Raising Turkeys and the Mitla Fortress

Excavations on two residential terraces (Terraces 56 and 57) at the Mitla Fortress have provided evidence that turkeys were raised at the site based on the high proportion of turkey remains and eggshell fragments, the presence of hatched and unhatched eggs, the remains of juvenile and adult birds, and the presence of turkeys and eggs, in both refuse and offering contexts. Turkey represents 20-28 percent of the animal remains at the Mitla Fortress, and it increased steadily over time (Figure 6c). Based on differences in cortical-bone development and skeletal element size, three stages of juvenile bones are present: neonatal, very young, and young. More than 500 eggshell fragments along with several complete eggs have been recovered from refuse and offering contexts combined. The occupants of Terraces 56 and 57 also crafted bone tools and ornaments form turkey and large bird (most of which is likely turkey, but the fragments lack the diagnostic characteristics needed to make positive identifications). In addition, the ritual use of turkeys is supported by four offerings laid beneath house floors, containing unhatched eggs and juvenile birds. These factors combined are highly suggestive that turkeys were being raised on or near the two terraces.

Turkey, which is second only to domestic dog in terms of relative dietary importance at the Mitla fortress, is significantly less common at Classic Ejutla and El Palmillo; it is rare to nonexistent at Formative sites in the region (Figures 5 and 6). One subspecies of wild turkeys, the southern Mexican turkey (Meleagris gallopavo mexicana), inhabits parts of southern Mexico, but it may not have ranged as far south as Oaxaca (Howell and Webb 1994:225-226; Schorger 1966:48). The ocellated turkey (M. ocellata), a smaller relative of the wild turkey, occupies the Yucatán Peninsula in Mexico and parts of northern Belize and northern Guatemala (Steadman, Stull, and Eaton 1979). It was a subspecies of the wild turkey (M. gallopavo), not the ocellated turkey, that were eventually domesticated in some regions of North America (Munro 2006). The few turkey remains found on earlier Formative sites in the Valley of Oaxaca suggest these birds were occasionally imported to the region from outside areas (Flannery and Marcus 2005:96, 188). Their beautiful, iridescent feathers would have made fine additions to clothing and ceremonial accouterments (for references to feather artisans, see Sahagún 1959:84-97), not to mention the symbolic and medicinal importance turkeys may have had in pre-Hispanic Oaxaca (Benson 197:68-113; Corona-Martínez 2008a).

Domestic turkey has also been identified in the Tehuacán valley, located just north of Oaxaca in the state of Puebla, and the temporal distribution reflects a trend similar to that seen in the Valley of Oaxaca. In the Tehuacan Valley, turkey is rare to nonexistent in Terminal Formative/Classic period Palo Blanco phase (200 BCE—700 CE) deposits, with a single bone found at a single site, Coxcatlán Cave (Flannery 1967:164, Table 116). Turkey increased in proportion during the Late Classic to Late Postclassic Venta Salada phase (ca. 700-1540 CE), where it ranges from 6 to 12 percent INSP of identified animal remains at sites such as Coatepec village, Coxcatlán Cave, and El Riego Cave (Flannery 1967:Tables 20, 16 and 19, respectively). Much father north, in the American Southwest and northern Mexico, turkeys were being raised at human habitation sites by around 500 CE, with more evidence appearing in the archaeological record after 900 CE (Munro 2006:464). Archaeological signatures of turkey domestication include the presence of eggshell, juvenile, skeletal remains, broken and healed bones, feathers, gizzard stones, turkey droppings (waste), and retaining enclosures (Beacham and Durand 2007; Breitburg 1988; Munro 2006). Some of the classic markers of domestication that have been identified in the American Southwest (such as gizzard stones, droppings, and pens) have yet to be recovered in southern Mexico; however, ongoing excavations at the Mitla Fortress will continue to expand our understanding of turkey domestication, its archaeological indicators, and what the introduction of a new domesticate meant to subsistence practices and animal economies in ancient Mesoamerica. Questions for future research include: Were turkey domesticated in central Oaxaca independent of domestication events taking place in other regions? Or were domestic turkeys introduced to central Oaxaca? Why were turkeys domesticated, or why did domestic turkeys become important in the animal economy during the Classic period? And did all households raise turkeys at the Mitla Fortress or only certain households or barrios?