Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Middens, Construction Fill, and Offerings: Evidence for the Organization of Classic Period
Craft Production at Tikal, Guatemala
Author(s): Hattula Moholy-Nagy
Source: Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Autumn, 1997), pp. 293-313
Published by: Maney Publishing
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/530686 .
Accessed: 18/01/2014 12:06
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Maney Publishing is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Field
Archaeology.
http://www.jstor.org
293
Theproduction of artifacts ofstone, shell, and boneat Tikal, an important center in the
SouthernMaya Lowlands, created quantities of durable waste, referredto as debitage.
Yetdebitage is not a reliable indicator ofproduction area becauseof the spatiallyflexible
nature of Prehispanictechnologyand site-maintenance activities that shifted manufacturing debrisinto secondarycontexts.Nevertheless,debitage, even in secondarycontext,
providesimportant information on the organization of craft production at Tikal,particularly during the ClassicPeriod (ca. A.C.250-850). Most crafts were organized as
householdindustries, carried on by independent,part-time specialistsliving in the central area that surrounded the monumental coreof the city. Theelite probablysupported
somefull-time production to satisfy their demandsfor statusgoods and toolsfor construction projects.Expedientproduction by nonspecialists,using locallyavailable materials
such as chert and bone, occurredat all times.
Production waste was recoveredfrom the constructionfill ofpublic and residential architecture,and from householdmiddens, mixed with domestictrash. Thelargest concentrations, however,werefound exterior to elite chamberburials and within cachedofferings. Thedelayed identification of debitagefrom ritual contextsexemplifiesthe reflexive
nature of the way archaeologistsclassifymaterial culture and their interpretationsof the
contextsfrom which it is recovered.
NORTHERN
LOWLANDS
'
SOUTHERNLOWLANDS
AltunHa
Nakbe o
Rio
Azulo
Lamanai
oUaxactun
Tikal o
o Buenavista del Cayo
oCaracol
Altarde Sacrificios
HIGHLANDS
oo
kin
Early Postclassic
Terminal Classic
Late Classic
Intermediate Classic
Early Classic
Protoclassic
Late Preclassic (late)
Late Preclassic (early)
Middle Preclassic (late)
Middle Preclassic (early)
Long Count
10.3.0.0.0
9.13.0.0.0
9.8.0.0.0
8.11.0.0.0
-
Date
Ceramics
950 A.C.
Caban
A.C.
A.C.
A.C.
A.C.
Eznab
Imix
Ik
Manik
889
692
593
250
170 A.C.
Cimi
1 A.C.
350 B.C.
600 B.C.
800 B.C.
Cauac
Chuen
Tzec
Eb
Tikal ProjectData
The materials discussed here come from excavations
carried out between 1957-1969 by the Tikal Project of the
University of Pennsylvania Museum (Coe 1965). Various
lines of archaeological and epigraphic evidence suggest
that Tikal was the paramount administrative, ceremonial,
and economic center of its region, and one of four regional
capitals of the Lowland Maya area (Marcus 1976: fig. 1.1).
At present, the site is thought to have been occupied
between ca. 800 B.c. and ca. A.C.950 (TABLE 1). At its zenith
during the Classic Period, ca. A.C.250-850, it was one of
the largest cities of the Lowland Maya area, with an area of
well over 16 sq km (Carr and Hazard 1961) and an
estimated maximum population of more than 62,000
(Culbert et al. 1990). Towards the end of the Classic
Period the city had an approximatelyconcentric settlement
plan composed of three distinct areas (Puleston 1983: fig.
21). Tikal's monumental civic and ceremonial architecture
and the vaulted masonry residences of its elite class were
concentrated in the Epicenter, which had a diameter of ca.
1.25 km. The site's core was surrounded by the Central
area, extending up to another 1.5 km beyond the Epicenter. Many groups of small structures, the residences of the
commoners who sustained the city, comprise this zone.
Beyond it was a Peripheral sustaining area, distinguished
by a significantly lower density of settlement.
Settlement pattern studies, inscribed stone monuments
(Jones and Satterthwaite 1982), and the presence and
configuration of monumental architecture and associated
chamber burials demonstrate that Tikal was the residence
of a powerful elite class. It was the elite class-its political
administrators, subjects of a cult of ancestor worship, and
Table 2. Counts of Classic Period provenienced and dated artifacts, debitage, and unworked objects.
Material
Total
Artifacts
Debitage
Unworked
Chert
Obsidian
Jade
Slate/shale
72,977
65,920
13,334
305
6,642
8,782
7,611
132
66,335
57,138
5,723
164
Unrecorded
None
None
9
81.2
93.8
96.9
88.0
Spondylus
Other shell
Bone
7,393
4,286
8,912
3,681
1,111
907
3,652
203
463
60
2,972
7,542
66.6
93.2
94.4
%Classic Period
250000
200000
150000
Bone
100000
Othershell
_Spondylus
Slate/shale
Jade
50000-
Obsidian
E
E
_
n
O,
>
C
Figure 2. Counts of Classic Period debitage by recovery context. The figures for chamber burial
exterior deposits are estimated, as explained in the text.
4500.000
4000.000
3500.000
3000.000
2500.000
2000.000
Bone
Othershell
1500.000
Spondylus
1000.000
Slate/shale
500.000
Jade
0.000
Obsidian
"+
S
E
E
a3
eChert
_
.E
-E--
0.
-0
C
:
Figure 3. Density of Classic Period debitage as count per excavated lot by recovery context.
The figures for chamber burial exterior deposits are estimated, as explained in the text.
all of these goods were made by specialists, though the expedient production of simple artifacts of locally abundant
chert and bone may have been carried on by everybody.
The third important category of recovered portable
material culture may best be referred to as offerings. Offerings are regarded as the tangible residues of ritual behavior,
and were typically classified as burial furniture or compo-
Exterior deposit*
Monument cache
Structure cache
Chamber burial
Other burial
Problematical deposit
Special-purpose dump
General excavations
Totals
* Estimated
Chert
Obsidian
Jade
116,820
1,707
3,663
4
228,243
9,217
14,112
83
242
4,921
304
39
3,059
879
41,850
16
6,620
1,953
2,392
35
214
7
152
5,723
164
168,021
262,636
Slate/shale
-
Spondylus
-
1
3
-
Bone
Excavated
lots
55
54
185
32
50
3,503
16
12
1
37
34
12
3
18
169
455
206
319
19
9,725
3,652
203
463
10,673
Other shell
3
3
Table 4. Density of Classic Period debitage by recovery context as counts per excavated lot.
Context
Chert
Obsidian
2124.000
31.611
19.800
0.125
4149.873
170.685
76.281
2.594
Other burial
Problematical deposit
Special-purpose dump
General excavations
0.189
9.589
46.283
4.303
15.743
Exterior deposit*
Monument cache
Structure cache
Chamber burial
Slate/shale
Jade
Other shell
Spondylus
Bone
4.481
26.600
9.500
0.019
0.016
-
0.926
18.935
0.500
0.065
0.031
0.078
20.752
102.789
0.246
0.170
0.671
0.025
0.180
0.107
0.015
0.056
0.001
0.016
0.001
0.017
0.047
24.608
0.536
0.015
0.342
0.019
0.043
0.009
-
0.036
0.016
* Estimated
Recovery Contexts
Recovery context is an inference, made by the researcher, about the archaeological setting in which materials occurred. I use this term rather than "depositional
context," because it is not always clear if the material was
intentionally deposited, and, if it was intentionally deposited, what the intent was: for example, is the material to be
regarded as a ritual offering or a refuse dump? Recovery
context is altogether different from Costin's use of the
term "context" to refer to control of production (Costin
1991: 8-9). For Tikal it is useful to distinguish two broad
types of recovery context: special deposits and general
excavations (FIGS. 2, 3, TABLES 3, 4).
Special deposits generally correspond to what historical
archaeologists call feature contexts (LeeDecker 1994:
353). Usually they have defined spatial boundaries, specially prepared repositories, and their material contents are
regarded as in primary context. A special deposit is considered to be the intentionally interred residue of a specific
event or events, such as activities of ceremonial nature or
episodes of artifact production. In the former case, the
materials can be regarded as a functional assemblage indicative of social status (Hendon 1987: 118). At Tikal, as
an illustration of how contents can influence assessments of
contexts, if significant amounts of domestic refuse were
included in what otherwise would have been classified as a
burial or a cache, the context was classified as a problematical deposit, that is, an intentional deposit of problematical
nature.
Recovery contexts not classified as special deposits were
lumped together as general excavations. They were located
on the surface as well as beneath it. Artifacts and debitage
from general excavations were usually more heterogeneous
GeneralExcavations
UNINCORPORATED MIDDENS
Most of the debitage was of local chert from the production of bifacial artifacts, but there was also a modest
amount of obsidian prismatic blade production waste, and
small numbers of freshwater mussel and white marine shell
fragments (TABLES3, 4). Concentrations of bone debitage
were rare, most likely due to factors of preservation, but
they occurred more often in general excavations than in
other contexts.
Two characteristics of debitage deposits in household
middens are of special interest here: their occurrence in
only a few residential structure groups and the intermingling of debitage from different industries. The spatial
distributions suggest craft specialization by residential
group, even for the production of domestic goods. The
heterogeneous characterof Tikal midden deposits is exemplified by one of the largest excavated. It was found in
Group 5C-1, a ceremonial Twin Pyramid Complex that
subsequently became a residential group towards the end
of the Late Classic Period (Jones 1969: 23-25). Over 400
fragments of bone debitage were recovered from this large
midden that also included over 1800 pieces of chert debitage, fragments of domestic artifact types of chert, obsidian, ground stone, pottery figurines, censer fragments, and
over 300 pounds of potsherds (Moholy-Nagy 1994: 116117).
Large quantities of obsidian debitage mixed with domestic refuse were less common than chert. The more
restricted spatial distribution of obsidian debitage in general excavations, relative to chert, showed that obsidian
was worked in fewer structure groups.
Most of the investigated chultuns were found empty. A
few held various kinds of special deposits such as primary
and secondary burials, censers, or whole pottery vessels
(Puleston 1971; Culbert 1993: figs. 143b, 144a, b). Several contained the same mixture of household refuse and
manufacturing by-products as surface household middens.
A very large Peripheral area midden of Late Preclassicdate
included "hundreds of pounds" of chert debitage (Fry
1969: 144), consisting of flake cores, nodules, decortication flakes, blade cores, and failed bifaces. It also included
domestic trash, such as fragments of used obsidian blades,
ground stone tools, freshwater snails, unworked animal
bones, stucco, pottery censers, charcoal, and over 170
pounds of potsherds. Another large Peripheralarea deposit
made in Protoclassic times had relatively little chert and
household trash, but over 2500 fragments of obsidian
prismatic blade production waste.
The relatively early dates of the large chultun lithic
debitage deposits are significant. During the succeeding
Classic Period, the favored disposal locations of large
quantities of stone chipping waste appear to have shifted
With the notable exception of chultuns, debitage deposits in general excavations were usually smaller and more
dispersed than those in special deposits. They were, for the
most part, mixed with ordinary domestic trash, especially
quantities of potsherds.
Debitage from general excavations was predominantly
"rurrrrf
+--
1~-r-
4 ?e
,..
r -?
i;
Lz-
.tb "
~~rJc
c?c?
t
--
~t~~,tii
(?
I--
+-
f;S-
a
jl?'1(i~
I~;~.
I?-4F"=tS---'~=-~~
--
ItZILT:
,,
--
'~3C~1`-
1?
I
t ~s~dr~lTU
1!
L~
R
~
L'
P'...
'
~, Q
C
*1
: It
II
1~
;i
~`
~
rr
i1
rl
n '~\
L(
(?
\t
?: ~'biti
~I
1,
? ii-
'3
r
ayc-
"
z
c.~41PI~FI~
r:d;Tr~3E~
'T1?1J-
r?
1WI
kr
r??
~Cr;~
4
ii"
~C
rc*??~?i~SCj'
??
r: r??l~j?
I.
'* iijy!
r `C*r
d1 -t
(It
C4?
72'
?
~r?
\\
'7
r.
?ll~i
'1
f-~-~-?
*j
?2,
I
I
-?t)e
:
,
"
-C~jT~l`iS
~t
r,
1=-__ ~
~
,-
~lh*cr
\
.,..i?
?~t;L
c
>\
1 ?,
-*
IC.\
~"~?rr~mcr
~i~
??7 r,
I,
'$;J
~?-r
!trt
L;; '"J~?:c???;~h?l~,~;)li'
~C~--'O
----=====_?-_~---c-~,..
~'
-~------7\
-r*
?:~
,?
OI
r
go
r't
?I
-"`
,"
i'
Figure 4. A reconstruction by H. Stanley Loten of Group 5D-2, the civic-ceremonial heart of Tikal, as
it appeared at the end of the Classic Period. The bird's-eye view is from behind the North Acropolis,
south over the Great Plaza to Group 5D-11, the Central Acropolis, with Str. 5D-5, Great Temple
V, and the South Acropolis in the distance. Str. 5D-1, Great Temple I, is the tall building at the east
edge of the Great Plaza. The temples on the north-south central axis of the North Acropolis are
Str. 5D-22, the barely discernible Str. 5D-26, and Str. 5D-33, at the northern edge of the Great Plaza
(Coe 1967: 25-26).
SpecialDeposits
An unexpected result of the study of Tikal material
culture was the identification of debitage in special depos-
St.P9
Alt.P5
.;
Cca.41
2M
NJA
Special-purpose dumps are intentional deposits composed primarily or exclusively of one kind of production
waste, incorporating little or no domestic trash and none
of the offerings associated with caches and burials. Two of
Classic Period date were recognized, one in Group 4F-1
and designated PD. 217 (Haviland 1985: 158-159, figs.
30, 31), and one in Group 7F-1, designated PD. 37
(Moholy-Nagy 1976: 102). They were classified as "problematical deposits" because their relationship to artifact
production was not understood at the time of their discovery. They consisted of shallow pits dug into the surfaces of
building platforms that were filled with obsidian debitage
from the manufacture of prismatic blades, and then buried
by later construction. Some 1354 pieces of obsidian were
recorded from PD. 217; 602 pieces of obsidian and 24 of
chert were recorded from PD. 37. The purpose of these
secondary refuse aggregates (Wilson 1994) appears to
have been the disposal of obsidian manufacturing debris.
CACHES
PD.33
ot
. ,
.C..o
2M
Bu.24
Bu.23
Bu.48
Figure 6. A detail of the section through the substructure of Str. 5D-33, which shows Problematical
Deposit 33, an Intermediate Classic Period deposit consisting predominantly of obsidian chipping
waste; Burial 24, a vaulted Intermediate Classic chamber burial within the fill of the temple substructure; Burial 23, a vaulted Intermediate Classic chamber burial partly cut into bedrock; and Burial 48,
an Early Classic chamber burial entirely excavated from bedrock. Layers of chert and obsidian debitage
had been placed on and above the capstones of Burials 23 and 24, but were not associated with Burial 48 (after Coe 1990: fig. 9b).
and cores, jade, and unspecified shell (Ricketson and Ricketson 1937: 152-153, 171, 187, 197, plate 67e; Smith
1950: 92). Stelae were not erected at Altun Ha, but its
structure caches included chert debitage, obsidian cores
and other debitage, jade, specular hematite, nacreous shell,
and unspecified shell (Pendergast 1979: 85-86, 150-151;
1982: 34, 46-47, 81, 121; 1990: 119, 128, 138, 184,
198, 199, 231-232, 250-252, 286-288, 364, 370).
BURIALS, CHAMBER BURIALS, AND CACHES IN BURIALS
Table 5. Group 5D-2 Protoclassic and Classic Period chamber burials. The numbers in parentheses refer to pages in
Coe 1990. The principal subjects of these burials were either male or unidentifiable. All were extended and supine,
unless otherwise noted (after Coe 1990: chart 1).
Burial (pages)
8 (487-490)
196 (641-646)
116 (604-609)
24 (540-543)
23 (536-540)
195 (565-568)
200 (399-405)
48 (118-123)
10 (479-487)
22 (397-399)
125 (335-337)
Ceramic
complex
Imix
Imix
Imix
Ik
Ik
Ik
Ik
Manik3A
Manik3A
Manik3A
Cimi
Position of principal
Exterior
debitage deposit
Robbed,backfilled
Head to W
Head to N
Head to N
Head to N
Head to N
Robbed,backfilled
Bundled,seated
Head to N
Head to N
Head to E
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Chamber
Axial
Vaulted
Vaulted
Vaulted
Vaulted
Vaulted
Vaulted
Vaulted
Bedrock
Bedrock
Slabroof
Beamroof
JustW
SlightlyW
N of axis
Yes
SlightlyW
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Relation to
associatedstructure
Intruded
Dedicatory
Intruded
Intruded
Intruded
Dedicatory
Intruded
Intruded
Dedicatory
Intruded
Intruded
CI
~~3
r
2M
_,~
SBu.10 BOO-Y?
7n
Bu~lN
N.
Figure 7. A section through Burial 10 of the Early Classic Period, which was excavated into
bedrock. It was dedicatory to Str. 5D-34, which was built directly over it. Numbers 1-7
show the locations of seven large deposits of chert and obsidian debitage that were included
in the earthen fill between the layers of marl and stones sealing the entrance to the chamber
(after Coe 1990: fig. 154).
Figure 8. A section through Late Classic Burial 116, a vaulted chamber intruded into Str. 5D-1 and partly excavated into bedrock. Clusters of chert and
obsidian debitage occurred in the fill directly over the capstones of the burial
chamber and in Units 21 and 24 of the substructure fill above it. This deposit
of lithic waste was one of the largest encountered at the site and is estimated to
have included about a ton of chert and a quarter of a ton of obsidian (after
Coe 1990: fig. 259).
U.21
t '
U.24
,,
',r'
:r
,~
1
S1
2M
,,
(
Bu.116.
W /1
N I
Ca .140
2M
fact, a scaled-down version of that found with the contemporary chamber burial, Burial 10 (FIG. 7; Coe 1990: fig.
The contents of special deposits were of particularinterest because, in addition to objects usually identified as
offerings, they sometimes included durable production
waste. The largest accumulations were the chert and obsidian deposits placed exterior to chamber burials. Chert and
obsidian debitage also occurred in monument and structure caches. Additionally, cached production waste of jade,
other stones, and Spondylusshell testifyrto the local manu-
of Craft
Control of Production
During the Classic Period, the demands of an elite class
directly affected the organization of craft production and
made Tikal the economic center of its region. The elite
promoted local production in at least two areas: status
display goods and tools for large-scale construction projects.
Inter-elite competition is seen as an important motivation for the production of various kinds of material culture
needed as markers of rank and authority, and used in
feasting and other civic-ceremonial rituals (Marcus 1992).
Elite demand and elite subsidies may have permitted some
artisans to devote all their time to the manufacture of high
status goods. They may have turned over to their patrons
by-products as well as finished artifacts, thus accounting
for the presence of debitage of precious materials in votive
contexts. At times even the producers of unrestricted,
domestic goods such as tools may have been able to work
full-time if the ruling class demanded the tools for special
projects.
In his discussion of the architecture of Group 5D-2, Coe
(1990: 875-916) presents estimates for the enormous
amount of material contained in this monumental structure group (FIG.4). Its total volume was ca. 275,000 cu m,
with construction fill accounting for 95% of this cumulative mass. Great numbers of tools and other artifactswould
have been needed to erect, renovate, and maintain this
complex. Classic Period construction fill consisted of tens
of thousands of crudely shaped stones combined with
adobe and domestic refuse. Thousands of well-finished
facing stones for buildings, stairways, and plaza pavements
were also employed, as well as wood for lintels, tie-beams,
scaffolding, one-piece and composite construction tools,
and fuel to calcine limestone for plaster. Chert and obsidian tools would also have been necessary to process perishable materials for the mats, baskets, and ropes used in
construction work.
The large population of commoners who sustained the
elite were themselves consumers of domestic and status
goods. All of Tikal's residents generated a steady demand
for utilitarian artifacts of local and imported raw materials,
which could have been supplied by local artisans.
The presence of jade, other fine stone, and Spondylus
debitage in recovery contexts associated with the elite
points to attached-that is, patronized-production in
Intensityof Production
Except for the expedient production of tools of local
chert and bone, all durable artifact production was carried
out by specialists. Expedient production is indicated by the
simple character of the artifacts, as well as by the lack of
skill and standardization (Costin 1991: 32). Expedient
artifactswere recovered from general excavations in virtually all areas of the site throughout its entire span of
occupation.
Part-time producers usually add the debris they generate
to their household trash (Clark and Kurashina 1981: 315;
Clark 1991: 72-73). Part-time specialization from at least
the late Middle Preclassic Period is indicated by the presence in household middens, chultuns, and construction fill
of debitage from the manufacture of common, standardized artifact types such as chert bifaces, obsidian prismatic blades, and bone awls and needles, and from the
production of lower-status artifacts of bone, and shell
other than Spondylus.
Special-purpose dumps are more characteristic of fulltime production that results in so much waste in a short
period of time that household middens cannot accommodate it. The debitage is taken away to a location where it
will not interfere with other activities (Gould 1981: 278;
Santley and Kneebone 1993: 47). Arnold et al. (1993:
184) observe that in intensified specialist production waste
disposal is often facilitated by communal dumps accessible
to several workshops.
Composition
Santley and Kneebone (1993: figs. 1-3) specifically link
the quantity and disposal context of manufacturing waste
to variabilityin the composition of production units. Applying their findings to Tikal suggests that craft production
was organized as two, and probably three, of the types they
postulate for preindustrial complex societies:
1. unspecialized or expedient production by nonspecialists for personal or household use;
2. household industries, carried on by part-time specialists and directed toward supplementing household subsistence;
3. workshop industries, carried on by full-time specialists
working independently or under elite control.
The volume of goods and resulting debitage increases
with the type of production unit, and this, in turn, affects
the location of the production areas. Expedient and parttime production are usually carried on at the residence of
the producer. Full-time specialization can occur at home or
in a special facility, a workshop.
Midden deposits from general excavations indicate that
most of the production of domestic artifacts of chert,
obsidian, and bone, and lower-status artifacts of bone and
of shell other than Spondylus,was organized as a household
industry carried on by independent specialists, who
worked at their residences on a part-time basis.
The presence, however, of special-purpose dumps and
the large deposits external to chamber burials, also suggests that some chert and obsidian artifact production was
Concentration
In those cases where the actual production areas can no
longer be located, study of site formation processes can
help to construct an approximate spatial distribution of
production units. Hayden and Cannon (1983: 117) present three general considerations, derived from ethnoarchaeological observations, that govern the composition of
imperishable waste and its disposal locations. "Where the
garbage goes" (Hayden and Cannon 1983) and what it
consists of are dependent upon its actual and potential
value, the hindrance or hazard it poses, and the principle of
least effort in disposing of it. Accordingly, trash that can be
reused or recycled will go into storage or a context of
temporary discard. Special effort is made to dispose of
hazardous refuse, like glass; usually it is buried. Durable
waste is often disposed of in a two-stage process. It first
goes into storage in or near the house, and when enough
has accumulated to hinder other activities, it is moved into
a final deposition location (Clark 1991: 72; Killion 1990:
201-203; LeeDecker 1994: fig. 1). If a house is about to
be abandoned, what would ordinarily have been the temporary disposal area of refuse may become its final location
(Clark 1991: fig. 10). This observation has important
implications for the interpretation of archaeological "onfloor" materials. Rather than having been left where they
were made or used, they may well have been transported
from elsewhere to their temporary or final place of discard.
These general considerations suggest that refuse of substances of actual or potential value will be the least useful
indicator of concentration of production because it is the
most susceptible to curation and transportation. Large
quantities of durable debris created by intensive production, or debris regarded as hazardous, may also be transported from their area of production because of the hindrance they pose to other activities. Small to moderate
amounts of debitage of materials without high value that
Conclusions
Debitage, even in secondary context, can be a reliable
indicator of local artifact manufacture. Furthermore, the
quantity of waste and the contexts from which it is recovered can provide important information about the organization of production. In describing the situation at Tikal, I
wish to emphasize the importance of taking into account
site size and social structure in hypotheses about craft
production. The kinds of materials worked, the quantities
of debitage produced, and the diversity of recovery contexts exemplify the problems of locating, identifying, and
interpreting debitage in large settlements of preindustrial
complex societies.
Both domestic and status artifact production went on at
Tikal. By the Classic Period, if not earlier, there existed a
reliable demand for goods, as well as an organization
capable of supplying resident craft specialistswith local and
exotic raw materials and semi-finished commodities. Tikal
had become an important production center for its region.
The ways in which production waste and other refuse
entered archaeological context (Schiffer 1987: 3-4) were
structured by the perceived value of materials, the hindrance posed to human activities, and the principle of least
effort. At Tikal, as in all complex societies, patterns of
disposal were ultimately determined by the activities that
went on in the settlement (Wilson 1994: 48), that is, by its
function in its regional settlement hierarchy.Tikal's position as the primary Classic Period administrative, ceremonial, and economic central place of its region determined
that most durable production waste would be disposed of
in diverse, subsurface, and, to us, unexpected places.
There is a close relationship between the way archaeologists classify material culture and their interpretations of
the contexts from which it is recovered. An awareness of
the reflexive nature of this relationship can lead to more
useful typologies for objects and for the contexts from
which they were recovered. Production waste should not
be uncriticallydefined by its recovery context, nor can it be
conflated with production area.
Site maintenance practices and the spatially flexible nature of preindustrial technologies tend to obliterate production areas and elevate debitage in secondary context to
an important archaeological indicator of local craft production. At many sites, it is the only indicator of production. We need new theories, new methods of analysis, and
standardized recording procedures to deal with this challenging situation.
1990
1991
"Flintknappingand Debitage DisposalAmong the Lacandon Maya of Chiapas, Mexico," in Edward Staski and
LivingstonD. Sutro, eds., TheEthnoarchaeology
of Refuse
Disposal.ArchaeologicalResearchPapers42. Tempe: Arizona State University,63-78.
Acknowledgments
I thank John E. Clark, Ricardo J. Elia, William A.
Haviland, Daniel Potter, and Robert S. Santley for their
helpful criticisms of earlier versions of this paper. Figure 4
is reproduced with the kind permission of the University of
Pennsylvania Museum.
Hattula Moholy-Nagy (Ph.D., University of Michigan)
worked in thefield laboratory at Tikal, Guatemala, from
1960 through 1964, the last four seasonsas head. She is
currentlypreparing Tikal Project material for publication as a researchassociate of the University of Pennsylvania Museum. Mailing address:1204 Gardner, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104-4321.
Abler, Ronald, John S. Adams, and Peter Gould
Viewof the World.
1971 Spatial Organization:TheGeographer's
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,Inc.
Arnold II, Philip J.
1990 "The Organizationof Refuse Disposal and CeramicProduction within Contemporary Mexican Houselots,"
AmericanAnthropologist92: 915-932.
Arnold II, Philip J., ChristopherA. Pool, Ronald R. Kneebone,
and Robert S. Santley
1993 "IntensiveCeramicProduction and ClassicPeriod Political Economy in the Sierrade los Tuxtlas,Veracruz,Mexico," Ancient Mesoamerica4: 175-191.
Becker, MarshallJ.
1971 TheIdentificationof a SecondPlaza Plan at Tikal, Guatemala, and Its Implicationsfor Ancient Maya Social Organization. Ph.D. Dissertation, Universityof Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Ann Arbor:UniversityMicrofilms.
Black, Stephen L., and CharlesK. Suhler
1986 "The 1984 Rio Azul SettlementSurvey,"in RichardE. W.
Adams, ed., Rio Azul Reports,No. 2: The1984 Season.San
Antonio: Center for ArchaeologicalResearch,University
of Texasat San Antonio, 163-192.
Carr, Robert, and James E. Hazard
1961 Map of the Ruins of Tikal, El Peten, Guatemala. Tikal
Report 11. Philadelphia:UniversityMuseum, University
of Pennsylvania.
Clark,J. Desmond, and Hiro Kurashina
1981 "A Study of the World of a Modern Tanner in Ethiopia
and Its Relevance for ArchaeologicalInterpretation,"in
Clark, Rainbird
1935 "The Flint-KnappingIndustryat Brandon,"Antiquity9:
38-56.
Coe, Michael D.
1988 "Ideology of the Maya Tomb," in Elizabeth P. Benson
and Gillett G. Griffin,eds., Maya Iconography.Princeton:
PrincetonUniversityPress,222-235.
Coe, William R.
1965 "Tikal:Ten Yearsof Study of a Maya Ruin in the Lowlands of Guatemala,"Expedition8: 5-56.
1967 Tikal:A Handbookof the Ancient Maya Ruins. Philadelphia: UniversityMuseum, Universityof Pennsylvania.
1990 Excavationsin the GreatPlaza, North Terrace,and North
Acropolisof Tikal. Tikal Report 14. Philadelphia:University Museum, Universityof Pennsylvania.
Coe, William R., and Vivian L. Broman
1958 Excavationsin the Stela 23 Group.Tikal Report2. Philadelphia:UniversityMuseum, Universityof Pennsylvania.
Costin, Cathy Lynne
1991 "CraftSpecialization:Issues in Defining, Documenting,
and Explainingthe Organizationof Production,"in Michael B. Schiffer,ed., ArchaeologicalMethodand Theory3.
Tucson: Universityof Arizona Press, 1-56.
Costin, Cathy L., and Melissa B. Hagstrum
1995 "Standardization,Labor Investment, Skill, and the Organization of Ceramic Production in Late Prehistoric
Highland Peru," AmericanAntiquity60: 619-639.
Culbert, T. Patrick
1993 TheCeramicsof Tikal:Vessels
from theBurials, Caches,and
ProblematicalDeposits.TikalReport25, PartA. Philadelphia: UniversityMuseum, Universityof Pennsylvania.
Culbert, T. Patrick,LauraJ. Kosakowsky,Robert E. Fry, and
WilliamA. Haviland
1990 "The Populationof Tikal, Guatemala,"in T. PatrickCul-
312
bert and Don S. Rice, eds., PrecolumbianPopulationHistory of the Maya Lowlands.Albuquerque: University of
New Mexico Press, 103-121.
Fedick, Scott L.
1991 "Chert Tool Production and ConsumptionAmong Classic Period Maya Households," in Thomas R. Hester and
Harry J. Shafer, eds., Maya Stone Tools:SelectedPapers
from the SecondMaya Lithic Conference.Madison, WI:
PrehistoryPress, 103-118.
Fry, Robert E.
1969 Ceramicsand Settlementin the Peripheryof Tikal, Guatemala. Ph.D. Dissertation,Universityof Arizona,Tucson.
Ann Arbor:UniversityMicrofilms.
Gould, RichardA.
1981 "BrandonRevisited:A New Look at an Old Technology,"
in RichardA. Gould and MichaelB. Schiffer,eds., Modern
Material Culture:TheArchaeologyof Us. New York:Academic Press,269-281.
Hall, Grant D.
1989 Realm of Death:MortuaryCustomsand PolityInteraction
in the ClassicMaya Lowlands.Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University,Cambridge,MA. Ann Arbor:University
MicrofilmsInternational.
Kidder,Alfred V.
1947 TheArtifacts of Uaxactun, Guatemala.Publication576.
Washington:CarnegieInstitutionof Washington.
Harrison, Peter D.
1963 "A Jade Pendantfrom Tikal,"Expedition5: 12-13.
Killion, Thomas W.
1990 "CultivationIntensityand ResidentialSite Structure:An
EthnoarchaeologicalExaminationof PeasantAgriculture
in the Sierra de los Tuxtlas, Veracruz,Mexico," Latin
AmericanAntiquity 1: 191-215.
1992 "ResidentialEthnoarchaeologyand Ancient Site Structure: Contemporary Farming and Prehistoric Settlement Agricultureat Matacapan,Veracruz,Mexico," in
ThomasW. Killion,ed., Gardensof Prehistory:TheArchaeologyof SettlementAgriculture in GreaterMesoamerica.
Tuscaloosa:Universityof AlabamaPress, 119-149.
1970
1993
Haviland,WilliamA.
1963 Excavationof Small Structuresin the NortheastQuadrant
of Tikal, Guatemala. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Pennsylvania,Philadelphia.Ann Arbor:UniversityMicrofilms.
1981
LeeDecker, CharlesH.
1994 "DiscardBehavioron Domestic HistoricSites:Evaluation
of Contexts for the Interpretationof Household Consumption Patterns,"JournalofArchaeologicalMethodand
Theory1: 345-375.
Marcus, Joyce
1973 "The TerritorialOrganization of the Lowland Classic
Maya,"Science180: 911-916.
1985
Healan, Dan M.
1995 "Identifying Lithic Reduction Loci with Size-Graded
Macrodebitage:A MultivariateApproach,"AmericanAntiquity60: 689-699.
Healan, Dan M., Janet M. Kerley,and George J. Bey III
1983 "Excavation and Preliminary Analysis of an Obsidian
1976
Emblemand State in the ClassicMaya Lowlands:An Epigraphic Approachto TerritorialOrganization.Washington: Dumbarton Oaks Libraryand ResearchCollection.
1992
Moholy-Nagy, Hattula
1976 "SpatialDistribution of Flint and Obsidian Artifacts at
Tikal, Guatemala,"in Thomas R. Hester and Norman
Hammond, ed., MayaLithicStudies:Papersfrom the 1976
Belize Field Symposium.SpecialReport No. 4. San Antonio: Center for Archaeological Research, University of
Texasat San Antonio, 91-108.
1990
1994
Pendergast,David M.
1979 Excavations at Altun Ha, Belize, 1964-1970, Vol. 1.
Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum.
1982 Excavations at Altun Ha, Belize, 1964-1970, Vol. 2.
Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum.
1990 Excavations at Altun Ha, Belize, 1964-1970, Vol. 3.
Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum.
Potter, Daniel
1993 "AnalyticalApproachesto Late ClassicMayaLithicIndustries,"in JeremyA. Sabloff and John S. Henderson, eds.,
Lowland Maya Civilization in the Eighth Century A.D.
Washington:Dumbarton Oaks Libraryand ResearchCollection, 273-298.
Puleston, Dennis E.
1971 "An ExperimentalApproach to the Function of Classic
MayaChultuns,"AmericanAntiquity 36: 322-335.
1983 The SettlementSurvey of Tikal. Tikal Report 13. Series
editor WilliamA. Haviland.Philadelphia:UniversityMuseum, Universityof Pennsylvania.
Ricketson, Oliver G., and Edith B. Ricketson
1937 Uaxactun, Guatemala, GroupE, 1926-1931. Publication
477. Washington:CarnegieInstitution of Washington.
Santley,Robert S.
1992 "A Consideration of the Olmec Phenomenon in the
Tuxtlas:Early Formative Settlement Pattern, Land Use,
and Refuse Disposal at Matacapan,Veracruz,Mexico," in
ThomasW. Killion,ed., GardensofPrehistory:TheArchaeologyof SettlementAgriculture in GreaterMesoamerica.
Tuscaloosa:Universityof AlabamaPress, 150-183.