Isla Cilvituk: Finding Primary Contexts Using GIS
Creators: name: Arata, Sean T.
Publisher: name: New Mexico State University (NMSU)
Year: 2008
Subjects: subject: Northern Maya Lowlands
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/geographic-keyword/85470/northern-maya-lowlands
subject: Terminal Classic through Late Postclassic period (AD 600-1500)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/temporal-keyword/8409/terminal-classic-through-late-postclassic-period-ad-600-1500
subject: LOWLAND MAYA
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/culture-keyword/4430/lowland-maya
subject: Isla Cilvituk, Campeche, Mexico
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/136107/isla-cilvituk-campeche-mexico
subject: Stairway
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-type/333/stairway
subject: Ancient Structure
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-type/335/ancient-structure
subject: Agricultural Field or Field Feature
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-type/274/agricultural-field-or-field-feature
subject: Temple
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-type/338/temple
subject: Terrace
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-type/278/terrace
subject: Water Control Feature
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-type/279/water-control-feature
subject: Ancient Church / Religious Structure
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-type/312/ancient-church-religious-structure
subject: Town / City
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-type/255/town-city
subject: Ancient Governmental Structure
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-type/319/ancient-governmental-structure
subject: House
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-type/259/house
subject: stelae
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-type/4835/stelae
subject: House Mound
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-type/260/house-mound
subject: chultun
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-type/4836/chultun
subject: Plaza
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-type/331/plaza
subject: Platform Mound
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-type/268/platform-mound
subject: Pyramid
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-type/332/pyramid
subject: Pollen
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/material-type/13/pollen
subject: Shell
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/material-type/14/shell
subject: Ceramic
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/material-type/1/ceramic
subject: Chipped Stone
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/material-type/2/chipped-stone
subject: Dating Sample
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/material-type/3/dating-sample
subject: Fauna
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/material-type/4/fauna
subject: Ground Stone
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/material-type/7/ground-stone
subject: Building Materials
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/material-type/8/building-materials
subject: Macrobotanical
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/material-type/10/macrobotanical
subject: Metal
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/material-type/11/metal
subject: Terminal Classic-Postclassic transition
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/other-keyword/168303/terminal-classic-postclassic-transition
subject: Lacustrine settlement
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/other-keyword/161744/lacustrine-settlement
subject: Household Archaeology
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/other-keyword/134855/household-archaeology
subject: Settlement Ecology
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/other-keyword/155480/settlement-ecology
subject: Postclassic Lowland Maya
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/other-keyword/143468/postclassic-lowland-maya
subject: Resilience
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/other-keyword/28/resilience
subject: Archaeological Overview
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/investigation-type/1/archaeological-overview
subject: Historic Background Research
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/investigation-type/18/historic-background-research
subject: Data Recovery / Excavation
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/investigation-type/5/data-recovery-excavation
subject: Methodology, Theory, or Synthesis
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/investigation-type/6/methodology-theory-or-synthesis
subject: Reconnaissance / Survey
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/investigation-type/7/reconnaissance-survey
subject: Site Evaluation / Testing
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/investigation-type/10/site-evaluation-testing

description: My main goal with this thesis was to create a sampling design, using Geographic Information Systems (GIS), which would allow me to determine the best datable contexts at Isla Cilvituk. Once this sampling design was created, I analyzed the spatial distribution of these datable contexts using the frequency of specimens divided by the total volume of each archaeological layer as a measurement of density (m3). This analysis was divided into two parts. The first analysis looked at the distribution among the eleven sectors as well as the distribution among the structure types. The question here was whether the different sectors were occupied at the same time or if they represented distinct construction periods. The same question applies for the structure types. The second analysis looked at the distribution among the five house-lot zones. For this analysis, I divided up the fauna remains into identifiable and non-identifiable remains, which is a measurement of the fragmentation of the fauna remains. The question for this analysis was whether or not organic remains, such as the fauna remains at Isla Cilvituk, are distributed in the same way as non-organic remains according to the house-lot model.

Once these archaeological contexts were determined, I was able to run statistical analyses of the fauna remains contained within. The result of those statistics shows me that there is no overt connection between the house-lot model as designed for ceramics and the spatial distribution of the fauna remains at Isla Cilvituk. If the fauna remains were distributed according to the house-lot model there would be a higher density of fauna remains in evidence the farther out one goes. I would expect to see a higher density of identifiable remains in the structure and patio zones and a
higher density of non-identifiable remains in the garden and intermediary zones. After I analyzed the test results, I came to realize that neither of these suppositions was true at this site. Instead, the density of identifiable remains was uniformly greater throughout the site and there was not a single zone that contained a higher concentration of non-identifiable remains.