Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:12:10.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Maya Resistance, Maya Resolve: The tools of autonomy from Tipu, Belize

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2010

Scott E. Simmons
Scott E. Simmons
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Campus Box 233, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper summarizes the results of an analysis of the formal stone tools from the Maya site of Tipu, Belize. The lithic tools are dominated by one form, the small, side-notched projectile point. These tools were recovered from Colonial-period contexts at the site. These points were manufactured from prismatic blade and flake blanks and were fairly uniform in terms of their size and method of manufacture, although distinct base styles were observed. A brief discussion of both quantitative and qualitative attributes and a description of the technology used in the manufacture of these points are presented. Also, several ideas on how researchers may be able to see ethnic or subethnic expressions of style in Colonial-period tools is offered. The possible functions of these projectile points is discussed using information from different sources. The use of these small projectile points, a component of bow-and-arrow technology, will be discussed in light of the often hostile nature of the Spanish Conquest, and in particular, the conquest and reconquest of the Tipu area.

Resumen

Este artículo contiene los resultados de un análisis de los artefactos liticos del sitio arqueológico maya de Tipu, Belice. La forma más común entre los implementos líticos es la punta de flecha pequeña con una muesca a cada lado. Estas fueron encontradas en contextos del período colonial temprano en el sitio. El análisis indica que estás puntas estan fabricadas de lascas prismáticas y son muy similare s en tamaño y métodos de talla. Hay variación en el estilo de la base. Se discuten varios argumentos para explicar porqué hay variacion en las puntas de base con muescas y se incluyen hipótesis sobre las expresiones étnicas que arqueólogos infieren de las herramientas de piedra coloniales. Aspectos métricos y qualitativas son considerados y se presentan una descripción de la tecnología de la talla. Se discute la posible función de estas puntas de flecha, usando información de varias fuentes. También se discute el uso del arco y la flecha en el contexto de hostilidad española durante la conquista y reconquista de Tipu.

Type
Articles
Information
Ancient Mesoamerica , Volume 6 , Spring 1995 , pp. 135 - 146
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aldenderfer, Mark 1991 Functional Evidence for Lapidary and Carpentry Craft Specialties in the Late Classic of the Central Peten Lakes Region. Ancient Mesoamerica 2:205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamberlain, Robert S. 1948 The Conquest and Colonization of Yucatan. Publication No. 582. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Chase, Aden R., and Rice, Prudence M. (editors) 1985 The Lowland Maya Postclassic. University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
Chase, Diane Z., and Chase, Arlen F. 1988 A Postclassic Perspective: Excavations at the Maya Site of Santa Rita Corozal, Belize. Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute, Monograph 4. San Francisco.Google Scholar
Clendinnen, Inga 1987 Ambivalent Conquests: Maya and Spaniard in Yucatan, 1517-1570. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Close, Angela E. 1978 The Identification of Style in Lithic Artifacts. World Archaeology 10:223–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conkey, Margaret W. 1978 Style and Information in Cultural Evolution: Toward a Predictive Model for the Paleolithic. In Social Archaeology: Beyond Subsistence and Dating, edited by Redman, Charles L., Berman, Mary Jane, Curtin, Edward V., Langhorne, William T. Jr, Versaggi, Nina M., and Wanser, Jeffery C., pp. 61–85. Academic Press, New-York.Google Scholar
Crabtree, Don E. 1972 An Introduction to Flintworking. Occasional Papers of the Idaho State University Museum No. 28. Pocatello.Google Scholar
Diaz del Castillo, Bernal 1956 The Discovery and Conquest of Mexico, 1517-1521. Edited by Garcia, Genaro. Straus, Farrar and Publishers, Cudahy, New York.Google Scholar
Emery, Kitty 1990 Colonial Period Maya Dietary Strategies in the Southern Maya Lowlands: Spanish Conquest or Maya Conservatism? Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto, Toronto.Google Scholar
Farriss, Nancy M. 1984 Maya Society Under Colonial Rule: The Collective Enterprise of Survival. Princeton University Press, Princeton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, William 1991 Lithic Analysis as a Means of Processual Inference in Southern Mesoamerica: A Review of Recent Research. In Maya Stone Tools: Selected Papers from the Second Maya Lithic Conference, edited by Hester, Thomas R. and Shafer, Harry J., pp. 1–19. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 1. Prehistory Press, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
Gibson, Eric C. 1986 Diachronic Patterns of Lithic Production, Use and Exchange in the Southern Maya Lowlands. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Graham, Elizabeth 1991 Archaeological Insights into Colonial Period Life at Tipu, Belize. In The Spanish Borderlands in Pan-American Perspective, edited by Thomas, David Hurst, pp. 319–335. Columbian Consequences, vol. 3. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Graham, Elizabeth, and Bennett, Sharon 1989 The 1986-1987 Excavations at Negroman-Tipu, Belize. Mex-icon XI: 114–117.Google Scholar
Graham, Elizabeth, and Pendergast, David M. 1988 Obsidian Hydratio n Dates from Tipu and Lamanai, Belize: Implications for the Assessment of Spanish Impact on Sixteenth-Century Maya Trade Networks. Manuscript on file, Department of New World Archaeology, Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto.Google Scholar
Graham, Elizabeth, and Pendergast, David M. 1989 Excavations at the Marco Gonzalez Site, Ambergris Cay, Belize, 1986. Journal of Field Archaeology 16:1–16.Google Scholar
Graham, Elizabeth, Jones, Grant D., and Kautz, Robert R. 1985 Archaeology and Ethnohistory on a Spanish Colonial Frontier: An Interim Report on the Macal-Tipu Project in Western Belize. In The Lowland Maya Postclassic, edited by Chase, Arlen F. and Rice, Prudence M., pp. 206–214. University of Texas Press, Austin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, Elizabeth, Pendergast, David M., and Jones, Grant D. 1989 On the Fringes of Conquest: Maya-Spanish Contact in Colonial Belize. Science 246:1254–1259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hester, Thomas R., and Shafer, Harry J. 1991 Lithics of the Early Postclassic at Colha, Belize. In Maya Stone Tools: Selected Papers from the Second Maya Lithic Conference, edited by Hester, Thomas R. and Shafer, Harry J., pp. 155–162. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 1. Prehistory Press, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
Jelinek, Arthur J. 1976 Form, Function, and Style in Lithic Analysis. In Cultural Change and Continuity: Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin, edited by Cleland, Charles, pp. 19–33. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Jones, Grant D. 1984 Maya-Spanish Relations in Sixteenth Century Belize. BEL-CAST Journal of Belizean Affairs 1(1):28–40.Google Scholar
Jones, Grant D. 1989 Maya Resistance to Spanish Rule: Time and History on a Colonial Frontier. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Jones, Grant D. 1990 Prophets and Idol Speculators: Forces of History in the Lowland Maya Rebellion of 1638. In Vision and Revision in Maya Studies, edited by Clancy, Flora S. and Harrison, Peter D., pp. 179–193. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Jones, Grant D., Kautz, Robert R., and Graham, Elizabeth 1986 Tipu: Maya town on the Spanish Colonial Frontier. Archaeology 39(1):40–47.Google Scholar
Lewenstein, Suzanne 1991 Woodworking Tools at Cerros. In Maya Stone Tools, Selected Papersfrom the Second Maya Lithic Conference, edited by Hester, Thomas R. and Shafer, Harry J., pp. 239–243. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 1. Prehistory Press, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
Patterson, Leland W. 1985 Distinguishing Between Arrow and Spear Points on the Upper Texas Coast. Lithic Technology 14:81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pendergast, David M. 1981 Lamanai, Belize: Summary of Excavation Results, 1974-1980. Journal of Field Archaeology 8:29–53.Google Scholar
Pendergast, David M. 1986a Under Spanish Rule: The Final Chapte r in Lamanai's Maya History. BELCAST Journal of Belizean Affairs 3(1-2): 1–7.Google Scholar
Pendergast, David M. 1986b Stability Through Change: Lamanai, Belize, from the Ninth to the Seventeenth Century. In Late Lowland Maya Civilization, edited by Sabloff, Jeremy A. and Andrews, E. Wyllys V, pp. 223–249. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Pendergast, David M. 1991 The Southern Maya Lowlands Contact Experience: The View from Lamanai, Belize. In The Spanish Borderlands in Pan-American Perspective, edited by Thomas, David Hurst, pp 336–354. Columbian Consequences, vol. 3. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Pendergast, David M., Jones, Grant D., and Graham, Elizabeth 1993 Locating Maya Lowlands Spanish Colonial Towns: A Case Study from Belize. Latin American Antiquity 4:59–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, Daniel 1993 Analytical Approaches to Late Classic Maya Lithic Industries. In Lowland Maya Civilization in the Eighth Century A.D., edited by Sabloff, Jeremy and Henderson, John, pp. 273–298. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Rice, Don S., and Rice, Prudence M. 1984 Collapse to Contact: Postclassic Archaeology of the Peten Maya. Archaeology 37(2):46–51.Google Scholar
Rice, Prudence M. 1987 Macanche Island, El Peten, Guatemala: Excavations, Pottery, and Artifacts. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.Google Scholar
Sackett, James 1982 Approaches to Style in Lithic Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological A rchaeology 1:59–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheets, Payson D. 1976 Islands of Knowledge Among Seas of Ignorance. In Maya Lithic Studies: Papers from the 1976 Belize Field Symposium, edited by Hester, Thomas R. and Hammond, Norman, pp. 1–9. Special Report No. 4. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas, San Antonio, San Antonio.Google Scholar
Simmons, Scott E. 1991 Arrows of Consequence: Contact Period Maya Tool Technology at Tipu, Belize. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Boston.Google Scholar
Simmons, Scott E. 1994 Contact Period Maya Stone Tools and Manufacturing Technology: The Evidence from Tipu, Lamanai, and San Pedro, Belize. Paper presented at the 27th Annual Society for Historical and Underwater Archaeology Meetings, Vancouver.Google Scholar
Tozzer, Alfred M. 1941 Landa's Relacion de las cosas de Yucatan. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 18. Harvard University, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Whittaker, John C. 1984 Individual Variation as an Approach to Economic Organization: Projectile Points at Grasshopper Pueblo, Arizona. Journal of Field Archaeology 14:465–479.Google Scholar
Whittaker, John C. 1987 Making Arrowpoints in a Prehistoric Pueblo. Lithic Technology 16:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiessner, Polly 1983 Style and Social Information in Kalahari San Projectile Points. American Antiquity 48(2):253–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar