Symbolic bones and interethnic violence in a frontierzone, northwest Mexico, ca. 500–900 C.E.Ben A. Nelsona,1 and Debra L. Martinb

aSchool of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85284-2402; and bDepartment of Anthropology, University of Nevada,Las Vegas, NV 89154-5003

Edited by Linda R. Manzanilla, Universidad Nacional Autonóma de México, Mexico D.F., Mexico, and approved April 10, 2015 (received for review November21, 2014)

Although extensive deposits of disarticulated, commingled humanbones are common in the prehispanic Northern Frontier of Meso-america, detailed bioarchaeological analyses of them are not. To ourknowledge, this article provides the first such analysis of bone from afull residential-ceremonial complex and evaluates multiple hypothe-ses about its significance, concluding that the bones actively repre-sented interethnic violence as well as other relationships amongpersons living and dead. Description of these practices is important tothe discussion of multiethnic societies because the frontier was acontext where urbanism and complexity were emerging and groupswith the potential to form multiethnic societies were interacting,possibly in the same ways that groups did before the formation oflarger multiethnic city-states in the core of Mesoamerica.

interethnic conflict | social violence | human bone taphonomy |archaeology | Mesoamerica

The Epiclassic period (600–900 C.E.) was a time of rapid socialand demographic change throughout Mesoamerica that be-gan with the collapse of the massive city of Teotihuacan (1–3).Styles of architecture, costume, and iconography merged acrossold boundaries. New, smaller-scale polities formed in an expandingNorthern Frontier (Fig. 1), including La Quemada (4). Whether ornot the legendary migrants of the Teotihuacan diaspora actuallyreached the Northern Frontier (5), the character of this regionchanged dramatically during the Epiclassic.Sixteenth century accounts characterize the Northern Frontier

region as multiethnic (6). These ethnic divisions must be veryold; historical linguists date language fission at approximately4,500–6,000 y B.P. (7, 8). The regions’ peoples spoke ∼30 languages(9); the relation between any pair of regional centers probably wasinterethnic. The formation of the Purépecha (Tarascan) state ∼1300C.E. involved numerous instances of interethnic conflict and thesuppression of former ethnic identities (10). That state, centered onTzintzuntzan, was three- to seven-times larger than La Quemada(11–13). Still, such smaller polities could not have avoided in-terethnic external relations.Two prominent characteristics of La Quemada suggest social

violence: defensible architecture and extensive deposits of hu-man skeletal material. The builders augmented natural cliffs withthick enclosing walls; they placed buildings on terraces with steepwalls and narrow access from below, disadvantaging attackers.Cross-culturally, such architecture may defend ritually importantplaces as well as residents (14).Human bone is a powerful material that the living manipulate

in many ways (15, 16). Previously described human remains atLa Quemada included an immense deposit of disarticulatedbone in the Hall of Columns (17) and another massive dis-articulated bone assemblage at the foot of a small pyramid (18,19). Individual inhumations were beneath the floor of the mainball court (20) and in a pyramid (21). Previous analyses ques-tioned whether residents kept human bones in La Quemada’sliving spaces in veneration of ancestors, to represent violentencounters with enemies, or both (22, 23). The present studyresolves this question.

Mortuary patterns similar to those of La Quemada occur atother contemporaneous regional centers, although detailed dis-cussions of taphonomy are lacking for most (24). At Alta Vista,masses of disarticulated bone rested in several structures (25),and groups of skulls and long bones hung in the Temple of theSkulls (26). At Cerro del Huistle, skulls hung outdoors on racksin the main plaza (27). Mortuary practices at La Quemada dif-fered from those at smaller surrounding sites, where most burialswere subfloor inhumations in articulated position.La Quemada was the centerpiece of a landscape made up of

roads, villages, hamlets, shrines, irrigation canals, agriculturalterraces, and natural landforms. Based on analogies with theWixárika (Huichol), architecture and landforms were scenes ofpilgrimages, dances, and processions that focused on ancestorveneration (28, 29), practices in which we suggest human boneplayed an active role.

In and Out of DoorsTerrace 18 (Fig. 2) was a temple location, residential complex,and outdoor arena. Activities would have approximated those inthe modern Wixárika tukipa, a term that encompasses a temple,houses, and shrines surrounding a patio (30). Wixárika cere-monial officials and their families stay in the houses during feastperiods. Terrace 18 had five houses, surrounding Patios B, C, D,E, and F. Tukipas also include small house-like shrines that wereparalleled by small structures on Platforms 1–4. Two formaltombs were found, in Patio Groups B and D. Outdoor spacesincluded the causeway, patios and walkways, and middens.

Significance

Persistent interethnic violence has affected some global re-gions for centuries. Recent research reveals that major out-breaks are often prevented or limited by creative social action.In the prehispanic Northern Frontier of Mesoamerica, approx-imately 500–900 C.E., people of different ethnic backgroundsstruggled for standing in a shifting sociopolitical landscape.Evidence is consistent with long-term social violence, but alsowith the use of the dead to communicate a range of symbolicmessages. Complex arrays of human skeletal material com-memorated past physical conflicts, possibly discouraging theirrepetition, while also connecting the living symbolically with ametaphysical realm inhabited by ancestors and deities. Thisarticle highlights the postmortem agency of the dead and il-lustrates their roles in structuring social relations.

Author contributions: B.A.N. and D.L.M. designed research, performed research, analyzeddata, and wrote the paper.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

Data deposition: The data reported in this paper have been deposited in the DigitalArchaeological Record database, www.tdar.org (tDAR ID 1266).1To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: bnelson@asu.edu.

This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1422337112/-/DCSupplemental.

9196–9201 | PNAS | July 28, 2015 | vol. 112 | no. 30 www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1422337112

Dow

nloa

ded

by g

uest

on

June

15,

202

1

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1073/pnas.1422337112&domain=pdfhttp://www.tdar.org/mailto:bnelson@asu.eduhttp://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1422337112/-/DCSupplementalhttp://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1422337112/-/DCSupplementalwww.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1422337112

Passersby would have seen bone suspended in front of thetemple. Occupants probably used the main patio for dances, ballgames, and human sacrifice. Trash Middens 1 and 7 were directlyassociated with Terrace 18, and Midden 6 was nearby on a spurof the causeway. After abandonment, decomposition of buildingsexposed the bones to puddling and erosion.

Bones IndoorsThe temple (Room 1) contained a cache of manos (grindingstones), a large cooking pot, several mirror stones, and an in-cense burner that was suspended from the ceiling or in a wallniche. Three bone concentrations rested directly on the floor andevidently had been in bundles suspended from the ceiling,probably wrapped in organic material, and fell when the wrap-ping or cord disintegrated. Two, analytical units (AUs) 43 and44, were intact and the other, AU 45, seemed to be rearrangedby water movement across the floor. The bone in the temple isdescribed elsewhere (22), but new analysis of the breakage pat-terns, cutmarks, and modification provides additional information(Table 1 and Table S1). The bones exhibited water damage, rootetching, exfoliation, and much recent breakage. Some bonesexhibited cutmarks and spiral fractures that may have occurredupon disarticulation from the body (Fig. S1). The majority of theproximal and distal parts of the long bones were still present; somefemora were complete. Of the 130 fully analyzable bones, ∼20%had cutmarks, mainly on the cranium, femur, fibula, and humerus.A total of 67 cutmarks on cranial fragments were analyzed forshape (86% were V-shaped) and length (1.8 mm to 28.3 mm).On the long bones, almost all of the cutmarks were near thedistal or proximal ends. Long bones generally had multiple cut-marks (10 bones had 171 cutmarks), ranging in length from 0.6 mm

to 14.6 mm. All of the cutmarks were V-shaped, and their direc-tion indicated that the goals were dismembering and defleshing.However, the shallowness of the cutmarks suggests that theseactivities occurred after the bodies were already either desiccatedor partially skeletonized (31).In AU 43 the long bones were partially broken, but all in-

dications suggest that these bones were whole when placed in thetemple. Most of the breakage on the bone ends was recent andmany of the bones had partial proximal or distal ends intact.Cutmarks on the cranial pieces were shallow and likely madewith bifacially flaked stone tools or retouched opportunisticblades (31). AU 44 had the fewest bones, all from the upperbody, primarily arms. In AU 45, a larger cluster, all elementswere represented except for hands, feet, and vertebrae. Therewas a great deal of breakage, exfoliation, and water destructionof all bone surfaces. A few had perimortem spiral fractures.Cutmarks near the proximal and distal ends of several of the longbones also pointed to defleshing.The skeletal material in the Temple represented all age groups

and both sexes. The majority of the bones were unmodified longbones with ample evidence of cutmarks. However, the place-ment, width, and depth of the cutmarks imply processing whenthe bodies were already desiccated or partially skeletonized. Thedeposits could represent three distinct episodes of bone cleaningfor hanging or display; in that case they constitute a minimum of14 individuals: 10 adults (two males, four females, and four un-knowns) and 4 children (an infant and three juveniles). Alter-natively, the three deposits may be part of a single preparatoryprocess, in which case the minimum number of individuals isreduced (because of age and sex overlap) to eight individuals

Fig. 1. Sites and areas mentioned in text. Shaded portion is Northern Frontier region. Sites: 1, La Quemada; 2, Teotihuacan; 3, Tzintzuntzan; 4, Alta Vista; 5,Cerro del Huistle; 6, Tingambato; 7, Cumupa. Areas: a, Atemajac Valley; b, Wixárika; c, Caxcan; d, Acaxee.

Nelson and Martin PNAS | July 28, 2015 | vol. 112 | no. 30 | 9197

ANTH

ROPO

LOGY

SPEC

IALFEATU

RE

Dow

nloa

ded

by g

uest

on

June

15,

202

1

http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1422337112/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.201422337SI.pdf?targetid=nameddest=ST1http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1422337112/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.201422337SI.pdf?targetid=nameddest=SF1

comprised of five adults (two males and three females) and threechildren (aged 2–12 y).Given either scenario, this bone exhibition could represent

the sequential deposition of community members as they died.To address the contrasting possibility that the individuals weredefeated enemies, future isotopic or DNA analyses may helpdetermine succession, relatedness, and birthplace. Currently wereject the foe explanation for two reasons. First, it is incongruentwith the indoor-outdoor differences in bone modification iden-tified here, indoor bone being modified postmortem and lessdestructively. Second, keeping enemy bodies in a temple would beinconsistent with practices in descendant Cora and Wixárika com-munities, where temples are places of ancestor worship and bundledbones of venerated ancestors were kept in temples as recently as the17th and 18th centuries (29, 32), the latter in a traditional handmadeseat called an equipal. In the Wixárika community of Keuruwit+a(Las Latas), B.A.N. asked why miniature equipals were suspendedfrom the ceiling of the temple; a community member answered,“They are the ancestors.” We suggest that this custom echoes theinferred ancient practice of suspending ancestral remains.A 1.2 × 1.2-m cobble-lined tomb (AU 101) was found beneath

a wall in Patio Group B; only one bone fragment remained.

Someone had looted the grave or the inhabitants had removedthe bone to take it elsewhere. Contents included a pegged fig-urine that may have adorned a staff or baton of office. The figurewas carved in a soft green stone and depicted a human heademerging from the mouth of a coyote, probably representing ashaman or warrior.The second tomb, an individual interment in a substructural

chamber (AU 166), was beneath the east end of Patio Group D.The chamber was faced with cut stone; it contained several broken,incomplete, decorated pots and 11 polished mirror stones. Thetomb cut through Patio D, implying a late place in the constructionsequence of the terrace. The femur of this very large and robustmale bore cutmarks and perimortem fractures. The bone appearedto have been hollowed out by reaming. The cranial fragments wereall from one individual and were partially refitted; these had cut-marks distributed across the parietal and occipital bones. Therewas a large perimortem trauma on the occipital with multiple finestriations (Fig. S2), suggestive of White’s percussion striae (33).The individual was over the age of 50, possibly a warrior who waskilled by blunt force trauma applied to the back of the head. Thecutmarks on the cranium were not diagnostic of a particular mo-tivation, but scalping, defleshing, or removal of facial/ear tissues as

Midden7

Midden2

Fig. 2. Bone deposits on Terrace 18 of La Quemada.

9198 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1422337112 Nelson and Martin

Dow

nloa

ded

by g

uest

on

June

15,

202

1

http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1422337112/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.201422337SI.pdf?targetid=nameddest=SF2www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1422337112

trophies may explain them. The breakage on the ends of the longbones, with some cutmarks, could also be from defleshing andreduction as part of a sacrifice ritual or for marrow extraction.

Bones OutdoorsThe main patio, 26 × 36 m, was delineated by raised banquettes;at the center was a small ball court. Human remains were dis-played or deposited in the patio, on the front wall of the temple,and on the adjacent walkway on the west banquette. In contrastto the bones kept indoors, those that were kept outdoors had astrong tendency to exhibit deep, wide, V-shaped cutmarks (Fig. 3and Fig. S3), indicative of perimortem processing (31).The most prominent outdoor display was a presumed skull

rack (tzompantli) along the west wall of main patio. Four con-centrations of human bones fell along the West BanquetteWalkway at the edge of Patio A (AUs 74 A–D). These bonescame to rest on or just above the patio floor and appeared tohave been suspended from above the edge of the patio walkway.Unlike the temple, the deposit included only skulls and longbones. AU 74D was associated with tangible evidence of a rack;four courses of fallen cobbles in the patio marked a freestandingfeature about 1-m wide. The bones were resting underneath thefallen cobbles, implying that they had hung on the side facing themain patio. We infer that the feature had a rock base andwooden superstructure, and that before it collapsed the bonesfell at its base. The pattern of bones along the edge of the PatioA is isomorphic to that in Plaza A at nearby Cerro del Huistle,where the better preserved skulls exhibited drilling (27).Beginning at the northern end of the western wall of Patio A,

AU 74A consisted of fragmentary adult long bone shafts withpostmortem damage and erosion of all bone surfaces. The bonesappeared to have been purposefully modified so that only theshafts of each arm and leg bone remained. This treatment couldhave aided their drying if they were suspended. If primarily adisplay, it was constructed largely of arm and leg bones from fiveadults, of which three (based on dimorphic features) may be males.AU 74B included highly fragmentary and exfoliated long bones

and cranial fragments. One humerus shaft had perimortem equi-distant excisions on the lateral and medial sides, corresponding tomusical instruments known as raspers (34). The bone depositmidway along the patio wall (AU 74C) was comprised of poorlypreserved long bone shafts very similar to those in AU 74A. Thesouthernmost bone deposit consisted of adult, probably male, longbone shafts (AU 74D).Two drilled crania were included in the human remains that

apparently hung from the front wall of the Temple (AU 87), par-alleling those along the patio edge 3-m away. The only completespecimen was very fragile and exfoliated (Fig. 4). The cranium wasfully adult but quite small and delicate with no discernable browridge or occipital margins, suggesting a female. At the top of thecranium, along the sagittal suture, was a drilled circular hole, 8 ×

8 mm. The margins of the hole were even, with a slight bevelinginward in the cranial walls. A second cranium composed of a frontalbone with parts of the left and right parietal bones attached alsohad an identically shaped hole, 10 × 10 mm. The completely fusedsutures may indicate an adult over the age of 50. This frontalbone had two distinctive cutmarks along the left side of the temple.The long bones appeared to have been manually reduced to ap-proximately the same size.Each house included a sunken patio (tragaluz) of approxi-

mately 2 × 2 m. In Patio B (AU 111) were 73 very poorly pre-served human bone fragments that apparently hung from aportico over the walkway. All of the bone was concentrated alongthe west edge of the patio; had it been on a wall, it would havefallen at the base of the wall as happened on the walkway in frontof the temple (AU 87). Four relatively large cranial fragmentswere clearly from adults. The fragmentary and splintered shaftsof all of the major long bones were represented, but the state ofpreservation did not permit analysis of breakage patterns. All ofthe postcranial material appeared to be from adults. The longbones consisted of shafts; virtually no long bone ends werepresent. No minimum number of individuals beyond at least oneindividual can be assessed.Several mandibles rested on a stairway that led downward

from Platform 4 to Platform 3 (AU 67). The mandibles hadperimortem breaks, including adherent flakes and dental abla-tion (teeth broken off in one case), and portions were burnedblack, indicating high heat and fresh bone (Fig. S5).Ten of 25 known middens were excavated, including two as-

sociated with Terrace 18, Middens 1 and 7. Nearby is Midden 6,also discussed here. Midden 1 contained over 300 pieces ofhuman bone, mostly fragmentary pieces of the ends of longbones, ribs, hands, feet, and bone splinters. Many of these boneswere burned to a dark and blackened state. Most of the boneappeared to be from adults. Cutmarks (10%), spiral fractures(80%), and burning (20%) suggest that these human remainsresulted from ritual production of modified bone not found here(long bones and crania). These elements may represent the ini-tial preparation of human remains for display, trophies, or forcooking and consumption.Midden 7 lay at the base of the terrace, behind the temple and

its associated Patio Group B, and adjacent to a cardinal entranceto the site. Wixárika pilgrims returning from treks spend time atsuch entrance points, feasting with those who receive them backinto the community. Midden 7 also was associated with the

Table 1. Bone summary by analytical unit

Variable

AU

43 44 45 166 74A 74B 74C 74D 87 88 111 67

MNI 6 2 6 1 5 1 3 2 7 1 1 3Adult 3 5 1 5 1 3 2 7 1 1 3Male 3 5 1 5 1 3 2 7 1 1 3Female 1 3 2Subadult 3 1Burning N N N N N N Y Y N YPerimortem Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YCutmarks Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

MNI, minimum number of individuals; N, no; Y, yes.

Fig. 3. Deep cutmarks on the right proximal femoral neck region circlingthe head of the femur (AU 45).

Nelson and Martin PNAS | July 28, 2015 | vol. 112 | no. 30 | 9199

ANTH

ROPO

LOGY

SPEC

IALFEATU

RE

Dow

nloa

ded

by g

uest

on

June

15,

202

1

http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1422337112/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.201422337SI.pdf?targetid=nameddest=SF3http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1422337112/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.201422337SI.pdf?targetid=nameddest=SF5

temple. Because of these associations, Midden 7 materials mayhave had significance more public than private.Midden 7 (AU 301) contained long bone fragments, almost all

of which (85%) showed spiral fractures and cutmarks (15%).There were also signs of perimortem processing, including chopmarks and percussion pits. Cutmarks included V-shaped cutsalong the ends of long bones, and on rib and cranial fragments.The distribution and morphology of the cutmarks is consistentwith dismembering (bone-from-bone). A right femur had cut-marks and carnivore gnawing on the ends, and it was excep-tionally well preserved. There were cutmarks along the shaft, andcarnivore gnawing removed the proximal and distal ends. Thisbone (Fig. S4) appears to have been a trophy bone that was handledover many years, eventually reaching the midden, possibly as part ofcolluvium from the disintegrating buildings above. The selectivehuman remains found in this midden are very different from thoseof Midden 1 because these include a more narrow range of ele-ments (mostly long bones). Perhaps this was the final resting placefor bones used in ritual or ceremonial activities.Midden 6 accumulated at the base of a shrine platform situ-

ated at the end of a spur off the causeway. We suspect that thisshrine was an offering location for people arriving at the westerncardinal entrance of La Quemada. Human remains recoveredfrom Midden 6 include 12 fragments of bone representing longbone fragments, as well as cranial, hand, and rib pieces, all toosmall for analysis. However, most of the bones show spiralfractures and other signs of processing, including adherent flakesand crushing.

ConclusionsIn the multiethnic Northern Mesoamerican Frontier, human bonewas prominent in living spaces of ceremonial centers. Residentshandled and processed human bone extensively. Their actionsincluded killing, disarticulating, dismembering, defleshing, burn-ing, drilling, bundling, suspending, displaying, and discarding.

Nonhuman site formation processes were also at work over time,producing taphonomic forces that greatly affected the characterand quantity of the human remains. These included carnivoregnawing, weathering, building collapse, water transport, and de-composition by physical and chemical forces present in the sedi-ments and construction materials into which some human bonebecame incorporated after abandonment. It is important to em-phasize that the skeletal remains described here are not typical ofthe whole population of the Malpaso Valley; occupants madeordinary subfloor inhumations in the surrounding villages (35).Within the context analyzed here, archaeological and osteo-

logical analyses point to six different cultural contexts of use.First, three clusters of human remains in the temple represent allages and adult males and females. These are primarily wholelong bones with shallow cutmarks, suggesting defleshing aftersome period of postmortem desiccation and decay. This arrange-ment suggests ancestor veneration. Second, Patio B containedbone fragments with cutmarks, bone splinters, and burning. Thisarea was likely a place for public feasting and anthropophagy. ThePatio B bones had pot polishing and other characteristics consis-tent with cannibalism. Third, the walkway in front of the templecontained processed long bones and drilled crania, which suggeststhe public display, possibly of defeated enemies, hanging on theoutside wall of the temple and on freestanding racks. Fourth,Midden 1 includes a great variety of small bone elements withsome burning and processing, which may represent bones notused and discarded after processing. Fifth, Midden 7 representsbones with spiral fractures and cutmarks. This may be bonediscard from creating the display along the West Banquette orwithin the Temple. Finally, rare individual inhumations wereplaced in tombs.Two basic pathways of treatment ultimately corresponded to

bones kept indoors or outdoors. Bones were kept indoors in thetemple and in tombs. In the temple, sets of bone elements werewrapped in bundles and suspended from the ceiling, whereas inthe subfloor tombs individuals were inhumed. It is possible thatthese two kinds of treatment were stages in a single, long-termprocessing program. Indoor bone had very little perimortemmodification other than cutmarks. Subsequently and probablyafter the site’s abandonment, the bones kept hanging in the templewere gnawed by carnivores.The residents treated outdoor bone differently. The bones in

such deliberately dramatic displays had far more frequent andvaried perimortem and postmortem modification. The occupantssuspended skulls and long bones from a rack on the western edgeof Patio A, from the adjacent front wall of the temple near itsentrance, and from a roof above the walkway in Patio B. Theyalso kept a set of mandibles either on the staircase near Platform3 or in a structure on that platform. Finally, the occupants dis-carded unwanted bone in middens, apparently after culling itfrom skeletons that were processed on the terrace.The above analysis answers a question raised by the initial

study of only the remains around the temple (22): were the hu-man bones of Terrace 18 those of ancestors or enemies? Thepresent study concludes, “both.” The residents of La Quemadatreated the bones as animated, powerful objects, constituting twobasic categories of social persons: ancestors and adversaries.Ethnohistory attests to similar bone treatment among the

ethnically diverse groups inhabiting the Northern Frontier at thetime of European contact. Indigenous violence was endemic andincluded “extended killing,” i.e., disarticulating enemies’ bodiesand further treatments. For example, the Caxcan people madetrophies and war implements from them (36), the Acaxee con-sumed their cooked flesh (37), Cumupa residents hung the bonesof defeated enemies outdoors (38), and Purépecha leaderspassed the bones of defeated enemies among cooperating elite(10). Thus, contextualized regionally and ethnohistorically, the

Fig. 4. Skull perforated at apex for suspension (AU 87).

9200 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1422337112 Nelson and Martin

Dow

nloa

ded

by g

uest

on

June

15,

202

1

http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1422337112/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.201422337SI.pdf?targetid=nameddest=SF4www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1422337112

ancient practices documented here form part of a widespreadpattern of persistent interethnic violence.Findings here are also consistent with enemy skeletal displays

being symbolically important as mnemonic devices to recall pastepisodes of violence. Skeletal displays could focus ceremoniesand stories on remembering and possibly cauterizing (39) furtherviolence. The historical evidence suggests that the enemies arelikely to have been ethnic others, yet evidence from modernzones of persistent conflict shows that ethnic diversity does notpredict frequency of conflict (40). To follow up on the conclusionthat the violence was interethnic, the obvious next steps arestable isotopic and DNA analyses of skeletal samples from theidentified contexts. If the inferences are correct, those analysesshould corroborate the contrasts presented here with indicationsof biological distance.

Materials and MethodsBones from seven seasons of excavation were analyzed in the field laboratory(Tables S1 and S2, and Datasets S1 and S2). We discuss the archaeologicalrecovery strategies elsewhere (41). Here we report on bones from Terrace 18and two associated middens. We draw on ethnographic understanding fromparticipation in 13 Wixárika ceremonies since 1995 (30). Bioarchaeologicalmethods conformed to the fragmentary, disarticulated, and commingleddeposition. White’s (33) protocol provided a systematic approach to exam-ining taphonomy, cultural modification, and formation processes. Theanalysis characterizes bone type, preservation, side, and completeness, alongwith taphonomic properties, particularly peri- and postmortem changes on

the bones. It describes the physical evidence (such as cutmarks, breakage,reduction, and burning) as well as depositional context. Each bone is codedfor the presence or absence of spiral fractures, internal vault release, scar-ring, pitting, flaking, peeling, cutmarks, chop marks, polishing, scraping, andburning. Each element was assessed for rodent or carnivore activity and root,water, weathering, and other postmortem damage. Biological indicators ofage, sex, health status, robusticity, and trauma were recorded (42).

A total of 417 bone identifiable elements were recovered and analyzed, ofwhich 402 were sufficiently preserved for thorough analysis. Of the remaining2,015, 840 could be identified or partially analyzed; the rest were too frag-mentary. The recovered assemblages are likely representative of their originaldeposition. Excavators strove for complete bone recovery, sifting all sedimentswith one-quarter inch (6 mm) screens. In many areas bone attrition was severe.About 75% of the total surface area of Terrace 18 was excavated, includingalmost all of the roofed architectural area, the ball court in the center of themainpatio, and the western half of the main patio. Excavation penetrated the sub-structure in less than half the excavated area and may have missed substructuralchambers. As a result, we cannot be sure of the exact representativeness of theskeletal bone assemblage to everyonewho died, but it is clearly representative ofthose whose remains were intentionally placed inside and outside buildings.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. We thank the Consejo de Arqueología of the InstitutoNacional de Antropología e Historia of Mexico for permission to study LaQuemada; Peter Jiménez Betts for long collaboration; Christopher Schwartzfor Fig. 1 and Vincent Schiavitti for Fig. 2; Ventura Perez for the photographsof bones; and two anonymous reviewers and Linda R. Manzanilla for criticalcomments. This study was supported in part by the National Science Founda-tion (BCS-0211109), the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Re-search, and the National Endowment for the Humanities.

1. Crider DL (2013) Shifting alliances: Epiclassic and Early Postclassic interactions at CerroPortezuelo. Anc Mesoam 24(1):107–130.

2. Gaxiola González M (1999) Huapalcalco y las tradiciones alfareras del Epiclásico.Arqueología 21:45–72.

3. Manzanilla L, ed (2005) Reacomodos Demográficos del Clásico al Posclásico en elCentro de México (Instituto de Investigaciones, Universidad Nacional de México, D.F.,Mexico), pp 75–102.

4. Kelley JC (1971) Archaeology of the Northern Frontier: Zacatecas and Durango. Archae-ology of Northern Mesoamerica, Part Two. Handbook of Middle American Indians, edsEkholm GF, Bernal I (Univ of Texas Press, Austin, TX), Vol 11, pp 768–804.

5. Braniff B, Hers M-A (1998) Herencias Chichimecas. Arqueología 19:55–80.6. Acuña R (1988) Nueva Galicia. Relaciones Geográficas del Siglo XVI (Universidad

Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City), Vol 10.7. Fowler C (1994) Lexical clues to Uto-Aztecan prehistory. Journal of American

Linguistics 49(3):224–257.8. Hill JH (2001) Proto-Uto-Aztecan: A community of cultivators in Central Mexico? Am

Anthropol 103(4):913–934.9. Longacre R (1967) Systemic comparison and reconstruction. Handbook of Middle

American Indians, ed McQuown N (Univ of Texas Press, Austin, TX), pp 117–160.10. Alcalá Jd (2000) Relación de Michoacán (Colegio de Michoacán, Zamora, Mexico).11. Nelson BA (1995) Complexity, hierarchy, and scale: A controlled comparison between

Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, and La Quemada, Zacatecas. Am Antiq 60(4):597–618.12. Pollard HP, Smith ME (2003) The Aztec/Tarascan border. The Postclassic Mesoamerican

World, eds Smith ME, Berdan FF (Univ of Utah Press, Salt Lake City), pp 87–90.13. Trombold CD (2005) A population estimate for the Epiclassic middle Malpaso Valley

(La Quemada), Zacatecas, Mexico. Lat Am Antiq 16(3):235–253.14. Arkush E, Stanish C (2005) Interpreting conflict in the Ancient Andes: Implications for

the archaeology of warfare. Curr Anthropol 46(1):3–28.15. Martin DL, Harrod RP, Pérez VR (2013) Bioarchaeology: An Integrated Approach to

Working with Human Remains (Springer, New York).16. Duncan WN, Schwarz KR (2014) Partible, permeable, and relational bodies in a Maya

mass grave. Commingled and Disarticulated Human Remains, eds Osterholtz AJ,Baustian KM, Martin DL (Springer, New York), pp 149–170.

17. Pijoan CM, Mansilla J (1990) Evidencias rituales en restos humanos del norte deMesoamérica. Mesoamérica y Norte de México siglos IX-XII, ed Sodi Miranda F(Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City), Vol 2, pp 467–478.

18. O’Neill C (1995) Tratamiento cultural de los muertos en La Quemada, Zacatecas. In-vestigación Científica (Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas, Zacatecas, Mexico), Vol 1,pp 18–27.

19. Gómez Ortíz A, Vázquez de Santiago A, Macías Quintero JI (2007) Evidencias deprácticas rituales en La Quemada, Zacatecas: Análisis de un osario. Estudios de An-tropología Biológica XIII:431–446.

20. Jiménez Betts P (1994) Proyecto La Quemada, Informe Técnico Temporada II: Oct.1989– Oct. 1994 (Centro Regional Zacatecas del Instituto Nacional de Antropología,Zacatecas, Mexico).

21. Lelgemann A (2000) Proyecto Ciudadela de La Quemada, Zacatecas (Informe final alConsejo de Arqueología, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Bonn, Germany).

22. Nelson BA, Darling JA, Kice DA (1992) Mortuary patterns and the social order at LaQuemada, Zacatecas. Lat Am Antiq 3(4):298–315.

23. Pérez VR, Nelson BA, Martin DL (2008) Veneration or violence? A study of variations

in human bonemodification at La Quemada. Social Violence in the Prehispanic American

Southwest, eds Nichols DL, Crown PL (Univ of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ), pp 123–142.24. Cabrero García MT (1995) La Muerte en el Occidente del México Prehispánico

(Universidad Autónoma de México, Mexico City).25. Pickering R (1985) Human osteological remains from Alta Vista, Zacatecas: An analysis

of the isolated bone. The Archaeology of West and Northwest Mesoamerica, eds

Foster MS, Weigand PC (Westview Press, Boulder, CO), pp 289–326.26. Kelley EA (1978) The temple of the skulls at Alta Vista, Chalchihuites. Across the

Chichimec Sea: Papers in Honor of J. Charles Kelley, eds Riley CL, Hedrick BC (Southern

Illinois Univ Press, Carbondale, IL), pp 102–126.27. Hers M-A (1989) Los Toltecas en Tierras Chichimecas (Instituto de Investigaciones

Estéticas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, D.F., Mexico).28. Medina González JH (2000) El Paisaje Ritual del Valle de Malpaso. Tésis de Licenciatura

en Arqueología (Escuela Nacional de Antropología, Instituto Nacional de Antropología y

Secretaría de Educación Pública, D.F., Mexico).29. Neurath J (2002) Las Fiestas de la Casa Grande (Instituto Nacional de Antropología e

Historia, D.F., Mexico).30. Nelson BA (2015) Desplazamiento ritual en el occidente de México: Del pasado al

presente. Arqueol Mex XXII(131):54–59.31. Perez V (2002) Tool-induced bone alterations: Cutmark differences. Archaeology

Southwest 16(1):10.32. Calvo T (1990) Los Albores de un Nuevo Mundo: Siglos XVI y XVII (Centre d’Etudes

Mexicaines et Centraméricaines and the Universidad de Guadalajara, Mexico).33. White TD (1992) Prehistoric Cannibalism at Mancos 5MTUMR-2346 (Princeton Univ

Press, Princeton, NJ).34. Pereira G (2005) The utilization of grooved human bones: A reanalysis of artificially

modified human bones excavated by Carl Lumholtz at Zacapu, Michoacán, Mexico.

Lat Am Antiq 16(3):293–312.35. Faulhaber J (1960) Breve análisis osteológico de los restos humanos de “La Quemada,”

Zacatecas. An Inst Nac Antropol Hist 12:131–149.36. Powell PW (1975) Soldiers, Indians and Silver (Center for Latin American Studies,

Arizona State Univ, Tempe, AZ).37. Beals RL (1933) The Acaxee: A Mountain Tribe of Durango and Sinaloa (Univ of

California Press, Berkeley, CA).38. Hammond GP, Rey A, eds (1928) Obregon’s History of 16th Century Explorations in

Western America, Entitled Chronicle, Commentary, or Relation of the Ancient and

Modern Discoveries in New Spain and New Mexico, Mexico, 1584 (Wetzel, Los Angeles).39. Cleary MR (2000) Democracy and indigenous rebellion in Latin America. Comp Polit

Stud 33(9):1123–1153.40. Fearon JD, Laitin DD (2003) Ethnicity, insurgency, and civil war. Am Polit Sci Rev 97(1):

75–90.41. Nelson BA (1997) Chronology and stratigraphy at La Quemada, Zacatecas, Mexico.

J Field Archaeol 24(1):85–109.42. Buikstra JE, Ublaker DH (1994) Standards for data collection from human skeletal

remains. Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series 44 (Arkansas Archeological

Survey, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR).

Nelson and Martin PNAS | July 28, 2015 | vol. 112 | no. 30 | 9201

ANTH

ROPO

LOGY

SPEC

IALFEATU

RE

Dow

nloa

ded

by g

uest

on

June

15,

202

1

http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1422337112/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.201422337SI.pdf?targetid=nameddest=ST1http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1422337112/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.201422337SI.pdf?targetid=nameddest=ST2http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1422337112/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.1422337112.sd01.xlshttp://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1422337112/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.1422337112.sd02.xls