Hunacti and Its Historical Context

In the mid-1500s, ordinary Maya peoples far outnumbered Spanish authorities (Hanks Reference Hanks2010:41; Restall Reference Restall1997:25). Franciscans in particular were few in number in the first decades of colonial rule, and mission towns and encomiendas alike depended fully on the labor, products, and food sources of subject peoples (Chuchiak Reference Chuchiak, Colas, Fort and Persson2002:7; Hanks Reference Hanks2010:41; Hanson Reference Hanson1995:17; Restall Reference Restall1997:25). Visita towns like Hunacti were distant from Franciscan centers, inhibiting regular visitation and impeding the friars’ goals of converting the populace (Chuchiak Reference Chuchiak, Leslie and Timothy2009; Hanks Reference Hanks2010:41, 46). The site was rural and required at least two days’ travel (52 km along modern roads) from the nearest Franciscan convent center at Maní in the mid-1500s (Figure 1). Visita towns struggled to meet economic demands imposed by multiple institutions within the Spanish regime (Chuchiak Reference Chuchiak and de la Serna1998).

Figure 1. Location of Hunacti and sites mentioned in text.

Today, the site of Hunacti is located adjacent to Sisbic, a small village. In 1557, Sisbic (Tzizibic) was located elsewhere, listed as a boundary town near the lands of the Sotuta territory (Roys Reference Roys1952:156, Reference Roys1972:181–182; Solari Reference Solari2010:Figures 3, 5). Hunacti may have been the name of a small political territory or subdivision recognized prior to contact (Roys Reference Roys1952:155; Solari Reference Solari2010:Figure 12). The hamlet next to the site (Sisbic) was perhaps originally known as Holonchen (Roys Reference Roys1952:156). “Hunacthi” and nearby Tixmehuac are mentioned in the Itza narratives of the Chilam Balam of Chumayel (Solari Reference Solari2010:Figures 13, 14), alluding to their importance during the Terminal Classic period.

In prehispanic times, Hunacti (the visita site) was a large settlement of the Terminal Classic period (AD 800–1100), with an impressive monumental center. Established as a visita on the Franciscan mission circuit in 1557, Hunacti’s colonial-era population likely derived from nearby settlements, including an encomienda at Tixmehuac, 5 km to the south/southwest (Roys Reference Roys1952:156). The mission town was abandoned as soon as 15 years after it was founded. Established by 1557, Hunacti was abandoned by 1572 (or no later than 1582) when its residents were likely moved to (or returned to) Tixmehuac, presumably at the behest of friars seeking to consolidate mission populations (Roys Reference Roys1952:156). Tixmehuac endured, appearing as a visita in records dating to 1582 and 1656 and remaining a town today (Roys Reference Roys1952:156, Reference Roys1957:75–76).

Hunacti featured centrally in the idolatry trials of the 1560s (Clendinnen Reference Clendinnen2003:74, 80, 83; Roys Reference Roys1952:155, Reference Roys1957:75; Scholes and Roys Reference Scholes and Roys1938:179). Accounts suggest that Hunacti lords were proud and independent. One of its Maya leaders from 1557 to 1561, Don Juan Xiu, was penalized for drunkenness while galloping a horse through Maní in 1561 (Roys Reference Roys1952:155). He was a cousin to the Spanish-appointed governor of the Xiu territory, Don Franciso de Montejo Xiu (originally named Kukum Xiu), who built the impressive church complex at Maní at the Franciscans’ behest (Roys Reference Roys1957:75). Maní was one of the early convento centers (a base of Franciscan conversion operations) established by the friars and was the center of Diego de Landa’s infamous campaign that culminated in 1562 with an auto de fe, involving the prosecution, torture, and death of Maya people accused of idolatry, as well as effigy artifact destruction and Maya book burning (Scholes and Roys Reference Scholes and Roys1938). Juan Xiu of Hunacti was arrested in 1562 in the course of these trials, along with eight other men from the town; he was charged with sacrificing someone in his cacao grove near the site. Soon afterward he and his townsmen perished “under the question” (Roys Reference Roys1952:156; Scholes and Roys Reference Scholes and Roys1938:179). A subsequent cacique of Hunacti in 1565, Hernando Xiu, was also punished for idolatry, and a third town ruler, whose name has been lost, was sentenced to 100 lashes in 1570 (Roys Reference Roys1952:156, Reference Roys1957:75). The final governor of the site on record was Pablo Cen in 1572 (Roys Reference Roys1957:75). A famine in 1572 (Chuchiak Reference Chuchiak, Colas, Fort and Persson2002:Table 1) likely contributed to Hunacti’s abandonment and decisions to consolidate its residents at Tixmehuac.

Perhaps the most dramatic story pertaining to Hunacti is that of the report in 1561 by Juan Xiu to Franciscan authorities, of a stigmata miracle, represented by a stillborn infant born with signs of the crucifixion on its hands, feet, side, and head (Scholes and Roys Reference Scholes and Roys1938:591). Hunacti residents buried the infant, but Fray Pedro de Ciudad Rodrígo ordered the body unearthed and delivered to Maní for an investigation. Fray Pedro insisted the markings were natural but Landa seized upon this incident as part of his justification for idolatry trial atrocities (Clendinnen Reference Clendinnen2003:124–125). Whether naturally marked or representing a crucifixion sacrifice at Hunacti, this claim attests to the attraction of Christian mythical doctrine to Hunacti actors; had the miracle been recognized, esteem would have been conferred on the settlement. This tale was not borne from rivalry and false accusations of competitor caciques, nor was it the product of forced confession under torture (Clendinnen Reference Clendinnen2003:125). The stigmata incident was self-reported, and it predates the idolatry trials.

These events at Hunacti are best understood within a broader regional context. Ambivalence toward Christianity marked this period (Graham Reference Graham2011). Research at Tipu, in particular, emphasizes that some mission Maya groups identified as Christian, at least for key intervals of early colonial history (Graham Reference Graham2011:207–236). Finely built churches brought prestige to communities and laborers sometimes sanctified church spaces with offerings of Maya artifacts (Graham Reference Graham2011:213–220; Miller and Farriss Reference Miller, Farriss, Hammond and Willey1979; Pendergast Reference Pendergast and Bray1993:121; Restall Reference Restall1997:180). Churches represented new, revered settlement nuclei (Andrews Reference Andrews and Thomas1991; Chuchiak Reference Chuchiak, Colas, Fort and Persson2002; Hanson Reference Hanson1995:15–17; Pendergast Reference Pendergast and Bray1993:121). Prior to Landa’s inquisition of the 1560s, an inclusive attitude regarding Christian and traditional beliefs was adopted by town authorities, often Maya maestros cantores were left in charge of Christian rites at mission towns (Collins Reference Collins and Grant1977). Town leaders continued to practice Maya religion out from under the eyes of Spanish authorities, and they did so into the early 1600s, long after Landa’s idolatry trial (Chuchiak Reference Chuchiak2003, Reference Chuchiak, Leslie and Timothy2009; Jones Reference Jones1989:148; Scholes and Thompson Reference Scholes, Thompson and Grant1977:49). Archaeological investigations at early colonial visita sites (including Hunacti) invariably recover effigy censers, most often in private, hidden contexts (Dedrick Reference Dedrick2019:289; Jacobi Reference Jacobi2000:171; Oland Reference Oland2009:187; Peraza Lope et al. Reference Peraza Lope, Cruz Alvarado, Masson and Hare2021).

Stratigraphic and Chronological Considerations

In the construction layers of the houses and church area, the latest features date to the early colonial period (Table 1). These floors and other surfaces overlie construction episodes from earlier time periods that attest to Hunacti’s enduring prehispanic occupation from the Middle Preclassic through Terminal Classic (800 BC–AD 1100). Ceramic sherds of the Late and Terminal Classic were most abundant in earlier fill layers (Cruz Alvarado et al. Reference Cruz Alvarado, Peraza Lope, Masson, Masson, Peraza Lope, Timothy and Bradley2024). At Hunacti, ceramic types that continued to be used from prehispanic and contact periods into the early colonial period included Mama red, Navula unslipped, Yacman striated, Chen Mul modeled, and others (Figure 2). These continuing types represented 31.7% of the assemblage from all units. Newly appearing indigenous pottery types, including Yuncú unslipped and Sacpocana red (Figure 2), were scarce at Hunacti (1.6%), given that production modes such as slip and form differences that distinguish them were only beginning to occur (Peraza Lope et al. Reference Peraza Lope, Cruz Alvarado, Masson and Hare2021). Yuncú unslipped and Sacpocana red were present at all four contexts (three houses and church) discussed here, and one olive jar sherd was recovered.

Figure 2. Temporal overlap of continuing prehispanic and new pottery types of the early colonial period.

Table 1. Stratigraphy and Diagnostic Ceramics of the Colonial Period Occupation.

Notes: Postclassic sherds are inferred to be of early colonial date, representing types that continued to be made in this period. YU or SR refers to early colonial diagnostic sherds of the types Yuncu unslipped and Sacpocana red. For details, see Peraza Lope et alia (Reference Peraza Lope, Cruz Alvarado, Masson and Hare2021).

A detailed analysis has been recently published of colonial period comingling and contemporaneity of Yuncú unslipped and Sacpocana red with continuing types from the prehispanic/contact periods at Hunacti (Peraza Lope et al. Reference Peraza Lope, Cruz Alvarado, Masson and Hare2021). For a thorough description of these types, see Cruz Alvarado (Reference Cruz and Wilberth2010:524–529). By the mid-1600s and into the 1700s, these new pottery types were more common (e.g., Dedrick Reference Dedrick2019; Masson et al. Reference Masson, Peraza Lope, Hare and Russell2024; Peraza Lope et al. Reference Peraza Lope, Cruz Alvarado, Masson and Hare2021), long after Hunacti was abandoned. Elsewhere in Mesoamerica, the same gradual pattern of changes in Indigenous pottery used in daily life is observed during the early colonial years (Charlton et al. Reference Charlton, Fournier, Otis Charlton, Carrión and Cook2007; Chase and Chase Reference Chase and Chase1988:78; Graham Reference Graham2011:50, 56; Hanson Reference Hanson1991:2; King and Konwest Reference King, Konwest and Rani2019:89).

Town Plan and Archaeological Investigations at the Church

The church is situated within a prehispanic Maya monumental plaza (Figure 3), framed by a tall pyramid (20 m high, 44 × 48 m at the base) to the east and a large range structure (a tall, elongated administrative building) to the north (18 m tall, 120 m long, and 50 m wide). The church sits on a walled rectangular platform within the central plaza. This plaza and the church platform had colonial period stucco floors. The gridded streets of the site have long been referenced historically Roys (Reference Roys1952:156), and such layouts conform to model colonial mission organization declared by Spanish authorities in 1552 (Hanks Reference Hanks2010:32–38; Restall Reference Restall1997:22). Roads defined by boulder alignments run outward from the main plaza, and three elite houses lie to the east, northwest, and west of the church. An apsidal friary, first observed by Hanson (Reference Hanson1995:Figure 10), is located on a low platform outside of the southwest corner of the atrium. Maní’s governor, Don Francisco de Montejo Xiu, rallied 6,000 laborers to build Maní’s convent in 1549 (Roys Reference Roys1952:155); this largesse may have been extended to his family members to construct Hunacti. A large early colonial period kiln was built into the western slope of the range structure, likely for lime plaster production as at contemporary sites (deFrance and Hanson Reference Hanson2008). This feature attests to a local capacity to generate stucco for the visita’s fine constructions.

Figure 3. Preliminary map of Hunacti.

Hunacti’s church is an impressive and well-preserved example of a T-shaped ramada form marked by an interior covered by a vaulted barrel roof and two masonry side rooms, likely representing a sacristy and baptistry (Figure 4). With its stone component, it is more complex than simple thatch ramadas like those of Tipu, Tancah, Xcaret, and Tiquibalon and resembles the more complex ramadas like that of Dzibilchaltun (Folan Reference Folan1970; Hanson Reference Hanson1995:Figures 3–5, 9). A perishable, thatched nave would have extended to the west of the stone part of the church, as was the pattern from the 1550s to 1570s; standardized plans, with recognizable variants, are visible across the Yucatán peninsula (Andrews Reference Andrews1981:9, Reference Andrews and Thomas1991:Table 17.1; Folan Reference Folan1970; Graham Reference Graham2011:167–232; Hanson Reference Hanson1995; Roys Reference Roys1952:149). Early colonial churches in Yucatán were usually oriented east-west (Andrews Reference Andrews and Thomas1991:Figure 17.6), but Hunacti’s church aligns with the prehispanic architecture, 20° east of north. Framing of early churches within prehispanic monumental plazas is known elsewhere in northern Yucatán and was a strategy for co-opting sacred space (Andrews Reference Andrews and Thomas1991:355–356; Folan Reference Folan1970; Graham Reference Graham2011:181; Hanson Reference Hanson1995:15–17; Pendergast Reference Pendergast and Bray1993:121; Roys Reference Roys1952).

Figure 4. Hunacti church and location of units (reconstruction drawing by Sarah Moore; photograph by Carlos Peraza Lope). (Color online)

In the church sanctuary, a 2 × 2 m excavation unit (35-N/35-O) revealed a thin layer of soil over a colonial period stucco floor above a layer of rubble fill (Figure 5). A cavity in the construction fill was encountered at a depth of 95 cm below surface. From this feature, human bones were recovered, along with a mineral pecked and ground stone artifact, a limestone biface, two flake tools, four unmodified flakes, and some stucco fragments (Figure 6). The human remains include the bones of two nearly complete human feet as well as disarticulated fragments of sternum, vertebrae, hand bones, and teeth belonging to an adult male. These remains likely date to the colonial occupation, given that it was within a fill deposit dated to this period. The cache of materials in the cavity may represent grave goods, or an offering dedicated to the church. The weighty mineral artifact is unlike local stone in the region. It was shaped into a triangular, truncated pyramidal shape, with pitted facets on the dorsal side and a slightly convex ventral side (Figure 6). The object is not magnetic; it is unclear whether it is hematite in derivation (Barrientos et al. Reference Barrientos, Andrea, Yoshiyuki and Tanya2024; Blainey Reference Blainey2007:174). Elsewhere in the church, within the chancel and the nave area, and off of the church platform, no burials were recovered. Burials at the Hunacti church may be highly localized or outside of the church platform, although plenty of contemporary church burials are known at other sites (e.g., Cohen et al. Reference Cohen, O’Connor, Danforth, Jacobi, Armstrong, Larsen and Milner1994; Chuchiak Reference Chuchiak, Colas, Fort and Persson2002; Con Uribe Reference Con Uribe and Coria2002; Graham Reference Graham2011:232–233; Jacobi Reference Jacobi2000; Miller and Farriss Reference Miller, Farriss, Hammond and Willey1979; Pendergast Reference Pendergast and Thomas1991; Pendergast et al. Reference Pendergast, Jones and Graham1993; Price et al. Reference Price, Burton, Cucina, Zabala, Frei, Tykot and Tiesler2012).

Figure 5. Church area units with later, colonial floors (left) and underlying fill (right). (Color online)

Figure 6. Possible offering in the fill of the church. (Color online)

Five excavation units at the church or atrium revealed key details regarding the construction of colonial period features (Table 1). The interior portion of the church was placed on a platform of stone rubble that was likely constructed when the visita was established. One thin floor was present within the chancel (Unit 35N/O). The entranceway to the chancel (33-O), marked by a single stone step, had two superimposed floors indicating at least one incident of remodeling. In the nave area (26-Q), on the church platform, five colonial floor resurfacing and fill layers overlay three additional thick plaster floors of the prehispanic plaza. Next to the church platform (23-I), in the plaza, two colonial floors similarly overlay a sequence of four prehispanic construction episodes. A unit behind the church (37-H) also revealed upper colonial floors overlying earlier fill. The nave area was the focus of more episodes of construction, elevation, and surfacing compared to the church; these efforts raised this part of the church platform to a level nearly equivalent to the chancel. Chen Mul effigy censers were recovered from three of the five church area units from the nave, the atrium, and behind the church, but not from the two units beneath the barrel roof. As Table 2 indicates, censer use in the final years of Hunacti’s occupation is indicated by their presence above the last floors built at the site; ongoing and earlier use is evident in their recovery in lower deposits.

Table 2. Distribution of 74 Effigy Censer Fragments from Hunacti.

* Signifies placement above the final floor.

** Signifies below the final floor of the unit.

Investigations at Three Elite Residences

Prehispanic platforms supported three Maya elite residences of the colonial period. Stones from earlier structures provided ready construction materials; House 3 incorporated prehispanic stone jambs and columns into its walls. These houses were constructed according to Spanish rather than Maya conventions. Their thick walls are built of chink and mortar that would have been plastered with beam and mortar roofs (Figure 7). Rounded arched windows, doors, and arched, plastered niches represent additional European features. The upper halves of the walls and the beam and mortar roofs have collapsed. No European artifacts were found at any of the three houses, attesting to their identity as Maya residences. There is also no historical evidence that Spaniards stayed at the site, except for periodic visits by friars (who would have stayed at the friary). At contemporary mission towns and encomiendas in Yucatán, other Maya nobles also built European style houses for themselves (de la Garza et al. Reference de la Garza, Izquierdo, León and Figueroa1983:149, 356, 444; García Targa Reference García Targa2000:274; Millet Cámara et al. Reference Millet Cámara, Mas and Aguilar1993).

Figure 7. Maps, unit locations, and reconstruction drawings of three Spanish style elite Maya houses (illustrations by Bradley Russell and Sarah Moore).

House 1, located to the west of the church, measures 16.7 × 6.2 m, with walls from 75 to 85 cm thick (Figure 7). It has three rooms, one doorway, and three windows on the east side. One interior doorway is also framed by a rounded arch. An excavation unit (5-F) within the structure exposed three sequential plaster interior floors (Figure 8) at depths of 50–64 cm below the surface (below wall and roof fall). Their early colonial date is supported by associated ceramics (Table 1). Below the floors lay the rubble fill of the underlying platform, which was constructed in the Terminal Classic period. Excavations in exterior space (7-A) also revealed colonial period activity in Levels 1–3 and sherds from earlier periods at lower depths (platform fill).

Figure 8. Colonial period plaster floors (and rubble below them) in interior spaces of Houses 1, 2, and 3.

House 2, located 200 m northwest of the church, has four rooms, four entrances, one niche, and one window (Figure 7). Its dimensions are 22.3 × 6.1 m with wall thicknesses of 80–120 cm. Two tightly superimposed plaster floors were encountered inside the structure (6-H) at 50–56 cm below the layer of soil and roof/wall fall (Figure 8). Excavations in exterior space (4-B) revealed two superimposed stucco floors from 30–40 cm below the surface. Ceramics present in Levels 1–3 of this unit reflect colonial period activities (Table 1). Underlying platform fill below the floors in excavation units of House 2 contained sherds of Late Classic date (and earlier).

House 3, located on a prehispanic platform 250 m east of the church, has two rooms, one window, and three doors (Figure 7). It measures 19.7 × 8 m and had a wall thickness of 1.1 m. A thin interior plaster floor was identified 30 cm below the surface in a portion of unit 6-E (Figure 8). This thin floor contrasts with the generously applied stucco floors of Houses 1 and 2. Colonial period sherds were recovered within Levels 1 and 2 (Table 1) but not 3 (below the floor). Outside of the house (2-H), colonial activities are also indicated in levels overlying prehispanic fill (Table 1). Just beneath the colonial plaster floor in the interior of House 3 (6-E), a secondary, disarticulated Late Classic burial of an adult was present with an offering vessel of the type Saxché polychrome: Saxché variety. The human remains consisted of poorly preserved (unburned) long bone fragments and five teeth.

House 1 would have faced the church and pyramid, and given its conspicuous location, it seems likely to have been the residence of cacique Juan Xiu and his family. House 1 also had the most (three) resurfaced interior stucco floors (Figure 8), and the thickest floors, compared to House 2 (two floors) and House 3 (one thin floor). While House 2 is larger and more complex, it is situated on a smaller platform, and the prehispanic range structure would have blocked its viewshed to the main plaza. House 3 is located behind the pyramid. The presence of three such dwellings at the site reflects the initial importance of the site and the resources of its elite stakeholders and officials.

Chen Mul modeled effigy censers were recovered at all three elite houses in interior and exterior spaces (Table 2). Effigy censer use is implied during the final occupations of these dwellings, given their concentrations in Level 1. But in two contexts, they are present in levels below the final floor, suggesting that censer use was ongoing. The area of excavations at all three houses was equivalent, making comparisons of quantities a useful exercise. Effigy censer sherds were most abundant at House 3, where 32 sherds were recovered, most of them in exterior space. Excavations at Houses 1 and 2 yielded one sherd and 16 sherds, respectively. Expanded excavations are necessary to better determine the relative ubiquity of censer use at each space.

Stone Tools and Faunal Use

The ceramic assemblage of Hunacti has been fully evaluated elsewhere (Peraza Lope et al. Reference Peraza Lope, Cruz Alvarado, Masson and Hare2021), and results attest to the reliance on Maya-made vessels, most of which were likely obtained through exchange (Restall Reference Restall1997:186–187). The stone tools from Hunacti reflect continued use of chert and limestone implements; European metal tools have yet to be recovered from the site. There is no known chert outcrop near Hunacti, but scavenging lithic materials from on-site prehispanic buildings would have presented easy acquisition opportunities. Recycling tools from earlier periods is well documented for contemporary mission sites on the peninsula (Dedrick Reference Dedrick2019; Oland Reference Oland2009; Wiewall Reference Wiewall2009).

Nineteen limestone tools or objects were among the 48 lithic artifacts in colonial period levels at Hunacti, suggesting the importance of local available materials (Table 3). Twenty-eight chert implements of various colors and characteristics were recovered, along with one mineral ornament, already discussed. Lithic materials were recovered from all three houses, as well as from floors or fill units in or near the church. As more units were located in the church vicinity, it is not surprising that these units account for 37% of the lithic assemblage; Houses 1, 2, and 3 had 17%, 27%, and 19% of the assemblage, respectively. Table 3 breaks down the chert or chalcedony and limestone tools by context, and Table 4 summarizes tool types irrespective of raw materials. Unmodified flakes lacking macroscopically visible edge wear or retouch were the most ubiquitous, with 33 recovered from the four contexts. Three flake gravers or composite graver tools (with edges fashioned for other functions) were present, as were two retouched flakes. Remaining tool types occurred singly in the assemblage, including a biface, hammerstone, barkbeater fragment (likely recycled from earlier deposits), mano, polishing pebble, engraved/striated flake, retouched blade, utilized flake, and (prehispanic) sculpture fragment.

Table 3. Stone Implements from Colonial Contexts at Hunacti (48 Total).

Table 4. Summary of Limestone and Chert Tools in Colonial Contexts at Hunacti.

As for the prehispanic period at Mayapán (Masson and Peraza Lope Reference Masson, Peraza Lope, Marilyn and Lope2014), flake tools comprised the majority of Hunacti’s stone tool assemblage, but unlike at precontact sites, fine bifaces and axes are absent. The site’s lithics were made of limestone and coarse grained chert, suggesting local acquisition. Nor were projectile points present, although they are reported from contemporary sites (Dedrick Reference Dedrick2019:287; Oland Reference Oland2009). The quantities of materials and tool types do not reflect household specialization or surplus production at a significant scale, despite the fact that taxation in goods was imposed by multiple religious and civil authorities, particularly textiles, honey, and wax (Chuchiak Reference Chuchiak and de la Serna1998; Farriss Reference Farriss1984:167; Hanks Reference Hanks2010:32–34, 41; Patch Reference Patch1993:27; Restall Reference Restall1997:25; 104, 187). However, Hunacti elites, like their contemporaries at other towns, would have had servants (Restall Reference Restall1997:45) who may have worked on their behalf at humbler dwellings.

Faunal remains were scarce at the site, with 35 bones recovered from colonial contexts representing 39 m² of excavations. In contrast, whitetail and brocket deer, as well as turkey, iguana, peccary, and dog, were abundant at prehispanic Mayapán houselots (Masson and Peraza Reference Masson and Peraza Lope2008). Labor or weapons restrictions may have affected opportunities for hunting, and heavy tribute requirements potentially depleted sites like Hunacti of animal resources (Dedrick Reference Dedrick2019:24–33; Farriss Reference Farriss1984:167). Franciscans at one point restricted hunting weapons in an effort to curb Maya mobility (deFrance and Hanson Reference Hanson2008:303). Most of the faunal remains (30 of 35 bones) were recovered from a single unit at the church (33-O) and perhaps represent debris from a ceremonious event; all were found above the latest floor of the platform. From this context, the bones of at least one horse were recovered (four teeth and a carpal bone), along with one peccary tooth, nine armadillo fragments (perhaps intrusive), one turtle carapace fragment, three iguana and one other small reptile bones, two deer bones, two medium-sized mammal fragments, and four unidentified fragments. The other five bone fragments were from House 2, including two fragments of peccary bone, two of whitetail deer, and one fish otolith. These taxa, except for the horse remains, point to local procurement activities.