Introduction

This chapter questions the ways in which human-animal interactions directly contributed to the reification of social hierarchies in the context of state-level rituals in ancient Mesoamerica. Animals were chosen to participate in elaborate rituals, whether as costumes in dances, as military regalia, as powerful icons, or as victims of sacrifice. We focus on a case study from the site of Teotihuacan, a cosmopolitan center that arose in the Basin of Mexico during the Classic period between approximately 100 BC and AD 650. At this site, the Moon Pyramid Project has uncovered a series of five burial offerings (Sugiyama and López Luján 2007), including four dedicatory caches that present a rich array of faunal remains including wild carnivores sacrificed in dedication to this monument, as well as animals prepared postmortem. Here we introduce zooarchaeological evidence from these offering caches that demonstrate that some of the animals used in these dedication rituals were physically captured and maintained within the city limits prior to their sacrifice.

We concentrate on dedicatory caches as prime examples of the roles animals played in the reification of social hierarchies. Here we present two key concepts that are essential in our understanding of the role of animals in state-level rituals at Teotihuacan:

1. Dedication rituals conducted at a ceremonial center were ritualized activities organized by the Teotihuacan state and were active arenas for power negotiations.

2. Amerindian communities granted agency to highly symbolic animals—animals with which the Teotihuacanos interacted during ritualized activities.

We examine the faunal assemblage from Teotihuacan from this theoretical stance to reconstruct the social and political significance of these dedicatory caches and how they functioned to reify state power.

Dedication Burials as Ritualized Activities

In Mesoamerica, ethnographic and ethnohistoric documents illustrate that religion integrated, and therefore constrained, social, political, and economic organizations (Townsend 1997). At Teotihuacan, the attraction of a coherent state religious ideology, successful warfare, and charismatic rulership played the largest roles in the development of this ancient metropolis (Cowgill 1992; Sugiyama 2005). The rituals that took place in the ceremonial center were the mechanisms for creating and solidifying such state ideologies.

Although there are endless lists of static definitions of rituals (see summary in Bell 1992), we focus on one type of ritual: those directly related to state-level ideologies. Rituals, in this context, are the processes by which religious ideas are transformed into social actions that were critical to institutionalizing and empowering the state (Kertzer 1991). We focus on ritualized activity as a social practice that provides the occasion for solidifying social boundaries (Bell 1992; Flad 2001). Ritualized activities appropriate and condition individual perception and behavior where there is an opportunity for social empowerment (Bell 1992). Ritualization is the strategic play of power, of domination and resistance (Bell 1992:204; Foucault 1980:55–62). Actors of such a dynamic process include those who control the ritual and who have access to a powerful form of objectification; the participants who negotiate their degree of involvement or resistance against the act; and the performers, including the victims of human sacrifice, and the nonhuman actors such as the animals discussed in this chapter.

The dedication rituals that would have preceded the deposition of the burials at Teotihuacan were arenas used by the state to graphically demonstrate and make the participants embody existing and newly created social hierarchies. The offering caches represent the materialization of these rituals that were the means of social negotiation that empowered the state, as is evident in various Mesoamerican centers (e.g., Joyce and Winter 1996; Sugiyama 2005). Here we argue that social hierarchies were negotiated, in part, through the physical and symbolic interaction humans had with the animals used in such ritualized activities. Understanding the types of human-animal interactions that occurred in Teotihuacan allows us to interpret how and why certain species of animals became participants in state-level ritualized activities.

Defining Human-Animal Interactions in Amerindian Societies

We must first start with the most basic question, one that Ingold (1988) has discussed in depth in his edited volume, What Is an Animal ? One answer is provided by the study of the Ojibwa Indians who believe the metaphysics of being and the actions of “persons” provide the key to their worldview (Hallowell 2002). “Persons” are defined as all animate beings who have the same ontological status expressed through the capacity for metamorphosis that occurs by establishing interpersonal relationships (Hallowell 2002). Therefore, for the Ojibwa, animals as well as plants and other objects of nature are “persons” that have agency and consciously interact with other “persons” (Hallowell 2002; Ingold 1988; Morrison 2000). This perspective has also been suggested by many ethnographers in other Amerindian communities (e.g., Saunders 1989; Zingg 1938). Through granting personhood to animate and inanimate beings, Amerindian societies perceive that as humans move through an empirical natural environment they are also moving through a cultural landscape that becomes the setting for developing meaningful relationships with their surroundings (Saunders 1991:109). Thus the animal and human are “constructed”—created by a culture-specific system of classification and etymology based on repeated relationships that are negotiated personally and/or collectively with the “other-than-human persons” (Hallowell 2002; Ulloa 2002).

The conceptualization of an animal taxon is contingent upon culture-specific familiarity with its morphology, behavior, and ecology (Cooke 1998; Urton 1985). Folk zoology often focuses on the distinctions between prey and predator, illustrating a hierarchy of animals in which wild carnivores occupy the upper levels of the animal hierarchy and herbivores the lower levels (Gossen 1975; Pinzón 2002). The associations of jaguars to hunters, warriors, and shamans by many Amerindians are simply a manifestation of part of their ethnozoological classification that acknowledges these underlying social classifications (Saunders 1991). A ruler, warrior, or shaman who “domesticates” (manages, controls) a plant or animal thereby reinforces the humanity of the animal, and the shaman receives magical properties (Pinzón 2002:65). Domestication creates a new perspective on the animal hierarchy, and the relationships between animals and humans become characterized by subordination and control.

Similarly, the physical capture, management, and taming of large carnivores would have dramatically altered the type of interaction with these animals and, as a consequence, developed the possibility for individuals to be placed differentially within nature’s hierarchy. Individuals who controlled these top predators were able to elevate themselves above these beasts. Controlling the natural domain was the key to controlling social hierarchies, a tactic that was no doubt critical to the establishment of Teotihuacan’s highly stratified social organization. This study suggests that domestication and, in this case, animal management in Mesoamerica should also be understood, as Hodder (1990:12) suggested, “as an attempt to domesticate and control internal and social problems” in that “it served as a metaphor and mechanism for the control of society.”

One of the effective ways human domination of beasts was manifested to the public was through elaborate state-level rituals. All over the world humans and animals participated in hunting rituals, royal rites, feasting, seasonal ceremonies, and dedicatory rituals (e.g., Ballinger and Stomper 2000; Brown 2005; Fiskesjö 2001) in which animal metaphors were used to maintain these social classifications. Furthermore, in some cases, the animals used in these state-level rituals were managed exclusively for ritual purposes.

For example, during the Postclassic period (AD 900–1521) at Tenochtitlan, the later Aztec capital, historical documents mention the presence of aviaries and zoos in which animals were kept for ritual purposes (Blanco et al. 2009; Nicholson 1955). It is believed that the animals deposited at the Templo Mayor, the Aztec ceremonial precinct, which included hundreds of diverse local and nonlocal species including the carnivores discussed in this chapter (Guzmán and Polaco 2000; López Luján et al., chapter 2, this volume; Polaco 1991; Quezada et al. 2010), were ritualized animals that helped exemplify Aztec state power.

The materials that we analyzed from Teotihuacan illustrate the process of ritualization, the very production and negotiation of social roles, and incorporated fauna as central actors in dedicatory offerings at the heart of the ceremonial precinct. We record for the first time the antiquity of animal management for use in state-level rituals through direct zooarchaeological evidence and focus on its importance within the context of the rising state of Teotihuacan, which became one of the largest and most important centers of Mesoamerica.

Teotihuacan

Teotihuacan is a World Heritage Site located about forty-five kilometers to the northeast of Mexico City. This site quickly developed into an urban, sacred center that covered twenty square kilometers with a population over 100,000 inhabitants (Cowgill 2008; Millon 1981). There are three major monuments at the ceremonial center: the Moon Pyramid, the Sun Pyramid, and the Feathered Serpent Pyramid (FSP). From 1998 to 2004, the Moon Pyramid Project, directed by Saburo Sugiyama and Rubén Cabrera, conducted extensive tunnel excavations at the Moon Pyramid. As a result, this project discovered seven building phases and five dedicatory caches (Sugiyama and Cabrera 2007). Each of the four burials that contained faunal remains included a mix of the dominant carnivores of the sky (eagles), earth (pumas, jaguars, wolves), and liminal areas (snakes) (Polaco 2004). All of these animals are among the most frequently depicted in Mesoamerica and are linked to various sources of power including gods, rulers, warriors, and shamans (Benson 1997; Seler 2004). At Teotihuacan these animals vividly “lived” within the ceremonial core as well as in apartment compounds as they are frequently represented in elaborate mural paintings (e.g., Fuente 2006).

In total over one hundred carnivores were deposited within the Moon Pyramid, an amount unequaled at any other sites dating to this period. Here, we present preliminary results on a sample of the individuals analyzed thus far. Nonetheless, this sample illustrates that the fauna interred in the Moon Pyramid records a transformation in the type of human-animal interaction that occurred during the Classic period. An interaction that included high levels of manipulation and control may very well have been a means of controlling not only the natural world but also the sociopolitical landscape in the rising metropolis.

Burials Two and Six

Although the first three construction phases recorded at the Moon Pyramid were of modest size (around 23.5 to 31.35 square meters), the fourth construction phase (AD 250 ± 50) marked a substantial enlargement program increasing the volume of the structure by nine times compared to the previous phase (89.2 × 88.9 meters) (Sugiyama and Cabrera 2007:117). The completion of Building Four marks a radical change in the extent of state control, as this was the moment in which the Moon Pyramid, as well as the ceremonial center in general, reached a monumental scale. Furthermore, two of the earliest offering chambers were deposited within the Moon Pyramid at this time: Burial Two was placed along the central axis at the base, and Burial Six was located at the three-dimensional center.

By this time, the Sun Pyramid and the Ciudadela complex with the FSP were also constructed. In addition, Teotihuacan became a planned urban development, as the standard Teotihuacan orientation, fifteen degrees west of true north, was implemented at a city-wide scale (Sugiyama 2010:141). The deposition of Burial Two and Six explicitly manifested the new level of power reached by the Teotihuacan state. Thus, we pay particular attention to these two offering caches as arenas that the Teotihuacan state used as a means to reify this level of state power and control.

Burial Two contained a human male bound prior to its deposition, and seated along the northern wall (Figure 1.1). A rich and diverse fauna was discovered that included the complete skeletons of two pumas, one wolf, nine eagles, other avian species (Minimum Number of Individuals, MNI = 7), and six rattlesnakes (Polaco 2004). Besides these ossuary remains, an exceptional number of offerings were symbolically placed on the floor, including Tlaloc vessels, greenstone artifacts, worked and unworked shell, and obsidian artifacts (Sugiyama and López Luján 2006). Offerings in Burial Six included similar artifacts of exceptional quality, but most surprising was the ubiquity of faunal offerings and sacrifices, totaling over fifty individuals of mostly the same species of animals found in Burial Two, an amount unprecedented in Teotihuacan (Sugiyama and López Luján 2006) (Figure 1.2). The interments in Burials Two and Six included all the carnivores mentioned above, but the use of two animal taxa particularly stood out: felines and eagles.

Figure 1.1. General plan of Burial Two with photographs of a puma (Element 154) inside a wooden cage (above), and a complete golden eagle (Element 165) (below). Drawing and photographs by S. Sugiyama.

Figure 1.2. General plan of Burial Six with photographs of a complete golden eagle (Element 2192) (above) and a puma head (below). Drawing and photographs by S. Sugiyama, G. Pereira, N. Sugiyama, and H. Fukuhara.

Felines

The jaguar (Panthera onca) is the largest carnivore present in the Mesoamerican landscape and thus has always been one of the central figures in the iconography of the region (Benson 1972; Saunders 1989, 1998a). Since the rise of the Olmec cultures, felids were depicted as having had intimate interaction with humans (Furst 1968). Jaguars are described as courageous, ferocious, noble animals that resided in the upper levels of the animal hierarchy as “the masters of animals” (Saunders 1998b, 21). Likewise the puma (Puma concolor) held a similar importance; in contrast to the black skin of the jaguar that symbolized the nocturnal sky, the bright skin of the puma was associated with the sun (Aguilera 1985:17).

Both the jaguar and puma have been identified within Burial Six whereas only pumas have been identified in Burial Two of the Moon Pyramid. Jaguars would have been imported to the Mexican highlands, as they are not a native species. Rather, they prefer the semitropical lowlands to the south, and the coastal regions of both the Pacific (Nayarit, Sinaloa and parts of Sonora) and the Gulf of Mexico (Veracruz and Tamaulipas) (Leopold 1987:527–529). Thus, it is highly probable that the jaguars present in the Moon Pyramid were imported from adjacent regions. The transport of such large wild carnivores would be difficult if they were fully grown, especially in Mesoamerica where transportation was on foot. This factor explains the preferential use in Burial Six of infant jaguars (MNI = 4), while there was only one juvenile and one subadult. In contrast, the majority of the pumas represent juveniles (MNI = 5) along with one young adult and one infant.

Two types of depositional patterns are observed among these felines: (1) crania and sometimes claws were deposited after extensive preparation, and (2) complete individuals were sacrificed. The former demonstrates that the Teotihuacanos used and manipulated these animals as ritual regalia (costumes, pelts) whereas the latter indicates that the populace at Teotihuacan had a much more extensive interaction with these wild beasts as they were probably tamed and kept within the city compounds.

Many of the burials included feline crania that demonstrate extensive preparation into pelts and costumes. Many of the jaguar crania, including the cranium identified as Element 2195 from Burial Six, demonstrate high levels of preparation. For this specimen the entire braincase has been removed, conserving only the snout and frontal portions with its mandibles (Figure 1.3a). This contrasts with some of the puma crania, such as the young adult puma from Burial Six (Element 1941), which conserved much more of the skull by cutting only along the occipital region to extract the soft tissue prior to pelt preparation (Figure 1.3b). As pumas are found locally, they were probably prepared within the city compounds and thus did not need such extensive preparation as the jaguars to facilitate transportation. The use of felid costumes and pelts is widely documented (e.g., Códice Mendocino 1549, Lam XLIX), and the zooarchaeological finds from the Moon Pyramid affirm that these pelts were extracted, traded, and used since the Teotihuacan occupation.

Figure 1.3. Feline crania: (a) jaguar (Element 2195), and (b) puma (Element 1941).

Among the complete individuals from Burial Six, one example represents a puma with fatal pathologies that would not have allowed the animal to survive in the wild. This individual (Element 1984) illustrates severe bone deformation and remodeling on the left humerus, and the individual’s corresponding radius and ulna had become fused (Figure 1.4). The fused bones would have significantly restricted the movement of the forearm, making it difficult for this individual to hunt in the wild. Evidence of remodeling and healing on these bones suggests that this animal survived its disease/injury, probably through artificial feeding, exemplifying evidence of captivity and care for this feline.

Figure 1.4. Pathologies present on Element 1984: a, left ulna and radius, and b, humerus.

In Burial Two, two pumas were found bound in wooden cages stacked on top of each other. These two pumas were buried alive, as coprolites were found from these animals (Figure 1.1). This evidence suggests that some of the felids deposited during Building Four were confined in cages in anticipation of the ritual, possibly for prolonged periods of time. In total, the Teotihuancanos used seven jaguars, ten pumas and four unidentified felids in these two burials, of which at least one jaguar, five pumas and one unidentified felid were interred complete. It is likely that the Teotihuacanos were able to obtain such large numbers of felids for the offering caches through keeping these carnivores in captivity in preparation for the ritual.

Eagles

The golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) symbolized military might in Mesoamerica, as they were known as the jaguars of the sky (Benson 1997). They are closely associated with the sun, as both the eagle and the sun are found in the sky (Aguilera 1985:63). They represented, along with the jaguar, the bravest warriors, who were named Quauhtli-ocelotl (“eagle-jaguar”; Seler 2004:162). Eagles are found in abundance in Burials Two (MNI = 9) and Six (MNI = 18), and most represent complete individuals. Only a couple of instances suggest individuals were manipulated and prepared as objects for the offering chamber. In both cases, the eagles were deposited in a highly symbolic layout at each of the cardinal and intercardinal directions and at the center. They were, no doubt, important actors that oriented the ritual space (Figures 1.1 and 1.2).

Burial Six had the most abundant eagle remains found in a single offering chamber in Mesoamerica during this period. It is no coincidence that it was represented by eighteen individuals, as this number is highly symbolic in Mesoamerica and is repeatedly expressed in ritual contexts such as the number of obsidian eccentrics found in Burials Two and Six, as well as the number of humans sacrificed at the FSP (López Luján and Sugiyama 2008). It is also consistent that in Burial Two half of this number, nine eagles, was deposited in a very similar layout. Therefore the number of eagles to be offered was predetermined, resulting in the need for twenty-seven eagles during the fourth construction phase. Capturing twenty-seven golden eagles would be difficult within the short term. As the zooarchaeological markers of some of the eagles suggest (see below), the eagles interred in these two burials were a heterogeneous population made up of some individuals that were probably captured as chicks to be raised in the city in anticipation of the ritual, some that were probably captured shortly prior to the ritual, and some individuals that were prepared postmortem.

Two types of pathologies have been recorded on the eagles that suggest long-term keeping of the raptors. On the medial side of the left tarsometatarsal of at least two individuals from Burial Six (Elements 1961 and 2069) there is apparent remodeling of the bone (Figure 1.5a and 1.5b). This type of lesion may be caused by tethering the raptor with a rope for prolonged periods, causing chafing and abrasion that result in a local lesion. Modern zoological literature supports this hypothesis, as American kestrels (Falco sparverius) exhibit similar features when fitted with standard jesses (Brisbin and Wagner 1970).

Figure 1.5. Pathologies on eagles: (a) on the left side of the tarsometatarsal on Element 1961 from Burial Six; (b) on the left side of the tarsometatarsal on Element 2069 from Burial Six; and (c) on the distal articular surface of the left and right ulnas on Element 191 from Burial Two.

Another eagle from Burial Two (Element 191) illustrates slight osteoporosis on the distal articular surface of both ulnas (Figure 1.5c). This pathology may have resulted from a nutritional deficiency during the eagle’s confinement, a supposition supported by similar cases of pathologies present on macaw bones from the site of Casas Grandes (AD 1200–1450), where accretions were reportedly due to malnutrition and vitamin D deficiency caused by containment in dark cages (Di Peso et al. 1974:280). Keeping raptors, particularly eagles, in captivity and successfully breeding these animals is extremely difficult (Gilbert et al. 1981). As this assemblage represents the earliest zooarchaeological evidence of eagle management in Mesoamerica thus far, no doubt some of the observed pathologies are the result of the initial stages of experimentation in controlling these wild raptors.

Although some remains suggest that long-term captivity of eagles was practiced since the Classic period, the capturing and breeding practices were probably still not homogeneous, as there is evidence for a heterogeneous mix of raptors that do not demonstrate any modifications and others that demonstrate cutmarks on the distal articular surface of the tibiotarsus (Elements 1962 and 2010). These cuts were not intended to remove feathers or meat, as their legs are mostly bare, but to cut the tendons and ligaments that attach in this area to paralyze the raptor’s feet and claws to reduce the risk to those that had to manipulate these wild birds.

As we can see, the faunal materials from Burials Two and Six express the extraordinary feats achieved by the Teotihuacan state that not only included the organization of a monumental construction program and the deposition of highly exotic artifacts and victims of sacrifice (human and nonhuman), but also required a dramatic change in the type of interaction humans had with these animals, which was unprecedented at the time. These two offerings are manifestations of imperial power as well as the materialization of Teotihuacan state ideology, and the fauna deposited inside them were integral actors.

Burial Three

The construction of Building Five incorporated, for the first time, an Adosada platform (i.e., a small platform attached to the front of the pyramid) connected to the central structure, and the adoption of a typical Teotihuacan talud-tablero form (Sugiyama and Cabrera 2007:120–121). This building was probably constructed around AD 300 ± 50, which is most likely when Burial Three was integrated into the nucleus of this structure. It consisted of four male human sacrificial victims interred with associated rich offerings, including twenty-four animal heads, fourteen of which were preliminarily identified as wolves (Canis lupus) (Figure 1.6).

Figure 1.6. General plan of Burial Three and photograph of canid cranium (Element 574). (Drawing and photograph by S. Sugiyama.)

Many species of canids are thought to be important actors in ritual contexts in Mesoamerica, including wolves, coyotes (Canis latrans), and dogs (Canis familiaris) (Valadez et al. 2008). Canids in the Postclassic period are known to have been a symbol of a military order during the Aztec times where codices depict warriors dressed in canid military regalia (Blanco et al. 2007:71–72). Similarly, at Teotihuacan we find at the Atetelco apartment compound a whole room filled with mural paintings of canid warriors (Cabrera 2006).

The close association of the sacrificial victims with the wolf crania suggests that these victims were closely associated with the symbolism of the wolf. As isotopic analysis of the humans sacrificed in the Moon Pyramid indicates many of them were either born or raised abroad; these individuals have been interpreted as warriors, possibly war captives (White et al. 2007). Associated artifacts, such as the imitation maxillary shell pendants and nose pendants, which resemble those found among the war captives deposited in the FSP (Sugiyama 2005), add to the evidence that these individuals may represent warriors. The importance of the wolf within this burial complex is apparent and the presence of the wolf crania can be interpreted as expressions of the identity of the victims, possibly as members of a military clan.

Despite the apparent focus on wolves in Burial Three, it was not the only burial in which wolves were discovered. A particularly interesting case is the deposition of a complete wolf in Burial Two, where its remains were discovered surrounded by the impressions of postholes that confined it (Figure 1.7). This suggests that wolves, just like the pumas in Burial Two, were kept in wooden cages, possibly over the long term to use in rituals.

Figure 1.7. Postholes of the cage that surrounded a wolf (Element 213) in Burial Two. Photograph by S. Sugiyama.

Burial Five

Burial Five was deposited immediately prior to the construction of Building Six and after the termination of Building Five. This burial included the remains of three humans, and a large quantity of atypical offerings such as highly controversial Maya-style greenstone objects (pendants, earspools, figurines, and beads) (Figure 1.8). Building Six (AD 350 ± 50) is almost the same form and size of the pyramid visible today (Sugiyama and Cabrera 2007). Although the faunal materials from this burial are still in the initial stages of exploration, it is already evident that serpents, particularly rattlesnakes (Crotalus sp.), were especially important in this offering cache, where at least eight individuals were deposited near and around these three human burials.

Figure 1.8. General plan of Burial Five and photograph of a rattlesnake (Element 1021). (Drawing by S. Kabata and G. Pereira; photograph by S. Sugiyama.)

Serpents were embedded within the Mesoamerican cosmology where serpentine qualities are present among various deities such as Quetzalcoatl (feathered serpent), who is abundantly depicted in Teotihuacan. They are associated with earth, water, and fertility (Aguilera 1985:73). Colonial documents mention snakes were often captured, as they are edible, their skins were useful, and their meat had curative functions (Aguilera 1985). When they were captured alive their fangs would be removed and they would be kept in a jar (Aguilera 1985:74).

The three individuals in Burial Five do not have their hands tied behind their back, unlike other burials in the Moon Pyramid. They are of high rank, as manifested by the abundant greenstone accessories adorning them, including a symbol of a knotted rope, the very symbol of rulership. We can therefore suggest that their close association with the rattlesnakes added to their identity. Although we have no direct evidence of the keeping of rattlesnakes at Teotihuacan, we note the presence of at least two rattlesnakes inside a woven basket in Burial Six, adding to the possibility they were confined in anticipation of the ritual.

Animals and the State

It is obvious that the species that the Teotihuacanos picked for state-level rituals were determined by the widely established symbolism of the most ferocious carnivores present in the landscape. These were empowered animals, beasts that gained a fundamental role in state societies through their ecological and biological characteristics, their interaction with humans, and their status as top-level carnivores within the natural hierarchy. This case study from Teotihuacan demonstrates an example of the most explicit manifestation of their role in the establishment of the Teotihuacan state as major actors in state-level ritualized activities whereby we suggest that a shift in the type of human-animal interaction greatly empowered the state in a way unrecorded during the Classic period.

During the apogee of Teotihuacan, right around the construction of Building Four in the Moon Pyramid, there was a gradual change in the types of human-animal interactions. By this time Teotihuacanos had formulated a detailed knowledge of each species and carefully selected symbolically important fauna to be used in state-level ritualized activities. To be able to obtain some of the highly dangerous and exotic animals for this ritual, Teotihuacanos began to develop systems to manipulate, control, tame, and possibly even breed these animals. The Teotihuacan state symbolically and physically controlled these wild beasts, a tactic that helped control the social hierarchy of the rising metropolis. In this chapter, we have emphasized the great antiquity of such a practice and have tried to understand why it would arise during a period of accentuated development of the Teotihuacan state.

This case study helps us understand the role of animals in the development of social inequality in other Mesoamerican cultures as well. In the Mesoamerican worldview, and generally in all Amerindian cultures, the social landscape is part of the natural, hierarchical world, a system in which wild carnivores stand at the apex of the animal kingdom. The use of such carnivores in state-level ritualized activities was an arena to recreate and negotiate the human relationship within this natural hierarchy.

Acknowledgments. We thank the project directors of the Moon Pyramid Project, Saburo Sugiyama and Ruben Cabrera, for their continual support and for providing some of the figures presented in this chapter. Analyses of these materials have been supported by the National Science Foundation Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant BCS-1028851, the Fulbright Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Program, and the William R. Tyler Fellowship from Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collections for N. Sugiyama’s dissertation research. We thank David Carrasco, William Fash, Rowan Flad, Richard Meadow, Andrew Somerville, and an anonymous reviewer for their insightful comments on earlier drafts of this chapter.