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

Continuing Research

Our analyses are far from complete. Although many of the identification have been made, some of the most important are also the most difficult (including the small local fish and shrimp found in the Margarita tomb vessels). Therein lies the value of regional comparative collections such as those we have now created for the freshwater species of the area. A secondary value lies in the details of information about modern uses of these species and their importance as festival foods or famine foods for example.

Needless to say, the value of taxonomic identification is inherent for even a ritual-based zooarchaeological analysis. Certain species are clearly indicative of various symbolic events or meanings. The felines, for example, were underworld deities associated with dynastic ritual (Peterson 1980; Roys 1965; Saunders 1994), fish and deer were offerings demanded by the gods during the transfer of rulership (Pohl 1981; 1983:63, 74; Tozzer 1941:134, 155-156).

But identifications of species provide only one aspect of the information we need. The less apparent characters of age, body portion, and body side were also important elements in ritual symbolism. For example, the fact that immature animals are common in Maya ritual deposits (Carr 1996; Pohl 1981; 1983:62; Wing and Scudder 1991) and played a role in period-ending rituals (Pohl 1981, 1983) suggests that immaturity might be a symbolic metaphor for rebirth and renewal. Intriguingly, many of the avian elements in the Copán assemblages appear to be juvenile, nest-bound birds. Another obvious example of the importance of information beyond the taxonomic is the Margarita mercury cache vessel containing a complete occelated turkey in addition to a second turkey cranium suggestive of the two-headed bird symbolism so prevalent in Maya iconography (Emery 2000b; Sharer 2000).

Once materials have been identified to taxon, age, sex, and element, it will be possible to correlate these findings with other information on archaeological context to suggest the specific role each species or assemblage played in the ancient rituals during which they were deposited. Here is where the excellent complementary research will be so valuable. Detailed work by authors such as Bell et al. (2004) and Sharer et al. (1992) provide information on both context and associated artifactual remains to firmly anchor the animal-based interpretations to their symbolic matrix.

This analysis of ECAP faunal materials is also complemented by several other zooarchaeological investigations at Copán. In the late 1990s Collins analyzed almost 25,000 remains (8,000 to the level of family and beyond) to elucidate status-differentiated animal use (Collins 2002). Although this was her major focus, she provided a strong foundation of basic taxonomy and animal use patterns for the region. Two other research projects, both more limited in scope, provide direct evidence of ritual use of animals in other areas of the site. Ballinger and Stomper (2000) published an interesting analysis of the jaguar remains recovered in association with Altar Q, while Beaubien (2004) and Fash et al. (2001) have provided a wealth of information through their analysis of marine invertebrate remains from Burial XXXVII-4 in Copán Structure 10L-26.

In sum, the 2004 research season provided an excellent research opportunity and superb data from which to begin an analysis of the symbolic meaning of animal remains in ritual deposits.

Previous Page  |  Table of Contents  |  Next Page

Return to top of page