YAX NUUN AYIN AND THE TEOTIHUACAN CONNECTION

The nature of the relationship between the central Mexican city of Teotihuacan and the Maya has been debated for many years. Because Teotihuacan-style architecture, iconography, ceramics, and green Pachuca obsidian have been found at many sites in the Maya area, scholars have long suggested that the central Mexican state may have played a pivotal role in Early Classic Maya history. Although some degree of elite interaction between the distant cultures is widely accepted, the nature of this relationship is still unclear (Braswell 2003b). Some argue for a militaristic incursion of Teotihuacanos to key sites during the Early Classic period, while others propose that the foreign elements can be explained as appropriation of prestigious foreign symbols by indigenous Maya kings who aimed to reinforce their own local political authority (Demarest and Foias 1993).

At Tikal, evidence for contact with Teotihuacan is found in talud-tablero architecture in several parts of the site, especially in Group 6C-XVI (Laporte 1989), the Mundo Perdido complex (Laporte and Fialko 1995), and the East Plaza (Jones 1996). Iconographic elements on carved monuments and ceramics also suggest strong links with Teotihuacan (Coggins 1975, 1979). After studying the Tikal inscriptions in 1970, Tatiana Proskouriakoff (1993:8) was first to propose that Tikal had been invaded by Teotihuacanos in a.d. 378. Although Proskouriakoff's invasion hypothesis was discarded by subsequent epigraphers, recent work by David Stuart (2000), Simon Martin (2003) and Nikolai Grube (Martin and Grube 2000) supports the idea of a direct political and, perhaps, military relationship between the cities.

The Early Classic ruler Yax Nuun Ayiin I (First Crocodile, Curl Nose) evidently had strong ties with Teotihuacan. He is depicted in central Mexican costume on Stela 4 and on the sides of Stela 31. Yax Nuun Ayiin was inaugurated as ruler of Tikal in a.d. 379, and the event was overseen by a powerful lord named Siyah K'ak' (Fire-born, Smoking Frog). Siyah K'ak' is said to have “arrived” in the Tikal–Uaxactun area on 16 January a.d. 378, the day after the apparent demise of Tikal's ruler Chak Tok Ich'aak (Great Jaguar Paw). Since he is mentioned in the inscriptions at El Perú (a Maya city 80 km west of Tikal) some 8 days before he first arrived at Tikal, Siyah K'ak' seems to have come from the west (Stuart 2000). Both Stuart (2000) and Martin and Grube (2000; Martin 2003) argue that Yax Nuun Ayiin was the son of Spearthrower Owl, whose name glyph resembles the Teotihuacano lechuza y armas motif. Although Spearthrower Owl's accession to a throne and his death are reported in several inscriptions, exactly which polity he ruled over is unclear. It may have been Teotihuacan itself (Stuart 2000). He appears to have served as an overlord of sorts at several Peten sites (Martin 2003; Martin and Grube 2000). By contrast, it is significant that Yax Nuun Ayiin has a Mayan name (Stuart 2000). Indeed, Yax Nuun Ayiin may have had maternal connections to the previous dynasty at Tikal (Martin 1999). Since Spearthrower Owl reigned from a.d. 374 until his death in a.d. 439, Yax Nuun Ayiin may have been quite young when he came to the throne of Tikal in a.d. 379. Moreover, he is depicted in reduced size on Stela 31 as compared with his son Siyah Chan K'awil, where he is also referred to as a “k'atun lord,” meaning that he was younger than 20 years. Together these references imply that Yax Nuun Ayiin probably was still a child when he ascended to the throne of Tikal (Stuart 2000). He may have been selected to rule the city following the natural demise of Chak Tok Ich'aak, who perhaps left no more appropriate male heirs. If so, Siyah K'ak' may have served temporarily as the regent at Tikal, until the young boy came of age (Braswell 2003a; Harrison 1999).

Weaknesses in this scenario lie in the vague references to the location of Spearthrower Owl's home reign, and in the decipherment of key phrases concerning Siyah K'ak's arrival at Tikal, which may also be read to indicate that he was originally from Tikal (Braswell 2003a). Thus, alternative explanations are also consistent with the inscriptions. Indeed, Spearthrower Owl's connections with a “place of reeds”—which Stuart (2000) interprets to be Teotihuacan—may be a mythical honor, posthumously ascribed to Yax Nuun Ayiin's father, to justify a change in dynastic succession and legitimize the child king (Braswell 2003a). Changes in the iconographic programs employed on stelae erected during Yax Nuun Ayiin's reign, which portray the ruler as a Teotihuacano warrior in frontal pose, demonstrate a shift from earlier iconographic programs. James Borowicz (2003) argues that Yax Nuun Ayiin chose to emulate a foreign style, thus emphasizing his foreign connections rather than his local ancestry. Were he a foreigner whose claim to the throne rested on his maternal ancestry, the earlier program could arguably have better legitimized his claim to the throne than the militaristic foreign program that he adopted.

Rather than an externally motivated military incursion, factions within Tikal's royal family may have invited elite Teotihuacano diplomats or traders to intervene in Tikal's dynastic succession (Culbert 2005). T. Patrick Culbert argues that it is unlikely that a paramount ruler of Teotihuacan would have led a military expedition to distant Tikal and spent sufficient time in residence to have married and fathered Yax Nuun Ayiin, a perspective echoed by George Cowgill (2003). It is perhaps more likely that a woman of Tikal's royal lineage traveled to Teotihuacan, and her child was born and raised there. Ceramic and iconographic evidence from Tetitla, Tlailotlacan, and the Merchant's Barrio is consistent with a significant Maya elite presence at Teotihuacan in the Early Classic period (Taube 2003). Oxygen isotope ratios of some skeletons from the Feathered Serpent Pyramid at Teotihucan are also consistent with an origin in the Maya area (Spence et al. 2004; White et al. 2002). If Spearthrower Owl was indeed a ruler of Teotihuacan, then it would seem likely that his son might have been born at that site. Alternatively, Spearthrower Owl may have ruled over an unidentified Maya polity and married a royal woman from Tikal (Braswell 2003a). Political links to Teotihuacan may have been much weaker—or, indeed, fictitious—serving to validate a change in the line of succession among local Tikal royalty. Therefore, direct geochemical evidence obtained from Yax Nuun Ayiin's skeleton that can shed light on his childhood home may help to resolve this issue.

Clemency Coggins (1975:137–176) identified Burial PTP-010 as the likely grave of Yax Nuun Ayiin I. This tomb was located on the centerline of Structure 5D-34, in front of which Yax Nuun Ayiin's Stelae 4 and 18 had been reset. The tomb contained Manik III phase ceramics decorated with central Mexican deities and motifs. Among the ceramics is a tripod cylinder vessel bearing an inscription that Martin deciphers as “the drinking vessel of the son of Spearthrower Owl” (Martin and Grube 2000:33; personal communication 2003). Although other faunal remains were also present, the interment of a crocodile along with the human cadavers in the tomb is symbolically consistent with the identification of the grave as that belonging to “First Crocodile” (Harrison 1999). Yax Nuun Ayiin may have died in a.d. 404 (Martin and Grube 2000:33). In his detailed description of the North Acropolis excavations in Tikal Report No. 14, William Coe (1990) placed Burial PTP-010 in Structure 34's Time Span 5C, predating the radiocarbon date (P-284, a.d. 370–490) from the later Time Span 5A. Thus, Yax Nuun Ayiin's tomb must have been constructed in the first two decades of the fifth century a.d. (Coe 1990).

EXCAVATION AND CONTEXT OF THE HUMAN REMAINS

Excavation of Temple 5D-34 began in 1958, under the general supervision of Edwin Shook, director of the Tikal Project. Burial PTP-010 was encountered in May 1959. Stuart Scott supervised the North Acropolis excavations during the summer of 1959; however, the tomb excavation was continued by Shook, with some assistance from Aubrey Trik and Ann Chowning after Scott's departure on August 2 (Shook 1959). A detailed discussion of the excavation process is necessary here for several reasons: (1) several archaeologists supervised the excavation using different systems to enumerate the skeletons; (2) the skeletons were renumbered before publication in Tikal Report No. 14; and (3) the teeth have been intermingled in the course of subsequent osteological work. Because Coe's (1990:479–487) description of PTP-010 omits several key details that aid our identification of the skeletons, the following discussion is drawn primarily from original field notes (Scott 1959; Shook 1959), operation cards, and other unpublished notes in the Tikal Room archive at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Table 1 contains the correlation between the field burial and lot designations for the skeletons and the alphabetic designations published in Coe (1990). The published map of the tomb in Figure 2 was pieced together by Coe from field notes and photographs; Figure 2 identifies each skeleton using Coe's alphabetic designations.

Skeletal remains from burial PTP-010, indicating correlation between field and published designations

Map of Tikal's Burial PTP-010 (modified from Coe 1990:Figure 160).

The tomb was found during north–south axial trenching of Structure 34 and first identified as a disturbance cutting east–west through the terrace floor (U.27) of the earlier Platform 5D-4-3rd (Coe 1990:479). Removing the fill, Scott encountered roughly hewn stairs carved from the structure fill and bedrock below. Following northward and down the stairs, he encountered a vertical cut face of bedrock that formed the north wall of the descending stairway. This entry stair had been filled with six layers of chert flakes and one layer of chert and obsidian debitage, comparable to that later found above many other royal burials at Tikal. Tunneling below this vertical face through dense fill, Shook (1959:24) described molds of two thick ropes and a wall of dense fill that blocked the entrance to the tomb. Breaking through this wall, the excavators found a large pile of rubble fallen from the bedrock ceiling of the tomb. The skeleton of a 6-year-old child was encountered at this point and later denominated Skeleton J. Scott (1959:178) described these bones as stained “pink, nearly red” and designated them “Burial 8.”

The imminent collapse of the bedrock ceiling over the tomb hampered further excavation, so work was halted, and excavators approached the tomb from above, removing the collapsing bedrock ceiling. Clearing the material over the tomb in May and June, excavators again reached the tomb contents in early July 1959. The “bedrock” consisted of a mix of large lime blocks, chalk, clay, and sand, but the tomb walls had originally been lined with limestone blocks that may also have helped to support the “bedrock” ceiling, and these had collapsed inward at the north end of the tomb, giving the appearance of a “beehive vaulting” (Shook 1959:25). Shook speculated that the ceiling was crumbling even as the tomb contents were being placed. Coe (1990:480) offered the interpretation that the ropes crossing the entry closure may have suspended the primary interment above the tomb floor.

Having constructed a wooden roof over the excavation, Scott excavated the tomb contents from south to north, beginning along the midline of the tomb. North of where the first child had been recovered, he encountered a second skull lying upside down in light gray/brown lime-rich soil. This was designated “Burial 12” and later renumbered Skeleton E. These bones had a pink tinge evident throughout the bone cortex. Scott (1959:178) speculated that the skeleton had been “sitting or otherwise contracted.” The skull and long bones of this adolescent were mingled with vertebrae from a smaller child. Scott inferred that the smaller bones pertained to “Burial 8” (J), which, like the bones of “Burial 12” (E), had been scattered with the collapse of the tomb's facing walls.

Moving northward, excavation began to uncover the central cluster of skeletons, including the extended supine principal occupant of the tomb. These four individuals, later designated Skeletons A, B, C, and D, were initially considered together by Scott as “Burial 14.” However, he commonly referred to the extended central adult skeleton (later redesignated A) as “Burial 14,” to the exclusion of the other remains. The cranium of “Burial 14” (A) was “definitely” not deformed (Scott 1959:217), although it was brightly colored red, especially on the frontal bones (Scott 1959:214). However, A's skeleton was mottled both red and black. Scott (1959:192) described the central cluster of skeletons as having been “laid on a feather or tapestry cloth that decayed to produce a black carbon deposit below the bones” that continued north of the skull of “Burial 14” (A). Slightly east of A's tibia, the skull of an adolescent was identified, and later designated individual D. This skeleton was covered by the “mantle,” which stained its bones dark brown. The skull of individual C was found under the left femur of the extended Skeleton A. Individual B appears to be a cluster of long bones located under the chest area of the principal occupant (Individual A) and may be the bones that Scott referred to as “Burial 17,” which he states were difficult to excavate because of close proximity to the central skeleton. To the west of the “Burial 14” remains, Scott briefly described a cluster of bone as “Burial 16,” which Coe designated on the burial map as Individual F.

Scott left Tikal on August 2, 1959 and the excavation was continued under Shook's supervision. Excavating eastward from the main skeleton, this team encountered the crocodile skeleton. Although Coe (1990:485) described the crocodile as “apparently headless,” Shook's (1959:26) notes indicate that Scott had previously removed the head. Excavation proceeded from east of the main skeleton northward and westward along the north margin of the tomb, which was in part delimited by a masonry wall. Shook (1959:27) described the human remains in the northwest portion of the tomb as follows:

By “Skeleton A,” Shook is not referring to the tomb's principal occupant, but to the semiflexed skeleton that Coe later referred to as “Skeleton G.” This new enumeration system appears to have been implemented for human remains removed from the tomb after Scott's departure. “Skeleton B” presumably refers to Coe's “H” or “I” (Figure 2). At the end of August 1959, Shook (1959:42) summarized the human remains found in the tomb as follows: “main or chief skeleton and 7 plus young individuals from 6 years to adolescent (one with filed teeth). Burial 14 (chief), 8, 12, 13, 16, 20, A, and B. A has filed teeth.”

Oddly, Shook does not mention “Burial 17,” nor does Scott mention “Burial 13” or “20” in his notes. Coe's description of the tomb makes no mention of the filed teeth of Skeleton “A.” The lot card for PTP-010 indicates that the feature was “consolidated as Burial 10 by Shook and Coe” in October 1959, at which time the skeletons were renumbered.

THE OSTEOLOGY OF PTP-010

During the 1959 excavations, the human remains from Burial PTP-010 were studied in preliminary fashion by Chowning, who estimated age at death for several skeletons (Shook 1959:43). These were later studied by William Haviland, who provided the age estimates reported by Coe (1990:480–481). The skeletal remains exported to Philadelphia for study were mostly dental and include the majority of the PTP-010 remains that were curated. These dental remains were sent via A. V. Kidder in February 1964 to Allan G. Schiek, a Delaware dentist, for study. An inventory of teeth sent to Sheik indicates that the various individuals from PTP-010 had been “mixed up in 1962.” These are currently at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. In addition, some human remains and many artifacts excavated by the University of Pennsylvania have been curated in a warehouse at Tikal National Park. These include human bones and teeth from PTP-010.²

In Philadelphia, I was able to sort out most of the PTP-010 remains to reconstruct separate individuals using the enamel color, dentine color, crown shape, cusp patterns, stage of development, and position and patterning of enamel hypoplasias on the crowns. Although several mandibles and maxillae were labeled as to lot number or individual, or were in bags with lot numbers, it became clear that many of these did not match. Only individual PTP-010J appeared to be securely identified by the labels on the bone. Thus, I established a new individual enumeration system for eight of these reconstructed individuals, PTP-010W1 through W8. Teeth that I could not positively match to a specific individual were inventoried as PTP-010X. Table 2 contains a summary of these individuals, their best correspondence to the individuals reported in Tikal Report No. 14 (Coe 1990), and the estimated ages at death.

Individual age assessments and correlation to published individuation for Burial PTP-010

For each tooth, I scored the state of development following the system of Coenraad Moorrees and colleagues (1963) but added an inventory code (R_f) for teeth that had completed crown formation and considerable root formation but for which the apical margin of the root was damaged, preventing a precise estimation of root formation. Teeth that were present in dental crypts and thus could not be scored were designated “NO” for “present but not observable.” I estimated age at death using both Moorrees and colleagues' (1963) developmental standards for the permanent mandibular teeth (Smith 1991) and the formation/eruption table of Douglas Ubelaker (1989). Table 3 contains the inventory, formation stages, and age assessment for all of the dental remains from PTP-010. Alveolar bone associated with these individuals is also indicated in the table. Difficulty in discriminating stages during apex completion (R_c, A_1/2, A_c) leads to some inconsistency in ages estimated for individual teeth from a single skeleton. Moreover, it should be noted that ages for teeth near completion indicate ages beyond which the individual survived. In some cases, the ages estimated using tooth formation (Smith 1991) are younger than those for formation/eruption (Ubelaker 1989), due to differences in the developmental standards between populations. Overall, I have found Ubelaker's table to function well with Maya dentitions; thus, the summary ages given in Table 2 emphasize these standards. In the following discussion, I use standard symbology to identify individual teeth.³

Dental inventory, formation stages, and age at death of the PTP-010 remains

At Tikal National Park, a chocolate box labeled “Bu. 10” contained subadult skeletal material, a partial adult femur, and teeth. I was able to separate the teeth of two individuals, both of which initially appeared to be adults. Individual “PTP-010A” is represented by a nearly complete permanent maxillary dentition, excepting the right maxillary molars. The mandibular dentition consists of posterior teeth on both sides of the mouth from P₄ to M₃. Individual “PTP-010B” is less well represented, as indicated in Table 3. I suspected that both individuals had died during their adulthood, given the degree of attrition and the state of root formation. Although the apices of all roots for PTP-010A were damaged, the thickness of the most apical dentine preserved suggests completed development. Respectively, these dentitions match well with the teeth designated “PTP-010W7” and “PTP-010W6” at the University of Pennsylvania Museum, in terms of inventory, enamel color, root color, cusp morphology, and size. I believe that they belong to the same two skeletons, from which only a few teeth were exported for study, for whatever reason. The complete and intact right M³ root on dentition PTP-010W7 confirms that this individual had reached maturity before his or her death. By comparison with other skeletons from Tikal, the degree of attrition on the PTP-010A/W7 molars is consistent with death in young adulthood. By contrast, the right M₃ of PTP-010W6 is incompletely formed, indicating an age of 15 to 16 years at death.

Skeleton PTP-010A from Tikal National Park shows an interesting pattern of dental decoration of the maxillary teeth, illustrated in Figure 3. This filing is consistent with Shook's description of the filed teeth of “Skeleton A” (redesignated G) and helps to confirm the identity of this dentition. Although the mamelons of erupting incisors are sometimes misidentified as filed notches, dental filing is seen exclusively in adult Maya skeletons (Wright 2003). Thus, the filing seen in this skeleton further supports an adult age assessment. Both I¹s show deep notches cut into the distal aspect of the tooth well above the distal incisive corner. This form is somewhat different than that classified by Javier Romero Molina (1986) as Type B5, in which the distal incisive corner of the tooth is fully removed. The right I² of this skeleton shows horizontal removal of the complete incisive margin, Romero's Type A4, a form that is very common on lateral incisors at Tikal and elsewhere in the Maya Lowlands. The right C¹ shows some blunting of the cusp in a horizontal plane, parallel to the I² filing. Hence, I scored this as a “possible” case of Type A4 filing. However, this may be simply due to mastication attrition. The mesial aspect of the C¹ also shows a shallow notch at the level of the I² filing, presumably inflicted unintentionally during the filing of the I².

Filed maxillary teeth of Skeleton PTP-010G.

This side notch filing of the I¹ is quite rare, and I did not see it in any of the Proyecto Nacional Tikal remains that I surveyed, nor is it illustrated in Romero's surveys (Romero Molina 1986). However, two similar cases occur in the Tikal Project collection (Haviland, personal communication 2000). Burial PTP-094 shows similar distal filing of the I¹. This Early Classic burial was found beneath Structure 4H-4, the east shrine of a small domestic group. A second case is part of a more complex decoration pattern that included both double notching of the incisive margin (Type A2) as well as the distal filing of both I¹s, angular removal of mesial and distal incisive corners (Type C6) of the right I² (the left was not recovered), and squared removal of the distal incisive corner (Type B4) of both C¹s. This dentition is from Operation 98L, in the Central Acropolis, and consists of secondarily deposited remains associated with Structure 5D-127 (Haviland, personal communication 2000). Unfortunately, neither dentition is available for study. Although classified as Type G3 (Buikstra et al. 2003), the distal notches on the I¹ of the Copan ruler Yax Kuk Mo (Burial 95-2) also resemble the filed I¹s of Skeleton PTP-010A. The notches on Yax Kuk Mo's I¹ did not fully remove the corner of the tooth, and the teeth were also inlaid with jade.

Haviland had estimated the age of the principal skeleton of the PTP-010 tomb to be older than 35 years at death (Coe 1990:480), and Chowning had previously suggested an age older than 50 years at death (Shook 1959:43). Haviland's (1963:3) notes indicate that only two teeth were retained from this principal skeleton: a canine and a molar. It is unclear whether more were originally recovered. I inventoried teeth that could not be assigned to any of individuals W1 through W8 as PTP-010X. Among these teeth are two that may belong to adult skeletons. A permanent mandibular left canine shows complete development and closure of the apex, indicating an age older than 12 years. This tooth's morphology and color do not match the remaining teeth from PTP-010W6 or W7, although neither of these dentitions includes a left C₁. In addition to lacking the marked hypoplasia seen on the right C₁ of PTP-010W6, this tooth shows considerable attrition, inconsistent with the adolescent age at death of PTP-010W6. Although it is not certain that this canine derived from the central occupant of Burial PTP-010, it does represent the best available candidate for that skeleton. The second PTP-010X tooth of interest is a right M₁ with a fractured root. However, it could conceivably belong to Skeleton W3 for which there is no antimere for comparison. These are the only PTP-010X teeth that could conceivably have belonged to Yax Nuun Ayiin. The remaining teeth listed under PTP-010X pertain to the accompanying individuals but cannot be definitively assigned to a specific skeleton.

Due to restricted laboratory space, a large number of human remains from Tikal were discarded in the field. In fairness, excavators in the 1950s and 1960s could not have predicted the value of these materials in the context of the future osteological and chemical methods. The discarded material included most of the postcranial material from PTP-010; however, a small amount of material is still stored at Tikal National Park. A complete subadult left humerus diaphysis measures 180 mm in length. Comparison with Maya skeletons aged by dental development, this length indicates death near 7 or 8 years of age (Marie Danforth, personal communication 2003). A second fragmentary subadult humerus is larger, indicating that it derives from an older adolescent. A subadult left ulna measures 185 mm in length, suggesting an adolescent of 9 to 15 years. A left unfused distal femoral epiphysis is also preserved. Two adult bones may belong to either individual A or individual G. A fragment from the proximal diaphysis of a left femur is very large (midshaft circumference = 98 mm) and consistent with a mature adult male. A complete left radius positioned in the Burial PTP-116 diorama of the Museo Sylvanus Morley at Tikal is marked “10” in pencil and may be from Yax Nuun Ayiin, but it could also have derived from Skeleton G. I was unable to locate additional PTP-010A remains that Haviland (1963:3–4) reported saving. Several drawers at Tikal National Park contain unlabeled bones, and these may include some material from PTP-010.

This osteological survey of the Burial PTP-010 remains concludes a somewhat different assessment of the tomb contents than that previously reported. Differences in age assessments are likely explained by misidentification of molar positions in the original study and improved standards for dental maturation. Possible correlations to Coe's skeleton numeration are indicated in Table 2; however, it is not possible to compare age estimates directly because the identity of several dentitions is not certain. Several skeletons are younger than the ages reported by Coe (1990). Three skeletons were 6 years of age at death, whereas Coe reported only one skeleton as young as 7 years. Rather than a single adult skeleton, the tomb contains at least two adults. One of these was located in the northwest corner of the tomb and is unique in showing filed teeth. This skeleton was labeled PTP-010A and corresponds to Coe's Skeleton G. The second adult is represented only by a permanent mandibular canine (PTP-010X); this tooth probably represents Yax Nuun Ayiin. Morphologically, all of the teeth from Burial PTP-010 resemble those from other Tikal contexts. Most of the PTP-010 teeth show enamel hypoplasias and in this regard are not superficially different in childhood health experience from other Tikal burials.

USING STRONTIUM ISOTOPES TO TRACK MIGRATION

Strontium (Sr) substitutes for calcium (Ca) in the mineral phase of bones and teeth. Although the absolute abundance of Sr taken up into bone is affected by the composition of the diet, the relative abundance of the stable isotopes of Sr (⁸⁶Sr, ⁸⁷Sr) is not measurably changed as the element moves through the food web. In foods, ratios between the isotopes vary geographically with soil values because of the different geological origin and age of underlying bedrock (Dasch 1969; Faure 1986; Faure and Powell 1972). These food values are in turn recorded in the isotope ratios of the teeth and bones of consumers as Sr is incorporated into the growing skeletal tissues. Strontium's radiogenic stable isotope, ⁸⁷Sr, is produced from the decay of rubidium (Rb) and is conventionally reported as a ratio to non-radiogenic ⁸⁶Sr—that is, ⁸⁷Sr/⁸⁶Sr. Very old rocks of high Rb/Sr composition have high ⁸⁷Sr/⁸⁶Sr ratios, while younger rocks, and those with low Rb/Sr ratios have dramatically lower ⁸⁷Sr/⁸⁶Sr ratios.

Because these bedrock isotopic ratios are averaged in soils, plants, and, in turn, the animals from a region, they provide very specific average signatures of local environments. These geologic signatures are incorporated into the skeletal tissues of animals and humans, and preserved in archaeological remains (Ericson 1985; Ezzo et al. 1997; Grupe et al. 1997; Price et al. 1998; Price et al. 1994; Schweissing and Grupe 2003). For instance, at Teotihuacan, T. Douglas Price and colleagues (2000) have found extremely good concordance between the strontium isotope ratios of modern rabbits and archaeological humans. Tooth enamel is especially useful as a sample tissue because it preserves the isotopic signal of the diet consumed in childhood when the teeth developed. Thus, the teeth of individuals who migrated and came to be interred in a region that is geologically distinct from their childhood homes show ⁸⁷Sr/⁸⁶Sr ratios that are different from those in the teeth of local children. Moreover, tooth enamel is very resistant to diagenetic exchange with soil during burial because of its highly crystalline structure and its low porosity (Kohn et al. 1999; Lee-Thorp and Sponheimer 2003; Montgomery et al. 1999).

Ongoing research on a larger series of Tikal burials (Wright 2005), and analyses of burials from Teotihuacan (Price et al. 2000), Kaminaljuyu (Wright 2004; Wright et al. 2002), and other sites provide comparative data that permit us to identify the skeletons of migrants who died at Tikal. Strontium isotope analyses are especially well suited to testing the hypothesis that Teotihuacanos may have been buried at Tikal because of the disparate geology of the two sites. Strontium isotope ratios of soils and foods at Teotihuacan are a product of the volcanic geology of central Mexico. ⁸⁷Sr/⁸⁶Sr ratios are low at Teotihuacan because of both the young age of the volcanic soils and the low Rb content of volcanic material. By contrast, soils at Tikal are derived from much older Paleocene/Eocene limestone bedrock and show strontium isotope ratios that are substantially higher than at Teotihuacan. Thus, an individual born at Teotihuacan would show much lower ⁸⁷Sr/⁸⁶Sr ratios in their teeth than the ratios of individuals born locally at Tikal.

I collected tooth enamel samples from three permanent teeth from Burial PTP-010 and sampled two deciduous mandibular canines that had previously been sectioned for study of enamel defects (Danforth 1989). These include the probable tooth of Yax Nuun Ayiin as well as three of his companions in the tomb. The enamel samples are from the PTP-010X canine that I believe belongs to Yax Nuun Ayiin and two first molars from the adult Skeleton G (PTP-010A, PTP-010W7). One deciduous canine dentine sample is from Skeleton J. The second deciduous canine was labeled “E or F.” It is unlikely to belong to PTP-010W5 (E), which should have lost all deciduous canines before he or she died at age 11 or 12 years. This sample could belong to any of Skeletons PTP-010W1, W2, or W3. Dentine does not remodel like bone, so it captures a childhood dietary signal comparable to that of enamel. Although dentine is more likely to be affected by diagenesis than enamel (Budd et al. 2000; Montgomery et al. 1999), I decided to sample these deciduous teeth since they were already sectioned, and I did not wish to damage more teeth than necessary. I did not sample the adult femur or radius from PTP-010 (which may or may not belong to Yax Nuun Ayiin) because bone is often poorly preserved at Tikal, so it is possible that these bones could be contaminated by diagenetic Sr, which would give a false local value. Moreover, since Yax Nuun Ayiin lived some 25 years at Tikal after assuming the throne, we would expect his bone to show a local signal—regardless of his place of birth—because bone is continually remodeled and incorporates recent dietary elements throughout life.

RESUMEN

El deciframiento reciente de los textos jeroglíficos del clásico temprano ofrece un nuevo entendimiento de la historia dinástica de Tikal. Los epígrafos proponen que el hijo de un gobernante de Teotihuacan fue instalado en Tikal como gobernante en 379 d.C. Se presenta un resumen de la historia de la excavación de la tumba PTP-010, por arqueólogos de la Universidad de Pennsylvania, el cual se ha identificado como la tumba de este presunto gobernante extranjero, Yax Nuun Ayiin I y presenta un nuevo análisis osteológico de su contenido. Aunque muchos de los restos no fueron guardados y varios se mezclaron entre si, fue posible estimar la edad de muerte de los esqueletos. Al contrario de la descripción publicada sobre la presencia de nueve niños sacrificados en la tumba, encontramos que los esqueletos que rodeaban el difunto principal incluyen un adulto, quien fue distinguido por un estilo poco usual de decoración dental. Analizamos los isótopos estables de estroncio de muestras dentales de cuatro de estos esqueletos. La comparación con la proporción isotópica promedio obtenida de una serie grande de esqueletos de Tikal nos indica que ninguno de los esqueletos analizados del PTP-010 era extranjero de las tierras bajas mayas. Aunque el análisis isotópico de estroncio no permite diferenciar entre los niños nativos de Tikal y los esqueletos de individuos quienes pasaban su niñez en sitios peteneros cercanos, es evidente que nuestros resultados no apoyan a los desciframientos jeroglíficos que identifican a Yax Nuun Ayiin I como un individuo que nació en Teotihuacan.