JASs Invited Reviews Journal of Anthropological Sciences Vol. 83 (2005), pp. 29-42

Past, present and future itineraries in Maya bioarchaeology

Andrea Cucina & Vera Tiesler

Facultad de Ciencias Antropológicas, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, km 1 Carretera Merida-Tizimin, 97305 Merida, Yucatán, ; e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]

Summary – During the first half of the last century, studies of Maya skeletal remains gave emphasis mainly to head shaping and dental decoration, while little or no attention was bestowed to the ancient Maya’s skeletal biology and bioarchaeology. It was not until the late 1960’s and early 1970’s that more comprehensive approaches started visualizing this ancient society from its biological and cultural aspects by perceiving skeletal remains as a direct indicator of past cultural interactions. The recent growth in skeletal studies was also a natural consequence of the emergence of “bioarchaeology” as a specific discipline. From then on, increasing numbers of studies have been carried out, applying more and more sophisticated and modern techniques to the ancient Maya skeletal remains. This works attempts to briefly review the research history on Maya skeletal remains, from the pioneering works in the 1960’s to the development of more conscientious approaches based on theoretical, methodological and practical concepts in which the individual is the basic unit of biocultural analysis. Although, ecological issues and the biological evidence of social status differences still remain central cores in Maya bioarchaeology, new methodologically and topically oriented approaches have proliferated in the last years. They contribute to the development of a more complete, wide-angled view of the intermingled biological and cultural dynamics of a population that has not disappeared in the past and that continues to raise the interest of scholars and the public in general.

Keywords – Bioarchaeology, Ancient Maya, Biocultural studies.

Introduction The social development of the Maya world goes back to the second millennium b.C. Its climax, for When Spanish explorers first touched ground which it is most known archaeologically (and on the Yucatán Peninsula in the early 16th century, touristically), occurred during the so-called Classic they hit upon a major native civilization that was period that ranges approximately between A.D. definitely more sophisticated than anything the 250 and A.D. 900, with specific chronologies Spaniards had previously met in the New World. varying among sites. The area’s magnificent sites The region, that was later called Mesoamerica, was deep in the tropical rain forest have charmed and densely settled by complex agricultural populations triggered the curiosity of many generations of administered by urbanized ruling elites, scholars. The ruined temples and architectural knowledgeable in reading and writing and erudite structures hidden by the dense vegetation still in astronomic and calendar recording. This cultural witness the power of an ancient culture that has not realm was shared also by Mayan speaking groups. been fully uncovered yet. Nonetheless, as Stephens These occupied southern and eastern Mexico, firstly noted (1843), the ancient Maya people have Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, and El Salvador, not disappeared in the mist of time, but have lived extending as far south as to the Nicoya Peninsula of on to our days (Buikstra, 1997). Costa Rica on the Pacific side of Central America. If the material culture left behind by this The whole area’s environmental setting is ancient civilization is what predominantly attracts extremely varied, as well as its distribution of the attention of archaeologists and amateurs, one languages and ethnic groups that share its space. important source of information has been left

the JASs is published by the Istituto Italiano di Antropologia www.isita-org.com 30 Maya Bioarchaeology

Conventional research of the Prehispanic Maya has relied almost exclusively on its material culture, while human remains have been treated as peripheral evidence, ending up in the annexes of archaeological reports or extricated works on skeletal biology, disengaged from major interdisciplinary ambitions for understanding the broader social or biosocial networks of the past. From this perspective, much of past Maya osteology appears therefore rather technical and descriptive. While present research goals in Maya archaeology are not particularly different from those pursued in the past decades (Smith, 1991), the paths to approach these goals have increased considerably in number in recent years, incorporating epigraphic research, statistics and an increasing amount of sophisticated special analyses. These multiple lines of evidence end up testing, Figure 1 – Geographical map of the Maya area reinforcing or opposing one another. Put to work with some of the major sites during the Classic within integrated frames of social studies, these may and Postclassic periods. dramatically enhance the power of explanation (White, 1999). In the past twenty years, also relatively underutilized so far: the skeletal remains biocultural approaches are gaining attention in the of those who made up ancient society. Several Mayanist community, thanks to a new mind-set, factors account for this lack of attention. Firstly, the awareness and profound dedication of newer ancient Maya did not bury their deads in cemeteries generations of scholars, coupled with attractive but most likely in close range of their living technical innovations. As noted by Buikstra (1997: quarters and to a much lesser extent in the 223) already a decade ago, “it seems clear that the ceremonial edifices and public spaces of site’s cores. degree to which physical anthropological data Since most of the archaeological explorations still assume prominence in archaeological inquiries also center their attention on the ceremonial centers, has to do with the theoretical orientation of this condition naturally limits sample size, while contemporary archaeologists”. the lack of true necropolises prevents systematical The term “biocultural” refers to a large array of recovery of the skeletal assemblages (Tiesler, 1996; features in the human skeletal remains that are Cobos, 2003). Furthermore, the aggressive tropical linked to cultural elements despite their biological environment that characterizes most of the Maya substrate. They define those traits that materialize world engenders the notoriously degraded state that conditions associated to the life cycle, like age and characterizes most human remains, translating into death, physionomy, living circumstances, nutrition reduced numbers of individuals, and lack of and health, violence, and biocultural practices information and analytical possibilities. This (Tiesler, 1999). Both aspects that make up the situation is further aggravated by modern looting, biocultural concept are not conceived as separate which specifically targets tombs. Apart from the entities but ideally envisioned as an indivisible above circumstances, probably the most important complex of entangled dynamics. drawbacks in bioarchaeological approaches are due In recent years, the analysis of skeletal materials to the way archaeological research is conducted in has increasingly responded to parameters set forth the Maya realm. Albeit this situation is starting to by bioarchaeological agendas, which favor change in recent years, many archaeologists still integrated approaches that combine population and appear to be unaware of the great potential that cultural data sets. “Bioarchaeology” may be skeletal data sets have in cultural reconstruction. described broadly as a thematic specialization in A. Cucina & V. Tiesler 31

archaeology or physical anthropology that studies world still figure prominently in those early human remains in their context and as part of the accounts, revolving around diffusions or archaeological body of information employing evolutional arguments. The lack of scholarly explicit biocultural approximations (Blakely, 1977; interest displayed by the archaeologists is expressed Powell et al., 1991; Klepinger, 1992; Owsley and by the paucity of comparable skeletons from the Jantz, 1994; Konigsberg and Buikstra, 1995; area, which led physical anthropologists like Buikstra, 1997; Larsen, 1997). In this review, we Stewart (1943, 1949: 114) to plea for more time wish to briefly trace the advances reached by and effort in the recovery of human remains. bioarchaeology in the Maya area since the early, Noteworthy is also Earnest Hooton’s pioneering pioneering anthropological approaches in the work on the Sacred Cenote at Chichen Itzá (1940) 1960s. in which he provided a fairly detailed but descriptive account of the skeletal collection Frameworks in Maya bioarchaeology recovered in 1909. Hooton busts the myth of virgin victims by establishing that the majority of The sociocultural development of mankind has individuals are male, but makes no efforts to put his been conditioned by its human biological findings into context with the other materials properties. Nevertheless in practice we tend to retrieved from the bottom of the Cenote. envision humanity in the somewhat artificial More recently, works by Haviland (1967) and categories of “organism” “social” and Saul (1972) have fostered a more systematic interest “psychological”. Similarly, the “archaeological in Maya skeletal biology. As part of a broader being”, i.e. human vestiges, display a vast array of archaeological investigation on Tikal, Haviland features that are both inherited and generated compares the adult statures from different burial during life, as are health record, habits or living contexts and settlement areas and concludes that conditions. From this perspective, the analysis of the members of the elite were taller than the rest of skeletal remains is of paramount importance both the population. In a more comprehensive approach, for social and anthropological sciences, archaeology Saul promotes “osteobiography” as a means to learn in particular. What varies between both approaches about the ancient Maya and their life styles. He is the specific research tools, the immediate object specifically attempts to provide new answers to the of study and the kind of data: material culture questions of identity, origins, living conditions and versus skeletal materials. Regarding Maya research, demise of the population at Altar de Sacrificios, it is no wonder that skeletal anthropology shares Guatemala. Both Haviland’s and Saul’s work are several research topics with archaeology. Such is the now considered landmark studies in Maya case in demographic and mortuary investigation, bioarchaeology in that their interpretations clearly dynastic studies and the study of ritual expression. link skeletal data to cultural contexts. For the first Regrettably, these subjects have mostly been time, human remains are treated as direct material pursued more or less independently by each line. indicators of past cultural interaction, although it An integrated examination of both data sets, may be argued that neither Saul nor Haviland laid conducted within a coherent theoretical down any grounded conceptual schemes for the framework, thus poses a challenge for this and incorporation of skeletal studies. On the future generations of scholars. methodological side, sample size limitations and Skeletal studies on the ancient Maya set out as statistical testing still didn’t seem to be of real case descriptions and standard inventories of small concern for either project. Saul’s ambitious skeletal collections that contained the basic osteobiographic approximation to the Altar information on (mainly cranial) morphology and population still appears quite unaware of the many measurements. Up to the middle of the last century, paleodemographic pitfalls that are inherent in any emphasis was placed on the skull and the practices attempt to infer about the living from the dead, of head shaping and dental decoration, while no especially considering the complex burial record attention was bestowed on lifestyle issues or that characterizes the ancient Maya. These and contextual information beyond chronology. other issues were to be addressed more Comparisons with series from other parts of the systematically in the following years. Maya 32 Maya Bioarchaeology

bioarchaeology started to grow steadily during the Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia and the ‘80s, as more and more scholars dedicated their Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, both in interests to this line of research mainly in Belize, , were research has traditionally Guatemala and Honduras (mostly Copan) (see centered around the Central Highlands. In recent Danforth et al., 1997 and Wright 2004, for a review years, the Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán at of literature). Mérida, Yucatán, has opened a Masters Program in The new biocultural interest in the Maya area Skeletal Anthropology with strong focus both on was also a side-product of a more general trend in forensic investigation and Maya bioarchaeology, anthropology and specifically the fields of physical promising to promote regionally based research. anthropology and the freshly reformulated “new Within the broad frame set by bioarchaeology, archaeology”. Bioarchaeology, as such, emerged as Maya investigations have tended to blend human part of this process during the seventies. Ideally biological and cultural information mainly through defined as a thematic specialization that studies an ecological, adaptive focus. Anthropological human remains from a biocultural perspective and studies that follow this line typically anchor around as an integrated part of the material culture, the concepts derived from biodiversity, demography, term ‘bioarchaeology” was coined in 1976 and was health and nutrition, physiological adaptation, promoted at first by Anglo-Saxon scholars (Blakely, reproduction and the ecosystem (Saul, 1972; 1977; Buikstra, 1981; Powell, 1991; Larsen, 1997; Storey, 1985a, b; 1986; 1992; 1999; Marquez and see also Tiesler, 1996). These academics sought to del Angel, 1997; Danforth, 1997; Marquez et al., promote a long due interdisciplinary cooperation in 2002a; Wright and White, 1996; Wright, 1997). In the archaeological recovery and study of human the practice, this approach is apt to promote remains with the goal of obtaining a broader broader generalization within the field of biological understanding of ancient life ways (Buikstra, anthropology, but has been less suitable to advance 1991). Buikstra (1991) underscores the need to the joint archaeological or sociocultural build a truly integrated research design led by the reconstruction, thus limiting its interpretative priority analysis of the mortuary context. Along potential to insights into nutritional or health with her fellow scholars, she recommended to focus factors, without being able to exploring their deeper on the concept of adaptation and biocultural theory causal impact in the economic, social or cultural (Powell, 1991) and the comparison of multiple realms of explanation. lines of evidence within a regional frame of Recently, an attempt was made for a more reference (Smith, 1991). Subsequently, more integrated, explicitly social approach in the theoretical and methodological starting points have interpretation of biocultural practices, coined been provided, designed to sustain and fortify the “archaeology of people”. Resting upon a series of empirical evidence. Definite progress has been integrated theoretical, methodological and practical achieved now in terms of technical procedures and concepts, this proposal was developed by statistical testing, along with the integration of incorporating parameters derived from taphonomy, bioarchaeologists in many research teams. These, contextual and social archeology (Schiffer, 1987; together with a subtler, critical approach to ancient Bate, 1998; Tiesler, 1999, 2001a). The model parts human studies, have led to a broader understanding from the definition of the “individual”, taken as a of biocultural dynamics and their role in ancient singular phenomenon constitutive of the system in sociocultural evolvement. which he or she participates, and considered as the Given the general development of basic unit of biocultural analysis. A set of concepts bioarchaeological research, it is not difficult to was demarcated to define an “archeological understand that Maya research has benefited from individual”, vestige of the “social individual” first its agenda in the past twenty five years, also because subjected to mortuary treatments, later to become most of the research has been carried out by non- part of the material record and source of biocultural Mesoamerican scientists, the majority of them information. A regional model was developed to working in North America. The only conceptualize the social role of the attributes under Mesoamerican institution that has been offering study and compare characteristics within the social formal training in physical anthropology are the frame of reference with promising results on Maya A. Cucina & V. Tiesler 33

biocultural practices. were eating but rather aim at understanding more However, ecological issues and the biological complex and entangled processes that go well evidence of social status differences still remain a beyond simple food intake. The volume centers central core in general Maya bioarchaeology therefore on subsistence patterns as a fundamental (Wright, 2004). Towards the end of the ‘90s, two piece of evidence and considers broader issues important edited books were published in this field: linked to social structure, economic relationships “Bones of the Maya”, edited by Whittington and and, ultimately, collapse. Like the piece edited by Reed (1997), and “Reconstructing ancient Maya Whittington and Reed (1997), White’s book diet” that was edited by Christine White in 1999. represents a milestone in ancient Maya studies in Both volumes mark the pace of bioarchaeology in bioarchaeology and a term of comparison for future the 1990s, providing a representative overview of research on Maya paleodiet. Similarly, it is divided the increasingly vast information produced on into three mayor topics (botanical and faunal Maya skeletal samples, different attempts of analysis, paleopathology and bone chemistry). combining multiple lines of evidence and Again, no “local” investigators are included in the methodologies, many of them new. authors’ list and all the samples are from Belize, “Bones of the Maya”, edited by Whittington and Guatemala and Honduras. All of the manuscripts Reed (1997), focuses on different aspects of Maya that rested on osteological analyses encountered skeletal studies: osteological, dental and special that maize was the basic constituent in the ancient studies (isotopes and DNA). The book strongly Maya diet; nonetheless variation occurred promoted and at the same time consolidated the diachronically according to social status and among emerging field of Maya bioarchaeology, for it sites. Most of the authors analyze diet by provided the state of art in the already varied contextualizing the pathological evidence displayed branches of regional skeletal research. A by the skeletal remains. These include caries, as a comprehensive list of references on Maya skeletal somehow direct indicator of carbohydrate studies appears at the end of the volume. It is consumption, along with enamel hypoplasia and noteworthy that the contributors of Bones of the ante-mortem tooth loss. Secondary indications are Maya include several archaeologists. With only two growth pattern and adult stature. The different exception (Marquez and del Angel in chapter 4 and approaches and lines of evidence succeed in Lopez Olivares in chapter 8), all authors are non- providing a convincing overall perspective on Mesoamerican scientists whose geographical areas ancient Maya diet in relation to subsistence of interest were mostly Guatemala, Belize and strategies and broader social factors. Despite the Honduras. Some of the contributions go into central focus which is mainly limited to diet itself, efforts to contextualize the skeletal evidence, while the volume provides new and alternative others are more limited in this respect. Casuistic indications that may represent new pedestals for evidence or sampled information still figures archaeological studies. prominently, apart from methodological Unfortunately, since the American scholars’ approaches. Many of the interpretations that attention has been directed mainly to Belize, appear in the chapters’ discussions evolve around an Honduras and Guatemala, there is presently a ecological frameworks rather than a socio-economic reduced amount of comparable published data on theoretical one, and consequently do not succeed in the Mexican side of the Maya area. Here, studies on closing the chasm between biological and social, paleodiet and population generally adapt more cultural and archaeological interpretations. Only conservative frames, as shown by the work of Chase and Chase contextualize the remains under Márquez (1982, 1987), Márquez and Miranda study according to their taphonomy, interment (1984) or Márquez et al. (2002b). This region has position, location and other related factors. been the object of later, more recent As from its title, the second volume bioarchaeological studies. Direct correlations “Reconstructing ancient Maya diet” focuses on between subsistence patterns, paleopathology and dietary issues. Clearly, as White states in her social status distinguish the work by Cucina and introductory chapter, studies on paleodiet are not Tiesler (2003) on the sites of Calakmul, Dzibanché just intended to infer on what the ancient Maya and Kohunlich, in the Mexican side of the northern 34 Maya Bioarchaeology

Peten area. Social status, as inferred from the allows fresh insights on residential mobility and archaeological evidence of place of interment, migratory dynamics not only of the ruling elite but associated funerary attire and modality of also of the general population. These pieces of deposition, resulted to discriminate between high evidence are apt to provide a subtler understanding and low status groups, as well as between sexes of the complex regional demic, trade, social and within the high status one. Stature, health and political dynamics, which have so far been activity profile also seem to differ between different examined almost exclusively through the study of subsistence patterns and according to status, the material record. following a regional study by Tiesler (1999, 2000a, The application of chemical analysis for 2001a), conducted on skeletons from more than nutritional purposes has led to relate nutritional ninety Prehispanic Maya settlements. Other works expectations to social status in different populations revise the health and put it into context with single (mainly from Belize and the southern Lowlands), sites’ ecology and economy, like in (Tiesler 2001b; White et al., 2001), ecology Chiapas (Márquez et al., 2002b), Xcambó in (Wright and White, 1996; Wright, 1997) and sites’ northern Yucatan during the Classic period (Cucina size or relative political importance (Coyston et al., et al., 2003, 2005a) or on the economic, social role 1999). It has started shedding light on the and status of a colonial multiethnic society in variability that existed in terms of subsistence Campeche (Cucina, 2005). patterns and access to resources, as well as the production system and its socio-political and Methodologically and topically economic consequences. oriented approaches Parallel to this, a series of dental studies, that are already widely applied elsewhere, are being In the last twenty years, sophisticated increasingly adopted also in Maya research, as biochemical methods have started to proliferate in illustrated by the work on biological affinities both Maya bioarchaeological research. These new within (Jacobi, 2000; Rhoads, 2002) and among analytical tools have been borrowed from other sites (Lang, 1990; Wrobel, 2003; Sherer, 2004; fields of investigation like geology (stable isotopes Cucina et al., 2005b; Cucina and Tiesler, 2006). and trace element), physics or chemistry. Their Dental morphology is of great value in the Maya incorporation in Maya research has allowed to area due to the otherwise poor preservation of the provide new answers on old hypotheses on skeletal remains. Most of the studies rested upon migration and population history (see Merriwether the theoretical concepts originally expressed by et al., 1997; González-Oliver et al., 2001; Hodell et Austin (1978) for Altar de Sacrificio and retaken by al., 2004; Price et al., 2005; 2006; Wright, 2005) Pompa (1990) at Chichen Itza, all attempting to and a more detailed information on diet (White et infer on internal variability and/or chronological al., 1993; 2001; Whittington and Reed, 1997; continuity to answer specific research questions. Wright, 1997; Reed, 1999; Nalda et al., 1999; Recent studies of non-metrical dental traits like Tiesler et al., 2002a; Tejeda et al., 2002). those by Jacobi’s (2000), Wrobel’s (2003), Scherer Migration patterns and detection of individual (2004), Cucina et al., (2005b), and Cucina and provenance is a fairly recent topic in Maya Tiesler (2006) have elevated the original site by site bioarchaeology. Price and colleagues have been scope of these studies to a wider regional level. applying strontium isotopes analysis to the enamel Although preliminary and hampered by looming of the first permanent molars at individual level to inter-observer variations and limited sample size, assess the place of origin of Pakal, the well-known their results offer a starting point for a new overall ruler of Palenque, Chiapas (2006) or at population appraisal of Maya population and group affinities, level to infer on the provenance of African ethnicity evolvement and population dynamics. individuals unearthed in the colonial cemetery of Modern techniques and the new awareness of Campeche, Campeche (2005). Such kind of studies the importance of human skeletal remains in the is still at its dawn in the area, but holds enormous reconstruction of the lost history of ancient potentials for the new generations of Maya civilizations gather together the information that bioarchaeologists and archaeologists alike, as it multiple lines of evidence may offer. Examples are A. Cucina & V. Tiesler 35

for Pakal’s age, epigraphers read an age of 80 years, which doubles the skeletal age estimate published fifty years ago. The new information, in almost unanimous consensus among the contributors, revealed an age well over 50 without being able to confirm the epigraphic readings of 80. Another line of bioarchaeological research that is particularly apt to contribute directly to sociocultural studies is that of biocultural practices. These refer broadly to those cultural habits that are prone to leave traces in the skeletal remains. As regards the ancient Maya, dental decoration and head shaping were widely practiced in pre-Hispanic times and have been the focus of several investigations, conducted mostly in earlier years (Buikstra, 1997). Recently, this topic was taken up again by Tiesler (1993, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000b, 2001b). Her evaluation of the regional skeletal material on presence, techniques and visual styles is oriented in an explicitly sociocultural perspective, Figure 2 – Pakal’s skeletal remains harbored in conceiving biocultural patterns directly as part of the monolithic sarcophagus tomb in the Temple of the information derived from the funerary and the Inscriptions, Palenque, Chiapas (Photo by broader archeological context. The results make a Vera Tiesler). convincing case of the role of biocultural practices in the Maya life cycle, as emblems of cultural the recent multidisciplinary works on dynastic identity and sometimes used as visible signs of the Maya history, such as the studies coordinated by privileged. The results and their interpretation, Buikstra et al. (2004) on the Early Classic Copán’s along with new classification parameters, laid new ruling elite and the work on the well known ruler groundwork for future projects along the same line, of Palenque, Janaab’ Pakal, edited by Tiesler and although Anglo-Saxon speaking scholars have has Cucina (2004). not taken up so far much of the approach and In both cases, direct analysis of the remains in results, which were mostly published in Spanish. their taphonomic context benefited from novel Of different origin are those anthropogenic methodological approaches and the explicit goal to marks in human remains that denote peri-mortem reconstruct jointly the biographies of the violence and posthumous body processing. These, personages under study. The latter study, in which just like the biocultural practice originated during Buikstra herself participated, centered on the re- life, trace a line of research that hasn’t been fully examination of the skeleton of the famous Maya explored yet despite its great potential for ruler, who still rests in his sarcophagus tomb inside integrated research on ancient Maya ritual conduct. the Temple of the Inscriptions of Palenque, Mexico. Anthropogenic marks have been discovered Fifty years after the initial study, the new relatively recently by the Maya scholarly investigations were conducted by an international community, which comes as a surprise because a team of experts in skeletal biology, forensics, wide range of posthumous body manipulations are genetics, histomorphology, Maya archaeology and known for this area, mainly related to post- taphonomy, and epigraphy. This project, triggered sacrificial practices, although ancestral processing by several debates that arose around the ruler’s was equally carried out (Helfrich, 1973; Moser, remains since the time of the discovery in 1952, 1973; Nájera, 1987). Broadly accepted are the was able to solve the most important controversy marks of flaying and dismemberment in a skull pit between epigraphy and osteology on the ruler’s age from Colha, Belize (Massey and Steele, 1997) and at death, as well as offer explanations to others. As further cases have been reported from other sites 36 Maya Bioarchaeology

(Tiesler and Cucina, 2003; Tiesler et al., 2002b; hundreds of years before the actual “collapse”. In Nance et al., 2003; Buikstra et al., 2004). turn, Cetina and Sierra (2003) find that at Xcambó, a center along the northern coast of the The Maya “collapse” peninsula, stature was significantly higher than other inland samples, coupled with low rates of The different lines and approaches of Maya porotic hyperostosis and cribra orbitalia, bioarchaeological research have encountered a supposedly reflecting better and more diversified common goal in the understanding of a research diet in a marshland environment. Despite this, theme that has been explored and discussed Xcambó fell in disuse around the 8th century AD, extensively both from an empirical and theoretical apparently not for ecological reasons but most point of view: the so-called “collapse” of Maya likely due to a shift in political and economic hegemonic structures at the end of the Classic spheres (Sierra, 2004). In reality, the ninth-century period. Their disintegration led to the destruction Classic Maya collapse was limited to the southern and abandonment of a large number of sites in the Maya Lowlands and occurred in a mosaic-like central lowland regions, eventually to be replaced fashion (Shaw, 2003). by other centers that rose to power and political Decline for reasons other than the ecological importance further north. The discovery of Maya ones is supported by White (1997) who states that ceremonial centers, characterized by population nutritional and pathological along with political densities that were in some cases heavier than the and economic factors might have had a key role in modern ones (Haviland, 1970; Culbert and Rice, the decline at Lamanai, but at the same time does 1990), triggered the question whether the slash- not reject the hypothesis that ecological causes and-burn (milpa) subsistence economy described might have mined the socio-economic basement at ethnohistorically could have indeed sustained larger Pacbitun. Similarly, Wright (1997) argues that the human settlements. Moreover, the tropical variability in data from the Pasión Maya lowland ecosystem is very fragile to stand the rigors of an region indicate a wide array of possible reasons extensive milpa economy (White, 1999). Therefore, accounting for the collapse. Also Danforth (1991) subsistence practices and diet became the mayor inferred from the heterogeneous reduction in point to understand the Maya development and stature that the collapse was a complex decline. phenomenon with many patterns of manifestation The initial theoretical approach to give an across the lowland and it is likely that the possible explanation to a widespread phenomenon was the explanations can be pretty diverse. ecological one (Coe, 1980; Culbert, 1988; Webster Although the ecological model is considered as et al., 1992). According to those supporting this part of the explanations for the decline of the Maya model, the Maya had overexploited the civilization, it takes its place among other models environment and exceeded its carrying capacity to (Fash, 1994). In first place, the evidence reported sustain an increasing population. As a consequence by the Spaniards in the 16th century of a subsistence of agricultural intensification, mono-cropping and economy based on the “milpa” might not have environmental degradation, infections and represented the economy of the Maya during the malnutrition spread and the demographic structure Classic period. In this period they had developed collapsed (Cohen and Armelagos, 1984), which highly intensive and productive technologies for implied a social and economic decline with irrigation and land use like raised fields and terraces important socio-political consequences. (Turner and Harrison, 1983). Similarly, other crops Nonetheless, the large acquired data sets on played a role in the Maya diversified ecological and skeletal remains point to the collapse as a way more geographical environment, like beans, peppers, complex problem that cannot be reduced and tomatoes and staples (Lentz, 1999). Although it is described by a single model. Marquez and Angel hard to sustain this model on a large regional and (1997) support the ecological model resting upon chronological scale, it is indicative of the inner the reduction is stature in Northern Yucatan, variability that distinguishes this civilization. It is though they found that the mayor reduction took more and more evident that the “collapse” was place between the Preclassic and Classic periods, confined to some part of the regions, Palenque, A. Cucina & V. Tiesler 37

Calakmul, Tikal and Copan to name some of the enormously different in terms of size, geographical most famous sites. As the south declined, the location, biotic environment, economic, social and northern regions were acquiring greater and greater political importance, and inner social importance with sites like Chichén Itzá first and “stratigraphy”, all pieces of a mosaic that entangled Mayapán after that (Folan et al., 2000). Folan et al. to one another to give shape to a very vast array of (2000) discuss the collapse issue detecting subsistence strategies (White, 1999; Gerry and environmental draughts as an important natural Krueger, 1999; Cucina and Tiesler, 2003). For factor for the decline, even though they also stress example, the tropical inland rain forest stands out the multicausal issue, where ecological, nutritional, against the coastal lines for which the marine environmental, economic and political reason resources where of paramount importance (Sharer, undermined the inner structure of a society that 1994; Glassman and Garber, 1999). At the same was undergoing an internal disruptive process. time, the Yucatan peninsula’s northern subtropical In this perspective, Maya bioarchaeology is not semi-arid environment with its aquifer geological to be intended as the biocultural research of a structure and the lack of surface rivers implied a homogeneous context where only limited sets of different organization of cultivation and irrigation explanation hold true, rather an assortment of systems (Dahlin, 2002). Not taking all these regionally, socially and ecologically distinct entities elements into account in a truly biocultural, holistic that in some cases might have followed different fashion, would lead to an unnecessary trajectories (see Powell, 1991 for a similar overview oversimplification of our views of this complex of the Mississippians in North America). society. We cannot overlook that the Maya society spread around an area wider than 250,000 squared Discussion kilometers if only the Lowlands are considered (Webster, 1997). Almost four decades have passed since the Sauer (1955: 61) rightly stated that “intimate pioneering studies by Haviland (1967) and Saul knowledge of historic sources, archaeological sites, (1972). Since then, the anthropological studies of biogeography and ecology, and the processes of the ancient Mayas have blossomed thanks to the geomorphology must be fused in patient field combined contributions of many scholars using studies, so that we may read the changes in multiple lines of evidence. With the years, both habitability through human time for the lands in archaeologists and bioarchaeologists have grown which civilization first took for.” increasingly aware of the importance of newer Human beings, as individuals or population, techniques to promote what is known on the are shaped both by biology and culture (Storey, ancient Maya. The ecological model of collapse has 1992). The biocultural approach requires been called into question only by the time that diet knowledge or at least consideration, of all the could be reliably investigated by means of stable different facets that fashioned the society. The isotopes composition of skeletal remains and when “individual” represents the basic step of analysis, other lines of evidence turned in their valuable but its contribution should go beyond the simple contributions. That maize was the crop in ancient “biological” information, to place it and its group (and nowadays) Maya culture is a matter of fact. In first into its social, economic and political micro- terms of nutrition, it represented the main available cosmos and then into the regional macro-cosmos subsistence element throughout the whole Maya frame. world around which the whole subsistence strategy Another concluding remark refers skeletal was built up, with some few exceptions (White, preservation, which still poses a substantial problem 1999). However, it would be erroneous to in Maya bioarchaeology. It is undeniable that generalize on the quantity and quality of maize without large samples it is almost impossible to consumption by stating that diet was based on build and test hypotheses that are not superficial or maize, squash and beans, for extrinsic (ecological at best just indicative of patterns, and that modern and socioeconomic) factors influenced the access techniques are of paramount importance to get out and the availability to these as well as other of the descriptive tunnel to learn more on this important food resources. The ancient centers were ancient society. Wright’s conclusions in her review 38 Maya Bioarchaeology

paper on Maya osteology (2004) put emphasis on The Archaeology of Death, pp. 123-132. the integration of individual life histories into a Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, population approach to understand the ancient Buikstra J.E. 1991. Out of the appendix and into Maya biological history. Although statements like the dirt: comments on thirteen years of these are correct in terms of population history, bioarchaeological research. In M.L. Powell, P.S. they betray at the same time the lack of a wider Bridges & A.M. Wagner Mires (eds): What biocultural mind-set, one that encompasses at the Mean These Bones? Studies in Southeastern least biology, iconography, archaeology and Bioarchaeology, pp. 172-188. The University of environmental history. Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. So, what is on the horizon? Important steps Buikstra J.E. 1997. Studying Maya bioarchaeology. ahead in Maya research have been made since In S.L. Whittington & D.M. Reed (eds): Bones Haviland’s and Saul’s works. It must be underscored of the Maya, pp. 221-228. Smithsonian that nowadays scholars are no longer purely Institution Press, Washington. descriptive, their methodological and statistical Buikstra J.E., Price T.D., Wright L.E. & Burton approaches are rigorously scientific and not much is J.A. 2004. Tombs from the Copan acropolis: a left to chance during data recording and life history approach. In E.E. Bell, M.A. elaboration. However, regardless of the Canuto & R.J. Sharer (eds): Understanding methodological know-how and ability to use new Early Classic Copan, pp. 191-212. University of techniques in a practical phase of the analysis, the Pennsylvania, Museum of Archaeology and actual profound knowledge of the ancient Maya is Anthropology, Philadelphia. what permits to shift from a methodological Cetina A. & Sierra T. 2003. Acercamiento a las (though highly sophisticated) application to a truly condiciones de vida y nutrición de los antiguos interpretive and theoretical model (see also habitantes de Xcambó, Yuactán. Los Webster, 1997). After all, as Webster stated almost Investigadores de la Cultura Maya, 11: 504-513. a decade ago, mayanists have an incredible Cobos R. 2003. Prácticas funerárias en las tierras advantage over investigators of many other ancient bajas mayas del norte. In A. Ciudad, M.H. Ruz societies in the world, because of the extremely rich & M.J. Iglesias Ponce de Leon (eds): understanding of ancient Maya culture and society Antropología de la eternidad: la muerte en la supported by an abundant and rich burial database cultura maya, pp. 35-48. Sociedad Española de (1997: 6). It is our task now to canalize these ample Estudios Mayas, Madrid. sources of information into a unified frame for Coe M.D. 1980. The Maya. Thames and Hudson, reconstructing and interpreting ancient Maya London. peoples and their life ways. Cohen M.N. & Armelagos G.J. (eds) 1984. Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture. Academic Press, Orlando. References Coyston S., White C.D. & Schwarcz H.P. 1999. Dietary carbonate analysis of bone and enamel Austin D. M. 1978. The biological affinity of the for two Maya sites in Belize. In C.D. White ancient populations of Altar de Sacrificios and (ed): Reconstructing Ancient Maya Diet, pp. 221- Seibal. Estudios de Cultura Maya, 11: 57-73. 243. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake Bate F. 1998. El proceso de investigación en City. arqueología. Ed. Crítica, Grijalvo-Mondadori, Cucina A. 2005. Procedencia y estatus social de los Barcelona. africanos en la villa colonial de Campeche: un Blakely R.T. (ed) 1977. Biocultural Adaptation in estudio químico y antropológico preliminar. Prehistoric America. University of Georgia Press, Estudios de Antropología Biológica (in press). Athens. Cucina A. & Tiesler V. 2003. Dental caries and Buikstra J.E. 1981. Mortuary practices, ante mortem tooth loss in the northern Petén paleodemography and paleopathology: a case area, Mexico: a biocultural perspective on social study from the Coster site (Illinois). In R. status differences among the Classic Maya. Am. Chapman, I. Kinnes & K. Randsborg (eds): J. Phys. Anthropol., 122: 1-10. A. Cucina & V. Tiesler 39

Cucina A. & Tiesler V. 2006. Las relaciones Maya collapse. In W. Lutz, L. Prieto & W. biológicas entre poblaciones pretéritas mayas Sanderson (eds): Population, Development and desde la evidencia de la morfología dental. In R. Environment on the Yucatan Peninsula: from Cobos (ed): V Mesa Redonda de Palenque. Ancient Maya to 2030, pp. 2-32. International Instituto Nacional de Antropología e História, Institute for Applied System Analysis, Mexico City (in press). Laxenburg. Cucina A., Sierra T. & Tiesler V. 2003. Sex Gerry J.P. & Krueger H.W. 1999. Regional differences in oral pathologies at the late classic diversity in classic Maya diets. In S.L. Maya site of Xcambó. Dent. Anthropol., 16: 45- Whittington & D.M. Reed (eds): Bones of the 51. Maya, pp. 196-207. Smithsonian Institution Cucina A., Tiesler V. & Sierra T. 2005a. Press, Washington. Marcadores epigenéticos dentales, salud oral y Glassman D.M. & Garber J.F. 1999. Land use, estructura social en el sitio maya de Xcambó, diet, and their effects on the biology of the Yucatán. Temas Antropológicos (in press). prehistoric Maya of Northern Ambergis Caye, Cucina A., Tiesler V. & Wrobel G. 2005b. Belize. In C.D. White (ed): Reconstructing Afinidades biológicas y dinámicas poblacionales Ancient Maya Diet, pp. 119-132. The mayas desde el Preclásico hasta el periodo University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. colonial. Los Investigadores de la Cultura Maya, González-Oliver, A., Márquez L., Jiménez J. & 13 (in press). Torre-Blanco A. 2001. Founding amerindian Culbert T.P. 1988. The collapse of classic Maya mitochondrial DNA lineages in ancient . In N. Yoffee & G.L. Cowggill from Xcaret, Quintana Roo. Am. J. Phys. (eds): The Collapse of Ancient States and Anthropol., 116: 230-235. Civilizations, pp. 69-101. University of Arizona Haviland W.A. 1967. Stature at Tikal, Guatemala: Press, Tucson. implications for classic Maya demography and Culbert T.P. & Rice D.S. (eds) 1990. Precolumbian social organization. Am. Antiq., 32: 316-25. Population History in the Maya Lowland. Haviland W.A. 1970. Tikal, Guatemala, and University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Mesoamerican urbanism. World Archaeol., 2: Dahlin B.H. 2002. Climate change at the end of 186-197. the Classic period in Yucatan. Ancient Mesoam., Helfrich K. 1973. Menschenopfer und Tötungsrituale 13: 327-340. im Kult der Maya. Mann Verlag, Berlin. Danforth M.E. 1991. Coming up short. Stature Hodell D.A., Quinn R.L., Brenner M. & Kamenov and nutrition among the ancient maya of the G. 2004. Spatial variation of strontium isotopes southern lowlands. In C.D. White (ed): (87Sr/86Sr) in the Maya region: a tool for Reconstructing Ancient Maya Diet, pp. 103-117. tracking ancient human migration. J. Archaeol. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Sci., 31: 585-601. Danforth M.E. 1997. Late Classic Maya health Hooton E.A. 1940 - Skeletons from the Cenote of patterns: evidence from enamel microdefects. Sacrifice at Chichén Itzá. In C.L. Hay, R.L. In S.L. Whittington & D.M. Reed (eds): Bones Lindton, S.K. Lothrop, H. Shapiro & G.C. of the Maya, pp. 127-137. Smithsonian Vaillant (eds): The Maya and Their Neighbors, Institution Press, Washington. pp. 272-280. Appleton-Century Company Danforth M.E., Whittington S.L. & Jacobi K.P. Inc., New York. 1997. Appenndix. An indexed bibliography of Jacobi, K.J. 2000. Last rites for the Tipu Maya: prehistoric and early historic Maya human Genetic Structuring in a Colonial Cementery. The osteology: 1839-1994. In S.L. Whittington & University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. D.M. Reed (eds): Bones of the Maya, pp. 127- Klepinger L.L. 1992. Innovative approaches to the 137.Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. study of past human health and subsistence Fash W.L. 1994. Changing perspectives on Maya strategies. In S.R. Saunders & M.A. Katzenberg civilization. Ann. Rev. Anthropol., 23: 181-208. (eds): Skeletal Biology of Past Peoples: Research Folan, W.J., Faust B., Lutz W. & Gunn J.D. 2000. Methods, pp. 121-130. Wiley Liss, New York. Social and environmental factors in the Classic Konigsberg L.W., & Buikstra J.E. 1995. Regional 40 Maya Bioarchaeology

approaches to the investigation of past human In S.L. Whittington & D.M. Reed (eds): Bones biocultural structure. In L.A. Beck (ed): of the Maya, pp. 62-77. Smithsonian Institution Regional Approaches to Mortuary Analysis, pp. Press, Washington. 191-219. Plenum, New York. Merriwether, D. A., Reed D.M. & Ferrell R.E. Lang C.A. 1990. The Dental Morphology of the 1997. Ancient and contemporary Ancient Maya from Lamanai and Tipu, Belize: a mitochondrial DNA variation in the Maya. In Study of Population Movement. Master Thesis, S.L. Whittington & D.M. Reed (eds): Bones of Trent University, Petersborough, Ontario the Maya, pp. 208-217. Smithsonian Institution (Canada). Press, Washington. Larsen C.S. 1997. Bioarchaeology. Interpreting Moser C.L. 1973. Human Decapitation in Ancient Behavior from Human Remains. Cambridge Mesoamerica. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, University Press, Cambridge. D.C. Lentz D.L. 1999. Plant resources of the ancient Nájera M.I. 1987. El Don de la Sangre en el Maya. The paleoethnobotanical evidence. In Equilibrio Cósmico. Centro de Estudios Mayas, C.D. White (ed.): Reconstructing Ancient Maya Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Diet, pp. 3-18. The University of Utah Press, México City. Salt Lake City. Nalda E., Tejeda S., Velásquez A. & Zarazúa G. Márquez L. 1982. Playa del Carmen - una Población 1999. Paleodieta en Dzibanché y Kohunlich: de la Costa Oriental en el Posclásico. Colección diferenciasy tendencias preliminares. Científica 119, Instituto Nacional de Arqueología, 21: 35-44. Antropología e Historia, México, D.F.. Nance R.C., Whittington S.L. & Borg B.E. 2003. Márquez L. 1987. Qué sabemos de los mayas Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Iximché. peninsulares a partir de sus restos óseos. In University of Florida, Gainesville. Memorias del Primer Coloquio Internacional de Owsley D.W. & Jantz R.L. 1994. Skeletal Biology in Mayistas, pp. 43-56. Universidad Nacional the Great Plains. Migration, Warfare, Health and Autónoma de México, México City. Subsistence. Smithsonian Institution Press, Márquez, L. & Miranda T. 1984. Investigaciones Washington D.C. osteológicas en la península de Yucatán. In Pompa J.A. 1990. Antropología Dental: Aplicación Investigaciones Recientes en el Area Maya, XVII en Poblaciones Prehispánicas. Serie Antropología Mesa Redonda, pp. 49-61. Sociedad Mexicana Física, Colección Científica 195, Instituto de Antropología, San Cristóbal de las Casas. Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México Marquez L. & del Angel A. 1997. Height among City. Prehispanic Maya of the Yucatán peninsula: a Powell M.L., Bridges P.S. & Wagner Mires A.M. reconsideration. In S.L. Whittington & D.M. (eds) 1991. What Mean These Bones? Studies in Reed (eds): Bones of the Maya, pp. 51-61. Southeastern Bioarchaeology. The University of Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Márquez L., Jaén M.T. & Jiménez J.C. 2002a. El Price D.T., Tiesler V. & Burton J. 2005. impacto biológico de la colonización en Conquerors, conquered, and slaves: Yucatán: la población de Xcaret, Quintana Roo. bioarchaeological evidence of the early colonial In C. Serrano & L.A. Vargas (eds): Antropología inhabitants of Campeche, Mexico. Am. J. Phys. Física Latinoamérica, vol. 3, pp. 25-42. UNAM, Anthropol. (in press). Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas, Price D.T., Burton J.H., Tiesler V. & Buikstra J.E. Mexico City. 2006. Geographic origin of Janaab’ Pakal and Marques L., Hernandez P.O., & Gomes A. 2002b. the Red Queen. Evidence from strontium La población urbana de Palenque en el Clásico isotopes. In V. Tiesler & A. Cucina (eds): tardío. In V. Tiesler, R. Cobos & M. Greene Janaab’Pakal of Palenque. Reconstructing the Life (eds): La Organización Social Entre los Mayas, and Death of a Maya Ruler. The University of pp. 13-34. INAH/UADY, Mexico City. Arizona Press, Tucson (in press). Massey, V.K. & Steele D.G. 1997. A Maya skull pit Reed D.M. 1999. Cuisine from Hun-Nal-ye. In from the terminal classic period, Colha, Belize. C.D. White (ed): Reconstructing Ancient Maya A. Cucina & V. Tiesler 41

Diet, pp. 183-196. The University of Utah Yaxkin, 7: 151-160. Press, Salt Lake City. Storey R. 1985b. Burial and Social Class at Copan, Rhoads M.L. 2002. Population Dynamics at the Honduras: Biological Aspects. 50th Annual Southern Periphery of the Ancient Maya World: Meeting of the Society for American Kinship at Copán. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Archaeology, Dept. Anthropology, Unversity of New México, Albuquerque. University of Houston, Houston. Michigan, ProQuest Information and Learning Storey R. 1986. Mortalidad prenatal en Company, Ann Arbor. Teothiuacán y Copan. Yaxkin, 9: 29-42. Sauer C.O. 1955. The agency of man on the earth. Storey R. 1992. Life and Death in the Ancient City In W.L. Thomas Jr. (ed): Man’s Role in Changing of Teotihuacan. University of Alabama Press, the Face of the Earth, pp. 49-69. University of Tuscaloosa Chicago Press, Chicago. Storey R. 1999 - Late Classic nutrition and skeletal Saul F.P. 1972. The Human Skeletal Remains of Altar indicators at Copan, Honduras. In C.D. White de Sacrificio, an Osteobiographyc Analysis, vol. (ed): Reconstructing Ancient Maya Diet, pp. 169- 63, n. 2. Paper of the Peabody Museum of 182. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard City. University, Cambridge Tejeda, S., Tiesler V., Folan W. & Coyoc M. 2002. Scherer A. 2004. Dental Analysis of Classic Period Nutrición y estilo de vida en Calakmul, Population Variability in the Maya Area. Ph.D. Campeche. Los Investigadores de la Cultura Thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station. Maya, 10: 335-340. Schiffer M.B. 1987. Formation Processes of the Tiesler V. 1993. Algunos conceptos y correlatos Archaeological Record. University of New para la consideración del individuo en Mexico, Albuquerque. arqueología. Boletín de Antropología Americana, Sharer R.J. 1994. The Ancient Maya. Stanford 28: 5-16. University Press, Stanford. Tiesler V. 1996. Restos humanos como fuente de Shaw J.M. 2003. Climate change and información arqueológica. Aplicaciones en la deforestation: implication for the Maya investigación mayista. Cuicuilco, 2: 213-222. collapse. Ancient Mesoam., 14: 157-167. Tiesler V. 1997. El esqueleto vivo y muerto: una Sierra T. 2004. La Arqueología de Xcambó, Yucatán, propuesta para la evaluación de restos humanos Centro Administrativo Salinero y Puerto en el registro arqueológico. In E. Malvado, G. Comercial de Importancia Regional Durante el Pereira & V. Tiesler (eds): El Cuerpo Humano y Clásico. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad Nacional su Tratamiento Mortuori,pp. 77-89. Colección Autónoma de México, México City. Científica, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Smith B.D. 1991. Bioarchaeology in a broader Historia, México City. context. In M.L. Powell, P.S. Bridges & A.M. Tiesler V. 1998. La costumbre de la deformación Wagner Mires (eds): What Mean These Bones? cefálica entre los antiguos mayas: aspectos Studies in Southeastern Bioarchaeology, pp. 165- morfológicosy culturales. Colección 171. The University of Alabama Press, Científica/Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Tuscaloosa. Historia, México, D.F. Stephens J.L. 1843. Incidents of Travel in Yucatan. Tiesler V. 1999. Rasgos Bioculturales Entre los Harper and Brothers, New York. Antiguos Mayas. Aspectos Arqueológicos y Sociales. Stewart T.D. 1943. Skeletal remains from Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad Nacional Autónoma Tajamulco, Guatemala. In B.P. Dutton & H.R. de México, Mexico City. Hobbs (eds): Excavations at Tajamulco, Tiesler V. 2000a. Eres lo que comes. Patrones de Guatemala, pp. 111-114. University of New desgaste oclusal en poblaciones mayas Mexico, Albuquerque. prehispánicas. TRACE, 38: 67-79. Stewart T.D. 1949. Notas sobre esqueletos Tiesler V. 2000b. Decoraciones Dentales Entre los humanos prehistóricos hallados en Guatemala. Antiguos Mayas. Ediciones Euroamericanas, Antropología e Historia de Guatemala 1:23-34. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Storey R. 1985a. La paleodemografía de Copan. México City. 42 Maya Bioarchaeology

Tiesler V. 2001a. Patrones ocupacionales y White C.D. 1997. Ancient diet at Lamanai and subsistencia en la sociedad maya de la costa Pacbitun: implications for the ecological model peninsular. Consideraciones bioculturales. of collapse. In S.L. Whittington & D.M. Reed Mayab, 14: 30-41. (eds): Bones of the Maya, pp.171-180. Tiesler V. 2001b. La estatura entre los mayas Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington prehispánicos. Consideraciones bioculturales. D.C.. Estudios de Antropología Biológica, 10: 257-273. White C.D. (ed) 1999. Reconstructing Ancient Maya Tiesler, V. & Cucina A. 2003. Sacrificio, Diet. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. tratamiento y ofrenda del cuerpo humano entre White C.D., Healy P.F. & Schwarcz H.P. 1993. los mayas del Clásico: una mirada Intensive agriculture, social status and maya bioarqueológica. In A. Ciudad, M.H. Ruz & diet at Pacbitun, Belize. J. Anthropol. Res., 49: M.J. Ponce de León (eds): Antropología de la 347-375. eternidad: la muerte en la cultura maya, pp. 337- White C.D., Pendergast D.M., Longstaffe F.J. & 354. Sociedad Española de Estudios Mayas, Law K.R. 2001. Social complexity and food Madrid. systems at Altun Ha, Belize: the isotopic Tiesler V. & Cucina A. (eds) 2004. Janaab’ Pakal de evidence. Lat. Am. Antiq., 12: 371-393. Palenque. Vida y Muerte de un Gobernante Whittington S.L. & Reed D.M. (eds) 1997. Bones Maya. Universidad Nacional autonoma de of the Maya. Smithsonian Institution Press, Mexico, Mexico City. Washington. Tiesler V., Tejeda S. & Sierra T. 2002a. Nutrición y Wright L.E. 1997. Ecology or society? Paleodiet condiciones de vida en la costa norte de la and the collapse of the Pasión Maya lowland. In península durante el Clásico: una visión desde S.L. Whittington & D.M. Reed (eds): Bones of Xcambó, Yucatán. Memorias del XV Simposio de the Maya, pp. 181-195. Smithsonian Institution Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala, pp. Press, Washington D.C.. 863-873. Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Wright L.E. 2004. Osteological investigations of Etnología, Guatemala City. ancient Maya lives. In C.W. Golden and G. Tiesler V., Cucina A. & Romano A. 2002b. Vida y Borgstede (eds): Continuities and Changes in muerte del personaje hallado en el Templo XIII- Maya Archaeology: Perspectives at the Millenium, sub, Palenque: I. Culto funerario y sacrificio pp. 201-215. Routledge Press, New York. humano. Mexicon, 24: 75-78. Wright L.E. 2005. Identifying immigrants to Tikal, Turner B.L. & Harrison P.D. (eds) 1983. Guatemala: defining local variability in Pulltrousers, Swamps: Ancient Maya Habitat, strontium isotope ratios of human tooth Agriculture and Settlement in Northern Belize. enamel. J. Archaeol. Sci., 32: 555-566. University of Texas Press, Austin. Wright L.E. & White C.D. 1996. Human biology Webster D., Sanders W.T. & van Rossum P. 1992 - in the Classic maya collapse: evidence from A simulation of Copan population history and paleopathology and paleodiet. J. World Prehist., its implications. Ancient Mesoam., 3: 185-197. 10: 147-198 Webster D. 1997. Studying Maya burials. In S.L. Wrobel G.D. 2003. Metric and Non-Metric Dental Whittington & D.M. Reed (eds): Bones of the Variation Among the Ancient Maya of Northern Maya, pp. 3-12. Smithsonian Institution Press, Belize. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Indiana, Washington D.C.. Indiana.