16
Biology of Sea Turtles, Volume II
from nesting beaches and from the water (Carr, 1989b: 6). Remarkably, the proportion of identified marine turtle remains to total animal remains increased after the
earliest sample and stayed relatively constant thereafter, over a period of centuries.
On the basis of the relative proportions of cranial and postcranial remains of
marine fishes, it was suggested that an important industry on Isla Cerritos was the
processing and exporting of marine fishes. These findings were compared with a
collection of approximately 6000 animal remains from Chichén Itzá (located some
90 km inland from the north coast, and an important ceremonial center that experienced a peak in population size around the same time as Isla Cerritos). It was found
that headless (i.e., processed) remains of marine fishes were abundant, indicating
that Chichén Itzá was a site for importation. However, although there was ample
evidence for an active fishery for marine turtles at Isla Cerritos, there were no
identified remains of these animals at Chichén Itzá. Carr reasoned that no evidence
was not negative evidence, and she suggested that turtle meat without the heavy
bones was exported from Isla Cerritos. As she explained, this form of trade would
be “invisible” to archaeological investigations that were based on animal remains
(Carr, 1989a; 1989b: 19).
At Isla Cerritos four fragments of burned turtle shell were found with scrapes,
surface gloss, or very even breaks. These were interpreted as evidence that the
animals were roasted on an open fire and that cut marks were received during
butchery (Carr, 1989b: 8, 13). Yet only 18% of reptile bones (which were marine
turtles in the main) showed signs of burning (Carr, 1989b: 15). Scrapes on the outer
surface of one piece were hypothesized to have resulted from “removal of the horny
scutes for ornamental purposes” (Carr, 1989b: 13), but there is no evidence for Maya
having used tortoiseshell, which at any rate would not likely have been removed by
scraping. Carr (in litt., 22 February 2002) identified two marine turtle fragments
among the extensive remains from the Sacred Cenote (a sinkhole used for ceremonial
offerings) at Chichén Itzá, but no special significance was attributed to these because
there was no way of knowing whether the turtle bones had been ritually deposited
(Carr, in litt., 20 April 2002).
Observing that there were only “trace amounts of definite and possible cranial
material,” Carr (1989b: 10) speculated that marine turtles were killed by decapitation.
However, there is no other evidence for this practice, which would be inconsistent
with contemporary customs, worldwide, for butchering marine turtles.
In contrast, a number of other studies of faunal relics in the Yucatán have reported
no evidence at all of marine turtles, despite reporting a variety of other animals,
often with an abundance of marine species (e.g., Pollock and Ray, 1957; Flannery,
1982; Shaw, 1995). There has been no attempt to explain this apparent anomaly, but
it is likely that the transport of boneless meat is at least partially responsible for the
lack of marine turtle bones at many sites.
Faunal remains have been reported at several coastal sites in Belize, also part
of the Maya area (Table 1.4). However, there is apparently only one thorough study
of faunal material, which is as yet unpublished (Carr, 1986a). There are four sites
from where marine turtle bones have been recorded. Cerros, on the southeast shore
of Corozal Bay, was evidently a trading center. A large number of remains of marine
fishes and mud turtles (Kinosternidae) were identified in a collection of some 16,000
1123_C01.fm Page 16 Friday, November 15, 2002 11:13 AM
Biology of Sea Turtles, Volume II
from nesting beaches and from the water (Carr, 1989b: 6). Remarkably, the proportion of identified marine turtle remains to total animal remains increased after the
earliest sample and stayed relatively constant thereafter, over a period of centuries.
On the basis of the relative proportions of cranial and postcranial remains of
marine fishes, it was suggested that an important industry on Isla Cerritos was the
processing and exporting of marine fishes. These findings were compared with a
collection of approximately 6000 animal remains from Chichén Itzá (located some
90 km inland from the north coast, and an important ceremonial center that experienced a peak in population size around the same time as Isla Cerritos). It was found
that headless (i.e., processed) remains of marine fishes were abundant, indicating
that Chichén Itzá was a site for importation. However, although there was ample
evidence for an active fishery for marine turtles at Isla Cerritos, there were no
identified remains of these animals at Chichén Itzá. Carr reasoned that no evidence
was not negative evidence, and she suggested that turtle meat without the heavy
bones was exported from Isla Cerritos. As she explained, this form of trade would
be “invisible” to archaeological investigations that were based on animal remains
(Carr, 1989a; 1989b: 19).
At Isla Cerritos four fragments of burned turtle shell were found with scrapes,
surface gloss, or very even breaks. These were interpreted as evidence that the
animals were roasted on an open fire and that cut marks were received during
butchery (Carr, 1989b: 8, 13). Yet only 18% of reptile bones (which were marine
turtles in the main) showed signs of burning (Carr, 1989b: 15). Scrapes on the outer
surface of one piece were hypothesized to have resulted from “removal of the horny
scutes for ornamental purposes” (Carr, 1989b: 13), but there is no evidence for Maya
having used tortoiseshell, which at any rate would not likely have been removed by
scraping. Carr (in litt., 22 February 2002) identified two marine turtle fragments
among the extensive remains from the Sacred Cenote (a sinkhole used for ceremonial
offerings) at Chichén Itzá, but no special significance was attributed to these because
there was no way of knowing whether the turtle bones had been ritually deposited
(Carr, in litt., 20 April 2002).
Observing that there were only “trace amounts of definite and possible cranial
material,” Carr (1989b: 10) speculated that marine turtles were killed by decapitation.
However, there is no other evidence for this practice, which would be inconsistent
with contemporary customs, worldwide, for butchering marine turtles.
In contrast, a number of other studies of faunal relics in the Yucatán have reported
no evidence at all of marine turtles, despite reporting a variety of other animals,
often with an abundance of marine species (e.g., Pollock and Ray, 1957; Flannery,
1982; Shaw, 1995). There has been no attempt to explain this apparent anomaly, but
it is likely that the transport of boneless meat is at least partially responsible for the
lack of marine turtle bones at many sites.
Faunal remains have been reported at several coastal sites in Belize, also part
of the Maya area (Table 1.4). However, there is apparently only one thorough study
of faunal material, which is as yet unpublished (Carr, 1986a). There are four sites
from where marine turtle bones have been recorded. Cerros, on the southeast shore
of Corozal Bay, was evidently a trading center. A large number of remains of marine
fishes and mud turtles (Kinosternidae) were identified in a collection of some 16,000
1123_C01.fm Page 16 Friday, November 15, 2002 11:13 AM