Stone tool use at Cerros: the ethnoarchaeological and use-wear evidence 9780292741270, 9780292775909, 9780292749771

Citation preview

STONE TOOL USE AT CERROS

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

STONE TOOL USE AT CERROS The Ethnoarchaeological and Use-Wear Evidence

by Suzanne M. Lewenstein

University of Texas Press, Austin

Copyright © 1987 by the University of Texas Press All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America First edition, 1987 Requests for permission to reproduce material from this work should be sent to: Permissions University of Texas Press Box 7819 Austin, Texas 78713-7819

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Lewenstein, Suzanne M., 1942Stone tool use at Cerros. Bibliography: p. Includes index.

1. Cerros Site (Belize). 2. Mayas—Implements. 3. Mayas— Industries. 4. Ethnoarchaeology. 5. Indians of Central America— Belize—Implements. 6. Indians of Central America—Belize—

Industries. I. Title.

FI435.1.C43L49 1987 972.82'01 86-24910 ISBN 0-292-77590-3

CONTENTS

Preface Vil 1. Introduction I

2. Stone Tool Variability and the Reconstruction

of Prehistoric Activities 17

3. Experimental Use of Stone Tools 32

4. The Experimental Use Wear 76

5. Stone Tool Use at Cerros 137

6. Concluding Remarks 196

References 205 Author Index 221 Subject Index 225

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

PREFACE

My interest in determining the Precolumbian functions of stone tools began during a graduate course in lithic technology at Arizona State University. Later, the idea for this study took torm while I was excavating in Belize as a member of the Cerros Project staff from 1977 through 1981. The large chipped stone collections recovered at

this site stimulated my curiosity, and the isolation of the Cerros field camp provided an ideal natural laboratory for ethnoarchaeologi-

cal research and experimentation with stone implements. My purpose always has been to use the lithic data to address some broader issues, in this case the economic makeup and development of Mayan society at Cerros.

A number of people were particularly helpful to me in this endeavor. I benefitted trom the friendship and support of colleagues at Arizona State University: in particular, Barbara Stark, Sylvia Gaines,

A.E. Dittert, and Geoffrey Clark. Fieldwork in Belize took place under the direction of David Freidel, principal investigator of the Cerros Project. At Cerros Vernon Scarborough, Robin Robertson, Maynard Cliff, Jim Garber, Beverly Mitchum, Sorayya Carr, and Cathy Crane were enthusiastic and dedicated colleagues whose camaraderie made enjoyable our long field seasons in the bush. Sorayya’s

zooarchaeological knowledge and cooperation in the butchering and hide-working experiments were indispensable. Over the years many Mayans from Chunox village worked with us at Cerros. They proved to be excellent archaeologists, as well as invaluable informants regarding the local environment and its exploitation by the indigenous population. Dalia Rangel, Eduardo Montalva, and Romeo Pat were especially helpful with my in-the-field experiments. I am very grateful for the wealth of experience they so generously shared. Thanks are also due master flintknapper Jeff Flenniken, director of the Lithics Laboratory at Washington State University, who manu-

Vill Preface factured my sample of chert formal tool replicas and obsidian blades,

and to Fred Nelson of Brigham Young University for analyzing a sample of obsidian from Cerros and providing sourcing data. Funding for my research was provided through fellowships from the Social Science Research Council and the ARCS Foundation of Arizona. Additional aid came from research incentive awards from the Department of Anthropology at ASU. In sum, I was fortunate to receive financial backing from many sources; I thank them all for their support.

STONE TOOL USE AT CERROS

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This study evolved out of a growing curiosity concerning the functions of chipped stone tools and the clues they might provide for the reconstruction of past societies. Ideally, knowledge of the significance of these commonplace and nonperishable artifacts should pro-

vide insights into past economic systems, as well as information on exchange and on social and political realities in the study area, which in this case is the Mayan site of Cerros, situated on the coast of northern Belize (Figure 1). Settled village life began in this part of the world around 2500 B.c. The earliest known Mesoamerican ceramics date from this period, which marks the beginning of the Early Preclassic. Pottery occurs

first at the site of Cuello, in northern Belize (Hammond 1982: 115—116). Evidence of maize and manioc cultivation, as well as hunting, are present at Cuello, located approximately 25 kilometers south of Cerros. Imported goods such as sandstone metates and jade beads also were recovered from Early Preclassic deposits at Cuello. By the Middle Preclassic period (1200-500 B.c.} there were farming settlements throughout the lowland Maya area, from northern Yucatan to the western lowlands of Chiapas, south to El Salvador (Ham-

mond 1982:117). Eventual population growth and increasingly larger spheres of interaction culminated in the rise of local aristocra-

cies and settlement hierarchies during Late Preclassic times (500 B.C.—A.D. 250; Henderson 1981: 119}. There was widespread ceramic

standardization, which Norman Hammond (1982: 123} attributes to increased interaction between larger and more closely spaced settlements. Mayan society became more differentiated and complex during this period, as evidenced by the construction of public architec-

ture, differential treatment of the dead according to social status, community planning, and at least some degree of occupational specialization. In sum, by the end of the Late Preclassic period the lowland Maya had attained most of the elements of the “civilized”

.* 2 Introduction

**

6

**y0

* ,* » Yucatan

*%*

*

© . aoa = * G GULF OF MEXICO

*** O Quintana Roo

# Rio

| ms Campeche 8| Hondo| \ZL, ey(4)

3 % New f .* C | River Oaxaca * ¢ Chiapas ce a N **>*

@**

* Pete 2* 4 t

* * aa|. "“TAGUATEMALA?) 7 2

*y % at — NN 9 *5 PACIFIC OCEAN 1 2 thoes *

te 1a oF HONDURAS *

O 100 200 kmLeo| es - El S> ¥

Figure 1. Distribution of Late Preclassic communities in southern Mesoamerica: 1, Cerros; 2, Tikal; 3, Kaminaljuyu; 4, Chiapa de Corzo; 5, Izapa; 6, Komchen; 7, Mirador; 8, Becan; 9, Copan. After Henderson 1981: 122.

Introduction 3 way of life that has been documented for this region during the subsequent Classic period. The earliest occupation of Cerros occurred during Late Preclassic times. From 200 B.c. to A.D. 200 Cerros was the largest and most architecturally prominent community in northern Belize (see Figure 2). Its strategic location at the southern end of Chetumal Bay, near the mouth of the New River, was ideally suited to play an important role in long-distance coastal exchange between the salt-producing

areas of northern Yucatan (Andrews 1983:123) and the Motagua River Valley to the south. From this latter zone jade and obsidian from nearby highland Guatemalan and El Salvadoran sources entered the long-distance coastal exchange network (Hammond 1972). In addition, Cerros’ position near the mouth of the New River was optimal for the upriver transshipment into the interior of the Guatemalan Petén region of goods procured as part of the maritime trade (Freidel 1981).

The role of Cerros in Late Preclassic coastal and riverine exchange is of special interest because long-distance exchange is one of several factors that are believed to have played a key role in the evolution of stratified society in the Mayan lowlands where Cerros is located, and

in Mesoamerica in general. (Other factors include population increase [Sanders and Price 1968], agricultural intensification |[Sanders, Parsons, and Santley 1979], external influences [Webb 1973], and ideology and control of ritual knowledge [Freidel 1978; 1979].}

It is especially relevant to study the fabric of exchange at Cerros because the site rose to prominence during Late Preclassic times, just at the beginning of the 600-year period of cultural florescence that appears to correspond to state-level society (Hammond 1972; Willey 1977). Here we are in the unique position of being able to observe one of the “prime movers” in the rise of hierarchical society just at the point in time where we note a transition from egalitarian village life (Cliff 1982) to a stratified community (Freidel 1979; Scarborough 1983). While all agree that the size and geographical placement of Cerros

indicate its importance in Late Preclassic maritime and riverine trade, the exact nature of Cerros’ participation is not well understood. It may be that in exchange for imported goods the inhabitants

of Cerros contributed to the exchange system in the form of local produce (agricultural, wild fruits, animal hides, feathers, hardwood lumber) or locally crafted items such as worked shell, pottery, and carved wooden bowls. Alternatively, Cerros may not have contributed goods to the exchange network but, instead, served as a transshipment node which monitored and assisted in the logistics of the

4 Introduction

Wy

fo i MEXICO wir c

0ee10 en20 Srkm a

aa

CHETUMAL BAY

& Yy ~ cx SA ( O Zz SANTA RITA *

3 CERROS

\0

WENTURA * y, on ZS

Ce 4 0a, , “a a: a= se. ~ oR ae ao hy ee Se eae or

~S CN Re: uk . et et A ‘| ‘a v; ay “< y. . % py, " . 4. f 4 ; 4 &R) ae | oie De mG AS : -@, ®) SS 0%. , ‘S x : at! : Py "

ge SS BR ;: =i. o> Sg!,1S.) fee moe Fi . oe. at’ % Sa

‘' I >;a(tikes F 8 Fe:- Sela cyexA” ythie a fi/ 2AS Way Se 8

Se ae ee ee 3 NeTG. lS Se/-ee2en|

36 Experimental Use of Stone Tools

was interested in determining: (1) how well suited these chert bifaces were for chopping; (2) the resultant edge damage and other microscopic use traces (which then could be used to identify chopping tools among archaeological specimens from Cerros); (3) the effective use-life of the implements when employed in chopping; and (4) any

distinctive patterns of tool breakage associated with hafting methods and/or with use of axes to clear primary forest or second growth. For the tree chopping and land clearance experiments I used four oval bifaces of chert. These were hafted in handles hewn from local hardwoods, secured in the haft with leather strips (to prevent the sharp flaked tool margins from fraying the binding), and bound with local vines, fibers, and henequen twine. At times cedar resin was employed as an adhesive. All of these materials were available to us at the site of Cerros. Table 2 gives the basic dimensions and summary data corresponding to the utilization of these specimens. There is good ethnographic, archaeological, and experimental evi-

dence that stone axes were used in the manner of hatchets rather than like modern steel axes (Carneiro 1979; Dickson 1981; Palacio 1976; Schoen 1969; Shafer and Hester, in press); that is, they were hafted in short handles, approximately 30—40 centimeters long, the length of a human forearm. Handles of this length are appropriate for chipping at a tree with short, quick strokes, using mainly the elbow and wrist, so as not to shatter the stone blade (Iverson 1956: 37—38). Also, the short-handled axe is easily carried on the hip, tucked into its owner's belt or breechcloth (Dickson 1981: 100). The vegetation in the vicinity of Cerros can best be described as between tropical and subtropical rain forest, subject to swamp conditions along the coast. Two levels of plant succession are at work: (1) The long-term primary succession, which climaxes in broadleaf dominants. Examples of mature hardwoods observed at Cerros

include cedar (Cedrela mexicana), siricote |Cordia dodecandra), yaxnik (| Vitex quameri), chacah | Bursera simaruba), sapote (Achras sapote), granadillo | Dalbergia cubiguitzensis), mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla), and ramon blanco | Trophis racemosa) (sources of floral identification: local informants and Standley and Record 1936). (2) The more rapid successional process associated with the return of subclimax vegetation following extensive disruption of primary vegetation (Lundell 1937; Scarborough 1980}. This stage, also called canada and huamil in its early years, is characterized by dense bush made up of young trees, vines, and thickets. One aim of the experiments was to see if the chopping use wear incurred on chert ovate bifaces while clearing mature trees (i.e., climax forest or monte alto} is distinguishable from that which results

1 2 3 4 Width 63 67 63 62

Table 2. Chopping experiments

Specimen No.

Maximum measurement (mm.)

Length 132 144 160 167 Thickness 17 21 19 19

Bit angle (°| 55-65 56-68 50 55—70 Contact material Second growth Large hardwoods Large hardwoods Second growth

Length of use 8 hr. 1 hr. 7 hr. 1 hr. (is too short to rehaft and use}

resharpenings 3 — 1 —

Number of

Number of breaks 1, in haft after | hr. 1, after 20 min. (in 1, first hr. (haft break, 1, broke into three

use (end shock) haft, end shock} end shock) pieces, bending frac2, after lhr.(midsec- 2, after 34 hr. (mid- tures at midsection

tion snap) section fracture]

Macroscopic use wear Yes, bilateral step Yes, dorsal & ventral Abrasion of lateral Dorsal & ventral

flaking stacked step fractures, margins, dorsal & stacked step fractures, light polish on haft ventral step flaking, slight polish on haft zone dorsal & ventral surface feather terminated flakes at bit

38 Experimental Use of Stone Tools

when the same tool form is used to clear dense second growth (or monte chico} associated with the regeneration of milpa plots in the area. For this reason two axes were used to chop down large hardwood species, including a 20-year-old yaxnik and a 35-year-old chacah. The other two elongate bifaces were used to clear second growth.

Chert axe no. 1 was hafted in a pixoy handle and bound first with chich much vine (species uncertain; possibly Sicydium tamnifu-

lium), then with henequen fiber rope. This specimen proved extremely effective at chopping second growth; the sole problem was keeping the biface secure in its haft. At one point during the clearing the blade flew out of the haft and was lost temporarily on the leafcovered forest floor. An error made repeatedly by us, and also frequently detectable in the archaeological record, was the failure to in-

sert the axe head deeply enough into the handle. This resulted in a tremendous application of force at the tapered butt end, which caused a fracture within the haft. Over a 3-week period, specimen no. 1 performed 8 hours of actual chopping. During this time I resharpened the bit three times with an antler billet and a small limestone percussor. At the end of the experiment the biface was damaged but still serviceable. Use modification on the implement and sharpening flakes are described in Chapter 4.

Axe no.2 held up for only 1 hour chopping high bush. It was hafted in a granadillo shaft. After 20 minutes’ use on a mature tree, a break occurred in the haft zone, 4 centimeters from the butt. We removed the broken butt, inserted a hardwood wedge to fill the empty space, drove the blade deeper into the haft, and rebound it with henequen fiber. Then it was used to fell a large yaxnik tree, with a diameter of 50—60 centimeters. By this time the axe was somewhat less

effective; it had a tendency to slip within the haft, even though it was tightly bound. This problem might have been eliminated by removing the wedge and driving the blade deeper into the haft slit, but that would have shortened the protruding blade element to the point that it could not penetrate deeper into the tree. (A possible solution to this dilemma might be to increase the bit angle of the blade, thus making the contact area thicker. This would, I believe, strengthen

the edge but make for slower progress in chopping.) After a 4ominute assault on the yaxnik, the biface snapped at midsection, after penetrating one-third of the tree’s diameter. No resharpening was necessary during this brief period of use. The third chert axe was used to chop monte alto and in the subsequent manufacture of a pixoy table (described in the following section}. The implement was resharpened only once but had to be re-

Chopping and Land Clearance 39

peatedly rebound (seven times}, first with chich much and mojaoa (balsa) fibers, later with henequen twine. This tool was hafted twice; first in a siricote handle that split, then in a pixoy handle. After 7 hours’ service and two breaks, the implement was still usable, although it was considerably shorter (80 millimeters remained of the original 160-millimeter maximum length). Both fractures occurred while the axe was being used to fell monte alto. One of the trees chopped down was a large chacah, 95 centimeters in diameter, estimated at 35 years old. Two men took turns attacking the chacah with axe no. 3. It toppled after approximately 1% hours of heavy toil. In addition to chopping large hardwoods, this specimen was em-

ployed intermittently to supply lumber for the manufacture of a rough pixoy table. Pixoy |Guazuma ulmifolia) is a moderately soft wood, much easier to fell than the larger hardwood trees of the high bush. Approximately 3!’ hours were devoted to downing six stout pixoy trees, which then were measured and chopped to the correct lengths for four table legs and a frame. The legs had a diameter of approximately 28 centimeters each. Seven more pixoy logs were measured and cut to form the table top. All but the legs were split lengthwise, first by driving the axe blade and subrectangular biface chert tool no. 22 into the logs with a hardwood percussor, and then by inserting wooden wedges that were driven deeper until the log split lengthwise (see Figures 10—11)}. In 40 minutes nine lengths of pixoy were split to form the tabletop planks and the frame. Axe no. 4, the longest and narrowest of the four oval bifaces, frac-

tured into three pieces after just 1 hour’s work chopping second growth. Specifically, the tool was used to clear muc {Dalbergia glu-

bra), julub (Bravaisia tubiflora), and vines, brush with less than 5 years’ growth. There was no need to replace the sapote haft or to resharpen the implement during this time. The tool was retired from

service when it broke at the midsection, rendering the blade too short to penetrate the vegetation if rehafted. Comments on Chopping Experiments (Figures 7—8}. Obviously, I have not produced a large enough sample of chopping tools, nor used them long enough, to make statistically valid conclusions concerning their use-life, potential rate of work, etc. However, I believe that considerable information has been generated by these experiments, which I hope to expand upon in the future. (1) Chopping experiments with the chert bifaces resulted in a set of use-wear standards, both on the blades themselves and on their

oO +

se | ; J “y : ie ta"ate3 ee ;.

4*4.etRep)“ios© >

G

< > ? 9)

av

a iD) Fp)

=

™~

S

is}

BD

&$.%~ - ae ae = 8v vite ee ie ie “wa, orecd & iB)

=

3 O

~

ax

& (bey

Chopping and Land Clearance 4]

&.fs Sy | & 2

—— = Figure 8. Broken chert axes. Left to right: no. 1, end shock, haft break; nos. 3 and 2, midsection bending fractures.

resharpening flakes, which can be used to identify chopping tools among archaeological collections (see ‘‘Chopping Use Wear” section in Chapter 4}. (2) It appears that frequent resharpening of stone axes is necessary; I estimate once every 3—4 hours of use. This is in general agreement with Robert L. Carneiro’s comments regarding Amazonian practices

and with those of William H. Townsend from New Guinea, both of whom refer to groundstone chopping tools (Carneiro 1979: 41; Townsend 1969: 201). Townsend reported that sharpening a ground-

stone blade takes about an hour. In my limited experience, only about IoO—15 minutes were required to sharpen a bifacially chipped chert axe.

(3) In regard to the relative advantages of chipped stone versus groundstone axe blades for felling trees: (a) Given a supply of the raw material, it takes considerably less time to produce a finished bifacially chipped axe blade than to peck and grind a stone axe of the same size. (b) Less time is needed to resharpen a chipped stone artifact, per-

haps one-fourth as much time—although the flaked tool may require resharpening slightly more often. (c) The chipped stone axe may be more effective at penetrating a tree, because a sharper, more acute contact angle can be achieved

42 Experimental Use of Stone Tools through controlled knapping; the working edge of a groundstone axe blade tends to be more rounded, less “pointed” than one of chipped stone. Therefore, each time a chipped stone axe contacts a tree, it penetrates deeper and does more damage than does a ground axe, which results in more crushing of the contact area. (d) For this reason, I predict that a sharp chipped axe will perform any given task in less time than a groundstone axe of an equivalent size and weight, provided neither specimen breaks. (e) I suspect that the breakage rate is much greater for flaked than ground axes. Even when expertly made (that is, to the most efficient ratio of length:width:thickness}, well hafted, and used properly by

experienced choppers, such as the Preclassic and Classic period lowland Maya, these oval bifaces suffered a high attrition rate. Archaeological collections from Belize and Mexico include numerous broken and reworked specimens of this form (Hernandez and Jiménez 1983; McAnany 1982; Mitchum 1983; Stoltman 1978; Wilk 1976; Willey et al. 1965; Shafer 1983). On the other hand, ground-

stone axes with polished bits are particularly suited to absorbing stresses without fracturing. (4) Prehistorically, the cutting and fitting of axe handles and periodic tool-binding episodes must have been common tasks for an ag-

ricultural people such as the Maya. The preparation of a slit axe handle can occupy a person for an hour (see Keeley 1982 : 800}. Care-

ful insertion of the axe blade and subsequent binding may take 45 minutes longer. Tool bindings need to be checked daily; tightening or replacement of haft lashing is necessary whenever an axe blade begins to slip in its haft. At present I have no way to estimate the frequency of performance of this task in Late Preclassic agricultural contexts. Clearly we still have a lot to learn in future experiments about the best ways to bind an axe (see Dickson 1981: 158—167). (5) During the course of our experiments I came across two types of fractures of stone axe heads when felling trees with chipped stone bifaces: (a) The distal break, which occurs within the haft zone and which

usually reduces the blade length by 2—3 centimeters, results from insufficient support of the blade and is attributable to the hafting error of not inserting the blade deeply enough into the handle. Experimental axes 1—3 suffered distal breaks. (b) The midsection snap, a bending fracture, occurred during deployment of three of the four axes (nos. 2, 3, and 4; see Figure 8}. At present I do not know if this type of break is distinctive to the chopping function, or if all oval bifaces, regardless of their manner of use,

break in this fashion. The question can be resolved, I believe, by a

Making a Rough Wooden Work Table 43

comparison of the breakage patterns of oval bifaces with chopping use wear and other oval bifaces whose use traces indicate different functions, such as adzing, canal or ridged-field excavation, or hoeing.

The collection of chert bifaces recovered from Pulltrouser Swamp and from Cerros offers a potential data base for the investigation of this possibility (see Shafer 1983 and Chapter 4). (6) The effective use-life of a hafted chert oval biface used as a chopper is unknown at present. Elsewhere (Lewenstein 1983} I roughly estimated the use-life at a minimum of 4o hours’ actual chopping time, but considerably less than the life expectancy of a groundstone axe (a year or more}. A related question is the rate of clearing that can be performed with these stone axes: how much primary forest, second growth, etc., can be cleared per person per day with a chipped stone biface. These questions cannot be resolved on the basis of the limited experimentation carried out to date; but the data are within the grasp of ethnoarchaeologists willing to pursue more extensive chopping experiments. It is now possible to estimate reliably the rate of land clearance using steel axes and machetes. Further experimental use of chipped and groundstone chopping implements in a variety of environmental settings eventually will lead to accurate work conversion factors for comparing steel, groundstone, and flaked stone axes and for estimating the forest-clearing potential represented by Precolumbian stone axes. For this analysis I found especially relevant (a) the use-wear data which enabled me to identify chopping tools, and (b}) the estimates I was able to make concerning the frequency of resharpening and tool

use-life. This information helped determine the significance of the number and distribution of chopping tools recovered at Cerros. Making a Rough Wooden Work Table (Figures 9-11)

Rarely are wooden artifacts preserved in archaeological contexts in the Mayan lowlands. Nothing resembling wooden furniture was recovered during excavations at Cerros. Nevertheless, I hypothesize that the Maya, from Late Preclassic times on, took advantage of the

abundance of locally available timber to supply themselves with wooden articles, such as benches, stretching racks, tables, etc. In order to learn about the kinds of stone tools used in rough woodworking, I set out to make a table, using only native materials and several stone tool replicas. Three people made and assembled the table over the course of several days and concurrently with the performance of other tasks. We

were not trying to determine how quickly we could make a table;

x ea: sO Shes Ss -. \ . . oy t.08 3 BRISA

- >?* = ¥ hi . >,

%7>, > ba . \ uly « 4 “4 %.1.s,ie‘ Py a 7 . in “> sy 7 ‘*t ice oa, vanes ot 4

a’ - yr = L- < yt x fe: Hg . ts) Vi: iS . S. a .Ange habe . oa

eS ee See NOs

. - B+, «be, : gi . a. oe : a ‘y . ,

; od i — “Ee =. wi. 4 = ‘4

Sp eae.Oe a as; ,’ee =. . we ee — —— a . . -~ a

: > «+ ,

PPR ce et Tae. Le oe

_ Fr cm ,

rather, we wanted to know which tools were most suitable for this task and how they could be used most effectively, and to generate a set of use-wear data, etc. We chose to make the table of pixoy, a

moderately soft wood that is commonly associated with monte alto/huamil at Cerros. Six basic steps were involved: (1) Chopping the logs: four legs, two for the frame, and seven for

the table top. This step has already been described above. Time chopping: 3 hours, 10 minutes. (2) Bark removal and smoothing. First, the logs were pounded with a limestone rock to loosen the bark, which was stripped off by hand or with an adzing motion by hafted chert specimen no. 11, a subrectangular biface. Next, any knobs or bumps were sliced off the logs, again with an adzing motion. This took slightly more than 2 hours.

Next the logs were smoothed and planed with specimen no. 6, a bear-claw-shaped biface, operated hand-held for approximately 3! hours, and with specimen no. 9, an unhafted domed scraper/plane, used 2 hours, 45 minutes. (3) Splitting logs, lengthwise, to make a table frame and table top planks. A length of henequen twine was rolled in decomposed limestone until it was chalky, then stretched taut lengthwise along each log. When the string was plucked, it snapped back into place and marked a straight line lengthwise along the log. Stone and wooden

Making a Rough Wooden Work Table 45

eae a we S055 tae < oh A ie ae ee ee ee . Na Srregee aeee -Pe SNe SF eid hee a ATR a ay Oe ‘ Lad; | ee en. See i‘ ~~, ~~ Pe in . a it I ~-., P . a ~ tae ~aty . . a es te oe -~ — we Sa ent A ee! ed EP ot eee SS 5 oer a ae -_ om, v4 amy t=? ay v ’ a Shes ce»a,nEF‘a ‘> “= ee < — ; - ;4:4 be a » cn aah ne a ~~ae 1 ¥¥“AA

2 ° i Se |

— pment —

} 4‘ Bes: By We, % -| 5i Pine Scenes

\gernrcrn 5 Beh onal va — ¥ A Gg a y! ’ —

Vy Orv: p Peg 38 AAS. a| yy “ai athe uyoghiorG $9,000 QTOSA 7 |

PR

¥49'O 0,8 6) qv0b: . in. her xi .

mgs S oT Me ducing >‘ | 3? y i . ~s sake t ;. a. x4 con @ F 2 ANG S ¢" ‘ :

el =a£¢#~Sa -«a . . 2 ,SS Pameae ———a SS ee a. = \ Se x SE : es we ‘ ; a . esis . , 3 + - . le ta

Butchering 59

On

Jui wet - ce “on < ‘ - ~ le_ PS ~~ . ok we. vel

oh : Pe “SE ~ J = a | af > # ~ de Ht AP foe oe at x fi. ae e ce Bees ‘ee by 7 . = -‘ PR Or ate a ee “a%- A ‘ a a-7% a ~*~ = ad | -,Sswey

>| — 7° oS a 5 Ss ew =be Arte a x

A: eS ~~ , \. Re \ ita a ea, . re \ h. 2 ” wr Mus < ee ey oe

|» 4.oN : :S—.

aes" al

: %? Oo a ~ , 3 . 3

| Ps .o ee a) ae ax $7 a SSE Reh 7: : YY ee a ; a; Ce pf * ® il we ica i Ae or a °c omen RE, Jn eeoP.i.2eetrweAv @ seer by lita, (ESR 7x ws, x J AC ny 7 ‘ rhe of me

Se de Ay . Sy le nd Pe aE >Ss - oe. assey —* 7 . = Goi Yh , i or EA, =o LPS i

Figure 28. Making jicara (gourd) bowl: scouring line before cutting gourd in half with white chert flake.

ened the score line with an obsidian blade until the gourd separated in halves. This took 30 minutes. Next he scooped out the seeds and pulp from each half, using the flake. A final 30 minutes was devoted to scraping the inner walls and rim of the gourd to remove any re-

maining pulp and to smooth the surface. The two jicara bowls, rounded side up, were then dried in the sun for several days. I estimate that the flake and blade were used about 1 hour each to make the two bowls. Both implements had dulled (abraded) margins by the end of the experiment. The microscopic use wear on gourdworking tools is potentially significant in light of Hay’s hypothesis that gourd container production may have been an important industry during the Early Classic period at Kaminaljuyt in the Guatema-

lan highlands. This argument is based on Hay’s interpretation of the use wear observed at high magnification on obsidian blades recovered at Kaminaljuyt (Hay 1978 : 29-37). My experimental gourdprocessing tools show less severe edge damage than reported by Hay, but my wear patterns are not inconsistent with those observed on Hay’s “gourd container” manufacturing tools.

66 Experimental Use of Stone Tools Making a Conch Trumpet (Figure 29) At Cerros there is abundant evidence of Precolumbian shell working,

based on the number of shell artifacts and debitage recovered. The tools used in this industry probably were made of stone, wood, and/ or bone. Elsewhere in northern Belize retouched chert burin spalls may have been used for perforating shell, judging from their discovery

in a shell bead manufacturing locus at Colha (Dreiss 1982:214215; Potter 1980: 180).

During 1981 I used ad hoc stone tools to experiment with several aspects of shell modification. The only case in which I attempted to replicate a specific artifact type was in the manufacture of a conch (Strombus sp.) trumpet similar to the two specimens recovered at Cerros (Garber 1980: 182—183, Figure 23f). To make a shell trumpet I had only to saw off the tip of the column to form the mouthpiece, which was then abraded and smoothed (see Suarez Diez 1977 :63—64 on the technique of shell trumpet manufacture}. The column tip can be removed by (1) sawing only or (2) scoring a line at the point of the

intended break and then hitting the tip against a rock—hopefully to effect a clean fracture along this line. My first intention was to saw off the column tip with four stonecutting implements; two chalcedony flakes, one chert flake, and one

r

by >

7

we

Figure 29. Conch shell trumpet. At right of shell, sawed-off column tip. In foreground, obsidian blade and chert flake.

Miscellaneous Experiments 67

Table 5. Tools used to make conch trumpet Speci-

Raw men Edge Hours Final Material No. Angle (°) Function of Use Condition Chalcedony 24 30, 46 Saw a Va Heavily

score line abraded,

still usable

Chert 25 43 Saw 3/4 Abraded, need more pressure to be effective

Chalcedony 39 64 Saw, Yq Still

scrape off functional exterior crust

Obsidian 39 29, 26 Saw 1+ Exhausted

obsidian blade section. Soon I found out that the tip of the column is solid, not hollow as I had anticipated. Progress was slow: even with

sharp flakes it would have taken at least 10 hours to sever the 25millimeter-diameter tip. Rather than proceed at this slow rate, I removed it by indirect percussion after scoring a deep line at the point of intended fracture. This took more than 2 hours. The tip was removed by inserting an angular rock at the score line and repeatedly striking this rock with a large chert cobble. By this means the column tip was quickly dispatched, although not with a clean break. It would have been more effective, I believe, had I scored a deeper ring and then whacked the tip against a dense rock. Final finishing included grinding the trumpet mouthpiece and scraping marine deposits from the exterior of the trumpet. Table 5 summarizes the lithic data for this task. Use wear will be discussed in Chapter 4. Miscellaneous Experiments with Stone Tools (Figures 30-32) In addition to the experiments already described, I used many other

stone tools to test their suitability for processing local materials. These experiments are described in less detail, not because they are of less potential utility, but because they did not result in the manu-

68 Experimental Use of Stone Tools

be; see —oa, ey > Bost ee atl : ‘ ele *, i. a a ; fj : " — ; 4 mn Ate? j 72 . we ’\*7.=J, »-a. 4~% ~ ~* i. > , : t; 4 G4” atte > —— = : > ot Z a a Pr ‘ . ee “we a >? ‘ 4~~ hs> -~~. =a . =, b ate Se‘ -y ee| yr ‘ — wd - - ~" | ~ “4 . ‘ Y er A VA

El Sipei me P eee, : 5 | 5 ae 4 “4 - 4

> i : :A =| ES ee . . «on e - eee -a 5 »" ee ~ . ~& * aw 4 7 Ten 7 he — ~-

7 e: 4 ee ie fe A Le. - > - Ye se taal SESE oot) =. i aig . ~

i

eS WV ike =;A

. = : ~ Vz ,

: / . — * >. °

b> * . |

7

Z on. .— i :

Loe y ig ’,;; y Nd cA

-Sy } he gt M 3

Figure 41. Diagonal striations on dorsal aspect of obsidian specimen no. 33, used to whittle wood; 178. Figure 42. Microflake scars on dorsal surface of obsidian specimen no. 30, used to whittle wood; 178%. Figure 43. Multiple tiers of overlapping microflake scars on obsidian speci-

men no. 28, used to whittle wood; 178.

94 The Experimental Use Wear

7 a AD oak ; e3 “eee ah eet a pits cc ¥ « a” | bee ae : A. oo a

* ns Pee a ee Re ar re a te rere MD : ge FF 4 a ieee . Me, *

a... ee ae = ew cera —_— :

cA - “e: = gees tae : —_—,* ae 23 ~-— * .%

32. . eee 2; ca e.% es Kz | ..Ao4|: ee",

OR a | ‘ " en eg. ae

3 -_* agen ce : y P , = ; -

-=ee-” bs 7 = aAa4— «* eB Mey 4. *-a ° » , /~* Mod ar 2.~"

Figure 44. Parallel striations and wood polish on dorsal surface of chert flake no. 32, used to groove wood; 244%.

accomplished in a short time, before more than minimal edge rounding occurred. Dorsal and ventral wood polish formed, along with parallel striations close to the margin (Figure 44). Microflaking consists

of a single row of tiny scalar flakes with feather terminations that line both dorsal and ventral aspects of the tool. Incising Damage. As part of the miscellaneous experiments, two chert flakes made incisions into soft and hard wood. These tools were not used for extensive lengths of time and did not suffer much edge rounding. Wood polish was noted for one piece. Both flake gravers

ended up with perpendicular striations approximately I centimeter back from the tip. A few diagonal striae also occur. A number of very minute microflake scars are distributed in varying densities along the

graver projection. The scars themselves are scalar or deep scalar shapes (Figure 45).

Traces from Perforating. A single chert flake used for drilling holes in seasoned mahogany developed a moderately rounded tip and margins. It also incurred wood polish (Figure 37) and a few striations perpendicular to the margin, down slightly from the tip. A continu-

;

Use Damage Caused by Contact with Soil 95

aur te ae wsiw a

, Mt ¥ ri ' 4 a *”

ion

Figure 45. Microflake scars on dorsal side of chert specimen no. 50, used to incise pine; 244%.

ous row of tiny scalar flake scars follows one of the margins leading to the drill tip. Often it is not possible to distinguish a perforator from an incising tool on the basis of morphology alone. A flake with a sturdy projec-

tion may serve either purpose. Fortunately for the lithic analyst, these two functions result in use traces that are dissimilar. Both gravers and perforators develop striations perpendicular to and diago-

nal to the edge, usually back 1 centimeter from the tip. Incising tools, however, incur abrasion, polish, and microflake scars along the side of the point, while perforators very often have abraded and polished tips, as well as a continuous row of tiny scars along both margins and on any ridges near the perforating tip.

Use Damage Caused by Contact with Soil Two large chert bifaces were hafted and used at Cerros to excavate soil and underlying decomposed limestone. These experiments were

performed in such a fashion that the resultant use wear should be comparable to that incurred by chipped stone implements used (1) for excavating prehistoric canals, (2) for building raised field systems, and (3) for hoeing agricultural plots.

Both experimental tools suffered microflake damage along the

.|

96 The Experimental Use Wear

- "? ft ae oy, 4 a . - * 7 1 é: ee "ss emt , i% © at

, a ee 7 7 ee q « E

“- - - , Art . Wi. i ha ie ¢‘» 7. om ee me f b.* )¢i-

Figure 46. Perpendicular striae on dorsal aspect of chert specimen no. 13,

used to dig in soil; 244.

margin, consisting of one to five tiers of scars, asymmetrically distributed. Scalar flake scars with feather and stepped terminations characterize the bit; they are the result of repeated striking against soil and limestone cobbles, respectively. The tool bits were not heavily abraded; instead, a slight rounding was noted. The specimen used longest for excavation (specimen no. 13) appears to have reached an incipient stage of polish on both dorsal and ventral surfaces, but primarily on the dorsal. The most distinctive effect observed on the tools used for digging in soil is a band of “scour grooves” or striations

that originate at the margin and extend perpendicular to it along both faces (Figure 46). These delicate grooves are similar to those observed by J. Sonnenfeld (1962: Figure 2b—e) on experimental stone hoes. In fact, the overall wear pattern seen on my experimental dig-

ging implements conforms well to descriptions of wear traces on other lithic hoes and excavation tools (Semenov 1964: 21, 133; Shafer

1983; Sonnenfeld 1962). The only tool with which a chipped stone hoe could be contused is the hafted adze. However, hoe polish does not have the bright, fluid appearance of wood gloss.

Use Damage from Bone Working 97

Use Damage from Bone Working (Table ro)

The eight chert tools used to work fresh animal bone were slow to develop polish, but they became heavily abraded along the utilized margin after as little as 15 minutes. Keeley has identified a distinctive “bone polish” that is bright, somewhat greasy, and may contain tiny pits (Keeley 1980: 42-44). He also noted that this polish forms very slowly, is highly localized, and generally is concentrated on the high points of the flint or chert surface. On my sample the bone polish appears different from wood polish. It has a slightly greasy look but without circular pits. Five of the eight chert bone-working flakes developed a trace of polish (see Figure 47).

Sawing Bone. Three unretouched chert flakes with ample edge angles (35°—40°) were used to saw a fresh deer tibia. As a result, the cutting edges quickly dulled. This heavy edge abrasion is easily discerned without optical magnification. Two of the knives developed a

slight amount of greasy bone polish close to the margin. Striations appeared on all bone saws, oriented not only parallel to the margin, but also perpendicular and diagonal to it in a few cases. These striae are frequently shorter and wider than those from woodworking, and

, Sa :7

s

” al Figure 47. Bone polish and perpendicular striae on dorsal surface of chert flake no. 48, used to incise bone; 244.

Table 10. Use traces from bone working

Dorsal Ventral

Specimen Angle No. of No. of No. (°) EA SS P SO ST SE FT FD FS Tiers P SO ST SE FT FD FS Tiers Striations Flake Scars Striations Flake Scars

Sawing

Ch 46 35 4 + + 1,3 1 1 2 4 0.5 ] + 1 14,2 1 #1,4 4 1.1 ] Ch 59 40 4 —-— —~— ~— ~~ — 4 4 0.1 1 — 1,2, 1 1 2,4 4 0.4 ] 3

Ch 60 36 3 - —- S—- KSe 4 4 Q.1 1 — 2,3 1 1 2,4 4 0.3 1 Scraping

Ch 47 77 1—- — — ~—~ ~ ~~ ~~ DOL — 2? 2 2, ] 1 4 Q1 1 Ch 51 40 30+ —-— ~—> — — 1 2 0.5 ] + 3 2, 1 1,4 4 08 ]

Ch 52 40 3 + — 2 2 ] ] 4 3 ] + 3 2 1,2 4 1 0.2 ] Ch 48 105 2+ + 2 ] ] 1 4 0.1 ] Q 2 ] 1 1,2 4 Q.1 1 Incising Drilling

Ch 49 75 2+ — 8 2 | 4 4 O01 1 + 2 2 8 SS ~ ~~ — N = 8 Ch: chert EA Edge abrasion: 1, minimal; 2, light; 3, moderate; 4, extreme.

SS Scarsymmetry.

Pp Polish. SO Striation orientation: 1, parallel to margin; 2, perpendicular; 3, diagonal. ST Striation type: 1, long, narrow, deep; 2, short, wide, deep; 3, intermittent; 4, wide, shallow; 5, long, narrow, faint; 6, long, wide, deep. SE _ Striation extent: 1, close to margin; 2, far back from margin; 3, 1 cm. down from tip.

FT Flake scar type: 1, scalar, feather termination; 2, half-moon, snap termination; 3, step termination; 4, deep scalar; 5, irregular; 6, triangular. FD Flake scar distribution: 1, continuous; 2, almost continuous; 3, clusters; 4, discontinuous; 5, continuous overlapping scars. FS Flake scar size (mm.).

Use Damage from Bone Working 99

not bilateral. Two of the three tools had only ventral striae. Microflake scars, however, occur in a single tier on both opposing surfaces.

They consist of scalar and deep scalar scars that are larger on the ventral side. A number of half-moon flake removals with snap termi-

nations also occur as a result of the resistant nature of the contact material. Bone saws are more severely abraded than wood saws. They differ as well in the type of polish that forms along the blade: irregular and greasy from bone and smooth, bright, and fluid in appearance as a result of sawing wood. Also, bone polish is generally much less extensively developed than wood gloss.

Bone Scraping. Another experiment consisted of the use of three chert flakes to remove flesh and sinew from deer bone. In the process, the steep angled flakes developed dull or rounded edges and an

asymmetrical pattern of incipient polish on the ventral surface. Short striations perpendicular or diagonal to the edge were found in each case; these were restricted to a narrow zone close to the utilized margin. Scalar and deep scalar scars, some with step terminations, form a single discontinuous row along both opposing margins.

Incising Bone. A single chert flake with a steep edge angle was used to make a number of deep incisions in fresh bone. During use the graver tip and margin became slightly rounded. In addition, a small area of polish formed along the incising margin (Figure 47]. A few perpendicular and diagonal striae were also observed, as well as a symmetrical distribution of a few tiny scalar flakes scattered intermittently along the margin within 2 centimeters of the graver tip.

Perforating Bone. A retouched chert flake was used as an alternating drill to bore several holes in fresh .nimal long bone. A slight rounding resulted on the drill tip and along the lateral margins and dorsal ridge. A few small polished areas were seen, as well as short, wide striations perpendicular to the margin, approximately 1 centimeter from the tip. The single row of minute, deep, scalar flake scars extends for 1—1.5 centimeters along the margins from the tip, on the dorsal side.

100 The Experimental Use Wear

aa5 be, Bs, ¢ “aia . bn % .

Sree et Mra vere eer fa

a

-— =“ - : ~xbj, e 7 7= & . Me

2 ta >ue. i A ./ wae ;e ‘.se~~. =} te>T ad | | Yo ee ee

7 %., :

Ee ‘ a al . . e “4

. . NE . *’, a:.>>=< te i er a, ~ . 2 ee ont Sa . Weng PRS 3 yh NOepee ae a. ae _.% a ae ee x = . ‘. > . T= : ' A re ~ i

, err J

7 7 ~~ ls 7 baal lens , n“.

ey -’ «; J. — - ~

: : " e « + > t,

Figure 48. Hide polish and edge rounding on dorsal side of chert specimen no. 18, used to scrape snakeskin; 178%.

Figure 49. Flake scar and surface abrasion from cutting hide on dorsal aspect of obsidian specimen no. 42; 178. Figure 50. Dry hide surface abrasion on ventral side of obsidian specimen

no. 42, used to cut dry hides; 356.

Effects of Hide and Leather Working 101

Effects of Hide and Leather Working (Table 11)

Three obsidian blades and six chert flakes were used to process fresh hides and dry tanned leather. These activities left distinctive polish, abrasion, and striation configurations on the working edges of the stone tools. As Brian Hayden has noted (1979b), hide-scraping implements develop a smooth, rounded edge; within my sample this phenomenon occurred on both chert and obsidian tools used for cutting, scraping, and perforating hides (see Figure 48). On obsidian, abrasion from hide looks slightly greasy and bumpy (Figure 49) and may be riddled with shallow circular pits (Figure 50).

It tends to occur in flake scars along the utilized margin. Interestingly, this description coincides well with the hide polish on Keeley’s

experimental flint tools (Keeley 1980: 49). It is also similar to that

observed on some of my experimental obsidian butchering implements. Hide polish on chert varies from bumpy and greasy on tools used on fresh animal skins like deer or jaguar (Figure 51) to a smoother, nongreasy variety that resulted from contact with snakeskins (Figure 52).

Only one of the chert hide-working tools developed striae; all three obsidian blades were striated after use. Striae were long and narrow. Although a few were of the deep variety (Figure 53}, others were very shallow and faint (Figure 54); perhaps these are analogous to the “diffuse shallow linear features” noted by Keeley on flint tools used for hide working (Keeley 1980: 50).

Cutting Leather. Two of the three obsidian blades used to cut leather developed surface abrasion (Figures 49 and 50} on both dorsal

and ventral surfaces. All have striations parallel to the edge; some perpendicular striations were also noted on two blades. Each specimen in this subsample has at least some of the long, narrow, faint striae described above. Striations occur bilaterally on all leathercutting knives. Microfracturing also occurs on both opposing surfaces of the blades, not necessarily in a symmetrical distribution. A single row of scars, never longer than 1 millimeter, is arranged in small clusters or discontinuously along the margins. There does not seem to be any pattern to scar shape: scalar, deep scalar, half-moon, and irregular flakes were removed during hide cutting.

Scraping Skins. The three chert flakes used to scrape puma and deer skins were unifacially retouched into steep-angled scrapers; un-

Table 11. Use damage from hide and leather working

Dorsal Ventral Specimen Angle Contact No. of No. of No. (°) Material EA SS P SO ST SE FT FD FS Tiers P SO ST SE FT FD FS Tiers _Sériations = =_—*Flake Scars _Striations_ Flake Scars

Cutting

Ob 28? 3.25, 41 Tanned 2 — — 1 i 2. 1 5 1 1 — 2 5 1 ] 4 1 ] leather

Ob 42 22,leather Tanned 2 + + ] 5 124 3 1 ] + ] ] 1 14 3 1 ]

Ob 86 37 Tanned 1 — + 1,2 5 2, 4 1 0.5 ] + 1,2 5 ] 5 2 02 1 leather Scraping

Ch 17 28,33 Snakeskins 2 — + — —~— —~— 2,1 4 1] 1 — — —~— ~~ 2 4 1 1

Ch 18 46 Snakeskins 2 — + — — ~ ~—~— ~ ~— ~ ~ ~ ~~ — ] 4 ] ] Ch 34 80 Freshdeer, 2 — — — — — 1,3 4 05 1-2 4+ ~— ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ — puma Ch 35 67,76 Freshdeer, 1 — — — — — 1,38 2 O47 1-3 ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ — puma

Ch 36 64,74 Freshdeer, 1 — + — ~~ ~ 1 4 02 1 ~—~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ — puma Perforating

Ch 55 40,70 Tanned 3 — — 2,3 1 3 4 4 02 1 ++ 2 ] 3 1 5 08 1 leather

N=9 Ch: chert Ob: obsidian EA Edge abrasion: 1, minimal; 2, light; 3, moderate; 4, extreme.

SS Scar symmetry. P Polish. The equivalent of polish on obsidian is a roughening of the otherwise smooth surface from contact with an abrasive substance, such as hide. SO _ Striation orientation: 1, parallel to margin; 2, perpendicular; 3, diagonal. ST Striation type: 1, long, narrow, deep; 2, short, wide, deep; 3, intermittent; 4, wide, shallow; 5, long, narrow, faint; 6, long, wide, deep. SE ___Striation extent: 1, close to margin; 2, far back from margin; 3, 1 cm. down from tip.

FT Flake scar type: 1, scalar, feather termination; 2, half-moon, snap termination; 3, step termination; 4, deep scalar; 5, irregular; 6, triangular. FD Flake scar distribution: 1, continuous; 2, almost continuous; 3, clusters; 4, discontinuous; 5, continuous overlapping scars. FS Flake scar size (mm.)}. *Used subsequently for whittling.

*A:

es oetysR7.

~

per is wa , ~ . “4 é, + ioe” ie

°7 ‘ Ue ots aor.

s; Why ;

ie ‘thx,

, “ wa Aor. -. i oe?) »* ‘.ey: YT. >s" “ xer" “—_.

:‘;°

A > >_y> Te.pale ae 7 SG, . fy Aa ~ i ae¥7ae Ip|

o,. a . 5 ; 7 wr c V4 ~ ae er >4 *uN Pe, . *wh NS.

— ~~ ? ~ ~ ~ 2 41 1 Ch 28 28 Jaguar® l++—~—>— — — ] 4 5 l1—- — ~> — ] 4 0.2 i Ch 33 47,39 Deer‘ l1— ? ~~ — — 2 4 02 1 — ~ ~~ — ] 4 05 1-2

Ob 3 24 Turtle 3 — — 2,1 1,3 1 J 3] ] 4 ] 2 ] ] 4 0.2 ] Ob5 33,35 Snakes 4 + + 1 3 2 #4 205 «1 4+ 421 1 2 413 05 1

Ob6 29,30 Snakes 3 — + 2 1 #21 #1 203 1 + 21231214 1 04 2 Ob 7 49, 41 Peccary 1 — + 1,2 3,5 12 1,4 1 03 2 + 2 ] 2 1,2 3 0.1 ] Ob 8 50 Jaguar 2 — + 1 3,1 1 i 3.1 1 —- ~—~ ~—> — ] 3 2.5 ] Ob9 2834 Jaguar 2 + + 3 «14321 21 3:1 1 +412 3 2 4 441 1 Ob 11 26,49 Turtle 2+ ? 2,1 3 ] ] 3 05 1 2 12 43 1 1 4 0.5 ] Ob12 2837 Turtle 2 — +1235 1 1 2421 2 +1243 1 21 4121 1 Ob 13 31 Turtle“ 2—-— ? — ~— — ] 3.1 ] - Oe ] 4 02 1 Ob 14 24,30 Jaguar 2 + + 31,2 1,2, 1 l 3 1 ] + 2 2,5 1,2 1 3.61 ] Ob 15 35, 30 Jaguar 1— — 121,3 1,2 1 3 0.2, 1 + ] 3 it ] 4 0.2 ] 1.5 Ob 16 53, 33 =‘ Jaguar* 1 + + 2,1 3,5 #1 ] 2 1 ] + 1 3 1 14 2 1 ] Ob17 25,30 Jaguars 2 + + 2 2 21 21,2 3421 1 —2112 2 1 31 1 Ob 18 30 Jaguar‘ 1+ — 2,3 1 1 14,2, 3 05 1 — 2 ] ] ] 4 02 1

pecker ,

5

Ob 10 36,44 Wood- 2 — — 1,2 3,5 2 —- — — — + 2 i 1 1,5 3 0.3 ]

Ob 22 25,23 Deer 1+ + 1,2, 1,2 1 1 3.05 1 2 Se ] 4 0.5 ] Ob 23 26 Deer 3 + + 1,2 2,3 1 #14 3° #41 ] + 12 1,5 1 #1,4 3 #14 ] Ob 24 25,29 36,26Puma Puma31+— + 2 3] ]] ]] 33 106] +1 ]+3— ] 4 30.2 1 Ob 25 + 1,2 1 1,2 1 it Ob 26 43,38 Puma 1 + + ] 3 2. 4 2 14 1 — J] 3 2 4 2 1.7 ] Ob 27 28,35 Puma }— ? J 38 2 SS ~~ ~~ ~~ He ~~ He He ~~ ~~ ~~ — 3

N = 26 Ch: chert Ob: obsidian EA Edge abrasion: 1, minimal; 2, light; 3, moderate; 4, extreme.

SS Scar symmetry. P Polish. The equivalent of polish on obsidian is a roughening of the otherwise smooth surface from contact with an abrasive substance, such as meat or bone. SO _ Striation orientation: 1, parallel to margin; 2, perpendicular; 3, diagonal. ST Striation type: 1, long, narrow, deep; 2, short, wide, deep; 3, intermittent; 4, wide, shallow; 5, long, narrow, faint; 6, long, wide, deep. SE __ Striation extent: 1, close to margin; 2, far back from margin; 3, 1 cm. down from tip.

FT Flake scar type: 1, scalar, feather termination; 2, half-moon, snap termination; 3, step termination; 4, deep scalar; 5, irregular; 6, triangular. FD Flake scar distribution: 1, continuous; 2, almost continuous; 3, clusters; 4, discontinuous; 5, continuous overlapping scars. FS ___ Flake scar size (mm.). *Defleshing. ’Scraping off bristles. ‘Scraping flesh and sinew from bones.

‘Scraping inner shell. ‘Removing meat from cooked carcass.

108 The Experimental Use Wear

The most important independent variable in terms of effecting use damage on butchering tools is the nature of animal processing. This activity involves cutting, sawing, slicing, and scraping motions, most of which are accomplished with a single implement. In the process of skinning and preparing an animal for consumption, a flake or blade is alternatively subjected to a variety of motions, dur-

ing which time it may contact hide, tat, muscle, ligaments, and bone. It is not surprising, therefore, that there is some overlap between butchering use wear and the damage observed after hide and bone working.

Most of the butchering tools developed at least some degree of abrasive polish during use. On eleven specimens, polish occurs bilaterally; eight additional pieces have a polished area on one surface. A number of these tools suffered abrasion very similar to bone polish.

This is not unexpected since some of the tools came into repeated contact with the skeleton, especially during tendon cutting and disjointing. Other tools, notably obsidian blades, bear traces of a bumpy, pitted, and somewhat greasy zone that occurs close to the tool margin, sometimes in flake scars. (The significance of this surface alteration

on obsidian is presently unknown. Therefore, this phenomenon should not be relied on as distinctive of butchering tools.) There is a good deal of variability within the butchering use wear observed on this sample. Edge attrition, for example, ranges from minimal in twelve cases to extreme on one obsidian blade. Most, however, suffered minimal or light edge rounding.

Striation patterning is also complex. Only four of the butchering implements are without striae. Four have only striations oriented parallel to the margin, indicating that they were used exclusively for cutting/slicing. The perpendicular and diagonal striations on four tools imply a scraping motion. The remaining fourteen, or over 50 percent, have combinations of parallel, perpendicular, and diagonal striae along their margins. Striations occur with greater frequency on the dorsal aspects of these meat-processing tools. In every case, ventral striae have a dorsal counterpart; but some tools have only dorsal striae. There is also variability in striation type. The most commonly occurring variety is the long, narrow, deep type 1 (Figure 55}. This form was observed on sixteen butchering tools. An intermittent type 3 is present on seventeen butchering implements (Figure 56). Long, narrow, and very faint (shallow) striations (type 5) developed on six specimens. These linear features are even fainter than

those seen on tools used to work dry hides. They are probably attributable to the relative softness of grease-coated fresh hide and animal tissue.

Traces from Butchering and Meat Cutting 109

re , borg: we

P

Bei bs dhe-*a oa Yi dl

* WR ate

Lee ane

= —

: ar ~~

bad 3

Figure 55. Perpendicular striations on ventral surface of obsidian specimen no. 14, used to butcher jaguar; 140. Figure 56. Faint parallel and perpendicular striations and microflake scars on dorsal side of obsidian specimen no. 14, used to butcher jaguar; 140.

Butchering generally left an asymmetrical pattern of microflake damage along tool margins. Scalar (Figure 57) and deep scalar (Figure 58) scars with invasive or feather terminations were most frequently

associated with this activity. No step terminations were noted. Most dorsal and ventral microflake scars are tiny, less than 0.2 millimeter in length, although a few extend up to 1.5 millimeters back from the margin. The damaged butchering implement usually had a single tier of scars on the dorsal and ventral surfaces, often distributed as a series of small clusters of scars (see Figures 57—59). The butchering knives in my sample are not hard to separate from

the other experimental tools, principally because butchering activities left a delicate row of deep scalar scars along the blade near the ends of the implements. A flake or blade used for this purpose may have more than one use locus, each of which consists of clusters of tiny scars within 15 millimeters of a corner (on a blade segment} or end of the tool. This pattern differs from that on most tools (with the exception of gravers and perforators), where use wear tends to be located in the center of the blade or tool bit.

oho 4

+

}|4 ;~ ‘ eee * an a . \ + . Damage from Cutting Sherds 117

be — c ’ en ee » “Vers sl Wi Ss. ee we i ga a ee 4 : ‘S\nNA . Sah qow - yt~h. %) YONG °oe 4 ,ORE o-- Ary fn Oy Lm Pr ent AG” a— > Fs : yy a dh - . s > si .

*oo. on UR ri ee ee! Ti Phe ee ee ; 5 Se Nt ener: a —— > * ~ ; ~~ ae Shee « - ; ‘ ae 4 > _ ees eee

7 + Li. > “bak | , ~ bes ot 4s wd : g a

aent + . ; “ A », a .~s » ee ss ai . te . . w “ee ’ _ . . . . ee a case = 2 on =r a - 4 =e pe Tos o ‘~ eel A,

~E~ ¢-4 + ; e,hedom . aDe Xl ">. ‘. rs ‘yy : ;age te —r se J _ot “ . . . Sa x 4 . < * ; w : / f a = e al x *

ot ~ ~-Be a .> aS= . ete >™ we: Ft™™~

. ‘ ; vr « . 7 , - nf -™ a eee ae St ae ae wt | Ste

mae eG. 4 at *Ge. a ~~> C *AR at, Tae : wh , : a4: ic 7 >> ¥ a, = ve ee ee tg ‘ ae] ng The eeat

- a"gS BuSo ning. 2ag bine = x. ™BE ; " Se RS a " ON elt OP ge ee ek gee AS ) egcs.|

Figure 69. (top left) Surface abrasion, parallel and perpendicular striations on ventral side of obsidian specimen no. 40, used to cut sherds; 360. Figure 70. (top right) Elongate zone of gouged-out surface abrasion and parallel striations on dorsal aspect of obsidian specimen no. 40, used to cut

sherds; 180. Figure 71. (bottom left) Large abraded surface locus and parallel striations on ventral surface of obsidian specimen no. 4o, used to cut sherds; 180. Figure 72. (bottom right) Sherd polish and parallel striations on dorsal aspect of chert specimen no. 40, used to cut sherds; 180.

118 The Experimental Use Wear

Microflake scars are not plentiful on tools that suffer such extensive edge attrition. The scars that do form, however, are distributed in an approximately symmetrical manner on both opposing surfaces. Sherd cutting produces “snapped-off” or half-moon scars and also a few scalar and deep scalar scars. The single row of microflake scars ranges from approximately 0.5 millimeter to 3 millimeters in flake

length; smaller scars are quickly eroded away by the friction between stone and sherds. Fiber Traces (Table 14)

Lowland tropical fibers are pliable, yet coarse and resistant enough

to abrade the surfaces of most stone tools used to cut them into

lengths for rope or twine, or to cut and scrape off bumps prior to basketmaking. All but one of the thirteen fiberworking tools show some degree of abrasive polish, which is more likely to form on the dorsal (N=8) than on the ventral (N=11) surface. On chert flakes, polish develops as a light smoothing on the high spots of the stone surface: it bears a striking resemblance to wood polish (Figure 73). It is not as bright as polish caused by sherd or shell working. The effect of fiber

abrasion on obsidian knives is a linear roughening oriented in the direction of the tool’s use (Figures 74—76}. It is finer grained than the

abrasive gouges that result from contact with sherds. In a previous study (Lewenstein 1981:179) I recorded the presence of wide bands of roughening or dulling on both dorsal and ventral aspects of obsidian blades used to cut jute fibers. This dulling was more pronounced than the roughening observed on the obsidian fibercutting implements described here, probably because at Cerros I was working freshly gathered vines and fibers, unlike the (drier) seasoned rope used in the previous experiment. The surface abrasion or polish caused by contact with fibers extends in a broad band out from the cutting edge on both dorsal and ventral surfaces of obsidian and chert tools. The extensive abraded area results from deep penetration of the tool into the contact material. Fibers are not as hard or resistant as shell, bone, or potsherds. Contact is made over a wider area on the tools, resulting in a much wider zone of polish for fiberworking implements than for the tools used to process the other three materials. Fiberworking with stone tools results in slight to moderate edge rounding, depending on the length of tool use (Figure 77). This abrasion did not take the form of severe attrition of the margin, as was the case with bone and sherd cutting, but rather a gradual smoothing of the edge similar to the effects of hide working.

Table 14. Fiberworking use wear

Dorsal Ventral _Striations = _Flake Scars Striations = _—Fllake Scars

Specimen Angle No. of No. of No. (°) EA SS P SO ST SE FT FD FS Tiers P SO ST SE FT FD FS Tiers Cutting

Ch 2924 2712++++] 1] ]142 2 2,2 #4 4 02 1 +] ]+12 Ch 30 QO2 1 ] 21 2, 2,6440.2 0.21]

Ch 31 23 }++t ~—~— ~ ~~ 2 4 02 1 ++ — ~~ ~~ 2 4 02 1 Ch 43 28 2+ + — — ~~ 2 2 04 1 — ~ ~~ KH 2D D2 03 1

Ch 53 45 35 45 82++?— =#1,2 #5 i 4#14 20.5 ] +|] ]? 22 1,2 1,4 43Q2 ]2 Ch 1,3 1 1,2 1.7 ] 2 144 02 Ob 44 26, 39 2 + + ] 5 2 1 3] ] + 12 3 2, ] 3.1 ]

Ob Ob 21 20 28, 31, 35 22 2+ 3 ?— — |]|] 53 22.] ]3]4 ]1]+]]+3 ]2,3 ]2,3 ]0.2 3] ]] Cutting/scraping

Ob 19 29, 28 33+++ + ] 3] 231,2 34 #1] ]]+2153 21 2,1 4 |]1 ]] Ob 1 30, 30 1 1 + ] 3 1 4 Ob 12 44 #1 #1 ]] Ob 24 25, 39, 50 28 33 ++ ++ ]] 33 22 1,2 1,243#1 #1]]++12 ] 33222,1 N= 13 Ch: chert Ob: obsidian EA Edge abrasion: 1, minimal; 2, light; 3, moderate; 4, extreme.

SS Scarsymmetry. P Polish. The equivalent of polish on obsidian is a roughening of the otherwise smooth surface from contact with an abrasive substance. Many vines and woody fibers produce a surface abrasion similar to that caused by wood. SO _ Striation orientation: 1, parallel to margin; 2, perpendicular; 3, diagonal. ST Striation type: 1, long, narrow, deep; 2, short, wide, deep; 3, intermittent; 4, wide, shallow; 5, long, narrow, faint; 6, long, wide, deep. SE __ Striation extent: 1, close to margin; 2, far back from margin; 3, 1 cm. down from tip.

FT Flake scar type: 1, scalar, feather termination; 2, half-moon, snap termination; 3, step termination; 4, deep scalar; 5, irregular; 6, triangular. FD Flake scar distribution: 1, continuous; 2, almost continuous; 3, clusters; 4, discontinuous; 5, continuous overlapping scars. FS Flake scar size (mm.).

120 The Experimental Use Wear

tA 2 xt roi ag ale SAIL .sea “= ~e Be = ae . — ete $3 | Ps. Uva Ep, eee a sty a i, vo “ > = ne oa a ~ a Fi .e : ue. ‘% i * « "eet a €s ;' 4 a. %. Wie ~ een .© on,Ae : P > Sa, /?>-. ~SP -_ *gD *4 4 ,2x CE . Pa GRDod SNyp eatMeee ee S51 benes ORAS Oe sat”“eis , a : ie ae

Sia eee eee, ‘i

+,» ieRE “as4. ,"=: petwo lenpele —_ — mi.4‘.jere ¢ ’sys: woe “2 Aye
ee or . et “ ~ a’ : eae eaee ta Eee KG ee ee SM y gle eS ee Me See aiss Oe/Ee DEP AE TES . eee ae -fetes pyme . patel A —, ae ! ee Re ae Fay + i ae, ee, aren IS po... Zi taco >’oe: h |peti , |paetala,rs"Lan on i Sms Cag ok 8 Pe = += 4/

‘ eles ai ee 1 . *. & aterwe ~~ hae | /n -)~-—

’ , wheetnes '? r el a aeons

Figure 73. (top left) Fiber polish and parallel striations on dorsal aspect of chert specimen no. 30, used to cut fibers; 180. Figure 74. (top right) Surface roughening from fibers on dorsal aspect of obsidian specimen no. 4, used to cut/scrape fibers; 180.

Figure 75. (bottom left) Scalar scar, parallel and intermittent striae on dorsal side of obsidian specimen no. 2, used to cut/scrape fibers; 180%. Figure 76. (bottom right) Surface abrasion on ventral surface of obsidian specimen no. 2, used to cut/scrape fibers; 180.

Fiber Traces 121

, ” ‘~ Figure 77. Moderate edge rounding and incipient fiber polish on ventral side of chert specimen no. 29, used to cut fibers; 200.

All fiberworking flakes and blades developed a symmetrical pattern of microflake scars along both dorsal and ventral margins, the result of their use for cutting, either exclusively or primarily.

Cutting Fibers. Nine specimens, six chert and three obsidian, were used to cut several varieties of native Belizean fibers. Most tools incurred broad bands of dorsal and ventral striae oriented parallel to the edge (Figure 75). These striations are long, narrow, and variable in depth; in many cases they are intermittent. Flake scars on fibercutting knives generally develop as a single tier of scalar, half-moon, or

deep scalar scars arranged discontinuously or as a series of small clusters along both margins. The half-moon fractures, with snap terminations, appear to be the product of the acute edge angle of many of the fiber knives (see Keeley 1980:24-—25). For example, the four

experimental tools with crescentic, half-moon scars have a mean edge angle of 25.5°, while the five tools without this type of microflake scar have a mean angle of 33.6°. Use flake scars are variable in length, from less than o.2 millimeter up to 1.7 millimeters. Obsidian blade knives used extensively to cut rough cotton fibers have been found to exhibit almost no macroscopic damage (Lewenstein 1981:179). However, when viewed under magnification, they

pa The Experimental Use Wear

alt od Bi eee a+ei» othee wen teste."ae Fed . . . *t dearA ° Pw ‘ = - SA “2 wa “ P- ey: ja a Rs azta . ” nante 4 4a-7°* eS an 4 ve . PA a el ng = *

es ae Peete 7,eer a aeDe 5 ad ee fl *2FPaS a *2S ag +ae a e* . - . . .. ag imPeta WES SRS Trai } a oe —

Saye 2 eS } = >Sia

Tad SE

,4

Yd

'7~¢x

7

Figure 78. Surface roughening and intermittent striations on dorsal side of obsidian specimen no. 4, used to cut/scrape fibers; 200. Figure 79. Microflake scars on ventral side of obsidian specimen no. 19, used to cut/scrape fibers; 200%.

Use Wear from Processing Edible Roots and Gourds 123

display definite edge rounding and a bilateral pattern of tiny microflake scars with hinge terminations, as well as striations oriented parallel to the cutting edge.

Cutting and Scraping. The four obsidian blades used for a combination of cutting and scraping to remove bumps from basketry fibers all suffered moderate edge rounding and a bilateral pattern of surface abrasion, as described above for fibercutting implements. In

addition to the intermittent dorsal and ventral striations running parallel to the margin (Figure 78}, two have a few diagonal and perpendicular oriented striae, as well, on the ventral aspect. Bands of

striae start at the margin and extend far back on both opposing surfaces.

Scars from microflakes removed during fiber preparation form a single, discontinuous row that is approximately symmetrical on dorsal and ventral sides. It is made up of scalar and half-moon scars up to 1 millimeter in length (Figure 79}. Use Wear from Processing Edible Roots and Gourds (Table 15)

Making a Jicara Bowl. The making of a jicara bow] is described in Chapter 3. The two flake tools developed slight edge rounding along the margin. The obsidian specimen also developed dark, abraded patches on the surface, especially on the dorsal side (Figure 80}. On the obsidian tool, use striae formed that are parallel, perpendicular, and diagonal to the two lateral margins (Figures 80—82); these features are not restricted to the margin areas; some striae extend out almost to the dorsal ridge. Neither striations nor observable microfracturing occurred on the chert flake used to make the jicara bowl. As can be seen from Figure 81, a single tier of scalar microflake scars was removed, in clusters or semicontinuous fashion, along the margins of the obsidian blade. Scars do not exceed 1 millimeter in length and are not symmetrically distributed on dorsal and ventral surfaces.

Peeling/Slicing Roots for Consumption. Both of the obsidian blades used to peel and slice roots incurred light edge rounding (Figure 83} and little or no surface abrasion or “polish.” The tool used for manioc preparation developed parallel and perpendicular striae bilaterally (Figures 84 and 85}. Striations are of the long and also the intermittent varieties. Microflaking is symmetrical on the dor-

sal and ventral aspects of both blades; flake scars tend to be the deep scalar (Figures 84 and 85) or “crescentic,” half-moon form (Fig-

Table 15. Use wear from processing edible roots and gourds

Dorsal Ventral Specimen Angle Contact No. of No. of No. (°) Material EA SS P SO ST SE FT FD FS Tiers P SO ST SE FT FD FS Tiers Striations Flake Scars Striations Flake Scars

Ob 38a 26 Jicara 2— + — ~ ~~ 2 2 04 1 ++ 32 «21 1 21 4 04 1 Ob 38b 62 Jicara 2— + 1,3,3,1 1,2 1 2 0.1 1 — 13 1 1,2 1 3] ] 2

Ch 38 43, 38 Jicara Pe 2 eee ee eee ee H— i SS SS Ob 47 25,36 Camote 1+ + —-—- — ~— 45 3 02 1 —~— ~— ~~ —~— 5,4 4 0.2 ]

Ob 46 24,36 Manioc 2+ — 1,2, 5 2 2,4 4 0.5 ] + 12 1,4 2 2 2 O35 ] 3

N=5 Ch: chert Ob: obsidian EA Edge abrasion: 1, minimal; 2, light; 3, moderate; 4, extreme.

SS Scar symmetry. P Polish. The equivalent of polish on obsidian is a roughening of the otherwise smooth surface from contact with an abrasive substance, such as gourds and/or roots. SO __Striation orientation: 1, parallel to margin; 2, perpendicular; 3, diagonal. ST Striation type: 1, long, narrow, deep; 2, short, wide, deep; 3, intermittent; 4, wide, shallow; 5, long, narrow, faint; 6, long, wide, deep. SE Striation extent: 1, close to margin; 2, far back from margin; 3, 1 cm. down from tip.

FT Flake scar type: 1, scalar, feather termination; 2, half-moon, snap termination; 3, step termination; 4, deep scalar; 5, irregular; 6, triangular. FD Flake scar distribution: 1, continuous; 2, almost continuous; 3, clusters; 4, discontinuous; 5, continuous overlapping scars. FS Flake scar size (mm.}.

Use Wear from Processing Edible Roots and Gourds 125

a*rw re i : ’ , -~,. “~_

weara >Act ae 6. We wie re . = - . iF >=

2) . .-te*¥wy 5 ~| rf m-

‘. ~P. ”

i A. A

—— a i / >. = Po ; oa i a - , . 4A . x

yy

y> ,soo" _ rd 7 . > =a : , . m4

,. ZA ssKiie) >. : a ™ ty 4

~_ Va — < °s “ q

wx o- same ——— | ~~ Te Nfae.ee _— =.J .—o ,

‘ ; ‘ 2 naa. ‘~ 4

-=P ’3| 3::

aie ae le hae ar nd . J“ yfh Rr, Se ~s ,~J=ov. re

, ot es P

| jo Sigg Bas Sian ng ¢ Th SIs ¥ , Me es 6

. - Way ae P z- “1 s+ off =. 7 a » " Fae - aa - oo. ees! ~*~. hes> . ea an “ “et AY et wv b >- 1% ee :

Pir. SP 7 fan =ARR > eee A,eS” FCttn- eeohh Fif ra ; ‘ah!ON 8ee) BA Ch ae Ty TA Beg” ghia ge“Pee sae ~we

Figure 113. (top left) Hide polish on chert tool used as scraper; from Tulix/ Classic deposit at ballcourt locus; 138. Figure 114. (top right) Dry hide polish, pitted surface, and parallel striations on chert macroblade tool used to scrape hides; from Tulix/Classic

ballcourt deposit; 138. Figure 115. (middle left) Hide polish on chert perforator used on hide;

from Tulix midden; 138. Figure 116. (middle right) Hide polish on chert tool used to cut hide; from Tulix/Classic ballcourt locus; 138. Figure 117. (bottom left) Hide polish on chert perforator; from Tulix/Late Postclassic context, residential locus; 138 x. Figure 118. (bottom right) Microflake scars, parallel striations, and edge abrasion on obsidian blade tool used to slice/cut soft fibers, such as cotton; from Classic ballcourt locus; 138.

$t°*.5:A® Ve / — el t rH “ (Ty ; , .i e a “> . ¢ x ee Fe ~ 4 ign . Bi Rr. : é . +Pne. AF J ee ~se See La ~ =;| irs res ra, = M,_, ne a rh 4 +> . 4 a: ry : oe : , . . a3 + Vina err. ¥: ‘“S ‘ 2. . bFe; .Nes are ~~, a - ; A, ” ceeGea onl Pee ae2FSBAe i RS ge OT _ re . .@ in a, -:tite “2 no" -: aye ¥ ,bey a aaedwae ’ ’ tA. A 7, -2y “gt! é 7.

if A “é.*¢%* - - , e. % VME - ’ ° ade ° ve aS ta A 7s;”:P| > , om Pind m4 ad ">bsy: :rda 7. ;ws :*, a_ .f‘a4 wv;am “ 4- ; a J‘ “wy . a a ry Oy > ae Be my “ Py as . |

ax ‘\Y 7 ft. ae : £39 “te OPE 6 2 ok gmBaef a “f% wt ee ek ; body ie Yk “s des p , ae ‘ 2api a id Z ;ty7fee ee

| .-*; — ’ ; e By) "e ‘J Suey a Ps hd _ Bt So | ~ fi . ~ | e oe ; =

es . Zig he LS

“aa: ~ 4 ff 4 +. “Fas. -ia - md : \> os | -~ae ry a Oe - -

Figure 119. (top left) Scour grooves and gloss on chert digging instrument; from Tulix midden; 152%. Figure 120. (top right) Haft gloss on Small Find no. 1550, a chert biface

recovered in Tulix/Classic ballcourt context; 152. Figure 121. (middle left) Haft polish and striae on chert tool from Classic

residence; 152. Figure 122. (middle right) Haft polish and striae on chert tool from Late Postclassic residence; 152%. Figure 123. (bottom) Haft gloss on notched point (Small Find no. 332) of

chert from Late Postclassic residence; 152.

146 Stone Tool Use at Cerros

Table 18. Raw material distribution for chipped stone artifacts from Cerros

Chert Obsidian Total

Artifacts analyzed 4,546 268 4,814 Artifacts with use traces 1,082 185 1,267

(% | 24 69 26 Use loci 1,416 299 1,715

example, two data sets for which comparative information is available, Cueva del Texcal, Puebla, and Seibal, Guatemala, indicate that 5 percent or fewer of all chipped stone artifacts were utilized at these sites (Garcia Moll 1977:66; Willey, ed. 1978: 119). The high ratio of utilization at Cerros reflects the lack of knapping debris characteristic of a site where most chipped stone tools were obtained via exchange, rather than manufactured locally. Also, because these tools had to be brought from a distance, there was a strong tendency to resharpen and refurbish worn tools and to recycle broken fragments, including the stems of formal tools. The rarer material, obsidian imported over a longer distance from the Guatemalan highlands, was conserved and used even more efficiently than chert artifacts. An obsidian artifact at Cerros was almost three times as likely to be utilized as a chert artifact: 69 percent of the obsidian, compared with 24 percent of the chert artifacts have discernible use traces. Brian Hayden and Michael Deal (1981) have suggested that the Maya may have deliberately snapped obsidian prismatic blades in order to obtain tools with a right-angled working edge. Most of the obsidian artifacts from Cerros are fragments of prismatic blades, which may or may not have been purposely snapped. However, only 11 of the 299 obsidian use loci (less than 4 percent) were situated on “breaks.” The overwhelming majority of utilized obsidian loci are on lateral blade margins. I suggest that if the Maya were deliberately

snapping obsidian artifacts it was to transform the long, fragile blades into smaller segments that were less likely to break or were easier to use hafted. Further evidence of efficient usage of stone resources can be found

in the number of chipped stone artifacts with multiple use loci. An

Chronological Considerations 147 obsidian blade fragment generally had one or two utilized areas, that

is, the lateral margins; however, a few specimens also had a retouched and/or utilized snapped end. The utilized obsidian artifacts from Cerros average 1.6 use loci per specimen. The comparable figure for chert tools is 1.3 wear-damaged loci. Most chert tools have only one use area, although a few of the larger implements have several distinct locations of use, each of which served a different function (for an extreme example, see Lewenstein 1982b: Fig. 6). In part, this difference in the number of distinct use loci on chert and obsidian tools may be due to the fact that each obsidian blade segment has

four potential use loci (two lateral margins and two ends), while chert flakes can have one or more irregular margins that are unsuitable for utilization. At Cerros there were no readily identifiable productive loci, judging from the homogeneous distribution of nonperishable items such as spindle whorls, net weights, and ornaments. For this reason, I will discuss a series of detailed temporal and spatial comparisons of the functional lithic data, in order to determine what the use traces on the chipped stone tools indicate concerning the nature and distri-

bution of productive activities at the site and the implications of manufacture or processing at Cerros for local and regional exchange networks.

Chronological Considerations

History of Settlement As a result of seven years of archaeological

testing at Cerros, a picture of the community’s initial size, later growth and development, and eventual demise emerges. As far as is

known, the pioneer settlement corresponds to the Ixtabai phase (300—200 B.c.). By the time this small coastal village was formed, nearby Cuello had been occupied continuously for more than 1,500 years. We encountered Ixtabai materials only in (1) the midden area, Feature 1a, and (2) at Feature 76 (Figure 124), which appears to repre-

sent a separate inland community approximately 1.5 kilometers to the southeast of Feature tra, at the site of a large aguada (permanent water hole} (Scarborough 1983: 738). Table 19 summarizes the lithic artifact collection recovered in the Ixtabai contexts that I have ana-

lyzed. Fifty-one chipped stone tools originated in unmixed Ixtabai lots; five occurred in contexts that were primarily from this time period. An additional forty-two utilized specimens correspond to contexts designated as Ixtabai and some other phase, and forty-five tools of possible Ixtabai origin were found in lots that have yielded a low percentage of Ixtabai sherds. Unfortunately, none of the chipped

148 Stone Tool Use at Cerros

Table 19. Distribution of [xtabai phase tools Tools from

Tools from PredomiUnmixed Ix- nantly Ix-

Feature Context tabai Lots _ tabai Lots la/Op. 34 Sub-plaza midden 51 (4) 5 (0) Note: Figures in parentheses indicate obsidian tools. Overall, 7 percent of tools in unmixed and predominantly Ixtabai lots are obsidian.

la

76

Aguada

Figure 124. The Ixtabai settlement at Cerros. Numbers indicate features.

stone tools excavated at Feature 76 correspond to this pioneer Ixtabai

settlement. Consequently all discussions of Ixtabai lithic artifacts here refer to the Feature 1a midden. During the period 200—50 B.c., C’oh phase, the Cerros community grew and expanded to the south, as depicted in Figure 125. Occupation continued in the coastal village and inland aguada areas,

and ground-level structures were built on additional well-drained land within 300 meters of the coast. Scarborough (1983 :738) hy-

Chronological Considerations 149 pothesizes a system of infield/outfield agriculture with kitchen gar-

dens for this interval. Late in this C’oh phase the inhabitants of Cerros constructed the main canal around the site and began to erect

mounded architecture in the vicinity of the aguada and overlying some of the ground-level residences. My sample of C’oh phase stone

tools comes from Feature 1a, Operation 34; from Feature 76, the aguada locus; and from six additional loci (Table 20}. One of these,

Feature 33, is a ground-level coastal midden which underlies the range structure Feature 9, located in the central precinct of monumental architecture. Feature 33 yielded twenty-one stone tools, all in pure C’oh context. The remaining C’oh loci which contained tools include three ground-level residential areas (Features 11, 16, and 38), fill from Feature 61, and Feature 53, a mounded public build-

ing. My sample from pure C’oh lots is not large (N=51); an additional 280 tools came from deposits that contain C’oh materials, but are not predominantly C’oh. The Tulix phase (50 B.c.—A.D. 200) marked the height of Cerros, in terms of both population size and the amount of architectural con-

struction (see Figure 126). Other sizable Late Preclassic communities in northern Belize— Aventura, Nohmul, and Santa Rita—were

smaller and less prominent than Cerros (Hammond 1981, Sidrys

Yj la 4 © Ly

e -( lope. (st 53 Ya

= 61 asd. in 7 0 16™ *

Seo Le

Aguada

76m |

Figure 125. The C’oh settlement at Cerros. Numbers indicate features. Hatched area is monumental architecture zone.

150 Stone Tool Use at Cerros

Table 20. Distribution of C’oh phase tools Tools from Unmixed

Feature Context C’oh Lots la/Op. 34 Sub-plaza 11 (0} village

midden

1] Residence — 16 Residence 10 (1) 33 Midden 21—. (3) 38 Residence

53 Civic 3 (0) 61 Ballcourt fill 2. (O} 76 Small 4 (0) architecture

nonresidence

Total 51

Note: Figures in parentheses indicate obsidian tools. Overall, 8 percent of tools from unmixed C’oh lots are obsidian. No tools were found in predominantly C’oh lots.

1983 :21—49). The two coastal midden areas, Feature 1a and Feature 33, were covered over by the main plaza (Feature 1) and by civic architecture (Feature 9}, respectively. The entire complex of monumental architecture was built during this period, as was the impressive civic

structure Feature 29 in the dispersed settlement zone to the southeast. Both Feature 29 and Feature 5C-second in the center were civic monuments decorated with elaborate stucco masks: similar contemporaneous structures were erected elsewhere in the Mayan lowlands at Tikal, Uaxactun, Mirador, and Lamanai (Freidel 1979; Henderson 1981:125—131). The Mayans of Cerros constructed two Late Preclassic ballcourts, Feature 61, near the central precinct, and Feature 50, a large Tulix ballcourt group located to the south along the canal.

By this time virtually all structures were situated atop stone platforms. Twenty-five features contributed utilized lithic implements to my sample of Tulix tools. These structures represent a number of diverse contexts, residential and nonresidential. None of these features was completely excavated. In general, the relative number of tools recovered reflects the amount of testing in that area. Tulix

Chronological Considerations 151 phase deposits yielded the largest number of tools in my sample: 364 tools came from lots that correspond wholly or primarily to this period (Table 21). It appears that obsidian was relatively more available

during this era; 17 percent of the use wear identified for this time interval was found on obsidian blades, more than twice the proportion of obsidian tools from the two preceding phases. This phenomenon corresponds to an increase in the overall obsidian/chert artifact

ratio during Tulix times. The percentage of obsidian artifacts that bear traces of utilization, however, remains the same throughout the Late Preclassic. At the close of the Tulix phase, monumental construction ceased completely, and most residential and public structures were no longer occupied. During the succeeding Classic period (a.D. 250—900} Cerros declined in population and in architectural prominence. Nearby Santa Rita and, to some extent, Nohmul suffered similar fates, while new

Yy la - 7 66 ~ gg 0 | lis, Tag! = s « C

11 X1NSEWN pepe126 . f Sacbe .

\ ee) 30 |

Big VO BSH Zcana a 098 Qo 102 "sehr BS —~ 46

tT

@ Structure with evidence of construction during this phase. 1) Previously constructed structure with evidence of occupation during this phase.

Figure 126. The Tulix settlement at Cerros. Numbers indicate features. Hatched area is monumental architecture zone. Feature 126 is a sacbe; Feature 127 is a section of the canal.

152 Stone Tool Use at Cerros

Table 21. Distribution of Tulix phase tools Tools from

Tools from Un- Predomimixed Tulix nantly Tulix

Feature Context Lots Lots

la/Op. 34 Sub-plaza village 75 (31) 47 (6)

10 Residence 3 (0) 1] Residence 40 (3) 13 (1) 13 Small nonresidence 1 (0) 14 Small nonresidence 16 Residence

18 Residence 4 (3) 19 Platform 1 (0)

21 Nonresidence 2 (0) 22. Residence 29 Civic architecture 4 (0) 11 (7) 33 Midden 34 Residence 36 (6) 1 (0) 38 Residence

46 Residence 2 (0) 50 Ballcourt 92O(0) 53 Civic architecture (0) 54 Civic architecture 61 Ballcourt 21 (0) 66 Residence (0) 98 Residence 19 (4) 102 Residence 4 (0) 115 Residence 1 (0) 126 Sacbe 127 Canal cut14(0) (0)

Total 291 (47) 73 (14)

Note: Figures in parentheses indicate obsidian tools. Overall, 17 percent of tools from unmixed and predominantly Tulix lots are obsidian.

Chronological Considerations 153

°U

13 61 “4 5 ) ©

7 glo om 8 o34 ra] r 4 4 B50 ?

20 hy 7 $46 ?

Catchment basins -

« 76 ‘ID

M@ Structure with evidence of construction during this phase. (1 Previously constructed structure with evidence of occupation during this phase.

Figure 127. The Early Classic settlement at Cerros. Numbers indicate features. Raised fields, monumental architecture no longer in use at this period.

centers such as Caledonia emerged in northern Belize. A few Late Preclassic buildings at Cerros were refurbished and occupied once again. Only one of the structures tested dates to Classic times— Feature 46, a small residence located just outside the canal in the southeast quadrant of the site (Figure 127). However, there appears to have been a sizable Classic component (which included public architecture) located outside the canal southwest of the site’s center (see Figure 3). Except for a test unit at Feature 102 we carried out no excavations or artifact recovery from the southwest zone. For this reason, neither the size of the Classic occupation at Cerros nor its relationship to the Late Preclassic hydraulic features is well understood at present. My tool sample from this time period is made up of collections from fifteen loci in the dispersed settlement zone. These include residential and nonresidential features, with both ballcourt areas (Features 50 and 61} continuing in use (Table 22). Only about 10 percent of the relatively large sample of Classic tools at Cerros were made of obsidian.

Ephemeral reoccupation of a few Preclassic structures and construction of a small residence at Feature 22 make up the final settlement episode at Cerros during the Late Postclassic (Figure 128). Test-

154 Stone Tool Use at Cerros Table 22. Distribution of Classic period tools

Tools from Tools from Unmixed Predominantly

Feature Context Classic Lots — Classic Lots

10 Residence 15 (4) ll Residence 1 {0}

13 Small nonresidence 14 Small nonresidence

34 Residence 13 (0) 38 Residence

46 Residence (1) 3 (0) 50 Ballcourt 1614(14) 53 Civic architecture 54 Civic architecture

61 Ballcourt 18 (0} 8 (0] 66 Residence

76 Small nonresidence 102 Residence 3 (3} 127 Canal cut 24 (2) Total 215 (22 35 (2) Note: Figures in parentheses indicate obsidian tools. Overall, 10 percent of tools from unmixed and predominantly Classic lots are obsidian.

ing at these loci yielded a moderate sample of utilized stone tools from pure and relatively unmixed proveniences (Table 23}. A finding

of interest in terms of the increased prominence of coastal trade routes hypothesized for the Late Postclassic period (Andrews 1983; Blanton et al. 1981:216—217; Sabloff and Rathje 1975) is that the

proportion of obsidian tools at Cerros is highest during this final phase; they account for 25 percent of all Late Postclassic tools in my sample.

Temporal Variability in Tool Form We have seen a brief summary of population and its areal distribution at Cerros over its 1,700-year span of occupation. During this interval were there any significant shifts in the chipped stone tools used at the site? The relative proportions of formal tools, recycled formal tools, and casual tools (with minimal or no retouch) vary during the five chronological phases defined for the site (Table 24). For example, during the two earliest

Chronological Considerations 155

35761, 9 0%

99, 2377 66 54 34

Ss * Q (dae ig _ a 46 953

Catchment basins

76

W@ Structure with evidence of construction during this phase. L) Previously constructed structure with evidence of occupation during this phase.

Figure 128. Distribution of Late Postclassic structures at Cerros. Numbers indicate features.

phases, Ixtabai and C’oh, formal tools made up a larger percentage of

the lithic collection than at any other time. Recycled formal tools also were most common during the Ixtabai phase. By way of contrast, the inhabitants of Cerros during the Late Postclassic period used mainly casual lithic implements: this period produced the lowest percentages of formal and recycled tools. In regard to formally retouched stone tools, there is no evidence at Cerros of simple beginnings and a gradual evolution toward more complex and better-made

implements. If anything, the reverse is indicated. It appears that highly retouched formal tools were more sought after or more readily available during the early part of the Late Preclassic, and that later occupants placed less emphasis on formal tools, which they supplemented with a large number of chert flakes and other ad hoc implements. It would be interesting to compare the ratios of formal,

recycled, and casual tools at Cerros with similar statistics from other Late Preclassic sites. Such figures will not become available until whole lithic collections are examined for technology and func-

tion. This type of research is presently under way at Pulltrouser Swamp, Belize (see Shafer 1983).

156 Stone Tool Use at Cerros Table 23. Distribution of Late Postclassic period tools

Tools from Tools from Unmixed Predominantly

Feature Context Postclassic Lots Postclassic Lots

1] Residence 36 (0) 123 (42) 13 Small nonresidence 14 Small nonresidence 1 (0) 16 Residence 22 Residence 3 (1) 26 (4) 29 Civic architecture 11 (5) 33 Midden 34 Residence 38 Residence 50 Ballcourt

46 Residence 1 (0) 5 (0) 53 Civic architecture 54 Civic architecture

61] Ballcourt 66 Residence 76 Nonresidence 112 Residence

Total 40 (1) 166 (51)

Note: Figures in parentheses indicate obsidian tools. Overall, 25 percent of tools from unmixed and predominantly Late Postclassic lots are obsidian.

Table 24. Temporal variability in formal, recycled, and casual tools at Cerros Late Post-

Ixtabai C’oh Tulix Classic — classic

Tool Type (N = 50) (N = 48) (N = 274) (N = 208) (N = 36)

Formal (%) 44 2.0 46 28 31 17 Recycled (%} 6 7 10 8 Casual (%} 36 48 66 59 75

Chronological Considerations 157

Morphology and Utilization through Time For Cerros as a whole, chert flakes and prismatic obsidian blades were the most common stone tools (Table 25). Overall, the chert macroblade was the most common formal and recycled tool. Many additional forms occurred in low frequencies, usually accounting for less than 10 percent of the total number of specimens per phase. Some of these formal “types,” which include virtually all of the chopping, adzing, and digging implements from Cerros, are more significant than their low frequencies imply, in part due to their long use-lives and infrequent replacement (Ammerman and Feldman 1974:616; Mazel and Parkington 1981:17—18)]. When these tools are broken, lost, and/or discarded, it

is often at their locus of use, which may be far from the mounded features that were the focus of our excavation efforts at Cerros. Thus, our sample of these long-lasting tools represents only a minimal por-

tion of their total quantity of the site. Although it is tricky to interpret chronological variability among large numbers of low-frequency tool forms, inspection of Table 25 suggests a few possible trends in

tool selection and use at Cerros from Late Preclassic to Late Postclassic times. Because of the inadequacy of my sample size in terms of expected frequencies of many of the categories, the patterns in Table 25 and in most of the other tabular data from Cerros cannot be analyzed for statistical significance. For example, in Table 25, fifty-six of the eighty-five cells have an expected frequency less than 5, which is required for the chi-square statistic. For this reason, inspection of the tables forms the basis of the discussion. Among the Ixtabai tools there appears to be a relatively high proportion of oval bifaces, tranchet bit tools, macroblades, thin bifaces, broken chert stems and long, narrow chisel-gouges. These six categories account for 51 percent of all Ixtabai tools. Conversely, there was a correspondingly low frequency of obsidian blades and casual

chert flake tools. The distribution of chipped stone implements from the subsequent C’oh period differs from the Ixtabai pattern. There are fewer oval bifaces and more nonstandard bifaces, including crudely chipped “unfinished” bifaces. Also, these contexts included more perforators, gravers, and formal chert scrapers.

The three later phases yielded large lithic samples from the dispersed settlement zone. While these three periods did not represent a continuous occupation, they nevertheless share some features in regard to general tool morphology that contrast with the two earliest periods. Specifically, for the later periods we recovered few oval bifaces, recycled stems, and chert perforators. However, a few chert “geometrics” (small, finely flaked eccentrics) appear, along with an

Z a aS 2 a = | S ~_ = S o S _ _O _ rs )o ow ed O N S ~ = 0 Q a~ Eo D Vs 9 nS o) SA Ye — v = &q Ze b < D SO 2

::

LQ Ye) © > nO ON VY SS a ~ S 0B) Z ll of a= eSgS en es — ae5 9 Y = : 20 on, N N © fag) | aw m4) CO =

ry

Sinagawnatrntronnavouooutonta

©

—

\O

|S) SReqqraenentaqeeq 5 ~»SO l note tOtrNnetAN ABN DNHNMNOM |BO

5. Cilinmnocont+t+ntannaononio | — SY)

=—

5 Laggan oonnnnrqgngraq 5

= Ci Powe NMnHADNFHA A+ YT HDNHTONM = Rai TF | MPAWANOVANDTDOMOHMHTR MOM ] §

i? 2)

eB)

3mel = — — — at L tt fon | aan) ° om) of)ae) a=) MMNNQNNMNOEONAANNHNMQNMNHTTAAST m=

mA wm | WODMDON wn Mm) SS Ham AaRN OrANDANATYNOAHM Or OerortrTr Tr Te eS aa

S RPI RR MOMODRMMOMOAKRaMO |! S

Q ~ ONT = om™! —N + aaa S emmy 8 — iD) cm =F) Ny at be x AN CO DQ Oo ao)o open @ -~ So oo & 5Qosgo w)Npan] wo v Os r a,

= ANMNANOMTTNHYHNDOCWMDAAG 3 —) 7 OennrOMnrOOCOCOmMnOOCC SO O

ZB 0 CANMOUTNONTAATOONOO!& y

oS gljerangqnewnwwnvyreyranggaeasa se] es | cee arsoryrsessoanansenrss zsv Sg ix MOMOM cCOoOotwmoocots 8

es. z

thed

veamay o's oO Y fond COSeg oO . Pe fx, ‘2 Qo Sea oO O so in Y 'S) Zreour ka 5 oO SC PND O rf BS3[s|/SsssserSk aes B 5 & =

iS BSA6HeESasvnga Gaim5 aa=aPReGRASLYSES EEL SESS S@q@nmtogqgoe CH Sy eS =SN) & .. wy 2 an Cs —= OY He OF Os S = ORZRAZHAAUUEAROALO 5 eS A,

Chronological Considerations 159

increased number of obsidian blades and casual chert flake tools. These last two forms were especially popular with the Late Postclassic inhabitants of Cerros. Unfortunately, there is little basis for equating tool morphology with function—at Cerros or anywhere else (Table 26; Lewenstein 1982a; Odell 1981b). Therefore, in order to reconstruct chronological variability in tool-using activities it is important to consider the use-wear data on the Cerros tools.

Tool Function through Time _ As can be seen from Table 27, the most frequently detected tasks performed at Cerros are not distributed evenly throughout the five temporal phases. Scraping was the single most common lithic activity for all phases. Tools used to adze, chisel, saw, scrape/plane, whittle, and drill occurred in relatively high frequencies during the Ixtabai phase, and implements that functioned to chop, slice/cut, and incise were relatively rare, in comparison with later time periods. The following C’oh phase also included elevated percentages of implements bearing use traces cor-

responding to adzes, saws, and drills, but no chisels. In addition, tools used to scrape and incise were particularly prevalent at this time. As in the previous phase, chopping and slicing/cutting functions occurred in relatively low proportions. The final Late Preclassic phase, Tulix, yielded the largest sample of utilized implements from unmixed contexts. During this phase there apparently was an increase in the relative frequency of slicing/ cutting, whittling, pounding, shredding, planing, and digging, al-

though the latter category amounts to only 1 percent of the total Tulix use wear identified on tools recovered from small mounded architectural features. Simultaneously, there was a decline in the frequency of tools used to chop, adze, saw, incise, scrape, and drill; for adzes and saws this decline continued into the two final periods, the Classic and the Late Postclassic. For the Classic period I have identified relatively more choppers and fewer adzes, as well as higher frequencies of tools used to incise and dig (again, just 1 percent). Sawing and scraping functions appear to have declined during Classic times, according to their relatively

reduced frequencies in deposits dating to that period. Late Postclassic lithic tool use wear included the largest percentage of shredding tools of any phase, as well as relatively many choppers, scrapers,

and gravers, but no saws, chisels, or digging tools, and very few scraper/planes, whittling knives, and drills.

Ss | NANO OM Oa AS Saat Ssasls tS a faa) MB] s+

— nm OOO MD —~=M NSN oO KR

—

Sy N \O a1 ON 3 = — AN | + < = 28 es x ~ o an = ‘om “N Tamla 58

=S. RQ

RQ, S ~ ©

My

Penny

S x mR] wn = a£ so _ aed ies wee i] S = EY —N re N and NS 2 ~ ~My ™ — ++ aan Qa.

S| s | 58~ & RS re < = ~ ~ i) OnWw | 50 ~ 2Ncm!

~ Se ~ N S|rs86COL - Z 38

\S) 2 o :=YS2)% N Vo Bg CN oS Rar * 23/2 WY

ON OM KR SeATnNnN nwMmn ANA N WN CO Ol —

> a ro mel cd Ss CDN Cc) CO ON fae) “+ 0 5 YM *® mn oc % fe GX a4 v oO aQAaSak9a =| ax & v ie ie —~ a ONMNMOTNNOANNNACO!R mm 8 D

co)

w| SEs) eee, 98882c 835 2 | SF 22 N] SSS |) SCR sS ese s esr] — a OPfOOKBRBAKDSESORKUA 2 ‘on

162 Stone Tool Use at Cerros

Substances Worked: Ixtabai—Late Postclassic By tar the most frequent wear patterns at Cerros correspond to wood processing. Use traces from woodworking are especially prominent on Ixtabai and C’oh tools (Table 28}, where they reach 54 percent and 50 percent, respectively, of the tools in unmixed provenience lots. Implements used on woody fibers (including mojaoa fibers and tough vines} were

also relatively numerous during these time intervals. Ixtabai and C’oh tools bear wear traces corresponding to fewer material categories than do the collections from the later phases. Ixtabai is distinguished by a proportionately high frequency of bone-working tools; C’oh, on the other hand, has little bone-processing use damage, but a relatively large number of hide-working traces. In terms of contact material, both Tulix phase and Classic period tools were extremely diverse in the number and range of material categories identified. To some extent this greater tool-use diversity is a

function of sample size: the Tulix and Classic samples are four to five times as large as those of the Ixtabai and C’oh phases. Tulix tools were less frequently used to process wood (only 40 percent, versus

50 percent for the Classic sample). These two periods account for the most wear damage from extremely hard substances such as bone,

antler, sherds, or shell, as well as a few tools with traces of having worked soil, tough fibers, roots, and meat. Late Postclassic chipped stone implements from Cerros were notable for bone-working use damage and for tools used to process vegetables, gourds, and soil, as well as for butchering. While it is difficult to generalize about chipped stone tool using behavior at Cerros over a 1,700-year period, I believe that a few overall

trends can be gleaned from the chronological variability described above. First, there is an obvious decline from the earliest to the most recent occupational phase in the importance of formal tools, which were increasingly replaced by casual tools with little or no intentional retouch (Figure 129). Hester (personal communication, 1985) points out that this dropoff in the use of formal tools at the end of the Late Preclassic may relate to the absence of Early Classic chert workshops at Colha; that is, a rupture in the supply link. A second trend is evident in the increase in the utilization of imported obsidian blades during the latter part of the occupational sequence. Both of these phenomena reflect changes in the medium-distance and long-distance exchange networks in which Cerros participated. These lithic data imply that by the end of the Late Preclassic period (Tulix phase), Cerros became increasingly involved in longdistance trade with the Guatemalan highlands, probably via a southern maritime route. At the same time, there was also a change in the

|3S~va) = =| tay 3 )rq Oo ;c= ae 3 ~ ee 2

aS a —N a Ra SB)

f|8°

A my S Sl, OWuNnNHtnND tTANKNDaetTOUONOUAMARH STS ne

5. Si aaaa oO A ~ = —_~* aT NG

KS S = = S| >| PReQae e2roreofHQETaQreyraoraangaeneaa SGnroonoooooooooeeogos

eee ‘e) — —

2 Ry tANOOO- OCFANMOTFTOMOOTVAOOTMOONSSD

yO—)8 O S — =o oe, 2, 2 ol OtTMORDHR THOTTTANWMONAtTOHTIOMAHR had

2 a CATFON FBYVCOTANTOANSOTTSEONYTSS S ——ar —

~ a | gntacec AR Morenataaonoote ons

Y — ee ee eee . & |3)St = = E ~

hme, N ebed LT oe Oo A = 5) oo aa! Q \—benl Pia ia}

5 8 Q ao) rag & ‘) ea) ~ % = z. So

Q,

~ COND ANQH KONDOTOONAANNAATNVOTAAWA 2 Ns Mi BOFTMOND BHHAOMOANYANSOTAOYTITOS a

= — = = CO ”

ny Rl] taooow Ve goontaettoeroeLcog s

S SSHRSATS BRR UHSHTEHORHEHRADAAQA : Rb ha | eHeNSTMSS SNreSeNnoeecoeoeocoeeeoes OD S o) NRYTNOND ONTAOCOVOOOCOCOCOCCOCOCCCOCOYF |

~ __ eB) ae]

= gl OtAAnhH THOGTTINNAHRTOTAAAAN D

3) ‘9S ANmMTOeoOo SMNSCSKNeCeEee Se reoetses ) = Rl aqaronon SCOtMOOMODCON COSCO OAO SOS v

.< —~ D wy r ~ S} Dr oO D = = e) B82BB € Ss g i 2 5 a°ie a) SN) moe°o © Oo 5) w a ~ 6 CO 6 ~ S ib) 3) S on = a w Pr — n a, w = O ~ ~g OV cB) . hs MN ~ 4 &

®~§) Om OU DD Vv Vv ™ ra Oda td 8s& 5 a% 6 55 8 5 5 2 #88es2_6 25 © SHS, 2% cau gl e ~ . arn, ~ ~N HH ~ GO wn na D Se |S Sez ees eased ess _ fesse esse ke ele

ae Smr>tlsS SAHALDLAS RS URS RZZOLH = eS Ss

A

164 Stone Tool Use at Cerros

Early Late

Ixtabai C’oh Tulix Classic Postclassic 30 %

10 %

Formal tools (% }

30%

20% Obsidian tools (% |

ax SS

10%

3%

2% Chopping tools (% } 1%

60% =

40% NK

50% SR Woodworking tools (% ]

20 /

10 Number of different substances worked with chipped stone tools

O

Figure 129. Graphs of temporal changes at Cerros in percentages and frequencies of five lithic attributes. Chopping tools, woodworking tools, and substances worked were identified on the basis of use traces.

Chronological Considerations 165

relationship between Cerros and Colha, nearby in central Belize. The inhabitants of Cerros continued to rely on the tough Colha chert for their stone implements; however, since they used proportionately more casual tools they were less dependent on the knapping specialists at the Colha workshops (Shafer and Hester 1983). The cause of this change in the nature of the medium-distance exchange is unknown. For example, did Cerros inhabitants find it increasingly difficult to obtain a sufficient supply of manufactured chert tools from Colha, and for that reason procure partially reduced cores and rely on their own knapping skills? Another possibility is

that as the longer-distance exchange network grew in importance the local trade system waned, and the importation of formal chert tools from Colha declined. Wood processing remained the single most important activity at Cerros throughout its history. The specific woodworking activities carried out at the site were not constant over time, however. Beginning with the C’oh phase, land clearance (chopping) became increas-

ingly important, possibly a consequence of greater dependence on agriculture. The lithic data from Tulix and subsequent phases indicate much more diversity in the substances worked with chipped stone tools. From this I infer that a major economic change took place at Cerros at the beginning of the Tulix phase. The growth of the Cerros community and the massive building episode during Tulix times marked the emergence of the site as a trading center and as a ceremonial center or locus for pilgrimages (Freidel 1979). Such a change in site function, from coastal fishing

village to the most architecturally prominent community in the area, would necessitate additional stone tools for construction, for ritual paraphernalia, and to supply the needs of a growing populace as well as visitors. The scenario of population increase calls for more

cleared fields for agriculture: thus the increase in the proportion of chopping tools at this time. A larger number of formal chert building tools also is expected for this period of major construction. Relatively fewer formal and recycled implements have turned up in the Tulix proveniences studied to date. Incorporation of many heavy building tools in construction fill associated with large monuments (Features 2—8, not yet analyzed) may account for their infrequent occurrence in other contexts. I found a much higher proportion of casual flake tools. These had been used for a wide range of functions, all of which represent normal village activities, including food pro-

cessing, rope and twine making, clothing manufacture, etc. The Tulix phase decline in the percentage of woodworking use wear may

represent nothing more than an increase in production of other

166 Stone Tool Use at Cerros

items for the use of local inhabitants and resident pilgrims, rather than a decrease in the manufacture of wooden items such as canoes, furniture, etc.

This, however, is not the only possible explanation. In another plausible scenario Ixtabai and C’oh phase village specialization in the manufacture and export of wooden products (as evidenced by high proportions of woodworking implements) evolved during the Tulix phase into an economy more focused on production for local consumption only. This picture is consistent with the data but contradicts the usual model of Cerros’ development as a Late Preclassic trading center during Tulix times. The regional-interaction hypothesis as proposed by Freidel (1978; 1979} is based principally on the geographic location of Cerros along likely maritime and riverine trans-

portation routes, and also on the coastal orientation of the civic architecture at the site. According to Freidel’s scenario, Cerros flourished as a trade center in the Late Preclassic, but then declined dur-

ing Classic times as a result of shifts from coastal to inland trade routes. Although both models are plausible, I presently favor the Freidel interpretation in which Cerros functioned as a node within a regional exchange network. The above chronological sketch, while informative, is incomplete because it is based only on chipped stone tools recovered from con-

texts which are relatively intact temporally. Because of the large number of utilized artifacts in mixed proveniences, the result is a set of conclusions derived from analysis of less than half of the Cerros data base. An alternative approach is to compare two distinct spatial areas, such as (1} the coastal village, which consists of a nucleated occupational episode that ends just at the time of major monumental architectural buildup (with a utilized tool sample of 436 use loci), and (2) the dispersed settlement zone, which represents the community served by the public architecture (and a sample of 1,279 use loci). Such spatial analyses incorporate all of the lithic use-wear data, regardless of temporal mixing of deposits, and also cut across chronological boundaries. The occupation of the nucleated coastal village

dates from Ixtabai to Tulix times, while the dispersed settlement zone was inhabited from the C’oh phase through the Late Postclassic period. In both areas Tulix was the major occupational episode. In comparing nucleated and dispersed settlement zones I hoped to find out how lithic tool-using activities changed (or did not change) during the Tulix phase, after the community dispersed spatially and became focused on public monuments.

Nucleated versus Dispersed Settlement 167

Nucleated versus Dispersed Settlement

Discussion The most noticeable difference between the two areas in question lies in the degree of lithic tool conservation that is apparent in the nucleated coastal village. Greater efforts at tool curation are evident both in regard to some of the long-lived formal tools and in the recycling of imported obsidian blades by means of bipolar reduction to fashion additional tools from exhausted or broken pieces.

In all, one in seven utilized obsidian artifacts from the coastal village consisted of a bipolar flake or core approximately 1o—15 milli-

meters long. Several dozen additional nonutilized obsidians have characteristics of bipolar flaking. Chert tools used as axes and adzes in the nucleated settlement on the average have thicker bits—that is, steeper angles—than those re-

covered from the dispersed settlement (Table 29}. This sample is made up of tool bit removals, broken specimens, and still usable implements. Edge angles on tool bits become steeper (thicker) as they become dulled through use, due to abrasion and removal of microflakes from the bit. Resharpening by means of the removal of additional flakes in order to restore the original bit morphology also results in an increase in bit angle. Therefore, there is some evidence that chopping and especially adzing implements were curated more in the coastal village, in terms of both longer use and more attempts at resharpening. Scraper/planes from the coastal village also have a slightly steeper edge angle than those found in the dispersed settlement. I hypothesize that this greater bit thickness also is the result

of heavy wear and resharpening. This phenomenon of steeper bit angles in the coastal village does not hold for tools used to whittle, saw, cut/slice, and scrape. In fact, the reverse is true for these bit angles; they are thicker on the average in the dispersed settlement zone (overall, and also in the unmixed Tulix deposits). One logical explanation for the thicker bits on this group of tools in the dispersed settlement may be related to the apparent higher frequency of

processing very hard substances, such as bone, antler, and shell, which I noted for the dispersed settlement at Cerros (see Table 31). Since more resistant contact substances are particularly damaging to

lithic tool margins, it seems reasonable that the Maya sought to manufacture sturdy (and slightly thicker} tool edges and bits for use

on very resistant materials. Another factor may lie in the fact that formal tools were seldom used to saw, whittle, cut/slice, and scrape. The casual flake tools with which these tasks were performed were not scarce or hard to make; thus there was no reason to resharpen or curate them in the nucleated coastal village.

168 Stone Tool Use at Cerros Table 29. Average tool bit angles for tools used to perform seven activities

Coastal Village Dispersed Settlement All Lots Tulix Lots All Lots Tulix Lots Activity Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.

Chop (°) 77 8 82 5 7 10 #72 «219

Adze (°] 82, 10 86 * 72 8 74 10 Scrape/plane (°) 83 13 78 9 82 14 69 6

Whittle (° 36 18 34 #16 #42 #2417 + «+40 ~ 16 Saw (°) 54 14 «8352 02«o13)—iC ( SY)

Sa A | &S S 3 L 23 se i}nS pas) o_ oO = ia3 o8ec

E~ a2oasEBS a Os cP) a & 3) GB Hav

an & © N0) BS S ‘g — 390'3 ~

170 Stone Tool Use at Cerros

Table 31. The most commonly processed substances in the coastal village and the dispersed settlement Dispersed

Coastal Village Settlement

Tulix Tulix

Substance Processed All Residential All Residential

Lots Lots Lots Lots

(%) (%) (%) (%)

Wood 34632 39 42. Bone 8 9 1] Hide 4 6 4 6 Tough fibers 426 2 ] Limestone

Animal ] ] ] Vines, fibers, Gourds 2 2bark ] ] 3 ]

Meat 2 ] Shell ]

Cotton fibers ] 2 ] Fish scales ] 2 Vegetables, roots 2 6

Note: The remaining tools were used for more than one function, for tasks that occurred in very low frequencies, or for purposes that were not identifiable.

retouched formal tools in the Maya lowlands (Sheets 1976b: 63). Why this change occurred is not known at present. The substances worked or processed with chipped stone differ somewhat in the coastal and dispersed settlement areas (Table 31). For the most part, the same materials were processed, but in somewhat different proportions. Overall, tools from the dispersed settlement yielded slightly more diversity in contact materials; that is, eleven different categories, compared with nine classes of substance from the nucleated settlement. The presence of tools used to work

stone, shell, and vegetables/roots in the dispersed, but not the nucleated, settlement reflects this greater diversity. The dispersed settle-

ment zone also yielded proportionately more woodworking and bone-working tools than did the other zone. However, if only Tulix phase residential contexts are considered, we see more diversity in the number of contact substances in the coastal village. The Tulix pattern of tool use along the coast closely parallels that of the pre-

Residential and Nonresidential Contexts 171

ceeding Ixtabai and C’oh phases, except for an increase in bone working.

Conclusions The inferred frugality in the coastal nucleated settlement in regard to the utilization of some formal chert tools and obsidian blade fragments is consistent with a lower degree of status differentiation noted for this early part of the site. This is also supported by the absence of grandiose mounded architecture. The dispersed settlement at Cerros apparently became increasingly complex socially and economically, judging from its growth in population and increasing architectural complexity. These changes occurred just after the burial of the coastal village in order to build up the main plaza area and central architectural zone. This growing diversity is

reflected in the lithic data through (1) changes in the manner in which stone tools were retouched; (2) the increased popularity of new tool forms, such as thin bifaces, chert “geometrics,” and projectile points; and (3) the appearance of significant amounts of im-

plements used to work stone, shell, and vegetables/roots. These three materials are consistent, respectively, with the dressing of stones for use in masonry architecture, the possibility of artisanry in

shell and other (perishable) substances, and the increased dietary exploitation of root crops and other vegetables in the dispersed settlement zone.

Residential and Nonresidential Contexts

Discussion Chipped stone implements found at residential loci reflect many routine activities. These collections come from Feature 1a/Operation 34 and Features 33, II, 13, 16, 18, 22, 34, 38, 46, 53, 66,

98, 102, 112, and 115. In contrast, excavations at nonresidential mounds such as Features 10, 14, 19, 21, 29, §3 (Tulix phase and later}, 54, 76, and 126 have yielded a substantial number of lithic tools from

civic/religious contexts. This latter group can be compared with domiciliary tool assemblages as a means of gleaning information concerning the function(s) of the nonresidential facilities: religious, commercial, bureaucratic, governmental, etc. Stone tools from the two Late Preclassic ballcourts, Features 50 and 61, can also be compared with implements from residential and civic loci. Undoubtedly, ballcourts were civic facilities; however, one or more of the ballcourt structures may also have served as a residence at some time during the occupational sequence of these groups. The tools deposited in and around civic architecture could result

172 Stone Tool Use at Cerros

Table 32. Comparison of average edge angles on formal, recycled, and casual tools from three contexts

Tool Type Residential Civic Ballcourt Total Overall

Mean angle (°} 56 62 65

S.D. (°} 23 21 21 Mean angle (°| 69 6415 73 S.D. (°} 17 16 N 203 5 183 391

Formal tools

Recycled tools

Mean (°) 79 81 S.D.angle (° 20 158513

N 83 8 88 179

Casual tools

Mean angle (°} 49 56 60

S.D. (° 21 20 22 NTotal 597883 4053414 1,051 685 1,621

from construction and maintenance of these larger mounds and their subsequently destroyed superstructures. Alternatively, artifacts used at these loci for civic and/or ritual purposes or for artisan-related activities, such as fine woodworking or weaving, can also end up deposited in or around these monuments. A third possibility, as posited by James F. Garber (1983), is that some lithic implements were delib-

erately destroyed and deposited as part of a termination ritual to mark the cessation of activities just prior to the abandonment of a structure. Most probably, the utilized lithic tools found in civic buildings result from a combination of these processes, which is unfortunate for the researcher who attempts to reconstruct mound function on the basis of associated artifacts. In any case, major differences are apparent between civic and residential lithic tool collections.

The nonresidential, or civic, mounds yielded a surprisingly low proportion of formal tools—g percent, compared with 23 percent for

the domiciliary groups (Table 32). None of the formal tools from civic mounds had identifiable haft marks; all twenty-nine specimens with haft traces originated in residential deposits. Recycled and ca-

Residential and Nonresidential Contexts 173

sual tools, however, are relatively abundant at civic loci. Curiously,

this pattern is reversed for the ballcourt stone tools: they include proportionately more formal and fewer ad hoc implements than the residential loci. From the same table we also can see that, in general, activities at the residential mounds were performed with relatively acute edge angles, especially with respect to the recycled and casual tools. Ballcourt-related stone tools, on the other hand, tend to have

somewhat steeper bit angles in all categories. The angles on the chipped stone tools from the other nonresidential groups are intermediate between the more acute residential and the thicker ballcourt implements. These data suggest that different tasks were carried out at residential and nonresidential loci at Cerros. The tools recovered from ballcourts and civic contexts are sturdier (thicker) and may have been used for more heavy-duty activities than obtained at the domiciliary loci. Relatively few obsidian tools (10 percent) were recovered from the two ballcourt groups. This compares with approximately 25 percent for both the residential and the other civic structures (Table 33). The use-wear data from Cerros definitely gives a basis to dispute Sidrys’ (1976: 458) hypothesis that obsidian was not in everyday household use in the Mayan lowlands during the Late Preclassic (see also Ford 1981:225—230 and Rice 1984}. At Cerros utilized obsidian blade fragments were found in almost every residential locus: these implements performed a wide variety of tasks. The most notable exceptions are chopping, adzing, digging, and pounding—for all of which

this brittle raw material would be unsuitable, especially in comparison with the abundance of chert, limestone, metamorphic rock, and hardwoods that were ready substitutes for use in these tasks. The sixty-two utilized implements from civic structures represent nine broad morphological categories (Table 34). When the relative frequencies of these “types” are contrasted with those from residen-

Table 33. Distribution of chert and obsidian tools from three contexts

Residential Civic Ballcourt Total Chert 664 (719) 46 (51) 620 (560) 1,330 Obsidian 2.17 (162 16 (11) 66 (126) 299

Total 881 62, 686 1,629

Note. Figures in parentheses indicate expected frequencies for chi-square statistic.

174 Stone Tool Use at Cerros Table 34. Distribution of morphological tool classes from three contexts

Tool Form Residential Civic Ballcourt Total

Oval biface 17 (16.2) O (1.1) 13 (12.6) 30 Steep scraper/plane 3 (4.3) 1 (0.3) 4 (3.4) 8

Subrectangular biface 3. (3.2) O (0.2) 3 (2.5) 6

Tranchet-bit tool — 11 (13.0) O (0.9) 13 (10.1) 24

Macroblade 78 (97.4) 4 (6.8) 98 (75.7) 180 Thin biface 20 (21.7) O (1.5) 20 (16.8) 40

Projectile point 2 (2.2) 2 (0.2) O (1.7) 4

Nonstandard biface 58 (83.4) 9 (5.9) 87 (64.8) 154

Recycled stem 30 (20.6) 2 (1.4) 6 (16.0) 38

Tiny dagger 2 (1.1) O (0.1) O (0.8) 2

Perforator 11 = (8.7) O (0.6) 5 (6.7) 16

Geometric 8 (4.3) 0 (0.3) O (3.4) 8 Graver 5 (5.4) O (0.4) 5 (4.2) 10 Denticulate 3 (7.6) 2 (0.5) 9 (5.9) 14 Formal scraper 5 (5.4) O (0.4) 5 (4.2) 10

Prismatic blade 218 (164.6) 16(11.6) 70 (127.9) 304

Flake 369 (382.8) 24(26.9) 314(297.4) 707

Core 6 (13.0) O (0.9) 18 (10.1) 24

Hammerstone 6 (6.0) 2 (0.4) 3 (4.6) 11 Chisel/gouge 17 (14.1) O (1.0) 9 (10.9) 26 Long bit drill 4 (3.8) O (0.3) 3 (2.9) 7 Retouched notch 1 (1.1) O (0.1) 1 (0.8) 2

Disk 2 (11) O (0.1) 0 (0.8) 2

Burin 2 (1.1) 0 (0.1) 0 (08) — 2

Total 881 62 686 1,629

Note: Figures in parentheses indicate expected frequencies, as calculated for chisquare test.

tial and ballcourt features, it is apparent that the civic loci at Cerros had proportionately high frequencies of projectile points, nonstandard bifaces, denticulates, and hammerstones. Other morphological classes, such as macroblades, oval bifaces, tranchet bit tools, and thin bifaces, appear in low frequencies or are entirely absent at these civic features. In part this distribution is attributable to a relatively

small sample size compared with much larger lithic collections from the ballcourts and from the residential structures. All of the twenty-four ‘‘type” categories are represented among the

Residential and Nonresidential Contexts 175

chipped stone tools recovered from residences, but these household contexts are especially rich in prismatic blades of obsidian, broken chert stems recycled for use, perforators, and oval bifaces. A few of the utilized morphological classes, such as tiny chert daggers, chert “geometrics,” disks, and burins occur only in residential contexts. However, household deposits at Cerros produced relatively few nonstandard bifaces, denticulates, and utilized cores. These differences are reflections of the disparity in activities at residential and nonresidential loci. Tools from the latter loci suggest a variety of heavy tasks, perhaps associated with monument construction. Our extensive excavations in the two ballcourt groups, Features 50 and 61 (Scarborough et al. 1982), yielded almost as many utilized chipped stone implements (686} as were recovered from all of the resi-

dential excavations combined (881). The distribution of morphological classes for these utilized tools is not similar to that from either the residential or civic structures. Ballcourt loci had more than the expected numbers of tranchet bit tools, macroblades, thin bifaces, nonstandard bifaces, denticulates, and utilized cores. These features had a surprisingly low proportion of prismatic blades, given the large size of the tool sample. All of this suggests the importance of large formal chert tools at the two ballcourt features. Perhaps they represent heavy woodworking tools, used for the construction and upkeep of these two public facilities. The patterning of intentional retouch on the Cerros tools also re-

flects major differences in tool function between these three contexts (see Table 35). Slightly more than half of the utilized implements from residential loci had no retouch; another 28 percent were unifacially retouched, 15 percent were bifacially retouched, and a small number (2 percent) had alternating bifacial retouch which resulted in a pronounced beveling of the utilized margin. Tools recovered from the civic mounds were less likely to be unifacially retouched (23 percent) and more likely to have bifacial retouch (20 percent) than the sample from residential contexts. No tools with alternating bifacial retouch were recovered from the civic structures. Lithic implements from the two ballcourt groups were retouched in the bifacial or alternating bifacial fashion more often than those from residential or civic loci. I believe these figures further reflect the importance in nonresidential zones of large chert formal tools, hypothesized as having been used for construction. Table 36 gives relative frequencies of the fourteen most common stone-tool-using tasks in residential, civic, and ballcourt contexts.

All categories are represented in tools from residential debris, but here we recovered relatively high frequencies of adzes, chisels, digging

176 Stone Tool Use at Cerros

Table 35. The distribution of intentional retouch on utilized lithic tools from three contexts

Retouch Residential Civic Ballcourt Total

None 488 (464) 34 (32) 335 (361) 857

Unifacial 249 (246) 14(17) 191 (191] 454 Bifacial 128 (153) 12 (10) 142 (119) 282. Alternating bifacial 14 (17) 0 (1) 17 (13) 31

Total 879 60 685 1,624

Note: Figures in parentheses indicate expected number, as calculated by chi-square Statistic.

Table 36. Distribution of common tool functions, as identified on

chipped stone tools from three contexts

Tool Function Residential Civic Ballcourt Total

Chop 9 (12.3) O (0.8) 14 (9.9) 23 Adze 10 = (9.6) O (0.6) 8 (7.8) 18

Chisel 3 (2.7) 1 (0.2) 1 (2.6} 5 Dig 3 (2.7) 0 (0.2) 2 (2.2) 5 Saw 39 (34.8} 1 (2.2) 25 (28.1) 65

Slice/cut 170 (156.0) 11 (9.8) 111 (126.1) 292 Scrape 317 (320.6) 22(20.2) 261 (259.2) 600 Scrape/plane 50 (68.9) 4 (4.3) 75 (55.7) 129

Butcher 4 (4.8) O (0.3) 5 (3.9) 9 Incise 48 (43.8] 3 (2.8) 31 (35.4} 82 Whittle 38 (34.7) 1 (2.2) 26 (28.1) 65

Drill 39 (35.3} 1 (2.2) 26 (28.5] 66 Shred 1 (2.1) O (0.1) 3 (1.7) 4 Pound 15 (17.6) 3 (1.1) 15 (14.3) 33

Total 746 47 603 1,396

Note: Figures in parentheses indicate expected chi-square frequencies.

tools, saws, slicing/cutting instruments, incising tools, whittling tools, and drills, along with low frequencies of choppers, scraper/ planes, butchering tools, shredders, and hammers. The most common task performed with lithic tools in all three areas apparently was scraping. Functions that are represented in higher numbers than expected in the context of the two ballcourt loci include chopping,

Residential and Nonresidential Contexts 177

adzing, scraping/planing, butchering, shredding, and pounding. We recovered only one chisel from the ballcourt sample. Pounding tools and chisels occurred in higher relative frequencies in civic contexts than predicted on the basis of their overall numbers, as did slicing/ cutting, scraping, and incising tools. Lithic tools from our sample from civic architecture included specimens from only nine of the fourteen categories listed in Table 36. Use traces from woodworking make up slightly more than half of all identifiable cases in residential, civic, and ballcourt contexts at Cerros (Table 37). Residential debris has contributed relatively high percentages of use wear from working hides, animals, and tough fi-

bers, but low proportions of tools used to process limestone and shell. The relatively small sample of contact material identifications from civic contexts includes, in addition to traces of woodworking,

relatively high incidences of stoneworking and the processing of gourds and other vegetables/roots, and a correspondingly low frequency of bone-working instruments. Stoneworking was also a relatively prominent activity at the ballcourt groups, judging from an unexpectedly high percentage of that pattern of wear damage on tools from Features 50 and 61. Shell working is also represented at a low, but higher than expected, rate, while

Table 37. Distribution of substances worked with stone tools from three contexts

Contact Substance Residential Civic Ballcourt Total

Wood 326 (338.3) 25 (24.1) 293 (281.6) 644

Limestone 12 (17.3) 2 (1.2) 19 (14.4) 33 Hide/skin 47 (38.9) 2 (2.8) 25 (32.4) 74

Soil 3 (2.6) O (0.2) 2 (2.2) 5

Animal 12 (8.4) O (0.6) 4 (7.0) 16 Vines, fibers 24 (25.7) 2 (1.8) 23 (21.4) 49

Bone 77 (74.6) 3 (5.3) 62 (62.1) 142 Gourds 16 (14.7) 2 (1.0) 10 (12.2) 28

Tough fibers 35 (28.4) 3 (2.0) 16 (23.6) 54

Vegetables/roots 26 (22.1) 3 (1.6) 13 (18.4) 42

Shell 3 (5.8) 0 (0.4) 8 (4.8) 11

Meat, fish 12 (12.6) 1 (0.9) 11 (10.5) 24

Cotton 10 (10.5) 0 (0.7) 10 = (8.7} 20

Total 603 43 496 1,142

Note: Figures in parentheses indicate expected frequencies for chi-square test.

178 Stone Tool Use at Cerros

Table 38. Distribution of contact material hardness categories observed on stone tools from three contexts

Hardness Category Residential Civic Ballcourt Total

Very soft 110 (88.2) 8 (7.9) 71 (92.8) 189 Soft 158 (119.5) 6(10.8) 92 (125.8) 256

Medium 128 (201.6) 24(18.2) 280 (212.2) 432 Hard 68 (67.2) 5 (6.1) 71 (70.7) 144 Very hard 85 (97.1) 12 (8.7) 111 (102.2) 208 Medium to hard 49 (30.8) O (2.8) 17 (32.4) 66 Soft, then medium 13 (6.5) 0 ([.6) 1 (69) — 14

Total 611 55 643 1,309

Note: Figures in parentheses indicate expected frequencies, as calculated for chisquare test.

the numbers of tools used to work hides, animals, tough fibers, and vegetables/roots appear to be relatively low, given the large sample size from the ballcourt groups. Many wear patterns have not been assigned to specific substances. For this reason I classified each utilized tool according to the general

degree of hardness of the substance processed by that specimen (Table 38). These categories range from very soft to very hard. Very soft and soft substances were worked more frequently than expected

by tools from residential features. Tools from civic and ballcourt groups were proportionately more likely to have been used to work medium and very hard substances. Soft materials were worked proportionately less often in both of these nonresidential areas. Conclusions Comparisons of lithic use wear from civic, residential, and ballcourt features indicate that the ballcourts, especially Feature 50—the larger and most extensively excavated of the two— probably served as residences as well as ceremonial facilities. The architecture and construction sequence at Feature 50 are discussed below in reference to the function of this mound group. The residential hypothesis is based on the large and diversified array of tasks performed and substances worked with stone tools at Features 50 and

Residential and Nonresidential Contexts 179 61. There is as much diversification in stone tool use at the ballcourt

structures as in the residential loci at Cerros. However, there are functional differences in tool use between ballcourts and the residential and civic contexts. These variations support the hypothesis that, in addition to household tool-using activities, some chipped stone tools at Features 50 and 61 were involved in other tasks which were not characteristic of the households at Cerros but were practiced at the civic structures. These tasks appear to have involved stoneworking and the processing of other very hard materials. By way of summary, the tool collections from the ballcourts resemble our lithic sample from the residential loci in the number of macroblades, tranchet tools, and other large bifaces used for chopping, adzing, and digging. All of these types are underrepresented

in the civic architectural contexts. On the other hand, civic and ballcourt lithic samples share steeper edge angles, a higher proportion of bifacial retouch, and elevated numbers of denticulates and nonstandard bifaces, but relatively few perforating tools. These two contexts also yielded proportionately more stoneworking use wear and less hide, skin, and animal use damage than did the residential deposits. Thus, it appears that: (1) The lithic data from the ballcourts and civic structures represent a number of tools used for construction and maintenance of masonry architecture. (2) The presence of chert projectile points in civic contexts at Cerros may reflect the deliberate deposition of these artifacts at civic monuments. Alternatively, the points may have been brought to these loci in conjunction with ritual, social, or other activities associated with these nonresidential features. (3) There is no evidence that obsidian was reserved for elite or nondomiciliary functions. It is possible that obsidian blades were used initially for ritual bloodletting, and later for less esoteric purposes. We do know, however, that utilized prismatic blades at Cerros most often came from household contexts and that they bear traces of having been used to perform mundane tasks. (4) Stone tools from civic contexts indicate relatively few activities. Instead of the entire range of activities performed in domestic contexts, civic loci appear to have been the places where the members of Cerros society engaged in stoneworking and in the processing of tough fibers (perhaps by means of denticulated implements) and other plant items, such as gourds. (5} The lithic functional data alone are insufficient either to support or to counterindicate the practice of termination rituals at

Cerros. I have seen no evidence that utilized chipped stone tools were deliberately smashed or ritually “killed,” either by their owners or by later reoccupants of the site.

180 Stone Tool Use at Cerros

The two ballcourts discovered in the dispersed settlement zone at Cerros are among the earliest known for the Mayan lowlands (Scarborough et al. 1982}. Based on extensive excavations and artifact recovery from both ballcourts and subsequent analyses of these ma-

terials, I have hypothesized that these features may have served as residences as well as civic facilities. To examine this possibility, let us take a detailed look at the distribution of utilized stone tools at the larger (and more fully excavated) of the two ballcourts. Spatial Relationships at Feature 50 The large Late Preclassic ballcourt, Feature 50 (Figure 130) consisted of four structures on an elevated masonry platform. All construction

and modifications at this group took place during the Tulix phase. Apart from the elaborate Tulix occupation, there was an ephemeral

Late Postclassic reuse of this plazuela group. The northernmost building, Structure 50B, appears to have been a temple, judging from its relative height (see Haviland 1963: 44, 66; 1966; Kurjack 1974:

49—50). Structures 50C and E and the north-south alley between them made up the ballcourt facility. At the southern end of the platform a large range structure, 50D, was situated so that its northfacing medial axis was aligned with the adjacent ballcourt alley. Although the Feature 50 group obviously served a civic function during Late Preclassic (Tulix} times, I hypothesize that the range structure, 50D, was also a residence. This supposition formed during my ex-

cavation of 50D; it is based on my impression of the artifacts recovered from an apparent trash dump located off the southeast corner of this mound. In order to learn more about 5o0D’s function, I subdivided the chipped stone tools from the 50 group according to structure. By this method I can compare utilized lithic implements from 50D with those excavated at 50B, the temple, and 50A, C, and E, the plaza and ballcourt areas. As seen in Table 33, very few obsidian tools were excavated from either ballcourt group. Only 10 percent of the utilized chipped stone

artifacts from Feature 50 were made of obsidian. Structure 50D, however, had a much higher percentage of this raw material— 17 per-

cent. The other structures and the plaza area, in contrast, had only 7—8 percent obsidian tools. This variation sets 50D apart from the other buildings in this group. It may be that this phenomenon resulted from the performance of domestic rather than construction or other heavier tasks at 50D. Structure 50D closely parallels the residential features at Cerros in regard to the relative proportion of formal (28 percent), recycled for-

G~\

PW

\

AN

182 Stone Tool Use at Cerros

Table 39. Distribution of formal, recycled, and casual tools at Feature 50 structures

Structure Structure Structure

Tool Type 50A, C, E 50B 50D Total Formal 69 (51) 51 (73) 51 (47) 171 Recycled 17 (25) 53 (36) 15 (23) 85 Casual 109 (119) 175 (170) 115 (110) 399

Total 195 279 181 655

Note: Figures in parentheses indicate expected frequencies as calculated for chisquare test.

Table 40. Distribution of intentional retouch on utilized stone tools from Feature 50

Structure Structure Structure

Retouch 50A, C, E 50B 50D Total None 83 (96) 134(137) 104(89) 321 Unifacial 66 (55] 78 (78) 40(51) 184 Bifacial 46 (40) 52, (57) 35 (37) 133 Alternating bifacial 0 {5) 15 (7) 2 (5) 17

Total 195 279 181 655

Note: Figures in parentheses indicate expected frequencies calculated for chisquare test.

mal (8 percent), and casual (64 percent} tools (Table 39; compare with

23 percent formal, 9 percent recycled formal, and 68 percent casual tools for all Cerros residential features, as seen in Table 32}. The 50B temple yielded a much lower frequency of formal implements, similar to the overall pattern of lower than expected percentages of formal tools in civic contexts.

In contrast with the rest of this group, Structure 50D yielded a much higher proportion of unretouched tools, but a relatively low incidence of tools with unifacial retouch (Table 40}. Bifacial implements were more evenly distributed among all areas of Feature 50.

The only structure with a significant number of tools with alternating, or highly beveled, retouch was 5oB.

The principal difference between the distribution of common

Spatial Relationships at Feature 50 183

morphological types at 50D and the other areas of this ballcourt group lies in the unexpectedly high frequencies of formal retouched scrapers and prismatic obsidian blades at 5oD. I have already noted the correspondence between obsidian blade tools and domestic contexts elsewhere at Cerros. Feature 50D, however, yielded fewer denticulates and oval bifaces than expected (Table 41). On the other hand, a higher percentage than expected of oval bifaces, tranchet bit adzes, and denticulates were excavated from the other areas of Fea-

ture 50, but obsidian blades and formally retouched scrapers appeared in unexpectedly low percentages at these loci. Quite high counts of heavy-duty implements and special-purpose tools were re-

Table 41. Distribution of utilized tool classes at Feature 50

Structure Structure Structure

Tool Form 50A, C, E 50B 50D Total Oval biface 6 (4.0) 7 ~~ (5.5) O (3.6) 13

Steep scraper/plane O (1.2) 3 (1.7) 1 (1.1) 4 Subrectangular biface O (0.9) 3 (1.3) O (0.8) 3 Tranchet bit adze 7 (4.0) 4 (5.5) 2 (3.6) 13 Macroblade 35 (16.8) 25 (37.1) 28 (24.1) 88

Thin biface 7 (5.8} 8 (8.0) 4 (5.2) 19

Projectile point 2 (0.6) O (0.8) O (0.5) 2 Nonstandard biface 28 (26.5) 37 (36.7) 2.2 (23.8) 87 Macroblade stem 3 (1.8) 2 (2.5) 1 (1.6) 6

Perforator | O (1.5) 5 (2.1) O (1.4) 5 Graver 2 (0.9) O (1.3) 1 (0.8) 3 Denticulate 3 (2.7) 5 (3.8) 1 (2.5) 9

Formal scraper 1 (1.5) 1} (2.1) 3 (1.4) 5 Prismatic blade 15 (21.3) 23 (29.5) 32 (19.2) 70 Flake 86 (93.4) 141 (129.6) 80(84.1) 307 Core 5 (4.3) 6 (5.9) 3 (3.8) 14 Hammerstone O (0.6) 1 (0.8) 1 (0.5) 2

Chisel/gouge O (2.1) 5 (3.0) 2 (1.9) 7 Long bit drill 1 (0.9) 2 (1.3) O (0.8) 3 Retouched notch 0 (0.3) 1 (04) —0 (03) 1

Total 201 279 181 661

Note: Figures in parentheses indicate expected frequencies calculated for chisquare test.

184 Stone Tool Use at Cerros

covered in association with the apparent temple structure, 50B. These include oval and subrectangular bifaces, steep scraper/planes, chisels, denticulates, perforators, drills, and a retouched notch. Pro-

jectile points, mentioned in a previous section as associated with civic contexts, occurred at Feature 50 only in the ballcourt areas (that is, F5oA, C, and E)}.

On the average, the tools from Structure 50D had more acute edge angles (mean, 60°; standard deviation, 22°) than either the 5oB temple

or the ballcourt locus, which had mean tool bit angles of 66° (standard deviation, 22°) and 67° (standard deviation, 21°), respectively. Al-

though this difference is not large enough to be statistically significant (it is less than one standard deviation), I hypothesize that an edge angle distribution with a relatively acute mean is characteristic of domestic contexts or other loci where soft substances were manufactured or processed. Tables 42 and 43 show the distributions of stone-tool-using activities and contact materials in the ballcourt area (Feature 50A, C, E), the “temple” (50B), and the range structure (50D). In comparison with the tools from civic/religious loci, the sample of artifacts collected from 50D had an unusually large number of slicing/cutting tools, as well as digging and chopping implements, but a lower than expected frequency of adzes, gravers, and perforators. Many utilized tools from the range structure bear use traces from working wood and bone, as do the tools from the temple and ballcourt loci; but the lithic wear patterns from 50D also include a relatively high proportion of use wear from the processing of soft materials such as meat, vines, hides, and cotton, and an underrepresentation of wear damage from stone and shell working. Cutting/slicing implements make up almost one-third of the tools from Structure 50D that have identifiable traces of wear. This proportion is much higher than the percentage of cutting/slicing tools at the other Feature 50 structures (see Table 44}. Cutting tools from 50D were used most frequently on meat, vines and fibers, and wood.

At the other loci in this group the most common use wear corresponds to the cutting of wood. In addition, a considerable number of

cutting implements from the range structure show signs of use on cotton, hides, tough fibers, vegetables/roots, and gourds. There is use-wear evidence that some of these relatively soft substances were processed in the vicinity of the temple as well, but in lower frequencies. Structure 50D is distinctive in having proportionately fewer perforators and gravers than the rest of Feature 50 (Tables 45 and 46). These tools were used principally to score and perforate wood. Gravers

Table 42. Distribution of tool functions (identified by use traces) at Feature 50

Structure Structure Structure

Function 50A, C, E 50B 50D Total

Chop 64 (3.8) 22 (5.6) 51(3.6) 13 Adze (2.0) (3.0) (1.9) 72 Dig 1 (0.6) O (0.9] 1 (0.6) Saw 6 {7.3} 14 (10.8) 5 (6.9) 25

Slice/cut 24 (33.4) 39 (49.9] 52, (31.9) 115 Scrape 74 (73.6) 115 (109.7) 64 (70.1) 253 Scrape/plane 24 (21.2) 32 (31.7) 17 (20.2) 73

Butcher 1 (1.5) 4 (2.2) O (1.4) 5 Incise 8 (8.4) 17 (12.6) 4 (8.0) 29 Whittle 9 (7.0) 11 (10.3) 4 (6.7) 24 Drill 8 (7.3) 12 (10.8) 5 (6.9) 25 Shred 2 (0.9) QO (1.3) 1 (0.8) 3 Pound _ 4 (3.8) 5 (5.6) _ 4 (3.6) 13

Total 171 253 163 587

Note: Figures in parentheses indicate expected frequencies calculated for chisquare test.

Table 43. Distribution of contact materials as identified by use traces at Feature 50

Structure Structure Structure

Contact Material 50A, C, E 50B 50D Total Wood 97 (88.8] 106 (102.6) 72. (83.6) 275

Bone 20 (18.4) 24 (21.3) 13 (17.3) 57 Vines, fibers 7 (8.4) 4 (9.7) 15 (7.9) 26 Hides, skins 5 (7.8) 9 (9.0) 10 {7.3} 24 Meat 3 (6.8) 4 (7.8) 14 (6.4) 21 Tough fibers 6 (4.8) 5 (5.6) 4 (4.6) 15

Limestone 3 (3.9) 8 (4.5) 1 (3.6) 12

Vegetables/roots 6 (3.9) 2 (4.5) 4 (3.6] 12

Cotton O3 (3.2) 42(3.7) 63(3.0) 10 Gourds (2.6) (3.0) (2.4) 8 Sherds 3(1.9) (2.6)52(2.2) (3.0)O3 (1.8) (2.4) 86 Shell 1 Animal O (1.3) 4 (1.5) O (1.2) 4 Soil _1 (0.6) 0 (0.7) 1 (0.6) 2

Total 155 179 146 480

Note: Figures in parentheses indicate expected frequencies calculated for chisquare test.

186 Stone Tool Use at Cerros

Table 44. Distribution of contact materials processed with chipped stone cutting tools at Feature 50

Structure 50D Structure 50B Structure 50A, C, E

(32% of All Tools) (15% of All Tools) (14% of All Tools) Contact Material % Contact Material % Contact Material %

Meat 7 Wood 4 Wood 5

Vines, fibers 8 Meat 2 Vegetables, roots 4

Wood 54Cotton 2Tough Vines,fibers fibers2, 2 Cotton Bone ] Hides, skins 3 Hides, skins ] Gourds