Introduction 



In the excavations at Dzibilchaltun between 1956 

 and 1965, over 2300 identifiable marine shells and 

 fragments appeared, in addition to remains of many 

 other forms of marine life. A large number of arti- 

 facts were made of shell which had so lost its original 

 form that the species was unidentifiable. It soon 

 became clear that the sea, only 10 miles north of 

 the ruins, played a very significant role in the life 

 of the ancients. This role was a multiple one. Marine 

 animals, from their frequent appearance in tombs 

 and ceremonial caches and portrayal in sculptures, 

 were important in ceremonial life. Fish and mol- 

 luscs appear to have been much used as food. Much 

 of the jewelry and artifacts at the site were made of 

 several molluscan species, and we cannot escape the 

 conclusion that Maya of old, as we of today, collected 

 many attractive shells of no utilitarian value simply 

 because it pleased them. It also became apparent that 

 modes in shell-collecting and usage as well as trade 

 varied greatly from period to period in history. 



As the Dzibilchaltun collection is by far the largest 

 and chronologically most comprehensive yet taken 

 in Yucatan (and will probably be so for some time 

 to come), we believe it worthwhile to review in some 

 detail the exact identification of material from our 

 own site and that previously reported from Yucatan. 

 We have included an unpublished collection of some 

 6500 molluscs from a shell midden on the Caribbean 

 coast of Isla Cancun, Quintana Roo. This midden, 

 representing a brief Late Formative occupation, I 

 excavated in 1963 (Andrews, 1965, pp. 42—45). 



I have attempted to establish original provenience 

 of the specimens for clues to early trade. Under each 

 listing is a reference to any new or published knowl- 

 edge regarding use and association, as well as age 

 of the deposits in which the specimens were found. 

 Comparison with the Yucatan material may be made 

 with reported marine life forms from the southern 

 Maya lowlands, including the British Honduras and 

 Peten sites and Copan, but only with items of un- 

 usual interest from farther afield. Some species have 

 not been reported archaeological! y from Yucatan, 

 but have appeared at other lowland sites and are 

 common in coastal waters of the peninsula. 



Excavations still in progress by the University of 

 Pennsylvania at Tikal, Guatemala, have contributed 



the largest body of comparative material available. 

 Much of their collection has not been finally iden- 

 tified by species, and data on archaeological associ- 

 ation have, of course, not been completed. I have 

 drawn heavily on Hattula Moholy-Nagy's summary 

 of material collected through 1962, and I am grate- 

 ful for her generosity in making available manu- 

 script notes on further collections through 1964, 

 which furnished a number of additional entries in 

 the checklist. 



The present report summarizes some 15,000 ar- 

 chaeological specimens of 192 species from 18 sites. 

 At some sites, shells were never identified below the 

 generic level, and at all sites this was of necessity 

 true of certain shells. These items are not included 

 in the tabulations except in the few instances where 

 the presence of a genus seemed important per se, or 

 some significant alteration made the specimen of 

 particular interest. 



If geographic distributions and taxonomic iden- 

 tifications seem overly precise or sophisticated in an 

 area as yet virtually undocumented malacologically, 

 it is because we have drawn heavily on a manuscript 

 on the ecological distribution and make-up of the 

 modern molluscan fauna of the Yucatan Peninsula 

 now in preparation by the present author. More 

 than 15,000 specimens of over 600 species have been 

 catalogued from more than 50 stations from the 

 Turnefle Islands, British Honduras, around the pen- 

 insula to the Laguna de Terminos in Campeche, 

 and on the distant atolls at the outer edge of the 

 Campeche Bank. 



Most archaeological reports have listed shells al- 

 phabetically by genera and species within genera. 

 This is convenient for the reader unfamiliar with 

 zoology but has the disadvantage that closely related 

 shells (e.g.. Area and Noetia or Arcopagia and 

 Tellina) lie at different ends of the list, making 

 discussions of the groups difficult and clumsy. As 

 discussions will be rather lengthy, I have drawn up 

 listings under families and genera in phylogenetic 

 order, generally following the scheme used by Abbott 

 (1954). Species within genera are listed in alphabet- 

 ical order. For the convenience of readers to whom 

 this ordering offers difficulty, an alphabetical index 

 by genera and species is added at the end. Syno- 



