A Taphonomic Approach to Late Classic Maya Mortuary Practices at Xuenkal, Yucata´n, Mexico

A Taphonomic Approach to Late Classic MayaMortuary Practices at Xuenkal, Yucatan,Mexico

Vera Tiesler1, Andrea Cucina1, T. Kam Manahan2, T. Douglas Price3, TraciArdren4, James H. Burton3

1Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan, Merida, Mexico, 2 Kent State University, Kent, Ohio, 3University ofWisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, 4University of Miami, Miami, Florida

Following a brief introduction to mortuary practices in Prehispanic Maya society, we outline the analyticalprocedures followed during the excavation and laboratory investigation of five burial assemblages from theLate Classic period site of Xuenkal, Yucatan, Mexico. A detailed account of a sequence of primary andsecondary interments is provided with a focus on taphonomic and biovital information, emphasizing theimportance of an interdisciplinary approach, especially human taphonomy, for the reconstruction ofcomplex Maya mortuary treatments. Our results show that bodies of the dead or their parts followedsurprisingly long and complex funerary paths.

Keywords: Maya, bioarchaeology, taphonomy, mortuary practices, osteology, isotopes

Introduction

The most immediate archaeological referent to

ancient life and death is provided by the human

skeleton within its burial environment. Studies of the

funerary record have been employed cross-culturally

to understand social structure and to identify

individual status and ideological schemes and their

expressions in ancient funerary behavior (Beck 1995;

Carr 1995; Chapman et al. 1981; Parker Pearson

1999). The latter is conveyed by the location of the

burial context, the physical setup or ‘‘grave’’ (under-

stood here as the receptacle to accommodate one or

more dead), and the interred content (the burial or

burial assemblage composed of human remains with

or without associated artifacts).

Reconstructing past mortuary practices from the

archaeological record is challenging, and the practices

of the ancient Maya, with their differentiated, often

protracted burial rites and elaborate funerary

arrangements, are no exception. In this region, efforts

at interpreting the mortuary record face the complex-

ity of the burial processes involved, the poor state of

preservation, and a lack of integrated research

approaches (McAnany 1995, 2002). In particular,

detailed reconstructions of burial sequences that rely

on human taphonomy have been employed only

marginally in the Maya area (e.g. Duncan 2005;

Pereira and Michelet 2004; Tiesler 2004, 2006, 2007;

Wright 2005). The dearth of publications on this

subject is a surprise, given the enormous potential

that the application of taphonomic principles and the

etiological interpretation of corpse decay have for the

evaluation of the often complex processes involved in

ancient Maya primary deposition and protracted

funerary rites.

Our research was conceived as a case study and as

a general methodological contribution to taphonomy

and its uses in the evaluation of ancient Maya

mortuary sites through the direct study of those

human skeletal remains that represent the subject of

funerary rituals. To this end, we describe the criteria

derived from current archaeological, taphonomic,

and forensic research that were applied to the

evaluation of osseous remains of five multiple burials

from the Late Classic period site of Xuenkal,

Yucatan, two of which shared an elongated cist.

Additional data came from the individuals under

study, specifically age, sex, body modifications, and

geographic provenience (as determined by strontium

isotopic analyses). The combined perspective of these

various approaches provides a fresh look at the

protracted funerary paths of ancient Maya burials

and contributes to the understanding of long-term

ancestral traditions.

The Taphonomy of Human DecompositionTaphonomy is derived from the Greek taphos (burial)

and nomos (law). The term was first coined in 1940 by

Russian paleontologist Ivan Efremov (1940) to refer

to the processes involved in the fossilization of

organic remains (Gifford 1981: 366; Micozzi 1991:

� Trustees of Boston University 2010DOI 10.1179/009346910X12707321358676 Journal of Field Archaeology 2010 VOL. 35 NO. 4 365

3). Although taphonomy never became consolidated

as a discipline, its use makes important contributions

to paleoecology, paleontology, forensic anthropol-

ogy, and archaeology. Vertebrate taphonomy, mainly

applied to the study of animal remains, can provide

important clues regarding post-mortem cultural and

non-cultural alterations to human bone assemblages

(Gifford 1981). We have adapted principles outlined

in the French study of the anthropologie de terrain

(Duday 1987, 1997; Duday and Sellier 1990; Duday

et al. 1990; Leclerc 1990) and from investigations of

human decompositional sequences based on forensic

research (Behrensmeyer and Hill 1980; Binford 1981;

Boddington et al. 1987; Boulestin 1999; Gifford 1981;

Littleton 2000; Martin 2000; Miccozi 1991; Sledzik

1998). These studies examine preservation patterns

and element distribution according to anatomical

categories, and can provide important information

not only on taphonomic processes, but also on

intentional corpse modifications linked to mortuary

practice sequence and grave design.

According to human taphonomic criteria, the

changes occurring during individual body decomposi-

tion can be viewed as a sequence of interactions

between the processes of deterioration and preserva-

tion, driven by intrinsic (bodily) and extrinsic (envir-

onmental) agents, the latter being of either natural or

cultural origin (Duday 1997: 93–118). Specific cultural

practices, like corpse shrouding or wrapping, which

tend to constrain the area occupied by the remains, are

evidenced by the disposition of anatomical segments,

even if the wrapping material itself is no longer

present. In small chambers, confinement of the

shoulder girdle leads to clavicle verticalization in

extended individuals and leg wrapping forces both

knees and ankles to rest close to each other (Duday

1997: 114–116). Elevation of the head will cause the

detachment and displacement of the skull, the first

vertebrae, and the mandible. Elevated body placement

inside a chamber may lead to a general disarray of

anatomical elements, depending on the dimensions

and rate of deterioration of the bench upon which the

body was placed (Duday 1997: 106–108).

Taphonomic analysis also sheds light on funerary

spaces, the placement of bodies versus bones, and

interment sequence in the case of multiple burials.

During decomposition in refilled pits, soil gradually

replaces the decaying soft tissues. This process ideally

‘‘freezes’’ the skeleton in its original post mortem

position and prevents disarticulation (Duday 1997).

Separation of joints in primary chamber contexts

tends to be more common than in filled funerary

environments, as gravity is allowed to operate freely

on the disintegrating body parts.

Other cultural activities, like the various post-

depositional treatments of the body known among

the Maya, e.g. the removal, extraction, or secondary

deposition of the body or parts of it may result in

disarticulation. Ancient tomb desecration or other

non-reverential practices (like modern looting) are

prone to reduce grave offerings and intermingle the

skeletal remains (Tiesler 2007).

The Site of Xuenkal and the Interments BeneathStructure FN-183The ancient Maya site of Xuenkal is located near the

modern town of Espita, Yucatan, Mexico. Xuenkal is

classified as a Rank II site of urban proportions,

according to the Atlas Arqueologico del Estado de

Yucatan (Garza Tarazona Gonzalez and Kurjack

1980). The site is located 25 km to the west of Ek

Balam and approximately 45 km NNE of Chichen Itza

(FIG. 1), in an area with a dense concentration of

rejolladas, or dry sinkholes typically containing

deeper and more humid soils amenable to intensive

cultivation. The Proyecto Arqueologico Xuenkal

(PAX), initiated by Traci Ardren and T. Kam

Manahan in 2004, has been investigating the Late

Classic (A.D. 600–900) to Terminal Classic (A.D. 900–

1000) transformation of the site (Ardren et al. 2005).

The occupational sequence at Xuenkal is unique to

the region in that it contains a substantial and

discrete Terminal Classic component (identified by

Sotuta sphere ceramics closely associated with

Chichen Itza) in addition to a long and continuous

occupational history from the Late Preclassic (300

B.C.–A.D. 300) through the Late Classic, the latter

defined by the presence of Cehpech sphere ceramics,

ubiquitous across the Yucatan Peninsula. Based upon

the regional ceramic chronology, the construction,

use, and eventual abandonment of Structure FN-183

all occurred within the Late Classic period (Manahan

and Ardren 2008).

Structure FN-183 was first mapped and registered

by PAX in 2004. The structure is located in the center

of the site approximately 50 m south of a cenote

(sinkhole), the only identified water source (FIG. 2).

From the surface, the mounded remains of the

building before excavation stood approximately

1.5 m above the ground surface and measured

approximately 20 m long by 8 m wide. The structure

is located inside the main corral of the 18th and 19th

century hacienda of Xuenkal, situated between the

main house and the chapel and noria (a machine used

to lift water into an aqueduct) (FIG. 3).

The ancient structure was partially dismantled

during construction of the hacienda and an apsidal

house with masonry walls was erected on the summit,

conforming largely to the limits of the ancient

construction below. Most of the walls of that structure

collapsed approximately 40 years ago (according to

local workmen), leaving only a 6 m-long segment of

Tiesler et al. Maya Mortuary Practices at Xuenkal, Mexico

366 Journal of Field Archaeology 2010 VOL. 35 NO. 4

the base of the north wall still in situ. While no

Precolumbian walls could be discerned from surface

mapping, a 262 m off-mound test pit placed as part

of the test pitting program just west of the structure in

2005 produced a substantial sample of diagnostic

Cehpech ceramics, mixed with historical material in

the uppermost levels. The high density of Cehpech

ceramics and their excellent state of preservation

suggested that solid Precolumbian contexts could exist

below the Post-contact period ruins. Given the ceramic

data, the fact that the structure had already been

heavily damaged by colonial constructions and was at

Figure 2 Locations of burials (Bu) from Xuenkal Structure FN-183. The dashed rectangle outlines the limits of the structure

and the dashed lines to the southeast denote the terrace limits. Burial capstones are shown in grey and traces of the structure’s

surface are stippled.

Figure 1 Location of the site of Xuenkal, as well as the sites of Calakmul, Dzilbilchaltun, Chac Mool, Xtelhu, and Coba,

mentioned in the text.


Journal of Field Archaeology 2010 VOL. 35 NO. 4 367

risk of being further impacted by modern machinery,

Manahan and Ardren selected FN-183 to be inten-

sively excavated as part of the sample of Cehpech

households investigated in 2006.

Broad horizontal excavation of FN-183 revealed

that although the superstructure was almost com-

pletely demolished by constructions on top of the

ruin, the substructure was largely intact. The

substructure was built in two construction episodes.

It reached its maximum height during the earliest

construction episode (FN-183 sub), when the plat-

form measured approximately 666 m. FN-183 sub

was constructed directly over a slight bedrock rise. A

lime plaster terrace extended to the west approxi-

mately 10 m, leveling the uneven bedrock surface.

During the final construction episode, the area of the

floor was filled and raised to the level of the surface of

the platform. This served to extend the platform to its

final dimensions of 10 m E–W66 m N–S. Only a single

lens of plaster could be discerned across the plat-

form’s surface. Enough of the surface of the top of

the platform was preserved to determine that the

entire extent was plastered, but the surface was

heavily pitted and poorly preserved.

During the course of excavations, a total of four

grave receptacles (3 cists and 1 crypt) were encoun-

tered within the construction fill of the platform and

were excavated as Burials 16-1-1 through 16-1-5

(FIG. 4). Burials 16-1-1 and 16-1-2 were deposited at

the extremes of a single elongated grave enclosure,

probably during the same time period. We decided to

maintain Burials 16-1-1 and 16-1-2 as two separate

burial units, since no primary interments were found

in the space between them. A second reason for

treating Burials 16-1-1 and 16-1-2 as contiguous, but

separate, assemblages was because of the burial

environments: Burial 16-1-1 was determined to be

an empty (unfilled) burial space, whereas each of the

corpses excavated in the assemblage identified as

Burial 16-1-2 appears to have been filled with earth

immediately after interment. In sum, of the three cist-

receptacles, the first contained Burials 16-1-1 and 16-

1-2, the second held Burial 16-1-4, and the third held

Burial 16-1-5. The crypt accommodated Burial 16-1-3.

Each burial contained at least two individuals. In

most cases, each primary interment was found

associated with the disturbed or incomplete remnants

of additional individuals probably representing sec-

ondary interments or remnants of removed previous

interments. The minimum number of individuals

(MNI) from the burial complex below platform

FN-183 is 18; the total is 23 if the secondary remains

of Individuals 16-1-2c and 16-1-1c are included

(TABLE 1). It is worth mentioning that the numbering

of the interments during excavation was somewhat

arbitrary because of poor preservation and the

complexity and commingling of most of the assem-

blages, which included both primary and secondary

deposits. Most of the primary remains were partially

or completely disturbed as a consequence of cultural

removal or replacement, or because of the action of

natural forces (such as water, insects, and rodents).

Analytical ProceduresIn situ registrationThe burial assemblages were excavated in arbitrary

layers and the dimensions and delimitations of the

Figure 3 Xuenkal Structure FN-183 before excavation look-

ing north toward the hacienda’s chapel. The windmill marks

the location of the site’s lone cenote.

Figure 4 Burial 16-1-2 during excavation, looking to the

west.



funerary spaces were determined. During skeletal

exposure, each anatomical element was drawn to

scale with the help of a grid and a plumb line and

numbered sequentially according to layer. Sketches

depicting the skeletal elements within the outlines of

the burial spaces were also made according to layer.

The drafts of the drawings were then transferred to a

detailed layered 1 : 5 tracing. Depth, anatomical

identification, orientation, degree of articulation,

and taphonomic conditions were reported for each

of the numbered bone elements.

TaphonomyThe field observations were confirmed later in the

laboratory through a bone inventory and macro-

scopic reexamination of the restored remains. After

cleaning and picking samples for various analyses,

the human remains were laid out and information on

surface color, erosion, pigment covering, and specific

faunal and cultural post mortem modifications were

recorded. The MNI was determined for each burial

assemblage. Fragment counts were made per anato-

mical element for each individual (Adams and Byrd

2008; Bello and Andrews 2006: 1–3). The bone

representation index (BRI) (Dodson and Wexler

1979; Bello and Andrews 2006: 3, 10) was recorded

for 13 anatomical elements (both paired and un-

paired bones) in each skeleton. The BRI is the ratio

between the expected number of bones (according to

the MNI) and the number of bones actually observed.

The skeletal inventory was combined with the

graphic record and the field notes to determine the

original placement of the individual remains. The

elements of each individual were identified on the

drawing. From there, interment sequences and

further potential cultural disturbances, like extraction

or replacement, were evaluated for each case. Data

on peri mortem and post mortem body processing

was derived from the principles of human taphonomy

(above). Examination of anthropogenic marks left on

the bony surfaces was also undertaken, following

White (1992), Turner and Turner (1999), and Pijoan

(1997) in comparison with previous taphonomic

observations from the Maya Lowlands (Tiesler

2004, 2007; Tiesler and Cucina 2003).

Standard osteological proceduresGeneral procedures were based on osteometry and

macroscopic observation, aided by loupe magnifica-

tion. In determining age and sex, common para-

meters were used, complemented by metric

discrimination of single and multiple variables

(Steele and Bramblett 1988; Buikstra and Ubelaker

1994; Tiesler 1999). Age estimation rested upon the

examination of the morphology of the auricular and

pubic surfaces, dental wear, degenerative changes,

and degree of ectocranial suture obliteration. To

determine the presence, degree, and type of head

shaping, only non-metric parameters could be

employed because of poor preservation. The classifi-

cation of form and technique was based upon the

scheme established by Jose Imbelloni (Dembo and

Imbelloni 1938) and adjusted by Romano Pacheco

(1965), and Tiesler (1998, 1999). The dentition was

evaluated according to the presence or absence of

artificial decoration; the modified dental patterns

Table 1 Individuals and context information. Individual 16-1-1c is a skull assigned to Individual 16-1-2d.

Individual Sex Age group (age range) Type of burial Primary burial space

16-1-1a M Adult (25–35) Primary disturbed Unfilled space16-1-1b – Adolescent (12–15) Removed remnants of previous primary burial? Undetermined16-1-1c* M Young adult (20–25) Secondary (skull deposit) –16-1-2-1 – Adult Secondary –16-1-2-2 – Child Secondary –16-1-2a M Young adult (20–30) Primary disturbed Filled space16-1-2b F Adolescent (9–13) Primary Filled space16-2c(1)* M Adult Secondary –16-2c(2)* M Adult Secondary –16-2c(3)* F Adult Secondary –16-2c(4)* – Adolescent Secondary –16-1-2(1) M Young adult (20–25) Primary disturbed Filled space16-1-2d(2) – Infant/adolescent Secondary –16-1-2e (1) M Young/middle aged adult (25–35) Primary disturbed Filled space16-1-2e (2) – Infant/adolescent Secondary –16-1-2f M Middle aged adult (35–45) Secondary (worked skull deposit) –16-1-3a M Middle aged adult (30–40) Primary disturbed Unfilled space16-1-3b F Adolescent/young adult (15–25) Removed remnants of previous primary

burial or secondaryUndetermined

16-1-4a – Young adult (20–25) Primary disturbed or secondary Undetermined16-1-4b – Middle aged adult 30– 35) Secondary –16-1-4c – Child (2–3) Secondary –16-1-5a – Adolescent (12–16) Primary disturbed Unfilled space16-1-5b – Child (6–10) Secondary –

* Extra individuals that increase the MNI to 23.



were classified in conformity with techniques and

formal types, using Javier Romero Molina’s (1986)

classification. The overall visible dental patterns were

inferred following the classification by Tiesler (2000).

Isotopic analysesIsotopes of strontium have been used successfully to

identify non-local individuals among ancient burials

in various parts of the world and in a number of

instances in Mesoamerica (Price et al. 2000, 2006,

2007; White et al. 2007). 87Sr/86Sr ratios in human

enamel mimic the local geology of the place of birth

and can be used to determine geographic origins.

Strontium enters the body and tooth enamel from the

food chain, originating in the rocks and soils of the

local area. Enamel forms during and shortly after

birth and retains the isotopic signal incorporated

during its formation. In some cases, it is possible not

only to identify non-local individuals but also to

delimit potential places of birth. In this study we

examined human dental enamel to determine local

isotopic ranges and to compare the local ratios

among regions.

The first permanent molars of the 13 individuals

from the site of Xuenkal, who retained their teeth,

were prepared for strontium isotope analysis. For this

purpose, the surface of the tooth was cleaned and

5 mg of enamel powder were removed for analysis by

thermal ionization mass spectrometry. The enamel

samples were dissolved in 5 ml of HNO3 and the

strontium fraction was purified using EiChrom

SrSpec resin and elution with HNO3 followed by

H2O. Isotopic compositions were obtained on the Sr

fraction using a VG (Micromass) Sector 54 thermal

ionization mass spectrometer. Internal precision for87Sr/86Sr analyses with this method is typically

0.0006–0.0009% standard error.

Analyses of the Burials from Platform FN-183The analyses performed on the human assemblages

from Xuenkal’s structure FN-183 were to determine

post mortem treatments and reconstruction of

funerary paths, biodemographic data and living

conditions, body modifications, and provenience.

The information below is organized according to

the burial number (16-1-1 to 16-1-5) and the ske-

letal individuals contained, as determined by the

MNI (n 518 ).

Postmortem treatmentsThe high number of fragments and the reduced

number of the complete anatomical elements reflected

the poor state of preservation of the skeletal remains.

The bony surfaces were eroded for the most part,

which limited the osteological analysis. In several

cases, poor preservation also made it difficult to

assign bony segments to specific individuals. The

animal remains consisted of birds, small mammals,

reptiles, and rodents. The latter are likely those

animals that nested inside the graves and damaged

the human remains we examined. The following are

brief descriptions of the original corpse configura-

tions and secondary bone placements of each burial

assemblage. More detailed treatment of the archae-

ological contexts and the mortuary furniture can be

found in Manahan and Ardren (2008).

BURIAL 16-1-1 (FIG. 5)

Together with Burial 16-1-2, the human interments of

Burial 16-1-1 were part of an elongated grave

enclosure that had been laid out in the western part

of the platform, where it was placed on top of the

buried plaza floor associated with FN-183 sub. Poor

preservation of the surface of the platform made it

impossible to determine if the plaster floor of the

platform had been cut. The roughly lined cist grave

measured 2.6 m E–W60.45 m N–S (including Burial

16-1-2 west of Burial 16-1-1, which is described

below). The part of the cist’s funerary space that

housed Burial 16-1-1 was unfilled, as evidenced by the

osseous patina and anatomical configuration. The

corpse of a robust male (Individual 16-1-1a), whose

remains appear to be approximately in proper

anatomical position, was placed on the buried plaza

floor, where he was laid down extended on his back.

A rich assemblage of Cehpech ceramic vessels (n 5

10) accompanied the deceased, one of which probably

protected his head. Immediately east, the bones of an

adolescent between 12 and 15 years of age-at-death

(Individual 16-1-1b) had been re-interred, and were

likely remnants of a previous primary burial, given

that we recorded isolated segments of the adolescent’s

lower extremities at the other end of the grave. The

male adult (Individual 16-1-1a) was also accompa-

nied by the skull of a third individual (Individual 16-

1-1c), placed on a ceramic plate near his right

shoulder. This skull, which in life belonged to a

young male in his late teens or early 20s, apparently

had been extracted previously from the other side of

the cist, where his post-cranial skeleton was recorded

as Individual 16-1-2d, (see below). An isolated

inferior canine, which was identified positively as

belonging to the detention of Individual 16-1-1c, was

recovered during the excavation within the area of

the headless body of Individual 16-1-2d. The

discovery of an isolated canine, which had probably

fallen out of the bony socket before the skull was

exhumed and relocated, suggests that its soft tissues

had decayed long before this act took place.

BURIAL 16-1-2 (FIGS. 5,6)

This multiple burial assemblage was contiguous with

Burial 16-1-1 with the primary occupants of each

arranged toe-to-toe. The fact that the interments were

deposited in four distinct strata and that most were



associated with secondary remains (FIG. 6), suggests a

series of burial events, which may have stretched over

a period of several decades, possibly centuries,

although all associated ceramics (n56) are from the

Cehpech sphere.

In the construction fill below the surface of FN-

183, isolated human remains had been placed on top

of the flat slabs that sealed the cist, where we

recorded them as a scattered heap of a few very

eroded, osseous fragments covering an area of

approximately 25 cm E–W620 cm N–S. They corre-

spond to the lower extremities of at least one adult

and one infant. Due to the lack of any anatomical

relationships, it is possible that these represent the

remnants of previous episodes of skeletal extraction,

the product of repeated openings of the cist.

Immediately below the stone slabs, the incomplete

but mostly articulated remains of a young male adult

were recorded (Individual 16-1-2a), stretched out on his

back with his head to the west. The body was delimited

by the stones that comprised the cist. The close

anatomical relationship among the segments of the

spine, pelvis, and ribs indicated that the body had been

covered immediately after placement. Underneath this

body lay a second individual (Individual 16-1-2b),

belonging to a juvenile female between 10 and 13 years

of age-at-death, placed in extended dorsal decubitus

(lying on the back) with her head to the east, just the

opposite of the male above her. As with Individual 16-

1-2a, her body must have been covered immediately

after placement (FIGS. 5, 6).

While exposing the female’s skeleton, a heap of

commingled osseous fragments (Individual 16-1-2c)

was encountered to the west of Burial 16-1-1. The

lack of any anatomical relationship among the bony

remains of at least two incomplete robust male

adults, one gracile female, and one adolescent,

indicates a multiple secondary interment of isolated

skeletal remains. We believe that the bones were

interred together in a single event and were perhaps

contained inside a textile bundle, since they occupy a

precisely delimited space within the matrix. Both

Figure 5 Distribution of the human skeletal elements of Individuals 16-1-1a (white), 16-1-1b (dark grey), 16-1-1c (black), 16-1-

2a/b (superimposed), and 16-1-2c (grey). Drawing by Taller de Bioarqueologıa/UADY.

Figure 6 Profile (from south) of human skeletal remains in Burial 16-1-2. Upper layers show Individuals 16-1-2a and 16-1-2b

(light grey) and the remains in commingled secondary context of Individual 16-1-2c (dark grey). Individuals 16-1-2d and 16-1-2e/f

are in the lower layers. Drawing by Taller de Bioarqueologıa/UADY.



skulls of the adults were conspicuously absent from

this bone assemblage, which suggests that the heads

underwent a different funerary path.

A third primary deposit was beneath the female

labeled Individual 16-1-2b and identified here as

Individual 16-1-2d (FIGS. 5, 6). It corresponded to a

poorly preserved male adult in correct anatomical

position who had been laid down extended on his back

prior to the filling of the funerary space. Hand bones

of at least one juvenile individual were also found in

association. The right femur was noticeably unaligned

with the rest of the skeleton and the skull was missing

along with the first cervical vertebra, which usually

remains attached to the skull well after other vertebral

joints have disarticulated (Duday 1997: 94, 98). The

complete absence of these elements, which usually

preserve well, indicates that the funerary space had

been disturbed to extract these specific bone elements

after skeletonization had occurred. This interpretation

is also supported by the disturbance pattern to

Individual 16-1-2e right below and the match we have

established between this male and Individual 16-1-2c’s

skull from Burial 16-1-1.

The last individual from this burial assemblage,

right below Individual 16-1-2d, was the first one to be

interred. Individual 16-1-2e was determined to be a

robust, young or middle-aged male, who was extended

in dorsal decubitus on the floor of the grave, which was

then filled in. The skeleton largely retained its correct

anatomical position except for the right lower

extremity that appeared disturbed, just as we observed

in the skeleton just above (Individual 16-1-2d). In its

place, isolated phalanges and a clavicle of at least one

juvenile individual were found, perhaps resulting from

a subsequent deposit that disturbed both interments.

Like the individuals to be deposited later, there were

no signs of constriction suggesting the wrapping at the

time of burial of Individual 16-1-2e.

A worked skull and mandible (Individual 16-1-2f)

had been placed on the right portion of the chest of

the deceased. The skull had been sectioned bilaterally

at the level of the mastoids when the bone was still

fresh and the soft tissues still present (FIG. 7). Both

parietals, the body and vertical branches of the

mandible, and the zygomatic arches were perforated

in order to tie the mandible to the skull. The skull

must have been used during the lifetime of Individual

16-1-2e, since it showed signs of wear and repair.

During its use-life, some of the original teeth must

have fallen out of their sockets and at least two

incisors were replaced with teeth of other indivi-

dual(s), whose roots were filed to fit into the bony

tooth sockets.


The sole crypt was found within the fill of the earliest

construction episode, FN-183 sub, and was oriented

along the E–W axis of the platform. The well-

constructed crypt was placed directly on bedrock

and the capstones prevented the cavity from filling

with earth during the decomposition process. The

degraded, partly commingled remains in the crypt still

exhibited correct anatomical association, indicating

that the adult male interment had been placed in

extended dorsal decubitus with his head to the east.

These remains were associated with a few isolated

bones (an ulna, patella, and scraps of a skull cap) from

a younger, possibly female, skeleton, which had been

placed with the deceased. The remains of this second

individual may be remnants of a removed previous

interment or may represent a secondary relocation of

bones during the placement of the primary occupant,

especially since (unlike the previous burials), there was

no archaeological evidence for reentry into the crypt.

A total of 10 Cehpech ceramic vessels, primarily

slateware plates, were present in the deposit.

BURIAL 16-1-4

Burial 16-1-4 was encountered just below the floor of

the surface of the platform approximately 3.5 m

south of Burial 16-1-3, where a cut in the platform’s

floor was clearly visible. The cist was oriented E–W

and contained the extremely deteriorated and frag-

mented skeletal remains of at least two adults with an

associated deciduous tooth and skull cap from an

infant. The poor state of preservation and apparent

commingling of individuals did not permit any

Figure 7 Schematic drawing (left lateral view) of worked

cranium and mandible of Individual 16-1-2f, showing perfora-

tions (in black) and slicing marks on the neurocranium and

mandibular ramus. Drawing by Vera Tiesler.



reconstruction of original anatomical disposition.

The bony fragments exhibited a heterogeneous

appearance and texture and were commingled with

vestiges of animal bones partially exposed to fire

(Javier Adrian Rivas Romero and Christopher Gotz,

personal communication 2008). This indicates that

the burial in at least one end had been disturbed, that

the contents were in part secondary deposits, and that

the human remains likely came from different

primary contexts. Similarly, most of the eight

Cehpech vessels were found broken and scattered

through the deposit.


A stone-lined cist (Burial 16-1-5) was located just

inside the west wall of the platform, running along its

E–W axis. The cist is some 1.6–1.9 m long and 30–

40 cm deep. Similar to the previously described

burials, Burial 16-1-5 is an individual primary burial

with associated secondary remains. The main indivi-

dual (Individual 16-1-5a) was determined to be an

adolescent in correct anatomical, though partly

disturbed, condition. Patina formation on the bone

surfaces and the dispersed disposition of the bones

indicated that the burial space had remained unfilled

for a long time. Some large animal bones had been

placed together with the body of the primary

individual. The incomplete bones of a juvenile

between 6 and 10 years of age-at-death (Individual

16-1-5b) and one adult tooth (Individual 16-1-5c)

were introduced into the cist, possibly long after the

original deposit had been created. Burial furniture

included two Cehpech vessels.

SummaryMinimum number of individualsThe MNI was calculated based on the presence of

duplicate bone segments of the same side and

Figure 8 Distribution of the human skeletal and other remains encountered in Burial 16-1-3: Individual 16-1-3a (white),

Individual 16-1-3b (light grey), and associated artifacts (dark grey). Drawing by Taller de Bioarqueologıa/UADY.

Figure 9 Distribution of the skeletal elements in Burial 16-1-5: Individual 16-1-5a (white), Individual 16-1-5b (dark grey), and

associated artifacts/ecofacts (light grey). Drawing by Taller de Bioarqueologıa/UADY.



individual morphological features (Duday 1997).

This estimate was compared to the number of teeth

encountered in each context (TABLE 1). The resulting

MNI estimate for the burials at Xuenkal is 18 (or n 5

23 if Individual 16-1-2c and the additional remains

associated with Burial 16-1-1 were included). The

majority of the 18 skeletons were incomplete.

PRESERVATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF SKELETAL ELEMENTS BY

INDIVIDUAL (FIG. 10)

Despite the general deterioration, differences in

preservation were observed among anatomical ele-

ments as well as among the different kinds of

burials. We obtained the BRI for those elements

representing the cranium (C), the trunk (T), and

extremities (E) and compared the values among the

principal occupants (PI; n 5 8), individuals asso-

ciated with the principal occupants (AI; n 5 9,

including the skull mask buried with Individual 16-

1-2e), and those specimens piled up in isolated

secondary contexts (SI; Individuals 16-1-2-1, 16-1-2-

2, and 16-1-2c; n 5 6) (TABLE 1). The overall

patterns obtained from the principal individuals

indicate that the skulls and the long bones tended to

be better represented than those of the trunk. This

profile is expected in deteriorated remains because

of the inherent structural properties of each type of

bone and its intrinsic resistance to degradation,

supporting our contention that complete bodies

were buried rather than just body parts.

In comparison to the principal individuals, the

BRIs of associated individuals and those from

secondary assemblages are much lower, indicating

that further degradation and element loss took

place during their protracted funerary paths

(TABLE 1). Interestingly, the C/T/E proportions are

also shifted in these latter specimens, with skulls

noticeably overrepresented in the AI category and

extremities underrepresented in both the AI and SI

categories. While the latter trend could be a result

of problems in identifying small fragments in the

extremely degraded materials, the overrepresenta-

tion of the skull indeed suggests that this anatomi-

cal part was culturally selected for post-

depositional practices.

We also looked for individual skeletal elements

that might have been moved among the four grave

enclosures or within the elongated enclosure that

contained Burials 16-1-1 and 16-1-2. Only one case

of relocation could be confirmed on the grounds of

individual morphology: the dentition of the asso-

ciated skull Individual 16-1-1b from Burial 16-1-1

corresponded to dental remains of Individual 16-1-

2d. On this basis, we argue that the skull belonging

to Individual 16-1-2d was removed and placed with

the principal individual in Burial 16-1-1. Additional

cases of relocation were suspected but could not be

confirmed because of the poor state of skeletal

preservation. Furthermore, some elements were

completely missing, which raises a question of their

final location.

SEX/AGE

Of the 23 sk+eletal individuals, 11 could be sexed,

resulting in the identification of eight males (includ-

ing the skull mask labeled as Individual 16-1-2f) and

only three females. We identified three children and

four juveniles, while the majority (n 5 9) were young

adults (between 20 and 35–40 years of age-at-death)

(TABLE 1). Some of the associated individuals (like

Individual 16-1-2c) have been labeled as ‘‘adults’’

because of the lack of specific age markers that could

support narrower age range estimates. Few infants

and females were found in the burial cohort, even

though we cannot rule out a bias in the data as a

result of the poor state of preservation.

LIVING CONDITIONS

Characteristics such as an above-average stature

(163.16 cm for males; n 5 3), porotic hyperostosis

(absent or slight; n 5 4), and periostitis/osteomye-

lities (only one slight case; n 5 6) of the long bones

seem to indicate relatively favorable living conditions,

while the above-average number of hypoplastic

defects (all moderate or strong; n 5 7) and/or caries

(24.1% of the teeth affected; n 5 6; (Cucina and

Tiesler 2003) are indicative of physiological stress

during growth and a diet with a high incidence of

carbohydrates. The reduced sample size, however,

limits generalizations on health patterns and lifestyles

and even causes doubts about the representativeness

of the sample.

BIOCULTURAL PRACTICES

Marks of cultural practices are in the form of cranial

deformation and dental decoration. Seven out of

eight preserved crania showed artificial modifica-

tion. Cradle boarding, that led to erect tabular

forms (n 5 5) with sagittal grooves and composite

posterior compression planes, appears to have been

popular among Xuenkal’s Late Classic period

population, along with dental filing (Romero Moli-

na’s A or B5 patterns) (Romero Molina 1986;

Tiesler 2000). Such preferences are consistent with

Classic or Early Postclassic Maya cultural practices

(Tiesler 1998, 2000). Noticeably, none of the shaped

skulls shows the pattern popular in Chichen Itza

and in Isla Cerritos during the Sotuta phase, namely

the ‘‘parallelepiped’’ variety, which—in addition to

the anterior and posterior planes—implies strong

superior flattening resulting in a cubelike skull when

seen in profile (Tiesler and Romano Pacheco 2008).

Once again, the reduced sample size limits any

generalizations.



Provenience studiesThe geological substrate around Xuenkal, in the

northern Yucatan, consists mainly of limestone,

cockle (incompletely consolidated) sedimentary rock,

and calcareous breccias of the late Miocene/Pliocene

Carrillo Puerto Formation. Strontium in the substrate

is derived from seawater of the same age as the

Carrillo Puerto Formation, i.e. Miocene/Pliocene

with a 87Sr/86Sr value of approximately 0.7080–

0.7090. We measured baseline strontium isotope

ratios at a number of localities in the northern

Yucatan (FIG. 11) where we observed values ranging

from roughly 0.7080 to 0.7090 (Price et al. 2008), and

we have measured 87Sr/86Sr values in faunal and

human samples from many locations in the northern

Yucatan and elsewhere throughout the Maya region.

Because biological values reflect an average of

biologically available strontium, faunal ratios have

less variation and more appropriately reflect the

variation in humans. Values of calcified tissues from

the northern lowlands are mainly in the range of

0.7085–0.7090 (FIG. 11), with no local estimates below

0.7080 until one gets as far south as Calakmul, in the

southern lowlands, where values of 0.7075–0.7079

prevail. The strontium isotope ratios measured for

the 13 tooth samples from Xuenkal are listed in

Table 2. The values cluster tightly around 0.70865,

which is probably a good measure of the local ratio

and is appropriate for middle Miocene limestone in

this area. The only ratio below 0.7080 corresponds to

Individual 16-1-2f, a skull mask which was part of the

accoutrement of the robust male who was at the

bottom of the interment column of Burial 16-1-2.

This is clearly an outlier that falls well beyond the

‘‘local’’ range, and beyond the range for the northern

lowlands. The outlying individual has a ratio

consistent with an origin in the southern lowlands.

The remaining 12 individuals in our sample cannot be

distinguished isotopically and either belong to the

population of the site or from the surrounding area.

DiscussionAlthough we cannot reconstruct in detail the complex

set of processes that created the burials at Xuenkal’s

Platform FN-183, we can identify some common

patterns among the interred individuals. First, all the

evidence indicates that Platform FN-183 was not only

a residential structure, but also probably served as

place of funerary cult behavior and associated

Figure 10 BRI (Bone Representation Index) values for main

(principal) individuals, those individuals associated with

principal skeletons, and individuals from secondary burial

assemblages.

Figure 11 Baseline strontium isotope ratios at selected Maya sites across the northern Yucatan Peninsula.



material containment, in a mausoleum-like form, of

the mortal remains of ancestors. We think these

individuals formed part of a group linked by

exchange, occupation or, more likely, family ties

(either political or biological). There was repeated use

of specific contexts, such as with Burials 16-1-1 and

16-1-2, where the fleshed mortal remains of the

deceased were deposited. Once skeletonized, some of

their bones (or whole bodies) were removed to be re-

deposited together with other skeletal elements or,

alternatively, to accompany the body of another dead

person. The grave re-entries, extractions, and post-

humous body manipulations that we documented for

Xuenkal express the importance that the memory of

the dead and their physical remains played in ancient

Maya ideology, probably as guardians of family lines

and their living spaces (McAnany 1995). Similarly

protracted mortuary practices have been described at

other Classic and Postclassic Maya sites, such as

Dzibilchaltun (Andrews and Andrews 1980), Caracol

in the westernmost part of central Belize (Chase and

Chase 2003), Ek Balam (Alfonso Lacadena, personal

communication 2002), and Mayapan (Ruppert and

Smith 1956), but not in the same detail and complex-

ity as at Xuenkal.

The demographic distribution by sex and age at

Xuenkal is inconsistent with a normal mortuary

population. With regard to age, infants are comple-

tely absent and—similar to other burial findings in

the Maya area (see Krejci and Culbert 1995: 104)—

females are dramatically underrepresented. Given our

carefully recorded sexing and ageing, it is likely that

selective mortuary processes introduced such dispro-

portion, although none that we could clearly docu-

ment. We are inclined, therefore, to think that the

mortuary space on Platform FN-183 was reserved

mainly for specific members of the family group,

while others were interred outside the platform and

outside the excavated area. The high social status of

the individuals buried in the platform is documented

by the substantial quantity of burial furniture,

primarily ceramic vessels (n 5 36), all Cehpech,

found in their tombs (in particular with Individual

16-1-2e and in Burials 16-1-3 and 16-1-5). This

practice apparently excluded infants and—to some

extent—female members of the group.

The presence of similar artifacts in association with

the two primary male individuals interred in the same

residential platform (Burial 16-1-1 and Individual 16-

1-2e) support the interpretation of these two mature

men as members of a family group. Both individuals

were buried with artifacts indicative of military

activity, specifically chert lanceolate points consistent

with spears shown in Maya art of the Classic period

(Foster 2002). Both men also wore animal canines and

one of them was buried together with a trophy skull of

a non-local male. Differing from his local owner, this

foreigner could well have grown up in the southern

lowlands, given his isotopic signature, and therefore

have been a captured adversary. This provides new

data for the discussion of the ancestral versus trophy

quality of worked Maya skulls (Hammond et al. 2002;

Tiesler 2007). Although worked skulls are more

commonly found in the form described by

Franciscan monk Diego de Landa for the contact

period, in which only a frontal portion of an adult

skull has been saved, complete or almost complete

trophy heads in the form found at Xuenkal have been

documented in other peninsular contexts like Chac

Mool during the Postclassic period (Enrique Terrones,

personal communication 2002) and are portrayed on

the chest of warriors in northern lowland art as well as

on Classic period Maya vases (Hammond et al. 2002).

Though possibly separated in time by as much as

100 years, we suggest that both men were dressed as

warriors, as depicted in the murals of Chichen Itza

and stelae from nearby sites such as Xtelhu or Coba.

Obviously their identification as warriors is difficult

to prove, but the iconography of their associated

artifacts and personal adornments strongly indicates

a claim to legitimacy based upon the metaphors of

military power. The Late Classic historical context of

these burials, a time when evidence for militarism

increases throughout the northern lowlands, supports

the interpretation that these are two high prestige

individuals who could have utilized similar claims to

authority within a family group.

ConclusionsThe main goals of this osteotaphonomic analysis can

be described as factual and methodological, as we

have attempted to demonstrate the benefits of joining

new analytical tools with more conventional sources

of information for reconstructing the complex Maya

funerary practices and ancestor worship at Xuenkal,

Yucatan. The data presented here represent the first

detailed documentation of interments of this type in

the northern Yucatan.

Table 2 Strontium isotope values of tooth enamel from13 individuals at Xuenkal.

Lab No. Tooth Individual 87Sr/86Sr

F4020 M1 lower right 16-1-1b 0.708596F4021 M1 lower left 16-1-1c 0.708617F4022 M1 lower left 16-1-2a 0.708673F4023 M1 upper right 16-1-2b 0.708599F4024 C lower left 16-1-2c 0.708702F4025 M1 upper right 16-1-2e 0.708673F4026 M1 upper left 16-1-2f 0.707983F4027 M2 lower right 16-1-3a 0.708547F4028 M2 upper left 16-1-3b 0.708664F4029 M2 lower left 16-1-4a 0.708481F4030 M1 upper right 16-1-4b 0.708556F4031 M1 lower right 16-1-5a 0.708661F4032 M1 upper left 16-1-5b 0.708642



The repeated acts of reentry, removal, and reloca-

tion, as described for Xuenkal Platform FN-183,

indicate that the bodies of the dead and sometimes

their parts followed surprisingly long and complex

funerary paths. Extensive posthumous bone and

body manipulation that we believe formed part of a

protracted ancestral cult, assigning distinctive mean-

ings to different body elements. The isotopic signa-

tures confirm that the mortuary behavior reflects the

activities and beliefs of a local residential population.

These practices are not limited to Xuenkal, but are

shared by other, coeval regional centers in the

Yucatan Peninsula (Stanton et al. 2010; Ardren and

Hutson 2002; Fernandez 2006). Despite the proximity

of Xuenkal to Chichen Itza, it is significant that some

commonly observed later Terminal Classic and

Postclassic period mortuary patterns are conspicu-

ously absent from the burial compound documented

in this investigation. There are no ossuaries, or

cremated or incinerated remains found as yet at

Xuenkal, in contrast to those at other sites from the

northern part of the peninsula such as Chichen Itza

or Mayapan (Fry 1956; Fernandez 2006; Serafin and

Peraza Lope 2007).

We hope that this research suggests further

osteotaphonomic investigations in the region that

will expand our vision and knowledge about the often

complex ritual conduct that accompanied Maya

funerary cults.

AcknowledgmentsField research was supported with funding from the

National Science Foundation (grant #OISE-

0502306), FAMSI (grant #05064) the Offices of the

Provost and Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences

of the University of Miami, and Kent State

University. Research was conducted under the

auspices of the Instituto Nacional de Antropologıa

e Historia, and with the assistance of landowner

Ermilio Palma. We also wish to thank Shintaro

Suzuki, Mirna Sanchez, Mayra Maldonado, Araceli

Hurtado, Daniel Froehlich, Daniel Vallejo, Chris

Morehart, and Alejandro Reina de T. for their

worthy help during the excavation and lab registra-

tion of the skeletal remains. Samples for isotopic

analyses were prepared in Madison by Stephanie

June. Strontium isotope ratios were measured by

Paul Fullagar at the University of North Carolina-

Chapel Hill. We are also indebted to Norman

Hammond and three anonymous reviewers for their

constructive suggestions, which have greatly

enhanced this article.

Vera Tiesler (Ph.D. 1999, Mexican Autonomous

University) is a Research Professor at the Department

of Anthropology/Autonomous University of Yucatan in

Merida. She is a Maya bioarchaeologist who specializes

in mortuary patterns, living conditions, and biocultural

practices. Her research has emphasized the study of

human remains within the archaeological context, aimed

at assessing general social, economic, and political

conditions, along with cultural and gender issues among

the ancient Maya. She has participated in 17 field

projects and studied over 150 skeletal collections from

Mexico, Guatemala, and Honduras, and has collabo-

rated in forensic research in the region. Mailing address:

Maranon 15, Club de Golf La Ceiba, km. 13.5,

Carretera Merida - Progreso, CP97110, Merida,

Yucatan, Mexico. E-mail: [email protected]

Andrea Cucina (Ph.D. 1998, Catholic University,

Rome) is Research Professor at the Facultad de

Ciencias Antropologicas of the Universidad Autono-

ma de Yucatan. His research interests encompass

dental anthropology and skeletal biology in ancient

Maya and Prehispanic Caribbean populations. His

investigations range from biological affinity among

populations to oral pathology, trace elements in teeth,

paleodiet, paleodemography to human ritual sacrifice

in the Classic and Postclassic Maya periods. Mailing

address: Maranon 15, Club de Golf La Ceiba, km.

13.5, Carretera Merida-Progreso, CP97110, Merida,

Yucatan, Mexico. E-mail: [email protected]

T. Kam Manahan (Ph.D. 2003, Vanderbilt

University) is Assistant Professor of Anthropology at

Kent State University. He is Co-director of the

Proyecto Arqueologico Xuenkal. His research interests

include settlement patterns, household archaeology,

and economic and political organization. Mailing

address: Department of Anthropology, Kent State

University, 226 Lowry Hall, Kent, OH 44242. E-mail:

[email protected]

T. Douglas Price (Ph.D. 1975, University of

Michigan) is Weinstein Professor of European

Archaeology and Director of the Laboratory for

Archaeological Chemistry at the University of

Wisconsin-Madison, and 6th Century Chair in

Archaeological Science at the University of

Aberdeen. His interests lie in two major directions:

the archaeology of agricultural transitions, with

particular emphasis on northern Europe; and the

chemistry of human bone, with particular emphasis

on the use of strontium isotope ratios for studying past

human movements. Current research projects include

excavations in Denmark, isotopic studies in the North

Atlantic, Scandinavia, Mexico, and the Southwestern

U.S., among others. Mailing address: University of

Wisconsin-Madison, Laboratory for Archaeological

Chemistry, Department of Anthropology, 1180

Observatory Drive, Madison, WI 53706. E-mail:

[email protected]

Traci Ardren (Ph.D. 1997, Yale University) is

Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University



of Miami. She is Co-Director of the Proyecto

Arqueologico Xuenkal and has research interests that

encompass various forms of symbolic information in

the archaeological record such as identity markers,

mortuary ritual, and iconographic representations.

Mailing address: Department of Anthropology,

University of Miami, P.O. Box 248106, Coral

Gables, FL 33124. E-mail: [email protected]

James Burton (Ph.D. 1986, Arizona State

University) is a Senior Scientist in the Department of

Anthropology at the University of Wisconsin and

Associate Director of the Laboratory for

Archaeological Chemistry. His interests are the devel-

opment of chemical methods to solve archaeological

problems, especially using various isotope ratios to

understand the geographic origins and diets of ancient

humans. Mailing address: University of Wisconsin-

Madison, Laboratory for Archaeological Chemistry,

Department of Anthropology, 1180 Observatory Drive,

Madison, WI 53706. E-mail: [email protected]

ReferencesAdams, B., and J. E. Byrd, eds. 2008. Recovery, Analysis, and

Identification of Commingled Human Remains. New York:Humana Press.

Andrews, E. W., IV, and E. W. Andrews, V. 1980. Excavations atDzibilchaltun, Yucatan, Mexico. New Orleans: MiddleAmerican Research Institute, Tulane University.

Ardren, T., R. V. Burgos, T. K. Manahan, S. G. Dzul, and J. F.Estrada. 2005. ‘‘Recent Investigations at Xuenkal,’’ Mexicon27: 92–97.

Ardren, T., and S. Hutson. 2002. ‘‘Ancient Maya ReligiousPractices at Chunchucmil and Yaxuna,’’ The Pre-ColumbianArt Research Institute Journal (4): 5–11.

Beck, L. A., ed. 1995. Regional Approaches to Mortuary Analysis.New York: Plenum.

Behrensmeyer, A. K., and A. P. Hill, eds. 1980. Fossils in theMaking. Vertebrate Taphonomy and Paleoecology. PrehistoricArcheology and Ecology Series. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Bello, S., and P. Andrews. 2006. ‘‘The Intrinsic Patterns ofPreservation of Human Skeletons and its Influence on theInterpretation of Funerary Behaviours,’’ in R. Gowland andC. Knusel, eds., Social Archaeology of Funerary Remains.Oxford: Oxbow, 1–13.

Binford, L. R. 1981. Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths.Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Boddington, A., A. N. Garland, and R. C. Janaway, eds. 1987.Death, Decay and Reconstruction. Approaches to Archaeologyand Forensic Science. Manchester: Manchester UniversityPress.

Boulestin, B. 1999. Approche taphonomique des restes humains.BAR International Series 776. Oxford: Archeopress.

Buikstra, J. E., and D. H. Ubelaker. 1994. Standards for DataCollection form Human Skeletal Remains. ArkansasArchaeological Survey Research Series 44. Lafayette:Arkansas Archaeological Survey.

Carr, C. 1995. ‘‘Mortuary Practices: Their Social, Philosophical-Religious, Circumstantial, and Physical Determinants,’’Journal of Anthropological Method and Theory 2: 105–200.

Chapman, R., I. Kinnes, and K. Randsborg, eds. 1981. TheArchaeology of Death. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Chase, D., and A. Chase. 2003. ‘‘Secular, sagrado y ‘‘revisitado’’: laprofanacion, alteracion y reconsagracion de los antiguosentierros mayas,’’ in A. Ciudad, M. Humberto Ruz, andM. Josefa Ponce de Leon, eds., Antropologıa de la eternidad: Lamuerte en la cultura maya. Madrid: Sociedad Espanola deEstudios Mayas/Centro de Estudios Mayas, UNAM, 255–277.

Cucina, A., and V. Tiesler. 2003. ‘‘Dental Caries and AntemortemTooth Loss in the Northern Peten Area, Mexico: A Biocultural

Perspective on Social Status Differences Among in ClassicMaya,’’ American Journal of Physical Anthropology 122: 1–10.

Dembo, A., and J. Imbelloni. 1938. Deformaciones intencionales delcuerpo humano de caracter etnico. Buenos Aires: BibliotecaHumanior.

Dodson, P., and D. Wexler. 1979. ‘‘Taphonomic Investgations ofOwl Pellets,’’ Paleobiology 5: 279–284.

Duday, H. 1987. ‘‘Contribution des observations osteologiques a lachronologie interne des sepultures collectives,’’ in H. Dudayand C. Masset, eds., Anthropologie physique et archeologie.Methodes d’etude des sepultures. Paris: Editions du CNRS, 51–59.

Duday, H. 1997. ‘‘Antropologıa biologica ‘‘de campo’’, tafonomıay arqueologıa de la muerte,’’ in E. Malvido, G. Pereira, andV. Tiesler, eds., El cuerpo humano y su tratamiento mortuorio.Mexico City: Coleccion Cientıfica, Instituto Nacional deAntropologıa e Historia, 91–126.

Duday, H., P. Courtaud, E. Crubezy, P. Sellier, and A. M. Tillier.1990. ‘‘L’anthropologie de terrain: reconnaissance et inter-pretation des gestes funeraires,’’ Bulletins et Memoires de laSociete d’Anthropologie de Paris 2(3–4): 29–50.

Duday, H., and P. Sellier. 1990. ‘‘L’archeologie des gestesfuneraires et la taphonomie,’’ Les Nouvelles de l’Archeologie40: 12–14.

Duncan, W. N. 2005. The Bioarchaeology of Ritual Violence inPostclassic El Peten, Guatemala (A.D. 950–1524). Ph.D.dissertation, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. AnnArbor: University Microfilms.

Efremov, I. 1940. ‘‘Taphonomy: New Branch of Paleontology,’’Pan-American Geologist 74: 81–93.

Fernandez, L. 2006. ‘‘Death and Memory in Chichen Itza,’’ inP. Colas, G. LeFort, and B. L. Tersson, eds., Jaws of theUnderword. Life, Death, and Rebirth Among the Ancient Maya.Acta Mesoamericana 16. Markt Schwaben: Anton Saurwein,21–31.

Foster, L. V. 2002. Handbook to Life in the Ancient Maya World.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fry, E. I. 1956. Skeletal Remains from Mayapan. Department ofArchaeology Current Reports 38. Washington, D.C.: CarnegieInstitution, 551–571.

Garza Tarazona de Gonzalez, S. and E. B. Kurjack. 1980. Atlasarqueologico del Estado de Yucatan. Mexico City: InstitutoNacional de Antropologıa e Historia.

Gifford, D. P. 1981. ‘‘Taphonomy and Paleoecology: A CriticalReview of Archaeology’s Sister Disciplines,’’ in M. Schiffer,ed., Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory Vol. 4. SanDiego, CA: Academic Press, 365–438.

Hammond, N., J. M. Saul, and F. P. English. 2002. ‘‘AncestralFaces: A Preclassic Maya Skull-mask from Cuello, Belize,’’Antiquity 76: 951–952.

Krejci, E., and P. Culbert. 1995. ‘‘Preclassic and Classic Burials andCaches in the Maya Lowlands,’’ in N. Grube, ed., TheEmergence of Lowland Maya Civilization. Acta Mesoa-mericana 5. Markt Schwaben: Anton Saurwein, 103–116.

Leclerc, J. 1990. ‘‘La notion de sepulture,’’ Bulletins et Memoires dela Societe d’Anthropologie de Paris 2(3–4): 13–38.

Littleton, J. 2000. ‘‘Taphonomic Effects of Erosion on DeliberatelyBuried Bodies,’’ Journal of Archaelogical Science 27: 5–18.

Manahan, T. K., and T. Ardren. 2008. ‘‘Cambios y conflictos en laregion Cupul. Resultados preliminares de la temporada 2006en Xuenkal, Yucatan,’’ Los Investigadores de la Cultura Maya16: 255–266.

Martin, R. E. 2000. Taphonomy. A Process Approach. CambridgePaleobiology Series No. 4. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

McAnany, P. A. 1995. Living with the Ancestors. Kinship andKingship in Ancient Maya Society. Austin: University of TexasPress.

McAnany, P. A. 2002. ‘‘Ancestor Veneration in Lowland MayaSociety: A Case Study from K’axob, Belize,’’ in P. N.Peregrine, C. R. Ember, and M. Ember, eds., Archaeology:Original Readings in Method and Practice. Upper Saddle River,NJ: Prentice Hall, 360–377.

Micozzi, M. S. 1991. Postmortem Change in Human and AnimalRemains. A Systematic Approach. Springfield, IL: Charles C.Thomas.

Parker Pearson, M. 1999. The Archaeology of Death and Burial.College Station: Texas A & M University.

Pereira, G., and D. Michelet. 2004. ‘‘Gobernantes mayas en lechosde muerte: El caso de Balamku, un patron funerario delClasico Temprano,’’ in R. Cobos, ed., Culto funerario en la



sociedad maya. Memoria de la Cuarta Mesa Redonda dePalenque. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropologıa eHistoria, 333–368.

Pijoan, C. 1997. ‘‘Evidencias de sacrificio humano y canibalismo enrestos oseos. El caso del Entierro numero 14 de Tlatelolco,D.F.,’’ unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Universidad NacionalAutonoma de Mexico, Mexico City.

Price, D. T., J. H. Burton, P. D. Fullager, L. E. Wright, J. E.Buikstra, and V. Tiesler. 2008. ‘‘Strontium Isotopes and theStudy of Human Mobility in Ancient Mesoamerica,’’ LatinAmerican Antiquity 19: 167–180.

Price, T. D., J. H. Burton, L. E. Wright, C. D. White, andF. Longstaffe. 2007. ‘‘Victims of Sacrifice: Isotopic Evidencefor Place of Origin,’’ in V. Tiesler and A. Cucina, eds., NewPerspectives on Human Sacrifice and Ritual Body Treatments inAncient Maya Society. New York: Springer, 263–292.

Price, T. D., L. Manzanilla, and W. D. Middleton. 2000.‘‘Residential Mobility at Teotihuacan: A Preliminary StudyUsing Strontium Isotopes,’’ Journal of Archaeological Science27: 903–913.

Price, T. D., V. Tiesler, and J. H. Burton. 2006. ‘‘Early AfricanDiaspora in Colonial Campeche, Mexico: Strontium IsotopicEvidence,’’ American Journal of Physical Anthropology 130:485–490.

Romano Pacheco, A. 1965. Estudio morfologico de la deformacioncraneana en Tamuın, S.L.P., y en la Isla del Idolo, Veracruz.Serie de Investigaciones 10. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional deAntropologıa e Historia.

Romero Molina, J. 1986. Catalogo de la coleccion de dientesmutilados prehispanicos. IV parte. Coleccion Fuentes. MexicoCity: Instituto Nacional de Antropologıa e Historia.

Ruppert, K., and A. L. Smith. 1956. Excavations in House Moundsat Mayapan: IV. Current Reports 36. Washington, D.C.:Carnegie Institution, 54–65.

Serafin, S., and C. Peraza Lope. 2007. ‘‘Human Sacrificial RitesAmong the Maya of Mayapan: A BioarchaeologicalPerspective,’’ in V. Tiesler and A. Cucina, eds., NewPerspectives on Human Sacrifice and Ritual Body Treatmentsin Ancient Maya Society. New York: Springer, 232–250.

Sledzik, P. S. 1998. ‘‘Forensic Taphonomy: Postmortem Descom-position and Decay,’’ in K. Reichs, ed., Forensic Osteology,.Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 109–119.

Stanton, T. S., D. A. Freidel, C. K. Suhler, T. Ardren, J. N.Ambrosino, J. M. Shaw, and S. Bennett. 2010. ArchaeologicalInvestigations at Yaxuna, 1986–1996. BAR International Series2056. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Steele, D. G., and C. A. Bramblett. 1988. The Anatomy and Biologyof the Human Skeleton. Austin: Texas University Press.

Tiesler, V. 1998. La costumbre de la deformacion cefalica entre losantiguos mayas: aspectos morfologicos y culturales. MexicoCity: Instituto Nacional de Antropologıa e Historia.

Tiesler, V. 1999. ‘‘Rasgos bioculturales entre los antiguos mayas:aspectos arqueologicos y sociales,’’ unpublished Ph.D. dis-sertation, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico,Mexico City.

Tiesler, V. 2000. Decoraciones dentales entre los antiguos mayas.Mexico City: Ediciones Euroamericanas, Instituto Nacional deAntropologıa e Historia.

Tiesler, V. 2004. ‘‘Mortuary Treatments in Classic Maya EliteBurials. An Osteo-Taphonomic Perspective,’’ in D. G. Behrens,N. Grube, C. M. Prager, F. Sachse, S. Teufel and E. Wagner,eds., Continuity and Change. Maya Religious Practices inTemporal Perspective. Acta Mesoamericana 14. Markt Sch-waben: Anton Saurwein, 143–156.

Tiesler, V. 2006. ‘‘Life and Death of the Ruler: RecentBioarchaeological Findings,’’ in V. Tiesler and A. Cucina,eds., Janaab’ Pakal of Palenque. Reconstructing the Life andDeath of a Maya Ruler. Tucson: University of Arizona, 21–47.

Tiesler, V. 2007. ‘‘Funerary or Nonfunerary? New References inIdentifying Ancient Maya Sacrificial and PostsacrificialBehaviors from Human Assemblages,’’ in V. Tiesler, andA. Cucina, eds., New Perspectives on Human Sacrifice andRitual Body Treatments in Ancient Maya Society. New York:Springer, 14–45.

Tiesler, V., and A. Cucina. 2003. ‘‘Sacrificio, tratamiento yofrenda del cuerpo humano entre los mayas del Clasico: unamirada bioarqueologica,’’ in A. Ciudad, M. Humberto RuzSosa, and M. Josefa Ponce de Leon, eds., Antropologıa de laeternidad: La muerte en la cultura maya. Madrid: SociedadEspanola de Estudios Mayas/Centro de Estudios Mayas,UNAM, 337–354.

Tiesler, V., and A. Romano Pacheco. 2008. ‘‘El modelado delcraneo en Mesoamerica. Emblematica costumbre milenaria,’’Arqueologıa Mexicana 94: 18–25.

Turner, C. G., II, and J. A. Turner. 1999. Man Corn. Cannibalismand Violence in the Prehistoric American Southwest. Salt LakeCity: The University of Utah.

White, C. D., T. D. Price, and F. Longstaffe. 2007. ‘‘ResidentialHistories of the Human Sacrifices at the Moon Pyramid:Evidence from Oxygen and Strontium Isotopes,’’ AncientMesoamerica 18: 159–172.

White, T. 1992. Prehistoric Cannibalism at Mancos 5MTUMR-2346. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Wright, L. E. 2005 ‘‘In Search of Yax Nuun Ayiin I: Revisiting theTikal Project’s Burial 10,’’ Ancient Mesoamerica 16: 63–87.



Documents

A Taphonomic Approach to Late Classic Maya Mortuary Practices at Xuenkal, Yucata´n, Mexico