Journal of Field Archaeology

ISSN: 0093-4690 (Print) 2042-4582 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yjfa20

Middens, Construction Fill, and Offerings: Evidence

for the Organization of Classic Period Craft
Production at Tikal, Guatemala

Hattula Moholy-Nagy

To cite this article: Hattula Moholy-Nagy (1997) Middens, Construction Fill, and Offerings:
Evidence for the Organization of Classic Period Craft Production at Tikal, Guatemala, Journal of
Field Archaeology, 24:3, 293-313, DOI: 10.1179/009346997792208096

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/009346997792208096

Published online: 18 Jul 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 60

View related articles

Citing articles: 14 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yjfa20

Download by: [Gazi University] Date: 15 April 2016, At: 19:46

 293

Middens, Construction Fill, and Offerings:

Evidence for the Organization of
Classic Period Craft Production at
Ti1{al,Guatemala

Hattula Moholy-Nagy
University of Pennsylvania Museum
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

The production of artifacts of stone) shell) and bone at Tikal) an important center in the
Southern Maya Lowlands) created quantities of durable waste) referred to as debitage.
Yet debitage is not a reliable indicator of production area because of the spatially flexible
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 19:46 15 April 2016

nature of Prehispanic technology and site-maintenance activities that shifted manufac-

turing debris into secondary contexts. Nevertheless) debitage, even in secondary context,
provides important information on the or;ganization of craft production at Tikal, par-
ticularly during the Classic Period (ca. A.C. 250-850). Most crafts were O1;ganized as
household industries) carried on by independent, part-time specialists living in the cen-
tral area that surrounded the monumental core of the city. The elite probably supported
some full-time production to satisfy their demands for status goods and toolsfor construc-
tion projects. Expedient production by nonspecialists) using locally available materials
such as chert and bone, occurred at all times.
Production waste was recovered from the construction fill of public and residential ar-
chitecture) and from household middens, mixed with domestic trash. The lar;gest'concen-
trations, however, were found exterior to elite chamber burials and within cached ojfer-
ings. The delayed identification of debitage from ritual contexts exemplifies the reflexive
nature of the way archaeologists classify material culture and their interpretations of the
contexts from which it is recovered.

Introduction: Debitage and the Organization
of Production
The study of the organization of craft production in
preindustrial complex societies is a lively field of research
that has by now generated a substantial body of literature.
Most studies focus on direct evidence from production
areas (e.g., Clark 1986; Healan 1995) and indirect evi-
dence derived from finished artifacts (e.g., Costin 1991:
32; Costin and Hagstrum 1995). Only a few (e.g., Fedick
1991; Santley and Kneebone 1993) have taken into ac-
count production debris that is clearly from secondary
contexts, even though such debris often constitutes a large
proportion of the material evidence from habitation sites.
Our present concern is the organization of craft produc-
tion at one of the principal pre-Columbian cities of the
Lowland Maya area, Tikal, situated in the Department of
Peten of Guatemala (FIG. I). Another goal of the paper,
however, is to direct attention to the explanatory potential
of production waste that is no longer in situ.
Artifacts and debris that are no longer in the places
where they were made or used can provide significant,
indirect evidence about the organization of craft produc-
tion. Furthermore, their value as data is significantly en-
hanced by considering them together with the archae-
ological contexts from ,vhich they were recovered. Most of
this paper ,viII describe the recovery contexts of durable
production ,vaste at Tikal and pertinent site formation
processes (Schiffer 1987). I will discuss here only those
materials worked by reduction processes that have left both
artifacts and readily visible production waste in the archae-
ological record: chert and obsidian, which were predomi-
nantly worked by chipping; jade and slate (some of which
is actually shale), which were worked by chipping and
grinding; marine and freshwater mussel shell; and bone.
Hypotheses about the production of various kinds of arti-
facts will then be presented in terms of four organizational
parameters proposed by Costin (1991: 8-9; Costin and
Hagstrum 1995: 620). I will conclude with some thoughts
 294 Craft Production at Tikal) Guatemala/Moholy-Nagy

Santley and Kneebone 1993: 41). Costin's neutral term,

"production area," is more appropriate here.
Because production areas can provide such important
NORTHERN LOWLANDS C1 information, they need to be defined with special attention
to site formation processes (Moholy-Nagy 1990). Of the
indicators used to identifY production areas, only special-
purpose installations can be assumed to be in situ. Tools
and production debris, because they are portable, mayor
.,..--- may not be; the archaeologist can not assume that they are
' ...• recovered from the places where they were made or used.
\
\
\
--- In archaeological sites of New World complex societies,
\\ SOUTHERN LOWLANDS Altun Ha
", including those of the Maya Lowlands, two factors-spa-
Rio Azulo
, Nakbe
0 0
0 Uaxactun Lamaral
.
tial flexibility of production technology and site mainte-
\,
, 0

"-
'I, Tikal 0 0 Buenavista del Cava nance behavior-make the identification of production
\ 0:-
I
I areas especially difficult. The manufacture of most kinds of
\ 0
artifacts did not require installations substantial or distinc-
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 19:46 15 April 2016

\ \. Altar de Sacrificias
,
..•..•
..•..•..•
-------
HIGHLANDS
o, 100
km
Figure 1. The Lowland Maya area showing sites mentioned in the
text.
on the importance of considering a site's size and function
in the study of craft production in any preindustrial com-
plex society.
Direct and indirect evidence can both be employed in
the study of craft production (Costin 1991: 18-19). Direct
evidence is associated with actual places of production.
Indirect evidence is derived from the characteristics of the
materials themselves, without regard to the contexts in
which they were found.
The specific locations of production areas provide the
most secure evidence about the organization of produc-
tion. From ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological obser-
vations we have learned that production areas may be
characterized by the presence of special-purpose features,
like kilns; special-purpose tools, like spindle whorls; and by
residues of the production process, like refuse, failed arti-
facts, raw materials, or charcoal. Production areas are often
referred to in the literature as "workshops." This term,
however, has come to imply a specific level of craft organi-
zation (e.g., Clark 1986: 45-46; Costin 1991: 8-9;
tive enough to leave archaeological traces. Most Prehis-
•........• , panic production can be characterized as spatially flexible
,\
(Arnold 1990: 927-928). It could be carried on almost
\
\
anywhere, even in the marketplace (e.g., Clark 1989: 300).
\
Stone was the principal industrial material and the fabrica-
tion of chert and obsidian artifacts by percussion and
pressure flaking generated quantities of well-preserved
\.
\
\
refuse.
What is more, in habitation sites this imperishable debris
was rarely left where it fell. In general, most excavated
portable material culture, including finished objects and
the refuse from their manufacture, is not recovered from
its context of production or consumption, but from its
context of disposal (Schiffer 1987: 58-59; LeeDecker
1994: 351-352). Disposal location, in turn, is directly
determined by site maintenance activities (Tani 1995),
which are themselves affected by a host of other variables,
such as the organization and intensity of artifact produc-
tion, the size and structure of the site, and its function in a
regional settlement system (Wilson 1994: 43). At any
settlement, but especially at those with a high density of
structures, the archaeologist must consider the formation
processes responsible for the recovery context of any kind
of portable material culture. This is crucial because of the
powerful influence site formation processes exert upon our
perceptions of archaeological data.
It follows, then, that two essentially different types of
data-production area and material evidence of produc-
tion, especially manufacturing by-products-need to be
distinguished. Such a distinction is usually made by ceram-
ists (e.g., Arnold et al. 1993), historical archaeologists
(e.g., LeeDecker 1994), and a few lithic specialists (e.g.,
Clark 1935; Healan 1995). There is, however, a long
tradition among Mesoamerican archaeologists working
 Jou1"nal of Field Archaeology/VOl. 24) 1997 295

Table 1. Chronological chart (after Coe 1990: chart 1; Jones and

Satterthwaite 1982: table 1).
Period Long Count Date Ceramics

Early Postclassic 950 A.C. Caban

Terminal Classic 10.3.0.0.0 889 A.C. Eznab
Late Classic 9.13.0.0.0 692 A.C. Imix
Intermediate Classic 9.8.0.0.0 593 A.C. lk
Early Classic 8.11.0.0.0 250 A.C. Manik
Protoc1assic 170 A.C. Cimi
Late Prec1assic (late) 1 A.C. Cauac
Late Prec1assic (early) 350 B.C. Chuen
Middle Preclassic (late) 600 B.C. Tzec
Middle Prec1assic (early) 800 B.C. Eb

,vith artifacts made by reduction techniques to conflate secondary contexts, are also taken into consideration, it
production area and production ,vaste and then to refer to becomes possible to propose general hypotheses about the
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 19:46 15 April 2016

debitage concentrations as "workshops" (e.g., Spence organization of craft production.

1967; Moholy-Nagy 1976: 99-102; Shafer and Hester
1983; Hester and Shafer 1992; Black and Suhler 1986;
Potter 1993; I<ing and Potter 1994). This unfounded
transfer of meaning from locus to object impedes sub-
sequent efforts to interpret the organization of produc-
tion. One consequence of referring to debitage deposits as
workshops is to inflate the number of production areas at a
site. But a more subtle, equally misleading effect is to
overlook or misinterpret the presence of debitage from
archaeological contexts that could not possibly have been
production areas.
Because of the difficulties in locating production areas
and recognizing special-purpose tools in the settlements of
New World complex societies, debitage, by ,vhich I mean
durable manufacturing debris and manufacturing failures,
has become the most important indicator of craft produc-
tion.
Correctly identified debitage, by definition, is always a
sign of craft activity somewhere, no matter ,vhere it is
found. Its presence in secondary contexts can be linked to
local production by several criteria. These include occur-
rence in large quantities and densities, debitage of materi-
als that were either locally available or imported in abun-
dance, by-products of manufacture that are technologically
consistent with the types of artifacts used at the site (Clark
1990: 503), the presence of small-sized debitage, and the
cultural functions associated with the artifact types and raw
materials. As in the case of finished artifacts, the formal and
technological characteristics of the debitage itself can pro-
vide indirect evidence about organizational aspects of pro-
duction, such as standardization, efficiency, skill, and re-
gional variants and their spatial distribution (Costin 1991:
32-43). And when the recovery contexts of debitage, even
Tikal Project Data
The materials discussed here come from excavations
carried out between 1957-1969 by the Tikal Project of the
University of Pennsylvania Museum (Coe 1965). Various
lines of archaeological and epigraphic evidence suggest
that Tikal was the paramount administrative, ceremonial,
and economic center of its region, and one offour 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 R.C. and ca. A.C. 950 (TABLE 1). At its zenith
during the Classic Period, ca. A.C. 250-850, it ,vas one of
the largest cities of the Lowland Maya area, with an area of
\vell over 16 sq km (Carr and Hazard 1961) and an
estimated maximum population of more than 62,000
(Culbert et al. 1990). To,vards the end of the Classic
Period the city had an approximately concentric settlement
plan composed of three distinct areas (Puleston 1983: fig.
21). Tikal's monumental civic and ceremonial architecture
and the vaulted masonry residences of its elite class were
concentrated in the Epicenter, which had a diameter of ca.
1.25 km. The site's core ,vas surrounded by the Central
area, extending up to another 1.5 km beyond the Epicen-
ter. Many groups of small structures, the residences of the
commoners who sustained the city, comprise this zone.
Beyond it was a Peripheral sustaining area, distinguished
by a significantly lower density of settlement.
Settlement pattern studies, inscribed stone monuments
(Jones and Satterthwaite 1982), and the presence and
configuration of monumental architecture and associated
chamber burials demonstrate that Tikal was the residence
of a powerful elite class. It was the elite class-its political
administrators, subjects of a cult of ancestor worship, and
 296 Craft Production at TikalJ Guatemala/Moholy-Nagy
Table 2. Counts of Classic Period provenienced and dated artifacts, debitage, and unworked objects.
Material Total Artifacts Debitage
Chert 72,977 6,642 66,335
Obsidian 65,920 8,782 57,138
Jade 13,334 7,611 5,723
Slate/shale 305 132 164
Spondylus 7,393 3,681 3,652
Other shell 4,286 1,111 203
Bone 8,912 907 463
the city's most conspicuous consumers-who transformed
Tikal into the major Classic Period center of its region.
Temples, processional causeways, and abundant votive of-
ferings testifY to its ritual importance. Its function as an
economic center ,vas implied over two decades ago when
Marcus (1973) pointed out how closely the Classic Period
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 19:46 15 April 2016
settlement pattern in the Tikal area, and around the other
Lowland Maya regional capitals, conformed to expecta-
tions derived from geographical models of central places
(e.g., Abler, Adams, and Gould 1971: 370-372). The
position of Tikal as a major central place is reinforced by
the presence of a 'probable marketplace in the Epicenter
(Jones 1996) and by the·concentration of imported mate-
rials. For centuries Tikal imported raw materials, such as
fine chert and marine shells; semi-finished commodities,
such as large polyhedral obsidian cores; as well as finished
goods, especially pottery. The city undoubtedly also ex-
ported products, although we are hampered here by a lack
of information from other sites in the region. The eco-
nomic importance ofTikal as a producer and distributor of
goods is also indicated by the presence and spatial distribu-
tion of by-products generated by local craft production.
The Tikal Project recovered a large collection of artifacts
formed by reduction and quantities of production waste
(TABLE 2; Moholy-Nagy 1994). Counts given here should
be considered approximate, and the hypotheses offered are
intended to apply only to the Classic Period.
Unlike the other data given on Table 2, estimated
counts of chert and obsidian debitage (FIGS. 2,3; TABLES 3,4)
are based upon field observations rather than laboratory
records. The largest deposits of debitage encountered at
Tikal came from above and around the chamber burials of
its most important persons. In comparing laboratory re-
cords of these deposits to published descriptions (Coe
1990), it became clear that most deposits had only been
sampled and none were completely recovered and docu-
mented. We probably recorded about one-tenth of the
debitage encountered.
Excavations were carried out at a time when archaeolo-
gists studying the Prehispanic Maya had little interest in
fine-grained analyses of production and consumption.
Unworked % Classic Period
Unrecorded 81.2
None 93.8
None 96.9
9 88.0
60 66.6
2,972 93.2
7,542 94.4
Only special deposits, such as offerings and burials, were
screened. Volume was not specifically calculated for exca-
vated lots, which were the Tikal Project's smallest units of
excavation, and recovered objects were only counted or,
occasionally, only weighed, rather than both counted and
weighed. The lack of information on excavated volume
and the weights of recovered material culture precludes the
presentation of data in a standardized format that would
permit direct comparisons between different areas ofTikal
and between Tikal and other sites. I will use piece per
excavated lot to express variability in density. This index
should be understood as an approximation, since neither
"piece" nor excavation lot are standardized units. Never-
theless, the lack of more accurate information about
weight and volume is counterbalanced by the large size of
the collection, the precisely recorded proveniences, and
good chronological control.
Both locally available and imported raw materials occur
in high quantities at Tikal. Among the durable raw materi-
als obtained at and near the site were abundant nodules of
medium- and coarse-textured chert, limestone, freshwater
mussel and snail shells, and human and animal bones and
teeth. Throughout the Classic Period large quantities of
fine-textured chert, obsidian, jade, freshwater and marine
shells, and marine fishes were imported from other parts of
the Maya area. Small amounts of goods and raw materials
also came from central Mexico. Imported jade, fine stones
like specular hematite and pyrite, and thorny oyster shell
(Spondylus spp.) were only used by the elite. There is,
however, no simple correspondence between the distance
over which the raw materials were transported to Tikal
and the function of the finished artifact. Imported fine-
textured chert and gray and green obsidian were used
primarily for utilitarian artifacts, while a large class of elite
ceremonial artifacts, the so-called eccentric flints, were
made almost exclusively of locally available chert.
Household Refuse) Debitage) and Offerings from
Tikal
Daily domestic activities, artifact manufacture, and ritual
behavior account for virtually all of the artifacts and pro-
 Journal of Field Archaeology/VOl. 24) 1997 297

250000

200000

150000

100000

50000
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 19:46 15 April 2016

0
.:i
-
r:::
CD
E
~r:::
...
Q)
.0
E
CD
J::.
.(i;
0
0.
CD
"'C
ca
0.

~~
Q)
E
U)
r:::
0

~tU
X tU 0 ~
w 0
:E
J::.
0
:;
0

~2-
0
x
CD
E 9-
CD ~CD
:c CiS
·u r:::
e
a.
CD
0.
CD
(!J
en

Figure 2. Counts of Classic Period debitage by recovery context. The figures for chamber burial
exterior deposits are estimated, as explained in the text.

duction waste in archaeological contexts at Tikal. The
material residues of these activities can be classified, respec-
tively, as refuse, debitage, and offerings.
Refuse is usually defined as discarded durable material,
distinct from biodegradable waste or garbage. Much was
generated by household activities and consisted of things
used by everyone, elite and non-elite alike: predominantly
potsherds, with smaller amounts of broken or worn-out
artifacts of stone, shell, bone, pottery, and plaster, frag-
mentary architectural elements, and bones and shells of
animals that were usually eaten. They constitute a domestic
material culture complex (Moholy-Nagy 1994: 15,
adapted from Haviland 1981: 103-104).
Debitage is a special kind of refuse generated by the
production of artifacts by reductive processes. For this
paper, I have broadened the definition to include all mate-
rial residues of production, such as cores, flakes, preforms,
shatter, and microdebitage, unworked pieces of raw mate-
rial, production failures, and any of these types that were
subsequently used as expedient tools. Although used flakes
and cores are usually classified as artifacts, they are, none-
theless, also evidence of production. Recycling and reuse
of all classes of material culture was common at Tikal at all
times.
Identifications of debitage were based upon inherent
characteristics, primarily form, size, material, and the ab-
sence of use-wear. The development of sequential or be-
havioral typologies for the production stages of an artifact
(Sheets 1975) and the subsequent modifications during its
use-life (Shafer 1983: 215) ,vere significant contributions
to the classification of artifacts and waste formed by reduc-
tion. Behavioral typology enables us to distinguish be-
tween finished products, re,vorked artifacts, manufactur-
ing failures, and waste.
Most recovered debitage was created by the production
of several types of bifaces from locally available chert
nodules. Nearly all obsidian debitage came from prismatic
blade production from imported preformed, large polyhe-
dral cores. A minor amount establishes the fabrication of
eccentrics from exhausted blade cores. Shell and fine stone,
especially jade, were used for sociotechnic and ideotechnic
artifacts like jewelry, mosaics, vessels, dental inlays, and
mirrors. Bone was fashioned into artifacts of utilitarian,
ornamental, and ceremonial function. I have assumed that
 298 Craft Production at Tikal, Guatemala/Moholy- Nagy

4500.000

4000.000

3500,000

3000.000

2500.000

2000.000

1500.000

1000,000

500,000
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 19:46 15 April 2016

0,000

'en0 a. (J)

a. E t::
'E :::::l
(; CD ~
.c Q;
Q)
"C
"C
~
0

'55 E E .t:: Q)

x ::J
c: as 6 (ij
0
(/J
0 ru
0
w 0
:?:
.c
() :; e-
:::::l
x
Q)

E
Q)

:c
9-
(ij
eQ)
'() c:
e
a.
Q)
a.
CJ)
(!)
en

Figure 3. Density of Classic Period debitage as count per excavated lot by recovery context.
The figures for chamber burial exterior deposits are estimated, as explained in the text.

all of these goods were made by specialists, though the ex-
pedient production of simple artifacts of locally abundant
chert and bone may have been carried on by everybody.
The third important category of recovered portable
material culture may best be referred to as offerings. Offer-
ings are regarded as the tangible residues of ritual behavior,
and were typically classified as burial furniture or compo-
nents of votive caches. In contrast to items usually found in
refuse, which were used by everyone, the artifacts, natural
objects, and debitage found in offerings can be regarded as
indicators of social status. The assumption, nearly always
implicit, that household refuse, debitage, and offerings will
be found in distinct recovery contexts generally holds,
although materials thought to have been used in different

Table 3. Counts of Classic Period debitage by recovery context.

Excavated
Context Chert Obsidian Jade Slate/shale Spondylus Other shell Bone lots

Exterior deposit* 116,820 228,243 2 55

Monument cache 1,707 9,217 242 1 50 54
Structure cache 3,663 14,112 4,921 3 3,503 12 3 185
Chamber burial 4 83 304 16 I 32
Other burial 39 16 35 37 3 206
Problematical deposit 3,059 6,620 214 & 34 18 3 319
Special-purpose dump 879 1,953 19
General excavations 41,850 2,392 7 152 12 169 455 9,725
Totals 168,021 262,636 5,723 164 3,652 203 463 10,673
* Estimated
 Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 24) 1997 299

Table 4. Density of Classic Period debitage by recovery context as counts per excavated lot.
Context Chert Obsidian Jade Slate/shale Spondylus Other shell Bone

Exterior deposit* 2124.000 4149.873 0.036

Monument cache 31.611 170.685 4.481 0.019 0.926
Structure cache 19.800 76.281 26.600 0.016 18.935 0.065 0.016
Chamber burial 0.125 2.594 9.500 0.500 0.031
Other burial 0.189 0.078 0.170 0.180 0.015
Problematical deposit 9.589 20.752 0.671 0.025 0.107 0.056 0.009
Special-purpose dump 46.283 102.789
General excavations 4.303 0.246 0.001 0.016 0.001 0.017 0.047
Per lot of total excavated 15.743 24.608 0.536 0.015 0.342 0.019 0.043
* Estimated

kinds of activities sometimes occurred together in the same and dispersed than those in special deposits and, except for
context. those associated with architectural stratigraphy, their peri-
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 19:46 15 April 2016

ods of deposition are usually of unknown duration. Status

Recovery Contexts objects characteristic of special deposits were rare, but did
occur occasionally.
Recovery context is an inference, made by the re-
Materials from general excavations should be regarded
searcher, about the archaeological setting in \vhich materi-
as being in secondary context, transported over an un-
als occurred. I use this term rather than "depositional
kno\vn distance from the locus of their production or use
context," because it is not always clear if the material ,vas
primarily by two cultural site formation processes: site
intentionally deposited, and, if it was intentionally depos-
maintenance and construction activities. Domestic trash
ited, what the intent was: for example, is the material to be
was dumped into abandoned chultuns, artificial bedrock
regarded as a ritual offering or a refuse dump? Recovery
context is altogether different from Costin's use of the chambers perhaps used for food storage (Puleston 1971),
bedrock quarries, and reservoirs. Even more frequently it
term "context" to refer to control of production (Costin
\vas incorporated, and thus buried, in the construction fill
1991: 8-9). For Tikal it is useful to distinguish nvo broad
of all kinds of structures (Haviland 1963, 1985; Harrison
types of recovery context: special deposits and general
1970; Becker 1971; Coe 1990: 878).
excavations (FIGS. 2,3, TABLES 3,4).
Special deposits generally correspond to ,vhat historical General Excavations
archaeologists call feature contexts (LeeDecker 1994:
353). Usually they have defined spatial boundaries, spe- UNINCORPORATED MIDDENS

cially prepared repositories, and their material contents are
regarded as in primary context. A special deposit is consid-
ered to be the intentionally interred residue of a specific
event or events, such as activities of ceremonial nature or
episodes of artifact production. In the former case, the
materials can be regarded as a functional assemblage in-
dicative of social status (Hendon 1987: 118). At Tikal, as
an illustration of how contents can influence 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 problemati-
cal deposit, that is, an intentional deposit of problematical
nature.
Recovery contexts not classified as special deposits were
lumped together as general excavations. They were located
on the surface as well as beneath it. Artifacts and debitage
from general excavations were usually more heterogeneous
Surface scatters and more dense, buried deposits of
material were encountered in all parts of the site. In smaller
residential groups, middens often formed around house
platforms (e.g., Fry 1969: 57-61; Haviland 1985). Refuse
,vas also recovered from abandoned chultuns, quarries,
and reservoirs. During the decline of the city during the
Terminal Classic Period, ca. A.c. 850-950, household rub-
bish accumulated, or was dumped, in the abandoned
rooms of range structures or palaces thought to have been
elite residences. When the elite lived in them, these struc-
ture groups ,vere kept clean, not only because refuse was
considered a hindrance, but also because their paved sur-
faces diverted rain ,vater into natural and artificial reser-
voirs (Harrison 1993).
In addition to household refuse and what may be dis-
turbed human burials, general excavation contexts also
included production refuse mixed with domestic trash.
 300 Craft Production at Tikal, Guatemala/Moholy-Nagy
Most of the debitage was of local chert from the produc-
tion of bifacial artifacts, but there was also a modest
amount of obsidian prismatic blade production waste, and
small numbers of freshwater mussel and white marine shell
fragments (TABLES 3,4). 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 inter min -
gling of debitage from different industries. The spatial
distributions suggest craft specialization by residential
group, even for the production of domestic goods. The
heterogeneous character ofTikal midden deposits is exem-
plified by one of the largest excavated. It was found in
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 19:46 15 April 2016
Group SC-l, a ceremonial Twin Pyramid Complex that
subsequently became a residential group towards the end
of the Late Classic Period (Jones 1969: 23-25). Over 400
fragments of bone debitage were recovered from this large
midden that also included over 1800 pieces of chert debi-
tage, fragments of domestic artifact types of chert, obsid-
ian, ground stone, pottery figurines, censer fragments, and
over 300 pounds of potsherds (Moholy-Nagy 1994: 116-
117).
Large quantities of obsidian debitage mixed with do-
mestic refuse were less common than chert. The more
restricted spatial distribution of obsidian debitage in gen-
eral excavations, relative to chert, showed that obsidian
was worked in fewer structure groups.
Most of the investigated chultuns were found empty. A
few held various kinds of special deposits such as primary
and secondary burials, censers, or whole pottery vessels
(Puleston 1971; Culbert 1993: figs. 143b, 144a, b). Sev-
eral contained the same mixture of household refuse and
manufacturing by-products as surface household middens.
A very large Peripheral area midden of Late Pre classic date
included "hundreds of pounds" of chert debitage (Fry
1969: 144), consisting of flake cores, nodules, decortica-
tion flakes, blade cores, and failed bifaces. It also included
domestic trash, such as fragments of used obsidian blades,
ground stone tools, freshwater snails, unworked animal
bones, stucco, pottery censers, charcoal, and over 170
pounds of potsherds. Another large Peripheral area deposit
made in Proto classic times had relatively little chert and
household trash, but over 2500 fragments of obsidian
prismatic blade production waste.
The relatively early dates of the large chultun lithic
debitage deposits are significant. During the succeeding
Classic Period, the favored disposal locations of large
quantities of stone chipping waste appear to have shifted
from chultuns and construction fill to caches and burials.
This may well signal an important change in the organiza-
tion of production.
CONSTRUCTION FILL
An impressive amount of construction of all kinds was
carried out at Tikal during its IS00-year occupation,
reaching its peak during the Classic Period when the
Peripheral area was developed (Puleston 1983) and the
center of power was re-established in Group 5D-2, the
civic-ceremonial heart of the city (FIG. 4; Coe 1990). Con-
struction of earth, adobe, and rubble faced with cut stone
also occurred in other parts of the city (e.g., Coe and
Broman 1958; Jones 1969; Harrison 1970, 1993;
Haviland 1985) and refuse was nearly always incorporated
into the fill. Besides buildings and building substructures,
earthen fill was also used in causeways and causeway para-
pets, reservoir embankments, earthworks, and raised fields.
Tikal architecture not only provided the impetus for the
local manufacture of artifacts of chipped stone and other
materials, it also provided an opportunity to dispose of
production waste. Even the earliest known structures in-
corporated household refuse and debitage.
A few unusually large concentrations of chert and obsid-
ian debitage, misdesignated as "workshops," were incor-
porated into the substructure fills of temples in Group
5D-2 and Group 7F-l (Moholy-Nagy 1976: 102). Debi-
tage .in c;onstruction fill is more dispersed than in special
deposits and often can only be identified as production
area residue by higher counts or densities when compared
to adjacent excavation units.
Ceramic dating showed that the construction fill of one
building was sometimes reused as the fill of another. The
recycling of domestic and production refuse means that
caution must be exercised in trying to assess the relative
importance of production activities at different times and
in different areas at a large site. At best, construction can
provide a cut-off date. At Tikal, however, primarily because
of structure density and the need for earthen architectural
fill, movement of refuse appeared to be predominantly
unidirectional: from the surface to beneath it, from smaller
structure groups to larger ones, and from the peripheries
toward the center.
SUMMARY OF GENERAL EXCAVATIONS
With the notable exception of chultuns, debitage depos-
its in general excavations were usually smaller and more
dispersed than those in special deposits. They were, for the
most part, mixed with ordinary domestic trash, especially
quantities of potsherds.
Debitage from general excavations was predominantly
 Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 24) 1997 301
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 19:46 15 April 2016

• It,

~ .

.~
,
I

i 4,

/t i"" :\
j) , \ \ \
\ ..

. ---
/:
;\ \\ }C
"' \ .. \ '

~-
-_.--..:
. :.--J' i I oJ \

\ \\ ./ ,.r:

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-l1, the Central Acropolis, with Str. 5D-5, Great Temple
V, and the South Acropolis in the distance. Str. 5D-1, Great Temple I, is the tall building at the east
edge of the Great Plaza. The temples on the north-south central axis of the North Acropolis are
Str. 5D-22, the barely discernible Str. 5D-26, and Str. 5D-33, at the northern edge of the Great Plaza
(Coe 1967: 25-26).

from the production of domestic artifacts, non -elite status
markers, and elite status markers made of unrestricted
materials like white marine and fresh\vater mussel shell,
and bone. Rare and scattered chert and obsidian eccen-
trics, bits of jade and slate, and fragments of Spondylus shell
have also been recovered (TABLES 3, 4). I have interpreted
these to mean that status, as well as domestic, artifact
production was carried on in small residential groups in the
Central area around the monumental Epicenter of the city.
Production waste in general excavations is usually of
small size and scattered occurrence. Material from general
excavations, especially at large sites, should also be
screened in order to recover the full range of durable
materials worked and to identifY areas of production
(Healan, Kerly, and Bey 1983; Widmer 1991; Healan
1995).
Special Deposits
An unexpected result of the study of Tikal material
culture \vas the identification of debitage in special depos-
 302 Craft Production at Tikal) Guatemala/Moholy- Nagy
its. Production waste included substances used only by the
elite, such as jade, specular hematite, and Spondylusshell, as
well as large quantities of chert and obsidian. Field iden-
tifications of chert and obsidian debitage were confirmed
by experienced stone knappers (Don E. Crabtree, personal
communication, 1976; John E. Clark, personal communi-
cation, 1984; William J. Parry, personal communication,
1984) and I regard them as conclusive.
SPECIAL- PURPOSE DUMPS
Special-purpose dumps are intentional deposits com-
posed primarily or exclusively of one kind of production
waste, incorporating little or no domestic trash and none
of the offerings associated with caches and burials. Two of
Classic Period date were recognized, one in Group 4F-1
and designated PD. 217 (Haviland 1985: 158-159, figs.
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 19:46 15 April 2016
30, 31), and one in Group 7F-1, designated PD. 37
(Moholy-Nagy 1976: 102). They were classified as "prob-
lematical deposits" because their relationship to artifact
production was not understood at the time of their discov-
ery. They consisted of shallow pits dug into the surfaces of
building platforms that were filled with obsidian debitage
from the manufacture of prismatic blades, and then buried
by later construction. Some 1354 pieces of obsidian were
recorded from PD. 217; 602 pieces of obsidian and 24 of
chert were recorded from PD. 37. The purpose of these
secondary refuse aggregates (Wilson 1994) appears to
have been the disposal of obsidian manufacturing debris.
CACHES
Votive caches were associated almost exclusivelywith the
elite. Caches were frequently placed beneath stone stelae
(FIG. 5) and in temples (FIG. 6), and occasionally with range
structures or palaces, which are generally assumed to have
been elite residences. First appearing during the early Late
Pre classic Period (ca. 400 B.C.), caches persisted in various
forms until the end of the Classic Period (Cae 1990:
926-930). They usually consisted of a specially-con-
structed repository that contained a standard and predict-
able assemblage of durable artifacts and natural objects of
restricted use, and often included considerable quantities
of debitage of chert, obsidian, jade and other fine stone,
and Spondylus shell (FIGS. 2,3). Fine stone and shell debitage
only occurred during the Early and Intermediate Classic
Periods, when caches and their contents were most numer-
ous and diverse.
Even though much cached debitage was of materials
governed by sumptuary rules, all of it may have been
locally produced in response to elite demand for large
quantities of artifacts. Local production is suggested by a
handful of fragmentary chert and obsidian eccentrics, bits
St.P9
o 2M
I I
Figure 5. Cache 41 of Stela P9, located in front of the substructure
of Str. 5D-32. This Early Classic Period monument cache included
quantities of chert, obsidian, jade, and Spondylus shell debitage, as
well as eccentrics of chert and obsidian (after Coe 1990: fig. 204).
of jade, and Spondylus shell fragments recovered from
general excavations in some small residential groups.
The obsidian debitage deposited in caches could be
securely identified as deriving from prismatic blade pro-
duction and the fashioning of eccentrics from exhausted
prismatic blade cores. The cached chert debitage was less
distinctive and at present we can only say that it resulted
from the production of bifaces of local chert, presumably
also including eccentrics. Sometimes, but not invariably,
chert and obsidian debitage occurred with chert and ob-
sidian eccentrics. This association suggests that waste from
the manufacture of ceremonial artifacts of restricted use
was interred with the finished products, but thirty years
ago it did not occur to anyone to test.this notion through
refitting.
Problematical Deposit 33, combining the characteristics
of a cache and a special-purpose dump, was placed in
Structure 5D-33 of Group 5D-2 during Intermediate
Classic times (FIG. 6; Coe 1990: 517-518, fig. 9b). This
large pit contained approximately 200 pieces of chert
debitage and over 3000 of obsidian, as well as more typical
cache materials, such as eccentric obsidians, red pigment,
charcoal, and shells.
Sometimes offerings in structures included domestic
refuse. These were usually classified as problematical de-
posits, that is, as special deposits of uncertain function.
A search through the literature turned up no specific
identifications of production waste in caches at other Low-
land Maya sites. Nevertheless, published descriptions indi-
cate that debitage of various kinds was deposited in Classic
Period caches in at least two cities that were probably on
the second level of their regional settlement hierarchies:
Tikal's nearest large neighbor, Uaxactun, and Altun Ha in
Belize (FIG. 1). Monument and structure caches at U axac-
tun contained "flint chips" and nodules, obsidian flakes
 Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 24, 1997 303

PD.33

,
.'" --,
..•. - -,
I

l __,
o 2M
I I I
1..- _ "I

t:- -
' ..- -
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 19:46 15 April 2016

Bu.23

Figure 6. A detail of the section through the substructure of Str. SD-33, which shows Problematical
Deposit 33, an Intermediate Classic Period deposit consisting predominantly of obsidian chipping
waste; Burial 24, a vaulted Intermediate Classic chamber burial within the fill of the temple substruc-
,Jure; Burial 23, a vaulted Intermediate Classic chamber burial partly cut into bedrock; and Burial 48,
an Early Classic chamber burial entirely excavated from bedrock. Layers of chert and obsidian debitage
had been placed on and above the capstones of Burials 23 and 24, but were not associated with Bur-
ial 48 (after Coe 1990: fig. 9b).

and cores, jade, and unspecified shell (Ricketson and Rick-
etson 1937: 152-153, 171, 187, 197, plate 67e; Smith
1950: 92). Stelae were not erected at Altun Ha, but its
structure caches included chert debitage, obsidian cores
and other debitage, jade, specular hematite, nacreous shell,
and unspecified shell (Pendergast 1979: 85-86, 150-151;
1982: 34, 46-47, 81, 121; 1990: 119, i28, 138, 184,
198,199,231-232,250-252,286-288,364,370).
BURIALS, CHAMBER BURIALS, AND CACHES IN BURIALS
The residents of Tikal received various types of burials,
as would be expected in a ranked society. As in some other
areas of the world, the most important persons were given
specially constructed mortuary repositories, often called
tombs. I refer to them here as chamber burials, equivalent
to the "Chamber a" type burials defined for Uaxactun
(Smith 1950: 88). Special deposits that included human
remains ,vere classified as problematical deposits if it was
unclear if they had been intended as votive offerings or
burials.
Only rarely was production waste found within graves of
any kind. In the few cases where it did occur, it is more
useful to regard it as part of a cache rather than as burial
furniture. Caches were occasionally placed in elite burials
during the Early and Intermediate Classic Periods. Usually
they included the specialized lidded pottery jars and flar-
ing-sided bowls characteristic of contemporary caches
(Culbert 1993: fig. 21b-j, 31, 45). Their contents were
also similar to those in monument and structure caches,
including debitage of Spondylus shell and jade and specular
hematite (Coe 1990: 121,484).
The caches placed within chamber burials at Tikal may
 304 Craft Production at Tikal, Guatemala/Moholy-Nagy

Table 5. Group 5D-2 Protoclassic and Classic Period chamber burials. The numbers in parentheses refer to pages in
Coe 1990. The principal subjects of these burials \vere either male or unidentifiable. All were extended and supine,
unless otherwise noted (after Coe 1990: chart 1).
Ceramic Exterior Relation to
Burial (pages) complex Position of principal debitage deposit Chamber Axial associated structure

8 (487-490) Imix Robbed, backfilled No Vaulted Just W Intruded

196 (641-646) Imix Head to W Yes Vaulted Slightly W Dedicatory
116 (604-609) Imix Head to N Yes Vaulted N of axis Intruded
24 (540-543) Ik Head to N Yes Vaulted Yes Intruded
23 (536-540) Ik Head to N Yes Vaulted Slightly W Intruded
195 (565-568) Ik Head to N No Vaulted Yes Dedicatory
200 (399-405) Ik Robbed, backfilled Yes Vaulted Yes Intruded
48 (118-123) Manik 3A Bundled, seated No Bedrock No Intruded
10 (479-487) Manik 3A Head to N Yes Bedrock Yes Dedicatory
22 (397-399) Manik 3A Head to N No Slab roof Yes Intruded
125 (335-337) Cimi Head to E Yes Beam roof Yes Intruded
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 19:46 15 April 2016

be analogous to caches placed beneath burial chamber
floors at Altun Ha. Some of these included chert "chipping
waste," fragments of jade and specular hematite that may
be debitage, and bits of Spondylusand other shells (Pender-
gast 1982: 52-72, 116). Specular hematite and jade frag-
ments were also reported from within chamber burials at
Altun Ha .(Pendergast 1979: 61-85, 1982: 102, 112-
116).
DEPOSITS EXTERIOR TO CHAMBER BURIALS
Large accumulations of chert and obsidian debitage had
been placed around and over eight of Tikal's excavated
chamber burials. Burial 125 dates to the Protoclassic Pe-
riod; the rest to the Classic Period. Seven occurred in the
monumental center, Group 5D-2 (TABLE 5). The eighth,
Burial 77, came from adjacent Group 5D-I0, an elite
residential group of range ~tructures (Harrison 1963; Coe
1967: 74-75).
Altogether, 11 Protoclassic and Classic Period chamber
burials were investigated in Group 5D-2 (Coe 1990: 118-
123, 335-337, 397-405, 479-490, 536-543, 565-568,
604-609, 641-646). The debitage deposits with seven of
these burials were by far the largest found in Tikal; so large
that they were not completely recovered or recorded.
Chert and obsidian were interred in the same deposit,
although by weight there was more chert than obsidian.
The chert component consisted predominantly of biface
thinning flakes, with some decortication flakes, cores,
chunks, and unfinished artifacts. The earliest deposit, with
Burial 125, also included chert blade cores. The obsidian
debitage consisted predominantly of small percussion
flake-blades, with some exhausted prismatic blade core
fragments, unused pressure blades, macro blade and flake
fragments from large polyhedral cores, and the distinctive,
transverse flakes generated in making eccentrics from blade
cores. The core eccentrics themselves were identified in
two deposits, those with Burials 10 and 23.
The earlier deposits consisted of layers of chert incorpo-
rating clusters of obsidian, separated by earthen fill mixed
with stones, plaster, and other construction material (FIG.
7). In contrast to the midden and chultun deposits de-
scribed earlier, no used artifacts, and only small quantities
of little sherds, the kind of rubbish that would be picked
up by sweeping, were included in the debitage~layers. The
two latest and largest deposits, both of the Late Classic
Period, consisted of batches of chert and obsidian placed
within .construction fill. One of these, in the fill that sealed
the entry.to Burial 116 in Structure 5D-1 (FIG. 8; Coe
1990: 607, figs. 258,259), was reconstructed as follows:
... two fills, U. 21 and especially U. 24, contained myriad
pockets and narrow strata of flint flakes and obsidian scrap.
A goodly handful of these items was continually spotted every
half-meter or so throughout U. 24. Rarely did flint and
obsidian intermix, however, and clusters and scatters of flint
were numerically more frequent. Obsidian was more common
below FI. 2B level than flint. Obviously, with separate basket-
loads of obsidian and flint nearby, someone intermittently
tossed handfuls into fill being loaded in, and did so over a
distance of no less than 12 m. Confined tunnel-work unques-
tionably managed to intersect only a small proportion of
material present. A ton of esoterically distributed flint-per-
haps a quarter of a ton of obsidian-may not be far off the
mark (Coe 1990: 607).
One problem with very large deposits is that usually they
were only recorded as weights (if they were recorded at
all), while smaller quantities of production refuse were
usually only counted. A preliminary, averaged conversion
figure of 5.8 grams for a piece of chert biface production
waste and 0.6 grams for a piece of obsidian blade produc-
tion waste was derived from an analysis of the debitage
placed with Burial 125. If these figures are applied to the
 Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 24) 1997 305
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 19:46 15 April 2016

Figure 7. A section through Burial 10 of the Early Classic Period, which was excavated into
bedrock. It was dedicatory to Str. 5D-34, which was built directly over it. Numbers 1-7
show the locations of seven large deposits of chert and obsidian debitage that were included
in the earthen fill between the layers of marl and stones sealing the entrance to the chamber
(after Coe 1990: fig. 154).

Figure 8. A section through Late Classic Burial 116, a vaulted chamber in-
truded into Str. 5D-l 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).
,
1 ,: .','

~-j __
--------
ra
I

U.24

I
I

! I

::::.:-:: ,:"o=- ::::: _~j~\

.. - --
o
I
2M
I
r,.J~---------::~--~::Q"
~ 8uj16
I; -- -
~1
I'

W<1 :
I
I

I
I
I

!..- -
 306 Craft Production at TikalJ Guatemala/Moholy-Nagy
N<1
Ca.140
A ning bolts (Hall 1989: 308-309). Hall considers exterior
o 2M
I It has also been suggested that lithic deposits might have
I
Figure 9. A section through Cache 140A and B of the Early Classic
Period, which had been intruded into Str. 5D-22. Cache 140B was
deposited at the entry to a small chamber, Cache 140A, and consisted
of over 2800 pieces of obsidian debitage among which were chert
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 19:46 15 April 2016
and obsidian eccentrics. Cache 140A included the remains of a croco-
dile, a turtle, and a large snake, and associated offerings of chert and
obsidian eccentrics, obsidian blade cores, jade and Spondylus shell debi-
tage, specially-made pottery cache vessels, and many other objects (af-
ter Coe 1990: fig. 104).
Burial 116 deposit, then the latter included at least
157,000 pieces of chert and at least 380,000 pieces of
obsidian.
Also of considerable interest is a deposit of over 2800
fragments of obsidian debitage placed exterior to the re-
pository of what came to be designated as Cache 140A and
B (FIG. 9; Coe 1990: fig. 104). The arrangement was, in
fact, a scaled-down version of that found with the contem-
porary chamber burial, Burial 10 (FIG. 7; Coe 1990: fig.
154), although the remains found in Cache 140 were not
human but reptile: a large crocodile, turtle, and snake.
Debitage deposits exterior to chamber burials have been
reported from other important Classic Period Lowland
centers, none of which had notable surface concentrations
of debitage. They were found at Uaxactun, Rio Azul,
Altun Ha, Lamanai, Caracol, and Altar de Sacrificios (Hall
1989: table 16), at Buenavista del Cayo (Taschek and Ball
1992: 492), and apparently in looters' trenches at Nakbe
(Hansen, Bishop, and Fahsen 1991: 239). Obsidian waste
was included with chert at Lamanai (Hall 1989: 217),
Caracol (Hall 1989: 259), Buenavista del Cayo, and Tikal.
Although these exterior burial deposits usually incorporate
tiny potsherds, charcoal, and other small-scale sweepings,
it is important to note they do not include any of the other
kinds of trash found in household middens. The only
possible exception that I know of is a group of 11 finished,
used artifacts and fragments from Tomb 19 at Rio Azul.
These were large chert bifaces that appear to be ,vorn -out
construction tools and may have been used to construct
the tomb (Hall 1989: 83-86, figs. 32-33).
There has been a certain amount of speculation about
the purpose of these large lithic deposits. The chert and
obsidian may have been regarded as symbolic of the loca-
tion of the burial in the Maya Underworld (Coe 1988:
232, cited in Hall 1989: 307-308) or symbolic of light-
debitage deposits as markers of high status, observing that
they were placed outside burial chambers associated with
the largest mortuary temples (Hall 1989: 181, 191, 248).
served as a warning to future construction workers that a
chamber burial was present (Hall 1989: 168; Coe 1990:
486). This seems especially doubtful, in so far as a warning
to future construction workers would also have served as a
reliable beacon for ancient grave-robbers, just as it does for
looters-and archaeologists-today (Hansen, Bishop, and
Fahsen 1991: 239).
The accumulations of chert and obsidian debitage
placed with chamber burials, as well as with other kinds of
special deposits, may well have been regarded as a kind of
offering. Chert and obsidian, as raw materials, had sym-
bolic significance for Classic Period Mesoamericans. In the
Southern Maya Lowlands, flaked chert and obsidian arti-
facts, so-called "eccentrics," which had purely ideotechnic
function, appear to have been made for the sole purpose of
being interred in special deposits. In Intermediate Classic
times, another exclusively ceremonial type evolved at Tikal,
a large flake or macro blade of obsidian with a symbol or a
deity incised on the ventral surface (Kidder 1947: figs. 70,
71; Coe 1967: 105).
At Tikal these ideotechnic forms occur almost exclu-
sively in caches. A few eccentric obsidians, however, had
been included in at least two exterior burial deposits, those
associated with Burial 10 and Burial 23. To date, no
eccentric flints have been identified in these deposits, but
they may well have been overlooked. Usually eccentrics of
chert were placed with eccentrics of obsidian or with
incised obsidians. This pairing of chert and obsidian in the
same ceremonial context was also done with prismatic
blades and with debitage.
But even though the debitage may have been deposited
as an offering, it is still production waste and its origins
need to be considered. Quantity, stone type, and technol-
ogy unequivocally confirm local artifact manufacture.
Therefore, in addition to constituting a kind of offering to
the subject of the chamber burial, I suggest that these
exterior deposits were a way to get rid of very large
quantities of chipping waste generated by craft special~sts

who were producing artifacts for the construction of the
chamber burial, the funerary temple that covered it, and
for inclusion in the accompanying caches. Perhaps the
burial deposits also contain debitage from the manufacture
of artifacts for other purposes. If more chipping \vaste \vas
produced than could be accommodated on the household
middens of the knappers, then the excess may have been
removed and interred whenever an opportunity presented
itself. Such opportunities probably arose most often in the
construction of monumental architecture, \vhich \vould
explain the concentration of lithic production refuse in the
construction fill and special deposits of the civic-ceremo-
nial heart of the city.
At least three circumstances appear to support the pri-
mary purpose of exterior burial deposits as debitage
dumps, presumably rationalized as offerings:
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 19:46 15 April 2016
1. The composition of the chamber burial debitage
deposits is almost identical to that of special-purpose lithic
dumps. It differs markedly from household middens by a
virtual absence of finished artifacts and a scarcity of sherds.
Furthermore, lithic debitage is the only artifactual type
that occurred commonly in both ceremonial and non-
ceremonial contexts.
2. Exterior debitage deposits do not appear to have a
patterned association with any other characteristics of
chamber burials (TABLE 5). Of 11 chamber burials of the
Proto classic and Classic Period from Group 5D-2, seven
had exterior deposits and four did not, indicating that
debitage was not an obligatory offering. There is no obvi-
ous pattern to the occurrence of debitage \vith the follo\v-
ing variables: ·date, type of interment, number of persons
interred, position of the principal subject, type of chamber,
placement with regard to the building's axis, and temporal
relationship to the associated structure.
3. All known instances of Maya area chamber burials
with exterior deposits are from sites without surface accu-
mulations of production waste. Exterior deposits have, so
far, been associated with chamber burials in civic-ceremo-
nial structures in larger, nucleated sites on the primary and
secondary levels of their regional settlement hierarchies.
SUMMARY OF SPECIAL DEPOSITS
The contents of special deposits were of particular inter-
est because, in addition to objects usually identified as
offerings, they sometimes included durable production
waste. The largest accumulations were the chert and obsid-
ian deposits placed exterior to chamber burials. Chert and
obsidian debitage also occurred in monument and struc-
ture caches. Additionally, cached production waste of jade,
other stones, and Spondylus shell testifY to the local manu-
Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 24) 1997 307
facture of elite status artifacts of those kinds of highly
valued ra\v materials of restricted use. Furthermore, the
contents of special deposits are more easily dated than
materials found in general excavations.
Recovery Context and Artifact Typology
Household refuse, debitage, and offerings usually oc-
curred in different recovery contexts where, it is important
to note, their presence contributed to the classification of
the context. 0 bjects usually associated with one kind of
context, ho\vever, \vere occasionally found in others. The
portability of material culture items poses a challenge to
their interpretation. Even \vhere material can be securely
identified as debitage, its implications for the presenc~ and
organization of craft production may be overlooked i.Eit is
recovered from contexts where archaeologists do not ex-
pect it.
When debitage is included in a special deposit, such as a
cache or burial, context may completely override its iden-
tification. Usually it \vill be regarded as an offering, and
behavior other than artifact manufacture \vill be invoked
for its origin. With the exception of accidental inclusions,
all materials found in ceremonial contexts should be re-
garded as offerings. But the incorporation of debitage may
well have been opportunistic rather than obligatory. Dis-
posal behavior was strongly affected by practical considera-
tions, such as the lack of space for the surface disposal of
large quantities of lithic \vaste or the need to keep from
commoners precious materials \vhose use \vas reserved for·
the elite.
The delayed identification of debitage in offerings is a
good example of what Wobst (1978) referred to as "the
tyranny of the ethnographic record in archaeology." Dis-
posal of production waste in ceremonial contexts has not
yet been incorporated into site formation theory; I was
unable to find any examples in the literature. To my
kno\vledge there are no ethnographic parallels for the
presence of production \vaste outside the chamber burials
or \vithin the offerings given to a society's most revered
persons. Yet behavioral typology enables us to say with
certainty that that is what it is.
Debitage and the Organization of Craft
Production
Debitage and its contexts of recovery can be employed
to summarize the organization of Classic Period craft
production in terms of four parameters discussed by
Costin (1991: 8-9; Costin and Hagstrum 1995: 620).
These parameters are context, which I will refer to here as
control of production in order to distinguish it from recov-
 308 Craft Production at Tikal) Guatemala/Moholy-Nagy
ery context; intensity; composttton; and concentration.
Available evidence can be applied best to the control and
intensity of production. Because of the portability of debi-
tage and the absence of precisely located production areas,
I can say less about composition and concentration.
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 pro-
jects.
Inter-elite competition is seen as·an important motiva-
tion for the production of various kinds of material culture
needed as markers of rank and authority, and used in
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 19:46 15 April 2016
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 pres~nce of debitage of preciQus 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
"mount of material contained in this monumental struc-
ture group (FIG. 4). Its total volume was ca. 275,000 cu m,
with construction fill accounting for 95% of this cumula-
tive mass. Great numbers of tools and other artifacts would
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 obsid-
ian tools would also have been necessary to process perish-
able 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
these industries, a conclusion already indicated by their
exclusive use of these substances. The occurrence in gen-
eral excavations of debitage of other kinds of shell, bone,
and slate suggests independent production in these materi-
als.
The apparent contradiction between the prominent use
by the elite of certain types of slate artifacts, such as
pyrite-encrusted plaques, and the virtual absence of slate
debitage in special deposits, may indicate that slate plaques
were imported ready-made and that not much slate work-
ing went on at Tikal itself.
The occurrence of chert and obsidian debitage in both
special deposits and general excavations points to a more
flexible relationship between attached and independent
production than is usually proposed in the literature. The
manufacture of most chert and obsidian artifacts was prob-
ably independent of elite control, but artifact types of
restricted use, such as chert and obsidian eccentrics and
incised obsidians, may have been the products of attached
production. When quantities of stone tools for their own
projects were required, the elite may have patronized stone
knappers who usually worked independently.
Intensity of Production
Except for the expedient production of tools of local
chert and bone, all durable artifact production was carried
out by ~pecialists.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
artifacts were recovered from general excavations in virtu-
ally 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 pres-
ence in household middens, chultuns, and construction fill
of debitage from the manufacture of common, stand-
ardized artifact types such as chert bifaces, obsidian pris-
matic 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 full-
time production that results in so much waste in a short
period of time that household middens cannot accommo-
date 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.

Two patterns of debitage disposal suggest the presence
of some full-time specialization at Tikal in the Classic
Period. The first is the deposition of debitage in elite-asso-
ciated recovery contexts: the large exterior burial deposits
of chert and obsidian debitage, the smaller lithic deposits
in caches and problematical deposits, and the inclusion of
waste of higWy valued materials in caches and caches in
burials. This pattern implies patronage of artisans by the
elite that might have permitted full-time specialization.
Chert and obsidian knappers may have worked full-time
on those occasions when quantities of tools for special
projects were required. The presence of special-purpose
dumps is also suggestive. The second pattern is the recov-
ery of debitage from two or more craft industries from the
same middens in some residential structure groups, espe-
cially from the Central area. Co-occurrence suggests the
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 19:46 15 April 2016
possibility that several specialists making different goods,
or perhaps a single artisan with more than one specialty,
could have supported a family or larger kin group entirely
through the production of artifacts of various kinds of raw
material.
Composition
Santley and Kneebone (1993: figs. 1-3) specifically link
the quantity and disposal context of manufacturing \vaste
to variability in the composition of production units. Ap-
plying 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 nonspecial-
ists for personal or household use;
2. household industries, carried on by part-time special-
ists and directed toward supplementing household subsis-
tence;
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 part-
time production are usually carried on at the residence of
the producer. Full-time specialization can occur at home or
in a special facility, a \vorkshop.
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, \vho
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 sug-
gests that some chert and obsidian artifact production was
Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 24) 1997 309
carried on at a higher level of organization, as a workshop
industry, staffed by full-time specialists working in special-
purpose settings or facilities, who used special-purpose
dumps to dispose of the large quantities of waste they
generated. Artisans in \vorkshop industries may be either
attached or independent and at Tikal I propose that their
status varied with elite demands.
It is likely that production of high-status goods was
organized as a workshop industry. This is suggested by
elite consumption of the products, the level of skill re-
quired for some artifact types, the restricted use of some of
the ra\v materials, and perhaps the need for supervision to
prevent "slippage," the disappearance of controlled goods
(Costin 1991: 16).
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) pre-
sent three general considerations, derived from ethnoar-
chaeological observations, that govern the composition of
imperishable \vaste 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
\vaste is often disposed of in a two-stage process. It first
goes into storage in or near the house, and \vhen enough
has accumulated to hinder other activities, it is moved into
a final deposition location (Clark 1991: 72; I<illion 1990:
201-203; LeeDecker 1994: fig. 1). If a house is about to
be abandoned, what would ordinarily have been the tem-
porary disposal area of refuse may become its final location
(Clark 1991: fig. 10). This observation has important
implications for the interpretation of archaeological "on-
floor" materials. Rather than having been left \vhere 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 sub-
stances 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 produc-
tion, or debris regarded as hazardous, may also be trans-
ported from their area of production because of the hin-
drance they pose to other activities. Small to moderate
amounts of debitage of materials without high value that
 310 Craft Production at Tikal) Guatemala/Moholy-Nagy
are recovered from unincorporated middens are, however,
probably not far from the areas where they were created.
As Tikal's population grew during the course of the
Classic Period, domestic consumption and production cre-
ated increased quantities of durable refuse when there was
less space available to dump it. Greater emphasis was put
on subsurface disposal. Ethnoarchaeological observations
on the importance of gardens and infields (I<illion 1992)
and on the effect of houselot size on refuse disposal
(Killion 1990, 1992; Arnold 1990; Santley 1992) suggest
a more specific explanation for the subterranean deposition
of most of Tikal's durable trash and debitage. The feeding
of a population of more than 62,000 persons must have
posed major problems. The map of Late Classic Tikal
(Carr and Hazard 1961; Puleston 1983: fig. 21) shows
considerable open space between structure groups, but
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 19:46 15 April 2016
even if this land were truly vacant, it may not have been
used for dumping because it was needed for growing food.
At larger Lowland Maya sites, particularly those on the
upper levels of their settlement hierarchies, the need for
space for construction and other activities and the need for
space for food production may have generated consider-
able pressure for the underground disposal of all kinds of
refuse.
According to our present knowledge of the Lowland
Maya area, there appear to be two mutually exclusive
patterns of disposal of substantial quantities of lithic waste.
Large, readily visible surface accumulations of debitage
have, to date, been found only at smaller settlements on
the lower levels of their regional hierarchies (e.g., Taylor
1980; Shafer and Hester 1983; Hester and Shafer 1992). I
suggest this is because surface dumps at smaller sites would
not have posed a hindrance to other activities. On the
other hand, large buried aggregates of lithic debris have
only been reported from sites on the upper levels of their
regional settlement systems (Hall 1989: 246, table 16), all
of which have relatively higher densities of structures and
substantial public architecture.
Present evidence indicates that artifact production in
chert, obsidian, jade, Spondylus, other kinds of shell, and
bone was carried on in small structure groups in Tikal' s
Central area. As noted above, production in several kinds
of raw materials took place in some groups, but not in
others. Debris was dumped on the household middens,
along with residues of other household activities. By-prod-
ucts of jade and other fine stone, and of Spondylus shell
were usually completely removed from the structure
group. But rare fragments suggest production in the Cen-
tral area, perhaps under direct elite supervision, rather than
in the city's core where most of the debris was deposited.
At present we can only speculate about the production
areas of the chert and obsidian waste found with chamber
burials at the heart of the city. Hayden and Cannon's third
consideration, that of economy of effort, strongly suggests
that it would have been efficient to establish temporary
production areas in or near Group 5D-2, where nearly all
of the large deposits were found. Evidence for such an
arrangement in the form of small-sized debitage over-
looked in clean-up might have been recovered by screen-
ing. It is also possible that lithic waste could have been
brought to the center from other areas, such as the small
structure groups of the Central area.
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 recov-
ered can provide important information about the organi-
zation 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 con-
texts 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 specialists with local and
exotic raw materials and semi-finished commodities. Tikal
had become an important production center for its region.
The ~ays in which production waste and other refuse
entered archaeological context (Schiffer 1987: 3-4) were
structured by the perceived value of materials, the hin-
drance 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 posi-
tion as the primary Classic Period administrative, ceremo-
nial, 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 archaeolo-
gists classifYmaterial 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 uncritically defined by its recovery context, nor can it be
conflated with production area.

Site maintenance practices and the spatially flexible na-
ture of preindustrial technologies tend to obliterate pro-
duction areas and elevate debitage in secondary context to
an important archaeological indicator of local craft pro-
duction. At many sites, it is the only indicator of produc-
tion. We need new theories, ne,v methods of analysis, and
standardized recording procedures to deal with this chal-
lenging situation.
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.
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 19:46 15 April 2016
Hattula Moholy-Nagy (Ph.D.) University of Michigan)
worked in the field laboratory at Tikal) Guatemala) from
1960 through 1964) the last four seasons as head. She is
currently preparing Tikal Project material for publica-
tion as a research associate of the University of Pennsylva-
nia Museum. Mailing address: 1204 Gardner, Ann Ar-
bor, Michigan 48104-4321.
Abler, Ronald, John S. Adams, and Peter Gould
1971 Spatial 01Eanization: The Geographer)s View of the World.
Englewood Cliffs, N.].: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Arnold II, Philip J.
1990 "The Organization of Refuse Disposal and Ceramic Pro-
duction within Contemporary Mexican Houselots,"
American Anthropologist 92: 915-932.
Arnold II, Philip J., Christopher A. Pool, Ronald R. Kneebone,
and Robert S. Santley
1993 "Intensive Ceramic Production and Classic Period Politi-
cal Economy in the Sierra de los Tuxtlas, Veracruz, Mex-
ico," Ancient Mesoamerica 4: 175-191.
Becker, Marshall J.
1971 The Identification of a Second Plaza Plan at Tikal) Guate-
mala) and Its Implications for Ancient Maya Social Or-
ganization. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pennsylva-
nia, Philadelphia. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.
Black, Stephen L., and Charles K. Suhler
1986 "The 1984 Rio Azul Settlement Survey," in Richard E. W.
Adams, ed., Rio Azul Reports) NO.2: The 1984 Season. San
Antonio: Center for Archaeological Research, University
of Texas at San Antonio, 163-192.
Carr, Robert, and James E. Hazard
1961 Map of the Ruins of Tikal) El Peten) Guatemala. Tikal
Report 11. Philadelphia: University Museum, 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 Archaeological Interpretation," in
Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 24) 1997 311
Richard A. Gould and Michael B. Schiffer, eds., Modern
Material Culture: The Archaeology of Us. New York: Aca-
demic Press, 303-321.
Clark, ] ohn E.
1986 "From Mountains to Molehills: A Critical Review of
Teotihuacan's Obsidian Industry," in Barry L. Isaac, ed.,
Research in Economic Anthropology) Supplement 2. Green-
wich, CT: JAl Press, 23-74.
1989 "Obsidian: The Primary Mesoamerican Sources," in Mar-
garita Gaxiola G. and John E. Clark, eds., La Obsidiana en
Mesoamerica. Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Antropologia
e Historia, 299-319.
1990 "Fifteen Fallacies in Lithic Workshop Interpretation: An
Experimental and Ethnoarchaeological Perspective," in
Yoko Sugiura Y. and Mari Carmen Serra P., eds., Etnoar-
queologia Coloquio Bosch-Gimpera. Mexico: Universidad
Autonoma de Mexico, 497-512.
1991 "Flintknapping and Debitage Disposal Among the Lacan-
don Maya of Chiapas, Mexico," in Edward Staski and
Livingston D. Sutro, eds., The Ethnoarchaeology of Refuse
Disposal. Archaeological Research Papers 42. Tempe: Ari-
zona State University, 63-78.
Clark, Rainbird
1935 "The Flint-Knapping Industry at Brandon," Antiquity 9:
38-56.
Coe, Michael D.
1988 "Ideology of the Maya Tomb," in Elizabeth P. Benson
and Gillett G. Griffin, eds., Maya Iconography. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 222-235.
Coe, William R.
1965 "Tikal: Ten Years of Study of a Maya Ruin in the Low-
lands of Guatemala," Expedition 8: 5-56.
1967 Tikal: A Handbook of the Ancient Maya Ruins. Philadel-
phia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.
1990 Excavations in the Great Plaza) North Terrace) and North
Acropolis of Tikal. Tikal Report 14. Philadelphia: Univer-
sity Museum, University of Pennsylvania.
Coe, William R., and Vivian L. Broman
1958 Excavations in the Stela 23 Group. Tikal Report 2. Phila-
delphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.
Costin, Cathy Lynne
1991 "Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Documenting,
and Explaining the Organization of Production," in Mi-
chael B. Schiffer, ed., Archaeological Method and Theory 3.
Tucson: University of Arizona Press, I-56.
Costin, Cathy L., and Melissa B. Hagstrum
1995 "Standardization, Labor Investment, Skill, and the Or-
ganization of Ceramic Production in Late Prehistoric
Highland Peru," American Antiquity 60: 619-639.
Culbert, T. Patrick
1993 The Ceramics of Tikal: ~sselsfrom the Burials) Caches) and
Problematical Deposits. Tikal Report 25, Part A. Philadel-
phia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.
Culbert, T. Patrick, Laura J. Kosakowsky, Robert E. Fry, and
William A. Haviland
1990 "The Population of Tikal, Guatemala," in T. Patrick Cul-
 312 Craft Production at Tikal) Guatemala/Moholy-Nagy
bert and Don S. Rice, eds., Precolumbian Population His-
tory of the Maya Lowlands. Albuquerque: University of
New Mexico Press, 103-121.
Fedick, Scott L.
1991 "Chert Tool Production and Consumption Among Clas-
sic Period Maya Households," in Thomas R. Hester and
Harry J. Shafer, eds., Maya Stone Tools: Selected Papers
from the Second Maya Lithic Conference. Madison, WI:
Prehistory Press, 103-118.
Fry, Robert E.
1969 Ceramics and Settlement in the Periphery of Tikal, Guate-
mala. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson.
Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.
Gould, Richard A.
1981 "Brandon Revisited: A New Look at an Old Technology,"
in Richard A. Gould and Michael B. Schiffer, eds., Modern
Material Culture: The Archaeology of Us. New York: Aca-
demic Press, 269-281.
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 19:46 15 April 2016
Hall, Grant D.
1989 Realm of Death: Mortuary Customs and Polity Interaction
in the Classic Maya Lowlands. Ph.D. Dissertation, Har-
vard University, Cambridge, MA. Ann Arbor: University
Microfilms International.
Hansen, Richard D., Ronald L. Bishop, and Federico Fahsen
1991 "Notes on Maya Codex-Style Ceramics from Nakbe, Pe-
ten, Guatemala," Ancient Mesoamerica 2: 225-243.
Harrison, Peter D.
1963 "A Jade Pendant from Tikal," Expedition 5: 12-13.
1970 The Central Acropolis, Tikal: A Preliminary Study of the
Function of Its Structural Components During the Late
Classic Period. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pennsyl-
vania, Philadelphia. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.
1993 "Aspects of Water Management in the Southern Maya
Lowlands," Research in Economic Anthropology, Supple-
ment 7. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 71-119.
Haviland, William A.
1963 Excavation of Small Structures in the Northeast Q}tadrant
of Tikal, Guatemala. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Ann Arbor: University Micro-
films.
1981 "Dower Houses and Minor Centers at Tikal, Guatemala:
An Investigation into the Identification of Valid Units in
Settlement Hierarchies," in Wendy Ashmore, ed., Low-
land Maya Settlement Patterns. Albuquerque: University
of New Mexico Press, 89-117.
1985 Excavations in Small Residential Groups at Tikal: Groups
4F-l and 4F-2. Tikal Report 19. Philadelphia: University
Museum, University of Pennsylvania.
Hayden, Brian, and Aubrey Cannon
1983 "Where the Garbage Goes," Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 2: 117-163.
Healan, Dan M.
1995 "Identifying Lithic Reduction Loci with Size-Graded
Macrodebitage: A Multivariate Approach," American An-
tiquity 60: 689-699.
Healan, Dan M., Janet M. Kerley, and George J. Bey III
1983 "Excavation and Preliminary Analysis of an Obsidian
Workshop in Tula, Hidalgo, Mexico," Journal of Field
Archaeology 10: 127-145.
Hendon, Julia A.
1987 The Uses of Maya Structures: A Study of Architecture and
Artifact Distribution at Sepulturas, Copan, Honduras.
Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms.
Hester, Thomas R., and Harry J. Shafer
1992 "Lithic Workshops Revisited: Comments on Moholy-
Nagy," Latin American Antiquity 3: 243-248.
Jones, Christopher
1969 The Twin-Pyramid Group Pattern: A Classic Maya Archi-
tectural Assemblage at Tikal, Guatemala. Ph.D. Disserta-
tion, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Ann Arbor:
University Microfilms.
1996 Excavations in the East Plaza of Tikal. Tikal Report 16.
Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsyl-
vania.
Jones, Christopher, and Linton Satterthwaite, Jr.
1982 The Monuments and Inscriptions of Tikal: The Carved
Monuments. Tikal Report 33, Part A. Philadelphia: Uni-
versity Museum, University of Pennsylvania.
Kidder, Alfred V.
1947 The Artifacts of Uaxactun) Guatemala. Publication 576.
Washington: Carnegie Institution of Washington.
Killion, Thomas W.
1990 "Cultivation Intensity and Residential Site Structure: An
Ethnoarchaeological Examination of Peasant Agriculture
in the Sierra de los Tuxtlas, Veracruz, Mexico," Latin
American Antiquity 1: 191-215.
1992 "Residential Ethnoarchaeology and Ancient Site Struc-
ture: Contemporary Farming and Prehistoric Settle-
ment Agriculture at Matacapan, Veracruz, Mexico," in
Thomas W. Killion, ed., Gardens of Prehistory: The Archae-
ology of Settlement Agriculture in Greater Mesoamerica.
Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 119-149.
King, Eleanor, and Daniel Potter
1994 "Small Sites in Prehistoric Maya Socioeconomic Organi-
zation: A Perspective from Colha, Belize," in Glenn M.
Schwartz and Steven E. Falconer, eds., Archaeological
Viewsfrom the Countryside: Village Communities in Early
Complex Societies. Washington: Smithsonian Institution
Press, 64-90.
Lee Decker, Charles H.
1994 "Discard Behavior on Domestic Historic Sites: Evaluation
of Contexts for the Interpretation of Household Con-
sumption Patterns," Journal of Archaeological Method and
Theory 1: 345-375.
Marcus, Joyce
1973 "The Territorial Organization of the Lowland Classic
Maya," Science 180: 911-916.
1976 Emblem and State in the Classic Maya Lowlands: An Epi-
graphic Approach to Territorial 01'lJanization. Washing-
ton: Dumbarton Oaks Library and Research Collection.
1992 Mesoamerican Writing Systems: Propaganda, Myth) and
History in Four Ancient Civilizations. Princeton: Prince-
ton University Press.
 Journal of Field Archaeology/VOl. 24, 1997 313

Moholy-Nagy, Hattula Shafer, Harry J., and Thomas R. Hester

1976 "Spatial Distribution of Flint and Obsidian Artifacts at 1983 "Arlcient Maya Chert Workshops in Northern Belize,"
Tikal, Guatemala," in Thomas R. Hester and Norman Ame1'ican Antiquity 48: 519-548.
Hammond, ed., Maya Lithic Studies: Papers from the 1976
Sheets, Payson D.
Belize Field Symposium. Special Report NO.4. San Anto-
1975 "Behavioral Analysis and the Structure of a Prehistoric
nio: Center for Archaeological Research, University of
Industry," Current Anthropology 16: 369-391.
Texas at San Antonio, 91-108.
Smith, A. Ledyard
1990 "The Misidentification of Mesoamerican Lithic Work-
1950 Uaxactun, Guatemala: Excavations of 1931-1937. Publi-
shops," Latin American Antiquity 1: 268-279.
cation 588. Washington: Carnegie Institution of Wash-
1994 Tikal Material Culture: Artifacts and Social Structure at a ington.
Classic Lowland Maya City. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univer-
Spence, Michael W.
sity of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Ann Arbor: University Mi-
1967 "The Obsidian Industry at Teotihuacan," American An-
crofilms.
tiquity 32: 507-514.
Pendergast, David M.
Tani, Masakazu
1979 Excavations at Altun Ha, Belize, 1964-1970, Vol. 1.
1995 "Beyond the Identification of Formation Processes: Be-
Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum.
havioral Inference Based on Traces Left by Cultural For-
1982 Excavations at Altun Ha, Belize, 1964-1970, Vol. 2. mation Processes," Journal of Archaeological Method and
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 19:46 15 April 2016

Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum. Theory 2: 231-253.

1990 Excavations at Altun Ha, Belize, 1964-1970, Vol. 3. Taschek, Jennifer T., and Joseph W. Ball
Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum. 1992 "Lord Smoke-Squirrel's Cacao Cup: The Archaeological
Context and Socia-Historical Significance of the Buena
Potter, Daniel Vista 'Jauncy Vase,'" in Justin Kerr, ed., The Maya Vase
1993 "Analytical Approaches to Late Classic Maya Lithic Indus- Book, Vol. 3. New York: Kerr Associates, 490-497.
tries," in Jeremy A. Sabloff and John S. Henderson, eds.,
Lowland Maya Civilization in the Eighth Century A.D. Taylor, Anna J.
Washington: Dumbarton Oaks Library and Research Col- 1980 "Excavations at Kunahmil," in Thomas R. Hester, Jack D.
lection,273-298. Eaton, and Harry J. Shafer, eds., The Colha Project Second
Season, 1980 Interim Report. San Antonio: Center for
Puleston, Dennis E. Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Anto-
1971 "An Experimental Approach to the Function of Classic nio and Venezia: Centro Studi e Ricerche Ligabue, 241-
Maya Chultuns," American Antiquity 36: 322-335. 250.
1983 The Settlement Survey of Tikal. Tikal Report 13. Series Widmer, Randolph J.
editor William A. Haviland. Philadelphia: University Mu- 1991 "Lapidary Craft Specialization at Teotihuacan: Implica-
seum, University of Pennsylvania. tions for Community Structure of 33:S3W1 and Eco-
Ricketson, Oliver G., and Edith B. Ricketson nomic Organization in the City," Ancient Mesoamerica 2:
1937 Uaxactun, Guatemala, Group E, 1926-1931. Publication 131-147.
477. Washington: Carnegie Institution of Washington. Wilson, Douglas C.
Santley, Robert S. 1994 "Identification and Assessment of Secondary Refuse Ag-
1992 "A Consideration of the Olmec Phenomenon in the gregates," Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1:
Tuxtlas: Early Formative Settlement Pattern, Land Use, 41-68.
and Refuse Disposal at Matacapan, Veracruz, Mexico," in Wobst, H. Martin
Thomas W. Killion, ed., Gardens of Prehistory: The Archae- 1978 "The Archaeo- Ethnology of Hunter-Gatherers or the
ology of Settlement Agriculture in Greater Mesoamerica. Tyranny of the Ethnographic Record in Archaeology,"
Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 150-183. American Antiquity 43: 303-309.
Santley, Robert S., and Ronald Kneebone
1993 "Craft Specialization, Refuse Disposal, and the Creation
of Spatial Archaeological Records in Prehispanic
Mesoamerica," in Robert S. Santley and Kenneth G.
Hirth, eds., Prehispanic Domestic Units in Western
Mesoamerica: Studies of the Household, Compound, and
Residence. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 37-63.
Schiffer, Michael B.
1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. Albu-
querque: University of New Mexico Press.
Shafer, Harry J.
1983 "The Lithic Artifacts of Pulltrouser Swamp: Settlements
and Fields," in B. L. Turner II and Peter D. Harrison,
eds., Pulltrouser Swamp: Ancient Maya Habitat, Agricul-
ture, and Settlement in Northern Belize. Austin: University
of Texas Press, 212-245.