by Mary Harrsch © 2025
As I worked on images of Colima art this morning, I noticed their art seemed to be less stylized than that of their neighbors, the Jalisco and Nayarit peoples. The Colima region was strategically located near trade routes that connected western Mexico to central Mexico, the Pacific coast, and even as far south as Central America. These trade networks facilitated the exchange of goods, ideas, and artistic styles.
Urbanized centers like Teotihuacan (in central Mexico) and Monte Albán (in Oaxaca) were known for their more naturalistic artistic traditions. Through trade and interaction, the Colima people may have been exposed to these styles and incorporated them into their own art. While there is no direct evidence of Teotihuacan controlling or colonizing the Colima region, the presence of Teotihuacan-style artifacts and motifs in western Mexico suggests some level of cultural exchange.
This realism is particularly evident in the Colima's famed fattened dog ceramics. As a dog lover, I find them cute, but ultimately distressing as they indicate the dogs were probably raised for consumption. I don't understand why a coastal culture with abundant marine resources would need to use dogs for food so I asked DeepSeek about it:
"The practice of raising dogs for food in ancient Colima, despite the abundance of marine resources, can be understood through a combination of cultural, practical, and environmental factors:
Cultural Significance: Dogs held a special place in many Mesoamerican cultures, not only as a food source but also for their symbolic and ritual importance. In Colima, the Colima dog (a hairless breed similar to the Xoloitzcuintli) was likely valued for its role in ceremonies, as a companion in the afterlife, and as a source of protein. Dogs were sometimes associated with deities or used in offerings, which could have elevated their status beyond mere sustenance.
Reliable Protein Source: While the sea provided abundant resources, fishing and shellfish gathering could be unpredictable due to seasonal changes, storms, or overharvesting. Raising dogs for food provided a stable and controllable source of protein that was not dependent on environmental conditions. Dogs could be bred and raised in settlements, ensuring a consistent food supply.
Nutritional Diversity: Relying solely on marine resources could lead to a monotonous diet. Raising dogs for meat would have added variety to the diet, providing different nutrients and flavors. This diversification could have been important for overall health and well-being.
Practicality and Mobility: Dogs are relatively easy to raise and require less space and resources compared to larger livestock like deer or turkeys. For a coastal culture like Colima, where land might have been limited or used for other purposes, dogs were a practical choice for meat production.
Trade and Exchange: Dogs might have been raised not only for local consumption but also for trade with inland communities. Coastal cultures often engaged in trade networks, and dogs could have been a valuable commodity exchanged for goods not available near the coast.
Environmental Adaptation: The coastal environment of Colima, while rich in marine resources, might not have been suitable for large-scale agriculture or livestock farming. Dogs, being adaptable and easy to feed, would have been a more feasible option for meat production in such an environment.
In summary, the inhabitants of ancient Colima likely raised dogs for food as part of a broader strategy to ensure a stable and diverse food supply, while also honoring cultural and ritual practices. The practice reflects a pragmatic adaptation to their environment and resources, balancing the abundance of the sea with the reliability of domesticated animals."
I wondered if any other cultures in ancient Mexico raised dogs for food.
"Several ancient cultures in Mexico raised and fattened dogs for food, ritual purposes, or companionship. The practice was particularly notable in Mesoamerican societies, where dogs held both practical and symbolic significance. Here are some cultures that engaged in this practice:
Aztecs: The Aztecs raised a hairless dog breed known as the Xoloitzcuintli (or Xolo) for food, companionship, and ritual purposes. These dogs were considered sacred and were associated with the god Xolotl, who guided the dead to the underworld. Xolos were also fattened and consumed during special ceremonies or feasts.
Maya: The Maya also raised dogs, including hairless varieties, for food and ritual use. Archaeological evidence suggests that dogs were part of the Maya diet, and they were sometimes included in burials as companions for the deceased or as offerings to the gods.
Toltecs: The Toltecs, who influenced later cultures like the Aztecs, are believed to have raised dogs for similar purposes. Dogs appear in Toltec art and iconography, suggesting their importance in both daily life and religious practices.
Zapotecs: In Oaxaca, the Zapotec civilization raised dogs for food and ritual use. Dogs were sometimes buried with their owners, indicating their role as companions in life and the afterlife.
Tarascans (Purépecha): The Tarascan civilization in western Mexico, contemporary with the Aztecs, also raised dogs for food and ceremonial purposes. They were known to have a diverse diet that included domesticated animals like dogs.
Teotihuacan: While less is known about the specific role of dogs in Teotihuacan, archaeological evidence suggests that dogs were part of the diet and may have been used in rituals. The city's influence on later Mesoamerican cultures implies that dog-raising practices were likely present.
Common Themes:
Ritual and Symbolism: In many of these cultures, dogs were not just a food source but also held spiritual significance. They were often associated with the underworld, death, and guidance for the deceased.
Practicality: Dogs were relatively easy to raise and provided a reliable source of protein, especially in regions where other domesticated animals were scarce.
Trade and Status: Fattened dogs might have been a luxury item, consumed by elites or used in trade networks to acquire other goods.
In summary, raising and fattening dogs was a widespread practice in ancient Mexico, particularly among the Aztecs, Maya, Toltecs, Zapotecs, Tarascans, and possibly Teotihuacan. These cultures valued dogs for their nutritional, ritual, and symbolic roles, reflecting the interconnectedness of food, religion, and daily life in Mesoamerica."
But the Colimas are known for their sculptures of fattened dogs. Are such dogs portrayed in other contemporaneous cultures of ancient Mexico?
"The Colima culture is indeed renowned for its distinctive ceramic sculptures of fattened dogs, which are among the most iconic artifacts from this region. These sculptures depict dogs with rounded, plump bodies, often interpreted as representations of dogs raised for food or ritual purposes. While the Colima dog sculptures are particularly famous, depictions of dogs—including fattened ones—appear in other contemporaneous cultures of ancient Mexico, though they are less common or stylistically distinct. Here’s a look at how dogs were portrayed in other cultures:
1. Aztecs
The Aztecs, who postdate the Colima culture but inherited many Mesoamerican traditions, depicted dogs in their art, though not as prominently as the Colima. The Xoloitzcuintli (hairless dog) appears in Aztec codices and sculptures, often associated with the god Xolotl and the underworld. While Aztec depictions of dogs tend to emphasize their spiritual role rather than their physical fattening, dogs were still raised for food, and their importance in daily life and ritual is well-documented.
2. Maya
The Maya also depicted dogs in their art, including ceramics and murals. Dogs appear in scenes of daily life, hunting, and ritual contexts. Some Maya figurines show dogs with rounded bodies, possibly indicating they were fattened for food or ceremonial use. The Maya valued dogs for their role as companions, guardians, and guides to the underworld, as seen in the Popol Vuh, where dogs assist the hero twins.
3. Tarascans (Purépecha)
The Tarascan civilization, located in modern-day Michoacán and contemporaneous with the Aztecs, also raised dogs for food and ritual. While their artistic depictions of dogs are less well-known than those of the Colima, archaeological evidence suggests that dogs were an important part of their diet and culture. Tarascan art tends to focus more on human and deity figures, but dogs likely played a similar practical and symbolic role.
4. Teotihuacan
Teotihuacan, one of the largest and most influential cities in ancient Mexico, has yielded some depictions of dogs in murals and ceramics. However, these depictions are less focused on the fattened appearance seen in Colima sculptures. Dogs in Teotihuacan art are often shown in symbolic or ritual contexts, reflecting their role in Mesoamerican cosmology.
5. Zapotecs
The Zapotecs of Oaxaca also included dogs in their art and rituals. While their depictions are not as numerous or detailed as those of the Colima, dogs appear in burial contexts and as figurines, suggesting their importance as companions and food sources. Zapotec art tends to emphasize human and deity figures, but dogs were undoubtedly part of their cultural and dietary practices.
Why Colima Dog Sculptures Stand Out
The Colima culture’s focus on fattened dogs in their art is unique in its emphasis on the physicality of the animals. The rounded, plump forms of the dogs suggest they were intentionally fattened, possibly for feasting or ceremonial purposes. This artistic focus may reflect the Colima’s specific cultural practices or their desire to highlight the abundance and prosperity associated with raising dogs.
Conclusion
While other contemporaneous cultures in ancient Mexico also raised and depicted dogs, the Colima culture is distinctive for its detailed and abundant sculptures of fattened dogs. Other cultures, such as the Aztecs, Maya, Tarascans, and Zapotecs, valued dogs for their practical and symbolic roles but did not emphasize their fattened form in art to the same degree. The Colima dog sculptures thus provide a unique window into the cultural and dietary practices of this ancient coastal society."
Did the Colimas worship a deity associated with dogs like the Aztec god Xolotl?
There is no direct evidence that the Colima culture worshipped a specific deity associated with dogs, unlike the Aztecs, who had Xolotl, the god closely linked to the Xoloitzcuintli (hairless dog). However, dogs held significant cultural and symbolic importance in Colima society, as evidenced by their frequent depiction in art and their role in daily life, rituals, and possibly the afterlife. Here’s a closer look at the role of dogs in Colima culture and how it compares to the Aztec association with Xolotl:
Dogs in Colima Culture
Artistic Depictions: The Colima are best known for their ceramic sculptures of fattened dogs, which suggest that dogs were valued for their role as a food source and possibly for ceremonial purposes. These sculptures often depict dogs with rounded, plump bodies, indicating they were intentionally fattened.
Ritual and Burial Practices: Dogs were sometimes buried with their owners or included in graves, suggesting they played a role in guiding the deceased to the afterlife or serving as companions in the next world. This practice aligns with broader Mesoamerican beliefs about dogs and the underworld.
Symbolism: While there is no clear evidence of a dog-associated deity in Colima, dogs may have symbolized concepts such as fertility, abundance, or protection. Their frequent depiction in art implies they held a special place in the culture’s worldview.
Comparison to Aztec Xolotl
The Aztecs had a well-defined deity, Xolotl, who was associated with dogs, particularly the Xoloitzcuintli. Xolotl was a complex figure linked to:
The underworld and the setting sun.
Guiding souls to the afterlife.
Lightning, fire, and misfortune.
Transformation and duality (often depicted as a dog-headed man or a monstrous figure).
In contrast, the Colima culture does not appear to have a similarly defined dog-associated deity. Instead, dogs seem to have been more closely tied to practical and symbolic roles in daily life and death rituals.
Possible Explanations for the Lack of a Dog Deity in Colima
Regional Differences: The Colima culture was part of the Western Mexico shaft tomb tradition, which had distinct religious practices and iconography compared to central Mexican cultures like the Aztecs. Their focus may have been more on ancestral worship and fertility rituals rather than anthropomorphized deities.
Limited Archaeological Evidence: Much of what we know about Colima comes from their ceramic art and burial practices. Without written records or more extensive archaeological findings, it is difficult to determine if they worshipped a specific dog-associated deity.
Symbolic Role Without Personification: Dogs may have been seen as important symbols or intermediaries without being personified as a deity. Their role in guiding the dead or providing sustenance could have been understood in a more abstract or practical sense.
Conclusion
While the Colima culture did not appear to worship a deity specifically associated with dogs like the Aztec Xolotl, dogs held significant cultural and symbolic importance in their society. The frequent depiction of fattened dogs in Colima art and their presence in burial contexts suggest they were valued for their practical and spiritual roles. The absence of a dog deity in Colima may reflect regional differences in religious practices or the limitations of the archaeological record. Nonetheless, dogs were clearly an integral part of Colima life and cosmology."
No comments:
Post a Comment