POPULATION STRUCTURE AND INTERREGIONAL INTERACTION IN PRE-

HISPANIC MESOAMERICA: A BIODISTANCE STUDY

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the

Graduate School of the Ohio State University

By

B. Scott Aubry, B.A., M.A.

*****

The Ohio State University

2009

Dissertation Committee:
Approved by
Professor Clark Spencer Larsen, Adviser

Professor Paul Sciulli _________________________________

Adviser
Professor Sam Stout Graduate Program in Anthropology

Professor Robert DePhilip

 Copyright

Bryan Scott Aubry

2009
 ABSTRACT

This study addresses long standing issues regarding the nature of interregional

interaction between central Mexico and the Maya area through the analysis of dental

variation. In total 25 sites were included in this study, from Teotihuacan and Tula, to

Tikal and Chichen Itza. Many other sites were included in this study to obtain a more

comprehensive picture of the biological relationships between these regions and to better

estimate genetic heterozygosity for each sub-region. The scope of the present study

results in a more comprehensive understanding of population interaction both within and

between the sub-regions of Mesoamerica, and it allows for the assessment of differential

interaction between sites on a regional scale.

Both metric and non-metric data were recorded. Non-metric traits were scored

according to the ASU system, and dental metrics include the mesiodistal and

buccolingual dimensions at the CEJ following a modification of Hillson et al. (2005).

Biodistance estimates were calculated for non-metric traits using Mean Measure of

Divergence. R-matrix analysis, which provides an estimate of average genetic

heterozygosity, was applied to the metric data. R-matrix analysis was performed for each

of the sub-regions separately in order to detect specific sites that deviate from expected

levels of genetic heterozygosity in each area.

ii
 Results indicate important biological relationships between sites that are largely

consistent with current archaeological models indicating long term interaction and

migration. Of additional importance is that specific sites were isolated in each of these

two regions that deviate from expected levels of allelic diversity, and that have

unexpectedly small biological distance estimates to sites outside their region. With

respect to the questions posed in this research, many of these sites are the same sites that

have also been determined to be important archaeologically. Although the existence of

these relationships have been inferred from the archaeological data, most of these

relationships have never been detected biologically. These results presented here are

further supported by the fact that both the non-metric and metric variation produced

similar distance matrices, something unusual in dental morphology studies.

iii
 DEDICATION

The dissertation is dedicated to my family. I would have never finished this

project if had not been for my wife, who should really be co-author on this for all the

work she did for me during this research. I would also like to thank my son, Paden, who

has patiently traveled with me and my wife through Mexico and Guatemala as I collected

my data. I love you both.

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This dissertation would not have been possible without the support of numerous

funding agencies. A National Science Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant, Tinker

Field Research Grant (Center for Latin American Studies—the Ohio State University),

and Alumni Grants for Graduate Research (Graduate School—the Ohio State University)

funded two trips to the Peabody Museum and one and a half years of data collection at

various facilities in Mexico and Guatemala.

At the Peabody Museum, Dr. Michele Morgan was an immense help in getting

me access to materials and in the collection of the data. I would like to thank the board at

the museum for granting me permission to study the skeletal collections at the museum.

For access to the Mexican collections, the Mexican The Consejo de Arqueología (INAH),

and the director of the Consejo, Dr. Garcia Moll are given my greatest thanks for

approving my convenio to conduct research in Mexico. It was a long and difficult task to

get access to the materials, but everyone that I met was extremely helpful. Dr. Pompa y

Padilla granted me access collections in the Dirección de Antropología Fisica at the

Museo Nacional de Antropología despite showing up unannounced. At Teotihuacan, I

would like to Dr. Ruben Cabrera and Dr. Sarabia for allowing me to analyze the skeletal

collections curated at the site. Dr. Linda Manzanilla (UNAM) deserves special thanks for

allowing me access to analyze her skeletal collections. The collections under her care

were the first ones that I studied in Mexico.There are numerous researchers and students

v
at the Universidad Autónoma de Yucátan (UADY) and Universidad Autónoma de

Campeche (UAC) that I would like to thank for all their help in accomodating a foreigner

with surprisingly poor Spanish (it has since improved). Dr. Andrea Cucina and Dr. Vera

Tiesler, at UADY, were extremely helpful during this entire process, and I am forever

grateful. Sometimes I wonder if I would have been able to get access to the materials that

I needed had it not been for their help in the beginning. Dr. Folan and Dr. Cuyuk at UAC

in Campeche, were extremely accomdating for granting me access to the Calakmul

collections and for doing so on very short notice.

My research in Guatemala would not have gone so smoothly if it was not for the

assistance of researchers and staff at the Instituto de Antropología e Historia (IDAEH)

and the Museo Nacional de Antropología e Etnología (MNAE). Dr. Jorge Mario, Dr.

Ortiz de Leon, and Dr. Aguilar at IDAEH all deserve special mention. Dr. Claudia

Monzón, at the MNAE was a pleasure to meet, and not only because her English was

impeccable. At Atlas Arqueologico, Dr. Leporte was kind enough to grant me access to

his collections and to give me a place to work. I really appreciate his help, and I look

forward to seeing him again. I would like to thank the director of Tikal National Park, Dr.

Jorge Sanchez, who allowed me access to the Tikal collections. While at Tikal, Dr.

Gomez was particular helpful by allowing me to individuals from an ongoing excavation.

I am grateful to the many researchers and staff at INAH facilities in Merida, Chiapas, and

Mexico City, including Dr. Arias Lopez, Dr. Eduardo Perez, Dr. Emiliano Galaga. Dr.

Arias Lopez deserves special mention because he worked with me to get my convenio

approved through the Consejo of Archaeology. His persistence helped me immensely,

and I hope to see him again soon. I would also like to thank my good friend Dr.

vi
Kimberly Willliams for all her help during this research. Her help has been invaluable.

Finally, I would like to thank my advisor Dr. Larsen, and my committee, Dr. Sciulli, Dr.

Stout, and Dr. DePhilip for all their help and guidance during my PhD program, it is truly

appreciated.

vii
 VITA

1996……………………………….B.A. Anthropology, University of Central Florida

2003…………………………….…M.A. Anthropology, Southern Illinois University,

Carbondale (SIUC).

1999-2000…………………………Research Assistant. Anthropology Museum, SIUC.

2000-2002…………………………Research Assistant. Center for Archaeological

Investigations, SIUC.

2002……………………………….T.A. Instructor. SIUC

2002-2008…………...…………….T.A. Instructor. The Ohio State University

PUBLICATIONS

2002 Anatomy, Physiology, and Pathophysiology of the Vascular Circulation of the

Calvarium. Annual Meeting of the Paleopathology Association, Buffalo, NY.
Published in the Paleopathology Newsletter.

2001 Reanalysis of Possible Trephination from the Mississippian Site of Kane Mounds
(11-Ms-104) in Madison County, Illinois. Annual Meeting of the Paleopathology
Association, Kansas City, MO. Published in the Paleopathology Newsletter.

2001 Paleopathological Analysis of the Human Skeletal Remains of the Schroeder Site
near Durango Mexico. Annual Meeting of the Paleopathology Association,
Kansas City, MO. Published in the Paleopathology Newsletter.

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Anthropology

viii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………..ii

Dedication……………………………………………………………………………….iv

Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………....v

Vita..…………………………………………………………………………………....viii

List of tables…………………………………………………………………………….xvi

List of figures………………………………………………………………….………..xvii

Chapters:

1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………......1

Understanding cultural change……………………………………………5

Materialization of ideology……………………………………………….6

Purpose………………………………………………………………..….13

Population genetics theory..................……………………………..…….16

Genetic heterozygosity..............................................................................18

Organization of Dissertation………………………………………..……19

Discussion.................................................................................................21

Summary...................................................................................................22

2. Mesoamerican population history………………………………………….…....27

ix
Introduction................................................................................................27

Interregional interaction.............................................................................27

Early Classic migrations………………………………………………....31

A historical perspective on migrations………………………………......34

Late Classic migrations: Southern Maya Lowlands..................................37

Terminal Classic migrations: Northern Maya Lowlands..........................39

Northern Yucatan………………………..………………………40

Sites descriptions......................................................................................42

Kaminaljuyu.................................................................................43

Tikal..............................................................................................47

Uaxactun.......................................................................................50

Calakmul.......................................................................................50

Copan.............................................................................................51

Piedras Negras...............................................................................52

Altar de Sacrificios/Seibal............................................................53

Dos Pilas........................................................................................55

Palenque…………………………………………………………55

Southeaster Peten sites..................................................................56

Chichen Itza...................................................................................57

Yaxuna...........................................................................................60

Xcambo..........................................................................................61

Dzibilchaltun........................................................................,,,.......62

San Gervasio/Playa del Carmen.........................................,,,.........63

x
 Teotihuacan.................................................................................64

Cholula........................................................................................66

Tula..............................................................................................67

Discussion................................................................................................69

Expectations.................................................................................70

Summary...................................................................................................74

3. Bioarchaeological approaches to population history…………………………....79

Dental anthropology..................................................................................82

Dental biology...........................................................................................83

Field-Theory and Clone Model....................................................86

Nonmetric traits........................................................................................87

Previous bioarchaeological studies in Mesoamerica................................93

Discussion.................................................................................................95

Summary...................................................................................................96

4. Population Genetics……………………………………………………………..98

Biological distance……………………………………………….……...99

Large biological distance estimates.............................................100

Gene drift.........................................................................101

Natural selection..............................................................102

Small biological distance estimates.............................................103

Gene flow.........................................................................104

Statistical approaches: An overview of methods.....................................105

Research hypotheses................................................................................108

xi
 Discussion................................................................................................110

Summary..................................................................................................112

5. Materials………………………………………………………………………..113

Project sample…………………………………………………………..113

Sample composition…………………………………………….115

Sample consideration and exclusion............................................116

6. Methods: Dental nonmetrics…………………………………………………....120

Dental traits recorded…………………………………………………...120

Intraobserver error……………………………………………………...121

Consideration for trait exclusion..............................................................122

Trait dichotomization…………………………………………………...123

Trait dichotomization and intraobserver error………………….124

Statistical analysis....................................................................................131

Mean measure of divergence (MMD)..........................................133

Discussion................................................................................................135

Summary..................................................................................................136

7. Methods: Dental metrics………………………………………………………..137

Dental variation and biological affinity: metric traits…………………..137

Crown diameter………………………………………………....138

Effects of wear on tooth dimensions…………………………………....140

Effects of non-metric traits on tooth dimensions…………………….…142

Cervical dimensions…………………………………………………….143

xii
 Methods: Hillson et al. (2005)…………………………………….........145

Mesiodistal dimensions............…………………………………146

Buccolingual dimensions……………………………………….146

Cervical and crown dimensions: a comparison………………...149

Critique of Hillson et al. (2005)………………………………………...151

Problems with tooth shape at the CEJ…………………………..152

Alternate methodology………………………………………………….155

Changes to mesiodistal measurements………………………….156

Changes to buccolingual dimensions………………………...…157

Mesiodistal dimensions and non-metric traits………………….161

Buccolingual dimensions and non-metric traits………………...162

Choosing variables and eliminating measurements.................................163

Data imputation........................................................................................165

Statistical tests: metric variables..............................................................166

Principle components analysis (PCA).........................................166

Relethford-Blangero model.........................................................166

Mantel test...................................................................................179

Discussion................................................................................................180

Summary..................................................................................................181

8. Results....................……………………………………………………………..182

Introduction..............................................................................................182

Maya area.................................................................................................183

Mean measure of divergence.......................................................183

xiii
 Principle components analysis.....................................................186

Mahalanobis distance...................................................................190

Mantel test....................................................................................191

R-matrix analysis.........................................................................194

Central Mexico.........................................................................................196

Mean measure of divergence.......................................................196

Principle components analysis……………………………….....197

Mahalanobis distance…………………………………………...198

R-matrix analysis................……………………...……………..201

Maya and central Mexico.........................................................................202

Mean measure of divergence.......................................................202

Principle components analysis…………………………………205

Mahalanobis distance...................................................................208

R-matrix analysis.........................................................................212

Discussion................................................................................................213

Summary..................................................................................................214

9. Discussion…………………………………………………………………........217

Evaluation of hypotheses......................………………………………...217

Maya area............................................………………………………….219

Central Mexico.........................................................................................221

Maya and central Mexico.........................................................................222

Discussion………………………………………………………………229

Summary..................................................................................................230

xiv
10. Conclusion........................………………………………………………...…....232

Looking forward………………………………………………………..233

Other bioarchaeology approaches to migration.......................................234

Isotopic analysis...........................................................................234

Ancient DNA analysis.................................................................236

Summary..................................................................................................240

References cited………………………………………………………………...241

Appendix A: Nonmetric data..............................................................................276

Appendix B: Raw CEJ data...…………………………………………………..501

Appendix C: Data summary: metric variables.....................................................553

Appendix D: Nonmetric trait description............................................................562

xv
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-3. Chronology for Mesoamerica………………………………..………………78

Table 5-1: Sites analyzed in this study.....................................................................118-119

Table 6-1: Maxillary non-metric traits…………………………………….…………....127

Table 6-2: Mandibular non-metric treaits………………………………….….………..128

Table 6-3: Error estimates for non-metric traits: maxillary teeth………….…….……..129

Table 6-4: Error estimates for non-metric traits: mandibular teeth……….…………...130

Table 6-5: Summary of non-metric trait frequency………………………..…………...131

Table 8-1: List of Maya sites for nonmetric analysis......................................................184

Table 8-2: Results: Maya area. MMD..........……………………………….…………..185

Table 8-3: Results: Maya area. Mahalanobis distance…………………....……………193

Table 8-4: Results. Maya area. R-matrix analysis...................…………………………195

Table 8-5: Results: Central Mexcio. MMD…………………………………….............196

Table 8-6: Results. Central Mexico. Mahalanobis distance……………………………201

Table 8-7: Results. Central Mexico. R-matrix analysis……………….….............….....202

Table 8-8: Results. All sites. MMD..........…………………………………………..….204

Table 8-9: Results: All sites. Mahalanobis distance…………………………………....211

Table 8-10: Results. All sites. R-matrix analysis.................……………………………216

xvi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1. Early Classic migration from central Mexico……………………………….24

Figure 1-2. Late Classic migration from central Mexico………………………………..25

Figure 1-3. Terminal Classic migration from central Mexico…………………………..26

Figure 2-1. Map of Maya sites…………………………………………….....………….76

Figure 2-2. Map of Western Mexico………………………………………….....……….77

Figure 2-1. Map showing possible migratory routes……………………………....…….62

Figure 7-1. CEJ measurement of anterior teeth…………………………………....…...148

Figure 7-2. CEJ measurement of molars…………………………………….…….........148

Figure 7-3. Alternative CEJ measurements of anterior teeth…………....…..….………160

Figure 7-4. Alternative CEJ measurements of molars…………………….....….……...160

Figure 8-1. Graph of PCA analysis for Maya: 2-D…………………………….........….187

Figure 8-2. Graph of PCA analysis for Maya: 3-D……………………....……………..188

Figure 8-3. Graph of PCA analysis for central Mex: 2-D………………....……………199

Figure 8-4. Graph of PCA analysis for central Mex: 3-D………………....……………200

Figure 8-5. Graph of PCA analysis for all sites: 2-D………………………...…………206

Figure 8-6. Graph of PCA analysis for all sites: 3-D………………………...…………207

xvii
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Mesoamerica can be defined geographically as an area extending from Central

Mexico in the north to the southern Maya periphery of Honduras in the south (Figure 2 –

1) (Creamer, 1987; Coe, 1994; Joyce, 2004). However, Mesoamerica is not solely

defined by its geography, it is mainly defined culturally by similarities in material

remains present throughout the region (Kirchhoff, 1943; Creamer 1987; Coe, 1994;

Sharer, 1994; Adams, 1997; Jones, 1997; Anderson, 1998; Fash and Fash, 2000;

Braswell, 2003a,b; Demarest, 2003; Joyce, 2004). Archaeological materials that can be

defined culturally as Mesoamerican date back as far as 2000 BC (Willey, 1966; Sharer,

1994), and the earliest known examples of hieroglyphic writing and long count dates are

present in the first century AD from Veracruz and Chiapas (Coe, 1994; Fash and Fash,

2000). During the Classic period, the region of Mesoamerica is typically divided into

three geographically distinct culture areas: the Maya, the Mixtecs (and Zapotecs), and

the highly centralized cultures of central Mexico (the Nahua—includes Teotihuacanos,

Toltecs, and Aztecs) (Figures 2-1 and 2-2). State formation occurred in each of these

areas at slightly different times (Table 2-1) although the issues of primary state formation

in Mesoamerica are complex. This study focuses on Mesoamerican population history

between AD 250 and AD 1000. During this period, the diverse populations of

1
Mesoamerica had extensive networks of interaction as evidenced by abundant cultural

similarities across the region (Blanton et al., 2003; Hendon and Joyce, 2004; Martin and

Grube, 2008). Throughout the history of archaeological study in Mesoamerica,

researchers have been interested in the nature of central Mexican influence in the Maya

area (Tozzer, 1957; Thompson, 1966, 1970; Jones, 1996; Braswell, 2003; Marcus, 2003).

Archaeologists observed obvious links between central Mexico and some Maya sites

(Cheek 1977; Sanders, 1977; Sharer, 1996; Kristan-Graham, 2005), but have failed to

satisfactorily explain this relationship (Stuart, 2000). At the beginning of the Classic

period, the site of Teotihuácan was already a highly centralized urban center, and

evidence of Teotihuácan influence extends to the southern periphery of the Maya area.

However, archaeologists have been unable to answer the question of whether central

Mexican influence was due to cultural diffusion or population migration.

Opinions on the role of central Mexico or on the importance of central Mexican

influence on the developments in the Maya area have varied widely (Kidder et al., 1946;

Sanders and Price, 1968; Fox, 1980; Coggins, 1979; Jones, 1995; Stuart, 2000; Braswell,

2003; Rice et al., 2004). Migrations from central Mexico have been proposed almost

since the beginning of archaeological investigations in the region to explain the evident

sociopolitical changes in the Maya area (Charnay, 1883; Gann, 1924; Tozzer, 1930,

1957; Roys, 1933; Kidder et al., 1946; Morley, 1956; Thompson, 1966, 1970; Sanders

and Price, 1968; Adams, 1973; Ball, 1974). As a central example, researchers have long

proposed that the Toltecs, from Aztec and Maya ethnohistorical accounts, left central

Mexico and traveled to northern Yucatán to found the city of Chichén Itzá during the

2
Postclassic period (Tozzer, 1930, 1957; Roys, 1933; Thompson, 1966, 1990; Ball, 1974;

Freidel, 1985; Andrews and Robles, 1986; Coe, 1994; Sharer, 1994; Adams, 1997;

Hammond, 2000). However, evidence for these migrations comes either from similarities

in material remains (e.g., Tozzer, 1957; Coe, 1974), which may not necessarily correlate

with actual ethnic groups (Shortman, 1989; DeMarrais et al., 1996), or from

ethnohistoric accounts, which were written hundreds of years after the events were

supposed to have taken place (Jones, 1989, 1997).

Historically, the connection between the Basin of Mexico and the Maya is the

result of antiquarians who were struck by the remarkable similarities between the

Late/Terminal Classic Maya site of Chichén Itzá and the central Mexican site of Tula

(Charnay, 1883; Tozzer, 1930, 1957; Morley, 1946; Thompson, 1966; Diehl, 1983;

Jones, 1989, 1997). Subsequent archaeological work uncovered an abundance of foreign

material throughout the Maya area during the Late Preclassic and Early Classic periods

(Bernall, 1966; Sanders and Price, 1968; Fox, 1980; Stuart, 2000). This led

archaeologists to suggest that incursions from Teotihuácan during the Early Classic were

responsible for the development of state level society in the Maya area (Kidder et al.,

1946; Sanders and Price, 1968; Fash, 1994; Stuart, 2000; Marcus, 2003 ). Migrations

have been a recurrent theme by archaeologists seeking to explain the sociopolitical

changes seen in the region throughout the Classic period (Tozzer, 1930, 1957; Thompson

1934; Morley, 1946; Fox, 1980; Renfrew 1987; Sharer, 1994; Stuart, 2000; Braswell,

2003). During the Late Classic period migrations from Tula and the Gulf Coast region

into the Maya were used to explain the dramatic changes of the Late Classic and the

3
Early Postclassic periods (Tozzer, 1930, 1957; Roys, 1933; Thompson, 1966; Ball, 1974;

Fox, 1980; Adams, 1971, 1973, 1997; Culbert, 1973a,b; Coggins, 1979; Freidel, 1985;

Andrews and Robles 1986; Sharer, 1994; Hammond, 2000). As a reaction to the ideas of

central Mexican dominance, many Mayanists proposed that the role of central Mexico

was insignificant and instead insisted in situ development in the Maya area during the

Classic Period (Chase and Chase, 1986 (make sure that this is right); Jones, 1989, 1995,

1997; Stuart, 2000; Braswell, 2003a,b). These archaeologists perceived the Maya as

playing a much more active role in any interaction that would have taken place in

prehistory. However, it is unclear which of these positions is correct, if either is valid.

What is lacking is any evidence that migration between central Mexico and the Maya

area actually occurred.

A number of questions remain unresolved in this debate. First, did cultural

change in the Maya area result from central Mexican intrusion? Second, does the

material record indicate central Mexican dominance or a mutually beneficial relationship

between these two regions? These questions cannot be answered definitively through the

analysis of material remains because cultural change is much more complex than the

simple migration theories suggest. In order to understand the benefits of a biological

approach, it is important to understand reasons for cultural change because the

distribution of material remains could be interpreted in two distinctly different ways.

1. The intrusion of foreign peoples, or

2. The appropriation of foreign-style elements, and the manipulation of

ideological symbols, to legitimize authority.

4
 Understanding cultural change

Regardless of the interest in the debate of central Mexican influence (Marcus,

2003; Hendon and Joyce, 2004), previous archaeological and bioarchaelogical studies

have failed to answer one fundamental question: did migration actually occur between

these two regions? The confounding factor for archaeologists is that migration

technically refers to a biological process where people move from one location to

another taking their genes with them. This question needs to be address with biological

data, but previous bioarchaeological studies of populations in the region have proven

inadequate. This is either due to insufficient sampling of sites, which do not provide an

accurate representation of the distribution of biological diversity, or to the diverse and

inconsistent methods employed by different researchers, which precludes a pan-

Mesoamerican synthesis of earlier studies (e.g., Austin, 1972, 1978; Saul, 1972; Spence,

1974 a,b, 1994; Haydenbilt, 1996; Christensen, 1997, 1998a,b; Jacobi, 2000; Rhodes,

2002; Wrobel, 2003; Cucina and Tiesler, 2003; Scherer, 2004, 2007). To understand why

evidence of cultural change does not necessarily indicate foreign intrusion, it is

important to explore other explanations for why goods and ideas might be transferred

from one region to another.

Traditional archaeological interpretations based within a cultural evolutionary

framework posited that external pressures were responsible for initiating cultural change

in the organization of production (White, 1949; Childe, 1950; Freid, 1967; Sanders and

Webster, 1968). It was often assumed in archaeology that evidence of change in the

archaeological record indicates intrusion into an area from external to the region (i.e.,

5
different cultural elements equals different peoples) (Rouse 1986; Renfrew 1987), but

there are other equally valid explanations for these changes in the archaeological record.

Cultures borrow foreign elements and imagery for a wide array of reasons (Shortman,

1989; Fash, 1994; Marcus 2003; DeMarrais et al., 1996), so evidence of cultural contact

does not necessarily correlate with the movement of people, and ultimately genes.

Recent explanations of cultural change have focused on the control and

manipulation of ideological factors (and the material remains that represent them) as the

source of political power and cultural change (Clark, 1997; DeMarrais et al., 1996).

According to Flannery and Marcus (1996:351), ideology comprises the “principles,

philosophies, ethics, and values by which human societies are governed.” Flannery and

Marcus define ideology from the aspect of the state. This basically refers to the

institutionalized ideological system that is mediated through the dominant discourse of

the state. For the purposes of this study, the definition of Flannery and Marcus is

sufficient since we are primarily interested in issues of legitimacy where rulers

appropriate foreign elements to legitimize authority.

Materialization of ideology

It is generally understood that material objects can act as symbols to convey

ideological beliefs of a group or society (Clark, 1997; Brumfiel, 2004). Creating an

ideological system that is beyond the individual or family is essential for the predictable

interaction and self-definition of individuals in a society (Schortman, 1989). The

material signifiers that are attached to salient identities must be unambiguous, highly

6
visible, and redundant to ensure the recognition of identities (DeMarrais et al., 1996;

Schortman, 1989). Beyond the family or group, values and norms must be materialized

to be shared more broadly (DeMarrais et al., 1996). Ideology is made physical through

materialized symbols that are created to mold the minds of the society (Brumfiel, 2004;

Clark, 1997; Clark and Blake, 1994; DeMarrais et al., 1994). The materialized symbols

can take many forms including a ceremonial event, a symbolic object, monumental

architecture, a writing system or any other form that communicates ideas beyond the

individual or group (DeMarrais et al., 1996). Through the materialization process ideas

take physical form which should be visible in the archaeological record. It is the process

by which ideas are given physical form that is central to the process of legitimation

(DeMarrais et al., 1996; Brumfiel, 2004).

What is important here, is to understand how the manipulation of ideology can

legitimize and perpetuate differential power relationships. It seems unlikely, as Haas

(1981) states, that emerging elites would attempt to protect their privileged position

through physical coercion, as this is generally considered to be a costly and unstable way

to organize power relationships (DeMarrais et al., 1996). Rather than physical coercion,

a focus on creating an ideological justification for control as a means of engineering

consent is much more realistic, and here the concept of the materialization of ideology is

important. The tracing of a ruling lineage to a real or mythical ancestor, especially if the

ancestor has ties to foreign or unknown realms (as is the case for Altar Q at Copán)

provides legitimacy to the current ruler. To elaborate briefly, Altar Q records sixteen

generations of ruling lineages which can be traced back to the founder of the dynasty

7
(Fash, 2000; Stuart, 2000). This importance of this link with the past for the sixteenth

ruler of Copán is magnified by the portrayal of the founder with Teotihuácan-style

regalia (Braswell, 2003; Sharer, 2003). The ability to use external resources and

information as social leverage at the local level requires exclusive access to the goods,

material, and information (Clark, 1997).

Materialized ideology has the potential to achieve the status of shared values and

beliefs by molding individuals’ beliefs and perceptions of reality (DeMarrais et al.,

1996). Materialization of ideology serves as an enculturation device to organize and give

meaning to the external world through public ceremonies, monumental architecture,

alteration of the landscape, and writing. Each of these media of expression must be

understood in reference to their ability to perpetuate a consistent message through time

and space. For example, ceremonies (e.g. feasts) can be an important locus of cultural

production (Brumfiel, 2004). Brumfiel (2004) notes that feasts provide occasions for

shaping the reality of all involved by providing a common experience that helps to shape

an individual's reality. Feasts are useful for enculturating individuals from within the

society and for acculturating groups from outside the society. However, with feasting and

other ceremonial events the passage of time allows the memory of the event to fade

(Clark and Blake, 1994; DeMarrais et al., 1996), and the effectiveness of ritual through

time depends upon repetition of events (Brumfiel, 2004). The result is a materialization

process that is extremely effective in the short-term, but potentially difficult to maintain

over the long-term. Additionally, as is shown for the Aztec and Inca, these public

ceremonies are extremely costly (Brumfiel, 2004; DeMarrais et al., 1996). DeMarrais et

8
al., (1996:17) make the additional point that an ideology that becomes materialized, is

subject to the same manipulative parameters that affect other forms of wealth, which are

“owned, restricted, and transferred through institutions of political economy”.

As Brumfiel’s example illustrates, the ceremonial event is just one variable in the

materialization process. Ideas and perceptions are also expressed in physical form

through ceramics and other durable goods. In the Aztec example, as many as nine

hundred ceramic vessels may be manufactured for a single feast, many depicting specific

symbols that represent ideological principles (Brumfiel, 2004). Durable goods, like

pottery have the ability to be shared widely, and although the interpretation of the

symbolic content of the pottery may change through space, the familiarity with the

symbolism may prove useful for future interactions (DeMarrais et al., 1996; Brumfiel,

2004). For example, during Aztec feasts the cosmic symbolism on ceramics express and

reinforce people’s perceptions of the structure of the universe (Brumfiel, 2004). In a

similar way that Maya funerary pots depict the narrative of the Maya Hero Twins in the

land of the dead (Coe, 1999). The ideas that are symbolized on these ceramics and other

material symbols help mold individual realities, by perpetuating these narratives. The

actual messages portrayed and the shared experience of the ceremonies creates a shared

ideology which provides a sense of naturalness and inevitability to the ideological

structure (Brumfiel, 2004). People grow up within this shared ideological framework and

perpetuate the existence of the dominant ideology through daily actions or through

practice (Lesure, 2004). A good example of the importance of practice is given by Lesure

(2004) in which he describes the practice of placing of a piece of jade in the mouth of a

9
family member during burial. Although this is obviously an individual act, this activity

perpetuated the structures that legitimized social inequality, by the acceptance of the

symbolic content of a material that is controlled by a small segment of the population.

Therefore people are born subjects (Foucault, 1982) which constrains the options they

perceive. Debate among the populous is limited because those who manipulate the

symbols control the discourse, allowing them to effectively legitimize their authority.

The different experiences within a society help to define the identity of the

individual and the group. These social identities, are culturally defined and accepted

categories (Schortman, 1989). Individuals have a number of social identities or salient

identities, which they “actualize according to a variety of factors” (Schortman, 1989:54).

This type of social identity results when individuals form affiliations, or sets of

affiliations, where individuals interact more regularly and whose members share a strong

feeling of purpose or support (Schortman, 1989). What is most important for the current

discussion are salient identities that were created and maintained among members of

spatially distinct polities (e.g., Tula and Chichén). Interactions among elites between

polities has the potential to create a social distance between the elite and the commoners

through the exclusion of the majority of the population from the exchange networks.

These social affiliations form around encounters focused on access to specific

resources, where the importance of these resources necessitates regular, predictable

interaction. It is important to understand that all individuals do not have equal access to

membership in these affiliative partnerships. Although Shortman defines ethnicity and

class as the most important salient identities although this could be viewed more

10
generally as “us” and “them” or as “self” and “Other”. Embedded in these categories are

core beliefs which determine how the group perceives the world around it, and therefore

these identities are perceived as reflecting a common history of the group (Schortman,

1989). Both ethnicity and class are important to consider for this study because the

movement of foreign symbolic elements (pottery, architectural styles, etc.) may result

from the interaction of elites between sites (class-based) and not from the movement of

peoples (ethnicity-based).

The dominant ideology only exists in the practice of the subjects perpetuating and

codifying the dominant ideology through the practice of norms and ideals. If the general

populace does not believe or accept the dominant ideology, then the elite can only gain

legitimacy through force. The existence of foreign prestige goods and foreign knowledge

and connections provides a social distance and helps to legitimize rule through the

monopolization of goods and information. Understanding how objects, architecture, and

texts were used to manipulate the ideas they represent could help to delimit the nature of

interaction between populations. For example, the temporal and spatial distribution in

Mesoamerica of vessels with Olmec supernaturals could be interpreted as Olmec

domination of large areas of Mesoamerica resulting in widespread distribution of

material remains. This is directly analogous to discussions about Teotihuácan and Toltec

dominance over the Maya. This interpretation largely ignores any larger meaning

associated with the material remains. Clark (1994) suggests that the supernatural motifs

on Olmec vessels suggest that some cosmological ideas may have been communicated,

and access to these materialized symbols and the ideas they communicate might confer

11
power or legitimize authority.

The ancient Maya provide an excellent example of how a focus on ideology and

the control of the process of materialization of ideas can increase our understanding of

processes of cultural change. The Maya are well known for their complex hieroglyphic

and pictographic writing system and the association of hieroglyphs with public

architecture. The content of the writing often includes religious symbolism, astrological

observations, and information political dynasties (Proskouriakoff, 1993; Martin and

Grube, 2000; Stuart, 2000). Maya writing, in association with monumental public

architecture and a general alteration of the landscape, form a complex whole which

reflects the ideal of the dominant ideology (Freidel, 1981). These materialized elements

are essentially tools of indoctrination which convey a sense of the natural order and of

inevitability of the political apparatus (DeMarrais et al., 1996). Each of these different

media of expression (architecture, alteration of space, and writing) communicate cultural

norms through highly visible symbols. Monumental architecture provides a sense of

inevitability and permanence; the alteration of space (e.g. causeways linking areas of the

site) provides a sense of organization to the universe; and writing provides an

unambiguous message of the organization of the universe and the individual’s place

within that universe.

What each of these media of communication share is that they transcend an

individual’s lifetime. The importance of this is that with the passage of time, individuals

in the society have no memory of the events that produced these material symbols. They

were not witness to their formation, and this creates the perception that these symbols

12
have always been present. Altar Q at Copán provides a powerful example of the

usefulness of manipulating symbols, by tracing the lineage of the current ruler back to

the founder of the dynasty. Hieroglyphic writing is an extremely effective medium for

conveying information even to a largely illiterate audience because dispersed throughout

the texts are iconographic representations of the cultural norms and beliefs of the

dominant ideology.

This discussion demonstrates the limits of archaeological inference. Although the

presence of central Mexican-style artifacts in the Maya area may indicate intrusion,

other, equally valid explanations are also possible. The appropriation of foreign imagery

to legitimize rule may explain apparent cultural change, particularly when there is a

crisis of legitimacy (i.e. when new rulers are emerging or when polities are unstable)

(DeMarrais et al., 1996). The utility of a biological approach should be evident. In order

to answer questions about the nature of central Mexican influence in the Maya area, it is

first necessary to determine if populations migrated between these regions.

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to test the hypothesis that populations from central

Mexico migrated to the Maya area at various times during the Classic Period (AD 250-

1000). This research focuses on three separate migration events that have been defined

archaeologically:

1. Early Classic migration of Teotihuacanos into the southern Maya highlands

13
 and southern Maya lowlands (Figure 1-1);

2. Late Classic migration of peoples from Tula into the southern lowlands

(Figure 1-2); and

3. Late Classic migration of peoples from Tula into the northern lowlands

(Figure 1-3).

I test for evidence of these population movements through the analysis of

morphological variation of the dentition. Through the examination of dental variation,

this research seeks to reconstruct population structure throughout Mesoamerica in order

to understand the biological relationships between different sites throughout the region.

A biological approach provides evidence of genetic relationships that can then be used to

inform archaeological hypotheses about migration.

The region encompassed by this study includes all of Mesoamerica, extending

from the Valley of Mexico, through the Valley of Oaxaca, to the southern Maya area

(Figure 2-2). This study also includes sites that span the entire Classic period so both

geographic and temporal questions about biological relatedness can be addressed. The

range of dates for the samples analyzed allow for estimations of biological relatedness

throughout the Classic Period, and the results can be correlated with what is known

archaeologically. The integration of biological and archaeological information can more

effectively address important questions in Mayan archaeology including

1) did central Mexico play a role in the development of state level society in the

Maya area during the Early Classic period

14
 2) did central Mexico play a role in the collapse of the Classic Maya civilization

3) were central Mexican cultures responsible for the rise of large complex states

in the northern Yucatán following the collapse of the Maya in the southern

lowlands.

Biological data can also determine whether Maya populations differ through time

as a result of migration from central Mexico. Surprisingly, despite wealth of skeletal

material available, and the perceived importance of the Maya-Mexican relationship to

Mesoamerican prehistory, no bioarchaeological study of a sufficient scale has been

undertaken to help resolve this issue. This study differs from previous work in

Mesoamerica both in the scale of the project and in the specific data collected. Whereas

most previous biodistance studies have focused on sites within a single sub-region of

Mesoamerica (Saul, 1972; Spence, 1974 a or b; Austin, 1972, 1978; Haydenbilt, 1996;

Christensen, 1997, 1998a,b; Jacobi, 2000; Rhodes, 2002; Cucina and Tiesler, 2003;

Scherer, 2004), this study takes a regional perspective by collecting data from 30

samples from 24 archaeological sites. Wrobel (2003) provides a notable exception

because he includes numerous sites from throughout the Maya area for comparison. The

problem with his study, however, is that the comparisons were made based on published

data, which calls his interpretations into question.

The samples for the present study are from both the Maya area and from in and

around the Valley of Mexico. The impetus behind this ambitious sampling method is that

the results obtained from previous studies are largely incomparable because of

interobserver error (Dahlberg, 1950; Mayhall and Saunders 1986; Mayhall, 2000) and

15
due to differences in the data recorded, which do not allow for the increasing number of

biological distance studies to be synthesized. The regional perspective taken in this study

allows for a greater understanding of the relationship between these two regions.

The methods used in this study are unique, with respect to previous

bioarchaeological research in Mesoamerica, because this study recorded dental

measurements at the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) in addition to the traditional crown

dimensions. CEJ measurements (Chapter 6) are beneficial for a number of reasons. First,

taking measurements at the CEJ can result in dramatically increased sample sizes

because the CEJ is rarely affected by occlusal and interproximal wear (Fitzgerald and

Hillson, 2005). This is in contrast to crown dimensions which are affected by even

moderately wear (van Reenan, 1982; Pompa y Padilla, 1990; Hillson , 1996). Second, a

new method for obtaining cervical dimensions was developed during this study that has

the benefit over the existing cervical metric method, by allowing for consistent

measurements on mixed composition samples. The new method outlined here (Chapter

6) also records dimensions of the tooth (the observable phenotype) that have a stronger

correlation with the underlying genotype than the existing dental metric methods. The

results therefore, should more accurately represent the underlying genetic variation than

the previous method.

Population genetics theory

As stated above, this study is concerned with two fundamental questions: 1) Did

populations from central Mexico migrate into the Maya area, and if so, 2) can these

16
migrations be detected biologically? This study takes advantage of theoretical advances

in statistics that use population genetics models to detect additional microevolutionary

forces that can alter population structure (Harpending and Ward, 1982; Relethford and

Blangero, 1990; Scherer, 2004). This research is theoretically grounded in population

genetics theory, which allows for predictions about the distribution of genetic variation

to be formulated. Wright's (1943) isolation by distance model provides the simplest

example of how integrating population genetics models into statistical analysis can

provide additional information on microevolutionary forces, and more complex models

are discussed in Chapters 4 and 6. According to an isolation by distance model,

biological distance increases as geographic distance increases (Wright, 1943, Falconer,

1981). This is based on the premise that individuals in populations are more likely to

interact with individuals in populations that are closer geographically than they are with

populations that are more distant geographically (Wright, 1943; Crow 1986). Biological

distance estimates can be correlated with geographic distance estimates to understand

how closely the relationship fit the expected model (i.e., isolation by distance). The

correlation between biological distance and geographic distance provides information on

gene flow (Kimura and Weiss, 1964).

Applying this model in the current study is useful for determining which sites

within the different sub-regions deviate from the predicted model. Considered separately,

each of the sub-regions of Mesoamerica during the Classic period is assumed to

represent an integrated cultural population that has been defined archaeologically (Coe,

1993, 1994; Sharer, 1994). Under the conditions of the model, populations within each

17
sub-region should follow an isolation by distance model. It is expected that politically

dominant sites, and those that preferentially interact with sites outside their area will

deviate from the expected pattern.

Genetic heterogeneity

Recent advances in statistical analysis allow for various parameters of population

structure to be taken into account while biological distance estimates and levels of

genetic variability are calculated. These predictions concern expected levels and

distribution of genetic variability, and these expected levels can be compared to the

observed distribution of genetic variability (Falconer, 1981; Relethford and Blangero,

1990). Since each sub-region is assumed to represent a culture area, sites within each

sub-region should interact more frequently with sites within their respective area.

Therefore, if the archaeologically defined boundaries of these sub-regions are valid, then

all populations within each sub-region should have similar levels of genetic

heterozygosity. The null hypothesis assumes equal interaction with extralocal sources of

genetic variation (Harpending and Ward, 1982; Relethford and Blangero, 1990). Under

this assumption sites should not deviate from expected levels of allelic diversity. The

identification of sites within each area that are biologically distant as well as more

genetically variable indicates that these populations were likely recipients of greater than

expected external gene flow.

It is expected that politically dominant sites, and those that receive external

sources of gene flow will deviate from the expected pattern. For example, as discussed in

18
Chapter 2, because of previous archaeological and bioarchaeological research (Austin,

1972. 1978; Saul, 1972; Coggins, 1979; Wrobel, 2003; Scherer, 2004), it is expected

sites in the Pasíon region of Guatemala will deviate from the expected pattern for the

Maya area. These sites are likely to be more biologically distant and more genetically

variable than would be expected under the models outlined in Chapter 6. It would be

particularly informative if sites that are more genetically variable than expected for their

respective region also have small biological distance estimates with sites outside their

region.

Organization of Dissertation

The outline of this dissertation is as follows. Chapter 2 provides background

information for the region of Mesoamerica with an outline of the major sociopolitical

changes that may, at least in part, be addressed in this study. This includes a chronology

of each sub-region within Mesoamerica, as well as the current evidence for interregional

contact, migration, invasion, and political/military domination. The end of Chapter 2

provides a brief outline of each of the sites included in this study, along with an

explanation of why each of these sites is important to the fundamental questions posed in

this research. Chapter 3 provides an overview of bioarchaeological approaches to

population history that are useful in understanding the biological nature of population

structure. The majority of this chapter focuses on morphological studies, including dental

morphology. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a basis for understanding why

dental morphology (and skeletal morphology more generally) can provide a reasonably

19
accurate representation of the underlying genetic variability. This is to combat the

perceived notion that biological distance studies are inherently problematic because the

traits analyzed have unknown expression and inheritance patterns (Buikstra et al., 1990;

Braswell, 2003). This chapter also addresses recent bioarchaeological studies that served

as a starting point for the current research, including stable isotope, ancient DNA, and

other skeletal morphology studies.

The theoretical foundations of population genetics and quantitative genetics are

outlined in Chapter 4 to scientifically ground this research within the context of

biological anthropology. This chapter also discusses recent work on dental genetics

(Skinner, 2002, Hlusko, 2000, 2002, 2004; Rizk et al., 2008), which have contributed

greatly to our understanding of dental biology, and have demonstrated that dental

morphology will continue to remain a useful tool in understanding biological

relationships. Chapters 5 lists the materials that were analyzed during this study, and

Chapters 6 and 7 outline the data collection methods employed in this study for non-

metric traits (Chapter 6) and metric traits (Chapter 7). Chapters 6 and 7 end with

explanations of the statistical methods used to analyze the non-metric and metric data

respectively. Chapter 7 is particularly important because new methods for obtaining

cervical dimensions were developed during the process of this investigation. These new

methods were developed in an attempt to more closely correlate the phenotype (i.e.,

tooth dimensions) with the underlying genotype for tooth size. This chapter provides an

important critique of the existing method for recording the dimensions of the tooth at the

cemento-enamel junction (Hillson et al., 2005), and an alternate method is explained.

20
Chapter 8 and 9 provide the results for non-metric and metric variables respectively, and

Chapter 10 provides a discussion of these results within the context of what we know

archaeologically. Chapter 11 provides concluding remarks including an exploration of

what information future studies may provide.

The scale of this study. However, it is important to acknowledge that this project

is only the beginning. Recent dental genetics studies are providing new insight into the

genetic mechanisms responsible for tooth development. In the future, these studies will

allow dental anthropologists to continually refine the observable phenotypes to obtain

more accurate information about the underlying genotype and, by extension, the

biological relationships between individuals and populations. Recent developments in

aDNA and isotopic studies will allow for additional sources of information to inform our

understanding of pre-Hispanic migration in Mesoamerica.

Discussion

Reliable data on a large number of sites that are analyzed through sophisticated

statistical methods will be useful in determining if the major cultural changes that are

seen archaeologically in the Maya area during the Classic Period are accompanied by

immigration into the area by non-Maya groups, isolation and biological continuity over

time, or some combination of these scenarios. It is important to understand the limits of

this research up front. This results obtained here will not be able to definitively answer

questions about the nature of the interaction as defined here, but they will provide an

important piece to the puzzle. As explained below, specific sites in the Maya area are

21
expected to demonstrate greater genetic variability and small biological distance

measurements with central Mexico, but this will only demonstrate that there was

biological interaction. Data of biological contact cannot differentiate between gene flow

associated with trade or gene flow associated with invasion and military conquest.

Despite the limitations of this research, the information presented here will allow for a

more detailed understanding of migration in ancient Mesoamerica than is currently

available.

By addressing the questions posed in this study, there is the potential that

previously unknown patterns of interregional interaction will be detected. The isolation

of sites between sub-regions that are similar biologically will reveal patterns of

differential interaction between sites. These data on changes in population structure

through time can then be correlated with the archaeological data for a greater

understanding of Mesoamerican population history. Of particular importance is the

isolation of particular sites within each of subregion that differentially interacted with

sites outside of their respective area. The identification of spheres of interaction between

specific sites that deviate from what is expected will help illuminate the nature of central

Mexican influence in the Maya area.

Summary

Despite abundant evidence of contact between the diverse peoples of pre-

Hispanic Mesoamerica, archaeologists have yet to reach a consensus on the nature of

central Mexican influence in the Maya area and on how this influence may have affected

22
the sociopolitical development of Maya states. The question of the cultural changes seen

in the Maya area throughout the Classic Period are the result of cultural diffusion or

migration and intrusion is as old as archaeological research in the region. Although

material evidence of contact may help to answer the question of whether immigrants

from central Mexico move into the Maya area during the Classic Period, this research

seeks to determine whether evidence of these migrations can be detected biologically? In

order to test migration hypotheses and obtain a regional perspective of population

structure, this study includes dental material from 27 archaeological sites from both

central Mexico and the Maya area. Both metric and non-metric dental data are recorded,

and these data are analyzed through a variety of statistical methods to reveal the

underlying evolutionary mechanisms that alter population structure. This study is unlike

previous bioarchaeological studies, both in the scale of the project, which will allow for

a regional view of population structure, and in the method employed, which should

result in a more accurate representation of the underlying genetic variability.

23
Figure 1.1. Early Classic period migration from Teotihuácan to the Maya area

24
Figure 1-2. Late Classic Period migration from central Mexico or the Gulf coast

25
Figure 1-3. Terminal Classic Period migration from Tula to Chichén Itzá and along coast of the
Yucatan Peninsula

26
 CHAPTER 2

MESOAMERICAN POPULATION HISTORY

Introduction

“It really breaks the rule of Occam’s razor to see this as anything other than the direct
intrusion and imposition of a major cult coming directly from Tula of the Toltecs, along
with a host of other traits, and that this had been brought by the very Toltec warriors
shown on the columns of Chichén’s Temple of the Warriors" (Coe, 1994:143)

The certainty with which this statement by Coe, underscores the importance of

the current study. In the history of Mesoamerican research, migration has been a

recurrent theme to explain the development or decline of Maya states (Tozzer, 1930;

1957; Morley, 1946; Thompson, 1966, 1990; Jones, 1989), but in reality migration is

merely one explanation for cultural change.

Interregional interaction

Although this study is specifically concerned with understanding migration from

a biological perspective, an in-depth understanding of the archaeological information is

crucial to the formulation of hypotheses that can be tested. Historically, intrusion of

Central Mexican populations has been forwarded as an explanation for the changes seen

archaeologically in the Maya area throughout the Classic Period (Tozzer, 1930, 1957;

Sanders and Price, 1968; Coe, 1994; Sharer, 1994; Stuart, 2000; Braswell, 2003b;

Demarest et al., 2003a; Martin and Grube, 2004). This research attempts to provide

27
information on two periods of interaction with potential migration. The first is during the

Early Classic period (AD 250-600), and primarily centers around Teotihuácan, the

largest site in pre-Hispanic Mesoamerica (Coe, 1994; Braswell, 2003; Demarest, 2003;

Sugiyama 2004). Material remains from Teotihuácan and Central Mexico have been

found throughout Oaxaca and the Maya area (Sanders, 1966; Carrasco et al., 1996;

Adams, 1997; Sugiyama, 2004). The second period of interaction corresponds to the end

of the Late Classic (roughly AD 700) and continues until the beginning of the Early

Postclassic period (AD 1000). This Late Classic/Postclassic transitional period is also

called the Terminal Classic (Rice et al., 2004). The central Mexican site that is most

often implicated as the source of foreign influence is Tula, the legendary home of the

Toltecs (Carrasco 1982; Jones, 1995; Adams, 1997; Fash and Fash, 2000), although

"Mexicanized" Maya from the Gulf Coast of Tabasco and Campeche have been

implicated as well (Thompson, 1966, 1970, 1990; Sharer, 1994).

Interaction between central Mexican centers and the Maya area during the

Classic Period is unequivocal (Kidder et al., 1946; Sanders, 1965, 1970; Sanders and

Price, 1968; Pendergast, 1971; Fox, 1980; Coggins, 1983; Fash and Fash, 2000; Stuart,

2000, 2004; Stuart and Fash, 2000; Carrasco et al., 2000; Braswell, 2003 a,b,c,d;

O’Brien, 2003; Demarest, 2003, 2004; Hendon and Joyce, 2004; Smyth and Rogart,

2004). However, the nature of the interaction is largely speculative. Clear evidence of

contact is demonstrated through the presence of foreign material remains at numerous

sites, including Tikal (Coe, 1972; Coggins, 1983; Adams, 1986; Martin and Grube,

2000; Stuart, 2000:501; Marcus, 2003;), Kaminaljuyú (Kidder et al., 1946; Valdes and

28
Wright, 2004), Copán (Fash and Fash, 2000; Stuart and Fash, 2000), Uaxactún (Chap 8

in Braswell 2003; Martin and Grube, 2008), Rio Azul (Adams, 1986), Altun Ha

(O’Brien, 2003; Pendergast 2003), Dzibilchaltún (Andrews IV and Andrews V 1980)

and Chac II (Smyth and Rogart, 2004). Stuart (2000) defines the debate over the degree

of central Mexican influence into one of two polarizing positions: either externalist (i.e.,

Mexican diffusionist) or internalist (i.e., Maya isolationist) (Braswell, 2003b; Demarest,

2003a). The externalist perspective proposes that Central Mexican states played a

politically dominant role in the sociopolitical developments during the Classic period

with population intrusions into the Maya area (Rands, 1954; Sabloff and Willey 1967;

Sanders and Price, 1968; Thompson, 1970; Wolf, 1976; Brown, 1977; Sanders, 1977;

Fox, 1989; Schele and Freidel, 1990; Coe, 1994; Sharer, 1994; Bove and Medrano

Busto, 2003; Braswell, 2003b; Smyth and Rogart, 2004).

Externalist views about the nature of the influence of Central Mexican states

have been quite varied. Some researchers have stressed the role of migration in

economic and political control (Tozzer, 1957), in military domination (Tozzer,

1930,1957; Saunders and Price, 1968; Gann, 1971; Fox, 1980; Adams, 1973 a,b, 1997),

and in the formation of Central Mexican enclaves (Sanders and Price, 1968; Willey,

1974; Smyth and Rogart, 2004; Manzanilla, 2005). In almost all cases, the Maya were

seen as passive recipients of Central Mexican influence where central Mexicans largely

controlled the Maya centers (Sanders and Price, 1968). This was due, at least in part,

because most studies prior to the 1980s maintained a view of the Maya as obsessed with

the cosmos, the passage of time, and other intellectual and artistic pursuits (Morley,

29
1946; Tozzer, 1957; Thompson, 1966; Fash, 1994; Jones, 1997). This was in stark

contrast to the descriptions of the cultures of central Mexico which were depicted as

war-like, imperialist, and consumed by an obsession with human sacrifice (Morley,

1946; Tozzer, 1957; Sanders and Price, 1968; Gann, 1971(check year). This

"irreconcilable polarity," as Tozzer (1957) phrases it, has led researchers to credit central

Mexican states with everything from the rise of state-level society in the Maya area

(Sanders and Price, 1968; Sanders, 1974), to the collapse of the southern Maya lowlands

at the end of the Classic Period (Morley, 1946; Sabloff and Willey, 1967; Willey, 1974),

to the resurgence of the Maya in the northern Yucatán (Morley, 1956; Tozzer, 1957;

Thompson, 1966; Jones, 1995). More recently, archaeologists have rejected this

dichotomy as less likely to reflect the ancient reality and more likely to reflect the

academic and political climate at the time these positions were proposed (Demarest and

Foias, 1993; Jones, 1997; Braswell, 2003; Rice, 2004).

The internalist perspective, which views Maya sociopolitical developments as

entirely of indigenous origin, can largely be seen as a reaction to notions of central

Mexican dominance (Stuart, 2000). Historically, these researchers have found it difficult

to give credit for the achievements in art and architecture of the Maya to the brutal war-

like cultures of central Mexico (Morley, 1946; Tozzer, 1957; Jones 1989). More recently,

Mesoamericanists have explained the evidence of contact as representing a more

complex and often reciprocal relationship between these two regions (Demarest and

Foias, 1993; Jones, 1997; Fash and Fash, 2000; Braswell, 2003; Demarest, 2004; Joyce,

2004; Rice et al., 2004). These researchers argue against Central Mexican domination by

30
arguing that the Maya were more active players in this process (Demarest and Foias,

1993; Joyce, 2004). The relationship between the Maya and the cultures of Central

Mexico was seen as mutually beneficial, where Maya elites would appropriate Central

Mexican-style artifacts, and even architectural style, to bolster their status (Demarest and

Foias, 1993; Fash, 1994; Anderson, 1998; Demarest, 2004; Joyce, 2004). These

arguments portray the Maya as active participants in these activities and not as passive

recipients of central Mexican political domination. The emphasis on ideology of

materialism grew out of the postprocessual arguments of the 1980s and 1990s

(Shortman, 1989; DeMarrais et al., 1996). Importantly, this exchange of artifacts to

legitimize the status of elites by placing them within a context larger than the site they

rule means that foreign artifacts cannot simply be associated with the intrusion of

outsiders.

Early Classic migrations

Because Teotihuácan was already fully developed by the Early Classic, and

because of the perceived imperialist tendencies of Teotihuácan and other early central

Mexican states (Coe, 1994; Fash and Fash, 2000; Buve and Medrano Busto, 2003;

Sugiyama 2004), Teotihuácan is often implicated as the primary source of external

influence for all of Mesoamerica during the Early Classic period. Central Mexican

influence in the Maya area, and even the existence of Teotihuácan enclaves, as

mentioned above (Bernal, 1966; Manzanilla, 2006; Smyth and Rogart, 2004), have been

proposed to explain the sociopolitical changes in the southern highlands and the

31
southern lowlands during the Early Classic period. The evidence for Teotihuácan

influence in the Maya area is strongest in the southern highlands where early researchers

proposed the existence of Teotihuácan enclaves based on the presence of foreign

material remains and on similarities in basic iconographic and architectural elements,

and mortuary customs (Kidder et al., 1946; Bernall, 1966; Saunders and Price, 1968;

Adams, 1997; Millon, 1988; Sugiyama 2004). The evidence for contact at highland sites

like Kaminaljuyú, where Teotihuácan was though to be politically dominant, also

coincides temporally with an increase in the development and the importance of this

region (Kidder et al., 1946; Adams, 1997).

Evidence for contact is also strong in the southern lowlands (Thompson, 1966,

1970; Coggins, 1979; Adams, 1973a; Stuart, 2000). However, the nature of the

interaction is typically considered more reciprocal than in the highlands (Braswell,

2003a), although, even in the Peten, Teotihuácan dominance has also been suggested

(Sanders and Price, 1968). Teotihuácan influence in the southern lowlands is strongest at

Tikal (Coggins, 1979; Adams, 1986, 1990, 1997, 1999; Proskouriakoff, 1993; Stuart,

2000), the largest Classic Period site in the Maya area, although evidence of Teotihuácan

contact is present at many sites throughout the Maya area. Hieroglyphic evidence at

Tikal suggests a connection between Teotihuácan and Tikal in the Early Classic shortly

after the emergence of Tikal as a dominant center (Coggins, 1979; Adams, 1999;

Proskouriakoff, 1993; Stuart, 2000; Marcus, 2003; Martin and Grube, 2008).

Proskouriakoff (1993) and Stuart (2000) demonstrated that the death of Tikal’s ruler

Chak Tok Ich’aak on January 16, AD 378 corresponds to the “arrival of strangers” from

32
central Mexico. Coggins (1979) proposed that the new ruler, Yaax Nu’n Ahyiin, is

actually from Teotihuácan, and recent epigraphic evidence has tended to support this

viewpoint (Stuart, 2000, Braswell, 2003).

As stated above, Teotihuácan is considered by most to have had a more

symbiotic relationship with Tikal than it did with Kaminaljuyú and other sites in the

southern highlands (Demarest, 2004; Stuart, 2000; Braswell, 2003b; Millon, 1988).

Tikal is seen as benefiting from a alliance with Teotihuácan, which may have allowed

Tikal to rise to prominence in the southern lowlands (Willey, 1974; Adams, 1986, 1999;

Stuart, 2000). The importance of this relationship has even been implicated in the so-

called “Maya hiatus,” which corresponds to the decline of numerous important sites in

the southern lowlands, most notably Tikal (Willey, 1974; Coggins, 1979; Adams, 1997;

Braswell, 2003). It has been suggested that the decline of sites in the southern lowlands

was related to the decline of Teotihuácan, which happened at the same time (Willey,

1974; Coggins, 1979). According to Willey (1974), the withdrawal of Teotihuácan from

the southern lowlands would have resulted in a decrease in the power or legitimacy of

sites with close ties to Teotihuácan This would have created a power vacuum as sites

with close ties with Teotihuácan would have been weakened making them increasingly

vulnerable to conflict, both internally and with competing Maya states (Willey, 1974;

Coggins, 1979; Adams, 1999a).

33
A historical perspective

Evidence for contact between central Mexico and the Maya during the Classic

period area is undeniable. Central Mexican style ceramics and architecture are present

throughout the Maya area during the Classic period (Tozzer 1957; Thompson 1970;

Pendergast 1971; Adams 1973; Jones 1996: Stuart 2000; Braswell 2003a), and there is

abundant evidence of contact between these two regions even during the earlier

Preclassic period (Pendergast, 1981; Jones, 1995; Braswell, 2003; Kristan-Graham,

2007). This earlier period, termed the Preclassic, is a time when Teotihuácan was already

a massive urban center, and a time when Maya sites where small, regional centers by

comparison (Coe, 1994; Sanders, 1970 Parsons, 1971). Based on the scale and

complexity of Teotihuácan, along with the presence of Teotihuácan style imagery as far

away as Honduras, it is easy to understand why researchers would have credited

Teotihuácan with many of the sociopolitical changes that are evidenced archaeologically

in the Maya area (Bernal, 1963; Acosta 1964; Millon, 1964, 1966, 1981; Sanders, 1965,

1970, 1981; Sanders and Price, 1968; Parsons, 1971, 1974; Blanton, 1972; Cowgill,

1974; Sanders et al., 1979). However, in trying to understand the true nature of

interaction between the Maya area and Central Mexico, it is important to understand

how this perception of interaction developed historically. Late in the nineteenth century,

it became evident that numerous similarities existed throughout Mesoamerica, including

the 260 day ritual calendar, hieroglyphic writing, and the ball game (Jones, 1989; Coe,

1994; Joyce, 2004). Pan-Mesoamerican similarities in art, iconography, and architecture

demonstrated that the geographically dispersed populations of Mesoamerica interacted

34
on a significant scale (Coe, 1994; Adams, 1997; Joyce, 2004).

In the late nineteenth century, Charnay (1887) demonstrated numerous

architectural similarities between the Maya sites of Chichén Itzá in the south and the

central Mexican site of Tula in the north. These similarities include colonnaded halls,

atlantids, chocmools, images of Quetzalcoatl, ztompantli, (Charnay, 1887; Jones, 1989,

1995, 1997; Coe, 1994; Anderson, 1998). Diego de Landa's text (La Relacion de las

Cosas de Yucatán) and the seventeenth and eighteenth century Mayan texts (Books of

Chilam Balam) provided ethnohistoric accounts of foreign intrusion into the Maya area

(Coe, 1994; Smyth 2004). Archaeological work by Tozzer (1930, 1957) and others (Coe,

1994) resulted in the site being divided conceptually into "Old Chichén" and "New

Chichén" along a line roughly correlating with the original highway that passed through

the center of the site. This allowed him to suggest that the differences between "Old" and

"New" Chichén were cultural and perhaps biological (Tozzer, 1957). Old Chichén

corresponded to the portion of the site which was considered culturally Maya, the area

with Puuc architecture and the El Caracol observatory (Tozzer, 1957; Lincoln, 1980,

1986; Jones, 1989, 1996; Anderson, 1998). New Chichén corresponded to what is

considered the central area of the site, consisting of the large plaza containing El

Castillo, Temple of a Thousand Warriors, and the Grand Ballcourt was considered

culturally Toltec (Thompson 1934, 1990; Tozzer, 1957).

Archaeologically, the period of the 1960s and 1970s is characterized by the

initiation of numerous large-scale projects in both Teotihuácan and the Maya area.

Coincidentally, these projects were concentrated on the largest of the Maya sites and on

35
those that demonstrated the greatest evidence of long-distance trade and interaction with

Teotihuácan. Mapping teams at Teotihuácan revealed the vast expanse of the site and

clearly demonstrated its enormous scale and complexity (Bernal, 1963; Acosta 1964;

Sanders, 1968, Millon, 1964, 1970, 1981; Sanders, 1965, 1970, 1981; Sanders and Price,

1968; Sanders et al., 1979; Cowgill, 1974). Other large projects at the site continually

demonstrated the importance of Teotihuácan relative to other sites in Mesoamerica

(Acosta 1964, Bernal, 1963; Millon, 1964, 1966, 1967, 1970, 1973, 1981; Sanders,

1965, 1970, 1981; Sanders and Price, 1968; Parsons, 1971, 1974; Blanton, 1972;

Sanders et al., 1979 Cowgill, 1974). Large projects at Tikal (The Tikal Project),

Kaminaljuyú (Penn State University Kaminaljuyú Project , Copán (Peabody Museum

Copán Sustaining Project, Pennsylvania State University Copán Project) (Fash, 1991:

57-58) generally reinforced preconceived ideas of Teotihuácan dominance (e.g.,

Saunders and Price, 1968; Coggins, 1974, 1979; Sanders, 1977; Fox, 1980).

Hieroglyphic evidence at the sites of Tikal, Copán, and Kaminaljuyú records

evidence of direct contact with Teotihuácan during the Early Classic (Proskouriakoff,

1993; Fash and Fash, 2000; Stuart, 2000; Braswell, 2003; Sharer, 2003). Whether or not

these were actual visits from central Mexico, Fash and Fash believe that the historical

records, pictorial depictions, and oral histories that surrounded these “arrivals” became

grist for the mill of Late Classic Maya kings who sought to legitimize their ruling

lineage (Fash and Fash, 2000:435).

36
Late Classic migrations: Southern Maya lowlands

The Late Classic period in the Maya area is characterized by a resurgence of

many lowland Maya sites subsequent to the Maya haitus (ca. AD 600-900/1000), and

ends with the decline of the Classic Maya civilization in the southern lowlands (Culbert,

1973; Sharer, 1994). It is during this time that we see a dramatic resurgence of

Tikal,Piedras Negras, Calakmul, and other lowland sites (Blanton et al., 1993; Sharer,

1994; Adams, 1997; Martin and Grube, 2008). As stated above, the end of the Late

Classic period ends with the collapse of the Classic period Maya (Sharer, 1994; Adams,

1997; Martin and Grube, 2004). This decline is characterized by dramatic population

shifts throughout the Maya lowlands, as previously important Maya states appear to

have been abandoned (Sharer, 1994; Adams, 1997; Rockmore 2006). The dramatic

changes during this period have been observed archaeologically through the cessation of

long-count dates, carved stelae, and monumental construction, as well as the dramatic

decline in the population in the southern Lowlands (Adams, 1997; Sharer, 1996). Adams

(1997) proposed that the southern Maya lowlands lost approximately 85% of the

population.

Numerous reasons have been given for the collapse of the southern Maya

lowlands, but most focus on internal warfare and population displacement (Palka 1995;

Sabloff, 1973), environmental degradation and drought (Adams, 1971, 1973a,b), or

foreign involvement (Sabloff and Willey, 1967; Thompson, 1970; Webster 2002).

Historically, this period is characterized as traumatic and often violent (Thompson,

37
1970; Willey, 1974; Adams, 1997;). Central Mexican involvement has been forwarded

as an explanation for the ‘collapse’ of the Maya civilization even after the decline of

Teotihuácan. These invaders are often perceived coming either directly from central

Mexico (Toltecs) or indirectly through a group of Mexicanized Maya known as the

Putun (discussed below) (Sabloff and Wiley, 1967; Thompson, 1970; Fox, 1980; Diehl,

1983; Miller, 1993; Adams, 1997; Sharer, 1997). Sabloff and Willey (1967) and Adams (

1964, 1973) envisioned invaders from central Mexico moved into the Pasion region and

conquered Seibal and Altar de Sacrificios before moving throughout the central Peten.

However, the origin of these foreigners, and even whether or not they even existed has

been part of an intense debate since the beginning of archaeological studies in the area

(Jones, 1989; Coe, 1994).

Central Mexico does not necessarily have to be implicated in the collapse of the

southern Maya lowlands because researchers have demonstrated the importance of many

internal variables, ranging from environmental (Sanders, 1973; Fash, 1991; Paine 1992;

Adams, 1997) to intersite conflict (Sharer, 1994; Adams, 1997; Webster 2002) that could

have caused the changes observed archaeologically. This transitional period is often

referred to as the Terminal Classic, and spans the Late Classic and Early Postclassic

Periods (Rice et al., 2004). It is at this time, when the southern lowlands are in decline,

that northern lowland sites gain prominence (Jones, 1989; Adams, 1997; Demarest,

2004; Rice et al., 2004). Therefore, what was initially perceived as a collapse of the

civilization appears to be more of a political and population shift from the southern

lowlands to the northern lowlands (Sharer, 1994).

38
 The reasons for the collapse of the southern Maya lowlands are complex and

likely differ from region to region and site to site. Most important to this study are

explanations that explain this collapse either as the result of conflict with other sites in

the Maya area or explanations that involve foreign intrusion. These are explanations that

can be explored with biological data because both explanations necessarily involve the

movement of people from one area to another.

Terminal Classic migrations: Northern Lowlands

Based largely on indigenous and ethnohistoric sources, early Mesoamericanists

proposed that during the ninth and tenth centuries C.E. there was an influx of foreigners

from the north into the Maya area overturning traditional rule and altering the life of the

Maya in northern Yucatán (Roys, 1933; Tozzer, 1930, 1957; Morley, 1946; Thompson,

1966, 1970; Fox, 1980; Hammond 1982; Sharer, 1994). Gann (1924) described the

Yucatán Maya as cerebral astronomer/philosophers who originally subscribed to a

‘'bright and joyous religion," and all improprieties could be explained by the eventual

infusion of “the black, cruel, gloomy religion of Mexico, with its bloodthirsty priests and

its savage, obscene deities demanding hecatombs of human sacrifice” (cited in Jones,

1997:275). For the collapse of the southern lowlands no explanation is more common

than foreign intrusion by Putun or "Mexicanized" Maya (Thompson, 1966, 1970, 1990;

Diehl, 1983; Jones, 1989, 1997; Adams, 1973, 1997) from the Gulf Coast of Tabasco

and Campeche. According to Thompson (1990), who did more to define the Putun Maya

than any other archaeologist, the Putun were seamen and sea traders with strong

39
connections to their highland Mexican neighbors. It is these Putun Maya who are often

credited with taking control of Pasion sites (e.g., Seibal and Altar de Sacrificios)

(Thompson, 1966, 1970; Saul, 1972; Adams, 1971, 1973a. 1997), and controlling coastal

trade in the Maya area (Diehl, 1983). According to Thompson (1990) and Adams (1997)

it is the Putun that eventually support the Toltec warriors from Tula as they enter the

northern Yucatán Peninsula (Thompson, 1990). However, some researchers question

whether these Mexicanized Maya even exist because written histories are often

politically motivated and may not recount actual events (Jones, 1989). Even Coe (1994),

whose quote begins this chapter, questions the presence of Mexicanized Maya because

there is little archaeological support for their existence. Although he does not question

the veracity of historical documents, even Thompson (1990) admits that little is actually

known about the Putun because much of the information comes from seventeenth and

eighteenth century Maya chronicles (Books of Chilam Balam).

Northern Yucatán (Maya)

The Late Classic period in the northern lowlands is a complex period with

dramatic changes in architecture and iconography, which, historically, has been

attributed to Mexican invasion (Tozzer, 1957; Thompson, 1966; Jones, 1989). It is at this

time when we see the florescence of Puuc culture at sites as Uxmal, Sayil, and Kabah

(Coe, 1994; Sharer, 1994; Demarest, 2003), and the growth in the Puuc region

temporally corresponds to a decline in populations to the south. Chichén Itzá, Coba,

Yaxuna and other sites in the northern Yucatán also achieved prominence during this

40
time (Lincoln, 1980, 1986; Dunning 1990; Jones, 1995; Anderson, 1998). Sites in the

northern Yucatán are generally considered to have grown at the expense of the southern

lowlands, and this may be especially true for those sites in the eastern Yucatán (e.g.,

Coba) that may have directly received immigrants from the Peten looking for a similar

agricultural environment (Demarest, 2003). Evidence for this comes from numerous

architectural similarities between sites like Coba in the eastern Yucatán and sites in the

sourthern Maya lowlands (Demarest, 2003). The views on foreign involvement in the

florescence of cities in the northern Yucatán has changed drastically in the past 20 years.

Although, archaeologists have long believed that invasion from central Mexico

explained the changes that are seen archaeologically in the northern Yucatán (Charnay,

1887; Tozzer, 1930, 1957; Morley, 1946; Thompson, 1966, 1970), recent research has

challenged many of these long-held beliefs (Lincoln, 1980; Jones, 1989; Anderson,

1998).

More recently, archaeologists and epigraphers have become increasingly aware

of the continuity between the Classic and Postclassic periods in the Maya area and

Oaxaca with respect to militarism, human sacrifice, and other aspects of Maya culture

(Webster 2000; Braswell, 2003b; Demarest and Rice, 2004; Rice et al., 2004). Now it

seems that many of the “foreign” elements that have traditionally been interpreted as

evidence for foreign dominance during the Terminal Classic have precursors earlier in

the Classic period (Demarest et al., 2004b; Carmean et al., 2004). Also in the Northern

Maya Lowlands specifically, revised dates at Chichén Itzá illustrate that “Old” and

“New” Chichén Itzá overlap completely (Lincoln, 1986; Anderson, 1998; O’Mansky and

41
Dunning 2004), and that Chichén Itzá overlaps temporally with the Northern Lowland

Puuc sites (Gill 2000; Demarest et al., 2004a,b; O’Mansky and Dunning 2004). This

more recent evidence challenges the traditional model in which the Classic-Postclassic

transition marks the dramatic intrusion of central Mexican populations and ideology into

the Northern Maya Lowlands (Jones, 1995, 1997). In addition, many archaeologists now

interpret foreign objects at Maya sites as trade items used by local elites to enhance

prestige and to create the social distance between elites and commoners instead of

indicating foreign control (e.g., Mounds A and B in Kaminaljuyú) (Borowicz 2003;

Braswell, 2003 a or b; Sharer, 2003).

It is clear that the sociopolitical changes that took place in the Maya area during

the Classic period are extremely complex, but what is important here is to investigate

whether possible migrations from Central Mexico played a part in the sociopolitical

developments described above. In order to investigate questions of migration, it is

important to include as many sites as possible that will allow for these questions to be

answered.

Sites descriptions

Most sites from the Maya area included in this study were chosen based on their

perceived importance in answering questions about interregional interaction. Other sites

were chosen because they had never been included in a bioarchaeological study and

contribute to the reliability of the estimated genetic variation for the region. In the most

simple sense, Maya sites can be reduced to highland and lowland sites. Each of these

42
regions have been distinguished culturally and both regions have their own complex

histories, but abundant material and hieroglyphic evidence demonstrates strong

connections between these regions (Coe, 1994; Sharer, 1994).

In this explanation of the sites included in this study, I begin in the southern

Maya highlands and continue through to the northern Maya lowlands, then move on to

central Mexico. Of the Maya sites included in this study, no site, except perhaps Chichén

Itzá, has been considered to have more direct foreign involvement than the highland site

of Kaminaljúyu.

Kaminaljuyú

When considering evidence of external influence and domination by

Teotihuácan, historically sites within the Maya highlands and the Pacific Coast are seen

as being the most intimately affected (Braswell, 2003; Demarest, 2004; Scherer, 2004).

Numerous researchers have posited that Central Mexican cultures (specifically

Teotihuácan) were politically dominant in the highland Maya region (Kidder et al.,

1946; Saunders and Price, 1968; Adams, 1997). Although Central Mexican influence

and domination has been forwarded to explain archaeological correlates of contact in the

lowlands Maya sites of (e.g., Tikal (Coggins, 1979; Adams, 1997; Stuart, 2000); Altar de

Sacrificios (Willey and Smith, 1963); Seibal (Sabloff and Willey, 1967); Chichén Itzá

(Tozzer, 1957; Adams, 1997; Jones, 1997); the evidence for political influence in the

Maya highlands is almost universally accepted (Kidder and Shook 1946; Sander 1974;

Braswell, 2003a, b, c; Marcus, 2003). Much of what we know of the highlands comes

43
from this site. The association between Kaminaljuyú and Teotihuácan is related to

numerous historical factors. Kaminaljúyu has been considered an important Early

Classic center with a high level of social complexity since the 1940’s (Kidder et al.,

1946; Demarest, 2004). It is also the largest, most studied site in the highlands (Kidder

et al., 1946; Cheek 1977; Millon, 1988; Braswell, 2003; Smyth 2004).

Kidder, Jennings, and Shook were the first to link Teotihuácan to Kaminaljuyú,

based on architectural similarities, Teotihuácan style ceramics, and slate-backed pyrite

mirrors at Kaminaljuyú (Kidder et al., 1946, Fash and Fash, 2000). Architectural

similarities that are typically associated with Teotihuácan include the presence of talud-

tablero architecture and are found at numerous Maya sites, including Kaminaljuyú

(Braswell, 2003c,d) and Tikal (Laporte, 1989, Laporte and Fialko, 1990,1995). For

Kaminaljuyú the most suggestive evidence was found during the excavations of Mounds

A and B where Mexican style artifacts were found (Blanton et al., 1993; Smyth 2004).

Kidder and colleagues (1946) argued that invaders came from Teotihuácan and married

local women (also see Saunders and Price, 1968). Adams (1997) posited that

Teotihuácan took over Kaminaljúyu in the fourth century, and sees a radical change in

leadership as well as population structure despite the fact there is no notable increase in

population during this period. Saunders (1977) and Adams (1997) both agree that

Teotihuácan’s interest in Kaminaljúyu lie in its strategic geographic location between the

cacao-growing zones of the Pacific coast and the Peten, which at the time was

dominated by Tikal (also see Cheek 1977 and Millon, 1988 for a similar view). Sander

(1974) argued that Teotihuácan immigrants played an important role in the formation of

44
state-level society at Kaminaljuyú. As in the case with Tikal discussed earlier, Sharer

(1996) proposes that a withdrawal of Teotihuácan from Kaminaljúyu may have been the

catalyst that caused the decline of the city (see Braswell, 2003 a,b and Demarest, 2004

for an opposing view).

However, the nature of the interaction between Teotihuácan and Kaminaljuyú has

varied widely from political domination to mutually beneficial interaction. Braswell

(2003) and Demarest and Foias (1993) typify the more recent interpretations, which

view Maya sites, in this case Kaminaljuyú, as playing a more active role in this

interaction as discussed above. As Demarest and Foias (1993) argue, interaction with

Teotihuácan was stimulated by the need of Maya rulers to procure exotic goods and

information from a world much broader than their own domains (also see Demarest,

2003 and Marcus, 2003). The appropriation of foreign elements and knowledge tends to

enhance power, wealth, and status by implying contact or even political alliance with

foreign realms (Schele 1986; Marcus, 2003). As one example, the similarities between

Mounds A and B at Kaminaljúyu and the Feathered Serpent Pyramid at Teotihuácan

(Braswell, 2003d) can be viewed either as foreign domination of Kaminaljuyú or elite

manipulation of foreign elements as a way to create a social distance between

themselves and their subjects (Schele 1986, Schele and Miller, 1986; Schortman 1989;

Schele and Freidel, 1990; DeMarrais et al., 1996; Van Buren and Richards. 2000).

Biological studies have been conducted at Kaminaljúyu in an attempt to

understand this issue. Based on mortuary patterning and architectural similarities,

Spence (1996) believed that the individuals in mounds A and B were probably

45
Teotihuácan emissaries. However, subsequent isotopic data have demonstrated that this

is likely not the case (Wright and Schwarcz, 1998, 1999; Wright, 2000). Four of the

individuals within the tomb, including a principal figure from Tomb A (skeleton 1)

exhibit oxygen isotopic ratios, significantly outside the range for Kaminaljuyú, but only

one individual falls within the range of Teotihuácan (skeleton 1: third molar). Despite

this seemingly obvious correlation, the first molar, which forms early in childhood,

reveals that this individual is likely from Kaminaljuyú, but may have spent the later part

of his childhood in central Mexico before returning to Kaminaljuyú (Wright, 2000). This

is complicated further because Mounds A and B were constructed in numerous building

cycles and were completed about one hundred years after the Feathered Serpent

Pyramid, which was built in a single building episode (Braswell, 2003d). Additionally,

despite previous assertions about the remarkable similarities between Teotihuácan and

Kaminaljuyú (Cheek 1977) , only Mounds A and B and just another portion of the site,

Palangana, exhibit talud-tablero architecture which is characteristic of Teotihuácan

(Braswell, 2003c,d; Smyth and Rogart, 2004).

It is also important to note that Maya sites did not simply interact with

Teotihuácan, but exhibit evidence of interaction with other regions of Mesoamerica,

including Veracruz and the Gulf Coast (Kidder et al., 1946; Laporte and Fialko, 1990;

Braswell, 2003b) and Oaxaca (Millon, 1988; Blanton et al., 1993). Interestingly, the

Palangana complex contains an “enclosure-atrium-platform composition” (Braswell,

2003d:22) that is remarkable similar to structures Sistema 4 and Monticulo M at Monte

Albán in Oaxaca (personal observation). Unfortunately the issue of foreign involvement

46
has now become so complicated and entrenched in academic circles that it is difficult to

deconstruct our knowledge of the site to understand what is supported by the evidence.

Tikal

Tikal, probably the largest site in the Maya area, experienced a dramatic rise in

sociopolitical development in the Early Classic period (Sharer, 1994; Adams, 1997;

Demarest, 2004). Following its dramatic rise, Tikal dominated much of the northeastern

Peten regional politics (Marcus 1995, 2003; Demarest 2004). What is important for this

study is that numerous sources of data suggest strong relationships between Tikal and

Teotihuácan, particularly during the fourth century when Tikal’s fourteenth ruler, Great

Paw, suddenly loses power (Stuart, 2000; Marcus, 2003). According to heiroglyphic

evidence, the day that Great Paw’s reign ends corresponds to the arrival of ‘strangers’ or

foreigners (Proskouriakoff, 1993; Stuart, 2000; Martin and Grube, 2008). Interpretations

as to the nature of this event have been discussed by many authors (Coggins, 1975;

Schele and Freidel, 1990; Sharer, 1996) with varying emphasis on the degree of contact

with Central Mexico. Whatever happened to the king, AD 378 marks an event at Tikal,

which is the replacement of the existing lineage with a different one (that of Siyaj K’ak’)

with overt central Mexican connections (Martin and Grube, 2008). This event is

recorded once at Tikal (Tikal Mercador) and twice at Uaxactún (Stela 5 and stela 22)

(Stuart, 2000, Braswell, 2003; Demarest, 2004; Marcus, 2003; Martin and Grube,

2008).). Some have suggested that Siyaj K’ak’ was from Teotihuácan (Stuart, 2000;

Smyth and Rogart, 2004), while others have suggested that Mexican allies might have

47
aided a Maya usurper from a rival city, possibly Uaxactún (Proskouriokoff, 1993).

Adams (1997) suggested that Teotihuácan actually came to the Peten and conquered

Tikal.

Some researchers have suggested that Teotihuácan may have used Tikal as a base

for interactions with Copán (Fash and Fash, 2000; Stuart, 2000; Smyth 2004). The

earliest Teotihuácan-style artifacts and talud tablero architecture at Tikal are in the

Mundo Perdido complex (Laporte, 1989; Laporte and Fialko, 1995; Marcus, 2003).

Mundo Perdido is a large occupational complex in the epicenter of the Tikal (Laporte

and Fialko, 1995). A ballcourt marker, in association with Teotihuácan-style artifacts,

was found at Mundo Perdido that looks very similar to one found at La Ventilla (see

below) in Teotihuácan (Laporte and Fialko, 1995). Importantly, Teotihuácan-style

architecture at Tikal dates to more than a century earlier than the recorded intrusion of

Teotihuácan in AD 378 (Marcus, 2003). All available individuals from this excavation

were included in this study (approximately 1/3 of Tikal sample).

In the sixth century, Tikal entered a period of decline that lasted approximately

150 years (Sharer, 1994; Fash and Fash, 2000). This period, known as the Maya hiatus,

has already been alluded to above as possibly related to the decline of Teotihuácan

(Willey, 1974; Coggins, 1975; Adams, 1997). Other evidence relating to the decline of

Tikal point to conflicts between Tikal and its neighboring Maya centers (Stuart, 2000;

Martin and Grube, 2008). As discussed below, Calakmul, to the north, has a long history

of conflict with Tikal (Folan et al., 1986; Marcus, 2003), but other sites are implicated as

well. At the Belizian site of Caracol, a ballcourt marker containing hieroglyphic writing

48
records a war between Caracol and Tikal in AD 562, roughly the same time that Tikal

enters the period of decline (Chase, 1991; Chase and Chase, 2003; Martin and Grube,

2008). However, the actual events that are recorded on the ballcourt marker are a focus

of debate with some researchers believing that this war was part of a larger conflict by

Calakmul of which Caracol was an ally (Folan et al., 1995; Martin and Grube, 2008). As

alluded to above, it is possible that the withdrawal of Teotihuácan resulted in a

weakened Tikal, which was increasingly vulnerable to conflict with other Maya centers

(Willey, 1974; Adams, 1997).

Numerous projects have recovered burials from Tikal consisting of both Early

Classic and Late Classic skeletal remains. The majority of Early Classic material comes

from the Mundo Perdido complex, although the Proyecto Nacional de Tikal also

uncovered some Early Classic burials. Since the skeletal sample from Tikal was

sufficiently large, I was able to subdivide the site into Early and Late Classic samples for

statistical analysis. The subdivision of Tikal is important in assessing the importance of

Teotihuácan intrusion in the Early Classic versus the Late Classic periods. Other

questions may also be addressed relating to the relationship between Tikal and the

neighboring sites of Calakmul and Uaxactún. As illustrated below, Calakmul and Tikal

were in direct conflict as each site attempted to extend its regional control, and Uaxactún

was subordinate to Tikal following the Maya hiatus (Folan et al., 1995; Harrison, 1999;

Marcus, 1995, 1998). Marcus, 2003).

49
Uaxactún

Uaxactún is located approximately 40 kilometers to the north of Tikal in the

northeastern Peten. Despite its much smaller size, evidence of conflict exists for conflict

between Uaxactún and Tikal (Schele and Freidel, 1990). As stated above, Uaxactún

exhibits two references on stelae to the AD 378 event in which Great Paw was dethroned

and Siyaj K’ak’ gained control of Tikal (Proskouriakoff, 1993). It is possible, as

Proskouriakoff (1993) suggested, that Uaxactún conquered Tikal in AD 378 (possibly

with the help of Teotihuácan), although Demarest (2004), Smyth (2004) and others

suggest that this date may record the beginning of Uaxactún’s subordinate position to

Tikal (also Martin and Grube, 2008). Evidence of Teotihuácan influence is also evident

by the presence of Teotihuácan-style architecture and artifacts (particularly fine-paste

ceramics) at the site.

Calakmul

As stated above, Calakmul was a key rival of Tikal throughout much of the

Classic period. Folan and colleagues (1995) annd Marcus (1995, 1998) believe that

Calakmul and Tikal incorporated previously autonomous sites as allies to increase their

sphere of influence in the southern Campeche and the Peten (also see Demarest, 2004).

Martin and Grube (2008) believe this conflict is what led to the downfall of Tikal in the

sixth century, although a ballcourt marker at the site of Caracol in Belize records the

defeat of Tikal in AD 562 by Caracol (Houston 1991). As stated above, Chase (1991)

and Chase and Chase (1987, 2003) believe that this defeat was due to Caracol’s

50
emerging as a major strength in the region, although a Caracol victory may only have

been possible through an alliance with Calakmul (Grube 1994; Folan et al., 1995;

Martin and Grube 1995).

The dental material from Calakmul has been studied numerous times with no

clear indication of how the site relates to Tikal (Cucina and Tiesler, 2003; Scherer,

2004). Cucina and Tiesler (2004) compared Calakmul to a number of sites in the

southeastern Peten (including ones that are included in this analysis) and the site of

Xcambó and found that Calakmul clustered with the Peten sites. This is important to the

current study for comparison with the results presented here although they do not

include Tikal in their study.

Copán

Located at the southern Maya periphery in Honduras, Copán is an impressive site

that exhibits widespread evidence for interaction the major centers of Mesoamerica

including Teotihuácan, Tikal, Uaxactún, and Kaminaljúyu (Hellmouth, 1976; Fash,

2001; Sharer, 2003). The evidence for foreign involvment, or at least the local

manipulation of´Teotihuácan-style imagery, is not limited to ceramics, slate-backed

mirros and green obsidian (which all came from the Pachuca source in Puebla (Fash and

Fash, 2000). Fash and Fash (2000) state that Copán manipulated foreign-style elements

to a degree further than any other Maya site. In fact, the Copán dynastic founder, Yax

K’uk’ Mo’ who is depicted on Altar Q at Copán, is said to be the Lord of the West (Fash

and Fash, 2000; Fash, 2001; Stuart, 2004). On Altar Q Yax K’uk’ Mo’ can be seen

51
wearing Teotihuácan-style warrior gear including goggles over his eyes and a War

Serpent shield on his right arm (Fash, 2001; Sharer, 2003). Stuart and Fash (2000)

describe a pair of columns at the site with a blending Teotihuácan and Maya full-figure

hieroglyphic inscriptions, Teotihuácan script followed by a Maya translation of the text.

What is believed to be the tomb of the founder was recently discovered (Hunal

tomb) (Sharer, 1997). Strontium isotope analysis was conducted on the individual within

the tomb which revealed levels consistent with the Peten, not Teotihuácan (Buikstra et

al., 2000). It is possible that the founder is from Tikal as some have suggested (Stuart,

1997, 2004; Buikstra et al., 2000). Copán likely also has close ties to Kaminaljúyu, as

many have suggested (Sharer, 1996, 2003, Valdes and Wright, 2004).

Copán has also produced one of the largest skeletal samples in the Maya area.

Unfortunately, only the material currently housed at the Peabody Museum, Harvard,

were included in this study. The small sample size for Copán is unfortunate given its

obvious importance in Mesoamerica.

Piedras Negras

This site is located along the Usumacinta River, Piedras Negras was an important

site that was likely subordinate to Calakmul (Scherer, 2004). Numerous researchers have

proposed that central Mexican warriors, or "Mexicanized" Maya from the Gulf Coast

(Thompson, 1966, 1970), made their way into the Pasión region and conquered these

sites (Adams, 1997). Evidence for this intrusion comes in the form of individuals

depicted on stelae with Mexican-style clothing and military regalia at the sites along the

52
Usumacinta (Stone, 1989; Miller, 1993) and the appearance of Fine Paste ceramics

during the early ninth century at the Piedras Negras, other sites in the region and

Palenque (Rands, 1972). Piedras Negras had a long history of conflict with Yaxchilan

apparently over the control of the Usumacinta region (Nelson, 2005). There is also

evidence that the site was subordinate to an outside political power, possibly

Teotihuácan but more likely Calakmul (Martin and Grube, 2000). Teotihuácan-style

imagery is common on later monuments at the site and demonstrates a familiarity and

possible preoccupation with Teotihuácan (Braswell, 2003; Nelson, 2005). As with other

sites included in this analysis the nature of the interaction between Piedras Negras and

central Mexico is unclear.

Altar de Sacrificios and Seibal

The Pasion region consists of numerous sites including Altar de Sacrificios, Dos

Pilas and Seibal. The largest of these are Seibal (below) and Altar de Sacrificios. These

sites are located on the banks of the Pasión River. Most of the current discussion will

focus on Altar de Sacrificios because the Seibal sample is excluded from this analysis

because changes in the method following data collection do not allow for a fruitful

comparison between Seibal and other sites. Altar de Sacrificios, the second largest site

on the Pasion River, is found near the confluence of the Pasion and Usumacinta River

(Wright, 2004). Altar de Sacrificios is similar in size to Dos Pilas and had a large

resident population and contains monumental architecture at the epicenter (Palka 1995).

The ceramics and iconography of Altar de Sacrificios and Seibal possess non-

53
Classic Maya characteristics which typify those found in central Mexico (Adams, 1971;

Willey, 1975; Austin, 1978). Adams (1971) distinguished separated out ceramics that

dated between AD 900-950 because of the presence of Fine Orange and Gray paste

ceramics. These ceramics were considered to be imported from the Gulf Coast of

Campeche, although Sabloff (1973), demonstrated that these ceramics were local. Traits

that were considered foreign included many physical features including the type of facial

expression and the presence of long straight hair and a beard or mustache. It also

included foreign style military accessories including a helmet with sprouting feathers;

masked face, an atlatl as well as the presence of non-Classic Maya glyphs (Adams,

1971; Sharer, 1995). Most of this imagery is associated with central Mexico although

some of this is also shared with the Puuc area and Chichén Itzá (Sharer, 1996). These

Pasion sites, including Dos Pilas described below, are important here because they were

erecting stone monuments at a time when many lowland sites (including Tikal) were

collapsing (Willey, 1975). Seibal specifically has 13 carved stelae dating from 850-890

exhibited non-Classic traits, with stylistic connections to Central Mexico and Yucatán.

The connection to the Yucatán is important and for Pasion sites because this relationship

has the potential to be addressed biologically. Both Altar de Sacrificios and Seibal

declined shortly after the rest of the lowland sites, about AD 930-950 (Adams, 1971;

Blanton et al., 1993, Sharer, 1996).

54
Dos Pilas

Dos Pilas, a site with ties to Tikal, is located near the Pasíon River in the

southwestern portion of the department of Peten in the jungle of northern Guatemala

(Palka 1995). Dos Pilas was one of the most important sites in the Pasion/Petexbatun

region. Hieroglyphic inscriptions indicate that Dos Pilas was occupied for only about the

last 150 years of the Late Classic Period (Palka 1995), but during that time it dominated

the Pasion and Petexbatun regions as an ally of Calakmul (Demarest, 2004). Dos Pilas

Ruler 3 is credited with capturing and sacrificing Seibal’s ruler in during this time, an

event that is recorded in Seibal’s hieroglyphic stairway (Palka 1995, Sharer, 1996). Late

Classic military conflict was extremely common in much of this region, and indeed in

much of the Maya area. The site of Dos Pilas itself is surrounded by concentric

defensive walls, and fortifications appear at sites in the region at this time (Palka 1995).

Hieroglyphic evidence suggests that warfare played a significant role in the rise and fall

of Dos Pilas (Houston 1987, Demarest and Houston 1989, Demarest, 1992). The

sustained regional conflict, typified by sites in this region are though by some to have

contributed to the general instability in the Maya area during the Late Classic Period

which may have provided a final catalyst for the collapse of the region (Demarest,

1978).

Palenque

The site of Palenque sits at the foot of the of the Chiapas highlands, and is best

known for the beautifully carved sarchophagus of Lord Pacal, which was found inside of

55
the Temple of the Inscriptions. Located near the western edge of the Maya area,

Palenque is important because of its proximity to Oaxaca and the Valley of Mexico, and

because it was one of the first sites to experience a "collapse" during the Late Classic

Period (Willey, 1990). Palenque was one of the first Maya sites to contain Fine Paste

wares (reminiscent of central Mexico) (Willey, 1990) and artifacts found inside the

palace walls at the site, indicate intrusion or influence from the Veracruz Gule Coast

(Rands, 1973). Due to time constraints only individuals that are housed at the National

Museum in Mexico City were included in this study. Additional skeletal materials not

analyzed are housed at the INAH center in Chiapas

Southeastern Peten sites

Because of their proximity (all sites are within about 10 kilometers) and small

sample sizes all six southeastern Peten samples are considered together in this discussion

and are pooled together for analysis. All of the sites considered here are within the

vicinity of Dolores in the Peten. At least eighteen sites have been identified in this area,

and this study includes skeletal material from five of them (Samayoa, 1995). These sites

include: Calzada Mopan, Curucuitz, Ix Ek, Ixkun, and Ixtonton. These sites were all

excavated under the direction of Atlas Arqueológico de Guatemala and the Instituto de

Antropología e Historía (Samayoa, 1995). The majority of the sample comes from

Ixtonton. Although some of these sites have Preclassic deposits, the major occupation of

the area was during the Classic Period (Samayoa and Laporte, 1990), and all material

analyzed in this study comes from this period (Vasquéz and Laporte, 2006).

56
Chichén Itzá

Nowhere in the northern Yucatán is the connection to central Mexico stronger

than at the site of Chichén Itzá (Charnay, 1887; Tozzer, 1930, 1957; Diehl, 1983; Jones,

1997; Kristan-Graham, 2005). Chichén Itzá is a major regional power in northeastern

Yucatán which apparently had strong ties to central Mexico possibly directly with the

site of Tula (Tozzer 1930, 1957). Similarities with Tula include atlantean columns,

feathered serpent imagery, colonnaded halls, chacmool sacrificial altars, tzompantli

carved stone skull racks, and warrior with Toltec-style armor and accessories (Tozzer,

1957; Coe, 1994; Jones, 1995, 1997; Kristan-Graham, 2005). As explained above our

understanding of the history of Chichén Itzá has changed drastically in the last 40 years.

Initially thought to be a fully Postclassic state established by Toltec invaders from

central Mexico (e.g., Morley, 1946; Adams, 1979; Blanton et al., 1993; Adams, 1997),

occupation of the sight is now known to be almost entirely limited to the Late Classic

Period (Lincoln, 1985; Jones, 1995, 1997; Schmidt, 1994,1999).

The southern portion of the site is characterized by Puuc architecture and

iconography, and the structures in the northern part of the site bear an obvious

resemblance to Tula (Tozzer, 1930, 1957; Jones, 1995). Contrast in styles at Chichén

have led people to imagine that this place was the site of a momentous meeting between

two profoundly different pre-Columbian peoples (Tozzer, 1957). A biocultural

confrontation between groups that were so different that it is "comparable to no other

case of pre-Hispanic acculturation in Mesoamerica" (Lincoln, 1986:143). According to

Morley (1956), this confrontation changes Maya culture even more than the conquest of

57
the region by Spanish conquistadors five centuries later.

Tozzer (1957) described a five-stage model of the invasion and domination of

Chichén by Toltec warriors. All elements of Chichén’s material remains could be

ascribed to pure Maya and the later hybrid or Toltec-Maya. Tozzer postulated three

invasions based on the Books of Chilam Balam. First, Toltecs led by Kukulcan I directly

from central Mexican capital of Tula, directly to Chichén Itzá bringing with them all of

the associated central Mexican cultural elements with them (Tozzer, 1957; Adams, 1997;

Jones, 1997). This wave explains the layout, architecture, art, and iconography of the

northern portion of the city (Tozzer, 1957; Coe, 1994; Jones, 1997). The Maya briefly

recover the city only to be reconquered by a second wave of Mexicanized Itzá-this time

from the Gulf Coast region of Chakanputun and led by Kukulcan II (Tozzer, 1957). This

wave is similar to Morley’s (1946) and Thompson’s (1966, 1970) depictions of

Mexicanized Itzá Maya from the Gulf coast. After a brief Maya resurgence a final wave

of Mexican mercenaries from Tabasco return to took over the site (Tozzer, 1957; Jones,

1989).

There have been numerous archaeological projects in Chichén Itzá and

surrounding sites during the last twenty years that have reopened the question of

whether Chichén was dominated by Toltec warriors, and have reassessed the relationship

between Chichén Itzá and the Puuc sites (Lincoln, 1986; Schmidt, 1994,1999; Anderson,

1998). Lincoln (1986:183) pointed out that there is no good ceramic stratigraphy to

prove that the Toltec period (Sotuta ceramics) postdates Yucatec Maya (Cehpech

ceramics). Anderson (1998) demonstrated that Sotuta and Cepech ceramics overlap

58
temporally at Chichén Itzá and therefore the major occupation can no longer be

considered a Postclassic development. It has now been aptly demonstrated by

subsequent archaeological research that Chichén Itzá was occupied during the end of the

Classic period contemporaneous with the end of Cobá (Lincoln, 1986; Anderson, 1998),

and that individuals from Chichén Itzá interacted with elites in the Puuc region to the

west (Gill 2000; Demarest, 2003; Rice et al., 2004). In fact, it is now believed that the

expansion of Chichén led to the destruction of Puuc culture (Schmidt, 1998; Demarest,

2003). Despite this recent evidence that suggests that the chronology of Chichén Itzá

overlaps completely with Puuc sites during the Late Classic Period (Lincoln, 1980)

many still assert that Tula and Chichén Itzá rose to political prominence together

(Blanton et al., 1993).

It should be noted that even if Toltecs from Tula emerge as a power after the

Chichén Itzá as a regional power, interaction between Chichén Itzá and central Mexican

sites could have happened at any time during the Classic Period. Smyth 2004 notes that

the Chilam Balam of Chumayel (Roys, 1933) refers to the arrival of foreigners to the

northern Yucatán during the fourth or fifth centuries (i.e., Early Classic), which would

allow accommodate the revised dates for Chichén Itzá and allow for direct central

Mexican involvement. However, the reliability of sources written centuries after the

event should be interpreted carefully, and this early date is not universally accepted since

it is based on 260 year cyclical calender and, even if based on real events, this migration

could have happened on any cycle of the calendar (see Demarest, 2004).

59
Yaxuna

Located just a few miles from the massive center of Chichén Itzá, Yaxuna was

connected to Coba, a rival of Chichén Itzá, via a 100 kilometer causeway (Folan, 1983;

Suhler et al., 2004). Attesting to the presence of Late Classic conflict in the northern

Yucatán are defensive walls along the causeway at various places along the 100

kilometer length (Folan, 1983). Although material from Coba is not included in this

study, Coba was an extremely important player in the northern Yucatán during the

Classic Period. Since Yaxuna was a satellite of Coba (Folan, 1983; Demarest, 2004), an

understanding of Coba will allow for useful predictions about the relationship between

Yaxuna and other sites, both in the northern Yucatán and in the southern lowlands. Coba

is a massive Late Classic site that culturally resembles sites in the southern lowlands

(e.g., Peten) (Demarest, 2004). This is supported by evidence that Coba declined when

other northern Yucatán sites were emerging, which is the approximate timing for the

decline in the southern lowlands (Sharer, 1996; Demarest, 2004).

Demarest believes that Yaxuna was Coba’s first line of defense against Chichén

Itzá expansion. The importance of conflict at Yaxuna is attested to by concentrin

encircling defensive walls (Demarest, 2004). Suhler et al. (2004) conducted a decade of

research at Yaxuna to investigate Late Classic interaction between Yaxuna, Coba, and

Chichén Itzá. They concluded that the changes seen at Yaxuna during the end of the Late

Classic (termed the Terminal Classic) are primarily due to the expansionary politics of

Chichén Itzá. (Suhler et al., 2004). They also believe that, because of its proximity to

Chichén Itzá, Yaxuna was likley the first to fall as Chichén Itzá expanded. Also of

60
importance is that Yaxuna was earlier dominated by the Puuc sites to the southwest

(Suhler et al., 2004).

Based on the current evidence for Yaxuna and its ties to Coba, it seems likely that

the dental material from the site may demonstrate lower biological distance

measurements with the southern lowlands, specifically the Peten, than we would expect

given the geographic distance separating these regions. It is also likely however, that

Yaxuna and Chichén Itzá will have small biological distances because the proximity of

the sites likely means the populations outside the centers of these two sites may have

overlapped.

Xcambó

Xcambó is a small site on the coast in the northern Yucatán a short distance to the

east from Dzibilchaltún. Despite its small size, excavations at the site have produced the

largest pre-Hispanic burial population from the northern Yucatán (Cucina and Tiesler,

2003; Smyth 2004). Xcambó had a significant population throughout the Classic period

and was heavily involved in the salt trade with trade connections as far away as Veracruz

and Belize (Cucina and Tiesler, 2003). The only other dental study that compares

Xcambó to other Maya sites, suggests that Xcambó does not show any consistent pattern

in terms of its relationship to other sits (Cucina and Tiesler, 2003). Their study indicated

that Xcambó was quite different from other Maya sites and either clustered with colonial

samples or was an outlier. Cucina and Tiesler (2004) suggest this may reflect Xcambó’s

position as a locus of trade that had connections throughout eastern Mesoamerica, and

61
Smyth and Rogart (2004) suggest that Teotihuácan may have been politically active at

both Xcambó and Dzibilchaltún because of their relationship to coastal trade. Questions

about the geographic range of Xcambó’s activities can, to some extent be addressed in

this study. The level of genetic heterozygosity should vary at the site depending on

whether Xcambó was involved in trade primarily in the Maya area or with sites outside

the Maya area. Greater levels of observed genetic heterozygosity would suggest that

Xcambó trade connections were indeed vast.

Dzibilchaltún

Like Xcambó, Dzibilchaltún was heavily involved in the salt trade, and this

likely explains why the site developed near the coast in the northern Yucatán (Andrews

and Andrews 1980; Sharer, 1996). Dzibilchaltún grew to its maximum size during the

Late Classic and Terminal Classic Periods (Sharer, 1996) and may have reached a

population of 25,000 people (Andrews and Andrews 1980). During the Terminal Classic

Period Dzibilchaltún’s architecture changed from typical lowland style to Puuc style,

possibly indicating an important trade relationship or dominance by Puuc sites. Based on

scant evidence from the nearby site of Chac, Smyth (2004) suggests that Teotihuácan

may have been politicallly and economically involved in this area .

It is unclear where Dziibilchaltun will fit in, in terms of biological relatedness to

other Maya sites. The proximity to Xcambó suggest that these sites may exhibit low

biological distance estimates although these two sites were also likely in competition

with each other to control the salt trade in the region. Since Dzibilchaltún was a trading

62
center, it is likely that Dzibilchaltún will group with its dominant trading partner or be

separated from the other sites in a manner similar to what Cucina and Tiesler (2004)

found for Xcambó.

San Gervasio/Playa del Carmen

These sites are considered together in this brief description because the samples

were pooled for statistical analysis. Both of these sites lie on the coast, and contain small

populations relative to the majority of sites included in this analysis. San Gervasio is a

small site located in the north central region of Cozumel and was the administrative seat

for the island. Playa del Carmen is located further south along the the coast at the actual

port of Playa del Carmen (Morfín et al., 1982). Both sites are located in the current state

of Quintana Roo. Like Dzibilchaltún and Xcambó, San Gervasio and Playa del Carmen

were heavily involved in trade up and down the Carribean coast (Sharer, 1996). San

Gervasio, and Cozumel more generally, is considered by some to have been an important

trading center that was dominated by the Putun Maya (Sharer, 1996). As alluded to

above, these are ‘Mexicanized’ Maya from the Gulf coast, that have been implicated in

both the changes seen throughout the northern Yucatán and for the changes seen in the

Pasion region. Thompson (1990) concluded that a group of Putun Maya, called the Itzá,

moved into Cozumel and took control before moving into Chichén Itzá. These two sites

are the only sites included in this analysis that are occupied primarily in the Postclassic

(Morfín et al., 1982, Matheson et al., 2003). These sites were chosen primarily to see

how they would relate biologically to other sites in the region subsequent to the decline

63
of Chichén Itzá as a regional power.

Prior to statistical analysis it was difficult to predict where these sites would fall

in terms of their biological distance to other sites and in terms of their relative allelic

diversity. The results of a mtDNA study on skeletal material from the site of Xcaret near

Playa del Carmen may be indicative of many of the sites along the eastern coast of the

Yucatán Peninsula (Matheson et al., 2003). The results of this study demonstrated that

the mitochondrial haplogroup for the Xcaret sample was much different than for other

sites in the area (also Gonzales-Oliver et al., 2003). The reasons for the divergent results

are difficult to explain, and it is hoped that this study will shed some light the population

structure of this region.

Teotihuácan

As we move from the Maya area to central Mexico, the most important site in the

region, and arguably in all of Mesoamerica at the time, was Teotihuácan. Teotihuácan

was a stratified urban complex from its early years (Blanton et al., 1993; Sempowski and

Spence, 1994). During its heyday (third to sixth centuries AD), Teotihuácan influence

may reached as far south as Copán (see above). As is common throughout history,

foreign goods from Teotihuácan were used by many Maya sites as symbols of status,

that were likely manipulated to reinforce their political power (see Demarest and Foias,

1993). The data suggest that the Teotihuácan state controlled large areas well beyond the

Basin of Mexico, and probably affiliated with distant centers or actually took over

certain Mesoamerican regions (Marcus 1983; Fash, 2000, 2001; Stuart, 2000). Linda

64
Manzanilla notes that Teotihuácan established alliances with Monte Albán in the Oaxaca

Valley, and conducted various kinds of intervention in the Maya area. As stated above, it

has been proposed that Teotihuácan was intimately involved with various sites in the

Maya area, including Kaminaljuyú (Kidder et al., 1946; Saunders and Price, 1968), Tikal

(Stuart, 2000), Copán (Fash, 2000, 2001) and even sites in the northern Yucatán (Smyth

2004). Interestingly foreign wards have been discovered at Teotihuácan, for example the

Oaxaca Barrio (Spence, 1989, 1992; Rattray 1993) the Merchant’s barrio to the east

(Rattray, 1987, 1988). Because of Teotihuácan’s size and complexity, not to mention

ethnic diversity, this study included skeletal samples from four different locations at the

site that were all treated separately in the statistical analysis. Data for other areas of the

site were also analyzed (e.g., Oztoyohualco and the tunnels under the Pyramid of the

Sun), but due to small samples and problematic deposits, these data were excluded from

analysis. The largest Teotihuácan sample comes from the compound known as La

Ventilla to the southwest of the site center. The next largest sample came from

excavations that were conducted, during the years 1980-1982, just to the south of the

Avenue of the Dead. The third sample comes from excavations that concluded in 1986

that were focused on a region just north of the central complex. The final sample is

somewhat problematic and consists of individuals from various contexts most of whom

were excavated out of the major structures in the site center. The contexts from which all

of the Teotihuácan samples come from are very close together geographically (less than

three kilometers) although the hierarchical nature of the site means that these samples

can reliably be treated as separate populations in this study.

65
Cholula

Cholula is a large site in the east central highlands, just outside the Valley of

Mexico and likely associated to some degree with the cultures of Tabasco and Veracruz

(Rodriguez et al., 1976). Ethnohistorical accounts link Olmec persecution of the Toltecs

to Cholula an apparent Olmec ally. The Great Pyramid of Cholula, where many of the

burials come from that were included in this project was the result of 4 successive

construction episodes (all Classic Period) (Coe, 1994). The earliest levels exhibit

Teotihuácan influence in the form of talud-tablero architecture and pottery (Coe, 1994).

Cholula was one of a few sites that benefited greatly from the decline of Teotihuácan

(the other two being Tula and Xochicalco). Cholula appears to have had a close

relationship with Cacaxtla, a site famous for its murals that show a close affinity with

Maya art. Cholula had a long period of occupation, stretching from the pre-Classic to the

period of contact (Rodriguez et al., 1976). However, Cholula appears to have had a

hostile relationship with Tula to the north (Diehl, 1983). All of the Cholula skeletal

material analyzed in this study were excavated by the Proyecto Cholula under the

direction of INAH between 1967 and 1971 (Rodriquez et al., 1976; Diehl, 1983). This

project uncovered 150 burials that span the entire occupation of the site. Only dental

material from the period spanning AD 250 (the beginning of Fase Cholula II) to AD 900

(the end of Fase Cholulteca I) were included in this study. Although this study intended

to include individuals as recent as AD 1000 it was impossible to isolate these individuals

from others in Fase Cholulteca II because the time span for this period is AD 900 – AD

1325 (Rodriguez et al., 1976).

66
Tula

The architectural and cultural similarities between Tula and Chichén Itzá are

striking. Questions regarding Tula migrations into the Maya area are what initially

spurred my interest in conducting this study. Kristan-Graham (2005) has listed some of

the most significant traits: feathered serpent columns, atlantids, chacmools, cipactli

(crocodile day-sign) glyphs, banquettes decorated with processional reliefs, colonnaded

halls, similarly attired profile figures, and low-relief images of feathered serpents,

composite man-bird-serpent creatures posed frontally, profile raptors, canines and

felines, and tzompantli,” (Diehl, 1983; Kristan-Graham, 2005). Tula, the mythical Tollan

and home of the legendary Toltecs, began as a small administrative center of

Teotihuácan (Diehl, 1983; Adams, 1997). The decline of Teotihuácan in the sixth century

marks the beginning of independence for Tula along with Cholula and Xochicalco,

although Diehl (1983) suggests that Tula eventually gained control of Xochicalco. These

sites had formerly been constrained by Teotihuácan domninance (Blanton et al., 1993).

Between AD 800-1000 Tula, along with the nearby centers of Xochicalco and Cholula,

grew rapidly (Deihl, 1983). Tula quickly becoming a dominant site and early research at

the site revealed the prevalence of warfare and sacrificial imagery, which has left a

lasting impression on archaeologists who overwhelmingly see Tula as an imperialist

state, preoccupied with warfare and human sacrifice (Deihl, 1983; Jones, 1995, 1997).

This is evident in Deihl's description that the Toltecs would “seem barbaric to a modern

traveler.....they worshiped dieties who required human blood and sacrificial victims,

fought wars with gusto, and even practice cannibalism” (Deihl, 1983:15). As stated

67
earlier, this image contrasts sharply with the early image of the Maya as peaceful,

astronomer-priests, concerned primarily with celestial events (Fash, 1994; Jones, 1995;

Anderson, 1998). These two cultures were considered incompatable almost from the

beginning and the only reasonable explanation for the similarities between Tula and

Chichén Itzá was invasion from the north. Although Teotihuácan has long been

considered an imperialist state, the nature of Tula is different. Tula is barbaric, the

buildings are made of shoddy construction, its people are grotesque and violent (Deihl,

1983; Coe, 1994).

Archaeological and documentary evidence suggests that Toltecs were a multi-

ethnic groups whose origin is likely from north of the Valley of Mexico (Deihl, 1983;

Coe, 1994; Jones, 1995). Ethnohistorical accounts correlated the fall of Teotihuácan with

the entrance to of the Toltecs into the Valley of Mexico from the north at about AD 1000

(Coe, 1994). It is likely however, that they were already in the valley well before this

time, and probably already at Tula itself (Deihl, 1983). Ethnohistorical accounts of the

Toltecs emergence state that the Toltecs migrated to the Valley of Mexico to escape

Olmec dominance which was implemented by Cholula (Adams, 1997). Coe (1994)

states that the Toltecs dominated parts of Guatemala and most of the Yucatán Peninsula.

Maya accounts (e.g., Book of Chalam Balam of Chumayal) speak of the arrival from the

west, (~987AD) of a Mexican conqueror named Kukulcán (‘Feathered Serpent”), who

with his companions subjugated their country (Roys, 1933; Thompson, 1966, 1970;

Willey, 1974; Coe, 1994; Sharer, 1996; Adams, 1997).

Materials from Tula that are included in this study come from two excavation

68
periods. The first was Jorge Acosta, who, under the direction of INAH, excavated the

site from 1940 until 1960 (Blanton et al., 1983; Deihl, 1983; Jones, 1996). The other

period begins in 1966 and covers more than a decade. The excavations during this time

were actually the result of two major archaeological projects: the Proyecto Tula (INAH)

and the University of Missouri-Columbia Tula Archaeological Project (Deihl, 1983).

Discussion

As we can see from this brief description of Mesoamerican history, questions

about the nature of interaction between central Mexico and the Maya area are complex

and will not be answered in a single study. However, the scale of this study will allow

many of the questions raised in this chapter to be addressed. The most obvious question

is whether or not there is any evidence of inter- and intraregional migration that can be

detected biologically. The biological results derived here, can be used to determine

whether biological evidence of migration correlates with what is inferred from the

archaeological data. Although large-scale intrusion into the Maya area by populations

from central Mexico may not have occurred, subtle long-term interaction on a much

smaller scale can change the structure of individual populations and can be detected

statistically. As stated above, the reason why previous bioarchaeological studies of

migration in Mesoamerica have largely failed to answer questions on a regional scale is

because they are primarily limited to one sub-area. Isotopic studies have demonstrated

that certain individuals can be identified whose isotopic ratios deviate from what would

be expected given their geographic location (e.g., Copán and Kaminaljuyú) (Wright,

69
2000). Unfortunately, isotopic studies only provide information on single individuals

and are not useful on a populational scale. Additionally, isotopic studies only tell us

where these individuals grew up and are not directly applicable to questions of

biological relatedness.

Expectations

There are a number of important relationships between Maya sites and between

these two regions that have been inferred from the archaeological data and that can be

tested with biological data. For the Maya area, the most important relationships revolve

around the major center of Tikal. The relationships between Kaminaljuyú, Tikal, and

Copán is one example, as is the relationship between Tikal and other lowland sites,

specifically Uaxactún and Calakmul. Archaeologically derived connections between

Maya sites and Teotihuácan, or the later central Mexican populations of Tula and

Cholula, are also amenable to testing with the biological data gathered during this

project. As stated above, the ability to determine whether actual population migrations

occurred during the Classic Period will provide an important piece of information about

both the development and the decline of sites throughout the Maya area.

Since Kaminaljuyú is primarily an Preclassic/Early Classic site, the biological

relationship between Kaminaljuyú and Teotihuácan may help shed light on the

abundance of data that demonstrates that Teotihuácan was involved directly or indirectly

with Kaminaljúyu. There is also archaeological evidence of significant contact between

Kaminaljúyu and Tikal to the north. As we move to the southern Maya periphery, to the

70
site of Copán we also see abundant archaeological evidence linking Copán to the cities

of Kaminaljúyu, Tikal, and Teotihuácan. Epigraphic evidence at Copán suggests ties

with the Mexican highland, but isotopic studies seem to indicate that ruling lineages in

Copán came from Tikal. It may be, as some have suggested (Buikstra et al. 2000), that

Tikal was an intermediary in Copán's relationship with the Mexican highlands. Many of

these relationships should be detectable biologically. If Kaminaljuyú and Copán did

have a connection with central Mexico, beyond simply acquiring exotic goods to

maintain or enhance legitimacy, then we would expect these sites to have small

biological distance estimates with samples from Teotihuácan. The biological

relationships between the populations of Kaminaljuyú and Tikal, and between those of

Copán and Tikal will also be informative because they can be compared directly with the

archaeological evidence.

Based on previous research specific sites in and around the Pasion region of

Guatemala (Sabloff and Willey, 1967; Saul, 1972; Austin, 1978; Wrobel, 2003; Scherer,

2004), the sites of Seibal and Altar de Sacrificios will exhibit differences reminiscent of

extralocal gene flow. Other sites on the periphery of the Maya area (e.g., Palenque,

Copán) are likely to be biological distant to other Maya sites and also are more likely to

demonstrate greater genetic variation than is expected. It is also likely that Tikal,

because of its dominant position in the Maya area during the Classic Period, interacted

with foreign sites more than other Maya sites and will therefore deviate from the other

sites in the region. There is also much archaeological and epigraphic evidence that links

Tikal with Central Mexico, specifically Teotihuácan. Copán, at the southern periphery of

71
the samples included in this study, is also likely to deviate from expected in terms of

genetic variation and biological distance because of archaeological evidence of contact

with non-Maya groups, and because it is at the periphery and was likely in contact with

sites to the south that were not included in this study.

The Maya area is further complicated by having numerous coastal sites which

were likely involved in long distance trade, the most important of which are the sites of

San Gervasio, Playa del Carmen, Xcambó, and Dzibilchaltún. It is possible that some of

these sites will demonstrate greater genetic diversity than expected. Some inland sites

are also expected to diverge from an isolation by distance model. Based on

archaeological evidence it is also likely that sites like Yaxuna’s with ties to Coba and the

southern lowlands may be biologically distant from their close neighbor at Chichén Itzá

(Sharer, 1996; Adams, 1997). Archaeological evidence that demonstrates conflict

between Chichén Itzá and Coba as well as the causeway linking Coba to Yaxuna,

illustrate why this is the case.

A similar example exists in the Peten region in the southern lowlands For the

Peten where researchers have identified two possible alliances of sites that often

coordinated their military activities as allies. One group of sites centered around the site

of Tikal, and the other centered around the site of Calakmul in southern Campeche

(Demarest, 2004). Based on a wealth of archaeological and hieroglyphic evidence that

shows long-term conflict with Tikal for control of the region, it seems likely that this

biological distance estimate will be greater than it should be given the proximity of the

sites. Many researchers have also acknowledged the conflict between Uaxactún and

72
Tikal (Schele and Freidel, 1990; Martin, 2003) so the relationship between these three

sites (Tikal, Calakmul, and Uaxactún) was very interesting. Given Tikal’s close

proximity to Uaxactún, it is likely that the peripheral areas of the city overlapped, and

we would therefore expect the biological distances between these two sites to be less

than between Tikal and Calakmul despite evidence of conflict between Tikal and both

Uaxactún and Calakmul. It is also likely that Uaxactún and Tikal will have smaller

distance measures because it seems that Uaxactún was subordinate to Tikal following a

possible conflict in the late fourth century (Blanton et al., 1993; Fash, 1994).

As we move to the Pasión region of Guatemala, sites such as Altar de Sacrificios

and Seibal are expected to be biologically distant based on archaeological evidence of

non-Maya intrusion, and because numerous biological studies have demonstrated that

these two sites are consistently outliers. Maya sites that lie at the boundaries of the Maya

area (e.g., Palenque and Copán) likely received immigrants from adjacent regions

simply because of their proximity to non-Maya sites resulting in larger biological

distance measurements or at least in greater genetic variation (i.e., genetic

heterozygosity). Because of their perceived role in long-distance trade, coastal sites,

such as Dzibilchaltún, Playa del Carmen/Cozumel, and Xcambó, are also expected to

have greater biological distance measures and/or greater genetic variability (Thompson,

1990; Cucina and Tiesler, 2003).

In central Mexico, Teotihuácan should have more genetic variability than other

sites in the region. . This is largely due to the large, multi-ethnic population at the site.

However, the large population also means that immigrants into Teotihuácan will have

73
very little impact on allelic diversity. For these reasons, numerous skeletal samples from

different areas within the site were included to detect differential external interaction

between sub-groups within this grand metropolis. Close to Teotihuácan to the north is

Tula. Because of Tula’s perceived importance to sociopolitical changes in the Yucatán

during the Terminal Classic period, it is expected that Tula may have interacted more

with Maya sites than its neighbors. Because of this, and because of its location at the

northern periphery of the sites included in this study, it is expected that Tula will be

more genetically variable than expected for its region. To the south and east of Tula is

the site of Cholula. Because of its location outside the Valley of Mexico, and because of

limited evidence of interaction between Cholula and sites outside Central Mexico,

Cholula is expected to be more biologically distant to sites within the Valley of Mexico.

Summary

From this chapter it should be clear that an understanding of the archaeological

research in Mesoamerica is crucial to the formation of hypotheses that can be tested with

biological data. This chapter examines archaeological evidence of migration from

central Mexico east to the Maya area at various times throughout the Classic period. It

should be clear that interpretations of historic and material remains are not

straightforward, and that evidence of contact (e.g., the presence of foreign material

remains) can be interpreted in numerous ways even if found in mortuary contexts (e.g.,

Mounds A and B at Kaminaljuyú). Migration of peoples from one area to another is only

one explanation, and additional sources of data are needed to answer these questions. In

74
this chapter a number of relationships, both between sites and between regions, have

been described that can be tested through biological data. These relationships include

connections between highland and lowland Maya sites (e.g., Tikal, Kaminaljuyú,

Copán), and the relationships between Maya sites and sites in central Mexico (e.g., Tikal

and Teotihuácan/Chichén Itzá and Tula). Although the results of this study will not be

able to definitively answer archaeological questions about the nature of the interaction

between these sites, they will be able to provide information on whether population

movements correlate with what is known archaeologically.

75
Figure 2-1. Map of the Maya area with sites that are mentioned in the text.

76
Figure 2-2. Map of Mexico with sites mentioned in the text

77
Dates Maya Central Maya Area
Mexico
AD/BC Period Phase Highlands Lowlands
Southern Northern
1750 Colonial Spanish
1542 conquest
Aztec
Late
1450
Totonac Mayapan
Utatlan Peten deserted
Middle
1250 Quiche Tulum

Early Toltec Centers

Post-
Mixtec Decline abandoned
Classic
900 Huastec
Dos Pilas Chichén Itzá
Zapotec (Toltec)
800 Piedras Negras
Palenque Uxmal
Late (Puuc)

700 Coba/Yaxuna
Middle Tikal
resurgence

400 Maya hiatus

Classic Early Tikal

250 Teotihuácan/Mon
te Albán reach Kaminaljuyú
AD
Late state level
BC
Middle
Izapan

Preclassic Olmec

Table 2-3. Chronology for Mesoamerica

78
 CHAPTER 3

BIOARCHAEOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO POPULATION HISTORY

Introduction

Because cultural remains themselves cannot reveal whether the evidence of

contact is largely the result of cultural diffusion or migration, additional lines of

evidence must be used to investigate these questions. There are many ways to approach

population history and migration. The primary lines of evidence are data from isotopic

studies and biological distance studies relying on either DNA directly or from

morphological traits that serve as a proxy for the underlying genetic variation. Despite

the advent of DNA analyses, it will be illustrated here that morphological studies

continue to have relevant in population studies.

Morphological variation and population history

The investigation of genetically controlled skeletal traits allows for a more direct

assessment of prehistoric migration and interaction than archaeology can provide.

Interest in morphological variants of the skeleton and dentition dates back to the mid-

nineteenth century when it was realized that this information could be used to

distinguish geographically dispersed human populations (Scott and Turner, 1997). The

utility of using skeletal variation as a proxy for the underlying genetic variation in

79
studies of population affinity has been repeatedly demonstrated (Corruccini, 1974, 1975;

Carpenter, 1976; Kaul et al., 1985; Townsend et al., 1988, 1992; Pompa y Padilla, 1990;

Schnutenhaus and Rösing, 1998; Hlusko, 2000, 2002; Rizk et al., 2008). In biodistance

studies, the morphological variation in quantitative traits is used to reconstruct

population history in the same way that population geneticists use genetic markers

(Harpending and Jenkins, 1973; Buikstra et al., 1990; Scott and Turner, 1997). An

obvious assumption is that estimates of phenotypic variation are correlated to the

underlying genetic variation, and that these two sources of data, if both are available, are

highly correlated (Falconer, 1981). The efficacy of this assumption has been addressed

repeatedly, and the utility of using morphological variation to reconstruct biological

relationships between populations has been demonstrated (Berry and Berry, 1967;

Corruccini and Shimada 1972; Townsend and Brown, 1978; Scott and Potter, 1984; Kaul

et al., 1985; Turner, 1987, 1990, 1992; Lukacs and Hemphill 1991; Townsend and

Martin, 1992; Townsend et al., 1988; Relethford, 1991; Townsend and Martin, 1992;

Relethford and Harpending, 1994; Larsen, 1997; Brasila et al., 1999; Hlusko, 2000,

20002; Stojanowski, 2004). Numerous studies of prehistoric populations, contemporary

populations, and twin studies using morphological data have produced similar

biodistance estimates as allelic and genetic markers (Lundsröm 1963; Potter et al., 1968;

Scott 1972; Hanihara et al., 1975; Brewer-Carias et al., 1976; Zoubov and Nikityuk

1978; Falconer, 1981; Scott and Potter, 1984; Kaul et al., 1985; Corruccini et al., 1986;

Relethford et al., 1997; Scott and Turner, 1997).

A variety of skeletal features can be used to estimate biological distance

80
(Pietrusewsky, 2000). Choosing whether to concentrate on features of the bony cranium

versus dental features or some combination of the two, often depends on the

preservation of the skeletal sample. In this study, I focus solely on morphological

variation of the dentition, but if available, all morphological data that could be relevant

to biological distance should be collected (Corruccini, 1975). For Mesoamerica, skeletal

material is poorly preserved, usually impeding the investigation of cranial metrics, but

this is not true everywhere (Gonzalez Jose et al., 2001; Jantz and Owsley, 2001) .

Additionally, crania that are preserved are often culturally modified by cranial

deformation, which can affect bone metric and non-metric features of the cranium

(Corruccini, 1975; Konigsberg et al., 1993). The use of cranial metrics in Mesoamerica

would drastically cut down on sample sizes due to the need for relatively complete,

undeformed crania. Data on cranial non-metrics, such as the presence of accessory

foramina, could be collected since the presence or absence of these features can be

determined on fragmented skeletal material (Christensen, 1998a, b). For archaeological

material with good preservation and no cranial deformation, facial metrics and non-

metrics have proved useful in estimating biological relationships (Corruccini, 1975;

Scott and Turner 1997; Vodanovic et al., 2007). Teeth on the other hand, are preserved in

most archaeological contexts.

81
 Dental Anthropology

Analysis of variation in dental morphology in archaeological samples is a

common tool used by biological anthropologists for population reconstruction and

biological affinity studies (Kieser, 1990; Pompa y Padilla, 1990; 1996; Lukacs and

Hemphill 1991; Haydenbilt, 1996; Hillson , 1996; Larsen, 1997; Scott and Turner, 1997;

Christensen, 1998a,b; Scherer, 2004). Hrdlicka’s research on dental morphology marks

the beginning of modern dental anthropology in which degrees of expression and

distribution of discrete traits were assessed among human populations (1920, 1921).

Both dental non-metric and metric data will be used to investigate population

affinities. Non-metric and metric data constitute discrete (or more accurately

quasicontinuous) and continuous data respectively, and as such are amenable to different

statistical methods. The use of both discrete and continuous data is common in

reconstructions of population history both within Mesoamerica (Spence, 1974;

Christensen, 1998a,b; Wrobel, 2003; Scherer, 2004) and elsewhere (Steadman, 1998;

Irish, 1997; McClelland 2003; Stojanowski, 2004). It has been suggested for the

dentition that these two systems of dental variation may be subject to different genetic

and environmental controls (Hillson, 1996; Christensen, 1997), and thus constitute two

largely independent data sets. Using data derived from both systems together provides a

broader view of population structure in time and space than either system alone could

provide by sampling a larger portion of the genome. It is also more likely that where

these two systems overlap represents the biological reality.

82
Dental biology

Past studies of dental variation have consistently shown that using dental

variability as a proxy for the underlying genetic variability is a sound research method

(Berry and Berry, 1967; Potter et al., 1968, 1978; Corruccini, 1974; Cheverud and

Buikstra, 1981; Relethford and Lees, 1982; Scott and Potter, 1984; Kaul et al., 1985;

Kieser, 1990; Pompa y Padilla, 1990; 1996; Lukacs and Hemphill 1991; Townsend and

Martin, 1992; Haydenbilt, 1996; Hillson , 1996; Larsen, 1997; Scott and Turner, 1997;

Christensen, 1998a,b; Hlusko, 2002; Skinner, 2002; Scherer, 2004; Rizk et al., 2008).

Recent experimentation using mice has identified many of the primary genes and

signaling pathways responsible for the formation of the dental tissues and their

temporospatial activity during tooth growth (Jernvall, 2000; Skinner, 2002). This work

has been the impetus for the generation and testing of new developmental models that

attempt to explain the processes behind the dental phenotypes that are present in mice

and other mammal groups (Jernvall, 2000; Skinner, 2002).

In general, the usefulness of dental variation to assess biological affinity is

increased because teeth do not remodel after formation (Kieser, 1990; Scott and Turner,

1997). Tooth crowns are fully formed before occlusion and that once enamel is formed

there is no subsequent remodeling of the tooth crown (Mayhall and Saunders, 1986;

Schnutenhaus and Rösing, 1998). Because teeth are fully formed before occlusion, teeth

are free from mechanical stimuli, which can drastically alter the form of the rest of the

skeleton. Additionally, since teeth do not remodel, they provide a conservative estimate

of biological relatedness through life (Scott and Turner, 1997; Skinner, 2002). Although

83
the crown does not experience biomechanical forces during formation, the apices of the

roots often do (Scott and Turner, 1997).

Although teeth and bone are different in their composition there are a number of

similarities. The general processes that account for the formation of dentin and enamel

are similar to those that account for the formation of bone although they are each formed

by different types of cells (Skinner, 2002). Like osteoblasts, odontoblasts (dentin-

forming cells) and ameloblasts (enamel-forming cells) are derived from mesenchymal

cells (Scott and Turner, 1997; Aeillo and Dean, 2002; Skinner, 2002). These are

pluripotential cells that derive from the mesodermal layer in the embryo (McLean and

Urist, 1968; Aiello and Dean, 2002; Skinner, 2002). As these cells differentiate into

odontoblasts and ameloblasts, dentin and enamel is laid down to produce different teeth

(Hillson 1996; Scott and Turner, 1997; Aiello and Dean, 2002; Skinner, 2002). Dentin is

most similar to bone in that it retains some ability to remodel after initial formation, but

the potential is greatly reduced when compared to bone (Aiello and Dean, 2002).

Enamel is completely acellular and, once formed, only abrasive wear and carious lesions

can alter the shape of the crown (Hillson 1996; Scott and Turner, 1997; Aiello and Dean,

2002).

The differences between the formation of teeth and bone are numerous. Whereas

an endochondral bone is formed by the replacement of a cartilaginous model with bone

(McLean and Urist, 1968), teeth are formed more directly from the differentiation of

clouds of mesenchymal cells that are present at the location where each tooth bud

develops (Aiello and Dean, 2002; Skinner, 2002). The first stage of tooth development

84
begins with the down-growth of epithelial cells into the jaws, where the epithelial cells

interact with the mass of mesenchyme beneath (Goodman and Rose, 1990; Aeillo and

Dean, 2002). It may be the mesenchyme that determines the shape of the developing

tooth, since transplanting mesenchyme of one tooth type beneath the epithelium of

another tooth type does not alter the tooth that will form (Aeillo and Dean, 2002).

Although Osborn's clone theory which suggests the existence of three types of

primordium that are specific to a particular type of teeth (Osborn, 1978). Whether the

mesenchyme is differentiated or primordial, it has likely lost much of its multipotential

ability. It is likely that mesenchymal cells are also responsible for the shape of bones that

are formed by endochondral ossification as well, since both chondroblasts and

osteoblasts are derived from this embryonic layer (Skinner, 2002).

As the inner enamel epithelium of the tooth germ divides and expand at different

rates the epithelium begins to resemble the shape of the developing crown’s cusps and

fissures (Goodman and Rose, 1990; Aeillo and Dean, 2002). This process is actually

occurring at the site of the dentino-enamel junction (Skinner, 2002). Odontoblasts and

ameloblasts are derived from the inner enamel epithelium at this junction and will

eventually form the root and crown of the tooth (Goodman and Rose, 1990; Skinner,

2002). The process of enamel and root formation begins at the cusp tips, with

ameloblasts moving toward the future occlusal surface, and odontoblasts moving toward

the future pulp chamber (Goodman and Rose, 1990; Skinner, 2002). Once the first round

of ameloblasts and odontoblasts have finished, more are stimulated closer to the cervix

(Skinner, 2002). For enamel this results in an increase in cuspal area covered with

85
enamel until all cusps are connected and the sides of the crown, down until the cemento-

enamel junction (CEJ) is complete. Once the crown is complete ameloblasts die (Aeillo

and Dean, 2002). Odontoblasts do not die, but remain active throughout life allowing for

a small amount of dentin remodeling (e.g., secondary dentin) (Goodman and Rose,

1990; Aeillo and Dean, 2002).

Field theory and clone model

Butler (1956) proposed a gradient model of dental patterning in which

concentration gradients of unspecified molecules determine separate fields in which

incisors and molars develop. Osborn (1978) suggested a clone model in which different

populations of mesenchymal cells populated the first branchial arch which eventually

gave rise to incisor and molar specific mesenchymal cells. Based on recent

developmental genetic research, the odontogenic homeobox code (OHC) model posits

that teeth are serially homologous structures and tooth type is determined by nested and

restricted homeobox gene expression in the maxillary and mandibular mesenchyme

(Sharpe, 1995; Thomas et al., 1997). It is currently believed that it is the coexpression of

homeobox genes in the mesenchyme, induced by signals from the oral epithelium, which

determines tooth type in mice (Ferguson et al., 2000, Skinner, 2002; Armfield et al.,

2009). As it pertains to this study, the expression of these homeobox genes have

pleitropic effects within tooth classes producing genetically correlated traits.

86
 Non-metric traits

Non-metric traits have proven useful in determining genetic relationships

between individuals and populations because they are highly genetically controlled

(Berry and Berry, 1967; Scott and Turner, 1988, 1997). The method for scoring discrete

traits of the permanent dentition has been continually refined and standardized, initially

by Hrdlička (1920), then later by Dahlberg (1950, 1951). Currently, the most widely

used dental scoring standards are the Arizona State University dental plaques (Turner et

al., 1991). Turner’s method for identifying and interpreting population distance is based

on the degree of expression of morphological variants of the dentition (Turner et al.,

1991). These morphological variants are termed non-metric traits (Scott and Turner,

1997). As Austin (1978:61) states, in addition to being a close approximation of the

underlying genotype, morphological traits should meet four requirements.

• The traits should be independent of each other.

• The traits should not present undue difficulty in measurement or classification.

• The traits must be present in frequencies great enough to be of use in statistical

testing.

• The traits must be variable enough among populations to be of use in

differentiating those populations.

In an attempt to standardize scoring methods to reduce interobserver and

intraobserver error, Turner has expanded Dahlberg’s reference plaques to incorporate

additional traits that he considers important in affinity studies. Turner’s system

comprises a set of reference plaques and procedures to standardize observations of

87
crown, root, and inter-osseous morphological traits in the permanent dentition (Turner et

al., 1991). Standardization in the scoring of traits has allowed different researchers to

consistently score the degree of trait expression with often negligible intraobserver error

(e.g. Turner et al., 1991; Wrobel, 2003; Scherer, 2004).

The scoring procedures developed by Dahlberg and later by Turner are based on

well-established criteria for scoring intra-trait variation, and have proven to be reliable

in many studies (e.g., see Scott and Potter, 1984; Kaul et al., 1985; Turner, 1987, 1990,

1992; Lukacs and Hemphill, 1991; Townsend and Martin, 1992), although researchers

have questioned the validity of relying on biological distances based on discrete data

alone (Corruccini, 1974). Studies have shown that many of the non-metric traits on the

ASU dental plaques are highly heritable (Townsend and Martin, 1992; Hillson, 1996;

Scott and Turner, 1997; Schnutenhaus and Rösing, 1998). However, the ASU system has

both strengths and weaknesses. It is appealing to students of biodistance primarily

because it is easy to use with little training required. Traits are easily observed and the

standardization of scoring method has greatly reduced both intra- and interobserver error

(Scott and Turner, 1988; Turner, 1990; Turner et al., 1991). This is the very reason why

Dahlberg developed the plaques in the first place. These discrete traits can also be scored

accurately even on moderately worn teeth. This is important because it reduces the

number of teeth that need to be excluded due to wear (see metric measurements below)

thus increasing sample sizes.

Traits chosen by Turner for biological affinity studies have been tested for

correlation and most have been shown to be independent or only weakly correlated

88
(Turner et al., 1991; Scott and Turner, 1997). This is important because the inclusion of

correlated traits statistical tests artificially inflates biological distance estimates by

incorporating numerous traits that may be controlled by the same genes (i.e., not

accounting for the pleitropic effects of major genes) (Hlusko, 2000; Rizk, 2008).

Unfortunately, despite the production of standardized reference plaques

researchers continue to report a high degree of interobserver error (Nichole and Turner,

1986; Haydenbilt, 1996; Scherer, 2004). In fact, Dahlberg (1950) was concerned that the

degree of interobserver error in scoring trait expression and cautioned against using data

collected by other researchers. The result is that interobserver error can result in largely

incomparable results from different researchers. Interobserver error makes comparisons

of results between different researchers suspect (e.g. Wrobel 2003), and suggests

differing results may simply be an artifact of different scoring methods. The scale of

interobserver error would determine whether comparison of dental trait frequencies from

different researchers would result in erroneous conclusions about genetic relatedness

because of different scoring methods. This has resulted in a general lack of fruitful

comparison between studies of different researchers, and is the primary impetus behind

this project. All data for the present study were collected by a single researcher thus

avoiding the problem of interobserver error.

The presence of ranked categories of expression is helpful, but it is often difficult

to chose between grades of expression, and this ambiguity results in interobserver error

(Turner et al., 1991; Scherer, 2004). The real problem here is that nonmetric dental traits

do not easily fall into two, three, or even seven discrete categories. As stated above, the

89
reason for this is because dental morphological variables are quantitative traits which

have an underlying continuous distribution (Falconer, 1981). However, the continuous

nature of the phenotypes may not necessarily correlate with the continuous nature of the

underlying genotypes (Falconer, 1981). This is because these traits are threshold

characters where the underlying liability (i.e., distribution of genotypes) have an

expected normal distribution, and only the genotypes that pass a certain threshold are

expressed phenotypically (Falconer, 1981). Since in reality, non-metric traits of the

dentition do not follow a simple presence/absence dichotomy, ranked scores (like the

ASU system) more closely approximate the underlying liability distribution.

Unfortunately, the degree of agreement between the phenotypic and genotypic

distributions is unclear. In terms of the ordinal scale on the ASU dental plaques, the

difference between a zero and a one may be much greater than the difference between

one and two. In other words, the scale of zero to one may contain a greater degree of

variation in the underlying genotypes of the liability distribution then the scale of one to

two.

To compound the problem, the statistics that are commonly applied to

biodistance estimates for nonmetric traits require that the ranked expression scores be

reduced to a presence/absence dichotomy. This results in an enormous loss of

information that would be useful to differentiate populations (Mayhall, 2000), however

there is the benefit that interobserver error is reduced because now we are only dealing

with only presence or absence. Unfortunately, this presence absence dichotomy is likely

even less correlated with the underlying liability distribution than the ranked data. In

90
addition, there is little consistency between researchers about an acceptable threshold to

define presence or absence (Mayhall, 1992; 2000). Turner (1986) published

dichotomization standards, but these are not always practical due to population

differences in trait expression. The phenotypic threshold for scoring a trait as present or

absent is arbitrary, so many researchers choose a trait dichotomization scheme that

maximizes between group differences for statistical analysis (Scherer, 2004). The

problem with this is that most researchers do not publish raw scores or what phenotypic

threshold they used to define presence or absence (Mayhall, 2000), so studies using two

different trait dichotomization schemes could not be compared (even assuming that

interobserver error could be ignored). Added to this, is the reality the we do not know

enough about the underlying liability distribution for each trait to determine the best

phenotypic threshold for presence/absence. To bypass the need to dichotomize data,

Sanghvi’s G distance statistic can be applied to the ordinal data. The benefit of this

statistic is that you do not lose information related to the degree of expression. The

drawback however, is often insurmountable; small sample sizes for each level of trait

expression, resulting in an increase in empty cells in contingency tables. This problem

could be overcome only if sample sizes were extremely large, although interobserver

error would likely increased due to an increased number of possible scores.

There is some concern that the range of expressions of certain traits may not

even be the same trait (Mayhall, 2000). As Mayhall (1992, 2000) notes for Carabelli’s

trait and the protostylid, expression for both of these traits ranges from a small pit to a

large free cusp. There has been some debate about whether the pit represents a negative

91
expression of the trait or whether it is completely unrelated (Mayhall, 1992, 2000). For

the protostylid, some populations exhibit another pit in the location of the protostylid

that is completely unrelated called the foramen caecum (Mayhall, 1992, 2000). Because

of this, it is unclear whether the pit in both of these traits is actually homologous (in

evolutionary terms) with the cusp.

Traditional biological distance estimates are interpreted as resulting from gene

drift alone. With genetic drift as the single explanatory variable some researchers have

attempted to use variation in dental morphology to estimate divergent dates (Turner,

1990; Scott and Turner, 1988). This method assumes that dental differentiation occurs at

a relatively constant rate after populations separate from the parent population. By

definition, this model presupposes genetic isolation between populations in the sample

because it ignores gene flow, which could obscure even the most drastic differences

between populations in a relatively short time (Lasker and Mascie-Taylor, 1988).

Turner’s dentochronology method also cannot account for multiple bottleneck events

that could occur following separation from the parent population, which would result in

increased biological (and therefore chronological) distance between populations. Even if

the assumption that populations diverge at a relatively constant rate, the populations

would have to be large enough at the time of separation to be representative of the parent

population, and the populations would have to be genetically isolated from one another.

Many of Turner’s assumptions may hold for global population movements, but they are

unrealistic with populations that are spread out more or less continuously over the

landscape. To elaborate on the last point, further, even if we consider each of these traits

92
as monogenic (single gene trait) independent assortment of traits during meiosis would

result in a complex intermingling of gene lineages. The fact that Turner’s dental traits

are polygenic, only makes the idea of the uniformity of divergence less likely.

Previous bioarchaeological studies in Mesoamerica

Like the current study, an increasing number of researchers are studying human

remains to estimate region of origin for specific individuals or biological distances

between different populations in Mesoamerica (Saul, 1972; Spence, 1974 a or b, 1994;

Austin, 1978; Pompa y Padilla, 1990; White, 1988, 1997; White et al., 2000;

Christensen, 1997, 1998; Wright, ; Wrobel, 2003; Buikstra et al., 2004; Cucina and

Tiesler, 2003; Scherer, 2004). It is important here to acknowledge previous

bioarchaeological studies in order to evaluate the value of the current study. Knowledge

at the individual level is enormously valuable, but is insufficient in assessing the

questions posed in this research. Research on oxygen and strontium isotopes in the Maya

area has been able to detect foreign migrants as demonstrated for the individuals in

Mounds A and B at Kaminaljuyú (Wright and Schwarcz, 1998, 1999; Wright, 2000), and

for the founder's tomb at Copán (Buikstra et al., 2000), but isotopic data provides no

information on biological affinity. Large-scale isotopic studies would be more

informative at the population level, but as of yet, no study has incorporated large

samples of individuals. Ancient DNA analyses (whether nuclear or mitochondrial DNA)

are also primarily used to identify individuals (González-Oliver et al., 2001; Matheson et

al., 2003), although the promise of nuclear DNA studies in the future is discussed in the

93
final chapter. Results from previous studies on morphological variability provide the

most useful starting point for this project.

A number of studies have looked at the variation in morphological traits in

Mesoamerica (Austin, 1972; Saul, 1972, 1978; Spence, 1974; Haydenbilt, 1996; Cucina

and Tiesler, 2003; Wrobel, 2003; Scherer, 2004). The recent large study by Scherer

(2004) is the most relevant for comparison with this study for two reasons. First, Scherer

includes eighteen Classic Period Maya sites, many of which are included in this

analysis. And second, many of the questions posed in his research are important in the

current study. Scherer (2004) is also the only other study that used R-matrix analysis to

calculate expected levels of genetic variation within regions, although he focused solely

on Maya sites and his divisions for the Maya area are problematic.

For the Maya area, early studies primarily focused on the Pasion sites of Altar de

Sacrificios and Seibal because of evidence of foreign intrusion from the Mexican

highlands (Austin, 1972, 1978). In Austin (1978) Altar de Sacrificios and Seibal were

separated into early (Preclassic to Late Classic) and late (Terminal Classic) samples.

Altar demonstrated continuity over time, but Seibal did not. This biological evidence,

coupled with archaeological interpretations of foreign intrusion into the sites, let Austin

to conclude that foreign gene flow resulted in changes in population structure at Seibal.

Interpreting his own results, Scherer (2004) came to a similar conclusion. The results of

Wrobel (2003) were less conclusive, likely because he was using published data from

many sources. Although Wrobel (2002) acknowledges this problem, he instead questions

the utility of dental metrics in biodistance studies. Scherer (2004) did identify three sites

94
that were much more variable than expected for the Maya area. These sites include

Seibal, Kaminaljuyú, and Barton Ramie (Scherer, 2004). These findings are consistent

with what would be expected given the archaeological data, since Seibal and

Kaminaljuyú are both considered excellent examples of sites with strong ties to central

Mexico (Sanders and Price, 1968; Sanders, 1971; Austin, 1972, 1978; Adams, 1973,

1997 Saul, 1972; Coggins, 1979) although the same is not true for Barton Ramie.

Unfortanately, Scherer was unable to explore relationships with non-Maya groups

because because no sites outside of the Maya area were sampled.

Discussion

As described here, there are numerous ways to approach questions of migration

and population history. All have their strengths and weaknesses, and each provides

complementary data to that presented here. Dental morphological traits were chosen

because they are non-destructive, easy to record on large samples, and because they are

highly genetically controlled. Although each of the other methods described in this

chapter allow for the identification of immigrants in sample populations, only ancient

DNA analysis can demonstrate actual genetic relatedness. Unfortunately, DNA analysis

is primarily restricted to mtDNA and the samples are too small to make any meaningful

predictions at the population level. It is clear however, that ancient DNA is far superior

to morphological traits in revealing ancestry and population history if the data on more

individuals were available. The availability of data from DNA (nuclear DNA not

mtDNA) on a sufficient number of individuals will likely not be available for some time

95
to come. Numerous recent bioarchaeological studies have assessed population structure

within specific regions, but few have included samples outside of their cultural region

(e.g., Maya, Zapotec, Teotihuacano). This scale of this study will allow for regional

questions to be addressed.

Summary

There are numerous bioarchaeological methods that can be used to investigate

migration and biological affinity. As demonstrated here, isotopic studies are useful in

assigning specific individuals to their earlier geographic locations, but these studies do

not directly evaluate the biological relatedness of individuals. DNA studies have been

proven useful in identifying individuals or in identifying migration patterns on a large

scale. Unfortunately, nuclear DNA studies lack the sample sizes to evaluate biological

affinity at the population level, and mtDNA studies lack the resolution to evaluate small-

scale migration within regions. The continuing utility of morphological traits is due to

the ability to collect data on large samples to evaluate how populations interacted

biologically. However, the reliability of these studies hinge on the correlation between

the observable phenotype and the underlying genotype. A greater understanding of

developmental biology and developmental genetics is therefore crucial.

This chapter outlines the theoretical underpinnings of morphological studies by

investigating the development of the dentition. Teeth are the most useful in studies of

biological affinity because they are more likely to be preserved in the archaeological

record, and more importantly, because they are more tightly controlled by genes. It is of

96
obvious importance in biological distance studies that phenotype being recorded is

informative about the underlying genotype, so it is crucial to understand the role of

genetic and environmental factors in tooth development. This chapter also briefly

summarizes previous biodistance studies conducted in Mesoamerica, which helped to

focus the current study. Unresolved questions and methodological inconsistencies of

previous research were noted in an effort to focus this research. These earlier studies

provide an excellent starting point for the current study, just as this study will for

research in the future. With an understanding of Mesoamerican history and the genetics

of dental development, it is now necessary to understand how this information can be

used to understand pre-Hispanic population structure.

97
 CHAPTER IV

POPULATION GENETICS

Introduction

Migration and population interaction can be viewed on two levels; one cultural

and one biological. It has often been assumed that evidence of change in the

archaeological record indicates biological migration into the area from outside the region

(Charnay, 1887; Tozzer, 1930, 1957; Thompson. 1966, 1990; Renfrew, 1987). However,

evidence of cultural contact does not necessarily indicate the movement of genes from

one area to another (Jones, 1989; Shortman, 1989; DeMarrais et al., 1996). Likewise, the

lack of archaeological evidence of contact does not obviate the possibility that genetic

exchange occurred between populations. Biological distance studies are important in

addressing this issue, since they provide the most direct way to assess migration.

With any study of biological affinity, a biological distance measure should give

some idea as to the degree of genetic relatedness of the populations (Falconer, 1981;

Relethford and Blangero, 1990). The theoretical basis of genetic distance studies is that

the distance between two groups should be small if their gene frequencies are similar

(Harpending and Jenkins, 1973:179). As the biological distance measure decreases, it

indicates that the populations or individuals are more closely related biologically (Crow,

1986). For instance, two samples with identical allele frequencies or trait expressions

98
will have a pairwise distance of zero, as would monozygotic twins. As the degree of

genetic relatedness between populations decreases, the biological distance estimate

between these populations increases (Crow 1986). It is illustrated in population genetics

that under conditions of random mating as populations become more separated

geographically they become more differentiated genetically (Falconer, 1981; Crow,

1986; Hartl and Clark, 1997). This isolation by distance model (Wright, 1943) will be

the null hypothesis with which we compare estimates of relatedness both within and

between the sub-regions of this study. Populations deviate from an isolation by distance

model by having either a larger or smaller biological distance estimate than would be

expected under the ideal conditions of the model (Wright, 1943; Falconer, 1981). Matrix

correlation analysis can also be employed to determine if the gene flow within and

between these sub-regions follows an isolation by distance model.

Biological distance

Any of the microevolutionary processes can shift the observed biological

distances from what is expected under the isolation by distance model, and it is

important to understand that these variables are intricately related in most archaeological

populations. Concentration on one, at the exclusion of the rest, is likely to result in

erroneous interpretations as to the causes of increased biological distance estimates. The

goal of population studies is to discern which of these processes affected the biological

distance estimates.

99
Large biological distance estimates

There are three principle reasons why we would expect large biological distances

between samples (adapted from Scott and Turner, 1997).

1. If the samples share a distant common ancestor. This presupposes that the

populations are isolated from one another whether or not mutations are

considered.

2. If the the loci in question have been subject to different selective pressures.

3. If the population is small, so the impact of genetic drift is greater.

These factors are basically the major forces of evolution described by Mayr

(1970), except that since this study includes populations from a short period of time, I

have purposely left mutation off of this list although I will discuss it briefly below. In

reality, these three factors are fundamentally interrelated in different ways depending on

the samples that you are working with.

In biological distance studies, if two populations demonstrate large biological

distance estimates, it is generally assumed that they separated from a parent population

long ago (Turner, 1991; Manly, 1994; Scott and Turner, 1997). If the populations being

studied are widely dispersed geographically and temporally, then large biological

distance estimates should be expected (Wright, 1943; Crow, 1986; Manly, 1994;

Konigsberg, 1990 ). For populations that are separated geographically, increased

biological distances are expected because each population is able to accumulate

mutations in what are essentially two independent evolutionary lineages (Manly, 1994;

Jobling et al., 2003). For populations that are separated temporally mutations are likely

100
to have occurred between the two samples causing them to diverge (Hartl and Clark,

1997; Jobling, 2003). This applies to populations as well as species. If no other

evolutionary forces were acting, this could cause an increase in the variance and a shift

in the population means (Crow, 1986). Since biodistance measures take both the mean

and the variance into account, the accumulation of mutations could increase biological

distance. It is possible that mutations could actually reduce biological distance by

increasing genetic variance, but it does not have to.

Gene drift

It is likely, since biological distance estimates consider the variance around the

means, that two populations have large biological distance estimates because one or both

of the populations experienced a reduction in genetic variation (i.e., the variance) as a

result of genetic drift (Crow, 1986; Jobling, 2003). If the populations are small, or

recently experienced a dramatic decrease in population size, then the total genetic

variation will likely be greatly reduced (and by extension the standard deviations around

the mean) from the parent population from which these populations derived (Crow,

1986; Hartl and Clark, 1997). The reduction in the variance variance would increase the

likelihood that the two populations would be different because of the reduced variation

regardless of how recently these populations actually separated.

101
Natural selection

Differing selective pressures often result in larger biological distance measures

for two reasons. The first is similar to genetic drift where the total genetic variation is

reduced, therefore reducing the variance around the means and making it more likely

that the two samples will differ statistically (Falconer, 1981; Jobling et al., 2003). If two

populations are reproductively isolated, then natural selection will act to reduce the

genetic variation of any traits that are related to fitness (Crow, 1986; Jobling et al.,

2003). If we think in terms of alleles, long-term selection could lead to the fixation of

alleles at various loci (i.e., reduction in genetic diversity) (Jobling et al., 2003). Fixation

of alleles could also occur through random genetic drift in small populations with the

same result; a reduction in the total genetic variation. The second reason is that natural

selection can change the population mean in each population by selecting genotypes

with the greatest fitness in each environment (Jobling et al., 2003). This shift in the

means of each population would cause the biological distance estimates for these

populations to increase (Manly, 1994). Therefore natural selection tends to increase

biological distance between populations by changing the population means and reducing

the variation around the means resulting in less overlap in the means and variances

(Crow, 1983). For this study, the impact of natural selection can be disregarded because

its importance in affecting the population structure of the populations in this study are

considered negligible. It is unlikely that differing selective pressures would be a

significant factor in the distribution of genetic variability because the samples are from a

limited geographic and temporal range (Relethford and Blangero, 1990), and all

102
subpopulations had similar diets and similar levels of technology (Hillson , 1996; Scott

and Turner, 1997).Additionally, the discrete traits chosen to assess population affinity,

appear to be neutral with respect to fitness (Hillson, 1996; Scott and Turner, 1988,

1997).

There is one additional factor that is not included in this list, sexual selection.

This is a form of non-random mating that can artificially increase biological distance

estimates (Falconer, 1981; Crow, 1983; Jobling et al., 2003). It is likely that the

frequencies of some highly visible physical features used in biodistance analysis (e.g.,

maximum facial breadth or winged incisors) might be altered by sexual selection. As

there is no way to detect this variable, I have purposely excluded such traits from this

analysis.

Small biological distance estimates

When small biological distance estimates between populations the opposite of

the above is true.

1. There is gene flow between populations so the populations become more

similar genetically

2. The loci in question are subject to similar or no selective pressures.

3. The populations are large so the impact of genetic drift is reduced and the

populations maintain genetic diversity

103
Gene flow

Gene flow between populations tends to increase the variation within groups and

decrease variation between groups (Falconer, 1981; Scott and Turner, 1988). Gene flow

between populations results in a convergence in the means, and, coupled with an

increase in variation around the means, results in smaller biological distance estimates

between samples (Manly, 1994). Gene flow between populations has the ability to

rapidly homogenize the populations and make any claims of ancestry irrelevant (Lasker

and Mascie-Taylor, 1988). The reason for this is that gene lineages do not necessarily

correlate with species lineages (or in this case population lineages) (Jobling et al., 2003).

In fact, an individual in one population may share many of his genes (identical by

descent) with someone from another population, that he does not share with his own

children. Any gene flow between two populations will tend to obscure biological

differences between these populations.

For Classic period Mesoamerica, there is abundant archaeological evidence for

interregional interaction, and there is little doubt that to some degree these

subpopulations are encompassed within a larger breeding population. Because the

samples from Mesoamerica likely represent a single, large, breeding population, gene

flow likely played an important role in distributing genetic variability across the region

(Crow, 1986; Jobling et al,. 2003). Likewise, genetic drift is an important factor to

consider in any biological distance approach (Turner, 1991; Scott and Turner, 1988,

1997), especially when populations are scattered over a large geographic area as in the

present study. The relative importance of gene flow versus genetic drift on population

104
structure, can be identified through various statistical approaches (Turner, 1969;

Harpending and Ward, 1982; Konigsberg 1990; Relethford and Blangero, 1990;

Relethford, 1991; Relethford et al., 1994). Different statistics are going to reveal

different aspects of population structure, and a combination of numerous statistics and

models is probably the most appropriate for this study (Scherer, 2004).

Statistical approaches: an overview

Statistical analysis of morphological data has become increasingly sophisticated

in recent decades. Although these statistics are detailed in Chapters 5 and 6, it is

important to outline the basic methods here, within the context of population genetics.

Traditionally, morphological and genetic data were subject to various biodistance

statistics which resulted in an estimate of phenotypic or genetic similarity between

different populations (Sjøvold, 1973; Green and Suchey, 1976; de Souza and Houghton,

1977; Turner, 1990; Manly, 1994; Scott and Turner, 1997). Most model-free statistics

summarize gene frequencies between pairs of subpopulations, and small pairwise

distance estimates characterize populations that are more closely related (Manly, 1994).

With these approaches, divergence is interpreted as resulting largely from the stochastic

processes of genetic drift (Scott and Turner, 1997).

Populations with small biological distances are interpreted as being more closely

related. Most multivariate statistics must consider the entire matrix of numbers (e.g., N

individuals and P observations) that requires a consideration of covariance of every

possible pair of combinations in the matrix (Pietrusewsky, 2000). For continuous

105
variables the observed variation is estimated (i.e., within-group covariance matrices), but

there is no prior expectation of the amount of genetic variation to compare this to. As

explained in the previous section, with gene drift as the single explanatory variable,

there are a couple of explanations as to why two populations might have small biological

distances. First, these populations may have derived from a parent population recently,

and each population retained a representative sample of the parent population.

Alternatively, if these two populations diverged long ago, but maintained large

populations the random effects of genetic drift would be reduced (Hartl and Clark, 1997;

Jobling et al,. 2003. These model-free statistics are widely used to assess worldwide

population movements, including the colonization of the New World, but have also been

used to assess genetic relatedness between subpopulations within regions. Unfortunately,

traditional biodistance estimates are unable to detect the presence of gene flow.

To detect gene flow it is necessary to have additional information relating to how

the variation is distributed. In order to acquire additional information about population

structure, data must be able to be interpreted through population genetics models so

predictions can be made about expected outcomes (Falconer, 1981; Crow 1986;

Relethford and Blangero, 1990; Hartl and Clark, 1997). These model-bound statistics

assume that the populations examined were interbreeding subpopulations of a larger

breeding population (Harpending and Jenkins, 1973; Harpending and Ward, 1982;

Williams-Blangero and Blangero, 1989; Relethford and Blangero, 1990). By interpreting

results within a population genetics framework, we are able input additional parameters

related to population structure and assess the relative effects of gene flow and gene drift

106
on population structure (Harpending and Ward, 1982; Crow, 1986; Relethford and

Blangero, 1990; Hartl and Clark, 1997). Assuming that the populations form a larger

breeding population allows for the estimation of expected and observed frequencies for

trait expression (i.e., genetic heterozygosity) in order to glean more information from the

data than is available in the traditional distance statistics (Relethford and Blangero,

1990). The ability to create expectations of genetic heterozygosity in a multivariate case,

such as those presented here, is directly analogous to the predictions about expected

genotype ratios under the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium model. Harpending and Jenkins

(1973) and Harpending and Ward (1982) derived models for allelic data that provide a

measure of intraregional genetic heterogeneity. However, these statistics deal only with

allelic data, and thus are not applicable to continuous data for which the underlying

genetic structure is unknown. Relethford and Blangero (1990) modified the Harpending

and Ward (1982) model to allow for the use of the phenotypic variation of continuous

traits as a proxy for the underlying genetic variability. One assumption for the

Relethford-Blangero model is that the phenotype and genotype are highly correlated

which allows the phenotypic variance-covariance matrix to be substituted into the

genotypic variance-covariance matrix of the Harpending and Ward model. This

assumption about the correlation between phenotype and genotype is implicit in all

biodistance studies.

Applying this model in my research, if there were migration into the Maya area

from outside during various times during the Classic Period, these migrations would be

detected as perturbations in the population structure of different Maya sites as new

107
alleles were introduced (Scherer, 2004). According to population genetics theory, if all

subpopulations within a region are exchanging genes with an outside source at the same

rate, then the relationship “between the average within-group variation and genetic

distance to the centroid (the average inbreeding coefficient of all subpopulations) for

each population should be linear” (Harpending and Ward, 1982; Hartl and Clark, 1997).

If changes in population structure did occur, it will be important to determine if specific

sites were more affected than others.

The Harpending and Ward and Relethford-Blangero models test the observed

within-group heterogeneity and compare it to that expected under the conditions of

random mating. Where the subpopulations fall relative to the regression line (expected

genetic heterozygosity) provides information as to the level of gene flow from outside

the sample area. Differences in heterozygosity are assumed to reflect only migration and

long-term population histories (Relethford, 1996; Relethford et al., 1997).

Research hypotheses

In order to test whether populations from central Mexico migrated into the Maya

area, null hypotheses need to be formulated, which can be evaluated by the results of

this study. With a basic understanding of statistical modeling and population genetics

two null hypotheses can be formulated.

108
Hypothesis 1: Sites within central Mexico and the Maya area (Maya and

Teotihuacanos/Toltecs) will follow an isolation by distance model.

Any deviation from the expected isolation by distance model, is assumed to be

the result one of three factors: 1) isolation and genetic drift, 2) preferential interaction,

and hence gene flow, between specific sites within the region, and 3) preferential

interaction and gene flow originating from external to the region (or at least external to

the samples collected). Genetic drift and natural selection increase phenotypic distances

and gene flow decreases phenotypic distance (Scott and Turner, 1988; Bedrick 2000).

The isolation by distance model can be used to evaluate evidence of gene flow between

sites (Kimura and Weiss, 1964; Crow, 1986; Hartl and Clark, 1997). Sites that are close

biologically suggest that these sites interacted preferentially during the Classic period.

Since this study includes sites in central Mexico as well, it will be important to

investigate distance estimates for sites between these regions as well.

Hypothesis 2: Similar levels of genetic heterozygosity will characterize sites within

each of the three sub-regions in Mesoamerica.

The null hypothesis assumes that all sites within each sub-region are receiving

equal numbers of immigrants from a homogeneous outside world (Harpending and Ward

1982; Relethford and Blangero, 1990). Where samples are located with respect to the

regression line (expected level of genetic heterozygosity or allelic diversity) provides

information on extra local gene flow (Harpending and Ward, 1982; Relethford and

Blangero, 1990). Samples that fall below the regression line are interpreted as being less

109
genetically variable and more isolated genetically than one would expect given the null

hypothesis. Samples that fall above the regression line are interpreted as being more

genetically variable than expected (Relethford and Blangero, 1990). This is because sites

that experienced intrusion of foreign gene flow will be more genetically variable

because new alleles are being introduced into the population.

Because the estimate of total genetic heterozygosity is derived from the samples that are

included in the analysis, gene flow from any site not included (even if within the sample

region) can result in increased genetic heterozygosity for individual samples.

Discussion

An understanding of population genetics allows for the formulation of

predictable hypotheses that can be tested. In this study, expectations about the

distribution of genetic variability allow for me to test the two biological hypotheses

outlined in this chapter. The first hypothesis is that samples within the Maya region

should not violate an isolation by distance model. Sites with strong relationships with

distant sites should violate the hypotheses listed here. If we consider the first hypothesis,

there are a number of examples where we might expect to have close biological

relationships based on the archaeological models that would violate the isolation by

distance model. These include Tikal and Uaxactún, Tikal and Kaminaljuyú, Tikal and

Dos Pilas (see Chapter 2). Intrusion from central Mexico would be suspected if sites

within regions were biologically distant from their neighboring populations. Based on

previous archaeological research (Tozzer, 1930, 1957; Thompson, 1966, 1970; Adams,

110
1973a, 1997; Spence, 1974; Coggins, 1975, 1979; Willey 1974; Fash 1994; Stuart,

2000), Maya sites with strong evidence of contact with either Teotihuácan or Tula would

be expected to be biologically distant to other sites in the Maya area. Previous

biodistance studies on samples from some of these sites have demonstrated that certain

Maya sites are consistently outliers, including: Altar de Sacrificios (Austin, 19721978;

Wrobel, 2003; Scherer, 2004), Seibal (Austin, 1978; Wrobel, 2003; Scherer, 2004);

Kaminaljuyú (Scherer, 2004), Xcambó (Cucina and Tiesler, 2003); and Piedras Negras

(Scherer, 2004).

If we consider the second hypothesis, two categories of sites are expected to have

with increased levels of genetic heterozygosity: sites that have been demonstrated

archaeologically to have strong interregional connections, and sites on the periphery of

their respective regions. Copán is an excellent example to illustrate why this is so.

Archaeologically, Copán seems to have strong ties to central Mexico. Therefore, it might

be predicted that Copán will have greater allelic diversity due to biological connections

with Teotihuácan. However, Copán would also be expected to have greater allelic

diversity because it is at the southern periphery of the Maya area and likely received

gene flow from outside the sample area (the same is true for Tula in the north and for

coastal sites).

It was hoped at the onset of this study that sufficient materials would be available

to answer these questions. Although there are additional samples that ideally would have

been included in this study (e.g., additional samples from Chichén Itzá and El Tajín

really stand out as important), I feel that I have accumulated enough data to allow for a

111
reasonable reconstruction of population structure during the Classic Period. The analysis

of these data, within the context of these specific hypotheses, will provide a regional

perspective of population history in Mesoamerica that can inform archaeological

hypotheses about interregional interaction. The hypotheses, as laid out here, are

specifically tailored to answering many of the questions posed in the first three chapters.

Summary

Chapter 2 provided an overview of Mesoamerican culture history in order to

better understand the implications of this research. Chapter 3 demonstrated the

effectiveness of using morphological variation, specifically dental variation, to

investigate biological relatedness. The goal of the current chapter was to demonstrate

how the questions raised in Chapters 1 and 2 can be addressed. Population genetics

forms the framework, with which the information gathered on dental variation, can be

interpreted. The brief description of how biological distance statistics can incorporate

population genetics models, allowed for the formulation of two null hypotheses that can

be tested with the data described in the next two chapters. These hypotheses provide

expected distributions of genetic variability that can be compared with the results of the

analysis. The interpretations derived from interpreting the results through population

genetics models can be used to assess what impact, if any, migration may have played in

the changes that are evidenced archaeologically in the Maya area during the Classic

Period.

112
 CHAPTER 5

MATERIALS

Introduction

This main objective of this study is to assess biological evidence for migration

into the Maya area. As a secondary objective, I attempt to identify the foreign sites from

which these migrants came from. In order to answer questions about migration and

interaction on a regional scale, sites from all over Mesoamerica had to be included in

this study. Because the primary focus of this project is on the Maya, the vast majority of

samples analyzed are from the Maya area. Because of the nature of the research

questions investigated in this project, it was necessary to study dental material from as

many different sites across Mesoamerica as possible. Although time constraints limited

the overall number of sites that could be included, an attempt was made to include the

most likely external sources of gene flow into the Maya area and to sample enough

Maya sites to detect specific sites within the Maya area that deviate from expected

patterns of genetic variability.

Project Sample

During the course of this investigation 1,474 individuals were analyzed from 25

different sites including 21 Maya sites, 3 sites from the Valley of Mexico (including

113
Cholula which is just outside the basin), and one site from the Valley of Oaxaca (Table

5-1). An additional 29 individuals from numerous sites are not included in Table 5-1

because each these samples were represented by very few individuals. All samples date

between AD 250-1050 with the exception of a few individuals from Teotihuácan and

Kaminaljuyú, which date to just prior to this period. One site, Teotihuácan, actually

consists of six skeletal samples from different portions of the site, and these samples

were treated separately during statistical analysis.

The inclusion of each of all of these sites was essential to isolate specific sites in

the Maya region that received immigrants from external sources. Additional sites from

the Maya area were chosen for this study to get a comparative sample of sites to

calculate expected levels of morphological variation with which individual sites can be

compared. Outside the Maya area the most important site during the Classic period was

Teotihuácan. The importance of this site and its multi ethnic composition (Spence, 1974;

Storey, 1992: Haydenbilt, 1996; Cabrera Castro, 2003), necessitated the inclusion of as

many Teotihuácan samples as available. Lumping together large Teotihuácan samples

would likely conceal evidence of external interaction that occurred with only portions of

this diverse population. A large, varied Teotihuácan sample also allows for these

materials to be subdivided during statistical analysis in order to detect differential

external interaction from within the site.

Sites included in this study from outside the Maya area were chosen primarily

because of perceived interaction with Teotihuácan and Tula. Monte Albán, in Oaxaca,

was included because it was a large, urban center with imperialist tendencies and close

114
ties to Teotihuácan (Blanton et al., 1993; Christensen 1997). Monte Albán is also

important geographically as well, since it lies between the Valley of Mexico and the

Maya area (Figure 2-1). (Coe, 1994; Christensen, 1997). Sites from both the Valley of

Mexico and the Valley of Oaxaca are crucial to this research as potential sources of

foreign gene flow into the Maya area, and in future research additional skeletal material

from Oaxacan sites will be analyzed.

Sample Composition

This project focuses on the permanent dentition only. Therefore, only adults and

juveniles with visible permanent teeth were included in this study. This includes

individuals as young as five years old since the crowns of the first permanent molar are

fully formed by this age. Of the 1474 individuals analyzed, less than half of them were

included in the statistical analyses described in Chapters 5 and 6 because of the

fragmented nature of the dentitions.

Sex bias

Data on dental morphology was recorded on both male and female individuals.

When available and considered reliable, previous estimations of sex were used to reduce

possible damage caused by an additional removal of the necessary skeletal elements.

Where sex estimates were not available or were considered unreliable individuals were

sexed by the author at the time of analysis. Initially, sex determination was performed

with the hope of separating males and females during the statistical analysis. However, I

realized after beginning the project that this was would be impossible for two primary

115
reasons. First, the fragmented condition of the collection made reliable sexing of the

skeletal material impossible for most individuals. Problems with sexing fragmented

remains made the determination of sex in the vast majority of individuals unreliable. For

nonmetric traits, it is typical to pool the sexes since sex determination is not considered a

problem (Scott, 1973, 1980; Bermudez de Castro, 1989; Turner et al., 1991; Hanihara,

1992). However, tooth dimensions have been shown to be sexually dimorphic (Kieser

1990; Scott and Turner 1997). Studies have demonstrated the ability to be able to

determine sex as much as 86% of the time using tooth dimensions (e.g. Garn et al.,

1977; Kieser, 1990; Vodanovic et al., 2007). Unfortanately, populations differ, and the

standards used in the discriminant function analyses do not translate from one area to

another. Discriminant function analysis is only reliable when there is a known prior

distribution for males and females (Kieser, 1990; Hillson, 1996). The second problem

was that despite the enormous scale of the current project, incomplete datasets greatly

reduced the total number of individuals available for each site. Treating males and

females separately during statistical analysis would have lead to the exclusion of many

of the samples. Therefore, I chose to pool both sexes together, and assume that any sex

bias in the samples is consistent for all the samples in the study. It is hoped that any

metric differences between the sexes will be consistently the same across samples.

Sample considerations and exclusions

Four of the samples listed in Table 5-1 were excluded from statistical analysis.

Most notably, is the site of Seibal from the Pasion region of Guatemala and the site of

116
Monte Albán in Oaxaca. Seibal was excluded because of changes in the method

subsequent to data collection. Seibal is an important site, with respect to the questions

posed in this study, but unfortunately the tooth dimensions from Seibal were recorded

prior to switching to cervical dimensions. Monte Albán was excluded because of

contextual issues. Much of the skeletal material lacks provenience information, and

since Monte Albán has both Preclassic, Classic, and Postclassic deposits, I was unable to

isolate the individuals from the Classic Period. Monte Albán will be included in a future

analysis once these contextual issues are resolved. The two other samples that were

excluded were excluded from this analysis because of insufficient sample sizes or

insufficiently complete datasets. Both of these samples are from the sites of Teotihuácan

(Oztoyohualco and Tuneles).

Sample size was a problem for a number of the collections included in this study.

Where sites could reliably be combined with other sites instead of being excluded, this

was done. Sites that were combined have already been discussed in the site description

section, so I will just mention them here. As explained in Chapter 2, the central Peten

sites of Calzada Mopan, Curucuitz, Ix' Ek, Ixkun, and Ixtonton were combined. This is

also true for Playa del Carmen and San Gervasio which are both on the east coast of the

Yucatán Peninsula.

All other samples analyzed had sufficient sample size and completeness to

include them in the statistical analysis for a total of 1380 individuals.

117
Site Number of individuals Location of collections
Peabody Museum, Harvard
Altar de Sacrificios 71 University
Universidad Autonoma de Yucatán,
Merida Universidad Autonoma de
Calakmul 39 Campeche, Campeche
Altas Arqueologico, Dolores,
Calzada Mopan 17 Guatemala
Instituto Nacional de Antropología e
Chichén Itzá 29 Historia, Merida
Instituto de Antropología e Historia-
Cholula 61 Mexico City
Peabody Museum, Harvard
Copán 35 University
Altas Arqueologico, Dolores,
Curucuitz 13 Guatemala
Salon 3, Instituto de Antropología e
Historia, Guatemala City,
Dos Pilas 46 Guatemala
Instituto de Antropología e Historia-
Dzibilchaltún 26 Merida
Altas Arqueologico, Dolores,
Ix Ek 9 Guatemala
Altas Arqueologico, Dolores,
Ixkun 6 Guatemala
Altas Arqueologico, Dolores,
Ixtonton 32 Guatemala
Museo Nacional de Antropología e
Etnología, Guatemala City,
Kaminaljuyú 23 Guatemala
Instituto de Anthropologia e
Monte Albán 69 Historia-Mexico City
Instituto de Anthropologia e
Palenque 13 Historia-Mexico City
Salon 3, Instituto de Antropología e
Historia, Guatemala City,
Piedras Negras 81 Guatemala
Table 5-1. List of sites analyzed in this study

118
Table 5-1 continued

Instituto de Anthropologia e
Playa del Carmen 19 Historia-Merida
Instituto de Anthropologia e
San Gervasio 26 Historia-Merida
Peabody Museum, Harvard
Seibal 61 University
Parque Nacional de Teotihuácan,
Teotihuácan 1986 37 Mexico
Teotihuácan-La Parque Nacional de Teotihuácan,
Ventilla 52 Teotihuácan, Mexico
Teotihuácan-El Instituto de Antropología e Historia-
Centro 16 Mexico City
Teotihuácan-PAT Instituto de Antropología e Historia-
1980-1982 45 Mexico City
Teotihuácan- Universidad Nacional Autonoma de
Oztoyohualco 16 Mexico, Mexico City
Universidad Nacional Autonoma de
Teotihuácan-Tuneles 9 Mexico, Mexico City
Museo Nacional de Antropología e
Etnología-Guatemala City,
Guatemala
Tikal 180 Tikal National Park, Guatemala
Instituto de Antropología e Historia-
Tula 59 Mexico City
Museo Nacional de Antropología e
Uaxactún 41 Etnología
Universidad Autonoma de Yucatán,
Xcambó 312 Merida
Instituto de Antropología e Historia-
Yaxuna 31 Merida
Total 1474
Table 5-1. List of sites analyzed in this study

119
 CHAPTER 6

METHODS: DENTAL NON-METRICS

Introduction

Dental traits recorded

This study recorded fifty-six non-metric trait combinations (Tables 6-1 and 6-2).

These traits were recorded according to the method of Turner et al. (1991) with the aid

of the ASU dental plaques. In addition to the reference plaques the trait descriptions in

Turner et al. (1991) and Scott and Turner (1997) were used to maintain consistency in

scoring over the course of this study. All traits that were recorded in this study were

scored along a graded scale of trait expression. For example, the ASU dental plaques

contain a scale of expression from 0-6 for upper central incisor shoveling and a scale of

0-7 for upper central incisor double shoveling. Care was taken throughout this study to

constantly refer back to the plaques and the published descriptions of the traits to

maintain consistency in scoring. When both sides of the dentition were available, the

tooth with the greatest expression of the trait was recorded. This follows Scott and

Turner's that the side with the strongest expression of the trait more closely

approximates the genetic potential for that trait (Scott and Turner, 1997).

120
 Intraobserver error

Not all scored traits were analyzed statistically. As mention above, interobserver

and intraobserver error is a potentially enormous problem, and any analysis must first

begin with a determination of the degree of error for each trait scored. Problems with

interobserver are so great that previous studies done by different researchers in

Mesoamerica cannot be combined to understand regional variation in population

structure. This is also the reason why this study is potentially very important, many

samples are included and they are all analyzed by a single researcher. It is important

however, to determine if intraobserver error is a problem. In order to calculate levels of

intraobserver error, the first 60 individuals from the site of Xcambó were re-recorded 5

weeks after the initial analysis. Following the recommendation of previous studies, the

intraobserver analysis consisted of two parts. First, I determined if any traits were

consistently scored only one of the two times (i.e., inconsistency in the determination of

whether the trait can be scored or not). Following this analysis, it was determined that

wear was the single biggest factor although calculus also affected the outcome. Although

this is not error in the typical sense, it is important because traits that are scored only one

out of two times, calls into question the reliability of these scores. Values ranged from

0% (e.g., UM-1 hypocone) to 61% (UM3-mesial marginal tubercles). An arbitrary

threshold of 25% was chosen, and all traits that were scored in only one session at least

25% of the time were excluded. This includes: UP3 and UP4-paracone accessory ridge;

UP3 and UP4-accessory marginal tubercles; UM1, UM2, UM3-mesial marginal

accessory tubercles; LM2, LM3-mesial marginal cusps; LM2, LM3 Distal trigonid crest.

121
These 11 traits were excluded from further analysis.

Rates of intraobserver error were calculated by recording which traits were

scored inconsistently between the two scoring episodes. Two values were calculated: 1)

the percentage of scores for each trait that were only one grade off between scoring

sessions, and 2) the percentage of scores for each trait that were greater than one grade

off between scoring sessions. The results are summarized in Tables 6-3 and 6-4. For

maxillary traits, the error estimates at the level of one grade off range from 8% to 32%

with an average error estimate of 14.1%. For mandibular traits, the error estimates at the

level of one grade off range from 6% to 37% with an average error of 14.5%. Error

estimates at the level of two grades off range from 0%-15% with an average of 4%. This

estimate is well below the error estimates from previous studies (Nichol and Turner,

1990, Scherer, 2004), but this is undoubtedly due to the fact that problematic traits were

already excluded when they were only scored in one of two scoring sessions. As

expected from personal experience, the third molars had the greatest error rates. Error

estimates for all teeth that were greater than one scoring grade range from 0% to 15%

with an average of 3%.

Consideration for trait exclusion based on error

Obviously an error of even one grade can be significant once these traits are

dichotomized into presence/absence, and an error of greater than one only adds to the

problem. How this relates to trait dichotomization will be described below. As for trait

elimination, Nichol and Turner (1986) recommend a critical value of 10% for this test

122
of intraobserver error in scores that deviate greater than one score. None of my scores

reached this threshold except the UI-1 tuberculum dentale so this trait was excluded.

Once again this is likely because problematic traits were already excluded when they

were only scored in one of two scoring sessions.

Trait dichotomization

While traits are scored along a continuum of trait expression, these scores

typically must be altered to a presence/absence dichotomized scheme since the statistics

that are commonly applied to nonmetric traits can not be used on the ranked expression

scores. Unfortunately, this results in the loss of information on trait expression (Mayhall,

2000). Following Scherer (2004) and Nichol (1990), this study will use a region-specific

trait dichotomization scheme rather than the general system prescribed by Turner (1986)

(Tables 6-1 and 6-2). The development of a region-specific dichotomization scheme

optimizes differences in dental trait frequencies between samples, reducing the number

of empty cells in contingency tables and increasing the differences between

subpopulations. The dichotomization of traits is also important because it reduces inter-

and intraobserver error as categories are collapsed into presence/absence, and because

most multivariate statistics require discrete +/- categories. Since the sample populations

are the same, and for comparison with the results obtained from Scherer (2004), this

study will utilize the same thresholds for presence/absence that were developed by

Scherer.

123
 Trait dichotomization and intraobserver error

Differences in scoring of even one grade can have a significant effect when traits

are dichotomized if the area of ambiguity in scoring corresponds to the threshold

between presence and absence. Fortunately, the trait dichotomization scheme followed

here is conveniently constructed in such a way that it almost entirely avoids areas of

ambiguity that I encountered during data collection. For example, during the recording

of UI1-labial curvature, I often found it difficult to decide between scores 2 and 3 and

between scores 3 and 4, but the dichotomization scheme assigns ‘presence’ to all scores

above zero.

Not all of the remaining traits could be analyzed because some traits are highly

correlated (e.g., UI-1 and UI-2 shoveling) and will artificially inflate biological distance

estimates between samples by reducing the variance within samples. However, throwing

out correlated variables potentially results in the loss of a significant amount of

information. Ideally, data would be complete enough to use Mahalanobis distance for the

non-metric data developed by Konigsberg (1990). This method uses a tetrachoric

correlation matrix to extend the Mahalanobis generalized distance to dichotomized

dental traits (Konigsberg, 1990; Irish and Konigsberg, 2007). This statistical test has the

benefit over Mean Measure of Divergence by retaining traits that are correlated by

adjusting for phenotypic correlations between traits (Irish and Konigsberg, 2007).

Tetrachoric correlation corrects for this correlation by weighting traits in their

covariation with other traits in the analysis. The measure assumes that the features have

an underlying normal distribution (actually a truncated normal distribution), but do not

124
display this distribution phenotypically because they are threshold characters. This

means that even though there is a normal distribution of genotypes, there is a liability

distribution so that only individuals who reach the threshold exhibit the trait. The

resultant distance measure (pseudo-Mahalanobis distance) is directly analogous to

Mahalanobis distance for continuous variables, which can be compared to other distance

measures employed in this study.

Unfortunately, because of the incomplete nature of the data, it was soon realized

that in order to use the Mahalanobis D2 statistic, the analysis would have to be restricted

to using only four variables and excluding the majority of the samples. Therefore only

MMD was performed on the data. Since MMD does not correct for correlation between

variables it was important not to include traits that are controlled by the same subset of

genes. Following the recommendation of Scott and Turner (1997) and Irish (1993), only

key teeth will be included (e.g., first incisors, first premolars, etc.) since these are

considered the most conservative with respect to the underlying genetic variation. This

resulted in a reduction in the number of total variables to twenty variables. For the Maya

area, out of these twenty, eight traits were chosen that returned the lowest error values,

and that were sufficiently represented in the samples collected (at least 10 individuals).

These traits include (UI1-shoveling, UC-DAR, UM1-hypocone, UM1-Carabelli’s cusp,

UM1-metacone, LI1-shoveling, LM1-hypoconid; LM1-deflecting wrinkle). This number

was reduced to seven traits when sites from Central Mexico were considered as well

(LM1-HYPO was excluded). The frequencies of these traits are presented in Table 6-5 in

summary form (non-dichotomized scored are presented in Appendix A). More traits

125
could have been included, but this would have likely resulted in smaller numbers in the

contingency tables for numerous samples, and traits that were not as reliably scored

would have had to be included in the analysis. I made the decision that accuracy and

increased sample size would be better than the alternative.

126
Traits-maxillary teeth Scoring Trait dichotomization
grades threshold for this study
Shoveling UI-1 0-6 0-3/4-6
Double shoveling UI-1 0-7 0-1/2-6
Tuberculum dentale UI-1 0-6 0-1/2-6
Interruption groove UI-1 0-1 0/1
UI-1 curvature 0-4 0/1-4
Shoveling UI-2 0-7 0-3/4-7
Double Shovel UI-2 0-6 0-3/4-6
Interruption groove UI-2 0-1 0/1
Distal accessory ridge UC 0-5 0-3/4-5
Paracone accessory ridge UP-3 0-4 0/1-4
Accessory marginal tubercle UP-3 0-1 0/1
Paracone accessory ridge UP-4 0-4 0/1-4
Accessory marginal tubercle UP-4 0-1 0/1
Hypocone UM-1 0-5 0-4/5
Carabelli’s cusp UM-1 0-7 0-1/2-7
Cusp 5—UM-1 0-5 0/1-5
Mesial marginal accessory tubercles UM-1 0-1 0/1
Parastyle UM-1 0-6 0/1-6
Metacone UM-1 0-5 0-4/5
Hypocone UM-2 0-5 0-3/4-5
Cusp 5—UM-2 0-5 0/1-5
Mesial marginal accessory tubercles UM-2 0-1 0/1
Parastyle UM-2 0-6 0/1-6
Metacone UM-2 0-5 0-3/4-5
Hypocone UM-3 0-5 0-3/4-5
Cusp 5—UM-3 0-5 0/1-5
Mesial marginal accessory tubercles UM-3 0-1 0/1
Parastyle UM-3 0-6 0/1-6
Metacone UM-3 0-5 0-3/4-5

Table 6-1. Maxillary non-metric traits recorded with the number of observable grades for the ASU system
and the Maya-specific presence absence threshold

127
 Trait dichotomization
Traits-mandibular teeth Range threshold for this study
Shoveling LI-1 0-3 0-1/2-3
Shoveling LI-2 0-3 0-1/2-3
Distal accessory ridge LC 0-5 0/1-5
Multiple lingual cusps LP-3 0-9 0/1-9
Multiple lingual cusps LP-4 0-9 0/1-9
Hypoconulid LM-1 0-5 0-4/5
Groove pattern LM-1 X, +/ Y Y/+,X
Cusp 6 LM-1 0-5 0/1-5
Cusp 7 LM-1 0-4 0/1-4
Protostylid LM-1 0-7 0/1-7
Deflecting wrinkle LM-1 0-3 0-2/3
Distal trigonid crest LM-1 0-1 0/1
Mesial marginal cusps LM-1 0-1 0/1
Hypoconulid LM-2 0-5 0-1/2-5
Groove pattern LM-2 X, Y/+ Y,X/+
Cusp 6 LM-2 0-5 0/1-5
Cusp 7 LM-2 0-4 0/1-4
Protostylid LM-2 0-7 0/1-7
Distal trigonid crest LM-2 0-1 0/1
Mesial marginal cusps LM-2 0-1 0/1
Hypoconulid LM-3 0-5 0/1-5
Groove pattern LM-3 X/+,Y Y,+/X
Cusp 6 LM-3 0-5 0-1/2-3
Cusp 7 LM-3 0-4 0/1-4
Protostylid LM-3 0-7 0/1-7
Distal trigonid crest LM-3 0-1 0/1
Mesial marginal cusps LM-3 0-1 0/1

Table 6-2. Mandibular non-metric traits recorded with the number of observable grades for the ASU
system and the Maya-specific presence absence threshold

128
Error estimates for non
metric traits: maxillary % off by more than 1
teeth % off by 1 grade grade
Shoveling UI-1 0.13 0
Double shoveling UI-1 0.15 0.09
Tuberculum dentale UI-1 0.31 0.15
Interruption groove UI-1 0.16 0
UI-1 curvature 0.14 0.02
Shoveling UI-2 0.18 0
Double Shovel UI-2 0.2 0.05
Interruption groove UI-2 0.23 0
Distal accessory ridge UC 0.13 0
Hypocone UM-1 0.11 0
Carabelli’s cusp UM-1 0.25 0.06
Cusp 5—UM-1 0.12 0
Parastyle UM-1 0.22 0.02
Metacone UM-1 0.08 0
Hypocone UM-2 0.1 0
Cusp 5—UM-2 0.12 0.02
Parastyle UM-2 0.25 0.08
Metacone UM-2 0.14 0
Hypocone UM-3 0.32 0.08
Cusp 5—UM-3 0.27 0
Parastyle UM-3 0.18 0
Metacone UM-3 0.3 0.08

Table 6-3. Error estimates for non-metric traits: maxillary teeth

129
Error estimates for non-metric traits: % off by 1 % off by more
mandibular teeth grade than 1 grade
Shoveling LI-1 0.09 0
Shoveling LI-2 0.1 0
Distal accessory ridge LC 0.22 0.05
Hypoconulid LM-1 0.12 0
Groove pattern LM-1 0.06 Only X,Y,+
Cusp 6 LM-1 0.13 0
Cusp 7 LM-1 0.31 0.08
Protostylid LM-1 NA NA
Deflecting wrinkle LM-1 0.07 0
Distal trigonid crest LM-1 0.16 Only 0/1
Mesial marginal cusps LM-1 0.15 Only 0/1
Hypoconulid LM-2 0.15 0
Groove pattern LM-2 0.16 Only X, Y,+
Cusp 6 LM-2 0.19 0
Cusp 7 LM-2 0.2 0.05
Protostylid LM-2 NA NA
Hypoconulid LM-3 0.37 0.09
Groove pattern LM-3 0.13 Only X, Y, +
Cusp 6 LM-3 NA NA
Cusp 7 LM-3 NA NA
Protostylid LM-3 0.22% 0.05

Table 6-4. Error estimates for non-metric traits: mandibular teeth

130
 UI1- UI1- UC- UM1- UM1- UM1- LI1- LM1-
Site shov d.sh DAR hypo Carab Metac. shov D. Wr.
Altar de
Sacrificios 16/31 20/33 37/40 22/33 30/40 9/27 29/44 15/21
Calakmul
15/23 11/19 17/22 9/20 18/22 17/21 9/16 9/14
Chichén Itzá
4/6 6/7 2/8 3/6 6/8 7/11 11/19 3/14
Dos Pilas
13/19 6/15 17/23 12/21 14/23 20/27 14/23 12/21
Dzibilchaltún
8/9 5/10 8/10 5/10 6/9 7/9 4/10 2/8
Kaminaljúyu
8/9 7/10 9/16 6/12 10/16 6/13 5/13 2/9
Peten
32/39 11/31 20/37 13/31 24/37 18/25 16/41 19/32
San Gervasio/
Playa del
Carmen* 5/8 7/10 12/17 10/17 12/17 6/12 12/22 10/18
Tikal (Late
Classic 6/15 10/17 15/25 17/23 18/26 10/15 12/22 16/20
Tikal (Early
Classic) 7/14 7/9 12/17 10/17 14/17 11/19 10/19 13/17
Uaxactún
13/19 14/20 20/23 11/20 19/23 11/19 13/20 10/16
Xcambó
56/127 112/126 117/155 66/145 137/159 85/163 92/143 52/106
Yaxuna
11/13 6/11 12/19 5/17 13/19 15/18 4/17 10/15
Teotihuácan
1986 9/11 3/9 9/12 5/9 10/12 8/13 10/13 NA
Teotihuácan-
La Ventilla 8/9 4/11 13/15 8/10 10/13 15/18 13/21 NA
Teotihuácan-
Centro 14/23 6/21 12/23 12/21 21/24 10/18 12/19 NA
Teotihuácan
1980-1982 8/23 13/24 9/19 11/18 21/27 12/19 11/22 NA
Tula
15/18 4/15 20/27 13/18 21/26 9/24 22/30 NA
NA
Cholula 25/36 7/31 36/47 21/30 31/47 22/33 30/48
Table 6-5: Summary of non-metric trait frequency

131
 Nonmetric statistical analysis

The theoretical basis of genetic distance studies is that ‘the distance between two

groups should be small if their gene frequencies are similar (Harpending and Jenkins,

1973:179). In biological distance studies of modern human populations there are two

principle reasons why populations will have small biological distance estimates: there is

gene flow between populations and the populations are large, so that little drift has

occurred since their separation. The goal of population studies is to discern which

process affects the genetic distance between populations.

Non-metric traits:

Non-metric variables are subject primarily to biodistance statistics (what

Relethford and Harpending (1988) call “model-free” approaches), which for the most

part are free of assumptions as to the structure of the population and interpret divergence

as resulting largely from the stochastic processes of genetic drift (Scott and Turner,

1997). These statistics provide an estimate of phenotypic or genetic similarity between

different populations (Sjøvold, 1977; Green and Suchey, 1976; de Souza and Houghton,

1977; Turner, 1976, 1990; Manly, 1994; Scott and Turner, 1997; Dahlberg, 1951), by

summarizing gene frequencies between pairs of subpopulations (Jorde 1980, Sjøvold,

1973; Manly, 1994). Biodistance statistics assume that small pairwise distance estimates

characterize populations that are more closely related (Manly, 1994). For instance, two

samples with identical allele frequencies or trait expressions will have a pairwise

distance of zero. As the degree of genetic relatedness between populations decreases, the

132
biological distance estimate between these populations increases. These statistics are

widely used to assess worldwide population movements, including the colonization of

the New World, and have been used to assess genetic relatedness between

subpopulations within regions.

Biological distance estimates based on non-metric traits will be done with the

Mean Measure of Divergence (MMD) statistic. As mentioned above, in situations were

sample sizes are extremely large, Saghvi’s G statistic could be performed for comparison

with the standardized mean measure of divergence values using ordinal rather than

dichotomous data. Unfortunately samples are typically not large enough for this type of

analysis which results in a drastic increase in empty cells in the contingency tables.

Additionally, there is an increase in error because of the expanded the number of

observable grades for each trait allowing small differences in scoring to be problematic.

Because of these limitations, this statistic was not used in this analysis.

Mean measure of divergence (MMD)

Multivariate statistics must consider the entire matrix of numbers (e.g., N

individuals and P observations) that requires a consideration of covariance of every

possible pair of combinations in the matrix (Pietrusewsky, 2000). For MMD correlated

traits are discarded since assuming that each trait represents a different genetic basis

artificially inflates biological distance estimates (Donlon, 2000; Hallgrímsson et al.,

2004). Mean measure of divergence estimates the distance between the means. Before

dichotomized trait frequencies can be used for MMD they must undergo an angular

133
transform to stabilize the variances due to unequal sample sizes. As recommended by

Green and Suchey (1976), the Freeman and Tukey (1950) transformation will be used.

This formula is as follows

(Eq. 1)

Where r is the number of traits considered, Θ1i is the angular transformation of

the ith trait in the first sample, Θ2i is the angular transformation of the frequency of the

ith trait in the second sample, n1i is the number of individuals in the first sample

observed for trait i, and n2i is the number of individuals in the second sample observed

for trait i. As proposed by Green and Suchey (1976), the angular transformation is

(Eq. 2)

where kji is the number of individuals in sample j classified for trait i, nji is, as defined

above, the number of individuals in sample j observable for trait i. It should be noted

that the angular transformation is calculated in radians, not degrees. The Freeman-Tukey

angular transformation has been demonstrated to reliably stabilize variance when sample

sizes are greater than 10 for each trait for each site in the analysis.

In order to calculate the variance of the MMD, Sjøvold (1973) proposed the

following formula:

(Eq. 3)

134
The standard deviation of the MMD is:

(Eq. 4)

In order to test the significance of the MMD, Sjøvold demonstrated that a distance

estimate of 2.0 or greater is considered significant at the p= .05 level because the

variance is twice the standard deviation (Sjøvold, 1973).

Discussion

Out of 56 nonmetric traits relatively few are available for statistical analysis

either because of interobserver error, poor representation in the samples, or because they

were not present on the key tooth in each tooth class. Additional traits could have been

included, but this would likely have decreased the reliability of the traits due to

unknown correlations between variables. Some researchers check for correlation

between variables, but lack of correlation may not mean that the traits are independent.

It is very likely that the analysis failed to detect pleitropic effects across the dentition.

Dental field theory (Dahlberg, 1963) predicts that the key tooth in each morphological

class will be less variable than the distal teeth in that class. These teeth should also have

higher heritability (Sofaer, 1973; Rizk, 2008) and therefore more accurately represent

the underlying genotype. Sex is not taken into account because numerous studies have

shown that nonmetric traits do not appear to be sexually dimorphic like the dimensions

of the tooth.

135
 Summary

This chapter outlines the method for recording nonmetric traits of the dentition,

and provides explanations for why specific traits will be excluded from the final

statistical analysis. Tests were performed for interobserver error, and traits that exhibited

significant error were eliminated. This includes traits that were consistently scored in

only one of two scoring sessions, as well as traits that were consistently off by more than

one scoring grade. Finally, I provided an explanation of why the mean measure of

divergence statistic is being used on these data rather than other statistics that might

provide more accurate approximation of the actual biological relationships. The results

of the nonmetric trait analysis are provided in Chapter 9.

136
 CHAPTER 7

METHODS: DENTAL METRICS

Introduction

Dental variation and biological affinity: Metric traits

In general, continuous variables have a number of benefits over discrete traits.

The most obvious benefit is that information is not lost when the ordinal scales of

variation are reduced to a simple presence/absence dichotomy. For many years physical

anthropologists have used variation in human dentition to investigate biological affinity.

As a proxy for the underlying genetic variation, dental variation has proven useful in

global, regional, and familial studies (Scott and Turner, 1997; Hillson, 1996). With

respect to tooth dimensions, dental anthropologists have focused, almost entirely, on the

maximum dimensions of the crown largely ignoring the dimensions of the

cementoenamel junction (CEJ) (Hillson , 1996; Fitzgerald and Hillson, 2005; Hillson et

al., 2005). This seems to be largely related to the ease in recording crown dimensions

and the relative difficulty in taking measurements at the CEJ especially when teeth are

in situ. CEJ measurements have been shown to give similar results to crown

measurements (Corruccini, 1987, 1998; Falk and Corruccini, 1982; Hillson et al.,

2005; ) which suggests that they are estimating the same thing (i.e., underlying genetic

137
variation). There are numerous reasons, outlined here, for why CEJ dimensions might

more accurately reflect the actual genetic relationships between individuals and between

populations. However, CEJ measurements are rarely used in population studies most

likely because of the difficulty in getting accurate measurements. This has largely been

overcome with the production of special calipers with needle points that fit between

teeth and allow for accurate measurements (Hillson et al., 2005). In 2005, Hillson and

colleagues brought renewed interest to CEJ measurements with reference to biological

affinity. New calipers were designed to obtain these measurements and a method was

proposed. In this study both crown and cervical dimensions were recorded although

population reconstruction and biological distance estimates rely solely on the cervical

dimensions. Crown measurements were recorded primarily to allow comparison with

previous studies and to allow for estimates of correlation between crown and cervical

dimensions. Estimating correlation coefficients between crown and cervical dimensions

has been completed by others, but this study proposes changes to the method of Hillson

et al. (2005) and it was believed that the new method proposed here would help explain

differing results from various studies.

Crown diameter

Measurements normally taken include length (mesial to distal) and breadth

(buccal to lingual) measurements of the crown, which may be used to estimate of tooth

crown surface area. Measuring of the continuous crown diameters is relatively simple. In

this study length and breadth measurements of the crown follow Moorrees (1957). As

138
with non-metric traits, dental measurements have a number of strengths and weaknesses.

It is for this reason that most researchers recommend using a combination of dental

metric and nonmetric variables in biodistance analyses.

There are two primary reasons why this study records tooth dimensions in

addition to the non-metric traits. First, numerous studies have found high heritability

estimates for crown diameters (Hillson, 1996). Twin studies have been used to

distinguish between genetic and environmental effects in overall tooth size (Townsend

and Brown, 1978; Potter et al., 1978). Supporting the use of tooth diameter in population

studies, Lunström (1963) demonstrated that among monozygotic and dizygotic twins,

dizygotic twins show a much greater amount of variation. In agreement with this, Potter

et al. (1968) investigated correlations between parents and offspring and suggested that

the mode of inheritance for dental size was the result of polygenic inheritance,

characterized by equal and additive effects (Hillson, 1996). Assuming a polygenic model

with equal and additive effects is central to recent statistical techniques developed by

Relethford and Blangero (1990). Second, dental measurements can be measured with

negligible intraobserver and interobserver error (Kieser, 1990; Hillson et al., 2005).

Although tooth crown measurements have strengths, there are a number of

weaknesses in using tooth size for identifying and interpreting population distance

which may make crown measurements unreliable. First, it is possible that varying

degrees of expression of non-metric traits could alter crown measurements (e.g.,

Carabelli’s cusp and protostylid for upper and lower molars respectively) (Garn et al.,

1968). Second, interproximal wear can drastically reduce mesiodistal diameter even in

139
moderately worn teeth (van Reenan, 1982; Pompa y Padilla, 1990; Hillson , 1996;

Fitzgerald and Hillson, 2005) limiting the usefulness of these measurements in affinity

studies (van Reenan, 1982; Mayhall, 2000). Crown measurements are included in this

study primarily to facilitate comparison with other studies.

Effect of dental wear on tooth dimensions.

The most important advantage is that the dimensions of the tooth at the cervical

margin are much less affected by both interproximal and occlusal attrition (Hillson et al.,

2005; Fitzgerald and Hillson, 2008; Stojanowski, 2007). The importance of wear is

obvious; wear affects the reliability of using the dimensions of the crown as a proxy for

the underlying genotype for tooth size.

Interproximal wear is one of the biggest problems facing studies using crown

measurements. Interproximal wear refers to the wearing away of tooth surfaces where

they come into contact with adjacent teeth (van Reenan, 1982; Hillson, 1996).

Numerous studies have shown that interproximal wear can drastically reduce mesiodistal

diameter even in moderately worn teeth limiting the usefulness of these measurements in

affinity studies (Hillson and Fitzgerald, 2005; Fitzgerald and Hillson, 2005; Hillson et

al., 2008).

It is standard procedure to exclude teeth that exhibit heavy wear, but there are

two problems with this in practice. First, excluding worn teeth drastically reduces

sample sizes (van Reenan, 1982; Mayhall, 1992, 2000; Hillson, 1996). Second, it is up

to individual investigators to decide when a tooth has enough wear to be thrown out and

140
judgments regarding the degree of wear that necessitate exclusion are likely to depend

on practical decisions related to the need to retain sufficient sample sizes for statistical

analysis. Differences between researchers in tooth wear thresholds has not been tested,

but it is very likely that this problem could result in invalid interpretations of population

history and would obviously hamper attempts to compare results from different

researchers. Van Reenan (1982) and Hillson et al. (2008) demonstrated that when the

crown is worn to the degree to which the dentin is exposed there can be as much as a

10% reduction in mesiodistal length. At the point where secondary dentin is evident,

there can be as much as a 20% reduction in mesiodistal length (van Reenan, 1982,

Fitzgerald and Hillson, 2005). Referring to my area of study, dentitions in Mesoamerica

are often characterized by heavy wear, with the crown of the first molar often worn flat

during adolescence because of the nature of the diet. Sample size would be reduced

dramatically if all teeth with any dentin exposure were excluded. Fitzgerald and Hillson

(2005) and van Reenan (1982) found that occlusal wear also affected tooth dimensions

in addition to what was caused by interproximal wear.

Occlusal wear also reduces the dimensions as wear moves below the maximum

dimensions of the crown. First to be affected are the mediodistal dimensions of anterior

teeth and the buccolingual dimensions of the posterior dentition. Together the problems

of interproximal and occlusal wear significantly affect the reliability of using the

maximum crown dimensions in biological affinity studies, and great care should be

taken by trained dental anthropologists to exclude teeth where the maximum dimensions

are reduced.

141
 Effect of non-metric traits on tooth dimensions.

It is possible that varying degrees of expression of non-metric traits could

seriously alter crown measurements (e.g., Carabelli’s cusp and protostylid for upper and

lower molars respectively) (Hillson, 1996), and CEJ measurements may better represent

the underlying genetic variation because they tend to be more conservative (Korenhof,

1978, Skinner, 2002). For example, the presence of additional cusps on lower molars

(e.g., protostylid, cusp 6, cusp 7) may result in a larger overall tooth at the maximum

dimensions of the crown. Although it is difficult to assess the impact that non-metric

traits have on tooth measurements, they do affect the reliability of dental measurements

with respect to the underlying genetic variation for tooth size. Non-metric traits can

make an relatively huge difference with crown measurements as can be seen when

measuring antimeres with differing expression of non-metric traits. When measuring

antimeres, which tooth should more closely approximate the underlying genetic

expression for tooth size: the one with a large Carabelli trait or the one with the small

Carabelli trait? It seems likely that non-metric traits are independent from tooth size, and

care should be taken not to incorporate these traits into the tooth measurements. In this

case, crown measurements may more accurately measure the degree of expression

(underlying genotype) of the discrete trait and not the underlying genetic expression for

tooth size. The uncertainty here is that the mechanisms which result in crown diameter

variation are poorly understood with reference to the crown formation processes that

generate overall crown morphology (Hillson, 1996).

142
 For example, the mesiodistal crown measurements of lower molars could be

greatly affected by an expanded hypoconulid. In cases such as this, the crown

dimensions may more accurately be measuring the degree of expression of the non-

metric trait and not necessarily the underlying genotype for tooth size. It is difficult to

assess the importance of this potential discrepancy because the crown formation

processes that result in the completion of the crown are complex and poorly understood

(Hillson, 1996; Rizk et al., 2008). However, given the location of the CEJ with respect to

numerous, common non-metric traits of the crown (e.g., Carabelli’s cusp, protostylid),

and given the conservative nature of the enamel-dentin junction (EDJ) (Skinner, 2002),

it seems likely that they would be less affected by non-metric trait expression and thus

may more biologically meaningful. Because of the weaknesses inherent in overall crown

size measurements, my study will follow new methods developed by Hillson and

colleagues (2005) record the dimensions at the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ).

Cervical dimensions

As Hillson et al. (2005) show, CEJ measurements correlate well with crown

measurements in unworn teeth meaning they are likely measuring the same thing (i.e.,

genotype). Since CEJ measurements are much less affected by wear (Fitzgerald and

Hillson, 2005) and less affected by discrete traits, they should more accurately represent

the underlying genotype for tooth size. Additionally, in mice models Skinner (2002)

demonstrated that the dentino-enamel junction is a more conservative measure of the

underlying genotype than the crown, and we should therefore the cervical dimensions to

143
more closely approximate the underlying genotype for tooth size. Dental measurements

will be taken with Paleo-Tech Hillson-Fitzgerald calipers. These are modified Mitutoyo

digital calipers, calibrated to 0.01mm, that are fitted with needle-points for CEJ

measurements of in situ teeth. Both crown and CEJ measurements will be recorded in

order to compare the resultant interpretations of each dataset following statistical

analysis, and for comparison of degree of concordance of each of these results with

those from the non-metric data.

As Hillson and colleagues have shown: 1) CEJ measurements correlate well with

crown measurements in unworn teeth, supporting their use in biodistance studies; and 2)

CEJ measurements are much less likely to be affected by wear, which will increase

sample sizes (Fitzgerald and Hillson, 2005). As stated above, teeth with visible wear are

often excluded from metric analysis. I believe that CEJ measurements will provide a

more accurate measurement of biological affinity for adult teeth, and one that is

comparable to the unworn teeth of juveniles. In addition, as stated above, it is likely that

non-metric trait expression alters the overall shape of the crown in important ways. This

could easily obscure the biological relationships of the underlying genotype for tooth

size.

If CEJ measurements are indeed more reliable than crown measurements for

archaeological samples with varying degrees of wear, then it seems likely that many of

the studies that report conflicting results (or at least weakly correlated results) between

metric and non-metric traits may be the result of incorrect assessments of overall tooth

size variability. This may also explain why some studies show that dental measurements

144
are less effective than cranial metrics at discriminating population differences (Falk and

Corruccini, 1982). As no large scale study has been undertaken to address this issue, I

will measure all teeth for both CEJ and crown diameters, and compare these results to

those obtained from non-metric trait data. Data on some samples will also be collected

for dental wear, to find correlations between degree of wear and degree of concordance

between CEJ and crown measurements.

Hillson et al. (2005) methods

The methods proposed by Hillson et al. were developed as a way to overcome

problems inherent in the traditional crown dimensions that are largely related to wear.

New calipers were designed that allow for accurate CEJ measurements of in situ teeth

with relative ease (Paleotech Hillson-Fitzgerald calipers). Hillson et al. (2005) and

Fitzgerald and Hillson (2008) discussed the efficacy of these alternative measurements

and recommended the method by which these measurements should be taken. The new

calipers that were developed allowed for both mesiodistal and the buccolingual

measurements of in situ teeth. Although the method proposed is quite simple, accurately

recording cervical measurements using the new calipers requires more practice than the

traditional crown measurement methods.

The sample used by Hillson and colleagues to develop these methods was

composed of mostly unerrupted and completely unworn teeth that had all been removed

from the jaws prior to analysis. All of the measurements described below are to be taken

on the enamel surface just occlusal to the cervical margin (Figure 7-1) where great care

145
needs to be taken not to allow the caliper tips to slip off of the enamel and onto the

cement surface.

Mesiodistal dimensions

For mesiodistal measurements, incisors, canines, and premolars are considered

together. The location for the placement of the caliper needle points falls at the most

occlusal point of the curve at the cervical margin on the mesial and the distal surfaces of

the teeth (Figure 7-1) (Hillson et al., 2005; Fitzgerald and Hillson, 2008). As Hillson et

al. state, this is a “natural measurement landmark” and is not necessarily based on prior

knowledge of the genes underlying the crown formation processes. When teeth are in

situ, this point can normally be reach from the labial/buccal position, although since this

area is often concave, Hillson et al. recommend rotating the teeth when loose and using

the caliper points that meet end to end to obtain the most accurate measurement.

Molars do not have the natural landmarks described above for the anterior teeth,

so a point was chosen midway along the cementoenamel junction on the mesial and

distal surfaces of the teeth (Figure 7-2). Because the surfaces are often concave, this

measurement is often the minimum mesiodistal dimension. Once again, when teeth are

loose, Hillson et al. recommend that the teeth be rotated to allow the measurement to be

taken from the lingual position. This allows for the correct placement of the calipers

points at the precise measurement landmarks identified.

Buccolingual dimensions

The buccolingual dimensions should be taken with the caliper points that meet

end-to-end. The buccolingual dimension at the cementoenamel junction for incisors,

146
canines and premolars is just apical to the typical maximum crown diameters since there

is a single apical curve on both the labial and lingual surfaces of the teeth (Figure 7-1).

For molars, the buccolingual measurement is more complicated since the buccal and

lingual surfaces do not have a single outward bulge. Hillson et al. define the

measurement landmarks as midway along the buccal and lingual sides of the teeth,

where there is usually a slightly depressed between the buccal and lingual roots (Figure

7-2). Unfortunately, this is also a common location for enamel extensions which would

affect the measurements. Their solution is to move to one side or the other of the enamel

extension to whichever side has the larger measurement.

147
Figure 7-1. Landmarks for measurements of the crown and cervix of the anterior dentition. (Reprinted
with permission from Simon Hillson).

Figure 7-2. Landmarks for measurements of the crown and cervix for molars.
(Reprinted with permission from Simon Hillson)

148
 Cervical and crown dimensions: A comparison

Hillson et al. (2005) showed that the dimensions of the CEJ are positively

correlated with maximum crown dimensions and seem to reveal the same biological

information with reference to the underlying genotype for tooth size. Hillson et al.

(2005) found high correlations for the two buccolingual dimensions for all teeth, as well

as high correlations for the mesiodistal dimensions of anterior teeth. Molars

demonstrated a lower, but still positive, correlation coefficient. A similar study by

Stojanowski (2007) looked at correlation coefficients between crown and CEJ

measurements on an archaeological sample, but noted a different pattern than that of

Hillson et al. (2005). The results for mesiodistal correlation between measurements

differed significantly. Stojanowski’s results for the maxilla will not be discussed here

because of the problematic sample size, but for the mandible the correlation coefficients

varied from low to mid positive values with some lower anterior teeth even

demonstrating negative correlations for mesiodistal comparisons. Interestingly,

Stojanowski found low correlations between antimeres for the anterior teeth as well,

which would possibly suggest some genetic independence for left and right sides of the

dentition.

Interestingly, Stojanowski found that the correlation coefficients for mesiodistal

measurements were generally lower than for the buccolingual dimensions which

followed a pattern more similar to the results of Hillson et al. (2005). Stojanowski

agreed with Hillson and colleagues that buccolingual dimensions at the CEJ would serve

as an appropriate proxy to the traditional buccolingual crown dimensions. Stojanowski

149
(2007:236) concluded that buccolingual crown and cervical measurements had:

a.similar degrees of phenotypic variation

b.moderate to large correlation coefficients

c.Similar principal component loadings and loading patterns, including

eigenvectors that did not divide variable into crown and cervical

subsets.

d.similar patterns of dental asymmetry

e.similar patterns of inter-individual biological affinity

So how do we explain the different correlation coefficients for mesiodistal and

buccolingual measurements, and how do we explain the differing results between these

studies? It is possible that the buccolingual dimensions are homologous but the

mesiodistal dimensions are not homologous with respect to the underlying genes

controlling tooth dimensions. If this is the reason, it may not actually be a problem

because crown and CEJ diameter measurements are arbitrary and largely related to the

replicability of the measurements. Therefore, whether these measurements actually

correlate (i.e., are homologous) is largely irrelevant. This is supported by Stojanowski’s

own study that found similar inter-individual relationships despite the lower correlation

coefficients.

One additional explanation needs to be considered. It is possible that the actual

methods outlined by Hillson et al. (2005) are problematic and resulted in lower

correlation coefficients for some teeth and for differences in the results of the two

studies described above. It is proposed here that the methods are not consistent in terms

150
of what is being measured within the tooth class or even for the same tooth type. For this

reason, problems with the proposed measurement method need to be addressed and an

alternative method needs to be proposed. New methods are proposed here for both the

mesiodistal and buccolingual measurements, and specific recommendations are outlined

on how to obtain these measurements accurately and with a minimum of interobserver

error.

Critique of Hillson et al. (2005) method

As would be expected with any new method, numerous problems arise once the

method is put into practice. Strict adherence to the method, as defined by Hillson et al.

(2005), is often not possible when teeth are still in the jaw, and results in widely varying

results depending whether or not the teeth are in situ. It is very likely that the nature of

the sample used in the study affected the method.

It is argued here that the proposed method is problematic for a number of

reasons. For mesiodistal measurements, variation in the shape of the tooth at the CEJ

which result in inconsistent mesiodistal measurements depending on whether the

measurements are recorded from the buccal or lingual/labial aspect. Additionally, for

buccolingual measurements, reduction of the distal cusps of upper and lower molars

results in increasing ambiguity as to the exact measurement points for recording

buccolingual dimensions. As explained below, the problem with buccolingual

measurements is compounded when we consider that the mesial and distal portions of

the tooth are likely under independent genetic control. Together these problems result in

151
a need to change the method for acquiring measurements at the cementoenamel junction.

Problem with tooth shape at the CEJ: mesiodistal dimensions

Strict adherence to the mesiodistal measurement landmarks described by Hillson

et al. (2005) proved impossible for many teeth when measured in the jaw because of the

shape of the tooth at the cervical margin. The problem was most acute for anterior teeth

and premolars where the points described by Hillson et al. often mark the minimum

mesiodistal dimensions of the tooth. Obtaining this measurement accurately from the

labial position was impossible because of the constricted area and because the labial side

of the root at the cervical margin typically has the greatest breadth (Figure 7-3). This

labial expansion is most pronounced for upper anterior teeth, but is present to a varying

degree in all teeth making it impossible to precisely place the tips of the needle-points of

the calipers in the location described when teeth are in situ.

According to Hillson et al., when teeth are loose the tooth should be measured in

a way that allows for the correct placement of the caliper tips at the specified mesial and

distal locations. Hillson and colleagues recommend rotating the tooth to allow for

measurements from the labial direction, and they recommend using the caliper points

that meet end to end when the teeth are isolated to obtain accurate measurements at the

measurement locations described. This seems logical, and there is a natural tendency to

simple shift to the lingual side of the tooth where precise placement of the calipers is

normally possible. Depending on the nature of the sample however, some teeth are

required to be measured from the labial/buccal aspect (when teeth are in situ) and others

152
can be measured from the lingual aspect or with the caliper tips that meet end to end

(when jaws are fragmented or teeth are loose). Unfortunately, the measurements can

differ greatly depending on which position is used. For upper anterior teeth, the

difference between measurements of the same tooth taken from lingual and labial

positions can differ by as much as 1.1 millimeters. Since most studies are on

archaeological samples, it is likely that the variation in completeness will cover the

whole spectrum from complete with all teeth in situ to all teeth loose and the accuracy of

the measurements would vary accordingly.

Hillson and colleagues’ method would also be problematic if all teeth were in

situ because the buccal portion of the tooth at the CEJ becomes broader as we move

from the apex of the root to the CEJ. They do not specify the angle of the calipers with

respect to the cervical margin, and there is a tendency to tilt the calipers to obtain better

placement of the tips of the needle-points in the exact location described by Hillson et

al., 2005. However, varying degrees of alveolar resorption normally accompanies the

aging process. Therefore in older individuals, when teeth are loose or in situ and hyper-

erupted, the calipers can be angled from a more apical position, following the root, to

allow for the correct placement of the caliper tips at the most occlusal point of the

cervical margins (Figure 7-3). However, in juvenile and young adults, the

cementoenamel junction is flush with the alveolar bone of the jaw, making the

placement of the calipers in this position impossible. Therefore measurements of

younger individuals would differ greatly from older individuals simply because of the

inability to position the caliper points in a way that allows precise placement on the

153
landmarks described by Hillson et al. (2005). To make this measurement consistent, the

angle of the calipers would have to follow the cervical line which is would allow for

direct comparison of individuals regardless of age and regardless of whether the teeth

were measured in the in situ or isolated.

These differences could help explain why the results from Hillson et al. and by

Stojanowski differed so greatly, specifically with mesiodistal measurements. The

discrepancy between measurements taken from the lingual and labial position is greatest

for anterior teeth, and we would therefore expect to see the greatest incongruity for these

measurements. This is also where we see high positive correlations in the Hillson et al.

(2005) study and negative correlations in the Stojanowski (2007) study. The effects of

rotating the posterior teeth for accurate measurement is less of a problem because of the

shape of the cervix in cross-section, so we should expect more concordance between the

results for these teeth. It is not surprising that the results for the anterior teeth in the

Hillson et al. study show higher correlation between the mesiodistal crown and cervical

measurements since their sample consisted solely of completely unworn and isolated

teeth which allowed for consistent placement of the caliper tips on every tooth

measured. This is an ideal sample and not reflective of the typical varied samples found

in archaeological collections including the one used by Stojanowski in his study. It

seems likely that the Hillson et al. (2005) correlation coefficients between cervical and

crown measurements more closely reflect the homologous nature of these dimensions

than the results of Stojanowski simply because of the consistent nature of the sample.

Stojanowski’s study consisted of a varied archaeological sample where some

154
teeth were measured in situ and others were measured as isolated teeth. Following the

method put forth by Hillson et al. (2005), Stojanowski likely rotated loose teeth to the

lingual position to obtain an accurate measurement resulting in a discrepancy between

those that were measured in situ and those that were measured loose.

What is needed is a method that can accommodate a variety of samples, and

consistently measure the same aspect of the individual teeth. There are a couple of

solutions to this problem. First all teeth could be measured from the lingual aspect where

correct placement of the caliper tips is possible and all teeth where these lingual

measurements are impossible could be excluded. The problem with this solution is that

all teeth from relatively complete jaws would have to be excluded because of the

difficulty of obtaining these measurements from the lingual side. This could greatly

decrease sample size, and would result in the exclusion of the most complete

individuals. This would also mean that the calipers that were specially designed for

taking CEJ measurements of in situ teeth would no longer be needed. An alternative,

more productive approach would be to alter the MD CEJ measurements to allow for

measurements of all teeth, regardless of the degree of fragmentation of the jaws, in a

way that was repeatable and informative about the underlying genetic variability.

Alternate method

Since the measurement landmarks are arbitrary in the first place, the solution is

to develop methods that will be able to be consistently recorded regardless of the nature

of the sample. This will allow for the comparison across samples of varying degrees of

155
completeness by the same researcher, and for the comparison of results from different

researchers. Here I recommend changes to both the mesiodistal and the buccolingual

measurements. The changes here are crucial to obtaining accurate, consistent

measurements on samples of variation completeness.

Changes to mesiodistal measurements

All mesiodistal CEJ measurements should be taken from the labial/buccal side for all

teeth. The tendency to measure loose teeth from the lingual side should be avoided at all

times. Strict adherence to the measuring points defined by Hillson et al. (2005) would

require the exclusion of dental measurements from in situ teeth with labial/buccal

expansion. For anterior teeth (and premolars) the new measurement location should be

moved to the expanded labial/buccal portion of the CEJ (Figure 7-3). The measurement

would simply be the maximum mesiodistal measurement at the CEJ for the labial

portion of the tooth. This measurement is fairly straightforward, and correct placement is

possible on all but the relatively rare odd-shaped tooth. For molar teeth, the

measurement location is unchanged.

There is no reason to believe that these measurements are any less informative of

the underlying genotype for tooth size than the CEJ measurement chosen by Hillson and

colleagues, since their measurement locations are arbitrary points chosen for ease of

measurement and replicability. In my own study, the mesiodistal measurements

described here, resulted in very low levels of interobserver for all teeth. In fact, in my

own study, mesiodistal measurements at the CEJ for upper and lower molars consistently

156
returned smaller error values than the traditional crown diameters likely due to the

difficulty in obtaining consistent measurements on crowded teeth.

Changes to bucco-lingual measurements

One additional change in the method of Hillson and colleagues needs to be made

with regard to bucco-lingual measurements of molars. As described by Hillson et al.

(2005) bucco-lingual measurements at the CEJ require the placement of the caliper tips

on the buccal and lingual aspect of tooth where the crown meets the tooth at the

approximate location where the mesial and distal cusps are separated by grooves (Figure

7-4) (essentially separating the mesial and distal portions of the crown. Unfortunately,

this is also a common location for enamel extensions. Hillson and colleagues suggestion

that the caliper tips be moved off of the enamel extension to one side or the other

“whichever gave the maximum value” (Hillson et al. 2005: 419) creates room for error

as the enamel extension gradually blends into the enamel at the margins resulting in

varying degrees of ambiguity as to the exact measurement landmarks.

When enamel extensions are absent, correct placement of the calipers is not

necessarily a problem. However, the reduction of the distal cusps contributes to an

additional problem. When measuring upper first molars, correct placement of the

calipers tips is quite simple. However, when these measurements are taken on upper

molars with reduced distal cusps, the correct placement of the caliper tips in the precise

locations described by Hillson and colleagues becomes progressively more difficult.

When the metacone is present and the hypocone is absent, the measurement is

157
essentially the breadth of the metacone at the CEJ. When the distal cusps are reduced the

measurement, as described by Hillson et al. becomes increasingly small. Additionally,

when the distal cusps are the correct placement of the caliper tips can become so

difficult, in terms of repeatability, that the measurements become useless especially

when navigating around enamel extensions. It is also quite common for upper third

molars to completely lack distal cusps, and in this instance the buccolingual dimension

is zero regardless of the dimensions of the mesial cusps. Additionally, wear is often a

problem, obscuring the outline of the cusps and making the identification of

measurement landmarks more difficult.

To overcome this problem and allow for accurate, repeatable measurements on

all molars (both upper and lower), alternative BL measurements of the CEJ should be

taken at the maximum breadth of the mesial portion of the crown (across the protocone/

paracone and the protoconid/entoconid respectively) (Figure 7-4). This measurement

location allows for the same measurement on all molars regardless of whether the distal

cusps are reduced in size. This measurement location also avoids enamel extensions. It is

also important to note that the enamel is thinner and nearly parallel with the root at the

alternative, mesial location proposed here, resulting in a reduced tendency for the

needle-points to slip off the enamel onto the root.

As with the alternative MD measurements above, there is no reason to believe

that the measurements described here are any less informative than the measurements

proposed by Hillson et al. (2005). In fact, the ease and replicability of these alternative

measurements should allow for more accurate comparisons between studies. However, it

158
is important that the measurements are related to the underlying genotype for tooth size

and not solely related to the need to develop replicable measurements. It seems likely

that some measurements might better represent the underlying genetic variation, in terms

of consistently measuring dimensions that are homologous with respect to the genome.

Supporting this Hlusko et al. (2004) found different patterns of genetic correlation

between cusps for the mesial portion (protoconid/entoconid) of mandibular molars,

consistently estimated near 1.0, and the distal portion (metaconid/hypoconid) of

mandibular molars estimated at near 0.0. In addition, Rizk et al. (2008) showed that the

mesial and distal portions of the tooth are genetically independent with respect to lophid

orientation. If, as Hlusko (2000, 2002) proposes, the orientation of the mesial and distal

lophs are independent, it is also probable that the buccolingual dimensions are also

genetically independent for the mesial and distal portions of the tooth. This last point is

increasingly important when we consider the traditional methods for recording

maximum bucco-lingual dimensions (e.g., Moorrees, 1957), which do not distinguish

between mesial or distal portions of the tooth (also see Hillson, 1986 and Kieser, 1990).

It seems likely that the dimensions at the cervical margin should have analogous genetic

components to the crown even if not directly homologous, and great care needs to be

taken to make sure that the method for recording these dimensions consistently measures

the same genetic components. Therefore it is important to determine measurement

landmarks that are minimally affected by the most common non-metric traits.

159
 Area of cross-sectional
buccal expansion
Maximum buccal expansion

Angle of measurement
follows CEJ

All measurements
are taken from the
labial/buccal position

Figure 7-3. Measurement method and landmarks for anterior teeth as described in the text.

Figure 7-4. Measurement method and landmarks for molar teeth.

160
Mesiodistal dimensions and non-metric traits

a.Incisors and canines: Although the measurement landmarks proposed here for

incisors and canines differ from the method of Hillson et al., it is likely that there

is little difference in the degree to which these measurements are affected by

non-metric traits of the anterior dentition (e.g., shoveling, tuberculum dentale,

distal accessory ridge).

b.Premolars: The alternative method defined here results in simply measuring the

size of the single large buccal cusp, which is much more conservative in terms of

phenotypic variation than the lingual cusp for upper and lower premolars. This

measurement would also be less affected by variable expressions of mesial and

distal accessory cusps, although large accessory cusps may affect interobserver

error.

c.Molars: The alternative method results in a measurement across the mesial portion

of the tooth, basically a measurement of the paracone/hypocone for upper molars

and the protoconid/hypoconid for lower molars. For upper molars this

measurement would be less affected by common non-metric traits like mesial

marginal tubercules and cusp 5. This measurement would also be less affected by

a reduction in the size of the hypocone and metacone, which makes the

measurement landmarks proposed by Hillson and collaborators (2005)

increasingly ambiguous. For lower molars, this measurement would be less

161
 affected by variable expressions of mesial marginal tubercules, hypoconulid and

cusp 6, although it would likely be more affected by cusp 7 (although cusp 7 is

rare).

Buccolingual dimensions and non-metric traits

This section will only focus on molars since the method for buccolingual

measurements at the CEJ for incisors, canines, and premolars is unchanged from that of

Hillson et al. (2005). The method proposed here results in a measurement of the

maximum diameter of the mesial portion of molar teeth (across the paracone/protocone

for upper molars and across the protoconid/entoconid for lower molars) (Figure 7-2b).

The new measurement landmarks would completely avoid measurement problems

associated with enamel extensions. For upper molars, the new measurement will be

unaffected by the reduction in size of the metacone and hypocone and it is possible that

this measurement would be less affected by variable expression of Carabelli’s trait and

parastyle. As alluded to above, when applying Hillson's (2005) method to upper molar

buccolingual dimensions, we are essentially measuring the reduction of the distal cusps.

Measurements were taken on all adult teeth so there are a total of 64

possible measurements for each individual of the cervix and the crown. Only cervical

dimensions were used in this analysis, and of these once again only key teeth were

considered.

162
 Choosing variables and eliminating measurements:

Prior to data imputation variables had to be chosen that would be used in the

population reconstruction. Following Irish (1993) the first tooth in each tooth class was

used as it is generally considered to be the most morphologically conservative (see

Butler’s field theory above). This resulted in the reduction of variables from 32

(mesiodistal measurements and buccolingual measurements on 16 teeth) to 16 variables

(mesiodistal and buccolingual measurements on 8 teeth).

For the remaining teeth it was necessary to determine if intraobserver error was a

problem for any of the measurements. This was a specific concern in this study for two

reasons. First the calipers used in this study are more difficult to use initially because of

the slight flexibility of the needle-points. This is a problem because applying

inconsistent pressure on the calipers when measuring will cause deviations in the

measurements taken. Pressure to the calipers must be consistently applied in order to

obtain consistent measurements. The importance of this issue was discovered following

the analysis of near 45 dentitions. These individuals were then re-measured with

consistent pressure and it was determined that the initial measurement consistently

below the later measurements (on average 0.2mm). Seven weeks after this initial

situation 30 individuals (all teeth) were re-measured to check for intraobserver error. A

paired Student’s t-test was performed to determine if there was systemic error in the

recording of the cervical dimensions. None of the measurements demonstrated

significant error at the 0.05 level, and the mean intraobserver error was .024mm

(s.d.=.036). This level of error is below that found in other studies (Lukacs and Hemphill

163
1991; Scherer, 2004).

Second, the measurement locations at the cemento-enamel junction are more

precise and require more training and practice than the standard maximum dimensions

of the crown. As with the flexibility of the needle-points, the problems with the

measurement locations described by Hillson et al. (2005) were discovered during the

process of measuring the same sample described above, but following the analysis of

nearly 100 individuals. As described above (Chapter 7), the problems with the Hillson et

al. method is primarily limited to mesiodistal dimensions although the buccolingual

dimensions of molar teeth were also found to be problematic. Because of this, the

mesiodistal dimensions of all teeth and the buccolingual dimensions of the molar teeth

were re-measured for all 98 individuals. This has resulted in numerous datasets from the

same individuals using differing method.

Of the remaining 16 variables (2 from each primary tooth) it was important to

check to see if any of the variables were non-normally distributed. QQPlot in SAS was

run to plot the variables with confidence intervals to check for normally. None of the

variables deviated from the normal distribution, therefore a total of six measurements

were chosen based on the percentage of complete data for the maximum number of

individuals from each site (summarized in Appendix B). Out of an initial total of 1,953

individuals, 665 individuals were complete enough to include in the statistical analysis.

Of these 665 individuals, 11 individuals were deleted because they were found to be

significantly greater than 2 standard deviations away from the mean and therefore

having an excessive influence on the regression line. Missing data for the remaining 654

164
individuals were then imputed using the program described below to obtain complete

datasets.

Data imputation

Because of the common problem of missing values, data imputation of missing

variables was necessary. The problem with statistical analysis is that most statistical

programs require complete data for each individual. In practice this would result in the

deletion of so many individuals that the statistical analysis would lack statistical power

and many samples would have to be excluded altogether. Schafer (1997) suggests the

frequency of incomplete cases is low (5% or less) then list wise deletion is probably the

best solution (See also Darmawan 2002), but this is obviously not a reality in

archaeological populations.

Schafer (1999) designed the NORM program which allows for the estimation of

these missing variables, and this procedure was used in Scherer's (2004) study as well

The multiple imputation technique involves replacing the missing values with numerous

estimated values (Schafer 1999; Darmawan 2002; Bernaards et al., 2003). The

percentage of missing values should be small (no more than 15%) (Schafer 1999). Each

of the resultant datasets is combined to produce estimates with confidence intervals.

These estimates incorporate missing data uncertainty in order to not adversely affect the

covariance structure by simply reproducing estimates within the sample range which

reduces the variance (Schafer 1999). This data imputation program has been used in

numerous anthropological and medical studies, and although imputing data is not ideal,

165
it was necessary because of the amount of missing data.

Statistical tests: metric variables

Principal components analysis

Principal components analysis is a simple multivariate method that takes p

variables X1, X2, X3….Xp and finds combinations of these variables to produce Z indices

that are uncorrelated (Manly, 1994). Since these indices are uncorrelated it means that

they are measuring different dimensions of the data. When doing a principal components

analysis it is beneficial if a few Z variables can adequately describe the data (e.g., the

first three principal components). Eigenvectors are derived from this analysis that

correspond the Z indices which give the coefficients of the standardized variables

(Manly, 1994). These principal components have associated eigenvalues that show how

much of the total variation for the dataset is explained by each principal component

which can be plotted in two and three dimensions.

Relethford-Blangero Model

Metric variables are amenable to both “model-free” statistics, as well as more

recent “model-bound” statistical approaches that are directly interpretable within a

population genetics framework and provide additional information on population

structure (Relethford and Harpending 1988; Relethford and Blangero, 1990). Traditional

biodistance methods have proven inadequate by themselves since an increase in

166
biological distance is interpreted as resulting solely from the stochastic processes of

genetic drift (Scott and Turner, 1997) with no information available on interregional

gene flow. Therefore populations may have small biological distances despite the fact

that one population may have considerable more genetic heterozygosity. Model-bound

approaches are interpreted within a population genetics framework allowing for the

assessment of additional microevolutionary forces. These approaches assume that the

populations being examined were interbreeding subpopulations of a larger overall

population (Harpending and Jenkins, 1973; Harpending and Ward, 1982; Williams-

Blangero and Blangero; Relethford and Blangero, 1990; Relethford et al., 1997)

allowing for the estimation of expected and observed frequencies for trait expression

which allows for estimations of genetic heterozygosity. These statistics are used to

obtain:

1. mean estimates for each of the variables for each of the sites being

investigated.

2. within-class covariance matrices for each site

3. within-class covariance matrices for the pooled samples

Harpending and Jenkins (1973) and Harpending and Ward (1982) derived models

for allelic data that provide a measure of intraregional genetic heterozygosity. However,

these statistics deal only with allelic data, and thus are not applicable to continuous data

for which the underlying genetic structure is unknown. Relethford and Blangero (1990)

167
modified the Harpending and Ward (1982) model to allow for the use of the phenotypic

variation of continuous traits as a proxy for the underlying genetic variation. The

Relethford-Blangero model substitutes the covariance matrix for allelic data with the

covariance matrix for phenotypic traits. This project used a conservative heritability

estimate of h2 = 1 which provides a minimum measure biological distance.

With the Relethford-Blangero (1990) model, if there were migration into the

Maya area from outside during various times during the Classic Period, these migrations

would be detected as perturbations in the population structure of different Maya sites as

new alleles were introduced. According to population genetics theory, if all

subpopulations within a region are exchanging genes with an outside source at the same

rate then the relationship “between the average within-group variation and genetic

distance to the centroid (the average inbreeding coefficient of all subpopulations) for

each population should be linear” (Hartl and Clark, 1997). The Relethford-Blangero

model tests the observed within-group heterogeneity for each sample and compares it to

that expected under the conditions predicted by population genetics models of gene flow.

This expected condition is the null hypothesis which assumes that the source of all

external gene flow is from a homogeneous ‘outside world’ and that each site will receive

the same amount of gene flow (Relethford and Blangero, 1990). Where the samples fall

relative to the regression line (expected genetic heterozygosity) provides information on

differential gene flow from outside the sub-region. Differences in heterozygosity are

assumed to reflect only migration and long-term population histories (Relethford, 1996;

Relethford et al., 1997).

168
 Given n loci with two alleles at each locus, the Harpending-Ward model states

that the expected heterozygosity of population I [E(Hi)] equal to the heterozygosity of

the total region (Ht) times the genetic distance between population I and the regional

centroid (rii). Therefore

E(HI) = Ht (1-rii). (Eq. 1)

This equation provides the expected linear regression line of heterozygosity on

genetic distance from the centroid with intercept Ht and slope - Ht. for two alleles at each

locus the heterozygosity of the total region is computed under the assumption of

complete panmixia (Harpending and Jenkins, 1973) or random mating as

Ht = Σ 2 pk qk / n, (Eq. 2)

Where pk and qk (=1- pk ) are the weighted mean allele frequencies for locus k and

summation is over all n loci. The mean allele frequencies are computed as

pk = Σ wipik,

qk = 1- pk, (Eq. 3)

where wi is the ratio of the census size of population i to the total census size over all

groups, pik is the frequency of one allele at locus k in population i, and summation is

over all groups (Relethford and Blangero, 1990). The estimate of census size was

169
obtained using the structure count method. This is the same population size estimate

method as Scherer (2004), and I believe that it is a close enough approximation to the

relative population size differences between sites. The data from two sites, Tikal and

Teotihuácan, were subdivided during analysis in an attempt to identify differential

external interaction within portions of these sites. In these cases it was impossible to

reliably arrive at population estimates. Because of this statistical analysis was run using

many different likely population sizes and the results are described in Chapter 9.

The genetic distance of a population to the regional centroid is computed as the

diagonal of the R matrix of scaled variances and covariances about the regional mean

allele frequencies (Harpending and Jenkins, 1973; Workman et al., 1973). For each allele

the elements of the R matrix for populations i and j are computed as

rij = (pi – p)(pj – p)/ p (1-p) (Eq. 4)

The overall R matrix is then averaged over all alleles. The R matrix provides an estimate

of genetic kinship relative to the contemporary region. That is, it measures deviations

from the contemporary mean allele frequencies. The observed heterozygosity of

population i is computed as

Hi = Σ 2pik qik / n, (Eq. 5)

Where summation is over all n loci. Under the assumption that all populations

170
experience the same amount of gene flow from the same source (a homogeneous

‘outside world’), the expected heterozygosity and observed heterozygosity for

population i will be the same. If either the rate or source of external gene flow is

different among populations, then the null hypothesis will be violated. Harpending and

Ward show that populations having greater than average external gene flow will have

observed heterzygosities greater than expected. Comparison of expected heterozygosity

(Eq. 1) with observed heterozygosity (eq. 5) allows assessment of which populations

have experienced greater than average external gene flow [Hi > E(Hi)] or less than

average external gene flow [Hi < E(Hi)]. In the current study, discriminant function

analysis was used to obtain within-class variance-covariance matrices for each site. The

observed heterozygosity for each site (subdivision in the terminology above) was simply

the trace of the matrix divided by the number of variables (in this case 6). This provides

an estimate of the observed genetic heterozygosity which can then be compared to Hi.

Univariate extension to quantitative traits

Relethford-Blangero (1990) directly extend the Harpending-Ward model for use

with additive genetic variances. Second, under more restrictive assumptions they

consider how phenotypic variance can be predicted by the model.

Direct extension of the Harpending-Ward model to quantitative traits requires the

assumption that the additive genetic variance of a trait is proportional to heterozygosity.

This assumption has been tested in numerous heritability studies and I feel comfortable

assuming additive effects over multiple loci, each with two alleles (Relethford-Blangero,

171
1990; Manly, 1994). If we let αk, 0, and - αk represent the genotypic values of the three

genotypes at locus k. We further assume a model of equal effects, such that αk = α for all

loci. According to traditional quantitative genetics models (Falconer, 1981), the additive

genetic variance within the ith subdivision is

σ2Gi = Σ 2α2 pik (1-pik) (Eq. 6)

where summation is over all loci. The additive genetic variance for the total region

assuming panmixia is

σ2Gi = Σ 2α2 pk (1-pk) (Eq. 7)

The heterozygosity in subdivision i can now be expressed as a function of the

additive genetic variance:

Hi = σ2Gi / nα2 (Eq. 8)

Likewise, the heterozygosity in the total region under panmixia can be expressed:

Hi = σ2GT / nα2 (Eq. 9)

Substitution of equations (8) and (9) into equation (1) gives equation 10)

E(σ2Gi) = σ2GT (1- rii) (Eq. 10)

The discriminant function analysis described above also provides a pooled

172
variance covariance matrix. This is the variance-covariance matrix for all the data. The

trace of the pooled variance-covariance matrix divided by the number of variables

provides the estimate of average genetic heterozygosity of the within-class covariance

matrices (Hi ). The additive genetic variance in the panmictic region (σ2GT) cannot be

directly observed. This variance is not the same as the total additive genetic variance is

not directly comparable to Hi except in a very broad sense since this does not take into

account differing effective population sizes or the effects of within-group and among-

group variance. However, the quantity σ2GT can be estimated from the relationship

σ2GT = σ2Gw / (1-r0 ), (Eq. 11)

where σ2Gw is the pooled within-group genetic variance and r0 is the weighted average

genetic distance to the centroid. The pooled within-subdivision genetic variance should

be weighted by census size and is calculated as

σ2Gw = Σ wi σ2Gi, (Eq 12)

where wi is the relative census size of the ith subdivision and summation is over all

subdivisions. The parameter r0 in eq (11) is given by

r0 = Σ wi rii. (Eq 13)

173
Here r0 is a measure of variation of distances to a regional centroid. This is interpreted as

variation about a centroid defined by contemporary allele frequencies. They follow

Rogers and Harpending (1983, 1986) and use FST to refer to the former interpretation

and r0 to refer to the later. In reality r0 is the trace of the bias corrected R-matrix.

The Harpending-Ward model can now be expressed as

E (σ2Gi) = σ2Gw (1-rii) / (1 –r0). (Eq. 14)

To use this model, we must derive the genetic distances from the centroid (rii) from

quantitative traits. Let txt be the phenotypic mean of the entire region, defined by

̅xt = Σ wi ̅xi (Eq 15)

Where txi is the phenotypic mean for subdivision i and summation is over all

subdivisions. We assume that the environmental deviations have expectation zero, so txi

also reflects the genetic mean of the trait. Different researchers chose different

heritability estimates during this analysis (e.g., Scherer 2005 uses h2=0.55). However

since heritability is dependent on the environment, i.e., not stable across populations,

using heritability estimates from previous dental metric studies (e.g., Hlusko, 2000) may

not be appropriate. This study uses a heritability estimate of h2=1.00 (i.e., gw=pw) which

provides a conservative estimate of the variation due to additive genetic variance (see

Harpending and Ward, 1982). For g groups, let C be a g x g matrix with elements

174
 cij = (txi - txt) (txj - txt) (Eq. 16)

given the relationship between allele frequency and a phenotypic mean under an equal

and additive effects model (xi - ̅xt) (̅xj - ̅x t) (Falconer, 1981), the elements of the

relationship matrix R can now be written as (eq 17)

(Eq. 17)

The genetic distance of subdivision i to the regional centroid is given by (eq 18)

(Eq. 18)

Where summation is over all subdivisions. The weighted average genetic distance to the

centroid is now (eq 19)

(Eq. 19)

We do not consider sampling error in r0 or the rii values. The model is not

dependent on the assumption of the simple genetic model in which two alleles exist at

each locus. The practical requirements for using the method are stringent. Genetic

variances are required for each subdivision. Possession of such information is rare.

Generally, if any information on the additive genetic variance of a trait is available, it

usually reflects a single subdivision or a pooled estimate. Therefore it is useful to adjust

175
the method to predict phenotypic variances. However, translation of the results to

phenotypic variances also requires more restrictive assumptions.

Let the genetic variance of a trait in the ith subdivision be written as σ2Gw = h2 σ2Pi, where

σ2Pi is the phenotypic variance. Given the additional assumption that heritability is the

same over all populations, the additive genetic variance of the panmictic region is σ2Gt =

h2 σ2Pt. .

Using this scheme, direct substitution into Eq. 14 yields (eq 20)

(Eq. 20)

The observed phenotypic variance in subdivision i(σ2Pi) can be estimated as the sample

variance. The R matrix can now be written (eq 21)

(Eq. 21)

This equation is similar to that used by Morton et al., 1971, except that they took the

total phenotypic variance as equivalent to the phenotypic variance expected under

panmixia. As shown, the correct method utilizes the relationship between within-group

phenotypic variance and the phenotypic variance expected under panmixia.

Low values of FST are found when there is limited among-group genetic variation

relative to total variation. From the C matrix and total group FST , the R matrix can be

176
computed as

R=C(1-FST)/2t (Eq. 22)

The diagonals of the R matrix correspond to the genetic distance between each of the

populations and the regional centroid. Thus, genetic distances can be derived from the R

matrix as dij = rii + rjj – 2rij (Harpending and Jenkins, 1973). Distances were corrected

for sampling error by subtracting 1/2ni from the rii values, where ni is the sample size of

group i (Relethford, 1991). Following Relethford et al. (1997), the variance of FST can

be calculated as:

(Eq.23)

with all variables as defined previously. The difference between the expected genetic

heterozygosity and the observed heterozygosity (i.e., distance from the population from

the regression line of the centroid) is simply the difference between the observed values,

obtained by averaging the traces of the within-class covariance matrices with the

expected values taking into account the bias corrected R-matrix.

Mahalanobis distance

This model also provides a Mahalanobis distance D2 (Mahalanobis, 1936) during

the construction of the variance/covariance matrices during discriminant function

177
analysis. Mahalanobis distance is useful in biological distance studies because of its

ability to account for correlations between variables. Mahalanobis distance is a statistic

that provides a distance measure that calculates the differences in the means relative to

the variance. The univariate form is:

(Eq. 24)

where xi is the mean of the trait in population I, xj is the mean of the trait in population

j, and σ2 is the variance of the trait. The multivariate version of this

equation is:

(Eq. 25)

where xi is the vector of k trait means for sample i, xj is a vector of k trait menas for

sample j, and V1 is the inverse of the pooled within-group covariance matrix for the k

traits. This will only provide accurate distance measurements if there is an equality of

covariance matrices.

R-matrix statistics were performed separately for sites in the Maya area and in

the Valley of Mexico in order to calculate expected levels of genetic heterozygosity for

each of these regions. This was important to detect specific sites within each area that

deviate from what is expected. If gene flow was unidirectional, from Central Mexico to

178
the Maya area, then only Maya sites will exhibit greater than average genetic

heterozygosity. However, if gene flow was more complex, with Central Mexican sites

receiving migrants from the Maya area, then some Central Mexican sites should be more

variable than expected. Only by performing statistical analyses separately on each of

these sub-regions can complex patterns of interaction emerge.

Mantel test

To determine if the gene flow within these sub-regions follows an isolation by

distance model, a simple Mantel test was performed to test the linear correlation

between biological and geographic distance matrices (Smouse et al., 1986). Once a

Mahalanobis distance matrix is obtained a Mantel test can be run to determine if the

biological distance matrix differed significantly from the geographical distance matrix.

The Mantel test randomizes the rows and columns for 1,000 iterations to evaluate if the

correlations coefficient between the two distance matrices is significantly different from

what is expected under the null hypothesis that these two matrices are the same

(Smouse, et al., 1986). For the geographical distance matrix, I simply measured the

shortest linear distance between sites and input this as a matrix in the program. Absolute

linear distances may not be the best measure of actual distance between sites since many

sites are located along the coast or along rivers. From ethnohistoric evidence it is clear

that trade via water transport was extremely important in the Maya area, and this would

allow for easier travel than by land. Unfortunately, due to difficulties in determining the

ratio of land transport miles to water transport miles, I retained the simple linear

179
measurements for this study.

As stated above, all statistics except the program used for data imputation and the

program used to compare distance matrices, were run using the same statistical package,

SAS 7.0. The comparison of distance matrices was done using the Mantel 3.1 program

distributed for free by John Blangero.

Discussion

The new measurements proposed here help explain some of the differences in the

studies by Hillson et al. and Stojanowski. Even with the problems described above, we

would expect higher correlation coefficients for Hillson’s study than for Stojanowski’s

study. This is because Hillson’s study was done on an ‘ideal’ sample, in which the

caliper tips could always be precisely placed on the landmarks described by Hillson et

al. (2005). In this situation, there was never a discrepancy between teeth that were

measured in situ (that required measurement from the buccal position) and teeth that

were isolated (that allowed for measurement from the lingual position). Stojanowski’s

sample was a ‘natural’ archaeological sample which would not allow for lingual position

measurements for many of the teeth in the sample. This also helps explain why

Stojanowski’s buccal measurements had higher correlations since the way these

measurements are taken is always the same regardless of the nature of the sample.

180
 Summary

This chapter provides an explanation of model-bound statistics, which are crucial

to answering the questions posed in this study. Model-free statistics provide no

information about gene flow, and therefore are insufficient by themselves to answer

questions about population interaction. The distance measures derived from model-free

statistics can be interpreted through population genetics models, such as an isolation by

distance model, to provide information on gene flow. R-matrix analysis, on the other

hand, provides a biological distance measure that takes into account correlations

between variables, and it provides a model to predict expected levels of genetic

heterozygosity for samples within larger breeding populations. The ability to predict

genotype frequencies and levels of heterozygosity are what make model-bound statistics

so useful. With predictive models, we can identify samples that deviate from the

expected outcomes as in the isolation by distance model. With R-matrix analysis, we are

able to predict the expected levels of heterozygosity, and determine which sites were

isolated and which sites received extralocal gene flow depending on where they fall

relative to the regression line (expected genetic heterozygosity). The usefulness of this

should be evidence in this study which seeks to identify sites in the Maya area that are

more genetically variable in order to understand how they might have interacted with

central Mexican sites. Estimates of genetic heterozygosity in conjunction with biological

distance estimates from non-metric traits and metric variation will allow for an

assessment of the relationship between these two regions.

181
 CHAPTER 8

RESULTS

Introduction

As stated above, non-metric and metric variation are controlled by two largely

independent genetic systems. Recording both types of data allows for a greater sampling

of the underlying genetic variation, and it is important to note where the results from

these two types of data overlap because consistency provides support for the results of

both. The nonmetric statistic (MMD) was performed on Maya sites and central Mexican

sites separately. Statistical analyses for the metric traits were run three separate times,

once on only Maya sites, and once on only central Mexican sites in order to calculate

observed and expected levels of genetic heterozygosity for each region. One final metric

analysis was run on all sites together to obtain genetic distances and an observed levels

of genetic heterozygosity for each region Three separate analysis allow for me to address

the questions posed earlier. The results are summarized in the following tables (Tables 8-

2 through 8-10). Graphs of eigenvectors obtained through principal components analysis

are presented in two and three dimensions (corresponding to the first two and the first

three eigenvectors respectively) (Figures 8-1 through 8-6).

The description of the results are broken down by region (Maya, Central Mexico,

and all sites combined).

182
 Maya area

Nonmetric results:MMD

Table 8-2 provides the chi-square values for the Mean Measure of Divergence

analysis. Numerous sites had to be excluded from this analysis because of because of the

need to retain sufficient sample sizes. The sites of Palenque and Chichén Itzá were

excluded from the MMD test because of insufficient sample sizes. Sites with sufficient

nonmetric traits are listed in Table 8-2.

As is shown in Table 8-2, only Xcambó has more than one distance estimate that

is significant at the P < 0.05 level, and the Altar de Sacrificios-S.E. Peten distance

measure is also significant at the P<0.05 level. Two other distance estimates from

Xcambó approach the P < 0.10 level further supporting the evidence that points to this

site as biological distant from other sites. All other distance measures are non-significant

indicating little genetic differentiation between most sites. MMD does not provide

information about whether the small degree of difference between these sites is due to

gene flow or due to large populations sizes, which reduces the effects of random genetic

drift.

183
 UI1- UI1- UC- UM1- UM1- UM1- LI1- LM1-
Site shov d.sh DAR hypo Carab Metac. shov D. Wr.
Altar de
Sacrificios 16/31 20/33 37/40 22/33 30/40 9/27 29/44 15/21
Calakmul
15/23 11/19 17/22 9/20 18/22 17/21 9/16 9/14
Chichén Itzá
4/6 6/7 2/8 3/6 6/8 7/11 11/19 3/14
Dos Pilas
13/19 6/15 17/23 12/21 14/23 20/27 14/23 12/21
Dzibilchaltún
8/9 5/10 8/10 5/10 6/9 7/9 4/10 2/8
Kaminaljúyu
8/9 7/10 9/16 6/12 10/16 6/13 5/13 2/9
Peten
32/39 11/31 20/37 13/31 24/37 18/25 16/41 19/32
San Gervasio/
Playa del
Carmen* 5/8 7/10 12/17 10/17 12/17 6/12 12/22 10/18
Tikal (Late
Classic 6/15 10/17 15/25 17/23 18/26 10/15 12/22 16/20
Tikal (Early
Classic) 7/14 7/9 12/17 10/17 14/17 11/19 10/19 13/17
Uaxactún
13/19 14/20 20/23 11/20 19/23 11/19 13/20 10/16
Xcambó 66/14
56/127 112/126 117/155 5 137/159 85/163 92/143 52/106
Yaxuna
11/13 6/11 12/19 5/17 13/19 15/18 4/17 10/15

Table 8-1. Maya sites included in non-metric analysis with summary data

184
 Altar Calak DosP. Kamin. Peten Pied.N. SanG. Tik.LC Tik.EC Uaxac. Xcam. Yaxuna

Altar 0
Calakmul 18.07 0
Dos Pilas 18.62 4.46 0
Kaminaljuyú 24.40 14.07 11.81 0
Peten 46.31 11.26 7.68 9.78 0
Piedras Negras 42.18 10.38 9.90 8.23 13.98 0
San Gerv/Playa 7.724 5.29 4.70 5.838 10.40 5.08 0
Tikal(LC) 16.04 10.10 9.05 18.25 20.11 12.16 5.79 0
Tikal(EC) 10.98 3.85 6.57 13.05 18.10 7.68 2.70 5.912 0
Uaxactún 6.306 4.31 8.11 13.48 21.64 14.45 3.20 12.02 3.23 0
185

Xcambó 33.31 20.97 32.97 22.66 80.08 51.17 8.33 29.57 5.03 11.50 0
Yaxuna 38.08 7.71 11.15 11.37 4.28 13.31 12.25 19.10 16.62 17.13 39.909 0
Table 8-2. Maya area. Non-metric traits: Chi-square values from MMD. Significant chi-square value is 43.77 at the P<.05 level. Significant chi-square
values in bold.
Principal components analysis

Principal components analysis was run on all Maya sites. Eigenvectors

obtained from the principal components were used to create graphs in two and three

dimensions (using the first two and first three eigenvectors respectively) (Figures 8-1

and 8-2). The graphs presented here are derived from the eigenvectors of the principal

components analysis, and are similar to ones derived from distance matrices. The first

two eigenvectors describe 78% of the variance, and the first three eigenvectors

describe 93% of the variance. The relationship between sites on these figures provide

a visual representation of the way these eigenvectors explain the relationships

between the samples.

It should be remembered that that the statistical power of these tests is reduced

as the sample size decreases. Six Maya sites in this analysis include have fewer

than 10 individuals, and therefore conclusions drawn from this analysis regarding

these four sites should be regarded as tenuous. This includes Copán (9 individuals),

Dzibilchaltún (11 individuals), Kaminaljuyú (10 individuals), Chichén Itzá (9

individuals), Palenque (8 individuals), and the San Gervasio/Playa del Carmen

sample (9 individuals). Two of these sites (Palenque and Copán) also plot outside of

the main cluster of sites in Figure 8-1 and Figure 8-2. Figure 8-1 demonstrates that

relationships between sites based on a 2-dimensional plot of the first two eigenvectors

from the principal components analysis. As can be seen in the graph, sites in the

Peten (Tikal, both Early Classic and Late Classic samples) Dos Pilas, Peten (Calzada

Mopan, Curucuitz, Ix Ek, Ixkun, Ixtonton), and Piedras Negras all cluster together.

186
The southern Peten sites and Dos Pilas demonstrate the closest relationship among all

of the Peten sites. The Early Classic sample from Tikal and the highland site of

Kaminaljuyú plot very close together on the graph. Outliers include the sites of

Copán, Palenque, and to some extent Altar, Dzibilchaltún, and Xcambó. The

separation of Altar and Xcambó from other Maya sites corresponds to what was

demonstrated in the MMD results (Table 8-2). Copán, Palenque, and Dzibilchaltún

are all outside or on the periphery of the main cluster, but these sites all have small

sample sizes, which limits the usefulness of the results for these sites.

Figure 8-2 illustrates the relationships between Maya sites on a 3-dimensional

graph using the first three eigenvectors from the principal components analysis. Once

again we see that the major outliers are Copán, Palenque and Dzibilchaltún, although

it is evident in this graph that the sites of Yaxuna, Xcambó, and Altar de Sacrificios

are within the main cluster of sites. This graph clearly demonstrates two distinct

clusters, one including Altar de Sacrificios, Calakmul, Chichén Itzá, San

Gervasio/Playa del Carmen, and Uaxactún, and the other with Dos Pilas, Piedras

Negras, Tikal (both Early Classic and Late Classic), the southern Peten sites,

Xcambó, Kaminaljuyú, and possibly Yaxuna although this site is just outside cluster.

For the most part, sites from the northern Peten and the north Yucatán cluster

together, and those from the southern Peten cluster with other sites in the Peten, with

sites in the Pasion region, and with sites in the highlands of Guatemala (represented

here by Kaminaljuyú).

187
 Copan

0.56

0.32
Palenque
Altar

Calakmul
Uaxactun
0.08
Xcambo

SanGerv.
PiedrasN.

Chichen

Peten
Dos Pilas
-0.16 Kaminaljuyu
Tikal(EC) Tikal(LC)

Yaxuna

Dzibilchaltun

-0.4
0.234 0.2394 0.2448 0.2502 0.2556 0.261

Figure 8-1. Maya sites: Graph of the first two eigenvectors of the principal components analysis

188
Figure 8-2. Maya sites: graph of the first three eigenvectors of the principal components analysis

189
Mahalanobis Distance

Table 8-3 shows the Mahalanobis distance measures (above the diagonal) derived

from the r-matrix analysis. It is important to remember that numerous sites included in

this study have small sample sizes so these results may not reflect the true

reality of genetic relatedness between these sites. The distance tables provides D2

distance estimates with the associated F-values (since the Mahalanobis distance is

distributed as an F-value) (Manly, 1994). This will allow for the determination of which

sites are significantly different at the P < 0.05 level.

As we would expect from the graphical depiction of the sites in the figures above

(Figures 8-1 and 8-2), numerous sites demonstrate significant biological distance

estimates. Sites that are distant in the above graphs and that also have significant

biologically distance estimates from numerous sites include: Altar de Sacrificios, Copán,

Dzibilchaltún, Palenque, Xcambó, and Yaxuna. Large biological distance estimates were

expected from these sites since the principal components analysis revealed these same

relationships. It should be remembered however, that a few of the sites that are biological

distant also have small sample sizes so the mean and the variance of the sample may not

necessarily reflect that of the parent population.

Of sites with sufficient sample sizes Altar de Sacrificios and Xcambó have the

largest number of significance values. Altar de Sacrificios is biologically distant from

Dos Pilas, Dzibilchaltún, Palenque, Peten, Tikal (EC), Tikal (LC), Xcambó, and Yaxuna.

In addition to the significant distance between Xcambó and Altar de Sacrificios, Xcambó

is also significantly different from Calakmul, Copán, Dos Pilas, Palenque, Tikal (EC),

190
Tikal (LC), and Uaxactún. The distance matrix demonstrates that Yaxuna is more

biologically distant Chichén Itzá and Calakmul, than it is to Tikal, the southern Peten

sites and the Pasion region. The D2 table helps to explain a number of other important

relationships that are illustrated in Figure 8-1 and 8-2. In particular, the distance matrix

clearly demonstrates the biological proximity of all of the sites within the southern Maya

lowlands. The exception is the significant distance measure between Tikal and Calakmul

which increases through time from the Early Classic to the Late Classic. In principal

components plots, Kaminaljuyú clusters with the Peten sites. Sites that have significant

distance estimates with numerous sites, but problematic sample sizes include many of

those listed at the beginning of this section (Copán, Dzibilchaltún, and Palenque).

Likewise, sites that are not significantly different, but have problematic sample sizes

include Chichén Itzá and San Gervasio/Playa Del Carmen. It is entirely possible that the

samples collected from these sites do not represent the mean and variance of the parent

populations.

Mantel test

In order to determine whether the biological distance estimates follow an isolation

by distance model, a Mantel test was run to compare the biological distance and

geographic distance matrices. The correlation between biological and geographic distance

was low (Corr=0.3924, with R2 = 0.0154) and the P-value for the correlation correlation

between the two matrices was significant (P = 0.027). These results indicate that their is

little concordance between the geographic and biological distance matrices, but because

191
they are significant they do not violate an isolation by distance model (hypothesis 1). It is

important to consider that the distance matrix is based on linear distances over land. As

stated above, the Maya are known to have used water transport extensively, and taking

this into account may alter the Mantel test results presented here.

192
 Altar Calak Chichén Copán DosPilas Dzibil. Kamin. Palenq Peten Pied N. San Ger. Tik(LC) Tik(EC) Uaxac Xcamb Yaxuna
Altar 0 0.482 0.890 1.128 1.371 2.516 1.357 2.085 0.903 0.715 0.853 1.291 1.270 0.307 0.707 2.243
Calakmul 1.352 0 1.143 1.355 1.293 2.655 0.875 2.526 0.926 0.824 0.990 1.270 1.141 0.187 1.164 1.701
Chichén 0.991 1.176 0 3.472 1.605 2.301 1.011 2.070 0.983 1.305 0.883 1.191 0.940 0.838 1.552 2.496
Copán 1.023 2.044 0.935 0 3.661 5.897 3.718 2.767 3.239 2.661 2.956 4.295 3.959 1.778 2.732 4.811
Dos Pilas 3.667 2.880 1.619 2.426 0 1.253 1.780 4.922 0.251 0.196 1.416 0.718 0.328 1.134 1.005 1.115
Dziblchaltun 3.630 3.457 1.757 3.167 1.597 0 1.253 7.362 0.877 0.954 2.008 0.626 1.045 2.213 0.767 0.411
Kaminaljuyú 1.813 1.062 0.740 2.413 2.122 1.083 0 4.187 1.007 1.174 1.121 0.629 1.093 0.738 0.962 0.805
Palenque 2.320 2.595 1.365 1.815 4.966 5.622 3.068 0 3.783 4.243 2.061 4.967 3.795 2.774 4.498 6.938
Peten 2.468 2.100 1.000 2.235 0.551 1.130 1.211 3.848 0 0.127 0.555 0.414 0.075 0.810 0.502 0.807
Piedras Negras 2.272 2.115 1.401 2.063 0.482 1.319 1.507 4.555 0.320 0 0.943 0.476 0.359 0.658 0.344 0.791
San Gerv/Pla 1.045 1.113 0.616 1.802 1.561 1.640 0.877 1.438 0.617 1.114 0 1.023 0.562 0.970 0.938 1.792
Tikal (LC) 5.418 4.130 1.575 3.950 1.742 0.887 1.107 6.014 1.166 1.504 1.423 0 0.461 0.773 0.513 0.523
Tikal (EC) 2.858 2.199 0.886 2.511 0.610 1.225 1.204 3.575 0.143 0.755 0.577 1.054 0 1.022 0.884 0.972
Uaxactún 0.642 0.339 0.765 1.618 1.993 2.491 0.782 2.532 1.443 1.289 0.959 1.948 1.598 0 0.830 1.569
193

Xcambó 4.083 4.688 1.966 3.019 3.792 1.316 1.508 5.696 1.959 1.680 1.331 3.588 2.644 2.251 0 0.767
Yaxuna 4.112 2.740 2.148 3.965 1.753 0.430 0.797 5.971 1.285 1.375 1.664 0.944 1.378 2.119 1.759 0
Table 8-3: Distance matrix for Maya sites: D2 values above, F-values below (critical F-value for 6 and 486 degrees of freedom is 2.1 at the P<.05 level).
Significant F-values in bold.
R-matrix analysis

The results of the R-matrix analysis of Maya sites are shown in Table 8-4.

Sites with positive residuals, i.e., those that fall above the regression line of expected

genetic heterozygosity, are in bold. The sites with the highest positive residuals are

Altar de Sacrificios, Kaminaljuyú, and San Gervasio/Playa del Carmen. The

Kaminaljuyú and San Gervasio/Playa del Carmen samples suffer from small sample

sizes, so this may not be a true representation of the genetic variability at these sites.

Looking at the rest of the results we see a number of consistent relationships. First

coastal sites consistently demonstrate greater than expected allelic diversity (i.e.,

positive residuals). These sites include Dzibilchaltún, San Gervasio, and Xcambó. It

should be remembered that Dzibilchaltún and Xcambó were also biologically distant

from numerous sites in the Maya area. Another consistent relationship is that

northern Peten sites (Tikal –Early Classic, Tikal—Late Classic, and Uaxactún) all

have greater than expected amounts of allelic diversity. Although the positive

residuals for these southern lowland sites is fairly small, it is noteworthy that these

samples are all from the same geographical area in the Peten.

194
 Observed Expected
Site rii variance variance Residual
Altar de Sacrificios .023 1.337 .918 .420
Calakmul .012 .830 1.069 -.239
Chichén Itzá .000 .810 1.036 -.226
Copán .075 .822 .978 -.156
Dos Pilas .029 .718 .953 -.235
Dzibilchaltún .030 .960 .935 .025
Kaminaljúyu .000 1.807 1.002 .804
Palenque .105 .493 .944 -.451
Peten .000 .687 .913 -.226
Piedras Negras .005 .895 .949 -.054
San Gervasio .000 1.301 .918 .383
Tikal (Late Classic) .025 1.060 1.009 .051
Tikal (Early Classic) .007 1.020 .929 .091
Uaxactún .000 1.042 .926 .116
Xcambó .033 .947 .929 .018
Yaxuna .035 .642 .953 -.311
Table 8-4 Results from the Relethford Blangero analysis for Maya sites

195
 Central Mexico

Nonmetric results

Mean measure of divergence was run on six samples, Tula, Cholula, and four

from Teotihuácan. No central Mexican sites were excluded for small samples sizes.

MMD estimates for non-metric traits for central Mexico are presented in Table 8-5

and demonstrate that the sample Tula is biologically distinct out of these samples.

Tula has significant biological distance estimates with two Teotihuácan samples (La

Ventilla and Teotihuácan 1980-1982). Interestingly, the Teotihuácan 1980-1982

sample is biologically distant from one of the samples from the same site

(Teotihuácan 1986). Teotihuácan 1980-1982 is significantly different from both Tula

and Cholula at the P < 0.05 level.

T.1986 T.Lven. T.Cent. T.80-82 Tula Cholula

Teotihuácan 1986 0
Teotihuácan La Vent. 4.41 0
Teotihuácan Centro 3.77 4.56 0
Teotihuácan 80-82 11.80 6.99 10.36 0
Tula 2.73 11.15 8.94 21.1 0
Cholula 3.79 4.74 6.00 12.06 8.55 0
Table.8-5. Central Mexico. Non-metric traits: Chi-square values from MMD. Significant chi-square
value is 11.07 at the P<.05 level. Significant chi-square values in bold.

196
Principal components analysis

Principal components analysis was run the six central Mexican samples.

Eigenvectors obtained from the principal components were used to create graphs in

two and three dimensions (using the first two and first three eigenvectors

respectively) (Figures 8-3 and 8-4). The first two eigenvectors account for 73% of the

variance, and the first three eigenvectors account for 89% of the variance. Both of

these results clearly demonstrate that the sample from Teotihuácan 1986 and Tula as

outliers. Figure 8-3 shows that Teotihuácan-centro and Teotihuácan-La Ventilla

cluster together and Teotihuácan 1980-1982 seems to loosely cluster with Cholula

and to a lesser extent Tula. The results within the site of Teotihuácan are complicated.

When considering both the first two and the first three eigenvectors (Figures 8-3 and

8-4 respectively) it is clear that only Teotihuácan-centro and La Ventilla cluster

together. Teotihuácan 1986 is an obvious outlier in both figures and Teotihuácan

1980- 1982 is also clearly different than the other Teotihuácan samples. As with the

MMD results, Cholula exhibits a close relationship most Teotihuácan samples. In the

MMD results Cholula was significantly distant from Teotihuácan 1980-1982, but

with principal components it is most distant to Teotihuácan 1986. This is slightly

different that the results from the non-metric, but both results show Cholula as being

genetically similar to Teotihuácan. With Tula again placed outside the main cluster of

samples.

197
Mahalanobis distance

The resulting Mahalanobis D matrix (Table 8-5) highlights many of the

relationships that are visible graphically in the previous two figures. As with the

principal components analysis Teotihuácan 1986 is a distant outlier. In this distance

estimate, Teotihuácan 1986 is distant to all samples except for the one from the center

of Teotihuácan (which is also its closest neighbor). Tula is the next most biologically

distant of the six samples, and demonstrates a significant biological distance

estimates with the Teotihuácan 1986 and La Ventilla samples. The significant

comparison with La Ventilla is similar to the results obtained from the mean measure

of divergence test. The distance measurements between Tula and the other samples,

although not significant, is nonetheless relatively large. Once again Cholula

demonstrates low biological distance estimates with Teotihuácan samples (except

Teotihuácan 1986), and although the distance estimate with Tula approaches

significance, it is not significant at the P < 0.05 level.

198
Figure 8-3. Central Mexico: graph of the first two eigenvectors of the principal
components analysis

199
Figure 8-4. Central Mexico: graph of the first three eigenvectors of the principal
components analysis.

200
 T.1986 T.L.Ve. T.Cen T. 80-82 Tula Cholula

Teotihuácan 1986 0 3.451 2.357 2.753 2.306 3.467

Teotihuácan-La Ventilla 3.606 0 0.318 0.570 1.901 0.775
Teotihuáca-El Centro 2.141 0.289 0 0.308 0.889 0.632
Teotihuácan 1980-82 4.315 0.894 0.394 0 0.780 0.250
Tula 3.125 2.578 1.009 1.864 0 0.651
Cholula 5.701 1.275 0.841 0.864 1.676 0

Table 8-6:. Distance matrix for Central sites: D2 values above, F-values below
(critical F-value for 6 and 136 degrees of freedom is 2.13 at the P<.05 level).
Significant F-values in bold

R-Matrix analysis

The results of the R-matrix analysis for central Mexican sits are summarized

in table 8-7, and a number of things are worth mention. First, three sites have lower

levels of allelic diversity than expected and three have greater levels. Sites with lower

levels of allelic diversity include Teotihuácan 1986, Teotihuácan – El Centro, and

Cholula. The low level of diversity for Teotihuácan 1986 helps explain it position as

an outlier in the biological distance results, since the standard deviation of the

variance from the mean is small. Teotihuácan 1986 also has a high inbreeding

coefficient (rii=.144). Cholula and the mixed sample from Teotihuácan-centro also

exhibit F lower than expected levels of genetic heterozygosity. Of the three samples

that have greater than expected allelic diversity (Tula, Teotihuácan 1980-1982; and

La Ventilla), Tula has, by far, the greatest positive residual. Tula has a great deal

more genetic heterozygosity than what would be expected under the assumptions of
201
the Relethford-Blangero model.

Observed Expected
Site rii variance variance Residual
Teotihuácan (1986) .144 .511 .805 -.294
Teot. La Ventilla .045 .884 .854 .030
Teot. El Centro .013 .422 .905 -.483
Teotihuácan (80-82) .014 1.008 .904 .103
Tula .039 1.737 1.103 .634
Cholula .028 .738 1.112 -.374
Table 8-7: Results for the Relethford-Blangero analysis for Central Mexican sites

The Maya and Central Mexico

Nonmetric results

The results from the analysis of non-metric traits from all sites is displayed in

Table 8-7. The sites of Palenque and Chichén Itzá were excluded from the MMD test

because of insufficient sample sizes. The limited number of significant chi-square

values for most samples suggests little genetic difference between populations.

Whether this is due to large populations through time, reducing the effect of genetic

drift, or due to widespread gene flow is unknown. The results with the central

Mexican sites demonstrate that the central Mexican samples have non-significant

distance estimates with sites in the Maya area. The sample from Teotihuácan-Centro

has very small biological distance measurements with all sites in this study. In Table
202
8-7 two sites clearly stand out with significant biological distance estimates (Altar de

Sacrificios and Xcambó). Altar de Sacrificios exhibits significant MMD estimates

with two sites (Peten and Piedras Negras) both of which are close to the P = 0.05

level. Xcambó exhibits significant MMD estimates with four sites (Peten, Piedras

Negras, Teotihuácan 1980-1982, and Cholula), all of which are highly significant (3

distance estimates are significant at the P < 0.01 level).

203
 Altar Calak. Dos P. Kamin. Peten Pie.N. SG.Pl Tik(LC) Tik(EC) Uaxac. Xcam. Yaxu. Te.86 T.L.V. T.Cen. T.80-82 Tula
Cholula
Altar de Sac. 0
Calakmul 17.87 0
Dos Pilas 17.74 4.30 0
Kaminaljuyú 18.45 10.41 8.90 0
Peten 45.57 11.17 7.65 6.07 0
Piedras Negras 40.72 9.70 9.87 5.42 13.83 0
San Gerv/Playa 6.72 5.06 4.69 3.32 10.33 5.07 0
Tikal(LC) 15.67 9.12 6.70 9.86 17.82 8.71 3.32 0
Tikal(EC) 10.35 3.77 6.56 10.07 18.10 7.61 2.67 4.07 0
Uaxactn 5.98 4.30 8.02 9.95 21.60 14.22 3.05 10.76 3.19 0
Xcambó 29.83 19.90 32.53 20.40 79.06 50.88 8.09 22.79 4.51 10.56 0
Yaxuna 37.98 7.70 10.85 7.15 4.09 12.75 11.87 18.35 16.43 17.08 38.37 0
Teot. 1986 11.06 5.13 3.81 9.02 9.36 9.81 5.61 9.82 6.27 4.93 19.94 13.61 0
Teot. La Vent. 18.46 6.67 4.65 14.13 13.50 14.31 9.60 11.56 10.12 8.82 33.81 14.95 4.40 0
204

Teot. Centro 14.03 1.97 3.92 7.38 4.55 4.04 4.85 4.15 3.96 6.38 13.41 5.38 3.76 4.55 0
Teot. 80-82 35.39 18.23 7.41 11.33 14.27 16.53 12.19 4.89 19.20 21.79 68.53 17.54 11.79 6.99 10.35 0
Tula 14.55 17.63 12.41 13.39 22.80 24.96 9.19 16.49 13.96 11.72 42.79 29.71 2.72 11.14 8.94 21.10 0
Cholula 23.30 12.35 2.94 15.63 17.12 26.95 9.39 12.21 12.74 15.73 76.61 21.95 3.79 4.74 5.99 12.06
8.55 0
Table 8-8. All sites. Non-metric traits: Chi-square values from MMD. Significant chi-square value is 43.77 at the P<.05 level
Principal components analysis

The results of the principal components analysis are displayed graphically in

figures 8-5 and 8-6. In figure 8-5, it is evident that the sites in the central cluster are

almost entirely from the southern Maya lowlands and highlands. Sites on the coast

(e.g., Dzibilchaltún, Xcambó) and sites at the Maya periphery (i.e., Palenque, Copán)

are separated from the rest. There are some exceptions to these generalities. The

coastal sites of San Gervasio/Playa del Carmen and Xcambó plot just outside the

major cluster of Peten sites and very near the site of Calakmul and Uaxactún.

Teotihuácan samples are all in the lower right quadrant although near the

Peten and Pasion sites, but the Teotihuácan samples do not necessarily cluster

together. Two central Mexican sites, Tula and Cholula, cluster together in the center

with the southern lowland and highland sites. In this figure it is clear that Cholula is

much closer to the Maya sites than Tula although they are still within the cluster of

sites. In figure 8-6 it is clearer that Copán and Palenque are widely divergent from

the rest of the sites in this study, and it is now increasingly clear that the Teotihuácan

1986 sample is also separated from the rest. The rest of the sites cluster together with

the exception of Altar de Sacrificios and Xcambó which are consistently distant.

205
Figure 8-5. All sites: graph of the first two eigenvectors of the principal components

analysis

206
Figure 8-6. All sites: graph of the first three eigenvectors of the principal components

analysis

207
Mahalanobis distance

Mahalanobis distance results for all sites included in this study are presented in

table 8-8. Even with the inclusion of the central Mexican samples, the distance estimates

presented here for the Maya sites are virtually identical to table 8-2. The only differences

are with three pairwise comparisons that were significant in table 8-2 but are not when

the Mexican samples are included. These comparisons include: Altar de Sacrificios-

Piedras Negras; Chichén Itzá-Yaxuna; and Kaminaljuyú-Dos Pilas. It is important to note

however, that all three of these comparisons approach the 2.28 significance level. When

we consider how the central Mexican sites relate to Maya sites, the relationships differ

slightly from what we see in Figures 8-5 and 8-6. As expected, the sample from

Teotihuácan 1986 is significantly distant from nearly every site in the study, and this

distant relationship is presented clearly in Figures 8-5 and 8-6. Other similarities between

the principal components analysis and the D2 results include the close relationship

between Cholula and the vast majority of Maya sites.

Two Maya sites with which Cholula does have significant biological distance

estimates include Xcambó, which is consistently distant from other sites, and Palenque,

which suffers from small sample size. Tula, which is at the heart of many of the questions

posed by this research demonstrates an interesting mix of distance estimates.

Comparisons between Tula and Maya sites reveal that significant distance measures were

obtained by comparisons between Tula and Altar de Sacrificios, Calakmul, Copán, Dos

Pilas, Piedras Negras Palenque, Tikal (Late Classic), and Xcambó. These sites are all

within the southern lowlands. A closer at the F-values reveals that the distance

208
comparisons between Tikal-Tula and Peten-Tula approach the critical value. Non-

significant distance measures were obtained by comparisons between Tula and Chichén

Itzá, Dzibilchaltún, Kaminaljuyú, Peten, San Gervasio/Playa del Carmen, Tikal (Early

Classic), Uaxactún, and Yaxuna. It is also important that Tula is biologically distant to all

other central Mexican sites except Teotihuácan-Centro. A couple of clear patterns emerge

from the metric results presented here with respect to Tula. First, Tula is biologically

distant from sites in the southern lowlands and from the Mexican highlands. Second, Tula

is close biologically to sites in the northern Yucatán and Kaminaljuyú (although this

could be the result of small sample size for Kaminaljuyú. Interestingly, the other central

Mexican samples, with the exception of Teotihuácan-1986, follow a similar pattern

despite the significant distance values between Tula and these central Mexican samples.

Other consistent relationships include the close biological relationships within the Peten,

the close biological relationships between the Peten sites and the Pasion and Petexbatun

sites, and the close biological relationships between the Peten sites and most sites in the

northern lowlands. Perhaps the most important distance measures are those that

demonstrate close biological relationships between central Mexican sites, with the

exception of Teotihuácan 1986, and Maya sites. This is particularly true for the site of

Cholula.

Multidimensional scaling software (Permap) was applied to the Mahalanobis to

help visualize the results. The objective function values from multidimensional scaling

revealed that Altar de Sacrificios and Teotihuácan-1986 were positive outliers (1% and

5% respectively). Links between sites based on the matrix of distance comparisons

209
revealed that sites that were linked together by the smallest 1% of all distance

comparisons were Peten, Tikal (EC), Piedras Negras, and Cholula indicating a close

relationship between these sites.

210
 Altar Calak Chich. Copán D.P. Dzib Kamin Palen. Peten P.N. SanG. T (LC) T (EC) Uaxa. Xcam. Yaxu. T.86 T.L.V T.Cen. T.80-2 Tula Cholula

Altar 0 0.463 0.829 0.863 1.324 2.189 1.132 2.062 0.838 0.660 0.851 1.319 1.206 0.289 0.646 1.978 3.685 1.774 1.715 0.777 1.438 0.471
Calakmul 1.300 0 1.143 1.830 1.258 2.434 0.767 2.430 0.884 0.783 0.983 1.353 1.110 0.195 1.124 1.534 2.345 1.687 1.392 0.623 1.235 0.706
Chichén Itzá 0.924 1.176 0 1.277 1.508 2.144 0.997 1.904 0.922 1.230 0.866 1.344 0.889 0.829 1.519 2.399 4.464 1.726 1.284 0.989 1.137 0.768
Copán 1.062 2.061 0.894 0 2.127 3.559 2.905 2.612 1.944 1.695 2.466 3.060 2.386 1.652 2.104 4.034 7.407 3.030 3.379 2.120 2.869 1.209
Dos Pilas 3.540 2.805 1.526 2.351 0 1.158 1.675 4.655 0.252 0.203 1.418 0.622 0.321 1.099 1.046 1.068 3.607 0.324 0.594 0.248 1.769 0.386
Dzibilchaltún 3.170 3.179 1.642 2.913 1.480 0 1.175 6.757 0.803 0.832 1.872 0.546 1.003 1.972 0.662 0.410 2.902 1.346 0.681 0.961 0.803 0.872
Kaminaljuyú 1.519 0.935 0.732 2.275 2.001 1.018 0 3.809 0.928 1.048 1.022 0.756 1.054 0.616 0.842 0.749 1.675 1.937 0.815 0.734 0.136 0.849
Palenque 2.300 2.500 1.259 1.829 4.709 5.174 2.799 0 3.507 4.017 1.899 5.003 3.495 2.710 4.305 6.414 6.709 4.269 4.521 3.830 4.494 3.331
Peten 2.298 2.010 0.941 2.170 0.551 1.037 1.119 3.578 0 0.127 0.548 0.414 0.077 0.772 0.530 0.764 2.644 0.266 0.259 0.157 0.991 0.133
Piedras Negras 2.105 2.013 1.325 2.007 0.502 1.152 1.348 4.325 0.321 0 0.949 0.434 0.362 0.615 0.357 0.708 2.873 0.540 0.582 0.135 1.128 0.094
San Gervasio 1.047 1.106 0.606 1.835 1.568 1.532 0.800 1.330 0.611 1.124 0 1.126 0.553 0.975 0.964 1.683 2.346 0.911 0.786 0.845 1.312 0.765
Tikal (LC) 5.043 4.015 1.533 3.859 1.760 0.814 1.041 5.705 1.202 1.479 1.420 0 0.472 0.830 0.549 0.475 2.400 0.817 0.320 0.229 0.902 0.589
Tikal (EC) 0.840 0.600 1.177 1.162 0.146 0.762 0.568 1.114 0 0.994 0.928 0.962 2.722 0.175 0.149 0.244 1.166 0.364
211

2.723 2.141 2.449 3.303

Uaxactún 0.607 0.354 0.759 1.639 1.933 2.227 0.655 2.482 1.378 1.209 0.968 1.817 1.558 0 0.781 1.390 2.743 1.644 1.233 0.409 1.065 0.559
Xcambó 3.743 4.537 1.928 2.990 3.955 1.138 1.323 5.465 2.073 1.747 1.370 3.594 2.779 2.125 0 0.684 2.535 1.308 0.971 0.579 0.841 0.368
Yaxuna 3.636 2.478 2.069 3.752 1.680 0.430 0.745 5.534 1.219 1.230 1.566 0.907 1.365 1.880 1.572 0 1.386 1.279 0.541 0.648 0.705 0.916
Teot-1986 6.082 3.442 3.655 6.514 5.169 2.859 1.566 5.494 3.837 4.504 2.063 4.096 3.546 3.424 5.101 1.597 0 3.090 1.996 2.459 2.114 3.147
Teot-La Vent. 2.928 2.477 1.413 2.665 0.464 1.327 1.811 3.496 0.387 0.847 0.801 1.395 0.229 2.052 2.632 1.473 3.321 0 0.392 0.539 2.069 0.718
Teot-Centro 2.301 1.696 0.943 2.647 0.709 0.589 0.674 3.323 0.313 0.749 0.616 0.442 0.165 1.311 1.526 0.536 1.866 0.366 0 0.350 0.883 0.644
Teot-80-82 2.627 1.678 1.086 2.563 0.640 1.364 0.967 4.204 0.415 0.413 1.022 0.833 0.534 0.833 3.101 1.161 3.964 0.870 0.461 0 0.968 0.240
Tula 3.663 2.638 1.128 3.105 3.650 1.001 0.159 4.459 2.084 2.656 1.421 2.421 2.104 1.812 2.963 1.077 2.948 2.885 1.030 2.379 0 0.844
Cholula 1.765 2.064 0.870 1.515 1.077 1.290 1.162 3.777 0.382 0.315 0.960 2.388 0.850 1.210 2.334 1.732 5.323 1.215 0.882 0.855 2.234 0
Table 8-9: Distance matrix for all sites: D2 values above, F-values below (critical F-value for 6 and 627 degrees of freedom is 2.28 at
the P<.05 level). Significant F-values are in bold.
R-matrix analysis

Table 8-10 presents the results of the R-matrix analysis when all sites are

included. The estimation of observed and expected levels of genetic heterozygosity is

very similar to the within-region results presented in Tables 8-4 and 8-7. For the most

part, sites that exhibited positive or negative residuals in their region-specific R-matrix

analysis, continued to do so. Altar de Sacrificios, Kaminaljuyú, San Gervasio/Playa del

Carmen, and Tula continue to demonstrate higher levels of allelic diversity than expected

as do sites in the Peten (but to a smaller degree). This indicates that these sites were

receiving extralocal gene flow from sources outside the present study area, or from

sources within this region that are not included in this study. When the central Mexican

sites were included in the R-matrix analysis the positive residuals for Kaminaljuyú and

San Gervasio declined slightly.

There are three instances where the residuals are reversed when all sites are

considered together. These include Xcambó (+.018 to -.006), La Ventilla (-.31 to + .030),

and Cholula (-.374 to + .210). Of these three samples, Xcambó shows the smallest

change when all sites are included. The positive residual estimate for Xcambó when only

Maya sites are considered is extremely small. In an R-matrix analysis, when new

samples are included in the study that were sources of gene flow, sites that were

recipients of that gene flow should she their residuals lowered. This seems to be the case

with Kaminaljuyú and San Gervasio as well. It is possible that one of these central

Mexican samples is directly responsible for this reduction in gene flow, but it is also

likely that the genetic variability was introduced into the Maya area indirectly through
212
intermediate sites that interacted with central Mexico (e.g., Oaxacan and Gulf coast

sites). The opposite is true for the sites of Tula and Cholula, which have larger positive

residuals when all sites are considered together. The dramatic increase in observed

versus expected allelic diversity for Tula and Cholula suggests that unique sources of

extralocal gene flow added to the genetic variability of both of these sites that was not

present in the Maya area.

Discussion

What is most notable in the results from the non-metric and metric data is how

closely these two systems correlate. For the most part, mean measure of divergence

matrices correlate well with Mahalanobis distance matrices and principal coordinates

plots. Although many of the sample sizes are small, the correspondence between the

results of the non-metric and metric analyses is suggestive that the results presented here

likely represent the underlying population structure and genetic variation for the region

of Mesoamerica. There are a number of consistent relationships that require mention.

The first is the relative similarity of southern lowland sites in both of the analyses

presented here for non-metric and metric data. Given the proximity of these sites, it is

not unexpected. The second consistent relationship is the distant placement of a few

specific sites. Sites with small sample sizes will be left out of the discussion below. Sites

that consistently fall outside of the main cluster include the central Mexican site of Tula,

which is biologically distant in both of the MMD results and in both of the Mahalanobis

distance matrices. Graphically, it is clear that Tula is an outlier as well. In the Maya area,
213
the sites of Xcambó and Altar de Sacrificios are consistently placed outside both

graphically and in the distance matrices.

Summary

This chapter presents the results for non-metric and metric data on Maya and

central Mexican samples. The mean measure of divergence was used to assess the

relationships between samples for non-metric traits. Mean measure of divergence was

run on two separate groups of samples. The first analysis consisted of only Maya sites

and the second consisted of only central Mexican sites. Metric variables are were

analyzed using a variety of statistical methods. Each of these statistics were run on three

separate groups of samples. The first analyses consisted of only Maya sites, the second

analysis consisted of only central Mexican sites, and the third analysis combined all

samples for the present study. Statistics included principal coordinates analysis (which

provides a visual representation of the way eigenvectors explain the relationships

between samples), Mahalanobis distance statistic (which provides a biological distance

measure), and R-matrix analysis (which provides an estimate of expected and observed

allelic diversity for sites within regions). Together, these statistics provide valuable

evidence about the biological relationships between samples. As stated above the degree

of concordance between the results of the non-metric and metric datasets is striking,

especially since many studies demonstrate little consistency between these two systems.

The results presented allow for a number of conclusions to be made. First, central

Mexican sites are similar biologically to sites in the Maya area. This is with the possible
214
exclusion of Tula, the most geographically distant site. Tula is also biologically distant

from a number of other central Mexican sites. For the Maya area, two sites stand out as

biologically distant, Altar de Sacrificios and Xcambó. In general, the southern lowland

sites all cluster together, and this includes both Peten and Pasion sites.

The results presented here provide information on how Mesoamerican sites are

related biologically, but what is important is how these results can inform the

archaeological models and allow for a better understanding of Mesoamerican prehistory.

215
 Observed Expected
Site rii variance variance Residual
Altar de Sacrificios .021 1.321 .925 .396
Calakmul .012 .818 1.049 -.231
Chichén Itzá .000 .800 .930 -.130
Copán .080 .817 .975 -.158
Dos Pilas .027 .705 .955 -.250
Dzibilchaltún .016 .946 .942 .004
Kaminaljúyu .000 1.772 .995 .777
Palenque .116 .482 .948 -.466
Peten .000 .630 .924 -.294
Piedras Negras .002 .882 .952 -.070
San Gervasio .000 1.263 .928 .335
Tikal (Late Classic) .021 1.015 1.000 .015
Tikal (Early Classic) .004 1.007 .937 .070
Uaxactún .000 1.023 .934 .089
Xcambó .028 .930 .936 -.006
Yaxuna .023 .628 .955 -.327
Teotihuácan (1986) .164 .528 .934 -.406
Teot. La Ventilla .028 .895 .926 -.031
Teot. El Centro .000 .430 .931 -.501
Teotihuácan (80-82) .000 1.04 .931 .109
Tula .015 1.875 .982 .893
Cholula .000 .772 .982 .210
Table 8-10: Results for Relethford-Blangero analysis –(all sites combined)

216
 CHAPTER 9

DISCUSSION

The results presented in Chapter 8 provide important information about the

biological relationships between sites in Mesoamerica during the Classic period.

However, although the biological relationships are important, what is most important is

how this information can be used to inform archaeological models of migration and

interaction. In this chapter, it is important to consider how the results relate to the null

hypotheses about the distribution of genetic variability. It is equally important to assess

how these results correlate with what is known archaeologically.

Evaluation of hypotheses

How the null hypotheses held up with the results of this study is described below.

Hypothesis 1: Sites within each of the sub-regions described (Maya, Zapotec, and

Teotihuacanos/Toltecs) should follow an isolation by distance model.

Only the metric results were analyzed for deviation from an isolation by distance

model. To compare geographic and biological distance matrices, a Mantel test The

correlation between biological distance and geographic distance matrices was low

217
Corr=0.3924, and R2 = 0.0154 with a significant P value of P = 0.027. These results

indicate that the geographic and biological distance matrices are weakly correlated, but

do not violate an isolation by distance model. Therefore, the null hypothesis is not

rejected.

Hypothesis 2: Similar levels of genetic heterozygosity will characterize sites within

each of the sub-regions in Mesoamerica.

The results in Chapter 8 clearly demonstrate that some sites within both the Maya

area and central Mexico deviate from what is expected under the null hypothesis that

assumes that each population is equally likely to receive extralocal gene flow from a

homogeneous outside world. Therefore the null hypothesis is rejected.

The hypothesis was rejected because the distribution of genetic variability does

not follow the predicted patterns of the population genetics models. The isolation by

distance model is likely to be rejected any time that sites preferentially interact with non-

adjacent sites. The isolation by distance model was not violated in this study, but the

correlation is weak, and there are potential problems in the calculation of relative

intersite distances because movement over water is not considered. Deviations from

expected levels of allelic diversity suggest that these sites received migrants from

outside their local area. At this point, it is important to consider how the data presented

here be used to provide information on the three migration hypotheses outlined in

Chapter 1. These hypotheses are for migration at various times during the Classic period.

1. Early Classic migrations of Teotihuacanos into the southern Maya

218
 highlands and southern Maya lowlands.

2. Late Classic migration of central Mexican peoples (likely from Tula or

Putun Maya) into the southern Maya lowlands.

3. Late Classic migration of central Mexican peoples (likely from Tula or

Putun Maya) into the northern Maya lowlands

How well the results correlate with these hypotheses allows for an assessment of

migration on a regional scale. Before considering the results for comparisons between

regions, this discussion will follow the same pattern as the results Chapter 8 and discuss

the regions separately at first before discussing the region as a whole

Maya area

The results presented here reveal a number of consistent biological relationships.

Southern lowlands sites, particularly Peten sites, cluster together with small biological

distance estimates. Given the archaeological evidence of intense contact between the

sites in this region, close biological relationships were expected. A notable exception is

the large biological distance obtained for pairwise comparisons between Tikal and

Calakmul. This large distance supports archaeological evidence of an antagonistic

relationship between Tikal and Calakmul as each center attempted to extend its regional

influence. Also important in this relationship is the small biological distance estimate

between Dos Pilas and Tikal (particularly Early Classic Tikal), and the significant

biological distance estimate between Dos Pilas and Calakmul (an ally of Dos Pilas).

Although this seems to contradict the archaeological evidence, it must be remembered

219
that it is believed that a ruling lineage from Tikal founded Dos Pilas, and the small

biological distance estimates support this claim. Additionally, as illustrated in Chapter 2,

despite the alliance with Calakmul, Dos Pilas remained more closely related to Tikal

despite growing antagonism during the end of the Late Classic Period. When we

consider the highland site of Kaminaljuyú, we find a small distance estimate with Tikal.

Although this would be expected given the archaeological evidence of a strong

relationship between these two sites, this relationship has never been demonstrated

biologically. Unfortunately, Kaminaljuyú has a small sample size, and it is therefore

possible that this close relationship is the result of sampling error.

Other consistent relationships in the Maya area include the fact that all Maya

coastal sites are either more variable than expected (Tables 8-4 and 8-10) or biologically

distant from other sites (Tables 8-2, 8-3, 8-8 and 8-9), something we would expect for

long-distance trading communities. This is also true for sites on the periphery of these

the Maya area and central Mexico. For the Maya area, Palenque (northwestern limit) and

Copán (southern limit) are at the boundaries of the Maya area. Although this conforms to

what would be expected archaeologically, Copán, Palenque, Dzibilchaltún, and San

Gervasio all have small sample sizes which makes these results less reliable. With that

said, the consistency with which these sites are distant and more genetically variable,

suggests that these do represent the biological reality.

The results presented here also support numerous bioarchaeological studies that

have consistently shown Xcambó and Altar de Sacrificios as outliers. Both of these sites

have significant biological distance estimates from other Maya sites and most central
220
Mexican sites. These two sites also demonstrate positive residuals (small positive

residual for Xcambó) indicating that these sites receive more extralocal gene flow than

many of their neighbors in the Maya area.

Central Mexico

When considering the results from central Mexico, it is important to stress again,

the concordance between the non-metric and metric results. As is the case with the Maya

area, sites that are biologically distant in the non-metric results are, for the most part,

biologically distant in the metric results. The greatest degree of consistency between

these two datasets is with the site of Tula which consistently lies outside the main

grouping of sites. Tula is biologically distant from other central Mexican samples

(Tables 8-5 and 8-6) and is also much more genetically variable that is typical for the

region (Table 8-7). This appears to support ethnohistoric records that claim that the

Toltecs moved into the Basin of Mexico from the north. Since no samples were collected

from north of Tula it is difficult to interpret anything beyond the likelihood that Tula is

genetically very different from its neighbors in central Mexico.

Other interesting conclusions can be made about the sample from within

Teotihuácan, which generally have small biological distance measures. There are

exceptions to this, but the sample that stands out is different for the MMD results than it

is for the Mahalanobis D2 results. The MMD results indicate that the Teotihuácan 1980-

1982 sample is biological distant from Tula, Cholula and the Teotihuácan 1986 samples,

but similar biologically to the La Ventilla and Teotihuácan-centro samples. Except for

the Teotihuácan 1986 sample, the results suggest that Teotihuácan is more homogeneous
221
than expected given the perception of Teotihuácan as a multiethnic center. It should be

remembered however, that the four Teotihuácan samples used in this analysis would all

located with a few miles of each other. For the Mahalanobis D2 results, Teotihuácan

1986 and Tula stand out as biologically distant. The Teotihuácan 1986 sample is

significantly different than every other central Mexican sample except the mixed sample

from the center of the site, which is also the nearest Teotihuácan sample. In this D2

distance matrix Cholula and Tula have small distance estimates with most of the

Teotihuácan samples, with the exception of Cholula/Teot. 1986, Tula/Teot-1986, and

Tula/La Ventilla comparisons. Of these the Tula-La Ventilla distance is the most

noteworthy, and this will be discussed below when all sites are considered together.

Maya and central Mexico

As shown above, Tikal and Kaminaljuyú have small biological distance estimate,

and archaeologically the relationship seems to have been complex. In Chapter 2 I

explain that some researchers have suggested that Teotihuácan controlled Kaminaljuyú

in order to gain access to a valuable trade route with Tikal. Of further importance is the

abundant hieroglyphic evidence of a direct relationship between Tikal and Teotihuácan.

Pertaining to these questions, Table 8-9 demonstrates relatively smaller biological

distance measurements between Teotihuácan and Kaminaljuyú compared to Teotihuácan

and Tikal. Although this says very little about the impact of Teotihuácan via

Kaminaljuyú, the results from Table 8-9 clearly demonstrate that all Teotihuácan samples

are closer to Kaminaljuyú than to Tikal (although only one sample from Teotihuácan was
222
significantly different). For over 60 years, it has been repeatedly suggested that

Kaminaljuyú was controlled or at least had an extremely close relationship with

Kaminaljuyú. These results support conclusions of central Mexican interaction, although

it must be remembered that Kaminaljuyú is represented by few individuals. These data

also support the suggestion that Teotihuácan's relationship with Kaminaljuyú was more

overt (i.e., involved the movement of actual peoples from Teotihuácan to Kaminaljuyú).

Tables 8-4 and 8-10 demonstrate that Kaminaljuyú is also much more variable than

expected for the Maya region (8-4) and for the region of Mesoamerica (8-10). This

indicates the site received extralocal gene flow from outside the region.

These results seems to suggest that indeed Teotihuácan samples, specifically La

Ventilla, are closely related to some Maya sites, and may indicate a high level of

interaction between these two regions. Of special importance is the close relationship

between the La Ventilla sample and the southern lowland sites. Archaeological evidence

supporting this relationship comes from Tikal where a ballcourt marker was found that is

nearly identical to one found at La Ventilla (Smyth 2004). With regards to central

Mexican sites outside of Teotihuácan, the relationship between Tula and other sites is

particularly informative. Supporting Tula's placement as an outlier, Tula is biologically

distant to many sites in both central Mexico and the Maya area. Evidence that Tula is

much more variable than expected only lends further support to this idea. Because of its

location at the northern periphery of the sites sampled, Tula was expected to be more

genetically variable. The results here suggest that Tula does not have a close biological

relationship to sites in the Maya area. Almost all of the non-significant site comparisons
223
are between Tula and sites with small sample sizes. The two exceptions are the

combined Peten sites (Calzada Mopan, Curucuitz, Ix Ek, Ixkun, and Ixtonton) and Late

Classic Tikal, which both approach significant values.

At this point Cholula deserves special mention. At the onset of this analysis, I

had no predictions where Cholula would fall relative to other sites in Mesoamerica.

There is evidence for contact between Cholula and Teotihuácan, and for conflict between

Cholula and Tula, but little has been written about the relationship between Cholula and

Maya sites. The results presented here demonstrate that Cholula is biologically, very

close to sites in the Maya area. The MMD matrix demonstrates that Cholula has only one

significant distance value with sites in the Maya area, and that is with Xcambó. The

Mahalanobis D2 matrix also demonstrates a significant pairwise comparison for Xcambó

and Cholula and an additional significant pairwise comparison for Late Classic Tikal and

Cholula. Once again the two distance matrices produce similar results. Cholula is so

biologically similar to sites in the Maya area that links between sites based on the matrix

of distance comparisons revealed the smallest 1% of all distance comparisons were

Peten, Tikal (EC), Piedras Negras, and Cholula indicating a close relationship between

these sites. It is important to remember though that when all sites were combined for the

R-matrix analysis, the positive residuals for Cholula greatly increased indicating that the

Maya area is not the major source of that genetic variability. It is possible that this

variability come from Veracruz sites which Cholula was interacted with on a significant

scale, or with sites in the Valley of Oaxaca. If Veracruz is the source of the genetic

variability then it may support claims of central Mexican involvement in the Maya area
224
via the Gulf Coast as Thompson (1970), Adams (1997), and others have repeatedly

suggested.

When we look at the placement of Maya sites in a region-wide comparison,

(Table 8-2 and 8-8) provides the chi-square values for the Mean Measure of Divergence

analysis. For the MMD matrix only pairwise comparisons with Xcambó and Altar de

Sacrificios demonstrate significant distance measures. The results for Altar de Sacrificios

are not unexpected since Altar de Sacrificios is consistently singled out as an outlier

(Austin 1978, Wrobel 2002, Scherer 2004), however the fact that Altar is not significant

different than any other site in this analysis may say more about the southeastern Peten

sites than it does about Altar. The results from Xcambó are also not entirely unexpected

since it is a site on the coast that was heavily involved in trade that has also been

demonstrated to be an outlier (Cucina and Tiesler 2004). Two other distance estimates

from Xcambó approach the P < 0.10 level further supporting the evidence that points to

this site as biological distant from other sites. All other distance measures are non-

significant indicating little genetic differentiation between the rest of the sites. The

Mahalanobis distance matrices (Tables 8-3 and 8-9) contain more significant values, but

once again comparisons with Xcambó and Altar de Sacrificios produce the majority of

significant distance values (ignoring sites with problematic sample sizes). The rest of the

Maya sites cluster together with the exception of those mentioned above.

In order to address the questions posed in this study, it is necessary to look at

which sites deviate from expected levels of genetic heterozygosity. Kaminaljuyú has

already been singled out above as being highly genetically variable and Xcambó and
225
Altar have been shown to be biological distant and genetically more variable than

expected, but what of the rest of the region? Except for these three sites and for the

exceptions listed above (e.g., Tikal-Calakmul and Calakmul-Dos Pilas), sites within the

Maya area appear to be homogeneous, with small biological distance measures for

intersite comparisons. Figure 8-1 demonstrates that the clustering of groups basically

conforms to what we would expect given the current archaeological understanding of the

relationship between these sites. As can be seen in the graph, sites in the Peten (Tikal

(both Early Classic and Late Classic samples) Dos Pilas, Peten (Calzada Mopán,

Curucuitz, Ix Ek, Ixkun, Ixtonton), and Piedras Negras all cluster together. The southern

Peten sites and Dos Pilas demonstrate the closest relationship among all of the Peten

sites. Interestingly Tikal (Early Classic) and the highland site of Kaminaljuyú plot very

close together on the graph. Outliers include the sites of Copán, Palenque, and to some

extent Dzibilchaltún and Xcambó. Importantly, these sites are all at or near the periphery

of the Maya area or on the coast. Chichén Itzá and San Gervasio/Playa del Carmen also

demonstrate a closer relationship with each other than with other Maya sites. It is

interesting to note that Yaxuna, which is very close in proximity to Chichén Itzá, actually

falls closer to Peten sites than to other sites in the northern Yucatán.

Figure 8-2 illustrates the relationships between Maya sites on a 3-dimensional

graph using the first three eigenvectors from the principal components analysis. Once

again we see that the major outliers are Copán, Palenque and Dzibilchaltún, although it

is evident in this graph that the sites of Yaxuna, Xcambó, and Altar de Sacrificios are

within the cluster of sites near the centroid. This graph clearly demonstrates 2 distinct
226
clusters of sites: One including Altar de Sacrificios, Calakmul, Chichén Itzá, San

Gervasio/Playa del Carmen, and Uaxactún; and the other with Dos Pilas, Piedras Negras,

Tikal (both Early Classic and Late Classic), the southern Peten sites, Xcambó,

Kaminaljuyú, and possibly Yaxuna although this site is outside cluster. Both of these

clusters are extremely important in terms of what we know archaeologically. For the

most part, sites from the northern Peten and the north Yucatán cluster together, and those

from the southern Peten cluster with other sites in the Peten, with sites in the Pasión

region, and with sites in the highlands of Guatemala (represented here by Kaminaljúyu).

There are a couple of interesting exceptions however. The first is Altar de Sacrificios,

which is on the Usumacinta River in the Pasión region of Guatemala. One would expect

this site to cluster with other sites in the region (e.g. Dos Pilas Piedras Negras), but the

fact that it does not provides additional confirmation to previous biological studies that

have consistently shown Altar de Sacrificios as anomalous (Austin 1978, Wrobel 2002,

Scherer 2004). Other exceptions include the placement of Xcambó and Yaxuna (both

northern Yucatán sites) with Peten sites. This is not entirely unexpected since there is

archaeological evidence of interaction between Yaxuna and the Peten, and Xcambó is a

port city heavily involved in trade of salt.

Some sites that are distant in the above graphs also have numerous significant

biologically distance estimates including Altar de Sacrificios, Copán, Dzibilchaltún,

Palenque, Xcambó, and Yaxuna. That these sites should be biological distant is important

because each of these sites (with the exception of Yaxuna) is either at the periphery of

the Maya area or on the coast. Peripheral sites, because of their proximity to neighboring
227
populations should be more likely to experience gene flow from outside the Maya area.

Palenque is at the southwestern periphery, near the Isthmus of Tehuantepec and Copán is

at the southern Maya periphery. From these geographic locations it seems likely that they

would be in contact with non-Maya populations, so if any sites were to be biologically

distant from other sites in the Maya area we would likely suspect these two. Coastal sites

tend to be ports of trade, so it would not be unexpected to have large biological distance

estimates with sites that are within the Maya area.

With an understanding of the possible problematic sample sizes from some sites,

let us proceed to look at the results. In the D2 tables (Table 8-3 and 8-9) it becomes

clearer that Yaxuna is more biologically distant from Chichén Itzá and Calakmul, than it

is to Tikal, the southern Peten sites and the Pasión region. The significant intersite

distance between Yaxúna and Chichén Itzá is extremely interesting given Yaxúna’s ties

to Coba. It is possible that Coba’s conflicts with Chichén Itzá and their control over

Yaxúna was significant and is reflected biologically. Unfortunately, skeletal material

from Coba was not available for inclusion in this study. It is likely, given the results here,

that Yaxúna would demonstrate a smaller biological distance with Coba than it does with

Chichén Itzá. Also important here is the fact that Yaxuna is not biologically distant from

other sites in the northern Yucatán, just Chichén Itzá.

The D2 tables (8-3 and 8-9) helps to explain a number of other important

relationships that are illustrated in Figure 8-1 and 8-2. The distance estimates also clearly

demonstrate the biological proximity of all of the sites within the southern Maya

lowlands, with the exception of the distance between Tikal and Calakmul already
228
mentioned above. For the most part sites that exhibited positive residuals when

compared to the expected values for their region (Table 8-3, 8-7) also exhibited positive

residuals for the entire region (8-9). Maya sites that were consistently more variable

were Altar de Sacrificios and Kaminaljuyú (mentioned above), San Gervasio/Playa del

Carmen and a cluster of sites in the Peten (Early and Late Classic Tikal and Uaxactún).

With reference to central Mexican migration hypotheses, all of these sites have been

identified archaeologically as important. A summary of relationship comparisons for

these sites includes Kaminaljuyú and Teotihuácan, Tikal and Teotihuácan, Uaxactún and

Teotihuácan, Altar de Sacrificios and Toltecs (or Putun Maya), and San Gervasio and

Toltecs (or Putun Maya).

Discussion

It is clear from the evidence above that the there is a great deal of agreement

between the biological data and the archaeological models that suggest interaction

between central Mexico and the Maya area. Sites that exhibit evidence of contact, in the

form of hieroglyphic evidence or foreign material remains, are also more likely to be

biologically close to central Mexican sites and have more allelic diversity then expected.

However, it is important to understand what these results actually say about the

relationship between central Mexican sites and sites in the Maya area. In other words,

how can we distinguish between large-scale population incursions from central Mexico

and long term contact? Both of these scenarios will result in smaller biological distance

estimates between the sites in question. Both of these scenarios will also increase the
229
allelic diversity within samples. One would expect that large, discrete, intrusion events

would result in small biological distances estimates only for sites that were directly

affected by the intrusion. Alternatively, it seems logical that long term contact, likely

through trade, would result in a much more generalized situation where many Maya sites

are close biologically to sites in central Mexico. The results presented here suggest the

more generalized pattern where many Maya sites have small pairwise distance formulas

with central Mexico sites. Unfortunately, the explanation is not so simple. Over time,

even alleles that are introduced from large-scale intrusions will gradually disseminate

throughout the surrounding populations by gene flow resulting in a pattern very similar

to what we would expect for long term trade.

Although this question can not be answered with the results presented here, this

study does allow for the evaluation of those Maya sites which likely had direct or

indirect contact with central Mexico

Summary

This chapter discusses the results of Chapter 8 as they relate to the biological

hypotheses from Chapter 4 and the archaeological hypotheses from Chapter 1. The first

biological hypothesis (that sites in the Maya area will follow an isolation by distance

model) was not rejected because the geographic and distance matrices were weakly

correlated. The second biological hypothesis (that sites within regions will all have the

same level of genetic variability) was rejected since numerous sites in the Maya area and

central Mexico exhibited high positive residuals (i.e., increased genetic heterozygosity).
230
 However, the distribution of genetic variability across Mesoamerica closely

mimics what is known archaeologically, and seems to conform to the archaeological

hypotheses concerning migration into the Maya area at different times during the Classic

period. In general, Maya sites that have been identified archaeologically as having a

close relationship with Teotihuácan or Tula, also exhibited small pairwise distances

comparisons (e.g., Tikal, Kaminaljuyú, Peten, Chichén Itzá). A number of these sites also

exhibited greater than expected genetic heterozygosity, which would suggest that they

were receiving extralocal (i.e., non-Maya) gene flow. Two of the most striking

conclusions for this research were the strong degree of concordance between the metric

and non-metric datasets, and the strong correlation between the biological information

derived here and the archaeological models.

231
 CHAPTER 10

CONCLUSIONS

The results presented here add greatly to the current body of bioarchaeological

evidence from Mesoamerica. Key interpretations are as follows:

1. Biological distance estimates indicate that sites in the southern Maya lowlands

sites cluster together as do sites in central Mexico

2. Biological distance estimates correlate very well with archaeological evidence of

contact and alliances both within the Maya area and between Maya and central

Mexican sites.

3. R-matrix analysis indicates that Maya sites along the coast, in the Peten, and at

the periphery of the Maya area are more genetically variable than expected

indicating that these sites received differential amounts of external gene flow.

The impact of this study on archaeological interpretations of Classic period

migrations should be evidence from the results discussed in Chapter 10. The

combination of biological distance measures and genetics heterozygosity estimates allow

for relative importance of both gene flow and gene drift to be assessed. However, it must

232
be remembered that the results are only as good as the data that are analyzed. On this

point, is not entirely surprising that the results from the dental metrics are so different

from Scherer (2004), particularly with respect to the metric trait analyses. Scherer’s

study recorded crown measurements, which for all the reasons described throughout this

paper, may not be the best representation of the underlying genetic variability for tooth

size. It is also possible that the dimensions of the crown and the cemento-enamel

junction are not homologous, and therefore sample different portions of the genome as

explained in Chapter 7. However, as Stojanowski (2008) states this may not be relevant

since the measurements are arbitrary in the first place. It is possible that by necessity,

Scherer measured crown diameters on teeth that were affected by wear and this would

obviously call into question the results obtained in his study. After analyzing many of the

same collections, it is difficult to come to any other conclusion since the vast majority of

teeth analyzed had mild to moderate wear, and as van Reenan (1982) and Fitzgerald and

Hillson (2005) have demonstrated that even slight occlusal wear is accompanied with

interproximal wear, which can affect the mesiodistal dimensions of the crown.

Looking forward

This study would have benefited greatly from the inclusion of samples from

Veracruz and Oaxaca. These potential sources of gene flow are undetectable in the

current study. A large sample from Monte Albán was analyzed, but contextual issues

have kept me from including them with the rest of these sites. Based on the evidence that

is presented here, it is likely that Oaxacan sites (e.g., Monte Albán, Lambityeco, and
233
others) will cluster with sites in the Maya highlands because of numerous archaeological

and cultural similarities and with sites in Chiapas (e.g., Palenque, Tonina) because of the

proximity of these sites to the Valley of Oaxaca.

For Veracruz, the sample with the greatest potential for untangling some of these

relationships is El Tajín, which Blanton et al. (1993) suggest had particularly strong

long-distance trade connections. El Tajín also has an archaeological connection to Tula

(Blanton et al., 1993). Future analysis will seek to include these samples into a more

complete picture of Mesoamerican population structure.

Other bioarchaeological approaches to migration

Isotopic analysis

Stable isotope analysis provides a novel way to assess population movement that

provides information on individual movement across the landscape through time,

irregardless of actual genetic affinity. Although there are a number of stable isotopes that

are used to assess diet, strontium and oxygen isotopes are the most important in

population affinity studies.

Strontium is important because it does not fractionate (decay) as the original 87S/86S

values present in the soil pass through the food web (Larsen, 1997; Wright and Yoder,

2003; Hodell et al., 2004). Strontium isotope ratios vary with in rocks of different ages

and compositions (Schweissing and Grupe, 2003). In regions that are geological diverse

(e.g., Mesoamerica) strontium isotope values, the accuracy of matching individual

234
strontium isotope values with landscape values increases. The Maya area (central

America), is extremely diverse geologically, allowing for high resolution for within the

area (Hodell et al., 2004). Since strontium is incorporated into the skeleton during

formation of a particular skeletal element, numerous strontium isotope ratios from

different parts of the skeleton can be used to track an individual’s movement through life

(Larsen, 1997; Wright and Yoder, 2003; Schweissing and Grupe, 2003; Hodell et al.,

2004). For non-mobile individuals strontium isotope ratios (87S/86S) will resemble the

isotope composition of the habitat where they are found (Schweissing and Grupe, 2003).

For these individuals, estimates of strontium isotope ratios from all parts of the skeleton

should consistently show similar values.

Strontium and oxygen isotopes could also be used to confirm the multiethnic

component of many Maya sites, as long as the individuals tested were from the migrant

generation. Teeth are excellent sources for isotope information because not only do they

develop at relatively consistent periods through life, they are also unique in that the

strontium and oxygen levels are consistent through life once formed (Larsen, 1997;

Hodell et al., 2004). The is very different from bone which reflects isotope values that

have been taken up by the bone in the last five to ten years of life (Larsen, 1997)

Whereas strontium isotope values derive from the soil and reflect the local

geochemistry, oxygen isotopes values derive from terrestrial water sources in relation to

climate (Larsen, 1997). Oxygen isotope values are interpreted in much the same way as

strontium isotope values. Specific values correlate with specific areas, and depend

largely on temperature and humidity (Larsen, 1997). Like strontium isotope values,
235
oxygen isotope values can also be used to track an individual’s movement through time.

Ancient DNA analysis

Although useful at identifying specific immigrants, strontium and oxygen isotopes

do not actually give information about biological relatedness. For example, genetically

diverse populations living in the same geographical area will be identical. Likewise,

individuals who migrate from one area to another at a young age will not reflect the

isotopic ratios of their natal region. Isotopic data could help with the identification of

recent immigrants from one area to another, providing evidence of contact between

different regions. Unfortunately, these migrants would only be identifiable during the

generation that the migration took place. Because the offspring of migrants would be

characterized by isotopic values typical of their new location, little information about the

extent of gene flow would be available. Despite these drawbacks, any evidence from

these sources that could support or refute conclusions drawn from morphological data

would be important.

Since biological relatedness is ultimately a function of the underlying genetic

variation in the population, ancient DNA studies could potentially provide the most

reliable estimate of biological relatedness. Recovery of DNA from bone provides a direct

way to assess genetic affinities without the need for assumptions about the correlation

between phenotype and genotype. However, the extrapolation of DNA analysis from

local contemporary populations into the past is problematic. Unless there is some way to

definitively link modern populations with prehistoric ones in the same area, recent
236
migrations are likely to be a confounding factor. DNA research on skeletal populations is

complicated by preservation issues (especially in tropical regions), and contamination

issues with modern DNA (Marota et al., 2002; Wright, 2003; Jobling et al., 2004). If the

problems associated with extraction of DNA can be resolved, DNA analysis will be

extremely useful in assessing biological relationships.

Ancient DNA analysis provides a potentially useful way to estimate genetic

relatedness within a between individuals and samples. Researchers have succeeded in

extracting both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA from ancient human skeletons, and each

type has advantages and disadvantages when it comes to extraction and of the DNA the

what questions can be addressed from the data. Following death, DNA is rapidly

degraded by numerous endogenous and exogenous factors (Marota et al., 2002; Jobling

et al., 2004). In ancient skeletal material, DNA is drastically altered by cleavage of the

sugar-phosphate backbone (resulting in short DNA segments) and by chemical changes

in the nucleic bases (Stone, 2000; Marota et al., 2002; Jobling et al., 2004). Typically, the

quality of the DNA extracted from human skeletons is better in dentin than in bone

(Stone, 2000). Most studies of ancient skeletal material concentrate on mtDNA since

there are thousands of copies per cell and are much more likely to be preserved (Stone,

2000; Jobling et al., 2004).

Nuclear and mitochondrial DNA differ in the information that they provide, and

this is related to mode of inheritance and to the rate of mutation. The first point is

obvious; nuclear DNA is inherited from both parents, while mtDNA is inherited only

from the mother. Since mtDNA does not recombine (Jobling et al., 2004), mtDNA
237
sequences are inherited as a unit (essentially a single locus), which is why mtDNA is

often used by researchers seeking evolutionary divergence dates. Since genes are

essentially linked in mtDNA, different segments of the population will represent

different mitochondrial lineages or haplogroups. Unlike nuclear DNA, mitochondrial

lineages can never converge, and populations only homogenize when other

mitochondrial lineages cease to exist. From the perspective of my research, migration

into a previously unoccupied region should be easy to document, while the movement of

people from one region into a region occupied by other people will be difficult to

distinguish (Stone, 2000). In cases where populations shift into already occupied areas, it

may be impossible to distinguish between migration and cultural diffusion or trade.

Because of this, mtDNA has proven most useful in investigating the recent colonization

of lands in the New World and Polynesia (Stone, 2000; González-Oliver et al., 2001),

but has not been particularly useful in the investigation of genetic relationships on a

smaller scale (Wright, 2003).

Although more difficult to obtain, the large number of independent genetic loci in

nuclear DNA allows for a degree of resolution impossible with mtDNA (e.g., parent and

child relationships). The degree of resolution at the family level is only made possible by

the use of hypervariable loci known as variable number of tandem repeats (VNTR)

(Stone, 2000; Jobling, 2004). Microsatellite VNTRs (short tandem repeats in Stone,

2000) are particularly important in distinguishing familial relationships. However, since

there are also numerous other factors related to the mode of inheritance including

recombination events and the high mutation rate of microsatellite VNTRs, it difficult to
238
project back with any accuracy (Jobling, 2004). In practical terms, recombination of

DNA, generation after generation, produces a web of interconnecting gene lineages that

are difficult to unravel, and different loci will produce different ancestral lineages.

However, multivariate statistical methods are able to find correlations between multiple

independent traits and produce accurate estimates of biological relatedness.

Results from isotopic and DNA data may or may not support the interpretations

derived from my data. I will discuss these separately in order to clarify what I mean. It is

likely that DNA data in Mesoamerica will continue to be in the form of mtDNA. For

reasons stated above, mtDNA may not provide the same pattern of information as would

be expected from nuclear DNA markers or, as in this case, polygenic morphological

traits. This does not mean that mtDNA may not provide evidence that supports

morphological studies, but that the resolution of mtDNA is not fine enough on a small-

scale. This is due to the fact that even hypervariable regions of mtDNA, do not have a

high enough mutation rate to investigate within-region genetic diversity. This is

especially true if population movements are into areas already populated, and are not

characterized as initial colonization events (Stone, 2000).

Although mtDNA studies have proven useful in determining major migration

patterns, they lack the resolution to investigate population structure on a regional scale

particularly when gene flow spreads mitochondrial lineages across the landscape. The

primary problem is that mtDNA is inherited as a single unit (Jobling et al., 2003). This

means that each mitochondrial DNA haplotype is essentially an independent gene

lineage. Mitochondrial DNA cannot converge because they do not recombine like
239
nuclear DNA (Jobling et al., 2003), and therefore gene flow can only be detected when

new mitochondrial lineages enter an area (e.g., colonization).

Summary

It should be clear from the analysis above that morphological studies will have

continued relevance for understanding population history. Together with other

bioarchaeological methods (i.e., stable isotopes, aDNA), morphological studies should

continue to provide reliable estimates of biological affinity. As demonstrated in Chapter

7, much depends on the correlation between the phenotype and the genotype, and efforts

to refine the phenotype will greatly enhance the resolution of morphological studies.

This study should be useful to anyone interested in migration and interaction in pre-

Hispanic migration in Mesoamerica. It will likely be most useful to Maya archaeologists

due to the large number of Maya samples included in this analysis. The results described

here, support a number of relationships that have been inferred from archaeological

studies, but before now had never been demonstrated biologically. I believe that the

reason why this study seems to have demonstrated the existence of these intra- and

interregional relationships where other studies have failed, is due largely to the method

employed. I believe that this is primarily true for the dental metric methods, which I

believe more closely approximate the underlying genotype for tooth size, and therefore

provide more accurate information on biological affinity. Another reason is likely due to

the size of this study, which included sites from throughout the Maya area and the Basin

of Mexico.
240
 REFERENCES CITED

Adams REW. 1986 Archaeologists Explore Guatemala's Lost City of the Maya: Río

Azul. National Geographic 169(4):420-451.

Adams REW. 1973a. Maya Collapse: Transformation and Termination in the Ceramic

Sequence at Altar de Sacrificios. In T.P. Culbert (ed); The Classic Maya Collapse.

Albuquerque, University of New Mexico Press. 133-164.

Adams REW. 1973b The Collapse of Maya Civilization: A Review of Previous Theories.

In T.P. Culbert (ed). The Classic Maya Collapse. Albuquerque, University of

New Mexico Press. 21-34

Adams REW. 1971. The Ceramics of Altar de Sacrificios. PMAE Papers, vol. 63, no.1.

Andrews EW. IV. 1965 Progress Report on the 1960-1964 Field Seasons, National

Geographic Society--Tulane University Dzibilchaltún Program. Middle

American Research Institute, Publication 48. Tulane University, New Orleans.

Andrews AP, Andrews EW, and FR Castellanos. 2003. The Northern Maya Collapse and

its Aftermath. Ancient Mesoamerica 14:151-156.

Andrews EW. IV and Andrews EW. V.1980. Excavations at Dzibilchaltún, Yucatán,

Mexico. Middle American Research Institute No. 48. Tulane University, New

Orleans.

Armfield BA, Vinyard JV, and Thewissen JGM. 2009. Genetics of tooth
241
 morphology: Assessing the diversity of gene expression patterns for early

tooth development in mammals. Paper presented at the 78th annual meeting

of the American Association of Physical Anthropology. Chicago, IL.

Austin DM. 1972. Appendix: Morphology and Dimensions of the Altar de

Sacrificios Teeth. In: Saul FP (ed): The Human Skeletal Remains of Altar de

Sacrificios, pp 79-81. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and

Ethnology, Harvard University, 63(2). Peabody Museum Cambridge.

Austin DM. 1978. The Biological Affinity of the Ancient Populations of Altar de

Sacrificios and Seibal. Estudias de Cultura Maya. 11:57-73.

Ball J. 1974. A Teotihuácan-Style Cache in the Maya Lowlands. American Antiquity.

27(1):2-9

Bedrick EJ, Lapidus J, Powell JF. 2000. Estimating the Mahalanobis distance from

mixed continuous and discrete data. Biometrica 56:394-401.

Bernall I. 1966. Teotihuácan. Capital de imperio? Revista Mexicana de Estudios

Anthropológicos. 20:95-110.

Bernaards CA, Farmer MM, Qi K, Garest SD, Ganz PA, Kahn K. 2003. Comparison

of two multiple imputation procedures in a cancer screening survey. Journal

of Data Science. 1:00-00

Berry AC, and RJ. Berry. 1967. Epigenetic Variation in the Human Cranium.

Journal of Anatomy. 101(2):361-379.

Blanton RE, Kowalewski SA, Feinman GM, Finsten LM. 2003. Ancient

Mesoamerica: A Comparison of Change in Three Regions. Cambridge

242
 University Press.

Borowicz J. 2003. Images of Power and the Power of Images: Early Classic

Iconographic Programs of the Carved Monuments of Tikal. In Braswell (ed.).

pp. 217-234. The Maya and Teotihuácan: Reinterpreting Early Classic

Interaction, University of Texas Press.

Bove FJ. and S. Medrano Busto. 2003. Teotihuácan, Militarism, and Pacific

Guatemala. In Braswell (ed.). pp. 45-80. The Maya and Teotihuácan:

Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction, University of Texas Press.

Braswell GR. 2003a. The Maya and Teotihuácan: Reinterpreting Early Classic

Interaction, University of Texas Press.

Braswell GR. 2003b. Introduction: Reinterpreting Early Classic Introduction. In The

Maya and Teotihuácan: Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction, edited by

Geoffrey R. Braswell, pp. 1– 43. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Braswell GR. 2003c Understanding Early Classic Interaction between Kaminaljuyú and

Central Mexico. In The Maya and Teotihuácan: Reinterpreting Early Classic

Interaction, edited by G. Braswell, pp. 105-142. University of Texas Press,

Austin.

Braswell GE, JD. Gunn, M. del Rosario Domínguez Carrasco, WJ. Folan, LA. Fletcher,

A. Morales Lopéz and MD. Glascock. 2004. Defining the Terminal Classic at

Calakmul, Campeche. In The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse,

Transition, and Transformation, edited by AA. Demarest, PM. Rice and DS.

243
 Rice, pp. 162-194. University Press of Colorado, Boulder

Brewer-Carias CA, Le Blanc S, and JV. Neel. 1976. Genetic structure of a tribal

population, the Yanomama Indians. XII. Dental microdifferentiation.

American Journal of Physical Anthropology 44:5-14.

Brown KI. 1977. Toward a Systematic Explanation of Culture Change within the

Middle Classic Period of the Valley of Guatemala. In Sanders and Michels

(eds.). Teotihuácan and Kaminaljuyú, pp 411-439. College Park:

Pennsylvania State University Press.

Buikstra JE, Frankenberg SR, and LW. Konigsberg. 1990. Skeletal biological

distance studies in American physical anthropology: Recent trends. American

Journal of Physical Anthropology 82:1-8.

Buikstra JE, TD Price, LE Wright and J. H. Burton 2004 Tombs and Burials in the Early

Classic Acropolis at Copán. In Understanding Early Classic Copán, edited by

EE. Bell, MA. Canuto and RJ. Sharer, pp. 191-212. University of Pennsylvania

Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia.

Butler PM. 1939 Studies of the mammalian dentition: differentiation of the post-canine

dentition. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London B109:1-36.

Butler 1957 The Ontogeny of Molar Pattern. Biological Review 31:30-70.

Cabrera Castro R. 2003. Las Prácticas Funerarias de los Antguos Teotihuácanos .

Manzanilla and Serrano (eds.). pp 503-539. Prácticas Funerarias en la

Ciudad de los Dioses. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de México.

Cabrera CR. 1999. Las prácticas funerarias de los antiguos Teotihucacanos. In

244
 Prácticasfunerarias en la Ciudad de los Dioses: Los enterraminetos humanos de

la antigua Teotihuácan, edited by Linda Manzanilla and Carlos Serrano, pp. 503–

539. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City.

Carmean K, Dunning N, and J. Karl. 2004. High Times in the Hill Country: A

Perspective from the Terminal Classic Puuc Region. In: Demarest AA, Rice

PM, and DS. Rice (eds): The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands:

Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, pp. 516-550. University of

Colorado Press, Boulder.

Carpenter JC. 1976. A Comparative Study of Metric and Nonmetric Traits in a

Series of Modern Crania. American Journal of Physical Anthropology

45:337-343.

Carrasco R. 1998 The Metropolis of Calakmul, Campeche. In Maya, edited by P.

Schmidt, M. de la Garza and E. Nalda, pp. 373-385. Rizzoli, New York.

Carrasco R, S Boucher, P Alvarez, V Tiesler, V García, R García and J Vásquez 1999 A

Dynastic Tomb from Campeche, Mexico: New Evidence on Jaguar Paw, a Ruler

from Calakmul. Latin American Antiquity 10:47-58.

Carrasco D, Jones L, and S. Sessions. 2000. Mesoamerica's Classic Heritage: From

Teotihuácan to the Aztecs. University of Colorado Press, Boulder.

Chase AF and Chase ZD. 1987. Investigations at the Classic Maya City of Caracol,

Belize: 1986-1987. San Fransisco: Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute

Monograph 3.

Chase DZ and Chase AF. 2003. Texts and contexts in Maya warfare: A brief
245
 consideration of epigraphy and archaeology at Caracol, Belize. In Ancient

Mesoamerican Warfare. Brown MK and Stanton TW (eds.) 171-188.

Altamira Press. Maryland.

Chase DZ and Chase AF. 1982. Yucatec influence in Terminal Classic northern

Belize. American Antiquity. 47(3):596.614.

Cheek CD. 1977. Teotihuácan Influence at Kaminaljuyú. In WT Sanders and JW

Michels (eds.), Teotihuácan and Kaminaljuyú: A study in Prehistoric Culture

Contact. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 441-453.

Cheverud JM, and JE. Buikstra. 1981. Quantitative Genetics of Skeletal Non-metric

Traits in Rhesus Macaques on Cayo Santiago II: Phenotypic, Genetic and

Environmental Correlations Between Traits. American Journal of Physical

Anthropology 54:51-58.

Christensen AF. 1998a. Biological Affinity in Prehispanic Oaxaca. Doctoral

Dissertation. Vanderbilt University, Nashville.

Christensen AF. 1998b. Odontometric microevolution in the Valley of Oaxaca,

Mexico. Journal of Human Evolution 34:333-360.

Christensen AF. 1997. Cranial Non-metric Variation in North and Central Mexico.

Anthropol 55(1):15-32.

Clark JE.1997. The Arts of Government in Early Mesoamerica. Annual Review of

Anthropology, Vol. 26. (1997), pp. 211-234.

Coe WR. 1994. Mexico: From the Olmecs to the Aztecs. Thames and Hudson, New

York.
246
Coe WR. 1993. The Maya. Thames and Hudson, New York.

Coggins CC. 1983 An Instrument of Expansion: Monte Albán, Teotihuácan, and Tikal. In

Highland-Lowland Interaction in Mesoamerica: Interdisciplinary Approaches,

edited by A. Miller, pp. 49-68. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library, Washington,

DC.

Coggins CC. 1975 Painting and Drawing Styles at Tikal: An Historical and

Iconographic Reconstruction. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,

Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Coggins CC. 1979 A New Order and the Role of the Calendar: Some Characteristics of

the Middle Classic Period at Tikal. In Maya Archaeology and Ethnohistory,

edited by Norman Hammond and Gordon R. Willey, pp. 3–20. University of

Texas Press, Austin.

Corruccini RS. 1998. On Hawikku Cemetery Kin Groups. American Antiquity

63(1):161-163.

Corruccini RS. 1987. Interpretation of metrical variables in multivariate analysis. In.

Multivariate Statistical Methods in Physical Anthropology. Van Vark GN and

WW Howells (eds.):13-19. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Corruccini RS. 1975. The interaction between nonmetric and metric cranial

variation. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 44:285-294.

Corruccini RS. 1974. An examination of the meaning of cranial discrete traits for

human skeletal biological studies. American Journal of Physical

Anthropology 40:425-446.
247
Corruccini RS, and I. Shimada. 1972. The Biological Relationships of Some

Prehistoric and Historic Pueblo Populations. American Journal of Physical

Anthropology 37:373-388.

Corruccini RS, Sharma K, and RHY. Potter. 1986. Comparative genetic variance and

heritability of dental occlusal variables in US and Northwest Indian Twins.

American Journal of Physical Anthropology 70:293-299.

Cowgill GL. 2003 Teotihuácan and Early Classic Interaction: A Perspective from

Outside the Maya Region. In The Maya and Teotihuácan: Reinterpreting Early

Classic Interaction, edited by Geoffrey R. Braswell, pp. 345–335. University of

Texas Press, Austin.

Creamer W. 1987. Mesoamerica as a concept: an archaeological view from Central

America. Latin American Research Review. 22(1):35-62.

Crow JF. 1986. Basic Concepts in Population, Quantitative, and Evolutionary

Genetics. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York.

Cucina A. and Tiesler V. 2003. Dental morphometry and biological affinity in pre-

contact and contact Maya populations from the peninsula of Yucatán. Mexicon

26(1):14-19.

Culbert TP. 1973a. The Classic Maya Collapse. University of New Mexico Press,

Albuquerque.

Culbert TP. 1973b. Introduction: A Prologue to Classic Maya Culture and the Problem

of Its Collapse. In The Classic Maya Collapse, edited by T. P. Culbert, pp 3-19.

University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

248
Culbert TP, LJ. Kasokowsky, RE. Fry and WA. Haviland 1990 The Population of Tikal,

Guatemala. In Precolumbian Population History in the Maya Lowlands, edited

by TP. Culbert and DS. Rice, pp. 103-122. University of New Mexico Press,

Albuquerque.

Dahlberg AA. 1951. The dentition of the American Indian. In W.S. Laughlin (ed):

The Physical Anthropology of the American Indian, pp. 138-176. The Viking

Fund, New York.

Dahlberg AA. 1950. The Evolutionary Significance of the Protostylid. American

Journal of Physical Anthropology 8:15-25.

de Souza P, and P. Houghton. 1977. The mean measure of divergence and the use of

non-metric data in the estimation of biological distances. Journal of

Archaeological Science 4:163-169.

Demarest AA. 2004 After the Maelstrom: Collapse of the Classic Maya Kingdoms and

the Terminal Classic in Western Petén. In The Terminal Classic in the Maya

Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, edited by A. A. Demarest,

P. M. Rice and D. S. Rice, pp. 102-124. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Demarest AA. 1997 The Vanderbilt Petexbatun Regional Archaeological Project. Ancient

Mesoamerica 8(2):229-253.

Demarest AA. 1992. Ideology in Ancient Maya Cultural Evolution: The Dynamics of

Galactic Polities. In Ideology and Pre-Columbian Civilizations, edited by AA.

Demarest and G. Conrad, pp. 135-157. School of American Research Press,

Santa Fe.
249
Demarest AA. and AE. Foias, 1993 Mesoamerican Horizons and the Cultural

Transformations of Maya Civilization. In Latin American Horizons, edited by D.

S. Rice, pp. 147-191. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.

Demarest AA, Rice PM, and DS. Rice. 2004a. The Terminal Classic in the Maya

Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation. University of Colorado

Press, Boulder.

Demarest AA, Rice PM, and DS. Rice. 2004b. The Terminal Classic in the Maya

Lowlands: Assessing Collapses, Terminations, and Transformations. In

Demarest AA, Rice PM, and DS. Rice (eds): The Terminal Classic in the

Maya Lowlands : Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, pp. 667-709.

University of Colorado Press, Boulder.

DeMarrais E, Jaime Castillo L, and Earle T. 1996. Ideology, materialization, and

power strategies . Current Anthropology. Vol 37(1) pp. 15-31

Diehl RA. 1989. A shadow of its former self. In. Mesoamerica after the decline of

Teotihuácan.

Donlon DA. 2000. The value of infracranial non-metric variation in studies of

modern Homo sapiens: an Australian focus. American Journal of Physical

Anthropology 113:349-368.

Dunning NP. 1990. Prehispanic Settlement Patterns of the Puuc Region, Yucatán,

Mexico. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Minnesota.

Falconer DS. 1981. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. Longman Group Ltd.

Essex, UK.
250
Fash, WL. 2001 Scribes, Warriors and Kings. Revised ed. Thames and Hudson, London.

Fash WL. 1994. Changing perspectives on Maya Civilization. Annual Review of

Anthropology. 23:181-208.

Fash WL, EW Andrews V, and TK Manahan. 2004 Political Decentralization, Dynastic

Collapse, and the Early Postclassic in the Urban Center of Copán. In The

Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and

Transformation, edited by AA Demarest, PM Rice and DS Rice, pp. 260-287.

University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Fash WL, and BW Fash. 2000. Teotihuácan and the Maya: A Classic Heritage. In D.

Carrasco, L. Jones, and S. Sessions (eds): Mesoamerica’s Classic Heritage:

Teotihuácan to the Aztecs, pp. 433-463. University Press of Colorado,

Boulder.

Fash, W. L. and D. S. Stuart, 1991 Dynastic History and Cultural Evolution at Copán,

Honduras. In Classic Maya Political History, edited by T. P. Culbert, pp. 147-

179. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

FitzGerald C, and S. Hillson. 2005. Dental Reduction in Late Pleistocene and Early

Holocene Hominids: Alternative Approaches to Assessing Tooth Size. Paper

presented at the 75th annual meeting of the American Association of Physical

Anthropologists.

Folan WJ, JD Gunn JD. Eaton, and RW Patch. 1983 Paleoclimatological Patterning in

Southern Mesoamerica. Journal of Field Archaeology 10:453-468.

Folan, WJ, Marcus J, Pincemin S, Domínguez Carrasco M. del Rosario, Fletcher LA and
251
 AM Lopéz. 1995. Calakmul, Campeche: New Data from an Ancient Maya

Capital in Campeche, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 6:310-334.

Fox JW. 1989. On the rise and fall of Tuláns and Maya segemtary states, pp. 656-

681. American Anthropologist 91(3): 656-681.

Fox JW. 1980. Lowland to Highland Mexicanization Processes in Southern

Mesoamerica. American Antiquity 45:43-54.

Freeman MF. and JW. Tukey. 1950. Transformations related to the angular and the

square root. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 21:607-11

Gann T. 1926 Ancient Cities and Modern Tribes: Exploration and Adventure in Maya

Lands. Duckworth, London.

Garn SM, Lewis A, and A. Walenga. 1968. Genetic Independence of Carabelli’s trait

from tooth size or crown morphology. Archives of Oral Biology 11:745-747.

Gómez O. 1999 Excavaciones en El Interior del Templo V, Tikal. In XII Simposio de

Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala 1998, edited by J. P. Laporte, H.

Escobedo and A. Monzón de Suasnávar, pp. 187-194. Ministerio de Cultura y

Deportes, Instituto Antropología e Historia, Guatemala City, Guatemala.

Gonzalez-Jose R. Dahinten SL, Luis MA, and Hernandez M. 2001. Craniometric

variation and the settlement of the Americas: testing hypotheses by means of

R-matrix and matrix correlation analysis. American Journal of Physical

Anthropology. 116:154-165.

Green RF, and JM. Suchey. 1976. The use of inverse sine transformations in the

analysis of nonmetric cranial data. American Journal of Physical

252
 Anthropology 45:61-68.

Haeussler AM, Irish JD, Morris DH, CG. Turner II. 1989. Morphological and

Metrical Comparisons of San and Central Sotho Dentitions from Southern

Africa. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 78:115-122.

Halgrímsson B, Ó Donnabháin B, Walters GB, Cooper DML, Guŏbjartsson D. and

K Stefánsson. 2004. Composition of the founding population of Iceland:

biological distance and morphological variation in early historic Atlantic

Europe. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 124:267-274.

Hammond N. 1982. Ancient Maya Civilization. Rutgers University Press, New

Brunswick, NJ.

Hanihara K, Tamada M, and T. Tanaka. 1975. Family studies of the shovel trait in

the maxillary central incisor. Journal of the Anthropological Society of

Nippon. 82:107-112.

Harpending HC, T. Jenkins. 1973. Genetic Distance among Southern African

Populations. In M. Crawford, and P. Workman (eds): Methods and Theories

of Anthropological Genetics, pp 177-199. Albuquerque: University of New

Mexico Press.

Harpending HC, and RH. Ward. 1982. Chemical systematics and human

populations. In M.H. Nitecki (ed): Biochemical aspects of evolutionary

biology, pp 213-256. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hartl DL, and AG. Clark. 1997. Principles of Population Genetics. 3rd edition.

Sunderland. Sinauer Associates, Inc.

253
Haydenbilt R. 1996. Dental variation among four prehispanic Mexican populations.

American Journal of Physical Anthropology 100:225-256.

Hellmuth N. 1976. Evidence of Teotihuácan Contact in the Maya Lowlands: A study

of Iconography. MA. Thesis. Yale University, CT.

Hendon JA and Joyce RA. 2004. Mesoamerican Archaeology. United Kingdom.

Blackwell Publishing.

Hillson S. 1996. Dental anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hillson S. 1986. Teeth. Cambridge University Press, Cambrige.

Hillson S, FitzGerald C, and H. Flinn. 2005. Alternate dental measurements:

proposals and relationships with other measurements. American Journal of

Physical Anthropology 126:413-426.

Hlusko LJ, Maas ML, and Mahaney MC. 2004. Statistical genetics of molar cusp

patterning in pedigreed baboons: Implications for primate dental development

and evolution. Molecular and Developmental Evolution (J. Exp. Zoolog.)

302B:268-283.

Hlusko LJ, Mahaney MC, and Weiss KM. 2002. A statistical genetic comparison of two

techniques for assessing molar crown size in pedigreed baboons. American

Journal of Physical Anthropology 117(2):182-189.

Hlusko LJ. 2000. Identifying the genetic mechanisms of dental variation in

cercopithecoid primates. PhD dissertation, The Pennsylvania State

UniversityJacobi 2000.

254
Houston SD. 1993 Hieroglyphs and History at Dos Pilas : Dynastic Politics of the

Classic Maya. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Hrdlička A. 1920. Shovel-Shaped Teeth. American Journal of Physical

Anthropology 3:429-465.

Irish JD. 1997. Characteristic High- and Low-Frequency Dental Traits in Sub-

Saharan Populations. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 102:455-

467.

Irish JD. 1993 Biological Affinities of Late Pleistocene through Modern African

Aboriginal Populations: The Dental Evidence. Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona State

University, Tempe.

Irish JD. 1997 Characteristic High- and Low-Frequency Dental Traits in Sub-Saharan

Populations. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 102:455-467.

Irish JD and Konigsberg L. 2007. The ancient inhabitants of Jebel Moya Redux:

measurements of population affinity based on dental morphology.

International Journal of Osteoarchaeology. 17:138-156.

Jacobi KP. 2000. Last Rites for the Tipu Maya: Genetic Structuring in a Colonial

Cemetery. University of Alabama Press.

Jantz RL and DW Osley. 2001. Variation among early North American crania.

American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 114:146-155.

Jones L. 1997. Conquests of the Imagination: Maya-Mexican Polarity and the Story

of Chichén Itzá. American Anthropologist 99(2):275-290.

Jones L. 1995. Twin City Tales: A Hermeneutical Reassessment of Tula and

255
 Chichén Itzá. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Jones L. 1989. The Hermeneutics of Sacred Architecture: A Reassesment of the

similtude between Tula, Hidalgo and Chichén Itzá, Yucatán. Ph.D.

Dissertation. University of Chicago.

Joyce RA. 2004. Mesoamerica: a working model for archaeology. In:

Mesoamerican Archaeology: Theory and Practice. Hendon JA and Joyce RA

(eds). Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA.

Kaul SS, K. Sharma, JC. Sharma, and RS. Corruccini. 1985. Non-metric variants of

the permanent dental crown in human monozygous and dizygous twins. In

V.R. Reddy (ed): Dental Anthropology: Applications and Methods, pp. 187-

193. New Delhi: Inter-India Publications.

Kidder AV, J. Jennings and EM. Shook. 1946 Excavations at Kaminaljuyú, Guatemala.

Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC.

Kieser JA. 1990. Human Adult Odontometrics: The Study of Variation in Adult

Tooth Size. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kimura M, Weiss GH. 1964. The stepping-stone model of population structure and the

decrease of genetic correlation with distance. Genetics. 49:561–576.

Konigsberg LW. 1990. Analysis of Prehistoric Biological Variation under a Model of

Isolation by Geographic and Temporal Distance. Human Biology 62(1):49-70.

Laporte, JP. and V. Fialko, 1985 Reporte Arqueológico (1979-1984): Mundo Perdido y

Zonas de Habitación, Tikal, Petén. Ministerios de Educación y Comunicaciones

256
 Transporte y Obras Públicas, Guatemala City, Guatemala.

Laporte, JP. and V Fialko. 1995. Un Reencuentro con Mundo Perdido, Tikal, Guatemala.

Ancient Mesoamerica 6:41-94.

Larsen CS. 1997. Bioarchaeology: Interpreting Behavior from the Human

Skeleton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lincoln CE. 1990. Ethnicity and Social Organization at Chichén Itzá, Yucatán,

México. PhD dissertation. Harvard University, Cambridge.

Lincoln CE. 1986. The Chronology of Chichén Itzá: A Review of the Literature. In

JA. Sabloff and EW. Andrews V (eds): Late Lowland Maya Civilization:

Classic to Postclassic, pp. 141-196. University of New Mexico Press,

Albuquerque.

Lukacs JR, and BE. Hemphill. 1991. The dental anthropology of prehistoric

Baluchistan: a morphometric approach to the peopling of south Asia. In

Kelley M. and C. Larsen (eds): Advances in Dental Anthropology, pp. 77-

119. New York: Wiley-Liss.

Manly BF. 1994. Multivariate Statistical Methods: A Primer. Boca Raton:

Chapman and Hall/CRC.

Manzanilla L and Serrano C. 2003. Prácticas Funerarias en la Ciudad de los

Dioses: Los Enterramientos humanos de la Antigua Teotihuácan.

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

Marcus J. 2003a The Maya and Teotihuácan. In The Maya and Teotihuácan:

Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction, edited by G. Braswell, pp. 337-356.

257
 University of Texas Press, Austin.

Marcus J. 2003b. Recent Advances in Maya Archaeology. Journal of

Archaeological Research 11(2):71-148.

Marcus J. 1993 Ancient Maya Political Organization. In Lowland Maya Civilization in

the Eighth Century A.D., edited by J. A. Sabloff and J. S. Henderson, pp. 111-

184. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D. C.

Marcus J. 1998 The Peaks and Valleys of Ancient States: An Extension of the Dynamic

Model. In Archaic States, edited by G. Feinman and J. Marcus, pp. 59 - 93.

School of American Research Press, New Mexico.

Marcus J. 1993 Ancient Maya Political Organization. In Lowland Maya Civilization in

the Eighth Century A.D., edited by J. A. Sabloff and J. S. Henderson, pp. 111-

184. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.

Marcus J. 1989 From Centralized Systems to City States: Possible Models for the

Epiclassic. In Mesoamerica After the Decline of Teotihuácan: AD 700-900,

edited by R. A. Diehl and J. C. Berlo, pp. 201-208. Dumbarton Oaks,

Washington, DC.

Martin S. 2003 In the Line of the Founder:A View of Dynastic Politics at Tikal. In Tikal:

Dynasties, Foreigners, and Affairs of State, edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff, pp. 3–

45. School of American Research Press, Sant

Martin S. and Grube N. 2008. Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens: Deciphering

the Dynasties of the Ancient Maya. Thames and Hudson . London; New York.

Martin S. and N. Grube 1995. Maya Superstates. Archaeology 48(6):41-46. 2000.

258
 Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens. Thames and Hudson, New York.

Martin S, and N. Grube, 2000 Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens: Deciphering

the Dynasties of the Ancient Maya. Thames and Hudson, London.

Mayhall JT. 2000. Dental morphology: techniques and strategies. In M.A.

Katzenberg and S.R. Saunders (eds): Biological Anthropology of the Human

Skeleton, pp. 103-134. New York: Wiley-Liss.

Matheson C, Praymak R, Luukkonen P, Tiesler Blos V, and K. Vernon. 2003. The

ancient populations of the Maya: moving towards a regional genetic study.

Los Investigadores de la Cultura Maya. 602-610. Universidad Autonoma de

Campeche.

Mayhall JT, and SR. Saunders. 1986. Dimensional and discrete dental trait

asymmetry relationships. American Journal of Physical Anthropology.

69:403-411.

McLean FC, Urist MR. (1968). Bone: Fundamentals of the Physiology of Skeletal

Tissue. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Miller AG. 1983. Highland-Lowland Interaction in Mesoamerica: Interdisciplinary

Approaches. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.

Moorrees, CFA. 1957. The Aleut Dentition: A Correlative Study of Dental

Characteristics in an Eskimoid People. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Morfín LM, Peraza ME, Gamboa ME, and T. Miranda. 1982. Playa del Carmen:

una población de la costa oriental en el postclásico (un estudio osteologico).

Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Centro Regional del Sureste

259
 Sección de Antropología Fisica.

Morley SM. 1946. The Ancient Maya. Stanford University Press, California.

Murtha TM. 2002. Land and Labor: Classic Maya Terraced Agriculture at Caracol,

Belize. PhD Dissertation. Pennsylvania State University.

Nichol CR, and CG. Turner II. 1986. Intra- and Interobserver Concordance in

Classifying Dental Morphology. American Journal of Physical

Anthropology 69:299-315.

Nichol, C.R. 1989 Complex Segregation Analysis of Dental Morphological Variants.

American Journal of Physical Anthropology 78:37-59. or 1990 Dental Genetics

and Biological Relationships of the Pima Indians of Arizona. PhD dissertation,

Arizona State University, Tempe.

O’Mansky M. and NP. Dunning. 2004. Settlement and Late Classic Political

Disintegration in the Petexbatun. In Demarest AA, Rice PM., and DS. Rice

(eds): The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands : Collapse, Transition,

and Transformation, pp. 107-131. University of Colorado Press, Boulder.

Palka, J. 1995 Classic Maya Social Inequality and the Collapse at Dos Pilas, Peten,

Guatemala. PhD dissertation, Vanderbilt University, Nashville.

Palka, J. 1997 Reconstructing Classic Maya Socioeconomic Differentiation and the

Collapse at Dos Pilas, Peten, Guatemala. Ancient Mesoamerica 8:293-306.

Pendergast D. 1971. Evidence of Early Teotihuácan-Lowland Maya Contact at Altun

Ha. American Antiquity. 36(4):455-460.

Pietrusewsky M. 2000. Metric analysis of skeletal remain: methods and

260
 applications. In M.A. Katzenberg and S.R. Saunders (eds): Biological

Anthropology of the Human Skeleton, pp. 357-415. New York: Wiley-Liss.

Pompa y Padilla JA. 1996. Estudios de antropología dental en México. In: La

Antropología Física en México. Estudios Sobre la Población Antigua y

Contemporánea: 171-181, IIA, UNAM, Mexico.

Pompa y Padilla JA. 1990. Antropología Dental: Applicación en Poblaciones

Prehispanicas. Antropología Física. Colección Científica 195. Instituto

Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Pompa y Podilla, JA. 1984 Jaina y Chichén Itzá: Morfología Dentaria Normal de Dos

Muestras de la Pación Maya Prehispánica. In Memorias de la XVII Mesa

Redonda de la Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología, pp. 481-489. vol. 2.

Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología, San Cristóbal de las Casas, México.

Potter RH, WE. Nance, P. Yu, and WB. Davis. 1978. A twin study of dental

dimension. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 44:397-412.

Potter RH, P. Yu, AA. Dahlberg, AD Merritt, and PM. Connelly. 1968. Genetic

studies of tooth size factors in Pima Indian families. American Journal of

Physical Anthropology. 20:89-100.

Proskouriakoff T. 1993. Maya History. University of Texas Press.

Relethford JH. 1996. Gene drift can obscure population history: problem and

solution. Human Biology 68:29-44.

Relethford JH. 1991. Genetic Drift and Anthropometric Variation in Ireland.

Human Biology 63:155-165.

261
Relethford JH, and J. Blangero. 1990. Detection of differential gene flow from

patterns of quantitative variation. Human Biology 62:5-25.

Relethford JH, Crawford MN, and J. Blangero. 1997. Genetic Drift and Gene Flow

in Post-Famine Ireland. Human Biology 69:443-465.

Relethford JH, and HC. Harpending. 1994. Craniometric Variation, Genetic

Theory, and Modern Human Origins. American Journal of Physical

Anthropology 95:249-270.

Relethford JH, and FC. Lees. 1982. The Use of Quantitative Traits in the Study of

Human Population Structure. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 25:113-

132

Renfrew C, 1989. Models of change in language and archaeology. Transactions of

the Philological Society 87, 103–55.

Rhoads ML.2002 Population Dynamics at the Southern Periphery of the Ancient

Maya World: Kinship at Copán. Ph.D. dissertation, University of New

Mexico.

Rizk OT, Amugongo S, Mahaney MC, and Hlusko LJ. 2008. The quantitative

genetic analysis of primate dental variation: History of the approach and

prospects for the future. In: Technique and Application in Dental

Anthropology. Irish JD and Nelson GC ( eds). Cambridge University Press.

Rice PM. Demarest AA. and DS. Rice. 2004. The Terminal Classic and the "Classic

Maya Collapse" in Perspective. In Demarest AA, Rice PM., and DS. Rice

262
 (eds): The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands : Collapse, Transition,

and Transformation, pp. 1-16. University of Colorado Press, Boulder.

Rouse IB. 1986. Migrations in Prehistory. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Roys R. 1933. The Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel. Carnegie Institution of

Washington, Washington.

Sabloff, JA. 1973 Continuity and Disruption during Terminal Late Classic Times at

Seibal: Ceramic and Other Evidence. In The Classic Maya Collapse, edited by

TP. Culbert, pp. 107-131. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Sabloff JA. and GR. Willey, 1967. The Collapse of Maya Civilization in the Southern

Lowlands: A Consideration of History and Process. Southwestern Journal of

Anthropology 23(4):311-336.

S Jorge Mario. 1995. Ix Ek’: Entidad política al oeste de la meseta de Dolores. In:

Revista del Atlas Arqueológico de Guatemala 3:18-39. Instituto de Antropología

e Historia, Guatemala.

Sanders, WT. 1973 The Cultural Ecology of the Lowland Maya: A Reevaluation. In The

Classic Maya Collapse, edited by T. P. Culbert, pp. 325-365. University of New

Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Sanders, W.T. 1977 Ethnographic Analogy and the Teotihuácan Horizon Style. In

Teotihuácan and Kaminaljuyú, edited by W. T. Sanders and J. W. Michels, pp.

397-410. Pennsylvania State University Press, College Park. Sanders W.T. and

J. Michels. 1977. Teotihuácan and Kaminaljuyú: A study of Prehistoric

Culture Contact. College Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

263
Sanders WT. and Michels J. 1977. Teotihuácan and Kaminaljuyú: A study of

Prehistoric Culture Contact. College Park: Pennsylvania State University

Press.

Sanders WT. and Price BJ. 1968. Mesoamerica: The Evolution of a Civilization. New

York. Random House.

Saul FP. 1972. The Human Skeletal Remains from Altar de Sacrificios: An

Osteobiographic Analysis. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology

and Ethnology, Peabody Museum, Cambridge, MA. 63(2).

Saul JM, and FP. Saul. 1997. The Preclassic Skeletons from Cuello. In S.L.

Whittington and D.M. Reed (eds): Bones of the Maya: Studies of Ancient

Skeletons, pp. 28-50. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

Schafer, JL. 1999a Multiple Imputation: A Primer. Statistical Methods in Medical

Research 8:3-15.

Schafer JL 1999b. 1999b NORM: Multiple Imputation of Incomplete Multivariate Data

Under a Normal Model. 2 ed. http://www.stat.psu.edu/~jls/misoftwa.html.

Schele,L. 1991 An Epigraphic History of the Western Maya Region. In Classic Maya

Political History: Hieroglyphic and Archaeological Evidence, edited by T. P.

Culbert, pp. 72-101. School of American Research Advances Seminar Series.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Schele L. and D. Freidel. 1990. A Forest of Kings. William R. Morrow, New York.

Schele L. and P. Mathews. 1991. Royal Visits and Other Intersite Relationships Among

264
 the Classic Maya. In Classic Maya Political History: Hieroglyphic and

Archaeological Evidence, edited by T. P. Culbert, pp. 226-252. School of

American Research Advanced Seminar Series. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

Schele, L and P. Mathews. 1998. The Code of Kings: The Language of Seven Sacred

Maya Temples and Tombs. Scribner, New York.

Scherer A. 2007. Population Struction of the Classic Period Maya. American

Journal of Physical Anthropology. 132:367-380.

Scherer A. 2004. Dental Analysis of Classic Period Population Variability in the

Maya Area. PhD. Texas A&M University.

Schnutenhaus S, and FW. Rösing. 1998. World Variation of Tooth Size. In K.W.

Alt, FW. Rösing, and M. Teschler-Nicola (eds): Dental Anthropology:

Fundamentals, Limits, and Prospects, pp. 521-535. New York: Springer-

Verlag.

Schortman EM. 1989. Interregional Interaction in Prehistory: The Need for a New

Perspective American Antiquity 54:52– 65.

Scott GR. 1972. An analysis of population and family data on Carabelli’s trait and

shovel-shaped incisors. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 37:449.

Scott GR, and RHY. Potter. 1984. An analysis of tooth crown morphology in

American white twins. Anthropologie 22:223-231.

Scott GR. and CG. Turner. 1997. The Anthropology of Modern Human Teeth:

Dental Morphology and its Variation in Recent Human Populations.

265
 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Scott G.R, and C.G. Turner II. 1988. Dental anthropology. Annual Review of

Anthropology 17:99-126.

Sharer RJ. 2003. Founding Events and Teotihuácan: Connections at Copán

Honduras. In Braswell (ed.). pp. 143-166. The Maya and Teotihuácan:

Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction, University of Texas Press.

Sharer RJ. 1994. The Ancient Maya. Stanford University Press, Stanford,CA

Sjøvold T. 1977. Non-metrical Divergence Between Skeletal Populations: The

Theoretical Foundation and Biological Importance of C.A.B. Smith’s Mean

Measure of Divergence. Ossa 4 (supplement 1):1-133.

Sjøvold T. 1973. The occurrence of minor non-metrical variants in the skeleton and

their quantitative treatment for population comparison. Homo 24:204-233.

Skinner M. 2002. Enamel-Dentine Junction Morphology of Extant Hominoid and

Fossil Hominin Lower Molars. PhD. Dissertation. George Washington

University.

Smouse PE, Long JC, and RR. Sokal. 1986. Multiple regression and correlation

extensions of the Mantel test of matrix correspondence. Syst Zool 35:627–

632.

Smyth MP, and D. Rogart. 2004. A Teotihuácan presence at Chac II, Yucatán,

Mexico. Implications for early political economy of the Puuc region.

Ancient Mesoamerica 15:17-47.

Spence MW. 1996. A comparative analysis of ethnic enclaves. In: Arqueología

266
 Mesoamericana: Homenaje a William T. Sanders. Guadelupe Mastache M,

Parsons JR, Santley RS, and Serra Puche MC (eds). Mexico City: Instituto

Nacional de Antropologíe e Historía and Arqueología Mexicana. 333-353.

Spence MW. 1974a. Residential Practices and the Distribution of Skeletal Traits in

Teotihuácan, Mexico. Man 9:262-273.

Spence MW. 1974b. The Study of Residential Practices among Prehistoric Hunters and

Gathers. World Archaeology 5:346-357.

Spence, M.W. 1994 Human Skeletal Material from Teotihuácan. In Mortuary Practices

and Skeletal Remains from Teotihuácan, edited by M. L. Sempowski and M. W.

Spence, pp. 315-427. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Spence MW. 1996. A comparative analysis of ethnic enclaves. In: Arqueología

Mesoamericana: Homenaje a William T. Sanders. Guadelupe Mastache M,

Parsons JR, Santley RS, and Serra Puche MC (eds). Mexico City: Instituto

Nacional de Antropologíe e Historía and Arqueología Mexicana. 333-353.

Steadman DW. 1998. The Population Shuffle in the Central Illinois Valley: A

Diachronic Model of Mississippian Biocultural Interactions. World

Archaeology. 30(2):306-326.

Stojanowski CM. 2005 Comment on “Alternative Dental Measurements” by Hillson

et al. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 132:234-237

Stojanowski CM. 2004. Population History of Native Groups in Pre- and

Postcontact Spanish Florida: Aggregation, Gene Flow, and Genetic Drift on

267
 the Southeastern U.S. Atlantic Coast. American Journal of Physical

Anthropology 123:316-332.

Storey R. 1992. Life and Death in the Ancient City of Teotihuácan: A Modern

Paleodemographic Synthesis. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Kaminaljuyú

Stuart D. 2004 The Beginnings of the Copán Dynasty: A Review of the Hieroglyphic and

Historical Evidence. In Understanding Early Classic Copán, edited by E. E. Bell,

M. A. Canuto and R. J. Sharer, pp. 215-248. University of Pennsylvania Museum

of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia.

Stuart D. 2000. The Arrival of Strangers: Teotihuácan and Tollan in Classic Maya

History. In D. Carrasco, L. Jones, and S. Sesssions (eds): Mesoamerica’s

Classic Heritage: Teotihuácan to the Aztecs, pp. 465-513. University Press

of Colorado.

Stuart DS. 1993 Historical Inscriptions and the Maya Collapse. In Lowland Maya

Civilization in the Eighth Century A.D., edited by J. Sabloff and J. Henderson,

pp. 11-63. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington D.C.

Stuart DS. 1998 Una Guerra Entre Yaxchilan y Piedras Negras? In Proyecto

Arqueológico Piedras Negras: Informe Preliminar No. 2, Segunda Temporada,

1998, edited by H. Escobedo and S. D. Houston, pp. 389-392. Informe Entregado

al Instituto de Antropología e Historia de Guatemala, Guatemala City,

Guatemala.

Stuart DS. 1993 Historical Inscriptions and the Maya Collapse. In Lowland Maya
268
 Civilization in the Eight Century A.D., edited by J. A. Sabloff and J. S.

Henderson, pp. 321-354. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.

Suhler, C, T. Ardren, DA. Freidel and D. Johnstone 2004 The Rise and Fall of Terminal

Classic Yaxuna, Yucatán, Mexico. In The Terminal Classic in the Maya

Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, edited by A. A. Demarest,

P. M. Rice and D. S. Rice, pp. 450-484. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Templeton AR. 2006. Population Genetics and Microevolutionary Theory. John

Wiley and Son.

Thompson JES. 1970. Maya History and Religion. University of Oklahoma Press,

Norman, Oklahoma.

Thompson JES. 1966. The Rise and Fall of Maya Civilization. University of

Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.

Townsend GC, and T. Brown. 1978. Heritability of permanent tooth size.

American Journal of Physical Anthropology 49:497-504.

Townsend GC, and NG. Martin. 1992. Fitting genetic models to Carabelli trait data

in south Australian twins. Journal of Dental Research 71:403-409.

Townsend GC, Richards LC, Brown R, and VB. Burgess. 1988. Twin zygosity

determination on the basis of dental morphology. Journal of Forensic

Odonto-Stomatology 6:1-15.

Townsend GC, Richards LC, Brown T, Burgess VB, Travan GR, Robers JR. 1992.

Genetic Studies of Dental Morphology in South Australian Twins. In P.

Smith and E. Tchernov (eds): Structure, Function, and Evolution of Teeth,

269
 pp. 501-518. Freund Publishing House Ltd., London.

Tozzer AM. 1957. Chichén Itzá and its Cenote of Sacrifice: A Comparative Study

of Contemporaneous Maya and Toltec. Peabody Museum, Cambridge.

Tozzer AM. 1930. Maya and Toltec Figures at Chichén Itzá. International

Congress of Americanists, New York.

Turner CG. 1992. Microevolution of east Asian and European populations: a dental

perspective. In T. Akazawa , K. Aoki, and T Kimura (eds): The Evolution

and Dispersal of Modern Humans in Asia, pp. 415-438. Japan: Hokusen-sha

Publishing Company.

Turner CG. 1990. The major features of Sundadonty and Sinodonty including

suggestions about east Asian microevolution, population history, and late

Pleistocene relationships with Australian aboriginals. American Journal of

Physical Anthropology 75:305-321.

Turner CG. 1987. Late Pleistocene and Holocene population history of east Asia

based on dental variation. American Journal of Physical Anthropology

73:305-321.

Turner CG. 1986. The first Americans: dental evidence. National Geographic

Research 2:37-46.

Turner CG. 1976. Dental evidence for the origins of the Ainu and Japanese.

Science. 193:911-913.

Turner CG. 1969. Microevolutionary Interpretations from the Dentition. American

Journal of Physical Anthropology 30:421-426.

270
Turner CG, Nichol CR, and Scott GR. 1991. Scoring procedures for key

morphological traits of the permanent dentition: The Arizona State University

Dental Anthropology System. In MA. Kelley and CS. Larsen (eds):

Advances in Dental Anthropology, pp. 13-32. New York: Wiley-Liss, Inc.

van Reenan JF. 1982. The effects of attrition on tooth dimensions. In K. Björn (ed):

Teeth: Form, Function, and Evolution, pp. 182-203. New York: Columbia

University Press.

Valdés, JA. and F. Fahsen 2004 Disaster in Sight: The Terminal Classic at Tikal and

Uaxactún. In The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition,

and Transformation, edited by A. A. Demarest, P. M. Rice and D. S. Rice, pp.

140-161. University of Colorado Press, Boulder.

Valdés, JA, and LE. Wright, 2003 The Early Classic and Its Antecedents at Kaminaljuyú:

A Complex Society, with Complex Problems. In Understanding Early Classic

Copán, edited by EE. Bell, MA. Canuto, and RJ. Sharer, pp. 327–346. University

Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Vasquéz R. and Laporte JP. 2005. Los entierrros del Atlas Arqueológico de Guatemala:

Información Arqueológica de los entierros 1 A 249. In Reporte 19, Atlas

Arqueológico de Guatemala, 368-723. Instituto de Antropología e Historia,

Guatemala.

Vodanovic M, Demo Z, Njemirovskij V, Keros J, Brkic H. 2007. Odontometrics: a

useful method for sex determination in an archaeological skeletal

population? Journal of Archaeological Science. 34:905-913.

271
Webster D. 2000. The not so peaceful civilization: A review of Maya war. Journal

of World Prehistory 14(1):65-119.

White CD, MW. Spence FJ. Longstaffe and KR. Law. 2000. Testing the Nature of

Teotihuácan Imperialism at Kaminaljuyú Using Phosphate Oxygen-Isotope

Ratios. Journal of Anthropological Research 56:535-558.

White CD.1988. The Ancient Maya from Lamanai, Belize: Diet and Health Over 2000

Years. Canadian Review of Physical Anthropology 6(2):1-21.

White CD. 1997. Ancient Diet at Lamanai and Pacbitun: Implications for the Ecological

Model of Collapse. In Bones of the Maya: Studies of Ancient Skeletons, edited by

S. L. Whittington and D. M. Reed, pp. 171-180. Smithsonian Institution Press,

Washington, DC.

Williams-Blangero S, and J. Blangero. 1989. Anthropometric variation and the

genetic structure of the Jirels of Nepal. Human Biology 61:1-12.

Willey GR. 1990. Excavations at Seibal: General Summary and Conclusions. Peabody

Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Memoirs, Vol. 17, No. 4. Harvard

University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Willey GR. 1979. Prehistoric Settlement at Copán. In Maya Archaeology and

Ethnohistory, edited by N. Hammond, pp. 75-102. University of Texas Press,

Austin.

Willey GR. 1974. The Classic Maya Hiatus: A Rehearsal for the Collapse? In:

Mesoamerican Archaeology: New Approaches. Hammond N (ed.). Austin:

272
 University of Texas Press. 417-444.

Willey GR. 1973a. The Altar de Sacrificios Excavations: General Summary and

Conclusions. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology,

Harvard University Vol. 64, No. 3. Peabody Museum, Cambridge, MA.

Willey GR. 1973b. The Maya Collapse: A Summary View. In The Maya Collapse, edited

by T. P. Culbert, pp. 457-501. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Willey GR, WR Bullard, J Glass and J Gifford 1965 Prehistoric Maya Settlements in the

Belize Valley. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and

Ethnology, Vol. 54. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Willey GR. and AL Smith, 1969. The Ruins of Altar de Sacrificios, Department of Peten,

Guatemala: An Introduction. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and

Ethnology, Harvard University Vol. 62, No. 1. Peabody Museum, Harvard

University, Cambridge, MA.

Willey GR and DB Shimkin 1971 Why Did the Pre-Columbian Maya Civilization

Collapse? Science 173:656- 658.

Willey GR and DB Shimkin. 1973 The Maya Collapse: A Summary View. In The Classic

Maya Collapse, edited by T. P. Culbert, pp. 457-501, SAR and University of New

Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Wright S. 1943. Isolation by distance. Genetics 28:114-138.

Wright LE. 2005. Identifying Immigrants to Tikal, Guatemala: Defining Local

Variability in Strontium Isotope Ratios of Human Tooth Enamel. Journal of

Archaeological Science 32:555–566.

273
Wright LE. 2003 Aspectos biológicos de la identidad entre los antiguos mayas. In IV

Congreso Internacional de Mayistas, Memoria, 2 al 8 de agosto de 1998,

Antigua, Guatemala, edited by MH. RM.Ayala Falcon, AL Izquierda, MC. León

Cazares, T Perez Suarez, and MC.ValverdeValdés, pp. 33–44. Instituto de

Investigaciones Filológicas, Centro de Estudios Mayas, Universidad Autonoma

de Mexico, Mexico City.

Wright LE. 2004 Osteological Investigations of Ancient Maya Lives. In Continuities and

Change in Maya Archaeology, edited by Charles Golden and Greg Borgsted, pp.

201–215. Routledge, New York.

Wright LE. and Schwarcz, 1998. Stable Carbon and Oxygen Isotopes in Human Tooth

Enamel: Identifying Breastfeeding and Weaning in Prehistory. American Journal

of Physical Anthropology 106:1–18.

Wright LE, AK. Scherer, MA. Vásquez and WM. Valdizón. 2003 Proyecto

Osteológico Tikal: Informe Preliminar #2, Temporada de Laboratorio 2000.

Instituto de Antropología e Historía.

Wright LE, MA. Vásquez, MA. Morales and WM. Valdizón. 2000. Proyecto

Osteológico Tikal: Informe Preliminar #1, Temporada de Laboratorio 1998-9.

Instituto de Antropología e Historía.

Wrobel GD. 2003. Metric and Nonmetric Dental Variation Among the Ancient

Maya of Northern Belize. Ph.D. dissertation. Bloomington: University of

Indiana.

Zoubov AA, and BA. Nikiyuk. 1978. Prospects for the application of dental
274
morphology in twin type analysis. Journal of Human Evolution. 7:519-524.

275
 APPENDIX A

NONMETRIC DATA

276
 TABLE A-1. ALTAR DE SACRIFICIOS: NONMETRIC DATA
(UI1-shov through UM1 hypocone)

UI1 d- UP4- UM1-

UI1 sh UI1-td UI1 int g UI1 curv UI2 sh UI2-t.d. UI1 int-gr UC-dar UP3-par UP3-Amt UP4-par
sh amt hypo

5 1 1 1 1 6 2 1 5 1 0 0 0 5
. . . . . 6 . 1 5 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 0 . . 1 4 . . 3 . . . . 5
. . . . . . . . 3 . . . . .
2 5 1 0 0 2 2 1 4 . . . . 5
5 5 3 1 0 3 2 . . . . . . 5
277

. . . . . 2 4 1 . . . 1 . 4
. . . . . . . . 5 1 1 1 0 4
5 5 2 0 0 3 3 . 4 1 0 1 0 5
. . . . . . . . 4 1 0 1 0 5
4 3 3 0 1 5 3 1 . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 0 4 1 2 5 3 1 4 1 1 1 0 5
. . . . . . . . 4 1 0 . 0 5
3 4 3 1 0 4 3 1 4 1 1 1 0 5
5 4 2 0 0 5 3 1 3 1 0 1 0 5
. . . . . 5 3 . 4 . . . . 5
4 4 2 . 0 3 2 1 0 . . 1 . 5
2 1 1 . 1 2 3 1 3 . . . . 5
 Table A-1 continued
UI1 d- UP4- UM1-
UI1 sh UI1-td UI1 int g UI1 curv UI2 sh UI2-t.d. UI1 int-gr UC-dar UP3-par UP3-Amt UP4-par
sh amt hypo

3 4 . . 0 2 2 1 4 0 1 0 1 4
2 1 . 0 0 . . . . 1 0 . 0 5
. 0 2 0 1 2 2 1 . . . . . .
3 4 2 1 0 4 . . 4 . . . . 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 3 3 0 1 2 2 . 5 . . . . 5
4 4 3 0 0 5 3 0 4 1 0 1 0 5
4 4 0 1 0 5 0 1 3 . . . . 5
278

. . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 5
6 1 . 0 2 3 0 0 3 . . . . 5
2 4 2 0 0 4 4 . 2 1 1 1 1 4
. . . . . . . . 4 . . 1 1 5
5 3 3 1 1 6 4 . . . . . . 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 1 . . 0 . . . . . . . . 5
5 4 3 1 0 . . . 5 . . . . 5
2 4 0 0 0 2 0 1 5 1 1 . 0 5
2 5 2 . 0 4 2 1 . . . . . 5
. . . . . 3 2 0 . . . 1 0 5
5 6 1 0 0 4 . . 5 . . . . 5
5 4 1 0 0 4 2 0 5 1 0 1 0 5
4 4 1 0 0 4 1 1 . . . . . 5
3 3 2 0 1 2 2 2 3 . 0 . 0 5
 Table A-1 continued
UI1 d- UP4- UM1-
UI1 sh UI1-td UI1 int g UI1 curv UI2 sh UI2-t.d. UI1 int-gr UC-dar UP3-par UP3-Amt UP4-par
sh amt hypo

. . . . . . . . 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 1 . 1 5
. . . . . 1 1 0 3 . 0 0 0 5
4 2 3 . 0 2 . . 3 . . . . .
2 1 1 0 1 7 . . 3 . . . . 5
. . . . . . . . 3 0 0 1 0 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3 0 2 0 2 4 1 0 . . . . . .
3 4 3 0 0 . . . 3 . . . . .
279

. . . . . 4 4 1 . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 1 . . . .
3 1 1 0 1 2 2 1 4 1 1 1 0 5
 TABLE A-2. ALTAR DE SACRIFICIOS: NONMETRIC DATA
(UM1-cara through UM3 metacone)

UM1- UM1- UM1- UM2 UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM3-meta
MAT para meta -hypo c.5. MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT para

2 1 1 0 5 3 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 3
. . . . . 4 0 1 0 3 . . . . .
. . . . . 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 . . 5 4 0 . . 5 . . . . .
280

. . . . . 0 0 . . 5 . . . . .
1 0 1 . 5 3 0 . . 4 . . . . .
0 0 0 0 5 4 0 . . 4 . . . . .
0 3 1 0 5 5 . 1 0 5 . . . . .
4 3 2 0 4 3 0 0 2 5 . . . . .
4 1 0 0 5 3 0 1 0 4 . . . . .
4 1 1 0 5 4 0 1 0 5 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 0 1 0 5 4 0 0 0 5 . . . . .
0 0 . . 5 2 0 . 0 4 1 0 0 0 2
4 0 1 0 5 4 0 1 0 5 3 0 1 3 4
3 0 . 0 5 3 0 1 0 4 . . . . .
5 0 2 0 5 4 0 1 0 4 3 0 1 0 4
 Table A-2 continued
UM1- UM1- UM1- UM2 UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM3-meta
MAT para meta -hypo c.5. MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT para

. 1 1 0 4 . . . . . . . . . .
0 . . 0 5 4 0 . 0 4 3 0 . 0 4
0 0 1 0 5 3 0 1 0 5 3 0 0 0 4
0 . . 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 1
. . 1 . 4 4 . . . 5 3 0 . 0 2
. . . 3 5 4 . . . 5 2 0 0 2 3
. . . . . 4 0 . . 5 . . . . .
281

4 2 1 0 5 3 0 1 0 5 . . . . .
1 0 1 0 5 3 0 0 0 4 2 0 1 0 2
. . 1 0 5 4 0 . 0 4 1 0 0 . 4
5 2 . 0 5 5 0 . 0 5 . . . . .
6 0 1 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
6 2 1 0 4 2 2 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 4
0 2 1 . 5 3 0 . 0 4 0 0 . 0 .
3 3 . . 5 4 . . . 5 3 0 . . 4
. . . . . 4 0 1 0 4 3 0 0 0 4
0 0 . . 5 4 0 . . 5 . . . . .
0 2 . . 5 . . . . . . . . . .
5 0 . 0 5 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1
. . . . 4 5 . . . . . . . . .
4 1 1 0 4 3 0 1 0 5 . . . . .
4 0 . 0 5 . . . 0 5 3 0 . 0 5
2 5 1 0 4 4 3 1 0 4 . . . . .
 Table A-2 continued
UM1- UM1- UM1- UM2 UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM3-meta
MAT para meta -hypo c.5. MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT para

. . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . .
2 0 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 . 5
. . . . . 3 0 0 0 4 2 0 1 0 4
0 0 . . 5 4 0 0 0 5 3 3 0 0 3
2 1 1 0 5 2 0 1 0 5 3 0 0 5 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
282

. . . . 4 4 . . . 4 3 . . . 4
5 2 . 0 5 4 2 . 0 4 . . . . .
0 0 0 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 4 0 . 0 5 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 3 0 . 0 5 . . . . .
3 1 1 0 5 4 0 . . 5 . . . . .
 TABLE A-3. ALTAR DE SACRIFICIOS: NONMETRIC DATA
(L I-1 shov through LM1 distal trig cr.)

LC- LP3- LP4- LM1-

LI1-sh LI2-sh LM1-hypo LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-c.7 LM1-proto LM1-d.w. LM1-a.f.
DAR MLC MLC d.t.c

1 1 4 5 1 4 + 2 0 0 2 2 0
. . . . . 4 y 3 0 0 0 2 0
. . . 2 1 5 . . . . . . .
0 1 2 0 1 5 y . . . . 2 .
. . 2 2 0 5 y 0 0 1 2 3 .
. . 2 . . 5 y . . 0 . . .
283

1 1 . . . 5 . . . . . . .
2 2 1 1 0 5 y 0 1 0 3 3 0
1 1 4 4 1 4 . 4 2 0 2 2 0
2 2 3 3 1 4 y 2 1 0 3 3 0
. . . . . 5 y 0 1 1 3 2 0
. 1 . 0 2 . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 4 y . 0 0 3 2 0
1 1 2 3 0 5 y 0 1 1 3 2 0
2 . 2 3 3 5 y 0 . 0 3 . .
1 1 5 0 1 5 y 0 0 0 . . .
1 1 3 1 2 5 y 0 2 0 3 1 0
. . . 0 2 5 y 0 0 0 . . .
2 2 . 0 0 . . . . . . . .
1 1 0 0 1 5 y 0 0 0 3 . .
 Table A-3 continued
LC- LP3- LP4- LM1-
LI1-sh LI2-sh LM1-hypo LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-c.7 LM1-proto LM1-d.w. LM1-a.f.
DAR MLC MLC d.t.c

2 2 4 1 0 3 y 3 0 0 1 3 .
. . . 0 1 5 y . . . . 2 .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 2 3 3 2 4 y . . . 3 2 .
. . . 0 1 4 y 0 0 0 . . .
0 1 . . . 5 + 2 1 1 3 3 .
1 1 4 1 0 4 y 0 1 0 3 3 .
1 1 2 0 0 5 y . 0 0 3 . .
. . 3 2 2 5 y 3 0 3 3 3 .
284

. 1 2 0 . 5 y 0 1 0 2 1 0
1 1 1 1 1 4 y 2 1 0 3 2 .
. . . 1 0 5 y 0 0 0 3 3 .
. . 0 0 0 5 y . 2 0 . . .
1 2 3 0 0 5 y . . . . . .
. . . . . 5 y 0 0 0 . . .
1 1 3 3 2 . y . . . . . .
0 1 4 3 2 5 y 0 0 0 3 3 .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 2 0 . 0 y 0 0 0 3 2 0
. 2 3 3 0 4 y 0 0 2 2 2 0
3 3 4 4 2 5 y 0 0 0 3 3 0
. 1 . . . 2 y 0 0 0 . . .
2 2 2 1 0 5 y . 0 0 3 3 .
 TABLE A-3 continued
LC- LP3- LP4- LM1-
LI1-sh LI2-sh LM1-hypo LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-c.7 LM1-proto LM1-d.w. LM1-a.f.
DAR MLC MLC d.t.c

2 1 . 4 2 5 y 0 0 0 3 1 .
. . 1 2 1 5 y 0 0 0 3 2 .
1 1 2 0 0 4 y 0 0 0 3 3 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 2 . . . 5 . . . . . . .
. 1 3 0 0 4 y 3 0 0 3 1 0
. . . . 2 3 y 2 0 0 3 3 0
1 1 . 0 . 5 y . 0 0 . . .
2 . . 3 0 5 y 0 0 0 . . .
285

. 1 0 2 0 . . . . . . . .
2 1 . . . . . . . . . . .
1 1 4 0 2 4 y 0 0 0 3 4 .
 TABLE A-4. ALTAR DE SACRIFICIOS: NONMETRIC DATA
(L M-2 hypoconid through LM3 distal trig cr)

LM2- LM3-
LM2-hypo LM2-g.p. LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-c.7 LM3-dtc
proto proto

2 x 0 0 0 1 0 5 x . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 + 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . .
x 0 0 1 0 . . 3 . 0 0 4 .
3 + . . . . . . . . . . .
4 . . . . . . 0 x . . . .
286

0 x 0 0 . . . 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 x 1 0 0 3 0 2 x 0 0 0 0
4 + 0 0 0 1 0 5 x 0 0 0 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 + 0 0 1 1 0 . . . . . .
3 x . . . 2 . . . . . . .
4 x 0 0 0 1 0 5 x 2 1 0 0
4 x 0 0 0 1 0 0 x 0 0 0 0
5 x 0 0 1 . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 + 0 0 0 . . . . . . . .
3 + 2 0 0 1 . 3 x 0 0 0 .
4 + . . . . . 4 x . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 x 0 0 0 . . 0 x 0 0 0 0
 Table A-4 continued
LM2- LM3-
LM2-hypo LM2-g.p. LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-c.7 LM3-dtc
proto proto

4 x 3 0 . 0 3 . . . . . .
2 x 0 0 0 2 . 0 . 0 0 0 .
0 + 0 0 0 . . 4 x 0 0 0 .
5 x . . 0 1 . . . . . . .
2 x 1 0 . 3 0 . . . . . .
2 y 0 0 0 4 . . . . . . .
3 y . . 0 . . . . . . . .
4 + . 0 0 . . 4 . . . . .
4 + . 0 0 0 . . . . . . .
4 + 0 0 0 . . . . . . . .
3 + . 0 . 3 . 3 x . . . .
3 x 0 0 0 4 . 0 . 0 0 0 0
287

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 x 0 0 0 2 0 . . . . . .
3+ x . 0 0 . . . . . . . .
4 + 3 0 2 2 0 . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 + . 0 0 0 2 4 x 3 0 0 2
. + . 0 1 4 . . . . . . .
2 + 0 0 0 0 . 4 x 0 0 0 .
0 + 0 0 0 4 0 3 + 0 0 0 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 x 0 0 0 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 x 0 0 0 2 . 3 x 5 0 0 .
3 + . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
 Table A-4 continued
LM2- LM3-
LM2-hypo LM2-g.p. LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-c.7 LM3-dtc
proto proto

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
288
 TABLE A-5. CALAKMUL: NONMETRIC DATA
(UI-1 shov through UM1 hypocone)

UP3- UM1-
UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int g UI-1 curv UI-2 sh ui-1 int gr uc-dar UP3-par UP4-par UP4-amt
Amt hypo

5 5 3 0 0 4 0 . 5 . 1 1 .
3 4 1 0 0 . . . . . . . .
4 5 2 0 0 2 0 4 1 0 1 1 5
. . . . . . . 3 . . . . .
3 5 3 0 0 5 0 4 1 . 1 . 4
4 . . 0 1 3 0 . . . . 1 4
289

2 4 . 0 1 . . . . . 1 0 5
4 5 3 0 1 4 0 4 1 1 1 . 5
3 4 . 0 0 3 0 . . . . . .
3 5 2 0 0 3 0 4 1 1 1 1 4
5 5 2 0 0 4 0 . 1 1 . . .
. . . . . 3 0 5 1 1 1 1 4
5 5 4 0 0 4 0 3 . . . . .
5 0 . . . 6 . 5 1 . 1 1 5
4 3 3 1 1 5 1 5 1 1 1 . 5
6 4 2 0 . . . 3 1 1 1 1 5
. . . . . 3 0 . 1 1 . 1 5
. . . . . 3 . 3 1 1 1 1 5
3 4 . 0 0 . . 3 . . 1 . 5
 Table A-5 continued
UP3- UM1-
UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int g UI-1 curv UI-2 sh ui-1 int gr uc-dar UP3-par UP4-par UP4-amt
Amt hypo

. . . . . . . . . . . . 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 4 3 0 1 5 1 5 1 1 1 1 5
. . . . . . . . . . . 1 5
3 2 3 0 2 3 0 3 . 1 . . 5
4 5 . 1 1 5 0 4 . . 1 . 5
5 4 3 . 0 5 . . 1 0 . . .
4 4 . 0 1 5 0 3 1 1 . 1 5
4 4 4 0 0 4 1 4 . 1 . . 5
. . . . . . . . 0 1 . . .
290

6 4 2 0 0 . . 4 1 1 1 1 .
. . . . . 5 1 . . . . . .
5 3 3 0 . 4 0 3 1 0 . . 5
1 6 1 0 0 7 0 3 1 1 1 1 4
5 6 2 0 0 7 0 5 1 . . . 5
 TABLE A-6. CALAKMUL
(UM1-cara through UM3 metacone)

UM1- UM1- UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3 UM3-
UM1-cara UM2-c.5. UM2-para UM3-hypo
c.5 MAT para meta hypo MAT meta c.5. MAT -para meta

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 1 1 0 5 3 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 0 1 0 5 1 0 0 0 4 3 2 . 0 3
2 0 . 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
291

0 0 1 0 5 4 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
. 0 . . 4 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 1 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
0 0 1 0 4 . . . . . 3 0 0 0 3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 5 1 0 4 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 0 . 0 5 1 0 . 0 3 . . . . .
3 0 1 0 5 5 0 . 0 5 . . . . .
1 0 . 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
0 . . 0 5 3 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
0 3 0 0 4 4 0 1 0 5 . . . . .
0 . . 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
 Table A-6 continued
UM1- UM1- UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3 UM3-
UM1-cara UM2-c.5. UM2-para UM3-hypo
c.5 MAT para meta hypo MAT meta c.5. MAT -para meta

0 0 . 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 0 1 0 5 4 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
0 0 1 0 5 4 0 1 0 4 . . . 0 4
4 0 . 0 5 3 0 . 0 4 3 0 0 0 4
6 . 1 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 3 0 . 0 4 0 0 . 0 3
4 0 1 0 5 4 0 . 0 4 1 0 1 . 4
1 0 1 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
292

. . . . . 2 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . 2 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
2 0 1 0 5 1 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
0 1 . 0 5 2 0 0 0 5 . . . . .
6 0 . . 5 5 1 1 . 4 . . . . .
 TABLE A-7. CALAKMUL: NONMETRIC DATA
(LI-1 shov through LM2-g.p.)

LC- LP3- LP4- LM1- LM1- LM1- LM2-

LI1-sh LI2-sh LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-c.7 LM1-d.w. LM1-a.f. LM2-g.p.
DAR MLC MLC hypo proto d.t.c hypo

. . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 1 x
. . . . . 4 y 0 0 0 3 3 0 4 +
3 . 3 0 2 . . . . . . . . 4 +
2 2 2 0 . . . . . . . . . . .
. 1 3 0 0 . . . . . . . . 3 x
3 3 3 0 . . . . . . . . . 4 X
1 . 2 0 0 4 y 3 1a 0 3 4 0 3 +
293

3 3 4 3 2 . . . . . . . . . .
. 2 . 0 . . . . . . . . . 1 0
3 2 3 3 4 . . . . . . . . 1 +
. 3 . 4 3 4 Y 2 0 0 3 4 0 1 +
2 3 3 4 2 . . . . . . . . 2 X
3 3 4 3 3 5 Y 0 5 3 3 4 3 . .
2 2 . 3 5 . . . . . . . . 4 +
3 . 3 . . 5 y 0 0 1 3 3 1b 4 X
3 . 4 0 . . . . . . . . . . .
2 . 3 3 3 5 Y 0 0 3 3 4 . 4 +
. . . . . 4 y 0 0 0 3 4 0 . .
. . 3 0 0 . . . . . . . . . .
 Table A-7 continued
LC- LP3- LP4- LM1- LM1- LM1- LM2-
LI1-sh LI2-sh LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-c.7 LM1-d.w. LM1-a.f. LM2-g.p.
DAR MLC MLC hypo proto d.t.c hypo

. 3 . 0 0 . . . . . . . . 0 X
1 1 4 2 0 5 y 0 0 0 . 3 1a 3 +
3 3 3 2 2 4 y 0 0 0 2 4 1b 2 +
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 +
1 1 3 0 2 5 . . 0 0 . . . 3 +
3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 2 0 . . .
3 3 3 0 0 4 y 0 0 0 3 4 1 3 +
2 3 2 0 1 5 y 0 0 0 2 3 . 1 X
2 3 3 2 9 . . . . . . . . . .
. 2 1 0 0 4 y 3 0 0 2 3 0 . .
294

1 2 2 0 1 . . . . . . . . . X
. . . 3 2 . . . . . . . . . .
2 2 3 0 0 4 y . 0 0 2 3 0 4 +
1 1 1 0 1 5 . 0 0 0 1 3 0 5 X
3 3 4 4 9 5 y 0 4 0 3 3 0 0 X
 TABLE A-8. CALAKMUL: NONMETRIC DATA
(LM2-c.6. Through LM3 dist trig cr.)

LM2- LM3-
LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-c.7 LM3-proto LM3-a.f. LM3-dtc
proto hypo

0 0 3 2 0 . . . . . . .
0 0 0 1 0 0 + 0 0 0 2 0
0 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
0 0 2 1 0 . . . . . . .
0 . 0 . 0 4 . . . . . .
3 0 0 4 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
295

+ 0 0 . . . . . . . . .
0 0 3 1 0 . X 0 0 3 0 0
0 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
0 0 0 . 3 0 . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
3 0 0 . 0 4 X 3 0 3 3 0
0 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . 4 X 2 0 3 . 0
0 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
0 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
 Table A-8 continued
LM2- LM3-
LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-c.7 LM3-proto LM3-a.f. LM3-dtc
proto hypo

0 0 3 2 0 . . . . . . .
0 0 0 4 0 5 + 0 0 0 . 0
0 0 0 3 0 1 y 0 0 0 2 0
0 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
. 2 . 2 . 0 + 0 0 0 2 0
. . . . . . . . . . . .
0 0 0 3 0 3 X . 0 7+ 2 0
0 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
296

. . . . . . . . . . . .
2 0 0 4 0 . . . . . . .
0 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
0 0 0 1 0 . X . 0 . 2 0
 TABLE A-9: CALZADA MOPAN: NONMETRIC DATA
(UI-1 shov through UM1-hypocone)

UI-1 int UI-1 UP4- UM1-

UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. ui-1 int gr uc-dar UP3-par UP3-Amt UP4-par
g curv amt hypo

. . . . . . . . . . 1 . . 5
5 5 1 0 0 4 4 1 3 1 1 1 . 4
5 4 4 1 1 4 3 . 5 1 1 . . 4
4 3 2 0 0 . . . . . . . . 5
4 4 3 0 0 6 4 0 2 1 0 1 0 4
6 5 1 0 1 4 2 0 2 . . 1 1 .
297

5 5 2 0 0 . . . . . . . . 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6 2 2 0 1 6 1 0 3 1 1 . . 4
. . . . . 5 . 0 . . . . . 5
6 4 3 0 0 5 4 0 3 . 1 1 . 4
 TABLE A-10: CALZADA MOPAN: NONMETRIC DATA
(UM1-cara through UM3 metacone)

UM1- UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM2-c.5. UM2-MAT UM3-c.5.
MAT para meta hypo para meta hypo MAT para meta

0 . . 0 5 4 . . 0 4 0 0 . 0 1
3 0 1 0 4 3 0 1 0 5 . . . . .
0 0 1 0 5 3 5 0 0 3 . . . . .
4 1 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
3 5 1 0 4 2 3 1 0 3 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
298

2 . . 0 5 0 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 5 1 0 4 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 2
4 0 1 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
0 . 1 0 5 3 . . 0 5 . . . . .
 TABLE A-11. CALZADA MOPAN: NONMETRIC DATA
(Li1-sh through LM1 dist trig cr.)

LM1- LM1-
LI2-sh LC-DAR LP3-mlc LP4-mlc LM1-g.p. LM1-c.7 LM1-proto LM1-d.w. LM1-a.f. LM1-dtc
hypo c.6

. . . . . . . . . . . .
. 2 . 7 3 + 0 0 0 3 3 0
2 4 6 1 5 y 1 0 0 3 4 0
1 3 3 1 . . . . . . . .
. . 3 . 4 + 2 0 0 3 3 0
. 1 . . 4 x 2 1a 0 3 3 0
299

2 3 0 . 5 y . . 0 4 . 0
3 2 3 3 5 . 3 . 0 . . .
3 0 3 . 0 x 0 0 0 0 . 0
. . 0 1 5 y 0 0 0 2 2 0
1 1 5 2 4 y . 0 1 2 3 .
 TABLE A-12. CALZADA MOPAN: NONMETRIC DATA
(LM2-hypocone through LM3-dist trig cr.)

LM2- LM2- LM3-

LM2-hypo LM2-g.p. LM2-c.6. LM2-proto LM2-a.f. LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-c.7 LM3-proto LM3-dtc
c.7. dtc hypo

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 x 0 0 0 1 0 . . . . . .
1 + 0 0 0 4 0 . . . . . .
2 + 0 0 0 3 0 . . . . . .
0 x 0 0 0 2 0 . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
300

4 + 0 0 0 2 0 5 + 2 0 4 0
3 x . 0 0 . 0 . . . . . .
. . . . 0 1 . 1 x 0 0 0 0
0 + 0 0 0 . 0 . x . . . .
. x . 0 0 . 0 . . . . . .
 TABLE A-13: CHICHEN ITZA: NONMETRIC DATA
(UI-1 shov through UM1-hypocone)

UP3- UP4- UP4- UM1-

UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int g UI-1 curv UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. UI2-Int gr. uc-dar UP3-par
Amt par amt hypo

4 4 . 0 1 5 4 1 . . . . . .
6 5 4 0 4 . . . 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 3 1 0 . . 5
. . . . . . . . . 1 . . . 5
. . . 0 . 5 . 0 . . . . . .
5 1 3 0 4 6 3 1 . 1 1 1 0 4
3 1 3 0 2 5 2 0 . . . . . 4
301

3 . 1 0 0 3 0 1 4 1 1 1 . 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5 5 3 0 0 7 2 0 . . . 1 1 4
. . . . . . . . 3 1 1 1 0 4
. . . . . 6 2 0 2 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 Table A-13 continued
UP3- UP4- UP4- UM1-
UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int g UI-1 curv UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. UI2-Int gr. uc-dar UP3-par
Amt par amt hypo

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
302
 TABLE A-14. CHICHEN ITZA: NONMETRIC DATA
(UM1-carab through UM3-metacone)

UM1- UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM3-c.5. UM3-meta
MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta hypo MAT para

. . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . 3
. . . . . . . . . . 3 0 0 0 3
0 0 . 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
3 0 1 0 5 5 0 1 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 0 0 . 0 4
1 0 . 0 4 1 0 1 0 4 . . . . .
303

. 0 . 0 5 3 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
2 0 . 0 5 3 0 . 0 4 1 0 . 0 4
. 0 1 0 5 3 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
4 0 1 0 4 4 0 1 0 4 . . . . .
0 0 1 0 5 3 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 Table A-14 continued
UM1- UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM3-c.5. UM3-meta
MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta hypo MAT para

. . . . . . . . . . 0 0 1 2 1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
304
 TABLE A-15. CHICHEN ITZA: NONMETRIC DATA
(LI1-shov through LM2-hypoconulid)

LC- LM1- LM1- LM1-

LI1-sh LI2-sh LP3 LP4 LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-c.7 LM1-d.w. LM1-a.f. LM2-hypo
DAR hypo proto dtc

. . 2 4 . 4 . . . . . . . .
0 . . . 0 5 y . . 0 . . . .
. 1 1 0 . . . . . . . . . 4
. . . 3 . 5 y . . 0 . . 0 .
1 1 . 0 0 . . . . . . . . .
305

2 2 1 0 0 5 y . . 0 2 2 0 3
3 2 1 0 2 4 y . . 0 . . . 0
1 1 3 1 0 5 y 0 . 0 3 . 0 4
. . . 5 . . . . . . . . . 2
3 2 1 0 . 5 + 0 1a 0 0 3 0 5
3 3 3 0 0 5 + 0 0 0 0 3 0 5
. 3 . . . 5 y 0 0 0 2 3 0 .
. . . . . 4 y 0 0 0 2 3 . 2
. 3 4 0 . 4 . . . . . . . 3
. 1 2 2 0 5 y . 0 0 2 . 0 3
2 3 4 0 0 4 y 2 1a 0 2 3 1b 4
1 1 4 2 4 4 y . 1b 0 2 3 . 3
3 3 2 0 0 4 y 2 0 0 2 3 0 2
. 3 . 2 0 5 y . 0 0 3 3 0 .
 Table A-15 continued
LC- LM1- LM1- LM1-
LI1-sh LI2-sh LP3 LP4 LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-c.7 LM1-d.w. LM1-a.f. LM2-hypo
DAR hypo proto dtc

2 2 0 0 0 4 y . 0 0 3 3 0 4
. . . . 0 5 y 0 0 0 2 4 0 4
. . 3 0 0 5 y . 3 0 2 3 0 4
306
 TABLE A-16. CHICHCHEN ITZA: NONMETRIC DATA
(LM2-g.p. Through LM3-dist trig cr)

LM2- LM2- LM2- LM3-

LM2-g.p. LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-c.7 LM3-proto LM3-a.f.
c.6. c.7. proto dtc

x . . . . . . x . . . . .
. . . . . . 3 y 0 0 0 2 0
y 0 0 0 3 . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ . . 0 . 0 . . . . . . .
307

+ 0 0 0 2 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 0
+ 0 0 . 0 0 0 x 0 0 4 0 0
+ 0 0 0 3 0 0 x 0 0 0 1 0
x 0 . 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 . . 0 . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
+ . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 2 0 1 x 0 0 . . .
+ . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 2 0 . x . . 5 0 0
+ 0 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 4 x 5 0 0 4 0
 Table A-16 continued
LM2- LM2- LM2- LM3-
LM2-g.p. LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-c.7 LM3-proto LM3-a.f.
c.6. c.7. proto dtc

x 0 0 0 2 0 5 x 0 0 0 0 0
+ 2 0 0 4 0 5 x 0 0 0 1 0
+ 4 0 0 3 0 5 x 0 0 5 1 0
308
 TABLE A-17. COPAN: NONMETRIC DATA
(UI1-shov through UM1 hypocone)

UI1 UM1-
UI1 sh UI1 d-sh UI1 td UI1 int g UI2 shov UI2 int gr uc-dar UP3-par UP3-Amt UP4-par UP4-amt
curv hypo

. . . . . . . . . . . . 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 1 0 4 . . . . 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 0 0 . 4 . . 2 0 1 0 0 5
309

2 2 . . 0 2 . . . . . . 5
2 2 1 0 0 . . . . . . . .
4 0 0 1 2 . . 0 0 0 0 0 5
 TABLE A-18. COPAN: NONMETRIC DATA
(UM1 cara through UM3 metacone)

UM1- UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM2-meta
MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT para hypo c.5. MAT para meta

4 4 . 0 5 3 0 . 0 4 3 4 . 0 3
. . . . . 2 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 3 . 0 4 4 0 . 0 5 . . . . .
. . . . . 5 0 0 0 5 . . . . .
0 0 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4
310

0 . . . 5 2 . . . 4 2 . . . 3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 4 . 0 5 4 0 . 0 4 0 0 . 0 0
 TABLE A-19. COPAN: NONMETRIC DATA
(LI-1 shov through LM2-hypconulid)

LC- LM1- LM1- LM2-

LI1-sh LI2-sh LP3 LP4 LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-c.7 LM1-proto LM1-a.f. LM1-dtc
DAR hypo d.w. hypo

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 1 . . . . . . . . . .
2 . . . 2 3 y 2 0 0 2 1 0 2
. . . . . 4 . . . . . . . .
311

. . 1 . 2 4 y 0 0 1 . 0 . 2
. . . . . 4 . . 0 1 . . . 2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 3 2 4 0 5 y 0 0 0 . . . 5
 TABLE A-20. COPAN: NONMETRIC DATA
(LM2-g.p. through LM3 dist trig cr.)

LM2- LM3- LM3- LM3-

LM2-g.p. LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-c.7 LM3-a.f.
proto hypo proto dtc

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
312

+ 0 0 . . . . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 . . 4 x 3 0 0 . .
 TABLE A-21. SAN GERVASIO/PLAYA DEL CARMEN: NONMETRIC DATA
(UI-1-shov through UM1-hypocone)

UM1-
UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 curv UI-2 sh UI-1 int gr uc-dar UP3-par UP3-Amt UP4-par UP4-amt
hypo

. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 5 0 . . 1 . . 5
. . . . 2 . 3 1 0 1 0 3
313

. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 1 0 5 1 . 1 1 5
. . . . . . . 1 . 1 1 4
5 6 3 0 4 0 3 1 1 . . 5
. . . . . . . . . . . 4
. . . . . . . 1 . 1 . 5
3 4 1 2 4 0 3 . 1 . 1 4
5 5 2 1 5 . . . . . . 5
3 3 3 0 7 0 . . . . . 5
4 6 1 0 4 0 4 0 1 1 0 5
. . . . . . 3 1 . 1 . .
2 0 . 0 1 0 4 1 1 1 1 5
5 . . . 5 1 3 0 1 1 1 4
 Table A-21 continued
UM1-
UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 curv UI-2 sh UI-1 int gr uc-dar UP3-par UP3-Amt UP4-par UP4-amt
hypo

. . . . . . . . 1 1 1 5
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 6
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 5 . 1 1 . 5
. . . . 1 0 4 1 . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
314

. . . . . . . . . . . .
 TABLE A-22. SAN GERVASIO/PLAYA DEL CARMEN: NONMETRIC DATA
(UM1-cara through UM3 metacone)

UM1- UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM3-c.5.
MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta hypo MAT para meta

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
315

0 1 1 0 5 4 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 3
0 0 . 0 5 2 0 0 0 4 1 0 1 0 2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 1 1 0 5 3 0 1 0 5 3 0 0 0 4
1 . 1 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
4 0 1 0 4 4 0 1 2 4 . . . . .
2 0 . 0 4 4 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
1 0 . 0 4 4 0 . 0 4 3 3 1 0 3
1 0 . 0 5 1 0 . 0 5 . . . . .
3 0 1 0 4 . . . . . . . . . .
1 0 1 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .

5 0 1 0 5 4 0 1 0 5 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 Table A-22 continued
UM1- UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM3-c.5.
MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta hypo MAT para meta
2 2 . 0 5 4 0 . 0 4 1 0 0 0 4
2 0 1 0 5 3 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
3 1 1 0 5 4 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 1 1 0 4 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 . 1 0 5 4 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . 4 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
316

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 TABLE A-23. SAN GERVASIO/PLAYA DEL CARMEN: NONMETRIC DATA
(LI-1-shov through LM2 hypoconulid)

LC- LM1- LM1-

LI1-sh LI2-sh LP3 LP4 LM1-c.6 LM1-c.7 LM1-proto LM1-d.w. LM1-a.f. LM1-dtc LM2-hypo
DAR hypo g.p.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 2 3 0 2 4 + 0 0 0 3 3 0 4
. 2 . 0 2 3 + 2 0 0 2 3 1b 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 3 3 5 y 0 0 0 3 . . .
317

1 1 4 2 0 4 y 2 0 0 2 . 0 3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 4 0 5 + . 0 1 2 3 0 0
3 3 . 4 3 4 y 2 0 2 3 4 0 3
2 2 3 0 0 4 y 3 0 0 3 3 . 3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 4 0 0 4 y 3 0 0 2 3 0 3
2 2 . . . 5 y 0 0 5 3 4 0 4
. . 1 1 2 3 y 0 0 1 2 3 0 .
1 1 1 1 1 4 y 2 1a 0 3 3 1b 3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 . 0 7 2 5 y . 0 0 3 2 0 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 Table A-23 continued
LC- LM1- LM1-
LI1-sh LI2-sh LP3 LP4 LM1-c.6 LM1-c.7 LM1-proto LM1-d.w. LM1-a.f. LM1-dtc LM2-hypo
DAR hypo g.p.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 5 4 y 3 0 0 3 3 0 4
. . 3 3 2 5 y 2 0 0 3 3 0 4
. . 1 0 2 5 y 0 0 0 . . . 1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 1 3 4 2 5 y . 0 0 2 . 0 3
3 3 3 0 0 5 y . 0 0 3 4 1b 4
1 . . 6 4 4 y 0 0 0 2 2 0 0
318
 TABLE A-24. SAN GERVASIO/PLAYA DEL CARMEN: NONMETRIC DATA
(LM2-g.p. Through LM3-dist trig cr.)

LM2- LM2- LM3-

LM2-g.p. LM2-c.6. LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-c.7 LM3-a.f. LM3-dtc
c.7. proto proto

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x . 0 0 3 0 4 y 1 0 5 . .
x . 0 0 2 0 3 x 3 0 0 2 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 . 0 5 x 1 0 0 . .
319

+ . 0 0 3 0 4 x 2 0 0 2 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 3 0 4 x . 0 0 0 0
+ 2 0 1 4 0 . . . . . . .
+ . 0 0 3 . 3 x 2 0 0 . 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ 2 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
+ 3 0 . 3 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 1 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x . 0 0 4 0 1 + 0 0 . 3 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
 Table A-24 continued
LM2- LM2- LM3-
LM2-g.p. LM2-c.6. LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-c.7 LM3-a.f. LM3-dtc
c.7. proto proto

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 3 0 0 3 0 5 + 0 0 1 2 0
+ . 0 0 . 0 3 x . 0 0 1 0
+ 0 0 0 1 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 . 0 . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 3 1b . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 1 0 . . . . . . .
320
 TABLE A-25. CURUCUITZ: NONMETRIC DATA
(UI-1 shov through UM1-hypocone)

UI-1 ui-1 int UM1-

UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 int g UI-1 curv UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. uc-dar UP3-par UP3-Amt UP4-par UP4-amt
td gr hypo
5 5 3 0 0 7 3 0 4 1 1 1 . 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 3 1 0 0 2 2 0 . . . . . .
3 1 2 0 1 3 3 . . 1 1 1 1 .
4 3 . 0 0 3 2 0 3 1 1 . . 4
321

4 3 2 0 0 4 1 0 3 . 1 . 1 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 5 3 0 . 5 0 0 3 1 . . . .
5 3 . 0 0 4 . 0 3 1 . 1 . 5
 TABLE A-26. CURUCUITZ: NONMETRIC DATA
(UM1-cara through UM3 metacone)

UM1
UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 - UM2-c.5. UM2-para UM2-meta
para meta hypo MAT hypo c.5. MAT para meta
MAT
1 2 . 0 4 3 2 . 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . 3 0 . 0 5 . . . . .
. . . . . 4 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
322

0 . . 0 5 4 . . . 5 2 . . . 3
4 2 . 0 4 4 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 4 . . . 3 . . . . .
0 1 . 0 5 4 . . 0 5 0 0 1 0 3
 TABLE A-27. CURUCUITZ: NONMETRIC DATA
(LI-1 shov through LM2 hypoconulid)

LC- LM1- LM1- LM1- LM2-

LI1-sh LI2-sh LP3 LP4 LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-c.7 LM1-d.w. LM1-a.f.
DAR hypo proto dtc hypo
. 3 3 5 2 . . . . . . . . 4
. . . 4 0 3 . 2 . 0 2 . . 2
3 2 1 2 1 5 y 0 0 0 2 3 0 5
. . 3 . 2 4 y 2 0 0 3 3 1b 3
1 . 3 6 2 . . . . . . . . 3
. . 1 0 2 5 y . 0 0 2 . . .
323

. . 4 5 1 5 + 2 0 0 3 . 0 4
3 3 2 3 . 4 . . . . . . . 4
. . . 2 . 5 y 0 0 0 3 3 1b 4
 TABLE A-28. CURUCUITZ: NONMETRIC DATA
(LM2-g.p. through LM3-dist trig cr.)

LM2- LM3-
LM2-g.p. LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-c.7 LM3-a.f. LM3-dtc
proto proto
x 2 0 0 2 1a 4 x 3 0 4 . 0
+ . . 0 . . 3 x 0 0 . . .
+ 0 0 0 . 0 . . . . . . .
x 2 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
+ 3 0 0 . 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
324

x 3 0 0 . 0 . . . . . . .
. . . 0 . 0 . . . . . . .
+ 3 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
 TABLE A-29. DOS PILAS: NONMETRIC DATA
(UI-1 shov through UM1-hypcone)

UI-1 uc- UM1-

UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int g UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. ui-1 int gr UP3-par UP3-Amt UP4-par UP4-amt
curv dar hypo

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 2 . 1 . 3 3 1 . . . . . 5
. . . . . . . . . 1 . . . 5
5 3 . 0 0 . . . . 1 . 1 . .
325

6 3 . 0 0 2 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 5
6 5 . 0 0 4 4 0 4 . . . . .
5 . 3 0 0 4 . 0 3 . 1 . . 5
5 . . 0 1 5 3 0 3 1 . 1 . 4
5 4 . 0 0 4 4 0 . 1 . 1 1 .
3 . 3 . 0 4 . . . 1 . . . 5
4 4 2 0 1 7 2 0 4 1 1 1 1 5
5 . 3 0 1 4 2 1 4 1 . 1 . 4
5 5 . 0 0 5 4 1 4 1 1 . . 5
. . . . . . . . 4 1 1 1 1 5
3 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 . . 1 1 . 5
3 4 1 1 0 3 3 0 . 1 1 1 . 4
. . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 2 2 0 4 1 1 1 1 5
 Table A-29 continued
UI-1 uc- UM1-
UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int g UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. ui-1 int gr UP3-par UP3-Amt UP4-par UP4-amt
curv dar hypo

5 4 3 0 0 4 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 5
4 1 2 0 1 4 2 0 3 1 . 1 1 5
. . . . . 4 3 0 3 1 . 1 . 5
. . . . . . . . . 1 . 1 0 4
5 4 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 . . . . .
5 5 1 0 0 4 . 0 3 1 . . . 5
3 1 2 0 2 3 2 1 . . . . . 4
6 4 1 0 2 . . . 2 1 0 1 0 5
326

. . . 0 . . . . . . . 1 . .
. . . . . 5 . 0 . . 1 . . 5
3 3 2 0 1 2 . 0 3 . 1 1 1 4
 TABLE A-30. DOS PILAS: NONMETRIC DATA
(UM1-cara through UM3-metacone)

UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM1-para UM2-c.5.
MAT meta hypo MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 . . 0 5 4 0 1 0 4 4 . . 0 4
3 3 . 0 4 4 . . 0 4 3 . . 0 3
. . . . . 4 . 1 0 5 . . . . .
1 . . 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
327

1 2 . 0 5 4 . . 0 4 . . . . .
0 4 1 0 5 3 . . 0 4 0 . 0 0 2
. . . . . 4 . . 7 4 . . . . .
6 0 1 0 4 . . . . . 2 0 1 0 2
2 2 1 0 5 4 3 0 . 0 5 3 0 . 4
1 . 1 0 4 2 . . 0 5 . . . . .
3 2 1 0 5 2 0 1 0 4 3 0 0 0 3
5 . 1 0 4 4 . . 0 4 2 0 . 0 2
1 . 1 0 5 4 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
. 3 1 . 4 3 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 2
1 0 1 0 4 4 0 . 0 5 4 0 1 0 1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 3 1 0 4 3 0 0 0 4 1 . 0 0 3
2 2 1 0 4 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 2
 Table A-30 continued
UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM1-para UM2-c.5.
MAT meta hypo MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta

4 0 1 0 5 4 0 . 0 5 . . . . .
4 . . 0 5 4 . . 0 5 3 0 . 0 5
1 0 1 0 5 3 0 0 0 4 2 0 1 . 2
. . . . . 4 . . 0 5 3 . . 0 3
1 . . 0 5 4 . 0 4 1 . . . . .
. . . . 5 2 . . 0 4 0 . . . 0
2 1 1 0 5 3 0 1 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 . 1 0 4 5 . . 0 4 . . . . .
4 2 . 0 5 3 0 . 0 5 5 . 1 6 3
328
 TABLE A-31. DOS PILAS: NONMETRIC DATA
(LI-1 shov through LM2-hypoconulid)

LC- LM1- LM2-

LI1-sh LI2-sh LP3 LP4 LM1-hypo LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-c.7 LM1-proto LM1-d.w. LM1-dtc
DAR a.f. hypo

. 2 4 3 2 . . . . . . . . .
1 1 1 . 2 5 y . 0 0 2 . 0 .
3 3 . 0 0 4 y 2 1a 1 3 4 1b 3
. 2 3 0 . 5 y 1 1a 2 3 3 0 .
329

2 3 . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 2 3 . 1 4 y . 1a 0 2 3 1a 4
1 1 0 3 3 4 y 3 0 0 3 2 3
1 1 . 4 2 5 y . 0 0 3 2 1a 1
3 3 3 6 2 4 . 2 2 0 . . . 4
3 3 1 2 2 . . . . . . . . 3
. 2 1 4 1 5 + 0 0 0 0 3 . 1
. 2 2 1 1 5 y 1 0 0 3 3 1b 3
2 2 3 1 1 5 y 2 0 0 3 4 0 3
. 2 . 1 2 . . . . . . . . 3
. 2 . 5 1 5 y . 0 0 3 2 0 4
2 2 3 2 0 4 y 0 0 0 3 4 0 2
2 2 . 1 . . . . . . . . . .
. . 2 . 2 5 + 1 0 0 1 . 0 3
. 2 . 0 4 4 y 0 0 0 3 3 1a 3
 Table A-31 continued
LC- LM1- LM2-
LI1-sh LI2-sh LP3 LP4 LM1-hypo LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-c.7 LM1-proto LM1-d.w. LM1-dtc
DAR a.f. hypo

2 2 3 0 2 4 y 2 0 0 2 3 1b 0
1 2 1 2 2 5 y . 0 4 2 2 . 5
. . . . 2 . . . . . . . . .
1 1 1 1 5 5 y 1 0 0 2 3 1a 2
. 2 . 1 1 4 . . 0 0 2 . . .
3 3 3 0 0 5 . 0 0 0 . . . 4
2 2 2 1 1 5 y 0 0 0 2 . . .
2 2 1 0 . 4 + 2 0 0 3 4 0 4
330

1 1 2 . . . . . . . . . . .
. 2 . 0 2 5 y . 1a 0 3 2* 0 4
. 1 . 4 3 5 y . . 0 3 3* 0 .
 TABLE A-32. DOS PILAS: NONMETRIC DATA
(LM2 g.p. through LM3 dist trig cr.)

LM2- LM3- LM3- LM3-

LM2-g.p. LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-c.7 LM3-dtc
proto hypo proto a.f.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 4 x 3 0 0 2 0
x . 1a 0 2 0 2 x . 0 . . 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 2 x 5 0 0 1 0
331

x 2 0 0 . 1a 5 x . 1a . 0 0
. . . . . . 4 x 2 3 0 3 1a
x 0 0 0 1 . x . 0 0 . . 0
x 3 . 0 . 0 4 x 3 0 0 1 0
x 0 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
x . . 0 3 1 0 x 0 . 0 . 0
x . . 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
. 2 0 0 . 0 0 x 0 0 0 . 0
x . . 4 2 0 5 x 3 0 4 . 0
+ . 0 0 2 0 2 x 1 0 0 . 0
+ 0 0 0 2 1a 4 x 0 0 0 2 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 3 0 0 3 0 5 x 1 0 0 . 0
+ 2 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
 Table A-32 continued
LM2- LM3- LM3- LM3-
LM2-g.p. LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-c.7 LM3-dtc
proto hypo proto a.f.

x 0 0 0 3 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 0
x 0 0 6 . 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 1 0 0 2 0 5 x 0 0 5 2 0
. . . 0 . . 0 x 0 0 0 0 0
x 0 . 0 . 0 . . . . . . .
x . . . . . 3 x . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 . 3 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x . 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
332

. . . . . . 4 x 4 0 0 4 1b
 TABLE A-33. DZIBILCHALTUN: NONMETRIC DATA
(UI-1 shov through UM1-hypocone)

UI-1
UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int g UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. ui-1 int gr uc-dar UP3-par UP3-Amt UP4-par UP4-amt UM1-hypo
curv

5 5 3 0 1 6 5 0 . 1 . 1 . 5
3 4 1 . 2 2 3 . 3 . . . . 5
. . . . . . . . . 1 . . . 5
4 5 3 0 1 6 2 0 5 1 . 1 1 5
333

3 5 3 0 0 3 1 0 . 1 1 . . .
4 4 1 0 1 6 4 0 4 . . . . .
4 3 2 0 0 . . . 3 . 1 . . 5
. . . . . . . . 5 1 1 . . .
. . . . . 7 3 0 . . . . . 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 2 2 0 1 4 0 0 3 1 1 1 . 5
. . . . . 4 0 0 . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 5 1 0 3 0 1 . . 4
6 4 4 0 1 5 3 . 4 1 1 1 . 4
5 4 2 0 1 2 1 . 4 1 1 1 1 5
5 4 1 0 1 . . . 3 1 . 1 0 .
 TABLE A-34. DZIBILCHALTUN: NONMETRIC DATA
(UM1 cara through UM3 metacone)

UM1- UM1- UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3 UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM2-c.5. UM3-c.5.
MAT para meta e.e. hypo MAT para meta hypo MAT -para meta

5 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 0 1 0 4 . . . . . . . . . . .
334

6 0 . 0 4 . 2 0 0 0 3 . . . . .
1 0 1 0 5 1 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 3 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
2 0 1 0 5 1 3 0 1 . 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . 4 0 1 0 4 . . . . .
3 0 1 0 5 1 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 0 1 0 5 0 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 4 0 . 0 4 1 0 . 0 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 1 0 0 4 1 3 0 1 0 4 . . . . .
0 0 . 0 5 . 3 1 1 0 4 . . . . .
0 0 . 0 5 . 2 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 TABLE A-35. DZIBILCHALTUN: NONMETRIC DATA
(LI-1 shov through LM2 hypoconulid)

LC- LM1- LM2-

LI1-sh LI2-sh LP3 LP4 LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-c.7 LM1-proto LM1-d.w. LM1-a.f. LM1-dtc
DAR hypo hypo

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 2 . . . 4 y 0 0 0 3 4 0 .
. . . . 0 4 y 2* . 0 2 . . 3
3 2 4 2 0 5 y 0 . 0 2 3 . 4
. . 2 3 0 . . . . . . . . 0
335

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 3 2 0 0 5 y 0 0 0 2 3 0 0
. . 3 . . 4 y 0 0 0 2 2 0 3
3 2 2 0 . 5 y 0 0 0 2 4 0 .
. 2 0 . 2 5 y . 4 0 2 3 0 .
. . . . . 4 y . 0 0 . . 0 .
. . 1 . . 5 y . 0 0 2* . . 3
. 2 . . . 4 y 2 1a 0 3 4 1a .
1 1 2 0 0 5 y . 0 0 . . . 5
3 3 3 3 7 4 y 2 0 0 2 3 0 0
. 2 1 3 2 4 y . 0 0 . . . 2
 TABLE A-36. DZIBILCHALTUN: NONMETRIC DATA
(LM2 g.p through LM3 dist trig cr.)

LM2- LM2- LM3- LM3-

LM2-g.p. LM2-c.6. LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-c.7 LM3-a.f. LM3-dtc
c.7. proto hypo proto

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
X 2 . 0 . 0 0 X 0 . 0 0 0
+ 0 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
336

+ 0 0 0 3 0 5 X 0 0 5 4 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 2 0 4 x 0 0 5 4 0
+ 0 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 3 X . . . . 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 2 . 0 0 . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
X . 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 3 0 . x . . . . 0
X 0 0 0 3 0 4 X 0 0 1 3 0
 TABLE A-37. IX EK NONMETRIC DATA
(UI-1 shov through UM1 hypocone)

UP4- UP4- UM1-

UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int g UI-1 curv UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. ui-1 int gr uc-dar UP3-par UP3-Amt
par amt hypo

4 0 2 0 3 . . . . 1 1 . . 5
5 3 . 0 0 4 . 0 3 . 1 1 1 4
337

6 4 1 0 0 . . . 2 0 1 1 1 .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 . 4 0 . 3 . 0 2 . 1 1 1 5
 TABLE A-38. IX EK: NONMETRIC DATA
(UM1 cara through UM3 metacone)

UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM1-para UM2-c.5.
MAT meta hypo MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta

3 . . 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
2 1 1 0 5 3 0 . 0 5 0 0 . 0 4
338

. . . . . 1 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 . 3
. . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 3
0 . 1 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
 TABLE A-39. IX EK: NONMETRIC DATA
(LI-1 shov through LM2 hypoconulid)

LC- LM1- LM1- LM1-

LI1-sh LI2-sh LP3 LP4 LM1-hypo LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-c.7 LM1-d.w. LM2-hypo
DAR proto a.f. dtc

. . . 0 . 5 y 0 . 0 2 . . 5
2 3 3 0 0 5 + . 0 0 3 3 0 3
. . . 2 2 4 y 0 0 1 2 3 0 4
. . . 3 . 5 + 2 0 0 3 4 0 1
339

. . 1 3 2 . . . . . . . . .
 TABLE A-40. IX EK: NONMETRIC DATA
(LM2-g.p. though LM3 dist trig cr.)

LM2- LM2- LM2- LM2- LM2- LM2- LM3- LM3- LM3-

LM3-c.6. LM3-c.7 LM3-a.f. LM3-dtc
g.p. c.6. c.7. proto a.f. dtc hypo g.p. proto

+ . . 4 . . . . . . . . .
x . 0 0 2 1b 4 x . 0 0 2 1b
x 0 0 0 . 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0
340

+ 0 0 0 3 0 0 + 0 0 0 . 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
 TABLE A-41. IXKUN: NONMETRIC DATA
(UI-1 shov through UM1 hypocone)

UI-1 d- UI-1 UI-1 UI-1 ui-1 int UP3- UP3- UM1-

UI-1 sh UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. uc-dar UP4-par UP4-amt
sh td int g curv gr par Amt hypo

. . . . . 4 1 1 5 1 0 . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
341

6 . 2 0 . . . . . 1 1 1 1 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
 TABLE A-42. IXKUN: NONMETRIC DATA
(UM1 cara through UM3 metacone)

UM1- UM1- UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3 UM3-
UM1-c.5
cara MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT -para meta

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 3 . . . 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
342

0 0 1 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
 TABLE A-43. IXKUN: NONMETRIC DATA
(LI-1 shov through LM2 hypconulid)

LC- LM1- LM1- LM1- LM1- LM1- LM1- LM1 LM1- LM2-
LI1-sh LI2-sh LP3 LP4
DAR hypo g.p. c.6 c.7 proto d.w. -a.f. dtc hypo

3 3 3 1 1 4 y . 0 0 3 3 0 5
. . 2 . 0 . . . . . . . . .
343

2 . . 0 1 3 y 3 0 0 2 3 0 .
. . . . 2 5 y 0 0 0 0 3 0 .
 TABLE A-44. IXKUN: NONMETRIC DATA
(LM2 g.p. through LM3 dist trig cr.)

LM2- LM2- LM2- LM3- LM3- LM3- LM3- LM3-

LM2-g.p. LM2-c.6. LM2-a.f. LM3-proto LM3-dtc
c.7. proto dtc hypo g.p. c.6. c.7 a.f.

+ 4 0 0 4 0 3 . 5 . 0 2 .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
344

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
 TABLE A-45. IXTONTON: NONMETRIC DATA
(UI-1 shov through UM1 hypocone)

UI-1 UI-1 UI-1 UI-2 UI1-int UP3- UP3- UM1-

UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI2 d.s. uc-dar UP4-par UP4-amt
td int g curv sh gr par Amt hypo

5 4 4 0 2 2 4 1 4 1 1 1 1 5
. . . . . 6 . 0 . . . . . 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 . 3 0 0 2 . 0 3 1 1 . . 5
3 2 . 0 0 . . . . . . . . 5
345

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
. . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 5
3 . 4 1 1 . . . 3 . 1 1 1 5
5 5 1 0 . 5 4 1 4 1 . . . 5
3 3 3 0 0 3 3 0 4 1 . 1 . 4
. . . . . . . . 2 . . 1 . .
6 . . 0 . 5 . 0 . . . 1 . 4
. . . . . . . . . . 1 . . 4
. . . . . 4 . 0 4 1 1 1 0 5
5 4 0 0 . 3 . 1 4 . 1 . . 5
3 5 . 0 0 3 3 0 3 1 . 1 . .
4 6 3 0 0 . . . 4 1 . . . 4
 Table A-45 continued
4 4 3 0 1 4 3 0 . . 1 . . 5
. . . . . 6 2 0 4 . . . . .
5 0 1 0 2 5 1 0 3 . . . . 5
4 5 2 0 0 5 3 1 . 1 . . . .
. . . . . 4 3 0 3 . . . . .
. . . . . 4 . 1 . . . . . .
4 . . 0 . 5 . 1 4 . . . . 4
3 4 . 0 0 . . . 3 . . . . .
5 1 2 1 1 5 2 0 3 . 1 . 1 5
4 3 3 0 0 2 2 0 . . . 1 1 5
346

6 6 4 0 0 . . . 4 1 1 . 1 5
5 . 1 1 0 5 3 0 3 . . . . 5
 TABLE A-46. IXTONTON: NONMETRIC DATA
(UM1 cara through UM3-metacone)

UM1- UM1- UM1- UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3
cara c.5 MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT para -meta

0 0 . 0 4 4 0 . 0 4 2 0 . 3 .
0 . . 0 4 . . . . . 3 0 0 0 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 0 1 0 5 2 0 0 0 5 . . . . .
347

1 0 . 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
0 0 . 0 4 2 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
3 0 1 0 5 3 0 0 0 4 4 . 0 0 4
4 3 1 0 4 3 0 . 0 4 1 0 0 0 2
1 . . 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
1 0 . 0 4 2 . . 0 4 0 0 . 0 3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 0 . 0 5 3 . . 0 5 0 0 . 0 2
0 0 . 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
0 2 1 0 5 3 . . 0 5 . . . . .
. . . 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 3 . . 0 4 3 . 0 0 3
 Table A-46 continued
4 . 1 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 4 4 0 . 0 5 1 0 . 0 3
. . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 . . . 5 . . . . . 1 . . . 3
. . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . 3
5 . . 0 5 4 0 . 0 4 1 . . 0 4
0 1 . 0 5 3 0 . 0 4 4 0 0 0 2
348

2 . . 0 5 4 . . 0 5 . . . . .
. 0 . . 4 4 . . 0 5 4 0 . 0 3
 TABLE A-47. IXTONTON: NONMETRIC DATA
(LI-1 shov through LM2 hypoconulid)

LC- LM1- LM1- LM1- LM1- LM1- LM1- LM1- LM1- LM2-
LI1-sh LI2-sh LP3 LP4
DAR hypo g.p. c.6 c.7 proto d.w. a.f. dtc hypo

2 2 2 5 1 3 y 4 0 0 3 3 0 3
. . 2 2 . . . . . . . . . .
3 3 3 2 . 4 x 2 . 0 3 3 0 .
349

. 2 1 3 . 4 y . 0 0 3 3 0 .
. . 4 4 3 4 y . 0 0 0 . . .
. . . . . 4 y 2 2 0 3 2 1a .
. . 2 1 1 5 y 0 0 0 3 3 0 4
. . 3 6 2 5 y . 0 0 0 2 0 4
3 . 3 . 4 5 y . 0 0 3 . . 4
. . 3 3 2 4 x . 0 0 3 3 . .
. 2 2 . 3 . . . . . . . . .
3 . . 3 2 5 y 0 0 0 . . 0 .
. . 1 2 . . . . . . . . . 3
2 2 3 3 1 4 y 3 0 0 3 2 0 4
. . 4 0 2 . . . . . . . . 2
. 2 2 2 1 . . . . . . . . 3
 Table A-47 continued
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 2 2 4 8 4 . . . 0 . . . .
3 3 . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 . . 5 . 4 . . 0 . . . . .
. 3 0 . . 4 y . 0 0 . . . 3
. . . . 2 4 + . . . 2 . . 2
. . 0 3 . . . . . . . . . .
. . 2 3 2 4 . . . 0 . . . .
2 . 2 . . 4 y . 0 . . . 0 .
350

1 1 3 1 1 4 x 2 0 0 2 . . 4
1 2 1 0 . 3 y 2 0 0 3 3 0 3
3 3 2 3 2 . . . . . . . . .
. . 1 1 0 4 y 3 2 . . . 0 3
 TABLE A-48. IXTONTON: NONMETRIC DATA
(LM2 g.p. through LM3 dist trig cr.)

LM2- LM2- LM2- LM2- LM3- LM3- LM3- LM3-

LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-c.7 LM3-a.f. LM3-dtc
g.p. c.6. c.7. proto hypo g.p. c.6. proto

y 0 0 0 3 1a . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
35`

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ . 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
+ . 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 3 0 0 x 0 0 1 0 0
+ . 0 0 2 0 3 x . 0 0 1 0
+ . 0 0 . 0 5 x 0 0 . 1 0
x . 1 0 3 0 0 x 0 0 1 0 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 2 0 3 x 0 0 0 0 0
+ . 0 0 . . . . . . . . .
x 2 0 0 2 0 5 x . 0 3 0 0
+ . 0 0 . . 0 . . . . . .
+ . 0 0 2 0 . x . 0 0 1 0
 Table A-48 continued
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 3 . . . . 0 .
x . 0 0 . 0 0 x 0 0 3 0 0
+ . . . . 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 4 . . . 0 . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 1 0 2 . 0 . . . . . . .
x 2 0 0 . 0 3 x 0 0 0 1 0
352

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x . . 0 1 0 4 x 2 . 3 . 0
 TABLE A-49. KAMI.LJUYU: NONMETRIC DATA
(UI-1 shov through UM1 hypocone)

UP4- UP4-
UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int g UI-1 curv UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. ui-1 int gr uc-dar UP3-par UP3-Amt UM1-hypo
par amt

2 3 . . 0 3 . . . 1 0 1 0 .
5 2 2 . 1 . . . . 1 0 . . .
. . . . . . . . . 1 0 0 0 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . 0 4
353

4 6 3 0 0 . . . 5 1 1 1 1 5
. . . . . 2 0 . . 1 1 . . 2
. . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 4
5 6 1 0 0 7 0 0 5 1 0 1 0 5
4 2 4 1 0 3 . 0 5 0 0 0 1 4
6 4 1 1 0 4 . . 2 1 1 1 0 5
6 4 3 0 0 5 . . 4 1 . 0 . 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6 0 1 0 1 . . . . 1 . . . 5
. . . . . . . . 3 1 1 0 1 5
. . . . . 4 . . 3 0 0 0 0 4
. . . . . . . . 4 . . . . 5
4 2 3 . 2 . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 5 . . . . 5
 Table A-49 continued
UP4- UP4-
UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int g UI-1 curv UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. ui-1 int gr uc-dar UP3-par UP3-Amt UM1-hypo
par amt

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3 0 4 0 . 3 1 0 4 . 1 . . 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 4 1 0 0 7 0 0 . . . . . .
354
 TABLE A-50. KAMI.LJUYU: NONMETRIC DATA
(UM1 cara through UM3 metacone)

UM1- UM1- UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-c.5 UM3-c.5.
cara MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta hypo MAT para meta

. . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 0 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 5 . . . . .
. . . . 4 4 . . . 4 0 0 . 0 0
4 0 0 1 5 4 4 0 0 4 . . . . .
0 0 0 0 4 . . . . . . . . . .
0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
5 0 1 1 5 3 0 0 5 4 2 0 1 0 4
3 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
. 0 . 0 5 3 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
4 0 3 0 4 3 0 1 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . .
4 2 1 . 5 1 0 1 0 4 . . . . .
4 1 1 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
0 0 1 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
1 . . 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 3 0 . 0 4 3 0 . 0 3
222

. . . . 5 4 . . . 5 0 0 0 4 1
. . . . 5 4 0 . . 5 0 0 0 0 3
 Table A-50 continued
UM1- UM1- UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-c.5 UM3-c.5.
cara MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta hypo MAT para meta

0 0 . 0 4 1 0 . 0 4 3 0 0 0 3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
222
 TABLE A-51. KAMI.LJUYU: NONMETRIC DATA
(LI-1 shov through LM2 hypconulid)

LC- LM1- LM1- LM1- LM1- LM1- LM1- LM1- LM2-

LI1-sh LI2-sh LP3 LP4 LM1-dtc
DAR hypo g.p. c.6 c.7 proto d.w. a.f. hypo

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 1 1 . . . . . . . . .
1 1 1 3 5 . . . . . . . . .
1 1 . 0 0 5 y . . 1 . . . 4
358

1 1 2 2 2 2 4 y 2 0 1 2 4 2
0 1 2 1 . 4 x 0 0 0 1 3 0 0
. . 1 3 3 3 y 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
. . 3 3 2 3 y 2 0 2 3 3 1b x
2 3 3 0 1 5 + 2 0 1 0 0 0 +
. . 2 1 . . . . . . . . . .
2 2 . 1 . 3 y 2 0 0 0 1 0 .
. . . 0 1 . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 0 2 + 0 0 0 0 3 0 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 2 1 3 . . . . . . . . . .
. . 3 1 . 5 y . 0 0 . . 0 3
 Table A-51 continued
2 3 2 0 . . . . . . . . . .
. 1 4 0 . 5 y . . . . . . 4
. 2 . . . 4 y . . . . . . .
. . 3 1 0 4 + 0 2 0 3 3 0 4
2 3 2 3 0 . y . . 0 1 . . 5
2 2 0 0 1 5 y 0 0 0 . . 0 2
358
 TABLE A-52. KAMI.LJUYU: NONMETRIC DATA
(LM2 g.p. through LM3 dist trig cr.)

LM3- LM3- LM3-

LM2-g.p. LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-proto LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-c.7
proto a.f. dtc

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 0 . . . . . .
+ . 0 0 0 3 . . . . . . .
359

+ 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 1 1 0 4 y 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 1 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
3 0 1 0 1 0 4 y 0 0 0 0 0
. . . . . . 4 y 3 0 0 0 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 0 1 0 . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
y 0 0 0 3 0 2 y 0 0 5 2 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ . . 0 . 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
 Table A-52 continued
LM3- LM3- LM3-
LM2-g.p. LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-proto LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-c.7
proto a.f. dtc

+ 0 0 0 3 0 3 x 0 0 0 3 0
+ . . 0 3 0 . x . . 4 . 0
+ 0 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
360
 TABLE A-53. PIEDRAS NEGRAS: NONMETRIC DATA
(UI-1 shov through UM1 hypocone)

UI-1
UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int g UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. ui-1 int gr uc-dar UP3-par UP3-Amt UP4-par UP4-amt UM1-hypo
curv

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5 4 . 0 0 7 0 0 5 . 1 1 . 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
362

4 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6 5 2 0 2 5 5 0 2 1 1 1 1 5
. . . . . . . . 4 . 1 . . .
. 4 . 0 . 5 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 .
4 4 1 0 0 . . . 0 . . . . .
5 5 1 0 0 4 3 0 4 0 1 0 1 5
4 5 2 0 0 6 4 1 . 1 1 . 1 5
5 . . 0 0 . . . . . 1 . 1 4
5 . 1 1 . . . . 4 . . . . 5
5 4 3 0 0 4 0 0 3 . . 1 . 5
5 3 3 0 0 . . . . . . 1 . 5
2 5 . 0 0 2 3 0 2 . . . . 5
4 4 1 0 2 5 4 1 3 1 1 1 . 4
5 4 3 0 . 1 1 0 1 . . . . 5
6 4 2 0 0 . . . . . . . . 4
 Table A-53 continued
UI-1
UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int g UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. ui-1 int gr uc-dar UP3-par UP3-Amt UP4-par UP4-amt UM1-hypo
curv

4 4 3 1 0 . . . . . . 1 0 4
. . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 5
4 4 2 0 0 7 0 0 . 1 1 1 0 5
5 3 2 0 1 . . . 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 3 0 1 . . 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 4 3 0 1 4 4 1 3 1 1 1 0 5
4 3 . 0 . 4 . 0 4 . . 1 . 4
. . . . . . . . . . 1 1 . 4
362

. . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 4
5 5 3 0 1 4 . 1 5 . . . . 4
. . . . . 7 0 0 3 1 . 1 . .
6 4 2 0 0 5 3 0 3 1 0 1 0 .
4 5 3 0 0 . . . . . . . . .
3 3 . 0 . . . . 2 1 0 1 0 4
5 3 3 0 0 5 1 . 3 0 1 . . 5
4 5 2 0 0 5 0 1 3 1 0 1 0 4
4 5 0 0 1 5 4 1 3 1 1 1 1 4
4 3 2 0 0 4 3 0 1 1 1 . . .
6 4 1 0 1 5 3 1 3 . . . . 4
5 5 . 0 0 5 3 1 4 0 1 . . 5
5 5 3 0 0 5 0 0 5 1 1 1 . 5
 Table A-53 continued
UI-1
UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int g UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. ui-1 int gr uc-dar UP3-par UP3-Amt UP4-par UP4-amt UM1-hypo
curv

2 2 . 0 1 1 3 0 . 1 . . . 5
. . . . . . . . 3 1 1 . . 4
5 5 . 0 . . . . 4 . . . . 5
3 3 . 0 0 5 3 0 3 . . . . 4
. . . . . 5 2 0 4 . 1 1 . 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3 0 1 0 1 4 0 0 . 0 1 1 0 .
3 0 1 1 0 2 3 1 1 1 0 . . 4
5 5 . 0 0 4 4 0 . . . . . .
363

6 3 2 0 2 4 4 0 4 1 0 1 0 4
4 5 3 0 0 3 . 0 3 1 1 1 . 5
3 2 . 0 1 3 2 0 3 . . . . 4
5 . 2 0 . 5 . 0 . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 5 . 1 . . . . . .
2 5 1 0 0 2 4 0 . . . . . 4
3 4 3 0 0 . . . 3 . 1 1 1 .
3 3 . 0 1 4 . 1 4 . 1 . 1 4
. . . . . . . . 3 1 1 . . 5
4 1 3 1 1 4 1 0 3 . . 1 1 4
. . . . . . 0 0 . . . . . 5
. . . . . 3 2 . . . . . . 5
5 . . 0 . 5 . 1 . . . . . 5
 Table A-53 continued
UI-1
UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int g UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. ui-1 int gr uc-dar UP3-par UP3-Amt UP4-par UP4-amt UM1-hypo
curv

4 3 3 1 2 5 2 . 3 . . . . .
0 . . . . 7 . 0 . . . . . 4
5 4 2 0 0 . . . . . 1 . . 4
. . . . . 5 2 0 4 . 1 . . 4
. . . . . . . . 3 . . . . .
3 4 3 0 0 3 2 0 3 1 1 1 1 4
364
 TABLE A-54. PIEDRAS NEGRAS: NONMETRIC DATATABLE
(UM1 cara through UM3 metacone)

UM1- UM1- UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2 UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-c.5 UM2-c.5. UM3-c.5.
cara MAT para meta hypo MAT para -meta hypo MAT para meta

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 0 . 0 5 3 0 0 0 5 . . . . .
2 3 1 0 5 4 0 . 0 5 . . . . .
. . . . . 3 0 . . 4 . . . . .
. . . . . 1 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
4 2 1 0 5 4 0 1 0 4 3 0 0 0 4
365

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 4 0 . 0 5 3 0 0 1 4
0 . 1 0 5 3 0 1 0 4 . . . . .
2 0 . 0 4 1 0 . 0 4 0 0 0 0 2
2 0 . 0 5 1 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 3
. . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . .
4 0 1 0 5 4 0 . . 5 . . . . .
6 0 . 2 5 3 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
1 0 . . 4 3 0 . 0 5 3 0 0 0 4
0 1 . 0 5 2 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
0 0 . 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
0 0 . . 5 . . . . . . . . . .
 UM1- UM1- UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2 UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-c.5 UM2-c.5. UM3-c.5.
cara MAT para meta hypo MAT para -meta hypo MAT para meta

1 0 1 0 4 4 . 1 0 4 . . . . .
4 0 1 0 5 2 0 0 0 4 3 0 1 0 3
4 0 . 0 4 4 0 . 0 5 0 0 0 0 3
. . . . . 2 0 . 0 5 . . . . .
0 0 . 0 5 2 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . 4 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6 4 1 1 4 4 0 1 0 4 . . . . .
1 0 . 0 4 2 0 . 0 5 1 0 0 0 4
1 . . 0 5 2 . . 0 4 . . . . .
366

2 . . 0 5 3 . . 0 4 1 0 . 0 3
. . . 0 5 4 . . 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . 4 0 . 0 4 0 0 0 0 3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . .
2 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 2 3
2 0 1 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
0 2 1 0 5 2 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
2 1 1 0 5 2 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . 4 . . 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . .
2 . 1 0 5 4 . . 0 4 . . . . .
4 0 . 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
 Table A-54 continueed
UM1- UM1- UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2 UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-c.5 UM2-c.5. UM3-c.5.
cara MAT para meta hypo MAT para -meta hypo MAT para meta

. . . 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . .
4 . . . 5 . . . 0 4 . . . . 3
3 . . 0 5 4 0 . 0 5 1 0 0 0 5
2 2 . . 5 . . . . . . . . . .
3 . 1 0 5 4 . . 0 5 . . . . .
. . . . . 4 0 0 0 5 . . . . .
1 0 1 0 4 . . . . . 2 0 1 0 2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 0 1 0 5 2 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
1 0 . 0 5 1 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
367

0 0 . 0 5 4 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 3 1 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 4 . . 2 5 . . . . .
2 2 1 0 5 4 . . 0 5 . . . . .
4 0 . 0 5 3 0 . 0 5 3 0 1 0 4
2 0 . 0 5 2 . . 0 4 2 . . 0 3
. . . 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
6 . 1 0 5 3 0 . 0 4 5 0 . 0 2
. . . . 4 3 . . . 3 . . . . .
 Table A-54 continueed
UM1- UM1- UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2 UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-c.5 UM2-c.5. UM3-c.5.
cara MAT para meta hypo MAT para -meta hypo MAT para meta

. . . . . . . . 0 4 . . . . .
0 0 . 0 4 . . . . . . . . . .
3 . . 0 5 3 . . 0 4 . . . . .
2 0 . 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 3 . 0 4 3 0 1 0 5 . . . . .
368
 A-55. PIEDRAS NEGRAS: NONMETRIC DATATABLE
(LI-1 shov through LM2 hypconulid)

LM1- LM1- LM1- LM1- LM2-

LI1-sh LI2-sh LC-DAR LP3 LP4 LM1-hypo LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-c.7
proto d.w. a.f. dtc hypo

. . . . . 5 y 0 0 0 1 4 0 3
. . . 0 0 4 y 2 0 0 3 2 1 .
3 3 3 0 0 5 y 0 0 0 3 2 0 3
. . . . 2 5 y . 0 0 2 2 0 .
369

2 2 2 4 2 . . . . . . . . .
3 3 2 0 2 5 y 0 0 0 3 4 0 4
2 2 4 0 0 4 . . 0 0 2 3 . 0
. 1 . 5 2 4 . . . . . . . .
3 2 . 5 1 3 + 0 4 0 0 . 0 1
. 2 1 6 7 5 y 2 1a 0 2 3 1a 4
1 2 2 0 . 5 y . 0 0 3 3 . 0
1 1 3 0 0 4 + 0 0 0 . . 0 2
. 2 2 5 0 . . . . . . . . .
. 3 . . 4 5 + 0 0 0 3 3 0 4
. 1 2 2 2 4 y 2 0 2 3 3 0 0
. 1 0 5 2 5 y 0 0 0 2 . 0 0
1 2 1 0 1 5 y 0 0 0 2 . 0 5
. . 0 2 1 5 y 0 0 0 2 3 1a 1
. . . . . 4 . . . 0 . 2 0 .
 Table A-55 continued
LM1- LM1- LM1- LM1- LM2-
LI1-sh LI2-sh LC-DAR LP3 LP4 LM1-hypo LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-c.7
proto d.w. a.f. dtc hypo

2 . . . . 4 y 1 0 0 3 3 0 3
. 2 0 0 . 5 y 0 0 0 2 3 0 3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
3 3 . 3 2 5 y . 0 0 3 3 0 4
2 2 1 0 0 4 y . . 0 . . . 1
. 3 2 . 0 5 y . 0 0 2 . . 3
2 . 1 5 7 4 y . 0 1 . 3 0 3
370

3 3 3 . . 5 y 0 1a 0 3 3 0 .
2 2 . 1 0 4 y 0 0 0 3 2 0 3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 0 2 4 . . . 0 2 3 . 3
2 3 4 3 3 5 . . . . . . . .
2 2 4 2 2 5 y 0 0 0 2 . 0 1
2 2 . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 3 . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 0 4 . . . 0 . . . 3
2 2 1 7 . 5 y 1 0 0 3 4 0 0
2 2 2 . . 5 y 0 2 0 3 3 0 .
1 1 2 7 1 5 y 0 0 0 2 3 0 0
1 . . . 2 4 x . 0 0 3 3 0 .
. . . . . 5 . . . . . . . .
2 3 2 5 1 . . . . . . . . 5
3 3 1 0 0 4 . . . 0 3 . . .
 Table A-55 continued
LM1- LM1- LM1- LM1- LM2-
LI1-sh LI2-sh LC-DAR LP3 LP4 LM1-hypo LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-c.7
proto d.w. a.f. dtc hypo

1 . . 0 0 . . . . . . . . .
3 2 3 3 2 4 y 0 0 0 . . 0 .
. . 2 . . . . . . . . . . .
1 1 . 0 1 4 . 3 0 0 3 3 . 5
. 2 1 3 0 . . . . . . . . 3
1 1 2 3 2 . . . . . . . . .
2 1 2 9 2 5 y 0 4 0 . 2 0 0
2 2 1 7 1 5 y 0 0 0 3 3 0 0
3 3 3 . 0 . . . . . . . . .
371

2 2 4 2 2 5 y 2 0 0 3 3 1b 4
2 2 2 3 0 5 x 0 0 0 2 3 0 0
. 2 3 0 0 4 y . . 0 . 3 . .
1 2 4 0 2 . . . . . . . . .
. . 3 7 3 . . . . . . . . 4
. 3 4 9 3 . . . . . . . . 4
. . 1 6 . 5 y 0 0 0 3 3 1a .
1 2 . 6 3 4 y . 0 . . . . .
. 2 2 4 2 5 y 0 0 4 . . 0 3
. 3 3 2 2 5 + . 0 1 2 3 0 3
1 1 2 2 1 5 y 0 0 0 . . 0 0
1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 2 3 0 2 4 y 3 0 . . . . 3
2 3 4 3 . . . . . . . . . .
 Table A-55 continued
LM1- LM1- LM1- LM1- LM2-
LI1-sh LI2-sh LC-DAR LP3 LP4 LM1-hypo LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-c.7
proto d.w. a.f. dtc hypo

1 1 3 . 2 4 y . 0 0 . . . .
2 2 . 2 0 . . . . . . . . .
. . 0 . . . . . . . . . . 4
3 3 . . . 4 . . . . . . . 0
. . . 3 1 4 y 3 1a 5 3 4 0 4
2 2 2 . 0 5 + 0 1a 0 2 3 0 3
372
 A-56. PIEDRAS NEGRAS: NONMETRIC DATA
(LM2 g.p. through LM3 dist trig cr.)

LM3-
LM2-g.p. LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-proto LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-c.7 LM3-a.f. LM3-dtc
proto

x 0 0 0 3 0 5 x 0 0 0 3 0
. . . . . . 5 . . . . 3 .
x 0 0 0 2 0 0 x 0 0 0 . 0
373

x . . 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
+ . . . 3 0 3 . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 3 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 0
x 0 0 0 . 0 . x 0 0 0 . 0
. . . 0 . . 3 . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 . 0 3 x 0 0 7 . 0
+ 0 0 0 2 0 0 + 0 0 6 0 0
+ 0 0 0 1 0 . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 2 0 5 x 0 0 . 0 0
x 0 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
 Table A-56 continued
LM3-
LM2-g.p. LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-proto LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-c.7 LM3-a.f. LM3-dtc
proto

x 2 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 2 0 3 x 0 0 0 2 0
x 0 4 0 1 0 5 x 0 0 0 1 0
x . 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 6 1 0 . . . . . . .
+ . 0 0 . 0 . . . . . . .
+ . 0 0 2 0 2 x 0 0 7 0 0
374

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ . 0 0 2 0 4 y 0 0 5 2 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x . 0 0 . . 0 x 0 0 0 . 0
. . . . . . . . . . . 0 .
+ 0 0 0 2 0 0 y 0 0 0 1 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ . 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 4 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
x . 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
+ . 0 . . . . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 1 0 . . . . . . .
+ . 0 0 2 0 4 x 4 . . . .
 Table A-56 continued
LM3-
LM2-g.p. LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-proto LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-c.7 LM3-a.f. LM3-dtc
proto

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 5 . . . . . .
x 0 0 4 3 0 . . . . . . .
+ . 0 4 2 0 . . . . . . .
x . 0 4 2 0 . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 2 0 0 x 0 0 0 . 0
+ 0 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
375

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 4 0 . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
. . . 0 . . 5 x 0 0 4 . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 2 1a . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 3 0 3 . 0 0 0 2 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ . 0 0 3 0 2 x 0 0 7 2 0
x . . 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 . 0 0 x 0 0 0 . 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 0 0 3 . 0 3 x 5 0 3 2* 0
+ . . . . . . . . . . . .
 Table A-56 continued
LM3-
LM2-g.p. LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-proto LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-c.7 LM3-a.f. LM3-dtc
proto

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 0 0 . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ . 0 0 . . . . . . . . .
x 3 1a 3 4 0 5 x 1 0 4 4 0
+ 0 0 0 3 1a 1 x 0 0 0 3 0
376
 TABLE A-57. TIKAL: NONMETRIC DATA
(UI-1 shov through UM1 hypcone)

UP3- UP4- UP4-

UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int g UI-1 curv UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. ui-1 int gr uc-dar UP3-Amt UM1-hypo
par par amt

. . . . . . . . 2 . . . . .
5 2 2 0 0 3 3 0 4 1 1 1 0 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
. . . . . . . . 3 1 1 1 1 5
. 2 . 0 . 5 . 0 . 1 1 1 . 5
377

5 4 2 0 0 4 4 0 . 1 1 1 1 5
4 3 3 0 1 . . . 4 1 . . 1 .
5 5 . 0 0 4 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 5
3 4 3 0 0 3 4 0 3 . 1 . 1 4
4 5 1 0 0 5 2 0 5 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 1 1 . . .
5 . . 0 0 4 . 0 2 1 1 1 1 4
2 . 4 0 0 . . . . . 1 . 1 .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 3 1 0 0 4 3 0 . 1 1 1 1 .
. . . . . . . . 3 . 1 . 1 5
. . . . . . . . . 1 1 . 0 5
. . . . . . . . 5 1 0 . . 5
5 4 3 0 0 . . . 3 1 1 . . 5
 Table A-57 continued
UP3- UP4- UP4-
UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int g UI-1 curv UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. ui-1 int gr uc-dar UP3-Amt UM1-hypo
par par amt

. . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 5
. . . . . 4 . 0 . . . 1 . 5
5 3 4 0 1 4 3 0 5 . . 1 . 5
. . . . . 5 3 1 . 1 1 . . .
6 6 3 0 0 4 4 0 . . 1 . 1 .
6 6 1 0 0 . . . . . . . . 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5 3 2 0 0 . . . . 1 1 1 . 4
4 5 1 0 0 6 3 0 3 1 0 1 0 4
378

3 1 4 0 0 3 0 0 4 1 1 1 1 5
. 0 . 0 4 . 0 0 . . . . . 4
. . . . . . . . 3 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 1 . . . .
5 . . 0 1 5 . 0 4 . 1 1 0 5
. . . . . 7 1 0 4 1 0 . . 4
4 4 3 0 1 . . . 4 1 1 1 0 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 1 . 1 . 5
4 5 4 0 0 2 4 1 4 1 0 1 0 4
. . . . . . . . 4 1 0 1 0 5
6 3 3 0 0 5 3 0 3 1 1 1 1 4
. 3 . 1 0 . . 0 . . 1 . . .
3 0 3 0 2 2 0 1 3 1 1 1 . .
 Table A-57 continued
UP3- UP4- UP4-
UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int g UI-1 curv UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. ui-1 int gr uc-dar UP3-Amt UM1-hypo
par par amt

. 2 . 1 0 . 2 0 . . 1 . 1 5
. 1 . 0 2 . . . . . . . . 4
3 3 3 0 0 2 3 0 3 1 1 . . .
5 4 1 0 2 . . . . 1 1 1 0 .
. . . . . . . . . 1 1 1 0 5
5 5 2 0 0 5 3 0 5 1 1 . . 5
. . . . . 4 1 0 5 . 1 1 1 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
379

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 4 . 0 0 4 3 0 5 1 1 1 . 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 1 1 1 1 4
. 4 . 0 0 4 3 0 . . . . . 4
4 3 2 0 0 3 1 . 3 1 1 1 . 5
6 6 3 0 0 . . . 5 1 1 1 1 5
. . . . . 5 3 0 . 1 . 1 1 5
. . . . . . . . . 1 . 1 . 5
. . . . . 7 3 0 . . . . . .
5 4 1 0 0 5 5 0 4 0 1 1 1 .
4 4 2 0 0 5 4 1 3 1 1 1 0 5
 Table A-57 continued
UP3- UP4- UP4-
UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int g UI-1 curv UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. ui-1 int gr uc-dar UP3-Amt UM1-hypo
par par amt

. . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 5
380
 TABLE A-58. TIKAL: NONMETRIC DATA
(UM1 cara through UM3 metacone)

UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM1-para UM2-c.5. UM2-para
MAT meta hypo MAT meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 0 1 0 5 3 2 1 0 5 . . . . .
0 0 1 . 5 5 0 . 0 5 0 0 0 2 4
2 1 1 0 5 4 0 1 0 5 0 0 . 1 2
2 0 1 0 5 4 0 1 0 0 3 0 1 0 3
381

0 4 1 0 5 4 5 1 0 3 . . . . .
. . . . . 4 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
2 3 . 0 4 2 0 . 0 3 . . . . .
0 0 1 0 5 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 4
. . . . . 1 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . 2 . . 0 4 . . . . .
3 2 . 0 5 0 0 0 3 1 0 . 0 4 1
. . . . . 3 . . 0 5 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 3 0 0 0 3
0 . . 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
1 2 . 0 5 3 0 . 0 4 0 0 1 0 3
7 4 1 0 5 3 . . 0 4 3 0 1 0 3
 Table A-58 continued
UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM1-para UM2-c.5. UM2-para
MAT meta hypo MAT meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta

2 2 1 0 4 4 3 1 0 4 3 0 . 4 4
2 0 . 0 5 4 0 . 0 4 3 . . 1 3
1 1 . 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
4 2 1 0 5 4 0 . 0 5 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7 5 1 0 5 4 2 1 0 5 3 0 0 0 4
2 4 1 0 4 . . . . . . . . . .
1 0 1 0 5 3 0 . 0 4 3 0 1 0 3
4 0 1 0 5 3 4 0 0 3 . . . . .
382

6 2 1 0 4 4 1 1 0 4 3 2 1 0 4
1 . . . 4 4 . . 0 4 4 0 1 0 3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 1 . 5 4 2 1 0 4 2 0 . 0 5
3 0 1 0 5 5 0 1 0 5 . 0 . 0 3
0 0 1 0 5 3 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
4 1 1 0 4 4 0 1 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 1 1 0 5 . . . . . 0 . . 0 3
6 3 1 0 4 4 2 . 0 4 . . . . .
5 4 1 0 4 4 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
4 0 . 0 4 3 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . 2 . . 0 4 . . . . .
 Table A-58 continued
UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM1-para UM2-c.5. UM2-para
MAT meta hypo MAT meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 2 1 0 5 4 . . 0 4 . . . . .
. . 1 0 5 4 . . 0 4 3 0 . 0 4
. . . . . . . . . . 1 0 0 5 4
. . . . . 3 0 . 0 4 3 0 . 0 4
4 0 1 0 5 4 4 0 0 4 . . . . .
2 . 1 0 5 4 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
4 . . 0 5 2 0 . 0 4 4 0 . 0 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
383

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 2 1 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 0 . 0 5 3 0 1 0 5 . . . . .
. . . . 5 4 0 . 0 5 . . . . .
2 0 1 0 5 2 0 1 0 2 . . . . .
2 1 1 0 5 4 3 1 0 4 . . . . .
1 0 . 0 4 4 . . 0 4 . . . . .
3 5 1 0 5 4 0 . 0 5 . . . . .
. . . . . 4 0 1 0 5 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 Table A-58 continued
UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM1-para UM2-c.5. UM2-para
MAT meta hypo MAT meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta

2 0 1 0 5 4 0 1 0 4 0 0 1 0 2
4 3 . 0 4 4 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 0 . 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
383
 TABLE A-59. TIKAL: NONMETRIC DATA
(LI-1 shov through LM2 hypoconulid)

LM1- LM1- LM2-

LI1-sh LI2-sh LC-DAR LP3 LP4 LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-c.7 LM1-proto LM1-a.f. LM1-dtc
hypo d.w. hypo

. 2 2 . 3 5 y . . 0 . . . 4
3 3 2 0 2 4 x 0 0 0 3 4 0 4
. . . 7 2 5 y 0 0 0 3 3 0 4
2 3 . 0 0 4 y 3 3 0 2 1 0 4
1 1 4 4 1 5 y 0 0 0 3 3 1a 0
385

. . 3 3 2 . . . . . . . . 3
. . . . . 5 y 0 0 1 3 3 0 .
. . . . 2 4 y 2 2 0 3 3 0 4
1 . 1 0 2 . . . . . . . . .
. 2 2 1 1 3 y 2 2 0 3 3 0 3
. . . . . 4 y 2 1a 0 2 . 0 .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 2 0 0 0 4 . . . . . . . 0
1 1 . 2 1 5 y 0 1a 0 3 . 0 0
1 2 2 . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 1 . 4 + 3 2 4 0 3 0 2
. . . 3 3 . . . . . . . . 5
. . 0 3 2 4 + 3 0 0 3 . 0 5
 Table A-59 continued
LM1- LM1- LM2-
LI1-sh LI2-sh LC-DAR LP3 LP4 LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-c.7 LM1-proto LM1-a.f. LM1-dtc
hypo d.w. hypo

2 2 1 2 2 . . . . . . . . 1
1 . 3 . . . . . . . . . . .
2 . 3 0 0 5 + 0 1a 0 2 . 0 .
. 2 2 2 2 5 y 2 0 0 3 3 0 4
3 3 2 0 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 3 . 4 x 0 0 0 3 3 0 3
. 2 . . . 5 y 0 0 0 3 3 0 3
1 2 1 4 2 4 y 0 0 0 1 . 1b 3
2 1 3 0 . 4 y 2 0 0 1 3 0 5
1 2 2 2 3 5 y 1 0 0 3 3 0 2
386

. . . . 3 . . . . . . . . .
. . 1 2 2 . . . . . . . . 2
1 2 1 . 2 4 y . 3 0 . . . 2
. . 3 6 2 4 y 3 2 0 3 3 0 1
. 2 . . 0 5 y 2 1a 0 2 4 0 4
. . 3 3 0 5 y 0 1a 0 3 4 1b 3
3 . 0 3 2 5 y 2 1b 0 3 4 0 4
3 3 . 0 1 4 y . 0 0 3 3 . 3
. 1 1 0 0 5 y 2 0 0 2 3 0 4
. . . 0 0 5 y 2 0 4 2 2 1b 3
1 2 . . . 4 y 3 0 0 3 3 0 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 2 . 4 1 4 y 3 2 0 3 . . 5
 Table A-59 continued
LM1- LM1- LM2-
LI1-sh LI2-sh LC-DAR LP3 LP4 LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-c.7 LM1-proto LM1-a.f. LM1-dtc
hypo d.w. hypo

2 2 4 6 2 4 + 3 1a 0 0 2 0 4
2 2 . 0 1 5 y 0 1a 0 2 3 0 2
1 1 5 6 6 . . . . . . . . .
3 . . . 1 . . . . . . . . 2
. 3 3 1 2 4 + 3 1a 0 3 4 0 4
. . 4 . 7 . . . . . . . . 1
. 3 . 6 2 5 y . 0 0 3 . 0 3
. . 1 . 0 5 y 0 0 0 . 3 0 1
387

. . . . . 5 y . 0 4 2 3 0 3
. . . 4 2 4 y . 1a 0 2 3 1b 4
. . . . 2 4 y 2 0 0 3 4 0 2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 4 2 . . . . . . . . 0
. . . . . 5 + 0 1a 0 0 2 0 4
. . . 1 1 5 y 0 2 0 2 4 0 3
2 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 3 0 4 . 5 y 0 1a 0 3 3 1a 2
. . 3 . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 2 1 1 5 y 2 1a 0 2 4 0 5
. . . . . 5 y . 0 0 3 2 0 5
2 3 . 0 0 5 y 0 0 0 3 3 0 3
2 3 3 0 1 4 y 3 0 0 1 4 0 3
 Table A-59 continued
LM1- LM1- LM2-
LI1-sh LI2-sh LC-DAR LP3 LP4 LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-c.7 LM1-proto LM1-a.f. LM1-dtc
hypo d.w. hypo

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 6 2 5 y . 2 0 3 2 0 .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
388
 TABLE A-60. TIKAL: NONMETRIC DATA
(LM2 g.p. through LM3 dist trig cr.)

LM2- LM3- LM3- LM3-

LM2-g.p. LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-dtc
proto c.7 proto a.f.

+ . . 0 . . . . . . . . .
x 3 0 0 3 0 4 x 5 0 0 0 0
+ . 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
+ 2 0 0 2 0 5 x 0 0 5 0 0
289

x 0 0 0 3 0 4 x 0 0 9 1 0
+ . 0 0 3 0 5 x 0 0 3 0 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 2 0 5 x 2 0 0 4 0
. . . . . . 0 x 0 0 0 0 0
+ 0 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 0 x 0 0 6 0 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ . . . . . 4 x 0 0 0 2 0
+ 0 0 0 2 0 5 + 0 0 6 0 0
. . . . . . 2 x 0 0 6 1 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . .
+ . 0 0 2 0 5 x . 0 0 2 1a
x 3 0 0 2 0 5 x 2 0 1 . 0
 Table A-60 continued
LM2- LM3- LM3- LM3-
LM2-g.p. LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-dtc
proto c.7 proto a.f.

+ . 0 0 . 0 . x . . 3 0 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ 2 0 0 2 0 5 x 2 0 0 1 0
. . . . . . 4 x . 0 0 0 0
+ 0 0 4 1 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0
x 0 0 0 1 0 3 x 3 0 4 . 0
+ 0 0 0 1 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 0
390

+ 0 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 3 0 4 x 0 3 4 2 0
. . . . . . 5 x . . 0 . 0
+ . 1a 0 . 0 . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 2 0 5 . 0 5 0 . 0
+ 0 0 0 3 0 5 x 0 0 0 3 0
+ 2 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 4 1a . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . .
. . 0 0 2 . 3 x . . . . .
+ 2 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
+ 2 0 0 3 0 4 + . 0 6 2 0
x 0 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 5 x 0 0 0 . 0
x . 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
 Table A-60 continued
LM2- LM3- LM3- LM3-
LM2-g.p. LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-dtc
proto c.7 proto a.f.

x 3 0 0 . 1a . x . 0 . 0 0
x . 0 0 2 0 5 x 4 0 0 3 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 . 0 0 x 0 0 6 0 0
x 3 0 0 4 0 4 x 3 0 4 . 0
+ . . 3 3 0 5 x 0 0 3 3 0
+ 0 0 0 0 0 . x . 0 0 0 0
x 0 0 . 3 0 4 x 5 0 . . 0
x 2 0 0 2 0 4 x 5 0 0 2 0
391

+ 2 0 0 . 0 5 x . 0 0 3 1b
+ 3 1a 0 3 0 4 . 3 0 0 2 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 3 . 0 4 x 1 0 5 3 0
x 0 0 3 2 1a . . . . . . .
+ 2 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 4 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ 2 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 1 0 . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 1 0 0 x 0 0 . 4 .
+ 3 0 0 3 0 0 x 0 0 7 . 0
 Table A-60 continued
LM2- LM3- LM3- LM3-
LM2-g.p. LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-dtc
proto c.7 proto a.f.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 3 x 0 0 4 . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
392
 TABLE A-61. UAXACTUN: NONMETRIC DATA
(UI-1 shov through UM1-hypocone)

uc- UP3- UP3- UM1-

UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int g UI-1 curv UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. UI1-int gr UP4-par UP4-amt
dar par Amt hypo

3 0 3 0 2 . . . 4 0 1 0 1 5
3 0 0 0 1 6 . . 4 0 1 0 0 5
4 0 . . 1 . . . 2 0 0 0 0 5
393

5 5 1 0 0 6 . . 4 1 0 1 0 4
3 0 1 0 0 1 . 1 5 0 1 0 1 5
4 4 3 0 0 5 . 0 5 1 1 1 1 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4 0 1 0 2 4 . 1 5 1 0 1 0 4
5 0 2 . 2 5 0 0 5 1 1 1 1 5
. . . . . . . . 3 . . . . 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 4 1 0 0 5 0 0 . . . . . 5
. . . . . . . . 4 1 1 1 1 .
. . . . . 4 2 0 5 1 1 1 1 5
3 1 3 0 2 6 2 0 4 1 1 . . 5
. . . . . . . . . 1 1 . . 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 Table A-61 continued
uc- UP3- UP3- UM1-
UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int g UI-1 curv UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. UI1-int gr UP4-par UP4-amt
dar par Amt hypo

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 3 . 1 1 . 5
5 5 3 1 0 . . . 5 0 1 1 0 5
3 2 2 0 0 . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
. . . . . . . . 3 . . . . 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 6 2 0 . . . . . 5
394

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 5 2 0 1 5 5 0 3 . 1 . 1 .
6 4 3 0 1 7 3 0 4 1 1 1 0 5
5 5 . . 0 4 4 . 3 1 1 1 1 5
4 4 3 0 1 2 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 .
3 . 2 0 . 5 . 0 . . . . . 5
5 0 2 0 1 3 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 5
4 4 . 0 0 . . . . . 1 1 . .
. . . 0 . . . . . . . 1 . .
 TABLE A-62. UAXACTUN: NONMETRIC DATA
(UM1 cara through UM3 metacone)

UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM1-para UM2-c.5.
MAT meta hypo MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta

4 1 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 5 3 0 1 0 4
0 . . 0 5 2 0 . 0 4 0 0 0 0 3
1 0 0 0 4 3 0 1 0 4 . . . . .
0 0 1 0 5 2 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5
0 0 1 0 5 4 0 1 0 4 1 0 1 0 3
6 2 3 0 4 4 2 0 0 4 2 0 1 0 4
395

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 0 2 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
0 1 1 0 5 3 0 1 0 5 2 0 0 0 3
4 0 1 0 5 4 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
2 0 . 0 4 3 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 0 1 0 5 2 . . . 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 1 1 0 5 2 0 1 0 5 3 0 . . 3
3 0 1 0 5 3 0 1 0 4 0 0 1 0 4
0 0 . 0 5 . . . . 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 Table A-62 continued
UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM1-para UM2-c.5.
MAT meta hypo MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 1 1 0 5 3 0 . 0 5 3 2 1 0 3
2 0 1 0 5 4 1 1 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . 3 0 . 0 4 0 0 . . 1
. . . 0 5 3 0 . 0 5 . . . . .
. 0 . 0 5 3 0 . 0 5 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 5 4 . . 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
396

4 0 0 0 5 1 0 1 0 4 . . . . .
6 0 . 0 5 4 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . 2 0 0 0 3 . . . . .
2 . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . .
3 0 1 0 5 4 0 1 0 4 2 0 0 0 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 TABLE A-63. UAXACTUN: NONMETRIC DATA
(LI-1 shov through LM2 hypoconulid)

LM1- LM1- LM1- LM2-

LI1-sh LI2-sh LC-DAR LP3 LP4 LM1-hypo LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-c.7 LM1-dtc
proto d.w. a.f. hypo

1 1 3 3 3 5 y 0 0 0 2 1 0 4
1 2 3 2 4 5 . . . 1 . . . 2
. . . . . 4 y 0 0 0 2 3 0 1
. . . . . 4 y 4 1 0 0 2 0 +
2 2 5 1 1 5 y 0 2 0 3 3 0 2
397

3 3 3 1 2 5 + 1 1 3 3 3 0 3
2 2 0 . . 5 y 0 0 2 3 4 0 .
1 1 2 1 1 . . . . . . . . .
1 1 3 0 1 3 y 2 2 0 3 1 0 2
. 1 . 1 1 4 y 0 0 0 3 4 0 .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 1 . 1 3 5 y . 0 0 . . . 0
. . 0 0 . . . . . . . . . 0
3 . 2 . . . . . . . . . . .
3 3 5 . 2 5 y 0 0 0 3 3 0 4
3 3 2 3 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 3 0 0 5 y . . 0 . . 0 0
. . . . . 5 . . . . . . . .
 Table A-63 continued
LM1- LM1- LM1- LM2-
LI1-sh LI2-sh LC-DAR LP3 LP4 LM1-hypo LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-c.7 LM1-dtc
proto d.w. a.f. hypo

. . 2 1 3 5 y . 0 0 2 3 0 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 2 4 . 4 y 3 0 0 3 3 0 3
. . 3 0 . . . . . . . . . 2
. 3 0 0 0 5 y . . . . . . .
2 . . 0 . 4 y 4 0 0 3 3 . 4
1 1 2 0 0 5 y 0 0 0 . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 0 4 y . 0 0 2 3 1a 3
. . . . 2 . . . . . . . . .
398

3 2 1 2 1 5 y 0 0 0 2 3 0 5
. . 3 0 0 5 y 0 0 0 0 2 0 3
. 2 1 0 1 4 y . 0 . 2 2 1a .
2 2 2 4 2 . . . . . . . . .
0 0 3 0 2 5 y 0 2 0 3 2 0 4
. . 2 5 0 5 y 1 0 0 3 3 0 0
1 2 2 0 . . . . . . . . . .
 TABLE A-64. UAXACTUN: NONMETRIC DATA
(LM2 g.p. through LM3 dist trig cr.)

LM2- LM2- LM3- LM3-

LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-c.7 LM3-dtc
g.p. proto proto a.f.

+ 0 0 0 . . 4 . 0 4 0 . .
x . . 0 . . 3 y 0 0 0 . .
+ 0 0 0 1 . 2 x . 0 0 0 .
0 0 0 0 2 0 x 0 0 0 0 1 0
+ 0 0 0 2 0 + 2 0 0 0 2 0
+ 2 0 4 3 0 3 + 2 1 5 3 0
399

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 0 0 7 0 3 4 x 0 0 . . 0
x 0 0 0 1 0 3 x 4 0 0 2 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 1 0 . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 3 1a . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
 Table A-64 continued
LM2- LM2- LM3- LM3-
LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-c.7 LM3-dtc
g.p. proto proto a.f.

+ 0 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 2 0 4 x 0 . 0 . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ . 0 0 . 0 4 x 0 0 0 0 0
. . 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 2 0 5 x 0 0 4 3 0
x . . . . 0 . . . . . . .
400

xy 0 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 1 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 1 0 . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 2 0 0 x 0 0 0 . 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
 TABLE A-65. XCAMBO: NONMETRIC DATA
(UI-1 shov through UM1 hypocone)

UP3- UP4- UM1-

UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int gr UI-1 curv UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. UI1-int gr uc-dar UP3-par UP4-par
Amt amt hypo

3 2 2 0 2 2 0 1 . . . . . .
5 2 3 0 1 4 . 0 3 1 0 1 0 .
5 6 3 0 0 . . . 0 1 0 0 0 5
5 1 2 0 1 . . . . . . . . .
2 1 1 0 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 4
401

. . . . . . . . . . 0 . 0 .
6 3 2 0 1 2 2 1 3 . . . . .
6 3 1 0 1 . . . . . . . . 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 1 2 0 0 2 1 0 . . 0 1 0 5
4 2 2 0 1 5 3 0 . . . . . .
. . . . . 4 5 0 3 1 0 1 0 5
5 5 2 0 0 . . . . 1 0 1 0 .
. . . . . . . . . 1 1 . . 5
3 4 3 0 0 . . . 2 0 1 0 1 4
3 0 . 0 2 . . . . . . 1 . 5
3 . . 0 1 2 . 1 . . . . . 5
2 2 . 0 1 2 0 0 3 . 1 . 0 5
 Table A-65 continued
UP3- UP4- UM1-
UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int gr UI-1 curv UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. UI1-int gr uc-dar UP3-par UP4-par
Amt amt hypo

4 0 1 0 1 3 1 0 4 1 0 1 1 5
. . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 5
2 3 . 0 0 3 2 0 3 . 0 1 0 5
. . . 0 0 . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 5 0 0 . . . . . 5
. . . . . 2 0 0 . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 1 . . . 5
3 4 . 0 0 . . . . . . . . 5
3 4 2 0 0 5 1 0 4 . . 1 0 5
402

3 0 . . 3 2 0 0 . . . . . .
5 3 3 0 2 4 . 0 . . . . . 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 0 3 0 2 6 1 1 4 1 0 1 1 5
. . . . . . . . 4 1 0 . . 4
5 0 1 0 1 6 0 0 5 1 0 . . .
. . . . . . . . 2 . . . . .
4 2 . 0 0 1 1 0 5 1 0 1 0 5
4 3 0 0 2 5 0 0 3 . 0 1 0 5
. . . . 3 . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 .
. . . . . . . . . . 0 . 0 .
3 2 3 0 2 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 5
4 2 2 0 0 4 3 0 4 1 0 1 0 5
 Table A-65 continued
UP3- UP4- UM1-
UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int gr UI-1 curv UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. UI1-int gr uc-dar UP3-par UP4-par
Amt amt hypo

4 4 . 0 1 6 2 1 5 1 1 1 1 5
5 0 2 0 2 3 4 1 5 1 1 1 0 5
2 5 1 0 0 1 1 1 4 . 1 1 0 5
. . . . . . . . 4 . 1 1 1 5
. . . . . 4 0 0 . . 0 . 0 .
4 0 3 1 4 2 0 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 5 1 . . . 4
3 4 1 0 0 2 1 0 3 1 0 . . 4
4 2 3 0 1 2 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 5
403

. . . . . . . . 4 . 1 1 0 .
3 4 3 0 0 . . . . . . . . .
3 4 1 0 1 . . . 3 1 0 0 1 5
4 . 1 0 . 4 . 0 5 1 0 1 0 4
. . . . . 3 . 1 . 1 0 1 0 5
. . . 0 . . . 0 . . . . . 5
2 3 . 0 0 3 0 1 3 . 0 . . .
3 3 1 0 0 . . . 4 0 1 1 0 .
3 . . 0 0 5 . 0 4 . . . . 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 5 . . . . .
4 4 2 0 1 5 0 1 3 1 0 1 0 4
3 . . 0 . . . . . . . . . .
 Table A-65 continued
UP3- UP4- UM1-
UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int gr UI-1 curv UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. UI1-int gr uc-dar UP3-par UP4-par
Amt amt hypo

. 3 . 0 1 4 . 1 4 . 0 . 0 5
3 4 . 0 0 5 0 0 . . . . . 5
. . . . . 5 0 0 4 . 1 . 0 .
4 4 1 . 4 4 0 1 . . . 1 1 5
3 5 1 0 0 4 3 1 4 1 0 1 0 5
. . . . . . . . 0 1 0 1 0 5
3 3 0 0 1 4 3 0 3 . . . . .
2 3 1 0 1 2 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 4
. . . . . 1 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 5
. . . 0 0 . . . 3 . . . . .
404

2 3 2 0 0 4 3 0 4 1 1 1 0 5
3 4 3 0 0 . . . . . 0 1 0 .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 . 3 0 2 4 . 0 . . 1 . . 5
. . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 5
. . . . . . . . . 1 1 1 1 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
. . . . . . . . . 1 1 . . 4
4 4 1 0 1 . . . . . . . . 4
2 2 1 0 2 . . . 4 . . . . 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 4 3 0 0 . . . 4 . . . . 5
. . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 5
 Table A-65 continued
UP3- UP4- UM1-
UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int gr UI-1 curv UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. UI1-int gr uc-dar UP3-par UP4-par
Amt amt hypo

. . . . . . . . . 1 0 1 0 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 3 . 0 1 1 0 0 . . . 1 . 5
4 4 2 0 0 4 3 1 5 1 1 1 1 5
2 3 3 0 1 . . . 3 1 0 1 0 5
2 4 . 0 0 5 0 0 4 . . . . 5
. . . . . . . . 4 . . . . .
405

4 . 2 1 . 4 . 1 4 1 1 1 1 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 3 3 0 1 2 2 1 . 1 0 . . .
1 0 3 0 1 . . . 3 1 . 1 0 5
3 3 . 0 1 5 4 1 4 . 0 1 0 4
. . . . . . . . . . 0 1 0 .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 0 . . . . . . . 1 0 5
2 5 . 0 0 . . . . . . . . .
. . . 0 0 . . . 2 . . . . 5
. . . . . . . . 5 . 1 1 1 4
3 2 . 0 2 3 3 1 3 0 0 1 . 5
4 6 3 0 0 5 5 0 . . . . . 5
3 5 2 0 2 4 0 0 . 1 . 1 1 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 Table A-65 continued
UP3- UP4- UM1-
UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int gr UI-1 curv UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. UI1-int gr uc-dar UP3-par UP4-par
Amt amt hypo

4 4 1 0 0 5 3 0 4 0 0 . . 5
4 3 1 0 1 4 2 0 3 . 0 1 0 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5 5 0 0 1 6 2 0 4 1 0 1 0 5
3 3 3 0 1 4 3 0 3 . 0 0 . .
3 0 3 0 3 . . . . . . . . 3
4 5 3 0 1 7 4 0 5 . 0 . 0 5
406

. . . . . . . . . 0 1 1 1 5
. . . . . 4 . 0 3 . . . . .
5 2 1 0 1 . . . 3 1 1 1 1 4
. 3 . 0 0 . . . . . . . . .
6 5 3 0 2 5 4 0 3 1 1 1 0 5
5 5 2 0 1 5 2 0 4 0 1 0 1 4
. . . . . 3 1 0 4 . . 1 0 5
. 6 . 0 0 . 5 0 3 . . . . 4
4 4 . 0 0 3 4 1 4 1 0 0 . 5
4 4 2 0 1 5 4 0 4 1 0 0 0 5
. . . . . 2 2 0 . . . 1 . 5
. . . . . 2 1 0 3 . . . . .
3 4 2 0 0 4 4 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . 3 1 0 . 1 . . . .
. . . . . 7 1 0 . . . . 1 5
3 4 3 0 0 . . . 4 1 . 1 . 5
 Table A-65 continued
UP3- UP4- UM1-
UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int gr UI-1 curv UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. UI1-int gr uc-dar UP3-par UP4-par
Amt amt hypo

6 5 3 0 0 5 3 0 5 1 1 1 1 5
. . . . . . . . 2 . . . . .
. 3 . 0 0 4 0 0 . 1 . . . 5
2 3 1 0 2 1 2 0 4 0 0 0 1 5
4 3 3 0 3 . . . 3 . . 1 0 5
3 3 3 0 0 2 4 0 3 . . . . 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 5 4 0 0 5 2 0 4 1 1 . . 5
. . . . . . . . 1 1 . 1 1 4
. . . . . 4 0 0 3 1 1 1 1 5
3 5 1 0 0 4 5 0 3 1 . 1 1 4
407

4 2 0 0 2 7 3 0 0 1 . 1 . 4
3 4 4 0 0 1 4 1 3 . . 1 0 5
5 5 2 0 1 5 3 0 4 1 . 1 0 .
4 . . 0 1 2 3 0 4 1 . 1 . 5
. . . 0 . . . 0 . . . . . 4
3 4 3 0 1 2 3 0 3 . 1 1 1 5
5 3 . 0 0 2 1 0 3 . 1 1 1 5
5 5 1 0 0 6 3 0 3 1 . 1 . .
3 4 1 0 0 2 2 1 3 . . 0 1 5
5 3 1 0 1 4 2 0 3 . . 1 1 5
3 6 2 0 1 2 4 0 3 1 1 1 . .
4 6 . 0 0 4 4 1 2 1 1 1 . .
 Table A-65 continued
UP3- UP4- UM1-
UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int gr UI-1 curv UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. UI1-int gr uc-dar UP3-par UP4-par
Amt amt hypo

. . . . . . . . . 1 1 1 . 5
. 0 . 0 3 . . . . . . . . .
2 4 . 0 1 . . . 4 . 1 . 1 .
3 6 3 0 0 2 0 1 4 1 1 1 1 .
. . . 0 . . . . . . . . . .
5 3 3 0 3 4 1 0 . . 0 0 0 .
. . . . . 5 4 0 . 0 1 1 1 5
. . . . 0 . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 1 1 1 . 5
3 2 1 0 1 2 2 1 4 1 0 1 0 .
1 3 . 0 1 1 0 0 3 . 1 . . 4
408

. . . . . . . . 3 1 . 1 . 5
3 3 1 0 1 . . . 2 1 1 1 1 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 5 3 0 3 . . . . .
. . . . . 4 . 0 . . . . . .
3 5 2 0 0 2 1 0 4 1 . 1 . 5
4 4 1 0 0 5 3 0 2 1 1 1 . 4
4 3 1 0 1 3 1 0 3 1 1 1 1 5
. . . 0 . 5 1 0 3 . 1 1 . 5
3 5 3 0 0 7 2 0 5 1 1 0 1 5
4 4 3 0 0 2 2 0 4 1 1 1 1 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
 Table A-65 continued
UP3- UP4- UM1-
UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int gr UI-1 curv UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. UI1-int gr uc-dar UP3-par UP4-par
Amt amt hypo

. . . . . 5 0 0 . . . . . 5
3 3 3 0 1 5 0 1 . . . 1 . .
3 . . 0 0 5 0 0 . 1 . 1 . 5
5 1 3 0 1 4 0 0 4 . . 1 0 5
6 5 2 0 0 7 0 0 5 1 1 . . 5
5 3 3 0 1 . . . . . . . . 5
. . . . . 4 4 1 . 1 1 1 1 .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
409

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2 5 3 0 0 3 0 0 . . . 1 0 .
. 0 . 1 1 . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 5 0 0 4 1 1 . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 1 . .
. . . . . . . . 5 1 1 1 1 5
. 1 . 0 2 . . . . . . . . .
4 5 1 0 0 5 4 0 3 1 1 1 0 5
3 4 2 0 0 4 4 0 4 . 1 1 1 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6 6 1 0 1 4 3 0 3 1 1 1 1 5
. . . . . . . . 3 . . 1 . 5
. . . . . 6 0 0 3 1 1 1 1 4
 Table A-65 continued
UP3- UP4- UM1-
UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int gr UI-1 curv UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. UI1-int gr uc-dar UP3-par UP4-par
Amt amt hypo

. . . . . 5 4 0 . . . . . 4
2 4 0 0 1 . . . 4 1 1 . . .
5 5 1 0 0 1 2 0 3 1 1 . 1 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 7 0 0 . 1 1 1 1 5
4 . . 0 . 3 4 0 3 . . . . .
5 4 1 0 0 5 4 0 4 1 1 1 1 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 6 5 0 5 1 0 1 1 5
410

2 3 1 0 0 2 3 0 3 1 0 1 0 5
3 5 3 1 0 1 1 0 3 1 1 1 . 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 1 . 1 . .
3 5 3 0 0 4 4 0 5 1 1 1 1 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 3 1 0 1 2 0 0 . . . . . 4
5 4 3 0 3 5 3 0 3 1 1 1 . 5
3 5 . 0 0 5 0 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 0 . . . . . 5
. . . . . . . . . 1 1 . . 5
3 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 5
5 4 2 0 1 3 2 0 3 . 1 0 0 5
 Table A-65 continued
UP3- UP4- UM1-
UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int gr UI-1 curv UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. UI1-int gr uc-dar UP3-par UP4-par
Amt amt hypo

. . . . . . . . 3 1 0 1 0 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 5 3 0 0 4 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 5
5 6 1 0 0 5 5 0 . . . . 0 4
. . . . . 4 . 0 3 . . . . 5
5 0 4 0 0 . . . 2 . . 1 . 5
. . . . . . . . . 1 . 1 . 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
. . . 0 0 . . . . . . . . 5
411

2 5 2 0 1 2 0 0 5 0 1 0 1 4
. . . . . 5 4 0 3 1 1 1 0 4
3 . 3 0 2 . 0 0 4 . . . . 5
4 4 . 1 0 6 0 0 . . 1 1 1 5
5 5 3 0 0 4 1 0 . 1 1 . . 5
5 5 2 0 0 5 3 1 3 1 0 1 0 5
. 4 . 0 0 . 0 0 . . . . . .
 TABLE A-66. XCAMBO: NONMETRIC TRAITS
(UM1 cara through UM3 metacone)

UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM1-para UM2-c.5.
MAT meta hypo MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 4 0 0 0 5 . . . . .
2 2 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
412

0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 2
0 0 1 0 5 3 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 3 0 0 0 3
3 1 . 0 5 3 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 3
. . . . . . . 1 0 4 . . . . .
4 2 0 1 5 4 3 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 3
. . . . . 4 0 0 0 3 . . . . .
2 2 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 4
2 3 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
1 1 1 0 5 3 2 . 0 4 . . . . .
1 0 . 0 5 3 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
2 1 0 0 5 3 0 . 0 3 . . . . .
 Table A-66 continued
UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM1-para UM2-c.5.
MAT meta hypo MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta

0 0 . 0 5 4 1 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 4
1 0 . 0 5 4 0 . 0 5 2 0 . 0 3
0 0 . 0 5 4 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 5
. . . . . 3 0 . 0 4 0 0 0 0 3
2 0 . 0 4 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 4 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
. 0 . 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 5 . . . 0 5 . . . . .
2 1 1 . 4 4 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
413

. . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 4
0 . . 0 5 4 0 . 0 4 3 0 0 0 3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 0 1 0 5 3 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 4
1 0 . 0 5 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4
0 . . 0 4 4 0 0 . 5 . . . 0 4
. . 1 0 5 3 0 0 0 5 . . . . .
3 0 0 0 5 3 0 1 0 4 . . . 0 .
4 0 1 0 5 3 0 0 0 4 3 0 1 0 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 3 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 0 . 0 5 2 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
1 1 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 2
 Table A-66 continued
UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM1-para UM2-c.5.
MAT meta hypo MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta

4 1 1 . 5 4 5 . 0 4 3 3 0 0 3
1 1 . 0 5 3 2 0 0 4 . . . . .
1 4 0 0 5 3 5 0 0 3 3 2 0 . 2
2 . . 0 5 1 0 1 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 0 . 0 5 . . . . . 4 0 0 0 4
1 2 1 0 5 0 0 0 . 4 . . . . .
0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
414

3 0 . 0 5 4 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 3 0 0 0 3
4 1 . 0 4 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 2
3 0 1 0 5 1 0 1 0 5 0 0 1 0 4
1 0 . 0 5 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 . 0 4 1 0 . 0 5 0 0 0 0 3
. . 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1
. . . . . 1 0 0 0 5 . . . . .
. . . 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 3 0 1 . 4 . . . . .
4 0 2 0 5 1 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 3
. . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 5
 Table A-66 continued
UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM1-para UM2-c.5.
MAT meta hypo MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta

0 0 . 0 5 2 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
1 0 . 0 5 2 0 . 0 4 0 0 0 0 3
. . . . . 1 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 5 . . . . .
0 0 . 0 5 3 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
4 0 . 0 5 3 . . 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 6 . 0 4 3 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 1
2 1 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 5 . . . . .
415

. . . . . 3 . . 0 5 0 0 0 0 3
4 0 1 0 5 4 0 . 0 5 2 0 0 0 4
. . . . . . . . . . 2 0 0 0 4
0 . 1 . 5 . . . . . . . . . .
0 0 . 0 5 3 0 . 0 4 2 0 0 0 3
4 1 . 0 5 5 0 . 0 5 3 0 . 0 3
0 . . 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
4 2 1 0 5 3 0 0 . 5 . . . . .
3 2 1 0 5 4 0 0 0 5 . . . . .
4 2 1 0 5 4 2 0 . 4 . . . . .
0 1 . 0 5 2 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 1 . 0 5 1 0 0 0 5 4 0 0 . 4
1 1 . 0 5 2 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
 Table A-66 continued
UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM1-para UM2-c.5.
MAT meta hypo MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta

0 1 . 0 5 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 0 . 0 5 4 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 3
. . . 0 5 3 0 . 0 4 2 0 0 0 3
1 0 1 0 5 3 0 1 0 5 3 0 1 0 4
0 0 1 0 5 3 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 0 1 0 5 1 1 1 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
416

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 0 . 0 5 3 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
1 0 . 0 5 0 1 0 5 . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 3 5 0 0 3
. . . . . 4 2 1 0 3 . . . . .
4 2 . 0 5 3 5 . 5 1 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 0 5 4 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
1 1 . 0 5 3 0 0 0 5 . . . . .
. 0 . 0 5 4 0 . 0 5 . . . . .
1 0 1 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
3 1 . 0 5 5 0 0 0 5 . . . . .
. . . . . 0 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 Table A-66 continued
UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM1-para UM2-c.5.
MAT meta hypo MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta

2 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
0 0 1 0 5 3 0 0 0 5 . . . . .
0 0 . 0 5 2 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
2 2 . 0 5 3 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 3
. . . . . 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 3
. . . . 5 1 . . 0 5 4 0 0 0 3
2 1 1 0 5 4 0 . . 4 . . . . .
0 0 1 0 4 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
417

1 1 1 0 5 2 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 4
4 0 1 0 5 4 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
0 1 . 0 5 4 1 . 0 4 . . . . .
0 1 . 0 5 3 0 . 0 4 1 0 0 0 2
2 0 1 0 5 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1
1 . . 0 5 2 0 . 0 4 3 0 0 0 3
4 4 . 0 4 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2
2 0 . 0 5 3 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 1 . 0 5 4 1 . 0 4 . . . . .
2 0 1 0 5 3 1 0 0 5 3 3 0 0 2
 Table A-66 continued
UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM1-para UM2-c.5.
MAT meta hypo MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta

4 0 1 0 5 3 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . 3 1 0 0 4 . . . . .
2 1 1 0 5 4 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 3
3 3 1 0 5 4 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
2 0 1 0 5 3 0 . 0 5 0 0 0 0 3
3 2 1 0 5 4 5 1 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . 1 0 1 0 4 . . . . .
1 0 1 0 5 2 0 1 0 4 . 0 0 . .
0 0 1 0 5 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0
418

0 0 . 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
0 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
0 0 . 0 5 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3
1 2 1 0 5 5 0 1 0 5 . . . . .
. . . . . 1 0 1 0 5 . . . . .
. 0 1 0 5 3 5 . 0 4 . . . . .
2 1 . 0 5 3 0 . 0 4 4 0 . 0 4
. . . . . 0 0 . 0 4 0 0 0 0 4
4 0 . 0 5 3 0 . 0 5 0 0 0 0 3
. . . . . 3 0 1 0 5 3 0 1 0 4
1 0 . 1 5 1 0 1 0 4 2 0 0 . 3
4 0 1 0 5 1 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 2 0 . 0 3
 Table A-66 continued
UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM1-para UM2-c.5.
MAT meta hypo MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta

6 1 1 . 5 5 0 1 . 3 4 0 1 0 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 3 0 . 0 4 0 0 1 0 2
. . . . . 3 0 1 0 4 3 0 1 0 3
. . . . . . . . . . 4 0 . 0 4
. . . . . 3 0 . 0 4 0 0 . 0 3
6 1 1 0 5 3 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 0 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 0 . 0 5 1 0 1 0 4 . . . . .
419

. . . . . 3 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
0 0 . 0 5 3 0 . 0 5 3 0 . 0 4
0 0 1 0 5 . . . . . 0 0 1 0 3
3 1 1 0 5 3 0 1 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 2 0 1 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 . 1 0 5 3 3 1 2 4 2 0 1 0 4
0 0 1 0 4 . . . . . . . . . .
4 1 1 0 5 4 0 1 0 4 . . . . .
0 . . 0 5 3 3 . 0 4 . 0 . 0 2
3 0 . 0 5 4 0 1 0 5 . . . . .
0 1 1 0 5 1 0 1 0 4 2 4 0 0 2
. 0 . 0 5 2 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
 Table A-66 continued
UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM1-para UM2-c.5.
MAT meta hypo MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta

0 1 . . 5 4 0 1 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 0 . 0 5 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 . 0 2
1 1 1 0 5 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
. . . 0 5 2 0 . . 4 . . . . .
. . . . . 4 0 1 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . 3 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . 4 0 . . 5 . . . . .
420

1 0 1 0 4 1 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 0 1 0 5 4 5 0 0 3 3 4 0 0 2
. . . . . 3 0 . 0 4 0 0 0 0 1
3 0 . 0 4 4 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
5 2 1 0 5 3 4 . 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 4 0 0 5 4
3 0 . 0 5 3 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 3
2 1 1 0 5 3 0 0 0 4 2 0 1 0 2
0 0 1 0 5 2 0 1 0 4 . . . . .
 Table A-66 continued
UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM1-para UM2-c.5.
MAT meta hypo MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta

1 0 . 0 4 2 0 . 0 4 0 0 1 0 2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 0 . 0 5 3 0 . 0 4 3 0 0 0 2
. . . . . 3 0 1 0 5 3 0 1 0 4
4 1 1 0 5 4 0 1 0 5 . . . . .
. . . . . 2 3 1 0 4 . . . . .
1 0 . 0 4 4 0 1 0 4 3 0 1 0 3
. . . . . 2 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
0 0 . 0 5 1 0 1 0 4 2 0 1 0 3
421

0 0 1 0 5 3 0 1 0 4 3 0 0 0 3
2 0 . 0 5 3 5 1 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . 4 . . . 5 3 . . . 3
. . . . . 3 0 . 0 4 0 0 0 0 3
1 0 . 0 5 1 0 1 0 4 3 0 1 0 3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 1 . 0 4 1 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
4 0 . 0 5 3 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 3 0 0 0 5 . . . . .
1 0 . . 5 4 0 . 0 4 2 0 0 0 2
1 0 . 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
1 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
2 0 . 0 5 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 4
 Table A-66 continued
UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM1-para UM2-c.5.
MAT meta hypo MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta

2 0 1 0 5 0 0 1 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 0 . 0 5 1 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
0 0 . 0 5 2 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 . 2
1 1 1 0 4 . . . . . . . . . .
0 0 . 0 5 4 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
2 0 . 0 5 3 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
1 . . . 4 4 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
. 0 . . 4 4 . . . 4 3 0 0 0 3
1 0 . 0 5 0 0 1 0 4 . . . . .
422

4 0 0 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
6 0 . 0 5 3 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
0 0 1 0 5 3 0 1 0 4 3 0 1 0 4
3 0 . 0 5 2 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
1 0 1 0 5 3 0 1 0 4 3 0 1 0 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 TABLE A-67. XCAMBO: NONMETRIC DATA
(LI-1 shov through LM2-hypoconulid)

LM1- LM1- LM1- LM2-

LI1-sh LI2-sh LC-DAR LP3 LP4 LM1-hypo LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-a.f. LM1-dtc
c.7 proto d.w. hypo

. 2 3 . 2 . . . . . . . . .
2 . 3 . . 5 y 0 0 0 1 3 0 1
1 1 2 1 0 4 + 0 0 0 2 2 0 .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 1 1 0 0 4 + 0 0 0 2 2 0 0
423

1 . 1 0 1 . . . . . . . . .
. 2 3 0 0 . . . . . . . . .
0 1 1 0 0 5 y 0 0 0 2 3 . 4
3 3 3 . . . . . . . . . . .
0 . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 4
1 1 3 0 0 5 y 0 0 0 2 . . 4
1 . 1 2 0 . . . . . . . . .
1 1 2 0 0 5 y 2 0 4 3 3 . 4
. . . . . 5 y 0 . . 3 3 . 1
2 2 1 1 1 . . . . . . . . 3
. 1 0 1 2 5 y 0 0 0 2 3 1a 1
. . 1 . . . . . . . . . . .
1 2 3 2 2 . . . . . . . . 3
1 1 2 0 0 5 y 0 0 0 . . . 0
 Table A-67 continued
LM1- LM1- LM1- LM2-
LI1-sh LI2-sh LC-DAR LP3 LP4 LM1-hypo LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-a.f. LM1-dtc
c.7 proto d.w. hypo

2 2 2 1 2 5 y 0 0 0 3 3 1a 3
1 1 3 0 0 . . . . . . . . 4
1 2 0 0 0 4 y 2 0 0 3 3 1a 0
1 1 3 2 1 . . . . . . . . 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 2 0 . . . . . . . . . .
. 2 1 . 0 5 y . 0 0 3 3 1a .
. . . 0 2 . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 5 y 0 0 0 0 4 0 .
424

1 2 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . 5
1 1 . 4 3 5 y 0 0 0 3 3 1b 3
1 1 4 0 0 5 y 0 0 0 3 3 0 1
2 2 3 0 0 5 y 0 0 0 3 3 0 4
1 1 2 1 0 4 y 3 0 0 2 2 1b 3
1 2 4 0 0 5 y 0 0 0 . . . .
. . 1 0 0 5 y 0 0 0 1 2 0 0
2 2 5 . 0 5 y 0 0 0 3 3 0 4
1 1 2 1 0 4 y 0 0 0 3 2 . 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 5 y 0 0 0 . . 0 0
2 2 2 0 0 . . . . . . . . 3
2 2 3 1 1 5 y 0 0 0 2 3 0 1
 Table A-67 continued
LM1- LM1- LM1- LM2-
LI1-sh LI2-sh LC-DAR LP3 LP4 LM1-hypo LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-a.f. LM1-dtc
c.7 proto d.w. hypo

. 2 4 1 1 . . . . . . . . 3
2 2 3 3 0 5 y 0 0 0 2 4 0 0
1 1 2 0 0 3 y 2 0 0 2 2 0 1
1 2 3 0 0 4 . 0 . . . . . .
. . 1 0 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 0 0 . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 2 . . . . . . . . 3
1 0 . . . 4 y 0 0 0 3 3 1a .
1 1 2 0 0 3 + 2 0 0 0 4 0 3
425

1 1 1 0 0 5 + 0 0 0 0 2 1a 3
. 1 3 1 1 . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 0 . . . . . . . . .
2 3 0 0 2 2 y 0 0 0 0 2 0 5
1 1 0 0 0 5 y 0 0 0 2 3 0 2
. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 1 4 0 3 4 y 0 0 0 . 1 0 0
1 1 3 0 0 5 . . . 0 . . . .
. 1 1 . 0 5 y 0 0 0 0 4 0 1
1 2 0 0 0 5 y 0 0 0 3 3 1a .
. . . 0 0 5 y . . . . 2 1b x
. . . 5 2 5 y 4 0 0 . 3 1b 4
1 1 4 0 2 4 y 2 0 0 3 3 0 5
. . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 0
 Table A-67 continued
LM1- LM1- LM1- LM2-
LI1-sh LI2-sh LC-DAR LP3 LP4 LM1-hypo LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-a.f. LM1-dtc
c.7 proto d.w. hypo

. 2 4 0 0 5 y . 0 0 3 3 1a 4
2 2 4 0 0 5 y 2 0 0 . . . 2
. . 2 . . . . . . . . . . 5
2 2 . . . 5 y 0 0 0 3 3 1b .
3 3 4 3 0 4 . 3 0 0 . . . 4
3 . 2 1 0 3 x 0 0 0 . 3 0 1
. 2 1 0 0 0 . . . . . . . .
1 1 2 0 0 . . . . . . . . 4
1 1 3 0 1 5 + 1 0 0 . 3 0 0
426

1 . . 0 0 . . . . . . . . 4
1 1 3 0 0 5 + . 0 0 . 4 0 4
. . . . 1 4 y 2 0 0 3 3 0 2
. . . 2 1 4 y 0 0 1 2 4 0 2
2 3 1 0 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 0 3 x 3 0 0 . 3 . 3
. . . 0 0 5 x 0 0 0 0 1a . 1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 1 . . . 5 y 0 0 0 3 3 0 .
1 1 . . . 5 y 0 0 0 3 3 0 0
1 1 . 1 1 5 y 0 0 0 3 . 0 .
. . . 0 0 . . . . . . . . .
1 2 1 0 0 5 y 0 0 0 3 . 0 .
1 1 3 0 0 5 + 0 0 0 2 3 0 .
 Table A-67 continued
LM1- LM1- LM1- LM2-
LI1-sh LI2-sh LC-DAR LP3 LP4 LM1-hypo LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-a.f. LM1-dtc
c.7 proto d.w. hypo

. . 3 0 0 5 y 0 0 0 3 3 0 .
2 . 0 . . . . . . . . . . .
1 1 1 0 0 5 y 0 0 0 . 3 1a .
3 2 3 0 0 5 y . 0 . . . 1a .
. 2 2 . . 5 y 0 0 0 3 3 0 .
. 2 2 0 0 . . . . . . . . .
. . . 0 . . . . . . . . . .
2 2 2 0 0 4 y 2 0 0 3 3 0 4
. 1 4 0 2 . . . . . . . . 5
427

. 1 1 0 0 5 y 0 0 0 0 3 0 3
. 1 3 1 . . . . . . . . . .
2 2 4 1 0 5 y 0 1a 0 3 1 0 4
1 2 5 0 0 5 y 0 0 0 3 3 0 4
. . 3 0 . . . . . . . . . 5
. 1 . 0 0 . . . . . . . . 3
. 1 . . . 5 y 0 0 0 . . 0 .
. . 1 . . . . . . . . . . 4
. 1 . 0 2 5 + 0 0 0 3 2 . .
2 3 . 1 2 5 y . 0 . 3 . . .
. 2 1 3 0 . . . . . . . . .
2 2 1 5 7 5 y 0 0 0 3 3 0 4
. . . 0 2 5 y . 0 0 . 3 1b 4
. . . 0 . 5 . . . . . . . 4
 Table A-67 continued
LM1- LM1- LM1- LM2-
LI1-sh LI2-sh LC-DAR LP3 LP4 LM1-hypo LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-a.f. LM1-dtc
c.7 proto d.w. hypo

2 2 . . . 5 y 2 0 0 3 3 0 .
3 2 2 0 0 5 y 0 0 0 . 3 1a 3
. 1 . 0 2 . . . . . . . . .
2 1 4 0 0 4 y 2 0 4 3 3 0 .
1 1 1 3 0 4 y . 0 . . . 0 4
. . 2 . . 4 y 0 0 0 . . 0 .
2 2 3 0 . 5 y . 0 0 . 2 0 .
1 1 1 1 . 3 y 2 1 0 3 3 0 2
. . . . . . y . 0 0 . . . 5
428

2 3 1 1 0 5 y 0 0 2 3 2 0 4
. . . 0 0 . . . . . . . . 5
2 2 2 0 0 4 y 2 1a 0 2 3 0 3
2 2 0 0 0 3 y 2 0 0 3 3 1b 4
2 2 4 0 1 4 y 2 0 0 . . 1b 4
. 2 . 0 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 0 3 4 + . 0 0 3 2 1b 4
. 2 1 0 0 . . . . . 2 3 0 3
. 1 . 0 0 . . . . . . . . 5
. . 3 1 1 5 y . 1a 0 2 1 0 3
. . 4 . . . . . . . . . . .
. 2 0 1 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 1 5 y 0 0 0 2 . 0 4
. 3 2 0 1 5 y . 0 0 . . 0 .
 Table A-67 continued
LM1- LM1- LM1- LM2-
LI1-sh LI2-sh LC-DAR LP3 LP4 LM1-hypo LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-a.f. LM1-dtc
c.7 proto d.w. hypo

2 2 3 5 3 4 y 2 0 0 3 3 0 3
2 2 1 . 0 . . . . . . . . 4
1 1 1 0 0 5 y 0 0 0 . . . 5
2 1 . . . 5 y 0 1a 0 3 3 0 .
. 2 4 0 2 . . . . . . . . 4
1 2 1 0 0 5 y 0 1a 0 3 4 0 5
. 0 . 0 0 . . . . . . . . .
1 0 3 0 0 4 y 2 1a 0 3 3 0 3
. 2 2 0 0 4 y 2 . 0 3 . 0 .
429

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 2 0 1 0 . . . . . . . . 4
3 3 0 0 0 4 y 0 0 0 2 2 1b 3
1 1 3 0 1 5 y 0 1a 0 2 3 1b 4
. . . . 0 . . . . . . . . 2
. 2 2 3 2 3 y 5 0 0 2 3 1b 3
. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . 0
1 2 2 0 0 4 y . 0 0 2 3 0 3
. 3 . 0 0 5 y . 0 0 2 3 1b 4
. 2 . 0 1 5 y . 0 1 3 . 0 2
1 1 2 1 1 5 y 1 0 0 2 3 0 1
1 1 3 0 0 5 y 0 0 0 1 4 0 .
. . . 0 0 . . . . . . . . .
1 2 1 3 1 5 y . 0 0 3 2 0 .
 Table A-67 continued
LM1- LM1- LM1- LM2-
LI1-sh LI2-sh LC-DAR LP3 LP4 LM1-hypo LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-a.f. LM1-dtc
c.7 proto d.w. hypo

. 1 . 0 0 5 y 0 1a . . . 0 4
. . 3 1 . . . . . . . . . .
. 1 4 0 0 . . . . . . . . .
1 1 2 0 0 . . . . . . . . 1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 2 1 0 0 . . . . . . . . 0
3 3 1 0 2 5 x 0 0 7 2 3 0 2
. . . 0 . . . . . . . . . .
. 1 2 0 0 5 x 2 0 0 . . 1a 4
430

. 1 1 0 0 . . . . . . . . 3
. . . 0 0 3 + 0 0 0 2 2 0 0
2 . 2 0 0 4 y 2 0 0 3 3 1b 1
. . 2 0 1 5 y 0 0 0 2 3 0 5
1 . 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . .
1 1 2 0 0 4 y 2 . 0 . . 1b 1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 2 1 0 0 5 y 0 0 0 3 3 0 4
3 2 3 4 1 . . . . . . . . 3
3 2 3 0 2 5 y 0 0 0 2 2 0 4
. 2 4 0 0 4 y . . 0 . 4 1b .
3 3 5 0 2 4 y 2 1a 0 2 3 0 4
2 3 0 0 0 5 y 0 0 0 2 4 0 4
1 . 5 0 0 . . . . . . . . .
 Table A-67 continued
LM1- LM1- LM1- LM2-
LI1-sh LI2-sh LC-DAR LP3 LP4 LM1-hypo LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-a.f. LM1-dtc
c.7 proto d.w. hypo

3 3 3 0 0 . . . . . . . . 3
2 2 1 . . . . . . . . . . .
1 2 2 2 1 5 y 0 0 0 . 2 0 4
. 1 4 0 0 5 y 0 0 0 3 1 0 3
. 2 3 0 0 4 y 2 1a 0 3 3 0 3
2 2 1 0 0 5 y . . 0 . . 0 5
1 1 0 0 2 . . . . . . . . 0
. . 3 . . . . . . . . . . .
. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . .
431

. . 2 0 0 . . . . . . . . 5
1 1 . . . 5 y 0 0 0 3 4 1 3
. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 2 1 0 1 . . . . . . . . .
. . . 0 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 3 5 4 3 5 y 0 0 0 3 3 0 4
. . . 0 0 . . . . . . . . 0
1 2 2 0 4 4 y 0 0 0 2 3 0 4
2 2 3 0 0 4 y . 0 4 2 3 1b 4
. . . 0 0 . . . . . . . . 1
3 3 2 0 2 5 y 0 0 0 3 . 1b .
2 2 1 0 2 5 + 0 0 0 2 3 0 5
. . 1 . . . . . . . . . . .
 Table A-67 continued
LM1- LM1- LM1- LM2-
LI1-sh LI2-sh LC-DAR LP3 LP4 LM1-hypo LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-a.f. LM1-dtc
c.7 proto d.w. hypo

. 2 2 2 2 5 y . 0 0 2 . 0 4
. . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 4
1 2 . 2 2 4 y 0 . 0 . . . 0
. . . . . 5 y . . . . . . .
. . . . 2 5 + 0 1a 0 1 3 0 5
. . . . 1 . . . . . . . . .
1 3 4 0 2 4 y 0 0 0 2 3 1 4
2 2 3 0 0 . . . . . . . . .
2 2 4 0 0 5 y . 0 0 2 2 0 3
433

2 1 1 0 0 5 . . 0 0 . 1 1b 0
2 2 0 4 0 5 y . 0 0 2 3 0 3
. . . 0 . . . . . . . . . .
. 2 3 0 0 3 y . . . . . . 1
. 3 3 0 0 5 x 0 0 0 3 4 1b .
1 1 1 0 0 . . . . . . . . .
3 2 4 0 0 5 y . 0 0 . . 1b 4
3 3 2 4 2 4 y 2 1a 0 2 2 0 1
1 1 0 0 0 5 y 1 0 0 2 3 0 3
. 2 . 0 . 5 y 0 0 0 . . . 0
1 1 3 0 0 4 y 2 0 0 2 3 1b 0
. 2 1 . 0 5 y 0 0 0 2 . . 4
1 1 3 0 0 5 y 0 0 0 . 3 0 5
. 3 1 0 0 5 y 0 0 0 3 3 0 5
 Table A-67 continued
LM1- LM1- LM1- LM2-
LI1-sh LI2-sh LC-DAR LP3 LP4 LM1-hypo LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-a.f. LM1-dtc
c.7 proto d.w. hypo

1 1 . . 0 4 y 2 0 0 2 3 1b .
. . . 0 1 5 y . . . 3 3 . 0
. . . 0 0 4 y 0 0 0 2 4 . 3
. . 2 0 0 4 + 0 0 0 . 3 0 2
. . . 0 0 . . . . . . . . .
1 1 . 0 1 5 y 0 0 0 3 . 1b 5
3 3 2 0 0 5 . . . . . . . .
. 1 2 0 0 . . . . . . . . .
1 . 2 0 0 5 . . . . . . . 3
433

2 2 1 0 1 5 y 2 0 0 3 3 0 3
1 2 . 3 2 4 y 2 1a 0 3 3 0 4
1 2 . . 0 5 y . . 0 . . . 0
3 3 1 0 0 5 y 0 1a 0 0 4 1a 2
. 3 4 0 0 4 y 3 0 0 2 3 1b 4
2 1 2 0 0 5 y . 0 0 1 2 0 3
. . . 0 0 4 y 0 . 0 . 2 0 .
 TABLE A-68. XCAMBO: NONMETRIC DATA
(LM2-g.p. through LM3 dist trig cr.)

LM2- LM2- LM3- LM3-

LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-c.7 LM3-dtc
g.p. proto proto a.f.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
. . . 0 1 . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 1 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
434

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 0 0 0 . 2 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
y . 0 0 1 . 3 x 0 0 0 1 .
+ . 0 4 2 . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 1 0 6 0 1 5 x 0 0 3 0 0
y 0 0 0 3 . . . . . . . .
y 0 0 0 0 . 4 . 0 0 0 0 .
+ 0 0 0 3 1a . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 2 1a . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 0 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 0
 Table A-68 continued
LM2- LM2- LM3- LM3-
LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-c.7 LM3-dtc
g.p. proto proto a.f.

+ 0 0 0 1 0 0 x 0 0 4 0 0
+ 0 0 0 . . 4 x 0 0 0 . .
+ 0 0 0 1 . 1 x 0 0 0 1 .
+ 2 0 0 2 . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 0 . . 4 x . . 0 . 0
+ . 0 0 2 . . . . . 4 . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 0 x 0 0 0 1 0
x 0 0 0 2 1a 5 x 0 0 0 0 0
435

+ 0 0 0 2 0 4 x 0 0 0 4 1b
x 0 . 0 1 0 0 + 0 0 . 3 0
+ 0 0 0 4 0 4 x 0 0 0 . 0
x 0 0 0 1 0 3 x 0 0 0 1 0
. . . . . . . x . 0 0 2 0
+ 0 0 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0
+ 3 0 0 3 0 3 x 0 0 0 1 0
+ 0 0 0 2 0 . x . 0 0 0 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 1 0 . . . . . . .
+ . 0 0 0 . . . . . . . .
+ 2 0 0 4 1a 2 x 0 2 0 4 1a
 Table A-68 continued
LM2- LM2- LM3- LM3-
LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-c.7 LM3-dtc
g.p. proto proto a.f.

+ 3 0 0 3 . 3 x 2 0 0 3 .
+ 0 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
+ 1 0 0 1 0 0 x 0 0 . 0 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
y 0 0 0 2 . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 2 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . .
x 2 0 0 2 0 4 x 0 0 0 2 0
436

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 3 0 3 x 0 0 6 4 0
+ 0 0 0 1 . 0 x 0 0 0 0 .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 1 0 0 x 0 0 0 2 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 1 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 0 . . 2 . 5 x . 0 4 1 .
x 2 0 0 2 . 3 x 3 4 0 4 0
+ . 0 0 2 0 4 x 2 . 6 4 .
x 0 0 0 2 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 0
 Table A-68 continued
LM2- LM2- LM3- LM3-
LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-c.7 LM3-dtc
g.p. proto proto a.f.

+ . 0 0 2 . . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 1 . . . . . . . .
. . 0 0 2 . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x . 0 0 2 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 .
x 0 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 4 0 2 3 1a . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
x . 0 0 1 0 . . . . . . .
437

x 4 0 0 4 0 . . . . . . .
+ 1 0 0 3 0 3 x 0 0 . 3 0
x 0 0 0 2 . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 3 0 0 2 . . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 2 0 0 y 0 0 0 1 .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 0 0 . 3 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 2 x 0 3 0 0 0
 Table A-68 continued
LM2- LM2- LM3- LM3-
LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-c.7 LM3-dtc
g.p. proto proto a.f.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x . . . . 0 . . . . . . .
. . 0 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ . 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
+ . 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
x . 0 0 2 0 . x . . 0 . 0
438

. . . . . . 0 x 0 0 0 2 0
x . 0 0 1 0 . . . . . . .
+ 2 0 4 3 0 4 x 0 0 . 3 0
y 0 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 4 3 . . . . . . . .
+ . 0 0 3 0 4 . 0 0 0 . .
x 0 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ . 0 0 . . 4 . . . 7 . .
. . . . . . 4 x 4 0 0 2 0
x 3 0 0 2 0 4 x 2 0 6 . 0
x . 0 0 1 . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
 Table A-68 continued
LM2- LM2- LM3- LM3-
LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-c.7 LM3-dtc
g.p. proto proto a.f.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ 3 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 0 x 0 0 0 1 0
x . 0 0 1 . . x . . 0 . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 4 x . . 0 . 0
+ 2 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
439

x . 0 0 . 0 0 x 0 0 0 2 0
+ 0 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
+ . 0 0 3 0 3 x 0 0 0 3 .
+ 2 0 0 1 0 . . . . . . .
x 0 1a 4 3 0 . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 2 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 2 0 0 2 0 . . . . 4 . .
+ 0 0 0 1 0 . . . . . . .
x . 0 0 1 0 . . . . . . .
+ 2 0 0 1 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
xx 0 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
 Table A-68 continued
LM2- LM2- LM3- LM3-
LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-c.7 LM3-dtc
g.p. proto proto a.f.

x 0 0 0 2 0 0 x 0 0 0 2 0
+ 1 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
x . 1 0 3 1a . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 3 0 5 1 0 4 x 3 0 0 0 0
x 0 0 . 3 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ 2 0 0 3 0 0 x 0 0 . 1 .
440

. . . . . . 3 x 0 2 0 1 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
y+ 0 0 0 2 0 3 yx 0 0 . 4 0
x 0 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 . 0 3 x 0 0 4 0 0
+ 3 0 0 4 0 2 x 3 0 0 3 0
+ 0 0 0 3 0 0 x 0 0 2 1 0
y . 0 0 3 1a . . . . . . .
x 3 0 0 1 0 4 x 0 0 0 0 0
x 0 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x . 0 0 3 0 5 x 5 0 7 0 0
 Table A-68 continued
LM2- LM2- LM3- LM3-
LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-c.7 LM3-dtc
g.p. proto proto a.f.

x 0 0 0 1 0 0 x 0 0 7 0 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 5 x 0 0 4 1 0
x 0 0 0 2 0 0 x 0 0 4 3 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 2 0 4 x . 3 2 . 0
x 0 0 6 3 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 5 x . 0 0 . 0
441

x 3 0 0 4 0 . . . . . . .
. . . 0 . . 3 . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 3 0 4 x . 0 5 2 0
x 0 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 0 . 0 . 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 0 0 . 2 0 4 x 0 0 5 . 0
x 0 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
y 0 0 0 2 1b 4 y 0 0 3 3 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 5 2 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 2 0 4 x 1 0 . 1 0
. . . 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
 Table A-68 continued
LM2- LM2- LM3- LM3-
LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-c.7 LM3-dtc
g.p. proto proto a.f.

x . . 0 . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 2 0 4 x . 0 0 . 0
+ 0 0 0 2 0 3 x 0 0 0 0 0
x 2 1a 0 2 0 1 . . . . . .
y . . 0 1 0 . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 . 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
442

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ 2 0 0 2 0 . x . 0 . 1 0
+ 2 0 0 4 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 4 0 5 x 0 0 5 3 0
x 0 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
y 5 0 0 1 0 . . . . . . .
x 2 0 6 2 0 2 x 0 0 0 0 0
+ 0 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 5 x . . . 0 .
x 2 0 0 3 0 3 x 3 . 7 3 .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
 Table A-68 continued
LM2- LM2- LM3- LM3-
LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-c.7 LM3-dtc
g.p. proto proto a.f.

x 2 0 0 2 0 4 x 5 0 0 1 0
+ 0 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 7 0 .
x . . . . 0 0 x 0 0 4 . 0
x 0 0 0 2 0 4 x 0 0 1 . 0
. . . . . . 3 x 4 0 . 3 0
+ 0 0 0 2 0 3 x 0 0 3 3 1
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 3 0 0 3 0 3 x 2 0 0 4 1
x 0 0 0 1 0 3 x 2 0 0 2 0
443

x 0 0 0 1 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ 0 . 0 . 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 3 x 3 0 5 2 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 2 0 0 1 0 . . . . . . .
4 x 2 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 3 0 . x . . 0 2 0
x 0 0 4 2 0 . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 0 0 4 x . 0 0 . 0
y 0 0 0 3 0 . . . . . 2 .
+ 0 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 2 0 4 x 0 0 0 2 0
 LM2- LM2- LM3- LM3-
LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-c.7 LM3-dtc
g.p. proto proto a.f.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 . 0 . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 3 0 . + . 0 3 . 0
+ 0 0 0 2 0 3 x 3 4 0 2 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 3 0 5 x 0 0 5 4 0
x . . . 2 0 4 x 0 0 0 0 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x . . . . 0 . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
444

x 0 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
+ 0 . 0 . . 3 x . . 2 . 0
x 0 0 0 3 0 4 x 0 0 0 2 0
x 3 0 0 2 0 3 x 3 0 2 2 0
+ 2 0 0 2 0 3 x 2 4 0 3 0
+ . 0 0 1 0 . . . . . . .
 TABLE A-69. YAXUNA.: NONMETRIC DATA
(UI-1 shov through UM1 hypocone)

UI-1 d- UP3- UP3- UP4- UP4- UM1-

UI-1 sh UI-1 td UI-1 int g UI-1 curv UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. UI1-int gr uc-dar
sh par Amt par amt hypo

. . . . . 4 0 0 3 1 0 . . 4
. . . 9 . 6 . 0 . . . . . 5
. . . . . 4 2 0 . . . . . 3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5 5 2 0 0 5 3 0 3 . 1 1 . 5
. . . . . . . . . 1 0 11 0 5
445

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 5 3 0 0 . . . 5 1 0 . . 4
. . . 0 . 2 . 0 4 . . 1 0 5
4 3 . 0 1 4 3 0 4 1 . . . 4
6 0 4 1 3 5 2 0 . . . 1 . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 1 4 0 2 5 0 0 . 1 . . 1 5
5 5 3 0 1 5 5 1 3 . . . . 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5 4 2 0 1 7 4 0 2 1 . 1 . 5
4 . . 0 . 7 . 0 . 1 . 1 . 4
. . . . . 4 3 1 . . . . . .
. . . . 0 . . . 4 . . 1 . 4
 Table A=69 continued
UI-1 d- UP3- UP3- UP4- UP4- UM1-
UI-1 sh UI-1 td UI-1 int g UI-1 curv UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. UI1-int gr uc-dar
sh par Amt par amt hypo

5 5 3 0 0 5 4 1 . . . . . .
3 . . 0 . 3 . 1 3 1 0 1 0 4
5 6 3 0 0 5 4 0 . 1 . 1 . 5
. . . . . 4 3 0 4 . . 1 . 5
5 5 . 0 0 . . . 5 1 1 1 . 5
446
 TABLE A-70. YAXUNA.: NONMETRIC DATA
(UM1-cara through UM3 metacone3)

UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM1-para UM2-c.5.
MAT meta hypo MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta

0 0 1 0 4 2 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
5 . . . 5 . . . . . 0 0 0 0 1
1 3 0 5 4 1 0 . 0 4 3 0 1 0 3
0 1 1 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
7 0 1 0 4 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 . 0 4
447

. 0 1 . 5 3 0 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 1 1 0 5 3 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
0 0 . 0 5 3 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 4
0 0 . 0 5 3 0 . . 5 . 0 . . 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 0 1 0 5 4 0 . 0 4 2 0 0 0 4
1 0 . . 4 4 . . . 3 0 0 0 0 2
3 0 . 0 5 4 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
. 0 1 0 5 4 0 . 0 5 3 0 0 0 4
0 0 . 0 5 4 0 0 4 1 3 . . 0 3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 0 1 0 5 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 3
 Table A-70 continued
UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM1-para UM2-c.5.
MAT meta hypo MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta

. . . . . 1 0 . 0 5 . . . . .
2 0 1 0 5 4 0 . 0 4 4 0 1 0 3
0 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2
1 3 1 0 4 4 . . 0 4 0 0 1 0 3
5 . . . 5 . . . . . 3 2 1 0 2
448
 TABLE A-71: YAXUNA.: NONMETRIC DATA
(LI-1 shov through LM2 hypoconulid)

LM1- LM1- LM2-

LI1-sh LI2-sh LC-DAR LP3 LP4 LM1-hypo LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-c.7 LM1-d.w. LM1-dtc
proto a.f. hypo

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 2 . 0 . 4 x 0 0 0 3 4 0 .
2 2 1 . . 5 y 0 0 0 3 3 0 4
. 2 3 0 2 4 y 0 0 . 2 3 0 0
. . 2 . 0 5 y . 1a 0 2 2 . 4
449

2 . 2 0 2 4 y 0 0 0 2 . 1b 0
3 3 3 0 . 4 y 3 1a 0 3 3 1a 3
2 2 . 2 0 4 y . 1a 0 3 3 0 3
0 1 3 0 0 4 y . 0 0 3 3 0 4
3 2 2 . . . . . . . . . . .
1 1 . 0 0 5 y 0 2 0 3 . 0 0
. 2 1 5 2 4 y . 0 0 3 3 0 .
2 3 1 3 0 4 y 0 0 0 3 3 . 2
2 3 3 0 1 5 . . . . . . . 4
. . . 0 0 . . . . . . . . .
2 2 3 0 0 3 + 2 0 0 2 . 0 4
. . . 0 2 . . . . . . . . 4
2 3 . 0 0 4 y 2 3 0 2 . . 3
 Table A-71 continued
LM1- LM1- LM2-
LI1-sh LI2-sh LC-DAR LP3 LP4 LM1-hypo LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-c.7 LM1-d.w. LM1-dtc
proto a.f. hypo

. 2 4 . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 1 3 0 7 4 y 2 1a 0 3 3 . 4
. . . . 0 4 y 3 1a 3 . 3 . 3
. 3 3 0 . 3 y 2 0 0 3 3 0 .
450
 TABLE A-72. YAXUNA.: NONMETRIC DATA
(LM2-g.p. through LM3 dist trig cr.)

LM3- LM3- LM3- LM3-

LM2-g.p. LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-proto LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-c.6. LM3-dtc
g.p. c.7 proto a.f.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ . . . . 0 . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 . . 0 . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 3 0 0 4 x 2 0 0 0 .
+ 0 0 0 2 0 4 x 0 0 0 1 0
451

+ 0 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
x 1 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 2 0 3 x 1 0 2 2 0
+ . 0 0 3 0 5 x 0 0 . 3 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 1 0 5 x . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 3 0 3 x . 0 0 . 0
+ 0 0 . 3 . . . . . . . .
+ . . . 3 5 . . . . . 0 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 3 0 0 . 0 3 x 2 4 0 . 0
x 2 0 0 3 0 4 x 3 0 0 3 0
+ 2 0 0 3 0 2 x 0 0 4 2 1a
 Table A-72 continued
LM3- LM3- LM3- LM3-
LM2-g.p. LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-proto LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-c.6. LM3-dtc
g.p. c.7 proto a.f.

. . . 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ 1 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 2 0 0 x 0 0 0 . 0
. . . . . . 5 x 2 0 0 . .
452
 TABLE A-73. TEOTIHUACAN-LA VENTILLA: NONMETRIC DATA
(UI-1 shov trhough UM1 hypcone)

uc- UP3- UP4- UP4- UM1-

UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int g UI-1 curv UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. ui-1 int gr UP3-par
dar Amt par amt hypo

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 5 1 0 1 4 0 1 4 . 1 . . 4
. . . . . . . . 3 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 1 . 1 4
453

4 4 3 0 0 . . . 1 . . 1 0 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 2 . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 3 . . . . 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 6 3 0 0 3 2 0 3 . 1 . . 5
5 . 3 0 . 5 . 0 . . 1 . 1 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6 4 3 0 0 5 3 0 4 1 1 1 1 5
6 2 2 0 4 5 0 0 3 . 1 . . 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 1 . 1 . 5
 Table A-73 continued
uc- UP3- UP4- UP4- UM1-
UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int g UI-1 curv UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. ui-1 int gr UP3-par
dar Amt par amt hypo

. . . . . 5 1 0 1 . 0 1 0 5
. . . . . . . . 4 . . . . .
5 1 . 0 1 4 2 0 4 1 1 1 . 5
. . . . . 4 3 0 . . . . . .
3 3 3 0 0 . . . . 1 0 . 0 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 4 . . 0 . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 3 1 1 1 1 5
. . . . . . . . . . 1 . . 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
454
 TABLE A-74. TEOTIHUACAN-LA VENTILLA: NONMETRIC DATA
(UM1-cara through UM3 metacone)

UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM1-para UM2-c.5.
MAT meta hypo MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 3 . . . 4 0 . . . 1
. . . 0 4 1 . . 0 5 2 0 . 0 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
455

5 1 0 5 2 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
6 0 1 0 5 1 0 1 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 5 4 . . 0 5 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 5 2 . . 0 4 0 0 0 0 1
4 . . 0 5 5 . . 0 5 4 . . 0 4
. . . . . 1 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
6 1 1 0 5 3 . 1 0 5 0 0 1 0 2
. . . . 4 3 . . 0 . 0 0 . 0 1
. . . . . 3 . . 0 4 3 0 . 1 4
. . . . . 3 . . . 4 . . . . .
0 . . . 5 3 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
 Table A-74 continued
UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM1-para UM2-c.5.
MAT meta hypo MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta

2 . . 0 5 . . . . 3 0 . . . 0
. . . . . 4 . . . 4 . . . . .
3 0 . 0 4 4 0 . 0 5 4 5 . 0 3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 0 . 0 5 2 0 . 0 5 0 0 0 0 4
. . . . . 4 . . 0 4 1 . . 0 2
. . . . . . . . . . 2 0 . 5 4
2 0 1 0 5 4 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
0 . . . . 2 . . . 5 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
456
 TABLE A-75. TEOTIHUACAN-LA VENTILLA: NONMETRIC DATA
(LI-1 shov through LM2 hypconulid)

LM1- LM1- LM1- LM1- LM1-

LI1-sh LI2-sh LC-DAR LP3 LP4 LM1-hypo LM1-g.p. LM1-c.7 LM2-hypo
c.6 proto d.w. a.f. dt.c

3 3 2 3 0 5 y 0 0 0 2 2 0 4
. . . . . 4 . . . . . . . .
. 2 4 . 1 4 . . . 0 2 . . 2
. 2 . . 3 5 . . . . . . . 4
. 2 1 2 1 5 y 0 0 0 3 . 0 4
457

. . 1 1 2 5 y 2 0 0 2 3 0 2
2 . . . . 5 y 0 1a 0 2 4 0 3
1 1 . . . 4 . . . . . . . .
1 2 . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 3 2 3 . 4 . . . 0 . . . 3
1 1 2 1 . 4 . . . 0 . . . 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 3 . 5 4 5 x 0 0 0 . . 0 .
. 2 3 3 . 5 y . 0 0 . . . 3
. . 1 . . 5 . 3 0 0 0 3 . 4
3 3 3 3 . . . . . . . . . .
. 2 1 . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 4 . . . 0 . . . .
2 2 . 2 2 5 + . . 0 . . . 4
 Table A-75 continued
LM1- LM1- LM1- LM1- LM1-
LI1-sh LI2-sh LC-DAR LP3 LP4 LM1-hypo LM1-g.p. LM1-c.7 LM2-hypo
c.6 proto d.w. a.f. dt.c

2 2 2 0 0 5 y . . 0 . . . 3
. 2 . . 2 . . . . . . . . .
1 1 3 2 2 4 y . 0 0 3 . 0 4
. 2 . . . 4 . . . 0 . . . 3
1 1 3 2 0 5 y 0 0 0 . 2 1b 4
. . . . . 5 y . 0 0 . . . .
. 2 0 6 3 4 y . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 1 4 2 5 y . 2 0 . . . 3
2 3 3 0 0 5 + . 0 0 3 . . 3
458
 TABLE A-76. TEOTIHUACAN-LA VENTILLA: NONMETRIC DATA
(LM2 g.p. through LM3 dist trig cr)

LM2- LM2- LM3- LM3-

LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-c.7 LM3-a.f. LM3-dtc
g.p. proto hypo proto

+ 0 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 0 x 0 . 0 . 0
+ 0 0 1 1 0 0 x 0 0 6 . 0
. . . . . . 5 . . . . . .
+ . 0 0 . 0 5 x 0 0 0 . 0
459

+ . 0 0 3 0 3 x 3 0 5 0 0
+ 0 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 3 . . . . . .
. . . . . . . y 0 0 . . 0
. . . 0 . . 3 x 2 0 0 2 0
x 0 0 0 . 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 0 x 0 0 3 1 0
+ . 0 0 . . 4 x 3 0 0 . 0
+ . 0 0 . . 1 x 0 0 3 0 0
x . 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . x . . 0 . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ . . . . . 0 x 0 . 0 1 .
x . 0 0 . 0 . . . . . . .
 Table A-76 continued
LM2- LM2- LM3- LM3-
LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-c.7 LM3-a.f. LM3-dtc
g.p. proto hypo proto

+ . 0 0 . 0 3 x . 0 0 . 0
. . . . . . 0 x 0 0 0 0 0
+ . 0 0 . . 0 xy 0 0 7 0 0
. . . 0 . . . . . . . . .
+ . 0 0 2 1a 0 x 0 0 0 0 0
x . 0 . . 0 0 x 0 0 0 . 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ . 0 0 2 1a . . . . . . .
+ . 0 0 . 0 . . . . . . .
460
 TABLE A-77. TEOTIHUACAN 1986: NONMETRIC DATA
(UI-1 shov through UM1 hypocone)

UI-1 ui-1 int UP3- UP3- UP4-

UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int g UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. uc-dar UP4-amt UM1-hypo
curv gr par Amt par

2 4 3 0 0 5 4 0 3 1 1 1 1 5
6 3 3 0 2 4 3 0 2 1 1 1 1 4
4 . 1 0 0 5 0 1 . . 1 . . 4
6 6 1 0 0 5 3 0 . 1 1 . . 5
5 . 3 0 . 5 0 0 . 1 1 . . 5
. . . . . . . . . 1 1 1 0 5
461

. . . . . . . . 4 1 1 1 1 5
4 5 4 0 0 4 6 0 3 . . . . 5
4 4 4 0 0 4 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 5
6 3 4 0 1 2 2 1 4 1 . 1 1 5
6 5 2 0 0 6 3 0 3 . 1 . . .
2 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 2 . 1 . 1 5
4 6 2 0 0 4 5 0 4 1 0 1 0 4
 TABLE A-78. TEOTIHUACAN 1986: NONMETRIC DATA
(UM1 cara through UM3 metacone)

UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM1-para UM2-c.5.
MAT meta hypo MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta

. 0 . 0 5 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 3
0 3 . 0 5 1 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 2
0 0 . 0 5 3 3 . 0 4 2 3 0 0 3
2 . . 0 5 3 . . 0 4 3 0 . 0 4
. 0 . 0 4 2 0 . 0 4 1 0 0 0 2
462

5 . . . 5 4 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 2 4
1 0 . 0 5 3 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 2
7 . . 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
5 0 . 0 5 4 0 1 0 5 3 0 1 0 2
. 1 1 0 5 4 4 . 0 3 . . . . .
. . . . . 4 0 . 0 4 1 0 0 0 2
2 0 1 0 4 1 0 . 0 4 3 0 0 0 2
1 0 1 0 5 2 0 1 0 4 1 0 1 0 3
 TABLE A-79. TEOTIHUACAN 1986: NONMETRIC DATA
(LI-1 shov through LM2 hypoconulid)
4083909134

LM1- LM1- LM1- LM1- LM2-

LI1-sh LI2-sh LC-DAR LP3 LP4 LM1-hypo LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-c.7
proto d.w. a.f. dtc hypo

1 1 1 4 1 5 y 2 1a 0 . . 0 3
3 3 0 0 0 5 y 0 0 0 3 . 1b 4
. 2 . . 2 5 y 0 0 0 2 . 0 5
3 3 2 0 0 5 y 3 0 0 . . 1 4
. 2 2 0 0 4 y . 0 0 . . . .
463

2 2 1 3 2 5 + . 0 0 . . . 3
2 2 3 6 3 5 y 2 0 0 2 . 1b 4
1 2 . 2 2 4 + 2 . . . . . 4
1 1 0 5 1 5 y . 0 4 . . . 4
2 2 3 0 0 5 + 2 0 0 . . . 4
2 2 3 1 3 5 y 3 0 0 . . . 3
1 1 1 3 1 4 y 2 0 0 0 . . 3
1 1 2 0 0 5 y 1 0 0 3 3 1a 0
 TABLE A-80. TEOTIHUACAN 1986: NONMETRIC DATA
(LM2 g.p. through LM3 dist trig cr.)

LM2- LM2-
LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-c.7 LM3-proto LM3-a.f. LM3-dtc
g.p. proto

x 0 0 0 3 0 5 x 0 0 0 1 0
+ 0 0 0 0 0 4 x 0 0 0 0 0
+ 0 0 0 3 0 3 x 2 0 0 0 0
x 3 0 0 3 0 4 x 5 0 0 2 0
+ . 0 . 2 0 3 x 0 0 0 0 0
464

x 0 0 0 2 0 0 x 0 0 0 1 0
x 2 1a 0 3 0 4 x 5 4 0 4 0
x 3 4 0 . 0 . . . . . . .
+ . 0 6 1 0 4 + 5 0 6 1 1a
x 3 1a 0 3 0 4 x 4 0 0 0 0
x 0 0 3 2 0 3 x 3 0 4 0 0
+ . 0 0 2 0 4 x 0 0 0 1 0
x 0 0 0 4 0 . . . . . . .
 TABLE A-81: TEOTIHUACAN 1980-1982: NONMETRIC DATA
(UI-1 shov through UM1 hypocone)

UP4- UM1-
UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int g UI-1 curv UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. ui-1 int gr uc-dar UP3-par UP3-Amt UP4-par
amt hypo

5 6 2 0 0 4 2 0 3 1 1 1 1 5
4 4 3 1 0 5 4 0 . . 1 . . 5
6 5 4 0 2 4 4 0 3 . . . . 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 4 0 3 . 1 . . 5
465

. . . . . . . . 3 . . . . .
4 6 3 0 0 4 5 1 . 1 0 1 . 5
. . . . . 4 . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 4 0 3 . . . . 5
5 5 3 0 0 5 2 0 5 1 1 1 1 4
. . . . . 5 . 0 . . . . . 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 1 1 . .
5 4 3 0 0 . . . . . . . . 4
. . . . . . . . 4 1 1 1 1 5
4 6 3 0 0 6 2 0 4 1 1 1 1 4
6 2 . 0 0 5 0 1 5 1 1 1 1 4
3 4 3 0 0 4 3 0 1 . 1 . . 5
. . . . . 4 3 0 2 1 . 1 1 5
 UP4- UM1-
UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int g UI-1 curv UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. ui-1 int gr uc-dar UP3-par UP3-Amt UP4-par
amt hypo

3 . 2 0 . . . . . . 1 . . 4
. 0 . 0 1 4 . 1 . . . . . .
6 4 . 0 0 7 1 0 . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6 5 3 1 0 3 2 1 4 1 1 0 1 5
5 0 . 0 1 5 0 0 3 0 1 1 . 5
6 1 1 1 1 6 1 0 4 1 0 1 1 5
5 2 3 0 1 . . . 4 1 1 1 1 5
. . . . . . . . 2 1 1 1 1 5
466

5 4 3 0 0 3 3 0 5 1 1 1 0 5
5 6 3 0 0 5 4 1 . 1 1 1 . 4
4 3 . 0 1 4 2 1 2 . 1 1 . 5
. . . . . 4 3 0 . . . . . 4
 TABLE A-82. TEOTIHUACAN 1980-1982: NONMETRIC DATA
(UM1 cara through UM3 metacone)

UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM1-para UM3-c.5. UM3-meta
MAT meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta hypo MAT para

2 1 1 0 5 4 . 1 0 4 2 1 1 0 4
2 . . 0 4 2 . . 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . 4 . . . 0 4 2 0 0 0 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 0 5 4 . . 0 5 3 0 . 0 3
467

. . . . . 4 . . . 4 . . . . .
0 . . 0 5 3 . 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 0 5 3 0 . 0 5 . . . . .
2 1 . 0 5 4 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . 4 2 . . . 4 0 . . . 1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 0 0 1 0 2
3 . . . 5 3 0 1 0 4 . . . . .
. . . 0 5 2 . . 0 5 0 0 . 0 4
0 4 . 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
3 0 . 0 5 4 2 0 0 4 . . . . .
2 0 . 0 5 2 . . 0 4 1 . . 0 4
2 0 . 0 4 2 0 . 0 4 3 0 0 0 5
 Table A-82 continued
UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM1-para UM3-c.5. UM3-meta
MAT meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta hypo MAT para

. . . . 4 2 . . 0 5 . . . . .
. . . . . 2 . . . 4 4 . . . 3
. . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . 3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 0 . 0 5 4 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 4
0 0 . 0 5 2 0 0 0 5 . . . . .
5 . 1 0 5 4 1 1 0 4 . . . . .
2 . 1 0 5 4 . . 0 5 . . . . .
4 1 1 0 5 4 0 . 0 5 3 0 0 0 4
5 0 . 0 5 4 0 . 0 4 0 0 0 0 3
2 0 1 0 4 2 0 . 0 4 1 0 1 0 3
468

5 0 1 0 4 3 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
. . . 0 4 2 . . 0 5 2 . . 0 3
 TABLE A-83. TEOTIHUACAN 1980-1982: NONMETRIC DATA
(LI-1 shov through LM2 hypoconulid)

LM1- LM1- LM1- LM2-

LI1-sh LI2-sh LC-DAR LP3 LP4 LM1-hypo LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-c.7 LM1-dtc
proto d.w. a.f. hypo

2 2 0 0 0 4 y . 0 0 3 3 0 3
1 2 0 0 1 5 y . 0 0 . 3 1a 3
3 3 0 2 . 4 y . . . . . . 4
. . 4 6 . 5 y 1 0 0 3 4 0 5
3 3 . 5 . 4 y . . 0 . . . 3
. . . . . 4 . . . 0 . . . .
469

2 2 . 2 2 5 y 1 1a 0 2 3 0 3
3 3 3 0 0 4 y . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 3 3 3 2 5 y . 0 1 3 . . 4
2 2 . . . 4 y . . . . . . 3
1 1 . . . 4 y . . 0 . . . 3
. . . 1 7 5 y . . . . . . .
2 2 . . . 5 y 0 1a 0 3 4 1b .
. 1 . 7 0 4 x . . 0 . . . 3
. . . 1 . 5 y 0 0 0 . . 1b 1
2 2 3 3 2 5 y 2 0 0 . . . 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 2 . . 0 5 + . 0 1 2 3 0 4
 Table A-83 continued
LM1- LM1- LM1- LM2-
LI1-sh LI2-sh LC-DAR LP3 LP4 LM1-hypo LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-c.7 LM1-dtc
proto d.w. a.f. hypo

. . 3 . 1 5 y 0 . 0 . . . .
. . . 7 2 4 y . . 0 . . . .
2 2 . 3 2 . . . . . . . . 2
2 2 . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 2 2 2 1 5 y 0 0 0 3 3 1a 5
2 2 2 0 0 5 + . 0 0 3 . . 3
3 3 2 2 2 4 y 2 1a 0 3 4 0 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 3 3 . 3 5 y 0 0 0 2 . 1b 4
470

3 3 1 2 2 4 y 3 0 0 2 3 1b 4
2 2 2 3 0 5 y 0 0 0 . 2 0 4
. 1 2 2 2 4 x 3 0 0 2 . 0 3
. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .
 TABLE A-84. TEOTIHUACAN 1980-1982: NONMETRIC DATA
(LM2 g.p. through LM3 dist trig cr.)

LM2- LM2- LM3- LM3- LM3-

LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p. LM3-a.f. LM3-dtc
g.p. proto c.6. c.7 proto

+ . 0 0 3 0 3 + 0 0 0 3 0
x . 0 . . 0 . . . . . . .
x . . 0 . 0 1 x 0 0 0 . 0
+ 0 0 0 4 0 0 x 0 0 0 3 0
471

+ . . 0 . 0 4 x 0 0 0 . .
. . . . . . 0 x . . 1 . .
x 2 0 0 3 0 4 x 5 0 4 3 0
. . . . . . 2 x 0 0 0 2 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 2 0 0 0 0 4 . 3 0 5 0 0
+ . . . . . 2 x . . . . .
+ . 2 . 2 0 3 x 2 0 . . 0
. . . . . . 5 x . 0 0 0 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x . 0 0 . 0 . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
x 3 0 0 3 0 5 x 0 0 . . 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 4 0 5 x 4 0 3 2 0
 Table A-84 continued
LM2- LM2- LM3- LM3- LM3-
LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p. LM3-a.f. LM3-dtc
g.p. proto c.6. c.7 proto

. . . . . . 0 x 0 0 0 1 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x . 0 0 . 0 . x . 0 . . 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 2 0 3 x 2 0 0 0 0
+ . 0 0 . 0 . . . . . . .
x 2 0 1 4 0 5 x 0 . 5 2 0
472

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 . 1b 5x 0 0 0 2 0 1
x 0 0 0 3 0 4 . 5 4 0 2 0
x . 0 1 2 0 4 x 0 0 3 0 0
x . 0 4 0 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
 TABLE A-85. TEOTIHUACAN-CENTRO: NONMETRIC DATA
(UI-1 shov through UM1 hypocone)

UP3- UP3- UM1-

UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int g UI-1 curv UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. ui-1 int gr uc-dar UP4-par UP4-amt
par Amt hypo

0 0 4
5 4 4 0 0 6 0 1 5
3 0 0 4 3 0 3 1 4
2 1 0 1 2 2 0 4 1 1 1 1 4
4 5 4 0 0 3 0 3 1 5
473

3 5
5 3 0 5 4 0 4
3 1 1 5
3 2 3 0 0 7 0 0 4 1 1 1 4
3 5
5 5 0 0 5 2 0 5
 TABLE A-86. TEOTIHUACAN-CENTRO: NONMETRIC DATA
(UM1 cara through UM3 metacone)

UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM1-para UM2-c.5. UM2-para
MAT meta hypo MAT meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta

4 3 0 5 2 4
0 5 2 0 5 1 0 3
5 3 0 5 0 0 0 0 0
4 1 1 0 5 1 0 0 0 5
1 1 1 0 5 4 0 5 3 0 4
474

1 1 0 5 4 1 1 0 5 3 0 0 4
5 4 4 2 0 4 2
2 2 0 5 4 0 5 0 0 0 4
0 0 5 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2
0 4 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 3
2 0 0 5 3 0 0 4
 TABLE A-87: TEOTIHUACAN-CENTRO: NONMETRIC DATA
(LI-1 shov through LM2 hypoconulid)

LM1- LM1- LM1- LM1-

LI1-sh LI2-sh LC-DAR LP3 LP4 LM1-hypo LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-c.7 LM2-hypo
proto d.w. a.f. dtc

2 1 5 y 0 2 3
3 4 y 0
1 1 1 2 4 y 3
2 4 4 5 y 0 1a 0 3 3 0
2 3 3 2 1 5 y 0 0 0 0 3
475

3 1 0 0 5
4 1 4 y 3 0 3
3 2 4 3 5 y 0 2 0 2 0 4
2 2 0 0 0 4 y 3 0 0 1b 0
2 2 0 1 5 + 0 0 0
2 1 0 3
 TABLE A-88. TEOTIHUACAN-CENTRO: NONMETRIC DATA
(LM2 g.p. through LM3 dist trig cr.)

LM3- LM3- LM3- LM3-

LM2-g.p. LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-proto LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p. LM3-dtc
c.6. c.7 proto a.f.

+ 0 5 x 4 0
x 0 0 0 0 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 0
+

+ 0 0 2 0 4 x 0 0 0
476

+ 0 0 3 0 5 x 2 0 0 0 0
x 4 0 5 0 5 x 0 0 6 3 0
+ 4 0 1b x 0 0
+ 0 0 0 0
x 0 0 0 1 0
x 0 2 0 0 x 0 0 0 3 0
 TABLE A-89. TULA: NONMETRIC DATA
(UI-1 shov through UM1 hypocone)

UP3- UP3- UP4- UP4-

UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int g UI-1 curv UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. ui-1 int gr uc-dar UM1-hypo
par Amt par amt

6 3 4 1 0 . . . . . . 1 0 .
. . . . . 2 1 0 . . . . . .
5 4 3 0 0 5 3 0 . . . . 1 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 2 3 0 3 1 1 1 0 5
477

4 3 3 0 0 4 4 0 3 . 1 . 1 5
. . . . . 5 0 0 . . 1 . 1 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6 0 3 0 2 4 2 0 4 . 1 . . 5
4 2 . 0 1 3 3 0 2 . 1 1 1 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 2 1 1 1 0 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 3 . 0 0 4 0 0 . . 1 . . 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 4 3 0 0 3 3 0 . 1 1 1 1 4
 Table A-89 continued
UP3- UP3- UP4- UP4-
UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int g UI-1 curv UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. ui-1 int gr uc-dar UM1-hypo
par Amt par amt

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
. . . . . 3 0 1 . . . . . 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
478

3 3 . 0 0 4 3 0 . . . . . 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 3 . 1 1 1 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6 3 . . 1 7 3 0 4 1 1 1 1 5
4 4 3 0 0 4 4 0 3 . 0 1 . 5
. . . . . . . . 3 1 1 . 1 4
5 4 . 0 0 4 0 0 4 . 1 . 1 5
6 0 3 0 2 4 2 0 . . 1 1 . 5
6 5 3 0 0 4 4 1 3 . . . . 5
. . . 0 0 2 0 0 . . . . . 4
6 1 2 0 2 6 0 1 3 . 1 . 1 5
 Table A-89 continued
UP3- UP3- UP4- UP4-
UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int g UI-1 curv UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. ui-1 int gr uc-dar UM1-hypo
par Amt par amt

. . . . . 5 2 0 3 1 1 1 1 5
5 3 4 0 0 4 3 0 4 . . 1 . 5
5 4 1 0 0 5 4 1 . . . . . 4
5 5 3 0 0 7 4 0 3 1 1 1 . 5
2 1 3 0 0 4 0 0 . . 1 . 1 5
479
 TABLE A-90. TULA: NONMETRIC DATA
(UM1 cara through UM3 metacone)

UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM1-para UM2-c.5.
MAT meta hypo MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 1 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . 5 3 . . 0 5 0 . . 0 2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
480

2 0 . 0 4 4 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
0 0 . 0 5 4 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 4
2 1 . 0 5 2 0 . 0 5 0,4 0 0 0 3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 . . 0 5 4 . . 0 5 . . . . .
2 0 1 0 5 4 0 1 0 4 2 0 0 0 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 0 1 0 5 2 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 0 4 4 . . 0 5 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 0 1 0 5 2 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
 Table A-90 continued
UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM1-para UM2-c.5.
MAT meta hypo MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 0 5 4 . . 0 4 2 0 . 0 4
. 0 . 0 5 4 . . 0 4 0 0 0 0 3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
481

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 0 4 4 . . 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 0 1 0 4 4 3 . 0 3 2 0 0 0 3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 2 . 0 5 4 . . 0 5 0 0 0 0 2
0 0 . 0 5 4 0 . 0 4 0 0 0 0 2
2 0 1 0 5 4 0 . 0 4 0 0 0 0 3
2 1 . 0 5 2 0 . 0 4 0 0 0 0 2
4 . . 0 5 4 . . 0 4 3 0 0 0 3
4 . . 0 5 4 4 1 0 4 3 3 1 0 3
. . . . 5 4 . . 0 4 1 . . 0 3
0 0 . 0 5 2 0 . 0 4 1 0 0 0 4
 Table A-90 continued
UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM1-para UM2-c.5.
MAT meta hypo MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta

. . . 0 5 4 . . 0 4 . . 0 0 4
1 0 . 0 5 3 0 0 0 5 . . . . .
. . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . .
4 2 . 0 4 4 1 . 0 4 . . . . .
5 . 1 0 5 3 5 . 0 5 . . . . .
482
 TABLE A-91. TULA: NONMETRIC DATA
(LI-1 shov through LM2 hypoconulid)

LM1- LM1- LM1- LM1-

LI1-sh LI2-sh LC-DAR LP3 LP4 LM1-hypo LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-c.7 LM2-hypo
proto d.w. a.f. dtc

1 1 . 0 1 . . . . . . . . 1
. 1 0 0 1 5 y . 0 3 2 3 0 3
1 2 2 . . 5 y . . . . . . .
1 1 0 0 1 4 y 2 0 0 3 3 0 3
. 1 2 3 0 5 + 0 0 4 2 . 0 1
483

. 1 4 . 1 5 + 0 0 0 . . 0 3
1 1 2 3 0 5 y 0 0 0 . . 0 3
1 1 1 0 0 4 y 1 0 0 . . 0 3
. . 2 3 1 5 y . 0 0 . . . 4
2 2 2 3 2 5 y 0 3 0 . . . 3
. . 0 1 2 5 y 0 1a 0 2 3 0 3,0
3 3 1 0 0 4 y . 0 0 . . 0 1
1 1 2 0 0 5 y 0 1a 0 3 3 0 3
. 1 1 3 0 5 y 0 0 0 . . . 4
. . 0 . . 5 y 0 0 0 . . 0 3
2 2 2 2 1 5 y 0 1a 0 3 . . 3
1 1 0 . . 4 y . . . . . . 4
1 1 2 0 0 4 y 0 3 0 . . 0 2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
 Table A-91 continued
LM1- LM1- LM1- LM1-
LI1-sh LI2-sh LC-DAR LP3 LP4 LM1-hypo LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-c.7 LM2-hypo
proto d.w. a.f. dtc

2 2 0 2 0 5 x 0 0 0 2 . . 4
. 2 . 0 0 5 y 0 4 0 2 . 0 4
2 2 0 3 2 5 y 2 0 0 . . . 5
1 1 0 0 0 5 y 0 0 0 2 3 1 2
2 2 . . . 5 y . . 0 . . . 3
. . 0 0 2 5 y . . 0 . . . 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 2 . 5 y . 0 0 . . . .
. . . . . 4 . . . . . . . 3
. . . . . 4 . . . . . . . 3
484

1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 1 3 3 2 5 + 0 0 0 . 2 0 5
1 1 2 4 3 5 y . . . 2 2 0 3
. . 0 0 0 4 y . 1a 0 2 . 0 2
3 2 2 3 0 5 y 0 0 0 . . 0 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 Table A-91 continued
LM1- LM1- LM1- LM1-
LI1-sh LI2-sh LC-DAR LP3 LP4 LM1-hypo LM1-g.p. LM1-c.6 LM1-c.7 LM2-hypo
proto d.w. a.f. dtc

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
485
 TABLE A-92. TULA: NONMETRIC DATA
(LM2 g.p. through LM3 dist trig cr.)

LM3- LM3- LM3- LM3- LM3-

LM2-g.p. LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-proto LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p.
c.6. c.7 proto a.f. dtc

+ 0 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
x . 0 0 . 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . 0 . x . . 0 . .
+ 0 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 2 0 4 x 0 0 4 2 0
x 0 0 0 2 0 3 x 2 0 0 0 0
486

+ . 0 0 2 0 5 x 0 2 7 0 0
+ . 0 0 2 0 4 x 0 . 0 2 0
+ . 0 0 2 0 . x 0 0 1 2 0
x . 0 0 2 0 3 x . 0 0 . .
+ 0 0 0 3 0 5 + 0 . 0 2 0
x 0 0 0 3 0 3 x+ 1 0 0 2 0
+ 2 0 0 3 0 5 x 0 0 0 2 0
+ 2 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
+ . 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
+ . 0 0 3 0 5 + 0 0 0 3 0
+ . . . 3 0 5 x 0 0 0 3 0
x . 0 0 3 0 2 x 2 0 0 2 0
+ 0 0 0 4 0 . . . . . . .
 Table A-92 continued
LM3- LM3- LM3- LM3- LM3-
LM2-g.p. LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-proto LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p.
c.6. c.7 proto a.f. dtc

x . 0 0 4 0 . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 3 . 0 . . . . . . .
x 0 0 0 . 0 4 x 3 0 5 1 0
+ . 0 0 . 0 5 x 5 . 0 2 .
+ . 0 . . 0 . . . . . . .
+ . . 0 . . . x . . 0 . 0
+ . . . . 0 5 x 0 0 1 . .
x . . . . . 0 x . . . . .
487

. . . . . 0 5 x . 0 0 2 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 0 5 x 0 0 0 3 0
+ 0 0 0 2 0 5 x 0 0 0 2 0
x 0 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
x 0 0 2 0 5 x 0 0 3 3 0
+ . 0 . . 0 4 x . 0 . . 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
 Table A-92 continued
LM3- LM3- LM3- LM3- LM3-
LM2-g.p. LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-proto LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p.
c.6. c.7 proto a.f. dtc

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
487
 TABLE A-93. CHOLULA: NONMETRIC DATA
(UI-1 shov through UM1 hypocone)

ui-1 UP3- UP3-

UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int g UI-1 curv UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. uc-dar UP4-par UP4-amt UM1-hypo
int gr par Amt

5 5 3 0 0 4 2 0 4 . 1 . . 4
. . . . . . 2 0 . . 1 . . 5
6 4 2 0 1 5 3 0 4 1 1 1 0 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4 4 1 0 0 3 3 2 . 1 1 . . 5
489

. . . . . 4 4 0 3 . 0 1 0 5
5 4 3 0 0 4 1 0 4 1 1 1 . 5
5 2 3 0 0 . . . 4 1 1 1 0 5
. . . . . 5 2 0 . . . 1 . 5
. . . . . . . . 2 . . . . 4
4 4 2 0 0 3 4 0 3 . 1 . 1 4
5 2 2 0 1 5 0 0 2 . 1 1 1 4
5 3 3 1 0 4 0 1 1 . 1 1 . 5
6 4 3 0 0 4 3 0 4 1 1 1 . 5
. . . . . 3 1 0 3 1 1 . . 5
5 4 3 0 0 4 2 0 3 . 1 . . .
. . . . . 4 0 1 3 . 1 . . .
6 2 4 0 1 5 1 0 5 1 1 1 0 5
. . . . . 5 4 1 3 1 1 1 1 5
 Table A-93 continued
ui-1 UP3- UP3-
UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int g UI-1 curv UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. uc-dar UP4-par UP4-amt UM1-hypo
int gr par Amt

4 3 . 0 0 4 4 0 3 . 1 . . 5
5 4 . 0 . 4 . . . . 1 . . 5
6 2 . 0 1 5 1 0 . 1 1 1 1 5
6 5 4 0 0 7 6 0 2 1 1 1 1 4
6 6 . 0 0 7 3 0 2 . 1 . 1 4
4 5 3 0 0 4 2 . . . . . . 4
5 2 3 0 0 2 1 0 3 1 1 1 0 5
4 3 2 0 1 3 0 0 3 1 . . . 5
3 2 . 0 1 5 0 0 . . 1 . 1 5
490

5 3 3 0 0 7 0 0 1 . 1 1 1 5
5 . . 0 . 6 0 0 . . . . . 4
5 4 1 0 0 4 3 0 3 . 1 . . 5
6 1 4 1 2 4 0 1 3 . . . . 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5 4 3 0 0 4 3 0 3 1 0 . . 5
6 5 4 0 0 4 0 0 1 . 0 1 . 5
6 0 . 0 2 4 0 0 3 . . . . 5
5 5 . 0 0 . . . 4 . . . . 5
. 2 . 0 0 5 0 0 . . . . . 5
5 3 . 0 0 4 0 0 3 . 0 . . 5
. 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 3 . . . . 5
3 5 3 0 0 3 3 0 . . . . . .
. 4 . 0 0 4 3 0 . . 1 . . 5
 ui-1 UP3- UP3-
UI-1 sh UI-1 d-sh UI-1 td UI-1 int g UI-1 curv UI-2 sh UI2 d.s. uc-dar UP4-par UP4-amt UM1-hypo
int gr par Amt

5 5 . 0 0 4 3 0 3 1 1 . 1 5
6 3 3 0 0 6 0 1 . . . . . 5
2 0 . 0 0 2 0 0 . . . . . 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 0 . 0 1 . 0 0 . . . . . 4
5 3 1 0 0 4 2 0 . . . . . 4
. . . . . . . . . 1 1 1 1 5
5 6 2 0 0 5 0 1 3 1 1 1 0 5
4 3 2 0 1 3 4 0 3 1 1 1 0 4
491
 TABLE A-94. CHOLULA: NONMETRIC DATA
(UM1 cara through UM3 metacone)

UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM1-para UM2-c.5.
MAT meta hypo MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta

0 1 . . 4 1 0 0 0 3 . . . . .
. 0 . 0 5 2 . . 0 5 . . . . .
0 1 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
. . . . 4 4 . . 0 5 . . . . .
4 0 . 0 4 3 0 0 0 4 2 0 1 0 3
492

0 2 1 0 4 3 . . 0 5 2 3 . 0 4
2 . . 0 5 4 4 . 0 4 . . . . .
4 0 . 0 5 . . . . . 0 0 0 0 1
2 1 1 0 4 4 4 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 2
4 2 . 0 5 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 0 5 3 4 . 0 3 1 5 . 0 2
2 0 1 0 5 2 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
2 1 1 0 4 1 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
. 0 0 0 5 4 0 . 0 5 3 0 0 0 4
. . . 0 5 3 0 . 0 5 3 0 1 0 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 1 1 0 4 4 0 1 0 4 0 0 1 0 2
4 2 1 0 4 4 0 1 0 4 3 0 0 0 3
 Table A-94 continued
UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM1-para UM2-c.5.
MAT meta hypo MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta

3 . . 0 5 4 . . 0 4 2 2 0 0 4
. . . 0 4 4 . . 0 4 . . . . .
2 0 . 0 5 4 0 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 3
3 1 1 0 5 3 5 . 0 2 . . . . .
0 . . 0 5 4 . . 0 4 0 0 0 0 3
. . . . 4 2 . . . 4 . . . . .
4 2 1 0 5 4 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
. . . 0 5 3 0 . 0 4 2 0 0 0 3
. 0 . 0 4 4 0 . 0 4 1 . . 0 4
492

1 . . 0 5 3 0 0 0 3 . . . . .
. 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 3
4 . . 0 5 4 . . 0 4 3 0 . 0 5
0 . . 0 5 3 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 5
1 0 . 0 5 2 0 0 0 4 2 0 . 0 2
5 0 . 0 5 4 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
. 0 . 0 5 3 0 . 0 5 0 0 0 0 3
. . . 0 5 4 0 . 0 4 0 0 0 0 5
. . . 0 5 3 3 . 0 3 1 4 0 0 4
0 . . 0 5 3 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 2
4 1 . 0 5 3 . . 0 5 . . . . .
. . . 0 4 3 . . 0 4 2 . . 0 2
. . . . . 4 . . 0 4 . . . . .
. . . 0 5 3 . . 0 4 3 4 0 0 4
 Table A-94 continued
UM1- UM1- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM2- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3- UM3-
UM1-cara UM1-c.5 UM1-para UM2-c.5.
MAT meta hypo MAT para meta hypo c.5. MAT para meta

5 0 . 0 4 4 0 . 0 4 . . . . .
. 0 . 0 5 3 . . 0 5 . . . . .
2 0 . 0 5 4 . . 0 4 3 0 0 0 3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 4 3 . . . . 2 . . . .
3 0 . 0 5 2 0 . 0 5 4 0 0 0 3
4 2 1 0 5 4 0 1 0 4 . . . . .
3 0 1 0 4 2 0 0 0 4 . . . . .
0 0 . 0 5 3 0 0 0 3 . . . . .
493
 TABLE A-95. CHOLULA: NONMETRIC DATA
(LI-1 shov through LM2 hypoconulid)

LM1- LM1- LM1- LM1- LM1- LM2-

LI1-sh LI2-sh LC-DAR LP3 LP4 LM1-hypo LM1-g.p. LM1-c.7
c.6 proto d.w. a.f. dtc hypo

. . . . 1 4 y . 0 0 . . . 3
1 1 . 2 1 5 + . . 0 . 2 . 3
. 2 5 . . 3 y 2 0 0 3 3 0 3
495

2 2 3 . 1 5 . . . 0 . . . .
1 1 2 2 2 5 5 0 0 0 3 3 0 5
. 2 3 0 0 5 y . 1a 0 3 3 0 5
2 2 3 0 0 5 y 3 1a 0 2 . . 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 3 2 2 2 5 + . 0 0 3 3 0 4
3 2 0 3 2 5 + 0 0 0 . . 0 5
2 2 2 . 1 4 + 4 1a 0 . . 0 4
. 1 0 1 1 5 y 0 0 0 2 2 0 3
2 2 1 0 1 5 y 0 0 0 3 2 0 3
. 2 . 1 2 5 y 2 0 0 . . 0 4
. . 0 2 1 5 y 0 0 0 . . 0 4
2 2 . 0 0 5 . 0 . 0 . . . 4
1 1 2 . . 5 y . . . . . . 3
1 1 2 0 0 3 y 3 0 0 3 4 1a 4
 Table A-95 continued
LM1- LM1- LM1- LM1- LM1- LM2-
LI1-sh LI2-sh LC-DAR LP3 LP4 LM1-hypo LM1-g.p. LM1-c.7
c.6 proto d.w. a.f. dtc hypo

2 1 1 4 2 5 + 0 4 0 2 . 0 3
1 1 0 0 1 5 y 0 0 0 . . . 3
. . 2 0 . 4 y . 0 0 . . . 4
2 2 . 2 1 5 . . 0 0 . . . 2
2 2 1 0 1 5 y 0 1a 0 3 3 0 3
3 3 2 0 0 4 y 2 0 2 . . . 3
2 2 . 0 . 4 . . . . . . . 3
496

2 2 3 0 1 5 y 1 0 0 3 3 0 3
2 1 0 0 0 4 y . 0 0 . . 0 2
1 1 0 0 0 4 y . 0 0 . . . 1
2 2 1 0 0 4 + 0 0 0 0 . 0 3
2 . . . . 5 x . 0 0 . . 0 0
2 2 1 0 2 . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 1 0 1 1 5 y 0 0 0 2 3 0 4
1 1 3 3 . 4 . 2 1a 0 2 . . 2
2 2 1 0 1 5 y . . 0 . . . 2
2 1 3 2 0 5 . 0 0 0 . 3 . 4
. . . 3 1 5 y . 0 0 3 . 0 .
1 1 . 1 2 4 y 3 0 0 3 3 0 3
. 2 . . 1 4 y 3 0 0 3 . 0 4
. . . . . 4 y . . . . . . .
. 2 . 3 . 5 y . 0 0 . . . 4
 Table A-95 continued
LM1- LM1- LM1- LM1- LM1- LM2-
LI1-sh LI2-sh LC-DAR LP3 LP4 LM1-hypo LM1-g.p. LM1-c.7
c.6 proto d.w. a.f. dtc hypo

. 2 2 2 . 5 y . 0 0 3 . 0 3
2 1 . 0 1 5 y . 0 0 3 3 . 5
3 3 2 . . 4 y . 0 0 . . 0 4
1 1 0 3 2 4 y . 0 0 . . 0 4
1 2 2 5 3 5 y 0 0 0 . . 0 3
. . . . . 5 . . . . . . . 4
2 1 1 1 0 5 y 0 0 0 2 3 0 1
1 2 4 3 5 4 y 2 1a 2 2 2 1a 3
497

. . . . . 4 y 2 1a 0 3 3 0 .
1 2 2 4 1 5 y 0 0 0 3 . 0 4
 TABLE A-96. CHOLULA: NONMETRIC DATA
(LM2 g.p. through LM3 dist trig cr.)

LM2- LM2- LM3- LM3- LM3-

LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-dtc
g.p. proto c.7 proto a.f.

x . 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
x . . 0 3 0 0 x 0 0 . . 0
x 3 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 4 . 0 0 . . 0
+ 0 0 0 2 0 4 x 0 0 0 1 0
498

+ 3 0 0 3 0 3 x . 0 0 . 0
x 3 1a 0 . 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
x 2 0 0 3 0 2 x 0 0 0 0 0
+ 0 0 0 1 0 . . . . . . .
+ 4 0 0 . 0 2 + 5 0 0 . 0
x 0 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
x . 0 0 . 0 5 x 2 0 3 0 0
x 0 . 0 . 0 . . . . . . .
+ . . 0 . . 4 x 0 0 0 . 0
. . . 0 . . . x . . 0 . .
+ 2 0 4 4 0 . x . . . . .
x . 0 0 . 0 5 x 0 3 4 2 0
 Table A-96 continued
LM2- LM2- LM3- LM3- LM3-
LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-dtc
g.p. proto c.7 proto a.f.

x 3 . 0 . 0 4 x 2 0 0 0 0
+ . . 0 . 0 4 x 1 0 0 . 0
+ . 0 0 . 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 0
x 0 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
+ 2 . 3 . 0 . x . . 4 1 .
. . . . . . . x . . . . .
+ 2 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
+ . 0 0 . 0 . . . . . . .
+ . 0 0 2 0 3 x . . 0 . 0
+ 0 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
499

x 0 0 0 . 0 . . . . . . .
+ . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ 0 0 0 2 0 . . . . . . .
x 2 1a 0 . 0 . . . . . . .
x . . 0 3 0 . x . 0 0 1 0
+ . 0 0 . 0 0 x . . 0 0 0
x . . . . . 3 x . . 0 3 0
+ . 0 0 3 0 2 x . . 0 . .
+ 2 0 0 . 0 5 x 0 0 0 3 0
+ . . . . 0 5 x 0 0 0 . .
y . . 0 . 0 3 . . . 5 . .
+ . 0 0 . 0 5 + . . 7 . 0
 Table A-96 continued
LM2- LM2- LM3- LM3- LM3-
LM2-c.6. LM2-c.7. LM2-a.f. LM2-dtc LM3-hypo LM3-g.p. LM3-c.6. LM3-dtc
g.p. proto c.7 proto a.f.

+ 0 0 0 . 0 . . . . . . .
+ . 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
x . 0 0 1 0 0 x . . 0 0 0
+ . 0 0 3 0 5 x 0 0 0 0 0
+ . . . . . 3 x 0 . 0 . .
x 0 0 0 . 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 0
x . 0 3 3 0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
500

+ 0 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . .
APPENDIX B. CEJ DIMENSIONS: RAW DATA-KEY TEETH ONLY

501
 TABLE B-1: ALTAR DE SACRIFICIOS (3 PAGES)

UI1MD UCMD UP3MD UM1MD LI1MD LCMD LP3MD LM1MD UI1BL UCBL UP3BL UM1BL LI1BL LCBL LP3BL LM1BL
6.36 5.85 5.11 . 2.95 5.64 5.24 9.37 6.96 8.18 8.57 10.01 5.78 7.35 6.83 8.87
6.54 5.83 5.2 8.3 3.88 5.78 5 9.49 6.3 8.41 8 10.68 5.05 7.7 6.64 8.56
. 5.84 . . . . . 9.06 . 7.95 . . . . . 8.54
6.39 6.43 . 8.18 3.2 5.35 5.14 10.22 6.65 7.91 8.09 10.44 5.78 . 6.87 9.11
. 5.77 5.05 . . 5.12 5.03 8.4 . 7.18 7.51 . . 6.9 6.61 8.74
5.04 5.66 4.54 7.07 . 5.01 4.78 8.75 6.99 7.75 7.22 9.06 . 6.58 6.25 8.01
6.94 5.91 5.67 8.32 3.63 6.23 4.72 9.97 7.07 8.42 8.32 10.48 5.86 8.3 8.5 9.66
. . 4.75 . 3.21 5.08 4.86 8.03 . . 8.2 10.31 5.23 7.57 6.59 8.99
502

. 6.71 5.01 8.47 3.47 5.68 5.37 8.29 . 9.12 8.69 10.52 5.84 8.05 7.87 9.79
6.43 5.44 4.25 7.48 3.43 4.96 4.39 9.83 6.12 7.75 8.01 10.55 5.35 6.91 6.42 8.72
. 5.97 5.04 7.72 . . . 9.19 . 7.35 8.51 10.59 . . . 9.25
6.6 . 4.79 . . . 5.04 . 6.63 . 8.59 . . . . .
7.36 5.49 4.44 . 3.73 4.47 . . 6.59 7.74 7.75 . 5.77 7.38 6.31 .
. . . . 3.29 4.85 4.68 8.82 6.32 7.61 8 9.34 5.27 7.14 6.47 9.1
5.56 5.36 4.71 7.34 3.58 4.64 4.62 7.95
. 5.43 5.52 7.93 3 4.78 4.07 8.79 . 7.23 7.95 10.43 4.8 7.06 6.72 8.82
6.41 6.12 5.42 8.09 3.31 5.86 5.12 10.01 6.9 10.08 10.23 11.57 6 9.51 7.86 9.43
6.84 5.87 4.7 7.99 3.25 5.53 5.34 9.46 6.51 8.47 8.99 10.88 5.44 7.99 7.41 9.4
. 5.55 4.59 7.54 . . . 8.82 . 8.23 7.8 9.89 . . . 8.91
6.4 5.11 . 8.45 . . 5.16 . 6.42 7.21 . 11 5.85 . 7.23 .
5.81 6.37 4.62 7.98 3.49 5.67 4.82 9.38 6.34 8.68 8.02 9.73 6.03 8.18 6.11 8.51
. 5.05 3.92 7.2 3.21 5.66 . 7.46 . 7.24 6.85 9.82 5.03 . . 9
 Table B-1 continued
6.56 . 4.42 7.53 . . 4.97 . 6.86 . 7.35 10.28 . . 6.6 8.44
6.9 5.89 5.46 . . . 5.73 10.2 . 8.57 9.11 10.94 . . 7.62 9.27
5.95 6.79 5.47 8.61 3.72 6.3 5.46 . 6.75 8.73 . 10.92 5.83 8.29 8.27 9.95
. . . . . . . 9.99 . . . . . . 6.81 9.55
6.94 6.46 . 9.41 3.71 . . 11.11 7.52 9.29 . 11.51 6.25 . . 10.32
6.5 6.16 5.5 8.29 3.86 5.67 5.39 9.38 7.05 7.75 8.87 10.38 5.45 7.76 7.13 9
6.03 5.8 4.7 7.18 3.35 5.49 5.1 9.02 6.06 7.65 8.39 9.61 4.97 7.05 6.47 8.28
. . . . . 5.77 5.52 10.1 . . . 11.87 . 8.86 7.37 9.89
6.13 4.78 . 7.23 . 4.64 4.64 9.38 5.87 7.18 . 9.55 . 6.32 6.22 9.04
5.73 5.05 5.24 7.4 3.51 4.77 4.79 9.05 6.35 7.28 7.7 9.66 5.32 7.02 6.25 8.51
503

. 5.9 . 7.76 . . 4.46 9.03 . 8.36 . 10.23 . . 5.99 8.92

6.42 4.97 4.5 7.66 . 4.68 4.63 8.78 6.14 7.65 7.86 9.86 . 7.42 6.71 8.82
. . . . 3.54 5.55 5.02 9.48 . . . . 6.19 8 6.97 9.2
5.34 . 4.52 8.02 . . . 9.11 5.57 . . 9.85 . . . 8.16
5.45 6.08 5.11 . 3.49 5.95 5.7 . 6.35 9.04 8.83 11.04 5.82 8.33 7.7 .
6.99 7.43 . 9.19 3.86 6.64 6.33 10.71 8 10.39 10.43 11.48 6.3 9.46 7.99 10.08
6.69 5.98 4.67 7.88 . . 5.15 9.41 6.53 7.95 7.91 10.57 . . 6.91 8.94
. . . 6.62 . 5.32 4.37 8.42 . . . 9.86 . 7.8 . 8.48
6.82 6.44 5.2 8.57 . 6.25 5.27 9.86 6.3 8.42 8.66 11.41 . 8.42 7.52 9.86
7.4 . 5.2 . . . . . 7.57 9.88 9.7 11.67 6.21 9.01 8.3 9.75
6.09 5.2 4.38 . . 5.06 4.87 8.73 7.11 7.92 8.16 10.35 . 7.65 6.79 9.28
5.5 5.09 4.24 7.61 3.09 4.57 4.37 8.36 6.5 7.48 8.35 10.1 5.12 6.71 6.09 9.08
. 5.93 . . 3.3 . 5.25 . . 9.16 . . 5.62 . . .
 8.86

Table B-1 continued

. . 4.73 8.3 . 4.46 4.1 8.42 . . 7.88 . . 6.63 6.12
. 4.91 5.15 7.89 3.04 5.15 4.65 9.32 . 8.19 8.41 10.37 5.18 7.98 6.29 7.8
6.17 5.43 5.16 . . . . . 7.32 7.61 8.19 . . . . .
5.63 6.03 4.41 7.35 3.19 5.26 4.84 8.81 6.27 8.04 8.5 9.78 5.07 7.49 7.07 .
. 5.81 4.7 7.95 . 5.41 4.92 9.37 . 7.84 7.87 10.85 . 7.56 7.52 8.71
. . . 7.44 . . . 9.28 . . . 10.77 . . . 9.37
. 5.33 . . 3.16 4.95 4.56 . . 7.48 . . 5.17 . 6.76 8.95
5.63 5.93 4.77 . 3.33 . 4.93 9.38 6.09 8.61 8.72 . 5.86 . 7.25 9.18
. . . . . 4.77 4.77 . . . . . . . 7.27 .
504

. . . . 3.44 4.88 . . . 7.66 7.25 . 5.35 . . .

6.25 6.22 5.58 8.54 . 5.4 5.66 9.92 7.11 8.31 9.34 11.33 . 8.17 8.12 9.96
 TABLE B-2: CALAKMUL

UI1MD UCMD UP3MD UM1MD LI1MD LCMD LP3MD LM1MD UI1BL UCBL UP3BL UM1BL LI1BL LCBL LP3BL LM1BL
. 6.14 5.04 7.86 3.61 5.73 5.13 . . 7.69 8.2 . 5.32 7.57 6.54 .
6.21 6.22 5.14 8.12 . 5.49 4.84 9.6 6.06 7.17 7.45 10.98 . 6.79 5.99 8.46
6.53 6.36 . 8.3 4.16 5.73 5.41 . 6.29 7.63 . 11.26 5.64 7 7.21 .
7.09 6.82 5.37 8.51 4.08 6.31 5.39 . 7.45 8.63 8.83 11.3 5.88 8.5 7.72 .
6.29 5.68 5.41 7.39 3.45 5.78 4.86 . 6.56 7.02 8.16 9.61 5.52 7.72 6.2 .
. 6.14 5.44 . 3.47 5.59 5.64 . . 8.6 8.59 . 5.15 7.66 7.58 .
505

5.89 5.89 . . 3.58 5.55 4.78 9.74 6.31 7.17 . . 5.33 7.3 6.59 8.2
7.1 . 5.14 8.43 3.94 5.77 . 9.96 6.62 . 8.24 11.28 5.7 8.38 . 9.1
5.98 6.11 5.23 7.29 . 6.23 5.09 . 5.31 . 8.04 10.23 . 8.15 7.17 .
. . 5.59 7.83 3.7 5.32 5.51 9.98 . . 8.33 10.45 4.99 6.84 6.55 8.06
6.56 . 4.57 7.97 . 5.17 4.73 . 6.42 8.22 7.53 11.01 . 7.35 6.61 .
6.63 6.73 5.24 8.45 4.07 6.74 5.71 . 7.58 9.27 9.07 12.08 6.27 9.33 7.5 .
7.1 6.02 5.36 8.18 3.68 5.83 5.4 9.44 6.47 8.35 8.43 11.88 5.47 8.18 6.85 9.77
6.42 . 5.07 8.09 3.67 5.99 . . 7.27 8.67 8.38 11.4 . 8.05 . .
5.96 6.15 5.73 7.95 3.37 5.96 5.49 9.95 6.62 7.6 8.05 11.05 5.69 6.98 6.55 8.85
6.5 6 4.88 7.96 . 5.46 5.12 . 6.3 . 8.21 11.04 . 7.48 6.96 .
7.03 6.89 5.76 . 3.72 6.18 5.79 . 6.37 8.73 8.91 . 5.59 8.01 7.67 .
6.36 5.51 4.71 8.03 3.28 5.73 5.4 9.57 6.58 7.23 7.38 10.95 5.17 7.03 6.56 8.8
5.88 6.04 5.4 8.39 3.4 5.75 5.14 9.54 6.21 8.36 8.41 10.2 5.25 8.3 6.94 8.84
 TABLE B-3: CALZADA MOPÁN

UI1MD UCMD UP3MD UM1MD LI1MD LCMD LP3MD LM1MD UI1BL UCBL UP3BL UM1BL LI1BL LCBL LP3BL LM1BL
7.09 6.55 5.32 8.1 4.01 6.01 . 9.52 6.68 8.38 8.83 11.13 6.14 8.05 . 8.83
6.59 6.31 5.46 7.88 3.56 5.87 5.45 9.78 6.56 8.1 8.16 10.68 5.05 7.84 7.53 8.87
6.11 . . 8.53 . 4.93 4.75 . 6.44 . . 11.04 . 6.49 6.83 .
6.12 5.67 4.96 8.37 4.04 . . 9.35 7.1 7.51 8.32 10.96 5.76 . . 9.22
6.32 6.1 . . . 5.46 . 9.25 6.41 7.52 . . . 7.04 . 9.18
5.82 . . 7.93 . 5.11 4.62 8.96 6.14 . . 10.27 . 6.92 6.33 8.57
506

. . . . 4.09 6.1 5.84 10.1 . . . . 5.91 8.23 7.01 8.89

6.93 6.57 5.39 8.28 . 6.08 5.68 9.8 6.3 8.59 8.61 11.67 . 7.81 7.35 9.26
. . 4.97 7.6 . 5.33 4.92 9.27 . . 8.53 10.6 . 7.09 6.94 9.08
6.8 6.26 5.14 8.17 3.7 5.62 5.19 9.4 6.93 7.58 8.35 11.15 5.31 7.18 6.66 8.64
 TABLE B-4: CHICHÉN ITZÁ

UI1MD UCMD UP3MD UM1MD LI1MD LCMD LP3MD LM1MD UI1BL UCBL UP3BL UM1BL LI1BL LCBL LP3BL LM1BL
6.39 5.8 . . 3.7 . . 8.37 6.25 7.84 . . 5.41 . . 7.2
. 6.31 5.69 7.88 . 5.32 5.21 . . 8.42 8.7 10.96 . 7.11 7.34 .
. 6.5 4.95 8.52 . . 5.41 10.2 . 7.44 8.08 11.49 . . 7.19 9.02
6.9 5.9 . . 3.18 . 4.68 . 6.21 7.58 . . 5.01 . 6.64 .
7.12 5.63 5.34 8.26 3.72 5.34 5.44 10.25 6.99 8.22 8.18 11.09 5.6 7.21 6.35 9.64
5.57 . 5.29 7.26 3.48 5.41 5.55 9.24 6.55 7.32 . 11.01 5.29 7.59 7.28 9.19
507

6.02 5.69 5 8.7 3.4 5.21 4.98 10.11 6.26 7.35 7.73 10.9 . 6.83 6.16 9.02
5.58 . . 7.71 3.54 5.8 5.34 . 5.95 . . 10.93 4.56 7.99 7.38 .
6.35 . . 7.9 3.96 5.53 5.23 9.53 6.77 . . 10.76 5.45 7.4 7.7 9.1
. 6.03 5.7 8.61 4.38 5.83 5.71 9.85 . 8.19 9.8 11.63 6.4 7.7 7.4 9.92
. . . . . 6.12 5.24 9.35 . . . . . 7.44 6.47 9.03
. . . . . 6.42 5.58 10.34 . . . . . 7.98 7.96 9.7
. . . . 4.13 6.37 5.45 9.94 . . . . 5.37 7.79 7.29 9.64
. . . . 3.54 5.37 4.97 9.56 . . . . 5.31 6.94 6.72 9.48
. . . . 3.78 5.98 4.54 9.56 . . . . 5.34 7.48 6.22 9.92
. . . . . . 5.17 9.88 . . . . . . 6.66 8.72
. . . . 3.51 5.95 5.13 9.87 . . . . 5.04 8.35 7.19 9.17
. . . . . 6.25 6.28 9.21 . . . . . 7.79 7.37 9.38
 TABLE B-5: COPÁN

UI1MD UCMD UP3MD UM1MD LI1MD LCMD LP3MD LM1MD UI1BL UCBL UP3BL UM1BL LI1BL LCBL LP3BL LM1BL
. . 4.74 . 2.92 . . . . . 7.52 . 5.49 . . .
. . . 11.47 . . . . . . . 7.83 . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 6.22 . . . . 5.14 . . 8.46 . . . . 7.29 .
. 6.42 5.37 9.25 3.6 . . 10.54 . 9.04 9.88 11.66 6.53 . . 10.37
. . . . . . . 8.9 . . . . . . . 9.49
5.35 5.28 5.09 7.53 . 5.07 . 8.84 5.51 7.16 8.04 10.15 . 7.14 . 8.6
6.11 5.16 . 7.5 3.59 5 4.44 8.56 6.31 7.06 8.4 10.3 5.21 7.32 6.01 9.23
508

6.13 . . . . 5.11 4.54 . 6.1 . . . . 7.34 7.03 .

5.66 5.41 5.25 8.81 3.85 6.11 4.9 9.61 5.86 8.53 8.54 11.01 6.01 8.15 7.12 9.39
6.56 4.92 5.14 7.21 . . 5.03 8.9 5.99 6.95 8.05 10.37 5.26 . 6.09 8.49
. . . 7.76 . . . 9.06 . . . 10.25 . . . 8.76
6.33 5.46 4.76 7.51 3.57 4.82 5.07 . 6.68 8.36 8.13 10.25 6.13 7.21 7.03 .
. . . . 3.43 5.59 5.47 9.8 . . . . 5.71 8.02 7.24 9.48
6.26 5.7 4.51 . . 5.21 4.94 . 5.3 7.46 7.35 . . 6.2 6.86 .
. 5.25 . 7.41 3 5.13 . . . 7.71 . 10.42 4.84 7.34 . .
. 6.02 . . . . 5.25 9.88 . 8.2 . . . . 7.78 8.71
5.53 4.78 . 8.84 . . . 9.13 6.49 7.09 . 10.57 . . . 8.33
. . . . . . . 8.88 . . . . . . . 7.99
6.44 . . 8.46 . . 4.65 9.94 7.06 . . 9.48 . . 6.58 8.56
6.33 6.29 4.72 8.08 3.24 . 5.02 10.2 6.23 7.67 8.94 10.23 5.34 . 6.68 9.36
. . . . . 5.91 5.22 9.51 . . . . . 7.4 . 9.88
6.31 4.99 4.86 10.78 . 5.14 4.74 8.85 6.7 . . 11.51 . 7.25 . 8.68
 TABLE B-6: CURUCUITZ

UI1MD UCMD UP3MD UM1MD LI1MD LCMD LP3MD LM1MD UI1BL UCBL UP3BL UM1BL LI1BL LCBL LP3BL LM1BL
7.32 6.89 5.53 9.28 . 5.9 5.3 . 6.72 8.91 8.73 12.74 . 8.15 7.64 .
. . . . . 5.82 5.51 9.62 . . . . . 8.05 7.19 8.66
6.44 . . . 3.46 5.17 4.76 8.95 6.26 . . . 5.2 7.13 6.46 8.53
6.82 . 5.16 . . 6.29 . 9.93 6.57 . 8.9 . . 8.23 . 8.63
6.62 5.77 5.05 8.31 3.95 5.16 4.81 . 6.15 7.32 8.17 11.14 5.14 7.07 . .
6.18 6.08 5.02 7.53 . 5.62 5.01 9.33 6.35 7.29 8.1 10.66 . 6.93 6.68 8.88
. . . . . 6.6 5.88 10.4 . . . . . 8.73 7.87 9.88
7.33 6.85 5.25 . 4.1 6.13 5.13 9.69 6.61 7.88 8.96 . 5.67 7.9 6.83 8.91
6.77 6.31 5.65 8.59 . 6.11 5.38 10.17 6.63 8.23 8.87 11.34 . 8.16 7.17 9.19
509
 TABLE B-7: DOS PILAS (2 PAGES)

UI1MD UCMD UP3MD UM1MD LI1MD LCMD LP3MD LM1MD UI1BL UCBL UP3BL UM1BL LI1BL LCBL LP3BL LM1BL
. . . . 3.14 5.77 4.55 . . . . . 5.52 7.6 7.13 .
7.56 5.95 5.27 8.91 4 5.8 5.09 11.03 6.68 8.23 8.42 12.24 5.99 8.12 7.4 9.96
. . 5.03 8.17 3.5 . 5.15 9.57 . . 8.84 11.13 5.19 . 6.83 9.63
6.79 . 6.12 . . 6.19 4.98 9.87 7.07 . . . . 8.02 6.35 9.3
6.35 6.02 5.57 8.22 4.1 5.86 . . 6.13 7.39 8.98 9.87 5.24 7.74 . .
6.59 6.15 . . 3.92 6.01 5.69 9.86 6.84 7.41 . . 5.37 7.23 7.16 9.26
7.07 6.03 5.29 8.84 3.91 5.63 5.32 10.32 6.33 7.78 8.38 12.08 5.62 7.5 7.16 9.62
6.76 6.25 5.12 8.59 3.55 5.87 5.16 9.9 5.78 7.38 8.05 10.79 4.77 6.97 6.53 8.68
510

6.57 . 5.61 . 4.37 5.86 5.9 10.15 7.06 8.97 . . 5.43 7.75 7.66 9.56
. 6.33 . 8.36 . 5.54 5.73 . . 8.62 . 11.58 . 7.93 7.69 .
7.23 6.84 5.54 8.53 . 6.23 5.65 10.1 6.86 8.94 9.27 12.17 . 7.97 7.77 9.84
7.46 6.68 5.19 8.75 . 5.97 5.56 10.49 6.49 8.48 8.06 11.62 . 7.35 6.63 9.52
6.85 6.4 4.83 8.24 3.39 5.79 4.94 10.07 6.47 7.5 7.2 11.41 4.56 6.64 6.16 9.68
. 6.68 5.56 7.83 . . 5.6 . . 8.14 8.06 11.21 . . 6.84 .
6.18 5.35 4.44 7.67 . . 4.6 9.39 6.28 6.87 7.51 10.71 . . 6.45 8.17
6.24 6.13 5.7 7.95 3.7 5.72 5.18 9.42 6.03 7.9 7.67 11.26 5.37 7.45 7.14 8.18
. . . 7.82 3.49 . 4.76 . . . . 10.89 4.96 . 7.19 .
. . . . . 6.07 . 10.07 . . . . . 7.5 . 9.58
. 6.57 5.48 8.22 . . 5.73 9.64 . 7.92 8.35 10.62 . . 7.02 8.43
7.07 6.19 4.74 7.93 3.53 5.8 4.93 9.62 6.97 8.17 8.24 11.08 5.6 7.8 6.93 8.96
6.85 6.37 5.05 8.22 3.67 5.51 5.11 10.17 6.51 8.42 9.37 11.27 5.36 7.71 6.8 9.15
. 6.42 5.26 7.76 . . . . . 9.88 9.66 12.63 . . . .
 Table B-7 continued

. 6.38 5.52 8.19 3.97 6.38 5.55 9.82 . 8.61 8.44 11.04 5.67 8.24 6.77 8.28
6.24 6 . . . 5.11 4.82 . 6.08 7.34 . . . 7.05 6.69 .
6.55 6.1 4.84 7.76 3.63 5.47 5.18 9.16 6.79 8.06 8.06 11.06 5.8 7.66 6.93 9.25
6.71 6.14 5.39 8.03 3.64 5.67 5.27 9.62 6.29 7.99 8.45 11.13 5.45 7.93 6.7 8.98
6.32 5.38 4.93 . 3.7 4.96 4.8 . 6.84 6.82 7.35 . 5.32 6.49 5.97 .
6.19 5.8 5.06 . 3.56 5.27 . . 6.58 6.89 8.09 . 5.13 7.14 6.52 .
. 5.67 4.61 7.34 . 5.34 4.98 . . 7.82 8.13 10.46 . 7.44 6.84 .
7.02 6.43 5.52 . . 5.85 5.49 . 6.95 8.29 8.61 . . 7.73 . .
511
 TABLE B-8: DZIBILCHALTÚN

UI1MD UCMD UP3MD UM1MD LI1MD LCMD LP3MD LM1MD UI1BL UCBL UP3BL UM1BL LI1BL LCBL LP3BL LM1BL
6.37 5.84 5.22 8.04 . 5.32 4.95 . 6.64 8.29 7.78 10.62 5.46 7.31 6.79 .
. . 5.8 8.79 . . . 9.53 . . 9.1 10.87 . . . 8.78
7.09 6.68 6.13 8.74 4.2 6.56 5.97 10.34 7.24 8.81 9.32 11.81 6.11 8.6 7.81 8.91
6.09 . 4.89 . . 6.04 4.77 . 6.98 . 8.82 . . 7.75 6.86 .
6.49 5.39 4.88 . . . . . 5.78 7.77 8.78 . . . . .
6.84 5.35 4.84 8.71 3.85 . 4.65 . 6.65 7.57 8.05 11.37 5.94 . 6.18 .
512

. 6.46 5.05 . 3.92 5.9 5.22 10.4 . 8.72 8.77 . 5.32 8.12 7.27 9.66
. . . 8.37 . 4.95 . 9.17 . . . 11.43 . 7.37 . 8.25
. . . . 3.68 4.84 4.7 9.05 . . . . 5.07 6.78 6.19 8.96
6.87 5.66 5.08 8.16 . 5.16 . 10.1 6.63 7.82 8.06 11.25 . 7.73 . 9.45
. 5.72 5.05 7.92 . . . . . 7.44 8.05 10.83 . . . 8.69
7.25 6.65 5.09 8.75 4.06 6.2 5.81 9.43 7.05 8.56 9.35 11.34 5.79 8.12 7.4 9.41
7.37 . 5.63 8.85 . 6.35 5.49 9.48 7.28 8.16 8.45 11.09 . 7.55 7.11 9.15
6.88 5.79 5.22 . . 5.48 5.21 9.97 7.47 7.88 8.35 . . 7.12 7.17 9.69
 TABLE B-9: IX EK’

UI1MD UCMD UP3MD UM1MD LI1MD LCMD LP3MD LM1MD UI1BL UCBL UP3BL UM1BL LI1BL LCBL LP3BL LM1BL
7.04 6.57 5.56 8.75 . . 5.47 9.73 6.76 8.97 9.11 11.54 . . 7.65 8.84
6.99 7.29 5.46 8.99 3.84 6.46 5.67 10.39 6.62 8.56 8.13 11.58 5.36 8.38 . 10
6.86 6.04 5.4 . . . 5.33 9.57 7 8.14 8.3 . . . 7.02 8.84
. . . . . . 5.41 10.34 . . . . . . 7.93 9.02
6.37 5.57 5.29 7.41 . 5.14 4.78 . 5.98 7.87 8.6 10.96 . 6.94 . .
513
 TABLE B-10: IXKUN

UI1MD UCMD UP3MD UM1MD LI1MD LCMD LP3MD LP4MD LM1MD UI1BL UCBL UP3BL UM1BL LI1BL LCBL LP3BL LP4BL LM1BL
. 5.76 4.9 . 3.4 5.81 4.81 5.12 9.36 . 7.78 7.99 . 5.32 7.43 6.41 6.88 8.81
. 5.86 . . . 5.32 . 5.3 . . 7.64 . . . 7.02 . 7.34 .
. . . . 4.44 . 5.33 5.37 9.96 . . . . 5.95 . 7.34 7 9.4
6.53 . 5.41 . . . . 5.17 9.23 6.88 . 8.49 10.1 . . . 6.88 8.32
514
 TABLE B-11: IXTONTÓN

UI1MD UCMD UP3MD UM1MD LI1MD LCMD LP3MD LM1MD UI1BL UCBL UP3BL UM1BL LI1BL LCBL LP3BL LM1BL
6.97 6.25 5.14 8.43 3.55 5.81 5.31 9.45 7.39 8.19 8.23 11.19 5.59 7.7 6.72 9.34
. 6.51 5.37 8.14 3.93 5.9 5.35 . . 8.92 8.5 12.11 6.19 8.56 7.39 .
. . . . 3.95 5.93 5.25 9.56 . . . . 6.08 8.75 7.69 8.96
6.22 5.71 5.1 7.73 . 5.97 5.19 9.21 5.9 7.15 8.31 10.73 . 7.44 6.97 8.82
. 6.31 . 8.05 . 5.84 4.47 10.14 6.64 8.14 . 11.42 . 7.68 5.88 9.56
. . . 8.55 . . . 10.28 . . . 11.67 . . . 8.79
6.23 6.12 5.55 8.82 . 6.15 5.6 10.17 5.9 8.84 9.52 12.22 . 8.6 7.86 9.96
7.08 6.72 5.38 8.27 3.84 5.69 . 10.59 6.4 7.99 8.77 11.21 5.1 7.61 . 9.4
515

6.49 6.21 5.19 8.1 . 5.78 5.45 9.18 7.06 8.3 9.02 11.75 . 7.98 7.38 9.08
. 5.78 5.01 . . 5.41 . . . 7.91 8.29 . . 7.28 . .
6.85 5.95 5.17 8.12 3.61 5.59 5.2 9.5 7.07 8.49 8.81 11.41 5.08 7.89 7.44 9.38
. . 5.28 8.82 . 5.43 5.17 . . . 8.36 11.32 . 7.94 6.88 .
. 5.57 4.91 7.28 3.78 5.36 4.96 9.21 . 7.94 8.79 10.85 5.34 7.06 6.81 8.95
7.49 6.6 5.12 8.49 . 6.21 5.58 10.12 6.8 8.41 8.25 11.3 . 7.91 6.82 8.85
7.06 6.79 5.83 . . 5.79 5.42 . 6.55 8.3 9.21 . . 8.06 7.38 .
6.68 6.61 5.32 8.56 . . . . 7.01 8.74 8.65 11.26 . . . .
7.01 . . 8.22 . 6.08 5.31 10.49 6.38 . 9.03 11.78 . 8.4 6.95 .
. 6.29 . . 3.82 . . . . 8.19 . . 5.4 . . .
4.91 5.86 4.52 7.33 3.12 5.01 4.61 9.16 6.02 7.39 7.5 10.34 5.2 7 6.21 8.61
6.3 5.89 5.01 . . 5.75 5.4 9.16 6.39 7.81 8.71 . . 7.43 6.88 8.86
. 5.98 . . . . . . . 8.42 . . . . . .
 TABLE B-12: KAMINALJÚYU

UI1MD UCMD UP3MD UM1MD LI1MD LCMD LP3MD LM1MD UI1BL UCBL UP3BL UM1BL LI1BL LCBL LP3BL LM1BL
6.11 6.2 5.31 . . . . . 6.79 7.95 8.35 . . . . .
7.62 . 5.22 . . . 5.62 . 7 . 9.3 . . . 7.75 .
. . 6.38 7.83 3.51 5.87 5.32 . . . . 10.99 5.45 7.81 7.26 .
. . 4.47 9.08 3.15 5.58 5.33 8.83 . . 7.56 8.44 . 7.45 6.54 8.35
6.2 5.98 4.73 7.89 . 5.39 4.84 9.13 7 8.12 8 10.82 . 8.04 6.99 9.67
. 5.5 5.19 8.02 3.08 5.61 5.23 9.39 . 7.19 8.99 10.3 4.62 7.35 6.36 8.31
. . 3.82 7.46 . 4.35 5.7 8.42 . . . 9.96 . 6.71 6.55 7.92
5.52 5.47 4.29 7.76 . 5.3 4.68 8.9
. . . . . 4.99 . . . . . . . 8.1 . .
516

. 5.7 4.5 5.74 . . 4.82 . . . 7.73 . . . 6.09 .

6.53 5.74 . 9.22 . . . . 7.14 . . 10.84 . . . .
. . 5.08 8.31 . . 5.01 . . . 8.39 . . . . .
. . 4.3 7.15 . . . 9.52 . . 7.61 9.6 . . . 8.19
. 6.3 5.34 7.79 . . . . . 8.62 9.69 10.64 . . . .
. . 4.43 7.29 3.57 5.89 4.42 . . . 8.27 9.93 4.89 7.4 5.94 .
. 6 4.88 7.86 . 5.64 5.36 10.2 . 8.87 8.46 11 . 8.08 . 9.43
6.91 . . . 4.35 5.57 5.32 . 7.37 . . . 5.89 8.06 7.56 .
. 7.24 6.29 8.45 . 6.58 6.08 11.3 . 9.93 9.51 12.24 . 9.07 7.98 9.86
. 6.71 5.83 9.08 . 6.26 . 10.06 . 8.65 8.86 11.35 . 7.95 . 9.55
6.35 5.63 5.25 7.88 . 5.63 5.13 9.44 6.19 7.74 7.34 10.92 . 7.71 7.12 8.49
. . . . 4.26 6.72 6 10.66 . . . . . 8.28 7.12 9.55
6.18 5.83 . . 3.93 5.28 4.77 9.44 6.14 7.23 . . 5.12 6.68 5.6 9.27
 TABLE B-13: PALENQUE

UI1MD UCMD UP3MD UM1MD LI1MD LCMD LP3MD LM1MD UI1BL UCBL UP3BL UM1BL LI1BL LCBL LP3BL LM1BL
. 6.69 5.42 9.24 . 6.34 5.43 9.94 . 8.78 8.69 12.06 . 7.99 7.51 9.87
. . . . 3.38 5.43 5.26 9.36 . . . . 4.94 7.17 7.17 8.77
. 5.5 5.17 7.82 4.09 5.46 5.1 9.26 . 7.84 7.85 10.82 5.5 7.57 7.19 9.21
6.35 5.31 4.73 7.41 . 5.05 4.85 8.96 6.05 7.06 7.08 10.47 . 6.83 6.48 9.25
5.96 5.2 4.64 7.88 . . . . 6.22 7.29 7.99 10.64 . . . .
. 7.45 5.55 8.7 3.37 6.63 5.61 . . 9.23 9.32 12.03 4.76 7.94 7.65 .
. . 4.73 7.97 3.8 5.64 4.99 9.56 . . 8.35 10.77 4.64 7.39 6.62 9.25
. 6.92 6.02 8.29 3.63 6.14 5.19 9.77 . . 9.4 10.76 5.29 8.33 7.03 8.99
517
 TABLE B-14: PIEDRAS NEGRAS (4 PAGES)

UI1MD UCMD UP3MD UM1MD LI1MD LCMD LP3MD LM1MD UI1BL UCBL UP3BL UM1BL LI1BL LCBL LP3BL LM1BL
. . . . . . . 10.46 . . . . . . . 9.48
. . . 8.18 . . 5.09 9.82 . . . 11.09 . . 6.77 8.48
7.11 6.77 5.53 8.67 3.8 6.25 5.44 9.7 7.35 8.84 9.19 12.51 6.33 8.7 7.31 10.67
. . . . . . . 9.55 . . . . . . . .
5.92 . . . 3.62 5.41 5.4 . 6.37 . . . 5.67 6.99 6.72 .
7.4 6.36 5.19 8.43 4.02 5.27 5.07 9.92 6.08 7.1 7.98 10.81 5.41 7.29 7.09 8.65
. 6.46 5.26 . 3.86 5.89 . 9.63 . 7.74 8.24 . 5.85 7.37 6.83 8.95
6.95 6.78 5.9 . 3.73 6.46 5.7 10.38 6.75 8.26 8.81 . 5.72 8.3 7.45 9.53
518

6.62 . . . 3.72 5.41 5.04 8.67 6.5 . . . 5.34 7.72 7.15 8.14
6.29 6.55 5.04 8.26 . 5.85 4.97 10.1 6.18 7.89 8.12 11.48 . 7.36 6.74 9.27
6.76 5.66 4.89 8.04 3.72 5.32 5.03 8.99 6.25 7.33 8.58 11 4.68 6.97 7.06 9.09
6.6 5.98 4.97 8.45 3.36 5.3 4.82 9.2 6.39 7.25 8.36 11.03 5.13 6.82 6.58 9.19
6.72 6.41 4.92 7.8 . 5.97 4.98 . 6.02 8.09 7.91 10.76 . 7.46 6.59 .
6.87 6.09 5.64 8.57 . . . 10.22 6.91 7.73 8.72 11.67 . . . 9.79
6.74 6.11 5.92 8.38 4.35 6.27 5.95 10.48 6.46 7.56 9.11 11.14 5.78 7.02 7.17 9.14
6.21 5.92 5.34 7.89 4.03 5.45 5.07 9.8 6.45 . 8.04 10.91 5.8 7.62 7.33 8.91
7.03 6.67 5.67 8.44 3.71 6.32 5.6 10.44 6.39 8.45 8.73 12.18 5.59 8.36 6.99 10.07
7.59 5.89 . 7.34 . 5.28 5.02 8.31 6.82 7.8 . 10.44 . 7.08 6.73 8.2
7.06 . 5.38 8.67 . . . 9.69 6.34 . 9.47 11.63 . . . 9.67
7.16 . . 8.48 3.61 . . 10.12 6.73 . . 11.59 5.39 . . 9.07
. . . . . 6.23 5.57 . . . . . . 8.09 7.41 .
5.88 5.66 4.83 7.89 3.93 . . . 6.07 7.57 7.9 10.85 5.79 . . .
 Table B-14 continued

7.42 6.88 . . 4.09 . 5.51 10.62 6.68 8.64 . . 5.67 . 7.03 9.22
. 6.14 4.98 8.33 3.69 5.25 4.72 9.5 . 8.02 8.43 11.36 5.37 7.35 6.91 9.15
. . . . . 5.45 . . . . . . . 7.21 . .
. . . . 4.13 5 4.66 9.63 . . . . 5.1 7.23 6.52 9.8
6.82 6.04 5.57 8 3.51 5.88 . 9.63 6.83 8.7 8.47 11.15 5.46 8.18 . 9.51
6.08 5.8 5.15 7.2 3.44 5.3 5.17 8.7 6.49 7.56 8.17 10.49 5.12 7.32 6.97 8.42
. . 5.53 8.12 . . . . . . 8.67 10.84 . . . .
. . . 8.33 . . 5.43 9.36 . . . 11.09 . . 7.03 8.59
7.41 6.58 5.21 8.47 4.04 5.84 5.27 9.78 7.46 8.08 8.24 11.67 5.79 7.71 6.7 8.56
519

. 6.26 5.33 . 3.96 5.39 5.21 10.13 . 7.54 8.07 . 5.23 7.26 6.79 8.95
6.93 5.88 5.86 . 4.33 . . . 6.71 7.92 9.03 . 5.45 . . .
6.72 6.06 . 7.96 3.49 . . . 6.68 8.04 . 11.59 5.58 . . .
6.23 5.5 4.92 7.04 . . . 9.17 5.43 6.56 7.56 9.61 . . . 8.58
. . . 8.15 3.03 5.12 . 9.71 . . . 11.35 5.13 . . 9.16
6.1 5.69 4.96 8.18 3.45 5.47 . . 6.1 7.56 8.09 10.63 5.13 7.32 . 8.63
6.29 6.3 4.97 7.81 3.49 5.92 4.81 9.66 7.2 7.94 8.31 10.73 5.32 7.51 6.74 8.73
6.39 6.87 5.33 . . . . 8.86 5.98 8.09 8.89 . . . . 9.62
6.94 6 . 8.6 . . 5.22 . 7.1 . . 10.92 . . . .
7.31 6.11 5.36 8.42 3.81 5.73 5.29 . 6.37 8.74 . 11.83 6 7.74 6.98 .
7.26 6.57 5.46 8.81 4 6 5.39 10.17 7.59 9 9.05 12.08 6.12 8.48 7.39 9.8
6.28 5.68 4.35 7.62 3.41 5.41 4.5 . 6.14 8.23 7.81 10.69 4.99 7.51 6.52 .
. 6.13 5.19 . 3.78 6.19 5.36 9.74 . 8.67 8.38 . 5.66 8.05 7.25 .
6.55 6.73 5.54 7.98 . 6.14 . 9.22 6.71 8.66 9.33 11.78 . 8.44 . 9.07
6.67 6.89 5.64 8.44 3.48 . 5.82 10.16 6.73 8.77 9.15 11.44 5.17 . 7.35 10.33
 Table B-14 continued
. 5.89 . . . 5.46 . . . 8.18 . 10.79 . 7.61 . .
.
. 6.33 4.83 8.6 3.7 5.63 5.11 . . 7.35 7.74 10.56 5.39 7.14 6.33
7.25 6.58 5.45 . 3.94 5.95 5.27 9.62 6.24 8.14 8.35 . 5.5 7.58 7.04 8.72
5.67 5.02 5.16 7.08 3.44 4.54 4.88 8.47 6.36 6.84 7.55 9.55 4.94 6.88 6.01 7.94
7.01 . . . 3.85 5.48 . . 6.97 . . . 5.95 8.12 . .
6.71 6.06 5 8.25 3.74 5.2 4.83 10.15 6.32 7.49 7.87 10.9 5.42 7.35 6.73 9.02
6.27 5.22 4.37 7.91 3.42 4.88 4.22 8.94 5.36 6.72 7.15 10.34 5.03 6.61 6.13 9.15
6.48 5.79 5.11 7.74 . 5.26 5.07 9.29 5.91 6.98 8.22 10.01 . 7.15 6.56 8.89
520

6.91 6.55 . . 4.32 5.81 5.37 . 6.77 8.42 . . 5.69 8 7.13 .

. . . . . 6.3 . . . . . . . 8.44 7.19 .
. . . . . 6.52 6.05 . . . . . . 8.19 7.55 .
5.88 . . 7.65 . 5.19 4.75 . 6.18 . . 10.67 . 7 6.43 8.44
6.19 5.52 4.54 . 3.67 . 4.72 9.08 6.22 7.53 8.23 . 5.35 . 7.26 8.67
6.46 5.59 5.27 7.84 . 5.21 5.12 9.66 6.39 7.79 8.76 10.63 . 7.65 7.68 8.58
. 5.88 5.23 8.05 . 5.41 4.88 9.72 . 7.92 7.72 10.82 . 7.27 6.45 8.82
6.66 5.88 . 7.66 3.15 5.32 5.01 9.17 6.08 7.79 . 10.87 5.4 7.14 6.28 8.68
. 5.94 4.61 7.61 3.26 5.52 4.64 . . 7.99 7.9 10.78 5.33 7.67 6.17 .
. 7.86 4.89 7.69 3.62 5.31 4.89 9.24 . 7.88 7.92 11.55 5.53 7.52 6.77 8.66
7.1 . 5.41 . 3.97 5.88 5.7 . 6.99 . 9.12 10.27 5.87 7.72 7.35 .
6.12 5.88 . . 3.48 5.27 . . 6.64 8.14 7.85 . 5.33 7.79 . 8.89
6.1 5.71 4.67 8.15 3.44 4.93 4.98 . 6.29 7.46 8.06 10.53 5.34 7.33 6.77 .
6.12 . 4.65 . . . . . 6.62 . 7.6 9.93 . 6.94 . .
. 6.11 5.54 8.24 3.74 . 5.1 . . 8.08 9 . 5.32 . 6.99 .
Table B-14 continued
. 6.75 . . . . 5.68 10.7 . 8.6 . . . . 7.82 9.99
6.68 6.29 5.44 7.99 3.8 5.45 . 10.08 7.01 8.17 9.51 11.35 5.55 7.61 . 9.66
521
 TABLE B15: PLAYA DEL CARMEN

UI1MD UCMD UP3MD UM1MD LI1MD LCMD LP3MD LM1MD UI1BL UCBL UP3BL UM1BL LI1BL LCBL LP3BL LM1BL
. . . . . 5.2 5.55 9.79 . . . . . 7.7 7.25 9.49
. 6.33 5.32 8.22 . . . . . 7.68 8.81 10.79 . . . .
. 5.88 5.32 8.3 . . . . 6.47 7.25 8.15 11.52 . . . .
. 6.5 6.04 8.42 . . . . . 8.93 8.8 11.49 . . . .
5.91 5.56 5.42 . 3.42 5.04 4.89 9.38 6.5 8.06 9.31 11.13 5.84 7.71 7.42 8.95
5.72 5.58 4.43 7.08 . . . . 5.79 7.51 6.9 9.63 . . . .
. . 6.11 . . . . . . . 9.42 . . . . .
522

. . . . . . . 9.4 . . . . . . . 9.56
. . 4.91 8.57 . 5.89 5.18 9.77 . . 8.01 . . 6.96 6.72 9.15
. . . . . 5.68 5.06 8.9 . . . . . 7.53 7 .
. 6.1 6.02 9.63 . . . . . 8.37 8.89 11.81 . . . .
. 5.31 5.59 . . . . . . 6.62 7.83 . . . . .
. . . . 4.14 5.49 5.66 9.77 . . . . 5.54 7.61 6.92 8.99
. . . . 4.63 5.68 5.27 10.36 . . . . 6.18 7.89 7.84 9.62
. . . . 3.99 . 5.09 8.57 . . . . 5.53 . 6.17 9.18
 TABLE B-16: SAN GERVASIO

UI1MD UCMD UP3MD UM1MD LI1MD LCMD LP3MD LM1MD UI1BL UCBL UP3BL UM1BL LI1BL LCBL LP3BL LM1BL
7.45 6.72 6.26 8.82 4.12 . 5.88 10.5 7.3 8.05 9.75 12.09 6.11 . 7.72 10.21
. . . 8.82 . 5.94 5.59 9.85 . . . 10.92 . . 7.66 9.23
. . 5.99 8.92 . . . . . . 8.75 11.94 . . . .
6.28 5.74 5.28 7.98 . 5.56 5.43 9.66 6.33 8.51 8.68 10.97 . 7.79 6.95 9.29
6.96 . . 8.47 3.86 10.31 . . 7.01 . . 11.67 5.72 10.23 . .
6.48 5.65 . 8.13 . 5.46 4.8 9.2 5.98 7.36 . 11.24 . 7.42 6.64 8.82
6.37 6.46 4.96 8.19 3.88 5.94 4.94 9.6 6.49 7.95 8.4 11.64 5.58 7.77 7.07 9.97
523

. . . . . 6.72 5.67 9.86 . . . . . 8.4 . 9.22

. . . . . . 5.5 9.43 . . . . . . 6.92 8.91
. . . . 3.73 5.79 4.62 9.72 . . . . 5.35 8.23 7.5 9.5
. . . . 3.44 6.03 5.09 9.57 . . . . 5.16 7.49 7.15 8.63
7.34 7.23 5.64 8.75 . . . . 7.45 8.77 8.14 11.79 . . . .
. . . . 3.7 5.97 5.72 9.84 . . . . 5.93 8.21 7.5 9.68
. . . . . 6.14 5.37 9.6 . . . . . 7.97 7.22 9.62
. . 5.87 8.15 . . . . . . 8.63 11.05 . . . .
. 6.18 4.74 8.1 . . . . . 7.85 8.02 10.56 . . . .
. . . . . . 5.58 9.72 . . . . . . 7.35 9.29
. . . . 3.96 6.79 5.7 10.04 . . . . 5.29 7.96 7.12 9
. 5.93 5.39 7.85 . . . . . 8.12 9.22 . . . . .
. . 5.35 7.97 . . 4.98 9.87 . . 8.03 11.06 . . 7.06 9.06
 TABLE B-17: TIKAL (EARLY CLASS AND LATE CLASSIC COMBINED) (4 PAGES)

UI1MD UCMD UP3MD UM1MD LI1MD LCMD LP3MD LM1MD UI1BL UCBL UP3BL UM1BL LI1BL LCBL LP3BL LM1BL
7.2 6.43 5.37 8.56 . 5.88 5.21 10.35 6.61 8.06 8.36 11.67 . 7.9 7.1 9.02
6.65 6.26 5.31 8.29 3.63 5.84 4.98 9.19 6.61 7.73 8.07 10.82 5.49 7.42 6.4 8.42
7.33 7.39 6.3 8.75 3.85 . 6.4 . 7.58 9.58 9.64 12.29 6.48 . 7.99 .
. 5.56 4.65 7.4 . . 4.64 . . 7.66 7.52 10.04 . . 6.51 .
7.15 5.4 4.56 7.59 3.89 5.04 4.68 9.49 5.93 7.5 7.76 10.48 5.36 7.03 6.45 8.92
6.18 5.23 4.8 7.65 3.61 4.84 4.43 9.35 5.78 7.48 7.76 10.59 4.81 7.01 6.3 8.5
6.5 6.81 5.3 . 3.57 6.21 5.06 . 6.58 7.77 8.1 . 5.53 7.85 6.86 .
6.53 5.78 4.81 7.39 . 5.38 4.9 9.18 6.47 7.67 7.53 10.64 . 6.9 6.09 8.78
524

5.99 5.84 5.21 8.11 3.31 5.18 4.63 9.19 5.06 7.36 7.7 10.15 4.82 6.85 6.21 8.28
. . . . . 5.69 5.04 10.16 . . . 11.94 . 7.57 6.73 9.89
6.88 6.34 . . . . 5.41 . 6.7 8.19 . 10.82 . . 7.57 .
6.33 6.46 5.53 8.89 . 6.15 5.23 10.26 . 8.36 8.79 11.31 . 7.86 6.88 9.14
7.04 . 5.01 8.45 . 5.5 5.01 10.15 6.47 . 7.9 11.38 . 7.34 6.65 9.21
6.05 . . . 4.05 . 5.55 10.14 6.17 . . . 6.21 . 7.43 8.93
. . . 7.74 . 5.76 4.91 9.72 . . . 11.41 . 7.92 7.08 10.11
. . 4.82 7.97 3.91 5.84 5.48 9.89 . . 8.51 11.37 6.5 8.24 7.19 9.22
6.83 6.32 4.62 7.57 . 6.1 5.76 8.95 6.95 8.46 7.96 10.9 5.59 8.33 7.18 8.8
. 6.09 5.09 8.2 4.34 5.59 5.64 9.65 . 8.51 8.29 11.66 5.79 7.99 7.31 8.86
. 6.39 5.59 8.81 3.97 6.06 6 10.04 . 8.56 9.14 11.49 6.2 7.97 7.16 9.61
. . . . 3.37 5.62 5.24 9.94 . . . . 5.69 7.61 6.93 8.6
6.12 . 4.97 8.31 3.59 5.27 4.87 8.68 5.85 . 7.69 11.14 5.01 6.85 6.54 7.47
. 6.35 5.65 8.43 . . 5.24 . . 7.94 8.32 11.59 . . 7.5 .
6.74 5.38 4.74 10.08 3.22 5.03 4.79 9.6 6.21 7.62 7.3 9.57 5.16 6.71 6.41 8.3
. 5.9 4.8 6.95 . 5.14 4.44 8.31 . 7.68 7.83 9.92 . 6.79 6.23 7.79
 Table B-17 continued
7.07 6.3 5.17 7.7 3.86 . 5.4 9.56 7 7.92 8.48 10.92 5.8 . 7.08 8.96
6.01 5.49 . . . 4.98 4.62 9.87 5.86 7.17 . . . 7.17 6.36 8.35
. 7.1 5.52 8.57 . 6.47 5.59 9.99 . 8.78 9.36 11.83 . 8.41 7.74 9.62
. 5.88 4.93 8.29 3.53 5.58 4.91 10.13 . 8.32 8.3 11.08 5.73 7.7 6.78 9.01
. 5.98 . . 3.68 5.7 4.68 . . 8.15 . . 5.52 7.59 6.25 .
6.93 6.44 4.78 7.91 . 5.65 4.62 9.16 6.36 8.32 8.22 11.14 . 7.74 7.06 9.31
5.97 5.55 . 7.66 3.46 5.11 . . 6.39 7.72 . 10.89 4.81 7.26 6.98 .
6.62 6.05 4.98 8.39 3.53 5.6 4.86 9.67 6.39 7.46 7.86 11.19 5.18 7.51 6.6 8.59
5.99 5.52 4.9 7.35 3.32 5.11 5.26 9.57 6.65 7.48 7.82 10.38 5.35 6.94 6.85 8.71
. . . . 3.35 5.03 4.49 9.69 . . . . 5.18 7 7.22 8.93
525

6.43 . 5.25 . 3.54 6.04 5.53 10.46 6.97 . 9.4 . 6.08 8.49 8.12 9.89
. 6.71 5.7 8.84 . 6.06 5.48 10.35 . 8.8 8.56 12.05 . 7.94 7.21 9.8
7.02 6.15 5.27 8.56 3.86 5.6 5.21 9.35 6.46 8.17 7.93 11.63 5.56 7.31 6.23 8.85
7.1 6.17 5.43 7.94 . . . . 6.99 8.05 8.22 11.09 . . . .
7.28 6.78 5.86 8.4 . 6.24 6.27 11.14 8.01 9.52 8.68 12.36 5.84 . 7.55 9.38
6.49 6.29 5.21 8.15 3.75 5.31 4.53 9.53 6.43 8.06 8.84 11.66 5.72 7.38 6.4 9.14
7.93 7.32 5.79 11.63 . 7.32 5.97 10.45 7.79 9.73 9.3 12.52 . . 8.27 10.03
6.26 6.12 5.17 7.55 3.55 5.46 5.37 8.79 6.44 7.67 8.7 10.21 5.3 7.81 7.31 9.03
. 6.01 5.1 . . 4.78 4.96 . . 8.04 8.09 . . 6.68 6.62 9.27
6.07 5.72 4.61 7.64 3.83 5.33 5.3 9.5 6.3 7.01 7.21 10.51 5.16 6.73 6.23 8.85
6.72 6.52 5.47 8.12 3.96 6.06 5.72 9.14 7.04 8.27 8.61 10.78 5.79 8.1 7.45 8.57
. 6.12 5.09 7.79 4.07 . 4.78 10.14 . 8.25 8.74 11.2 5.69 . 6.96 9.17
6.56 6.31 5.39 8.32 4.19 6.15 5.8 10.07 6.55 7.84 9.17 11.47 5.96 8.07 7.46 9.83
6.26 . 4.83 7.91 . 4.93 4.72 . 6.19 . 7.66 10.63 . 6.83 6.34 .
 Table B-17 continued

6.04 6.4 5.16 . . . . 10.05 6.68 8.87 8.76 . . . . 9.69

7.28 6.79 5.94 8.76 . . . 10.3 7.86 9.43 9.51 12.51 . . . 9.71
6.17 6.32 4.82 7.5 3.32 5.34 4.83 . 6.12 7.58 8.56 10.77 5.56 7.66 6.83 .
7.02 6.23 . . . 5.01 4.83 8.98 6.04 7.69 . . . 6.83 6.4 9.11
6.33 6.11 5.3 7.31 . . . . 6.29 8.25 8.24 10.9 . . . .
6.4 6.07 5.35 . . 5.35 5.05 . 5.16 7.94 8.04 . . 7.17 6.93 .
6 . 5.6 . 3.53 6.62 . . 6.39 . 7.97 . 5.36 7.64 . .
. 6.11 4.95 7.61 . . 4.79 . . 7.23 7.53 10.11 . . . .
. 6.77 5.34 8.85 . . 5.84 . . 8.43 9.08 11.93 . . 7.36 .
7.4 5.83 5.37 8.19 . 5.72 5.02 10.12 6.47 8.11 8.98 11.27 . 7.23 . 9.18
. . . 7.84 4.3 6.12 5.36 . . . . 11.43 5.87 8.06 7.69 .
526

. 6.5 5.38 8.52 4.12 5.81 . . . 8.26 8.14 11.33 6.4 8.34 . .
7.36 6.6 . 9.13 3.89 . 5.93 10 6.89 9 . 11.86 5.36 7.94 8.09 9.4
. . 5.61 . . 6.28 6.02 10.46 . . 9.23 . . 8.55 7.44 9.69
6.97 . 4.95 . 3.52 4.96 4.98 . 6.57 . 7.64 . 5.21 6.97 6.26 .
6.35 . 5.34 8.22 3.64 5.7 5.25 9.31 6.94 8.29 8.12 11.27 5.2 7.57 7.24 8.76
6.69 6.76 5.73 8.44 3.53 . 5.96 9.94 7.04 8.3 8.76 11.23 5.37 . 7.48 8.82
6.85 6.65 5.75 8.3 4.03 6.42 6.12 9.8 7.82 9.68 9.17 10.68 6.11 8.82 . 8.79
5.97 5.21 5.1 7.68 . 4.85 5.06 . 6.54 7.22 8.39 10.63 . 6.66 6.55 .
. 5.76 4.8 . . 6.08 6.18 . . 7.31 . . . 8.65 7.42 .
. . 5.04 . 4.02 6.16 5.39 . . . 8.42 . 5.79 8.01 6.67 .
7.33 5.72 5.3 7.99 4.04 5.41 5.66 9.52 7.4 8.61 8.62 11.03 5.92 8.19 7.18 9.23
. 6.92 5.57 8.75 . . . 10.14 . 8.73 8.83 11.77 . . . 9.58
7.44 6.57 5.3 8.75 . 5.91 5.35 10.28 6.97 8.77 8.89 11.8 . 8.46 7.45 10.08
. . . . 4.16 5.72 5.35 10.63 . . . . 5.45 8.13 7.38 10.39
 Table B-17 continued
. 5.32 8.34 3.99 5.97 4.83 9.9 . . 8.67 11.61 5.56 7.81 6.84 9.4
6.55 5.67 4.57 8.29 . 5.29 4.78 10.08 6.98 7.71 7.98 11.25 . 7.54 6.1 8.71

. 6.94 5.83 8.99 . . 5.62 11.14 . 9.21 8.05 12.26 . . 6.85 9.88
7.02 5.67 5.31 10.88 3.56 5.5 . 9.72 6.6 7.97 8.9 9.9 5.15 7.15 . 8.96
6.9 6.51 5.46 . 3.75 6.37 5.44 . 7.1 8.73 8.76 . 5.54 8.13 7.11 .
6.8 6.5 5.71 . 3.61 6.63 5.73 10.37 7.12 9.17 9.08 . 6.17 8.61 8.09 9.54
7.13 6.77 6.04 8.8 3.88 6.5 6.15 10.51 7.19 9.16 9.53 11.48 6.02 8.4 7.88 9.12
6.21 6.19 5.24 8.42 3.83 5.62 5.19 10.19 6.47 8.52 8.74 11.67 5.44 7.45 6.87 9.02
5.99 5.96 4.92 . 3.57 5.3 5.03 . 6.97 7.85 9.08 . 5.97 7.34 7.16 .
. . 5.22 8.11 . 5.79 5.36 9.77 . . 8.8 10.68 . 7.93 7.14 9.28
6.84 6.15 4.74 8.42 . . . . 6.58 8.21 8.61 11.6 . . . .
. 5.89 5.2 8.54 . . 5.59 9.75 . 7.98 8.22 11.64 . . 7.68 9.08
6.88 6.93 6.14 8.44 . . . . 7.18 9.04 9.24 12.28 . . . .
527

6.33 5.94 4.86 8.09 3.84 5.62 . . 6.71 8.16 8.6 . 5.29 . . .
6.7 5.96 5.23 8.39 . . . . 7.59 8.13 9.63 11.25 . . . .
6.75 7.14 5.58 8.89 3.73 6.07 5.9 11 6.75 8.92 9.06 12.14 5.68 8.16 8.39 10.28
. 5.53 4.74 7.74 . 5.37 . . . 7.24 7.63 11.26 . 7.36 . .
. 7.18 5.58 9.06 . 5.94 5.55 11.04 . 8.77 8.51 11.48 . 7.72 7.15 9.4
7.23 6.03 5.14 . 4.08 5.36 5.29 10.73 7.19 8.46 9.66 . 5.78 7.86 7.33 9.79
7.66 6.16 5.62 8.09 4.25 5.74 5.3 9.25 6.43 8.19 8.63 11.04 5.43 7.98 7.14 9.05
. . 5.21 8 . 5.29 5.69 . . . 8.75 11.14 . 8.01 7 .
9.3 9 7.92 10.83 5.98 7.45 7.85 12.49 7.92 9.3 9.19 11.65 6.34 8.46 7.81 9.65
 TABLE B-18: UAXACTÚN

UI1MD UCMD UP3MD UM1MD LI1MD LCMD LP3MD LM1MD UI1BL UCBL UP3BL UM1BL LI1BL LCBL LP3BL LM1BL
5.78 5.84 4.66 8.05 3.16 5.43 4.45 9.46 . 8.12 8.49 11.2 . 7.72 6.73 9.27
4.87 5.41 5.07 7.47 2.87 4.95 4.66 8.64 6.15 7.42 7.25 10.75 . 6.97 5.92 8.62
. 5.14 4.25 7.51 . . . 8.23 . 7.73 7.66 10.53 . . . 8.29
5.88 6.04 4.52 7.32 . . . 9.3 6.47 7.76 8.09 10.32 . . . 9.09
6.15 6.27 4.6 7.83 3.37 5.78 4.66 9.51 6.28 8.94 8.18 11.14 5.67 8.13 6.61 8.19
6.17 5.72 4.73 8.45 3.93 5.49 5.14 9.84 6.79 8.35 8.12 11.07 6.26 7.71 6.76 9.49
6.91 6.7 5.62 8.54 3.32 6.33 5.87 10.7 6.49 8.34 8.78 11.43 5.1 7.71 7.29 9.56
. 6.97 5.15 9.23 . 7.01 5.17 . . 8.6 8.89 11.52 . 11.06 6.34 .
. 6.15 5.75 8.35 4.8 6.49 . 10.14 . 8.57 8.68 11.66 6.3 8.25 . 9.81
6.51 6.68 4.94 7.84 3.54 5.78 5.31 . 6.48 8.06 7.93 10.85 5.12 7.71 6.97 .
7.24 6.99 5.77 8.28 . 6.32 5.65 9.89 6.77 8.87 9.49 11.94 . 8.34 7.29 9.45
528

6.33 . 5.27 . . 5.84 5.6 . 6.67 . 8.55 . . 7.82 7.15 .

. 5.83 . 8.68 . 6.48 5.42 10.25 . 7.95 8.04 10.79 . 8.55 7.13 9.67
. . 5 8.15 3.83 5.89 5.09 10.41 . 7.68 8.49 11.17 5.29 7.52 6.84 9.61
. . . . 3.67 5.54 5.38 9.38 . . . . 5.31 7.76 6.75 8.8
7.24 6.62 5.41 8.41 3.83 5.83 5.12 9.61 . 8.21 . 11.1 5.73 7.64 . 9.09
6.31 6.19 5.3 8.08 . 5.94 5.21 10.09 6.36 8.59 9.32 11.3 . 7.42 7.05 9.59
7.53 6.77 5.75 . 4.06 6.43 5.65 10.36 6.91 8.6 9.03 . 5.75 8.32 7.11 9.25
6.13 6.5 4.96 8.47 3.44 5.63 4.87 . 6.43 8.34 7.53 11.15 . 7.96 6.91 .
6.61 6.06 5.1 8.11 3.86 5.27 4.8 10 6.32 8.07 8.69 10.91 5.17 7.09 7.37 8.8
6.69 . 4.58 . . 5.69 4.8 9.53 6.39 . 8.68 . . 7.73 7.08 9.23
6.58 6.23 . . 3.98 5.93 7.44 . 6.72 7.86 . . 6.11 7.33 7.35 .
 TABLE B-19: XCAMBÓ (7 PAGES)

UI1MD UCMD UP3MD UM1MD LI1MD LCMD LP3MD LM1MD UI1BL UCBL UP3BL UM1BL LI1BL LCBL LP3BL LM1BL
6.17 5.8 . . . . 4.58 . 6.77 7.63 . . . 7.34 6.75 .
5.7 5.44 4.51 . 3.36 5.41 . 9.02 6.51 7.16 7.57 . 5.35 7.04 . 8.25
6.59 5.59 4.62 8.72 3.62 5.3 5 9.81 6.89 7.92 8.23 11.15 5.67 7.29 6.38 9.38
6.47 5.89 5.23 7.97 . 5.78 5.26 9.86 6.26 7.92 8.56 10.94 . 7.22 . 8.86
. . 4.88 . 3.68 5.59 4.4 . . . 7.53 . 5.52 7.57 6.74 .
6.52 . . 8.92 3.22 5.41 5.12 9.75 6.95 . . 11.9 5.61 7.94 6.81 9.35
. 5.59 . . 2.66 4.81 4.44 . . 5.52 . . . 7.12 7.13 .
529

7.13 6.52 4.76 8.52 3.4 5.92 4.86 9.41 6.68 8.93 7.88 11.13 5.62 8.27 7.38 8.83
5.96 5.31 . . . 4.73 4.85 . 7.04 8.12 . . . 7.42 6.46 .
. 5.35 4.71 7.29 3.11 5.12 4.68 9.26 . 7.63 8.19 10.84 5.4 7.33 6.41 8.78
. . 4.5 8.31 3.4 4.91 4.36 . . . 7.79 11.1 5.22 7.09 6.37 .
6.21 5.45 4.6 7.87 . 5.51 4.71 9.04 6.47 7.5 8.13 11.53 . 7.89 6.89 9.36
6.73 . . 8.17 . 6.05 5.32 . 7.14 . . 12.2 . 8.95 7.62 .
5.99 . 4.61 8.15 3.18 5.51 4.86 . 6.59 . 8.62 11.25 . 7.44 7.17 .
5.83 5.41 4.65 8.11 3.11 5.3 4.62 9.01 5.48 8.16 7.84 11.12 . . 6.47 8.6
7.35 5.79 4.65 7.82 3.6 5.33 4.75 9.54 7 8.46 8.72 11.27 5.64 7.42 7.08 9.12
5.71 . 4.99 7.55 3.6 5.38 4.64 . 6.6 . 7.2 10.84 5.55 7.44 7.01 .
6.11 6.18 5.13 8.06 3.31 5.66 5.03 9.56 6.53 7.73 8.42 11.43 5.6 7.96 6.8 9.28
6.53 . 4.59 . . 5.36 4.56 . 6.35 . 7.61 . . 7.58 6.72 8.96
. 6.08 4.62 . . 5.7 4.74 . . 7.88 7.5 . . . 6.9 .
. 5.65 5.16 8.31 . 5.34 . 9.47 . 8.14 8.84 11.24 . 8 . 9.12
6.42 5.55 . 10.43 . . . 9.75 6.59 7.54 . . . . . 9.18
 Table B-19 continued

6.84 6.15 5.23 7.9 3.24 5.85 5.03 9.28 6.72 8.29 8.76 10.82 5.61 7.95 7.06 8.95
. . . . 3.66 5.75 4.8 9.84 . . . . 5.73 7.59 6.85 9.03
7.14 6.78 5.51 8.71 3.46 6.11 5.71 10.05 7.75 9.07 8.93 12.08 5.57 7.9 7.99 9.78
. . 4.65 8.96 3.64 5.88 5.36 9.82 . 8.61 8.82 12.02 5.66 7.09 7.8 8.86
6.81 6.25 4.92 8.67 3.41 5.6 5.06 . 6.34 8.18 8.39 11.89 5.64 7.52 6.83 .
. 5.08 . . . 4.69 4.24 8.94 . 7.22 . . . 6.77 5.46 8.93
6.61 5.86 5.33 8.38 3.46 5.53 . 10.1 6.78 8.41 7.97 11.54 6.7 7.63 . 9.14
6.09 5.72 3.96 7.81 3.66 5.35 4.69 9.14 6.7 8.56 7.12 11.87 . 7.35 6.73 8.81
6.11 5.99 5.1 7.89 3.41 5.39 5.11 . 6.46 7.7 8.35 10.87 5.3 7.7 6.61 .
530

6.28 6.05 5.3 8.04 3.38 5.89 4.89 9.3 6.15 8.3 8.76 11.6 5.49 7.58 7.6 7.95
6.78 6.57 5.31 8.52 . 6.44 5.25 . 7.45 9.17 9.9 12.75 . 8.66 7.08 .
6.93 5.9 4.44 8.17 3.56 5.69 4.86 9.69 6.36 7.84 8.28 11.65 5.86 7.35 7.21 9.12
6.45 6.05 4.9 8.61 3.39 5.75 4.52 9.9 6.45 8.2 8.28 11.79 5.94 8.15 6.55 8.94
. 5.87 4.89 8.78 3.56 5.39 4.78 10.08 . 8.06 8.31 12.15 5.88 8.15 7.57 10.24
. 5.29 . . . 4.88 4.91 . 6.28 7.66 . . . 6.92 7.33 .
5.99 . . 7.69 3.45 . . 8.66 6.24 . . 10.73 5.21 . . 8.91
5.52 5.42 4.2 7.12 2.92 4.41 4.12 7.85 6.45 8.14 6.82 10.14 4.88 7.41 6.16 8.76
6.56 5.94 5.12 8.08 3.37 5.64 5.43 9.85 6.46 8.71 9.01 11.7 5.7 8.45 7.96 9.42
. 5.43 4.49 . . 4.86 . . . 7.98 8.39 . . 6.82 6.21 .
6.09 4.93 4.6 7.31 3.15 4.33 4.18 8.22 6.15 7.29 8.1 10.64 4.98 7.06 7.1 9.28
6.25 5.39 4.42 7.45 2.82 4.84 4.16 8.92 6.14 7.72 7.41 10.58 5.1 7.12 6.36 9.35
. 5.78 4.71 7.81 . 5.04 4.76 . . 7.04 7.51 10.54 . 6.74 5.89 .
6.18 6.12 5.25 8.33 3.4 5.64 5.25 9.02 6.62 8.16 9.11 11.31 5.62 . 7.02 8.59
 Table B-19 continued

7.02 5.87 4.51 8.3 3.89 5.56 4.77 . 6.94 7.81 8.42 11.39 5.16 7.92 6.74 .
6.67 5.86 4.93 8.21 3.81 5.6 5.09 8.91 6.78 8.45 9.01 11.58 5.83 8.07 7.15 9.25
6.75 5.85 5.69 8.24 3.44 5.92 5.53 10.33 7.48 8.64 9.2 11.99 6.01 8.4 7.6 9.79
5.91 5.98 4.66 8.19 . 5.6 4.89 9.67 6.36 7.89 8.03 11.24 . 7.08 6.58 .
7.16 6.38 . 8.47 3.65 6.17 5.76 10.29 7.45 8.45 8.92 12.21 5.98 8.47 7.48 10.44
. 6.66 5.24 . . 5.78 . . . 8.75 9.06 . . 8.27 . .
6.75 . . 8.46 3.33 . . 9.82 6.76 . . 11.83 5.61 . . 9.84
7.35 6.36 5.47 8.5 3.82 6.32 5.33 10.08 7.8 8.74 9.6 12.1 6.07 8.67 7.98 9.9
. 6.01 . 7.75 3.73 5.63 4.36 8.62 . 8.48 8.69 10.98 5.5 8.21 6.96 8.83
531

6.45 5.46 4.4 . 3.64 . 4.41 . 6.26 8.42 7.93 . 5.57 7.65 7.01 .
6.46 5.37 5.25 8.11 3.91 4.96 4.97 . 6.87 8.13 8.31 11.13 5.91 7.55 6.8 .
. 6.07 4.7 7.74 3.49 5.41 4.46 9.17 . 7.93 8.14 11.06 5.89 7.64 6.81 8.87
5.66 6.21 . . . 5.62 4.79 . 6.8 8.51 . . 5.74 7.75 7.05 .
6.4 5.95 4.77 7.33 3.51 5.45 5.27 9.31 6.77 8.23 8.64 11.09 5.55 7.66 7.38 9.8
6.2 5.9 4.62 . . . . 9.15 6.87 7.97 8.23 . . . . 9
5.67 . 4.73 7.3 . 4.93 4.82 . 6.63 7.43 7.85 10.44 . . 6.78 .
. . 4.84 7.25 . 4.94 4.66 8.79 . . 8.14 10.43 . . 6.79 8.23
. . 4.28 7.34 3.04 . . 8.77 . . 8.29 10.47 5.15 . . 9.01
5.78 . . 7.33 3.32 . . 9.05 6.59 . . 10.53 5.28 . . 8.29
5.41 5.94 4.56 7.17 . 5.12 4.94 . 6.41 7.82 7.89 10.81 . 7.33 7.01 8.89
5.79 5.62 4.9 8.47 3.45 5.24 5.25 10.05 7.01 8.63 9.08 11.52 5.44 8.53 7.56 10.06
. . 5.2 8.69 3.4 6.09 5.39 10.66 . . 8.14 11.9 5.75 7.84 6.96 9.88
. 5.06 4.71 8.77 . 5.3 5.09 . . 7.93 8.15 . . 7.94 6.72 9.47
6.48 . . 8.68 3.86 5.94 5.38 10.14 7.64 . . 12.23 6.21 8.72 8 10.03
5.84 6.33 5.13 . 3.28 5.6 4.88 9.18 6.81 8.54 8.18 11.55 5.42 8.28 7.2 9.82
 Table B-19 continued
6.03 5.57 4.56 8.02 . 5 . 10.04 6.46 8.32 8.23 11.96 . 7.77 . 9.98
5.56 5.15 4.27 7.79 . 4.42 4.12 . 6.68 7.51 8.66 10.47 . 7.54 6.37 .
5.76 5.9 4.66 8.23 3.17 5.38 4.63 9.58 5.76 7.91 8.09 11.53 . 7.32 6.79 9.49
5.89 6.22 4.59 . . 5.33 4.5 9.55 6.24 7.78 7.59 . . 7.42 6.61 .
6.89 5.59 4.5 7.85 . 5.76 4.79 . 7.14 8.49 8.54 11.54 . 7.89 6.99 .
6.29 6.13 5.1 8.45 3.61 5.96 4.82 9.23 6.79 8.5 8.45 . 5.68 . . 9.26
. . 4.64 . 3.31 5.78 4.42 10.05 . . 8.23 . 6.02 9.05 7.23 9.51
. . . . . 5.89 5.11 9.73 . 8.36 8.07 . . 8.65 . 9.06
6.29 . 4.96 8 . 5.2 5.04 . 6.72 . 8.49 11.03 . 8.01 6.97 .
6.23 6.19 . 7.51 3.83 5.53 . . 7.21 . . 11.29 6.34 7.54 . .
532

. 5.87 5.17 7.91 . 6.05 4.73 9.94 . 8.5 8.44 11.65 . . . 10.09
. 5.55 5.41 . 3.32 5.27 4.86 9.88 6.86 7.78 8.78 11.42 5.74 8.09 7.24 8.68
5.93 . . 8.27 3.41 4.7 . . 6.73 . . 11.72 5.56 7.76 7.08 .
6.29 5.24 4.81 8.24 3.22 5.31 5.1 8.94 6.62 7.6 8.64 11.19 5.97 7.94 7.17 10.09
6.24 5.45 . 8.59 3.39 . . 9.86 6.38 . . 11.51 5.37 . . 9.8
5.98 5.6 4.5 8.14 . 5.38 4.53 9.86 6.08 7.81 8.2 11.33 . 7.45 6.48 9.29
6.09 5.24 4.55 7.77 3.05 4.97 4.44 9.32 6.51 7.21 7.55 10.97 5.58 7.5 6.86 9.45
6.06 5.42 4.51 . 3.27 5.15 4.84 9.74 6.62 8.19 8.65 . 5.48 7.34 7.03 9.24
6.74 5.14 4.88 . 3.27 5.51 5.12 8.93 7.62 7.61 7.96 10.55 5.98 7.64 7.2 8.34
5.91 5.09 4.26 7.57 3.06 4.82 4.21 8.99 6.16 7.32 7.58 10.64 5.52 7.36 6.56 8.72
. . 4.57 8.08 2.75 5.28 4.32 9.82 . . 8.27 11.57 5.53 . 7.34 8.99
5.84 4.81 4.23 7.37 3.02 4.71 4.35 9.49 6.24 7.33 8.2 11.02 5.27 7.26 6.8 9.23
6.1 5.52 . . 2.96 4.96 4.56 . 6.47 7.23 . . 5.25 6.93 6.76 .
6.75 5.44 4.55 8.23 3.94 5.72 4.94 10 6.89 7.68 8.05 11.77 6.24 7.57 7.48 10.12
 Table B-19 continued

6.22 . 5.18 8.43 3.36 5.85 . 9.55 6.89 . 8.82 11.35 5.36 8.65 . 9.87
. 5.64 5.14 8.84 3.43 5.65 4.74 9.13 . 7.87 8.79 . 5.61 7.92 7.08 9.33
5.48 5.28 4.58 7.87 . 5 . . 6.55 7.76 8 10.63 . 7.74 . .
6.63 5.91 4.7 7.21 . . 4.73 8.38 6.89 7.77 7.97 11.25 . . 6.46 .
5.85 . 4.4 . . 4.13 4.27 . 6.1 . 7.42 10.88 . 6.49 6.28 .
. 5.76 . 7.88 . 5.22 4.42 . . 8.38 . 10.69 . 7.98 6.63 .
. 5.71 5.19 . . 5.33 5.04 . . 9.01 9.4 . . 7.89 7.23 .
6.23 6.01 4.78 . . 5.34 . . 6.89 7.93 7.63 . . 7.66 . .
. 4.87 4.67 7.6 . . . 8.81 . 7.32 7.93 10.82 . . . 8.49
5.91 6 4.89 8.44 . 5.42 4.85 10.46 7.43 8.78 9.7 12.15 . 8.26 7.32 .
533

. 4.83 4.22 . 2.92 4.65 . . . 7.25 7.82 . 5.62 7.29 . .

5.84 5.87 4.2 8.56 2.75 5.67 4.62 9.64 6.7 8.29 8.41 11.24 5.79 8.35 6.63 9.9
6.66 6.45 . 9.97 3.57 . . 8.39 7.08 . . 11.41 5.87 . . 10.73
6.62 6.62 . 8.61 . 6.21 5.73 . 7.64 9.15 . 12.48 . 8.72 7.62 .
6.03 5.24 . 7.82 3.15 5.14 4.46 8.94 6.76 7.47 . 11.14 5.23 7.4 6.74 9.17
6.39 5.51 4.49 7.6 2.82 5.52 4.55 9.58 6.4 8.16 7.7 11.18 5.33 7.7 6.41 9.28
. 5.59 4.86 8.01 . 5.53 4.72 9.81 . 7.76 9.2 11.34 . 7.76 7.19 9.72
6.06 5.9 5.2 7.81 3.75 5.42 5.01 . 6.91 8.63 8.92 11.43 6.04 8.33 7.77 .
5.75 4.89 4.09 6.96 3.2 4.76 4.6 8.8 6.41 6.9 7.66 10.12 . 6.75 6.2 8.55
5.84 5.36 . 8.16 3.27 5.13 4.67 9.96 6.84 8.32 . 11.77 5.48 7.91 7.23 9.84
5.43 5.74 4.38 7.59 . 4.35 4.02 8.87 6.53 7.67 7.78 . . 7.11 6.6 9.17
6.27 6.05 4.49 7.7 3.43 4.84 . . 6.24 7.76 7.96 11.27 4.46 7.4 . .
6.14 5.3 4.22 . 3.39 5.46 4.56 10.3 6.29 8.14 7.9 . 5.37 8.1 6.55 .
6.77 5.29 4.63 7.89 . . 4.29 9.22 6.83 7.43 7.9 10.92 . . . 8.82
 Table B-19 continued
5.62 5.21 4.25 . . 5.04 4.5 . 6.36 7.48 7.65 . . 7.47 6.29 .
5.75 5.29 . 7.57 2.98 4.99 4.44 9.51 6.31 7.87 . 10.76 5.54 7.47 6.37 9.29
5.68 6.11 . 8.15 3.01 5.92 4.69 9.71 7.32 9.22 . 11.55 5.92 8.22 7.35 9.66
5.49 5.5 4.58 . . 4.64 4.1 . 6.65 7.9 8.42 . . 7.87 6.58 .
5.93 6.24 5 . 3.21 5.92 5.12 10.48 7.67 8.93 8.73 . 5.98 8.54 7.51 9.67
. 4.95 . 7.56 . 4.9 4.65 9.13 . 7.63 . 11.11 . 7.01 6.01 9.17
6.83 5.95 5.26 . . 5.62 4.32 . 6.69 8.76 8.89 . . 8.25 7.65 .
5.78 5.13 4.84 . 3.11 5.07 4.34 . 6.62 7.81 7.45 . 5.75 7.55 6.42 .
5.79 5.15 3.94 . 2.96 4.45 4.54 . 6.46 7.36 7.59 . . 7.44 5.85 .
. . 4.84 8.16 3.02 4.75 4.41 10.15 5.43 8.39 8.83 11.26 5.48 6.76 6.92 9.31
534

. . 8.15 11.68 5.34 7.73 7.18 9.82 . . 8.15 11.48 5.34 7.73 7.18 9.82
6.71 6.04 4.89 . . 5.94 5.04 . 7.54 9.11 8.97 . . 9.34 7.98 .
5.59 5.5 4.5 7.43 . . 4.4 8.32 6.35 7.62 7.12 10.56 . . . 9.08
. 5.52 4.84 8.4 2.83 5.22 4.58 9.54 . 8.51 8.27 11.43 5.69 8.15 6.68 9.8
5.35 4.49 3.72 7.14 . 4.12 3.77 8.35 . 7.43 7.24 9.8 . 5.97 6.17 8.32
. 5.22 . . 3.06 5.25 4.84 8.89 5.68 . . 10.28 5.31 6.69 6.94 8.59
5.83 5.82 4.45 8.05 3.03 5.44 4.63 9.62 6.84 8.67 8.76 . 5.54 7.89 7.45 9.87
5.66 5.35 4.73 . 2.66 4.36 4.27 . 6.5 8.11 7.77 . 5.47 7.2 6.83 .
6.41 6.18 5.03 8.47 3.1 6.25 5.04 10.39 7.57 9.19 9.29 12.08 6.38 8.49 7.96 9.8
6.22 6.16 5.07 8.28 3.54 5.7 5.11 . 7.04 8.76 8.88 12.35 5.49 7.97 7.14 9.87
5.99 5.74 4.75 8.35 . 5.13 4.59 10.14 6.29 7.96 8.33 11.53 . 7.59 6.65 10.53
6.82 5.94 5.07 8.02 3.68 4.95 4.74 9.31 6.52 7.62 8.4 11.09 . 5.27 7.29 9.17
. 5.17 4.42 7.67 3.48 5.65 4.89 . . 7.26 6.98 10.72 6.32 7.25 6.43 .
. 5.78 . . 3.21 5.61 5.19 . . 7.29 . 10.83 5.41 7.11 6.56 .
 Table B-19 continued

6.08 . . . 3.33 5.26 4.99 . 7.2 . . . 5.42 7.79 6.98 .

6.36 5.97 4.99 7.84 3.26 5.51 5.04 9.77 6.14 8.36 8.67 10.96 5.28 7.31 7.06 9.5
6.21 4.82 . 7.61 . 4.51 4.4 8.93 6.48 7.64 . 10.71 . 7.12 6.45 8.97
5.93 5.67 4.42 7.48 . . 4.44 8.56 7.03 8.06 8.36 10.95 . 7.47 6.84 9.24
5.73 5.25 4.24 . 2.87 5.01 4.28 8.77 6.38 7.35 7.69 10.61 5.31 7.14 6.31 9.14
. 4.61 4.11 . 2.7 4.36 3.83 . . 7.57 7.44 . 5.01 7.04 6.37 .
5.44 . . . 3.04 4.58 4.17 . 6.05 . . . 5.46 6.98 5.64 .
. 6.16 4.78 7.67 . 7.8 4.8 . . 7.97 8.55 11.4 . 8.09 . .
6.42 5.77 4.64 . . 5.65 . . 5.98 8.37 8.32 . . 7.71 . .
535

. 5.59 4.73 . . 4.67 . . . 7.52 9.05 . . 7.15 7.67 .

. . 4.8 . . 4.86 4.29 . . . 7.95 . . 7.39 6.42 .
. 6.98 5.5 8.28 3.55 5.32 5.28 9.88 . 9.65 10.16 12.28 5.67 8.56 8.38 10.21
6 . 4.77 . 3.27 5.72 4.81 . 6.6 . 9.12 . 5.61 8.43 7.3 .
6 5.45 4.25 7.97 3.25 5.51 4.29 9.61 6.72 8.77 8.02 11.27 5.44 8.19 7.04 9.05
5.79 5.45 4.32 7.63 2.96 5.15 4.29 9.01 6.25 8.02 7.93 11.4 5.14 7.62 6.98 8.9
6.05 5.68 4.99 7.39 3.15 4.92 4.19 8.6 6.36 7.29 8.12 10.48 5.23 6.7 6.44 8.92
. 5.72 . 8.09 3.45 5.04 4.77 9.61 . 8.3 . 11.36 5.88 7.73 7.12 9.27
. 5.17 4.71 7.61 . 4.62 . . . 7.56 8.01 10.06 . 6.87 . .
. . 5.68 7.96 . 5.44 5.4 9.41 . . 9.09 11.91 . . 7.26 9.51
6.32 6.5 5.04 . . . 5.56 . 7.62 8.33 8.82 . . . 7.45 .
6.12 5.51 4.78 8.28 3.31 5.4 4.51 9.36 6.32 8 8.65 11.43 5.43 7.5 6.83 9.34
6.39 6.05 5.2 8 4.44 5.56 5.12 9.99 6.82 8.21 8.34 11.64 5.69 7.99 6.97 9.4
. 6.04 . . 4.02 5.59 5.17 . . 7.62 8.13 . 5.79 7.59 6.66 .
. 6.07 5.11 8.15 4.33 5.52 5 9.95 . 7.82 8.09 11.35 5.33 6.84 6.45 8.82
5.84 6.18 4.73 7.65 3.34 5.35 4.86 9 5.73 7.06 7.37 10.03 5.12 . 6.26 8.25
 Table B-19 continued
6.02 5.67 4.84 8.09 3.17 5.27 4.88 9.77 6.24 7.31 7.34 10.72 5.27 7.62 6.05 8.71
5.89 6.06 . . . 5.53 5.23 . 6.51 8.62 . . . 7.98 . 9.54
. 6.1 5.1 . . 5.79 5.65 10.18 . 8.01 8.11 . . 7.66 6.87 8.96
6.66 6.32 5.51 8.85 . 6.15 5.43 10.37 7.08 8.46 8.86 11.21 . 7.49 6.93 9.46
7.03 . 4.89 8.19 3.68 5.95 5.36 10.04 6.61 . 7.14 11.06 5.9 8.03 6.22 7.99
7.15 6.08 5.47 8.46 4.07 5.98 5.47 10.35 6.61 7.66 8.62 11.11 5.93 7.54 7.07 8.5
6.29 5.64 4.73 . 3.97 5.12 5.1 10.57 6.51 7.37 8.64 . 5.48 7.51 6.73 9.35
. . . 8.28 3.61 6.25 5.4 9.76 . . . 11.35 5.57 8.21 7.27 9.5
. . 4.66 8.09 . 5.07 4.89 9.87 . . 7.89 10.85 . 7.06 . .
536

7.04 6.15 5.25 9.13 4.26 5.88 5.29 10.71 6.63 8.13 8.33 11.94 5.94 8.21 6.94 10.33
6.22 5.77 4.88 8.56 . 4.92 4.72 10.04 6.02 7.57 8.69 11.26 . 7.01 6.67 9.48
. 5.43 5.03 8.13 3.25 . . 8.82 . 7.36 7.56 10.26 4.94 . . 8.42
6.14 5.28 4.97 8.17 . 4.87 4.48 8.81 5.94 6.62 6.96 9.85 . . . 8.67
6.74 6.1 5.1 7.72 . 5.48 5.08 9.61 6.52 8.5 7.98 10.65 . 7.9 6.2 9.18
. 5.75 5.05 8.66 . 5.46 4.83 . . 7.88 7.84 11.45 . 8.03 7.02 .
7.98 6.48 . 8.65 3.7 . 5.54 10.84 7.63 7.83 . 11.18 5.78 . 6.68 9.02
. 5.14 5.14 8.43 . 5.7 5.26 . . 8.46 8.4 11.34 . 7.77 6.86 .
6.8 . . 8.48 3.78 5.91 5.1 10.23 6.15 . . . 5.53 7.59 6.96 8.97
6.84 6.91 5.39 9.12 3.94 6.07 5.24 10.27 6.4 7.74 8.04 11.7 5.57 8.01 6.91 9.19
. 5.23 . 7.78 3.54 . 4.8 9.26 . 6.78 . 10.3 5.04 . . 8.58
6.67 6.04 5.11 8.25 3.66 5.81 . 9.91 6.24 8.21 7.89 11.03 5.32 7.71 . 8.68
6.26 6.83 5.37 8.11 3.64 6.11 5.37 10.12 6.55 7.74 9.14 11.26 5.35 8.07 7.13 9.26
6.7 5.6 5.2 8.51 . 5.77 4.97 10.48 6.15 7.79 7.51 11.48 . 7.2 6.94 9.64
6.59 5.62 4.9 8.23 3.68 5.31 5.05 9.51 6.44 7.76 8.57 11.42 5.26 7.19 6.68 9.4
6.72 6.58 . . . 6.03 5.31 10.13 7.08 8.02 . . . 7.72 6.84 9.78
 TABLE B-20: YAXUNA

UI1MD UCMD UP3MD UM1MD LI1MD LCMD LP3MD LM1MD UI1BL UCBL UP3BL UM1BL LI1BL LCBL LP3BL LM1BL
7.21 6.26 5.64 8.35 . 5.95 5.36 9.32 6.89 8.29 9.31 11.35 . 7.81 6.73 9.81
. . 4.92 9.05 . 5.83 . 10.47 . . 8.29 . . 7.74 . 9.57
6.87 . 5.42 8.86 4.24 6.13 5.02 9.78 7.27 8.23 7.62 11.99 5.75 7.49 6.47 9.48
6.79 6.39 . 7.94 4.1 5.68 4.99 9.75 7.16 8.46 . 10.99 5.66 7.75 6.99 9.14
6.77 6.57 5.51 8.22 3.78 6.03 5.42 9.74 . 8.49 8.94 11.38 5.32 8.42 7.45 9.11
6.53 6.77 5.29 8.76 . 6.31 5.53 10.05 7.03 8.82 8.98 11.32 . 8.32 7.25 9.34
6.74 6.53 5.25 . 3.86 5.68 . 10.66 6.77 8.63 8.88 . 5.15 . 6.65 9.45
. 5.98 5.04 . . 5.14 5.26 9.48 . 8.21 7.97 . 5.42 7.94 6.83 9.46
537

6.36 6.24 5.33 8.49 3.68 5.76 5.15 9.66 6 8.11 8.21 11.19 5.34 7.52 7.19 9.34
5.93 6.33 5.7 8.69 3.95 5.3 5.24 9.53 7.05 7.85 8.29 11.3 5.79 7.56 7.22 9.61
7.19 5.97 4.77 7.76 4.2 . 4.93 9.26 6.38 7.53 7.88 10.33 5.86 . 5.99 8.7
 TABLE B-21: TEOTIHUÁCAN 1986

UI1MD UCMD UP3MD UM1MD LI1MD LCMD LP3MD LM1MD UI1BL UCBL UP3BL UM1BL LI1BL LCBL LP3B LM1BL
L
5.97 6.56 5.39 8.25 3.17 6.17 5.68 9.95 6.96 8.68 9.04 11.67 5.74 8.76 7.07 9.62
7.2 6.48 5.74 8.34 3.63 5.66 5.46 9.55 6.92 8.59 8.6 11.71 5.44 8.74 7.31 9.44
6.51 5.72 5.3 8.32 3.72 5.58 5.11 9.45 6.64 8.6 8.81 11 5.43 8.23 6.97 9.5
6.06 5.93 5.08 7.92 3.72 . 5.04 9.26 6.56 8.2 8.23 10.77 5.36 7.8 6.59 8.53
6.26 5.99 5.65 7.51 3.31 5.98 5.49 9.39 6.73 8.56 8.54 10.54 5.45 8.22 6.63 8.81
. . 5.75 8.8 4.05 6.52 5.09 10.7 . . 9.5 12.22 5.67 7.93 7.95 10.25
. 7.46 5.94 8.85 4.52 6.52 5.68 10.25 . 8.79 9.68 12.24 5.75 8.37 7.75 9.24
7.04 5.93 5.41 7.93 3.75 5.78 5.57 . 7.01 9.06 8.96 11.31 6.12 8.38 7.2 .
538

5.9 . 5.37 7.56 3.43 5.63 5.78 9.62 6.87 8.96 8.39 11.08 5.67 8.63 7.17 9.11
6.93 6.23 5.7 8.24 3.84 6.12 5.11 9.94 7.24 9.19 9.08 11.28 5.79 8.38 7.49 9.24
7.37 6.31 5.7 . 3.79 5.77 5.45 10 7.52 8.63 8.87 . 5.44 8.85 7.38 9.43
6.67 6.64 5.87 7.97 4.07 6.19 5.4 9.53 7.56 9.65 8.99 11.5 5.88 8.77 7.13 9.94
7.25 6.57 5.87 7.56 3.92 6.04 5.5 10.51 6.89 9.28 9.36 11.66 5.62 8.11 7.13 9.13
 TABLE B-22: TEOTIHUÁCAN- LA VENTILLA (2 PAGES)

UI1MD UCMD UP3MD UM1MD LI1MD LCMD LP3MD LM1MD UI1BL UCBL UP3BL UM1BL LI1BL LCBL LP3BL LM1BL
. 6.51 5.89 . 3.77 5.42 5.38 9.94 . 8.64 . . 5.83 7.6 6.51 9.65
6.28 5.97 4.83 7.3 . 5.1 . 8.35 6.23 7.51 8.11 10.4 . 7.01 . 8.21
. 6.4 . . 3.86 . 5.58 9.76 . 8.01 . . 5.58 . 7.12 9.11
. . 6.19 8.38 . 5.96 5.37 10.35 . . 9.65 11.76 . 9.03 7.86 9.48
5.68 5.58 . 7.41 3.16 . . 8.94 6.08 7.65 . 10.87 4.74 . . 8.64
. . . . 3.77 5.67 5.47 9.56 . . . . 5.1 6.87 6.61 8.65
. . 5.18 . 3.51 5.48 4.89 8.83 . . 8.76 . 5.96 7.83 7.04 8.91
539

. . 5.66 8.42 3.58 5.73 5.59 10.21 . . 9.58 11.58 5.64 8.26 7.76 9.1
. . . . 4.03 5.99 5.44 10.56 . . . . 5.6 7.77 7.07 10.14
6.7 5.04 4.73 7.36 . . . . 6.31 7.23 7.28 10.17 . . . .
6.47 6.19 5.12 7.83 3.68 6.06 5.11 9.09 6.51 8.43 8.41 10.67 5.3 8.07 6.87 8.98
. . . . 3.58 6.4 5.89 9.7 . . . . 5.63 8.17 6.91 8.62
. 6.62 5.67 9.1 . 6.15 . . 6.66 8.95 8.54 12.27 . 8.58 . .
8.09 6.83 5.98 . 3.89 6.81 5.61 9.92 6.65 8.32 9.26 . 5.96 8.11 7.14 9.25
. . 5.46 7.87 3.88 5.79 5.39 9.4 . . 9.08 10.87 5.77 7.87 7.21 8.71
. 6.75 5.48 8.74 3.66 6.49 5.81 10.11 . 7.72 8.2 11.25 5.74 7.95 6.9 9.52
7.16 . 5.67 7.95 4.33 6.42 5.6 10.11 7.44 9.43 9.22 11.72 6.12 8.49 7.9 9.4
. 6.25 5.72 . 3.8 5.77 5.72 9.93 . 8.11 8.97 . 5.65 7.45 7.32 8.76
6.68 . 5.24 7.71 3.66 5.72 4.95 9.27 6.46 . 8.09 10.18 5.29 7.92 6.57 8.32
. . 5.31 . 4.08 5.19 4.93 9.7 . . 7.87 . 5.8 7.08 6.67 8.58
7.9 . . . . 5.61 4.97 9.94 6.73 . . . . 7.79 7.82 9.04
. . 5.33 . . 5.62 4.96 9.57 . . 8.47 . . 7.64 6.68 8.74
. . . . 3.77 5.35 5.19 10.19 . . . . 5.54 7.33 7.22 9.53
. 6.56 5.4 8.46 . 5.78 5.55 9.68 . 8.36 8.59 11.13 . 7.78 7.36 9.45
 Table B-22 continued

. 6.23 4.89 7.88 . 5.73 5.1 9.3 . 7.74 8.19 10.57 . 7.23 7.03 8.9
6.36 6.33 5.14 7.5 3.62 5.12 4.7 9.28 5.94 7.38 8.23 10.57 5.23 7.07 6.45 8.82
6.06 6.47 5.36 8.08 3.45 6.07 5.61 9.26 6.14 8.34 8.94 11.25 5.87 7.82 7.61 9.55
7.04 6.68 5.61 8.28 3.9 . . 10.33 7.08 8.83 9.17 11.34 5.57 . . 9.55
. 7 5.79 8.57 3.83 6.19 5.78 9.92 . 8.96 9.28 11.25 5.61 8.08 7.71 9.63
. . . . 3.54 5.85 5.55 10.28 . . . . 5.81 8.1 8.03 9.72
540

6.88 6 5.1 8.07 3.57 5.29 4.79 9.64 . 7.84 9.03 10.62 5.18 7.37 7.03 9.17
 TABLE C-23: TEOTIHUÁCAN- CENTRO (2 PAGES)

UI1MD UCMD UP3MD UM1MD LI1MD LCMD LP3MD LM1MD UI1BL UCBL UP3BL UM1BL LI1BL LCBL LP3BL LM1BL
. 6.51 5.89 . 3.77 5.42 5.38 9.94 . 8.64 . . 5.83 7.6 6.51 9.65
6.28 5.97 4.83 7.3 . 5.1 . 8.35 6.23 7.51 8.11 10.4 . 7.01 . 8.21
. 6.4 . . 3.86 . 5.58 9.76 . 8.01 . . 5.58 . 7.12 9.11
. . 6.19 8.38 . 5.96 5.37 10.35 . . 9.65 11.76 . 9.03 7.86 9.48
5.68 5.58 . 7.41 3.16 . . 8.94 6.08 7.65 . 10.87 4.74 . . 8.64
. . . . 3.77 5.67 5.47 9.56 . . . . 5.1 6.87 6.61 8.65
. . 5.18 . 3.51 5.48 4.89 8.83 . . 8.76 . 5.96 7.83 7.04 8.91
. . 5.66 8.42 3.58 5.73 5.59 10.21 . . 9.58 11.58 5.64 8.26 7.76 9.1
. . . . 4.03 5.99 5.44 10.56 . . . . 5.6 7.77 7.07 10.14
541

6.7 5.04 4.73 7.36 . . . . 6.31 7.23 7.28 10.17 . . . .

6.47 6.19 5.12 7.83 3.68 6.06 5.11 9.09 6.51 8.43 8.41 10.67 5.3 8.07 6.87 8.98
. . . . 3.58 6.4 5.89 9.7 . . . . 5.63 8.17 6.91 8.62
. 6.62 5.67 9.1 . 6.15 . . 6.66 8.95 8.54 12.27 . 8.58 . .
8.09 6.83 5.98 . 3.89 6.81 5.61 9.92 6.65 8.32 9.26 . 5.96 8.11 7.14 9.25
. . 5.46 7.87 3.88 5.79 5.39 9.4 . . 9.08 10.87 5.77 7.87 7.21 8.71
. 6.75 5.48 8.74 3.66 6.49 5.81 10.11 . 7.72 8.2 11.25 5.74 7.95 6.9 9.52
7.16 . 5.67 7.95 4.33 6.42 5.6 10.11 7.44 9.43 9.22 11.72 6.12 8.49 7.9 9.4
. 6.25 5.72 . 3.8 5.77 5.72 9.93 . 8.11 8.97 . 5.65 7.45 7.32 8.76
6.68 . 5.24 7.71 3.66 5.72 4.95 9.27 6.46 . 8.09 10.18 5.29 7.92 6.57 8.32
. . 5.31 . 4.08 5.19 4.93 9.7 . . 7.87 . 5.8 7.08 6.67 8.58
7.9 . . . . 5.61 4.97 9.94 6.73 . . . . 7.79 7.82 9.04
. . 5.33 . . 5.62 4.96 9.57 . . 8.47 . . 7.64 6.68 8.74
. . . . 3.77 5.35 5.19 10.19 . . . . 5.54 7.33 7.22 9.53
. 6.56 5.4 8.46 . 5.78 5.55 9.68 . 8.36 8.59 11.13 . 7.78 7.36 9.45
. 6.23 4.89 7.88 . 5.73 5.1 9.3 . 7.74 8.19 10.57 . 7.23 7.03 8.9
 Table B-23 continued

6.36 6.33 5.14 7.5 3.62 5.12 4.7 9.28 5.94 7.38 8.23 10.57 5.23 7.07 6.45 8.82
6.06 6.47 5.36 8.08 3.45 6.07 5.61 9.26 6.14 8.34 8.94 11.25 5.87 7.82 7.61 9.55
7.04 6.68 5.61 8.28 3.9 . . 10.33 7.08 8.83 9.17 11.34 5.57 . . 9.55
. 7 5.79 8.57 3.83 6.19 5.78 9.92 . 8.96 9.28 11.25 5.61 8.08 7.71 9.63
. . . . 3.54 5.85 5.55 10.28 . . . . 5.81 8.1 8.03 9.72
6.88 6 5.1 8.07 3.57 5.29 4.79 9.64 . 7.84 9.03 10.62 5.18 7.37 7.03 9.17
542
 TABLE C-24: TEOTIHUÁCAN 1980-1982 (2 PAGES)

UI1MD UCMD UP3MD UM1MD LI1MD LCMD LP3MD LM1MD UI1BL UCBL UP3BL UM1BL LI1BL LCBL LP3BL LM1BL
6.86 6.19 5.17 8.33 3.71 5.48 5.18 9.5 6.56 7.99 8.23 11.4 5.19 7.42 6.48 9.11
6.97 5.6 5.02 7.62 3.82 5.34 5.03 9.61 6.51 7.87 8.16 10.57 5.58 7.47 6.63 9.14
7.77 6.11 4.84 8.17 3.91 5.57 4.93 9.24 6.98 8.17 8.33 10.98 5.45 7.76 7.14 8.79
. 5.38 5.19 7.82 3.86 4.86 5.61 9.6 . 7.63 8.71 11.02 5.8 7.55 6.69 9.45
. 6.64 5.09 . . 5.99 5.31 9.66 . 8.51 8.18 . . 8.49 7.17 8.89
6.48 6.01 5.06 7.82 3.74 5.37 5.03 10.25 6.69 7.5 8.16 11.19 5.47 7.36 6.55 8.77
. 5.23 . . 3.54 6.22 5.35 9.93 . 7.46 . . 5.56 8.04 7.23 8.89
543

7.59 7.17 5.85 8.36 4 6.09 5.99 10.2 7.42 8.8 9.64 11.52 5.65 8.1 7.69 10.37
. . 4.68 7.64 3.47 5.31 4.92 9.93 . . 7.59 10 5.21 6.52 6.29 8.43
. . . . 3.41 5.71 5 9.62 . . . . 5.11 6.7 6.55 9.43
. . 5.63 . . 5.39 5.56 10.34 . . 8.58 . . 7.25 6.9 9.54
6.39 . . 8.23 3.61 . . 9.95 6.75 . . 11.21 5.47 . . 9.21
. 6.17 5.42 7.85 . 5.85 5.56 9.28 . 8.57 8.8 11.16 . 8.05 7.41 9.17
6.18 6.03 4.81 7.58 . . 5.17 8.96 6.3 7.93 7.52 10.91 . . 6.4 8.03
7.62 6.7 5.89 8.66 3.92 6.37 6.07 11.03 7.81 9.38 10.55 12.49 6.27 8.88 8.26 9.82
6.43 5.95 5.43 7.42 . . . . 6.63 7.4 8.06 10.75 . . . .
. 6.38 5.57 8.29 . 6.03 . 9.73 . 8.7 9.2 11.61 . 7.76 . 9.79
5.67 5.48 4.79 . . 5.59 . 9.61 6.53 7.95 7.46 10.73 . 6.83 . 9.09
6.45 5.36 5.04 . 3.2 5.06 4.87 8.87 6.99 7.85 7.78 . 5.14 7.3 6.55 8.47
6.88 6.32 5.17 . 3.69 5.59 5.25 . 6.77 8.21 8.38 . 5.41 7.65 6.95 .
. 6.4 5.9 . 3.94 5.63 5.52 . . 7.78 8.52 . 5.67 7.68 7.17 .
7.55 6.52 5.54 8.51 4.04 6.2 5.84 10.61 7.39 9.15 8.87 11.5 5.86 8.71 7.53 9.68
6.41 6.26 4.8 7.39 3.93 5.79 5.17 9.92 6.51 8.18 8.11 10.59 5.47 7.61 6.94 8.76
7.38 5.57 5.62 8.15 4.35 5.52 5.79 . 6.99 8.37 8.98 11.91 5.65 7.62 7.42 .
 Table B-24 continued
6.76 6.37 5.4 8.6 . . . . 7.21 8.56 8.98 11.5 . . . .
. 6.74 5.58 8.25 4.28 6.61 . 9.86 . 8.23 9 10.84 5.69 8.4 . 9.7
7.15 6.65 5.36 7.94 3.94 5.39 5.53 10.01 7.05 8.21 8.45 11.28 5.67 7.8 6.71 9.23
7.74 6.2 5.62 8.93 3.98 6.63 5.9 10.83 6.89 9.28 9.75 12.3 6.28 8.32 8.1 9.85
8.03 6.67 5.29 8.27 . 6.01 5.47 10.05 6.97 9.04 8.3 11.66 . 8.81 7.54 9.56
. 6.7 5.63 8.15 4.06 6.22 5.12 . . 9.06 9.25 11.97 5.66 8.49 7.01 .
544
 TABLE C-25: TULA (2 PAGES)

UI1MD UCMD UP3MD UM1MD LI1MD LCMD LP3MD LM1MD UI1BL UCBL UP3BL UM1BL LI1BL LCBL LP3BL LM1BL
7.79 5.84 5.31 8 3.69 5.49 5.22 9.85 6.67 7.98 8.7 10.92 5.95 7.81 7 8.92
6.54 . 4.97 7.88 3.93 5.65 5.07 9.26 6.85 . 8.6 10.88 5.56 7.59 6.99 8.7
. 6.78 5.58 8.12 . 6.47 5.66 10.04 . 9.05 9.53 11.46 . 8.66 7.32 9.32
. 5.51 4.83 7.82 . 5.14 5.13 9.13 . 7.19 7.72 10.84 . 6.74 6.29 8.9
. 5.58 4.95 7.75 . . . . . 7.41 8.18 10.78 . . . .
. 5.34 4.47 7.54 3.18 4.96 4.52 9.19 . 7.43 8.29 10.9 4.86 7.36 6.73 8.6
7 5.98 5.85 8.04 . . . . 6.46 7.63 8.67 11.1 . . . .
. 9.16 9.18 11.87 5.69 7.51 7.6 10.93 . 8.74 8.64 11.3 5.27 7.42 6.71 9.27
545

7.26 6.41 5.58 8.23 . . . . 7.37 8.83 9.29 11.3 . . . .

. 5.62 5.27 8.06 . . . . . 8.13 8.67 11.6 . . . .
6.2 6.34 5.34 8.49 . 5.82 5.04 9.18 6.52 9.17 8.49 11.08 . 8.28 7.25 9.42
. . . . 3.53 5.94 4.94 8.74 . . . . 5.56 8.22 7.2 8.48
6.52 . 4.96 7.45 . . . . 5.85 . 7.64 10.49 . . . .
. . . . . 6.13 5.25 9.89 . . . . . 8.66 7.45 9.44
. . . . 3.57 5.07 5.33 9.02 . . . . 5.3 7.99 6.9 8.31
. . . . 3.38 5.42 5.09 9.27 . . . . 5.3 7.46 6.38 8.77
. . . . . . 5.43 10.26 . . . . 5.54 8.35 6.93 8.9
. . . . 3.54 5.96 5.17 9.64 . . . . 5.46 7.19 6.5 8.52
. . . . 3.65 4.98 4.44 8.19 . . . . 4.73 6.41 5.77 8.07
. . . . . 5.63 4.72 9.79 . . . . . 7.34 6.18 9.61
. . . . 3.57 5.74 4.85 9.49 . . . . 6.07 8.23 7.71 9.44
. . . . 3.65 5.23 5.21 9.82 . . . . 6.03 7.52 7.65 9.25
. . . . 3.73 5.8 5.04 9.71 . . . . 5.68 7.57 6.5 9.4
. . . . 3.16 4.71 4.38 8.36 . . . . 5.05 7.04 6.12 8.51
 Table B-25 continued
. . . . 2.88 4.94 4.59 9.02 . . . . 4.98 6.46 6.82 8.7
5.9 5.12 4.92 7.51 3.51 5.03 5.1 9.14 6.4 7.64 7.96 10.17 5.31 7.49 6.92 8.66
6.44 5.68 5.01 7.97 . . . . 6.49 7.85 8.19 10.6 . . . .
6.27 5.82 5.23 7.43 . . . . 6.65 8.55 8.17 10.42 . . . .
6.11 5.13 4.89 7.61 3.52 5.28 5 9.15 6.54 7.65 7.92 10.2 5.39 7.59 6.76 8.57
6.7 5.78 4.6 7.7 . . . . 6.79 7.53 7.79 10.74 . . . .
7.6 6.82 5.39 8.3 . . . . 6.88 7.9 8.92 11.89 . . . .
. . . 7.94 . . . . . 8.11 8.26 10.42 . . . .
. . . . 3.54 6.17 5.09 9.72 . . . . 6 . 7.59 9.45
546

6.65 5.65 5.42 7.83 . . . . 6.8 8.55 8.45 10.98 . . . .

6.3 5.76 4.89 7.39 . . . . 6.9 8.22 7.92 10.89 . . . .
. . . . 3.45 5.98 5.74 9.65 . . . . 5.38 7.78 7.26 9.3
5.9 5.33 5.5 7.81 . . . . 6.42 8.38 9.3 11.66 . . . .
7.34 5.64 5.27 7.59 . . . . 6.63 7.5 8.12 10.66 . . . .
5.46 5.39 4.38 . . . . . 6.12 7.43 7.84 10.44 . . . .
. 5.86 4.98 . 3.96 5.28 4.95 9.53 . 8.15 8.44 11.51 5.66 7.26 6.82 9.64
. . 5.57 8.23 . 5.65 5.48 10.05 . 8.71 9.04 11.92 . 8.39 6.59 10.11
6.66 6.35 5.42 8.33 3.67 5.69 5.3 10.01 7.48 8.82 8.87 11.55 6.08 8.33 7.29 9.59
 TABLE C-26: CHOLULA (2 PAGES)

UI1MD UCMD UP3MD UM1MD LI1MD LCMD LP3MD LM1MD UI1BL UCBL UP3BL UM1BL LI1BL LCBL LP3BL LM1BL
5.93 5.47 4.93 7.75 . . . 9.2 6.48 7.89 8.12 10.8 . . . 8.26
. 6.13 4.87 8.35 3.5 5.79 5.58 9.92 . 8.6 8.21 11.43 5.51 7.98 7.57 9.3
7.48 6.87 5.31 8.27 . . . 10.17 6.31 8.63 7.94 11.43 . . . 8.72
. . 5.15 7.75 3.62 6.01 4.91 9.42 . . 8.04 11.43 5.57 7.83 7.12 8.85
6.51 5.53 4.88 7.78 3.51 4.84 5.07 9.35 6.13 7.5 8.12 10.93 5.57 7.07 6.44 8.99
. 5.77 5.24 8.09 . 5.77 5.09 10.17 . 9.04 8.19 11.21 . 8.08 7.13 9.23
6.44 6.79 5.87 8.34 4.08 6.42 5.87 9.38 7.47 9.54 8.69 11.34 6.31 8.62 7.65 9.67
547

7.12 6.08 4.43 8.4 . . . . 6.34 8.3 8.23 . . . . .

. . . . . 6.5 4.96 9.04 . . . . . 8.34 6.58 8.83
. 5.11 . 7.49 3.55 5.02 4.73 9.19 . 7.06 . 10.61 4.99 6.92 6.59 8.67
6.67 5.99 5.23 8.37 3.68 5.55 5.36 9.48 5.78 7.28 8.52 10.85 5.11 6.92 7.1 8.59
6.69 5.62 4.63 7.7 . 5.73 5.18 9.78 5.74 7.98 7.54 10.44 . 8.03 6.41 8.41
6.93 6.46 5.17 8.13 3.81 5.37 5 9.43 7.06 7.64 7.45 11.05 5.79 7.36 6.41 9.03
. 5.6 5.47 7.8 . 6.12 5.53 9.2 . 8.7 8.91 11.4 . 7.86 6.39 9.04
. 5.81 5.17 7.91 . 5.23 4.73 9.87 . 8.21 8 11.44 . 7.79 7.12 8.84
7.09 5.68 5.35 . 3.62 5.81 5.12 9.78 7.12 8.36 8.56 . 5.69 8.2 7.21 9.31
. 5.47 4.94 . 3.57 5.31 4.66 9.14 . 7.55 8.26 . 4.99 6.89 6.77 8.39
7.55 7.2 5.8 8.05 3.86 6.32 5.17 11 7.33 9.28 8.25 12.18 5.55 8.44 7.04 9.24
. 5.86 5.64 8.44 . 5.57 5.76 10.28 . 8.56 8.89 11.58 5.48 8.03 7.11 9.23
7.29 6.05 5.08 8.59 4.02 5.7 5.3 10.04 6.72 8.11 8.33 12.25 5.53 7.58 6.94 9.81
6.1 5.93 . 7.6 3.37 5.43 5.06 9.31 6.22 7.72 8.64 10.81 4.73 7.13 6.78 8.96
6.15 4.9 4.81 7.4 3.57 5.27 5.19 9.42 6.27 8.13 7.33 10.81 5.34 6.86 6.63 9.15
 Table B-26 continued
8.6 6.75 6.09 8.17 4.35 6.69 5.78 9.83 7.72 9.04 9.42 . 6.14 8.51 7.61 9.08
5.78 5.73 5.06 7.52 . 5.43 5.18 9.11 6.14 7.65 8.64 10.96 4.61 7.59 7.13 9.33
6.72 . . . . . . . 6.17 . . . . . . .
5.45 5.4 4.8 7.85 3.29 5.24 4.74 9.12 5.91 6.98 8.16 10.57 4.87 6.78 6.46 8.52
6.49 5.63 5.2 7.42 3.64 5.12 5.45 8.78 6.31 6.93 7.71 10.33 5.23 7.1 6.63 8.66
5.85 6.24 5.21 8.17 3.5 5.39 4.84 9.51 6.02 8.08 8.37 10.89 5.21 7.86 6.77 8.72
6.6 5.82 5.19 7.41 3.54 5.35 4.92 9.09 6.48 7.73 8.74 11.32 5.42 7.32 7.11 9.2
548

7.04 6.06 5 7.71 3.47 . 4.67 9.39 6.52 7.85 8.53 10.9 5.45 . 7.04 8.5
6.5 6.26 5.29 8.04 3.45 5.21 4.64 9.72 6.37 6.86 7.67 11.23 4.92 6.97 6.17 9.18
6.57 6.36 5.32 8.16 3.44 5.46 5.23 . 6.69 8 8.98 11.2 5.57 7.29 7.5 .
7.3 6.05 5.15 7.84 . . . . 6.6 8.51 8.45 11.12 . . . .
. . . 7.89 . 4.81 4.59 9.42 . . . 10.95 . . 6.25 8.51
6.94 . 5.15 7.92 3.25 5.71 5.13 9.99 6.77 8.23 8.91 11.09 5.6 . 7.3 9.14
6.22 5.25 5.16 7.23 3.75 4.86 4.72 9.31 6.42 6.9 7.72 9.92 5.19 6.49 6.29 8.21
6.54 6.09 5.35 7.87 3.93 5.54 5.69 9.97 . 7.85 8.63 10.94 5.78 7.72 6.77 8.98
6.81 6.15 4.95 8.24 3.33 5.63 5.35 9.69 6.67 8.61 8.69 11.38 5.24 . 7.03 10.09
5.64 5.43 5.3 7.25 3.61 5.47 4.54 8.81 5.82 7.75 8.4 10.77 5.34 7.19 6.68 8.87
7.01 . 4.87 8.25 . . . 9.3 6.57 8.97 8.66 11.38 . . . 9.51
6.82 6.26 5 8.51 3.49 5.96 6.43 9.97 6.57 9.04 8.34 11.13 5.42 8.69 7.3 8.45
6.2 6.09 4.73 . . 5.33 4.88 9.72 6.62 8.12 7.57 . . 7.32 6.55 9.1
5.82 5.68 5.14 7.28 3.35 4.87 4.58 8.88 5.97 7.37 8.03 10.13 5.17 6.98 6.57 8.27
5.87 6.19 5.31 7.84 3.28 5.79 5.17 9.4 6.95 8.36 8.49 10.91 5.41 7.94 6.96 9.1
6.98 6.58 5.57 8.12 3.89 5.66 5.61 9.48 6.58 7.91 8.19 11.51 5.79 7.83 6.93 9.33
Table B-26 continued
5.77 5.64 4.74 . 3.36 4.99 4.43 8.82 6.22 7.12 7.7 10.12 4.9 6.7 6.38 8.54
. . . . 4.04 6.03 5.52 9.9 . . . . 5.57 7.93 7 9.14
6.37 5.88 4.93 . 3.06 5.57 4.83 8.94 5.92 7.5 8.18 . . 7.16 6.94 8.96
6.85 5.89 5.12 8.13 . 5.7 4.91 9.88 6.1 8.16 8.38 11.01 5.43 7.68 6.4 8.95
. . 5.28 7.71 3.94 5.57 4.93 . . 9.12 8.14 11.21 6.5 7.23 7.08 8.67
6.97 6.2 5.36 8.69 . . . . 6.11 8.71 9.12 11.75 . . . .
6.78 6.23 5.12 8.26 4.03 6.22 5.22 9.87 6.15 8.43 8.6 12.2 6.4 7.53 7.44 10.41
549
 TABLE C-27: MONTE ALBAN

UI1MD UCMD UP3MD UM1MD LI1MD LCMD LP3MD LM1MD UI1BL UCBL UP3BL UM1BL LI1BL LCBL LP3BL LM1BL
. 5.58 4.88 7.90 . 5.36 5.03 9.34 . 7.26 8.23 10.98 . 7.05 6.25 9.65
. . . . 3.64 5.48 5.03 9.24 . . . . 5.57 7.82 7.30 8.86
. . . . 3.97 5.57 4.98 9.82 . . . . 5.47 6.99 6.90 9.40
. 6.21 5.39 8.04 3.45 5.55 5.57 . . 8.14 9.39 11.64 5.27 7.46 6.95 .
6.84 6.52 5.01 8.06 3.80 5.91 5.05 9.77 7.05 8.93 9.09 11.24 5.63 8.01 7.17 9.33
. 6.50 5.48 8.63 3.69 6.31 5.38 10.04 . 9.29 9.28 12.01 5.83 8.60 7.40 9.69
. . . . 3.80 5.92 5.87 10.44 . . . . 5.97 8.50 7.67 10.08
. 5.71 5.01 8.28 . . . . . 6.99 7.98 11.33 . . . .
. 5.40 4.56 7.20 . . . . . 7.62 8.01 10.41 . . . .
550

. 6.43 5.79 8.43 . . . . . 8.21 8.50 11.81 . . . .

7.08 6.13 4.86 7.79 . 6.38 . 9.82 6.93 8.86 8.85 11.22 . 8.51 . 8.92
. 5.63 4.78 7.63 . 5.47 5.40 8.35 . 7.49 8.75 10.97 . 7.26 6.80 8.59
. . . . 3.72 5.96 4.54 8.86 . . . . 5.36 7.30 6.70 8.55
5.42 5.64 5.24 7.90 . . . . 6.38 7.82 7.84 10.76 . . . .
6.67 6.63 5.42 8.80 3.67 6.39 5.36 10.30 6.53 9.62 9.66 12.45 5.52 8.48 7.69 10.52
6.95 6.48 5.97 8.61 3.56 5.77 5.25 10.38 7.56 9.30 8.79 12.25 6.03 9.21 7.41 9.61
. . . . 4.20 6.56 5.72 10.60 . . . . 6.31 8.87 8.17 10.02
. . 5.87 8.50 3.66 6.96 5.85 10.52 . . 9.62 12.19 5.82 9.12 7.40 9.86
6.70 5.51 5.34 8.07 3.69 5.35 . 9.81 6.48 7.86 8.01 11.70 5.70 7.52 . 9.08
. 6.18 4.84 7.59 . . 6.23 10.38 . 7.86 8.07 10.71 . . 7.57 9.38
6.65 6.21 5.16 7.91 . 5.98 5.19 9.64 6.49 8.28 8.17 10.73 . 7.64 6.86 8.66
7.31 6.68 5.32 8.35 . 5.98 5.55 10.12 6.02 8.75 8.39 11.16 . 7.22 7.07 9.12
. 6.13 5.40 7.77 3.53 5.83 5.32 9.57 . 8.78 8.55 11.59 5.54 7.92 7.49 9.99
 Table B-27 continued

. 6.47 4.93 8.44 . 5.80 5.71 10.66 . 8.27 8.95 11.48 . 7.90 7.25 9.62
. . 5.52 7.86 4.20 6.15 5.31 10.00 . . 8.76 10.70 5.90 8.13 7.18 9.87
7.35 6.71 5.57 8.26 3.96 6.39 5.50 10.22 7.38 9.04 9.23 11.89 5.88 8.30 6.92 9.97
7.34 6.63 5.94 8.75 3.96 6.23 5.31 10.05 7.45 8.55 8.89 11.52 6.17 8.33 7.11 9.33
6.08 6.50 5.89 7.73 3.26 5.92 5.85 10.05 6.32 8.67 9.69 11.72 5.71 8.24 7.89 9.21
6.30 6.27 5.01 7.96 3.77 5.88 5.28 9.13 6.84 8.39 8.44 11.36 5.58 7.80 6.50 9.64
551

. 5.67 4.85 7.62 . 4.93 4.84 9.28 . 7.57 8.03 10.86 . 6.81 6.73 8.78
6.72 5.50 5.35 8.12 3.70 5.55 5.09 9.98 6.89 8.94 9.19 11.52 5.52 7.98 7.24 9.39
. 6.16 . . . 6.08 5.15 . . 8.82 . . . 8.37 7.66 .
6.34 5.67 4.75 7.72 . . . . 6.63 8.40 8.07 11.60 . . . .
. . . 8.43 4.15 6.00 5.40 10.37 . . . 12.22 5.90 8.24 7.44 10.30
. 5.76 4.60 . 4.18 5.30 5.02 8.57 . 8.14 8.35 . 5.23 7.26 7.31 8.90
. 5.46 5.32 . . . . . . 8.09 8.45 . . 7.26 7.36 .
. . . . 3.89 5.52 5.01 8.85 . . . . 5.36 7.55 6.86 9.30
7.48 6.73 5.37 8.69 . . . . 7.15 8.19 9.38 11.77 . . . .
. 5.31 . . . 4.96 4.77 9.02 . 8.01 7.85 . . 6.96 6.51 8.93
. 6.56 5.14 8.36 3.82 5.91 5.68 9.87 . 8.36 8.07 11.43 5.36 7.81 6.96 9.51
. 5.82 5.40 8.34 . 5.26 5.31 9.84 . 7.76 8.34 10.74 . 7.10 6.72 8.83
7.14 7.09 6.03 8.87 . . . . 6.59 9.22 9.02 12.38 . . . .
. . . . 3.85 6.23 5.07 10.20 . . . . 6.02 8.63 7.47 9.47
. 5.83 5.25 7.97 . 5.47 5.61 9.03 . 8.37 8.34 10.85 . 7.78 6.90 9.22
. 6.38 5.46 7.85 4.13 6.20 5.72 10.68 . 7.79 9.18 11.77 5.38 7.45 7.23 9.14
6.35 6.32 6.02 8.83 . . . 10.31 6.50 8.93 9.67 11.97 . . . 9.84
. 5.47 5.07 7.64 3.65 5.01 4.85 8.96 . 7.67 7.82 10.33 5.44 7.20 7.09 8.54
Table B-27 continued

6.47 6.74 5.78 . . 6.44 5.54 9.72 6.80 8.76 7.49 . 5.04 8.65 6.81 9.20
6.55 6.10 4.85 7.85 3.61 6.13 4.84 9.58 7.31 7.93 8.16 10.82 5.55 8.08 7.07 8.57
. . . . . 5.85 5.18 9.53 . . . . . 7.97 6.96 9.02
6.53 6.14 5.61 8.22 . 5.81 5.41 10.01 6.94 8.51 8.83 10.96 . 7.83 6.65 9.70
6.40 6.09 5.20 7.69 3.90 5.44 5.29 9.64 6.12 8.14 8.10 10.63 5.36 7.54 7.02 8.78
. . . . 3.93 5.83 5.15 9.37 . . . . 5.77 7.99 7.33 9.47
552

. . 5.36 7.53 . 5.67 5.22 9.23 . . 7.62 10.29 . 7.12 7.12 8.10
. . 5.23 8.44 . 5.58 5.13 9.69 . . 8.12 11.06 5.50 7.64 6.64 9.10
 APPENDIX C

DATA SUMMARY: METRIC VARIABLES

553
 Table C-1: Total sample

Standard
Variable N Sum Mean Variance Deviation
v1 654 4283 6.54948 0.26124 0.5111
v2 654 3378 5.16528 0.20179 0.4492
v3 654 3389 5.18180 0.18948 0.4353
v4 654 4308 6.58717 0.25550 0.5055
v5 654 4999 7.64336 0.35003 0.5916
v6 654 4534 6.93306 0.25757 0.5075
Means, variance, and standard deviations

Table C-2: Altar de Sacrificios

Standard
Variable N Sum Mean Variance Deviation
v1 43 270.90000 6.30000 0.39381 0.6275
v2 43 214.57000 4.99000 0.17402 0.4172
v3 43 219.47000 5.10395 0.19165 0.4378
v4 43 273.67000 6.36442 0.25429 0.5043
v5 43 324.69000 7.55093 0.63733 0.7983
v6 43 294.40000 6.84651 0.44692 0.6685
Means, variance, and standard deviations

Table C-3: Calakmul

Standard
Variable N Sum Mean Variance Deviation
v1 28 179.97000 6.42750 0.17896 0.4230
v2 28 146.16000 5.22000 0.12487 0.3534
v3 28 147.79000 5.27821 0.08984 0.2997
v4 28 180.29000 6.43893 0.28778 0.5365
v5 28 216.71000 7.73964 0.40594 0.6371
v6 28 192.13000 6.86179 0.21593 0.4647
Means, variance, and standard deviations

Table C-4. Chichén Itzá

554
 Standard
Variable N Sum Mean Variance Deviation
v1 8 50.46000 6.30750 0.37179 0.6097
v2 8 41.88000 5.23500 0.10649 0.3263
v3 8 42.34000 5.29250 0.10788 0.3284
v4 8 51.98000 6.49750 0.15105 0.3887
v5 8 59.45000 7.43125 0.17016 0.4125
v6 8 56.10000 7.01250 0.30934 0.5562
Means, variance, and standard deviations

Table C-5: Copán

Standard
Variable N Sum Mean Variance Deviation
v1 9 55.04000 6.11556 0.14275 0.3778
v2 9 43.70000 4.85556 0.06973 0.2641
v3 9 44.41000 4.93444 0.13835 0.3720
v4 9 54.68000 6.07556 0.22623 0.4756
v5 9 63.21000 7.02333 0.46085 0.6789
v6 9 59.06000 6.56222 0.27419 0.5236
Means, variance, and standard deviations

Table C-6: Dos Pilas

Standard
Variable N Sum Mean Variance Deviation
v1 26 176.41000 6.78500 0.18631 0.4316
v2 26 135.77000 5.22192 0.14784 0.3845
v3 26 136.34000 5.24385 0.13256 0.3641
v4 26 168.85000 6.49423 0.17748 0.4213
v5 26 195.01000 7.50038 0.19446 0.4410
v6 26 179.21000 6.89269 0.21551 0.4642
Means, variance, and standard deviations

555
 Table C-7: Dzibilchaltún

Standard
Variable N Sum Mean Variance Deviation
v1 11 73.63000 6.69364 0.20743 0.4554
v2 11 57.57000 5.23364 0.15309 0.3913
v3 11 56.49000 5.13545 0.21599 0.4647
v4 11 75.21000 6.83727 0.22872 0.4782
v5 11 83.31000 7.57364 0.38389 0.6196
v6 11 76.09000 6.91727 0.25610 0.5061
Means, variance, and standard deviations

Table C-8: Kaminaljúyu

Standard
Variable N Sum Mean Variance Deviation
v1 10 64.36000 6.43600 0.55029 0.7418
v2 10 53.36000 5.33600 0.54816 0.7404
v3 10 53.29000 5.32900 0.24510 0.4951
v4 10 67.86000 6.78600 0.18800 0.4336
v5 10 77.96000 7.79600 0.54647 0.7392
v6 10 69.83000 6.98300 0.56976 0.7548
Means, variance, and standard deviations

Table C-9: Palenque

Standard
Variable N Sum Mean Variance Deviation
v1 8 48.07000 6.00875 0.01901 0.1379
v2 8 41.43000 5.17875 0.22813 0.4776
v3 8 41.69000 5.21125 0.05770 0.2402
v4 8 48.57000 6.07125 0.00361 0.0601
v5 8 60.61000 7.57625 0.23757 0.4874
v6 8 57.16000 7.14500 0.17931 0.4235
Means, variance, and standard deviations

556
Table C-10: Peten (includes the sites of Calzada Mopan, Curucuitz, Ix Ek, Ixkun and
Ixtontón

Standard
Variable N Sum Mean Variance Deviation
v1 27 179.33000 6.64185 0.16423 0.4053
v2 27 141.72000 5.24889 0.06015 0.2453
v3 27 140.50000 5.20370 0.14062 0.3750
v4 27 176.46000 6.53556 0.09016 0.3003
v5 27 204.89000 7.58852 0.37975 0.6162
v6 27 188.53000 6.98259 0.17417 0.4173
Means, variance, and standard deviations

Table C-11: Piedras Negras

Standard
Variable N Sum Mean Variance Deviation
v1 35 232.24000 6.63543 0.20681 0.4548
v2 35 179.82000 5.13771 0.15377 0.3921
v3 35 180.41000 5.15457 0.18644 0.4318
v4 35 227.80000 6.50857 0.29019 0.5387
v5 35 264.57000 7.55914 0.23305 0.4828
v6 35 240.17000 6.86200 0.24372 0.4937
Means, variance, and standard deviations

Table C-12: San Gervasio/Playa del Carmen

Standard
Variable N Sum Mean Variance Deviation
v1 9 58.23000 6.47000 0.43028 0.6560
v2 9 47.59000 5.28778 0.46922 0.6850
v3 9 47.01000 5.22333 0.19547 0.4421
v4 9 58.64000 6.51556 0.38850 0.6233
v5 9 70.02000 7.78000 0.17543 0.4188
v6 9 64.77000 7.19667 0.14058 0.3749
Means, variance, and standard deviations

557
 Table C-13: Tikal (Late Classic)

Standard
Variable N Sum Mean Variance Deviation
v1 50 337.15000 6.74300 0.20405 0.4517
v2 50 262.17000 5.24340 0.12879 0.3589
v3 50 266.96000 5.33920 0.21929 0.4683
v4 50 340.47000 6.80940 0.30808 0.5550
v5 50 387.79000 7.75580 0.35905 0.5992
v6 50 354.06000 7.08120 0.32644 0.5714
Means, variance, and standard deviations

Table C14: Tikal (Early Classic)

Standard
Variable N Sum Mean Variance Deviation
v1 20 134.00000 6.70000 0.22656 0.4760
v2 20 106.86000 5.34300 0.14092 0.3754
v3 20 105.86000 5.29300 0.21600 0.4648
v4 20 131.50000 6.57500 0.31528 0.5615
v5 20 152.46000 7.62300 0.29189 0.5403
v6 20 141.62000 7.08100 0.32824 0.5729
Means, variance, and standard deviations

Table C-15: Uaxactún

Standard
Variable N Sum Mean Variance Deviation
v1 18 115.99000 6.44389 0.37630 0.6134
v2 18 92.49000 5.13833 0.17654 0.4202
v3 18 95.48000 5.30444 0.46364 0.6809
v4 18 117.76000 6.54222 0.07494 0.2737
v5 18 138.88000 7.71556 0.16874 0.4108
v6 18 124.52000 6.91778 0.15789 0.3974
Means, variance, and standard deviations

558
 Table C-16: Xcambó

Standard
Variable N Sum Mean Variance Deviation
v1 190 1235 6.50011 0.22090 0.4700
v2 190 958.100 5.04263 0.20690 0.4549
v3 190 961.260 5.05926 0.17567 0.4191
v4 190 1258 6.61937 0.22647 0.4759
v5 190 1454 7.65279 0.34298 0.5856
v6 190 1309 6.89153 0.23301 0.4827
Means, variance, and standard deviations

Table C-17: Yaxuna

Standard
Variable N Sum Mean Variance Deviation
v1 15 101.43000 6.76200 0.18232 0.4270
v2 15 79.91000 5.32733 0.22088 0.4700
v3 15 78.80000 5.25333 0.05875 0.2424
v4 15 102.71000 6.84733 0.12661 0.3558
v5 15 117.41000 7.82733 0.18905 0.4348
v6 15 103.97000 6.93133 0.16158 0.4020
Means, variance, and standard deviations

Table C-18: Teotihuácan (1986 excavations)

Standard
Variable N Sum Mean Variance Deviation
v1 13 87.90000 6.76154 0.31930 0.5651
v2 13 72.47000 5.57462 0.06159 0.2482
v3 13 70.36000 5.41231 0.06219 0.2494
v4 13 90.33000 6.94846 0.10423 0.3228
v5 13 109.17000 8.39769 0.11379 0.3373
v6 13 93.77000 7.21308 0.14741 0.3839
Means, variance, and standard deviations

Table C-19: Teotihuácan (La Ventilla)

Standard
Variable N Sum Mean Variance Deviation
v1 13 88.95000 6.84231 0.22979 0.4794
559
 v2 13 69.39000 5.33769 0.12725 0.3567
v3 13 68.38000 5.26000 0.11333 0.3367
v4 13 84.74000 6.51846 0.18388 0.4288
v5 13 99.35000 7.64231 0.26335 0.5132
v6 13 92.43000 7.11000 0.46063 0.6787
Means, variance, and standard deviations

Table C-20: Teotihuácan (El Centro)

Standard
Variable N Sum Mean Variance Deviation
v1 10 67.69000 6.76900 0.10974 0.3313
v2 10 54.27000 5.42700 0.06105 0.2471
v3 10 53.53000 5.35300 0.08067 0.2840
v4 10 67.47000 6.74700 0.10980 0.3314
v5 10 77.50000 7.75000 0.06936 0.2634
v6 10 71.32000 7.13200 0.20642 0.4543
Means, variance, and standard deviations

Table C-21: Teotihuácan (1980-1982 excavations)

Standard
Variable N Sum Mean Variance Deviation
v1 39 260.51000 6.67974 0.28502 0.5339
v2 39 204.35000 5.23974 0.15468 0.3933
v3 39 206.97000 5.30692 0.19699 0.4438
v4 39 257.77000 6.60949 0.27301 0.5225
v5 39 299.28000 7.67385 0.37786 0.6147
v6 39 271.93000 6.97256 0.30746 0.5545

Table C-22: Tula

Standard
Variable N Sum Mean Variance Deviation
v1 24 153.72000 6.40500 0.28733 0.5360
560
 v2 24 127.81000 5.32542 0.82050 0.9058
v3 24 125.67000 5.23625 0.37089 0.6090
v4 24 162.96000 6.79000 0.54587 0.7388
v5 24 183.81000 7.65875 0.39316 0.6270
v6 24 165.54000 6.89750 0.22049 0.4696
Means, variance, and standard deviations

Table C-23: Cholula

Standard
Variable N Sum Mean Variance Deviation
v1 48 312.36000 6.50750 0.25233 0.5023
v2 48 246.70000 5.13958 0.09222 0.3037
v3 48 245.89000 5.12271 0.16976 0.4120
v4 48 310.61000 6.47104 0.23668 0.4865
v5 48 358.65000 7.47188 0.28574 0.5345
v6 48 328.22000 6.83792 0.13977 0.3739
Means, variance, and standard deviations

561
 APPENDIX D

NONMETRIC TRAIT DESCRIPPTION

562
 NONMETRIC TRAIT DESCRIPTIONS

(From Turner et al, 1991 and Scott and Turner, 1997)

Winging (UI) 4. Labial surface exhibits pronounced convexity

5.
0. Straight Double Shoveling (UI1, UI2, UC, UP1)
1. Bilateral Winging
2. Unilateral Winging 0. None
3. Counter-Winging 1. Faint
2. Trace
Shoveling (UI1, UI2, UC, LI1) 3. Semi-double-shovel
4. Double-shovel
563

0. None 5. Pronounced double-shovel

1. Faint 6. Extreme double-shovel
2. Trace
3. Semishovel Interruption Groove (UI1, UI2)
4. Semishovel
5. Shovel 0. None
6. Marked shovel M. An interruption groove occurs on the mesio-lingual border.
7. Barrel (UI2 only) D. An interruption groove occurs on the disto-lingual border.
MD. Grooves occur on both the mesio- and disto-lingual borders.
Labial Convexity (UI1) Med. A groove occurs in the medial area of the cingulum.

0. Labial surface is flat

1. Labial surface exhibits trace convexity
2. Labial surface exhibits weak convexity
3. Labial surface exhibits moderate convexity
 Tuberculum Dentale (UI1, UI2, UC)
Premolar Mesial and Distal Accessory Cusps (UP1, UP2)
0. No expression
1. Faint ridging 0. No accessory cusps occur.
2. Trace ridging 1. Mesial and/or distal accessory cusps are present.
3. Strong ridging
4. Pronounced ridging Distosagittal Ridge (UP1)
5. Weakly developed cuspule
6. Strong cusp with a free apex 0. Normal premolar form occurs.
1. Distosagittal ridge is present.
Canine Medial Ridge (UC) Metacone (UM1, UM2, UM3)
0. Metacone is absent.
0. Mesial and distal lingual ridges are the same size 1. An attached ridge with no free apex
564

1. Mesiolingual ridge is larger than the distolingual, and 2. A faint cuspule with a free apex
is weakly attached to the tuberculum dentale. 3. Weak cusp
2. Mesiolingual ridge is larger than the distolingual, and 3.5. Intermediate-sized cusp
is moderately attached to the tuberculum dentale. 4. Metacone is large.
3. Morris’s type form. Mesiolingual ridge is much larger 5. Metacone is very large
than the distolingual, and is full incorporated into the
tuberculum dentale. Hypocone (UM1, UM2, UM3)

Canine Distal Accessory Ridge (UC, LC) 0. No hypocone

1. Faint ridging
0. Distal accessory ridge is absent. 2. Faint cuspule
1. Distal accessory ridge is very faint. 3. Small cusp
2. Distal accessory ridge is weakly developed. 3.5. Moderate-sized cusp
3. Distal accessory ridge is moderately developed. 4. Large cusp
4. Distal accessory ridge is strongly developed. 5. Very large cusp.
5. Distal accessory ridge is very pronounced.
 Cusp 5 (Metaconule) (UM1, UM2, UM3) Premolar Lingual Cusp Variation (LP3, LP4)

0. Absent A. No lingual cusp

1. Faint cuspule 0. One lingual cusp
2. Trace cuspule 1. One or two lingual cusps
3. Small cuspule. 2. Two lingual cusps: Mesial cusp is much larger than distal cusp
4. Small cusp 3. Two lingual cusps: Mesial cusp is larger than distal cusp
5. Medium-sized cusp 4. Two lingual cusps: Mesial and distal cusps are equal in size
5. Two lingual cusps: Distal cusp is larger than mesial cusp
Carabelli’s Trait (UM1, UM2, UM3) 6. Two lingual cusps: Distal cusp is much larger than mesial cusp
7. Two lingual cusps: Distal cusp is very much larger than mesial
0. Absent cusp
1. Groove 8. Three lingual cusps: Each is about the same size
565

2. Pit 9. Three lingual cusps: Mesial cusp is much larger than medial
3. Small Y-shaped depression and/or distal cusp
4. Large Y-shaped depression Anterior Fovea (LM1, LM2, LM3)
5. Small cusp without a free apex
6. Medium-sized cusp 0. Absent
7. Large free cusp 1. Weak ridge, faint groove
2. Stronger ridge, larger groove
Parastyle (UM1, UM2, UM3) 3. Groove is longer than in grade 2
4. Groove is very long and mesial ridge is robust
0. Absent
1. Pit Groove Pattern (LM1, LM2, LM3)
2. Small cusp
3. Medium-sized cusp Y. Cusps 2 (metaconid) and 3 (hypoconid) are in contact
4. Large cusp +. Cusps 1-4 (protoconid, metaconid, hypoconid, entoconid) are
5. Very large cusp in contact
6. Free peg-shaped crown attached to the root X. Cusps 1 (protoconid) and 4 (entoconid) are in contact
 Cusp Number (LM1, LM2, LM3) 4. Secondary groove is slightly more pronounced
5. Secondary groove is stronger
4. Cusps 1-4 (1, protoconid; 2, metaconid; 3, hypoconid; 6. Weak or small cusp
4, entoconid) are present 7. Cusp with a free apex occurs
5. Cusp 5 (hypoconulid) is also present
6. Cusp 6 (entoconulid) is also present Cusp 5 (Hypoconulid) (LM1, LM2, LM3)

Deflecting Wrinkle (LM1, LM2, LM3) 0. Absent

1. Very small
0. Absent 2. Small
1. Cusp 2 medial ridge is straight, but with midpoint 3. Medium-sized
constriction 4. Large
2. Medial ridge is deflected distally, does not contact 5. Very large
566

cusp 4
3. Medial ridge is deflected distally forming an L-shaped Cusp 6 (Entoconulid) (LM1, LM2, LM3)
ridge and contacts cusp 4
0. Absent
Distal Trigonid Crest (LM1, LM2, LM3) 1. Cusp 6 is much smaller than cusp 5
2. Cusp 6 is smaller than cusp 5
0. Absent 3. Cusp 6 is equal in size to cusp 5
1. Present 4. Cusp 6 is larger than cusp 5
5. Cusp 6 is much larger than cusp 5

Protostylid (LM1, LM2, LM3)

0. Absent
1. Pit
2. Buccal groove curves distally
3. Faint secondary groove extends mesially
 Cusp 7 (Metaconulid) (LM1, LM2, LM3) 1A. A faint tipless cusp
2. Small
0. Absent 3. Medium-sized
1. Faint cusp 4. Large
567