Life and Death in the Ancient City of Teotihuacan: A Modern Paleodemographic Synthesis

6. Paleodemographic Analysis of the Tlajinga 33 Skeletons

TABLE 5-4 Complete Age Breakdown for Tlajinga 33 Skeletons Secondary Context Grave Context Early Late Early Late Cut Early Late Age Period Period Period Period Marks Period Period Total 7th mo. or less gestational age 3 5 2 2 0 5 7 12 8th mo. gestational age 3 6 5 5 0 8 11 19 Term newborn 7 5 6 2 0 13 7 20 Undetermined perinatal 3 1 0 0 0 3 1 4 Infant«1 yr.) 1 5 1 1 0 2 6 8 1-4 yrs. 6 4 5 0 0 11 4 15 5-9 yrs. 2 6 0 2 0 2 8 10 10-14 yrs. 6 3 0 1 0 6 4 10 15-19 yrs. 5 6 0 0 2 3 6 9 20-24 yrs. 4 7 0 1 1 3 8 11 25-29 yrs. 4 1 0 0 0 4 1 5 30-34 yrs. 0 3 2 0 0 2 3 5 35-39 yrs. 2 0 3 3 a 5 3 8 40-44 yrs. 3 1 8 2 0 11 3 14 45-49 yrs. 1 2 4 1 1 5 2 7 50-54 yrs. 5 0 2 1 1 6 1 7 55+ yrs. 1 1 2 1 0 3 2 5 Undetermined juvenile 4 a a 0 0 4 0 4 Undetermined adult male 6 2 1 1 2 5 3 8 Undetermined adult female 10 3 2 1 3 10 3 13 Undetermined adult 11 3 1 0 3 10 2 12 Totals 87 64 44 24 13 121 85 206 134 Life and Death in Teotihuacan TABLE 5-5 General Age Composition of Tlajinga 33 and Other Skeletal Populations Population Number % Perinatalsl Infants Children Adolescents Adults % % % Tlajinga 33 Overall 206 31.0 14.0 9.0 46.0 Early Period 121 26.0 14.0 7.0 53.0 Late Period 85 38.0 14.0 12.0 36.0 Pecos Pueblo1 1722 18.7 14.0 8.0 59.0 La Ventilla B2 174 20.0 13.0 5.0 62.0 Libben3 1289 18.0 22.0 14.0 46.0 Hiwassee/ Dallas4 (Mississippian) 437 38.0 20.0 12.0 29.0 Arroyo Hondo5 120 26.9 23.1 12.7 37.3 Casas Grandes6 612 10.0 22.0 14.0 54.0 Dickson Mounds7 (Mississippian) 221 21.7 23.5 14.9 39.9 1Mobley 1980. 5Palkovich 1980. 2Serrano and Lagunas 1974. 6Benfer 1968. 3Lovejoy et al. 1977. 7Goodman et al. 1984a. 4Lewis and Kneberg 1946. upon death, but ethnographically and logically, that behavior should be rare. Actual burial in the trash would have yielded primary burials anyway , not just a few scraps. Instead, as indicated earlier, these individuals probably represent disturbed primary burials. With all the major reconstruction and remodeling done at the compound during its occupation, it would not be surprising if burials were often disturbed, as was discussed in Chapter 3. Some individuals were reburied, as the secondary interments attest, but others were probably just put into the current midden area. Why the different treatments? Perhaps the difference can be explained by how soon after burial the disturbance took place. It may be that, if the individual was recognized or remembered, the burial was moved with some care, becoming a secondary interment. But, and this would have occurred more often, if the original burial had taken place too far in the past for the individual to be clearly remembered, the remains would just be thrown out, where later disturbances and poor pro- The Tlajinga 33 Population 135 TABLE 5-6 Secondary-Context Versus Grave-Context Individuals by Age Age Secondary Context Grave Context Perinatals and infants 39 24 Children (1-9 yrs.) 22 7 Adolescents (10-19 yrs.) 20 1 Young adults (20-34 yrs.) 19 3 Middle-aged adults (35-49 yrs.) 9 21 Old adults (50+ yrs.) 7 6 Totals 116 62 tective conditions would quickly reduce most individuals to a few recoverable fragments. Some support for such a hypothesis is found in a comparison of the age breakdowns by grave and secondary contexts in Table 5-6. Here it can be seen that for all ages up to middle-aged adults, secondary-context individuals predominate. The Tlajinga 33 compound organization was mostly egalitarian, with achieved status differences (see Chapter 4). Younger ages were not accorded many offerings and...