0.01 L:15, R:7 Burning in situ?
13175 5193 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Parasphenoid 3 0.09
13175 5193 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Pharyngeal indeterminate 6 2 0.04 0.01
13175 5193 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Pharyngeal lower robust 3 0.25
13175 5193 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Pharyngeal lower slender 5 0.07
13175 5193 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Premaxilla 5 0.04 Robust dentary?
13175 5193 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Preoperculum 12 0.3
13175 5193 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Quadrate 19 5 0.2 0.02
13175 5193 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Suboperculum 9 2 0.15 0.07
13175 5193 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Urostyle 1 1 0.01 0.01
13175 5193 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Trichomycterus Articular 1 1 0.01 0.01
13175 5193 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Trichomycterus Basioccipital 2 1 0.01 0.01
13175 5193 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Trichomycterus Parasphenoid 2 1 0.01 0.01
13175 5193 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Trichomycterus Urostyle 4 0.04
13175 5193 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Trichomycterus Vomer 1 1 0.01 0.01
13175 5193 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Trichomycterus Urohyal 2 1 0.01 0.01
13188 5228 1 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Interoperculum 1 0.01
13163 5229 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Articular 1 1 0.01 L
13163 5229 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Ceratohyal 1
13163 5229 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Cleithrum 6 5 0.03
13163 5229 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Dentary 2 1 0.01 L:1, R:1
13163 5229 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Epihyal 1 1 0.01
13163 5229 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Hyomandibular 2
13163 5229 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Operculum 13 3 9 1 0.03 0.11 0.02 L:1, R:4
119
13163 5229 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Parasphenoid 2 1 0.01
13163 5229 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Pharyngeal indeterminate 5 1 0.01
13163 5229 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Pharyngeal lower robust 1
13163 5229 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Pharyngeal lower slender 5 4 0.02
13163 5229 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Pharyngeal upper 2 2 0.01
13163 5229 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Posttemporal 1 1 0.01
13163 5229 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Quadrate 1 1 0.01
13163 5229 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Urostyle 2 2 0.01
13159 5230 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Articular 2 2 0.01 0.01 L:1, R:1
13159 5230 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Pterotic 1 1 0.01 0.01
13159 5230 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Cleithrum 3 1 1 0.02 0.01 0.01
13159 5230 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Frontal 3 2 0.01 0.01 L:2, R:1
13159 5230 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Hyomandibular 1 1 0.01 0.01
13159 5230 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Operculum 7 2 5 0.1 0.03 0.07 L:2, R:1
13159 5230 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Parasphenoid 1 1 0.01 0.01
13159 5230 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Pharyngeal lower 7 6 0.19 0.13 L:3, R:2
13159 5230 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Pharyngeal upper 5 1 3 0.11 0.03 0.05 1 large
13159 5230 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Quadrate 3 2 0.01 0.01
13159 5230 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Supraoccipital 1 1 0.01 0.01
13159 5230 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Trichomycterus Frontal 1 1 0.01 0.01 L
13159 5230 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Trichomycterus Interoperculum 1 1 0.01 0.01 R
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Articular 25 0.25 L:15, R:9
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Basioccipital 9
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Ceratohyal 11
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pterotic 4
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Cleithrum 12
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Dentary 1 Porous
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Dentary 19
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Epihyal 3
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Frontal 15
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Hyomandibular 18 0.6 L:12, R:8
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Interoperculum 9 0.22
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Maxilla 6
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum 54 2 2.63 0.04 L:21, R:28
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Parasphenoid 11
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal indeterminate 61
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower robust 20
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower slender 14 L:7, R:7
120
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal upper 8
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Premaxilla 8
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Quadrate 27
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Suboperculum 28 0.61 L:1, R:2
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Urostyle 2
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias cf. pentlandii Maxilla 1 Maxila with teeth
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Articular 4 0.01
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Ceratohyal 1
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Pterygoid 3
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Interoperculum 4 0.07 L:1, R:3
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Parasphenoid 4
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Quadrate 3 0.04 Articular?
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Supraethmoid 2 0.01 L:2, R:2
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Urostyle 8 0.08 1 trampled
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Vomer 1
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Urohyal 3 0.01
13172 5232 1 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Articular 2 L
13172 5232 1 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Ceratohyal 5
13172 5232 1 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Cleithrum 6
13172 5232 1 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Dentary 3
13172 5232 1 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Frontal 3
13172 5232 1 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Hyomandibular 5
13172 5232 1 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Interoperculum 3
13172 5232 1 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum 6 L:2, R:3
13172 5232 1 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal indeterminate 10
13172 5232 1 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower robust 4
13172 5232 1 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower slender 5
13172 5232 1 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal upper 3
13172 5232 1 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Premaxilla 1
13172 5232 1 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Preoperculum 8
13172 5232 1 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Quadrate 7
13172 5232 1 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Basioccipital 1
13172 5232 1 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Pterygoid 4
13172 5232 1 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Interoperculum 3 1 0.01
13172 5232 1 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Urostyle 5
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Articular 10 0.07 L:5, R:4 Morphotype 1
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Articular 5 0.03 L:3, R:2 Morphotype 2
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Ceratohyal 7 0.06
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Dentary 5 0.05
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Frontal 5 0.12
121
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Hyomandibular 5 0.16
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Interoperculum 1 0.06
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Maxilla 6 0.05
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Operculum 13 0.42 L:8, R:3
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower 15 0.47 L:6, R:5
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal upper 17 0.2
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Premaxilla 3 0.02
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Preoperculum 7 0.11
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Quadrate 9 0.08 L:5, R:4
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Suboperculum 9 0.12
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Trichomycterus Articular 3 0.02 Quadrate?
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Trichomycterus Basioccipital 1 0.03
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Trichomycterus Frontal 2 0.02
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Trichomycterus Interoperculum 3 0.05
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Trichomycterus Supraethmoid 1 0.01
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Trichomycterus Urostyle 2 0.01
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Trichomycterus Vomer 1 0.01
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Trichomycterus Urohyal 4 0.03
13167 5234 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Articular 1 0.02 L
13167 5234 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Dentary 1 0.01 L
13167 5234 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Epihyal 1 0.01 R
13167 5234 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Hyomandibular 2 0.02 R
13167 5234 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Operculum 1 0.01 R
13167 5234 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Urostyle 2 0.01
13167 5234 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias cf. pentlandii Maxilla 1 0.01 R Maxila with teeth
13167 5234 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Trichomycterus Articular 4 0.02 L:1
13167 5234 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Trichomycterus Dentary 3 0.01 L
13167 5234 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Trichomycterus Hyomandibular 1 0.01 ?
13167 5234 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Trichomycterus Interoperculum 4 0.02 R:2
13167 5234 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Trichomycterus Quadrate 2 0.02 L, R
13167 5234 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Trichomycterus Urostyle 1 0.01
13200 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Articular 4 0.01 L
122
13200 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Basioccipital 3 0.09
13200 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Ceratohyal 11 0.07 ?
13200 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Pterotic 6 0.05
13200 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Cleithrum 13 0.25
13200 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Dentary 3 0.04 L:1, R:2
13200 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Hyomandibular 12 2 1 0.23 0.02 0.01 L:6, R:6
13200 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Operculum 60 2 18 1 1.22 0.02 0.8 0.02 L:25, R:25 7 trampled
13200 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Parasphenoid 6 0.06
13200 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal upper 4 4 0.03 0.03
13200 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Suboperculum 20 0.34 L:5, R:8
13200 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Trichomycterus Ceratohyal 3 3 0.03 0.03 ?
13200 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Trichomycterus Frontal 1 0.01
13200 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Trichomycterus Hyomandibular 1 1 0.03 0.03 ?
13200 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Trichomycterus Parasphenoid 1 0.01
13200 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Trichomycterus Suboperculum 5 0.1 L:2, R:3
13200 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Trichomycterus Urostyle 4 1 0.03 0.01
13204 5240 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Articular 3 0.01 L:1, R:2
13204 5240 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Ceratohyal 5 1 0.03 0.01
13204 5240 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Cleithrum 7 1 0.18 0.01
13204 5240 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Dentary 4 0.04
13204 5240 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Hyomandibular 7 0.12 L:1, R:1
13204 5240 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Operculum 15 1 5 0.46 0.01 0.06 L:6, R:3
13204 5240 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Parasphenoid 1 0.01
13204 5240 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal indeterminate 12 0.13
13204 5240 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal indeterminate 1 1 0.03 0.01
123
13204 5240 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal upper 6 6 0.18 0.18
13204 5240 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Quadrate 2 0.01
13204 5240 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Urostyle 3 0.02
13204 5240 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Trichomycterus Frontal 2 0.01 L:1, R:1
13204 5240 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Trichomycterus Urostyle 7 2 0.05 0.02
13226 5270 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Orestias Cleithrum 1
13226 5270 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Orestias Maxilla 1
13226 5270 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Orestias Operculum 7 1 0.01 L:2, R:1
13226 5270 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Orestias Preoperculum 1
13226 5270 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Trichomycterus Suboperculum 1
13232 5274 1 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Basioccipital 1
13232 5274 1 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Ceratohyal 1
13232 5274 1 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Dentary 1
13232 5274 1 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Frontal 2
13232 5274 1 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Premaxilla 1
13232 5274 1 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Urostyle 1
73230 5300 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Orestias Basioccipital 1
73230 5300 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Orestias Operculum 1 0.02 R
73230 5300 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Orestias Parasphenoid 2
73230 5300 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Orestias Preoperculum 2
13245 5305 1 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Articular 1 0.01
13245 5305 1 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Frontal 4 0.03
13245 5305 1 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Operculum 5 0.1 R:2
13245 5305 1 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower 1 0.03 L
13245 5305 1 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Quadrate 2 0.02
13245 5305 1 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Trichomycterus Frontal 3 0.12 L:2, R:1
13245 5305 1 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Trichomycterus Hyomandibular 1 0.02 ?
13245 5305 1 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Trichomycterus Quadrate 1 0.01
13245 5305 1 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Trichomycterus Suboperculum 1 0.01
13245 5305 1 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Trichomycterus Urostyle 1 0.01
13249 5307 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Orestias Ceratohyal 1 0.01 L
13249 5307 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Orestias Cleithrum 6 3 0.23 0.1 R:3
13249 5307 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Orestias Frontal 7 0.13 R
13249 5307 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Orestias Interoperculum 2 0.02 R
13249 5307 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Orestias Maxilla 2 0.04 L
124
13249 5307 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Orestias Operculum 1 0.04 R
13249 5307 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Orestias Pharyngeal lower 1 0.04 L
13249 5307 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Orestias Quadrate 1 1 0.01 0.01
13249 5307 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Orestias Suboperculum 3 1 0.02 0.01 L
13359 5317 6 KU 3T0 3LF Midden Orestias Articular 1 L Found in light fraction
13359 5317 6 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Ceratohyal 1
13359 5317 6 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Cleithrum 6 3 0.04
13359 5317 6 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Frontal 1
13359 5317 6 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Hyomandibular 1
13359 5317 6 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Maxilla 1
13359 5317 6 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Operculum 13 5 2 0.09 0.04 L:7, R:4
13359 5317 6 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower slender 1
13359 5317 6 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Premaxilla 1
13359 5317 6 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Preoperculum 2 1 0.03
13359 5317 6 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Quadrate 1
13359 5317 6 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Suboperculum 5
13359 5317 6 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Trichomycterus Interoperculum 1
13359 5317 6 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Trichomycterus Parasphenoid 1
13359 5317 6 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Trichomycterus Urostyle 1
Total 3004 31 163 10 75.64 0.42 2.53 0.13
Note: Total weight does not add up because not all bones were weight seperately, some were grouped by taxonomic category, see Appendix 6.
125
Appendix 6. Composite table of identified cranial bones organized by taxa with burning stages and weights and MNI. UMO=unmodified, MOF=modification caused by fire, PBU=partially
burned, BUR=burned, CAL=calcified. Weight in grams.
Flot Locus / Area Phase Period Context Taxa Element NISP UMO MOF PBU BUR CAL TOW MOFW UMOW PBUW BURW CALW MNI Observations
13038 5015 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Orestias Cranial 29 29 0.50 0.50 5
13038 5015 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Trichomycterus Cranial 8 8 0.16 0.16 4
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Cranial 65 64 1 1 1.47 0.01 1.46 0.01 4
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Cranial 32 32 0.32 0.32 4
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Cranial 170 167 3 2 1 2.67 0.07 2.60 0.05 0.02 10 1 O. pentlandii
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Cranial 44 42 2 1 1 0.50 0.02 0.48 0.01 0.01 8
13055 5075 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Cranial 37 37 0.71 0.71 6
13093 5080 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Cranial 9 9 0.32 0.32 2
13122 5086 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Cranial 96 93 3 3 1.98 0.02 1.96 0.02 5
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Cranial 58 56 2 2 1.26 0.02 1.24 0.02 5 1 O. pentlandii
13140 5091 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Cranial 182 175 7 3 4 2.77 0.12 2.65 0.06 0.06 10
13118 5134 1 AC 2LC 2MF Surface Orestias Cranial 6 3 3 3 0.07 0.02 0.05 0.02 3
13118 5134 1 AC 2LC 2MF Surface Trichomycterus Cranial 4 4 0.05 0.05 2
13220 5164 10 KU 3T1 3LF Surface Orestias Cranial 1 1 0.02 0.02 1
13220 5164 10 KU 3T1 3LF Surface Trichomycterus Cranial 0 0 0.00 0.00 0
13223 5167 1 KU 3T1 3LF Fill over floor Orestias Cranial 14 14 0.38 0.38 3
13223 5167 1 KU 3T1 3LF Fill over floor Trichomycterus Cranial 0 0 0.00 0.00 0
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Cranial 562 557 5 3 2 28.44 0.04 28.40 0.02 0.02 30
13123 5178 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Cranial 83 83 2.34 2.34 7
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Trichomycterus Cranial 2 2 0.02 0.02 1
13115 5180 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Orestias Cranial 15 15 0.24 0.24 2
13115 5180 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Trichomycterus Cranial 1 1 0.01 0.01 1
13156 5192 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Cranial 127 124 3 3 3.05 0.03 3.02 0.03 13
13175 5193 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Cranial 155 119 36 6 27 3 3.33 0.31 3.02 0.05 0.24 0.02 15
13175 5193 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Trichomycterus Cranial 12 7 5 4 1 0.09 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.01 4
13188 5228 1 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Cranial 1 1 0.01 0.01 1
13188 5228 1 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Cranial 0 0 0.00 0.00 0
13163 5229 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Cranial 45 12 33 3 29 1 0.71 0.30 0.41 0.03 0.25 0.02 4
13159 5230 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Cranial 36 7 29 6 23 0.53 0.40 0.13 0.09 0.31 3
13159 5230 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Trichomycterus Cranial 2 0 2 2 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 1
126
Flot Locus / Area Phase Period Context Taxa Element TOTAL UMO MOF PBU BUR CAL TOW MOFW UMOW PBUW BURW CALW MNI Observations
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Cranial 366 364 2 2 9.10 0.04 9.06 0.04 28 1 O. pentlandii
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Cranial 33 33 0.28 0.28 8
13172 5232 1 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Cranial 71 71 1.96 1.96 4
13172 5232 1 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Cranial 13 12 1 1 0.37 0.01 0.36 0.01 5
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Cranial 117 117 2.02 2.02 8
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Trichomycterus Cranial 17 17 0.18 0.18 4
13167 5234 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Cranial 33 33 0.29 0.29 4 1 O. pentlandii
13167 5234 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Trichomycterus Cranial 16 16 0.12 0.12 2
13200 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Cranial 188 160 28 4 23 1 2.94 0.90 2.04 0.04 0.84 0.02 25
13200 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Trichomycterus Cranial 19 14 5 5 0.25 0.07 0.18 0.07 4
13204 5240 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Cranial 112 97 15 2 13 1.87 0.28 1.59 0.02 0.26 10
13204 5240 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Trichomycterus Cranial 11 9 2 2 0.09 0.02 0.07 0.02 7
13226 5270 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Orestias Cranial 10 9 1 1 0.38 0.01 0.37 0.01 3
13226 5270 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Trichomycterus Cranial 1 1 0.02 0.02 1
13232 5274 1 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Cranial 7 7 0.19 0.19 2
13232 5274 1 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Trichomycterus Cranial 0 0 0.00 0.00 0
73230 5300 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Orestias Cranial 6 6 0.27 0.27 1
13245 5305 1 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Cranial 13 13 0.19 0.19 3
13249 5307 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Orestias Cranial 24 19 5 5 0.63 0.12 0.51 0.12 3
13359 5317 6 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Cranial 34 23 11 4 5 2 0.91 0.20 0.71 0.07 0.09 0.04 7
Total 3004 2800 204 31 163 10 75.64 3.08 72.56 0.42 2.53 0.13 313 4 O. pentlandii
127
Appendix 7. Fish vertebrae counts and burning stages in NISP and weight. UMO=unmodified, MOF=modification caused by fire, PBU=partial burned, BUR=burned,
CAL=calcified, W=weight in grams.
Flot Locus / Area Phase Period Context Taxa Element NISP UMO MOF PBU BUR CAL UMOW PBUW BURW CALW TOTW
13038 5015 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Osteich Vertebrae 29 20 9 9 0.21 0.11 0.32
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Osteich Vertebrae 177 169 8 4 1 3 2.05 0.03 0.01 0.01 2.1
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Osteich Vertebrae 346 324 22 21 1 3.6 0.19 0.01 3.8
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Osteich Vertebrae 329 306 23 3 19 1 3.69 0.01 0.28 0.01 3.99
13118 5134 1 AC 2LC 2MF Surface Osteich Vertebrae 61 32 29 20 9 0.35 0.16 0.06 0.57
13220 5164 10 KU 3T1 3LF Surface Osteich Vertebrae 11 11 0 0.12 0.12
13223 5167 1 KU 3T1 3LF Fill over floor Osteich Vertebrae 35 33 2 2 0.44 0.02 0.46
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Osteich Vertebrae 764 755 9 2 6 1 10.81 0.03 0.04 0.01 10.89
13123 5178 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Osteich Vertebrae 229 220 9 8 1 3.07 0.09 0.01 3.17
13115 5180 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Osteich Vertebrae 62 60 2 2 0.79 0.02 0.81
13188 5228 1 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Osteich Vertebrae 6 6 0 0.07 0.07
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Osteich Vertebrae 500 458 42 36 6 9.43 0.35 0.05 9.83
13172 5232 1 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Osteich Vertebrae 171 169 2 2 2.07 0.02 2.09
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Osteich Vertebrae 190 180 10 4 6 1.8 0.02 0.05 1.87
13167 5234 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Osteich Vertebrae 63 62 1 1 0.47 0.01 0.48
13200 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Osteich Vertebrae 766 428 338 264 71 3 4.12 0.53 1.88 0.02 6.55
13204 5240 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Osteich Vertebrae 244 207 37 33 4 2.07 0.29 0.03 2.39
13226 5270 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Osteich Vertebrae 10 6 4 4 0.09 0.05 0.14
13232 5274 1 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Osteich Vertebrae 48 48 0 0.67 0.67
73230 5300 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Osteich Vertebrae 17 16 1 1 0.29 0.01 0.3
13245 5305 1 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Osteich Vertebrae 46 46 0 0.68 0.68
13249 5307 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Osteich Vertebrae 29 18 11 2 9 0.38 0.02 0.04 0.44
13359 5317 6 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Osteich Vertebrae 84 72 12 9 3 1.11 0.1 0.03 1.24
Total 6206 5116 1090 353 601 136 67.74 1.33 7.24 1.12 77.43
128
Appendix 8. Fish rib counts and burning stages in NISP and weight. UMO=unmodified, MOF=modification caused by fire, PBU=partial burned, BUR=burned, CAL=calcified,
W=weight in grams.
13038 5015 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Osteich Ribs 65 37 28 27 1 0.12 0.08 0.01 0.21
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Osteich Ribs 159 119 40 20 14 6 0.6 0.1 0.03 0.01 0.74
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Osteich Ribs 137 131 6 3 3 0.9 0.01 0.01 0.92
13055 5075 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Osteich Ribs 65 40 25 21 4 0.21 0.08 0.01 0.3
13093 5080 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Osteich Ribs 42 30 12 12 0.22 0.08 0.3
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Osteich Ribs 11 11 0 0.15 0.15
13118 5134 1 AC 2LC 2MF Surface Osteich Ribs 141 27 114 96 18 0.17 0.34 0.07 0.58
13220 5164 10 KU 3T1 3LF Surface Osteich Ribs 3 3 0 0.02 0.02
13223 5167 1 KU 3T1 3LF Fill over floor Osteich Ribs 18 16 2 2 0.11 0.01 0.12
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Osteich Ribs 877 875 2 1 1 5.47 0.01 0.01 5.49
13115 5180 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Osteich Ribs 8 7 1 1 0.05 0.01 0.06
13175 5193 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Osteich Ribs 512 239 273 42 191 40 2.13 0.38 1.68 0.33 4.52
13188 5228 1 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Osteich Ribs 6 3 3 3 0.01 0.01 0.02
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Osteich Ribs 712 671 41 37 4 5.29 0.27 0.01 5.57
13172 5232 1 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Osteich Ribs 37 23 14 12 2 0.26 0.11 0.01 0.38
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Osteich Ribs 160 149 11 11 0.81 0.04 0.85
13167 5234 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Osteich Ribs 13 10 3 3 0.1 0.02 0.12
13200 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Osteich Ribs 283 126 157 26 126 5 0.93 0.22 0.94 0.03 2.12
13204 5240 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Osteich Ribs 134 84 50 4 37 9 0.33 0.03 0.25 0.05 0.66
13226 5270 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Osteich Ribs 7 5 2 2 0.08 0.03 0.11
13232 5274 1 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Osteich Ribs 33 33 0 0.33 0.33
73230 5300 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Osteich Ribs 11 8 3 3 0.04 0.01 0.05
13245 5305 1 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Osteich Ribs 2 2 0 0.02 0.02
13249 5307 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Osteich Ribs 6 6 0 0.09 0.09
13359 5317 6 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Osteich Ribs 153 82 71 21 41 9 0.89 0.21 0.27 0.06 1.43
Total 4169 3160 1009 197 687 125 22.66 1.46 4.69 0.82 29.63
129
Appendix 9. Fish rays counts and burning stages in NISP and weight. UMO=unmodified, MOF=modification caused by fire, PBU=partial burned, BUR=burned, CAL=calcified,
W=weight in grams.
13038 5015 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Osteich Rays 32 18 14 14 0.05 0.04 0.09
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Osteich Rays 170 170 0 0.38 0.38
13055 5075 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Osteich Rays 56 52 4 2 2 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.16
13118 5134 1 AC 2LC 2MF Surface Osteich Rays 28 28 0 0.09 0.09
13220 5164 10 KU 3T1 3LF Surface Osteich Rays 2 2 0 0.01 0.01
13223 5167 1 KU 3T1 3LF Fill over floor Osteich Rays 1 1 0 0.01 0.01
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Osteich Rays 0 0 0 0 0
13123 5178 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Osteich Rays 38 38 0 0.3 0.3
13115 5180 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Osteich Rays 4 4 0 0.03 0.03
13175 5193 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Osteich Rays 35 33 2 2 0.11 0.01 0.12
13188 5228 1 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Osteich Rays 3 3 0 0.01 0.01
13159 5230 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Osteich Rays 0 0 0 0 0
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Osteich Rays 23 23 0 0.12 0.12
13200 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Osteich Rays 18 17 1 1 0.08 0.01 0.09
13226 5270 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Osteich Rays 10 10 0 0.11 0.11
13232 5274 1 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Osteich Rays 16 16 0 0.08 0.08
73230 5300 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Osteich Rays 0 0 0 0 0
13245 5305 1 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Osteich Rays 0 0 0 0 0
13249 5307 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Osteich Rays 0 0 0 0 0
13359 5317 6 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Osteich Rays 4 4 0 0.04 0.04
Total 749 728 21 18 3 2.96 0.06 0.02 3.04
130
Appendix 10. Indeterminate fish bone counts and burning stages in NISP and weight. UMO=unmodified, MOF=modification caused by fire, PBU=partial burned, BUR=burned,
CAL=calcified, W=weight in grams.
13038 5015 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Osteich Indeterminate 343 301 42 42 1.25 0.16 1.41
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Osteich Indeterminate 2324 2113 211 3 197 11 5.35 0.01 0.46 0.02 5.84
13055 5075 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Osteich Indeterminate 674 571 103 94 9 1.45 0.28 0.01 1.74
13093 5080 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Osteich Indeterminate 119 88 31 30 1 0.62 0.13 0.01 0.76
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Osteich Indeterminate 726 668 58 58 3.42 0.22 3.64
13140 5091 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Osteich Indeterminate 894 894 0 4.26 4.26
13118 5134 1 AC 2LC 2MF Surface Osteich Indeterminate 254 134 120 100 20 0.56 0.34 0.07 0.97
13220 5164 10 KU 3T1 3LF Surface Osteich Indeterminate 17 14 3 3 0.06 0.01 0.07
13223 5167 1 KU 3T1 3LF Fill over floor Osteich Indeterminate 78 69 9 7 2 0.29 0.06 0.01 0.36
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Osteich Indeterminate 3314 3171 143 129 14 2.08 0.63 1.17 3.88
13115 5180 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Osteich Indeterminate 178 175 3 3 0.99 0.01 1
13156 5192 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Osteich Indeterminate 1704 1409 295 191 104 5.32 1 0.46 6.78
13188 5228 1 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Osteich Indeterminate 22 19 3 3 0.06 0.01 0.07
13163 5229 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Osteich Indeterminate 226 13 213 213 0.07 1.2 1.27
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Osteich Indeterminate 3865 3787 78 72 6 19.8 0.38 0.05 20.23
13172 5232 1 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Osteich Indeterminate 345 345 0 2.4 2.4
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Osteich Indeterminate 684 650 34 34 3.32 0.1 3.42
13167 5234 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Osteich Indeterminate 355 350 5 5 1.43 0.08 1.51
13200 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Osteich Indeterminate 3267 1266 2001 504 1457 40 6.05 1.8 8.08 0.2 16.13
13204 5240 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Osteich Indeterminate 531 401 130 118 12 2.06 0.75 0.08 2.89
13226 5270 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Osteich Indeterminate 80 57 23 23 0.3 0.13 0.43
13232 5274 1 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Osteich Indeterminate 201 196 5 5 0.8 0.01 0.81
73230 5300 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Osteich Indeterminate 56 56 0 0.25 0.25
13245 5305 1 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Osteich Indeterminate 61 48 13 4 5 4 0.34 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.41
13249 5307 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Osteich Indeterminate 101 31 70 53 17 0.1 0.2 0.09 0.39
13359 5317 6 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Osteich Indeterminate 263 133 130 22 5 103 0.7 0.11 0.07 0.46 1.34
Total 25628 20856 4772 566 3750 456 84.39 2.1 20.83 3.22 110.54
131
Appendix 11. Fish scale counts and weights by morphology, size, and burning stages. UMO=unmodified, MOF=modification caused by fire, PBU=partial burned, BUR=burned,
CAL=calcified, BEN=bent, FUS=fused, W=weight in grams.
Flot Locus / Taxa Element TOTAL UMO MO PAB BUR CAL MOF BEN FUS TOW UMOW MOFW PAW BUW CAW
13038 5015 1 Orestias Scales plain <5 mm 258 236 22 20 42 2 0.85 0.77 0.08 0.08
13038 5015 1 Orestias Scales plain >5 mm 17 11 6 6 12 0.12 0.09 0.03 0.03
13038 5015 1 Orestias luteus Scales rough <5 mm 55 30 25 21 46 4 0.2 0.14 0.06 0.06
13038 5015 1 Orestias luteus Scales rough >5 mm 15 10 5 2 3 10 0.09 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.01
13025 5063 1 Orestias Scales plain <5 mm 1193 1193 0 0 2.22 2.22 0
13025 5063 1 Orestias Scales plain >10 mm 3 3 0 0 0.16 0.16 0
13025 5063 1 Orestias luteus Scales rough <5 mm 183 183 0 0 0.56 0.56 0
13025 5063 1 Orestias luteus Scales rough >5 mm 35 30 5 5 3 2 0.45 0.45 0
13035 5065 1 Orestias Scales plain <5 mm 1504 1451 53 47 6 106 6.24 5.83 0.41 0.38 0.03
13035 5065 1 Orestias Scales plain >5 mm 224 185 39 14 20 73 3 2 3.93 3.33 0.6 0.24 0.36
13035 5065 1 Orestias luteus Scales rough <5 mm 228 215 13 7 4 24 2 1.49 1.43 0.06 0.05 0.01
13035 5065 1 Orestias luteus Scales rough >5 mm 45 42 3 2 5 1 0.67 0.62 0.05 0.05
13055 5075 1 Orestias Scales plain <5 mm 333 301 32 2 18 12 64 0.81 0.72 0.09 0.01 0.04 0.04
13055 5075 1 Orestias luteus Scales rough <5 mm 38 24 14 12 2 28 0.16 0.11 0.05 0.04 0.01
13055 5075 1 Orestias luteus Scales rough >5 mm 6 6 0 0 0.09 0.09 0
13093 5080 1 Orestias Scales plain <5 mm 25 23 2 2 4 0.29 0.26 0.03 0.03
13093 5080 1 Orestias Scales plain >5 mm 42 33 9 9 9 0.14 0.14 0
13131 5088 1 Orestias luteus Scales rough >5 mm 64 57 7 7 14 0.57 0.52 0.05 0.05
13140 5091 1 Orestias Scales plain <5 mm 1187 1175 12 4 16 8 4.94 4.9 0.04 0.04
13140 5091 1 Orestias luteus Scales rough <5 mm 106 104 2 2 2 0.6 0.6 0
13118 5134 1 Orestias Scales plain >5 mm 66 13 53 49 4 106 0.4 0.15 0.25 0.22 0.03
13118 5134 1 Orestias luteus Scales rough <5 mm 23 22 1 1 2 0.12 0.11 0.01 0.01
132
Flot Locus / Taxa Element TOTAL UMO MO PAB BUR CAL MOF BEN FUS TOW UMOW MOFW PAW BUW CAW
13220 5164 10 Orestias luteus Scales rough <5 mm 7 4 3 3 1 2 0.03 0.03 0
13220 5164 10 Orestias luteus Scales rough >5 mm 4 0 4 4 1 3 0.03 0.03 0
13223 5167 1 Orestias Scales plain <5 mm 53 49 4 1 1 6 2 0.27 0.25 0.02 0.01 0.01
13223 5167 1 Orestias luteus Scales rough >5 mm 7 5 2 2 2 0.06 0.06 0
13120 5178 1 Orestias Scales plain <5 mm 1596 1577 19 1 1 21 11 6 4.52 4.5 0.02 0.01 0.01
13120 5178 1 Orestias luteus Scales rough <5 mm 708 694 14 14 6 8 3.46 3.46 0
13115 5180 1 Orestias Scales plain >5 mm 133 127 6 5 11 1 0.53 0.53 0.51 0.02
13115 5180 1 Orestias luteus Scales rough <5 mm 44 44 0 0 0.22 0.22 0.22
13115 5180 1 Orestias luteus Scales rough >5 mm 17 17 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.2
13156 5192 2 Orestias Scales plain >5 mm 505 463 42 4 11 57 27 8.25 8.01 0.24 0.09 0.15
13175 5193 1 Orestias Scales plain <5 mm 2078 1480 598 46 298 77 1019 169 8 9.02 5.74 3.28 0.34 2.39 0.55
13175 5193 1 Orestias Scales plain >5 mm 361 288 73 19 29 7 128 15 3 5.75 4.54 1.21 0.48 0.61 0.12
13175 5193 1 Orestias luteus Scales rough <5 mm 19 8 11 2 8 1 22 0.09 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.01
13163 5229 1 Orestias Scales plain >5 mm 48 2 46 5 25 16 92 0.57 0.04 0.53 0.06 0.35 0.12
13163 5229 1 Orestias luteus Scales rough >5 mm 7 0 7 5 12 2 0.09 0 0.09 0.09
133
Appendix 11. Continuation
Flot Locus / Taxa Element TOTAL UMO MO PAB BUR CAL MOF BEN FUS TOW UMW WMOF PAW BUW CAW
13171 5231 4 Orestias Scales plain <5 mm 3364 3313 51 11 34 1 97 5 14.65 14.28 0.37 0.07 0.29 0.01
13171 5231 4 Orestias luteus Scales rough <5 mm 594 563 31 2 16 4 53 3 6 3.71 3.57 0.14 0.01 0.1 0.03
13166 5233 1 Orestias Scales plain >5 mm 138 118 20 4 14 38 2 2.07 1.98 0.09 0.02 0.07
13200 5238 1 Orestias Scales plain <5 mm 1416 1175 241 57 154 16 468 6 8 6.32 4.95 1.37 0.35 0.94 0.08
13200 5238 1 Orestias luteus Scales rough >5 mm 80 78 2 2 2 1 1 0
13204 5240 1 Orestias Scales plain <5 mm 732 684 48 5 32 11 96 3.04 2.71 0.33 0.05 0.19 0.09
134
Flot Locus / Taxa Element TOTAL UMO MO PAB BUR CAL MOF BEN FUS TOW UMW WMOF PAW BUW CAW
Total 30084 27610 2474 392 1303 306 4475 377 96 171.43 153.59 17.84 5.32 10.55 1.97
135
Appendix 12. Fish scale burning stages by NISP and weight. UMO=unmodified (includes BEN and FUS), MOF=modification caused by fire (does not include BEN and
FUS), PBU=partial burned, BUR=burned, CAL=calcified, BEN=bent, FUS=fused, W=weight in grams.
Flot Locus / Area Phase Period Context Element SCALN UMO MOF MO PBU BUR CAL BEN FUS TSCALW UMOW MOFW PBUW BURW CALW
13038 5015 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Scales 345 293 52 58 49 3 0 0 6 1.26 1.07 0.19 0.18 0.01 0
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Scales 1486 1486 0 5 0 0 0 3 2 4.35 4.35 0 0 0 0
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Scales 2001 1901 100 108 68 32 0 6 2 12.33 11.21 1.12 0.67 0.45 0
13055 5075 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Scales 387 341 46 46 2 30 14 0 0 1.23 1.09 0.14 0.01 0.08 0.05
13093 5080 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Scales 75 72 3 14 0 3 0 11 0 0.49 0.45 0.04 0 0.04 0
13122 5086 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Scales 717 689 28 28 4 4 20 0 0 4.11 2.71 1.4 1.33 0.02 0.05
13118 5134 1 AC 2LC 2MF Surface Scales 246 185 61 61 3 49 9 0 0 1.12 0.79 0.33 0.05 0.22 0.06
13220 5164 10 KU 3T1 3LF Surface Scales 32 32 0 8 0 0 0 3 5 0.14 0.14 0 0 0 0
13223 5167 1 KU 3T1 3LF Fill over floor Scales 89 84 5 13 3 2 0 2 6 0.58 0.54 0.04 0.02 0.02 0
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Scales 2674 2672 2 37 0 1 1 18 17 12.64 12.62 0.02 0 0.01 0.01
13115 5180 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Scales 227 222 5 6 0 5 0 1 0 1.45 0.5 0.95 0.93 0.02 0
13175 5193 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Scales 2498 2009 489 684 67 337 85 184 11 16.51 11.88 4.63 0.83 3.12 0.68
13188 5228 1 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Scales 19 18 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.11 0.1 0.01 0 0.01 0
13163 5229 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Scales 371 52 319 333 5 283 31 14 0 2.3 0.18 2.12 0.06 1.85 0.21
13159 5230 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Scales 187 62 125 131 51 74 0 6 0 1.06 0.3 0.76 0.26 0.5 0
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Scales 4929 4856 73 145 18 50 5 61 11 33.37 32.82 0.55 0.12 0.39 0.04
13172 5232 1 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Scales 1155 1155 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 6.75 6.75 0 0 0 0
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Scales 2051 2030 21 24 4 17 0 3 0 9.29 9.19 0.1 0.02 0.08 0
13167 5234 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Scales 1193 1179 14 37 10 4 0 23 0 3.72 3.67 0.05 0.03 0.02 0
13200 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Scales 2056 1663 393 410 101 243 49 9 8 13.95 10.79 3.16 0.73 2.19 0.24
13204 5240 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Scales 1180 1115 65 65 5 43 17 0 0 6.73 6.24 0.49 0.05 0.31 0.13
13226 5270 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Scales 55 51 4 9 0 4 0 5 0 0.53 0.42 0.11 0 0.11 0
13232 5274 1 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Scales 159 156 3 5 2 1 0 0 2 0.96 0.92 0.04 0.03 0.01 0
73230 5300 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Scales 46 43 3 6 0 3 0 0 3 0.32 0.3 0.02 0 0.02 0
13245 5305 1 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Scales 258 253 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 1.82 1.79 0.03 0 0.03 0
13249 5307 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Scales 87 67 20 21 0 19 1 1 0 0.43 0.34 0.09 0 0.08 0.01
13359 5317 6 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Scales 291 249 42 42 0 27 15 0 0 1.92 1.64 0.28 0 0.24 0.04
Total 30084 27610 2001 2474 392 1303 306 377 96 171.43 153.59 17.84 5.32 10.55 1.97
136
Appendix 13. Fish scale counts by size ranges: larger than 10 mm (>10 mm), between 5 and 9.9 mm (>5 ), and smaller than 5 mm (<5) and surface morphology (plain and rough).
W=weight in grams.
Flot Locus / Area Phase Period Context Element Plain <5 Plain >10 Plain >5 Rough <5 Rough >5 Total N Plain <5 Plain >10 Plain >5 Rough <5 Rough >5
13038 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Scale 1700 138 123 90 2051 5.13 2.07 1.11 0.98
13035 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Scale 1416 1 403 156 80 2056 6.32 0.04 5.94 0.65 1
13093 5015 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Scale 258 17 55 15 345 0.85 0.12 0.2 0.09
13122 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Scale 1193 3 72 183 35 1486 2.22 0.16 0.96 0.56 0.45
13131 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Scale 1504 224 228 45 2001 6.24 3.93 1.49 0.67
13140 5075 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Scale 333 3 10 38 6 390 0.81 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.09
13118 5080 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Scale 25 42 0 8 75 0.29 0.14 0 0.06
13123 5134 1 AC 2LC 2MF Surface Scale 148 66 23 9 246 0.43 0.4 0.12 0.17
13115 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Scale 1596 5 161 708 204 2674 4.52 0.21 1.86 3.46 2.59
13156 5178 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Scale 651 45 141 31 868 2.22 0.9 0.9 0.54
13175 5180 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Scale 33 133 44 17 227 0.5 0.53 0.22 0.2
13188 5192 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Scale 1854 505 56 22 2437 7.49 8.25 0.34 0.27
13163 5193 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Scale 2078 32 361 19 8 2498 9.02 1.5 5.75 0.09 0.15
13159 5228 1 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Scale 13 5 1 0 19 0.06 0.04 0.01 0
13171 5229 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Scale 226 48 90 7 371 1.16 0.57 0.48 0.09
13172 5230 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Scale 86 19 76 6 187 0.45 0.15 0.42 0.04
13166 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Scale 3364 10 760 594 201 4929 14.65 0.57 11.37 3.71 3.07
13167 5232 1 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Scale 921 11 99 82 42 1155 3.71 0.46 1.52 0.47 0.59
13200 5164 10 KU 3T1 3LF Surface Scale 5 16 7 4 32 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.03
13204 5167 1 KU 3T1 3LF Fill over floor Scale 53 11 18 7 89 0.27 0.14 0.11 0.06
13226 5274 1 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Scale 123 11 16 9 159 0.49 0.28 0.07 0.12
13245 5270 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Scale 39 9 7 55 0 0.25 0.1 0.18
13249 5300 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Scale 9 26 7 4 46 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.02
13359 5307 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Scale 6 41 8 32 87 0.02 0.2 0.05 0.16
Total 21388 65 4201 3250 1180 30084 81.25 3.12 53.77 18.12 15.17
137
Appendix 14. Fish scale counts, weight and their relative frequencies by surface morphology (plain and rough). W=weight in grams.
Flot Locus / Area Phase Period Context Plain N Rough N Plain W Rough W Plain N% Rough N% Plain W% Rough W%
13038 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden 1838 213 7.2 2.09 89.61 10.39 77.50 22.50
13025 5234 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden 1066 127 2.7 1.02 89.35 10.65 72.58 27.42
13035 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden 1820 236 12.3 1.65 88.52 11.48 88.17 11.83
13055 5240 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden 881 299 4.53 2.2 74.66 25.34 67.31 32.69
13093 5015 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor 275 70 0.97 0.29 79.71 20.29 76.98 23.02
13122 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden 1268 218 3.34 1.01 85.33 14.67 76.78 23.22
13131 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden 1728 273 10.17 2.16 86.36 13.64 82.48 17.52
13140 5075 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden 346 44 1.16 0.25 88.72 11.28 82.27 17.73
13118 5080 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden 67 8 0.43 0.06 89.33 10.67 87.76 12.24
13220 5086 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden 527 187 2.39 1.54 73.81 26.19 60.81 39.19
13223 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden 474 82 2.68 0.95 85.25 14.75 73.83 26.17
13120 5091 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden 1285 124 6.6 0.82 91.20 8.80 88.95 11.05
13123 5134 1 AC 2LC 2MF Surface 214 32 0.83 0.29 86.99 13.01 74.11 25.89
13115 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit 1762 912 6.59 6.05 65.89 34.11 52.14 47.86
13156 5178 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit 696 172 3.12 1.44 80.18 19.82 68.42 31.58
13175 5180 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor 166 61 1.03 0.42 73.13 26.87 71.03 28.97
13188 5192 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit 2359 78 15.74 0.61 96.80 3.20 96.27 3.73
13163 5193 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit 2471 27 16.27 0.24 98.92 1.08 98.55 1.45
13159 5228 1 AC 2LC 2MF Midden 18 1 0.1 0.01 94.74 5.26 90.91 9.09
13171 5229 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit 274 97 1.73 0.57 73.85 26.15 75.22 24.78
13172 5230 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit 105 82 0.6 0.46 56.15 43.85 56.60 43.40
13166 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden 4134 795 26.59 6.78 83.87 16.13 79.68 20.32
13167 5232 1 AC 2LC 2MF Midden 1031 124 5.69 1.06 89.26 10.74 84.30 15.70
13200 5164 10 KU 3T1 3LF Surface 21 11 0.08 0.06 65.63 34.38 57.14 42.86
13204 5167 1 KU 3T1 3LF Fill over floor 64 25 0.41 0.17 71.91 28.09 70.69 29.31
13226 5274 1 KU 3T1 3LF Midden 134 25 0.77 0.19 84.28 15.72 80.21 19.79
13232 5305 1 KU 3T1 3LF Midden 227 31 1.6 0.22 87.98 12.02 87.91 12.09
73230 5317 6 KU 3T1 3LF Midden 282 9 1.85 0.07 96.91 3.09 96.35 3.65
13245 5270 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit 39 16 0.25 0.28 70.91 29.09 47.17 52.83
13249 5300 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit 35 11 0.2 0.12 76.09 23.91 62.50 37.50
13359 5307 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit 47 40 0.22 0.21 54.02 45.98 51.16 48.84
Total 25654 4430 138.14 33.29 85.27 14.73 80.58 19.42
138
Appendix 15. Screen cranial specimens with information on siding and burning from the 1/4" screen fractions. Weight in grams
Flot Locus Taxa Element NISP Side Weight Modifications
Screen 5063 Orestias Operculum 2 L
Screen 5063 Orestias Suboperculum 1 L
Screen 5063 Orestias Interoperculum 1
Screen 5063 Orestias Cleithrum 1
Screen 5065 Orestias Operculum 2 L
Screen 5065 Orestias Pharyngeal inferior robust 1 D
Screen 5065 Orestias Frontal 1
Screen 5088 Orestias Frontals 4 I:2, D:1
Screen 5088 Orestias Hyomandibular 2 I:1, D:1
Screen 5088 Orestias Preoperculum 2
Screen 5088 Orestias Suboperculum 11
Screen 5088 Orestias Quadrate 1
Screen 5088 Orestias Premaxilla 1
Screen 5088 Orestias Pharyngeal inferior 3 I:1, D:2
Screen 5088 Orestias Operculum 43 I:14, D:21
Screen 5088 Trychomicterus Basioccipital 4
Screen 5088 Trychomicterus Urostyle 1
Screen 5091 Orestias Operculum 30 I:10, D:11 1 trampled and looks polished
Screen 5091 Orestias Hyomandibular 1 D
Screen 5091 Trichomycterus Basioccipital 1 0.03
Screen 5228 Orestias Operculum 42 L:18, R:18 1 bent, 1 partial burnt
Screen 5228 Orestias Frontal 3 L:1, R:2
Screen 5231 Orestias Pharyngeal inferior 2 I:1, D:1
Screen 5231 Trychomicterus Basioccipital 1 0.31 Carbonate
Screen 5232 Orestias Operculum 8 I:1, D:4 3 partial burnt
Screen 5233 Orestias Operculum 10 I:2, D:5 2 partial burnt
Screen 5233 Orestias Indeterminate 1
Screen 5238 Orestias Operculum 142 I:55, D:58 1 bent
Screen 5238 Orestias Frontal 5 I:3, D:2
Screen 5240 Orestias Frontal 1 D
Screen 5240 Orestias Indeterminate 2
139
Flot Locus Taxa Element NISP Side Weight Modifications
Screen 5240 Orestias Inferior pharyngeal robust 1 D
Screen 5307 Orestias Operculum 3 I:1, D:2 0.3
Screen 5317 Orestias Operculum 11 L:6, R:4 2 partial burnt, 1 bent
Screen 5317 Orestias Cleithrum 2 L:1, R:1
Screen 5317 Orestias Interopeculum 1
Total 574
140
Appendix 16. Vertebrae recovered from the 1/4" screen fractions. Weight in grams.
Flot Locus Taxa Element NISP Weight Modifications
Screen 5231 Osteich Vertebrae 4 0.08 Partial burnt
Total 4 0.08
Appendix 17. Fish ribs recovered from the 1/4" screen fractions. Weight in grams.
Screen 5088 Osteich Ribs 1 0.05
Total 4 0.11
Appendix 18. Scales recovered from the 1/4" screen fractions. Weight in grams.
Screen 5088 Orestias Scales plain >5 mm 25 0.77
Screen 5088 Orestias luteus Scales rough >5 mm 4 0.15
Screen 5228 Orestias Scales rough >5 mm 2 0.06
Total 133 5.99
Appendix 19. Scale data from the 1/4" screen fractions. Weight in grams.
Screen 5015 Osteich Indeterminate 1 0.1
Screen 5231 Osteich Identerminate 29 3.5
Total 200 7.47
Appendix 20. Carbonates with fish incrustations recovered from the 1/4" screen fractions. Weight in grams.
Screen 5231 Carbonates 12 3.94 Mainly composed of scales
Screen 5233 Carbonate 1 0.08
Total Carbonates 13 4.02
141
Appendix 21. Osteometric measurements from the fish specimens in mm. Measurements codes after Morales and Rosenlund (1979).
Flot Locus / Area Phase Period Context Taxa Element Side ME1 ME2 ME3 ME4
13038 5015 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Orestias Articular R 8.18 6.27 1.43 2.99
13038 5015 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Orestias Articular L 5.97 4.80 0.68
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Articular L 6.90 4.99 1.73
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Articular L 5.88 4.88 1.30
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Articular R 6.45 4.78 1.95
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Articular R 1.74
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Articular R 1.64
13055 5075 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Articular L 6.28 4.12 1.69 2.14
13055 5075 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Articular R 7.69 5.05 1.31 2.59
13122 5086 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Articular L 7.29 4.81 2.31 2.25
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Articular 6.89 4.65 1.47
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Articular 7.32 4.66 1.59
13140 5091 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Articular 7.34 5.33 1.15 2.10
13118 5134 1 AC 2LC 2MF Surface Orestias Articular 6.74 4.74 1.32 2.80
13118 5134 1 AC 2LC 2MF Surface Orestias Articular 6.20 5.31 1.79 3.52
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Articular L 9.91 6.56 1.55 2.07
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Articular R 6.92 1.20 1.62
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Articular R 8.42 6.19 2.05 2.83
13115 5180 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Orestias Articular N 1.28
13156 5192 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Articular L 7.59 5.17 1.73
13159 5230 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Articular L 6.09 3.74 0.90
13172 5232 1 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Articular L 5.94 4.10 1.46 1.54
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Articular 8.41 6.30 1.23
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Articular 1.98
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Articular 8.25 4.31 2.30 1.19
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Articular 7.96 5.43 2.36 2.52
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Articular 8.30 2.56
142
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Articular 4.01 1.10
13245 5305 1 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Articular 6.76 1.98
13359 5317 6 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Articular L 3.50 2.50
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Articular L 5.88 2.02 1.86
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Articular 3.00
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Articular R 5.46 2.39 1.56
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Articular 6.27 3.57 1.73
13140 5091 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Articular 5.19 1.48
13140 5091 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Articular 1.66
13123 5178 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Trichomycterus Articular 5.95 1.43 2.11
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Articular L 6.17 2.90 1.42
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Articular R 6.15 2.49 1.46
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Articular R 2.64 1.46
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Articular R 1.60
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Articular L 5.88 4.20 1.27 1.72
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Articular L 9.11 6.93
143
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Articular L 1.83
13167 5234 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Trichomycterus Articular 5.97 3.01 1.43
13167 5234 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Trichomycterus Articular L 6.81 4.90 1.87
13167 5234 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Trichomycterus Articular R 9.97 3.92 1.26
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Basioccipital A 2.78 3.69
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Basioccipital A 3.09 2.92
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Basioccipital A 3.02 2.83
13200 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Basioccipital A 3.02 3.05
13232 5274 1 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Basioccipital A 2.70 2.37
13093 5080 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Basioccipital A 3.42 3.30
13140 5091 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Basioccipital A 2.88 3.20
13123 5178 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Trichomycterus Basioccipital A 3.59 3.40
13172 5232 1 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Basioccipital A 3.14 3.29 17.82
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Trichomycterus Basioccipital A 2.33 2.66
13038 5015 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Orestias Ceratohyal L 7.05
13038 5015 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Orestias Ceratohyal L 7.35 3.78
13038 5015 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Orestias Ceratohyal R 6.14 6.94
13055 5075 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Ceratohyal 6.26 3.26
13122 5086 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Ceratohyal 6.34
144
13175 5193 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Ceratohyal A 6.77
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Ceratohyal 5.79
13359 5317 6 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Ceratohyal 4.83
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Ceratohyal 8.63 3.92
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Ceratohyal 6.60 3.76
13038 5015 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Orestias Dentary 9.37 3.60
13038 5015 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Orestias Dentary 4.79
13055 5075 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Dentary 7.73 2.83
13093 5080 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Dentary 3.03
13122 5086 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Dentary 7.39
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Dentary L 9.68 5.42 0.34
13223 5167 1 KU 3T1 3LF Fill over floor Orestias Dentary L 6.51 3.30
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Dentary R 11.94 8.27
13123 5178 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Dentary 12.74 4.61
13167 5234 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Dentary L 2.78
13167 5234 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Dentary L 2.71
13204 5240 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Dentary 10.29 3.62 7.52 2.18
13204 5240 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Dentary 4.39 7.93 1.84
13204 5240 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Dentary 11.20 3.10 9.83 2.19
13204 5240 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Dentary 2.17
13167 5234 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Trichomycterus Dentary L 7.18 3.89 5.09 1.20
13167 5234 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Trichomycterus Dentary L 5.91 3.79 5.24 1.30
13167 5234 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Trichomycterus Dentary L 2.88 6.04 1.11
13038 5015 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Orestias Epihyal 3.26 3.31
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Epihyal 3.16
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Epihyal 3.60 2.42
145
13175 5193 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Epihyal A 2.58
13167 5234 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Epihyal 3.65 3.46
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Frontal 10.30 7.23 1.02
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Frontal 13.25 7.60
13159 5230 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Frontal L 8.52 4.05
13159 5230 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Frontal R 4.89
13245 5305 1 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Frontal 13.76 6.33
13245 5305 1 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Frontal 6.17
13249 5307 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Orestias Frontal 13.04 8.91
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Frontal 8.72 4.67
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Frontal R 5.35 3.11
13038 5015 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Trichomycterus Interoperculum L 9.43 4.47
13038 5015 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Trichomycterus Interoperculum L 3.91
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Interoperculum R 9.07 4.25
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Interoperculum R 3.16
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Interoperculum L 8.26 3.71
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Interoperculum L 3.49
13093 5080 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Interoperculum 9.39 4.33 2.21
13122 5086 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Interoperculum 3.25
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Interoperculum 7.20 3.63
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Interoperculum 3.98
13159 5230 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Trichomycterus Interoperculum R 7.96 3.55
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Interoperculum L 10.06 5.02
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Interoperculum R 7.89 4.43
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Interoperculum R 4.23 3.56
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Trichomycterus Interoperculum 8.55 4.06
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Trichomycterus Interoperculum 4.04
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Maxila 10.61 2.33
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Maxila 14.12
146
13167 5234 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Maxila 9.42 1.71
13167 5234 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Maxila 7.22 1.57
13226 5270 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Orestias Maxila 14.91
13038 5015 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Orestias Operculum L 2.00 3.57
13038 5015 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Orestias Operculum R 0.83 1.29
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum L 2.14 2.17
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum R 2.38 2.30
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum L 7.22 7.82 1.04 1.24
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum 1.58 1.60
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum 2.70 2.00
13118 5134 1 AC 2LC 2MF Surface Orestias Operculum 2.31 2.52
13223 5167 1 KU 3T1 3LF Fill over floor Orestias Operculum L 16.81 2.81 3.70
13223 5167 1 KU 3T1 3LF Fill over floor Orestias Operculum L 1.00 0.93
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Operculum L 12.75 14.71 2.05 2.23
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Operculum L 2.90 3.10
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Operculum L 17.12 2.83 2.47
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Operculum R 17.79 2.54 2.53
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Operculum R 16.40 15.82
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Operculum R 16.11 17.63 2.44 2.33
147
13123 5178 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Operculum L 1.79
13115 5180 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Orestias Operculum R 1.16
13115 5180 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Orestias Operculum R 1.44 1.82
13115 5180 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Orestias Operculum L 1.54 1.49
13156 5192 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Operculum R 16.97
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum R 1.55 1.59
148
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum R 15.84 17.05 1.86 2.04
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum R 11.02 1.22 1.16
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum R 17.63 2.80 2.59
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum L 2.09 1.57
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum L 18.03 17.89 2.14 2.27
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum L 18.48 2.38 1.82
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum L 19.34 2.71 2.07
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum L 14.54 15.29 2.14 2.09
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Operculum L 15.89 1.55 1.66
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Operculum 2.15 2.01
13167 5234 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Operculum R 2.08 1.78
13200 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Operculum L 1.78 1.37
13200 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Operculum R 11.65 1.47 1.31
13226 5270 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Orestias Operculum L 1.81 2.24
13226 5270 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Orestias Operculum L 1.44 1.36
13230 5300 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Orestias Operculum R 17.38
149
13245 5305 1 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Operculum 3.00 2.63
13245 5305 1 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Operculum 0.87 1.17
13249 5307 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Orestias Operculum 1.98 1.93
13359 5317 6 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Operculum L 1.88 1.97
13359 5317 6 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Operculum L 13.45 14.90 2.13 1.58
13359 5317 6 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Operculum R 14.00 1.88 1.70
13359 5317 6 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Operculum R 3.23 2.00
13359 5317 6 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Operculum R 2.29 1.58
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Parasphenoid A 5.88
13200 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Parasphenoid A 1.74
13200 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Parasphenoid A 1.57
13230 5300 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Orestias Parasphenoid A 2.46 18.60
13055 5075 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Parasphenoid A 13.74 5.26 1.80
13122 5086 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Parasphenoid A 5.75 1.68
13200 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Trichomycterus Parasphenoid A 0.73
13359 5317 6 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Trichomycterus Parasphenoid 3.29 1.26
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower R 10.60 5.32 3.28
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower R 7.03 4.56
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower R 11.79 4.36
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower R 4.29
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower L 4.26
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower L 11.50 7.09 4.68
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower L 7.06 4.56
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower 1.37
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower 1.30
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower 9.94 6.88 4.64
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower 7.26 3.31
13131 5088 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower 5.87 2.92
13156 5192 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Pharyngeal lower L 9.72 7.31 5.26
13156 5192 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Pharyngeal lower L 12.23 8.51 4.92
13156 5192 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Pharyngeal lower L 6.29 4.86
13156 5192 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Pharyngeal lower L 3.23
13156 5192 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Pharyngeal lower R 11.43 10.55
13156 5192 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Pharyngeal lower R 11.82 8.90 4.06
13156 5192 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Pharyngeal lower R 11.35 7.38 3.68
150
13156 5192 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Pharyngeal lower R 7.68 2.41
13156 5192 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Pharyngeal lower R 2.84
13159 5230 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Pharyngeal lower L 10.14 8.13 4.11 4.26
13159 5230 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Pharyngeal lower R 6.93 9.47 3.20 1.64
13167 5234 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower R 8.72 3.94
13167 5234 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower L 8.30 3.02
13200 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower R 9.14 5.66 3.28
13200 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower L 8.03 4.20 2.61
13200 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower L 10.94 6.62 3.82
13200 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower L 3.76
13245 5305 1 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower 8.94
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Premaxila 7.72 4.99 6.21 0.83
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Premaxila R 12.12 4.44
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Premaxila L 13.71 4.42
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Premaxila L 12.71 3.79
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Premaxila 12.52 3.19
13038 5015 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Trichomycterus Premaxila R 7.92 4.80 7.61
13038 5015 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Trichomycterus Premaxila R 8.63 3.63 8.25
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Premaxila 10.92 2.96
13038 5015 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Orestias Quadrate R 1.95 1.34
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Quadrate 1.56 1.46
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Quadrate 1.30
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Quadrate R 2.47
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Quadrate L 2.13
13055 5075 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Quadrate 5.93 1.24 1.73
151
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Quadrate 13.05 2.82 1.78
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Quadrate 2.96 2.07
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Quadrate 2.75 2.58 1.77
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Quadrate 1.47 2.27
13167 5234 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Quadrate 1.81
13200 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Quadrate L 2.43
13200 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Quadrate L 1.88
13200 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Quadrate R 2.00
13200 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Quadrate R 1.89
13204 5240 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Quadrate 7.00 2.42
13359 5317 6 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Quadrate 8.15 2.29 1.73
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Quadrate 5.78 1.47 2.34
152
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Quadrate 1.51 2.12
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Quadrate 2.24 2.16
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Quadrate 2.30
13055 5075 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Supraethmoid A 5.00
13055 5075 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Supraethmoid A 2.05 1.31
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Urostyle A 2.60 1.86
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Urostyle A 2.74 2.33
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Urostyle A 1.91 2.39
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Urostyle A 2.04 1.81
13167 5234 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Urostyle A 1.71 1.44
13204 5240 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Urostyle A 2.25 1.88
13232 5274 1 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Urostyle A 2.52 1.70
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Urostyle A 2.31 2.17
13123 5178 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Trichomycterus Urostyle A 2..27 1.85
153
13123 5178 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Trichomycterus Urostyle A 2.43 2.44
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Urostyle A 2.19 1.75
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Trichomycterus Urostyle A 1.83 1.72
13359 5317 6 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Trichomycterus Urostyle A 1.72 1.44
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Vomer A 5.81
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Parasphenoid A 1.89
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Parasphenoid A 1.40
13025 5063 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Vomer A 4.55 3.77
13175 5193 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Trichomycterus Vomer A 3.31 1.75
13167 5234 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Trichomycterus Vomer A 7.07 3.58
13200 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Trichomycterus Vomer A 5.83 3.14
154
13055 5075 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower robust L 11.87 8.59 7.08
13055 5075 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower robust R 13.44 8.57 6.77
13055 5075 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower robust R 12.12 10.38 6.09
13093 5080 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower robust R 8.64 5.68
13140 5091 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower robust 11.66 9.28 6.08
13123 5178 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Pharyngeal lower robust 11.91 8.99 3.59
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower robust R 13.03 10.22 6.11
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower robust L 9.34 7.43 4.97
13038 5015 1 AC 2LC 2MF Fill over floor Orestias Pharyngeal lower slender L 4.41 3.03 2.12
13055 5075 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower slender 4.67 3.04 2.26
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Pharyngeal lower slender L 9.87 5.55 3.76
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Pharyngeal lower slender R 10.23 6.32 3.60
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower slender L 15.55 9.63 5.97
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower slender L 10.92 7.28 4.50
13172 5232 1 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower slender 12.79 6.40 4.10
13359 5317 6 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower slender 2.89
155
Appendix 22. Osteometric measurements of the fish bones recovered in the 1/4" screen fractions in mm. Measurement codes after
Morales and Rosenlung (1979).
Flot Locus Area Phase Period Context Taxa Element Side ME1 ME2 ME3 ME4
Screen 5063 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum L 21.25 3.58 3.28
Screen 5065 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum L 2.27 2.51
Screen 5065 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum L 16.76
Screen 5088 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum L 17.7 17.76 3.02 3.13
Screen 5088 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum R 2.66 2.32
Screen 5088 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum R 2.46
Screen 5088 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum R 19.31 2.45 2.4
Screen 5088 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum R 16.34 2.93 2.79
Screen 5091 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum R 17.43 17.26 2.27 2.49
Screen 5228 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum L 13.89 2.44 2.88
Screen 5228 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum L 2.23 2.2
Screen 5228 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum L 2.28
Screen 5228 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum L 17.87 18.97 2.61 2.26
Screen 5228 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum L 18.47 18.11 2.94 2.86
Screen 5228 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum R 14.95 1.67 1.94
156
Screen 5228 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum R 2.05 2.19
Screen 5228 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum R 2.25 2
Screen 5231 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum R 2 2.1
Screen 5231 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum R 15.91 19.29 2.91 2.63
Screen 5231 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum R 18.05 19.03 2.92 2.82
Screen 5233 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Operculum L 16.83 2.15 2.26
Screen 5233 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Operculum L 1.89
Screen 5233 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Operculum R 2.11 2.51
Screen 5238 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Operculum L 1.99 2.36
157
Screen 5238 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Operculum L 12.19 15.2 1.99 2.01
Screen 5238 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Operculum L 13.06 2.39 2
Screen 5238 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Operculum R 2.9
Screen 5238 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Operculum R 17.84 14.47 2.01 2.12
158
Screen 5238 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Operculum R 17.68 2.79 2.31
Screen 5238 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Operculum R 1.86
Screen 5240 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Operculum R 2 1.93
Screen 5307 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Orestias Operculum R 18.01 19.6 2.73 2.52
Screen 5317 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Operculum L 14.17 17.38 2.31 2.1
Screen 5317 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Operculum L 2.2 2.52
Screen 5317 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Operculum L 16.02 2.15 2.04
Screen 5317 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Operculum R 19.95 17.08 2.44 1.91
Screen 5317 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Operculum R 15.97 2.68 2.33
Screen 5317 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Operculum R 2.03 1.92
Screen 5317 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Operculum R 1.82 1.58
Screen 5231 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower L 12.42 9.79 5.68
Screen 5231 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower R 10.98 8.17 5.94
Screen 5065 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower robust R 13.17 10.67 6.86
Screen 5240 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Pharyngeal lower robust R 15.03 11.54 6.05
Screen 5091 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Basioccipital A 2.84 3.36
Screen 5231 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Trichomycterus Basioccipital A 3.82 3.5
159
Appendix 23. Operculum osteometric measurements in mm and derived determination of standard length (ESL) using both least squares (L) and
power functions (P). Measurement codes following Morales and Rosenlund (1979).
Flot Locus Slash Area Phase Period Context Taxa Element Side ME1 ME2 ME3 ME4 ESLL ESLP
13035 5065 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum L 7.22 7.82 1.04 1.24 85.54 80.62
13122 5086 1 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum L 7.97 2.98 86.28 81.59
13223 5167 1 KU 3T1 3LF Fill over floor Orestias Operculum L 16.81 2.81 3.70 130.41 130.27
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Operculum L 12.75 14.71 2.05 2.23 119.93 119.82
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Operculum L 16.46 2.72 2.04 128.66 128.57
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Operculum R 13.84 12.97 1.93 2.13 111.24 110.72
13120 5178 1 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Operculum R 16.11 17.63 2.44 2.33 134.50 134.22
13156 5192 2 AC 2LC 2MF Pit Orestias Operculum R 12.69 1.75 2.16 109.85 109.22
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum L 14.54 15.29 2.14 2.09 122.82 122.76
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum L 18.03 17.89 2.14 2.27 135.80 135.46
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum L 18.48 2.38 1.82 138.75 138.24
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum L 19.34 2.71 2.07 143.04 142.24
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum R 11.02 1.22 1.16 101.51 99.97
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum R 15.84 17.05 1.86 2.04 131.61 131.44
13171 5231 4 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum R 17.63 2.80 2.59 134.50 134.22
13166 5233 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Operculum L 15.89 1.55 1.66 125.82 125.76
13200 5238 1 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Operculum R 11.65 1.47 1.31 104.65 103.52
13230 5300 1 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Orestias Operculum R 17.38 133.26 133.03
13359 5317 6 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Operculum L 13.45 14.90 2.13 1.58 120.88 120.78
13359 5317 6 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Operculum R 14.00 1.88 1.70 116.38 116.16
160
Flot Locus Slash Area Phase Period Context Taxa Element Side ME1 ME2 ME3 ME4 ESL ESLP
Screen 5088 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum L 14.3 14.08 2.12 2.03 116.78 116.57
Screen 5088 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum R 16.34 2.93 2.79 128.07 127.98
Screen 5091 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum R 17.43 17.26 2.27 2.49 132.66 132.45
Screen 5091 AQ 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum L 19.31 2.48 2.69 142.89 142.10
Screen 5228 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum R 14.95 1.67 1.94 121.13 121.04
Screen 5228 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum L 17.87 2.99 2.44 135.70 135.36
Screen 5228 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum L 18.47 18.11 2.94 2.86 136.90 136.50
Screen 5228 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum L 17.87 18.97 2.61 2.26 141.19 140.53
Screen 5231 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum L 17.01 2.03 2.74 131.41 131.24
Screen 5231 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum R 18.05 19.03 2.92 2.82 141.49 140.81
Screen 5231 AC 2LC 2MF Midden Orestias Operculum R 15.91 19.29 2.91 2.63 142.79 142.01
Screen 5233 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Operculum L 16.83 2.15 2.26 130.51 130.37
Screen 5238 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Operculum R 9.76 10.79 1.36 1.35 100.36 98.66
Screen 5238 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Operculum L 12.35 11.95 1.59 1.58 106.15 105.18
Screen 5238 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Operculum R 11.95 1.42 1.46 106.15 105.18
Screen 5238 AC 1MC 1EF Midden Orestias Operculum R 17.68 2.79 2.31 134.75 134.46
Screen 5307 KU 4T3 3LF Pit Orestias Operculum R 18.01 19.6 2.73 2.52 144.34 143.44
Screen 5317 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Operculum R 19.95 17.08 2.44 1.91 131.76 131.58
Screen 5317 KU 3T1 3LF Midden Orestias Operculum L 14.17 17.38 2.31 2.1 133.26 133.03
Flot mean N= 37 15.463 123.69 123.06
Screen mean N= 38 17.152 132.12 131.51
Screen and flot mean N= 75 16.32 127.96 127.34
1EF flot mean N= 4 12.9 110.89 110.13
2MF flot mean N= 29 15.774 125.24 124.57
3LF flot mean N= 4 15.773 125.23 125.06
1EF flot and screen mean N= 20 15.959 126.16 125.24
2MF flot and screen mean N= 48 16.41 128.40 127.87
3LF flot and screen mean N= 7 16.736 130.04 129.76
161

Capriles 2006 MA Thesis-Libre

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Capriles 2006 MA Thesis-Libre

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

A ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF FISH REMAINS FROM THE LAKE

TITICACA FORMATIVE PERIOD (ca. 1000 B.C. – A.D. 500) SITE OF

KALA UYUNI, BOLIVIA

Jose Mariano Capriles Flores

A thesis presented to the

Saint Louis, Missouri

Jose Mariano Capriles Flores

Carlos and Eliana

Goals of the Taraco Archaeological Project 2

Goals of the Zooarchaeological Analysis of the Fish Remains 3

CHAPTER 2. STUDY AREA 7

The Lake Titicaca Basin 7

Aquatic Resources and Fish in Lake Titicaca 9

The Taraco Peninsula and Kala Uyuni 12

Archaeological Excavations in Kala Uyuni 14

Archaeological Evidence for Fish in Lake Titicaca 16

Zooarchaeological Analysis of Fish Remains from Lake Titicaca 19

CHAPTER 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS 22

Flotation Recovery Procedure 26

Changes Through Time 45

Diachronic and Contextual Interpretations 64

The Early Formative Period 64

The Middle Formative Period 68

The Late Formative Period 79

Figure 4.11. Frequencies of densities (grams/liters) for the flotation samples. 46

Figure 4.14. Relative frequencies of Orestias and Trichomycterus, organized through

Figure 4.16. Frequency of Orestias cranial specimens by through time

Figure 4.17. Frequency of Trichomycterus cranial specimens through time

Appendix 5. Cranial skeletal representations including burning stages, siding and

Appendix 16. Vertebrae recovered from the 1/4" screen fractions.

Appendix 23. Operculum osteometric measurements in mm and derived determination of

A number of people have contributed directly and indirectly to the elaboration of

Browman enthusiastically encouraged me to develop this research and to transform it into

of the Department of Anthropology at Washington University including Gayle Fritz, T.

Katherine M. Moore has been and continues to be my mentor in Andean

me countless useful suggestions. Juan Albarracin-Jordan, has improved my scholarly life

with thoughtful and priceless advice.

well as improving my understanding of Lake Titicaca’s ecology and ichtyofauna.

bibliography, friendship, and very interesting ideas about Andean archaeology.

My colleagues and friends in the Department of Anthropology of Washington

A great network of friends have enthusiastically accompanied me during these

Szwagrzak, Alejandro Ustarez, Daniela Vasquez, and Susana Villarroel.

powerful and motivating energy.

shortcomings of the present work.

during pre-Hispanic times. In particular, it provides a zooarchaeological assessment of

shore of Lake Titicaca.

This investigation is part of a broader, long-standing archaeological interest in the

chronology, and spatial distribution.

Goals of the Taraco Archaeological Project

The Taraco Archaeological Project (TAP) is a long-term research project focused

1999; Hastorf et al. 2001).

changes through time in terms of evolutionary socio-political processes (Bandy 2001,

a multi-community polity (Bandy et al. 2004).

Goals of the Zooarchaeological Analysis of the Fish Remains

The present study provides the results of a detailed study of a sample of

differential exploitation, preparation, consumption, and discard of fishes from the

these activities and their variability during the Formative Period.

potentially suggest shifts in fishing practices, introduction of new technology, labor

specialization, as well as environmental change.

manifestation in the archaeological record.

Finally, a fourth problem that this investigation addresses is the issue of

taphonomy and the preservation of fish remains. Taphonomic information on fish