View
220
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/19/2019 7 Moholy Nagy 1997
1/22
aney Publishing
Middens, Construction Fill, and Offerings: Evidence for the Organization of Classic PeriodCraft Production at Tikal, GuatemalaAuthor(s): Hattula Moholy-NagySource: Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Autumn, 1997), pp. 293-313Published by: Maney PublishingStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/530686 .
Accessed: 18/01/2014 12:06
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Maney Publishing is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Field
Archaeology.
h // j
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=maneyhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/530686?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/530686?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=maney
8/19/2019 7 Moholy Nagy 1997
2/22
293
Middens,
Construction
Fill,
and
Offerings:
Evidence for the
Organization
of
Classic Period Craft Production at
Tikal,
Guatemala
Hattula
Moholy-Nagy
University
of
Pennsylvania
Museum
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
The
production of artifacts ofstone,
shell,
and bone at
Tikal,
an
important
center in the
Southern
Maya
Lowlands,
created
quantities
of
durable
waste,
referred
o as
debitage.
Yet
debitage
is not a reliable indicator
ofproduction
area
because
of
the
spatially
lexible
nature
ofPrehispanictechnology
nd site-maintenance activities
that
shifted
manufac-
turing
debris nto
secondary
contexts.
Nevertheless,
debitage,
even
in
secondary
context,
provides
mportant information
on
the
organization
of
craft production
at
Tikal,
par-
ticularly
during
the Classic
Period
(ca.
A.C.
250-850).
Most
crafts
were
organized
as
household
ndustries,
carried
on
by ndependent,
part-time specialists
iving
in the
cen-
tral area that
surrounded
the monumental
core
of
the
city.
The
elite
probably
upported
some
ull-time
production
to
satisfy
their demands
or statusgoods
and tools
or
construc-
tion
projects.
Expedientproduction
by
nonspecialists,
using locally
available
materials
such as
chert
and
bone,
occurredat
all times.
Production
waste
was
recovered
rom
the
construction
ill
ofpublic
and
residentialar-
chitecture,
and
from
household
middens,
mixed
with
domestic rash.
The
argest
concen-
trations,
however,
were
ound
exteriorto elite
chamber
burials and
within
cached
offer-
ings.
The
delayed
identificationof debitage
rom
ritual contexts
exemplifies
he
reflexive
nature of theway archaeologists lassifymaterial culture and their interpretationsof the
contexts
rom
which
it
is recovered.
Introduction:
Debitage
and the
Organization
of
Production
The
study
of
the
organization
of craft
production
in
preindustrial
complex
societies
is
a
lively
field of
research
that
has
by
now
generated
a substantial
body
of literature.
Most
studies
focus
on direct
evidence from
production
areas
(e.g.,
Clark
1986;
Healan
1995)
and
indirect evi-
dence derived
from
finished artifacts
(e.g.,
Costin 1991:
32; Costin and Hagstrum 1995). Only a few (e.g., Fedick
1991;
Santley
and Kneebone
1993)
have taken into ac-
count
production
debris
that
is
clearly
from
secondary
contexts,
even
though
such debris
often constitutes
a
large
proportion
of the material
evidence
from habitation sites.
Our
present
concern
is
the
organization
of
craft
produc-
tion
at
one of the
principal pre-Columbian
cities
of the
Lowland
Maya
area, Tikal,
situated
in
the
Department
of
Pet
n of Guatemala
(FIG. i).
Another
goal
of the
paper,
however,
is
to
direct attention to the
explanatory potential
of
production
waste that is no
longer
in situ.
Artifacts
and debris
that are no
longer
in
the
places
where
they
were
made or used can
provide significant,
indirect
evidence about the
organization
of
craft
produc-
tion.
Furthermore,
their
value as data is
significantly
en-
hanced
by considering
them
together
with the
archae-
ological
contexts
from which
they
were
recovered. Most of
this
paper
will describe the
recovery
contexts
of durable
production
waste at Tikal
and
pertinent
site formation
processes (Schiffer 1987). I
will discuss here
only
those
materialsworked
by
reduction
processes
that have
left
both
artifacts
and
readily
visible
production
waste
in
the archae-
ological
record: chert
and
obsidian,
which
were
predomi-
nantly
worked
by
chipping; jade
and slate
(some
of
which
is
actually
shale),
which were worked
by chipping
and
grinding;
marine and freshwater mussel
shell;
and bone.
Hypotheses
about
the
production
of various kinds of arti-
facts will then be
presented
in
terms of four
organizational
parameters proposed
by
Costin
(1991:
8-9;
Costin and
Hagstrum
1995:
620).
I
will conclude
with
some
thoughts
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:06:32 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/19/2019 7 Moholy Nagy 1997
3/22
294
Craft
Productionat
Tikal,
Guatemala/Moholy-Nagy
NORTHERN
OWLANDS
'
SOUTHERN
LOWLANDS
AltunHa
R i o
z u l o
Nakbe
o
oUaxactun
Lamanai
Tikal
o
o
Buenavista
del
Cayo
oCaracol
Altarde
Sacrificios
0
HIGHLANDS
,
o oo
kin
Figure
1.
The
Lowland
Maya
area
showing
sites mentioned
in
the
text.
on the
importance
of
considering
a site's size and function
in
the
study
of craft
production
in
any preindustrial
com-
plex
society.
Direct and
indirect evidence can both be
employed
in
the
study
of
craft
production (Costin
1991:
18-19).
Direct
evidence is
associated
with
actual
places
of
production.
Indirect evidence
is
derived
from the
characteristicsof
the
materials
themselves,
without
regard
to the contexts in
which
they
were
found.
The
specific
locations of
production
areas
provide
the
most secure evidence about the organization of produc-
tion. From
ethnographic
and
ethnoarchaeological
obser-
vations we have
learned
that
production
areas
may
be
characterized
by
the
presence
of
special-purpose
features,
like
kilns;
special-purpose
tools,
like
spindle
whorls;
and
by
residues of the
production process,
like
refuse,
failed arti-
facts,
raw
materials,
or charcoal.
Production
areas are
often
referred to
in
the literature
as
"workshops."
This
term,
however,
has come to
imply
a
specific
level of craft
organi-
zation
(e.g.,
Clark 1986:
45-46;
Costin 1991:
8-9;
Santley
and
Kneebone 1993:
41).
Costin's neutral
term,
"production
area,"
s more
appropriate
here.
Because
production
areas can
provide
such
important
information,
they
need to be defined with
special
attention
to site formation processes (Moholy-Nagy 1990). Of the
indicators
used to
identify production
areas,
only special-
purpose
installations can
be
assumed
to
be
in situ. Tools
and
production
debris,
because
they
are
portable,
may
or
may
not
be;
the
archaeologist
can not
assume
that
they
are
recovered from
the
places
where
they
were
made
or used.
In
archaeological
sites
of
New World
complex
societies,
including
those of the
Maya
Lowlands,
two
factors-spa-
tial
flexibility
of
production technology
and site mainte-
nance behavior-make
the
identification
of
production
areas
especially
difficult.
The
manufacture of most kinds of
artifacts
did
not
require
installations
substantial
or
distinc-
tive enough to leave archaeological traces. Most Prehis-
panic production
can be
characterized
as
spatially
flexible
(Arnold
1990:
927-928).
It
could be carried on almost
anywhere,
even in
the
marketplace
(e.g.,
Clark 1989:
300).
Stone was
the
principal
industrial materialand the fabrica-
tion of chert and obsidian
artifacts
by
percussion
and
pressure flaking generated quantities
of
well-preserved
refuse.
What is
more,
in habitation sites this
imperishable
debris
was
rarely
left where it fell. In
general,
most
excavated
portable
material
culture,
including
finished
objects
and
the refuse from their
manufacture,
is
not
recovered
from
its context of production or consumption, but from its
context
of
disposal (Schiffer
1987:
58-59;
LeeDecker
1994:
351-352).
Disposal
location,
in
turn,
is
directly
determined
by
site maintenance activities
(Tani 1995),
which are themselves
affected
by
a
host of
other
variables,
such
as
the
organization
and
intensity
of artifact
produc-
tion,
the size and
structure
of the
site,
and
its
function
in a
regional
settlement
system (Wilson
1994:
43).
At
any
settlement,
but
especially
at those with
a
high
density
of
structures,
the
archaeologist
must
consider
the formation
processes
responsible
for the
recovery
context of
any
kind
of
portable
material
culture.
This is crucial because of
the
powerful influence site formation processes exert upon our
perceptions
of
archaeological
data.
It
follows, then,
that two
essentially
different
types
of
data-production
area and material evidence
of
produc-
tion,
especially
manufacturing by-products-need
to be
distinguished.
Such
a
distinction
is
usually
made
by
ceram-
ists
(e.g.,
Arnold
et al.
1993),
historical
archaeologists
(e.g.,
LeeDecker
1994),
and
a few lithic
specialists (e.g.,
Clark
1935;
Healan
1995).
There
is,
however,
a
long
tradition
among
Mesoamerican
archaeologists working
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:06:32 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/19/2019 7 Moholy Nagy 1997
4/22
Journal
of
Field
Archaeology/Vol.
4,
1997
295
Table
1.
Chronological
chart
(after
Coe
1990: chart
1;
Jones
and
Satterthwaite 1982:
table
1).
Period
Long
Count Date Ceramics
Early
Postclassic
-
950 A.C. Caban
Terminal Classic 10.3.0.0.0 889 A.C. Eznab
Late Classic 9.13.0.0.0 692 A.C. Imix
Intermediate Classic 9.8.0.0.0 593 A.C. Ik
Early
Classic
8.11.0.0.0
250
A.C.
Manik
Protoclassic
-
170 A.C. Cimi
Late Preclassic
(late)
-
1
A.C.
Cauac
Late
Preclassic
(early)
-
350
B.C.
Chuen
Middle Preclassic
(late)
-
600
B.C.
Tzec
Middle Preclassic
(early)
-
800 B.C. Eb
with
artifacts made
by
reduction
techniques
to
conflate
production
areaand
production
waste and then to refer to
debitage concentrations as "workshops" (e.g., Spence
1967;
Moholy-Nagy
1976:
99-102;
Shafer
and Hester
1983;
Hester and Shafer
1992;
Black and Suhler
1986;
Potter
1993;
King
and
Potter
1994).
This unfounded
transfer
of
meaning
from
locus to
object impedes
sub-
sequent
efforts to
interpret
the
organization
of
produc-
tion. One
consequence
of
referring
to
debitage deposits
as
workshops
is to inflate
the number of
production
areas at
a
site. But a
more
subtle,
equally misleading
effect is to
overlook or
misinterpret
the
presence
of
debitage
from
archaeological
contexts that could not
possibly
have been
production
areas.
Because of the difficulties in locating production areas
and
recognizing special-purpose
tools
in the
settlements of
New
World
complex
societies,
debitage, by
which
I mean
durable
manufacturing
debris
and
manufacturing
failures,
has become the most
important
indicator of craft
produc-
tion.
Correctly
identified
debitage, by
definition,
is
always
a
sign
of
craft
activity
somewhere,
no
matter where it is
found. Its
presence
in
secondary
contexts can be linked to
local
production by
several
criteria. These
include occur-
rence
in
large quantities
and
densities,
debitage
of materi-
als
that were
either
locally
availableor
imported
in
abun-
dance, by-productsof manufacturethat aretechnologically
consistent with
the
types
of
artifacts used at the site
(Clark
1990:
503),
the
presence
of
small-sized
debitage,
and
the
cultural functions associated
with the
artifact
types
and raw
materials.As in the case of
finished
artifacts,
the
formal
and
technological
characteristicsof
the
debitage
itself
can
pro-
vide indirect evidence about
organizational
aspects
of
pro-
duction,
such
as
standardization,
efficiency,
skill,
and
re-
gional
variants and
their
spatial
distribution
(Costin
1991:
32-43).
And when
the
recovery
contexts of
debitage,
even
secondary
contexts,
are also taken
into
consideration,
it
becomes
possible
to
propose
general hypotheses
about
the
organization of craftproduction.
Tikal
Project
Data
The
materials discussed here come from
excavations
carried
out between 1957-1969
by
the
Tikal
Project
of the
University
of
Pennsylvania
Museum
(Coe 1965).
Various
lines of
archaeological
and
epigraphic
evidence
suggest
that Tikal was the
paramount
administrative,
ceremonial,
and economic center
of its
region,
and
one
of four
regional
capitals
of the
Lowland
Maya
area
(Marcus
1976:
fig. 1.1).
At
present,
the
site
is
thought
to have been
occupied
between
ca. 800
B.c.
and ca.
A.C.
950
(TABLE
1).
At
its zenith
during the Classic Period, ca. A.C. 50-850, it was one of
the
largest
cities of the
Lowland
Maya
area,
with
an
area of
well over 16
sq
km
(Carr
and Hazard
1961)
and
an
estimated maximum
population
of more than
62,000
(Culbert
et
al.
1990).
Towards the
end
of the
Classic
Period the
city
had an
approximately
concentric
settlement
plan
composed
of
three distinct
areas
(Puleston
1983:
fig.
21).
Tikal's monumental civic and
ceremonial
architecture
and
the
vaulted
masonry
residences of its elite
class were
concentrated
in
the
Epicenter,
which had a
diameter
of
ca.
1.25 km. The site's core was surrounded
by
the
Central
area,
extending
up
to another 1.5 km
beyond
the
Epicen-
ter. Many groups of small structures, the residences of the
commoners who
sustained
the
city, comprise
this zone.
Beyond
it was
a
Peripheral
sustaining
area,
distinguished
by
a
significantly
lower
density
of
settlement.
Settlement
pattern
studies,
inscribed stone
monuments
(Jones
and
Satterthwaite
1982),
and
the
presence
and
configuration
of monumental
architecture and
associated
chamber
burials demonstrate that Tikal was
the residence
of
a
powerful
elite
class. It was the elite
class-its
political
administrators,
subjects
of a cult of
ancestor
worship,
and
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:06:32 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/19/2019 7 Moholy Nagy 1997
5/22
296
Craft
Productionat
Tikal,
Guatemala/Moholy-Nagy
Table 2.
Counts
of
Classic Period
provenienced
and dated
artifacts,
debitage,
and
unworked
objects.
Material
Total
Artifacts Debitage
Unworked %
Classic Period
Chert
72,977 6,642 66,335
Unrecorded
81.2
Obsidian
65,920 8,782 57,138
None 93.8
Jade
13,334 7,611 5,723
None 96.9
Slate/shale 305 132 164 9 88.0
Spondylus
7,393 3,681
3,652
60 66.6
Other
shell
4,286 1,111
203
2,972
93.2
Bone
8,912
907 463
7,542
94.4
the
city's
most
conspicuous
consumers--who
transformed
Tikal
into
the
major
Classic Period center
of its
region.
Temples, processional
causeways,
and
abundant
votive of-
ferings testify
to its ritual
importance.
Its function
as an
economic
center was
implied
over
two
decades
ago
when
Marcus
(1973)
pointed
out
how
closely
the
Classic
Period
settlement pattern in the Tikal area,and around the other
Lowland
Maya
regional capitals,
conformed to
expecta-
tions derived from
geographical
models
of central
places
(e.g.,
Abler, Adams,
and Gould 1971:
370-372).
The
position
of Tikal as a
major
central
place
is reinforced
by
the
presence
of
a
probable marketplace
in
the
Epicenter
(Jones
1996)
and
by
the
concentration of
imported
mate-
rials. For centuries
Tikal
imported
raw
materials,
such
as
fine
chert and
marine
shells;
semi-finished
commodities,
such as
large
polyhedral
obsidian
cores;
as well as finished
goods, especially pottery.
The
city
undoubtedly
also ex-
ported products, although
we are
hampered
here
by
a
lack
of information from other sites in the region. The eco-
nomic
importance
of Tikal as
a
producer
and distributor of
goods
is
also
indicated
by
the
presence
and
spatial
distribu-
tion
of
by-products generated by
local craft
production.
The Tikal
Project
recovered
a
large
collection of artifacts
formed
by
reduction and
quantities
of
production
waste
(TABLE 2;
Moholy-Nagy
1994).
Counts
given
here should
be considered
approximate,
and the
hypotheses
offered are
intended to
apply
only
to the
Classic
Period.
Unlike
the other data
given
on Table
2,
estimated
counts
of chert and obsidian
debitage
(FIGS.
2,
3;
TABLES
,4)
are based
upon
field observations
rather than
laboratory
records. The largest deposits of debitage encountered at
Tikal came
from
above and
around
the
chamber burials
of
its most
important
persons.
In
comparing
laboratory
re-
cords
of these
deposits
to
published
descriptions
(Coe
1990),
it became
clear
that most
deposits
had
only
been
sampled
and none
were
completely
recovered
and docu-
mented. We
probably
recorded about one-tenth
of
the
debitage
encountered.
Excavations were
carried out at a time when archaeolo-
gists studying
the
Prehispanic Maya
had
little
interest
in
fine-grained analyses
of
production
and
consumption.
Only
special deposits,
such as
offerings
and
burials,
were
screened. Volume was not
specifically
calculated for exca-
vated
lots,
which
were the
Tikal
Project's
smallest units of
excavation,
and
recovered
objects
were
only
counted
or,
occasionally,
only weighed,
rather than both
counted
and
weighed.
The lack of information
on
excavated volume
and the weights of recovered materialcultureprecludesthe
presentation
of
data
in a
standardized format that would
permit
direct
comparisons
between different areas of
Tikal
and
between
Tikal
and other
sites.
I will
use
piece
per
excavated lot to
express
variability
in
density.
This
index
should
be understood as an
approximation,
since neither
"piece"
nor excavation lot are standardized units. Never-
theless,
the lack of more accurate information about
weight
and volume is counterbalanced
by
the
large
size
of
the
collection,
the
precisely
recorded
proveniences,
and
good chronological
control.
Both
locally
available and
imported
raw
materials occur
in high quantitiesat Tikal.Among the durable rawmateri-
als
obtained at and near the site were abundant nodules of
medium-
and
coarse-textured
chert, limestone,
freshwater
mussel
and
snail
shells,
and
human and animal bones and
teeth.
Throughout
the Classic
Period
large quantities
of
fine-textured
chert,
obsidian,
jade,
freshwater
and
marine
shells,
and
marine
fishes were
imported
from
other
parts
of
the
Maya
area. Small amounts of
goods
and raw materials
also came from
central Mexico.
Imported jade,
fine stones
like
specular
hematite and
pyrite,
and
thorny oyster
shell
(Spondylus spp.)
were
only
used
by
the elite. There
is,
however,
no
simple
correspondence
between the distance
over which the raw materials were transported to Tikal
and
the function of the finished artifact.
Imported
fine-
textured chert and
gray
and
green
obsidian were used
primarily
for
utilitarian
artifacts,
while
a
large
class
of elite
ceremonial
artifacts,
the
so-called eccentric
flints,
were
made
almost
exclusively
of
locally
available chert.
Household
Refuse,
Debitage,
and
Offerings from
Tikal
Daily
domestic
activities,
artifact
manufacture,
and
ritual
behavior account
for
virtually
all of the artifacts
and
pro-
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:06:32 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/19/2019 7 Moholy Nagy 1997
6/22
Journal of
Field
Archaeology/Vol.
4,
1997
297
250000
200000
150000
100000
Bone
Other hell
_Spondylus
50000-
Slate/shale
Jade
0
Obsidian
E
.
E
_
>
n
C
O,
Figure
2.
Counts
of
Classic Period
debitage by
recovery
context.
The
figures
for chamber
burial
exterior
deposits
are
estimated,
as
explained
in the text.
duction
waste
in
archaeological
contexts
at Tikal. The
material residues
of
these activities can
be
classified,
respec-
tively,
as
refuse,
debitage,
and
offerings.
Refuse is
usually
defined as
discarded
durable
material,
distinct
from
biodegradable
waste
or
garbage.
Much was
generated
by
household activities
and
consisted of
things
used
by
everyone,
elite
and
non-elite alike:
predominantly
potsherds,
with smaller amounts
of
broken
or
worn-out
artifacts
of
stone, shell,
bone,
pottery,
and
plaster, frag-
mentary
architectural
elements,
and
bones
and
shells of
animals that were
usually
eaten.
They
constitute a domestic
material culture complex (Moholy-Nagy 1994: 15,
adapted
from Haviland 1981:
103-104).
Debitage
is
a
special
kind of
refuse
generated by
the
production
of artifacts
by
reductive
processes.
For this
paper,
I have
broadened
the
definition to include all mate-
rial
residues
of
production,
such as
cores, flakes,
preforms,
shatter,
and
microdebitage,
unworked
pieces
of raw
mate-
rial,
production
failures,
and
any
of these
types
that were
subsequently
used as
expedient
tools.
Although
used flakes
and cores are
usually
classified as
artifacts,
they
are,
none-
theless,
also evidence
of
production.
Recycling
and
reuse
of all
classes
of
material culture was
common
at Tikal
at all
times.
Identifications
of
debitage
were
based
upon
inherent
characteristics,
primarily
form, size,
material,
and the ab-
sence
of
use-wear.
The
development
of
sequential
or be-
havioral
typologies
for
the
production
stages
of
an
artifact
(Sheets
1975)
and
the
subsequent
modifications
during
its
use-life
(Shafer
1983:
215)
were
significant
contributions
to the classificationof
artifacts and
waste
formed
by
reduc-
tion.
Behavioral
typology
enables us to
distinguish
be-
tween
finished
products,
reworked
artifacts,
manufactur-
ing failures,and waste.
Most recovered
debitage
was
created
by
the
production
of several
types
of bifaces
from
locally
available chert
nodules.
Nearly
all
obsidian
debitage
came
from
prismatic
blade
production
from
imported preformed,
large
polyhe-
dral cores.
A
minor amount establishes the
fabrication of
eccentrics from exhausted blade cores. Shell
and
fine
stone,
especially jade,
were
used for sociotechnic
and
ideotechnic
artifacts
like
jewelry,
mosaics, vessels,
dental
inlays,
and
mirrors. Bone
was
fashioned
into artifacts of
utilitarian,
ornamental,
and
ceremonial
function.
I
have
assumed
that
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:06:32 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/19/2019 7 Moholy Nagy 1997
7/22
298
Craft
Production
at
Tikal,
Guatemala/Moholy-Nagy
4500.000
4000.000
3500.000
3000.000
2500.000
2000.000
Bone
1500.000
Other
hell
Spondylus
1000.000
Slate/shale
500.000
Jade
0.000
Obsidian
"+ •
?
_
eChert
S
E
.
0
--
-0
a3
E
-
0.
o
C
:
Figure
3.
Density
of Classic Period
debitage
as count
per
excavated
lot
by recovery
context.
The
figures
for
chamber
burial
exterior
deposits
are
estimated,
as
explained
in the
text.
all
of these
goods
were made
by
specialists,
though
the
ex-
pedient production
of
simple
artifacts
of
locally
abundant
chert and bone
may
have been carried on
by everybody.
The third
important
category
of
recovered
portable
material culture
may
best be
referred to
as
offerings.
Offer-
ings
are
regarded
as the
tangible
residues of ritual
behavior,
and were
typically
classified
as burial furniture or
compo-
nents of
votive
caches.
In
contrast to items
usually
found
in
refuse,
which were used
by
everyone,
the
artifacts,
natural
objects,
and
debitage
found in
offerings
can be
regarded
as
indicators
of social status. The
assumption,
nearly always
implicit,
that
household
refuse,
debitage,
and
offerings
will
be found
in
distinct
recovery
contexts
generally
holds,
although
materials
thought
to
have
been used in different
Table 3. Counts
of Classic Period
debitage
by recovery
context.
Excavated
Context
Chert Obsidian
Jade
Slate/shale
Spondylus
Other shell Bone lots
Exterior
deposit*
116,820
228,243
- - - -
2
55
Monument cache
1,707 9,217
242 1 50
- -
54
Structure cache
3,663 14,112 4,921
3
3,503
12
3 185
Chamber
burial
4 83 304
-
16
1
-
32
Other burial
39
16 35
-
37
3
-
206
Problematical
deposit
3,059
6,620
214
8
34
18
3
319
Special-purpose
dump
879
1,953
- - -
-
-
19
General
excavations
41,850
2,392
7 152
12 169
455
9,725
Totals
168,021
262,636
5,723
164
3,652
203 463
10,673
*
Estimated
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:06:32 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/19/2019 7 Moholy Nagy 1997
8/22
Journal
of
Field
Archaeology/Vol.
4,
1997
299
Table 4.
Density
of
Classic Period
debitage
by
recovery
context as counts
per
excavated lot.
Context Chert
Obsidian
Jade
Slate/shale
Spondylus
Other
shell
Bone
Exterior
deposit*
2124.000 4149.873
- - - -
0.036
Monument cache
31.611 170.685 4.481
0.019 0.926
-
-
Structure
cache
19.800 76.281
26.600 0.016 18.935 0.065
0.016
Chamber burial 0.125 2.594 9.500 - 0.500 0.031
-
Other burial 0.189 0.078
0.170
-
0.180 0.015
-
Problematical
deposit
9.589 20.752
0.671
0.025
0.107 0.056 0.009
Special-purpose
dump
46.283
102.789
- - -
-
General excavations 4.303
0.246
0.001 0.016 0.001 0.017 0.047
Per lot of
total
excavated 15.743 24.608
0.536
0.015 0.342 0.019 0.043
*
Estimated
kinds of activities sometimes occurred
together
in the
same
context.
Recovery
Contexts
Recovery
context
is an
inference,
made
by
the
re-
searcher,
about the
archaeological
setting
in which materi-
als occurred.
I use
this term rather
than
"depositional
context,"
because
it is not
always
clear
if
the
material was
intentionally deposited,
and,
if it was
intentionally
depos-
ited,
what the intent
was: for
example,
is the material
to be
regarded
as a ritual
offering
or
a
refuse
dump?
Recovery
context is
altogether
different from Costin's use
of the
term "context"
to refer to control
of
production
(Costin
1991:
8-9).
For Tikal
it is useful to
distinguish
two
broad
types of recovery context: special deposits and general
excavations
(FIGS.
2,
3,
TABLES
3,
4).
Special
deposits generally
correspond
to what historical
archaeologists
call
feature contexts
(LeeDecker
1994:
353). Usually
they
have defined
spatial
boundaries,
spe-
cially
prepared
repositories,
and
their material contents
are
regarded
as in
primary
context.
A
special
deposit
is consid-
ered to be
the
intentionally
interred residue
of a
specific
event or
events,
such
as activities
of ceremonial nature
or
episodes
of
artifact
production.
In the former
case,
the
materials
can be
regarded
as a functional
assemblage
in-
dicative of social status
(Hendon
1987:
118).
At
Tikal,
as
an illustration of how contents can influence assessmentsof
contexts,
if
significant
amounts
of
domestic
refuse were
included
in what
otherwise would have been classified as a
burial
or a
cache,
the
context
was
classified
as a
problemati-
cal
deposit,
that
is,
an
intentional
deposit
of
problematical
nature.
Recovery
contexts not classified
as
special deposits
were
lumped together
as
general
excavations.
They
were
located
on the
surface as well as beneath it. Artifacts and
debitage
from
general
excavations
were
usually
more
heterogeneous
and
dispersed
than
those
in
special deposits
and,
except
for
those associated
with architectural
stratigraphy,
heir
peri-
ods
of
deposition
are
usually
of
unknown duration. Status
objects
characteristicof
special
deposits
were
rare,
but did
occur
occasionally.
Materials from
general
excavations
should
be
regarded
as
being
in
secondary
context,
transported
over an un-
known
distance
from the
locus of
their
production
or
use
primarily by
two cultural
site
formation
processes:
site
maintenance
and construction
activities. Domestic trash
was
dumped
into
abandoned
chultuns,
artificial
bedrock
chambers
perhaps
used
for food
storage
(Puleston
1971),
bedrock
quarries,
and
reservoirs.
Even more
frequently
it
was
incorporated,
and
thus
buried,
in the construction
fill
of all kinds of structures
(Haviland
1963,
1985;
Harrison
1970;
Becker
1971;
Coe
1990:
878).
General
Excavations
UNINCORPORATED
MIDDENS
Surface scatters
and
more
dense,
buried
deposits
of
material
were encountered
in all
parts
of the site.
In smaller
residential
groups,
middens
often
formed around
house
platforms
(e.g.,
Fry
1969:
57-61;
Haviland
1985).
Refuse
was also
recovered
from
abandoned
chultuns,
quarries,
and reservoirs.
During
the
decline
of the
city
during
the
Terminal
Classic
Period,
ca.
A.C.
50-950,
household
rub-
bish accumulated, or was dumped, in the abandoned
rooms of
range
structures
or
palaces thought
to have been
elite residences.
When
the
elite lived
in
them,
these
struc-
ture
groups
were
kept
clean,
not
only
because
refuse
was
considered
a
hindrance,
but also
because
their
paved
sur-
faces diverted
rain
water
into natural
and artificial
reser-
voirs
(Harrison 1993).
In
addition
to household
refuse
and
what
may
be dis-
turbed human
burials,
general
excavation
contexts
also
included
production
refuse
mixed
with domestic
trash.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:06:32 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/19/2019 7 Moholy Nagy 1997
9/22
300
Craft
Production
at
Tikal,
Guatemala/Moholy-Nagy
Most of the
debitage
was
of
local chert from the
produc-
tion of bifacial
artifacts,
but
there
was also a
modest
amount
of
obsidian
prismatic
blade
production
waste,
and
small numbers of freshwater
mussel
and
white marine
shell
fragments
(TABLES
,
4).
Concentrations of
bone
debitage
were
rare,
most
likely
due to
factors of
preservation,
but
they
occurred more often in
general
excavations than in
other
contexts.
Two
characteristics
of
debitage deposits
in
household
middens
are of
special
interest here: their occurrence
in
only
a
few residential structure
groups
and
the
intermin-
gling
of
debitage
from
different
industries. The
spatial
distributions
suggest
craft
specialization by
residential
group,
even
for
the
production
of
domestic
goods.
The
heterogeneous
character of Tikal
midden
deposits
is exem-
plified by
one
of
the
largest
excavated. It was
found
in
Group 5C-1,
a ceremonial Twin
Pyramid Complex
that
subsequently
became a
residential
group
towards the
end
of
the Late Classic Period
(Jones
1969:
23-25).
Over
400
fragments
of bone
debitage
were
recovered
from this
large
midden that also
included over
1800
pieces
of
chert
debi-
tage, fragments
of
domestic
artifact
types
of
chert,
obsid-
ian,
ground
stone,
pottery figurines,
censer
fragments,
and
over
300
pounds
of
potsherds
(Moholy-Nagy
1994:
116-
117).
Large quantities
of
obsidian
debitage
mixed with do-
mestic refuse
were less common
than
chert.
The more
restricted
spatial
distribution
of
obsidian
debitage
in
gen-
eral
excavations,
relative
to
chert,
showed that
obsidian
was
worked
in
fewer
structure
groups.
Most
of
the
investigated
chultuns
were
found
empty.
A
few held
various kinds
of
special deposits
such as
primary
and
secondary
burials, censers,
or
whole
pottery
vessels
(Puleston
1971;
Culbert
1993:
figs.
143b,
144a,
b).
Sev-
eral
contained
the
same
mixture
of
household
refuse and
manufacturing
by-products
as
surface
household
middens.
A
very
large Peripheral
area
midden
of
Late
Preclassicdate
included "hundreds of
pounds"
of
chert
debitage
(Fry
1969:
144),
consisting
of
flake
cores, nodules,
decortica-
tion
flakes,
blade
cores,
and failed
bifaces. It also
included
domestic trash, such as fragments of used obsidian blades,
ground
stone
tools,
freshwater
snails,
unworked
animal
bones, stucco,
pottery
censers,
charcoal,
and over
170
pounds
of
potsherds.
Another
large Peripheral
area
deposit
made
in
Protoclassic times had
relatively
little
chert and
household
trash,
but over 2500
fragments
of
obsidian
prismatic
blade
production
waste.
The
relatively
early
dates of the
large
chultun
lithic
debitage deposits
are
significant.
During
the
succeeding
Classic
Period,
the
favored
disposal
locations of
large
quantities
of
stone
chipping
waste
appear
to
have
shifted
from chultuns and construction fill to caches and
burials.
This
may
well
signal
an
important change
in the
organiza-
tion of
production.
CONSTRUCTION FILL
An
impressive
amount
of construction
of all kinds
was
carried out
at Tikal
during
its
1500-year
occupation,
reaching
its
peak
during
the
Classic Period when
the
Peripheral
area was
developed
(Puleston
1983)
and
the
center of
power
was re-established
in
Group
5D-2,
the
civic-ceremonial
heart of the
city
(FIG.
4;
Coe
1990).
Con-
struction
of
earth,
adobe,
and rubble faced with
cut
stone
also occurred
in other
parts
of the
city
(e.g.,
Coe
and
Broman
1958;
Jones
1969;
Harrison
1970, 1993;
Haviland
1985)
and refuse was
nearly
always
incorporated
into
the fill. Besides
buildings
and
building
substructures,
earthen
fill was also
used
in
causeways
and
causeway para-
pets,
reservoir
embankments,
earthworks,
and raised
fields.
Tikal architecture
not
only
provided
the
impetus
for
the
local manufacture of
artifacts
of
chipped
stone
and
other
materials,
it also
provided
an
opportunity
to
dispose
of
production
waste.
Even
the
earliest
known
structures
in-
corporated
household
refuse and
debitage.
A
few
unusually
large
concentrations of
chert
and
obsid-
ian
debitage, misdesignated
as
"workshops,"
were
incor-
porated
into
the
substructure
fills of
temples
in
Group
5D-2
and
Group
7F-1
(Moholy-Nagy
1976:
102).
Debi-
tage
in
construction
fill
is more
dispersed
than
in
special
deposits
and often can
only be identified as production
area
residue
by
higher
counts
or
densities
when
compared
to
adjacent
excavation
units.
Ceramic
dating
showed
that
the
construction
fill
of
one
building
was
sometimes
reused as
the
fill
of
another.
The
recycling
of
domestic
and
production
refuse means
that
caution
must
be exercised
in
trying
to
assess the
relative
importance
of
production
activities
at
different
times and
in
different areas
at
a
large
site. At
best,
construction can
provide
a
cut-off date.
At
Tikal,
however,
primarily
because
of
structure
density
and the need for
earthen
architectural
fill,
movement
of
refuse
appeared
to be
predominantly
unidirectional:from the surfaceto beneath it, from smaller
structure
groups
to
larger
ones,
and from
the
peripheries
toward the center.
SUMMARY OF GENERAL
EXCAVATIONS
With the
notable
exception
of
chultuns,
debitage depos-
its in
general
excavations were
usually
smaller and more
dispersed
than those
in
special deposits.
They
were,
for the
most
part,
mixed with
ordinary
domestic
trash,
especially
quantities
of
potsherds.
Debitage
from
general
excavations was
predominantly
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:06:32 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/19/2019 7 Moholy Nagy 1997
10/22
Journal
of
Field
Archaeology/Vol.
4,
1997
301
~ 2- _-;;-~i~?LS~?"~CL~~~ -C-L?--~Ci;lLc~--rr~- "rurrrrf --
-"-
,- ---rrC-~s31~C-CL--r-
r?cR~
?rJF
,r
Z IC.
~"~?rr~mcr
J?rC~1Ic~-tr??-
zy~-- 4?---~'CY-C--,/2.-- I~J-L~--~L?u~l,
+-
i; ~t~~,tii
t ~lh*cr
~ i? \
?
--
.,..
Lz-
>\
?~t;L
r r -? .tb " ?,
7 r- -* 1
r~ ~- ~~rJc c
+-- 4 1
,.. ?e ?c? t a
f;S-
c
jl?'1(i~
~t
,,
r,
I?-4F"=tS---'~=-~~ I~;~. -- -
-
-?t)e
?2,
1? :
i
ItZILT: \
I
1=-__ ,
~
"
~ '~3C~1`- -C~jT~l`iS
,-
f t ~s~dr~lTU I I
1 .
'1 \\
I
'7
~
r
-t
(It
d1
`C*r
\t
4?
f-~-~-? L~ 1WI r '3 ,
"
rr
~\
r
r. 7- r
*j ~, Q
ll~i
2' t
?
~r?
c.~41PI~FI~
?:
~'biti
~I 1~
kr
r
r?? ~Cr;~ I I L' P'... t
L( ~
4 (?
ii"
r??l~j?*
~C
R
i 1
:
ii
y I
' j
c*??~?i~SCj' ??
r:d;Tr~3E~ ~ rl t
'T1?1J- ;i
ayc-
I,
r,
: It
~i~ ??7
1, II C
* '$;J
trt
r ? ii- 4 1
~?-r C
-
I
r ? L;; '"J~?:c???;~h?l~,~;)li'
~` ~C~-- ----=====_?-_~---c-~,..'
-~------7\
O
I
-r*
r ?:~
, ?
O
I
r r
go
r't i
?I
i ' '
Figure
4.
A
reconstruction
by
H.
Stanley
Loten
of
Group
5D-2,
the civic-ceremonial
heart of
Tikal,
as
it
appeared
at
the
end
of
the
Classic Period.
The
bird's-eye
view is from
behind
the
North
Acropolis,
south over
the
Great
Plaza to
Group
5D-11,
the Central
Acropolis,
with
Str.
5D-5,
Great
Temple
V,
and
the
South
Acropolis
in the distance.
Str.
5D-1,
Great
Temple
I,
is the
tall
building
at the east
edge
of the Great Plaza.
The
temples
on
the
north-south central axis
of the North
Acropolis
are
Str.
5D-22,
the
barely
discernible
Str.
5D-26,
and Str.
5D-33,
at the northern
edge
of the
Great
Plaza
(Coe
1967:
25-26).
from the
production
of domestic
artifacts,
non-elite status
markers,
and
elite status markers
made
of
unrestricted
materials
like
white
marine and freshwater
mussel
shell,
and bone. Rare
and scattered chert
and
obsidian eccen-
trics,
bits of
jade
and
slate,
and
fragments
of
Spondylus
hell
have also
been recovered
(TABLES
,
4).
I
have
interpreted
these
to
mean that
status,
as well as
domestic,
artifact
production
was
carried
on in
small
residential
groups
in
the
Central
area
around the
monumental
Epicenter
of the
city.
Production
waste
in
general
excavations
is
usually
of
small size and scattered occurrence.
Material from
general
excavations,
especially
at
large
sites,
should also be
screened
in
order
to recover
the full
range
of
durable
materials
worked
and to
identify
areas of
production
(Healan,
Kerly,
and
Bey
1983;
Widmer
1991;
Healan
1995).
Special
Deposits
An
unexpected
result
of
the
study
of Tikal
material
culture was
the
identification of
debitage
in
special
depos-
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:06:32 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/19/2019 7 Moholy Nagy 1997
11/22
302
Craft
Production
at
Tikal,
Guatemala/Moholy-Nagy
its.
Production
waste included substances used
only
by
the
elite,
such as
jade, specular
hematite,
and
Spondylus
hell,
as
well as
large
quantities
of chert and obsidian.
Field
iden-
tifications
of chert and obsidian
debitage
were
confirmed
by
experienced
stone
knappers
(Don
E.
Crabtree,
personal
communication, 1976;
John
E.
Clark,
personal
communi-
cation, 1984;
William
J.
Parry,
personal
communication,
1984)
and
I
regard
them
as
conclusive.
SPECIAL-PURPOSEDUMPS
Special-purpose
dumps
are
intentional
deposits
com-
posed primarily
or
exclusively
of one
kind
of
production
waste,
incorporating
little or
no
domestic trash and none
of the
offerings
associated
with
caches
and
burials.
Two of
Classic Period date
were
recognized,
one
in
Group
4F-1
and
designated
PD. 217
(Haviland
1985:
158-159,
figs.
30, 31),
and one in
Group 7F-1, designated
PD.
37
(Moholy-Nagy
1976:
102).
They
were
classified
as
"prob-
lematical
deposits"
because
their
relationship
to
artifact
production
was not understood at the time of their
discov-
ery.
They
consisted of
shallow
pits
dug
into the
surfaces of
building
platforms
that
were
filled with
obsidian
debitage
from
the manufacture of
prismatic
blades,
and
then
buried
by
later construction. Some
1354
pieces
of
obsidian
were
recorded from PD.
217;
602
pieces
of obsidian
and
24
of
chert were
recorded
from
PD. 37. The
purpose
of these
secondary
refuse
aggregates
(Wilson
1994)
appears
to
have
been the
disposal
of obsidian
manufacturing
debris.
CACHES
Votive caches were
associated almost
exclusively
with the
elite.
Caches
were
frequently
placed
beneath
stone stelae
(FIG.5)
and
in
temples
FIG.
6),
and
occasionally
with
range
structures
or
palaces,
which are
generally
assumed to have
been
elite
residences.
First
appearing during
the
early
Late
Preclassic Period
(ca.
400
B.C.),
caches
persisted
in
various
forms until
the end of the
Classic
Period
(Coe
1990:
926-930). They
usually
consisted of a
specially-con-
structed
repository
that
contained
a
standard and
predict-
able
assemblage
of
durable artifactsand
natural
objects
of
restricted use, and often included considerable quantities
of
debitage
of
chert, obsidian,
jade
and
other fine
stone,
and
Spondylus
hell
(FIGS.
,3).
Fine stone and shell
debitage
only
occurred
during
the
Early
and
Intermediate Classic
Periods,
when caches
and their contents
were most
numer-
ous and diverse.
Even
though
much
cached
debitage
was
of materials
governed
by
sumptuary
rules,
all of
it
may
have been
locally produced
in
response
to elite
demand for
large
quantities
of
artifacts.
Local
production
is
suggested by
a
handful of
fragmentary
chert and obsidian
eccentrics,
bits
St.P9
Alt.P5
.;
Cca.41
0
1
2M
NJA
Figure
5.
Cache 41 of
Stela
P9,
located
in
front of
the substructure
of Str. 5D-32. This
Early
Classic
Period monument
cache included
quantities
of
chert, obsidian,
jade,
and
Spondylus
hell
debitage,
as
well as eccentrics
of chert and obsidian
(after
Coe
1990:
fig.
204).
of
jade,
and
Spondylus
shell
fragments
recovered from
general
excavationsin some
small
residential
groups.
The
obsidian
debitage
deposited
in
caches
could be
securely
identified
as
deriving
from
prismatic
blade
pro-
duction
and
the
fashioning
of
eccentrics
from
exhausted
prismatic
blade
cores.
The
cached
chert
debitage
was
less
distinctive
and at
present
we
can
only say
that it
resulted
from
the
production
of
bifaces of
local
chert,
presumably
also
including
eccentrics.
Sometimes,
but
not
invariably,
chert and
obsidian
debitage
occurred with chert
and
ob-
sidian
eccentrics. This
association
suggests
that waste
from
the
manufacture of
ceremonial
artifacts of
restricted
use
was
interred
with
the finished products, but thirty years
ago
it did not
occur
to
anyone
to
test.this
notion
through
refitting.
Problematical
Deposit
33,
combining
the
characteristics
of a
cache
and
a
special-purpose
dump,
was
placed
in
Structure
5D-33 of
Group
5D-2
during
Intermediate
Classic times
(FIG.
6;
Coe
1990:
517-518,
fig.
9b).
This
large
pit
contained
approximately
200
pieces
of
chert
debitage
and
over
3000
of
obsidian,
as
well as more
typical
cache
materials,
such as
eccentric
obsidians,
red
pigment,
charcoal,
and
shells.
Sometimes
offerings
in
structures
included
domestic
refuse. These were usually classified as problematical de-
posits,
that
is,
as
special
deposits
of
uncertain function.
A
search
through
the literature turned
up
no
specific
identifications
of
production
waste in
caches
at
other Low-
land
Maya
sites.
Nevertheless,
published
descriptions
indi-
cate that
debitage
of
various kinds was
deposited
in
Classic
Period
caches
in
at least
two cities
that were
probably
on
the
second
level of
their
regional
settlement
hierarchies:
Tikal's
nearest
large
neighbor,
Uaxactun,
and Altun
Ha
in
Belize
(FIG.
).
Monument
and structure
caches at
Uaxac-
tun
contained
"flint
chips"
and
nodules,
obsidian
flakes
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:06:32 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/19/2019 7 Moholy Nagy 1997
12/22
Journal
of
Field
Archaeology/Vol.
4,
1997
303
PD.33
ot
.
,
.C..o
0
1
2M
Bu.24
Bu.23
Bu.48
Figure
6. A detail of the section
through
the
substructure
of
Str.
5D-33,
which shows
Problematical
Deposit 33, an Intermediate Classic Period deposit consisting predominantly of obsidian chipping
waste;
Burial
24,
a vaulted
Intermediate
Classic chamber burial within the fill of
the
temple
substruc-
ture;
Burial
23,
a
vaulted
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 Bur-
ial 48
(after
Coe 1990:
fig.
9b).
and
cores,
jade,
and
unspecified
shell
(Ricketson
and Rick-
etson 1937:
152-153,
171, 187, 197,
plate
67e;
Smith
1950:
92).
Stelae were
not
erected
at
Altun
Ha,
but its
structure caches
included chert
debitage,
obsidian cores
and
other
debitage, jade,
specular
hematite,
nacreous
shell,
and
unspecified
shell
(Pendergast
1979:
85-86,
150-151;
1982:
34, 46-47, 81,
121;
1990:
119,
128, 138, 184,
198, 199, 231-232, 250-252, 286-288, 364,
370).
BURIALS,
CHAMBER
BURIALS,
AND
CACHES
IN
BURIALS
The residents of Tikal received various
types
of
burials,
as
would
be
expected
in
a ranked
society.
As in some
other
areas
of
the
world,
the
most
important
persons
were
given
specially
constructed
mortuary repositories,
often
called
tombs.
I refer to them here as
chamber
burials,
equivalent
to
the
"Chamber
a"
type
burials
defined for Uaxactun
(Smith
1950:
88). Special deposits
that
included
human
remains
were
classified
as
problematical
deposits
if
it was
unclear
if
they
had been intended as
votive
offerings
or
burials.
Only rarely
was
production
waste found within
graves
of
any
kind.
In
the few
cases where it
did
occur,
it
is
more
useful to
regard
it as
part
of
a
cache rather than
as burial
furniture. Caches were
occasionally placed
in elite burials
during
the
Early
and
Intermediate Classic
Periods.
Usually
they
included the
specialized
lidded
pottery
jars
and flar-
ing-sided
bowls
characteristic of
contemporary
caches
(Culbert
1993:
fig. 21b-j,
31,
45).
Their
contents were
also
similar to
those
in
monument and structure
caches,
including
debitage
of
Spondylus
hell and
jade
and
specular
hematite
(Coe
1990:
121,
484).
The
caches
placed
within chamber burials at
Tikal
may
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:06:32 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/19/2019 7 Moholy Nagy 1997
13/22
304
Craft
Productionat
Tikal,
Guatemala/Moholy-Nagy
Table
5.
Group
5D-2
Protoclassic
and Classic Period
chamber
burials.
The
numbers in
parentheses
refer to
pages
in
Coe 1990. The
principal subjects
of these burials were either male
or
unidentifiable.
All were extended
and
supine,
unless
otherwise noted
(after
Coe
1990:
chart
1).
Ceramic
Exterior
Relation
to
Burial
(pages) complex
Position
of
principal debitage deposit
Chamber Axial
associated
tructure
8 (487-490) Imix Robbed,backfilled No Vaulted JustW Intruded
196
(641-646)
Imix Head
to
W Yes
Vaulted
Slightly
W
Dedicatory
116
(604-609)
Imix Head
to
N
Yes
Vaulted N of axis
Intruded
24
(540-543) Ik
Head to
N
Yes
Vaulted Yes
Intruded
23
(536-540)
Ik
Head
to
N
Yes Vaulted
Slightly
W
Intruded
195
(565-568)
Ik
Head
to
N No
Vaulted
Yes
Dedicatory
200
(399-405)
Ik
Robbed,
backfilled Yes
Vaulted Yes
Intruded
48
(118-123)
Manik3A
Bundled,
eated No
Bedrock No
Intruded
10
(479-487)
Manik
3A Head to
N
Yes
Bedrock Yes
Dedicatory
22
(397-399)
Manik3A Head
to
N
No
Slab roof Yes
Intruded
125
(335-337)
Cimi Head
to
E
Yes Beam
roof Yes Intruded
be
analogous
to
caches
placed
beneath burial chamber
floors at Altun Ha.
Some of
these
included chert
"chipping
waste,"
fragments
of
jade
and
specular
hematite that
may
be
debitage,
and bits of
Spondylus
nd
other shells
(Pender-
gast
1982:
52-72,
116).
Specular
hematite and
jade
frag-
ments were
also
reported
from within
chamber
burials at
Altun Ha
(Pendergast
1979:
61-85,
1982:
102,
112-
116).
DEPOSITS
XTERIOR O
CHAMBER
URIALS
Large
accumulations
of
chert and
obsidian
debitage
had
been
placed
around
and over
eight
of
Tikal's excavated
chamber burials. Burial 125
dates to the
Protoclassic Pe-
riod;
the rest
to
the
Classic Period.
Seven occurred
in
the
monumental
center,
Group
5D-2
(TABLE
5).
The
eighth,
Burial
77,
came from
adjacent
Group
5D-10,
an
elite
residential
group
of
range
structures
(Harrison
1963;
Coe
1967:
74-75).
Altogether,
11
Protoclassic
and
Classic Period
chamber
burials were
investigated
in
Group
5D-2
(Coe
1990:
118-
123,
335-337,
397-405, 479-490,
536-543,
565-568,
604-609,
641-646).
The
debitage deposits
with seven of
these
burials were
by
far the
largest
found in
Tikal;
so
large
that
they
were not
completely
recovered or
recorded.
Chert
and obsidian were interred in
the same
deposit,
although by weight
there
was
more chert than
obsidian.
The chert
component
consisted
predominantly
of
biface
thinning
flakes,
with some
decortication
flakes, cores,
chunks,
and unfinished
artifacts. The earliest
deposit,
with
Burial
125,
also included chert blade
cores.
The
obsidian
debitage
consisted
predominantly
of small
percussion
flake-blades,
with some
exhausted
prismatic
blade
core
fragments,
unused
pressure
blades,
macroblade and flake
fragments
from
large polyhedral
cores,
and
the
distinctive,
transverseflakes
generated
in
making
eccentrics
from
blade
cores. The core
eccentrics themselves
were
identified
in
two
deposits,
those with
Burials
10
and
23.
The earlier
deposits
consisted of
layers
of
chert
incorpo-
rating
clusters of
obsidian,
separated by
earthen fill
mixed
with
stones,
plaster,
and
other
construction
material
(FIG.
7).
In
contrast
to
the
midden and
chultun
deposits
de-
scribed
earlier,
no used
artifacts,
and
only
small
quantities
of little
sherds,
the kind of rubbish
that
would be
picked
up
by
sweeping,
were
included in the
debitage layers.
The
two
latest and
largest deposits,
both of the
Late
Classic
Period,
consisted
of
batches of
chert and
obsidian
placed
within
construction fill.
One of
these,
in
the fill
that
sealed
the
entry
to
Burial
116 in
Structure 5D-1
(FIG.
8; Coe
1990:
607,
figs.
258,
259),
was
reconstructed
as
follows:
...
two
fills,
U.
21
and
especially
U.
24,
contained
myriad
pockets
and narrow
strata
of flint
flakesand obsidian
scrap.
A
goodly
handful f
these
items was
continually potted
every
half-meter
or
so
throughout
U. 24.
Rarely
did flint
and
obsidian
ntermix,however,
and
clusters
and scattersof flint
were
numerically
more
frequent.
Obsidianwasmore common
below
Fl. 2B
level
than
flint.
Obviously,
with
separate
asket-
loads
of
obsidian
and flint
nearby,
someone
intermittently
tossed
handfuls nto fill
being
loaded
in,
and
did
so
over a
distance
of
no
less
than 12
m.
Confined
unnel-work
nques-
tionably
managed
to
intersect
only
a small
proportion
of
material
present.
A
ton
of
esoterically
istributed
lint-per-
hapsa quarterof a ton of obsidian-may not be far off the
mark
(Coe
1990:
607).
One
problem
with
very
large
deposits
is that
usually they
were
only
recorded as
weights
(if
they
were recorded at
all),
while
smaller
quantities
of
production
refuse
were
usually only
counted.
A
preliminary,
averaged
conversion
figure
of 5.8
grams
for a
piece
of
chert
biface
production
waste and 0.6
grams
for a
piece
of
obsidian blade
produc-
tion waste
was
derived from an
analysis
of the
debitage
placed
with Burial 125. If
these
figures
are
applied
to the
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:06:32 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/19/2019 7 Moholy Nagy 1997
14/22
Journal of
Field
Archaeology/Vol.
4,
1997
305
SBu.10
7n
N.
CI
c
~~3
B O O Y ?
u~lN
Figure
7.
A
section
through
Burial 10
of the
Early
Classic
Period,
which
was
excavated into
bedrock. It
was
dedicatory
to Str.
5D-34,
which
was
built
directly
over it.
Numbers
1-7
show the
locations of
seven
large deposits
of chert and
obsidian
debitage
that
were included
in
the
earthen
fill
between the
layers
of
marl and stones
sealing
the
entrance to the
chamber
(after
Coe
1990:
fig. 154).
Figure
8.
A
section
through
Late Classic Burial
116,
a vaulted
chamber
in-
truded into Str.
5D-1
and
partly
excavated into bedrock. Clusters of
chert and
obsidian
debitage
occurred in
the
fill
directly
over the
capstones
of the burial
chamber
and in Units 21
and 24 of the
substructure
fill
above it. This
deposit
of lithic
waste was one of the
largest
encountered at the site and is estimated to
have
included
about a ton of chert
and a
quarter
of a ton of obsidian
(after
Coe
1990:
fig.
259).
U . 2 1
t
'
U.24
',r
,,
'
:r
I
,~
,,
S1
Bu.116.
W
/1
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:06:32 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/19/2019 7 Moholy Nagy 1997
15/22
306
Craft
Production
at
Tikal,
Guatemala/Moholy-Nagy
N
I
Ca 140
A
:
B
0
1
2M
I I
I
Figure
9.
A
section
through
Cache140AandB of the
Early
Classic
Period,
which
had
been
intruded
nto
Str.
5D-22.
Cache 140B
was
deposited
at the
entry
to a small
chamber,
Cache
140A,
and consisted
of over 2800
pieces
of obsidian
debitage
among
which
were
chert
and obsidian ccentrics.Cache140Aincluded he remains f a croco-
dile,
a
turtle,
and a
large
snake,
and associated
fferings
of chert and
obsidian
eccentrics,
bsidian
blade
cores,
jade
and
Spondylus
hell debi-
tage, specially-madeottery
cache
vessels,
and
many
other
objects(af-
ter Coe 1990:
fig.
104).
Burial 116
deposit,
then the
latter included at least
157,000
pieces
of chert
and at
least
380,000
pieces
of
obsidian.
Also of
considerable interest
is a
deposit
of
over
2800
fragments
of
obsidian
debitage placed
exterior to the re-
pository
of
what came to
be
designated
as Cache
140A and
B
(FIG.
9; Coe 1990: fig. 104). The arrangement was, in
fact,
a
scaled-down version
of
that found with the contem-
porary
chamber
burial,
Burial 10
(FIG. 7;
Coe 1990:
fig.
154),
although
the
remains found in Cache 140 were not
human but
reptile:
a
large
crocodile, turtle,
and
snake.
Debitage deposits
exterior to
chamber burials have been
reported
from
other
important
Classic Period Lowland
centers,
none of which
had notable
surface concentrations
of
debitage.
They
were
found
at
Uaxactun,
Rio
Azul,
Altun
Ha,
Lamanai,
Caracol,
and Altar de
Sacrificios
(Hall
1989: table
16),
at Buenavista del
Cayo (Taschek
and Ball
1992:
492),
and
apparently
in
looters' trenches at
Nakbe
(Hansen, Bishop, and Fahsen 1991: 239). Obsidian waste
was
included
with
chert at Lamanai
(Hall
1989:
217),
Caracol
(Hall
1989:
259),
Buenavista
del
Cayo,
and Tikal.
Although
these
exterior burial
deposits usually incorporate
tiny potsherds,
charcoal,
and
other small-scale
sweepings,
it
is
important
to note
they
do
not
include
any
of
the other
kinds of
trash
found
in
household middens. The
only
possible exception
that
I
know of
is
a
group
of
11
finished,
used artifacts and
fragments
from Tomb 19 at Rio
Azul.
These were
large
chert bifaces that
appear
to be
worn-out
construction
tools and
may
have been
used to
construct
the
tomb
(Hall
1989:
83-86,
figs.
32-33).
There
has been a certain amount of
speculation
about
the
purpose
of these
large
lithic
deposits.
The chert
and
obsidian may have been regarded as symbolic of the loca-
tion of the burial in the
Maya
Recommended