Image - Cacao Pod Vessel - K6706 © Justin Kerr FAMSI © 2005:
Kitty F. Emery
 

Animals and Ritual in the Copán Acropolis: Zooarchaeology of Special Deposits

Figure 1. Animal remains from various deposits were examined, preliminarily identified, and photographed for verification with FLMNH comparative collections.
Click on image to enlarge.

Methods

Recovery Methods

Our work began with recovery of samples from assemblages stored at Copán Ruinas. Our group included myself (a Mesoamerican zooarchaeologist since 1984); Erin Kennedy Thornton (a University of Florida doctoral candidate doing regional zooarchaeology dissertation research); and Irvy Quitmyer (Collection Manager of Environmental Archaeology at the FLMNH and a zooarchaeologist since 1980 with an expertise in fish and invertebrates in archaeological samples).

During our stay in Copán Ruinas, Honduras we worked intensively in the research and conservation lab with the generous permission of Profesor Cruz and assistance from Cameron McNeil, graduate student at CUNY, to recover representative zooarchaeological samples from assemblages excavated and currently stored there by the ECAP (Figure 1, shown above). Cameron McNeil provided selected samples for our viewing and analysis, although others were not available due to a recent reorganization of the stored materials in the facility, and others were located only after the end of the project and will require further analysis at a later time.

Zooarchaeological assemblages provided to our team were examined, documented (using a Palm Tungsten Handheld data collector), and photographed (using a digital Nikon CoolPix 8.0), with data downloaded daily to a Toshiba Satellite Pro 4600. Preliminary identifications were made immediately, however many identifications required completion and verification (of photographic records) using the Florida Museum of Natural History comparative collections.

Figure 2. Diagnostic elements were removed from vessels (using a dissecting microscope) for later identification and analysis at the FLMNH after a full survey of species and element diversity. Care was taken to maintain the integrity of the vessel contents for later exhibit.
Click on image to enlarge.

Several fascinating deposits were sub-sampled for later analysis by Quitmyer at the FLMNH labs (Figure 2, shown above). Although the Copán ritual deposits have already been excavated, appropriate sub-samples for zooarchaeological research must include all possible taxonomic, individual, and body element diversity, so these sub-samples were selected by our team. Samples were taken under the supervision of ECAP project and Centro personnel and according to methods suggested by both.

Figure 3. The macrozoom function of the digital Nikon CoolPix 8.0 will allow for further quantification of unsampled vessel contents.
Click on image to enlarge.

The samples taken for export and additional analysis included the remains from eight vessels recovered from the Margarita tomb, all originally containing either fish or crustacean remains in an excellent state of preservation. Five of the samples were sub-sampled from residues removed from the original container by previous researchers. Three of the samples were removed directly from the vessels themselves with permission of Dr. Sharer. These three vessels will eventually be consolidated for exhibit, so our sampling process in these instances included photo documentation of vessel contents (using the macrozoom function of the digital camera, which should allow identification of unsampled elements), visual classification of species diversity to ensure the full range of species were sampled, and removal of diagnostic elements using a dissecting microscope (Figure 3, shown above). By using this method we were able to ensure complete sampling of taxonomic and element diversity without destruction of the visually important segments of the vessel for later exhibit. All vessel samples will also be examined for pollen and residues, so we took care to avoid cross-contamination wherever possible (considering constant air-flow through the unenclosed spaces in this open-air facility, this was not always possible).

Figure 4. Fish and shrimp purchased at the Jocotán market were prepared for inclusion in the comparative skeletal collection, and initial osteological comparison suggests these were the same species recovered from the vessels in the Margarita Tomb.
Click on image to enlarge.

Creation of a Comparative Assemblage

The species recovered from the ECAP ritual deposits included an unusual range of taxa that are not commonly part of zooarchaeological comparative collections. To ensure that our comparative collection was inclusive, we also collected modern specimens both in the neighboring Copán River and at the local market over the border in the neighboring town of Jocotán, Guatemala (Figure 4, shown above). Additional information was gathered from local fishermen both during conversation and on a fishing trip (with Don Leonides and his family). The fishermen talked extensively about their fishing methods, the catches they prefer and their uses, and the seasonal and annual changes in fish population size, age structure, and availability (Figure 5, shown below). Pictures of various taxonomic groups were shown to the fishermen for comparison with the daily catch and for information on local classification (Figure 6, shown below). All modern specimens were photographed, weighed and measured following standard field collection methods, and were then skeletonized (by heating and decomposition) and dried.

Figure 5. Local fishermen from the village of Copán Ruinas were kind enough to show us their techniques and discuss the taxonomy, populations, and ecology of the local riverine fauna.
Click on image to enlarge.

Figure 6. Using a Tungsten Palm Pilot loaded with photographs of local fish species, the fishermen and I were able to discuss the local taxonomy of species, the size ranges of the various taxa, and their frequency of harvest. (The fisherman to the left is illustrating the maximum size of a riverine ictalurid catfish.)
Click on image to enlarge.

Zooarchaeological Identification Methods

On-site identifications were completed by all members of our team, but primarily by Emery and Thornton. Although zooarchaeological identification is possible without access to comparative collections, it is difficult, so all remains were also photographed and the digital images returned to the FLMNH for verification with comparative collections housed there. Images of molluscan remains were further analyzed by John Slapcinsky, malacologist at the FLMNH, to ensure the strictest accuracy of identification. It is possible that many of these species were imported originally from both coasts, so identification to the species level is valuable.

All sampled materials were exported with Honduran institute permission and permits, and were hand-carried by Quitmyer to the Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH) Environmental Archaeology Program (EAP) Laboratory for identification based on the FLMNH comparative collections (http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/databases) and the additional specimens collected during the Honduras trip. Identification, whether of materials on-site or those removed to the FLMNH laboratory, followed accepted methods using standard protocols (Reitz and Wing 1999).

The accurate identification of these special archaeological remains is on-going and requires expert analysis by researchers such as Quitmyer, who has successfully identified shrimp from archaeological remains such as mandibles (Quitmyer 1987; Quitmyer, et al. 1985; Reitz and Quitmyer 1988), Robins, ichthyologist at the FLMNH, and Slapcinsky, malacologist at the FLMNH. However, to avoid biases introduced by the use of multiple researchers, I oversee all identifications and ensure that standardized methods are used.

Previous Page  |  Table of Contents  |  Next Page

Return to top of page

Text links to all pages at this site are available at the FAMSI INDEX