A CASE STUDY OF AN INFANT URN BURIAL IN THE
NECROPOLIS OF EL CAÑO
Alexa C. Hancock
alexahancock@me.com
Centro de Investigaciones Arqueológicas del Istmo,
Fundación El Caño
Jesús Herrerín
jesus.herrerin@uam.es
Universidad de Autónoma de Madrid; Centro de Investigaciones Arqueológicas del Istmo,
Fundación El Caño
Main theme:
Archaeology
Resumen
La investigación de varios años del extenso complejo funerario ubicado en
el Parque Arqueológico El Caño en Panamá ha proporcionado una gran visión de la
vida y las prácticas funerarias de la Jefatura de Río Grande (700-1000 CE). En
2017, comenzaron los trabajos preparatorios de un proyecto para renovar y
volver a abrir un museo ubicado en el Parque Arqueológico El Caño que cuál está
cerrado desde el año 2014. Fundación El Caño (FEC) participó en este proceso.
Como parte del trabajo los artefactos que todavía se encontraban en el museo
fueron revisados para su análisis e inventario.
Durante esta revisión, se descubrió un recipiente o urna de cerámica estilo Conte que contenía los restos óseos de un infante menos de
12 meses. La urna y los huesos del infante, según los registros del museo,
provienen de la zona Montículo 3 en cotas profundas (probablemente debajo de la
base del montículo). Fue excavada a fines de la década de 1970. Esta urna
y algunas otras ollas formaban parte de un entierro primario de un adulto.
Presento en este simposio la información de contexto rescatada, los resultados
del estudio bioantropológico del entierro, así como
una aproximarnos a su posible significado.
Several years
of research into the extensive funerary complex located in the El Caño Archaeological Park in Panamá has provided a great
insight into the life and funeral practices of the Rio Grande Chiefdom
(700-1000 CE). In 2017, preparatory work began on a project to renovate and
reopen a museum located in the El Caño Archaeological
Park which has been closed since 2014. Fundación El Caño
(FEC) is involved in this process. As part of the work, the artifacts still in
the museum were reviewed for analysis and inventory. During this review, a
Conte-style ceramic container or urn containing the skeletal remains of an
infant less than 12 months old was discovered. The infant's urn and bones,
according to museum records, has a provenance from the Mound 3 area at deep levels
(probably below the base of the mound). It was excavated in the late
1970s. This urn and some other pots were
part of an adult's primary burial. In this symposium I present the information related
to the rescued context, the results of the bioanthropological study of the
burial, as well as an approximation to its possible meaning.
Palabras clave: Urna funeraria, Entierro primario, Entierro secundario,
El Caño, Infante
Key words: Funeral
urn, Primary burial, Secondary burial, El Caño,
Infant
El Caño is located in the
province of Coclé in the Republic of Panamá. It
lies along the banks of the Rio Grande on the alluvial flood plains of the Bay
of Parita (Mayo and Mayo 2013, 3-4). It was
originally excavated by A. Hyatt Verrill in 1926. Verrill, working with the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, in New York, was searching for artifacts
to exhibit. Verrill discovered what he called “The
Temple of a Thousand Idols” between the Rio Grande and the Rio Carlo in Coclé.
He wrote that he found an enormous site with a great number of potsherds,
mounds and ceremonial monuments including stone idols in human and animal forms
arranged in rows. Many of these monuments and artifacts were later taken from
El Caño back to New York (Verrill
1927, 2-7).
In 1959, James Zelsman
excavated in El Caño and located nine burials five
meters southwest from the stone columns originally discovered by Verrill. Two of the burials had 37 gold beads and five
small gold plates measuring three to four centimeters in diameter (Mayo and Mayo
2013, 5).
In 1973, La Estrella sugar mill was preparing the eight
hectares that now comprise the El Caño Archaeological
Park for planting sugar cane when a bulldozer uncovered four burial urns in the
northwest section. Dr. Richard Cooke of the Smithsonian Tropical Research
Institute conducted a rescue excavation of the area, which was north of where
Mound 3 is currently located. Two of the urns did not contain human remains.
One urn contained the remains of a single individual, insufficiently preserved
to estimate age or sex, along with artifacts made of bone, and shell. In this
urn were also found five European glass beads. The fourth urn contained the
remains of two individuals, an adolescent and a child. Based on the glass
beads, and the fact the urns were all of the same typology group, “Coretzo Rojo/Ante”
the urns were dated to the time period of 1500-1550 AD. (Cooke 1976, 456-457).
These urns were evidence that, at least in the 16th century, the inhabitants of
the area were conducting urn burials.
Dr. Reina Torres de Araúz, the
director of the Historical Heritage Directorate of the National Institute of
Culture (INAC), became involved in El Caño and it was
through her efforts the eight hectares that are now the El Caño
Archaeological Park were put aside for preservation and the El Caño Archaeological museum was built and dedicated in 1979
(INAC 1979, 2). There were other excavations conducted in the 1970s, by
“amateur” archaeologists, (Mayo and Mayo 2013), but no records related to these
excavations were found.
In the early 1980s, Dr. Roberto Lleras
Pérez and Ernesto A. Barillas Cordón conducted
classes in El Caño in Area 2, called “Assistants to the Professional Archaeologist”
(Lleras 1985, 3). Panamanian archaeologist Carlos
Fitzgerald conducted investigations related to Mound 3 in 1988 (Fitzgerald
1993). There were no additional investigations in El Caño
until 2006, when Dr. Julia Mayo and Carlos Mayo of Fundación El Caño began their investigations in Area 1
of the necropolis (Mayo et al. 2018) (Mayo
and Mayo 2013).
Fundación El Caño created a
project plan to rescue and reopen the El Caño
Archaeological Park museum. It had been closed since 2013 due to lack of
funding and was in poor condition. In May 2017, Dr. Julia Mayo and members of
Fundación El Caño, along with archaeological park staff,
began to clean out, sort and inventory the artifacts that remained in the
closed museum to prepare it for renovation work. On May 17, 2017, a glass display case that
used to house an exhibit was processed (Figure 1). It contained three ceramic
vessels, one of which contained bones, and the other two which contained some
ceramic fragments. There were various other animal and human bones and pieces
of ceramic laying around the three ceramic vessels.
Figure 1.
Exhibit case containing ceramic vessels and various human and animal
bones.
According to park administrator Mercedes Meneses and INAC representative Rubén Henríquez,
the artifacts in the glass case came from a 1978 excavation of Mound 3 in Area
2 (Figure 2). An inventory was conducted
of the ceramic vessels and other contents of the glass case.
Figure 2. Map
of the El Caño Archaeological Park with the different
areas identified. (Mayo et al 2018b)
The ceramic vessel to the right in the picture (Figure 1)
had the top half covered in red slip and the bottom in white slip. The inside
of the bowl was covered in white slip and had red dots distributed on the
inside walls. It bore identification
number CL-31-78 on the bottom of it (Figure 3). Upon further inspection,
Administrator Meneses and Archaeologist Carlos Mayo[1]
determined this artifact did not originate in El Caño.
As there is no information related to its provenance, this artifact is not
addressed any further in this paper. It is unknown why this ceramic was in the
same exhibit display as the other two (Mercedes Meneses,
personal communication, February 7, 2018).
Figure 3. Ceramic vessel with
identification number CL-31-78.
The ceramic vessel on the left side of the glass tank was
a red and grey bowl and had a museum registration number, 7-Aa-2-0060, on its
base (Figure 4). Further investigation revealed that the number 7 represents
the El Caño Archaeological museum; the “A” stands for
archaeology; the “a” refers to alfarería which is Spanish for pottery; the number 2
represents the province (Coclé) and the 0060 is the number for the specific
artifact (Mercedes Meneses, personal communication, January
19, 2018).
Figure
4. Ceramic vessel identified with museum
registration number 7-Aa-2-0060.
The ceramic vessel in the middle had
museum registration number 7- Aa-2-0061 on the base (Figure 5). It contained a
number of small bones. The bones were removed from the ceramic vessel and it
was noted that they all had the same number on them as the ceramic vessel, with
one numerical sequence added to the end. This suggested that at the time of
discovery the bones were in the vessel. When the artifact was registered in the
museum, each bone was given a sequential number to the ceramic vessel. After
all of the bones were removed from the vessel an initial determination was made
that the bones in the ceramic vessel were human bones from an infant. At this
point the ceramic vessel became identified as an urn.
Figure 5. Ceramic urn identified with museum registry number 7-Aa-2-0061.
Mr. Henríquez,
who offered to look for any INAC files related to the urn, and INAC
anthropologist Roxana Pino were contacted for assistance related to locating documents
pertaining to these artifacts. No files related to the urn (artifact
7-Aa-2-0061) or any of the other items were found. Also contacted were archaeologists Dr.
Roberto Lleras, who worked in El Caño
in 1985 and co-authored an article about the excavations in El Caño in Mound 4, and Dr. Carlos Fitzgerald, who excavated
in El Caño and specifically in Mound 3 where the
infant urn was found. Both stated they did not excavate the urn and had no
useful information to provide related to the artifact (Roberto Lleras, personal communication, May 23, 2017) (Carlos
Fitzgerald, personal communication, February 08, 2018). On February 26, 2018, Carlos
Mayo contacted Pedro Quirós, former administrator of
the El Caño Archaeological Park. Mr. Quirós stated he did not remember anything and could not be
of any help with this investigation.
El Caño
Archaeological Park tour guide, Reinaldo Oces has
been working in the park since 1987. He stated that when he began working in
the park the urn and some of the other items in the glass exhibit case were
still in Mound 3. They had been partially excavated and left in situ for
display. Mr. Oces indicated the area in Mound 3 where
the urn was on display (Figure 6, the area is identified by the red circle). He
stated that the urn and the other artifacts were removed from Mound 3 in the
1980s for safe keeping and the ceramics were placed on display in the museum.
He further stated it was his understanding that the skeleton closest to the urn
was a female (note that the skeletons in the photograph (Figure 6) are replicas).
Figure 6. Mound 3 with red circle
identifying the area where the urn was located.
This pot was covered in red slip and had obvious signs of
use. The blackened interior and exterior are indicators that it was probably
used for cooking. It had no decoration on the inside or outside (Figure 7). The
ceramic vessel measured 12 cm in height; 48 cm in circumference; 10 cm at
across at the inner neck and 14cm across from outer rim to outer rim. It
belongs to the 'Red Line' tableware (Lothrop, 1942),
which must be included in the Late Ceramic Period I (1) and II (2) (750-1000
AD). It coincides with the time of the tombs from the earlier period of the
necropolis being excavated by the team from the El Caño
Archaeological Project. As it was found in a funeral context, it is possible
that it was used as a censer. Some
vessels with traces of use, like this one, were found in tomb T1. These types of ceramics are normally found on
the platforms that sealed the tombs as an offering. They rarely appear accompanying the bodies (Carlos
Mayo, personal communication, April 11, 2018).
Figure 7. Ceramic vessel identified with
museum registry number 7-Aa-2-0060.
Ms. Pino provided photographs of the El Caño museum when it was in operation. One of the
photographs (Figure 8) included a side view of what appeared to be the same glass
display case that contained the ceramic urn containing the infant skeletal
remains and the other two ceramic vessels referenced above. The quality and
angle of the photograph does not allow confirmation the ceramic vessel bearing
registry number 7-Aa-2-0060 is in the exhibit case but the urn is visible in
the right rear corner. There also appear to be skeletal remains in the center
of the exhibit case. These will be addressed further in the paper.
Figure 8. Photograph of the El Caño Archaeological Park museum when it was in operation.
In the glass display case there were a number of faunal
remains that were lying between and around the ceramic vessels (Figure 9). All
but five of the them had the same museum registration number, 7-Aa-2-0061, with
an additional sequence number. Those identified in Figure 9 as E, F, I, J, and
N did not have numbers. This indicates the faunal items were discovered in
relation to the urn containing the infant skeleton, although the exact relation
is unknown due to the lack of documentation.
Figure 9. Faunal remains that were in the
exhibit case with the urn containing the infant skeleton.[2] (identified by Rochelle Marrinan, PhD, Dean,
Department of Anthropology Florida State University, and Máximo
Jiménez, faunal analyst, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute)
The human bones that were in the display case with the
urn were inspected. The majority of these bones also bore the same museum
registration number as the urn with an additional sequence number. It was
determined that there were a minimum number of two individuals represented in
the adult bone collection. This was primarily based on the identification of
two left calcaneus bones (Figure 10, item Z). There is clearly more than one
individual represented, however there is no identifiable sex due to the fact
that the remains recovered were so fragmented and incomplete. As with the
animal bones, there is no graphic documentation or excavation notebooks to link
these skeletal remains with the infant found in the urn. The only definitive connection
is the museum registration numbers.
R Q S T Y W N O H V C M L K J F E D B U X Z P I A G
A
The urn measures 11 cm in height; 51 cm in circumference;
13 cm across at the widest part of the opening and has a 9 cm diameter at the
opening of the neck (Figure 11). It appeared to be a used pot due to the traces
of black on the inside and outside which are indications of cooking. There were
scratches on it that may have been caused by a toothed tool used to compact the
walls. Due to the missing rim and lack of decoration on the pot, no
determination could be made of style or period (Archaeologist Carlos Mayo, personal
communication, February 07, 2018).
Figure 11. Urn with infant skeleton inside and after the skeleton was removed.
4.5 The Infant Skeleton
Figure
12. Skeleton of
infant in the urn bearing museum identification number 7-Aa-2-0061.
The skeleton of the infant was systematically measured
and categorized (Figure 12). Most of the bones were identified with number 7-Aa-2-0061-additional
sequence number. Very small bones only had a sequence number on them but were
identifiable as being a part of the skeleton. There were some bones with no
number at all. A vertebra bone sample was
sent to Beta Analytic, Inc. in Miami, Florida, for radiocarbon dating in
January 2018. [4]
The radiocarbon dating result was 107 cal BC-58 cal AD (2056-1892 cal BP). Based
on the extensive research and analysis previously conducted at El Caño, this could not be a viable date.
After discussions with Director Taylor of Beta Analytic, Ms.
Meneses was contacted. She advised the museum had
been fumigated utilizing a ¨bug bomb¨ or ¨fogger¨ method at least twice since
May 2017, after the urn had been removed from the display case (Mercedes Meneses, personal communication, February 16, 2018).
Fumigants and insecticides are known potential contaminates according to
Director Taylor (Chris Patrick, personal communication, February 12, 2018). As
the cause of contamination cannot be confirmed, the fumigation can only be
considered a possible cause.
While the radiocarbon tested was deemed unusable, the
ceramic vessel associated with the urn could be used to provide a date range
for the urn. The ceramic vessel bearing museum registry 7-Aa-2-0060 was
determined to belong to a ceramic period dating between 750-1000 AD, and so
that is the period that will be utilized for the urn and infant skeleton.
Samples of the infant bones were studied and photographed
utilizing a microscope[5] in an attempt
to identify any evidence of disease. Signs of porosis,
in addition to other conditions, were specifically looked for. Porosis and periostitis have been found in skeletons in the
tombs from the first time period of use of the necropolis being excavated by
the team from the El Caño Archaeological Project. There
were no signs of any disease identified in the infant skeleton.
After completing the measurements of the bones, Dr. Herrerín was able to determine the infant was a fetus of 38-40
weeks of intrauterine life or gestation. In his opinion, the fetus died either
during birth or immediately after. Sex estimation and cause of death were not
identifiable (Table 1). (Scheuer and Black 2004).
|
Long Bone |
Left |
Right |
|
Femur |
73 mm |
73 mm |
|
Tibia |
62 mm |
62 mm |
|
Fibula |
59 mm (partial) |
60 mm |
|
Humerus |
61 mm |
Not recovered |
|
Radius |
50 mm |
50 mm |
|
Ulna |
60 mm |
54 mm (partial) |
Table 1. Measurements of fetus
long bones.
To determine if
the urn was a primary or secondary burial it was necessary to evaluate if the
infant could have fit in the pot with the rim intact. The diameter neck opening
measured 9 cm in diameter. In a study carried out in Colombia on 3,674 vaginal
births in cephalic presentation between 20 and 43 weeks of gestation, the
average head circumference (CP; measurement of fetal head circumference in the
first hour postpartum) was 33.2 cm. In boys, the percentiles move between 32
and 36 cm, and in girls between 31.5 and 35.5 cm (Rubio, 2005). This translates
into an average head diameter of 10.56 cm, with values between 10.47 and 10.69
cm (95% of cases), in vaginal births at term and in children without
abnormalities.
If we take into
account the flexibility of the cranial bones in babies, with the presence of
fontanelles, and that the child may have been born at 38 weeks of pregnancy,
the diameter of the 9 cm urn is sufficient for the newborn, already deceased,
to have been completely inserted into the vessel.
5. BURIAL ANALYSIS
To date, the urn containing the infant bones is the only
urn containing a fetus discovered in the El Caño
necropolis. If the animal and other human bones were indeed found along with
the urn, particularly if they were in the ceramic pot bearing museum number
7-Aa-2-0060, this would additionally support the hypothesis that the urn was an
offering and or part of a group of cultural and environmental items that in
total comprised the offering.
There is evidence of infant offerings discovered in the
tombs of the first period of occupation, 700 to 1020 AD (Mayo and Mayo 2013). In
2011, tomb T2 was excavated. In stratigraphic unit 128, a set of three
miniature gold pectorals, four miniature gold bracelets and a necklace made of
green beads was discovered (Figures 13 and 14). In stratigraphic unit 087, one
miniature gold pectoral and two miniature gold bracelets were found (figure 15).
Stratigraphic unit 128 was two levels below unit 087 and adjoining a wall (Mayo
et al. 2016).
All of the miniature gold pectorals have the same
iconography as the pectorals worn by the primary burial in tomb T2. This
indicates these miniature gold artifacts have a connection to the primary
burial, representing either a descendant or the adornments he would wear in his
“rebirth” in the beyond (Julia Mayo, personal communication, April 19, 2018).
While the finds were initially assigned numbers as though they were burials, no
evidence of skeletons were found. Stratigraphic unit 087 was the last level of
activity identified in tomb T2. Subsequently, these artifacts have been
interpreted as an offering to close the tomb, rather than a burial (Mayo et al.
2016).
Figure 13. Archaeologist Carlos Mayo
excavating a set of three miniature gold pectorals, four miniature gold
bracelets and a necklace made of green beads discovered in tomb T2,
stratigraphic unit 128. (Mayo 2014)
Figure 14. The set of three miniature gold pectorals, four miniature gold
bracelets and a necklace made of green beads discovered in tomb T2,
stratigraphic unit 128. (Mayo 2014)
Figure
15. Miniature gold pectoral and two bracelets discovered in tomb T2,
stratigraphic unit 087. (Mayo 2014)
In tomb 6, also excavated in 2011, a figurine was located
in stratigraphic level 125 in relation to individual I01 (Figure 16). The figure was carved from the tooth of a sperm whale and depicts what appears to be
an adult figure carrying an infant in its arms, with a monkey on its head. Parts
of the figure are covered in gold sleeves. The figure measures 84mm high; 36 mm
wide; 33mm deep and weighs 32.9 grams. It was dated radiocarbon date Cal AD 775
to 790 (Cal BP 1175 to 1160)/Cal AD 800 to 980 (Cal BP 1150 to 970). The condition
and quantity of the remains of individual I01 did not allow for determining a
gender but it was likely an adult.
The manner in
which the infant is being carried, across both arms, as well as the posture of
the individual such as the flexed knees, has been interpreted indicate the
figure to be offering the infant. The location of the gold sleeves on the monkey
figure suggests the artist was representing a white monkey (Cebus capucinus imitator) or a white Caribbean
(Cebus capucinus capucinus), species with infanticidal customs. Figures
of adults interpreted as depicting the offering of an infant has also been
found in Olmec and St. Augustine cultures (Guinea 2018).
Evidence of
possible infant offerings have been found in locations other than El Caño. For example, Lothrop (1954, 229) wrote about numerous
urns located in Venado Beach, Panamá, containing the
skeletal remains of infants. These urns were found placed near an adult. This has close parallels to the urn found in El
Caño. The description by Lothrop suggests these were
burials of sacrificed infants who were “expected to grow up and serve (the
adult) in another world”.
Figure 16. Figure carved from a sperm whale
tooth with gold sleeves covering some extremities. Tomb T6. Conte style. (Mayo
2017)
Another
view-point is that the urn containing the
fetus skeleton is simply a primary burial of a fetus. The burial is unique and,
to date, no others like it have been found in the necropolis. If the adult
skeleton it was found near can be located and determined to be a woman, an
additional layer of specialness can be added to the burial, particularly if a
connection between the two can be confirmed. It would also fit more closely
with Lothrop’s findings. The animal bones that are associated with the fetus
skeleton could be a possible offering but without additional data that is not
possible to confirm either. The mix of adult bones that represent a minimum of
two people suggest that they are from some various burials from Mound 3 rather
than a part of an offering. The part of the necropolis where the urn was
uncovered, Area 2, is the location of previously discovered low status
individuals (Mayo et al 2018) (Mayo et al 2016). Based on the location, the
simplicity of the urn, and the dating of the accompanying ceramic, this could
have been a burial of a low status individual whose family, because of the
deceased being a child, placed it in the ceramic urn as their way to provide it
a special burial. Utilizing the ceramic accompanying the urn, it is likely the
urn was not interred in the artificial mound, identified as Mound 3, but was
already buried when the mound was built on top of it.
6.
CONCLUSION
At some point between 1020 AD and
1100 AD, the Coclé burial practices changed from subterranean interments to
above ground (mound and urn) interments.
This is evident in the differences of the burials discovered by Dr.
Julia Mayo that date between 700 and 1020 AD, and the urns rescued by Dr. Richard
Cooke that date between 1500 and 1550 AD.
Analysis and investigation of the
abandoned museum exhibits has revealed that one of the urns previously on
display contained the remains of a fetus and constitutes a primary burial.
Significantly, this is the only example of an infant urn burial found in El Caño to date. No infant skeletons have been uncovered in
the early occupation period, in any condition. This was determined to be a primary
burial due to the quantity of bones, particularly small bones that were
recovered from the urn. If the bones had been recovered from the body after
burial or desiccation and stored in the urn, without a doubt many more of the
bones would not have been in the urn. While we cannot know the specific position
of the fetus when it was introduced into the urn, measurements taken of the urn
and the bones clearly show that the fetus would have fit whole.
Despite extensive investigation, contemporaneous
archaeological records documenting these artifacts have not been found. Perhaps
they do not exist. While there have been no documents or photographs found
relating to the original locations of these artifacts, it is probable that the
human and animal bones were originally found in close proximity to the urn containing
the infant. It is also possible that the animal and other human bones were
parts of a package buried together.
One hypothesis is that the bones of the adult humans are
related to those of the fetus in the urn, and that the urn and the animal bones
are part of an offering of items to accompany the adult humans in the beyond. Another
possibility is that this fetus was the child of a high-status member of the
community and, due to this, given a special interment. However, in the opinion
of the authors, the most likely explanation is that this urn burial was the method
by which a low status family provided their child with the best interment they could
with their limited means.
If any documentation related to these artifacts is
discovered at some point in the future, these theories can be revisited and
reevaluated. As excavation work continues in El Caño
more urns may be found. Any subsequent discoveries will likely expand our knowledge
of the funerary practices of the Coclé in the late occupation period.
Binford, Lewis R. (1971): “Mortuary Practices: Their
Study and Their Potential”. In: Memoirs
of the Society for American Archaeology, No. 25, Approaches to the Social
Dimensions of Mortuary Practices: 6-29.
Brock, Fiona,
Rachel Wood, Thomas F G Higham, Peter Ditchfield, Alex Bayliss,
Christopher
Bronk Ramsey
(2013): “Reliability of Nitrogen Content
(%N) and Carbon:Nitrogen
Atomic Ratios
(C:N) as Indicators of Collegen
Preservation Suitable for Radiocarbon Dating”. In Radiocarbon:
879-886.
Cooke,
Richard G., Luís Alberto Sánchez Herrera and Koichi Udagawa
(2000): “Contextualized
Goldwork from
“Gran Coclé”, Panamá; An update based on Recent
Excavations and New
Radiocarbon
Dates for Associated Pottery Styles”. In: Precolumbian Gold:Technology,
Style and
Inconography, edited by
Colin McEwan, 154-172. London:British Museum Press.
Cooke, Richard G.
(1976): “Rescate Arqueológico en El Caño (NA-20), Coclé”. In: Actas del IV Simposio Nacional de Arqueología,
Antropología y Etnohistoria de Panamá, 447-482. Panamá: Instituto Nacional de Cultura de Panamá.
Cooke,
Richard G. (1972): “The Archaeology of the Western Cocle
Province of Panama”. Phd diss., University of London.
Curet, L. Antonio and José R. Oliver (1998): “Mortuary
Practices, Social Development, and Ideology in Precolumbian
Puerto Rico”. In: Latin American Antiquity
9(3): 217-239.
De La Guardia, Roberto (1983): “Antigüedades”. In: Revistas Lotería, Mayo-Junio
Nos. 326-327:77-104. Digitalizado por la Asamblea Nacional 2007.
Fitzgerald B., Carlos
M. (1993): “Informe Preliminar Sobre Excavaciones Arqueológicas En El Caño
(NA-20), Temporada 1988”. In: El Caño,
Comunidad y Cultura:33-79. Panamá: Centro Interamericano Subregional de
Restauración OEA_INAC/ Editorial Mariano Arosemena.
Guinea, Mercedes (2018): “Escenas relacionadas con la
muerte y el sacrificio en la iconografía de los ajuares funerarios de la
necrópolis de El Caño, Panamá (AD 750-1020)”.
En Las sociedades complejas
prehispánicas en el arco seco de Panamá. Salamanca: Actas del 56º Congreso
Internacional de Americanistas.
Herrerín, Jesús (2017): “Informe
de Huesos, Consulta, Alexa Hancock, El Caño Necropolis.” November 2017.
Instituto Nacional de Cultura (INAC) (1979): Parque
Arqueológico de El Caño Inauguración. Dirección Nacional de Patrimonio Histórico.
Ladd, John (1957): “A Stratigraphic Trench at Sitio Conte”. In: American Antiquity, 22(3):265-271.
Lleras Pérez, Roberto y Ernesto A.
Barrillas Cordón (1985): “Excavaciones Arqueológicas en El Monticulo
4 de El Caño”. Panamá: Instituto Nacional de Cultura y Centro Restauración
OEA-INAC.
Lothrop,
Samuel K. (1942): Coclé: An Archaeological Study of Central Panama, Part 2.
Cambridge: Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 8. Harvard University Press.
Mayo, Julia, Jesus Herrerín, Carlos Mayo, Mercedes Guinea, Miguel Ángel Hervás and Alfredo Fernández-Valmayor
(2018): “Ritual Violence in El Caño”. “Manuscript in Preparation”. Centro de Investigaciones Arqueológicas del Istmo,
Fundación El Caño, Cuidad
del Saber, Clayton, Panama.
Mayo,
Julia, Carlos Mayo, Mercedes Guinea Jesús Herrerín,
Miguel Ángel Hervás y
Alfredo Fernández-Valmayor (2018 b): “Social Order at
Social Order at El Caño Necropolis” (hereinafter
called the “Work”) for the volume provisionally entitled Toward an Archaeology of “Greater” Central America, edited by Colin
McEwan, Bryan Cockrell, and John W. Hoopes.
Mayo, Julia, Carlos Mayo, Mercedes
Guinea, Miguel Ángel Hervás , Jesús Herrerín (2016): “EL CAÑO: ORDEN SOCIAL EN LA
NECRÓPOLIS DE “EL CAÑO”. Congreso de Antropología e Historia de Panamá, Cuidad
del Saber, Clayton. September 7-9, 2016. Poster presentation.
Mayo, Julia, Carlos Mayo and Mercedes Guinea (2016): “El
Caño: Los Rituales Funerarios de los Jefes Guerreros.” Congreso de Antrología e Historia de Panamá. Asociación de Antropología
e Historia de Panamá. Cuidad del Saber, Clayton. September
7-9, 2016. Poster presentation.
Mayo, Julia and Carlos Mayo (2013): “El Descubrimiento de
un Cementerio de Élite en El Caño: Indicios de un Patrón Funerario en El Valle
de Río Grande, Coclé, Panamá”. In: Arqueología
Iberoamericana, 20:3-27.
Mayo,
Julia (2017): Figure of animal bone and gold sleeves. June,
2017. El Caño Archeological Project Repository,
Panama. April 2018. http://oda-fec.org/nata/view/cm_view_virtual_object.php?idov=954&seleccion=1.
Mayo, Julia (2014): Ajuar funerario del individuo I20,
infante enterrado en el tercer nivel de la tumba T2. July, 2014. El Caño
Archeological Project Repository, Panama. April 2018. http:.//oda-fec.org/nata/view/mostrar_imagen.php?idrecurso=1802&idov=387.
Mayo, Julia (2014): Carlos Mayo excavando un ajuar en
miniatura compuesto por tres pectorales, cuatro brazaletes y un collar de
cuentas de piedras verdes, en la unidad UE128. July, 2014. El Caño Archeological Project
Repository, Panama. April 2018.
http://oda-fec.org/nata/view/mostrar_imagen.php?idrecurso=897&idov=387.
Mayo, Julia (2014): Miniature gold pectoral and two
bracelets discovered in tomb T2, stratigraphic unit 087. September 2014. El Caño Archeological Project Repository, Panama. April 2018. http://oda-fec.org/nata/view/cm_view_virtual_object.php?idov=421&seleccion=1&pes=met.
Miranda G., Roberto y Eric Gutiérrez
(1993): “Geología del Parque Arqueológico El Caño y Alrededores”. In: El Caño, Comunidad y Cultura:11-32.
Panamá: Centro Interamericano Subregional de Restauración OEA_INAC/ Editorial
Mariano Arosemena.
Mojica Alexis, Louis Pastor, Christian Camerlynck, Nicolas Florsch, y
Alan Tabbagh (2014): “Magnetic Prospection of the
Pre-Columbian Archaeological Site of El Caño in the
cultural region of Gran Coclé, Panama”. In: Archaeological
Prospection 2014. Wiley Online Library.
Pearson, Mike
Parker (2000): The Archaeology of Death
and Burial. Texas. Texas A&M University
Press.
Rubio, JA. (2005):
“Política selectiva de episiotomía y riesgo de desgarro perineal en un hospital
universitario”. In: Obstetricia y Ginecología,Vol. 56 No.2 :116-126.
Scheuer, Louise
and Sue Black (2004): The Juvenile Skeleton. San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press.
Torres de Araúz, Reina y Oscar
A. Velarde B. (1978): “El Parque Arqueológico de El Caño; un Proyecto
en Ejecución”. In: Revista Patrimonio
Histórico, 2(1).
Verrill, A. Hyatt (1927): “Excavations in Coclé Province, Panama”. Indian Notes, 4(1):48.
Verrill, A. Hyatt (1927): “The Pompeii of an
Ancient America; A Vast Settlement Destroyed Centuries Before Christ”. The World’s Work. Digitized by Doug
Frizzle, January 2011.
[1] Doctoral candidate in archaeology, Universidad de
Santiago de Compostela and co-investigator of the El Caño Archaeological
Project, in charge of the stylistic and typological studies of the ceramic
component of the funeral complex of El Caño
[2] A-E:
metatarsal and cervical vertebraes, Odocoileus virginianus (white tailed deer). F. shell, Ostrea (oyster) G. spinal spine, Bairdiella ensifera (Sword spine croaker) H. incisor, Dasyprocta (agouti) I. weaver complex, Notarius
kessleri (Sculptured sea catfish) J. weaver
complex, Notarius cookei (False
Sculptured sea catfish) K. vertebra, Bagre
Marinus
(catfish), L.
vertebra, Sphyrna lewini (Scalloped Hammerhead) M. Weberian apparatus, Bagre Marinus (Gafftopsail catfish) N-O.
pectoral spines, Bagre Marinus (Gafftopsail catfish)
[3] A.
tibia B. ulna C. distal tibia D. ulna E. right humerus F. left humerus G.
humerus head fragment H. radius head fragment I. distal humerus J. right
metacarpal K. left metacarpal L. left metacarpal M. trapezium N. right clavicle
O. left clavicle P. rib fragments Q. right first rib R. possible ilium fragment
S. ilium fragment T. possible distal humerus U. os coxae V. right temporal W.
long bone fragments X. ulna Y. left metatarsal Z. two left calcaneus.
[4] Beta Analytic advised
that there was enough collagen for dating. Deputy Director Patrick, stated that
the C:N ratio was 3.8, the typical ranging being 2.9-3.6; the %C was 40.68, the
typical range being around 42; and the %N was 12.58 with the range normally
being 14-15. These ranges were slightly outside normal expectations, which may
have led to the sample being erroneously dated from a more recent period. (Chris
Taylor, email communication to Dr. Julia Mayo and shared with the author,
January 30, 2018).
[5] Stemi
2000-C with camera Zeiss AxioCam ERc5s, s/n MHG1881