Morphological Variation Among the Historic Period Maya at Tipu, Belize

Discussion

Morphological differences between groups of males found within the Colonial Maya population at Tipu correspond to their placement either within or around the walls of the church. According to Catholic traditions, interment inside the church is reserved for higher status individuals, and among the Tipu males, this social distinction lead to or was the result of greater robusticity of some long bone dimensions. The morphological distinctions found here are thought to be the result of short-term environmental factors including activity patterns. First, since femur and tibia lengths were not significantly different between the groups, social differences implied by burial placement do not seem to have contributed to stature variation, as it did in the Classic Maya (Haviland 1967, Saul 1972, Stewart 1953; though see Danforth 1994 for a critique). This homogeneity suggests that childhood health and nutrition was fairly homogenous within the population. Second, Jacobi’s (2000) study of dental metric and nonmetric traits did not find evidence of genetic differences between these burial groups, further supporting an environmental basis for the discrepancies.

Females at Tipu do not seem to display significant morphological variation. The studies of stature in Classic Maya groups mentioned above also find that females tend to vary less than males between status and temporal groups. Haviland (1967) has proposed that the stability of female stature over time was the result of their consistently low status in Maya society. A more likely explanation is that females have a greater degree of genetic buffering so that they are more resistant to stunting as a result of childhood stress (Stinson 1985). Since no differences in stature are apparent at Tipu for either sex, discrepancies in robusticity measurements of long bones more likely represent differences in activity patterns, rather than the long-term effects of nutritional stress. Males found inside the church were more robust and thus may be interpreted as more physically active despite (or as the key to) their higher status within the church and the community. The lack of discrimination between the female groups may be interpreted as a less diverse set of activity patterns. However, this should in no way undermine the role of females in Colonial Maya society. In fact, Jones (1989: 89) notes that though the activities of women during this time are rarely documented, they were deeply involved in economic production, distribution and consumption, despite the dominant role of males in these activities. Therefore, status differences among women at Tipu likely existed. The lack of physical discrimination, however, suggests either that differences in activity patterns related to status among women did not affect their musculature, or that burial placement does not adequately correspond to female status. Statistical comparisons between males and females of the variation of each measurement seem to support the latter interpretation, since the relative variation among the female measurements is equal to that of males. The key difference is that the factors affecting female robusticity do not seem to be related to their placement in or around the church. If one assumes that long bone dimensions are affected by an individual’s status within the community, as they appear to be in the case of males, then it appears that the rules governing burial treatment were different for males and for females.

Previous Page  |  Table of Contents  |  Next Page

Return to top of page