JASs ReportsJournal of Anthropological Sciences

Vol. 83 (2005), pp. 111-117

the JASs is published by the Istituto Italiano di Antropologia www.isita-org.com

Alouatta, Ateles, and the ancient Mesoamerican cultures

Emiliano Bruner1 & Andrea Cucina2

1) Dipartimento di Biologia Animale e dell’Uomo, Università La Sapienza, P.le A. Moro 5, 00185 Roma(Italia); e-mail: emiliano.bruner@uniroma1.it

2) Facultad de Ciencias Antropológicas, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Km. 1 Carretera Merida-Tizimin, Cholul, 97305 Merida, (Mexico); e-mail: cucina@tunku.uady.mx

Summary – The howler monkeys (Alouatta spp.) and spider monkeys (Ateles spp.) are the only livingPlathyrrhines in Mexico. Primates have always had a major ethnozoological role within the symbolic sphereof animistic societies, often identified with human qualities or gods in paintings or other artistic products.Alouatta is a very distinctive taxon by reason of its peculiar morphology and behavior; nevertheless, it isscarcely represented in Mesoamerican native iconography. In contrast, Ateles is more tamable and versatile,whether as game or pet; it is preferentially represented in Mesoamerican productions, as well as in someAntillean findings and South American cultures. Mayas used to figure monkeys as symbols of intelligence,spirit, arts, luxury, fecundity, and immorality. In Mayan cosmology, Alouatta and Ateles were the early andfailed human attempt. Even considering the frequent iconographic stylization of the spider monkeys as aconsequence of its resistance to anthropic perturbations, the absence of Alouatta in the symbolic sphere deservesattention, especially taking into account the evocative potentialities of this genus.

Keywords – Atelids, Ethnozoology, Maya cosmogony, Mexico.

The Mexican Primates

Animistic societies generally display a largepercentage of zoomorphic iconography related tosymbols, concepts, or religion. From thisperspective, primates have received much interestand attention because of their complex behaviourand of their similarities with humans in bothmorphology and attitudes. The MesoamericanPrehispanic complex cultural systems covered atime span of some 3,000 thousand years, from theOlmecs (1,300-400 B.C.) to the Aztecs (1,200-1,500 AD). These societies developed at thenorthernmost borderline of the distribution ofliving nonhuman primates, which encompassesthe Mexican Lowlands.

Atelids are the only living taxa of the Mexicanprimatological fauna (Fig. 1 - Starker Leopold,2000; Groves, 2001), and it is represented by the

genera Alouatta (howler monkeys) and Ateles(spider monkeys). Within the genus Alouatta(Alouattinae) two species can be identified in theregion: A. palliata (Gray, 1849) in the north ofChiapas, Vera Cruz, and Tabasco, and A. pigraLawrence, 1933 in southern Chiapas and Yucatan.Ateles (Atelinae) is known in Mexico only with thespecies A. geoffroyi Kuhl, 1820, ranging from theMexican northeastern areas (Tamaulipas) toPanama.

Although the social system is rather variablein howlers, groups generally include one adultmale with several females and offsprings (Fleagle,1988). In contrast, Ateles displays a fission-fusionsociety, with large groups and smaller foragingunits. Both live within the forest environment,but Ateles is generally more tolerant towardshabitat changes and anthropic disturbance. BothAlouatta and Ateles are hunted for their meat, the

latter being quite valuable. Actually, the huntingof spider monkeys is considered to have a negativeimpact on its population’s size in some areas ofSouth America (Defler, 2003). Nevertheless, allthese species show rather stable populations and,with the possible exception of some subspecies ofA. geoffroyi, they are not yet included in thethreatened categories of the IUCN Red List(Gippoliti & Visalberghi, 2001).

Alouatta displays a set of characters that makeit rather peculiar when compared to other generaof the Atelidae. Howlers show a visible sexualdimorphism (Martin, 1990), with males largerand “bearded”, and are characterised by a set ofpeculiarities that distinguish the genus from all theother Platyrrhines. The cranial morphology isunusual, because of the rotation of thesplanchnocranium onto the neurocranial axis, orairorhynchy (Osman Hill, 1962; Bruner et al.,2004; see Fig. 2). This rotation allows a markedexpansion of the mandibular ramus, andconsequent large masseter muscle involved inmassive chewing, which is related to the markeddietary specialization toward folivory. The sameprocess allows the hypertrophic hyoid bone todevelop between the two rami, forming large vocalsacs (Schon, 1971). These vocal sacs (whichaccount for the name of “howlers”) stronglyinfluence the social structure through theproduction of powerful calls, that are conspicuous

features of the forest landscape. Interestingly, thesame evolutionary network between cranialmorphology (airorhynchy), diet (masseterdevelopment), and society (vocalization) wasdescribed in Pongo pygmaeus (Shea, 1985).

In the howler monkeys, airorhynchy alsoinfluences the position of the foramen magnum,which is shifted posteriorly and rotated, involvinga typical front-headed posture. Finally, Alouattahas evolved a trichromatic vision, independentlyfrom Catarrhines (Jacobs, 2004).

This paper reports some comments on thepresence of Alouatta and Ateles within theiconography of the Mesoamerican cultures, withthe intent to assess the relationship between thepre-Columbian societies and these largePlatyrrhines.

Mesoamerican primatomorphiciconography

In the Amerindian cultures (as in manytheocratic and animistic societies), thezoomorphic component has a large influence onsymbolism. In the native Mexican representations,the presence of monkeys is a regular feature, evenif at first glance it does not seem more frequentthan images of other taxonomic groups.

Considering the singular features of Alouatta(evocative vocalizations, typical exterior aspect,

112 Atelids and Mesoamerican Cultures

Fig. 1 - a) geographical distribution of Alouatta and Ateles in Mexico. Points show the majorMesoamerican archeological sites; b) A. geoffroyi (photo by E. Bruner).

particular locomotion) one might expect it to havean important ethnozoological value comparedwith Ateles. On the contrary, the stylized featuresof Ateles, such as long legs and arms, small body(slim thorax, rounded abdomen), bipedal attitude,suspended and long tail, small head, muzzlereduction, facial and periorbital mask,predominate among the images available in themany anthropological museums and collections(paintings, ceramics - Figs. 3 and 4).

Interestingly, we can find a similar situationalso in the Antilles. Although the subfossil recordsuggests the presence of Alouatta-like monkeys(e.g. Paralouatta varonai; Rivero & Arredondo,1991; Horovitz & McPhee, 1999), a Cuban cavepainting at the Cueva Ciclon (PreagoalfeareraCulture) clearly shows the traits of spider monkeys(Arredondo & Varona, 1983 - Fig. 5). Ateles is notpart of the living and fossil Antillean fauna,suggesting an early primates trade from Meso andSouth America to the Carribean islands. Also inSouth America Ateles seems to have greaterethnozoological value (Defler, 2003).

In the ancient New World cosmogony, non-human primates were depicted as the materialrepresentation of the “infamous” state of humanbeings. They were humans transformed intomonkeys as punishment for malignant actionscommitted during their terrestrial lives.Alternatively, they were originally humans who

had found shelter on the top of the high canopyforest to escape from the Great Flood (Hunt,1977; Benson, 1994).

In the Popol Vuh, the Quiché Maya sacredbook of cosmogony, monkeys were the product ofthe Gods’ second attempt at creation. During thefirst creation, Gods shaped humans out of wood,just to realize that such a product could neitherspeak nor move, so they eventually destroyedthem. Monkeys resulted from the second try. Theycould move, they were morphologically similar tohumans but still lacked the ability to speak. Theirinferiority is evident in the Popol Vuh. Hunbatzand Hunchouen are respectively the howlermonkey and the spider monkey. They were theolder brothers of the Hero Twins, whoseintelligence, skills and wisdom allowed them todefeat the Gods of death and darkness. It wasonly after the Hero Twins brought to the earththe light of wisdom and knowledge that the Godscreated humanity because only now they (thehumans) possessed a brain to think and reason.Hunbatz and Hunchouen were extremely jealousof their younger brothers and always triedunsuccessfully to destroy them. The Hero Twinsgot their revenge over their older brothers whenthey convinced them to climb up a magic tree.Once the older brothers were at the top, the magictree started growing. Hunbatz and Hunchouenwere thus trapped higher and higher in the canopyand ended up turning into monkeys (Goetz &Morley, 1950).

The Hero Twins represent the new, superiorand better evolved generation while their olderbrothers symbolize the ancient ones. Nonetheless,when Hunbatz and Hunchouen were still in theirhuman form, they were amazing singers anddancers, painters and sculptors, as well as jewelers.They might have originated the dance and thearts. In Mayan mythology, monkeys appear invarious contexts. Monkeys or monkey-likecreatures are often depicted in underworld sceneseven though their natural world is well above thesurface. This could be linked to their ancestralstate of pre- or proto-human creatures.

No doubt, the qualities and abilitiespossessed by the older brothers are present also inthe monkeys. Hunchouen and Hunbatz weregreat singers and orators, sculptors in high andlow relief, writers of hieroglyphs and in all

E. Bruner & A. Cucina 113

Fig. 2 - cranium and mandible in Alouatta; na:neurocranial axis; sa: splanchnocranial axis;mr: mandibular ramus; fm: foramen magnumopening.

respects extremely wise (Thompson, 1960). Inthe Maya dictionary, Batz’ stands for howlingmonkey, while Chuen and Chouen can betranslated as craftsman. Monkeys are eclectic, verycapable, dextrous and joyful animals, the spidermonkey more so than the howler monkey. In theirnature, monkeys can be provocative and decidedlyun-respectful, and do things like throwing objectsat humans. Clowns dressed like monkeys still actin local Maya festivals, dancing and acting

frivolously and licentiously. They are allowed todo what humans cannot do.

It is not strange that monkeys have beenassociated with the arts and with craftsmanship,as their Maya names indicate. They are free frommoral or cultural constrictions. Their associationwith arts and artistic behaviors reflects thefrivolousness and licentious connotation that islinked to artistic talent. The artist is usually “free”from social restrictions, free and open to explore

114 Atelids and Mesoamerican Cultures

Fig. 3 - paintings on Mayan ceramics. The limb proportions, the facial mask, and the chromaticpattern clearly identify the monkeys as Ateles. The (spider) monkey is depicted as the patron andprotector of scribes (drawing by Mirna Sánchez of unspecified Classic period Maya ceramics).

the creativity without bonds that limit hisimagination and lash him to the set of rulesestablished for the “normal” beings. The artist,like the monkey, can do what the others will not.In this sense, the figure of the monkey thatprevails in the iconography and epigraphicrepresentations is the spider monkey, because itseems to be impersonating such histrionicattitudes.

In Central Mexico the spider monkey wasknown as ozomatli (the same as Chuen in Maya)and its sign is associated with the 11th day. Thoseborn in this day are thought to be lucky, friendlyand happy persons and would likely be singers ordancers (Thompson, 1960). In Mayan symbolism,the Sun God is the patron of the arts, poetry andmusic, as well as procreation, and it is entirelyappropriate that sometimes a monkey serves assymbol of the sun (Thompson, 1960).

Ethnozoological considerations onthe Atelids

Alouatta shows a set of traits that are uniquein the neotropical primatological context. Atraditional South American tale from the Amazon

tells the way a howler monkey discovered maizeand its cultivation (Gatto Chanu, 1996).Nevertheless, Amerindian cultures have mostlyrelied upon the spider monkeys for theirzoomorphic representations, even if the twogenera are equivalent in the Mayan tales of humangenesis. Spider monkeys have more plasticbiological responses compared to howlers, both interms of ecology and behavior. Furthermore, theirmeat is more refined. Finally, their extremelocomotor abilities, their dexterity, as well as theirbipedal attitudes, probably have had a further rolein the processes of cultural imagery. It may beargued whether or not the fission-fusionorganization could be related to a more plasticsocial behavior. Spider monkeys are, and probablyhave been, commonly used as pets since the earlyhuman contacts, while howlers may be moredifficult to rear in captivity also because of theirmore specialized diet. Frida Khalo’s wonderful“self-portraits with monkeys” synthesize a long-standing relationship between Mesoamericanpeople and spider monkeys. These conditionsexplain the prominence of Ateles in theethnozoological context, but not the almostcomplete absence of Alouatta, with all its clear

E. Bruner & A. Cucina 115

Fig. 4 - cabeza de mono (monkey’s head). The traits typical of spider monkeys (periorbital mask,large orbital areas, reduced muzzle) are instantly recognizable (photo by A. Cucina, printed bypermission of Fabiola Sánchez and Ian Hollingshead Roome, Na Bolom Museum, San Cristobal delas Casas, Chiapas, Mexico).

116 Atelids and Mesoamerican Cultures

evocative potentialities. There is little informationon possible past fluctuations in the howlers’ arealextension/reduction, but the presence of thisgenus in Central America is certainly longestablished (Cortes-Ortiz et al., 2002; Hartwig &Meldrum, 2002).

Many animistic societies have “fear species”,that is categories of animals representing negativeattitudes. It can be hypothesized that, because oftheir loud earth-shattering voices, howler monkeysmight inspire negative feelings, which mightexplain the lower ethnozoological representation

(I. Farrington, pers. comm.). Accordingly, the HeroTwins will stand in structural opposition to eachother: the intelligent humanlike one with flexiblebehaviour (Ateles), and its opposite (Alouatta).Actually, many cosmogonies describe reality as the product of antagonist forces, where the opposites are different expressions of the same nature.

Of course, it must be kept in mind that therelationships between Amerindian cultures andatelids can be culture-specific, and theheterogeneity of the Meso and South Americanhuman groups can support very differentinterpretations. An interesting example comesfrom the South American shrunken heads, or“tsantsas”. The soft head tissues of the enemies(often males and warriors) were treated in somegroups such as to reproduce miniaturized trophies,with the aim of capturing powers and energiesfrom the dead individuals. Sometimes, forpractical or kinship reasons, sloths or monkeyswere used instead of human heads. There is at leastone known case (collected at the Oxford PittRivers Museum - EB pers. comm.) in which oneAlouatta head was used to create a tsantsa. Thespecimen was collected in 1936 by Major RonaldHawksby Thomas on the Pastaza River, Ecuador,from Jivaro indians.

Any interpretation of the relationshipsbetween the ancient Mesoamerican populationand the atelids will require a culture-specificquantification of the iconographic sources, toattest chronological trends and local reports.Considering the pattern described for the twoMexican genera of primates with the clearunderrepresentation of the howler monkeys,attention must be paid to hypotheses that oftenrelate particularly evocative zoological taxa withtaboos that influence and limit the iconographictradition (G.M. Carpaneto, pers. comm.).

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the many people who supportedthis paper through their interest and discussions.Renato Curto and Giorgio Manzi promoted andencouraged this project. Vera Tiesler and RossMcPhee supplied important bibliographic andiconographic supports. Colin Groves, Ian Farrington,and Spartaco Gippoliti largely improved the early

Fig. 5 - Cave painting at the Cueva Ciclòn,Cuba, stylizing the general features of Ateles(long arms and legs, slim body, small head,bipedal posture); redrawn after Arredondoand Varona, 1983.

manuscript with comments and advices. We arethankful to Fabiola Sánchez and Ian HollingsheadRoome (Museum Na Bolom, Chiapas) for their kindpermission to publish the photo of the archaeologicalspecimen represented in Fig. 4, and to MirnaSánchez for her drawing in Fig. 3.

References

Arredondo O. & Varona L.S. 1983. Sobre lavalidez de Montaneia anthropomorphaAmeghino, 1910 (Primates: Cebidae).Poeyana, 255: 1-21.

Baldwin J.D. & Baldwin J.I. 1976. Vocalizations ofhowler monkeys (Alouatta palliata) insouthwestwern Panama. Folia Primatol., 26:81-108

Bruner E., Mantini S. & Manzi G. 2004. Ageometric morphometric approach toairorhynchy and functional cranialmorphology in Alouatta (Atelidae, Primates).J. Anthropol. Sci., 82: 47-66.

Benson E.P. 1994. The multimedia monkeys, or,the failed man: The monkey as artist. InM.G. Robertson and V.M. Fields (eds):Seventh Palenque Round Table, pp. 137-143.The Pre-columbian Art Research Institute,San Francisco.

Cortes-Ortiz L., Bermingham E., Rico C.,Rodriguez-Luna E., Sampaio I. & Ruiz-Garcia M. 2002. Molecular systematics andbiogeography of the Neotropical monkeygenus, Alouatta. Mol. Phyl. Evol., 26: 64-81.

Defler T.R. 2003. Primates de Colombia.Conservacciòn Internacionàl, Bogotà.

Fleagle J.C. 1988. Primate adaptations andevolution. Academic Press, San Diego.

Gatto Chanu T. 1996. Miti e leggendedell’Amazzonia. Newton & Compton, Roma.

Gippoliti S. & Visalberghi E. 2001. OrdinePrimates: elenco delle specie viventi, nomeitaliano e grado di minaccia. Riv. Antropol.

79: 33-44.Goetz D. & Morley G.S. 1950. Popol Vuh. The

sacred book of the ancient Quiché Maya.University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Groves C. 2001. Primate Taxonomy. SmithsonianInsitution Press, Washington

Hartwig W.C. & Meldrum D.J. 2002. Mioceneplatyrrhines of the northern Neotropics. InW.C. Hartwig (Ed.): The Primate FossilRecord, pp. 175-188. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.

Horovitz I. & MacPhee R.D.E. 1999. Thequaternary Cuban platyrrhinae Paralouattavaronai and the origin of Antillean monkeys.J. Hum. Evol., 36: 33-68.

Hunt E. 1977. The transformation of thehummingbird: cultural roots of a Zinacatecanmythical poem. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.

Jacobs G.H. 2004. Photopigment variation andthe evolution of anthropoid vision. In C.F.Ross & R.F. Kay (eds): Anthropoid Origins:New Visions, pp. 645-664. KluwerAcademic/Plenum Publishers, New York.

Martin R.D. 1990. Primate origins and evolution.Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Osman Hill W.C. 1962. Primates. Comparativeanatomy and taxonomy. Vol. V. EdinburghUniversity Press, Edinburgh.

Rivero M. & Arredondo O. 1991. Paralouattavaronai, a new Quaternary platyrrhinaefrom Cuba. J. Hum. Evol., 21: 1-11.

Schon M.A. 1971. The anatomy of theresonating mechanism in howlingmonkeys. Folia Primatol., 15: 117-132.

Shea B.T. 1985. On aspects of skull forms inAfrican apes and orangutans, withimplications for hominoid evolution. Am. J.Phys. Anthropol., 68: 329-342.

Starker Leopold A. 2000. Fauna Silvestre deMexico. Editorial Pax Mexico, Mexico DF.

Thompson. J.E.S. 1960. Maya hieroglyphicwriting: an introduction. University ofOklahoma Press, Norman.

E. Bruner & A. Cucina 117