Prehistoric and Ancient Historic Interactions
17
bones. Only five marine turtle fragments have been identified to date (including one
C. caretta), and most of these came from the Tulix Phase, dated from 50 B.C.E. to
150 C.E. It is possible that this paucity is due, at least in part, to transport practices,
although it is not known why marine turtle remains are so rare in a site where they
should have been available as a ready source of food (Carr, 1985; 1986a; 1986b, in
litt., 22 February 2002).
Saktunja, also on the north coast, was evidently a salt production site. Dated
from at least 600 to 1500 C.E., the faunal remains are dominated by fish, with turtle
shell less abundant but significant. Only one marine turtle bone (a jaw) has been
identified, although the turtle shell has not been fully studied; it has been argued
that although Saktunja is on the sea, marine turtles do not come into the mangrove
areas where the site is located and hence are not readily available (Barr, 2000; in
litt., 12 and 14 March 2002).
The most abundant animal remains from the late Postclassic at Santa Rita Corozal,
Belize, were fragments of turtle shells, but there was no further identification to
species. There was evidence of charring and of one piece having been worked into
a disk (Morton, 1988: 119). Kakalche and Watson Island are coastal sites in Stann
Creek District, Belize, and both date to about 100–300 C.E. Carapace fragments of
marine turtles were reported from both sites (2 and 79 fragments, respectively), but
no further details on the turtles were given. Marine fauna were well represented at
both sites (Graham, 1994: 37, 55, 250, 252, 256).
There seem to be few recorded marine turtle remains from archaeological sites
in South America. Strauss (1992: 87) indicated that marine turtles were part of the
diet during the “meso-indian” period, from 5000 to 1000 B.C.E. in what is now the
coast of Sucre and Anzoátegui states, Venezuela; however, no details were provided.
A multiauthor volume on the prehistory of South America, with several chapters on
coastal sites (see Meggers, 1992), makes no mention at all of marine turtle remains.
However, the archaeological collections at the University of Florida include records
of marine turtles from four sites in Ecuador (Scudder, in litt., 5 March 2002).
The carapace of a large marine turtle, evidently C. caretta, is at Misiones,
Argentina (located some 800 km from the coast) and was apparently used by the
Guaraní people, evidently as a shield (Richard, in litt., 3 December 1999). However,
no further information is available.
The situation in Peru is remarkable. Despite millennia of human habitation along
the coast, including complex and sophisticated societies that left large and diverse
middens in an environment ideal for preserving archaeological materials, there is
an anomalous paucity of marine turtle relicts. There are a few fragments at five
coastal sites that are of different ages. From north to south they are: Quebrada de
Siches, 5980–3605 B.C.E.; Pariñas, 300 B.C.E.–400 C.E.; Huaca Prieta, 2257–1550
B.C.E.; Los Gavilanes, 2869–1908 B.C.E.; and Sto. Domingo, Paracas, 4000–2000
B.C.E. In addition, there are remains from three coastal sites in Chile: Playa Miller;
Los Verdes, 930–1070 C.E.; and Playa Vicente Mena, 1000–600 B.C.E. At the lastnamed beach, two tombs were each covered with a carapace. Several explanations
were offered about the remarkable scarcity of marine turtle remains from what
otherwise appears to be an ideal area in which to find them: marine turtles did not
occur in significant numbers in pre-Columbian Peru; the technology for capturing
1123_C01.fm Page 17 Friday, November 15, 2002 11:13 AM
17
bones. Only five marine turtle fragments have been identified to date (including one
C. caretta), and most of these came from the Tulix Phase, dated from 50 B.C.E. to
150 C.E. It is possible that this paucity is due, at least in part, to transport practices,
although it is not known why marine turtle remains are so rare in a site where they
should have been available as a ready source of food (Carr, 1985; 1986a; 1986b, in
litt., 22 February 2002).
Saktunja, also on the north coast, was evidently a salt production site. Dated
from at least 600 to 1500 C.E., the faunal remains are dominated by fish, with turtle
shell less abundant but significant. Only one marine turtle bone (a jaw) has been
identified, although the turtle shell has not been fully studied; it has been argued
that although Saktunja is on the sea, marine turtles do not come into the mangrove
areas where the site is located and hence are not readily available (Barr, 2000; in
litt., 12 and 14 March 2002).
The most abundant animal remains from the late Postclassic at Santa Rita Corozal,
Belize, were fragments of turtle shells, but there was no further identification to
species. There was evidence of charring and of one piece having been worked into
a disk (Morton, 1988: 119). Kakalche and Watson Island are coastal sites in Stann
Creek District, Belize, and both date to about 100–300 C.E. Carapace fragments of
marine turtles were reported from both sites (2 and 79 fragments, respectively), but
no further details on the turtles were given. Marine fauna were well represented at
both sites (Graham, 1994: 37, 55, 250, 252, 256).
There seem to be few recorded marine turtle remains from archaeological sites
in South America. Strauss (1992: 87) indicated that marine turtles were part of the
diet during the “meso-indian” period, from 5000 to 1000 B.C.E. in what is now the
coast of Sucre and Anzoátegui states, Venezuela; however, no details were provided.
A multiauthor volume on the prehistory of South America, with several chapters on
coastal sites (see Meggers, 1992), makes no mention at all of marine turtle remains.
However, the archaeological collections at the University of Florida include records
of marine turtles from four sites in Ecuador (Scudder, in litt., 5 March 2002).
The carapace of a large marine turtle, evidently C. caretta, is at Misiones,
Argentina (located some 800 km from the coast) and was apparently used by the
Guaraní people, evidently as a shield (Richard, in litt., 3 December 1999). However,
no further information is available.
The situation in Peru is remarkable. Despite millennia of human habitation along
the coast, including complex and sophisticated societies that left large and diverse
middens in an environment ideal for preserving archaeological materials, there is
an anomalous paucity of marine turtle relicts. There are a few fragments at five
coastal sites that are of different ages. From north to south they are: Quebrada de
Siches, 5980–3605 B.C.E.; Pariñas, 300 B.C.E.–400 C.E.; Huaca Prieta, 2257–1550
B.C.E.; Los Gavilanes, 2869–1908 B.C.E.; and Sto. Domingo, Paracas, 4000–2000
B.C.E. In addition, there are remains from three coastal sites in Chile: Playa Miller;
Los Verdes, 930–1070 C.E.; and Playa Vicente Mena, 1000–600 B.C.E. At the lastnamed beach, two tombs were each covered with a carapace. Several explanations
were offered about the remarkable scarcity of marine turtle remains from what
otherwise appears to be an ideal area in which to find them: marine turtles did not
occur in significant numbers in pre-Columbian Peru; the technology for capturing
1123_C01.fm Page 17 Friday, November 15, 2002 11:13 AM