human impacts on marine ecosystems in guerrero, mexico...douglas j. kennett, barbara voorhies,...

oastal and marine ecosystems havelong played a central role in the economies

of people inhabiting Mexico, where today theyare of paramount importance in the moderneconomy. Twenty-nine percent of the country’s107 million people live in coastal settings, withannual capture rates of fish rising from ~.4 to 1.2million metric tons since the 1970s (Earthtrends2006). Increasing populations in coastal areascoupled with technological advancements andthe expansion of Mexico’s fishing fleet con-tribute to concerns regarding long-term effectson these ecosystems. A new government agency,the Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desar-rollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación (SAGARPA1),was created in 2000 to establish better linkagebetween fishery production and environmentalissues, with the idea of creating a more sustain-able fishery. These concerns in Mexico occurwithin the broader context of a global fisheries“crisis” signaled by industrial fishing declinescaused by overfishing (Pauly and Christensen1995; Pauly et al. 1998, 2000).

In this chapter, we explore the long historyof human use of coastal and marine ecosystems

in the Mexican state of Guerrero (Figure 5.1)using the archaeological and historical recordsavailable for the region. The primary aim of thiswork is to (1) begin creating a historical andenvironmental framework to improve ourunderstanding of the complex relationshipbetween people and marine ecosystems; (2)provide an ecological baseline for future reme-diation of coastal and marine habitats in thisregion; and (3) establish a general approach thatincorporates archaeological and historical datato put the modern exploitation of fisheries intoperspective, an approach that can be appliedelsewhere in Mesoamerica—the area encom-passing the modern countries of Mexico,Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, El Salvador, andparts of Nicaragua.

Historical use and transformation of marineecosystems in Mexico cannot be separated fromthe demographic, economic, and environmentaleffects of developing agricultural systems duringthe last 10,000 years. At the time of Europeancontact, much of the Mesoamerican landscapewas altered and transformed by these long-standing agrarian economies that sustained

103

5

Human Impacts on Marine Ecosystems in Guerrero, Mexico

Douglas J. Kennett, Barbara Voorhies, Thomas A. Wake, and Natalia Martínez

C

GRBQ335-3427G-C05[103-124]qxd 10/29/07 04:50 PM 03 Aptara (PPG-Quark)

human populations of between 22.8 and 25million people (Crawford 1998; Denevan1992). The cultivation of maize, beans, andsquash formed the basis of these agriculturalsystems, cultigens domesticated by foragersduring the early Holocene (Piperno andPearsall 1998). Plant domestication occurredwithin the context of major changes in the dis-tribution of plant and animal communitiesassociated with new Holocene climaticregimes, and significant changes in coastalecosystems due to rapid postglacial sea levelrise, and in the wake of well-known and wide-spread megafaunal extinctions that occurredthroughout the Americas at the end of thePleistocene (Grayson 2001; Grayson andMeltzer 2002; Hodell et al. 2000; Piperno2006; Piperno and Pearsall 1998). Biogeo-graphical, genetic, and archaeological studiesindicate that the initial use and experimenta-tion leading to the domestication of these keycultigens occurred in central Mexico. This wasfollowed by wide geographic dispersal and a

long period of local experimentation byMesoamerican peoples, who practiced a rangeof mixed foraging and farming strategies dur-ing much of the Early and Middle Holocene—the low-level food production of the Archaicperiod (see Kennett et al. 2006; Smith 2001).

Mesoamerican communities expanded andcontracted during the Early and MiddleHolocene, with gradual population increases inmany locations. This resulted in (1) the loss offorested habitat, (2) the expansion of grasslandsalong with human commensal species (e.g.,bottle gourd), and (3) the reduction of animalpopulations due to direct hunting or loss ofhabitat from forest burning and maize horticul-ture (Kennett et al. 2006). Maize-based foodproduction spread rapidly throughout much ofMesoamerica after about 4000 cal BP (LateArchaic to Formative period), and this favoredlarge-scale expansion of populations, moreaggregated settlements, and the associatedemergence of hierarchically organized rankedsocieties (Clark and Blake 1994; Kennett et al.

104 I M P A C T S I N G U E R R E R O , M E X I C O

Provincial Capital

City-State Capital

Non-State Center

Subject Town

Enemy States

Tributary Province

Strategic Province

0 25 50 Kilometers

Tara

scan

s

Yope

s

CihuatlanTecpantepec

Tetellan

Zompanco

Tiachco

Tepequacuilco

Balsas RiverDelta

AcapulcoBay

Zihuatanejo

Pa c i f i c O

c e a n

Balsas River

FIGURE 5.1. Map showing the Guerrero Coast and Aztec strategic and tributary provinces.

GRBQ335-3427G-C05[103-124]qxd 10/29/07 04:50 PM Page 104 Aptara (PPG-Quark)

2006). This formed the foundation for the ear-liest large and highly integrated political sys-tems marked by administrative hierarchies andrulers with significant power and authority—socalled state-level societies (Feinman and Mar-cus 2000). Intensive forms of agricultureinvolving terracing, irrigation (Doolittle 1990),and other more sophisticated systems (e.g.,raised fields; Fedick 1996) fueled the develop-ment of socially stratified, politically central-ized, and technologically innovative state-levelsocieties in Mesoamerica but also underwroteexponential population growth, urbanization,and environmental destruction.

The environmental impacts of expandingagricultural systems (e.g., deforestation, ero-sion, soil depletion) are well known inMesoamerica (Lentz 2000; Webster 2001), andthe potential effects of these impacts for the dis-integration of societies has received wide publicexposure in the case of the Maya (Diamond2005). Less is known about the impacts thatexpanding populations and highly extractivestate-level societies had on marine ecosystemsin Mesoamerica. The slowing of postglacial sealevel rise about 6,000 years ago and the stabi-lization of aquatic habitats along the Pacific,Gulf, and Caribbean coasts favored increasedpopulation densities and early group formation,community stability, enhanced maritime trade,and the emergence of social hierarchies.Marine ecosystems also provided importantsources of protein for agricultural peopleswhose diet was rich in carbohydrates. The nat-ural diversity of resources in coastal/aquatichabitats, in combination with newly domesti-cated plants and animals, provided the eco-nomic foundation for these developing com-munities, as they did elsewhere during theEarly and Middle Holocene (Binford 1968;Clark and Blake 1994; Moseley 1975). In thischapter we explore the history of marineresource use during the Middle and LateHolocene (~5500 cal BP to present) on thePacific Coast of Guerrero, Mexico, focusing onthe impact of expanding populations and inten-sive marine resource use at Puerto Marqués, a

coastal community that was occupied from theArchaic through Classic periods (!5500–1200cal BP).

ENVIRONMENTAL AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Acapulco, a city of close to one million people,world-renowned for its beach resorts and sport-fishing, forms the boundary between the CostaGrande (north from Zacatala) and the CostaChica (south from the Oaxacan border). BothAcapulco and Zijuatanejo, a smaller tourist des-tination to the northwest, were early Spanishfishing villages established on bays that haveserved as important harbors for maritime explo-ration and trade since the sixteenth century. Thecrescent-shaped Acapulco Bay, linked to MexicoCity and ultimately to Spain by the Camino deAsia, served as the principle harbor for tradebetween Manila (Philippines) and New Spain(Mexico) between AD 1571 and 1814 (Meyer andBeezley 2000:131–132). One or more ships peryear generally arrived from the Orient ladenwith silks, jade, ivory, and perfumes, and Aca-pulco burgeoned as a trade and ship-buildingcenter (Meyer and Sherman 1991:180; Miller1985:107–108). The settlement’s strategicimportance was marked by the Fuerte de SanDiego, a fort built in AD 1616 to help protectManila galleons from Dutch and English bucca-neers. The establishment of Acapulco as animportant economic center signals the emer-gence of one of the first truly global marketsbased on maritime trade and exploitation.

Outside of Acapulco and Zijuatenejo, smallerfishing and farming communities today dot thecoastal plain, a narrow sliver of arable landwedged between the Pacific Ocean and the SierraMadre del Sur, the mountain range that risesprecipitously into the central Mexican Highlandsand the Valley of Mexico—the cultural epicenterof Mexico in the late prehistoric past and pres-ent. The complex tectonic history of subsidenceand uplift (Ramírez-Herrera and Urrutia-Fueu-gachi 1999; Sedor 2005) combined with post-glacial sea-level rise (Berger 1983; Curray et al.

I M P A C T S I N G U E R R E R O , M E X I C O 105

[AU1]

[AU2]


1969; Fairbanks 1989), and perhaps anthro-pogenic geomorphological changes (Goman et al. 2004), has resulted in a sinuous coastlinecomposed of rocky shores, offshore reefs, andsandy beaches. The Río Balsas, one of Mexico’slargest river systems, flows out of the centralMexican highlands to the Pacific Coast just northof the Costa Grande. Sediments from this largesystem and smaller drainages along the coast areswept south by longshore currents to create aseries of barrier beaches and associated lagoonsthat began to form with the stabilization of sealevel between 7,000 and 5,000 years ago. Arti-sanal fishing communities ply these shelteredwaters in search of schooling fish and shrimp, asthey do elsewhere along the Pacific Coast of Mex-ico (McGoodwin 1990, 1994, 2001). The stabi-lization of sea level is coincident with evidencefor the first communities along the Pacific Coastof Mesoamerica (Voorhies 2004), but evidencefor earlier occupations may have been sub-merged by postglacial sea-level rise or lie deeplyburied under alluvium.

The fishery along the Pacific Coast of Mex-ico is highly productive, providing 79 percent(1,237,693 tons) of the 1,564,966 tons pro-duced throughout Mexico in 2003. The Insti-tuto Nacional de Pesca (INP), a governmentinstitution charged with exploring new fish-eries technology and creating a link betweenfish production and ecological sustainability,regulates fishing in coastal Guerrero and else-where. In 2003 there were 276 fishing cooper-atives and 12,505 fishermen registered with thisagency along the coast of Guerrero. There werealso numerous companies and commercial out-fits participating in the larger fishing industry.Daily hauls are recorded by registered fisher-man, and these data are compiled annually (seeAnuario Estadístico de Pesca 2003; CartaNacional Pesquera 2006); but unregisteredfishing is common and apparently has a majorimpact on the overall productivity and health ofthe fishery. The primary species taken in 2003included mojarra (Gerreidae, 2,020 tons), snap-per (Lutjanus, 459 tons), jack (Caranx, 357 tons),bandera (Ariidae, 276 tons), mullet (Mugil, 127

tons), and oyster (Crassostrea iridiscens, 238tons).

Data collected over the last decade suggestthat Guerrero´s fishery production has declinedsteadily. Starting in 1993 the total annual vol-ume of fish production was 30,558 tons. Thisdecreased to 8,885 tons in 1998 and keptdecreasing to 3,962 tons in 2000, with a slightrebound in 2003 (6,153 tons). Some species alsodisappeared from the record. For instance, fish-ing for catfish (Ariopsis sp.) was economicallyviable in 1994 (222 tons), but no longer appearsin the record after 1998. Red lobster (Panulirusinterruptus) was a viable part of the fishery in1997 (46 tons), but the quantities captureddropped significantly the following year (1 ton),and it disappears from the record in 2001. Thelagoon and mangrove systems of Guerrero areparticularly sensitive, and the INP has identifieda number of environmental issues related to theoverexploitation of these habitats. Jackson et al.(2001) have suggested, however, that the man-agement of marine fisheries can be improvedwith the deeper historical perspectives thatarchaeological and historical data can provideon the nature of human impacts on marineecosystems before monitoring of fishery yieldsand modern ecological data began.

In Mexico, interest in Pacific Coast marineresources by highly centralized state-level soci-eties extends back into the prehistoric past andis well documented historically during theAztec period. The Aztecs established control inthe Basin of Mexico (~AD 1440) by allyingthemselves with the political elite of Texcoco(Acolhua) and Tlacopan (Tepaneca) to form theTriple Alliance. The main interest of thealliance was to expand the limits of the empirethroughout Mesoamerica by means of war andsuppression. In so doing they established tribu-tary and strategic outer provinces, the formercreated for the regularly scheduled payment oftribute in the form of goods or labor, and thelatter providing soldiers and corvée labor strate-gically located in frontier lands. With thisexpansion they obtained tribute, whichincluded a great variety of goods not available in


[AU3]


the Basin of Mexico. Within this framework ofAztec expansion and domination, the Gulf ofMexico and the Pacific Ocean played importantroles in strategies for the acquisition of goods(Manzanilla López 2000:36). This started withthe fifth Aztec emperor, Ahuítzotl (AD1486–1502), who became obsessed with theidea of reaching the Pacific Ocean. He startedwith the Balsas River, subduing the Tepuztecos,establishing a mountain corridor by the Río delas Truchas to later reach the Costa Grande inXolochiyuhyan. From there he expanded toCoyuca and Acapulco, conquering the 16 townsthat comprise the Cihuatlán province (Figure5.1; Barlow 1990:93, 130, 137; Smith andBerdan 1996:300). After conquering severaltowns along the Pacific Coast, the Aztecsformed a tributary province centered on thetown of Cihuatlán, today known as San Luis laLoma (Manzanilla López 2000:36).

Cihuatlán province was composed of 12 to16 towns that served as regional capitals ofsmall states (Smith and Berdan 1996:277). Thelargest and most dominant of these states wasZacotallan, located near the mouth of the Bal-sas River northwest of Acapulco and Ziju-atanejo. According to the Relación de Zacatula(1945), each of these states was governed by aCapitán who served principally as a war chief.Several ethnic and linguistic groups existed(e.g., Cuitlatecos, Tepuztecos; Acuña 1987), andconsiderable interpolity warfare occurred in theregion prior to integration into the AztecEmpire (Smith and Berdan 1996). The Cuit-latecas, Tepuztecas, and Yopes resisted theAztecs for many years before Ahuítzotl con-quered the coastal regions on either side of Yopiterritory, a mountainous area along the coastsoutheast of Acapulco (Barlow 1990:71). Yopitz-inco remained an independent state with itsnorthwestern boundary maintained by Tecpan-tepec, an Aztec strategic province composed of12 towns that stretched along the Costa Grande,buffering the Cihuatlán tributary province onboth its northwestern and southeastern endsfrom Tarascan and Yopi territories, respectively(Smith 1996:141; Smith and Berdan 1996:277).

Information on tribute from the Cihuatlánprovince comes from three historic documents,the Matrícula de Tributos, the Codex Mendoza,and the Relación de Citlaltomahua (Berdan1996; Litvak 1971). Twelve towns are listed inthe Matrícula de Tributos and the Codex Men-doza: Cihuatlán (Zihuatanejo), Coliman, Panot-lan (Pantla), Nochcoc (Nuxco), Iztapan (Ixtapa),Xolochiuhyan (Julucha), Petlatlan, Xihuacan,Apancalecan, Cocohuipilecan, Coyucac(Coyuquilla), and Cacatulan (Zacatula) (Mohar2002:507; Smith and Berdan 1996:277). Thesetributaries provided cotton blankets, cotton,flowers (coyichcatl), cacao, and marine shells tothe Aztecs. Mollusk shells are the only signifi-cant marine resources identified in these docu-ments, but fish were certainly potential tributeitems and may have circulated as importantinterregional exchange items outside of thetribute system (Smith and Berdan 1996:315).The Cihuatlán province provided a range ofmarine shells in tribute to the Aztecs. Every 80days the province was required to send 800nacre shells (tapachtli), and every six months tosend 800 colored shells (Pinctada mazatlanica;Barlow 1990:21). Red shells (likely Spondylusprinceps) are also listed in Codex Mendoza, andaccording to Sahagún and Diego de Landa, theywere used as a medium of exchange or as offer-ings (Mohar 2002:511–512). Marine shells werealso common offerings in burials within theTemplo Mayor (Velázquez Castro 1999, 2000),one of the primary ceremonial complexes in theAztec capital of Tenochtitlán. These includeshells of Anadara multicostata, Noetia reversa,Pinctada mazatlanica, Spondylus calcifer, S. prin-ceps, Pitar lupanaria, Megapitaria aurantiaca,Dosinia ponderosa, Mactrellona alata, Astrea oli-vacea, A. unguis, Nerita scabricosta, Polinicesuber, Cassis centiquadrata, Morum tuberculosum,Cymatium lignarium, Murex recurvirostris, Hexa-plex erythrostomus, Cantharus sanguinolentus,Columbella fuscata, Opeatostoma pseudodon, andHarpa crenata. These are not listed in the tribu-tary texts but are believed to come from Guer-rero because they are of Pacific Coast origin andwere associated with jade figurines and other



objects from artistic traditions known only inGuerrero (Mezcala, Chontal, and Sultepec).

Shrimp procurement in the towns ofXolochiuhcan, Xihuacán, and Cihua is men-tioned in the Relación de Citlaltomahua (Litvak1971:83), but we can only speculate about thesignificance of dried shrimp within theregional exchange system. According to Fabi-ola Guzmán and Polanco (2000:154), the earli-est ethnohistoric record of marine fish arrivingas tribute to the Aztec imperial capital was inAD 1440, at the time of the coronation ofemperor Motecuhzoma Ilhuicamina (AD1440–1469). This coincides with the politicalexpansion of the Aztec empire that embracedboth coasts, but the sources do not specifyexactly where this tribute originated. A well-studied offering (Offering 23) at the TemploMayor de Tenochtitlan, which is believed tohave been deposited during the reign of thatemperor, contains fish and mollusk remainsfrom both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Thebest ethnohistoric evidence concerning typesof marine fish and their use in the Mexicoheartland is during the reign of MotechuzomaXocoyotzin (AD 1502–1520), about 50 yearsafter the deposition of Offering 23 (FabiolaGuzmán and Polanco 2000:155) and just priorto the Spanish conquest. The sources include asingle explicit reference that the inhabitants ofAyutla, a settlement near the port of Acapulco,sent marine fish to Motecuhzoma Xocoyotzinabout twice a year (Fabiola Guzmán andPolanco 2000:155). However, marine fishappear not to have been regular tribute itemssince they are not itemized in either theMatrícula de Tributos or the Codex Mendoza.None of the ethnohistorical sources indicatewhether these fish were brought to the Valleyof Mexico alive or dead, whole or filleted, dried,salted, smoked, or fresh, and so forth. (FabiolaGuzmán and Polanco 2000:155). Although theexact impact of the Aztec tribute system onmarine ecosystems in Guerrero is unknown,we can surmise that the selective extraction ofcertain species for nonlocal use had a signifi-cant ecological effect.

PUERTO MARQUÉS: ENVIRONMENTAL,DEMOGRAPHIC, AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Our investigation of prehistoric human impactson marine ecosystems in Guerrero is centeredon Puerto Marqués, where a well-stratifiedarchaeological sequence contains material dat-ing from the Late Archaic through Classic peri-ods (~5500–1200 cal BP; Figure 5.2). The smallbay on which this coastal community was estab-lished is located on the northern end of theCosta Chica and, during the Aztec conquestperiod, was incorporated into the Tecpantepecstrategic province, buffering the Cihuatlán trib-utary province from Yopi territory. The bay isformed by two promontories: one separatingAcapulco Bay from Puerto Marqués, and theother by a rocky point that forms the southernside of the bay (Punta Diamante). A flat sandybeach (Playa Majahua) connects these twopromontories and separates the bay from amangrove swamp that extends away from thecoast and was likely connected to the Tres PalosLagoon during the Early and Middle Holocene(Kennett et al. 2004).

Early investigations at Puerto Marquésdefined a substantial Classic period (1800–1200cal BP) coastal community with a long prehis-tory that was positioned on a series of terracesoverlooking the Playa Majahua and the shel-tered bay (Brush 1969). Prehistoric materialsare concentrated in the southern portion of thisbay at the edge of a small drainage that flowsfrom the northern flanks of Punta Diamante. Alow-lying mound on the south side of this smalldrainage contains a deeply buried (6.6 m belowthe surface) shell midden (!1 m thick) dating tothe Late Archaic period (!5500 and 4000 calBP; Brush 1969; Kennett et al. 2004; Man-zanilla López et al. 1991). A very limited rangeof tools was also identified in these earlydeposits, with much of the assemblage consist-ing of stone flakes and chipping debris fash-ioned from a variety of local (quartz, chert,chalcedony) and exotic (obsidian) materials.Occupation at Puerto Marqués continued into



the Early Formative period (~3800–2000 calBP) when pottery appeared in the archaeologi-cal record for the first time (~3800 cal BP).Stone tool assemblages diversified to include anumber of formal or specialized tools (micro-drills, macrodrills) and a bipolar flaking tech-nology that is well known in other parts ofMesoamerica (Clark 1981).

Early Formative period deposits (3100 calBP) are also present at the site of La Zanja, anearthen mound site located 5 km east of PuertoMarqués and ~3 km away from the coast at themouth of the Río de la Sabana where it entersthe Tres Palos Lagoon. Similar ceramic andstone tool deposits are evident at this location.The appearance of obsidian prismatic bladesduring the Early to Middle Formative periodtransition is coincident with a diversification in

the ceramic assemblage. Formative period set-tlement is also evident at the Tambuco sitelocated on the western periphery of AcapulcoBay (Ekholm 1948).

The expansion of settlements in the Aca-pulco region during the Formative period coin-cides with clear evidence for settled village lifeand an increasing commitment to maize-basedfood production within the region. Biogeo-graphical and genetic studies suggest thatmaize was domesticated in the Balsas River Val-ley or the Valley of Oaxaca some time before7500 cal BP (Doebley 1990; Matsuoaka et al.2002). Microbotanical data (phytoliths andpollen) from a range of lowland tropical envi-ronments extending as far south as Panamasuggest a far-reaching dispersal of maizethrough the lowland tropics between 7500 and


0 2.5 5 Kilometers

Middle Formative - Classic Period

Archaic - Classic Period

Early Formative - Classic Period

Tres Palos Lagoon

P a c i f i c Oc e a n

Acapulco Bay

Sabana River

1 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

FIGURE 5.2. Map showing the location of Puerto Marqués and surrounding sites of interest in the greater Acapulco area.Symbols represent chronological estimates based on ceramic assemblages and radiocarbon dates. 1, Puerto Marqués; 2,La Zanja; 3, Arroyo Seco; 4, El Recreativo; 5, Barrio Nuevo; 6, La Sabana; 7, Infonivit; 8, La Picuda; 9, Palma Sola; 10,Hornos; 11, Tambuco.


7000 cal BP (Piperno 2006). The initial use ofearly maize varied from place to place, but theearly low-level use of this cultigen by foragerswas followed by gradual increases in consump-tion rates. At this point there is no compellingevidence that people living along the coast ofGuerrero cultivated maize in a significant wayuntil late in the Formative period. Pollen identi-fied in a sediment core from the TetitlánLagoon, just to the north, indicates that Zeamays was being cultivated in that area by theend of the Early Formative period (3170 ! 280RYBP; Gonzalez-Quintero and Mora-Echever-ria 1979). This date coincides with the firstexpansion of populations away from the coastinto stillwater wetland habitats along the CostaChica, as represented by La Zanja.

Significant population expansion along thecoast is most evident during the Classic period(1800–1200 cal BP), when settlements alongthe coast and the bordering mountain slopesbecame more concentrated and organized.These more-urbanized settlements were com-posed of housing compounds formed by patiossurrounded by three or four houses. The bestknown sites with habitation and agriculturalterraces are Playa Hornos, Zanja, Puerto Mar-qués, Ciudad Perdida, Coyuca, San Jerónimo,Las Peñas, Atoyac, Nuxco, San Luis la Loma,Soledad de Maciel, La Corea, El Cabrito, ElZopilote, Tierras Prietas, Victorino Rodríguez,V3, V38, and V42 (Manzanilla López 2000:196).Stone-lined agricultural terraces that werecarved into more mountainous slopes indicatethat intensive maize-based food production waswell established in the region (ManzanillaLópez 2000:195). Evidence of exchange activi-ties and cultural interaction with other groupsin west Mexico increases during this time, andtrade connections were established with Teoti-huacán and Monte Albán—two expansionisticstates from the central Mexican highlands thatwere interested in marine shells, bird feathers,cotton, and cacao in this region. Greater articu-lation with Teotihuacán and Monte Albán paral-lels the establishment of a ceremonial complex(e.g., mounds, platforms, stone monuments,

and altars) in settlements along the CostaGrande and Costa Chica (Manzanilla López2000:199), and the use of highland Mexicanreligious symbols by aspiring elites (e.g., depic-tions of elites with Tlaloc [the Teotihuacán rainand war god] or Zapotec-style year glyphs as atVella Rotaria; Manzanilla López 2000:204–205).During the Classic period evidence for theintensive extraction of aquatic habitats appearsfor the first time, with the best evidence forthese activities coming from three large shellmounds positioned on the landward side ofLaguna Coyuca, north of Acapulco Bay (Kennettet al. 2004).

Settlement persisted at both Puerto Mar-qués and La Zanja during the Classic period,the former a thriving coastal community com-posed of a series of terraces with substantialdomestic architecture extending up the slopesof Punta Diamante (Manzanilla López 2000).Larger settlements were well established at sev-eral locations along the Río de la Sabana by thistime (Figure 5.2), and many of these were firstoccupied during the Middle to Late Formative.The sites of El Recreativo, La Sabana, Infonavit,Arroyo Seco, and Palma Sola are all larger thanPuerto Marqués and La Zanja and are com-posed of terraces and large platforms excavatedinto the mountainous terrain with substantialstone structures, pyramids, and sunken plazasevident in many instances (Cabrera Guerrero1990). These data are consistent with evidencefor substantial settlements along the shores ofAcapulco Bay and to the north along the CostaGrande (Brush 1969; Ekholm 1948).

The persistence of settlement at Puerto Mar-qués over a 2,000-year period as populationsexpanded in the region, coupled with well-pre-served faunal materials, provides an excellentopportunity to track changes in marineresource use through time and to explore thepotential impacts of expanding populations inthe region on marine ecosystems. We now turnto the detailed faunal records spanning theArchaic and Formative periods to explore theimpacts that expanding human populationshad at this location.


[AU4]


Fish and other Aquatic Fauna

The vertebrate assemblage from the Puerto Mar-qués site consists of 5,447 bones representing allmajor vertebrate classes. Fish dominate theassemblage (92.6 percent; 5,048 specimens),followed by reptiles (6 percent), mammals (1.3percent) amphibians (".1 percent), and birds(".1 percent). Fish are the most varied vertebrateclass present in the assemblage with 35 generaand 26 species identified. Virtually all of theidentified fish are ray finned (Actinopterygii)with the most common fish families being theScrombridae (tunas and mackerels), theCarangidae (jacks), and the Lutjanidae (snap-pers). Cartilaginous fish (sharks and rays; Elas-mobranchii) are rare. Two sea turtle species(green sea turtle, Chelonia agasizii; and hawks-bill, Eretmochelys imbricata), both endangeredtoday, were identified and were the only othermajor marine vertebrates represented in theassemblage. The large Central American croco-dile (Crocodilus acutus), common in Mexico’sPacific Coast estuaries (Alvarez del Toro 1983),was also identified, along with a variety ofsmaller animals and fish from brackish andfreshwater habitats. The mollusk assemblagefrom Puerto Marqués consists of over 17,000

individual specimens (number of identifiedspecimens [NISP]) representing 50 different taxa.These taxa come from a range of habitats includ-ing stillwater estuaries, sandy beaches, rockyshoreline, and mangrove swamps. Mollusk shellsare abundant in these deposits, and it is clear thatshellfish played an important dietary role for theinhabitants of this community, but the density ofshellfish remains was highest in the Late Archaicperiod deposits and decreased through time.

To explore changes in the faunal assemblagethrough time we divided the collection into fourtemporal categories—Late Archaic, Early For-mative, Middle Formative, and Late Forma-tive—based on stratigraphic, artifactual, andchronometric data (Table 5.1). Late Archaic peo-ple living at Puerto Marqués targeted fish froma range of habitats while focusing on open-water(epipelagic) species such as tunas, jacks, androosterfish (70 percent; Table 5.2). Fish com-mon in rocky reef (23 percent; e.g., snappers,wrasses surgeonfish, triggerfish, porcupinefish,grunts), nearshore beachfront habitats (e.g.,mojarras, croakers, mullet), and stillwater estu-arine habitats (2 percent; snook) were also iden-tified. Sea turtle (Cheloniidae) bones and cara-pace fragments were the most common reptile


TABLE 5.1Stratigraphic, Chronological, and Basic Assemblage Information from Puerto Marqués

PERIOD/PHASE DEPTH (m) 14C AGE ERROR CAL (1 sig.) CHARACTER

Late Formative 0.60–1.20 2460 40 2710–2360 Diverse pottery assemblage2490 35 2713–2470 Red wares3090 75 2745–2602 Obsidian prismatic blades

Middle Formative 1.20–3.00 2790 40 2947–2847 Diverse pottery assemblage2890 65 3159–2893 Red and white wares

Obsidian prismatic blades

Early Formative 3.00–4.00 3980 50 3814–3637 Small quantities of pottery “pox”4020 45 3840–3690 Diverse stone tool assemblage

Late Archaic 4.00–5.40 4120 45 3973–3830 Aceramic shell midden4180 70 4088–3879 Limited stone tool assemblage4560 40 5313–5085 Flakes/debitage4800 40 5592–5484

NOTE: Volumes excavated are 1.6 m3 (Late Archaic), 2.4 m3 (Early Formative), 3.6 m3 (Middle Formative), and 0.39 m3 (Late Formative).The Archaic period mollusk data is corrected based on a smaller volume analyzed (0.013 m3) due to the large quantities of shell involved.


TAB

LE 5

.2Id

entifi

ed F

ish R

emai

ns fr

om P

uert

o M

arqu

és

FOR

MAT

IVE

Arc

haic

Early

Mid

dle

Late

Tota

l

SCIE

NTI

FIC

NA

ME

CO

MM

ON

NA

ME

TRO

PIC

LEV

ELH

AB

ITAT

NIS

PM

NI

NIS

PM

NI

NIS

PM

NI

NIS

PM

NI

NIS

PM

NI

Ari

ussp

.Se

a ca

tfish

Mid

Estu

arin

e9

29

2C

entr

opom

us p

ectin

atus

Bla

ck s

nook

Hig

hEs

tuar

ine

11

11

Cen

trop

omus

sp.

Snoo

kH

igh

Estu

arin

e15

21

16

11

121

1St

rong

ylur

a ex

ilis

Cal

ifor

nia

need

lefis

hH

igh

Estu

arin

e/in

shor

e7

11

18

1M

ylio

batid

aeB

at r

ays

Mid

Insh

ore

11

11

Epi

neph

elus

sp.

Gro

uper

Hig

hIn

shor

e9

19

1D

iapt

erus

sp.

Moj

arra

Mid

Insh

ore

11

11

Eug

erre

ssp.

Moj

arra

Mid

Insh

ore

11

11

Ger

res c

iner

eus

Yello

wfin

Moj

arra

Mid

Insh

ore

31

71

102

Hae

mul

onsp

.G

runt

Mid

Insh

ore

21

21

Hae

mul

opsi

ssp.

Gru

ntM

idIn

shor

e1

11

12

2P

omad

asys

sp.

Gru

ntM

idIn

shor

e1

11

1C

ynos

cion

sp.

Wea

kfish

Hig

hIn

shor

e4

12

16

2M

icro

pogo

nias

alti

pinn

isTa

llfin

croa

ker

Mid

Insh

ore

11

11

Mic

ropo

goni

assp

.C

roak

erM

idIn

shor

e1

11

1U

mbr

ina

sp.

Dru

mM

idIn

shor

e3

23

2M

ugil

sp.

Mul

let

Low

Insh

ore

11

21

21

53

Serr

anid

aeSe

a ba

sses

Hig

hIn

shor

e1

11

1G

erre

idae

Moj

arra

sM

idIn

shor

e8

11

14

113

3H

aem

ulid

aeG

runt

sM

idIn

shor

e10

12

11

113

3Sc

iaen

idae

Cor

vina

sM

idIn

shor

e1

11

1C

aulo

latil

us s

p.W

hite

fish

Hig

hO

pen

wat

er1

11

1C

aran

x ca

ninu

sC

reva

lle ja

ckH

igh

Ope

n w

ater

44

31

75

Car

anx

sp.

Jack

Hig

hO

pen

wat

er36

37

19

12

154

6H

emic

aran

xsp

.Sc

adM

idO

pen

wat

er13

77

111

81

41

160

13Se

riol

asp

.A

mbe

rjac

kH

igh

Ope

n w

ater

11

11

Trac

hino

tus s

p.Po

mpa

noM

idO

pen

wat

er8

12

110

2N

emat

istiu

s pec

tora

lisR

oost

erfis

hH

igh

Ope

n w

ater

41

41

82

Au: wereduced tablebody leadingto fit table onone page. Itis ok?


Kyp

hosu

s ele

gans

Cor

tez

sea

chub

Hig

hO

pen

wat

er1

11

1Sp

hyra

ena

ensi

sB

arra

cuda

(Mex

.)H

igh

Ope

n w

ater

52

53

141

31

277

Sphy

raea

na s

p.B

arra

cuda

Hig

hO

pen

wat

er1

11

1E

uthy

nnus

line

atus

Bla

ck s

kipj

ack

Hig

hO

pen

wat

er34

39

131

613

63

41

614

19K

atsu

won

issp

.Sk

ipja

ckH

igh

Ope

n w

ater

11

11

Thu

nnus

ala

lang

aA

lbac

ore

Hig

hO

pen

wat

er1

11

1T

hunn

ussp

.Tu

naH

igh

Ope

n w

ater

441

31

11

483

Car

angi

dae

Jack

sH

igh

Ope

n w

ater

361

51

21

31

464

Thu

nnin

aeTu

nas

Hig

hO

pen

wat

er32

113

15

150

3Sc

ombr

idae

Tuna

sH

igh

Ope

n w

ater

111

61

41

21

234

Car

char

hini

dae

Req

uiem

sha

rks

Hig

hO

pen

wat

er/i

nsho

re4

14

1Lu

tjanu

s arg

entiv

entr

isYe

llow

sna

pper

Mid

Ree

f2

12

24

3Lu

tjanu

s col

orad

oR

ed s

napp

erM

idR

eef

72

72

Lutja

nus g

utta

tus

Spot

ted

rose

sna

pper

Mid

Ree

f1

11

1Lu

tjanu

s jor

dani

Jord

an’s

sna

pper

Mid

Ree

f2

12

14

2Lu

tjanu

s nov

emfa

scia

tus

Dog

sna

pper

Hig

hR

eef

21

11

132

164

Lutja

nuss

p.Sn

appe

rM

idR

eef

105

413

275

24

119

79

Bod

ianu

s dip

lota

enea

Mex

ican

hog

fish

Mid

Ree

f8

21

19

3H

alic

hoer

es n

icho

lsiSp

inst

er w

rass

eM

idR

eef

33

33

Scar

us g

hobb

anB

lue-

barr

ed p

arro

tfish

Low

Ree

f2

12

1Sc

arus

per

rico

Bum

phea

d pa

rrot

fish

Low

Ree

f1

11

1Sc

arus

sp.

Parr

otfis

hLo

wR

eef

42

11

53

Aca

nthu

russ

p.Su

rgeo

nfish

Mid

Ree

f2

12

1A

cant

huru

s xan

thop

teru

sYe

llow

sur

geon

fish

Mid

Ree

f1

11

1P

rion

urus

pun

ctat

usYe

llow

tail

surg

eonfi

shM

idR

eef

61

11

31

103

Bal

iste

s pol

ylep

isFi

nesc

ale

trig

gerfi

shM

idR

eef

74

41

115

Suffl

amen

ver

res

Ora

nges

ide

trig

gerfi

shM

idR

eef

11

11

cf. X

anth

ihth

ys m

ento

Red

tail

trig

gerfi

shM

idR

eef

11

11

Dio

don

hyst

rix

Porc

upin

efish

Low

Ree

f46

41

15

252

7D

iodo

nsp

.Po

rcup

inefi

shLo

wR

eef

281

11

292

Aca

nthu

rida

eSu

rgeo

nfish

Mid

Ree

f1

11

1B

alis

tidae

Trig

gerfi

shM

idR

eef

11

11

NO

TE:T

he r

elat

ive

abun

danc

e of

ver

tebr

ates

is r

epor

ted

in M

NI (

min

imum

num

ber

of in

divi

dual

s) a

nd N

ISP

(num

ber

of id

entifi

ed s

peci

men

s). A

ll ex

cava

ted

soil

was

scr

eene

d w

ith 6

-mm

mes

h, w

ith a

smal

ler

sam

ple

from

eac

h le

vel s

cree

ned

usin

g 3-

mm

mes

h (s

ee K

enne

tt e

t al.

[200

4] fo

r de

tails

).

GRBQ335-3427G-C05[103-124]qxd 10/29/07 04:50 PM 3 Aptara (PPG-Quark)

remains in these early deposits (Figure 5.3). Thepresence of crocodile bones (n # 6) suggeststhat this species was hunted in nearby estuarinehabitats. Three freshwater turtle species (Kinos-ternon integrum, Trachemys scripta, Rhinoclemmyspulcherrima) and one amphibian (toad, Bufo sp.)were also identified in these deposits. The bonesoccur within a matrix of mollusk shells domi-nated by oyster (Ostrea palmula, Table 5.3), aspecies that adheres to mangrove roots or onreefs exposed to surf (Keen 1971:84). The strongpresence of schooling fish from open-oceanhabitats (Black skipjack tuna, Euthynnus cf.lineatus, n # 343; Yellowfin jack, Hemicaranxsp., n # 137) suggests that people living at thislocation during the Archaic period employedboats and nets to capture these elusive offshorespecies (see below).

The Early Formative period deposits atPuerto Marqués were even more strongly dom-inated by fish from open-water habitats (89 per-cent, tunas, jacks and roosterfish) with theblack skipjack tuna (n # 343) topping the list ofmost important prey species. A smaller per-centage of fish from reef and nearshore soft-bottom beachfront habitats constitute theremainder of the Early Formative period assem-blage, with species from estuarine and freshwa-ter environments virtually absent. Sea turtles,most likely green sea turtle, were the next mostcommon vertebrates in the assemblage. How-

ever, sea turtle remains were less commonwhen compared to the Late Archaic perioddeposits. No crocodilians were identified in thissubassemblage. Changes visible in the verte-brate assemblage parallel an overall reductionin the quantity of mollusk shell along with anexpansion in the variety of species targeted.This included a sharp reduction in the use ofoysters. Two large clam species, Chione cali-forniensis and Megapitaria aurantiaca, dominatethe Early Formative period assemblage, andboth of these species are found in sandy beachhabitats like those found near the Puerto Mar-qués site today. These two large clams are nolonger available in the region for commercialexploitation (personal communication fromlocal informant to B. Voorhies).

The ratio of open-water to reef fish speciesin the Middle Formative period deposits ismore balanced compared with the Late Archaicand Early Formative period assemblages. Fishfrom open-water habitats continue to dominatein the Middle Formative period faunal assem-blage (56 percent), but inshore reef orientedspecies are more common (37 percent). Tunascontinue to dominate the assemblage, but snap-pers (n # 100), a species that prefers rocky orcoral reef habitats, are much more commoncompared with previous periods. Few fishspecies commonly found in estuaries are iden-tified. Sea turtle remains, mainly small frag-ments of carapace, are present but less com-mon compared with previous periods. The twofragments of the Central American crocodilewere identified. A large variety of molluskspecies continued to be collected with contin-ued preference for Chione and Megapitaria, butwith a broadening reliance upon a wider rangeof smaller and less accessible taxa, as well asspecies most likely used for decorative purposes(e.g., Oliva uncrassata).

The Late Formative faunal collection is thesmallest and most different at Puerto Marqués.The small size of this assemblage is due to thesmall volume of Late Formative deposits pene-trated in the 2005 excavations, but the fish rep-resented come from a more diverse array of


0

50

100

150

200

250

ARCHAIC EARLY MIDDLE LATE

FORMATIVE

BO

NE

CO

UN

T (N

ISP

)

FIGURE 5.3. Frequency of sea turtle bones in deposits.Numbers are not volumetrically corrected and simplyshow a general decreasing trend in the abundance of seaturtle bones in these deposits. Volumetrically correctedvalues are 151, 9, 4, and 0. NISP, number of identifiedspecimens. See Table 5.1 for volumetric data.


TABLE 5.3Identified Mollusk Remains from Puerto Marqués

LATE ARCHAIC

FORMATIVE

Early Middle Late

SPECIES NISP per m3 NISP per m3 NISP per m3 NISP per m3

Chione californiensis 18 1384.6 1230 512.5 1650 457.3 927 2376.9Megapitaria aurantiaca 23 1769.2 403 167.9 1195 331.2 46 117.9Ostrea palmula 69 5307.7 83 34.6 15 4.2 65 166.7Polymesoda 4 1.7 22 6.1 217 556.4Anadara multicostata 1 76.9 46 19.2 95 26.3 40 102.6Trachycardium consors 2 153.8 15 6.3 85 23.6 19 48.7Hexaplex erythrostomus 4 307.7 39 16.3 51 14.1 45 115.4Glycymeris gigantea 12 5.0 36 10.0 39 100.0Chama mexicana 25 10.4 5 1.4 19 48.7Pododesmus macrochisma 5 2.1 7 1.9 13 33.3Stramonita biserialis 39 16.3 17 4.7 7 17.9Undulostrea megodea 22 9.2 6 1.7 6 15.4Plicopupura pansa 1 0.4 18 5.0 38 97.4Melongena patula 24 10.0 13 3.6 5 12.8Dosinia ponderosa 4 1.7 19 5.3 1 2.6Theodoxus luteofasiastus 3 1.3 2 0.6 40 102.6Oliva uncrassata 2 0.8 24 6.7 12 30.8Stombus granulatus 3 1.3 24 6.7 21 53.8Pinnidae 1 0.4 5 1.4 11 28.2Cymatlum wiegmanni 1 0.4 11 3.0 5 12.8Crucibulum scutellatum 3 1.3 2 0.6 8 20.5Iphigenia altior 1 0.4 3 0.8 4 10.3Strombus galeatus 3 1.3 4 1.1 4 10.3Cerithidea mazatlantica 1 0.4 10 25.6Turritella leucostoma 1 0.4 3 0.8 1 2.6Lyropecten subnodosus 1 0.4 2 5.1Donax puctatostriatus 3 1.3 1 0.3 1 2.6Fissurella virescens 4 1.1 1 2.6Chione subrugosa 1 0.3 1 2.6Cardita megastropha 1 0.3 1 2.6Tucetona multicostata 1 0.4 2 0.6Spondylus calcifer 2 0.6 1 2.6Spondylusspp. 1 0.4 2 0.6Unknown gastropod 1 0.3 1 2.6Anadara formosa 1 0.4 1 0.3Pleuroploca princeps 2 0.6Unknown univalve 1 0.3Semicassis centriquadrata 1 0.3Tagelus affinis 1 2.6Cypraea arabicula 1 2.6Ancistromesus mexicana 1 2.6Crepidula lessonii 1 2.6Columbella fuscata 1 2.6Littorina modesta 1 2.6Mytella strigata 1 76.9Ancistromesus mexicana 1 0.4

NOTE: NISP, number of identified specimens.

Au: wereduced tablebody leadingto fit table onone page. Itis ok?


species and habitats. Fish continue to dominatethe vertebrate assemblage, including fish fromopen-water (44 percent), estuarine (29 per-cent), inshore (17 percent), and reef (10 percent)habitats. Tunas dominate the open-water fishes,and snappers are more common than in theFormative period strata. Carangid fish are lesscommon compared to previous phases and seacatfish (Arius sp.), and snook are the dominantfish from estuarine habitats. Sea turtle andcrocodile are both absent from the Late Forma-tive period assemblage. Continued decreases inthe number of mollusks harvested parallels fur-ther increases in species diversity. Chione cali-fornianus continued to be targeted, but theabundance of Megapiteria aurantiaca is reducedsignificantly. Increased importance of themarsh clam species Polymesoda, in conjunctionwith increases in the number of estuarine fish,suggests the expanding importance of thismore distant environmental zone.

The strong presence of schooling fish fromopen-ocean habitats (black skipjack tuna, n #

343; yellowfin jack, n # 137) suggests that peopleliving at this location employed boats and netsto capture fast-moving offshore species startingas early as the Late Archaic period. Many ofthese species will strike a baited hook or gorge,but drop line hooks, gorges, or trolling rigs, per-haps similar to those used in Polynesia to cap-ture blue water scrombids and carangids, areabsent from the tool assemblage at Puerto Mar-qués. Suitable conditions for epipelagic fishexist just offshore and within the confines of thesheltered bay where this prehistoric communitywas established due to a deep submarinecanyon offshore that funnels nutrient-rich deepwaters into these sheltered nearshore environ-ments. Regardless, it is most likely that gill netswere used to capture these types of fish, ratherthan beach seines, because the latter would pro-duce a fish fauna heavier in croakers (Sci-eanidae), mullet (Mugilidae), and other beach-front species. Suitable watercraft was necessaryto deliver gill nets to nearshore locations. Withinthe sheltered confines of this bay these might besimple flotation devices made from reeds, but

we have not ruled out the use of open-hulledcanoes or balsas, given the specialized nature ofthe fishery. Other types of technology (e.g., fishtraps) may also have been used to capturenearshore soft-bottom and reef fishes.

Richness and Diversity of Fish and Shellfish Taxa

To further explore changes in the local subsis-tence ecology through time and possible impactsto food webs due to human harvesting strategies,we employ summary measures of fish and shell-fish assemblage richness and diversity (Figure5.3). Species richness is simply the number offish or shellfish taxa represented in each sub-assemblage (Reitz and Wing 1999:102). It is acomplex product of (1) the overall diversity andcharacter of an ecological community or com-munities, (2) prehistoric human subsistence andprocessing decisions, and (3) variations in sam-ple size and bone or shell preservation. Speciesdiversity is a measure that combines speciesrichness with abundance in each category andthus is a measure of the heterogeneity of anassemblage. We employed the Shannon-Weaver(1949) index to estimate the overall diversity (H´)of each subassemblage, calculated as

H$ # (pi)(log pi)

where pi is the number of ith taxon within thesample, log pi is the natural log of pi, and sequals the total number of taxa represented. Inthis view of diversity, equally rich faunal assem-blages that contain an even abundance of taxaare more diverse than those that have largerquantities of certain species. This accounts forthe overall dietary contribution of each species,rather than its simple presence or absence (seeReitz and Wing 1999). In this study we use vol-umetrically corrected NISP values for both fishand shellfish taxa due to different sized soilsamples processed for each period of time.

Based on these calculations, there are signif-icant changes in the richness and diversity offish and shellfish assemblages through time

s

i=1



(Figure 5.4; Table 5.4). The highest richness offish taxa is evident during the Late Archaicperiod (H´ # 41), and assemblage richnessdeclines through the Formative period to a lowof H´ # 14, with a rebound (H´ # 36) duringthe Middle Formative. Fish assemblage rich-ness and diversity are both high during the LateArchaic period, reflecting the overall intensityof marine resource use prior to increasingdependence on maize-based food production inthe region. Fish assemblage diversity plummetsin the Early Formative with increased exploita-tion of large schooling fishes (e.g., tuna)followed by reduced capture of these high trophiclevel species and expanding use of lowertrophic level species from a range of marineand estuarine habitats. Reductions in the abun-dance of large gregarious fish species coupledwith expanding use of behaviorally dissimilarsmall and medium size fish from a range ofhabits are consistent with the idea that humanpredation impacted the availability of highly val-ued species and that this triggered dietaryexpansion to smaller, less-desirable speciesthrough time (e.g., Pauly et al. 1998, 2000).This occurred during the Early Formativeperiod when maize-based food production wasbecoming established on this coastal plain andpopulations were expanding into the interior.

Increases in the diversity of fish at PuertoMarqués also parallel increases in the richnessof the shellfish assemblage through time froma low of H´ # 7 during the Late Archaic periodto a high of H´ # 38 in the Late Formative. Par-allel increases are evident in the shellfish diver-sity index. Late Archaic period foragers targeteda small number of species with a primaryemphasis on oysters, a species that was locallyabundant at this time. Two large beach clams,Chione californiensis and Megapitaria aurantiaca,also feature prominently in the Late Archaicassemblage and are the dominant species col-lected through the Formative period—after sig-nificant reductions in the abundance of oysteroccurred. Oysters adhere to mangrove roots,and their reduction, coupled with the increasedimportance of sandy beach species, suggests

that the small mangrove swamp near PuertoMarqués today was more extensive during theLate Archaic period and that increased sedi-ment loading, perhaps associated with expand-ing agricultural economies and sea-level stabi-lization, expanded the beach and reduced themangrove oyster habitat. Given the high densityof oyster shell found in the Late Archaic mid-den, however, direct human predation on oys-ters may also have contributed to the shift inshellfish exploitation patterns through time.One way or the other, reductions in the abun-dance of the three most desirable molluscanspecies (Ostrea, Chione, and Megapitaria) asso-ciated with parallel increases in smaller andless accessible species seem consistent with theidea that faunal assemblage changes are at leastpartly anthropogenic in origin.

In sum, we argue that an overall decrease infish assemblage richness coupled with increas-


1

1.4

1.8

2.2

2.6


Shellfish

Fish

DIV

ER

SIT

Y

0

10

20

30

40

RIC

HN

ES

S

FORMATIVE

ShellfishFish

A

B

FIGURE 5.4. Relationship between richness (A) and diver-sity (B) in fish and mollusk assemblages from the LateArchaic through Late Formative periods. Numbers (NISP[number of identified specimens]) from Tables 5.2 and 5.3are volumetrically corrected (per m3). See Table 5.1 for volu-metric data.


ing diversity through the Formative periodresulted from the depletion of the local fisherydue largely to human overexploitation in the con-text of regional population expansion. Increasedexploitation for expanding trade networks mayhave also played a role in depressing locally avail-able fish stocks. Reductions in the most highlyvalued shellfish species through time andincreases in the variety of species harvested arealso consistent with this hypothesis. These inter-pretations will need to be carefully tested withfuture paleoenvironmental work, but prelimi-nary oxygen and carbon isotopic work on marinemollusks from these deposits indicates no majorchanges in ocean circulation or productivity.

Fishing down Food Webs

Pauly et al. (1998, 2000) have documented ageneral pattern of declining trophic levels inrecent world fisheries, in which humansfocused on larger fish from higher trophic lev-els, “fish down food webs,” and reduce thediversity and complexity of marine ecosystems.Archaeologists have just begun to exploredeeper historical records for evidence of similarpatterns among ancient fishing societies, withmixed results (see Bourque et al., this volume;Erlandson and Rick, this volume; Morales andRosello 2004; Reitz 2004; Wing 2001). Shiftsin the composition of fish assemblages fromhigh to low trophic level species have been usedelsewhere to gauge overfishing or the depletionof fish stocks (Wing 2001), but these trends are

often complex and dependent upon culturaland environmental context (Reitz 2004). Largeropen-water predatory fish, like those dominat-ing the Puerto Marqués assemblage, eat otherfish, whereas small reef herbivores or schoolingbaitfish like anchovies are on a lower trophiclevel. Here we explore whether the patternsidentified by Pauly et al. (1998) can be extrapo-lated backward in time and test the hypothesisthat people have a tendency to target hightrophic level fish species and that lower trophiclevel species are targeted more frequently ashigher trophic level fish stocks are depleted.

To explore potential trophic cascade effectsin the context of expanding populations incoastal Guerrero we calculated the meantrophic level of the four intervals represented atPuerto Marqués (Late Archaic to Late Forma-tive) using methods described by Reitz(2004:70). Mean trophic level (TLi) for eachtime period was calculated using the equation

TLi # (TLij)(NISPij)/ NISPi

where the trophic level for each taxon per timeperiod (TLij) is summed together and mul-tiplied by the NISP for the same interval. Theproduct is divided by the total sum of NISP forthe same period of interest. Trophic levels foreach fish taxon, or the closest taxonomic cate-gory, are assigned using Fishbase 2006(www.fishbase.org). These values range from 2and 4.5, with the lowest values representingsmall fish that mainly eat plant and detritus, andthe highest representing large fish that eat other


TABLE 5.4Richness and Diversity Estimates of the Puerto Marqués Fish and Mollusk Assemblage

FORMATIVE

Archaic Early Middle Late

Fish richness 42.00 22.00 34.00 14.00Fish diversity 2.39 1.58 2.19 2.42Shellfish richness 7.00 31.00 36.00 38.00Shellfish diversity 1.18 1.36 1.39 1.78

NOTE: See Table 5.1 for volumetric details.


fish. We substitute NISP for biomass in this for-mula due to the lack of allometric data availablefor fish species in coastal Guerrero and the greatdiversity of the assemblage at Puerto Marqués.

Mean trophic level from the Late Archaicthrough Late Formative periods ranges from4.23 to 3.71 and indicates that people in this earlycoastal community generally targeted high-ranked fish species (Figure 5.5; Table 5.5). Themean trophic level for the Late Archaic period isrelatively high (4.06), followed by a peak duringthe Early Formative (4.23), and a decline duringthe Middle (4.15) and Late (3.71) Formative peri-ods. Late Archaic period populations took 67percent of fish biomass from high trophic levelsources, primarily large schooling fish (e.g., tunaand jacks), and much of the remainder (31 per-cent) from a variety of fish at middle range levels.The overall diversity of the Late Archaic periodfish assemblage, coupled with the intensive useof mollusks, is not surprising for a coastal forag-ing population. More intensive use of the hightrophic level fish taxa (92 percent) during theEarly Formative period occurred with a greatercommitment to maize-based food productionregionally. Gradual decreases in the percentageof high trophic level fish taxa occur after thistime as the importance of species from mediumand low trophic levels increased. The largestshift occurs in the Late Formative period, andthis is unlikely a product of sample size becausea large diversity of small, medium, and largefishes were recovered from these levels. It is alsounlikely related to the dietary changes associatedwith increases in the dependence of maize-basedfood production because this occurred much

earlier during the Late Archaic to Early Forma-tive period transition with no visible effect.Reductions in high trophic level species could bethe product of overfishing during the Formativeperiod. However, this reduction could have moreto do with dietary expansion and more localizedreductions in nearshore prey species that stimu-lated schooling pelagic fishes to forage elsewherealong the coast. Therefore, although these dataare consistent with the idea that people fishdown food webs (Pauly et al. 1998), the trendsvisible in the data could also result from the cas-cading effect of local human predation on theprey of these high trophic level species.

CONCLUSIONS

The archaeological record at Puerto Marquéstestifies to a once rich and diverse nearshoremarine ecosystem. Qualitative assessment sug-gests that the richness and diversity of thesesame habitats today is greatly reduced, with anestimated one million people living in thegreater Acapulco region. Quantitative data fromthe Guerrero fishery also indicates that produc-tivity has declined significantly during the last10 years and that certain species (e.g., red lob-ster and possibly large clams) have been extir-pated or reduced to such low levels that they areno longer economically viable. The reduction infisheries productivity due to overfishing, habitatdestruction, and pollution is not unique toGuerrero but is a problem facing all of Mexico’scoastal populations. The economic importanceof this fishery for Mexico has stimulated newlegislation and the formation of a government


TABLE 5.5Mean Trophic Level of Fish at Puerto Marqués through Time

FORMATIVE

Trophic Archaic Early Middle Late

2.0–2.99 2.33 0.335 3.99 5.1283.0–3.99 30.97 8.027 9.42 58.974–4.5 66.7 91.63 86.62 35.89


institution to develop more sustainable fish-eries that balance the health of marine ecosys-tems and coastal environments with rates ofproduction.

The severe human impacts evident in thelast 10 years occur within a broader historicalcontext that likely begins during the TerminalPleistocene or Holocene, but with the first vis-ible manifestations during the MiddleHolocene at !5500 cal BP. This is followed byclear demographic expansion in the regionduring the Formative, Classic, and Postclassicperiods. Settlements increased in size, peopledeveloped a greater reliance upon maize-basedfood production, and small and medium-sizedsettlements were incorporated into increas-ingly larger political systems ruled by an eliteclass. By the Classic period these small politieswere heavily influenced by the large, state-level

societies that had developed in the centralhighlands of Mexico—Teotihuacán and MonteAlbán—and sociopolitical integration culmi-nated with the incorporation of these politiesinto the Aztec Empire. Trade flourished withincreasing societal sophistication and integra-tion, and the use of marine resources expandedfrom local subsistence use to items soughtafter in increasingly larger systems of tradeand tribute. The best evidence for the imperialextraction of marine resources from coastalGuerrero comes from the remaining Aztectribute codices. Given the limited amount ofarchaeological work done to address this ques-tion in coastal Guerrero, our best glimpsecomes from the archaeological record fromPuerto Marqués dating from the Archaic andFormative periods. We offer this work as a firststep toward creating a historical and environ-mental framework to improve our understand-ing of the impacts of human fishing on marineecosystems in this region. The rich and diversecharacter of the faunal assemblages at PuertoMarqués most immediately provides a sober-ing view of the accumulated impacts thatexpanding human populations have had in thisregion.

At the local level, six broad trends are visi-ble in the faunal assemblage at Puerto Mar-qués from the Late Archaic to the Late Forma-tive. First, there is a continuous dominance ofopen-water fish species, overwhelmingly skip-jack tuna, until the Late Formative period,when there is a significant decrease of thesehigh trophic level species. Second, sea turtlesare best represented in the earliest levels,decrease in frequency through time, anddrop out of the record in the Late Formativeperiod. Third, there is a general shift awayfrom the dominance of high trophic levelopen-water fish starting in the Middle Forma-tive, with expanding use of lower trophic levelspecies from a range of habitats into the LateFormative. Fourth, a parallel increase in thefrequency of fish most commonly found inestuarine habitats suggests an increasedreliance on a greater variety of habitats from a


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


3.8

4

4.2P

ER

CE

NT

(NIS

P)

ME

AN

TR

OP

HIC

LE

VE

L (N

ISP

)

FORMATIVE

A

B

FIGURE 5.5. Relationship between mean trophic level offish (A) and the percentage of fish represented from low(2.00–2.99), medium (3.0–3.99), and high (4.0–4.5) trophiclevels (B). NISP, number of identified specimens. Values arevolumetrically corrected as in Figure 5.4. Trophic levels: !2.0–2.99; " 3.0–3.99; 4–4.5.


larger catchment area and an expanding sub-sistence base. Fifth, decreases in the overalldensity of shellfish parallel increases in mol-lusk diversity. Sixth, the variety of molluskspecies collected increases through time, withthe largest difference occurring between theaceramic Late Archaic period levels and theoverlying ceramic-bearing Formative periodlevels. We argue that the changes evident inthe faunal assemblage during this time arelargely the product of human predation, butfurther work is needed to explore the role ofenvironmental change. Regardless, given thesmall size of the population at Puerto Marquésduring the Late Archaic and Formative periods(!100–500 people), our work shows thehighly sensitive nature of at least some marineecosystems to the cascading effects of humanpredation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Arqlgo. Cuauhtémoc Reyes Alvarez (Cen-tral Regional Guerrero del Instituto Nacional deAntroplogía e Historia) for sharing his knowledgeabout the region and facilitating our research, Dr. Rubén Manzanilla López for generously sharinghis unpublished dissertation and insight about theprehistory of Puerto Marqués, and Martha EugeniaCabrera Guerrero for sharing her environmental andarchaeological knowledge of the region. Ing. PaulRangel Merkley kindly provided access to the PuertoMarqués site, whereas Ing. Víctor Hugo Martínezand Ing. Francisco Rodríguez from Desarrollo Inte-gral de Ingenería SAdeCV (DEIN) aided us in innu-merable ways. The vertebrate assemblage fromPuerto Marqués was analyzed at the ZooarchaeologyLaboratory at the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology(CIOA) at UCLA. Identifications were confirmedusing comparative vertebrate materials housed in theCIOA, the UCLA Department of Biology, and the LosAngeles County Museum of Natural History. Finally,special thanks to our field crew: Cassy Albush, JorgeMorales, Amparo Robles, and Nathan Wilson. Thiswork was funded by the National Science Foundation(BCS-0211215).

–1. SAGARPA establishes and enforces regula-tions in the “Ley de Pesca,” its “Reglamento de la Leyde Pesca,” and the “Normas oficales Mexicanas” (seewww.cddhcu.gob.mx/leyinfo/pdf/58.pdf,www.inp.sagarpa.gob.mx/antecedentes/antecedentes.pdf).

REFERENCES CITEDAcuña, R.

1987 Relación de la Villa de Zacatula, RelacionesGeográficas del Siglo XVI: México, TomoNoveno, pp. 437–462. Instituto de Investiga-ciones Antropológicas, UNAM, México.

Alvarez del Toro, M.1983 Los Reptiles de Chiapas. Instituto de Historia

Natural, Tuxtla Gutiérrez, México.Anuario Estadístico de Pesca

2003 www.sagarpa.com.mx/conapesca/planeacion/anuario/anuario2003.pdf, accessed August2006.

Barlow, R.1990 Los Mexicas y la Triple Alianza, Vol. III, edited

by J. Monjarás-Ruiz, E. Limón, and M. De laCruz. Instituto Nacional de Antropología andUniversidad de las Américas, Puebla, Mexico.

Berdan, F. F.1996 The Tributary Provinces. In Aztec Imperial

Strategies, edited by F. F. Berdan, R. E. Blanton,E. H. Boone, M. G., Hodge, M. E., Smith, and E.Umberger, pp. 115–135. Dumbarton Oaks, Wash-ington, D.C

Berger, R.1983 Sea Levels and Tree-Ring Calibrated Dating.

In Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology:Toward the Prehistory of Land Bridges and Conti-nental Shelves, edited by P. M. Masters and N. C.Flemming, pp. 51–61. Academic Press, NewYork.

Binford, L. R.1968 Post-Pleistocene Adaptations. In New Perspec-

tives in Archaeology, edited by S. R. Binford andL. R. Binford, pp. 313–341. Aldine, Chicago.

Brush, C. F.1969 A Contribution to the Archaeology of Coastal

Guerrero, Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. disserta-tion, Department of Anthropology, ColumbiaUniversity.

Cabrera Guerrero, M. E.1990 Los Pobladores Prehispánicos de Acapulco.

Colección Cientifica, Serie Arqueología, INAH.Carta Nacional Pesquera

2006 www.sagarpa.gob.mx/conapesca/ordenami-ento/carta nacional pesquera/cnp.htm, accessedAugust, 2006.

Clark, J. E.1981 The Early Preclassic Obsidian Industry of

Paso de la Amada, Chiapas, Mexico. Estudios deCultura Maya 13:265–284.

Clark, J. E., and M. Blake 1994 Power and Prestige: Competitive Generosity

and the Emergence of Rank in LowlandMesoamerica. In Factional Competition and


[AU5]

[AU6]

[AU7]

[AU8]

[AU9]


Political Development in the New World., edited byE. M. Brumfiel and J. W. Fox. pp. 17–30.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Crawford, M. H.1998 The Origins of Native Americans: Evidence from

Anthropological Genetics. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.

Curray, J. R., F. J. Emmel, and P. J. Crampton1969 Holocene History of a Strand Plain Lagoonal

Coast, Nayarit, Mexico. In Lagunas Costeras: UnSimposio, edited by A. Ayala Castañares and F.Phleger, pp. 63–100. Universidad Autónoma deMéxico, México, D. F.

Denevan, W. M.1992 The Native Populations of the Americas in 1492.

University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.Diamond, J.

2005 Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Suc-ceed. Viking, New York.

Doebley, J.1990 Molecular Evidence and the Evolution of

Maize. Economic Botany 44(3 Supplement):6–27.Doolittle, W. E.

1990 Canal Irrigation in Prehistoric Mexico: TheSequence of Technological Change. University ofTexas Press, Austin.

Earthtrends2006 Earthtrends, http://earthtrends.wri.org,

accessed July 2007.Ekholm, G. F.

1948 Ceramic Stratigraphy at Acapulco, Guerrero.IV: Reunión de Mesa Redonda. El Occidente deMéxico, pp. 95–103.

Fabiola Guzmán, A., and O. J. Polanco2000 Los Peces Arqueológicos de la Ofrenda 23 el Tem-

plo Mayor de Tenochtitlan. Serie Arqueologiía.Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia,México.

Fairbanks, R. G.1989 A 17,000-year Glacio-eustatic Sea Level

Record: Influence of Glacial Melting Rates onthe Younger Dryas Event and Deep Ocean Cir-culation. Nature 342:637–641.

Fedick, S. (editor)1996 The Managed Mosaic: Ancient Maya Agricul-

ture and Resource Use. University of Utah Press,Salt Lake City.

Feinman, G. M., and J. Marcus (editors)1998 Archaic States. School of American Research,

Santa Fe, New Mexico.Goman, M., A. Joyce, and R. Mueller

2005 Stratigraphic Evidence for Anthropogeni-cally Induced Coastal Environmental Changefrom Oaxaca, Mexico. Quaternary Research63:250–260.

González-Quintero, L., and J. Mora Echeverría 1980 Estudio Arqueológico-Ecologico de un Caso

de Explotación de Recursos Litorales en el Pací-fico Mexicano. In Arqueobotánica (Métodos yAplicaciones), pp. 51–66, Colección Científicanúm. 63, INAH, México.

Grayson, D. K.2001 The Archaeological Record of Human

Impacts on Animal Populations. Journal ofWorld Prehistory 15:1–68.

Grayson, D. K., and D. J. Meltzer2002 Clovis Hunting and Large Mammal Extinc-

tion: A Critical Review of the Evidence. Journal ofWorld Prehistory 16:313–359.

Hodell, D. A., M. Brenner, and J. H. Curtis2000 Climate Change in the Northern American

Tropics since the Last Ice Age: Implications forEnvironment and Culture. In Imperfect Balance:Landscape Transformations in the PrecolumbianAmericas, edited by D. L. Lentz, pp. 13–38.Columbia University Press, New York.

Jackson, J. B. C., M. X. Kirby, W. H. Berger, K. A.Bjorndal, L. W. Botsford, B. J. Bourque, R. H. Brad-bury, R. Cooke, J. Erlandson, J. A. Estes, T. P.Hughes, S. Kidwell, C. B. Lange, H. S. Lenihan,J. M. Pandolfi, C. H. Peterson, R. S. Steneck, M. J.Tegner, and R. R. Warner2001 Historical Overfishing and the Recent Col-

lapse of Coastal Ecosystems. Science 293:629–638.

Keen, A. M.1971 Seashells of Tropical West America: Marine

Mollusks from Lower California to Peru. StanfordUniversity Press, Stanford, California.

Kennett, D. J., B. Voorhies, J. Iriate, J. G. Jones, D.Piperno, M. T. Ramírez Herrera, and T. A. Wake2004 Avances en el Proyecto Arcaico-Formativo:

Costa de Guerrero. Estregado al InstitutoNacional de Antropología e Historia.

Kennett, D. J., B. Voorhies, and D. Martorana 2006 An Ecological Model for the Origins of

Maize-Based Food Production on the PacificCoast of Southern Mexico. In Behavioral Ecologyand the Transition to Agriculture, edited by D. J.Kennett and B. Winterhalder, pp. 103–136.University of California Press, Berkeley.

Lentz, D. L.2000 Anthropocentric Food Webs in the Pre-

columbian Americas. In Imperfect Balance: Land-scape Transformations in the PrecolumbianAmericas, edited by D. L. Lentz, pp. 89–119.Columbia University Press, New York.

Litvak, J.1971 Cihuatlán y Tepecoacuilco, Provincias Tribu-

tarias de México en el Siglo XVI. Instituto de


[AU10]

[AU11]

[AU12]

[AU14]

[AU13]


Investigaciones Históricas, Serie Antropológica12. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México,México City.

McGoodwin, J. R.1990 Crisis in the World’s Fisheries: People, Problems,

and Policies. Stanford University Press, Stanford,California.

1994 Nowadays, Nobody Has Any Respect: TheDemise of Folk Management in a Rural Mexi-can Fishery. In Folk Management in the World’sFisheries: Lessons for Modern Fisheries Manage-ment, edited by C. L. Dyer and J. R. McGoodwin,pp. 43–54. University Press of Colorado, Niwot.

2001 Understanding the Cultures of Fishing Commu-nities: A Key to Fisheries Management and FoodSecurity. Food and Agriculture Organization ofthe United Nations, Rome.

Manzanilla López, R. A.2000 La Región Arqueológica de la Costa Grande

de Guerrero: Su Definición a Través de la Orga-nización Social y Territorialidad Prehispánicas.Tesis doctorado en antropología, EscuelaNacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.

Manzanilla López, R., A. Talavera González, and E.Rodriquez Sanchez1991 Informe Técnico de Campo de la Primera Etapa

del Proyecto de Investigación y Salvamento Aque-ológico en Puerto Marquéz, Estado Guerrero.Entregrado al INAH Mexicanos y Centroameri-canos, Gobierno del Estado de Guerrero andInstituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia,México City.

Matsuoka, Y., Y. Vigouroux, M. M. Goodman, J.Sanchez, E. Buckler, and J. Doebley2002 A Single Domestication for Maize Shown by

Multilocus Microsatellite Genotyping. Proceed-ings of the National Academy of Sciences 99:6080–6084.

Meyer, M. C., and W. H. Beezley2000 The Oxford History of Mexico. Oxford Univer-

sity Press, New York.Meyer, M. C., and W. L. Sherman

1991 The Course of Mexican History. Oxford Uni-versity Press, New York.

Miller, R. R.1985 Mexico: A History. University of Oklahoma

Press, Norman.Mohar, L. M.

2002 Tributos Guerrerenses a los Señores deTenochtitlan. In El Pasado Arqueológico de Guer-rero, edited by C. Niederberger and R. Reyna, pp.505–531. Centro Francés de Estudios Mexicanosy Centroamericanos, Gobierno del Estado deGuerrero and Instituto Nacional de Antropologíae Historia, México City.

Morales, A., and E. Rosello2004 Fishing down the Food Web in Iberian Pre-

history? A New Look at the Fishes from Cuevade Nerja (Malaga, Spain). In Pettis Animaux EtSocietes Humaines Du Complement AlimentaireAux Ressources Utilitaires 24, edited by J. Brugaland J. Desse, pp. 111–123. APDCA, Antibes.

Moseley, M.1975 The Maritime Foundations of Andean Civiliza-

tion. Cummings, Menlo Park, California.Pauly, D., and V. Christensen

1995 Primary Production Required to SustainGlobal Fisheries. Nature 374:255–257.

Pauly, D., V. Christensen, J. Dalsgaard, R. Froese, andF. Torres, Jr.1998 Fishing down Marine Food Webs. Science

279:860–863.Pauly, D., V. Christensen, R. Froese, and M.L. Palomares

2000 Fishing down Aquatic Food Webs. AmericanScientist 88:46–51.

Piperno, D. R.2006 The Origins of Plant Cultivation and Domes-

tication in the Neotropics: A Behavioral Ecologi-cal Perspective. In Behavioral Ecology and theTranstion to Agriculture, edited by D. J. Kennettand B. Winterhalder, pp. 137–166. University ofCalifornia Press, Berkeley.

Piperno, D. R., and D. M. Pearsall1998 The Origins of Agriculture in the Lowland

Neotropics. Academic Press, San Diego.Ramírez-Herrera M. T., and J. Urrutia-Fucugauchi

1999 Morphotectonic Zones along the Coast of thePacific Continental Margin, Southern Mexico.Geomorphology 28:237–250.

Reitz, E. J.2004 “Fishing down the Food Web”: A Case Study

from St. Augustine, Florida, USA. AmericanAntiquity 69:63–83.

Reitz, E. J., and E. S. Wing1999 Zooarchaeology. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.Relación de Zacatula

1945 Relación de Zacatula, 1580. Tlalocan 2: 258–268.Sedor, M. D.

2005 Interpretations of Long Term Tectonic Defor-mation in and around the Guerrero Seismic Gap,Mexico. Master’s thesis, Department of Geologi-cal Sciences, California State University, LongBeach.

Shannon, C. E., and W. Weaver1949 The Mathematical Theory of Communication.

University of Illinois Press, Urbana.Smith, B. D.

2001 Low-Level Food Production. Journal ofArchaeological Research 9:1–43.



Smith, M. E.1996 The Strategic Provinces. InAztec Imperial Strate-

gies, edited by F. F. Berdan, R. E. Blanton, E. H.Boone, M. G. Hodge, M. E. Smith, and E.Umberger, pp. 115–135. Dumbarton Oaks, Wash-ington, D.C.

Smith, M. E., and F. F. Berdan1996Appendix4:ProvinceDescriptions. InAztec Impe-

rial Strategies, edited by F.F. Berdan, R.E. Blanton,E. H. Boone, M. G., Hodge, M. E., Smith, and E.Umberger, pp. 115–135. Dumbarton Oaks, Washing-ton, D.C.

Velázquez Castro, A.1999 Tipología de los Objetos de Concha del Templo

Mayor de Tenochtitlan. Serie Historia. InstitutoNacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.

2000 El Simbolismo de los Objetos de Concha Encon-trados en las Ofrendas del Templo Mayor deTenochtitlan. Serie Arqueología. InstitutoNacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.

Voorhies, B.2004 Coastal Collectors in the Holocene: The Chan-

tuto People of Southwest Mexico. University Pressof Florida, Gainesville.

Webster, D.2002 The Fall of the Ancient Maya: Solving the Mys-

tery of the Maya Collapse. Thames and Hudson,New York.

Wing, E. S.2001 The Sustainability of Resources Used by Native

Americans on Four Caribbean Islands. Interna-tional Journal of Osteoarchaeology 11:112–126.


[AU15]


[AU1] Feinman and Marcus 2000 is not in the reference list. Please provide full publication information.[AU2] Webster 2001 is not in the reference list. Please provide full publication information.[AU3] Goman et al. 2004 is not in the reference list. Please provide full publication information.[AU4] Gonzalez-Quintero and Mora-Echevarria 1979 is not in the reference list. Please provide full

publication information.[AU5] These URLs did not work. Please check and alter as needed.[AU6] For Acuna 1987, please clarify: What is the title of the chapter, and what is the title of the book?

Also, what is the city of the publisher?[AU7] For Anuario Estadistico de Pesca, I was unable to access the site. Please provdie a different URL,

the name of the document, the name of the institution, and the names of any authors. Thanks.[AU8] For Cabrera Guerrero 1990, please provide the name and location of the publisher.[AU9] For Carta nacional Pesquera 2006, I was unable to access this page. Please provide a different

URL, the name of the document, the name of the institution, and the name of any authors.Thanks.

[AU10] For Ekholm 1948, please clarify: What is the title of the chapter? What is the title of the book?Who is the publisher? What is the publisher’s location? Or if this is a journal, what is the articletitle? What is the name of the journal? What is the volume number?

[AU11] Feinman and Marcus 1998 is not cited in the text. Please indicate point of citation, or delete.[AU12] Goman et al. 2005 is not cited in the text. Please indicate point of citation, or delete.[AU13] For Gonzalez-Quintery and Mora Echevarria, please provide the city of the publisher.

Also, this source is not cited in the text. Please indicate point of citation, or delete. [AU14] For Kennett et al. 2004, please provide the location of the publisher.[AU15] Webster 2002 is not cited in the text. Please indicate point of citation, or delete.

GRBQ335-3427G-C05[103-124]qxd 10/29/07 04:50 PM Page a Aptara (PPG-Quark)

human impacts on marine ecosystems in guerrero, mexico...douglas j. kennett, barbara voorhies,...

Documents