Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:23:27.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Misidentification of Mesoamerican Lithic Workshops

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Hattula Moholy-Nagy
Hattula Moholy-Nagy*
Affiliation:
Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In Mesoamerica concentrations of stone debitage from archaeological contexts frequently are regarded as being in primary contexts and marking production loci or “workshops.”

Ethnoarchaeological observations of stone- and glass-artifact manufacture and disposal of the resulting waste indicate that in sedentary societies debitage does not remain in primary context at workshops, but rather enters secondary context when it is moved into workshop dumps. Microdebitage, which often is left in place at the production locus, appears to be the most reliable indicator of workshop location.

An awareness of ethnoarchaeological data can facilitate more plausible constructions of past behavior at different stages of the use-life trajectories of durable materials. Present evidence suggests that concentrations of stone debitage from archaeological settlements are secondary deposits and represent workshop dumps, not workshops.

En Mesoamérica concentraciones de desechos líticos en contextos arqueológicos frecuentemente están considerados como talleres en contextos primarios, es decir, como lugares de fabricación.

Los desechos líticos occuren en seis tipos de colocaciones: montículos, basureros, microdesechos en pisos, rellenos arquitectónicos, depósitos especiales como escondites y entierros, y en agregados fortuitos. Los datos de cinco estudios etnoarqueológicos son usados para interpretar estos depósitos. Las observaciones de la producción de artefactos líticos y de la disposición de desechos sugieron que los desechos líticos nunca se dejan en contexto primario en talleres, sino que entran en contexto secundario cuando son trasladados a basureros de talleres. Muchas veces, los microdesechos se dejan en el piso del taller. Por ahora, estos microdesechos parecen ser los indicadores más confiables de los lugares de fabricación.

El conocimiento de datos etnoarqueológicos puede ayudarnos a reconstruir el comportamiento asociado con las etapas diferentes de la trayectoria de la vida de uso de materias duraderos. Por ahora, nuestro conocimiento indica que en Mesoamérica casi todos los depósitos arqueológicos de desechos líticos éstan en contextos secundarios. Son basureros de talleres; no son los talleres. Los basureros de talleres nos proporcionan datos sobre el comportamiento de desechar, y pocos sobre el comportamiento de la producción. Por conseguiente, los basureros no son fundamentos apropiados para la construcción de hipoteses sobre los lugares o el volumen de producción, la distribución residencial de los artesanos, el grado de la especialización, o los sistemas de la distribución de los artefactos. Más exactitud en la identificación de talleres y basureros líticos nos facilitará el acceso a su gran potencial para construir los sistemas culturales de Mesoamérica prehispánica.

Type
Articles
Information
Latin American Antiquity , Volume 1 , Issue 3 , September 1990 , pp. 268 - 279
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1990

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 Cited

Adams, R. E. W. 1986 Rio Azul: Lost City of the Maya. National Geographic 169:420–451.Google Scholar
Aldenderfer, M. S., Kimball, L. R., and Sievert, A. 1989 Microwear Analysis in the Maya Lowlands: The Use of Functional Data in a Complex-Society Setting. Journal of Field Archaeology 16:47–60.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1983 Behavioral Archaeology and the “Pompeii Premise.” In Working at Archaeology, pp. 229–241. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Black, S. A. 1987 Settlement Pattern Survey and Testing, 1985. In Rio Azul Reports, No. 3: The 1985 Season, edited by R. E. W. Adams, pp. 183–221. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas, San Antonio.Google Scholar
Black, S. A., and Suhler, C. K. 1986 The 1984 Rio Azul Settlement Survey. In Rio Azul Reports, No. 2: The 1984 Season, edited by R. E. W. Adams, pp. 163–192. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas, San Antonio.Google Scholar
Clark, J. E. 1986a Another Look at Small Debitage and Microdebitage. Lithic Technology 15(1):21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J. E. 1986b From Mountains to Molehills: A Critical Review of Teotihuacan’s Obsidian Industry. In Research in Economic Anthropology, supplement 2, edited by B. L. Isaac, pp. 23–74. JAI Press, Greenwich.Google Scholar
Clark, J. E. 1987 Politics, Prismatic Blades, and Mesoamerican Civilization. In The Organization of Core Technology, edited by J. K. Johnson and C. A. Morrow, pp. 259–284. Westview Press, Boulder.Google Scholar
Clark, J. E. 1989 Fifteen Fallacies in Lithic Workshop Interpretation: An Experimental and Ethnoarchaeological Perspective. Ms. in possession of author.Google Scholar
Clark, J. E. 1990 Flintknapping and Debitage Disposal Among the Lacandon Maya of Chiapas, Mexico. In The Ethnoarchaeology of Refuse Disposal, edited by E. Staski and L. D. Sutro. Anthropological Research Papers. Arizona State University, Tempe, in press.Google Scholar
Clark, J. E., and Bryant, D. D. 1984 A Prismatic Blade Workshop from Ojo de Agua, Chiapas, Mexico: An Experimental Analysis of Knapping Procedures, Knapping Errors, and Workshop Output. Ms. in possession of author.Google Scholar
Clark, J. D., and Kurashina, H. 1981 A Study of the Work of a Modern Tanner in Ethiopia and Its Relevance for Archaeological Interpretation. In Modern Material Culture: The Archaeology of Us, edited by R. A. Gould and M. B. SchifFer, pp. 303–321. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Coe, W. R. 1990 Excavations in the Great Plaza, North Terrace, and North Acropolis of Tikal. Tikal Report 14, vols. 2 and 3. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Deal, M., and Hayden, B. 1987 The Persistence of Pre-Columbian Lithic Technology. In Lithic Studies Among the Contemporary Highland Maya, edited by B. Hayden, pp. 235–331. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Eaton, J. D. 1982 Operation 2025: An Elite Residential Group at Colha. In Archaeology at Colha, Belize: The 1981 Interim Report, edited by T. R. Hester, H. J. Shafer, and J. D. Eaton, pp. 123–140. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas, San Antonio, and Centro Studi e Ricerche Ligabue, Venezia.Google Scholar
Escobedo, J. T. Jr. 1980 Notes on Test Excavations at Operation 4026: A Debitage Mound. In The Colha Project Second Season, 1980 Interim Report, edited by T. R. Hester, J. D. Eaton, and H. J. Shafer, pp. 221–224. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas, San Antonio, and Centro Studi e Ricerche Ligabue, Venezia.Google Scholar
Gallagher, J. P. 1977 Contemporary Stone Tools in Ethiopia: Implications for Archaeology. Journal of Field Archaeology 4:407–414.Google Scholar
Gould, R. A. 1981 Brandon Revisited; A New Look at an Old Technology. In Modern Material Culture: The Archaeology of Us, edited by R. A. Gould and M. B. Schiffer, pp. 269–281. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Hammond, G., and Hammond, N. 1981 Child’s Play: A Distorting Factor in Archaeological Distribution. American Antiquity 46:634–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, N. 1981 Colha in Context. In Archaeology at Colha, Belize: The 1981 Interim Report, edited by T. R. Hester, H. J. Shafer, and J. D. Eaton, pp. 65–71. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas, San Antonio, and Centro Studi e Ricerche Ligabue, Venezia.Google Scholar
Hay, C. A. 1978 Kaminaljuyu Obsidian: Lithic Analysis and the Economic Organization of a Prehistoric Mayan Chiefdom. Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Hay den, B. 1987 Traditional Metate Manufacturing in Guatemala Using Chipped Stone Tools. In Lithic Studies Among the Contemporary Highland Maya, edited by B. Hayden, pp. 8–119. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Hayden, B., and Cannon, A. 1983 Where the Garbage Goes. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2:117–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayden, B., and Nelson, M. 1981 The Use of Chipped Lithic Material in the Contemporary Maya Highlands. American Antiquity 46: 885–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healan, D., Kerley, J. M., and Bey, G. J. III 1983 Excavation and Preliminary Analysis of an Obsidian Workshop in Tula, Hidalgo, Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology 10:127–145.Google Scholar
Kelly, T. C. 1980 The Colha Regional Survey. In The Colha Project Second Season, 1980 Interim Report, edited by T. R. Hester, J. D. Eaton, and H. D. Shafer, pp. 51–69. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas, San Antonio, and Centro Studi e Ricerche Ligabue, Venezia.Google Scholar
Mallory, J. K. 1984 Late Classic Maya Economic Specialization: Evidence from the Copan Obsidian Assemblage. Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Mallory, J. K. 1986 “Workshops” and ”Specialized Production” in the Production of Maya Chert Tools: A Response to Shafer and Hester. American Antiquity 51:152–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallory, J. K. 1990 El Duende: A Copan Valley Workshop. Paper presented at the 55th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Las Vegas.Google Scholar
Millon, R. 1981 Teotihuacan: City, State, and Civilization. In Supplement to the Handbook of Middle A merican Indians, vol. 1 (Archaeology), edited by J. A. Sabloff, pp. 198–243. University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
Moholy-Nagy, H. 1976 Spatial Distribution of Flint and Obsidian Artifacts at Tikal, Guatemala. In Maya Lithic Studies: Papers from the 1976 Belize Field Symposium, edited by T. R. Hester and N. Hammond, pp. 91–108. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas, San Antonio.Google Scholar
Nations, J. D., and Clark, J. E. 1983 The Bows and Arrows of the Lacandon Maya. Archaeology 36(1):36–43.Google Scholar
Nelson, M. 1987 Site Content and Structure: Metate Quarries and Workshops in the Maya Highlands. In Lithic Studies Among the Contemporary Highland Maya, edited by B. Hayden, pp. 120–147. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Parry, W. J. 1987 Chipped Stone Tools in Formative Oaxaca, Mexico: Their Procurement, Production and Use. Memoirs No. 8. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pires-Ferreira, J. W. 1975 Formative Mesoamerican Exchange Networks with Special Reference to the Valley of Oaxaca. Memoirs No. 7. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, D. 1989 Approaches to Lithic Analysis in Late Classic Lowland Maya Archaeology. Paper presented at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference “Maya Lowlands on the Eve of Collapse: Ancient Maya Societies in the Eighth Century, A.D.,” Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Rattray, E. C. 1989 Un taller de bifaciales de obsidiana del período Coyotlatelco en la Hacienda Metepec, en Teotihuacán. In La Obsidiana en Mesoamérica, edited by M. Gaxiola G. and J. E. Clark, pp. 243–252. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México.Google Scholar
Roemer, E. 1980 Operation 2007: A Preliminary Report on the Excavation of a Late Classic Lithic Workshop. In The Colha Project Second Season, 1980 Interim Report, edited by T. R. Hester, J. D. Eaton, and H. J. Shafer, pp. 87–104. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas, San Antonio, and Centro Studi e Ricerche Ligabue, Venezia.Google Scholar
Roemer, E. 1982 Investigations at Four Lithic Workshops at Colha, Belize. In Archaeology at Colha, Belize: The 1981 Interim Report, edited by T. R. Hester, H. J. Shafer, and J. D. Eaton, pp. 75–84. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas, San Antonio, and Centro Studi e Ricerche Ligabue, Venezia.Google Scholar
Sanders, W. 1977 Resource Utilization and Political Evolution in the Teotihuacan Valley. In Explanation of Culture Change, edited by J. Hill, pp. 231–257. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Santley, R. 1980 Pricing Policies, Obsidian Exchange, and the Decline of Teotihuacan Civilization. Mexicon 11:77–81.Google Scholar
Santley, R. 1984 Obsidian Exchange, Economic Stratification, and the Evolution of Complex Society in the Basin of Mexico. In Trade and Exchange in Early Mesoamerica, edited by K. G. Hirth, pp. 43–86. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M. B. 1972 Archaeological Context and Systemic Context. American Antiquity 37:156–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffer, M. B. 1976 Behavioral Archeology. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Shafer, H. J. 1982 Maya Lithic Craft Specialization in Northern Belize. In Archaeology at Colha, Belize: The 1981 Interim Report, edited by T. R. Hester, H. J. Shafer, and J. D. Eaton, pp. 31–38. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas, San Antonio, and Centro Studi e Ricerche Ligabue, Venezia.Google Scholar
Shafer, H. J., and Hester, T. R. 1983 Ancient Maya Chert Workshops in Northern Belize, Central America. American Antiquity 48:519–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shafer, H. J., and Hester, T. R. 1986 Maya Stone-Tool Craft Specialization and Production at Colha, Belize: Reply to Mallory. American Antiquity 51:158–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shafer, H. J., and Oglesby, F. M. 1980 Test Excavations in a Colha Debitage Mound. In The Colha Project Second Season, 1980 Interim Report, edited by T. R. Hester, J. D. Eaton, and H. J. Shafer, pp. 195–219. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas, San Antonio, and Centro Studi e Ricerche Ligabue, Venezia.Google Scholar
Sheets, P. D. 1978 From Craftsman to Cog: Quantitative Views of Mesoamerican Lithic Technology. In Papers on the Economy and Architecture of the Ancient Maya, edited by R. V. Sidrys, pp. 40–71. Monograph No. VIII. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Smith, A. L. 1950 Uaxactun, Guatemala: Excavations of 1931–1937. Publication No. 588. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Spence, M. B. 1967 The Obsidian Industry of Teotihuacan. American Antiquity 32:507–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spence, M. B. 1981 Obsidian Production and the State in Teotihuacan. American Antiquity 46:769–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storey, G. R. 1985 The Obsidian Assemblage of Tlajinga 33, Teotihuacan, Mexico. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Pennsylvania State University, University Park.Google Scholar
Sullivan, A. P. 1978 Inference and Evidence in Archaeology: A Discussion of the Conceptual Problems. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 1, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 183–222. Academic Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, A. J. 1980 Excavations at Kunahmul. In The Colha Project Second Season, 1980 Interim Report, edited by T. R. Hester, J. D. Eaton, and H. J. Shafer, pp. 241–250. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas, San Antonio, and Centro Studi e Ricerche Ligabue, Venezia.Google Scholar
Torrence, R. 1986 Production and Exchange of Stone Tools: Prehistoric Obsidian in the Aegean. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar