7 moholy nagy 1997

8/19/2019 7 Moholy Nagy 1997

1/22

aney Publishing

Middens, Construction Fill, and Offerings: Evidence for the Organization of Classic PeriodCraft Production at Tikal, GuatemalaAuthor(s): Hattula Moholy-NagySource: Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Autumn, 1997), pp. 293-313Published by: Maney PublishingStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/530686 .

Accessed: 18/01/2014 12:06

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Maney Publishing is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Field

Archaeology.

h // j

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=maneyhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/530686?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/530686?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=maney

8/19/2019 7 Moholy Nagy 1997

2/22

293

Middens,

Construction

Fill,

and

Offerings:

Evidence for the

Organization

of

Classic Period Craft Production at

Tikal,

Guatemala

Hattula

Moholy-Nagy

University

of

Pennsylvania

Museum

Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania

The

production of artifacts ofstone,

shell,

and bone at

Tikal,

an

important

center in the

Southern

Maya

Lowlands,

created

quantities

of

durable

waste,

referred

o as

debitage.

Yet

debitage

is not a reliable indicator

ofproduction

area

because

of

the

spatially

lexible

nature

ofPrehispanictechnology

nd site-maintenance activities

that

shifted

manufac-

turing

debris nto

secondary

contexts.

Nevertheless,

debitage,

even

in

secondary

context,

provides

mportant information

on

the

organization

of

craft production

at

Tikal,

par-

ticularly

during

the Classic

Period

(ca.

A.C.

250-850).

Most

crafts

were

organized

as

household

ndustries,

carried

on

by ndependent,

part-time specialists

iving

in the

cen-

tral area that

surrounded

the monumental

core

of

the

city.

The

elite

probably

upported

some

ull-time

production

to

satisfy

their demands

or statusgoods

and tools

or

construc-

tion

projects.

Expedientproduction

by

nonspecialists,

using locally

available

materials

such as

chert

and

bone,

occurredat

all times.

Production

waste

was

recovered

rom

the

construction

ill

ofpublic

and

residentialar-

chitecture,

and

from

household

middens,

mixed

with

domestic rash.

The

argest

concen-

trations,

however,

were

ound

exteriorto elite

chamber

burials and

within

cached

offer-

ings.

The

delayed

identificationof debitage

rom

ritual contexts

exemplifies

he

reflexive

nature of theway archaeologists lassifymaterial culture and their interpretationsof the

contexts

rom

which

it

is recovered.

Introduction:

Debitage

and the

Organization

of

Production

The

study

of

the

organization

of craft

production

in

preindustrial

complex

societies

is

a

lively

field of

research

that

has

by

now

generated

a substantial

body

of literature.

Most

studies

focus

on direct

evidence from

production

areas

(e.g.,

Clark

1986;

Healan

1995)

and

indirect evi-

dence derived

from

finished artifacts

(e.g.,

Costin 1991:

32; Costin and Hagstrum 1995). Only a few (e.g., Fedick

1991;

Santley

and Kneebone

1993)

have taken into ac-

count

production

debris

that

is

clearly

from

secondary

contexts,

even

though

such debris

often constitutes

a

large

proportion

of the material

evidence

from habitation sites.

Our

present

concern

is

the

organization

of

craft

produc-

tion

at

one of the

principal pre-Columbian

cities

of the

Lowland

Maya

area, Tikal,

situated

in

the

Department

of

Pet

n of Guatemala

(FIG. i).

Another

goal

of the

paper,

however,

is

to

direct attention to the

explanatory potential

of

production

waste that is no

longer

in situ.

Artifacts

and debris

that are no

longer

in

the

places

where

they

were

made or used can

provide significant,

indirect

evidence about the

organization

of

craft

produc-

tion.

Furthermore,

their

value as data is

significantly

en-

hanced

by considering

them

together

with the

archae-

ological

contexts

from which

they

were

recovered. Most of

this

paper

will describe the

recovery

contexts

of durable

production

waste at Tikal

and

pertinent

site formation

processes (Schiffer 1987). I

will discuss here

only

those

materialsworked

by

reduction

processes

that have

left

both

artifacts

and

readily

visible

production

waste

in

the archae-

ological

record: chert

and

obsidian,

which

were

predomi-

nantly

worked

by

chipping; jade

and slate

(some

of

which

is

actually

shale),

which were worked

by chipping

and

grinding;

marine and freshwater mussel

shell;

and bone.

Hypotheses

about

the

production

of various kinds of arti-

facts will then be

presented

in

terms of four

organizational

parameters proposed

by

Costin

(1991:

8-9;

Costin and

Hagstrum

1995:

620).

I

will conclude

with

some

thoughts

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:06:32 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

8/19/2019 7 Moholy Nagy 1997

3/22

294

Craft

Productionat

Tikal,

Guatemala/Moholy-Nagy

NORTHERN

OWLANDS

'

SOUTHERN

LOWLANDS

AltunHa

R i o

z u l o

Nakbe

o

oUaxactun

Lamanai

Tikal

o

o

Buenavista

del

Cayo

oCaracol

Altarde

Sacrificios

0

HIGHLANDS

,

o oo

kin

Figure

1.

The

Lowland

Maya

area

showing

sites mentioned

in

the

text.

on the

importance

of

considering

a site's size and function

in

the

study

of craft

production

in

any preindustrial

com-

plex

society.

Direct and

indirect evidence can both be

employed

in

the

study

of

craft

production (Costin

1991:

18-19).

Direct

evidence is

associated

with

actual

places

of

production.

Indirect evidence

is

derived

from the

characteristicsof

the

materials

themselves,

without

regard

to the contexts in

which

they

were

found.

The

specific

locations of

production

areas

provide

the

most secure evidence about the organization of produc-

tion. From

ethnographic

and

ethnoarchaeological

obser-

vations we have

learned

that

production

areas

may

be

characterized

by

the

presence

of

special-purpose

features,

like

kilns;

special-purpose

tools,

like

spindle

whorls;

and

by

residues of the

production process,

like

refuse,

failed arti-

facts,

raw

materials,

or charcoal.

Production

areas are

often

referred to

in

the literature

as

"workshops."

This

term,

however,

has come to

imply

a

specific

level of craft

organi-

zation

(e.g.,

Clark 1986:

45-46;

Costin 1991:

8-9;

Santley

and

Kneebone 1993:

41).

Costin's neutral

term,

"production

area,"

s more

appropriate

here.

Because

production

areas can

provide

such

important

information,

they

need to be defined with

special

attention

to site formation processes (Moholy-Nagy 1990). Of the

indicators

used to

identify production

areas,

only special-

purpose

installations can

be

assumed

to

be

in situ. Tools

and

production

debris,

because

they

are

portable,

may

or

may

not

be;

the

archaeologist

can not

assume

that

they

are

recovered from

the

places

where

they

were

made

or used.

In

archaeological

sites

of

New World

complex

societies,

including

those of the

Maya

Lowlands,

two

factors-spa-

tial

flexibility

of

production technology

and site mainte-

nance behavior-make

the

identification

of

production

areas

especially

difficult.

The

manufacture of most kinds of

artifacts

did

not

require

installations

substantial

or

distinc-

tive enough to leave archaeological traces. Most Prehis-

panic production

can be

characterized

as

spatially

flexible

(Arnold

1990:

927-928).

It

could be carried on almost

anywhere,

even in

the

marketplace

(e.g.,

Clark 1989:

300).

Stone was

the

principal

industrial materialand the fabrica-

tion of chert and obsidian

artifacts

by

percussion

and

pressure flaking generated quantities

of

well-preserved

refuse.

What is

more,

in habitation sites this

imperishable

debris

was

rarely

left where it fell. In

general,

most

excavated

portable

material

culture,

including

finished

objects

and

the refuse from their

manufacture,

is

not

recovered

from

its context of production or consumption, but from its

context

of

disposal (Schiffer

1987:

58-59;

LeeDecker

1994:

351-352).

Disposal

location,

in

turn,

is

directly

determined

by

site maintenance activities

(Tani 1995),

which are themselves

affected

by

a

host of

other

variables,

such

as

the

organization

and

intensity

of artifact

produc-

tion,

the size and

structure

of the

site,

and

its

function

in a

regional

settlement

system (Wilson

1994:

43).

At

any

settlement,

but

especially

at those with

a

high

density

of

structures,

the

archaeologist

must

consider

the formation

processes

responsible

for the

recovery

context of

any

kind

of

portable

material

culture.

This is crucial because of

the

powerful influence site formation processes exert upon our

perceptions

of

archaeological

data.

It

follows, then,

that two

essentially

different

types

of

data-production

area and material evidence

of

produc-

tion,

especially

manufacturing by-products-need

to be

distinguished.

Such

a

distinction

is

usually

made

by

ceram-

ists

(e.g.,

Arnold

et al.

1993),

historical

archaeologists

(e.g.,

LeeDecker

1994),

and

a few lithic

specialists (e.g.,

Clark

1935;

Healan

1995).

There

is,

however,

a

long

tradition

among

Mesoamerican

archaeologists working



8/19/2019 7 Moholy Nagy 1997

4/22

Journal

of

Field

Archaeology/Vol.

4,

1997

295

Table

1.

Chronological

chart

(after

Coe

1990: chart

1;

Jones

and

Satterthwaite 1982:

table

1).

Period

Long

Count Date Ceramics

Early

Postclassic

-

950 A.C. Caban

Terminal Classic 10.3.0.0.0 889 A.C. Eznab

Late Classic 9.13.0.0.0 692 A.C. Imix

Intermediate Classic 9.8.0.0.0 593 A.C. Ik

Early

Classic

8.11.0.0.0

250

A.C.

Manik

Protoclassic

-

170 A.C. Cimi

Late Preclassic

(late)

-

1

A.C.

Cauac

Late

Preclassic

(early)

-

350

B.C.

Chuen

Middle Preclassic

(late)

-

600

B.C.

Tzec

Middle Preclassic

(early)

-

800 B.C. Eb

with

artifacts made

by

reduction

techniques

to

conflate

production

areaand

production

waste and then to refer to

debitage concentrations as "workshops" (e.g., Spence

1967;

Moholy-Nagy

1976:

99-102;

Shafer

and Hester

1983;

Hester and Shafer

1992;

Black and Suhler

1986;

Potter

1993;

King

and

Potter

1994).

This unfounded

transfer

of

meaning

from

locus to

object impedes

sub-

sequent

efforts to

interpret

the

organization

of

produc-

tion. One

consequence

of

referring

to

debitage deposits

as

workshops

is to inflate

the number of

production

areas at

a

site. But a

more

subtle,

equally misleading

effect is to

overlook or

misinterpret

the

presence

of

debitage

from

archaeological

contexts that could not

possibly

have been

production

areas.

Because of the difficulties in locating production areas

and

recognizing special-purpose

tools

in the

settlements of

New

World

complex

societies,

debitage, by

which

I mean

durable

manufacturing

debris

and

manufacturing

failures,

has become the most

important

indicator of craft

produc-

tion.

Correctly

identified

debitage, by

definition,

is

always

a

sign

of

craft

activity

somewhere,

no

matter where it is

found. Its

presence

in

secondary

contexts can be linked to

local

production by

several

criteria. These

include occur-

rence

in

large quantities

and

densities,

debitage

of materi-

als

that were

either

locally

availableor

imported

in

abun-

dance, by-productsof manufacturethat aretechnologically

consistent with

the

types

of

artifacts used at the site

(Clark

1990:

503),

the

presence

of

small-sized

debitage,

and

the

cultural functions associated

with the

artifact

types

and raw

materials.As in the case of

finished

artifacts,

the

formal

and

technological

characteristicsof

the

debitage

itself

can

pro-

vide indirect evidence about

organizational

aspects

of

pro-

duction,

such

as

standardization,

efficiency,

skill,

and

re-

gional

variants and

their

spatial

distribution

(Costin

1991:

32-43).

And when

the

recovery

contexts of

debitage,

even

secondary

contexts,

are also taken

into

consideration,

it

becomes

possible

to

propose

general hypotheses

about

the

organization of craftproduction.

Tikal

Project

Data

The

materials discussed here come from

excavations

carried

out between 1957-1969

by

the

Tikal

Project

of the

University

of

Pennsylvania

Museum

(Coe 1965).

Various

lines of

archaeological

and

epigraphic

evidence

suggest

that Tikal was the

paramount

administrative,

ceremonial,

and economic center

of its

region,

and

one

of four

regional

capitals

of the

Lowland

Maya

area

(Marcus

1976:

fig. 1.1).

At

present,

the

site

is

thought

to have been

occupied

between

ca. 800

B.c.

and ca.

A.C.

950

(TABLE

1).

At

its zenith

during the Classic Period, ca. A.C. 50-850, it was one of

the

largest

cities of the

Lowland

Maya

area,

with

an

area of

well over 16

sq

km

(Carr

and Hazard

1961)

and

an

estimated maximum

population

of more than

62,000

(Culbert

et

al.

1990).

Towards the

end

of the

Classic

Period the

city

had an

approximately

concentric

settlement

plan

composed

of

three distinct

areas

(Puleston

1983:

fig.

21).

Tikal's monumental civic and

ceremonial

architecture

and

the

vaulted

masonry

residences of its elite

class were

concentrated

in

the

Epicenter,

which had a

diameter

of

ca.

1.25 km. The site's core was surrounded

by

the

Central

area,

extending

up

to another 1.5 km

beyond

the

Epicen-

ter. Many groups of small structures, the residences of the

commoners who

sustained

the

city, comprise

this zone.

Beyond

it was

a

Peripheral

sustaining

area,

distinguished

by

a

significantly

lower

density

of

settlement.

Settlement

pattern

studies,

inscribed stone

monuments

(Jones

and

Satterthwaite

1982),

and

the

presence

and

configuration

of monumental

architecture and

associated

chamber

burials demonstrate that Tikal was

the residence

of

a

powerful

elite

class. It was the elite

class-its

political

administrators,

subjects

of a cult of

ancestor

worship,

and



8/19/2019 7 Moholy Nagy 1997

5/22

296

Craft

Productionat

Tikal,


Table 2.

Counts

of

Classic Period

provenienced

and dated

artifacts,

debitage,

and

unworked

objects.

Material

Total

Artifacts Debitage

Unworked %

Classic Period

Chert

72,977 6,642 66,335

Unrecorded

81.2

Obsidian

65,920 8,782 57,138

None 93.8

Jade

13,334 7,611 5,723

None 96.9

Slate/shale 305 132 164 9 88.0

Spondylus

7,393 3,681

3,652

60 66.6

Other

shell

4,286 1,111

203

2,972

93.2

Bone

8,912

907 463

7,542

94.4

the

city's

most

conspicuous

consumers--who

transformed

Tikal

into

the

major

Classic Period center

of its

region.

Temples, processional

causeways,

and

abundant

votive of-

ferings testify

to its ritual

importance.

Its function

as an

economic

center was

implied

over

two

decades

ago

when

Marcus

(1973)

pointed

out

how

closely

the

Classic

Period

settlement pattern in the Tikal area,and around the other

Lowland

Maya

regional capitals,

conformed to

expecta-

tions derived from

geographical

models

of central

places

(e.g.,

Abler, Adams,

and Gould 1971:

370-372).

The

position

of Tikal as a

major

central

place

is reinforced

by

the

presence

of

a

probable marketplace

in

the

Epicenter

(Jones

1996)

and

by

the

concentration of

imported

mate-

rials. For centuries

Tikal

imported

raw

materials,

such

as

fine

chert and

marine

shells;

semi-finished

commodities,

such as

large

polyhedral

obsidian

cores;

as well as finished

goods, especially pottery.

The

city

undoubtedly

also ex-

ported products, although

we are

hampered

here

by

a

lack

of information from other sites in the region. The eco-

nomic

importance

of Tikal as

a

producer

and distributor of

goods

is

also

indicated

by

the

presence

and

spatial

distribu-

tion

of

by-products generated by

local craft

production.

The Tikal

Project

recovered

a

large

collection of artifacts

formed

by

reduction and

quantities

of

production

waste

(TABLE 2;

Moholy-Nagy

1994).

Counts

given

here should

be considered

approximate,

and the

hypotheses

offered are

intended to

apply

only

to the

Classic

Period.

Unlike

the other data

given

on Table

2,

estimated

counts

of chert and obsidian

debitage

(FIGS.

2,

3;

TABLES

,4)

are based

upon

field observations

rather than

laboratory

records. The largest deposits of debitage encountered at

Tikal came

from

above and

around

the

chamber burials

of

its most

important

persons.

In

comparing

laboratory

re-

cords

of these

deposits

to

published

descriptions

(Coe

1990),

it became

clear

that most

deposits

had

only

been

sampled

and none

were

completely

recovered

and docu-

mented. We

probably

recorded about one-tenth

of

the

debitage

encountered.

Excavations were

carried out at a time when archaeolo-

gists studying

the

Prehispanic Maya

had

little

interest

in

fine-grained analyses

of

production

and

consumption.

Only

special deposits,

such as

offerings

and

burials,

were

screened. Volume was not

specifically

calculated for exca-

vated

lots,

which

were the

Tikal

Project's

smallest units of

excavation,

and

recovered

objects

were

only

counted

or,

occasionally,

only weighed,

rather than both

counted

and

weighed.

The lack of information

on

excavated volume

and the weights of recovered materialcultureprecludesthe

presentation

of

data

in a

standardized format that would

permit

direct

comparisons

between different areas of

Tikal

and

between

Tikal

and other

sites.

I will

use

piece

per

excavated lot to

express

variability

in

density.

This

index

should

be understood as an

approximation,

since neither

"piece"

nor excavation lot are standardized units. Never-

theless,

the lack of more accurate information about

weight

and volume is counterbalanced

by

the

large

size

of

the

collection,

the

precisely

recorded

proveniences,

and

good chronological

control.

Both

locally

available and

imported

raw

materials occur

in high quantitiesat Tikal.Among the durable rawmateri-

als

obtained at and near the site were abundant nodules of

medium-

and

coarse-textured

chert, limestone,

freshwater

mussel

and

snail

shells,

and

human and animal bones and

teeth.

Throughout

the Classic

Period

large quantities

of

fine-textured

chert,

obsidian,

jade,

freshwater

and

marine

shells,

and

marine

fishes were

imported

from

other

parts

of

the

Maya

area. Small amounts of

goods

and raw materials

also came from

central Mexico.

Imported jade,

fine stones

like

specular

hematite and

pyrite,

and

thorny oyster

shell

(Spondylus spp.)

were

only

used

by

the elite. There

is,

however,

no

simple

correspondence

between the distance

over which the raw materials were transported to Tikal

and

the function of the finished artifact.

Imported

fine-

textured chert and

gray

and

green

obsidian were used

primarily

for

utilitarian

artifacts,

while

a

large

class

of elite

ceremonial

artifacts,

the

so-called eccentric

flints,

were

made

almost

exclusively

of

locally

available chert.

Household

Refuse,

Debitage,

and

Offerings from

Tikal

Daily

domestic

activities,

artifact

manufacture,

and

ritual

behavior account

for

virtually

all of the artifacts

and

pro-



8/19/2019 7 Moholy Nagy 1997

6/22

Journal of

Field

Archaeology/Vol.

4,

1997

297

250000

200000

150000

100000

Bone

Other hell

_Spondylus

50000-

Slate/shale

Jade

0

Obsidian

E

.

E

_

>

n

C

O,

Figure

2.

Counts

of

Classic Period

debitage by

recovery

context.

The

figures

for chamber

burial

exterior

deposits

are

estimated,

as

explained

in the text.

duction

waste

in

archaeological

contexts

at Tikal. The

material residues

of

these activities can

be

classified,

respec-

tively,

as

refuse,

debitage,

and

offerings.

Refuse is

usually

defined as

discarded

durable

material,

distinct

from

biodegradable

waste

or

garbage.

Much was

generated

by

household activities

and

consisted of

things

used

by

everyone,

elite

and

non-elite alike:

predominantly

potsherds,

with smaller amounts

of

broken

or

worn-out

artifacts

of

stone, shell,

bone,

pottery,

and

plaster, frag-

mentary

architectural

elements,

and

bones

and

shells of

animals that were

usually

eaten.

They

constitute a domestic

material culture complex (Moholy-Nagy 1994: 15,

adapted

from Haviland 1981:

103-104).

Debitage

is

a

special

kind of

refuse

generated by

the

production

of artifacts

by

reductive

processes.

For this

paper,

I have

broadened

the

definition to include all mate-

rial

residues

of

production,

such as

cores, flakes,

preforms,

shatter,

and

microdebitage,

unworked

pieces

of raw

mate-

rial,

production

failures,

and

any

of these

types

that were

subsequently

used as

expedient

tools.

Although

used flakes

and cores are

usually

classified as

artifacts,

they

are,

none-

theless,

also evidence

of

production.

Recycling

and

reuse

of all

classes

of

material culture was

common

at Tikal

at all

times.

Identifications

of

debitage

were

based

upon

inherent

characteristics,

primarily

form, size,

material,

and the ab-

sence

of

use-wear.

The

development

of

sequential

or be-

havioral

typologies

for

the

production

stages

of

an

artifact

(Sheets

1975)

and

the

subsequent

modifications

during

its

use-life

(Shafer

1983:

215)

were

significant

contributions

to the classificationof

artifacts and

waste

formed

by

reduc-

tion.

Behavioral

typology

enables us to

distinguish

be-

tween

finished

products,

reworked

artifacts,

manufactur-

ing failures,and waste.

Most recovered

debitage

was

created

by

the

production

of several

types

of bifaces

from

locally

available chert

nodules.

Nearly

all

obsidian

debitage

came

from

prismatic

blade

production

from

imported preformed,

large

polyhe-

dral cores.

A

minor amount establishes the

fabrication of

eccentrics from exhausted blade cores. Shell

and

fine

stone,

especially jade,

were

used for sociotechnic

and

ideotechnic

artifacts

like

jewelry,

mosaics, vessels,

dental

inlays,

and

mirrors. Bone

was

fashioned

into artifacts of

utilitarian,

ornamental,

and

ceremonial

function.

I

have

assumed

that



8/19/2019 7 Moholy Nagy 1997

7/22

298

Craft

Production

at

Tikal,


4500.000

4000.000

3500.000

3000.000

2500.000

2000.000

Bone

1500.000

Other

hell

Spondylus

1000.000

Slate/shale

500.000

Jade

0.000

Obsidian

"+ •

?

_

eChert

S

E

.

0

--

-0

a3

E

-

0.

o

C

:

Figure

3.

Density

of Classic Period

debitage

as count

per

excavated

lot

by recovery

context.

The

figures

for

chamber

burial

exterior

deposits

are

estimated,

as

explained

in the

text.

all

of these

goods

were made

by

specialists,

though

the

ex-

pedient production

of

simple

artifacts

of

locally

abundant

chert and bone

may

have been carried on

by everybody.

The third

important

category

of

recovered

portable

material culture

may

best be

referred to

as

offerings.

Offer-

ings

are

regarded

as the

tangible

residues of ritual

behavior,

and were

typically

classified

as burial furniture or

compo-

nents of

votive

caches.

In

contrast to items

usually

found

in

refuse,

which were used

by

everyone,

the

artifacts,

natural

objects,

and

debitage

found in

offerings

can be

regarded

as

indicators

of social status. The

assumption,

nearly always

implicit,

that

household

refuse,

debitage,

and

offerings

will

be found

in

distinct

recovery

contexts

generally

holds,

although

materials

thought

to

have

been used in different

Table 3. Counts

of Classic Period

debitage

by recovery

context.

Excavated

Context

Chert Obsidian

Jade

Slate/shale

Spondylus

Other shell Bone lots

Exterior

deposit*

116,820

228,243

- - - -

2

55

Monument cache

1,707 9,217

242 1 50

- -

54

Structure cache

3,663 14,112 4,921

3

3,503

12

3 185

Chamber

burial

4 83 304

-

16

1

-

32

Other burial

39

16 35

-

37

3

-

206

Problematical

deposit

3,059

6,620

214

8

34

18

3

319

Special-purpose

dump

879

1,953

- - -

-

-

19

General

excavations

41,850

2,392

7 152

12 169

455

9,725

Totals

168,021

262,636

5,723

164

3,652

203 463

10,673

*

Estimated



8/19/2019 7 Moholy Nagy 1997

8/22

Journal

of

Field

Archaeology/Vol.

4,

1997

299

Table 4.

Density

of

Classic Period

debitage

by

recovery

context as counts

per

excavated lot.

Context Chert

Obsidian

Jade

Slate/shale

Spondylus

Other

shell

Bone

Exterior

deposit*

2124.000 4149.873

- - - -

0.036

Monument cache

31.611 170.685 4.481

0.019 0.926

-

-

Structure

cache

19.800 76.281

26.600 0.016 18.935 0.065

0.016

Chamber burial 0.125 2.594 9.500 - 0.500 0.031

-

Other burial 0.189 0.078

0.170

-

0.180 0.015

-

Problematical

deposit

9.589 20.752

0.671

0.025

0.107 0.056 0.009

Special-purpose

dump

46.283

102.789

- - -

-

General excavations 4.303

0.246

0.001 0.016 0.001 0.017 0.047

Per lot of

total

excavated 15.743 24.608

0.536

0.015 0.342 0.019 0.043

*

Estimated

kinds of activities sometimes occurred

together

in the

same

context.

Recovery

Contexts

Recovery

context

is an

inference,

made

by

the

re-

searcher,

about the

archaeological

setting

in which materi-

als occurred.

I use

this term rather

than

"depositional

context,"

because

it is not

always

clear

if

the

material was

intentionally deposited,

and,

if it was

intentionally

depos-

ited,

what the intent

was: for

example,

is the material

to be

regarded

as a ritual

offering

or

a

refuse

dump?

Recovery

context is

altogether

different from Costin's use

of the

term "context"

to refer to control

of

production

(Costin

1991:

8-9).

For Tikal

it is useful to

distinguish

two

broad

types of recovery context: special deposits and general

excavations

(FIGS.

2,

3,

TABLES

3,

4).

Special

deposits generally

correspond

to what historical

archaeologists

call

feature contexts

(LeeDecker

1994:

353). Usually

they

have defined

spatial

boundaries,

spe-

cially

prepared

repositories,

and

their material contents

are

regarded

as in

primary

context.

A

special

deposit

is consid-

ered to be

the

intentionally

interred residue

of a

specific

event or

events,

such

as activities

of ceremonial nature

or

episodes

of

artifact

production.

In the former

case,

the

materials

can be

regarded

as a functional

assemblage

in-

dicative of social status

(Hendon

1987:

118).

At

Tikal,

as

an illustration of how contents can influence assessmentsof

contexts,

if

significant

amounts

of

domestic

refuse were

included

in what

otherwise would have been classified as a

burial

or a

cache,

the

context

was

classified

as a

problemati-

cal

deposit,

that

is,

an

intentional

deposit

of

problematical

nature.

Recovery

contexts not classified

as

special deposits

were

lumped together

as

general

excavations.

They

were

located

on the

surface as well as beneath it. Artifacts and

debitage

from

general

excavations

were

usually

more

heterogeneous

and

dispersed

than

those

in

special deposits

and,

except

for

those associated

with architectural

stratigraphy,

heir

peri-

ods

of

deposition

are

usually

of

unknown duration. Status

objects

characteristicof

special

deposits

were

rare,

but did

occur

occasionally.

Materials from

general

excavations

should

be

regarded

as

being

in

secondary

context,

transported

over an un-

known

distance

from the

locus of

their

production

or

use

primarily by

two cultural

site

formation

processes:

site

maintenance

and construction

activities. Domestic trash

was

dumped

into

abandoned

chultuns,

artificial

bedrock

chambers

perhaps

used

for food

storage

(Puleston

1971),

bedrock

quarries,

and

reservoirs.

Even more

frequently

it

was

incorporated,

and

thus

buried,

in the construction

fill

of all kinds of structures

(Haviland

1963,

1985;

Harrison

1970;

Becker

1971;

Coe

1990:

878).

General

Excavations

UNINCORPORATED

MIDDENS

Surface scatters

and

more

dense,

buried

deposits

of

material

were encountered

in all

parts

of the site.

In smaller

residential

groups,

middens

often

formed around

house

platforms

(e.g.,

Fry

1969:

57-61;

Haviland

1985).

Refuse

was also

recovered

from

abandoned

chultuns,

quarries,

and reservoirs.

During

the

decline

of the

city

during

the

Terminal

Classic

Period,

ca.

A.C.

50-950,

household

rub-

bish accumulated, or was dumped, in the abandoned

rooms of

range

structures

or

palaces thought

to have been

elite residences.

When

the

elite lived

in

them,

these

struc-

ture

groups

were

kept

clean,

not

only

because

refuse

was

considered

a

hindrance,

but also

because

their

paved

sur-

faces diverted

rain

water

into natural

and artificial

reser-

voirs

(Harrison 1993).

In

addition

to household

refuse

and

what

may

be dis-

turbed human

burials,

general

excavation

contexts

also

included

production

refuse

mixed

with domestic

trash.



8/19/2019 7 Moholy Nagy 1997

9/22

300

Craft

Production

at

Tikal,


Most of the

debitage

was

of

local chert from the

produc-

tion of bifacial

artifacts,

but

there

was also a

modest

amount

of

obsidian

prismatic

blade

production

waste,

and

small numbers of freshwater

mussel

and

white marine

shell

fragments

(TABLES

,

4).

Concentrations of

bone

debitage

were

rare,

most

likely

due to

factors of

preservation,

but

they

occurred more often in

general

excavations than in

other

contexts.

Two

characteristics

of

debitage deposits

in

household

middens

are of

special

interest here: their occurrence

in

only

a

few residential structure

groups

and

the

intermin-

gling

of

debitage

from

different

industries. The

spatial

distributions

suggest

craft

specialization by

residential

group,

even

for

the

production

of

domestic

goods.

The

heterogeneous

character of Tikal

midden

deposits

is exem-

plified by

one

of

the

largest

excavated. It was

found

in

Group 5C-1,

a ceremonial Twin

Pyramid Complex

that

subsequently

became a

residential

group

towards the

end

of

the Late Classic Period

(Jones

1969:

23-25).

Over

400

fragments

of bone

debitage

were

recovered

from this

large

midden that also

included over

1800

pieces

of

chert

debi-

tage, fragments

of

domestic

artifact

types

of

chert,

obsid-

ian,

ground

stone,

pottery figurines,

censer

fragments,

and

over

300

pounds

of

potsherds

(Moholy-Nagy

1994:

116-

117).

Large quantities

of

obsidian

debitage

mixed with do-

mestic refuse

were less common

than

chert.

The more

restricted

spatial

distribution

of

obsidian

debitage

in

gen-

eral

excavations,

relative

to

chert,

showed that

obsidian

was

worked

in

fewer

structure

groups.

Most

of

the

investigated

chultuns

were

found

empty.

A

few held

various kinds

of

special deposits

such as

primary

and

secondary

burials, censers,

or

whole

pottery

vessels

(Puleston

1971;

Culbert

1993:

figs.

143b,

144a,

b).

Sev-

eral

contained

the

same

mixture

of

household

refuse and

manufacturing

by-products

as

surface

household

middens.

A

very

large Peripheral

area

midden

of

Late

Preclassicdate

included "hundreds of

pounds"

of

chert

debitage

(Fry

1969:

144),

consisting

of

flake

cores, nodules,

decortica-

tion

flakes,

blade

cores,

and failed

bifaces. It also

included

domestic trash, such as fragments of used obsidian blades,

ground

stone

tools,

freshwater

snails,

unworked

animal

bones, stucco,

pottery

censers,

charcoal,

and over

170

pounds

of

potsherds.

Another

large Peripheral

area

deposit

made

in

Protoclassic times had

relatively

little

chert and

household

trash,

but over 2500

fragments

of

obsidian

prismatic

blade

production

waste.

The

relatively

early

dates of the

large

chultun

lithic

debitage deposits

are

significant.

During

the

succeeding

Classic

Period,

the

favored

disposal

locations of

large

quantities

of

stone

chipping

waste

appear

to

have

shifted

from chultuns and construction fill to caches and

burials.

This

may

well

signal

an

important change

in the

organiza-

tion of

production.

CONSTRUCTION FILL

An

impressive

amount

of construction

of all kinds

was

carried out

at Tikal

during

its

1500-year

occupation,

reaching

its

peak

during

the

Classic Period when

the

Peripheral

area was

developed

(Puleston

1983)

and

the

center of

power

was re-established

in

Group

5D-2,

the

civic-ceremonial

heart of the

city

(FIG.

4;

Coe

1990).

Con-

struction

of

earth,

adobe,

and rubble faced with

cut

stone

also occurred

in other

parts

of the

city

(e.g.,

Coe

and

Broman

1958;

Jones

1969;

Harrison

1970, 1993;

Haviland

1985)

and refuse was

nearly

always

incorporated

into

the fill. Besides

buildings

and

building

substructures,

earthen

fill was also

used

in

causeways

and

causeway para-

pets,

reservoir

embankments,

earthworks,

and raised

fields.

Tikal architecture

not

only

provided

the

impetus

for

the

local manufacture of

artifacts

of

chipped

stone

and

other

materials,

it also

provided

an

opportunity

to

dispose

of

production

waste.

Even

the

earliest

known

structures

in-

corporated

household

refuse and

debitage.

A

few

unusually

large

concentrations of

chert

and

obsid-

ian

debitage, misdesignated

as

"workshops,"

were

incor-

porated

into

the

substructure

fills of

temples

in

Group

5D-2

and

Group

7F-1

(Moholy-Nagy

1976:

102).

Debi-

tage

in

construction

fill

is more

dispersed

than

in

special

deposits

and often can

only be identified as production

area

residue

by

higher

counts

or

densities

when

compared

to

adjacent

excavation

units.

Ceramic

dating

showed

that

the

construction

fill

of

one

building

was

sometimes

reused as

the

fill

of

another.

The

recycling

of

domestic

and

production

refuse means

that

caution

must

be exercised

in

trying

to

assess the

relative

importance

of

production

activities

at

different

times and

in

different areas

at

a

large

site. At

best,

construction can

provide

a

cut-off date.

At

Tikal,

however,

primarily

because

of

structure

density

and the need for

earthen

architectural

fill,

movement

of

refuse

appeared

to be

predominantly

unidirectional:from the surfaceto beneath it, from smaller

structure

groups

to

larger

ones,

and from

the

peripheries

toward the center.

SUMMARY OF GENERAL

EXCAVATIONS

With the

notable

exception

of

chultuns,

debitage depos-

its in

general

excavations were

usually

smaller and more

dispersed

than those

in

special deposits.

They

were,

for the

most

part,

mixed with

ordinary

domestic

trash,

especially

quantities

of

potsherds.

Debitage

from

general

excavations was

predominantly



8/19/2019 7 Moholy Nagy 1997

10/22

Journal

of

Field

Archaeology/Vol.

4,

1997

301

~ 2- _-;;-~i~?LS~?"~CL~~~ -C-L?--~Ci;lLc~--rr~- "rurrrrf --

-"-

,- ---rrC-~s31~C-CL--r-

r?cR~

?rJF

,r

Z IC.

~"~?rr~mcr

J?rC~1Ic~-tr??-

zy~-- 4?---~'CY-C--,/2.-- I~J-L~--~L?u~l,

+-

i; ~t~~,tii

t ~lh*cr

~ i? \

?

--

.,..

Lz-

>\

?~t;L

r r -? .tb " ?,

7 r- -* 1

r~ ~- ~~rJc c

+-- 4 1

,.. ?e ?c? t a

f;S-

c

jl?'1(i~

~t

,,

r,

I?-4F"=tS---'~=-~~ I~;~. -- -

-

-?t)e

?2,

1? :

i

ItZILT: \

I

1=-__ ,

~

"

~ '~3C~1`- -C~jT~l`iS

,-

f t ~s~dr~lTU I I

1 .

'1 \\

I

'7

~

r

-t

(It

d1

`C*r

\t

4?

f-~-~-? L~ 1WI r '3 ,

"

rr

~\

r

r. 7- r

*j ~, Q

ll~i

2' t

?

~r?

c.~41PI~FI~

?:

~'biti

~I 1~

kr

r

r?? ~Cr;~ I I L' P'... t

L( ~

4 (?

ii"

r??l~j?*

~C

R

i 1

:

ii

y I

' j

c*??~?i~SCj' ??

r:d;Tr~3E~ ~ rl t

'T1?1J- ;i

ayc-

I,

r,

: It

~i~ ??7

1, II C

* '$;J

trt

r ? ii- 4 1

~?-r C

-

I

r ? L;; '"J~?:c???;~h?l~,~;)li'

~` ~C~-- ----=====_?-_~---c-~,..'

-~------7\

O

I

-r*

r ?:~

, ?

O

I

r r

go

r't i

?I

i ' '

Figure

4.

A

reconstruction

by

H.

Stanley

Loten

of

Group

5D-2,

the civic-ceremonial

heart of

Tikal,

as

it

appeared

at

the

end

of

the

Classic Period.

The

bird's-eye

view is from

behind

the

North

Acropolis,

south over

the

Great

Plaza to

Group

5D-11,

the Central

Acropolis,

with

Str.

5D-5,

Great

Temple

V,

and

the

South

Acropolis

in the distance.

Str.

5D-1,

Great

Temple

I,

is the

tall

building

at the east

edge

of the Great Plaza.

The

temples

on

the

north-south central axis

of the North

Acropolis

are

Str.

5D-22,

the

barely

discernible

Str.

5D-26,

and Str.

5D-33,

at the northern

edge

of the

Great

Plaza

(Coe

1967:

25-26).

from the

production

of domestic

artifacts,

non-elite status

markers,

and

elite status markers

made

of

unrestricted

materials

like

white

marine and freshwater

mussel

shell,

and bone. Rare

and scattered chert

and

obsidian eccen-

trics,

bits of

jade

and

slate,

and

fragments

of

Spondylus

hell

have also

been recovered

(TABLES

,

4).

I

have

interpreted

these

to

mean that

status,

as well as

domestic,

artifact

production

was

carried

on in

small

residential

groups

in

the

Central

area

around the

monumental

Epicenter

of the

city.

Production

waste

in

general

excavations

is

usually

of

small size and scattered occurrence.

Material from

general

excavations,

especially

at

large

sites,

should also be

screened

in

order

to recover

the full

range

of

durable

materials

worked

and to

identify

areas of

production

(Healan,

Kerly,

and

Bey

1983;

Widmer

1991;

Healan

1995).

Special

Deposits

An

unexpected

result

of

the

study

of Tikal

material

culture was

the

identification of

debitage

in

special

depos-



8/19/2019 7 Moholy Nagy 1997

11/22

302

Craft

Production

at

Tikal,


its.

Production

waste included substances used

only

by

the

elite,

such as

jade, specular

hematite,

and

Spondylus

hell,

as

well as

large

quantities

of chert and obsidian.

Field

iden-

tifications


debitage

were

confirmed

by

experienced

stone

knappers

(Don

E.

Crabtree,

personal

communication, 1976;

John

E.

Clark,

personal

communi-

cation, 1984;

William

J.

Parry,

personal

communication,

1984)

and

I

regard

them

as

conclusive.

SPECIAL-PURPOSEDUMPS

Special-purpose

dumps

are

intentional

deposits

com-

posed primarily

or

exclusively

of one

kind

of

production

waste,

incorporating

little or

no

domestic trash and none

of the

offerings

associated

with

caches

and

burials.

Two of

Classic Period date

were

recognized,

one

in

Group

4F-1

and

designated

PD. 217

(Haviland

1985:

158-159,

figs.

30, 31),

and one in

Group 7F-1, designated

PD.

37

(Moholy-Nagy

1976:

102).

They

were

classified

as

"prob-

lematical

deposits"

because

their

relationship

to

artifact

production

was not understood at the time of their

discov-

ery.

They

consisted of

shallow

pits

dug

into the

surfaces of

building

platforms

that

were

filled with

obsidian

debitage

from

the manufacture of

prismatic

blades,

and

then

buried

by

later construction. Some

1354

pieces

of

obsidian

were

recorded from PD.

217;

602

pieces

of obsidian

and

24

of

chert were

recorded

from

PD. 37. The

purpose

of these

secondary

refuse

aggregates

(Wilson

1994)

appears

to

have

been the

disposal

of obsidian

manufacturing

debris.

CACHES

Votive caches were

associated almost

exclusively

with the

elite.

Caches

were

frequently

placed

beneath

stone stelae

(FIG.5)

and

in

temples

FIG.

6),

and

occasionally

with

range

structures

or

palaces,

which are

generally

assumed to have

been

elite

residences.

First

appearing during

the

early

Late

Preclassic Period

(ca.

400

B.C.),

caches

persisted

in

various

forms until

the end of the

Classic

Period

(Coe

1990:

926-930). They

usually

consisted of a

specially-con-

structed

repository

that

contained

a

standard and

predict-

able

assemblage

of

durable artifactsand

natural

objects

of

restricted use, and often included considerable quantities

of

debitage

of

chert, obsidian,

jade

and

other fine

stone,

and

Spondylus

hell

(FIGS.

,3).

Fine stone and shell

debitage

only

occurred

during

the

Early

and

Intermediate Classic

Periods,

when caches

and their contents

were most

numer-

ous and diverse.

Even

though

much

cached

debitage

was

of materials

governed

by

sumptuary

rules,

all of

it

may

have been

locally produced

in

response

to elite

demand for

large

quantities

of

artifacts.

Local

production

is

suggested by

a

handful of

fragmentary

chert and obsidian

eccentrics,

bits

St.P9

Alt.P5

.;

Cca.41

0

1

2M

NJA

Figure

5.

Cache 41 of

Stela

P9,

located

in

front of

the substructure

of Str. 5D-32. This

Early

Classic

Period monument

cache included

quantities

of

chert, obsidian,

jade,

and

Spondylus

hell

debitage,

as

well as eccentrics


(after

Coe

1990:

fig.

204).

of

jade,

and

Spondylus

shell

fragments

recovered from

general

excavationsin some

small

residential

groups.

The

obsidian

debitage

deposited

in

caches

could be

securely

identified

as

deriving

from

prismatic

blade

pro-

duction

and

the

fashioning

of

eccentrics

from

exhausted

prismatic

blade

cores.

The

cached

chert

debitage

was

less

distinctive

and at

present

we

can

only say

that it

resulted

from

the

production

of

bifaces of

local

chert,

presumably

also

including

eccentrics.

Sometimes,

but

not

invariably,

chert and

obsidian

debitage

occurred with chert

and

ob-

sidian

eccentrics. This

association

suggests

that waste

from

the

manufacture of

ceremonial

artifacts of

restricted

use

was

interred

with

the finished products, but thirty years

ago

it did not

occur

to

anyone

to

test.this

notion

through

refitting.

Problematical

Deposit

33,

combining

the

characteristics

of a

cache

and

a

special-purpose

dump,

was

placed

in

Structure

5D-33 of

Group

5D-2

during

Intermediate

Classic times

(FIG.

6;

Coe

1990:

517-518,

fig.

9b).

This

large

pit

contained

approximately

200

pieces

of

chert

debitage

and

over

3000

of

obsidian,

as

well as more

typical

cache

materials,

such as

eccentric

obsidians,

red

pigment,

charcoal,

and

shells.

Sometimes

offerings

in

structures

included

domestic

refuse. These were usually classified as problematical de-

posits,

that

is,

as

special

deposits

of

uncertain function.

A

search

through

the literature turned

up

no

specific

identifications

of

production

waste in

caches

at

other Low-

land

Maya

sites.

Nevertheless,

published

descriptions

indi-

cate that

debitage

of

various kinds was

deposited

in

Classic

Period

caches

in

at least

two cities

that were

probably

on

the

second

level of

their

regional

settlement

hierarchies:

Tikal's

nearest

large

neighbor,

Uaxactun,

and Altun

Ha

in

Belize

(FIG.

).

Monument

and structure

caches at

Uaxac-

tun

contained

"flint

chips"

and

nodules,

obsidian

flakes



8/19/2019 7 Moholy Nagy 1997

12/22

Journal

of

Field

Archaeology/Vol.

4,

1997

303

PD.33

ot

.

,

.C..o

0

1

2M

Bu.24

Bu.23

Bu.48

Figure

6. A detail of the section

through

the

substructure

of

Str.

5D-33,

which shows

Problematical

Deposit 33, an Intermediate Classic Period deposit consisting predominantly of obsidian chipping

waste;

Burial

24,

a vaulted

Intermediate

Classic chamber burial within the fill of

the

temple

substruc-

ture;

Burial

23,

a

vaulted


chamber burial

partly

cut into

bedrock;

and Burial

48,

an

Early

Classic chamber burial

entirely

excavated from bedrock.

Layers

of

chert

and

obsidian

debitage

had been

placed

on and above

the

capstones

of

Burials

23

and

24,

but were not associated with Bur-

ial 48

(after

Coe 1990:

fig.

9b).

and

cores,

jade,

and

unspecified

shell

(Ricketson

and Rick-

etson 1937:

152-153,

171, 187, 197,

plate

67e;

Smith

1950:

92).

Stelae were

not

erected

at

Altun

Ha,

but its

structure caches

included chert

debitage,

obsidian cores

and

other

debitage, jade,

specular

hematite,

nacreous

shell,

and

unspecified

shell

(Pendergast

1979:

85-86,

150-151;

1982:

34, 46-47, 81,

121;

1990:

119,

128, 138, 184,

198, 199, 231-232, 250-252, 286-288, 364,

370).

BURIALS,

CHAMBER

BURIALS,

AND

CACHES

IN

BURIALS

The residents of Tikal received various

types

of

burials,

as

would

be

expected

in

a ranked

society.

As in some

other

areas

of

the

world,

the

most

important

persons

were

given

specially

constructed

mortuary repositories,

often

called

tombs.

I refer to them here as

chamber

burials,

equivalent

to

the

"Chamber

a"

type

burials

defined for Uaxactun

(Smith

1950:

88). Special deposits

that

included

human

remains

were

classified

as

problematical

deposits

if

it was

unclear

if

they

had been intended as

votive

offerings

or

burials.

Only rarely

was

production

waste found within

graves

of

any

kind.

In

the few

cases where it

did

occur,

it

is

more

useful to

regard

it as

part

of

a

cache rather than

as burial

furniture. Caches were

occasionally placed

in elite burials

during

the

Early

and


Periods.

Usually

they

included the

specialized

lidded

pottery

jars

and flar-

ing-sided

bowls

characteristic of

contemporary

caches

(Culbert

1993:

fig. 21b-j,

31,

45).

Their

contents were

also

similar to

those

in

monument and structure

caches,

including

debitage

of

Spondylus

hell and

jade

and

specular

hematite

(Coe

1990:

121,

484).

The

caches

placed

within chamber burials at

Tikal

may



8/19/2019 7 Moholy Nagy 1997

13/22

304

Craft

Productionat

Tikal,


Table

5.

Group

5D-2

Protoclassic

and Classic Period

chamber

burials.

The

numbers in

parentheses

refer to

pages

in

Coe 1990. The

principal subjects

of these burials were either male

or

unidentifiable.

All were extended

and

supine,

unless

otherwise noted

(after

Coe

1990:

chart

1).

Ceramic

Exterior

Relation

to

Burial

(pages) complex

Position

of

principal debitage deposit

Chamber Axial

associated

tructure

8 (487-490) Imix Robbed,backfilled No Vaulted JustW Intruded

196

(641-646)

Imix Head

to

W Yes

Vaulted

Slightly

W

Dedicatory

116

(604-609)

Imix Head

to

N

Yes

Vaulted N of axis

Intruded

24

(540-543) Ik

Head to

N

Yes

Vaulted Yes

Intruded

23

(536-540)

Ik

Head

to

N

Yes Vaulted

Slightly

W

Intruded

195

(565-568)

Ik

Head

to

N No

Vaulted

Yes

Dedicatory

200

(399-405)

Ik

Robbed,

backfilled Yes

Vaulted Yes

Intruded

48

(118-123)

Manik3A

Bundled,

eated No

Bedrock No

Intruded

10

(479-487)

Manik

3A Head to

N

Yes

Bedrock Yes

Dedicatory

22

(397-399)

Manik3A Head

to

N

No

Slab roof Yes

Intruded

125

(335-337)

Cimi Head

to

E

Yes Beam

roof Yes Intruded

be

analogous

to

caches

placed

beneath burial chamber

floors at Altun Ha.

Some of

these

included chert

"chipping

waste,"

fragments

of

jade

and

specular

hematite that

may

be

debitage,

and bits of

Spondylus

nd

other shells

(Pender-

gast

1982:

52-72,

116).

Specular

hematite and

jade

frag-

ments were

also

reported

from within

chamber

burials at

Altun Ha

(Pendergast

1979:

61-85,

1982:

102,

112-

116).

DEPOSITS

XTERIOR O

CHAMBER

URIALS

Large

accumulations

of

chert and

obsidian

debitage

had

been

placed

around

and over

eight

of

Tikal's excavated

chamber burials. Burial 125

dates to the

Protoclassic Pe-

riod;

the rest

to

the

Classic Period.

Seven occurred

in

the

monumental

center,

Group

5D-2

(TABLE

5).

The

eighth,

Burial

77,

came from

adjacent

Group

5D-10,

an

elite

residential

group

of

range

structures

(Harrison

1963;

Coe

1967:

74-75).

Altogether,

11

Protoclassic

and

Classic Period

chamber

burials were

investigated

in

Group

5D-2

(Coe

1990:

118-

123,

335-337,

397-405, 479-490,

536-543,

565-568,

604-609,

641-646).

The

debitage deposits

with seven of

these

burials were

by

far the

largest

found in

Tikal;

so

large

that

they

were not

completely

recovered or

recorded.

Chert

and obsidian were interred in

the same

deposit,

although by weight

there

was

more chert than

obsidian.

The chert

component

consisted

predominantly

of

biface

thinning

flakes,

with some

decortication

flakes, cores,

chunks,

and unfinished

artifacts. The earliest

deposit,

with

Burial

125,

also included chert blade

cores.

The

obsidian

debitage

consisted

predominantly

of small

percussion

flake-blades,

with some

exhausted

prismatic

blade

core

fragments,

unused

pressure

blades,

macroblade and flake

fragments

from

large polyhedral

cores,

and

the

distinctive,

transverseflakes

generated

in

making

eccentrics

from

blade

cores. The core

eccentrics themselves

were

identified

in

two

deposits,

those with

Burials

10

and

23.

The earlier

deposits

consisted of

layers

of

chert

incorpo-

rating

clusters of

obsidian,

separated by

earthen fill

mixed

with

stones,

plaster,

and

other

construction

material

(FIG.

7).

In

contrast

to

the

midden and

chultun

deposits

de-

scribed

earlier,

no used

artifacts,

and

only

small

quantities

of little

sherds,

the kind of rubbish

that

would be

picked

up

by

sweeping,

were

included in the

debitage layers.

The

two

latest and

largest deposits,

both of the

Late

Classic

Period,

consisted

of

batches of

chert and

obsidian

placed

within

construction fill.

One of

these,

in

the fill

that

sealed

the

entry

to

Burial

116 in

Structure 5D-1

(FIG.

8; Coe

1990:

607,

figs.

258,

259),

was

reconstructed

as

follows:

...

two

fills,

U.

21

and

especially

U.

24,

contained

myriad

pockets

and narrow

strata

of flint

flakesand obsidian

scrap.

A

goodly

handful f

these

items was

continually potted

every

half-meter

or

so

throughout

U. 24.

Rarely

did flint

and

obsidian

ntermix,however,

and

clusters

and scattersof flint

were

numerically

more

frequent.

Obsidianwasmore common

below

Fl. 2B

level

than

flint.

Obviously,

with

separate

asket-

loads

of

obsidian

and flint

nearby,

someone

intermittently

tossed

handfuls nto fill

being

loaded

in,

and

did

so

over a

distance

of

no

less

than 12

m.

Confined

unnel-work

nques-

tionably

managed

to

intersect

only

a small

proportion

of

material

present.

A

ton

of

esoterically

istributed

lint-per-

hapsa quarterof a ton of obsidian-may not be far off the

mark

(Coe

1990:

607).

One

problem

with

very

large

deposits

is that

usually they

were

only

recorded as

weights

(if

they

were recorded at

all),

while

smaller

quantities

of

production

refuse

were

usually only

counted.

A

preliminary,

averaged

conversion

figure

of 5.8

grams

for a

piece

of

chert

biface

production

waste and 0.6

grams

for a

piece

of

obsidian blade

produc-

tion waste

was

derived from an

analysis

of the

debitage

placed

with Burial 125. If

these

figures

are

applied

to the



8/19/2019 7 Moholy Nagy 1997

14/22

Journal of

Field

Archaeology/Vol.

4,

1997

305

SBu.10

7n

N.

CI

c

~~3

B O O Y ?

u~lN

Figure

7.

A

section

through

Burial 10

of the

Early

Classic

Period,

which

was

excavated into

bedrock. It

was

dedicatory

to Str.

5D-34,

which

was

built

directly

over it.

Numbers

1-7

show the

locations of

seven

large deposits

of chert and

obsidian

debitage

that

were included

in

the

earthen

fill

between the

layers

of

marl and stones

sealing

the

entrance to the

chamber

(after

Coe

1990:

fig. 154).

Figure

8.

A

section

through

Late Classic Burial

116,

a vaulted

chamber

in-

truded into Str.

5D-1

and

partly

excavated into bedrock. Clusters of

chert and

obsidian

debitage

occurred in

the

fill

directly

over the

capstones

of the burial

chamber

and in Units 21

and 24 of the

substructure

fill

above it. This

deposit

of lithic

waste was one of the

largest

encountered at the site and is estimated to

have

included

about a ton of chert

and a

quarter

of a ton of obsidian

(after

Coe

1990:

fig.

259).

U . 2 1

t

'

U.24

',r

,,

'

:r

I

,~

,,

S1

Bu.116.

W

/1



8/19/2019 7 Moholy Nagy 1997

15/22

306

Craft

Production

at

Tikal,


N

I

Ca 140

A

:

B

0

1

2M

I I

I

Figure

9.

A

section

through

Cache140AandB of the

Early

Classic

Period,

which

had

been

intruded

nto

Str.

5D-22.

Cache 140B

was

deposited

at the

entry

to a small

chamber,

Cache

140A,

and consisted

of over 2800

pieces

of obsidian

debitage

among

which

were

chert

and obsidian ccentrics.Cache140Aincluded he remains f a croco-

dile,

a

turtle,

and a

large

snake,

and associated

fferings

of chert and

obsidian

eccentrics,

bsidian

blade

cores,

jade

and

Spondylus

hell debi-

tage, specially-madeottery

cache

vessels,

and

many

other

objects(af-

ter Coe 1990:

fig.

104).

Burial 116

deposit,

then the

latter included at least

157,000

pieces

of chert

and at

least

380,000

pieces

of

obsidian.

Also of

considerable interest

is a

deposit

of

over

2800

fragments

of

obsidian

debitage placed

exterior to the re-

pository

of

what came to

be

designated

as Cache

140A and

B

(FIG.

9; Coe 1990: fig. 104). The arrangement was, in

fact,

a

scaled-down version

of

that found with the contem-

porary

chamber

burial,

Burial 10

(FIG. 7;

Coe 1990:

fig.

154),

although

the

remains found in Cache 140 were not

human but

reptile:

a

large

crocodile, turtle,

and

snake.

Debitage deposits

exterior to

chamber burials have been

reported

from

other

important

Classic Period Lowland

centers,

none of which

had notable

surface concentrations

of

debitage.

They

were

found

at

Uaxactun,

Rio

Azul,

Altun

Ha,

Lamanai,

Caracol,

and Altar de

Sacrificios

(Hall

1989: table

16),

at Buenavista del

Cayo (Taschek

and Ball

1992:

492),

and

apparently

in

looters' trenches at

Nakbe

(Hansen, Bishop, and Fahsen 1991: 239). Obsidian waste

was

included

with

chert at Lamanai

(Hall

1989:

217),

Caracol

(Hall

1989:

259),

Buenavista

del

Cayo,

and Tikal.

Although

these

exterior burial

deposits usually incorporate

tiny potsherds,

charcoal,

and

other small-scale

sweepings,

it

is

important

to note

they

do

not

include

any

of

the other

kinds of

trash

found

in

household middens. The

only

possible exception

that

I

know of

is

a

group

of

11

finished,

used artifacts and

fragments

from Tomb 19 at Rio

Azul.

These were

large

chert bifaces that

appear

to be

worn-out

construction

tools and

may

have been

used to

construct

the

tomb

(Hall

1989:

83-86,

figs.

32-33).

There

has been a certain amount of

speculation

about

the

purpose

of these

large

lithic

deposits.

The chert

and

obsidian may have been regarded as symbolic of the loca-

tion of the burial in the

Maya

7 moholy nagy 1997

Documents