guinea pigs in the pre-columbian west indies
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [University of Oregon]On: 18 March 2014, At: 11:24Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The Journal of Island and CoastalArchaeologyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uica20
Guinea Pigs in the Pre-Columbian WestIndiesMichelle J. LeFebvre a & Susan D. deFrance aa Department of Anthropology , University of Florida , Gainesville ,Florida , USAPublished online: 14 Mar 2014.
To cite this article: Michelle J. LeFebvre & Susan D. deFrance (2014) Guinea Pigs in thePre-Columbian West Indies, The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, 9:1, 16-44, DOI:10.1080/15564894.2013.861545
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15564894.2013.861545
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Journal of Island & Coastal Archaeology, 9:16–44, 2014Copyright © 2014 Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1556-4894 print / 1556-1828 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15564894.2013.861545
Guinea Pigs in thePre-Columbian West IndiesMichelle J. LeFebvre and Susan D. deFranceDepartment of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
ABSTRACT
In archaeology, human-introduced animals provide clues about socialinteraction and movement of past peoples. Zooarchaeological recordsin the Caribbean show that pre-Columbian people introduced severalSouth American mammals to different islands. This article examinesall reported pre-Columbian zooarchaeological records of domesticatedguinea pigs (Cavia porcellus) in the Caribbean. Thus far, 218 bone frag-ments have been identified from 18 sites on nine islands. To date, ouranalysis indicates that guinea pigs were introduced to the islands afterAD 500, possibly to the Greater Antilles first. Almost all are recoveredfrom midden contexts. The contexts of guinea pig remains suggest thatthese animals were consumed as food and not considered an exotic orhigh-status food source with restricted consumption or other non-fooduses such as ritual animals. The spatial and temporal patterns of guineapigs suggest that the animals may have been linked to social identityand new patterns of trade, interaction, or population movement be-tween the Caribbean and South America during the second half of theCaribbean Ceramic Age. Documenting the distribution and social sig-nificance of guinea pigs in the pre-Columbian Caribbean contributesto our understanding of how and why people introduced animals toisland settings.
Keywords Caribbean, guinea pig, interaction, West Indies, zooarchaeology
INTRODUCTION
Among those working in island, circum-island, and coastal settings, studies of humanpopulation movement and the objects andanimals that they carried with them have fo-cused heavily on identifying patterns and dy-namics of migration, colonization, and inter-action (e.g., Erlandson and Fitzpatrick 2006;
Received 23 April 2013; accepted 23 October 2013.Address correspondence to Michelle J. LeFebvre, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida,Turlington Hall, Room 1112, P.O. Box 117305, Gainesville, FL 32611-7305, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Fitzpatrick 2008; Fitzpatrick and Anderson2008; Hofman et al. 2007, 2008; Keegan1995; Kirch 1997). Increasingly, faunal re-mains have proven valuable in revealing di-achronic patterns of human movement andinteractions,particularlyacrossbodiesofwa-ter (e.g., Matisoo-Smith 2009; Storey et al.2012, 2013). Sometime after AD 500, peo-ple began introducing domesticated guinea
16
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
rego
n] a
t 11:
24 1
8 M
arch
201
4
Guinea Pigs in the Pre-Columbian West Indies
pigs (Cavia porcellus) from mainland SouthAmerica into the Greater and Lesser Antil-lean Caribbean islands. Understanding thetiming, possible routes, and motives for thepre-Columbian introduction of guinea pigsinto the Caribbean can contribute to stud-ies of human movement and behavior in theWest Indian past.
Recent identifications of guinea pig re-mains from sites that expand the geographicdistribution of the animals are challeng-ing archaeologists to reconsider the signif-icance and interpretive potential of theseanimals in Caribbean pre-Columbian historyand archaeology (e.g., deFrance and LeFeb-vre 2009; Giovas et al. 2012). After an outlineof guinea pig life history, domestication, anda brief review of Caribbean cultural chronol-ogy, we present an inventory of knownzooarchaeological occurrences of guinea pigin the West Indies. Although guinea pig re-mains are widely distributed, we find thatthey are not ubiquitous and they occur pri-marily in midden contexts in contrast to thevaried status and ritual roles of guinea pigs atsome Central Andean sites (e.g., Rofes 2004;SandweissandWing1997).The introductionof guinea pigs has been examined from theperspective of island biogeography (Wingand Wing 1995), but here we consider thefood and social roles the animals might haveplayed. We suggest that guinea pigs servedprimarily culinary and social identity pur-poses in the West Indies. Our analysis alsoindicates that guinea pig specimens may be agood proxy for studying cultural interactionand possibly human migration, particularlyin the laterpre-Columbianpast.Weargue fur-ther that the timing of guinea pig distributionstrongly suggests that a new wave of trade,interaction, or population movement tookplaceduring thesecondhalfof theCaribbeanCeramic Age (Hofman et al. 2008).
GUINEA PIG ORIGINS AND LIFEHISTORY
Guinea Pig Life History
Guinea pigs are familiar, docile animals thatare commonly allowed to roam freely in An-
dean kitchens. The biology, nutrition, andease of rearing make the guinea pig an idealanimal for transporting and introducing tothe Caribbean islands. The following infor-mation is derived from the Peruvian Instituteof Agronomy and Industrial Agriculture pub-lication “Improve your production of guineapigs” (INIAA1992).Guineapigsarerelativelyshort-lived animals with an average life spanof four to five years. Adult guinea pigs weightroughly two pounds and are high in protein(21%) and low in fat (8%). They are character-ized by both high fertility and reproductionrates. Females reach sexual maturity usuallybetween two and three months, but occa-sionally earlier. Gestation takes 59 to 67 days,followed by the birth of litters consisting ofbetween two to five precocious offspring.The young may nurse, but they are mobile,their eyes are open, and they can take solidfood by the end of their first day. Becauseguinea pigs can consume a range of leafy veg-etation, they would have had few dietary dif-ficulties in the Caribbean. Modern Andeanguinea pigs are also fed cracked corn as adietary supplement (S. deFrance, personalobservation).
The greatest threats to guinea pigsare disease, predators, and fleas and otherectoparasites. Guinea pigs are prone toskin rashes (e.g., dermatitis) and salmonella(INIAA 1992). A variety of other ectopara-sites, bacteria, and viral infections can alsoaffect their health (Wagner and Manning1976).Predationbydogs, raptors, andsnakeswouldhavebeenthegreatest threat toguineapigs living in the Caribbean.
Domestication and the ArchaeologicalRecord
The domesticated guinea pig (Cavia por-cellus) is a small-medium sized hystrico-morph rodent native to South America.Taxonomic estimates for guinea pigs rangefrom five species (www.ITIS.gov) to eight(Nowak 1999). Native guinea pigs are widelydistributed from Venezuela to Argentina(Stahl 2008). Genetic analysis of the wildspecies, Cavia tschudii and Cavia aperea,the presumed progenitors of the domesti-cated species, indicates that C. tschudii is
JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 17
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
rego
n] a
t 11:
24 1
8 M
arch
201
4
Michelle J. LeFebvre and Susan D. deFrance
the ancestor of C. porcellus (Spotorno et al.2004) with additional genetic manipulationafter the introduction of guinea pigs outsideof the Americas following European colo-nization (Spotorno et al. 2006).
The archaeological record from the Cen-tral Andes provides the best indicationsof the location, timing, and changes as-sociated with domestication. Domesticatedguinea pigs exhibit a number of osteologicalchanges from their wild counterparts, par-ticularly in cranial dimensions and sutures aswell as in the mandibles (Weir 1974). Hu-man selection favored larger sized guineapigs than their wild relatives and eventu-ally greater coat color and hair variety (Weir1974). The oldest guinea pig remains occurin highland sites that date to ca. 7000 BC(Wing 1986). Experimentation with domes-tication may have begun as early as 5000BC, with domestication evident by 2500 BCfrom highland sites in the region of Ayacu-cho, Peru (Wing 1986).
Guinea pigs are one of three mammalsdomesticated in the Central Andes in addi-tion to llamas (Lama glama) and alpacas(Vicugna pacos). Dogs (Canis lupus famil-iaris) were fully domesticated when they ac-companied human settlement of the Ameri-cas. Guinea pigs were used for food, ritual,andcurativepurposes (Rofes2000,2004;Ro-fes and Wheeler 2003; Sandweiss and Wing1997). At the time of Spanish colonizationand the height of the Inca Empire (late fif-teenth century), guinea pigs were consid-ered a high-status food (Garcilasco de la Vega1966). In addition to cuisine, Inca sites alsoindicate that guinea pigs were used in mortu-ary offerings at Machu Picchu (Miller 2003)Ritual offerings and probable divination ofcomplete guinea pigs was noted to have alsobeenpracticedat the Incacoastal siteofChin-cha (Sandweiss and Wing 1997).
In Ecuador, the adoption of guinea pigsby elites occurred by the second millen-nium BC in association with the establish-ment of trade networks for the exchangeof thorny oyster shell (Spondylus spp.), acolorful marine bivalve used in bead andcraft production (Stahl 2003). The best ev-idence for guinea pigs in the Northern An-des comes from Colombia where guinea
pigs are associated with early altiplano sites(Izjereef 1978; Uribe 1977-1978). Guineapigs are not reported from Colombian sitesalong the Caribbean coastal region. Thereare no records of guinea pig along theVenezuelan coast, although one guinea pigis reported from the inland site of Turen(AD 1200–1400) in northern Venezuela(Garson 1980).
The role of guinea pigs in earlier states,formative societies, and earlier Andean cul-tures varied through time. In addition tothe presence of presumed food remains ofguinea pigs at sites predating the Inca state,including the Wari Empire (Andean MiddleHorizon, AD 600–1000) (deFrance in press;Moseley et al. 2005), sacrificial animals arepreserved at some earlier sites as well. Themortuary sacrifice of complete guinea pigscomes from the Wari site, Beringa, in south-ern Peru (Gladwell 2004). At the Late Inter-mediate Period (AD 1100–1450) site of ElYaral, the excavation of subfloor contextsfrom domestic structures produced remainsof 112 naturally mummified guinea pigs thathadbeensacrificedbymeanssuchasbehead-ing and throat slitting (Rofes 2000, 2004; Ro-fes and Wheeler 2003). Some of these ani-mals were color coordinated to match sac-rificed llamas and alpacas that they accom-panied (Rofes and Wheeler 2003; Wheeler1992; Wheeler et al. 1995). Some were ac-companied by grave goods (e.g., sticks fromthe molle plant or coca leaves) or had cocaleaves placed in their mouths (Rofes 2000,2004). Desert conditions contributed to theexcellent preservation of these offerings.
The Andean archaeological record in-dicates that guinea pig management prac-tices were domestic and not elaborate. Atsome sites, segregated space that may haveserved as holding pens is present within do-mestic structures (e.g., Conrad and Webster1989:401) or dung accumulations suggesthousehold rearing (e.g., Van Buren 1993),but holding areas are often not present oridentified. Because guinea pigs reproducerapidly and are used primarily as food, thepreference was to consume animals whenthey reached full body size, but were stillyoung (e.g., one year of age). Guinea pigdung may have been used as fuel (Williams
18 VOLUME 9 • ISSUE 1 • 2014
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
rego
n] a
t 11:
24 1
8 M
arch
201
4
Guinea Pigs in the Pre-Columbian West Indies
et al. 2005), but since guinea pig provide noother secondary products, rearing them afterthey reached full size was not economical.
The guinea pig continues to be an ani-mal of economic and cultural importance inthe Central Andes (Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia).Guinea pigs are still used for traditional cur-ing and divination (see Archetti 1997; Gade1967; Morales 1995), although the antiquityof this practice is not known. The culinaryrole of the guinea pig is also important to-day, particularly in traditional societies; how-ever, many people of Hispanic and mestizodescent disdain guinea pigs and will noteat them (see deFrance 2006; Weismantel1988).
Although dimensional measurementsare not recorded for the majority of the spec-imens to confirm that they are domesticates,the Caribbean introductions post-date theestimated time of domestication by severalmillennia. All analysts have reported the tax-onomic identifications as Cavia porcellus.Following reported taxonomic informationpresented in published reports, we classifyall introduced guinea pigs as domesticatesrather than wild species.
CARIBBEAN CULTURE CHRONOLOGYAND HUMAN MIGRATIONS
Caribbean pre-Columbian archaeology haslong focused on the study of human mi-gration and culture history (Bullen 1964;Loven 2010; Rouse 1986, 1992). The basicchronological framework focusesonperiodsof pre-Columbian colonization, migration,and culture development. There were essen-tially three pre-Columbian human migrationepisodesandcultures into theCaribbean: thePre-Arawak(Archaic)cultures (ca.4000–400BC),Ceramiccultures (ca.500BC–AD1500),and European conquerors (post-1492) (seeKeegan et al. 2013).
Archaeological evidence, radiocarbondates, and computer-generated seafaringsimulations suggest that both the Pre-Arawakand Ceramic cultures may have settled thenorthern islands of the Caribbean, includ-ing Puerto Rico, before the southern islandsof the Lesser Antilles (Callaghan 2001, 2003;Fitzpatrick 2006, 2013; Keegan 2000). Such
studies demonstrate that pre-Columbian hu-man colonization and subsequent migra-tion did not necessarily follow a south tonorth stepping-stone route from the LesserAntilles to the Greater Antilles. Recent re-search focusing on the provenance andmovement of archaeological artifacts andraw materials (e.g., jadeitite [Garcia-Casco2013] and agouti [Giovas et al. 2012]) duringthe Ceramic Age shows that human migra-tion, interaction, and cultural developmentwas not circumscribed to the archipelago.Rather, Caribbean peoples were involvedin complex, continuous, and fluid migra-tions, travel, interaction, and socio-politicalalliances between and among the Caribbeanislands, as well as with people in and fromSouth America and possibly Central America(Callaghan 2011; Garcia-Casco 2013; Giovaset al. 2012; Hofman et al 2007; Keegan 2004;Rodrıguez Ramos 2011).
Guinea pig does not appear archaeolog-ically in the Caribbean until after AD 500,during the second half of the Ceramic Age.In the Greater Antilles this time period is of-ten referred to as the Ostionoid and the ap-pearance of guinea pig on Puerto Rico at thisparticular time is likely not a fortuitous co-incidence. In addition to widespread inter-action, migration, and movement of culturalmaterial, the introduction of guinea pig coin-cides with the onset of many other culturalintroductions and changes associated withthe second half of the Ceramic Age. Amongthe Greater Antilles, people on Puerto Ricoincreasingly began moving westward andinterfacing with groups on Hispaniola, andchiefdom-level social, political, and religiousorganization eventually emerged; includingincreased construction of stone-lined pub-lic spaces, emphasis on communal religiouspractice (Keegan 2000), and ritual use of hal-lucinogens at large sites (Newsom and Wing2004) such as cohoba (Kaye 2010). In theLesser Antilles, complex social and settle-ment hierarchies emerged, the number ofsettlements increased, and chiefdom-like or-ganization developed (Crock and Petersen2004; Hofman and Hoogland 2004).
In order to provide a region-wide frameof spatial and temporal reference for ourdiscussion of prehistoric guinea pig and its
JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 19
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
rego
n] a
t 11:
24 1
8 M
arch
201
4
Michelle J. LeFebvre and Susan D. deFrance
Table 1. Post AD 500 culture chronology of the Greater and Lesser Antilles, West Indies,adapted from Rouse (1992) and Petersen et al. (2004).
Series Subseries Date range Island presence
Ostionoid Elenan Ostionoid AD 600–post-1492 Eastern Puerto Rico, Virgin
Islands
Ostionan Ostionoid AD 600–1200 Jamaica, Eastern Cuba, Haiti,
Dominican Republic,
Western Puerto Rico
Meillacan Ostionoid AD 900–post-1492 Jamaica, Central Cuba, Haiti,
Dominican Republic
Chican Ostionoid AD 1200–1492 Eastern Cuba, Haiti, Dominican
Republic, Western and
Eastern Puerto Rico, Virgin
Islands
Redondan
Casimiroid∗AD 900–1200 Central Cuba
Palmetto∗∗ AD 800–post-1492 Bahamas, Turks and Caicos
Islands
Troumassoid Mamoran
Troumassoid
AD 500/600–1500 Leeward Islands: Virgin Islands
to Dominica
Troumassan
Troumassoid
AD 500/600–1000 Winward Islands: Dominica to
Grenada
Suazan Troumassoid AD 1000–1500 Leeward/Windward Islands:
Guadeloupe to Tobago
∗The Redondan Casimiroid is a part of the Casimiroid Series with a date range of 2000 BC–AD 1200.This subseries overlapped with the Ostionoid series.
∗∗Palmetto refers to a local pottery type exclusive to the Bahamas and Turks and Caicos Islands.Due to the homogenous nature of Palmetto style pottery, Rouse did not designate it as a subseries.
archaeological significance, we provide anabbreviated (post–AD 500) culture chronol-ogy of the Caribbean (Table 1) followingRouse (1992) and Petersen et al. (2004). Wereport thechronologicalaffiliationsofguineapig remains provided by the investigators.
DISTRIBUTION AND ACCOUNTSOF PRE-COLUMBIAN GUINEA PIGS
IN THE CARIBBEAN
At this time, zooarchaeological accounts re-port pre-Columbian guinea pig remains from18 sites on nine Caribbean islands, includingJamaica, Hispaniola, Puerto Rico, Vieques,St. John, Antigua, Saint Lucia, Carriacou, and
Curacao (Figure 1). A total of 218 specimens(NISP) have been identified, comprising aminimum of 64 individuals (Tables 2 and 3).The majority of specimens (NISP = 198) arefrom adults.
The large number of adult specimensprobably relates to better preservation offused elements and ease of identification. Ju-venile remains may be present, but can bedifficult to distinguish from other rodents ofsimilar size, such as hutia (Isolobodon por-toricensis). Also, similar to guinea pig con-sumption in the Andes, the majority of adultelements may suggest targeted or preferredconsumption of adult guinea pig.
The occurrence of guinea pig spansthe Caribbean, although more guinea pig
20 VOLUME 9 • ISSUE 1 • 2014
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
rego
n] a
t 11:
24 1
8 M
arch
201
4
Guinea Pigs in the Pre-Columbian West Indies
Figure 1. Map showing distribution of reported guinea pig remains by site and island location(color figure available online).
remains occur at Greater Antillean sites.Guinea pig remains are absent from somewell-analyzed faunal assemblages depositedin later pre-Columbian times. Many ofthe guinea pig occurrences/records in theCaribbean were summarized previously byNewsom and Wing (2004) and includeanalysis by Elizabeth Wing, Irvy Quitmyer,and Laura Kozuch. We report these aswell as more recently identified speci-mens.
Chronological placement of recordedspecimens includes archaeological artifactassociations, radiocarbon dating of associ-ated artifacts or materials, or direct radiocar-bon dating of elements. Regardless of datingtechnique, all current chronological evi-dence suggests that guinea pig did not enterthe Caribbean until sometime after AD 500(see deFrance and Newsom 2005; Newsomand Wing 2004; and Wing 2001, 2008). Theearliest reported records of domestic guineapig in the Caribbean are from three sites onPuerto Rico. Date ranges associated withguinea pig specimens from Finca Valencia
(NCS-1), Jacana (PO-29), and Tibes suggestintroduction to the Caribbean no earlierthan approximately AD 600–900. Overall,archaeological records indicate that guineapigs continued to be reared throughout thearchipelago through late pre-Columbianhistory.
Contextually, cranial and post-cranialguinea pig remains are often recovered frommundane contexts, such as middens (New-som and Wing 2004; Wing and Wing 1995).With the possible exceptions of the Cinna-mon Bay site on St. John and Jacana on PuertoRico, no guinea pigs remains have been as-sociated with contexts unequivocally inter-preted as ceremonial. The entire site of Cin-namon Bay and its various archaeologicalcomponents are interpreted as a ceremonialcomplex (Wild 1999). However, the guineapig remains were not recovered from iso-latedfeaturessuggestiveof ritual internment.Cranial and post-cranial elements presentat Cinnamon Bay do not suggest a special-ized pattern of guinea pig use or deposition(Table 2).
JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 21
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
rego
n] a
t 11:
24 1
8 M
arch
201
4
Ta
ble
2.
Rec
ord
so
fis
lan
ds,
site
s,es
tim
ated
dat
era
nge
s,an
dsk
elet
alel
emen
tso
fth
eP
re-C
olu
mb
ian
guin
eap
ig(C
avi
ap
orc
ellu
s)in
the
Car
ibb
ean
.
Isla
nd
Site
Rep
ort
edd
ate
ran
ge(s
)E
lem
ent
Po
rtio
nSi
de
NIS
PR
efer
ence
Jam
aica
Gre
enC
astl
e,ST
M25
>A
D12
23H
um
eru
sD
ista
len
dsh
aft
—1
1
Gre
enC
astl
e,ST
M25
>A
D12
23Fe
mu
rP
rox
imal
end
—1
1
Gre
enC
astl
e,ST
M25
>A
D12
23T
ibia
Pro
xm
ials
haf
t—
11
Gre
enC
astl
e,ST
M25
AD
1420
–161
6Fe
mu
rP
rox
imal
end
—1
1
Do
min
ican
Rep
ub
lic
An
adel
Un
avai
lab
leU
nav
aila
ble
Un
avai
lab
le—
22
An
dre
s,B
oca
Ch
ica
Un
avai
lab
leU
nav
aila
ble
Un
avai
lab
le—
13
Cer
rod
eM
on
te,C
on
stan
zaU
nav
aila
ble
Un
avai
lab
leU
nav
aila
ble
——
3
Pu
erto
Ric
oFi
nca
Val
enci
a∗ ,N
CS-
1A
D69
0–12
81Fe
mu
rP
rox
imal
1/2
R1
6,17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
690–
1281
Cra
niu
mM
axill
afr
agm
ent
R1
6,17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
690–
1281
Cra
niu
mA
ud
ito
ryb
ulla
R1
6,17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
690–
1281
Cra
niu
mA
ud
ito
ryb
ulla
L1
6,17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1050
–138
3Fe
mu
rP
rox
imal
3/4
L1
6,13
,17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1050
–138
3Fe
mu
rP
rox
imal
1/4
R1
6,13
,17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1050
–138
3M
and
ible
An
teri
or
2/3
w/
mo
lar
L1
6,13
,17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1050
–138
3M
ola
rU
nre
po
rted
—1
6,13
,17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1050
–138
3T
ibia
Pro
xim
al2/
3L
16,
13,1
7
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1226
–140
5M
and
ible
An
teri
or
1/3
w/
inci
sor
L1
6,13
,17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1226
–140
5C
ran
ium
Frag
men
t—
16,
13,1
7
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1226
–140
5C
ran
ium
Max
illa
w/
3m
ola
rsL
113
,17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
690–
1281
Mo
lar
Frag
men
t—
113
,17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
690–
1281
Un
avai
lab
leU
nav
aila
ble
—32
∗∗6,
17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1000
–po
st-1
400
Man
dib
leA
nte
rio
r2/
3fr
agm
ent
R1
6,13
,17
22
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
rego
n] a
t 11:
24 1
8 M
arch
201
4
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1000
–po
st-1
400
Man
dib
leC
om
ple
teR
16,
17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1000
–po
st-1
400
Fem
ur
Pro
xim
al2/
3L
16,
13,1
7
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1000
–po
st-1
400
Fem
ur
Dis
tal1
/3L
16,
13,1
7
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1000
–po
st-1
400
Uln
aP
rox
imal
1/3
—1
13,1
7
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1000
–po
st-1
400
Mo
lars
Frag
men
ts—
213
,17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
Po
st–A
D14
00M
and
ible
w/
2m
ola
rsR
16,
17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
Po
st–A
D14
00M
and
ible
Co
mp
lete
R1
6,17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
Po
st–A
D14
00In
no
min
ate
Iliu
m2/
3co
mp
lete
L1
6,17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
Po
st–A
D14
00In
ciso
rU
nre
po
rted
—1
6,17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
Po
st–A
D14
00Fe
mu
rP
rox
imal
1/2
R1
6,17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
Po
st–A
D14
00C
ran
ium
Frag
men
t—
16,
13,1
7
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
Po
st–A
D14
00M
ola
rU
nre
po
rted
—1
6,13
,17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
Po
st–A
D14
00Fe
mu
rC
om
ple
teL
16,
13,1
7
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
Po
st–A
D14
00T
ibia
Dis
tal1
/2L
16,
13,1
7
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
Po
st–A
D14
00T
ibia
Dis
tal1
/2—
16,
13,1
7
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
Po
st–A
D14
00M
ola
rsU
nre
po
rted
—2
6,13
,17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
Po
st–A
D14
00T
ibia
Pro
xim
al1/
4—
16,
13,1
7
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
Po
st–A
D14
00M
and
ible
Dis
tal2
/3w
/m
ola
ral
veo
liL
16,
13,1
7
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
Po
st–A
D14
00C
ran
ium
Pet
rosa
lL
26,
13,1
7
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
Po
st–A
D14
00C
ran
ium
Pet
rosa
lR
16,
13,1
7
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
Po
st–A
D14
00H
um
eru
sC
om
ple
teR
16,
13,1
7
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
Po
st–A
D14
00H
um
eru
sC
om
ple
teL
16,
13,1
7
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1173
–140
0/A
D
1271
–162
0/A
D10
48–1
399
Mo
lars
Un
rep
ort
ed—
26,
13,1
7
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1173
–140
0/A
D
1271
–162
0/A
D10
48–1
399
Cra
niu
mT
emp
ora
lL
16,
13,1
7
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1173
–140
0/A
D
1271
–162
0/A
D10
48–1
399
Hu
mer
us
Nea
rly
com
ple
teL
16,
13,1
7
(Con
tin
ued
on
nex
tpa
ge)
23
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
rego
n] a
t 11:
24 1
8 M
arch
201
4
Ta
ble
2.
Rec
ord
so
fis
lan
ds,
site
s,es
tim
ated
dat
era
nge
s,an
dsk
elet
alel
emen
tso
fth
eP
re-C
olu
mb
ian
guin
eap
ig(C
avi
ap
orc
ellu
s)in
the
Car
ibb
ean
.(C
on
tin
ued
)
Isla
nd
Site
Rep
ort
edd
ate
ran
ge(s
)E
lem
ent
Po
rtio
nSi
de
NIS
PR
efer
ence
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1173
–140
0/A
D
1271
–162
0/A
D10
48–1
399
Fem
ur
Pro
xim
al3/
4—
16,
13,1
7
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1173
–140
0/A
D
1271
–162
0/A
D10
48–1
399
Tib
iaC
om
ple
teR
16,
13,1
7
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1173
–140
0/A
D
1271
–162
0/A
D10
48–1
399
Tib
iaD
ista
l3/4
R2
6,13
,17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1173
–140
0/A
D
1271
–162
0/A
D10
48–1
399
Tib
iaD
ista
l3/4
L1
6,13
,17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1173
–140
0/A
D
1271
–162
0/A
D10
48–1
399
Tib
iaP
rox
imal
1/3
L1
6,13
,17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1173
–140
0/A
D
1271
–162
0/A
D10
48–1
399
Inn
om
inat
eIl
ium
w/
par
tial
acet
abu
lum
L2
6,13
,17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1173
–140
0/A
D
1271
–162
0/A
D10
48–1
399
Inn
om
inat
eP
elvi
sw
/ac
etab
ulu
mR
26,
13,1
7
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1173
–140
0/A
D
1271
–162
0/A
D10
48–1
399
Sacr
um
Un
rep
ort
ed—
16,
13,1
7
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1173
–140
0/A
D
1271
–162
0/A
D10
48–1
399
Man
dib
le1
w/
2m
ola
rsR
26,
13,1
7
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1173
–140
0/A
D
1271
–162
0/A
D10
48–1
399
Man
dib
le1
w/
mo
lars
L3
6,13
,17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1173
–140
0/A
D
1271
–162
0/A
D10
48–1
399
Man
dib
leA
tsym
ph
ysis
L2
6,13
,17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1173
–140
0/A
D
1271
–162
0/A
D10
48–1
399
Cra
niu
mM
axill
aw
/m
ola
rsL
16,
13,1
7
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1173
–140
0/A
D
1271
–162
0/A
D10
48–1
399
Mo
lars
Un
rep
ort
ed—
76,
13,1
7
24
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
rego
n] a
t 11:
24 1
8 M
arch
201
4
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1173
–140
0/A
D
1271
–162
0/A
D10
48–1
399
Uln
aP
rox
imal
2/3
R2
6,13
,17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1173
–140
0/A
D
1271
–162
0/A
D10
48–1
399
Rad
ius
Dia
ph
ysis
—1
6,13
,17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1173
–140
0/A
D
1271
–162
0/A
D10
48–1
399
Rad
ius
Pro
xim
al1/
2—
16,
13,1
7
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1173
–140
0/A
D
1271
–162
0/A
D10
48–1
399
Hu
mer
us
Co
mp
lete
R1
6,13
,17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1173
–140
0/A
D
1271
–162
0/A
D10
48–1
399
Hu
mer
us
Dis
tal3
/4R
16,
13,1
7
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1173
–140
0/A
D
1271
–162
0/A
D10
48–1
399
Fem
ur
Dia
ph
ysis
L1
6,13
,17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1173
–140
0/A
D
1271
–162
0/A
D10
48–1
399
Fem
ur
Dia
ph
ysis
R1
6,13
,17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1173
–140
0/A
D
1271
–162
0/A
D10
48–1
399
Fem
ur
Co
mp
lete
R1
6,13
,17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1173
–140
0/A
D
1271
–162
0/A
D10
48–1
399
Cra
niu
mP
arie
talf
ragm
ent
—1
6,13
,17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1270
–141
5/p
ost
–AD
1400
Man
dib
leN
earl
yco
mp
lete
L1
6,17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1270
–141
5/p
ost
–AD
1400
Ver
teb
raC
entr
um
frag
men
t—
16,
17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1270
–141
5/p
ost
–AD
1400
Cra
niu
mM
axill
afr
agm
ent
w/
too
th
—1
6,17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1270
–141
5/p
ost
–AD
1400
Man
dib
le1/
3co
mp
lete
R1
6,17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1270
–141
5/p
ost
–AD
1400
Man
dib
le1/
3co
mp
lete
R1
6,17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1270
–141
5/p
ost
–AD
1400
Man
dib
leA
nte
rio
r1/
3L
16,
17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1270
–141
5/p
ost
–AD
1400
Cra
niu
mFr
agm
ent
—1
6,17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1000
–po
st-1
400
Cra
niu
mM
axill
aw
/5
mo
lars
R,L
16,
17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1000
–po
st-1
400
Tib
iaP
rox
imal
2/3
dia
stem
a
R1
6,17
(Con
tin
ued
on
nex
tpa
ge)
25
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
rego
n] a
t 11:
24 1
8 M
arch
201
4
Ta
ble
2.
Rec
ord
so
fis
lan
ds,
site
s,es
tim
ated
dat
era
nge
s,an
dsk
elet
alel
emen
tso
fth
eP
re-C
olu
mb
ian
guin
eap
ig(C
avi
ap
orc
ellu
s)in
the
Car
ibb
ean
.(C
on
tin
ued
)
Isla
nd
Site
Rep
ort
edd
ate
ran
ge(s
)E
lem
ent
Po
rtio
nSi
de
NIS
PR
efer
ence
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1000
–po
st-1
400
Oth
erfr
agm
ents
Frag
men
ts—
—6,
17
Fin
caV
alen
cia,
NC
S-1
AD
1000
–po
st-1
400
Tib
iaW
ho
leL
16,
17
Jaca
na,
PO
-29
AD
650–
900/
AD
1300
–Eu
rop
ean
con
tact
Cra
niu
mM
axill
aal
veo
lus
w/
zygo
mat
ic
R1
9
Jaca
na,
PO
-29
AD
650–
900/
AD
1300
–Eu
rop
ean
con
tact
Cra
niu
mIn
teri
or
aud
ito
ry
bu
llafr
agm
ent
R1
9
Jaca
na,
PO
-29
AD
650–
900/
AD
1300
–Eu
rop
ean
con
tact
Man
dib
leN
earl
yco
mp
lete
L1
9
Jaca
na,
PO
-29
AD
650–
900/
AD
1300
–Eu
rop
ean
con
tact
Hu
mer
us
Dis
tal
L1
9
Jaca
na,
PO
-29
AD
650–
900/
AD
1300
–Eu
rop
ean
con
tact
Inn
om
inat
eA
ceta
bu
lum
w/
iliu
mR
19
Jaca
na,
PO
-29
AD
650–
900/
AD
1300
–Eu
rop
ean
con
tact
Cra
niu
mZ
ygo
mat
ican
teri
or
hal
f
R1
9
Jaca
na,
PO
-29
AD
650–
900/
AD
1300
–Eu
rop
ean
con
tact
Ast
raga
lus
Co
mp
lete
L1
9
Jaca
na,
PO
-29
AD
650–
900/
AD
1300
–Eu
rop
ean
con
tact
Man
dib
leN
earl
yco
mp
lete
R1
9
Jaca
na,
PO
-29
AD
650–
900/
AD
1300
–Eu
rop
ean
con
tact
Man
dib
leA
nte
rio
r1/
3R
19
Jaca
na,
PO
-29
AD
650–
900/
AD
1300
–Eu
rop
ean
con
tact
Cra
niu
mA
ud
ito
ryb
ulla
L1
9
Jaca
na,
PO
-29
AD
650–
900/
AD
1300
–Eu
rop
ean
con
tact
Cra
niu
mIn
teri
or
aud
ito
ry
bu
llafr
agm
ent
L1
9
Jaca
na,
PO
-29
AD
650–
900/
AD
1300
–Eu
rop
ean
con
tact
Man
dib
leC
om
ple
teL
19
26
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
rego
n] a
t 11:
24 1
8 M
arch
201
4
Jaca
na,
PO
-29
AD
650–
900
Man
dib
leA
nte
rio
r1/
2R
19
Jaca
na,
PO
-29
AD
650–
900
Fem
ur
Nea
rly
com
ple
teR
19
Jaca
na,
PO
-29
AD
650–
900
Cra
niu
mA
ud
ito
ryb
ulla
R1
9
Jaca
na,
PO
-29
AD
650–
900
Inn
om
inat
eIs
chiu
mw
/
acet
abu
lum
L1
9
Jaca
na,
PO
-29
AD
650–
900
Cra
niu
mT
emp
ora
lzyg
om
atic
regi
on
R1
9
Jaca
na,
PO
-29
AD
650–
900
Man
dib
le>
3/4
R1
9
Jaca
na,
PO
-29
AD
650–
900
Hu
mer
us
Dis
tal3
/4R
19
Jaca
na,
PO
-29
AD
650–
900
Hu
mer
us
Dis
tal1
/2L
19
Jaca
na,
PO
-29
AD
1300
–Eu
rop
ean
con
tact
Man
dib
leN
earl
yco
mp
lete
L1
9
Jaca
na,
PO
-29
AD
650–
900
Uln
aN
earl
yco
mp
lete
,
mis
sin
gd
ista
len
d
L1
9
Tib
esA
D90
0–12
00M
and
ible
An
teri
or
1/4
to
mid
dle
R1
7
Tib
esA
D60
0–90
0M
and
ible
An
teri
or
3/4,
1/2
L2
7
Tib
esA
D60
0–90
0M
and
ible
An
teri
or
1/2
R1
7
Tib
esA
D90
0–12
00M
and
ible
>3/
4R
17
Tib
esA
D90
0–12
00In
no
min
ate
Ace
tab
ulu
m
frag
men
t
L1
7
Tib
esA
D60
0–90
0In
no
min
ate
Ace
tab
ulu
m
frag
men
t,ili
um
R1
7
Tib
esA
D90
0–12
00T
ibia
Dis
tal1
/4R
17
Hac
ien
da
Gra
nd
eA
D40
0–15
00(m
ixed
com
po
nen
tlay
ers)
Un
avai
lab
leU
nav
aila
ble
—3
5
Rıo
Tan
ama
Site
1,A
R-3
8A
D13
20–1
35,A
D13
90–1
490
Mo
lar
Co
mp
lete
—1
4
Pas
od
elIn
dio
AD
1275
–142
0M
and
ible
Nea
rly
com
ple
teR
18
Vie
qu
esLu
jan
AD
1000
–130
0Is
ola
ted
chee
kte
eth
Un
rep
ort
ed—
310
Luja
nA
D10
00–1
300
Inci
sor
Un
rep
ort
ed—
110
(Con
tin
ued
on
nex
tpa
ge)
27
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
rego
n] a
t 11:
24 1
8 M
arch
201
4
Ta
ble
2.
Rec
ord
so
fis
lan
ds,
site
s,es
tim
ated
dat
era
nge
s,an
dsk
elet
alel
emen
tso
fth
eP
re-C
olu
mb
ian
guin
eap
ig(C
avi
ap
orc
ellu
s)in
the
Car
ibb
ean
.(C
on
tin
ued
)
Isla
nd
Site
Ran
ge(s
)E
lem
ent
Po
rtio
nSi
de
NIS
PR
efer
ence
Luja
nA
D10
00–1
300
Man
dib
lew
/2
po
ster
ior
chee
kte
eth
R1
10
Luja
nA
D10
00–1
300
Man
dib
leU
nre
po
rted
L1
10
Luja
nA
D10
00–1
300
Man
dib
leU
nre
po
rted
R1
10
Luja
nA
D10
00–1
300
Cra
niu
mA
ud
ito
ryb
ulla
R1
10
Luja
nA
D10
00–1
300
Iliu
mU
nre
po
rted
L1
10
Luja
nA
D10
00-1
300
Fem
ur
Dis
tale
nd
fuse
d,d
ista
lan
d
shaf
t
L1
10
Luja
nA
D10
00–1
300
Fem
ur
Dis
talf
ragm
ent,
un
fuse
d
very
thin
bo
ne
110
Luja
nA
D10
00–1
300
3rd
met
atar
sus
Un
rep
ort
ed—
110
Luja
nA
D10
00–1
300
Man
dib
leA
nte
rio
r3/
4R
110
Luja
nA
D10
00–1
300
Man
dib
leA
nte
rio
r1/
4L
110
Luja
nA
D10
00–1
300
Mo
lar
Un
rep
ort
ed—
110
Luja
nA
D10
00–1
300
Fem
ur
Pro
xim
al1/
4R
110
Luja
nA
D10
00–1
300
Man
dib
le/m
axill
aT
oo
thro
wfr
agm
ent
—1
10
Luja
nA
D10
00–1
300
Tib
iaM
idsh
aft
—1
10
Luja
nA
D10
00-1
300
Tib
iaD
ista
l1/3
—1
10
St.J
oh
nC
inn
amo
nB
ayP
ost
–AD
1000
Ch
eek
teet
hU
nre
po
rted
—10
11
Cin
nam
on
Bay
Po
st–A
D10
00C
ran
ium
Max
illa
R1
11
Cin
nam
on
Bay
AD
1300
–148
5M
and
ible
Un
rep
ort
edR
111
Cin
nam
on
Bay
Po
st–A
D10
00M
and
ible
sU
nre
po
rted
L3
11
Cin
nam
on
Bay
AD
1300
–148
5C
ran
ium
Au
dit
ory
bu
llaR
111
Cin
nam
on
Bay
AD
1300
–148
5H
um
eru
sD
ista
lplu
ssh
aft
L1
11
Cin
nam
on
Bay
Po
st–A
D10
00H
um
eru
sD
ista
len
dR
111
Cin
nam
on
Bay
Po
st–A
D10
00R
adiu
s∗∗∗
Un
rep
ort
ed—
111
Cin
nam
on
Bay
AD
1300
–148
5R
adiu
sD
ista
lplu
ssh
aft
—1
11
28
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
rego
n] a
t 11:
24 1
8 M
arch
201
4
Cin
nam
on
Bay
AD
1300
–148
5U
lna
Pro
xim
alar
ticu
lati
on
plu
s
shaf
t
R1
11
Cin
nam
on
Bay
Po
st–A
D10
00U
lna
Pro
xim
alL
111
Cin
nam
on
Bay
Po
st–A
D10
00Fe
mu
rp
rox
imal
end
fem
ur
hea
dL
111
Cin
nam
on
Bay
Po
st–A
D10
00Fe
mu
rD
ista
len
dp
lus
shaf
tR
111
Cin
nam
on
Bay
Po
st–A
D10
00T
ibia
Dis
tala
nd
shaf
tR
111
An
tigu
aM
illR
eef
Po
st–A
D11
50U
nav
aila
ble
Un
avai
lab
le—
—14
Ind
ian
Cre
ekA
D82
5,84
0,88
0,95
0M
and
ible
Un
avai
lab
leR
—5,
6,13
Co
con
utH
all,
PE-
15A
D10
35,A
D10
45M
and
ible
Dia
stem
aw
ith
too
thro
wL
112
Co
con
utH
all,
PE-
15A
D10
35,A
D10
45C
alca
neu
sC
om
ple
teL
112
Sain
tLu
cia
Gir
aud
yA
D12
00–1
400
Atl
asC
om
ple
te—
115
Car
riac
ou
∗∗∗∗
Gra
nd
Bay
AD
985–
1030
Cra
niu
mM
axill
aL
116
Gra
nd
Bay
AD
985–
1030
Cra
niu
mM
axill
aR
116
Gra
nd
Bay
AD
985–
1030
Cra
niu
mZ
ygo
mat
icar
chL
116
Gra
nd
Bay
AD
985–
1030
Cra
niu
mZ
ygo
mat
icar
chR
116
Cu
raca
oSa
nta
Bar
bar
a“L
ate
pre
his
tory
”M
and
ible
Wit
h2
chee
kte
eth
R1
6,13
San
taB
arb
ara
“Lat
ep
reh
isto
ry”
Hu
mer
us
Nea
rly
com
ple
te,m
issi
ng
pro
xim
al
L1
6,13
San
taB
arb
ara
“Lat
ep
reh
isto
ry”
Iliu
mU
nre
po
rted
R1
6,13
(Con
tin
ued
on
nex
tpa
ge)
29
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
rego
n] a
t 11:
24 1
8 M
arch
201
4
Ta
ble
2.
Rec
ord
so
fis
lan
ds,
site
s,es
tim
ated
dat
era
nge
s,an
dsk
elet
alel
emen
tso
fth
eP
re-C
olu
mb
ian
guin
eap
ig(C
avi
ap
orc
ellu
s)in
the
Car
ibb
ean
.(C
on
tin
ued
)
Isla
nd
Site
Rep
ort
edd
ate
ran
ge(s
)E
lem
ent
Po
rtio
nSi
de
NIS
PR
efer
ence
San
taB
arb
ara
“Lat
ep
reh
isto
ry”
Fem
ur
Co
mp
lete
shaf
tR
16,
13
To
tal
218
Ref
eren
ces:
1:A
llgo
od
(200
0);A
llsw
ort
h-J
on
esan
dW
esle
r(2
001)
.2:
Mill
er(1
929
asci
ted
by
Win
g19
96).
3:R
imo
li(1
976
asci
ted
by
Win
g19
96).
4:C
arls
on
(200
8).
5:W
ing
(199
0).
6:Q
uit
mye
ran
dK
ozu
ch(1
996)
;Win
g(1
996)
.7:
deF
ran
ceet
al.(
2010
).8:
Sin
glet
on
(201
2).
9:D
uC
hem
inet
al.(
2010
).10
:Q
uit
mye
ran
dW
ing
(200
1).
11:
Dat
ao
nfi
leFl
ori
da
Mu
seu
mo
fNat
ura
lHis
tory
;Qu
itm
yer
(200
3);W
ild(1
999)
.12
:H
ealy
etal
.(20
03);
Dat
ao
nfi
lew
ith
auth
ors
.13
:D
ata
on
file
Flo
rid
aM
use
um
ofN
atu
ralH
isto
ry.
14:
Win
get
al.(
1968
).15
:P
hu
lgen
ce(2
007)
.16
:G
iova
set
al.(
2012
).17
:So
lısM
agan
aan
dR
od
rıgu
ez(2
000)
.∗ D
ate
ran
ges
calib
rate
du
sin
gO
xC
alV
ersi
on
4.2
(201
3),h
ttp
://c
14.a
rch
.ox
.ac.
uk/
ox
cal/
Ox
Cal
.htm
l(B
ron
kR
amse
y19
95).
∗∗Sp
ecim
ens
un
avai
lab
lefo
rco
nfi
rmat
ion
.∗∗
∗ Rad
ius
spec
imen
isre
cord
edas
cf.C
avi
asp
.∗∗
∗∗A
ttim
eo
fpu
blic
atio
n,g
uin
eap
igsp
ecim
ens
fro
mG
ran
dB
ayw
ere
iden
tifi
edto
Gen
us
leve
l.A
dd
itio
nal
anal
ysis
and
com
par
iso
nco
nfi
rmC
avi
aporc
ellu
sid
enti
fica
tio
n.
30
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
rego
n] a
t 11:
24 1
8 M
arch
201
4
Guinea Pigs in the Pre-Columbian West Indies
Jacana is a large site in south centralPuerto Rico with multiple periods of occu-pation beginning around AD 400. Jacanacontains a plaza, a midden mound, habita-tion areas, human burials, and a stone-linedbatey (a public space on some Caribbeansites associated with ceremonial activities)(Espenshade 2012). Because all of theelements recovered from Jacana are fromdeposits associated with the stone-carvedbatey walls, DuChemin (2013) interpretsthe faunal remains from these contexts asceremonial or ritual refuse. However, similarto Cinnamon Bay, the guinea pig remainswere not recovered as articulated individualsor internments (see DuChemin et al. 2010).
In addition, at the site of Rıo Tanama 1,AR-38, on Puerto Rico, a single guinea pigmolar was recovered from a posthole fea-ture, indicating an association with a struc-ture. However, there is no evidence suggest-ing special ritual significance of the contextor guinea pig specimen (Carlson 2008), suchas isolated whole guinea pig internments orother features containing guinea pig teeth.
Archaeological Records of Guinea Pigs
The following description of pre-Columbianguinea pig remains in the Caribbean be-gins with the westernmost islands of theGreater Antilles followed by evidence fromthe Lesser Antilles and the ABC islands (Ta-ble 2). Jamaica is the westernmost Caribbeanisland with recorded guinea pig remains. Allspecimens are from Green Castle, STM25,a Taino site dating to ca. AD 1075–1250 toAD 1440–1550 (Allsworth-Jones and Wesler2001). Allgood (2000) reports four guineapig specimens, including one humerus, twofemora, and one tibia. At least three individ-ual guinea pigs were recovered from mid-den contexts. None are directly associatedwith features or other contexts of knownfunction.
Evidence of prehistoric guinea pigs onHispaniola is reported from archaeologicalsites in central and eastern Dominican Re-public. There is little published informationregarding numbers of specimens, archaeo-logical context, absolute dates, or time pe-riods, but in an unpublished report, Wing
(1996) offers a concise summary of archae-ological guinea pig specimens previouslyidentified on Hispaniola. In the review ofMiller (1929), Wing (1996) states that theAnadel site produced two guinea pig individ-uals. Citing Rimoli (1976), Wing (1996) re-ports one guinea pig specimen from Andres,Boca Chica and “various specimens” fromCerro de Monte, Constanza. According toWing (1996), Miller (1929) doubted the pre-historic origins of the guinea pig remainsfrom the Anadel site due to the possiblemixture of prehistoric and historic contexts.Conversely, Wing (1996) notes that Rimoli(1976) believed that the late prehistoricguinea pig finds from Andres and Cerro deMonte were pre-Columbian. There are no re-cent analyses of faunal remains from theseor other sites on Hispaniola that confirm thepre-Columbian antiquity of guinea pig on theisland.
The greatest frequencies of pre-Columbian guinea pig remains in theCaribbean are from six sites on Puerto Rico(Newsom and Wing 2004). The Finca Va-lencia site, NCS-1, in northwestern PuertoRico (ca. AD 1000–1500) (Solıs Magana andRodrıguez 2000), contains the most guineapig specimens thus far identified at one site.Originally reported as an NISP of 98 (Wing1996), reexamination of the collections anddata indicates 121 guinea pig specimensfrom a minimum of 20 individuals (MNI) arepresent, all from midden context (data onfile Florida Museum of Natural History; Wing1996). Wing (1996) suggests that the quan-tity of guinea pig remains at NCS-1 may in-dicate that the site served as a distributioncenter for the animal to other sites and/orislands.
Jacana, PO-29, located in inland south-central Puerto Rico along the PortuguesRiver, has an abundant record of pre-Columbian guinea pig remains (NISP = 22)(DuChemin 2013; DuChemin et al. 2010).There are three periods of Ceramic Age oc-cupation reported for Jacana: AD 400–650,AD 650–900, and AD 1300-European Con-tact, with most occupation dating to the latertwo time periods prior to European con-tact. During the second and third occupa-tions, the site grew from a smaller village
JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 31
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
rego
n] a
t 11:
24 1
8 M
arch
201
4
Michelle J. LeFebvre and Susan D. deFrance
Table 3. Pre-Columbian guinea pig (Cavia porcellus) minimum number of individualsrecorded in the Caribbean.
Island Site MNI
Jamaica Green Castle, STM25 3
Dominican Republic Anadel 2
Andres, Boca Chica —
Cerro de Monte, Constanza —
Puerto Rico Finca Valencia, NCS-1 20
Jacana, PO-29 10
Tibes 4
Hacienda Grande 1
Rıo Tanama, AR-38 1
Paso del Indio 1
Vieques Lujan 4
St. John Cinnamon Bay 11
Antigua Mill Reef 2
Indian Creek 1
Coconut Hall, PE-15 1
Saint Lucia Giraudy 1
Carriacou Grand Bay 1
Curacao Santa Barbara 1
Total 64
Hash mark (—) denotes unrecorded or unavailable data.
into a larger more socially complex land-scape, including a plaza, midden mound,expanded habitation areas, burials, and alarge batey with walls consisting of carvedstones (Espenshade 2012). A total of 22 spec-imens comprising 10 individuals were identi-fied in undisturbed pre-Columbian contexts(DuChemin 2013; DuChemin et al. 2010). Allspecimens were recovered from trench ex-cavations associated with the large batey andare present throughout site occupation ap-proximately AD 650–900 (NISP = 5, MNI =2), a combination AD 650–900/AD 1300–European Contact (NISP = 16, MNI = 7),and AD 1300–European Contact (NISP =1, MNI = 1). DuChemin (2013) interpretsthese remains as probable ceremonial refusedue to their proximity to batey walls. Theabundance of guinea pig remains in batey-associated contexts may be suggestive of so-cial significance (DuChemin et al. 2010), al-though this conclusion may be an artifact of
sampling bias because excavations were pri-marily concentrated around the batey.
Five kilometers southeast of Jacana is theTibes site. Tibes is a multi-component sitethat began as a late Saladoid (ca. AD 400–600) village and through time developedinto a ceremonial center (ca. AD 900) be-fore its apparent abandonment by AD 1200(Curet 2010; Curet et al. 2006; Zayas andCuret 2010). Eight specimens and a mini-mum of four individuals have been recordedexclusively from post–AD 600 contexts (de-France et al. 2010). Guinea pig is presentat Tibes during times of construction, spa-tial changes, population increase, and so-cial developments; however, all guinea pigremains are from midden contexts and apossible structure of unknown function andare not obviously associated with evidenceof ceremonial or ritual activity (deFrance2010).DeFrance(2010)arguesthatwhile thesmall quantity of guinea pig remains at Tibes
32 VOLUME 9 • ISSUE 1 • 2014
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
rego
n] a
t 11:
24 1
8 M
arch
201
4
Guinea Pigs in the Pre-Columbian West Indies
may indicate restricted access to the animal,the archaeological contexts do not suggesthigh-status or ritualized consumption (con-tra Curet and Pestle 2010).
The Hacienda Grande site is locatedin northeast Puerto Rico. Three guineapig specimens, representing one individual,were recovered from 20 to 40 cm of “super-ficial layers of mixed cultural periods” with adate range of AD 400–1500 (Wing 1990). Atthe time of Wing’s (1990) report, guinea pigremains were atypical and not yet discoveredin the southern Lesser Antilles. Coupled withthe upper layer contexts of the finds, Wing(1990) was uncertain whether they were ofpre-Columbian or historic affiliation.
The Rıo Tanama Site 1, AR-38, onthe north coast of Puerto Rico has onerecorded guinea pig specimen, a molar (Carl-son 2008). Unlike other guinea pig finds inthe Caribbean that are from midden con-texts, the tooth was recovered from a post-hole feature associated with a structure. Theage range of the feature is AD 1320–1350and AD 1390–1490, 2 sigma (Carlson 2008).Although found in an architectural feature,there is no evidence to suggest non-culinaryor non-dietary significance. Perhaps futureexcavations will reveal patterns of guinea pigremains associated with posthole featuresand thus clearly indicate supra-culinary sig-nificance to the animal in such archaeologi-cal contexts.
The Paso del Indio site, VB-4, a pre-Columbian village site in north-centralPuerto Rico, contains one guinea pig spec-imen. Radiocarbon dates indicate that theCeramic Age occupation spans from AD 450to 1500 (Walker 2005). One right mandiblewas identified (Singleton 2012) with an asso-ciated radiocarbon date range of AD 1275–1420 (Walker 2005). The faunal sample wasrecovered from an area rich in artifacts (Sin-gleton 2012; Walker 2005); however, no de-scription of associated features or other con-textual information indicating function arepresented. Other than this one context thatwas analyzed as part of a graduate studentclass project, the large faunal assemblagefrom this site has not been examined.
East of Puerto Rico on Vieques Island, 19guinea pig specimens (MNI = 4) were iden-
tified at the Lujan site (Quitmyer and Wing2001). All specimens are from midden con-texts dating to AD 1000–1300.
Along the eastern boundary of theGreater Antilles, on the north shore of St.John, 25 pre-Columbian guinea pig speci-mens were identified from the site of Cinna-mon Bay, a late Ceramic Age Taino site dat-ing from AD 1000 to 1490 (Quitmyer 2003;Wild 1999). Cinnamon Bay is interpreted asa ceremonial/sacred place that was the lo-cation of a Taino religious structure or tem-ple (caney) at the time of European contact(Wild 1999). The guinea pig present at Cin-namon Bay may be the strongest contextualexception to their remains being recoveredfrom otherwise mundane contexts, such asmiddens. All of the guinea pig recoveredfrom Cinnamon Bay are directly associatedwith contexts interpreted as reflecting Tainoelite and ceremonial activities; including cer-emonial pottery types and species specificshell piles (Wild 1999). If guinea pigs andother fauna were components of ritual offer-ings made during ancestor worship as sug-gested by Wild (1999:307), the guinea pigbones themselves do not indicate specialtreatment prior to deposition, but may beconsidered special based on contextual as-sociations (see Walker 1995).
In the northern Lesser Antilles, threesites on Antigua are reported to have pre-Columbian guinea pig remains. At the eastcoast site of Mill Reef, Wing et al. (1968)reported two guinea pig individuals (NISPunrecorded) from upper layers of excava-tion. Mill Reef was a village occupied fromapproximately AD 500 to 1150 (Wing et al.1968). However, the guinea pig specimenspost-date AD 1150 and were recovered fromwithin the upper 12-inches (30.5 cm) of ex-cavation (Wing et al. 1968). As described byWingetal. (1968), the remainsare likely frommixed contexts, precluding a definite tem-poral designation (see also Hoffman 1963).Wing (1996) also notes the identificationof one pre-Columbian guinea pig from mid-den context at the Indian Creek site, a pre-Columbian settlement located on the south-eastern coast of Antigua.
More recently, two pre-Columbianguinea pig specimens representing one
JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 33
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
rego
n] a
t 11:
24 1
8 M
arch
201
4
Michelle J. LeFebvre and Susan D. deFrance
individual were recorded from the CoconutHall site,PE-15, acoastal villageandshellmid-den on the east coast of Antigua (Healy et al.2003). Two radiocarbon dates place site oc-cupation ca. AD 1035 and AD 1045 (Healyet al. 2003).
From the Giraudy site located on thesouthern tip of Saint Lucia (Hofman et al.2004), one guinea pig atlas was identified in arecently excavated faunal sample (deFranceand LeFebvre 2009; Phulgence 2007). Thedeposit is relatively late, dating to approxi-mately AD 1200–1400 (Phulgence 2007).
In the Grenadines, on the east coast ofCarriacou, one guinea pig individual (NISP= 4) was identified from the Grand Bay site(Giovas et al. 2012). Grand Bay is a villagesite with several features and extensive mid-den dating to ca. AD 400–1400. Four guineapig cranial elements were recovered frommidden contexts. Direct radiocarbon datingof a guinea pig maxilla specimen indicates adate range of cal. AD 985–1030 (Giovas et al.2012).
The southernmost island site with re-ported pre-Columbian guinea pig remains isthe Santa Barbara site on Curacao (Newsomand Wing 2004; Wing 1996). Based on skele-talmeasurements,NewsomandWing(2004)describe the guinea pig specimens (NISP =4) as being from one young individual.
Records also indicate that at sev-eral Caribbean sites with guinea pig re-mains, other introduced mammals includehutia (Isolobodon portoricensis), agouti(Dasyprocta sp.), and opossum (Didelphissp.). Despite a relatively broad distribution ofguinea pig at pre-Columbian sites, there areseveralwell-excavatedandwell-analyzedfau-nal assemblages from Caribbean sites withno guinea pig remains reported. From theGreater Antilles and Virgin Islands these in-clude the sites of En Bas Saline (Haiti) (Dea-gan 2004), Maisabel (Puerto Rico) (deFrance1988), and the Tutu Site (St. Thomas) (Winget al. 2002). The distribution in the LesserAntilles is just as patchy, with no guineapig specimens reported in well-studied fau-nal assemblages from several sites includ-ing Golden Rock (St. Eustatius) (van derKlift 1992), sites on Anguilla (Carder et al.2007), the Trants site (Monserrat) (Reitz
1994), Pearls (Grenada) (Newsom and Wing2004:87, 225, 226; Stokes 1990), or TankiFlip (Aruba) (Grouard 1997; Versteeg andRostain 1997). No guinea pig remains are re-ported from sites on any of the Bahamianor Turks & Caicos Islands, despite sev-eral well-analyzed faunal assemblages (Carl-son 1999; deFrance 1991; Duchemin 2005;Morsink 2012), although Bahamian hutias(Geocapromys ingrahami) occur in someof these assemblages.
DISCUSSION
The Guinea Pig as a Proxy for HumanMovement and Interaction
As is the case with several other mammals(e.g., agouti and opossum) in the Caribbean(Giovasetal.2012;NewsomandWing2004),there is no archaeological evidence for thenon-anthropogenic introduction of domes-tic guinea pig or fossil records of its wildprogenitors in the region. People intention-ally introduced guinea pig to the Caribbeanand therefore, guinea pigs can be viewed asproxies for studying human movement andinteraction. Our review of the geographicand temporal distribution of guinea pig re-mains in the Caribbean indicates a relativelylate pre-Columbian introduction into the re-gion, perhaps signifying a time of increasedinteractions with South American popula-tions that commenced with the onset of theOstionoid. The guinea pig records provide anew line of evidence supporting interpreta-tions of dynamic interaction and trade withthe South American mainland.
The earliest dated archaeological con-texts with guinea pigs are associated withpost–AD 600 contexts on Puerto Rico. Thereare no guinea pigs remains associated withthe earliest migration of Ceramic Age set-tlers (ca. 500 BC–AD 500) into the is-land archipelago nor are there pre-Arawakguinea pig remains. Although guinea pigswere present in late prehistory and possi-bly described in ethnohistorical accounts(see Newsom and Wing 2004:205), there areno early Spanish colonial sites with guineapig remains (e.g., Puerto Real (Reitz 1986;
34 VOLUME 9 • ISSUE 1 • 2014
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
rego
n] a
t 11:
24 1
8 M
arch
201
4
Guinea Pigs in the Pre-Columbian West Indies
Reitz and McEwen 1995)). Isotopic analysisofguineapigspecimensfromalatesixteenth-century/early seventeenth-century Belgiancontext indicate that the earliest Europeanguinea pigs thus far known originated fromthe Central Andes (Pigiere et al. 2012); there-fore, the animals may not have been verycommonin theCaribbeanat the timeofSpan-ish contact.
The chronology of guinea pig remainssupports scenarios of direct migration andinteraction between South America and thenorthern islands of the Greater Antilles, aswell as multi-scalar patterns of trade and in-teraction throughout the island chain (e.g.,Crock and Petersen 2004; Fitzpatrick et al.2010). Because the earliest occurrences andgreatest number of guinea pig remains thusfar are from sites on Puerto Rico we sug-gest that the animal was first introduced tothis island and then transported westwardand southward. There is no indication of astepping stone introduction of the animalthrough the Lesser Antilles from mainlandSouth America. However, this observationmay be a factor of sampling bias becauseof the larger scale of excavations and anal-ysis of faunal assemblages from some villageand ceremonial sites on Puerto Rico (e.g.,deFrance et al. 2010; DuChemin et al. 2010;Singleton 2012; Wing 1996). To the west,guinea pig has not been identified at pre-Columbian sites on Cuba (Lourdes Perez Igle-sias, personal communication). Despite anal-ysis of faunal remains from Tobago (Stead-man and Jones 2006), there are no recordsof guinea pigs from either Trinidad or To-bago that suggest the animal was present onthese land masses when they were contigu-ous with mainland South America.
Identifying the South American origin ofCaribbean guinea pigs remains elusive dueto the absence of contemporaneous SouthAmerican sites from which animal introduc-tions might have taken place. Venezuela andColombia are traditionally considered thebest launching points for people or tradeobjects entering the Caribbean with recog-nition of trade and exchange beyond theCaribbean Basin (see Curet and Hauser 2011;Hofman and Bright 2010; Hofman et al. 2007;Rodrıguez Ramos 2010a, 2010b). At this
time, there are no South American sites withguinea pig dating to roughly AD 500–600,the possible time of initial Caribbean intro-duction.
Despite the gaps in our knowledge per-taining to the origin of Caribbean guineapig, the occurrence of guinea pigs in post–AD 500 contexts exclusively adds significantsupport to the proposition that migration,trade and/or interaction with South Amer-ica increased or was fundamentally changedduringthis timeperiod.Theintroductionandtranslocation of guinea pigs suggests that ex-ternal or extra-local cultural forces stronglyinfluenced the emergence of Ostionoid cul-tural traits in theCaribbean.Cultural changesinceramicsandothermaterialduring thesec-ond half of the Ceramic Age do not appearto originate exclusively from interactions orinfluence from pre-Arawak populations norfrom the earlier Ceramic Age (Saladoid) cul-ture alone. We do not know whether guineapigs were traded down-the-line as objectsor whether people accompanied them ascolonistswhosettled in the islandsaswell.Ei-ther explanation indicates that broader influ-ences, likely from the South American main-land, impacted Caribbean cultural develop-ment after AD 500.
The Guinea Pig as Food
The majority of guinea pig remains in theCaribbean suggest that they were used as asource of food not necessarily tied to eliteconsumption or ritual activity. Except forthe single tooth from the Rıo Tanama 1 site,AR-38, all occur in midden or contexts withother food remains. The guinea pig remainsfound at Puerto Rican sites that contain pub-lic ceremonial spaces, such as bateys, ballcourts, or plazas (e.g., Tibes and Jacana) oc-cur alongsideanarrayofothervertebrateandinvertebrate taxa interpreted as quotidianfood fare (deFrance et al. 2010; DuCheminetal.2010).Therearenointermentsofwholeguinea pigs, no evidence of sacrifices, andno iconographic representations of guineapig on ceramics or other media that wouldindicate a non-food use such as those docu-mented in the Central Andes.
JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 35
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
rego
n] a
t 11:
24 1
8 M
arch
201
4
Michelle J. LeFebvre and Susan D. deFrance
For comparison, the domestic dog (Ca-nis lupus familiaris) is the only other do-mesticated animal to be recovered frompre-Columbian archaeological sites in theCaribbean (Newsom and Wing 2004:204).Caribbean dog remains are most commonlyfound as complete interments associatedwith human burials (Wing 2008). To date,guinea pig has not been recovered from hu-man burial contexts or as purposefully iso-lated interments.
While we cannot rule out that guineapig specimens recovered thus far, includingthose from Cinnamon Bay, Jacana, and thepost hole feature at Rıo Tanama 1, were notritually significantor indicativeof specializedconsumption or use, we argue that the mostparsimonious interpretation of archaeologi-cal contexts and patterns of deposition (i.e.,middens) suggest that in general guinea pigsdid not serve functions beyond food (see alsoWing 2008). If guinea pigs did serve as ritualor special animals, then is appears their re-mains were discarded with other trash (con-tra Walker 1995). Thus discerning ritual orsupra-culinary function will remain challeng-ing (e.g., Grant 2002). Future excavationsand analysis, particularly analysis of associ-ated material goods found with guinea pig re-mains may prove otherwise. For example, atpresent, the Cinnamon Bay guinea pig speci-mens represent the best example of contextssuggestive of elite ceremonial or ritual use ofguinea pig in conjunction with other animalsand artifacts.
Furthermore, whether guinea pigs werea high-status food restricted to elite mem-bers of society or used as a feast food isopen to debate. Deposits that are unequivo-cally feasting contexts are uncommon in theCaribbean. Some of the sites where feastingcontexts have been identified do not containany guinea pig remains (e.g., En Bas Saline,Deagan 2004; Newsom and Wing 2004:159).Although caution is needed when interpret-ing negative evidence, the absence of guineapigs from some of the most extensively ex-cavated and analyzed sites may indicate thatthe guinea pig did not serve as a preferredfeast food. For example, the Taino village andSpanish contact period site of En Bas Salineon Hispaniola has some of the strongest evi-
dence for elite versus non-elite food (Deagan2004) and yet guinea pigs are absent. In con-trast to the proposition by Curet and Pestle(2010) that guinea pigs at Tibes were an elitefood due to high fat content and their exoticstatus, we propose that these animals werefood items, but not inherently supra-culinaryones. Although guinea pigs exhibit high fer-tility and fecundity, they are lower in fat thanmany fish species common at Caribbean sites(deFrance 2013). Much better contextual as-sociations are needed before either culinaryvalue as elite, feast food, or ritual animals canbe established. For now, we see no evidencethat guinea pigs fulfilled the multiple socialroles (e.g., offerings, sacrifices, curing) thatare found in the Central Andes.
It is also worth noting that as a domesti-cated food source, it is probable that guineapigs were tended and protected from preda-tors such as raptors, dogs, and snakes; how-ever, no archaeological evidence for tendinghas been identified. Because guinea pigs donot climb well, tending might have only re-quired segregated space with low walls orguinea pig pens. Also, no areas of concen-trated guinea pig dung suggestive of grouptending and breeding have been identifiedin the Caribbean, but this may be a factor ofpreservation in tropical climates. The quan-tities of archaeological remains do not sug-gest that guinea pigs were tended and rearedto be released on the islands and becomea naturalized food source. It is also possi-ble that other rodents, including the extinctand extant hutias (Isolobodon portoricen-sis), agoutis (Dasyprocta sp.), and rice rats(Oryzomyini), were transported between is-lands and might have been a tended foodsource as well. Native populations of non-domesticated hutias (Geocapromys spp.)are present on Jamaica, Cuba, and some ofthe Bahamian islands (Woods and Kilpatrick2005).
Guinea Pigs and Cultural Identity
Food is not only necessary for biological sur-vival; it is also fundamental to cultural de-velopment and success (Gosden 1999). Assuch, food is a formidable factor in how peo-ple identify politically and socially (Curtin
36 VOLUME 9 • ISSUE 1 • 2014
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
rego
n] a
t 11:
24 1
8 M
arch
201
4
Guinea Pigs in the Pre-Columbian West Indies
1992). Food, food animals, and food habitscan be very powerful in establishing anddemonstrating identity (Atalay and Hastorf2006; Jones 2009:143). Identity defines whowe are and how we differ from others (Twiss2007). It is a fluid and contextually depen-dent concept that is both self-defined by indi-viduals and shared by aggregated individualswho form communities (Lewis 2007).
In the absence of abundant empiricalevidence indicating that Caribbean guineapigs were an exclusively high-status exoticused in ritual ceremony or as elite food,what significance can be deemed from theirrestricted geography, temporal distribution,and contexts of archaeological deposition?We hypothesize that guinea pigs were ini-tiallyaffiliatedwithpost–AD500populationsas a possible food-based marker of culturalidentity and social interaction with SouthAmerica, but not necessarily social status.
Wehavesuggested that thedisparatedis-tribution of guinea pig may relate to spheresof human interaction and patterns of migra-tion. In relation to identity, guinea pig mayhave been imported and introduced as an ex-otic marker of South American heritage, con-nection, or influence. Similar to studies fo-cused on artifact provenance and movement(e.g., Fitzpatrick et al. 2008, 2009; Garcia-Casco et al. 2013), testing this suggestionwill require nuanced, contextual, and holis-tic studies aimed at identifying the origin ofguineapig remains (i.e., directly fromaSouthAmerican source or a Caribbean-bred popu-lation) and their relationships to other cat-egories of material culture and evidence ofhuman migration, interaction, and/or trade.
After its introduction, the distributionof guinea pigs apparently spread southwardfrom the northern Greater Antilles. We sug-gest somegroupseither traveledbringing theanimals with them or they traded them topeoplewithwhomtheysharedsomeculturalvalues (see Newsom and Wing 2004:210).The distribution pattern of guinea pigs mayindicate that these animals played a role increating identity by distinguishing peoplethrough their possession and use of foodanimals (sensu Scott 1996). Just as signif-icant, not possessing guinea pigs may alsohave been an indication of cultural identity
when distinguishing people through the an-imals that they reared and consumed. In thissense, access to and use of guinea pig mayhave been restricted between communities.However, until further evidence is providedto refute a model of equal availability withina community, we suggest that all membersof a given community were able to consumeguinea pigs if they were present. Future stud-ies may also suggest that other Caribbeanmammals (e.g., hutias, rice rats, agoutis) ful-filled a similar role and provide comparativedata to test our suggestion.
Although we hypothesize that guineapigs may have been linked to expressionsof cultural identity, we acknowledge thatmuch more work and research is neces-sary in order to understand the potentialreason(s) for the introduction, subsequentspread, and their adoption by some and notothers in the Caribbean after AD 500. How-ever,placingthepunctuatedappearanceandpatchy distribution of guinea pig within theregional cultural and social milieu of the sec-ond half of the Ceramic Age—a period rifewith cultural change and complex patternsof Circum-Caribbean migration, interaction,andtrade/exchange—webelieve thatguineapig remains may provide an ideal line ofevidence through which to study the rela-tionship between food and identity duringCaribbean pre-Columbian history.
CONCLUSIONS
Sometime after AD 500, humans transportedand introduced domesticated guinea pigsfrom South America to the Caribbean. Ouranalysis of the occurrence, context, and tem-poral affiliation of all known guinea pig re-mains from the Caribbean suggests that theanimal arrived first on Puerto Rico duringthe second half of the Ceramic Age andthen spreadwestwardandsouthward.Whenconsidered as a proxy for studying humanmovement, the contemporaneous appear-ance of guinea pigs on some islands in thearchipelago indicates external interactionspheres that merit further study (e.g., Hof-man and Bright 2010; Hofman et al. 2007).
JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 37
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
rego
n] a
t 11:
24 1
8 M
arch
201
4
Michelle J. LeFebvre and Susan D. deFrance
The role of the guinea pig in theCaribbean appears to have been primarilyas a food item. The absence of guinea pigsfrom many sites with well-preserved andwell-analyzed faunal assemblages may reflectrejectionof theanimal as a foodsource ratherthan sampling biases or taphonomic pro-cesses. There are no indications that guineapigs were used as ritual offerings (burial orotherwise), sacrifices, or for curing purposesas they were in the Central Andean region.Although guinea pigs were exotic to theCaribbean, the contexts of their discoverysuggest that they were not restricted food an-imals. We see no strong evidence that guineapigs were an elite or high-status food that wasused only by the upper echelon of society.Rather, the cultural role of guinea pigs mayhave been as a food marker of social identityand cultural affiliation.
Understanding the possible role ofguinea pigs in establishing unique aspectsof Caribbean social identity requires contin-ued documentation of their remains and thecontexts of recovery as well as the analysisof associated material culture and direct ra-diocarbon dating of guinea pig remains. Fu-ture excavations and faunal analyses in theCaribbean will help to achieve that goal.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This synthesis would not have been possiblewithout the help and cooperation of BetsyCarlson, Richard Cooke, Kate Dougherty,Geoffrey DuChemin, Chris Espenshade,Paul Healey, Bill Keegan, Laura Kozuch,Joost Morsink, Augusto Oyuela-Caycedo,Lourdes Perez Iglesias, Winston Phulgence,Irv Quitmyer, Virginia Rivera, Hayley Sin-gleton, Peter Stahl, Erin Thornton, JeffWalker, and Elizabeth Wing. NathanielRoyal drafted the location map. We thankthe Environmental Archaeology Labora-tory at the Florida Museum of Natural His-tory for helping to facilitate data compila-tion. Comments provided by Betsy Carlson,Christina Giovas, Bill Keegan, Lee Newsom,Dave Steadman, Elizabeth Wing, and threeanonymous reviewers helped improve thearticle.
REFERENCES
Allgood, J. L. 2000. Faunal Analysis of the GreenCastle Estate Assemblage (STM25). Unpub-lished report.
Allsworth-Jones, P. and K. Wesler. 2001. Exca-vations at Green Castle, Jamaica, 1999-2001.In XIX Proceedings of the InternationalCongress for Caribbean Archaeology (L. Alofsand R. A. C. F. Dijkhoff, eds.):186–193. Aruba:Archaeological Museum Aruba.
Archetti, E. P. 1997. Guinea Pigs: Food, Symbols,and Conflict of Knowledge in Ecuador. Ox-ford: Berg Publishers.
Atalay, S. and C. A. Hastorf. 2006. Food, meals,and daily activities: Food habitus at NeolithicCatalhoyuk. American Antiquity 71(2):283–319.
Bronk Ramsey, C. 1995. Radiocarbon calibrationand analysis of stratigraphy: The Oxcal Pro-gram. Radiocarbon 37:425–430.
Bullen, R. P. 1964. The archaeology of Grenada,West Indies. Contribution of the FloridaState Museum. Social Sciences Number 11.Gainesville: University of Florida.
Callaghan, R. T. 2001. Analysis of CeramicAge seafaring and interaction potential inthe Antilles. Current Anthropology 42(2):308–313.
Callaghan, R. T. 2003. Comments on the main-land origins of the preceramic cultures of theGreater Antilles. Latin American Antiquity14(3):323–338.
Callaghan,R.T.2011.Patternsofcontactbetweenthe islands of the Caribbean and the surround-ing mainland as a navigation problem. In Is-lands at the Crossroads: Migration, Seafaring,and Interaction in the Caribbean (L. A. Curetand M. W. Hauser, eds.):50–72. Tuscaloosa:University of Alabama Press.
Carder, N., E. J. Reitz, and J. G. Crock. 2007. Fishcommunities and populations during the Post-Saladoid Period (AD 600/800-1500), Anguilla,Lesser Antilles. Journal of Archaeological Sci-ence 34(4):588–599.
Carlson, L. A. 1999. Aftermath of a Feast: Hu-man Colonization of the Southern BahamianArchipelago and Its Effects on the IndigenousFauna. Ph.D. Dissertation. Gainesville: Univer-sity of Florida.
Carlson, L. A. 2008. A Multidisciplinary Ap-proach to Site Testing and Data Recovery atTwo Village Sites (AR-38 and AR-39) on theLower Rıo Tanama, Municipality of Arecibo,Puerto Rico. Prepared by Southeastern Archae-ological Research, Inc. (SEARCH) for the forU.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville
38 VOLUME 9 • ISSUE 1 • 2014
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
rego
n] a
t 11:
24 1
8 M
arch
201
4
Guinea Pigs in the Pre-Columbian West Indies
District. Report on file at the Puerto Rico StateHistoric Preservation Office, San Juan.
Conrad, G. and A. Webster. 1989. Household unitpatterning at San Antonio. In Ecology, Settle-ment, and History in the Osmore Drainage,Peru (D. S. Rice, C. Stanish, and P. R. Scarr,eds.):395–414. BAR International Series 545(i).Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
Crock, J. G. and J. B. Petersen. 2004. Inter-island exchange, settlement hierarchy, anda Taino-related chiefdom on the AnguillaBank, northern Lesser Antilles. In Late Ce-ramic Age Societies in the Eastern Caribbean(A. Delpuech and C. L. Hofman, eds.):139–158. BAR International Series 1273. Oxford:Archaeopress.
Curet, L. A. 2010. The archaeological project ofthe ceremonial center of Tibes. In Tibes: Peo-ple, Power, and Ritual at the Center of the Cos-mos (L. A. Curet and L. M. Stringer, eds.):38–59.Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Curet, L. A. and M. W. Hauser (eds.). 2011. Islandsat the Crossroads: Migration, Seafaring, andInteraction in the Caribbean. Tuscaloosa: Uni-versity of Alabama Press.
Curet, L. A., L. A. Newsom, and S. D. deFrance.2006. Cultural continuity and discontinuity inthe social history of ancient Puerto Rico: Thecase of the Ceremonial Center of Tibes. Journalof Field Archaeology 31:23–39.
Curet, L. A. and W. J. Pestle. 2010. Identifying highstatus foods in the archaeological record. Jour-nal of Anthropological Archaeology 29:413–431.
Curtin, D. W. 1992. Food/body/person. InCooking, Eating, Thinking: TransformativePhilosophies of Food (D. W. Curtin and L. M.Heldke, eds.):3–22. Bloomington: Indiana Uni-versity Press.
Deagan, K. 2004. Reconsidering Taıno social dy-namics after Spanish conquest: Gender andclass in culture contact studies. American An-tiquity 69(4):597–626.
deFrance, S. D. 1988. Zooarchaeological In-vestigations of Subsistence Strategies at theMaisabel Site, Puerto Rico. M.A. Non-Thesis.Gainesville: University of Florida.
deFrance, S. D. 1991. ZooarchaeologicalResearch on Lucayan Taino Subsistence:Crooked Island, Bahamas. Gainesville:Manuscript on file at the Florida Museum ofNatural History.
deFrance, S. D. 2006. The sixth toe: The modernculinary role of the guinea pig in Moquequa,southern Peru. Food and Foodways 14:3–34.
deFrance, S. D. 2010. Chiefly fare or who’s feed-ing the cacique? Equality in animal use at the
Tibes ceremonial center, Puerto Rico. In An-thropological Approaches to Zooarchaeology:Complexity, Colonialism, and Animal Trans-formations (D. Campana, P. Crabtree, S. D de-France, J. Lev-Tov, and A. M. Choyke, eds.):76–89. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
deFrance, S. D. 2013. Zooarchaeology inthe Caribbean: Current research and fu-ture prospects. In The Oxford Handbookof Caribbean Archaeology (W. F. Keegan,C. L. Hofman, and R. Rodrıguez Ramos,eds.):378–390. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
deFrance, S. D. (in press). The luxury of variety:Animals and social distinction at the Wari Siteof Cerro Baul, Southern Peru. In Animals andInequality in the Ancient World (B. Arbuckleand S. McCarty, eds.). Boulder: University Pressof Colorado.
deFrance, S. D., C. S. Hadden, M. J. LeFebvre, andG. DuChemin. 2010. Faunal use at the Tibesceremonial site. In Tibes: People, Power, andRitual at the Center of the Cosmos (L. A. Curetand L. M. Stringer, eds.):115–151. Tuscaloosa:University of Alabama Press.
deFrance, S. D. and M. J. LeFebvre. 2009. NewRecords of Guinea Pig Remains from theLesser Antilles. Poster presented at the 2009Annual Meeting of the Society for American Ar-chaeology, Atlanta, GA, April.
deFrance, S. D. and L. A. Newsom. 2005. The sta-tus of paleoethnobiological research on PuertoRico and adjacent islands. In Ancient Bor-inquen: The prehistory of Puerto Rico (P.Siegel, ed.):122–184. Tuscaloosa: University ofAlabama Press.
DuChemin, G. R. 2005.Animal Use and Exploita-tion at Palmetto Junction, Turks and CaicosIslands. M.A. Non-Thesis. Gainesville: Univer-sity of Florida.
DuChemin, G. R. 2013. Animal Use and Com-munity in Pre-Columbian Puerto Rico: Zooar-chaeology of the Rıo Portugues. Ph.D. Disser-tation, Gainesville: University of Florida.
DuChemin, G. R., N. Cannarozzi, and S. D.deFrance. 2010. The Cultural Landscape ofJacana: Archaeological Investigations of SitePO-29, Municipio de Ponce, Puerto Rico: Vol-ume I, Part 9: The Zooarchaeology of Jacana(Draft). New South Associates, Stone Moun-tain, Georgia. Compiled by C. T. Espenshadeand S. Young. Jacksonville, FL: Submitted tothe Jacksonville District, US Army Corps of En-gineers, and on file with author.
Erlandson, J. M. and S. M. Fitzpatrick. 2006.Oceans, islands, and coasts: Current per-spectives on the role of the sea in human
JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 39
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
rego
n] a
t 11:
24 1
8 M
arch
201
4
Michelle J. LeFebvre and Susan D. deFrance
prehistory. Journal of Island and Coastal Ar-chaeology 1(1):5–32.
Espenshade, C. T. 2012. The Cultural Landscapeof Jacana: Archaeological Investigations ofSite PO-29, Municipio de Ponce, Puerto Rico:Volume II (Draft). New South Associates,Stone Mountain, Georgia. Jacksonville, FL: Sub-mitted to the Jacksonville District, U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers.
Fitzpatrick, S. M. 2006. A critical approach to 14CDating in the Caribbean: Using chronometrichygiene to evaluate chronological control andprehistoric settlement. Latin American Antiq-uity 14(4):389–418.
Fitzpatrick, S. M. 2008. Maritime interregionalinteraction in Micronesia: Deciphering multi-group contacts and exchange systems throughtime. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology27(1):131–147.
Fitzpatrick, S. M. 2013. The southward routehypothesis. In The Oxford Handbook ofCaribbean Archaeology (W. Keegan, C. L. Hof-man, and R. Rodriguez Ramos, eds.):198–204.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fitzpatrick, S.M. andA.Anderson.2008. Islandsofisolation:Archaeologyandthepowerofaquaticperimeters. Journal of Island and Coastal Ar-chaeology 3(1):4–17.
Fitzpatrick, S. M., J. A. Carstensen, and K. M.Marsaglia. 2008. Preliminary petrographic andchemical analyses of prehistoric ceramics fromCarriacou, West Indies. Journal of CaribbeanArchaeologySpecialPublicationNumber2:59–82.
Fitzpatrick, S. M., M. Kappers, and C. M. Gio-vas. 2010. The southward route hypothesis:Examining Carriacou’s chronological positionin Antillean prehistory. In Island Shores, Dis-tant Pasts: Archaeological and Biological Ap-proaches to the Pre-Columbian Settlement ofthe Caribbean (S. M. Fitzpatrick and A. H. Ross,eds.):163–176. Gainesville: University Press ofFlorida.
Fitzpatrick, S. M., Q. Kaye, J. Feathers, J. A. Pavia,and K. M. Marsaglia. 2009. Evidence for inter-island transport of heirlooms: Luminescencedating and petrographic analysis of Ceramicinhaling bowls from Carriacou, West Indies.Journal of Archaeological Science 36(3):596–606.
Gade, D. 1967. The guinea pig in Andean folkculture. Geographical Review 57(2):213–24.
Garcia-Casco, A., S. Knippenberg, R. RodrıquezRamos, G. E. Harlow, C., Hofman, J. CarlosPomo, and I. F. Blanco-Quintero. 2013. Pre-Columbian jadeitite artifacts from the GoldenRocksite, St. Eustatius, LesserAntilles,withspe-
cial reference to jadeitite artifacts from Elliot’s,Antigua: Implications for potential source re-gions and long-distance exchange networks inthe greater Caribbean. Journal of Archaeolog-ical Science 40(8):3153–3169.
Garcilasco de La Vega, El Inca. 1966. Royal Com-mentaries of the Incas and General History ofPeruTrans. H. V. Livermore. Austin: Universityof Texas Press. (Orig. pub. 1607.)
Garson, A. 1980. Prehistory, Settlement, andFood Production in the Savanna Region ofLa Calzada de Paez, Venezuela. Ph.D. Disser-tation. New Haven: Yale University.
Giovas, C. M., M. J. LeFebvre, and S. M. Fitzpatrick.2012. New records for prehistoric introductionof Neotropicalmammals to theWest Indies: Evi-dence from Carriacou, Lesser Antilles. Journalof Biogeography 39(3):476–487.
Gladwell, R. R. 2004. Animals among the dead:The ritual use of animals at Beringa. Under-graduate Honors Thesis. Albuquerque: Univer-sity of New Mexico.
Gosden, C. 1999. Introduction. In The Prehistoryof Food: Appetites for Change (C. Gosden andJ. Hather, eds.):3–9. London: Routledge.
Grant, A. 2002. Food, status and social hierarchy.In Consuming Passions and Patterns of Con-sumption (P. Miracle and N. Milner, eds.):17–23. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archae-ological Research, University of Cambridge.
Grouard, S. 1997. Tanki Flip faunal remains. InThe Archaeology of Aruba: The Tanki Flip Site(A. H. Vesteeg and S. Rostain, eds.):257–264.Oranjestad: Archaeology Museum Aruba.
Healy, P. F., E. Thornton, and M. T. Fuess. 2003.The post Saladoid faunal assemblage from theCoconut Hall site, Antigua, West Indies. In Pro-ceedings from the XX International Congressfor Caribbean Archaeology (C. Tavarez andM. A. Garcıa Arevalo, eds.):189–200. SantoDomingo: Museo del Hombre Dominicano andFundacion Garcıa Arevalo.
Hoffman, C. A., Jr. 1963. Archaeological Investi-gations on Antigua, West Indies. M.A. Thesis.Gainesville: University of Florida.
Hofman, C. L., and A. J. Bright (eds.). 2010. Mo-bility and exchange from a panCaribbean per-spective. Journal of Caribbean ArchaeologySpecial Publication Number 3.
Hofman, C. L., A. Bright, A. Boomert, and S. Knip-penberg. 2007. Island rhythms. The web of so-cial relationships and interaction networks inthe pre-Columbian Lesser Antilles. Latin Amer-ican Antiquity 18(3):243–268.
Hofman, C. L., A. J. Bright, W. F. Keegan, andM. L. P. Hoogland. 2008. Attractive ideas, de-sirable goods: Examining the late Ceramic Age
40 VOLUME 9 • ISSUE 1 • 2014
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
rego
n] a
t 11:
24 1
8 M
arch
201
4
Guinea Pigs in the Pre-Columbian West Indies
relationships between Greater and Lesser An-tillean societies. Journal of Island and CoastalArchaeology 3(1):17–34.
Hofman, C. L. and M. L. P. Hoogland. 2004. Socialdynamics and change in the Northern LesserAntilles. In Late Ceramic Age Societies in theEastern Caribbean (A. Delpuech and C. L.Hofman, eds.):47–57. BAR International Series1273. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Hofman, C. L., M. L. P. Hoogland, and W.F. Keegan. 2004. Archaeological Reconnais-sance at Saint Lucia, West Indies 4-18-2004to 5-12-2004 Annual Report, http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/caribarch/stlucia2004.pdf.
Instituto Nacional de Investigacion Agraria yAgroindustrial (INIAA). 1992. Mejore su Pro-duccion de Cuyes [Improve Your Productionof Guinea Pigs]. Lima: Proyecto Transfor-macion de la Technologıa Agropecuaria.
Izjereef, G. F. 1978. Faunal Remains from the ElAbra Rock Shelters (Colombia). In The Qua-ternary of Colombia, Vol. 6 (T. v.d. Hammen,and S. Hrsg, eds.):163–177. Amsterdam: Else-vier Scientific Publishing Company.
Jones, S. 2009. Food and Gender in Fiji: Ethnoar-chaeological Explorations. New York: Lexing-ton Books/Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Kaye, Q. P. 2010. Ritual Drug Use, Material Cul-ture and the Social Context of Power amongthe Indigenous Peoples of the Caribbean Us-ing Ethnographic, Ethnohistoric and Archae-ological Data. Ph.D. Thesis. London: Univer-sity College London.
Keegan, W. F. 1995. Modeling dispersal in theWest Indies. World Archaeology 26(3):400–420.
Keegan, W. F. 2000. West Indian archaeology. 3.Ceramic Age. Journal of Archaeological Re-search 8(2):135–167.
Keegan, W. F. 2004. Islands of chaos. In Late Ce-ramic Age Societies in the Eastern Caribbean(A. Delpuech and C. L. Hofman, eds.):33–44. BAR International Series 1273. Oxford: Ar-chaeopress.
Keegan, W. F., C. L. Hofman, and R. RodrıguezRamos (eds.). 2013. The Oxford Handbook ofCaribbean Archaeology. Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press.
Kirch, P. V. 1997. The Lapita Peoples. Malden:Blackwell Publishers.
Lewis, K. 2007. Fields and tables of Sheba:Food, identity, and politics in Early HistoricSouthern Arabia. In The Archaeology of Foodand Identity (K. Twiss, ed.):192–217. Occa-sional Paper No. 34. Carbondale: Center forArchaeological Investigations, Southern IllinoisUniversity.
Loven, S. 2010. Origins of the Tainan Culture,West Indies. Tuscaloosa: The University of Al-abama Press. (Orig. pub. 1935.)
Matisoo-Smith, E. 2009. The Commensal Modelfor human settlement of the Pacific 10 yearson—What can we say and where to now?Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology4(2):151–163.
Miller, G. R. 2003. Food for the dead, tools forthe afterlife: Zooarchaeology at Machu Picchu.In The 1912 Yale Peruvian Scientific Expedi-tion Collections from Machu Picchu: Humanand Animal Remains (R. L. Burger and L. C.Salazar, eds.):1–63. Publications in Anthropol-ogy 85. New Haven: Peabody Museum of Natu-ral History, Yale University.
Miller, G. S., Jr. 1929. Mammals eaten by Indi-ans, owls, and Spaniards in the coast region ofthe Dominican Republic. Smithsonian Miscel-laneous Collection 82(5):1–16.
Morales, E. 1995. The Guinea Pig: Healing, Food,and Ritual in the Andes. Tucson: University ofArizona Press.
Morsink, J. 2012. The Power of Salt: A Holis-tic Approach to Salt in the PrehistoricCircum-Caribbean Region. Ph.D.Dissertation.Gainesville: University of Florida.
Moseley, M. E., D. J. Nash, P. R. Williams, S. D. de-France, A. Miranda, and M. Ruales. 2005. Burn-ing down the brewery: Establishing and evacu-ating an ancient imperial colony at Cerro Baul,Peru. Proceedings of the National Academyof Sciences of the United States of America102(48):17264–17271.
Newsom, L. A. and E. S. Wing. 2004. On Landand Sea: Native American Uses of BiologicalResources in the West Indies. Tuscaloosa: Uni-versity of Alabama Press.
Nowak, R. M. 1999. Walker’s Mammals of theWorld. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Univer-sity Press.
Petersen, J. B., C. L. Hofman, and L. A. Curet.2004. Time and culture: Chronology and taxon-omy in the Eastern Caribbean and the Guianas.In Late Ceramic Age Societies in the EasternCaribbean (A. Delpuech and C. L. Hofman,eds.):17–32. BAR International Series 1273. Ox-ford: Archaeopress.
Phulgence, W. 2007. Zooarchaeological ReportonPit8Level1,Giraudy, St. Lucia.Gainesville,FL: Manuscript on file with Florida Museum ofNatural History, Gainesville.
Pigiere, F., W. Van Neer, C. Ansieau, and M. Denis.2012. New archaeozoological evidence for theintroduction of the guinea pig to Europe. Jour-nal of Archaeological Science 39(4):1020–1024.
JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 41
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
rego
n] a
t 11:
24 1
8 M
arch
201
4
Michelle J. LeFebvre and Susan D. deFrance
Quitmyer, I. R. 2003. Zooarchaeology of Cin-namon Bay, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands:Pre-Columbian overexploitation of animal re-sources. Bulletin of the Florida Museum ofNatural History 44(1):131–158.
Quitmyer, I. R. and L. Kozuch. 1996. PhaseII Zooarchaeology at Finca Valencia (NCS-1) and Site NCS-4, Northwest Puerto Rico.Gainesville, FL: Submitted to LAW Caribe andon file at the Florida Museum of Natural History,Gainesville.
Quitmyer, I. R. and E. S. Wing. 2001. The LujanSite: A Record of Native American Animal Useon Vieques Island, Puerto Rico. Gainesville,FL: Submitted to Virginia Rivera and on fileat the Florida Museum of Natural History,Gainesville.
Reitz, E. J. 1986. Vertebrate fauna from locus 39,Puerto Real, Haiti. Journal of Field Archaeol-ogy 13(3):317–328.
Reitz, E. J. 1994. Archaeology of Trants, Montser-rat. Part 2. Vertebrate fauna. Annals ofCarnegie Museum 63(4):297–317.
Reitz, E. J. and B. G. McEwan. 1995. Animals, en-vironment, and the Spanish diet at Puerto Real.In Puerto Real: The Archaeology of a 16th-Century Spanish Town on Hispaniola (K. Dea-gan,ed.):285–334.Gainesville:UniversityPressof Florida.
Rimoli, R. O. 1976. Roedores fosiles de la Hispan-iola. Universidad Central del Este Serie Cien-tifica III:3–95.
Rodrıguez Ramos, R. 2010a. Rethinking PuertoRicanPrecolonialHistory.Tuscaloosa:Univer-sity of Alabama Press.
Rodrıguez Ramos, R. 2010b. What is theCaribbean? An archaeological perspective. InMobility and Exchange from a PanCaribbeanPerspective (C. L. Hofman and A. J. Bright,eds.):19–51. Journal of Caribbean ArchaeologySpecial Publication Number 3.
Rodrıquez Ramos, R. 2011. Close encounters ofthe Caribbean kind. In Islands at the Cross-roads: Migration, Seafaring, and Interactionin the Caribbean (L.A.Curet andM.W.Hauser,eds.):164–192. Tuscaloosa: The University ofAlabama Press.
Rofes, J. 2000. Sacrificio de cuyes en El Yaral, co-munidad prehispanica del extremo sur peru-ano. Bulletin de l’Institut Francais d’EtudesAndines 29:1–12.
Rofes, J. 2004. Prehispanic guinea pig sacrificesin southern Peru, the case of El Yaral. In Be-haviour Behind Bones: The Zooarchaeologyof Ritual, Religion, Status, and Identity (S.J. O’Day, S. W. van Neer, and A. Ervynck,eds.):95–100. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Rofes, J. and J. C. Wheeler. 2003. Sacrificio decuyes en los Andes: El caso de El Yaral y unarevision biologica, arqueologica y etnograficade la especie Cavia porcellus. Archaeofauna12:29–45.
Rouse, I. 1986. Migrations in Prehistory: Infer-ring Population Movement from Cultural Re-mains. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Rouse, I. 1992. The Tainos: The People WhoGreeted Columbus. New Haven: Yale Univer-sity Press.
Sandweiss, D. S., and E. S. Wing 1997. Ritual ro-dents: The guinea pigs of Chincha, Peru. Jour-nal of Field Archaeology 24:47–58.
Scott, E. M. 1996. Who ate what? Archaeolog-ical food remains and cultural diversity. InCase Studies in Environmental Archaeology(E. J. Reitz, L. A. Newsom, and S. J. Scudder,eds.):339–356. New York: Plenum Press.
Singleton, H. M. 2012. The Zooarchaeology ofPaso del Indio: Investigations of Subsistenceat a Prehistoric Village Site in Puerto Rico.Manuscript on file with author.
Solıs Magana, C. and M. Rodrıguez. 2000. Fi-nal Phase II Archaeological Evaluation forthe Finca Valencia Site North Coast Super-aqueduct Project Municipality of Arecibo,Puerto Rico. Guaynabo: Prepared by LAWEnvironmental-Caribe for Thames-Dick Super-aqueduct Partners, Guaynabo, Puerto Rico.
Spotorno, A. D., J. C. Marın, J. P. Manrıquez, J. P.Valladares, E. Rico, and C. Rivas. 2006. Ancientand modern steps during the domestication ofguinea pig (Cavia porcellus L.). Journal of Zo-ology 270(1):57–62.
Spotorno, A. E., J. P. Valladares, J. C. Marın, andH. Zeballos. 2004. Molecular diversity amongdomestic guinea pig (Cavia porcellus) andtheir close phylogenetic relationship with theAndean wild species Cavia tschudii. RevistaChilena de Historia Natural 77:243–250.
Stahl, P. W. 2003. Pre-Columbian Andean animaldomesticates at the edge of empire. World Ar-chaeology 34:470–483.
Stahl, P. W. 2008. South American animal do-mesticates. In Handbook of South AmericanArchaeology (H. Silverman and W. H. Isbell,eds.):121–130. New York: Springer.
Steadman, D. W. and S. Jones. 2006. Long-termtrends in prehistoric fishing and hunting on To-bago, West Indies. Latin American Antiquity17(3):316–334.
Stokes,A.1990.Analysis of theVertebrateFaunafrom the Pearls Site (GREN-A-1): PrehistoricSubsistence on the Coast of Grenada (A.D.200). Gainesville: Manuscript on file at theFlorida Museum of Natural History.
42 VOLUME 9 • ISSUE 1 • 2014
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
rego
n] a
t 11:
24 1
8 M
arch
201
4
Guinea Pigs in the Pre-Columbian West Indies
Storey, A. A., J. S. Athens, D. Bryant, M. Carson,K. Emery, S. deFrance, C. Higham, et al. 2012.Investigating the global dispersal of chick-ens in prehistory using ancient mitochondrialDNA signatures. PLoS ONE 7(7):e39171.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0039171.
Storey, A. A., A. C. Clarke, T. Ladefoged, J.Robins, and E. Matisoo-Smith. 2013. DNA andPacific commensal models: Applications, con-struction, limitations, and future prospects.Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology8(1):37–65.
Twiss, K. C. (ed.). (2007). The Archaeology ofFood and Identity. Occasional Paper No. 34.Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investi-gations, Southern Illinois University.
Uribe, M. V. 1977–1978. Asentamientos pre-hispanicos en el altiplano do ipiales, Columbia.Revista Columbiana de Antropologia 21:57–195.
Van Buren, M. 1993. Community and Empire inSouthern Peru: The Site of Torata Alta UnderSpanish Rule. Ph.D. Dissertation. Tucson: Uni-versity of Arizona.
van der Klift, H. M. 1992. Faunal Remains ofGolden Rock. In The Archaeology of St. Eu-statius: the Golden Rock Site (A. H. Versteegand K. Schinkel, eds.):74–83. Publication No.2. St. Eustatius Historical Foundation, St. Eu-statius, and Publication No. 131, Foundationfor Scientific Research in the Caribbean Region,Amsterdam.
Versteeg, A. H. and S. Rostain (eds.). 1997. The Ar-chaeology of Aruba: The Tanki Flip Site. Oran-jestad: Archaeology Museum Aruba.
Wagner, J.E.andP. J.Manning(eds.).1976.TheBi-ology of the Guinea Pig. New York: AcademicPress.
Walker, J. 2005. The Paso del Indio Site, Vega Baja,Puerto Rico. In Ancient Borinquen: Archaeol-ogy and Ethnohistory of Native Puerto Rico(P. H. Siegel, ed.):55–87. Tuscaloosa: The Uni-versity of Alabama Press.
Walker,W.H.1995.Ceremonial trash? InExpand-ing Archaeology (J. M. Skibo, W.H. Walker, andA. E. Nielsen, eds.):67–79. Salt Lake City: Uni-versity of Utah Press.
Weir, B. 1974. Notes on the origin of the do-mestic guinea-pig. In The Biology of Hystri-comorph Rodents (I. W. Rowlands and B. J.Weir, eds.):437–446. London: Academic Pressfor the Zoo-logical Society of London, Sym-posium of the Zoological Society of London34.
Weismantel, M. J. 1988. Food, Gender, andPoverty in the Ecuadorian Andes. Philadel-phia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Wheeler, J. C. 1992. Prespanish Llama and al-paca Breeds in the Andes and the Evolutionof Today’s Animals: Preliminary results andproposed research. Moqueuga: Manuscript onfile with Contisuyu Museum Moqueuga Peru.
Wheeler, J. C., A. J. Russel, and H. Redden. 1995.Llamas and alpacas: Pre-conquest breeds andpostconquest hybrids. Journal of Archaeolog-ical Science 22:833–840.
Wild, K. 1999. Investigations of a “Caney” atCinnamon Bay, St. John and social ideol-ogy in the Virgin Islands as reflected in pre-Colombian ceramics. In XVII Proceedings ofthe International Congress for Caribbean Ar-chaeology, Vol. 2 (l’Association Internationaled’Archeologie de la Caraıbe, eds.):304–310.Basse-Terre: Conseil Regional de la Guade-loupe.
Williams, P. R., D. J. Nash, M. E. Moseley, S. D. de-France,M.Ruales,A.Miranda, andD.Goldstein.2005. Los encuentros y las bases para la admin-istracion polıtica Wari. Boletın ArqueologicaPUCP (Pontifical Catholic University of Peru)9:207–232.
Wing, E. S., 1986. Domestication of Andean mam-mals. In High Altitude Tropical Biogeography(F. Vuillemier and M. Monasterio, eds.):262–264. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wing, E. S. 1990. Animal remains from the Ha-cienda Grande site. In Excavations at Mariade la Cruz Cave and Hacienda Grande Vil-lage Site, Loiza, Puerto Rico (I. Rouse and R.E. Alegria, eds.):87–101. New Haven: Yale Uni-versity Publications in Anthropology #80.
Wing, E. S. 1996. Guinea Pig (Cavia porcellus)remains from Finca Valencia (NCS-1), North-west Puerto Rico. Contribution to Phase IIZooarchaeology at the Finca Valencia (NCS-1) and Site NCS-4, Northwest Puerto Rico.Gainesville, FL: Submitted to LAW Caribe andon file at the Florida Museum of Natural History,Gainesville.
Wing, E. S. 2001. Native American use of animalsin the Caribbean. In Biogeography of the WestIndies: Pattern and Perspectives (C. A. Woodsand F. E. Sergile, eds.):481–518. Boca Raton:CRC Press.
Wing, E. S. 2008. Pets and camp followers in theWest Indies. In Case Studies in EnvironmentalArchaeology, Second Edition (E. J. Reitz, C. M.Scarry, and S. J. Scudder, eds.):405–425. NewYork: Springer.
Wing, E. S., S. D. deFrance, and L. Kozuch. 2002.Faunal remains from the Tutu Site. In TheTutu Archaeological Village Site: A Multidis-ciplinary Case Study in Human Adaption (E.Righter, ed.):141–165. London: Routledge.
JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 43
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
rego
n] a
t 11:
24 1
8 M
arch
201
4
Michelle J. LeFebvre and Susan D. deFrance
Wing, E. S., C. Hoffman, and C. Ray. 1968. Ver-tebrate Remains from Indian Sites on Antigua,West Indies. Caribbean Journal of Science 8(3-4):123–129.
Wing, E. S. and S. R. Wing. 1995. PrehistoricCeramic Age adaption to varying diversityof animal resources along the West IndianArchipelago. Journal of Ethnobiology 15(1):119–148.
Woods, C. A. and C. W. Kilpatrick. 2005. In-fraorder Hystricognathi. In Mammal Species
of the World: A Taxonomic and GeographicReference (D. E. Wilson and D. M. Reeder,eds.):1538–1600. Baltimore: The Johns Hop-kins University Press.
Zayas, P. A. and L. A. Curet. 2010. Tibes: His-tory and first archaeological fieldwork. In Tibes:People, Power, and Ritual at the Center ofthe Cosmos (L. A. Curet and L. M. Stringer,eds.):19–37. Tuscaloosa: University of AlabamaPress.
44 VOLUME 9 • ISSUE 1 • 2014
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
rego
n] a
t 11:
24 1
8 M
arch
201
4