stone tools in mesoamerica: flaked stone tools

Stone Tools in Mesoamerica: Flaked Stone Tools

Bradford W. Andrews*Department of Anthropology, Pacific Lutheran University, Tacoma, WA, USA

Flaked stone tools in pre‐HispanicMesoamerica were used for a wide range of domestic, militaristic,and ritualistic activities. Geographically, Mesoamerica refers to present‐day Mexico, Guatemala,Belize, and parts of Honduras and El Salvador. The prismatic blade was the most common tool,usually made of obsidian, which was the most important tool stone in the region (see “Extra:Obsidian in Mesoamerica”). Flake tools and biface implements, like projectile points and knives,were also used throughout Mesoamerica. These implements, however, were not as prevalent asblade tools except during early Mesoamerican prehistory or at sites like Colha in the chert-bearingzone of Belize where obsidian was scarce (Fig. 1) (Hester & Shafer, 1994; Shafer & Hester, 1983).This discussion focuses on the Mesoamerican blade technology, but flake and biface technologiesare also reviewed. Reference is made to chronological trends and how blades and other items wereproduced and used. Although the topic here is technological, obsidian production and use also hadconsiderable symbolic and ritual significance (see “Extra: The Ideological Significance ofObsidian”).

Early Prehistory

Research indicates that as early as 15000 BCE, small foraging groups who made impressiveprojectile points inhabited much of Mesoamerica (MacNeish, 1976; Weaver, 1981). These groupsare referred to as Paleo‐Indian (prior to 7200 BCE) “big‐game” hunters. They practiced a bifacetechnology requiring the use of percussion and pressure techniques to shape biface (e.g., projectilepoints) and uniface (scrapers) tools. The manufacture of biface tools like projectile points requiresthe removal of flakes from both sides or “faces” of a relatively flat piece of stone. Uniface tools likemany scrapers, in contrast, are made by removing flakes from only one side of a piece of stone. Theflaking techniques used to make both types of implements are similar, so they are referred to here asproducts of biface technology.

Paleo‐Indian bifaces were initially made from large flakes using direct percussion, which werethen “thinned” with pressure. Direct percussion involved directly striking a piece of raw material(i.e., nodule, flake, or blade) with a stone, bone, antler, or wood hammer (Fig. 2) (Hester, 1972,p. 99). In contrast, the pressure technique involves placing a tool of bone, antler, or wood against theedge of a piece of raw material and pushing on it to “press” off flakes.

Many Paleo‐Indian points inMesoamerica were the fluted varieties associated with the Clovis andFolsom Traditions (Weaver, 1981). Clovis points have been found in Northern and Western Mexicoand as far south as El Salvador (Weaver, 1981). In Central Mexico, a similar development referred toas the Cordilleran Tradition emerged around 13000 BCE; it was associated with the appearance ofpressure flaked, willow‐shaped projectile points, crude blades, and scrapers (MacNeish, 1976,p. 322, Fig. 2). Early Paleo‐Indian points were hafted on spears and used as thrusting weapons.

*Email: [email protected]*Email: [email protected]

Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western CulturesDOI 10.1007/978-94-007-3934-5_9638-2# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

of 29

By about 9000 BCE, however, the atlatl or spear thrower appeared, providing hunters with greaterthrusting force and accuracy. In the Aztec language of Nahuatl, the word atlatl refers to what isknown in English as the spear thrower. This device consists of a stick that supports a dart‐tippedshaft. During the throwing action, the stick acts as an extension of the arm and a lever that propels the“butt” end of the dart shaft generating greater thrusting power and accuracy than a shaft thrown byhand (Adams, 1977, p. 339). Point size is usually used to differentiate larger spear points fromsmaller atlatl points, with atlatl points measuring generally less than 6 or 7 cm in length. This criteriais subjective, however, and many finely flaked points dating to this period could have been eitherspear or atlatl points (Fig. 3).

The appearance of the spear thrower occurred in tandem with the gradual replacement of big‐game hunters by groups who foraged for a wider range of plant and animal resources. This shift is

Fig. 1 Map of Greater Mesoamerica (Illustration by the author)

Fig. 2 The direct freehand percussion technique (Illustration by Karen Andrews. Used with her permission)


of 29

associated with the Mesoamerican Archaic period (7200–2500 BCE). Generally, Archaic flakedstone tools are characterized as expedient, consisting of flakes made with direct percussion or bipolarpercussion. Bipolar percussion involved striking the top of a cobble resting on an anvil stone,enabling the transmission of force from both “poles” of the cobble (Fig. 4). Unmodified bipolar flaketools, or those flaked into slightly refined forms, were “amorphous” in form, and their productionresulted in a miscellany of chunks and shards. Some argue that this technology was nonspecialized(Clark &Lee, 1984) and required limited skill (Clark, 1981). It allowed the knapper an easymeans to

Fig. 3 Paleo‐Indian projectile points from El Gigante cave, Honduras (Photos by Tim Scheffler. Used with hispermission)

Fig. 4 The bipolar percussion technique (Illustration by Karen Andrews. Used with her permission)


of 29

maximize the amount of available cutting edge in areas where obsidian was a scarce and distantresource. More recently, however, evidence from the Olmec site of San Lorenzo supports the notionthat rather than scarcity, it was used primarily for reducing relatively small pieces of obsidian that areotherwise difficult to flake (De León, 2008). Moreover, it did require much more skill than has beenpreviously appreciated. This expedient technology is found in Mesoamerica from the Basin ofMexico (Boksenbaum, 1980; Tolstoy, Fish, Boksenbaum, Blair Vauhn, & Smith, 1977) to thePacific coast of Guatemala (Fig. 1) (Coe, 1961).

Although expedient techniques were prevalent well into the Preclassic (2500 BCE–AD 300)period (Aoyama, 1994, p. 136; Clark, 1987), some Postclassic sites (AD 900–1521) also havebipolared artifacts (Andrews, 2013). Recent research at the Aztec site Calixtlahuaca indicates thatbipolar reduction was a limited but significant component of the city’s flaked stone economy (about10 %). It was used to reduce small nodules of obsidian and to further process “used up” bifaces andprismatic blades and cores (Fig. 5). Scalar cores might have provided flakes for various uses, buttheir relatively thin, V-shaped longitudinal profiles suggest that they may have functioned as wedge-type tools. The identification of bipolared prismatic blade segments was most surprising. Thetechnique created new sharp cutting edges and “burinated” fracture surfaces good for scraping.

Fig. 5 Bipolared artifacts from Calixtlahuaca: (a) “scalar” bipolar core; (b) bipolared blade sections, dorsal surfaces toprow, ventral surfaces bottom row (Photos by author)


of 29

Evidence of a similar use of bipolar percussion was also identified at the Aztec site of Xico in theBasin of Mexico (Brumfiel, 1986, p. 258). Its great time depth is consistent with the additive natureof culture – early technologies are often never completely replaced; they just become supplementaryto their newer counterparts. Bipolar reduction was probably used elsewhere but has gone underreported because few researchers have looked for it in Post-Formative archaeological collections.

Mesoamerican Blade Technology

Even though a few pressure blades may have been made in Central Mexico after 3400 BCE, bladeproduction did not become prominent until the Middle Preclassic (900–300 BCE) period (Hirth &Flenniken, 2002, p. 123). The factors responsible for the emergence of the Mesoamerican bladetechnology remain a topic of debate (see “Extra: Origins of the Mesoamerican Blade Technology”).By the time socially complex societies like Teotihuacan (AD 100–650) and Xochicalco(AD 650–900) (see Fig. 1 for site locations) had emerged, blade production had become a specializedoccupation carried out by skilled craftsmen. Teotihuacan, located near the Basin of Mexico (Fig. 1),had an impressive population of 125,000 people by AD 500, most of whom performed theirdomestic cutting and piercing activities with blade tools. As such, evidence for specialized bladeproduction has been used to study the complexity of this society’s economy (Andrews, 2002, 2012;Hirth & Andrews, 2006; Millon, 1973; Spence, 1981, 1987). Recent research has examined the skillof blade makers to determine how often they worked (see “Extra: Measuring the Skill of AncientBlade-Making Craftsmen”).

The Mesoamerican blade technology resulted in the production of similar types of tools, althoughproduction techniques definitely varied. This variation can be attributed to numerous factorsincluding distance to obsidian sources, the quality of different types of obsidian, how it was acquired(e.g., directly from the source, in the marketplace, etc.), different production techniques, andlocalized demand for specific types of products (Hirth & Andrews, 2002). Hence, readers mustkeep in mind that the following sequence is a generalized ideal; all local reduction sequences were tovarying degrees unique.

In general, blades were detached from cylindrical cores using percussion and pressure techniques.Obsidian was acquired from quarries in the form of blocks and nodules and as cobbles in streamdeposits (Spence, 1981). The initial step involved making a core platform. A platform is the surfacewhere force was applied to remove blades. Large platform preparation flakes were detached from theupper end of the pending core (Fig. 6). This procedure created a smooth concave surface on a corepreform. Sometimes platforms were further modified with pecking and grinding (see “Extra: ThePecked and Ground Core Platform”).

Next, relatively large decortication flakes and macroflakes were detached from the lateral sides ofthe core preform (Fig. 6). Decortication is the removal of the cortex or weathered surface of thestone. Additional macroflake detachments gave the preform more symmetry, resulting in a primarymacrocore with irregular ridges on its lateral facets. Some of these macrocores are immensemeasuring more than 40 cm in length (Fig. 7), although most of them fall in the 15–20 cm range.After initially shaping the macrocore, macroblades were removed from the primary macrocore tomake a secondary macrocore (Fig. 6). Macroblades were relatively long, parallel‐sided items withone or more dorsal ridges. These blades were roughly 2.5 cm wide and more than 1 cm thick. Bythemselves, macroblades were sturdy cutting implements, but they were also further shaped intomore specialized biface tools (Fig. 8). Macroblade removal created a series of parallel, irregularridges running the length of the core. Next, small percussion blades were detached to make the


of 29

polyhedral core (Fig. 6). These blades are thinner than macroblades, with widths of less than 2.5 cm,and their removal created more regularized parallel ridges running the length of the core.

Most initial core shaping and blade‐making activities were accomplished with direct percussion.Indirect percussion, however, was also probably used. This technique involved placing one end of anantler, bone, or wood punch on a platform and then striking the opposite end with a hammer stone; itpermits more precise control over the transmission of force than direct percussion (Fig. 9). Asa consequence, relatively standardized percussion blades can be made with indirect percussion.Although still a subject of debate (Pelegrin, 2003), the recovery of extremely symmetricalmacroblades at sites like Kaminaljuyu in the Maya region (Fig. 1) suggests that indirect percussionwas used in ancient Mesoamerica (Hirth, 2003).

The polyhedral core was reduced to make the delicate pressure blades that were common place inancient Mesoamerica. The Aztec technique for making these blades has been reconstructed

Raw Material (Block)

Core Preform

Primary Macrocore

Secondary Macrocore

Polyhedral Core

10 cm

Platform Preparation Flake

Decortication Flakes and Macroflakes

Macroblades

Small Percussion Blades

Fig. 6 Schematic diagram of the initial steps in core production (Illustration by author)


of 29

according to historic information and replication experiments (Clark, 1989c; Crabtree, 1968;Sahagun, 1963, plate 778; Titmus & Clark, 2003; de Torquemada, 1975; Tudela & CoronaNuñez, 1977). The reconstruction proposes that seated craftsmen secured cores against an immov-able object with their feet and then used their stomachmuscles and torso to “press” or push blades offwith a long‐handled wooden stick called an itzcolotli (Fig. 10). In some areas of Mesoamerica,however, pressure blades were also removed with a handheld technique (Flenniken & Hirth, 2003).

First‐series blades were the initial pressure blades removed from a polyhedral core (Fig. 11).These blades eliminated irregular ridges left by the blades previously removed with percussion.Sometimes second‐series blades were taken off after first‐series blades depending on the shape of thepolyhedral core. If the core was cone shaped, first‐series blades often extended only part way downthe sloping core face, resulting in a secondary polyhedral core. In turn, second‐series blades wereremoved to extend the parallel ridges the entire length of the core.

The product of first‐ and second‐series blade detachments was the pressure core (Fig. 11).Pressure cores yielded third‐series blades that are generally regular and consistent in shape (widthand thickness) and have two dorsal ridges, thereby making them prismatic in cross section. Thedorsal ridges were mechanically important because they helped guide the transmission of force fromthe platform resulting in successful pressure blade removal.

Many pressure blades were further modified in a variety of ways. Most of them were snapped intosections and used for cutting activities. One parallel edge could be hafted in a piece of wood or bone,making the section easier to handle. A piece of wood or bone was incised deep enough to insert theblade section, which was then secured with a sticky adhesive composed of pine pitch and ashes.

Fig. 7 Large macrocore from the Zaragoza-Oyameles obsidian quarry in theMexican State of Puebla (Photo by CharlesKnight. Used with his permission)


of 29

Fig. 9 The indirect percussion technique (Illustration by Karen Andrews. Used with her permission)

Fig. 8 Broken macroblade biface tools discarded at a blade‐making workshop at Teotihuacan (Photos by AlejandroSerabia. Property of the author)


of 29

Pressure blades were also made into specialized forms such as projectile points, lancets, andnotched silhouettes of various forms. Small pressure blade projectile points were used for huntingand warfare. Many of these items were too small to be propelled effectively with a spear thrower(Fig. 12a, b). Consequently, their size and minimal weight indicate that they were used to tip arrowspropelled with a bow. This conclusion is interesting because small blade points occur in archaeo-logical deposits that supposedly predate the Postclassic (AD 900) introduction of the bow inMesoamerica (see “Extra: The Bow and Arrow in Prehistoric Mesoamerica”).

The slender needle‐like, lancet blades (Fig. 12c–e) may have been used in textile production, butthey were most important for bloodletting. Historic sources and ritual archaeological contexts wherelancets have been found indicate that they were used to draw blood (Clark, 1989d, p. 314; Durán,1971, p. 263; López de Cogolludo 1954; Motolinía, 1950; Nuttall, 1903; see Landa in Tozzer, 1941,pp. 113–114). Lancets are often portrayed in bloodletting rituals depicted on Mexican and Mayacodices, Maya monuments, and polychrome vessels. As an act of auto‐sacrifice, this practice wasessential for appeasing the gods by providing them with blood nourishment.

Silhouettes, usually referred to as “eccentrics,” were also made from pressure blades and occur ina variety of shapes including crescents and trilobal sections (Fig. 12f–h). Here, the term silhouette ispreferred to eccentric because the latter literally means “without symmetry” –most of these artifactshave symmetry and should be referred to by terms more specific to their morphological, technical,and functional attributes (Alejandro Pastrana, personal communication, 2014). Pressure bladesilhouettes may have functioned as ornamental elements, perhaps signifying social status, which

Fig. 10 Gene Titmus removing pressure blades using an Aztec itzcolotli (Photos by James Woods. Used with hispermission)


of 29

were sewn on articles of clothing (Spence, 1996). Their symbolic significance is supported by theirrelatively high frequency in burials and ritual cache deposits.

The end by-product of the blade-making sequence was the exhausted pressure core, oftenmeasuring no more than 1.5 cm in diameter (Fig. 11). At some sites like the Aztec city of Otumba(Otis Charlton, 1993) and the pre‐Aztec city of Xochicalco (Fig. 1), lapidary craftsmen usedexhausted cores to make beads (Fig. 13). The slender cores were fractured into sections usingbipolar percussion and then ground and polished to perfection.

Polyhdral Core

Secondary PolyhedralCore

Pressure Core

Exhausted Core

Third-series Blades

Second-series Blades

First-series Blades

10 cm

Fig. 11 Schematic diagram of pressure blade production (Illustration by the author)


of 29

Mesoamerican Biface Technology

Biface flaking techniques were used to make impressive biface and uniface items for domestic,military, and ideological purposes. Although probably made by individual households early on, bythe Classic period (AD 300–900), many of these implements were being made in specialized

Fig. 12 Specialized tools made from pressure blades at the site of Xochicalco: (a, b) projectile points; (c–e) lancetblades; (f–h) silhouettes (Illustration by author. Property of Kenneth Hirth. Used with his permission)


of 29

workshops at the quarries or in the cities. One important utilitarian uniface artifact in Central Mexicowas the maguey scraper (Fig. 14). The maguey plant (Agave atrovirens) was a valuable source ofwater, food, fiber, and fuel, among other things (Evans, 1990; Sauer, 1963; Sheehy, 2001). NearTeotihuacan, large maguey scrapers at the Aztec (AD 1350–1520) period site of Cihuatecpan weremade of relatively coarse obsidian from the source of Otumba (Fig. 1). Maguey scrapers were usedto process maguey fibers and to initiate the flow of a sticky liquid that was converted into a fermenteddrink called pulque. Evidence suggests that pulque was a valuable source of nutrition and potableliquid in large cities like Teotihuacan where sanitation was a serious problem (Sheehy, 2001, p. 265).

Large, impressive bifaces were used for combat and also may have had symbolic significancegiven the central importance of warfare, conquest, and human sacrifice that emerged during theClassic period (AD 300–900) (Fig. 15). These items occurred in many forms. At Teotihuacan(AD 100–650), evidence has indicated that the large atlatl points for the city’s army were made bycraftsmen under the direction of state officials (Carballo, 2004, 2007). During the Epiclassic period(AD 650–900), evidence suggests that numerous biface workshops in and around Teotihuacan mayhave supplied many consumers in the region and beyond (Andrews & Hirth, 2006, p. 249; Nelson,2009, p. 160).

Like the small silhouettes made from pressure blades, the contexts in which their large counter-parts are found indicate that they had symbolic significance (Gamio, 1966; Moholy-Nagy, 1989;Stocker & Spence, 1973). At Teotihuacan, some of the most impressive examples are the anthro-pomorphic silhouettes (Fig. 16). Other impressive pieces combine multiple symbols into oneimplement, such as a projectile point, a serpent, and a trilobal motif signifying blood droplets(Fig. 17). Many of these items were undoubtedly associated with warfare and sacrifice because theyare often recovered in offerings with human sacrificial victims decorated as warriors.

At Xochicalco, ten impressive silhouettes were found atop the site’s major public pyramid. Theyoccur in several forms including circular uniface elements (Fig. 18). These artifacts were either usedduring public rituals conducted for the benefit of the masses or were the contents of dedicatorycaches buried during the construction of the pyramid.

Fig. 13 Beads in progress from the elite zone of Xochicalco, Mexico. Inset (Illustration by Luis Gonzalo Gaviño,property of the author)


of 29

Fig. 14 Turtleback maguey scraper from the Aztec period Teotihuacan Valley (Photo by Susan Evans. Used with herpermission)

Fig 15 Large biface projectile points from the site of Xochicalco (Illustration by Luis Gonzalo Gaviño. Property of theauthor)


of 29

The stone tool technologies prevalent in pre‐Hispanic Mesoamerica varied over both time andspace. This discussion has provided a cursory overview of the flake stone tools prevalent from Paleo-Indian period (prior to 7200 BCE) until the Spanish conquest in the early sixteenth century. TheMesoamerican blade technology was the most important, enabling the production of prismaticblades that were further shaped into different types of tools. Overall, flaked stone tool productionin Mesoamerica provided a remarkable variety of highly functional implements used for a variety ofactivities.

Extra: Obsidian in Mesoamerica

Obsidian is an igneous stone that is often described as “volcanic glass.” This siliceous material iscreated by the extremely rapid cooling of volcanic ejecta, a process that prevents the formation ofcrystalline structure. Obsidian is very smooth and glassy to rough or grainy in texture and is usuallyblack to gray in color, but it also can be red, brown, green, silver, and aquamarine. This variation incolor is the result of chemical impurities. Obsidian occurs in block or tabular form in large veins or asisolated chunks and cobbles in flows of volcanic material. It can also be found on talus slopes oralluvial streambeds in a “weathered” cobble form. Having eroded out of primary geologic context,the weathered cobble surface exhibits tiny cones or fracture planes that are produced by rollingaction. Obsidian is easy to work with because of its noncrystalline structure, and it produces anextremely sharp cutting edge. One disadvantage of obsidian is that it is brittle, so that tools and tooledges can break more easily than other flakeable stone like chert and flint.

Fig. 16 Anthropomorphic figurine from Teotihuacan (Photo from the Proyecto Pirámide de la Luna. Used with thepermission of Saburo Sugiyama)


of 29

Fig. 18 Crescent silhouette from Xochicalco (Photo by author)

Fig. 17 Bifacial composite silhouette from an offering found in the Moon Pyramid at Teotihuacan. This artifactcombines projectile point, serpent, and trilobal blood droplet elements in its design (Illustration by DavidM. Carballo. Used with his permission)


of 29

Throughout most of Mesoamerica, obsidian was the primary raw material used to make flakedstone tools. In the region, obsidian flows are found in two major zones of geologically recentvolcanism (Glascock, Elam, & Cobean, 1988). One major zone is an east-west trending band ofsources scattered from the state of Veracruz on the Gulf of Mexico to the western state of Michoacánbordering the Pacific Ocean; well‐known sources in this zone include Pico de Orizaba, Zaragoza-Oyameles, Sierra de las Navajas (Pachuca), Otumba, Zacualtipan, Ucareo, Zinapecuaro, and LaMora/Teuchitlan (Fig. 1). The southern zone is located in Guatemala, El Salvador, and westernHonduras; well‐known sources in this zone include Jilotepeque, El Chayel, Ixtapeque, andEsperanza (Fig. 1).

Studies of obsidian artifacts from archaeological sites using techniques such as instrumentalneutron activation analysis (INAA), X‐ray fluorescence (XRF), and laser ablation inductivelycoupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA‐ICP‐MS) have revealed that large quantities of thesematerials were transported across the landscape. By tracing the distribution of different sources,archaeologists have been able to reconstruct routes of obsidian trade and transport and how theychanged over time (Asaro, Michel, Sidrys, & Stross, 1978; Boksenbaum, Tolstoy, Harbottle,Kimberlin, & Neivens, 1987; Braswell & Glascock, 1998; Cobean, Vogt, Glascock, & Stocker,1991; Glascock, Elam, & Aoyama, 1991, 1994, Glascock, Neff, Stryker, & Johnson, 1994; Hirth,2008; Knight & Glascock, 2009; Moholy-Nagy, 2003; Nelson, 1985).

Extra: The Ideological Significance of Obsidian

Thus far, comparatively little attention has been given to research on the ideology related to obsidianflaked stone tool production. Ideology or belief systems are the most challenging for the archaeol-ogist to reconstruct. But, the general theoretical perspective embraced by many archaeologists positsthat technological and economic features of a society are linked to ideological aspects of culture(Erickson &Murphy, 2008). Even though obsidian provided essential tools, it also had an extremelycomplex symbolic conceptualization in ancient Mesoamerica.

Often mined underground, obsidian was associated with the underworld, the land of the dead, andother valuable resources like water and precious metals (Pastrana, 1998, pp. 174–189). The Aztecsbelieved it was created when a bolt of lightning (male symbolism) struck a sacred cave (femalesymbolism) and thus represents a product of the union of heaven and earth. It had a similar originstory for the ancient Maya and was considered the Heart of the Earth (Heyden, 1988, p. 220). Humanuse of this sacred stone took on numerous forms of ritual significance. For example, warriors foughtwith weapons of obsidian, which meant they were metaphorically the ones who “carried divinitywith them.”

One important god in the Aztec pantheon was Tezcatlipoca, who embodied four aspectsrepresented by different colors, each one patron of a different part of the universe (Solís, 1994,p. 185). Black Tezcatlipoca was related to the underworld, sacrifice, and of course obsidian, and hisidols in the main temples were made of this material (Heyden, 1988, p. 222; Pastrana, 1998, p. 179).Associated with the night, sorcery, and warfare (Berdan, 2005), he was arguably the most respectedand powerful of all the gods (Heyden, 1988, p. 222). Tezcatlipoca was the protector of rulers andensured their strength – he spoke to the people through their rulers. Another symbol associated withTezcatlipoca was the obsidian mirror, which had divinatory properties. Tezcatlipoca was referred toas Smoking Mirror, depicted with one on his forehead and his right foot. The obsidian mirrorprovided him with a reflection of everything that took place in the world.


of 29

Another prominent Mesoamerican deity was Itzpapalotl, the Obsidian Butterfly, an ancientgoddess married to the hunting god Mixcoatl, revered by the Aztecs as a warrior who led soldiersinto battle (Heyden, 1988, p. 220). Moreover, she and her obsidian knife were symbols for humansacrifice. Her title and importance may have been related to the belief that warriors who died in battlereturned as butterflies.

A deified form of the Aztec sacrificial obsidian knife was the god Itztli, one of the nine principlegods of the Underworld. As such, the obsidian knives, at least those used for sacrifice, wereconsidered supremely divine symbols of blood sacrifice, a practice that was essential for maintainingthe stability of the Mesoamerican universe. Also, Itztli may have been the Nahuatl (language of theAztecs) word for obsidian blades and is the prefix for the name of the prismatic blade removal tool(Itzcolotli) referred to in the text above.

The entire sequence of obsidian stone tool production and use also was associated with differentgods (Pastrana, 1998, p. 190). Aztec miners who obtained obsidian from underground quarries wereprotected by the god Ehecatl-Quetzalocoatl. This god was associated with fertility and water, whichwas considered a resource that emanated from the underworld via the springs and caves ofmountains. Interestingly, a sculpture of Ehecatl-Quetzalocoatl was recovered from one Aztecmine at the Sierra de las Navajas (see Fig. 1) quarry in Central Mexico (Pastrana, 1998, p. 192).Craftsmen involved in the initial shaping of obsidian blade cores and bifaces at the quarries wereprotected by Itzpapalotl. Besides sacrifice, she was also associated with mother earth and possiblythe mythical origin of obsidian (Sullivan, 1972). City-based craftsmen who further shaped obsidianimplements were associated with Papaloxahual-Xochipilli. This deity was patron of the arts andperhaps craft guilds, especially those that produced sacred items like obsidian mirrors (Pastrana,1998, p. 190). Not surprisingly, those involved in military activities were under the protection ofTezcatlipoca and Itzpapalotl, who was often depicted on the shields of warriors.

The symbolic significance of obsidian was extremely complex, and this brief summary providesa glimpse of how an important facet of material culture was tied to, or otherwise justified by,Mesoamerican ideology. Clearly, our understanding of this topic comes largely from ethnohistoricaccounts of the Aztecs and Mayans recorded around the time of the Spanish conquest. The gods andsymbols, however, have much greater time depth. Although we cannot assume the meanings wereexactly the same for earlier societies like the Toltecs and Olmecs, ethnohistoric data and thearchaeological context of artifactual symbolism can be used to infer the meaning of the latter.This realm of study is limited, but it represents an exciting new research focus that scholars arebeginning to examine with greater interest (Levine & Carballo, 2014). It is important because it addsto our holistic understanding of ancient societies, a hallmark of anthropological archaeology.

Extra: Origins of the Mesoamerican Blade Technology

Hirth and Flenniken (2002, p. 123) have pointed out that research on the origins of the Mesoamer-ican blade technology has been limited. Initially emerging during the Middle Preclassic (900–300BCE), by 700 BCE prismatic blades had become the primary flaked stone tool from the CentralHighlands to the Chalchuapa area of El Salvador (Aoyama, 1994, p. 174; Clark & Lee, 1984; Coe &Diehl, 1980, pp. 247–249; Grove, 1974, p. 33, 48; Marcus & Flannery, 1996; Pires-Ferreira, 1975,Table 5; Sheets, 1978b, Tables 3 and 5; Sweeney, 1983, p. 619).

William Parry (1994) and John Clark (1987) are two researchers that have addressed theemergence of this technology from a largely theoretical perspective. Their views are somewhatcomplementary, but they emphasize different factors. Parry (1994) suggests that the principal


of 29

motivating factor may have been a demand for the production and exchange of many uniform,standardized implements. A blade technology enables such outputs, but a relatively high level ofskill is required to make large batches of standardized blades efficiently. Hence, an increasingdemand for blades during the Middle Preclassic created a need for blade-making craftsmen. Thesespecialists supported themselves, at least in part, by exchanging blades at the regional and perhapsinterregional level. He further notes that many blade workshops are found in large settlements withmonumental architecture, sometimes quite distant from obsidian sources. Parry (1994, p. 94)tentatively states that this evidence may indicate that early craftsmen were attached or sponsoredby the ruling elites in these large settlements.

Clark (1987) suggests that the widespread adoption of the Mesoamerican blade technology wasrelated to the competitive elite behavior associated with ranked or chiefdom societies. Thesesocieties differed from the Archaic foraging groups (7200–2500 B.C.) in that people lived in largersedentary communities that were socially hierarchical. Clark (1987) maintains that there was no realtechnological advantage to a blade technology because the expedient flake tools made during theArchaic period were functionally adequate. Moreover, the Mesoamerican blade technology requiredspecialized training because it was difficult to learn. It also required the coordination of coreproduction at the source and the transport of cores to the settlements where they were reduced.Consequently, Clark (1987) suggests that the adoption of the Mesoamerican blade technology wascomplex enough to require the sponsorship of the elites who ruled the Preclassic ranked or chiefdomsocieties. Accordingly, these elites financed and organized the acquisition, production, and distri-bution of cores to blade-making craftsmen in large settlements.

Many researchers have debated various reasons why blade technologies arose in different spaceand time throughout the world. The Parry (1994) and Clark (1987) models for the emergence ofMesoamerican blade technology cannot be used to explain the adoption of blade technologies insocieties that were less complex than chiefdoms (Hirth & Flenniken, 2002). Worldwide examplesinclude the Paleolithic and Neolithic blade technologies of Europe, Asia, and North Africa (Inizan &Lechevallier, 1990; Pelegrin, 1997; Tixier, 1976), the Paleolithic microblade technologies of Siberiaand Japan (Flenniken, 1988; Kobayashi, 1970), and the microblade technologies of North America(Andrefsky, 1987; Arnold, 1985; Bradley & Yevgeny, 1996; Magne, 2004; Morrow, 1988; Parry,1994; Rasic & Andrefsky, 2001; Reid, 1976; Yesner & Pearson, 2002). These societies ranged fromhighly mobile to relatively settled groups who probably never attained the level of social complexitytypically associated with chiefdoms.

The adoption of blade tools in northwestern North America may relate to functional aspects of thetechnology (Yesner & Pearson, 2002). This argument recently summarized by Magne (2004, p. 94)states that microblades were a “response to any of several possible causes, such as lithic rawmaterialshortage alleviated by efficient blade production, preference for composite slotted armaments, orresource uses for which microblade design is most efficient, such as slicing, peeling, piercing. . ..” Ithas also been suggested that blade technologies may be best suited to societies where the tasksinvolved in food acquisition or production (subsistence tasks) were predictable (Rasic & Andrefsky,2001, p. 77). Here the manufacture of standardized blade “replacement” parts for tools repeatedlyused for the same tasks would be technologically efficient.

The development of craft specialization and exchange (Parry, 1994) and the competitive elitebehavior associated with emerging chiefdom societies (Clark, 1987) may have played a role in theadoption of the blade technology in some places of Mesoamerica. However, new empirical evidencefrom the Olmec site of San Lorenzo (Fig. 1), arguably the first large-scaleMesoamerican communitywith monumental architecture, indicates early blade production was independent of elite involve-ment (K. Hirth & A. Cyphers, personal communication, 2014). Its inhabitants had relatively equal


of 29

access to obsidian, and the only evidence for blade production is found on the periphery of SanLorenzo Island, a great distance from San Lorenzo’s elite-controlled center. Hence, if elites were notinitially involved in the emergence of this technology, the functional argument that blades are betterfor economies with predictable subsistence tasks deserves consideration. The MesoamericanPreclassic period (2500 B.C. – A.D. 300) was associated with a profound shift from small-scaleforaging societies to larger settled chiefdom societies. Hence, compared to the nomadic foraginglifestyle during the Archaic period, the daily tasks associated with settled agricultural economiesduring the Preclassic were certainly more predictable because they were tied to the strict seasonalcultivation of specific crops. Moreover, the patchy distribution of obsidian across the landscapewould have made a blade technology more effective for supplying the needs of large settlementswith tools from distant sources. Craft specialists producing highly standardized blades for specifictasks would have been able to efficiently meet the needs of very large settlements.

Extra: Measuring the Skill of Ancient Blade‐Making Craftsmen

In ancient Mesoamerica, obsidian blades were made by specialized craftsmen. Some researchershave attempted to measure the skill of these craftsmen as a means for identifying how much timethey devoted to blade‐making activities (Andrews, 2003, 2012; Clark, 2003; Clark & Bryant, 1997;Hirth & Andrews, 2006). Defining the time spent making blades is important because it helpsarchaeologists infer howmany blades were in demand and howmuch economic exchange there wasbetween members of an ancient society. This kind of information reflects the complexity ofa society’s economy. Unlike the modern world where everyone specializes in a particular job,most prehistoric societies were primarily composed of people who provisioned themselves with alltheir daily needs. As societies became larger, people began to specialize in different occupations andexchanged their products for things they did not produce. Hence, the level of specialization ina society is a measure of economic interdependency (Durkheim, 1933).

Fig. 19 Hinged and plunging artifacts from the site of Xochicalco: (a) hinged blade section; (b) core exhibiting severehinge scars; (c) plunging blade section (Illustration by the author. Property of Kenneth Hirth. Used with his permission)


of 29

Measuring craftsman skill is founded on the assumption that aptitude should vary according to theamount of time invested in blade production; in other words, highly skilled craftsmen should bethose who made the most blades. Essentially, this assumption is based on the premise of practicemakes perfect.

Measuring the skill of ancient blade‐making craftsmen in Mesoamerica is quite a challenge. Theone advantage to studying flaked stone artifacts is that they are made with a reductive technology.That is, flaked stone tools are shaped by reducing or removing pieces of stone from a larger stoneuntil the desired form is achieved. The pieces that are removed are called by-products. Careful studyof the by-products of Mesoamerican blade production has made it possible to identify those artifactsthat are mistakes, items that represent one means for measuring craftsman skill.

Mesoamerican blade craftsmen usually made blades in household workshops. Several artifactsfound at these workshops have been identified as mistakes; these items include the hinge‐fracturedblade and the plunging blade. A hinge‐fractured blade is a blade that failed to extend all the way tothe bottom of a core. The distal end of a hinged blade has a fracture plane that curves outward fromits ventral to dorsal surface (Fig. 19a). These artifacts are mistakes because the craftsman’s intentwas to remove a blade that extended the entire length of the core. Also, hinged blades leave behinda deep scar that inhibits the removal of subsequent blades from that part of the core (Fig. 19b).

A plunging blade removes the distal tip of a core. In contrast to the hinge fracture, a plungingblade’s ventral surface curves inward at the bottom of the core thereby removing more core lengththan intended (Fig. 19c). This mishap reduces the length of subsequent blades, thereby reducing theoverall amount of cutting edge that can be produced from a core. The forces resulting in theproduction of these mistakes are described in detail elsewhere (Andrews, 1999, 2003; Clark &Bryant, 1997; Santley, Kerley, & Kneebone, 1986; Sheets, 1978b).

It has been suggested that the frequency of mistakes in a collection of by-products should beuseful for measuring the skill of flaked stone tool craftsmen (Clark, 1986, 2003; Sheets, 1975,1978b; Torrence, 1986, p. 147). Consequently, comparisons of hinged and plunging blade frequen-cies fromMesoamerican blade workshops have been used to make comparative assessments of skill.Workshops with the highest level of skill have the fewest errors.

Preliminary assessments of craftsman skill at the immense Classic period (AD 100–650) city ofTeotihuacan and the smaller Epiclassic (AD 650–900) city of Xochicalco indicate that Teotihuacan’scraftsmen made fewer mistakes (Andrews, 1999, 2012). Hence, based on the assumption that skillvaried in relation to time spent in production, it appears that Teotihuacan’s craftsmen made andexchanged more blades than the craftsmen at Xochicalco. This finding fits previous characteriza-tions of Teotihuacan’s economy as being highly complex, with many specialists throughout the citydependent to a significant degree on nonagricultural production for their livelihoods. In contrast,Xochicalco’s economy appears to have been less complex, with more limited evidence of craftproduction and economic interdependence (Hirth, 2000). In this way, measuring the skill of flakedstone tool producers has contributed to supporting earlier inferences about economic complexity.

Extra: The Pecked and Ground Core Platform

Another source of variation in the Mesoamerican blade technology was core platform treatment.Sometimes single-facet platforms were pecked and ground, creating a flatter, slightly rough surface.This type of platform became widespread during the Postclassic (AD 900–1519) period, but itemerged in the preceding Epiclassic (AD 650–900) period and perhaps was present even earlier insome areas of Mesoamerica. The pecking and grinding of platforms took place during different


of 29

phases of the reduction sequence throughout the region. For example, at Tula (Fig. 1), the capital ofthe Toltec empire, platforms were pecked and ground at the macrocore stage, whereas at Xochicalco,an Epiclassic (AD 650–900) city, they were pecked and ground on small, already partially reducedprismatic cores.

The pecked and ground platform modification made blade removal easier for two reasons. First,the tiny fracture cones produced during the pecking stage made blade removals easier. Experimentsindicate that less pressure force is needed because the tiny microfractures help to facilitatea macrofracture, permitting successful blade removal. This outcome of the process was extremelyimportant, especially at sites like Epiclassic (AD 650–900) Xochicalco where blades were detachedby hand from very small (>8 cm in length) prismatic cores (Flenniken & Hirth, 2003). Experimentshave demonstrated that it is difficult to generate enough force with the handheld technique toproduce successful blades using cores longer than 8 cm in length. Second, the pecked and groundsurface reduced the risk that the pressure tool used to remove blades would slip off the platform. Thisoutcome aided the craftsman in the precise application of force.

Extra: The Bow and Arrow in Prehistoric Mesoamerica

The date when the bow and arrow became prevalent in prehistoric Mesoamerica is still a subject ofdebate. The established date for the introduction of the bow in North America is sometime aroundAD 200, much earlier than what is generally accepted for Mesoamerica. Citing a lack of archaeo-logical and iconographic evidence for the bow, Hassig (1992) has suggested that it did not becomecommon in Mesoamerica until the Postclassic (AD 900–1519) period. Other researchers, however,have suggested that the bow was present during the Classic (AD 300–900) period (Linné, 1934) orperhaps even earlier during the Preclassic (2500 BCE–AD 300) period (Tolstoy, 1971).

One reason for believing the bow was common in Mesoamerica prior to the Postclassic period isthe presence of small projectile points (>3 cm in length, Fig. 12b) at many sites predating AD 900.Many of them were fashioned out of prismatic blade sections that were made with pressure. The useof these implements as effective tips for spears or atlatls (spear throwers) is hard to imagine becausethey are so small. Indeed, research indicates that many atlatl points average over 4.5 cm in length(Thomas, 1978, p. 469). As a result, it has been suggested that small points found in mortuaryofferings at Classic period Teotihuacan may have had a ceremonial or ideological significance(Parry, 2002).

Although small points predating the Postclassic period may have had a ceremonial function,research at the Epiclassic (AD 650–900) city of Xochicalco suggests that such items were used to tiparrows (Andrews &Hirth, 2006). This conclusion supports earlier claims that the bowwas present atEpiclassic Xochicalco (Sáenz 1961, pp. 40–43, 1967, p. 10, 14) and at the contemporary site ofCacaxtla (Fig. 1) in the modern state of Tlaxcala (Baus de Czitrom, 1986, p. 529). Most of the smallpoints at Xochicalco have been found throughout the city in nonceremonial contexts. In addition,they comprise the entire collection of projectile points (N ¼ 83) recovered in the city’s publicarmory. Hence, there is little doubt that these points were used to tip arrows, and given the centralimportance of militarism and conquest at Xochicalco, they were probably used for combat.


of 29

Acknowledgements

This article benefited from the assistance of various organizations and individuals. The artifacts fromXochicalco were recovered and analyzed with support from the Foundation for MesoamericanStudies, Inc. (FAMSI grant 01029), the Proyecto Especial Xochicalco (directed by NorbertoGonzález Crespo) funded by the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, and the XochicalcoLithic Project (directed by Kenneth Hirth) funded by National Science Foundation research grants9429292, 9496188, and 9121949. Analysis of the Calixtlahuaca Project (directed byMichael Smith)was supported by National Science Foundation research grants 0618462 and 0150482, and Regencyand Wang Center grants from Pacific Lutheran University. The macrocore (Fig. 7) is from the TheZaragoza-Oyameles Regional Obsidian Survey, Puebla, Mexico (directed by Charles Knight),funded by the National Science Foundation grant BCS-1063233. Karen Andrews, ConstantinoArmendariz, David Carballo, Susan Evans, Luis Gonzalo Gaviño, Timothy Scheffler, AlejandroSerabia, Saburo Sugiyama, Gene Titmus, and James Woods provided invaluable assistance withmany of the figures. Finally, I appreciate the ideas and editorial feedback from David Carballo,Frances Berdan, Ann Cyphers, Silvia Domínguez, Susan Evans, Haley Harms, Kenneth Hirth,Charles Knight, and Alejandro Pastrana.

References

Adams, R. E. W. (1977). Prehistoric Mesoamerica. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Andrefsky, W., Jr. (1987). Diffusion and innovation from the perspective of wedge-shaped cores in

Alaska and Japan. In J. K. Johnson & C. A. Morrow (Eds.), The organization of core technology(pp. 13–33). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Andrews, B. W. (1999). Craftsman skill and specialization: Investigating the craft production ofprehispanic obsidian blades at Xochicalco and Teotihuacan, Mexico. Unpublished Ph.-D. dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

Andrews, B. W. (2002). Stone tool production at Teotihuacan: What more can we learn from surfacecollections. In K. G. Hirth & B. W. Andrews (Eds.), Pathways to prismatic blades: A study inMesoamerican obsidian core-blade technology (pp. 47–60). Los Angeles: The Cotsen Institute ofArchaeology, University of California.

Andrews, B. W. (2003). Measuring prehistoric craftsman skill: Contemplating its application toMesoamerican core-blade research. In K. G. Hirth (Ed.), Experimentation and interpretation inMesoamerican lithic technology (pp. 208–219). Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press.

Andrews, B. W. (2012). La habilidad de los artesanos de navajas prismáticas y su relación con laintensidad productiva: Un análisis comparativo de datos del periodo clásico en. Teotihuacán y delperiodo epiclásico en Xochicalco Cuicuilco, 19(54), 9–34.

Andrews, B. W. (2013). Calixtlahuaca stone tools: Technological trends and their socioeconomicimplications. Paper presented at the 78th annual meeting of the society for American archaeology,Honolulu, Hawai’i.

Andrews, B. W., & Hirth, K. G. (2006). Patterns of stone tool consumption in Xochicalco’s civic-ceremonial center. In K. G. Hirth (Ed.), Prehistoric economy and obsidian craft production atXochicalco (Vol. 3, pp. 241–257). Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press.

Aoyama, K. (1994). Socioeconomic implications of chipped stone from the La Entrada region,Western Honduras. Journal of Field Archaeology, 21, 133–145.


of 29

Arnold, J. E. (1985). The Santa Barbara channel islands Bladelet industry. Lithic Technology, 14(2),71–80.

Asaro, F., Michel, H. V., Sidrys, R., & Stross, F. (1978). High-precision chemical characterization ofmajor obsidian sources in Guatemala. American Antiquity, 43, 436–443.

Baus de Czitrom, C. (1986). Appendice 3, Armas en las pinturas. In S. Lombardo de Ruiz, D. LópezdeMolina, D.Molina Feal, C. Baus de Czitrom, &O. J. Polanco (Eds.),Caxcaxtla: el lugar dondemuere la lluvia en la tierra. México: Instituto Tlaxcalteca de la Cultura.

Berdan, F. F. (1982). The Aztecs of Central Mexico: An imperial society. New York: Holt Rinehartand Winston.

Berdan, F. F. (2005). The aztecs of Central Mexico: An imperial society (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA:Thomson Wadsworth.

Boksenbaum, M. W. (1980). Basic Mesoamerican stone-working: Nodule smashing? Lithic Tech-nology, 9, 12–26.

Boksenbaum, M. W., Tolstoy, P., Harbottle, G., Kimberlin, J., & Neivens, M. (1987). Obsidianindustries and cultural evolution in the basin of Mexico before 500 B.C. Journal of FieldArchaeology, 14, 65–75.

Bordes, F., & Crabtree, D. E. (1969). The corbiac blade technique and other experiments. Tebiwa,12, 1–13.

Bradley, B., & Yevgeny, G. (1996). Concepts of the technological analysis of flaked stone: A casestudy from the high arctic. Lithic Technology, 21, 23–39.

Braswell, G. E., & Glascock, M. D. (1998). Interpreting intrasource variation in the composition ofobsidian: The geoarchaeology of San Martin Jilotepeque, Guatemala. Latin American Antiquity,9, 353–369.

Brumfiel, E. (1986). The division of labor at Xico. In B. Isaac (Ed.), Research in economicanthropology (Vol. Supplement No. 2, pp. 245–279). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Carballo, D. M. (2004). State militarism and obsidian craft specialization at Teotihuacan. Paperpresented at the 69th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Montreal,Canada.

Carballo, D. M. (2007). Weaponry and martially themed obsidian production near the MoonPyramid, Teotihuacan. Ancient Mesoamerica, 18, 173–190.

Clark, J. E. (1980). Necropolis obsidian from Lagartero, Chiapas, Mexico. Unpublished manu-script, San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas.

Clark, J. E. (1981). The early preclassic obsidian industry of Paso de al Amada, Chiapas, Mexico.Estudios de Cultura Maya, 13, 265–283.

Clark, J. E. (1986). From mountains to mole hills: A critical review of Teotihuacan’s Obsidianindustry. In B. Issac (Ed.), Research in economic anthropology (Supplement 2nd ed., pp. 23–74).Greenwich: JAI Press.

Clark, J. E. (1987). Politics, prismatic blades, and Mesoamerican civilization. In J. K. Johnson &C. A. Morrow (Eds.), The organization of core technology (pp. 259–284). Boulder, CO:Westview Press.

Clark, J. E. (1989a). A conversation with Don Crabtree. In M. Gaxiola & J. E. Clark (Eds.),La Obsidiana en Mesoamerica (176th ed., pp. 131–135). Mexico: INAH.

Clark, J. E. (1989b). Hacia una definición de talleres. In M. Gaxiola & J. E. Clark (Eds.),La Obsidiana en Mesoamerica (176th ed., pp. 213–217). Mexico: INAH.

Clark, J. E. (1989c). La fabricación de navajas prismáticas. In M. Gaxiola & J. E. Clark (Eds.),La Obsidiana en Mesoamerica (176th ed., pp. 147–155). Mexico: INAH.


of 29

Clark, J. E. (1989d). Obsidian: The primary Mesoamerican sources. In M. Gaxiola & J. E. Clark(Eds.), La Obsidiana en Mesoamerica (176th ed., pp. 299–329). Mexico: INAH.

Clark, J. E. (1997). Prismatic blade making, craftsmanship, and production: An analysis of obsidianrefuse from Ojo de Agua. Ancient Mesoamerica, 8, 137–159.

Clark, J. E. (2003). Craftsmanship and craft specialization. In K. G. Hirth (Ed.), Experimentationand interpretation in Mesoamerican lithic technology (pp. 220–233). Salt Lake City, UT:University of Utah Press.

Clark, J. E., & Bryant, D. D. (1997). A technological typology of prismatic blades and debitage fromOjo de Agua, Chiapas, Mexico. Ancient Mesoamerica, 8, 111–136.

Clark, J. E., & Lee, T. A., Jr. (1984). Formative obsidian exchange and the emergence of publiceconomies in Chiapas, Mexico. In K. G. Hirth (Ed.), Trade and exchange in early Mesoamerica(pp. 235–404). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Cobean, R. H. (2002). A world of obsidian: The mining and trade of a volcanic glass in ancientMexico. Pittsburgh: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia/University of Pittsburgh.

Cobean, R. H., Vogt, J. R., Glascock, M. D., & Stocker, T. L. (1991). High-precision trace-elementcharacterization of major mesoamerican obsidian sources and further analysis of artifacts fromSan Lorenzo Tenochtitlan. Latin American Antiquity, 2, 69–91.

Coe, M. (1961). La Victoria, an early site on the pacific coast of Guatemala. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University.

Coe, M., & Diehl, R. (1980). In the land of the Olmec (Vol. 2). Austin: University of Texas Press.Crabtree, D. E. (1968). Mesoamerican polyhedral cores and prismatic blades. American Antiquity,

33, 446–478.Crabtree, D. E. (1972). An introduction to the technology of stone tools. Pocatello, ID: Idaho State

University.Darras, V. (1994). Las Mines-Ateliers d'Obsidienne de la Región de Zinapero-Prieto, Michoacán,

Mexique. Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique Française, 91, 290–300.De León, J. (2008). The Lithic industries of San Lorenzo-Tenochtitlán: an economic and techno-

logical study of Olmec obsidian. University Park: Penn State University.de Torquemada, J. (1975). Monarquıa Indiana (5th ed.). Mexico: Editorial Porrúa.Durán, Fray Diego. (1971). Book of the gods and rites and the ancient calendar (F. Horcasitas &

D. Heyden, Trans.). Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.Durkheim, E. (1933). The division of labor in society. New York: Free Press.Erickson, P. A., & Murphy, L. D. (2008). A history of anthropological theory. Ontario, Canada:

Broadview Press.Evans, S. T. (1990). The productivity of maguey terrace agriculture in central Mexico during the

Aztec period. Latin American Antiquity, 1(2), 117–132.Flannery, K. V. (1976). Contextual analysis of ritual paraphernalia from formative Oaxaca. In

K. V. Flannery (Ed.), The early Mesoamerican village (pp. 333–345). New York: AcademicPress.

Flenniken, J. J. (1988). The Paleolithic Dyuktai pressure blade technique of Siberia. Arctic Anthro-pology, 24, 117–132.

Flenniken, J. J., & Hirth, K. G. (2003). Handheld prismatic blade manufacture in Mesoamerica. InK. G. Hirth (Ed.), Mesoamerican Lithic technology: Experimentation and interpretation(pp. 98–119). Salt lake City, UT: The University of Utah Press.

Gamio, L. (1966). Informe sobre la investigación de piezas arqueologicas de “San Jose delPalmar”. México, DF: INAH.

Garcia Cook, A. (1967). Análisis Tipológico de Artefactos. Mexico: INAH.


of 29

Garza Tarazona, S., & González Crespo, N. (1995). Xochicalco. In B. de la Fuente, S. Garza,N. González, M. León, & J.Wimer (Eds.), La acrópolis de Xochicalco (pp. 89–143). Cuernavaca,MOR: Instituto de Cultura de Morelos.

Glascock, M. D., Elam, J. M., & Aoyama, K. (1991). Provenience analysis of obsidian artifacts fromthe La Entrada region, Honduras. In E. Pernicka & G. A. Wagner (Eds.), Archaeometry ‘90(pp. 395–404). Basel, Switzerland: Birkhauser.

Glascock, M. D., Elam, J. M., & Cobean, R. H. (1988). Differentiation of obsidian sources inMesoamerica. In R. M. Farquhar, G. V. Hancock, & L. A. Pavlish (Eds.), Archaeometry '88(pp. 245–251). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Glascock, M. D., Neff, H., Stryker, K., & Johnson, T. N. (1994). Sourcing archaeological obsidianby an abbreviated NAA procedure. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 180,29–35.

Grove, D. (1974). San Pablo, Nexpa, and the early formative archaeology of Morelos, Mexico.Nashville: Vanderbilt University.

Hassig, R. (1988). Actec warfare: Imperial expansion and political control. Norman: University ofOklahoma Press.

Hassig, R. (1992). War and society in ancient Mesoamerica. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.

Healan, D. M. (1986). Technological and nontechnological aspects of an obsidian workshopexcavated at Tula, Hidalgo. In B. L. Iassc (Ed.), Research in economic anthropology, Economicaspects of prehispanic highland Mexico (Supplement 2nd ed., pp. 133–152). Greenwich, CT: JAIPress.

Healan, D. M. (1997). Pre-hispanic quarrying in the Ucareo-Zinapecuaro obsidian source area.Ancient Mesoamerica, 8, 77–100.

Hester, T. R. (1972). Notes on large blade cores and core-blade technology in Mesoamerica. InContributions to the University of California Archaeological Research Facility (pp. 95–105).Berkeley, CA: University of California, Dept. of Anthropology.

Hester, T. R., & Shafer, H. J. (1994). The ancient Maya craft community at Colha, Belize, and itsexternal relationships. In S. Falconer & G. Schwartz (Eds.), Village communities in early complexsocieties (pp. 121–139). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Heyden, D. (1988). Black magic: Obsidian in symbolism and metaphor. In J. K. Josserand &K. Dakin (Eds.), Smoke and Mist: Mesoamerican studies in memory of Thelma D. Sullivan(pp. 217–236). Oxford: BAR.

Hirth, K. G. (1989). Militarism and social organization at Xochicalco, Morelos. In R. A. Diehl &J. C. Berlo (Eds.), Mesoamerica after the decline of Teotihuacan, A.D. 700–900 (pp. 69–81).Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.

Hirth, K. G. (1995). The investigation of obsidian craft production at Xochicalco. Ancient Meso-america, 6, 251–258.

Hirth, K. G. (2000). Ancient urbanism at Xochicalco: The evolution and organization of a -pre-Hispanic society (Vol. 1). Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press.

Hirth, K. G. (2002). Provisioning constraints and the production of obsidian prismatic blades atXochicalco, Mexico. In K. G. Hirth & B. W. Andrews (Eds.), Pathways to prismatic blades:A study in Mesoamerican obsidian core-blade technology (pp. 81–90). Los Angeles: The CotsenInstitute of Archaeology, University of California.

Hirth, K. G. (2003). The Kaminaljuyu production sequence for obsidian prismatic blades: Techno-logical characteristics and research questions. In K. G. Hirth (Ed.), Mesoamerican Lithic


of 29

technology: Experimentation and interpretation (pp. 170–181). Salt Lake City, UT: University ofUtah Press.

Hirth, K. G. (2008). The economy of supply: Modeling obsidian procurement and craft provisioningat a Central Mexican urban center. Latin American Antiquity, 19(4), 435–457.

Hirth, K. G., & Andrews, B. W. (2002). Introduction. In K. G. Hirth & B. W. Andrews (Eds.),Pathways to prismatic blades: A study in Mesoamerican obsidian core-blade technology(pp. 1–14). Los Angeles: The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California.

Hirth, K. G., & Andrews, B.W. (2006). Craft specialization and craftsman skill. In K. G. Hirth (Ed.),Obsidian craft production in ancient central Mexico: Archaeological research at Xochicalco(pp. 258–274). Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press.

Hirth, K. G., Andrews, B. W., & Flenniken, J. J. (2003). The Xochicalco production sequence forobsidian prismatic blades: Technological analysis and experimental inferences. In K. G. Hirth(Ed.), Mesoamerican Lithic technology: Experimentation and interpretation (pp. 182–196). SaltLake City, UT: University of Utah Press.

Hirth, K. G., & Flenniken, J. J. (2002). Core-blade technology in Mesoamerican prehistory. InK. G. Hirth & B. W. Andrews (Eds.), Pathways to prismatic blades: A study in Mesoamericanobsidian core-blade technology (pp. 121–129). Los Angeles: The Cotsen Institute of Archaeol-ogy, University of California.

Holmer, R. N. (1986). Common projectile points of the intermountain west. In C. J. Condie &D. D. Fowler (Eds.), Anthropology of the desert West, essays in honor of Jesse D. Jennings(pp. 89–115). Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah.

Inizan, M.-L., & Lechevallier, M. (1990). A techno-economic approach to Lithics: Some examplesof blade pressure debitage in the Indo-Pakistani sub-continent. In M. Taddei (Ed.), South Asianarchaeology (pp. 43–59). Venice: Istituto italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente.

Kerley, J. M. (1989). Preliminary report of a technological analysis of obsidian artifacts from anEarly postclassic workshop in Tula, Hgo. In M. Gaxiola & J. E. Clark (Eds.), La Obsidiana enMesoamerica (176th ed., pp. 165–174). Mexico: INAH.

Knight, C. F. L., & Glascock, M. D. (2009). The terminal formative to classic period obsidianassemblage at Palo Errado, Veracruz, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity, 20(4), 507–524.

Kobayashi, T. (1970). Microblade industries in the Japanese archipelago. Arctic Anthropology, 7,38–58.

Levine, M. N., & Carballo, D. M. (Eds.). (2014). Obsidian reflections symbolic dimensions ofobsidian in Mesoamerica. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.

Linné, S. (1934). Archaeological researches at Teotihuacan, Mexico. Stockholm: Victor PattersonsBokindustriaktiebolag.

López de Cogolludo, D. F. (1954). Historia de Yucatán. México: Editorial Academia Literaria.MacNeish, R. S. (1964). Ancient Mesoamerican civilization. Science, 143(3606), 531–537.MacNeish, R. S. (1976). Early man in the new World. American Scientist, 64, 316–327.MacNeish, R. S., Nelken-Turner, A., & Johnson, I. (1967). The prehistory of the Tehuacan valley.

The non-ceramic artifacts (Vol. 2). Austin: University of Texas Press.Magne, M. P. R. (2004). Technological correlates of Gwaii Haanas Microblades. Lithic Technology,

29(2), 91–118.Marcus, J., & Flannery, K. V. (1996). Zapotec civilization. London: Thames and Hudson.Millon, R. F. (1973). Urbanization at Teotihuacan, Mexico. The Teotihuacan map (Vol. 1, pt. 1).

Austin: University of Texas Press.Moholy-Nagy, H. (1989). Who used obsidian at Tikal. In G. Margarita Gaxiola & J. E. Clark (Eds.),

La obsidiana en Mesoamerica (pp. 379–389). México, DF: INAH.


of 29

Moholy-Nagy, H. (2003). Source attribution and the utilization of obsidian in the Maya area. LatinAmerican Antiquity, 14(3), 301–310.

Morrow, C. A. (1988). Chert exploitation and social interaction in the prehistoric midwest,200 B.C. – A.D. 600. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale,IL.

Motolinía, Fray Toribio de Benavente. (1950). Motolinıa’s history of the Indians of new Spain(E. A. Foster, Trans.). Berkeley, CA: The Cortés Society.

Nelson, F. W. (1985). Summary results of analysis of obsidian artifacts from the Maya lowlands.Scanning Electron Microscopy, 2, 631–649.

Nelson, Z. (2009). Obsidian Biface production at Teotihuacan: Reexaming a coyotlatelco phaseworkshop from Hacienda Metepec. Ancient Mesoamerica, 20, 149–162.

Nuttall, Z. (1903). The book of life of the ancient Mexicans, Pt. 1: Introduction and facsimile(The Codex Magliabechiano). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Otis Charlton, C. (1993). Obsidian as jewelry: Lapidary production in Aztec Otumba, Mexico.Ancient Mesoamerica, 4, 231–243.

Parry, W. J. (1983). Chipped stone tools in formative Oaxaca, Mexico: Their procurement, produc-tion, and use. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Parry, W. J. (1994). Prismatic blade technologies in North America. In P. J. Carr (Ed.), Theorganization of North American prehistoric chipped stone tool technologies (pp. 87–98). AnnArbor, MI: International Monographs in Prehistory.

Parry, W. (2002). Nonutilitarian aspects of obsidian use in the basin of Mexico. Paper presented atthe 67th annual meeting of the society for American Archaeology, Denver, CO.

Pastrana, A. (1998). La explotación azteca de la obsidiana en la Sierra de las Navajas. México:INAH.

Pastrana, A., & Domínguez, S. (2009). Cambios en la Estrategia de la Explotación de la Obsidianade Pachuca: Teotihuacan, Tula y la Triple Alianza. Ancient Mesoamerica, 20, 129–148.

Pastrana, A., & Hirth, K. (2003). Biface production and craft specialization: A view from Sierra delas Navajas, Hidalgo. In K. Hirth (Ed.), Mesoamerican Lithic technology: Experimentation andinterpretation (pp. 197–207). Salt Lake: University of Utah Press.

Pelegrin, J. (1997). Débitage au Chalcolithique de Grandes Lames de Silex par Pression au Livier. InAnnuel des Sciences et Techniques, la Science au Present: 1997 (pp. 17). Paris.

Pelegrin, J. (2003). Blade-making techniques from the old World: Insights and applications toMesoamerican obsidian Lithic technology. In K. G. Hirth (Ed.),Mesoamerican Lithic technology:Experimentation and interpretation (pp. 55–71). Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press.

Pires-Ferreira, J. W. (1975). Formative Mesoamerican exchange networks with special reference tothe valley of Oaxaca. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Rasic, J., & Andrefsky, W., Jr. (2001). Alaskan blade cores as specialized components of mobiletoolkits: Assessing design parameters and toolkit organization. In W. Andrefsky Jr. (Ed.), Lithicdebitage: Context, form, and meaning (pp. 61–79). Salt Lake City, UT: The University of UtahPress.

Reid, K. C. (1976). Prehistoric trade in the lower Missouri river valley: An analysis of middlewoodland Bladelets. In A. E. Johnson (Ed.),Hopewellian archaeology in the lowerMissouri rivervalley (Publications in Anthropology No. 8, pp. 63–99). Lawrence: University of Kansas.

Sáenz, C. (1961). Tres estelas en Xochicalco. Revista Mexicana Estudios Antropológicos, 17,39–65.

Sáenz, C. (1967). Nuevas exploraciones y hallazgos en Xochicalco (Colección Informes No. 13).Mexico City: INAH.


of 29

Sahagun, Fray Bernadino de. (1963). Florentine codex: General history of the things of New Spain,Book 11 – Earthly things (C. E. Dibble & A. J. O. Anderson, Trans.). Salt Lake City, UT:University of Utah Press.

Santley, R. S., Kerley, J. M., & Barrett, T. P. (1995). Teotihuacan period Lithic assemblages from theTeotihuacan Valley, Mexico. In W. T. Sanders (Ed.), The Teotihuacan valley project final report,Vol. 3, The Teotihuacan period occupation of the valley, Pt. 2: Artifact analysis (pp. 467–483).University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.

Santley, R. S., Kerley, J. M., & Kneebone, R. R. (1986). Obsidian working, Long-distanceexchange, and the politico-economic organization of early states in central Mexico. In Economicaspects of prehispanic highland Mexico (Research in Economic Anthropology, Supplement2, pp. 101–132). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Sauer, C. O. (1963). Land and life: A selection from the writings of C. O. Sauer. Berkeley: Universityof California Press.

Shafer, H. J., & Hester, T. R. (1983). Ancient Maya Chert workshops in northern Belize. AmericanAntiquity, 48, 519–543.

Sheehy, J. J. (2001). Aquamiel and Pulque: Modeling perishable good production in classicTeotihuacán. In P. Ballard Drooker (Ed.), Fleeting identities: Perishable material culture inarchaeological research (Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional PaperNo. 28, pp. 254–271). Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern IllinoisUniversity.

Sheets, P. D. (1975). Behavioral analysis and the structure of a prehistoric industry. CurrentAnthropology, 16, 369–391.

Sheets, P. D. (1978a). Artifacts. In R. J. Sharer (Ed.), The prehistory of El Salvador(Vol. 2, pp. 1–131). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Sheets, P. D. (1978b). From craftsman to cog: Quantitative views of Mesoamerican lithic technol-ogy. In R. Sidrys (Ed.), Papers on the economy and architecture of the ancient Maya (Monograph8, pp. 40–71). Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of California.

Sheets, P. D. (1983). Chipped stone from the Zapotitán valley. In P. D. Sheets (Ed.), Archaeology ofvolcanism in central America: The Zapotitán valley of El Salvador (pp. 195–223). Austin:University of Texas Press.

Solís, F. O. (1994). Tezcatlipoca, el espejo de obsidiana. In M. C. Serra Puche & F. Solís Olguin(Eds.), Cristales y obsidiana prehispánicos (pp. 185–186). México: Siglos XXI.

Spence, M.W. (1981). Obsidian production and the state in Teotihuacan. American Antiquity, 46(4),769–788.

Spence, M.W. (1986). Locational analysis of craft specialization areas in Teotihuacan. In B. L. Issac(Ed.), Economic aspects of prehispanic highland Mexico (pp. 75–100). Greenwich, CT: JAIPress.

Spence, M. W. (1987). The scale and structure of obsidian production in Teotihuacan. InE. McClung de Tapia & E. C. Rattray (Eds.), Teotihuacan: Nuevos datos, Nuevas Sıntesis,Nuevos Problemas (pp. 429–450). Mexico City: UNAM.

Spence, M. W. (1996). Commodity as gift: Teotihuacan obsidian in the Maya region. LatinAmerican Antiquity, 7, 21–39.

Stocker, T. L., & Spence, M. W. (1973). Trilobal eccentrics at Teotihuacan and Tula. AmericanAntiquity, 38, 195–199.

Sugiyama, S. (1995). Mass human sacrifice and symbolism of the feathered serpent pyramid inTeotihuacan, Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe.


of 29

Sullivan, T. D. (1972). The arms and insignia of the Mexica. Estudios de la Cultura Náhuatl, 10,155–193.

Sweeney, J. W. (1983). Estudio preliminar de distribución de los artefactos líticos en el Valle deCopán. In C. Baudez (Ed.), Introducción a la arqueologıa de Copán, Honduras (pp. 611–628).Tegucigalpa: Secretaría de estado en el despacho de cultura y turismo.

Thomas, D. H. (1978). Arrowheads and Atlatl darts: How the stones got the shaft. AmericanAntiquity, 43(3), 461–472.

Titmus, G. L., & Clark, J. E. (2003).Mexica blade making with wooden tools: Recent experimentalinsights. In K. G. Hirth (Ed.), Mesoamerican lithic technology: Experimentation and interpreta-tion (pp. 72–97). Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press.

Tixier, J. (1976). L'industrie Lithique Capsienne de l'Aïn Dokkara, Región de Tébessa, Algérie.Libyca, 24, 21–53.

Tolstoy, P. (1971). Utilitarian artifacts of central Mexico. In G. F. Ekholm & I. Bernal (Eds.),Handbook of middle American Indians (Archaeology of northern Mesoamerica,Pt. 1, Vol. 10, pp. 270–296). Austin: University of Texas Press.

Tolstoy, P., Fish, S., Boksenbaum, M., Blair Vauhn, K., & Smith, C. E. (1977). Early sedentarycommunities of the basin of Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology, 4, 91–106.

Torrence, R. (1986). Production and exchange of stone tools: Prehistoric obsidian in the Aegean.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tozzer, A. M. (1941). Landa's Relación de las cosas de Yucatán (Vol. 18). Cambridge: HarvardUniversity.

Tudela, J., & Corona Nuñez, J. (1977). Relación deMichoacan (1541) (edición facsimilar). Morelia,Mexico: Balsal Editores, S.A.

Weaver, M. P. (1981). The Aztecs, Maya, and their predecessors (2nd ed.). New York: AcademicPress.

Webster, D. L., Evans, S. T., & Sanders, W. T. (1993). Out of the past: An introduction toarchaeology. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.

Whittaker, J. C. (1994). Flintknapping: Making and understanding stone tools. Austin: Universityof Texas Press.

Winter, M. C. (1989). La obsidiana en Oaxaca Prehispanica. In M. Gaxiola & J. E. Clark (Eds.),La Obsidiana en Mesoamerica (pp. 345–261). México, DF: INAH.

Yesner, D. R., & Pearson, G. (2002). Microblades and migrations: Ethnic and economic models inthe peopling of the Americas. In R. G. Elston & S. L. Kuhn (Eds.), Thinking small: Globalperspectives on Microlithization. Washington, DC: Archaeological Papers of the AmericanAnthropological Association, No. 12.


of 29

stone tools in mesoamerica: flaked stone tools

Documents