CROCODILES AND THE ANCIENT MAYA: AN EXAMINATION OF THE ICONOGRAPHIC AND ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

A Thesis Submitted to the Committee on Graduate Studies

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Degree of Master of Arts

in the Faculty of Arts and Science

TRENT UNIVERSITY

Peterborough, Ontario, Canada

© Copyright by Elizabeth Barbara Thurston 2010

Anthropology M. A. Graduate Program

January 2011 Library and Archives Bibliotheque et 1*1 Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de I'edition 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Canada Canada

Your file Vote reference ISBN: 978-0-494-68216-6 Our file Notre r6f6rence ISBN: 978-0-494-68216-6

NOTICE: AVIS:

The author has granted a non­ L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduce, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, preter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le loan, distribute and sell theses monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non­ support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats.

The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation. without the author's permission.

In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la loi canadienne sur la Privacy Act some supporting forms protection de la vie privee, quelques may have been removed from this formulaires secondaires ont ete enleves de thesis. cette these.

While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans in the document page count, their la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu removal does not represent any loss manquant. of content from the thesis.

•+• Canada ABSTRACT

Crocodiles and the Ancient Maya: An Examination of the Iconographic and Zooarchaeological Evidence

Elizabeth Barbara Thurston

This thesis investigates the importance of a single animal, the crocodile, to the ancient Maya. Although there have been numerous studies focusing on the relationships other animals have had with the Precolumbian Maya (i.e., jaguars, bats, stingrays, etc.) little to no work has been done to assess the significance of this formidable reptilian predator. In an attempt to rectify this scholastic shortcoming, this study examines the crocodile as it appears in Maya iconography, ranging from large scale monumental art to small scale portable items, and zooarchaeological assemblages such as middens, caches and burials, in addition to ethnographic accounts and ethnohistoric records. Through this assessment, it was possible to identify the crocodile as an important symbol for the ancient Maya, representing the fertile surface of the earth, the heavens, and creation/destruction of the world. Zooarchaeologically, crocodiles appear most frequently in ritual-oriented contexts, which likely represent the physical manifestation of the animal's cosmological associations. The abundance of crocodile imagery and skeletal remains, which have extraordinary antiquity and longevity (ca. 2500 years), as well as its broad geographical distribution, demonstrates irrevocably that this saurian was a revered creature and a key symbol in the Maya cosmos.

Keywords: ancient Maya, crocodiles, archaeology, iconography, zooarchaeology, cosmology, ritual, symbolism

ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The completion of this thesis would not have been possible without the contributions of many people. I want to begin by thanking my supervisor, Dr. Paul Healy.

Dr. Healy was the one who encouraged me to apply for the Master's program in the first place, although we've come quite a long way from our original topic (so long manatees!).

Without his continued advice and support through the choosing of a new thesis topic

(crocodiles are definitely sexier than manatees), and writing and revising of the various drafts, this project never would have been completed. I cannot thank him enough.

Professionally, I would also like to thank Dr. Marit Munson, for her expertise on art and iconography, and Dr. Susan Jamieson, who agreed to participate on the committee on such short notice. Your thoughtful comments on earlier drafts of this thesis have made it into the document it is now. Thanks are also owed to Dr. Kitty Emery, who not only served as the external advisor for the defence of the thesis (again on short notice), but also very thoughtfully answered all of my emails and pleas for help about everything to do with Maya zooarchaeology. Furthermore, thank you again for the usage of the La

Joyanca material. Thanks to Kristine Williams, our department secretary, for keeping me calm all summer while I tried to prepare everything for the defence and for getting everything set up so quickly.

There are several archaeologists who also deserve my thanks. Dr. Jaime Awe, provided me with all the fabulous Cahal Pech data, in particular the unpublished material on the layered cache containing the shell figurine. Elizabeth Graham and Norbert

Stanchly also provided invaluable information, much of which was unpublished zooarchaeological reports on crocodile material at Lamanai. Norbert also was very helpful when I emailed in a panic with questions. Hattula Moholy-Nagy and Mary Pohl iii supported this thesis in personal communication and expertise. Finally, I'd like to thank

Dr. Terry Powis for the field experience at Pacbitun last year. I will never forget that summer!

On a personal note, I'd like to thank my Mum, who was unfortunate enough to be at home during the day when I needed someone to talk to, and my Dad for all his encouragement. I'd like to thank my sister, Jen, for starting me down the path to archaeology - this is all your fault! I've come a long way from just watching Discovery

Channel archaeology documentaries. My friends both in and out of the grad program have been my support system and second family. Cat -1 will miss our afternoons of misadventure at the Hot Belly Stone, and I never would have survived Belize without you! Chelsee - for all the laughs (I will never forget you hiding in my lab) and Sunday

Dinners, and all the other grad students in my cohort. You guys have been a lot of fun.

Other thanks go to Aimee, Grant, Jon, Jamie, Vicky, Janette, Natalie, and Katie. You've all had to endure a great deal of crocodile- or Maya-related conversations and I am grateful to you for listening (or at least pretending to).

Most importantly, I need to thank my boyfriend, Matt. You have been the best boyfriend a girl could hope for. It's been an emotional rollercoaster ride these past two years. Thank you for all of your love, a shoulder to cry on, and believing in me when I didn't believe in myself. And yes, you were right!

IV TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ii Acknowledgments iii Table of Contents V List of Figures vii List of Tables ix Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Research Questions 3 Chapter 2: Crocodiles in Mesoamerica 6 Preclassic Antecedents 6 Olmec 6 Izapa 19 Postclassic Successors 22 Summary 26 Chapter 3: Background and Methodology 27 Art and the Ancient Maya 27 A Brief History of Iconographic Research in the Maya Subarea 29 Animals in Maya Iconography 35 Previous Research: Animals in Maya Iconography 38 Maya Zooarchaeology 41 A Brief History of Zooarchaeological Research in the Maya Subarea 41 Methodology 47 Crocodile Biology 48 Distribution 49 Physiology 51 Behaviour 53 Previous Studies: Crocodiles and the Maya 56 Chapter 4: Zooarchaeological Data 58 Introduction 58 Zooarchaeology and Ritual 58 Dietary Considerations 61 Medicinal Purposes 62 Quantification 62 Identification of Crocodilian Remains 64 Sample 66 Preclassic 68 Early Classic 70 Late Classic 78 Terminal Classic 80 Postclassic 81 Colonial 85 Unknown date 86 Analysis 86 Conclusions 95

V Chapter 5: Iconographic and Glyphic Data 97 Introduction 97 Identification of Crocodilians in Maya Art 97 Terminology 99 Sample 100 Preclassic 102 Early Classic 104 Late Classic 107 Terminal Classic 115 Postclassic 116 Colonial 119 Unknown Date 121 Analysis 121 Conclusions 133 Chapter 6: Discussion 135 The Earth Monster 136 Water Symbolism 147 The Cosmic Monster 151 Creation 157 Costumes 162 Naturalistic Crocodiles 166 Zooarchaeology: Ritual Behaviour 168 Zooarchaeology: Secular Behaviour 173 Spatiotemporal Trends 176 Conclusions 181 Chapter 7: Conclusions 183 References Cited 192 Appendix A: Zooarchaeological Data 225

VI LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1. Olmec Dragon, greenstone carving 9 Figure 2.2. La Venta Monument 6 10 Figure 2.3. Chalcatzingo, Relief 1 11 Figure 2.4. Saurian world tree, left leg of "Young Lord" statue 13 Figure 2.5. Rio Pesquero, Jade celt 13 Figure 2.6. San Lorenzo, Dragon head waterspout 15 Figure 2.7. Oxtotitlan Cave, Painting 7 16 Figure 2.8. Atlihuayan Figure 17 Figure 2.9. Serpentine Figurine 17 Figure 2.10. Izapa Stela 11 20 Figure 2.11. Izapa Stela 25 21 Figure 2.12. Codex Borgia, pg 27 23 Figure 2.13. Codex Borgia, pg. 39-40 24 Figure 2.14. Codex Borgia, pg. 24 24 Figure 2.15. Tula, Column, Temple B 25

Figure 3.1. Distribution of the American Crocodile 50 Figure 3.2. Distribution of Morelet's Crocodile 51

Figure 4.1. Palates of Crocodylus acutus and Crocodylus moreleti 65 Figure 4.2. Dermal scutes 66 Figure 4.3. Map of Maya Subarea - distribution of sites with crocodilian remains 67 Figure 4.4. Cahal Pech, Structure B-4 Cache, crocodile mandible 70 Figure 4.5. Tikal, Burial 10 73 Figure 4.6. Tikal, Cache 140 74 Figure 4.7. Tikal, Cache 86 76 Figure 4.8. Altar de Sacrificios, modified crocodile mandible 77 Figure 4.9. Graph: crocodile remains by time period 87 Figure 4.10. Graph: assemblages with crocodile remains by time period 88 Figure 4.11. Graph: MNI of crocodiles by time period 89 Figure 4.12. Graph: contexts of crocodile remains by time period 90 Figure 4.13. Graph: site proximity to water bodies 92 Figure 4.14. Graph: crocodile remains by context 93

Figure 5.1. Unprovenienced crocodile effigy vessel 98 Figure 5.2. Quirigua, Zoomorph P 98 Figure 5.3. Map of the Maya Subarea - distribution of sites with crocodile Iconography 101 Figure 5.4. Graph: crocodile images by context 123 Figure 5.5. Graph: crocodile images: portable vs. permanent 124 Figure 5.6. Graph: crocodile images by category 125 Figure 5.7. Graph: crocodile images: meaning 128

vii Figure 5.8. Graph: crocodile images by time period 129 Figure 5.9. Graph: meaning of crocodile images by time period 131

Figure 6.1. Cahal Pech, Str. B-4, Cache schematic 137 Figure 6.2. Copan, Papagayo Structure, modeled stucco crocodile 138 Figure 6.3. Tikal, Temple 1 Tomb, Bone MT50 138 Figure 6.4. Kaminaljuyu Stela 9 140 Figure 6.5. Coba, Mural, Structure 2, Pinturas Group 140 Figure 6.6. Copan, Altar T 141 Figure 6.7. Unprovenienced ceramic vessel, crocodile tree, Late Classic 142 Figure 6.8. Unprovenienced vessel, crocodile tree, Early Classic 143 Figure 6.9. Copan, Stela C 144 Figure 6.10. Copan, Altar 41 146 Figure 6.11. Dresden Codex, pg 4b-5b 146 Figure 6.12. Yaxchilan, Hieroglyphic Stairway 2, Stair VIII 149 Figure 6.13. Copan, Temple 22, Inner Doorway 152 Figure 6.14. Jaina, figurine 153 Figure 6.15. Cosmic Plate 154 Figure 6.16. Yaxchilan, Hieroglyphic Stairway 3, Stair 3 155 Figure 6.17. Unprovenienced obsidian eccentric 156 Figure 6.18. Palenque, modeled stucco, House E of the Palace 158 Figure 6.19. Dresden Codex, pg 74 159 Figure 6.20. Mayapan, Mural, Structure Q95 161 Figure 6.21. Codex Borgia, pg 35 162 Figure 6.22. Bonampak Murals, Room 1 164 Figure 6.23. Tancah, Mural 1, Room 1, Structure 44 164 Figure 6.24. Tikal, ceramic vessel, YaxNuun Ayiin II 165 Figure 6.25. Cahal Pech, Str. B-4, Slate crocodile effigy figurine 166 Figure 6.26. Unprovenienced bone crocodile figurine 167 Figure 6.27. Jaina, ocarina 168

Vlll LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1. Cultural temporal divisions in the Maya subarea

Table 4.1. Crocodiles in zooarchaeological assemblages/Preclassic period 69 Table 4.2. Crocodiles in zooarchaeological assemblages/Early Classic period 71 Table 4.3. Crocodiles in zooarchaeological assemblages/Late Classic period 79 Table 4.4. Crocodiles in zooarchaeological assemblages/Terminal Classic period 81 Table 4.5. Crocodiles in zooarchaeological assemblages/Postclassic period 82 Table 4.6. Crocodiles in zooarchaeological assemblages/Historic period 85 Table 4.7. Crocodiles in zooarchaeological assemblages/unknown date 86

Table 5.1. Crocodile images dating to the Preclassic period 103 Table 5.2. Crocodile images dating to the Early Classic period 105 Table 5.3. Crocodile images dating to the Late Classic period 108 Table 5.4. Crocodile images dating to the Terminal Classic period 116 Table 5.5. Crocodile images dating to the Postclassic period 117 Table 5.6. Crocodile images dating to the Historic period 120 Table 5.7. Crocodile images with an unknown date 121

IX 1

CHAPTER 1; INTRODUCTION

As inhabitants of the tropical rainforest, a diverse ecosystem with a wealth of flora and fauna, it is not surprising that the ancient Maya formed dynamic relationships with their surrounding environment in pursuit of sustenance. Fauna in particular were used to understand and order natural phenomena and, as such, could symbolize the elements of nature "such as earth, rain, and sun, in addition to such abstract concepts as renewal and immortality" (Pohl 1983: 55). Conversely, nature could also provide a model

(i.e. world trees) for shaping the social world and cosmos. In a metaphorical sense, these concepts could be expressed in iconography. Animals, as tangible manifestations of

Maya cosmological beliefs and thoughts, in addition to their importance in terms of nutrition, could be buried in caches and tombs, and sacrificed as part of competitive feasts or lineage ceremonies (involving totemism).

Certain animals, principally jaguars (Ballinger and Stomper 2000; Benson 1972,

1985, 1988b, 1998; Saunders 1998) and deer (Pohl 1981) have garnered notable attention in terms of their importance and potential meaning to the ancient Maya and other

Mesoamerican groups. In Olmec iconographic studies, the role of the jaguar as the principal figure in art has been questioned (Lathrap 1971; Muse and Stocker 1974;

Stocker et al. 1980) and the crocodile put forward, instead, as a more central cosmological figure. The crocodile also appears in art elsewhere in Mesoamerica, including in Izapan, Toltec, and Aztec representations, suggesting considerable geographic continuity and longevity to the animal's significance (see Chapter 2). The crocodile, as the top predator in the aquatic food chain, and a potential threat to humans, similar to the role of the terrestrial jaguar, likely attained some degree of importance to 2

the Maya as well. However, crocodiles have not received any significant study regarding such a role. There has been some limited speculation that the crocodile may have been an important ritual animal for the ancient Maya. Mary Pohl (1983) in a study of "Maya

Ritual Faunas...", lists the crocodile as an animal with ceremonial meaning, noting prevalence of crocodilian remains in caches and burials and its depiction in Maya art.

David Pendergast (1981: 38), in an excavation report for the site of Lamanai in Belize also remarked on the potential importance of this animal:

[The] [a]ppearance of the crocodile in [a] ceremonially important setting underscores the likelihood that the name of the site was indeed Lama'anayin [meaning 'submerged crocodile'], designating the community as a place where the reptile enjoyed exalted status in religious belief. Whether or not that status was reflected in special ritual practices involving crocodiles is something we do not know...

Dennis Puleston (1976, 1977) and J. Eric S. Thompson (1970) both touch on the possibility of its metaphorical significance as a symbol for the terrestrial plane. Karl

Taube (1989) presents an argument that prior to Spanish contact crocodiles had calendric significance. Erik Garcia (2006) and Timothy Pugh (2001) also examine crocodiles in the

Postclassic (900/1000-1500 CE).The crocodile, therefore, has been identified as an animal of some importance, likely ritual in nature, by more than one Maya archaeologist.

However, no one has explored this topic in great detail, nor the animal's potential meaning(s). This is the goal of my thesis research.

In the next six chapters, I will evaluate iconography and zooarchaeological data to fully explore how the crocodile, a formidable reptilian predator, was utilized as a symbol by the ancient Maya to understand and order the natural and social world around them. It is my intent to rectify the shortcomings of previous research, and improve our 3

understanding of this potentially powerful animal.

Research Questions

The crocodile is a formidable reptilian predator which, due to its aqueous habitat, is distributed quite extensively across the tropical Maya southern lowlands, with its abundant waterways and swamps. My research aims to enhance knowledge about the ancient Maya and their relationship with the crocodile, not only from a subsistence and economic perspective, but also from a symbolic and ritual perspective, by compiling information from a number of sources into one comprehensive document. To this end, my research questions are as follows:

1) Was the crocodile considered an important animal to the ancient Maya?

2) Was it an animal which was exploited for ritual purposes or subsistence? In what

contexts at ancient Maya sites are crocodilian remains found? Is this significant?

3) How is the crocodile represented in ancient Maya iconography? On what types of

artistic media is the crocodile portrayed? How can this information be correlated

to the zooarchaeological data?

4) How widespread was the exploitation of this animal and its image in the Maya

subarea? Did this change over time? Were the Maya alone in Mesoamerica in

their interest in this animal?

5) What meaning(s) (symbolism) can be attributed to this animal?

The answers to these questions will be addressed in the course of the thesis, primarily through the examination of published iconographic and zooarchaeological data, supplemented by insights gleaned from ethnohistoric and ethnographic accounts. One of 4

the foci of this study is to utilize these data sets in direct conjunction with one another,

something that is rarely done in Maya scholarship due to the increased specialization of

today's archaeology. Through these means, I aim to ascertain the meaning(s)

(symbolism) of the crocodile in ancient Maya thought, representation, and cosmology,

and to examine how that manifests itself in the physical realm of the archaeological

record (e.g., faunal remains).

In Chapter 2, an assessment is made of the importance of the crocodile in other

Mesoamerican cultures, in order to provide a context for the meaning(s) of the animal,

metaphorically and physically, among the ancient Maya. I address the continuity of the

crocodile's appearance in the art of the Preclassic period Olmec to the Postclassic period

Aztec, a period spanning nearly 3000 years (1200 BCE to 1500 CE).

Chapter 3 provides a brief history of both iconographic and zooarchaeological study

in the Maya subarea. Theoretical approaches, and the methodology relevant to the study

of these fields, are also discussed. This chapter also includes a review of crocodile

habitat, behaviour, and physical characteristics which may have influenced its selection

as an animal for subsistence, or for symbolic purposes, by the ancient Maya. I will review

what species of crocodile are found in the Maya subarea. Previous studies regarding the

importance of the crocodile to the ancient Maya are also reviewed.

Chapter 4 is an examination of the zooarchaeological data pertaining to crocodiles. A

description of the study sample is provided, and how it was obtained. An overview of the

possible ways animals were exploited by the ancient Maya (e.g., food, medicine, ritual) is presented. The majority of the chapter is devoted to the description and quantification of

the crocodilian zooarchaeological sample by site and time period, including bone counts, 5

contexts, skeletal elements, and any modifications present on the bones. These data are then analysed to determine if the crocodile was an animal important in rituals, and whether such a function changed over time and space.

Chapter 5 is comparable to Chapter 4, with a focus on the description and analysis of the iconographic data. The introduction outlines some of the guises which the crocodile can take in Maya art, and how I identified its image. The main focus is the detailed description of individual artifacts and monuments which contain crocodile imagery, as well as an assessment of their context and medium (e.g., public/private, monumental/portable). The data are then analysed in a fashion similar to the zooarchaeological data, attempting to assess the potential meaning of the saurian's image spatiotemporally.

Chapter 6, is the discussion of all this information. This chapter is designed to consolidate the zooarchaeological and iconographic data sets and assess the broader significance of the crocodile to the ancient Maya utilizing additional data from Chapter 2 and ethnohistoric and ethnographic sources. The bulk of my research questions will be addressed here regarding the meaning(s) of the crocodile and the manifestation of these concepts in iconography and in the archaeological record. Finally, any apparent spatial or temporal changes or trends encompassing all the data will be examined.

The focus of Chapter 7, the concluding chapter, is to provide responses to all research questions asked in Chapter 1, and to review significant findings. Any problems encountered in the course of research will be assessed, and their impact on the conclusions reached. Furthermore, a summary of the significance of this study will be provided, as well as recommendations for further research. 6

CHAPTER 2: CROCODILES IN MESOAMERICA

Introduction

The importance of the crocodile to the peoples of ancient Mesoamerica has been a

subject pursued by numerous scholars (Joralemon 1976; Joyce 2001; Muse and Stacker

1974; Reilly 1991; Stacker et al. 1980). The Maya have received much less attention in

this regard, as more work has focused upon other animals (i.e., the jaguar or the deer)

important to ancient Maya spirituality. Here I will address the symbolism attributed to

this powerful reptile elsewhere in Mesoamerica. These ideas are influential to the

interpretation of crocodilian representations in Maya iconography and have been used as

such by many Mayanists (Garber and Awe 2009; Houston et al. 2003; Taube 1989;

Taube 2010). The Maya inherited artistic techniques, media and much of the imagery

(including the portrayal of animals) developed by early Mesoamerican cultural traditions

(such as the Olmec and Izapa) (Scheie and Miller 1986: 34). In turn, Maya iconography

was influential to later Mesoamerican peoples like the Aztec.

Preclassic Antecedents

Olmec

Olmec depictions of crocodiles are of particular interest as the Olmec culture predated

Maya civilization and inhabited similar environs. At their fluorescence during the

Formative or Preclassic period between 1300 and 400 B.C., the Olmec were probably the

earliest complex society in Mesoamerica (Table 2.1) (Diehl 2004: 11). To the Maya, the

Olmec were "an ancient civilization of legendary character" (Scheie and Miller 1986:

104). The term "Olmec" was first applied to a specific art style which was composed of

certain representations (such as "jaguar faces" and "baby faces") on green stone artifacts, 7

CULTURAL PERIOD DATE RANGE

Early Preclassic 2000-1000 BCE

Middle Preclassic 1000-400 BCE

Late Preclassic 400-250 BCE

Early Classic 250-600 CE

Late Classic 600-900 CE

Terminal Classic 800/900 (?) - 1000 CE

Postclassic 900/1000(?) - 1500 CE

Historic/Colonial After 1500 CE (post-Spanish contact)

Table 2.1. Cultural temporal divisions of the Maya subarea and Mesoamerica utilized in this thesis (after Demarest 2004:14-17 and Sharer 1994: 46-47): but was expanded later to include monumental stone art and ceramic motifs. The archaeological Olmec culture came to be identified with the style, as its originators, but the exact nature of the relationships between the two is still unclear and debated.

Explanations for the wide influence of the Olmec, in terms of their iconography and religious practices, are many and include trade, conquest, and migration, but Joyce

(2001: 71) believes that "the shared set of beliefs and the means of expressing them in art, ritual and political ceremony are more suggestive of the spread of a religion." This was a religion in which the tropical forest and its denizens played important roles.

In the art of the Olmec of the Gulf Coast, certain animals of the tropical forest were represented on monumental stone sculpture, as well as in the form of smaller scale carvings in ceramic, greenstone, or other materials. There is a wide range of supernatural

animals (zoomorphs) that appear in Preclassic Mesoamerican art, "beings with features of natural animals, combined with other non-animal or non-natural traits" (Joyce 2001: 72). 8

However, even with the process of recombination, the natural features of certain animals

are still recognizable, such as the dentition of the crocodile, the jaguar's nose, the bird's

wing, which are all visible in the composite creature termed the Olmec Dragon

(Joralemon 1976: 33).

There is a widespread, but erroneous, notion in the view of many scholars, that

the majority of Olmec iconography depicts jaguars. Instead, it is now argued that felines

occupy a secondary level of importance, with other supernatural creatures, principally

those with crocodilian aspects, of more primary significance (Joralemon 1976; Joyce

2001; Muse and Stacker 1974; Stacker et al. 1980). Muse and Stacker (1974) have

examined typical "were-jaguar" iconographic traits and compared them to the natural

forms of the crocodile, jaguar, and eagle, identifying the major traits of the Olmec "were- jaguar" as being crocodilian in nature.

The crocodilian is foremost among depicted animals in Olmec iconography, and

may well have been a central cosmological figure (Joyce 2001: 72; Stacker et al. 1980:

740). The primary expression of the crocodile in Olmec art appears to be as the

composite Olmec Dragon (God I). This is quite similar to the Cosmic Monster, a Maya

crocodilian composite supernatural. Although Peter D. Joralemon (1971) originally

favoured a jaguar-dragon identification for the Olmec Dragon, he subsequently noted its

crocodilian attributes, and prefers to consider it more reptilian than jaguar, a view now

supported by many other researchers (Muse and Stacker 1974; Joralemon 1976; Joyce

2001; Stacker et al. 1980; Taube 1996). It is represented very early in the development of

Olmec civilization and the large number of extant images, on a variety of media (from

large stone monuments to small ceramic vessels), indicates that the Dragon (and 9

subsequently the crocodile) was the most important member of the Olmec pantheon

(Joralemon 1976).

The Dragon can be a combination of numerous animals, but the most frequent and important are the crocodilian and the harpy eagle, which endow it with the power to

navigate land, water, and air; the three levels of the cosmos (Tate and Reilly 1996: 120).

Its distinguishing facial traits include flame eyebrows (plumage of the harpy eagle),

trough shaped (front) or L-shaped (profile) eyes, wing-hand-paws, the elongated, curled jaws and dentition of a crocodile, bifid tongue (snake-like), and sprouting vegetation

(Figure 2.1). The body of the beast is often crocodilian and is described as the "chassis"

on which all other attributes are attached (Lathrap 1971; Tate and Reilly 1996: 208).

Similarly, the Cosmic Monster depicted in Maya iconography features a crocodilian body

and dentition. It is noteworthy, however, that Terry Stacker et al. (1980: 743) argue that

crocodilians, while represented in a stylized manner in Olmec art, are not generally part

of a biologically impossible composite. Instead, they posit that features like the wing-

hand-paw motif is a crocodilian foot, plain and simple, and the flame eyebrow is the

tubercles above the crocodilian eyes (Stacker et al. 1980: 743).

Figure 2.1. The Olmec Dragon demonstrating the characteristic flame eyebrows, re­ shaped eyes, broad nose, crocodilian jaws and dentition, and wing-hand-paws. A series of chevrons down its spine likely represent dermal scutes. This is a greenstone carving from Central Mexico, dating from 300-100 BCE (modified after Tate and Reilly 1996: 212, cat. no. 106). 10

The Olmec Dragon (and thus the crocodilian) has been argued to have both earth and sky manifestations in Preclassic iconography (Reilly 1996: 36). The primary associations of the animal are with earth, water, and agricultural fertility (Joralemon

1976; Stocker et al. 1980). Indeed, it is often represented with depictions of vegetation sprouting from its body, suggesting the Olmec identified the crocodilian with the earth itself (the source of agricultural abundance) (Puleston 1977). Monument 6 from La

Venta (Figure 2.2), an elaborate carved stone sarcophagus, is an example of the Dragon as the earth-monster.

With the placement of the earth-crocodilian directly mid-centre over a serpentine pavement, F. Kent Reilly (1994: 128) proposes that the green polished surface of the pavement symbolically represents the waters of the underworld which lie below the primordial ocean (represented by the carved water bands of the sarcophagus). It is on this surface which the earth-crocodilian, carved on the sides of the sarcophagus, floats (Figure

2.2).

Figure 2.2. La Venta Monument 6. The Olmec Dragon as the Earth Monster. Note the appearance of floating on water and the vegetation springing up from its back (modified after Joyce 2001: 72). 11

Furthermore, the crocodile can also be seen to represent the surface of the earth in

another, smaller example of Olmec iconography. On the left thigh of a green stone statue, known as "Slim", from the Pacific Coast of Guatemala, a supernatural zoomorph is

depicted with a gaping, toothy jaw, a squared projecting nose, flame eyebrows and a

saurian tail. A vegetative element emerges from beneath the crocodile-zoomorph's belly plate, "serving as the symbolic locative that identifies this supernatural as a

representation of the earth itself..." (Reilly 1991: 162).

As the earth-monster, the crocodilian, specifically its gaping maw, could

artistically represent caves and other openings in the earth, which are widely viewed in

Mesoamerica as the entrances to the Underworld (Brady and Prufer 2005; Healy 2007;

Prufer and Brady 2005). Relief 1 from the site of Chalcatzingo (Morelos) (Figure 2.3) is

frequently cited as an example of this symbolism (Joralemon 1976; Joyce 2001; Reilly

1994).

Figure 2.3. Relief 1, Chalcatzingo. A seated figure in the profile jaws of the earth, connected with vegetative fertility (modified after Joyce 2001: 73). 12

This image shows a figure seated inside the profile jaws of a supernatural animal with mist coming from the open mouth and clouds and raindrops in front of it. Plants are shown sprouting around the mouth of the crocodilian. Rosemary Joyce (2001: 74) describes the image as "a model of the earth, personified in animal form, as the source of rain and vegetation." Similarly, Monument 9 from Chalcatzingo shows a frontal view of the same theme, with an entry way into the earth (the Underworld). Later Maya iconography also depicts human figures seated in the open mouth of a crocodile and the crocodile as the maw of the Underworld (Chapter 5).

The saurian world tree is yet another manifestation of the crocodilian Olmec

Dragon as an earth-monster. It may have emerged "from constant recombinations of the symbols of the Olmec Dragon" (Reilly 1996: 36). It is rendered as an upended saurian supernatural whose tail or upper body sprouts vegetation or as a sprouting maize plant.

As the axis mundi, the crocodile not only manifests vegetal and agricultural fertility, but also the point which connects the celestial, terrestrial, and underworld realms. In fact, an upended saurian appears as the world tree on the left leg of a Middle Formative statue referred to as the "Young Lord" from the Pacific Coast of Guatemala (Figure 2.4) (Reilly

1991: 161; Reilly 1996: 38; Scheie 1996: 107). Furthermore, the entire left side of the statue links agricultural fertility, sun, earth, and life, concepts all linked with the crocodilian dragon (Benson and de la Fuente 1996: 215). 13

Figure 2.4. The upended saurian incised on the left leg of the "Young Lord." The crocodile head (to the bottom) has been encircled (modified after Reilly 1996: 38).

The world tree can also appear as the centre of a five-point cosmogram with the tree/ruler as the central point, serving to validate the ruler's political power at the cosmological centre of the universe. An example of this can be seen on an incised image on a jade celt from the site of Rio Pesquero, Veracruz, on which a profile figure is depicted with vegetation sprouting from its head (Figure 2.5).

Flame Eyebrow Gum Brackets

Figure 2.5. Incised jade celt from Rio Pesquero. Note the crocodilian head that serves as the figure's legs (circled) (modified after Reilly 1996: 38). 14

This image, in particular, also has saurian characteristics attached to the depiction of the ruler. The legs of the standing figure are inset with flame eyebrows, L-shaped eyes, and protruding gum brackets (thus becoming the head of the crocodile). Thus, the body of the ruler is incorporated into the upended crocodilian world tree (Reilly 1996: 39; Scheie

1996: 107).

The Olmec Dragon, like later Maya crocodilians, could also be associated with water and rain, as well as the sky. Reilly (1991: 162) cites a bizarre ability of crocodilians for "water dancing", which he relates to rain and vegetative fertility. A male crocodile will belly down in shallow water, lift his head and tail high out of the water and puff out its throat. Then, "the water suddenly dances high all around his body in an effervescent fountain full of sparkle in the sunlight, and a thundering bellow fills the air..." (Ackerman 1988). The bellowing of male crocodilians is also quite often mistaken for thunder (Reilly 1991: 162). Reilly (1991: 165) is convinced that Preclassic

Monuments 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, and 15 at Chalcatzingo were meant to be understood as a unified composition depicting a natural event (water dancing). The group consists of a series of squash plants in various stages of development. Atop the plants are a series of water scrolls which are subsumed by perching saurian zoomorphs. Overhead float rain clouds with !-shaped raindrops falling. At least three of the saurians are depicted in the water dancing posture, with bifurcating scrolls of liquid spouting from their snouts in a stylized form of upside down rain (Reilly 1991: 166). A sculptured Dragon-head waterspout, rumoured to be from the Olmec site of San Lorenzo, may archaeologically corroborate this view (Figure 2.6). 15

Figure 2.6. Dragon head waterspout, San Lorenzo (modified after Benson and de la Fuente 1996:177).

It portrays the rectangular head of the Olmec Dragon with a water trough cut down its middle. From two enlarged round nostrils, water once would have gushed (Benson and de la Fuente 1996: 177). Joralemon (1976: 40) also associates the Olmec Dragon with water, citing examples of iconography where rain falls from the Dragon's mouth, from its eyes, and its tongue.

The crocodilian Dragon is also frequently rendered with a crossed-bands motif, which is suggested to represent the crossing point of the ecliptic and Milky Way, symbolizing the centre of the sky (Reilly 1996: 36). Chalcatzingo Monument 5 is interpreted as a full-figure crocodilian sky dragon, marked with the crossed bands and floating above a Lazy-S motif shown to be a symbol of the celestial location (Grove and

Angulo 1987: 122; Pool 2007: 235; Reilly 1996: 36). Another celestial motif of the

Olmec Dragon is a diamond-shaped symbol, interpreted as a star-glyph, precursor to the

Maya Venus/Lamat hieroglyph (Reilly 1996: 36).

Parts of crocodiles may also form costume elements of human figures in Olmec art. In one such example, a profile figure (Figure 2.7) is depicted wearing a face mask 16

with an anatomically accurate depiction of a crocodile's mouth (Joralemon 1976; Lathrap

1971). v',,,,""",„.

Crocodile jaw Figure 2.7. Painting 7, Oxtotitlan, Guerrero. Figure wearing a crocodilian mask (modified after Grove 1971).

It appears as though the Olmec figure is inside, or wearing the skin of, the

crocodile/Olmec Dragon. Similarly, the Atlihuayan figure from Morelos has been

suggested to bear a crocodilian skin (Figure 2.8) (Lathrap 1971; Muse and Stacker 1974).

Moreover, two carvings, which have been referred to as "fetus sculptures" (Tate 1996:

62), are stunted human figures depicted with serrated eyebrows, cleft heads, and incised

pelts, and are believed to represent the transformation of the human into a crested

crocodilian. Joralemon (1976: 43) offers explanations of either shamanic transformation

or the crocodile as a guardian spirit for these types of images. 17

Figure 2.8. The Atlihuyan Figure, Morelos. The figure wears the crocodile skin (detail on right) on his back and head (modified after Joralemon 1976: 34).

In favour of a shamanic explanation, another carving of a figure riding a crocodilian

(Figure 2.9) shows the shaman straddling the beast's back, possibly engaged on a journey to the supernatural otherworld. This image is also cited as proof, along with La Venta

Monument 6, that crocodiles could also have served as guides to the watery underworld

(Tate and Reilly 1996: 186).

Figure 2.9. Supernatural riding a crocodilian. Serpentine figurine, Mexico (900-600 BCE) (modified after Tate and Reilly 1996:185).

Zooarchaeological evidence of a crocodile mandible from the Preclassic site of

Fabrica San Jose, Oaxaca, may corroborate early Mesoamerican use of crocodile heads 18

and skins as potential costume elements (Flannery 1976). Similar remains have also been found at Maya sites (Altar de Sacrificios, Cahal Pech) and will receive further attention in

Chapter 4.

Zooarchaeological evidence, in general, is minimal for crocodile use by the

Olmec (Rust and Leyden 1994; VanDerwarker 2006; Wing 1980, 1981). Perhaps its image was utilized in place of the living animal. However, with regard to the animal's symbolic power, Stocker et al. (1980: 749) argue that the heartland Olmec traded symbolic power regalia, such as crocodile skins, and other crocodile products, such as their meat. In the crocodile was the embodiment of the Olmec's successful ideology, binding the animal to rain, corn, and earth fertility. With the trade of crocodilian products they were also trading the Olmec ideology (Stocker 1980: 749). Beyond the trade of secondary products and art, Stocker et al. (1980) further propose that live animals may have been exchanged, and kept in Pre-Columbian zoos, which the are known to have maintained. However, there is no archaeological evidence for any of these activities.

Therefore, the crocodile, primarily in its guise as the Olmec Dragon, can be assigned considerable importance to the Olmec, the pre-eminent and influential culture of

Formative Mesoamerica. It has been argued that the crocodile was potentially as important as, if not more than, jaguars as an animal symbol, representing the earth and fertility in different manifestations, as well as the sky, rain, and water. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that the animal may have functioned as a spirit companion or shamanic alter-ego. It will be made apparent in the ensuing discussion, as well as the remainder of this thesis, that these themes were significant not only to the Olmec, but to the later Maya culture as well. 19

Izapa

Izapa style art consists primarily of upright stone stelae, and associated frog-like altars, carved in low relief from the type site of Izapa, Chiapas, Mexico. Excavations indicate that the site was occupied from 1500 BCE through to the Late Classic period, but all sculptures have been considered Late Preclassic and Proto-Classic in date (Quirarte

1973: 7). Izapa art is generally defined with reference to Olmec and Maya art, but as distinct nonetheless. The similarities between the Izapa style and those of the Olmec and

Maya have long been noted by specialists often associated with a belief that the style served as a "connecting link in time and space between the earlier Olmec civilization and the Classic Maya" (Coe 1962: 99-100), but this perspective has come under criticism in more recent iconographic studies (Quirarte 1973: 5; Smith 1984: 1). Smith has defined two major themes in Izapan art: 1) an overall expression of concern over water; animals or creatures represented regularly such as jaguars, crocodile/dragon and serpents, are all attached to water or water symbols, and; 2) Izapa style art draws upon natural flora and fauna and animal behaviour to give concrete expression to the idea of water (Smith 1984:

29).

Naturally, as a species with aquatic tendencies, the crocodile, along with other animals which are strong swimmers (e.g., jaguars), and water serpents, regularly appear in Izapan art. The importance of the crocodile as a water fertility symbol in Izapa iconography cannot be denied (Smith 1984: 36). Crocodiles may have been important as a pre-agricultural food source and "an ecological explanation of their deification may eventually shed light on their economic and religious affiliations with other sites" (Smith

1984: 36). 20

Crocodiles in Izapa art are depicted primarily in one of two ways. First, they can appear as compound figures. These are figures that can have anthropomorphic or zoomorphic attributes and are predominantly human, crocodilian, or serpentine, as the base with portions of the others included (Quirarte 1973: 20). The heads and feet of primarily human figures are the physiological features that are most likely to vary (e.g., a mask headdress or crocodile-like feet). Crocodile feet are the most common way the animal can appear as part of a composite creature. Izapa Stela 11 (Figure 2.10) depicts a fat, winged figure with crocodile claws in a squatting position which also appears wearing a crocodile-mask headdress (Smith 1984: 26). Stela 6 illustrates a similar stout figure whose head is in the form of the elongated jaws of the crocodile turned upwards and replete with clawed saurian feet (Quirarte 1973: 21). These two monuments demonstrate another noticeable element; the pairing of avian and reptilian characteristics in Izapan art. Two other monuments (Stela 2 and 4) whose figures display similarly placed crocodile attributes are depicted as flying.

Figure 2.10. Izapa Stela 11 depicting a figure (bottom) with an open-mouth crocodile mask or head and crocodile feet (modified after Norman 1973: PI. 22). 21

The second way that crocodiles tend to be represented is as an upended saurian world tree. These trees are associated with water in Izapa art, contrary to those in Olmec images, and are found emerging from only reptilian or amphibian forms (Smith 1984:

17). Probably the most frequently discussed Izapan image is that of Stela 25 which has a depiction of a saurian in the form of a tree (Figure 2.11).

Crocodile head

Figure 2.11. Izapa Stela 25 displaying the upended crocodilian world tree (modified after Norman 1973: PI. 42).

The features of the animal are clearly crocodilian with an elongated snout, a distict row of pointed teeth, short legs with claws and dermal scute patterns on its back. From its tail- end sprouts the leaves of a tree on which a bird is perching. The crocodile's head is at ground level with a human figure shown stepping or standing on it. Others have argued that this indicates an earth designation for this image (Garber and Awe 2009: 155; Taube

1989:2), but Virginia G. Smith (1984: 28) argues that the conch shell on its nose has clear water connotations. It is apparent, however, that whether earth or water, the image has fertility symbolism. Similarly, Stela 64 is another realistic portrayal of a hanging crocodile whose tail turns into a tree (Quirarte 1973: 22). It is also argued that Stela 2 and 22

Stela 5 depict the same theme, albeit more abstractly (Lowe et al. 1982: 303; Quirarte

1977: 272).

In conclusion, the Izapa art style included many widespread Mesoamerican themes (such as the world tree). This occurs in "the unique context of ...coastal estuary- slough-swamp forms, [which suggests] a cult focusing on supernatural beings and beliefs related to such an ecosystem", including one of its top predators, the crocodile (Smith

1984: 48). Some of the large inventory of visual traits are not shared beyond Izapan art to other Mesoamerican iconographic systems, such as the crocodile feet appendages on some figures, demonstrating that although Izapa art is part of a Mesoamerican artistic tradition, it is also highly specialized and localized. The crocodile-fertility theme is a major emphasis of both Izapan, and Olmec art (Stocker et al. 1980: 752).

Postclassic Successors

There is considerable evidence that the importance of crocodilian motifs continued through the Classic period in the Maya subarea (this is the focus of the remainder of this thesis), and into the Postclassic period in the realm of Central Mexico, inhabited by the Toltecs and Aztecs. Numerous scholars (Benson 1997; Muse and

Stocker 1974; Puleston 1977; Stocker et al. 1980; Taube 1989) have ascribed meaning to

Maya depictions of crocodiles based on extrapolations from these Postclassic Mexican sources. Ethnographic, ethnohistoric and mythological data, also key lines of evidence, are discussed further in Chapter 6.

In the Postclassic period {ca. 900-1500 CE), the importance of the crocodile is demonstrated most clearly in the Borgia Group of codices where the rough and spiny back of the crocodilian is frequently used to denote the surface of the earth (i.e., Borgia 7, 23

27, 39-40,42, and 53). Page 27 of the Codex Borgia is the most oft cited example

(Figure 2.12). Here, a field of maize plants, bearing ears of corn, grows from the back of such a creature (Muse and Stacker 1974: 87; Puleston 1977: 463).

Figure 2.12. A rendition of the Mexican earth monster from Codex Borgia (p. 27) with maize plants growing on its back (modified after Puleston 1977: 463). The crocodile-like head, mouth agape, is circled to the left, snout upright.

Similarly, Codex Laud page 38b illustrates vegetation terminating in the head of a crocodile (Muse and Stocker 1974: 87). The analogy between the regular arrangement of the dermal scutes of the animal, and the regular patterns of rectangular raised fields is apparent, as is the connection between the animal and specifically agricultural fertility

(Puleston 1977).

The first day of the ceremonial calendar of the Aztec was assigned to Cipactli, a crocodile which, according to legends, grants corn to men in return for their proper blood-water sacrifices. Sixteenth century Fray Diego Duran (1971: 379), in an examination of the 20 day signs and the children born under them, states that those born under Ce Cipactli will be "great tillers of the soil." Furthermore, it is argued that the reference is to the creation of the world, which is also apparent in the patron deity of the day, Tonacatecuhtli, "the Creator...as the lord of life and sustenance" (Burland 1967:

87). Clearly, the deity is closely associated with the crocodile, as there is a number of 24

instances in the Borgia Codex where he appears to be wearing the skin of the creature

(Taube 1989: 3). On page 39 and 40 of that codex the deity also appears as a crocodilian with a great gaping maw (Figure 2.13).

Figure 2.13. Tonacatecuhtli depicted as the crocodilian earth complete with a crocodile's mouth, open wide, at the top of the image. Codex Borgia p. 39-40 (Taube 1989: 8).

Tonacatecuhtli and Itzamna, his Maya equivalent, are identified with sacred trees and can actually appear in the form of personified trees (Taube 1989: 10, note 3). Crocodile world trees, similar to those that appear in Olmec, Maya, and Izapa art, are also depicted with regularity in Postclassic Aztec illustrations as well (Figure 2.14) (Scheie 1996; Stocker et al. 1980).

Figure 2.14. Crocodile tree, Codex Borgia (p. 24) (modified after Joralemon 1976: 60). Note the crocodile head, mouth agape, encircled at the bottom of the image, with protruding eyes and an elongated toothy snout. 25

Comparable to the case of Izapa art, where the crocodile can be identified with water, in Postclassic Central Mexico the animals were associated with Tlaloc, the rain deity. Crocodile remains have been excavated in the Templo Mayor, the Great Temple of the Aztecs in Tenochitlan (modern Mexico City). These were usually found on the Tlaloc temple side of the twin temple structure; a crocodile skull was found in one offering there

(Benson 1997; Lopez Lujan 1994; Matos Monteczuma 1988).

The Aztecs were not the only people of the Postclassic period to ascribe symbolic importance to the crocodile. The animal's image appears as the most repeated icon on the four columns at Temple B at Tula, Hidalgo, the capital of the Toltecs (Stocker et al.

1980: 753-754). It is represented on all four sides on the top, middle, and bottom registers, serving as breaks between two levels of standing warrior figures (Figure 2.15).

r-Crocodile Faces Figure 2.15. Crocodile faces on the columns of Temple B, Tula (modified after Stocker et al. 1980: 754). Note the crocodile eye, top jaw, and teeth at the base of the column (bottom register). 26

The elongated snout, a row of sharp teeth on the top jaw, and the distinctive protruding eyes all easily identify the depictions as a crocodilian, albeit stylized.

Summary

There is, therefore, considerable evidence for the continuity of the crocodile as a symbol from the Preclassic to the Postclassic period in Mesoamerica. It could be portrayed in numerous ways in art but, ultimately, was a fertility symbol in most of its incarnations, with its primary associations being with earth and water. Joralemon (1976:

58) argues on this point that, "it is my conviction that there is a basic religious system common to all Mesoamerican peoples." There are numerous images which appear across time and space in the region, including world trees, often represented as crocodiles, connecting the three levels of the cosmos, and the crocodile as the rugged surface of the earth. These artistic continuities, seen across thousands of years, indicate that at least a core of interrelated basic concepts was widely shared by most Mesoamerican groups

(Nicholson 1976: 162-163; Stocker et al. 1980: 755). As such, the symbolism attributed to crocodiles in other Mesoamerican cultures may be connected to the meaning(s) assigned to the animal by the Maya. 27

CHAPTER 3; BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY

ICONOGRAPHY

Art and the Ancient Maya

Maya art has been understood as a "complex symbolic language with profoundly important social functions" (Scheie and Miller 1986: 41). The symbolism primarily expressed and identified the role of individuals in society, in relation to the larger Maya world and the cosmos (Marcus 1992). The order of society, the inherent role of the king, as well as the rest of the social hierarchy, was expressed through art. Therefore, it is not surprising that it was mainly commissioned by kings and the nobility in order to communicate these social and political messages and affirm a shared reality. Also, the scribes and artists commissioned to create these images were often drawn from the elite class (Coe and Kerr 1997: 38). It is unclear how much of the Maya population was literate, certainly the elite were, but according to Coe and Kerr (1997: 38) it is unlikely more than 25 percent of the population were truly literate in reading hieroglyphic writing.

Art, then, possibly served as an alternative language, particularly when displayed in public places like plazas (i.e. stelae and altars) and on architecture, for the consumption of the elites and commoners alike.

Much of Maya art, particularly that on a monumental scale, can actually be seen as a portrait of ritual rather than of a particular person. When executed in combination with hieroglyphic writing, the time, location, actor, and action are all specifically recorded, freezing the moment in time. Ritual was conceived of as the bridge between the supernatural world and the ordinary world, with the ruler serving as the ultimate medium through which this occurred. Kings were commanders of not only civil authority, 28

but also that of the supernatural. Therefore, iconography acted as a symbolic language, and depicted not only the historical actions of kings and the cosmos, but also the interactions between them (Scheie and Miller 1986: 42). Furthermore, iconography could express the control the ruler and elite had of the natural world through complex ritual, promoting order over chaos (Benson and Griffin 1988: 3).

Iconography, therefore, in its role of communicating cultural information, was restricted to certain conventions of symbolism and imagery with meanings shared and understood by the Maya community. Thus, Maya art was quite conservative in nature,

allowing for easy recognition of deities, ranks of people, and structures (Scheie and

Miller 1986: 41). This makes it possible for it to be understood also by archaeologists and

epigraphers today, with enough careful study. Maya iconography can be found on a

number of different media, ranging from portable items, like figurines, painted ceramics,

and codices, to immoveable objects, such as carved stelae and architecture.

As represented on these objects, there are some broad categories into which most

Maya pictorial depictions can be placed. First, representations of the natural environment

are quite common, most often comprised of images of animals. Second, there are

historical scenes, including palace events, depictions of warfare or captives, rituals (like

bloodletting), the ballgame, hunting scenes and representations of the soul's journey

following death. Most of these can be understood as ritualistic in nature. Third, there are

depictions of supernatural characters or deities and mythological narratives, some of

which are certainly derived from stories like those recorded in the Popol Vuh, the Quiche

Maya creation tale (Reents-Budet 1994: 234). These categories can, of course, overlap.

However, it must be noted that the ancient Maya did not likely categorize these images in 29

this way, nor likely conceive of a difference between the supernatural and the historical in the same sense that Western thought does. It has been established that for the Yucatec

Maya, for example, history and mythology are not separate but, rather, are intertwined.

Maya history reenacts Maya mythology (Reents-Budet 1986: 236).

A Brief History of Iconographic Research in the Maya Subarea

There has long been considerable interest in the iconographic and artistic expressions of the ancient Maya. Art was integral in providing insight into Maya society before many archaeological explorations had been conducted, and previous to the decipherment of the hieroglyphic script. With the concurrence of script and imagery apparent on monuments, it is not surprising that the history of iconographic and glyphic studies go hand in hand.

In the mid-19th century, a series of publications sparked scholarly interest in Maya art and culture. Perhaps the earliest and most important work in this regard was Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan, written by John Lloyd Stephens

(1841) with stunning illustrations by Frederick Catherwood. Among the bestsellers of the time, these volumes allowed Maya art to become widely known for the first time. The book was based upon the travels of Stephens and Catherwood to many ruins in the Maya area, including Palenque and Copan. Stephens believed that the human figures carved on the monuments were the rulers of that city, and the hieroglyphic inscriptions accompanying them were historical in nature, a view which was forgotten and not revisited again until the late 20th century. The detailed and accurate illustrations by

Catherwood conveyed the romance of the subject in conjunction with Stephens' reliable and detailed descriptions of the sites they visited (Scheie and Miller 1986: 20). 30

Following this publication, there were many others released during the latter half of the 19th century which indicate a growing interest in the ancient Maya. Brasseur de

Bourbourg was a French scholar and abbot, with a keen interest in Mesoamerica. He was one of the most important early Mesoamericanists, publishing a translation of the Popol

Vuh, the folklore and oral history of the highland Maya. Furthermore, he translated and published an abstract of Diego de Landa's Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan in 1864

(Tozzer 1941) and found a segment of the Madrid codex. Three Maya codices (bark paper books) were discovered and published during this period (Fash 1994: 182).

At the turn of the century, a series of excellent photographs and drawings of Maya inscriptions on stone monuments was issued by Alfred P. Maudslay (1899-1902) in five volumes, titled the Biologia Centrali-Americana. He cleared both stelae and architecture for his outstanding black and white photographs, creating a record that is still used to this day, particularly since many of the original monuments he photographed are now either degraded or inaccessible (being in private collections) (P.F. Healy, personal communication, 2008). In a concurrent photographic publication of monumental art,

Researches in the Central Portion of the Usumacinta Valley, Teobalt Maler (1901-1903)

similarly covered sites like Yaxchilan and Piedras Negras, but largely ignored any hieroglyphic inscriptions, and did not offer any interpretations of the material.

Simultaneously, Paul Schellhas (1904) was one of the first to attempt a systematic identification of gods appearing in the art of the Maya codices. He was able to isolate and identify particular deities as well as their appellative glyphs (Taube 1992: 6).

It was not until 1913, with the publication of Herbert J. Spinden's doctoral

dissertation, and seminal work, A Study of Maya Art, that any systematic and detailed 31

study of Maya art was released. He is widely recognized as the "first modern iconographer" (Hellmuth 1987: 37). Spinden identified three main categories of Maya images, including human subjects, animal figures, and figures that he associated with

Maya deities (Kubler 1969: 1). In addition, he discussed items of ceremonial paraphernalia that are represented with great frequency, in particular the ceremonial bar and the manikin scepter. Not only did he examine the art itself, but Spinden also considered the context of art on architecture, stelae and altars, as well as the use of colour. Finally, he attempted to establish a chronology based on monuments from numerous sites, including Tikal, Copan, Yaxchilan, Piedras Negras, and historical documents regarding later sites, such as Mayapan. In this regard he also endeavoured to establish a connection between the art of the Maya and other cultures in Mesoamerica, particularly the Aztec and Zapotec. All of this was presented with numerous line drawings as well as an appendix of photographic plates.

. After the work of Spinden, the early interest in Maya art lapsed until Tatiana

Proskouriokoffs work of the 1950s. In the first half of the 20th century, Maya studies largely focused upon the decipherment of the hieroglyphic script and calendrics, almost

obsessively, as well as large scale archaeological excavations primarily led by

archaeologists of the Carnegie Institution of Washington (CIW). The CIW excavations concentrated more upon the recovery of pottery, along with building and stelae sequences than the interpretation of any figural evidence found (Kubler 1969: 1).

Following the discovery of the Bonampak murals in 1946, the monuments

described and photographed at the turn of the century by Maudsley, Maler, and Spinden,

warranted further examination. Proskouriokoff (1950) then published what Miller 32

(1986b) calls "the single most comprehensive study of Maya sculpture to date."

Proskouriokoff s (1960) follow-up publication is heralded as one of the greatest single contributions to Maya studies. In this paper she argued persuasively that Maya monuments were not devoid of historical information, as previously thought. Rather, she proved that they recorded important events in the lives of rulers, such as birth, inauguration, conquests, and death (Fash 1994: 1983; Rice 1989: 4). Proskouriokoff also published useful studies on Maya architecture (1946), and women in Maya art (1964).

In 1969, George Kubler published Studies in Classic Maya Iconography, the first systematic discussion of Maya art since Spinden's (1913) work, reintroducing the subject of iconography into Maya studies. New to his study was the recognition of the dynastic element of a vast amount of Maya art, which he examines on a site by site basis. He also examined ritual images, including the identification of a mythical narrative on many examples of painted Maya pottery, as well as deities and ritual objects, especially headdresses. The most detailed aspect of his discussion regarded the triadic sign, a symbol portrayed on costumes, the liminal zone between underground and above earth areas and on bicephalic animals (Kubler 1969: 34). The publication is brief compared to

Spinden's earlier tome, but was a useful update of that work based on more recent research, including his own work on the triadic sign.

Beginning in the 1970s, a series of "Round Table", or Mesa Redonda, meetings regarding the art, iconography and hieroglyphs of Palenque were conducted. Over time, the meetings broadened their focus beyond the site of Palenque. Many important studies of Maya art, epigraphy, and iconography have been published in these volumes. 33

In the vein of early publications by Maudsley and Maler, the Peabody Museum of

Archaeology and Ethnology at Harvard University began a series of folio-sized volumes entitled the Corpus of Hieroglyphic Inscriptions, devoted to the recording and dissemination of information about all known ancient Maya inscriptions and their associated figural art. Publication of the series began in 1977, and is ongoing. There are

19 volumes published at this time, released by site, and including line drawings and photographic documentation.

Carrying on from the work begun in the 1970s, with the Mesa Redonda and the

Corpus, the 1980s witnessed a large number and variety of studies devoted to ancient

Maya art. Mary Ellen Miller (1985) re-evaluated the murals of Bonampak in light of the progress in the understanding of the Maya since their initial discovery. Miller also teamed up with Linda Scheie to publish the influential work The Blood of Kings (1986). The interpretations offered by Scheie and Miller in this book are based upon a synthetic approach to Maya writing, art, and artifacts, with a level of introspective criticism that is indicative of the post-processual school of archaeological theory (Rice 1989: 5). Scheie was a self-avowed structuralist (Scheie and Freidel 1990). The focus of the volume is on blood, and how it relates to Maya kingship and courtly life in many forms, from descent, to personal bloodletting, warfare, and the ball game. This study presented a view of ancient Maya society understood by what the Maya themselves recorded, something that had been largely ignored since the early studies at the turn of the century, in favour of more scientific approaches and processual theoretical models.

The end of the decade was marked by two publications based on symposia with papers/chapters by a variety of authors. Maya Iconography, edited by Elizabeth P. 34

Benson and Gillet Griffin (1988) examined the origins of Maya art in the Preclassic period, blood symbolism, and the analysis of polychrome ceramic vessels (Robertson

1990: 428). Word and Image in Maya Culture, edited by William F. Hanks and Don S.

Rice (1989) is primarily focused on hieroglyphic writing and its connection to iconography. The first section of the book is based on linguistic principles of writing, such as grammar, style and composition. The second part looks at the relations between linguistic and iconographic systems and a synthetic approach to the examination of kingship, cosmology and ritual.

One of the most important publications on Maya art in recent years is The Maya

Vase Book (1989-2000) by Justin Kerr. These publications are comprised of six volumes of colour rollout photography of Maya ceramics with accompanying articles. This series, and its accompanying online collection (research.mayavase.com/kerrmaya.html), provide scholars with easy access to hundreds of images of Maya ceramics in their original form,

"rolled out" so that the entire image can be seen clearly in a two-dimensional photograph.

In this way, the series can be viewed almost as a parallel to the Corpus publications, which strive to record as many monuments and inscriptions as possible.

Courtly Art of the Ancient Maya by Mary Ellen Miller and Simon Martin (2004) is probably the most current book regarding ancient Maya art, with an emphasis on craft

specialists, such as scribes, and the art they produced for the elite of Maya society. Miller has also published Maya Art and Architecture (1999) and an earlier book entitled, The

Art of Mesoamerica: From Olmec to Aztec (1986) which includes a study of Maya art in its Mesoamerican context. It is apparent, therefore, that the study of and interest in art and iconography in the Maya subarea has a long and detailed history beginning in the 19th 35

century, and continuing into the 21s century. With this background, and introduction, I now turn to ancient Maya representations of animals in their art.

Animals in Maya Iconography

Animals are a central and important component in much of Maya art found in both naturalistic and supernatural forms. Their importance in ritual, the focus of much of

Maya iconography, has been attested by their prevalence in ceremonial archaeological deposits, like caches or burials (Pohl 1983). "[Animals] have been significant as creatures who share the environment with man and embody qualities meaningful to man" (Benson

1997: 165). Clearly identifiable species are often apparent in Maya art while, at other times, the depiction is of a more generic bird, fish or mammal. Animals are also represented as composite creatures, lending dominant traits such as fangs or claws to anthropomorphic figures, either identifying them as supernaturals, or providing special power to human beings. They can be associated with shamanic powers (and transformation), deities, fertility, agriculture, protection, and can take on a number of forms, for good or evil.

Although modern researchers often refer to beings like a "monkey man god" and a "jaguar god", Benson (1997: 14) believes that the ancient Maya and other Pre-

Columbian peoples probably had no animal deities as such; animals were not worshipped per se. Rather, animals had supernatural personas or identities, and a god may have one or more animal manifestations or avatars. This is certainly true of many Maya deities, who will be discussed in more detail below. However, there do seem to be deities in the

Maya pantheon that only appear in animal form, specifically the Celestial Bird, also known as the Principal Bird Deity (Bardawil 1976; Scheie and Miller 1986: 55; Taube 36

1987). Animals could also serve as intermediaries with the gods (ancestors) as a human's alter ego or way, a companion spirit (Grube and Nahm 1994: 686; Houston and Stuart

1989).

The belief that animals were once people is also a prevalent theme in Maya art.

Monkeys, for example, are viewed as a failed attempt to create humans out of wood, or alternatively, transformed men who had disobeyed a god (Benson 1994). In the Popol

Vuh, the Hero Twins' older brothers were skilled flautists, singers, painters, dancers and sculptors. They were transformed into monkeys as punishment for their poor treatment of their brothers, but continued to be invoked as patrons of the arts. Monkeys are frequently depicted in Maya art as scribes, holding paint pots or brushes (Coe 1978). A modern Tzotzil Maya folktale has interpreted the origin of the black-men of Zinacantan as deriving from ancient bat demons (Benson 1988: 116).

In origin myths, animals were often involved in the creation of the Maya human world. They represent mythic beings, personifications of forces or spirits of nature. In

Postclassic Yucatan thought, before the present creation, the world was covered by a flood which had destroyed the previous creation. One of the instigators of the flood was a crocodilian who was sacrificed to allow the birth of the ordered universe (Pugh 2001:

247). In addition, animals could be seen to personify places in the cosmos, such as the

sky, the surface of the earth, the underworld and the sea. The back of a turtle is often associated with the surface of the earth, as is the crocodile (Pugh 2001: 248; Scheie and

Freidel 1990: 66). The Underworld as a watery place quite often has marine connotations

and is usually associated with sea creatures. Constellations, too, have been associated recently with animals based on research on the codices. It has been suggested that Aries 37

is the Muan Bird, Scorpio is a scorpion, and Virgo or Leo may represent a peccary in the

Maya worldview (Reents-Budet 1994: 252).

Furthermore, individual places, people, and gods were often named for, or associated with, certain animals. Copan has been recognized as the "polity of the bat" due to its emblem glyph, as well as extensive bat imagery found at the site (Fash and

Fash 1994: 63). The etymology of the site name Lamanai has been interpreted as

"submerged crocodile" (Pendergast 1981: 32). Numerous, if not most, Maya ahaus

(rulers) had names that included animals. For example, a ruler of Tikal went by the name of K'uk Ahau, which has been translated as "Lord Quetzal", while the founding ruler of

Copan was Yax K'uk Mo', "Blue Quetzal Macaw" (Fasquelle and Fash 2005: 223; Scheie and Freidel 1990: 310). These animals may have also been the king's way, or companion spirit, as there are also examples of the animal which comprises the name associated with a ruler's interment. For the above example, K'uk Ahau was buried with a skeleton of a quetzal bird accompanying him in his tomb, laid between his legs. The hooked bill on the headdress of his burial mask is reminiscent of the same bird (Harrison 1999: 96-98).

Crocodiles too have been identified in this manner, and will be discussed in more detail in Chapters 4 and 6. In terms of deities, for instance, God GUI of the Palenque Triad is often represented as a jaguar, and birds are frequently portrayed in the headdresses of deities (e.g., God L) (Scheie and Miller 1986: 54). God K is portrayed with a serpent for a foot.

In addition to supernatural and naturalistic portrayals of animals, they were also depicted in historical scenes in ancient Maya art. Images of the ballgame, as a reenactment of the creation of the cosmos, often have associated animal imagery. Ball 38

players in art frequently wear animal headdresses of deer or birds. These same headdresses, or masks, have also been interpreted as dance costumes in other contexts, such as feasts (Tedlock 1996: 133), and part of a warrior's paraphernalia in others, like the murals at Bonampak (Miller and Martin 2004:165). Tozzer and Allen (1910: 291) state that animal figures in the Maya codices appear most frequently as headdresses. By clothing themselves in animal's fur and feathers, fangs and claws, the Maya embodied their vital spirits.

Deer hunts are another event depicted on painted ceramics and may have been real events, but ones imbued with possible ritual connotations (Pohl 1981; Taube 1997).

Historic events recorded on monuments also include depictions of animals, like the vision serpent accompanying scenes of self-sacrifice. Animals and their by-products are also depicted on stelae; jaguar pelts adorned thrones, and kings frequently were illustrated wearing elaborate feathered headdresses.

In sum, animals depicted in Maya iconography embodied a number of important themes, particularly those involving creation and cosmology. Humans (particularly rulers) would often associate themselves with particular animals, even so far as to appear in art wearing their skins as costumes, in order to perhaps associate themselves with the powers these creatures represented. Alternatively, as suggested in Chapter 2, these images may actually depict the (shamanic) transformation of humans into animal altar- egos, therby acquiring their powers in the Other world.

Previous Research: Animals in Maya Iconography

With the frequent occurrence of animal images in Maya art and considerable interest in iconography from an early date, it is not surprising, therefore, that the study of 39

animals as they appeared in iconographic contexts (such as the codices and monuments) was soon to follow. In depth zooarchaeological analyses were not as prodigious, and it would take some time before any careful consideration of animal bones was undertaken by field archaeologists.

Eduard Seler (1904) was the first to focus specifically on depictions of animals in ancient Maya art with an early study entitled, The Bat God of the Maya Race. He

subsequently wrote The Animal Pictures of the Mexican and Maya Manuscripts, published by the Peabody Museum in 1909. It was a more detailed study encompassing

an examination of multiple species. This was quickly followed by Alfred M. Tozzer and

Glover M. Allen's (1910) work Animal Figures in the Maya Codices, a work on animal

symbolism in the codices which has not been equaled since its publication (Emery 2004:

10). With Tozzer as the specialist in Maya studies, and Allen a zoologist, they put together a systematic and comprehensive study outlining the contexts in which animals could appear (i.e., copulating, sacrifice, offerings, astronomy, or mythology), the manner

of representation (i.e., a realistic depiction, a stylized representation, composite creatures,

or the combination of human and animal features). They then examined the ways

different animals were represented and their possible symbolic meanings, species by

species. Spinden (1913) in his corpus on Maya art also spent considerable time discussing

animal figures. He devoted an entire section to the serpent, in which he included a

discussion of what he termed "The Two-headed Dragon", later to be known by the

appellation the Cosmic or Celestial Monster, an animal which is now recognized to have

crocodilian characteristics. There was also a discussion of specific animals like jaguars

and birds, and miscellaneous animals (i.e., bats, turtles, deer, dog, and peccary). 40

With the advent of zooarchaeological analyses, particularly in the 1950s and

1960s, animals again began receiving more attention from Mayanists, although in a more ecological and economic sense, as was the focus of the processual archaeology and zooarchaeology of that time. Art studies with animals as key components began anew in the 1970s with work by Benson (1972, 1977) and Coe (1978) in particular. Of interest for this project, Puleston (1976, 1977) entered the discussion with an examination of crocodiles in Maya iconography, but with emphasis on their ecological and agrarian symbolism, as agriculture was the main focus of his study.

Michael D. Coe (1978), a pre-eminent Maya scholar, has discussed monkeys as the supernatural patrons of ancient Maya scribes utilizing both art (primarily painted ceramics and the codices) and ethnographic and ethnohistoric sources (the Popol Vuh,

Landa's Relacion. Baker (1992) also demonstrated interest in monkeys, with a focus on capuchins, in particular.

Arguably, Elizabeth P. Benson has been one of the most prolific scholars writing about the relationship between animals and Precolumbian people. She has published numerous articles and books on animals and Precolumbian art, focusing not only on the

Maya subarea, but also on cultures of Lower Central America and South America. In this vein, one of her most recent publications is Birds and Beasts of Ancient Latin America

(1997), which examines common themes in the depictions of many creatures including reptiles, birds, mammals, and invertebrates. Benson has also published extensively on individual animals and their meaning to the ancient Maya with studies on bats (1988a), jaguars (1985, 1988b, 1998), stingrays (1988c), monkeys (1994), and dogs (1991). These focus upon iconographic, ethnographic, and ethnohistoric data, as well as a review of the 41

animal's biology. She has also edited volumes on the representation of felines in the

Americas (1972) and the sea (1977).

Houston and Stuart (1989) published a landmark study which affected the perception of animals in iconography and epigraphy and is relevant to this study. Entitled

"The Way Glyph: Evidence for Spiritual Co-essences Among the Classic Maya," this paper identified and translated a glyph that changed the view of many supernatural beings depicted in iconography, often represented as animals, from deities or underworld denizens, to co-essences or spirit companions (protectors or totems) of humans or other supernatural entities (Houston and Stuart 1989: 13). The meaning of the glyph was further elucidated by an examination of ethnographic data.

There are many zooarchaeological studies which overlap these works which include an examination of art in addition to a focus on zooarcaheological data. These will be discussed in the next section, on zooarchaeology. Studies that specifically discuss crocodiles are covered at the conclusion of the chapter.

ZOOARCHAEOLOGY

A Brief History of Zooarchaeological Research in the Maya Subarea

As discussed above, the inclusion of animals in the study of the ancient Maya has a considerable antiquity. The approach to animal studies was subject to the development of new trends and paradigms in both anthropology as well as the biological sciences, with early efforts focused primarily on art and iconography, and remains recovered from special deposits. Progress was slow compared to other avenues of research in the subarea, and compared to zooarchaeological research elsewhere. In a review of the history of 42

zooarchaeological research in the Maya subarea, Kitty Emery (2004a: 4) remarked,

"[d]espite the long history of European zooarchaeology, the zooarchaeological tradition is relatively recent in the New World." Old World zooarchaeological research was given a boost by interest in, and studies of, the process of animal domestication, something for which there was not much evidence in the New World, as well as paleoanthropological research into early hominid behaviours (Emery 2004a: 7). Even with its slow beginnings, zooarchaeological research has now become an essential avenue of study in assessing questions about subsistence, environmental impact, social behaviors like status and ritual, as well as the Classic Maya collapse (Emery 1997). Recent reviews of the history of

Maya zooarchaeological research have been conducted by Emery (2003b, 2004a) and

Christpher Gotz (2008a).

The study of the ancient animal remains from Maya archaeological sites began in earnest in the 1920s and 1930s, in concert with early tropical field biology. Biological studies in tropical lowland Mesoamerica during the "age of biological classification" resulted in the creation of new taxonomic listings of the local fauna, flora, and soils

(Bartlett 1935; Cooke 1931; Goodrich and van der Schalie 1937; Murie 1935; Stuart

1935; van Tyne 1935) which were of interest to the archaeologists who were also working in the region (Emery 2003b: 195). Both the Carnegie Institution of Washington

(CIW) and the Museum of Zoology of the University of Michigan sponsored collaborative biological and archaeological research in the newly accessible forests of

British Honduras (Belize) and Guatemala (Emery 2004a: 5). Early large scale excavations at the Maya sites of Uaxactun (Ricketson and Ricketson 1937), Piedras

Negras (Coe 1959) to the west, Chichen Itza (Coggins 1992; Ruppert 1931, 1935, 1943) 43

and Jaina (Moedano-Koer 1946; Pina-Chan 1968) to the north, as well as highland sites like Kaminaljuyu (Kidder et al. 1946) and Zaculeu (Woodbury and Trik 1954) were the first to recognize the importance of animal populations to the ancient Maya (Emery

2003b: 195; 2004a 5). Identification of animal remains at this time were made by zoologists, and their reporting consisted only of species lists attached to appendices in publications. Detailed analyses were largely restricted to those animal remains modified into artifacts, or recovered from caches or burials, with faunal material from general refuse essentially ignored (Emery 1990: 21).

The advent of the "New Archaeology" (Steward 1955; Binford 1962) with its focus on ecological models resulted in the development of environmental archaeology and many changes to zooarchaeological research. Gordon R. Willey, in his settlement study of the Belize River Valley (Willey et al. 1965), was one of the first to include analyses of both plant and animal remains integrated into his reports. Large archaeological projects at Tikal and Dzibilchaltun were some of the first to incorporate environmental studies into their research strategies (Andrews and Andrews 1980; Jones et al. 1981; Kurjack 1974; Puleston 1974). There were also projects in Chiapas which recognized animal resources as important to Preclassic subsistence (Flannery 1969).

Furthermore, zooarchaeologists were finally being accepted as integral members to archaeological teams (Emery 2004a: 7). Olsen (1972, 1978) described faunal remains from Altar de Sacrificios and Seibal, while Pohl (1976) conducted a regional analysis of faunal remains from the sites of Altar de Sacrificios, Seibal, Tikal and Macanche.

Elizabeth Wing provided analyses for a number of projects, including Dzibilchaltun

(Wing and Steadman 1980) and Lubaantun (Wing 1975), while Nancy Hamblin (1984) 44

joined the Cozumel project, Carr (1986a, 1986b) examined material from Cerros, and

Scott (1979, 1982) worked with the Colha assemblages. Moreover, in a few projects, the

zooarchaeology was one of the primary goals of analysis, with the work on the shell-

middens at Cancun of particular interest (Andrews et al. 1974; Wing 1974).

Although zooarchaeology was increasingly included as an important component

of research programs at many Maya sites, its execution to this point was still largely

confined to taxonomic lists of subsistence species and quantification (Emery 2003b: 196).

However, the advent of new zooarchaeological methods and techniques began to broaden

the scope of investigation. This included fine mesh screening, which allowed the

recovery of small bones (i.e., fish). This resulted in a new and enduring fascination of the

Maya use of marine and riverine resources and trade (Andrews 1969; Finamore and

Houston 2010; Lange 1971; Hamblin 1984, 1985; Moholy-Nagy 1963, 1978, 1985;

McKillop 1984, 1985; Vail 1988). Animal population statistics were utilized for the first

time, due to a new capacity to identify age and sex in faunal remains, which allowed

research into differential resource distribution (i.e., between elites and commoners, core

and periphery, skeletal elements) (Pohl 1976).

Furthermore, in combination with a renewed interest in the domestication of

animals in the Old World, Maya zooarchaeologists began to address the question of

domesticated animals in the Maya world (Pohl and Feldman 1982; Wing 1978; White et

al. 2001, 2004). Investigations into biomass, bone weight, and osteometries were

pioneered by Maya zooarchaeologists (Hamblin 1984; Wing 1977, 1978) for

identification purposes, as well as dietary significance (Emery 2003b: 196). Also, during

the processual period, the first works discussing regional and comparative patterning of 45

resource use appeared, with a particular interest once again in aquatic resources (Benson

1977; Pohl 1976, 1990; Stark and Voorhies 1978). Wing's (1981) work on defining a

Maya menu, notes Emery (2003b), "remains unsurpassed in today's literature."

In the modern era, most ongoing projects include zooarchaeological studies as an integral part of their investigation. Although subsistence and diet remain central concerns in modern zooarchaeology, the advent of the post-processual school of thought has had some influence on the research of modern zooarchaeologists. Recent endeavours focus on the more symbolic nature of animal use by the ancient Maya. The societal role of animals with regard to ritual (Ballinger and Stamper 2000; Borhegyi 1961; Emery 2004c;

Hamblin 1981;Pohl 1983), expressions of status (Emery 2002; Masson 1999; Pohl 1994,

1995; Shaw 1999) and ethnicity (Emery 1999), are being considered with increasing regularity. Mary Pohl, in particular, has been instrumental in her early research on the societal role of animals, particularly with regard to ritual (1981, 1983) and status (1985,

1990, 1994). Furthermore, studies are also attempting multifaceted investigations which examine animals from multiple perspectives as both food and status or ritual animals, such as the recent work on feasting (Masson 1995a; Pohl 1994; Shaw 1995b; Stanchly

2007).

Kitty Emery has been one of the most significant figures in modern Maya zooarchaeology with her primary research focus being social in nature (Emery 1999,

2002). She has also demonstrated interest in the history of the discipline (Emery 2003b,

2004a) and methodology (2004b). Her doctoral dissertation, and subsequent articles, have investigated the Maya collapse in the Petexbatun region from a zooarchaeological perspective, positing that environmental degradation is not the only cause of site 46

abandonment and destruction in the Late Classic collapse (Emery 1997, 2004d, 2010).

An area of research she is currently pursuing is the ethnozoology of the modern Maya of

Guatemala, which has opened up new routes of inquiry, such as the use of animals medicinally (Emery and Brown 2008) and human depositional behaviours (when, why and how animal remains are disposed of) (Emery 2008) which is an area of interest for this study. She has published an edited volume dedicated solely to Maya zooarchaeology, the first publication of its kind, although other volumes have included zooarchaeology with respect to environmental archaeology, such as edited volumes by

Flannery (1982) and Pohl (1985).

The examination of the significance of individual species, at either the regional or

site specific scale, is of particular interest to this thesis. These studies are instrumental to my research as they examine animals primarily from a zooarchaeological perspective, but in conjunction with data from other sources (iconographical, ethnographic, and/or ethnohistoric). In this regard, Pohl (1983) has been particularly prolific, publishing on the ritual nature of many Maya fauna, ranging from deer to turtles to fish in her article,

"Maya Ritual Faunas" (Pohl 1983). She has written extensively on the deer as an

especially important animal to the ancient Maya (Pohl 1981; Pohl and Pohl 1983). Deer

have also been studied by Carr (1996) and White (et al. 2004). Toads and frogs have been

a source of interest, especially their potential use as psychotropes (Dobkin de Rios 1974;

Hamblin 1981). Stingrays (and their spines) have received attention from Borhegyi

(1961) and Haines (et al. 2008), turtles from Carr (1991), dogs from Teeter (2004), White

(et al. 2004), and Wing (1978). McKillop (1985) has published on manatees, and

Ballinger and Stomper (2000), among others, have examined jaguars. 47

These studies, in addition to those discussed above regarding animals in Maya art

and iconography, have been integral in planning the research design and methodology of this thesis. Furthermore, although crocodiles have received some attention in their

appearance in artistic contexts (Garcia 2006; Pugh 2001; Puleston 1976, 1977; Taube

1989), no one has yet attempted to correlate this information with the zooarchaeological

data, nor compile a comprehensive database, which is the focus of my research.

Methodology

The methodology I utilize in this thesis is in the vein of these combined studies

with a single animal focus. However, instead of focusing on art, or zooarchaeology, and

then comparing outside either of those fields, I have chosen to examine the iconographic

and zooarchaeological data from a more comprehensive and synthetic perspective. Both

data sets receive equal attention, and each is the focus of a separate thesis chapter.

Furthermore, while each chapter answers slightly different research questions (outlined in

Chapter 1), the two data sets are complementary, and in Chapter 6 are also examined

comparatively to assess the overall significance of one animal, the crocodile, to the

ancient Maya. This discussion chapter uses ethnohistoric data, and ethnographic

information regarding the modern Maya, which is relevant to the topic and provides

additional insight to the meaning of this animal to the ancient Maya. Moreover, this will

assist in answering research questions regarding the temporal component (e.g., was the

crocodile an important animal to the Maya throughout their history, including the modern

day, or was it restricted in time?). Methodology and sampling specific to the data

chapters (i.e., exactly how crocodiles were identified in Maya art or the approaches to 48

zooarchaeological quantification) are discussed in the introduction to each respective data chapter to avoid repetition.

As I desire a study which looks at the crocodile's significance to the Maya spatio- temporally, I have organized my data in a very specific way. It has been ordered, first, chronologically, to ascertain any temporal patterns, and then second, geographically, in order to determine if there was any differential use of the animal in the Maya subarea (in terms of proximity to the animal's aquatic habitat).

Geographically, the Maya subarea, a part of the larger Mesoamerican culture area, constitutes three basic environmental zones, each of which can be further divided. These are: 1) the Pacific coastal plain; 2) the highlands, which can be subdivided into northern and southern; and 3) the lowlands, subdivided into northern, and southern regions

(Demarest 2004: 11-12; Sharer 1994: 24). In the discussion below, the text is divided, first temporally and within the temporal division, will be subdivided geographically by the regions indicated above.

A review of the crocodile's biology is also included below. This examines habitat, behaviour, and physical characteristics which may have influenced its selection by the ancient Maya as an animal of use for subsistence or symbolic purposes.

Crocodile Biology

The crocodile is a large semiaquatic reptile. It is often referred to as "last of the ruling reptiles", since it is the only living representative of Archosauria, a group that included dinosaurs (Campbell 1998: 284; Neill 1971: xi). As such, it is actually more closely related to birds than other living reptiles, exhibiting similar behaviours like nest- building, care of the young and anatomical features like a four-chambered heart 49

(Campbell 1998: 284). There are 23 species of crocodile today, which can be placed into three families: 1) alligators and caimans; 2) true crocodiles; and 3) the gavials. Only one of these families lives in the Yucatan Peninsula, the Crocodylidae, and of that group only one genus, Crocodylus occurs (Lee 2000: 132). The natural physiology and the aggressive behavior of the crocodile were both likely contributing factors in its selection by the Maya, and other indigenous groups, as an animal of prominence and consequence in antiquity.

Distribution

There are two species of crocodiles (genus: Crocodylus) that inhabit the Maya

subarea, the American crocodile, Crocodylus acutus and Morelet's crocodile, Crocodylus moreleti. Although some archaeologists mention the caiman and the alligator in iconographical and glyphic studies in Maya archaeology, neither of these animals are (or were) present in the Maya subarea according to some biologists (Lee 2000; Neill 1971), although there is some difference of opinion regarding the caiman (Britton 2009). David

Stuart (2003), for example, refers to the Cosmic Monster, a supernatural with crocodilian

features, as the "Starry Deer Alligator" and Karl A. Taube (1989) describes the

Postclassic deity Itzam Cab Ain as the "earth caiman". Other scholars (Benson 1997;

Demarest 2004; Parsons 1986) also refer to the crocodile and the caiman interchangeably.

There may be some confusion in terminology due to the propensity of modern Spanish-

speaking inhabitants of the subarea to refer to all crocodiles as caimans (Kelly 2006: 54;

Neill 1971:312).

The American crocodile occurs largely in coastal areas, such as in mangrove

swamps, and may enter brackish and salt water (Campbell 1998: 284). It also tends to 50

occupy lowland rivers, lakes and marshes. It will often live in large bodies of clear water.

The species is distributed extensively from southern Florida, into the Greater Antilles, on the mainland from Tabasco and Campeche, in Mexico, and south through the Belizean

Cayes and coastal Lower Central America, to Colombia and Venezuela. This crocodile can also be found along the Pacific Coast of Guatemala (Figure 3.1) (Campbell 1998:

285; Neill 1971: 323).

Figure 3.1. Distribution of the American crocodile (modified after Britton 2009).

Morelet's crocodile tends to be found more inland than its American cousin, living in areas of quiet water, such as backwater lagoons, slow-moving streams, lakes and aguadas (Lee 2000: 134). It generally avoids large, permanently flowing rivers, instead inhabiting the smaller tributaries (Campbell 1998: 287). It seems to prefer bodies of water with surrounding dense vegetation, in savanna as well as forest habitats. The animal is

not as common to the coast as C. acutus, but it may be found occasionally in the brackish 51

mangrove lagoons of Belize and the fast-flowing streams from the Maya Mountains in recent times (Britton 2009; Campbell 1998: 288). In terms of distribution, Morelet's crocodile occurs from central Tamaulipas in northeastern Mexico southward into the southern portion of the Yucatan Peninsula, northern Guatemala, and into Central Belize.

It is well distributed throughout the Peten District of northern Guatemala (Figure 3.2)

(Campbell 1998: 288; Lee 2000: 134; Piatt et al. 1999: 395).

Figure 3.2. Distribution of Morelet's crocodile (modified after Britton 2009).

Physiology

Crocodiles are quadrupedal reptiles with robust tails that are laterally compressed to provide propulsion for swimming (Lee 2000: 132). At the ends of their short legs, they

have five webbed digits on the front feet, one of which points backwards, and four on the back. The snout is elongate with a depressed head. The eyes are and nostrils are elevated

to protrude above the surface of the water while the rest of the animal is submerged, with

additional ridging on the eyes (Campbell 1998: 283; Lee 2000: 132). Crocodilians are

unique in the possession of a second palate which has a valve in the throat that allows 52

them to breathe while grasping and holding prey underwater, as well as allowing them to aestivate during the dry season. Other features of the animal include a heavy dorsal armor of bony plates (osteoderms or dermal scutes) which are raised into a series of hard ridges.

They are the only living reptiles with thecodont teeth (set in sockets in the jaw)

(Campbell 1998: 283; Goin et al. 1978: 340).

The American crocodile is a large beast, averaging between 2.3 and 4m in length and displays noticeable sexual dimorphism, with the males of the species larger than females and possessing a more robust musculature in the jaw. Members of the species have been recorded as long as 6.9m (Goin et al. 1978: 340). Its snout tends to be narrow and the top of the head in front of the eyes is a convex shape (Campbell 1998: 284). In terms of colouration, the animal can be grayish green, grayish brown or olive green on its dorsal side, with dark brown or black crossbands across the body and tail. The ventral

side tends to be white, cream or yellowish (Lee 2000: 132).

Morelet's crocodile is described as poorly known compared to other crocodilian

species (Piatt et al. 1999). It is a slightly smaller animal than the American crocodile,

averaging 2.0 to 3.5m in length, but is still broader in the snout. The patterning of scales is also quite distinctive. The dorsal surface of the head and body is heavily armored with bony scales, more prominently than the American. The primary transverse rows of scales on the laterally compressed tail have a number of small scales inserted between them, creating caudal whorls at the proximal end (Campbell 1998: 287; Lee 2000: 134). The

animal tends towards a dark brown or almost black colour on its dorsal side, but may be mottled with yellow spots. The belly is pale and yellowish white. 53

Differentiation of the two species is discussed in greater detail with regard to skeletal differences later in the thesis (Chapter 3).

Behaviour

The saltwater and Nile crocodiles of Australia and Africa are reported to be the most dangerous of the crocodile species, but occurrences of attacks on humans by other species, including those in the Maya subarea, do happen (Kelly 2006: 165). The

American crocodile, in particular, can be a dangerous predator, with documented attacks on humans. Campbell (1998: 286) describes an incident in Iztapa, a settlement on the

Pacific coast of Guatemala, in 1960. A large animal apparently had seized and killed a woman washing clothing in the Canal de Chiquimulilla. Morelet's crocodile is not generally viewed as being as dangerous as the American species, but attacks upon humans have also been recorded. The French naturalist, Morelet, after whom the species is named, noted that the crocodiles were known to attack humans that ventured into their watery domain (Campbell 1998: 288). There are also documented incidents of attack in

Belize, southern Mexico and Guatemala. Morelet's crocodile has the distinction of being the smallest crocodile species known to have caused human fatalities (Campbell 1998:

289).

The sharp and pointed teeth of the crocodile family are used for seizing its prey, but not for chewing. Its gastrointestinal biology functions like the gizzard of a bird and, thus, the crocodile will swallow hard objects to aid in grinding its food. The large and powerful tail of the creature can be utilized to sweep victims off their feet, or the prey can be rapidly seized and dragged into the water to be drowned. If the prey is too large to be swallowed whole, the crocodile will tear it apart by rotating its body rapidly over and 54

over in the water, breaking the neck and spine (Goin et al. 1978: 342). Crocodiles will feed on mud turtles, fish, birds, and mammals (Campbell 1998: 288; Lee 2000: 133-134).

Large American crocodiles have been known to exhibit cannibalism (Lee 2000: 133;

Neill 1971: 337). Juveniles often eat inects, tadpoles and invertebrates. As predators, the crocodile is second only to the jaguar in the Maya subarea, although they can reportedly kill a jaguar if attacked by one (Benson 1997: 101). Any animal capable of killing a jaguar is clearly worthy of the respect of humans. The only real threat to the adult crocodile is a human (Neill 1971: 341), although juveniles and the eggs can be preyed upon by other animals, like coatimundis, birds, and large fish (Campbell 1998: 285).

All crocodilians are semiaquatic, making use of both aquatic and terrestrial environments. They will frequently bask in the sun on shore, but do not wander too far from water (Campbell 1998: 285; Goin et al. 1978: 342). Nesting behavior also occurs

on shore, but near the water's edge. Crocodiles are quite protective of their young, which

is a behavior unique to them in the reptile order. Females attend the nest during

incubation and open the nest upon hearing the grunting of the young crocodiles within the

eggs. She will then gently carry the hatchlings to the water in her jaws (Lee 2000: 135).

Length of juvenile care is variable by species, only lasting a few days for C. acutus, and

an unknown length of time for C. moreletti.

Like the jaguar, the crocodile is the most active at night, at least in terms of

hunting behavior. It usually hunts during the first few hours after nightfall, particularly on

moonless nights (Campbell 1998: 285). Similar to many other animals, including the jaguar, they also have reflective "eyeshine" at night. 55

At maturity, crocodiles are large, impressive lowland reptiles. The potentially ferocious nature of the crocodile as a predator likely would have elevated its status, as a symbol of power, as a protective spirit, or companion animal, similar to the jaguar. The propensity of crocodiles to inhabit, and hunt effectively, in different environments likely gave it cosmological importance among the ancient Maya (Benson 1997: 100; Peterson

1990: 16). Few other lowland creatures had the capacity to cross different realms

(terrestrial and aquatic) like the crocodile. The fact that crocodiles are known to clean their ventral scutes by backing up to a tree, perhaps explains the representation of the animal in Maya art as the "world tree", in which they connect the three planes of existence (Garber and Awe 2009: 155). Furthermore, the manner in which crocodiles dispatch prey, through drowning, was likely a significant behaviour in a belief system where water is often linked with the Underworld (Benson 1997: 101). They also can devour their prey whole, which may have contributed to the impression that the crocodile

"was a more powerful or vengeful animal than others" (Stocker et al. 1980: 748).

The physical properties of the crocodile, in particular the bony dermal plating along its back, made it an ideal metaphor for the rugged and uneven terrain of the earth's surface, floating on the fiery primordial seas (or on the waters of the Underworld), echoing the natural way the animal floats, still and unmoving, in dark, murky bodies of water (Houston and Finamore 2010). Moreover, the regular pattern of these bony plates of the crocodile appears to replicate the grid design of ancient Maya raised fields, separated and intersected by irrigation canals (Puleston 1977). Crocodiles, as the uncontested, top aquatic predator, also can be inextricably tied to fertility due to their habitation among the canals of the raised fields, an important source of agricultural 56

success among the Lowland Maya (Harrison and Turner 1978; Puleston 1977). The

animal's tendency to breed in large groups (Graham 1992: 180; Pohl 1983: 79; Stone-

Miller 1995: 36), and their ability (if left undisturbed) to co-exist in dense populations

(Stocker et al. 1980: 745), may have contributed to the Maya identification of the crocodilian as a symbol of fecundity.

Previous Studies: Crocodiles and the Maya

While nothing extensive has been written on the crocodile and its importance to the ancient Maya, there have been a few publications of note. Crocodiles as they appear in iconographic contexts are the focus of the majority, particularly during the Postclassic period.

Puleston (1976, 1977), has discussed crocodiles in his study, "Hydraulic

Agriculture in the Maya lowlands", noting the animal's characteristics as an earth metaphor, although the majority of the article focuses on Maya agricultural practices, not

animal symbolism.

Erik Velasquez Garcia (2006), Timothy W. Pugh (2001), and Karl A. Taube

(1989) have all written about crocodiles in art and mythology but their work is for the most part focused upon the Postclassic period only. Garcia recounts a mythological event

involving the destruction of the world and creation of a new one from the decapitation of

a crocodile, which is recorded in ethnohistorical sources, the Dresden codex, and a

hieroglyphic throne from Palenque. Pugh's publication also focuses upon the flooding event recounted in Garcia's work, and its role in ordering the universe, from a site-

specific perspective at Mayapan. Taube's article focuses upon crocodiles as cosmolgical

symbols in art and argues that their meaning is closely related to calendrics and time. All 57

three refer to the crocodile as it appears in art and mythology as Itzam Cab Ain or Itzam

(like the deity Itzamna) earth crocodile. Prudence Rice (1989) also makes mention of

Postclassic reptilians appearing on ceramics, but is reluctant to identify them specifically as crocodiles. Like Taube she relates them to cosmology, but also to rulership. These studies receive further attention in the thesis, particularly in Chapters 5 and 6.

As of yet, there has been no zooarchaeological examination of the crocodile specifically. It is usually reported in a list of fauna in archaeological site reports. Even

Pohl's (1983) work on ritual fauna, which includes crocodiles among many other animals, only lists two zooarchaeological finds: the crocodiles cached and buried at Tikal, and the modified mandible from Altar de Sacrificios (see Chapter 4). The following chapter is an effort to rectify this shortcoming. 58

CHAPTER 4: ZOO ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA

Introduction

Animals were a central component of daily life, both for elite members of Maya society, and commoners. They were clearly important in terms of subsistence, but were also ritually and symbolically significant. Different animals appear to have served different purposes for the Maya. Some seem to have been more readily utilized for consumption (tapir or fish); others were more frequently depicted in art or deposited in a specialized context (such as jaguars). Animals like white-tailed deer and dogs were used for food, but were also given special significance and appear in art. Animal remains in the archaeological record can, therefore, be representative of several different kinds of human behaviour. They can be exploited as part of the diet, ritual, or in the case of feasting both simultaneously (Stanchly 2007).

Archaeologically, a ritual purpose has been suggested for crocodiles (Pendergast

1981; Pohl 1983), but has not been verified. In this chapter, it is my intent to ascertain the potential meaning(s) of crocodiles to the ancient Maya based on their appearance in archaeological assemblages at different Maya sites. Crocodile remains have been deposited in a number of different site contexts, ranging from middens and domestic refuse to burials and caches. Their remains constitute part of faunal assemblages from many Maya sites, representing different time periods.

Zooarchaeology and Ritual

Ritually, fauna symbolized "the elements of nature, such as earth, rain, and sun, in

addition to such abstract concepts as renewal and immortality" (Pohl 1981: 55). They were also linked metaphorically to the underworld, fertility, power (status) and could 59

additionally represent totems of individuals, lineages, and communities (Emery 2004c:

104). In manifesting these concepts, many different animals were often sacrificed and their remains interred in caches, burials, caves, and cenotes. These were all sacred contexts which, to the Maya, seem to have been conceptually linked (Becker 1988; Pohl

1981).

Rituals tend to be comprised of formalized, symbolic and repetitive acts performed by a head of family, shaman or priest, or ruler (depending on the scale of the ritual) to communicate with deities, ancestors, or the supernatural (Davis-Salazar 2007:

200). The formal, symbolic and repetitive nature of these events is generally what makes them most likely to appear in the archaeological record, as they reflect standard sets of behaviours rather than a solitary event (Emery 2004c: 101). The context of animal assemblages is essential in differentiating ritual deposits from middens or common dietary remains. The archaeological context of the fauna, including location (such as a burial or cache) and associated artefacts representing ritual paraphernalia (such as musical instruments and adornments) can provide indications of ritual activity.

Furthermore, the taxonomic content of the deposit (which animals are represented) can also provide similar connotations. Some animal species, like jaguars and stingrays, are

sacred and their use is restricted to ritual situations. The presence of exotic species (such as marine animals at inland sites) can also represent a ceremonial event, as they would have been more difficult to acquire and would not have occurred in the deposit merely by chance (Emery 2004c: 101, 105; Wing 1977: 55).

Bone was considered one of the substances which carried ch'ulel or "soul force"

(Brown 2005: 140; Freidel et al. 1993:246). Used in ritual contexts in association with 60

other objects that carry similar significance, such as jade beads, marine shells, maize kernels, mosaic mirrors, colour signs and zero symbols, bone represented the material representation of ch'ulel. Stingray spines, obsidian lancets, or other objects used to draw blood were then also deposited, as blood opened the portal to the otherworld and, once it was opened, ch 'ulel from the otherworld could enter an object (like a building) and make it alive. Thus, bone was representative in ritual contexts of rebirth and creation (Freidel et al. 1993:244-246). This belief may account for the number of animal bone offerings in ritual deposits. Modern Maya in the highland village of Santa Eulalia in Guatemala gather up all the bones of animals and place them on altars so that they can return to nature (Pohl 1983:98). Linda Brown and Kitty Emery (2008) have also researched

similar ritual behaviour in present-day hunting shrines in the highlands, usually found in

rock shelters or caves.

Both the context and taxonomy of animal assemblages provide insight into

ancient Maya ceremonial practices. However, which skeletal elements are present (or

absent) may also shed some light onto past rituals. A low number of skull elements tend

to be found archaeologically, even when the rest of the skeleton remains intact. This may

have to do with fiesta celebrations and/or cooking behaviour and/or preservation or

differential discard practices. Skulls may have been fashioned into animal headdresses

for events (such as dancing). The heads of animals may also have been ceremonial

offerings in and of themselves. The high number of deer cranial elements at the Temple

of Kukulcan in Mayapan supports this (Masson and Lope 2008: 176, 180), as does the

paucity of skull fragments elsewhere at the site. Skulls may have also been a part of

ritual processions, like the peccary in the cuch rite (Pohl 1981). In contrast, a high 61

concentration of cranial elements can also be an indicator that butchering took place at that location, representative of a possible sacrifice, particularly if the remains are recovered in an elite context, or cache (Masson 1999: 103, 106).

Unlike most individuals found in Maya dietary faunal assemblages, the animals that are preserved in ritual deposits are suggested to be young. An emphasis on immaturity may be a symbolic metaphor for rebirth and renewal (Emery 2004c: 108).

Alternatively, young animals may have been selected for their small size, possibly because they were easier to cache than a larger animal, or that they were not of as much dietary significance.

Dietary Considerations

In terms of dietary considerations, midden and housemound areas are the deposits most likely to contain food remains of animals. The elements preferentially chosen by the

Maya, and represented archaeologically, tend to be the most meat-laden, such as limb bones. These also tend to be the portions that preserve well and can be recovered or are used in tool manufacture (Stanchly 2004: 41-42). In the case of crocodiles, the meat- laden tail is selected for consumption, for obvious reasons, but also because the remainder of the animal is usually considered to be too pungent to be eaten (Pohl 1976:

179). Reptile eggs, including those of crocodiles, may have also been consumed by the ancient Maya (Pohl 1976: 235, 251).

Butchery marks (cut marks) and burning as evidence of cooking can also be signs an animal was utilized for food, but do not appear frequently. Furthermore, bone is often utilized in the Maya area to make tools (Stanchly 2004: 40) as well as ornaments (see

Chapter 5). 62

Zooarchaeological remains can also provide evidence of animals being used as luxury goods. Elite members of society would have had access to a wider variety of animals for consumption, including exotic species, that would have been difficult to acquire either because of their ferocity (large cats, perhaps crocodiles) or scarcity and distance (marine shells and animals) (Emery 2002: 499). Furthermore, faunal distribution in elite and ritual contexts suggests "elite animal use in competitive feasting, display and ceremony also played an important role in community interaction" (Emery 2004: 499).

Medicinal Purposes

Ethnographic studies have proven useful in identifying reasons for animal exploitation beyond consumptive and ritual purposes. Emery and Brown (2008: 4) conducted interviews with the Iztaj Maya of the Peten Lakes district in Guatemala. They note that,

"[m]any of the illnesses and cures are sympathetic or closely related to the behaviours or look of the animals." Some treatments involve eating certain portions or the animal in its entirety, feathers are often burned, oils are extracted and used. Many animals are also used as preventatives. Curated animals, preserved in their entirety or in portions, were stored against future needs of the household or community and utilized when necessary

(Emery and Brown 2008: 3).

Quantification

Crocodilian faunal remains identified in this study were quantified utilizing the

NISP (Number of Individual Specimens) and MNI (Minimum Number of Individuals) methods. These are the techniques most frequently utilized in the zooarchaology reports consulted for analysis. 63

NISP is the tallying of bone elements or fragments identified to each taxon, usually within a specific context (Shaw 1991: 142). This is arguably the simplest method of quantifying an animal bone assemblage (O'Connor 2000: 54). It is useful in examining proportional frequency of a sample and absolute counts. Some biases which are inherent in the NISP method are: 1) the size of the species under consideration and the variability in the number of bone elements per species; 2) the differential identifiability of certain elements and the variability in the relative ease in which a bone element can be identified to species; 3) the differential recovery and preservation of remains including fragmentation (small bones are less frequently recovered); and 4) the variation in the ways the animal was processed by human beings (Emery 2004b: 26;

O'Connor 2000: 56; Shaw 1991: 142). NISP counts are still ubiquitous in their use in

Mesoamerican zooarchaeological literature, particularly in the discussion of primary results, and have the advantage of referring directly back to the original archaeological faunal assemblage (Emery 2004b: 26). O'Connor (2000: 57) notes that the NISP method is also useful in establishing the rank order of taxa present in the assemblage.

MNI is a quantification method more recently employed by zooarchaeologists in conjunction with NISP and is used in an effort to counteract the problems and distortions inherent in NISP counts (O'Connor 2000: 59). The procedure consists of matching the paired elements of any taxon in an assemblage based on side, size, age, and weathering

(Emery 2004b: 27, O'Connor 2000: 59; Shaw 1991: 145). There are a few advantages to

MNI as a corrected counting unit. It is independent of the number of parts in the skeleton of a species, and the degree of fragmentation of the skeletal parts (Emery 2004b: 27).

However, the method is not without its limitations. Rare taxa tend to be overestimated, 64

the assumption being that the whole animal is represented (when in fact it could have been shared through the community) and sample size can be problematic (Emery 2004b:

27; O'Connor 2000: 60; Shaw 1991: 145). Finally, no consensus exists on how MNI should be calculated beyond the combination of matched elements and, thus, comparability between samples and sites is compromised (Emery 2004b: 27).

Despite their limitations, these were the methods most frequently utilized by zooarcheologists in the site reports considered for inclusion in this thesis. Thus, my conclusions will be bases on these analyses with their biases and limitations kept in mind.

For purposes of comparison, MNI was determined to be the best quantification method for this study sample, with one specimen being considered equivalent to one iconographic representation of the creature (Stocker et al. 1980: 751). In those instances where MNI was not calculated in the reports, the minimum of a single animal was assumed (MNI=1), with the understanding that more than one might actually be present.

Without the record of bone sides or elements present in many faunal reports, this was the best option. NISP was deemed to be not as useful because, in a few instances (such as the caches of complete animals at Tikal), the individual bones were not quantified, making comparisons difficult (H. Moholy-Nagy, personal communication, 2010).

Identification of Crocodile Remains

The two species of crocodiles found in the Maya subarea, Morelet's crocodile

(Crocodylus moreleti) and the American crocodile (C. acutus), have only a few characteristics that differentiate them. The whorls of caudal scales and the number of enlarged scutes at the base of the neck can be utilized in distinguishing living individuals

(Piatt et al. 1999: 395), but this is not particularly useful, archaeologically, due to 65

preservation and recovery bias. However, the two species do differ in the relative breadth of the snout, as Morelet's have a broad compact head and the American has a much narrower cranium (Brazaitis 1973).

They can be most clearly distinguished on the basis of the configuration of the suture between the premaxillary and maxillary bones (Figure 4.1) (Lee 2000: 9). The

American crocodile has a V or W shaped premaxillary-maxillary suture and Morelet's crocodile shows a transverse premaxillary-maxillary suture.

Figure 4.1. Palates of Crocodylus acutus (left) and Crocodylus moreleti (right) showing the differences in the premaxillary-maxillary suture (modified after Lee 2000).

Caution must be used in identifications as this feature may not be present in a faunal assemblage due to fragmentation or absence of the necessary skeletal elements. The most common crocodile elements found at sites tend to be dermal scutes (Figure 4.2) (Kitty

Emery, personal communication, 2009). 66

Figure 4.2. Crocodilian dermal scutes, the most commonly found element of the animal's skeleton archaeologically (Emery and Thornton 2008: Appendix 1).

Morelet's crocodile also tends to be smaller in size than the American species however, the considerable overlap (see Chapter 3) makes identification based only on size problematic. Most identifications by zooarchaeologists are only done to the family or genus level due to these issues (see Appendix A).

It is also possible that many unidentified reptile faunal remains, such as limb bones and fragments, may be crocodilian but remain "unclassified" due to the difficulty in identifying them with confidence (Kitty Emery, personal communication, 2009;

Stanchly 2006: 58).

Sample

Published reports were utilized in the acquisition of the sample and data collection for the zooarchaeology portion of this research with only a few exceptions. This was largely due to the scope of the project whereby it is my intent to determine what the representation of crocodile remains is at sites across the Maya subarea (Figure 4.3).

Given that this is a Master's thesis, and due to time and space constraints, it was not possible to examine large amounts of unpublished data. I selected sites that exhibited more detailed reporting with calculated bone counts and contextual data. I also attempted 67

Figure 4.3. Map of the Maya subarea displaying the sites discussed in this chapter (modified after Harrison 1999:10). to ensure that it was possible to compare the results in this chapter with those in the chapter to follow, which focuses on art and iconography. Ultimately, 26 Maya sites were 68

identified that contained crocodilian faunal remains (MNI=78) across as wide a spatio- temporal span as possible. Many sites contained remains from multiple time periods.

In this chapter then, crocodiles will be discussed as they appear in a zooarchaeological context. The numbers of remains, body elements and context are all detailed with regard to answering the research questions outlined in Chapter 1 (see

Appendix A). My goal is to ascertain if the crocodile is an animal that was exploited widely by the ancient Maya and, if so, primarily as a food animal, or for more ritual purposes. This will be done largely by examining context and body elements recovered. I examine also if their distribution archaeologically correlated to proximity of the

crocodile's natural habitat. I also aim to examine any temporal patterns therein. Finally, I will correlate this data (in Chapter 6) with the art and iconographic data, presented in

Chapter 5.

Preclassic Period

Crocodiles were represented in zooarchaeological assemblages dating to as early as the

terminal Early Preclassic period (this was recorded at Cahal Pech) (Table 4.1). While

present, they were not apparent in large numbers. Five sites in the southern lowlands

contained crocodile material from the Preclassic period (NISP=51, MNI=6). One site,

Cahal Pech, had a significant number of crocodilian remains, and represented the only

site with material that had potential ritual connotations. 69

Site Name Context Skeletal NISP MNI % Total Alteration Date Elements NISP Southern Lowlands Altar de Unknown Unknown 2 1 2/24 = 0 Late Sacrificios 8.3% Cahal Pech Structure Mandible 1 1 0 Early B-4, cache Structure Partial maxilla 41 1 41/720 = 0 Early B-4, fill(?) 5.7% Partial premaxilla Splenial dentary Fragments (unknown) Colha Primary Dermal scutes 4 1 4/14553 0 Late middens (3) (Op. Thoracic 2012/2031) vertebra (1) Cuello Unknown Unknown 2 1 1/1545 = 0 Middle 0.13% Seibal Unknown Unknown 1 1 1/72 = 0 Late 1.38% 5 Total: 51 6 0 Table 4.1. Crocodiles in zooarchaeological assemblages from the Preclassic period.

All the crocodile bones from this site were derived from a single building in the site core, Structure B-4. This structure is a relatively small mound on the southeastern corner of Plaza B in the epicentre of the site. It is unique in that it has provided very early data at the site, including animal remains (Awe 1992: 106). In the underlying fill of Floor

12 (the second deepest floor) in a Cunil phase (terminal Early Preclassic, 1100-900 BCE) cache (Garber and Awe 2009: 155; Healy et al. 2004: 121), cultural remains were uncovered consisting of early Middle Preclassic pottery, several chert flakes, a cream- slipped figurine fragment, a single obsidian flake and a crocodile mandible (Figure 4.4)

(Awe 1992: 130). A similar crocodile mandible was reportedly recovered in Middle

Preclassic contexts at Fabrica San Jose, Oaxaca by Flannery (1976: Figure 11.6), who describes it as a part of a costume. The remaining crocodile bones (NISP=41), all of 70

which were cranial elements, reportedly of a single individual, were found within the structure fill (Stanchly 1992: 393, 403).

It is possible, therefore, that the entire cranium of a crocodile was placed in the early phase of the structure's construction as an offering. These remains represent the earliest known use of crocodilians by the lowland Maya, and they appear to occur in a ritual or ceremonial context.

Figure 4.4. Early Preclassic crocodile mandible from Structure B-4 cache, Cahal Pech (image courtesy of Dr. Jaime Awe).

Four other sites had zooarchaeological assemblages containing crocodiles which dated to the Preclassic. Of these, one (Cuello) dated to the Middle Preclassic, while the remaining three (Colha, Seibal, and Altar de Sacrificios) dated to the Late Preclassic. All of the crocodile bones from these sites were from unknown contexts (n=3) or middens

(Colha). The crocodile elements recorded in the Colha assemblage are not caudal, although one vertebra (thoracic) was noted, making it difficult to infer food use, although the entire assemblage to which they belonged was assigned a domestic function at the site

(Shaw 1991: 230-231).

Early Classic Period

During the Early Classic, crocodile remains were included in a variety of contexts from six sites from the southern highlands and southern lowlands (Table 4.2). Six sites were 71

found to have crocodiles present in their zooarchaeological assemblages (MNI=12, NISP could not be calculated due to Tikal material).

Site Name Context Skeletal NISP MNI % Total Alterations Elements NISP Southern Highlands Kaminaljuyu Tomb A-III Scutes ? 1 7 0 Southern Lowlands Altar de Mound refuse Mandible (1)- 1 1 ? Worked Sacrificios L groove, drilled alveolus, polished symphysis Pyramid fill Tooth (1) 1 1 ? Drilled Mound refuse Tooth (1) 1 1 ? Drilled Copan Burial VIII-36 Teeth? ? 1 ? Drilled Plaza A Group (necklace) 9N-8 Burial Scutes ? 1 7 Burned XXXVII-8, Motmot Structure (10L- 26) Cueva de los Cave Unknown 3 1 3/1124 = 0 Quetzales 0.27% Pulltrouser Unknown Unknown 1 1 1/88 = 0 Swamp/K'axob 1.14% Tikal Burial 10 Complete ? 1 7 0 skeleton Cache 120, Complete ? 1 7 0 STR. 5D-26 skeleton (southern side summit plaza) Cache 140, Complete ? 1 7 0 STR. 5D-22 skeleton (western side summit plaza Cache 86, Complete ? 1 ? 0 STR. 5D-23 skeleton (northern side summit plaza) 6 Total: 7 12 5 Table 4.2. Crocodiles in zooarchaeological assemblages from the Early Classic period.

In the highlands, crocodiles were represented by a number of dermal scutes present in Tomb A-III (Structure A-2) at the site of Kaminaljuyu. These were discovered 72

in the fill to the northeast of the principle interment, beneath a large turtle shell, obsidian

gravel, and a miniature jar. In addition to several ceramic vessels beneath the scutes,

these items were believed to have been offerings accompanying the main burial (Kidder

et al. 1946: 55).

The site of Tikal represents the most significant use of crocodiles in the Early

Classic, with four complete skeletons recorded, three from caches, and one from a burial.

Burial 10

This tomb's occupant bore the name Yax Nuun Ayiin or "First Crocodile," a ruler whose

origins have been argued to be from Teotihuacan, although recent isotope analysis

suggests otherwise (Wright 2005: 91). The crypt containing his remains was found

beneath Structure 5D-34 on the North Terrace fronting the North Acropolis in the site's

core. The remains of the ruler were accompanied by a wealth of grave goods, including a

number of human skeletons (likely sacrificial victims), numerous examples of well-

crafted ceramic vessels, jade pendants, including one in the shape of a crocodile head

(discussed in Chapter 5), and animal remains consisting of different bird species, marine

shells, stingray spines, turtle carapaces, and most important for the purposes of this

thesis, a fully articulated crocodile (MNI=1) (Coe 1990: 480-486; Harrison 1999: 86-87)

(Figure 4.5). Although Harrison (1999: 86), Coe (1990: 485), and Coggins (1975: 149)

refer to the animal as headless, Wright (2005: 91), with reference to the original

excavation notes of Shook (1959: 26), notes that another archaeologist, Stuart Scott, had

previously removed the head before leaving the Tikal Project. 73

The concurrence of the crocodile and the remains of the tomb's principal occupant (named after a crocodile), suggests that this creature was considered by the ruler to be his way, his spiritual alter-ego or companion animal.

Figure 4.5. Tikal Burial 10 with a fully articulated crocodile interred alongside the deceased (modified after Harrison 1999: 84).

Cache 120

Cache 120 was located in the northern portion of the court area, fronting Structure 5D-

26-1st, just west of the centre line in the North Acropolis (Coe 1990: 324). In addition to the complete crocodile specimen of interest, numerous other offerings were catalogued, including many flint flakes, obsidian blades and cores distributed atop the remains of the animals and pottery. Other animal remains included a turtle, a stingray spine, a small long bone (species unknown), Pomacea shells and a human terminal phalanx. 74

The crocodile included in this cache is not described in any detail. Coe (1990:

324) notes it as "a linear concentration representing a crocodile (Crocodylus sp.), though field notes are mute as to the location of the head." It is interesting to note a second, apparently headless, crocodile from a ritual deposit at the site.

Cache 140

This deposit was found located at the south base of stair U.45 of Structure 5D-22-2nd, in the North Acropolis. It dates to the Early Classic (Coe 1990: 368), likely deposited as part of a termination ritual before the construction of another layer of building.

The contents of the cache were abundant, consisting of an extensive amount of lithic material (both chert and obsidian), marine shell and coral, pottery vessels, and faunal material, representing a number of different species. There were two complete crocodiles deposited, with the larger of the two described as "the foremost occupant"

(Figure 4.6). The larger animal was positioned along the chamber's south side with its head oriented east (Coe 1990: 367). They were accompanied by a snake, a turtle, two pygmy owls, one hummingbird, and two other birds.

Figure 4.6. Tikal Cache 140 containing a complete crocodile skeleton (modified after Coe 1990: Fig. 104al). 75

Coe (1990: 368) later discusses this cache as "deserving] consideration as a manifestly elaborate interment of a prestigious saurian accompanied by various animals and provisioned by edible snails." The crocodile, therefore, was treated almost as though it was the principal occupant of a burial, rather than as a portion of an offering. This speaks to the possible significance of this animal to the ancient Maya, at least those residing in Tikal.

Cache 86

Located at the centre base of the stair of Structure 5D-23-lst, the repository for this cache was cut through the bottom step and sealed by Floor 3 of the Acropolis like the caches discussed previously. It also dates to the Early Classic.

Like Cache 140, Cache 86 similarly "manifests the burial of a crocodile accompanied by other reptiles (companions?), snails (sustenance?), and requisite paraphernalia (eccentrics, beads, etc.)" (Coe 1990: 426) (Figure 4.7). The crocodile seems to have been positioned first, on the basal layer of the cache, with other animals placed around it, including a turtle, snakes, and sea shells, as well as non-animate materials, like eccentric flints and jade beads. The upper level was comprised of flint and obsidian eccentrics, lithic cores, and minor obsidian flakes. The skeleton of the crocodile is noted as intact and in a curved shape with an iguana possibly in its digestive tract (Coe

1990: 426). 76

Figure 4.7. Tikal Cache 86 containing a complete crocodile skeleton (modified after Coe 1990: Fig. 135c).

Chase and Chase (1998: 326) describe these 3 caches as a form of what they term

"ritual centering". The North Acropolis building complex of Tikal is targeted as the focal point for the entire site during the Early Classic and the caches perform the function of centering this space relative to the remainder of the city. All caches contained crocodiles, animals important to the Mesoamerican world view (to be discussed in greater detail in

Chapter 6) and were placed on the southern (Cache 120, Structure 5D-26), western

(Cache 140, Structure 5D-22), and northern (Cache 86, Structure 5D-23) sides of the summit plaza (Chase and Chase 1998: 326). Furthermore, the eastern side of the plaza was not extensively excavated. Had excavations been undertaken here, these too might have revealed a fourth crocodile cache dating to this time period. Burial 10 with its crocodile inclusion also emphasized the centrality of the space.

Many of the other Early Classic deposits from other sites similarly demonstrated a predilection with ritual contexts. At Copan, crocodile remains were found accompanying two burials (Burial XXXVII-8, Burial VIII-36), both of which were elite in nature. In the 77

first, crocodile remains were positioned over the capstones of the burial, with the skeleton of a beheaded deer atop them. Both the deer and the crocodile showed signs of being burned. In the second burial, crocodile bones accompanied several other animals and a crocodile necklace (teeth?) was also buried with the individual. The crocodiles found in

Cueva de los Quetzales can be determined ritual in nature due to their ceremonial context

- a cave.

Five crocodiles are described with alterations to their bones. At Altar de

Sacrificios, while none of the contexts were noted as ritual or elite (mound refuse, fill), all three bones recovered showed signs of modification. The most interesting artifact is a modified crocodile mandible. The anterior portion of the left mandible is of particular interest, with evidence of a worked groove parallel to the long axis of the jaw on the lingual side (Figure 4.8) (Olsen 1972: 245).

Figure 4.8. Modified crocodile mandible from Altar de Sacrificios. Note the drilled hole on the right and worked groove along its length (modified after Olsen 1972:

232).

Furthermore, the symphysis shows polishing from wear and the alveolus for the largest

(4th) mandibular tooth has been drilled through, thus forming a hole through to the ventral side of the face. The lower margin of the hole shows signs of beveling (Olsen 1972: 245).

Pohl (1983: 81) identifies the mandible as part of a ceremonial dance costume worn by impersonators of the supernatural. The mandible was not the only crocodile specimen at 78

the site found to have signs of human modification. Two teeth, with the holes drilled through the roots, were also excavated. The bones in the Copan burials were also modified (drilled to be suspended as a necklace, and burned).

Late Classic Period

The Late Classic period has the highest numbers of crocodile remains found in zooarchaeological deposits thus far. A total of 9 sites from primarily the southern lowlands (as well as the northern lowlands) were found to contain assemblages with crocodile bones dating to this period (NISP=270, MNI=19) (Table 4.3).

The contexts of many of these deposits are unknown (Altar de Sacrificios,

Lubaantun, Seibal, Xibun Valley) which does affect interpretation. Of those contexts which are known, an elite function has been suggested for many of them. At Seibal, the cranial fragments of a large 4.5m crocodile are described by Olsen (1978: 173) and Pohl

(1990: 163) alike. These are further identified as primarily jaw fragments, found in a midden in the East Plaza of Group D. Their occurrence there is explained by Pohl (1990:

163): "fragments of the orbital region indicate that the Maya were in possession of the complete skull, which they threw down from the elite D-Group compound above." In a discussion of ceremonial activity and animal sacrifice at the site, Pohl (1990: 163) further states that "crocodile bones turned up as often in high status public places like ball courts and plazas as midden." Whilst the jaws of the 4.5m beast turned up in a plaza, thus far her claim regarding crocodile remains in ball courts is unsubstantiated.

At Motul de San Jose, crocodile remains (NISP=5, MNI=2) were similarly established as deriving from elite contexts, in this case two elite residential groups, likely the remains of feasting (Emery 2003a; Kitty Emery, personal communication, 2010). Of 79

interest is that at least one bone, a vertebra, was unfused, indicating a subadult individual

(Kitty Emery, personal communication, 2010).

Site Name Context Skeletal NISP MNI % Total Alterations Elements NISP Southern Lowlands Altar de Unknown Unknown 3 2 3/67 = 0 Sacrificios 4.47% Aguateca House of the Dermal scute 1 1 1/735 = 0 scribe (1) 0.13% Ek Luum Residential Vertebrae 9 1 9/19 = 47% 0 midden, Str. 2, (reptiles) Op.l (Upper Level 1-3 Dermal scutes (3)) (Lower Level 4- 6(6)) La Joyanca Elite, cache Complete 232 1 232/1447 = 0 skeleton 16% Lubaantun Unknown Vertebra (1) 2 2 7 0 Teeth (2) Motul de Elite residential Vertebrae - 5 2 5/1020 = 0 San Jose (MSJ2, MSJ 15) adult (2) 0.49% Vertebrae - subadult (1) Scutes (adult) (2) Seibal East Plaza, Cranial ? 1 ? 0 Group D elements, jaws - adult Unknown Frontal bones - ? 1 ? 0 subadult Unknown Unknown 3 2 3/588 = 0 0.5% Xibun Augustine Cranial 1 1 8/11595 = Highly Valley Obispo fragment 0.06% charred Cedar Bank Vertebrae (3) 4 1 0 (midden) Phalanx (1) Samuel Oshon Metatarsal (1) 3 1 0 Cranial fragment (1) Unidentified (1) Northern Lowlands Xcambo West plaza Unknown 7 3 7/1383 = 0 structure fill 1.3% 9 Total: 270 19 1 Table 4.3. Crocodiles in zooarchaeological assemblages from the Late Classic period. 80

The House of the Scribe, at Aguateca, was a household belonging to an elite craft specialist, likely a scribe (Emery 2002: 505; Inomata and Stiver 1998: 437). Only a single scute was discovered there.

From this time period La Joyanca represents the only cache containing crocodile remains. One largely complete individual was described (for a complete element list see

Appendix A). The cache was excavated from the core of an elite structure and consisted of tiny, mostly juvenile, animals, including the crocodile, a very young and small subadult. Another subadult individual was represented by frontal bones at Seibal, and a third was previously mentioned at Motul de San Jose.

The remaining Late Classic faunal assemblages with crocodile remains consisted of finds from lower class contexts (NISP=16, MNI=4). Those from Ek Luum were from a midden, while at the only northern lowland site, Xcambo, they were from structure fill.

Only one bone showed any signs of modification, and that was a highly charred cranial fragment from the Augustine Obispo site in the Xibun Valley. There seemed to be

a frequent occurrence of cranial bones in this time period as well - five crocodiles were represented almost solely by these elements (Augustine Obispo, Samuel Oshon, Seibal

(2), and Lubaantun).

Terminal Classic

Crocodile remains dating to the Terminal Classic are rather scarce compared to other

time periods (NISP=6, MNI=6) (Table 4.4). Four sites are from the southern lowlands

whilst only one is from the northern lowlands (Dzibilchaltun). Little more than NISP and

MNI calculations were available as recorded instances of crocodilian remains in Terminal

Classic. 81

Site Name Context Skeletal NISP MNI % Total Alterations Elements NISP Southern Lowlands Macanche Unknown Unknown 3 1 3/161 = 0 11.1% Northern River Unknown Unknown 3 2 3/4409 = 0 Lagoon 0.07% Pacbitun Burial 1, Tooth 1 1 ? 0 Southwest covering (1) Transect, Mound 3 Pulltrouser Unknown Unknown 1 1 1/59 = 0 Swamp/ K'axob 1.69% Northern Lowlands Dzibilchaltun Cache M-305-A Tooth (1) 1 1 ? Drilled "Jeweler's Cache". Associated with Burial 96-1, Str. 96-1 5 Total: 9 6 1 Table 4.4. Crocodiles in zooarchaeological assemblages from the Terminal Classic period.

Only two of the contexts were recorded, one a burial from a housemound (Pacbitun), which contained the remains of two individuals (P.F. Healy, personal communication,

2010). At Dzibilchaltun the crocodile material was recovered from a cache which accompanied a burial in a vaulted structure. Other cached items included stone artifacts of jade and obsidian, ceramic artifacts, and local shell items (mosaic elements). The burial belonged to a 10-12 year old child (Andrews and Andrews 1980: 325). In both of these contexts only a single bone, a tooth, was recovered. The Dzibilchaltun tooth also showed signs of alteration - a drilled hole.

Postclassic Period

The Postclassic period had the largest number of crocodile remains discovered in the course of this research (NISP=267, MNI=32) (Table 4.5). The six sites included were split evenly between the northern and southern lowlands. 82

Site Name Context Skeletal Elements NISP MNI % Total Alterations NISP Northern Lowlands Champoton Elite midden Unknown 5 2 5/1717 = 0 0.29% Cozumel House mounds Skull elements (9), 35 14 Less than 0 (NISP 18, MNI 5) mandibles, l%of maxillae and reptiles Indeterminate dentaries (13), contexts (NISP vertebrae (4), 13, MNI 7) humerus (1), femur Burials/ (1), tarsals (1), ceremonial/ indeterminate (6) administrative (NISP 4, MNI 2) Mayapan Site Centre Unknown 21 0 Domestic Unknown 10 settlement zone Southern Lowlands Colha Lower Status Unknown 5 5/279 = 2% 0 midden (Op. 2010) Elite midden (Op. Unknown 36 36/735 = 0 2032) 5% Lamanai Unknown Unknown 2 0 Str. N10-27, Unknown 2 2/252 = 0 primary midden 0.8% Str. Nl 1-7, Unknown 2 2/90 = 2% 0 secondary midden Str. N10-9, elite Unknown 19 19/2900 = 0 midden 0.65% Str. N-l 0-10, Majority of entire 3 3/504 = 0 ceremonial assemblage cranial 0.59% platform bones Str. N12-12 (elite) Unknown 1 1/591 = 0 0.1% Housemounds Vertebrae, ribs, 22 22/2701 = 1 (Op. 04-01) dermal scutes, 0.8% carpal/tarsals, femur, humerus, metapodial Indeterminate Signs of elements alteration Midden Vertebrae (28), 57 2(?) 57/3923 = 0 (Op. 02-04) dermal scutes (10), 1.45% metapodials (5), humerus (3), femur (3), ribs (2), dentary (1), carpals/tarsals (1), cranial fragment (1), postcranial fragment (1), unidentified (3) 83

Site Name Context Skeletal Elements NISP MNI % Total Alterations NISP Laguna de On Ritual/ elite/ patio Cranial elements 42 1 45/786 = 0 (Area 1) (39), postcranial 8.9% elements (3) Domestic midden Cranial element 2 1 0 (Area 2) (1), indeterminate (1) Domestic midden Postcranial element 1 1 0 (Area 3) (1) 6 Total: 267 32 1 Table 4.5. Crocodiles in zooarchaeological assemblages from the Postclassic period.

While being a low number of sites (versus the nine in the Late Classic), a large number of crocodile bones were catalogued at each one (compared to previous time periods).

The site of Lamanai certainly had the largest number of crocodile bones recovered

(NISP=108, MNI=9) from the largest number of contexts. Many of these are elite (N10-

9, N10-10, N12-12) in nature, although the non-elite assemblage is even larger (Op. 04-

01, Op. 02-04) in terms of MNI and NISP data. Cozumel demonstrated a similar pattern,

with the majority of the crocodilian remains derived from house mounds and

indeterminate contexts rather than those belonging to the elite. However, there is no

evidence from an examination of the skeletal elements recovered from these sites that

indicate that the animal was being consumed (e.g., caudal vertebrae from the tail of the

animal), but the completeness of the assemblage is suggestive of feasting behavior (Kitty

Emery, personal communication, 2010). It is apparent at both sites that cranial bones

were rather more important. At Cozumel a total of 22 (63%) of the crocodile elements

recorded came from the skull. Similarly, at Lamanai, Structure N10-10, a ceremonial

platform, a disproportionately large number of cranial elements were recovered from all

animals present in the deposit, including crocodiles. As Stanchly (2007: 11) notes "[i]n

an assemblage indicative of food refuse we would expect a fairly high representation of 84

meat-bearing body portions such as forelimbs and the haunches of animals. Less than

25% of the bones are from these high meat yielding portions."

At Laguna de On a scenario akin to this was enacted. Unlike Cozumel and

Lamanai, the majority of the crocodile remains at this site are from elite contexts

(ritual/elite/patio, Area 1), rather than house mounds or middens. But similar to these sites, a great number of cranial bones were found. In Area 1, 39 specimens were identified as either crania or teeth, while only 3 were postcranial in nature. With regard to this, Masson (1999: 115) states that Laguna de On "exhibited an idiosyncratic use of crocodiles in ritual and upper status contexts." Interestingly as well, crocodiles were among the most abundant taxonomic categories at the site" (Masson 2004: 117), an anomaly compared to the majority of assemblages under consideration here, where crocodiles usually comprise approximately 1% or less. Hamblin (1984:74) for example noted that crocodiles ranked a distant third in numerical importance among identified reptiles.

At Mayapan too, a larger number of crocodile bones were found in the site core

area (generally associated with the elite) rather than the peripheral zones (lower status).

The crocodiles from Champoton were also elite in nature, excavated from the elite

dwellings of Group 5, an architectural complex situated near the site centre. At Colha,

more crocodile remains were recovered from an elite midden (Op. 2032) than the lower

status midden (Op. 2010). There appears to be preferential use of the crocodile by the

elite members of Maya society at these sites in particular, although commoners are not

entirely left out of the picture. 85

Cozumel was the only site to have a juvenile individual, represented by one bone

- a fragmentary caudal vertebra (Hamblin 2984: 75). There were no bones with any signs of modification from the Postclassic sites.

Colonial Period

The only site in the Colonial period which exhibited zooarchaeological activity by the

Maya involving crocodiles was Lamanai, in the southern lowlands.

Site Name Context Skeletal Elements NISP MNI % Total Alterations NISP Lamanai Str.Nll-18, Dermal scutes (12), 41 1 41/8954 = 0 elite residence ribs (14), vertebrae 0.46% (8), humerus or femur (1), metapodial (1), tooth (1), indeterminate (3) Unknown Unknown 2 1 7 0 1 Total 43 2 0 Table 4.6. Crocodiles in zooarchaeological assemblages from the Colonial period.

The majority of the material was from an elite assemblage from Structure Nl 1-18, identified as a cacique's house (NISP=41, MNI=1). All the faunal remains excavated from the structure are identified as food sources due to the elements represented (a predominance of limb bones) (Stanchly 2005: 15), although crocodiles were largely represented by scutes, ribs and vertebrae, not the caudal vertebrae expected.

Both Emery (1999) and Stanchly (1998, 1999) document a pattern of faunal exploitation at Lamanai focused on the increasing utilization of lagoon and river species present throughout the Postclassic period and into at least early Colonial times. Briefly, this pattern can be characterized as one focused on the procurement of lagoon turtle and fish species (locally available animals). 86

Unknown Date

While a number of faunal assemblages in this sample were derived from unreported contexts, only two sites included material that did not have a secure date (Table 4.7).

Site Name Context Skeletal Elements NISP MNI Alterations Altar de Unknown Dermal scutes ? 1 0 Sacrificios Unknown Skull roof fragments 9 1 0 (subadult) Dzibilchaltun Mixed level Vertebra (1) 1 1 0 2 Total 1? 3 0 Table 4.7. Crocodiles in zooarchaeological assemblages with an unknown date.

With context as well as date unknown, interpretation of this limited material is difficult.

Of interest though are several skull roof fragments from Altar de Sacrificios which represent a juvenile individual.

Analysis

In the archaeological record, crocodile remains are not numerically significant

(MNI=78) when compared to other species represented at Maya sites like deer or turtles.

Due to the small numbers (less than 10 NISP) in which they were represented at the majority of sites (16 of 26 considered) it seems unlikely that crocodiles constituted a

significant portion of the diet. Furthermore, sites in which there are larger numbers of

NISP data (La Joyanca) still may only represent a few individuals or even a single

animal, but this is difficult to assess with the inconsistent MNI calculations from the site reports consulted. There can be a number of possible reasons for the paucity in crocodile

remains which will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 6. 87

Temporal Trends

In the early stages of data acquisition, it appeared as though crocodile remains were the most prevalent in archaeological assemblages dating to the Early Classic (due in particular to the complete animals found at Tikal) and Postclassic periods, with a lull during the Late Classic. If that was the case, then there were a number of reasons why the

Late Classic could be under-represented, including over-hunting and habitat destruction.

However, with further research , it appears that my final conclusion contradicts my initial thoughts (Figure 4.9).

Time Period

Figure 4.9. Number of sites with crocodile remains by time period.

Many sites had assemblages from multiple time periods. It appears that there were more sites containing crocodile remains that dated to the Late Classic (10 of 26 sites) than any other time period. This was followed by the Postclassic (6 of 26), the Early

Classic (6 of 26) and the Terminal Classic (4 of 26). It is certainly evident that the crocodile was an animal being utilized by the Maya for an extensive period of time, from the Early Preclassic to the Spanish Colonial period (over 2500 years). Trends at the site 88

specific level was difficult to assess, as very few demonstrated material from multiple or consecutive time periods.

It does seem, however that there were more assemblages and crocodiles (MNI) that dated to the Postclassic (19 assemblages, MNI=32) than any other time (Figure 4.10 and Figure 4.11). This is likely due to the large numbers recovered from Lamanai and

Cozumel. The Late Classic and Early Classic were also well represented in assemblage numbers (13 and 12 respectively) with all other time periods significantly lower. In terms of NISP, the Late Classic actually has slightly higher numbers (NISP=270) than the

Postclassic (NISP=267), but this is largely due to the La Joyanca cache which contained

232 bones from a single individual. An MNI count (Postclassic=32, Late Classic=19) does not show the same discrepancy. The Early Classic was underrepresented in terms of

NISP numbers as this data was not recorded at the majority of sites under consideration for this time period (i.e., Tikal). An MNI count shows 12 animals present in archaeological assemblages dating to that time.

Number of Assemblages Containing Crocodiles by Time Period

2 0 / / / / S / / / /

Time Period

Figure 4.10. Faunal assemblages containing crocodile remains by time period. 89

MNI by Time Period

J? 4? ^ # J' #" J? O0 / y y y j* j? y •o , y

Time Period

Figure 4.11. MNI count of crocodiles by time period.

Temporal trends in terms of context were also examined to determine if there were any changes in the meaning and use of crocodiles over time (Figure 4.12). It is still apparent that unknown contexts are the most prevalent in almost every time period.

However, some noticeable trends are evident. In the Early Classic, crocodiles were found with almost equal frequency in burials (30.7%), caches (23%) and structure fill (23%).

This was the only time period where their remains appeared in caves as well. They apparently had some ritual significance during this time. During the Late Classic, elite

status residences/architecture were the most frequent contexts (23%), but middens were also important numerically (15.3%). Caches and structure fill were present as well (7.7% each). In the Terminal Classic the only contexts that were known were ritual - one cache and one burial (33%). In the Postclassic, elite status locations were predominant (33%), as were middens (23.8%) (still 9% less). Lower status locations were not as important

(19%). I do not discuss trends in the Preclassic or Colonial Periods due to minimal representation. 90

• cave • lower status • burial • cache • structure fill 4»° <£° #° ^ <£° 4? «£° # • midden ^ JP jf ^ & jP J# jf r

Time Period

Figure 4.12. Contexts of crocodile remains by time period.

Geographical Trends

Clear geographical trends are apparent even just with a cursory glance at the map of sites discussed in this chapter (Figure 4.3). Merely with observation, it is possible to see three clear regions of crocodile exploitation in the Maya subarea, based upon where they have been identified at sites where zooarchaeological analysis has been conducted. In future study a comparison of this material to all sites where zooarchaeological analyses have been conducted would be useful.

There is a cluster of sites located in northern coastal Belize, including Lamanai,

Cuello, Colha, New River Lagoon, Laguna de On, K'axob, and Ambergris Caye. Just a little to the south is the Xibun River Valley. This coastal area is an ideal habitat for the

American crocodile (C. acutus) as well as Morelet's (C moreleti), but the American is a more regular inhabitant of coastal zones like mangrove swamps, estuaries, lagoons and large rivers (Lee 2000: 133). 91

The second region of marked crocodile exploitation is in the Peten region in central Guatemala, known for its abundant lakes and rivers. Sites in this region include

Altar de Sacrificios, Seibal, Aguateca, Macanche, Tikal, Motul de San Jose and La

Joyanca. This area is more likely to contain Morelet's crocodile (C. moreleti), an inhabitant of freshwater lakes, rivers, ponds, and aguadas (Lee 2000: 134). Pacbitun and

Cahal Pech of the Belize River Valley have similar ecology and are located just to the east.

The final region demonstrating noticeable crocodile presence in the archaeological record is the northern lowlands of the Yucatan. Sites in this area include

Champoton to the west, Dzibilchaltun and Xcambo to the north and Cozumel Island to the east. Mayapan is also located north, but more inland. Crocodile distribution in this area is less clear, due to fewer records for the northern interior of the peninsula (Lee

2000: 134). However, Morelet's crocodile is also described as a pan-peninsular species and the American has its propensity for coastal regions (Lee 2000: 133-134).

The only real outliers occur to the south, Lubaantun in southern Belize, inland,

Copan in western Honduras, and Kaminaljuyu in highland Guatemala. In the case of

Kaminaljuyu, the crocodile burial specimens clearly came from afar, likely the Pacific

Coast.

One of the research questions focused specifically upon the proximity of sites with crocodile remains to an appropriate crocodile habitat (water or wetlands). It was my intent to address if the crocodile was utilized at some sites because it was locally available, or if it was traded to a site at some distance (Figure 4.13). 92

Proximity to Water

25

« 20

•»•» £ is o -| 10 3 Z 5

0 Within 5k Within 10k Within 15k Within 20k Over 20k

Distance to Water

Figure 4.13. Proximity to water of sites containing crocodile remains.

It is readily apparent that crocodiles were a species which were exploited locally and were unlikely to be traded any great distance. Eighty percent of the lowland Maya

sites with crocodile remains could be found within 5km or less of an appropriate water

source. Only two sites, Mayapan and Kaminaljuyu were over 20km away. Both likely received crocodile remains as trade items.

Meaning of Crocodiles in Zooarchaeological Assemblages

A few possible reasons were outlined in the introduction of this chapter for the

exploitation of the crocodile by the ancient Maya. It seems apparent that the animal was utilized for many purposes, including food, but also ritual (Figure 4.14).

In order to conduct this analysis, context and skeletal elements as well as bone

modifications were considered. It is unfortunate that so many assemblages were not

assigned a clear context in the published reports that were the source of my data. Of the

62 recorded assemblages from 26 sites, 19 (30.6%) were not assigned a context. Of those

reported assemblages (n=43) for which a context was identified, the following types (in

order of abundance) have been identified: elite status midden/architecture (18%, n=ll), 93

midden (no status assigned) (14.5%, n=9), structure fill/mixed level (11.3%, n=7), cache

(9.7%, n=6), burial (8%, n=5), lower status midden/architecture (6.5%, n=4), and cave

(1.6%, n=l).

Crocodile Remains by Context

-^°* **• .• J? J •£?

Figure 4.14. Crocodile remains by context.

Those assigned elite or ceremonial significance number 23 (37.1%) and those assigned lower status or mundane purposes number 20 (32.2%), an apparent but not significant difference. Thus it appears, at least numerically by context, that the crocodile was an animal which was utilized in a manner with a slight preference for elite and ritual use which will be discussed in further detail in Chapter 6. This did vary by time period as well, as was demonstrated in Figure 4.12.

Problems Encountered

Numerous problems were encountered in the analysis of the zooarchaeological data, only some of which were anticipated. The main challenge was the comparison of assemblages from different sites, which is not an uncommon problem in Maya zooarchaeology (Emery

2004b: 16). There are a number of reasons for this. The main issue was the inconsistency in reporting. Most zooarchaeological reports were sufficient in providing NISP numbers 94

(there were still exceptions - Tikal and Copan), while MNI calculations were less frequent. A large number of reports also did not indicate which skeletal elements were present in the faunal assemblages nor the context from which they were derived. This was particularly troubling since context and skeletal elements are the primary way to determine if an assemblage, or a single bone, can be attributed a ritual or domestic meaning. Furthermore, species identification was done to quite varying degrees of accuracy, although for my purposes identification to the family level was sufficient.

Excavation bias may have also served to skew the numbers by context, as there has been a tendency for archaeologists to focus on the core areas of the sites, and large structures in particular. There may also be preservation bias due to differential discard by the Maya. Preservation of elite and ritual remains will be better than subsistence remains which are not buried with care in special deposits. Therefore, more domestic areas may be underrepresented.

Disparate numbers further complicated matters. The majority of sites had only few crocodile remains (NISP<10), but a few, particularly those with largely complete specimens, had a large number of bones (NISP=200). Since MNI was less reliably recorded than NISP this made comparisons and calculations by context, element and spatio-temporal context very challenging. I solved this problem by counting all unknown

MNI as one individual, as I indicated in the introduction to this chapter.

In order to resolve the above issues, zooarchaeologists were contacted where possible for further information. This was not always feasible, however, as some analysts are retired or deceased. I am grateful to those who did respond. 95

Conclusions

It is apparent with the above analysis that, despite some problems, crocodiles formed an important, and interesting, if not numerically significant portion of faunal assemblages from a number of sites in the Maya subarea. In order to resolve my research questions, the data was analyzed to examine the importance of crocodiles temporally and geographically, as well as to ascertain the meaning of the animal as utilized by the ancient Maya (food or ritual or both).

From the earliest Maya there is evidence that crocodiles were singled out as a special animal. At the site of Cahal Pech in the Belize Valley a crocodile mandible was recovered from a structure cache dating to the Cunil phase (1100-900 BC), the terminal

Early Preclassic. The Early Classic was a period where the animal enjoyed some ceremonial significance as they were more frequently deposited in caches and burials at this time than in any other context. The Late Classic was a period of increased use of the animal, in general, as there are more deposits containing their remains than ever before.

Furthermore, utilization of the animal seems to focus on the elite in this period, with remains recovered from elite midden and residential complexes more commonly than elsewhere. The Postclassic was a period where the crocodile gained further importance with a larger number of assemblages than at any other time as well as greater variability in the type of deposit in which they were recovered. The majority of bones were from elite contexts, but almost as importantly, some remains of the animal was recovered from middens and low status areas as well, rather than burials or caches. Therefore, it seems that while it was an important, elite-linked animal, possibly used for feasting or to denote 96

status, it could also be used by the lower stratum of society, possibly as a food resource where they were locally available.

In terms of geographical trends, there are three main visible regions with sites that have reported crocodile remains in faunal assemblages: the northeastern coast of Belize, the Peten region of Guatemala and adjacent Cayo District of Belize, and the northern

Yucatan coast of Mexico. All had clusters of sites which had crocodilian remains, with a few outliers in other regions. It is apparent in an analysis of these sites' proximity to water that the crocodile was an animal utilized by those Maya who lived close to the crocodile's habitat, as most sites with crocodile remains were within 5km or less of an appropriate water source.

Finally, the meaning of the animal, as a food or ritual animal, seems to be multipurpose and, as indicated above, varied temporally. There is contextual evidence that the crocodile was a food animal as it was recovered from numerous midden and fill deposits. However, there is slightly more evidence suggesting ritual use from caches, burials and elite contexts. Analysis by skeletal elements proved difficult with the data available, but the caching of fully articulated skeletons in more than one occasion (and site), as well as possible modifications of cranial bones for either dance costumes or ornamentation, was deemed ceremonially significant. The deposition of juvenile crocodiles at a few sites probably also indicates ritual activity by the Maya. 97

CHAPTER 5: ICONOGRAPHIC AND GLYPHIC DATA

Introduction

Crocodilian imagery is a pervasive theme in Maya art as an important component in symbolism (Garber and Awe 2008: 155). Crocodiles and composite creatures with crocodilian features can appear as part of the iconographic themes on a wide variety of media, such as large scale, and public, architecture and monuments (stelae and altars).

They are also depicted on smaller and more portable, likely private, objects like ceramics and carved figures of bone and stone, which can be found in a variety of contexts from building fill to caches and burials.

Crocodilians were presented in a number of ways in ancient Maya art. A brief description is provided here so that the details of the images presented throughout the chapter can be better understood. A more detailed discussion can be found in Chapter 6.

Crocodile images range from very naturalistic, realistic depictions - portraying what are quite obviously crocodiles, as they look in their natural environment, to more stylized or composite representations. The former's meaning(s) are uncertain as there is a lack of the additional imagery presented in the more abstract images (i.e., hieroglyphs, humans, vegetal or water symbols). The latter tend to embody a great deal of symbolic meaning, i.e., the crocodile as a metaphor for the surface of the earth, the Cosmic Monster (a two- headed celestial polymorphic crocodilian), and transformation (as costume elements worn by people of high status).

Identification of Crocodilians in Maya Art

Due to the myriad of ways in which the crocodile appears in ancient Maya art, I believe it is necessary to establish a set of criteria by which saurian creatures can be 98

identified as crocodilians, which can be especially difficult in representations of complex composite animals. Those that are rendered in a naturalistic way are quite obvious, usually with a tapered and upturned snout, rows of intimidating sharp teeth, protruding eyes, a long scaled body and thick tail and, finally, rather short legs with clawed feet

(Figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1. Unprovenienced crocodile effigy vessel with naturalistic features (K5842).

More complicated are those depictions that are rendered in a stylized manner or images in which crocodilian features are combined with those of another animal or being (Figure

5.2).

Figure 5.2. Stylized crocodilian image (north face of Zoomorph P, Quirigua). The viewer faces directly into the crocodile's open mouth inside of which sits a Maya ruler. The protruding eyes of the animal are visible to each side and the teeth have been highlighted (modified after Sharer 1990: Figure 37d). 99

Crocodiles and snakes demonstrate numerous similarities in the ways in which they are depicted in art, particularly in terms of facial features. Often the depictions are enough alike that in order to differentiate the two reptiles it is important to recall that snakes have no eyelids (Hellmuth 1988: 162). For these reasons I am frequently reliant on the identifications done by published sources which I cite, with the proviso that the animal shares more than one identifiable characteristic (such as the teeth or snout) that I outlined above. Where there is conflict between scholars as to whether or not a certain creature is crocodilian in nature, I rely on the characteristics of the animal which are visible to me. If an image could not be determined to be a crocodile with any degree of confidence, I elected to exclude it from my consideration to avoid confusion.

Terminology

The study of art has sometimes been a source of discomfort to anthropologists and archaeologists and remained long divorced from other data, due to the challenges associated with its recording and interpretion. It is associated with bodies of knowledge, technologies, and representational practices "that provide insight into the whole lifeworld of society" (Morphy and Perkins 2006: 2). In order to categorize artistic data for analysis,

some terms require clarification.

As defined by the Oxford dictionary (2010), iconography refers to the visual images and symbols used in a work of art or the study/interpretation of these. An image is a representation of the external form of a person or thing in art (synonyms include representation and depiction). A medium is a "vector, agent...or support, host, and tool of images" (Belting 2005: 51). It refers to the materials (stone, paint) or techniques

(carving or painting) used to construct the image. Context, as used in Chapter 4, is the 100

location where a particular image was archaeologically recovered, i.e., a cache, burial, building, site epicenter or plaza.

Sample

The images presented herein for consideration were all derived from published sources. Maya sites were selected based on availability of data including, where possible, the reproduction of the image by photograph or drawing, detailed description, contextual information and dates. Those with published representations of the image were ideal as this allowed me personally to corroborate the identification of a crocodile with the written descriptions provided by sources. The spatiotemporal distribution of sites was also a factor. I attempted to ensure that I gathered representations of crocodilians from as many sites across time (Preclassic to Historic Period) and space (throughout the Maya subarea) as possible. Ultimately, 21 Maya sites were identified with crocodilian imagery and a total number of 66 depictions (Figure 5.3).

The data recorded for each image are relevant to my research questions and the categories under consideration are similar to those discussed in Chapter 3, to facilitate comparison with the zooarchaeological data. I documented the site from which the imagery derives, its context (location at the site where the image was found) such as cache or burial, and housemound or site core, and its medium (i.e. limestone, jade, shell, bone, slate, or ceramic). The category of art (i.e., carved stone monuments, ceramic vessels, or figurines and architecture (murals)) was also recorded, as was a brief description of the image, the date, and finally the publication from which the information was derived. 101

'Copan HONDURAS

Figure 5.3. Map of the Maya area showing the location of sites discussed within this chapter (modified after Harrison 1999:10). 102

The data presented in this chapter are ordered following the temporal and geographical divisions outlined in Chapter 3 (Table 2.1). The intention here is to explore general trends related to the research questions outlined in Chapter 1. First, I aim to ascertain the different ways crocodile imagery is portrayed in Maya art and the media, on which the iconography appears and its category. I want to determine if the use of crocodile imagery changed over time, or was more prevalent in any particular time period. I also will be examining the possibility of any geographical trends regarding treatment of crocodilian imagery and if, for example, there is any relationship to the natural habitat of the crocodile, or the where the animal was physically utilized by the ancient Maya.

Preclassic Period

Crocodile images do not have the antiquity of crocodile zooarchaeological remains (Early Preclassic), but are still present at quite an early date. The earliest known

Maya image is a carved stone monument from Kaminaljuyu (Stela 9), a highland site in

Guatemala. It dates from between 700 and 500 BCE (Middle Preclassic) (Table 5.1). A second early monument is also recorded at the same site (Monument 2), dating to 500

BCE. Both of these are assigned Earth Monster symbolism, although the context of

Monument 2 in a basin-like plaza allows for additional interpretation. The combination of poor drainage in the plaza and seasonal rains may have created the effect of a floating beast (Finamore and Houston 2010: 227). 103

SITE CONTEXT MEDIUM CAT. BRIEF IDENTIFYING NAME (LOCATION) (RAW DESCRIPTION FEATURES MAT'L) Southern Highlands Kaminaljuyu Unknown Limestone, Stela 9 - Figure with upraised Very stylized, carved relief monument arm, standing on the but identifiable back of an abstract features include crocodilian. Houston a segmented et al. 2006: 139; upturned tail Parsons 1986: 16. (similar to Izapa Stela 25) "Palagana" - a Limestone, Monument 2 Full-length profile of Oblong scales, basin-like carved relief - monument a crocodile, obvious clawed plaza, found in associated with the feet. Head and the centre earth. Finamore and tail broken off in Houston 2010: 227; antiquity. Parsons 1986: 29. Southern Lowlands Cahal Pech Construction Slate - Figurine Effigy figurine of a Shape of head fill - Structure features crocodile's head. with tapered B-4 (8th level) marked by Awe 1992: 309. snout, raised and shallow drilled rounded eyes impressions and narrow incised lines Cache - Conch shell Figurine Full-length profile of Tapered snout Structure B-4 a crocodile. In and upturned tail context, with other cache materials, assigned cosmological significance as the earth's surface. J. Awe, personal communication, 2009; Garber and Awe 2009: 155. Lamanai Burial - Ceramic Vessel Bears "the earliest Identified by Structure P8-9 known representation Pendergast 1982 (small) of a crocodile." Pendergast 1982: 99. Table 5.1. Crocodile images dating to the Preclassic period.

A total of five depictions date to the Preclassic period, two of which are monumental in scale (both from Kaminaljuyu), two figurines (both from Cahal Pech), and one ceramic vessel (from Lamanai). Of these, three images contained symbolism which connected the crocodile to the surface of the earth. The material from Cahal Pech is likely ritual (by context) as is Lamanai. The monuments were likely elite commissions. 104

Early Classic Period

The Early Classic was a time when crocodile imagery began to flourish in the

Maya subarea. Fourteen depictions are recorded from six sites (three ceramic vessels are unprovenienced) and constitute a variety of expression (Table 5.2). Five of these are figural in nature (three-dimensional, carved in the round) including pendants of jade, and a pendant of bone. Most of these are of the crocodile's head, but one example

(Kamnialjuyu) is of the full body of the animal. Many of these had holes drilled for suspension so they could be worn as jewelry or ornaments and were all derived from ritual contexts (four from burials, one from a cache). Three carved stone monuments

(stelae and altars) are present, a continuation of a trend from the Preclassic, and were found in the epicenters of Yaxha and Copan. Architecture bedecked with crocodilian imagery is new to this time period and found at both Copan, in the form of a stucco embellishment on the Papagayo Structure, and Lamanai as carved stone stair outsets. The remaining four images are all found on, or in the form of, ceramic vessels.

The expression of crocodile imagery on ceramics in this time period is quite varied. One example, a very naturalistic portrayal, is an effigy vessel, with the body of the pot molded in the shape of the crocodile (Figure 5.1). The handle on a lid of a cylindrical tripod vessel is similarly modeled into a crocodile with a human figure astride it. The other two vessels are painted with crocodile images. One is of a rather stylized crocodile tree and the other a headless saurian. 105

SITE CONTEXT MEDIUM CAT. BRIEF IDENTIFYING NAME (LOCATION) (RAW DESCRIPTION FEATURES MAT'L) Southern Highlands Kaminaljuyu Tomb A-IV, Jade, Pendant "Alligator" head. Kidder Tapered snout, closely features etal. 1946:59. raised and associated with rendered circular eyes the tomb's with occupant incising Tomb B-I - Jade carved Pendant or Full-length profile of a Tapered and closely both sides bead crocodile. Kidder et al. upturned snout, associated with 1946: 69. prominent the skeleton dentition Southern Lowlands Copan Site core Limestone, Altar Y Crocodile carved in Elongated, carved (CPN44) - profile below a "water scaled body relief monument frieze" which represents (identified by the waters of the Baudez 1994) Underworld or the water on which the earth crocodile floats. Baudez 1994: 122-125. Acropolis (site Plaster Structure Modeled stucco Belly scales, core) 10L-26 sub depiction of an tapered snout 6 enormous crocodilian with apparent Papagayo, shown in profile, head to dentition east side - the south. Floats above architecture waterlily and tun (stone) signs and marked with caban (earth) signs. Fash 1991:84. Tikal North Acropolis, Jade ' Ornament The head of a fanged Tapered, fanged, Burial 10 - or pendant creature with a curled curled snout occupant is the nose - like the name ruler Yax Nuun glyph of the deceased. Ayiin I ("First Other crocodile Crocodile") paraphernalia was included in the grave. Coggins 1975: 147; Moholy-Nagy: fig 103. Burial 10 Ceramic, Vessel In the centre of the bowl Long heavy tail painted is a headless four-legged (identified by creature. At the time of Coggins 1975) publication the crocodile skeleton in this burial was thought to be headless, so Coggins postulated a connection. Coggins 1975: 149. Problematical Bone, hole Pendant Crocodile head, carved Tapered, agape deposit (cache?) drilled for to have a separate lower snout (identified Twin Pyramid suspension, jaw, giving it an open- by Moholy- Group 5C-1 engraved mouthed appearance. Nagy 2008) (predates str.) features Moholy-Nagy 2008: 49. 106

SITE CONTEXT MEDIUM CAT. BRIEF IDENTIFYING NAME (LOCATION) (RAW DESCRIPTION FEATURES MAT'L) Yaxha Unknown - Limestone, Stela 6 - Open-mouthed Identified by likely site core carved monument crocodilian occupies the Taube 1989 relief basal register of the monument underneath a standing lord. Taube 1989: 2. Unknown - Limestone, Stela 10 - Open-mouthed Identified by likely from site carved monument crocodilian occupies the Taube 1989 core relief basal register of the monument underneath a standing lord. Taube 1989: 2. Altun Ha Tomb F-8/1 Jade Pendant Stylized crocodile head Tapered snout, with perforations for perforations for suspension. Centre nostrils pendant of a necklace (identified by with 89 other beads. Pendergast Pendergast 1990: 264. 1990) Lamanai Structure N9-56 Limestone, Stone Mask wearing a Upturned snout, carved masks, headdress with many protruding eyes, relief stairside crocodile features. prominent outsets - Pendergast 1981: 38. maxillary teeth. architecture Comparison to other crocodilian imagery at the site confirms identification Unprovenienced Unknown Unprovenienced Ceramic Effigy Effigy vessel in the form Elongated scaled vessel of a naturalistic full- body with thick bodied crocodile. Kerr tail, short clawed online archive 2009a: limbs, tapered K5842. snout, and protruding eyes Unknown Unprovenienced Ceramic Cylindrical Modeled handle of the Naturalistic with lidded lid in the shape of a elongated body, tripod human (Hero Twin?) painted dermal vessel astride a crocodile with scales, tapered mouth agape. Likely a snout portrayal of the Cosmic Monster. Kerr online archive 2009a: K6216). Unknown Unprovenienced Ceramic, Vessel Crocodile tree with Tapered, curled painted truncated body (only 1 snout, and a row visible limb), tail of sharp teeth sprouting leaves like the visible in the branches of a tree. A bird lower jaw. The is sitting on one such visible clawed branch. Taube 1988: limb has 5 455. digits. Table 5.2. (Crocodil e image;i dating to t he Early CI assic period. 107

Many of these images are naturalistic (effigy vessel, pendants) with unknown symbolic properties. Some can be assigned significance related to the earth (crocodile tree, Papagayo Structure, Yaxha stelae), and one example (lidded cylindrical tripod vessel) may have celestial properties. Finally, the crocodile images carved on the stair outsets of the structure at Lamanai are the first artistic depiction of a human being wearing the skin of a crocodile as a headdress.

In terms of context, the majority of the smaller material derived from burials or caches, suggesting ritual activity involving the crocodiles image (i.e., Tikal, Altun Ha,

Kaminaljuyu). Monuments and architecture were again likely elite as they were located in site epicenters.

Late Classic

The overwhelming majority of crocodile images in this sample are derived from the Late

Classic, with 25 depictions from 10 sites, and six unprovenienced examples for a total of

31. This was a time of great artistic expression and growth which has long been regarded as the apex of Maya civilization in the southern lowlands, building on foundations established in the Early Classic (Scheie and Miller 1986: 27; Sharer 1994: 336). All provenienced pieces were discovered at southern lowland sites (Table 5.3). Although crocodile depictions were evident in the highland site of Kaminaljuyu in both the

Preclassic and Early Classic, these are no longer found in the Late Classic as highland polities had suffered a decline by Late Classic times (Sharer 1994: 147). 108

SITE CONTEXT MEDIUM CAT. BRIEF IDENTIFYING NAME (LOCATION) (RAW DESCRIPTION FEATURES MAT'L) Southern Lowlands Copan Site core Limestone, Stela C On the east side of the Long, tapered carved (CPN4) - monument, the inverted snout, crocodile relief monument head of a crocodile is dentition. depicted covering the loincloth of the ruler. It wears a helmet with cauac (earth) signs. Baudez 1994: 32. Site core Limestone, Stela M The main figure depicted An elongated carved (CPN24) - on this stela wears a head with wide relief monument helmet with a crocodile nostrils was head on it. Baudez 1994: described by its 74; Gordon 1902: pi. discoverer, but XVI: 1,3 the majority of the snout has since disappeared with a few remaining teeth. Site core Limestone, Stela N Above the main figure Elongated, carved (CPN26) - (at helmet level) on toothy jaw with relief monument either side of the north protruding eyes. face of the stela, a crocodile head is depicted in profile. The rest of the iconography includes features usually associated with the sun (i.e., a jaguar ear). Baudez 1994: 84. Site core Limestone, Altar T The top surface design is Elongated jaw, carved (CPN33) - that of a sprawling with rows of relief monument crocodile with a fish-like sharp teeth, scaly tail and waterlilies body, limbs with affixed to its limbs 5 digits. which hang over the sides of the monument. On the vertical sides of the altar are seated figures in profile (2 groups of 6). At least two of these figures are humans depicted wearing crocodile crania as headdresses. Baudez 1994: 101-103; Scheie and Freidel 1990: 332; Tozzer and Allen 1910: 320. 109

SITE CONTEXT MEDIUM CAT. BRIEF IDENTIFYING NAME (LOCATION) (RAW DESCRIPTION FEATURES MAT'L) Site core Limestone, Altar 41- One of the most Elongated body carved monument recognizable depictions with scaly relief of the bicephalic underside, curled crocodilian Cosmic tapered snout Monster on the east side. with prominent The living head faces teeth (south face) south and the face of a and short person can be seen reptilian legs. emerging from its mouth. Scheie and Miller 1986:46. Site core Limestone, Structure 11/ Two naturalistic Identified by carved 12/13- crocodiles are depicted Baudez 1994 and relief architecture on Str. 13 floating above Scheie and water imagery. Baudez Freidel 1990 identifies this as a stage for fertility rites. Scheie and Freidel interpret it as a metaphorical Underworld ballcourt (for sacrifice). Baudez 1994: 183-184; Scheie and Freidel 1990: 322- 323. Site core Limestone, Temple 22, The crocodilian Cosmic Crocodilian head carved inner Monster arches over and with an relief doorway - frames the inner elongated gaping architecture doorway of the temple toothy jaw. with its head to the west. Baudez 1994: 205; Freidel etal. 1993. Quirigua Site core Sandstone, Zoomorph B Upper surface carved in Clawed forelegs carved (Monument the form of a and hindlegs, relief 2)- "polymorphic gaping maw monument crocodilian" (the Cosmic (human face Monster). Water imagery within) connects the creature to the Underworld or the primordial seas. On its back are witz (mountain) markings. Looper 2003: 172; Sharer 1990: 28; Stone 1983: 66. Site core - east Rhyolite, Altar M A small zoomorph with a The dental staircase of the carved (Monument reptilian head resembling characteristics Ballcourt Plaza, relief 13)- a crocodile. Sharer 1990: (curved fangs) found in monument 54; Stone 1983: 57-58. and an imix association with (waterlily) glyph Monuments 12 on the lid of each and 14 eye 110

SITE CONTEXT MEDIUM CAT. BRIEF IDENTIFYING NAME (LOCATION) (RAW DESCRIPTION FEATURES MAT'L) Site core - south Sandstone, Zoomorph 0 Similar to Zoomorph B - Scaled reptilian terrace of the carved (Monument Cosmic Monster, but body visible on Ballcourt Plaza relief 15)- badly eroded. Looper the west side monument 2003: 188; Sharer 1990: terminating in 57; Stone 1983: 104. cloven hooves. Jaws agape. Site core - south Sandstone, Zoomorph P Sculptural themes Scaled reptilian terrace of the carved (Monument identical to Zoomorphs body, gaping Ballcourt Plaza relief 16)- B and O. Likely directly maw with seated monument associated with O. ruler inside. Animal figures depicted on the sides interspersed with cauac (earth) monster masks. Looper 2003: 191; Sharer 1990: 60; Stone Bonampak Site core Paint Mural 1, A seated figure among a Rendered in full Room 1 - procession of musicians colour, the head architecture wears the head of a of the crocodile crocodile as a mask. A is a hue of green. waterlily, a piece of Its snout is orange plumage and a agape, elongated jeweled ear ornament. It and filled with a is seated next to a row of sharp red depiction of the maize tinted teeth on god and a figure wearing the maxilla. a crustacean mask. Miller 1986: 87-88. Yaxchilan Structure 44 Limestone, Hieroglyphic A full-body crocodile Stylized body, carved Stairway 3, occupies the basal with vegetation relief third step - register of the step, sprouting from architecture underneath the feet of a its tail. The head kneeling human figure. is most The sun god peers out identifiable. The from within the body of long snout is the crocodile. Graham curled, agape 1982: 169; Taube 1988: with sharp teeth 170; Taube 1989: 2. on both mandible and maxilla. The eye is protruding Structure 33 Limestone, Hieroglyphic A crocodile with a fish­ Short limbs carved Stairway 2, like tail is depicted as a terminating in relief eighth step - piece of costume worn claws are visible, architecture on the back of a ball­ the head of the player, the ruler Bird animal has a Jaguar III. The animal's tapered and mid-section contains an curled snout. image of a jaguar, an Identified by animal associated with Tate 1992. the sun. Graham 1982: 162; Tate 1992: 62-64. Ill

SITE CONTEXT MEDIUM CAT. BRIEF IDENTIFYING NAME (LOCATION) (RAW DESCRIPTION FEATURES MAT'L) Tonina Unknown - Limestone, Monument 69 A deceased individual is A good example likely site core carved - monument depicted seated upon the of a very abstract relief terrestrial plane, representation of explicitly marked the crocodile, glyphically with caban with the animal's (earth) markings. body reduced to Baudez 1994: 259; several glyphic Graham and Mathews markings - 1996: 103; Houston et al. caban and the 2006: 187-188. oval shapes resembling the animal's scales. Identified by Houston et al. 2006 Palenque Palace Limestone, Bench 1 - The bench is clearly Identified by carved monument rendered in the form of Stuart 2003 relief the crocodilian Cosmic Monster. It is also bears an inscription of 14 glyphs recounting Maya cosmology which appear on the back of the animal (see Chapter 6). Stuart 2003: 1. Temple XIX Limestone, Hieroglyphic The text inscribed is the Identified by carved platform - focus here, which Garcia 2006 relief architecture describes cosmic events that occurred at the end of the previous creation involving the decapitation of a cosmic crocodile. The animal was referred to in the text as the "Hole(?> Backed Caiman(?)" or "Painted-Back Caiman(?)."Garcia 2006: 1-2. Palace, House E Stucco Architectural The Cosmic Monster is Crocodile head is detail depicted with a visible to the left crocodilian front head side of the image and body in the form of a with a toothy skyband. From each of tapered snout the beast's two heads and protruding flows a torrent of blood, eyes. likely related to the decapitation event of mythology. Scheie and Miller 1986: 45. 112

SITE CONTEXT MEDIUM CAT. BRIEF IDENTIFYING NAME (LOCATION) (RAW DESCRIPTION FEATURES MAT'L) Naranjo Unknown Ceramic, Vessel Six gods are depicted The crocodile's (region) painted facing a seventh (God complete L). God L sits in a house elongated body surrounded by monsters is shown in with a crocodile on its profile, with long roof. It is marked with an heavy tail. The imix (waterlily) sign. The head has a curled scene is glyphically tied and tapered to creation. Freidel et al. snout, with sharp 1993: 67-69; Miller and teeth evident in Martin 2004:83; Tedlock its open mouth. 1996: 77. Tikal Structure 5D-33- Limestone, Architectural The three levels of the Identified by 2nd, North carved detail temple are adorned with Scheie and Acropolis, facing relief masks with those of the Freidel 1990 Great Plaza. uppermost level depicting the front (crocodile) head of the Cosmic Monster. Vegetation sprouts from the top of their heads. Scheie and Freidel 1990: 169. Great Plaza, Bone, Unknown One of several bones Very stylized, Temple 1, Burial carved from this burial that but protruding 116 - ruler depicts a scene of five eyes, and the Jasaw Chan passengers in a canoe. elongated toothy K'awiil The distinctive feature of snout are this one is the prow of identifiable. the boat, transformed Identified by into the jaws of a Freidel et al. crocodile (Cosmic 1993 Monster). Freidel et al. 1993:91. Central Ceramic, Vase A detailed palace scene Elongated, Acropolis painted depicts the ruler, Yax curled snout, Nuun Ayiin II wearing a agape with headdress with a curl- numerous teeth snouted crocodilian. visible. Martin and Grube 2000: 51. Bee an Structure IX Ceramic, Lidded dish The lid of the vessel It is a hybrid modeled depicts three human beast with a and painted figures, in combat with a gaping saurian "crocodilian iguana" head (modeled as (Itzam Cab Ain). This the handle of the scene is likely related to lid) and scutes the creation mythology. on the body in Finamore and Houston addition to other 2010: 251; Houston etal. mammalian traits 2006: 95. (i.e., jaguar ears) 113

SITE CONTEXT MEDIUM CAT. BRIEF IDENTIFYING NAME (LOCATION) (RAW DESCRIPTION FEATURES MAT'L) Northern Lowlands Jaina Burial (?) - Ceramic, Rattle (small Very bright blue Life-like figure likely as the site painted hole on right naturalistic rendering of molded in the is a cemetery ocarina or side) a crocodile. Schmidt et round. al. 1998: 515, Work #12. Jaina style Unknown (likely Ceramic Figurine This figurine depicts the Life-like a burial) jaguar god of the rendering. Some underworld riding on the additional back of a crocodilian. accessories - a The god is depicted beaded necklace seated, grasping the that is attached snout of his crocodilian to a disk or steed with one hand and mirror and brandishing an axe in his attached to its other. The crocodile is back, just behind depicted naturalistically, the seated deity with features similar to is a small dish, the crocodilian ocarina. likely an incense Joralemon 1975: 66. burner. Unprovenienced Unknown Unprovenienced Bone, Figurine Full-body naturalistic The back of the carved carving of a crocodile animal is with full-figure glyphs rendered with a carved into its regular pattern of underbelly. The head oval dermal went missing in scutes with the antiquity. Miller and short, crouched Martin 2004: 140. legs of the reptile on the sides, and long tail Unknown Unprovenienced Obsidian Eccentric Likely a carving A beast with an representing the Cosmic open mouth full Monster, the front head of sharp teeth, a and body are crocodilian well-defined, with 3 human heads with upturned snout, elaborate headdresses and a long emerging from its back sinuous body. (passengers?). The rear The detailing on head is also human. the underside of Freideletal. (1993:91; the creature may Kerr online archive represent scales. 2009a: K2822. Unknown Unprovenienced Shell, Figurine A very aesthetic carving, The body and carved the crocodile is rendered head are very naturalistically but with life-like in embellishments on its design and back, head, nose and proportion. The chin. Identified as the tail of the animal crocodilian world tree or is truncated. Zipacna from the Popol Vuh. Ken 2009a: K8750. 114

SITE CONTEXT MEDIUM CAT. BRIEF IDENTIFYING NAME (LOCATION) (RAW DESCRIPTION FEATURES MAT'L) Unknown Unprovenieced Ceramic, Bowl (codex The interior scene in the Identified by painted style) centre of the bowl Taube 1988 depicts the rebirth of the maize god encircled by three fish-tailed crocodilians with long- snouted skulls accompanied by fish and waterlilies. Robiscek and Hales 1981: Vessel 116; Taube 1988: 169. Unknown Unprovenienced Ceramic, Vessel The scene painted on this Very naturalistic painted vessel depicts the world head with an tree in saurian form elongated toothy placed in a dish. The tree snout and bears a bounty of fruit protruding eyes. and leaves. Itzamna, god The extended D, the primordial body sprouts shaman appears to be vegetation, but calling the tree up from dermal scutes are the bowl. Robiscek and still visible. Hales 1981: Vessel 108; Taube 1988: 455. Unknown Unprovenienced Ceramic. Vessel "Cosmic Plate." An Very stylized, Painted aquatic cosmological but protruding scene is depicted. The eyes and a toothy inside rim is painted with tapered agape an image of the snout. crocodilian Cosmic Monster. Garcia 2006: 3; Robiscek and Hales 1981: Vessel 120. Table 5.3. CCrocodil e images»datin g to t ie Late Class ic period.

Crocodilian imagery in the Late Classic is frequently found on a large scale in more public places, with a number of carved stone monuments, both stelae and altars

(n=10), and architectural detailing in the form of stone sculpture and murals (n=9).

Painted ceramic vessels comprise another significant portion (n=6) of public art, although the majority are unprovenienced. Figurines tend to be found in more private locations like burials (if provenienced) and are carved out of bone and shell in addition to molded ceramic figures (n=4). The remaining two objects do not as easily fit into a category. One 115

is a beautiful chipped obsidian eccentric, likely a sacred object as it would have been far too fragile to be used as a cutting tool, despite its sharp edges (Iannone 1992). The second is a long bone with an elaborate canoe scene carved into its surface. Both these objects depict a sinking canoe in the form of a crocodile with passengers on/in its back and are unprovenienced.

Interpretation of these images is more difficult than with those examples from the

Preclassic and Early Classic as there is an increasing tendency towards more stylized depictions. The Cosmic Monster, a celestial beast with crocodilian features, first makes its appearance in Early Classic art. In the Late Classic, it is the most numerous of crocodilian depictions (n=13). The crocodile also features prominently in creation iconography and inscriptions (n=5). Earth Monster iconography is also present (n=5) and can include world trees. Crocodilian headdresses and costumes are also featured in Late

Classic art, usually worn by elite personages (n=6). Two images are more naturalistic in their portrayal of a crocodile, one a bone carving, missing its head with text carved onto its belly. The other is a musical instrument, a ceramic ocarina or rattle molded in the form of a crocodile. The symbolism inherent in these naturalistic depictions is uncertain.

Further interpretation will be continued in Chapter 6.

Terminal Classic

A single crocodile depiction can be dated to the Terminal Classic, a clay brick with a very naturalistic rendering of a crocodile from the site of Comalcalco in the southern lowlands. The appearance of the appliqued dermal scutes has been likened to cacao beans, so this may be related to Earth Monster iconography. 116

SITE CONTEXT MEDIUM CAT. BRIEF IDENTIFYING NAME (LOCATION) (RAW DESCRIPTION FEATURES MAT'L) Comalcalco Unknown Fired clay Modeled A raised naturalistic Very life-like, brick - crocodile rendered with naturalistic, architecture its full-body visible from dermal scutes the dorsal side. Andrews appliqued similar 1989: 122;Finamore and to cacao beans. Houston 2010: 231; Miller and Martin 2004: 155. Table 5.4. Crocodile images dating to the Terminal Classic period.

It is one of several bricks recovered from Comalcalco which have zoomorphic designs.

Other designs included anthropomorphic figures, architecture, crosses, and geometric designs (Andrews 1989: 122). Once they were laid into walls, the designs were totally obscured from view as the surface bearing them was placed inwards.

Postclassic Period

Following the Late Classic and Early Classic periods, the Postclassic witnessed the next largest number of crocodile images (n=9) from six sites, with two additional unprovenienced examples both from the Dresden Codex, a Maya painted bark paper book. A few trends are apparent examining Table 5.5. The majority of these are from northern lowland sites where the population shifted to following the collapse in the southern lowlands during the Terminal Classic period. Two sites from the southern lowlands produced crocodile imagery into the Postclassic.

Five crocodile depictions are examples of architectural embellishments. Unlike many of those in previous time periods, these are all found on the inside of structures in site epicenters, restricting access to the elite. Four of these are painted murals, while the fourth are carvings of composite reptilians with crocodilian features on balustrades and columns of a temple group at Mayapan. A single carved stone monument (altar) is also 117

SITE CONTEXT MEDIUM CAT. BRIEF IDENTIFYING NAME (LOCATION) (RAW DESCRIPTION FEATURES MAT'L) Southern Lowlands Lamanai Structure N10-2 Ceramic Maskette The face of an individual Upturned snout, is rendered wearing a projections crocodile skin as a behind the snout, headdress. Similar in protruding eyes, style to the masonry prominent mask on N9-56 at the maxillary teeth. same site. Pendergast 1981:38. Santa Rita Mound 1 Paint Mural - A representation of the Very stylized - Corozal architecture crocodile as the earth's the body is surface. A number of represented by anthropomorphic figures the patterning of stand above a horizontal the dermal band (the crocodile) scutes. The head which is above marine is curled and life (the Underworld). tapered, mouth The stylized head flanks agape, with the central doorway. many teeth. Chase and Chase 1988; Identified by Masson 2000: 243; Taube 1989 Taube 1989: 4. Unknown Ceramic Figurines Two figurines in the Stylized, not (excavated early form of a bicephalic detailed. 20th century) crocodile. Human faces Upturned snout, (identified as the deity patterning of Itzamna) emerge from its dermal scutes, open mouths. Taube short limbs. 1989: 4; Thompson Identified by (1970: 215. Taube 1989. Northern Lowlands Tancah Structure 4, Room Paint Mural 1 - A running or dancing Elongated open 1 architecture figure is depicted jaws, protruding wearing a crocodile eyes costume. Unlike earlier examples (with just crania) the full-body of the crocodile is visible. Miller 1982: pi. 8; Taube 1989:6. Coba Pinturas Group, Paint Mural - Human figures are The only Structure 2 architecture depicted standing on the distinguishing back of a scaly crocodile features are the marked with calendrical patterning of signs. The mural is badly dermal scutes. damaged. Taube 1989: Identified by 6-9. Taube 1989 118

SITE CONTEXT MEDIUM CAT. BRIEF IDENTIFYING NAME (LOCATION) (RAW DESCRIPTION FEATURES MAT'L)

Chichen Cenote of Gold, Disk or The crocodile occupies Naturalistic body Itza Sacrifice engraved plate the basal register of a in proportion and battle scene, depicted features, stylized upside down compared head, but to the central scene. rendered with Taube 1989: 6. curled snout and protruding eyes Mayapan Structure R-88 Limestone, Altar - A human figure is Facial features carved monument sculpted lying (or riding) (top jaw, eyes) relief on the back of a are missing, but crocodile whose face has an elongated been damaged in toothy lower jaw antiquity. Both figures are evident, as is are marked with day the scaled body signs. Proskouriokoff with short, bent 1962: 334; Taube legs. Identified 1989:3. by Taube 1989. Structure Q95, Paint Mural - The deity Ehecatl (the The front half of Bench architecture Wind God) swims or the crocodile is floats in front of a visible and crocodile which is bound rendered in a like a sacrificial captive. naturalistic Houston et al. 2006: 89- fashion. 91. Serpent Temples Limestone Columns The open-mouthed Those that have (main ceremonial - carved and serpent heads which forelimbs have group) relief balustrades decorate the five temples been identified are different within each as likely architecture building. The crocodilians, but crocodilians on the are combined pillars may resemble the with the rattle- world-trees which held tails of snakes. up the sky following Identified by creation. Pugh 2001: Pugh 2001 253. Unprovenienced Unknown Unprovenienced Painted Dresden The god Itzamna is The animal's bark paper Codex, depicted emerging from body is clearly book pages 4b the mouth of a bicephalic covered with and 5b crocodilian. Taube 1989: bony dermal 3. scutes covering its back. The snout is long and upturned, with many sharp teeth evident in the open jaw(s). 119

SITE CONTEXT MEDIUM CAT. BRIEF IDENTIFYING NAME (LOCATION) (RAW DESCRIPTION FEATURES MAT'L) Unknown Unprovenienced Painted Dresden A crocodile with a sky- Only the front bark paper Codex, band body is depicted half of the scaled book page 74 vomiting torrential liquid body is visible. (water). Very similar to Snout is tapered the stucco (House E) at and agape - Palenque) from the Late sharp teeth are Classic. Garcia 2006: 6- visible. 8. Protruding eyes also evident. Table 5.5. Crocodile images dating to the Postclassic period. described from Mayapan, depicting an individual riding or lying on the back of a damaged crocodilian.Two images of crocodiles can be found painted in the Dresden

Codex. The remaining images are more difficult to categorize. One is a ceramic figurine of a bicephalic crocodile, another a maskette with the face of an individual wearing a crocodile headdress, and the last is a depiction of a crocodile on the basal register of a

scene on a gold disk recovered from a cenote. This is the only piece recovered from such

a prestigious ritual context.

The focus of some images (n=3) is the Maya creation myth involving the sacrifice

of a crocodile. The earth crocodile is also featured prominently (n=3). The Cosmic

Monster still appears in Postclassic iconography, although not with the frequency it did in the Late Classic (n=2). Two depictions illustrate the crocodile as a costume worn by human figure. The final depiction on the monument from Mayapan of a person astride a crocodile may be related to earlier depictions from the Classic period of humans riding in

a crocodile canoe which would then link it to the Cosmic Monster.

Colonial Period

The continuation of crocodile imagery in Maya art post-Contact is indicative of the

animal's significance. Two pieces constitute the Colonial sample, both from the site of 120

Lamanai (Table 5.6), which has crocodilian imagery represented in every time period dating back to as early as the Preclassic period.

Both finds are ceramic figurines which provide evidence (by context) of ritual activity involving the crocodile's image into the 16th and 17th centuries. The first is a composite creature with deer antlers and a fish-like tail, relating it to Cosmic Monster imagery even though it is only rendered with a single head. The second figurine is very similar in design (and symbolism), but with two heads instead of one. Both have a human face visible in the open mouth of the crocodile. The cache containing this figurine likely postdates the desecration of the church, and is an indication of a revival of Maya traditional ceremonial activity persisting well into the 17 century (Pendergast 1984: 7).

SITE CONTEXT MEDIUM CAT. BRIEF DESCRIPTION IDENTIFYING NAME (LOCATION) (RAW FEATURES MAT'L) Southern Lowlands Lamanai Structure Nil- Ceramic Figurine This figurine has been The figurine has many 4 (platform) interpreted as indicative crocodilian features (16th century) of ritual activity in a with a long upturned largely domestic snout, many sharp teeth structure. It depicts a and a long scaled body. crocodile, mouth agape, However, it also has a with a human face visible fish-like tail, and in it jaws. The hollow bumpy antlers. body of the figurine held 3 jade beads and a clay bead covered in gold foil. Pendergast 1985: 3. 17th century Ceramic Figurine Very similar in design to Although it is only Spanish the figurine above, but described as a saurian, church, cache was two-headed with a I am comfortable in the northern human face appearing in identifying it sas a part of the one of the open mouths. crocodile with its nave Pendergast (1984: 7). elongated, upturned snout, sharp maxillary teeth, and dermal ridging. Table 5.6. Crocodile images dating to the Colonial period. 121

Unprovenienced (Unknown Date)

These pieces likely date to other time periods, but due to unrecorded proveniences and dates in the source material consulted, they are documented here (Table 5.7).

SITE CONTEXT MEDIUM CAT. BRIEF DESCRIPTION IDENTIFYING NAME (LOCATION) (RAW FEATURES MAT'L) Copan Unknown Limestone, Altar of A square monolithic On the living head carved relief Stela D - monument with a bicephalic curved fangs monument saurian depicted on the projecting out vertical sides. The northern from the upper lip (living) head is crocodilian with no lower jaw and the southern is the skull depicted. of nocturnal sun (with jaguar Identified by elements). A condensed body Baudez 1994. lies between. Baudez 1994: 46. Unknown Ceramic, Censer In the centre of the censer's Identified by modeled three prongs, is a modeled Houston et al. naturalistic crocodile. 2006 Houston et al. 2006 relate it to the creation myth with the connection of new fire with a crocodile. Houston et al. 2006: 92-93; Orefici 1997: no. 266. Table 5.7. Unprovenienced crocodile images with an uncertain date.

Analysis

The analyses conducted on the 66 images of crocodiles described in this chapter focus on a few key points in order to answer my research questions pertaining to art and iconography which were outlined in Chapter 1. First of all, I aim to address in this chapter, and (in more detail) in the one to follow it, how the crocodile is represented in

Maya art, its appearance, the context for these images, and the animal's possible meaning(s). Second, I want to ascertain if there is any notable geographic distribution of crocodilian images in the Maya subarea and a correlation to the beast's natural habitat. 122

The purpose of this is to determine if the animal's image occurs, and is important at sites where the crocodile is not a local species, although an image can be drawn from knowledge, rather than live crocodiles. Finally, I will examine any diachronic changes that occurred in the use of the animal's image. Did geographic distribution or the context

of the image change at all? Similar questions were considered of the zooarchaeological

data in the previous chapter. Both data sets will be considered together in the following chapter to determine if there are any correlations between them, and to look for broader patterns.

Context

In examining the contexts for the crocodile iconography that have been discussed

(Figure 5.4) it is clear that the majority of these displays can be found in ritually

significant places, particularly those associated with the elite, such as imagery displayed

on monuments found in site epicentres (n=19), monumental architecture (n= 14), and

objects from high status burials (n=9). The amount of crocodile imagery from caches was

surprisingly low - only four examples. Very few examples (n=4) were discovered in this

research to have been excavated or found in structure fill, and no examples of crocodiles

have been found, to date, in middens, or non-elite house mounds.

This is an intriguing pattern, suggesting likely ritual or symbolic significance to

these items and the likeness of the animal which is displayed. However, a note of caution

must be inserted here. These data may be skewed due to a preferential bias by

archaeologists towards the excavation of materials from the epicenters of sites and from

elite areas. Some elite-style burials (tombs) may also help preserve artifacts and images

from destruction due to the manner of their sturdy construction. This might artificially 123

elevate the preservation of elite goods in burials. Furthermore, the high prevalence of items of unknown provenience (n= 16) must be considered as another problem in accurately assessing the contexts and related value of the media on which the crocodilian images are portrayed.

Crocodile Images by Context

o 00

1

Context

Figure 5.4. Crocodile images displayed graphically by context.

Media/Cateo gory

The types of media on which the crocodile is portrayed by the Maya can also offer a clue as to its significance. First, I compared the number of permanent (e.g., immovable) images manifested on carved stone (monuments and architecture) (n=34) to the number of portable objects such as figurines, ceramic vessels, and pendants (n=32). The brick from Comalcalco was considered permanent as it would have been part of a structure. As can be seen in the chart below (Figure 5.5), the difference between the two categories is marginal, suggesting there was no distinct focus or obvious preference among the ancient

Maya for portrayal of crocodiles on portable or permanent (immovable) images. 124

Portable vs. Permanent Art

• Portable • Permanent

Figure 5.5. Crocodile images as they appear in portable and permanent contexts.

Since there was little distinguishable difference in the first comparison, I subdivided the different categories in which crocodilian images could be portrayed

(rather than the two of the initial comparison): pendants and beads, ceramic vessels, figurines (including the ocarina from Jaina), monumental free-standing carved stone

(including stelae, altars, and zoomorphs), painted murals, architectural detail (of doorways, stair outsets, columns, balustrades), images from the codices, and miscellaneous, which included objects that did not readily fit into another category. These miscellaneous objects included the incense burner from Copan, the unprovenienced obsidian eccentric, the brick from Comalcalco, the carved bone from Tikal, and the gold disk from the Cenote of Sacrifice at Chichen Itza.

As can be seen in Figure 5.6, free-standing stone sculpture display the majority of

crocodilian imagery (n=18), followed by ceramic vessels (n=l 1), figurines (n=10), and carvings/stucco on architecture (n=9). 125

Crocodile Images by Category

mmmSE B & >••" x> 4? «•/ ^ ^ dS> G*

Category

Figure 5.6. Crocodile images by category.

More patterns are evident when individual sites are considered. The majority of iconography depicting crocodiles at the site of Copan is largely portrayed on carved stone monuments such as stelae and altars (7), with images on architecture comprising a smaller sample (3) and only one (1) portable object, a censer. Quirigua, a neighbouring site, shows much the same pattern with multiple monuments (4) represented and no structural or portable representations. In contrast, the sample from the site of Tikal is primarily comprised of smaller objects, like ceramic vessels (2), pendants (2), and a carved bone (1), with only one example of large scale sculpture on a structure. At

Lamanai, portable objects comprise the majority of items, with ceramic vessels (2), figurines (2), and only one (1) example of a structure with carving. Finally, Kaminaljuyu demonstrates a relatively even split with two jade beads versus two monuments.

Public vs. Private Art

Continuing from the above analysis, I also considered whether crocodilian images were portrayed in forms which were meant to be displayed publicly, to a wide audience, 126

or privately, to a few individuals or even to no one at all (e.g., cached offerings).

Monuments (stelae and altars) that were erected and positioned in large open plazas in the central portion of Maya sites are considered public in nature. They were meant to be seen and displayed, portraying rulers and significant events in their lives, especially their victories and achievements. Similarly, those images presented on the outside of architecture, carved images or modeled stuccos, can be interpreted as public in nature.

However, those images which are portrayed on the inside of buildings were meant for a smaller, more restricted audience, perhaps just priests or rulers. Murals are one example of how large scale imagery could be construed as private, while benches and other artwork, positioned on the inside of elite buildings and temples with restricted access, are still other examples of private art.

Those images which were for personal adornment, such as beads or pendants, are considered private to be in nature. The owner of the item could choose, if they wished, to conceal or display the image. Some of these items are also found hidden in caches or offerings. For example, the obsidian eccentric was likely a cached item meant for the gods to see, but not humans. The Comalcalco brick is a very different form of private image as it adorned a public building, but was hidden from view as the crocodilian image was covered by the brick's placement.

Figurines are more difficult to assess. Context was the most important consideration of their potential use. They appear to be largely private in nature, as their deposition typically was in hidden locations, such as burials, caches, or construction fill, when known. It is possible they were displayed in some way before deposition, but it is impossible to speculate in exactly what way. 127

Finally, ceramic vessels, both painted and effigy, were regarded as public in nature, albeit likely for an elite audience. Although many are found deposited in burial contexts (the majority in this study are actually unprovenienced), their use in life indicates a more public connotation. Many painted ceramics were likely traded as gifts among the elite and depicted scenes relevant to courtly life and cosmology (Inomata

2001: 325). Some were likely used in elite feasting celebrations (Paul Healy, personal communication, 2010).

The images from the Dresden codex and its contents were considered to be private as they contained esoteric ritual information regarding the movements of Venus and other celestial objects. This would have been specialized knowledge which may have been confined to a Maya priesthood (Sharer 1994: 600).

In considering all of the varied categories/types of art together, it is clear that the crocodile image was not more common in either the public or private sphere. A little more than half (n=34, 54%) were items of public display, while just under half (n=26,

40%) were private in nature. Three images (5%) were considered unknown - an unprovenienced shell figurine, an unprovenienced ceramic figurine from Santa Rita, and a censer from Copan without context.

Symbolism

As discussed in the introduction (and as will be covered in more detail in Chapter

6), there are numerous things the crocodile's image could symbolize to the ancient Maya.

Here, I want to examine if any one meaning is more prevalent than another (Figure 5.7). 128

Meanings of Crocodile Images

3 16 2 14

o 10 u 8 1= Earth Cosmic Naturalistic Costume Creation Stylized Monster Monster (unknown)

Type of Image

Figure 5.7. Meanings of Crocodile Images in Maya iconography.

Representations of the crocodile in Earth Monster (n=18) and Cosmic Monster

(n=16) forms are the two most frequent, and occur in almost equal numbers in the sample. Cosmic Monsters included any bicephalic or composite crocodilian beings, and

Earth Monster forms included images of humans standing upon the backs of crocodiles and depictions of the saurian tree. Naturalistic depictions are the next most frequent

(n=10), followed by crocodiles which appear as costume elements worn by humans (i.e., headdresses) (n=9). Stylized images (n=6) included those depictions which were difficult to categorize, such as the stylized pendant from Altun Ha. Those placed into the creation category (n=7) include images of crocodilians linked somehow to creation stories (such as the mural at Mayapan, or the stucco at House E, Palenque).

Temporal Patterns

There is a great deal of longevity in the occurrence of crocodile iconography in the Maya subarea. The earliest image from Kaminaljuyu in the Middle Preclassic dates to

500 BCE, while the latest imagery occurs post Spanish contact, ca. 1500 CE, a period covering approximately 2000 years. The overwhelming majority of images date to the

Late Classic period (n=30, 45.4%) (Figure 5.8). The Early Classic has the next largest number (n=14, 21.2%), but still only constitutes less than half the number of the Late

Classic sample. The Postclassic is roughly on par with the Early Classic period (n=l 1,

16.6%), with the remainder of crocodile images from other periods forming a smaller proportion of the sample. These include: Middle Preclassic (n=3,4.5%), Late Preclassic

(n=2, 3%), Terminal Classic (n=l, 1.5%), Historic (n=2, 3%) and unknown (n=3, 4.5%).

Crocodile Images by Time Period

^ >** & e? ' ,/ ^ / *&s L

Time Period

Figure 5.8. Crocodile images by Time Period.

Crocodile imagery increases steadily culminating in the Late Classic, before declining in the Terminal Classic, Postclassic and Historic periods. This follows the trend of rising socio-political complexity of the Maya from the Preclassic onwards, culminating in the

Late Classic, before the collapse of the southern lowland centres during the Terminal

Classic. At this point power in the Maya subarea shifted to the northern lowlands, especially in the Postclassic, and this pattern can be seen in the data described in the chapter as well. This may also reflect an excavation bias, as Late Classic material is the 130

most visible (recent) at most southern lowland sites, which have garnered more archaeological attention than those elsewhere (such as the northern lowlands).

There are also temporal trends evident in the symbolism of the crocodile images used by the Maya (Figure 5.9). During the Middle Preclassic, crocodile images consisted of Earth Monster depictions (n=2) and a single (n=l) naturalistic portrait. The Late

Preclassic similarly had very few depictions, one (n=l) of the Earth Monster, the other

(n=l) with an unknown meaning. By the Early Classic the types of representations of the crocodile in ancient Maya iconography were more diverse with depictions of the Earth

Monster (n=5 of 14), plenty of naturalistic renditions (n=5 of 14), as well as the first illustrations of the crocodile's hide being utilized for costumes (n=2 of 14), and the

Cosmic Monster (n=l of 14), with one (n=l) image unknown. The Late Classic saw a sharp rise in Cosmic Monster imagery (n=l 1 of 28), while the Earth Monster (n=7 of 28) was the next most prominent image depicted. Representations of humans in crocodile costumes (n=5 of 28) was also prevalent, while naturalistic depictions (n=2 of 28) were fewer than the previous period. The Late Classic also saw the beginning of iconography depicting the Maya creation event (n=3 of 28). The single image from the Terminal

Classic was naturalistic in nature (n=l). The Postclassic crocodilians in Maya art were evenly distributed between Earth Monster (n=3), creation events (n=3), costume (n=2), and Cosmic Monster (n=l), with some images too stylized (n=2) to ascertain their meaning. Finally, the Historic period provided only a pair of examples (n=2) of crocodilian imagery, both of which depicted the Cosmic Monster. 131

35

ra 25

! Creation i Unknown(stylized) E 10 I Costume I Naturalistic

S> ;•$> .vo ..£> ««- <3N 4? 43" c? c? -^ 4? <*•" _< i Earth monster I Cosmic Monster >/ ^

Time Period

Figure 5.9. Meanings of crocodile images as they appear across time.

From this, it is apparent that the Earth Monster was an important figure in ancient

Maya art from as early as the Middle Preclassic and continued (with slightly reduced numbers) into the Postclassic period. Similarly, naturalistic depictions occur regularly throughout Maya history as well. The Cosmic Monster and creation imagery appear to be largely a Late Classic phenomenon, but they do continue in importance into the

Postclassic as well.

Geographical Trends

Sites containing crocodilian imagery occurs over a wide geographic area, throughout the

Maya subarea. Of those crocodile depictions with recorded provenience, a few can be found at highland sites (n=l, 5%) and sites in the northern lowlands (n=6, 29%), while the majority occurs in the southern lowlands (n=14, 66%). Ten objects were unprovenienced, largely ceramic vessels and figurines, as well as the images in the codices. 132

One of the main points I wanted to examine in considering the use of crocodiles by the ancient Maya is the relationship between the sites containing crocodilian images

(or remains) and their proximity to crocodilian habitats (large water sources). Are crocodiles only significant to those Maya who lived near sources of water and thus, near to crocodiles themselves? Or did their importance seem to have a broader scope than that?

In terms of the artistic data, 21 sites were considered which contained crocodilian imagery in some way. Of those sites, almost three-quarters (71%) show close proximity

(within 5km) to a water source which is an appropriate crocodilian habitat (see Chapter

3). Most of these are riverside locations, including Copan, Quirigua, Yaxchilan, Cahal

Pech and Palenque. Others, like Lamanai and Santa Rita, are located close to lagoons.

Yaxha and Coba are in the vicinity of sizable lakes, while sites like Tancah, Comalcalco, and Jaina are coastal. Finally, Chichen Itza is positioned in an area with cenotes.

Crocodiles reportedly inhabit all these areas, especially large freshwater rivers and lakes, and coastal settings like mangrove swamps, coastal lagoons, and estuaries (Lee 2000:

133). In terms of cenotes, according to Lopez Mendel's Relacion, dating to the 17th century CE, a crocodile emerged from the cenote at Chichen Itza to receive the sacrifices of women (Pohl 1983:81).

One site, Altun Ha, is within 10km of the Belizean coast, and the sites of Naranjo and Tonina are within 20km of rivers. The site of Bonampak is 30km from the nearest river. Kaminaljuyu exceeded this distance of 30km, the only site of any distance to water which utilized the crocodile's image more than once. 133

Ttwo sites are more difficult to assess. The site of Mayapan in the northern

Yucatan is similar to Chichen Itza in its proximity to cenotes, which it utilized as water sources. However, these are all found within the walled compound of the site, making them inaccessible to wild animals like crocodilians (Sharer 1994: 411). It is possible that there are other nearby cenotes, outside city walls which have not been reported, and have

(or had) crocodile activity. Since its relation to water could not be determined, at this time I consider Mayapan as an unknown. The site of Tikal is situated on a series of low ridges above two swampy areas (bajos) to the east and west. These may have once been shallow lakes and suitable habitats for crocodiles (Sharer 1994: 152-153). Moholy-Nagy

(2004: 202) reports that one species, Crocodylus moreleti, is local to the region.

Therefore, I decided to include it in the sites within 5km of water.

It appears, then, that the use of the crocodile image was largely confined to sites which are in close proximity to a watery crocodile habitat. Crocodiles were a local animal to the ancient Maya living in these locations and likely had some impact upon their lives, which could have influenced their inclusion in the iconographic programs of those sites.

For those sites at a much greater distance (i.e., Kaminaljuyu, in particular), the images may have served as a substitute for the real animal.

Conclusion

The 66 images from 21 sites discussed throughout the course of this chapter and in the above analysis indicate that crocodiles were animals of some importance to the ancient Maya for a considerable length of time (ca. 2000 years) and across much of the

Maya subarea, from the southern highlands to the northern lowlands. As depicted in art, 134

the crocodile was portrayed as responsible for the creation of the earth, but predominantly embodied the heavens and the earth, and may possibly have had connections to the

Underworld as well. Furthermore, crocodiles can be considered noteworthy as possible spiritual alter-egos or ways, such as when their hides were used as costumes. The saurian is executed in iconography on many different categories of art, from the grand scale on temple pyramids and monuments, to a smaller scale, on objects like tiny figurines, pendants, and ceramics. They occur on several different types of media (pottery, jade, slate, limestone, sandstone, shell, and bone). Its ferocity as a mighty predator makes it a powerful symbol, like the jaguar, another animal which makes a regular appearance in

Maya art (Benson 1988b, 1998).

Trends which are apparent in this analysis suggest that the animal's image was most prevalent in the Late Classic period, and at sites which were in close proximity to the crocodile's natural habitat. In the following chapter, these trends will be considered in concert with the zooarchaeological data, in order to ascertain any broader patterns. 135

CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION

Introduction

Following the documentation provided in Chapters 4 and 5 it is evident that the crocodile appears repeatedly at ancient Maya sites and in their art. This chapter will review key thesis questions, utilizing all the data outlined in the thesis to this point. The meaning(s) of the crocodile to the ancient Maya is addressed in greater detail through an examination and comparison of both the zooarchaeological and iconographic data sets, in addition to references to ethnohistoric and ethnographic data, and other Mesoamerican groups, as discussed in Chapter 2. Furthermore, geographical and temporal patterns will be scrutinized, building on the analyses conducted in the two previous chapters

(Zooarchaeological Data and Iconographic Data).

Clearly, the crocodile was an animal with multiple symbolic properties which were expressed in the zooarchaeological, as well as the iconographic, record. Foremost, to the Maya, the crocodile metaphorically represented the surface of the earth, the heavens, and a force for creation and destruction. These ideas manifest themselves in iconographic form on Maya stelae, architecture and other, smaller categories of art, and may also be the reason behind the deposition of crocodile bones in important Maya ritual locations, like caches or burials. Moreover, there is both iconographic and zooarchaeological evidence that the animal's skin and head were utilized as important costume elements, potentially as part of shamanic practices. While, the crocodile could have been utilized as a food animal, it is at least as likely that its frequent inclusion in elite deposits reflects its ceremonial importance for feasting, or perhaps even its medicinal nature. However, a caveat must be inserted here. Much of the data presented in 136

both Chapters 4 and 5 is derived from elite sources (i.e., site centres) rather than those representing the general population (i.e., outlying housemounds). Therefore, the interpretations I propose in the following discussion are somewhat biased. Future research with larger (and less biased) samples drawn from all parts of Maya sites may eventually change some of these conclusions.

The crocodile was identified as an animal with importance to the Maya by Fray

Diego de Landa, who wrote the Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan ca. 1566 (Tozzer

1941: vii). He reports that the hearts of animals, including those of crocodiles, were burned in sacrifice as part of a festival honouring the Chacs and Itzamna during the month Mac (Tozzer 1941: 163). Lizana, a 17th century historian, corroborates the ritual nature of the animal to the colonial Maya in a statement that: "They worshipped the crocodile, a creature without a tongue" (Roys 1931: 327). With these ethnohistoric accounts in mind, I examine the crocodile here with the intent of better understanding its meaning to the ancient Maya from the Preclassic through the Postclassic, and the changes

(if any) which occurred through time.

The Earth Monster

The Earth Monster is the most prevalent way the crocodile was envisioned by the

Maya, from the Preclassic through Contact (even to the present day). Iconographic representations, ethnographic accounts, and ethnohistoric data all corroborate this, as well as demonstrating the remarkable longevity of the idea. Moreover, many of the depictions of the Cosmic Monster, a celestial crocodilian (to be discussed shortly) have secondary imagery which can be assigned earth affiliations (such as sprouting vegetation or earth signs). Furthermore, the Maya are not the only Mesoamerican (or even Latin American) 137

group to assign the crocodile this particular symbolism (Benson 1997; Peterson 1990;

Chapter 2), lending further credence to their earth associations.

First and foremost, the crocodile represented the surface of the earth floating on the primordial seas of existence (the fiery pool), echoing the natural way this creature floats, almost unmoving, on a body of water (Finamore and Houston 2010). The Maya believed that there were three layered planes of existence: the starry heavens, the middle world of earth, and the dark waters of the Underworld below (Scheie and Freidel 1990:

66). Through the centre of this ordered realm the Maya saw an axis called Wacah Chan

("raised up sky"), symbolized by a tree which co-existed in all three vertical domains.

The crocodile's place as the metaphor for the middle world, separating the Upper and

Under worlds, is suggested in a Late Preclassic cache from Cahal Pech (Figure 6.1).

Figure 6.1. Layered cache representing the ordered universe, from Cahal Pech, Structure B-4. The shell crocodile figurine is placed at the base, representing the terrestrial plane (image courtesy of Dr. Jaime Awe).

In a reconstruction of the cache's original layout, the upper world is symbolized by a

human skull (likely that of an ancestor figure) contained within two ceramic bowls. The

earth's surface is represented by a shell crocodile figurine lying beneath it; and the

underworld occurs below the figurine (although not explicitly marked) (Jaime Awe, 138

personal communication, 2009). An Early Classic stucco ornamentation on the east side of the Papagayo Structure (10L-26) at the site of Copan (Figure 6.2) seems to corroborate this.

Figure 6.2. Modeled stucco representation of a crocodile as the Earth Monster, Papagayo Structure, Copan. The head is to the left (only the teeth and top jaw are visible) and the length of the body has perceptible scales as well as caban (earth) and tun (stone) signs on its tail (modified after Fash 1988:159).

There is a depiction of an enormous crocodilian floating above waterlily and stone signs, interpreted by Fash (1998: 158-159) as a representation of the Maya cosmos, with the crocodile as a metaphor for the earth's surface, floating in a large body of water

(identified by the waterlilies). Monument 2, from Preclassic Kaminaljuyu, has similar imagery as it would have appeared to float in the basin-like plaza where it was discovered during the rainy season.The depiction of a crocodile, in the form of a canoe, on a bone from Tikal (Figure 6.3) also emphasizes the animal and, therefore, the earth, floating upon a body of water.

Figure 6.3. The Cosmic Monster in the form of a crocodile canoe. Note the gaping maw of the beast on the prow of the boat to the right. Carved bone, tomb of Jasaw Chan K'awiil, Temple 1, Tikal (modified after Freidel et al. 1993: Figure 2.26a). 139

The natural properties of the crocodile, in particular the bony dermal plating along its back, made it an ideal metaphor for the uneven terrain of the earth's surface.

Ethnographic data relates that the crocodile was viewed in this manner by the Maya,

suggesting a continuity of ancient concepts stretching back to the Preclassic. For example, the Chorti of southeastern Guatemala believe the earth takes the form of a

crocodile (Pohl 1983: 81). In the Books of Chilam Balam of Chumayal, Mani, and

Tizimin, the earth is deified as Itzam Cab Ain or "Itzam Earth Crocodile" (Craine and

Reindorp 1979: 118; Edmonson 1982: 40-41; Roys 1967: 101).

In ancient Maya art, the crocodile is emphasized as a symbol for the earth in a

variety of ways. Of particular note, human beings are frequently shown standing on the

scaly back of the crocodile, usually depicted in the bottom register of a scene. The

crocodile's back becomes a stage for human action; the surface on which movement

takes place (Joyce 2001: 80). One of the earliest depictions of the Earth Monster depicted

in this manner is the scene from Stela 9, Kaminaljuyu, dating to between 700 and 500

BCE in the Preclassic (Figure 6.4), but there are numerous other representations from the

Classic period, including Stela 6 and Stela 10 from Yaxha, Hieroglyphic Stairway 3 at

Yaxchilan, and Monument 69 from Tonina. There are also depictions dating to the

Postclassic, with examples from sites like Santa Rita Corozal, and a mural at Coba

(Figure 6.5). These depictions can encompass the full body of the crocodile (such as Stela

9 at Kaminaljuyu) or a stylized rendering of the creature's back, with emphasis placed

upon representations of the dermal scutes (the murals of Santa Rita or Coba). 140

Figure 6.4. Kaminaljuyu Stela 9. A human figure is depicted standing atop the back of a crocodile representing the surface of the earth. The stylized head of the reptile is circled to the right with its segmented tail curving up to the left (modified after Houston et al. 2006: Figure 4.2d).

Figure 6.5. Mural from Coba depicting scaly body of the earth crocodile (note the figure standing on its back to the top right) with day signs on its body (modified after Taube 1989: Figure 5).

Some have argued that the regular patterning of the dermal scutes appears to replicate the grid design of Maya rectangular raised fields intersected by irrigation canals

(Puleston 1977: 463). In this perspective, the crocodile can be connected not only to the earth's surface, but also to its fertility as well. This is emphasized often by depictions of plant life emerging from the scaly back of crocodilians. The temple regions of the head of 141

the crocodile depicted on Altar T at Copan (Figure 6.6) sprouts leaves, presumably of maize (Puleston 1977: 462).

Sprouting vegetation

WaterHy

-HVAI Fish-Kke tail

Figure 6.6. Altar T, Copan, top surface. Sprawling crocodile with a fish-like tail and waterlilies affixed to its limbs. Note the vegetation sprouting from its temples, identifying it with fertility (modified after Tozzer and Allen 1910: 320).

Altar 41 from Copan depicts a crocodilian (usually identified as the Cosmic Monster)

similarly carved with flowers and plants emerging from around its face and head. The iconographic theme of Structure 5D-33-2nd at Tikal can also be related to fecundity, with crocodiles displayed in their aspect as Cosmic Monsters, but with an important

distinction - vegetation sprouting from the tops of their heads (Scheie and Freidel 1990:

169).

Ethnohistoric accounts also lend credence to the crocodile's association with

fertility. According to Lopez Mendel's Relacion from the early seventeenth century, a

crocodile emerged from the cenote at Chichen Itza to receive the sacrifices of women that

the Maya offered as petitions for rain and maize (Tozzer 1941: 223). Moreover, this type

of scene is also regularly depicted in Olmec art (La Venta Monument 6, Figure 2.2), as

well as Aztec art (Borgia Codex, Figure 2.12). Even as far away as South America, the

crocodile is equated with vegetal fertility, as depicted on the Chavin "Tello obelisk", an 142

illustration of two caimans with an array of food plants sprouting around them (Lathrap

1973). Successful crop production in raised fields was "tightly interwoven with the complex, manipulated, interrelationships between canals and their fish, birds and reptiles into Maya religion and iconography. In short, the Maya were deeply involved in flood plain ecology socially, economically and intellectually" (Puleston 1977: 463). The crocodile, then, assumed a particularly special role in this ecosystem as the top predator in a limnic food chain.

The conceptualization of the crocodile as the zoomorphic world tree is further related to vegetal and agricultural fertility, as well as a point connecting the celestial, terrestrial and Underworld realms. In this form, the crocodile is rendered upended with its upper body (and tail) sprouting vegetation. The depictions of the saurian axis mundi vary little from the Preclassic antecedents in Olmec and Izapa art (see Chapter 2). In fact,

Izapa Stela 25 (Figure 2.11) is often described as a Maya monument (Freidel et al. 1993;

Taube 1989). An unprovenienced ceramic vessel from the Late Classic is painted with an image of the world tree in saurian form, growing out of a dish (Figure 6.7).

Figure 6.7. Rollout of an unprovenienced Late Classic vase depicting the deity Itzamna (the figure to the right of the dish) and a crocodile tree bearing a bounty of fruit rising from a dish (modified after Robiscek and Hales 1972: Vessel 108). 143

The tree bears a bounty of fruit and leaves. The Maya diety Itzamna (God D) is seated next to the tree and appears to be calling the tree up from the bowl. Itzamna is a deity associated with the earth, particularly in the Postclassic (Thompson 1970; Taube 1989).

A similar Classic period depiction can be found on another unprovenienced vessel

(Figure 6.8). This is a more stylized example. Although its face is clearly rendered as a crocodile, the body is somewhat truncated. However, its tail can still be seen sprouting leaves.

Figure 6.8. Early Classic crocodile tree depicted on an unprovenienced vessel. The crocodile's head to the bottom centre of the image has the animal's more obvious features with the truncated body appearing to the left and the tail folding back over it (modified after Taube 1988: Figure 58b).

As was demonstrated in Olmec art, the Maya rulers too depicted themselves as personified World Trees. The ruler, as chief shaman, could materialize or bring into being the wacah chart (world tree), and thus connect to the other realms, through ritual, usually in the form of bloodletting (Freidel and Scheie 1990: 67-68). In art, one of the ways in which they identified themselves as the embodiment of the world tree was in the use of crocodilian imagery. For example Scheie and Miller (1986: 77) and Newsome (2001: 26) identify the design of a special loincloth rulers wear on many stelae as a conventionalized image of the world tree, which marks the king's body as a surrogate for the axis mundi. 144

In one such image, Stela C from Copan (Figure 6.9), the loincloth is depicted as the inverted head of the crocodile, with an elongated jaw and clear rows of teeth.

'-. . . %

Figure 6.9. Inverted crocodile head (highlighted) covering the loincloth of central figure, Stela C, Copan. The image is of the inside of the upper jaw (modified after Baudez 1994: Figure 7b).

The groin area of the human body has obvious connections to reproduction as well being the source for elite male bloodletting. Furthermore, the Copan ruler wears a helmet with cauac (earth) signs, clearly connecting it with the earth. Stela M and Stela N also depict crocodiles as part of the ruler's regalia, but are less conventionalized than the image on

Stela C. Furthermore, stelae themselves (vertical stone shafts) can be understood to represent trees or pillars of the world and were termed te tun, "tree stone" (Newsome

2001; Scheie and Freidel 1990: 71).

The crocodile's gaping maw can also be portrayed artistically as an entrance or connection to the Underworld, as caves or other openings in the earth. This is evident in

Olmec-linked art, particularly Relief 1 (Figure 2.3) and Monument 9 from the site of 145

Chalcatzingo. Maya iconography shows some similarities to these depictions. There are a few pieces of art which clearly represent crocodiles, with the heads of people emerging from their mouths. The zoomorphs of Quirigua (B, O, and P), discussed in Chapter 5

(Figures 5.2), all portray the head of a ruler emerging from the mouth of a crocodilian, in its guise as the Cosmic Monster. Furthermore, all three monuments have "the earth itself

...represented on the back of the creature, as if floating on it, as an enormous witz

"mountain, hill" mask that runs the entire length of the monumentfs]" (Looper 2003:

172).

According to the modern Tzotzil Maya of Zinacantan, the ancestors reside in the sacred mountains, the domain of the Earth Lord (Vogt 1969: 298-299). The Tzotzil further believe that mountains are the mythological places of origin for patrilineages (Vogt and

Stuart 2005: 168). These depictions may, therefore, represent the connection between the ancient Maya and their ancestors through the medium of the earth, personified by the crocodile. Zoomorph B at Quirigua, in particular, commissioned by the ruler Sky Xul, may represent the rebirth of the previous ruler Cauac Sky (his father and ancestor) from the Underworld (Sharer 1990: 28). Altar 41 at Copan (Figure 6.10), which is also an explicit portrayal of the crocodile as the Cosmic Monster (albeit with Earth Monster characteristics), shares similar iconography to the Quirigua examples. An ancestor figure is seen emerging from the gaping maw of the crocodile, whose head is replete with signs of vegetal fertility, and is also marked with the cauac sign, which is indicative of the earth. 146

Upper Jaw

Figure 6.10. The crocodilian bicephalic Cosmic Monster, Copan Altar 41. Note the crocodile (living) head to the left with gaping maw, curled snout, and ancestor face in its jaws. The elongated body belonging to the head is also saurian with reptilian legs and claws (modified after Baudez 1994: Figure 67a).

In the Postclassic and Historic periods, these types of representations continue to be found, but in different categories of art than the monumental sculptures of the Classic period, and the crocodiles appear without explicit earth markings. From the site of Santa

Rita Corozal, for example, there are two ceramic figurines in the form of bicephalic crocodilians with human heads emerging from both mouths (instead of just one mouth as in the Classic period). Thompson (1970: 215) identifies these heads as belonging to the deity Itzamna, seem to have an earth crocodile aspect by the name of Itzam CabAin.

These ceramic figures are argued to be three-dimensional versions of a scene portrayed on Dresden Codex Pages 4b and 5b, which depict the deity emerging from the mouth of a two-headed crocodilian (Figure 6.11).

Figure 6.11. Bicephalic crocodilian from the Dresden Codex with the face of Itzamna emerging from its front head (circled) (modified after Taube 1989: Figure la). 147

Two Historic period ceramic figurines from the site of Lamanai share this imagery as well. However, it is of note that only three crocodile bones were found within a cave

(Cueva de los Quetzales), although numerous crocodile bones have been recovered from burials and caches, contexts which can be conceptually linked to caves (Becker 1988;

Pohl 1981). These images may have an alternative meaning, with the human figures instead representing people, perhaps shamans, appearing in raiment of crocodile skins as dance costumes or other regalia. This idea and evidence will be discussed below.

In sum, like the Olmec and Izapa who preceded them, and the Aztec who followed, the Maya believed that the crocodile was a symbol for the surface of the earth.

This could be manifested in a variety of ways. Humans are depicted utilizing the animal's natural properties, including standing upon dermal plating, vegetative fertility, world trees and caves. Although zooarchaeological evidence for this interpretation is not especially helpful, there is some limited cache evidence (i.e. La Joyanca) which provides evidence of the link between earth, water and sky due to associations with other materials

(Kitty Emery, personal communication, 2010). There is a plethora of iconographic imagery, as well as ethnographic and ethnohistoric accounts, all of which attest to the crocodile's power as an earth metaphor.

Water Symbolism

Arguably, the crocodile's water symbolism is related to, but still distinct from, its manifestation as an Earth Monster. It is most closely linked to the fertility and abundance aspects of the earth due to the possible connection of crocodiles to raised field agriculture, with its potential dependence upon canals as a shallow water habitat. In both

Olmec and Izapan iconography, the crocodile is clearly linked with water as a source for 148

agricultural and vegetal fertility (see Chapter 2). For example, with regard to the Olmec, both the crocodile and the shark were associated with water, but only the saurian was identified with the positive benefits of rainfall and the growth of plants. Conversely, the shark was representative of the encircling ocean of salty water, connected to the wild forces outside the world that humans understood and controlled (Joyce 2001: 75).

In Maya iconography and ethnographic accounts, crocodiles are noticeably associated with other aquatic animals, like sharks, often taking on aspects of their anatomy. A chant from the Ritual of the Bacabs, a modern Maya book of medicine and magic, likely with much earlier origins, recounts a series of mythical events whereby the shark and crocodile are paired as co-creators: "Who created him? He created him, did

Chac-uayab-xoc ("red-ominous-shark"), Chac-mumul-ain ("red-muddy-crocodile")"

(Roys 1965: 39). This is an incantation for the healing of ulcers, while another chant to cure "traveler-seizure" tells of the vomiting of a shark and a crocodile (Roys 1965: 8).

The vomiting of torrential liquid by a crocodile, as is discussed below, is associated with creation by the ancient and modern Maya (Roys 1965: 8). Another myth of creation involving the crocodile and the shark is focused on the Hero Twins, who sprung reborn from a crack in the back of the Cosmic Turtle (conceptualized as a ballcourt). Once reborn, the twins directed four old gods to set up the first Hearth of Creation to center the new world order. This consisted of laying three throne stones - one of a jaguar, set up in the sky, one of a snake, set up on the earth, and the third was a crocodilian/shark monster set up in the sea (Scheie and Mathews 1998: 37).

The modern Chorti of southeastern Guatemala see a connection between crocodiles (the earth), snakes (an aspect of the rain deity), and fish. The offspring of the 149

two reptiles is a fish representing the young Maize god (Pohl 1983: 81). Itzam Cab Ain of the Colonial Yucatec Chilam Balam books has related significance, as Itzam signifies

"whale" in modern Yucatec and Cab Ain is literally "earth crocodile" (Taube 1989: 2).

Seler (1909: 649) notes that in many Prehispanic Central Mexican codices, that the crocodile is depicted with a fish tail. Copan Altar T (Figure 6.6) is perhaps the best

Classic Maya example of this. Furthermore, this altar is also depicted with waterlilies tied to the creature's wrists, additional lenitic imagery. Hieroglyphic Stairway 2 (Figure 6.12) from Yaxchilan bears a depiction of a ball-player, wearing a fish-tailed crocodilian upon his back.

Figure 6.12. Yaxchilan, Step VIII, Structure 33. Crocodile worn on the back of a ball player. The tapered head of the animal with curled snout can be seen (circled) to the bottom left of the player's back ( modified after Graham 1982:162).

Another Late Classic example is from an unprovenienced painted ceramic vessel (Taube

1988: 169) which depicts three fish-tailed crocodilians, complete with waterlily imagery, encircling a scene showing the rebirth of the Maize god.

The waterlily is a plant often paired with crocodilian imagery in Maya art and writing. First and foremost, the day Imix, the starting day of the Maya 260 day ritual calendar, is depicted as an illustration of a waterlily. Thompson (1960:71) notes that this day, represented by the waterlily, corresponds to the day Cipactli (alligator or caiman) in 150

the Central Mexican, Nahuatl, calendar. In Mesoamerica, Imix is widely identified with the watery earth and creation. For example, in the Postclassic period, the Mixtec frequently begin mythical accounts on Day 1 Alligator (Cipactli) of the year 1 Reed

(Acatl) (Taube 1988: 186). All personified forms of this glyph show the head of a reptilian monster, identified by Thompson (1960: 459) and Puleston (1977: 459) as a crocodilian. The glyph itself has meaning as a symbol of abundance. It can be linked to the symbol of maize (to form Kan-Imix), signifying the abundance of maize and, likely, food in general.

Puleston (1977: 459) argues the link between the glyph and the animal is due to the crocodile's prevalence in slow-moving and still water throughout the lowlands, such as those found in the canals that surround raised fields of the Maya agricultural efforts.

Beyond the glyphic representations of the waterlily, the plant appears frequently in Maya art in association with crocodiles, another inhabitant of the canal systems. In addition to

Altar T of Copan (Figure 6.6) and the unprovenienced vessel discussed earlier, Altar M and Zoomorph P (Figure 5.2) of Quirigua are described with waterlily imagery, in the former as an imix found on the lid of the animal's eyes, and in the latter as a naturalistic image of the plant above its nostrils. The crocodile on the Papagayo Structure (Figure

6.2) from Early Classic Copan is shown floating above waterlily signs.

The crocodile's associations with water related symbolism, then, appear to be primarily related to its meaning as a symbol of the earth. As such, when the animal is visualized as the earth, it is floating upon the "fiery" primordial seas of existence, or the

surface of the watery Underworld, often inhabited by other aquatic creatures (Finamore

and Houston 2010). It is also clearly related to agricultural fecundity with specific 151

reference to the raised fields and associated canals, which were often choked with waterlily plants. To this end, the modern Yucatec Maya believe that water constitutes the cosmic blood of the earth, "The water in the earth is like the blood in your veins.. .It is

said that water is the blood of the earth.. .the earth has a lot of veins where there is water,

the blood of the earth" (Taube 2010: 209). I believe this imagery is most closely related to the earth crocodile, but in its association with creation as well it emphasizes the inter­

related aspects of the crocodile's deep meaning to the ancient Maya.

The Cosmic Monster

The Celestial Monster, also referred to as the Bicephalic Monster, or the Cosmic

Monster, is a crocodilian dragon with two heads sprouting from a single body. In both

architectural and pictorial contexts it either frames portals, creates a band to frame the

scene, or it may form a throne or altar. Sometimes, it can even be held as a scepter by a

Maya ruler. The body of the beast is usually represented as a crocodile, but may also

appear as a sky band, where the symbol for sky is divided into compartments by vertical

bars, or as lazy-S scrolls of blood (Scheie and Friedel 1990: 408). The front head, to

which the body belongs, has crocodilian features with a long snout, a beard and large

teeth, and an eye often containing a Venus sign. It is often represented with the ears,

antlers, as well as the cloven hooves of a deer (Scheie and Miller 1986: 45; Stone 1985).

Stuart (1993) refers to the beast as the "Starry Deer Alligator". The opposing head has a

blunt snout, fleshy eyes, and a skeletal lower jaw with the glyphic sign of the sun, kin, on

its forehead. According to Scheie and Miller (1986: 45) the Celestial Monster is

composed of the paired opposition of the Venus (represented by the front head) and the

sun (the rear head). Venus, as the morning star, leads the sun out of the underworld, 152

trailing behind it at sunset. When the Monster is placed upon architecture it is usually placed so that the front head is on the western side of the building.

In a complementary idea, it has also been suggested that the Cosmic Monster is a metaphor for the Milky Way, stretching across the sky from east to west, with its western side split into the jaws of the crocodile (Freidel et al. 1993: 85). A perfect architectural representation of this is illustrated by the inner doorway of Temple 22 at Copan (Figure

6.13).

Figure 6.13. Cosmic Monster with crocodilian front head (circled at left) framing the inner doorway, Temple 22, Copan (modified after Freidel et al. 1993: 85).

The Cosmic Monster is depicted arching over the doorway, with the crocodile head and front legs to the west, the body in cloud-scroll form over the door, and a sun image on the east. The Monster is held up in the sky by Pahuatuns squatting over the skulls representing Xibalba. This appears to be supported in an inscription from Palenque

(Bench 1 from the Palace) which Stuart (1993: 2) translated as "passing in (through?) sky, passing in (through?) earth" which is similar to iconography where the monster frames the heavens. Stuart (1993), like Freidel et al. (1993), believes this phrasing refers 153

to the Cosmic Monster as the animate Milky Way which visibly progresses during the night across the sky and into the earth. A figurine from Jaina may show the crocodilian

Monster in its journey into the earth (Figure 6.14). The image portrays the Jaguar God of the Underworld riding on the back of a crocodilian, which Joralemon (1975: 66) identifies as the bicephalic Cosmic Monster.

h% §

*t j% '"•ipsa*?

Figure 6.14. Jaina style figurine depicting the jaguar god of the underworld riding on the back of a crocodile. The crocodile is rendered naturalistically with upturned head, grasped by the deity, to the right of the image (modified after Joralemon 1975: Figure 25).

An uprovenienced plate, sometimes referred to as the "Cosmic Plate," reinforces the link

of the Cosmic Monster to the stars (Figure 6.15). In the painted scene, the crocodile's body constitutes the upper rim of the image, with several stars hanging from its body.

Garcia (2006: 2) argues that in this image the "Starry Deer Crocodile" is probably a

depiction of the underworld sky, the night firmament, or a symbol of the night."

Aztec mythology demonstrates some similarities to these Maya depictions. 154

Figure 6.15. Inner rim, upper portion of the Cosmic Plate (provenience unknown) with the image of the Cosmic Monster used to represent the sky (note the stars hanging from its body). The stylized head of the beast, depicted with mouth agape (facing inward) is to the right of the image (modified after Garcia 2006: Figure 3).

The central Mexicans believed that the sun was borne across the sky by day by a celestial reptile, Xiuhcoatl (Turquoise Serpent), and that the solar deity mounted a terrestrial dragon at sunset and traveled through the "dark Kingdom of Death" on his back

(Joralemon 1975: 66).

Some additional Classic period imagery from Yaxchilan may further corroborate this. Both Step 3 of Hieroglyphic Stairway 3 (Figure 6.16) and StepVIII of Hieroglyphic

Stairway 2 (Figure 6.12) depict a crocodile with the sun-god contained within its mid­ section (Taube 1988: 170). 155

Figure 6.16. Individual depicted standing or kneeling above a crocodile representing the earth's surface, Yaxchilan, Hieroglyphic Stairway 3, Step 3. The crocodile's head with gaping jaws is to the left (modified after Graham 1982: 169).

A number of Classic period Maya monuments have detailed representations of this beast, although the majority are from the sites of Quirigua and Copan. At Quiriqua,

Zoomorphs B, O, and P have been identified as the only versions of the crocodilian

Cosmic Monster carved in the round (Figure 5.2) (Stone 1983). At Copan, Altar 41 is perhaps the clearest rendition of the Cosmic Monster, and is used by Scheie and Miller

(1986: 45) as the type example of the beast (Figure 6.10). The Altar of Stela D at the site is similarly carved (Looper 2003: 159; Baudez 1994: 43). The Olmec Dragon, discussed in Chapter 2, can also be associated with the sky in addition to its primary relationship with the earth.

The Cosmic Monster is also tied to creation, as will be discussed further below, as the flood reptile, which appears specifically as a celestial crocodilian. Carved bones from the tomb of Hasaw-Ka'an-K'awil (Temple 1, Tikal) incised with canoe scenes may provide confirmation of this belief. One pair shows a scene with a crew of paddlers, the

Maize god, and several animals. The second scene on another pair of bones depicts the 156

same passengers flailing as the canoe sinks. On yet another bone, the canoe is given a crocodile face on its bow, which replicates the mouth cleft at the western edge of the

Milky Way in its east-west position (Freidel et al. 1993: 91) (Figure 6.2). The paddlers may be the key actors in the scene, as in the crocodile canoe the Old Jaguar Paddler and the Stingray Paddler depicted on the other bones are replaced by Itzamna. They propel the Milky Way canoe to the place of creation where they set the hearth stones, identified as the three stars in the belt of the constellation Orion, just visible at the zenith right before dawn. An unprovenienced obsidian eccentric appears to corroborate this. Carved into the shape of an arching crocodilian beast with deer ears, there appear to be passengers emerging along the animal's back, riding it as it sinks on a downward trajectory (Freidel et al. 1993: 91; Kerr online archive 2009: K2822) (Figure 6.17).

Furthermore, Tedlock (1996: 211) recounts that together, Zipacna and Earthquake of the

Popol Vuh, probably correspond to the two-headed celestial monster of Classic Maya iconography.

Human figures

Crocodile head with antlers

Figure 6.17. Unprovenienced obsidian eccentric in the form of the Cosmic Monster. The head of the animal is down to the right, with deer antlers supporting the Cosmic Monster (rather than Earth Monster) designation. The human figures wearing elaborate head gear emerge seamlessly from the saurian beast's back (modified after K2822). 157

The crocodile tree is also inter-related to these concepts as the Milky Way in its north- south position, cleft at the horizon, in the sky after dusk, before it rotates to the east-west position later in the night.

The Cosmic Monster is the one of the most frequently depicted crocodilian icons in the selection of images considered in this study. However, there are numerous depictions that appear with iconography related to the earth (witz signs on the Quirigua zoomorphs, for example) and creation (the heads of the beast vomiting liquid). As

Thompson (1970: 218) noted, "In the monumental art of the Classic period, there is a constant blending of the sky and earth aspects of Itzamna, and that is surely done to call attention to the fact that the two are not separable." Therefore, the Cosmic Monster can be seen as a composite creature not only in form, but function and meaning as well.

Creation

Crocodiles are thought by the Maya to be related to both the creation and destruction of the world. In the Popol Vuh, the Quiche Maya story of the dawn of life, a crocodilian monster by the name of Zipacna claimed to be the maker of the mountains and creator of the world: ".. .and this is Zipacna, this is the one to build up the great mountains...they were brought forth by Zipacna in a single night" (Tedlock 1996: 77).

In Classic Maya text and iconography there are indications that a crocodilian was involved in the creation of the world. A hieroglyphic platform from Temple XIX at

Palenque, dated to 734 CE, begins with an account of a series of cosmic events that occurred during the final bak'tun of the previous creation, including the enthronement of

God GI in the sky on March 10, 3309 BCE (Garcia 2006: 1). Of primary interest for the discussion here, the text also discusses a decapitation and flooding event that happened 158

11 years prior in which a crocodile with star or deer attributes was decapitated. Once slain, the world-destroying flood crocodilian became the ordered earth floating in the cosmic sea. Drilling the fire is a ceremony that usually follows the destruction of the world. This phrase is followed by the text "and then it was formed", describing the formation of the new cosmic order (Garcia 2006: 4).

There are some examples of art from the Classic period which may represent the decapitation event described on the hieroglyphic platform. These are generally depictions of crocodile heads vomiting a torrential liquid which is decorated with conch shells, jade beads, small bones, rows of dots, completion signs and k'an and yax logograms (Garcia

2006: 3). These elements have been all associated with the symbolism of blood (Scheie and Miller 1986; Stuart 1988). This image of a celestial crocodile pouring blood is suggestive of a flood or torrential rain. A stucco representation from House E of the palace at Palenque is one such example (Figure 6.18).

^^Crocodilian Cosmic _*—i_T Monster head

"Torrent of blood Figure 6.18. Cosmic Monster vomiting torrents of blood as part of a creation/destruction event, House E of the Palace, Palenque. The crocodilian head is visible on the top left corner (modified after Scheie and Miller 1986: 45).

It illustrates the bicephlic crocodilian Cosmic Monster with a torrent of blood flowing

from each head. A much later image from the Postclassic Dresden Codex (Figure 6.19)

demonstrates considerable similarities to the Palenque House E modeled stucco. 159

Figure 6.19. Crocodilian (head encircled) from the Dresden Codex with a skyband body vomiting a torrent of liquid from its mouth (modified after Garcia 2006: 6). Like that image, a crocodilian with a skyband-like body is depicted vomiting torrential liquid, but this is identified as water rather than blood by Garcia (2006: 8).

For the Maya, the crocodile embodies the primordial beast from which the earth is both destroyed and created. It is symbolic of the cycle of death and rebirth which permeates Maya cosmology and calendrics (Pugh 2001: 248). Taube (1989) relates the inscription of calendrics upon the back of earth crocodiles featured in Postclassic period art to this cycle (Coba [Figure 6.5], Santa Rita mural, Mayapan altar). A passage contained in the Relacion de la ciudad de Merida shares similar themes confirming a continuity of belief:

.. .the world shall end by fire, and in order to signify this they performed a ceremony where they painted a caiman that meant the Deluge and the Earth, upon which caiman they made a great pile of wood and put it on fire.. .understanding.. .that it was the fire that shall finish them all (De la Garza 1983,1:72 in Garcia 2006: 5). 160

However, this passage relates not to a past flood event, but to a future one in which the earth suffers a deluge not only by water, but also fire. Bench XIX at Palenque, discussed above, appears to corroborate the inclusion of fire (hearths? - see Cosmic Monster above) in the creation event.

An important passage in the Chilam Balam Book ofMani (with a similar account in the Chilam Balam Book ofTizimiri) describes an almost identical flooding event, preceded by an eclipse and caused by a celestial caiman whose head was severed, to build new cosmological order out of its dismembered remains (thus creating the earth crocodile):

Oxlahun ti Ku [the Thirteen Gods] and Bolon ti Ku [the Nine Gods] created the world and life; there was also born Itzam Cab Ain [Iguana Earth Crocodile]. [Ah Mesencab] turned the sky and the Peten upside down, and Bolon ti Ku raised up Iztam Cab Ain; there was a great cataclysm, and the ages ended with a flood.. .Bolon ti Ku refused to permit Itzam Cab Ain to take the Peten and destroy the things of the world, so he cut the throat of Itzam Cab Ain and with his body formed the surface of the Peten (Craine and Reindorp 1979: 118).

It is generally believed that the 13 {oxlahun) and the nine {bolon) gods refer to the sky and earth respectively, as the sky was considered to have thirteen levels, and the earth, nine (Taube 1988: 136). Following this passage, there is a description of the erection of four trees in each cardinal direction to hold up the world with one in the middle of the earth as a record of the destruction. The crocodile tree may be inter-related as Taube

(1988: 171) describes, "...along with serving as the axis mundi of the world, the caiman tree is also a testimony to the past and possibly future flooding of the world by the great earth monster." The crocodile pillar of the sky is the same force which destroyed the 161

previous world. A Postclassic mural from Structure Q95 at the site of Mayapan shows a crocodilian trussed up like a sacrificial victim, presumably in preparation for the decapitation event (Figure 6.20).

The formation of the earth from the body of the butchered crocodile is almost identical to

Aztec creation accounts the floating Tlaltecuhtli is torn in half by Quetzacoatl and

Tezcatlipoca in the form of great serpents. From the halves of the earth monster, the earth and sky were created (Taube 1988: 139). It is also increasingly apparent in these accounts that the crocodile in Earth Monster and Cosmic Monster forms may have been one and the same creature, simultaneously responsible for the creation and destruction of the world.

Figure 6.20. Crocodile bound for sacrifice on a mural from Structure Q95, Mayapan (centre right of the image) (modified after Houston et al. 2006: 91).

There is some evidence that these life and death struggles and sacrifice were re- enacted by the Maya and other Mesoamericans on the stage of the ballcourt. Gillespie

(1991: Figure 16.7) shows that some sacrifice and dismemberment in the ballcourt involved a crocodile that torn apart, as in a scene from the Codex Borgia (pg 35) (Figure

6.21). 162

Figure 6.21. The sacrifice and dismemberment of a crocodile in a ballcourt, from the Codex Borgia (pg. 35) (modified after Gillespie 1991: Figure 16.7).

The Maya ballcourt has been linked to the rebirth of the Hero Twins, as recounted in the

Popol Vuh, during which sacrifice was a central component (Scheie and Miller 1986:

243). Thus, death allowed rejuvenation to take place and was not the end, but the beginning of new life.

Costumes

Until this point, the majority of interpretations have been based largely on

iconography with additional evidence from ethnographic and ethnohistoric sources.

Zooarchaeological assemblages can attest to the use of crocodile skins and heads (in

particular) as elements of ornamentation or costume worn by the ancient Maya.

I have discussed iconographical and zooarchaeological evidence for Olmec

crocodile costumes (Chapter 2). There are numerous depictions of humans wearing

crocodile masks, as well as the entire skin of the animal. The most common explanation

for these images is transformative, (i.e., the transformation of a shaman into a crocodilian

being). The other explanation is that the crocodile is viewed as a guardian spirit, what the

Maya would term a way (Joralemon 1976: 43; Tate 1996: 62). 163

The way is a companion spirit or animal, the protector or totem of humans or supernatural entities (Houston and Stuart 1989: 13). In reality, they could be manifested through the wearing of masks and costumes worn in dance. Through dance and ritual, the

Maya believed they could transform themselves into their animal patron (Freidel et al.

1993: 260-267). The ancient Maya also transformed into their wayob (plural of way) when fighting wars and likely saw the constellations as the wayob of their gods and ancestors (Freidel et al. 1993: 192). In Maya art it is rulers who are shown with, or as, their wayob. Rulers were the chief shamans of the ancient Maya people, acting as intermediaries between this world and the realm of the spirits through the letting of blood or the ingestion of psychotropic plants (Scheie and Freidel 1990: 68). In a shamanic trance, the ruler could go beyond the world of normal perception, travelling in his spirit body, assuming the characteristics of certain animals (Labbe 1995: 73).

Humans wearing animal headdresses are a common image in Maya art. By clothing themselves in a specific animal's skin, fur, feathers, fangs and claws, the Maya embodied their vital spirits and power. In the case of crocodiles, with the above interpretations taken into account, an individual could take on the aspects of not just the animal, but also the Earth and Cosmic Monster it represents (by wearing a crocodile costume) or impersonating those great beings. The splayed crocodile figure decorating the top of Altar T at Copan has been described as depicting a human being dressed in the skin of a crocodile (Baudez 1994: 101). Lending further credence to this, the crocodile

skin worn by the Atlihuayan figure in Olmec art closely resembles that on Altar T.

Furthermore, on the sides of the monument are seated figures, shown in profile wearing

animal masks, one of which is a crocodile (Baudez 1994: 103). 164

In a painted scene of musicians from the Bonampak murals, a seated figure is depicted in a green crocodile mask adorned with a waterlily next to the Maize god and a person in a crustacean mask (Miller 1986: 88) (Figure 6.22).

Figure 6.22. Human figure wearing crocodile costume, with a waterlily sprouting from its head. Bonampak Murals, Room 1 (modified after Scheie 2005: Photo 79006).

Another dancing figure from a Postclassic mural at Tancah is adorned with not just a

crocodile mask, but the entire skin (Figure 6.23).

Figure 6.23. A dancing figure wearing a full-body crocodile costume decorated with day signs, from a mural at Tancah (modified after Miller 1982: Plate 8).

This associates the crocodile mask with dancing, music, and celebration (Houston et al.

2006: 269). A huge mask adorning a structure at the site of Lamanai shows the face of a 165

person (possibly a ruler) with a crocodile headdress (Pendergast 1981: 38). A similar rendition can be found on a Postclassic pottery maskette from the same site.

There is zooarchaeological evidence which may corroborate these conclusions. In the earliest find of a crocodile or its image in the Maya lowlands, a crocodile mandible was excavated from a structure cache at the site of Cahal Pech dating to the terminal

Early Preclassic. Awe (1992: 130) describes it as a costume element based on the identification of a very similar Preclassic find at Fabrica San Jose in Oaxaca (Flannery

1976). In the Early Classic, another crocodile mandible was discovered at Altar de

Sacrificios, but with modifications to the anterior portion. There is a worked groove parallel to the long axis of the jaw as well as some polishing from wear (Olsen 1972:

245). Pohl (1983: 81) specifically identifies it as part of a ceremonial dance costume worn by impersonators of the supernatural.

At Tikal, two ahaus went by the appellation, Yax Nuun Ayiin or "First Crocodile".

Yax Nuun Ayinn II can be seen in a scene painted on a ceramic vessel wearing a headdress with a curl-snouted crocodilian (Figure 6.24).

Figure 6.24. Rollout of vase depicting the use of a crocodile headdress by Yax Nuun Ayiin II of Tikal, the figure centre right, holding a staff (K2695). 166

The occurance of a complete crocodile skeleton and crocodile pendant in the burial of

Yax Nuun Ayiin likely indicates this animal was the ruler's way. The glyph representing the name is in the form of a crocodile head with an upturned or curled snout, and fanged teeth, resulting in the appellation "Curl Snout", before the glyph was phonetically translated.

Naturalistic Crocodiles

Crocodiles were also depicted in ancient Maya art in more naturalistic form than the supernatural saurians of cosmic significance. Three dimensional objects like figurines tend to be one such type of representation. A Preclassic zoomorphic slate effigy figurine in the form of a crocodile head was recovered from excavations at Cahal Pech (Figure

6.25).

Figure 6.25. Slate crocodile effigy figurine from Structure B-4 Cahal Pech. The drilled/incised eyes are to the left of the image and the snout tapers off to the right (image courtesy of Dr. Jaime Awe).

A jade pendant from Tomb B-l at Kaminaljuyu is quite similar in form, with concentric

circles around the eyes and incisions on the snout. Reminiscent of both of these examples

is a third pendant, made of bone, from Tikal, with the features delineated by incision, but

which may have once had a separate lower jaw.

Three pendants are carved from jade in this sample. This may be significant as the

Maya held the stone to be "the single most precious material on earth" (Miller and O'Neil 167

2010: 33). Jade typically symbolized maize, and crocodiles carved of the material may be related to agricultural fertility.

A bone carving with a broken off head and unknown provenience is shaped in the form of a probable crocodile (Figure 6.26). An inscription with full-figure glyphs runs down the animal's underside (Miller and Martin 2004: 140). This recalls "the caiman with a painted back" from Maya creation myths, and the calendrical glyphs often inscribed on crocodilian art from the Postclassic period, with the main difference here being that the glyphs are upon the creature's belly instead.

Crocodile head broken off

Figure 6.26. Unprovenienced bone crocodile figurine, naturalistic in appearance. The underbelly (left image) is carved with a hieroglyphic text and the top (right image) is a naturalistic rendering of the crocodile's back (modified after Miller and Martin 2004:140).

At the site of Comalcalco, a number of fired bricks dating to the Terminal Classic period with incisions or modeling were excavated. On one such brick there is a clear rendition of

a modeled crocodile. At Jaina, an ocarina or rattle in the form of a blue-painted crocodile likely originated in a burial context (Figure 6.27). 168

Figure 5.33. Naturalistic crocodile ocarina or rattle from Jaina, with original blue paint still intact. Note the hole in the outward facing side towards the rear of the animal's mid-section (modified after Schmidt et al.: 515 Cat#12).

An Early Classic unprovenienced crocodile effigy vessel also takes on the full form of the

crocodile's body (Figure 5.1).

The symbolism behind the naturalistic crocodile depictions is unknown beyond

simple aesthetics. Since they are usually rendered in three dimensions without

accompanying text or iconography (i.e., human beings, vegetation, water), it was not

possible to offer an interpretation. These depictions likely had some meaning(s) to the

ancient Maya and may be connected to the more obvious symbolism discussed above.

Zooarchaeology - Ritual Behaviour

It is apparent from primarily iconographic and ethnographic sources that the

crocodile is an animal treated with considerable reverence among the Maya, both ancient

and modern. In the above discussion regarding costumes, it became evident that the

zooarchaeological data supports some of these conclusions, the extent to which will be

explored in the following discussion. On its own, the zooarchaeological data is not large

in terms of total numbers of crocodilian remains found (MNI=78), compared to remains

of some other animals at the same sites. However, in utilizing the zooarchaeological data

set in conjunction with the iconography, and in addition to the ethnographic and 169

ethnohistoric record, a stronger argument can be made for the importance of the crocodile as a symbol to the ancient Maya.

In Chapter 4,1 outlined the criteria for differentiating ritual deposits of animal bones from secular ones, and determined, primarily based on context (burial, cache, elite), that slightly more than half of the known contexts constituted indications of ritual behaviour (i.e., Laguna de On, Lamanai). These types of deposits could represent the use of living crocodiles as physical manifestations of the concepts already outlined with regard to iconography.

Other types of more subtle ornamentation involving crocodiles are apparent in the zooarchaeological record as well. Teeth from the sites of Dzibilchaltun (1) and Altar de

Sacrificios (2) are recorded as having been drilled, likely so they could be suspended and

worn. Similarly, a crocodile necklace (of teeth?) was buried with an individual in an elite

compound (Burial VII-36) at Copan. There is evidence from the iconographic data set in the form of pendants which corroborates the use of the crocodile and its image for

personal ornamentation. Crocodile ornaments may have served a more magical purpose

as well. In the Peruvian Montana, wearing a crocodile tooth was supposed to protect one

from poisoning (Steward, 1948: 532), and perhaps something similar operated among the

ancient Maya.

Furthermore, these pendants and ornaments are largely found in burial contexts,

perhaps in lieu of the actual animal (if too difficult to acquire). Crocodile bones appear in

six elite Maya burials, which include Burial 10 at Tikal, in addition to two burials from

Copan, one from Dzibilchaltun, one at Pacbitun, and one at Kaminaljuyu. The bones in

Tomb A-III from Kaminaljuyu consisted of dermal scutes only and associated with 170

offerings accompanying the main burial. This is very similar to Burial XXXVII-8 at

Copan, where the dermal scutes of a crocodile were found lying atop the capstones.

Interestingly, below the crocodile scutes was the carcass of a deer, found with bound legs, beheaded and burned. The inclusion of these two animals together suggests possible cosmological significance since the Cosmic Monster in Maya iconography is usually portrayed as a crocodilian beast with some deer characteristics. Burial VIII-36 from the

Copan periphery is a slightly different scenario, where indeterminate crocodile remains were found interred with the deceased, but also in association with a deer. The Pacbitun assemblage consisted of a single crocodile tooth found in association with a possible elite burial. I will consider the Dzibilchaltun burial below, as the crocodile bone here was actually part of a separate cache associated with the burial of a child.

Caches are another ceremonially significant way crocodile bones were deposited by the ancient Maya. There were six of these contexts with crocodile bones found in the course of this study. The term "cache" (literally "a hiding place" ) refers to "one or more objects found together, but apart from burials, whose grouping and situation point to intentional internment as an offering" (Coe 1959: 77). The majority of Maya offerings were intentionally hidden in some way and were distinguishable from utilitarian storage of materials by their ritual content, location and function (Coe 1965: 462). Furthermore, there are indications that burials and caches were not distinct categories to the ancient

Maya. Caches and burials have been linked together as subsets of a single category of

"earth offerings" (Becker 1988:119). The hieroglyph for cache is essentially skeletal jaws enfolding upwards, indicating both the underground position of the deposit as well as its connection to the Underworld (Chase and Chase 1998: 304). It appears that the crocodile 171

interments found in the caches at Tikal were actually burials with a saurian as the principle occupant (rather than a human) particularly since adult animals were interred whole. Associated "grave" goods were similar in all cases, obsidian and other lithic

flakes, pottery vessels, and animals, usually aquatic (e.g., turtle, marine shell, stingray

spines). One of the offerings (Cache 140) at Tikal had a second, smaller crocodilian

occupant in addition to a larger animal, described as the "foremost occupant," similar to

Maya elite graves which contained the remains of sacrificial victims accompanying the primary interment (Wright 2005). It seems likely that crocodiles assumed some sort of

special significance at the site of Tikal in the Early Classic, likely related to the ruler Yax

Nuun Ayiin I. Only one other Maya cache was found to contain the remains of a complete

crocodilian. Dating to the Late Classic, a cache from La Joyanca contained the remains of

numerous tiny, mostly juvenile animals. The use of juveniles in conjunction with the

context (a cache) is indicative of ritual, as well as creation and fertility (which links to

earth iconography). Other examples of young crocodiles in faunal assemblages included

a single subadult vertebra recovered in excavations of an elite residence at Motul de San

Jose and several frontal bones from a subadult crocodile were recorded by Olsen (1972)

at Altar de Sacrificios.

The other caches under consideration, the "Jeweler's Cache" from Terminal

Classic Dzibilchaltun and the Early Preclassic cache from Cahal Pech, contained only a

single crocodile element each. At Dzibilchaltun, the cache consisted of 32 objects,

including a single crocodile tooth, perhaps included as a blood letting implement. Sharp

objects such as stingray spines or obsidian bladelets used to draw blood are usually

deposited in caches as blood opened the portal to the Otherworld (Freidel et al. 1993: 172

244-246). The Cahal Pech cache contained a single crocodile mandible which was likely cached due to its use as part of a ritual dance costume.

Elite contexts, too, probably indicate a ritual purpose for the utilization of crocodiles. Rituals involving the elite could serve to legitimate social hierarchy or manage the redistribution of resources (Emery 2004c: 104). These tended to be exclusionary in nature and emphasized the rare and inaccessible, which could include fauna, their sacrifice, and consumption. Since crocodiles appear more frequently in high status and site core contexts (n=l 1 or 18% of contexts) rather than low status and peripheral areas (n=4 or 6.5% of contexts), it seems more likely that they were considered

an animal of significance which was not for utilization in day to day activities and was preserved instead for special occasions. Furthermore, Emery (2004c: 104-105) notes that

".. .these rituals celebrate life cycles or annual time cycles, but...they also emphasized competition between groups as competitive feasting or displays of material wealth." This has important implications for the inclusion of crocodiles in such contexts. A celebration

of life cycles might have included crocodiles due to their fertility symbolism as the

metaphorical surface of the earth. Stanchly (2007) noted the presence of crocodiles on a

feasting platform at Lamanai, suggesting some sort of conspicuous consumption that

involved the crocodile (in addition to other animals). As part of this, he noted that the

majority of the assemblage consisted of cranial bones. Similarly, Masson (2004)

described an elite assemblage from Postclassic Laguna de On that contained 42 crocodile bones, 39 of which were from the cranium. These displays could also include the use of

totem species (at the group or lineage level) as well as performance and dance (Emery

2004c: 105). I have already discussed above the possibility of crocodile skins and heads 173

utilized as dance costumes by the ancient Maya. Cranial elements also appeared in caches. The mandible interpreted as dance costumes from Cahal Pech may have been in a dispersed cache (found in structure fill). Ethnohistorically, crocodile heads are used today to ensure aguadas will retain water. Three heads are place in a pot in the bottom of a newly constructed aguada (Kitty Emery, personal communication, 2010). This suggests a link between earth and fertility symbolism to zooarchaeological behaviours.

Crocodiles may have been deliberately chosen to be deposited in these ritual contexts, accompanying the burials of primarily elite individuals, caches, and in elite compounds, due to their aforementioned metaphorical and cosmological significance in

Maya iconography. Living crocodiles were likely utilized for feasting or caching because they embodied the Earth Monster, the Cosmic Monster, and the forces of creation and destruction.

Zooarchaeology - Secular Behaviour

The final category addresses the function/meaning of crocodiles in secular society. As indicated in Chapter 4, contexts indicative of household and low status behaviour involving the crocodile were the midden and structure fill. Crocodiles in my zooarchaeological sample were found in both structure fill contexts (n=7) and lower status middens (n=4).

Crocodiles were described by some archaeologists as being part of an assemblage classified as food refuse. Some of these contexts are elite in nature and the crocodiles may have been consumed as part of a feasting event, such as the remains recovered from a ceremonial platform (N10-10) at Lamanai. The assemblage from Postclassic Colha was defined as dietary in nature (Shaw 1991: 230), as was the majority of Lamanai data. The 174

bulk of the crocodile bones from Cozumel were determined to be from household contexts as well, establishing a pattern in the Postclassic for lower status or more dietary use of the crocodile. In the Late Classic, crocodile bones from the sites of the Xibun

Valley were identified as belonging to food refuse, with one highly charred bone from the

Augustine Obispo site. Crocodile meat is reportedly very tasty, but only that from the muscular tail (Pohl 1976: 179). Curiously, in a consideration of the skeletal elements

(where these are reported), tail elements (caudal vertebrae) did not appear to predominate over any other body parts (see Chapter 4). This suggests that the crocodile, if eaten, did not appear on the Maya menu with great regularity.

Ethnographic reports corroborate the use of crocodiles as a food animal by the

Maya. Villa Rojas (1969: 231, 238) reports that the Chontal and the Kekchi Maya both eat reptiles, as do other Mesoamericans like the Mixtec (Ravicz and Romney 1969: 372), and Huave (Diebold 1969: 483). A southern subgroup of the Lancandon Maya apparently esteems the crocodile as food and the animal's skins are traded (Baer and Merrifield

1971: 241). Unfortunately, due to poor preservation, there is no archaeological evidence for the trade of crocodilian by-products, like skins, by the ancient Maya. There is considerable evidence, however, that the skins were utilized as parts of ceremonial costumes.

There has been some surprise registered at the lack of crocodile bones in zooarchaeological assemblages coastal and riverine areas. Masson (2004: 112), with reference to the Northern River Lagoon faunal assemblage, stated, "[i]t is notable that so few sea turtle, manatee and crocodile were present at the site, given the high yield potential of these larger game animals." This could be related to the powerful and 175

predatory nature of the crocodile, which probably made it difficult to hunt and kill them.

But, maybe this is also a reflection of the way crocodiles were revered by the ancient

Maya. Perhaps they were protected animals (as postulated by Pendergast 1981: 38) and the utilization of their image maya have been a more appropriate way of showing respect, or, maybe their remains were disposed of in some special manner which has gone undetected (Cooke 1992). Hallowell (1926), in a discussion of ethnographic accounts regarding the disposal of sacred animals, recounts the special treatment of the bear by native groups. The bones of the animal are generally disposed of in such a manner that they would likely not appear in an archaeological assemblage. For example, the Plains

Ojibway wrap the bear bones and place them in a tree, while the Menomini throw the bones in the river to "prevent dogs from chewing on them..." and thereby showing disrespect (Hallowell 1926: 139-140). Turtle bones are considered "dangerous trash" by the modern Itzaj Maya and are not discarded in middens because of their dense cortex and danger for dogs (Emery and Brown 2008; Kitty Emery, personal communication,

2010). This may be true for crocodiles as well, as they have similar bone cortex. These types of reasons may be why very few crocodiles, in general, are found in archaeological assemblages, and why there is a paucity of remains from an animal that likely had a high meat yield.

The relative absence of crocodiles in refuse contexts and, in general, compared to some other animals may also be related to its potential medicinal power. Modern ethnography indicates that crocodiles are an animal which is used for medicinal purposes by the Maya. Pohl (1976: 179) reports that the internal organs of the animal are known to have been used by the Maya of Belize for potions. Among the Itzaj Maya of the Peten 176

Lakes district of Guatemala, Emery and Brown (2008: 7) describe the crocodile as animal that is only to be used medicinally (to cure rheumy-eyed children) and would not be permitted entry into the house for any other reason. To the Lacandon Maya, it is believed that the enamel from the crocodile tooth, when drunk with water, can cure a headache

(Baer and Merrifield 1971: 235).

Ethnographies may also shed some light on the differential use of the skeleton. It was mentioned earlier that there is an overrepresentation of cranial bones in assemblages which likely had some ritual significance. However, medicinal animal use may also be responsible for this distribution. The Itzaj Maya describe the medicinal curation (for later use as medicine) of the heads of numerous animals (Emery and Brown 2008: 5). The crocodile was not one of those explicitly listed. However, crocodiles and several other creatures, like pacas, hawks, owls, and a suite of small rodents, were curated with their whole bodies intact (Emery and Brown 2008: 5-6). Among traditional hunters, heads and feet do not generally return home, and are discarded at the kill site unless the animal is going to be curated. This could provide an alternative explanation for those crocodiles that were cached whole at Tikal and La Joyanca.

Medicine was closely associated with benevolent magic in pre-Spanish Yucatan

(Roys 1965: ix). The Ritual of the Bacabs is a Colonial period Maya document that consists largely of medicinal incantations, some of which involve the supplication of the crocodile in the form of Itzam Cab Ain, the earth crocodile, and Chac-mumul-ain, great- muddy-crocodile. Itzam Cab Ain is cited in incantations for asthma, the placenta, and cooling water on the fire (Roys 1965: 152). Chac-mumul-ain, in association with Chac- uayab-xoc (great-ominous-shark), are named in an incantation for ulcers (Roys 1965: 177

146). A similar creature named Sac-mumul-ain (white-muddy-crocodile) and a shark called Sac-uayab-xoc (white-demon-shark) are related to an incantation of traveler seizure, involving diarrhea and fever (Roys 1965: 8).

Spatiotemporal Trends

In the above discussion, the meaning of crocodiles as they appear in iconography and how that is expressed in the zooarchaeology was elucidated with the aid of Colonial period documents and ethnographies. Although it is somewhat difficult to correlate the meaning of the crocodile in iconography to the zooarchaeology, the frequency of bones in ritual contexts, in addition to other factors like the propensity of cranial bones to appear more regularly than other skeletal elements, suggests a likely relationship between the crocodile's cosmological significance and its appearance in the archaeological record.

Furthermore, the relative paucity of crocodile bones at Maya sites, compared to other animals, may indicate a reverence of the animal which included the disposal of their remains in a manner which would not appear zooarchaeologically, or that the animal was deliberately left in its natural environment.

In Chapters 4 and 5, geographic and temporal trends for the individual data sets were discussed. The iconography did not exhibit the clear spatial patterns that were apparent in zooarchaeology, in which three clear zones of crocodile exploitation occur: north coastal Belize, the Peten region of Guatemala and adjacent Belize, and the northern lowlands of the Yucatan. One of my research questions focused on the proximity of sites with crocodile remains and images to the crocodile's natural habitat, bodies of water. For the zooarchaeological data, 80% of identified sites were within an appropriate water 178

source, with only two sites at a significant distance away. Seventy-one percent of sites containing crocodile iconography were located within 5km of these water bodies, but there were also several that were 10 or 20km away. Therefore, while the presence of water, the crocodile's natural habitat, was significant in the number of sites that contained its image, it is apparent that the crocodile was still of some importance even for the Maya located at quite a distance from their natural habitat. No indication of trade of crocodile meat (bones) is readily apparent, but since the habitat of the crocodile (both American and Morelet's) covers such an extensive area, encompassing most of the Maya subarea, this is hardly surprising. Crocodiles were probably used locally because they were available there. They likely achieved importance as the ultimate predator in a watery ecosystem that was manipulated by the Maya for food production.

In examining the two data sets together, it was evident that very few sites in the sample had both crocodile iconography as well as zooarchaeological evidence. Perhaps these locales were places where the animal was of particular importance or where more extensive excavations have been conducted. Only six sites out of the total of 40 that were examined had both. Lamanai had the largest zooarchaeological assemblage of crocodiles, in addition to numerous depictions of the animal, underscoring the etymology of the site's name, meaning "submerged crocodile." The site is one of very few Maya sites for which records of the ancient name have survived. It appears on a church list dated to

1582 CE (Pendergast 1981: 31; Roys 1957: 63). Lamanai was visited by Fathers

Bartolome de Fuensalida and Juan de Orbita in 1618 CE (Pendergast 1981: 31).

Historical documents record the site name as both Lamanay and Lamayna suggesting considerable Spanish confusion with Maya place names. Thompson suggested a reading 179

of laman/ai meaning "drowned insect", which Pendergast (1981: 31) notes "hardly appears to be sufficiently pretentious for a major center." Instead, it is posited by

Pendergast that perhaps with the aforementioned linguistic confusion the Spanish had neglected to hear a final "n" in the site name, which would change it to Lama'an/ayin meaning instead "submerged crocodile." Considering the numerous examples of crocodilians in art found at the site, the zooarchaeological data recovered from Lamanai, and the proximity of the site to a lagoon that is home to many crocodiles in the present day, it seems likely that the second reading of the site name is the more accurate one.

The crocodile also enjoyed special significance at the site of Tikal, likely due to the ruler, First Crocodile. Copan, too, had a significant number of crocodile images as well as skeletal remains which were associated with burials. Cahal Pech was also special in this regard, with all the crocodile paraphernalia associated with a single building,

Structure B-4, and all material dating to the Preclassic. This suggests a potential ritual tie of the crocodile to that site, located at the confluence of two rivers (Mopan and Macal) at this very early time. Kaminaljuyu had several crocodile images, ranging from stelae to pendants, as well as some crocodilian scutes that were found in a burial context. Finally,

Mayapan included the animal's image on large scale monuments, with 21 crocodile bones from contexts in the site core and 10 from the periphery. As such, it appears that the crocodile was particularly prominent at some Maya sites of both the lowlands and the highlands.

In comparison, some temporal trends are also apparent, with both iconographic depictions and skeletal remains occurring from the Preclassic period through the

Postclassic, and even into the present day. Beyond the change in emphasis on sites 180

located in the southern lowlands during the Preclassic through the Late Classic, to sites in the northern lowlands in the Postclassic (following the collapse), there were additional patterns visible. In the iconographic assemblage, the overwhelming majority of images

are from the Late Classic period, followed by the Early Classic, and the Postclassic. The

zooarchaeological assemblage is more difficult to assess given the quantification

difficulties described previously. MNI data are probably the most comparable to the

iconography (1 image= 1 animal). With a statement by Pohl (1976: 167) that indicated

hunting and deforestation must have reduced animal populations by the Late Classic and

Postclassic, and Stocker et al.'s (1980: 720) similar assertions about the decline of

animals in Preclassic Oaxaca, I expected that I would have the least number of crocodiles

zooarchaeologically in the Late Classic period, with a rise in the number of iconographic

depictions at the same time to replace the animals that were becoming less available.

However, this does not appear to be the case. The overwhelming majority of crocodiles in

the zooarchaeological record appear in the Postclassic period, which also had a

considerable amount of iconography. The Late Classic had the second most individuals

represented, followed by the Early Classic. It is apparent, then, that during the Postclassic

the crocodile was a very significant animal for the Maya, perhaps related to the advent of

Itzam Cab Ain, a crocodilian entity that does not appear to be present (or at least as

significant) in earlier time periods.

In terms of context, by time period, the Early Classic had the most ritually

significant deposits zooarchaeologically by ratio, with an MNI of seven individuals from

burial or cache contexts (of 12 total). Second highest representation in this regard was the

Late Classic with eight individuals from elite assemblages (of 19) and, finally, the 181

Postclassic with six animals (of 32) from elite assemblages. Unfortunately, the majority of contexts containing the faunal remains of crocodiles were "unknown".

The comparable iconographic data is the meaning(s) of the crocodiles depicted

(Earth Monster, Cosmic Monster, and so on). The Earth Monster was common in

Preclassic (n=3) and Early Classic (n=5) depictions, as were naturalistic portrayals (n=l and n=5, respectively). Caching of crocodiles, therefore, may be related to the Earth

Monster with their deposition alternatively in the earth itself or in pyramidal structures which are artificial replications of mountains (Vogt and Stuart 2005: 156). The Late

Classic witnessed an increase of Cosmic Monster imagery (n=l 1), although Earth

Monster depictions (n=8) were still apparent. This shift corresponds to the change noted between the deposition of crocodiles in caches and burials to defined elite contexts.

Therefore, while there are some clear trends evident in the spatiotemporal data, such as the proximity to water demonstrated by most sites containing the crocodile's image or remains, other patterns were more challenging to discern. The majority of the faunal remains were from the Postclassic, while most of the images of crocodiles were from the Late Classic. However, it is evident that the crocodile and its image were utilized by the Maya from as early as the end of the Early Preclassic, and this focus continued well past the 16th century Spanish conquest.

Conclusion

Through a detailed examination and comparison of both the zooarchaeological and iconographic data set, it was possible to generate some interpretations as to the potential meaning and function of crocodiles to the ancient Maya. These will be recounted in Chapter 7. The crocodile and its image were utilized most regularly by the 182

Maya residing nearby its natural habitat, but there is limited evidence of potential trade involving both its remains and likeness. Only six sites demonstrated the use of the crocodile's image and its body simultaneously. Temporally, a number of trends were evident as well. Of particular note was the crocodile's ritual prominence during the Early

Classic and its prominence in both iconography and zooarchaeology in the Late Classic. 183

CHAPTER 7; CONCLUSIONS

The main objective of this thesis is to assess the importance of the crocodile to the

ancient Maya and to ascertain its meaning(s) therein. Animals, in general, formed an

integral part of the Maya belief system and were used to understand and order natural

phenomena, as well as providing a model for shaping the cosmos. The crocodile, in

particular, was a central figure in Maya cosmology, as indicated by the regular and

conventional manner in which they appeared in the iconography as the Earth Monster or

Cosmic Monster. This view is further supported by the zooarchaeological data, in which

crocodiles appear somewhat more frequently in contexts associated with a ritual or elite-

class function.

Previous speculations by Mayanists regarding the potential ritual and

cosmological significance of the crocodile have been largely corroborated in this more

comprehensive study (Pendergast 1981; Pohl 1983). The research questions outlined in

Chapter 1 were examined during the course of the previous chapters, and each is

answered here. I have sought to rectify the oversight of the consideration of the crocodile

as an animal of consequence to the ancient Maya, as it has been identified elsewhere in

Mesoamerica (Joralemon 1976; Muse and Stocker 1974; Stocker et al. 1980). Unlike the jaguar, a powerful predator to rival this often large reptile, the crocodile has seldom been

acknowledged in the archaeological literature as a potent symbol to the Maya.

In order to complete the above objective, I designed and outlined five research

questions, with the purpose of understanding the importance and significance of the

crocodile to the ancient Maya. These were raised, and answered, in detail in Chapters 2

through 6, with a consideration of the crocodile elsewhere in Mesoamerica, and its 184

appearance in iconography and the zooarchaeological record of many Maya sites. In order to do so, an extensive database compiling all known iconographic representations

of crocodiles and their skeletal remains was created. This is one of the key contributions

of this study.

Returning to the original research questions posed in Chapter 1:

1) Was the crocodile considered an important animal to the ancient Maya?

In short, yes. This question was answered in the early stages of research during the data acquisition phase. In terms of the icongraphic data set, the animal appeared on

almost every category of art utilized by the Maya, ranging from small portable items

(from media such as bone, shell, slate or greenstone), and ceramics (both painted and

effigy), to the monumental canvases of architecture, stelae, and altars. A total of 66

images from 21 sites were found and analysed. In terms of the zooarchaeological data, at

least 78 (MNI) individual crocodiles were represented in the faunal assemblages of 26

sites and, again, were found in a variety of contexts such as caves, burials, caches, elite

contexts, housemounds, and middens. At a very basic level, these numbers, variable

media and categories of art, and diverse contexts all suggest that the crocodile was

important to the ancient Maya in antiquity.

2) Was it an animal that was exploited for ritual purposes or subsistence? In what

contexts are crocodilian remains found? Is this significant?

To this end, Chapter 4 outlined the zooarchaeological data which supported the use of

crocodiles by the ancient Maya. Through an analysis of context, body portions (skeletal

elements) represented, and bone modifications to the crocodile remains employed for

study, it appears that the animal was exploited in a multi-faceted manner, and for both 185

ritual and secular purposes (subsistence). Based on context, the ritual nature of the animal is marginally more apparent, with slightly more than half of recorded zooarchaeological contexts classified as elite, or ritual (cave, cache or burial). The presence of crocodile remains in some lower status contexts (i.e., housemounds), or general middens, suggested that this animal was used, at times, for more mundane purposes, such as food, but possibly also for medicine. Context was one of the most important factors in determining potential ceremonial usage of the animal (or lack thereof), and my study was hindered to a degree by the large number of unclear or unrecorded contexts for many of the faunal assemblages containing crocodiles, as well as bias in terms of site areas typically excavated (i.e., epicenters as opposed to housemounds). A frequent appearance of cranial bones was also noted. This is suggestive of ritual activity involving crocodiles, as is the utilization of whole animals (i.e., interments atTikal). Modifications such as drilling (to suspend bones or teeth for personal adornment) or burning (in association with a tomb) are further indications of the animal's use and special significance.

Change over time in the crocodile's use was also apparent in the zooarchaeological assemblage. There was more pronounced evidence of ceremonial significance in the Early Classic period (the animal was most often interred in ritual contexts), with an increase in elite use in the Late Classic period. Finally, in the

Postclassic period, the largest number of crocodile remains were found in elite contexts, but were also present in middens and lower status areas as well. The heightened occurrence of crocodile bones in the Postclassic may be linked greater accessibility of the animal or to the rise of Itzam Cab Ain at this time, a new crocodilian deity mentioned in numerous Colonial documents. 186

3) How is the crocodile represented in art and iconography? And on what types of media is it portrayed and why? How can this be correlated to the zooarchaeological data?

A total of 66 Maya images of crocodiles were identified and examined in the course of the iconographical investigation encompassed in Chapter 5. Its image appears to most frequently be tied to cosmological concepts, often in more abstract forms, but it can also appear in a very naturalistic fashion. The cosmological depictions tend to be more stylized in nature as part of an iconographical language explaining, and legitimizing, the social and natural order of the Maya world. The most common way the crocodile appeared in ancient Maya art was as a metaphorical representation of the earth's surface as the Earth Monster, but it also embodied celestial imagery, as in the

Cosmic Monster. As indicated in the Chapter 6, these two beings were not necessarily mutually exclusive. Furthermore, the Cosmic Monster and Earth Monster were linked as the crocodilian responsible for the destruction and subsequent re-creation of the earth - the sky being was sacrificed, with the dismembered remains of the animal forming the terrestrial sphere of the new world. The crocodile's hide and head appeared as costume elements in art, something corroborated by the zooarchaeological data, and crocodiles also appeared in naturalistic portrayals, usually in the form of pendants.

The crocodile's image appears in a variety of art categories including: large scale carved stone monuments, like stelae, and monumental architecture (which most prominently feature cosmological images); as well as on smaller, portable objects, like carved pendants of greenstone, slate, shell and bone. Crocodiles are also quite recognizable on Maya ceramics - either as painted images, or in modeled forms. The contexts for these items tended to be ritual (burials, caches) and elite (monument and 187

architecture from site epicenters) in nature.

In terms of correlation to the zooarchaeological data, this was discussed in detail in

Chapter 6. I argue that the crocodile's more frequent appearance in ritual contexts is likely related to the animal's symbolism as a cosmological figure of considerable import.

The Maya worldview "perceived the natural and supernatural aspects of existence to be one and the same" (Sharer 1994: 513-514), so there may not be any distinction between the physical use of the crocodile and its image. With the zooarchaeological assemblage

alone, it would have been very difficult to fully understand the importance of this animal, but this information serves well to complement the iconographic data, and provided insight into how the animal was integrated into the lives of the ancient Maya.

4) How widespread was the exploitation of this animal and its image in the Maya area?

Did their distribution correlate to site proximity to crocodile habitat? Did this change

over time? Were the Maya alone in Mesoamerica in their interest in this animal?

The sample of images and zooarchaeological assemblages that featured the

crocodile were drawn from a total of 40 Maya sites, from the southern and northern

lowlands as well as one site from the highlands (Kaminaljuyu). Sites included in this

study were located in Belize, Guatemala, Honduras, and the Mexican states of Quintana

Roo, Campeche, and Chiapas. It appears that the importance of the crocodile was largely

a lowland phenomenon, which of course reflects the natural habitat of this reptile. Only

Kaminaljuyu seems to contradict this lowland concentration and distribution. Crocodile

bones and images in the Maya subarea can be dated as early as the terminal Early

Preclassic period (Cahal Pech) and continue well past the Spanish conquest, as is attested

to by the ethnohistoric and ethnographic accounts (ca. 2000 years). There is also Historic 188

period archaeological material (both iconographic and zooarchaeological) from the site of

Lamanai, in particular. Ninety percent of Maya sites which exploited the animal physically were found to be within 5km of an appropriate water source (crocodile habitat). In terms of imagery, 80% of sites with crocodile iconography were found within

5km of water bodies. These findings suggest that proximity to the crocodile's natural habitat was likely significant in its selection for exploitation, although the southern lowlands have an extensive system of waterways (lakes, rivers, bajos, coastal estuaries).

Of more importance, perhaps, is the fact that some bones and images did occur beyond

(even well beyond) the 5km distance, suggesting a greater importance of the crocodile to the ancient Maya, beyond their natural habitat.

The use of the crocodile did change over time, as did the way it appeared in iconography. In the Early Classic period, the focus was on the Earth Monster and crocodile costumes, while in the Late Classic period, there was a shift in emphasis to the

Cosmic Monster in particular and to creation (suggesting increased attention to cosmology).

The Maya were certainly not alone in their interest in the crocodile. As discussed in

Chapter 2, the Olmec, a Preclassic people of the Gulf Coast of Mexico, attached a great deal of importance to the creature with many of the same meanings as the later Maya.

The Izapa culture of southern Mexico also made wide use of the crocodile's image in their iconography during the Late Preclassic and Early Classic periods. It has been argued that the art of these two early Mesoamerican cultures were influential to the ancient

Maya. There is evidence that the Postclassic Toltecs and Aztecs also made use of the crocodile's image, and attributed earth and fertility symbolism to it like the earlier 189

Olmec, Izapa and Maya. Furthermore, there is considerable evidence from Lower Central

America (Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Panama) and South America (the Chavin culture) which indicates the crocodile's importance as a symbol (Helms 1977; Houston-Dickson

2010; Lathrap 1973; Linares 1977). Indeed the crocodile's links to fecundity are not

Mesoamerican alone, but may have been Pan-tropical-American.

6) What meanings were attributed by the Maya to this arguably powerful animal?

This question is answered in Chapter 6 but, in short, the crocodile had multi-

faceted and inter-related meanings to the ancient Maya. This was ascertained through the

study and consolidation of several lines of evidence, including the iconographic and

zooarchaeological data discussed in detail in Chapters 4 and 5, in addition to some insightful ethnographic accounts, and ethnohistoric documents. The crocodile was

associated with the fertile surface of the earth - the source of agricultural wealth - as well

as to water symbolism, which also is related to fertility. The crocodile was a central

aspect of the Maya Cosmic Monster, associated with the sky and creation. It was also

possibly totemic in nature, representative of a lineage, or an individual's spiritual alter-

ego. As such, the skin of the animal could be worn as part of Maya ceremonial practices.

Most importantly, all these meanings were inter-related, at the centre of the Maya belief

system. There "was a perception of reality wherein time, space, the physical world, and

the supernatural realm were continuous, interconnected parts of a universe in which

humans and gods interacted on all levels of existence" (Gallenkamp 1985: 23). The Maya

did not exist in isolation from other Mesoamerican cultures in this regard. The similarity

of meanings attributed to the crocodile suggest influence by many cultures of Central

America, continuity across centuries of time, and deep ritual importance. 190

Although all the research questions were answered to my satisfaction, avenues for future study of the crocodile remain. This study is but a first step in examining the potential importance of this animal to the ancient Maya, and a general overview on which further studies can build. In particular, a comparison of the use of crocodiles and frequency thereof in iconography and faunal assemblages to those of other animals treated with a similar degree of reverence would be useful. This could provide additional insight to the ways the Maya viewed the natural world, and how they co-opted fauna (and flora) to legitimize the state and social order. Furthermore, a comparison of sites containing crocodile paraphernalia (zooarchaeological remains or iconography) to a total number of sites (i.e., including those without crocodile material) in order to gain a better understanding of the crocodile's specific use and overall distribution. In addition, an examination of crocodile usage between the coastal and inland Maya may also show some differences. Another area with potential for continued research concerns the use of the crocodile (and its image) in Lower Central America. This is an area which is less understood archaeologically than Mesoamerica. An assessment of any similarities or differences in the use of crocodiles compared to findings in Mesoamerica or South

America might suggest a transmission of common ideological concepts.

Overall, the synthesis of the data presented in this thesis assigns the crocodile, a pre-eminent aquatic predator, significant symbolic meaning to the ancient Maya. Fauna, in general, formed an integral part of the symbol system of the Maya, in a physical and metaphorical sense, providing an understanding of the natural world and a legitimization of the Pre-columbian cosmic order. Animals, then, tell us a great deal about not just the

Maya and other past peoples, but about ourselves as human beings. Every human society 191

has (or had) some sort of relationship with fauna, either deliberately or passively, as a part of survival in the natural world. The study of how past peoples perceived and related to animals (such as the ancient Maya and the crocodile), and whether they ate or worshipped them, provides insight to the present. It reminds us not to take our modern, often remote, interactions with animals, and their integral role in providing sustenance, companionship, and even spirituality, for granted. References Cited

Ackerman, D. 1988 A Reporter at Large: Crocodilians. The New Yorker (October 10): 42-48.

Andrews, E. Wyllys IV, and E. Wyllys Andrews V 1980 Excavations at Dzibilchaltun, Yucatan, Mexico. Tulane University, Middle American Research Institute, Publication 48, New Orleans.

Andrews, E.W. IV 1969 The Archaeological Use and Distribution ofMollusca in the Maya Lowlands. Tulane University, Middle American Research Institute Publication 34, New Orleans.

Andrews, E.W. IV., M.P. Simmons, E.S. Wing, E.W. Andrews V, and J.M. Andrews 1974 Excavations of an Early Shell Midden on Isla Cancun, Quintana Roo, Mexico. Tulane University, Middle American Research Institute Publication 21. New Orleans.

Andrews, G.F. 1989 Comalcalco, Tobasco, Mexico: Maya Art and Architecture. Labrinthos, Culver City, CA.

Awe, J.J. 1992 Dawn in the Land Between Two Rivers: Formative Occupation at Cahal Pech, Belize and its Implications for Preclassic Development in the Maya Lowlands. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Institute of Archaeology, University of London.

Baer, P., and W.R. Merrifield 1971 Two Studies on the Lacandones of Mexico. Summer Institute of Linguistics Publication 33. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK.

Baker, M. 1992 Capuchin Monkeys (Cebus capucinus) and the Ancient Maya. Ancient Mesoamerica 3: 219-228.

Ballinger, D.A. and J. Stomper 2000 The Jaguars of Altar Q, Copan, Honduras: Faunal Analysis, Archaeology and Ecology. Journal of Ethnobiology 20(2): 223-236. 193

Bardawil, L.W. 1976 The Principal Bird Deity in Maya Art: An Iconographic Study of Form and Meaning. In The Art, Iconography and Dynastic History of Palenque: Part 3, edited by M.G. Robertson, pp. 195-209. Robert Louis Stevenson School, Pebble Beach, CA.

Bartlett, H.H. 1935 A Method of Procedure for Field Work in Tropical American Phytogeography Based upon a Botanical Reconaissance in Parts of British Honduras and the Peten Forest of Guatemala. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC.

Baudez, C. 1994 Maya Sculpture ofCopan: The Iconography. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK.

Becker, M.J. 1988 Caches as Burials; Burials as Caches: The Meaning of Ritual Deposits among the Classic Period Lowland Maya. In Recent Studies in Precolumbian Archaeology, edited by N.J. Saunders and O. de Montmollin, pp. 117-142. BAR International Series 421(i), Oxford.

Belting, H. 2005 Toward an Anthropology of Image. In Anthropologies of Art, edited by M. Westermann, pp. 41-58. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Benson, E.P. 1985 The Classic Maya Uses of Jaguar Accessories. In Fourth Palenque Round Table, 1980, edited by M.G. Robertson and E.P. Benson, pp. 155-158. Pre- Columbian Art Research Institute, Palenque Round Table Series, San Francisco.

1988a The Maya and the Bat. Latin American Indian Literatures Journal 4: 99- 124.

1988b The Eagle and the Jaguar: Notes for a Bestiary. In Smoke and Mist: Mesoamerican Studies in Memory ofThelma D. Sullivan, edited by J.K. Josserand and K. Dakin, pp. 161-171. BAR International Series 402, Oxford. 1988c A Knife in the Water: The Stingray in Mesoamerican Ritual Life. Journal of Latin American Lore 14(2): 173-191.

1991 The Cthonic Canine. Latin American Indian Literatures Journal 7(1): 95- 107.

1994 The Multimedia Monkey, or, The Failed Man: The Monkey as an Artist. In Seventh Palenque Round Table, 1989, edited by M.G. Robertson and V.M. Fields, pp. 137-144. Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute, San Francisco.

1997 Birds and Beasts of Ancient Latin America. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

1998 The Lord, the Ruler: Jaguar Symbolism in the Americas. In Icons of Power: Feline Symbolism in the Americas, edited by N.J. Saunders, pp. 53-76. Routledge, New York.

Benson, E.P. (editor) 1972 The Cult of the Feline: A Conference in Pre-Columbian Iconography. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.

1977 The Sea in the Pre-Columbian World. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.

Benson, E.P,. and B.de la Fuente (editors) 1996 Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico. National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC.

Binford, L.R. 1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28: 217- 225.

Borhegyi, S.F. 1961 Stingray Spines and Shark Fishing in Ancient Mexico and Central America. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 17(3): 273-296.

Brady, J.E., and K.M. Prufer (editors) 2005 In the Maw of the Earth Monster: Mesoamerican Ritual Cave Use. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Brazaitis, P. 1973 The Identification of Living Crocodilians. Zoologica 58: 59-88. 195

Britton, A. 2009a Crocodylus acutus. Electronic Document. http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/cnhc/csp cacu.htm. Accessed September 24, 2010. Crocodilian Biology Database.

2009b Crocodylus moreletti. Electronic Document. http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/cnhc/csp cmor.htm. Accessed September 24, 2010. Crocodilian Biology Database.

Brown, L. 2005 Planting the Bones: Hunting Ceremonialism at Contemporary and Nineteenth-Century Shrines in the Guatemalan Highlands. Latin American Antiquity 16(2): 131-146.

Burland, C.A. 1967 The Gods of Mexico. G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York.

Campbell, J.A. 1998 Amphibians and Reptiles of Northern Guatemala, the Yucatan, and Belize. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK.

Carr, H.S. 1986a Faunal Utilization in a Late Preclassic Maya Community at Cerros, Belize. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Tulane University, New Orleans.

1986b Preliminary Results of Analysis of Fauna. In Archaeology at Cerros, Belize, Central America, edited by R.A. Robertson and D.A. Freidel, pp. 127-136. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas.

1991 The Maya Medicinal Turtle Xkokak and a Suggested Alternate Reading of Two Yucatec Ethnomedical Texts. Journal of Ethnobiology 11(2): 187- 192.

1996 Precolumbian Maya Exploitation and Management of Deer Populations. In The Managed Mosaic: Ancient Maya Agriculture and Resource Use, edited by S.L. Fedick, pp. 251-261. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 196

Chase, D.Z., And A.F. Chase 1988 A Postclassic Perspective: Excavations at the Maya Site of Santa Rita Corozal, Belize. Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute, Monograph 4, San Francisco.

1998 The Architectural Context of Caches, Burials, and Other Ritual Activities for the Classic Period Maya (as Reflected at Caracol, Belize). In Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture, edited by S.D. Houston, pp. 299-332. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.

Coe, M.D. 1962 Mexico: From the Olmecs to the Aztecs. Frederick A. Praeger, New York.

1973 The Maya Scribe and His World. The Grolier Club, New York.

1978 Supernatural Patrons of Maya Scribes and Artists. In Social Process in Maya Prehistory, edited by N. Hammond, pp. 327-347. Academic Press, London.

Coe, M.D., and J. Kerr 1997 The Art of the Maya Scribe. Harry N. Abrams, Inc., New York.

Coe, W.R. 1959 Piedras Negras Archaeology: Artifacts, Caches, and Burials. The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

1990 Excavations in the Great Plaza, North Terrace and North Acropolis of Tikal: Tikal Report No. 14, Volume II and VI. University of Pennsylvania, University Museum Monograph 61, Philadelphia.

Coggins, C.C. 1975 Painting and Drawing Styles at Tikal: An Historical and Iconographic Reconstruction. PhD dissertation, Department of Fine Arts, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

1992 Artifacts from the Cenote of Sacrifice, Chichen Itza. Harvard University, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Memoirs 10(3), Cambridge, MA. 197

Cooke, C.W. 1931 Why the Mayan Cities of the Peten District, Guatemala, Were Abandoned. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 21: 283-287.

Cooke, R.G. 1992 Preliminary Observations on Vertebrate Food Avoidance by the Precolumbian Amerinds of Panama, with Comments on the Relevance of this Behaviour to Archaeozoology and Palaeoenvironmental Reconstruction. In: Archaeology and Environment in Latin America, edited by O.R Ortiz-Troncoso, and T. Van Der Hammen, pp. 59-83. Universiteit van Amsterdam, Instituut Voor Pre-en Protohistoriche Archaeologie, Amsterdam.

Craine, E.R., and R.C. Reindorp (translators and editors) 1979 The Codex Perez and The Book ofChilam Balam ofMani. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK.

Davis-Salazar, K.L 2007 Ritual Consumption and the Origins of Social Inequality in Early Formative Copan, Honduras. In Mesoamerican Ritual Economy: Archaeological and Ethnological Perspectives, edited by E.C. Wells and K.L. Davis-Salazar, pp. 197-220. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Demarest, A. 2004 Ancient Maya: The Rise and Fall of a Rainforest Civilization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Diebold, A.R. Jr. 1969 The Huave. In Handbook of Middle American Indians (Vol. 7), edited by R, Wauchope, pp. 478-488. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Diehl, R.A. 2004 The Olmecs: America's First Civilization. Thames and Hudson, London.

Dobkin de Rios, M. 1974 The Influence of Psychotropic Flora and Fauna on Maya Religion. Current Anthropology 15(2): 147-164. Duran, Fray Diego 1971 Book of the Gods and Rites and the Ancient Calendar. Edited and translated by F. Horcasitas and D. Heyden. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK.

Edmonson, M.S. (translator and editor) 1982 The Ancient Future of the Itza: The Book ofChilam Balam ofTizimin. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Emery, K.F. 1990 Postclassic and Colonial Period Subsistence Strategies in the Southern Maya Lowlands: Faunal Analyses from Lamanai and Tipu Belize. Unpublished MA thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto.

1991 The Secular /Ritual Dichotomy in Animal Use: Final Faunal Analysis, Pacbitun, Belize. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough, ON.

1997 The Maya Collapse: A Zooarchaeological Inquiry. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

1999 Continuity and Variability in Postclassic and Colonial Animal Use at Lamanai and Tipu, Belize. In Reconstructing Ancient Maya Diet, edited by C. White, pp. 61-81. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

2002 The Noble Beast: Status and Differential Access to Animals in the Maya World. World Archaeology 34(3): 498-515.

2003a Natural Resource Use and Classic Maya Economics: Environmental Archaeology at Motul de San Jose, Guatemala. Mayab 16: 33-48.

2003b Maya Zooarchaeology: In Pursuit of Social Variability and Environmental Heterogeneity. In Continuities and Changes in Maya Archaeology: Perspectives at the Millenium, edited by C.W. Golden and G. Borgstede, pp. 193-217. Routledge, New York.

2004a Maya Zooarchaeology: Historical Perspectives on Current Research Directions. In Maya Zooarchaeology: New Directions in Method and 199

Theory, edited by K. Emery, pp. 1-11. Monograph 51, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

2004b In Search of Assemblage Comparability: Methods in Maya Zooarchaeology. In Maya Zooarchaeology: New Directions in Method and Theory, edited by K. Emery, pp. 15-33. Monograph 51, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

2004c Animals from the Maya Underworld: Reconstructing Elite Maya Ritual at the Cueva de los Quetzales, Guatemala. In Behaviour Behind Bones: The Zooarchaeology of Ritual, Religion, Status and Identity, edited by S.J. O'Day, W. Van Neer and A. Ervynck, pp. 101-113. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

2004d Environments of the Maya Collapse: A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Petexbatun. In Maya Zooarchaeology: New Directions in Method and Theory, edited by K. Emery, pp. 81-96. Monograph 51, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Emery, K.F., and L.A. Brown 2008a Negotiations with the Animate Forest: Hunting Shrines and Houses in the Maya Highlands. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 15(4):300-337.

2008b Medicinal Curation and Use of Animals by the Itza Maya of Guatemala: Implications for Zooarchaeology. Invited paper presented at the Canadian Archaeological Association meetings, Peterborough, ON

Emery, K.F., and E. Thornton 2008a Reporte Preliminar de los Restos Faunisticos Recuperados en El Sitio de La Joyanca, Peten, Guatemala. Unpublished report prepared for Instituto de Antropologia e Historia de Guatemala.

2008b Zooarchaeological Habitat Analysis of Ancient Maya Landscape Changes. Journal of Ethnobiology 28(2): 145-322.

Fash, B.W. 2005 Iconographic Evidence for Water Management and Social Organization at Copan. In Copan: The History of an Ancient Maya Kingdom edited by 200

E.W. Andrews I.V., and W.L. Fash, pp.103-138. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Fash, W.L. 1988 A New Look at Maya Statecraft from Copan, Honduras. Antiquity 62: 157-169.

1991 Scribes, Warriors and Kings: The City of Copan and the Ancient Maya. Thames and Hudson, London.

2005 Toward a Social History of the Copan Valley. In Copan: The History of an Ancient Maya Kingdom edited by E.W. Andrews and W.L. Fash, pp. 73- 101. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Fash, B.W., and W.L. Fash 1994 Copan Temple 20 and the House of the Bats. In Seventh Palenque Round Table, 1989, edited by M.G. Robertson and V.M. Fields, pp. 61-67. Pre- Columbian Art Research Institute, San Francisco.

Fasquelle, R.A., and B.W. Fash 2005 The Evolution of Structure 10L-16, Heart of the Copan Acropolis. In Copan: The History of an Ancient Maya Kingdom, edited by E. Wyllys Andrews I.V. and W.L. Fash, pp. 201-238. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Finamore, D., and S.D. Houston 2010 Fiery Pool: The Maya and the Mythic Sea. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Flannery, K.V. 1969 An Analysis of Animal Bones from Chiapa de Corzo, Chiapas. In The Artifacts of Chiapa de Corzo, Chiapas, Mexico, edited by T.A. Lee Jr., pp. 209-218. Brigham Young University, Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation, Col. 26. Provo, UT.

1976 Interregional Religious Networks: Contextual Analysis of Ritual Paraphernalia from Formative Oaxaca. In The Early Mesoamerican Village, edited by K.V. Flannery, pp. 329-345. Academic Press, Inc., Toronto. Flannery, K.V. (editor) 1982 Maya Subsistence: Studies in Memory of Dennis E. Puleston. Academic Press, New York.

Freidel, D., L. Scheie, and J. Parker 1993 Maya Cosmos: Three Thousand Years on the Shaman's Path. William Morrow, New York.

Gallenkamp, C. 1985 The Ancient Maya: Reclaiming a Lost Legacy. In Maya: Treasures of an Ancient Civilization, edited by C. Gallenkamp and R.E. Johnson, pp. 20- 33. Harry N. Abrams, New York.

Garber, J.F. and J.J. Awe 2009 A Terminal Early Formative Symbol System in the Maya Lowlands: The Iconography of the Cunil Phase (1100-900 BC) at Cahal Pech. Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 6: 151-159.

Garcia, E.V. 2006 The Maya Flood Myth and the Decapitation of the Cosmic Caiman. Pre- Columbian Art Research Institute Journal 7(1): 1-10.

Gillespie, S. 1991 Ballgames and Boundaries. In The Mesoamerican Ballgame, edited by V.L. Scarborough and D.R. Wilcox, pp. 317-345. University of Arizona Press, Tuscon.

Goin, C.J., O.B. Goin, and G.R. Zug 1978 Introduction to Herpetology, Third Edition. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco.

Goodrich, C, and H. van der Schalie 1937 Mollusca ofPeten and North Alta Vera Paz, Guatemala. University of Michigan, Museum of Zoology, Miscellaneous Publications 34, Ann Arbor.

Gordon, G.B. 1902 The Hieroglyphic Stairway, Ruins ofCopan. Report on Explorations by the Museum. Harvard University, Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Memoir 1, No. 6, Cambridge, MA. Gotz, C. M. 2008a Die Verwendung von Wirbeltieren durch die Mayas des no" rdlichen Tieflandes wa" hrend der Klassik und Postklassik (600-1500 n.Chr.). Internationale Archa " ologie: 106.

2008b Coastal and Inland Patterns of Faunal Exploitation in the Prehispanic Northern Maya Lowlands. Quaternary International 191: 154-169.

Graham, I. 1982 Corpus of Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions: Vol. 3, Part 3: Yaxchilan. Harvard University, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge, MA.

Graham, I., and P. Mathews 1996 Corpus of Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions: Vol. 6, Part 2: Tonina. Harvard University, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge, MA. Graham, M.M. 1992 "Art-Tools and the Language of Power in the Early Art of the Atlantic Watershed of Costa Rica." In Wealth and Hierarchy in the Intermediate Area, edited by F.W. Lange, pp. 141-164. Dumbarton Oaks: Washington, DC.

Greene, M., R.L. Rands, and J.A. Graham 1972 Maya: Sculpture of an Ancient Civilization: From the Southern Lowlands, the Highlands, and Pacific Piedmont, Guatemala, Mexico, Honduras. Lederer, Street and Zeus, Berkeley, CA.

Grove, D.C. 1997 Olmec Archaeology: A Half Century of Research and its Accomplishments. Journal of World Prehistory 11(1): 51-101.

Grove, D.C, and J. Angulo V 1987 A Catalogue and Description of Chalcatzingo's Monuments. In Ancient Chalcatzingo, edited by D.C. Grove, pp. 114-131. University of Texas Press, Austin. 203

Grube, N., and W. Nahm 1994 A Census of Xibalba: A Complete Inventory of Way Characters on Maya Ceramics. In The Maya Vase Book: Volume 4, edited by J. Kerr and B. Kerr, pp. 686-715. Kerr Associates, New York.

Guderjan, T.H., and L.L. Brody-Foley 1995 Excavations and Architecture at Ek Luum. In Maya Maritime Trade, Settlement, and Populations of Ambergris Caye, Belize, edited by T.H. Guderjan and J.F. Garber, pp. 66-72. Maya Research Program and Labryinthos, San Antonio, TX. Haines, H., P. Willink, and D.S. Maxwell 2008 Stingray Spine Use and Maya Bloodletting Rituals: A Cautionary Tail. Latin American Antiquity 19(1): 83-98.

Hallowell, A.I. 1926 Bear Ceremonialism in the Northern Hemisphere. American Anthropologist 28: 1-161.

Hammond, N. 1975 Lubaantun: A Classic Maya Realm. Harvard University, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Monograph 2, Cambridge, MA.

Hamblin, N. 1981 Magic Toads of Cozumel. Mexicon 3: 10-14.

1984 Animal Use by the Cozumel Maya. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Harrison, P.D. 1999 The Lords ofTikal: Rulers of an Ancient Maya City. Thames and Hudson, London.

Healy, P.F. 2007 The Anthropology of Mesoamerican Caves. Reviews in Anthropology 36: 245-278.

Healy, P.F., D. Cheetham, T.G. Powis, and J.J. Awe 2004 Cahal Pech: The Middle Formative Period. In The Ancient Maya of the Belize Valley: Haifa Century of Archaeological Research, edited by J.F. Garber, pp. 103-124. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 204

Hellmuth, N.M. 1988 Early Maya Iconography on an Incised Cylindrical Vessel. In Maya Iconography, edited by E.P. Benson and G.G. Griffin, pp. 152-173. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Houston, S., and D. Stuart 1989 The Way Glyph: Evidence for "Co-essences" among the Classic Maya. Center for Maya Research, Research Report on Ancient Maya Writing 30, Washington D.C.

Houston, S., D. Stuart, and K. Taube 2006 The Memory of Bones: Body, Being, and Experience Among the Classic Maya. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Houston-Dickson, J. 2010 A Question of Shamanism in Precolumbian Greater Nicoya (Nicaragua and Costa Rica). MA thesis, Department of Anthropology, Trent University. Peterborough, ON. Iannone, G. 1992 Ancient Maya Eccentric Lithics: A Contextual Analysis. Unpublished MA thesis, Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough, ON.

Inomata, T. 2001 The Power and Ideology of Artistic Creation: Elite Craft Specialists in Classic Maya Society. Current Anthropology 42(3): 321-349.

Inomata, T., and L.R. Stiver 1998 Floor Assemblages from Burned Structures at Aguateca, Guatemala: A Study of Classic Maya Households. Journal of Field Archaeology 25(4): 431-452.

Jones, C, W.R. Coe, and W.A. Haviland 1981 Tikal: An Outline of Its Field Study (1956-1970) and a Project Bibliography. In Supplement to the Handbook of Middle American Indians Vol.1, Archaeology, edited by J.A.Sabloff, pp. 296-312. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Joralemon, P.D. 1971 A Study of Olmec Iconography. Dumbarton Oaks, Studies in Pre- Columbian Art and Archaeology No. 7, Washington, DC. 205

1975 The Night Sun and the Earth Dragon: Some Thoughts on the Jaguar God of the Underworld. In Jaina Figurines: A Study of Maya Iconography, edited by M.E. Miller, pp. 63-66, Appendix II. The Art Museum, Princeton University, Princeton.

1976 The Olmec Dragon: A Study in Pre-Columbian Iconography. In Origins of Religious Art and Iconography in Preclassic Mesoamerica, edited by H.B. Nicholson, pp. 29-71. University of California, UCLA Latin American Center Publications Vol. 31, Los Angeles.

Joyce, R.A. 2001 Crocodile, Serpent, and Shark: Powerful Animals in Olmec and Maya Art, Belief, and Ritual. In Forest and Civilisations, edited by Y. Yasuda, pp. 71-84. International Research Center for Japanese Studies (Kyoto). Roli Books Put. Ltd, New Delhi.

Kelly, L. 2006 Evolution's Greatest Survivor: Crocodile. Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, Australia.

Kerr, J. 2009a A Precolumbian Portfolio: An Archive of Photographs. Electronic document, http://research.mavavase.com/kerrportfolio.html. Accessed November 12, 2009.

2009b Maya Vase Database: An Archive of Rollout Photographs. Electronic document, http://research.mayavase.com/kerrmaya.html. Accessed November 12, 2009.

Kidder, A.V., J.D. Jennings, and E.M. Shook 1946 Excavations at Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 561. Washington, DC.

Kubler, G. 1969 Studies in Classic Maya Iconography. Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, Vol.18. Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, New Haven. Kurjack, E.B. 1974 Prehistoric Lowland Maya Community and Social Organization: A Case Study at Dzibilchaltun, Yucatan, Mexico. Tulane University Middle American Research Institute, Publication 38, New Orleans.

Labbe, A.J. 1995 Guardians of the Life Stream: Shamans, Art and Power in Prehispanic Central Panama. The Bowers Museum of Cultural Art, Cultural Arts Press, Santa Ana, CA.

Lange, F.W. 1971 Marine Resources: A Viable Subsistence Alternative for the Prehistoric Lowland Maya. American Anthropologist 73: 619-639.

Lathrap, D. 1971 Complex Iconographic Features Shared by Olmec and Chavin and Some Speculations on their Possible Significance. Paper read at Primer Simposio de Correlaciones Antropologicas Andino-Mesoamericano, Ecuador.

1973 Gifts of the Cayman. In Variation in Anthropology, edited by D. Lathrap and J. Douglas, pp. 96-106. Illinois Archaeological Survey, Urbana IL.

Lee, J.C. 2000 A Field Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of the Maya World: The Lowlands of Mexico, Northern Guatemala, and Belize. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.

Linares, O.F 1977 Ecology and the Arts in Ancient Panama: On the Development of Social Rank and Symbolism in the Central Provinces. Dumbarton Oaks, Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology No. 17, Washington DC.

Lopez Lujan, L. 1994 The Offerings of the Templo Mayor ofTenochtitlan. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Looper, M.G. 2003 Lightning Warrior: Maya Art and Kingship at Quirigua. University of Texas Press, Austin. Lowe, G.W., T.A. Lee, and E.M. Espinosa 1982 Izapa: An Introduction to the Ruins and Monuments. Brigham Young University, Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation, No. 31, Provo, UT.

Maler, T. 1901 Researches in the Central Portion of the Usumatsintla Valley: Report of Explorations for the Museum, 1898-1900. Harvard University, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Memoir 2(1), Cambridge, MA.

1903 Researches in the Central Portion of the Usumatsintla Valley: Report of Explorations for the Museum, 1898-1900. Harvard University, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Memoir 2(2), Cambridge, MA.

Marcus, J. 1992 Mesoamerican Writing Systems: Propaganda, Myth, and History in Four Ancient Civilizations. Princeton University Press, New Jersey.

Martin, S., and N. Grube 2000 Chronicles of the Maya Kings and Queens: Deciphering the Dynasties of the Ancient Maya. Thames and Hudson, London.

Masson, M.A. 1993 Changes in Maya Community Organization from the Classic to the Postclassic Periods: A View from Laguna de On, Belize. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Texas, Austin.

1999 Animal Resource Manipulation in Ritual and Domestic Contexts at Postclassic Maya Communities. World Archaeology 31(1): 93-120.

2000 In the Realm ofNachan Kan: Postclassic Maya Archaeology at Laguna De On, Belize. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, CO.

2004 Fauna Exploitation from the Preclassic to the Postclassic Periods at Four Maya Settlements in Northern Belize. In Maya Zooarchaeology: New Directions in Method and Theory, edited by K.F. Emery, pp. 97-122. Monograph 51, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, UCLA, Los Angeles. Masson, M.A., and C.P. Lope 2008 Animal Use at the Postclassic Maya Center of Mayapan. Quaternary International 191: 170-183.

Matos Moctezuma, E. 1988 The Great Temple of the Aztecs. Thames and Hudson, London.

Maudslay, A.P. 1889-1902 Biologia Centrali-Americana: Archaeology (5 Vols). R.H. Porter and Dulau and Co., London.

McKillop, H. 1984 Prehistoric Maya Reliance on Marine Resources: Analysis of a Midden from Moho Cay, Belize. Journal of Field Archaeology 11: 25-35.

1985 Prehistoric Exploitation of the Manatee in the Maya and Circum- Caribbean Areas. World Archaeology 16: 336-353.

Miller, A.G. 1982 On the Edge of the Sea: Mural Painting at Tancah-Tulum, Quintana Roo, Mexico. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.

Miller, M.E. 1986a The Murals of Bonampak. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

1986b The Art of Mesoamerica from Olmec to Aztec. Thames and Hudson, London.

1999 Maya Art and Architecture. Thames and Hudson, London.

Miller, M.E., and M. O'Neil 2010 The World of the Ancient Maya and the Worlds They Made. In Fiery Pool: The Maya and the Mythic Sea, edited by D. Finamore and S. Houston, pp. 24-27. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Miller, M.E., and S. Martin 2004 Courtly Art of the Ancient Maya. Thames and Hudson, New York. 209

Moedano-Koer, H. 1946 Jaina: Un Cementerio Maya. Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropologicos 8: 217-242.

Moholy-Nagy, H. 1963 Shells and Other Marine Material from Tikal. Estudios de Cultura Maya 3:65-83.

1978 The Utilization of Pomacea Snails at Tikal, Guatemala. American Antiquity 43: 65-73.

1985 The Social and Ceremonial Uses of Marine Molluscs at Tikal. In Prehistoric Lowland Maya Environment and Subsistence Economy, edited by M.D. Pohl, pp. 147-158. Harvard University, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Papers Vol. 77, Cambridge, MA.

2004 Vertebrates in Tikal Burials and Caches. In Maya Zooarchaeology: New Directions in Method and Theory, edited by K.F. Emery, pp. 193-205. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

2008 The Artifacts of Tikal: Ornamental and Ceremonial Artifacts and Unworked Material. University of Pennsylvania, Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Tikal Report No. 27A , Philadelphia.

Morphy, H., and M. Perkins 2006 The Anthropology of Art: A Reflection on its History and Practice. In The Anthropology of Art: A Reader, edited by H. Morphy and M. Perkins, pp. 1-32. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Maiden, MA.

Murie, A.M. 1935 Mammals from Guatemala and British Honduras. University of Michigan, Museum of Zoology Miscellaneous Publication 26. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Muse, M., and T. Stocker 1974 The Cult of the Cross: Interpretations in Olmec Iconography. Journal of the Steward Anthropological Society 5: 67-98. Neill, W.T. 1971 The Last of the Ruling Reptiles: Alligators, Crocodiles, and their Kin. Columbia University Press, New York.

Newsome, E.A. 2001 Trees of Paradise and Pillars of the World: the Serial Stela Cycle of "18- Rabbit-God K," King ofCopdn. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Nicholson, H. 1976 Preclassic Mesoamerican Iconography from the Perspective of the Postclassic: Problems in Interpretational Analysis. In Origins of Religious Art and Iconography in Pre-Classic Mesoamerica, edited by H. Nicholson, pp. 157-176. University of California, UCLA Latin American Center Publications Vol. 31, Los Angeles.

Norman, V.G. 1973 Izapa Sculpture: Part I: Album. Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation No. 30, Brigham Young University Press, Provo, UT.

O'Connor, T. 2000 The Archaeology of Animal Bones. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, TX.

Olsen, S.J. 1972 Animal Remains from Altar de Sacrificios. In The Artifacts of Altar de Sacrificios, edited by G.R. Willey, pp. 172-176. Harvard University, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Volume 64(1). Cambridge, MA.

1978 Vertebrate Faunal Remains. In Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten, Guatemala, edited by G.R. Willey pp. 172-176. Harvard University, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Memoir 14, No.l, Cambridge, MA.

Orefici, G. 1997 1 Maya di Copan: LAtene del Centroamerica. Skiro Editore, Milan. 211

Parsons, L.A. 1986 The Origins of Maya Art: Monumental Stone Sculpture of Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala, and the Southern Pacific Coast. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology 28. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington DC.

Pendergast, D. M. 1971 Excavations at Eduardo Quiroz Cave, British Honduras (Belize). Royal Ontario Museum of Art and Archaeology, Occasional Papers 16, Toronto.

1981 Lamanai, Belize: Summary of Excavation Results 1974-1980. Journal of Field Archaeology 8(1): 29-53.

1982 The 1980 Excavations at Lamanai, Belize. Mexicon 2:96-99.

1984 Excavations at Lamanai, Belize. 1983. Mexicon 6:5-10.

1985 Digging in the Dooryards. ROM Archaeology Newsletter, Series II, No. 6.

1990 Excavations at Altun Ha, Belize, 1964-1970: Volume 3. The Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto.

Peterson, J.F. 1990 Precolumbian Flora and Fauna: Continuity of Plant and Animal Themes in Mesoamerican Art. Mingei International Museum, San Diego, CA.

Pina-Chan, R. 1968 Jaina: La Casa en el Agua. Institute Nacional de Antropologia Historia, Mexico City.

Piatt, S.G., J.B. Thorbjarnarson, and T.R. Rainwater 1999 Distribution of Morelet's Crocodile (Crocodylus moreleti) in Southern Belize. The Southwestern Naturalist 44(3): 395-398.

Pohl, M.D. 1976 The Ethnozoology of the Maya: An Analysis ofFaunal Remains from Five Sites in Peten, Guatemala. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University.

1981 Ritual Continuity and Transformation in Mesoamerica: Reconstructing the Ancient Maya Cuch Ritual. American Antiquity 46(3): 513-529. 212

1983 Maya Ritual Faunas: Vertebrate Remains from Burials, Caches, Caves, and Cenotes in the Maya Lowlands. In Civilization in the Ancient Americas: Essays in Honor of Gordon R. Willey, edited by R.M. Leventhal and A.L. Kolata, pp. 55-104. Harvard University, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge, MA.

1985 Osteological Evidence for Subsistence and Status. In Prehistoric Lowland Maya Environment and Subsistence Economy, edited by M. Pohl, pp. 107- 113. Harvard University, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Papers Vol. 77, Cambridge, MA.

1990 Ethnozoology of the Maya: Faunal Remains from Five Sites in Peten, Guatemala. Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten, Guatemala. Memoir 16(3), Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

1994 The Economics and Politics of Maya Meat Eating. In The Economic Anthropology of the State, edited by E.M. Brumfield, pp. 121-149. Monographs in Economic Anthropology No. 11. University Press of America, New York.

1995 Late Classic Maya Fauna from Settlement in the Copan Valley, Honduras: Assertion of Social Status through Animal Consumption. In Ceramics and Artifacts from Excavations in the Copan Residential Zone, edited by G.R. Willey, R. Leventhal, A. A. Demarest and W. Fash, pp. 459-476. Harvard University, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Papers Vol. 80. Cambridge MA.

Pohl, M.D. (editor) 1985 Prehistoric Lowland Maya Environment and Subsistence Economy. Harvard University, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Papers Vol. 77, Cambridge, MA.

Pohl, M.D., and L. Feldman 1982 The Traditional Role of Women and Animals in Lowland Maya Economy. In Maya Subsistence: Studies in Memory of Dennis E. Puleston, edited by K. Flannery, pp. 295-311. Academic Press, New York. 213

Pohl, M.D., and J.M. Pohl 1983 Ancient Maya Cave Rituals. Archaeology 36: 28-32, 50-51.

Pollock, H.E.D., and C.E. Ray 1957 Notes on Vertebrate Animal Remains from Mayapan. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Department of Anthropology, Current Reports 41, pp. 633- 656. Carnegie Institution, Washington, D.C.

Pool, C.A. 2007 Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Proskouriakoff, T. 1950 Classic Maya Sculpture. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 593. Washington, DC.

1960 Historical Implications of a Pattern of Dates at Piedras Negras, Guatemala. American Antquity 25(4): 454-475.

1962 The Artifacts of Mayapan. In Mayapan, Yucatan, Mexico, edited by H.E.D. Pollock, R.L. Roys, T. Proskouriakoff, and A.L. Smith, pp. 321- 442. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 619. Washington, DC.

1968 Olmec and Maya Art: Problems of their Stylistic Relation. In Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the Olmec, edited by E.P. Benson, pp. 119-134. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.

Prufer, K.M., and J.E. Brady (editors) 2005 Stone Houses and Earth Lords: Maya Religion in the Cave Context. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Pugh, T.W. 2001 Flood Reptiles, Serpent Temples, and the Quadripartite Universe: The Imago Mundi of Late Postclassic Mayapan. Ancient Mesoamerica 12: 247- 258. Puleston, D. 1974 Intersite Areas in the Vicinity of Tikal and Uaxactun. In Mesoamerican Archaeology: New Approaches, edited by N. Hammond, pp. 303-311. University of Texas Press, Austin.

1976 The People of the Cayman/Crocodile: Riparian Agriculture and the Origins of Aquatic Motifs in Ancient Maya Iconography. In Aspects of Ancient Maya Civilization, edited by F.A. de Montequin, pp. 1-26. Hamline University, Saint Paul, MN.

1977 The Art and Archaeology of Hydraulic Agriculture in the Maya Lowlands. In Social Process in Maya Prehistory: Studies in Honour of Sir Eric Thompson, edited by N. Hammond, pp. 449-467. Academic Press, New York.

Quirarte, J. 1973 Izapan-Style Art: A Study of its Form and Meaning. Dumbarton Oaks, Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology No. 10. Washington, DC.

1977 Early Art Styles of Mesoamerica and Early Classic Maya Art. In The Origins of Maya Civilization, edited by R.E.W. Adams, pp. 249-284. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Ravicz, R., and A.K. Romney 1969 The Mixtec. In Handbook of Middle American Indians (Vol. 7), edited by R. Wauchope, pp. 367-399. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Reents-Budet, D. 1994 Painting the Maya Universe: Royal Ceramics of the Classic Period. Duke University Press, London.

Reilly, F.K. Ill 1991 Olmec Iconographic Influences on the Symbols of Maya Rulership: An Examination of Possible Sources. In Sixth Palenque Round Table, 1986, edited by M.G. Robertson and V.M. Fields, pp. 151-166. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK.

1994 Enclosed Ritual Spaces and the Watery Underworld in Formative Period Architecture: New Observations on the Function of La Venta Complex A. 215

In Seventh Palenque Round Table, 1989, edited by M.G. Robertson and V.M. Fields, pp. 125-135. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK.

1996 Art, Ritual, and Rulership in the Olmec World. In The Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership, edited by M.D. Coe, pp. 27-46. The Art Museum, Princeton University, Princeton.

Reitz, E. J., and Scarry, C. M. 1985 Reconstructing Historic Subsistence with an Example from Six-teenth Century Spanish Florida. Society for Historical Archaeology, Special Publication Series, No. 3.

Rice, D.S. 1989 Historical Contexts and Interpretive Themes.. In Word and Image in Maya Culture: Explorations in Language, Writing, and Representation, edited by W.F. Hanks and D.S. Rice, pp. 2-7. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Rice, P.M. 1989 Reptiles and Rulership: A Stylistic Analysis of Peten Postclassic Pottery. In Word and Image in Maya Culture: Explorations in Language, Writing, and Representation, edited by W.F. Hanks and D.S. Rice, pp. 306-318. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Ricketson, O.G.J., and E.B. Ricketson 1937 Uaxactun, Guatemala, Group E - 1926-1931. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 477, Washington DC.

Robertson, M.G. 1990 A Review of Maya Iconography. American Antiquity 55(2): 427-428.

Robiscek, F. 1972 Copan: Home of the Mayan Gods. Museum of the American Indian Haye Foundation, New York.

Robiscek, F., and D.M. Hales 1981 The Maya Book of the Dead: The Ceramic Codex. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK. 216

Roys, R.L. 1931 Ethnobotany of the Maya. Tulane University, Middle American Research Institute, Publication 2. New Orleans.

1957 The Political Geography of the Yucatan Maya. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 614. Carnegie Institution, Washington, DC.

1965 Ritual of the Bacabs. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK.

1967 The Book ofChilam Balam of Chumayel: New Edition. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK.

Ruppert, K.J. 1931 The Temple of the Wall Panels, Chichen Itza. In Contributions to American Archaeology 3, pp. 117-140. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 403. Carnegie Institution, Washington, DC.

1935 The Caracol at Chichen Itza, Yucatan, Mexico. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication 454. Carnegie Institution, Washington, DC.

1943 The Mercado, Chichen Itza, Yucatan, Mexico. In Contributions to American Archaeology 4, pp. 223-260. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 546. Carnegie Institution, Washington, DC.

Rust, W.R., and B.F. Leyden 1994 Evidence of Maize Use at Early and Middle Preclassic La Venta Olmec Sites. In Corn and Culture in the Prehistoric World, edited by S. Johannesson and C. Hastorf, pp. 181-201. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Sanders, W.T., M. Diskin, and M. Coe 1974 Chiefdom to State: Political Evolution at Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Supplementary Studies 20: 97-121.

Saunders, N.J. (editor) 1998 Icons of Power: Feline Symbolism in the Americas. Routledge, New York.

Scheie, D. 2005 The Linda Scheie Photograph Collection. Electronic document. http://research.famsi.org/schele.html. Accessed November 23, 2009. Scheie, L. 1996 The Olmec Mountain and Tree of Creation in Mesoamerican Cosmology. In The Olmec World: Ritual and Ruler ship, edited by M.D. Coe, pp. 105- 119. The Art Museum, Princeton University, Princeton.

Scheie, L., and D. Freidel. 1990 Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the Ancient Maya. William Morrow and Company, Inc., New York.

Scheie, L., and P. Mathews 1998 The Code of Kings: The Language of Seven Sacred Maya Temples and Tombs. Scribner, New York.

Scheie, L., and M.E. Miller. 1986 The Blood of Kings: Dynasty and Ritual in Maya Art. George Braziller, Inc., New York.

Schellhas, P. 1904 Representation of Deities of the Maya Manuscripts. Harvard University, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Paper 4(1). Cambridge, MA.

Schmidt, P., M. de la Garza, and E. Nalda 1998 Maya. Rizzoli, New York.

Scott, R.F. IV 1979 A Preliminary Report on Faunal Remains from Colha, Belize. In The Colha Project, 1979: A Collection of Interim Papers, edited by T.R. Hester, pp. 154-156. University of Texas, Center for Archaeological Research, San Antonio, TX.

1982 Notes on the Continuing Faunal Analysis for the Site of Colha, Belize: Data from the Postclassic. In Archaeology at Colha, Belize: The 1981 Interim Report, edited by T.R. Hester, H.J. Shafer and J.D. Eaton, pp. 203- 207. Center for Archaeologyical Research, University of Texas, San Antonio, TX.

Seler, E. 1904 The Bat God of the Maya Race. In Mexican and Central American Antiquities, Calendar Systems, and History, edited and translated by C.P. 218

Bowditch, pp. 231-242. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 28, Washington, DC.

1909 The Animal Pictures of the Mexican and Maya Manuscripts. In Eduard Seler: Collected Works in Mesoamerican Linguistics and Archaeology,. Harvard University, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Memoirs 4 (5), Cambridge, MA.

Sharer, R.J. 1990 Quirigua: A Classic Maya Center and Its Sculptures. Carolina Academic Press, Durham, NC.

1994 The Ancient Maya, Fifth Edition. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

Shaw, L.C. 1991 The Articulation of Social Inequality and Faunal Resource Use in the Preclassic Community of Colha, Northern Belize. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts.

1995a Analysis of Faunal Materials from Ek Luum. In Maya Maritime Trade, Settlement, and Populations of Ambergris Caye, Belize, edited by T.H. Guderjan and J.F. Garber, pp. 175-181. Maya Research Program and Labryinthos, San Antonio, TX.

1995b The Importance of Dog in Ritual Feasting in the Maya Preclassic. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Minneapolis.

1999 Social and Economic Aspects of Preclassic Maya Meat Consumption at Colha, Belize. In Reconstructing Ancient Maya Diet, edited by C. White, pp. 83-102. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Shook, E.M. 1959 Unpublished Field Notes of Edwin M. Shook. Book 64: Tikal Project Notebook 59-1. Department of Archaeology, Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, Guatemala City. 219

Smith, V.G. 1984 Izapa Relief Carving: Form, Content, Rules for Design, and Role in Mesoamerican Art History and Archaeology. Studies in Pre-columbian Art and Archaeology No. 27. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.

Spinden, H.J. 1913 A Study of Maya Art: Its Subject Matter and Historical Development. Harvard University, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Memoir 6. Cambridge, MA.

Stanchly, N. 1992 An Analysis of the Faunal Remains from Structure B-4, Cahal Pech, Belize (Appendix 1). In Dawn in the Land Between The Rivers: Formative Occupation At Cahal Pech Belize And Its Implications For Preclassic Development in the Maya Lowlands, by J.J. Awe, pp. 388-398. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Institute of Archaeology, University of London.

1998 A Preliminary Report on the Faunal Remains Recovered during the 1998 Field Season, Lamanai, Belize. Unpublished report prepared for the Lamanai Archaeological Project.

1999 A Preliminary Report on the Faunal Remains, Lamanai, Belize, 1999 Field Season. Unpublished report prepared for the Lamanai Archaeological Project.

2004 Picks and Stones May Break my Bones: Taphonomy and Maya Zooarchaeology. In Maya Zooarchaeology: New Directions in Method and Theory, edited by K.F. Emery, pp.35-43. Monograph 51, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, UCLA, Los Angeles.

2005 Preliminary Faunal Observations: Structure N11 -18 (Operations 01-5,02- 6, 04-2, AND 05-1), Lamanai, Belize. Unpublished report prepared for S. Simmons, University of North Carolina, Wilmington.

2006 Ancient Maya Faunal Utilization in the Xibun Valley, Belize. Unpublished report prepared for P. McAnany, Boston University, Boston.

2007 Postclassic Maya Ritual Fauna Use at Lamanai, Belize: Interpreting the Faunal Assemblage from Structure N10-10. Paper presented at the 72nd 220

Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Austin.

Stark, B.L., and B. Voorhies (editors) 1978 Prehistoric Coastal Adaptations: The Economy and Ecology of Maritime Middle America. Academic Press, New York.

Stephens, J.L. 1841 Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan. Harper and Bros., New York.

Steward, J. 1948 Handbook of South American Indians. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 143(3): 507-533, Washington, D.C.

1955 A Theory of Culture Change. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.

Stacker, T., S. Meltzoff, and S. Armsey 1980 Crocodilians and Olmecs: Further Interpretations in Formative Period Iconography. American Antiquity 45(4): 740-758.

Stone, A. 1983 The Zoomorphs of Quiriqua. PhD dissertation, Department of Art History, University of Texas at Austin. Austin, TX.

1985 Variety and Transformation in the Cosmic Monster Them at Quirigua, Guatemala. In Fifth Palenque Round Table, 1983, edited by V. Fields and M.G. Roberston, pp. 39-48. Palenque Round Table Series 7, Pre- Columbian Art Research Institute, San Francisco.

Stone-Miller, R. 1995 Art of the Andes: From Chavin to Inca. Thames and Hudson Ltd., London.

Stuart, D. 2003 A Cosmological Throne at Palenque. Electronic Document. Mesoweb: www.mesoweb.com/stuart/notes/Throne.pdf. Accessed April 15, 2009. Stuart, L.C. 1935 A Contribution to a Knowledge of the Herpetology of a Portion of the Savanna Region of Central Peten. University of Michigan, Museum of Zoology, Miscellaneous Publication 29, Ann Arbor.

Tate, C.E. 1992 Yaxchilan: The Design of a Maya Ceremonial City. University of Texas Press, Austin.

1996 Art in Olmec Culture. In The Olmec World: Ritual and Ruler ship, edited by M.D. Coe, pp. 47-68. The Art Museum, Princeton University, Princeton.

Tate, C.E., and F.K. Reilly III 1996 Catalogue of the Exhibition. In The Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership, edited by M.D. Coe, pp. 120-122; 128-138. The Art Museum, Princeton University, Princeton.

Taube, K. 1987 A Representation of the Principal Bird Deity in the Paris Codex. Center for Maya Research, Research Reports on Ancient Maya Writing 6. Washington DC.

1988 The Ancient Yucatec New Year Festival: The Liminal Period in Maya Ritual and Cosmology. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor.

1989 Itzam CabAin: Caimans, Cosmology, and Calendrics in Postclassic Yucatan. Center for Maya Research, Research Report on Ancient Maya Writing 26. Washington, DC.

1992 The Major Gods of Ancient Yucatan. Studies in Precolumbian Art and Archaeology No. 32. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.

1996 The Rainmakers: The Olmec and Their Contribution to Mesoamerican Belief and Ritual. In The Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership, edited by M.D. Coe, pp. 83-104. The Art Museum, Princeton University, Princeton.

1997 A God Named Zip. Archaeology 50: 39. 222

2010 Where Earth and Sky Meet: The Sea and Sky in Ancient and Contemporary Maya Cosmology. In Fiery Pool: The Maya and the Mythic Sea, edited by D. Finamore and S.D. Houston, pp. 202-219. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Tedlock, D. (translator) 1996 Popol Vuh (Revised edition). Simon and Schuster, New York.

Thompson, J.E.S. 1960 Maya Hieroglyphic Writing: Introduction. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK.

1970 Maya History and Religion. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK.

Tozzer, A.M. (translator and editor) 1941 Landa 's Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan. Harvard University, Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Papers Vol. 4, Cambridge, MA.

Tozzer, A.M., and G.M. Allen 1910 Animal Figures in the Maya Codices. Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Paper 4, No. 3, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Vail, G. 1988 The Archaeology of Coastal Belize. BAR International Series 463. Oxford, UK.

VanDerwarker, A.M. 2006 Farming, Hunting, and Fishing in the Olmec World. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Van Tyne, J. 1935 The Birds of Northern Peten, Guatemala. Miscellaneous Publication 27, University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Ann Arbor.

Villa Rojas, A. 1969 Maya Lowlands: the Chontal, Choi, and Kekchi. In Handbook of Middle American Indians (Vol. 7), edited by R. Wauchope, pp. 23-243. University of Texas Press, Austin. Vogt, E.Z. 1969 Zinacantan: A Maya Community in the Highlands of Chiapas. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Vogt, E.Z., and D. Stuart 2005 Ritual Caves Among the Ancient and Modern Maya. In In the Maw of the Earth Monster: Mesoamerican Ritual Cave Use, edited by J.E. Brady and K.M. Prufer, pp. 155-185. University of Texas Press, Austin.

White, CD., M.D. Pohl, H.P. Schwarz, and F. Longstaffe 2001 Isotopic Evidence for Maya Patterns of Deer and Dog Use at Preclassic Colha. Journal of Archaeological Science 28: 89-107.

2004 Feast, Field, and Forest: Deer and Dog Diets at Lagartero, Tikal, and Copan. In Maya Zooarchaeology: New Directions in Method and Theory, edited by K.F. Emery, pp.141-158. Monograph 51, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, UCLA, Los Angeles.

Wiewall, D.L., and N. Stanchley 2005 Commoner Choice: New Insights into Household Production Strategies during the Late Postclassic to Early Colonial Transition at Lamanai, Belize. Unpublished Report.

Willey, G.R., W.R. Bullard Jr., J.B. Glass, and J.C. Gifford 1965 Prehistoric Maya Settlements in the Belize Valley. Harvard University, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Paper 54, Cambridge, MA.

Wing, E.S. 1974 Vertebrate Faunal Remains. In Excavations of an Early Shell Midden on Isla Cancun, Quintana Roo, edited by E.W. Andrews IV., pp. 186-188. Tulane University, Middle American Research Institute Publication 21, New Orleans.

1975 Animal Remains from Lubaantun. In Lubaantun: A Classic Maya Realm, by N. Hammond, pp. 379-383. Harvard University, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Monograph 2, Cambridge, MA. 224

1977 Factors Influencing Exploitation of Marine Resources. In The Sea in the Precolumbian World, edited by E.P. Benson, pp. 47-66. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.

1978 Use of Dogs for Food: An Adaptation to the Coastal Environment. In Prehistoric Coastal Adaptations: The Economy and Ecology of Maritime Middle America, edited by B.L. Stark and B. Voorhies, pp. 29-41. Academic Press, New York.

1980 Faunal Remains from San Lorenzo. In In the Land of the Olmec, edited by M.D. Coe and R.A. Diehl, pp. 375-386. University of Texas Press, Austin.

1981 A Comparison of Olmec and Maya Foodways. In The Olmec and Their Neighbours, edited by E.P. Benson, pp. 20-28. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.

Wing, E.S., and D. Steadman 1980 Vertebrate Faunal Remains from Dzibilchaltun (Appendix). In Excavations at Dzibilchaltun, Yucatan, Mexico, by E.W. Andrews IV and E.W. Andrews V, pp. 326-331. Tulane University, Middle American Research Institute, Publication 48, New Orleans.

Wing, E.S., and S.J. Scudder 1991 The Exploitation of Animals. In Cuello: An Early Maya Community in Belize, edited by N. Hammond, pp. 84-97. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Woodbury, R.B., and A.S. Trik 1952 The Ruins ofZaculeu, Guatemala (2 vols.). United Fruit Company, William Bird Press, Richmond, VA.

Wright, L. 2005 In Search of Yax Nuun Ayiin I: Revisiting the Tikal Project's Burial 10. Ancient Mesoamerica 16: 89-100. 225

APPENDIX A: ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA

SITE SPECIES CONTEXT SKELETAL NISP MNI ALTERATION DATE REF. NAME ID ELEMENTS Southern Highlands Kaminaljuyu Crocodylidae Tomb A-III Scutes ? ?(1) Early Kidder et (Family) Classic al. 1946: 55, 57, 59, 156 Southern Lowlands Aguateca Crocodylidae House of the Dermal scute (1) 1 1 Late Emery: (Family) Scribe Classic 2003; 506- 509 Altar de Crocodylidae ? ? 2 1 middle Pohl 1990 Sacrificios (Family) Late Preclassic Crocodylus mound refuse Mandible (1)L 1 1 worked groove, Early Olsen acutus drilled alveolus, Classic 1972: 232, polished (Salinas 245; Pohl symphysis phase) 1990: 81 (headdress?) pyramid fill Tooth (1) 1 1 drilled Early Clasic (Salinas phase) 226

mound refuse Tooth (1) 1 1 drilled Late Preclassic- Early Classic (Salinas- planchas phase) ? Dermal scutes ? ?(1) ? ? ? Skull roof ? ?(1) ? ? fragments (several) Crocodylidae ? ? 3 2 Late Pohl 1990 (Family) Classic Cahal Pech Crocodylidae STR B-4, cache Mandible 1 1 terminal Awe 1992: (Family) Early 130,331 Preclassic (Cunil phase) STR B-4 Partial maxilla, 41 1 terminal Stanchley partial Early 1992: 393 premaxilla, Preclassic dentary, (Cunil splenial, Phase) fragmentary remains 227

Colha Crocodylus primary middens Dermal scutes 4 1 Late Shaw 1991 (Op. 2012/2031) (3), Preclassic thoracic vertebra (1)

Op. 2001 ? (1) Postclassic Scott 1982: 203-207 Lower status ? 5 (1) Postclassic Masson midden (Op. 2010) 1999; Scott 1982: 203- 207 Elite status midden ? 36 (1) Postclassic Masson (Op. 2032 1999;Shaw 1991 Copan Crocodylidae Burial VIII-36 Necklace ? (1) altered Classic Fash 2005: (Family) Plaza A Group (teeth?) 80-83, 87- 9N-8 88 Burial Many scutes ? 1 Classic atop capstone of (AD 435) burial chamber (Motmot marker) STR. 10L-26 (Motmot) Cuello Crocodylidae ? Unknown 2 1 early Wing and (Family) Middle Scudder Preclassic 1991: 84- 228

97

Cueva de los Crocodylus cave Unknown 3 ?(1) Early Emery Quetzales/La Classic 2004c s Pacayas Ek Luum Crocodylidae Residential Vertebrae 9 ?(1) Late to Guderjan (Ambergris (Family) midden, Str. 2, Op. Terminal and Brody- Caye) 1 Classic Foley 1995: 71; Shaw 1995:175- 181 Upper Level (1-3) Dermal scutes (1) 3 Middle Level (4-6) (1) 6 Laguna de Crocodylidae ritual/elite/patio Cranial elements 42 ?(1) Postclassic Masson ON (Family) area (Area 1) or teeth (39), 2004 postcranial elements (3)

domestic midden Cranial element 2 ?(1) (Area 2) (1), unknown element (1)

domestic midden Postcranial 1 ?(1) (Area 3) element (1) Lamanai Crocodylus ? ? 2 (1) Postclassic Emery moreleti 1990 ? ? 2 (1) Colonial Period

Crocodylus Str. N10-27 (Op. ? 2 (1) Postclassic Stanchly 98-1) -primary 1998 midden Str. N11-7 (Op. ? 2 (1) Postclassic Stanchly 98-4) - secondary 1998 midden Str. N12-12 ? 1 1 Postclassic Stanchly 1999 Str. N10-9 - elite ? 19 (1) Postclassic Stanchly midden 1999 Str.N10-10- ? Majority of 3 1 Postclassic Stanchly ceremonial assemblage 2007 platform cranial bones Str. Nl 1-18 Dermal scutes 41 (1) Colonial Stanchly (residence) - (12), 1999, 2005 cacique's residence ribs (14), vertebra (8), humerus or femur, proximal end(l), metapodial (1), 230

tooth (1), indeterminate (3)

Housemounds Vertebrae, ribs, 22 (1) Postclassic Wiewall (Op. 04-01) dermal scutes, and carpals/tarsals, Stanchly femur, humerus, 2005 metapodial, indeterminate element

signs of alteration Midden (Op. 02- Vertebrae (28), 57 (1) Postclassic 04) dermal scutes (10), metapodials (5), humerus (3), femur (3),ribs (2), dentary (1), carpals/tarsals (1), cranial fragment 231

(ind.) (1), postcranial fragment (ind.) (1), unidentified (3)

La Joyanca Crocodylus elite, cache Angular-R(l), 232 1 Late Emery and anterior caudal Classic Thornton vertebrae (12), 2008 articular L+R (2), atlas, axis, carpal/tarsal L+R (8), carpal/tarsal unpaired (2), caudal vertebra (1), cervical rib (1), cervical vertebrae (12), coracoid L+R (2), cranial fragment (4), dentary fragment (8), 232

dermal scutes (49), femur L+R (2), fibula L+R (2), frontal (1), humerus L+R (2), ilium fragment (2), ischium L+R (2), metacarpals/tarsa Is whole (9), metacarpals/tarsa Is frag (2), neurocranium fragment (1), posterior caudal vertebra (1), ribs (19), sacral vertebra (2), scapula L+R (2), supraangular L+R (2), teeth (4), thoracic vertebrae frag 233

(35), tibia L+R (2), transverse process of vertebrae (4), ulna L+R (2), vertebrae fragment (13), distal phalanx (10) (poss. Croc), proximal/middle phalanx (22), poss. Croc), Lubaantun Crocodylidae unknown Vertebra (1) 3 2 Late Wing (Family) Classic 1975:379- 383 Macanche Crocodylidae ? ? 3 1 Terminal Pohl 1990 (Family) Classic to Early Postclassic Motul de San Crocodylidae elite residential Vertebrae - adult 5 2(?) Late Emery Jose (2), Classic 2003a vertebra - subadult (1), scutes - adult (2) 234

Northern Crocodylidae ? ? 3 2 ? Terminal Masson River Lagoon (Family) Classic 2004 Pacbitun Crocodylidae Burial 1 Tooth covering 1 1 Terminal Emery (Family) Classic 1991, (Tzib Healy phase) personal communica tion 2010 Pulltrouser Crocodylidae ? ? 1 1 Early Masson Swamp/ (Family) Classic 2004: 102, K'axob 106 ? ? 1 1 Terminal Classic Seibal Crocodylus ? ? 1 1 Mid-Late Pohl 1990 moreletus Preclassic East Plaza, Group Cranial ? 1 Late Olsen D elements, jaws Classic 1978; Pohl (adult) 1990 ? frontal bones ? 1 Olsen (juvenile) 1978; Pohl 1990 ? ? 3 2 Late Pohl 1990 Classic Tikal Crocodylus Burial 10 Complete ? 1 Early Harrison skeleton Classic 1999, Moholy- 235

Nagy 2004 Cache 120, STR. Complete ? 1 Early Coe 1990; 5D-26 (southern skeleton Classic Chase and side summit plaza) Chase 1998: 324 Cache 140, STR. Complete ? 1 Early Coe 1990; 5D-22 (western skeleton Classic Chase and side summit plaza) Chase 1998: 324 Cache 86, STR. Complete ? 1 Early Coe 1990; 5D-23 (northern skeleton Classic Chase and side summit plaza) Chase 1998: 324 Xibun Valley Augustine Obispo Cranial fragment 1 1 highly charred Late Stanchly (surface site) Classic 2006 Cedar Bank Vertebrae (3), 4 1 (midden) phalanx (1)

Samuel Oshon Metatarsal (1), 3 1 cranial fragment (1), unidentified (1) Northern Lowlands Champoton Crocodylus elite midden ? 5 2 Postclassic Gotz 2008: moreleti 160, 162 Cozumel (5 Crocodylus House mounds Skull elements 35 14 Postclassic Hamblin 236

sites) acutus NISP = 18, MNI = (9), to Historic 1984 5 mandibles, Indeterminate maxillae and contexts NISP = dentaries (13), 13, MNI = 7 vertebrae - 2 Burials/ceremonial caudal, 2 other /administrative (4) NISP = 4, MNI = humerus (1) 2 femur (1) tarsals (1) indeterminate (6)

Dzibilchaltun Crocodylidae Cache M-305-A Tooth (1)- 1 1 drilled Terminal Andrews (Family) "Jeweler's Cache", drilled Classic and STR. 96-1 (Copo II Andrews (residential), (Fluorescen 1980: 323, vaulted. Likely t period)) 325; Wing associated with 1980: 326- Burial 96-1 (10- 331. 12yr old child), 33 items total incld 17 shell and 9 jade Mixed Level Vertebra (1) 1 1 Mixed level, date unknown 237

Mayapan Crocodylidae site centre ? 21 ?(1) Postclassic Masson (Family) and Lope 2008 Domestic ? 10 ?(1) Postclassic settlement zone Xcambo Crocodylus west plaza ? 7 3 Late Gotz 2008: moreleti structure fill Classic 160, 162