The Artifacts of Tikal--Utilitarian Artifacts and Unworked Material: Tikal Report 27B 9781934536216

Table of contents :
Contents
Acknowledgments
Abbreviations
1. Introduction
2. Flaked Chert Artifacts
3. Flaked Obsidian Artifacts
4. Ground, Pecked, and Polished Stone Artifacts and Unworked Stones and Minerals
5. Bone Artifacts and Unworked Vertebrate Remains
6. Pottery Sherd Artifacts
7. Formed Pottery Artifacts
8. Artifacts of Mud, Plaster, and Unfired Clay
9. Textiles and Textile Impressions
10. Wooden Artifacts and Artifact Impressions
11. Plant Remains and Impressions and Other Non-Artifactual Materials
Appendices
References
Figures
Index

Citation preview

Tikal Report No. 27 Part B THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

This page intentionally left blank

University Museum Monograph 118

Tikal Report No. 27 Part B THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL Hattula Moholy-Nagy Series Editors William A. Haviland Christopher Jones

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA MUSEUM of Archaeology and Anthropology Philadelphia

Copyright © 2003 By the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology 3260 South Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 All rights Reserved First Edition

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Moholy-Nagy, Hattula. The artifacts of Tikal : utilitarian artifacts and unworked material / Hattula Moholy-Nagy.-- 1st ed. p. cm. -- (Tikal report ; no. 27, pt. B) (University Museum monograph ; 118) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1-931707-40-5 (alk. paper) 1. Tikal Site (Guatemala) 2. Mayas--Material culture. 3. Mayas--Implements. 4. Stone implements--Guatemala. 5. Maya pottery. 6. Guatemala--Antiquities. I. Title. II. Series. III. Tikal reports ; no. 27, pt. B. F1435.1.T5 T54 2003 no. 27 972.81'2 s--dc21 [972.81 2003011965

Hattula Moholy-Nagy joined the Tikal Project of the University of Pennsylvania Museum in 1960 and headed the field laboratory at Tikal from 1961 through 1964. She is currently a Research Associate in the Museum’s American Section. Her special interest is the portable material culture of Precolumbian Mesoamerica.

Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper

Contents Illustrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii 1

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2

FLAKED CHERT ARTIFACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3

FLAKED OBSIDIAN ARTIFACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

4

GROUND, PECKED, AND POLISHED STONE ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED STONES AND MINERALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

5

BONE ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED VERTEBRATE REMAINS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

6

POTTERY SHERD ARTIFACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

7

FORMED POTTERY ARTIFACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

8

ARTIFACTS OF MUD, PLASTER, AND UNFIRED CLAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

9

TEXTILES AND TEXTILE IMPRESSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

10 WOODEN ARTIFACTS AND ARTIFACT IMPRESSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 11 PLANT REMAINS AND IMPRESSIONS AND OTHER NON-ARTIFACTUAL MATERIALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Appendices A–G (located on the CD-ROM). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 H Report on the Tektites Found at Tikal, Alan R. Hildebrand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 I Analysis of Textile Impressions and Cloth Fragments from Tikal, Dorothy Cavalier Yanik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 J The Atlatl from Operation 96D, Structure 5D-51, Group 5D-11, Tikal, Peter D’Arcy Harrison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276

Illustrations CHARTS 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 4.1

Tikal Chronology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Number of Defined Lots Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Number of Defined Lots Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Number of Defined Lots Structure Group Type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Number of Defined Lots Recovery Context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Typology for the Tikal Chert Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Typology for Chert Biface Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Typology for Chert Flake Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Typology for Chert Blades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Typology for the Tikal Obsidian Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Summary List of Occurrences of Identified Minerals and Rocks Among the Ground, Pecked, and Polished Artifacts and Unworked Material. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 5.1 Summary List of Occurrences of Identified Vertebrate Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 11.1 Summary List of Occurrences of Identified Plant Species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 FIGURES 1 Chert Ovate Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 2 Chert Ovate Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 3 Chert Ovate Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 4 Chert Ovate Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 5 Chert Ovate Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 6 Chert Ovate Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 7 Chert Ovate Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 8 Chert Ovate Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 9 Chert Ovate Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 10 Chert Ovate Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 11 Chert Ovate Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 12 Chert Ovate Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 13 Chert Elongate Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 14 Chert Elongate Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 15 Chert Elongate Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 16 Chert Elongate Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 17 Chert Elongate Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 18 Chert Elongate Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 19 Chert Elongate Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 20 Chert Elongate Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 21 Chert Stemmed Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 22 Chert Miscellaneous Thin Bifaces and Pointed-End Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 23 Chert Pointed-End Bifaces and Chopping Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68

Chert Chopping Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Chert Rectangular/Oval Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 Chert Rectangular/Oval Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Chert Rectangular/Oval Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Chert Rectangular/Oval Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Chert Thin Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Chert Thin Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Chert Thin Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 Chert Thin Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Chert Thin Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Chert Thin Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Chert Thin Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 Chert Thin Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Chert Thin Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 Chert Thin Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Chert Thin Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 Chert Thin Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 Chert Thin Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 Chert Thin Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Chert Thin Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 Chert Flat, Rounded-End Bifaces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Chert Subtriangular and Drop-Shaped Bifaces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 Chert Miscellaneous Thin Bifaces, Biface Edge Fragments, and Tanged Macroblades . . . . 161 Chert Tanged Macroblades. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 Chert Small Points and Battered Flakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 Chert Large Scrapers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Chert Large Scrapers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Chert Large Scrapers and Biface Planes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 Chert Biface Plane and Scrapers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Chert Scrapers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 Chert Scrapers and Scraper-Awls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Chert Scraper-Awls and Other Point-Retouched Drills, Awls, and Borers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 Chert Point-Retouched Flakes and Point-Retouched Blades. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Chert Burins, Pseudoburins, and/or Spall Cores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 Chert Blade Cores and Blades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Chert Blades. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 Chert Flake Cores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 Chert Flake Cores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 Chipped and Ground Stone Artifacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 Chert Thin Bifaces and Obsidian Prismatic Blades from Cache 236A–D . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 Obsidian Thin Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Obsidian Thin Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 Obsidian Thin Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 Obsidian Thin Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 Obsidian Thin Bifaces, Unclassified Bifacial Artifact, Small Points, Macroblade, and Retouched and Used Flakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 vii

69 Obsidian Large Polyhedral Core and Prismatic Blade Cores. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 70 Obsidian Broad Prismatic Blades, Retouched and Used Prismatic Blades, and Blades with Cross Retouch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 71 Incised Obsidians from Cache 15, Stela 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 72 Obsidian Debitage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 73 Ground Stone Mano and Metate Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 74 Ground Stone Mano and Metate Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 75 Ground Stone Mano and Metate Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 76 Ground Stone Manos from Problematical Deposit 112 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 77 Ground Stone Manos. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 78 Ground Stone Manos. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 79 Ground Stone Manos. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 80 Ground Stone Manos and Metates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 81 Ground Stone Metates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 82 Ground Stone Metates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 83 Ground Stone Metates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 84 Ground Stone Metates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 85 Ground Stone Metates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 86 Ground Stone Metates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 87 Ground Stone Metates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 88 Ground Stone Metate and Architectural Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 89 Ground Stone Metates Reused as Whetstones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 90 Ground Stone Metates Rejuvenated, Reused, and Unusual Metate Fragments . . . . . . . . . . 205 91 Ground Stone Mortars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 92 Ground Stone Mortars and Grinding Stones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 93 Ground Stone Grinding Stone and Rubbing Stones and Saw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 94 Ground Stone Rubbing Stones. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 95 Ground Stone Rubbing Stones. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 96 Ground Stone Rubbing Stones, Polished Stones, and Saws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 97 Ground Stone Whetstones, Drill, and Stamp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 98 Ground Stone Hammerstones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 99 Ground Stone Celts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 100 Ground Stone Celts and Chisel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 101 Ground Stone Barkbeaters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 102 Ground Stone Barkbeaters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 103 Ground Stone Barkbeaters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 104 Ground Stone Barkbeaters and Barkmallets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 105 Ground Stone Barkbeaters and Barkmallets, Cupped Stones, and Small Worked Sphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 106 Ground Stone Spindle Whorls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 107 Ground Stone Pestles, Ballgame Handstones, and Centrally Perforated Disks . . . . . . . . . . 222 108 Ground Stone Doughnut Stones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 109 Ground Stone Flattened-End Spheres, Stemmed Spheres, and Small Worked Spheres . . . . 224 110 Ground Stone Stones with a Central Depression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 111 Ground Stone Elongate Soft Stone Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 112 Ground Stone Cordholders?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 viii

113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156

Ground Stone Architectural Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 Ground Stone Architectural Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 Ground Stone Miscellaneous Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 Ground Stone Miscellaneous Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 Ground Stone Miscellaneous Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 Ground Stone Miscellaneous Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 Unworked Stones and Minerals and a Hammerstone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 Unworked Stones and Minerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Bone Perforators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 Bone Perforators and Centrally Perforated Disks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 Bone Atlatl Grips, Spatulates, and Tie-Rods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 Bone Rasps, Miscellaneous Artifact, and Worked Deer Phalanges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 Bone Beveled-End Longbones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 Worked and Unworked Deer Antler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 Miscellaneous Bone Artifacts, Debitage, and Cut Flatbone Fragments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 Bone Debitage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 Bone Debitage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 Unworked Animal Remains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 Centrally Perforated Worked Sherds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 Centrally Perforated Worked Sherds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 Incompletely Perforated Worked Sherds and Pitted Sherds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 Eccentrically Perforated Worked Sherds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 Larger Unperforated Sherd Disks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 Unperforated Worked Sherds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 Unperforated Worked Sherds, Sherd Figurines, Reworked Vessel Adorno and a Mariposa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252 Worked Sherd Bars and Scrapers, and Miscellaneous Worked Sherds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 Miscellaneous Worked Sherds and Gnawed Sherds, and Worked Sherd Cordholders. . . . . 254 Formed Pottery Spindle Whorls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 Modeled Pottery Disks and Rings, a Miscellaneous Pottery Artifact, and Candeleros . . . . 256 Winged Candeleros . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 Winged Candeleros . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 Pottery Drums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 Pottery Drums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 Pottery Architectural Elements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 Pottery Architectural Elements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262 Pottery Miscellaneous Formed Artifacts and Cordholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 Pottery Cordholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264 Plaster, Marl, and Mud Objects and Unidentified Replacement Product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 Marly Fragments of Unidentified Replacement Product from Burial 177, Unfired Clay Lump, and Plaster Lump . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 Impressions of String, Baskets, and Rope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 Impressions of Barkcloth, and Mat, Leaf, and Cloth Impressions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 Impressions of Mats and Woven Cloth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 Woven Cloth Traces and Cloth Impressions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 Diamond-Weave Cloth Impression, Wood Fragments, and Unidentified Materials . . . . . . 271 ix

157 158 159 160 161

Textile Impressions from Burial 23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272 Textile Impressions from Burial 23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 Atlatl in situ in Gp. 5D-11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274 Recovery Context of Gp. 5D-11 Atlatl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274 Diagram of Half-Kilometer Concentric Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275

TABLES These are all located on the CD-ROM as Appendix G.

x

Acknowledgments

L

iterally dozens of people enabled me to write this Report. I regret that the work has taken so long that many of them are no longer present to see its publication. Facilitating my research in Guatemala were Vivian Broman de Morales, Rudy Lárrios, José María Márquez, Antonio and Aura Luz Ortiz, Carlos Samayoa Chinchilla, Edwin M. Shook, and Antonio Tejeda. Elizabeth Christensen, William R. Coe, Virginia Greene, Barbara Hayden, Christopher Jones, Walda Metcalf, Jennifer Quick, and Karen Vellucci gave me essential help at the University of Pennsylvania Museum. James R. Mathieu formatted and edited this report and the accompanying CD-ROM with great skill and patience. The artifact photographs, most of the drawings, and all of the paste-ups of the final figures were meticulously done by William Coe. Virginia Greene and I did additional drawings. Excavators of other sites who generously shared information were A. Hamilton Anderson, E. Wyllys Andrews IV, Luis Aveleyra Arroyo de Anda, Arlen and Diane Chase, John E. Clark, George Cowgill, Arthur Demarest, Gordon Ekholm, William Folan, René Millon, César Saenz, and Gordon R. Willey. Tikal colleagues who clarified details about their own excavations are Marshall J. Becker, William R. Coe, Ernestene Green, Peter D. Harrison, William A. Haviland, Pepa Iglesias Ponce de León, Christopher Jones, Juan Pedro Laporte, and Dennis E. Puleston. A number of specialists gave me invaluable help with the various categories of material included in this Report. Flaked chert and obsidian: Frank Asaro, Alice N. Benfer, Lilita Bergs, François Bordes, John E. Clark, Don Crabtree, Gordon F. Ekholm, Jeremiah F. Epstein, Carlos García Gutierrez, Karl G. Heider, Robert Heizer, Fred W. Nelson, William Parry, Olga Stavrakis Puleston, Payson Sheets, J. B. Sollberger, Fred Stross, and Gordon R. Willey. Ground and unworked stone: John Brinemann, Elizabeth K. Easby, Eduard G. Haldemann, Alan R. Hildebrand, Frederick Layman, Tatiana A. Proskouriakoff, Larry Vinson, and Howel Williams. Unworked shell, which is presented in TR. 27A: R. Tucker Abbott, E. Wyllys Andrews IV and Joanne Andrews, William J. Clench, Lawrence Feldman, Horace G. Richards, Alan G. Solem, and Ruth Turner. Unworked vertebrate remains: Diane Z. Chase, Kent V. Flannery, Steven M. Goodman, William A. Haviland, Barbara Lawrence, Robert Rush Miller, Karen Mudar, Mary D. Pohl, Anne Meacham Rick, Raymond A. Paynter, Sylvia Scudder, L. C. Stuart, P. A. Urban, and Elizabeth S. Wing. Textiles: Junius B. Bird, Dorothy Cavalier Yanik. Plant remains: C. L. Lundell, Dennis E. Puleston, C. Earle Smith, Norberto Tesucum. Ceramics: Clemency C. Coggins, T. Patrick Culbert, Anna O. Shepard, and Robert E. Smith. I wish to thank Arlen Chase, William Haviland, Christopher Jones, and a reviewer who wishes to remain anonymous for the time and patience they took to provide suggestions to make this Report more useful. I received much appreciated encouragement and guidance from Joyce Marcus when she was my advisor and the chairperson of my dissertation committee at the University of Michigan. I also benefited in many ways from coursework and discussions with Henry Wright and Jeffrey Parsons. Babysitting by Hans-Ruedi Hug, Maya Reinhart-Hug, Sibyl Moholy-Nagy, and Claudia Moholy-Nagy enabled me to make two unencumbered trips to Tikal to examine excavated materials after the Tikal Project had finished its work. My special thanks go to Roger G. Schneggenburger for his sympathetic patience and unfailing support.

xi

Abbreviations Alt. BPD Brch Bu. C Ca. Ch. cm Col. Alt. CPD d DPD Fig. G gm Gp. GX km L m mm MS. MT. No. Op. PD. Pl. Qu R RS SD or SpDp Sk. St. Str. Subop. u UPD x ? #

Altar Burial-like Problematical Deposit (problematical burial) Brecha (transect) Burial Causeway Cache Chultun centimeter Column Altar Cache-like Problematical Deposit (problematical cached offering) duplicated catalogue number Problematical Deposit of Domestic Artifacts Figure Structure Group gram Structure Group General Excavations kilometer Locus meter millimeter Miscellaneous Stone Miscellaneous Text number Operation Problematical Deposit Platform, Plaza Quarry Reservoir Recent site of the late 19th or early 20th century Special Deposit Skeleton Stela Structure Suboperation Unexamined by the author Unspecified Problematical Deposit Wrong Number Uncertain Identification by an expert in that field

1

Introduction

T

ikal Report 27 presents artifacts and associated unworked materials recovered by the University of Pennsylvania Museum’s Tikal Project of 1956-1969. In the 1980s, in the course of writing Tikal Report 14 on Gp. 5D-2, William R. Coe decided to report on that portion of the excavated sample thought to have had social and ceremonial functions. These were to be reported as Part A of the artifact report, while Part B was to cover the remainder. The plan was to publish Parts A and B together, which would compensate for the peculiarities of Coe’s division. Part B was finished a number of years ago, but work on Part A lagged, and eventually it once again became my responsibility. Because a report on the artifacts of Tikal is already long overdue, the decision was made to publish Part B first. I was able to modify the Part A/Part B division only slightly because many of the Part A figure references have already been published in TR. 14. Generally speaking, Part A reports artifacts and unworked materials of ornamental and ritual function, while Part B, for the most part, covers items of portable material culture thought to have had utilitarian functions, but this division is not consistent, even according to our present knowledge of Precolumbian Maya artifacts. Additional portable material culture from Tikal will be presented in TR. 28 on pottery figurines and related formed pottery artifacts, TR. 29 on pottery censers, TR. 30 on the recovered human skeletal series, TR. 35 on burials, caches, and problematical deposits, and TR. 37 on Postconquest occupations (see TR. 12: Appendix B). I hope to accomplish three goals with this Report. The primary one is to make the information available without further delay. As Mesoamericanists have

increasingly come to think in regional terms, the absence of full publication of Tikal’s artifacts has proven to be a serious gap in our conceptions of Precolumbian Lowland Maya material culture. A second goal is to present systematic descriptions of Tikal artifacts and materials that will enable comparisons with other sites and regions. Finally, by presenting the spatial, social, functional, and chronological contexts of Tikal’s material culture, I hope to encourage the use of the largely overlooked potential of artifactual data in the study of past economic, social, and ceremonial behavior.

The Nature of the Sample Even today, Maya archaeologists tend to be distracted by the splendid monumental architecture, hieroglyphic inscriptions, and gorgeous sumptuary goods, and they are apt to slight the more plentiful domestic artifacts, which can also provide important data. A shortcoming of the sample reported here is that it was excavated and recorded in the 1960s, when there was even less interest than there is today in the objects used to facilitate daily life. Furthermore, as is always the case, even the decisions as to what was collected and recorded were guided by the theories and perceptions of those times, many of which have fallen by the wayside during the intervening four decades. A direct result is that although excavation and field lab methods met and often exceeded the standards of the 1960s, they were not as thorough as today’s and much information that should have been recovered and recorded was not. The single most use-

2

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

Chart 1.1 Tikal Chronology (after TR. 14: Chart 1; TR. 25A: Table 1)

ful thing we could have done in the field laboratory would have been to weigh everything. Weights, being absolute measures, can provide a standard for comparison that, in turn, can generate many kinds of useful data, such as the relative densities of materials per cubic meter of excavated fill or per square meter of collected surface, the proportions of various kinds of exotic materials brought to the site, the estimated numbers of individual vertebrates of various species, the stage in a reductive production process from which durable debitage was derived, and so on. More attention should have been paid to screening and to completely recording large deposits of material, if not by count then at least by weight. Preliminary use-wear analysis with a binocular microscope should have been done on-site at the time of cataloguing. But the collected sample also has considerable strengths. It is very large, which permits a realistic notion of the variability of defined artifact types. Nearly all of the artifact and object classifications were made by one person, myself, which lends them a certain degree of consistency. Chronological control of the sample is very good. Most of the materials presented here came from middens and construction fills,

included in a general excavations recovery context, and the ceramic chronology worked out for Tikal by T. Patrick Culbert (TR. 25A) has provided most of the dates used in this report (Chart 1.1). In addition, many lots could be dated by association with hieroglyphic dates, radiocarbon dates, burials and caches, and architectural stratigraphy. A hierarchical cataloguing system devised by William R. Coe provides excellent spatial control. The site was excavated in flexible units, called lots, grouped into spatially defined operations and suboperations (TR. 12). The proveniences of the total number of lots defined at Tikal, about 10690 in all, are summarized in Charts 1.2-1.5. I have included these charts to permit an evaluation of the effect upon the artifact sample of the intensity of excavation. Excavations were guided more by purposive sampling strategy than by random sampling, so the intensity of excavation can be estimated by comparing counts of artifacts to the number of defined lots. Such estimations are a poor substitute for the use of absolute units of measurement, such as weight per cubic volume, but they do provide a rough means of evaluating the spatial distributions of material culture.

INTRODUCTION

3

Chart 1.2 Number of Defined Lots Site Area

In the field laboratory considerable effort was made to identify, classify, record, and photograph all cultural materials. Hundreds of scaled drawings were made of typical and unusual items. The figures published here have been selected to show the range of variation within a type. The sheer size of the sample presented enormous difficulties in moving beyond the mere cataloguing of material items to the more informative task of considering them in their spatial, chronological, and archaeological contexts. It was not possible to make much progress in this important matter until the 1980s when microcomputers and relational database software became readily available. The several databases I constructed for TR. 27, Parts A and B, proved much too large to be published in book form. However, these databases and a series of tables summarizing data for each artifact type or category of unworked material are available on the enclosed CD-ROM in a neutral format that will permit downloading into word processing and relational database programs.

Typology Although a typology of some kind is absolutely necessary in working with a collection of anything, analysts of Maya material culture have made little progress since A. V. Kidder’s pioneering work of the late 1940s (Kidder et al 1946; Kidder 1947). We still do not have at our disposal a standardized, up-to-date artifact typology comparable to that used for ceramics, although there has been encouraging progress in establishing behavioral types for artifacts produced by reductive techniques. Only Kidder’s work was available in 1957 when the Tikal Project began cataloguing excavated materials and it was followed with only minor modification until excavations ceased. It is still the standard for the Lowland

Maya area. As pointed out by Taschek (1994: 1-5), Kidder’s typology permits the recording of large collections, facilitates comparisons among sites, and is independent of context. She also notes, however, that among its drawbacks are minimization of variability and omission of spatial distributions and chronology. We can add here that one of the greatest difficulties in applying the Kidder typology to Tikal is that the Tikal sample is much larger than any of the site collections that Kidder worked with, and, therefore, includes a great deal more variability. Because the primary division in Kidder’s hierarchical typology is by material, artifacts of the same type and use, but made of different materials, such as spindle whorls, are classified as separate taxons (Willey et al. 1965: 391). Furthermore, as researchers have come to think in behavioral terms (Sheets 1975), it is clear that a static typology, such as Kidder’s, cannot adequately accommodate the reworking of one type into another (Shafer 1983), such as the reuse of a metate fragment as a whetstone. Additionally, it overlooks function and use by considering material categories as unrelated samples, ignoring the permanent and universal fact that the items of portable material culture used together in a given behavioral complex, such as food-procurement, tool production, or warfare, are usually made of different categories of materials. Tikal artifacts were classified by “inspection, description, and a comparative examination of the [ethnographic and archaeological] literature” (Willey et al 1994: 4). New types were defined on the basis of form or assumed use. Varieties, by analogy with the Type-Variety System used for ceramics, were based on variables of any kind that seem to have cultural relevance, such as style, material, modifications by intention or through use, date. A significant problem with the Tikal typology presented here, particularly the lithic classification, is that most of it predates the fundamental breakthroughs of the last three decades in behavioral typology, use-wear analyses, ethnoarchaeolo-

4

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

Chart 1.3 Number of Defined Lots Zone

result is admittedly unsatisfactory. This will be a disappointment to readers interested in a detailed technological presentation of artifact production at Tikal. For several important taxons, such as chert and obsidian blades, supporting data are missing. I hope that the many illustrations will somewhat compensate for the typological and technological shortcomings. There is, as yet, no standard order for presentation of artifact types. As a guide to the reader, each chapter of this Report begins with a summary table of the types presented in it (cf. Proskouriakoff 1962: 322-365), which includes page and figure references. Figure numbers are preceded by abbreviated references to the Tikal Report in which they appear, e.g., A: stands for TR. 27A, B: for TR. 27B, 14: for TR. 14, and so on.

The Organization of This Report The sample is described in chapters devoted to a specific material category. The chapters are of varying length, depending upon available information. To avoid repetition in the artifact descriptions, each chapter begins with some “General Considerations,” which also present preliminary summaries and conclusions for that particular material category (Willey 1978: 4). An overall synthesis of all of the material culture items reported in TR. 27 will appear in Part A. A preliminary overview, which also includes observations on pottery censers and figurines, has recently been published (Moholy-Nagy 2003). Descriptions of types and objects follow the General Considerations. The information given for each type includes figures and tables, number and condition, speculations as to past cultural contexts or function, and specific associated behavior or use (Binford 1962; Linton 1936: 404), material or species, dimensions (for artifacts only), secondary modifications such as decoration, burning, or reuse, spatial distribution by zones, associations with structure group types, recovery contexts, and date.

gy, and replication experiments. Because these methodologies often emphasize variables that are different from those stressed previously, the resulting classifications may differ notably. E.g., the new methodologies have focussed our attention on lithic debitage, a culturally significant category of materials that Kidder did not deal with. I have tried to modify our Kidder-based Tikal typology in an attempt to bring it more into line with current perceptions of Lowland Maya material culture. But, for various reasons, it was not possible to re-examine the materials themselves, so that the end

Definitions of the Variables Used in the Report The database codes for these variables are given in Appendix A (on the CD-ROM). Lots are the basic units of excavation and were usually defined in the field by the excavators (Appendices C, D). Usually defined lots were excavated, but a few were not. Special deposits are associated features and materials that are thought to be the result of a single activity, or of closely spaced sequential activities (Appendix D). Burials

INTRODUCTION

5

Chart 1.4 Number of Defined Lots Structure Group Type

had mortuary function and caches had votive function. The function of a problematical deposit is uncertain. I defined burials as chamber burials, crypt burials, and other burials. A more detailed discussion of Tikal burial typology is presented in TR. 19: 141-153. Chamber burials, often referred to as tombs, have repositories that were excavated into bedrock or con-

structed in building substructures. These repositories are larger than needed for an individual body, and were left unfilled with earth. Crypt burials have excavated or constructed repositories smaller than chamber burials, and may or may not have been filled with earth. Other burials were earth-filled and of several types: a simple repository excavated into bedrock or

6

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

Chart 1.5 Number of Defined Lots Recovery Context

building substructure, a repository lined and/or covered with stone slabs, a burial placed into a chultun or large pottery vessel, or a burial with no discernible repository. Caches are standardized offerings associated with the elite. They were classified according to their associated features. Monument caches were placed with carved and plain stone stelae and structure caches were placed with buildings classified as temples and range structures. Some problematical deposits appear to be offerings, but of another tradition than the caches associated with Tikal’s elite, while others include human remains and resemble burials. Others remain enigmatic. This class of deposits is, frankly, analytically troublesome. It was originally conceived as a temporary category for special deposits that would be reclassified after further study, but gradually it took on an existence of its own. The difficulty is that “problematical deposit” includes examples of what are termed cached offerings and burials at other Lowland sites and even at Tikal itself. This makes it difficult to understand the full range of variability of caches and burials at Tikal and to compare Tikal examples with those from other sites. A special-purpose dump is a large deposit of debitage predominantly of one kind of material that was not associated with a burial or a cache. Material category refers to a group of similar materials, such as chert or worked sherd artifacts, while

material refers to specific kinds of material or to animal or plant species. Condition indicates if the object is whole or complete, and what part of the object is present if it is incomplete. Comment describes intentional or incidental modifications that were not part of either the type definition or manufacturing process, such as use-wear or burning. It also includes comments of various sorts. Two broad kinds of recovery context were defined: special deposits, as described above, and general excavations, a residual category covering everything else. This distinction is very useful for Tikal, because most of the sample reported here comes from secondary contexts. The contexts of special deposits often provide important information about the same kinds of materials found in general excavations. Date refers to the recovery context in which the object is found. For general excavations these dates usually come from the included ceramics (TR. 25A) and other datable artifacts and, therefore, can usually only be expressed as a span of time, such as “Early Classic-Early Late Classic,” rather than a single period. Other techniques can be used to date special deposits, as noted above. Not all of the defined excavation lots have been dated, so I am not able to present a summary chart of dated lots comparable to the information presented in Charts 1.2-1.5.

INTRODUCTION

Structure group type is based upon a classification by William A. Haviland, which I have elaborated somewhat to accommodate the study of portable material culture (Moholy-Nagy 1994: 8-11). Range Structure Groups consist primarily of range structures and temples. At Tikal, the term range structure is used to designate buildings with a floor plan of rooms arranged side by side. Well-constructed examples of such buildings, usually termed palaces at other Maya sites, are assumed to have housed the rulers and highest-ranking elite of Tikal, or are assumed to have had administrative functions. Intermediate Structure Groups are thought to have been residences of lesser elite and perhaps commoners of high rank. Such groups may include range structures and temples and other elite-associated features like stone monuments, caches, and chamber burials. At present, this structure group category includes an unacceptable amount of variability and needs further research. In particular, some examples, such as Gp. 7F-1 (Haviland 1981), which possessed a carved stone monument and a major chamber burial, may need to be differentiated from other Intermediate Structure Groups without such elite traits. The great numbers of Small Structure Groups found in all parts of the city are assumed to have been residences of the lower social strata, the vast numbers of farmers and craft specialists who maintained Tikal. Rare groups may include a simple range structure and/or a modest temple. Beyond a distance of about four km from the core of Tikal are scattered, nucleated groups of structures

7

called Minor Centers. They may also include range structures and temples and other elite-associated features like stone monuments, caches, and chamber burials. In other words, all of the features found in Intermediate Structure Groups may be present. Besides these residential structure groups, others without residential function were classified as CivicCeremonial Groups. The largest and most thoroughly investigated Civic-Ceremonial Group is Gp. 5D-2 (TR. 14), the heart of the city for most of the Late Preclassic and Classic periods. Structure type provides information on the type of structure within a structure group and from which part of a structure material was recovered. Dennis Puleston defined three approximately concentric areas of occupation density within the settlement pattern of the Late Classic city, which he referred to as Epicentral, Central, and Peripheral Tikal (TR. 13: 24-25, Fig. 21). Artifact types and densities exhibited interesting synchronic and diachronic variation among these areas, but they were too irregular in shape and too large to be useful for the purposes of this report. I modified Puleston’s division by superimposing a set of concentric Zones upon the Tikal Project’s site map (TR. 11), centered on Square 5D, the civic-ceremonial heart of the city for most of its occupation (Fig. B:161). Zone 01 has a radius of 0.25 km, Zones 02-26 each have a radius of 0.5 km. Zone 00 is used for materials without definite provenience, while Zone 99 designates materials from beyond the limits of the Parque Nacional de Tikal.

2

Flaked Chert Artifacts General Considerations Summary Number

Type

Figure

Page

1527 690 8 12 177 613 13 667 19 12 7 8 164 41 8 40 35 1185 475

Ovate bifaces Elongate bifaces Stemmed bifaces Pointed-end bifaces Chopping tools Rectangular/Oval bifaces Biface planes Thin bifaces Miscellaneous thin bifaces Flat, rounded-end bifaces Subtriangular bifaces Drop-shaped bifaces Biface edge fragments Tanged macroblades Small points Battered flakes Large scrapers Scrapers Point-retouched flakes and scraper-awls Burins, pseudoburins, and spall cores Blade cores Blades Flake cores Unused flakes, used flakes Unsorted debitage

B: 1-12 B: 13-20 B: 21 B: 22k-o, 23a, b B: 23c, d, 24 B: 25-28 B 51b-52a B: 29-43, 63 B: 22a-j, 46a, b B: 44 B: 45a-g B: 45h-m B: 46c-i B: 46j-47 B: 48a-h B: 48i-o B: 49-51a B: 52b-54q

13 14 15 15 15 16 16 17 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 20 20 20

B: 54r-56

21

B: 57 B: 58a-h A: 62j, B: 58i-59 B: 60, 61

22 22 22 23 24 24

21 40 687 3037* 72812* 734*

B: 62a

* incomplete count Hammerstones of chert are described in Chapter 4, below, and chert eccentrics are presented in TR. 27A.

FLAKED CHERT ARTIFACTS

B

ased upon personal observations and a collection made by Bennett Bronson in 1966, nodules of medium and coarse textured chert and fine and medium quality chalcedony (translucent siliceous stone) large enough to be shaped into artifacts are still readily available at Tikal. So the procurement of raw material suitable for artifacts did not require special organization. On the other hand, some types of piercing and cutting implements, such as thin bifaces, were usually made of finer textured, opaque, tan, brown, and gray chert, some of it banded, that has not been recorded at Tikal and that may have come from elsewhere in Guatemala, such as the Pasión River area, or from Belize. Tanged macroblades and some rounded-end scrapers were apparently brought to Tikal as finished products, most likely from Belize where the kinds of chert and the types of artifacts are more abundant. The earliest artifact of imported chert identified so far is a stemmed thin biface dated to the Early Late Preclassic period. The local availability of nodules of a quality and size suitable for artifacts gave rise to two forms of artifact production: specialized, produced mainly for others, and expedient, made by the producer as the need arose. The rudimentary skills required to make them and the lack of standardization of shape and size suggest that most of the chopping tools, battered flakes, scrapers, point-retouched flakes, flake cores, and used flakes were expediently produced artifacts. The other types described here, particularly the various bifacial forms, are assumed to have made by specialists. Their spatial distributions and recovery contexts indicate that they were distributed to consumers through marketplace exchange (Chase 1998; Hirth 1998; Sheets 2000). The rectangular/oval bifaces, miscellaneous thin bifaces, and drop-shaped bifaces are now considered to be production failures, some of which were subsequently reworked or reused, especially as hammerstones. It proved to be unexpectedly difficult to develop a satisfying typology for Tikal’s chert artifacts. The main problem was that the Tikal Project began to classify artifacts according to the best system then available, which was Kidder’s pioneering typology for Uaxactun (Kidder 1947). But Tikal’s material culture inventory is much larger than the sample that Kidder reported upon and includes a greater number of different forms. Furthermore, additional variability was introduced into the our sample through the circumstance that Tikal was a major production center, whose artisans generated many production failures and much debitage, which Kidder’s classification did not account for. The multiplicity of forms remained enigmatic until the introduction of behavioral typology in the mid-1970s (Sheets 1975), several years after the Tikal Project’s excavations had ceased and all the finds had been classified and cat-

9

alogued. The typology for chert artifacts presented in this report is an attempt to arrange the types derived from Kidder’s classification into a behavioral typology, but without being able to re-examine the materials themselves. In order to compensate for this unsatisfactory situation, an effort was made to illustrate the range of variation encompassed by each type. The overall chert artifact typology is summarized in Chart 2.1. A behavioral typology for the chert biface industry is given in Chart 2.2. Bifaces, with the exception of chopping tools, are considered to have been produced by craft specialists. Chart 2.3 presents the chert flake industry. Artifacts on flakes are considered to be expedient tools, with the exception of large scrapers, blade cores on flakes, and the eccentrics made on flakes described in TR. 27A, which are assumed to have been produced by specialists. The chert blade industry, outlined on Chart 2.4, is also considered to be the work of specialists. Visual examination of the artifacts, my limited efforts at chipping chert and glass, and the opinions and advice of four experienced stone knappers (personal communications from François Bordes 1968, Don Crabtree 1974, John E. Clark and William Parry 19831987) form the basis of the following summary of chert manufacturing techniques (also see Moholy-Nagy 1991: 190, 194). Percussion flaking using hammerstones appears to have been the preferred technique for detaching large flakes from chert nodules, as well as for shaping bifacial artifacts. Bipolar flaking seems to be rare and perhaps only used by expedient tool-makers. Nothing resembling the large and heavy bone and antler billets used in Europe is known from Tikal. Small bone and antler artifacts that suggest flaking and edgeretouching tools are known from Tikal (Chapter 5), but they are not nearly as common as the small to large hammerstones of chert and limestone, described in Chapter 4. Retouching the edges of larger bifaces, such as ovates and elongates, could have been accomplished with small hammerstones of softer stone, such as limestone, siltstone, and finely battered chert. Chert flakes rarely exceeded 10 cm in greatest length and were probably produced using freehand percussion and a large chert hammerstone. However, bigger flakes were used for the production of large scrapers, with the largest recorded being 14.9 cm in length. Flakes of this size may have been produced by a two-person process. One person holds a large nodule on a stone anvil with the part providing the flake not resting upon it, while the other person strikes the nodule with a large hammerstone. The flake scars of a few artifacts of local fine textured chalcedony and medium quality chert have the waxy texture found in heat-treated stone. Yet in the absence of any controlled heating

10

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

Chart 2.1 Typology for the Tikal Chert Industry

of Tikal chert, it is uncertain that exposure to heat was systematic or even intentional. The coarse texture of much of the Tikal chert might make heat treatment hard to detect. Furthermore, heating stone weakens it and might have been undesirable in the manufacture of heavy-duty tools. The reworking of damaged chert bifaces is very common at all periods. Its ubiquity also suggests that biface users did not make their own tools but obtained them from craft specialists. Chert artifact production by specialists was definitely present by the Late Middle Preclassic period. I think it likely that we will eventually discover that it was present from the time of initial settlement during the Early Middle Preclassic. The quantities of chert debitage and failed artifacts recorded from Tikal demonstrate that the city had become an important production center for chert artifacts by the Terminal Preclassic period. But it must be kept in mind that, at Tikal and elsewhere in the Maya Lowlands, our principal indicator of local specialized artifact production is the presence of debitage and

failed artifacts in secondary context. In settled areas, the production loci themselves have been obliterated by site maintenance procedures. Chert artifacts were widely distributed throughout Tikal. The densities (estimated in a very approximate manner by count per defined excavation lot) of chert artifacts considered to have been produced by specialists tend to be higher towards the center of the city (Zones 01-05), a distribution that appears to be true of all types of artifacts produced by specialists. Such chert artifacts, however, are more widely distributed than specialist-produced artifacts of other materials, other than pottery vessels. Specialist-produced chert artifacts, as well as the debitage generated by their production, occurred in all types of structure groups. Such artifacts were especially frequent in the construction fills of monumental architecture, much of which consisted of midden deposits brought in from residential groups. In the absence of any use-wear analysis, we can only say that the forms, quantities, recovery contexts, and generally worn and fragmented condition of chert

FLAKED CHERT ARTIFACTS

11

Chart 2.2 Typology for Chert Biface Artifacts

artifacts indicate predominantly utilitarian functions, although in most cases the exact mode of use can only be conjectured. Ethnoarchaeological and experimental data gathered by other researchers suggest use in the production, maintenance, and rejuvenation of arti-

facts, food procurement and preparation, and the acquisition and working of other kinds of material. Utilitarian chert artifacts of all kinds were overwhelmingly recovered from general excavations, although they also occurred sporadically in special

12

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

Chart 2.3 Typology for Chert Flake Artifacts

deposits. They were discarded on household middens, some of which remained in situ and many of which, particularly from early periods, were subsequently recycled as construction fill. During most of the Preclassic period, chert debitage was also disposed of on household middens, indicating that knappers worked in or near their homes. Some debitage went underground into abandoned chultuns. By the Terminal Preclassic, however, production by specialists created so much waste so rapidly that large accumulations were now included in special deposits, notably the massive accumulations exterior to chamber burials in the Epicenter. Bu. 125 is, at present, the earliest known example with such an exterior chert and obsidian debitage deposit. During the Classic period, debitage was also deposited into caches, problematical deposits, and special-purpose dumps. In fact, from Early Classic into Late Late Classic times, apparently more chert and obsidian debitage was disposed of in these special deposits than in any other type of recovery context. This circumstance is not, unfortunately, shown

in the tabulations because the largest special deposits were neither completely excavated nor recorded. The widespread spatial distribution and recovery contexts of the specialist-produced and expedient chert artifact types described here indicate that there were no social restrictions on their acquisition and use. Chert ovate and elongate bifaces, flake cores, used and unworked flakes, and scrapers belonged to a basic artifact assemblage defined by Haviland (1981: 103) found in virtually all households from at least Late Middle Preclassic times. Chert pointed-retouched flakes and thin bifaces belonged to an artifact assemblage of common, somewhat less widely distributed types (Haviland 1981:103). Expedient production of chert artifacts occurred during the entire period of permanent occupation. As noted above, specialist production was present at least as early as the Late Middle Preclassic and also extended into the Terminal Classic period. To judge from the quantities of debitage encountered, Tikal was a major

FLAKED CHERT ARTIFACTS

13

Chart 2.4 Typology for Chert Blades

producer, as well as a major consumer, of artifacts of local cherts during the Classic period. The types, quantities, and spatial distributions of recovered artifacts indicate that much of the specialist production was distributed through a market system to local and possibly regional consumers.

Descriptions Ovate Bifaces Figure B: 1-12, Table 2.1-2.6 Total: 1527, 131 of which were complete or nearly so (Table 2.1). Five varieties were defined for 227 classifiable examples. Ovates were the most common type of bifacially worked chert artifact at Tikal at all time periods. Variety A is approximately drop-shaped in plan and the thinnest in section (Fig. B: 1a-c, 2, 3a-c). There were 97 complete examples. Variety B is characterized by a thick section and a neatly finished, ground bit (Fig. B: 6, 7). The butt ends are usually broken or irregular. There were 67 examples, 14 of which were complete or nearly so.

Variety C ovates are somewhat smaller and thicker than Variety A with narrower and more parallelsided plans (Fig. B: 9, 10). There were 33 of these, 11 of which are complete. Variety D ovates are larger and thicker than any of the other varieties and characterized by crude flaking (Fig. B: 11). None of the 20 examples appear to be complete. They may well be unfinished examples of other varieties. Several show traces of reworking and subsequent use (Fig. B: 11b, c). Variety E ovates have broad, relatively thin sections like Variety A examples, but have constricted butt ends (Fig. B: 12). Eight whole and two almost complete examples were identified. Approximately 85 percent of the recorded sample could not be classified into varieties because of its fragmentary condition or because of extensive reworking. The classification of two unexamined fragments is uncertain. These artifacts were set into wooden hafts as axes, that is, with the blade bit edge parallel to the handle. This is attested by the discovery of a hafted example from Belize, the “Puleston Axe” (Shafer and Hester 1986), as well as one-piece effigies in chert (Hester 1980: 3) and obsidian (Coe 1959: Fig. 36d; Thompson 1939: Fig. 28). Two complete specimens

14

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

from Tikal, one exhibiting differential patination (Fig. B: 6a) and the other found coated with plaster (Fig. B: 10a1), indicate that ovates could be hafted at an angle. There is no evidence of any sort from the Maya Area to indicate that ovates were hafted as adzes, that is, with the bit edge perpendicular to the haft. Experiments have demonstrated that these tools were suitable for chopping down trees and rough woodworking (Lewenstein 1987: 35-47) and for excavating into bedrock (Puleston 1971: 328, Fig. 2, although we note that the ovate used for this experiment was hafted as an adze). Use-wear analyses have generally supported such activities (Wilk 1976/7: 5861, Fig. 5-7; Wilk 1978: 139-140; Gibson 1986: 170171). Ovates may also have been used as hoes (Gibson 1986: 173-174; Shafer 1983: 226). Although no exact counts were made, ovates were almost exclusively of medium-textured, light-colored chert (Table 2.2). A few were of coarse-textured, lightcolored chert and at least 12 were of chalcedony. Unworked nodules of these materials can still be collected in the immediate area of Tikal. I have assumed that ovate bifaces, like most of the larger chert artifacts recovered from the site, were predominantly of local stone. At least 70 had cortex on both faces (e.g., Fig. B: 1b, c), attesting to their origin on nodules rather than large flakes. Plans are drop-shaped to ovate. Maximum linear dimensions of complete examples ranged between 9.8 and 20.8 cm in length, with one unusually long specimen of 24.0 cm (Fig. B: 1a). Widths were between 3.6 and 7.9 cm, and thicknesses between 1.3 and 5.6 cm. Weights ranged between approximately 114 and 598 gm. Burning, reworking, and reuse were common. Eighty-eight were noted as burned and another 62 as reworked and burned. Approximately 345 ovates had been reworked and reused. Among them were six that had been reused as hammerstones (Fig. B: 4c, 7a) and at least 17 whose broken ends had been worked into gouges (e.g., Fig. B: 3d, 4a, b, f, 11b, c). Two were found coated with plaster (Fig. B: 10a1, 2). Ovate bifaces were widely distributed at Tikal, occurring in the Epicentral, Central, and Peripheral areas and in 17 of the 26 half-kilometer concentric zones centered on Square 5D of the Tikal Map (Table 2.3). A little over 40 percent of the ovate biface sample was recovered from Small Structure Groups (Table 2.4). Approximately 96 percent were found in general excavations. Fifty-nine occurred in special deposits dating from the later Late Preclassic to the Terminal Classic period (Table 2.5). Two complete ovates were found on the floor of an Early Late Classic chamber burial (Fig. B: 10a1, 2). A fragment occurred in the

grave of an Early Classic burial. Eight ovates, including one complete specimen, were found in the chert and obsidian debitage deposits exterior to three chamber burials of Terminal Preclassic, Early Classic, and Late Classic date. These apparently unused ovates were probably unfinished or defective, and were discarded with the chipping waste (Moholy-Nagy 1997: 304). A complete ovate and a fragment occurred in two Late Classic monument caches, and a fragment was found in an Early Classic structure cache. Forty-one ovates, including five complete examples, occurred in various kinds of problematical deposits. These ranged in date from the Late Late Preclassic into the Terminal Classic, with the largest number from the Early Classic period. Ovates are present by at least the Late Middle Preclassic period (Table 2.6) and are among the earliest chert biface types. Variety A may have been the earliest, with Variety E appearing during the Early Late Preclassic. Variety B appeared during the Late Late Preclassic and Varieties C and D during the Early Classic Periods. Varieties A, B, C, and D continued into the Terminal Classic period, but Variety E may have gone out of use during the Early Late Classic period.

Elongate Bifaces Fig. B: 13-20, Table 2.7-2.12 Total: 690, 74 of which were complete or nearly so (Table 2.7). Almost 95 percent of the studied sample could be classified into five varieties. Variety A was thick and had a cigar-shaped plan with a wide, continuous range in overall size. Often the cross section was roughly diamond-shaped (Fig. B: 1316). There were 574, 61 of which were complete or nearly so. Variety B was characterized by more careful flaking than Variety A and had an almost triangular cross section (Fig. B: 18, 19a, b). There were 33, none of which were complete. Variety C examples were large, heavy, and crudely flaked (Fig. B: 19c-e, 20a-c). They appear to be failed attempts at producing Variety A or B elongates. There were 18, 10 of which were complete. Variety D elongates were small and crude (Fig. B: 20d) and probably represented failures at producing Variety E. There were 21 examples, three of which were complete. Variety E was small and slender and well flaked (Fig. B: 20e-h). There were 21 incomplete examples. Seven complete Variety A elongates showed traces of use at both ends, suggesting that many examples had two working ends. This is also supported by the high number of bit fragments compared to butt frag-

15

FLAKED CHERT ARTIFACTS

ments. Use of both ends of the artifact also suggests that Variety A elongates may have been hand-held. On the other hand, the triangular cross sections of Variety B forms suggested they were hafted, as did the more delicate appearance of Variety E. Heavy use-battering was common on the ends of the larger examples (Fig. B: 14a, 16a, g, h), as was use-smoothing (Fig. B: 17b, c, h, 18g). The working ends of a number of specimens were both smoothed and battered (Fig. B: 14b, 15d, 16g), and occasionally one end of an elongate showed batter while the other was smoothed (Fig. B: 13c). One elongate was found coated with plaster. Some ancient quarrying marks on bedrock outcrops at Tikal appear to have been left by a tool of the same shape and size as Variety A elongates. Dennis Puleston successfully used a hafted example to excavate an experimental chultun (Puleston 1971: 328). On the basis of use-wear analysis, Wilk proposed utilization as chisels, gouges, planes, and engravers (Wilk 1976/7: 66, Fig. 11; Wilk 1978: 141, Fig. 148, 149). Additional uses suggested by Aldenderfer were as hoes on grassy soil, wood wedges, adzes, and drills (Aldenderfer et al. 1989: 53, 55, Fig. 4A, B, 5A, 8). Most of the sample was of light-colored, mediumtextured chert, superficially identical to locally available chert nodules (Table 2.8). Complete examples ranged in length from 7.4 to 24.4 cm, in width from 1.3 to 7.1 cm, and in thickness from 0.8 to 5.0 cm. They weighed between approximately 56 and 1054 gm. At least 77 elongates had been burned and another six may have been. At least 176 had been reworked and reused. One or both broken ends of 16 had been fashioned into gouges (Fig. B: 17e, f, 18b), those of five others into chisels (Fig. B: 13c, 16c), and those of an additional ten into carinated scrapers (Fig. B: 18ce, 19a, b). Vertical use-striations were readily visible on one chisel-ended fragment (Fig. B: 17g). Traces of red pigment were noted on an elongate with a smoothed and battered bit. Elongate bifaces had a widespread distribution at Tikal (Table 2.9). They were relatively most common in Small Structure Groups (Table 2.10). About 92 percent of the studied sample came from general excavations (Table 2.11). Fifty-two had been included in special deposits. Eleven were found with burials, including a complete example in an Early Late Classic chamber burial (Fig. B: 13a, 157) and six unfinished fragments in the chert and obsidian debitage exterior to a Late Classic chamber burial. One fragment each was recovered from two Early Classic structure caches (Fig. B: 13d). Thirty-eight were excavated from various kinds of problematical deposits dating from the Terminal Preclassic into the Terminal

Classic period (Fig. B: 13b, 13c, 13e, 17i1-5). Sixteen incomplete elongate bifaces were found in one Late Classic problematical deposit and a complete example was found in another (Fig. B: 13b). Elongate bifaces were present during the Early Middle Preclassic period and went out of use during the Terminal Classic period (Table 2.12). The small, slender Variety E elongates may have been in use only during the Classic period.

Stemmed Bifaces Figure B: 21, Table 2.13-2.18 Total: eight, all incomplete (Table 2.13). The mode of use is unknown. All were of medium-textured, lightcolored, presumably locally available chert (Table 2.14). They are considerably larger and sturdier than the stemmed thin bifaces thought to have been used as knives and projectile points (Fig. B: 29-43). One had traces of cortex on both faces. Another had been burned. They were concentrated towards the center of Tikal and are not reported beyond Zone 04 (Table 2.15). Half of the sample was recovered from Preclassic period construction fill of the North Acropolis of Civic-Ceremonial Group 5D-2 (Table 2.16). Seven occurred in general excavations and one in a problematical deposit (Table 2.17). Stemmed bifaces appeared during the Late Middle Preclassic period and probably went out of use during the earlier part of the Classic period (Table 2.18).

Pointed-End Bifaces Fig. B: 22k-o, 23a,b, Table 2.13-2.18 Total: 12, seven complete (Table 2.13). These are generally crudely flaked bifacial artifacts with a pointed end that shows rounding from use. The six largest specimens ranged from 6.6 to 14.2 cm in greatest length and weighed between 228 and 684 gm. Most pointed-end bifaces were of medium-textured, probably local, chert (Table 2.14). Most came from Zone 01 (Table 2.15) and from various types of Structure Groups (Table 2.16). One was recovered from the debitage deposit exterior to an Early Classic chamber burial (Fig. 22o), the rest came from general excavations (Table 2.17). They date to the Classic period (Table 2.18).

Chopping Tools Figure B: 23c, d, 24, Table 2.13-2.18 Total: 177, at least 165 were complete. No data were

16

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

available for the others (Table 2.13). Chopping tools were characterized by a bifacially flaked working edge opposite a handhold consisting of nodule cortex (Fig. B: 23d, 24a-d, g, h) or battered-down flake ridges (Fig. B: 24e, f ). The bifacially flaked edge usually showed signs of pounding, as a kind of hammer. Most of the chopping tools were made on nodules of medium-textured, light-colored chert, although one is recorded as having been made on a large flake. Four were of chalcedony, and one was of imported quartzite (Table 2.14). Greatest dimensions ranged from 6.0 to 10.6 cm in length measured perpendicular to the working edge, 6.0 to 11.7 cm in width, and 3.1 to 6.2 cm in thickness. Weights ranged between approximately 85 and 600 gm. Twenty-three specimens had been burned and another 15 may have been. One showed traces of red pigment. Chopping tools were widely distributed and were relatively more common in the Periphery (Table 2.15). They were most numerous in Small Structure Groups (Table 2.16). I regard them as examples of unspecialized, expedient artifact production, perhaps used as substitutes for specialist-produced bifaces. A little over 95 percent of the studied sample came from general excavations (Table 2.17). Nine were found in special deposits: one in a structure cache dated to the Terminal Preclassic-Early Classic transition and eight in six problematical deposits from the Terminal Preclassic-Early Classic transition into the Terminal Classic period. Chopping tools were present throughout the entire span of permanent occupation of the site (Table 2.18).

Most of the sample was of light-colored, mediumtextured chert thought to be local (Table 2.14). Thirteen larger rectangular/oval bifaces had cortex on both faces, indicating origin on a nodule, while eight others had been made from large flakes. Complete examples ranged from 3.8 to 15.0 cm in maximum dimension. Weights fell between approximately 85 and 826 gm. Heat damage was noted on 108, with an additional two probably also burned. Rectangular/oval bifaces were widely distributed at Tikal. Their relatively high density in adequately sampled zones, such as Zone 03, 05, 09, and 20, suggests specialist artifact production in those zones (Table 2.15). Nearly 40 percent were found in Small Structure Groups of the Central Area (Table 2.16), thought to have been loci of specialist production of chert artifacts. About 94 percent of the sample came from general excavations (Table 2.17). Three were among the debitage deposits exterior to an Early Classic and a Late Late Classic chamber burial, one was recovered from an Early Classic burial, and a fragmentary specimen came from an Early Late Classic structure cache. Twenty-four were recovered from Bu. 107 and various kinds of problematical deposits that dated from the Late Late Preclassic into the Terminal Classic periods. One of the most interesting of these was PD. 112, of Late Late Classic date, in which the rectangular/oval biface was associated with 16 whole and incomplete manos (Fig. 76e), a biface plane, and an incomplete, unspecified human longbone. Rectangular/oval bifaces were produced from Middle Preclassic into Terminal Classic times (Table 2.18).

Rectangular/Oval Bifaces

Biface Planes

Figure B: 25-28, Table 2.13-2.18 Total: 613, of which 464 were complete or nearly so (Table 2.13). This type was first recognized and named by Karl G. Heider (personal communication, 1960), but its significance was not recognized until the advent of behavioral typology (Sheets 1975). Rectangular to oval bifaces are unstandardized in form, but more carefully flaked than flake cores. They appear to be “practice pieces” and abandoned attempts to produce a variety of bifacial artifacts. A few of the small examples may be the extensively reworked remnants of broken, finished artifacts (Fig. B: 25c, 26b, c). Like flake and core debitage, rectangular/oval bifaces attest to bifacial artifact production. Most show no signs of use, but 208, about one-third of the sample, had battered edges indicating recycling as hammerstones (Fig. B: 27, 28).

Figure B: 51b-52a, Table 2.13-2.18 Total: 13 complete examples (Table 2.13). They resemble large scrapers (Fig. B: 49-51a), with which they were sometimes found, but are bifacially formed. One example was probably unfinished (Fig. B: 51c). No obvious signs of use were observed on any, however, making their classification as finished artifacts uncertain. All were of medium-textured chert (Table 2.14). Ten of 13 were found in Zone 01 (Table 2.15), and seven were associated with monumental architecture (Table 2.16). One was found in Late Late Classic PD. 112, while the rest came from general excavations (Table 2.17). Their period of use coincides with monumental building at Tikal, that is, from the Early through the Late Classic Periods (Table 2.18).

FLAKED CHERT ARTIFACTS

Thin Bifaces (Projectile Points and Knives) Figure B: 29-43, 63, Table 2.19-2.24 Total: 667, including 129 complete examples and 134 proximal fragments. Because of the fragmentary condition of the collection, it seemed more useful to lump together all bifacially worked artifacts with thin sections, sharp edges, and pointed tips that did not appear to be eccentrics. The term “thin biface” (Shafer 1983: 230) is used here as an inclusive term for artifacts that are often referred to as projectile points or knives. The thin bifaces from Tikal exhibit great morphological variability and cannot be classified in a satisfactory manner according to the typology established by Kidder (1947: 7-10) and refined by Willey (Willey et al. 1965: 412-422; Willey 1972: 161-175; Willey 1978: 108-113), which focuses on the style of the base or proximal end. In order to permit comparison with other sites, only two major varieties, stemmed and stemless, have been defined here, with most of the sample grouped into an unclassifiable category. There are 182 stemmed thin bifaces, of which 84 are complete, 92 stemless thin bifaces, of which 45 are complete, 390 unclassifiable fragments, and three fragments of uncertain classification (Table 2.19). The collection has been extensively illustrated with the hope that it may, in time, contribute to a more useful classification of Lowland Maya thin bifaces. There is general agreement that thin bifaces were hafted. The base of one stemless point with serrated edges still bore traces of an unidentified black resinous substance used to attach its haft (Fig. B: 40m). Usewear analysis of stemmed and unstemmed points from various sites in the Lowland Maya Area proposes that they were projectile points (Wilk 1976/7: 62-65; Gibson 1986: 172, 175-176) and knives (Wilk 1978: 141-143; Gibson 1986: 172, 175-176), but were also used for other purposes. Lewenstein (1987: Table 26) determined that thin bifaces had been used to slice/cut, saw, scrape, scrape/plane, butcher, and perforate materials. To these activities Aldenderfer added wood sawing, wood wedging or splitting, and sawing of hard stone (Aldenderfer et al. 1989: 54-55, Fig. 6). Analysis of damage patterns (Flenniken and Raymond 1986; Holdaway 1989) appears to be an equally promising way to determine the mode of use. Approximately 64 percent of the sample was made of imported fine-textured, opaque, tan, banded, and dark cherts (Table 2.20). The tan and dark chert nodules had a distinctive white cortex (e.g., Fig. B: 52c) that often survived as a tiny patch on the proximal or, rarely, the distal end of the point, as

17

indicated by stipple on Fig. B: 32h, i. Locally available medium-textured chert and chalcedony accounted for about 30 percent of the sample. The fragment of an unusually large stemless biface (Fig. B: 41f ) was made of a kind of locally available brownish violet chert often used for eccentrics, but not seen in utilitarian artifacts. The violet color could well be the result of heating, but there is no experimental data to support this idea. The remaining thin bifaces were too burned or too heavily patinated to determine the type of stone used. While most were made on large flakes, at least two specimens, one of chalcedony and one of fine, dark chert, have traces of cortex on both faces, indicating that they originated on flat nodules. Thin bifaces were also made of obsidian (Chapter Three). The resemblance of points of imported chert to those of local stone, the few artifacts described as Miscellaneous Thin Bifaces, below, which may be failed points and knives, as well as the presence of a few flakes and nodules of fine, dark chert suggest local production. It will not, however, be possible to give a certain answer to the question of origin without screening general excavations to recover microdebitage. Chert thin bifaces ranged from 3.9 to 18.6 cm in greatest length, 1.6 to 6.9 cm in greatest width, and 0.4 to 2.5 cm in greatest thickness. Weights of complete specimens ranged from 3.5 to 97 gm, with most stemmed points between 5 and 20 gm. About 190 examples, 28 percent of the sample, were noted as burned. Perhaps the fine, dark chert of which so many were made was more readily damaged by heat than the medium-textured chert used for other types of bifaces. One point from an Early Classic problematical deposit resembling a burial had been painted with red mineral pigment (Fig. B: 32f), perhaps to indicate its use as a high-status offering. At least 120 examples had been reworked. This included fashioning stems on what were most likely stemless varieties (Fig. B: 36c, 42j, k), adding awl-like points to the distal ends (Fig. B: 38c, 40c), reshaping damaged distal ends (Fig. B: 29n), reshaping damaged proximal ends (Fig. B: 30c, d), manufacturing a smaller point from a large fragment (Fig. B: 34e), and using a broken edge as a scraper (Fig. B: 35s). Thin bifaces were most numerous in Zone 03 (Table 2.21), especially in Small Structure Groups (Table 2.22). This distribution is consistent with the extensive recycling and reuse noted above. Thin bifaces were relatively uncommon in the Peripheries. Approximately 92 percent of the collection was recovered from general excavations (Table 2.23). Forty-seven whole and fragmentary thin bifaces occurred in special deposits. An unclassifiable fragment was included in the debitage deposit exterior to

18

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

a Late Late Classic chamber burial. Seven examples, all stemless, were found in structure caches dating from the Early Classic to Late Late Classic Periods (Fig. B: 37n, o, 41b, i, 42o, 43a, 63). Thirty-nine stemmed, stemless, and unclassifiable thin bifaces came from various kinds of problematical deposits from the Classic, Terminal Classic, and Early Postclassic Periods (Fig. B: 29 j, 30i, k, n, 31a-c, l, m, 32f, r, 33j, 34j, 35a, 41j, k, m, 42e, 43e, j, k, m, n). The thin bifaces in the structure caches and problematical deposits were deliberate inclusions, indicating that they had a secondary, ritual function in addition to their primary, utilitarian one. Stemmed thin bifaces were present, but rare, during the Late Preclassic period (Table 2.24). They surged in frequency during the Early Classic and stemless forms appeared at that time. They continued in use for the rest of the permanent occupation of Tikal. The latest securely dated example, found in an Early Postclassic problematical deposit (Fig. B: 41m) was stemmed.

Miscellaneous Thin Bifaces Figure B: 22a-j, 46a,b, Table 2.19-2.24 Total: 19, 9 complete (Table 2.19). Most of the miscellaneous thin bifaces were of the same kind of fine, dark chert as stemmed and stemless thin bifaces (Table 2.20) and, like them, most were recovered from Zone 03 (Table 2.21) in Small Structure Groups (Table 2.22). Available data indicate that these are failed and then heavily reworked bifacial points and knives. Ten examples alone came from Small Structure Group 4F2 (TR. 19) in Zone 03, suggesting this group was an important locus of thin biface production during the Late Classic period. One example showed smoothing along one lateral edge and glassy polish along the other (Fig. B: 22f ). One was the fragment of a very large thin-sectioned object of medium-textured, tan chert that had been entirely ground over bifacial flaking and then rechipped (Fig. B: 46a). It measured 14.7 x 5.7 x 2.7 cm. Another was made on a large, thin flake of goldcolored chalcedony (Fig B: 46b). The bulbar face was only partly retouched. The flake had been broken to form a sharp point, which showed signs of use. It measured 5.2 x 3.8 x 0.6 cm. Complete length ranged between 3.6 and 7.9 cm. Two weighed 22 and 24 gm, respectively. One was found in problematical deposit, the rest are from general excavations (Table 2.23). They were present from the Early Classic through the Late Classic Periods (Table 2.24).

Flat, Rounded-End Bifaces Figure B: 44, Table 2.13-2.18 Total: 12, six complete (Table 2.13). Both ends usually showed signs of use, such as edge attrition, although the exact mode is unknown. Three-fourths of the sample was of light-colored, medium-textured chert, but local chalcedony and imported fine, dark chert were also utilized (Table 2.14). Two were made on flakes (Fig,. 44b, f ). Thick, crude examples are probably production failures (Fig. B: 44g, h). Greatest complete length ranged from 6.2 to 10.0 cm and weight from 16 to 114 gm. Flat, rounded-end bifaces were concentrated towards the site core and are not reported from beyond Zone 04 (Table 2.15). They were recovered from various kinds of structure groups (Table 2.16). An unusually high proportion came from special deposits (Table 2.17). One each came from three Early Classic problematical deposits (Fig. B: 44b, c, e), and one was recovered from the chert and obsidian debitage deposit exterior to Early Late Classic Burial 24 (Fig. B: 44a). They appeared during the Early Classic period and were no longer used after the Late Late Classic (Table 2.18).

Subtriangular Bifaces Figure B: 45a-g, Table 2.13-2.18 Total: seven, four complete (Table 2.13). These wellmade, hatchet-like artifacts are similar to ground stone celts in size and shape (Fig. B:99, 100) and also have a nearly straight bit. They probably were used in the same manner. All are of medium, probably local, chert (Table 2.14). Greatest complete length ranged between 5.6 and 9.2 cm, greatest width between 3.6 and 5.2 cm, and greatest thickness between 1.6 and 2.2 cm. The weights of two examples were 32 and 47 gm. The small sample of subtriangular bifaces had a scattered spatial distribution among zones (Table 2.15) and structure groups (Table 2.16). All came from general excavations (Table 2.17). They may have been used only during the Late Classic period (Table 2.18).

Drop-Shaped Bifaces Figure B: 45h-m, Table 2.13-2.18 Total: eight, six complete (Table 2.13). One was of chalcedony; the rest were of medium-textured, lightcolored chert (Table 2.14). Two had traces of cortex on

19

FLAKED CHERT ARTIFACTS

both faces (Fig. B: 45i, m), but another example had been made on a large flake. They were not identified beyond Zone 03 (Table 2.15). They appear to be attempts at producing small bifaces, an impression reinforced by the occurrence of five of the eight examples in Small Structure Groups (Table 2.16). Complete lengths ranged from 6.6 to 8.3 cm. Three weighed examples were approximately 56, 112, and 156 gm, respectively. Two were burned. All were found in general excavations (Table 2.17). They date from the Late Preclassic to the Early Late or Late Late Classic periods (Table 2.18).

Biface Edge Fragments Figure B: 46c-i, Table 2.13-2.18 Total: 164 slender chert fragments (Table 2.13) with triangular cross section, which appeared to be from the edges of larger bifacially flaked artifacts, such as ovate, elongate and rectangular/oval bifaces. Some edge damage, similar to that seen on finished bifaces, was noted on these fragments (Fig. B: 46d, e, h, i). Ten were from artifacts with some degree of use-polishing of the edges. Present evidence, therefore, indicates that they are edge fragments of finished artifacts, rather than the crested blades formed on blade cores to guide the first blade to be detached (Bordes 1967: Fig. 5; also Moholy-Nagy 1991: Fig. 3a, 11) or ridges formed to correct flaking errors (Clark and Bryant 1997: Fig. 4). Most were of medium-textured chert thought to be local (Table 2.14). Two were of chalcedony. Maximum length ranged from 4.4 to 7.4 cm. Eleven were burned. Seven were reworked at one or both ends (Fig. B: 46c, d, i). Their spatial distribution is concentrated around the center of the site and parallels that of other bifaces, such as ovates (Table 2.15). Forty-five percent of the sample came from Small Structure Groups (Table 2.16). About 91 percent came from general excavations (Table 2.17) and date from Early Late Preclassic into Terminal Classic times (Table 2.18). Three of the edge fragments were reported from the debitage deposits exterior to chamber burials. Seven were found in problematical deposits dating to the Early and Early Late Classic Periods.

Tanged Macroblades Figure B: 46j-47, Table 2.25-2.30 Total: 41, only one of which (Fig. B: 47g), probably of local origin, is complete (Table 2.25). The fragmentary and reworked condition of tanged macroblades at Tikal

accounts for their relatively late identification by Lisa Ferree. The large size and well-shaped tang suggest a handheld knife or saw. Use-wear, in the form of attrition and polish, is concentrated along the lateral edges of the blades. One fragment exhibited glassy polish along one edge and smoothing along the other (Fig. B: 46j). Opaque fine-textured, honey-colored banded chert and opaque tan chert had been used for most examples, attesting to their foreign origin (Table 2.26). This artifact type, in chert and obsidian, was characteristic of the Circum-Caribbean Area (Coe 1957; Willey et al. 1965: Fig. 264-267) and it is highly probable that most of the tanged macroblades found at Tikal were manufactured in Belize (e.g., Eaton 1980: Fig. 4, 5). The small, complete example in medium-textured chert (Fig. B: 47g) may have been a local attempt to reproduce these artifacts. The fragmentary and reworked condition of the sample indicates that the good quality chert was not only highly appreciated, but also hard to obtain, and that broken tanged macroblades may have been curated for a longer period of time than broken artifacts of other kinds of stone. The complete specimen measured 8.6 x 3.4 x 1.4 cm. The widest blade fragment measured 7.0 cm. None were weighed. The complete macroblade and four fragments had been burned. Twelve fragments had been reworked and reused (Fig. B: 46l, o, 47b, e, p), two apparently as scrapers (Fig. B: 47c, l), and another may have been reworked (Fig. B: 47m). Tanged macroblade fragments occurred primarily towards the center of the site (Table 2.27). A little over half of the sample was recovered from construction fill of Civic-Ceremonial Group 5D-2 (Table 2.28). Nearly all were recovered from general excavations (Table 2.29). Early Classic problematical deposits produced two. Whatever their function may have been in their area of origin, at Tikal tanged macroblades were utilitarian artifacts. The earliest example dated to the Late Middle Preclassic period and the latest to the Terminal Classic (Table 2.30). Their concentration in the fill of monumental construction suggests that most were brought in during the Early Late Preclassic period, with their presence in later deposits due to recycling. The complete tanged macroblade was from a deposit that included both Late Preclassic and Early Classic sherds.

Small Points Figure B: 48a-h, Table 2.25-2.30 Total: eight, six of which were complete (Table

20

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

2.25). Small points were made by retouching the edges of thin flakes and blades. They are invariably identified as arrowheads because of their shape and small size, so their appearance at Lowland Maya sites is generally regarded as a new development in weapons technology. All were probably made at Tikal. Six examples were of medium-textured, lightcolored, presumably local chert (Table 2.26), one was of chalcedony (Fig. B: 48d), and one was unexamined (Fig. B: 48e). This type also was made in obsidian (Chapter Three). One small point appeared to have been reworked from a larger one (Fig. B: 48g). Complete length ranged between 2.3 and 3.0 cm with weights between 1.0 and 2.0 gm. An incomplete point with a length of 4.4 cm weighed 4.0 gm. They were most common towards the center of the site (Table 2.27) in various kinds of structure groups (Table 2.28). All came from general excavations (Table 2.29), five of the eight from surface contexts. However, one example (Fig. B: 48c), found in a large, undisturbed midden, can be securely dated to no later than the late Late Late Classic (Table 2.30). A small point (Fig. B: 48d) was later added to the list of materials recovered from a test-pit level 75-100 cm below datum that yielded Late Preclassic and Early Classic sherds. I regard this early date as highly unlikely.

Battered Flakes Figure B: 48i-o, Table 2.25-2.30 Total: 40, probably all complete (Table 2.25). These are thick flakes battered along the edge opposite the platform. The working edge of one had been partly bifacially retouched. Battered flakes may have served as a kind of expedient, handheld tool used for similar tasks as the chopping tools described above. Most were of medium-textured, light-colored chert (Table 2.26). Seven had cortical platforms that provided a handhold (Fig. B: 48i, n, o). Battered flakes were irregular in plan. They ranged in greatest dimension between 3.4 and 14.0 cm. Weights ranged between approximately 114 and 356 gm. Four had been burned. Most came from the center of the site (Table 2.27) from various kinds of structure groups (Table 2.28). One was recovered from a Late Late Preclassic problematical deposit (Fig. B: 48j), the rest came from general excavations (Table 2.29). They occurred from the Early Late Preclassic through the Terminal Classic period (Table 2.30).

Large Scrapers Figure B: 49-51a, Table 2.25-2.30 Total: 35 examples, probably all complete (Table 2.25). Large scrapers were masterfully shaped from chert flakes (Table 2.26) that were large by Tikal standards. One was of attractively banded light gray and dark gray chert (Fig. B: 49c) of unknown origin, but also represented among the ovate bifaces (Fig. B: 1d) and scrapers (Fig. B: 52b). Thirteen had handholds formed by cortical platforms (Fig. B: 50c) and five had battered handholds (Fig. B: 50b). The platforms of six had been removed (Fig. B: 49a-c). Most of the large scrapers exhibited use-smoothing on the ventral face. Their concentration in Zone 01 (Table 2.27), especially in Civic-Ceremonial Group 5D-2 (Table 2.28), suggests a specialist-produced tool used in the construction of stone architecture. Large scrapers were made on unusually large chert flakes, often with considerable amounts of cortex on the dorsal faces. In greatest length, measured perpendicularly to the platform, they ranged from 9.2 to 14.9 cm. Weights ranged between approximately 399 to 541 gm. Two showed heat damage. Most large scrapers came from general excavations, particularly construction fill (Table 2.29). Two, however, were recovered from within a Late Late Classic chamber burial (Fig. B: 49a, b) and one was found in the debitage deposit exterior to a Late Late Classic chamber burial. Large scrapers appeared during the Early Classic period and continued in use into the Terminal Classic period (Table 2.30).

Scrapers Figure B: 52b-54q, Table 2.25-2.30 Total: 1185, all but four probably complete (Table 2.25). They are stone flakes, on the whole much smaller than the large scrapers described above, which appear to have intentional retouch along one or more lateral edges or ends. I am not confident that we were always able to tell the difference between use and intentional retouch, particularly in the case of scrapers with irregular plans, and so in some cases the flake may only have been heavily used. Usually the edge retouch is unifacial, but on at least 44 it appears on both faces. For the most part, scrapers were rather crude and unstandardized, expediently produced tools. But there were also a few unifacially retouched flakes of regular

FLAKED CHERT ARTIFACTS

form and fine workmanship, e.g., those illustrated in Fig. B: 52b, d-h, j, l. In particular, the beautifully flaked uniface of fine, banded chert (Fig. B: 52b) appears to have been imported as a finished artifact. Scrapers are usually thought of as multi-purpose artifacts for scraping, whittling, and smoothing (e.g., Lewenstein 1987, 1991a, 1991b; Wilk 1976/7, 1978). On each of two examples, glassy polish was noted along one edge, and such polish was observed on the end of another. Other kinds of use were also present, such as irregular notching of the edges and edge smoothing. We know of ethnographic examples of metal scrapers used in hafts (Parsons and Parsons 1990: Plate 32-34) while others, of glass, were handheld (Deal and Hayden 1987: 239-244, Fig. 6.6-6.9). One of the Tikal examples had a knob-like, cortex handhold (Fig. B: 53j) and 25 others had cortical platforms (Fig. B: 52h, 53e, o) that would have facilitated holding in the hand. Most scrapers were made of medium-textured, light colored, presumably local chert (Table 2.26). Chalcedony, also thought to be of local origin, was recorded for 31. One scraper had been made on a flake of fine-grained limestone. Twenty scrapers were made on flakes of various kinds of fine, imported chert (Fig. B: 52b-l). Many were made on decortication flakes (Fig. B: 53a-h). Scraper edges were also noted on nodules (Fig. B: 54q), small cores, and biface thinning and edge rejuvenation flakes (Fig. B: 54a-p). The cortex on two scrapers had been ground (Fig. B: 53c, l). A few scrapers of obsidian were also recovered (Chapter Three). Scrapers of imported fine, dark chert ranged between 2.4 and 8.6 cm in greatest length, measured to the edge opposite the platform. Others were between 2.8 and 9.6 cm in length. None were weighed. Approximately 130 were noted as having been burned, and another 14 as probably burned. Scrapers had a wide spatial distribution (Table 2.27). As with other kinds of expedient stone artifacts, they were relatively more common in the peripheries. They occurred in all kinds of structure groups, but a little over 42 percent occurred in Small Structure Groups (Table 2.29). A little over 92 percent of the sample came from general excavations (Table 2.29), although there were sporadic occurrences in special deposits. Two came from chamber burials, three from debitage deposits exterior to chamber burials, and five from other types of burials. Six came from monument caches of the Early Classic and Late Late Classic (Fig. B: 53h) and three from Early Classic structure caches. Problematical deposits of various kinds produced 56

21

scrapers ranging in date from the Late Late Preclassic into the Late Late or Terminal Classic period (Fig. B: 53b, d, n, 54a, c, d, o,). Scrapers of various kinds occurred throughout the entire occupation of Tikal (Table 2.30). Examples of fine, imported chert were recorded from deposits of mixed Early and Late Preclassic date through the Terminal Classic period.

Point-Retouched Flakes and Scraper-Awls Figure B: 54r-56, Table 2.25-2.30 Total: 475, probably all complete (Table 2.25). Included here are primary flakes, bifacial artifact rejuvenation flakes, blades, and chunks of chert that had one or more intentionally retouched points. Often the lateral edges or ends were shaped as well, in four cases by bifacial retouch. Such artifacts are also known as awls, scraperawls, drills, and borers. The Tikal sample is quite variable. Some of the larger examples with retouched edges may have been handheld combination scraping-perforating tools (Fig. B: 54r-t, 55a, b). Flakes with cortical platforms, of which 15 were recorded, may have been handheld gravers or awls (Fig. B: 55o, p, s). Small flakes or blades with retouched points were probably hafted as drills (Fig. B: 56s-z). In a use-wear study of approximately 55 point-retouched flakes from a single Late Preclassic and Early Classic problematical deposit, PD. 218, Olga Stavrakis Puleston (1969: 153) concluded that 53 pointretouched flakes from that particular deposit had been used as awls or gravers, not as drills. Most of the sample is made of light-colored, medium-textured, presumably local chert (Table 2.26). Ten were of chalcedony. Fine, dark, imported chert had been definitely used for two examples and may have been used for an additional five. Greatest complete length ranged from 2.8 to 8.2 cm with scraper-awls as large as 13.0 cm. None were weighed. At least 59 were burned and another seven may have been. Like scrapers, point-retouched flakes were relatively more common on the site peripheries (Table 2.27, suggesting that they are, for the most part, expediently produced artifacts. They were found in all kinds of structure groups, but were especially common in Small Structure Groups (Table 2.28). Almost 83 percent of the point-retouched flakes came from general excavations (Table 2.29). Three were found in the debitage deposits exterior to a Late Late Classic chamber burial (Fig. B: 55w). Problematical deposits of various kinds, ranging in

22

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

date from the Late Late Preclassic to the Terminal Classic, produced 69 (Fig. B: 55t, 56m, 56s1-3). PD. 218, a Late Late Preclassic and Early Classic artifact dump noted above, produced at least 53 examples. The occasional occurrence of apparent sets of these artifacts was also noted at Uaxactun (Kidder 1947: 6, Fig. 1). Point-retouched flakes were present during the entire span of permanent occupation of the site (Table 2.30).

Burins, Pseudoburins, and Spall Cores Figure B: 57, Table 2.25-2.30 Total: 21 complete or nearly complete examples (Table 2.25). Initially I regarded them as burins, produced by striking a spall from a prepared edge (Fig. B: 57e, k), or pseudoburins, made by breaking a flake to form a point (Fig. B: 57a, h). Burins and pseudoburins are usually regarded as engraving tools, and the points on some Tikal examples appeared to be used (Fig. B: 57h). In the New World, however, similar artifacts are classified as spall cores, thick flakes from which small, triangular-sectioned blades could be struck (Arnold 1985). Spall cores, then, should be regarded as the unutilized by-products of blade manufacture. Spall cores were also present at Tikal (Fig. B: 57b, c, g). Unfortunately it was necessary to make these classifications from photographs and field notes, rather than from the actual artifacts. Therefore, I have grouped together three ordinarily distinct types - burins, pseudoburins, and spall cores - in order to include incompletely recorded examples. All but one example were of medium-textured, light-colored chert (Table 2.26). The exception (Fig. B: 57h) was a large pseudoburin of fine, dark chert. One face had been shaped by very flat flaking that terminated in a patch of cortex suggesting it may have been reworked from an attempt to produce a very large thin biface. Greatest complete length ranged from 4.0 to 8.4 cm. None were weighed. No secondary modifications were noted. These artifacts were distributed towards the center of the site, but were most common in Zone 01 (Table 2.27). They came from a variety of structure group types (Table 2.28). All but one were found in general excavations. The exception was recovered from PD. 33, a cache-like problematical deposit of Early Late Classic date (Table 2.29). Burins, pseudoburins, and/or spall cores occurred from the Late Middle Preclassic into the Terminal Classic period (Table 2.30).

Blade Cores Figure B: 58a-h, Table 2.25-2.30 Total: 40 blade cores, 15 of which were complete (Table 2.25). These cores are by-products of blademaking. Most were of medium-textured, light-colored chert (Table 2.26). Two were of chalcedony. One was of chert with tiny fossil shells in it, uncommon at Tikal, but also used for other kinds of flaked chert artifacts. On the whole these cores were small and irregularly shaped. As in the case of obsidian blade production, blades were usually taken only from one face of the core. Greatest core length ranged from 4.4 to 6.8 cm. None were weighed. Eight examples were burned, raising the possibility that some of the cores had been heat-treated. Four examples had battered bases (Fig. B: 58b). Crossretouching was observed on only one core (Fig. B: 58f ). Blade cores occurred throughout the site (Table 2.27). Most occurred in Small Structure Groups (Table 2.28). General excavations produced 85 percent of the sample (Table 2.29). Two were recorded from the chert and obsidian debitage exterior to a Terminal Preclassic chamber burial. Two cores came from a problematical deposit of Late Middle Preclassic date (Fig. B: 58c, e) and another from an undated, but probably late, problematical deposit from Uolantun. Blade cores appeared during the Late Middle Preclassic and may have continued in use as late as the Late Classic period (Table 2.30). Almost half of the sample, however, occurred in Preclassic deposits and perhaps during the course of the Classic period polyhedral blade cores may have been gradually supplanted by spall cores. Arnold (1985) describes a more clearcut transition from polyhedral to spall cores in the California Channel Islands.

Blades Figure A: 62j, B: 58i-59, Table 2.25-2.30 Total: 687, 124 of which were complete (Table 2.25; Moholy-Nagy 1991: Fig. 3a, 10-19 only). Following Kidder (1947), they are referred to as “flake-blades” in earlier Tikal Reports. Sixty-one had retouch along one or both lateral edges and occasionally also on an end and 11 were recorded as used on one or both edges. These were probably used in ways similar to the scrapers described above, as scraping, cutting, whittling, or sawing tools, although a set of nine blades from an Early Classic structure cache, Ca. 74, had intact, pointed dis-

23

FLAKED CHERT ARTIFACTS

tal ends (Fig. A: 62j) and could have served as bloodletters. Besides these purposefully produced blades, other examples appear to have been struck to correct flaking errors on a blade core (Fig. B: 58n, 59j-m) and still others may well be misclassified biface thinning flakes that happen to have the proportions of blades but were not intended as such (Fig. B: 58i4). Chert blades were often retouched to a point and are included in the PointRetouched Flake type described above and illustrated in Fig. 56t-z. Error corrections and thinning flakes would, of course, be more properly considered debitage. I have not reclassified them because of the lack of opportunity to re-examine the actual materials for formal characteristics or for signs of use-wear. Blades had triangular (Fig. B: 59s-cc), trapezoidal (Fig. B: 59dd-gg), and pentagonal (Fig. B: 59ii-kk) cross sections. The high degree of formal variability in the sample made classification into varieties impractical. Almost 97 percent of the studied sample was of medium-textured, light-colored chert (Table 2.26). Twelve of these had cortical platforms (Fig. B: 59m). One blade was of chert containing tiny fossil shells, a stone type also noted among Tikal blade cores. Sixteen blades were of chalcedony. Only eight were of the fine, dark, imported chert favored for thin bifaces. During the Classic period, blades were usually made of obsidian (Chapter Three). Incomplete and complete blades, excluding point-retouched examples, were up to 8.9 cm in length and between 1.0 and 3.2 cm in width. None were weighed. At least 38 blades were recorded as burned. Two blades (Fig. B: 59dd, hh) had the waxy sheen associated with the heating and flaking of fine-textured stone. One bore traces of red pigment. Chert blades were widely distributed throughout Tikal (Table 2.27), particularly in Civic-Ceremonial and Small Structure Groups (Table 2.28). Interestingly, the recovery contexts of chert blades (Table 2.29) resembled that of chert scrapers, described above. Almost 87 percent of the sample came from general excavations, but blades also occurred in all other contexts, except monument caches. One was found in an Early Classic chamber burial, and two with simple burials. Forty-two were noted among the chert and obsidian debitage deposits exterior to an Early Classic and a Late Late Classic chamber burial. Structure caches of Early and Early Late Classic date produced 19 blades. The nine chert blades in Early Classic Ca. 74 mentioned above had been offered with a matching set of nine lancet blades of obsidian. Twenty-two blades were recorded from problematical deposits of various kinds dating from Early, Early Late, Late Late, and Terminal Classic times

(Fig. B: 59c, d, cc), and an unknown number were recovered from PD. 218, which dates to the Late Late Preclassic. Chert blades were made throughout the entire occupation span of Tikal (Table 2.30). Their chronological distribution covaries with that of obsidian prismatic blades with chert blades proportionately more common during the earliest and latest periods of occupation and scarcest during the Early Late Classic, when obsidian prismatic blades were proportionately most abundant throughout the site.

Flake Cores Figure B: 60, 61, Table 2.31-2.35 Total recorded: 3037, which is a small sample of the flake cores that were encountered in the excavations. Many others were undoubtedly in the large debitage deposits left in the field, or in the samples of such deposits that were brought into the field laboratory, but not sorted or catalogued. The condition of flake cores was rarely noted. Flake cores are assumed to be the by-products of obtaining flakes for expedient or retouched artifacts. Ten cores were observed to have one or two blade-like scars, in addition to flake scars. Considering these cores as sources of expedient flakes and blades may still be the correct explanation for at least part of the sample. Chert nodules were locally available to anyone who wished to use them. On the other hand, from at least the Late Preclassic period, ready-made flake debitage from biface manufacture and artifact rejuvenation was presumably available as well. It would have been easier to pick up waste flakes for use as expedient tools than to “get into” a nodule of unworked chert (John E. Clark, personal communication 1992). There is a possibility that many of these flake cores, particularly smaller examples (Fig. B: 61), may be discards of artifact production, rather than sources of flakes. They may well be failed bifaces, corresponding to Callahan’s (1974: 62, Chart 1) stage 2 and 3 biface preforms. Furthermore, at least 92 examples showed some batter (Fig. B: 60e, 61e, g), but it was not clear if it was due to attempts to shape the core or to subsequent reuse as hammerstones. The batter on approximately 50 other cores did appear to be the result of use as hammerstones. In summary, while it is possible that some of these artifacts were formed in the obtaining of flakes for tools or preforms, some of them may be abandoned bifaces. They would, therefore, be the same kind of artifact as the rectangular/oval bifaces described above, but discarded at an earlier stage in the production sequence. As with rectangular/oval bifaces and other

24

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

larger failed bifacial artifacts, many were reused as hammerstones. In those cases where the kind of stone was recorded, cores were overwhelmingly of medium-textured, light-colored, presumably local chert (Table 2.31). Sixteen were of chalcedony. Imported chert was represented by two examples of fine, banded chert, and six possible examples of fine, dark chert. The kinds of stone used for over 60 percent of the sample were not recorded. Complete maximum dimension among recorded specimens ranged from 3.6 to 22.0 cm. The largest recorded flake cores came from two Early Classic monument caches (Fig. B: 60a-c). No cores were weighed. At least 351 had been burned and five others may have been. Cores were found nearly everywhere (Table 2.32) and in all types of structure groups (Table 2.33). Approximately 95 percent of the recorded sample came from general excavations (Table 2.34). One needs to keep in mind, however, that the largest concentrations of debitage, associated with deposits exterior to chamber burials from Terminal Preclassic into Late Late Classic times, were not completely excavated or fully recorded. Flake cores occurred throughout the entire span of permanent occupation of Tikal (Table 2.35).

Unused Flakes, Used Flakes, and Unsorted Debitage Figure B: 62a, Table 2.31-2.35 Total recorded: 72,812 flakes and 734 pieces of unsorted debitage. As in the case of flake cores, many specially deposited debitage concentrations were not completely excavated or recorded, so that the figures given here should be regarded as a small sample of what was encountered in the field. A conservative estimate based upon William Coe’s descriptions of the debitage deposits found exterior to Gp. 5D-2 chamber burials suggests a figure closer to 116,820 pieces of chert debitage in these burial deposits and an estimate of 168,021 pieces from all recovery contexts (MoholyNagy 1997: Table 3). Of the total sample brought into the field laboratory from all contexts, approximately 54,450 flakes were classified as unused, 6415 as used, 1216 mixed unused and used, and 734 as a mixture of flakes, cores, and chunks, almost certainly debitage. More than 10,731 were not examined. Condition was not systematically recorded. Although, after potsherds, chert flakes and debitage were by far the most numerous artifacts recovered from Tikal, they received the least attention, primarily

because at that time they were not linked to specialized or expedient artifact production. Except for the very large flakes used to produce other kinds of artifacts, no criteria were developed to distinguish purposefully produced flakes from by-products. We know from usewear analysis, ethnoarchaeological observation, and experimentation that unretouched chert flakes can be used as edge tools to cut, slice, score, scrape, and chop a variety of materials. But in most cases, not enough information was gathered to say whether a given flake was used in the performance of a task, a blank from which to produce another kind of artifact, or an unused by-product of artifact production or artifact rejuvenation. Where the type of stone was recorded, the great majority of flakes were of medium-textured, light-colored, presumably local chert (Table 2.31). Many were of chalcedony, also thought to be locally available. There were a few flakes of exotic chert, which suggests that at least some artifacts were produced in Tikal from imported nodules or cores, perhaps comparable to the manufacture of obsidian prismatic blades from imported cores. At least 350 flakes carried some cortex on the platform and/or dorsal face, but no record was kept as to how much cortex was present, that is, how many of these might have been decortication flakes. Few flakes were measured. An idea of typical sizes may be gained from the scrapers and point-retouched flakes shown on Fig. B: 52b-56. Few flakes were larger than 6 or 7 cm. The biggest flakes recorded were those used for the large scrapers described above and shown on Fig. B: 49-51a, the largest of which had a greatest length of 14.9 cm and weighed 541 gm. At least 854 flakes were burned and two others may have been. In addition, some of the unsorted flakes were also described as damaged by heat. Copal traces were noted on two of the burned flakes found exterior to Terminal Classic Bu. 6. Chert flakes were found almost everywhere, and there was scarcely an excavation lot that did not include at least one or two of them (Table 2.32). Many were recorded from Small Structure Groups 4F-1 and 4F-2 (TR. 19) of Zone 03 (Table 2.33), which are thought to have housed craft specialists of various kinds. The circumstance that the greatest amounts of chert debitage ended up in Epicentral mortuary contexts, however, reminds us that the location of debitage cannot simply be assumed to be the location of production. Although smaller quantities of chipping waste were dumped onto household middens, very large quantities must have been removed some distance from the structure group where they were produced (Moholy-Nagy 1997; Santley and Kneebone 1993: Fig. 1-3).

FLAKED CHERT ARTIFACTS

After the end of the Preclassic period, the production by specialists of all kinds of durable artifacts appears to have been concentrated in the Central area, especially in Zone 03. Classic period waste flakes from peripheral areas are large and chunky, and frequently carry a lot of cortex. They appear to have been expediently produced and differ markedly from the smaller, thinner biface-thinning flakes found near the center (Fig. B: 62a). Chert flakes in general excavations are regarded as utilitarian artifacts or unused by-products. Those found intentionally included within burials, caches, and problematical deposits resembling burials and caches, may have had a ceremonial function, perhaps comparable to the obsidian prismatic blades often found in these contexts (Table 2.34). The large deposits of chert and obsidian debitage found exterior to chamber burials or in other special deposits resemble other special-purpose dumps (Moholy-Nagy 1997). I suggest they were a way of dis-

25

posing of quantities of knapping waste generated over a short period of time that were too large to dispose of on household middens. Like the imposing surface deposits of chert workshop debris found at sites like Colha (Hester 1980) and El Pedernal (Black and Suhler 1986), the exterior burial deposits at Tikal include very little material other than debitage. Although, or perhaps because, chert and obsidian were the principle materials for durable utilitarian artifacts for Precolumbian Mesoamerican societies, these substances also took on ceremonial function. Wellknown examples are the chert and obsidian eccentrics in the Maya Lowlands and in Middle Horizon Teotihuacan and the day sign “Flint” in the calendars of the Postclassic Basin of Mexico and Oaxaca. Seen in this way, the debitage generated by chert artifact manufacture, as well as the artifacts themselves, would have been appropriate inclusions in Tikal special deposits. Flakes and debitage were present throughout the entire occupation of Tikal (Table 2.35).

3

Flaked Obsidian Artifacts General Considerations Summary Number

Type

Figure

Page

268 3 22 1 87 6 5 1 1927*

Thin bifaces Small points Miscellaneous bifaces Macroblade Scrapers Large flakes Broad prismatic blades Large polyhedral core Prismatic blade cores

A: 22j, 37a, B: 64-68h B: 68j-l A: 33i-m, B: 68i B: 68m B: 68n-ee

28 29 30 30 30 31 31 31

8269

Prismatic blades

40837*

Flakes and unsorted debitage * incomplete count

B: 70a, b B: 69a A: 32b, j, o, r, 33q, v, x, 62l, m, B: 69d-v, 72a, d, f, g 31 A: 62a-i, k, B: 62b, 63, 70c-f 33 B: 62a, 69b, c, 34 72b, c, e

Obsidian eccentrics, incised obsidians, and ground and polished obsidian artifacts are described and illustrated in TR. 27A.

A

behavioral typology for Tikal’s obsidian industry is presented in Chart 3.1. No unworked obsidian was noted in the excavated sample. The scarcity of cortex on finished artifacts and debitage and the occasional presence of “bag wear” on the arrises of large flakes, prismatic blade cores, and incised obsidians show that virtually all of the obsidian found at Tikal arrived in the form of large polyhedral cores (Fig. B: 69a; Clark and Lee 1979; Sheets 1975). For the most part, large polyhedral cores were reduced into utilitarian prismatic blades, prismatic blade cores, and debitage. Broad, often irregular scars and abraded arrises are often seen on one side of exhausted prismatic blade cores (e.g., Fig. B: 69o, 69s, 69v1). They demonstrate that, at least during the Classic peri-

od, prismatic blades were not removed from the entire circumference of a core, as is often shown in constructions of the blade-making process, but that the large polyhedral core must have been held in such a way that part of its surface was inaccessible to the blade-maker. Occasional large flakes were fashioned into scrapers and perhaps bifaces. But beginning during the Early Late Classic period, macroflakes and macroblades struck directly from large polyhedral cores were made into eccentrics and incised obsidians (Fig. B: 71) of purely ceremonial function (TR. 27A). The significance of this development is that obsidian that could have been used for utilitarian artifacts was being diverted to ceremonial purposes, which, in turn, indicates an abundant and

FLAKED OBSIDIAN ARTIFACTS

27

Chart 3.1 Typology for the Tikal Obsidian Industry

secure supply. Obsidian eccentrics of the Early Classic period were made on exhausted prismatic blade cores that could not have been easily used for anything else. Prismatic blades, usually found as fragments, were by far the most numerous finished artifact type of obsidian at all times, from the Middle Preclassic period into Early Postclassic times. Among the other artifact types described here, small points, the large polyhedral core, prismatic blade cores, large flakes, scrapers, and flakes and unsorted debitage are related to the local manufacture of prismatic blades from

large polyhedral cores. The few thin bifaces that could be sourced by XRF and NAA were predominantly of Central Mexican obsidian and were probably imported as finished artifacts. That the single macroblade (Fig. B: 68m) and at least three of the broad prismatic blades (Fig. B: 70a, b) were imported as ready-made artifacts is indicated by their unique form and the Central Mexican obsidians from which they were made. Some of the miscellaneous bifaces may be failed attempts to produce bifacial eccentrics or, possibly, thin bifaces. Unfortunately none of them were sub-

28

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

mitted for trace-element analysis, which would have provided essential information. The utilitarian function of the artifacts presented in TR. 27B is indicated by their worn and fragmented condition. Prismatic blades, in particular, seem to have been used for many tasks. In the absence of use-wear analyses, we can speculate that newly struck blades were used for shaving and cutting softer materials, like meat, leather, or cloth, and, as the edge became duller, on progressively harder substances, like wood, bone, or shell (John E. Clark, personal communication 1984). Haviland (1981: 103) includes prismatic blades in his basic household artifact assemblage. In addition, during the Classic period obsidian artifacts were widely distributed, occurred in all types of structure groups, and were recovered from various types of special deposits, but predominantly from general excavations. With the exception of eccentrics and incised obsidians, flaked obsidian artifacts were available to anyone. In contrast to other Maya sites, such as Copán (Aoyama 1999), there is no evidence that the elite of Tikal were involved in the procurement or distribution of prismatic blades or thin bifaces at any time. Present evidence suggests, rather, that procurement was in the hands of some kind of suprafamily group, such as lineages or craft guilds, and that distribution was through the marketplace (Hirth 1998; Sheets 2000). Because I have serious doubts about the accuracy of gray obsidian source attributions by visual means (Moholy-Nagy 1999, 2002), all gray obsidian sources mentioned here were determined by trace-element analysis by X-ray fluorescence (XRF) and neutron activation analysis (NAA) (Moholy-Nagy et al. 1984; Moholy-Nagy and Nelson 1990). These instrument source attributions suggest that obsidian from El Chayal was used throughout the permanent occupation of the site, and predominated from Late Preclassic into Late Late Classic times. Obsidian from San Martín Jilotepeque has been identified from early contexts, but not, to date, from contexts later than the Early Classic period. Ixtepeque obsidian is present during the Late Preclassic and then again during the Late Late Classic. It was the only Guatemalan source represented among the inadequate sample of gray thin bifaces submitted for instrument attribution. In addition to these three sources located in the Guatemalan Highlands, the presence of seven Central Mexican sources was also established by instrument analysis (MoholyNagy 1999). Green obsidian prismatic blades from the Cerro de las Navajas source near Pachuca, Hidalgo, were present from the Early Late Preclassic into the Terminal Classic period, with peak use during the Early Classic. Obsidian from Zaragoza, Otumba, Ucareo, Tulancingo, Paredón, and possibly Zinapécuaro were present during the Early and Late Classic periods.

I have assumed here that the production of all obsidian artifacts was carried out by specialists. Most types of artifacts may have been made for the market. On the other hand, obsidian eccentrics and incised obsidians, forms with exclusively ceremonial function, may have been commissioned directly by the elite. The occasional occurrence of fragments of these artifacts in Small Structure Groups suggests that they were made by the same artisans who made prismatic blades and related forms. While at least 1562 pieces of obsidian debitage were found in general excavations, 96 percent of the sample recorded from the site came from caches, problematical deposits, deposits exterior to chamber burials, and special lithic dumps. This situation agrees in all respects with ethnoarchaeological observations of the special care taken with the disposal of manufacturing by-products that are either hazardous or hinder other activities (Hayden and Cannon 1983; Santley and Kneebone 1993). The large quantities of debitage encountered in the excavation of Tikal, much of it neither recovered nor recorded, attest to the importance of local obsidian artifact production from the Terminal Preclassic into the Late Late Classic.

Descriptions Thin Bifaces Figure A: 22j, 37a; B: 64-68h, Table 3.1-3.6

Total: 268 obsidian bifacial points and knives, of which 27 were complete or nearly complete and 91 were basal fragments (Table 3.1). As in the case of chert artifacts of similar shape and form (Chapter Two), the term “thin biface” (Shafer 1983: 230) is used here as an inclusive term for artifacts that are often called projectile points or knives. Obsidian thin bifaces were nearly as variable in shape as those of chert and they have not been further separated beyond stemmed and stemless varieties. Stemless forms appeared to be rare, but it is quite possible that some fragments misclassified as distal ends are actually the bases of points and knives similar to the stemless examples of chert (Fig. B: 37l-o, 38a-h). It can be seen from the figures that most of the stemmed forms intergrade. I attribute this to reworking of damaged pieces, the “Frison Effect” (Frison et al. 1976). Some of the better preserved thin bifaces are identical to forms known from Central Mexico (Tolstoy 1971: Fig. 2, 3) and are probably actual imports from that region, a hypothesis reinforced by source-analysis by X-ray fluorescence (XRF) and neutron activation analysis (NAA) (Moholy-Nagy et al. 1984).

29

FLAKED OBSIDIAN ARTIFACTS

It is generally assumed that this type of thin biface was set in a haft and that smaller examples were used as projectile points and larger ones as knives. Because of the fragmentary condition of most of the collection and in the absence of use-wear analyses on complete examples, however, it seemed better to lump the two kinds of uses together rather than attribute a specific mode of use to individual specimens. About a third of the sample was made of unattributed translucent gray obsidian (Table 3.2). Two pieces still carried patches of cortex (e.g., Fig. B: 66c). Several Central Mexican sources are represented (Moholy-Nagy 1999). Almost 30 percent of the sample was of green obsidian thought to come from the Cerro de las Navajas source near Pachuca, Hidalgo, Mexico. One fragment was attributed to that source by physical-chemical methods. One small green edge fragment was identified as from the Tulancingo or Pizzarín source, also near Pachuca (Moholy-Nagy and Nelson 1990: Table 1). It is the only identification of Tulancingo obsidian from Tikal to date. The obsidians used for ten gray and black specimens were assigned to the Mexican sources of Otumba, Zaragoza, and Ucareo. The black obsidian used for another was probably from Zinapécuaro. Opaque black stone with reddish-brown streaks was used for two complete stemmed thin bifaces (Fig. B: 64i, 66v), which we did not submit for source-analysis. Two fragments were made of translucent brownish-gray stone from Ixtepeque in Highland Guatemala (Fig. B: 66b, 67w; MoholyNagy and Nelson 1990: Table 1; Moholy-Nagy et al 1984: Table 2). The Ixtepeque obsidian points or knives are of Late Late Classic period date. At present, obsidian from the El Chayal source near Guatemala City, which dominated the Tikal Classic period prismatic blade industry, has not been identified by instrument methods among obsidian thin bifaces found at Tikal or, indeed, anywhere in the Maya area (Moholy-Nagy 2002). It is possible that the inhabitants of Tikal received their obsidian points and knives in finished form, most of them directly or ultimately from Central Mexico. In the absence of screening or flotation of backdirt from general excavations, which might have recovered manufacturing debitage, we cannot say at present that the thin bifaces of obsidian found at Tikal were locally manufactured, although bifacially worked eccentrics of El Chayal obsidian, as well as biface thinning flakes, were frequent inclusions in Classic period caches. Classified as points or knives were small, relatively thin-sectioned artifacts, predominantly or entirely bifacially worked, with at least one pointed end. The smallest complete example, which had been reworked from a larger piece (Fig. B: 67f ), was 3.0 cm long. The largest, almost complete example (Fig. B: 65k) was 12.5 cm long, although the fragments shown on Fig.

B: 68a and b indicate that larger bifacial points and knives were also in use. Weights of complete examples ranged from 3.5 to 18.5 gm. No secondary modifications were reported for 209 examples, including several that I was unable to examine in the field. Three fragments showed crackling as though they had been heated and then suddenly cooled. Fifty-one whole and fragmentary points or knives, representing 19 percent of the sample, had been reworked. In some cases this consisted of reshaping to permit continued use as points or knives (e.g., Fig. B: 65u, 66d, 67f, 68g). In other cases, the broken edge was retouched to permit use as another kind of artifact, such as a scraper (Fig. B: 65j, 66y, 67c). Bifacial points and knives were concentrated toward the center of the site in Zones 01 through 05 (Table 3.3). Only one example was recorded from a Peripheral Minor Center, that of Navajuelal (Fig. B: 64b). They were relatively common in Small Structure Groups (Table 3.4) indicating that they were not monopolized by the elite. General excavations produced 210 or over threequarters of the obsidian points and knives recovered from Tikal (Table 3.5). Like their counterparts of chert, obsidian thin bifaces were predominantly domestic artifacts. Three fragments are of unknown provenience, although from general excavations. None were offered in traditional burials, and only one was recovered from a cache. This was a complete example of unique form (Fig. A: 22, 37; B: 67i), made of translucent gray obsidian, which had been interred in Ca. 51, of probable Late Classic date, where it substituted for an eccentric obsidian. Ca. 51 had been placed with St. 27, a reset Early Classic monument (TR. 33A: 58-59). Forty-eight, or approximately 18 percent of the thin bifaces were found in problematical deposits of Early Classic date, which included primary or secondary human burials. The earliest, securely dated obsidian thin bifaces come from Early Classic period deposits. Ten, however, were found in mixed Late Preclassic-Early Classic contexts (Table 3.6). They were still in use during the Terminal Classic period.

Small Points Figure B: 68j-l, Table 3.7-3.12 Total: three complete examples of obsidian small points were identified (Fig. B: 68j-l). They were variable in shape and were not classified into varieties. One example has side notches and a rounded base (Fig. B: 68j). All were shaped by edge retouch (Table 3.7). This artifact type is generally interpreted as an arrowhead and evidence of the introduction of the bow (Kidder

30

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

1947: 8-9, 12). Small points were also made of chert (Chapter Two). All were of translucent gray stone (Table 3.8). None were submitted for trace-element analysis. One point had been made on a flake (Fig. B: 68j) and two were on prismatic blades (Fig. B: 68k, l). Available data do not indicate place of production. Although variable in form, all examples had an elongated outline with one pointed end and a relatively thin section. Total length ranged from 2.6 to 3.9 cm. The side-notched point weighed 1.0 gm. No secondary modification was noted. The side-notched point made on a flake came from Zone 01 from Civic-Ceremonial Gp. 5D-2. The points on blades came from Small Structure Groups in Zones 05 and 09 (Table 3.9, 3.10). All examples were recovered from general excavations (Table 3.11). The point made on a flake was a surface find and could not be dated more precisely than Precolumbian times. One of the points on blades from the Periphery was found in a ceramic test pit and the other in mixed midden and construction fill. The sherds from both lots were dated to the Classic period (Table 3.12). As in the case of the small points of chert, examples in obsidian were present by at least the Late Classic period.

Miscellaneous Bifaces Figure A: 33i-m, B: 68i, Table 3.7-3.12 Total: 22 obsidian artifacts and fragments of unknown use had been bifacially shaped, but were not readily identifiable as points or knives or eccentrics. They will be described together here. At least six were complete (Table 3.7), one of which is illustrated here in Fig. B: 68i and five others in Fig. A: 33i-m. They appear to be either failed attempts at producing bifacial artifacts or retouched fragments of finished thin bifaces or bifacial obsidian eccentrics. Nineteen were of translucent gray obsidian, and one each was of green, clear gray, and opaque gray obsidian (Table 3.8). No source analyses were undertaken on this group of artifacts. Shape and size were variable. None of these bifaces were weighed. One example, not illustrated, had a small ground facet. Most miscellaneous bifaces came from Zone 01 (Table 3.9). The relatively large number from Small Structure Groups suggests they are failed artifacts (Table 3.10). Seventeen of 22 were from general excavations (Table 3.11). None appeared to be earlier than the Early Classic period or later than the Terminal Classic period (Table 3.12).

Macroblade Figure B: 68m, Table 3.7-3.12 Total: one, complete. A unique find was a complete macroblade (Fig. B: 68m) of green obsidian (Table 3.7). Its lateral edges showed heavy use-wear, as though it had been used to cut or scrape hard substances. It had been struck from a large polyhedral core (Clark and Lee 1979). The maximum length of the macroblade was 12.4 cm. Large complete obsidian artifacts were uncommon at Tikal. This macroblade and a large chunky flake scraper (Fig. B: 68ee) were the largest green obsidian artifacts encountered. Neither piece was weighed. The macroblade was part of a collection of materials from a burial-like problematical deposit PD. 273, in a bedrock quarry in Zone 02, which also included unarticulated human remains, animal bones, fragments of chert and obsidian artifacts, the edge of a bifacial point or knife of Tulancingo green obsidian, and Early Classic and Late Late Preclassic period sherds (Table 3.8-3.11). The macroblade most likely dates to the Early Classic (Table 3.12).

Scrapers Figure B: 68n-ee, Table 3.7-3.12 Total: 87, 84 complete (Table 3.7). Many of the larger obsidian flakes found at Tikal had intentionally retouched ends and lateral edges, and/or exhibited heavy use-retouch from use on hard materials. Some scrapers appeared to have been retouched to achieve a rounded plan (Fig. B: 68n-v), but the plans of most, like similar artifacts of chert, were unstandardized. By analogy with similar obsidian artifacts from Central Mexico (Parsons and Parsons 1990: Plate 163) those scrapers with retouched, rounded ends may have been hafted and used to process plant fibers. Most of the sample was of unattributed translucent gray obsidian (Table 3.8). One of was opaque gray stone. Three were assigned to El Chayal by XRF and NAA. A unique example had been made on a large, thick chunk of green obsidian (Fig. B: 68ee). Obsidian scrapers are far outnumbered by those of chert (Chapter Two). Maximum length of the gray obsidian scrapers ranged from 1.6 to 4.0 cm. The unusually large green scraper was 6.8 cm long. None of the scrapers were weighed. No secondary modification was noted. Unlike chert scrapers, those of obsidian were concentrated toward the center of Tikal (Table 3.9) in Civic-Ceremonial Group 5D-2 (Table 3.10). This dis-

FLAKED OBSIDIAN ARTIFACTS

tribution, which resembles that of obsidian thin bifaces, suggests they were not expedient tools. Over 60 percent of the obsidian scrapers were found in general excavations, but they also occurred sporadically in monument and structure caches, debitage deposits exterior to chamber burials, and in problematical deposits (Table 3.11). Obsidian scrapers first appear during the Early Late Preclassic period and continue throughout the permanent occupation of Tikal (Table 3.12). Most date to the Classic period, with nearly 20 percent from contexts dated to the Early Classic.

Large Flakes Table 3.7-3.12 Total: 6, complete or nearly so. There were six larger, unretouched flakes in the collection with signs of usewear along the lateral edges. They appeared to be complete, or nearly so, and were of unattributed translucent gray obsidian. The length of the largest was 5.0 cm. The earliest dates to the Terminal Preclassic period and the latest to the Terminal Classic. Obsidian flakes were rare compared to examples of chert (Chapter Two).

Broad Prismatic Blades Figure B: 70a, b, Table 3.7-3.12 Total: five well-made prismatic blade fragments (Table 3.7). These fragments were as wide as macroflakes, but bore long, regular blade scars on their dorsal faces (Fig. B: 70a,b). To date they are unique finds from Tikal and may have been made elsewhere. The remaining lateral edges showed signs of use. Three fragments were of translucent gray obsidian, one sourced to Zaragoza in Central Mexico (Fig. B: 70a). Two were of green obsidian, one sourced to Pachuca (Fig. B: 70b) (Table 3.8). One gray blade had a maximum width of 2.4 cm and a green blade had an incomplete width of 2.5 cm. None were weighed. In addition to use along its lateral edges, one gray blade had a small shiny patch on the dorsal face, perhaps haft polish (Fig. B: 70a). All occurred in general excavations, three in Zone 01 (Table 3.9-3.11). The recovery contexts and associated material culture did not provide dates more specific than the Classic period (Table 3.12).

31

Large Polyhedral Core Figure B: 69a, Table 3.7-3.12 Total: one, complete. (Table 3.7). A large polyhedral core of translucent gray obsidian was identified in the studied sample (Fig. B: 69a). It is of special interest because it supports the hypothesis (Clark and Lee 1979; Sheets 1975) that obsidian for prismatic blades was brought into the Maya Lowlands in the form of large, roughly shaped cores. Besides their large size, large polyhedral cores are characterized by broad, irregular flake scars, and abraded arrises caused by “bag wear” in transit. The core is only 7.2 cm long, which is short for a large polyhedral core (John E. Clark, personal communication 1984). It was not weighed. The platform is a smooth flake scar. The distal end bears some unifacial retouch, perhaps intentional. During the Early Late and early Late Late Classic periods, some types of obsidian eccentrics were made on core tablets and macroflakes struck directly from large polyhedral cores (e.g., Fig. A: 33g, h). The dimensions of the largest eccentrics demonstrate that some of these cores exceeded 12.8 cm in greatest length and 8.4 cm in greatest diameter. The core was found in Zone 01, in Str. 5D-34, near Sk. J, the last-interred of nine sacrificed children who accompanied the subject of Early Classic Bu. 10 (TR. 14: 481-482) (Table 3.9-3.12). In view of its recovery context and its uniqueness, this core may well have been an offering.

Prismatic Blade Cores Figure A: 32b, j, o, r, 33q, v, x, 62l, m, B: 69d-v, 72a, d, f, g, Table 3.13-3.18 Total: 1927, 136 exhausted cores and four rejuvenated cores are complete (Table 3.13). This count is for a studied sample of the obsidian debitage encountered in the field. It does not include unexcavated or unrecorded debitage from the large deposits exterior to chamber burials (Moholy-Nagy 1997), nor does it include over 800 obsidian eccentrics described in Tikal Report 27A, most of which were manufactured from exhausted prismatic blade cores. Cores and core fragments were assigned to this taxon before I became aware of behavioral typology (Sheets 1975) and so the sample includes a number of forms that would be more useful if examined separately, something that can no longer be done for this collection. Included here are all cores, flakes, and fragments that bore prismatic blade or macroblade scars, such as exhausted and rejuvenated cores, small fragments of cores produced during rejuvenation

32

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

processes, large flakes from the preparation of large polyhedral cores for prismatic blade manufacture, and the distinctive transverse flakes generated in the production of bifacial obsidian eccentrics from prismatic blade cores. Blade core varieties are tabulated according to the part of the core represented: core (Fig. B: 69e, f ), longitudinal flake (Fig. B: 69b, c), transverse flake (Fig. B: 69q, 72f, g), plunging blade (e.g., Clark and Bryant 1997: Fig. 7D), distal fragment (Fig. B: 69j, s, u), platform fragment (Fig. B: 69d), midsection fragment (Fig. B: 69p, t), split core (Fig. B: 69i, k), and retouched core (Fig. B: 69g, h). Nearly all of the examined blade cores were of unsourced translucent gray obsidian (Table 3.14). Source-analysis by XRF and NAA attributed three specimens to El Chayal and two to Otumba. Ten fragments were of green obsidian, assumed to be from the Cerro de las Navajas. The circumstance that gray Central Mexican obsidian was present among the blade production debitage recovered from Tikal means it cannot be assumed that all gray obsidian debitage is from Guatemalan sources. On the other hand, the scarcity of debitage of, for instance, visually conspicuous green obsidian suggests that prismatic blades of Mexican obsidian (see below) were made locally from cores shaped considerably beyond the large polyhedral core stage in which Guatemalan obsidian was imported. A few cores, all of translucent gray obsidian, bore small patches of cortex (cf. Fig. B: 72e). As blades were removed from them, the shape of prismatic blade cores progressed from approximately conical to more parallel-sided and “bullet-shaped” (Fig. B: 69e). Often, however, the proximal end of the core would be reduced more than the distal end, producing a shape that resembled a blimp more than a bullet (Fig. B: 69f ). Cores that had assumed this shape were often rejuvenated by removing the distal end to form a new platform. A number of such double platform, bi-directional cores were observed (e.g., Fig. B: 69v5, 6), but an exact count of them was not made. Cores were also rejuvenated by striking off the proximal end to form a new platform (Fig. B: 69h, r). Pecked lines encircling cores guided platform or tip removals (Fig. B: 69r, v). Platforms were typically plain and smooth. Occasionally shallow facets, apparently pressure-flaked from the platform perimeter, were present. No ground, pecked, or cortical platforms were observed on prismatic blade cores, although they were present on a few prismatic blades (below). The largest complete blade core recorded was 7.8 cm long. The smallest was approximately 2.0 cm long. None were weighed.

Eighty cores showed secondary modifications, the results of efforts at core rejuvenation or reworking into other kinds of artifacts (Clark and Bryant 1997). Two had battered ends, five had lightly ground edges, four had retouch along the lateral edges, two from an Early Late Classic problematical deposit had small cortex patches colored red by the mineral pigment placed in this special deposit, three had pecked arrises, probably to recover flaking errors (John E. Clark, personal communication 1984). The arrises at the distal ends of four cores had been intentionally ground (Fig. B: 69u). One core fragment with pecked, opposing fingerholds and batter at one end may have been a small tool (Fig. B: 69t). Some of the approximately fifty core fragments from Early Classic structure Ca. 189 had abraded arrises and patches of cortex. Two cores that had been split lengthwise (Fig. B: 69k) may be evidence of bipolar flaking. The spatial distribution of prismatic blade cores and fragments was concentrated in Zone 01 (Table 3.15), which produced almost 82 percent of the sample. Zone 01 also had the highest density per defined excavation lot. A dump of obsidian debitage mixed with many used obsidian prismatic blades in a test pit in Zone 12 in the Periphery, however, nearly equaled it. The greatest number of cores and fragments came from special deposits in Civic-Ceremonial Gp. 5D-2 (Table 3.16). Almost nine percent were recovered from Central Area Small Structure Groups, thought to have been the residences and work places of specialist stoneknappers. Special deposits produced over 80 percent of the recorded blade cores and fragments (Table 3.17), 75 percent from the Epicenter alone. In nearly all cases, cores had been deposited with other types of chert and obsidian debitage in monument and structure caches, exterior to chamber burials, and in dumps defined as problematical deposits. Cores only occurred within a late Early Classic and an Early Late Late Classic burial in one group, Intermediate Structure Gp. 7F-1 in Zone 04. Whole cores and large core sections deposited in special deposits appear to be functional equivalents of obsidian eccentrics on blade cores that are often recovered from the same contexts (e.g., Fig. B: 69v). One prismatic blade core fragment, possibly indicative of local blade production, dates to the Late Middle Preclassic (Table 3.18). Cores and fragments are more numerous from the Early Late Preclassic into the Terminal Classic period. Although a few prismatic blades are present during the Early Middle Preclassic, the period of earliest permanent settlement, local production may not have gotten underway until later. The sudden increase in obsidian cores and fragments dur-

33

FLAKED OBSIDIAN ARTIFACTS

ing the Early and Early Late Classic Periods seems due in part to more abundant supplies and in part to the concentration of excavations in Gp. 5D-2 and its many, large, obsidian-laden special deposits.

Prismatic Blades Figure A: 62a-i, k; B: 62b, 63, 70c-f, Table 3.19-3.24 Total: 8269, 78 complete, nearly all from special deposits (Table 3.19). Midsection fragments outnumbered distal and proximal end fragments, but many fragments were not adequately recorded. Following Kidder (1947), they are referred to as “flake-blades” in earlier Tikal Reports. Approximately 505 blades were noted as having intentional retouch along one or both lateral edges and often one or both ends as well (Fig. B: 70c, d). The retouch on some of these specimens appeared to have been directed toward achieving a specific shape (Fig. B: 62b). On others it seemed to be random, casting doubt upon whether the edge modification was by intent or the result of heavy use (Lewenstein 1981: Fig. 1-4). Eight blades bore cross-retouch across all or only one facet of the dorsal face (Fig. B: 70f ). In the Old World these might be considered crested blades, the remnants of a bifacially worked ridge to guide the first blade detached from the blade core (Bordes 1967: Fig. 5). Their scarcity at Tikal suggests that this technique was not part of ordinary prismatic blade production and might be better considered as a way of correcting flaking errors (Clark and Bryant 1997: Fig. 4). The remainder of the prismatic blades was not classified into varieties (Fig. B: 70e). Blades were not specifically examined for possible evidence of hafting. In a series of experiments designed to replicate usewear on archaeological obsidian prismatic blades from Patarata Island, Veracruz, Mexico, Lewenstein successfully cut and scraped hides, butchered meat, scaled fish, whittled and sawed soft and hard wood, cut cotton and henequen fiber, and cut and grooved bone (Lewenstein 1981). This very common artifact type may well have been a multi-purpose tool wherever it occurred in Mesoamerica. Most of the sample was of translucent gray obsidian (Table 3.20). Seventeen gray or black fragments could be attributed to the Highland Guatemalan sources of El Chayal (11), San Martin Jilotepeque (5), and Ixtepeque (1) by XRF or NAA analysis. XRF and NAA analysis also attributed two blades of green obsidian to the Pachuca source and a clear gray blade fragment to Paredón, both of these in Central Mexico (Moholy-Nagy and Nelson 1990: Table 1). There were also 435 blades of green obsidian visually identical to

the Pachuca source and an additional three inadequately recorded examples that were probably also green. It is highly likely that more instrument trace-element analysis would have identified more Central Mexican sources among the gray obsidian blades. Occasionally blades of similar form were produced in chert (Chapter Two). Prismatic blades had regular, narrow, approximately parallel-sided plans and thin sections with regular arrises on the dorsal face. Cross-sections were usually trapezoidal, occasionally triangular. Proximal ends usually had an oval outline and tiny platform due to extensive removal of the overhang on the edge of the core’s platform before detaching the blades. Less preparation appears to have been devoted to green obsidian blade cores and the blade platforms tend to be larger and more squared in outline, but such platforms occasionally also occurred among gray obsidian blades (Fig. B: 63, upper right and lower left). A summary of the platforms of a sample of 284 Preclassic and Classic period obsidian blades follows: Edge Plain Scratched Facetted Ground or pecked Total

Gray 115 59 49 7 37 267

Green 2 6 3 – 6 17

Complete prismatic blades (lancets, e.g., Fig. B: 63, upper right and lower right) rarely exceeded 10 cm in maximum length. Most blades and blade segments of gray obsidian had a range of maximum width of 0.9 to 1.3 cm. Green obsidian blades were a bit narrower, from 0.8 to 1.0 cm. The range of thickness for most blade proximal and midsection fragments was between 0.2 and 0.3 cm. It should be noted that the dimensions of a few prismatic blades fell outside these ranges. A summary of the widths, in cm, of a sample of Preclassic and Classic period blades follows: Number Range Mean

Gray 318 0.7–1.9 1.18

Green 56 0.5–1.5 1.03

No blades were weighed. Some degree of edge damage, assumed to be due to use, occurred on nearly all of the prismatic blades from general excavations. The edges of at least 505 blades had been intentionally retouched (Fig. B: 70c1,3-6, 70d) or perhaps just heavily used (Fig. B: 70c2). Prismatic blades were widely distributed throughout Tikal, although they were most abundant towards

34

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

the center (Table 3.21) and in the larger Minor Centers of Zone 09 and 20 on the peripheries (Table 3.22). They were most numerous in Small Structure Groups, showing that they were primarily utilitarian artifacts used by everyone. Prismatic blades were the only obsidian artifacts that Haviland (1981: 103) included in his set of ten basic, domestic artifact types of durable material. Classic period obsidian prismatic blades are recovered from all kinds of contexts (Table 3.23). Although almost 80 percent of the sample came from general excavations blades were included, apparently intentionally, in a large number of special deposits. Eight monument caches, 37 structure caches, 75 problematical deposits, eight chamber burials, three deposits exterior to chamber burials, two crypt burials, and 32 burials of other types included from one to over 356 blades (Fig. A: 62a-i, k). Paralleling the deposition in the same offering of eccentrics of chert and obsidian or of chert eccentrics and incised obsidians, obsidian prismatic blades were sometimes intentionally paired with artifacts of chert. E.g., chert and obsidian lancet blades were deposited together in an Early Classic structure cache (Fig. A: 62i, j) and a bifacial chert knife had been paired with an obsidian prismatic blade in each of the four parts of a Late Classic period structure cache (Fig. B: 63). Prismatic blades were present through the entire period of permanent settlement (Table 3.24), although they are very scarce in Early Middle Preclassic contexts. Their numbers show a noticeable surge at the beginning of the Classic period with an apparent decline to the Late Preclassic level of consumption during the Terminal Classic period. Nine were attributed to Early Postclassic times, including a green obsidian blade found associated with a Caban Complex pottery vessel and lumps of copal in PD. 42 in Str. 5D-2 (TR. 14: 631-632). Thirteen fragments were found in contexts that may postdate the abandonment of the site.

Flakes and Unsorted Debitage Figure B: 62a, 69b, c, 72b, c, e, Table 3.25-3.29 Total: approximately 40,837 pieces were recorded in the field laboratory (Table 3.25-3.29). Particularly in the case of debitage associated with deposits exterior to chamber burials, this count represents only a small sample of what was encountered in the field. Descriptions of such deposits (TR. 14: 539, 543, 607) suggest a conservative estimate of 228,243 pieces of unsorted obsidian debitage were encountered in exterior burial deposits and that the total estimated amount of obsidian debitage from all recovery contexts is at

least 262,636 pieces (Moholy-Nagy 1997: Table 3). Condition was usually not recorded. As in the case of chert debitage, this material was not conceptually linked to expedient or specialized artifact production at the time of excavation, and so it was not adequately examined. Much of it was not even sorted. It includes objects thought to be by-products of production and rejuvenation activities. Small, irregular percussion blades and mixed blades (Fig. B: 72b) and cortical flakes (Fig. B: 72e) were generated in the course of shaping large polyhedral cores to the point where prismatic blades could be produced from them (Don Crabtree, personal communication 1976; John E. Clark, personal communication 1984). Most flakes bearing prismatic blade scars on their dorsal faces appear to have been created by the production of bifacial obsidian eccentrics, while some may have been the result of core rejuvenation (Fig. B: 72f, g; Clark and Bryant 1997: Fig. 4. 5). Retouched cores may have been exhausted rejuvenated cores or failed attempts to produce eccentrics. An examined sample of such prismatic blade core fragments is described above. The activities that generated miscellaneous flakes could not be further specified. Debitage was also created through the retouching of macroblades into scrapers, eccentrics, and incised obsidians, prismatic blade core error corrections, and retouching of the lateral edges of prismatic blades. As noted above, it is uncertain if thin bifaces of obsidian were locally manufactured, but the reworking of broken examples was common. Examined debitage was overwhelmingly of translucent gray obsidian. There was also some opaque black stone (Table 3.25). Five gray fragments submitted to source-analysis by XRF and NAA were attributed to two Guatemalan sources: El Chayal (3), and San Martin Jilotepeque (1), and Ucareo in Central Mexico (1). Eleven green fragments, assumed to be from the Central Mexican source of Pachuca, and three red-mottled black fragments were also noted. Fig. B: 72 gives an idea of the shape and size of specially deposited obsidian debitage. An impression of the characteristics of specially deposited Early Late Classic obsidian prismatic blade production waste may be gained from a deposit of mixed chert and obsidian debitage from lot 12T/12 of PD. 134 that had been dumped over the capstones of the chamber of Bu. 200 found in Str. 5D-22 (TR. 14: 402). A sample of 1378 pieces included crude pressure blades, flakes with the rubbed arrises (“bag wear”) typical of large polyhedral cores, blade core error correction flakes, and the transverse flakes (Fig. B: 72f, g) from the production of obsidian eccentrics, which also accompanied Bu. 200. Traces of cortex were very rare. The debitage was weighed and counted in batches of 100 gm. Counts per 100 gm ranged between 79 to

FLAKED OBSIDIAN ARTIFACTS

210 pieces. The maximum dimension of the biggest piece in each batch ranged from 3.4 to 5.3 cm. The maximum weight of the heaviest piece in each batch, which was not necessarily the longest, ranged between 4.0 and 13.5 gm. The heaviest pieces were all fragments of large polyhedral or prismatic blade cores. The smallest, apparently complete, pieces from this unscreened deposit were at least 0.9 cm in maximum dimension. These weighed less than 0.5 gm, which was the lower limit of my scale. The total weight of the 1378 fragments was 0.960 kg, giving an average of 0.697 gm/fragment. Over 87 percent of recorded obsidian debitage was found in Zone 01 (Table 3.26), most of it taken as samples from incompletely excavated or recorded material that overlay or was included in special deposits in Civic-Ceremonial Gp. 5D-2. No obsidian debitage was recorded beyond Zone 15. Two Terminal Preclassic period special-purpose debitage dumps classified as PDs. 106 and 107 in Ch. 5B-10 in Zone 04 accounted for 92 percent of the total recovered from Tikal’s peripheries. Besides Gp. 5D-2, obsidian debitage also occurred sporadically in all other types of structure groups (Table 3.27). It was abundant in Small Structure Group Gp. 4F-2, where a large special-purpose dump defined as PD. 217 (TR. 19: 158-159) accounted for most of the sample. Obsidian production waste occurs less frequently in general excavations than in special deposits (Table 3.28). Beginning in the Terminal Preclassic period and continuing through the Classic, effort was made to dispose of it where it would not be a hindrance. Most of it was buried (Gould 1981; Hayden and Cannon 1983). By the Terminal Preclassic, most of the obsidian debitage generated at Tikal found its way into special deposits associated with monumental architecture, notably the chert and obsidian deposits around and above the chamber burials of its rulers. To a lesser extent

35

it was also placed in structure and monument caches of the Early Classic and Early Late Classic periods. However, the recovery of chert and obsidian artifact production waste from a variety of contexts, including special-purpose dumps and general excavations, indicates that its deposition in caches and exterior to chamber burials was opportunistic, not obligatory. There is no evidence from Tikal that debitage was stockpiled, that is, it was put into temporary storage, to await the construction activities that the death of a ruler would trigger. The distribution of obsidian debitage is also considerably more centralized than that of chert debitage, suggesting that there may have been fewer obsidian than chert craft specialists, and that their workshops were situated closer to the Classic period central market in Gp. 5D-3 in Zone 01 (TR. 16). Obsidian debitage occurred sporadically in general excavations throughout the Middle and Late Preclassic Periods (Table 3.29). Larger concentrations appeared in special-purpose dumps in chultuns and exterior to chamber burials during the Terminal Preclassic period. After the beginning of the Classic period, special-purpose dumps not associated with caches and burials became very rare. Although Table 3.29 gives the impression that debitage deposition peaked during the Early Classic, this is misleading. Early Classic period deposits, in general, were still small enough to be completely excavated and recorded. None of the larger Gp. 5D-2 special deposits of later periods were completely excavated, and usually only a small sample of what was recovered was brought into the field laboratory. The counts given on Table 3.29 for periods later than the Late Late Classic are predominantly from general excavations and accurately present what was encountered in the field. Debitage, and, accordingly, local prismatic blade production, declined sharply during the Terminal Classic period.

4

Ground, Pecked, and Polished Stone Artifacts and Unworked Stones and Minerals General Considerations Summary Number

Type

Figure

Page

1124 1473 17 11 16 538 9 5 36 1 1 495 71 33 8 26 4 5 8 11 8 3 30 9 58 8 44 119

Manos Metates Unspecified mano or metate fragments Mortars Grinding stones Rubbing stones Polished stones Saws Whetstones Drill Stamp Hammerstones Celts and chisels Barkbeaters and barkmallets Cupped stones Spindle whorls Pestles Ballgame handstones Centrally perforated disks Doughnut stones Flattened-end spheres Stemmed spheres Small worked spheres Stones with a central depresssion Elongate soft stone objects Cordholders? Selected architectural elements Miscellaneous artifacts of pecked, ground, and polished stone Unworked stones and minerals

B: 73-80k B: 73-75, 80l-90 B: 91-92b B: 92c-93a B: 93b-i, 94-96d B: 96e-h B: 93j, 96i, j B: 97a-g B: 97h B: 97i B: 62e, 98 B: 99-100 B: 101-105c B: 105d-k B: 106 B: 107a-c B: 107d, e B: 107f-i B: 108 B: 109a-d B: 109e-g B: 105l, 109h-l B: 110 B: 111 B: 112 B: 62d, 88b, 113-114

37 39 42 42 42 42 43 43 43 44 44 44 44 45 46 46 47 47 47 48 48 48 48 49 49 49 50

B: 62c, 115-118 B: 119-120

50 50

940

The following artifact types of pecked, ground, and polished stone are described in TR. 27A: assemblages composed of stone and shell mosaic elements, loose mosaic elements, minor sculptures, Charlie Chaplin cutout figurines, debitage of jade, other greenstones, and specular hematite, composite pyrite plaques and loose pyrite elements, dental inlays, stone vessels, beads, earflares, small flares, finger rings, pendants, and any other kinds of ornaments. Monument fragments and other stone fragments bearing glyphs are described in TR. 33A as Miscellaneous Stones.

GROUND, PECKED, AND POLISHED STONE ARTIFACTS

G

enerally it was easier to ascribe uses to artifacts of ground stone than to those of chipped stone, but several types remained completely enigmatic and these were given descriptive names. Most of the sample consisted of utilitarian artifacts assumed to have been used in a domestic setting to accomplish various tasks, such as food preparation, as well as in craft activities, such as the production of tools and cloth. The ballgame handstones and many of the miscellaneous artifacts may represent failed production attempts. Chert and chalcedony of different quality, nodules of fine-textured limestone, soft dolomite bedrock, concretions, and clay all appear to have been abundant at Tikal itself. Waterworn cobbles and boulders of coarse chert and fine limestone may have come from Lake Petén Itzá, a day’s walk away. Rock of metamorphic origin, particularly the large quantities of light-colored quartzite that comprised about half of the sample of milling stones at all times, is thought to have come from Belize. Igneous rock, such as granite and vesicular basalt, were imported from beyond the Lowlands, perhaps the Guatemalan and even the Central Mexican Highlands. Quartzite is present from the time of initial settlement, but artifacts of pecked and ground igneous rock do not appear until the Classic period (Chart 4.1 [which is located at the end of this chapter]). The variety of imported stones and minerals dated to the Classic period is impressive and attests to Tikal’s widespread commercial contacts. Ethnoarchaeological observations suggest that, unlike lithic production waste, debitage from the production of pecked stone artifacts with hammerstones (Hayden 1987a, Nelson 1987) is ordinarily not recognizable in archaeological context, which makes speculations about the extent and mode of utilitarian artifact production especially tenuous. There is not enough evidence from the Middle Preclassic period to tell if households made their own domestic artifacts of locally available or imported stones or if they acquired them from specialists. By the beginning of the Late Preclassic, however, well-made special-purpose artifacts begin to appear, among them whetstones, celts, barkmallets, centrally perforated disks, and flattened-end spheres, indicating the presence of craft specialists. The adoption of manos and metates of quarried stone during the Early Classic and the significant quantities of metamorphic and igneous rocks represented by the sample suggest that these varieties of milling stones were imported as finished products. Similar to the spatial distribution of other specialist-produced artifacts, those described here were concentrated in Zones 01 through 05, the more prosperous areas of Tikal during the Classic period. The preferential use of pieces of large stone artifacts in con-

37

struction fill (Sidrys 1976) may account for the concentrations of manos and metates in the monumental architecture of Zone 01. Generally, the largest numbers of pecked and ground stone artifacts were found in the Small Structure Groups, presumably their places of use and discard, and in Civic-Ceremonial Group 5D-2, where they were incorporated into monumental construction. But a couple of interesting exceptions to the rule are the drill, stamp, spindle whorls, and stemmed spheres, no examples of which, as yet, were recovered from any Civic-Ceremonial Groups. These are all small, well-made, relatively uncommon, specialpurpose artifacts that may have been more carefully curated. As with utilitarian artifacts of other categories of material recovered predominantly from general excavations, those of pecked and ground stone were occasionally also found in caches, burials, and problematical deposits from the Middle Preclassic into the Terminal Classic periods.

Descriptions Manos Figure B: 73-80k, Table 4.1-4.6 Total: 1124 examples, only 48 of which are complete (Table 4.1). Manos were classified into five varieties based upon the shape of the cross section. More than one-third of the sample was too fragmentary to be classified. Variety V manos were well-shaped on all surfaces and had thick cross sections when new, nearly square in some examples (Fig. B: 78a, h), which permitted use on up to all four faces. They appear to have been made of quarried blocks of stone, in contrast to Variety W manos made on large stones. As wear proceeded, the cross sections of Variety V manos could assume a trapezoidal, diamond, triangular, pentagonal, or irregular-polygonal shape (Fig. B: 77a-j, n-r). There were 319 examples, of which 29 were complete. Variety W manos had thinner cross sections when new, and were used on only one face or two opposing faces (Fig. B: 77k-m, 78i-n). Less effort went into shaping them, and unmodified surfaces of the original stone are still visible (Fig. B: 73a, c). There were 351 examples, nine of which were complete. Variety X manos were larger and cruder than Variety W manos with thick, irregular cross sections and use on only one face (Fig. B: 80h). They were also made on natural cobbles. There were two of these, a complete example and an end fragment.

38

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

Variety Y manos were well-worked on all surfaces, had round to oval cross sections (Fig. B: 78c-f), and were made on quarried blocks of stone. Three were found with flat tripod or flat legless metates (Fig. B: 74a, b). There were 46 examples, of which three were complete. Variety Z manos had thin, biconvex cross sections (Fig. B: 80e-g). They appear to be examples of V, W, and Y Variety manos too worn to permit classification. There were 16 of these, only one of which was complete. We can say with more confidence than in the case of most artifact types that manos were handstones used upon metates to process grain and other kinds of materials. Ethnographic observations attest to the grinding of maize, wild seeds, and condiments by manos and metates (Bartlett 1933; Eddy 1964; Spink 1983: 135). Manos and metates were also used to prepare inedible substances such as clay for pottery manufacture, mineral pigments for paints, and shell mixed with corn meal for face powder (Bartlett 1933; Eddy 1964). A great variety of stone was used for manos and metates (Table 4.2). I suspect this is because most of what was available at Tikal or could be brought in from areas like Belize was not really adequate. About twothirds of the collection is of quartzite and almost twelve percent is of limestone. Limestone may have been obtained in the vicinity and it was more easily shaped than harder stone. It probably needed to be roughened up often (Bartlett 1933: 4). Quartzite is harder than limestone and may not have needed to be roughened as often. But it was capable of developing a beautiful, glassy, wear-polish that rendered it useless for milling. Milling stones were periodically roughened by pecking the working surfaces with a hammerstone. This process evidently required a certain amount of skill, to judge by the number of massive mano and metate fragments that appear to have been broken in rejuvenation attempts (Fig. B: 78f, 79b, i, 80o). The large number of very small mano and metate fragments in the sample attest to the brittleness of quartzite. Any analysis of milling stones, especially those of imported material, should be expressed in weights as well as counts. Virtually no research has been done on the sources of stone used for milling implements in the Maya Lowlands. According to present knowledge, however, only chert and limestone may have come from the Tikal-Lake Petén Itzá area. The Guatemalan Highlands may have been the source of the vesicular basalt, and the other kinds of igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphized rocks may have come from Belize. Ethnographic evidence suggests that Precolumbian manos and metates of imported stone were also manufactured at or near the quarries (Cook 1982; Nelson 1987) and brought to Tikal as finished goods.

In plan manos are elongate with grinding surfaces that are always convex along the short axis and usually convex along the long axis. The degree of curvature of the grinding faces, the shape of the cross section, and the form of the ends are strongly influenced by the number of mano surfaces used, the degree of wear (Bartlett 1933), and the shape of the metate grinding surface upon which they were regularly used. The 48 complete manos ranged in length from 16.0 to 33.0 cm, in width from 6.0 to 7.4 cm, and in thickness from 3.6 to 7.4 cm. Weights ranged from about 684 gm to 2907 gm with most of the sample falling between 800 and 900 gm. Secondary modification was frequent. The most common was reuse as hammerstones (e.g., Fig. B: 76a1, 76b4, 78n). Approximately 192 fragments exhibited batter on one or two breaks. Three fragments carried traces of red pigment and the broken end of one of these showed batter. Three fragments carried traces of plaster, as though they had been reused as smoothers. Two of these had also been reused as hammers. Two fragments were noted that had pounded ends with pits in them (Fig. B: 77q, 79q). Four other fragments had pitted faces. The damaged end of one complete mano had been rejuvenated (Fig. B: 76a4). Eighty-nine fragments showed signs of heat damage and discoloration. Another 17 may have been subjected to fire. Manos and the metates they were used with are one of Haviland’s ten basic artifact types common to all residential groups in Epicentral and Central Tikal during the Classic period. Manos were concentrated in Zones 01 through 05 (Table 4.3). They were common in Small Structure Groups, which are assumed to be their locations of use, and in Civic-Ceremonial Groups, which are their locations of redeposition in construction fill (Table 4.4). Although over 93 percent of the collection came from general excavations (Table 4.5), manos were also specially deposited in caches, burials, and problematical deposits in what Haviland (TR. 19: 157) suggests are domestic termination rituals that date from the Late Preclassic into the Early Postclassic period. Their recovery contexts indicate that they, like other utilitarian artifact types, also had important social or ceremonial functions. Eight specially deposited manos were found with metates, some of which appeared to be actual sets. These came from an Early Classic chamber burial (Fig. B: 74a), a Late Preclassic structure cache (Fig. B: 73a), and five problematical deposits, one of which had two sets (Fig. B: 73b, c, 74b, 75b, c), which date from the Early Classic into the Late or Terminal Classic periods. Two sets were each accompanied by an extra mano. In addition to these eight sets in des-

GROUND, PECKED, AND POLISHED STONE ARTIFACTS

ignated special deposits, two other mano and metate sets were recovered (Fig. B: 74c, 75a), but not assigned special deposit numbers. Complete manos, unaccompanied by metates, occurred in an Early Classic structure cache and three Late Classic period problematical deposits(Fig. B: 75d; TR. 19: 157, Fig. 59b). An unusual concentration of three complete and 13 fragmentary manos was discovered in a chultun (Fig. B: 76). The manos were accompanied by a rectangular/oval biface (Fig. B: 25c, 76e), two hammerstones, and an unspecified human, longbone shaft over 19.0 cm. long. The lowermost mano appears to have been intentionally painted red. The entire deposit was designated PD. 112 and dated to the Late Late Classic. Mano fragments also occurred in an Early Classic chamber burial, a Late Classic simple burial, and in an Early Classic structure cache. One mano fragment each was found with six problematical deposits that date from Late Preclassic into Early Postclassic times. Three others were recorded from an Early Classic problematical deposit. The earliest mano fragments can be dated to the Late Middle Preclassic period (Table 4.6). A few, mostly surface finds, may be later than the Terminal Classic. Three fragments of Precolumbian type were collected from Recent sites occupied in the later nineteenth century, suggesting they were salvaged and reused. Varieties V (quarried, with thicker sections) and W (cobbles, with thinner sections) both occurred throughout the span of occupation of Tikal, with Variety W predominating until the end of the Early Late Classic and Variety V afterwards. Variety Y manos (quarried, with round to oval sections) were introduced during the Early Classic period together with flat-surfaced metates, and used into the Terminal Classic period. Late and Terminal Classic manos tended to be shorter and thicker with more tapered ends than those from the Preclassic and Early Classic periods. Changes in mano form paralleled those in turtleback metates, which became thicker and more deeply troughed during the Late Classic. Milling stones of nonlocal metamorphic and igneous rock occur during the entire span of occupation of Tikal (Table 4.19). Like other imported materials, such as obsidian or marine shell, the kinds and proportions of exotic stone changed through time. The earliest, Late Middle Preclassic manos and metates were of imported light-colored quartzite, and limestone and coarse chert, thought to be locally available. During the Late Preclassic silicified limestone, vesicular quartzite, and gneiss appear, all thought to have come from Belize. Igneous rocks, such as vesicular basalt and granite, may not have appeared before the

39

Early Classic period. Granite, in particular, continued in use through the Terminal Classic period. It is not clear what types of milling stones were used during the Early Postclassic period, because of the mixed nature of the recovery contexts. The inhabitants of the late nineteenth-century settlement at Tikal fashioned their manos and metates out of fragments of Late Classic monuments of bedded limestone, for example, Stela 21 (TR. 33A: 47). These manos and metates, which can be distinguished from Precolumbian examples by the distinctive marks of the metal tools used to shape and roughen them, are described and illustrated in TR. 37.

Metates Figure B: 73-75, 80l-90, Tables 4.7-4.12 Total: 1473, of which only 22 were complete or nearly so (Table 4.7). Fragments ranged from little chunks less than one centimeter in maximum dimension to nearly whole metates, each duly counted as one, instead of weighed. Metates in use in Precolumbian times although quite variable in form can be classified into three broad groups, trough, slab, and block, and nine varieties. Nearly 86 percent of the excavated sample can be classified as trough metates, which were present during the entire permanent occupation of the settlement. These have a markedly concave, often trough-like, grinding surface and an underside without supports. Three varieties, G, H, and J, were defined. Variety G, in use throughout the Preclassic and Classic periods, and perhaps as late as the Terminal Classic, was formed on large stones with little shaping of the exterior (Fig. B: 73a, 83c). There were 71 examples, two of which were complete. Variety H, which appeared at the beginning of the Early Classic period, later became the most common variety at Tikal. Generally, the grinding troughs are deeper than Variety G metates and are open at both ends (Fig. B: 73c, 82a), although rare examples were noted where the proximal end was closed. The exterior is neatly shaped by pecking to give a “turtleback” shape (Thompson 1939), suggesting these metates were made from quarried blocks of stone. There were 161 examples, 3 complete. Variety J metates are a variant of Variety H, where the upper edges of the side walls were beveled and sometimes noticeably polished (Fig. B: 73b, 84). They appear to be somewhat deeper than Variety H examples, that is, individual examples were made from thicker chunks of quarried stone and used longer. The beveling appears to be the result of use with progres-

40

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

sively shorter manos because similar beveling was also noted on a fragment of a Variety P slab metate (Fig. B: 87b). There were more complete examples of Variety J metates than of other kinds. Variety J metates were in use from the Early Classic into the Terminal Classic periods, becoming somewhat more common with time. Fifty-three examples of this variety were identified, six were complete. Since only the upper side walls are distinctive, it can be assumed that lower walls and bases were counted as Variety H. During the Early Classic period, another kind of metate came into use at Tikal, and elsewhere in the Maya area. It had a nearly flat grinding surface, resembling a slab, which required a different kind of handstone and a different kind of milling technique than the trough metates (cf. Bartlett 1933). Slab metates were made with and without supports. Those with three supports are still made today in parts of Mesoamerica (Cook 1982; Nelson 1987). The 124 slab metates and fragments comprised a little more than eight percent of the studied sample. Five varieties were defined, N, P, Q, R, and S. Variety N metates were large, well shaped, with three supports. The support at the proximal end was usually taller than the two supports at the distal end (Fig. B: 74c, 85a). There were 25 examples, one complete. Variety P metates are a similar to Variety N, but the ends and lateral edges of the slab have a reverse bevel (Fig. B: 74a, b, 86b, c). There were 28 examples, two complete. Variety Q metates were smaller than Varieties N and P and were made without supports (Fig. B: 75b1, 82b, c). The long section is approximately wedgeshaped, elevating the proximal end. Some examples appear to have been reworked from other metate varieties (Fig. B: 83b). There were 16 examples, three complete. Variety R metates were also small and all three supports were approximately the same height, giving the overall impression of a small table (Fig. B: 75a1, 75c1, 85d, 86a). There were four of these, three complete. Variety S, represented by only one, nearly complete example, resembled Variety R in being smaller, but it was unique in having a open-work support at the proximal end and decorative grooves on the upper support and below the slab (Fig. B: 87a). It dates to the Terminal Classic period. A third kind of metate represented by only one complete example and eight fragments, is block-like with a deep trough and roughly shaped sides and base (Fig. B: 87c, d, 88a, 90n). All block metates were designated Variety V. All of the examples that I had an

opportunity to look at were of the same kind of tan limestone. However, I was unable to examine the complete metate, a surface find that appears to be of softer stone, perhaps dolomitic limestone. Variety V resembles the most common types of metates reported from Piedras Negras (Coe 1959) and Mayapan (Proskouriakoff 1962). Metates were used with manos to reduce maize kernels and other edible seeds into flour. Ethnoarchaeological observations have also documented use in pulverizing inedible substances, such as clay and mineral pigments. An even greater variety of rocks was noted among metates than among manos (Table 4.8), perhaps because none of the commonly used types were entirely satisfactory. Soft stone, such as limestone or sandstone, may have needed rejuvenation too often and may have left too much grit in the food. As noted under manos, above, it must have taken a good deal of time and skill to roughen a hard, brittle stone like quartzite. Vesicular basalt is fairly hard and porous enough not to need much reworking (Spink 1983: 143), and is the preferred stone for contemporary metates. But milling stones of this material may have been difficult to obtain. Vesicular basalt comprises just under four percent of the studied manos and fragments and just under five and a half percent of the studied metates and fragments (Table 4.2, 4.8). The kinds of stone commonly used for trough and slab metates were almost mutually exclusive. It is difficult to say much about the relative importance of stone types because of quantification by count rather than by weight. But quartzite, particularly light-colored quartzite, siliceous limestone, quartzite with large vesicles, and granite were the most important stone types for trough metates. The larger slab metates with supports, Varieties N and P were usually made of vesicular basalt. Small Variety R metates were usually of sandstone. Variety Q metates, the small slabs without supports, were made of the same kinds of stone as trough metates. This suggests that they were Maya imitations of a Central Mexican type represented by the slabs with supports. The few examined block metate fragments were all of the same kind of compact tan limestone and represent a metate type more commonly found in Yucatan and along the Usumacinta than in the central Peten. During her ethnographic research in her analysis of milling stones from Copan, Spink’s informants emphasized that it was important that the mano and metate be of the same kind of stone so that they would wear down at the same rate (1983: 152). The Tikal data neither support or negate this. Of the ten mano and metate pairs known from Tikal, five appeared to

GROUND, PECKED, AND POLISHED STONE ARTIFACTS

be of the same kind of stone (Fig. B: 73a, 74a, b, c, 75a) and five were of different stone (Fig. B: 73b, c, 75b, c, one is not illustrated). Complete examples that had not been rejuvenated ranged from 22.4 to 55.6 cm in greatest length, from 15.2 to 35.6 cm in greatest width, and from 2.8 to 12.0 cm in thickness, not counting supports. Regrettably none were weighed. Approximately 18 percent of the metates showed secondary modification of various kinds. The unique Variety S example had been decorated with low-relief grooves (Fig. B: 87a). Charring and other heat damage was noted on 134 examples. Another 25 fragments may have been subjected to heat. Two fragments bore traces of red pigment and one had traces of plaster. Reworking and reuse of metate fragments was common. At least three smaller metates had been reshaped from larger ones (Fig. B: 80m, n, 83b, 90n). One Variety G (Fig. B: 90g) and two Variety J (Fig. B: 84b, 90h) fragments had been ground all over, perhaps through use as whetstones. A handle had been shaped on a fragment of a slab metate (Fig. B: 90k). At least 62 fragments showed some battering of the broken edges through use as hammerstones (Fig. B: 90i, j). In eight of these, pits had been pecked into one or both faces, perhaps as fingerholds (Fig. B: 90l). Another common kind of reuse was as whetstones for objects with pointed or broad working ends. At least 33 trough metate fragments showed smoothed depressions (Fig. B: 89a, 90a, b) or polished grooves (Fig. B: 89b-g, 90c-f). At least two examples had both grooves and battered broken edges. An additional six metate fragments reused as whetstones had shaped edges. Like their mano counterparts, metates were part of the basic household artifact inventory during the Classic period. Their spatial distributions and associations with structure groups were virtually identical to those of manos, with almost half of the sample recovered from Zone 01 (Table 4.9) and few fragments found beyond Zone 05, and most abundant in the middens of Small Structure Groups and the construction fill of the monumental architecture in CivicCeremonial Groups (Table 4.10). Twice as many slab metates were recovered from Range Structure Groups than from Small Structure Groups, suggesting that those of more elevated social rank had readier access to these varieties. The recovery contexts of manos and metates indicate both utilitarian and ceremonial or social functions. Fifty-four metates and metate fragments were recovered from special deposits (Table 4.11). Eight complete examples, which were found with their manos in one cache, one burial, and five problematical deposits, have been described above with

41

manos. Complete metates, unaccompanied by manos, were associated with an Early Classic crypt burial (Fig. B: 81a), and with two problematical deposits resembling burials (Fig. B: 83a, 85d), dating to the Early and Early Late Classic periods, respectively. Metate fragments, apparent offerings, were recovered from the repositories of four burials: a chamber burial (Fig. B: 89a, 90a) made during the Early Classic period, a burial of unspecified Classic period date, a burial of Early Late Classic date, and a Late Late Classic burial. The metate found with the unspecified Classic period burial, Bu. 172, was a large, Variety H corner fragment of arkose that had been placed over the pelvis of the skeleton, tentatively identified as a young woman. Metate fragments were found in the exterior deposits associated with two Late Classic chamber burials. An Early Classic structure cache and an Early Late Classic monument cache each produced a metate fragment. Here it is difficult to say if the metate fragments should be interpreted as offerings or only accidental inclusions. Thirty-four fragments were excavated from 15 problematical deposits and from Bu. 107, treated as a problematical deposit in this Report. These deposits date from Late Preclassic into Early Postclassic times. Variety G trough metates made on large stones appear to have been the only kind in use throughout the entire Preclassic era (Table 4.12). At the beginning of the Early Classic period, the other two trough varieties, H (turtleback) and J (beveled rim), appeared, as well as the large tripod slab metate varieties, N and P, and the small slab without supports, Variety Q. All of these varieties may have continued in use into the Terminal Classic period. Block metates, Variety V, may be restricted to the Early Late Classic period, and small table-like tripod slab metates, Variety R, to the Late Late Classic. Variety S, the decorated slab tripod metate, came from Terminal Classic contexts and is probably an import There were also changes through time in rocks commonly used for metates that follow those that have been discussed above in connection with manos. The earliest metates are of white quartzite, limestone, and coarse chert. These continue to occur throughout the occupation span of Tikal. Several new kinds appear during the Early Classic, concurrent with the new metate varieties, and continue in use into the Terminal Classic period. There was, in particular, a marked increase in igneous rock, particularly various kinds of granite used for turtleback trough varieties and vesicular basalt used for tripod slab metates.

42

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

Unspecified Mano or Metate Fragments Table 4.13-4.18 Total: 17 small fragments of the kinds of stone used for milling stones at Tikal could not be surely identified as manos or metates. All were recovered from general excavations. One fragment had been burned and another showed batter along a broken edge.

Mortars Figure B: 91-92b, Table 4.13-4.18 Total: 11 mortars, seven of which were complete (Table 4.13). The uneven depressions in their working surfaces suggest that substances were processed in them by pounding. All were of dolomite (Table 4.14), our designation for Tikal’s soft white bedrock. All of the mortars were roughly shaped with irregular sides and bases. The maximum dimensions of complete examples ranged from 13.2 to 41.6 cm in length, 12.3 to 30.4 cm in width, and 3.8 to 11.0 cm in thickness. None were weighed. Three examples were burned and another still carried traces of red pigment. Mortars occurred toward the center of the site and were not reported beyond Zone 04 (Table 4.15). Two were associated with a Recent site, occupied in the late nineteenth century (Fig. B: 91c) and may have been scavenged from Precolumbian deposits. Five came from Civic-Ceremonial Groups, that is, from Group 5D-2 (Table 4.16). All examples were found in general excavations (Table 4.17). Mortars occurred from the Late Preclassic into the Late Classic periods with two associated with a Historic context (Table 4.18).

Grinding Stones Figure B: 92c-93a, Table 4.19-4.24 Total: 16, four complete (Table 4.19). These are large stone objects of uncertain use with signs of grinding on one surface. The ground surfaces were irregular or slightly convex and the objects do not appear to have been manos, metates, or rubbing stones. Two varieties were defined. Variety A had a slightly wavy, ground surface (Fig. B: 92c, d). There were ten of these, one complete. Variety B had a slightly convex

ground surface (Fig. B: 92e, f, 93a). There were six of these, three of which were complete. A variety of local and imported stones are represented, but 13 of the 16 examples were of limestone (Table 4.20). Most examples could be characterized as boulders that had been only slightly modified. All were unifacial with the possible exception of one Variety A specimen. The complete Variety A grinding stone was 31.2 cm long, 16.0 cm wide, and 7.2 cm thick. The largest Variety B stone was 35.0 cm long, 18.0 cm wide, and 13.2 cm thick. Only one Variety B stone was weighed (Fig. B: 92e) and was approximately 4446 gm. Five examples had been subjected to heat. Grinding stones were not found beyond Zone 05 (Table 4.21). Half of the sample came from Small Structure Groups (Table 4.22). All but three grinding stones came from general excavations, indicating that they were probably utilitarian artifacts (Table 4.23). Three came from problematical deposits found in chultuns. One was Late Preclassic and two were Early Classic. Both varieties occurred from the Late Preclassic into the Late Classic periods (Table 4.24).

Rubbing Stones Figure B: 93b-i, 94-96d, Table 4.25-4.30 Total: 538, of which 197 were complete (Table 4.25). Two varieties were defined, based upon the degree of intentional shaping, as opposed to shaping through use. Variety A consists of smooth, fist-sized stones with flat facets shaped by use (Fig. B: 93b-i, 94a-c, 95e, 96bd). There were 329 of these, 148 of them complete. Variety B was intentionally shaped into squared, round, or cylindrical forms with one or more flat working surfaces (Fig. B: 94d-g, 95a-d, f, h). There were 137 of these, 43 of them complete. Rubbing stones were probably used in construction work, smoothing plastered floors and walls and stuccoed architectural ornamentation. No stones that might have been used to finish unfired pottery were identified at Tikal. Perhaps we failed to identify them in the collections, or perhaps other materials such as potsherds or plant parts were used for shaping and burnishing. The sample includes a variety of stones, but nearly 70 percent are fine-grained limestone (Table 4.26). Most of the Variety A rubbing stones were watersmoothed and may have been brought in from Lake Petén Itzá (Fig. B: 93c-e). Almost 30 percent of the Variety B stones were of easily shaped dolomite. Rubbing stones were distinguished from manos by working surfaces that were nearly flat along at least one

GROUND, PECKED, AND POLISHED STONE ARTIFACTS

axis. One unique Variety B example of fine-grained limestone, associated with mixed Early and Late Classic ceramics, has a handhold (Fig. B: 96a). Complete examples ranged from 2.4 to 14.0 cm in length, 2.0 to 12.0 cm in width, and 2.0 to 5.6 cm in thickness. Weights of a sample of 88 complete rubbing stones ranged from approximately 52 to 1453 gm. About 35 percent of the sample showed a variety of secondary modifications. Eighty-one rubbing stones had been heat damaged and another 14 appear to have been burned. The red pigment traces on ten examples and the stucco traces on ten others survived washing. Fifty-two examples had one or two battered ends (Fig. B: 93f, g), 42 had pecked surfaces, and seven had pecked pits as fingerholds, suggesting multipurpose tools. The broken edges of at least eight had been reworked. Two were grooved, one had pecked and ground chisel-like ends, and nine had readily visible transverse striations. Almost half of the sample was recovered from Zone 01 (Table 4.27), especially from CivicCeremonial Group 5D-2 (Table 4.28), although they were widely distributed throughout the site. Approximately 94 percent of the collection came from general excavations (Table 4.29), especially construction fill. It is assumed that this artifact type had a utilitarian function. Along with hammerstones, rubbing stones belong to Haviland’s second-most important complex of common domestic artifacts (Haviland 1981: 103). Four rubbing stones were recovered from an Early Classic structure cache, one from an Early Classic chamber burial, and a total of 26 from 13 problematical deposits and Bu. 107, which date from the later Late Preclassic into the Early Late Classic period, and perhaps later. Unshaped Variety A rubbing stones occurred from the Late Middle Preclassic into the Terminal Classic period (Table 4.30). Shaped Variety B rubbing stones were in use from either the Late Middle Preclassic or the Early Late Preclassic into the Terminal Classic period.

Polished Stones Figure B: 96e-h, Table 4.13-4.18 Total: nine, all fragmentary (Table 4.13). These fragments had one or two highly polished surfaces (Fig. B: 96e-h),which were flat, concave, or slightly convex. Their mode of use is uncertain, but their highly polished surfaces suggest mirrors or reflectors. All were of very hard, dense, dark brown stone tentatively identified as quartzite (Table 4.14), which has not yet been

43

identified in other types of artifacts. Maximum fragment length was 7.8 cm. None were weighed. Polished stone fragments occurred in a sporadic manner at the center of the site in Zones 01 through 04 (Table 4.15) in various kinds of structure groups (Table 4.16). Eight came from general excavations and one from a problematical deposit (Table 4.17). They were present by the Late Middle Preclassic or Early Late Preclassic periods into the Late Late Classic period (Table 4.18).

Saws Figure B: 93j, 96i, j, Table 4.13-4.18 Total: five, one probably complete (Table 4.13), although it is hard to be sure because so little effort appears to have gone into their fabrication. Each had one narrow, beveled edge bearing lengthwise striations suggesting they were used as saws on softer stone such as the local dolomite bedrock. The other edges showed little modification. They were made on flat pebbles or large flakes of fine-grained limestone (Table 4.14). The saws did not vary much in size. The largest example measured 12.4 cm in length, 9.5 cm in width, and 3.2 cm in thickness. None were weighed. One had plaster traces and another had traces of red pigment. Saws were identified in Zones 01 though 04 (Table 4.15), associated with Civic-Ceremonial Group 5D-2 and two Small Structure Groups (Table 4.16). One (Fig. B: 93j) was recovered from an Early Classic period structure cache (Table 4.17). The others came from general excavations. They were in use during the Late Preclassic and Early Classic Periods (Table 4.18).

Whetstones Figure B: 97a-g, Table 4.13-4.18 Total: 36, nine complete (Table 4.13). In addition to the reused metate fragments described above, pebbles or chunks of rock appear to have been used to shape and sharpen other artifacts. All examples had one or more concave areas or grooves. Three had incisions, scratches, and use striations, and one had pecked surfaces. At least 13 were bifacial. Four examples of quartzite and one of sandstone appear to have originally been parts of metates. Whetstones were made of a great variety of stone (Table 4.14), but almost one-third of the sample was of sandstone. Most of the whetstones were chunks or waterworn stones shaped by use. All were small enough to fit comfortably in the hand. Complete examples ranged in

44

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

length from 4.4 to 11.0 cm, in width from 1.2 to 6.6 cm, and in thickness from 0.8 to 3.6 cm. None were weighed. One example was burned and one may have been. One had a subsidiary pit. Whetstones had a wide spatial distribution (Table 4.15) and were associated with various kinds of structure groups (Table 4.16). Only one example occurred in a special deposit (Table 4.17). It was recovered from a Late Preclassic problematical deposit in the peripheries (Fig. B: 97c). Whetstones of various shapes, sizes, and materials appeared during the Late Preclassic period and were in use into the Terminal Classic period (Table 4.18).

Drill Figure B: 97h, Table 4.13-4.18 Total: one, probably complete (Table 4.13). An elongated chunk of quartzite (Table 4.14) with one round, smooth end, one rough, irregular end, and a somewhat squared cross section may have been a hafted drill bit (Fig. B: 97h). It is 5.1 cm long, 2.8 cm wide, and 2.7 cm thick. It was not weighed. It was found in Zone 04 (Table 4.15) in a Small Structure Group (Table 4.16) in general excavations (Table 4.17) and is of Early Late or Late Late Classic date (Table 4.18).

Stamp Figure B: 97i, Table 4.13-4.18 Total: one, complete (Table 4.13). A complete, wellshaped object of fine limestone (Table 4.14) had a grid design engraved into each end. It was used as a doubleended stamp probably to transfer pigment to a material such as cloth or skin (Fig. B: 97i). It still bore traces of red pigment. It is 13.0 cm long, 4.0 cm wide, 2.7 cm thick, and weighed approximately 228 gm. The stamp came from Zone 03 (Table 4.15) from a Small Structure Group (Table 4.16). It was found in general excavations (Table 4.17), associated with Late Late and Terminal Classic ceramics (Table 4.18).

Hammerstones Fig. B: 62e, 76d1, 98, Table 4.13-4.18 Total: 495 hammerstones, of which 324 were complete (Table 4.13). These examples supplemented the chert chopping tools, failed bifaces, and broken pecked and ground stone artifacts that were also frequently reused as hammerstones.

It is thought by several researchers that direct “soft” percussion was the principal technique used by ancient Mesoamericans to manufacture chert and obsidian artifacts, particularly bifaces of various types. Well-worn, rounded hammerstones, held in the hand, would have been suitable for this purpose (Don Crabtree, personal communication 1976; John E. Clark, personal communication 1984; William Parry, personal communication 1984). Other uses may have been to shape and rejuvenate stone artifacts, especially milling stones, and to process hard foods and other substances. Over 80 percent of the hammerstones were of chert (Table 4.14). Other hard stones such as chalcedony, quartz, quartzite, and silicified limestone were also used, as was limestone. According to the amount of use they had been subjected to, hammerstones varied in shape from angular with battered prominences and edges to almost spherical. Greatest dimension ranged from 3.8 to 13.6 cm. The range of weight for a sample of 152 complete hammerstones was between approximately 50 and 825 gm with one example of 969 gm. One hundred seventeen of the weighed hammerstones were under 400 gm. There appeared to be clusters at 156, 298, 370, 513, and 684 gm. It would be of interest to obtain a larger sample of weights to see if different size classes can be more clearly distinguished. One example had traces of red pigment. Seventytwo were burned and five others may have been. Hammerstones had a broad spatial distribution (Table 4.15). They were especially abundant in Small Structure Groups of the Central Area, which are thought to have been the residences and workshops of craft specialists, including stone knappers (Table 4.16). Over 94 percent of the sample was recovered from general excavations (Table 4.17). Twenty-five were found in 12 problematical deposits and Bu. 107, ranging in date from the Late Middle Preclassic into the Late Late Classic. PD. 112, the Late Late Classic deposit, consisted of an unusual collection of 16 manos and other stone artifacts (Fig. B: 76d1). Hammerstones were present during the entire span of occupation, from the Early Middle Preclassic into the Early Postclassic period (Table 4.18).

Celts and Chisels Figure B: 99-100, Table 4.31-4.36 Total: 71, of which 21 were complete (Table 4.31). The two narrowest examples are referred to as chisels (Fig. B: 100t).

GROUND, PECKED, AND POLISHED STONE ARTIFACTS

Ground and polished celts of hard stone are usually associated with woodworking, but perhaps they could have been used to carve the softer limestones used at Tikal. A complete chisel and the pottery effigy of a Late Late Classic style stone stela (Haviland 1962) were found in the midden of a small structure, suggesting that it may have been the residence and workplace of a monument carver. Celts can be set into wooden hafts either as axes or adzes. When the long section is symmetrical, as in the case of the Tikal sample, it may still be possible to distinguish between axe and adz blades on the basis of microscopic use-striations, although no such study was carried out on this sample. Over 87 percent of the celts were of the jadeite variety of jade, mostly of a dark green or black color that was not used for ornaments at Tikal (Table 4.32). I was not able to have my tentative identifications of the other kinds of stone confirmed. All of the latter are much softer than jadeite and perhaps the celts made of them were used in a different manner. Complete celts ranged in length from 3.6 to 11.4 cm, in width from 1.8 to 5.8 cm, and in thickness from 1.0 to 3.6 cm. Weights of 12 complete celts ranged from approximately 148 to 370 gm. The complete chisel weighed approximately 37 gm. About one-third of the sample showed some secondary modification. One was burned and three probably were. All four of these were from special deposits. Four other celts, one of which was burned, had battered ends (Fig. B: 100n, o). One example was pitted and battered. Seven showed some reshaping of the bit end (Fig. B: 100h, i). Ten celts, including two salvaged examples found in the late nineteenth-century occupation of Tikal, exhibited patches of glassy polish through reuse as polishing stones, perhaps for pottery vessels or stuccoed objects. Celts with broken and battered distal ends found in caches of jade debitage suggest reuse as small hammerstones in lapidary work (Fig. 100r, s). Celts were widely distributed at Tikal, although uncommon on the peripheries (Table 4.33). They occurred in all types of structure groups, but were most numerous in Small Structure Groups (Table 4.34). Only 70 percent of the celts and chisels, including both of the chisels, came from general excavations (Table 4.35). Twenty celts had been deposited in five structure caches and one problematical deposit of the Late Preclassic period, as well as a chamber burial, a crypt burial, and three burial-like problematical deposits of Early Classic date. Celts were also found in a burial that dates to the Early or Early Late Classic and a Late Late Classic burial. One could conclude, from this interesting contextual and chronological distribution, that celts also had a ceremonial function of

45

long duration at Tikal. The six Late Preclassic deposits were all from the substructure of Str. SE-486, the main temple of the Minor Center of Uolantun in Zone 09. These deposits were unique at Tikal in being composed of partly worked chunks of jade, celts, and bifacial chert artifacts, an association suggesting lapidary production. Celts occurred from the Early Late Preclassic into the Terminal Classic periods (Table 4.36). Chisels may have been in use only during the Late Classic period.

Barkbeaters and Barkmallets Figure B: 101-105c, Table 4.37-4.42 Total: 33, of which five were complete (Table 4.37). The term “barkmallet” refers to a one-piece artifact; the term “barkbeater” refers to a composite artifact consisting of the stone barkbeater hafted in a wooden handle. Three varieties were defined. The barkmallets were designed Variety V (Fig. 104c, d, 105b, c). All six were fragmentary. Complete examples probably resembled the barkmallets illustrated by Tolstoy (1991: 12-13). Variety W barkbeaters were square to circular in plan with a medial groove running along two sides and one end or completely around the object. The scored working surfaces were convex (Fig. B: 102g, 103, 104a, b). There were eight examples, one complete. Variety X barkbeaters were ovoid in plan with a medial groove running along two lateral edges and one end. The scored working surfaces were nearly flat (Fig. B: 101, 102a-f ). There were 17 examples, 3 complete. All examples, except one atypical Variety W beater (Fig. B: 104b), were bifacially scored. One-piece wooden barkmallets and hafted and unhafted stone barkbeaters salvaged from Precolumbian sites are still used today to make paper and barkcloth in Mexico and Oceania (Christensen and Marti 1979; Tolstoy 1991). Probable barkcloth impressions on plaster have been recovered from some Tikal structure caches, described below in Chapter Nine, and it is highly probable that paper was also produced, although we have not recognized evidence of it to date. All but one example were made of fine limestone (Table 4.38). The exception (Fig. B: 104b) is made of an unusual, hard, reddish, vesicular stone tentatively identified as travertine. Complete Variety W and X beaters ranged in length from 9.6 to 9.8 cm, in width from 6.0 to 8.4 cm, and in thickness from 3.0 to 5.4 cm. Weights of four complete examples ranged between about 399 and 598 gm.

46

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

About half of the sample showed modifications. Seven were burned. Three fragments were battered (Fig. B: 103b, 104d) and one was battered and burned (Fig. B: 103d). Four had been reworked after being damaged (Fig. B: 101b, 102b, c, f ). Barkbeaters and barkmallets were broadly distributed (Table 4.39). They were most numerous in the Small Structure Groups of Zones 02 and 03 (Table 4.40). All examples came from general excavations, which is unusual for Tikal utilitarian ground stone artifacts (Table 4.41). Barkmallets appeared during the Late Preclassic period and may have been supplanted by composite barkbeaters during the Classic period (Table 4.42). Varieties W and X may both have been used from the Early Classic into the Terminal Classic, but the latter became more common with time. The unusual Variety W barkbeater noted above (Fig. B: 104b) is of Terminal Classic date.

Cupped Stones Figure B: 105d-k, Table 4.13-4.18 Total: 8, all complete (Table 4.13). The shallow depressions on the flat sides of these hemispherical objects were shaped by drilling, followed by pecking and grinding. The mode of use is unknown, but they appear to have been parts of some kind of composite tool. All were of fine limestone (Table 4.14). The sample was fairly uniform in shape and size. Greatest diameter ranged from 2.6 to 4.2 cm and greatest thickness from 1.5 to 2.6 cm. None were weighed. One cupped stone was charred and two showed some battering. They occurred towards the center of the site (Table 4.15), especially in structure groups that had materials of Preclassic date (Table 4.16). One was found in a Late Late Preclassic problematical deposit (Table 4.17), the rest came from general excavations. Their period of use may have been limited to the Middle and Late Preclassic periods (Table 4.18).

Spindle Whorls Figure B: 106, Table 4.43-4.48 Total: 26, of which 20 were complete (Table 4.43). A sample of 25 pottery whorls of similar size and shape was also recovered (Chapter Seven). According to ethnographic and archaeological evidence (Coggins 1992: Fig. 8.100, 8.101; Taschek 1994: Fig. 44b), it is highly likely that these durable examples were far out-

numbered by spindle whorls of perishable materials, such as wood. A spindle whorl is mounted upon a wooden spindle as a flywheel to conserve spindle momentum. The weight of the whorl determines the thickness of the yarn that can be spun, that is, the smaller the whorl, the finer the yarn (Parsons 1972; Parsons and Parsons 1990). The recovered sample of Tikal stone and pottery spindle whorls showed considerable variation in form and decoration, with the pottery whorls displaying more variability than those of stone. The stone whorls were classified into three varieties based upon the form of the cross section. Variety N whorls, the most common form in both stone and pottery, had a thick cross section, approximating the plano-convex, with a horizontal groove below the flatter face (Fig. B: 106a-n, q, u). Spindle whorls would have been used with the flatter or larger surface facing upwards to support the finished yarn. There were 16 examples, 14 of which were complete. Variety P whorls were also plano-convex in section, but ungrooved and undecorated (Fig. B: 106o, rt, x). There were seven of these, five of which were complete. Variety Q whorls were thinner and flatter than Variety N or P whorls and were not decorated (Fig. B: 106p, v, w. There were three examples, one of which was complete. All but one were of fine limestone (Table 4.44). The exception, a Variety N whorl, was identified as of impure marble (Fig. B: 106i). The sample ranged from 2.0 to 3.4 cm in maximum diameter and from 1.0 to 1.8 cm in maximum thickness. The weights of 18 complete examples ranged from approximately 6.3 to 22.0 gm. There were clusters at 6-9 gm, 12-15 gm, and 19-22 gm, but the sample was small and more examples might have filled in the range. The lightest cluster fits nicely into the 110 gm range of small Type III pottery whorls from the Teotihuacan Valley, which Parsons (1972: 61-66) suggests were used to spin the finest yarns of cotton or maguey fiber. Fourteen Variety N whorls were decorated with masterfully executed carved and incised designs. The Variety N whorl from a Late Late Classic burial bore traces of red pigment. Two Variety Q whorls showed signs of heating. Stone whorls were not found beyond Zone 05 (Table 4.45). Range Structure Groups of the Epicenter, that is, Gp. 5D-11 (the Central Acropolis), and Small Structure Groups of the Center produced approximately the same number of whorls, with slightly more recovered from the Small Structure Groups (Table 4.46). No stone or pottery whorls were recorded from

GROUND, PECKED, AND POLISHED STONE ARTIFACTS

Civic-Ceremonial Groups, which is an unusual distribution for Tikal. Over three-fourths of the stone whorls came from general excavations (Table 4.47). Six had been placed in three burials and one problematical deposit, i.e., a problematical burial. Where sex could be determined, these were all of females. One burial (Fig. B: 106o) and the problematical deposit Fig. B: 106n) were Early Late Classic, and two burials (Fig. B: 106a, 106u) were Late Late Classic. The recovery contexts of stone spindle whorls and their absence in the construction fill and other contexts of Civic-Ceremonial Groups suggests that they had important social as well as utilitarian functions. Stone spindle whorls were in use at Tikal during the Late through Terminal Classic periods (Table 4.48). The earliest Variety N and P whorls can be dated to the Early Late Classic period and may have been used into the Terminal Classic. Variety Q whorls may be restricted to the Terminal Classic period.

Pestles Figure B: 107a-c, Table 4.13-4.18 Total: four, two complete (Table 4.13). Elongate, cylindrical artifacts with at least one flattened end may have been used as pestles. The rocks they were made of were tentatively identified as arkose, limestone, and vesicular basalt (Table 4.14). Pottery pestles are also known from Tikal (Chapter Seven). They ranged in length from 3.8 to over 4.2 cm. The two complete examples weighed approximately 71 and 85 gm. They were found in Zones 01 and 03 (Table 4.15) in a variety of structure groups, including a Recent site (Table 4.16). One pestle was found in an Early Classic structure cache (Fig. 107c), the rest came from general excavations (Table 4.17). Pestles were in use from the Early into the Late Late Classic periods (Table 4.18). One had been salvaged and reused in a household of the nineteenthcentury settlement at Tikal.

Ballgame Handstones Figure B: 107d, e, Table 4.13-4.18 Total: five, one complete (Table 4.13). Ballgame handstones are large spheroids with a basket handle (Fig. B: 107d, e), shaped by pecking. The perforation for the handle was drilled and then reamed with unidentified implements. The four fragments are all of handles, which are quite distinctive. It is quite likely that frag-

47

ments from the bodies of the handstones would not have been correctly identified. All examples were of limestone (Table 4.14). The complete example (Fig. 107d) was 13.6 cm tall and 13.6 cm in greatest diameter. It was not weighed. Two examples were burned. Ballgame handstones were only identified from Zones 02 and 03 (Table 4.15) from Civic-Ceremonial, Intermediate, and Small Structure Groups (Table 4.16). All were recovered from general excavations (Table 4.17). The earliest example dates to the Early Classic (Table 4.18). Other examples come from chronologically mixed contexts, but are probably no later than the Late Classic period.

Centrally Perforated Disks Figure B: 107f-i, Table 4.49-4.54 Total: eight, three of which were complete (Table 4.49). The exact mode of use of centrally perforated stone disks is unknown. They may have been used as plumb bobs (TR. 14: 539). Seven were of dolomite and one was of fine limestone (Table 4.50). Centrally perforated disks of unknown use were also made of bone (Chapter Five) and potsherds (Chapter Six). Stone perforated disks were shaped primarily by pecking with little grinding observed. The central perforation was drilled from both faces and usually reamed smooth. Plans varied from round to slightly squared (Fig. B: 107f-i). Complete examples ranged in greatest diameter from 8.5 to 13.2 cm and in thickness from 2.7 to 3.0 cm. None were weighed. Three had been burned. The limestone example had battered edges (Fig. B: 107i). Two deep incisions, perpendicular to each other, had been made across the face of another example (Fig. B: 107f ). All were found in Zones 01 and 03 (Table 4.51). Five of the eight came from Civic-Ceremonial Groups characterized by monumental architecture, and one each from Range, Intermediate, and Small Structure Groups (Table 4.52). A complete example (Fig. B: 107g) was found in an Early Late Classic chamber burial in Gp. 5D-2 (TR. 14: 539), together with two ovate bifaces and an elongate biface, a collection suggesting mason’s tools (Chapter Two). All the other perforated disks came from general excavations (Table 4.53). Centrally perforated stone disks were in use from the Late Late Preclassic into the Late Late Classic period (Table 4.54).

48

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

Doughnut Stones Figure B: 108, Table 4.49-4.54 Total: 11, of which one was complete (Table 4.49). The exact mode of use is unknown. The fragmentary and battered condition of the collection suggests that whatever use they were put to involved impact. Besides this, the fine workmanship and ornamentation also suggest they were maceheads rather than digging-stick weights. All but one were made of fine limestone (Table 4.50). The exception was a plain but nicely shaped fragment of vesicular basalt (Fig. B: 108g). The sample was standardized in shape, size, and weight, and was characterized by skillful workmanship. The cross sections, with their flattened ends, resembled doughnuts. The central perforations on four examples were almost cylindrical, the rest were wide and hourglass-shaped. Complete diameters ranged from 6.8 to 7.1 cm and greatest thicknesses from 5.0 to 5.4 cm. No examples were weighed. Nine of the eleven were decorated with collars, grooves, or bosses. On one side of the complete example is the pecked and incised face of a deity (Fig. B: 108a, b), identified as a pauahtun by Taube (1991). This deity is a form of God N, with the features of a feline and an achondroplastic dwarf. He is also depicted on pottery vessels at Kaminaljuyu (Kidder et al. 1946: Fig. 166e, 175c) and Escuintla (Hellmuth 1975: Plates 14c, 19), and on stone sculpture at Copán (Taube 1991). Greatly simplified faces were incised onto the carved bosses of a fragment (Fig. B: 108f ). One doughnut stone was burned. Doughnut stones were not found beyond Zone 05 (Table 4.51) and were associated with a variety of structure groups (Table 4.52). All were recovered from general excavations (Table 4.53). Doughnut stones were in use from the Late Preclassic into the Late Late Classic period (Table 4.54). The complete example decorated with the pauahtun face came from the surface of Small Structure Group 6E-1 in Zone 03 and was associated with ceramics of the Classic and Late Preclassic periods.

Flattened-End Spheres Figure B: 109a-d, Table 4.49-4.54 Total: eight, two of which were complete (Table 4.49). All were of limestone (Table 4.50) and shaped entirely by pecking. The basic shape was a sphere with a flattened end (Fig. B: 109a-d), although not all examples were perfectly round.

Complete height ranged between 6.4 and 9.2 cm and greatest diameter or width between 6.2 and 9.3 cm. One (Fig. B: 109b) weighed approximately 370 gm. One example was burned. Six of the eight occurred in Zone 01 (Table 4.51), four of them in Civic-Ceremonial Gp. 5D-2 (Table 4.52). One fragment came from a Late Late Preclassic problematical deposit (Fig. B: 109a), the rest came from general excavations (Table 4.53). Flattened-end spheres were present by the time of the Late Middle or Early Late Preclassic and may have gone out of use by the Classic period (Table 4.54).

Stemmed Spheres Figure B: 109e-g, Table 4.49-4.54 Total: three, two of which were complete (Table 4.49). Their mushroom-like shape (Fig. B: 109e-g) resembles some kinds of hand-held molds thought to have been used in pottery vessel production. Fragments could well have been misclassified as other types of artifacts. All were tentatively identified as of nonlocal biotiterhyolite-porphyry or rhyodacite tuff, which are of igneous origin (Table 4.50). These objects were shaped entirely by pecking. The two complete examples measured 10.1 and 11.2 cm in greatest length and 7.2 and 7.9 cm in greatest diameter. The fragment is part of an even larger object. No examples were weighed. They were found in Zones 01 and 03 (Table 4.51) in Range and Small Structure Groups (Table 4.52). All came from general excavations (Table 4.53). All that can be said about their temporal distribution is that they were present by the Early Late Classic period (Table 4.54).

Small Worked Spheres Figure B: 105l, 109h-l, Table 4.49-4.54 Total: 30, 23 complete (Table 4.49). Most were completely ground, but three had pecked surfaces and another was polished. Their mode of use is unknown. Thirty were of fine limestone and one was of dolomite (Table 4.50). Greatest diameter ranged between 1.9 and 3.6 cm. One specimen with a diameter of 2.3 cm weighed 15.7 gm. Three examples had been burned. One looked battered. Five had one or two drilled depressions made with solid and hollow drills (Fig. B: 105l, 109i, k). Small stone spheres had a wide spatial distribution, but 14 of the 31 came from Zone 01 (Table

GROUND, PECKED, AND POLISHED STONE ARTIFACTS

4.51). They came from a variety of structure groups (Table 4.52). A little over 93 percent were found in general excavations (Table 4.53). Two came from problematical deposits in the same chultun, dated to the Late Late Preclassic (Fig. 108h) and the Early Late or Late Late Classic (Fig. 105l). Small worked spheres occurred during the entire span of permanent occupation of Tikal, from the Early Middle Preclassic into the Terminal Classic period (Table 4.54).

Stones with a Central Depression Figure B: 110, Table 4.49-4.54 Total: nine, six of which were complete (Table 4.49). The exact mode of use is unknown. The form and stone type suggest incense burners, although obvious signs of burning were only noted on two (Fig. B: 110e, f ). Four examples were associated with high status, but not elite, burials. Six were of dolomite, two were of limestone, and one was of vesicular basalt (Fig. B: 110d), an igneous, imported rock (Table 4.50). These rather crude artifacts were shaped by pecking and were approximately round or oblong in plan. In some cases, the central depression was pecked out (Fig. B: 110b, d, e). In others, all of soft stone, the walls of the depression are smooth and may have been formed by drilling. One example had a depression in the middle of each face. The range of greatest diameter or dimension was between 7.6 and 12.0 cm and the range of greatest thickness between 2.6 and 10.0 cm. No examples of this artifact type were recovered beyond Zone 04 (Table 4.51). Over half the sample came from Intermediate Structure Groups (Table 4.52). Four were found with two special deposits, the others came from general excavations (Table 4.53). One burial dated to the Early Late or Late Late Classic period had been provided with a set of three stones of different sizes (Fig. B: 110a). Another stone (Fig. B: 110f ) was found in an Early Classic burial-like problematical deposit. This artifact type appeared during the Early Classic and survived into the Late Late Classic period (Table 4.54).

Elongate Soft Stone Objects Figure B: 111, Table 4.49-4.54 Total: 58, of which nine were complete (Table 4.49).

49

The exact mode of use is unknown, but 19 examples show clear signs of charring, which suggests use in some kind of activity involving fire. Fifty-two were of dolomite, 6 were of limestone (Table 4.50). On the whole, these artifacts were smoothly finished, although not necessarily symmetrically shaped. Cross sections were round to squared. One end was usually tapered (Fig. B: 111). An unusually long and slender example was 15.2 cm long (Fig. B: 111k). Other whole examples ranged between 11.0 and 15.0 cm in length and between 3.0 and 8.5 cm in greatest diameter or width. None were weighed. Almost one-third of the sample was burned at one end (Fig. B: 111e, f, k). One elongate object had two small drilled depressions on one face (Fig. B: 111c). One carried traces of plaster. Sixty percent of the elongate soft stone objects were recovered from Zone 01, but the remainder of the sample had an unexpectedly broad distribution (Table 4.51) in Intermediate and Small Structure Groups (Table 4.52). Over 91 percent came from general excavations (Table 4.53). Four elongate soft stone objects came from a problematical deposit dated to the transition between the Terminal Preclassic and Early Classic periods (Fig. B: 111a, b, i) and one had been included in a structure cache of the Early Classic period (Fig. B: 111h). Elongate soft stone objects were associated with the entire span of occupation at Tikal from the Early Middle Preclassic into the Terminal Classic periods (Table 4.54).

Cordholders? Figure B: 112, Table 4.49-4.54 Total: eight, all complete (Table 4.49). It is highly likely that fragments would not have been identified. They were shaped by pecking and drilling. They have been referred to as cordholders, which assumes that they had the same purpose as similarly shaped objects of worked sherds and formed pottery, described in Chapters Six and Seven. These are thought to have held tie rods of wood or bone to which the cords on doorway coverings of cloth or matting could be secured. Unlike the examples of pottery, however, none of these stones were found embedded in structure walls. Their large size alone suggests they had other uses, perhaps to hold doorposts. All were of dolomite (Table 4.50) They ranged in size between 20 and 30 cm in greatest dimension. None were weighed. They had a fairly broad spatial distribution (Table 4.51) from different kinds of structure groups (Table

50

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

4.52). All came from general excavations (Table 4.53). They date from the Late Late Preclassic into the Terminal Classic periods (Table 4.54).

Selected Architectural Elements Figure B: 62d, 88b, 113-114, Table 4.49-4.54 Total: 44, of which nine are complete (Table 4.49). The architecture of Tikal is described in detail by H. Stanley Loten in TR. 34. However, it seemed worthwhile to describe a selection of architectural elements that was brought into the field laboratory in an unsystematic fashion and that probably would not be reported elsewhere. Thirty-seven of the larger elements were of quarried bedrock, which we have been referring to as dolomite, and seven of the smaller ones were of limestone (Table 4.50). The architectural elements illustrated here include a well-formed cover stone for a problematical deposit (Fig. B: 113a), a drain (Fig. B: 113b), typical Late Classic masonry building stones (Fig. B: 113b, c), and a selection of shaped stone pieces that may have been components of architectural façade sculpture (Fig. B: 62d, 88b, 114). Most came from the monumental architecture of Zone 01 (Table 4.51), particularly Gp. 5D-2 and 5D11 (Table 4.52). Four were recovered from special deposits: an Early Classic burial, an Early Classic structure cache, a problematical deposit of the Early Late Classic period, and an Early Late Classic structure cache disturbed in Terminal Classic times. The others came from general excavations (Table 4.53). They date from the Early Late Preclassic into the Terminal Classic period (Table 4.54).

Miscellaneous Artifacts of Pecked, Ground, and Polished Stone Figure B: 62c, 115-118, Table 4.49-4.54 Total: 119, of which only 29 were complete (Table 4.49). This group includes one of a kind, or very fragmentary, artifacts. All showed some degree of working, but it is quite likely that many were abandoned before they were finished. Some may also be heavily modified and reused fragments of finished artifacts. They are among the most intriguing of the pecked and ground stone artifacts from Tikal, and I have illustrated most of the larger examples with the hope that other researchers will be able to recognize and identify them. Although more than half of the sample is limestone, a great variety of local and exotic stones is represented (Table 4.50).

Size ranged from chert hollow drilled cores one cm in complete diameter (Fig. B: 118r, s) to a ponderous stone with a depression on one surface that had a complete diameter of 28.8 cm (Fig. B: 115a). None were weighed. Nine of these artifacts were charred and another may have been. Two had traces of stucco (Fig. B: 116a). One had several drilled perforations (Fig. B: 115b), four had incised decoration (Fig. B: 115e, 116g, 117a), a crystal, probably calcite, had carved decoration (TR. 2: Fig. 15), two artifacts had use-battered ends (Fig. B: 117b) and one of these was burned. Ten had drilled depressions (Fig. B: 115h, 117d, 118lo) and two of these were burned. A small flat fragment had a spiral design on one face in black paint (Fig. B: 117g). According to Haviland and Haviland (1995), the incised grids illustrated in Fig. 115e, 116g, and 117a are entoptic figures, that is, examples of the kind of vision seen in the early stages of trance. The Havilands identified other entoptic designs among the Tikal graffiti (TR. 31) and on some of the worked sherd artifacts (Chapter Six). Two fragmentary stone artifacts had several depressions made with a hollow drill (Fig. B: 62c, 115b). The artifacts lumped together here were recovered from different parts of the site (Table 4.51) and from all kinds of structure groups (Table 4.52). A little over 85 percent were recovered from general excavations (Table 4.53). They were also recovered from five burials dating from the late Early Classic to the Late Late Classic, a monument cache and a structure cache from the early Late Late Classic and an Early Classic structure cache, and ten problematical deposits of late Early Late Preclassic through Terminal Classic date. Miscellaneous artifacts of pecked, ground, and polished stone occurred from the Late Middle Preclassic into the Terminal Classic periods (Table 4.54).

Unworked Stones and Minerals Figure B: 119-120, Chart 4.1, Table 4.55-4.58 Total: 940, condition not noted. The tradition division made between unworked and worked materials is admittedly fuzzy. Stones, shells, and bones with no obvious alterations by humans often co-occur with artifacts and debitage of the same materials. At some point purposefully collected unaltered materials form a continuum with unaltered, unused materials found naturally in the same environment. Furthermore, many of the examples are fragments that might well be parts of unrecognized portable artifacts, the interior fragments of large artifacts such as monuments and

GROUND, PECKED, AND POLISHED STONE ARTIFACTS

milling stones, or even debitage from the preliminary stages of shaping stone. The recovery and recording of unmodified stones and minerals was not consistent, and so the materials described in this section should be considered a sample of what was found in the field. Unmodified stones and minerals were more likely to be retained if they were recognized as exotics at the time of excavation, or if they were part of a specially deposited assemblage. But sometimes locally available unworked stones, even those in special deposits, were not collected or recorded. Incomplete counts are indicated by an asterisk on Chart 4.1. Some examples, such as the free mineral pigments, specular hematite, and bitumen found in special deposits, were recovered as powder or very small fragments and are recorded as occurrences rather than as pieces on Chart 4.1. The complete list on Chart 4.1 has been summarized as minerals and three kinds of rocks on Tables 4.55-4.58. The sample was collected from a broad area (Table 4.55), although material from the peripheries was mostly of local origin. Almost 60 percent of the unworked stones and minerals came from CivicCeremonial Groups (Table 4.56). Some materials, such as bitumen, mica, stalactites or stalagmites, pumice, and beach pebbles were found only in the center of the city. Many were clearly intentional offerings in special deposits, especially problematical deposits and structure caches (Table 4.57). Ca. 13 of the Early Classic period, which produced three fossil gastropod casts (Fig. B: 120j), was the only instance of a monument cache that included unworked stones and minerals. Some of the materials deposited in caches and burials, however, were of local origin, such as unworked chert nodules, small limestone pebbles resembling pea gravel, waterworn quartz pebbles, carious limestone slabs, and crystals of calcite and gypsum. The batches of small, unmodified chunks and pebbles in special deposits might have been used for divination, a widespread Precolumbian custom. In most cases, however, the mode of use is unknown. Other minerals and stones thought to be of exotic origin, such as mineral pigments, slate or shale, and tektites were more widely distributed. And while cinnabar was concentrated in Civic-Ceremonial Group special deposits, pigments made of iron compounds, such as hematite and limonite were somewhat more frequent in Small Structure Groups, suggesting that they came from sources closer to Tikal than the cinnabar. Mineral pigments had a variety of uses. Red mineral pigments, such as cinnabar and specular hematite, were pulverized and used to decorate carved and incised pottery vessels, polished stone objects, artifacts of worked shell and bone, stuccoed pottery vessels and

51

plaques, and plastered walls, floors, and building façades. They were sprinkled over, or perhaps painted on, the corpses and offerings in the burials of highranking individuals. Mineral pigments were, of course, also used as paints and pottery slips. Lumps of soft, stone in shades of brick red, red orange, yellow orange, gold, brownish yellow, and brown occurred sporadically in general excavations and were classified as pigment. Small concentrations of powdered pigments in shades of red, yellow, green, and blue were occasionally found in special deposits as though they had been placed in a completely disintegrated container. Among the red pigments were minerals identified by experts as cinnabar, red ochre, and specular hematite. There was also a nodule of compact black stone that produced a red streak on unglazed porcelain, which I have tentatively identified as hematite. Jarosite was identified among the yellow pigments. Jarosite was also identified among the green pigments, as was pulverized jadeite matrix. I have tentatively identified a couple of green samples as malachite. Free blue pigment was very rare and the samples were so small that none were submitted for analysis. The color is a bright blue suggesting azurite, perhaps from the same source as the material tentatively identified as malachite. Unfortunately there is still little information on the sources of the stones and minerals excavated at Tikal. I have made the following assessments according to knowledge presently available to me, which should be regarded as tentative. Bitumen, hard black pellets, calcite crystals (Fig. B: 119c), chalcedony, medium and coarse textured light-colored chert (Fig. B: 119a, b), clay, concretions (Fig. B: 120c), dolomite, shell fossil casts (Fig. B: 120j), gypsum crystals (Fig. B: 120h), lime cortex, limestone (Fig. B: 119d), manganese on chert nodules, quartz pebbles (Fig. B: 120b) and geodes (Fig. B: 120g), soft red stone, soft brown stone, soft yellow nodules, soft travertine, and stalactites (Fig. B: 119e, 120d) may come from Tikal or from the area around Lake Petén Itzá. Brushite crystals, limey yellow material, and traces of unidentified adhesive are decomposition products formed after deposition. Arkose, beach pebbles (Fig. B: 120e), banded and fine dark chert, cinnabar, conglomerate, felsite, fuchsite, hematite (red ochre), jadeite, jarosite, malachite, mercury ore, mica, petrified wood (Fig. B: 120f ), porphyry, pumice (Fig. B: 120i), pyrite, quartzites, sandstone, schist, slate and shale, silicified limestone, specular hematite, and tektites (Fig. B: 120a, Appendix H) were probably imported from Belize or Highland Guatemala. Burning was noted on 283 specimens and another four may have been burned. Eleven stones and fragments appeared to be weathered or waterworn, and

52

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

one of these bore traces of woven cloth (Fig. B: 120b1). Traces of red pigment were noted on several pieces of stone and stucco. Three crayon-like objects may be mixtures of powdered mineral pigments and some kind of binder. Two of these “crayons,” identified as of red ochre, came from a Late Late Classic burial. Another, of unidentified yellow pigment, probably limonite (yellow ochre), was found in a large Late Preclassic lithic dump in Ch. NEN-35 in the group of Str. NEN-65 in the Periphery. Ground facets were noted on chunks of mineral pigment from

an Early Classic structure cache, an Early Late Classic problematical deposit, and from Gp. 6C-1 general excavations. Unmodified stones and minerals of local and exotic origin occurred in general excavations throughout the entire span of permanent settlement, from the time of the Early Middle Preclassic into the Early Postclassic period (Table 4.57-4.58). They were frequently placed in special deposits from the Late Middle Preclassic into the Terminal Classic periods. The most diversity was present during the Early Classic period and shows a dramatic increase from the Late Late Preclassic.

GROUND, PECKED, AND POLISHED STONE ARTIFACTS

53

Chart 4.1 Summary List of Occurrences of Identified Minerals and Rocks Among the Ground, Pecked, and Polished Artifacts and Unworked Material (after John Brineman, Eduard G. Haldemann, Alan R. Hildebrand, Frederick Layman, Larry Vinson, Howel Williams [personal communications 1960-1968], American Geological Institute [1960], Loomis [1923]). The numbers refer to the artifact database codes, see Appendix B. ‡ found at Tikal or within a one-day’s walk of Tikal. [ ] number of excavated objects for artifacts, number of occurrences for unworked materials. Objects are listed in order of occurrences. * incomplete count, especially of unworked material from general excavations. BPD burial-like problematical deposit, CPD cache-like problematical deposit, UPD unclassified problematical deposit, DPD problematical deposit of domestic artifacts.

Material Category 04 Ground, Pecked, and Polished Stone MINERALS 006 Chalcedony ‡ [7] Miscellaneous, hammerstones. General excavations. Late Preclassic-Terminal Classic. 009, 010, 011, 012, 020-024 Chert ‡ [494] Preponderantly hammerstones, manos and metates, rubbing stones, whetstone. General excavations, structure cache, CPD, BPD. Early Middle PreclassicTerminal Classic, possibly Early Postclassic.

SEDIMENTARY ROCKS 068 Arkose [88] Manos and metates, rubbing stones, whetstones, one pestle. General excavations, BPD, CPD, burial. Early Classic-Terminal Classic. 081 Calcite (limestone) with chalcedony in the vesicles [3] Manos and metates. General excavations. Early Late Classic. 097 Quartzite concretions? ‡ [4] Hammerstones. General excavations. Late PreclassicClassic.

016 Fine, dark chert [2] Hammerstone, rubbing stone. General excavations. Classic.

099 Conglomerate [6] Manos and metates. General excavations. Classic-Teminal Classic.

201 White quartz pebbles [2] Hammerstone, miscellaneous. General excavations. Classic. 203 Rock crystal [1] Miscellaneous. General excavations. Probably Late Classic.

103-107 Dolomitic limestone ‡ [179] Architectural elements including cordholders, elongate soft stone objects, rubbing stones, mortars, stones with central depression, centrally perforated disks, miscellaneous, block metate. General excavations, structure cache, CPD, UPD, BPD, chamber burial. Early Middle Preclassic-Terminal Classic, Historic.

204-205 White quartz [4] Hammerstone? rubbing stone? miscellaneous. General excavations, structure cache. Late Late Preclassic-Late Classic.

119 Graywacke [25] Mostly flat metates, mano, whetstone, miscellaneous. General excavations, BPD. Early Classic-Terminal Classic and probably Early Postclassic.

079 Calcite crystals ‡ [1] Hammerstone? General excavations. Preclassic.

Early Late

142-144 Limestone or travertine [4] Manos, rubbing stones. General excavations. Early Late Classic-Terminal Classic.

129-137 Jadeite [62] Celts and chisels. General excavations, structure caches, BPDs, burials, chamber burial, crypt burial. Early Late Preclassic-Terminal Classic.

145-146 Limestone or travertine, soft, red, orange, or yellow [6] Rubbing stones, miscellaneous, grinding stone. General excavations, burial, BPD. Early Classic-Terminal Classic.

Early

54

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

148-163 Limestones, mostly fine, hard ‡ [855] Rubbing stones, miscellaneous, hammerstones, manos, metates, grinding stones, architectural elements, centrally perforated disks, spindle whorls, barkbeaters and barkmallets, doughnut stones, whetstones, pestles, small spheres, ballgame handstones, stones with a central depression, saws, stamp. General excavations, BPDs, CPDs, burials, chamber burials, chamber burial exterior deposit, crypt burial. Early Middle Preclassic-Historic. 224-230 Sandstone [53] Manos and small flat metates, whetstones, rubbing stones, celt, miscellaneous. General excavations, DPD. Late Preclassic? Early Classic-Terminal Classic. 239 Shale [10] Whetstones, rubbing stones. General excavations. Early Classic-Late Late Classic. 243 Siliceous oölite [2] Mano, metate. General excavations. Classic.

172 Meta-arkose? [2] Mano, hammerstone. General excavations. Classic and Late Late Classic.

Late

173 Meta-graywacke? [3] Mano, whetstone, celt. General excavations. Late Preclassic-Late Classic. 180-182 Phyllite [4] Metates, rubbing stones. General excavations. Terminal Classic and earlier Classic. 209 Quartzite breccia [5] Manos. General excavations. Early Late Classic. 210-217 Quartzite [1531] Overwhelmingly manos and metates, hammerstones, rubbing stones, whetstones, polished stones, drill. General excavations, monument cache, structure caches, CPDs, UPDs, BPDs, chamber burial, burial. Early Middle Preclassic-Early Postclassic into Historic.

244-246 Silicified limestone [151] Preponderantly manos and metates, grinding stone, hammerstones. General excavations, CPDs, BPDs, burial, chamber burial. Late Late Preclassic-Terminal Classic.

272-274 Vesicular quartzite [110] Preponderantly manos and metates, hammerstone, whetstone. General excavations, BPD. Early Late Preclassic-Terminal Classic.

247 Silicified tufa [10] Manos and metates. General excavations, BPD. Early Late Classic-Late Late Classic, possibly Terminal Classic.

232-235 Schist [5] Manos and metate, miscellaneous, hammerstone? General excavations. Early Classic and Classic.

265 Travertine [2] Barkbeater, miscellaneous. General excavations. Terminal Classic and earlier and Terminal Classic.

IGNEOUS ROCKS

METAMORPHIC ROCKS 072 Gneiss, biotite [27] Manos and metates. General excavations. Early Late Preclassic-Terminal Classic. 114 Gneiss, epidotized augen [5] Manos, one possible metate. General excavations, DPD. Early Late Classic-Late Late Classic. 115-116 Gneiss [4] Three manos, one rubbing stone? General excavations. Late Late Preclassic-Late Classic. 168-169 Marble [2] Miscellaneous, spindle whorl. General excavations. Late Classic and Late Late Classic.

073 Granite, biotite [136] Manos and metates. General excavations, DPDs, BPDs, CPD, UPD. Early Classic-Terminal Classic, possibly later. 117 Granite, biotite-muscovite [7] Metates. General excavations. Early Late Classic-Late Late Classic. 118 Granite, unspecified [59] Manos and metates. DPDs, BPD, CPD, general excavations. Early Classic-Terminal Classic. 075 Biotite-rhyolite porphyry [7] Manos and flat metates, stemmed sphere. General excavations. Early Late Classic-Terminal Classic. 192 Sanidine felsite porphyry [1] Miscellaneous. General excavations. Early Classic.

GROUND, PECKED, AND POLISHED STONE ARTIFACTS

266 Tuff [1] Rubbing stone. Classic.

General excavations.

Terminal

074 Biotite rhyolite or rhyodacite tuff [4] Stemmed spheres, miscellaneous, rubbing stone. General excavations. Early Classic-Early Late Classic. 108-110 Felsite [7] Celts, miscellaneous, whetstone, mano and metate. General excavations. Late Late Preclassic-Terminal Classic.

55

017 Fine, local chert ‡ [2*] General excavations, CPD. Early Late Classic, Late Late Classic. 018 Fine, tan, banded chert [2] General excavations. Early Late Classic. 022 Unspecified chert [8*] CPD, general excavations, burial, crypt burial. Late Middle Preclassic-Terminal Classic. 140 Lime cortex on chert ‡ [4] General excavations. Classic.

193 Pumice [5] Rubbing stones, miscellaneous. General excavations, structure cache. Late Preclassic-Late Classic.

167, 242 Chert nodules with manganese coating ‡ [10] General excavations. Early Classic-Late Classic.

206 Quartz porphyry or porphyritic rhyolite [11] Manos, metates, rubbing stones, celt. General excavations. Early Classic-Terminal Classic.

200 Quartz geode [1] General excavations. Early Classic.

222 Rhyolite or trachyte? [1] Metate. General excavations. Early Late Classic.

201-202 White quartz pebbles, waterworn [15] General excavations, BPDs, chamber burial, burial, lithic dump. Early Late Preclassic-Late Late Classic.

223 Rhyolite or tuff [1] Metate. General excavations. Late Classic.

205 White quartz [2] General excavations, burial? Late Classic.

261-264 Trachyte [6] Metates, rubbing stone. General excavations, BPD. Classic.

076 Bitumen [6] Structure caches, general excavations. Early Classic, Late Classic.

269-271 Vesicular basalt [110] Preponderantly manos and metates, hammerstone, whetstone, doughnut stone. General excavations, BPDs, burial, chamber burials, exterior burial deposit. Early Classic-Terminal Classic.

078 Brushite crystals [1] Chamber burial, growing on a skull. Preclassic.

Material Categories 75-79 Unworked Rocks and Minerals

Late Late

079 Calcite crystals ‡ [40] General excavations, CPD, UPD, exterior burial deposit. Early Late Preclassic-Terminal Classic. 088 Cinnabar pigment [34*] Structure caches, chamber burials, crypt burial, general excavations, UPD, burial. Late Late Preclassic-Late Late Classic.

MINERALS 006 Chalcedony ‡ [9*] BPDs, general excavations, UPD, CPD, burials, chamber burial. Late Late Preclassic-Terminal Classic. 009? Chert nodule ‡ [1*] BPD. Early Classic. 014 Fine, tan chert with chalcedony inclusions [1] Structure cache. Early Classic.

218 Quicksilver ore, partially rendered [2] Structure caches. Early Classic. 093 Clay, unfired ‡ [8*] General excavations, structure caches. Preclassic-Late Late Classic.

Late Late

113 Tektites [11] General excavations, burials, CPD. Late Late Preclassic-Late Classic, possibly Terminal Classic.

56

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

122 Gypsum, crystalline, yellowish ‡ [6] General excavations, UPD. Early Classic-Late Late Classic, possibly Terminal Classic.

130 Jade matrix? [2] General excavations, structure cache. Classic.

124 Hematite and limonite? [10] General excavations. Late Late Preclassic-Terminal Classic.

165 Malachite [2] BPD, UPD. Early Classic.

125 Hematite pigment (red ocher) [7] General excavations, structure cache, UPD, BPD, chamber burial? Late Late Preclassic-Late Late Classic.

166 Malachite with chalcedony [1] CPD. Early Late Classic.

257 Specular hematite [3] Structure caches, general excavations? Classic-Classic.

Early Late

175 Mica [1] BPD. Early Classic. Early Late

138 Jarosite with clay, cinnabar, and sulfur (green pigment) [1] Structure cache. Late Late Classic. 139 Jarosite with gypsum, cinnabar, goethite, and sulfur (yellow pigment) [1] Structure cache. Late Late Classic.

179 Petrified wood [2] General excavations, crypt burial. Early Classic-Early Late Classic. 258 Speleothems (stalactites and stalagmites) [7] General excavations, structure caches, CPD. Early Late Preclassic-Terminal Classic.

SEDIMENTARY ROCKS 194 Pyrite? [1] General excavations. Late Classic. 198 Pyrolusite [1] CPD. Terminal Classic. 164 Limonite nodules, soft [6] General excavations. Early Classic. 183 Blue pigment [1] Structure cache. Early Late Classic. 184 Green pigment [1] Structure cache. Late Late Classic. 185 Purple pigment [1] General excavations. Late Middle Preclassic.

068 Arkose? [2] General excavations, burial. Early Classic, Classic. 094 Concretion, chalcedony with hematite and limonite ‡ [1] General excavations. Late Classic. 095 Concretion, clay ‡ [1] Structure cache. Early Classic. 096 Concretion, limestone ‡ [3*] General excavations. Classic including Late Late Classic. 098 Concretion, unspecified ‡ [37] General excavations, burials, CPD. Preclassic-Early Postclassic.

Early Middle

186 Red pigment [5] Chamber burials, general excavations. Early ClassicLate Late Classic.

099 Conglomerate [1] General excavations. Classic.

187 Yellow pigment [4] General excavations, structure cache. Late Late Preclassic-Late Late Classic, possibly Terminal Classic.

103 Dolomitic limestone ‡ [9*] Structure caches, CPD, UPD, burial. Early ClassicTerminal Classic.

189 Red and blue pigment [1] Structure cache. Early Late Classic.

159 Dolomitic limestone, carious weathering ‡ [3] Structure caches, CPD. Early Classic.

190 Red, blue, and green pigment [1] Structure cache. Early Late Classic.

141 Limestone or siltstone [1] BPD. Early Classic.

57

GROUND, PECKED, AND POLISHED STONE ARTIFACTS

145 Soft orange and yellow limestone or travertine (pigment?) [4] Structure cache, CPD. Early Classic.

265 Travertine? [3] General excavations, BPD. Classic.

147 Limestone pebbles ‡ [15*] Structure caches, CPDs, BPDs, general excavations, burial, crypt burial. Early Classic-Terminal Classic.

276 Fossil shells or casts in limestone [3] Monument cache, CPD, general excavations. Early Classic-Late Late Classic.

155 Hard, vesicular limestone (Early monument stone) [2] Structure cache, general excavations. Early Classic.

METAMORPHIC ROCKS

157 Oölitic limestone, silicified [1] General excavations. Late Classic. 158 Soft, bedded limestone (Late monument stone)‡ [5] General excavations, structure cache, CPD. Early Classic-Terminal Classic. 163 Limestone, unspecified ‡ [13*] Structure caches, BPDs, CPDs, UPDs, chamber burials. Late Late Preclassic-Terminal Classic and probably Early Post Classic.

Early Classic-Late

211-217 Quartzites [17] General excavations, BPD. Early Classic-Terminal Classic. 233-235 Schist [2] General excavations. Classic. 250 Slate? [1] General excavations. Early Classic.

IGNEOUS ROCKS 110 Felsite [1] General excavations. Terminal Classic and earlier.

244 Silicified limestone [2] Structure cache, general excavations. Early ClassicLate Classic.

192 Porphyry, sanidine felsite [1] General excavations. Early Classic.

230 Sandstone [3] General excavations. Late Classic.

193 Pumice [3] Structure caches. Early Classic-Late Late Classic.

240 Shale, possibly slate [7] General excavations. Early Late Classic-Terminal Classic.

UNKNOWN

249 Siltstone [2] General excavations. Classic.

071 Soft gray stone beach pebbles [5] Structure caches, UPD. Early Classic-Late Late Classic.

5

Bone Artifacts and Unworked Vertebrate Remains General Considerations Summary Number

Type

140 11 3 28 5 7 26 25 28 14 572 24,900*

Perforators Centrally perforated disks Atlatl grips Spatulates Tie-rods Rasps Beveled-end longbones Worked antler Miscellaneous bone artifacts Cut flatbones Debitage Unworked vertebrate remains excluding fishes * incomplete count

Figure

Page

B: 121-122p B: 122q-v B: 123a, b A: 215l, t, B: 123c-f B: 123g, h B: 124a-f B: 125 B: 126a-i B: 124g, 127a-j B: 127l-q B: 127k, 128-129 B: 126j, k, 130

59 60 60 60 60 61 61 61 61 62 62 63

Tubes, worked stingray spines, imitation stingray spines, single bones inscribed with hieroglyphs, a set of bones carved and incised with pictures and hieroglyphs, minor sculptures, tweezers, perforated animal teeth, earspools, a needle case, rods, beads, pendants, inlays, worked deer phalanges, Charlie Chaplin cutout figurines, and unworked fish remains are described in TR. 27A.

I

suspect that much bone has vanished from archaeological context, especially in Tikal’s outlying areas. Only three worked fragments, and only 31 of over 30,000 unworked vertebrate remains, occurred beyond Zone 05. Furthermore, the quantity of any kind of bone was closely correlated with the size of the architecture with which it was associated, with the construction fills of larger, masonry structures offering greater protection from decay than the fills of housemound platforms. Bone was often found in special deposits and chultuns. Such skewed distribu-

tions appear to be the result of factors of preservation rather than past cultural behavior and cast doubts on hypotheses about differential access to bone artifacts. Bones, teeth, and antler were locally available for the production of domestic artifacts. Large imported riverine turtles may have supplied the carapaces and plastrons used for artifacts of that material. Human bone was identified among some of the artifacts and debitage, but it does not appear to have been regarded as a special kind of raw material.

BONE ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED VERTEBRATE REMAINS

Of the artifacts considered here, most of the perforators, centrally perforated disks, atlatl grips, and spatulates are well made and may be the work of specialists. Tie-rods, rasps, beveled-end longbones, and worked antler may represent an expedient bone industry. If this classification is correct, then specialist production was present by the Late Middle Preclassic, while expedient working of bone occurred throughout the occupation of Tikal from the time of initial settlement. Bone debitage is as early as the Late Middle Preclassic period.

Descriptions Perforators Figure B: 121-122p, Table 5.1-5.6 Total: 140, of which 14 were complete (Table 5.1). There was considerable morphological variability in the sample, which, in turn, suggests several possible uses. Such artifacts are traditionally associated in one way or another with textiles, as awls used to produce matting, baskets, or nets, as weaving picks, as clothing fasteners, or as needles to stitch together leather and the several kinds of textiles described in Chapter 9. Long slender, unperforated examples, especially when elaborated like the example shown in Fig. B: 121d, have also been proposed as hair ornaments. The term “perforator” is here used as a general designation. Most of the sample consists of long, well shaped and polished splints without epiphyses and can be divided into smaller and more slender examples (Variety A) and larger and thicker examples (Variety B). Both varieties may be perforated. Usually the eye is at the proximal end (Fig. B: 121p, q, 122e-i), but it often occurs at the distal tip (Fig. 121r, Fig. 122k, l, p), but perhaps only in reworked examples. The eyes on the slender examples were scratched through (variant 1) or drilled from both sides (variant 2). The eyes on the thicker examples were drilled. Variety A are slender perforators without eyes (Fig. B: 122a, b). There were 45 of these, five of which were complete. Variety A1 needles have scratched-through eyes (Fig. B: 122e-l). There were 12 examples, all incomplete. Variety A2 needles have drilled eyes (Fig. B: 122m-p). There were eight examples, one of which was complete. Variety B perforators are thick and without eyes (Fig. B: 121d, f-m). There were 50, three of which

59

were complete. Three examples are erroneously designated 43B1 on Appendix F. Variety B2 perforators had drilled eyes (Fig. B: 121n-r). There were seven of these, two of which were complete. Five Variety C examples retained much or all of the epiphyses (Fig. B: 121a-c, e), and resembled contemporary Highland Guatemala maize huskers. Three were complete. Hayden (1987b: 181) reports that bone maize huskers are sometimes also used in making nets and “ceremonial woven gourd supports.” Thirteen examples were too fragmentary to be classified. The recovered sample appears to have been made entirely of mammal longbone. Two were identified as deer (Fig. B: 121a, c; Table 5.2). Complete specimens ranged between 6.0 and 14.4 cm in length and between 0.3 and 3.6 cm in greatest width or diameter. None were weighed. Fourteen examples showed secondary modification. Two had been embellished with knobbed heads (Fig. B: 121d, 122b1), two had been broken and reworked (Fig. B: 121h, j), one was weathered, four had been burned, one exhibited use polish (Fig. B: 121h), one had been gnawed by rodents, one carried traces of red pigment, and two were grooved. Almost 80 percent of the perforators were recovered from general excavations (Table 5.5). The largest samples are from the earlier and latest occupations of Tikal, from relatively protected contexts that enabled their preservation. The early sample is from the North Acropolis, primarily from Chultun 5D-6, which had been filled with domestic trash dating to the Late Middle and Early Late Preclassic periods. The late sample is primarily from domestic middens that accumulated in the rooms of range structures on the Central Acropolis during the Terminal Classic. Any interpretations of the functions, uses, relative importance, dates, and social correlates of bone at Tikal should be taken as provisional due to the vagaries of bone preservation at the site. Twenty-nine examples turned up in a wide variety of special deposits. One was included an Early Late Classic structure cache, six in three cache-like or unclassified problematical deposits of Early Classic, Early Late Classic, and mixed Late to Terminal Classic date (Fig. B: 121d, 122d, e), 12 in four burial-like problematical deposits of Late Preclassic, Early Classic, and mixed Early and Early Late Classic date (Fig. B: 121a, c, h, q, 122a, p), eight in four simple burials of Early Late, Late Late, and Terminal Classic date (Fig. B: 122g, l), including a set of four well-made Variety A pins in a Terminal Classic burial (Fig. B: 122b1-4). One perforator also occurred in a Late Late Preclassic

60

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

chamber burial (Fig. B: 121n) and another in the lithic deposit exterior to a Late Late Classic chamber burial (Fig. B: 122k), where it as probably an accidental inclusion. The Variety B2 perforator in the Late Late Preclassic chamber burial, Bu. 166, thought to have been of a middle-aged woman, was a large, drilled-eye needle. It was associated with a large, centrally perforated bone disk (Fig. B: 122q), a small limestone pebble, and an obsidian lancet prismatic blade (TR. 14: 240), suggesting a functional assemblage, perhaps a sewing kit. All of these objects had traces of cinnabar pigment when discovered, a frequent attribute of elite burials. Perforators were present by the Late Middle Preclassic or Early Late Preclassic, and continued in use into the Terminal Classic period (Table 5.6). They are most frequent in Late Classic and Terminal Classic contexts, coeval with a large sample of debitage from perforator manufacture, which is described below. Variety C perforators (with epiphyses) may not be earlier than the Early Classic period. Slender needles with drilled eyes (Variety A2) may not have been made after the Early Late Classic. All other varieties appear to have been present until the end of permanent occupation at the site.

Centrally Perforated Disks Figure B: 122q-v, Table 5.7-5.12 Total: 11, all complete or nearly so (Table 5.7). One disk was larger and older than the others (Fig. B: 122q), which suggests that it had been used in a different way than the ten smaller examples. Six of the latter occurred in pairs in burials and burial-like problematical deposits, suggesting they might have been used to fasten clothing, rather than as spindle whorls. All were of spongy, unidentified flatbone (Table 5.8). The large example (Fig. B: 122q) had a diameter of 5.8 cm and a thickness of 0.6 cm. The smaller disks ranged between 3.0 and 4.4 cm in greatest diameter and 0.4 and 1.0 cm in greatest thickness. None were weighed. No secondary modification was noted. The large disk was an offering in a Late Late Preclassic chamber burial (Fig. B: 122q). Six of the ten smaller disks came from special deposits of the Early Classic period (Table 5.11): one from a disturbed chamber burial (Fig. B: 122r), five from three problematical deposits (Fig. B: 122t-v). The unique larger disk dates to the Late Late Preclassic. The smaller disks appeared during the Late

Middle or Early Late Preclassic period and continued in use into the Early Late Classic (Table 5.12). The apparent concentration in Early Classic special deposits is noteworthy.

Atlatl Grips Figure B: 123a, b, 158, 159, Table 5.7-5.12 Total: three, two complete (Table 5.7). Two, which constitute a pair, were associated with the distal end of a badly disintegrated wooden atlatl (Fig. B: 123a, 159) in a Terminal Classic midden in Range Structure Group 5D-11, the Central Acropolis (Appendix J). The unpaired grip (Fig. B: 123b) was found in a midden of mixed Classic date in Civic-Ceremonial Group 5D-3. The kind of bone used is not known (Table 5.8). All three examples were carved with a similar design.

Spatulates Figure A: 215l, t, B: 123c-f, Table 5.7-5.12 Total: 28, five complete (Table 5.7). They resemble the perforators described above, but have at least one flat or concave end that resembles a spatula. All appear to be of mammal bone (Table 5.8). One was made on a human humerus (Fig. B: 123f ). Complete examples ranged between 6.4 and 19.0 cm in greatest length. Two were burned, one was polished, and two had simple incised decoration (Fig. A: 215l, t). Two examples were recovered from burials, the others came from general excavations (Table 5.11). Spatulates were in use from the Late Middle Preclassic into the Late Late Classic period, and perhaps later (Table 5.12).

Tie-Rods Figure B: 123g, h, Table 5.7-5.12 Total: five, one complete (Table 5.7). Sections of large longbones were found in place in the ceramic cordholders, described below, set into the walls on either side of doorways of masonry structures in Zones 01 and 02 (TR. 23A: Fig. 68b-d, 69a). Sometimes the bone tie-rods were set directly into the walls. One pair of tie-rods was identified as the femur of an adult male human and an unidentified human longbone (Fig. B: 123g), respectively. The other three were judged to be from “large mammals” and most likely are also human (Table 5.8).

BONE ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED VERTEBRATE REMAINS

61

A complete stemless chert thin biface was associated with one of the pair of human longbone tie-rods in Str. 5D-61 in Gp. 5D-11 and together they formed PD. 186 (Table 5.11), dated to the Early Late or Late Late Classic. The use of bone tie-rods is limited to the Classic period (Table 5.12).

general excavations and half in burial-like problematical deposits (Table 5.11). Twenty-four of the 26 identified examples were from Early Classic or mixed Early Classic contexts and are probably a good indicator for that time period (Table 5.12). Two were found in Terminal Classic middens.

Rasps

Worked Antler

Figure B: 124a-f, Table 5.7-5.12 Total: seven, all incomplete (Table 5.7). Longbones with many parallel horizontal grooves are usually thought of as musical instruments. Five examples were human (Fig. B: 124b-d, f ), one was tapir (Fig. B: 124a), and one was unspecified deer (Fig. B: 124e) (Table 5.8). Greatest complete width ranged from 3.6 to 12.0 cm. One rasp had been severely burned (Fig. B: 124c). The end of another had been cut (Fig. B: 124f ). Rasps were found in all types of structure groups, but, in contrast to other bone artifacts, were somewhat more frequent in Small Structure Groups (Table 5.10). Five examples came from general excavations, while two were found in three burial-like problematical deposits of the Early Classic period (Table 5.11). One of these (Fig. B: 124c) had been burned and broken, and was pieced together from fragments found in two problematical deposits, PD. 72 and PD. 224. Rasps may not be earlier than the Early Classic nor later than the Late Late Classic periods (Table 5.12).

Figure B: 126, Table 5.7-5.12 Total: 25 pieces of deer antler had been worked or showed signs of use wear. Three pieces appear to be complete (Table 5.7). Antler did not preserve well and it is likely that other fragments classified as unworked had also been used in some manner. Tines with modified tips (Fig. B: 126f-i) are usually interpreted as pressure flakers used to shape chert and obsidian artifacts. The purpose of the perforations (Fig. B: 126a1, d, e) is unclear. Thirteen were identified as whitetail deer, two as brocket deer, and six were unspecified (Table 5.8). The largest example was 22.8 cm in length. One had traces of red pigment. Four were perforated and two of these were burned and one was grooved around the base (Fig. B: 126a1). One fragment showed scratches and striations, perhaps due to use, four had cut, blunted, or worn tips, and a polished fragment had been gnawed by rodents. Almost half of the sample was recovered from Small Structure Groups in Zone 02 in the Central Area (Table 5.9). Over 60 percent of the sample came from general excavations. Five were recovered from problematical deposits of the late Early Classic and Early Late Classic period (Table 5.11). Two others, which I did not have an opportunity to examine, were recovered from a large Terminal Preclassic period special-purpose dump of obsidian debitage. Worked antlers with modified tips or perforations date from the Terminal Preclassic through the Terminal Classic periods, and may have been present during the Early Postclassic period (Table 5.12). Carved artifacts of antler, however, are known from the Late Late Preclassic period (e.g., Fig. A: 215a).

Beveled-End Longbones Figure B: 125, Table 5.7-5.12 Total: 26, one, which has a finished proximal end, appears to be complete (Table 5.7). The distal end is always smoothed or polished and usually beveled. Nine were identified as human femora and 17 were on large mammal longbones, probably also human femora (Table 5.8). They give the impression of special purpose, heavy-duty tools, but in the absence of use-wear analysis or ethnographic analogues, one can only guess at their mode of use. The possibly complete example was only 6.7 cm long and may have been reworked. The largest example was 19.0 cm in length. Greatest diameters ranged between 2.0 and 3.0 cm. None were weighed. Three were very weathered, one was burned. Almost 70 percent were found in Small Structure Groups (Table 5.10). Half of the sample was found in

Miscellaneous Bone Artifacts Figure B: 124g, 127a-j, Table 5.7-5.12 Total: 28, 6 probably complete (Table 5.7). Unusual or enigmatic bone artifacts are described here. The most complete items in this group include six worked slivers from the ends of animal longbones that

62

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

may have been flakers for the very fine retouching of lithics (Fig. B: 127a-c counted separately on tables 5.75.12), the end of a deer femur with two vertically placed drilled perforations (Fig. B: 127d), reminiscent of the perforated bone tubes illustrated in TR. 27A (Fig. A: 213l, m), the ends of two oddly shaped, perforated objects (Fig. B: 127e, f ), perhaps fragments of pendants like one reported from Uaxactún (Kidder 1947: Fig. 84a2), part of an inlay in the shape of a human face in left profile (Fig. B: 127g), similar to examples of shell discovered elsewhere at Tikal and reported in TR. 27A, a section of a large carnivore canine with cut and ground ends (Fig. B: 127h), what appears to be the polished vertebra of a large marine fish (Fig. B: 127i, also A: 213k), a disk made of flatbone tentatively identified as turtle shell, but possibly mammal skull (Fig. B: 127j), and the end of a rabbit femur incised with transverse parallel grooves to resemble a miniature rasp (Fig. B: 124g). The miscellaneous artifact category included large unidentified marine fish, whitetail deer, unspecified deer, rabbit, turtle shell, and unidentified animals (Table 5.8). On the whole, these pieces were small. The largest measured 6.4 cm in greatest length. One was weathered, five were polished and one of these was burned, and one had been gnawed by rodents. Somewhat over 73 percent were found in general excavations (Table 5.11). Three small bone fragments with cut edges were found in an Early Classic structure cache, the grooved and incised end of a longbone was found in a cache-like problematical deposit of the early Late Late Classic period, three objects, including a flaker-like piece (Fig. B: 127c), came from the lithic dump exterior to a Late Late Classic burial, a fragment of a polished bone artifact occurred in each of two burial-like problematical deposits, one of Late Late Preclassic date, the other of Early Classic and Early Late Classic date. The dates of this group of artifacts encompass the entire span of permanent occupation of Tikal from the Early Middle Preclassic into the Terminal Classic periods (Table 5.12).

Cut Flatbones Figure B: 127l-q, Table 5.7-5.12 Total: 14, all fragments (Table 5.7). They are pieces of flatbone with one or more cut edges. Their manner of use is unclear and it is possible that they are production waste. Eight were identified as turtle shell, including

two of blanca (Dermatemys mawei), an exotic, riverine species. Four are pieces of human skull and two were not identified (Table 5.8). Maximum dimensions did not exceed 8.0 cm. One was burned, one was ground and burned, and one was ground and weathered. Nine came from general excavations. Five were recovered from problematical burials of Early Classic and mixed Early and Early Late Classic date (Table 5.11), three from one deposit (Fig. B: 127p, q) and two from another (Fig. B: 127m, n). One piece of turtle shell was dated to the Late Preclassic period (Table 5.12). The others are from the Early Classic through Terminal Classic periods.

Debitage Figure B: 127k, 128, 129, Table 5.7-5.12 Total: 572 pieces, 6 of which were complete (Table 5.7). Most pieces are by-products from the production of perforators and spatulates from human and animal longbones (Table 5.8). Production failures are also included in the sample (Fig. B: 129f ). Besides these obviously worked pieces, bone fragments from the same recovery contexts showing no human modification, which were classified as unworked bone described below, should be considered debitage as well, because they are also by-products of artifact manufacturing activity. A behavioral typology has been worked out for the production of these artifacts, which were made from strips or splints (Fig. B: 129c) detached from longbone shafts. One of the most detailed typologies was presented by Emery (1997: 439-467, Fig. 8.5 and 8.6, Table 8.7). First the ends were detached from the longbones (Fig. B: 128a-i, m-r). This was accomplished, at least in later times, by string sawing. Then the tubular shaft was vertically grooved with stone tools of some kind in order to detach splints by percussion (Fig. B: 128r, 129b-d, g). The artifacts were ground into final form on stones, perhaps on the whetstones (Fig. B: 97a-g) and metate fragments (Fig. B: 89) described above. Other kinds of bone artifacts were also made by specialists at Tikal, indicated by the presence of cut longbone segments (Fig. B: 127k, 128j-l), hollowed out longbone sections (Fig. B: 129a7), grooved flatbone fragments (Fig. B: 127l-q, 129a2), and, of course, by the finished artifacts themselves. The spatial distributions and recovery contexts of bone debitage demonstrate that no special care was taken in its disposal. Accordingly, it is likely that much

BONE ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED VERTEBRATE REMAINS

of it has not been preserved. Conclusions about craft production based on the amount and occurrence of bone debitage are, therefore, tentative. Debitage was best preserved in protected contexts, such as chultuns, the construction fill of stone architecture, and middens in intact rooms. In other less protected contexts, debitage deposited late in the city’s occupation survived better than that deposited earlier. And the more robust remains of larger animals, like mammals, appear to have survived better than the more fragile ones of birds and reptiles. Humans, medium and large nonhuman mammals, birds, and turtle shell were utilized for artifact production at Tikal (Table 5.8). The presence of many longbone ends permitted the identification of humans, whitetail, brocket, and unspecified deer, tapir, dog, jaguar, turkey, and parrot. There is no evidence that human bone was regarded differently than animal bone. It was worked by the same artisans. Most of the artifacts that can be identified as human bone were found in general excavations and were not associated with persons of high rank. The largest piece classified as debitage was a nearly complete human tibia (Fig. B: 129d), which was 26.2 cm long. Ten pieces were weathered. Over 95 had been burned. Generally debitage had a spotty distribution. It was identified in only 25 of the approximately 300 structure groups and other findspots investigated by the Tikal Project. Over 71 percent of the sample came from Zone 02, 347 pieces alone from a large dump in Twin Pyramid Group 5C-1 (Table 5.9). This midden formed during the Late Late and Terminal Classic periods, after Gp. 5C-1 had lost its function as a Twin Pyramid Group and had become a commoner residential group (Jones 1969: 23). Other, much smaller concentrations of bone-working debris were found in Gp. 5D-11, Gp. 5D-2, and Gp. 5D-3, all in Zone 01 Over 95 percent came from general excavations (Table 5.11). Twenty-five pieces came from cache-like and burial-like problematical deposits, a simple burial, and the lithic deposit exterior to a chamber burial, all of the Classic period. Debitage found in the middens of Gps. 5C-1 and 5D-11, noted above, was accompanied by many sherds and other domestic trash, as well as chert debitage. By-products of bone artifact production were present by the Late Middle Preclassic and continued to occur into the Terminal Classic period (Table 5.12). The largest concentrations date from the Late Late and Terminal Classic periods, possibly due to preservation factors.

63

Unworked Vertebrate Remains Figure B: 126j, 130, Chart 5.1 [located at the end of this chapter], Table 5.13-5.16 Total: over 24,900 unworked vertebrate remains, excluding over 5400 fish remains were recorded, mostly as poorly preserved fragments. About 5587 were recorded as complete. Nearly all of the complete examples were either small, such as vertebrae and loose teeth, or from special deposits. For most of the duration of the Tikal Project’s excavations the staff did not include a zoologist or zooarchaeologist so that unworked remains were not recorded in a consistent manner nor were they reliably identified. Except in the case of human bones, no attempts were made to estimate the minimum number of individuals present in a given unit of excavation, and no remains were weighed. Therefore, the counts given in Tables 5.13-5.16 should be considered as minimum approximations of what was actually recovered. In particular I should emphasize that these counts include 471 individual animals and humans counted as one item each. This distortion of the excavated sample could have been mitigated by weighing, as well as counting, the remains. In addition, bones exhibiting no signs of working, but found with bone debitage deposits, should have been classified as debitage, instead of being included with unworked bone. Vertebrates had important utilitarian, social, and ritual functions. They were, of course, an important food resource. Together with marine invertebrates they constituted an important component of the ritual fauna used in offerings (Moholy-Nagy n.d.a; Pohl 1983). They furnished the raw material for a variety of utilitarian, ornamental, and ritual artifacts, described in TR. 27A, and in TR. 27B, above. Besides these formal types, unmodified bone splinters and fragments might have served as expedient tools that have not been recognized as such in the studied sample. Representations on pottery vessels, stone monuments, and carved wooden lintels attest to the importance of pelts and feathers as markers of rank and office. As I will describe in more detail below, the use of terrestrial and aquatic vertebrates for food, offerings, and raw material for artifacts exhibit perceptible changes over time. In addition to the species of animals obtained and used for specific purposes, the sample of vertebrate fauna includes many animals that entered archaeological contexts on their own, or were transported into abandoned buildings by owls and other predators. Of particular interest are the often large numbers of rodent, bat, and shrew remains found in temple roofcombs, rooms

64

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

of masonry structures, and special deposits. Together with other data, these animals provide information about the natural environment of Tikal throughout its occupation, the use-life of individual structures, and the kinds of edible perishables that may have once been present in burials, caches, and problematical deposits. I subdivided the sample into seven material categories for descriptive purposes. Almost 16 percent of the recovered sample was not or could not be identified and classified in even this very preliminary way. Chart 5.1 (located at the end of this chapter) summarizes the species represented by the recovered bone artifacts and unworked remains. No species were identified among the artifacts that did not also occur among the unworked bone. At least one example of each species was identified by an expert, with subsequent identifications made from the expertly identified sample. A remarkable feature of Tikal’s faunal assemblage is the large number of exotic species, which were brought in throughout almost the entire period of occupation, and which were recovered from general excavations as well as special deposits. Some of these nonlocal animals are marked with an asterisk, but these designations are probably incomplete because this information was not requested from the identifying experts.

Amphibians and Reptiles About 1991 remains were identified as amphibians or reptiles, but this number includes 15 individual animals counted as one each. Four amphibian and 15 reptile species were identified (Chart 5.1). At least two reptile species are exotic: Dermatemys mawei or blanca a riverine turtle much favored for offerings in Early Classic structure caches and elite burials, and Ctenosaura similis similis, black iguana, found in an Early Classic burial-like problematical deposit and a Late Classic burial. Both species were represented in general excavations, as well. A crocodile found in an chamber burial and three others found in an Early Classic structure cache may be of the local species, Crocodylus moreleti or the exotic species, C. acutus. All date to the middle of the Early Classic period. The herpetofaunal collection includes bones, turtle carapaces and plastrons, and turtle eggs (Fig. B: 130f ). Among the amphibians, only one species, Bufo marinus (marine toad), may have been deliberately included in burials. It occurs sporadically from Late Preclassic into Late Late Classic or early Terminal classic burials and burial-like problematical deposits. Other kinds of local frogs and toads were recovered

from problematical deposits, as well as general excavations, but it is not clear if they had ceremonial significance. On the other hand, reptiles figured prominently in burials and caches of the Classic period. During the Early Classic and Early Late Classic, venomous and nonpoisonous snakes (Fig. B: 130i), local and exotic turtles, and occasionally iguanas and crocodiles were offered in the structure caches and burials of the elite and in burial-like problematical deposits (Table 5.15). Turtle eggs were found in an Early Classic structure cache (Fig. 130f ) and in an unclassified problematical deposit, perhaps also originally of Early Classic date. Vertebrae of the highly venomous fer-de-lance, Bothrops atrox asper, were found in an Early Classic monument cache. During the Late Classic the occurrence of reptiles in special deposits is restricted to the burials of what may be lesser elites or high-ranking commoners, and cache-like problematical deposits. Monument caches included venomous snakes. Reptiles, particularly turtles, were often found in general excavations, suggesting they were an important source of protein. Turtle remains, that is, the easily identified carapace and plastron fragments, were most numerous in Late Preclassic construction fill and in Terminal Classic middens. We need to be cautious in our interpretation of this chronological and contextual distribution, given the generally poor preservation of bone at Tikal. It does, however, closely resemble the occurrence of better-preserved freshwater apple snails, Pomacea flagellata, at Tikal (MoholyNagy 1978). Like turtles, Pomacea snails were an important gathered food resource for Preclassic and Terminal Classic residents, but were almost exclusively restricted to structure caches and elite burials of the Early Classic period and were rare in general excavations during the Late Classic. A possible interpretation of this interesting bimodal distribution is that by Early Classic times the growing population of Tikal had made a severe impact on the water sources in its immediate environment.

Birds We recorded 689 bird bones, including 33 individual birds counted as one each. Approximately 39 species are represented. At least two are exotic: Pharomachris mocinno, quetzal, and Momotus mexicanus, russetcrowned motmot. Quetzal remains were found in a burial-like problematical deposit of the Terminal Preclassic to Early Classic transition, and a burial-like

BONE ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED VERTEBRATE REMAINS

problematical deposit and a chamber burial of the Early Classic. A quetzal ulna was found among the mixed Late Middle Preclassic and Early Late Classic trash found in Ch. 5D-6 beneath the North Acropolis, Gp. 5D-2, but this unexpected identification should be reviewed. The russet-crowned motmot was identified among the animal bones of Early Late Classic date recovered from Ch. 2B-15. Birds were an important part of the ritual fauna complex. One or more bones were found in a chamber burial and one cache-like and two burial-like problematical deposits, all of the Late Late Preclassic and Terminal Preclassic periods. During the Early Classic, whole birds were deposited in chamber burials and structure caches. Remains were also identified in burial-like problematical deposits, but it is not known if whole birds were included. Bird bones, including at least ten skulls, were part of the cache deposited with a crypt burial of Early Late Classic date. Raptors and small, brightly colored birds seem to have been particularly favored for offerings, and were perhaps species not ordinarily eaten. Bones were also found in cachelike problematical deposits of Late Late Classic and Terminal Classic date. One or two, probably whole, roseate spoonbills (Ajaia ajaja) had been offered in two burial-like problematical deposits dating to the Terminal Classic. The earliest bird remains from general excavations date to the Late Middle Preclassic and Early Late Preclassic. They occur throughout the Preclassic and Classic periods, but are particularly numerous in the middens of Terminal Classic date found in the rooms of the range structures of the Central Acropolis, Gp. 5D-11. Large, edible galliformes are well represented. Most identifications were of ocellated turkey (Agriocharis ocellatus), but curassows (Crax rubra), chachalacas (Ortalis vetula), and black-throated bobwhite (Colinus nigrogularis) were also present. Of this group, only bobwhites were well represented in special deposits. Approximately 20 bones tentatively identified as turkey were included in an Early Classic chamber burial.

Nonhuman Mammals At over 11,000 pieces, nonhuman mammals are the largest material category of identified vertebrate remains. This number includes 131 individuals counted as one item each, mostly small animals like rodents and bats, but also including a few larger ones like peccaries, deer, and a spider monkey (Ateles geoffroyi). Thirty-six species were identified, including three

65

domesticates: dogs (Canis familiaris), pigs (Sus scrofa), and cattle (Bos taurus). Dogs are present from the settlement of Tikal in the Early Middle Preclassic into the Terminal Classic period, although they were most numerous in Late Preclassic deposits. Pigs and cattle, each represented by one individual, date to the late nineteenth or early twentieth century settlement (TR. 37). Most prominent among the mammalian remains found in special deposits are the bones and teeth of dogs, deer phalanges, primarily those of whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and the terminal phalanges of jaguars (Felis onca). Dog canines occur as early as the Late Middle Preclassic period, in a burial-like problematical deposit. Canine teeth and bones are found in burials, burial-like problematical deposits, and structure caches during the Late Preclassic and Terminal Preclassic. During the Early Classic period they were placed in burial-like problematical deposits. In one case at least two whole animals were offered (Fig. B: 130e). After the Early Classic, dogs are no longer included in any kind of special deposit, although they continue to occur in general excavations into the Terminal Classic period. Perforated mammal canines are described in TR. 27A. After the end of the Late Preclassic period, specially deposited mammal remains drop out of structure cache assemblages. During the Classic period they only occurred in burials and burial-like problematical deposits, and only as parts, in contrast to fishes, reptiles, and birds, most of which were deposited whole. Deer phalanges (Fig. B: 130c, d) occur from the Early Classic into the Late Classic. Occasionally worked phalanges are found with unworked examples, as noted in TR. 27A. Jaguar toe bones (Fig. B: 130g) occur only in small groups on the floors of the chamber burials of Tikal’s rulers, from the Early Late into the Late Late Classic periods. Some of these bones appear to be the remnants of mittens and boots like those shown, e.g., on a dancing figure painted on a Late Late Classic tripod plate from Bu. 190 (TR. 25A: Fig. 81a). Bu. 190 also included 101 platelets (Fig. B: 130h) of nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus). No other armadillo remains were found with them, so they may represent an artifact of armadillo carapace. Hundreds of bones of small animals, such as mice, rats, bats, and shrews were recovered from problematical deposits, especially in the monumental architecture of Gp. 5D-2. Most are thought to be components of owl pellets. Usually the less numerous rodents found in burials and caches are regarded as incidental inclu-

66

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

sions rather than offerings, although Pohl (1983: 85) notes apparent offerings of bats, rats, and shrews from Uaxactún. Small fauna can be used to investigate numerous cultural and natural phenomena, such as the end of a building’s use-life, site-maintenance practices, the kinds of perishables that might have been included in the offerings in which they occur, and the change or stability of micro-environments over time. The most numerous identified mammal species from general excavations was whitetail deer. It was utilized throughout the entire occupation of Tikal. Whitetail deer is apparently well represented during the Early Classic, declines during the Early Late Classic, and then reaches its highest levels during the Terminal Classic. But, again, most of the Terminal Classic sample comes from middens in the rooms of Gp. 5D-11, where preservation appears to have been much better than in other general excavation contexts. Other important food mammals were Virginia opossum (Didelphis marsupialis), rabbit (Sylvilagus spp.), agouti (Dasyprocta punctata yucatanica), dog, collared peccary (Dicotyles tajacu nigrasens), and brocket deer (Mazama americana). Dog and turtle appeared to have been more important food sources in earlier times and whitetail and turkey were more important in later times. Mammal bones, especially those of deer, were an important raw material for the production of utilitarian, ornamental, and ceremonial artifacts, as described and illustrated, above and in TR. 27A. Dog canine teeth were often perforated for use as pendants (TR. 27A).

Humans Over 5300 human bones were recorded, including 283 individuals and 141 skulls counted as one item each. Their contexts can be summarized as follows: Individuals Skulls only General excavations 5 84 Monument caches 4 2 Structure caches – 4 Problematical deposits 54 48 Chamber burials 27 – Exterior debitage deposits 1 – Crypt burials 4 – Other burials 188 3 Total 283 141 Human remains will be described in detail by William A. Haviland in TR. 30. The subjects of two chamber burials from the Late Late Preclassic and Early Classic periods may have

been decapitated. Three Early Classic and Early Late Classic burials and an Early Late Classic burial-like problematical deposit included extra human skulls. Human remains were included in structure caches and problematical deposits resembling structure caches only from Late Preclassic to Early Late Classic times. Offerings of crania, sometimes with the cervical vertebrae still present, were most frequent during the Early Classic period. Complete individuals or body parts were components of offerings placed with monuments from the Early Classic into the Late Late Classic period. In this respect, humans may also be considered an important component of Tikal’s ritual fauna complex. The recovery contexts of other human remains are given in Table 5.15. Another frequent use for human skeletal remains was as raw material for artifact production, as attested by the debitage described above.

Unidentified and Unsorted Vertebrate Remains We recorded over 5600 unidentified remains and approximately 216 that somehow escaped sorting or recording. The former category consists predominantly of longbone shafts, vertebrae, ribs, and small fragments considered to be unidentifiable, as well as a few bones and teeth submitted to experts, which could not be identified. Secondary modification was noted on some of the unworked bones and teeth. Thirty-eight fish bones were burned and several examples from structure caches and elite burials, mostly stingray spines, bore traces of red mineral pigment. Seventeen amphibian and reptile bones were recorded as weathered, 57 as burned, and three as gnawed by rodents. Two bird bones were weathered, seven burned, and two were gnawed. Fourteen mammal bones were reported as weathered, almost 483 as burned, 13 as having butchering marks, and 43 as gnawed by rodents (Fig. B: 130b, c). I suspect that bone gnawing by other animals, such as dogs, was also present but not recognized. Forty-nine human bones were weathered, 327 were burned, and many from elite burials had traces of red pigment. Over 73 percent, or 241, of the burned human bones came from Early Classic burial-like problematical deposits, but the rest came from general excavations. Like worked bone, unworked human and animal remains were concentrated towards the center of the city, with over 75 percent of the total sample recovered from Zone 01 (Table 5.13). Almost no bone was found

BONE ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED VERTEBRATE REMAINS

beyond Zone 05. Bones and even teeth eventually will biodegrade, and the remarkable scarcity of vertebrate remains in the peripheries suggests that a great deal has vanished. About 64 percent of the sample came from CivicCeremonial Groups (Table 5.14), this amount being considerably inflated by individual counts of hundreds of fish vertebrae, stingray and porcupine fish spines, and the rodents, shrews, and bats recovered from Gp. 5D-2 special deposits that were counted as one element each. Unfortunately quantitative analyses of the distribution data, which might indicate variability among Tikal social ranks regarding meat provisioning, are suspect because of the better preservation of remains in the construction fills of masonry structures and in room middens than in commoner residences. A little over 42 percent of the recovered bone sample came from general excavations, the rest from special deposits of all kinds (Table 5.15). As explained above, the count from burials is a drastic underestimation because most of the counts are of whole individuals, in contrast to counts from general excavations and problematical deposits where each item was counted as one. MNI and bone weight would have been a more helpful way to assess the relative importance of remains in different kinds of recovery contexts. During the Late Preclassic period, certain species of vertebrates and invertebrates came to be regarded

67

as appropriate offerings in special deposits. They may be regarded as a specialized ritual fauna complex, functionally comparable to the specialized chert and obsidian ceremonial lithics or special-purpose pottery vessels that appeared at the same time. Like the artifacts, the faunal species included in the Classic ritual assemblage were rarely recovered from general excavations. Unworked human and animal remains occur throughout the entire span of occupation of Tikal (Table 5.16). The earliest exotic is a stingray spine found with a burial-like problematical deposit of Late Middle Preclassic age. The practice of including humans and animals in cached offerings developed during the Late Preclassic period, and peaked during the Early and Early Late Classic, when Tikal cached offerings were at their largest and most elaborate. Vertebrates were no longer included in caches during the later Late Classic period, a time in which emphasis shifted from offerings in caches to offerings in the burials of rulers and other high-ranked persons. Bone did not preserve well in general excavations. Our best samples are from trash incorporated into early construction fill, late middens in masonry structures, and chultuns of any age. Although the same species appear through time, more dogs and turtles seem to have been eaten in earlier times and more deer and turkeys in later ones.

68

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

Chart 5.1 Summary List of Occurrences of Identified Vertebrate Species (after Kent V. Flannery, Steven M. Goodman, William A. Haviland, Robert Rush Miller, Karen Mudar, Raymond A. Paynter, Anne Meachem Rick, Mary Pohl, Sylvia Scudder, L. C. Stuart, and Elizabeth Wing [personal communications 1960-1996]; Coe and Diehl 1980:vol. 2:97–123, 181–187; Encyclopaedia Britannica 1966; Hopkins1992; Nowak 1994; Peterson 1980; Smithe 1966; Stuart 1963]). The numbers refer to the artifact database codes, see Appendix B. Additional Material Categories are 40 Worked Human Remains and 41 Bone Artifacts of Nonhuman or Unidentified Vertebrate Remains. * exotic species. Unstarred vertebrates are either local or unplaced. [ ] number of individual identifications, not counts of remains. Fishes are reported in TR. 27A.

Material Category 35 Amphibians and Reptiles Class: AMPHIBIA Order: ANURA (toads and frogs) Family: RHINOPHYRINIDAE (Central American burrowing frogs) I46 Rhinophrynus dorsalis Dumeril and Bibron (uo) [11] Unworked. General excavations, cache-like and unclassified problematical deposits. Early Late Preclassic-Late Late Classic or Terminal Classic. Family: LEPTODACTYLIDAE (frogs) I40 Leptodactylus sp. (white-lipped frog) [3] Unworked. General excavations, burial-like problematical deposit. Late Middle Preclassic or Early Late Preclassic-Early Classic. Family: BUFONIDAE (toads) I12 Bufo cf. marinus [2] I13 Bufo marinus L. (marine toad) [4] Unworked. General excavations, burials, unclassified problematical deposit. Late Middle Preclassic or Early Late Preclassic-Late Late Classic or Terminal Classic. Family: RANIDAE (tree frogs) I42 Rana sp. (tree frog) [8] Unworked. General excavations, cache-like and unclassified problematical deposits. Terminal Classic and earlier. Postabandonment roofcomb deposit.

Unworked. General excavations. Early Classic-Early Late Classic. I39 Kinosternon cf. leucostomum Dumeril and Bibron [1] I38 Kinosternon sp. [11] Unworked. General excavations. Early Late PreclassicTerminal Classic. I50 Staurotypus triporcatus Wiegmann (musk turtle) [13] Unworked. General excavations, burial-like problematical deposits. Early Classic-Early Late Classic. Family: DERMATEMYDIDAE (Central American river turtles)* I30 Dermatemys mawei Gray (blanca) [23] Unworked and occasionally worked (shell). General excavations, structure cache, chamber burial, buriallike and unclassified problematical deposits. Terminal Preclassic-Terminal Classic. Family: TESTUDINIDAE (land turtles) I45 Rhinoclemys areolata (land turtle) [10] Unworked. General excavations, structure cache, burial-like problematical deposits. Terminal Preclassic or Early Classic-Terminal Classic.

Class: REPTILIA

Family: EMYDIDAE (freshwater turtles) I14 Chrysemys scripta ornata (Smith and Taylor) (painted turtle) [22] I15 cf. Chrysemys scripta ornata [2] Unworked. General excavations, chamber burial, burial-like and unclassified problematical deposits. Early Late Preclassic-Terminal Classic.

Order: CHELONIA (turtles and tortoises) Family: KINOSTERNIDAE (musk and mud turtles) I18 Claudius augustatus Cope (mud turtle) [3]

Order: SAURIA (lizards) Family: IGUANIDAE (iguanas) I28 Ctenosaura similis similis Gray (black iguana)* [1]

BONE ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED VERTEBRATE REMAINS

69

I27 Ctenosaura cf. similis [7] Unworked. General excavations, burial, burial-like problematical deposit. Early Classic-Terminal Classic.

Unworked. General excavations, structure caches, chamber burial, cache-like, unclassified, and burial-like problematical deposits. Early Classic-Early Late Classic.

Family: TEIIDAE (racerunner lizards) I03 Ameiva sp. (racerunner lizard) [1] Unworked. General excavations. Unspecified Classic.

Material Category 33 Birds Class: AVES

Order: SERPENTES (snakes) Family: BOIDAE (boas) I20 Constrictor constrictor (L.) (boa) [1] Unworked. Burial-like problematical deposit. Terminal Preclassic to Early Classic. Family: COLUBRIDAE (racers) I32 Drymarchon corais melanurus Dumeril, Bibron, and Dumeril [2] Unworked. General excavations, burial. Early Classic, Late Late Classic. I48 Spilotes pullatus mexicanus Laurenti [4] Unworked. General excavations, structure cache, burial, unclassified problematical deposit. Early ClassicLate Late Classic. I19 unspecified racer [1] Unworked. Backdirt. Terminal Classic and earlier.

Order: PODICIPEDIFORMES Family: PODICIPEDIDAE (grebes) H78 Podilymbus podiceps (pied-bill grebe) [1] Unworked. General excavations. Early Classic-Early Late Classic. Order: CICONIIFORMES Family: ARDEIDAE (herons) H10 Ardeola (Butorides) striata (green-backed heron) [1] Unworked. General excavations. Terminal Classic. Family: THRESKIORNITHIDAE (spoonbills) H06 Ajaia ajaja (roseate spoonbill) [4] H07 cf. Ajaia ajaja [1] Unworked. General excavation, burial-like problematical deposits. Early Classic-Terminal Classic. Order: FALCONIFORMES

Family: VIPERIDAE (vipers) I02 Agkistrodon cf. bilineatus Günther (water moccasin) [1] Unworked. Backdirt. Terminal Classic and earlier. I08 Bothrops atrox asper Garman (fer-de-lance) [3] I09 Bothrops sp. [2] I10 cf. Bothrops sp. [2] Unworked. Monument caches, structure caches. Early Classic, Late Late Classic. I26 Crotalus cf. durissus L. (rattlesnake) [3] I25 unspecified crotalid [3] Unworked. Structure caches, burial-like problematical deposit. Early Classic. I55 unspecified vipers [4] Unworked. Monument cache, stela pit, structure cache. Early Classic, Late Late Classic. Order: CROCODYLIA Family: CROCOYLIDAE (crocodiles) I22 Crocodylus actus Cuvier* or C. moreleti Dumeril and Bocourt [3] I23 Crocodylus sp. [4] I21 probably crocodile [2]

H42 large falconiform [1] Unworked. Burial-like problematical deposit. Early Classic-Early Late Classic. H43 medium-sized falconiform [2] Unworked. Backdirt, burial-like problematical deposit. Early Classic to Early Late Classic-Terminal Classic and earlier. Family: CATHARTIDAE (vultures) H83 Sarcoramphus papa (L.) (king vulture) [2] H84 Sarcoramphus papa (immature) [1] Unworked. General excavations, structure cache, burial-like problematical deposit. Early Classic-Early Late Classic, Early Postclassic and earlier. H36 Coragyps atratus (Bechstein) (black vulture) [1] Unworked. Burial-like problematical deposit. Early Classic-Early Late Classic. H29 Cathartes aura (turkey vulture) or Coragyps atratus [1] Unworked. Burial-like problematical deposit. Early Classic-Early Late Classic.

70

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

Family: ACCIPITRIDAE (kites and hawks) H82 cf. Rostrhamus sociabilis (snail kite) [1] Unworked. Burial-like problematical deposit. Early Classic-Early Late Classic. H18 Buteo magnirostris (Peters and Griscom) (roadside hawk) [4] H17 Buteo cf. magnirostris [1] H20 Buteo cf. magnirostris (immature) [2] Unworked. General excavations, cache in a crypt burial, burial-like problematical deposit. Early ClassicTerminal Classic. H21 Buteo nitidus (gray hawk) [2] Unworked. Burial-like problematical deposit. Early Classic-Early Late Classic. H24 Buteogallus urubitinga (Gurney) (great black hawk) [2] H25 Buteogallus urubitinga or B. anthracinus (common black hawk) [1] H26 cf. Buteogallus urubitinga [1] Unworked. General excavations, burial-like problematical deposit. Early Classic-Early Late Classic. H01 unspecified hawk [1] Unworked. Unclassified problematical deposit. Teminal Classic and earlier. Family: FALCONIDAE (falcons) H54 Herpetotheres cachinnans (L.) (laughing falcon, immature) [1] H55 cf. Herpetotheres [1] Unworked. General excavation. Early Postclassic and earlier. Order: GALLIFORMES Family: CRACIDAE (curassows, guans) H39 Crax rubra L. (great curassow) [4] Unworked. General excavations. Late Late ClassicTerminal Classic. H75 Penelope purpurascens Wagler (crested guan) [3] Unworked. General excavations, burial-like problematical deposit. Early Classic-Early Postclassic and earlier. H65 Ortalis vetula Peters (plain chachalaca) [13] H66 cf. Ortalis vetula [2] Unworked. General excavations, burial-like problematical deposit. Early Classic-Early Postclassic and earlier. Family: PHASIANIDAE (quails) H31 Colinus nigrogularis (black-throated bobwhite) [17]

H32 cf. Colinus nigrogularis [1] H33 cf. Colinus sp. [1] Unworked. General excavations, structure cache, chamber burials, cache-like, unclassified, and buriallike problematical deposits. Late Late PreclassicTerminal Classic. Family: MELEAGRIDIDAE (turkeys) H02 Agriocharis ocellatus (Cuvier) (ocellated turkey) [34] H03 cf. Agriocharis ocellatus [9] H86 unspecified turkey [1] H87 turkey? [2] Unworked and worked. General excavations, chamber burial, burial-like and unclassified problematical deposits. Early Classic-Terminal Classic, and Recent. Order: COLUMBIFORMES Family: COLUMBIDAE (doves) H35 Columbina talpacoti (Bonaparte) (ruddy ground-dove) [1] Unworked. Unclassified problematical deposit. Late or Terminal Classic. H58 Leptotila rufaxilla (gray-fronted dove) [2] Unworked. General excavations. Early Late and Late Late Classic. Order: PSITTACIFORMES Family: PSITTACIDAE (parrots, macaws) H08 Ara macao (L.) (scarlet macaw, immature) [2] Unworked. Structure cache, unclassified problematical deposit. Early Classic-Terminal Classic and earlier. H77 Pionus senilus (Spix) (white-crowned parrot) [1] Unworked. General excavations. Terminal Classic. H68 unspecified medium-sized parrot [2] Unworked. General excavations, backdirt. Terminal Classic and earlier. Order: STRIGIFORMES Family: STRIGIDAE (owls) H46 Glaucidium brasilianum (ferruginous pygmy owl) [3] Unworked. Structure cache, cache in a chamber burial. Early Classic. Order: CAPRIMULGIFORMES Family: CAPRIMULGIDAE (goat suckers) H63 Nyctidromus albicollis Nelson (parioque bird) [1] Unworked. Cache in a crypt burial. Early Late Classic.

71

BONE ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED VERTEBRATE REMAINS

Order: APODIFORMES Family: TROCHILIDAE (hummingbirds) H56 unspecified hummingbird [1] Unworked. Structure cache. Early Classic. Order: TROGONIFORMES Family: TROGONIDAE (trogons) H76 Pharomachris mocinno* (resplendent quetzal) [5] Unworked, tail plumes used. Chamber burial, buriallike problematical deposits. Terminal Preclassic-Early Classic. Also an identification from Late Middle Preclassic or Early Late Preclassic general excavations. Order: CORACIIFORMES Famiily: MOMOTIDAE (motmots) H61 Momotus momota Lesson (blue-crowned motmot) [4] Unworked. General excavations. Early Late ClassicTerminal Classic. H60 Momotus mexicanus* (russet-crowned motmot) [1] Unworked. General excavations. Early Late Classic. H62 Momotus sp. [1] Unworked. General excavations. Unspecified Precolumbian, but probably Late Late Classic or Early Terminal Classic. Order: PASSERIFORMES (perching birds) H70-H74 unspecified passerines [8] H90 probably passerines [2] Unworked. General excavations, structure cache, cache in crypt burial, burial-like problematical deposits. Early Classic-Terminal Classic. Family: TYRANNIDAE (flycatchers) H92 probably flycatcher [1] Unworked. Cache in a crypt burial. Classic.

Unworked. Cache in a chamber burial. Early Classic. H80 Psilorhinus morio Sharpe (brown jay) [1] Unworked. Cache in a crypt burial. Early Late Classic. Family: TURDIDAE (thrushes) H85 Turdus albicollis Sclater or T. nudigenis (Nelson) (non-migratory thrush) [1] Unworked. Cache in a crypt burial. Early Late Classic. Family: ICTERIDAE (orioles) H57 Icterus sp. (oriole) [1] Unworked. Cache in a crypt burial. Classic.

Early Late

H64 possibly oriole [1] Unworked. Structure cache. Early Classic. Family: THRAUPIDAE (tanagers) H51 Habia sp. (probably ant-tanager) [1] Unworked. Cache in a chamber burial. Classic.

Early

Family: FRINGILLIDAE (grosbeaks and finches) H27 Cardinalis cardinalis (northern cardinal) [1] Unworked. General excavations. Unspecified Classic. H50 cf. Guiraca caerulea (L.) (blue grosbeak) Unworked. General excavations. Unspecified Classic. H67 Oryzoborus funereus Sclater (thick-billed seed finch) [1] Unworked. Cache in a crypt burial. Early Late Classic. H45 unspecified large-billed finch [1] Unworked. Structure cache. Early Classic.

Early Late

Family: COTINGIDAE (cotingas) H38 Cotinga amabilis (brightly colored cotinga) [1] Unworked. Structure cache. Early Classic.

Material Category 32 Nonhuman Mammals Class: MAMMALIA

Family: CORVIDAE (crows, jays) H30 Cissilopha sanblasiana (Dubois) (black-and-blue jay) [1] Unworked. Structure cache. Early Classic. H41 cf. Cyanocorax yncas (Van Rossem) (green jay) [2]

Order: MARSUPALIA (marsupials) Family: DIDELPHIDAE (opossums) J36 Didelphis marsupialis (Virginia opossum) [50] Unworked. General excavations, cache-like, unclassified, and burial-like problematical deposits. Late Middle Preclassic to Early Late Preclassic-Terminal Classic.

72

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

K04 Philander opossum (four-eyed opossum) [3] Unworked. General excavations, unclassified problematical deposit. Classic-Terminal Classic. Postabandonment roofcomb deposit. J87 Marmosa sp. (mouse opossum) [1] Unworked. Unclassified problematical deposit. Late Late Classic to Terminal Classic. Order: INSECTIVORA (insectivores) Family: SCORICIDAE (true shrews) J21 Cryptotis sp. (short-tailed shrew) [1] Unworked. Cache-like and unclassified problematical deposits. Late Late Classic-Terminal Classic. K12 unspecified shrew [5] Unworked. General excavations, structure cache, unclassified problematical deposit, burial. Terminal Preclassic to Early Classic-Late Late Classic or Terminal Classic.

Order: PRIMATES Family: CEBIDAE (larger New World monkeys) J01 Alouatta villosa (howler monkey) [5] Unworked. General excavations. Early Late Preclassic-Terminal Classic. J07 Ateles geoffroyi (spider monkey) [6] Unworked. General excavations, burial, unclassified and burial-like problematical deposits. Early ClassicTerminal Classic. J89 unspecified monkey [7] Unworked. General excavations. Terminal Preclassic or Early Classic-later Classic. Order: EDENTATA Family: MYRMECOPHAGIDAE (anteaters) K19 Tamandua tetradactyla (four-toed anteater) [2] Unworked. General excavations. Late Late Classic.

Order: CHIROPTERA (bats) Family: VESPERTILIONIDAE (vespertilionid bats) K09 Rhogeessa parvula (little yellow bat) [1] Unworked. Unclassified problematical deposit. Late Late Classic-Terminal Classic.

Family: DASYPODIDAE (armadillos) J27 Dasypus novemcinctus L. (nine-banded armadillo) [9] Unworked. General excavations, burial (plates only), burial-like problematical deposits. Early Classic-Early Postclassic.

Family: PHYLLOSTOMIDAE (leaf-nosed bats) J03 Artibeus jamaicensis Leach (Jamaican fruit-eating bat) [2] J02 cf. Artibeus jamaicensis [2] J04 Artibeus sp. [16] Unworked. General excavations, cache-like and unclassified problematical deposits. Early Late ClassicEarly Postclassic and earlier.

Order: LAGOMORPHA Family: LEPORIDAE (rabbits) K18 Sylvilagus spp. including S. floridanus and S. cunicularis (cottontail) [54] K08 unspecified rabbit [1] Unworked and worked. General excavations, cache-like and burial-like problematical deposits. Late Middle Preclassic or Early Late Preclassic-Terminal Classic.

J19 Carollia perspicillata (Seba’s short-tailed bat) [1] Unworked. Unclassified problematical deposit. Late Late Classic-Terminal Classic.

Order: RODENTIA

J20 Centurio senex (lattice-winged bat) [1] Unworked. General excavations. Early Late Preclassic. K05 unspecified leaf-nosed bat [1] Unworked. Cache-like problematical deposit. Late Late Classic or Terminal Classic. J09 unspecified bat [34] Unworked. General excavations, structure cache, cache-like, unclassified, and burial-like problematical deposits. Late Middle Preclassic or Early Late Preclassic-Terminal Classic.

K10 unspecified, small rodents [100] Unworked. General excavations, structure caches, burials, chamber burials, cache-like, unidentified, and burial-like problematical deposits. Early Middle Preclassic-Early Postclassic and earlier. Postabandonment. Family: DASYPROCTIDAE (agoutis) J25 Dasyprocta punctata yucatanica (agouti) [23] Unworked. General excavations, burial-like problematical deposit. Late Preclassic-Terminal Classic. J26 unspecified dasyproctid rodent [1] Unworked. General excavations. Mixed Late Preclassic and Classic.

73

BONE ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED VERTEBRATE REMAINS

Family: CUNICULIDAE (pacas) J22 Cuniculus paca (L.) (spotted cavy) [9] Unworked and worked. General excavations, buriallike problematical deposits. Early Classic-Terminal Classic and earlier. Family: CRICETIDAE (mouse-like rodents) J80 Reithrodontomys sp. (harvest mouse) [2] Unworked. General excavations, cache-like problematical deposit. Early Late and Late Late Classic and Terminal Classic. J97 Oryzomys sp. (rice rat) [5] Unworked. General excavations, cache-like and unclassified problematical deposit. Early Late and Late Late Classic and Terminal Classic. J98 Ototylomys sp. (big-eared climbing rat) [19] Unworked. General excavations, burials, crypt burial, cache-like and unclassified problematical deposits. Early Late Classic-Terminal Classic. K03 Peromyscus sp. (deer mouse) [13] Unworked. General excavations, chamber burial, burial, cache-like and unclassified problematical deposits. Late Late Preclassic-Terminal Classic. K13 Sigmodon hispidus Say and Ord (cotton rat) [2] K14 Sigmodon sp. [13] Unworked. General excavations, cache-like, unclassified, and burial-like problematical deposits. Terminal Preclassic or Early Classic-Terminal Classic. K26 Tylomys sp. (climbing rat) [1] Unworked. General excavations. Terminal Classic. Family: GEOMYIDAE (pocket gophers) J47 Heterogeomys hispidus yucatanensis (Le Conte) (hispid pocket gopher) [6] J48 cf. Heterogeomys sp. [2] Unworked. General excavations, burial, burial-like problematical deposit. Late Preclassic-Terminal Classic. postabandonment roofcomb deposit. Family: HETEROMYIDAE (kangaroo rats) J49 Heteromys desmarestianus (spiny pocket mouse) [3] J50 Heteromys sp. [19] Unworked. General excavations, unclassified problematical deposits. Early Late Classic-Terminal Classic. Order: CARNIVORA Family: CANIDAE (dogs, foxes) J12 Canis familiaris L. (dog, domestic) [133]

J14 Canis familiaris (fetus) [1] J15 Canis familiaris (puppy) [8] Unworked and worked, especially canine teeth. General excavations, burial, structure cache, cachelike, unclassified, and burial-like problematical deposits. Early Middle Preclassic-Terminal Classic. postabandonment roofcomb deposit. K27 Urocyon cinereoargentus (gray fox) [2] Unworked. General excavations, burial-like problematical deposit. Early Classic-Early Late Classic. Family: PROCYONIDAE (raccoons, coatimundis) J90 Nasua narica (coatimundi) [1] Unworked. General excavations. Late Late Classic to Terminal Classic. Famly: FELIDAE (felines) J41 Felis concolor (puma) [5] Unworked and worked (canines). General excavations, burial-like problematical deposit. Early ClassicTerminal Classic. J42 Felis onca L. (jaguar) [6] J43 probably Felis onca, possibly Felis concolor [2] J44 probably Felis onca [2] Unworked and worked. Use of paws in chamber burials. General excavations, chamber burials (toes only). Terminal Preclassic or Early Classic-Terminal Classic. J45 Felis pardalis (ocelot) [7] Unworked. General excavations. Terminal Classic.

Late Preclassic-

J46 Felis sp. [4] Unworked. General excavations, chamber burials (toes). Late Preclassic-Terminal Classic. J40 unspecified feline Unworked. General excavations. Late Late Preclassic. Order: PERISSODACTYLA (odd-toed ungulates) Family: TAPIRIDAE (tapirs) K22 Tapirus bairdii (Gill) (Baird’s tapir) [4] K21 tapir? [1] K20 tapir, unspecified [1] Unworked and worked. General excavations. Early Late Preclassic-Early Postclassic and earlier. Order: ARTIODACTYLA (even-toed ungulates) Family: SUIDAE (true pigs)* K15 Sus scrofa (pig) [1] Unworked. General excavations. Recent.

74

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

Family: TAYASSUIDAE (peccaries) J34 Dicotyles tajacu nigrasens (collared peccary) [40] Unworked. General excavations, burial? (tusk), unclassified and burial-like problematical deposits. Terminal Preclassic-Terminal Classic.

burials (toes only), chamber burials (toes only), chamber burial exterior deposit, cache-like, unclassified, and burial-like problematical deposits. Early Middle Preclassic-Early Postclassic and earlier.

K25 Tayassu pecari ringens (white-lipped peccary) [4] Unworked. General excavations. Early Classic-Early Late Classic.

J28-J31 unspecified deer [49] Unworked and worked. General excavations, burials (toes only), chamber burials (toes only), unclassified and burial-like problematical deposits. Early Late Preclassic-Early Postclassic and earlier.

K01 unspecified peccary Unworked and worked (canines). General excavations. Late Preclassic-Terminal Classic. postabandonment roofcomb deposit. Family: CERVIDAE (deer) J88 Mazama americana (brocket) [32] Unworked. General excavations, cache-like and burial-like problematical deposits. Late Middle Preclassic or Early Late Preclassic-Terminal Classic. postabandonment roofcomb deposit. J92 Odocoileus virginianus (Zimmermann) (whitetailed deer) [357] J93 Odocoileus virginianus (fetus) [2] J94 Odocoileus virginianus (immature) [8] J95 Odocoileus virginianus (adult) [1] Unworked and worked. General excavations,

Family: BOVIDAE (cattle, sheep, goats)* J10 Bos taurus (cattle) [1] Unworked. General excavations. Recent.

Material Category 30 Humans Order: PRIMATES Family: HOMINIDAE (humans) J52-J73 Homo sapiens L. [1055] Unworked and worked. General excavations, monument caches, structure caches, burials, chamber burials, chamber burial exterior deposit, crypt burials, cache-like, unclassified, and burial-like problematical deposits. Early Middle Preclassic-Early Postclassic and earlier.

6

Pottery Sherd Artifacts General Considerations Summary Number

Type

Figure

Page

287 38 50 139

Centrally perforated disks Incompletely perforated sherds Eccentrically perforated sherds Unperforated round/oval worked sherds Unperforated oblong/elongate worked sherds Other edge-worked sherds Figurines Mariposas Bars Scrapers Cordholders Miscellaneous worked sherds

B: 131-132 B: 133a-k B: 134 B: 133l, 135, 136a-g, l, m, 137a-e A: 218ee, B: 136h, k, 137f-j B: 136i, j B: 137k, l B: 137n B: 138a-e B: 138f-h B: 139e-q, 14: 200f B: 137m, 138i, j, 139a, b

76 77 77

22 13 2 2 11 10 66 28

78 78 79 79 79 79 79 80 80

Mosaic assemblage backings made from sherds are described and illustrated in TR. 27A.

M

ost of the sherd artifacts found at Tikal were first chipped into shape and then the edges were ground smooth. This two-step process was taken into consideration in their classification, with ground edges designated as Variety A of a particular type and chipped edges as Variety B. Generally fewer Variety B artifacts were recorded, I suspect because of the difficulty of picking them out among unworked potsherds. However, when the lower proportion of chipped sherd artifacts was taken into account, their spatial, chronological, and contextual distributions coincided with worked sherds that had ground edges. Therefore,

worked sherds with ground and chipped edges are summarized together on Tables 6.1-6.24. Potsherds were a local resource, readily available to anyone, and could be easily worked into a variety of artifacts. These characteristics suggest an expedient industry of goods produced by the consumer. The debitage from such production has not, as yet, been distinguished from unworked sherds. The array of artifacts made from sherds had utilitarian, ornamental, and ceremonial functions. In some cases they appear to be expedient copies of types usually made with greater investment of labor and of other kinds of material,

76

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

such as scrapers, potlids, incense burners, stamps, cordholders, beads and pendants, figurines, and various small forms inscribed with glyphs. On the other hand, 11 worked sherds of various shapes had grooves in their ground edges (Fig. B: 132l, 134m, 136l, m, 138e), which suggest a specialized, if as yet unknown, mode of use. They occur from the Late Middle Preclassic into Late Late Classic times. According to William and Anita Haviland (1995: Fig. 2-13) the postfired incised designs on a number of worked sherds of various types apparently record entoptic phenomena (Fig. B: 132a-g, 134j,k, 137e-j). They are identical to graffiti found on the plastered walls of buildings (TR. 31) and to designs incised on some miscellaneous ground stone artifacts (Fig. B: 115e, 116g, 117a). These designs are thought to record visual events experienced by persons in an early state of trance. Most types of worked sherds occurred with greatest frequencies in Zone 03 in Small Structure Groups. Exceptions were unperforated disks, oblongs, eccentrically perforated sherds, scrapers, and cordholders, which were more common in Zone 01. Artifacts worked from sherds were rarely found in special deposits, but they were occasionally included in problematical deposits, burials, and structure caches. They were produced and used throughout the entire permanent occupation of Tikal.

Descriptions Centrally Perforated Disks Figure B: 131-132, Table 6.1-6.6 Total: 287 disks, 114 of which were complete or nearly so (Table 6.1). As with all other types of worked sherds, this is a minimal figure because many sherd artifacts were not recognized among unworked sherds processed in the field laboratory (T. Patrick Culbert, personal communication 1964). Centrally perforated disks were the most numerous type of worked sherd artifact found at Tikal. Most examples had a ground perimeter. There were 215 of these, 95 of which were complete. There were 27 disks with a chipped perimeter, 17 of which were complete. The central perforation in both varieties was made from one (Fig. B: 132c, f ) or both faces (Fig. B: 132a, e, g, j, l). Forty-three disks could not be classified due to their fragmented condition or a lack of information on edge treatment. Two unexamined disks are tabulated as uncertain members of the type.

Although centrally perforated sherd disks have a nearly global distribution in ancient pottery-using cultures, there is much uncertainty about their mode of use. Some researchers consider them spindle whorls because of the morphological similarity to known, disk-shaped whorls of wood and pottery. Ethnographic examples of sherd disk spindle whorls, however, are very rare, particularly when compared to the abundance of centrally perforated sherd disks in archaeological deposits. I have not yet seen sherd spindle whorls in museum exhibits and I have been able to find only two published references. These references were to the rare use of sherd whorls in two contemporary indigenous Mexican groups, the Huichol (Phil C. Weigand, personal communication 1995) and the Otomí (Parsons and Parsons 1990: 314, Fig. 39). On the other hand, the wide range of workmanship, which varies from neatly finished to very irregular (Fig. B: 131), and the variety of surface and perimeter treatments suggest use as counters, tokens, or gaming-pieces. Small examples (Fig. B: 132n) may have been used as beads or clothing fasteners. As was the case with most worked sherd artifacts, flat sherds, or those with only a slight degree of curvature, were preferred (Fig. B: 132). Culbert examined about half of the sample in 1964 and determined that nearly 84 percent were of paste characteristic of monochrome wares of the Ik and Imix Ceramic Complexes of the Early Late and Late Late Classic periods (Table 6.2). Greatest complete diameter ranged between 1.7 and 6.3 cm and greatest thickness between 0.4 and 1.1 cm. The range of perforation diameter was 0.3 to 1.0 cm. The range of weight of a sample of 58 complete disks was 1.1 to 32.3 gm. Three examples were burned, 11 had postfired, incised decoration on one face (Fig.B: 131a2, 131d1, 132a-g), two had a drilled depression (Fig. B: 132i, j), three had two depressions, one had four, and one had many small pits on one face (Fig. B: 132k), two had beveled perimeters, six had grooved perimeters (Fig. B: 132l), and one had a notched perimeter. Centrally perforated sherd disks were common in Zone 03 (Table 6.3) and in Small Structure Groups (Table 6.4). Almost 98 percent of the recorded sample came from general excavations (Table 6.5). One each was found in two Early Classic burial-like problematical deposits (Fig. B: 132m, 132n4) and in two Late Classic burials (Fig. B: 132n1, 132n2). Centrally perforated disks with ground or chipped perimeters were present throughout the entire span of permanent occupation (Table 6.6).

POTTERY SHERD ARTIFACTS

77

Incompletely Perforated Sherds

Eccentrically Perforated Sherds

Figure B: 133a-k, Table 6.1-6.6 Total: 38 sherds with worked edges and a centrally placed drilled depression. Of these 21 were complete or nearly so (Table 6.1). Six had a central depression on both faces (Fig. B: 133g, j). Most examples were round to oval disks, but plans were quite variable (Fig. B: 133), suggesting a variety of uses. There were 27 examples with ground edges, 16 of which were complete, and nine with chipped edges, five of which were complete. Two examples were unexamined. Sherd disks with worked edges and central depressions are found at many Lowland Maya sites and are often regarded as unfinished examples of centrally perforated disks. I suggest they are finished artifacts. Potsherds can be easily drilled with a pointed chert flake (personal observation, 1964), incompletely drilled sherds are not uncommon, and they are widely distributed. At Tikal, sherds with incomplete perforations were recovered from the same contexts as completely perforated ones, which suggests they may have been used in a similar manner, whatever that may have been. However, one disk with a beveled edge (Fig. B: 133a), much larger than the rest of the sample with a diameter of approximately 10 cm, may have been used as a small turntable (cf. Kosakowsky and Hammond 1991: 174, Fig. 8.15). Twelve of the 14 examples examined by Culbert were of Late Classic Ik/Imix Monochrome paste (Table 6.2). As noted above, plans were quite variable. Greatest dimension ranged between 2.5 and 8.0 cm, with one unusually large example of 10.0 cm diameter (Fig. B: 133a). Thickness ranged between 0.4 and 1.2 cm. None were weighed. One was burned. One red-slipped example had a deeply incised, postfired design resembling a kan cross (Fig. B: 133k) on the convex side. Most came from Zone 03 Small Structure Groups in the Central Area of the site (Table 6.3, 6.4). One fragmentary disk occurred with an Early Classic burial-like problematical deposit (Fig. B: 133c); the others were recovered from general excavations (Table 6.5). Both ground and chipped varieties appeared during the Early Classic period (Table 6.6). Incompletely perforated sherds with chipped perimeters may have gone out of use during the Late Late Classic, while those with ground perimeters were still present during the Terminal Classic.

Figure B: 134, 6.13-6.18, Table 6.7-6.12 Total: 50 sherds with worked edges and one or more eccentrically placed drilled perforations, 21 of which were complete or nearly so (Table 6.7). The edges of all but two examples had been shaped by grinding. Eccentrically perforated sherds were classified into three varieties according to the number of front to back perforations they had. Variety F had one principal perforation near one edge (Fig. B: 134c, e-g, j, l, n-q). There were 27 examples, 11 of which were complete. Variety G had two principal perforations placed next to each other near one edge (Fig. B: 134a, b, d, h, i, k). There were 20 examples, nine of which were complete. Variety H had three perforations. There were two examples, one complete and one doubtful fragment (Fig. B: 134s). One unexamined sherd was not classified. The small size and neatly ground edges of most of these objects suggest they were worn as pendants. The rare examples that had been chipped into shape (Fig. B: 134p, q) may represent either unfinished pendants or misclassified vessel mend holes (cf. Fig. 133m). Twelve of the 21 identifiable eccentrically perforated sherds were made from Ik/Imix Monochrome paste (Table 6.8). Plans were variable and could be round, oval, triangular, trapezoidal, and oblong (Fig. B: 134). Greatest dimension ranged between 2.7 and 7.5 cm, with a large example, which had chipped edges, of 11.6 cm length (Fig. B: 134p). Greatest thickness ranged between 0.2 and 1.4 cm. None were weighed. Two were weathered, one of which had a subsidiary depression. One was burned (Fig. B: 134e), two had postfired, incised decoration (Fig. B: 134j, k). One of these had been incised with the same design on both faces (Fig. B: 134j), and the other may record entoptic phenomena (Haviland and Haviland 1995). One eccentrically perforated sherd incorporated the vessel’s prefired incised decoration (Fig. B: 134l). Four were grooved along one edge (Fig. B: 134m, n), and one of these was burned. The edges of a burned sherd from the base of a nubbin-footed bowl, whose paste was not examined by Culbert, were notched, the nubbin foot was perforated and its end cross-grooved, and a subsidiary depression was drilled near the perforation (Fig. B: 134o). One sherd had random scratches on the convex face and ten drilled depressions on the concave one. Eccentrically perforated worked sherds occurred in all parts of the site. Almost half the sample came from Zone 01 (Table 6.9). They were only slightly

78

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

more common in Small Structure Groups than elsewhere (Table 6.10). Only two were recovered from special deposits (6.11), both dating to the Early Classic period. One came from a burial-like problematical deposit (Fig. B: 134c) and a doubtful, quite weathered example came from a structure cache (Fig. B: 134q) and may be an accidental inclusion. Variety F and G were made and used during the entire occupation of Tikal (Table 6.12). Variety H may be restricted to the Terminal Classic period.

Unperforated Round/Oval Worked Sherds Figure B: 133l, 135, 136a-g,l,m,137a-e, Table 6.1-6.6 Total: 139 of various sizes, of which 74 were complete or nearly so (Table 6.1). There were 93 with a ground perimeter, of which 51 were complete, and 34 with a chipped perimeter, 24 of which were complete. Twelve disks could not be classified due to lack of information. At least two of the small disks with ground perimeters had been formed by hollow-drilling (Fig. B: 136e) and several disks of both varieties had been shaped from the flat bases of hollow vessel supports (Fig. B: 136a2, b-d). A large disk had been fashioned from the base of a cylindrical tripod vessel (Fig. B: 135f ). There was considerable variability in size and workmanship in the sample, suggesting a variety of uses. Larger examples might have been used as small plates, jar lids, or censers. Smaller disks might have been used as tokens, counters, or gaming-pieces. Of the 43 disks examined by Culbert, 27 were of Ik/Imix Complex Monochrome paste (Table 6.2). These sherds were round to oval in plan. One (Fig. B: 133l) is almost pentagonal. Greatest dimension ranged from 1.8 to 15.4 cm and greatest thickness from 0.4 to 1.5 cm. None were weighed. Three disks were weathered, four were burned, five had postfired, incised decoration on one face (Fig. B: 136a3, B: 137b-e) and another had incised decoration and a notched border (Fig. B: 137a). One had four equally spaced drilled pits on one face (Fig. B: 133l). The perimeters of two were beveled and the perimeters of four others were grooved (Fig. B: 136l, m). Unperforated sherd disks were found in all parts of the site, but Zones 01 and 03 provided most of the sample (Table 6.3). They were most common in Small Structure Groups (Table 6.4). Ninety-two percent came from general excavations (Table 6.5), but unperforated sherd disks were also recovered from special deposits. One served as a potlid

in a Late Late Preclassic chamber burial. Another was found in the chert and obsidian debitage deposit exterior to a Late Late Classic chamber burial, where it might have been an accidental inclusion. Two, perhaps used as censers, had been deposited in an Early Classic structure cache (Fig. B: 135a). Four, comprising two large (Fig B: 135b) and two small disks (Fig. B: 136b, g), were recovered from an Early Classic problematical deposit. One each came from a Late Middle Preclassic and a Late Late Classic problematical deposit. Unperforated disks with ground or chipped perimeters were present from Early Middle Preclassic into Terminal Classic times (Table 6.6).

Unperforated Oblong/Elongate Worked Sherds Figure A: 218ee, B: 136h,k, 137f-j, Table 6.1-6.6 Total: 22, 16 of which were complete (Table 6.1). Nineteen were classified as Variety A, whose edges had been shaped by grinding, and two as Variety B, which had been chipped into shape. One could not be classified due to lack of information. Besides the possible uses for worked sherds mentioned above, as tokens, counters, and gaming-pieces, the deeply incised, probably entoptic design on the face of one example (Fig. B: 137h) suggests the possibility that some deeply incised worked sherds may have been used as stamps. A neatly shaped, red-slipped oblong sherd from Early Classic structure Ca. 43 had a glyph-like design painted in black paint on one face (Fig. A: 218ee). Only five of the oblong sherds were examined by Culbert. They were of Late Preclassic, Early Preclassic, probably Monochrome, and Ik/Imix Monochrome pastes (Table 6.2). Plans varied from oblong to oval and actually form a continuum with the unperforated round to oval sherd disks described above. Greatest dimension ranged between 3.0 and 5.8 cm and greatest thickness between 0.7 and 0.8 cm. No examples were weighed. One was weathered, five had postfired incised designs (Fig. B: 137f-j), one of these had a nearly identical design on each face (Fig. B: 137i). One had a postfired design in black paint on one face (Fig. A: 218ee). Most of the unperforated oblong sherds came from Zone 01 (Table 6.3), from Epicentral CivicCeremonial Groups (Table 6.4). All but one of these artifacts came from general excavations (Table 6.5). The exception, already mentioned, came from an Early Classic structure cache.

79

POTTERY SHERD ARTIFACTS

Unperforated oblongs with ground edges occurred from the Late Middle Preclassic into the Late Classic and possibly Terminal Classic periods (Table 6.6). Both of the oblongs with chipped edges are Preclassic.

Other Edge-Worked Sherds Figure B: 136i, j, Table 6.13-6.18 Total: 13 sherds had been worked into shapes other than those described above. Nine were complete (Table 6.13). Eleven had ground edges, nine of which were complete, and one incomplete sherd had chipped edges. Several paste types are represented (Table 6.14). Experimental evidence suggests that the worked edges of sherds of various shapes and sizes (e.g., Fig. B: 133e,l,136g-k, 138g-i) make effective tools for thinning and shaping clay vessels before firing (Lopez Varela et al. 2001). Two of these edge-worked sherds had beveled perimeters. Also illustrated, for comparative purposes, are two of several sherds with deeply incised short parallel grooves perpendicular to the edges (Fig. B: 139c, d), which were altered by rodents, not humans. A little over half of the sample occurred in Zone 01 (Table 6.15). Most came from Civic-Ceremonial and Small Structure Groups (Table 6.16). One each came from two problematical burials, one of Late Late Preclassic and the other of Early Classic date (Table 6.17). The latter was shaped from a bowl rim sherd of unusual rose-colored pottery decorated with a design in burnished black slip (Fig. B: 136j). The sherds lumped together here date from the Early Middle Preclassic to the Late Late Classic periods (Table 6.18).

Figurines Figure B: 137k, l, Table 6.13-6.18 Total: two, both complete (Table 6.13) and made of unspecified unslipped pottery (Table 6.14). Both came from Zone 03 (Table 6.15) from Small Structure Groups (Table 6.16). One resembled a human female torso (Fig. B: 137k). Both sides were incised and on one surface was a small drilled depression in the crotch area. This object was found in general excavations (Table 6.17) and probably dates to the Late Middle Preclassic period (Table 6.18). The other example was a carved human face (Fig. B: 137l), resembling in miniature the masks found in a burial at Teotihuacan (Sejourné 1966: Lám. 28;

Sempowski and Spence 1994: 68). It was found with an Early Classic burial-like problematical deposit.

Mariposas Figure B: 137n, Table 6.13-6.18 Total: two, complete. One unslipped sherd had ground edges and opposing notches (Fig. B: 137n) and resembled the Mesoamerican pottery artifacts generally identified as net-sinkers. It was found on the surface of Tikal’s Main Plaza in Gp. 5D-2. Another example, which I was unable to examine, came from a sherd collection made by Dennis Puleston at the quarries at Arenera near Lake Petén. It was reported as complete. Both mariposas were from surface contexts and could not be precisely dated (Table 6.18).

Bars Figure B: 138a-e, Table 6.19-6.24 Total: 11, three of which may be complete (Table 6.19). These objects were thick sherds, some of which came from incurving bowl rims (Fig. B: 138a-c) and some from flat-based vessels (Fig. B: 138e), that had been worked into bars by scoring, snapping, and grinding. They were of various kinds of pottery (Table 6.20). Two were weathered (Fig. B: 138a), one had two drilled depressions on one face, and one had a completely grooved perimeter (Fig. B: 138e). They were found in Zones 01-04 (Table 6.21), mostly from Civic-Ceremonial and Small Structure Groups (Table 6.22). All were recovered from general excavations (Table 6.23). They date from the Early Classic into the Late Late Classic periods (Table 6.24).

Scrapers Figure B: 138f-h, Table 6.19-6.24 Total: 10, one appears to be complete (Table 6.19). One or more edges of ten, mostly flat, sherds had been used as scrapers. They were of various kinds of pottery (Table 6.20). Eight of ten came from Zone 01 (Table 6.21) and six were found in CivicCeremonial Gp. 5D-2 (Table 6.22). Most were found in general excavations (Table 6.23). One was recovered from an Early Classic structure cache (Fig. B: 138f ).

80

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

Sherd scrapers date from the Late Middle Preclassic or Early Late Preclassic into the Late Late Classic periods (Table 6.24).

Cordholders Figure B: 139e-q, 14: 200f, Table 6.13-6.18 Total: 66, of which 28 were complete or restorable (Table 6.13). All were made from the necks of large jars. An additional 62 cordholders, especially formed of pottery, are described in Chapter Seven, and eight dubious cordholders of pecked and ground stone are described in Chapter Four. There were 25 Variety A cordholders, with a ground lower edge, ten of which were complete or restorable, and 32 Variety B cordholders, where the lower edge had been chipped into shape, 18 of which were complete or restorable. Nine fragments could not be classified due to lack of information. These artifacts, holding vertically or horizontally placed tie-rods and usually placed in pairs, were inserted into the interior wall to either side of a doorway of a temple or range structure of stone masonry. They are thought to have held cords securing doorway coverings of matting or cloth. Several were found in situ (TR. 14: Fig. 200f3, TR. 23A: Fig. 69a). Portable cordholders were made of necks of ceramic jars or were specially modeled of pottery. Tie-rods of wood and bone (Fig. B: 123g, h, TR. 23A: 50) were found in some of them. Cordholders were also modeled or cut directly into the plaster of the interior walls of masonry structures. One was recorded from an Early Classic temple, Str. SE-430, from the Minor Center of Navajuelal. It held a stone tie-rod, evidently lost in the field. Other direct cordholders were recorded from Early Late Classic temple Str. 5D-32 (TR. 14: Fig. 200f1, 2) and Str. 5E-51, a range structure probably dating to the Late Classic period (TR. 23A: 50, Fig. 68b or c, d). Two offerings were found associated with cordholders. PD. 227, consisting of an obsidian blade fragment, free carbon, and gray earth, was found at the base of the stone tie-rod in Str. SE-430. Late Classic PD. 186, consisting of a complete, stemless chert thin biface, was found with a human longbone tie-rod in Str. 5D-61 in Gp. 5D-11.

There is little information on the ceramic types of the jar necks (Table 6.14). The smallest complete cordholder had a rim diameter of 13.0 cm, a neck diameter of 9.0 cm, and a height of 5.3 cm. The largest had a rim diameter of 14.5 cm, a neck diameter of 10.1 cm, and a height of 6.5 cm. None were weighed. Eight were weathered (Fig. B: 139e). One was found with a bone tie-rod, one had an incised graffito, one had a grooved interior, and three had scored and snapped edges (Fig. B: 139n, o). These artifacts were closely associated with the masonry residential architecture of Zone 01 (Table 6.15). Almost 64 percent of the sample came from Range Structure Gp. 5D-11, the Central Acropolis (Table 6.16). Cordholders were recovered in situ or in general excavations (Table 6.17). Jar neck cordholders were present from the Early Classic into the Terminal Classic periods (Table 6.18).

Miscellaneous Worked Sherds Figure B: 137m, 138i, j, 139a, b, Table 6.19-6.24 Total: 26, four complete (Table 6.19). This group of miscellanea includes an adorno from an Early Classic pottery vessel with shaped edges and a drilled perforation, perhaps used as a pendant (Fig. B: 137m), a bowl rim sherd with a scraper edge and with ground facets on the exterior (Fig. B: 138i), a bowl rim sherd with one scored and snapped end and a mend hole at one edge of the other end (Fig. B: 138j), a sherd with chipped edges from the neck of an Early Classic polychrome jar found in Early Classic crypt burial (Fig. B: 139a), and a small sherd with an incised groove near one end (Fig. B: 139b). In addition to these there was a small round sherd that had been used as a backing for the throat disk of a large jade earflare from Early Classic chamber burial (Fig. A: 102b), and six unshaped sherds that had been embedded into the ground as a kind of mosaic excavated as PD. 4 and dated to the Early Late or Late Late Classic periods. Miscellaneous worked sherds occurred throughout the site from the Late Middle Preclassic into the Terminal Classic periods (Table 6.24).

7

Formed Pottery Artifacts General Considerations Summary Number

Type

Figure

Page

25 9 29 43 17 31 62 24

Spindle whorls Modeled disks and rings Candeleros Winged candeleros Drums Architectural elements Cordholders Miscellaneous pottery artifacts

B: 140 B: 141a-e B: 141g-u B: 142, 143 B: 144, 145 B: 146, 147 B: 148j-m, 149

82 83 83 83 83 84 84

B: 141f, 148a-i

84

Beads, pendants, earspools, L-shaped ear ornaments, plaque backings, and stamps formed of pottery are described and illustrated in TR. 27A. Pottery figurines, ocarinas, flutes, figurine molds, and miscellaneous modeled objects are described in TR. 28, pottery censers other than candeleros in TR. 29, and all pottery vessels and artifacts associated with the Postconquest occupations of Tikal in TR. 37.

N

o special research was conducted into the local availability of clay, but to judge from its extensive use in building construction fill, it must have been abundant and easily obtained. Samples from Gp. 5D2 were identified as mortmorillonite. There is nothing to indicate that access to this important resource was restricted in any manner. It is generally assumed that pottery vessels and other objects of utilitarian function were produced by the households in which they were used, while specialpurpose vessels and artifacts were made by craft specialists and distributed through intracommunity or marketplace exchange. Vessels and artifacts intended as elite display objects are thought to have been produced by attached specialists and distributed by gift exchange (e.g., Sheets 2000). The model of each household producing its own domestic pottery may well hold for

Preclassic period Tikal, but during the Classic period increasing settlement density may have made it impractical for households near the center of the city to make and fire their own pottery vessels. The effort made to dispose of large quantities of chert and obsidian debitage underground suggests that spatial constraints on craft production were being felt at least as early as the Terminal Preclassic period. During the Classic period, the production of pottery may have been located to outlying structure groups, and utilitarian vessels may have been distributed through the marketplace (Fry 1980). Small Structure Gps. 4F-1 and 4F-2 in Zone 03 (TR. 19) and Intermediate Structure Gp. 4H-1 in Zone 05 (Becker 1973) have been identified as loci of specialized pottery production. As noted below, some of the spindle whorls and candeleros found at Tikal may have been manufactured elsewhere and imported as finished prod-

82

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

ucts, but present knowledge suggests that all of the other artifact types were produced locally. Most of the pottery artifacts were found in the Zone 01-05 range. Candeleros were more common in the Small Structure Groups of Zone 03 than anywhere else. The distributions of other types, however, suggest use by persons of higher socioeconomic rank. Spindle whorls, cordholders, and other ceramic architectural elements were somewhat more common in Range Structure Groups, drums were more frequent in Civic-Ceremonial and Range Structure Groups, and winged candeleros were markedly concentrated in the above-mentioned Intermediate Structure Group 4H-1. As in the case of ground stone spindle whorls, no formed pottery spindle whorls were recovered from Gp. 5D-2, which suggests a special manner of curation and disposal. The artifacts described here came predominantly from general excavations, with a few deposited in problematical deposits and in the burials of well-to-do, but not elite, persons. None were found in caches. Disks and rings, drums, and architectural elements appear to have been present by the Late Late Preclassic period, the other types described here came into use during the Early Classic. All remained in use into Terminal Classic times, except for winged candeleros, which may have been produced and used only during the Late Classic period.

Descriptions Spindle Whorls Figure B: 140, Table 7.1-7.6 Total: 25, of which 13 were complete (Table 7.1). Like the 26 stone spindle whorls described above, this small collection exhibited considerable morphological diversity. They appear to have been made in molds, although no such molds have yet been identified at Tikal. The sample was classified into five varieties based upon the shape of the cross section. Variety N whorls had a thick, approximately plano-convex cross section with a complete horizontal groove below the perimeter (Fig. B: 140j-n, p-t). Like the stone spindle whorls, it was the most common variety. There were ten examples, three of which were complete. Variety P had a thick, ungrooved plano-convex cross section (Fig. B: 140b, o, w). There were four of these, one of which was complete. Variety Q had a flatter cross section resembling a doughnut (Fig. B: 140d, g-i, u, v). There were six examples, five of which were complete. Variety R had a triangular to biconvex cross section (Fig. B: 140c, e, f, x). There were four exam-

ples, three of which were complete. Variety S, of which there was one complete example, had a cross section resembling a cupcake (Fig. B: 140a). This whorl, unique at Tikal, bears a close similarity to pottery spindle whorls reported from Chichén Itzá by Kidder (1943: 98-99). The use of spindle whorls of pottery, and other materials to form yarn and thread from fibers of animal and vegetable origin is well understood. Whorls are still used today as flywheels on wooden spindles. Whorls with plano-convex sections are mounted on the spindle with the flat side upwards, the reverse of the way the whorls appear in the figures in this report. All but one are of unslipped pottery (Table 7.2). An incomplete Variety N whorl had a polished black slip (Fig. B: 140n). The excavated sample ranged between 2.0 and 3.2 cm in greatest diameter and between 0.8 and 1.8 cm in greatest thickness. The weights of seven complete whorls were 6.0, 7.4, 7.5, 8.6, 9.0, 10.2, and 17.0 gm. Sixteen whorls, or almost two-thirds of the sample, had molded or incised decoration (Fig. B: 140a-p). One whorl had traces of blue pigment (Fig. B: 140e) and another had been burned (Fig. B: 140r). The spatial distribution of pottery spindle whorls followed that of stone whorls. Only one occurred beyond Zone 05 (Table 7.3). They, too, were absent from Civic-Ceremonial Groups such as Gp. 5D-2 and were most frequent in Range and Small Structure Groups (Table 7.4). One pottery whorl was clearly associated with a burial and two others probably were (Table 7.5). All came from Small Structure Gps. 4F-1 and 4F-2 in Zone 03 (TR. 19). So we can add probable textile production to the list of craft goods made by the residents of these two groups. The handsome, probably imported, Variety S whorl (Fig. B: 140a) had been deposited in a burial of uncertain date, but which is no earlier than the later Early Late Classic period. A Variety N pottery whorl (Fig. B: 140n) may have been part of a Late Late Classic burial that also included a whorl of ground stone (Fig. B: 106a). A Variety P whorl (Fig. B: 140b) may have accompanied a burial of Early Late Classic date. Formed pottery spindle whorls, like those of stone, appear to have been passed from one generation to another, which makes them difficult to date. They do not appear to be earlier than the later Early Classic period or later than the Terminal Classic (Table 7.6). Variety N whorls may have appeared first during the Early Classic, followed by Variety P in the Early Late Classic, and Variety Q perhaps not until the Late Late Classic. Bu. 13, in which the Variety S whorl was offered, is associated with sherds of the Early Late

83

FORMED POTTERY ARTIFACTS

Classic Ik ceramic complex and the Early Postclassic Caban ceramic complex (Chart 1.1).

Modeled Disks and Rings Figure B: 141a-e, Table 7.25-7.30 Total: nine, all fragments (Table 7.25). These are segments of large rings (Fig. B: 141a, b) and well-made disks with central perforations (Fig. B: 141c-e). Their mode of use is unknown. One disk was red-slipped, another was red with black decoration (Fig. B: 141c) (Table 7.26). One disk was very weathered (Fig. B: 141e). One ring had a subsidiary perforation (Fig. B: 141b). They were found in Zones 01-05 (Table 7.27) in structure groups thought to be residential (Table 7.28). Two examples were found in burial-like problematical deposits of Late Late Preclassic and Early Classic date (Table 7.29). They occur from the Late Late Preclassic into the Terminal Classic period (Table 7.30).

Candeleros Figure B: 141g-u, Table 7.7-7.12 Total: 29, only four of which were complete or reconstructable (Table 7.7). This should be regarded as a minimum number because it is highly likely that candelero fragments were not recognized as such in the field laboratory and remained among the sherd samples. It is generally assumed that candeleros were used to burn incense and charring and discoloration were observed on all of the examples reported here. The sample was classified into two varieties. Variety A had incurving, perforated walls (Fig. B: 141g-o). There were nine examples. The only complete Variety A candelero was double-chambered (Fig. B: 141h). Variety B candeleros had a flat base, variable profiles, and no perforations in the walls (Fig. B: 141p-u). Of nine examples, three were complete. They intergraded with miniature pottery vessels, but were, on the whole, less well made. Eleven fragments, or over one-third of the sample, could not be classified due to lack of information. All were of unslipped pottery (Table 7.8). Single-chambered candeleros were between 2.0 and 4.8 cm in greatest diameter and between 2.8 and 5.6 cm in height. None were weighed. No secondary modification was noted other than charring and discoloration. Candeleros were most frequent in Zone 03 (Table 7.9), associated with Small Structure Groups (Table 7.10).

Four Variety B candeleros were found in special deposits (Table 7.11): two in Bu. 172 of unspecified Classic date (Fig. B: 141p) and one each from two problematical burials of the Early Classic (Fig. B: 141t, u). The artifacts found with Bu. 172 suggest that it may also pertain to that time. Variety B was present from the later Early Classic period into the Late Late Classic (Table 7.12). Variety A may also be as early as the Early Classic and was still in use during the Terminal Classic period.

Winged Candeleros Figure B: 142, 143, Table 7.25-7.30 Total: 43, all incomplete (Table 7.25). These curious, well-made artifacts may also have been used in the same manner as candeleros, to burn incense. They are unslipped, and the cavities of most show charring and discoloration. Most of them resemble a candleholder, equipped with a short tab on one side and a curving handle on the other that enables them to stand upright. Their fragmentary condition suggests that they were deliberately broken after use. They were all of lightly burnished plainware (Table 7.26). Thirty-eight of the sample of 43, or 88 percent, came from Intermediate Structure Group 4H-1 in Zone 05 (Table 7.27, 7.28). All known examples were recovered from Intermediate or Small Structure Groups, exclusively from general excavations (Table 7.29). They may have been used only during the Early Late and Late Late Classic periods (Table 7.30).

Drums Figure B: 144, 145, Table 7.13-7.18 Total: 17, four of which were complete or restorable (Table 7.13). Undoubtedly others were overlooked among the sherd samples. Four varieties based upon shape were defined: Variety A is large with a tall, flaring base and a gently expanded upper end with a slightly constricted rim over which the drum head was fitted (Fig. B: 144). There were eight examples, one of which was nearly complete. Variety B drums are smaller than Variety A. The flaring upper end forms a distinct shoulder where it joins the base (Fig. B: 145a-c). There were three of these, one of which was complete. Variety C, of which there were two, is nearly cylindrical with a bulge near the upper end (Fig. B: 145d). One is complete. Variety D is only open at one end, has a hollow handle, and looks very much like a plumber’s friend (Fig B: 145f,

84

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

g). Its shape suggests that it was a handheld instrument. There were two examples, one of which is complete. Two fragments were not classified due to lack of information. Pottery used for drums included black-slipped, orange-slipped, and red slipped ware, Saxché OrangePolychrome, Juleki Black on Cream, and a red and orange fragment that may be from the Pic Polychrome Group, that is, Imix Ceramic Complex wares that have a white underslip (Table 7.14). The named pottery types were identified by T. Patrick Culbert (personal communication, 1964). The largest complete example was 53.2 cm tall; the smallest complete example was 17.6 cm tall. All are slipped and several are decorated with painted bands, glyph-like motifs, or incising. Over 80 percent of the sample came from Zone 01 (Table 7.15). They were found in all kinds of structure groups (Table 7.16). Fourteen of 17 drums came from general excavations (Table 7.17). A Variety C drum (Fig. B: 145d) came from a burial of Early Late or Late Late Classic date. A restorable Variety A Saxché OrangePolychrome drum (Fig. B: 144a) and the base of a Variety A Juleki Black on Cream drum (Fig. 144b) were found in an Early Late Classic structure cache in Gp. 5D-2 that had been disturbed in later times. Variety D is the earliest, appearing by Late Late Preclassic times (Table 7.18). Both examples were found in chultuns in the peripheries. Variety B may have been in use from the Early Classic into the Terminal Classic periods. Varieties A and C may have been used only during the Early Late and Late Late Classic periods.

Architectural Elements Figure B: 146, 147, Table 7.25-7.30 Total: 31 fragments (Table 7.25). Fragments of very thick, unslipped pottery associated with masonry buildings in the center of the city were classified as façade ornamentation. Although almost all such fragments were found on the Central Acropolis, Gp. 5D11, the best preserved assemblage was a deity mask of from Str. 4H-4 of Intermediate Structure Gp. 4H-1 (Fig. B: 146), which dates to the Late Classic period. Fragments of what appeared to be pottery façade ornamentation occurred in general excavations dating from the Late Late Preclassic into the Terminal Classic, but the main period of use was probably the Late Late Classic and Terminal Classic periods (Table 7.30).

Cordholders Figure B: 148j-m, 149, Table 7.19-7.24 Total: 62, 11 of which were complete (Table 7.19). Others worked from pottery jar necks are presented in Chapter Six. These specially formed pottery cordholders were used in the same manner as those fashioned from pottery jar necks. They were inserted into the interior walls of masonry structures, usually to either side of the doorways, and held wooden or bone tierods. An unknown number found in situ were not brought to the field laboratory for cataloguing. Four varieties were distinguished. Variety D had a funnel-shaped cross section with an incurved basal edge (Fig. B: 148m, 149l-s). There were 18 of these, two of which were complete. Variety E had a flared basal edge (Fig. B: 148l, 149j, k). There were seven of these, one of which was complete. Variety F had a broad basal flange (Fig. B: 148k, 149a-f, i). There were 17, five of which were complete. Variety G had a narrow basal flange (Fig. B: 148j, 149g, h). There were nine, three of which were complete. Eleven fragments could not be classified. Most of the cordholders were plain pottery, but two Variety D cordholders carried bichrome and red and black slip, and a Variety G example had orange slip (Table 7.20). The smallest example had a rim diameter of 5.0 cm, a neck diameter of 4.4 cm, and a height of 4.8 cm. The largest had a rim diameter of 15.5 cm, a neck diameter of 10.4 cm, and a height of 6.6 cm. None were weighed. Thirteen were quite weathered. One was burned. Almost 70 percent of the sample came from Zone 01 (Table 7.21). They were closely associated with range structures in Range and Intermediate Structure Groups (Table 7.22). The only example reported from the Periphery came from a temple, Str. SE-430, in Gp. SE-1 of the Minor Center of Navajuelal, which I was unable to examine All were found in general excavations (Table 7.23). Variety D appeared during the Early Classic (Table 7.24) and Varieties E and G during the Early Late Classic period. Variety F may also be that early. All varieties were used into the Terminal Classic period.

Miscellaneous Pottery Artifacts Figure B: 141f, 148a-i, Table 7.25-7.30 Total: 24, eight complete or nearly so (Table 7.25). A sample of the more complete pieces is illustrated on Fig. B: 141f, 148a-i. All but one are of unslipped pot-

FORMED POTTERY ARTIFACTS

tery (Table 7.26). The exception, a massive fragment, was decorated in Zacatel Cream-Polychrome (Fig. B: 141f ). Two examples were burned (Fig. B: 148b, f ), one had been coated with hard, white stucco (Fig. B: 148i). A nearly complete hollow object was collared, grooved, and perforated and carried traces of specular hematite (Fig. B: 148h). A complete ladle-like object of unslipped pottery came from Gp. 5D-11 and dates to the Terminal Classic period (Fig. B: 148a). Most of the sample came from Zone 01 (Table 7.27), from Range Structure Gp. 5D-11 (Table

85

7.28), and from general excavations (Table 7.29). A flattened lump of pottery (Fig. B: 148e) was found in a problematical deposit that had been deposited during the Early Classic, but disturbed in later times. A fragment of thick, heavy modeled pottery (Fig. B: 148b) had been included in a problematical deposit of Early Classic and Early Late Classic date. These miscellaneous objects may be as early as the Early Middle Preclassic period. The latest are Terminal Classic, and perhaps later (Table 7.30).

8

Artifacts of Mud, Plaster, and Unfired Clay General Considerations Summary Number

Type/Object

21 Small plaster spheres 2 Plaster smoothing tools 94* Plaster and gesso fragments 5 Mud jar seals * incomplete count

Figure

Page

B: 150c, d B: 150a B: 150b, 151c B: 150h

86 86 87 87

Maskettes, a crude figurine, modeled fragments, and deity heads of unfired clay are reported in TR. 27A.

F

or the most part, the Tikal sample consisted of small fragments of enigmatic function and use. Hard, white, burned lime plaster was used during the Early Late Preclassic period in the earliest-identified public architecture in Gp. 5D-2. The technique of covering artifacts of pottery or perishable materials with a thin layer of stucco, or more properly, gesso, is at least as early as the Late Late Preclassic. Objects of lime plaster or gesso-coated artifacts may no longer have been made after the end of the Late Classic period.

Descriptions Small Plaster Spheres Figure B: 150c, d, Table 8.1-8.5 Total: 21, 17 complete (Table 8.1). These are small spheres of modeled plaster. Twenty, painted light red,

were recovered from the construction fill of range structure 7F-32 of Intermediate Structure Group 7F-1 in Zone 04. They bore marks of once having been attached to something else, which suggests use as architectural ornaments (Fig. B: 150c). They were found with Early Classic and Early Late Classic period sherds. A similar, unpainted object (Fig. B: 150d) with a central depression was found in the construction fill of Str. 5D-33-1st of Civic-Ceremonial Group 5D-2 with Preclassic and Classic period sherds.

Plaster Smoothing Tools Figure B: 150a, Table 8.1-8.5 Total: two complete objects, each with one smooth, transversely striated surface, may have been smoothing tools. One is elongate and 18 cm long (Fig. B: 150a), the other is round in plan with a greatest diameter of 10.2 cm. Neither were weighed. Both were made of hard, white material that is lighter in weight than

ARTIFACTS OF MUD, PLASTER, AND UNFIRED CLAY

dolomite and is probably plaster. Both were found in Gp. 5D-2. One is of Late Late Preclassic date, the other is Early Classic or earlier. They are included in the counts for miscellaneous plaster artifacts in Appenidix G.

Plaster and Gesso Fragments Figure B: 150b, 151c, Table 8.1-8.5 Total: approximately 94, in addition to dozens of fragments that were not processed by the field laboratory. Some of these recorded pieces were fragments of modeled architectural façades from construction fill, which are as early as the Early Late Preclassic period in Gp. 5D-2. A few had been painted red and reddish orange. Many unrecorded architectural façade fragments from Gp. 5D-2 are illustrated throughout TR. 14. A couple of plaster fragments were of coatings applied to the exteriors of pottery vessels (Fig. B: 150b). One white lump was grooved on one face (Fig. B: 151c). Several others were found in special deposits of the Early Classic period. One was the backing of a neatly shaped sherd oblong decorated with a glyph-like design in black paint from Structure Ca. 43 (Fig. A: 218ee). A fragment of gray plaster with a recurved surface that perhaps once coated an object of perishable material was found in an Early Classic monument

87

cache. An Early Late Classic problematical burial included a crude, slender cylinder modeled of hard white plaster, 8.2 cm long, which was missing both ends. In addition, special deposits also included fragments of thin plaster, more properly referred to as gesso, which had been applied to vessels of ground stone (Fig. A: 139), wood or gourd (Fig. A: 224-228), or pottery (e.g., TR. 25A: Fig. 15-19), and to artifacts of shell and now-perished materials, perhaps even codices. The surface of the white gesso was usually painted, frequently in dark pink or bluish green with fine black details.

Mud Jar Seals Figure B: 150h, Table 8.1-8.5 Total: five, complete. A unique find in a Late Late Preclassic chamber burial was a set of five small pottery jars (TR. 25A: Fig. 11a1-5), each sealed with a plug made of a mix of mud, clay, flecks of charcoal, and small stones (Fig. B: 150h). Two of these had been built around a large stone core, and two others had traces of red paint on their upper surfaces. The jars themselves were empty when discovered, but two seals had criss-crossing, twig-like impressions on their undersides.

9

Textiles and Textile Impressions General Considerations Summary

M

Number

Type

Figure

135

Woven cloth

27 2 13 1 52 6

Barkcloth Baskets String Rope Mats Palm leaf strips

A: 140, 221e, f, B: 120b1, 152d, 153e3, 154c-f, 155, 156a-c, 157, 158, 14: 176 B: 151a, 153a-d B: 152b, c B: 152a B: 152d B: 146b, 153e1, 154a-c, 14: 176

ineralized residues of woven cloth and impressions of now-vanished woven cloth, mats, baskets, barkcloth, rope, and string are included in this category. The impressions were found on pottery, unfired clay, sediments from special deposits, mud, and plaster. It was possible to make latex molds of several of them. Detailed descriptions by Dorothy Cavalier Yanik of representative examples of woven cloth are presented in Appendix I, below. Plants that produce fibers suitable for string and rope, baskets and mats, such as thatch palms, grass, reeds, philodendrons, maize, and maguey grow wild or can be cultivated in the Petén. Barkcloth and paper can be made from the inner bark of the strangler fig, common at Tikal today. We have no secure identifications of the kinds of fibers used for woven cloth, although the smallest stone and pottery spindle whorls hint at the production of cotton yarn. The production of spun yarn and woven cloth was a major activity in Mesoamerican households at the

Page

89 90 90 91 91 91 91

time of the Conquest. It was probably an important activity at Tikal, as well. The associations of ground stone and formed pottery spindle whorls with Range Structure and Small Structure Groups indicates that yarn production took place in those types of residential groups during the Classic period. Perhaps most households produced cloth and matting for their own needs, as well as some for the market. On the other hand, the elaborate costumes depicted on pottery, ornaments, and monuments suggest that specialists may have designed and constructed the clothing and headdresses of the elite during the Early and Late Classic periods. Impressions on the walls of the grave of an Early Late Preclassic burial demonstrate the use, and possibly the production, of woven cloth at Tikal several centuries before the earliest durable spindle whorls. It is likely that at all times most spindle whorls, spindles, and weaving tools were of wood and other plant materials and have not survived. But textile impressions,

TEXTILES AND TEXTILE IMPRESSIONS

mineralized residues, depictions, and durable artifacts like stone barkbeaters and barkmallets, bone awls, and bone needles attest to the importance of various kinds of textiles throughout most of Tikal’s span of permanent occupation.

Descriptions Woven Cloth Figure A: 140, 221e, f, B: 120b1, 152d, 153e3, 154cf, 155, 156a-c, 157, 158, 14:176, Table 9.1-9.6 Total: over 135 fragmentary examples, comprising 53 samples and over 82 impressions (Table 9.1). Cloth samples occurred as small mineralized fragments and residues clinging to vessels of stone (Fig. A: 140) and pottery (Fig. B: 155a), mosaic assemblages, plaster, unidentified fibrous marine material, waterworn quartz pebbles (Fig. B: 120b1), jade beads, and Spondylus shells with the original form largely preserved (OFLPs) (Table 9.2). Most of the cloth impressions were on the backs of flat pottery censer flanges (Fig. B: 153e3). Sixteen were on lime plaster, several on globs that had fallen during the finishing of chamber burials (Fig. B: 154c-f ). Other impressions of woven cloth were found on mud mortar and plaster, pottery vessels and sherds, artifacts of unfired clay, lime gesso, and the fragments of what may have been a large pottery figurine. At least seven varieties of weave are present. These include a single yarn over-one-under-one plainweave (Fig. B: 153e3), a multiple warp gauze or weft-wrap openwork (Fig. B: 154d, e), an under-one-over-two twill, a plainweave with a double weft (Fig. B: 155f ), an under-one-over-two diamond-twill weave (Fig. B: 156a), a knotted netting insert in a large piece of woven cloth (Fig. B: 157, 158, TR. 14: Fig. 176), and a plainweave with paired warps and wefts. A possible eighth variety is attested by an impression on a censer fragment, which I was unable to examine. It is described as a patterned plainweave with some single and some paired wefts. After the beginning of the Late Late Classic period virtually all of the numerous two-dimensional and three-dimensional representations of human beings known from Tikal are clothed, most of them apparently in woven cloth. Such representations include pottery figurines (Coe 1967: 61), pottery vessels (TR. 25A: 6875,84-85), carved lintels (especially TR. 33A: Fig. 71 and 74), stone monuments (TR. 33A: Fig. 14, 23, 29), and pottery censers (Coe 1967: 18). Representations on

89

Classic period pottery vessels show important personages holding pieces of cloth in their hands (TR. 25A: Fig. 16a1, 19a) suggesting cloth itself could have a social or ritual function. Residues and impressions demonstrate several other uses for woven cloth. It was an aid, somewhat like a pastry cloth, in the production of artifacts of unfired clay (Fig. A: 221e, f ) and pottery (Fig. B: 153e3, 155b). Although the marks left in the clay were usually carefully obliterated, fortunately not all of them were. Woven mats and large leaves were also used for this purpose. Cloth had several uses in burials (Carlsen 1986). The deceased person and accompanying offerings were sometimes laid out on cloth and mats placed on the floor of a chamber burial. Cloth was used as shrouds and to bundle burials (Fig. B: 155c). Mineralized residues show that it was used to wrap bowls of stone (Fig. A: 140) and pottery (Fig. B: 155a), whose contents had invariably vanished by the time they were excavated, and to secure the lids of cylindrical cache vessels. Drop cloths were used to protect the contents of chamber burials from falling plaster during the finishing of the interior surfaces (Fig. B: 154c). Cloth rags, as well as worn out mats, were incorporated into masonry construction (Fig. B: 156a). No fibers were identified by experts. The sample varies considerably with regard to the thickness of yarn used and the number of warp and weft threads per linear unit, which suggests different kinds of raw materials. For example, loosely woven material resembling cheesecloth (Fig. B: 153e3, 155a, c) looks very much like contemporary Mexican carrying-cloths woven of two-strand maguey yarn (Parsons and Parsons 1990: Plate 122, upper right). Maguey grows in the Petén and was cultivated there for its fiber (Norbert Tesucum, personal communication 1974). On the other hand, some impressions of sturdy, tightly woven cloth (Fig. B: 155e, f ) look like the handwoven cotton textiles made by contemporary Highland Guatemalan Maya. Space between yarns in the samples of woven cloth and impressions where counts were possible ranged from none visible to as much as 1.5 mm. Thread counts ranged from as few as five per cm of weft or warp by four per cm to as many as 38 per cm of weft or warp by 16 per cm, which is comparable to machine spun and woven cotton percale. Yarn diameter ranged between 0.25 mm and 1.0 mm. However, the diameter of an individual yarn could show considerable variation depending upon the skill of the spinner, which, in turn, suggests at least some production by non-specialists. Residues and impressions of the finest weaves came from chamber burials, while impressions of coarser weaves were found on censer flanges.

90

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

Nearly 83 percent of the sample came from Zone 01 (Table 8.3), most from Civic-Ceremonial Group 5D-2 (Table 9.4). More than half of the sample of woven cloth and impressions was recovered from burials (Table 9.5), mostly chamber burials, dating from the Early Late Preclassic into the Late Late Classic period. Evidence of woven cloth was also found in five structure caches, four of Early Classic and one of Early Late Classic date, and in eight problematical deposits of the Early Classic into the Early Postclassic periods. General excavations produced almost one-quarter of the sample. Woven cloth was in use at Tikal from at least the Early Late Preclassic period into the Early Postclassic period. Although we do not know from which fibers it was made, nor precisely where it was produced, it is interesting to note that woven cloth is a good deal earlier than either spindle whorls formed of pottery, which do not appear to be earlier than the Early Classic period or whorls of ground stone, which are not earlier than the Early Late Classic period. This chronological gap suggests that whorls were ordinarily made of perishable materials such as wood.

Barkcloth Figure 151a, 153a-d, Table 9.1-9.6 Total: over 27 samples, including two mineralized fragments, 14 impressions on lime plaster fragments, and one on gesso (Table 9.1, 9.2). All impressions are of a highly flexible material without any obvious structure, which indicates barkcloth, rather than woven material, leaves, or paper with sizing. The archaeological evidence indicates barkcloth was used as a wrapping for now-perished materials deposited in burials (Fig. B: 151a) and structure caches (Fig. B: 153a-d). Besides this important ritual function, it may also have been used for clothing. It has been described as a serviceable fabric as long as it is kept dry (Aragon 1990). According to ethnographic evidence, barkcloth may have been made from the inner bark of the strangler fig, Ficus sp., which is common at the site today. The ground stone barkbeaters described in Chapter Four could have been used to produce it. Most examples came from Zone 01 (Table 9.3), from Civic-Ceremonial, Range, and Intermediate Structure Groups (Table 9.4). The sample was recovered exclusively from special deposits, including ten structure caches from the Early through Late Late Classic periods, a Late Late Preclassic and two Early Classic chamber burials, and a

Terminal Classic burial (Table 9.5). The larger fragments from the structure caches appear to be the impressions of bundles of now-vanished materials that had been wrapped in barkcloth and deposited in pits, which had then been sealed with plaster upon which impressions were preserved. At least one of these bundles had been closed by neatly braiding the edges of the wrapping (Fig. B: 153c). One mineralized fragment each occurred in the Early Classic chamber burials, Bu. 48 and 160. An impression on gesso was found in Bu. 160. Approximately ten grooved lumps of unidentified gray material were found in a pottery bowl in an Early Classic crypt burial (Fig. B: 151a). They suggest packages of copal wrapped in barkcloth and tied with string. The gray material resembles that of the four cylinders with twig wicks found in Late Late Preclassic Bu. 85 (Fig. A: 223a1-4) and described in TR. 27A, although the substance found in these burials was not identified. Impressions of probable barkcloth recovered from chamber and crypt burials date from the Late Late Preclassic into the Terminal Classic periods. (Table 9.6). The earliest date coincides with the earliest appearance of Variety V ground stone barkmallets, described above. The probable barkcloth impressions from structure caches date from the Early Classic into the Late Late Classic period.

Baskets Figure B: 152b,c, Table 9.1-9.6 Total: two impressions, including a nearly complete basket (Table 9.1). The nearly complete impression (Fig. B: 152c) was made by George Guillemin from the sediments in the Early Late Classic chamber burial beneath Str. 5D-32 in Gp. 5D-2. This small, shallow, wickerwork basket once contained beans (Fig. B: 150g). It had a basal diameter of about 15.5 cm and a height of about 5.5 cm. The base had been formed of several crossed flat splints, woven together by a spiraling, round-sectioned, thinner element, quite probably a peeled philodendron air root. The splints had been bent upwards to form the walls of the basket, which were woven together with flat-sectioned strands in a twilled pattern. The rim of the basket was formed by interweaving long strands of what appear to be philodendron air root through the woven sides and over the cut-off ends of the wall splints. The rim elements were secured at regular intervals by loops that passed through the walls. This type of basket may have a long history of use in the Maya area. Not only is it similar to baskets in use today in Highland Guatemala, but

TEXTILES AND TEXTILE IMPRESSIONS

also resembles the silica cast of a Late Preclassic example excavated at Kaminaljuyú (Hayden 1987b: 181, Fig. 5.14). The impression of what may be a very finely woven basket was observed on the exterior of an unslipped charred potsherd (Fig. B: 152b) found in general excavations in Range Structure Gp. 5D-11 in Zone 01 and dating to Early Late Classic or earlier times.

String Figure B: 152a, Tables 9.1-9.6 Total: 13 impressions of two-ply string. Thirteen came from Gp. 5D-2 in the Epicenter. Eleven impressions were observed on the flat tops and bases of lidded cylindrical pottery cache vessels (TR. 25A: Fig. 21b, eg, i) from an Early Classic chamber burial (Fig. B: 152a1, 2) and one was on a fragment of plaster found in the construction fill of Str. 5D-33-1st. String impressions were not found in contexts that indicated a specific use.

Rope Figure B: 152d, Table 9.1-9.6 Total: one impression on a large piece of plaster, 14.2 cm in length, associated with one wall of Early Classic chamber burial, Bu. 10. This impression was of coarse, plainweave cloth and a thick, three-ply rope (Fig. B: 152d). The width of the rope strands varied between 1.3 and 1.4 cm with a total rope width of about 2.5 cm. Rope must have been essential in many aspects of construction work. An additional use is attested by representations, especially on stone monuments, of bound captives, e.g., on St. 5, Alt. 8, Alt. 10, and Col. Alt. 1, 2, and 3 (TR. 33A). On the altars, the rope may be extended to form a decorative border.

Mats and Palm Leaf Strips Figure B: 146b, 153e1, 154a-c, 14:176, Table 9.1-9.6 Total: over 52 impressions of woven, twilled mats and of at least six narrow strips of palm leaf that are probable mat elements (Table 9.1). Impressions of mats occurred on a variety of materials and artifacts (Table

91

9.2). Most mat impressions were of under-two-overtwo twill (Fig. B: 154a-c), but a few of under-oneover-three were also recorded. Among the sample were two impressions of finished edges. The best-preserved example (Fig. B: 156c) showed that the edge had been finished by folding back the strands, weaving them back through the border, and then cutting off the excess. This is the same technique observed on the mats purchased in Guatemala City for use at Tikal in the 1960s. Mats are ubiquitous household items in tropical America and have many uses, for example, as screens, shutters, doors, roofing, carpets, groundcloths, and beds. The impressions from archaeological context evidence additional uses. They were used as drop cloths in chamber burials. They served as aids in the manufacture of flat elements for censers (Fig. B: 153e1) and other ceramic artifacts. The large pottery architectural mask from Str. 4H-4 in Gp. 4H-1, described in Chapter Seven, has a mat impression on its reverse (Fig. B: 146b). From impressions on mortar and plaster we know that mats were used in construction work. In two of Tikal’s Great Temples, Str. 5D-2 and Str. 5D3, mats had been wrapped around the ends of wooden beams. Together with cloth, mats had been laid between building stones in Str. 5D-33 and Str. 5D-34. Impressions were clear enough to determine that some of the mats and cloths used in such contexts were in poor condition and perhaps no longer serviceable in domestic contexts. The recovery contexts of mat remains at Tikal suggest utilitarian functions. Comparison of impressions with modern mats indicates that most had been made of split thatch palm leaf. However, other impressions suggest mats were also woven of grass, reeds, or cornhusks. Strand widths ranged between 0.2 and 1.1 cm with most examples between 0.3 and 0.4 cm. Most mat impressions were recovered from the monumental architecture in Zone 01 (Table 9.3), a little more than half of them from Civic-Ceremonial Gp. 5D-2 (Table 9.4). Approximately 57 percent of the sample came from general excavations, the rest from four chamber burials and five cache-like problematical deposits (Table 9.5). Mat impressions in chamber burials date from the Late Late Preclassic into the Late Late Classic periods and in problematical deposits from the Early Late Classic into the Early Postclassic periods (Table 9.6).

10

Wooden Artifacts and Artifact Impressions General Considerations Summary Number

Type

75* Architectural elements 1 Atlatl 6 Poles 130 Miscellaneous wood artifacts * incomplete count

Figure

Page 92 92 93 93

B: 159, 160 B: 156d-f, i

Remnants and impressions of wooden maskettes, bowls, jar stoppers, sculptured boards, benches, yokes, litters, minor sculptures, and miscellaneous gesso-covered artifacts are described and illustrated in TR. 27A.

T

o judge from the material cultural inventories of contemporary societies, wood must have figured prominently in domestic and ritual activities at Tikal, although little artifactual evidence has survived. It was an abundant local resource and both expedient and specialist-produced artifacts were made of it. Many of the chert and obsidian artifact types described in Chapters Two and Three were used to procure and process wood. Representations, impressions, and actual traces demonstrate that wood was used for furniture in domestic and mortuary settings, the construction of public and domestic structures, and for numerous kinds of portable material culture items, such as the bowls and sculptures described in TR. 27A. Looms and other tools used in textile production were made primarily of wood. The use of hafts and handles for chipped and ground stone artifacts is well-established not only by representations, but also by such indirect evidence as haft polish, traces of adhesive, and differential patination.

Descriptions Architectural Elements Table 10.1-10.5 Total: approximately 75 fragments. During the investigation and consolidation of masonry structures in Zone 01, some fragments of wooden architectural elements, such as lintels and tie-beams, were bought into the field laboratory for cataloguing and storage. They date from the Early Late into the Terminal Classic periods. The Late Late Classic carved wooden lintels of Tikal are described and illustrated in TR. 6 and TR. 33A.

Atlatl Figure B: 159, 160, Table 10.1-10.5 Total: one, incomplete (Table 10.1). A Terminal Classic period midden in a room of Str. 5D-51 of Gp. 5D-11

WOODEN ARTIFACTS AND ARTIFACT IMPRESSIONS

in the Epicenter included the proximal end of a wooden atlatl. Two finger-grips of bone (Fig. B: 123a) were found with it. The fragment was 20.2 cm long and between 1.6 and 1.8 cm wide and was in a very poor state of preservation. A detailed description of the recovery context of this extraordinary find is presented by its excavator, Peter D. Harrison, in Appendix J.

Poles Table 10.1-10.5 Total: five impressions of poles and an actual remnant were recorded from general excavations and date from the Early Classic into the Terminal Classic periods. They probably represent elements of architecture, or possibly household furniture. One impression was on clay that had subsequently been burned. However, the informative burnt briquette materials that were relatively abundant at Barton Ramie (Willey et al. 1965: 511-520) and other Maya Lowland sites were virtually absent at Tikal. As Willey has suggested (Willey et al. 1965: 512), there may have been important differences in the kinds of materials used for domestic architecture between riverine sites like Barton Ramie and nonriverine sites like Tikal.

93

The maximum diameter of the largest of three parallel pole impressions on mud mortar from Str. 5D50 of Gp. 5D-11 in Zone 01 was about 2.5 cm. The bark had been left on at least one of the poles and they were associated with impressions of grass and leaves suggesting a roof rather than a wall. The impression in plaster of the end of another pole showed that it had been wrapped in finely woven plainweave cloth.

Miscellaneous Wooden Artifacts Figure B: 156d-f, i, Table 10.1-10.5 Total: approximately 130 small, unclassifiable fragments of wood were recovered from various contexts. They are assumed to have been worked or used in some manner. Most came from general excavations in Epicentral Gp. 5D-2. Several are charred (Fig. B: 156d, e, i). They date from the Late Preclassic into the Late Classic or Terminal Classic periods. One wood fragment probably dates to the nineteenth century (Fig. B: 156f). Almost 84 percent of the total sample, or 109 fragments, came from a log found in Early Late or Late Late Classic period occupation debris in Str. 5D-33. It is possible that this log was unworked, or was used in construction.

11

Plant Remains and Impressions and Other Non-Artifactual Materials General Considerations Summary Number

Object

Figure

Page

395 34

Plants and plant impressions Unidentified materials possibly of plant origin Unidentified materials possibly of animal origin Unidentified replacement products Other unidentified material Radiocarbon samples Soil samples

B: 150g, 153e2

94

B: 150e

95

B: 156g, h B: 150f, 151a

95 96 96

18 4 8 338 76

A

lthough we did not do any flotation or routinely screen general excavations, a number of plant remains were recovered from cultural contexts. Many were identified by experts as domesticated and wild edible plants. A few samples of unworked material brought into the field laboratory were tentatively identified as of either plant or animal origin. No guesses were ventured about eight other samples. An effort was made to collect samples for radiocarbon dating. The number given above is taken from the lot cards filled out at the time of excavation. A number of these have been processed and reported. Soil samples were frequently taken from special deposits and other promising contexts and these still await analysis.

Descriptions Plants and Plant Impressions Figure B: 150g, 153e2, Table 11.1-11.4 Total: over 395 unworked plant remains were recorded in 111 occurrences. Of these, approximately 375 in 94 occurrences were actual remains and 20 in 17 occurrences were impressions on pottery (Fig. B: 153e2), mortar, clay, stucco, and sediments (Fig. B: 150g). These samples were recovered without flotation or systematic screening of general excavations, which gives an indication how rich in such material the cultural deposits were. Most of the sample consisted of gathered or grown food. We can further assume that

PLANT REMAINS AND IMPRESSIONS AND OTHER NON-ARTIFACTUAL MATERIALS

plants could have been used for medicinal, decorative, and ceremonial purposes. Twelve orders, 15 families, and 16 genera were identified (Chart 11.1). Exotic cultivars were Acronomia sp. (cocoyol palm), Cucurbita moschata and C. pepo (squash and pumpkin), Enterolobrium cyclocarpum (spurge), Jatropha sp. or Cnidosculus sp. (of the Euphoriaceae family), Phaseolus cf. lunatus and P. cf. vulgaris (beans), Spondias cf. mombin (jobo), and Zea mays (maize). Indigenous cultivars were Bromismum alicastrum (ramon, breadnut), Byrsonoma crassifolia (nanche), Manilkara achras (chico zapote), and Persea americana (avocado). Ceiba pentandra (ceiba, silk-cotton tree), Celtis iguanea (hackberry), Clavariaceae fungus, Cucubita lundelliana (wild squash), Ficus sp. (fig), Theobroma cf. bicolor (wild cacao), and Thevetia sp. (dogbane family) grew wild in the area. One corncob could be identified as probably of the Nal-Tel Tierra Baja variety (Paul Mangelsdorf, personal communication 1961). This corncob came from PD. 87, a buriallike problematical deposit in Gp. 5D-2 that dates to the Terminal Preclassic-Early Classic transition. Unfortunately other maize samples were not preserved well enough to determine their variety or race. Approximately half of the sample had been burned, which contributed to its preservation and recovery. Plant remains were concentrated in two structure groups in Zone 01 (Table 11.2), Civic-Ceremonial Gp. 5D-2 and Range Structure Gp. 5D-11 (Table 11.3). Most of the sample from Gp. 5D-2 came from special deposits of the Late Preclassic through Late Late Classic periods, although a sizable collection was recovered from construction fill. The plant sample from Gp. 5D11 was recovered from the well-preserved middens that formed in the rooms of its range structures during the Terminal Classic period (Table 11.4). Eleven burials included plant remains and impressions of plants. Stick-like impressions on mud jar plugs (Fig. B: 150h) and hackberry seeds were found in a Late Late Preclassic chamber burial, hackberry seeds, beans, cucurbit seeds, unidentified seeds, and thatch palm and leaf impressions in four Early Classic chamber burials, maize, beans (Fig. B: 150g), and unidentified seeds in five Early Late Classic burials, including two chamber burials and a crypt burial, and an unidentified seed occurred in an Early Late or Late Late Classic burial. In contrast to the rest of the seeds, the hackberries looked unusually well-preserved and may have been brought into the graves by rodents rather than humans. Plant remains were found in ten structure caches. Unidentified fibers, beans, cucurbit seeds, maize, possible composite fruits, and unidentified leaf impressions

95

from three Early Classic caches, cucurbit seeds and leaf impressions from two Early Late Classic caches, and Jatropha sp. or Cnidosculus sp. seeds from four early Late Late Classic caches. Cornhusk impressions were noted on the bases of four modeled balls of copal that had been painted blue and supplied with twig wicks (Fig. A: 246a), which comprised the contents of an Early Postclassic period cache found in Str. 5D-1 (TR. 7: Fig. 40b, c). Four burial-like problematical deposits included maize, cucurbits, and unidentified seeds, one of these dated to the Terminal Preclassic-Early Classic transition, while three were Early Classic. Plant remains were also found in three cache-like problematical deposits. Two Early Late Classic deposits yielded, respectively, impressions of grass or straw and a possible plant pod. A problematical deposit thought to date to the Early Postclassic period contained several ramon nuts and Clavariaceae fungus spores. Plant remains and impressions of plants were found in contexts dating from the Late Preclassic into the Early Postclassic periods. The largest number of identifications (25) were of maize, which was recorded from general excavations and special deposits dating from the Late Preclassic into the Early Postclassic periods.

Unidentified Materials Possibly of Plant Origin Figure B: 150e, Table 11.5-11.9 Total: about 34 unworked, unidentifiable samples found in 23 occurrences were tentatively classified as being of plant origin. Most came from chamber burials, structure caches, and cache-like problematical deposits from Gp. 5D-2 in Zone 01 and date from the Late Preclassic into the Early Late Classic. Several chunks of marly sediment from Early Classic Bu. 94 in Gp. 4H-1 include possible molds of seeds (Fig. B: 150e).

Unidentified Materials Possibly of Animal Origin Figure B: 156g, h, Table 11.5-11.9 Total: 18 unidentifiable samples of material were tentative classified as of animal origin. There were three occurrences of dark, fluffy material (Fig. B: 156h) directly associated with human skeletons in three Gp. 5D-2 chamber burials that date to the Late Late Preclassic, Terminal Preclassic, and Late Late Classic periods. The consistency of the material and its recovery contexts suggests the remains of animal pelts used to wrap the deceased.

96

PLANT REMAINS AND IMPRESSIONS AND OTHER NON-ARTIFACTUAL MATERIALS

A thorny oyster valve placed over the head of the subject of Early Late Classic Bu. 24 had traces on it of a substance that did look like hair, but which was not submitted to an expert for identification. A problematical deposit of Early Late Classic date contained two fragments of material that might be eroded bone. Scraps of pale green flexible material that looked relatively recent occurred in two Classic period problematical deposits. They may be insect castings. The rest of the sample includes a possible land snail operculum fragment (Fig. B: 156g), as well as several samples I was unable to examine that had been catalogued as insect parts, coprolites, and a fish scale (Table 11.5). Nearly all of this collection was recovered from Zone 01. Ten of 18 samples came from chamber burials in Gp. 5D-2. They date from the Late Late Preclassic until after the abandonment of the city.

Unidentified Replacement Products Figure B: 150f, 151a, Table 11.5-11.9 Total: four occurrences of unidentified material, which appear to have replaced perishable substances. One batch of fragments of granular, grayish material from an Early Classic structure cache is from an object with a definite, regular ridge (Fig. B: 150f ). The other occurrences are of marly material with narrow indentations from an Early Classic crypt burial, suggesting small parcels wrapped in barkcloth or paper and tied with string, vines, or air roots (Fig. B: 151a).

Other Unidentified Material Table 11.5-11.9 Total: eight small lumps and fragments of unidentified, unworked material were recovered from general excavations.

PLANT REMAINS AND IMPRESSIONS AND OTHER NON-ARTIFACTUAL MATERIALS

97

Chart 11.1 Summary List of Occurrences of Identified Plant Species (after C. L. Lundell and C. Earle Smith, Jr. [personal communications 1960-1968]; Encyclopaedia Britannica 1966; Lawrence 1971, Lundell 1937, and Talbot 1971). The numbers refer to the artifact database codes, see Appendix B. ‡ native to the Central Petén savanna in the 1930s, possibly cultivated. + cultivated. Unmarked species are either wild or of unknown status. [ ] number of individual identifications only. BPD burial-like problematical deposit, CPD cache-like problematical deposit, DPD problematical deposit of domestic artifacts, UPD unclassified problematical deposit.

Material Categories 61 Plants, 62 Plant Impressions Class: FUNGI

Order: URTICALES (nettles) Family: ULMACEAE N10 Celtis iguanea (hackberry) [5] Seeds. General excavations, chamber burial. Late Late Preclassic into Terminal Classic.

Order: APHYLLOPHORALES Family: N11 CLAVARIACEAE [1] Spores. CPD. Early Postclassic.

Family: MORCACEAE N06 Bromismum alicastrum (ramon)‡ [2] Seeds. General excavations. Early Postclassic and earlier.

Class: ANGIOSPERMAE (flowering plants)

N30 Ficus sp. (wild fig) [1] Seeds and fruit. General excavations. Classic.

Group: MONOCOTYLEDONS Order: GLUMIFLORAE or GRAMINALES (grasses and sedges) Family: GRAMINAE (grasses) N76-N81 Zea mays (maize)+ [23] Cobs, kernels. General excavations, temple structure caches, BPDs, chamber burials. Late Late Preclassic into Terminal Classic. N15, N16 Zea mays (maize)+ [2] Impressions of cornhusks. Temple structure caches. Late Late Classic, Early Postclassic. Order: PRINCIPES or PALMALES (palms) Family: PALMAE N03, N04 Acronomia sp. (cocoyol)‡ [2] Kernels, husks. General excavations. Terminal Classic. Group: DICOTYLEDONS Order: RANALES (buttercups) Family: LAURACEAE N47 Persea americana (avocado)‡ [2] Cotyledons. General excavations. Early Late Classic into Terminal Classic.

Order: ROSALES (roses) Family: LEGUMINOSEAE (legumes) N24, N25 Enterolobrium cyclocarpum (spurge)‡ [3] Seeds. General excavations. Terminal Classic. N50 Phaseolus cf. lunatus (bean)+ [1] Seed. Temple structure cache. Early Classic. N51 Phaseolus sp. (beans)+ [2] Seeds. General excavations, chamber burial. Early Classic, Terminal Classic. N51 Phaseolus sp. (beans)+ [1] Impressions of seeds from a woven basket impression. Chamber burial. Early Late Classic. N52 Phaseolus cf. vulgaris (bean)+ [1] Seed. General excavations. Terminal Classic. Order: GERANIALES (geraniums) Family: EUPHORBIACEAE N26 Jatropha sp. or Cnidosculus sp. (spurges) [1] Seeds. Temple structure cache. Late Late Classic. Family: MALAPIGHIACEAE N07 Byrsonoma crassifolia (nanche)‡ [1] Seed. General excavations. Terminal Classic.

98

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

Order: SAPINDALES (soapweed) Family: ANACARDIACEAE N64 Spondias cf. mombin (jobo)+ [5] Seeds. General excavations. Early Classic, Terminal Classic.

Order: GENTIANALES or CONTORTAE (gentians) Family: APOCYNACEAE (dogbane) N70 Thevetia sp. (a shrub) [1] Seed. General excavations. Terminal Classic.

Order: MALVALES (mallows) Family: BOMBACACEAE N63 Ceiba pentandra (silk-cotton tree) [1] Spine. General excavations. Terminal Classic.

Order: CUCURBITALES (cucurbits) Family: CUCURBITACEAE N20 Cucurbita moschata+ [1] Seeds. Temple structure cache. Early Late Classic.

Family: STERCULIACEAE N69 Theobroma cf. bicolor (cacao, probably wild) [1] Seeds. Temple structure cache. Early Classic.

N21 Curcubita lundelliana (wild squash) or C. moschata+ [1] Seed. Structure cache. Late Late Classic.

Order: EBERALES (ebony) Family: SAPOTACEAE N44 Manilkara achras (chicozapote) [1] Seeds. General excavations. Terminal Classic.

N22 Cucurbita pepo+ [2] Seeds. Temple structure cache, chamber burial. Early Classic.

N44? Manilkara achras? (chicozapote) [1] Seed. General excavations. Early Classic.

N17 Cucurbita sp.+ [4] Seeds. Temple structure cache, BPD. Early Classic, Late Late Classic.

Appendices A–G

S

even appendices present the databases used to write TR. 27B. These data are found on the accompanying CD-ROM which has seven folders, one for each of the appendices. Appendix A—a text document—presents the structure of the combined artifact and provenience databases, which comprises 17 variables. The artifact database includes type and variety, catalogue number, number of items included, material category, material or species, condition, comment or modification, and figure reference. The provenience database includes recovery context, date, structure group type, structure group number, structure type, structure number, and half-kilometer zone. Lot number and special deposit number are common to both databases. Appendix B—a text document—provides the codes used for the artifact and provenience database variables. Appendix C—a database—gives the proveniences of all defined lots that produced material other than potsherds. Appendix D—a database—gives the proveniences of all lots defined as special deposits, that is, all burials, caches, and problematical deposits. Appendix E—a database—lists the excavated structure groups and number of excavated lots by halfkilometer zone. Appendix F—containing seven databases—lists all the artifacts and materials reported in TR. 27B. Note that all seven databases are contained within the single Microsoft Access file. Appendix G—the 217 tables generated from Appendix F—summarize condition, material, zone, structure group type, recovery context, and date for each artifact or object type. These tables should be regarded as a sample of the informative associations that the reader can make. All text documents are provided as both MSWord documents and text only files. The text only files are simple ASCII texts and therefore, should be readable with any word-processing package on any computer, although some formatting may be lost.

All databases are provided in their original Fox Pro format, as Microsoft Access databases, and as simple text files (i.e. ASCII text with tabs separating the fields of data). Users should be able to import one of the forms into most major spreadsheet, database, or statistical analysis software packages. Please follow your software package’s instructions to import the data. Note that these data are designed to be imported into spreadsheets or databases; if you attempt to read these files with a word-processing package you will see the data set off by tabs, but may lose the column formatting. All tables are provided in their original Excel Spreadsheet format, and also as individual MSWord documents and PDF images. PDF images can be viewed with the free shareware Adobe Acrobat Reader. How to use the CD-ROM for Microsoft users (Mac users, see the ReadMe file on the CD): 1. Windows should be open. 2. Insert the CD into the CD drive. 3. Double click on “My Computer” and select the CD drive, or select the CD drive in the Windows Explorer program. 4. Double click on the drive (the CD is labeled TR27B). 5. Seven folders and one ReadMe file (which duplicates the information presented here) are shown. 6. Double click on the Appendix Folder of interest. 7. Double click on the specific Appendix file. This should launch either Notepad (or Wordpad if the file is large), MSWord, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Access, or Adobe Acrobat Reader, depending on the type of file selected. 8. Alternatively, open the file within, or import it into the appropriate software package. Owners of older software may have to rename the file. To import the text files for the Appendix C-F databases into a database program, set it up according to the structure given in Appendix A. To import into spreadsheets, format all fields, except “Number Included”, as text. Published studies using these copyrighted data may reference it as: Moholy-Nagy, Hattula. 2003. Appendix "N". In Tikal Report 27, Part B: The Artifacts of Tikal: Utilitarian Artifacts and Unworked Material. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology: Philadelphia.

Appendix H Report on the Tektites Found at Tikal Alan R. Hildebrand [revised 6 June 1994]

T

ektites are natural glasses quenched from superheated melts, produced and ejected at relatively large velocities, by impacts on the surface of the earth. Some of their most obvious petrologic characteristics (e.g., reduction, volatile depletion, and lack of crystallites) are a consequence of this superheating. To date, tektites have been reported from five strewn fields, in some cases associated with known source craters. However, tektites are probably produced in all sufficiently large terrestrial impacts. Unusual glass nodules discovered by archaeological studies in the Maya city of Tikal, Guatemala, show the superheated signatures characteristic of tektites and may represent products of an as yet unknown impact.

Provenance During sorting and classification of obsidian artifacts found in excavations of the Maya ruins at Tikal, Guatemala, eleven unworked nodules were separated from the obsidian artifacts on the basis of their shape and size (Fig. B: 120a), and color (clear brownish green). The nodules were found in general excavations widely scattered through the city, mostly in small structure groups that are presumed to be residential. We assume that the nodules were collected at points unknown and transported by the Maya to the city of Tikal; no other similar nodules have yet been reported from other Maya archaeological sites.

Petrography The three nodules studied to date are composed of clear glass lacking any phenocrysts, microlites, or schlieren visible to optical or scanning electron microscopes. On this basis, a possible impact origin had been previously suggested (Moholy-Nagy and Nelson 1990: 75; Essene et al. 1987). A scattering of spherical vesicles ranging up to ~0.5 mm does occur, similar in abundance and size to those found in philippinites. Although the surfaces are pitted from presumed dissolution, no surficial alteration rims were obvious in cross section.

Composition The tektites’ composition has been studied by electron microprobe, Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis (INAA), Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry, and X-Ray Fluorescence. All three samples yield similar compositions of major, minor, and trace elements and results are consistent with previous work (Essene et al. 1987). The silica abundance is ~62 percent, a value lower than those exhibited by most tektites except those of Cretaceous/Tertiary (K/T) age. Indeed, the major and minor element abundances are similar to those of the K/T tektites, causing us to speculate that the Tikal tektites might have been transported from K/T boundary sections that outcrop near Tikal. However, trace elements, such as the Rare Earth Elements, revealed patterns distinct from those displayed by the K/T tektites

101

APPENDIX H

(Koeberl and Sigurdsson 1992; Hildebrand et al. 1992). In general, all lithophile incompatible elements are depleted relative to abundances found in the other four tektite groups, consistent with the depletion in silicon, although an upper crustal affinity is evidenced.

Water Content Tektites are depleted in all volatiles relative to other terrestrial glasses; water contents are of the order of 100 ppm, which is more than an order of magnitude less than found in the driest volcanic glasses (Koeberl and Beran 1988). The water content of the three samples was studied using infra-red (IR) spectrometry, yielding water contents of 60 to 80 ppm, values typical of tektites.

Ferric/Ferrous Ratios Because of superheating, tektites display reduced chemistry such as Fe+3/Fe+2 ratios approaching zero, in contrast to terrestrial volcanic glasses that exhibit ratios of near unity. Mössbauer studies of one of the samples detected no Fe+3, which is consistent with extreme reduction. Similarly, magnetic studies of all three samples reveal magnetic susceptibilities, magnetizations, and Curie constants generally consistent with reduction levels found in other tektites (Thorpe and Senftie 1964). However, the temperature independent susceptibility is higher, indicating the presence of completely reduced Fe0, which possibly indicates higher formation temperatures or longer durations of heating. Measurements of internal vs. external pieces of one sample indicate that oxidation of Fe0 has occurred.

Age The age of the tektites was expected to be 10 to 100 million years, so an Ar-Ar study was planned with an

irradiation optimized for an age of this order. However, a much younger age of 800,000 ± 100,000 years (two sigma) was found, based on an isochron defined by the three samples. This experiment will be repeated with an irradiation optimized for this younger age and larger samples to provide more radiogenic 40Ar.

Conclusions The nodules recovered at Tikal are tektites, based on their petrologic character, and represent fusion of an upper crustal target of intermediate composition. No natural occurrences of tektites are known in the region, excepting the potential occurrence of tektites produced by the Chicxulub impact of K/T boundary age or from the North American tektite strewn field of Late Eocene age. Both of these tektite-producing events are excluded as possible sources for the Tikal tektites because of their greater ages. The remaining possibilities are that these tektites represent transported individuals (of unusual composition) from one of the two youngest tektite strewn fields (Ivory Coast or Australasian) or are products from an as-yet unknown impact in the region. The former is regarded as unlikely based on available compositional constraints, but the age data do overlap the age of the Australasian strewn field and considerable compositional variation is found across this strewn field (Chapman and Scheiber 1969). Additional planned studies will discriminate between these possibilities.

Acknowledgments We are grateful to M. Thompson, Department of Planetary Sciences, University of Arizona, for help with INAA studies, Dr. A. Beran, Institute of Mineralogy, University of Vienna, for help with the IR water measurements, and the Analytical Chemistry Laboratories of the Geological Survey of Canada.

Appendix I Analysis of Textile Impressions and Cloth Fragments from Tikal Dorothy Cavalier Yanik [April 1965, revised March 1993]

T

he majority of the impressions and fragments found at Tikal and analyzed here are constructed in a simple over one, under one weave known as plain cloth or tabby (Fig. B: 153e3, 154c, f, 155a-e; Emery 1966: Fig. 85). In two of the plain weave impressions, paired threads are indicated in one system (either warps or wefts) (Fig. B: 155f ). There is one impression which has a section of gauze or, possibly, weft-wrap open work between sections of plain weave (Fig. B: 154d, upper right, 154e), and one impression is of a complicated twill weave (Fig. B: 156a, b). Definitions are given below. Since all woven fabrics require a system of threads (i.e., warp threads) in tension, it is assumed that some form of loom was used to produce these specimens. However, to date, no archaeological evidence has been identified that would indicate the nature of the loom. The finely spun fibers of the cloth fragments are probably cotton, as suggested by Dr. Junius B. Bird. The thread diameter in both impressions and fragments measures from less than 0.5 to slightly over 1.0 mm. Finely constructed plain weaves and twill weaves create strong fabrics ideal for clothing or other heavy usage, while weaves of open construction are more decorative and less durable. The plain weaves in the collection included both open and fine examples, with spaces between threads ranging from none to about 1.5 mm. The twill specimen is very finely constructed. The plain weave specimens are carefully and evenly woven and the presence of the more complicated techniques, particularly the twill, indicates skill in the textile art, as well as an interest in structural design, i.e., design which is a result of the technique, and not surface or imposed design.

Contemporary Guatemalan textiles utilize such plain weave—both over one, under one weave and paired wefts and warps, often as a background for complicated brocade designs; and gauze. Twill cloth is known ethnologically from both Guatemala and Mexico, and archaeologically from Mexico. In this report warp refers to the threads in tension. Weft refers to the threads passing over and under the warp to create the fabric. In a gauze weave, each alternate warp thread crosses the adjacent warp thread and is locked in place by the passage of a weft thread and then returned to its original position, creating a lacelike fabric (Emery 1966: 181-186). This may also be done with two or more warp threads. Weft-wrap open work is where a special weft thread is introduced into the fabric and wrapped around warp and weft threads to produce small openings in the fabric. This technique is used to produce open work designs in plain weave cloth (Emery 1966: 84-85; Kent 1957: 501-507). In twill cloth a diagonal ribbed effect is achieved by passing the weft thread over one, under two (or more) warp threads (Emery 1966: 92). A diamond twill is where the ribbing creates a diamond-shaped pattern (Emery 1966: 105). Knotted netting is a single thread fabric of open mesh construction produced by knotting the thread into the loop above (Emery 1966: 217).

Impressions, Including Latex Molds, Listed by Catalogue and Lot Numbers 12B-4/1 Pottery censer fragment. Plain weave impression.

APPENDIX I

Open construction with spaces of up to about 1.5 mm between threads. Count: 7.5–7 threads to the linear centimeter (19–17 threads to the inch). Thread diameter: less than 1.0 mm both warp and weft. 12B-176d/22 Pottery censer fragment. Plain weave impression of very fine threads and fine construction. Paired threads used in one system. Accurate thread count cannot be made. Thread diameter: less than 0.5 mm both warp and weft. 12B-178a/12 Pottery censer fragment. Plain weave impression. Very fine construction. Count: 15–13 threads to the cm (37–32 threads to the inch). Thread diameter: less than 0.5 mm both warp and weft. 12B/9 Pottery censer fragment. Plain weave impression. Finely constructed with paired threads in one system. Count: 20 threads to the cm for paired threads and 10 threads to the cm for single threads (50–25 threads to the inch). Count based on 5.0 mm and computed. Thread diameter: about 0.5 mm both warp and weft (Fig. B: 155f ). 12B/22 Pottery censer fragment. Plain weave impression. Finely constructed. Count: 14–13 threads to the cm (35–33 threads to the inch). Thread diameter: less than 0.5 mm both warp and weft. 12C-589/30, Bu. 10 Plaster fragment. Plain weave impression. Finely constructed. Thread diameter: less than 1.0 mm both warp and weft. An accurate thread count could not be made. There is also an impression of heavy rope on this fragment. It may be three-ply. Diameter of ply: about 1.5 cm (Fig. B: 152d). 12I-10a/4 Pottery censer fragment. Plain weave impression. Finely constructed. Count: 14 - 8 threads to the cm (35 – 20 threads to the inch). Thread diameter: slightly less than 1.0 mm both warp and weft (Fig. B: 155e). 12K-122b/13, Bu. 23 Plaster fragment. Plain weave impression. The construction and openness of the weave indicate it is part of the same fabric catalogued as 12K-122L/13, Burial 23 (Fig. B: 154d, upper left). 12K-122L/13, Bu. 23 Plaster fragment. Plain weave impression. Fairly open construction with spaces of up to about 1.5 mm between threads. Count: 7–6 threads to the cm (17–15 threads to the inch). Thread diameter: highly variable, from about 0.5 to 1.0 mm in one system and about 1.0 in the other system (Fig. B: 154d, lower right).

103

12K-122m/13, Bu. 23 Plaster fragment. Plain weave impression. Finely constructed. Count: 12–10 threads to the cm (32–26 threads to the inch). Thread diameter: less than 1.0 mm both warp and weft (Fig. B: 154d, lower left, 154f ). 12K-122n/13, Bu. 23 Plaster fragment. Several sections of plain weave which appear to have a square count of threads: 10–10 per cm (25–25 to the inch). Count based on 5.0 mm and computed. The construction is very fine and the thread diameter is about 1.0 mm for both warp and weft. Between two of the plain weave sections there is a section of very bulky construction which, because of the fineness of the threads in the plain weave sections, might either be a multiple warp gauze technique with paired wefts, or a construction called weft-wrap open work. This latter technique has been found in prehistoric contexts in the Southwest United States (Kent 1957: 501–507) (Fig. B: 154d, upper right, 154e). 12K-122s/13, Bu. 23 Plaster fragment. Two different impressions. One is of twilled matting, described above. The other is of a plain weave fabric of fairly fine construction with spaces of about 1.0 mm between threads. Count: 11–7 threads to the cm (28–18 to the inch). Thread diameter: less than 1.0 mm both warp and weft (Fig. B: 154c). 12K-129b/8, PD. 235 Plaster fragment. Impression of a twill cloth which forms part of PD. 235. Four concentric diamonds (see diagram, Fig. B: 156b). It is a very fine construction and indicates excellent craftsmanship. The design is probably achieved by using an over two, under one construction. Thread diameter: slightly over 0.5 mm both warp and weft. An accurate count of threads could not be made because the specimen is too small, but there may be approximately 18–9 threads to the cm (45–23 to the inch). (cf. Kent 157: Fig. 54a and b) (Fig. B: 156a). 24C-252/93 Pottery censer fragment. Plain weave impression. Very open construction with spaces of up to about 1.5 mm between threads. Count: 5–4 threads to the cm (13–10 threads to the inch). Thread diameter: about 1.0 mm both warp and weft. 33F-103c/44 Pottery censer fragment. Plain weave impression. Finely constructed. Count: 14–10 threads to the cm (34–26 threads to the inch). Thread diameter: about 0.5 mm both warp and weft. 41C-7a/3 Pottery censer fragment. Plain weave impression. Finely constructed. Count: 12–12 threads

104

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

to the cm (31–29 threads to the inch). Thread diameter: about 0.5 mm both warp and weft. 41I-1a/1 Pottery censer fragment. Plain weave impression. Finely constructed. Count: 15–11 threads to the cm (38–27 threads to the inch). Thread diameter: about 0.5 mm both warp and weft (Fig. B: 155d). 41I-1b/1 Pottery censer fragment. Plain weave impression of fine threads and fine construction. An accurate count of threads could not be made. Thread diameter: about 0.5 mm both warp and weft. 41K-1b/1 Pottery censer fragment. Plain weave impression. Open construction with spaces of up to 1.5 mm between threads. Count: 7 - 6 threads to the cm (18–15 threads to the inch). Thread diameter: about 1.0 mm both warp and weft. 61A-8/1 Plaster fragment. Plain weave impression of fairly fine construction. An accurate thread count could not be made. Thread diameter: slightly less than 1.0 mm both warp and weft. 84B-4a/10, Bu. 174 Clay fragment. Plain weave impression of fine construction. Thread diameter: almost 1.0 mm in both warp and weft. 84B-4b/10, Bu. 174 Clay fragment. Plain weave impression. Fairly fine construction. Count: 11–8.5 threads to the cm (27–21 threads to the inch). Thread diameter: almost 1.0 mm in both warp and weft. 84B-4e/10, Bu. 174 Clay fragment. Plain weave impression. Thread diameter and thread count could not be accurately measured, but the construction is fairly fine.

Photographs Burial 23 (Fig. B: 157, 158). This is an interesting series of impressions displaying perhaps three techniques on the floor of a specially constructed burial chamber. There are sections of very fine plain weave constructed of fine threads, probably represented by plaster fragments 12K-122m, n, and s described above. There are sections of the probable weft-wrap open work seen on plaster fragment 12K-122n. There are sections of a knotted netting construction

with openings that measure about 2.4 cm in one direction and about 2.0 cm in the other direction. Also see the plan of Burial 23 showing the location of the cloth and matting in the burial chamber in TR. 14: Fig. 176.

Partly Mineralized Cloth Residues 3B-94a/18, Bu. 160 A cloth fragment consisting of two layers of fabric. The top one has finer yarns than the bottom layer. Cotton fiber, Z-spun, single-ply yarns were used for both warp and weft in the top layer. Extremely fine plain wave. Count: 24–18 threads to the cm (60–45 threads to the inch, based on ¼ inch measurement and computed). Thread diameter: less than 0.5 mm both warp and weft. 3B-113/18, Bu. 160 Cloth fragment of plain weave. Cotton fibers with Z-spun, single-ply yarns for both warp and weft. Very fine weave. Appears to be a square count. Count: 12–12 threads to the cm (30–30 threads to the inch, based on ¼ inch measurement and computed). Thread diameter: slightly less than 1.0 mm both warp and weft. 12P-102/78, Bu. 85 Small fragments of plain weave cloth. Very finely woven. Cotton fibers with Z-spun, single-ply yarns for both warp and weft. Indicates skill in weaving. Count: 20–16 threads to the inch, based on 1/4 inch measurement and computed). Thread diameter: about 0.5 mm both warp and weft.

Acknowledgments I wish to acknowledge gratefully the very generous cooperation of a number of experts. Ms. Elizabeth K. Ralph of the University Museum’s Applied Science Center for Archaeology kindly allowed the use of the MASCA laboratory facilities, and Mr. Mark C. Han and Mr. A. Eric Parkinson provided some vital items of equipment. I wish to thank Dr. Mary Elizabeth King and Ms. Irene Emery of the Textile Museum, Washington, for their extremely helpful interest, advice, and assistance. And I would like to express my special gratitude to Dr. Junius B. Bird and Ms. Milica Dmitrijevic of the American Museum of Natural History, New York. Dr. Bird, in particular, provided invaluable aid at almost every stage of this undertaking.

Appendix J The Atlatl from Operation 96D, Structure 5D-51, Group 5D-11, Tikal Peter D’Arcy Harrison [23 February 2001]

D

uring excavation of the palace structure 5D-51 located in Court 5D-4 of the Central Acropolis in 1966, a rare and unusual artifact was uncovered and recorded. This was the partially preserved remains of an atlatl, or spearthrower (Fig. B: 159). As the only example of such an object recovered at Tikal during fifty years of excavation by several agencies, some notes regarding the circumstances of its recovery are in order, particularly with regard to the object itself, the meaning of its location, and the chronology of its deposit.

The Object The spearthrower was lying prone, very close to the floor, one cm above the plaster surface, but imbedded in a thin deposit of burned soil immediately above the plaster floor of the south half of the east room of the structure (Fig. B: 160). The handle loops were constructed of carved bone with decorative notching along the outside of each loop (Fig. B: 123a). This touch of luxury suggests that this was not the mere hunting weapon of a peasant seeking survival during the last days of Tikal, but rather that it belonged to a member of a higher level of the social order, an individual who was accustomed to hunt (warrior?) and one who was wealthy enough to afford decorated handles of a rarer material than the wood from which the remains of the shaft was constructed. Aware of the importance and rarity of the find, it was excavated with the utmost care. The wooden shaft was incomplete, extending from between the loop

handles for some distance, but clearly not for the full length of such an instrument. The tip was missing and likely had been broken before its deposition in the east room of 5D-51. My Maya assistant, who accompanied me in the excavation offered the opinion that the wood was ciricote, a rare hard wood that was present in the environs of the Tikal Park even today. The wooden shaft extended 20 cm in length, being narrower at the end between the loops (ca. 0.3 cm), expanding at its broken distal end to a width of 1.75 cm. The loops measure 9 cm in length with a maximum spread between the two loops of 6 cm. The object lay close to parallel with the interior east wall of the east room, a bare cm above the floor in fine burned soil, and 4 cm west of the east wall. The distal tip was 54 cm north of the south wall of the room (Room 1, east, first story of 5D-51).

The Context Both the east and west rooms of the structure contained a stratified series of soil and collapse debris, accompanied by levels of occupation material of human manufacture and evidence of human occupation during the collapse process. A thin deposit of burned soil, burned stone, charcoal, bone, shell, and ceramics was present in the south half of both Rooms 1 and 2 of this story. The matrix stratum overlying the floor averages 10 cm in depth and was continuous through the south half of Room 1, and into Room 2 from the central axis of the building up to the south face of the south bench in

106

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

Room 2 and to the edges of all walls of the south half of Room 1. The presence of large vault blocks and the usual mixture of crushed rock and plaster in the north half of both rooms indicated that some collapse had preceded the cultural layer. Accompanying the atlatl, in the burned soil and charcoal stratum, were a number of charred seed remains, as well as obsidian and ceramic objects, some of them whole. A cross-fit of an “effigy vessel” from the south half of Room 1 to another midden deposit outside of the building negates the possibility of a ceremonial source for the floor deposit. Further, the floor deposit is not continuous throughout the north half of each room as would be dictated by a ceremonial placement associated with such activity as ritual “killing” of the building. A thin layer of bat dung (guano) overlies the floor deposit in the front room, but extends over the fallen rock in the north side of the rear room. In the west room (Room 2), there is a further cultural layer above the bat dung indicating cooking and general living activity, associated with many organic materials including a probable human coprolite. Among the food remains are included bird bone, mammal bone, land snail shells, fragments of a bird egg shell embedded in charred soil, as well as broken utilitarian ceramics. Both midden layers above and below the occupation hiatus indicated by the bat dung contain ceremonial ceramic figurines, as well as decorated ceramic fragments of high quality.

Conclusions Conclusions must remain temporary to a certain extent pending the fuller analysis of the contents of this extraordinary complex series of deposits. The occupation of the building appears to represent two stages: a final use and abandonment, which included the atlatl, possibly abandoned because it was broken, but accompanied by food preparation in a structure where such interior activity had never been intended—in other words, a final refuge of a survivor of the Collapse. This was followed by total abandonment signified by the bat dung layer—not a long period of time as the layer was quite thin. Finally, the rooms were reoccupied in another fashion with an individual(s) preparing food in a fire pit excavated into the collapsed debris of the roof. This occupation is associated with copious amounts of food remains and the human coprolite. One explanation offered has been that during this final period of occupation, the building was being used as a prison, forcing the occupant(s) to live in the midst of their own refuse. Nearby, in Str. 5D-46 and in the East Plaza (Gp. 5D3), there is evidence of very late cannibalism, which may in turn be associated with the use of Str.5D-51 as a makeshift prison. This explanation has yet to be explored.

References

Aldenderfer, Mark S., Larry R. Kimball, and April Sievert 1989 Microwear Analysis in the Maya Lowlands: The Use of Functional Data in a Complex-Society Setting. Journal of Field Archaeology 16(1):47-60. American Geological Institute 1960 Glossary of Geology and Related Science With Supplement, Second Edition. Washington, DC: American Geological Institute. Aoyama, Kazuo 1999 Ancient Maya State, Urbanism, Exchange, and Craft Specialization: Chipped Stone Evidence from the Copán Valley and the La Entrada Region, Honduras. University of Pittsburgh, Memoirs in Latin American Archaeology 12. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, Department of Anthropology. Aragon, Lorraine V. 1990 Barkcloth Production in Central Sulawesi: A Vanishing Textile Technology in Outer Island Indonesia. Expedition 32(1):33-48. Arnold, Jeanne E. 1985 The Santa Barbara Channel Islands Bladelet Industry. Lithic Technology 14(2):71-80. Bartlett, Katherine 1933 Pueblo Milling Stones of the Flagstaff Region and Their Relation to Others in the Southwest. Flagstaff, AZ: Museum of Northern Arizona, Bulletin 3. Becker, Marshall Joseph 1973 Archaeological Evidence for Occupational Specialization Among the Classic Period Maya at Tikal, Guatemala. American Antiquity 43:396-406. Binford, Lewis R. 1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28:217-225. Black, Stephen L., and Charles K. Suhler 1986 The 1984 Rio Azul Settlement Survey. In Rio Azul Reports, No. 2: The 1984 Season, edited by Richard E. W. Adams, pp. 163-192. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio.

108

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

Bordes, François 1967 Considérations sur la Typologie et les Techniques dans le Paléolithique. Quartär 18:25-55. Callahan, Errett 1974 The Wagner Basalt Quarries: A Preliminary Report, Part I - The Archeological Evidence. In The Ape: Experimental Archeology Papers 3, edited by Errett Callahan, pp. 24-100. Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Virginia Commonwealth University. Carlsen, Robert 1986 Analysis of the Early Classic Period Textile Remains - Tomb 19, Río Azul, Guatemala. In Rio Azul Reports, No. 2: The 1984 Season, edited by R. E. W. Adams, pp. 122-155. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio. Chapman, D. R., and L. C. Scheiber 1969 Chemical Investigation of Australasian Tektites. Journal of Geophysical Research 74:6737-6776. Chase, Arlen F. 1998 Planeación cívica e integración de sitio en Caracol, Belice: Definiendo una economía administrada del período clásico maya. In Los Investigadores de la Cultura Maya 6, Tomo 1, pp. 27-44. Campeche, Mexico: Universidad Autónoma de Campeche. Christensen, Bodil, and Samuel Marti 1979 Witchcraft and Pre-Columbian Paper/Brujerias y papel precolombino. Third Edition. Mexico: Ediciones Euroamericanas. Clark, John E., and Douglas Donne Bryant 1997 A Technological Typology of Prismatic Blades and Debitage from Ojo de Agua, Chiapas, Mexico. Ancient Mesoamerica 8:111-136. Clark, John E., and Thomas A. Lee, Jr. 1979 A Behavioral Model for the Obsidian Industry of Chiapa de Corzo. Estudios de Cultura Maya 12:33-51. Coe, Michael D., and Richard A. Diehl 1980 In the Land of the Olmec. Volume 2: The People of the River. Austin: University of Texas Press. Coe, William R. 1957 A Distinctive Artifact Common to Haiti and Central America. American Antiquity 22(3):280-281. 1959

Piedras Negras Archaeology: Artifacts, Caches, and Burials. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum.

1967

Tikal: A Handbook of the Ancient Maya Ruins. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum.

Coggins, Clemency Chase 1992 Wooden Artifacts. In Artifacts from the Cenote of Sacrifice, Chichen Itza, Yucatan, edited by Clemency Chase Coggins, pp. 235-344. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, vol. 10, no. 3. Cook, Scott 1982 Zapotec Stoneworkers: The Dynamics of Rural Simple Commodity Production in Modern Mexican Capitalism. Washington, DC: University Press of America Inc. Deal, Michael, and Brian Hayden 1987 The Persistence of Pre-Columbian Lithic Technology. In Lithic Studies Among the Contemporary Highland Maya, edited by Brian Hayden, pp. 235-331. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

REFERENCES

109

Eaton, Jack D. 1980 Operation 2011: Investigations Within the Main Plaza of the Monumental Center at Colha. In The Colha Project: Second Season, 1980 Interim Report, edited by Thomas R. Hester, Jack D. Eaton, Harry J. Shafer, pp. 145-161. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio and Centro Studi e Ricerche Ligabue, Venezia. Eddy, Frank W. 1964 Metates and Manos: The Basic Corn Grinding Tools of the Southwest. Santa Fe: Museum of New Mexico Press, Popular Series Pamphlet 1. Emery, Irene 1966 The Primary Structure of Fabrics: An Illustrated Classification. Washington, DC: Textile Museum Emery, Katherine Frances 1997 The Maya Collapse: A Zooarchaeological Investigation. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department. of Anthropology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Encyclopaedia Britannica 1966 Encyclopaedia Britannica. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. Essene, Eric J., Hattula Moholy-Nagy, and Fred W. Nelson 1987 Crystal-Free Andesitic Glasses from Tikal, Guatemala: Possible Impactites? Eos 68:462. Flenniken, J. Jeffrey, and Anan W. Raymond 1986 Morphological Projectile Point Typology: Replication Experimentation and Technological Analysis. American Antiquity 51(3):603-614. Frison, George C., Michael Wilson, and Diane J. Wilson 1976 Fossil Bison and Artifacts from an Early Altithermal Period Arroyo Trap in Wyoming. American Antiquity 41(1):28-57. Fry, Robert E. 1980 Models of Exchange for Major Shape Classes of Lowland Maya Pottery. In Models and Methods in Regional Exchange, edited by Robert E. Fry, pp. 3-18. SAA Papers No. 1. Gibson, Eric C. 1986 Diachronic Patterns of Lithic Production, Use, and Exchange in the Southern Maya Lowlands. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International. Gould, Richard A. 1981 Brandon Revisited: A New Look at an Old Technology. In Modern Material Culture: The Archaeology of Us, edited by Richard A. Gould and Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 269-281. New York: Academic Press. Haviland, William A. 1962 A “Miniature Stela” from Tikal. Expedition 4(3):2-3. 1981

Dower Houses and Minor Centers at Tikal, Guatemala: An Investigation into the Identification of Valid Units in Settlement Hierarchies. In Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns, edited by Wendy Ashmore, pp. 89-117. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Haviland, William A., and Anita de Laguna Haviland 1995 Glimpses of the Supernatural: Altered States of Consciousness and the Graffiti of Tikal, Guatemala. Latin American Antiquity 6(4):295-309.

110

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

Hayden, Brian 1987a Traditional Metate Manufacturing in Guatemala Using Chipped Stone Tools. In Lithic Studies Among the Contemporary Highland Maya, edited by Brian Hayden, pp. 8-119. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. 1987b

Past to Present Uses of Stone Tools in the Maya Highlands. In Lithic Studies Among the Contemporary Highland Maya, edited by Brian Hayden, pp. 160-234. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Hayden, Brian, and Aubrey Cannon 1983 Where the Garbage Goes. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2:117-163. Hellmuth, Nicholas M. 1975 The Escuintla Hoards: Teotihuacan Art in Guatemala. Guatemala, Central America: Foundation for Latin American Anthropological Research Progress Reports, vol. 1, no. 2. Hester, Thomas R. 1980 The 1980 Season at Colha, Belize: An Overview. In The Colha Project: Second Season, 1980 Interim Report, edited by Thomas R. Hester, Jack D. Eaton, Harry J. Shafer, pp. 1-14. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio and Centro Studi e Ricerche Ligabue, Venezia. Hildebrand, Alan R., Hattula Moholy-Nagy, Christian Koeberl, L. May, F. E. Senftie, A. N. Thorpe, P. N. Smith, and D. York 1992 Tektites Found in the Ruins of the Maya City of Tikal, Guatemala. Proceedings of the 14th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, pp. 657-658. Hirth, Kenneth G. 1998 The Distributional Approach: A New Way to Identify Marketplace Exchange in the Archaeological Record. Current Anthropology 39:452-476. Holdaway, Simon 1989 Were There Hafted Projectile Points in the Mousterian? Journal of Field Archaeology 16(1):79-85. Hopkins, Mary Randolph 1992 Mammalian Remains. In Artifacts from the Cenote of Sacrifice, Chichén Itzá, Yucatán, edited by Clemency Chase Coggins, pp. 369-385. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archeology and Ethnology, vol. 10, no. 3. Jones, Christopher 1969 The Twin-Pyramid Group Pattern: A Classic Maya Architectural Assemblage at Tikal, Guatemala. Ph.D dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International. Kent, Kate Peck 1957 The Cultivation and Weaving of Cotton in the Prehistoric Southwestern United States. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, n.s. Vol. 47, Part 3. Kidder, A.V. 1943 Spindle Whorls from Chichen Itza, Yucatan. Notes on Middle American Archaeology and Ethnology 16. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Division of Historical Research. 1947

The Artifacts of Uaxactun, Guatemala. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 576.

Kidder, A.V., Jesse D. Jennings, and Edwin M. Shook 1946 Excavations at Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 561.

REFERENCES

111

Koeberl, Christian, and A. Beran 1988 Water Content of Tektites and Impact Glasses and Related Chemical Studies. Proceedings of the 13th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, pp. 403-408. Koeberl, Christian, and H. Sigurdsson 1992 Geochemistry of Impact Glasses from the K/T Boundary in Haiti: Relation to Smectites and a New Type of Glass. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 56:2113-2129. Kosakowsky, Laura J., and Norman Hammond 1991 Ceramics. In Cuello: An Early Maya Community in Belize, edited by Norman Hammond, pp. 173-176. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lawrence, George H. M. 1951 Taxonomy of Vascular Plants. New York: Macmillan. Lewenstein, Suzanne M. 1981 Mesoamerican Obsidian Blades: An Experimental Approach to Function. Journal of Field Archaeology 8:175-188. 1987

Stone Tool Use at Cerros. Austin: University of Texas Press.

1991a

Edge Angles and Tool Function Among the Maya: A Meaningful Relationship? In Maya Stone Tools: Selected Papers from the Second Maya Lithic Conference, edited by Thomas R. Hester and Harry J. Shafer, pp. 207-217. Madison, WI: Prehistory Press.

1991b

Woodworking Tools at Cerros. In Maya Stone Tools: Selected Papers from the Second Maya Lithic Conference, edited by Thomas R. Hester and Harry J. Shafer, pp. 239-249. Madison, WI: Prehistory Press.

Linton, Ralph 1936 The Study of Man. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts Inc. Loomis, Frederick Brewster 1923 Field Book of Common Rocks and Minerals. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons. Lopez Varela, Sandra L., Patricia A. McAnany, and Kimberley A. Berry 2001 Ceramics Technology at Late Classic K’axob, Belize. Journal of Field Archaeology 28:177-19 Lundell, Cyrus Longworth 1937 The Vegetation of Peten. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 478. Moholy-Nagy, Hattula 1978 The Utilization of Pomacea Snails at Tikal, Guatemala. American Antiquity 43: 65-73. 1991

The Flaked Chert Industry of Tikal, Guatemala. In Maya Stone Tools: Selected Papers from the Second Maya Lithic Conference, edited by Thomas R. Hester and Harry J. Shafer, pp. 189-202. Madison, WI: Prehistory Press.

1994

Tikal Material Culture: Artifacts and Social Structure at a Classic Lowland Maya City. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International.

1997

Middens, Construction Fill, and Offerings: Evidence for the Organization of Classic Period Craft Production at Tikal, Guatemala. Journal of Field Archaeology 24(3):293-313.

1999

Mexican Obsidian at Tikal, Guatemala. Latin American Antiquity 10(3):300-313.

112

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

2002

Telling Time by the Sun: Aspects of Lowland Maya Obsidian Research. Paper presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Denver.

2003

Beyond the Catalogue: The Chronology and Contexts of Tikal Artifacts. In Tikal Dynasties, Foreigners, and Affairs of State, edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff, pp. 83-110. Santa Fe: School of American Research.

n.d.a.

Vertebrate Fauna in Tikal Burials and Caches. In Maya Zooarchaeology: New Directions in Method and Theory, edited by Kitty F. Emery. Cotsen Institute for Archaeology, UCLA. (In press)

Moholy-Nagy, Hattula, Frank Asaro, and Fred H. Stross 1984 Tikal Obsidian: Sources and Typology. American Antiquity 49:104-117. Moholy-Nagy, Hattula, and Fred W. Nelson 1990 New Data on Sources of Obsidian Artifacts from Tikal, Guatemala. Ancient Mesoamerica 1:71-80. Nelson, Margaret 1987 Site Content and Structure: Metate Quarries and Workshops in the Maya Highlands. In Lithic Studies Among the Contemporary Highland Maya, edited by Brian Hayden, pp. 120-147. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Nowak, Ronald M. 1994 Walker’s Bats of the World. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Parsons, Jeffrey R., and Mary H. Parsons 1990 Maguey Utilization in Highland Central Mexico: An Archaeological Ethnography. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan 82. Parsons, Mary Hrones 1972 Spindle Whorls from the Teotihuacan Valley. In Miscellaneous Studies in Mexican Prehistory. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan 45. Peterson, Roger Tory 1980 A Field Guide to the Birds: A Completely New Guide to All the Birds of Eastern and Central North America. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Pohl, Mary 1983 Maya Ritual Faunas: Vertebrate Remains from Burials, Caches, Caves, and Cenotes in the Maya Lowlands. In Civilization in the Ancient Americas: Essays in Honor of Gordon R. Willey, edited by Richard M. Leventhal and Alan L. Kolata, pp. 55-103. Cambridge, MA: University of New Mexico Press and Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. Proskouriakoff, Tatiana 1962 The Artifacts of Mayapan. In Mayapan, Yucatan, Mexico, edited by H.E.D. Pollock, Ralph L. Roys, T. Proskouriakoff, and A. Ledyard Smith, pp. 321-442. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 619. Puleston, Dennis E. 1971 An Experimental Approach to the Function of Classic Maya Chultuns. American Antiquity 36(4):322-335. Puleston, Olga Stavrakis 1969 Functional Analysis of a Workshop Tool Kit from Tikal. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

REFERENCES

113

Santley, Robert S., and Ronald Kneebone 1993 Craft Specialization, Refuse Disposal, and the Creation of Spatial Archaeological Records in Prehispanic Mesoamerica. In Prehispanic Domestic Units in Western Mesoamerica: Studies of Household, Compound, and Residence, edited by Robert S. Santley and Kenneth G. Hirth, pp. 37-63. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Sejourné, Laurette 1966 Arqueología en Teotihuacán: La Céramica. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica. Sempowski, Martha L., and Michael W. Spence 1994 Mortuary Practices and Skeletal Remains at Teotihuacan. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Shafer, Harry J. 1983 The Lithic Artifacts of the Pulltrouser Area: Settlements and Fields. In Pulltrouser Swamp: Ancient Maya Habitat, Agriculture, and Settlement in Northern Belize, edited by B. L. Turner II and Peter D. Harrison, pp. 212-243. Austin: University of Texas Press. Shafer, Harry J., and Thomas R. Hester 1986 An Ancient Maya Hafted Stone Tool from Northern Belize. Center for Archaeological Research, The University of Texas at San Antonio, Working Papers on Archaeology 3. Sheets, Payson D. 1975 Behavioral Analysis and the Structure of a Prehistoric Industry. Current Anthropology 16: 369-391. 2000

Provisioning the Ceren Household: The Vertical Economy, Village Economy, and Household Economy in the Southeastern Maya Periphery. Ancient Mesoamerica 11:217-230.

Sidrys, Raymond V. 1976 Classic Maya Obsidian Trade. American Antiquity 32:507-514. Smith, Robert E. 1955 Ceramic Sequence at Uaxactun, Guatemala. Publication 20, Middle American Research Institute, Tulane University, New Orleans. Smithe, Frank B. 1966 The Birds of Tikal. Garden City, NY: Natural History Press. Spink, Mary Louise 1983 Metates as Socioeconomic Indicators During the Classic Period at Copan, Honduras. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International. Stuart, L. C. 1963 A Checklist of the Herpetofauna of Guatemala. Miscellaneous Publication 122, Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Talbot, P. H. B. 1971 Principles of Fungal Taxonomy. London: Macmillan. Taschek, Jennifer T. 1994 The Artifacts of Dzibilchaltun, Yucatan, Mexico: Shell, Polished Stone, Bone, Wood, and Ceramics. Middle American Research Institute Publication 50. Tulane University, New Orleans.

114

THE ARTIFACTS OF TIKAL: UTILITARIAN ARTIFACTS AND UNWORKED MATERIAL

Taube, Karl A. 1991 A Ritual Clown of the Early Classic Maya Court. Bulletin of the Detroit Institute of Arts 66:18-29. Thompson, J. Eric S. 1939 Excavations at San Jose, British Honduras. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 506. Thorpe, A. N., and F. E. Senftie 1964 Submicroscopic Spherules and Color of Textiles. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 28:981-994. Tikal Reports (see TR. 12: Appendix B and pp. 57-61) TR. 6:

Coe, William R., Edwin M. Shook, and Linton Satterthwaite 1961 The Carved Wooden Lintels of Tikal. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum.

TR. 7:

Adams, Richard E. W., and Aubrey S. Trik 1961 Temple I (Str. 5D-1): Post-Constructional Activities. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum.

TR. 11: Carr, Robert F., and James E. Hazard 1961 Map of the Ruins of Tikal, El Peten, Guatemala. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. TR. 12: Coe, William R., and William A. Haviland 1982 Introduction to the Archaeology of Tikal, Guatemala. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. TR. 13: Puleston, Dennis E. 1983 The Settlement Survey of Tikal. William A. Haviland, Volume Editor. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. TR. 14: Coe, William R. 1990 Excavations in the Great Plaza, North Terrace and North Acropolis of Tikal. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. TR. 16: Jones, Christopher 1996 Excavations in the East Plaza of Tikal. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. TR. 19: Haviland, William A., Marshall J. Becker, Ann Chowning, Keith A. Dixon, and Karl G. Heider 1985 Excavations in Small Residential Groups of Tikal: Groups 4F-1 and 4F-2. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. TR. 23A Loten, H. Stanley 2002 Miscellaneous Investigations in Central Tikal. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. TR. 25A: Culbert, T. Patrick 1993 The Ceramics of Tikal: Vessels from the Burials, Caches, and Problematical Deposits. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. TR. 27A: Moholy-Nagy, Hattula, and William R. Coe n.d. The Artifacts of Tikal: Ornamental and Other Special Material. Ms. in preparation, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. TR. 28: Greene, Virginia n.d. The Pottery Figurines of Tikal. Ms. in preparation, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum.

REFERENCES

115

TR. 29: Ferree, Lisa n.d. The Pottery Censers of Tikal. Ms. in preparation, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. TR. 30: Haviland, William A. n.d. The Skeletal Series of Tikal. Ms. in preparation, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. TR. 31: Trik, Helen, and Michael E. Kampen 1983 The Graffiti of Tikal. William R. Coe, Volume Editor.Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. TR. 33A: Jones, Christopher, and Linton Satterthwaite 1982 The Monuments and Inscriptions of Tikal: The Carved Monuments. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. TR. 34: Loten, H. Stanley n.d. The Architecture of Tikal. Ms. in preparation, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. TR. 35: Coe, William R., and William A. Haviland n.d. The Burials, Caches, and Problematical Deposits of Tikal. Ms. in preparation, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. TR. 37: Moholy-Nagy, Hattula n.d. Postconquest Occupations at Tikal. Ms. in preparation, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. Tolstoy, Paul 1971 Utilitarian Artifacts of Central Mexico. In Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 10, edited by Gordon F. Ekholm and Ignacio Bernal, pp. 270-296. Austin: University of Texas Press. 1991

Paper Route. Natural History, pp. 6-14. June.

Wilk, Richard 1976/7 Microscopic Analysis of Chipped Stone Tools from Barton Ramie, British Honduras. Estudios de Cultura Maya 10: 53-68. 1978

Microscopic Analysis of Chipped Flint and Obsidian. In Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten, Guatemala, edited by Gordon R. Willey, pp. 139-145. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 14, No. 1.

Willey, Gordon R. 1972 The Artifacts of Altar de Sacrificios. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 64, No. 1. 1978

Artifacts. Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten, Guatemala, edited by Gordon R. Willey. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 14, No. 1.

Willey, Gordon R., William R. Bullard, Jr., John B. Glass, and James C. Gifford 1965 Prehistoric Maya Settlements in the Belize Valley. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 54. Willey, Gordon R., Richard M. Leventhal, Arthur A. Demarest, William L. Fash, Jr. 1994 Ceramics and Artifacts from Excavations in the Copan Residential Zone. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 80.

a

b

c

d

Figure 1. Chert Ovate Bifaces (1:2 scale). a. Extra long example, lightly used, 12D-29/5. b. Variety A, lightly used, traces of cortex on both faces, 96H-1/4. c. Variety A, lightly used, traces of cortex on both faces, 33C-4a/3. d. Variety C, medium-textured, banded gray chert, reworked butt, 80D-14/9.

a

b

c

d

Figure 2. Chert Ovate Bifaces (1:2 scale). All Variety A. a. Late variant with almost straight lateral edges, 44A-4/1. b. 20A-400/30. c. 20N-16/2. d. 33A-109/42.

a

b

c

e

d

f

g

Figure 3. Chert Ovate Bifaces (1:2 scale). a. Variety A, 24C-4/4. b. Variety A, 98K-25/12. c. Variety A, 98D-1/2. d. Butt shaped, bit reworked into a gouge, 45E-23/3. e. Split and reworked, 118A-7/2B. f. Variety A, 70B-3/4. g. Butt reworked into a gouge, battered bit, 20A-1266/58.

a

b

c

d

f

e

g

Figure 4. Chert Ovate Bifaces (1:2 scale). Reworked fragments. a. Ends reworked, burnt, 66H-5/6, PD. 231. b. Ends reworked, 20R16/6. c. Both ends battered, 24C-316/121. d. Ends reworked, fire-spalled, 12K-181/14. e. Reworked bit end, fire-spalled, 33F/9. f. Break reworked into a gouge, 20A-527/42. g. Butt end reworked into a gouge, 24C-114/42.

a

b

1

c

e

g

2

d

f

h

i

Figure 5. Chert Ovate Bifaces (1:2 scale). Unused and reworked fragments. a. Ends reworked into gouges, 97A-194b/32. b. Bit reworked into gouge, 3E-26/26. c. Butt snapped off, bit end battered, 56G-2/8. d. Two butt fragments retouched to points, 1. 66D-8c/46, 2. 146J-25/3. e. Used bit fragment, unusually thin section, coarse chert, 33F/29. f. Unused bit fragment, 12K-184/15. g. Butt snapped off, lower break battered, 18B-1b/1. h. Reworked ends, 12M-61/19. i. Reworked breaks, 97A-106/4.

a

b

c

e

d

f

Figure 6. Chert Ovate Bifaces (1:2 scale). All Variety B. a. Irregular plan due to cortex patch along one lateral edge, differential patination caused by haft, 12I-20/22. b. Snapped and retouched upper break, 97A-237/43. c. Cortex traces on both faces, upper end neatly rounded by pecking, 42F-30/8. d. Fire-spalled, reworked upper end, well-shaped bit, 24F-14/5. e. Snapped off butt, 98K-118/40. f. Ends reworked as gouges, 80C-14/5.

a

b

c

d

Figure 7. Chert Ovate Bifaces (1:2 scale). All Variety B. a. Patinated surface find from a Recent Site, 1D-52/11. b. Battered bit, 67A19/21. c. Unusually small example, 20D-198/64. d. Grinding on lateral edges, snapped break, 20H-66/22.

a

b

c

e

d

f

g

Figure 8. Chert Ovate Bifaces (1:2 scale). a. Variety B, 26A-1a/1, PD. 224. b. Variety B fragment, all edges reworked, 20A-350/13. c. Variety B fragment, all edges reworked, 78P-46b/29. d. Fragment with both breaks reworked into gouges, 42F/7. e. Variety A, shaped bit and lateral edges, lightly battered bit, 12U-32/1. f. Variety C, well used, snapped break, 97A-194a/32. g. Variety C, snapped break, 97A-257/49.

a

c

b

d

Figure 9. Chert Ovate Bifaces (1:2 scale). All Variety C. a. Resharpened bit, 68G-35/5. b. Snapped break, 12L-133/28. c. 97F-12/7. d. From a coarse- and medium-textured chert nodule, 66J-7/9.

1

2

a

1

1

2 c

b

2

3

Figure 10. Chert Ovate Bifaces (1:2 scale). All Variety C from special deposits. a. Found coated with plaster except for areas covered by the now-vanished hafts, Bu. 23 chamber floor. 1. 12K-107b/13. 2. 12K-107a/13. b. PD. 7, 1. 28B-2a/3a, 2. Extensively reshaped, 28B-2b/3a. c. PD. 86, 1. 9C-7c/11, 2. 9C-7b/11, 3. 9C-7a/11.

a

b

c

e

d

f

Figure 11. Chert Ovate Bifaces (1:2 scale). All Variety D. a. Reworked ends, 20A-1490/3. b. End of butt snapped off, bit reworked into a gouge, 125A33-11/2. c. Face fragment, both ends reused, 100A-2/1. d. Snapped off, reused butt end, 98D-12/5. e. Reshaped ends, 96D-2/3. f. Snapped off butt end, reworked gouge on upper break, 97B-6/3.

a

b

c

e

d

f

Figure 12. Chert Ovate Bifaces (1:2 scale). All Variety E. a. Butt end snapped off, cortex on both faces, 12G-168/19. b. Fiddle-shaped plan, coarse chert, 12L-353a/34. c. 66T-7/9. d. 12M-15a/7. e. Butt end snapped off, 12P-27/20. f. Butt end snapped off, 71F-131/64.

a

b

c

d

e

Figure 13. Chert Elongate Bifaces (1:2 scale). All Variety A from special deposits. a. 12K-106/13, found on Bu. 23 chamber floor (also Fig. 157. b. 73D-17/14, PD. 119. c. 12R-272/24, PD. 87. d. 12G-62/14-17, Ca. 65. e. 135A-49/49, PD.196.

a

c

b

d

Figure 14. Chert Elongate Bifaces (1:2 scale). All Variety A. a. Unusually large example, 24C-254/120. b. 3G-28/12. c. Cortex-covered butt, 12V-4/8. d. 112B-1/3.

a

b

c

d

Figure 15. Chert Elongate Bifaces (1:2 scale). All Variety A. a. 20A-1116/94. b. Distal end reworked to a point, 12G-91/1. c. 20A453/31. d. 26A-2/1, PD. 224.

a

b

d

c

e

g

f

h

Figure 16. Chert Elongate Bifaces (1:2 scale). All variety A. a. 22O-5/10. b. 33E-4/7. c. 57K-2/3. d. 3B-57/12. e. Reworked, 12G-99/18. f. Reworked, burned, 112B-2/3. g. Bit smoothed by use, 68I-30/7. h. 98L-15/5.

a

b

c

d

e

f

1

g

2

3

i

h

4

5

Figure 17. Chert Elongate Bifaces (1:2 scale). All Variety A. a. Snapped, 22I-10/22. b-h. Smoothed ends. b. 12K-72/4. c. Burned, 20B6/22 conjoins 20E-255/10. d. 1C-38a/11. e. 1C-38b/11. f. 12K-55/3. g. 78N-2/3. h. 36X/2. i. All PD. 74. 1. 43F-66a/17. 2. Snapped, 43F-66b/17, 3. Snapped, reworked end, 43F-66c/17. 4. Reworked, 43F-66d/17. 5. Reworked, burned, 43F-66e/17.

a

b

c

d

f

e

g

Figure 18. Chert Elongate Bifaces (1:2 scale). All Variety B. a. Snapped, cortex on butt, 100E-14/6. b. Reworked breaks, one as a gouge, 20A-303/29. c. Reworked breaks, 33C-2a/3. d. One end snapped, the other reworked, 20B-126/42. e. Reworked break, 12D-22/5. f. Snapped, 20A-1245/61. g. Snapped and retouched break, 74A-3/1.

a

b

d

c

e

Figure 19. Chert Elongate Bifaces (1:2 scale). a. Variety B, one break snapped, the other reworked, 33C-2b/3. b. Variety B, breaks reworked, 24X-18/14. c. Variety C, 26B-3/1, PD. 224. d. Variety C, 34A-25/9. e. Variety C, 20E-134/13.

a

b

c

e

d

f

g

h

Figure 20. Chert Elongate Bifaces (1:2 scale). a-c. Variety C. a. 97K-5b/1. b. 98L-74/15. c. 97B-7/1. d. Variety D, snapped, 24G75/92. e-h. Variety E, snapped. e. 27G-41/13. f. Fine, dark, imported chert, 20J-29/12. g. 27G-24/4. h. 31B-9/4.

a

b

c

d

e

Figure 21. Chert Stemmed Bifaces (1:2 scale). a. Tip fragment, 12P-260/89. b-e. Basal fragments. b. 12P-355/138. c. 12P-175/89. d. 67L-6/1. e. 27G-36/9, PD. 67.

a

b

f

c

d

g

j

h

k

n

e

i

l

m

o

Figure 22. Chert Miscellaneous Thin Bifaces and Pointed-End Bifaces (1:2 scale). a-j. Miscellaneous thin bifaces, considered to be unfinished points and knives. a. 20A-119/15. b. 20A-1441/17. c. 20A-1261/58. d. 20A-1160/2. e. 20E-63/16. f. 20K-75/48. g. 20A302/29. h. 20A-1445/17. i. 20A-1378/2. j. 20A-1510/3. k-o. Pointed-end bifaces. k-m. Small. k. 20D-108/43. l. 20B-217/55. m. 19S-2b/1. n-o. Large. n. 84A-7/12. o. 12C-422c/29, Bu. 10 exterior debitage deposit.

a

b

c

d

Figure 23. Chert Pointed-End Bifaces and Chopping Tools (1:2 scale). a-b. Pointed-end bifaces. a. 30C-1/1. b. 42I-2a/3. c-d. Chopping tools. c. 12R-230/3. d. 79C-28/12.

a

d

b

e

h

c

f

i

g

j

k

Figure 24. Chert Chopping Tools (1:2 scale). a. 26B-2/9. b. 12F-37/2. c. 91A-1/1. d. 12R-250/20, PD. 87. e. 129G-2/3. f. 138S-2/3. g. 136B-3/7. h. 136V-14/16. i. 12D-56a/10. j. 78R-57/14. k. 12A-91/16.

a

b

c

d

f

g

i

e

h

j

Figure 25. Chert Rectangular/Oval Bifaces (1:2 scale). Predominantly unfinished bifaces. a-d. From special deposits. a. 66H-38/14, PD. 231. b. 33A/48, Bu. 107. c. 66U-5/7, PD. 112 (also on Fig. 76e). d. 86A-12/1, PD. 123. e-j. From general excavations. e. 98B-4/5. f. 12P-457b/163. g. 20A-120/15. h. 97A-141/12. i. 78M-83/44. j. 71F-34/24.

a

b

f

c

d

g

i

e

h

j

Figure 26. Chert Rectangular/Oval Bifaces (1:2 scale). a. 128G-5/4. b. 10E-6/1. c. 12L-354b/34. d. 135C-23/15. e. 20H-4/3. f. 11D/33B. g. 3F-28/5. h. 12C-591/1. i. 12H-208/46. j. 98D-32a/16, PD. 158.

b

a

c

d

e

f

g

Figure 27. Chert Rectangular/Oval Bifaces (1:2 scale). All with battered perimeters from use as hammerstones. a. 45G-19/12. b. 12M12/2, PD. 29. c. 98L-13/9. d. 56B-16/1. e. 31E-2/1. f. 20A-109/1. g. 45G-6/3 (misnumbered).

a

b

c

d

e

g

f

h

Figure 28. Chert Rectangular/Oval Bifaces (1:2 scale). All with battered perimeters from use as hammerstones. a. 12F-3/1. b. 98D33/16, PD. 158. c. 71F-135/136. d. 98L-105/27. e-h. With battered handholds. e. 78K-44b/3. f. 96J-1/1. g. 28B-53/16. h. 118A13/4E.

a

b

e

c

f

i

g

h

k

j

n

d

o

l

p

m

q

Figure 29. Chert Thin Bifaces (1:2 scale). Stemmed points with expanded base. a. 23M-1/1. b. 97F-27b/14. c. 20A-462/60. d. 66W10/9. e. 20A-1204/54 conjoins 20A-1259/58. f. 100E-46/8. g. 49A-10/4. h. 142B-1/1. i. 68I-71/38. j. 73D-50/48, PD. 128. k. 66A-1/2. l. 36U-11/6. m. 119B-1/4. n. 20J-40/4. o. 68G-25/2. p. 30C-7/8. q. 20D-358/41.

a

b

f

c

d

g

e

h

j

i

k

l

m

n

Figure 30. Chert Thin Bifaces (1:2 scale). a-j. Stemmed points with expanded base. a. 100L-2/4. b. 43D-13/4. c. 43C-51/20. d. 20A561/5. e. 97E-12/9. f. 5B-8/1. g. 86A-21/4. h. 20A-1202/54. i. 37H-12/13, PD. 271. j. 97F-27a/14. k-n. Points with straight stem. k. 67A-122a/52, PD. 275. l. 20A-1157/2. m. 67A-11/18. n. 67A-191/59, PD. 275.

a

b

c

e

f

g

j

n

k

o

p

d

h

i

l

m

q

Figure 31. Chert Thin Bifaces (1:2 scale). Points with straight stem. a. 67A-122b/52, PD. 275. b. 67A-161/57, PD. 275. c. 67A180/58, PD. 275. d. 27G-29b/5. e. 73D-41/18. f. 67A-80/44. g. 20R-10b/3. h. 20A-1203/54. i. 12U-167/29. j. 3G-13/8. k. 98T7/2. l. 70F-28/12, PD. 104. m. 10E-86/2, PD. 50. n. 68I-77/44. o. 77A-16/7. p. 96Q-2/2. q. 125B-8a/3.

a

b

c

f

k

g

l

q

d

h

i

m

r

e

j

n

o

p

s

t

Figure 32. Chert Thin Bifaces (1:2 scale). a-j. Points with straight stem. a. 28A-8/2. b. 45G-89/25. c. 12C-377/27. d. 9C-1/1. e. 20K-336/55. f. 66H-11/7, PD. 231. g. 79A-12/17. h. 33C-3b/3. i. 68G-34/1. j. 9C-8/19. k-t. Points with broad tapered stem and long blade. k. 20A-1201/54. l. 98L-101a/9. m. 20A-465/60. n. 20K-80/48. o. 135K-5/3. p. 33F-84/36. q. 121A13-5/2. r. 98A-3/4, PD. 133. s. 20B-176/61. t. 20L-55/9.

a

b

e

f

i

n

c

g

j

o

p

d

h

k

q

l

r

m

s

Figure 33. Chert Thin Bifaces (1:2 scale). Pointed with broad tapered stem and long blade. a. 96G-1/3. b. 96C-1/2. c. 96C-33/9. d. 98R-28/17. e. 98L-124/17. f. 96F-34/3. g. 98L-101b/9. h. 27J-4/4. i. 45G-4/6. j. 98A-20/4, PD. 133. k. 33C-3a/3. l. 108A-8/2. m. 3A-108a/2. n. 106A-65a/5. o. 45E-21/2. p. 45E-49/10. q. 42E-7/6. r. 20A-211/9 conjoins 20A-1371/2. s. 31A-10/3.

a

b

c

f

e

g

i

n

d

j

o

h

k

p

l

q

r

m

s

Figure 34. Chert Thin Bifaces (1:2 scale). a-e. Points with broad tapered stem and long blade. a. 20B-152/26. b. 98M-3/4. c. 96H16/1. d. 129D-11/20. e. 20A-461/60. f-s. Points with broad tapered stem and short blade. f. 11A-12/2. g. 24X-25/5. h. 20K388/47. i. 20K-125/32. j. 98A-19/4, PD. 133. k. 20F-88/33. l. 79A-8/3. m. 98V-2/2. n. 98L-101c/9. o. 98L-101d/9. p. 106A65b/5. q. 100A-8/5. r. 97A-212/38. s. 98Q-8 /3.

a

b

d

e

h

m

c

f

i

n

o

j

p

q

g

k

l

r

s

Figure 35. Chert Thin Bifaces (1:2 scale). Points with narrow tapered stem. a. 67A-134a/53, PD. 275. b. 37W-1/2. c. 67A-18/21. d. 20K-273/83. e. 20A-1337/56. f. 98F-37/6. g. 56B-13/7. h. 68I-37a/16. i. Badly fire-spalled, 20A-1262/58. j. 130E-1/1. k. 20K335/55. l. 20K-387/47. m. 20K-286/12. n. 20F-90b/23. o. 19A-4/1. p. 20K-366/5. q. 20A-713/66. r. 20K-373/48. s. 20K-369/27.

a

c

d

f

i

b

e

g

j

h

k

l

Figure 36. Chert Thin Bifaces (1:2 scale). Points with narrow tapered stem. a. 20K-302/90. b. 20A-691/84. c. 98F-14/10. d. 20A1283/29. e. 20A-1258/58. f. 20A-402/30. g. 3B-148/25. h. 20L-31/4. i. 73D-19/18. j. 20K-195/61. k. 20A-464/60. l. 80A-36/1.

a

b

g

c

d

h

l

i

m

e

f

j

k

n

o

Figure 37. Chert Thin Bifaces (1:2 scale). a-k. Points with narrow tapered stem. a. 24C-240/118. b. 20A-315/29. c. 146L-3/4. d. 96F35/3. e. 97D-38/13. f. 96F-37/3. g. 20K-389/45. h. 20A-418/11. i. 127B-8/3. j. 28A-22/15. k. Badly fire-spalled, 27A-3/1. l-o. Stemless knives with pointed base. l. 80A-33/11. m. 20A-683/83. n. 80B-12/21, Ca. 211B. o. 13G-7/3, Ca. 236C (also Fig. B:63).

a

b

c

d

e

f

i

l

g

j

m

h

k

n

o

p

Figure 38. Chert Thin Bifaces (1:2 scale). a-h. Stemless knives with pointed base. a. 20D-94/30. b. Obverse and reverse, 20D-340/62. c. Reworked tip, 20E-57/16. d. 20A-210/9. e. Unfinished, 24A-123/65. f. 125C1-1/1. g. 20D-211/42. h. 12O-223/7. i-p. Stemless knives with straight base. i. conjoining fragments 24C-43/22, 24C-238/110, and 24C-274/103. j. 45E-26/3. k. 131D-2/4. l. 113D8/9. m. 45G-27/10. n. 49A-27/2. o. 44A-3/1. p. 3A-108b/2.

a

b

g

h

o

c

i

j

p

d

k

q

e

l

r

f

m

n

s

Figure 39. Chert Thin Bifaces (1:2 scale). Stemless knives with straight base. a. 23M-2/1. b. 98F-32/6. c. 78Q-41/17. d. 41G-8/2. e. 23L-14/1. f. 20F-89/33. g. 78P-58/42. h. 20D-278b/43. i. 98F-2/3. j. 131V-12b/6 conjoins 131V-25/5. k. 125B-8b/3. l. 138A55/25. m. 66X-29/18. n. 20A-603/67. o. 20L-80a/15. p. 20A-1279/29. q. 20M-117/31. r. 98D-101/30. s. 21G-1/1.

a

b

e

c

f

k

g

l

d

h

i

m

j

n

Figure 40. Chert Thin Bifaces (1:2 scale). a-d. Stemless knives with straight base. a. 33B-3/3. b. 20B-15/34. c. Reworked tip, 44A23a/4. d. 24N-3/6. e-n. Stemless knives with rounded base. e. 20K-196/64. f. 96D-10/4. g. 68L-19/2. h. 24C-270/121. i. 91E-1/1. j. 12M-60/19. k. Probably unfinished, 20L-80b/15. l. Probably unfinished, 116A-6/7. m. Serrated edges and traces of hafting adhesive on the base, 96H-47/11. n. 17B-7/7.

a

b

c

d

g

e

h

k

f

i

l

m

j

n

o

Figure 41. Chert Thin Bifaces (1:2 scale). a-i. stemless knives with rounded base. a. 78J-2/4. b. 13G-1/1, Ca. 236A (also Fig. B:63). c. 68I-57/35. d. 45E-39/10. e. 20K-20/5. f. 7E-15/1. g. 20F-50/5. h. 98L-40/21. i. 80B-13/20, Ca. 211A. j-o. Incomplete stemmed and stemless thin bifaces. j. 66H-39/14, PD. 231. k. 72C-13/5, PD. 263. l. 118E-1/1. m. 13B-1/1, PD. 42. n. 97B-24/4. o. 1C-33/12.

a

g

b

h

l

c

i

d

e

j

m

f

k

n

o

Figure 42. Chert Thin Bifaces (1:2 scale). Incomplete and reworked stemmed and stemless thin bifaces. a. 67A-49/35. b. 20E-24/10. c. 27A-24/1. d. 135K-59/3. e. 43F-64i/17, PD. 74. f. 20A-1155/2. g. 133B-20/7. h. 67B-3/4. i. 12V-68/26. j. 98F-25/6. k. 132V2/1. l. 20L-148/16. m. 68I-37b/16. n. 80C-2/1. o. 13G-9/4, Ca. 236D (also Fig. B:63).

a

f

b

g

h

m

n

c

i

o

t

d

p

u

j

q

k

r

v

e

l

s

w

Figure 43. Chert Thin Bifaces (1:2 scale). Incomplete and reworked stemmed and stemless thin bifaces. a. 13G-4/2, Ca. 236B (also Fig. B:63). b. 20D-278a/43. c. 79C-43/18. d. 20L-68/12. e. 43F-64a/17, PD. 74. f. 20A-1379/2. g. 19D-3/3. h. 49A-7a/2. i. 27E-16/3. j. 12H-188/19, PD. 26. k. 12H-33/9, PD. 15. l. 100B-4/2. m. Conjoins n, 43F-64d/17, PD. 74. n. Conjoins m, 43F-64b/17, PD. 74. o. 20R-10a/3. p. 20B-133/41. q. 68I-59/36. r. 20M-123/17. s. 28B-4/1. t. 24A-98/48. u. 98B-96a/2. v. 20L-54/9. w. 123P75/18.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Figure 44. Chert Flat, Rounded-End Bifaces (1:2 scale). a. 12K-376/41, Bu. 24 exterior deposit. b. 66H-14/9, PD. 231. c. 39F-37/3, PD. 274. d. 29A-12/1. e. 43F-67/17, PD. 74. f. 80D-2/1. g-h. Perhaps unfinished. g. 98L-16/5. h. 12V-41/24.

b

a

c

f

e

h

k

d

g

j

i

l

m

Figure 45. Chert Subtriangular and Drop-Shaped Bifaces (1:2 scale). a-g. Subtriangular bifaces. a. 136S-9/7. b. 135C-16/13. c. 130B28/1. d. 24G-140/44. e. 114C-6a/3. f. Heavily patinated, 20A-692/5. g. 20A-68/8. h-m. Drop-shaped bifaces. Apparently unfinished artifacts. h. 71F-158/73. i. 36Q-10/4. j. 20A-992/5. k. 20A-1154/2. l. 20A-468/60. m. 80E-8/2.

a

b

c

d

e

f

j

m

k

n

g

h

i

l

o

Figure 46. Chert Miscellaneous Thin Bifaces, Biface Edge Fragments, and Tanged Macroblades (1:2 scale). a-b. Miscellaneous thin bifaces. a. Fragmentary large, unique example, 68I-48/28. b. Reworked fragment, 122A-9/1. c-i. Biface edge fragments, c-g with one or both ends reworked into points. c. 41C-3b/4. d. 20A-920/5. e. 24K-9/10. f. 12P-451/163. g. 20D-123/48. h. 12T-223b/33. i. 24G76a/92. j-o. Tanged macroblades of fine, tan, banded, imported chert. j. 12A-115/35. k. 98K-35a/13. l. 12L-87/13. m. Probably part of n, 12P-43/20. n. Probably part of m, 12P-44/20. o. 91G-4/1.

a

b

c

f

e

g

j

m

d

h

k

n

i

l

o

p

Figure 47. Chert Tanged Macroblades (1:2 scale). Of fine chert unless otherwise noted. a. 12M-68/25, PD. 30. b. 12H-213/46. c. 12P456/163. d. 11D-121b/20. e. 100D-9/3. f. 12P-198/100. g. Medium, probably local chert, burned, 68A-7/4. h. 132X-1/6. i. 78L21/17. j. 12H-229/55. k. Medium, probably local chert, 71F-36a/24. l. 24C-156/89. m. 64S-1/14. n. 71F-129/100. o. 12P-176b/89. p. 66X-48/26.

a

b

g

c

d

e

f

i

h

k

j

l

n

m

o

Figure 48. Chert Small Points and Battered Flakes (1:2 scale). Small points made on flakes or blades. a. Unique example of medium, cream chert, 24L-14/1. b. 11B-39/1. c. 43E-8/6. d. 10A-290/26. e. Drawn from field notes by W.R. Coe, 12A-119/2. f. 129C-15/1. g. 20A-705/75. h. 128D-1/1. i-o. Thick flakes with battered perimeters. i. 62D-1b/1. j. 66X-100/32, PD. 125. k. 20A-1210/54. l. 18B-4/1. m. 33D/3. n. 100H-3/4. o. 11D-142/24.

a

b

c

Figure 49. Chert Large Scrapers (1:2 scale). a. 4P-127/2, Bu. 116. b. 4P-4/2, Bu. 116. c. Fine, gray, banded, imported chert. Ventral surface worn to a velvety smooth finish, 22F-1/2.

a

b

c

Figure 50. Chert Large Scrapers (1:2 scale). a. 20L-108/18. b. 78Q-30/6. c. 20B-30/31.

a

b

c

Figure 51. Chert Large Scrapers and Biface Planes (1:2 scale). a. Large scraper. 12F-46b/2. b-c. Biface planes. b. Made on a thin nodule with a natural perforation. 12F-46a/2. c. Apparently unfinished, 98K-16/10.

a

b

d

i

e

j

c

g

f

k

h

l

Figure 52. Chert Biface Plane and Scrapers (1:2 scale). a. Biface plane, 78K-88/35. b-l. Scrapers with rounded plans made on flakes of fine, dark, imported chert. b. Unique example of banded, brownish gray chert, fire-spalled, 20G-61/1. c. Cortical flake retaining the distinctive chalky cortex often found on fine, dark, imported chert, 3H-2/1. d. 20K-294/76. e. Fragment, 24C-137a/38. f. Fire-spalled, 20D-1/16. g. 22O-32/47. h. 129A-1/12. i. 24F-28/12. j. 142G-1/1. k, l. Patinated. k. 20G-26/28. l. 20A-1525/3.

a

b

e

d

g

k

c

f

h

l

i

m

n

j

o

Figure 53. Chert Scrapers (1:2 scale). a-h. Thick flakes with cortex on the dorsal surface. a. 24R-8/14. b. 66P-12a/11, PD. 111. c. 136V-138/19. d. 66P-12b/11, PD. 111. e. 138R-6/21. f. 9C/13. g. 12T-437/76, PD.163. h. 11G-3/3, Ca. 56. i-o. Different forms. i. With fingerholds, 98X-69/28. j. A unique steep scraper with a cortex handhold, 12C-569d/5. k. 131X-2/4. l. Cortical flake, 137T12/2. m. Cortical flake, 138J-1/9. n. 43F-68a/17, PD. 74. o. 98D-95b/26.

a

e

b

f

k

c

g

h

l

p

q

m

r

d

i

j

n

o

s

t

Figure 54. Chert Scrapers and Scraper-Awls (1:2 scale). a-p. Retouched bifacial thinning flakes and flakes from the rejuvenation of bifacial artifacts. a. 43F-68b/17, PD. 74. b. 114H-8/1. c. 43F-68c/17, PD. 74. d. 135A-53/50, PD. 196. e. 137V-4/3. f. 12C-253/20. g. 119A24-8/1. h. 24C-55/30. i. 135C-5/6. j. 20M-151A/43. k. 66X-27/17. l. 121A13-7/2. m. 128A-63/1. n. 76A-8/6. o. 43F68d/17, PD. 74. p. 136Q-2/6. q. Retouched chunk, 137T-6/4. r-t. Scraper-awls. r. 12C-370a/5. s. 12D-21/5. t. 78M-116/41.

a

b

g

c

h

i

j

d

k

l

e

m

n

f

o

p

u

q

r

v

s

t

w

x

Figure 55. Chert Scraper-Awls and Other Point-Retouched Drills, Awls, and Borers (1:2 scale). a-b. Scraper-awls. a. 27D-3/2. b. 58B2/2. c-x. Point-retouched flakes. c-e. Multiple points. c. 20F-42/8. d. 24G-175/8. e. 20M-69/39. f-r. Different forms. f. 24C-203/85. g. 24V-12/8. h. 24A-74/44. i. 24F-29/7. j. 24U-11/13. k. 24C-66/31. l. 24X-8/8. m. 12L-469/38. n. 1R-5/11. o. 24E-34c/17. p. 129D-36/20. q. 114H-4/2. r. 26D-5/5. s-t. Cortical flakes with short points. s. 12P-28/21. t. 67A-164/57, PD. 275. u-x. Points retouched on the broken edge of snapped flakes. u. 66X-28a/18. v. 66Z-6a/12. w. 117A-136/22, Bu. 196 exterior deposit. x. 71F37b/24.

a

b

g

h

m

1

c

n

2 s

d

e

i

j

o

p

f

k

l

q

r

3 t

u

v

w

x

y

z

aa

bb

Figure 56. Chert Point-Retouched Flakes and Point-Retouched Blades (1:2 scale). a-c. Awls with fingerholds. a. 23I-24/14. b. 20A1260/58. c. 23I-22c/10. d-f. Awls or borers with long retouched point. d. 73D-67/27. e. 78C-12a/11. f. 97A-161b/19. g-r. Borers or gravers. g. 64B-3a/8. h. 137P-26/10. i. 79A-2/2. j. 71F-48/26. k. 80E-6a/2. l. 119A24-7/1. m. 135A-54/50, PD. 196. n. 135D-5/8. o. 41G-7d/2. p. 72D-6/11. q. 78A-1/1. r. 145A-22/3. s. Drills from PD. 74. 1. 43F-69a/17. 2. 43F-69c/17. 3. 43F-69b/17. t-z. Drills on blades. t. 71F-196/135. u. 3C-56/4. v. 12U-161/23. w. 137X-3/6. x. 68H-2/7. y. 137H-2/4. z. 98D-108/11. aa-bb. Pointed bifacial thinning flakes with little or no retouch. aa. 123K-2/2. bb. 119D-3/3.

a

b

e

c

f

g

h

j

d

i

k

Figure 57. Chert Burins, Pseudoburins, and/or Spall Cores (1:2 scale). a. 36T-1/1. b. 136V-45/16. c. 97L-3/2. d. 136V-34/16. e. 12K12/1. f. 12P-454d/163. g. 137D-13/3. h. Fine, dark, imported chert, 28B-42/2. i. 71F-47a/26. j. 53C-27/5. k. 73A-12/19.

a

b

d

1

2

e

3

4

5

6

c

f

g

j

k

l

h

m

i n

Figure 58. Chert Blade Cores and Blades (1:2 scale). a-h. Blade cores. a. 71F-46b/26. b. 24E-42/25. c. 71F-79b/56, PD. 108. d. 71F70/46. e. 71F-79a/56, PD. 108. f. 71F-41/25. g. 3B-151/28. h. 67L-15/13. i-n. Blades. The platform points up where this information was available. i. The dorsal and ventral surfaces of six blades. 1. 125B-18/4. 2. 125A4-5/1. 3. 12V-88/26. 4. Fire-spalled, 125A318b/1. 5. 12U-185b/23. 6. 12U-185a/23. j. Fire-spalled, 45E-22/3. k. 27K-1b/1. l. 4B-30/2. m. 24C-155/59. n. Decortication blade, 12P-457a/163.

a

b

j

c

k

s

d

l

m

t

dd

e

u

ee

f

n

v

w

ff

g

o

x

y

gg

h

p

z

q

aa

hh

ii

i

r

bb

jj

cc

kk

Figure 59. Chert Blades (1:2 scale). The platform points up where this information was available. a-i. Outer blades. a. 28B/19. b. 27K1d/1. c. 33A/38, Bu. 107. d. 43F-70/17, PD. 74. e. 20K-185/68. f. 71F-179/61. g. 4B-16/2. h. 28A-38/7. i. 27K-7a/2. j-m. Blades struck to correct flaking errors. j. 12L-186/28. k. 3D-4/2. l. 3G-1/1. m. 45G-94/28. n-r. Blades with cortex. n. 98A/8. o. 98K77/31. p. 12L-157/28. q. 12D-42/24 (misnumbered). r. 3B-150/26. s-cc. Blades with triangular cross section. s. 20A-1280/29. t. 78O-33b/7. u. 22I-3/18. v. 66D/28. w. 24A-47/17A. x. 12G-151/20. y. 24G-195/34. z. 33F/1. aa. 98K-11/9. bb. 98K-28/12. cc. 12U-181/38, PD. 190. dd-kk. Blades with trapezoidal and pentagonal cross section. dd. 24X-6/8. ee. 68I/5. ff. 68G/5. gg. 12V54/44. hh. 97H-8c/8. ii. 20L-15/11. jj. 20A-1134/41. kk. 36U-6/17.

b a

d

c

e Figure 60. Chert Flake Cores (1:2 scale). a-c. Unusually large cores from monument caches. a. 11D-190a/7, Ca. 7. b. 11D-190b/7, Ca. 7. c. 11G-6a/2, Ca. 56. d-e. From general excavations. d. 123P-37/16. e. 131H-4/2.

a

c

b

d

e

g

k

f

h

l

i

m

j

n

o

Figure 61. Chert Flake Cores (1:2 scale). a. 23I-26/11. b. 20B-17/20. c. 136A-5/5. d. 136U-107/7, PD. 218. e. 128A-14/16. f. 4B33/2. g. 100E-19/6. h. 135A-5/24, PD. 191. i. 12R-273a/24, PD. 87. j. 20H-122/49. k-n. Four core fragments from PD. 74, all 43F-71/17. o. 20H-75/31.

e

b

a

c

1

d

2

Figure 62. Chipped and Ground Stone Artifacts (scale as noted). a. Sample of the chipped stone debitage deposited above the capstones of Bu. 24 (1:2 scale), including chert flakes from biface artifact production, 12K-384/40, and obsidian waste from prismatic blade production, 12K-385/40. b. Plans of a unique set of five gray obsidian prismatic blade sections retouched along both sides and ends (1:2 scale), 87A-14a-e/6, Bu. 177. c. Limestone fragment broken along three hollow-drilled bores (1:2 scale), 97A-136/12. d. Large dolomite architectural elements finished by pecking and grinding (1:10 scale). 1. 141B-1/1. 2. 141B-2/1. e. Waterworn white quartzite pebble hammerstone, 20A-304/29 (1:2 scale).

Figure 63. Chert Thin Bifaces and Obsidian Prismatic Blades from Cache 236A-D (1:2 scale). The stemless knives, shown in two views, are of fine, dark, imported chert. Each knife had been deposited with a prismatic blade of translucent gray obsidian. The blade from Ca. 236A is not shown. Top row, 13G-1/1 (also Fig. B:41b), Ca. 236A; 13G-9/4 (also Fig. B:42o), 13G-10/4, Ca. 236D. Bottom row, 13G7/3 (also Fig. B:37o), 13G-8/3, Ca. 236C; 13G-4/2 (also Fig. B:43a), 13G-5/2, Ca. 236B.

a

b

e

j

c

f

g

k

o

d

h

l

p

i

m

q

n

r

Figure 64. Obsidian Thin Bifaces (1:2 scale). Stemmed. a. 42F-39/5, opaque black. b. 128E-13/7, opaque gray, Otumba. c. 70F-31/9, translucent gray. d. 12J-165/17, PD. 22, chatoyant green. e. 100N-5/3, opaque black. f. 20D-363/47, translucent gray. g. 20A-254/29 conjoins 20L-50/9, finely flaked with an unusually thin cross section, green. h. 45G-59/25, translucent gray. i. 66H-26/12, PD. 231, red-streaked opaque black. j. 24C-352/139, translucent gray. k. 1C-59/9, opaque black. l. 43F-46b/17, PD. 74, chatoyant green. m. 98F-9/7, translucent gray. n. 98L-121/30, opaque gray. o. 98K-78/31, chatoyant green. p. 67A-102a/50, PD. 275, opaque black. q. 86A-15a/3, green. r. 12C-42b/7 conjoins 12C-194/7, PD. 54, green.

a

b

g

c

h

l

r

d

i

m

f

j

n

s

e

k

o

t

p

u

v

q

w

Figure 65. Obsidian Thin Bifaces (1:2 scale). Stemmed. a. 112B-5/2, translucent gray. b. 43F-45e/17, PD. 74, opaque black. c. 67A102b/50, PD. 275, opaque black. d. 20A-180/2, translucent gray. e. 37C-9a/2?, translucent gray. f. 17B-14/9, stem fragment, translucent gray. g. 43F-110/23, opaque gray, Otumba. h. 43F-45b/17, PD. 74, translucent gray. i. 49A-8/2, green. j. 100B-13b/2, translucent gray. k. 93B-1/2, clear gray. l. 3G-38/18, translucent gray. m. 68A-6a/4, opaque black. n. 26B-6/1, PD. 224, opaque black, probably Ucareo. o. 68C-1/6, translucent gray. p. 70F-27a/12, PD.104, opaque black. q. 43E-2/4, green. r. 43F-46a/17, PD. 74, green. s. 20D-68/15, opaque gray, Zaragoza. t. 98F-18/6, translucent gray. u. 24E-56/30, green. v. 70F-27b/12, PD. 104, translucent gray. w. 78M-61/39, opaque black.

a

g

b

h

n

o

v

c

i

j

p

q

w

d

k

r

x

f

e

l

s

t

y

m

u

z

Figure 66. Obsidian Thin Bifaces (1:2 scale). Stemmed. a. 77A-17/7, opaque black. b. 78M-15/18, clear brown gray, Ixtepeque. c. 20A731/74, cortex on most of visible face, opaque gray, Otumba. d. 20B-23/19, opaque black. e. 66H-42/14, PD. 231, translucent gray. f. 36U-9/19, translucent gray. g. 43F-112/21, translucent gray. h. 42F-37/12, translucent gray. i. 23L-6/1, opaque black. j. 68I-41/18, chatoyant green. k. 12H-192/27, translucent gray. l. 43F-45a/17, PD. 74, translucent gray. m. 97E-8/5, break reworked into a scraper, green. n. 20K-146/49, green. o. 43F-45c/17, PD. 74, translucent gray. p. 67A-169/57, PD. 275, opaque black. q. 67A-193a/59, PD. 275, translucent gray. r. 24W-6/4, opaque black. s. 133B-2/3, green. t. 80A-40/6, clear gray. u. 56F-4/3, translucent gray. v. 66H28/12, PD. 231, red-streaked opaque black. w. 68Z-8/8, opaque black. x. 42F-43/12, translucent gray. y. 3G-44/20, opaque gray. z. 98K-119/40, translucent gray.

a

b

h

d

i

m

r

c

f

j

n

s

e

o

t

u

v

g

k

l

p

q

w

Figure 67. Obsidian Thin Bifaces (1:2 scale). Stemmed. a. 66H-27/12, PD. 231, opaque gray, Otumba. b. 44D-4/3, translucent gray. c. 97A-331/57, opaque black. d. 67A-137/53, PD. 275, opaque gray, Otumba. e-h. Extensively reworked examples. e. 80A-9/4, green. f. 20A-657/74, translucent gray. g. 67L-1/1, translucent gray. h. 20L-116/23, an unusual opaque silvery gray. i. 16B-2i/3, Ca. 51, unique side-notched example, translucent gray. j. 77A-22/8, green. k. 105B-1/7, green. l. 67C-5/3, green. m. 12D-14/4, translucent gray. n. 67A-184/58, PD. 275, opaque gray, Otumba. o. 86A-27/8, green. p. 20B-119/45, translucent gray. q. 12T-91/22, translucent gray. r. 45E-33/9, translucent gray. s. 67A-28b/25, green. t. 17B-4/2, opaque black. u. 73B-37/45, clear gray. v. 15A-13/11, opaque gray. w. 98F-17/6, unique stemless example, clear brown gray, Ixtepeque.

b

a

f

j

k

n

t

o

u

c

g

e

h

i

l

p

v

d

q

w

r

x

y

s

z

m

aa

bb

cc

dd

ee

Figure 68. Obsidian Thin Bifaces, Unclassified Bifacial Artifact, Small Points, Macroblade, and Retouched and Used Flakes (1:2 scale). ah. Unclassifiable thin biface fragments. a. 68I-45/20, opaque black. b. 12D-34/6, opaque gray. c. 100N-6/3, opaque black. d. 45G11/7, opaque silvery green, Pachuca. e. 12L-94/14, finely flaked with an unusually thin cross section, chatoyant green. f. 98F-22/6, opaque black. g. 20A-1549/11, opaque black. h. 12V-22/23, opaque black. i. Unclassified complete, bifacial artifact. 97A-290/41, translucent gray. j. Small point. 11B-3/6, translucent gray. k-l. Small points made on prismatic blades. k. 136W-3/2, translucent gray. l. 138A-32/32, translucent gray. m. Macroblade with heavily used lateral edges, 18A-1/2, PD. 273, green. n-s. Scrapers on flakes. Gray or black unless otherwise noted. n. 3A-117/5a, PD. 37. o. 12P-165a/89. p. 12P-165b/89. q. 12P/138. r. 12P/89. s. 24E-20/7. t-dd. Retouched or heavily used flakes. t. 12P/138. u. 37B-1/1. v. 23I-25/14. w. 12P-356/138. x. 18A-2/2, PD. 273. y. 21A-2/1. z. 7E17/1. aa. 11E-7a/3. bb. 11E-5/2. cc. 12E-82/5. dd. 20L-110/3. ee. 45G-58/22, PD. 147, unique thick macroflake retouched on all edges, green.

a

e

f

b

g

h

1 p

q

i

j

k

l

m

c

d

n

o

2 r

1

s

2

3

4

t

5

6

u

7

v

Figure 69. Obsidian Large Polyhedral Core and Prismatic Blade Cores (1:2 scale). a. 12C-587/30, Bu. 10 exterior, large polyhedral core with abraded arrises and retouched distal end. b. 12R-90/15, Ca. 140B, first-series flake from a large polyhedral core showing abraded arrises, opaque gray, El Chayal. c. 12R-90/15, Ca. 140B, first-series flake from a large polyhedral core showing abraded arrises, translucent brownish gray, El Chayal. d-u. Exhausted and rejuvenated prismatic blade cores and fragments. d. 12A-6a/3, Ca. 10, core tablet. e. 20A-458/60. f. 20A-1499/3. g. 20K/5. h. 20M-68a/39. i. 20A-1499/3. j. 12G-164/19. k. 20K/69. l. 20K/33. m. 68L-4/1. n. 20K/68. o. 66P-1/7, PD. 113. p. 20A-1364/56. q. 43F-52c/17, PD. 74, translucent gray, Otumba. r. 12C-406/29, Bu. 10 exterior, two cores with pecked encircling grooves. s. 20A-226/29, the distal end of an unusually well-flaked core. t. 104A-4/1, thick core section with pecking on opposite faces. u. 41F/2, Bu. 77 exterior, ground distal end fragment. v. 12B-194/14, Ca. 41, rejuvenated blade cores. 1-3, with traces of pecked encircling grooves that guided the forming of a new platform. 4-7, cores with two new platforms.

a

1

b

1

2

3

4

5

6

c

2

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

d

10 11 12 13 14

15

e

1

2

3 4 5 6 7 f

Figure 70. Obsidian Broad Prismatic Blades, Retouched and Used Prismatic Blades, and Blades with Cross Retouch (1:2 scale unless noted). Gray or black unless noted. a, b. Broad prismatic blades. a. 79C-27b/12, used lateral edges, opaque black, Zaragoza. b. 98T2b/1, broken lateral edges, green, Pachuca. c, d. Retouched prismatic blades (1:1 scale). c. 1. 18B-11/1. 2. 12D-19/5, green. 3. 12M7/1. 4. 12C-272/16, PD. 54. 5. 20A-1421/3. 6. 12P-460b/163. d. Notched blades, Ca. 79. 1. 12J-22a/5. 2. 12J-22b/5. e. Used prismatic blade fragments typical of general excavations. 1. 72C-11/10. 2. 72B-4/9. 3. 78F-3/1. 4. 12K-393/64, green. 5. 36P-5/4. 6. 77A-2/1. 7. 66W-7/7. 8. 12P-460a/163. 9. 73D-74/29. 10. 78I-5/3. 11. 78I-3/2. 12. 66W-7/7. 13. 77A-18/7. 14. 73D-12/9. 15. 98F-11/6, translucent brownish gray with black, dust-like inclusions, El Chayal. f. Blade fragments with cross retouch. 1. 12P/98, on one face. 2-7. On two faces. 2. 20D-334/45. 3. 64E-2/8. 4. 12P-165c/89. 5. 24A-134/37. 6. 20H. 7. 52A/2.

Figure 71. Incised Obsidians from Cache 15, Stela 11, lot 11D/52, obverse and reverse faces (1:2 scale). This set of nine was produced on macroblades from large polyhedral cores, except for a and b, which were engraved on distal fragments of such cores. The lateral edges of all show varying degrees of intentional retouch. Top row, 11D-238c, d, i, h, g. Bottom row, 11D-238e, b, a, f. See also TR. 27A: Fig. 42a.

a b

c

d

e

f

g

Figure 72. Obsidian Debitage (1:2 scale). a. 12A-6b/3, Ca. 10, small fragments from the rejuvenation of prismatic blade cores. b. 12A9/3, Ca. 10, small irregular percussion flakes from core preparation or artifact production. c. 12A-8/3, Ca. 10, percussion and pressure blades from prismatic blade production. d. 12C-40/7, Ca. 14A, flake struck from a prismatic blade core to remove a flaw, translucent gray with brownish tinge and black banding, El Chayal. e. 64J/4, cortical flake with used edges, translucent gray with brownish tinge, black dust-like inclusions, San Martín Jilotepeque. f, g. Transverse flakes from prismatic blade cores. f. 25C-9b/1. g. 11B-48b/1.

a b

c

Figure 73. Ground Stone Mano and Metate Sets (approximately 1:4 scale). The manos are considered to have been used on the metates with which they were found. a. Variety W mano, 90C-3/3 (sections on Fig. 78m), and Variety G metate, 90C-4/3 (sections on Fig. 83c), Ca. 205. b. Variety V mano, 10A-286/23 (sections on Fig. 78h), and Variety J metate, 10A-287/23 (sections on Fig. 84c), PD. 39. c. Variety W mano, 66H-22/11 (sections on Fig. 78l), and Variety H metate, 66H-23/11 (sections on Fig. 82a), PD. 231.

a

b

c

Figure 74. Ground Stone Mano and Metate Sets (approximately 1:4 scale). The manos are considered to have been used on the metates with which they were found. a. Variety Y mano, 12K-245/22 (sections on Fig. 78c), and Variety P metate, 12K-246/22 (sections on Fig. 86b), Bu. 48. b. Variety Y mano, 10E-50/2 (sections on Fig. 78d), and Variety P metate, 10E-51/2 (plan and sections on Fig. 86c), PD. 50. c. Variety V mano, 124A2-4/1 (sections on Fig. 79n), and Variety N metate, 124A2-3/1 (sections on Fig. 85a).

1

a

2

1

1

1

2

2

c

2 d

b

3

Figure 75. Ground Stone Mano and Metate Sets (approximately 1:4 scale). a. Set found and probably used together. 1. Variety R metate, 119B-24/22. 2. Variety Y mano, 119B-25/22 (sections on Fig. 78e). b, c. Found but probably not used together, all PD. 46. b. 1. Variety Q metate, 20D-238/10 (plan and sections on Fig. 82c). 2. Variety V mano, 20D-237/10 (plan and section on Fig. 77r). c. 1. Variety R metate, 20D-204/65 conjoins 20D-240/7,10, 65 (plan and sections on Fig. 86a). 2. Variety V mano, 20D-239/10. d. Three complete, Variety V manos found together, PD. 47. 1. 20D-236/25 (plan and sections on Fig. 77a). 2. 20D-234/25 (sections on Fig. 79m). 3. 20D-235/25.

a 1-4

b 1-4

c 1-4

d 1-4

e

Figure 76. Ground Stone Manos from Problematical Deposit. 112 (1:4 scale). All Variety V, except c1, c3, and d3, which are Variety W. d1. is a hammerstone, e is a rectangular/oval biface. a. 1. 66U-4c/8. 2. 66U-3a/9 (sections on Fig. 79p). 3. 66U-8b/7. 4. Rejuvenated end, 66U-4b/8. b. 1. 66U-8a/7. 2. 66U-4e/8. 3. 66U-4a/8 (sections on Fig. 78b). 4. 66U-4d/8. c. 1. 66U-8c/7. 2. 66U-8e/7. 3. 66U3c/9. 4. 66U-8d/7. d. 1. Associated chert hammerstone, 66U-2/9. 2. 66U-8f/7 (sections on Fig. 77c). 3. 66U-3b/9 (sections on Fig. 78k). 4. 66U-4f/8. e. Associated chert rectangular/oval biface, 66U-5/7 (plans on Fig. 25c).

c a

b

e

f

i

j

n

d

o

g

k

h

l

p

m

q

r

Figure 77. Ground Stone Manos (1:4 scale). a-j, n-r are Variety V, k-m are Variety W. a. 20D-236/25, PD. 47 (plan on Fig. 75d1). b. 73D-72/28. c. 66U-8f/7, PD. 112 (plan on Fig. 76d2). d. 73B-4/4. e. 12M-53/21. f. 53A-5/3. g. 77A-6/4. h. 20A-882/5. i. 33F85/36. j. 12F-47c/2. k. 8B-34/9. l. 27C-37/7. m. 56A-8a/2. n. 22O-33/47. o. 28C-6/2. p. 49A-38a/4. q. Broken end rounded and pitted from reuse as a hammerstone, 20J-63/10. r. 20D-237/10, PD. 46 (plan on Fig. 75b2).

b

a

c d

e

f

g i

h

j

k

l

m

n

Figure 78. Ground Stone Manos (1:4 scale). a, b. Variety V. a. 20A-166/5. b. 66U-4a/8, PD. 112 (plan on Fig. 76b3). c-f. Variety Y. c. 12K-245/22, Bu. 48 (plan on Fig. 74a). d. 10E-50/2, PD. 50 (plan on Fig. 74b). e. 119B-25/22 (plan on Fig. 75a2). f. 12L-23/7. g, h. Variety V. g. 24A-9/36. h. 10A-286/23, PD. 39 (plan on Fig. 73b). i-n. Variety W. i. 66X-30/18. j. 24A-168/56. k. 66U-3b/9, PD. 112 (plan on Fig. 76d3). l. 66H-22/11, PD. 231 (plan on Fig. 73c). m. 90C-3/3, Ca. 205 (plan on Fig. 73a). n. Break reused as a hammerstone, 20A-883/5.

a

b

f

c

d

g

i

n

j

h

k

o

e

l

p

m

q

Figure 79. Ground Stone Manos (1:4 scale). a-j. Variety W. k-q. Variety V. a. 73B-35/41. b. 42H-4/1. c. 68I/1. d. 31C/3, PD. 8. e. Naturally grooved, probably waterworn upper surface, 12G-196/28. f. 78J-4/6. g. 20A-411/11. h. 20A-1433/17. i. 12M-4/1. j. 45E5/1. k. 20E-3/7. l. 43F-98a/20. m. 20D-234/25, PD. 47 (plan on Fig. 75d2). n. 124A2-4/1 (plan on Fig. 74c). o. 109A-1/2. p. 66U3a/9, PD. 112 (plan on Fig. 76a2). q. Reworked midsection fragment with a pit pecked into each end, 12D-58/10.

a

b

c

d

e

h

i

l

f

g

j

k

m

n

q

o

p

r

Figure 80. Ground Stone Manos and Metates (1:4 scale). a-k. Manos. a-d. Variety V. a. 20A-511/11. b. 45E-36/10. c. 1B-9/2. d. 20E-180/38. e-g. Variety Z. e. 66P-15/12. f. 39F-36/12, PD. 274. g. 56F-2/2. h. Variety X. 71M-1/1. i-k. Unclassified fragments. i. 9D-1/3. j. 11B-25/1. k. 20M-133/20. l-r. Metates. Variety H. l. 20A-106/11. m. Rejuvenated, 20E-195/37. n. Rejuvenated, 20A1456/60. o. 20M-85a/14. p. 20M-141c/12. q. 20E-58/16. r. 20A-261/29.

a

b Figure 81. Ground Stone Metates (1:4 scale). Variety H. a. 27G-47/14, Bu. 74. b. 20B-5/24 conjoins 20B-44/38 and 20B-223/27.

b

a

c Figure 82. Ground Stone Metates (1:4 scale). a. Variety H, 66H-23/11, PD. 231 (also Fig. 73c). b, c. Variety Q. b. 67A-83/36. c. 20D238/10, PD. 46 (plan on Fig. 75b1).

b

a

d

c Figure 83. Ground Stone Metates (1:4 scale). a, b. Variety Q. a. 12J-141/17, PD. 22. b. Reworked from a Variety N metate, 20A1192/62. c, d. Variety G. c. 90C-4/3, Ca. 205 (plan on Fig. 73a). d. 20A-170/17.

a

b

c

d

Figure 84. Ground Stone Metates (1:4 scale). Variety J. a. 1G-1/1. b. Completely polished fragment possibly reused as a whetstone, 7C19/1. c. 10A-287/23, PD. 39 (plan on Fig. 73b). d. 20M-66/44.

a

b

c

d Figure 85. Ground Stone Metates (1:4 scale). a-c. Variety N. a. 124A2-3/1 (plan on Fig. 74c). b. Upper leg fragment, 82A-10/4. c. 20A-105/11. d. Variety R, 43C-13/26, PD. 76.

a

b

c Figure 86. Ground Stone Metates (1:4 scale). a. Variety R, 20D-204/65 conjoins 20D-240/7, 10, 65, PD. 46 (plan on Fig. 75c1). b, c. Variety P. b. 12K-246/22, Bu. 48 (also Fig. 74a). c. 10E-51/2, PD. 50 (also Fig. 74b).

a

b

d c

Figure 87. Ground Stone Metates (1:4 scale). a. Variety S, a unique example, 98A-33/7 conjoins 98K-134/48. b. Fragment of a Variety P metate reused with a short mano, 78J-1/1. c, d. Variety V fragments. c. 20A-117/15 conjoins 20A-169/5 and 20A-1398/3. The plan view does not show fragment 20A-117/15. d. 12S-3/6.

b

a

Figure 88. Ground Stone Metate and Architectural Element (1:4 scale). a. Variety V metate, 141A-1/1. b. Probable architectural element with an incised spiral on one face, 98D-8/2.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

Figure 89. Ground Stone Metates Reused as Whetstones (1:2 scale). Fragments of trough metates with the undersides reused as whetstones. a. 12H-64/18, Bu. 22 (sections on Fig. 90a). b. 12V-65/13. c. 12T-359/55. d. 97K-1/2. e. 98K-133/49. f. 12L-83/13 (sections on Fig. 90d). g. 70C/1 (section on Fig. 90c).

a

b

g

c

h

d

e

f

i

j

l k

m

n

Figure 90. Ground Stone Metates. Rejuvenated, Reused, and Unusual Metate Fragments (1:4 scale). a, b. Ground concave areas. a. 12H-64/18, Bu. 22 (plan on Fig. 89a). b. 33C-37/8. c-f. Grooved. c. 70C/1 (plan on Fig. 89g). d. 12L-83/13 (plan on Fig. 89f ). e. 78K-9/6. f. 19A-3/1. g, h. Completely ground fragments. g. 20G-58/1. h. 7C-5/1. i, j. Broken edges used as hammerstones. i. 12L245/16. j. 66X-65b/30, PD. 114. k. End fragment with reworked handle and pecked encircling groove, 45D-4/2. l. Rounded edges and neatly pecked fingerholds, 49A-37/2. m. Unique proximal end fragment with a very broad rim, 98D-118/9, Bu. 182. n. Variety V fragment with a reworked edge, 9C-3/7.

a

c b

Figure 91. Ground Stone Mortars (1:4 scale). a. 124B-10/5. b. 20M/48. c. 1D-26b/3.

b

a

c

e

d

f

Figure 92. Ground Stone Mortars and Grinding Stones (1:4 scale). a, b. Mortars. a. 12G-194c/30. b. 12G-190b/30. c-f. Grinding Stones. c. Variety A, 66H-34/11, PD. 231. d. Variety A, 20A-844/24. e. Variety B, 24G-10/9. f. Variety B, 12P-47/32.

a

b

c

d

e

h

f

i

g

j

Figure 93. Ground Stone Grinding Stone (1:4 scale), and Rubbing Stones and Saw (1:2 scale). a. Grinding Stone, Variety B, 76A-12/7. b-i. Rubbing Stones, Variety A. b. 71F-136/104. c-e. Waterworn limestone pebbles with wear facets. c. 12D-35/6. d. 12P-3b/2. e. 1B-11/2. f-h. Chert nodules. f. Polished cortex and battered ends, 20A-193/9. g. Polished cortex and facetted, polished end, 1D-41/9A. h. One rounded, polished edge, 20J-64/24. i. 12H-65/18, Bu. 22. j. Saw. 12G-209/41, Ca. 130.

a

b

c

d

f

e

g

Figure 94. Ground Stone Rubbing Stones (1:2 scale). a-c. Variety A. a. 43F-57a/17, PD. 74. b. 43F-57b/17, PD. 74. c. 12R-236b/20, PD. 87. d-g. Variety B. d. 12R-84a/12, Ca. 136. e. 12C-378/27. f. 12R-86b/12, Ca. 136. g. 12C-391/5.

b

a

c

f

d

g

e

h

Figure 95. Ground Stone Rubbing Stones (1:2 scale). a-d, f, h. Variety B. e. Variety A. g. Unclassified. a. 66X-46/24. b. 24G-30/62. c. 12P-55/20. d. 77A-27/9. e. 20K-60/47. f. 67A-56/35. g. 20F-54/15. h. 66H-40/14, PD. 231.

a

b

c

f

i

d

e

g

h

j

Figure 96. Ground Stone Rubbing Stones, Polished Stones, and Saws (1:2 scale). a-d. Rubbing Stones. a. Unique example with handhold, 12D-60a/10. b-d. Variety A. b. 43F-57c/17, PD. 74. c. 12R-236a/20, PD. 87. d. 12R-84b/12, Ca. 136. e-h. Fragments of hard stones with highly polished surfaces. e. 3C-25/7. f. 12D-1/2. g. 64S-4/18. h. 98A-57/15. i, j, Saws. i. 12K-310/25. j. 20A-372/60.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

i

Figure 97. Ground Stone Whetstones, Drill, and Stamp (1:2 scale). a-g. Whetstones. a. 73D-77/36. b. 29A-18/2. c. 71F-148/140, PD. 130. d. 12G-163b/19. e. 3A-1/6. f. 24R-21/23. g. 43A-32/4. h. Drill, 24X-1/1. i. Stamp, 74A-9/5.

a

b

e

c

d

f

g

h

l

i

j

k m

n

o

p

Figure 98. Ground Stone Hammerstones (1:2 scale). a-h. Chert. i-n. Limestone. o, p. Quartzite. a. 12F-38/2. b. 12G-175/22. c. 18A14a/1, PD. 273. d. 12G-163a/19. e. 73D-69/27. f. 27C-29/5. g. 66U-7/7, PD. 112. h. 66X-31/18. i. 66P-11/11, PD. 111. j. 26H11/2, PD. 72. k. 33E/2. l. 43F-63a/17, PD. 74. m. 43F-63b/17, PD. 74. n. 78S-10/1. o. 66W/7. p. 44C-10/2.

a

b

d

e

h

f

i

l

c

g

j

m

k

n

Figure 99. Ground Stone Celts (1:2 scale). Dark jadeite except for e. meta-graywacke? l, m. felsite. a. 7E-16/1. b. 98F-36/6. c. 20A360a/60. d. 28A-5/2. e. Battered, with patches of glassy polish, 96C-18/5. f. 135A-87/90, PD. 200. g. 27G-3/14, Bu. 74. h. 68I55/33. i. 1D-42/9A. j. 67A-68/36. k. 98F-51/15. l. 118E-8/10. m. 96F-23/3. n. 20A-638/56.

a

d

b

e

f

j

k

n

r

g

h

l

o

s

c

i

m

p

q

t

Figure 100. Ground Stone Celts and Chisel (1:2 scale). c, d, g, k, l, m have patches of glassy polish. o, q. battered bit ends. Dark jadeite except for b, which is of unidentified soft, brown stone. a. 42F-44/12. b. 66H-29/12, PD. 231. c. 2B-8/2. d. 70C-17/1. e. 90C-6/3, Ca. 205. f. 96J-4/1. g. 43F-59/17, PD. 74. h. 33A-115/36. i. 20K-381/33. j. 1B-2/1. k. 24R-17/7. l. 67A-29/25. m. 78M-117/41. n. 70E-2/4. o. 12K-258a/22, Bu. 48. p. 26H-14/3, PD. 72. q. 12P-118/55. r. 135A-155/83, Ca. 217. s. 135A-95/81, Ca. 216. t. Chisel, 20D-338/59.

a

b

c

d

e

Figure 101. Ground Stone Barkbeaters (1:2 scale). Variety X. a. 95A-1/3. b. 12L-240/16. c. 37K-5/2. d. 20L-180/7. e. 20A-1360/56.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

Figure 102. Ground Stone Barkbeaters (1:2 scale). a-f. Variety X. a. 1B-10/2. b. 5C-3/1. c. 20A-146/11. d. 114G-9/4. e. 39B-1/2. f. 137P-22/3, 4. g. Variety W, 67C-13/7.

a

b

c

d

e

Figure 103. Ground Stone Barkbeaters (1:2 scale). Variety W. a. 3A-103/16. b. 71F-123/121. c. 12I-35/15. d. 90A-13/24. e. 24G213/108.

a

b

c

d

Figure 104. Ground Stone Barkbeaters and Barkmallets (1:2 scale). a, b. Barkbeaters, Variety W. a. 3C-2/2. b. 44A-33/8. c, d. Barkmallets, Variety V. c. 24G-115/80. d. 12P-65/55.

a

b

c

d

h

e

i

f

j

g

k

l

Figure 105. Ground Stone Barkbeaters and Barkmallets, Cupped Stones, and Small Worked Sphere (1:2 scale). a. Barkbeater fragment. 18B-9/1. b-c. Barkmallet fragments. b. 7C-3/1. c. 71F-164/88. d-k. Cupped Stones. d. 66X-102/32, PD. 125. e. 64E-7/15. f. 12P358/155. g. 12P-283/131. h. Unique example with a drilled central pit, 68K-1/3. i. 12P-309/151. j. 71F-137/92. k. 135K-53/3. l. Small Worked Sphere. Depression made with solid drills of two sizes, 66X-17/20, PD. 116.

a

b

d

e

f

h

i

l

p

c

j

m

q

r

g

n

s

t

u

k

1

v

2 o

w

3

x

Figure 106. Ground Stone Spindle Whorls (1:2 scale). a-n, q, u. Variety N. o, r-t, x. Variety P. p, v, w. Variety Q. a. 20B-250/62, Bu. 26. b. 20A-680/29. c. 107C-7/4. d. 20D-10/2. e. 24E-57/30. f. 31E-4/2. g. 20D-268/11. h. 20A-370/60. i. 20B-210/55. j. 24T-27/16. k. With the same design as j, 20A-144/11. l. 76B-17/4. m. 20G-52/23. n. 98D-40/16, PD. 158. o. Bu. 184. 1. 98D-61a/17. 2. 98D61b/17. 3. 98D-61c/17. p. 98R-56/17. q. 136A-9/5. r. 68I-89/1. s. 49A-26/2. t. 20A-148/11. u. 3E-5/27, Bu. 192. v. 97D-39/13, w. 97A-231/42. x. Incised line partway around the whorl, 42F-45/12.

a

b

c

d

e

g

f

h

i Figure 107. Ground Stone Pestles, Ballgame Handstones, and Centrally Perforated Disks (scale as noted). a-c. Pestles (1:2 scale). a. 20A886/5. b. 24A-88/53. c. 12K-316/27, Ca. 241B. d, e. Ballgame Handstones (1:4 scale). d. 119B-44/29. e. Handle fragment, 20A413/11. f-i. Centrally Perforated Disks (1:2 scale). f. One face incised, 78K-91/38. g. 12K-108/13, Bu. 23. h. 12P-38/32. i. 73B14/11.

a

b

c

d

f

e

g

h

Figure 108. Ground Stone Doughnut Stones (1:2 scale). a. Carved face on one side, 68I-50/1. b. Reconstruction of the face on 68I-50/1. c. 20B-50/38. d. 66X-104/35. e. 61D-1/1. f. 71S-1/1. g. 17A-13/5. h. 24E-7/4.

a

d

b

e

h

g

c

k

f

i

j

l

Figure 109. Ground Stone Flattened-End Spheres, Stemmed Spheres, and Small Worked Spheres (1:2 scale). a-d. Flattened-End Spheres. a. 66X-65a/30, PD. 114. b. 78E-1/1. c. 12P-182h/89. d. 11D-178a/29. e-g. Stemmed Spheres. e. 80D-11/6. f. 20K-176/67. g. 20M-148/48. h-l. Small Worked Spheres. h. 66X-93c/31, PD. 125. i. Two opposing drilled depressions, 44G-5/2. j. 3D-12/2. k. One end hollow-drilled, 32A/3. l. 30A/1.

1

2

3 a

b

c

e

d

f

Figure 110. Ground Stone Stones with a Central Depression. a-c. Larger (1:4 scale). a. Bu. 79. 1. 28B-39c/25. 2. 28B-39a/25. 3. 28B39b/25. b. Slab with chalky yellow material on the underside, 73D-78/36. c. 73B-45/52. d-f. Smaller (1:2 scale). d. 12O-215/7. e. 78R-74/42. f. 10E-83/2, PD. 50.

a

b

e

g

c

d

f

h

i

j

k

Figure 111. Ground Stone Elongate Soft Stone Objects (1:2 scale). a. 12R-237a/20, PD.87. b. 12R-237c/20, PD. 87. c. 12P-312/151. d. 129D-25/6. e. 129G-5/1. f. 3A-46/10. g. 31B-2/1. h. 12J-24a/2, Ca. 78. i. 12R-237b/20, PD. 87. j. 33F-86a/36. k. 3D-29/6.

a

d

b

e

c

f

Figure 112. Ground Stone Cordholders (?)(1:4 scale). a. 1C-77/10. b. 1C-78/10. c. 12D-18/5. d. 28A-53/29. e. 136V-52/16. f. 112B.

a

c

b

d

Figure 113. Ground Stone Architectural Elements (scale as noted). a, b. Larger (1:10 scale). a. Cover of PD. 76, 43C/26, MS. 67. b. Drain, 73D-53/58. c, d. Smaller (1:4 scale). c, d. Typical Classic Period building blocks of local bedrock. c. 12D-28/5. d. 12H116/12, PD. 17.

a

b

c

e

d

f

g Figure 114. Ground Stone Architectural Elements. a-d. Smaller (1:2 scale). a. 12P-608/55. b. 12D-27/5. c. 12J-24b/2, Ca. 78. d. 89A9/6. e-g. Larger (1:4 scale). e. 91A-2/1. f. 12C-380/19F. g. Sections of a tenoned block with a trapezoidal plan, 78R-63/.

a

c

f

b

d

e

g

h

Figure 115. Ground Stone Miscellaneous Artifacts (scale as noted). a, b, d, f-h. 1:4 scale. c. 1:10 scale. e. 1:4 scale with incised grid at 1:2 scale. a. 66C-2/6. b. 28C-16/5. c. Charred, well-shaped, with deep central depression, 76B-35/18, MS. 120. d. Roughly shaped by pecking, burnt, 12R-232/20, PD. 87. e. Rounded fragment with an entoptic grid incised on one side, 96M-5/5. f. Cylinder neatly shaped by pecking, 12G-161/19. g. 39F-40/13, PD. 274. h. Smoothly finished, including the opposing depressions, 12P-61/55.

a

b

c

d

f

e

g

Figure 116. Ground Stone Miscellaneous Artifacts (scale as noted). a-f. 1:4 scale. g. 1:2 scale. a-d. Large thick disks. a. 31E/3. b. 33A71/23, Bu. 97. c. 12C-373/5. d. 12T-460/28. e. Neatly shaped by pecking and grinding, 1C-58/9. f. Stone with one ground face, 56A5/5, Ca. 153. g. Thick disk with a continuous incised entoptic design around its circumference, 91D-9/3.

a

b

c

e

d

f

g

Figure 117. Ground Stone Miscellaneous Artifacts (1:2 scale). a. Fragment with incised entoptic designs, 12G-138/19. b. Waterworn pebble with possible use-wear at both ends, 67A-5/12. c. Neatly shaped by pecking and grinding, 128Q-1/2. d. Flat fragment of bedded chert with a drilled pit, 24R-19/9. e, f. Stepped carved stones. e. 24E-36/18. f. 100E-24/7. g. Flat fragment with shaped edges with a design in black paint, 3B/18, probably from Bu. 160, described in TR. 27A.

a

b

c

d

f

l

e

h

g

m

n

o

i

p

j

q

k

r

s

Figure 118. Ground Stone Miscellaneous Artifacts (1:2 scale). a-k. Fragments of well-shaped artifacts. a. 20K-220/58. b. 64I-1/3. c. 28B/6, PD. 71. d. 20B-48/7. e. 71F-109/22. f. 77A-8/4. g. 20K/38. h. 42F-55/4. i. 20B-218/55. j. 20A-124/8. k. 20A-539/42. lo. With one or more drilled pits. l. Notched pebble, 136H-15/9, Bu. 205. m. Pumice, 13F-6/5, Ca. 131. n. 28A-17/4. o. Quartz crystal, pits on three faces, 20A-1414/11. p-s. Hollow-drilled cores of chert. p. Incomplete, 20A-1520/3. q. 1C-70/10. r. 20A-1569/75. s. 37H-10/13, PD. 271.

a

b

d

c

1

e

2

Figure 119. Unworked Stones and Minerals and a Hammerstone (1:4 scale). a. An unusually large chert nodule, 61E-1a/1. b. Decorticated chert nodule with natural cavities used as a hammerstone, 27B-1/6. c. Large mass of calcite crystals, 12L-476/38. d. Carious limestone slab, 12R-14/7, Ca. 133. e. 1-2. Stalactite or stalagmite fragments, 13F-12/5, Ca. 131.

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

a

1

2

3

b

3 c

4

5 d

1 f

2

g

e

2 h

i

j

Figure 120. Unworked Stones and Minerals (1:2 scale). a. Tektites, also see Appendix H. 1. 24F-26/11, possibly Bu. 63. 2. 24J-5/5. 3. 20M-97b/41. 4. 20E/15. 5. 67D/3. 6. 20H-33/10, possibly Bu. 34. b. 1-3. Waterworn white quartz pebbles. 1 carries a residue of woven cloth, 12K-250/22, Bu. 48. c. Concretions. 1. 20A-1111/89. 2. 20O-7/3. 3. 20G/10. 4. 20A-460/60. 5. 20A-856/24. d. Stalactite or stalagmite fragment, 12T-232/38, Ca. 180. e. Beach pebble with boring-shell holes, 12H-110/15, PD. 19. f. Fragment of petrified wood, 45G-2/4. g. Geode, 51B-1/1. h. 1-2. Two fragments of crystalline gypsum, 12T-384/60, PD. 152. i. Pumice, 12J101/20, Ca. 119. j. Fossil casts of gastropods, 12B-212/3, Ca. 13.

a

i

b

j

c

k

l

d

m

e

n

o

f

g

p

q

h

r

Figure 121. Bone Perforators (1:2 scale). a-c, e. Variety C, which resemble contemporary maize husking tools. a. 43F-18/18, PD. 74. b. 68G-29/5. c. 67A-189/58, PD. 275. d, f-m. Variety B splinter awls. d. 12C-50/7, PD. 54. e. 79A-10/15. f. 22O-93/48. g. 96H53/11. h. 67A-195/59, PD. 275. i. 98K-154/43. j. 122A-13/1. k. 119G-5a/4. l. 119G-5b/4. m. 33C-34/9. n-r. Variety B1 needles with drilled eyes. n. 12P-591/177, Bu. 166. o. 79C-38/16, probably part of 96H-55/3. p. 43E-9/6. q. 26A-13/1, PD. 224. r. 98K202/22.

1

2

a

m

3

4

b

n

o

c

p

1

e

f

g

h

q

2 u

d

i

j

r

1

k

l

s

t

2 v

Figure 122. Bone Perforators and Centrally Perforated Disks (1:2 scale). a-d. Variety A Pins. a. 66X-81/31, PD.125. b. Burial 76. 1. 28A-32d/22. 2. 28A-32c/22. 3. 28A-32b/22. 4. 28A-32a/22. c. 12P-450/162. d. 12T-434/81, PD. 164. e-l. Variety A1 slender needles with scratched eyes. e. 12C-49/7, PD. 54. f. 98R-33ab/17. g. 98D-62/17, Bu. 184. h. 73D-14/9. i. 12P-504d/163. j. 3C-18d/7. k. 117A-140/25, Bu. 196 exterior deposit. l. 100K-14/6, Bu. 211. m-p. Variety A2 slender needles with drilled eyes. m. 12P-504c/163. n. 12P-504a/163. o. 12P-504b/163. p. 43F-19a and c/18, PD. 74. q-v. Centrally perforated disks. q. Large, 12P-592/177, Bu. 166. r. 12H-78/18, Bu. 22. s. 20A-325/54. t. 67A-155/56, PD. 275. u. PD. 74. 1. 43F-20a/17. 2. 43F-20b/17. v. PD. 231. 1. 66H-24/12. 2. 66H-10/7.

a

b

f c

d

e

g

h

Figure 123. Bone Atlatl Grips, Spatulates, and Tie-Rods (1:2 scale). a, b. Atlatl Grips. a. One of a pair found with an atlatl, 96D-22a/7, also see Appendix J. b. 78P-1/13. c-f. Spatulates. c. 43F-11/20. d. 98J-16a/3. e. 98J-16b/3. f. Human, 81C-14/4. g, h. Tie rods. g. Human, 80B-19/24. h. 109A-2/9.

a

e

b

f

g

c

h

d

i

j

k

Figure 124. Bone Rasps, Miscellaneous Artifact, and Worked Deer Phalanges (1:2 scale). a-f. Rasps. a. 67A-16/21. b. 97A-316/41. c. 26A-16/1, PD. 224, conjoins 26A/1, 26B/1, 26B/2, and 26H-4/1, PD. 72. d. 33F-88/36. e. 39F-1/5, PD. 274. f. 117C-3/3. g. Miscellaneous artifact. Incised rabbit femur, 20B-80/42. h-k. Worked deer phalanges, described in TR. 27A. h. 43F-17f/17, PD. 74. i. 67A-156/56, PD. 275. j. 64U-2/7. k. 22E-2/1.

a

f

b

g

c

h

d

i

e

j

Figure 125. Bone Beveled-End Longbones (1:2 scale). a. 67A-192/60, PD. 275. b. 36U-5/14. c. 39F-27/10, PD. 274. d. 66P-5/9, PD. 111. e. 39G-4/6, PD. 274. f. 39F-4/4, PD. 274. g. 39F-25a/11, PD. 274. h. 67A-78/44. i. 39G-3/5, PD. 274. j. 26A-15/1, PD. 224.

1

d

2

a

e

f

g

b

h

c

i

j

k

Figure 126. Worked and Unworked Deer Antler (1:2 scale). a. Perforated, PD. 74. 1. 43F-17a/17. 2. 43F-17b/17. b, c. Bases. b. 67A8/15. c. 68I-60/33. d, e. Perforated tines. d. 68I-38/16. e. 20A-141/11. f-i. Blunted tips. f. 68I-61/33. g. No catalogue number. h. 43F-17e/17, PD. 74. i. 12J-171/17, PD. 22. j, k. No obvious working or use. j. No catalogue number. k. 43D-39/15.

a

b

c

e

f

j

m

d

g

h

k

n

i

l

o

p

q

Figure 127. Miscellaneous Bone Artifacts, Debitage, and Cut Flatbone Fragments (1:2 scale). a-j. Miscellaneous worked bone. a. 20A936a/5. b. 22O-90/48. c. 4L-5a/2, Bu. 116 exterior debitage deposit. d. 43E- 12b/9. e. 3F-36/9. f. 98K-203/22. g. Inlay fragment, 48A-9/6, described in TR. 27A. h. Animal tooth with cut and ground ends, 12P-39/48. i. A large, polished marine fish vertebra, 1C44/11. j. Disk of turtle plastron, 12P-476/163. k. Debitage. Scored and snapped bird longbone segments, 12P-479/163. l-q. Flatbone fragments with worked edges. l. 77A-29/4. m. 43F-17c/17, PD. 74. n. 43F-17d/17, PD. 74. o. 67A-77a/44. p. 39F-34/12, PD. 274. q. Probably a human skull fragment, 39F-24a/11, PD. 274.

a

e

m

b

f

g

n

h

c

i

o

d

j

p

k

q

l

r

Figure 128. Bone Debitage (1:2 scale). Ends and sections of human and animal longbones. a. 33F-5a/20. b. 26B-31/5. c. 22O-112b/5. d. 39F-33/11, PD. 274. e-k. 43E-10/6. l, m. 43D-39/15. n. 4L-2/1. o. 20D-270B/11. p. 20D-270A/11. q. 20A-1329/17. r. 20A257/29.

1

2

3

4

5

a

6

7

b

c

e

d

f

g

Figure 129. Bone Debitage (1:2 scale). Scored and split longbones, and splints. a. Obverse and reverse views. 1. 98F-28f/6. 2. Flatbone, 98F-28a/6. 3. 98F-28d/6. 4. 98F-28b/6. 5. 98F-28c/6. 6. 98F-28g/6. 7. 98F-28e/6. b. 20A-258/29. c. Splint, 43F-5/14. d. 31C4a/3, PD. 8. e. 43E-10/6. f. 43D-39/15. g. 43F-10/15.

a

b

c

e

g

d

f

h

i

Figure 130. Unworked Animal Remains (1:2 scale). a. Unusually large whitetail deer femur, 43F-75a/18, PD. 74. b. Bones gnawed by rodents. 1. 98F-66c/6. 2. 98F-66a/6. 3. 98F-66b/6. 4. 98F-66d/6. c. Gnawed deer phalanx, 97A-338/29. d. Deer phalanx with unfused epiphysis, 26B-32/5. e. Dog skull, 66P-29a/10, PD. 111. f. Turtle eggs, 12R-199a-c,e/18, Ca. 142. g. Jaguar terminal phalanges, 117A-88/36, Bu. 196. h. Armadillo scales, 11D-284a-i/56. i. Snake vertebra, 66P-3/7, PD. 113.

a 1-4

b 1-4

c 1-4

d 1-4

e 1-4

d’ 1-4

e’1-4

Figure 131. Centrally Perforated Worked Sherds (1:2 scale). a-c. A selection from Gps. 4F-1 and 4F-2. a. 1. 20A-149/11. 2. Postfired incised design, 20A-1582/26 (tracing and section on Fig. 132c). 3. 20D-250/9. 4. 20M-171/41. b. 1. 20E-66a/16. 2. 20A-23/2. 3. Subsidiary perforation, 20E-30/10 (section on Fig. 132j). 4. 20A-287/13. 5. 20A-159/11. c. 1. 20M/39. 2. 20B-8/7. 3. 20D-202/64. 4. 20A-288/13. 5. 20E-52/9. d,d'-e,e'. Obverse and reverse faces showing a wide range of variation in form and edge treatment. d,d'. 1. Postfired incised design, 71F-39/24 (tracing and section on Fig. 132e). 2. 71F-64/43. 3. 12P-477a/163. 4. 66T-6/7. e,e'. 1. 12P502/171. 2. 33C-47/9. 3. 45G-8/6. 4. 33F-154/63. 5. 73B-15/11.

a

b

c

d

f

i

e

g

j

h

l

k

1

2

3 n

m

4

Figure 132. Centrally Perforated Worked Sherds (1:2 scale). a-g. Postfired incised entoptic designs. a. 35W-1/1. b. 33F/35. c. 20A1582/26 (plan on Fig. 131a2). d. 24E/9. e. 71F-39/24 (plan on Fig. 131d1). f. 42F-46d/12. g. 20B-141/45. h. Modeled-carved sherd, 45E-46b/10. i, j. Subsidiary depression. i. 42F-52a/12. j. 20E-30/10 (plan on Fig. 131b3). k. Several pits on the concave face, 3D-13/2. l. Grooved perimeter, 98L-44/23. m. 43F-78/17, PD. 74. n. Probable beads. 1. 33F-131/46, Bu. 113. 2. 24C-303/137, Bu. 57. 3. 24A-111/56. 4. 67A-115/50, PD. 275.

a

d

b

e

i

f

j

l

c

g

h

k

m

Figure 133. Incompletely Perforated Worked Sherds and Pitted Sherds (1:2 scale). a-l. Incompletely perforated sherds. a. 130B-3/10. b. 20A-64/3. c. 43F-84/18, PD. 74. d. 3A-189/1. e. 136B-15/5. f. 20A-1355/56. g. 20B/42. h. 20B/78. i. 20L/13. j. 20A-240/9. k. 20B/59. l. Unperforated sherd disk with four symmetrically placed pits, 131R-11/9. m. Pitted sherd, probably an incomplete mend hole, 12L-236a/16.

a

b

f

c

g

k

p

d

h

l

i

m

q

e

j

n

r

o

s

Figure 134. Eccentrically Perforated Worked Sherds (1:2 scale). a-o. Probable pendants. a. 44A-48/133. b. 71F-211/13. c. 43F-41/17, PD. 74. d. 3A-100/6. e. 27B-20/8. f. 68I-83/38. g. 33F-68/29. h. 73A-17/33. i. No catalogue number. j. The same postfired entopic design is incised on both faces, 20A-20/2. k. Postfired entoptic design, 12P-154/89. l. Prefired punctate design, 12P-289/131. m. Trapezoidal plan, top edge grooved, 20E-65a/16. n. Bell-shaped plan, bottom edge grooved, 78K-64b/14. o. From a vessel with nubbin feet, 22O-49/18. p-s. Other eccentrically-perforated sherds. p. Traces of cinnabar, 12T-107/28. q. Weathered, possibly a modeled object, 78M-40/33, Ca. 189. r. Very weathered, 78K-64a/14. s. 106A-38/3.

1

1

2

a

2 b

e

c

d

f

Figure 135. Larger Unperforated Sherd Disks (1:2 scale). a. Ca. 215. 1. 129F-75/11. 2. 129F-76/12. b. PD. 74. 1. 43F-42b/17. 2. 43F-77b/18. c. 44C/1. d. 23I-33/8. e. 1D-75/9A. f. Made from the base of a cylindrical tripod vessel with the ground-down remnants of a hollow support, 15A-4/2.

a 1-6

a’ 1-6

b

c

i

d

e

j

f

g

k

h

l

m

Figure 136. Unperforated Worked Sherds (1:2 scale). a-f. Round/oval. a,a'. Obverse and reverse faces showing the variability in size and manner of working the edges. 1. 3H-3/2. 2. Made from the base of a hollow vessel support, 3G-66/34. 3. 78P-112/5. 4. 3G-46/20. 5. 73A-18/33. 6. 66X-61b/29, PD. 114. b. 43F-42a/17, PD. 74. c. 42F-35/12. d. 11E-6/2. e. 68L-17b/2. f. 22O-55/24. g. 43F77a/18, PD. 74. h. Oblong/elongate. 128A-20/14. i, j. Triangles made from bowl rim sherds. i. 23I-16/8. j. 12J-202/25, PD. 22. k. Oblong/elongate. 3C-19/4. l, m. Round/oval with grooved perimeters. l. 73D-29/18. m. 96F-53/6.

a

d

b

e

c

f

h

g

i

k

l

j

m

n

Figure 137. Unperforated Worked Sherds, Sherd Figurines, Reworked Vessel Adorno, and a Mariposa (1:2 scale). a-j. Worked sherds with postfired incised decoration, e-j are considered to be entoptic figures. a-e. Round/oval. a. 33F/3. b. 89A-2/3. c. 20A-439/60. d. 12E88/12. e. 98U-3/1. f-j. Oblong/elongate. f. 23I-20/4. g. 42F-36/12. h. Perhaps used as a stamp. 73D-48/45? i. 11D-170/27. j. 68I26/5. k, l. Figurines. k. 71F-7/6. l. 66H-47/16, PD. 231. m. Moldmade adorno from a cylindrical tripod vessel with worked edges and a perforation through the back, 77A-24a/8. n. Mariposa, 11F/8.

a

b

f

c

d

e

g

i

h

j

Figure 138. Worked Sherd Bars and Scrapers, and Miscellaneous Worked Sherds (1:2 scale). a-e. Bars. a. 20A-1177/46. b. 34A-28/9. c. 73B-63/60. d. 74A-15/7. e. Grooved perimeter, 68L-13/2. f-h. Scrapers. f. 12T-214/46, Ca. 185. g. 12L-192/28. h. 12P-386/163. i, j. Worked bowl rim sherds. i. Ground facets on the exterior, scraper edge, 12L-235a/16. j. Probable mend hole at one end, the other end scored and snapped, 24F/10.

a

b

e

j

f

c

g

k

l

p

d

h

m

i

n

o

q

Figure 139. Miscellaneous Worked Sherds and Gnawed Sherds (1:2 scale), and Worked Sherd Cordholders (e-i, 1:2 and j-q, 1:4 scale). a, b. Miscellaneous worked sherds. a. Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome jar neck with chipped edges, 27G-9/14, Bu. 74. b. Incompletelyperforated sherd with a postfired groove, 24A/56. c, d. Gnawed by rodents. c. 27E-5/7, Bu. 71. d. 27B-16a/2. e-q. Cordholders made of jar necks. e. 79C-48b/20. f. 12U-186/41. g. 96J-7a/4. h. 78P-153/17, section at j. i. 98K-20a/13 conjoins 98K-29/12 and 98K43/13. j. 78P-153/17. k. 12U-184/9. l. 96H-59/10, 11. m. A doubtful example found in construction fill, 67E-9/16. n. 96J-7b/4. o. 117C-10/1. p. 79C-8/17. q. 80B-11/19.

a

b

d

e

h

q

f

i

l

n

s

g

j

m

r

c

t

k

o

u

v

p

w

x

Figure 140. Formed Pottery Spindle Whorls (1:2 scale). a-p. Decorated whorls. a. Variety S, 20A-1226/58, Bu. 13. b. Variety P, 20A-9/2, possibly Bu. 11. c. Variety R, 96H-8/3. d. Variety Q, 98K-60/18. e. Variety R, 98R-57/17. f. Variety R, 98R-27/16. g. Variety Q, 20A-874/5. h. Variety Q, 20A-223/29. i. Variety Q, 71P-1/1. j. Variety N, 45G-6/6. k. Variety N, 24N-9/12. l. Variety N, 129B2/21. m. Variety N, 136F-20/7. n. Variety N, 20B-202/59, possibly Bu. 26. o. Variety P, 100B-17/2. p. Variety N, 100F-7/1. q-x. Plain whorls. q. Variety N, 3F-7/2. r. Variety N, 20A-875/5. s. Variety N, 24C-111/14. t. Variety N, 97A-119/6. u. Variety Q, 96D20/12. v. Variety Q, 98K-40/13. w. Variety P, 3G-68/36. x. Variety R, 73B-12/9.

a

b

d

e

f

g

h

1 m

c

n

o

i

j

k

l

2 p

q

r

s

t

u

Figure 141. Modeled Pottery Disks and Rings, a Miscellaneous Pottery Artifact, and Candeleros (1:2 scale). a-e. Disks and Rings. a. 45E52/10. b. 35W-2/1. c. Black-on-red painted design on one face, 33C-40/8. d. 33C-41/9. e. 33F/28. f. Miscellaneous pottery artifact fragment. Zacatel Cream Polychrome with a black outer border and a black over reddish orange inner border, 45F-10/2. g-u. Candeleros. g-o. Variety A. g. 28A-70/26. h. 24Q-5/13. i. 1C-56b/9. j. 1C-56c/9. k. 96F-20/3. l. 24T/16. m. 29A-17a/1. n. 76B25/7. o. 20H-13/4. p-u. Variety B. p. Bu. 172. 1. 86A-9b/2. 2. 86A-9a/2. q. 24A-28/16. r. 18B-17/1. s. 1C-56a/9. t. 66H-19/10, PD. 231. u. 12E-121/23, PD. 31.

a 1-4

b 1, 2

c 1, 2

a’ 1-4

b’ 1, 2

c’ 1, 2

Figure 142. Winged Candeleros (1:2 scale). All from Structure Group 4H-1. a,a’. 1. 33F-107a/20. 2. 33F-91a/36. 3. 33C-38b/8. 4. 33C-33/9. b,b’. 1. 33F-30/12. 2. 33F-56a/23. c,c’. 1. 33F-107d/20. 2. 33F-79/35.

a 1-5

a’ 1-5

a’’ 1-5

Figure 143. Winged Candeleros (1:2 scale). All from Structure Group 4H-1. a,a’,a”. 1. 33F-107b/20. 2. 33C-38a/8. 3. 33F-102/44. 4. 33F-67/29. 5. 33C-32a/9.

b

a

f

c

d

e

g

Figure 144. Pottery Drums (a-e at 1:4 scale, f,g at 1:2 scale). Variety A. a. Saxché Orange Polychrome, 12C-168/8, MT. 1, PD. 54. b. Juleki Black-on-cream, 12C-171/8. PD. 54. c. Orange Polychrome, 98L-46/23. d. Orange Polychrome, 98L-48/23. e. Red slipped, 105B-7/2. f. Incised, orange slipped, 78M-90/10. g. Black-on-orange, 78M-97/46.

a

d

b

e

f

c

g

Figure 145. Pottery Drums (1:4 scale). a-c. Variety B. a. Incised, orange slipped, 44A-29/1. b. Unspecified pottery, 98B-105/9. c. Red slipped, 45E-54/10. d, e. Variety C. d. Probably of the Pic Polychrome Group, 20A-685/55, Bu. 18. e. Painted glyphs from the middle bulge of a Variety C orange polychrome drum, 12L-269/31, MT. 253. f, g. Variety D. f. 24F-27/10. g. 136V-73/17 or 18.

a

b

Figure 146. Pottery Architectural Elements (1:8 scale). Fragments of a ceramic mask from the façade of Structure 4H-4, Group 4H-1, 33A-126/1, 2, 4, 5, 8. a. Partially reconstructed, but without the nose shown in the right-hand section. b. The reverse side of a fragment from the lower edge with the faint impression of a woven mat.

a 1-3

b 1-3

c 1-5 d 1-2

e 1-2

f 1-3

g 1-3

h 1-3

Figure 147. Pottery Architectural Elements (1:4 scale). Thick, heavy, unslipped pottery fragments that may be parts of façade ornamentation. The fragments c2, c3, and c5 are from Group 5D-2 (the North Acropolis and Central Plaza). The others are from Group 5D-11 (the Central Acropolis). The object shown at g3 is now classified as a censer fragment. a. 1. 97A-380/41. 2. 97H-48b/2. 3. 97A378/47. b. 1. 98L-154/34. 2. 96J-26/2. 3. 97F-54/2. c. 1. 97H-48a/2. 2. 117C-12/2. 3. 12L-403/35. 4. 97A-381/50. 5. 117C13/6. d. 1. 97A-377/49. 2. 97F-53/27. e. 1. 97F-31/19. 2. 97F-14b/7. f. 1. 96K-25/4. 2. number lost. 3. 97B-32/4. g. 1. 97H48b/2. 2. 97A-377/49. 3. 119G-1/1. h. 1. 97A-379/48. 2. 97F-14a/7. 3. 97D-65/3.

b

a

g

c

d

e

f

h

j k

l

i

m

Figure 148. Pottery Miscellaneous Formed Artifacts and Cordholders (1:2 scale). a-i. Miscellaneous artifacts. a. 98V-12/7. b. 26A-18/1, PD. 224. c. 73B-3/3. d. 66M-1/2. e. Flattened lump, 12H-101/15, PD. 19. f. Annular object, 33B-2/3. g. 73D-37/26. h. 33F72/33. i. Two non-fitting fragments of the same pottery object with a thick white stucco layer on the flatter face, 12G-143/19. j-m. Cordholders. j. Variety G, 98B-112/1 (section on Fig. 149g). k. Variety F, 98J-6/3, conjoins 98F-13/6 (section on Fig. 149i). l. Variety E, 97A-185/28, might be part of 97A-180/26 (section on Fig. 149k). m. Variety D, 79C-65/17 (section on Fig. 149n).

a

b

e

c

f

g

j

o

d

k

p

h

l

q

i

m

r

n

s

Figure 149. Pottery Cordholders (1:4 scale). Cross sections. a-f, i. Variety F. g, h. Variety G. j, k. Variety E. l-s. Variety D. a. 79A14/17. b. 3G-80/39. c. 15D-2/7. d. 15D-1/6. e. 96K-23/4. f. 98R-21/14. g. 98B-112/1 (plan on Fig. 148j). h. 96K-20a/13. i. 98J6/3 conjoins 98F-13/6 (plan on Fig. 148k). j. 44C-13/1. k. 97A-185/28 may conjoin 97A-180/26 (plan on Fig. 148L). l. 33A-91/6 conjoins 33A-86b/1. m. 80C-23/3. n. 79C-65/17 (plan on Fig. 148m). o. 96D-26/13. p. 98D-121/34. q. 31B-1/7. r. 33A-87/5 conjoins 33A/1. s. 98K-147/53.

a

c

f

b

d

g

e

h

Figure 150. Plaster, Marl, and Mud Objects and Unidentified Replacement Product (a, c-g, 1:2 scale, b, h, 1:4 scale). a. Miscellaneous artifact of shaped hard plaster or dolomite with striations across its width, perhaps a smoothing tool, 12P-70/55. b. Miscellaneous fragment of white plaster that coated the underside of a pottery bowl, 66X-16a,/3, 4, 12. c. Plaster small spheres painted pale reddish orange, which are probably architectural decoration, 3G-22/10 and 3G/16. d. Plaster unpainted small sphere, probably an architectural decoration, 12L-386/48. e. Fragments of marly sediment that included possible molds of seeds, 33A/20, Bu. 94. f. Gray replacement product of an unidentified object, 12R-163/16, Ca. 140A. g. Modern plaster casts of beans, 12U-104/27, Bu. 195, found in the natural mold of a woven basket, 12U-103/27, Bu. 195 (Fig. 152c). h. Mud seal, 12P-571/177, Bu. 166, found in situ on pottery jar, 12P-553/177, Bu. 166 (TR 25A: Fig. 11a5).

a

b

c

Figure 151. Marly Fragments of Unidentified Replacement Product from Burial 177, Unfired Clay, and Plaster Lump (1:2 scale). a. Fragments of smooth, pale gray, marly replacement product with inclusions of charcoal bits and traces of red pigment and impressions on the surface. The fragments suggest small packages (copal?) wrapped in barkcloth and tied with slender vines, plant stems, or air roots, 87A-10/6. b. Small lump of unfired clay with a pitted surface suggesting the imprints of small seeds, 20A-835/24. c. Grooved lump of white material, probably plaster, 1D-1/1.

1

a

c

2

b

d

Figure 152. Impressions of String, Baskets, and Rope (scale as noted). a. Two-ply string impressions on the bases of pottery cylindrical cache vessels, Bu. 10 (TR 25A: Fig. 21b-j) (1:4 scale). 1. 12C-532ab/34. 2. 12C-533ab/34. b. c. Baskets. b. Impression of a fine, coiled basket on a vessel sherd (1:2 scale), 80A-15/4. c. Plaster cast of a woven basket (1:2 scale), 12U-103/27, Bu. 195. d. Latex mold of an impression in plaster of plainweave cloth and a thick rope (1:1 scale), 12C-589/30, Bu. 10, associated with Sk. J.

a

b

2

c

1

3

d

e

Figure 153. Impressions of Barkcloth, and Mat, Leaf, and Cloth Impressions (1:2 scale, except for c, which is shown at 1:5 scale). a-d. Barkcloth impressions on the plaster seals of structure cache repositories. a. With palm leaf strip impression,12L-17/4, Ca. 61. b. 13G6/2, Ca. 236B. c. Braided, 12H-156/37, Ca. 103. d. 12L-37/9, Ca. 175. e. Pottery censer flanges. 1. Twilled woven mat, 27L-10a/2. 2. Leaf, 33F-148/62. 3. Plainweave cloth, 12C-111/1, PD. 54.

a

b

c

e

d

f

Figure 154. Impressions of Mats and Woven Cloth (scale as noted). Mat impression on pottery censer flange (1:2 scale), 82A-3/2, PD. 122. b-d. Impressions on plaster lumps found in the chamber of Bu. 23, all 12K-122/13. b. Mat impression (1:4 scale). c. Plainweave cloth and the finished edge of a twilled mat (1:4 scale). d. Plaster fragments with impressions of mostly plainweave cloth. The upper right fragment includes a section of multiple warp gauze or weft-wrap open work (1:2 scale). e. Latex mold of the multiple warp gauze impression shown in d, upper right (1:1 scale). f. Latex mold of plainweave cloth shown in d, lower left (1:1 scale).

a

b

d

e

c

f

Figure 155. Woven Cloth Traces and Cloth Impressions (scale as noted). a. Replacement product of loosely-woven plainweave cloth used to wrap one of several similar, wrapped pottery bowls in Bu. 48 (TR. 25A: Fig. 29k-n) (1:2 scale), 12K-232/22. b. Plainweave impression on a pottery censer handle fragment (1:2 scale), 73B-46/52. c-f. Latex molds of cloth impressions. c. Plainweave impression on a burial bundle (1:2 scale), 12U-48/27, Bu. 195. d-f. Plainweave impressions on pottery censer fragments (1:1 scale). d. 41I-1a/1. e. 12I-10a/4. f. With a two-strand weft, 12B/9.

b

a

c

i

d

e

f

g

h

Figure 156. Diamond-Weave Cloth Impression, Wood Fragments, and Unidentified Materials (scale as noted). a. Impression on plaster of over-two-under-one twilled cloth with a concentric diamond pattern (1:1 scale), 12K-129b/8, PD. 235. b. Diagram by Dorothy C. Yanik of the structure of the cloth shown in a (1:1 scale). c. Two figures from a cylindrical pottery vessel from Bu. A2, Uaxactún, which is contemporaneous with PD. 235. The men wear ponchos with a concentric diamond pattern (after Smith 1955: Fig. 27b). d-f, i. Fragments of wooden objects (1:2 scale). d. Charred, 12A-112/22. e. 20F-72/7. f. Grooved, probably recent, 34A-18/2. g. Flat, round, delicate object, perhaps an unworked land snail operculum (1:2 scale), 11D-213/36. h. Dark brown decomposition product with no visible structure, perhaps a mammal pelt, which enfolded the infant, Sk. C, 12P-540/179, Bu. 167. i. Carved, charred wooden object, 12L485/45.

Figure 157. Textile Impressions from Burial 23. This series of impressions on the plaster floor of the chamber of Early Late Classic Bu. 23 shows three weaving techniques: very fine plainweave, probable weft-wrap openwork, and knotted netting with wide openings. These techniques are fully described by Dorothy Cavalier Yanik in Appendix I. The chert elongate biface, 12K-106/13 (Fig B:13a), shown in situ, is 22 cm long.

Figure 158. Textile impressions from Burial 23. This is another view of the same series shown in Fig. 157. The weaving techniques are fully described by Dorothy Cavalier Yanik in Appendix I.

Figure 159. Atlatl in situ in Gp. 5D-11. The proximal end of a wooden atlatl, 96D-21/7, and its carved bone finger grips, 96D-22a, b/7 (Fig. B:123a) in situ. Details are presented by the excavator, Peter D. Harrison, in Appendix J. Diagram by Andreas Harrison.

Figure 160. Recovery Context of Gp. 5D-11 Atlatl. Stylized stratigraphy of Str. 5D-51, Gp. 5D-11, showing the position of the wooden atlatl fragment, 96D-21/7. Details are presented by the excavator, Peter D. Harrison, in Appendix J. Diagram by Andreas Harrison.

Figure 161. Diagram of Half-Kilometer Concentric Zones. Half-kilometer concentric zones superimposed upon the map of Tikal, centered upon Square 5D. Zone 01 has a radius of 0.25 km, Zones 02-26 each have a radius of 0.5 km. Zone 99 is the area beyond the boundaries of the Parque Nacional de Tikal, and materials whose proveniences are unknown are designated Zone 00.

Index Burials, chamber, 5, 7, 12, 14-16, 18-25, 28, 31-32, 34-35, 38-39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 60, 63-66, 78, 80, 83, 87, 89-91, 95-96, 104; crypt, 5, 34, 41, 45, 65-66, 80, 90, 95-96; other, 5, 66

Material or species 2, 4, 6, 62-67, 98 Material category, 4, 6, 65, 99 Minor Center, 7, 29, 34, 45, 80, 84 Modification. See Comment

Caches, 1-2, 5-7, 12, 14-16, 18, 21-25, 28-29, 31-32, 34-35, 37-39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 49-52, 59, 62-67, 76, 78-79, 82, 84, 87, 89-91, 93, 95-96, 99; monument, 6; range structure, 6; temple structure, 6 CD-ROM, 3-4, 99 Central area, 16, 25, 32, 44, 61, 77 Civic-Ceremonial Group, 7, 15, 19-20, 30, 37-38, 4143, 47, 51, 60, 67, 78, 82, 86, 90 Coe, William R., 1-2, 13, 19, 24, 40, 89 Comment and Modification, 3-4, 6, 22, 29-30, 32-33, 38-39, 43, 45-46, 59-60, 62-63, 66, 83, 99 Condition, 4, 6, 10, 13, 17, 19, 23-24, 28-29, 34, 48, 50, 76, 83, 91, 97 Context. See Recovery context Culbert, T. Patrick, 2, 76-78, 84

Organization of this Report, 4

Dates, 2-3, 6, 23, 30-32, 40, 45, 59-60, 62, 79, 84-85, 93-95

Site areas, 3, 7 Small Structure Group, 7, 14-19, 21-24, 28-30, 32, 34-35, 37-38, 41-49, 51, 61, 76-79, 82-83, 88, 100 Special-purpose dump, 6, 12, 25, 35, 61 Structure group type, 4, 7, 22, 99 Sustaining Area. See Peripheral area

Epicentral area, 12, 32, 46, 91, 93 Ferree, Lisa, 19 General excavations, 2, 6, 11, 14-23, 25, 28-31, 3335, 37-38, 42-52, 59-67, 76-80, 82-85, 90-91, 93-96, 100 Harrison, Peter D., 93, 105 Haviland, William A., 7, 12, 28, 34, 38, 43, 45, 50, 66, 76-77 Hildebrand, Alan R., 100-101

Palaces. See Range Structure Group Peripheral area, 14, 16, 23, 32, 52, 84 Problematical deposits, 1, 5-6, 12, 14-23, 25, 28-32, 34, 37-39, 41-52, 59-67, 76-79, 82-83, 85, 9091, 95-96, 99; burial-like (BPD), 30, 45, 49, 5967, 76-79, 83, 95; cache-like (CPD), 22, 59, 6265, 91, 93, 95; domestic artifacts (DPD), 1, 29, 34, 37, 43, 58; unclassified (UPD), 59, 62 Range Structure Group, 7, 41, 46, 60, 82 Recent Site, 39, 42, 46 Recovery context, 2, 4, 6, 9-10, 12, 22, 24, 31, 34, 3839, 41, 47, 62, 66-67, 91, 93, 95, 99 Relational databases, 3, 99; artifact, 3; provenience,3

TR. 27, Parts A and B division, 3-4, 9, 26, 28, 62-63, 65-66, 90, 92, 99 Type and variety, 99 Typology, 3-5, 9, 16-17, 26, 31, 62; behavioral, 3; Kidder's, 3; problems with, 3-4 Variables in databases, 3-4, 99

Intermediate Structure Group, 7, 49, 82-83, 85-86, 90

Willey, Gordon R., 3-4, 17, 19, 93

Kidder, A. V., 3-4, 9, 17, 22, 29, 33, 48, 62, 82

Yanik, Dorothy Cavalier, 88, 102

Lots, excavation, 2, 4, 6, 30, 99; use in measures of intensity of excavation, 2; artifact density, 2, 10

Zones, 4, 7, 10, 14, 16, 18, 29-30, 37-38, 43, 46-48, 60, 78-79, 83