7 Moholy Nagy 1997

Maney Publishing
Middens, Construction Fill, and Offerings: Evidence for the Organization of Classic Period
Craft Production at Tikal, Guatemala
Author(s): Hattula Moholy-Nagy
Source: Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Autumn, 1997), pp. 293-313
Published by: Maney Publishing
Stable 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 support@jstor.org.
Maney Publishing is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Field
Archaeology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:06:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
293
Middens, Construction Fill, and Offerings:

Evidence for the Organization of
Classic Period Craft Production at
Tikal, Guatemala
HattulaMoholy-Nagy
University of Pennsylvania Museum
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Theproduction of artifacts ofstone, shell, and boneat Tikal, an important center in the
SouthernMaya Lowlands, created quantities of durable waste, referredto as debitage.
Yetdebitage is not a reliable indicator ofproduction area becauseof the spatiallyflexible
nature of Prehispanictechnologyand site-maintenance activities that shifted manufacturing debrisinto secondarycontexts.Nevertheless,debitage, even in secondarycontext,
providesimportant information on the organization of craft production at Tikal,particularly during the ClassicPeriod (ca. A.C.250-850). Most crafts were organized as
householdindustries, carried on by independent,part-time specialistsliving in the central area that surrounded the monumental coreof the city. Theelite probablysupported
somefull-time production to satisfy their demandsfor statusgoods and toolsfor construction projects.Expedientproduction by nonspecialists,using locallyavailable materials
such as chert and bone, occurredat all times.
Production waste was recoveredfrom the constructionfill ofpublic and residential architecture,and from householdmiddens, mixed with domestictrash. Thelargest concentrations, however,werefound exterior to elite chamberburials and within cachedofferings. Thedelayed identification of debitagefrom ritual contextsexemplifiesthe reflexive
nature of the way archaeologistsclassifymaterial culture and their interpretationsof the
contextsfrom 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 evidence 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 account 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 production 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 production. Furthermore, their value as data is significantly enhanced by considering them together with the archaeological 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 archaeological record: chert and obsidian, which were predominantly 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 artifacts 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

294 Craft Productionat Tikal, Guatemala/Moholy-Nagy
NORTHERN
LOWLANDS
'
SOUTHERNLOWLANDS
AltunHa
Nakbe o
Rio
Azulo
Lamanai
oUaxactun
Tikal o
o Buenavista del Cayo
oCaracol
Altarde Sacrificios
HIGHLANDS
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 complex 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 production. From ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological observations 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 artifacts, 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 organization (e.g., Clark 1986: 45-46; Costin 1991: 8-9;
Santley and Kneebone 1993: 41). Costin's neutral term,

"production area,"is more appropriatehere.
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 specialpurpose 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-spatial flexibility of production technology and site maintenance behavior-make the identification of production
areas especially difficult. The manufacture of most kinds of
artifacts did not require installations substantial or distinctive enough to leave archaeological traces. Most Prehispanic 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 material and the fabrication 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 production, 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 production, especially manufacturing by-products-need to be
distinguished. Such a distinction is usually made by ceramists (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

24, 1997 295

Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol.
Table 1. Chronological chart (after Coe 1990: chart 1; Jones and

Satterthwaite 1982: table 1).
Period
Early Postclassic
Terminal Classic
Late Classic
Intermediate Classic
Early Classic
Protoclassic
Late Preclassic (late)
Late Preclassic (early)
Middle Preclassic (late)
Middle Preclassic (early)
Long Count
10.3.0.0.0
9.13.0.0.0
9.8.0.0.0
8.11.0.0.0
-
Date
Ceramics
950 A.C.
Caban
A.C.
A.C.
A.C.
A.C.
Eznab
Imix
Ik
Manik
889
692
593
250
170 A.C.
Cimi
1 A.C.
350 B.C.
600 B.C.
800 B.C.
Cauac
Chuen
Tzec
Eb
with artifacts made by reduction techniques to conflate

production area and 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 subsequent efforts to interpret the organization of production. 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 production.
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 occurrence in large quantities and densities, debitage of materials that were either locally available or imported in abundance, by-products of manufacture that are technologically
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 provide indirect evidence about organizational aspects of production, such as standardization, efficiency, skill, and regional 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 craft production.
Tikal ProjectData
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.250-850, 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 approximatelyconcentric 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 Epicenter. 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

Table 2. Counts of Classic Period provenienced and dated artifacts, debitage, and unworked objects.
Material
Total
Artifacts
Debitage
Unworked
Chert
Obsidian
Jade
Slate/shale
72,977
65,920
13,334
305
6,642
8,782
7,611
132
66,335
57,138
5,723
164
Unrecorded
None
None
9
81.2
93.8
96.9
88.0
Spondylus
Other shell
Bone
7,393
4,286
8,912
3,681
1,111
907
3,652
203
463
60
2,972
7,542
66.6
93.2
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 offerings 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 expectations 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 materials. 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 exported products, although we are hampered here by a lack
of information from other sites in the region. The economic importance of Tikal as a producer and distributor of
goods is also indicated by the presence and spatial distribution 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
3,4)
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 records of these deposits to published descriptions (Coe
1990), it became clear that most deposits had only been
sampled and none were completely recovered and documented. We probably recorded about one-tenth of the
debitage encountered.
Excavations were carried out at a time when archaeologists studying the Prehispanic Maya had little interest in
fine-grained analyses of production and consumption.
%Classic Period
Only special deposits, such as offerings and burials, were

screened. Volume was not specifically calculated for excavated 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 materialculture precludes the
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. Nevertheless, 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 availableand imported raw materials occur
in high quantities at Tikal. Among the durable raw materials 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 finetextured chert and gray and green obsidian were used
primarilyfor utilitarianartifacts, 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, artifactmanufacture, and ritual
behavior account for virtually all of the artifacts and pro-

24, 1997 297

250000
200000
150000
Bone
100000
Othershell
_Spondylus
Slate/shale
Jade
50000-
Obsidian
E
E
_
n
O,
>
C
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, respectively, 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, fragmentary 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 material residues of production, such as cores, flakes, preforms,
shatter, and microdebitage, unworked pieces of raw material, 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, nonetheless, 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 absence of use-wear. The development of sequential or behavioral 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 artifactsand waste formed by reduction. Behavioral typology enables us to distinguish between finished products, reworked artifacts, manufacturing 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 polyhedral 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

4500.000
4000.000
3500.000
3000.000
2500.000
2000.000
Bone
Othershell
1500.000
Spondylus
1000.000
Slate/shale
500.000
Jade
0.000
Obsidian
"+
S
E
E
a3
eChert
_
.E
-E--
0.
-0
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 expedient 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. Offerings 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.

Context
Exterior deposit*
Monument cache
Structure cache
Chamber burial
Other burial
Problematical deposit
Special-purpose dump
General excavations
Totals
* Estimated
Chert
Obsidian
Jade
116,820
1,707
3,663
4
228,243
9,217
14,112
83
242
4,921
304
39
3,059
879
41,850
16
6,620
1,953
2,392
35
214
7
152
5,723
164
168,021
262,636
Slate/shale
-
Spondylus
-
1
3
-
Bone
Excavated
lots
55
54
185
32
50
3,503
16
12
1
37
34
12
3
18
169
455
206
319
19
9,725
3,652
203
463
10,673
Other shell

3
3

24, 1997 299
Table 4. Density of Classic Period debitage by recovery context as counts per excavated lot.
Context
Chert
Obsidian
2124.000
31.611
19.800
0.125
4149.873
170.685
76.281
2.594
Other burial
Problematical deposit
Special-purpose dump
General excavations
0.189
9.589
46.283
4.303
Per lot of total excavated
15.743
Exterior deposit*
Monument cache
Structure cache
Chamber burial
Slate/shale
Jade
Other shell
Spondylus
Bone
4.481
26.600
9.500
0.019
0.016
-
0.926
18.935
0.500
0.065
0.031
0.078
20.752
102.789
0.246
0.170
0.671
0.025
0.180
0.107
0.015
0.056
0.001
0.016
0.001
0.017
0.047
24.608
0.536
0.015
0.342
0.019
0.043
0.009
-
0.036
0.016
* Estimated
kinds of activities sometimes occurred together in the same

context.
Recovery Contexts
Recovery context is an inference, made by the researcher, about the archaeological setting in which materials 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 deposited, 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, specially prepared repositories, and their material contents are
regarded as in primary context. A special deposit is considered 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 indicative of social status (Hendon 1987: 118). At Tikal, as
an illustration of how contents can influence assessments of
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 problematical 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,their periods 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 unknown 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).
GeneralExcavations
UNINCORPORATED MIDDENS
Surface scatters and more dense, buried deposits of

materialwere 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.850-950, household rubbish 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 structure groups were kept clean, not only because refuse was
considered a hindrance, but also because their paved surfaces diverted rain water into natural and artificial reservoirs (Harrison 1993).
In addition to household refuse and what may be disturbed human burials, general excavation contexts also
included production refuse mixed with domestic trash.

Most of the debitage was of local chert from the production 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 (TABLES3, 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 intermingling of debitage from different industries. The spatial
distributions suggest craft specialization by residential
group, even for the production of domestic goods. The
heterogeneous characterof Tikal midden deposits is exemplified 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 debitage, fragments of domestic artifact types of chert, obsidian, ground stone, pottery figurines, censer fragments, and
over 300 pounds of potsherds (Moholy-Nagy 1994: 116117).
Large quantities of obsidian debitage mixed with domestic refuse were less common than chert. The more
restricted spatial distribution of obsidian debitage in general 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). Several 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, decortication 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 Peripheralarea 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 organization 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). Construction 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 parapets, 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 incorporated household refuse and debitage.
A few unusually large concentrations of chert and obsidian debitage, misdesignated as "workshops," were incorporated into the substructure fills of temples in Group
5D-2 and Group 7F-1 (Moholy-Nagy 1976: 102). Debitage 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, primarilybecause
of structure density and the need for earthen architectural
fill, movement of refuse appeared to be predominantly
unidirectional: from the surface to 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 deposits 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

Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol.24, 1997 301
- -"j~Ci;lLc~--rr~~ --r-2- _-;;-~i~?LS~?"~CL~~~

1 -C-L?-,- ---rrC-~s31~C-CL
rr?c
-R~ C
,r
?rJF
"rurrrrf
?zy~-- 4?---~'CY'C--,/2.-- I~J-L~--~L?u~l,

J?rC~1Ic~-tr??rrr~
+--
1~-r-
4 ?e
,..
r -?
i;
Lz-
.tb "
~~rJc
c?c?
t
--
~t~~,tii
(?
I--
+-
f;S-
a
jl?'1(i~
I~;~.
I?-4F"=tS---'~=-~~
--
ItZILT:
,,
--
'~3C~1`-
1?
I
t ~s~dr~lTU
1!
L~
R
~
L'
P'...
'
~, Q
C
*1
: It
II
1~
;i
~`
~
rr
i1
rl
n '~\
L(
(?
\t
?: ~'biti
~I
1,
? ii-
'3
r
ayc-
"
z
c.~41PI~FI~
r:d;Tr~3E~
'T1?1J-
r?
1WI
kr
r??
~Cr;~
4
ii"
~C
rc*??~?i~SCj'
??
r: r??l~j?
I.
'* iijy!
r `C*r
d1 -t
(It
C4?
72'
?
~r?
\\
'7
r.
?ll~i
'1
f-~-~-?
*j
?2,
I
I
-?t)e
:
,
"
-C~jT~l`iS
~t
r,
1=-__ ~
~
,-
~lh*cr
\
.,..i?
?~t;L
c
>\
1 ?,
-*
IC.\
~"~?rr~mcr
~i~
??7 r,
I,
'$;J
~?-r
!trt
L;; '"J~?:c???;~h?l~,~;)li'
~C~--'O
----=====_?-_~---c-~,..
~'
-~------7\
-r*
?:~
,?
OI
r
go
r't
?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 eccentrics, bits of jade and slate, and fragments of Spondylusshell
have also been recovered (TABLES
3, 4). I have interpreted
these to mean that status, as well as domestic, artifact
production was carriedon 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).
SpecialDeposits
An unexpected result of the study of Tikal material
culture was the identification of debitage in special depos-

its. Production waste included substances used only by the

elite, such as jade, specular hematite, and Spondylusshell, as
well as large quantities of chert and obsidian. Field identifications of chert and obsidian debitage were confirmed
by experienced stone knappers (Don E. Crabtree, personal
communication, 1976; John E. Clark, personal communication, 1984; William J. Parry, personal communication,
1984) and I regard them as conclusive.
SPECIAL-PURPOSEDUMPS
St.P9
Alt.P5
.;
Cca.41
2M
NJA
Special-purpose dumps are intentional deposits composed 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 "problematical deposits" because their relationship to artifact
production was not understood at the time of their discovery. 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 occasionallywith 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-constructed repository that contained a standard and predictable assemblage of durable artifacts and natural objects of
restricted use, and often included considerable quantities
of debitage of chert, obsidian, jade and other fine stone,
and Spondylusshell (FIGS.
2,3). Fine stone and shell debitage
only occurred during the Early and Intermediate Classic
Periods, when caches and their contents were most numerous 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
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 Spondylusshell debitage, as
well as eccentrics of chert and obsidian (after Coe 1990: fig. 204).
of jade, and Spondylus shell fragments recovered from

general excavations in some small residential groups.
The obsidian debitage deposited in caches could be
securely identified as deriving from prismatic blade production 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 obsidian eccentrics. This association suggests that waste from
the manufacture of ceremonial artifacts of restricted use
was interred with the finished products, but thirty years
notion through
ago it did not occur to anyone to
test.this
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 deposits, 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 Lowland Maya sites. Nevertheless, published descriptions indicate 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.i). Monument and structure caches at Uaxactun contained "flint chips" and nodules, obsidian flakes

PD.33
ot
. ,
.C..o
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 substructure; Burial 23, a vaulted Intermediate Classic 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 Burial 48 (after Coe 1990: fig. 9b).
and cores, jade, and unspecified shell (Ricketson and Ricketson 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 rarelywas 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 Intermediate Classic Periods. Usually
they included the specialized lidded pottery jars and flaring-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 Spondylusshell and jade and specular
hematite (Coe 1990: 121, 484).
The caches placed within chamber burials at Tikal may

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).
Burial (pages)
8 (487-490)
196 (641-646)
116 (604-609)
24 (540-543)
23 (536-540)
195 (565-568)
200 (399-405)
48 (118-123)
10 (479-487)
22 (397-399)
125 (335-337)
Ceramic
complex
Imix
Imix
Imix
Ik
Ik
Ik
Ik
Manik3A
Manik3A
Manik3A
Cimi
Position of principal
Exterior
debitage deposit
Robbed,backfilled
Head to W
Head to N
Head to N
Head to N
Head to N
Robbed,backfilled
Bundled,seated
Head to N
Head to N
Head to E
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 Spondylusand other shells (Pendergast 1982: 52-72, 116). Specular hematite and jade fragments were also reported from within chamber burials at
Altun Ha (Pendergast 1979: 61-85, 1982: 102, 112116).
DEPOSITSEXTERIOR
TO CHAMBERBURIALS
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 Period; 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: 118123, 335-337, 397-405, 479-490, 536-543, 565-568,
604-609, 641-646). The debitage deposits with seven of
these burialswere 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
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Chamber
Axial
Vaulted
Vaulted
Vaulted
Vaulted
Vaulted
Vaulted
Vaulted
Bedrock
Bedrock
Slabroof
Beamroof
JustW
SlightlyW
N of axis
Yes
SlightlyW
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Relation to
associatedstructure
Intruded
Dedicatory
Intruded
Intruded
Intruded
Dedicatory
Intruded
Intruded
Dedicatory
Intruded
Intruded
cores. The core eccentrics themselves were identified in

two deposits, those with Burials 10 and 23.
The earlier deposits consisted of layers of chert incorporating 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 described 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 especiallyU. 24, containedmyriad
pockets and narrowstrataof flint flakesand obsidianscrap.
A goodly handfulof these itemswascontinuallyspottedevery
half-meteror so throughout U. 24. Rarelydid flint and
obsidianintermix,however,and clustersand scattersof flint
werenumericallymorefrequent.Obsidianwasmore common
below Fl. 2B level than flint. Obviously,with separatebasketloads of obsidian and flint nearby,someone intermittently
tossed handfulsinto fill being loaded in, and did so over a
distanceof no less than 12 m. Confinedtunnel-workunquestionably managed to intersect only a small proportion of
materialpresent.A ton of esotericallydistributedflint-perhaps a 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 production waste was derived from an analysis of the debitage
placed with Burial 125. If these figures are applied to the


24, 1997 305
CI
~~3
r
2M
_,~
SBu.10 BOO-Y?
7n
Bu~lN
N.
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 intruded 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.21
t '
U.24
,,
',r'
:r
,~
1
S1
2M
,,
(
Bu.116.
W /1

N I
Ca .140
2M
Figure9. A section throughCache 140A and B of the EarlyClassic

Period,which had been intrudedinto Str. 5D-22. Cache 140B was
depositedat the entry to a smallchamber,Cache 140A, and consisted
of over 2800 pieces of obsidiandebitageamongwhichwere chert
and obsidianeccentrics.Cache 140A includedthe remainsof a crocodile, a turtle, and a largesnake,and associatedofferingsof chert and
obsidianeccentrics,obsidianbladecores,jade and Spondylus
shell debitage, specially-made
potterycachevessels,and manyother objects(after 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 repository 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 contemporary 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 location of the burial in the Maya Underworld (Coe 1988:
232, cited in Hall 1989: 307-308) or symbolic of lightning bolts (Hall 1989: 308-309). Hall considers exterior
debitage deposits as markersof high status, observing that
they were placed outside burial chambers associated with
the largest mortuary temples (Hall 1989: 181, 191, 248).
It has also been suggested that lithic deposits might have
served as a warning to future construction workers that a
chamber burial was present (Hall 1989: 168; Coe 1990:
486). This seems especially doubtful, in so far as a warning
to future construction workers would also have served as a
reliable beacon for ancient grave-robbers,just as it does for
looters-and archaeologists-today (Hansen, Bishop, and
Fahsen 1991: 239).
The accumulations of chert and obsidian debitage
placed with chamber burials, as well as with other kinds of
special deposits, may well have been regarded as a kind of
offering. Chert and obsidian, as raw materials, had symbolic significance for Classic Period Mesoamericans. In the
Southern Maya Lowlands, flaked chert and obsidian artifacts, so-called "eccentrics," which had purely ideotechnic
function, appearto have been made for the sole purpose of
being interred in special deposits. In Intermediate Classic
times, another exclusively ceremonial type evolved at Tikal,
a large flake or macroblade of obsidian with a symbol or a
deity incised on the ventral surface (Kidder 1947: figs. 70,
71; Coe 1967: 105).
At Tikal these ideotechnic forms occur almost exclusively in caches. A few eccentric obsidians, however, had
been included in at least two exterior burial deposits, those
associated with Burial 10 and Burial 23. To date, no
eccentric flints have been identified in these deposits, but
they may well have been overlooked. Usually eccentrics of
chert were placed with eccentrics of obsidian or with
incised obsidians. This pairing of chert and obsidian in the
same ceremonial context was also done with prismatic
blades and with debitage.
But even though the debitage may have been deposited
as an offering, it is still production waste and its origins
need to be considered. Quantity, stone type, and technology unequivocally confirm local artifact manufacture.
Therefore, in addition to constituting a kind of offering to
the subject of the chamber burial, I suggest that these
exterior deposits were a way to get rid of very large
quantities of chipping waste generated by craft specialists

who were producing artifacts for the construction of the

chamber burial, the funerary temple that covered it, and
for inclusion in the accompanying caches. Perhaps the
burial deposits also contain debitage from the manufacture
of artifacts for other purposes. If more chipping waste was
produced than could be accommodated on the household
middens of the knappers, then the excess may have been
removed and interred whenever an opportunity presented
itself. Such opportunities probably arose most often in the
construction of monumental architecture, which would
explain the concentration of lithic production refuse in the
construction fill and special deposits of the civic-ceremonial heart of the city.
At least three circumstances appear to support the primary purpose of exterior burial deposits as debitage
dumps, presumably rationalized as offerings:
1. The composition of the chamber burial debitage
deposits is almost identical to that of special-purpose lithic
dumps. It differs markedly from household middens by a
virtual absence of finished artifacts and a scarcity of sherds.
Furthermore, lithic debitage is the only artifactual type
that occurred commonly in both ceremonial and nonceremonial contexts.
2. Exterior debitage deposits do not appear to have a
patterned association with any other characteristics of
chamber burials (TABLE5). Of 11 chamber burials of the
Protoclassic and Classic Period from Group 5D-2, seven
had exterior deposits and four did not, indicating that
debitage was not an obligatory offering. There is no obvious pattern to the occurrence of debitage with the following variables: date, type of interment, number of persons
interred, position of the principal subject, type of chamber,
placement with regard to the building's axis, and temporal
relationship to the associated structure.
3. All known instances of Maya area chamber burials
with exterior deposits are from sites without surface accumulations of production waste. Exterior deposits have, so
far, been associated with chamber burials in civic-ceremonial structures in larger, nucleated sites on the primary and
secondary levels of their regional settlement hierarchies.
facture of elite status artifacts of those kinds of highly

valued raw materials of restricted use. Furthermore, the
contents of special deposits are more easily dated than
materials found in general excavations.
Recovery Context and Artifact Typology

Household refuse, debitage, and offerings usually occurred in different recovery contexts where, it is important
to note, their presence contributed to the classification of
the context. Objects usually associated with one kind of
context, however, were occasionally found in others. The
portability of material culture items poses a challenge to
their interpretation. Even where material can be securely
identified as debitage, its implications for the presence and
organization of craft production may be overlooked if it is
recovered from contexts where archaeologists do not expect it.
When debitage is included in a special deposit, such as a
cache or burial, context may completely override its identification. Usually it will be regarded as an offering, and
behavior other than artifact manufacture will be invoked
for its origin. With the exception of accidental inclusions,
all materials found in ceremonial contexts should be regarded as offerings. But the incorporation of debitage may
well have been opportunistic rather than obligatory. Disposal behavior was strongly affected by practicalconsiderations, such as the lack of space for the surface disposal of
large quantities of lithic waste or the need to keep from
commoners precious materials whose use was reserved for
the elite.
The delayed identification of debitage in offerings is a
good example of what Wobst (1978) referred to as "the
tyranny of the ethnographic record in archaeology." Disposal of production waste in ceremonial contexts has not
yet been incorporated into site formation theory; I was
unable to find any examples in the literature. To my
knowledge there are no ethnographic parallels for the
presence of production waste outside the chamber burials
or within the offerings given to a society's most revered
persons. Yet behavioral typology enables us to say with
certainty that that is what it is.
SUMMARY OF SPECIAL DEPOSITS
The contents of special deposits were of particularinterest because, in addition to objects usually identified as
offerings, they sometimes included durable production
waste. The largest accumulations were the chert and obsidian deposits placed exterior to chamber burials. Chert and
obsidian debitage also occurred in monument and structure caches. Additionally, cached production waste of jade,
other stones, and Spondylusshell testifyrto the local manu-
Debitage and the Organization

Production
of Craft
Debitage and its contexts of recovery can be employed

to summarize the organization of Classic Period craft
production in terms of four parameters discussed by
Costin (1991: 8-9; Costin and Hagstrum 1995: 620).
These parameters are context, which I will refer to here as
controlof production in order to distinguish it from recov-

ery context; intensity; composition; and concentration.

Available evidence can be applied best to the control and
intensity of production. Because of the portability of debitage and the absence of precisely located production areas,
I can say less about composition and concentration.
Control of Production
During the Classic Period, the demands of an elite class
directly affected the organization of craft production and
made Tikal the economic center of its region. The elite
promoted local production in at least two areas: status
display goods and tools for large-scale construction projects.
Inter-elite competition is seen as an important motivation for the production of various kinds of material culture
needed as markers of rank and authority, and used in
feasting and other civic-ceremonial rituals (Marcus 1992).
Elite demand and elite subsidies may have permitted some
artisans to devote all their time to the manufacture of high
status goods. They may have turned over to their patrons
by-products as well as finished artifacts, thus accounting
for the presence of debitage of precious materials in votive
contexts. At times even the producers of unrestricted,
domestic goods such as tools may have been able to work
full-time if the ruling class demanded the tools for special
projects.
In his discussion of the architecture of Group 5D-2, Coe
(1990: 875-916) presents estimates for the enormous
amount of material contained in this monumental structure group (FIG.4). Its total volume was ca. 275,000 cu m,
with construction fill accounting for 95% of this cumulative mass. Great numbers of tools and other artifactswould
have been needed to erect, renovate, and maintain this
complex. Classic Period construction fill consisted of tens
of thousands of crudely shaped stones combined with
adobe and domestic refuse. Thousands of well-finished
facing stones for buildings, stairways, and plaza pavements
were also employed, as well as wood for lintels, tie-beams,
scaffolding, one-piece and composite construction tools,
and fuel to calcine limestone for plaster. Chert and obsidian tools would also have been necessary to process perishable materials for the mats, baskets, and ropes used in
construction work.
The large population of commoners who sustained the
elite were themselves consumers of domestic and status
goods. All of Tikal's residents generated a steady demand
for utilitarian artifacts of local and imported raw materials,
which could have been supplied by local artisans.
The presence of jade, other fine stone, and Spondylus
debitage in recovery contexts associated with the elite
points to attached-that is, patronized-production in
these industries, a conclusion already indicated by their

exclusive use of these substances. The occurrence in general excavations of debitage of other kinds of shell, bone,
and slate suggests independent production in these materials.
The apparent contradiction between the prominent use
by the elite of certain types of slate artifacts, such as
pyrite-encrusted plaques, and the virtual absence of slate
debitage in special deposits, may indicate that slate plaques
were imported ready-made and that not much slate working went on at Tikal itself.
The occurrence of chert and obsidian debitage in both
special deposits and general excavations points to a more
flexible relationship between attached and independent
production than is usually proposed in the literature. The
manufacture of most chert and obsidian artifactswas probably independent of elite control, but artifact types of
restricted use, such as chert and obsidian eccentrics and
incised obsidians, may have been the products of attached
production. When quantities of stone tools for their own
projects were required, the elite may have patronized stone
knappers who usually worked independently.
Intensityof Production
Except for the expedient production of tools of local
chert and bone, all durable artifact production was carried
out by specialists. Expedient production is indicated by the
simple character of the artifacts, as well as by the lack of
skill and standardization (Costin 1991: 32). Expedient
artifactswere recovered from general excavations in virtually all areas of the site throughout its entire span of
occupation.
Part-time producers usually add the debris they generate
to their household trash (Clark and Kurashina 1981: 315;
Clark 1991: 72-73). Part-time specialization from at least
the late Middle Preclassic Period is indicated by the presence in household middens, chultuns, and construction fill
of debitage from the manufacture of common, standardized artifact types such as chert bifaces, obsidian prismatic blades, and bone awls and needles, and from the
production of lower-status artifacts of bone, and shell
other than Spondylus.
Special-purpose dumps are more characteristic of fulltime production that results in so much waste in a short
period of time that household middens cannot accommodate it. The debitage is taken away to a location where it
will not interfere with other activities (Gould 1981: 278;
Santley and Kneebone 1993: 47). Arnold et al. (1993:
184) observe that in intensified specialist production waste
disposal is often facilitated by communal dumps accessible
to several workshops.

24, 1997 309

Two patterns of debitage disposal suggest the presence

of some full-time specialization at Tikal in the Classic
Period. The first is the deposition of debitage in elite-associated recovery contexts: the large exterior burial deposits
of chert and obsidian debitage, the smaller lithic deposits
in caches and problematical deposits, and the inclusion of
waste of highly valued materials in caches and caches in
burials. This pattern implies patronage of artisans by the
elite that might have permitted full-time specialization.
Chert and obsidian knappers may have worked full-time
on those occasions when quantities of tools for special
projects were required. The presence of special-purpose
dumps is also suggestive. The second pattern is the recovery of debitage from two or more craft industries from the
same middens in some residential structure groups, especially from the Central area. Co-occurrence suggests the
possibility that several specialists making different goods,
or perhaps a single artisan with more than one specialty,
could have supported a family or larger kin group entirely
through the production of artifacts of various kinds of raw
material.
Composition
Santley and Kneebone (1993: figs. 1-3) specifically link
the quantity and disposal context of manufacturing waste
to variabilityin the composition of production units. Applying their findings to Tikal suggests that craft production
was organized as two, and probably three, of the types they
postulate for preindustrial complex societies:
1. unspecialized or expedient production by nonspecialists for personal or household use;
2. household industries, carried on by part-time specialists and directed toward supplementing household subsistence;
3. workshop industries, carried on by full-time specialists
working independently or under elite control.
The volume of goods and resulting debitage increases
with the type of production unit, and this, in turn, affects
the location of the production areas. Expedient and parttime production are usually carried on at the residence of
the producer. Full-time specialization can occur at home or
in a special facility, a workshop.
Midden deposits from general excavations indicate that
most of the production of domestic artifacts of chert,
obsidian, and bone, and lower-status artifacts of bone and
of shell other than Spondylus,was organized as a household
industry carried on by independent specialists, who
worked at their residences on a part-time basis.
The presence, however, of special-purpose dumps and
the large deposits external to chamber burials, also suggests that some chert and obsidian artifact production was
carried on at a higher level of organization, as a workshop

industry, staffed by full-time specialists working in specialpurpose settings or facilities, who used special-purpose
dumps to dispose of the large quantities of waste they
generated. Artisans in workshop industries may be either
attached or independent and at Tikal I propose that their
status varied with elite demands.
It is likely that production of high-status goods was
organized as a workshop industry. This is suggested by
elite consumption of the products, the level of skill required for some artifact types, the restricted use of some of
the raw materials, and perhaps the need for supervision to
prevent "slippage," the disappearanceof controlled goods
(Costin 1991: 16).
Concentration
In those cases where the actual production areas can no
longer be located, study of site formation processes can
help to construct an approximate spatial distribution of
production units. Hayden and Cannon (1983: 117) present three general considerations, derived from ethnoarchaeological observations, that govern the composition of
imperishable waste and its disposal locations. "Where the
garbage goes" (Hayden and Cannon 1983) and what it
consists of are dependent upon its actual and potential
value, the hindrance or hazard it poses, and the principle of
least effort in disposing of it. Accordingly, trash that can be
reused or recycled will go into storage or a context of
temporary discard. Special effort is made to dispose of
hazardous refuse, like glass; usually it is buried. Durable
waste is often disposed of in a two-stage process. It first
goes into storage in or near the house, and when enough
has accumulated to hinder other activities, it is moved into
a final deposition location (Clark 1991: 72; Killion 1990:
201-203; LeeDecker 1994: fig. 1). If a house is about to
be abandoned, what would ordinarily have been the temporary disposal area of refuse may become its final location
(Clark 1991: fig. 10). This observation has important
implications for the interpretation of archaeological "onfloor" materials. Rather than having been left where they
were made or used, they may well have been transported
from elsewhere to their temporary or final place of discard.
These general considerations suggest that refuse of substances of actual or potential value will be the least useful
indicator of concentration of production because it is the
most susceptible to curation and transportation. Large
quantities of durable debris created by intensive production, or debris regarded as hazardous, may also be transported from their area of production because of the hindrance they pose to other activities. Small to moderate
amounts of debitage of materials without high value that

are recovered from unincorporated middens are, however,

probably not far from the areas where they were created.
As Tikal's population grew during the course of the
Classic Period, domestic consumption and production created increased quantities of durable refuse when there was
less space available to dump it. Greater emphasis was put
on subsurface disposal. Ethnoarchaeological observations
on the importance of gardens and infields (Killion 1992)
and on the effect of houselot size on refuse disposal
(Killion 1990, 1992; Arnold 1990; Santley 1992) suggest
a more specific explanation for the subterraneandeposition
of most of Tikal's durable trash and debitage. The feeding
of a population of more than 62,000 persons must have
posed major problems. The map of Late Classic Tikal
(Carr and Hazard 1961; Puleston 1983: fig. 21) shows
considerable open space between structure groups, but
even if this land were truly vacant, it may not have been
used for dumping because it was needed for growing food.
At larger Lowland Maya sites, particularly those on the
upper levels of their settlement hierarchies, the need for
space for construction and other activities and the need for
space for food production may have generated considerable pressure for the underground disposal of all kinds of
refuse.
According to our present knowledge of the Lowland
Maya area, there appear to be two mutually exclusive
patterns of disposal of substantial quantities of lithic waste.
Large, readily visible surface accumulations of debitage
have, to date, been found only at smaller settlements on
the lower levels of their regional hierarchies (e.g., Taylor
1980; Shafer and Hester 1983; Hester and Shafer 1992). I
suggest this is because surface dumps at smaller sites would
not have posed a hindrance to other activities. On the
other hand, large buried aggregates of lithic debris have
only been reported from sites on the upper levels of their
regional settlement systems (Hall 1989: 246, table 16), all
of which have relatively higher densities of structures and
substantial public architecture.
Present evidence indicates that artifact production in
chert, obsidian, jade, Spondylus,other kinds of shell, and
bone was carried on in small structure groups in Tikal's
Central area. As noted above, production in several kinds
of raw materials took place in some groups, but not in
others. Debris was dumped on the household middens,
along with residues of other household activities. By-products of jade and other fine stone, and of Spondylusshell
were usually completely removed from the structure
group. But rare fragments suggest production in the Central area, perhaps under direct elite supervision, rather than
in the city's core where most of the debris was deposited.
At present we can only speculate about the production
areas of the chert and obsidian waste found with chamber

burials at the heart of the city. Hayden and Cannon's third
consideration, that of economy of effort, strongly suggests
that it would have been efficient to establish temporary
production areas in or near Group 5D-2, where nearly all
of the large deposits were found. Evidence for such an
arrangement in the form of small-sized debitage overlooked in clean-up might have been recovered by screening. It is also possible that lithic waste could have been
brought to the center from other areas, such as the small
structure groups of the Central area.
Conclusions
Debitage, even in secondary context, can be a reliable
indicator of local artifact manufacture. Furthermore, the
quantity of waste and the contexts from which it is recovered can provide important information about the organization of production. In describing the situation at Tikal, I
wish to emphasize the importance of taking into account
site size and social structure in hypotheses about craft
production. The kinds of materials worked, the quantities
of debitage produced, and the diversity of recovery contexts exemplify the problems of locating, identifying, and
interpreting debitage in large settlements of preindustrial
complex societies.
Both domestic and status artifact production went on at
Tikal. By the Classic Period, if not earlier, there existed a
reliable demand for goods, as well as an organization
capable of supplying resident craft specialistswith local and
exotic raw materials and semi-finished commodities. Tikal
had become an important production center for its region.
The ways in which production waste and other refuse
entered archaeological context (Schiffer 1987: 3-4) were
structured by the perceived value of materials, the hindrance posed to human activities, and the principle of least
effort. At Tikal, as in all complex societies, patterns of
disposal were ultimately determined by the activities that
went on in the settlement (Wilson 1994: 48), that is, by its
function in its regional settlement hierarchy.Tikal's position as the primary Classic Period administrative, ceremonial, and economic central place of its region determined
that most durable production waste would be disposed of
in diverse, subsurface, and, to us, unexpected places.
There is a close relationship between the way archaeologists classify material culture and their interpretations of
the contexts from which it is recovered. An awareness of
the reflexive nature of this relationship can lead to more
useful typologies for objects and for the contexts from
which they were recovered. Production waste should not
be uncriticallydefined by its recovery context, nor can it be
conflated with production area.


24, 1997 311
Site maintenance practices and the spatially flexible nature of preindustrial technologies tend to obliterate production areas and elevate debitage in secondary context to
an important archaeological indicator of local craft production. At many sites, it is the only indicator of production. We need new theories, new methods of analysis, and
standardized recording procedures to deal with this challenging situation.
RichardA. Gould and Michael B. Schiffer,eds., Modern

Material Culture:TheArchaeologyof Us. New York:Academic Press, 303-321.
Clark,John E.
1986 "From Mountains to Molehills: A Critical Review of
Teotihuacan'sObsidian Industry,"in BarryL. Isaac,ed.,
Researchin EconomicAnthropology,
Supplement2. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press,23-74.
1989
"Obsidian:The PrimaryMesoamericanSources,"in MargaritaGaxiolaG. and John E. Clark,eds., La Obsidianaen

Mesoamtrica.Mexico: Instituto Nacionalde Antropologia
e Historia,299-319.
1990
"Fifteen Fallaciesin Lithic WorkshopInterpretation:An

Experimental and EthnoarchaeologicalPerspective,"in
Yoko SugiuraY. and Mari CarmenSerraP., eds., Etnoarqueologia ColoquioBosch-Gimpera.Mexico: Universidad
Aut6noma de Mexico, 497-512.
1991
"Flintknappingand Debitage DisposalAmong the Lacandon Maya of Chiapas, Mexico," in Edward Staski and
LivingstonD. Sutro, eds., TheEthnoarchaeology
of Refuse
Disposal.ArchaeologicalResearchPapers42. Tempe: Arizona State University,63-78.
Acknowledgments
I thank John E. Clark, Ricardo J. Elia, William A.
Haviland, Daniel Potter, and Robert S. Santley for their
helpful criticisms of earlier versions of this paper. Figure 4
is reproduced with the kind permission of the University of
Pennsylvania Museum.
Hattula Moholy-Nagy (Ph.D., University of Michigan)
worked in thefield laboratory at Tikal, Guatemala, from
1960 through 1964, the last four seasonsas head. She is
currentlypreparing Tikal Project material for publication as a researchassociate of the University of Pennsylvania Museum. Mailing address:1204 Gardner, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104-4321.
Abler, Ronald, John S. Adams, and Peter Gould
Viewof the World.
1971 Spatial Organization:TheGeographer's
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,Inc.
Arnold II, Philip J.
1990 "The Organizationof Refuse Disposal and CeramicProduction within Contemporary Mexican Houselots,"
AmericanAnthropologist92: 915-932.
Arnold II, Philip J., ChristopherA. Pool, Ronald R. Kneebone,
and Robert S. Santley
1993 "IntensiveCeramicProduction and ClassicPeriod Political Economy in the Sierrade los Tuxtlas,Veracruz,Mexico," Ancient Mesoamerica4: 175-191.
Becker, MarshallJ.
1971 TheIdentificationof a SecondPlaza Plan at Tikal, Guatemala, and Its Implicationsfor Ancient Maya Social Organization. Ph.D. Dissertation, Universityof Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Ann Arbor:UniversityMicrofilms.
Black, Stephen L., and CharlesK. Suhler
1986 "The 1984 Rio Azul SettlementSurvey,"in RichardE. W.
Adams, ed., Rio Azul Reports,No. 2: The1984 Season.San
Antonio: Center for ArchaeologicalResearch,University
of Texasat San Antonio, 163-192.
Carr, Robert, and James E. Hazard
1961 Map of the Ruins of Tikal, El Peten, Guatemala. Tikal
Report 11. Philadelphia:UniversityMuseum, University
of Pennsylvania.
Clark,J. Desmond, and Hiro Kurashina
1981 "A Study of the World of a Modern Tanner in Ethiopia
and Its Relevance for ArchaeologicalInterpretation,"in
Clark, Rainbird
1935 "The Flint-KnappingIndustryat Brandon,"Antiquity9:
38-56.
Coe, Michael D.
1988 "Ideology of the Maya Tomb," in Elizabeth P. Benson
and Gillett G. Griffin,eds., Maya Iconography.Princeton:
PrincetonUniversityPress,222-235.
Coe, William R.
1965 "Tikal:Ten Yearsof Study of a Maya Ruin in the Lowlands of Guatemala,"Expedition8: 5-56.
1967 Tikal:A Handbookof the Ancient Maya Ruins. Philadelphia: UniversityMuseum, Universityof Pennsylvania.
1990 Excavationsin the GreatPlaza, North Terrace,and North
Acropolisof Tikal. Tikal Report 14. Philadelphia:University Museum, Universityof Pennsylvania.
Coe, William R., and Vivian L. Broman
1958 Excavationsin the Stela 23 Group.Tikal Report2. Philadelphia:UniversityMuseum, Universityof Pennsylvania.
Costin, Cathy Lynne
1991 "CraftSpecialization:Issues in Defining, Documenting,
and Explainingthe Organizationof Production,"in Michael B. Schiffer,ed., ArchaeologicalMethodand Theory3.
Tucson: Universityof Arizona Press, 1-56.
Costin, Cathy L., and Melissa B. Hagstrum
1995 "Standardization,Labor Investment, Skill, and the Organization of Ceramic Production in Late Prehistoric
Highland Peru," AmericanAntiquity60: 619-639.
Culbert, T. Patrick
1993 TheCeramicsof Tikal:Vessels
from theBurials, Caches,and
ProblematicalDeposits.TikalReport25, PartA. Philadelphia: UniversityMuseum, Universityof Pennsylvania.
Culbert, T. Patrick,LauraJ. Kosakowsky,Robert E. Fry, and
WilliamA. Haviland
1990 "The Populationof Tikal, Guatemala,"in T. PatrickCul-

312
Craft Production at Tikal, Guatemala/Moholy-Nagy
bert and Don S. Rice, eds., PrecolumbianPopulationHistory of the Maya Lowlands.Albuquerque: University of
New Mexico Press, 103-121.
Fedick, Scott L.
1991 "Chert Tool Production and ConsumptionAmong Classic Period Maya Households," in Thomas R. Hester and
Harry J. Shafer, eds., Maya Stone Tools:SelectedPapers
from the SecondMaya Lithic Conference.Madison, WI:
PrehistoryPress, 103-118.
Fry, Robert E.
1969 Ceramicsand Settlementin the Peripheryof Tikal, Guatemala. Ph.D. Dissertation,Universityof Arizona,Tucson.
Ann Arbor:UniversityMicrofilms.
Gould, RichardA.
1981 "BrandonRevisited:A New Look at an Old Technology,"
in RichardA. Gould and MichaelB. Schiffer,eds., Modern
Material Culture:TheArchaeologyof Us. New York:Academic Press,269-281.
Workshop in Tula, Hidalgo, Mexico," Journal of Field

Archaeology10: 127-145.
Hendon, JuliaA.
1987 The Usesof Maya Structures:A Studyof Architectureand
Artifact Distribution at Sepulturas,Copan, Honduras.
Ph.D. Dissertation,HarvardUniversity,Cambridge,MA.
Ann Arbor,MI: UniversityMicrofilms.
Hester, Thomas R., and Harry J. Shafer
1992 "Lithic Workshops Revisited: Comments on MoholyNagy," Latin AmericanAntiquity 3: 243-248.
Jones, Christopher
1969 TheTwin-PyramidGroupPattern:A ClassicMayaArchitecturalAssemblageat Tikal, Guatemala.Ph.D. Dissertation, Universityof Pennsylvania,Philadelphia.Ann Arbor:
UniversityMicrofilms.
1996
Excavationsin the East Plaza of Tikal. Tikal Report 16.

Philadelphia:UniversityMuseum, Universityof Pennsylvania.
Hall, Grant D.
1989 Realm of Death:MortuaryCustomsand PolityInteraction
in the ClassicMaya Lowlands.Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University,Cambridge,MA. Ann Arbor:University
MicrofilmsInternational.
Jones, Christopher,and Linton Satterthwaite,Jr.

1982 The Monumentsand Inscriptionsof Tikal: The Carved
Monuments.Tikal Report 33, Part A. Philadelphia:UniversityMuseum, Universityof Pennsylvania.
Hansen, RichardD., Ronald L. Bishop, and Federico Fahsen

1991 "Notes on Maya Codex-Style Ceramicsfrom Nakbe, Peten, Guatemala,"Ancient Mesoamerica2: 225-243.
Kidder,Alfred V.
1947 TheArtifacts of Uaxactun, Guatemala.Publication576.
Washington:CarnegieInstitutionof Washington.
Harrison, Peter D.
1963 "A Jade Pendantfrom Tikal,"Expedition5: 12-13.
Killion, Thomas W.
1990 "CultivationIntensityand ResidentialSite Structure:An
EthnoarchaeologicalExaminationof PeasantAgriculture
in the Sierra de los Tuxtlas, Veracruz,Mexico," Latin
AmericanAntiquity 1: 191-215.
1992 "ResidentialEthnoarchaeologyand Ancient Site Structure: Contemporary Farming and Prehistoric Settlement Agricultureat Matacapan,Veracruz,Mexico," in
ThomasW. Killion,ed., Gardensof Prehistory:TheArchaeologyof SettlementAgriculture in GreaterMesoamerica.
Tuscaloosa:Universityof AlabamaPress, 119-149.
1970
The Central Acropolis,Tikal:A PreliminaryStudy of the

Function of Its Structural ComponentsDuring the Late
ClassicPeriod.Ph.D. Dissertation, Universityof Pennsylvania,Philadelphia.Ann Arbor:UniversityMicrofilms.
1993
"Aspects of Water Management in the Southern Maya

Lowlands," Researchin EconomicAnthropology,Supplement 7. Greenwich,CT: JAI Press, 71-119.
Haviland,WilliamA.
1963 Excavationof Small Structuresin the NortheastQuadrant
of Tikal, Guatemala. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Pennsylvania,Philadelphia.Ann Arbor:UniversityMicrofilms.
1981
"Dower Houses and Minor Centers at Tikal, Guatemala:

An Investigationinto the Identificationof Valid Units in
Settlement Hierarchies,"in Wendy Ashmore, ed., Lowland Maya SettlementPatterns.Albuquerque:University
of New Mexico Press, 89-117.
King, Eleanor, and Daniel Potter

1994 "SmallSites in PrehistoricMaya Socioeconomic Organization: A Perspectivefrom Colha, Belize," in Glenn M.
Schwartz and Steven E. Falconer, eds., Archaeological
Viewsfrom the Countryside:VillageCommunitiesin Early
ComplexSocieties.Washington: Smithsonian Institution
Press,64-90.
Excavationsin Small Residential Groupsat Tikal:Groups

4F-1 and 4F-2. Tikal Report 19. Philadelphia:University
Museum, Universityof Pennsylvania.
LeeDecker, CharlesH.
1994 "DiscardBehavioron Domestic HistoricSites:Evaluation
of Contexts for the Interpretationof Household Consumption Patterns,"JournalofArchaeologicalMethodand
Theory1: 345-375.
Hayden, Brian, and Aubrey Cannon

1983 "Where the Garbage Goes," Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology2: 117-163.
Marcus, Joyce
1973 "The TerritorialOrganization of the Lowland Classic
Maya,"Science180: 911-916.
1985
Healan, Dan M.
1995 "Identifying Lithic Reduction Loci with Size-Graded
Macrodebitage:A MultivariateApproach,"AmericanAntiquity60: 689-699.
Healan, Dan M., Janet M. Kerley,and George J. Bey III
1983 "Excavation and Preliminary Analysis of an Obsidian
1976
Emblemand State in the ClassicMaya Lowlands:An Epigraphic Approachto TerritorialOrganization.Washington: Dumbarton Oaks Libraryand ResearchCollection.
1992
MesoamericanWriting Systems:Propaganda, Myth, and

Historyin FourAncient Civilizations.Princeton:Princeton UniversityPress.

Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 24, 1997 313
Moholy-Nagy, Hattula
1976 "SpatialDistribution of Flint and Obsidian Artifacts at
Tikal, Guatemala,"in Thomas R. Hester and Norman
Hammond, ed., MayaLithicStudies:Papersfrom the 1976
Belize Field Symposium.SpecialReport No. 4. San Antonio: Center for Archaeological Research, University of
Texasat San Antonio, 91-108.
1990
1994
"The Misidentification of Mesoamerican Lithic Workshops," Latin AmericanAntiquity 1: 268-279.

TikalMaterial Culture:Artifactsand SocialStructureat a
ClassicLowlandMaya City. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Ann Arbor:UniversityMicrofilms.
Pendergast,David M.
1979 Excavations at Altun Ha, Belize, 1964-1970, Vol. 1.
Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum.
Potter, Daniel
1993 "AnalyticalApproachesto Late ClassicMayaLithicIndustries,"in JeremyA. Sabloff and John S. Henderson, eds.,
Lowland Maya Civilization in the Eighth Century A.D.
Washington:Dumbarton Oaks Libraryand ResearchCollection, 273-298.
Puleston, Dennis E.
1971 "An ExperimentalApproach to the Function of Classic
MayaChultuns,"AmericanAntiquity 36: 322-335.
1983 The SettlementSurvey of Tikal. Tikal Report 13. Series
editor WilliamA. Haviland.Philadelphia:UniversityMuseum, Universityof Pennsylvania.
Ricketson, Oliver G., and Edith B. Ricketson
1937 Uaxactun, Guatemala, GroupE, 1926-1931. Publication
477. Washington:CarnegieInstitution of Washington.
Santley,Robert S.
1992 "A Consideration of the Olmec Phenomenon in the
Tuxtlas:Early Formative Settlement Pattern, Land Use,
and Refuse Disposal at Matacapan,Veracruz,Mexico," in
ThomasW. Killion,ed., GardensofPrehistory:TheArchaeologyof SettlementAgriculture in GreaterMesoamerica.
Tuscaloosa:Universityof AlabamaPress, 150-183.
Shafer,Harry J., and Thomas R. Hester

1983 "Ancient Maya Chert Workshopsin Northern Belize,"
AmericanAntiquity 48: 519-548.
Sheets, Payson D.
1975 "BehavioralAnalysis and the Structure of a Prehistoric
Industry,"CurrentAnthropology16: 369-391.
Smith, A. Ledyard
1950 Uaxactun, Guatemala:Excavationsof 1931-1937. Publication 588. Washington: Carnegie Institution of Washington.
Spence, Michael W.
1967 "The Obsidian Industry at Teotihuacan,"AmericanAntiquity32: 507-514.
Tani, Masakazu
1995 "Beyond the Identificationof Formation Processes:BehavioralInference Based on TracesLeft by CulturalFormation Processes,"Journal of ArchaeologicalMethodand
Theory2: 231-253.
Taschek,JenniferT., and Joseph W. Ball
1992 "Lord Smoke-Squirrel'sCacao Cup: The Archaeological
Context and Socio-Historical Significanceof the Buena
Vista 'JauncyVase,"' in Justin Kerr,ed., TheMaya Vase
Book,Vol. 3. New York:KerrAssociates,490-497.
Taylor,Anna J.
1980 "Excavationsat Kunahmil,"in Thomas R. Hester, JackD.
Eaton, and HarryJ. Shafer,eds., TheColhaProjectSecond
Season, 1980 Interim Report. San Antonio: Center for
ArchaeologicalResearch,Universityof Texasat SanAntonio and Venezia:Centro Studi e RicercheLigabue, 241250.
Widmer, Randolph J.
1991 "LapidaryCraft Specializationat Teotihuacan:Implications for Community Structure of 33:S3W1 and Economic Organizationin the City,"Ancient Mesoamerica2:
131-147.
Wilson, Douglas C.
1994 "Identificationand Assessmentof Secondary Refuse Aggregates,"JournalofArchaeologicalMethodand Theory1:
41-68.
Wobst, H. Martin
1978 "The Archaeo-Ethnology of Hunter-Gatherersor the
Tyranny of the Ethnographic Record in Archaeology,"
AmericanAntiquity43: 303-309.
Santley,Robert S., and Ronald Kneebone

1993 "CraftSpecialization,Refuse Disposal, and the Creation
of Spatial Archaeological Records in Prehispanic
Mesoamerica," in Robert S. Santley and Kenneth G.
Hirth, eds., Prehispanic Domestic Units in Western
Mesoamerica:Studies of the Household,Compound,and
Residence.Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 37-63.
Schiffer,Michael B.
1987 Formation Processesof the ArchaeologicalRecord. Albuquerque:Universityof New Mexico Press.
Shafer,Harry J.
1983 "The Lithic Artifactsof PulltrouserSwamp: Settlements
and Fields," in B. L. Turner II and Peter D. Harrison,
eds., PulltrouserSwamp:Ancient Maya Habitat, Agriculture,and Settlementin NorthernBelize.Austin:University
of TexasPress, 212-245.


7 Moholy Nagy 1997

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

7 Moholy Nagy 1997

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Maney Publishing

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:06:32 PM

Middens, Construction Fill, and Offerings:

Introduction: Debitage and the Organization

Artifacts and debris that are no longer in the places

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:06:32 PM

294 Craft Productionat Tikal, Guatemala/Moholy-Nagy

Figure 1. The Lowland Maya area showing sites mentioned in the

on the importance of considering a site's size and function

Santley and Kneebone 1993: 41). Costin's neutral term,

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:06:32 PM

24, 1997 295

Table 1. Chronological chart (after Coe 1990: chart 1; Jones and

with artifacts made by reduction techniques to conflate

secondary contexts, are also taken into consideration, it

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:06:32 PM

296 Craft Productionat Tikal, Guatemala/Moholy-Nagy

the city's most conspicuous consumers--who transformed

Only special deposits, such as offerings and burials, were

Household Refuse, Debitage, and Offerings from

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:06:32 PM

24, 1997 297

duction waste in archaeological contexts at Tikal. The

of all classes of material culture was common at Tikal at all

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:06:32 PM

298 Craft Productionat Tikal, Guatemala/Moholy-Nagy

nents of votive caches. In contrast to items usually found in

Table 3. Counts of Classic Period debitage by recovery context.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:06:32 PM

Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol.

Per lot of total excavated

kinds of activities sometimes occurred together in the same

and dispersed than those in special deposits and, except for

Surface scatters and more dense, buried deposits of

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:06:32 PM

300 Craft Productionat Tikal, Guatemala/Moholy-Nagy

from chultuns and construction fill to caches and burials.

An impressive amount of construction of all kinds was

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:06:32 PM

Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol.24, 1997 301

- -"j~Ci;lLc~--rr~~ --r-2- _-;;-~i~?LS~?"~CL~~~

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

from the production of domestic artifacts, non-elite status

small size and scattered occurrence. Material from general

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:06:32 PM

302 Craft Productionat Tikal, Guatemala/Moholy-Nagy

its. Production waste included substances used only by the

Votive caches were associated almost exclusively with the

Figure 5. Cache 41 of Stela P9, located in front of the substructure

of jade, and Spondylus shell fragments recovered from

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:06:32 PM

Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol.24, 1997 303

The residents of Tikal received various types of burials,

(Smith 1950: 88). Special deposits that included human

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:06:32 PM

304 Craft Productionat Tikal, Guatemala/Moholy-Nagy

be analogous to caches placed beneath burial chamber

Large accumulations of chert and obsidian debitage had

cores. The core eccentrics themselves were identified in

One problem with very large deposits is that usually they

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:06:32 PM

Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:06:32 PM

306 Craft Productionat Tikal, Guatemala/Moholy-Nagy