Fishing in the northern Maya lowlands AD

250–750: preliminary analysis of fish remains

from Xcambo, Yucatan, Mexico
Nayeli G. Jiménez Cano 1 , Thelma Sierra Sosa2
1
Laboratario de Arqueozoología, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain, 2Centro Regional Yucatán,
Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mérida, Mexico

The relationship between the sea and human populations in the Maya world during Prehispanic times is well
supported through iconographic and ethnohistoric evidence. The nature and importance of fish resource
exploitation, however, during the most important period of Maya history, the Classic Period (AD 250–900),
remains largely unknown. Xcambó (AD 250–750) was an important commercial port located in the north
coast of the Yucatán peninsula. According to ichthyoarchaeological results presented here, fishes such
as requiem sharks (Carcharhinus sp.), Atlantic sharpnose sharks (Rhizopronodion terraenovae), snooks
(Centropomus sp.) and hardhead catfish (Ariopsis felis) were an important part of the diet of the ancient
Maya. Although it has been proposed that marine resources, including fishes, could have been traded
and transported from coastal to inland localities, evidence from Xcambó regarding such practices remains
indeterminate. Most likely, other species could have been salted and traded. Evidence for such activities
has not been yet recovered at Xcambó. Results achieved so far indicate that there was a strong influence
of fish fauna from nearby, suggesting that fishing in Xcambó was a local subsistence activity.
Keywords: Prehispanic fisheries, Classic Maya, Xcambó, Fish remains, Ichthyoarchaeology

Introduction
The waters of the Maya region are characterised by the
presence of a high biological diversity of fish species.
These resources, however, are not well known from a
zooarchaeological point of view because of different
causes, such as recovery techniques (Emery 2004a, 16;
Henderson and Joce 2004, 228; Quitmyer 2004), the
fragility of fish remains and the effects of soil conditions
(Emery 2004b, 84; Stanchly 2004, 41). Notwithstanding
the causes for underrepresentation, fish are common
faunal remains in coastal zooarchaeological assem-
blages. Moreover, fish remains have been consistently
found in excavations of several prehispanic Maya settle-
ments comparable to those of other cultural areas in
Mexico (Polaco y Guzmán 1996). Although fish seem
to have been important for the ancient coastal Maya,
such resources have not been properly studied under
ichthyoarchaeological protocols that could allow
further understanding of the paleocultural and paleo-
biological implications of their exploitation.
Ichthyoarchaeology has been an understudied disci-
pline within Maya archaeology but is not becoming a
flourishing field in zooarchaeological studies in the
region. According to the literature, the majority of
Correspondence to: Nayeli G. Jiménez Cano, Laboratario de
Arqueozoología, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Email: nayeli.jimenez@estudiante.uam.es
fish remains are grouped into the Classic period (AD
250–900/1000) in the Maya Lowlands. This important
period is characterised by economic, political and
social growth as a result of commercial relationships
among several cities in the Maya region. It is not
until the Postclassic (AD 900/1000–1250), however,
when navigation and communication by sea greatly
developed (Andrews 1997, 1998; Romero 1998).
It is known through ethnohistoric, iconographic,
archaeological and zooarchaeological evidence that
marine resources such as fish, have been fundamental
in ancient coastal subsistence practices. Little is
known, however, about how these resources were cap-
tured and processed or about the environmental scen-
ario where the ancient Maya used to fish. The results
presented here are part of the doctoral research of
the first author which is articulated with a broader
understanding of the pre-hispanic Maya fisheries. We
present preliminary data on the ichthyoarchaeological
analysis from Xcambó as a first approach to under-
standing ancient fishing practices in the Maya
Northern Lowlands during the Classic period.
Location and cultural history of Xcambó
The Yucatán peninsula is an extension of the
Continental Platform, which consists of limestone
from the Late Cretaceous and separates the

© Association for Environmental Archaeology 2015

DOI 10.1080/14614103.2015.1118176 Environmental Archaeology 2015 1
Jiménez Cano and Sierra Sosa Fishing in the northern Maya lowlands
Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico. The most
characteristic features of the Yucatán peninsula topo-
graphy are cenotes, which are formed by the dissol-
ution of limestone rock. The resulting void is filled
with rain water and can be linked to an active cave
system forming underground rivers. The northern
coast is also characterised by the presence of marsh-
land and flood lands, especially during the rainy
season from June to October, and by ojos de agua,
springs in saltwater, formed by the discharge of the
underground rivers (Beddows et al. 2007).
The prehispanic settlement of Xcambó is located on
the north coast of the Yucatán peninsula and encom-
passes an area, approximately 700 m long by 150 m
wide (Fig. 1). The village was constructed over plat-
forms above the marsh to avoid temporal flooding.
Xcambó was occupied from the Terminal Preclassic
(AD 100–350) to the Postclassic period (AD
900–1500). It was during the Early Classic (AD
250–550) and Late Classic (AD 550–750) periods
when Xcambó played an important economic role
and achieved commercial importance by controlling
the salt trade and exploitation of seafood (Jiménez
2002; Sierra 1997, 1999, 2004; Sierra and Lizárraga
2001). Around AD 700, there was a decline in the
Figure 1 Location of Xcambó.
2 Environmental Archaeology 2015
population, due to changes in the regional commerce
of the Northern Yucatán. Afterwards, the settlement
was abandoned. It was visited again as a pilgrim
centre during the Postclassic period (Sierra 1996).
The archetype of archaeological fish trade
Due to the strategic location of the settlement and the
availability of marine resources, fishing, as well as
agriculture and hunting, was a key subsistence activity
that met the nutritional needs of the population
(Tiesler 2001; Wanner et al. 2007).
The salt trade to inland localities included other
commodities like shells, cotton, birds and marine pro-
ducts (Andrews 1997; Sierra 1999, 2004). In this flow
of goods, fish could have been curated and transported
inland. In the 16th century, ‘people of the coast of
Yucatán devoted most of their energies to fishing, for
their own consumption and for selling to inland vil-
lages. Fishing, collecting salt and trade were the prin-
cipals occupations on the coast’ (Roys 1943, 41).
About fish trade, it has been proposed that, ‘in the
settlements of Northern Yucatan, especially those
near saltworks, the conservation of salted fish for
transport to inland sites was practiced’ (Andrews
1997, 40). In this sense, Roys stated that ‘salt and
 Jiménez Cano and Sierra Sosa Fishing in the northern Maya lowlands

fish, the latter dried, salted or roasted, were carried
inland from the east and north coasts of the peninsula’
(Roys 1965, 671).
Taking into account previous approaches, the role
of fishes at coastal sites such as Xcambó cannot be
underestimated and whether these resources were
part of a local or regional subsistence economy
should be investigated. Furthermore, little is known
about the traditional strategies used to capture fishes
and the ecological conditions of the northern coast
of Yucatán during the Classic period. Therefore, the
purpose of this paper is to contribute to the knowledge
of coastal subsistence activities in the Maya region
through the study of fish remains.
Materials and methods
Fish remains came from excavated structures in the
northeast, the northwest and the patios at the site.
All contexts were recovered employing horizontal
excavations that included the majority of the archaeo-
logical features. The excavated matrix was screened
with approximately 5 mm mesh and hand collected.
The osteological and taxonomic identification of the
specimens was undertaken with the aid of a compara-
tive collection housed at the Laboratorio de
Zooarqueología, at the Facultad de Ciencias
Antropológicas UADY. For anatomical identification,
we used the osteological terminology from Rojo (1991)
and taxonomic nomenclature was verified with the
Integrated Taxonomic Information System (2014).
Skeletal remains were quantified using the number
of identified specimens (NISP) for both Teleostei and
Chondrichthyes. An additional method of quantifi-
cation that was not conducted for the whole sample
was the minimum number of individuals (MNI).
Although this method is commonly employed within
ichthyoarchaeological studies (Casteel 1976) and was
calculated on bony fishes, it was not utilised for carti-
laginous fishes. The majority of the bone elements
were vertebrae, which were difficult to assign to a
specific region of the spinal column. For a comparable
assessment of both bony and cartilaginous fishes,
NISP relative values are presented here.
Fish remains were also examined for evidence of
burning, butchery and other physical characteristics
that may help in the recognition of taphonomic pro-
cesses affecting the bone and the interpretation of
their anthropogenic utilisation.
Results
The fish bones from Xcambó
The general zooarchaeological assemblage consisted
of more than 5000 remains: 37% composed of fishes,
34% reptiles, 16% mammals, 9% invertebrates and
4% birds (Gotz 2006). Fish bones analysed so far con-
sisted of a total of 934 remains and have been dated
from AD 250 to 750 according to ceramic typologies
(Jiménez 2002). The majority of the sample (91·8%)
was identified taxonomically to the family, genus or
species level and 8·2% of fish bones were identified
barely to the class level (Chondrichthyes and
Teleostei). The fish assemblage included 32 species,
grouped into 2 classes, 10 orders, 21 families and 26
genera. In the sample, 58% was composed of shark
and rays and 4·11% of bony fishes (Tables 1 and 2).
The ichthyoarchaeological assemblage came from
varied contexts including buildings, platforms, circular
storages, shrines, patios and burials. This feature
typology is based on architectural characteristics
(Sierra Sosa 1996, 1999). Fish remains, however, do
not reflect the functionality of these structures
because the 98·52% of fish bones were found within

Table 1 List of Chondrichthyes identified at Xcambó. NISP

Taxa Common name NISP NISP (% )

Chondrichthyes indet. Sharks and rays unidentified 39 4·18

Ginglymostoma cirratum Nurse shark 40 4·28
Mustelus sp. Hogfish 3 0·32
Carcharhinidae indet. Requiem shark 38 4·07
Carcharhinus sp. Requiem shark 218 23·34
Carcharhinus cf. acronotus Blacknose shark 13 1·39
Carcharhinus cf. leucas Bull shark 16 1·71
Carcharhinus cf. limbatus Blacktip shark 4 0·43
Carcharhinus cf. obscurus Dusky shark 5 0·54
Carcharhinus cf. plumbeus Sand bar shark 3 0·32
Carcharhinidae cf. Galeocerdo Requiem shark/Tiger shark 3 0·32
Galeocerdo cuvieri Tiger shark 12 1·28
Rhizopronodion terraenovae Atlantic sharpnose shark 88 9·42
Sphyrna sp. hammerhead shark 43 4·60%
Sphyrna cf. tiburo Bonnethead shark 6 0·64
Sphyrna tiburo Bonnethead shark 3 0·32
Pristis sp. Sawfish 5 0·54
Pristis cf. pectinata Sawfish 2 0·21
Aetobatus narinari Eagle ray 8 0·86
Total chondricthyes 549 58·78

Environmental Archaeology 2015 3

Jiménez Cano and Sierra Sosa Fishing in the northern Maya lowlands

Table 2 List of Teleostei identified at Xcambó. Number of identified specimens (NISP), MNI

Taxa Common name NISP NISP (%) MNI MNI (%)

Teleostei indet. Bony fishes unidentified 38 10·08 12 4·07

Megalops antlanticus Tarpon 11 2·52 3 1·18
Ariopsis felis Catfish 62 9·24 11 6·64
Bagre marinus Gafftopsail catfish 2 0·84 1 0·21
Opsanus sp. Toad fish 19 5·88 7 2·03
Opsanus beta Toadfish 6 2·52 3 0·64
Mugil sp. Mullet unidentified 1 0·84 1 0·11
Centropomus sp. Snook 123 12·61 15 13·17
Serranidae indet. Seabass and groupers 10 2·52 3 1·07
Epinephelus sp. Red 5 0·84 1 0·54
Epinephelus morio Red grouper 15 5·04 6 1·61
Mycteroperca sp. Grouper 4 1·68 2 0·43
Mycteroperca bonaci Black grouper 2 1·68 2 0·21
Carangidae indet. Jack 10 4·20 5 1·07
Caranx crysos Blue runner 3 2·52 3 0·32
Caranx cf. hippos Crevalle jack 2 1·68 2 0·21
Caranx hippos Crevalle jack 6 1·68 2 0·64
Trachinotus sp. Pompano 1 0·84 1 0·11
Lutjanidae indet. Snappers unidentified 9 3·36 4 0·96
Lutjanus cf. campechanus Red snapper 1 0·84 1 0·11
Lutjanus cf. cyanopterus Cubera snapper 2 0·84 1 0·21
Lutjanus cf. griseus Grey snapper 2 1·68 2 0·21
Lutjanus cf. syniagris Lane snapper 1 0·84 1 0·11
Gerreidae indet. Mojarra 1 0·84 1 0·11
Haemulidae indet. Grunt 11 4·20 5 1·18
Haemulon sp. Grunt 1 0·84 1 0·11
Haemulon plumierii White grunt 2 1·68 2 0·21
Sparidae indet. Porgie 1 0·84 1 0·11
Calamus sp. Porgie 1 0·84 1 0·11
Sciaenidae indet. Croakers 2 1·68 2 0·21
Cynoscion sp. Seatrout 1 0·84 1 0·11
Cynoscion nebulosus Seatrout 2 1·68 2 0·21
Sciaenidae cf. Micropogonias Croaker 1 0·84 1 0·11
Micropogonias undulatus Atlantic croaker 18 6·72 8 1·93
Pomacanthus sp. Angel fish 2 1·68 2 0·21
Pomacanthus arcuatus Grey angelfish 2 0·84 1 0·21
Sphoeroides sp. Puffer 2 0·84 1 0·21
Diodon hystrix Purcupine fish 2 0·84 1 0·21
Total teleostei 384 100 119 41·11

construction fills, where animal debris was used to
level the platforms of the various structures to avoid
flooding. Although the majority of fish remains
came from construction fills, they are considered to
have an anthropogenic origin, because they were
located in direct stratigraphic association with cultural
remains such as lithic tools, ceramic sherds, human
remains and debitage.
Dominant fishes from construction fill consisted of
requiem shark (Carcharhinus sp.), Atlantic sharpnose
shark (Rhizopronodion terraenovae), hardhead catfish
(Ariopsis felis) and snook (Centropomus sp.). Other
common species were nurse shark (Ginglymostoma cir-
ratum), tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier), hammerhead
shark (Sphyrna sp.), tarpon (Megalops atlanticus),
toadfish (Opsanus beta), red grouper (Epinephelus
morio), jack (Carangidae) and croaker
(Micropogonias undulatus). Secondary species were
sawfish (Pristis sp.), eagle ray (Aetobatus narinari),
gafftopsail catfish (Bagre marinus), mullet (Mugil
sp.), grouper (Epinephelus sp.), grunt (Haemulidae),
angelfish (Pomacanthus sp.) and puffer fish
(Sphoeroides sp.). On the other hand, fishes from
sealed contexts such as burials constituted 1·48% of
the sample. Species presented in these contexts were
red grouper, snook, hardhead catfish, jack, hammer-
head shark and snook, which may have been offered
as food in the passage to the next world.
Skeletal frequency
Bony fishes exhibited the greatest variability in skeletal
element frequency. Cartilaginous fishes were com-
posed entirely of vertebrae, with the exception of a
tiger shark tooth. A summary of the skeletal frequency
of the most common Teleost families is presented in
Fig. 2. Fishes such as groupers, snappers, jacks and
mullets represented a skeletal pattern consisting of
cranial elements, particularly jaws, but also included
vertebrae and dorsal and anal spines. Thus, we can
suggest that those fishes were transported whole into
the site and that they were totally consumed and dis-
carded in the same place. Similarly, snook remains
were represented by cranial, appendicular and ver-
tebral skeletal elements. The proportion of cranial

4 Environmental Archaeology 2015


Figure 2 Skeletal frequency of the principal fish families at Xcambó.
elements was 27% and that for vertebral elements was
73%. The presence of both parts of the skeleton and
their proportional difference suggest that snook
would likely have been captured nearby and consumed
entirely at the settlement.
Catfishes, on the other hand, showed a different fre-
quency pattern. They were represented only by cranial
elements such as supraoccipitals, parietals, frontals
and otoliths. Although cleithra, dorsal and pectoral
spines were also present, those elements are attached
to the skull in catfishes. It is important to note that
the lack of vertebral elements could have been due to
taphonomic processes, since catfish vertebrae are
small and fragile and more susceptible to not surviving
in the archaeological record, especially if they are not
recovered with a fine mesh size.
Taphonomic approaches
Taphonomic marks have been categorised according
to fire exposure, cutting, perforations, concretions
and polishing (Fig. 3). Of the total remains, 6·21%
exhibited some of these taphonomic modifications.
From this general classification, we can infer the
anthropic character of the remains. Thermic marks
are the most evident and abundant taphonomic signa-
tures and comprised 35% of the taphonomic sample;
Jiménez Cano and Sierra Sosa Fishing in the northern Maya lowlands
two thirds of the thermic signatures were present on
shark remains. To study the effects of fire in the
ichthyofaunal assemblage, weused three fire affecta-
tion categories:
(1) Scorched: black and brownish stains scattered on the
bone surface.
(2) Carbonised: the bone is totally black and the col-
lagen is carbonised.
(3) Calcined: the bone has a grey-whitish colouration
and collagen is no longer present.
The modified remains resulting from cooking would
show low thermic exposures as when roasted or burnt
(Nicholson 1995). At Xcambó, the scorched bones
represented 47·28% and burnt bones 38·10% of the
thermic remains which suggest culinary purposes.
Most of the affected bones within these categories
are unidentified shark vertebrae, sawfish vertebra,
eagle ray dental plates, tarpon vertebrae, hardhead
catfish spines and neurocranium and snook vertebrae.
Calcined bones represented 14·29% of the thermic
remains. Although calcined bones could represent
garbage burning, it is also likely that those fishes
were eaten before being burned.
Cut marks were present on 6·42% of the fish bones
with taphonomic signatures identified. These cut
marks were present on grouper, hammerhead sharks
Environmental Archaeology 2015 5
Jiménez Cano and Sierra Sosa Fishing in the northern Maya lowlands
Figure 3 Taphonomic marks of the ichthyoarchaeological assemblage.
and toadfish bones. Grouper cut marks were found on
vertebra and maxillaries, toadfishes on premaxillas
and hammerhead shark on vertebrae. Interestingly,
no evidence of cut marks was present on dominant
species, supporting the idea that such fishes as
snooks and catfishes were consumed whole at
Xcambó. More future analyses, however, may help
to expand our understanding of fish butchering prac-
tices both at Xcambó and in the Maya area.
Perforations were limited to piercing the vertebra
notocordal centre of cartilaginous fishes. In this case,
those perforations could have been done in order to
create ornaments such as earrings (Canto 2009), a
very popular aesthetic aspect during prehispanic times.
Other taphonomic signature on fish bones was a
polished appearance with brownish colouration
found on some cranial and vertebra elements. The sur-
faces of these bones more readily reflect the light and
look shiny. At the beginning it was thought that the
cause of this appearance was some thermal treatment
such as boiling, as is known for pot polish marks
used for recognising cannibalism in human bones
(Graver et al. 2002, 320–19). The literature, however,
is limited regarding such shiny boiling marks on
faunal remains (Lyman 2001, 383). Moreover, the
shiny appearance was clearly evident on the surface
with no modification along the edge of the bones. In
this manner, it is likely that those marks are caused
by the condition of the fish bones in terms of fat
6 Environmental Archaeology 2015
content (Toppe et al. 2007) or due to the action of
depositional sediments (Lubinski 1996).
Concretions on bones were found on vertebrae and
are the result of the constructive fill of platforms from
where the bones came. The concretions consisted of a
conglomerate of shells and limestone, similar to
mortar for building, which is commonly found in
architectural contexts in the region and was easily
embedded into the vertebral foramen when filling the
platforms was taking place.
Paleobiological inferences
To assess fishing practices and their paleobiological
implications, it was necessary to categorise the living
habitats of the species caught. For this classification,
all fish fauna were taken into account, including
initial identifications by Götz and Sierra (2011), arte-
facts made from fish bones studied by Canto (2009)
and our preliminary results already described here.
Environmental categories were based upon the
depths in which fish are found in the water column
and their capacity to tolerate changes in salinity.
Regarding the former, we followed the general division
of marine organisms into benthic, demersal and
pelagic. Benthic organisms live close to the bottom,
demersal fishes occupy the middle of the water
column and pelagic fishes live near the surface. The
division used here (Fig. 4), however, should be
 Jiménez Cano and Sierra Sosa Fishing in the northern Maya lowlands

Figure 4 Ecological scenarios of fish families and species identified according to position in the water column.

Figure 5 Ecological scenarios of fish species according to salinity.

Environmental Archaeology 2015 7

Jiménez Cano and Sierra Sosa Fishing in the northern Maya lowlands
considered as a general outline, since many of the
organisms travel through different water regions.
The most common ecological habitat was rep-
resented by demersal fishes. These species accounted
for 58.48% of the sample. Fishes from this ecological
habitat are Atlantic sharpnose shark, snooks, group-
ers, grunts, croakers and black nose shark. Species
from a benthic environment included nurse sharks,
smooth-hound sharks, rays, toadfishes and catfishes
and represented 25·74% of the fish fauna. Species
from the pelagic environment constituted 13.88% of
the sample and was comprised of bull shark, eagle
ray and tarpon.
Tolerance to different salinity levels is one of the
most useful components for defining ecological cat-
egories (Fig. 5). For this grouping, fish remains ident-
ified at the species level were used in order to fully
classify fish environmental preferences. At Xcambó
three ecological scenarios were identified: marine ste-
nohaline, marine euryhaline and estuarine-fresh
water species. The most abundant species were those
corresponding to a marine euryhaline environment
(46.03%). Fishes representing this scenario were cat-
fishes, drums, nurse sharks and tarpons; marine eury-
haline areas included mangroves and marshlands. The
estuarine-fresh water environment (41.51%) was rep-
resented by snooks that possibly lived near the ojos
de agua. The marine stenohaline environment was
characterised by the presence of groupers, snappers
and eagle ray (12·45%); these live in coastal salt
waters and thus reflect an exterior fishing ground
located outside the marshlands.
Discussion
In the Maya world, fishes played an important role not
only in the subsistence of coastal settlements but also
in the cosmological framework. For this reason, it is
usual to find at elite burials items such as ray spines
and shark teeth as offerings to blood-letting self-sacri-
fice (Aguirre 2004). At Xcambó, none of the former
was found; fishes associated with burials could have
been used as food offerings. The absence of the
typical elite blood-letting tools in our sample could
be a reflection of the ancient society of Xcambo.
Ancient inhabitants at Xcambó were devoted to
basic subsistence activities and the society was charac-
terised by a homogeneous social stratification (Sierra
and Lizárraga 2001). Additionally, studies have
shown that the daily life of Xcambó society was con-
fronted with a range of physically demanding activities
and with an absence of a dominant elite (Tiesler et al.
2002; Warner et al. 2007). Burials at the site were
characterised by vessel offerings of a high commercial
value (Sierra 1997), reaffirming this site’s role as a port
of commercial exchange.
8 Environmental Archaeology 2015
Due to the proximity of salt works in prehistoric
times, it is reasonable to assume that ancient
Xcambó residents would have been salted fishes as
well. Catfish is a particularly suitable fish for salting
for later consumption as has been shown through eth-
nographic evidence in Parita Bay, Panama and the
Mexican Caribbean (Dachary and Arnaiz, 1985;
Zohar and Cooke 1997). Catfish is a frequent species
in the Xcambó faunal assemblage and is represented
entirely by cranial elements and pectoral and dorsal
spines. Although certain cultures use to behead the
fish for salting, ethnographic descriptions from
Panama (Zohar and Cooke 1997) and Mexico
(Dachary and Arnaiz 1985) demonstrate that salting
is done without beheading the fish, or discarding pec-
toral spines and branchial archs. At other coastal
Maya settlements such as the Northern River
Lagoon in Belize, the lack of vertebrae has been con-
sidered as evidence of a possible transport of salted
catfishes to inland sites (Masson 2004, 115).
Nevertheless, we need to take into account tapho-
nomic factors that can affect fish remains and result
in an overrepresentation of certain skeletal elements.
In addition, catfish has a very prominent head which
is used in the Yucatán peninsula to prepare fish soup
( personal observations). Catfishes, however, are not
the only species suitable for being salted or dried.
Historically and until recent years, fisher mongers
have preserved species such as barracudas, groupers,
grunts, jacks and cobias with the head attached to
the body (Dachary and Arnaiz 1985, 70). Moreover,
ethnohistoric accounts from the 16th century men-
tioned the roasting and salting of fishes for preser-
vation purposes (Landa 1960, 104). Actually, today,
roasted shark is a very popular culinary tradition
that allows sharks to be preserved and sold to interior
settlements, as personally observed at regional
markets. Thus, we need to expand our assumptions
about fish trade in the Maya area, and it is likely
that other species were also being preserved by
salting or roasting. Thus, we need to define the
zooarchaeological signatures that may be produced
when those specific cured traditions were taking
place. In this sense, more ichthyoarchaeological and
zooarchaeological studies need to be done in order
to illuminate the nature of fish trade in the region.
In regard to taphonomy, fire exposure was the most
evident signature on fish remains. These marks are
generally associated with human activities.
Nevertheless, one must also take into account that a
burnt bone is not necessarily the result of food prac-
tices but may also represent the consequence of
garbage burning and spontaneous fires (Nicholson
1995). At Xcambó, fires could have been produced
as a result of culinary practices or garbage burning.
This practice is somehow expected since fishes are

defined as debris used in construction fills. On the
other hand, cut marks were limited to some species
and absent among the principal species exploited.
These approximations might reinforce the idea of a
local consumption of these species at the site.
The ecological and biological information on the
species identified have been recognised as a helpful
tool for understanding the implications of ancient
fishing practices (Beárez et al. 2012; Colley 1987;
Guzman 2008; Reitz 2001; Roselló 1989; Roselló
and Morales 1994). At Xcambó, species found in
demersal waters revealed a favourite fishing ground
since these species tend to have sedentary habits,
which make them easily available. Likely, nets were
used to capture these demersal fishes. Material evi-
dences for nets included multiple net sinkers made of
ceramics, limestone or coral, which were common
implements in the archaeological ceramic assemblages
in the Maya area (Jiménez 2002; Philips 1979). Other
fishing gear such as harpoons might have been used to
capture demersal sharks. Benthic organisms identified
at Xcambó nowadays can be caught with trawls
(INAPESCA 2000). However, during prehispanic
times, benthic fishes could have been caught using
hooks or bow and arrow as mentioned in the ethnohis-
torical accounts of the 16th century (Landa 1960,
105). Pelagic species could have been caught when
they frequented coastal waters for reproductive pur-
poses. Thus, the movements of pelagic organisms
had been well known by the ancient Maya, and these
fishes could have been caught using nets, harpoon
and hooks. Moreover, archaeological evidence reveal
a maritime technology designed for coastal sailing
which was fully developed during the Postclassic
period (Romero 1998). So, we cannot argue for off-
shore sailing to capture pelagic fish species.
Salinity tolerance suggests that the ancient inhabi-
tants of Xcambó preferred to fish in estuarine
waters, likely nearby the ojos de agua within the
marshland next to the site. This identified fishing
ground supports the idea that in ancient times the
area of the settlement was on the edge of an estuary
(Garza et al. 1980; Sierra Sosa 2004) conducting an
inward fisheries with aid of fishing traps, hooks and
nets.
Conclusions
The ichthyoarchaeological information from Xcambó
suggests that fishing was a local subsistence activity
that helped to meet the dietary needs of the ancient vil-
lagers. Also the data given by the most abundant taxa
suggests that complete organisms were discarded, indi-
cating that fishes were processed and consumed on
site. There was no clear evidence regarding fish preser-
vation and trade at the site. Ancient inhabitants may
have cured several fish species, although no definitive
Jiménez Cano and Sierra Sosa Fishing in the northern Maya lowlands
evidence was produced in this preliminary study.
More ichthyoarchaeological studies in the region
need to be done in order to contribute to the under-
standing of ancient Maya fisheries.
ORCID
Nayeli G. Jiménez Cano http://orcid.org/0000-0001-
9973-2452
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank CONACYT for providing the
funding for this research and Dr. Christopher Götz
(FCA-UADY) for the facilities at UADY. Many
thanks also go to Dra. Eufrasia Roselló (LAZ-
UAM) and Dr. Arturo Morales (LAZ-UAM) for
their support on the presentation of this work at the
ICAZ-FRWG 2013.
References
Aguirre, M. 2004. El ritual del autosacrificio en Mesoamérica.
Anales de Antropología 38, 85–109.
Andrews, A. P. 1997. La sal entre los antiguos mayas. Arqueología
Mexicana 28, 38–45.
Andrews, A. P. 1998. El comercio marítimo de los mayas del
posclásico. Arqueología Mexicana 33, 16–23.
Béarez, P., Gay, P. and Lunniss, R. 2012. Sea fishing at Salango
(Manabí province, Ecuador) during the middle formative
Machalilla phase. Latin American Antiquity 23 (2), 195–214.
Beddows, P. et al. 2007. Los cenotes de la península de Yucatán.
Arqueología Mexicana 83, 32–35.
Canto, P. 2009. Análisis tipológico y funcional de los artefactos de
hueso, asta y diente de Xcambó, Yucatán. Unpublished MA dis-
sertation, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán.
Casteel, R. W. 1976. Fish Remains in Archaeology and Paelo-
Environmental Studies. New York: Academic Press.
Colley, S. 1987. Fishing for facts. Can we reconstruct fishing
methods from archaeological evidence? Australian
Archaeology 24, 16–26.
Dachary, A. and Arnaiz, E. 1985. El Caribe mexicano: hombres e
historias. México D.F.: CIESAS-Museo Nacional de Culturas
Populares-SEP.
Emery, K. F. 2004a. In search of assemblage comparability:
methods in Maya zooarchaeology, pp. 15–33 in Emery, K. F.
(ed.), Maya Zooarchaeology: New Directions in Method and
Theory. Los Angeles: Costen Institute of Archaology.
Emery, K. F. 2004b. Environments of the Maya collapse: a zooarch-
aeological perspective from the Petexbatún, pp. 81–93 in
Emery, K. F. (ed.), Maya Zooarchaeology: New Directios in
Method and Theory. Los Angeles: Costen Institute of
Archaeology.
Garza, T., de González, S. and Kurjack, E. 1980. Atlas arqueológico
del Estado de Yucatán. México: Instituto Nacional de
Antropología e Historia.
Götz, C. M. 2006. Informe del análisis de una muestra de restos
esqueléticos de fauna excavados en Xcambó. Technical report.
Prepared for Sierra, T. (archaeological director). Mérida:
Centro INAH Yucatán.
Götz, C. and Sierra, T. 2011. La arqueofauna de Xcambó, Yucatán,
México. Antípoda Antípoda. Revista De Antropología y
Arqueología 13, 119–45.
Graver, S., Sobolik, K. D. and Whittaker, J. 2002. Cannibalism or
violent death alone?: Human remains at a small Anasazi site,
pp. 309–320 in Haglund, W. D. and Sorg, M. D. (eds.),
Anvances in Forensic Taphonomy: Method, Theory and
Archaeological Perspectives. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Guzmán, A. F. 2008. Archaeoicthyological analysis of Two Mexican
Pacific Sites. Quaternary International 185, 34–45.
Henderson, J. S. and Joyce, R. A. 2004. Human use of animals in
prehispanic Honduras: a preliminary report from the Lower
Ulúa Valley, pp. 223–238 in Emery, K. F. (ed.), Maya
Zooarchaeology: New Directions in Method and Theory. Los
Angeles: Costen Institute of Archaeology.
Environmental Archaeology 2015 9
Jiménez Cano and Sierra Sosa Fishing in the northern Maya lowlands
Instituto Nacional de Pesca (INAPESCA). 2000. Catálogo de los
Sistemas de Captura de las Principales Pesquerías
Comerciales. México: Dirección General de Investigación y
Desarrollo Teconológico Pesquero.
Integrated Taxonomic Information System. 2014. Available from:
http://www.itis.gov [Accessed 2 October 2014].
Jiménez, S. 2002. La cronología cerámica del puerto maya de
Xcambó, costa Norte de Yucatán: Complejo cerámico Xcambó
y Cayalac. Unpublished BA dissertation, Universidad
Autónoma de Yucatán.
Landa, Fray Diego de. 1960. Relación de las cosas de yucatán.
México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.
Lubinski, P. M. 1996. Fish heads, fish heads: an experiment on
differential bone preservation in a salmonid fish. Journal of
Archaeological Science 23, 175–81.
Lyman, R. L. 2001. Vertebrate Taphonomy. Translated by
Anonymous. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Masson, M. A. 2004. Fauna exploitation from the preclassic to the
postclassic periods at four Maya settlements in northern Belize.
Maya zooarchaeology, pp. 97–122 in Emery, K. (ed.), New
Directions in Method and Theory. Los Angeles: Cotsen
Institute of Archaeology, University of California.
Nicholson, R. 1995. Out of the frying pan into the fire: what value
are burnt fish bones to archaeology? Archaeofauna 4, 47–64.
Phillips, D. A. 1979. Pesas de pesca de Cozumel, Quintana Roo.
Boletín de la Escuela de Ciencias Antropológicas de la
Universidad de Yucatán 36, 2–18.
Polaco, O. J. and Guzmán, A. F. 1996. Arqueoictiofauna mexicana.
México D.F: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.
Quitmyer, I. 2004. What kind of data are in the back dirt? An exper-
iment on the influence of screen size on optimal data recovery.
Archaeofauna 13, 109–29.
Reitz, E. J. 2001. Fishing in Peru between 10000 and 3750 BP.
International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 11, 163–71.
Rojo, A. L. 1991. Dictionary of Evolutionary Fish Osteology. Boca
Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Romero, M. E. 1998. La nevagación maya. Arqueología Mexicana
33, 6–15.
Roselló, E. 1989. Arqueoictiofaunas ibéricas. Aproximación
metodológica y bio-cultural. PhD dissertation, Madrid:
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.
Roselló, E. and Morales, A. 1994. The fishes, pp. 91–142 in Castillo
de Doña Blanca. Archaeo-environmental Investigations in the
Bay of Cádiz, Spain (750–500 B.C). BAR International
Series. Oxford: Archaeological and Historical Associates
Limited Tempus Reparatum.
10 Environmental Archaeology 2015
Roys, R. L. 1943. The Indian Background of Colonial Yucatan.
Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication 548.
Washington: Carnegie Institution.
Roys, R. L. 1965. Lowland Maya native society at Spanish contact,
pp. 659–678 in Wauchope, R. and Willey, G. R. (eds.),
Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 3, part 2. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Sierra, T. 1996. Informe 1996. Proyecto arqueológico Xcambó.
(Reporte de excavación). Mérida: Centro INAH Yucatán.
Sierra, T. 1997. Informe 1996. Proyecto arqueológico Xcambó.
archivo de la sección de arqueología del centro INAH,
Yucatán. (Reporte de excavación). Mérida: Archivo de la
Sección de Arqueología del Centro INAH, Yucatán, Mérida.
Sierra, T. 1999. Xcambo: Codiciado enclave económico del clásico
maya. Arqueología Mexicana 7 (37), 40–7.
Sierra, T. 2004. Relaciones culturales y mercantiles entre el puerto de
Xcambó de la costa norte de Yucatán y el litoral veracruzano-
tabasqueño-campechano. Estudios Mesoamericanos 6, 13–9.
Sierra, T. and Lizárraga, A. 2001. Los entierros de Xcambó y sus
implicaciones sociales. I’Naj 12, 6–12.
Stanchly, N. 2004. Picks and stones may break my bones: Taphonomy
and maya zooarchaeology, pp. 35–44 in Emery, K. F. (ed.),
Maya Zooarchaeology: New Directions in Method and Theory.
Los Angeles: Costen Institute of Archaeology.
Tiesler, B. V. 2001. Patrones occupacionales y subsistencia en la soci-
edad maya de la costa peninsular. consideraciones biocultur-
ales. Mayab 14, 30–41.
Tiesler, V., Sierra, T. and Tejeda, S. 2002. Nutrición y condiciones de
vida en la costa norte de la península durante el clásico: Una
visión desde Xcambó, Yucatán, pp. 752–62 in Laporte, J. P.,
Escobedo, H. and Arroyo, B. (eds.), XV Simposio De
Investigaciones Arqueológicas En Guatemala 2001.
Guatemala: Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología.
Toppe, J., Albrektsen, S., Hope, B. and Aksnes, A. 2007. Chemical
composition, mineral content and amino acid and lipid profiles
in bones from various fish species. Comparative Biochemistry
and Physiology Part B: Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
146 (3), 395–401.
Wanner, I. S., Sierra, T., Alt, K. and Tiesler, V. 2007. Lifestyle,
occupation, and whole bone morphology of the pre-
Hispanic Maya coastal population from Xcambo, Yucatan,
Mexico. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 17 (3),
253–68.
Zohar, I. and Cooke, R. 1997. The impact of salting and drying on
fish bones: preliminary observations on four marine species
from Parita Bay, Panama. Archaeofauna 6, 59–66.