-
Symbolic bones and interethnic violence in a frontierzone,
northwest Mexico, ca. 500–900 C.E.Ben A. Nelsona,1 and Debra L.
Martinb
aSchool of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State
University, Tempe, AZ 85284-2402; and bDepartment of Anthropology,
University of Nevada,Las Vegas, NV 89154-5003
Edited by Linda R. Manzanilla, Universidad Nacional Autonóma de
México, Mexico D.F., Mexico, and approved April 10, 2015 (received
for review November21, 2014)
Although extensive deposits of disarticulated, commingled
humanbones are common in the prehispanic Northern Frontier of
Meso-america, detailed bioarchaeological analyses of them are not.
To ourknowledge, this article provides the first such analysis of
bone from afull residential-ceremonial complex and evaluates
multiple hypothe-ses about its significance, concluding that the
bones actively repre-sented interethnic violence as well as other
relationships amongpersons living and dead. Description of these
practices is important tothe discussion of multiethnic societies
because the frontier was acontext where urbanism and complexity
were emerging and groupswith the potential to form multiethnic
societies were interacting,possibly in the same ways that groups
did before the formation oflarger multiethnic city-states in the
core of Mesoamerica.
interethnic conflict | social violence | human bone taphonomy
|archaeology | Mesoamerica
The Epiclassic period (600–900 C.E.) was a time of rapid
socialand demographic change throughout Mesoamerica that be-gan
with the collapse of the massive city of Teotihuacan (1–3).Styles
of architecture, costume, and iconography merged acrossold
boundaries. New, smaller-scale polities formed in an
expandingNorthern Frontier (Fig. 1), including La Quemada (4).
Whether ornot the legendary migrants of the Teotihuacan diaspora
actuallyreached the Northern Frontier (5), the character of this
regionchanged dramatically during the Epiclassic.Sixteenth century
accounts characterize the Northern Frontier
region as multiethnic (6). These ethnic divisions must be
veryold; historical linguists date language fission at
approximately4,500–6,000 y B.P. (7, 8). The regions’ peoples spoke
∼30 languages(9); the relation between any pair of regional centers
probably wasinterethnic. The formation of the Purépecha (Tarascan)
state ∼1300C.E. involved numerous instances of interethnic conflict
and thesuppression of former ethnic identities (10). That state,
centered onTzintzuntzan, was three- to seven-times larger than La
Quemada(11–13). Still, such smaller polities could not have avoided
in-terethnic external relations.Two prominent characteristics of La
Quemada suggest social
violence: defensible architecture and extensive deposits of
hu-man skeletal material. The builders augmented natural cliffs
withthick enclosing walls; they placed buildings on terraces with
steepwalls and narrow access from below, disadvantaging
attackers.Cross-culturally, such architecture may defend ritually
importantplaces as well as residents (14).Human bone is a powerful
material that the living manipulate
in many ways (15, 16). Previously described human remains atLa
Quemada included an immense deposit of disarticulatedbone in the
Hall of Columns (17) and another massive dis-articulated bone
assemblage at the foot of a small pyramid (18,19). Individual
inhumations were beneath the floor of the mainball court (20) and
in a pyramid (21). Previous analyses ques-tioned whether residents
kept human bones in La Quemada’sliving spaces in veneration of
ancestors, to represent violentencounters with enemies, or both
(22, 23). The present studyresolves this question.
Mortuary patterns similar to those of La Quemada occur atother
contemporaneous regional centers, although detailed dis-cussions of
taphonomy are lacking for most (24). At Alta Vista,masses of
disarticulated bone rested in several structures (25),and groups of
skulls and long bones hung in the Temple of theSkulls (26). At
Cerro del Huistle, skulls hung outdoors on racksin the main plaza
(27). Mortuary practices at La Quemada dif-fered from those at
smaller surrounding sites, where most burialswere subfloor
inhumations in articulated position.La Quemada was the centerpiece
of a landscape made up of
roads, villages, hamlets, shrines, irrigation canals,
agriculturalterraces, and natural landforms. Based on analogies
with theWixárika (Huichol), architecture and landforms were scenes
ofpilgrimages, dances, and processions that focused on
ancestorveneration (28, 29), practices in which we suggest human
boneplayed an active role.
In and Out of DoorsTerrace 18 (Fig. 2) was a temple location,
residential complex,and outdoor arena. Activities would have
approximated those inthe modern Wixárika tukipa, a term that
encompasses a temple,houses, and shrines surrounding a patio (30).
Wixárika cere-monial officials and their families stay in the
houses during feastperiods. Terrace 18 had five houses, surrounding
Patios B, C, D,E, and F. Tukipas also include small house-like
shrines that wereparalleled by small structures on Platforms 1–4.
Two formaltombs were found, in Patio Groups B and D. Outdoor
spacesincluded the causeway, patios and walkways, and middens.
Significance
Persistent interethnic violence has affected some global
re-gions for centuries. Recent research reveals that major
out-breaks are often prevented or limited by creative social
action.In the prehispanic Northern Frontier of Mesoamerica,
approx-imately 500–900 C.E., people of different ethnic
backgroundsstruggled for standing in a shifting sociopolitical
landscape.Evidence is consistent with long-term social violence,
but alsowith the use of the dead to communicate a range of
symbolicmessages. Complex arrays of human skeletal material
com-memorated past physical conflicts, possibly discouraging
theirrepetition, while also connecting the living symbolically with
ametaphysical realm inhabited by ancestors and deities. Thisarticle
highlights the postmortem agency of the dead and il-lustrates their
roles in structuring social relations.
Author contributions: B.A.N. and D.L.M. designed research,
performed research, analyzeddata, and wrote the paper.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.
Data deposition: The data reported in this paper have been
deposited in the DigitalArchaeological Record database,
www.tdar.org (tDAR ID 1266).1To whom correspondence should be
addressed. Email: [email protected].
This article contains supporting information online at
www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1422337112/-/DCSupplemental.
9196–9201 | PNAS | July 28, 2015 | vol. 112 | no. 30
www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1422337112
Dow
nloa
ded
by g
uest
on
June
15,
202
1
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1073/pnas.1422337112&domain=pdfhttp://www.tdar.org/mailto:[email protected]://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1422337112/-/DCSupplementalhttp://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1422337112/-/DCSupplementalwww.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1422337112
-
Passersby would have seen bone suspended in front of thetemple.
Occupants probably used the main patio for dances, ballgames, and
human sacrifice. Trash Middens 1 and 7 were directlyassociated with
Terrace 18, and Midden 6 was nearby on a spurof the causeway. After
abandonment, decomposition of buildingsexposed the bones to
puddling and erosion.
Bones IndoorsThe temple (Room 1) contained a cache of manos
(grindingstones), a large cooking pot, several mirror stones, and
an in-cense burner that was suspended from the ceiling or in a
wallniche. Three bone concentrations rested directly on the floor
andevidently had been in bundles suspended from the
ceiling,probably wrapped in organic material, and fell when the
wrap-ping or cord disintegrated. Two, analytical units (AUs) 43
and44, were intact and the other, AU 45, seemed to be rearrangedby
water movement across the floor. The bone in the temple isdescribed
elsewhere (22), but new analysis of the breakage pat-terns,
cutmarks, and modification provides additional information(Table 1
and Table S1). The bones exhibited water damage, rootetching,
exfoliation, and much recent breakage. Some bonesexhibited cutmarks
and spiral fractures that may have occurredupon disarticulation
from the body (Fig. S1). The majority of theproximal and distal
parts of the long bones were still present; somefemora were
complete. Of the 130 fully analyzable bones, ∼20%had cutmarks,
mainly on the cranium, femur, fibula, and humerus.A total of 67
cutmarks on cranial fragments were analyzed forshape (86% were
V-shaped) and length (1.8 mm to 28.3 mm).On the long bones, almost
all of the cutmarks were near thedistal or proximal ends. Long
bones generally had multiple cut-marks (10 bones had 171 cutmarks),
ranging in length from 0.6 mm
to 14.6 mm. All of the cutmarks were V-shaped, and their
direc-tion indicated that the goals were dismembering and
defleshing.However, the shallowness of the cutmarks suggests that
theseactivities occurred after the bodies were already either
desiccatedor partially skeletonized (31).In AU 43 the long bones
were partially broken, but all in-
dications suggest that these bones were whole when placed in
thetemple. Most of the breakage on the bone ends was recent andmany
of the bones had partial proximal or distal ends intact.Cutmarks on
the cranial pieces were shallow and likely madewith bifacially
flaked stone tools or retouched opportunisticblades (31). AU 44 had
the fewest bones, all from the upperbody, primarily arms. In AU 45,
a larger cluster, all elementswere represented except for hands,
feet, and vertebrae. Therewas a great deal of breakage,
exfoliation, and water destructionof all bone surfaces. A few had
perimortem spiral fractures.Cutmarks near the proximal and distal
ends of several of the longbones also pointed to defleshing.The
skeletal material in the Temple represented all age groups
and both sexes. The majority of the bones were unmodified
longbones with ample evidence of cutmarks. However, the place-ment,
width, and depth of the cutmarks imply processing whenthe bodies
were already desiccated or partially skeletonized. Thedeposits
could represent three distinct episodes of bone cleaningfor hanging
or display; in that case they constitute a minimum of14
individuals: 10 adults (two males, four females, and four
un-knowns) and 4 children (an infant and three juveniles).
Alter-natively, the three deposits may be part of a single
preparatoryprocess, in which case the minimum number of individuals
isreduced (because of age and sex overlap) to eight individuals
Fig. 1. Sites and areas mentioned in text. Shaded portion is
Northern Frontier region. Sites: 1, La Quemada; 2, Teotihuacan; 3,
Tzintzuntzan; 4, Alta Vista; 5,Cerro del Huistle; 6, Tingambato; 7,
Cumupa. Areas: a, Atemajac Valley; b, Wixárika; c, Caxcan; d,
Acaxee.
Nelson and Martin PNAS | July 28, 2015 | vol. 112 | no. 30 |
9197
ANTH
ROPO
LOGY
SPEC
IALFEATU
RE
Dow
nloa
ded
by g
uest
on
June
15,
202
1
http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1422337112/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.201422337SI.pdf?targetid=nameddest=ST1http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1422337112/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.201422337SI.pdf?targetid=nameddest=SF1
-
comprised of five adults (two males and three females) and
threechildren (aged 2–12 y).Given either scenario, this bone
exhibition could represent
the sequential deposition of community members as they died.To
address the contrasting possibility that the individuals
weredefeated enemies, future isotopic or DNA analyses may
helpdetermine succession, relatedness, and birthplace. Currently
wereject the foe explanation for two reasons. First, it is
incongruentwith the indoor-outdoor differences in bone modification
iden-tified here, indoor bone being modified postmortem and
lessdestructively. Second, keeping enemy bodies in a temple would
beinconsistent with practices in descendant Cora and Wixárika
com-munities, where temples are places of ancestor worship and
bundledbones of venerated ancestors were kept in temples as
recently as the17th and 18th centuries (29, 32), the latter in a
traditional handmadeseat called an equipal. In the Wixárika
community of Keuruwit+a(Las Latas), B.A.N. asked why miniature
equipals were suspendedfrom the ceiling of the temple; a community
member answered,“They are the ancestors.” We suggest that this
custom echoes theinferred ancient practice of suspending ancestral
remains.A 1.2 × 1.2-m cobble-lined tomb (AU 101) was found
beneath
a wall in Patio Group B; only one bone fragment remained.
Someone had looted the grave or the inhabitants had removedthe
bone to take it elsewhere. Contents included a pegged fig-urine
that may have adorned a staff or baton of office. The figurewas
carved in a soft green stone and depicted a human heademerging from
the mouth of a coyote, probably representing ashaman or warrior.The
second tomb, an individual interment in a substructural
chamber (AU 166), was beneath the east end of Patio Group D.The
chamber was faced with cut stone; it contained several
broken,incomplete, decorated pots and 11 polished mirror stones.
Thetomb cut through Patio D, implying a late place in the
constructionsequence of the terrace. The femur of this very large
and robustmale bore cutmarks and perimortem fractures. The bone
appearedto have been hollowed out by reaming. The cranial fragments
wereall from one individual and were partially refitted; these had
cut-marks distributed across the parietal and occipital bones.
Therewas a large perimortem trauma on the occipital with multiple
finestriations (Fig. S2), suggestive of White’s percussion striae
(33).The individual was over the age of 50, possibly a warrior who
waskilled by blunt force trauma applied to the back of the head.
Thecutmarks on the cranium were not diagnostic of a particular
mo-tivation, but scalping, defleshing, or removal of facial/ear
tissues as
Midden7
Midden2
Fig. 2. Bone deposits on Terrace 18 of La Quemada.
9198 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1422337112 Nelson and
Martin
Dow
nloa
ded
by g
uest
on
June
15,
202
1
http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1422337112/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.201422337SI.pdf?targetid=nameddest=SF2www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1422337112
-
trophies may explain them. The breakage on the ends of the
longbones, with some cutmarks, could also be from defleshing
andreduction as part of a sacrifice ritual or for marrow
extraction.
Bones OutdoorsThe main patio, 26 × 36 m, was delineated by
raised banquettes;at the center was a small ball court. Human
remains were dis-played or deposited in the patio, on the front
wall of the temple,and on the adjacent walkway on the west
banquette. In contrastto the bones kept indoors, those that were
kept outdoors had astrong tendency to exhibit deep, wide, V-shaped
cutmarks (Fig. 3and Fig. S3), indicative of perimortem processing
(31).The most prominent outdoor display was a presumed skull
rack (tzompantli) along the west wall of main patio. Four
con-centrations of human bones fell along the West BanquetteWalkway
at the edge of Patio A (AUs 74 A–D). These bonescame to rest on or
just above the patio floor and appeared tohave been suspended from
above the edge of the patio walkway.Unlike the temple, the deposit
included only skulls and longbones. AU 74D was associated with
tangible evidence of a rack;four courses of fallen cobbles in the
patio marked a freestandingfeature about 1-m wide. The bones were
resting underneath thefallen cobbles, implying that they had hung
on the side facing themain patio. We infer that the feature had a
rock base andwooden superstructure, and that before it collapsed
the bonesfell at its base. The pattern of bones along the edge of
the PatioA is isomorphic to that in Plaza A at nearby Cerro del
Huistle,where the better preserved skulls exhibited drilling
(27).Beginning at the northern end of the western wall of Patio
A,
AU 74A consisted of fragmentary adult long bone shafts
withpostmortem damage and erosion of all bone surfaces. The
bonesappeared to have been purposefully modified so that only
theshafts of each arm and leg bone remained. This treatment
couldhave aided their drying if they were suspended. If primarily
adisplay, it was constructed largely of arm and leg bones from
fiveadults, of which three (based on dimorphic features) may be
males.AU 74B included highly fragmentary and exfoliated long
bones
and cranial fragments. One humerus shaft had perimortem
equi-distant excisions on the lateral and medial sides,
corresponding tomusical instruments known as raspers (34). The bone
depositmidway along the patio wall (AU 74C) was comprised of
poorlypreserved long bone shafts very similar to those in AU 74A.
Thesouthernmost bone deposit consisted of adult, probably male,
longbone shafts (AU 74D).Two drilled crania were included in the
human remains that
apparently hung from the front wall of the Temple (AU 87),
par-alleling those along the patio edge 3-m away. The only
completespecimen was very fragile and exfoliated (Fig. 4). The
cranium wasfully adult but quite small and delicate with no
discernable browridge or occipital margins, suggesting a female. At
the top of thecranium, along the sagittal suture, was a drilled
circular hole, 8 ×
8 mm. The margins of the hole were even, with a slight
bevelinginward in the cranial walls. A second cranium composed of a
frontalbone with parts of the left and right parietal bones
attached alsohad an identically shaped hole, 10 × 10 mm. The
completely fusedsutures may indicate an adult over the age of 50.
This frontalbone had two distinctive cutmarks along the left side
of the temple.The long bones appeared to have been manually reduced
to ap-proximately the same size.Each house included a sunken patio
(tragaluz) of approxi-
mately 2 × 2 m. In Patio B (AU 111) were 73 very poorly
pre-served human bone fragments that apparently hung from aportico
over the walkway. All of the bone was concentrated alongthe west
edge of the patio; had it been on a wall, it would havefallen at
the base of the wall as happened on the walkway in frontof the
temple (AU 87). Four relatively large cranial fragmentswere clearly
from adults. The fragmentary and splintered shaftsof all of the
major long bones were represented, but the state ofpreservation did
not permit analysis of breakage patterns. All ofthe postcranial
material appeared to be from adults. The longbones consisted of
shafts; virtually no long bone ends werepresent. No minimum number
of individuals beyond at least oneindividual can be
assessed.Several mandibles rested on a stairway that led
downward
from Platform 4 to Platform 3 (AU 67). The mandibles
hadperimortem breaks, including adherent flakes and dental
abla-tion (teeth broken off in one case), and portions were
burnedblack, indicating high heat and fresh bone (Fig. S5).Ten of
25 known middens were excavated, including two as-
sociated with Terrace 18, Middens 1 and 7. Nearby is Midden
6,also discussed here. Midden 1 contained over 300 pieces ofhuman
bone, mostly fragmentary pieces of the ends of longbones, ribs,
hands, feet, and bone splinters. Many of these boneswere burned to
a dark and blackened state. Most of the boneappeared to be from
adults. Cutmarks (10%), spiral fractures(80%), and burning (20%)
suggest that these human remainsresulted from ritual production of
modified bone not found here(long bones and crania). These elements
may represent the ini-tial preparation of human remains for
display, trophies, or forcooking and consumption.Midden 7 lay at
the base of the terrace, behind the temple and
its associated Patio Group B, and adjacent to a cardinal
entranceto the site. Wixárika pilgrims returning from treks spend
time atsuch entrance points, feasting with those who receive them
backinto the community. Midden 7 also was associated with the
Table 1. Bone summary by analytical unit
Variable
AU
43 44 45 166 74A 74B 74C 74D 87 88 111 67
MNI 6 2 6 1 5 1 3 2 7 1 1 3Adult 3 5 1 5 1 3 2 7 1 1 3Male 3 5 1
5 1 3 2 7 1 1 3Female 1 3 2Subadult 3 1Burning N N N N N N Y Y N
YPerimortem Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YCutmarks Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
MNI, minimum number of individuals; N, no; Y, yes.
Fig. 3. Deep cutmarks on the right proximal femoral neck region
circlingthe head of the femur (AU 45).
Nelson and Martin PNAS | July 28, 2015 | vol. 112 | no. 30 |
9199
ANTH
ROPO
LOGY
SPEC
IALFEATU
RE
Dow
nloa
ded
by g
uest
on
June
15,
202
1
http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1422337112/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.201422337SI.pdf?targetid=nameddest=SF3http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1422337112/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.201422337SI.pdf?targetid=nameddest=SF5
-
temple. Because of these associations, Midden 7 materials
mayhave had significance more public than private.Midden 7 (AU 301)
contained long bone fragments, almost all
of which (85%) showed spiral fractures and cutmarks (15%).There
were also signs of perimortem processing, including chopmarks and
percussion pits. Cutmarks included V-shaped cutsalong the ends of
long bones, and on rib and cranial fragments.The distribution and
morphology of the cutmarks is consistentwith dismembering
(bone-from-bone). A right femur had cut-marks and carnivore gnawing
on the ends, and it was excep-tionally well preserved. There were
cutmarks along the shaft, andcarnivore gnawing removed the proximal
and distal ends. Thisbone (Fig. S4) appears to have been a trophy
bone that was handledover many years, eventually reaching the
midden, possibly as part ofcolluvium from the disintegrating
buildings above. The selectivehuman remains found in this midden
are very different from thoseof Midden 1 because these include a
more narrow range of ele-ments (mostly long bones). Perhaps this
was the final resting placefor bones used in ritual or ceremonial
activities.Midden 6 accumulated at the base of a shrine platform
situ-
ated at the end of a spur off the causeway. We suspect that
thisshrine was an offering location for people arriving at the
westerncardinal entrance of La Quemada. Human remains recoveredfrom
Midden 6 include 12 fragments of bone representing longbone
fragments, as well as cranial, hand, and rib pieces, all toosmall
for analysis. However, most of the bones show spiralfractures and
other signs of processing, including adherent flakesand
crushing.
ConclusionsIn the multiethnic Northern Mesoamerican Frontier,
human bonewas prominent in living spaces of ceremonial centers.
Residentshandled and processed human bone extensively. Their
actionsincluded killing, disarticulating, dismembering, defleshing,
burn-ing, drilling, bundling, suspending, displaying, and
discarding.
Nonhuman site formation processes were also at work over
time,producing taphonomic forces that greatly affected the
characterand quantity of the human remains. These included
carnivoregnawing, weathering, building collapse, water transport,
and de-composition by physical and chemical forces present in the
sedi-ments and construction materials into which some human
bonebecame incorporated after abandonment. It is important to
em-phasize that the skeletal remains described here are not typical
ofthe whole population of the Malpaso Valley; occupants
madeordinary subfloor inhumations in the surrounding villages
(35).Within the context analyzed here, archaeological and
osteo-
logical analyses point to six different cultural contexts of
use.First, three clusters of human remains in the temple represent
allages and adult males and females. These are primarily wholelong
bones with shallow cutmarks, suggesting defleshing aftersome period
of postmortem desiccation and decay. This arrange-ment suggests
ancestor veneration. Second, Patio B containedbone fragments with
cutmarks, bone splinters, and burning. Thisarea was likely a place
for public feasting and anthropophagy. ThePatio B bones had pot
polishing and other characteristics consis-tent with cannibalism.
Third, the walkway in front of the templecontained processed long
bones and drilled crania, which suggeststhe public display,
possibly of defeated enemies, hanging on theoutside wall of the
temple and on freestanding racks. Fourth,Midden 1 includes a great
variety of small bone elements withsome burning and processing,
which may represent bones notused and discarded after processing.
Fifth, Midden 7 representsbones with spiral fractures and cutmarks.
This may be bonediscard from creating the display along the West
Banquette orwithin the Temple. Finally, rare individual inhumations
wereplaced in tombs.Two basic pathways of treatment ultimately
corresponded to
bones kept indoors or outdoors. Bones were kept indoors in
thetemple and in tombs. In the temple, sets of bone elements
werewrapped in bundles and suspended from the ceiling, whereas
inthe subfloor tombs individuals were inhumed. It is possible
thatthese two kinds of treatment were stages in a single,
long-termprocessing program. Indoor bone had very little
perimortemmodification other than cutmarks. Subsequently and
probablyafter the site’s abandonment, the bones kept hanging in the
templewere gnawed by carnivores.The residents treated outdoor bone
differently. The bones in
such deliberately dramatic displays had far more frequent
andvaried perimortem and postmortem modification. The
occupantssuspended skulls and long bones from a rack on the western
edgeof Patio A, from the adjacent front wall of the temple near
itsentrance, and from a roof above the walkway in Patio B. Theyalso
kept a set of mandibles either on the staircase near Platform3 or
in a structure on that platform. Finally, the occupants dis-carded
unwanted bone in middens, apparently after culling itfrom skeletons
that were processed on the terrace.The above analysis answers a
question raised by the initial
study of only the remains around the temple (22): were the
hu-man bones of Terrace 18 those of ancestors or enemies?
Thepresent study concludes, “both.” The residents of La
Quemadatreated the bones as animated, powerful objects,
constituting twobasic categories of social persons: ancestors and
adversaries.Ethnohistory attests to similar bone treatment among
the
ethnically diverse groups inhabiting the Northern Frontier at
thetime of European contact. Indigenous violence was endemic
andincluded “extended killing,” i.e., disarticulating enemies’
bodiesand further treatments. For example, the Caxcan people
madetrophies and war implements from them (36), the Acaxee
con-sumed their cooked flesh (37), Cumupa residents hung the
bonesof defeated enemies outdoors (38), and Purépecha leaderspassed
the bones of defeated enemies among cooperating elite(10). Thus,
contextualized regionally and ethnohistorically, the
Fig. 4. Skull perforated at apex for suspension (AU 87).
9200 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1422337112 Nelson and
Martin
Dow
nloa
ded
by g
uest
on
June
15,
202
1
http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1422337112/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.201422337SI.pdf?targetid=nameddest=SF4www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1422337112
-
ancient practices documented here form part of a
widespreadpattern of persistent interethnic violence.Findings here
are also consistent with enemy skeletal displays
being symbolically important as mnemonic devices to recall
pastepisodes of violence. Skeletal displays could focus
ceremoniesand stories on remembering and possibly cauterizing (39)
furtherviolence. The historical evidence suggests that the enemies
arelikely to have been ethnic others, yet evidence from modernzones
of persistent conflict shows that ethnic diversity does notpredict
frequency of conflict (40). To follow up on the conclusionthat the
violence was interethnic, the obvious next steps arestable isotopic
and DNA analyses of skeletal samples from theidentified contexts.
If the inferences are correct, those analysesshould corroborate the
contrasts presented here with indicationsof biological
distance.
Materials and MethodsBones from seven seasons of excavation were
analyzed in the field laboratory(Tables S1 and S2, and Datasets S1
and S2). We discuss the archaeologicalrecovery strategies elsewhere
(41). Here we report on bones from Terrace 18and two associated
middens. We draw on ethnographic understanding fromparticipation in
13 Wixárika ceremonies since 1995 (30). Bioarchaeologicalmethods
conformed to the fragmentary, disarticulated, and
commingleddeposition. White’s (33) protocol provided a systematic
approach to exam-ining taphonomy, cultural modification, and
formation processes. Theanalysis characterizes bone type,
preservation, side, and completeness, alongwith taphonomic
properties, particularly peri- and postmortem changes on
the bones. It describes the physical evidence (such as cutmarks,
breakage,reduction, and burning) as well as depositional context.
Each bone is codedfor the presence or absence of spiral fractures,
internal vault release, scar-ring, pitting, flaking, peeling,
cutmarks, chop marks, polishing, scraping, andburning. Each element
was assessed for rodent or carnivore activity and root,water,
weathering, and other postmortem damage. Biological indicators
ofage, sex, health status, robusticity, and trauma were recorded
(42).
A total of 417 bone identifiable elements were recovered and
analyzed, ofwhich 402 were sufficiently preserved for thorough
analysis. Of the remaining2,015, 840 could be identified or
partially analyzed; the rest were too frag-mentary. The recovered
assemblages are likely representative of their originaldeposition.
Excavators strove for complete bone recovery, sifting all
sedimentswith one-quarter inch (6 mm) screens. In many areas bone
attrition was severe.About 75% of the total surface area of Terrace
18 was excavated, includingalmost all of the roofed architectural
area, the ball court in the center of themainpatio, and the western
half of the main patio. Excavation penetrated the sub-structure in
less than half the excavated area and may have missed
substructuralchambers. As a result, we cannot be sure of the exact
representativeness of theskeletal bone assemblage to everyonewho
died, but it is clearly representative ofthose whose remains were
intentionally placed inside and outside buildings.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. We thank the Consejo de Arqueología of the
InstitutoNacional de Antropología e Historia of Mexico for
permission to study LaQuemada; Peter Jiménez Betts for long
collaboration; Christopher Schwartzfor Fig. 1 and Vincent
Schiavitti for Fig. 2; Ventura Perez for the photographsof bones;
and two anonymous reviewers and Linda R. Manzanilla for
criticalcomments. This study was supported in part by the National
Science Founda-tion (BCS-0211109), the Wenner-Gren Foundation for
Anthropological Re-search, and the National Endowment for the
Humanities.
1. Crider DL (2013) Shifting alliances: Epiclassic and Early
Postclassic interactions at CerroPortezuelo. Anc Mesoam
24(1):107–130.
2. Gaxiola González M (1999) Huapalcalco y las tradiciones
alfareras del Epiclásico.Arqueología 21:45–72.
3. Manzanilla L, ed (2005) Reacomodos Demográficos del Clásico
al Posclásico en elCentro de México (Instituto de Investigaciones,
Universidad Nacional de México, D.F.,Mexico), pp 75–102.
4. Kelley JC (1971) Archaeology of the Northern Frontier:
Zacatecas and Durango. Archae-ology of Northern Mesoamerica, Part
Two. Handbook of Middle American Indians, edsEkholm GF, Bernal I
(Univ of Texas Press, Austin, TX), Vol 11, pp 768–804.
5. Braniff B, Hers M-A (1998) Herencias Chichimecas. Arqueología
19:55–80.6. Acuña R (1988) Nueva Galicia. Relaciones Geográficas
del Siglo XVI (Universidad
Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City), Vol 10.7. Fowler C
(1994) Lexical clues to Uto-Aztecan prehistory. Journal of
American
Linguistics 49(3):224–257.8. Hill JH (2001) Proto-Uto-Aztecan: A
community of cultivators in Central Mexico? Am
Anthropol 103(4):913–934.9. Longacre R (1967) Systemic
comparison and reconstruction. Handbook of Middle
American Indians, ed McQuown N (Univ of Texas Press, Austin,
TX), pp 117–160.10. Alcalá Jd (2000) Relación de Michoacán (Colegio
de Michoacán, Zamora, Mexico).11. Nelson BA (1995) Complexity,
hierarchy, and scale: A controlled comparison between
Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, and La Quemada, Zacatecas. Am Antiq
60(4):597–618.12. Pollard HP, Smith ME (2003) The Aztec/Tarascan
border. The Postclassic Mesoamerican
World, eds Smith ME, Berdan FF (Univ of Utah Press, Salt Lake
City), pp 87–90.13. Trombold CD (2005) A population estimate for
the Epiclassic middle Malpaso Valley
(La Quemada), Zacatecas, Mexico. Lat Am Antiq 16(3):235–253.14.
Arkush E, Stanish C (2005) Interpreting conflict in the Ancient
Andes: Implications for
the archaeology of warfare. Curr Anthropol 46(1):3–28.15. Martin
DL, Harrod RP, Pérez VR (2013) Bioarchaeology: An Integrated
Approach to
Working with Human Remains (Springer, New York).16. Duncan WN,
Schwarz KR (2014) Partible, permeable, and relational bodies in a
Maya
mass grave. Commingled and Disarticulated Human Remains, eds
Osterholtz AJ,Baustian KM, Martin DL (Springer, New York), pp
149–170.
17. Pijoan CM, Mansilla J (1990) Evidencias rituales en restos
humanos del norte deMesoamérica. Mesoamérica y Norte de México
siglos IX-XII, ed Sodi Miranda F(Instituto Nacional de Antropología
e Historia, Mexico City), Vol 2, pp 467–478.
18. O’Neill C (1995) Tratamiento cultural de los muertos en La
Quemada, Zacatecas. In-vestigación Científica (Universidad Autónoma
de Zacatecas, Zacatecas, Mexico), Vol 1,pp 18–27.
19. Gómez Ortíz A, Vázquez de Santiago A, Macías Quintero JI
(2007) Evidencias deprácticas rituales en La Quemada, Zacatecas:
Análisis de un osario. Estudios de An-tropología Biológica
XIII:431–446.
20. Jiménez Betts P (1994) Proyecto La Quemada, Informe Técnico
Temporada II: Oct.1989– Oct. 1994 (Centro Regional Zacatecas del
Instituto Nacional de Antropología,Zacatecas, Mexico).
21. Lelgemann A (2000) Proyecto Ciudadela de La Quemada,
Zacatecas (Informe final alConsejo de Arqueología, Instituto
Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Bonn, Germany).
22. Nelson BA, Darling JA, Kice DA (1992) Mortuary patterns and
the social order at LaQuemada, Zacatecas. Lat Am Antiq
3(4):298–315.
23. Pérez VR, Nelson BA, Martin DL (2008) Veneration or
violence? A study of variations
in human bonemodification at La Quemada. Social Violence in the
Prehispanic American
Southwest, eds Nichols DL, Crown PL (Univ of Arizona Press,
Tucson, AZ), pp 123–142.24. Cabrero García MT (1995) La Muerte en
el Occidente del México Prehispánico
(Universidad Autónoma de México, Mexico City).25. Pickering R
(1985) Human osteological remains from Alta Vista, Zacatecas: An
analysis
of the isolated bone. The Archaeology of West and Northwest
Mesoamerica, eds
Foster MS, Weigand PC (Westview Press, Boulder, CO), pp
289–326.26. Kelley EA (1978) The temple of the skulls at Alta
Vista, Chalchihuites. Across the
Chichimec Sea: Papers in Honor of J. Charles Kelley, eds Riley
CL, Hedrick BC (Southern
Illinois Univ Press, Carbondale, IL), pp 102–126.27. Hers M-A
(1989) Los Toltecas en Tierras Chichimecas (Instituto de
Investigaciones
Estéticas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, D.F.,
Mexico).28. Medina González JH (2000) El Paisaje Ritual del Valle
de Malpaso. Tésis de Licenciatura
en Arqueología (Escuela Nacional de Antropología, Instituto
Nacional de Antropología y
Secretaría de Educación Pública, D.F., Mexico).29. Neurath J
(2002) Las Fiestas de la Casa Grande (Instituto Nacional de
Antropología e
Historia, D.F., Mexico).30. Nelson BA (2015) Desplazamiento
ritual en el occidente de México: Del pasado al
presente. Arqueol Mex XXII(131):54–59.31. Perez V (2002)
Tool-induced bone alterations: Cutmark differences. Archaeology
Southwest 16(1):10.32. Calvo T (1990) Los Albores de un Nuevo
Mundo: Siglos XVI y XVII (Centre d’Etudes
Mexicaines et Centraméricaines and the Universidad de
Guadalajara, Mexico).33. White TD (1992) Prehistoric Cannibalism at
Mancos 5MTUMR-2346 (Princeton Univ
Press, Princeton, NJ).34. Pereira G (2005) The utilization of
grooved human bones: A reanalysis of artificially
modified human bones excavated by Carl Lumholtz at Zacapu,
Michoacán, Mexico.
Lat Am Antiq 16(3):293–312.35. Faulhaber J (1960) Breve análisis
osteológico de los restos humanos de “La Quemada,”
Zacatecas. An Inst Nac Antropol Hist 12:131–149.36. Powell PW
(1975) Soldiers, Indians and Silver (Center for Latin American
Studies,
Arizona State Univ, Tempe, AZ).37. Beals RL (1933) The Acaxee: A
Mountain Tribe of Durango and Sinaloa (Univ of
California Press, Berkeley, CA).38. Hammond GP, Rey A, eds
(1928) Obregon’s History of 16th Century Explorations in
Western America, Entitled Chronicle, Commentary, or Relation of
the Ancient and
Modern Discoveries in New Spain and New Mexico, Mexico, 1584
(Wetzel, Los Angeles).39. Cleary MR (2000) Democracy and indigenous
rebellion in Latin America. Comp Polit
Stud 33(9):1123–1153.40. Fearon JD, Laitin DD (2003) Ethnicity,
insurgency, and civil war. Am Polit Sci Rev 97(1):
75–90.41. Nelson BA (1997) Chronology and stratigraphy at La
Quemada, Zacatecas, Mexico.
J Field Archaeol 24(1):85–109.42. Buikstra JE, Ublaker DH (1994)
Standards for data collection from human skeletal
remains. Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series 44
(Arkansas Archeological
Survey, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR).
Nelson and Martin PNAS | July 28, 2015 | vol. 112 | no. 30 |
9201
ANTH
ROPO
LOGY
SPEC
IALFEATU
RE
Dow
nloa
ded
by g
uest
on
June
15,
202
1
http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1422337112/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.201422337SI.pdf?targetid=nameddest=ST1http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1422337112/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.201422337SI.pdf?targetid=nameddest=ST2http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1422337112/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.1422337112.sd01.xlshttp://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1422337112/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.1422337112.sd02.xls