Evidence for Maya Household Subsistence

and Domestic Activities: Use-Wear Analysis of

the Chipped Chert Assemblage from Pook’s
Hill, Belize
W. James Stemp
Keene State College, Keene, NH

Christophe G. B. Helmke
University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

Jaime J. Awe
Institute of Archaeology, Belmopan, Belize

From 1999–2005, the Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project excavated Pook’s Hill (PKH-1),
a single plazuela group located in the Roaring Creek Valley, Cayo District, Belize. Artifacts recovered at
Pook’s Hill date predominantly to the Late and Terminal Classic (A.D. 700–950) and can be stratigraphically
segregated into two distinct occupation phases, namely a Late Classic (A.D. 700–830) and a Terminal
Classic-Early Postclassic (A.D. 830–9507z) phase. The chipped chert and chalcedony tools from the two
phases were included in a combined program of low- and high-power use-wear analysis to reconstruct
aspects of the socioeconomy. The results of the analyses reveal that the site’s inhabitants produced and
used both formal and informal tools for a wide variety of subsistence and domestic tasks, and for the
production of some utilitarian items. Stone tool use-wear evidence and the recovery of small quantities of
other artifacts suggest that the Maya from Pook’s Hill produced more valuable objects of bone, stone, and
shell, although it is difficult to accurately identify craft-production activities at the site from the context of
recovery. Despite some variation in the specific activities undertaken with the chipped stone tools over
time, the organization of lithic technology at Pook’s Hill did not change significantly from the Late Classic
into the Early Postclassic period.
Keywords: Domestic, Household, Lithic, Maya, Socioeconomy, Use-wear

Introduction use-wear analysis to reconstruct stone tool use in

Lithic use-wear studies have been employed by
Mayanists to address questions related to socio-
economic, sociopolitical, and ideological organiza-
tion, including subsistence, craft production, ritual
activity, and warfare (e.g., Lewenstein 1987;
Aldenderfer et al. 1989; Sievert 1992; Aldenderfer
1991a, 1991b; Aoyama 1995, 1999, 2005, 2007, 2009;
Stemp 2001, 2004; Emery and Aoyama 2007). Few
stone tool assemblages from single Maya households
have been subjected to detailed use-wear analysis. To
increase our knowledge of how stone tools were used
by the Maya, chipped chert and chalcedony tools
recovered from Pook’s Hill, Belize were subjected to
terms of subsistence, domestic activities, and the
organization of craft production in a small commu-
nity. In addition to the use-wear study, we analyzed
the acquisition of lithic raw material, the types of
tools produced, and the organization of tool manu-
facture to reconstruct socioeconomic activity at the
site.
We considered several questions related to lithic
use-wear analysis for reconstructing past behavior in
a single plazuela (small patio) group, such as whether
subsistence practices, domestic activities, and craft
production could be identified, what kinds of craft
production were undertaken, and the organization of

ß Trustees of Boston University 2010

DOI 10.1179/009346910X12707321520558 Journal of Field Archaeology 2010 VOL . 35 NO . 2 217
Stemp et al. Evidence for Maya Household Subsistence and Domestic Activities
Figure 1 Map of the Upper Belize Valley showing the location of Pook’s Hill in the Roaring Creek Valley of Belize. Map by C. G.
B. Helmke (based in part on Shafer and Hester 1983: fig. 1).
these activities at the site. The distribution of tools
and debitage throughout the site, and the identifica-
tion of activities undertaken on an intrasite level,
assist in reconstructing how stone tools were used by
the inhabitants of Pook’s Hill. Our research provides
a glimpse of the use of chipped chert and chalcedony
tools in Maya daily life and may shed light on the
socioeconomic organization of similar, single plaza or
plazuela groups throughout the Maya lowlands
during the Late Classic to Early Postclassic.
Pook’s Hill
Located in the Belize River Valley of western Belize,
Pook’s Hill is a medium-sized, single plazuela group
in the karstic foothills of the Roaring Creek Valley
(Helmke 2001, 2003, 2006a, 2006b). The plazuela is
4.7 km north of a major center known as Cahal Uitz
Na and 1 km NW of the minor center of Chaac Mool
Ha (FIG. 1). It appears that Cahal Uitz Na served as a
regional center for this local polity in the Late and
Terminal Classic periods with Chaac Mool Ha as its
principal northern satellite (Awe and Helmke 2007;
Helmke and Awe 2008), a pattern seen throughout
the Belize Valley at sites like Esperanza, Floral Park,
Ontario, and X-ual-canil (Driver and Garber 2004).
Pook’s Hill is also less than 5 km north of a group of
caves that were utilized by the local inhabitants
throughout the Classic period, with intensification of
cave use demonstrated in part by fragmentary
speleothems recovered from Terminal Classic con-
texts within the plazuela.
218 Journal of Field Archaeology 2010 VOL . 35 NO .
Investigations at Pook’s Hill focused on the site’s
terminal occupation, which dates to the Late to
Terminal Classic period (A.D. 700–950); although
primary context deposits date back to at least the
Middle Classic (A.D. 550), corresponding to the Tiger
Run ceramic complex (Gifford 1976: 191–193).
Nevertheless, the earliest ceramic fragments recov-
ered from mixed secondary deposits in the plazuela
date to the Late Formative period (300–100 B.C.),
whereas the latest deposits at the site date to the end
of the Terminal Classic at the point of transition with
the Early Postclassic (after A.D. 950) based on the
types of ceramics recovered and their stratigraphic
contexts (Helmke 2001, 2003, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c).
An updated version of the original Gifford (1976)
type-variety ceramic classification was used to estab-
lish the periods of occupation for the deposits from
which the lithic artifacts were recovered. No radio-
metric assessments have been obtained from carbo-
nized plant remains recovered at the site and
consequently the ceramic dating should be considered
as an estimate requiring further research. Never-
theless, the majority of contexts investigated at
Pook’s Hill can be attributed, on the basis of
associated ceramics, to the Late–Terminal Classic
(A.D. 700–950). Within this span, two stratigraphi-
cally discrete phases of occupation can be identified.
The earlier corresponds broadly to the Late Classic
(A.D. 700–830) and is associated with the Early Facet
of the Spanish Lookout Complex, whereas the later
can be tied to the Terminal Classic (A.D. 830–950) and
2
 Stemp et al. Evidence for Maya Household Subsistence and Domestic Activities

Figure 2 Plan of Pook’s Hill 1 Plazuela. Plan by C. G. B. Helmke.

the corresponding Late Facet of the Spanish Lookout
Complex. The terminal phase deposits assigned to the
tail end of the Terminal Classic, at its point of
transition with the ensuing Early Postclassic (after
A.D. 950), are composed of a mixture of Spanish
Lookout (Late Facet) and a minority of New Town
Complex (Early Facet) ceramics. Consequently, the
chipped stone tools in this study have been assigned
to either the Late Classic, and early transitional
Terminal Classic, or the Terminal Classic-Early
Postclassic periods.
The site consists of the remains of nine masonry
building platforms surrounding a plazuela (FIG. 2).
Along the perimeter of the plazuela there are two
building platforms on each of the western, eastern,
and southern sides with three building platforms
forming the northern side (Helmke 2006a). Most of
the structures are ‘‘range structures’’ based on their
rectangular plan, as observed by the mounded surface
features and the exposed terminal architecture
(FIG. 3). The presence of a special function ancestor
shrine (Structure 4A) along the eastern perimeter of

Figure 3 View of the circular shrine, Structure 4A, at Pook’s Hill at dawn. Also visible are the adjacent Structure 4B and the
axial outset stair of Structure 1A, as seen from the summit of Structure 1B. Photograph by C. G. B. Helmke.

Journal of Field Archaeology 2010 VOL . 35 NO . 2 219

Stemp et al. Evidence for Maya Household Subsistence and Domestic Activities
the plazuela marks the group as a Plaza Plan 2
configuration as defined by Becker (1999: 139–147).
Evidence of ritual feasting was associated with the
western building, which Helmke (2001) has inter-
preted as a possible part-time feasting hall. In the
northwestern corner of the plazuela (Structure 1B),
excavators also located an ovoid, vaulted room that
was once topped by a rectangular summit platform
that they have identified as a sweatbath (FIG. 2),
known as a pib’naah in Classic Maya texts (Helmke
and Awe 2005).
In terms of social and economic organization, this
plazuela group appears to have been inhabited by an
extended family or lineage of primarily lower-status
individuals based on the recovered finds. The com-
munity, however, does demonstrate some affluence in
the quality of its architecture, the recovery of minor
quantities of objects made from exotic materials,
including some greenstone pendants and beads
and a carved Spondylus shell pendant, and a wide
variety of animal and plant resources and foodstuffs,
including Caribbean Parrotfish (Scaridae) and veni-
son (Morehart 2001; Stanchly 2006). One individual
also exhibits jadeite inlays in his teeth, which is
usually treated as an elite marker (Chase 1992).
Terminal Classic vases of the Ahk’utu’ Molded-
carved type (Helmke and Reents-Budet 2008) also
include glyphic texts that make mention of an elite
individual, which helps to narrow down the social
status of the Pook’s Hill inhabitants.
Context of Recovery
The chipped stone tools from Pook’s Hill were
recovered from both primary and secondary contexts,
although the latter predominate. Artifacts dated to
the Late Classic were excavated from the construc-
tion core of structures, some building collapse, the
core of the plazuela platform, and midden deposits
along the bases of some structures and in the corners
of the plazuela. The most significant midden deposits
were exposed along the base of Structures 2A and 4A
(FIG. 2), and contained a variety of materials includ-
ing serving vessels, musical instruments, small orna-
ments or items of personal adornment, cooking
vessels, animal and fish bone (most notably parrotfish
and deer), as well as macrofloral remains of edible
species such as maize, hogplum, and chile (Helmke
2001). A small quantity of artifacts was recovered
from looters’ backdirt in front of Structure 4A,
resulting from a trench cut into the west face of this
building (Helmke 2006b: 175). Primary, or in situ
deposits dated to the Middle Classic (A.D. 550), Late
Classic (A.D. 700–830), and Terminal Classic (A.D.
830–950) periods consisted of eight burials and two
caches in Structure 4A, two burials in Structure 2A,
and one burial in Structure 1A, but only 35 chipped
stone tools were found in these primary deposits. The
Terminal Classic-Early Postclassic deposits mainly
220 Journal of Field Archaeology 2010 VOL . 35 NO .
consisted of the subsurface soil cleared from the
terminal architecture of the plazuela platform and
seven structures at the site. Almost no stone tools
from in situ floor contexts were encountered by
excavators at the site (see Aoyama 2009: 3–4, 8 for
examples of primary stone tool deposits at Aguateca).
As such, our discussions of stone tool use at specific
locations throughout the site and spatial associations
between stone tools and other artifacts remain
conservative.
Use-Wear Analysis Methods
Our research incorporated use-wear analysis using
low- and high-power microscopy to examine the
stone tools for traces of use, including edge-damage,
striations, and micropolishes on chert. The artifacts
were examined at both low (406) and high (2006)
magnifications using a Unitron MS-2BD metallo-
graphic microscope equipped with a Steindorff 1.3
MPX DCM-130 digital camera to observe, record,
and photograph the used stone tool surfaces. Before
microscopic examination, all lithic artifacts were
washed in water. Some of the tools with heavier soil
encrustation were cleaned using a mild, non-abrasive
liquid detergent. The tools were rinsed and soaked for
15–20 minutes in a 15% solution of hydrochloric acid
to remove additional calcium carbonate deposits
adhering to their surfaces. The tools were rinsed
again in warm water. Prior to visual examination
under incident light and photography, the tool
surfaces were cleaned of finger and plasticene mount
grease with a solution of isopropyl alcohol (C3H8O)
using cotton Q-tips.
The determination of stone tool use at Pook’s Hill
was based on Stemp’s program of experimental tool
manufacture and use that was modeled after the one
developed by Lewenstein (1987) for Cerros. Stemp
engaged in experimental use-wear testing to deter-
mine the edge damage patterns, micropolishes, and
striations produced on stone tools used to perform
different activities by documenting the size, shape,
and termination of flake scars and the distribution of
microflake damage along tool edges; the length,
width, depth, and orientation of striations; and the
reflectivity, topographic features, degree of linkage,
volume, and extent of micropolishes (Tringham et al.
1974; Odell 1979, 1981; Keeley 1980; Odell and Odell-
Vereecken 1980; Vaughan 1985; Lewenstein 1987).
Stemp’s (2001: appendix L) use-wear experiments
involved the use of 238 tools to replicate ancient
tasks, of which 100 are documented. In total, 306
individual field or laboratory experiments were
performed by Stemp since 1996. The majority of the
tools in the replicative experiments were unretouched
cortical and non-cortical flakes, bifacial thinning
flakes, and some blocky fragments; however, Stemp
also made some drills, scrapers, thin bifaces, blades,
small oval and general-utility bifaces, and projectile
2
 Stemp et al. Evidence for Maya Household Subsistence and Domestic Activities

Figure 4 Experimental tool use: A) Chopping wood using a chert hatchet (oval biface); B) Sawing the tip off a conch shell
using a chert flake; C) Whittling a bone fish hook using a chert flake; and D) Butchering/disarticulating a carcass using a chert
knife (lenticular biface). Photographs by W. J. Stemp.

points. The experiments consisted of replicating tasks
that incorporated materials such as bone, meat, shell,
and wood, among others (FIGS. 4A–D). His previous
microwear analyses were of chipped chert and chal-
cedony tools from Marco Gonzalez and San Pedro,
Belize (Stemp 2001, 2004; Stemp and Graham 2006),
as well as of an additional 1088 chert and 525
obsidian artifacts from other sites in Belize, specifi-
cally Baking Pot, Actun Chapat, Actun Halal, Stela
Cave, and San Pedro.
Despite evidence for use in the form of edge
chipping and striations, in some instances, tools
recovered archaeologically were not employed long
enough for a distinctive polish to develop. For tools
with micropolish development insufficient for reliable
identification, use-wear was categorized as hard, soft,
or indeterminate. For the indeterminate category,
surface modification can be detected, but microwear
is not sufficiently well developed to assign it to any
one contact material category. Typically, these tools
also have minimal edge damage and few striations.
Use-wear resulting from hard contact materials is
typified by flat polishing of the microtopography as
evidenced by a shearing off of the high points on a
stone tool surface. Generally, hard contact material
polish is also accompanied by striations and edge
damage is well developed with medium to large
microflakes that typically have step, hinge, and half-
moon terminations. Soft contact materials tend to
produce polishes that cover both low and high areas
of surface microtopography, with fewer or no
striations within the polish zones. Two factors that
make the identification of specific contact materials
difficult are severe burning and heavy patination of
tool surfaces. Although burning and patination
sometimes complicate use-wear analysis, the distribu-
tions of burnt (Stemp and Helmke 2008: table 4) and
heavily patinated tools at different locations through-
out the site are quite similar. Moreover, there are no
significant differences in the frequencies of burnt or
patinated tools from construction core, midden, or
subsurface soil contexts.

Journal of Field Archaeology 2010 VOL . 35 NO . 2 221

Stemp et al. Evidence for Maya Household Subsistence and Domestic Activities
The Chipped Stone Tool Assemblage from
Pook’s Hill
Raw material types
The types of raw materials identified in the chipped
stone tool assemblage excavated from Pook’s Hill
were primarily cryptocrystalline silicates. These
include cherts and chalcedonies acquired locally,
some imported cherts, and unknown chert or
chalcedony. Very small amounts of quartzite and
biosparite/fossiliferous limestone were also recovered.
The local cherts used at Pook’s Hill were acquired
from the Roaring Creek and from limestone outcrops
in and around the site. The chalcedony recovered at
Pook’s Hill was likely acquired from limestone
deposits within the general vicinity of the site.
Imported cherts primarily originated in the chert-
bearing zone of northern Belize (FIG. 1). Stemp
identified them at Pook’s Hill based on published
descriptions (Shafer and Hester 1983; Hester and
Shafer 1984) and observations from other sites, such
as Altun Ha, Lamanai, Marco Gonzalez, and San
Pedro. The unknown raw material category refers to
those cherts or chalcedonies that are so heavily
weathered, patinated, and/or burnt that their original
tool grain size and/or color cannot be reliably
identified.
Lithic assemblage composition
The majority (2769) of chipped stone artifacts
recovered include tools and debitage that were larger
than 0.6 cm in maximum dimension, which corre-
sponds to the one-quarter inch mesh size of the
screens used during excavations. Finer, one-eighth
inch screens were used for special deposits such as
burials and caches. Thirty-one pieces of microdebi-
tage under 0.6 cm were also recovered from general
excavations at various locations throughout the site.
Of the 2800 lithic artifacts analyzed, 1730 (61.8%)
were produced from locally available chert from
limestone outcrops and river cobbles, 80 (2.9%) were
manufactured from chalcedony, four (0.1%) were
produced from imported chert, 949 (33.9%) were of
unknown chert or chalcedony, 31 (1.1%) were
manufactured from biosparite, and six (0.2%) were
made from quartzite. Overall, there is little change
in the frequency of raw materials used to make stone
tools over time. Percentages of local chert in the
Late Classic (57.7%) and Terminal Classic-Early
Postclassic (62.8%) sub-assemblages are similar, as
are the amounts of biosparite (3.3% and 0.9%). The
quantities of chalcedony (4.5% and 4.3%), quartzite
(0.4% and 0.4%), and imported chert (,0.1% and
0.2%) are more or less identical.
At Pook’s Hill, formal tools consisted mostly of
oval bifaces, general-utility bifaces, adzes, thin
stemmed bifaces, some lenticular bifaces and biface
preforms, and various stemmed and unstemmed
blade forms. Informal technology was primarily
represented by production debitage such as cortical
222 Journal of Field Archaeology 2010 VOL . 35 NO .
and non-cortical flakes, bifacial thinning flakes,
cores, and blocky fragments (FIGS. 5A–R, 6A–C).
Large, thick and thin bifaces of different types,
various smaller biface forms, and blades were made
from local chert, which was also used for simple core
reduction to produce flakes. Chalcedony was used to
manufacture a number of formal tools, primarily
thin bifaces, but is also represented by some blade
fragments. The small quantity of chalcedony debit-
age occurs in the form of flakes and blocky
fragments, but no chalcedony cores or core frag-
ments were recovered during excavations. Imported/
non-local stone is rare at this site, although it is
believed that a whole lenticular biface from the
Terminal Classic-Early Postclassic at Structure 2B
was imported in finished form. Biosparite was
restricted to informal core reduction to produce
expedient flakes. Only cortical and non-cortical
flakes, flake-blades, and some blocky fragments
made from this raw material were recovered.
Quartzite occurs in the form of one tertiary flake
fragment and some blocky fragments.
There is minor variation in the formal tool sub-
assemblages over time (TABLES 1, 2). Specifically,
there were higher percentages of formal tools at
Structures 1A and 4B in the Late Classic and on the
Plazuela Platform and at Structures 1A and 2A in the
Terminal Classic-Early Postclassic. Although there is
variable distribution of oval and general-utility
bifaces, no substantially greater frequencies exist in
any one period. There are more thin, stemmed bifaces
(4.1%) in the formal tool sub-assemblage of the
Terminal Classic-Early Postclassic than the Late
Classic (2.0%) and more bifacial adzes as well
(4.1% Terminal Classic-Early Postclassic; 1.4% Late
Classic), but these differences in frequency distribu-
tion are minor. The absence of stemmed macroblades
and stemmed blades in the Late Classic is interesting,
but neither tool type represents a significant propor-
tion of formal tools in the Terminal Classic-Early
Postclassic sub-assemblage (1.8%).
An examination of the informal component of
the assemblage from various locations over time
presents little evidence for substantial variation in
composition (TABLES 3, 4). In locations with sufficient
quantities of debitage, typical early to late stage
reduction was documented, including both biface
production and simple flake core reduction. Minor
differences in frequency distribution indicate more
bifacial flaking or more early stage reduction in one
place over another. In the Late Classic, there is
evidence for slightly more early stage core reduction
on the Plazuela Platform and lesser amounts of biface
flaking at Structures 1C and 4B. In the Terminal
Classic-Early Postclassic, slightly lower percentages
of primary flakes were recovered from the Plazuela
Platform and Structures 1A and 2B, while Structure
2
 Stemp et al. Evidence for Maya Household Subsistence and Domestic Activities

Figure 5 Chipped chert tools from Pook’s Hill: A) Hammerstone; B) Flake core/hammerstone; C–D) Blades; E) Discoidal flake
core; F–G) Bifacial thinning flakes; H–I) Multidirectional flake cores; J) Large, plano-convex biface (adze); K–M) Oval biface
fragments; N–P) Thin, stemmed biface fragments; and Q–R) Thick, narrow biface fragments (gouges/chisels). Photographs by
W. J. Stemp.

1A had a higher frequency of bifacial thinning flakes
compared to other locations.
Although Braswell (2007) analyzed 496 obsidian
artifacts that were excavated from the site, no use-
wear analysis has been performed on this material,
and obsidian artifacts were, therefore, not included in
this study. Nevertheless, a brief comment on the
Pook’s Hill obsidian is useful. The majority is visually
sourced to El Chayal, although some Ixtepeque
obsidian and a small quantity of Mexican ‘‘black’’
obsidian were identified in sub-assemblages from the
later periods (Braswell 2007: table 1). Most of the
obsidian artifacts recovered from the site were
prismatic blades, although the blade industry was
also represented by small numbers of percussion
blades and some polyhedral cores and core fragments
(Braswell 2007: table 3). Evidence for recycling and
scavenging is indicated by casual percussion debitage

Journal of Field Archaeology 2010 VOL . 35 NO . 2 223

Stemp et al. Evidence for Maya Household Subsistence and Domestic Activities

The Organization of Chipped Stone Tool

Figure 6 Reworked/retouched chipped chert tools from
Pook’s Hill: A) Drill on flake; B) Stemmed biface; and C)
Oval biface. The oval biface is 10.4 cm long. Photographs by
W. J. Stemp.
and some bipolar percussion of obsidian.
Surprisingly, no obsidian bifaces of any kind were
recovered and only two thinning flakes were found.
Braswell (2007: 117) suggests that obsidian was being
scavenged during the Terminal Classic period; there-
fore, prismatic blades and bifaces were probably not
being produced at the site after the Late Classic.
Production at Pook’s Hill
Evidence such as reduction debitage, tool preforms,
manufacturing failures, and exhausted production
implements that identifies sites like Colha or El Pilar
as stone tool production centers (Shafer and Hester
1983, 1991; Hester and Shafer 1991; Masson 2001;
Whittaker et al. 2009) is also present at Pook’s Hill,
on a reduced scale. Pook’s Hill possesses high
percentages of cortical debitage (42.3% of all flakes;
83.4% of all blocky fragments), as would be expected,
given the reduction of cores to produce flakes and the
reduction of some nodules to manufacture bifaces. At
least a few nodules arrived at the site with some
amount of decortication having already occurred, but
all stages of reduction, from early to late, are
represented by the debitage. Moreover, the debitage
shows that the different formal tool types recovered
from Pook’s Hill were being manufactured at the site.
In terms of the production locales of the stone
tools within the plazuela, accumulations of lithic
debitage in the Late Classic and Terminal Classic-
Early Postclassic are represented by construction core
and some midden deposits, with very few recovered
from funerary contexts or floor assemblages. The lithic
debitage is commonly mixed with other household
refuse from a variety of activities (Moholy-Nagy 1997;
Costin 2001). The debitage patterning represents local,
low-level production in and around individual struc-
tures and the periodic cleaning of living and working
spaces to remove dangerous bits and pieces of sharp
stone from underfoot (Hayden and Cannon 1983;
Clark 1986, 1991; Moholy-Nagy 1990, 1997; Santley
and Kneebone 1993). Debitage from various raw
materials and tool reduction processes is mixed
together and rather evenly distributed throughout
the site, suggesting that the Maya living at different

Table 1 Formal tools from the Late Classic by structure/location at Pook’s Hill.

Str. Plazuela Str. Str. Str. Str. Str. Str. Str.

Tool type PKH-M1 platform 1A 1B 1C 2A 2B 4A 4B

Late Classic
Oval bifaces – 1 – 6 2 6 – 2 1
General-utility bifaces – – 6 3 2 4 – 2 4
Lenticular bifaces – – – 1 – 1 1 – –
Thick, narrow bifaces – 1 1 1 – – – 1 –
Bifacial adzes – – 1 1 – – – – –
Stemmed thin bifaces – – 1 1 – – – – 1
Miscellaneous thin bifaces – – 1 5 4 4 – 2 –
Miscellaneous thick bifaces – – 6 2 1 7 – 5 5
Biface edges – – 4 7 1 3 1 – 2
Biface preforms – – – 1 1 – – – –
Bifaces/hammerstones – – – 2 – – – – –
Drills/perforators – – 2 1 3 3 – 3 1
Gravers – – – 1 – – – – –
Scrapers – – – – – 1 – – 1
Macroblades – – – 1 – – – – –
Retouched macroblades – – – – – – – – –
Stemmed macroblades – – – – – – – – –
Blades – – 2 1 2 5 – 1 2
Retouched blades – – – 1 – – – – 1
Stemmed blades – – – – – – – – –
Total 0 2 24 35 16 34 2 16 18

224 Journal of Field Archaeology 2010 VOL . 35 NO . 2

 Stemp et al. Evidence for Maya Household Subsistence and Domestic Activities

Table 2 Formal tools from the Terminal Classic-Early Postclassic by structure/location at Pook’s Hill.

Str. Plazuela Str. Str. Str. Str. Str. Str. Str.

Tool type PKH-M1 platform 1A 1B 1C 2A 2B 4A 4B

Terminal Classic-Early
Postclassic
Oval bifaces – 3 7 – 2 2 3 1 –
General-utility bifaces – 2 6 2 – 3 3 – 1
Lenticular bifaces – 1 2 – – – 1 – –
Thick, narrow bifaces – – 3 1 – 1 2 – –
Bifacial adzes – 1 3 1 – 1 – – 1
Stemmed thin bifaces – 3 2 – – 1 1 – –
Miscellaneous thin bifaces – 4 1 2 2 4 4 – 2
Miscellaneous thick bifaces 1 2 8 – – 2 2 – 1
Biface edges – 6 6 5 1 5 3 – 4
Biface preforms – 4 4 – – 1 1 – –
Bifaces/hammerstones – – – – – – – – 1
Drills/perforators – 2 3 – 1 2 1 – 1
Gravers – – – – – – – 1 –
Scrapers – 1 1 1 – – – – –
Macroblades – – 1 – – – 1 – –
Retouched macroblades – – – – – – 1 – –
Stemmed macroblades – – 1 1 – – – – –
Blades – 1 5 2 1 1 – – 2
Retouched blades – 1 1 – – – – – –
Stemmed blades – – – – – 1 – – –
Total 1 31 54 15 7 24 23 2 13

locations within Pook’s Hill had relatively equal access
to the same stone sources, were not concentrating on
the production of narrow ranges of tools, and were
involved in similar kinds of lithic production (Stemp
and Helmke 2008). Tool making at Pook’s Hill seems
to have been accomplished by household knappers
who did not produce large quantities of stone tools,
but who could produce a range of types they needed
(Costin 2001: 288–289; Sheets and Simmons 2002;
Robin 2003: 320–321; Gonlin 2004: 228). The specia-
lized production of stone tools for wider distribution is
not supported by the evidence, although the Pook’s
Hill Maya may have exchanged some of the tools they
made with neighboring communities.
Use-Wear Analysis of the Pook’s Hill Chipped
Stone Tools
The method of identifying the locations of use for the
lithics recovered from Pook’s Hill was similar to the
Independent Use Zone (IUZ) system employed by
Vaughan (1985) and Aoyama (1999, 2007, 2009) that
focuses on microscopic examination of artifacts for
edge damage, striations, and polishes. Well-devel-
oped use-wear in the IUZs of the stone tools can be

Table 3 Informal tools from the Late Classic by structure/location at Pook’s Hill.

Str. Plazuela Str. Str. Str. Str. Str. Str. Str.

Tool type PKH-M1 platform 1A 1B 1C 2A 2B 4A 4B

Late Classic
Flakes (primary) – 1 3 4 3 3 – 5 –
Flakes (secondary) 1 7 32 61 38 42 4 27 29
Flakes (tertiary) 3 4 39 74 37 71 14 44 37
Bifacial thinning flakes 1 2 10 22 6 23 1 17 5
Macroflakes – – – 1 – – – 1 –
Retouched flakes – 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 2
Notched flakes – – 1 – – – – – 1
Flake-blades 1 2 4 1 1 7 1 3 4
Macroflake-blades – – – – – – – – –
Flake-bladelets – – – – – – 1 – –
Bifacial thinning pressure flakes – – – – – 1 – – –
Unifacial retouch flakes – – – – – 1 – – –
Burin spalls – – – – – – – – –
Simple flake cores 2 – 8 28 11 20 1 6 6
Discoidal flake cores 1 – – – – 1 – – 1
Pyramidal flake cores – – 1 1 – – – – –
Flake-blade cores – – – – – – – – –
Blade cores – – – – – – – – 1
Blocky fragments 1 9 28 57 48 84 12 32 23
Blocky fragments/hammerstones – – 1 – – – 1 – –
Potlids and burnt fragments – – 1 9 2 4 1 7 –
Simple flake cores/hammerstones – 1 – – 3 5 – 1 –
Hammerstones – – – 1 – 2 – – –
Total 10 27 132 260 150 266 37 144 109

Journal of Field Archaeology 2010 VOL . 35 NO . 2 225

Stemp et al. Evidence for Maya Household Subsistence and Domestic Activities

Figure 7 Photomicrographs (2006) of use-wear from Pook’s Hill: A) Chert flake used to saw bone; B) Chert flake used to saw
stone; C) Chert drill used to drill/bore shell; and D) Chert flake used to whittle wood. Photomicrographs by W. J. Stemp.

Table 4 Informal tools from the Terminal Classic-Early Postclassic by structure/location at Pook’s Hill.

Str. Plazuela Str. Str. Str. Str. Str. Str. Str.

Tool type PKH-M1 platform 1A 1B 1C 2A 2B 4A 4B

Terminal Classic-Early Postclassic

Flakes (primary) – 1 4 3 – 2 2 – 3
Flakes (secondary) 2 36 90 36 21 29 33 7 35
Flakes (tertiary) 1 49 114 41 13 41 54 7 32
Bifacial thinning flakes 1 13 51 5 3 11 11 2 4
Macroflakes – – – – – – 2 – –
Retouched flakes – 6 3 – – 1 2 – 1
Notched flakes – – – – – – – – –
Flake-blades – 3 12 1 1 1 1 – 1
Macroflake-blades – – 1 – – – – – –
Flake-bladelets – – 1 – – 1 – – 1
Bifacial thinning pressure flakes – – 1 – – – – – –
Unifacial retouch flakes – – – – 1 – 2 – –
Burin spalls – – 1 – – – – – –
Simple flake cores – 12 28 10 5 14 15 1 8
Discoidal flake cores – – 5 – – – – – 1
Pyramidal flake cores – – – – – – – – –
Flake-blade cores – – – – – – 1 – –
Blade cores – – – – – 1 – – –
Blocky fragments 2 45 103 37 23 45 38 4 34
Blocky fragments/hammerstones – 1 – 1 1 – – – –
Potlids and burnt fragments – 5 11 3 1 3 8 – 2
Simple flake cores/hammerstones – – 2 2 – – 1 – –
Hammerstones – – – – – – 1 – –
Total 6 171 427 139 69 148 171 21 122

226 Journal of Field Archaeology 2010 VOL . 35 NO . 2

 Stemp et al.
Figure 8 Percentages of IUZs (Independent Use Zones) on all chipped chert and chalcedony tools from the Late Classic and
Terminal Classic-Early Postclassic at Pook’s Hill.
assigned to a specific motion and contact material
category (FIGS. 7A–D). The percentage of tools with
evidence of use is consistent over time. In the Late
Classic, 357 (27.8%) of 1282 tools were used, whereas
380 (26.3%) of 1444 lithic artifacts attributed to the
Terminal Classic-Early Postclassic presented evidence
of use. Another 71 chipped chert or chalcedony tools
were recovered from surface collections or deposits
that could not be accurately dated.
Overall, the lithic use-wear data indicate that a
wide range of activities involving many different
materials was undertaken by the Pook’s Hill Maya
over the course of the site’s occupation. The stone
tools were frequently used for cutting/slicing, sawing,
scraping/planing, whittling, and some adzing/chop-
ping. Fewer tools were employed for digging/hoeing,
drilling/boring, incising/graving, piercing, pounding/
crushing, or scaling. Contact with bone, dry/tanned
hide, meat/hide, meat/bone, plant, and stone is
common for both time periods based on the IUZs,
while there is little evidence for activities involving
contact with ceramics, fish scales, reeds, shells, or soil
(FIG. 8). Wood is, by far, the most commonly worked
material, probably because of the wide range of
potential uses for this material (see Lewenstein 1987:
198 for Cerros; Morehart and Helmke 2008 for
Pook’s Hill). Partly as a result of patination and
burning of the stone tools, the soft, hard, and
indeterminate contact material categories are also
well represented in both the Late Classic and
Terminal Classic-Early Postclassic. The weak evi-
dence for use-wear associated with scaling fish on the
tools from Pook’s Hill makes sense given the inland
location of the site, even though it is close to the
Evidence for Maya Household Subsistence and Domestic Activities
Roaring Creek and despite the fact that the remains
of parrotfish, found in certain midden deposits,
account for nearly 14% of the site’s vertebrate
assemblage (Stanchly 2006: 103–104). The lack of
fish scale polish on the stone tools is likely the result
of the fish arriving from the coast already gutted,
scaled, and possibly preserved by drying and salting.
It may also be that on-site fish preparation did not
necessitate removing the scales prior to consumption
(Stemp 2004). Fish may have been skinned and
gutted or cooked whole. Minor evidence for contact
with soil may indicate limited agricultural activity in
the immediate vicinity of the plazuela. Many of the
large bifaces identified at Pook’s Hill (31.1%) are
proximal fragments; distal ends that would most
likely possess evidence of contact with soil may have
been randomly discarded when the bifaces broke
during land clearing or other farming-related tasks.
The large bifaces tended to be used for multiple
tasks according to the identification of use-wear
patterns along their edges and on their surfaces
(TABLE 5) (Shafer 1983; Lewenstein 1987; Stemp and
Graham 2006). Many large bifaces (18.2%) were used
for more than one activity based on IUZs that
indicate contact with multiple materials or different
motions on a single tool. The thin bifaces and blades
tended to be used for a greater variety of functions
than the large bifaces, but fewer of these thin bifaces
(11.3%) and blade tools (8.8%) possessed use-wear
traces indicating they were used for more than one
motion or contacted multiple materials. Blades and
macroblades were used more frequently for cutting/
slicing and sawing as demonstrated by the bifacial
distribution of micropolish, parallel striations, and
Journal of Field Archaeology 2010 VOL . 35 NO . 2 227
Stemp et al. Evidence for Maya Household Subsistence and Domestic Activities

microchipping along their edges. Some appear to
have been used for transverse motions like scraping,
planing, or whittling in the Late Classic. Blades and
macroblades were also used on a wide range of
different materials, including bone, ceramic, dry hide,
meat/bone, meat/hide, plant, and wood. Adzes, drills,
chisels (thick, narrow bifaces), and scrapers are all
tools used for narrow ranges of activities, typically
involving a single motion for which these implements
were specifically designed. All adzes were used to
adze or chop wood. The IUZs on drills indicate they
were primarily used with rotary motions on hard
materials like bone, stone, and shell, yet some of these
tools (9.5%) have use-wear evidence suggesting they
were employed to make holes in dry hide.
A final observation concerning the activities under-
taken with formal tools at the site is the lack of use-
wear evidence for contact with plants other than
wood. Use-wear associated with cutting softer, fibrous
plants was only documented on one blade tool from
the Late Classic. This may suggest that formal tools
were not needed to work plant materials; however, it is
also possible that at least some use-wear indicative of
contact with softer plants, like vegetables, was hidden

Table 5 Number of IUZs on bifaces and blades from the Late Classic and Terminal Classic-Early Postclassic at Pook’s
Hill.

Terminal Classic-Early
Late Classic Postclassic

Blades, macroblades, Lenticular, Blades, macroblades, Lenticular,

Oval and stemmed blades, stemmed, Oval and stemmed blades, stemmed,
general-utility and stemmed and other general-utility and stemmed and other
bifaces macroblades thin bifaces bifaces macroblades thin bifaces

IUZs n % total n % total n % total n % total n % total n % total

Bone
adze/chop – – – – – – 1 2.9 – – – –
cut/slice – – 1 8.3 – – – – 1 8.3 – –
drill/bore 1 2.4 – – 1 5.3 – – – – – –
saw 1 2.4 – – 1 5.3 – – – – 1 4.3
scrape/plane – – 2 16.7 – – – – – – – –
whittle – – 1 8.3 1 5.3 – – – – – –
indeterminate – – – – 2 10.3 – – – – – –
Ceramic
saw – – – – – – – – 1 8.3 – –
Dry hide
cut/slice – – 1 8.3 1 5.3 – – – – – –
Meat/fresh hide
cut/slice – – – – – – – – 1 8.3 2 8.7
Meat/bone
cut/slice – – – – 1 5.3 – – 1 8.3 7 30.4
pierce – – – – – – – – – – 1 4.3
Plant
cut/slice – – 1 8.3 – – – – – – – –
Soil
dig/hoe 3 7.3 – – – – 2 5.9 – – – –
indeterminate – – – – – – 1 2.9 – – – –
Stone
adze/chop – – – – – – 1 2.9 – – – –
pound/crush 2 4.9 – – – – 1 2.9 – – – –
Wood
adze/chop 23 56.1 – – – – 13 38.2 – – – –
cut/slice – – – – – – – – – – 1 4.3
drill/bore – – – – 1 5.3 – – – – – –
haft polish 9 22.0 – – 2 10.5 10 29.4 – – 2 8.7
saw – – – – – – – – 3 25.0 – –
scrape/plane – – – – – – – – 1 8.3 – –
whittle – – – – 1 5.3 – – – – – –
indeterminate – – – – 1 5.3 – – – – – –
Soft
cut/slice – – 2 16.7 2 10.5 – – 1 8.3 3 13.0
Hard
adze/chop 2 4.9 – – – – 4 11.8 – – – –
cut/slice – – 1 8.3 1 5.3 – – 2 16.7 2 8.7
drill/bore – – – – – – – – – – 1 4.3
saw – – 1 8.3 2 10.5 – – 1 8.3 2 8.7
whittle – – 1 8.3 – – – – – – – –
indeterminate – – – – 1 5.3 1 2.9 – – 1 4.3
Indeterminate
indeterminate – – 1 8.3 1 5.3 – – – – – –
Total 41 – 12 – 19 – 34 – 12 – 23 –

228 Journal of Field Archaeology 2010 VOL . 35 NO . 2

 Stemp et al. Evidence for Maya Household Subsistence and Domestic Activities

by the subsequent use of the same tools on harder In addition to the many tasks completed using
materials such as wood, soil, or stone (Lewenstein formal tools, the Pook’s Hill Maya relied on the
1987: 133). informal component of the assemblage as well

Table 6 Number of IUZs on flakes, bifacial thinning flakes, and blocky fragments from the Late Classic and Terminal
Classic-Early Postclassic at Pook’s Hill.

Terminal Classic-Early
Late Classic Postclassic

Bifacial thinning Bifacial thinning

Flakes flakes Blocky fragments Flakes flakes Blocky fragments

IUZs n % total n % total n % total n % total n % total n % total

Bone
adze/chop – – 1 4.3 1 3.4 – – – – 1 3.0
cut/slice 4 2.4 – – – – 1 0.6 – – – –
incise/grave 1 0.6 – – – – 1 0.6 – – – –
saw 5 3.0 – – – – 6 3.4 1 3.6 – –
scrape/plane 5 3.0 – – – – 1 0.6 1 3.6 3 9.1
whittle 3 1.8 – – – – 1 0.6 – – – –
Ceramic
saw 7 4.2 – – – – 2 1.1 – – – –
Dry hide
cut/slice 5 3.0 – – – – 2 1.1 1 3.6 – –
scrape/plane 5 3.0 – – – – 13 7.3 1 3.6 2 6.1
Fish scales
scale – – – – – – 1 0.6 – – – –
Meat/fresh hide
cut/slice 17 10.1 2 8.7 – – 17 9.6 2 7.1 – –
scrape/plane 1 0.6 – – – – 1 0.6 – – – –
Meat/bone
cut/slice 7 4.1 – – – – 7 4.0 1 3.6 – –
saw – – – – – – 1 0.6 – – – –
Plant
cut/slice 18 10.7 – – – – 21 11.9 – – – –
Plant (Reed)
cut/slice 6 3.6 – – – – 2 1.1 – – – –
saw 1 0.6 – – – – – – – – 1 3.0
Shell
saw 1 0.6 – – – – 5 2.8 – – – –
Soil
dig/hoe – – – – – – – – 3 10.7 – –
Stone
adze/chop – – – – 1 3.4 – – 1 3.6 – –
pound/crush – – – – 3 10.3 2 1.1 – – – –
rub/shape – – – – – – 1 0.6 – – – –
saw 3 1.8 – – – – 1 0.6 – – – –
Wood
adze/chop – – 15 65.2 – – – – 14 50.0 – –
cut/slice 3 1.8 – – – – 8 4.5 – – – –
saw 12 7.1 – – – – 11 6.2 2 7.1 – –
scrape/plane 8 4.7 1 4.3 1 3.4 4 2.3 – – – –
whittle 10 5.9 – – – – 11 6.2 – – – –
indeterminate 1 0.6 – – – – – – – – – –
Soft
cut/slice 15 8.9 1 4.3 – – 22 12.4 1 3.6 – –
scrape/plane 1 0.6 – – 1 3.4 – – – – 2 6.1
indeterminate 1 0.6 – – 1 3.4 2 1.1 – – – –
Hard
adze/chop 1 0.6 2 8.7 2 6.9 – – – – 1 3.0
cut/slice 3 1.8 – – – – 3 1.7 – – – –
incise/grave 2 1.2 – – – – 1 0.6 – – – –
notch – – – – – – 2 1.1 – – – –
pound/crush 1 0.6 – – – – – – – – – –
saw 9 5.3 – – 1 3.4 7 4.0 – – – –
scrape/plane 3 1.8 – – 5 17.2 2 1.1 – – 1 3.0
whittle 2 1.2 – – – – 1 0.6 – – – –
indeterminate 1 0.6 – – 8 27.6 1 0.6 – – 11 33.3
Indeterminate
cut/slice – – – – – – 2 1.1 – – – –
pound/crush – – – – – – – – – – 1 3.0
saw 1 0.6 – – – – – – – – – –
scrape/plane 1 0.6 – – – – – – – – – –
indeterminate 5 3.0 1 4.3 5 17.2 14 7.9 – – 10 30.3
Total 169 – 23 – 29 – 177 – 28 – 33 –

Journal of Field Archaeology 2010 VOL . 35 NO . 2 229

Stemp et al. Evidence for Maya Household Subsistence and Domestic Activities
(TABLE 6). Available pieces with appropriate dimen-
sions (i.e., size and edge shape and angle) were
regularly employed as ad hoc tools. Although most
were short-term tools, the flakes and bifacial thinning
flakes were used long enough to identify motion type
and determine the material(s) they contacted.
Informal tools were most often used for a single
activity or on a single material. Unretouched flakes
were used for a greater variety of tasks involving
many raw materials, while use-wear on bifacial
thinning/repair flakes not associated with large biface
use reveals a concentration on cutting, sawing, and
scraping both hard and soft materials. A small
number of blocky fragments were used for scraping/
planing, adzing/chopping, and sawing on harder
materials. One interesting pattern of use involves
plants other than wood. Almost all of the IUZs
associated with plants were recorded on informal
tools, specifically flakes and blocky fragments.
The use-wear on the bifacial thinning/repair flakes
must also be scrutinized more closely as it represents
two different patterns of use. The polishes associated
with chopping or adzing of wood and digging in soil
are primarily found on the striking platforms and
dorsal surfaces of these flakes, suggesting that the
polishes developed on the flakes prior to their
removal from the bifaces. There is good evidence of
use of these flakes as ad hoc tools in the form of
microwear on newly exposed ventral surfaces follow-
ing detachment from the bifaces. Roughly 7.4% of the
use-wear on the bifacial thinning flakes is representa-
tive of expedient tool use. Many of these expedient
flakes retain use-wear traces that indicate previous
contact with wood and soil.
Subsistence and Domestic Activities Over Time
In examining the same structures or locations over
time, it is evident that the activities performed change
to some degree. In the Late Classic, there is
substantial diversity in the materials used at most
structures, with lesser evidence, based on compara-
tively few tools with microwear, for the use of as
many materials on the Plazuela Platform and at
Structure 2B. Similarly, in the Terminal Classic-Early
Postclassic, there is evidence for a wide range of
materials used at most locations; however, areas with
fewer tools and a lower diversity of contact material
types, such as Structures 1C, 4A, and 4B, show
different patterns of use than in the preceding period.
The late classic use-wear evidence
During the Late Classic, the Maya were engaging in a
variety of activities at different Pook’s Hill locations.
Use-wear data indicate a minor concentration on
sawing ceramic materials (5.9%) at Structure 1B. At
Structure 2A, there is substantial evidence for contact
with bone and less evidence for similar activity at
Structure 4A. The majority of activities involving
230 Journal of Field Archaeology 2010 VOL . 35 NO .
bone included sawing, whittling, drilling, and a small
amount of incising/graving. Bone tubes in various
stages of production were found in association with
the structure (Stanchly 2006: 100–102) and may be
associated with craft activities. Use-wear evidence for
drilling, sawing, and scraping bone was also found at
Structure 4A. A higher number of IUZs indicating
drilling, sawing, pounding/crushing, and chopping
of stone were recovered from Structure 1C. Bark
beaters, a few pyrite tesserae from mosaic mirrors,
and a partial slate mirror back found in the collapse
debris may indicate craft activity during the terminal
phase of the structure’s utilization. Use-wear inter-
preted as the working of dry hide demonstrates a
higher IUZ frequency at Structure 4B (13.2%) than at
other locations in the Late Classic, with cutting,
slicing, and scraping being the most frequently
represented motions identified on the stone tools.
In terms of specific associations between tool types
and activities, IUZs associated with adzing or
chopping of wood (56.1%) were frequently noted on
large bifaces in the Late Classic. The IUZs on blades
associated with bone (33.3%) were more abundant in
this period as well. Drilling of stone was also
occurring (16.7%); however, the only IUZs on drills
used on bone (33.3%) and shell (8.3%) were
documented in this period. No use-wear evidence
indicating the gouging or chiseling of wood was
documented in the Late Classic even though thick,
narrow bifaces (or chisels) constituted 3% of the tool
sub-assemblage (TABLE 1).
A reliance on informal tools is indicated by the fact
that 28.8% of flakes, 26.4% of bifacial thinning/repair
flakes, and 9.9% of blocky fragments possessed use-
wear of some sort. In this period, comparatively more
flakes were used for sawing ceramics (4.2%), and
cutting and sawing reeds (4.2%). Many bifacial
thinning flakes were involved in adzing or chopping
hard materials like bone and wood (78.2%), and more
blocky fragments were employed to chop and pound
stone (13.7%) and to scrape or plane hard materials
(17.2%).
The Terminal Classic-Early Postclassic use-wear
evidence
In the Terminal Classic-Early Postclassic, there
appears to be less concentration on some raw
materials, although tools interpreted as having been
used to saw shell are more numerous. Use-wear
indicating contact with shell is more common at
Structure 2B than anywhere else at Pook’s Hill,
although incising of shell was noted in one instance
at Structure 4A. In the Terminal Classic-Early Post-
classic, sawing and drilling of potsherds at Structure
1B may represent evidence for the manufacture of
spindle whorls. A large number of spindle whorls
(38.9% of all ceramic spindle whorls recovered from
this period at the site) were also recovered from the
2
 Stemp et al.
midden deposits and collapse debris strata in which
the chipped tools from Structure 1B were found
(Hendon 1996; Morehart and Helmke 2008: 68–70).
The clay spindle whorls were made from sawed,
snapped, and ground ceramic sherds. Weaving pins
and sewing needles from the same deposits may
indicate that textiles were produced in this part of the
site. During the clearing of Structure 1B a concentra-
tion of ceramic net-sinkers was found near the
surface, in an isolated cluster at the NE corner of
the structure. Tools with woodworking IUZs con-
tinue to be widely distributed in this period at
locations like Structures 2A, 2B, and 4B with a
comparative reduction in tools with microwear
indicative of contact with wood at Structure 1C
(21.1%). Although the range of activities involving
wood is essentially the same as that in the Late
Classic, the distributions of specific motions asso-
ciated with woodworking at these locations are not
the same as those from the previous period, suggest-
ing a slightly different organization of activities in the
Terminal Classic-Early Postclassic.
The IUZs associated with adzing/chopping of
wood (38.2%) were not as frequent in the Terminal
Classic-Early Postclassic. The IUZs on thin bifaces
indicating cutting/slicing (30.4%) and piercing (4.3%)
of meat/bone and cutting/slicing of meat/fresh hide
(8.7%) seem to indicate activities associated with
animal butchery. In this period as compared to
others, blades were more frequently used to saw
(25%) and scrape/plane (8.3%) wood and cut/slice
meat, hide, and bone. The frequency of use-wear
representing the drilling of stone was quite high
(33.3%). Informal tools in this period were used with
similar frequency to those from the Late Classic with
IUZs observed on 26.7% of flakes, 27.7% of bifacial
thinning/repair flakes, and 10% of blocky fragments;
however, the specific functions to which they were put
vary. In the Terminal Classic-Early Postclassic, many
more flakes, bifacial thinning flakes, and blocky
fragments had IUZs associated with scraping dry
hide (17.1%), and more bifacial thinning flakes had
IUZs indicative of digging/hoeing soil (10.7%) and
sawing wood (7.1%).
Discussion
The small numbers of formal tools and large
quantities of unmodified flakes, flake cores, and core
fragments manufactured from locally-obtained stone
at Pook’s Hill represent typical household assem-
blages of generalized tools that were easily manufac-
tured and maintained (Aldenderfer et al. 1989: 56;
Aldenderfer 1991b). Although there is some varia-
bility in tool use over time based on use-wear
analysis, the evidence points to activities that should
be categorized primarily as subsistence and domestic
tasks, including the manufacture of some utilitarian
items during all periods of occupation (Aldenderfer
Evidence for Maya Household Subsistence and Domestic Activities
et al. 1989: table 1). Based on comparisons with
microwear data from sites like Cerros (Lewenstein
1987: 194), Marco Gonzalez, and San Pedro (Stemp
2001, 2004), the diversity and distributions of
activities support this conclusion. There is homo-
geneity in tool types and use-wear in most contexts at
Pook’s Hill, and the emphasis on subsistence and
domestic tasks is supported by Sievert’s (1992: 27–45)
criteria for the activities undertaken with stone tools
based on motions and contact material types. Her
model suggests that the use-wear evidence from
Pook’s Hill represents subsistence and subsistence
manufacture-based use contexts. Although each locus
at the site had tool kits associated with subsistence
and basic domestic tasks, small clusters of tools
associated with some production activities were
found in greater frequencies in some areas of the
plazuela than in others suggesting the possibility
of some craft-related activities (Lewenstein 1987;
Aldenderfer 1991a, 1991b; Aoyama 1995, 1999;
Stemp 2001, 2004).
Although use-wear data are available for the chert
and chalcedony artifacts from Pook’s Hill, we do not
know how obsidian tools were used. At Cerros,
obsidian tools, specifically prismatic blade segments,
were employed for a wide range of functions and
chert and obsidian tools were used for similar
subsistence and domestic tasks (Lewenstein 1987:
194). At Aguateca, however, it seems a narrower
range of activities was undertaken using stone tools,
particularly the obsidian blades, and there is a strong
argument for the production of luxury goods or
artistic creations in domestic contexts by noble or
elite craft persons at that site (Aoyama 2007, 2009;
Emery and Aoyama 2007).
It is not surprising that woodwork of various types
has been identified at Pook’s Hill. Substantial
diversity in woodworking activities, as reflected in
formal and informal tool use, is expected given
the variety of daily household needs for things
from firewood to handles (Lewenstein 1987: 198;
Aldenderfer 1991b: 210; Morehart and Helmke 2008:
61–62). At other sites, like Marco Gonzalez and San
Pedro, where primarily subsistence and domestic
activities were performed with chert tools, wood
was also the most frequently contacted material
(Stemp 2001: tables 11, 14; 2004: table 14). This
pattern of use differs significantly from that observed
at Aguateca where craft production of non-utilitarian
or luxury items occurred. At Aguateca, chert tools
were most frequently used to process meat or hide
with substantial reliance on bifacial points, bifacial
thinning flakes, and tertiary flakes. These tool types
were also commonly used to work bone and shell.
There is a comparatively small amount of wood-
working involving chert tools from this site and very
little chopping of wood. While cutting appears to
Journal of Field Archaeology 2010 VOL . 35 NO . 2 231
Stemp et al. Evidence for Maya Household Subsistence and Domestic Activities
be the most frequent action associated with wood,
traces of it do not occur with much frequency on
chert tools (Aoyama 2007: table 3, 2009: table 3.8);
however, wood carving was an important craft
activity at Aguateca (Aoyama 2007: 24, 2009: 44).
Instead of use on wood, the majority of chert oval
bifaces at Aguateca were used to chop or chisel
stone. Interestingly, the polished stone celts from
Aguateca were exclusively used to chisel or chop
stone (Aoyama 2007: 18, table 3; 2009: fig. 3.8). Large
bifaces at Aguateca were not employed in activities
that caused them to contact the soil, such as in
clearing vegetation or digging in gardens or fields
(Aoyama 2007: table 4, 2009: fig. 3.8). At Pook’s Hill,
large bifaces were primarily used for adzing/chopping
wood, but some were also used to dig in soil. The
informal tools from Pook’s Hill were used for a wider
range of tasks than those from Aguateca.
Production of non-utilitarian items for adornment,
ritual, or other ideological functions likely did occur
at Pook’s Hill; however, there are few chert tools with
use-wear that can be associated with specialized
manufacture and only a few finished items, such as
bone tubes, shell pendants, and stone beads, were
recovered. Based on recovery from secondary con-
texts, it is difficult to identify craft-production loci.
We suspect that any craft production would have
occurred alongside, or interspersed with, the resi-
dents’ daily tasks, but it would be difficult to isolate
them from other activities at the site (Aldenderfer
et al. 1989; Aldenderfer 1991a, 1991b; Costin 2001).
The identities of the stone tool-users at Pook’s Hill
are difficult to interpret from the lithic evidence and
its context. Using other clues, such as site size,
architectural features, and the small quantity of
status-related items (Aldenderfer et al. 1989: 51;
Aldenderfer 1991b: 210), we conclude that the
majority of the Maya in this plazuela were lower-
status individuals, even though the presence of a
small number of more affluent individuals, possibly
lesser nobles, is implied by the presence of greenstone,
Spondylus shell, molded-carved vessels with glyphic
texts, and jade tooth inlays. Although it can be
stipulated that individuals of differing status lived in
this plazuela group, it is not possible to divide the
tasks undertaken with stone tools along social lines.
It may be that both were somehow involved in stone
tool use for the purposes of subsistence, domestic
activities, and the production of utilitarian objects,
and possibly some non-utilitarian crafts.
It is tantalizing to attempt to comment on how men
or women may have used chert tools in this plazuela
(see Aoyama 2007, 2009; Emery and Aoyama 2007 for
Aguateca), but the Pook’s Hill lithic data provide few
clues to support distinctions along these lines. Women
may have been involved in food preparation, including
animal butchery, and possibly textile production to
232 Journal of Field Archaeology 2010 VOL . 35 NO .
some extent (Joyce 1993; Hendon 1996; Robin 2004);
however, assignment of tool production or use-related
tasks or activities to men and/or women beyond these
suggestions cannot be supported by our data (Gero
1991).
Conclusion
The assemblage composition and use-wear evidence
from Pook’s Hill indicate that the Late Classic to Early
Postclassic Maya primarily used their chipped stone
tools for subsistence, domestic activities, and the
production of utilitarian items. It appears these types
of activities occurred in the same places, although the
same person may not have been responsible for each
activity in or around a single structure, and activities
may not have been undertaken simultaneously (see
Robin 2004: 163 for Chan Noohol). Although there
are some higher frequencies of stone tools with use-
wear associated with working bone, stone, ceramics,
wood, and shells that may be representative of craft
production at certain locations, the recovery of the
majority of lithic artifacts from secondary contexts
makes this hypothesis difficult to support.
The results of our study assist in reconstructing
how the Maya inhabiting a medium-sized plazuela
group used their stone tools in daily activities. They
also suggest that the production of craft items may
have been undertaken by lower-status Maya. In
addition to being used by the Pook’s Hill Maya
themselves, it is unclear whether some of these craft
items could have been traded or exchanged with
members of neighboring communities (see Sheets and
Simmons 2002 for Cerén).
Nevertheless, the similarity of raw material types,
stone tools, and lithic use-wear in the Late Classic and
Terminal Classic-Early Postclassic provides data con-
cerning aspects of socioeconomic organization at Pook’s
Hill. Despite major changes in the Belize Valley that
accompanied the 9th- to 10th-century collapse and its
associated effects at Pook’s Hill, such as cessation of
major construction, shifts in obsidian procurement
patterns, and changes in ceramic forms and styles, the
chert artifacts show remarkable consistency. One reason
for this is the emphasis on subsistence and other
utilitarian functions in both the Late Classic and
Terminal Classic-Early Postclassic periods. Minimal
variation in assemblage composition from one period to
the next also suggests that the organization of lithic
technology at the site was locally controlled. It seems
that control of nearby lithic resources and modes of
stone tool production at the level of households or
extended families of commoners and/or minor elites
would explain why chipped chert technology changed so
little, even through turbulent times.
The analysis of the stone tools from Pook’s Hill
provides information about the activities undertaken at
this site, and demonstrates how a program of micro-
scopic use-wear analysis contributes to understanding
2
 Stemp et al.
subsistence and domestic activities in a single
household group. A reliance on informal technology
for the completion of many daily tasks is demon-
strated in this study, as is the importance of the
multiple uses of stone tools. Finally, our research
demonstrates that the notion of tool form dictating
function does not always ring true for the Maya
(Lewenstein 1987: 140; Stemp 2001, 2004; Stemp and
Graham 2006: table 8; Aoyama 2007, 2009). This
analysis, therefore, also serves as a cautionary note
when relying on tool forms to interpret activities
undertaken by site residents. The Maya relied
heavily on stone tools, therefore, lithic use-wear
analysis offers archaeologists another window into
the Maya world that should not be overlooked.
Acknowledgments
Excavation of the Pook’s Hill plazuela was conducted
as a sub-program of the Belize Valley Archaeological
Reconnaissance project under the direction of Jaime
Awe, Director of the Institute of Archaeology,
National Institute of Culture and History (NICH)
Belize, and led by Christophe Helmke. We would like
to thank Heather Sykes, Wheaton College, for
assistance in cleaning and organizing the lithics, and
John Clark, John Whittaker, Harry Shafer, and the
anonymous reviewers, whose comments improved
this paper. Many thanks are owed to the Belizean
Institute of Archaeology and its staff. The lithic
analysis was funded by a Keene State College Faculty
Research Grant (2005). The excavations at Pook’s
Hill were supported by grants from the Institute of
Archaeology, University College London (2002,
2003), and the Central Research Fund, University
of London (2003), as well as the financial backing of
the Pook’s Hill Lodge (1999–2005).
W. James Stemp (Ph.D. 2000, McGill University)
is Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology
and Anthropology at Keene State College. His main
areas of research include stone tool technology, lithic
use-wear analysis, design theory, experimental archae-
ology, the socioeconomies of complex societies, and the
ancient Maya. Mailing address: 229 Main St., Keene,
NH, 03431-3400. E-mail: jstemp@keene.edu
Christophe G. B. Helmke (Ph.D. 2009, University of
London) is Assistant Professor in the Department of
American Indian Languages and Cultures, Institute for
Cross-Cultural and Regional Studies of the University of
Copenhagen. His primary research interests are Maya
archaeology and epigraphy. Other research interests
include ancient Maya cave utilization, household archae-
ology, Mesoamerican writing systems, and rock art.
Mailing address: Institut for Tværkulturelle og Regionale
Studier, Afdeling for Indianske sprog og kulturer,
Artillerivej 86, DK-2300 København S, Denmark.
Jaime J. Awe (Ph.D. 1992, University of London) is
Director of the Belize Institute of Archaeology. His
Evidence for Maya Household Subsistence and Domestic Activities
primary research interests are Maya archaeology, the
Preclassic Maya, ancient Maya religion, and cave use.
Mailing address: Institute of Archaeology, National
Institute of Culture and History, Culvert Road,
Belmopan, Belize.
References
Aldenderfer, M. S. 1991a. ‘‘Defining Lithics-Using Craft
Specialties in Lowland Maya Society Through Microwear
Analysis: Conceptual Problems and Issues,’’ in B. Gräslund,
H. Knutsson, K. Knutsson, and J. Taffinder, eds., The
Interpretive Possibilities of Microwear Studies, AUN 14.
Uppsala, Sweden: Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis, 53–70.
Aldenderfer, M. S. 1991b. ‘‘Functional Evidence for Lapidary and
Carpentry Craft Specialists in the Late Classic of the Central
Peten Lakes Region,’’ Ancient Mesoamerica 2: 205–214.
Aldenderfer, M. S., L. R. Kimball, and A. Sievert. 1989.
‘‘Microwear Analysis in the Maya Lowlands: The Use of
Functional Data in a Complex-Society Setting,’’ Journal of
Field Archaeology 16: 47–60.
Aoyama, K. 1995. ‘‘Microwear Analysis in the Southeast Maya
Lowlands: Two Case Studies at Copan, Honduras,’’ Latin
American Antiquity 6: 129–144.
Aoyama, K. 1999. ‘‘Ancient Maya State, Urbanism, Exchange and
Craft Specialization. Chipped Stone Evidence from the Copan
Valley and the La Entrada Region, Honduras,’’ University of
Pittsburgh Memoirs in Latin American Archaeology 12.
Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.
Aoyama, K. 2005. ‘‘Classic Maya Warfare and Weapons: Spear,
Dart and Arrow Points of Aguateca and Copan,’’ Ancient
Mesoamerica 16: 291–304.
Aoyama, K. 2007. ‘‘Elite Artists and Craft Producers in Classic
Maya Society: Lithic Evidence from Aguateca, Guatemala,’’
Latin American Antiquity 18: 3–26.
Aoyama, K. 2009. Elite Craft Producers, Artists, and Warriors at
Aguateca: Lithic Analysis. Monographs of the Aguateca
Archaeological Project First Phase, Volume 2. Salt Lake City:
University of Utah Press.
Awe, J. J., and C. G. B. Helmke. 2007. ‘‘Fighting the Inevitable:
The Terminal Classic Maya of the Upper Roaring Creek
Valley,’’ Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 4: 28–42.
Becker, M. J. 1999. Excavations in Residential Areas of Tikal:
Groups with Shrines. Tikal Report 21. University Museum
Monograph 104. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
Braswell, G. E. 2007. ‘‘The Obsidian Artifacts of Pook’s Hill, Belize
(1999–2005),’’ in C. G. B. Helmke and J. J. Awe, eds., The
Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report
of the 2006 Field Season. Belmopan: Belize Institute of
Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and History, 101–
118.
Chase, A. F. 1992. ‘‘Elites and the Changing Organization of
Classic Maya Society,’’ in D. Z. Chase and A. F. Chase, eds.,
Mesoamerican Elites: An Archaeological Assessment. Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press, 30–49.
Clark, J. E. 1986. ‘‘From Mountains to Molehills: A Critical View
of Teotihuacan’s Obsidian Industry,’’ Research in Economic
Anthropology 2: 23–74.
Clark, J. E. 1991. ‘‘Flintknapping and Debitage Disposal Among
the Lacandon Maya of Chiapas, Mexico,’’ in E. Staski and
L. D. Sutro, eds., The Ethnoarchaeology of Refuse Disposal,
Archaeological Research Papers 42. Tempe: Arizona State
University, 63–78.
Costin, C. L. 2001. ‘‘Craft Production Systems,’’ in G. M. Feinman
and T. D. Price, eds., Archaeology at the Millennium. New
York: Kluwer/Plenum Press, 273–327.
Driver, W. D., and J. F. Garber. 2004. ‘‘The Emergence of Minor
Centers in the Zones Between Seats of Power,’’ in J. F. Garber,
ed., The Ancient Maya of the Belize Valley: Half a Century of
Archaeological Research. Gainesville: University Press of
Florida, 287–304.
Emery, K. F., and K. Aoyama. 2007. ‘‘Bone, Shell, and Lithic
Evidence for Crafting in Elite Maya Households at Aguateca,
Guatemala,’’ Ancient Mesoamerica 18: 69–89.
Gero, J. M. 1991. ‘‘Genderlithics: Women’s Roles in Stone Tool
Production,’’ in J. M. Gero and M. W. Conkey, eds.,
Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. London:
Blackwell, 163–193.
Gifford, J. C. 1976. Prehistoric Pottery Analysis and the Ceramics
of Barton Ramie in the Belize Valley. Memoirs of the Peabody
Journal of Field Archaeology 2010 VOL . 35 NO . 2 233
Stemp et al. Evidence for Maya Household Subsistence and Domestic Activities
Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 18. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University.
Gonlin, N. 2004. ‘‘Methods for Understanding Classic Maya
Commoners: Structure Function, Energetics, and More,’’ in
J. Lohse and F. Valdez, Jr., eds., Ancient Maya Commoners.
Austin: University of Texas Press, 225–254.
Hayden, B., and A. Cannon. 1983. ‘‘Where the Garbage Goes:
Refuse Disposal in the Maya Highlands,’’ Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 2: 117–163.
Helmke, C. G. B. 2001. ‘‘The Last Supper: Competitive Feasting
and the Terminal Classic Moulded-Carved Ceramic Tradition
in the Central Maya Lowlands,’’ unpublished M.A. thesis,
Institute of Archaeology, University College London, London.
Helmke, C. G. B. 2003. ‘‘The 2002 Season Investigations at Pook’s
Hill, Belize,’’ Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 14: 119–
128.
Helmke, C. G. B. 2006a. ‘‘A Report of the 2005 Season of
Archaeological Investigations at Pook’s Hill, Cayo District,
Belize,’’ in C. G. B. Helmke and J. J. Awe, eds., The Belize
Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the
2005 Field Season. Belmopan: Institute of Archaeology,
National Institute of Culture and History, 39–92.
Helmke, C. G. B. 2006b. ‘‘A Summary Report of the 1999–2002
Seasons of Archaeological Investigations at Pook’s Hill, Cayo
District, Belize,’’ Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 3:
173–191.
Helmke, C. G. B. 2006c. ‘‘Recent Investigations into Ancient Maya
Domestic and Ritual Activities at Pook’s Hill, Belize,’’ Papers
from the Institute of Archaeology 17: 77–85.
Helmke, C. G. B., and J. J. Awe. 2005. ‘‘The Ancient Maya
Sweatbath at Pook’s Hill,’’ Belize Today 5(1): 24–26.
Helmke, C. G. B., and J. J. Awe. 2008. ‘‘Organización territorial de
los antiguos mayas de Belice Central: confluencia de datos
arqueológicos y epigráficos,’’ Mayab 20: 65–91.
Helmke, C. G. B., and D. Reents-Budet. 2008. ‘‘A Terminal Classic
Molded-Carved Ceramic Type of the Eastern Maya
Lowlands,’’ Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 5: 37–49.
Hendon, J. A. 1996. ‘‘Archaeological Approaches to the
Organization of Domestic Labor: Household Practice and
Domestic Relations,’’ Annual Review of Anthropology 25: 45–
61.
Hester, T. R., and H. J. Shafer. 1984. ‘‘Exploitation of Chert
Resources by the Ancient Maya of Northern Belize, Central
America,’’ World Archaeology 16: 157–173.
Hester, T. R., and H. J. Shafer. 1991. ‘‘Lithics of the Early
Postclassic at Colha, Belize,’’ in T. R. Hester and H. J. Shafer,
eds., Maya Stone Tools: Selected Papers from the Second Maya
Lithic Conference, Monographs in World Prehistory 1.
Madison, WI: Prehistory Press, 155–162.
Joyce, R. A. 1993. ‘‘Women’s Work: Images of Production and
Reproduction in Pre-hispanic Southern Central America,’’
Current Anthropology 34: 255–273.
Keeley, L. H. 1980. Experimental Determination of Stone Tool
Uses: A Microwear Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Lewenstein, S. 1987. Stone Tool Use at Cerros: The Ethnoarch-
aeological Use-Wear Analysis. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Masson, M. A. 2001. ‘‘The Economic Organization of Late and
Terminal Classic Period Maya Stone Tool Craft Specialist
Workshops at Colha, Belize,’’ Lithic Technology 26: 29–49.
Moholy-Nagy, H. 1990. ‘‘Misidentification of Mesoamerican
Lithic Workshops,’’ Latin American Antiquity 1: 268–279.
Moholy-Nagy, H. 1997. ‘‘Middens, Construction Fill, and
Offerings: Evidence for the Organization of Classic Period
Craft Production at Tikal, Guatemala,’’ Journal of Field
Archaeology 24: 293–313.
Morehart, C. T. 2001. ‘‘Preliminary Analysis of Paleoethnobo-
tanical Samples from Pook’s Hill 1, Cayo District, Belize,’’ in
R. Ishihara, C. S. Griffith, and J. J. Awe, eds., The Western
Belize Regional Cave Project: A Report of the 2000 Field
Season. Department of Anthropology, Occasional Paper 4.
Durham: University of New Hampshire, 447–460.
Morehart, C. T., and C. G. B. Helmke. 2008. ‘‘Situating Power and
Locating Knowledge: A Paleoethnobotanical Perspective on
Late Classic Maya Gender and Social Relations,’’ in C. Robin
and E. M. Brumfiel, eds., Gender, Households, and Society:
234 Journal of Field Archaeology 2010 VOL . 35 NO . 2
Unraveling the Threads of the Past and the Present.
Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological
Association 18. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, 60–75.
Odell, G. H. 1979. ‘‘A New and Improved System for the Retrieval
of Functional Information from Microscopic Observations of
Chipped Stone Tools,’’ in B. Hayden, ed., Lithic Use-Wear
Analysis. New York: Academic Press, 239–244.
Odell, G. H. 1981. ‘‘The Mechanics of Use-Breakage of Stone
Tools: Some Testable Hypotheses,’’ Journal of Field
Archaeology 8: 197–209.
Odell, G. H., and F. Odell-Vereecken. 1980. ‘‘Verifying the
Reliability of Lithic Use-Wear Assessments by ‘‘Blind Tests’’:
The Low Power Approach,’’ Journal of Field Archaeology 7:
87–120.
Robin, C. 2003. ‘‘New Directions in Classic Maya Household
Archaeology,’’ Journal of Archaeological Research 11: 307–355.
Robin, C. 2004. ‘‘Social Diversity and Everyday Life Within
Classic Maya Settlements,’’ in J. A. Hendon and R. A. Joyce,
eds., Mesoamerican Archaeology. Malden, MA: Blackwell,
148–168.
Santley, R. S., and R. R. Kneebone. 1993. ‘‘Craft Specialization,
Refuse Disposal, and the Creation of Spatial Archaeological
Records in Prehispanic Mesoamerica,’’ in R. S. Santley and
K. G. Hirth, eds., Prehispanic Domestic Units in Western
Mesoamerica: Studies of the Household, Compound, and
Residence. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 37–63.
Shafer, H. J. 1983. ‘‘The Lithic Artifacts of the Pulltrouser Area:
Settlements and Fields,’’ in B. L. Turner II and P. D. Harrison,
eds., Pulltrouser Swamp: Ancient Maya Habitat, Agriculture,
and Settlement in Northern Belize. Austin: University of Texas
Press, 212–245.
Shafer, H. J., and T. R. Hester. 1983. ‘‘Ancient Maya Chert
Workshops in Northern Belize, Central America,’’ American
Antiquity 48: 519–543.
Shafer, H. J., and T. R. Hester. 1991. ‘‘Lithic Craft Specialization
and Production Distribution at the Maya Site of Colha,’’
World Archaeology 23: 79–97.
Sheets, P., and S. E. Simmons. 2002. ‘‘Household Production and
Specialization at Cerén,’’ in P. Sheets, ed., Before the Volcano
Erupted: The Ancient Cerén Village in Central America. Austin:
University of Texas Press, 178–183.
Sievert, A. K. 1992. Maya Ceremonial Specialization: Lithic Tools
from the Sacred Cenote at Chichen Itza, Yucatan. Monographs
in World Prehistory 12. Madison, WI: Prehistory Press.
Stanchly, N. 2006. ‘‘A Preliminary Analysis of the Pook’s Hill
Vertebrate Faunal Assemblage,’’ in C. G. B. Helmke and J. J.
Awe, eds., The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance
Project: A Report of the 2005 Field Season. Belmopan: Institute
of Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and History, 93–
115.
Stemp, W. J. 2001. Chipped Stone Tool Use in the Maya Coastal
Economies of Marco Gonzalez and San Pedro, Ambergris Caye,
Belize. BAR International Series 935. Oxford: John and Erica
Hedges Ltd.
Stemp, W. J. 2004. ‘‘Maya Coastal Subsistence and Craft-
Production at San Pedro, Ambergris Caye, Belize: The Lithic
Use-Wear Evidence,’’ Lithic Technology 29: 33–73.
Stemp, W. J., and E. Graham. 2006. ‘‘Ancient Maya Procurement
and Use of Chipped Chert and Chalcedony Tools at Marco
Gonzalez, Ambergris Caye, Belize,’’ Lithic Technology 31: 27–
55.
Stemp, W. J., and C. G. B. Helmke. 2008. ‘‘The Chipped Chert and
Chalcedony Lithic Assemblage from Pook’s Hill, Cayo
District, Belize: The Organization of Tool Production and
Use,’’ Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 5: 191–208.
Tringham, R., G. Cooper, G. Odell, B. Voytek, and A. Whitman.
1974. ‘‘Experimentation in the Formation of Edge Damage: A
New Approach to Lithic Analysis,’’ Journal of Field
Archaeology 1: 171–196.
Vaughan, P. C. 1985. Use-Wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools.
Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Whittaker, J. C., K. A. Kamp, A. Ford, R. Guerra, P. Brands,
J. Guerra, K. McLean, A. Woods, M. Badillo, J. Thornton,
and Z. Eiley. 2009. ‘‘Lithic Industry in a Maya Center: An Axe
Workshop at El Pilar, Belize,’’ Latin American Antiquity 20:
134–156.